"... In recent weeks, a totally disoriented left has been widely exhorted to unify around a masked vanguard calling itself Antifa, for anti-fascist. Hooded and dressed in black, Antifa is essentially a variation of the Black Bloc, familiar for introducing violence into peaceful demonstrations in many countries. Imported from Europe, the label Antifa sounds more political. It also serves the purpose of stigmatizing those it attacks as "fascists". ..."
"... Bray's "enlightening contribution" is to a tell a flattering version of the Antifa story to a generation whose dualistic, Holocaust-centered view of history has largely deprived them of both the factual and the analytical tools to judge multidimensional events such as the growth of fascism. Bray presents today's Antifa as though it were the glorious legitimate heir to every noble cause since abolitionism. But there were no anti-fascists before fascism, and the label "Antifa" by no means applies to all the many adversaries of fascism. ..."
"... The implicit claim to carry on the tradition of the International Brigades who fought in Spain against Franco is nothing other than a form of innocence by association. Since we must revere the heroes of the Spanish Civil War, some of that esteem is supposed to rub off on their self-designated heirs. Unfortunately, there are no veterans of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade still alive to point to the difference between a vast organized defense against invading fascist armies and skirmishes on the Berkeley campus. As for the Anarchists of Catalonia, the patent on anarchism ran out a long time ago, and anyone is free to market his own generic. ..."
"... Since historic fascism no longer exists, Bray's Antifa have broadened their notion of "fascism" to include anything that violates the current Identity Politics canon: from "patriarchy" (a pre-fascist attitude to put it mildly) to "transphobia" (decidedly a post-fascist problem). ..."
"... The masked militants of Antifa seem to be more inspired by Batman than by Marx or even by Bakunin. ..."
"... The main technique is guilt by association. High on the list of mortal sins is criticism of the European Union, which is associated with "nationalism" which is associated with "fascism" which is associated with "anti-Semitism", hinting at a penchant for genocide. This coincides perfectly with the official policy of the EU and EU governments, but Antifa uses much harsher language. ..."
"... The moral of this story is simple. Self-appointed radical revolutionaries can be the most useful thought police for the neoliberal war party. ..."
"... In reality, immigration is a complex subject, with many aspects that can lead to reasonable compromise. But to polarize the issue misses the chances for compromise. By making mass immigration the litmus test of whether or not one is fascist, Antifa intimidation impedes reasonable discussion. Without discussion, without readiness to listen to all viewpoints, the issue will simply divide the population into two camps, for and against. And who will win such a confrontation? ..."
"... The idea that the way to shut someone up is to punch him in the jaw is as American as Hollywood movies. It is also typical of the gang war that prevails in certain parts of Los Angeles. Banding together with others "like us" to fight against gangs of "them" for control of turf is characteristic of young men in uncertain circumstances. The search for a cause can involve endowing such conduct with a political purpose: either fascist or antifascist. For disoriented youth, this is an alternative to joining the U.S. Marines. ..."
"... American Antifa looks very much like a middle class wedding between Identity Politics and gang warfare. Mark Bray (page 175) quotes his DC Antifa source as implying that the motive of would-be fascists is to side with "the most powerful kid in the block" and will retreat if scared. Our gang is tougher than your gang. ..."
"... In the United States, the worst thing about Antifa is the effort to lead the disoriented American left into a wild goose chase, tracking down imaginary "fascists" instead of getting together openly to work out a coherent positive program. The United States has more than its share of weird individuals, of gratuitous aggression, of crazy ideas, and tracking down these marginal characters, whether alone or in groups, is a huge distraction. The truly dangerous people in the United States are safely ensconced in Wall Street, in Washington Think Tanks, in the executive suites of the sprawling military industry, not to mention the editorial offices of some of the mainstream media currently adopting a benevolent attitude toward "anti-fascists" simply because they are useful in focusing on the maverick Trump instead of themselves. ..."
"... Antifa USA, by defining "resistance to fascism" as resistance to lost causes – the Confederacy, white supremacists and for that matter Donald Trump – is actually distracting from resistance to the ruling neoliberal establishment, which is also opposed to the Confederacy and white supremacists and has already largely managed to capture Trump by its implacable campaign of denigration. That ruling establishment, which in its insatiable foreign wars and introduction of police state methods, has successfully used popular "resistance to Trump" to make him even worse than he already was. ..."
– Ennio Flaiano, Italian writer and co-author of Federico Fellini's greatest film scripts.
In recent weeks, a totally disoriented left has been widely exhorted to unify around a masked
vanguard calling itself Antifa, for anti-fascist. Hooded and dressed in black, Antifa is essentially
a variation of the Black Bloc, familiar for introducing violence into peaceful demonstrations in
many countries. Imported from Europe, the label Antifa sounds more political. It also serves the
purpose of stigmatizing those it attacks as "fascists".
Despite its imported European name, Antifa is basically just another example of America's steady
descent into violence.
Historical Pretensions
Antifa first came to prominence from its role in reversing Berkeley's proud "free speech" tradition
by preventing right wing personalities from speaking there. But its moment of glory was its clash
with rightwingers in Charlottesville on August 12, largely because Trump commented that there were
"good people on both sides". With exuberant Schadenfreude, commentators grabbed the opportunity to
condemn the despised President for his "moral equivalence", thereby bestowing a moral blessing on
Antifa.
Charlottesville served as a successful book launching for
Antifa: the Antifascist Handbook , whose author, young academic Mark Bray, is an Antifa
in both theory and practice. The book is "really taking off very fast", rejoiced the publisher, Melville
House. It instantly won acclaim from leading mainstream media such as the New York Times
, The Guardian and NBC, not hitherto known for rushing to review leftwing books, least of
all those by revolutionary anarchists.
The Washington Post welcomed Bray as spokesman for "insurgent activist movements" and
observed that: "The book's most enlightening contribution is on the history of anti-fascist efforts
over the past century, but its most relevant for today is its justification for stifling speech and
clobbering white supremacists."
Bray's "enlightening contribution" is to a tell a flattering version of the Antifa story to a
generation whose dualistic, Holocaust-centered view of history has largely deprived them of both
the factual and the analytical tools to judge multidimensional events such as the growth of fascism.
Bray presents today's Antifa as though it were the glorious legitimate heir to every noble cause
since abolitionism. But there were no anti-fascists before fascism, and the label "Antifa" by no
means applies to all the many adversaries of fascism.
The implicit claim to carry on the tradition of the International Brigades who fought in Spain
against Franco is nothing other than a form of innocence by association. Since we must revere the
heroes of the Spanish Civil War, some of that esteem is supposed to rub off on their self-designated
heirs. Unfortunately, there are no veterans of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade still alive to point to
the difference between a vast organized defense against invading fascist armies and skirmishes on
the Berkeley campus. As for the Anarchists of Catalonia, the patent on anarchism ran out a long time
ago, and anyone is free to market his own generic.
The original Antifascist movement was an effort by the Communist International to cease hostilities
with Europe's Socialist Parties in order to build a common front against the triumphant movements
led by Mussolini and Hitler.
Since Fascism thrived, and Antifa was never a serious adversary, its apologists thrive on the
"nipped in the bud" claim: "if only" Antifascists had beat up the fascist movements early enough,
the latter would have been nipped in the bud. Since reason and debate failed to stop the rise of
fascism, they argue, we must use street violence – which, by the way, failed even more decisively.
This is totally ahistorical. Fascism exalted violence, and violence was its preferred testing
ground. Both Communists and Fascists were fighting in the streets and the atmosphere of violence
helped fascism thrive as a bulwark against Bolshevism, gaining the crucial support of leading capitalists
and militarists in their countries, which brought them to power.
Since historic fascism no longer exists, Bray's Antifa have broadened their notion of "fascism"
to include anything that violates the current Identity Politics canon: from "patriarchy" (a pre-fascist
attitude to put it mildly) to "transphobia" (decidedly a post-fascist problem).
The masked militants of Antifa seem to be more inspired by Batman than by Marx or even by Bakunin.
Storm Troopers of the Neoliberal War Party
Since Mark Bray offers European credentials for current U.S. Antifa, it is appropriate to observe
what Antifa amounts to in Europe today.
In Europe, the tendency takes two forms. Black Bloc activists regularly invade various leftist
demonstrations in order to smash windows and fight the police. These testosterone exhibits are of
minor political significance, other than provoking public calls to strengthen police forces. They
are widely suspected of being influenced by police infiltration.
As an example, last September 23, several dozen black-clad masked ruffians, tearing down posters
and throwing stones, attempted to storm the platform where the flamboyant Jean-Luc Mélenchon was
to address the mass meeting of La France Insoumise , today the leading leftist party in
France. Their unspoken message seemed to be that nobody is revolutionary enough for them. Occasionally,
they do actually spot a random skinhead to beat up. This establishes their credentials as "anti-fascist".
They use these credentials to arrogate to themselves the right to slander others in a sort of
informal self-appointed inquisition.
As prime example, in late 2010, a young woman named Ornella Guyet appeared in Paris seeking work
as a journalist in various leftist periodicals and blogs. She "tried to infiltrate everywhere", according
to the former director of Le Monde diplomatique , Maurice Lemoine, who "always intuitively
distrusted her "when he hired her as an intern.
Viktor Dedaj, who manages one of the main leftist sites in France, Le Grand Soir , was
among those who tried to help her, only to experience an unpleasant surprise a few months later.
Ornella had become a self-appointed inquisitor dedicated to denouncing "conspirationism, confusionism,
anti-Semitism and red-brown" on Internet. This took the form of personal attacks on individuals whom
she judged to be guilty of those sins. What is significant is that all her targets were opposed to
U.S. and NATO aggressive wars in the Middle East.
Indeed, the timing of her crusade coincided with the "regime change" wars that destroyed Libya
and tore apart Syria. The attacks singled out leading critics of those wars.
Viktor Dedaj was on her hit list. So was Michel Collon, close to the Belgian Workers Party, author,
activist and manager of the bilingual site Investig'action. So was François Ruffin, film-maker, editor
of the leftist journal Fakir elected recently to the National Assembly on the list of Mélenchon's
party La France Insoumise . And so on. The list is long.
The targeted personalities are diverse, but all have one thing in common: opposition to aggressive
wars. What's more, so far as I can tell, just about everyone opposed to those wars is on her list.
The main technique is guilt by association. High on the list of mortal sins is criticism of the
European Union, which is associated with "nationalism" which is associated with "fascism" which is
associated with "anti-Semitism", hinting at a penchant for genocide. This coincides perfectly with
the official policy of the EU and EU governments, but Antifa uses much harsher language.
In mid-June 2011, the anti-EU party Union Populaire Républicaine led by François Asselineau
was the object of slanderous insinuations on Antifa internet sites signed by "Marie-Anne Boutoleau"
(a pseudonym for Ornella Guyet). Fearing violence, owners cancelled scheduled UPR meeting places
in Lyon. UPR did a little investigation, discovering that Ornella Guyet was on the speakers list
at a March 2009 Seminar on International Media organized in Paris by the Center for the Study of
International Communications and the School of Media and Public Affairs at George Washington University.
A surprising association for such a zealous crusader against "red-brown".
In case anyone has doubts, "red-brown" is a term used to smear anyone with generally leftist views
– that is, "red" – with the fascist color "brown". This smear can be based on having the same opinion
as someone on the right, speaking on the same platform with someone on the right, being published
alongside someone on the right, being seen at an anti-war demonstration also attended by someone
on the right, and so on. This is particularly useful for the War Party, since these days, many conservatives
are more opposed to war than leftists who have bought into the "humanitarian war" mantra.
The government doesn't need to repress anti-war gatherings. Antifa does the job.
The Franco-African comedien Dieudonné M'Bala M'Bala, stigmatized for anti-Semitism since 2002
for his TV sketch lampooning an Israeli settler as part of George W. Bush's "Axis of Good", is not
only a target, but serves as a guilty association for anyone who defends his right to free speech
– such as Belgian professor Jean Bricmont, virtually blacklisted in France for trying to get in a
word in favor of free speech during a TV talk show. Dieudonné has been banned from the media, sued
and fined countless times, even sentenced to jail in Belgium, but continues to enjoy a full house
of enthusiastic supporters at his one-man shows, where the main political message is opposition to
war.
Still, accusations of being soft on Dieudonné can have serious effects on individuals in more
precarious positions, since the mere hint of "anti-Semitism" can be a career killer in France. Invitations
are cancelled, publications refused, messages go unanswered.
In April 2016, Ornella Guyet dropped out of sight, amid strong suspicions about her own peculiar
associations.
The moral of this story is simple. Self-appointed radical revolutionaries can be the most useful
thought police for the neoliberal war party.
I am not suggesting that all, or most, Antifa are agents of the establishment. But they can be
manipulated, infiltrated or impersonated precisely because they are self-anointed and usually more
or less disguised.
Silencing Necessary Debate
One who is certainly sincere is Mark Bray, author of The Intifa Handbook . It is clear
where Mark Bray is coming from when he writes (p.36-7): " Hitler's 'final solution' murdered six
million Jews in gas chambers, with firing squads, through hunger an lack of medical treatment in
squalid camps and ghettoes, with beatings, by working them to death, and through suicidal despair.
Approximately two out of every three Jews on the continent were killed, including some of my relatives."
This personal history explains why Mark Bray feels passionately about "fascism". This is perfectly
understandable in one who is haunted by fear that "it can happen again".
However, even the most justifiable emotional concerns do not necessarily contribute to wise counsel.
Violent reactions to fear may seem to be strong and effective when in reality they are morally weak
and practically ineffectual.
We are in a period of great political confusion. Labeling every manifestation of "political incorrectness"
as fascism impedes clarification of debate over issues that very much need to be defined and clarified.
The scarcity of fascists has been compensated by identifying criticism of immigration as fascism.
This identification, in connection with rejection of national borders, derives much of its emotional
force above all from the ancestral fear in the Jewish community of being excluded from the nations
in which they find themselves.
The issue of immigration has different aspects in different places. It is not the same in European
countries as in the United States. There is a basic distinction between immigrants and immigration.
Immigrants are people who deserve consideration. Immigration is a policy that needs to be evaluated.
It should be possible to discuss the policy without being accused of persecuting the people. After
all, trade union leaders have traditionally opposed mass immigration, not out of racism, but because
it can be a deliberate capitalist strategy to bring down wages.
In reality, immigration is a complex subject, with many aspects that can lead to reasonable compromise.
But to polarize the issue misses the chances for compromise. By making mass immigration the litmus
test of whether or not one is fascist, Antifa intimidation impedes reasonable discussion. Without
discussion, without readiness to listen to all viewpoints, the issue will simply divide the population
into two camps, for and against. And who will win such a confrontation?
A recent survey* shows that mass immigration is increasingly unpopular in all European countries.
The complexity of the issue is shown by the fact that in the vast majority of European countries,
most people believe they have a duty to welcome refugees, but disapprove of continued mass immigration.
The official argument that immigration is a good thing is accepted by only 40%, compared to 60% of
all Europeans who believe that "immigration is bad for our country". A left whose principal cause
is open borders will become increasingly unpopular.
Childish Violence
The idea that the way to shut someone up is to punch him in the jaw is as American as Hollywood
movies. It is also typical of the gang war that prevails in certain parts of Los Angeles. Banding
together with others "like us" to fight against gangs of "them" for control of turf is characteristic
of young men in uncertain circumstances. The search for a cause can involve endowing such conduct
with a political purpose: either fascist or antifascist. For disoriented youth, this is an alternative
to joining the U.S. Marines.
American Antifa looks very much like a middle class wedding between Identity Politics and gang
warfare. Mark Bray (page 175) quotes his DC Antifa source as implying that the motive of would-be
fascists is to side with "the most powerful kid in the block" and will retreat if scared. Our gang
is tougher than your gang.
That is also the logic of U.S. imperialism, which habitually declares of its chosen enemies: "All
they understand is force." Although Antifa claim to be radical revolutionaries, their mindset is
perfectly typical the atmosphere of violence which prevails in militarized America.
In another vein, Antifa follows the trend of current Identity Politics excesses that are squelching
free speech in what should be its citadel, academia. Words are considered so dangerous that "safe
spaces" must be established to protect people from them. This extreme vulnerability to injury from
words is strangely linked to tolerance of real physical violence.
Wild Goose Chase
In the United States, the worst thing about Antifa is the effort to lead the disoriented American
left into a wild goose chase, tracking down imaginary "fascists" instead of getting together openly
to work out a coherent positive program. The United States has more than its share of weird individuals,
of gratuitous aggression, of crazy ideas, and tracking down these marginal characters, whether alone
or in groups, is a huge distraction. The truly dangerous people in the United States are safely ensconced
in Wall Street, in Washington Think Tanks, in the executive suites of the sprawling military industry,
not to mention the editorial offices of some of the mainstream media currently adopting a benevolent
attitude toward "anti-fascists" simply because they are useful in focusing on the maverick Trump
instead of themselves.
Antifa USA, by defining "resistance to fascism" as resistance to lost causes – the Confederacy,
white supremacists and for that matter Donald Trump – is actually distracting from resistance to
the ruling neoliberal establishment, which is also opposed to the Confederacy and white supremacists
and has already largely managed to capture Trump by its implacable campaign of denigration. That
ruling establishment, which in its insatiable foreign wars and introduction of police state methods,
has successfully used popular "resistance to Trump" to make him even worse than he already was.
The facile use of the term "fascist" gets in the way of thoughtful identification and definition
of the real enemy of humanity today. In the contemporary chaos, the greatest and most dangerous upheavals
in the world all stem from the same source, which is hard to name, but which we might give the provisional
simplified label of Globalized Imperialism. This amounts to a multifaceted project to reshape the
world to satisfy the demands of financial capitalism, the military industrial complex, United States
ideological vanity and the megalomania of leaders of lesser "Western" powers, notably Israel. It
could be called simply "imperialism", except that it is much vaster and more destructive than the
historic imperialism of previous centuries. It is also much more disguised. And since it bears no
clear label such as "fascism", it is difficult to denounce in simple terms.
The fixation on preventing a form of tyranny that arose over 80 years ago, under very different
circumstances, obstructs recognition of the monstrous tyranny of today. Fighting the previous war
leads to defeat.
Donald Trump is an outsider who will not be let inside. The election of Donald Trump is above
all a grave symptom of the decadence of the American political system, totally ruled by money, lobbies,
the military-industrial complex and corporate media. Their lies are undermining the very basis of
democracy. Antifa has gone on the offensive against the one weapon still in the hands of the people:
the right to free speech and assembly.
Notes.
* "Oů va la démocratie?", une enquęte de la Fondation pour l'innovation politique sous la direction
de Dominique Reynié, (Plon, Paris, 2017).
"... In recent weeks, a totally disoriented left has been widely exhorted to unify around a masked vanguard calling itself Antifa, for anti-fascist. Hooded and dressed in black, Antifa is essentially a variation of the Black Bloc, familiar for introducing violence into peaceful demonstrations in many countries. Imported from Europe, the label Antifa sounds more political. It also serves the purpose of stigmatizing those it attacks as "fascists". ..."
"... Bray's "enlightening contribution" is to a tell a flattering version of the Antifa story to a generation whose dualistic, Holocaust-centered view of history has largely deprived them of both the factual and the analytical tools to judge multidimensional events such as the growth of fascism. Bray presents today's Antifa as though it were the glorious legitimate heir to every noble cause since abolitionism. But there were no anti-fascists before fascism, and the label "Antifa" by no means applies to all the many adversaries of fascism. ..."
"... The implicit claim to carry on the tradition of the International Brigades who fought in Spain against Franco is nothing other than a form of innocence by association. Since we must revere the heroes of the Spanish Civil War, some of that esteem is supposed to rub off on their self-designated heirs. Unfortunately, there are no veterans of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade still alive to point to the difference between a vast organized defense against invading fascist armies and skirmishes on the Berkeley campus. As for the Anarchists of Catalonia, the patent on anarchism ran out a long time ago, and anyone is free to market his own generic. ..."
"... Since historic fascism no longer exists, Bray's Antifa have broadened their notion of "fascism" to include anything that violates the current Identity Politics canon: from "patriarchy" (a pre-fascist attitude to put it mildly) to "transphobia" (decidedly a post-fascist problem). ..."
"... The masked militants of Antifa seem to be more inspired by Batman than by Marx or even by Bakunin. ..."
"... The main technique is guilt by association. High on the list of mortal sins is criticism of the European Union, which is associated with "nationalism" which is associated with "fascism" which is associated with "anti-Semitism", hinting at a penchant for genocide. This coincides perfectly with the official policy of the EU and EU governments, but Antifa uses much harsher language. ..."
"... The moral of this story is simple. Self-appointed radical revolutionaries can be the most useful thought police for the neoliberal war party. ..."
"... In reality, immigration is a complex subject, with many aspects that can lead to reasonable compromise. But to polarize the issue misses the chances for compromise. By making mass immigration the litmus test of whether or not one is fascist, Antifa intimidation impedes reasonable discussion. Without discussion, without readiness to listen to all viewpoints, the issue will simply divide the population into two camps, for and against. And who will win such a confrontation? ..."
"... The idea that the way to shut someone up is to punch him in the jaw is as American as Hollywood movies. It is also typical of the gang war that prevails in certain parts of Los Angeles. Banding together with others "like us" to fight against gangs of "them" for control of turf is characteristic of young men in uncertain circumstances. The search for a cause can involve endowing such conduct with a political purpose: either fascist or antifascist. For disoriented youth, this is an alternative to joining the U.S. Marines. ..."
"... American Antifa looks very much like a middle class wedding between Identity Politics and gang warfare. Mark Bray (page 175) quotes his DC Antifa source as implying that the motive of would-be fascists is to side with "the most powerful kid in the block" and will retreat if scared. Our gang is tougher than your gang. ..."
"... In the United States, the worst thing about Antifa is the effort to lead the disoriented American left into a wild goose chase, tracking down imaginary "fascists" instead of getting together openly to work out a coherent positive program. The United States has more than its share of weird individuals, of gratuitous aggression, of crazy ideas, and tracking down these marginal characters, whether alone or in groups, is a huge distraction. The truly dangerous people in the United States are safely ensconced in Wall Street, in Washington Think Tanks, in the executive suites of the sprawling military industry, not to mention the editorial offices of some of the mainstream media currently adopting a benevolent attitude toward "anti-fascists" simply because they are useful in focusing on the maverick Trump instead of themselves. ..."
"... Antifa USA, by defining "resistance to fascism" as resistance to lost causes – the Confederacy, white supremacists and for that matter Donald Trump – is actually distracting from resistance to the ruling neoliberal establishment, which is also opposed to the Confederacy and white supremacists and has already largely managed to capture Trump by its implacable campaign of denigration. That ruling establishment, which in its insatiable foreign wars and introduction of police state methods, has successfully used popular "resistance to Trump" to make him even worse than he already was. ..."
– Ennio Flaiano, Italian writer and co-author of Federico Fellini's greatest film scripts.
In recent weeks, a totally disoriented left has been widely exhorted to unify around a masked
vanguard calling itself Antifa, for anti-fascist. Hooded and dressed in black, Antifa is essentially
a variation of the Black Bloc, familiar for introducing violence into peaceful demonstrations in
many countries. Imported from Europe, the label Antifa sounds more political. It also serves the
purpose of stigmatizing those it attacks as "fascists".
Despite its imported European name, Antifa is basically just another example of America's steady
descent into violence.
Historical Pretensions
Antifa first came to prominence from its role in reversing Berkeley's proud "free speech" tradition
by preventing right wing personalities from speaking there. But its moment of glory was its clash
with rightwingers in Charlottesville on August 12, largely because Trump commented that there were
"good people on both sides". With exuberant Schadenfreude, commentators grabbed the opportunity to
condemn the despised President for his "moral equivalence", thereby bestowing a moral blessing on
Antifa.
Charlottesville served as a successful book launching for
Antifa: the Antifascist Handbook , whose author, young academic Mark Bray, is an Antifa
in both theory and practice. The book is "really taking off very fast", rejoiced the publisher, Melville
House. It instantly won acclaim from leading mainstream media such as the New York Times
, The Guardian and NBC, not hitherto known for rushing to review leftwing books, least of
all those by revolutionary anarchists.
The Washington Post welcomed Bray as spokesman for "insurgent activist movements" and
observed that: "The book's most enlightening contribution is on the history of anti-fascist efforts
over the past century, but its most relevant for today is its justification for stifling speech and
clobbering white supremacists."
Bray's "enlightening contribution" is to a tell a flattering version of the Antifa story to a
generation whose dualistic, Holocaust-centered view of history has largely deprived them of both
the factual and the analytical tools to judge multidimensional events such as the growth of fascism.
Bray presents today's Antifa as though it were the glorious legitimate heir to every noble cause
since abolitionism. But there were no anti-fascists before fascism, and the label "Antifa" by no
means applies to all the many adversaries of fascism.
The implicit claim to carry on the tradition of the International Brigades who fought in Spain
against Franco is nothing other than a form of innocence by association. Since we must revere the
heroes of the Spanish Civil War, some of that esteem is supposed to rub off on their self-designated
heirs. Unfortunately, there are no veterans of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade still alive to point to
the difference between a vast organized defense against invading fascist armies and skirmishes on
the Berkeley campus. As for the Anarchists of Catalonia, the patent on anarchism ran out a long time
ago, and anyone is free to market his own generic.
The original Antifascist movement was an effort by the Communist International to cease hostilities
with Europe's Socialist Parties in order to build a common front against the triumphant movements
led by Mussolini and Hitler.
Since Fascism thrived, and Antifa was never a serious adversary, its apologists thrive on the
"nipped in the bud" claim: "if only" Antifascists had beat up the fascist movements early enough,
the latter would have been nipped in the bud. Since reason and debate failed to stop the rise of
fascism, they argue, we must use street violence – which, by the way, failed even more decisively.
This is totally ahistorical. Fascism exalted violence, and violence was its preferred testing
ground. Both Communists and Fascists were fighting in the streets and the atmosphere of violence
helped fascism thrive as a bulwark against Bolshevism, gaining the crucial support of leading capitalists
and militarists in their countries, which brought them to power.
Since historic fascism no longer exists, Bray's Antifa have broadened their notion of "fascism"
to include anything that violates the current Identity Politics canon: from "patriarchy" (a pre-fascist
attitude to put it mildly) to "transphobia" (decidedly a post-fascist problem).
The masked militants of Antifa seem to be more inspired by Batman than by Marx or even by Bakunin.
Storm Troopers of the Neoliberal War Party
Since Mark Bray offers European credentials for current U.S. Antifa, it is appropriate to observe
what Antifa amounts to in Europe today.
In Europe, the tendency takes two forms. Black Bloc activists regularly invade various leftist
demonstrations in order to smash windows and fight the police. These testosterone exhibits are of
minor political significance, other than provoking public calls to strengthen police forces. They
are widely suspected of being influenced by police infiltration.
As an example, last September 23, several dozen black-clad masked ruffians, tearing down posters
and throwing stones, attempted to storm the platform where the flamboyant Jean-Luc Mélenchon was
to address the mass meeting of La France Insoumise , today the leading leftist party in
France. Their unspoken message seemed to be that nobody is revolutionary enough for them. Occasionally,
they do actually spot a random skinhead to beat up. This establishes their credentials as "anti-fascist".
They use these credentials to arrogate to themselves the right to slander others in a sort of
informal self-appointed inquisition.
As prime example, in late 2010, a young woman named Ornella Guyet appeared in Paris seeking work
as a journalist in various leftist periodicals and blogs. She "tried to infiltrate everywhere", according
to the former director of Le Monde diplomatique , Maurice Lemoine, who "always intuitively
distrusted her "when he hired her as an intern.
Viktor Dedaj, who manages one of the main leftist sites in France, Le Grand Soir , was
among those who tried to help her, only to experience an unpleasant surprise a few months later.
Ornella had become a self-appointed inquisitor dedicated to denouncing "conspirationism, confusionism,
anti-Semitism and red-brown" on Internet. This took the form of personal attacks on individuals whom
she judged to be guilty of those sins. What is significant is that all her targets were opposed to
U.S. and NATO aggressive wars in the Middle East.
Indeed, the timing of her crusade coincided with the "regime change" wars that destroyed Libya
and tore apart Syria. The attacks singled out leading critics of those wars.
Viktor Dedaj was on her hit list. So was Michel Collon, close to the Belgian Workers Party, author,
activist and manager of the bilingual site Investig'action. So was François Ruffin, film-maker, editor
of the leftist journal Fakir elected recently to the National Assembly on the list of Mélenchon's
party La France Insoumise . And so on. The list is long.
The targeted personalities are diverse, but all have one thing in common: opposition to aggressive
wars. What's more, so far as I can tell, just about everyone opposed to those wars is on her list.
The main technique is guilt by association. High on the list of mortal sins is criticism of the
European Union, which is associated with "nationalism" which is associated with "fascism" which is
associated with "anti-Semitism", hinting at a penchant for genocide. This coincides perfectly with
the official policy of the EU and EU governments, but Antifa uses much harsher language.
In mid-June 2011, the anti-EU party Union Populaire Républicaine led by François Asselineau
was the object of slanderous insinuations on Antifa internet sites signed by "Marie-Anne Boutoleau"
(a pseudonym for Ornella Guyet). Fearing violence, owners cancelled scheduled UPR meeting places
in Lyon. UPR did a little investigation, discovering that Ornella Guyet was on the speakers list
at a March 2009 Seminar on International Media organized in Paris by the Center for the Study of
International Communications and the School of Media and Public Affairs at George Washington University.
A surprising association for such a zealous crusader against "red-brown".
In case anyone has doubts, "red-brown" is a term used to smear anyone with generally leftist views
– that is, "red" – with the fascist color "brown". This smear can be based on having the same opinion
as someone on the right, speaking on the same platform with someone on the right, being published
alongside someone on the right, being seen at an anti-war demonstration also attended by someone
on the right, and so on. This is particularly useful for the War Party, since these days, many conservatives
are more opposed to war than leftists who have bought into the "humanitarian war" mantra.
The government doesn't need to repress anti-war gatherings. Antifa does the job.
The Franco-African comedien Dieudonné M'Bala M'Bala, stigmatized for anti-Semitism since 2002
for his TV sketch lampooning an Israeli settler as part of George W. Bush's "Axis of Good", is not
only a target, but serves as a guilty association for anyone who defends his right to free speech
– such as Belgian professor Jean Bricmont, virtually blacklisted in France for trying to get in a
word in favor of free speech during a TV talk show. Dieudonné has been banned from the media, sued
and fined countless times, even sentenced to jail in Belgium, but continues to enjoy a full house
of enthusiastic supporters at his one-man shows, where the main political message is opposition to
war.
Still, accusations of being soft on Dieudonné can have serious effects on individuals in more
precarious positions, since the mere hint of "anti-Semitism" can be a career killer in France. Invitations
are cancelled, publications refused, messages go unanswered.
In April 2016, Ornella Guyet dropped out of sight, amid strong suspicions about her own peculiar
associations.
The moral of this story is simple. Self-appointed radical revolutionaries can be the most useful
thought police for the neoliberal war party.
I am not suggesting that all, or most, Antifa are agents of the establishment. But they can be
manipulated, infiltrated or impersonated precisely because they are self-anointed and usually more
or less disguised.
Silencing Necessary Debate
One who is certainly sincere is Mark Bray, author of The Intifa Handbook . It is clear
where Mark Bray is coming from when he writes (p.36-7): " Hitler's 'final solution' murdered six
million Jews in gas chambers, with firing squads, through hunger an lack of medical treatment in
squalid camps and ghettoes, with beatings, by working them to death, and through suicidal despair.
Approximately two out of every three Jews on the continent were killed, including some of my relatives."
This personal history explains why Mark Bray feels passionately about "fascism". This is perfectly
understandable in one who is haunted by fear that "it can happen again".
However, even the most justifiable emotional concerns do not necessarily contribute to wise counsel.
Violent reactions to fear may seem to be strong and effective when in reality they are morally weak
and practically ineffectual.
We are in a period of great political confusion. Labeling every manifestation of "political incorrectness"
as fascism impedes clarification of debate over issues that very much need to be defined and clarified.
The scarcity of fascists has been compensated by identifying criticism of immigration as fascism.
This identification, in connection with rejection of national borders, derives much of its emotional
force above all from the ancestral fear in the Jewish community of being excluded from the nations
in which they find themselves.
The issue of immigration has different aspects in different places. It is not the same in European
countries as in the United States. There is a basic distinction between immigrants and immigration.
Immigrants are people who deserve consideration. Immigration is a policy that needs to be evaluated.
It should be possible to discuss the policy without being accused of persecuting the people. After
all, trade union leaders have traditionally opposed mass immigration, not out of racism, but because
it can be a deliberate capitalist strategy to bring down wages.
In reality, immigration is a complex subject, with many aspects that can lead to reasonable compromise.
But to polarize the issue misses the chances for compromise. By making mass immigration the litmus
test of whether or not one is fascist, Antifa intimidation impedes reasonable discussion. Without
discussion, without readiness to listen to all viewpoints, the issue will simply divide the population
into two camps, for and against. And who will win such a confrontation?
A recent survey* shows that mass immigration is increasingly unpopular in all European countries.
The complexity of the issue is shown by the fact that in the vast majority of European countries,
most people believe they have a duty to welcome refugees, but disapprove of continued mass immigration.
The official argument that immigration is a good thing is accepted by only 40%, compared to 60% of
all Europeans who believe that "immigration is bad for our country". A left whose principal cause
is open borders will become increasingly unpopular.
Childish Violence
The idea that the way to shut someone up is to punch him in the jaw is as American as Hollywood
movies. It is also typical of the gang war that prevails in certain parts of Los Angeles. Banding
together with others "like us" to fight against gangs of "them" for control of turf is characteristic
of young men in uncertain circumstances. The search for a cause can involve endowing such conduct
with a political purpose: either fascist or antifascist. For disoriented youth, this is an alternative
to joining the U.S. Marines.
American Antifa looks very much like a middle class wedding between Identity Politics and gang
warfare. Mark Bray (page 175) quotes his DC Antifa source as implying that the motive of would-be
fascists is to side with "the most powerful kid in the block" and will retreat if scared. Our gang
is tougher than your gang.
That is also the logic of U.S. imperialism, which habitually declares of its chosen enemies: "All
they understand is force." Although Antifa claim to be radical revolutionaries, their mindset is
perfectly typical the atmosphere of violence which prevails in militarized America.
In another vein, Antifa follows the trend of current Identity Politics excesses that are squelching
free speech in what should be its citadel, academia. Words are considered so dangerous that "safe
spaces" must be established to protect people from them. This extreme vulnerability to injury from
words is strangely linked to tolerance of real physical violence.
Wild Goose Chase
In the United States, the worst thing about Antifa is the effort to lead the disoriented American
left into a wild goose chase, tracking down imaginary "fascists" instead of getting together openly
to work out a coherent positive program. The United States has more than its share of weird individuals,
of gratuitous aggression, of crazy ideas, and tracking down these marginal characters, whether alone
or in groups, is a huge distraction. The truly dangerous people in the United States are safely ensconced
in Wall Street, in Washington Think Tanks, in the executive suites of the sprawling military industry,
not to mention the editorial offices of some of the mainstream media currently adopting a benevolent
attitude toward "anti-fascists" simply because they are useful in focusing on the maverick Trump
instead of themselves.
Antifa USA, by defining "resistance to fascism" as resistance to lost causes – the Confederacy,
white supremacists and for that matter Donald Trump – is actually distracting from resistance to
the ruling neoliberal establishment, which is also opposed to the Confederacy and white supremacists
and has already largely managed to capture Trump by its implacable campaign of denigration. That
ruling establishment, which in its insatiable foreign wars and introduction of police state methods,
has successfully used popular "resistance to Trump" to make him even worse than he already was.
The facile use of the term "fascist" gets in the way of thoughtful identification and definition
of the real enemy of humanity today. In the contemporary chaos, the greatest and most dangerous upheavals
in the world all stem from the same source, which is hard to name, but which we might give the provisional
simplified label of Globalized Imperialism. This amounts to a multifaceted project to reshape the
world to satisfy the demands of financial capitalism, the military industrial complex, United States
ideological vanity and the megalomania of leaders of lesser "Western" powers, notably Israel. It
could be called simply "imperialism", except that it is much vaster and more destructive than the
historic imperialism of previous centuries. It is also much more disguised. And since it bears no
clear label such as "fascism", it is difficult to denounce in simple terms.
The fixation on preventing a form of tyranny that arose over 80 years ago, under very different
circumstances, obstructs recognition of the monstrous tyranny of today. Fighting the previous war
leads to defeat.
Donald Trump is an outsider who will not be let inside. The election of Donald Trump is above
all a grave symptom of the decadence of the American political system, totally ruled by money, lobbies,
the military-industrial complex and corporate media. Their lies are undermining the very basis of
democracy. Antifa has gone on the offensive against the one weapon still in the hands of the people:
the right to free speech and assembly.
Notes.
* "Oů va la démocratie?", une enquęte de la Fondation pour l'innovation politique sous la direction
de Dominique Reynié, (Plon, Paris, 2017).
1 The Korean War ends (1953
2 President Kennedy invades South Vietnam (1962)
3 The US overthrows Allende in Chile (1973)
4 The West installs Iranian dictator the Shah (1953)
5 The US-led Iraq invasion (2003)
Many honorable mentions including:
– NATO bombing of Serbia
– Libya
– Afghanistan
– Syria (support of ISIS and its predecessors and spinoffs)
The US body count is simply staggering – many millions killed, millions more wounded
or poisoned (Vietnam – agent orange and other chemical agents) and tens of millions of
lives forever damaged.
USA! USA! USA! (its elites that rule us of course!)
1 The Korean War ends (1953
2 President Kennedy invades South Vietnam (1962)
3 The US overthrows Allende in Chile (1973)
4 The West installs Iranian dictator the Shah (1953)
5 The US-led Iraq invasion (2003)
Many honorable mentions including:
– NATO bombing of Serbia
– Libya
– Afghanistan
– Syria (support of ISIS and its predecessors and spinoffs)
The US body count is simply staggering – many millions killed, millions more wounded
or poisoned (Vietnam – agent orange and other chemical agents) and tens of millions of
lives forever damaged.
USA! USA! USA! (its elites that rule us of course!)
"... Using data compiled by a Geography and Native Studies professor from Evergreen State College in Olympia, Washington, the indy100 team created an interactive map of U.S. military incursions outside its own borders from Argentina in 1890 to Syria in 2014. ..."
"... " Deployment of the military to evacuate American citizens, covert military actions by US intelligence, providing military support to an internal opposition group, providing military support in one side of a conflict, use of the army in drug enforcement actions. ..."
Tyler Durden
Aug 26, 2017 9:15 PM 0
SHARES
US has had a military presence across the world
, from almost day one of its independence.
For those who have ever wanted a clearer picture of the true reach of the United States
military - both historically and currently - but shied away due to the sheer volume of research
required to find an answer,
The Anti Media points out
that
a crew at the
Independent
just made things a whole lot simpler.
Using data compiled by a Geography and Native Studies
professor
from Evergreen State College in
Olympia, Washington, the indy100 team
created
an interactive map of U.S. military incursions outside its own borders from
Argentina in 1890 to Syria in 2014.
To avoid confusion, indy100 laid out its prerequisites for what constitutes an invasion:
" Deployment of the military to evacuate American citizens, covert military actions by US
intelligence, providing military support to an internal opposition group, providing military
support in one side of a conflict, use of the army in drug enforcement actions.
But indy100 didn't stop there.
To put all that history into context, using
data
from the Department
of Defense (DOD), the team also put together a map to display all the countries in which nearly
200,000 active members of the U.S. military are now stationed.
"... Using data compiled by a Geography and Native Studies professor from Evergreen State College in Olympia, Washington, the indy100 team created an interactive map of U.S. military incursions outside its own borders from Argentina in 1890 to Syria in 2014. ..."
"... " Deployment of the military to evacuate American citizens, covert military actions by US intelligence, providing military support to an internal opposition group, providing military support in one side of a conflict, use of the army in drug enforcement actions. ..."
Tyler Durden
Aug 26, 2017 9:15 PM 0
SHARES
US has had a military presence across the world
, from almost day one of its independence.
For those who have ever wanted a clearer picture of the true reach of the United States
military - both historically and currently - but shied away due to the sheer volume of research
required to find an answer,
The Anti Media points out
that
a crew at the
Independent
just made things a whole lot simpler.
Using data compiled by a Geography and Native Studies
professor
from Evergreen State College in
Olympia, Washington, the indy100 team
created
an interactive map of U.S. military incursions outside its own borders from
Argentina in 1890 to Syria in 2014.
To avoid confusion, indy100 laid out its prerequisites for what constitutes an invasion:
" Deployment of the military to evacuate American citizens, covert military actions by US
intelligence, providing military support to an internal opposition group, providing military
support in one side of a conflict, use of the army in drug enforcement actions.
But indy100 didn't stop there.
To put all that history into context, using
data
from the Department
of Defense (DOD), the team also put together a map to display all the countries in which nearly
200,000 active members of the U.S. military are now stationed.
"... As for Washington and the proverbially bombastic, failed futurists across the Beltway, do they even know what is the end game of "investing" in two never-ending wars with no visible benefits? ..."
As for Washington and the proverbially bombastic, failed futurists across the Beltway, do they even know what is the
end game of "investing" in two never-ending wars with no visible benefits?
You start by assuming that the absence of war is the ultimate good, but none can say what a world without war would be like,
or how long it would last.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/20/wars-john-gray-conflict-peace
Has the world seen moral progress? The answer should not depend on whether one has a sunny or a morose temperament. Everyone
agrees that life is better than death, health better than sickness, prosperity better than privation, freedom better than tyranny,
peace better than war. All of these can be measured, and the results plotted over time. If they go up, that's progress.
For John Gray, this is a big problem. As a part of his campaign against reason, science and Enlightenment humanism, he insists
that the strivings of humanity over the centuries have left us no better off. This dyspepsia was hard enough to sustain when
Gray first expressed it in the teeth of obvious counterexamples such as the abolition of human sacrifice, chattel slavery and
public torture-executions. But as scholars have increasingly measured human flourishing, they have found that Gray is not just
wrong but howlingly, flat-earth, couldn't-be-more-wrong wrong. The numbers show that after millennia of near-universal poverty
and despotism, a steadily growing proportion of humankind is surviving infancy and childbirth, going to school, voting in democracies,
living free of disease, enjoying the necessities of modern life and surviving to old age.
And more people are living in peace. In the 1980s several military scholars noticed to their astonishment that the most
destructive form of armed conflict – wars among great powers and developed states – had effectively ceased to exist. At the
time this "long peace" could have been dismissed as a random lull, but it has held firm for an additional three decades.
In my opinion Gray, though wrong that violence is not decreasing, is onto something about the future being bleak because of
the rise of meliorist assumptions, because perpetual peace will be humanity's tomb.
While many suggest a danger for our world along the lines of
Brian Cox's explanation for the Fermi Paradox (ie intelligent life forms cross grainedly bring on self-annihilation through
unlimited war) I take a different view.
Given that Pinker appears substantially correct that serious war (ie wars among great powers and developed states) have effectively
ceased to exist, the trend is for peace and cooperation. Martin Nowak in his book The Supercoperators shows cooperation, not fighting,
to be the defining human trait (and indeed the most cooperative groups won their wars in history, whereby nation states
such the US are the result of not just individuals but familial tribal regional , and virtually continental groupings coming together
for mutual advantage and defence .
The future is going to be global integration pursuit of economic objectives, and I think this exponential moral progress bill
begat technological advances beyond imagining.. An escape from the war trap is almost complete and the Singularity becomes. The
most likely culprit in the paradox is a technological black hole event horizon created by unlimited peace and progress.
Cross-grained though it may be to say that the good war hallows every cause, I think it not so bad in comparison with the alternative.
"... As for Washington and the proverbially bombastic, failed futurists across the Beltway, do they even know what is the end game of "investing" in two never-ending wars with no visible benefits? ..."
As for Washington and the proverbially bombastic, failed futurists across the Beltway, do they even know what is the
end game of "investing" in two never-ending wars with no visible benefits?
You start by assuming that the absence of war is the ultimate good, but none can say what a world without war would be like,
or how long it would last.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/20/wars-john-gray-conflict-peace
Has the world seen moral progress? The answer should not depend on whether one has a sunny or a morose temperament. Everyone
agrees that life is better than death, health better than sickness, prosperity better than privation, freedom better than tyranny,
peace better than war. All of these can be measured, and the results plotted over time. If they go up, that's progress.
For John Gray, this is a big problem. As a part of his campaign against reason, science and Enlightenment humanism, he insists
that the strivings of humanity over the centuries have left us no better off. This dyspepsia was hard enough to sustain when
Gray first expressed it in the teeth of obvious counterexamples such as the abolition of human sacrifice, chattel slavery and
public torture-executions. But as scholars have increasingly measured human flourishing, they have found that Gray is not just
wrong but howlingly, flat-earth, couldn't-be-more-wrong wrong. The numbers show that after millennia of near-universal poverty
and despotism, a steadily growing proportion of humankind is surviving infancy and childbirth, going to school, voting in democracies,
living free of disease, enjoying the necessities of modern life and surviving to old age.
And more people are living in peace. In the 1980s several military scholars noticed to their astonishment that the most
destructive form of armed conflict – wars among great powers and developed states – had effectively ceased to exist. At the
time this "long peace" could have been dismissed as a random lull, but it has held firm for an additional three decades.
In my opinion Gray, though wrong that violence is not decreasing, is onto something about the future being bleak because of
the rise of meliorist assumptions, because perpetual peace will be humanity's tomb.
While many suggest a danger for our world along the lines of
Brian Cox's explanation for the Fermi Paradox (ie intelligent life forms cross grainedly bring on self-annihilation through
unlimited war) I take a different view.
Given that Pinker appears substantially correct that serious war (ie wars among great powers and developed states) have effectively
ceased to exist, the trend is for peace and cooperation. Martin Nowak in his book The Supercoperators shows cooperation, not fighting,
to be the defining human trait (and indeed the most cooperative groups won their wars in history, whereby nation states
such the US are the result of not just individuals but familial tribal regional , and virtually continental groupings coming together
for mutual advantage and defence .
The future is going to be global integration pursuit of economic objectives, and I think this exponential moral progress bill
begat technological advances beyond imagining.. An escape from the war trap is almost complete and the Singularity becomes. The
most likely culprit in the paradox is a technological black hole event horizon created by unlimited peace and progress.
Cross-grained though it may be to say that the good war hallows every cause, I think it not so bad in comparison with the alternative.
Well put. These people are like the "nobles" of medieval times. They care not a whit about the "peasants" they trample. They
are wealth bigots, compounded by some ethnic bigotry or other, in this case Jewish supremacism. America has an oligarchy problem.
At the center of that oligarchy is a Jewish mafia controlling the banks, and thereby the big corporations, and thereby the media
and the government. This oligarchy sees America as a big, dumb military machine that it can manipulate to generate war profits.
Well put. These people are like the "nobles" of medieval times. They care not a whit about the "peasants" they trample. They
are wealth bigots, compounded by some ethnic bigotry or other, in this case Jewish supremacism. America has an oligarchy problem.
At the center of that oligarchy is a Jewish mafia controlling the banks, and thereby the big corporations, and thereby the media
and the government. This oligarchy sees America as a big, dumb military machine that it can manipulate to generate war profits.
"... There has been a gradual decline in the rationality of UK forces thinking. They insisted on UN legal cover cover the invasion of Iraq but were totally on board with pre-emptive action in Libya, happily training effectively ISIS forces before Gaddafi was removed. They are now training Ukrainian Neo-Nazis and training ISIS/whatever in Syria, effectively invading the country. I guess this may reflect the increasing direct Zionist control of Perfidious Albion with attendant levels of hubris. ..."
The Russians were there in Yugoslavia but they were not following NATO's script. There was an incident where Russian forces
took control of a key airport to the total surprise of NATO. The US overall commander ordered the UK to go in and kick the Russians
out. The UK ground commander wisely said he was not prepared to start WW III over Russian control of an airfield.
There has been a gradual decline in the rationality of UK forces thinking. They insisted on UN legal cover cover the invasion
of Iraq but were totally on board with pre-emptive action in Libya, happily training effectively ISIS forces before Gaddafi was
removed. They are now training Ukrainian Neo-Nazis and training ISIS/whatever in Syria, effectively invading the country. I guess
this may reflect the increasing direct Zionist control of Perfidious Albion with attendant levels of hubris.
"... There has been a gradual decline in the rationality of UK forces thinking. They insisted on UN legal cover cover the invasion of Iraq but were totally on board with pre-emptive action in Libya, happily training effectively ISIS forces before Gaddafi was removed. They are now training Ukrainian Neo-Nazis and training ISIS/whatever in Syria, effectively invading the country. I guess this may reflect the increasing direct Zionist control of Perfidious Albion with attendant levels of hubris. ..."
The Russians were there in Yugoslavia but they were not following NATO's script. There was an incident where Russian forces
took control of a key airport to the total surprise of NATO. The US overall commander ordered the UK to go in and kick the Russians
out. The UK ground commander wisely said he was not prepared to start WW III over Russian control of an airfield.
There has been a gradual decline in the rationality of UK forces thinking. They insisted on UN legal cover cover the invasion
of Iraq but were totally on board with pre-emptive action in Libya, happily training effectively ISIS forces before Gaddafi was
removed. They are now training Ukrainian Neo-Nazis and training ISIS/whatever in Syria, effectively invading the country. I guess
this may reflect the increasing direct Zionist control of Perfidious Albion with attendant levels of hubris.
"... A lot of art depicts war scenes, and why not? War is incredibly exciting, dynamic, destructive, and otherwise captivating, if often in a horrific way. But I want to consider war and art in a different manner, in an impressionistic one. War, by its nature, is often spectacle; it is also often chaotic; complex; beyond comprehension. Perhaps art theory, and art styles, have something to teach us about war. Ways of representing it and capturing its meaning as well as its horrors. But also ways of misrepresenting it; of fracturing its meaning. Of manipulating it. ..."
"... My point (and I think I have one) is that America's wars are in some sense elaborate productions and representations, at least in the ways in which the government constructs and sells them to the American people. To understand these representations -- the ways in which they are both more than real war and less than it -- art theory, as well as advertising, may have a lot to teach us. ..."
"... Afghanistan as the unfinished masterpiece....most people forget that the government is yet to complete it except when a Marine dies, they think about it for a day and then forget all over again. ..."
Consider this article a work of speculation; a jumble of ideas thrown at a blank canvas.
A lot of art depicts war scenes, and why not? War is incredibly exciting, dynamic, destructive, and otherwise captivating,
if often in a horrific way. But I want to consider war and art in a different manner, in an impressionistic one. War, by its nature,
is often spectacle; it is also often chaotic; complex; beyond comprehension. Perhaps art theory, and art styles, have something to
teach us about war. Ways of representing it and capturing its meaning as well as its horrors. But also ways of misrepresenting it;
of fracturing its meaning. Of manipulating it.
For example, America's overseas wars today are both abstractions and distractions. They're also somewhat surreal to most Americans,
living as we do in comparative safety and material luxury (when compared to most other peoples of the world). Abstraction and surrealism:
two art styles that may say something vital about America's wars.
If some aspects of America's wars are surreal and others abstract, if reports of those wars are often impressionistic and often
blurred beyond recognition, this points to, I think, the highly stylized representations of war that are submitted for our consideration.
What we don't get very often is realism. Recall how the Bush/Cheney administration forbade photos of flag-draped coffins returning
from Iraq and Afghanistan. Think of all the war reporting you've seen on U.S. TV and Cable networks, and ask how many times you saw
severed American limbs and dead bodies on a battlefield. (On occasion, dead bodies of the enemy are shown, usually briefly and abstractly,
with no human backstory.)
Of course, there's no "real" way to showcase the brutal reality of war, short of bringing a person to the front and having them
face fire in combat -- a level of "participatory" art that sane people would likely seek to avoid. What we get, as spectators (which
is what we're told to remain in America), is an impression of combat. Here and there, a surreal report. An abstract news clip. Blown
up buildings become exercises in neo-Cubism; melted buildings and weapons become Daliesque displays. Severed limbs (of the enemy)
are exercises in the grotesque. For the vast majority of Americans, what's lacking is raw immediacy and gut-wrenching reality.
Again, we are spectators, not participants. And our responses are often as stylized and limited as the representations are. As
Rebecca Gordon put it from a different angle at
TomDispatch.com , when it comes to America's wars, are we participating in reality or merely watching reality TV? And why are
so many so prone to confuse or conflate the two?
Art, of course, isn't the only lens through which we can see and interpret America's wars. Advertising, especially hyperbole,
is also quite revealing. Thus the US military has been sold, whether by George W. Bush or Barack Obama, as "the world's finest military
in history" or WFMH, an acronym I just made up, and which should perhaps come with a copyright or trademark symbol after it. It's
classic advertising hyperbole. It's salesmanship in place of reality.
So, when other peoples beat our WFMH, we should do what Americans do best: sue them for copyright infringement. Our legions of
lawyers will most certainly beat their cadres of counsels. After all, under Bush/Cheney, our lawyers tortured logic and the law to
support torture itself. Talk about surrealism!
My point (and I think I have one) is that America's wars are in some sense elaborate productions and representations, at least
in the ways in which the government constructs and sells them to the American people. To understand these representations -- the
ways in which they are both more than real war and less than it -- art theory, as well as advertising, may have a lot to teach us.
As I said, this is me throwing ideas at the canvas of my computer screen. Do they make any sense to you? Feel free to pick up
your own brush and compose away in the comments section.
P.S. Danger, Will Robinson. I've never taken an art theory class or studied advertising closely.
William J. Astore is a retired lieutenant colonel (USAF). He taught history for fifteen years at military and civilian schools
and blogs at Bracing Views . He can be reached at
[email protected] . Reprinted from Bracing
Views with the author's permission.
Afghanistan as the unfinished masterpiece....most people forget that the government is yet to complete it except when a
Marine dies, they think about it for a day and then forget all over again.
"... A lot of art depicts war scenes, and why not? War is incredibly exciting, dynamic, destructive, and otherwise captivating, if often in a horrific way. But I want to consider war and art in a different manner, in an impressionistic one. War, by its nature, is often spectacle; it is also often chaotic; complex; beyond comprehension. Perhaps art theory, and art styles, have something to teach us about war. Ways of representing it and capturing its meaning as well as its horrors. But also ways of misrepresenting it; of fracturing its meaning. Of manipulating it. ..."
"... My point (and I think I have one) is that America's wars are in some sense elaborate productions and representations, at least in the ways in which the government constructs and sells them to the American people. To understand these representations -- the ways in which they are both more than real war and less than it -- art theory, as well as advertising, may have a lot to teach us. ..."
"... Afghanistan as the unfinished masterpiece....most people forget that the government is yet to complete it except when a Marine dies, they think about it for a day and then forget all over again. ..."
Consider this article a work of speculation; a jumble of ideas thrown at a blank canvas.
A lot of art depicts war scenes, and why not? War is incredibly exciting, dynamic, destructive, and otherwise captivating,
if often in a horrific way. But I want to consider war and art in a different manner, in an impressionistic one. War, by its nature,
is often spectacle; it is also often chaotic; complex; beyond comprehension. Perhaps art theory, and art styles, have something to
teach us about war. Ways of representing it and capturing its meaning as well as its horrors. But also ways of misrepresenting it;
of fracturing its meaning. Of manipulating it.
For example, America's overseas wars today are both abstractions and distractions. They're also somewhat surreal to most Americans,
living as we do in comparative safety and material luxury (when compared to most other peoples of the world). Abstraction and surrealism:
two art styles that may say something vital about America's wars.
If some aspects of America's wars are surreal and others abstract, if reports of those wars are often impressionistic and often
blurred beyond recognition, this points to, I think, the highly stylized representations of war that are submitted for our consideration.
What we don't get very often is realism. Recall how the Bush/Cheney administration forbade photos of flag-draped coffins returning
from Iraq and Afghanistan. Think of all the war reporting you've seen on U.S. TV and Cable networks, and ask how many times you saw
severed American limbs and dead bodies on a battlefield. (On occasion, dead bodies of the enemy are shown, usually briefly and abstractly,
with no human backstory.)
Of course, there's no "real" way to showcase the brutal reality of war, short of bringing a person to the front and having them
face fire in combat -- a level of "participatory" art that sane people would likely seek to avoid. What we get, as spectators (which
is what we're told to remain in America), is an impression of combat. Here and there, a surreal report. An abstract news clip. Blown
up buildings become exercises in neo-Cubism; melted buildings and weapons become Daliesque displays. Severed limbs (of the enemy)
are exercises in the grotesque. For the vast majority of Americans, what's lacking is raw immediacy and gut-wrenching reality.
Again, we are spectators, not participants. And our responses are often as stylized and limited as the representations are. As
Rebecca Gordon put it from a different angle at
TomDispatch.com , when it comes to America's wars, are we participating in reality or merely watching reality TV? And why are
so many so prone to confuse or conflate the two?
Art, of course, isn't the only lens through which we can see and interpret America's wars. Advertising, especially hyperbole,
is also quite revealing. Thus the US military has been sold, whether by George W. Bush or Barack Obama, as "the world's finest military
in history" or WFMH, an acronym I just made up, and which should perhaps come with a copyright or trademark symbol after it. It's
classic advertising hyperbole. It's salesmanship in place of reality.
So, when other peoples beat our WFMH, we should do what Americans do best: sue them for copyright infringement. Our legions of
lawyers will most certainly beat their cadres of counsels. After all, under Bush/Cheney, our lawyers tortured logic and the law to
support torture itself. Talk about surrealism!
My point (and I think I have one) is that America's wars are in some sense elaborate productions and representations, at least
in the ways in which the government constructs and sells them to the American people. To understand these representations -- the
ways in which they are both more than real war and less than it -- art theory, as well as advertising, may have a lot to teach us.
As I said, this is me throwing ideas at the canvas of my computer screen. Do they make any sense to you? Feel free to pick up
your own brush and compose away in the comments section.
P.S. Danger, Will Robinson. I've never taken an art theory class or studied advertising closely.
William J. Astore is a retired lieutenant colonel (USAF). He taught history for fifteen years at military and civilian schools
and blogs at Bracing Views . He can be reached at
[email protected] . Reprinted from Bracing
Views with the author's permission.
Afghanistan as the unfinished masterpiece....most people forget that the government is yet to complete it except when a
Marine dies, they think about it for a day and then forget all over again.
Why would you object to government creating more demand for labor? Over time, wages will rise and higher wages will fund more
demand for labor produced goods.
Why would you object to government creating more demand for labor? Over time, wages will rise and higher wages will fund more
demand for labor produced goods.
"... Barnett's main thesis in "The Pentagon's New Map" is that the world is composed of two types of states: those that are part of an integrated and connected "Core," which embrace globalization; and states of the "Gap," which are disconnected from the effects of globalization. Barnett proclaims that globalization will move the world into an era of peace and prosperity, but can only do so with the help of an indispensable United States. He writes that America is the lynchpin to the entire process and he believes that the United States should be midwife to a new world that will one day consist of peaceful democratic states and integrated economies. Barnett is proposing no less than a new grand strategy - the historical successor to the Cold War's strategy of containment. His approach to a future world defined by America's "exportation of security" is almost religious in its fervor and messianic in its language. ..."
"... At this point in his book, Barnett also makes bold statements that America is never leaving the Gap and that we are therefore never "bringing our boys home." He believes that there is no exiting the Gap, only shrinking it. These statements have incited some of Barnett's critics to accuse him of fostering and advocating a state of perpetual war. Barnett rebuts these attacks by claiming that, "America's task is not perpetual war, nor the extension of empire. It is merely to serve as globalization's bodyguard wherever and whenever needed throughout the Gap." Barnett claims that the strategy of preemptive war is a "boundable problem," yet his earlier claim that we are never leaving the Gap and that our boys are never coming home does not square with his assertion that there will not be perpetual war. He cannot have it both ways. ..."
"... Barnett therefore undermines his own globalization-based grand strategy by pointing out in detail at least ten things that can go wrong with globalization - the foundation upon which his theory is built. ..."
"... Globalization is likely here to stay, though it may be slowed down or even stopped in some regions of the planet. ..."
"... I would strongly recommend "The Pentagon's New Map" to students who are studying U.S. foreign policy. I would also recommend it to those who are studying the Bush administration as well as the Pentagon. The ideas in the book seem to be popular with the military and many of its ideas can be seen in the current thinking and policy of the Pentagon and State Department. ..."
"... I would only caution the reader that Barnett's theories are heavily dependent upon the continued advancement of globalization, which in turn is dependent upon the continued economic ability of the U.S. to sustain military operations around the world indefinitely. Neither is guaranteed. ..."
"... "Globalization" has turned out to be nothing but the polite PR term to disguise and avoid the truth of using the more accurate name, "Global Empire" --- and there is no doubt that Barnett is more than smart enough to see that this has inexorably happened. ..."
"... Liberty, democracy, justice, and equality Over Violent/'Vichy' Rel 2.0 Empire, ..."
"... We don't MERELY have; a gun/fear problem, or a 'Fiscal Cliff', 'Sequestration', and 'Debt Limit' problem, or an expanding wars problem, or a 'drone assassinations' problem, or a vast income & wealth inequality problem, or a Wall Street 'looting' problem, or a Global Warming and environmental death-spiral problem, or a domestic tyranny NDAA FISA spying problem, or, or, or, or .... ad nauseam --- we have a hidden EMPIRE cancerous tumor which is the prime CAUSE of all these 'symptom problems'. ..."
"... "If your country is treating you like ****, and bombing abroad, look carefully --- because it may not be your country, but a Global Empire only posing as your former country." ..."
Barnett's main thesis in "The Pentagon's New Map" is that the world is composed of two types of states: those that are
part of an integrated and connected "Core," which embrace globalization; and states of the "Gap," which are disconnected from
the effects of globalization. Barnett proclaims that globalization will move the world into an era of peace and prosperity, but
can only do so with the help of an indispensable United States. He writes that America is the lynchpin to the entire process and
he believes that the United States should be midwife to a new world that will one day consist of peaceful democratic states and
integrated economies. Barnett is proposing no less than a new grand strategy - the historical successor to the Cold War's strategy
of containment. His approach to a future world defined by America's "exportation of security" is almost religious in its fervor
and messianic in its language.
The foundation upon which Barnett builds his binary view of the world is heavily dependant upon the continued advancement of
globalization - almost exclusively so. However, advancing globalization is not pre-ordained. Barnett himself makes the case that
globalization is a fragile undertaking similar to an interconnected chain in which any broken link destroys the whole. Globalization
could indeed be like the biblical statue whose feet are made of clay. Globalization, and therefore the integration of the Gap,
may even stop or recede - just as the globalization of the early 20th century ended abruptly with the onset of WW I and a global
depression. Moreover, Barnett's contention that the United States has an exceptional duty and moral responsibility for "remaking
the world in America's image" might be seen by many as misguided and perhaps even dangerous.
The divide between the `Functioning Core' and the `Non-Integrating Gap' differs from the gulf between rich and poor in a subtle
yet direct way. State governments make a conscious decision to become connected vs. disconnected to advancing globalization. States
and their leaders can provide the infrastructure and the opening of large global markets to their citizens in ways that individuals
cannot. An example can serve to illustrate the point: You can be rich and disconnected in Nigeria or poor and disconnected in
North Korea. In each case the country you live in has decided to be disconnected. Citizens in this case have a limited likelihood
of staying rich and unlimited prospects of staying poor. But by becoming part of the functioning Core, the enlightened state allows
all citizens a running start at becoming part of a worldwide economic system and thus provide prospects for a better future because
global jobs and markets are opened up to them. A connected economy such as India's, for example, enables citizens who once had
no prospects for a better life to find well-paying jobs, such as computer-related employment. Prospects for a better Indian life
are directly the result of the Indian government's conscious decision to become connected to the world economy, a.k.a. embracing
globalization.
After placing his theory of the Core/Gap and preemptive war strategy firmly into the church of globalization, Barnett next
places his theory squarely upon the alter of rule sets. Few would argue that the world is an anarchic place and Barnett tells
us that rule sets are needed to define `good' and `evil' behavior of actors in this chaotic international system. An example of
such a rule set is the desire of the Core to keep WMDs out of the hands of terrorist organizations. Other examples are the promulgation
of human rights and the need to stop genocide. Barnett also uses rule sets to define `system' rules that govern and shape the
actions, and even the psychology, of international actors. An example that Barnett gives of a system-wide rule set is the creation
of the `rule' defined by the United States during the Cold War called Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD). Barnett claims that this
rule set effectively ended the possibility of war for all time amongst nuclear-capable great powers. Barnett states that the U.S.
now should export a brand new rule set called `preemptive war,' which aims to fight actors in the lawless Gap in order to end
international terrorism for all time. Barnett makes it clear that the Core's enemy is neither a religion (Islam) nor a place (Middle
East), but a condition (disconnectedness).
Next, Barnett points out that system-wide competition has moved into the economic arena and that military conflict, when it
occurs, has moved away from the system-wide (Cold War), to inter-state war, ending up today with primarily state conflict vs.
individuals (Core vs. bin Laden, Core vs. Kim, etc.). In other words, "we are moving progressively away from warfare against states
or even blocs of states and toward a new era of warfare against individuals." Rephrased, we've moved from confrontations with
evil empires, to evil states, to evil leaders. An example of this phenomenon is the fact that China dropped off the radar of many
government hawks after 9/11 only to be replaced by terrorist groups and other dangerous NGOs "with global reach."
Barnett also points out that the idea of `connectivity' is central to the success of globalization. Without it, everything
else fails. Connectivity is the glue that holds states together and helps prevent war between states. For example, the US is not
likely to start a war with `connected' France, but America could more likely instigate a war with `disconnected' North Korea,
Syria or Iran.
Barnett then examines the dangers associated with his definition of `disconnectedness.' He cleverly describes globalization
as a condition defined by mutually assured dependence (MAD) and advises us that `Big Men', royal families, raw materials, theocracies
and just bad luck can conspire to impede connectedness in the world. This is one of few places in his book that Barnett briefly
discusses impediments to globalization - however, this short list looks at existing roadblocks to connectedness but not to future,
system-wide dangers to globalization.
At this point in his book, Barnett also makes bold statements that America is never leaving the Gap and that we are therefore
never "bringing our boys home." He believes that there is no exiting the Gap, only shrinking it. These statements have incited
some of Barnett's critics to accuse him of fostering and advocating a state of perpetual war. Barnett rebuts these attacks by
claiming that, "America's task is not perpetual war, nor the extension of empire. It is merely to serve as globalization's bodyguard
wherever and whenever needed throughout the Gap." Barnett claims that the strategy of preemptive war is a "boundable problem,"
yet his earlier claim that we are never leaving the Gap and that our boys are never coming home does not square with his assertion
that there will not be perpetual war. He cannot have it both ways.
Barnett then takes us on a pilgrimage to the Ten Commandments of globalization. Tellingly, this list is set up to be more like
links in a chain than commandments. Each item in the list is connected to the next - meaning that each step is dependent upon
its predecessor. If any of the links are broken or incomplete, the whole is destroyed. For example, Barnett warns us that if there
is no security in the Gap, there can be no rules in the Gap. Barnett therefore undermines his own globalization-based grand
strategy by pointing out in detail at least ten things that can go wrong with globalization - the foundation upon which his theory
is built.
What else could kill globalization? Barnett himself tells us: "Labor, energy, money and security all need to flow as freely
as possible from those places in the world where they are plentiful to those regions where they are scarce." Here he is implying
that an interruption of any or all of these basic necessities can doom globalization. Barnett states clearly: "...(these are)
the four massive flows I believe are essential to protect if Globalization III is going to advance." Simply put, any combination
of American isolationism or closing of borders to immigration, a global energy crisis, a global financial crisis or rampant global
insecurity could adversely affect "connectedness," a.k.a. globalization. These plausible future events, unnerving as they are,
leave the inexorable advancement of globalization in doubt and we haven't yet explored other problems with Barnett's reliance
on globalization to make the world peaceful, free and safe for democracy.
Barnett goes on to tell us that Operation Iraqi Freedom was an "overt attempt to create a "System Perturbation" centered in
the Persian Gulf to trigger a Big Bang." His definition of a Big Bang in the Middle East is the democratization of the many totalitarian
states in the region. He also claims that the Big Bang has targeted Iran's "sullen majority."
Barnett claims that our problem with shrinking the Gap is not our "motive or our means, but our inability to describe the enemies
worth killing, the battles worth winning, and the future worth creating." Managing the global campaign to democratize the world
is no easy task. Barnett admits that in a worst-case scenario we may be stuck in the "mother of all intifadas" in Iraq. Critics
claim this is something that we should have planned for - that the insurgency should not have been a surprise, and that it should
have been part of the "peacemaking" planning. Barnett blithely states that things will get better "...when America internationalizes
the occupation." Barnett should not engage in wishful thinking here, as he also does when he predicted that Iraqis would be put
in charge of their own country 18 months after the fall of Baghdad. It would be more accurate if he claimed this would happen
18 months after the cessation of hostilities. Some critics claim that Iraq is an example that we are an "empire in a hurry" (Michael
Ignatieff), which then results in: 1) allocating insufficient resources to non-military aspects of the project and 2) attempting
economic and political transformation in an unrealistically short time frame.
The final basic premise of Barnett's theory of the Core and the Gap is the concept of what he calls the "global transaction
strategy." Barnett explains it best: "America's essential transaction with the outside world is one of our exporting security
in return for the world's financing a lifestyle we could far more readily afford without all that defense spending." Barnett claims
that America pays the most for global stability because we enjoy it the most. But what about the other 80 countries in the Core?
Why is America, like Atlas, bearing the weight of the world's security and stabilization on its shoulders?
Barnett claims that historical analogies are useless today and point us in the wrong direction. I disagree. James Madison cautioned
us not to go abroad to seek monsters to destroy. We can learn from his simple and profound statement that there are simply too
many state (and individual) monsters in today's world for the U.S. to destroy unilaterally or preemptively. We must also avoid
overstretching our resources and power. Thucydides reminds us that the great democracy of Athens was brought to its knees by the
ill-advised Sicilian expedition - which resulted in the destruction of everything the Athenians held dear. Do not ignore history
as Barnett councils; heed it.
Globalization is likely here to stay, though it may be slowed down or even stopped in some regions of the planet.
Therefore, America needs to stay engaged in the affairs of the world, but Barnett has not offered conclusive evidence that the
U.S. needs to become the world's single Leviathan that must extinguish all global hot wars. Barnett also has not proved that America
needs to be, as he writes, "the one willing to rush in when everyone else is running away." People like Barnett in academia and
leaders in government may proclaim and ordain the U.S. to be a global Leviathan, but it is a conscious choice that should be thoroughly
debated by the American people. After all, it is upon the backs of the American people that such a global Leviathan must ride.
Where is the debate? The American people, upon reflection, may decide upon other courses of action.
I would strongly recommend "The Pentagon's New Map" to students who are studying U.S. foreign policy. I would also recommend
it to those who are studying the Bush administration as well as the Pentagon. The ideas in the book seem to be popular with the
military and many of its ideas can be seen in the current thinking and policy of the Pentagon and State Department.
It seems to be well researched - having 35 pages of notes. Many of Barnett's citations come from the Washington Post and the
New York Times, which some may see as a liberal bias, but I see the sources as simply newspapers of record.
I would only caution the reader that Barnett's theories are heavily dependent upon the continued advancement of globalization,
which in turn is dependent upon the continued economic ability of the U.S. to sustain military operations around the world indefinitely.
Neither is guaranteed.
I don't think poorly of Thomas Barnett himself. He's very bright and, I think, good hearted, BUT his well thought-out, well
argued pride and joy (and positive intellectual pursuit) is being badly distorted ---- which happens to all 'tools' that Empire
gets its hands on.
For those who like predictions, I would predict that Barnett will wind up going through an epiphany much like Francis Fukuyama
(but a decade later) and for much the same reason, that his life's work gets misused and abused so greatly that he works to reverse
and correct its misuse. Fukuyama, also brilliant, wrote "The End of History" in 1992 (which was misused by the neocons to engender
war), and now he's working just as hard to reverse a misuse that he may feel some guilt of his work supporting, and is writing
"The Future of History" as a force for good --- and I suspect (and hope) that Barnett will, in even less time, be counter-thinking
and developing the strategy and book to reverse the misuse of his 2004 book before the Global Empire pulls down the curtain.
"Globalization" has turned out to be nothing but the polite PR term to disguise and avoid the truth of using the more accurate
name, "Global Empire" --- and there is no doubt that Barnett is more than smart enough to see that this has inexorably happened.
Best luck and love to the fast expanding 'Occupy the Empire' educational and revolutionary movement against this deceitful,
guileful, disguised EMPIRE, which can't so easily be identified as wearing Red Coats, Red Stars, nor funny looking Nazi helmets
---- quite yet!
Liberty, democracy, justice, and equality Over Violent/'Vichy' Rel 2.0 Empire,
Alan MacDonald
Sanford, Maine
We don't MERELY have; a gun/fear problem, or a 'Fiscal Cliff', 'Sequestration', and 'Debt Limit' problem, or an expanding
wars problem, or a 'drone assassinations' problem, or a vast income & wealth inequality problem, or a Wall Street 'looting' problem,
or a Global Warming and environmental death-spiral problem, or a domestic tyranny NDAA FISA spying problem, or, or, or, or ....
ad nauseam --- we have a hidden EMPIRE cancerous tumor which is the prime CAUSE of all these 'symptom problems'.
"If your country is treating you like ****, and bombing abroad, look carefully --- because it may not be your country, but
a Global Empire only posing as your former country."
"... Barnett's main thesis in "The Pentagon's New Map" is that the world is composed of two types of states: those that are part of an integrated and connected "Core," which embrace globalization; and states of the "Gap," which are disconnected from the effects of globalization. Barnett proclaims that globalization will move the world into an era of peace and prosperity, but can only do so with the help of an indispensable United States. He writes that America is the lynchpin to the entire process and he believes that the United States should be midwife to a new world that will one day consist of peaceful democratic states and integrated economies. Barnett is proposing no less than a new grand strategy - the historical successor to the Cold War's strategy of containment. His approach to a future world defined by America's "exportation of security" is almost religious in its fervor and messianic in its language. ..."
"... At this point in his book, Barnett also makes bold statements that America is never leaving the Gap and that we are therefore never "bringing our boys home." He believes that there is no exiting the Gap, only shrinking it. These statements have incited some of Barnett's critics to accuse him of fostering and advocating a state of perpetual war. Barnett rebuts these attacks by claiming that, "America's task is not perpetual war, nor the extension of empire. It is merely to serve as globalization's bodyguard wherever and whenever needed throughout the Gap." Barnett claims that the strategy of preemptive war is a "boundable problem," yet his earlier claim that we are never leaving the Gap and that our boys are never coming home does not square with his assertion that there will not be perpetual war. He cannot have it both ways. ..."
"... Barnett therefore undermines his own globalization-based grand strategy by pointing out in detail at least ten things that can go wrong with globalization - the foundation upon which his theory is built. ..."
"... Globalization is likely here to stay, though it may be slowed down or even stopped in some regions of the planet. ..."
"... I would strongly recommend "The Pentagon's New Map" to students who are studying U.S. foreign policy. I would also recommend it to those who are studying the Bush administration as well as the Pentagon. The ideas in the book seem to be popular with the military and many of its ideas can be seen in the current thinking and policy of the Pentagon and State Department. ..."
"... I would only caution the reader that Barnett's theories are heavily dependent upon the continued advancement of globalization, which in turn is dependent upon the continued economic ability of the U.S. to sustain military operations around the world indefinitely. Neither is guaranteed. ..."
"... "Globalization" has turned out to be nothing but the polite PR term to disguise and avoid the truth of using the more accurate name, "Global Empire" --- and there is no doubt that Barnett is more than smart enough to see that this has inexorably happened. ..."
"... Liberty, democracy, justice, and equality Over Violent/'Vichy' Rel 2.0 Empire, ..."
"... We don't MERELY have; a gun/fear problem, or a 'Fiscal Cliff', 'Sequestration', and 'Debt Limit' problem, or an expanding wars problem, or a 'drone assassinations' problem, or a vast income & wealth inequality problem, or a Wall Street 'looting' problem, or a Global Warming and environmental death-spiral problem, or a domestic tyranny NDAA FISA spying problem, or, or, or, or .... ad nauseam --- we have a hidden EMPIRE cancerous tumor which is the prime CAUSE of all these 'symptom problems'. ..."
"... "If your country is treating you like ****, and bombing abroad, look carefully --- because it may not be your country, but a Global Empire only posing as your former country." ..."
Barnett's main thesis in "The Pentagon's New Map" is that the world is composed of two types of states: those that are
part of an integrated and connected "Core," which embrace globalization; and states of the "Gap," which are disconnected from
the effects of globalization. Barnett proclaims that globalization will move the world into an era of peace and prosperity, but
can only do so with the help of an indispensable United States. He writes that America is the lynchpin to the entire process and
he believes that the United States should be midwife to a new world that will one day consist of peaceful democratic states and
integrated economies. Barnett is proposing no less than a new grand strategy - the historical successor to the Cold War's strategy
of containment. His approach to a future world defined by America's "exportation of security" is almost religious in its fervor
and messianic in its language.
The foundation upon which Barnett builds his binary view of the world is heavily dependant upon the continued advancement of
globalization - almost exclusively so. However, advancing globalization is not pre-ordained. Barnett himself makes the case that
globalization is a fragile undertaking similar to an interconnected chain in which any broken link destroys the whole. Globalization
could indeed be like the biblical statue whose feet are made of clay. Globalization, and therefore the integration of the Gap,
may even stop or recede - just as the globalization of the early 20th century ended abruptly with the onset of WW I and a global
depression. Moreover, Barnett's contention that the United States has an exceptional duty and moral responsibility for "remaking
the world in America's image" might be seen by many as misguided and perhaps even dangerous.
The divide between the `Functioning Core' and the `Non-Integrating Gap' differs from the gulf between rich and poor in a subtle
yet direct way. State governments make a conscious decision to become connected vs. disconnected to advancing globalization. States
and their leaders can provide the infrastructure and the opening of large global markets to their citizens in ways that individuals
cannot. An example can serve to illustrate the point: You can be rich and disconnected in Nigeria or poor and disconnected in
North Korea. In each case the country you live in has decided to be disconnected. Citizens in this case have a limited likelihood
of staying rich and unlimited prospects of staying poor. But by becoming part of the functioning Core, the enlightened state allows
all citizens a running start at becoming part of a worldwide economic system and thus provide prospects for a better future because
global jobs and markets are opened up to them. A connected economy such as India's, for example, enables citizens who once had
no prospects for a better life to find well-paying jobs, such as computer-related employment. Prospects for a better Indian life
are directly the result of the Indian government's conscious decision to become connected to the world economy, a.k.a. embracing
globalization.
After placing his theory of the Core/Gap and preemptive war strategy firmly into the church of globalization, Barnett next
places his theory squarely upon the alter of rule sets. Few would argue that the world is an anarchic place and Barnett tells
us that rule sets are needed to define `good' and `evil' behavior of actors in this chaotic international system. An example of
such a rule set is the desire of the Core to keep WMDs out of the hands of terrorist organizations. Other examples are the promulgation
of human rights and the need to stop genocide. Barnett also uses rule sets to define `system' rules that govern and shape the
actions, and even the psychology, of international actors. An example that Barnett gives of a system-wide rule set is the creation
of the `rule' defined by the United States during the Cold War called Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD). Barnett claims that this
rule set effectively ended the possibility of war for all time amongst nuclear-capable great powers. Barnett states that the U.S.
now should export a brand new rule set called `preemptive war,' which aims to fight actors in the lawless Gap in order to end
international terrorism for all time. Barnett makes it clear that the Core's enemy is neither a religion (Islam) nor a place (Middle
East), but a condition (disconnectedness).
Next, Barnett points out that system-wide competition has moved into the economic arena and that military conflict, when it
occurs, has moved away from the system-wide (Cold War), to inter-state war, ending up today with primarily state conflict vs.
individuals (Core vs. bin Laden, Core vs. Kim, etc.). In other words, "we are moving progressively away from warfare against states
or even blocs of states and toward a new era of warfare against individuals." Rephrased, we've moved from confrontations with
evil empires, to evil states, to evil leaders. An example of this phenomenon is the fact that China dropped off the radar of many
government hawks after 9/11 only to be replaced by terrorist groups and other dangerous NGOs "with global reach."
Barnett also points out that the idea of `connectivity' is central to the success of globalization. Without it, everything
else fails. Connectivity is the glue that holds states together and helps prevent war between states. For example, the US is not
likely to start a war with `connected' France, but America could more likely instigate a war with `disconnected' North Korea,
Syria or Iran.
Barnett then examines the dangers associated with his definition of `disconnectedness.' He cleverly describes globalization
as a condition defined by mutually assured dependence (MAD) and advises us that `Big Men', royal families, raw materials, theocracies
and just bad luck can conspire to impede connectedness in the world. This is one of few places in his book that Barnett briefly
discusses impediments to globalization - however, this short list looks at existing roadblocks to connectedness but not to future,
system-wide dangers to globalization.
At this point in his book, Barnett also makes bold statements that America is never leaving the Gap and that we are therefore
never "bringing our boys home." He believes that there is no exiting the Gap, only shrinking it. These statements have incited
some of Barnett's critics to accuse him of fostering and advocating a state of perpetual war. Barnett rebuts these attacks by
claiming that, "America's task is not perpetual war, nor the extension of empire. It is merely to serve as globalization's bodyguard
wherever and whenever needed throughout the Gap." Barnett claims that the strategy of preemptive war is a "boundable problem,"
yet his earlier claim that we are never leaving the Gap and that our boys are never coming home does not square with his assertion
that there will not be perpetual war. He cannot have it both ways.
Barnett then takes us on a pilgrimage to the Ten Commandments of globalization. Tellingly, this list is set up to be more like
links in a chain than commandments. Each item in the list is connected to the next - meaning that each step is dependent upon
its predecessor. If any of the links are broken or incomplete, the whole is destroyed. For example, Barnett warns us that if there
is no security in the Gap, there can be no rules in the Gap. Barnett therefore undermines his own globalization-based grand
strategy by pointing out in detail at least ten things that can go wrong with globalization - the foundation upon which his theory
is built.
What else could kill globalization? Barnett himself tells us: "Labor, energy, money and security all need to flow as freely
as possible from those places in the world where they are plentiful to those regions where they are scarce." Here he is implying
that an interruption of any or all of these basic necessities can doom globalization. Barnett states clearly: "...(these are)
the four massive flows I believe are essential to protect if Globalization III is going to advance." Simply put, any combination
of American isolationism or closing of borders to immigration, a global energy crisis, a global financial crisis or rampant global
insecurity could adversely affect "connectedness," a.k.a. globalization. These plausible future events, unnerving as they are,
leave the inexorable advancement of globalization in doubt and we haven't yet explored other problems with Barnett's reliance
on globalization to make the world peaceful, free and safe for democracy.
Barnett goes on to tell us that Operation Iraqi Freedom was an "overt attempt to create a "System Perturbation" centered in
the Persian Gulf to trigger a Big Bang." His definition of a Big Bang in the Middle East is the democratization of the many totalitarian
states in the region. He also claims that the Big Bang has targeted Iran's "sullen majority."
Barnett claims that our problem with shrinking the Gap is not our "motive or our means, but our inability to describe the enemies
worth killing, the battles worth winning, and the future worth creating." Managing the global campaign to democratize the world
is no easy task. Barnett admits that in a worst-case scenario we may be stuck in the "mother of all intifadas" in Iraq. Critics
claim this is something that we should have planned for - that the insurgency should not have been a surprise, and that it should
have been part of the "peacemaking" planning. Barnett blithely states that things will get better "...when America internationalizes
the occupation." Barnett should not engage in wishful thinking here, as he also does when he predicted that Iraqis would be put
in charge of their own country 18 months after the fall of Baghdad. It would be more accurate if he claimed this would happen
18 months after the cessation of hostilities. Some critics claim that Iraq is an example that we are an "empire in a hurry" (Michael
Ignatieff), which then results in: 1) allocating insufficient resources to non-military aspects of the project and 2) attempting
economic and political transformation in an unrealistically short time frame.
The final basic premise of Barnett's theory of the Core and the Gap is the concept of what he calls the "global transaction
strategy." Barnett explains it best: "America's essential transaction with the outside world is one of our exporting security
in return for the world's financing a lifestyle we could far more readily afford without all that defense spending." Barnett claims
that America pays the most for global stability because we enjoy it the most. But what about the other 80 countries in the Core?
Why is America, like Atlas, bearing the weight of the world's security and stabilization on its shoulders?
Barnett claims that historical analogies are useless today and point us in the wrong direction. I disagree. James Madison cautioned
us not to go abroad to seek monsters to destroy. We can learn from his simple and profound statement that there are simply too
many state (and individual) monsters in today's world for the U.S. to destroy unilaterally or preemptively. We must also avoid
overstretching our resources and power. Thucydides reminds us that the great democracy of Athens was brought to its knees by the
ill-advised Sicilian expedition - which resulted in the destruction of everything the Athenians held dear. Do not ignore history
as Barnett councils; heed it.
Globalization is likely here to stay, though it may be slowed down or even stopped in some regions of the planet.
Therefore, America needs to stay engaged in the affairs of the world, but Barnett has not offered conclusive evidence that the
U.S. needs to become the world's single Leviathan that must extinguish all global hot wars. Barnett also has not proved that America
needs to be, as he writes, "the one willing to rush in when everyone else is running away." People like Barnett in academia and
leaders in government may proclaim and ordain the U.S. to be a global Leviathan, but it is a conscious choice that should be thoroughly
debated by the American people. After all, it is upon the backs of the American people that such a global Leviathan must ride.
Where is the debate? The American people, upon reflection, may decide upon other courses of action.
I would strongly recommend "The Pentagon's New Map" to students who are studying U.S. foreign policy. I would also recommend
it to those who are studying the Bush administration as well as the Pentagon. The ideas in the book seem to be popular with the
military and many of its ideas can be seen in the current thinking and policy of the Pentagon and State Department.
It seems to be well researched - having 35 pages of notes. Many of Barnett's citations come from the Washington Post and the
New York Times, which some may see as a liberal bias, but I see the sources as simply newspapers of record.
I would only caution the reader that Barnett's theories are heavily dependent upon the continued advancement of globalization,
which in turn is dependent upon the continued economic ability of the U.S. to sustain military operations around the world indefinitely.
Neither is guaranteed.
I don't think poorly of Thomas Barnett himself. He's very bright and, I think, good hearted, BUT his well thought-out, well
argued pride and joy (and positive intellectual pursuit) is being badly distorted ---- which happens to all 'tools' that Empire
gets its hands on.
For those who like predictions, I would predict that Barnett will wind up going through an epiphany much like Francis Fukuyama
(but a decade later) and for much the same reason, that his life's work gets misused and abused so greatly that he works to reverse
and correct its misuse. Fukuyama, also brilliant, wrote "The End of History" in 1992 (which was misused by the neocons to engender
war), and now he's working just as hard to reverse a misuse that he may feel some guilt of his work supporting, and is writing
"The Future of History" as a force for good --- and I suspect (and hope) that Barnett will, in even less time, be counter-thinking
and developing the strategy and book to reverse the misuse of his 2004 book before the Global Empire pulls down the curtain.
"Globalization" has turned out to be nothing but the polite PR term to disguise and avoid the truth of using the more accurate
name, "Global Empire" --- and there is no doubt that Barnett is more than smart enough to see that this has inexorably happened.
Best luck and love to the fast expanding 'Occupy the Empire' educational and revolutionary movement against this deceitful,
guileful, disguised EMPIRE, which can't so easily be identified as wearing Red Coats, Red Stars, nor funny looking Nazi helmets
---- quite yet!
Liberty, democracy, justice, and equality Over Violent/'Vichy' Rel 2.0 Empire,
Alan MacDonald
Sanford, Maine
We don't MERELY have; a gun/fear problem, or a 'Fiscal Cliff', 'Sequestration', and 'Debt Limit' problem, or an expanding
wars problem, or a 'drone assassinations' problem, or a vast income & wealth inequality problem, or a Wall Street 'looting' problem,
or a Global Warming and environmental death-spiral problem, or a domestic tyranny NDAA FISA spying problem, or, or, or, or ....
ad nauseam --- we have a hidden EMPIRE cancerous tumor which is the prime CAUSE of all these 'symptom problems'.
"If your country is treating you like ****, and bombing abroad, look carefully --- because it may not be your country, but
a Global Empire only posing as your former country."
"... Lt. Col. Karen U. Kwiatkowski has written extensively about the purges of the patriots in the Defense Department that happened in Washington during the lead up and after the commencement of the Iraq war in 2003. ..."
"... If anybody thinks what I have written is an exaggeration, research what the late Admiral Thomas Moorer had to say years ago about the total infiltration of the Defense Department by Israeli agents. ..."
People who seem to think that Trump's generals will somehow go along and support his original vision are sadly mistaken.
Since 2003, Israel has had an increasingly strong hand in the vetting who gets promoted to upper positions in the American
armed forces. All of the generals Trump has at his side went through a vetting procedure which definitely involved a very close
look at their opinions about Israel.
Lt. Col. Karen U. Kwiatkowski has written extensively about the purges of the patriots in the Defense Department that happened
in Washington during the lead up and after the commencement of the Iraq war in 2003.
Officers who openly oppose the dictates of the Israel Lobby will see their prospects for advancement simply vanish like a whiff
of smoke.. Those who support Israel's machinations are rewarded with promotions, the more fervent the support the more rapid the
promotion especially if this knowledge is made known to their congressman or senator..
Generals who support Israel already know that this support will be heavily rewarded after their retirements by being given
lucrative six figure positions on company boards of directors or positions in equally lucrative think tanks like the American
Enterprise Institution or the Hoover Institute. They will receive hefty speaking fees. as well. They learned early that their
retirements could be truly glorious if they only "went" along with The Lobby. They will be able to then live the good life in
expensive places like Washington, New York or San Francisco, often invited to glitzy parties with unlimited amount of free prawns
"the size of your hand".
On the other hand, upper officers who somehow get then get "bad" reputations for their negative views about Israel ( like Karen
U. Kwiatkowski for instance) will end up, once retired, having to depend on just their often scanty pensions This requires getting
an often demeaning second jobs to get by in some place where "their dollar goes further". No bright lights in big cities for them.
No speaking fees, no college jobs. Once their fate becomes known, their still active duty contemporaries suddenly decide to "go
along".
If anybody thinks what I have written is an exaggeration, research what the late Admiral Thomas Moorer had to say years
ago about the total infiltration of the Defense Department by Israeli agents.
Face it, we live in a country under occupation by a hostile power that we willingly pay large amounts monetary tribute to.
Our government does whatever benefits Israel regardless of how negatively this effects the USA. We are increasing troop strength
in Afghanistan because, somehow, this benefits Israel. If our presence in Afghanistan (or the Mideast in general) didn't benefit
Israel, our troops would simply not be there.
"... Lt. Col. Karen U. Kwiatkowski has written extensively about the purges of the patriots in the Defense Department that happened in Washington during the lead up and after the commencement of the Iraq war in 2003. ..."
"... If anybody thinks what I have written is an exaggeration, research what the late Admiral Thomas Moorer had to say years ago about the total infiltration of the Defense Department by Israeli agents. ..."
People who seem to think that Trump's generals will somehow go along and support his original vision are sadly mistaken.
Since 2003, Israel has had an increasingly strong hand in the vetting who gets promoted to upper positions in the American
armed forces. All of the generals Trump has at his side went through a vetting procedure which definitely involved a very close
look at their opinions about Israel.
Lt. Col. Karen U. Kwiatkowski has written extensively about the purges of the patriots in the Defense Department that happened
in Washington during the lead up and after the commencement of the Iraq war in 2003.
Officers who openly oppose the dictates of the Israel Lobby will see their prospects for advancement simply vanish like a whiff
of smoke.. Those who support Israel's machinations are rewarded with promotions, the more fervent the support the more rapid the
promotion especially if this knowledge is made known to their congressman or senator..
Generals who support Israel already know that this support will be heavily rewarded after their retirements by being given
lucrative six figure positions on company boards of directors or positions in equally lucrative think tanks like the American
Enterprise Institution or the Hoover Institute. They will receive hefty speaking fees. as well. They learned early that their
retirements could be truly glorious if they only "went" along with The Lobby. They will be able to then live the good life in
expensive places like Washington, New York or San Francisco, often invited to glitzy parties with unlimited amount of free prawns
"the size of your hand".
On the other hand, upper officers who somehow get then get "bad" reputations for their negative views about Israel ( like Karen
U. Kwiatkowski for instance) will end up, once retired, having to depend on just their often scanty pensions This requires getting
an often demeaning second jobs to get by in some place where "their dollar goes further". No bright lights in big cities for them.
No speaking fees, no college jobs. Once their fate becomes known, their still active duty contemporaries suddenly decide to "go
along".
If anybody thinks what I have written is an exaggeration, research what the late Admiral Thomas Moorer had to say years
ago about the total infiltration of the Defense Department by Israeli agents.
Face it, we live in a country under occupation by a hostile power that we willingly pay large amounts monetary tribute to.
Our government does whatever benefits Israel regardless of how negatively this effects the USA. We are increasing troop strength
in Afghanistan because, somehow, this benefits Israel. If our presence in Afghanistan (or the Mideast in general) didn't benefit
Israel, our troops would simply not be there.
But it is in the realm of foreign policy where the real perils seem to lie. President Trump
has been persuaded by his national security team to send Javelin anti-tank missiles to Ukraine,
for use against the tanks and armor of pro-Russian rebels in Donetsk and Luhansk.
Should Petro Poroshenko's Kiev regime reignite the war in his breakaway provinces bordering
Russia, Vladimir Putin is less likely to let him crush the rebels than to intervene with
superior forces and rout the Ukrainian army.
Trump's choice then? Accept defeat and humiliation for our "ally" -- or escalate and widen
the conflict with Russia.
Putin's interest in the Donbass, a part of the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union for
centuries, is obvious.
What, exactly, is ours -- to justify a showdown with Moscow?
In this city there is also a powerful propaganda push to have this country tear up the
nuclear deal John Kerry negotiated with Iran, and confront the Iranians in Syria, Iraq, Yemen
and the Persian Gulf.
... ... ...
The Korean War finished Truman. Vietnam finished LBJ. Reagan said putting Marines into
Lebanon was his worst mistake. Iraq cost Bush II both houses of Congress and his party the
presidency in 2008.
Should Trump become a war president, he'll likely become a one-term president.
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, "Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That
Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever."
But it is in the realm of foreign policy where the real perils seem to lie. President Trump
has been persuaded by his national security team to send Javelin anti-tank missiles to Ukraine,
for use against the tanks and armor of pro-Russian rebels in Donetsk and Luhansk.
Should Petro Poroshenko's Kiev regime reignite the war in his breakaway provinces bordering
Russia, Vladimir Putin is less likely to let him crush the rebels than to intervene with
superior forces and rout the Ukrainian army.
Trump's choice then? Accept defeat and humiliation for our "ally" -- or escalate and widen
the conflict with Russia.
Putin's interest in the Donbass, a part of the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union for
centuries, is obvious.
What, exactly, is ours -- to justify a showdown with Moscow?
In this city there is also a powerful propaganda push to have this country tear up the
nuclear deal John Kerry negotiated with Iran, and confront the Iranians in Syria, Iraq, Yemen
and the Persian Gulf.
... ... ...
The Korean War finished Truman. Vietnam finished LBJ. Reagan said putting Marines into
Lebanon was his worst mistake. Iraq cost Bush II both houses of Congress and his party the
presidency in 2008.
Should Trump become a war president, he'll likely become a one-term president.
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, "Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That
Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever."
Trump's Continuation of US Interventionism December 24, 2017
Criticizing his predecessors for misguided foreign wars, President Trump promised a break in
that approach, but his National Security Strategy report indicates a shift more in rhetoric
than substance, reports Dennis J. Bernstein.
By Dennis J Bernstein
President Trump's recent report on
National Security Strategy supposedly reflected his America First "realism" but his
approach seems more like old wine in a new bottle, particularly his continued strong support
for Saudi Arabia and Israel in the Middle East combined with an even more aggressive U.S.
policy in Asia aimed at containing China as well as confronting North Korea.
President Trump outside the Department of Defense on July 20, 2017. (Official White House
Photo by Shealah Craighead)
For more background on Trump's foreign policy, I spoke to Matthew Hoh. In 2009, Hoh resigned
his position with the State Department in Afghanistan in protest of the escalation of the
Afghan War by the Obama administration. He previously had been in Iraq with a State Department
team and with the U.S. Marines. He is a senior fellow with the Center of International Policy.
Hoh is also a member of the advisory boards of Expose Facts, Veterans For Peace and World
Beyond War.
Dennis Bernstein: Before we get into Trump's recent major speech on foreign policy, let's
take a look at Afghanistan, where you were posted by the State Department until you resigned in
protest. Your thoughts after over 16 years of a US-waged war there?
Matthew Hoh: For the people of Afghanistan, this war has been going on since the 1970's,
much of it propelled by and supported by outside involvement. It has been eight years now since
I resigned. If you had told me back then that this level of tragedy would still be continuing
eight years on, there is no way I would have believed you.
It was just revealed by the Pentagon that in the last six months, American and Afghan
commandos have conducted more than 2,000 raids in Afghanistan. Americans are still there
kicking in doors, raiding people's homes in the middle of the night, killing them, taking
prisoners. This has happened over 2,000 times in Afghanistan in the last six months! In
addition to that, we have seen an escalation in air strikes, both from drones and from manned
aircraft, in Afghanistan and throughout the Muslim world.
These poor suffering people are no closer to seeing an end to this horrific violence. Money
continues to pour in to support the war, people continue to get rich off the war, the opium
trade continues to expand.
Bernstein: It's interesting, there are two major things that Trump has done when it comes to
Afghanistan. One was to test out "the mother of all bombs" there and the other was to state
that we are not going to make any commitment to withdraw by a certain date.
Hoh: Dropping the mother of all bombs was really the first indication of what war policy was
going to look like under Trump. Under Obama and under Bush, there was a political victory
sought. As immoral and misguided as the military aims were, there was a political end stated.
They encouraged elections, they assisted in development, they were involved in a process of
reconciliation.
Under the Trump administration, there is no political end state. People who were concerned
about there being so many generals in the White House were concerned for a reason. We have
General Kelly as Chief of Staff, Mattis as Secretary of Defense and General McMaster as
National Security Advisor. You have military operations now conducted simply for military
purposes. This new bomb is a great example of that.
They lied that it was used to go after a tunnel complex. It was above ground and turns the
entire area into one huge flash. It is useless against tunnels. The dropping of this bomb was
meant to punish the people there because, a week prior, an American service member had been
killed in that area.
This policy of terror and punishment is in common with other wars which America is leading
in the region. In Iraq, the US-led forces have demolished Sunni cities in the Euphrates and
Tigris River Valleys. Look at what the Saudis and the United Arab Emirates have been doing in
Yemen, what the Kurdish forces along with the American Air Force have done to Raqqa as well as
other cities in eastern Syria. And in Afghanistan we are seeing an increase in air strikes, in
artillery operations and in these night raids into people's homes.
Our policy has become to terrorize people into subjugation. And this ties into what Trump
said on the campaign trail. Trump said a number of times that he was going to "take the gloves
off," that our wars were too politically correct, that we should be killing the families of
terrorists and destroying their homes, etc.
The photograph released by the White House of President Trump meeting with his advisers at
his estate in Mar-a-Lago on April 6, 2017, regarding his decision to launch missile strikes
against Syria.
Bernstein: President Trump gave his big speech yesterday [Monday, Dec. 18] on US foreign
policy. What is your take on what was said?
Hoh: As has been pointed out by a number of commentators, Trump's speech yesterday was
really a public relations speech, affirming his status as the leader of the Make America Great
Again campaign. The first thing he talked about, as he was addressing the national security
interests of the United States, was how thirteen months prior the American people elected him
to be a "glorious new hope." The target of the speech was not China or Russia or the Islamic
State. Its purpose was to reaffirm to his domestic political base that he is the man to lead a
policy of American exceptionalism. This is the belief that American moral superiority is needed
to keep the world in order.
If you wanted details, you weren't going to get them in this speech. I always tell people,
if you want the details, go to the budget. Just as in previous administrations, there is a
preoccupation with China. We are building ten new aircraft carriers that will cost $13 billion
apiece. That is meant for an adversary like China. The Air Force refuses to even reveal the
price tag of its new nuclear bomber. Our nuclear weapons program will get a trillion dollar
shot in the arm to modernize over the next thirty years. These types of weapons are meant to
intimidate our "competitors," as Trump likes to call them, who might rival our power.
Bernstein: The Obama administration had a very aggressive policy in the so-called Pacific
Pivot, drawing a ring around China to undermine it while at the same time asking for China's
support in dealing with North Korea. Is it more dangerous now because Trump is a little more
volatile and dangerous and might want to create a distraction from his troubles at home?
Hoh: For those of us on the left, we should not lose sight of what took place during Obama's
eight years which allowed this to happen. The previous administration did nothing to hold the
torturers accountable. This makes it easier for a Donald Trump to proclaim that torture is
back.
In the case of the Pacific Pivot, we are ringing China with military bases, strike aircraft
and naval ships that would demolish anything that China has, despite the fact that they have
expanded their military forces over the last couple decades. A modern conventional war with
China would last a week at the outside. Obama did a lot to heighten those tensions.
For centuries, the Chinese have had to deal with colonization and the imperialist ambitions
of various powers. A hundred years ago, the American Navy was present on Chinese rivers! What
we are seeing now is really an extension of gunboat diplomacy. So when, today, the Chinese hear
of American plans to build new aircraft carriers and bombers and nuclear cruise missiles, and
know that this is geared toward them, it is not difficult to predict how they are going to
react.
I think Trump truly believes that, through our weapon superiority and our violence, we can
be a great nation again. And also, as you mentioned, there's the "wag the dog" phenomenon. What
if his son does get indicted (which is probably what he deserves)? Will he do something to
distract from that? Clinton did something similar to distract attention from the Monica
Lewinsky affair. It is not uncommon for politicians to get the media and the public to focus
elsewhere.
But the fact that Trump has these generals on his cabinet who are driven by their military
mindset and tend not to have the political concerns that civilians have, makes this
administration more dangerous than the previous two.
Bernstein: I'd like to hear your thoughts on Russiagate.
Hoh: First of all, if the Russian intelligence services were not trying to hack into the DNC
and RNC computers in order to understand our election system, as well as everything else about
us, then the head of Russian intelligence should be fired. This is what intelligence services
do. We've known about hacking for decades now. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that they did
hack into these systems. However, evidence of this has not been presented to the American
public, other than assertions from the intelligence community, whose chief function is to
lie.
Normally, what is called a "national intelligence estimate" is done, which follows specific
guidelines and is reviewed by all the different agencies. This is what was doctored under the
Bush administration to allow for the war in Iraq. But we also saw it with the 2007 national
intelligence estimate, which said that the Iranians had not been doing anything with their
nuclear weapons program since 2003.
So, within the intelligence community, they do have a process that would substantiate these
claims of Russian interference in our elections but that process has not been utilized. This
hand-picked group of a dozen or so men and women from a few different agencies produced a
report that says, in effect, "trust us." I am very skeptical, because no real evidence has yet
to be produced.
Trump's Continuation of US Interventionism December 24, 2017
Criticizing his predecessors for misguided foreign wars, President Trump promised a break in
that approach, but his National Security Strategy report indicates a shift more in rhetoric
than substance, reports Dennis J. Bernstein.
By Dennis J Bernstein
President Trump's recent report on
National Security Strategy supposedly reflected his America First "realism" but his
approach seems more like old wine in a new bottle, particularly his continued strong support
for Saudi Arabia and Israel in the Middle East combined with an even more aggressive U.S.
policy in Asia aimed at containing China as well as confronting North Korea.
President Trump outside the Department of Defense on July 20, 2017. (Official White House
Photo by Shealah Craighead)
For more background on Trump's foreign policy, I spoke to Matthew Hoh. In 2009, Hoh resigned
his position with the State Department in Afghanistan in protest of the escalation of the
Afghan War by the Obama administration. He previously had been in Iraq with a State Department
team and with the U.S. Marines. He is a senior fellow with the Center of International Policy.
Hoh is also a member of the advisory boards of Expose Facts, Veterans For Peace and World
Beyond War.
Dennis Bernstein: Before we get into Trump's recent major speech on foreign policy, let's
take a look at Afghanistan, where you were posted by the State Department until you resigned in
protest. Your thoughts after over 16 years of a US-waged war there?
Matthew Hoh: For the people of Afghanistan, this war has been going on since the 1970's,
much of it propelled by and supported by outside involvement. It has been eight years now since
I resigned. If you had told me back then that this level of tragedy would still be continuing
eight years on, there is no way I would have believed you.
It was just revealed by the Pentagon that in the last six months, American and Afghan
commandos have conducted more than 2,000 raids in Afghanistan. Americans are still there
kicking in doors, raiding people's homes in the middle of the night, killing them, taking
prisoners. This has happened over 2,000 times in Afghanistan in the last six months! In
addition to that, we have seen an escalation in air strikes, both from drones and from manned
aircraft, in Afghanistan and throughout the Muslim world.
These poor suffering people are no closer to seeing an end to this horrific violence. Money
continues to pour in to support the war, people continue to get rich off the war, the opium
trade continues to expand.
Bernstein: It's interesting, there are two major things that Trump has done when it comes to
Afghanistan. One was to test out "the mother of all bombs" there and the other was to state
that we are not going to make any commitment to withdraw by a certain date.
Hoh: Dropping the mother of all bombs was really the first indication of what war policy was
going to look like under Trump. Under Obama and under Bush, there was a political victory
sought. As immoral and misguided as the military aims were, there was a political end stated.
They encouraged elections, they assisted in development, they were involved in a process of
reconciliation.
Under the Trump administration, there is no political end state. People who were concerned
about there being so many generals in the White House were concerned for a reason. We have
General Kelly as Chief of Staff, Mattis as Secretary of Defense and General McMaster as
National Security Advisor. You have military operations now conducted simply for military
purposes. This new bomb is a great example of that.
They lied that it was used to go after a tunnel complex. It was above ground and turns the
entire area into one huge flash. It is useless against tunnels. The dropping of this bomb was
meant to punish the people there because, a week prior, an American service member had been
killed in that area.
This policy of terror and punishment is in common with other wars which America is leading
in the region. In Iraq, the US-led forces have demolished Sunni cities in the Euphrates and
Tigris River Valleys. Look at what the Saudis and the United Arab Emirates have been doing in
Yemen, what the Kurdish forces along with the American Air Force have done to Raqqa as well as
other cities in eastern Syria. And in Afghanistan we are seeing an increase in air strikes, in
artillery operations and in these night raids into people's homes.
Our policy has become to terrorize people into subjugation. And this ties into what Trump
said on the campaign trail. Trump said a number of times that he was going to "take the gloves
off," that our wars were too politically correct, that we should be killing the families of
terrorists and destroying their homes, etc.
The photograph released by the White House of President Trump meeting with his advisers at
his estate in Mar-a-Lago on April 6, 2017, regarding his decision to launch missile strikes
against Syria.
Bernstein: President Trump gave his big speech yesterday [Monday, Dec. 18] on US foreign
policy. What is your take on what was said?
Hoh: As has been pointed out by a number of commentators, Trump's speech yesterday was
really a public relations speech, affirming his status as the leader of the Make America Great
Again campaign. The first thing he talked about, as he was addressing the national security
interests of the United States, was how thirteen months prior the American people elected him
to be a "glorious new hope." The target of the speech was not China or Russia or the Islamic
State. Its purpose was to reaffirm to his domestic political base that he is the man to lead a
policy of American exceptionalism. This is the belief that American moral superiority is needed
to keep the world in order.
If you wanted details, you weren't going to get them in this speech. I always tell people,
if you want the details, go to the budget. Just as in previous administrations, there is a
preoccupation with China. We are building ten new aircraft carriers that will cost $13 billion
apiece. That is meant for an adversary like China. The Air Force refuses to even reveal the
price tag of its new nuclear bomber. Our nuclear weapons program will get a trillion dollar
shot in the arm to modernize over the next thirty years. These types of weapons are meant to
intimidate our "competitors," as Trump likes to call them, who might rival our power.
Bernstein: The Obama administration had a very aggressive policy in the so-called Pacific
Pivot, drawing a ring around China to undermine it while at the same time asking for China's
support in dealing with North Korea. Is it more dangerous now because Trump is a little more
volatile and dangerous and might want to create a distraction from his troubles at home?
Hoh: For those of us on the left, we should not lose sight of what took place during Obama's
eight years which allowed this to happen. The previous administration did nothing to hold the
torturers accountable. This makes it easier for a Donald Trump to proclaim that torture is
back.
In the case of the Pacific Pivot, we are ringing China with military bases, strike aircraft
and naval ships that would demolish anything that China has, despite the fact that they have
expanded their military forces over the last couple decades. A modern conventional war with
China would last a week at the outside. Obama did a lot to heighten those tensions.
For centuries, the Chinese have had to deal with colonization and the imperialist ambitions
of various powers. A hundred years ago, the American Navy was present on Chinese rivers! What
we are seeing now is really an extension of gunboat diplomacy. So when, today, the Chinese hear
of American plans to build new aircraft carriers and bombers and nuclear cruise missiles, and
know that this is geared toward them, it is not difficult to predict how they are going to
react.
I think Trump truly believes that, through our weapon superiority and our violence, we can
be a great nation again. And also, as you mentioned, there's the "wag the dog" phenomenon. What
if his son does get indicted (which is probably what he deserves)? Will he do something to
distract from that? Clinton did something similar to distract attention from the Monica
Lewinsky affair. It is not uncommon for politicians to get the media and the public to focus
elsewhere.
But the fact that Trump has these generals on his cabinet who are driven by their military
mindset and tend not to have the political concerns that civilians have, makes this
administration more dangerous than the previous two.
Bernstein: I'd like to hear your thoughts on Russiagate.
Hoh: First of all, if the Russian intelligence services were not trying to hack into the DNC
and RNC computers in order to understand our election system, as well as everything else about
us, then the head of Russian intelligence should be fired. This is what intelligence services
do. We've known about hacking for decades now. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that they did
hack into these systems. However, evidence of this has not been presented to the American
public, other than assertions from the intelligence community, whose chief function is to
lie.
Normally, what is called a "national intelligence estimate" is done, which follows specific
guidelines and is reviewed by all the different agencies. This is what was doctored under the
Bush administration to allow for the war in Iraq. But we also saw it with the 2007 national
intelligence estimate, which said that the Iranians had not been doing anything with their
nuclear weapons program since 2003.
So, within the intelligence community, they do have a process that would substantiate these
claims of Russian interference in our elections but that process has not been utilized. This
hand-picked group of a dozen or so men and women from a few different agencies produced a
report that says, in effect, "trust us." I am very skeptical, because no real evidence has yet
to be produced.
"... There is an ongoing conflict between Russia and the West concerning EU and NATO expansion into the former USSR. Russia's resisting this expansion, and the West is trying to bully Russia into accepting it. ..."
"... The Atlantic Alliance's support for the 2014 Maidan revolution in Ukraine was all about pulling that country into the EU and NATO. The West's involvement in this revolt amounted to an aggressive move by the West against Russia. In return, Russia annexed Crimea, and triggered an anti-Ukrainian revolt in Donbass. ..."
"... The West's response to this was to impose economic sanctions on Russia, in an effort to destroy that country's economy. The goal was to force Russia to submit to the West's mandate, and to permanently forgo its vital national interests in Ukraine ..."
"... Sanctions are there because Russia. is an ally of Syria , and Israel wants Syria destroyed. The sanctions are a means to punish Russia for being Syria's friend, and also to remove Russian influence from that area of the world. Their base at Tarterus. ..."
"... For all it is worth , currently the Russians have more of a legitimate justification to attack the USA and Israel , than Japan did when they attacked Pearl Harbor, because of sanctions slapped on them since they would not leave China, and then moved into Vietnam after being allowed to by Vichy France. ..."
"... Quite obvious sanctions are not hurting Russia as they were Japan otherwise it would be a nasty scene right now. But still not advisable to poke that bear further. ..."
There is an ongoing conflict between Russia and the West concerning EU and NATO expansion into the former USSR. Russia's resisting
this expansion, and the West is trying to bully Russia into accepting it.
The Atlantic Alliance's support for the 2014 Maidan revolution in Ukraine was all about pulling that country into the EU and
NATO. The West's involvement in this revolt amounted to an aggressive move by the West against Russia. In return, Russia annexed
Crimea, and triggered an anti-Ukrainian revolt in Donbass.
The West's response to this was to impose economic sanctions on Russia, in an effort to destroy that country's economy. The
goal was to force Russia to submit to the West's mandate, and to permanently forgo its vital national interests in Ukraine.
The first round of sanctions has obviously failed to have its effect. That's why the US Senate is now attempting a new, harsher
round of sanctions in an effort to force Russia to submit to the West's mandate. ... more See More LikeShare
The new sanctions on Russia is all about giving an advantage to US LNG producers. First shipment of LNG to Poland from US,
ever, was done just last week. It is all a game for the benefit of the big business while emotionally victimizing the common
person in the US.
Timoty Frai made a lot of research and did a lot of conclusions. Unfortunately he did not understand the only fact: we Russians
has a little bit different mentality. Sanctions could not make us gave up if we believe that we are on a right side )))
For example: Imagine if someone say to you: "If you will not let me hurt
your baby I will reject you as a customer!" Will you let him hurt your baby??? Most of the Russians won't!
Sanctions are there because Russia. is an ally of Syria , and Israel wants Syria destroyed. The sanctions are a means to punish
Russia for being Syria's friend, and also to remove Russian influence from that area of the world. Their base at Tarterus.
For all it is worth , currently the Russians have more of a legitimate justification to attack the USA and Israel , than Japan
did when they attacked Pearl Harbor, because of sanctions slapped on them since they would not leave China, and then moved into
Vietnam after being allowed to by Vichy France.
Quite obvious sanctions are not hurting Russia as they were Japan otherwise it would be a nasty scene right now. But
still not advisable to poke that bear further.
Manuel Angst 6/15/2017 9:49 AM EDT
"... punish Russia for being Syria's friend"
Propping up the biggest butcher of Syrian people is hardly "being Syria's friend".
Must I remind you that many thousands of Americans living in both Southern and Northern states of American considered Abraham
Lincoln a butcher of American people and a tyrant doing the U.S. civil war. In fact he outraged so many who thought of him that
way he was assassinated because of a belief that he was a tyrant and a butcher of American people. Many people at the time remembered
Gen. Sherman's military march through the South that burned everything in sight and believe it or not killed many civilians. Be
careful who you call a butcher. ... more See More Like
Putin's disciple Trump may well decide to invade some small country as a way of shoring up his own declining approval. ... more
See More LikeShare
Tebteb27 6/15/2017 8:54 AM EDT
You are a type locality example of the slow digression into destructive ignorance that we currently face as a nation. God help
us. ... more See More Like
Ed Chen 6/15/2017 9:10 AM EDT
That is the best vision of how the leftist (the same word "liberal") propaganda screw the minds of the people like Don Brook,
to bring this nation to a dangerous situation of clash with each other over nothing, but the pain could be great. Are sanctions
pushing Russians to 'rally around the flag'? Not exactly. - The Washington Post
The sanctions have strengthen Russia's domestic economy and has turn the corner
despite low energy prices. Sanctions are never an effective tool for international relations, look at Cuba. lol
Russian are an educated people, they are not stupid which the Establishment media wants us to believe. Time to talk, isn't that
what diplomacy is all about? ... more See More LikeShare Erugo 1
altR 6/15/2017 8:58 AM EDT
You are also correct, sanctions are the biggest waste of time. They are only for the political elite to fake resolve
Trump is now 100% pure neocon. What a metamorphose is less a year from inauguration...
Notable quotes:
"... It says, with extreme hyperbole, that "China and Russia challenge American power, influence, and interests, attempting to erode American security and prosperity. They are determined to make economies less free and less fair, to grow their militaries, and to control information and data to repress their societies and expand their influence. At the same time, the dictatorships of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and the Islamic Republic of Iran are determined to destabilize regions, threaten Americans and our allies, and brutalize their own people." ..."
"... A somewhat more detailed account of what Moscow is up to is also contained in the written report, stating that "Russia is using subversive measures to weaken the credibility of America's commitment to Europe, undermine transatlantic unity, and weaken European institutions and governments. With its invasions of Georgia and Ukraine, Russia demonstrated its willingness to violate the sovereignty of states in the region. Russia continues to intimidate its neighbors with threatening behavior, such as nuclear posturing and the forward deployment of offensive capabilities." ..."
"... Nearly every detail in the indictment of Russia can be challenged. Most notably, if anyone is forward deploying offensive capabilities in Eastern Europe or invading other countries it is the United States, a trend that continues under Donald Trump. Just this past week, Trump approved the sale of offensive weapons to Ukraine, which has already drawn a warning from Moscow and will make any dialogue with Russia unlikely. ..."
"... And, of course, there is the usual softball for Israel claiming that "For generations the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians has been understood as the prime irritant preventing peace and prosperity in the region. Today, the threats from jihadist terrorist organizations and the threat from Iran are creating the realization that Israel is not the cause of the region's problems." It is a conclusion that must make the unspeakable Benjamin Netanyahu smile. One might observe that as Israel has attacked all of its neighbors since it was founded, holding its governments blameless is a formulation that others in the region might well dispute. ..."
"... So the Donald Trump National Security Strategy will be more of the same, a combination of the worst ideas to emerge from his two predecessors with little in the way of mitigation. Trump might balk at going toe-to-toe with North Korea because they have the actual capability to strike back and might think they have nothing to lose if they are about to be incinerated, something no bully likes to see, but Iran is certainly in the cross hairs and you best believe they have taken notice and will be preparing. Vladimir Putin too can sit back and wonder how Trump could possibly have gotten everything so ass-backwards when he had so much latitude to get at least some things right. The National Security Strategy will deliver little in the way of security but it will provide an answer to why most of the world has come to hate the United States. ..."
If one takes Trump at his word, the U.S. will use force worldwide to make sure that only
Washington can dominate regionally, a frightening thought as it goes beyond even the wildest
pretensions of George W. Bush and Barack Obama. And equally ridiculous are the potential
consequences of such bullying – the White House clearly believes that it will make other
nations respect us and follow our leadership whereas quite the reverse is likely to be
true.
On the very limited bright side, Trump did have good things to say about the benefits
derived from intelligence sharing with Russia and he also spoke about both Moscow and Beijing
as "rivals" and "adversaries" instead of enemies. That was very refreshing to hear but
unfortunately the printed document did not say the same thing.
The NSS report provided considerably more detail than did the speech but it also was full of
generalizations and all too often relied on Washington group think to frame its options. The
beginning is somewhat terrifying for one of my inclinations on foreign policy:
"An America that is safe, prosperous, and free at home is an America with the strength,
confidence, and will to lead abroad. It is an America that can preserve peace, uphold liberty,
and create enduring advantages for the American people. Putting America first is the duty of
our government and the foundation for U.S. leadership in the world. A strong America is in the
vital interests of not only the American people, but also those around the world who want to
partner with the United States in pursuit of shared interests, values, and aspirations."
One has to ask what this "lead" and "leadership" and "partner" nonsense actually represents,
particularly in light of the fact that damn near the entire world just repudiated Trump's
decision to move the American Embassy in Israel as well as the nearly global rejection of his
response to climate change? And Washington's alleged need to lead has brought nothing but grief
to the American people starting in Korea and continuing with Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq and
numerous lesser stops along the way in places like Somalia, Panama and Syria. The false
narrative of the threat coming from "foreigners" has actually done nothing to make Americans
safer while also diminishing constitutional liberties and doing serious damage to the
economy.
The printed report is much more brutal than was Trump about the dangers facing America and
it is also much more carefree in the "facts" that it chooses to present. It says, with extreme
hyperbole, that "China and Russia challenge American power, influence, and interests,
attempting to erode American security and prosperity. They are determined to make economies
less free and less fair, to grow their militaries, and to control information and data to
repress their societies and expand their influence. At the same time, the dictatorships of the
Democratic People's Republic of Korea and the Islamic Republic of Iran are determined to
destabilize regions, threaten Americans and our allies, and brutalize their own people."
A somewhat more detailed account of what Moscow is up to is also contained in the written
report, stating that "Russia is using subversive measures to weaken the credibility of
America's commitment to Europe, undermine transatlantic unity, and weaken European institutions
and governments. With its invasions of Georgia and Ukraine, Russia demonstrated its willingness
to violate the sovereignty of states in the region. Russia continues to intimidate its
neighbors with threatening behavior, such as nuclear posturing and the forward deployment of
offensive capabilities."
Nearly every detail in the indictment of Russia can be challenged. Most notably, if anyone
is forward deploying offensive capabilities in Eastern Europe or invading other countries it is
the United States, a trend that continues under Donald Trump. Just this past week, Trump
approved the sale of offensive weapons to Ukraine, which has already drawn a warning from
Moscow and will make any dialogue with Russia unlikely.
And, of course, there is the usual softball for Israel claiming that "For generations the
conflict between Israel and the Palestinians has been understood as the prime irritant
preventing peace and prosperity in the region. Today, the threats from jihadist terrorist
organizations and the threat from Iran are creating the realization that Israel is not the
cause of the region's problems." It is a conclusion that must make the unspeakable Benjamin
Netanyahu smile. One might observe that as Israel has attacked all of its neighbors since it
was founded, holding its governments blameless is a formulation that others in the region might
well dispute.
So the Donald Trump National Security Strategy will be more of the same, a combination of
the worst ideas to emerge from his two predecessors with little in the way of mitigation. Trump
might balk at going toe-to-toe with North Korea because they have the actual capability to
strike back and might think they have nothing to lose if they are about to be incinerated,
something no bully likes to see, but Iran is certainly in the cross hairs and you best believe
they have taken notice and will be preparing. Vladimir Putin too can sit back and wonder how
Trump could possibly have gotten everything so ass-backwards when he had so much latitude to
get at least some things right. The National Security Strategy will deliver little in the way
of security but it will provide an answer to why most of the world has come to hate the United
States.
"... There is an ongoing conflict between Russia and the West concerning EU and NATO expansion into the former USSR. Russia's resisting this expansion, and the West is trying to bully Russia into accepting it. ..."
"... The Atlantic Alliance's support for the 2014 Maidan revolution in Ukraine was all about pulling that country into the EU and NATO. The West's involvement in this revolt amounted to an aggressive move by the West against Russia. In return, Russia annexed Crimea, and triggered an anti-Ukrainian revolt in Donbass. ..."
"... The West's response to this was to impose economic sanctions on Russia, in an effort to destroy that country's economy. The goal was to force Russia to submit to the West's mandate, and to permanently forgo its vital national interests in Ukraine ..."
"... Sanctions are there because Russia. is an ally of Syria , and Israel wants Syria destroyed. The sanctions are a means to punish Russia for being Syria's friend, and also to remove Russian influence from that area of the world. Their base at Tarterus. ..."
"... For all it is worth , currently the Russians have more of a legitimate justification to attack the USA and Israel , than Japan did when they attacked Pearl Harbor, because of sanctions slapped on them since they would not leave China, and then moved into Vietnam after being allowed to by Vichy France. ..."
"... Quite obvious sanctions are not hurting Russia as they were Japan otherwise it would be a nasty scene right now. But still not advisable to poke that bear further. ..."
There is an ongoing conflict between Russia and the West concerning EU and NATO expansion into the former USSR. Russia's resisting
this expansion, and the West is trying to bully Russia into accepting it.
The Atlantic Alliance's support for the 2014 Maidan revolution in Ukraine was all about pulling that country into the EU and
NATO. The West's involvement in this revolt amounted to an aggressive move by the West against Russia. In return, Russia annexed
Crimea, and triggered an anti-Ukrainian revolt in Donbass.
The West's response to this was to impose economic sanctions on Russia, in an effort to destroy that country's economy. The
goal was to force Russia to submit to the West's mandate, and to permanently forgo its vital national interests in Ukraine.
The first round of sanctions has obviously failed to have its effect. That's why the US Senate is now attempting a new, harsher
round of sanctions in an effort to force Russia to submit to the West's mandate. ... more See More LikeShare
The new sanctions on Russia is all about giving an advantage to US LNG producers. First shipment of LNG to Poland from US,
ever, was done just last week. It is all a game for the benefit of the big business while emotionally victimizing the common
person in the US.
Timoty Frai made a lot of research and did a lot of conclusions. Unfortunately he did not understand the only fact: we Russians
has a little bit different mentality. Sanctions could not make us gave up if we believe that we are on a right side )))
For example: Imagine if someone say to you: "If you will not let me hurt
your baby I will reject you as a customer!" Will you let him hurt your baby??? Most of the Russians won't!
Sanctions are there because Russia. is an ally of Syria , and Israel wants Syria destroyed. The sanctions are a means to punish
Russia for being Syria's friend, and also to remove Russian influence from that area of the world. Their base at Tarterus.
For all it is worth , currently the Russians have more of a legitimate justification to attack the USA and Israel , than Japan
did when they attacked Pearl Harbor, because of sanctions slapped on them since they would not leave China, and then moved into
Vietnam after being allowed to by Vichy France.
Quite obvious sanctions are not hurting Russia as they were Japan otherwise it would be a nasty scene right now. But
still not advisable to poke that bear further.
Manuel Angst 6/15/2017 9:49 AM EDT
"... punish Russia for being Syria's friend"
Propping up the biggest butcher of Syrian people is hardly "being Syria's friend".
Must I remind you that many thousands of Americans living in both Southern and Northern states of American considered Abraham
Lincoln a butcher of American people and a tyrant doing the U.S. civil war. In fact he outraged so many who thought of him that
way he was assassinated because of a belief that he was a tyrant and a butcher of American people. Many people at the time remembered
Gen. Sherman's military march through the South that burned everything in sight and believe it or not killed many civilians. Be
careful who you call a butcher. ... more See More Like
Putin's disciple Trump may well decide to invade some small country as a way of shoring up his own declining approval. ... more
See More LikeShare
Tebteb27 6/15/2017 8:54 AM EDT
You are a type locality example of the slow digression into destructive ignorance that we currently face as a nation. God help
us. ... more See More Like
Ed Chen 6/15/2017 9:10 AM EDT
That is the best vision of how the leftist (the same word "liberal") propaganda screw the minds of the people like Don Brook,
to bring this nation to a dangerous situation of clash with each other over nothing, but the pain could be great. Are sanctions
pushing Russians to 'rally around the flag'? Not exactly. - The Washington Post
The sanctions have strengthen Russia's domestic economy and has turn the corner
despite low energy prices. Sanctions are never an effective tool for international relations, look at Cuba. lol
Russian are an educated people, they are not stupid which the Establishment media wants us to believe. Time to talk, isn't that
what diplomacy is all about? ... more See More LikeShare Erugo 1
altR 6/15/2017 8:58 AM EDT
You are also correct, sanctions are the biggest waste of time. They are only for the political elite to fake resolve
Trump is now 100% pure neocon. What a metamorphose is less a year from inauguration...
Notable quotes:
"... It says, with extreme hyperbole, that "China and Russia challenge American power, influence, and interests, attempting to erode American security and prosperity. They are determined to make economies less free and less fair, to grow their militaries, and to control information and data to repress their societies and expand their influence. At the same time, the dictatorships of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and the Islamic Republic of Iran are determined to destabilize regions, threaten Americans and our allies, and brutalize their own people." ..."
"... A somewhat more detailed account of what Moscow is up to is also contained in the written report, stating that "Russia is using subversive measures to weaken the credibility of America's commitment to Europe, undermine transatlantic unity, and weaken European institutions and governments. With its invasions of Georgia and Ukraine, Russia demonstrated its willingness to violate the sovereignty of states in the region. Russia continues to intimidate its neighbors with threatening behavior, such as nuclear posturing and the forward deployment of offensive capabilities." ..."
"... Nearly every detail in the indictment of Russia can be challenged. Most notably, if anyone is forward deploying offensive capabilities in Eastern Europe or invading other countries it is the United States, a trend that continues under Donald Trump. Just this past week, Trump approved the sale of offensive weapons to Ukraine, which has already drawn a warning from Moscow and will make any dialogue with Russia unlikely. ..."
"... And, of course, there is the usual softball for Israel claiming that "For generations the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians has been understood as the prime irritant preventing peace and prosperity in the region. Today, the threats from jihadist terrorist organizations and the threat from Iran are creating the realization that Israel is not the cause of the region's problems." It is a conclusion that must make the unspeakable Benjamin Netanyahu smile. One might observe that as Israel has attacked all of its neighbors since it was founded, holding its governments blameless is a formulation that others in the region might well dispute. ..."
"... So the Donald Trump National Security Strategy will be more of the same, a combination of the worst ideas to emerge from his two predecessors with little in the way of mitigation. Trump might balk at going toe-to-toe with North Korea because they have the actual capability to strike back and might think they have nothing to lose if they are about to be incinerated, something no bully likes to see, but Iran is certainly in the cross hairs and you best believe they have taken notice and will be preparing. Vladimir Putin too can sit back and wonder how Trump could possibly have gotten everything so ass-backwards when he had so much latitude to get at least some things right. The National Security Strategy will deliver little in the way of security but it will provide an answer to why most of the world has come to hate the United States. ..."
If one takes Trump at his word, the U.S. will use force worldwide to make sure that only
Washington can dominate regionally, a frightening thought as it goes beyond even the wildest
pretensions of George W. Bush and Barack Obama. And equally ridiculous are the potential
consequences of such bullying – the White House clearly believes that it will make other
nations respect us and follow our leadership whereas quite the reverse is likely to be
true.
On the very limited bright side, Trump did have good things to say about the benefits
derived from intelligence sharing with Russia and he also spoke about both Moscow and Beijing
as "rivals" and "adversaries" instead of enemies. That was very refreshing to hear but
unfortunately the printed document did not say the same thing.
The NSS report provided considerably more detail than did the speech but it also was full of
generalizations and all too often relied on Washington group think to frame its options. The
beginning is somewhat terrifying for one of my inclinations on foreign policy:
"An America that is safe, prosperous, and free at home is an America with the strength,
confidence, and will to lead abroad. It is an America that can preserve peace, uphold liberty,
and create enduring advantages for the American people. Putting America first is the duty of
our government and the foundation for U.S. leadership in the world. A strong America is in the
vital interests of not only the American people, but also those around the world who want to
partner with the United States in pursuit of shared interests, values, and aspirations."
One has to ask what this "lead" and "leadership" and "partner" nonsense actually represents,
particularly in light of the fact that damn near the entire world just repudiated Trump's
decision to move the American Embassy in Israel as well as the nearly global rejection of his
response to climate change? And Washington's alleged need to lead has brought nothing but grief
to the American people starting in Korea and continuing with Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq and
numerous lesser stops along the way in places like Somalia, Panama and Syria. The false
narrative of the threat coming from "foreigners" has actually done nothing to make Americans
safer while also diminishing constitutional liberties and doing serious damage to the
economy.
The printed report is much more brutal than was Trump about the dangers facing America and
it is also much more carefree in the "facts" that it chooses to present. It says, with extreme
hyperbole, that "China and Russia challenge American power, influence, and interests,
attempting to erode American security and prosperity. They are determined to make economies
less free and less fair, to grow their militaries, and to control information and data to
repress their societies and expand their influence. At the same time, the dictatorships of the
Democratic People's Republic of Korea and the Islamic Republic of Iran are determined to
destabilize regions, threaten Americans and our allies, and brutalize their own people."
A somewhat more detailed account of what Moscow is up to is also contained in the written
report, stating that "Russia is using subversive measures to weaken the credibility of
America's commitment to Europe, undermine transatlantic unity, and weaken European institutions
and governments. With its invasions of Georgia and Ukraine, Russia demonstrated its willingness
to violate the sovereignty of states in the region. Russia continues to intimidate its
neighbors with threatening behavior, such as nuclear posturing and the forward deployment of
offensive capabilities."
Nearly every detail in the indictment of Russia can be challenged. Most notably, if anyone
is forward deploying offensive capabilities in Eastern Europe or invading other countries it is
the United States, a trend that continues under Donald Trump. Just this past week, Trump
approved the sale of offensive weapons to Ukraine, which has already drawn a warning from
Moscow and will make any dialogue with Russia unlikely.
And, of course, there is the usual softball for Israel claiming that "For generations the
conflict between Israel and the Palestinians has been understood as the prime irritant
preventing peace and prosperity in the region. Today, the threats from jihadist terrorist
organizations and the threat from Iran are creating the realization that Israel is not the
cause of the region's problems." It is a conclusion that must make the unspeakable Benjamin
Netanyahu smile. One might observe that as Israel has attacked all of its neighbors since it
was founded, holding its governments blameless is a formulation that others in the region might
well dispute.
So the Donald Trump National Security Strategy will be more of the same, a combination of
the worst ideas to emerge from his two predecessors with little in the way of mitigation. Trump
might balk at going toe-to-toe with North Korea because they have the actual capability to
strike back and might think they have nothing to lose if they are about to be incinerated,
something no bully likes to see, but Iran is certainly in the cross hairs and you best believe
they have taken notice and will be preparing. Vladimir Putin too can sit back and wonder how
Trump could possibly have gotten everything so ass-backwards when he had so much latitude to
get at least some things right. The National Security Strategy will deliver little in the way
of security but it will provide an answer to why most of the world has come to hate the United
States.
"... The new 55-page "America First" National Security Strategy (NSS), drafted over the course of 2017, defines Russia and China as "revisionist" powers, "rivals," and for all practical purposes strategic competitors of the United States. ..."
"... The NSS stops short of defining Russia and China as enemies, allowing for an "attempt to build a great partnership with those and other countries." Still, Beijing qualified it as "reckless" and "irrational." The Kremlin noted its "imperialist character" and "disregard for a multipolar world." Iran, predictably, is described by the NSS as "the world's most significant state sponsor of terrorism." ..."
"Russia and China ... have concluded that pumping the US military budget by buying US bonds
... is an unsustainable proposition ..." Pepe Escobar 12,072
198
The new 55-page "America First" National
Security Strategy (NSS), drafted over the course of 2017, defines Russia and China as
"revisionist" powers, "rivals," and for all practical purposes strategic competitors of the
United States.
The NSS stops short of defining Russia and China as enemies, allowing for an "attempt to
build a great partnership with those and other countries." Still, Beijing qualified it as
"reckless" and "irrational." The Kremlin noted its "imperialist character" and "disregard for a
multipolar world." Iran, predictably, is described by the NSS as "the world's most significant
state sponsor of terrorism."
Russia, China and Iran happen to be the three key movers and shakers in the ongoing
geopolitical and geo-economic process of Eurasia integration.
The NSS can certainly be regarded as a response to what happened at the BRICS summit in Xiamen last
September. Then, Russian President Vladimir Putin insisted on "the BRIC countries' concerns
over the unfairness of the global financial and economic architecture which does not give due
regard to the growing weight of the emerging economies," and stressed the need to "overcome the
excessive domination of a limited number of reserve currencies."
That was a clear reference to the US dollar, which accounts for nearly two-thirds of total
reserve currency around the world and remains the benchmark determining the price of energy and
strategic raw materials.
And that brings us to the unnamed secret at the heart of the NSS; the Russia-China "threat"
to the US dollar.
The CIPS/SWIFT face-off
The website of the China Foreign Exchange Trade System (CFETS) recently
announced the establishment of a yuan-ruble payment system, hinting that similar systems
regarding other currencies participating in the New Silk Roads, a.k.a. Belt and Road Initiative
(BRI) will also be in place in the near future.
Crucially, this is not about reducing currency risk; after all Russia and China have
increasingly traded bilaterally in their own currencies since the 2014 US-imposed sanctions on
Russia. This is about the implementation of a huge, new alternative reserve currency zone,
bypassing the US dollar.
The decision follows the establishment by Beijing, in October 2015, of the China
International Payments System (CIPS). CIPS has a cooperation agreement with the private,
Belgium-based SWIFT international bank clearing system, through which virtually every global
transaction must transit.
What matters, in this case, is that Beijing – as well as Moscow – clearly read
the writing on the wall when, in 2012, Washington applied pressure on SWIFT; blocked
international clearing for every Iranian bank; and froze $100 billion in Iranian assets
overseas as well as Tehran's potential to export oil. In the event that Washington might decide
to slap sanctions on China, bank clearing though CIPS works as a de facto sanctions-evading
mechanism.
Last March, Russia's central bank opened its first office in Beijing. Moscow is launching
its first $1 billion
yuan-denominated government bond sale. Moscow has made it very clear it is committed to a
long-term strategy to stop using the US dollar as their primary currency in global trade,
moving alongside Beijing towards what could be dubbed a post-Bretton Woods exchange system.
Gold is essential in this strategy. Russia, China, India, Brazil & South Africa are all
either large producers or consumers of gold – or both. Following what has been
extensively discussed in their summits since the early 2010s, the BRICS countries are bound to
focus on trading
physical gold .
Markets such as COMEX
actually trade derivatives on gold, and are backed by an insignificant amount of physical gold.
Major BRICS gold producers – especially the Russia-China partnership – plan to be
able to exercise extra influence in setting up global gold prices.
The ultimate politically charged dossier
Intractable questions referring to the US dollar as the top reserve currency have been
discussed at the highest levels of JP Morgan for at least five years now. There cannot be a
more politically charged dossier. The NSS duly sidestepped it.
The current state of play is still all about the petrodollar system; since last year, what
used to be a key, "secret" informal deal between the US and the House of Saud, is firmly in the
public domain .
Even warriors in the Hindu Kush may now be aware of how oil and virtually all commodities
must be traded in US dollars, and how these petrodollars are recycled into US Treasuries.
Through this mechanism, Washington has accumulated an astonishing $20 trillion in debt –
and counting.
Vast populations all across MENA (Middle East-Northern Africa) also learned what happened
when Iraq's Saddam Hussein decided to sell oil in euros, or when Muammar Gaddafi planned to
issue a pan-African gold dinar.
But now it's China who's entering the fray, following through on plans set up way back in
2012. And the name of the game is oil-futures trading priced in yuan, with the yuan fully
convertible into gold on the Shanghai and Hong Kong foreign exchange markets.
The Shanghai Futures Exchange and its subsidiary, the Shanghai International Energy Exchange
(INE) have already run four production environment tests for crude oil futures. Operations were
supposed to start at the end of 2017, but even if they start sometime in early 2018, the
fundamentals are clear: this triple win (oil/yuan/gold) completely bypasses the US dollar. The
era of the petro-yuan is at hand.
Of course, there are questions on how Beijing will technically manage to set up a rival mark
to Brent and WTI, or whether China's capital controls will influence it. Beijing has been quite
discreet on the triple win; the petro-yuan was not even mentioned in National Development and
Reform Commission documents following the 19th CCP Congress last October.
What's certain is that the BRICS countries supported the petro-yuan move at their summit in
Xiamen, as diplomats confirmed to Asia Times . Venezuela is also on board. It's
crucial to remember that Russia is number two and Venezuela is number seven among the world's
Top Ten oil producers. Considering the pull of China's economy, they may soon be joined by
other producers.
Yao Wei, chief China economist at Societe Generale in Paris, goes straight to the point,
remarking how "this contract has the potential to greatly help China's push for yuan
internationalization."
The hidden riches of "belt" and "road"
An extensive report by
DBS in Singapore hits most of the right notes linking the internationalization of the yuan
with the expansion of BRI.
In 2018, six major BRI projects will be on overdrive; the Jakarta-Bandung high-speed
railway, the China-Laos railway, the Addis Ababa-Djibouti railway, the Hungary-Serbia railway,
the Melaka Gateway project in Malaysia, and the upgrading of Gwadar port in Pakistan.
HSBC estimates that
BRI as a whole will generate no less than an additional, game-changing $2.5 trillion worth of
new trade a year.
It's important to keep in mind that the "belt" in BRI should be seen as a series of
corridors connecting Eastern China with oil/gas-rich regions in Central Asia and the Middle
East, while the "roads" soon to be plied by high-speed rail traverse regions filled with
– what else - un-mined gold.
A key determinant of the future of the petro-yuan is what the House of Saud will do about
it. Should Crown Prince – and inevitable future king – MBS opt to follow Russia's
lead, to dub it as a paradigm shift would be the understatement of the century.
Yuan-denominated gold contracts will be traded not only in Shanghai and Hong Kong but also
in Dubai. Saudi Arabia is also considering to issue so-called Panda bonds, after the Emirate of
Sharjah is set to take the lead in the Middle East for Chinese interbank bonds.
Of course, the prelude to D-Day will be when the House of Saud officially announces it
accepts yuan for at least part of its exports to China.
A follower of the Austrian school of economics correctly asserts that for
oil-producing nations, higher oil price in US dollars is not as important as market share:
"They are increasingly able to choose in which currencies they want to trade."
What's clear is that the House of Saud simply cannot alienate China as one of its top
customers; it's Beijing who will dictate future terms. That may include extra pressure for
Chinese participation in Aramco's IPO. In parallel, Washington would see Riyadh embracing the
petro-yuan as the ultimate red line.
An independent
European report points to what may be the Chinese trump card: "an authorization to issue
treasury bills in yuan by Saudi Arabia," the creation of a Saudi investment fund, and the
acquisition of a 5% share of Aramco.
Nations under US sanctions, such as Russia, Iran and Venezuela, will be among the first to
embrace the petro-yuan. Smaller producers such as Angola and Nigeria are already selling
oil/gas to China in yuan.
And if you don't export oil but are part of BRI, such as Pakistan, the least you can do is
replace the US dollar in bilateral trade, as Interior Minister Ahsan Iqbal is currently
evaluating.
A key feature of the geoeconomic heart of the world moving from the West towards Asia is
that by the start of the next decade the petro-yuan and trade bypassing the US dollar will be
certified facts on the ground across Eurasia.
The NSS for its part promises to preserve "peace through strength." As Washington currently
deploys no less than 291,000 troops in 183 countries and has sent Special Ops to no less than
149 nations in 2017 alone, it's hard to argue the US is at "peace" – especially when the
NSS seeks to channel even more resources to the industrial-military complex.
"Revisionist" Russia and China have committed an unpardonable sin; they have concluded that
pumping the US military budget by buying US bonds that allow the US Treasury to finance a
multi-trillion dollar deficit without raising interest rates is an unsustainable proposition
for the Global South. Their "threat" – under the framework of BRICS as well as the SCO,
which includes prospective members Iran and Turkey – is to increasingly settle bilateral
and multilateral trade bypassing the US dollar.
It ain't over till the fat (golden) lady sings. When the beginning of the end of the
petrodollar system – established by Kissinger in tandem with the House of Saud way back
in 1974 – becomes a fact on the ground, all eyes will be focused on the NSS
counterpunch.
China and Russia been dumping US bonds for a good while.
They just have to do it slowly, so they can get as much cash, to buy stolen discounted
gold with from the British Anglo Zionist Empire, as possible without tanking the
market.
The Federal reserve, prints currency, "loans" it to USA corporation, at USURY rates,
gives this currency to other "sovereign" puppet states such as Belgium, who then act like
they are buying the bonds for themselves.
It is a scam. Those who trust the USA/British Empire, will wind up with worthless
paper, while the Usury bankers, their bosses, China and Russia, will wind up with
gold.
All you USA worshipers should understand something.
He who has the gold, makes the rules.
Guess the western sheep are going to be the bitc#s of China and Russia for the next
century or so.
Hey Tim or whatever. Yep you always win huh? Vietnam, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria,
Sudan, .ring any bells I could go on but you have been embarrassed enough with your msm
drivel. Always the weak and defenseless you lily livered chicken's. You better avoid war
with the two most powerful countries in the world. Can you guess? and neither are you
pedos and babykillers. You make me sick and disgusted. Voted again the most threat to
world peace. Ussa, ussa, ussa. Proud are ya all. The time is coming where you reap what
you have sown and on that day I shall dance my happy dance that you feel what you and
your evil countrymen have wrought in the world in the name of democracy and freedom hope
it is on cable! You rotten to the core people!
Here here, the US Holocaust, countless millions killed all over the globe as the USA
plunders, wars and props-up evil, despot regimes. Bin Laden, Taleban, just two of the US
former best allies, how long can a 200 year old, degenerate country like the USA keep
sponging-off/ using exploiting the worlds billions to enrich itself? USA... infested with
drugs, crime, rust belts, slums, homeless, street bums VAST inequality.
The Empire sells other peoples gold to China and Russia everyday, having stole and
sold Americans gold long since.
Works like this.
The not Federal, and no Reserve(s) dollar, is worth about 1 cent, of a 1913, pre Usury
criminal banker scam "dollar".
That 1 % is swiftly loosing it's value.
To keep the American people, from realizing, the USA, is using them for cattle, stealing
their labor, through planned hyperinflation,:
Israhell/Washington crime cabal, dumps massive amounts of "paper gold and silver", on the
market, each and every damn day the rigged market is open, in order to artificially keep
the price of gold and silver way the hell below where it should be priced in federal
reserve currency.
This hide s the true inflation rate of the not federal and no reserves private Usury
Banker Currency, falsely identified as the "US Dollar".
Israhell/Washington DC, does not have the physical gold and silver to cover what they
sell.
It is a criminal scam.
Those who buy this paper gold and silver, small guy, will never be given physical for the
paper.
Small guy, traded green paper for white paper. Either will be worthless soon.
Sovereigns, can buy enough of it, to demand delivery of physical.
The day the British Anglo zionist Empire defaults delivering physical gold, to China and
Russia, for the paper gold, is the day the curtain comes down on the illusion of the USA
financial empire.
Washington DC knows this, China knows this, Russia knows this.
In order to buy time, Israhell/Washington DC, has stolen, sold at hugely discounted
prices, to keep the dollar scam alive, just a while longer, all the gold they were
supposably storing for safe keeping, of other sovereigns.
They have stolen privately held gold, which was stored in commercial banks and vaults for
"safe keeping.
They stole the gold which went missing from the basement vaults in the world trade
centers, before they set off the demolition charges.
Then they sold it.
They stole and sold Ukraines gold.
They stole and sold, Libya's gold.
They had intended to have already stole and sold Syria's gold.
They are fast running out of other peoples gold, to deliver to China and Russia at huge
discounts, to prop up the scam, just a while longer.
The day there is no more stolen gold to deliver to China and Russia, the music stops, all
the chairs are removed, this game of musical chars is over. Starving Americans will eat
their pets, rats, and each other.
Thanks Israhell!
Thanks Washington DC/USA.
I want more information on this. Isabella said a similar thing. I want to know more...
So the U$T's that are in actual fact worthless, Russia is using to buy gold at a huge
discount to what should be the true market rate; and then Russia is storing this. I
understand the storing thing. I'm a straight forward kind-of-a-guy. But its the U.$.T.'s
to Physical Gold I can't get my head around.
Why is the U.$. honouring what is a knife-to-its-throat deal that is very soon going
to result in the collapse of the U.$. dollar? And according to this forum fully 20% of
Russia's reserves are still held in fiat U.$.T's..?
Why would Russia hold such a large percentage if its reserves in what will be
worthless U.$.T.'s when it knows that the U.$. is going to try and scam Russia and
default..?
Picture a crime family.
Some branches are pure evil.
Some not so evil.
Some are very open about their evil.
Some are sneaky hypocrites who use the news media to white wash their crimes, and vilify
their victims.
BUT! And this is one huge BUT, they all know too much on each other to start talking
too damn much.
Also, their criminal Empire, (shearing/raping/murdering the sheep for fun and profit) is
all tied together. Common banks, common/interchangeable fiat currencies, Usury debt
practices.
Take part of it down, the other part will suffer great losses, if not go down with
them.
Russia, and China, has gotten tired of the British Anglo zionist Empire lording it over
them and treating them like red headed step children.
Russia and China, have not seen the Light, are not operating for the sake of their
people, but to keep themselves in power, by returning to the people, some of the wealth
they stole from the people to begin with
British Anglo zionist pig fkers Empire, is too greedy to return any of the stolen
loot.
The BAzE, have a let them eat grass like the animals they are elitist attitude.
China and Russia, are trying to position themselves to come out on top when the economic
reset happens.
They both were FORCED, by Empire, to both buy and hold, huge stashes of both Federal
reserve fiat currency, and bonds, to do business in the rest of the world.
The USA military is the enforcement arm for the BAzE.
USA military is corrupted, demoralized, veterans fked over royally, weapons do not work
as their purpose, was to steal the labor of the American working man and women, not to
produce weapons which worked as advertised.
Russia and China, will continue to buy gold, buy time, to get in a better position to
give Uncle Sugar's pedophilic ass both middle fingers.
It is in their interest to do so.
The owners of the British Anglo zionist Empire, have their personal vaults filled with
stolen gold.
The politicians you see, the Rothschild's even, are window dressing to hide the true
owners, and to protect the true owners asses during slave revolts, by offering, kings,
queens, politicians, bankers, heads to get chopped.
These owners have no loyalty to any other person, or country in the world. They see
themselves as the chess players, humanity as the pieces, the earth as their personal
chess board.
They do not give a FF about America, the American people, or the hand puppet political
whore of DC/USA.
The hand puppet whores, are too stupid, and corrupt anyway, to understand whats coming,
or to have the power, intelligence, or balls to stop it
There are all kinds of fun and wealth created, for deviant sick bastards, in creating,
and tearing down empires.
Besides, all the death and destruction gets them sexually excited
Takes years of study, experience with, and intuition, to begin to understand their evil,
and the way the world really works.
Whether someone started years back, educating themselves, preparing for whats coming,
will determine if they will enter the kill zone as a sheep or not.
The only protection sheep have, is the hope, the jackals will rape and murder some other
sheep, not them. That is why they will not stand up or speak up.
That is why they violently attack anyone wants to leave the herd mentality, everyone else
forced to be in the same sheep state as them,
They are afraid the jackal will notice them individually.
Herd numbers and hiding in the herd, are the cowards only protection
Any day now, any week, not very many months, can the scam go on.
In other words, Americans might want to bone up on delicious recipes for Rats, cats, and
their neighbors.
re: "China and Russia been dumping US bonds for a good while.
They just have to do it slowly, so they can get as much cash, to buy stolen discounted
gold with from the British Anglo Zionist Empire, as possible without tanking the
market."
I have been reading this for a while. But I've yet to see it in practice. Rosneft is
still accepting U.$. dollars for oil/gas transactions, the most recent of which I believe
was the gas shipment from St Petersburg to Poland..?
https://tomluongo.me/2017/1...
What you buy by petrodollars ?
Saudi .Arabia buys arms. But SA has got millions of unemployed people , because they
studied Islamic religion , wahabist fanaticism ... Further SA employs millions of workers
from other countries. And owns US assets in value over 1 trillion dollars. So what else
to buy , where to spend their petrodollars? Only get billions dollars arms ,that are in
couple years useless...Population hate the fully corrupt royal family in numbers
approximately 40 thousands princess as they have to get about 500 thousands yearly
salaries...For doing nothing , only to spend it everywhere...
Populations hate US presence in SA. Very much.
But the Great Satan~USA adore such scum as the vile Crooked Saudi royal family, the
snakehead USA ignore all their anti-democracy, anti- human rights their beheading, their
evil ways, they worship money the US swine, its all they see and lap-up, plus they have
Russia/ China /Iran to pick on and blame not their evil Saudi- swine arms buyers.
View
Hide
At the moment, because the US is illegally holding gold prices down using uncovered
shorts on paper gold, and at the same time has used sanctions to devalue the rouble,
Russia is producing oil at reduced - rouble - rates, selling it on the international
market for U$, [artificially inflated] and buying massive amounts of cheap gold with the
huge profits she is making.
Russia is singing all the way to the bank right now. The US backed itself into a corner
on this one it cannot get out from - short of waging war on Russia !!!
Why should anyone who is in love with gold be upset if someone is holding the price
down? It should be a wonderful time to buy.
Russia is MINING gold, its own gold.
It is a great time to buy, if you have some spare cash to store, I agree. It's just a
poor time if you need to realise your gold - you wont get the price for it you should.
But indeed, it's a buyers market. Yes, Russia has a fair bit of gold "reserves" just
sitting in the ground.
There is the face the beast lets you see, and the real face of the beast.
You do not think the beast is stupid enough to show it's real face to all the sheep?
Really?
The sheep who are given personal attention in private places, see the real face of the
beast, because it sexually excites the beast for the chosen sheep to die bleating in
terror.
Guess you just got here you friggin troll. You know nothing you shill. Go back to the
basement mom has brought you dinner and cookies n milk and let the grown men talk, now
that is a good boy bye. Sorry John I have disappointed my Mom said be nice but idiots
bother me. Say hi to your lovely Mom for me and God bless. Merry Christmas everyone! Got
your back as always.
Glad you are so confident in the currency, which has lost 99% of it's buying power
since 1913, when the not Federal and no Reserve(s) was forced on the American people by
the Usury Banker ancestors of the owners of the 'Fed", buying USA politicians.
Where did that 99% value go?
To the I%ters. You know, the pedophile elite.
They want it all, they are coming for the other 1% of the "dollar's" value.
They are coming for Social security, government pensions, private pensions, checking
accounts, any thing with any value.
Oh by the way, just cause you are ignorant of how things work, don't mean they don't
work that way, just means you are ignorant.
Have a wonderful day now!
See mother, i was nice to the bad person who was trying to run interference for pedophile
baby rapers.
Good to see someone else Awake! A good portion of the Sheep are still sleeping, they
think the National Debt and Zero Interest Rates mean nothing (in the Eurozone Interest is
Negative). The US Dollar is soon to be Toilet Paper! Our Military can only overthrow
small countries that defy the PetroDollar system. Now with so many doing it, John
Carleton is right, the National Debt and Retirements Accounts are basically equal. That
is why Obutthead set the start of grabbing them by creating the MYRA, the Theory is the
Sheep are to stupid to manage their own retirement accounts, so the Government would grab
them and put them in a so called safe investment called "Treasury's". Unfortunately the
SS Trust Fund has been raided and is broke, but they do have drawers full of Treasuries.
Trump has to immediately open public lands for Mining & Drilling! A normalization of
Interest Rates to 5-6% would consume Government Revenues just to pay Interest on the
Debt!
Will work like this, they may already be doing it quietly.
Take private pensions.
They are already in trouble, having stocks, bonds, commercial real estate holdings.
All of these will become worthless, or close to it.
Anything with value, currency, decimal dollars, will be taken by the Washington thieves,
and worthless US bonds which will probably never be redeemed, or redeemed for chump
change, will be put in their place by Washington, as they "protect" the retirement
accounts.
Old people will eat rats, each other, dog and cats, die without medical care and meds
which they can not afford.
Some will eat their pistols.
Not going to be nice or orderly.
'Frankland Coverup Sex Scandal,
(pedophile prostitution ring being run out of Reagan's White House)
http://www.johnccarleton.or...
All pedo's, should be given a fair trial, and a fair hanging. A pedophile which was
given a fair trial, and a fair hanging, never again, raped a child.
Amazing how that works.
Correct and very easy at any given moment to be converted in a GOLD.Just follow
dynamic Russia and China buying GOLD on a world market and everything will be clear to
you
While all eyes are on the oil price and the ruble to dollar rate, the Central Bank of
Russia has quietly been buying huge volumes of gold over the past year. In January, 2016,
the latest data available, the Russian Central Bank again bought 22 tons of gold, around
$800 million at current exchange rates, that, amidst US and EU financial sanctions and
low oil prices. It was the eleventh month in a row they bought large gold volumes. For
2015 Russia added a record 208 tons of gold to her reserves compared with 172 tons for
2014. Russia now has 1,437 tonnes of gold in reserve, the sixth largest of any nation
according to the World Gold Council in London. Only USA, Germany, Italy, France and China
central banks hold a larger tonnage of gold reserves.
Notably also, the Russian central bank has been selling its holdings of US Treasury debt
to buy the gold, de facto de-dollarizing, a sensible move as the dollar is waging de
facto currency war against the ruble. As of December, 2015, Russia held $92 billion in US
Treasury Bonds down from $132 billion in January 2014.China bought another 17 tons of
gold in January and will buy a total of another 215 tons this year, approximately equal
to that of Russia. From August to January 2016 China added 101 tonnes of gold to its
reserves. Annual purchases of more than 200 tons by the PBOC would exceed the entire gold
holdings of all but about 20 countries, according to the World Gold Council. China's
central bank reserves of gold have risen 57% since 2009 acording to data the PBOC
revealed in July, 2015. Market watchers believe even that amount of gold in China's
central bank vaults is being politically vastly understated so as not to cause alarm
bells to ring too loud in Washington and London.
Dude stop your only making yourself look stupid by opening your gob and proving or in
this case writing. Merry Christmas or is it happy Hanukkah? Troll boy.
alexwest11 You are stupid ! a flat or house is real money you know ! They are
uneducated in Rothschild finance! are you a russlanddeutsche! or jew from holy ukraine
like poroschenko ?
Russia National Debt: $194,545,062,334
Interest per Year $12,805,556,000
Interest per Second $406
Debt per Citizen $1,330
Debt as % of GDP 19.32%
GDP $1,007,000,000,000
Population 146,300,000
Russia is one of the largest Countries by land mass with a sparse population after the
breakup of the Soviet Union. They run very low deficits and their National Debt is very
low, they are one of the Countries that is best prepared for a major economic crash.
oncefiredbrass alexwest11 • 28 minutes ago Russia
is one of the largest Countries by land mass with a sparse population
after the breakup of the Soviet Union. They run very low defic
--------
but facts say quite opposite!!!!!!!!
during oil selloff of 2008*9 Russian ruble fall 50%, from 23 to 37 per$
during oil selloff of 2014*15 Russian ruble fall 250 %, from 33 to almost 90 per$
right now its about 60 per $ , still 100% devaluation from 2014
-------
i don't remember $ fall against euro or yen during 2000 or/and 2008 crises in USA
The fall of the Ruble was an attack or sanction by the Obama Regime over Ukraine. Why
not trying to look up the Debt to GDP ratio for Russia and then the US and then ask
yourself what economy is actually in a better position to withstand a Depression. Russia
almost has enough Gold to back all their currency. How much gold would it take to back
all the Treasuries and Dollars that the US has spread all over the world?
Hey let the grown men talk baby boy! You are spouting msm talking points you're trying
to debate the choir about hymns. Your not going to make anyone here see the light because
you have no truths behind or in front. Msm drivel. One simple question! Who took Berlin?
In ww2 of course!
Me too. The U.S. has become the evil empire. The bully on the world stage stealing
everyone's lunch money. I know it will devastate us in Canada, but I would still rather
see the U.S. economy crumble if it would cripple their war machine, than to see this
situation go on. Ron Paul was right: Instead of war, why not pursue peaceful trade? But
the U.S. controllers want everyone else under their thumb as obedient serfs. It is evil.
And as Smedley Butler so bluntly put it "War is a Racket"! He said this because he was
sent to war with Guatemala on behalf of the United Fruit Company, aka Chiquita Brands
International. This time, they are trying to steal the lunch money from those who can
defend themselves. We aren't going to sit on our couch watching this war on TV, because
we will watch it out our front windows.
"... The new 55-page "America First" National Security Strategy (NSS), drafted over the course of 2017, defines Russia and China as "revisionist" powers, "rivals," and for all practical purposes strategic competitors of the United States. ..."
"... The NSS stops short of defining Russia and China as enemies, allowing for an "attempt to build a great partnership with those and other countries." Still, Beijing qualified it as "reckless" and "irrational." The Kremlin noted its "imperialist character" and "disregard for a multipolar world." Iran, predictably, is described by the NSS as "the world's most significant state sponsor of terrorism." ..."
"Russia and China ... have concluded that pumping the US military budget by buying US bonds
... is an unsustainable proposition ..." Pepe Escobar 12,072
198
The new 55-page "America First" National
Security Strategy (NSS), drafted over the course of 2017, defines Russia and China as
"revisionist" powers, "rivals," and for all practical purposes strategic competitors of the
United States.
The NSS stops short of defining Russia and China as enemies, allowing for an "attempt to
build a great partnership with those and other countries." Still, Beijing qualified it as
"reckless" and "irrational." The Kremlin noted its "imperialist character" and "disregard for a
multipolar world." Iran, predictably, is described by the NSS as "the world's most significant
state sponsor of terrorism."
Russia, China and Iran happen to be the three key movers and shakers in the ongoing
geopolitical and geo-economic process of Eurasia integration.
The NSS can certainly be regarded as a response to what happened at the BRICS summit in Xiamen last
September. Then, Russian President Vladimir Putin insisted on "the BRIC countries' concerns
over the unfairness of the global financial and economic architecture which does not give due
regard to the growing weight of the emerging economies," and stressed the need to "overcome the
excessive domination of a limited number of reserve currencies."
That was a clear reference to the US dollar, which accounts for nearly two-thirds of total
reserve currency around the world and remains the benchmark determining the price of energy and
strategic raw materials.
And that brings us to the unnamed secret at the heart of the NSS; the Russia-China "threat"
to the US dollar.
The CIPS/SWIFT face-off
The website of the China Foreign Exchange Trade System (CFETS) recently
announced the establishment of a yuan-ruble payment system, hinting that similar systems
regarding other currencies participating in the New Silk Roads, a.k.a. Belt and Road Initiative
(BRI) will also be in place in the near future.
Crucially, this is not about reducing currency risk; after all Russia and China have
increasingly traded bilaterally in their own currencies since the 2014 US-imposed sanctions on
Russia. This is about the implementation of a huge, new alternative reserve currency zone,
bypassing the US dollar.
The decision follows the establishment by Beijing, in October 2015, of the China
International Payments System (CIPS). CIPS has a cooperation agreement with the private,
Belgium-based SWIFT international bank clearing system, through which virtually every global
transaction must transit.
What matters, in this case, is that Beijing – as well as Moscow – clearly read
the writing on the wall when, in 2012, Washington applied pressure on SWIFT; blocked
international clearing for every Iranian bank; and froze $100 billion in Iranian assets
overseas as well as Tehran's potential to export oil. In the event that Washington might decide
to slap sanctions on China, bank clearing though CIPS works as a de facto sanctions-evading
mechanism.
Last March, Russia's central bank opened its first office in Beijing. Moscow is launching
its first $1 billion
yuan-denominated government bond sale. Moscow has made it very clear it is committed to a
long-term strategy to stop using the US dollar as their primary currency in global trade,
moving alongside Beijing towards what could be dubbed a post-Bretton Woods exchange system.
Gold is essential in this strategy. Russia, China, India, Brazil & South Africa are all
either large producers or consumers of gold – or both. Following what has been
extensively discussed in their summits since the early 2010s, the BRICS countries are bound to
focus on trading
physical gold .
Markets such as COMEX
actually trade derivatives on gold, and are backed by an insignificant amount of physical gold.
Major BRICS gold producers – especially the Russia-China partnership – plan to be
able to exercise extra influence in setting up global gold prices.
The ultimate politically charged dossier
Intractable questions referring to the US dollar as the top reserve currency have been
discussed at the highest levels of JP Morgan for at least five years now. There cannot be a
more politically charged dossier. The NSS duly sidestepped it.
The current state of play is still all about the petrodollar system; since last year, what
used to be a key, "secret" informal deal between the US and the House of Saud, is firmly in the
public domain .
Even warriors in the Hindu Kush may now be aware of how oil and virtually all commodities
must be traded in US dollars, and how these petrodollars are recycled into US Treasuries.
Through this mechanism, Washington has accumulated an astonishing $20 trillion in debt –
and counting.
Vast populations all across MENA (Middle East-Northern Africa) also learned what happened
when Iraq's Saddam Hussein decided to sell oil in euros, or when Muammar Gaddafi planned to
issue a pan-African gold dinar.
But now it's China who's entering the fray, following through on plans set up way back in
2012. And the name of the game is oil-futures trading priced in yuan, with the yuan fully
convertible into gold on the Shanghai and Hong Kong foreign exchange markets.
The Shanghai Futures Exchange and its subsidiary, the Shanghai International Energy Exchange
(INE) have already run four production environment tests for crude oil futures. Operations were
supposed to start at the end of 2017, but even if they start sometime in early 2018, the
fundamentals are clear: this triple win (oil/yuan/gold) completely bypasses the US dollar. The
era of the petro-yuan is at hand.
Of course, there are questions on how Beijing will technically manage to set up a rival mark
to Brent and WTI, or whether China's capital controls will influence it. Beijing has been quite
discreet on the triple win; the petro-yuan was not even mentioned in National Development and
Reform Commission documents following the 19th CCP Congress last October.
What's certain is that the BRICS countries supported the petro-yuan move at their summit in
Xiamen, as diplomats confirmed to Asia Times . Venezuela is also on board. It's
crucial to remember that Russia is number two and Venezuela is number seven among the world's
Top Ten oil producers. Considering the pull of China's economy, they may soon be joined by
other producers.
Yao Wei, chief China economist at Societe Generale in Paris, goes straight to the point,
remarking how "this contract has the potential to greatly help China's push for yuan
internationalization."
The hidden riches of "belt" and "road"
An extensive report by
DBS in Singapore hits most of the right notes linking the internationalization of the yuan
with the expansion of BRI.
In 2018, six major BRI projects will be on overdrive; the Jakarta-Bandung high-speed
railway, the China-Laos railway, the Addis Ababa-Djibouti railway, the Hungary-Serbia railway,
the Melaka Gateway project in Malaysia, and the upgrading of Gwadar port in Pakistan.
HSBC estimates that
BRI as a whole will generate no less than an additional, game-changing $2.5 trillion worth of
new trade a year.
It's important to keep in mind that the "belt" in BRI should be seen as a series of
corridors connecting Eastern China with oil/gas-rich regions in Central Asia and the Middle
East, while the "roads" soon to be plied by high-speed rail traverse regions filled with
– what else - un-mined gold.
A key determinant of the future of the petro-yuan is what the House of Saud will do about
it. Should Crown Prince – and inevitable future king – MBS opt to follow Russia's
lead, to dub it as a paradigm shift would be the understatement of the century.
Yuan-denominated gold contracts will be traded not only in Shanghai and Hong Kong but also
in Dubai. Saudi Arabia is also considering to issue so-called Panda bonds, after the Emirate of
Sharjah is set to take the lead in the Middle East for Chinese interbank bonds.
Of course, the prelude to D-Day will be when the House of Saud officially announces it
accepts yuan for at least part of its exports to China.
A follower of the Austrian school of economics correctly asserts that for
oil-producing nations, higher oil price in US dollars is not as important as market share:
"They are increasingly able to choose in which currencies they want to trade."
What's clear is that the House of Saud simply cannot alienate China as one of its top
customers; it's Beijing who will dictate future terms. That may include extra pressure for
Chinese participation in Aramco's IPO. In parallel, Washington would see Riyadh embracing the
petro-yuan as the ultimate red line.
An independent
European report points to what may be the Chinese trump card: "an authorization to issue
treasury bills in yuan by Saudi Arabia," the creation of a Saudi investment fund, and the
acquisition of a 5% share of Aramco.
Nations under US sanctions, such as Russia, Iran and Venezuela, will be among the first to
embrace the petro-yuan. Smaller producers such as Angola and Nigeria are already selling
oil/gas to China in yuan.
And if you don't export oil but are part of BRI, such as Pakistan, the least you can do is
replace the US dollar in bilateral trade, as Interior Minister Ahsan Iqbal is currently
evaluating.
A key feature of the geoeconomic heart of the world moving from the West towards Asia is
that by the start of the next decade the petro-yuan and trade bypassing the US dollar will be
certified facts on the ground across Eurasia.
The NSS for its part promises to preserve "peace through strength." As Washington currently
deploys no less than 291,000 troops in 183 countries and has sent Special Ops to no less than
149 nations in 2017 alone, it's hard to argue the US is at "peace" – especially when the
NSS seeks to channel even more resources to the industrial-military complex.
"Revisionist" Russia and China have committed an unpardonable sin; they have concluded that
pumping the US military budget by buying US bonds that allow the US Treasury to finance a
multi-trillion dollar deficit without raising interest rates is an unsustainable proposition
for the Global South. Their "threat" – under the framework of BRICS as well as the SCO,
which includes prospective members Iran and Turkey – is to increasingly settle bilateral
and multilateral trade bypassing the US dollar.
It ain't over till the fat (golden) lady sings. When the beginning of the end of the
petrodollar system – established by Kissinger in tandem with the House of Saud way back
in 1974 – becomes a fact on the ground, all eyes will be focused on the NSS
counterpunch.
China and Russia been dumping US bonds for a good while.
They just have to do it slowly, so they can get as much cash, to buy stolen discounted
gold with from the British Anglo Zionist Empire, as possible without tanking the
market.
The Federal reserve, prints currency, "loans" it to USA corporation, at USURY rates,
gives this currency to other "sovereign" puppet states such as Belgium, who then act like
they are buying the bonds for themselves.
It is a scam. Those who trust the USA/British Empire, will wind up with worthless
paper, while the Usury bankers, their bosses, China and Russia, will wind up with
gold.
All you USA worshipers should understand something.
He who has the gold, makes the rules.
Guess the western sheep are going to be the bitc#s of China and Russia for the next
century or so.
Hey Tim or whatever. Yep you always win huh? Vietnam, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria,
Sudan, .ring any bells I could go on but you have been embarrassed enough with your msm
drivel. Always the weak and defenseless you lily livered chicken's. You better avoid war
with the two most powerful countries in the world. Can you guess? and neither are you
pedos and babykillers. You make me sick and disgusted. Voted again the most threat to
world peace. Ussa, ussa, ussa. Proud are ya all. The time is coming where you reap what
you have sown and on that day I shall dance my happy dance that you feel what you and
your evil countrymen have wrought in the world in the name of democracy and freedom hope
it is on cable! You rotten to the core people!
Here here, the US Holocaust, countless millions killed all over the globe as the USA
plunders, wars and props-up evil, despot regimes. Bin Laden, Taleban, just two of the US
former best allies, how long can a 200 year old, degenerate country like the USA keep
sponging-off/ using exploiting the worlds billions to enrich itself? USA... infested with
drugs, crime, rust belts, slums, homeless, street bums VAST inequality.
The Empire sells other peoples gold to China and Russia everyday, having stole and
sold Americans gold long since.
Works like this.
The not Federal, and no Reserve(s) dollar, is worth about 1 cent, of a 1913, pre Usury
criminal banker scam "dollar".
That 1 % is swiftly loosing it's value.
To keep the American people, from realizing, the USA, is using them for cattle, stealing
their labor, through planned hyperinflation,:
Israhell/Washington crime cabal, dumps massive amounts of "paper gold and silver", on the
market, each and every damn day the rigged market is open, in order to artificially keep
the price of gold and silver way the hell below where it should be priced in federal
reserve currency.
This hide s the true inflation rate of the not federal and no reserves private Usury
Banker Currency, falsely identified as the "US Dollar".
Israhell/Washington DC, does not have the physical gold and silver to cover what they
sell.
It is a criminal scam.
Those who buy this paper gold and silver, small guy, will never be given physical for the
paper.
Small guy, traded green paper for white paper. Either will be worthless soon.
Sovereigns, can buy enough of it, to demand delivery of physical.
The day the British Anglo zionist Empire defaults delivering physical gold, to China and
Russia, for the paper gold, is the day the curtain comes down on the illusion of the USA
financial empire.
Washington DC knows this, China knows this, Russia knows this.
In order to buy time, Israhell/Washington DC, has stolen, sold at hugely discounted
prices, to keep the dollar scam alive, just a while longer, all the gold they were
supposably storing for safe keeping, of other sovereigns.
They have stolen privately held gold, which was stored in commercial banks and vaults for
"safe keeping.
They stole the gold which went missing from the basement vaults in the world trade
centers, before they set off the demolition charges.
Then they sold it.
They stole and sold Ukraines gold.
They stole and sold, Libya's gold.
They had intended to have already stole and sold Syria's gold.
They are fast running out of other peoples gold, to deliver to China and Russia at huge
discounts, to prop up the scam, just a while longer.
The day there is no more stolen gold to deliver to China and Russia, the music stops, all
the chairs are removed, this game of musical chars is over. Starving Americans will eat
their pets, rats, and each other.
Thanks Israhell!
Thanks Washington DC/USA.
I want more information on this. Isabella said a similar thing. I want to know more...
So the U$T's that are in actual fact worthless, Russia is using to buy gold at a huge
discount to what should be the true market rate; and then Russia is storing this. I
understand the storing thing. I'm a straight forward kind-of-a-guy. But its the U.$.T.'s
to Physical Gold I can't get my head around.
Why is the U.$. honouring what is a knife-to-its-throat deal that is very soon going
to result in the collapse of the U.$. dollar? And according to this forum fully 20% of
Russia's reserves are still held in fiat U.$.T's..?
Why would Russia hold such a large percentage if its reserves in what will be
worthless U.$.T.'s when it knows that the U.$. is going to try and scam Russia and
default..?
Picture a crime family.
Some branches are pure evil.
Some not so evil.
Some are very open about their evil.
Some are sneaky hypocrites who use the news media to white wash their crimes, and vilify
their victims.
BUT! And this is one huge BUT, they all know too much on each other to start talking
too damn much.
Also, their criminal Empire, (shearing/raping/murdering the sheep for fun and profit) is
all tied together. Common banks, common/interchangeable fiat currencies, Usury debt
practices.
Take part of it down, the other part will suffer great losses, if not go down with
them.
Russia, and China, has gotten tired of the British Anglo zionist Empire lording it over
them and treating them like red headed step children.
Russia and China, have not seen the Light, are not operating for the sake of their
people, but to keep themselves in power, by returning to the people, some of the wealth
they stole from the people to begin with
British Anglo zionist pig fkers Empire, is too greedy to return any of the stolen
loot.
The BAzE, have a let them eat grass like the animals they are elitist attitude.
China and Russia, are trying to position themselves to come out on top when the economic
reset happens.
They both were FORCED, by Empire, to both buy and hold, huge stashes of both Federal
reserve fiat currency, and bonds, to do business in the rest of the world.
The USA military is the enforcement arm for the BAzE.
USA military is corrupted, demoralized, veterans fked over royally, weapons do not work
as their purpose, was to steal the labor of the American working man and women, not to
produce weapons which worked as advertised.
Russia and China, will continue to buy gold, buy time, to get in a better position to
give Uncle Sugar's pedophilic ass both middle fingers.
It is in their interest to do so.
The owners of the British Anglo zionist Empire, have their personal vaults filled with
stolen gold.
The politicians you see, the Rothschild's even, are window dressing to hide the true
owners, and to protect the true owners asses during slave revolts, by offering, kings,
queens, politicians, bankers, heads to get chopped.
These owners have no loyalty to any other person, or country in the world. They see
themselves as the chess players, humanity as the pieces, the earth as their personal
chess board.
They do not give a FF about America, the American people, or the hand puppet political
whore of DC/USA.
The hand puppet whores, are too stupid, and corrupt anyway, to understand whats coming,
or to have the power, intelligence, or balls to stop it
There are all kinds of fun and wealth created, for deviant sick bastards, in creating,
and tearing down empires.
Besides, all the death and destruction gets them sexually excited
Takes years of study, experience with, and intuition, to begin to understand their evil,
and the way the world really works.
Whether someone started years back, educating themselves, preparing for whats coming,
will determine if they will enter the kill zone as a sheep or not.
The only protection sheep have, is the hope, the jackals will rape and murder some other
sheep, not them. That is why they will not stand up or speak up.
That is why they violently attack anyone wants to leave the herd mentality, everyone else
forced to be in the same sheep state as them,
They are afraid the jackal will notice them individually.
Herd numbers and hiding in the herd, are the cowards only protection
Any day now, any week, not very many months, can the scam go on.
In other words, Americans might want to bone up on delicious recipes for Rats, cats, and
their neighbors.
re: "China and Russia been dumping US bonds for a good while.
They just have to do it slowly, so they can get as much cash, to buy stolen discounted
gold with from the British Anglo Zionist Empire, as possible without tanking the
market."
I have been reading this for a while. But I've yet to see it in practice. Rosneft is
still accepting U.$. dollars for oil/gas transactions, the most recent of which I believe
was the gas shipment from St Petersburg to Poland..?
https://tomluongo.me/2017/1...
What you buy by petrodollars ?
Saudi .Arabia buys arms. But SA has got millions of unemployed people , because they
studied Islamic religion , wahabist fanaticism ... Further SA employs millions of workers
from other countries. And owns US assets in value over 1 trillion dollars. So what else
to buy , where to spend their petrodollars? Only get billions dollars arms ,that are in
couple years useless...Population hate the fully corrupt royal family in numbers
approximately 40 thousands princess as they have to get about 500 thousands yearly
salaries...For doing nothing , only to spend it everywhere...
Populations hate US presence in SA. Very much.
But the Great Satan~USA adore such scum as the vile Crooked Saudi royal family, the
snakehead USA ignore all their anti-democracy, anti- human rights their beheading, their
evil ways, they worship money the US swine, its all they see and lap-up, plus they have
Russia/ China /Iran to pick on and blame not their evil Saudi- swine arms buyers.
View
Hide
At the moment, because the US is illegally holding gold prices down using uncovered
shorts on paper gold, and at the same time has used sanctions to devalue the rouble,
Russia is producing oil at reduced - rouble - rates, selling it on the international
market for U$, [artificially inflated] and buying massive amounts of cheap gold with the
huge profits she is making.
Russia is singing all the way to the bank right now. The US backed itself into a corner
on this one it cannot get out from - short of waging war on Russia !!!
Why should anyone who is in love with gold be upset if someone is holding the price
down? It should be a wonderful time to buy.
Russia is MINING gold, its own gold.
It is a great time to buy, if you have some spare cash to store, I agree. It's just a
poor time if you need to realise your gold - you wont get the price for it you should.
But indeed, it's a buyers market. Yes, Russia has a fair bit of gold "reserves" just
sitting in the ground.
There is the face the beast lets you see, and the real face of the beast.
You do not think the beast is stupid enough to show it's real face to all the sheep?
Really?
The sheep who are given personal attention in private places, see the real face of the
beast, because it sexually excites the beast for the chosen sheep to die bleating in
terror.
Guess you just got here you friggin troll. You know nothing you shill. Go back to the
basement mom has brought you dinner and cookies n milk and let the grown men talk, now
that is a good boy bye. Sorry John I have disappointed my Mom said be nice but idiots
bother me. Say hi to your lovely Mom for me and God bless. Merry Christmas everyone! Got
your back as always.
Glad you are so confident in the currency, which has lost 99% of it's buying power
since 1913, when the not Federal and no Reserve(s) was forced on the American people by
the Usury Banker ancestors of the owners of the 'Fed", buying USA politicians.
Where did that 99% value go?
To the I%ters. You know, the pedophile elite.
They want it all, they are coming for the other 1% of the "dollar's" value.
They are coming for Social security, government pensions, private pensions, checking
accounts, any thing with any value.
Oh by the way, just cause you are ignorant of how things work, don't mean they don't
work that way, just means you are ignorant.
Have a wonderful day now!
See mother, i was nice to the bad person who was trying to run interference for pedophile
baby rapers.
Good to see someone else Awake! A good portion of the Sheep are still sleeping, they
think the National Debt and Zero Interest Rates mean nothing (in the Eurozone Interest is
Negative). The US Dollar is soon to be Toilet Paper! Our Military can only overthrow
small countries that defy the PetroDollar system. Now with so many doing it, John
Carleton is right, the National Debt and Retirements Accounts are basically equal. That
is why Obutthead set the start of grabbing them by creating the MYRA, the Theory is the
Sheep are to stupid to manage their own retirement accounts, so the Government would grab
them and put them in a so called safe investment called "Treasury's". Unfortunately the
SS Trust Fund has been raided and is broke, but they do have drawers full of Treasuries.
Trump has to immediately open public lands for Mining & Drilling! A normalization of
Interest Rates to 5-6% would consume Government Revenues just to pay Interest on the
Debt!
Will work like this, they may already be doing it quietly.
Take private pensions.
They are already in trouble, having stocks, bonds, commercial real estate holdings.
All of these will become worthless, or close to it.
Anything with value, currency, decimal dollars, will be taken by the Washington thieves,
and worthless US bonds which will probably never be redeemed, or redeemed for chump
change, will be put in their place by Washington, as they "protect" the retirement
accounts.
Old people will eat rats, each other, dog and cats, die without medical care and meds
which they can not afford.
Some will eat their pistols.
Not going to be nice or orderly.
'Frankland Coverup Sex Scandal,
(pedophile prostitution ring being run out of Reagan's White House)
http://www.johnccarleton.or...
All pedo's, should be given a fair trial, and a fair hanging. A pedophile which was
given a fair trial, and a fair hanging, never again, raped a child.
Amazing how that works.
Correct and very easy at any given moment to be converted in a GOLD.Just follow
dynamic Russia and China buying GOLD on a world market and everything will be clear to
you
While all eyes are on the oil price and the ruble to dollar rate, the Central Bank of
Russia has quietly been buying huge volumes of gold over the past year. In January, 2016,
the latest data available, the Russian Central Bank again bought 22 tons of gold, around
$800 million at current exchange rates, that, amidst US and EU financial sanctions and
low oil prices. It was the eleventh month in a row they bought large gold volumes. For
2015 Russia added a record 208 tons of gold to her reserves compared with 172 tons for
2014. Russia now has 1,437 tonnes of gold in reserve, the sixth largest of any nation
according to the World Gold Council in London. Only USA, Germany, Italy, France and China
central banks hold a larger tonnage of gold reserves.
Notably also, the Russian central bank has been selling its holdings of US Treasury debt
to buy the gold, de facto de-dollarizing, a sensible move as the dollar is waging de
facto currency war against the ruble. As of December, 2015, Russia held $92 billion in US
Treasury Bonds down from $132 billion in January 2014.China bought another 17 tons of
gold in January and will buy a total of another 215 tons this year, approximately equal
to that of Russia. From August to January 2016 China added 101 tonnes of gold to its
reserves. Annual purchases of more than 200 tons by the PBOC would exceed the entire gold
holdings of all but about 20 countries, according to the World Gold Council. China's
central bank reserves of gold have risen 57% since 2009 acording to data the PBOC
revealed in July, 2015. Market watchers believe even that amount of gold in China's
central bank vaults is being politically vastly understated so as not to cause alarm
bells to ring too loud in Washington and London.
Dude stop your only making yourself look stupid by opening your gob and proving or in
this case writing. Merry Christmas or is it happy Hanukkah? Troll boy.
alexwest11 You are stupid ! a flat or house is real money you know ! They are
uneducated in Rothschild finance! are you a russlanddeutsche! or jew from holy ukraine
like poroschenko ?
Russia National Debt: $194,545,062,334
Interest per Year $12,805,556,000
Interest per Second $406
Debt per Citizen $1,330
Debt as % of GDP 19.32%
GDP $1,007,000,000,000
Population 146,300,000
Russia is one of the largest Countries by land mass with a sparse population after the
breakup of the Soviet Union. They run very low deficits and their National Debt is very
low, they are one of the Countries that is best prepared for a major economic crash.
oncefiredbrass alexwest11 • 28 minutes ago Russia
is one of the largest Countries by land mass with a sparse population
after the breakup of the Soviet Union. They run very low defic
--------
but facts say quite opposite!!!!!!!!
during oil selloff of 2008*9 Russian ruble fall 50%, from 23 to 37 per$
during oil selloff of 2014*15 Russian ruble fall 250 %, from 33 to almost 90 per$
right now its about 60 per $ , still 100% devaluation from 2014
-------
i don't remember $ fall against euro or yen during 2000 or/and 2008 crises in USA
The fall of the Ruble was an attack or sanction by the Obama Regime over Ukraine. Why
not trying to look up the Debt to GDP ratio for Russia and then the US and then ask
yourself what economy is actually in a better position to withstand a Depression. Russia
almost has enough Gold to back all their currency. How much gold would it take to back
all the Treasuries and Dollars that the US has spread all over the world?
Hey let the grown men talk baby boy! You are spouting msm talking points you're trying
to debate the choir about hymns. Your not going to make anyone here see the light because
you have no truths behind or in front. Msm drivel. One simple question! Who took Berlin?
In ww2 of course!
Me too. The U.S. has become the evil empire. The bully on the world stage stealing
everyone's lunch money. I know it will devastate us in Canada, but I would still rather
see the U.S. economy crumble if it would cripple their war machine, than to see this
situation go on. Ron Paul was right: Instead of war, why not pursue peaceful trade? But
the U.S. controllers want everyone else under their thumb as obedient serfs. It is evil.
And as Smedley Butler so bluntly put it "War is a Racket"! He said this because he was
sent to war with Guatemala on behalf of the United Fruit Company, aka Chiquita Brands
International. This time, they are trying to steal the lunch money from those who can
defend themselves. We aren't going to sit on our couch watching this war on TV, because
we will watch it out our front windows.
"... With over 10,000 dead, the conflict in Ukraine is a humanitarian travesty but of minimal security consequence to America and Europe. Indeed, Kiev's status never was key to Europe's status. An integral part of the Soviet Union and before that the Russian Empire, Ukraine turned into an unexpected bonus for the allies by seceding from the Soviet Union, greatly diminishing the latter's population and territory. Russia's seizure of Crimea and battle in the Donbass destabilized an already semi-failed state, but did not materially alter the European balance of power. Or demonstrate anything other than Moscow's brutal yet limited ambitions. ..."
"... At the same time, transferring lethal arms would divide the U.S. from European nations, many of which oppose further confrontation with Russia, especially over Ukraine. Brussels already bridled at Congress' new sanctions legislation, which passed without consulting the Europeans and targeted European firms. If Moscow responds with escalation, Washington may find no one behind it. ..."
"... Also noteworthy is the fragility of the Ukrainian state. Kiev's self-inflicted wounds are a more important cause than Russian pressure. The government is hobbled by divisions between East and West, violent neo-fascist forces, bitter political factionalism, economic failure, and pervasive corruption. The recent specter of former Georgian President and Ukrainian Governor Mikheil Saakashvili clambering across rooftops, escaping arrest, and railing against President Petro Poroshenko epitomized Ukraine's problems. Kiev, to put it mildly, is not a reliable military partner against its nuclear-armed neighbor. ..."
"... Doug Bandow is a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute and a former Special Assistant to President Ronald Reagan. He is the author of Foreign Follies: America's New Global Empire (Xulon). ..."
Most Americans were told Donald Trump won the presidential election last year. But his
policy toward Russia looks suspiciously like what a President Hillary Clinton would have
pursued. Exhibit A is the apparent decision to arm Ukraine against Russia in the proxy conflict
in the Donbass. This dunderheaded move will simply encourage Moscow to retaliate not only in
Ukraine but against U.S. interests elsewhere around the globe.
With over 10,000 dead, the conflict in Ukraine is a humanitarian travesty but of minimal
security consequence to America and Europe. Indeed, Kiev's status never was key to Europe's
status. An integral part of the Soviet Union and before that the Russian Empire, Ukraine turned
into an unexpected bonus for the allies by seceding from the Soviet Union, greatly diminishing
the latter's population and territory. Russia's seizure of Crimea and battle in the Donbass
destabilized an already semi-failed state, but did not materially alter the European balance of
power. Or demonstrate anything other than Moscow's brutal yet limited ambitions.
In fact, present allied policy makes continuation of the current conflict almost inevitable.
Newly released documents demonstrate that Soviet officials reasonably believed that releasing
their Warsaw Pact captives would not lead to NATO's expansion to Russia's border. Well, well.
Look what actually happened -- the very dramatic increase in tensions that George F. Kennan
predicted would occur. For Russia sees geographical space and buffer states as critical for its
security, and none are more important than Ukraine.
Expanding NATO, disregarding Moscow's historic interests in the Balkans, dismantling onetime
Slavic ally Serbia, aiding "color revolutions" that brought anti-Russian governments to power
along its border, announcing the intention of inducting both Georgia and Ukraine into the
alliance created to confront Moscow, and finally ostentatiously backing a street revolution
against a corrupt but elected leader friendly to Russia -- going to far as to discuss who
should rule after his planned ouster -- could not help but be viewed as hostile in Moscow. One
can easily imagine how Washington would react to similar events in Canada or Mexico.
Russia's response was unjustified but efficient and, most important, limited. Moscow grabbed
Crimea, the only part of Ukraine with a majority of Russian-speakers (who probably favored
joining Russia, though the subsequent referendum occurred in what was occupied Crimea). Moscow
further backed separatists in Eastern Ukraine, perhaps in hopes of grabbing territory or merely
bleeding Kiev.
Some Western responses were near hysteria, imagining a blitzkrieg attack on Ukraine,
conquering the country. The Baltic States saw themselves as the next targets. Poland remembered
its twentieth century conflicts with Moscow. At least one observer added Finland to Moscow's
potential target list. Others worried about intimidation of allied states, borders being
withdrawn, and challenges to the European order. Some afflicted with war fever feared an
attempt to reconstitute the Soviet Union and perhaps roll west from there.
None of which happened.
Perhaps President Vladimir Putin secretly was an Adolf Hitler-wannabe but was dissuaded by
the U.S. and NATO response. However, economic sanctions and military deployments were modest.
Assistance to Ukraine did not include lethal military aid. Most likely, Putin never intended to
start World War III.
Instead, he opportunistically took advantage of the opportunity to snatch Crimea, the
territory with the closest identification with Moscow, simultaneously safeguarding the latter's
major Black Sea base, and create a frozen conflict in the Donbass, effectively preventing
Ukraine's entry into NATO. Russia's activity there also gives him an opportunity to create
additional trouble for the U.S.
Moscow's policy is unpleasant for America and Europe, but only prevents the allies from
doing that which is not in their interest: inducting a security black hole into NATO. Even
before 2014, Ukraine was a political and economic mess. While independent it mattered little
for Western security, in NATO it would bring along all of its disputes and potential conflicts
with Russia, a touchy, nationalistic nuclear power.
What State Department called "enhanced defensive capabilities," which require congressional
approval, aren't likely to raise the price of the conflict enough to force Russia to back down.
The Putin regime has far more at stake in preserving its gains than the U.S. does in reversing
them. Moscow also is better able to escalate and is likely to consistently outbid the West:
Putin's advantages include greater interests, geographic closeness, and popular support. For
Ukraine more weapons would at most mean more fighting, with little additional advantage.
Indeed, the plan to arm Kiev with weapons, especially if anti-tank missiles are included, as
news reports indicate, would risk turning the Donbass conflict from cool to warm--and perhaps
more. Ukraine already joins Russia in failing to implement the Minsk Agreement. Kiev would not
only be better armed, but might believe that it enjoyed an implicit guarantee from Washington,
which in turn would have more at stake and thus be less inclined to abandon its new
"investment." Then what if Moscow escalated? In 2014 the Putin government deployed Russian
military units to counter Ukrainian gains. Would Washington do likewise in response to
Moscow?
At the same time, transferring lethal arms would divide the U.S. from European nations,
many of which oppose further confrontation with Russia, especially over Ukraine. Brussels
already bridled at Congress' new sanctions legislation, which passed without consulting the
Europeans and targeted European firms. If Moscow responds with escalation, Washington may find
no one behind it.
Providing lethal weapons would almost certainly encourage the
Ukrainians to press for even heavier arms and escalate the fighting, as well as discourage them
from negotiating a settlement. U.S. officials refer to the weapons as defensive, but their
capabilities are not so easily compartmentalized. Said Gen. Joseph Dunford, chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff said the "ability to stop armored vehicles would be essential for them to
protect themselves." True, but the ability to disable tanks is useful on offense as well as
defense. There has been little movement in the battle line over the last couple of years. New
U.S. weapons aren't necessary to preserve the status quo. Rather, they would most help Ukraine
press harder for a military solution.
Does Kiev want to accept a compromise peace or fight on? Obama Pentagon official Michael
Carpenter said providing weapons "will be a huge boost of support to Ukraine." Moscow is not
concerned about Kiev's military potential. Russia is concerned that the U.S. and Europe say
they intend to induct Ukraine into NATO. The closer the military ties grow between America and
Ukraine, the greater Moscow's incentive to keep the conflict going. Russia also has
opportunities to retaliate against American interests elsewhere. Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey
Ryabkov said: "The United States crossed the line in a sense" and "may lead to new victims in a
country that is neighboring us." America, he added, was an "accomplice in fueling war."
That might be just talk, but Russia can provide aid, sell arms, offer political backing, and
give economic assistance in ways that hamper U.S. activities. Afghanistan, Cuba, Egypt, Iran,
North Korea, Syria, and Venezuela all provide opportunities for Russian mischief. Moscow could
refuse to back additional sanctions on Pyongyang or even provide the latter with S-400
anti-aircraft missiles.
Although limited resources constrain Moscow, politics encourages a tough response. Putin is
running for reelection but has lost support because of the Russian Federation's economic
weakness. Nationalism remains one of his strongest issues; an assault by America on Russian
interests would offer him a means to rally public support.
Also noteworthy is the fragility of the Ukrainian state. Kiev's self-inflicted wounds
are a more important cause than Russian pressure. The government is hobbled by divisions
between East and West, violent neo-fascist forces, bitter political factionalism, economic
failure, and pervasive corruption. The recent specter of former Georgian President and
Ukrainian Governor Mikheil Saakashvili clambering across rooftops, escaping arrest, and railing
against President Petro Poroshenko epitomized Ukraine's problems. Kiev, to put it mildly, is
not a reliable military partner against its nuclear-armed neighbor.
A better approach would be to negotiate for Russian de-escalation by offering to take NATO
membership for Ukraine (and Georgia) off the table. In fact, expanding the alliance is not in
America's interest: the U.S., not, say, Luxembourg, is the country expected to back up NATO's
defense promises. And neither Kiev nor Tbilisi warrants the risk of war with a great power,
especially one armed with nukes. Eliminating that possibility would reduce Moscow's incentive
to maintain a frozen conflict in the Donbass. Backing away also would create the possibility of
reversing military build-ups by both sides elsewhere, especially around Poland and the Baltic
States.
Washington and Moscow have no core security interests in conflict with each other,
especially in Ukraine. Instead of turning a peripheral security issue into a potential military
clash with Moscow, Washington should seek to trade military disengagement from Ukraine for
Russian acceptance of that nation's territorial integrity. Moscow might not agree, but the
Trump administration won't know unless it makes the offer. Right now, it doesn't seem to care
to even try. Quite the contrary.
Doug Bandow is a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute and a former Special Assistant
to President Ronald Reagan. He is the author of Foreign Follies: America's New Global Empire
(Xulon).
"I hope I'm wrong, but there's a war coming," Gen. Robert Neller told the Marines on
Thursday, according to
Military.com . "You're in a fight here, an informational fight, a political fight, by
your presence."
https://www.washingtonpost....
Green Party presidential Candidate Jill Stein is being investigated by the Senate Intelligence
(sic) Committee for "Russian connections."
What has brought Russiagate to Jill Stein? The answer is that she attended the 10th
Anniversary RT dinner in Moscow as did the notorious "Russian collaborator" US General Michael
Flynn. RT is a news organization, a far better one than exists in the West, but if you were one
of the many accomplished people who attended the anniversary dinner, you are
regarded by Republican Senator Richard Burr from North Carolina as a possible Kremlin
agent.
What is going on here? Stein sums it up: "we must guard against the potential for these
investigations to be used to intimidate and silence principled opposition to the political
establishment."
Here I sit considering two interesting invitations. One is to speak at the main Plenary
Session of the Moscow Economic Forum in April. The other is to speak at the Summit for Global
Challenges in the former Soviet Republic of Kazakhstan in May. The very minute I accept, the
NSA will notify its mouthpieces, the New York Times, PropOrNot's promoter the Washington Post,
Senator Burr, and Special Russiagate Prosecutor Robert Mueller. Would I be renditioned to
Israel or Eqypt or Saudi Arabia and tortured until I confessed that I was a member of the
Trump-Flynn-Jill Stein Kremlin spy network?
As the United States is no longer a free country governed by a Constitution that protects
civil liberty, that possibility cannot be discounted. What is for sure is that if I accept
these invitations, the US Establishment will discredit my voice when I write about US/Russia
relations. Indeed, that was the intention of the PropOrNot Washington Post story that attacked
200 truth-tellers as "Russian agents/dupes." Many of those so attacked have experienced slower
growth in their readership. After all, Americans and Europeans are insouciant. They are
actually sufficiently stupid to believe what governments and print and TV media tell them.
I, too, was invited to RT's 10th Anniversary celebration in Moscow. Imagining the
celebration would be grand balls in palaces and myself, decked out in white tie with my French
Legion of Honor dancing with those beautiful RT women, I almost accepted. But I learned in time
that the event was conferences and speeches and decided to forego a Moscow winter.
Otherwise I would be in the dock with Trump, Flynn, and Jill Stein and whomever the
Washington Gestapo settles on next.
Russiagate is an orchestrated hoax. That has now become so apparent that even insouciant
Americans are catching on, even those low IQ ones who sit in front of TV news. I often
disparage Congress, but here is a member who is admirable, Republican Representative Jim Jordan
from Ohio.
Watch the
short video and delight in the power and force with which Rep. Jordan goes after the piece
of crap US deputy attorney general the Twitter President has in office. When the President of
the United States has to rely on a congressman to call out the Justice Department and the FBI
for its criminal actions and for its treason to overthrow both democracy and the elected
government of the United States, you know we have elected a president who is too scared to
defend himself. Roger Stone is correct, if Trump were a real man, Mueller, Comey, Hillary,
Obama, and the rest of the criminal scum would be arrested, prosecuted and sentenced for their
vast crimes, crimes that exceed those of anyone in prison today.
But Trump is nothing but talk. No action.
How much longer can I give interviews to Russian and Iranian media before the Washington
Gestapo gives me a midnight knock on my door.
Whatever America is, it is not a free country.
If Trump wants to make America great again, he must shatter the CIA, FBI, NSA, and media
into a thousand pieces. The concentrated power that President Eisenhower warned Americans about
in 1961 is far too great for liberty to survive.
Instead, the weakest president in American history actually read the speech handed to him by
the ruling neocon military/security complex and declared Russia and China inimical to
Washington's interests.
Americans are too insouciant to understand it, but this was a declaration of war against two
countries, which when combined are more than a match for Washington.
Neither Russia nor China, much less an alliance between them, will accept Washington's
hegemony.
If the hubris-crazed fools in Washington persist, we are all going to die.
"... With over 10,000 dead, the conflict in Ukraine is a humanitarian travesty but of minimal security consequence to America and Europe. Indeed, Kiev's status never was key to Europe's status. An integral part of the Soviet Union and before that the Russian Empire, Ukraine turned into an unexpected bonus for the allies by seceding from the Soviet Union, greatly diminishing the latter's population and territory. Russia's seizure of Crimea and battle in the Donbass destabilized an already semi-failed state, but did not materially alter the European balance of power. Or demonstrate anything other than Moscow's brutal yet limited ambitions. ..."
"... At the same time, transferring lethal arms would divide the U.S. from European nations, many of which oppose further confrontation with Russia, especially over Ukraine. Brussels already bridled at Congress' new sanctions legislation, which passed without consulting the Europeans and targeted European firms. If Moscow responds with escalation, Washington may find no one behind it. ..."
"... Also noteworthy is the fragility of the Ukrainian state. Kiev's self-inflicted wounds are a more important cause than Russian pressure. The government is hobbled by divisions between East and West, violent neo-fascist forces, bitter political factionalism, economic failure, and pervasive corruption. The recent specter of former Georgian President and Ukrainian Governor Mikheil Saakashvili clambering across rooftops, escaping arrest, and railing against President Petro Poroshenko epitomized Ukraine's problems. Kiev, to put it mildly, is not a reliable military partner against its nuclear-armed neighbor. ..."
"... Doug Bandow is a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute and a former Special Assistant to President Ronald Reagan. He is the author of Foreign Follies: America's New Global Empire (Xulon). ..."
Most Americans were told Donald Trump won the presidential election last year. But his
policy toward Russia looks suspiciously like what a President Hillary Clinton would have
pursued. Exhibit A is the apparent decision to arm Ukraine against Russia in the proxy conflict
in the Donbass. This dunderheaded move will simply encourage Moscow to retaliate not only in
Ukraine but against U.S. interests elsewhere around the globe.
With over 10,000 dead, the conflict in Ukraine is a humanitarian travesty but of minimal
security consequence to America and Europe. Indeed, Kiev's status never was key to Europe's
status. An integral part of the Soviet Union and before that the Russian Empire, Ukraine turned
into an unexpected bonus for the allies by seceding from the Soviet Union, greatly diminishing
the latter's population and territory. Russia's seizure of Crimea and battle in the Donbass
destabilized an already semi-failed state, but did not materially alter the European balance of
power. Or demonstrate anything other than Moscow's brutal yet limited ambitions.
In fact, present allied policy makes continuation of the current conflict almost inevitable.
Newly released documents demonstrate that Soviet officials reasonably believed that releasing
their Warsaw Pact captives would not lead to NATO's expansion to Russia's border. Well, well.
Look what actually happened -- the very dramatic increase in tensions that George F. Kennan
predicted would occur. For Russia sees geographical space and buffer states as critical for its
security, and none are more important than Ukraine.
Expanding NATO, disregarding Moscow's historic interests in the Balkans, dismantling onetime
Slavic ally Serbia, aiding "color revolutions" that brought anti-Russian governments to power
along its border, announcing the intention of inducting both Georgia and Ukraine into the
alliance created to confront Moscow, and finally ostentatiously backing a street revolution
against a corrupt but elected leader friendly to Russia -- going to far as to discuss who
should rule after his planned ouster -- could not help but be viewed as hostile in Moscow. One
can easily imagine how Washington would react to similar events in Canada or Mexico.
Russia's response was unjustified but efficient and, most important, limited. Moscow grabbed
Crimea, the only part of Ukraine with a majority of Russian-speakers (who probably favored
joining Russia, though the subsequent referendum occurred in what was occupied Crimea). Moscow
further backed separatists in Eastern Ukraine, perhaps in hopes of grabbing territory or merely
bleeding Kiev.
Some Western responses were near hysteria, imagining a blitzkrieg attack on Ukraine,
conquering the country. The Baltic States saw themselves as the next targets. Poland remembered
its twentieth century conflicts with Moscow. At least one observer added Finland to Moscow's
potential target list. Others worried about intimidation of allied states, borders being
withdrawn, and challenges to the European order. Some afflicted with war fever feared an
attempt to reconstitute the Soviet Union and perhaps roll west from there.
None of which happened.
Perhaps President Vladimir Putin secretly was an Adolf Hitler-wannabe but was dissuaded by
the U.S. and NATO response. However, economic sanctions and military deployments were modest.
Assistance to Ukraine did not include lethal military aid. Most likely, Putin never intended to
start World War III.
Instead, he opportunistically took advantage of the opportunity to snatch Crimea, the
territory with the closest identification with Moscow, simultaneously safeguarding the latter's
major Black Sea base, and create a frozen conflict in the Donbass, effectively preventing
Ukraine's entry into NATO. Russia's activity there also gives him an opportunity to create
additional trouble for the U.S.
Moscow's policy is unpleasant for America and Europe, but only prevents the allies from
doing that which is not in their interest: inducting a security black hole into NATO. Even
before 2014, Ukraine was a political and economic mess. While independent it mattered little
for Western security, in NATO it would bring along all of its disputes and potential conflicts
with Russia, a touchy, nationalistic nuclear power.
What State Department called "enhanced defensive capabilities," which require congressional
approval, aren't likely to raise the price of the conflict enough to force Russia to back down.
The Putin regime has far more at stake in preserving its gains than the U.S. does in reversing
them. Moscow also is better able to escalate and is likely to consistently outbid the West:
Putin's advantages include greater interests, geographic closeness, and popular support. For
Ukraine more weapons would at most mean more fighting, with little additional advantage.
Indeed, the plan to arm Kiev with weapons, especially if anti-tank missiles are included, as
news reports indicate, would risk turning the Donbass conflict from cool to warm--and perhaps
more. Ukraine already joins Russia in failing to implement the Minsk Agreement. Kiev would not
only be better armed, but might believe that it enjoyed an implicit guarantee from Washington,
which in turn would have more at stake and thus be less inclined to abandon its new
"investment." Then what if Moscow escalated? In 2014 the Putin government deployed Russian
military units to counter Ukrainian gains. Would Washington do likewise in response to
Moscow?
At the same time, transferring lethal arms would divide the U.S. from European nations,
many of which oppose further confrontation with Russia, especially over Ukraine. Brussels
already bridled at Congress' new sanctions legislation, which passed without consulting the
Europeans and targeted European firms. If Moscow responds with escalation, Washington may find
no one behind it.
Providing lethal weapons would almost certainly encourage the
Ukrainians to press for even heavier arms and escalate the fighting, as well as discourage them
from negotiating a settlement. U.S. officials refer to the weapons as defensive, but their
capabilities are not so easily compartmentalized. Said Gen. Joseph Dunford, chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff said the "ability to stop armored vehicles would be essential for them to
protect themselves." True, but the ability to disable tanks is useful on offense as well as
defense. There has been little movement in the battle line over the last couple of years. New
U.S. weapons aren't necessary to preserve the status quo. Rather, they would most help Ukraine
press harder for a military solution.
Does Kiev want to accept a compromise peace or fight on? Obama Pentagon official Michael
Carpenter said providing weapons "will be a huge boost of support to Ukraine." Moscow is not
concerned about Kiev's military potential. Russia is concerned that the U.S. and Europe say
they intend to induct Ukraine into NATO. The closer the military ties grow between America and
Ukraine, the greater Moscow's incentive to keep the conflict going. Russia also has
opportunities to retaliate against American interests elsewhere. Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey
Ryabkov said: "The United States crossed the line in a sense" and "may lead to new victims in a
country that is neighboring us." America, he added, was an "accomplice in fueling war."
That might be just talk, but Russia can provide aid, sell arms, offer political backing, and
give economic assistance in ways that hamper U.S. activities. Afghanistan, Cuba, Egypt, Iran,
North Korea, Syria, and Venezuela all provide opportunities for Russian mischief. Moscow could
refuse to back additional sanctions on Pyongyang or even provide the latter with S-400
anti-aircraft missiles.
Although limited resources constrain Moscow, politics encourages a tough response. Putin is
running for reelection but has lost support because of the Russian Federation's economic
weakness. Nationalism remains one of his strongest issues; an assault by America on Russian
interests would offer him a means to rally public support.
Also noteworthy is the fragility of the Ukrainian state. Kiev's self-inflicted wounds
are a more important cause than Russian pressure. The government is hobbled by divisions
between East and West, violent neo-fascist forces, bitter political factionalism, economic
failure, and pervasive corruption. The recent specter of former Georgian President and
Ukrainian Governor Mikheil Saakashvili clambering across rooftops, escaping arrest, and railing
against President Petro Poroshenko epitomized Ukraine's problems. Kiev, to put it mildly, is
not a reliable military partner against its nuclear-armed neighbor.
A better approach would be to negotiate for Russian de-escalation by offering to take NATO
membership for Ukraine (and Georgia) off the table. In fact, expanding the alliance is not in
America's interest: the U.S., not, say, Luxembourg, is the country expected to back up NATO's
defense promises. And neither Kiev nor Tbilisi warrants the risk of war with a great power,
especially one armed with nukes. Eliminating that possibility would reduce Moscow's incentive
to maintain a frozen conflict in the Donbass. Backing away also would create the possibility of
reversing military build-ups by both sides elsewhere, especially around Poland and the Baltic
States.
Washington and Moscow have no core security interests in conflict with each other,
especially in Ukraine. Instead of turning a peripheral security issue into a potential military
clash with Moscow, Washington should seek to trade military disengagement from Ukraine for
Russian acceptance of that nation's territorial integrity. Moscow might not agree, but the
Trump administration won't know unless it makes the offer. Right now, it doesn't seem to care
to even try. Quite the contrary.
Doug Bandow is a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute and a former Special Assistant
to President Ronald Reagan. He is the author of Foreign Follies: America's New Global Empire
(Xulon).
"I hope I'm wrong, but there's a war coming," Gen. Robert Neller told the Marines on
Thursday, according to
Military.com . "You're in a fight here, an informational fight, a political fight, by
your presence."
https://www.washingtonpost....
Green Party presidential Candidate Jill Stein is being investigated by the Senate Intelligence
(sic) Committee for "Russian connections."
What has brought Russiagate to Jill Stein? The answer is that she attended the 10th
Anniversary RT dinner in Moscow as did the notorious "Russian collaborator" US General Michael
Flynn. RT is a news organization, a far better one than exists in the West, but if you were one
of the many accomplished people who attended the anniversary dinner, you are
regarded by Republican Senator Richard Burr from North Carolina as a possible Kremlin
agent.
What is going on here? Stein sums it up: "we must guard against the potential for these
investigations to be used to intimidate and silence principled opposition to the political
establishment."
Here I sit considering two interesting invitations. One is to speak at the main Plenary
Session of the Moscow Economic Forum in April. The other is to speak at the Summit for Global
Challenges in the former Soviet Republic of Kazakhstan in May. The very minute I accept, the
NSA will notify its mouthpieces, the New York Times, PropOrNot's promoter the Washington Post,
Senator Burr, and Special Russiagate Prosecutor Robert Mueller. Would I be renditioned to
Israel or Eqypt or Saudi Arabia and tortured until I confessed that I was a member of the
Trump-Flynn-Jill Stein Kremlin spy network?
As the United States is no longer a free country governed by a Constitution that protects
civil liberty, that possibility cannot be discounted. What is for sure is that if I accept
these invitations, the US Establishment will discredit my voice when I write about US/Russia
relations. Indeed, that was the intention of the PropOrNot Washington Post story that attacked
200 truth-tellers as "Russian agents/dupes." Many of those so attacked have experienced slower
growth in their readership. After all, Americans and Europeans are insouciant. They are
actually sufficiently stupid to believe what governments and print and TV media tell them.
I, too, was invited to RT's 10th Anniversary celebration in Moscow. Imagining the
celebration would be grand balls in palaces and myself, decked out in white tie with my French
Legion of Honor dancing with those beautiful RT women, I almost accepted. But I learned in time
that the event was conferences and speeches and decided to forego a Moscow winter.
Otherwise I would be in the dock with Trump, Flynn, and Jill Stein and whomever the
Washington Gestapo settles on next.
Russiagate is an orchestrated hoax. That has now become so apparent that even insouciant
Americans are catching on, even those low IQ ones who sit in front of TV news. I often
disparage Congress, but here is a member who is admirable, Republican Representative Jim Jordan
from Ohio.
Watch the
short video and delight in the power and force with which Rep. Jordan goes after the piece
of crap US deputy attorney general the Twitter President has in office. When the President of
the United States has to rely on a congressman to call out the Justice Department and the FBI
for its criminal actions and for its treason to overthrow both democracy and the elected
government of the United States, you know we have elected a president who is too scared to
defend himself. Roger Stone is correct, if Trump were a real man, Mueller, Comey, Hillary,
Obama, and the rest of the criminal scum would be arrested, prosecuted and sentenced for their
vast crimes, crimes that exceed those of anyone in prison today.
But Trump is nothing but talk. No action.
How much longer can I give interviews to Russian and Iranian media before the Washington
Gestapo gives me a midnight knock on my door.
Whatever America is, it is not a free country.
If Trump wants to make America great again, he must shatter the CIA, FBI, NSA, and media
into a thousand pieces. The concentrated power that President Eisenhower warned Americans about
in 1961 is far too great for liberty to survive.
Instead, the weakest president in American history actually read the speech handed to him by
the ruling neocon military/security complex and declared Russia and China inimical to
Washington's interests.
Americans are too insouciant to understand it, but this was a declaration of war against two
countries, which when combined are more than a match for Washington.
Neither Russia nor China, much less an alliance between them, will accept Washington's
hegemony.
If the hubris-crazed fools in Washington persist, we are all going to die.
The state Department has approved the delivery to the Ukrainian army of modified 50
calibre Barrett sniper rifles, "Model M107A"
It may be related to the Model 82A1®/M107®, but the M107A1 is far from a simple
evolution. Driven by the demands of combat, every component was re-engineered to be lighter
yet stronger. Designed to be used with a suppressor, this rifle allows you to combine
signature reduction capabilities with the flawless reliability of the original Barrett M107,
but with a weight reduction of 5 pounds. Advanced design and manufacturing make the M107A1
more precise than ever.
"... Its not the military. Military is O.K. more or less. It is the Administration that is the headless chicken. ..."
"... In Vietnam there was no consideration of terrain. That was bigger mistake than Germans were not considering Russian winter. Concerning Somalia to this day I was not able to figure out what Carter wanted there. ..."
"... Than there was Iran that suddenly left the US sphere of influence and Bush l just could not tolerate such an impertinence. He hired Sadam to do the job. Everything what happened after is of this thoughtless act. Result is that Levant is now totally under Iran's influence. ..."
"... US simply never was able to come up with comprehensive END FOCUSED policy using military. Total irresponsibility indicating failed administrative decisions. ..."
"... Here's another hint: when you referred to "Carter" -- that was meant to indicate former Secretary of Defense Ashton ("Ash") Carter, not former President Jimmy Carter. ..."
"... The neocon infiltrators into high levels of our government do not care how headless the chicken appears as it does its dance, or how silly the dog appears as it is wagged by its tail. Their concern is primarily that they cannot be held responsible and thus they always distance themselves from the military decisions. ..."
"... I agree that "It is not the military. The military is okay more or less." It's okay in that it still attempts to function as it should, that is, as subject to civilian control, per the Constitution of the United States. The top brass of the Pentagon can be compared to the Wehrmacht commanders during World War II, they always remained nominally loyal to Hitler no matter how idiotic might be Hitler's instructions. Metaphorically, (((Neocons))) === Hitler ..."
In a Washington politically riven in ways not seen since the pre-Civil War era, take hope. Despite everything you've read, bipartisanship
is not dead. On one issue, congressional Democrats and Republicans, as well as Donald Trump, all speak with a single resounding
voice, with, in fact, unmatched unanimity and fervor as they stretch hands across the aisle in a spirit of cooperation. Perhaps you've
already guessed, but I'm referring to the Pentagon budget. By
staggering
majorities , both houses of Congress just passed an almost
$700 billion defense
bill, more money than even President Trump had requested and he's already happily signed it.
And Americans generally seem to partake of the same spirit. After all, while esteem for other American institutions like, uh,
Congress has fallen radically in these years,
the U.S. military hasn't lost a step. Last June, for instance, Gallup's pollsters found that public confidence in U.S. institutions
generally had dropped to a dismal 32%, but a soaring
73%
of Americans had the highest possible confidence in the military, which means that Donald Trump's decision to surround himself with
three generals as secretary of defense, White House chief of staff, and national security adviser was undoubtedly a popular one.
In a similar vein, it's striking that America's war on terror, now entering its 17th dismal year and still
expanding , and the
military that wages it remain essentially
beyond
criticism or
protest
. It hardly seems to matter that, in this century of constant warfare across significant parts of the planet, that military has yet
to bring home a real victory of any sort.
Who cares? That military is, by now, a distinctly Teflon outfit to which no criticism sticks, even through it and the rest of
the national security state swallow
stunning amounts of taxpayer dollars as if there were no tomorrow, while the Pentagon experiences
cost overruns of every kind for its weapons systems, has proven
incapable
of auditing itself (ever!), and recently couldn't even account for
44,000
(yes, 44,000!) of its troops deployed somewhere in the imperium, though who knows where. No wonder Donald Trump, a man of no fixed
beliefs (except about himself), but with a finely tuned sense of what might be popular with his base, has
loosed that
military from many of the already modest bounds within which it's fought its largely losing wars of these last years, and seems to
be leaving its generals (and the
CIA ) to do their escalatory damnedest from
Afghanistan
to Niger ,
Syria to
Somalia .
With all of this in mind, as another year in which permanent war is the barely noticed background hum of American life, I asked
TomDispatch regular U.S. Army Major Danny Sjursen, author of
Ghost Riders of Baghdad
, to assess American war in 2017 and consider just where we're headed.
America's Wars Yet More of More of the Same?
Danny Sjursen December 19, 2017 2,700 Words (Republished from
TomDispatch by permission of author or representative)
Its not the military. Military is O.K. more or less. It is the Administration that is the headless chicken.
In
Vietnam there was no consideration of terrain. That was bigger mistake than Germans were not considering Russian winter.
Concerning Somalia to this day I was not able to figure out what Carter wanted there.
Than there was Iran that suddenly left the US sphere of influence and Bush l just could not tolerate such an impertinence.
He hired Sadam to do the job. Everything what happened after is of this thoughtless act. Result is that Levant is now totally
under Iran's influence.
US simply never was able to come up with comprehensive END FOCUSED policy using military. Total irresponsibility indicating
failed administrative decisions.
Sure, US policy is FUBAR, but could you explain what you're talking about, and why you're not attaching the wrong presidents
to these countries/events? (Are you maybe referring to when GHW Bush was at CIA?)
Here's another hint: when you referred to "Carter" -- that was meant to indicate former Secretary of Defense Ashton ("Ash")
Carter, not former President Jimmy Carter.
I don't know whether you are deliberately sowing seeds of confusion, or what?
Anyway, when you start out with "It is the Administration that is the headless chicken," you seem to have missed the central
theme of Sjursen's article -- that one administration or another, it's the same idiocy. Obviously, the "headless chicken" is an
act, a ruse. Behind it all, there's a continuity: there's a method in the madness. The method proceeds from the neocon subversion,
if not total domination, of the policy-making organs of the United States government (e.g., the NSC), which formulate the "civilian"
strategy directives that the military (Joint Chiefs) must follow, per force and per the Constitution. The point that should be
understood or inferred is that the continuity that Sjursen notes can only be explained by a trans-administration organ at the
top of strategic-global policy-making, which means the National Security Council (NSC).
The neocon infiltrators into high levels of our government do not care how headless the chicken appears as it does its
dance, or how silly the dog appears as it is wagged by its tail. Their concern is primarily that they cannot be held responsible
and thus they always distance themselves from the military decisions.
I agree that "It is not the military. The military is okay more or less." It's okay in that it still attempts to function
as it should, that is, as subject to civilian control, per the Constitution of the United States. The top brass of the Pentagon
can be compared to the Wehrmacht commanders during World War II, they always remained nominally loyal to Hitler no matter how
idiotic might be Hitler's instructions. Metaphorically, (((Neocons))) === Hitler
As reported by the permanent representative of the International Monetary Fund in the
Ukraine, Jost Longman, the Kiev authorities should increase Ukrainian gas tariffs to the level
of import parity. Longman argues that an increase in gas prices will have a positive effect on
the development of the free market and will teach the Ukrainians to use natural gas
economically. "In the end, the final goal is the implementation of a free gas market. On the
way to this, it is important to continue to adjust the price of gas in accordance with the
price of imports", said Longman. "One price for all types of consumer also eliminates the space
for corruptio," he added.
"... I'd like to believe either the Repubs or Dems were the answer, except both are near unanimous in their support for the military industrial complex and its expanding wars. Note the 98-2 vote to make Russia a permanent enemy. I believe the resistors were bipartisan, lonely as they are in either party, in reality separate branches of an imperial War Party. ..."
"... Let me be the dink who reminds you: Peak Oil ..."
"... As a clever newspaper writer said about Jesse Ventura: Jesse is a lot smarter than most folks think he is, but not nearly as smart as he thinks he is. Like Jesse, Trump is smart enough to avoid unnecessary war. However, war may just become "necessary" when the heat of his Russia investigation becomes unbearable, and Trump needs the ultimate distraction. When (not if) that happens, either North Korea or Iran will be in trouble -- perhaps both. Millions will most likely die, billions of dollars will be spent, and the US will create an entirely new generation of terrorists. This will not end well. ..."
"... EngineerScotty wrote: "The foreign policy of a President Hillary Clinton wouldn't be the amateur hour that we've gotten so far with Trump" No, it would be the ruthlessly effective professionalism of the reset with Russia and the ouster of Qaddafi. /sarc She wanted and wants Assad deposed. How well would that have gone? ..."
"... "In the meantime, Frack Baby Frack! The less oil we have to import from there, Venezuela, or anyplace crazy the better." That would be sane. But the elites have decided to export it at a cut rate, to undermine Russia as the supplier in Europe, in order to foment regime change by crashing the Russian economy. Why did you think we had such low fuel prices all of a sudden? ..."
"... No, the fuel extracted from American soil does not accrue to the benefit of the American people, but to the profits and plans of elites ..."
"... That would be sane. But the elites have decided to export it at a cut rate, to undermine Russia as the supplier in Europe, in order to foment regime change by crashing the Russian economy. Why did you think we had such low fuel prices all of a sudden? ..."
"... No, the fuel extracted from American soil does not accrue to the benefit of the American people, but to the profits and plans of elites. ..."
"... Oil obtained by fracking is far more expensive to produce than oil obtained by simply drilling a well in the Arabian Desert and quickly finding a gusher. The US can meet its domestic needs, but isn't that great of a net exporter -- prices have to be sufficiently high before high-volume production becomes cost-effective. ..."
"... Noah and Engineer Scotty -- There is a reasonable compromise. Both of you are right. Trump is a disaster and we know Clinton was terrible. There is no point in arguing about whether she would be worse. I happen to think In some ways she wouldn't be as bad. She wouldn't be engaged in stupid twitter fights with dictators. But she might be better at leading us into some stupid war in Syria. Trump will stumble into some war with no support. Clinton would have had lots of support for whatever mindlessly stupid bloodbath she wanted to start. ..."
"... One of my biggest concerns about Trump's foreign policy–and a major difference from how Hillary would have governed–is his utter disdain for diplomacy. As noted, he (and Tillerson) have been busy setting the State Department ablaze, and many, many, many seasoned diplomats (career civil servants, not political appointees) have left Foggy Bottom, some of their own accord, some not. Some Trump defenders claim this is part of "draining the swamp", and many critics claim this is a purge of anyone not loyal to Trump personally–and these two claims may be opposite sides of the same coin. ..."
Trump won't get dragged into war, although his conniving nature may try to make it look like
that if it serves some ulterior motive of his. Trump will race on his own volition (not get
dragged by others) to war because he's already been chomping at the bit for war as evident in
how he's been baiting Iran and N. Korea alike, just as Bush baited Saddam Huessein, then bait
and switched Osama Bin Laden for Saddam. So if not war with one (Iran), then with the other
(N. Korea), or with both.
Why? Because like all Republican politicians, Trump's a businessman and proud of it,
(Pride goeth before destruction and a haughty spirit before a fall.) And because war is good
for American business, a lesson that was learned from WWII from which was created the
military-industrial-complex and the Permanent War Economy under which we've lived ever
since.
That bit's key to understanding the whole unwavering GOP attack on social services and
desire to deregulate and privatize everything, not because of evil "socialism" as the
Republican constituency is hypnotized with propaganda into believing, but because there's no
money to be made in government expenditures otherwise. The whole GOP agenda has been and is
about public expense for private gain. All the blather about shrinking the government is
smokescreen. The real agenda is about directing all government spending towards private
contractors with none wasted on things like social services, medicare, or Social
Security.
Economic aspects of politics can't be ignored and separated from social aspects of
politics which is how conservatism in America has helped create the current political mess,
by turning a blind eye and dittohead to economic matters in order to push the chosen,
preferred social agenda.
As Coolidge said, "The business of America is business." So since the US is ruled by money
of markets, there can be no getting one's moral back up and all Jesus over social immorality,
only to ignore the immorality of the marketplace and thereby fail to push for a moral economy
along with a moral society. Such misidentification of the problem will only result in missing
the mark, in inappropriate rather than on the mark effective solutions to problems.
Trump is simply a braggart who likes to exaggerate by talking in superlatives, so it's
fitting that Trump ran on the GOP ticket, because he's but another child of the Father of
Lies, who superlatively lies about his wealth being billions instead of millions to swell his
pride in being a mammon worshipper, and going to war is and will be as it certainly has been
part and parcel of such hubris.
To be fair, the Saudi dictators have always been best friends with America's elites –
think Bandar Bush, the grounding of all air traffic in the United States after 9/11, except
the Saudi evacuation planes spiriting Saudi royals out of the country so they could not be
questioned. And there is the locus of the Likud Israeli party friendship with the Saudis, and
Trump is certainly nothing if not onside with his good friend, the Israeli PM.
I'd like to believe either the Repubs or Dems were the answer, except both are near unanimous
in their support for the military industrial complex and its expanding wars. Note the 98-2
vote to make Russia a permanent enemy. I believe the resistors were bipartisan, lonely as
they are in either party, in reality separate branches of an imperial War Party.
Make no mistake: if there is going to be an attack on Iran by Americans, it is not because
MbS wants it, it is because the Americans love war.
I am convinced that most (some 90%) Americans are open or closeted
Neo-cons/liberal-interventionists/war-hawks. Some are shamelessly and openly so (John
Bolton), but many are so without showing it or even being aware of it. The hawk in them is
restlessly waiting for an opening, an excuse, to come out and proclaim what they have ever
been
Bush 41 dragged us into a coalition war over Kuwait. Clinton dragged us into a coalition war
in the Balkans. Bush 43 dragged us into a war in Iraq. Obama dragged us into a secret war
when he destabilized Syria and Lybia, which unleashed ISIS. All for the right reasons, of
course (sarcasm).
You might be right, but I fail to see how that would be different than the last 30
years.
BTW, Politico has a story about how the Obama Administration shot down DEA drug trafficking
investigations of Hezbollah to support the Iran nuclear deal. I would like to read your
comments about it, particularly in light of the comments you made above about Trump.
Parents always tell kids to choose their friends carefully. With pals like Netanyahu and the
Saudi bogus "crown prince", Trump clearly didn't follow that advice.
That video looks like a Nazi's wet dream, I mean the undiluted fascistic element is
overwhelming, it's like getting a peek at an alternate dimension, not even a society, of pure
militaristic "hathos" festooned by a limitless cloud of lies.
The worst of humanity is engrafted in that video, by which, I mean the unalloyed lying
stupidity of war: imperialist expansionism, nationalist revanchism, and plutocratic
supremacism, haloed by the grey mist–the dehumanzing pixelated mist–of the most
dehumanizing endeavor man can undertake, for the most dehumanizing of modern causes:
fascistic capitalism, the kind that fueled WWII (In this latter case, under the guise of
religious supremacism or religious survivalism, but, in any case, only an obvious guise as
far as the grotesque House of Saud is characteristically concerned).
Echoing Noah above, this doesn't appear to be a production of the Saudi government, but
having a contingent of the Saudi population gung-ho for a Sunni/Shi'a Ragnarok is concerning
in itself. Both KSA and Iran will fight each other to the last Yemeni before any direct
conflict arises.
This is the scenario that should be keeping us all up at night:
Fran Macadam: To be fair, the Saudi dictators have always been best friends with America's
elites – think Bandar Bush, the grounding of all air traffic in the United States after
9/11, except the Saudi evacuation planes spiriting Saudi royals out of the country so they
could not be questioned.
It wasn't the royals -- it was the bin Laden family itself. The people who knew Osama
best. I never understood why we didn't insists that, with all airplanes grounded, they had to
have a US Air Force pilot -- who then would have flown them to Gitmo for a sit-down on their
newly famous relative. Instead the highest levels of government -- how high did you have to
go to get permission to fly? -- broke into their busy schedules to be briefed and let them
go.
The whole thing still stinks. We really need to have an investigation into the role of
Saudi Arabia in American foreign policy; especially the Iraq Wars.
In the meantime, Frack Baby Frack! The less oil we have to import from there, Venezuela,
or anyplace crazy the better.
President Trump's new best friend, MBS, is going to get us dragged into a new war in the
region. Watch.
But her E-mails Good Thing the witch from Chappaqua isn't in the White House
ROTFLMAO!!!
If the Saudis are foolish enough to try that they will get their ass so thoroughly kicked
that "who were the Al Saud?" will a trivial pursuit question on par with "Who were the
Romanov's?" 10 years from now, and if the US is foolish enough to let them do that, watch the
Global Economy collapse as the Strait of Hormuz gets closed for a few years.
Dr Talon,
The best military in the Middle East is Hezbollah (Trained & equipped by the Iranian,
blooded and forged by the Israelis) the only thing they don't have is an air force. Let them
have a half way decent air wing, and they would be on par or better than the USMC.
Duke Leto,
All that beautiful hardware has to be put to good use, after all if you don't use it you
can't replace it. Think of all that beautiful money to be made in hardware replacement
Noah,
Trump also declined to support Kurdish independence, which the Israeli right supports
and would have undermined Iran (which has a restive Kurdish minority) and Iran ally
Iraq.
Supporting the Kurds would have pissed off his best buddy Erdogan, in that Turkey has the
largest Kurdish minority population of all the Middle Eastern countries (about 20% of
population) and the largest military in the Middle East. Not a good idea, especially if you
don't want them to become buddy buddy with their eastern neighbor.
Oh, did I mention that Saudi Arabia has a substantial Shiite minority (10 to 15% of the
population) who isn't exactly thrilled to live under Wahhabi rule.
Watching the Saudis (a country that has to import plumbers from South Asia because it's
below the dignity of the locals to be plumbers) getting their asses handed to them, watching
the Dumpster's poll rating jump up to the 80% mark before cratering down to 15%, watching the
Trump recession that would follow would almost be worth it if I didn't have to suffer the
consequences of "Real American's(TM)" idiocy. It would be almost as much fun as watching
Brexit.
And President Ted Cruz or Clinton would be different how?
It's a pretty safe assumption that a President Clinton would work to uphold the treaty her
predecessor signed with Iran. Cruz, like the rest of the GOP hawks, would probably (like
Trump) be actively working to undermine it and provoke Iran. She'd want more money for social
and infrastrucure spending, less for military.
Pavlos has it right. The GOP (and a lot of Democrats) think war is good for business and
are happy to funnel obscene amounts of money to the military-industrial complex under the
guise of "national security."
It depends on what you imply when saying that it has lit up Arab social media, Rod. "Damn
those Saudis are strong!" type of reaction means that social media are lit up. "LOL, what
sorry comedian a-holes those Saudis are!" type of reaction also means that social media are
lit up.
I can't decide if this truly 'government' backed or some Saudia wackos let their freak loose.
At least the wackos are going after Iran and not the US. It is probably really nothing than
an expensive Youtube comment but it does indicate that Saudia Arabia population really
desires War somewhere and somehow.
Although this is probably forgotten in 1 month, the Middle East appears to be following
similar paths as Europe in the 1900 – 1914. We have lots of secret Allies and treaties
with enormous tensions that is hungry for a battle.
The foreign policy of a President Hillary Clinton would probably be too hawkish for my
tastes–and certainly she wouldn't enjoy strong relations with Russia (given evidence,
in this hypothetical, that Putin was actively interfering in the election to support her
opponent)–but it wouldn't be the amateur hour that we've gotten so far with Trump.
Clinton would still have a functioning diplomatic corps, instead of sacking half the State
Department. She wouldn't be trading insults with foreign heads of state on Twitter. She'd
likely be not trying to undermine the Iran deal. And she'd not be performing fellatio on the
likes of Netanyaho, Ergodan, and MbS, as Trump has been eagerly doing.
Really. At what point does the "as bad as Trump's foreign policy has been, Clinton wudda
been worse" refrain stop? Trump is already the worst foreign policy president since
LBJ–he only needs a Vietnam War to his name to blow past him. And he has none of
Johnson's domestic achievements.
The last time an Arab dictator tried to attack the Iranians he could only get a draw that
bankrupted him and lead, by a series of second-order consequences, to his downfall.
The Iranians had just, when they were attacked by Iraq, had thier revolution and had
liquidated thier officer corps. Think about that. Iranians as polity may, for the most part,
dislike the rule of the clerics, but they are intensely patriotic and will fight to the last
man/woman to defend the Persian homeland. Underestimate them at your peril.
When Iran's proxies in Yemen -- the Houthis -- are launching missiles at airports and the
Royal Palace, I don't think this type video is very surprising and as propaganda goes really
a big deal. It is pretty low level saber rattling if it is a Saudi Government produc, or what
you would see a million times over among Americans if it is the work of just a bunch of young
Saudi yahoos. Oh, and MSAGA -- Make Saudi Arabia Great Again!
Israel has never fought side-by-side with the US in any of the wars it has sent the us to
fight [and die for and pay for] at the instigation of the settlers/occupiers.
Since the U.S. has never fought any wars for Israel, that makes the score 0:0 then.
But her E-mails Good Thing the witch from Chappaqua isn't in the White House
What ignorant drivel. Clinton is plenty hawkish (she cheered on Trump's April missile
strike on Assad, and urged him to go much further). Moreover, as I wrote above, this video
seems to be youthful fan fiction, not carrying any Saudi government imprimatur (let alone
endorsement from Trump). Rod is speculating that the US will eventually join Saudi Arabia in
a war against Iran, but Rod is no seer, whatever his other attributes.
Supporting the Kurds would have pissed off his best buddy Erdogan
Poppycock. Trump is hardly Erdogan's poodle. Trump gave heavy armaments to the Syrian
Kurds (O had limited their support to small arms) and wants to move our embassy to Jerusalem,
both decisions angering Erdogan. Erdogan would also liked to have seen Assad deposed.
I'm not going to offer an opinion on the efficacy of Saudi Arabia's army, and neither should
you. Remember how everyone warned us about Iraq's Republican Guard?) Few of us know what
we're talking about.
On the larger point: are you all taking drugs? Some video "lights up" Arab social media
and therefore Trump is taking us to war against Iran?? What?!
(especially the Straits of Hormuz aspect. The Iranians just have to mine it so that one or
more cargo ships get holed and got to the bottom at strategic bends and nobody ain't shipping
no Saudi Oil nowhere. Have fun with $300/bbl oil economies, guys China will make out like a bandit, considering
it's now the world leader in solar power.
As a clever newspaper writer said about Jesse Ventura: Jesse is a lot smarter than most folks
think he is, but not nearly as smart as he thinks he is. Like Jesse, Trump is smart enough to
avoid unnecessary war. However, war may just become "necessary" when the heat of his Russia
investigation becomes unbearable, and Trump needs the ultimate distraction. When (not if)
that happens, either North Korea or Iran will be in trouble -- perhaps both. Millions will
most likely die, billions of dollars will be spent, and the US will create an entirely new
generation of terrorists. This will not end well.
EngineerScotty wrote: "The foreign policy of a President Hillary Clinton wouldn't be the amateur hour that
we've gotten so far with Trump" No, it would be the ruthlessly effective professionalism of the reset with Russia and the
ouster of Qaddafi. /sarc She wanted and wants Assad deposed. How well would that have gone?
She wouldn't be trading insults with foreign heads of state on Twitter
Clinton has insulted Putin any number of times on social media and in interviews. On the
Colbert program just last September, she claimed that he worked against her election because
of sexism, and claimed that he "manspread" during a meeting with her.
And she'd not be performing fellatio on the likes of Netanyaho, Ergodan, and
MbS
Netanyahu and Erdogan do not get along, so it's pretty hard to please both of them
simultaneously. Like muad'dib, Scotty has it in his head that Trump is a poodle of Erdogan,
but the latter would disagree. Heavy weapons to Syrian Kurds, Jerusalem -- Erdogan is not
fully pleased with Trump.
If Scotty thinks the Clintons are hostile to Saudi Arabia, he hasn't been paying attention
(does he ever?).
Trump is already the worst foreign policy president since LBJ -- he only needs a
Vietnam War to his name to blow past him
"In the meantime, Frack Baby Frack! The less oil we have to import from there, Venezuela, or
anyplace crazy the better." That would be sane. But the elites have decided to export it at a cut rate, to undermine
Russia as the supplier in Europe, in order to foment regime change by crashing the Russian
economy. Why did you think we had such low fuel prices all of a sudden?
No, the fuel extracted from American soil does not accrue to the benefit of the American
people, but to the profits and plans of elites.
As a clever newspaper writer said about Jesse Ventura: Jesse is a lot smarter than most
folks think he is, but not nearly as smart as he thinks he is. Like Jesse, Trump is smart
enough to avoid unnecessary war. However, war may just become "necessary" when the heat of
his Russia investigation becomes unbearable, and Trump needs the ultimate distraction. When
(not if) that happens, either North Korea or Iran will be in trouble -- perhaps both.
Millions will most likely die, billions of dollars will be spent, and the US will create an
entirely new generation of terrorists. This will not end well.
Except that "heat" of his investigation is almost extinguished already.
Noah and Engineer Scotty -- There is a reasonable compromise. Both of you are right. Trump is
a disaster and we know Clinton was terrible. There is no point in arguing about whether she
would be worse. I happen to think In some ways she wouldn't be as bad. She wouldn't be
engaged in stupid twitter fights with dictators. But she might be better at leading us into
some stupid war in Syria. Trump will stumble into some war with no support. Clinton would
have had lots of support for whatever mindlessly stupid bloodbath she wanted to start.
That would be sane. But the elites have decided to export it at a cut rate, to undermine
Russia as the supplier in Europe, in order to foment regime change by crashing the Russian
economy. Why did you think we had such low fuel prices all of a sudden?
No, the fuel extracted from American soil does not accrue to the benefit of the
American people, but to the profits and plans of elites.
Unless the "elites" you are talking about are the Saudis–who are well-known for
flooding the market with cheap crude periodically to undercut the competition (they can still
produce oil for far less than anywhere else), and have many reasons to be suspicious of
Russia–this makes no sense.
Oil obtained by fracking is far more expensive to produce than oil obtained by simply
drilling a well in the Arabian Desert and quickly finding a gusher. The US can meet its
domestic needs, but isn't that great of a net exporter -- prices have to be sufficiently high
before high-volume production becomes cost-effective.
And if you don't think that either the Saudis or the American oil industry have the ear of
Trump, you're smokin' something.
The "elites" that oppose Trump have rather little political power at the present moment.
Don't confuse cultural elites (who don't like the Donald one bit) with the gazillionaires who
actual control the petroleum industry, and are more than happy to do business with whoever is
in charge in Washington.
Trump–ignorant and fatuous and unworldly as he may be–is an "elite" by virtue
of the office he holds. Do not forget that.
Noah and Engineer Scotty -- There is a reasonable compromise. Both of you are right.
Trump is a disaster and we know Clinton was terrible. There is no point in arguing about
whether she would be worse. I happen to think In some ways she wouldn't be as bad. She
wouldn't be engaged in stupid twitter fights with dictators. But she might be better at
leading us into some stupid war in Syria. Trump will stumble into some war with no support.
Clinton would have had lots of support for whatever mindlessly stupid bloodbath she wanted
to start.
Fair enough–though I think that Hillary's foreign policy would likely be similar to
that of her husband. Far from ideal, but not disastrous. Of course, Bill got to hold office
in a time when the Soviet Union (and its constituent parts) was in shambles, China was still
a third-world country, North Korea was no threat to anyone but South Korea, Islamic extremism
was far less of a problem, and even the Israelis and Palestinians were talking, and on
roughly equal terms. Now is a much more dangerous time.
One of my biggest concerns about Trump's foreign policy–and a major difference
from how Hillary would have governed–is his utter disdain for diplomacy. As noted, he
(and Tillerson) have been busy setting the State Department ablaze, and many, many, many
seasoned diplomats (career civil servants, not political appointees) have left Foggy Bottom,
some of their own accord, some not. Some Trump defenders claim this is part of "draining the
swamp", and many critics claim this is a purge of anyone not loyal to Trump
personally–and these two claims may be opposite sides of the same coin.
But there is something else. Trump seems to think that international diplomacy ought to be
conducted like real-estate deals: Two high-rollers (CEOs or heads of state) meet on the golf
course, hash out a deal, and the lawyers work out the details; and that having a large staff
of people trained in understanding a potentially-hostile foreign country is simply
unnecessary. In short, he acts as though he believes the entire system of international
diplomatic protocol, is a racket. Perhaps he has a point here; and perhaps he does
not–as the old saying goes, don't knock down a wall unless you know what loads it is
bearing.
But you'll notice that neither Russia, nor China, nor Israel, nor Iran, or Germany, nor
any other player on the world stage, have been engaging in similar purges of their diplomatic
services.
The state Department has approved the delivery to the Ukrainian army of modified 50
calibre Barrett sniper rifles, "Model M107A"
It may be related to the Model 82A1®/M107®, but the M107A1 is far from a simple
evolution. Driven by the demands of combat, every component was re-engineered to be lighter
yet stronger. Designed to be used with a suppressor, this rifle allows you to combine
signature reduction capabilities with the flawless reliability of the original Barrett M107,
but with a weight reduction of 5 pounds. Advanced design and manufacturing make the M107A1
more precise than ever.
"... Its not the military. Military is O.K. more or less. It is the Administration that is the headless chicken. ..."
"... In Vietnam there was no consideration of terrain. That was bigger mistake than Germans were not considering Russian winter. Concerning Somalia to this day I was not able to figure out what Carter wanted there. ..."
"... Than there was Iran that suddenly left the US sphere of influence and Bush l just could not tolerate such an impertinence. He hired Sadam to do the job. Everything what happened after is of this thoughtless act. Result is that Levant is now totally under Iran's influence. ..."
"... US simply never was able to come up with comprehensive END FOCUSED policy using military. Total irresponsibility indicating failed administrative decisions. ..."
"... Here's another hint: when you referred to "Carter" -- that was meant to indicate former Secretary of Defense Ashton ("Ash") Carter, not former President Jimmy Carter. ..."
"... The neocon infiltrators into high levels of our government do not care how headless the chicken appears as it does its dance, or how silly the dog appears as it is wagged by its tail. Their concern is primarily that they cannot be held responsible and thus they always distance themselves from the military decisions. ..."
"... I agree that "It is not the military. The military is okay more or less." It's okay in that it still attempts to function as it should, that is, as subject to civilian control, per the Constitution of the United States. The top brass of the Pentagon can be compared to the Wehrmacht commanders during World War II, they always remained nominally loyal to Hitler no matter how idiotic might be Hitler's instructions. Metaphorically, (((Neocons))) === Hitler ..."
In a Washington politically riven in ways not seen since the pre-Civil War era, take hope. Despite everything you've read, bipartisanship
is not dead. On one issue, congressional Democrats and Republicans, as well as Donald Trump, all speak with a single resounding
voice, with, in fact, unmatched unanimity and fervor as they stretch hands across the aisle in a spirit of cooperation. Perhaps you've
already guessed, but I'm referring to the Pentagon budget. By
staggering
majorities , both houses of Congress just passed an almost
$700 billion defense
bill, more money than even President Trump had requested and he's already happily signed it.
And Americans generally seem to partake of the same spirit. After all, while esteem for other American institutions like, uh,
Congress has fallen radically in these years,
the U.S. military hasn't lost a step. Last June, for instance, Gallup's pollsters found that public confidence in U.S. institutions
generally had dropped to a dismal 32%, but a soaring
73%
of Americans had the highest possible confidence in the military, which means that Donald Trump's decision to surround himself with
three generals as secretary of defense, White House chief of staff, and national security adviser was undoubtedly a popular one.
In a similar vein, it's striking that America's war on terror, now entering its 17th dismal year and still
expanding , and the
military that wages it remain essentially
beyond
criticism or
protest
. It hardly seems to matter that, in this century of constant warfare across significant parts of the planet, that military has yet
to bring home a real victory of any sort.
Who cares? That military is, by now, a distinctly Teflon outfit to which no criticism sticks, even through it and the rest of
the national security state swallow
stunning amounts of taxpayer dollars as if there were no tomorrow, while the Pentagon experiences
cost overruns of every kind for its weapons systems, has proven
incapable
of auditing itself (ever!), and recently couldn't even account for
44,000
(yes, 44,000!) of its troops deployed somewhere in the imperium, though who knows where. No wonder Donald Trump, a man of no fixed
beliefs (except about himself), but with a finely tuned sense of what might be popular with his base, has
loosed that
military from many of the already modest bounds within which it's fought its largely losing wars of these last years, and seems to
be leaving its generals (and the
CIA ) to do their escalatory damnedest from
Afghanistan
to Niger ,
Syria to
Somalia .
With all of this in mind, as another year in which permanent war is the barely noticed background hum of American life, I asked
TomDispatch regular U.S. Army Major Danny Sjursen, author of
Ghost Riders of Baghdad
, to assess American war in 2017 and consider just where we're headed.
America's Wars Yet More of More of the Same?
Danny Sjursen December 19, 2017 2,700 Words (Republished from
TomDispatch by permission of author or representative)
Its not the military. Military is O.K. more or less. It is the Administration that is the headless chicken.
In
Vietnam there was no consideration of terrain. That was bigger mistake than Germans were not considering Russian winter.
Concerning Somalia to this day I was not able to figure out what Carter wanted there.
Than there was Iran that suddenly left the US sphere of influence and Bush l just could not tolerate such an impertinence.
He hired Sadam to do the job. Everything what happened after is of this thoughtless act. Result is that Levant is now totally
under Iran's influence.
US simply never was able to come up with comprehensive END FOCUSED policy using military. Total irresponsibility indicating
failed administrative decisions.
Sure, US policy is FUBAR, but could you explain what you're talking about, and why you're not attaching the wrong presidents
to these countries/events? (Are you maybe referring to when GHW Bush was at CIA?)
Here's another hint: when you referred to "Carter" -- that was meant to indicate former Secretary of Defense Ashton ("Ash")
Carter, not former President Jimmy Carter.
I don't know whether you are deliberately sowing seeds of confusion, or what?
Anyway, when you start out with "It is the Administration that is the headless chicken," you seem to have missed the central
theme of Sjursen's article -- that one administration or another, it's the same idiocy. Obviously, the "headless chicken" is an
act, a ruse. Behind it all, there's a continuity: there's a method in the madness. The method proceeds from the neocon subversion,
if not total domination, of the policy-making organs of the United States government (e.g., the NSC), which formulate the "civilian"
strategy directives that the military (Joint Chiefs) must follow, per force and per the Constitution. The point that should be
understood or inferred is that the continuity that Sjursen notes can only be explained by a trans-administration organ at the
top of strategic-global policy-making, which means the National Security Council (NSC).
The neocon infiltrators into high levels of our government do not care how headless the chicken appears as it does its
dance, or how silly the dog appears as it is wagged by its tail. Their concern is primarily that they cannot be held responsible
and thus they always distance themselves from the military decisions.
I agree that "It is not the military. The military is okay more or less." It's okay in that it still attempts to function
as it should, that is, as subject to civilian control, per the Constitution of the United States. The top brass of the Pentagon
can be compared to the Wehrmacht commanders during World War II, they always remained nominally loyal to Hitler no matter how
idiotic might be Hitler's instructions. Metaphorically, (((Neocons))) === Hitler
As reported by the permanent representative of the International Monetary Fund in the
Ukraine, Jost Longman, the Kiev authorities should increase Ukrainian gas tariffs to the level
of import parity. Longman argues that an increase in gas prices will have a positive effect on
the development of the free market and will teach the Ukrainians to use natural gas
economically. "In the end, the final goal is the implementation of a free gas market. On the
way to this, it is important to continue to adjust the price of gas in accordance with the
price of imports", said Longman. "One price for all types of consumer also eliminates the space
for corruptio," he added.
"... I'd like to believe either the Repubs or Dems were the answer, except both are near unanimous in their support for the military industrial complex and its expanding wars. Note the 98-2 vote to make Russia a permanent enemy. I believe the resistors were bipartisan, lonely as they are in either party, in reality separate branches of an imperial War Party. ..."
"... Let me be the dink who reminds you: Peak Oil ..."
"... As a clever newspaper writer said about Jesse Ventura: Jesse is a lot smarter than most folks think he is, but not nearly as smart as he thinks he is. Like Jesse, Trump is smart enough to avoid unnecessary war. However, war may just become "necessary" when the heat of his Russia investigation becomes unbearable, and Trump needs the ultimate distraction. When (not if) that happens, either North Korea or Iran will be in trouble -- perhaps both. Millions will most likely die, billions of dollars will be spent, and the US will create an entirely new generation of terrorists. This will not end well. ..."
"... EngineerScotty wrote: "The foreign policy of a President Hillary Clinton wouldn't be the amateur hour that we've gotten so far with Trump" No, it would be the ruthlessly effective professionalism of the reset with Russia and the ouster of Qaddafi. /sarc She wanted and wants Assad deposed. How well would that have gone? ..."
"... "In the meantime, Frack Baby Frack! The less oil we have to import from there, Venezuela, or anyplace crazy the better." That would be sane. But the elites have decided to export it at a cut rate, to undermine Russia as the supplier in Europe, in order to foment regime change by crashing the Russian economy. Why did you think we had such low fuel prices all of a sudden? ..."
"... No, the fuel extracted from American soil does not accrue to the benefit of the American people, but to the profits and plans of elites ..."
"... That would be sane. But the elites have decided to export it at a cut rate, to undermine Russia as the supplier in Europe, in order to foment regime change by crashing the Russian economy. Why did you think we had such low fuel prices all of a sudden? ..."
"... No, the fuel extracted from American soil does not accrue to the benefit of the American people, but to the profits and plans of elites. ..."
"... Oil obtained by fracking is far more expensive to produce than oil obtained by simply drilling a well in the Arabian Desert and quickly finding a gusher. The US can meet its domestic needs, but isn't that great of a net exporter -- prices have to be sufficiently high before high-volume production becomes cost-effective. ..."
"... Noah and Engineer Scotty -- There is a reasonable compromise. Both of you are right. Trump is a disaster and we know Clinton was terrible. There is no point in arguing about whether she would be worse. I happen to think In some ways she wouldn't be as bad. She wouldn't be engaged in stupid twitter fights with dictators. But she might be better at leading us into some stupid war in Syria. Trump will stumble into some war with no support. Clinton would have had lots of support for whatever mindlessly stupid bloodbath she wanted to start. ..."
"... One of my biggest concerns about Trump's foreign policy–and a major difference from how Hillary would have governed–is his utter disdain for diplomacy. As noted, he (and Tillerson) have been busy setting the State Department ablaze, and many, many, many seasoned diplomats (career civil servants, not political appointees) have left Foggy Bottom, some of their own accord, some not. Some Trump defenders claim this is part of "draining the swamp", and many critics claim this is a purge of anyone not loyal to Trump personally–and these two claims may be opposite sides of the same coin. ..."
Trump won't get dragged into war, although his conniving nature may try to make it look like
that if it serves some ulterior motive of his. Trump will race on his own volition (not get
dragged by others) to war because he's already been chomping at the bit for war as evident in
how he's been baiting Iran and N. Korea alike, just as Bush baited Saddam Huessein, then bait
and switched Osama Bin Laden for Saddam. So if not war with one (Iran), then with the other
(N. Korea), or with both.
Why? Because like all Republican politicians, Trump's a businessman and proud of it,
(Pride goeth before destruction and a haughty spirit before a fall.) And because war is good
for American business, a lesson that was learned from WWII from which was created the
military-industrial-complex and the Permanent War Economy under which we've lived ever
since.
That bit's key to understanding the whole unwavering GOP attack on social services and
desire to deregulate and privatize everything, not because of evil "socialism" as the
Republican constituency is hypnotized with propaganda into believing, but because there's no
money to be made in government expenditures otherwise. The whole GOP agenda has been and is
about public expense for private gain. All the blather about shrinking the government is
smokescreen. The real agenda is about directing all government spending towards private
contractors with none wasted on things like social services, medicare, or Social
Security.
Economic aspects of politics can't be ignored and separated from social aspects of
politics which is how conservatism in America has helped create the current political mess,
by turning a blind eye and dittohead to economic matters in order to push the chosen,
preferred social agenda.
As Coolidge said, "The business of America is business." So since the US is ruled by money
of markets, there can be no getting one's moral back up and all Jesus over social immorality,
only to ignore the immorality of the marketplace and thereby fail to push for a moral economy
along with a moral society. Such misidentification of the problem will only result in missing
the mark, in inappropriate rather than on the mark effective solutions to problems.
Trump is simply a braggart who likes to exaggerate by talking in superlatives, so it's
fitting that Trump ran on the GOP ticket, because he's but another child of the Father of
Lies, who superlatively lies about his wealth being billions instead of millions to swell his
pride in being a mammon worshipper, and going to war is and will be as it certainly has been
part and parcel of such hubris.
To be fair, the Saudi dictators have always been best friends with America's elites –
think Bandar Bush, the grounding of all air traffic in the United States after 9/11, except
the Saudi evacuation planes spiriting Saudi royals out of the country so they could not be
questioned. And there is the locus of the Likud Israeli party friendship with the Saudis, and
Trump is certainly nothing if not onside with his good friend, the Israeli PM.
I'd like to believe either the Repubs or Dems were the answer, except both are near unanimous
in their support for the military industrial complex and its expanding wars. Note the 98-2
vote to make Russia a permanent enemy. I believe the resistors were bipartisan, lonely as
they are in either party, in reality separate branches of an imperial War Party.
Make no mistake: if there is going to be an attack on Iran by Americans, it is not because
MbS wants it, it is because the Americans love war.
I am convinced that most (some 90%) Americans are open or closeted
Neo-cons/liberal-interventionists/war-hawks. Some are shamelessly and openly so (John
Bolton), but many are so without showing it or even being aware of it. The hawk in them is
restlessly waiting for an opening, an excuse, to come out and proclaim what they have ever
been
Bush 41 dragged us into a coalition war over Kuwait. Clinton dragged us into a coalition war
in the Balkans. Bush 43 dragged us into a war in Iraq. Obama dragged us into a secret war
when he destabilized Syria and Lybia, which unleashed ISIS. All for the right reasons, of
course (sarcasm).
You might be right, but I fail to see how that would be different than the last 30
years.
BTW, Politico has a story about how the Obama Administration shot down DEA drug trafficking
investigations of Hezbollah to support the Iran nuclear deal. I would like to read your
comments about it, particularly in light of the comments you made above about Trump.
Parents always tell kids to choose their friends carefully. With pals like Netanyahu and the
Saudi bogus "crown prince", Trump clearly didn't follow that advice.
That video looks like a Nazi's wet dream, I mean the undiluted fascistic element is
overwhelming, it's like getting a peek at an alternate dimension, not even a society, of pure
militaristic "hathos" festooned by a limitless cloud of lies.
The worst of humanity is engrafted in that video, by which, I mean the unalloyed lying
stupidity of war: imperialist expansionism, nationalist revanchism, and plutocratic
supremacism, haloed by the grey mist–the dehumanzing pixelated mist–of the most
dehumanizing endeavor man can undertake, for the most dehumanizing of modern causes:
fascistic capitalism, the kind that fueled WWII (In this latter case, under the guise of
religious supremacism or religious survivalism, but, in any case, only an obvious guise as
far as the grotesque House of Saud is characteristically concerned).
Echoing Noah above, this doesn't appear to be a production of the Saudi government, but
having a contingent of the Saudi population gung-ho for a Sunni/Shi'a Ragnarok is concerning
in itself. Both KSA and Iran will fight each other to the last Yemeni before any direct
conflict arises.
This is the scenario that should be keeping us all up at night:
Fran Macadam: To be fair, the Saudi dictators have always been best friends with America's
elites – think Bandar Bush, the grounding of all air traffic in the United States after
9/11, except the Saudi evacuation planes spiriting Saudi royals out of the country so they
could not be questioned.
It wasn't the royals -- it was the bin Laden family itself. The people who knew Osama
best. I never understood why we didn't insists that, with all airplanes grounded, they had to
have a US Air Force pilot -- who then would have flown them to Gitmo for a sit-down on their
newly famous relative. Instead the highest levels of government -- how high did you have to
go to get permission to fly? -- broke into their busy schedules to be briefed and let them
go.
The whole thing still stinks. We really need to have an investigation into the role of
Saudi Arabia in American foreign policy; especially the Iraq Wars.
In the meantime, Frack Baby Frack! The less oil we have to import from there, Venezuela,
or anyplace crazy the better.
President Trump's new best friend, MBS, is going to get us dragged into a new war in the
region. Watch.
But her E-mails Good Thing the witch from Chappaqua isn't in the White House
ROTFLMAO!!!
If the Saudis are foolish enough to try that they will get their ass so thoroughly kicked
that "who were the Al Saud?" will a trivial pursuit question on par with "Who were the
Romanov's?" 10 years from now, and if the US is foolish enough to let them do that, watch the
Global Economy collapse as the Strait of Hormuz gets closed for a few years.
Dr Talon,
The best military in the Middle East is Hezbollah (Trained & equipped by the Iranian,
blooded and forged by the Israelis) the only thing they don't have is an air force. Let them
have a half way decent air wing, and they would be on par or better than the USMC.
Duke Leto,
All that beautiful hardware has to be put to good use, after all if you don't use it you
can't replace it. Think of all that beautiful money to be made in hardware replacement
Noah,
Trump also declined to support Kurdish independence, which the Israeli right supports
and would have undermined Iran (which has a restive Kurdish minority) and Iran ally
Iraq.
Supporting the Kurds would have pissed off his best buddy Erdogan, in that Turkey has the
largest Kurdish minority population of all the Middle Eastern countries (about 20% of
population) and the largest military in the Middle East. Not a good idea, especially if you
don't want them to become buddy buddy with their eastern neighbor.
Oh, did I mention that Saudi Arabia has a substantial Shiite minority (10 to 15% of the
population) who isn't exactly thrilled to live under Wahhabi rule.
Watching the Saudis (a country that has to import plumbers from South Asia because it's
below the dignity of the locals to be plumbers) getting their asses handed to them, watching
the Dumpster's poll rating jump up to the 80% mark before cratering down to 15%, watching the
Trump recession that would follow would almost be worth it if I didn't have to suffer the
consequences of "Real American's(TM)" idiocy. It would be almost as much fun as watching
Brexit.
And President Ted Cruz or Clinton would be different how?
It's a pretty safe assumption that a President Clinton would work to uphold the treaty her
predecessor signed with Iran. Cruz, like the rest of the GOP hawks, would probably (like
Trump) be actively working to undermine it and provoke Iran. She'd want more money for social
and infrastrucure spending, less for military.
Pavlos has it right. The GOP (and a lot of Democrats) think war is good for business and
are happy to funnel obscene amounts of money to the military-industrial complex under the
guise of "national security."
It depends on what you imply when saying that it has lit up Arab social media, Rod. "Damn
those Saudis are strong!" type of reaction means that social media are lit up. "LOL, what
sorry comedian a-holes those Saudis are!" type of reaction also means that social media are
lit up.
I can't decide if this truly 'government' backed or some Saudia wackos let their freak loose.
At least the wackos are going after Iran and not the US. It is probably really nothing than
an expensive Youtube comment but it does indicate that Saudia Arabia population really
desires War somewhere and somehow.
Although this is probably forgotten in 1 month, the Middle East appears to be following
similar paths as Europe in the 1900 – 1914. We have lots of secret Allies and treaties
with enormous tensions that is hungry for a battle.
The foreign policy of a President Hillary Clinton would probably be too hawkish for my
tastes–and certainly she wouldn't enjoy strong relations with Russia (given evidence,
in this hypothetical, that Putin was actively interfering in the election to support her
opponent)–but it wouldn't be the amateur hour that we've gotten so far with Trump.
Clinton would still have a functioning diplomatic corps, instead of sacking half the State
Department. She wouldn't be trading insults with foreign heads of state on Twitter. She'd
likely be not trying to undermine the Iran deal. And she'd not be performing fellatio on the
likes of Netanyaho, Ergodan, and MbS, as Trump has been eagerly doing.
Really. At what point does the "as bad as Trump's foreign policy has been, Clinton wudda
been worse" refrain stop? Trump is already the worst foreign policy president since
LBJ–he only needs a Vietnam War to his name to blow past him. And he has none of
Johnson's domestic achievements.
The last time an Arab dictator tried to attack the Iranians he could only get a draw that
bankrupted him and lead, by a series of second-order consequences, to his downfall.
The Iranians had just, when they were attacked by Iraq, had thier revolution and had
liquidated thier officer corps. Think about that. Iranians as polity may, for the most part,
dislike the rule of the clerics, but they are intensely patriotic and will fight to the last
man/woman to defend the Persian homeland. Underestimate them at your peril.
When Iran's proxies in Yemen -- the Houthis -- are launching missiles at airports and the
Royal Palace, I don't think this type video is very surprising and as propaganda goes really
a big deal. It is pretty low level saber rattling if it is a Saudi Government produc, or what
you would see a million times over among Americans if it is the work of just a bunch of young
Saudi yahoos. Oh, and MSAGA -- Make Saudi Arabia Great Again!
Israel has never fought side-by-side with the US in any of the wars it has sent the us to
fight [and die for and pay for] at the instigation of the settlers/occupiers.
Since the U.S. has never fought any wars for Israel, that makes the score 0:0 then.
But her E-mails Good Thing the witch from Chappaqua isn't in the White House
What ignorant drivel. Clinton is plenty hawkish (she cheered on Trump's April missile
strike on Assad, and urged him to go much further). Moreover, as I wrote above, this video
seems to be youthful fan fiction, not carrying any Saudi government imprimatur (let alone
endorsement from Trump). Rod is speculating that the US will eventually join Saudi Arabia in
a war against Iran, but Rod is no seer, whatever his other attributes.
Supporting the Kurds would have pissed off his best buddy Erdogan
Poppycock. Trump is hardly Erdogan's poodle. Trump gave heavy armaments to the Syrian
Kurds (O had limited their support to small arms) and wants to move our embassy to Jerusalem,
both decisions angering Erdogan. Erdogan would also liked to have seen Assad deposed.
I'm not going to offer an opinion on the efficacy of Saudi Arabia's army, and neither should
you. Remember how everyone warned us about Iraq's Republican Guard?) Few of us know what
we're talking about.
On the larger point: are you all taking drugs? Some video "lights up" Arab social media
and therefore Trump is taking us to war against Iran?? What?!
(especially the Straits of Hormuz aspect. The Iranians just have to mine it so that one or
more cargo ships get holed and got to the bottom at strategic bends and nobody ain't shipping
no Saudi Oil nowhere. Have fun with $300/bbl oil economies, guys China will make out like a bandit, considering
it's now the world leader in solar power.
As a clever newspaper writer said about Jesse Ventura: Jesse is a lot smarter than most folks
think he is, but not nearly as smart as he thinks he is. Like Jesse, Trump is smart enough to
avoid unnecessary war. However, war may just become "necessary" when the heat of his Russia
investigation becomes unbearable, and Trump needs the ultimate distraction. When (not if)
that happens, either North Korea or Iran will be in trouble -- perhaps both. Millions will
most likely die, billions of dollars will be spent, and the US will create an entirely new
generation of terrorists. This will not end well.
EngineerScotty wrote: "The foreign policy of a President Hillary Clinton wouldn't be the amateur hour that
we've gotten so far with Trump" No, it would be the ruthlessly effective professionalism of the reset with Russia and the
ouster of Qaddafi. /sarc She wanted and wants Assad deposed. How well would that have gone?
She wouldn't be trading insults with foreign heads of state on Twitter
Clinton has insulted Putin any number of times on social media and in interviews. On the
Colbert program just last September, she claimed that he worked against her election because
of sexism, and claimed that he "manspread" during a meeting with her.
And she'd not be performing fellatio on the likes of Netanyaho, Ergodan, and
MbS
Netanyahu and Erdogan do not get along, so it's pretty hard to please both of them
simultaneously. Like muad'dib, Scotty has it in his head that Trump is a poodle of Erdogan,
but the latter would disagree. Heavy weapons to Syrian Kurds, Jerusalem -- Erdogan is not
fully pleased with Trump.
If Scotty thinks the Clintons are hostile to Saudi Arabia, he hasn't been paying attention
(does he ever?).
Trump is already the worst foreign policy president since LBJ -- he only needs a
Vietnam War to his name to blow past him
"In the meantime, Frack Baby Frack! The less oil we have to import from there, Venezuela, or
anyplace crazy the better." That would be sane. But the elites have decided to export it at a cut rate, to undermine
Russia as the supplier in Europe, in order to foment regime change by crashing the Russian
economy. Why did you think we had such low fuel prices all of a sudden?
No, the fuel extracted from American soil does not accrue to the benefit of the American
people, but to the profits and plans of elites.
As a clever newspaper writer said about Jesse Ventura: Jesse is a lot smarter than most
folks think he is, but not nearly as smart as he thinks he is. Like Jesse, Trump is smart
enough to avoid unnecessary war. However, war may just become "necessary" when the heat of
his Russia investigation becomes unbearable, and Trump needs the ultimate distraction. When
(not if) that happens, either North Korea or Iran will be in trouble -- perhaps both.
Millions will most likely die, billions of dollars will be spent, and the US will create an
entirely new generation of terrorists. This will not end well.
Except that "heat" of his investigation is almost extinguished already.
Noah and Engineer Scotty -- There is a reasonable compromise. Both of you are right. Trump is
a disaster and we know Clinton was terrible. There is no point in arguing about whether she
would be worse. I happen to think In some ways she wouldn't be as bad. She wouldn't be
engaged in stupid twitter fights with dictators. But she might be better at leading us into
some stupid war in Syria. Trump will stumble into some war with no support. Clinton would
have had lots of support for whatever mindlessly stupid bloodbath she wanted to start.
That would be sane. But the elites have decided to export it at a cut rate, to undermine
Russia as the supplier in Europe, in order to foment regime change by crashing the Russian
economy. Why did you think we had such low fuel prices all of a sudden?
No, the fuel extracted from American soil does not accrue to the benefit of the
American people, but to the profits and plans of elites.
Unless the "elites" you are talking about are the Saudis–who are well-known for
flooding the market with cheap crude periodically to undercut the competition (they can still
produce oil for far less than anywhere else), and have many reasons to be suspicious of
Russia–this makes no sense.
Oil obtained by fracking is far more expensive to produce than oil obtained by simply
drilling a well in the Arabian Desert and quickly finding a gusher. The US can meet its
domestic needs, but isn't that great of a net exporter -- prices have to be sufficiently high
before high-volume production becomes cost-effective.
And if you don't think that either the Saudis or the American oil industry have the ear of
Trump, you're smokin' something.
The "elites" that oppose Trump have rather little political power at the present moment.
Don't confuse cultural elites (who don't like the Donald one bit) with the gazillionaires who
actual control the petroleum industry, and are more than happy to do business with whoever is
in charge in Washington.
Trump–ignorant and fatuous and unworldly as he may be–is an "elite" by virtue
of the office he holds. Do not forget that.
Noah and Engineer Scotty -- There is a reasonable compromise. Both of you are right.
Trump is a disaster and we know Clinton was terrible. There is no point in arguing about
whether she would be worse. I happen to think In some ways she wouldn't be as bad. She
wouldn't be engaged in stupid twitter fights with dictators. But she might be better at
leading us into some stupid war in Syria. Trump will stumble into some war with no support.
Clinton would have had lots of support for whatever mindlessly stupid bloodbath she wanted
to start.
Fair enough–though I think that Hillary's foreign policy would likely be similar to
that of her husband. Far from ideal, but not disastrous. Of course, Bill got to hold office
in a time when the Soviet Union (and its constituent parts) was in shambles, China was still
a third-world country, North Korea was no threat to anyone but South Korea, Islamic extremism
was far less of a problem, and even the Israelis and Palestinians were talking, and on
roughly equal terms. Now is a much more dangerous time.
One of my biggest concerns about Trump's foreign policy–and a major difference
from how Hillary would have governed–is his utter disdain for diplomacy. As noted, he
(and Tillerson) have been busy setting the State Department ablaze, and many, many, many
seasoned diplomats (career civil servants, not political appointees) have left Foggy Bottom,
some of their own accord, some not. Some Trump defenders claim this is part of "draining the
swamp", and many critics claim this is a purge of anyone not loyal to Trump
personally–and these two claims may be opposite sides of the same coin.
But there is something else. Trump seems to think that international diplomacy ought to be
conducted like real-estate deals: Two high-rollers (CEOs or heads of state) meet on the golf
course, hash out a deal, and the lawyers work out the details; and that having a large staff
of people trained in understanding a potentially-hostile foreign country is simply
unnecessary. In short, he acts as though he believes the entire system of international
diplomatic protocol, is a racket. Perhaps he has a point here; and perhaps he does
not–as the old saying goes, don't knock down a wall unless you know what loads it is
bearing.
But you'll notice that neither Russia, nor China, nor Israel, nor Iran, or Germany, nor
any other player on the world stage, have been engaging in similar purges of their diplomatic
services.
Christmas came early for Donald Trump. He signed a historic tax cut, kept the Government
funded and operating and, to the delight of many in his base, used UN Ambassador Nikki Haley as
a mouthpiece to tell the rest of the world to go pound sand. He is feeling groovy. But Donald
Trump is still his own worst enemy. And his Presidency will be fatally harmed if he continues
with his erratic foreign policy and his empty talk on dealing with the opioid plague.
Let's start with his wildly fluctuating foreign policy. There is no consistency nor is their
a theme. When he announced that he was recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, many
assumed he was on the Israeli leash and was behaving as any obedient dog would. Perhaps.
The Trump administration has approved the largest U.S. commercial sale of lethal defensive
weapons to Ukraine since 2014. . . . Administration officials confirmed that the State
Department this month approved a commercial license authorizing the export of Model M107A1
Sniper Systems, ammunition, and associated parts and accessories to Ukraine, a sale valued at
$41.5 million. These weapons address a specific vulnerability of Ukrainian forces fighting a
Russian-backed separatist movement in two eastern provinces.
The people we are arming in the Ukraine are the actual and intellectual descendants of the
Nazi sympathizers who helped the Einsatzgruppen murder more than a million Jews after Hitler
invaded the Soviet Union. Scholar Richard Sakwa provides the horrifying details on the pro-Nazi
ideological foundation of the key Ukrainian political groups we are backing:
"The Orange revolution, like the later Euromaidan events, was democratic in intent but gave
an impetus 'to the revival of the radical versions of [the] Ukrainian national movement that
first appeared on the historical scene in the course of World War II and a national discourse
focused on fighting against the enemy'.41 " . . . .
"In Dnepropetrovsk, for example, instead of the anticipated 60 street-name changes, 350 were
planned. Everywhere 'Lenin Streets' became 'Bandera Avenues' as everything Russian was purged.
One set of mass murderers was changed for another. Just as the Soviet regime had changed
toponyms to inscribe its power into the physical environment, so now the Euromaidan revolution
seeks to remould daily life. In Germany today the names of Nazis and their collaborators are
anathema, whereas in Ukraine they are glorified."
Excerpt From: Richard Sakwa. "Frontline Ukraine : Crisis in the Borderlands." from the
Afterward
At the very moment we are signaling our support for Israel, the country founded largely
because of the horror over the Shoah, we are also giving weapons to political groups whose
parents and grand parents helped carry out the Shoah. Oh yeah, in the process of doing this we
are providing a tangible threat to Russia. Imagine what our reaction would be if Russia decided
to step up its weapons supplies to Cuba.
Then we have Trump's tough talk on the opioid slaughter taking place across America. Let me
be clear. He is not responsible for the start of this plague. The Obama Administration carries
a heavy burden on that front. CBS 60 Minutes has done a magnificent job in exposing the role
that the Obama Justice Department refused to play in going after the major corporate opiate
drug pusher--i.e.,
the McKesson Corporation :
In October, we joined forces with the Washington Post and reported a disturbing story of
Washington at its worst - about an act of Congress that crippled the DEA's ability to fight the
worst drug crisis in American history - the opioid addiction crisis. Now, a new front of that
joint investigation. It is also disturbing. It's the inside story of the biggest case the DEA
ever built against a drug company: the McKesson Corporation, the country's largest drug
distributor. It's also the story of a company too big to prosecute.
In 2014, after two years of painstaking inquiry by nine DEA field divisions and 12 U.S.
Attorneys, investigators built a powerful case against McKesson for the company's role in the
opioid crisis.
[According to DEA Agent Schiller] This is the best case we've ever had against a major
distributor in the history of the Drug Enforcement Administration. How do we not go after the
number one organization? In the height of the epidemic, when people are dying everywhere,
doesn't somebody have to be held accountable? McKesson needs to be held accountable.
Holding McKesson accountable meant going after the 5th largest corporation in the country.
Headquartered in San Francisco, McKesson has 76,000 employees and earns almost $200 billion a
year in revenues, about the same as Exxon Mobil. Since the 1990s, McKesson has made billions
from the distribution of addictive opioids.
So what has Donald Trump done? That is the wrong question. What has he failed to do? We are
approaching the one year anniversary of his Presidency and Trump has failed to nominate a
Director for the Drug Enforcement Administration, a Director for the Office of National Drug
Control Policy, a Director for the National Institute of Justice and an Assistant Secretary of
State for the Bureau of International
Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs . In other words, none of the people who would be on
the policy frontline putting the President's tough words into action have been nominated. Not
one. And those agencies and departments are drifting like a rudderless ship on stormy seas.
Another problem for Trump is his mixed signals on getting entangled in foreign wars. During
the campaign he made a point of ridiculing those candidates who wanted to go to war in Syria.
Now that he is in office, Trump, along with several members of his cabinet, are threatening
Iran on almost a daily basis. The Veteran
Intelligence Professionals for Sanity just put out a memo on this very subject (which, I'm
happy to note, reflects some of the themes I've written about previously):
Iran has come out ahead in Iraq and, with the 2015 nuclear agreement in place, Iran's
commercial and other ties have improved with key NATO allies and the other major world players
-- Russia and China in particular.
Official pronouncements on critical national security matters need to be based on facts.
Hyperbole in describing Iran's terrorist activities can be counterproductive. For this reason,
we call attention to Ambassador Nikki Haley's recent statement that it is hard to find a
"terrorist group in the Middle East that does not have Iran's fingerprints all over it." The
truth is quite different. The majority of terrorist groups in the region are neither creatures
nor puppets of Iran. ISIS, Al-Qaeda and Al-Nusra are three of the more prominent that come to
mind.
You have presented yourself as someone willing to speak hard truths in the face of
establishment pressure and not to accept the status quo. You spoke out during the campaign
against the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq as a historic mistake of epic proportions. You also
correctly captured the mood of many Americans fatigued from constant war in far away lands. Yet
the torrent of warnings from Washington about the dangers supposedly posed by Iran and the need
to confront them are being widely perceived as steps toward reversing your pledge not to get
embroiled in new wars.
We encourage you to reflect on the warning
we raised with President George W. Bush almost 15 years ago, at a similar historic
juncture:
"after watching Secretary Powell today, we are convinced that you would be well served if
you widened the discussion beyond the circle of those advisers clearly bent on a war for which
we see no compelling reason and from which we believe the unintended consequences are likely to
be catastrophic."
Finally, there is the recognition of Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel. I defer to Colonel
Lang on this. He believes that this single decision has planted an odious seed that will sprout
into a global anti-U.S. sentiment that will reduce our global influence and tangibly damage our
leadership on the world stage. While I suppose there always is a chance for a different kind of
outcome, I learned long ago not to bet against the old warrior on matters like this.
Taking all of this together I think we are looking at a 2018 where U.S. foreign policy will
continue to careen around the globe devoid of a strategic vision.
'' The people we are arming in the Ukraine are the actual and intellectual descendants of the
Nazi sympathizers who helped the Einsatzgruppen murder more than a million Jews after Hitler
invaded the Soviet Union''
They are also the descendants of the Ukrainians who were starved to death by the
Bolsheviks plundering of their crops first then starved again by Stalin.
That Jews figured large in the Bolsheviks is a fact and noted:..then and later.
A collection of reports on Bolshevism in Russia
by Great Britain. Foreign Office
''..anti-Semitism is growing, probably because the food supply committees are entirely in
the hands of Jews and voices can be heard sometimes calling for a " pogrom."
So I am giving Ukraine a pass on their so called threat to the Chosen.
You make my point. The NAZIS came up with lots of nifty reasons to justify exterminating
Jews. Starvation by Stalin, therefore kill the Jews. Yeah, that makes sense (sarcasm fully
intended).
"... And if anything Americans make their own shamelessness worse when they fabricate imaginary pretexts for weaselling out of their country's commitment, such as a wholly imaginary entitlement for them to decide for themselves when there is a "humanitarian" justification for doing so, or make up wholesale fantasy allegations about "weapons of mass destruction" that even if true wouldn't justify war. ..."
"... r Correction. It's the elites that don't want to join Russia. And the reason they don't is because the West gives them goodies for being anti-Russian. This kind of strategy worked pretty well so far (for the West) in Eastern Europe and it will continue to work for some time yet. But not forever, not in Ukraine and Belorussia. ..."
"... They are indeed, but my assumption is that Russia's present elite is, for the most part, corruptible. Putin will be gone before 2024, and his successor will be under immense pressure -- carrot and stick -- to deregulate Russia's media landscape, which will make foreign money pour into Russian media outlets, which will in turn lead to more positive coverage and more positive views of the West. Only a few days ago, we learnt that Washington ruled out signing a non-interference agreement with Moscow since it would preclude Washington from meddling in Russia's internal affairs. What does this tell you about the Western elite's plan for Russia? ..."
"... The 1996 Presidential Election campaign suggests that the Russian public is no less suggestible, and so does Russian (and Ukrainian) opinions on the crisis in the Donbass. ..."
"... Soviets and Soviet Union were always in awe of America. You could see it in "between-the-lines" of the texts of the so-called anti-imperialist, anti-American Soviet propaganda. It was about catching up with American in steel production and TV sets ownership and so on. American was the ultimate goal and people did not think of American as an enemy. ..."
"... Then there is the fact that Bolsheviks and Soviet Union owed a lot to America though this knowledge was not commonly known. Perhaps one should take look at these hidden connections to see what was the real mechanism bending the plug being pulled off the USSR. There might be even an analogy to South Africa but that is another story. ..."
"... Moreover, post-democratic post-Yanukovich Ukraine is clearly inferior to its predecessor. For one thing, under Yanukovich, Sevastopol was still Ukrainian ..."
"... There is no pro-Ukrainian insurgency in Crimea or inside the republics in Donbass, and it's not due to the lack of local football hooligans. ..."
"... Even among Svoboda voters, I suspect only a small minority of them are the militant types. We should be to contain them through the use of local proxies. The armies of Donbass republics currently number some 40-60 thousand men according to Cassad blog, which compares with the size of the entire Ukrainian army. ..."
"... Official Ukrainian propaganda worked overtime, and still works today, to hammer this into people's heads. And it's an attractive vision. An office dweller in Kiev wants to live in a shiny European capital, not in a bleak provincial city of a corrupt Asian empire. The problem is, it's ain't working. For a while Ukraine managed to get Russia to subsidize Ukrainian European dream. Now this is over. The vision is starting to fail even harder. ..."
"... Unfortunately, the Ukraine has been spending 5%* of its GDP on the military since c.2015 (versus close to 1% before 2014). ..."
"... Doesn't really matter if tons of money continues to be stolen, or even the recession – with that kind of raw increase, a major enhancement in capabilities is inevitable. ..."
"... I have read a article mentioned something like Putin said, to annexed whole Ukraine means to share the enormous resource wealth of vast Russia land with them, which make no economic sense. If Russia is worst than Ukraine, then there won't be million of Ukrainian migrating over after the Maidan coup. ..."
"... So are all those Baltic states. Russia don't want these countries as it burden, it is probably only interested in selected strategic areas like the Eastern Ukraine industrial belt and military important Crimea warm water deep seaport, and skilled migrants. Ukraine has one of lowest per capital income now, with extreme corrupted politicians controlled by USNato waging foolish civil war killing own people resulting in collapsing economic and exudes of skilled people. ..."
"... Agreed, and he happens to be in the right here. Russia actually has a good hand in Ukraine, if only she keeps her cool. More military adventurism is foolish for at least three reasons ..."
"... The return of Crimea to Russia alone has been a dramatic improvement in the inherent stability of the region. A proper division of the territory currently forming the Ukraine into a genuine Ukrainian nation in the west and an eastern half returned to Russia would be the ideal long term outcome, but Russia can surely live with a neutralised Ukraine. ..."
"... You realise that Ukraine's GDP declined in dollar terms by a factor of 2-3 times, right? A bigger share of a smaller economy translates into the same paltry sum. It is still under $5 billion. ..."
"... Futhermore an army that's actively deployed and engaged in fighting spends more money than during peacetime. A lot of this money goes to fuel, repairs, providing for soldiers and their wages rather than qualitatively improving capabilities of the army. ..."
"... The bottom-line is Ukraine spent the last 3,5 years preparing to fight a war against the People's Republic of Donetsk. I'll admit Ukrainian army can hold its own against the People's Republic of Donetsk. Yet it remains hopelessly outmatched in a potential clash with Russia. A short, but brutal bombing campaign can whipe out Ukrainian command and control, will make it impossible to mount any kind of effective defence. Ukrainian conscripts have no experience in urban warfare, and their national loyalties are unclear. ..."
"... Most ukrops even admit that Kharkov could easily have gone in 2014, if Russia had wanted it/feasible ..."
Russians would have to acknowledge that they were naive idiots who threw away an empire
centuries in the making
What's remarkable to me about that graph of opinion over time is how pig-headedly
resilient Russian naivety about the US has been. Time after time it appears the scales
would fall from Russians' eyes after the US regime disgraced itself particularly egregiously
(Kosovo, Iraq, Georgia), and within a few months approval would be back up to 50% or above.
It took the interference in the Ukraine in 2014 to finally make the truth stick.
There are no disgraces incorporated into any of these events
That might be your opinion, but Kosovo and Iraq were openly illegal wars of aggression in
which the US shamelessly flouted its own treaty commitments, and supporting Georgia was, like
NATO expansion in general and numerous other consistently provocative US foreign policy
measures directed against post-Soviet Russia, a literally stupid matter of turning a
potential ally against the real rival China into an enemy and ally of said rival.
You are perfectly entitled to endorse mere stupidity on the part of your rulers, but the
fact that you so shamelessly approve of waging illegal wars counter to treaty commitments
discredits any opinions you might have on such matters.
Russians would have to acknowledge that they were naive idiots who threw away an empire
centuries in the making to end up within the borders of old Muscovy
Actually, present Russian borders are more those of Peter the Great, circa 1717, than Old
Muscovy. Russia, unlike nearly all the Great Powers of the C20th, has retained its Empire
– Siberia, the Russian Far East, Kamchatka, South Russia and the Crimea ( first
acquired as recently as 1783 ).
Once those dim-witted Ukies finally implode the Ukrainian economy, Russia will be able to
gobble up the rest of southern and eastern Ukraine – all the way to Odessa.
The places that seceded from the Soviet Union are places that Russians don't want ( Northern
Kazakhstan excepted ) and are urgently required to receive all those Central Asian immigrants
who will be deported by sensible Russian governments in the near future. ( I exclude
Armenians from the last clause )
Yes, US had squandered a lot of good will in exchange for extremely valuable "geopolitical
foothold in Eastern Europe."
Incidentally, Soviet propaganda was never anti-American. It was anti-capitalist, an
important distinction. Whereas in America, anti-Russian propaganda has always been anti-
Russian .
@RandalThat might be your opinion, but Kosovo and Iraq were openly illegal wars of aggression in
which the US shamelessly flouted its own treaty commitments,
We had no treaty commitments with either Serbia or Iraq and both places had it coming.
Correction: Russian Federation is not a nation state. It is a rump state . Its
Western borders are artificial, drawn by the Communists in the 20th century, they exclude
those parts of Russia, which the Communists decided to incorporate into separate republics of
Belarus and Ukraine.
I don't know of any Russian nationalist, who wants Azerbaijan back, but reclaiming Belarus
and Ukraine is absolutely essential to have a country, we could all proudly call 'home'
– an actual Russian nation-state. Again, what really matters here is not the size of
the country, it's that all the land that's historically Russian should be fully within the
borders of this country.
PS: just because we had trouble holding onto Chechnya doesn't mean that annexing Belarus
will be hard. Sure, we can expect blowback in the form of Western sanctions, but I don't
anticipate much resistance from inside Belarus.
It took the interference in the Ukraine in 2014 to finally make the truth stick.
Another possibility is that the change since 2014 is rather the result of more
anti-American reporting in Russia's state-owned media. This would mean, as I suspect, that
the pendulum will swing back once the Kremlin loosens its tight grip of the media.
@Art
Deco With that kind of thinking I don't see how you can criticise Russia's incursions
into the Ukraine. At least Russia has an actual reason to fight a war in the Ukraine.
US invaded and destroyed Iraqi state for no reason whatsoever. US interests suffered as a
result of its ill-advised agression, they ended up empowering their avowed enemy –
Iran.
This would mean, as I suspect, that the pendulum will swing back once the Kremlin
loosens its tight grip of the media.
How do you see this happening? Why would the Kremlin give up its control of the media?
These people are smart enough to understand that whoever controls the media controls public
opinion.
@Felix
KeverichCorrection: Russian Federation is not a nation state. It is a rump state.
Your 'rump state' extends over 6.6 million sq miles and has a population of 152
million.
Its Western borders are artificial, drawn by the Communists in the 20th century, they
exclude those parts of Russia, which the Communists decided to incorporate into separate
republics of Belarus and Ukraine.
It's western borders are no more artificial than that of any other country not bounded by
mountains or water.
I don't know of any Russian nationalist, who wants Azerbaijan back, but reclaiming
Belarus and Ukraine is absolutely essential to have a country, we could all proudly call
'home' –
'Essential'? You just can't get through the day without Minsk?
As for White Russia, your constituency there has in its dimensions fallen by half in the
last 20 years.
As for the Ukraine, you've no discernable constituency for reunification. The constituency
for a Russophile foreign policy weighs in there at about 12% of the public. VP's
three-dimensional chess game is going swimmingly.
My own forebears discovered in 1813 that the residue of British North America was quite
content with gracious George III, and our boys got their assess handed to them by them
Cannucks. We got over it and so can you. Miss Ukraine is just not that into you. Best not to
play the stalker.
@Felix
KeverichWith that kind of thinking I don't see how you can criticise Russia's
incursions into the Ukraine. At least Russia has an actual reason to fight a war in the
Ukraine.
They dissed you. La di dah. My own countrymen have put up with that from an array of
Eurotrash and 3d world kleptocrats every time we open the newspaper.
US invaded and destroyed Iraqi state for no reason whatsoever.
No, we did so because that was the best alternative. The other alternative was a sanctions
regime which Big Consciences were assuring the world was causing a six-digit population of
excess deaths each year or taking the sanctions off and letting Saddam and the other Tikritis
to follow their Id. Iraq was a charnel house, and the world is well rid of the Tikriti
regime, especially Iraq's Kurdish and Shia provinces, which have been quiet for a decade. You
don't take an interest in the ocean of blood for which the Ba'ath Party was responsible, but
you're terribly butthurt that politicians in Kiev don't take orders from Moscow. Felix, I can
taste teh Crazy.
Your 'rump state' extends over 6.6 million sq miles and has a population of 152
million.
Exactly, and you're missing the point. Re-read my previous comment again: I don't know of any Russian nationalist, who wants Azerbaijan back, but reclaiming Belarus
and Ukraine is absolutely essential to have a country, we could all proudly call 'home'
– an actual Russian nation-state. Again, what really matters here is not the size of
the country, it's that all the land that's historically Russian should be fully within the
borders of this country.
Russians know more about these things than you do. The vast majority of us do not regard
Belarus and Ukraine as part of
"заграница" – foreign countries.
Ukrainians and in particular Belorussians are simply variants of us, just like regional
differences exist between the Russians in Siberia and Kuban'.
I don't care, because this isn't a popularity contest. There were similar polls in Crimea
showing majority support for the EU, just before the peninsula voted overwhelmingly to rejoin
Russia. LOL
The question that matters to me is will there be a vast resistance movement inside Belarus
following the annexation, and to be honest I don't expect one.
We had no treaty commitments with either Serbia or Iraq
The treaty commitment in question was with almost the entire rest of the world, namely
when your country entirely voluntarily signed up to a commitment to "refrain in their
international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or
political independence of any state". If your country had retained the slightest trace of
integrity and self-respect it would at least have had the decency to withdraw from membership
of the the UN when it chose to breach those treaty commitments.
And if anything Americans make their own shamelessness worse when they fabricate imaginary
pretexts for weaselling out of their country's commitment, such as a wholly imaginary
entitlement for them to decide for themselves when there is a "humanitarian" justification
for doing so, or make up wholesale fantasy allegations about "weapons of mass destruction"
that even if true wouldn't justify war.
An entire nation state behaving like a lying '60s hippy or a shamelessly dishonest
aggressor.
I'm sure you're proud.
and both places had it coming.
A straightforward confession of lawless rogue state behaviour, basically.
Do you actually think somehow you are improving your country's position with such
arguments? Better for a real American patriot to just stop digging and keep sheepishly quiet
about the past three decades of foreign policy.
@reiner
Tor Correction. It's the elites that don't want to join Russia. And the reason they don't
is because the West gives them goodies for being anti-Russian. This kind of strategy worked
pretty well so far (for the West) in Eastern Europe and it will continue to work for some
time yet. But not forever, not in Ukraine and Belorussia.
That's because the population of these places is Russian (no matter what they were taught
to call themselves by the Commies.) Their culture is Russian. The rulers of Ukraine and, to a
much lesser degree, Belorussia are trying to erect cultural barriers between themselves and
Russia. Good luck with that, in the 21st century. It's more likely the culture will further
homogenize, as is the trend anywhere in the world. Eventually it will tell.
Now, the question is if Russians will even want Ukraine back. This is not so clear.
What needs to be explained is not the sustained low opinion after 2014 but rather the
remarkable recoveries after 1999, 2003 and 2008.
Yugoslavia and Iraq were not that close to Russia and Russian elite was still pushing for
Integration into West at that time. After 2008, "Reset" and Obama happened.
It seems unlikely the Russian media would have been as sycophantically pro-Obama merely
for his blackness and Democrat-ness, though, and of course he wasn't around anyway in 2000
and in 2004.
Keep in mind that Obama's opponent in 2008 was McCain, that McCain.
Just like Trump, Obama seemed like the lesser evil and not to blame for previous
conflicts.
That's because the population of these places is Russian (no matter what they were
taught to call themselves by the Commies.) Their culture is Russian.
This is for them to decide, not for you.
It's more likely the culture will further homogenize, as is the trend anywhere in the
world.
Yeah, the culture homogenizes around the world, into global Hollywood corporate culture.
In the long there, "traditional Russian culture" is as doomed as "traditional Ukrainian
culture" and "traditional American culture" if there is anything left of it.
Polling by the Razumkov Centre in 2008 found that 63.8% of Crimeans (76% of Russians,
55% of Ukrainians, and 14% of Crimean Tatars, respectively) would like Crimea to secede from
Ukraine and join Russia and 53.8% would like to preserve its current status, but with
expanded powers and rights . A poll by the International Republican Institute in May 2013
found that 53% wanted "Autonomy in Ukraine (as today)", 12% were for "Crimean Tatar autonomy
within Ukraine", 2% for "Common oblast of Ukraine" and 23% voted for "Crimea should be
separated and given to Russia".
The takeaway is that Crimeans were satisfied being part of Ukraine as long as Ukraine had
an ethnic Russian, generally pro-Russian president like Yanukovich in charge (2013 poll), but
preferred being part of Russia to being part of a Ukrainian state run by Ukrainians (2008
poll, post-Maidan).
That's because the population of these places is Russian (no matter what they were
taught to call themselves by the Commies.) Their culture is Russian.
Believer of Russian nationalist fairytales tells Russian nationalist fairytales. You
managed to fit 3 of them into 2 sentences, good job.
@AP I
was referring specifically to Russian attitudes about Ukrainians. I know that among
Ukrainians themselves, there is quite the confusion on this subject.
@Mitleser
Fair points, though you seem to concede to the Russian elites a significant degree of
competence at managing public opinion, in 2000 and in 2004.
I was under the impression that Putin personally was still quite naïve about the US
even after Kosovo, which partly accounts for his rather desperately helpful approach after
9/11, though not so much after Iraq.
But I have been told by Russians who ought to have some knowledge of these things that
Putin and the wider regime were not so naïve even back in the late 1990s, so the case
can be made both ways.
reclaiming Belarus and Ukraine is absolutely essential to have a country, we could all
proudly call 'home' – an actual Russian nation-state.
In which 25 million or so Ukrainians actively resist you, and another 5 million or so
Ukrainians plus a few million Belarusians nonviolently resent your rule. You will reduce the
cities or parts of them to something like Aleppo, and rebuild them (perhaps with coerced
local labor) while under a sanctions regime. Obviously there will have to be a militarized
occupation regime and prison camps and a network of informants. A proud home.
Again, what really matters here is not the size of the country, it's that all the land
that's historically Russian should be fully within the borders of this country.
Baltics were Russian longer than Ukraine. Central Poland became Russian at the same time
as did half of Ukraine. According to the 1897 census, there were about as many Great Russian
speakers in Kiev governate as in Warsaw. Take the Baltics and Warsaw back too?
@AP
These polls vary greatly from time to time and depending on the group conducting them. These
polls are meaningless : most ordinary people go about their daily lives never thinking
about that kind of issues, when suddenly prompted by a pollster they give a meaningless
answer.
I'm sure, support for reunification will go up in Belarus, if the Kremlin shows some
leadership on this issue. We will find enough people willing to work with us, the rest will
just have to accept the new reality and go about their daily lifes as usual.
The situation in Ukraine is different, it differs wildly by region and will require us to
modify our approach.
@German_readerUS started in a demented attempt at reshaping the region according to its own
preferences.
It did nothing of the kind. It ejected two governments for reasons of state. One we'd been
a state of belligerency with for 12 years, the other was responsible for a gruesome casus
belli. Now, having done that, we needed to put in place a new government. There was no better
alternative means of so doing than electoral contests.
How do you see this happening? Why would the Kremlin give up its control of the media?
These people are smart enough to understand that whoever controls the media controls public
opinion.
They are indeed, but my assumption is that Russia's present elite is, for the most part,
corruptible. Putin will be gone before 2024, and his successor will be under immense pressure
-- carrot and stick -- to deregulate Russia's media landscape, which will make foreign money
pour into Russian media outlets, which will in turn lead to more positive coverage and more
positive views of the West. Only a few days ago, we learnt that Washington ruled out signing
a non-interference agreement with Moscow since it would preclude Washington from meddling in
Russia's internal affairs. What does this tell you about the Western elite's plan for
Russia?
Another possibility is that the change since 2014 is rather the result of more
anti-American reporting in Russia's state-owned media. This would mean, as I suspect, that
the pendulum will swing back once the Kremlin loosens its tight grip of the media.
Definitely no.
American propaganda (itself without the help of Putin) were able to convince the Russians
that America is the enemy. Propaganda of Putin to this could add almost nothing.
Fair points, though you seem to concede to the Russian elites a significant degree of
competence at managing public opinion, in 2000 and in 2004.
I am just taking into account that the early 00s were right after the 1990s when
pro-Americanism was at its peak in Russia. Yugoslavia and Iraq were too distant too alienate
the majority permanently.
I was under the impression that Putin personally was still quite naïve about the US
even after Kosovo, which partly accounts for his rather desperately helpful approach after
9/11, though not so much after Iraq.
Why do you think did he suggest joining NATO as an option?
Not because NATO are "good guys", but because it would ensure that Russia has a voice that
cannot be ignored. After all, the Kosovo War showed the limits of the UNSC and by extension
of Russia's voice in the unipolar world.
Putin will be gone before 2024, and his successor will be under immense pressure --
carrot and stick -- to deregulate Russia's media landscape, which will make foreign money
pour into Russian media outlets, which will in turn lead to more positive coverage and more
positive views of the West.
There is no reason to assume that West will offer the Russian elite enough carrot to
deregulate the Russian media order and the stick is just more reason not to do it and to
retain control.
What does this tell you about the Western elite's plan for Russia?
And you think that people in Russian elite are not aware of it?
In which 25 million or so Ukrainians actively resist you, and another 5 million or so
Ukrainians plus a few million Belarusians nonviolently resent your rule. You will reduce
the cities or parts of them to something like Aleppo, and rebuild them (perhaps with
coerced local labor) while under a sanctions regime.
This is a fantasy. Look, the effective size of Ukrainian army right now is around 70.000
– does this look like a strong, united nation willing and able to defend itself?
On the left side of the Dnieper truly crazy svidomy types is a small minority – they
stand out from the crowd, can be easily identified and neutralised just like in Donbass. A
typical Ukrainian nationalist east of Dnieper is a business owner, university educated white
collar professional, a student, a journalist, "human rights activist" – these are not
the kind of individuals, who will engage in guerilla warfare, they will just flee (like they
already fled from Donbass).
In the west, opinion of the US was managed upwards with the Obama presidency because he
fitted so well with US sphere establishment antiracist and leftist dogmas that he had
almost universally positive (even hagiographic) mainstream media coverage throughout the US
sphere, but with Trump opinions of the US are mostly back down where Bush II left them.
I agree with most of this, but you leave out precisely why public opinion shifts.
My, rather cynical, view is that media is by far the main driver in shifting public views,
and so whoever gives the media marching orders is the Pied Piper here.
An example close to home was the consternation among some of my conservative friends over
the events Charlottesville. They knew nothing about the American alt-right, and still less
about the context of what happened that day, yet they still spoke of what a disgrace it was
for Trump not to distance himself from these deplorables. This was, of course, fully the
making of Swedish media.
The 1996 Presidential Election campaign suggests that the Russian
public is no less suggestible, and so does Russian (and Ukrainian) opinions on the crisis in
the Donbass.
ruled out signing a non-interference agreement with Moscow since it would
preclude Washington from meddling in Russia's internal affairs. What does this tell you about
the Western elite's plan for Russia?
It tells me the reporters are confused or you are. There is no 'agreement' that will
prevent 'Russia' from 'meddling' in American political life or the converse. The utility of
agreements is that they make understandings between nations more precise and incorporate
triggers which provide signals to one party or the other as to when the deal is off.
Soviets and Soviet Union were always in awe of America. You could see it in
"between-the-lines" of the texts of the so-called anti-imperialist, anti-American Soviet
propaganda. It was about catching up with American in steel production and TV sets ownership
and so on. American was the ultimate goal and people did not think of American as an enemy.
Then there is the fact that Bolsheviks and Soviet Union owed a lot to America though this
knowledge was not commonly known. Perhaps one should take look at these hidden connections to
see what was the real mechanism bending the plug being pulled off the USSR. There might be
even an analogy to South Africa but that is another story.
Two powerful countries beside one another are natural enemies, they can never be friends
until one has been relegated by defeat. Britain and France were enemies until France became
too weak to present a threat, then Britain's enemy was Germany (it still is, Brexit is
another Dunkirk with the UK realizing it cannot compete with Germany on the continent).
Russia cannot be a friend of China against the US until Russia has been relegated in the way
France has been. France has irrecoverably given up control of its currency, they are
relegated to Germany's sidekick.
China is like Bitcoin. The smart money (Google) is going there. Received wisdom in the US
keeps expecting China's economic growth to slow down but it isn't going to happen. When it
becomes clear that the US is going to be overtaken, America will try and slow down China's
economic growth, that will be Russia's opportunity.
American propaganda (itself without the help of Putin) were able to convince the
Russians that America is the enemy. Propaganda of Putin to this could add almost
nothing.
Being Russian, you would be in a better position than I am to comment on this, but the
obvious counter to that line is who channeled this American propaganda to the Russian
public and for what purpose? This article might hold the answer:
oh well, I get it, US nationalists like you think you're the responsible adults dealing
with a dangerous world, while ungrateful European pussies favor appeasement, are free riders
on US benevolent hegemony etc. I've heard and read all that a thousand times before, it's all
very unoriginal by now.
No, I'm a fat middle aged man who thinks most of what people say on political topics is
some species of self-congratulation. And a great deal of it is perverse. The two phenomena
are symbiotic. And, of course, I'm unimpressed with kvetching foreigners. Kvetching Europeans
might ask where is the evidence that they with their own skills and resources can
improve some situation using methods which differ from those we have applied and
kvetching Latin Americans can quit sticking the bill for their unhappy histories with Uncle
Sam, and kvetching Arabs can at least take responsibility for something rather than
projecting it on some wire-pulling other (Jews, Americans, conspiracy x).
Do they have one more soldier at their command and one more piece of equipment because
we had troops in Iraq?
Well, according to the likes of Mattis they certainly do. Have you never heard of the
Iraqi Popular Mobilisation Forces (PMU), a large faction of which reportedly swear allegiance
directly to Khamenei.
Is that "victory" for you?
An of course they now have a direct land route to Hezbollah, to make it easier for them to
assist that national defence militia to deter further Israeli attacks. That's something they
never could have had when Saddam was in charge of Iraq.
Is that "victory" for you?
And they don't have to worry about their western neighbour invading them with US backing
again.
These polls vary greatly from time to time and depending on the group conducting them.
These polls are meaningless: most ordinary people go about their daily lives never thinking
about that kind of issues, when suddenly prompted by a pollster they give a meaningless
answer.
So according to you when hundreds or thousands of people are asked a question they are not
prepared for, their collective answer is meaningless and does not indicate their
preference?
So it's a total coincidence that when Ukraine was ruled by Ukrainians most Crimeans
preferred to join Russia, when Ukraine was ruled by a Russian, Crimeans were satisfied within
Ukraine but when Ukrainian nationalists came to power Crimeans again preferred being part of
Russia?
Are all political polls also meaningless according to you, or just ones that contradict
your idealistic views?
This is a fantasy. Look, the effective size of Ukrainian army right now is around 70.000
– does this look like a strong, united nation willing and able to defend itself?
In fairness, the young Ukrainians I have spoken to avoid the "draft" mainly out of fear
that they will be underequipped and used as cannon fodder. (I'm not sure "draft" is the word
I'm looking for. My understanding is that they are temporarily exempt from military service
if they study at university or have good jobs.)
but the obvious counter to that line is who channeled this American propaganda to the
Russian public and for what purpose?
It is known – the minions of Putin translated into Russian language American (and
European) propaganda, and putting it on the website http://inosmi.ru/ .
The Americans also try: there is a special "Radio Liberty" that 24-hour broadcasts (in
Russian) hate speech against the Russian.
But it only speeds up the process (which will happen anyway) .
This is a fantasy. Look, the effective size of Ukrainian army right now is around 70.000
– does this look like a strong, united nation willing and able to defend itself?
It was about 50,000 in 2014, about 200,000-250,000 now.
Polish military has 105,000 personnel. Poland also not united or willing to defend
itself?
On the left side of the Dnieper truly crazy svidomy types is a small minority –
they stand out from the crowd, can be easily identified and neutralised just like in
Donbass
Avakov, Poroshenko's interior minister and sponsor of the neo-Nazi Azov battalion, in 2010
got 48% of the vote in Kharkiv's mayoral race in 2010 when he ran as the "Orange" candidate.
In 2012 election about 30% of Kharkiv oblast voters chose nationalist candidates, vs. about
10% in Donetsk oblast. Vkontakte, a good source for judging youth attitudes, was split 50/50
between pro-Maidan and anti-Maidan in Kharkiv (IIRC it was 80/20 anti-Maidan winning in
Donetsk). Kharkiv is just like Donbas, right?
A typical Ukrainian nationalist east of Dnieper is a business owner, university educated
white collar professional, a student, a journalist, "human rights activist"
Football hooligans in these places are also Ukrainian nationalists. Azov battalion and
Right Sector are both based in Eastern Ukraine.
Here is how Azov started:
The Azov Battalion has its roots in a group of Ultras of FC Metalist Kharkiv named "Sect
82″ (1982 is the year of the founding of the group).[18] "Sect 82″ was (at least
until September 2013) allied with FC Spartak Moscow Ultras.[18] Late February 2014, during
the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine when a separatist movement was active in Kharkiv,
"Sect 82″ occupied the Kharkiv Oblast regional administration building in Kharkiv and
served as a local "self-defense"-force.[18] Soon, on the basis of "Sect 82″ there was
formed a volunteer militia called "Eastern Corps".[18]
Here is Azov battalion commander-turned-Kiev oblast police chief, Kharkiv native Vadim
Troyan:
Does he look like an intellectual to you? Before Maidan he was a cop.
these are not the kind of individuals, who will engage in guerilla warfare,
On the contrary, they will probably dig in while seeking cover in urban areas that they
know well, where they have some significant support (as Donbas rebels did in Donetsk),
forcing the Russian invaders to fight house to house and causing massive damage while
fighting native boys such as Azov. About 1/3 of Kharkiv overall and 1/2 of its youth are
nationalists. I wouldn't expect mass resistance by the Kharkiv population itself, but passive
support for the rebels by many. Russia will then end up rebuilding a large city full of a
resentful population that will remember its dead (same problem Kiev will face if it gets
Donbas back). This scenario can be repeated for Odessa. Dnipropetrovsk, the home base of
Right Sector, is actually much more nationalistic than either Odessa or Kharkiv. And Kiev is
a different world again. Bitter urban warfare in a city of 3 million (officially, most likely
about 4 million) followed by massive reconstruction and maintenance of a repression regime
while under international sanctions.
Russia's government has adequate intelligence services who know better what Ukraine is
actually like, than you do. There is a reason why they limited their support to Crimea and
Donbas.
Your wishful thinking about Ukraine would be charming and harmless if not for the fact
that such wishful thinking often leads to tragic actions that harm both the invader and the
invaded. Remember the Iraqis were supposed to welcome the American liberators with flowers
after their cakewalk.
In fairness, the young Ukrainians I have spoken to avoid the "draft" mainly out of fear
that they will be underequipped and used as cannon fodder.
Correct. The thinking often was – "the corrupt officers will screw up and get us
killed, or sell out our positions to the Russians for money, if the Russians came to our city
I'd fight them but I don't wanna go to Donbas.." This is very different from avoiding the
draft because one wouldn't mind if Russia annexed Ukraine. Indeed, Dnipropetrovsk in the East
has contributed a lot to Ukraine's war effort, primarily because it borders Donbas –
ones hears from people there that if they don't fight in Donbas and keep the rebels contained
there, they'd have to fight at home.
@AP
LMAO, Ukrainians are nothing like Arabs. They are soft Eastern-European types. And in Eastern
regions like Kharkov most of them will be on our side.
The best thing about Ukrainian neo-Nazis such as Azov battalion is that there is very few
of them – no more than 10.000 in the entire country. I assume Russian security services
know all of them by name.
To deal with Ukronazi problem, I would first take out their leaders, then target their
HQs, arms depots and training camps. I would kill or intimidate their sponsors. Ukronazis
would be left decapitated, without resources, undermanned and demoralised, trying to fight an
insurgency amongst the population that hates and despises them. It will be a short lived
insurgency.
LMAO, Ukrainians are nothing like Arabs. They are soft Eastern-European types.
And Russians and Poles were also soft when someone invaded their country? Ukrainians are
not modern western Euros.
And in Eastern regions like Kharkov most of them will be on our side.
Most pensioners. It will be about 50/50 among young fighting-age people.
The best thing about Ukrainian neo-Nazis such as Azov battalion is that there is very
few of them – no more than 10.000 in the entire country
Maybe. Ukrainian government claims 46,000 in volunteer self-defense battalions (including
Azov) but this is probably an exaggeration.
OTOH there are a couple 100,000 demobilized young people with combat experience who would
be willing to fight if their homeland were attacked, who are not neo-Nazis in Azov. Plus a
military of 200,000-250,000 people, many of whom would imitate the Donbas rebels and probably
redeploy in places like Kharkiv where they have cover. Good look fighting it out block by
block.
trying to fight an insurgency amongst the population that hates and despises them
In 2010, 48% of Kharkiv voters chose a nationalist for their mayor. In 2012 about 30%
voted for nationalist parties. Judging by pro vs, anti-Maidan, the youth are evenly split
although in 2014 the Ukrainian nationalist youths ended up controlling the streets, not the
Russian nationalist ones as in Donbas. This is in the most pro-Russian part of Ukraine.
Suuure, the population of Kharkiv will despise their kids, grandkids, nephews, classmates
etc,. but will welcome the invaders from Russia who will be bombing their city. Such idealism
and optimism in Russia!
@AP
Again, supporting Maidan doesn't mean you're ready to take up Kalashnikov and go fight.
Ukrainian youth is dodging draft en masse. It's a fact.
This is what typical Maidanist Ukrainian youths look like; these people certainly don't
look like they have a lot of fight in them: They remind me of Navalny supporters in Russia. These kind of people can throw a tantrum,
but they are fundamentally weak people, who are easily crushed.
@Felix
Keverich Northern Kazakhstan is/was ethnically Russian, since the 1700s. This should have
been folded into Russia; the North Caucasus should have been cut loose. My opinion.
@Felix
Keverich Typical Russian mistakes regarding Ukraine: weak student-types in Russia are the
main supporters of Ukraine in Russia, thus the same type must be the main pro-Maidan people
in Ukraine. Because Ukraine = Russia. This silly dream of Ukraine being just like Russia
leads to ridiculous ideas and hopes.
As I already said, the Azov battalion grew out of brawling football ultras in Kharkiv.
Maidan itself was a cross-section – of students, yes, but also plenty of Afghan war
vets, workers, far right brawlers, professionals, etc. It's wasn't simply "weak" students,
nor was it simply far-right fascists (another claim by Russia) but a mass effort of the
western half of the country.
Here are Afghan war vets at Maidan:
Look at those weak Maidan people running away from the enemy:
Azov people in their native Kharkiv:
Kharkiv kids:
Ukrainian youth is dodging draft en masse. It's a fact.
Dodging the draft in order to avoid fighting in Donbas, where you are not wanted by the
locals, is very different from dodging the draft to avoid fighting when your own town is
being invaded.
@AP
Summer camp was in Kiev, but there is another outside Kharkiv.
To be clear, most Ukrainians fighting against Russia are not these unsavory types, though
they make for dramatic video. Point is that pro-Maidan types in Ukraine are far from being
exclusively liberal student-types.
- The Russians ALWAYS were Americanophiles – ever since the Revolution. Russia has been
an American ally most often explicit but occasionally tacit – in EVERY major American
conflict, including the War on Terror and excluding Korea and Vietnam (both not major
compared to the Civil War or WW2). The only comparable Great Power US ally is France. Russia
and the US are natural allies.
- Russians are Americanophiles – they like Hollywood movies, American music, American
idealism, American video games, American fashion, American inventions, American support in
WW2, American can-do-aittude, American badassery and Americana in general.
- There are two Ukraines. One is essentially a part of Russia, and a chunk of it was
repatriated in 2014. The other was historically Polish and Habsburg. It is a strange entity
that is not Russian.
- The Maidan was a foreign-backed putsch against a democratically elected government.
Yanukovich was certainly a corrupt scoundrel. But he was a democratically elected corrupt
scoundrel. To claim Russian intervention in his election is a joke in light of the CIA-backed
2004 and 2014 coups.
Moreover, post-democratic post-Yanukovich Ukraine is clearly inferior to
its predecessor. For one thing, under Yanukovich, Sevastopol was still Ukrainian
@Felix
Keverich I think this poll is the most relevant for assessing the question, since it
covered different regions and used the same methodology.
Takeaway:
1. Support for uniting into a single state with Russia at 41% in Crimea at a time when it
was becoming quite clear the Yanukovych regime was doomed.
2. Now translates into ~90% support (according to both Russian and international polls) in
Crimea. I.e., a more than a standard deviation shift in "Russophile" sentiment on this
matter.
3. Assuming a similar shift in other regions, Novorossiya would be quite fine being with
Russia post facto . Though there would be significant discontent in Kharkov,
Dnepropetrovsk, Zaporozhye, and Kherson (e.g., probably on the scale of Donbass unhappiness
with the Ukraine before 2014).
4. Central and West Ukraine would not be, which is why their reintegration would be far
more difficult – and probably best left for sometime in the future.
5. What we have instead seen is a one standard deviation shift in "Ukrainophile" sentiment
within all those regions that remained in the Ukraine. If this change is "deep," then AP is
quite correct that their assimilation into Russia has been made impossible by Putin's
vacillations in 2014.
The Maidan was a foreign-backed putsch against a democratically elected government
Typical Russian nationalist half-truth about Ukraine.
To be clear – Yanukovich was democratically elected in 2010, into a position where
his powers were limited and where he was faced with a hostile parliament. His post-election
accumulation of powers (overthrowing the Opposition parliament, granting himself additional
powers, stacking the court with local judges from his hometown) was not democratic. None of
these actions enjoyed popular support, none were made through democratic processes such as
referendums or popular elections. Had that been the case, he would not have been overthrown
in what was a popular mass revolt by half the country.
There are two Ukraines. One is essentially a part of Russia, and a chunk of it was
repatriated in 2014. The other was historically Polish and Habsburg. It is a strange entity
that is not Russian.
A bit closer to the truth, but much too simplistic in a way that favors Russian idealism.
Crimea (60% Russian) was simply not Ukraine, so lumping it in together with a place such as
Kharkiv (oblast 70% Ukrainian) and saying that Russia took one part of this uniformly
"Russian Ukraine" is not accurate.
You are correct that the western half of the country are a non-Russian Polish-but-not
Habsburg central Ukraine/Volynia, and Polish-and-Habsburg Galicia.
But the other half consisted of two parts: ethnic Russian Crimea (60% Russian) and largely
ethniuc-Russian urban Donbas (about 45% Russian, 50% Ukrainian), and a heavily Russified but
ethnic Ukrainian Kharkiv oblast (70% Ukrainian, 26% Russian), Dnipropetrovsk (80% Ukrainian,
20% Russian), Kherson (82% Ukrainian, 14% Russian), and Odessa oblast (63% Ukrainian, 21%
Russian).
The former group (Crimea definitely, and urban Donbas less strongly) like being part of
Russia. The latter group, on the other hand, preferred that Ukraine and Russia have friendly
ties, preferred Russian as a legal language, preferred economic union with Russia, but did
not favor loss of independence. Think of them as pro-NAFTA American-phile Canadians who would
nevertheless be opposed to annexation by the USA and would be angered if the USA grabbed a
chunk of Canada. In grabbing a chunk of Ukraine and supporting a rebellion in which Kharkiv
and Dnipropetrovsk kids are being shot by Russian-trained fighters using Russian-supplied
bullets, Putin has turned these people off the Russian state.
3. Assuming a similar shift in other regions, Novorossiya would be quite fine being with
Russia post facto. Though there would be significant discontent in Kharkov, Dnepropetrovsk,
Zaporozhye, and Kherson (e.g., probably on the scale of Donbass unhappiness with the
Ukraine before 2014).
'Asumptions' like this are what provide Swiss cheese the airy substance that makes it less
caloric! Looks like only the retired sovok population in the countryside is up to supporting
your mythical 'NovoRosija' while the more populated city dwellers would be opposed, even by
your own admission (and even this is questionable). I'm surprised that the dutifully loyal
and most astute opposition (AP) has let this blooper pass without any comment?
@Anatoly
Karlin I think when answering this question, most people simple give what they consider
to be the socially acceptable answer, especially in contemporary Ukraine, where you will go
to prison for displaying Russian flag – who wants to be seen as a "separatist"?
In Crimea it has become more socially acceptable to identify with Russia following the
reunification, which is why the number of people who answer this way shot up . The
same effect will seen in Belarus and Ukraine – I'm fairly certain of it.
Though there would be significant discontent in Kharkov, Dnepropetrovsk, Zaporozhye, and
Kherson
Discontent will be limited to educated, affluent, upwardly mobile circles of society.
Demographic profile of Ukrainian nationalist East of Dnieper resembles demographic profile of
Navalny supporters in Russia. These people are not fighters. Most of them will react to
Russian takeover by self-deporting – they have the money and resources to do it.
Demographic profile of Ukrainian nationalist East of Dnieper resembles demographic
profile of Navalny supporters in Russia. These people are not fighters.
The Azov Battalion has its roots in a group of Ultras of FC Metalist Kharkiv named "Sect
82″ (1982 is the year of the founding of the group).[18] "Sect 82″ was (at least
until September 2013) allied with FC Spartak Moscow Ultras.[18] Late February 2014, during
the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine when a separatist movement was active in Kharkiv,
"Sect 82″ occupied the Kharkiv Oblast regional administration building in Kharkiv and
served as a local "self-defense"-force.[18] Soon, on the basis of "Sect 82″ there was
formed a volunteer militia called "Eastern Corps".[18]
The brawling East Ukrainian nationalists who took the streets of Kharkiv and Odessa were
not mostly rich, fey hipsters.
Discontent will be limited to educated, affluent, upwardly mobile circles of
society.
So, even by tour own admission, the only folks that would be for unifying with Russia are
the uneducated, poor and those with no hopes of ever amounting to much in society. I don't
agree with you, but I do see your logic. These are just the type of people that are the most
easily manipulated by Russian propoganda – a lot of this went on in the Donbas, and we
can see the results of that fiasco to this day.
a)Post-WWII American power elites are both incompetent and arrogant (which is a first
derivative of incompetence) to understand that–this is largely the problem with most
"Western" elites.
b) Currently the United States doesn't have enough (if any) geopolitical currency and
clout to "buy" Russia. In fact, Russia can take what she needs (and she doesn't have "global"
appetites) with or without the US. Plus, China is way more interested in Russia's services
that the US, which will continue to increasingly find out more about its own severe
military-political limitations.
c) The United States foreign policy is not designed and is not being conducted to serve
real US national interests. In fact, US can not even define those interests beyond the
tiresome platitudes about "global interests" and being "exceptional".
@AP I
like how I got you talking about the Ukronazis, it's kinda funny actually, so let me pose as
Ukraine's "defender" here:
This neo-Nazi scum is not in any way representative of the population of Eastern
Ukraine. These are delinquents, criminals, low-lifes. They are despised, looked down upon
by the normal people, pro-Russian and pro-Ukrainian alike. A typical Ukrainian nationalist
East of Dnieper is a business owner, a journalist, an office worker, a student who dodges
draft. It's just the way it is.
@AP The
way to think about Azov battalion is to treat them like a simple group of delinquents, for
whom Ukrainian nationalism has become a path to obtain money, resources, bigger guns and
perhaps even political power. Azov is simply a gang. And Russian security services
have plenty of experience dealing with gangs, so I don't expect Ukronazis to pose a major
challenge.
@Felix
Keverich I'm not sure about Ukrainian football hooligans, but football hooligans in
Hungary are not necessarily "low -lifes, criminals, delinquents", in fact, the majority of
them aren't. Most groups consist mostly of working class (including a lot of security guards
and similar) members, but there are some middle class (I know of a school headmaster, though
I think he's no longer very active in the group) and working class entrepreneur types (e.g.
the car mechanic who ended up owning a car dealership) and similar. I think outright criminal
types are a small minority. Since it costs money to attend the matches, outright failures
(the permanently unemployed and similar ne'er-do-wells) are rarely found in such groups.
@reiner
Tor LOL I classify all football hooligans as low-lifes simply due to the nature of their
pastime. Ukrainian neo-Nazi militias have been involved in actual crimes including murder,
kidnapping and racketeering. Their criminal activities go unpunished by the regime, because
they are considered "heroes" or something.
This neo-Nazi scum is not in any way representative of the population of Eastern
Ukraine.
If by "representative" you mean majority, sure. Neither are artsy students, or Afghan war
veterans, or schoolteachers, any other group a majority.
Also not all of the street fighters turned militias neo-Nazis, as are Azov. Right Sector
are not neo-Nazis, they are more fascists.
These are delinquents, criminals, low-lifes.
As reiner tor correctly pointed out, this movement which grew out of the football ultra
community is rather working class but is not lumpens. You fail again.
A typical Ukrainian nationalist East of Dnieper is a business owner, a journalist, an
office worker, a student who dodges draft
Are there more business owners, students (many of whom do not dodge the draft), office
workers combined than there are ultras/far-right brawlers? Probably. 30% of Kharkiv voted for
nationalist parties (mostly Tymoshenko's and Klitschko's moderates) in the 2012 parliamentary
elections, under Yanukovich. That represents about 900,000 people in that oblast. There
aren't 900,000 brawling far-rightists in Kharkiv. So?
The exteme nationalist Banderist Svoboda party got about 4% of the vote in Kharkiv oblast
in 2012. This would make Bandera twice as popular in Kharkiv as the democratic opposition is
in Russia.
I classify all football hooligans as low-lifes simply due to the nature of their
pastime.
They are well integrated into the rest of society, so you can call them low-lifes, but
they will still be quite different from ordinary criminals.
Ukrainian neo-Nazi militias have been involved in actual crimes including murder,
kidnapping and racketeering.
But that's quite different from being professional criminals. Members of the Waffen-SS
also committed unspeakable crimes, but they rarely had professional criminal backgrounds, and
were, in fact, quite well integrated into German society.
The way to think about Azov battalion is to treat them like a simple group of
delinquents, for whom Ukrainian nationalism has become a path to obtain money, resources,
bigger guns and perhaps even political power
Yes, there are elements of this, but not only. If they were ethnic Russians, as in Donbas,
they would have taken a different path, as did the pro-Russian militants in Donbas who are
similar to the ethnic Ukrainian Azovites. Young guys who like to brawl and are ethnic
Russians or identify s such joined organizations like Oplot and moved to Donbas to fight
against Ukraine, similar types who identified as Ukrainians became Azovites or joined similar
pro-Ukrainian militias. Also not all of these were delinquents, many were working class,
security guards, etc.
Good that you admit that in Eastern Ukraine nationalism is not limited to student
activists and businessmen.
And Russian security services have plenty of experience dealing with gangs,
They chose to stay away from Kharkiv and limit Russia's action to Donbas, knowing that
there would be too much opposition, and not enough support, to Russian rule in Kharkiv to
make the effort worthwhile.
@Anon
Out of all hypotheses on the JFK assassination the one that Israel was behind it is the
strongest. There is no question about it. From the day one when conspiracy theories were
floated everything was done to hide how Israel benefited form the assassination.
@reiner
Tor I feel that comparing Azov to SS gives it too much credit.
My point is that this way of life is not something that many people in Ukraine are willing
to actively participate in. Most people are not willing to condone it either. AP says that
Azov and the like can act like underground insurgency in Eastern cities. But I don't see how
this could work – there will a thousand people around them willing to rat them out.
There is no pro-Ukrainian insurgency in Crimea or inside the republics in Donbass, and
it's not due to the lack of local football hooligans.
That represents about 900,000 people in that oblast. There aren't 900,000 brawling
far-rightists in Kharkiv. So?
This means these people won't pose a big problem. These folks will take care of themselves
either through self-deportation or gradually coming to terms with the new reality in Kharkov,
just like their compatriots in Crimea did.
Even among Svoboda voters, I suspect only a small minority of them are the militant types.
We should be to contain them through the use of local proxies. The armies of Donbass
republics currently number some 40-60 thousand men according to Cassad blog, which compares with the size of the entire
Ukrainian army. We should be able to recruit more local Ukrainian proxies once we're in Kharkov.
AP says that Azov and the like can act like underground insurgency in Eastern cities.
But I don't see how this could work – there will a thousand people around them
willing to rat them out.
About 1/3 of the population in Eastern Ukrainian regions voted for Ukrainian nationalists
in 2012, compared to only 10% in Donbas. Three times as many. Likely after 2014 many of the
hardcore pro-Russians left Kharkiv, just as hardcore pro-Ukrainians left Donetsk. Furthermore
anti-Russian attitudes have hardened, due to the war, Crimea, etc. So there would be plenty
of local support for native insurgents.
Russians say, correctly, that after Kiev has shelled Donetsk how can the people of Donetsk
reconcile themselves with Kiev?
The time when Russia could have bloodlessly marched into Kharkiv is over. Ukrainian forces
have dug in. How will Kharkiv people feel towards uninvited Russian invaders shelling their
city in order to to take it under their control?
There is no pro-Ukrainian insurgency in Crimea or inside the republics in Donbass, and
it's not due to the lack of local football hooligans.
Crimea was 60% Russian, Donbas Republics territory about 45% Russian; Kharkiv oblast is
only 25% Russian.
With Donbas – there are actually local pro-Ukrainian militants from Donbas, in the
Donbas and Aidar battalions.
@AP It
was a decision that Putin personally made. He wasn't going to move in Crimea either, until
Maidanists overthrew his friend
It goes without saying that Putin doesn't share my nationalist approach to Ukraine
problem: he does not see the destruction of Ukrainian project as necessary or even desirable.
And I'm sure the restraint Putin has shown on Ukraine doesn't come from him being intimidated
by Azov militia.
These folks will take care of themselves either through self-deportation or gradually
coming to terms with the new reality in Kharkov, just like their compatriots in Crimea
did
The problem with this comparison is that Crimeans were far more in favor of joining Russia
that are Kharkivites.
The armies of Donbass republics currently number some 40-60 thousand men according to
Cassad blog, which compares with the size of the entire Ukrainian army.
Ukrainian military has 200,000 – 250,000 active members and about 100,000 reserves.
Where did you get your information? The end of 2014?
We should be able to recruit more local Ukrainian proxies once we're in Kharkov.
You would be able to recruit some local proxies in Kharkiv. Kiev even did so in Donbas.
But given the fact that Ukrainian nationalism was 3 times more popular on Kharkiv than in
Donetsk, and that Kharkiv youth were split 50/50 in terms of or versus anti Maidan support
(versus 80/20 IIIRC anti-Maidan in Donbas), it would not be so easy. Moreover, by now many of
the hardcore anti-Kiev people have already left Kharkiv, while Kharkiv has had some
settlement by pro-Ukrainian dissidents from Donbas. So the situation even in 2014 was hard
enough that Russia chose to stay away, now it is even worse for the pro-Russians.
And I'm sure the restraint Putin has shown on Ukraine doesn't come from him being
intimidated by Azov militia.
This is rather a symptom of a much wider phenomenon: the population simply doesn't see
itself as Russian and doesn't want to be part of Russia. So its hooligan-types go for
Ukrainian, not Russian, nationalism as is the case in Russia.
The time when Russia could have bloodlessly marched into Kharkiv is over. Ukrainian
forces have dug in. How will Kharkiv people feel towards uninvited Russian invaders
shelling their city in order to to take it under their control?
The locals will move to disarm Ukrainian forces, who have taken their city hostage, then
welcome Russian liberators with open arms, what else they are going to do? lol
It's just a joke though. In reality there is virtually no Ukrainian forces in city of
Kharkov. They don't have the manpower. Ukrainian regime managed to fortify Perekop and the
perimeter of the people's republics, but the rest of Ukraine-Russia border remains completely
undefended. It's wide open!
It goes without saying that Putin doesn't share my nationalist approach to Ukraine
problem: he does not see the destruction of Ukrainian project as necessary or even
desirable.
Well there you have it. Putin is a much smarter guy than you are Felix (BTW, are you
Jewish, all of the Felix's that I've known were Jewish?). Good to see that you're nothing
more than a blackshirted illusionist.*
@for-the-record
German and European reliance on US security guarantees is a problem, since it's become pretty
clear that the US political system is dysfunctional and US "elites" are dangerous extremists.
We need our own security structures to be independent from the US so they can't drag us into
their stupid projects or blackmail us anymore why do you think Merkel didn't react much to
the revelations about American spying on Germany? Because we're totally dependent on the
Americans in security matters.
And while I don't believe Russia or Iran are really serious threats to Europe, it would be
foolish to have no credible deterrence.
"How will Kharkiv people feel towards uninvited Russian invaders shelling their city in
order to to take it under their control?"
They will move to disarm ther Ukrainian forces, who have taken their city hostage, then
welcome their Russian liberators with open arms, what else they are going to do? lol
While about 1/3 of Kharkiv voted for Ukrainian nationalists, only perhaps 10%-20% of the
city would actually like to be part of Russia (and I am being generous to you). So your idea
is equivalent to American fantasies of Iraqis greeting their troops with flowers.
It's just a joke though. In reality there is virtually no Ukrainian forces in city of
Kharkov. They don't have the manpower. Ukrainian regime managed to fortify Perekop and the
perimeter of the people's republics, but the rest of Ukraine-Russia border remains
completely undefended.
Are you living in 2014? Russian nationalists always like to think of Ukraine as if it is
2014-2015. It is comforting for them.
Ukraine currently has 200,000-250,000 active troops. About 60,000 of them are around
Donbas.
Here is a map of various positions in 2017:
Kharkiv does appear to be lightly defended, though not undefended (it has a motorized
infantry brigade and a lot of air defenses). The map does not include national guard units
such as Azov, however, which would add a few thousand troops to Kharkiv's defense.
It looks like rather than stationing their military in forward positions vs. a possible
Russian attack, Ukraine, has put lot of troops in Dnipropetrovsk, Mykolaiv, Kiev and
Odessa.
Ukrainian military has 200,000 – 250,000 active members and about 100,000
reserves. Where did you get your information? The end of 2014?
I read Kassad blog, and he says Ukrainian formations assembled in Donbass number some
50-70 thousands men. The entire Ukrainian army is around 200.000 men, including the navy
(LOL), the airforce, but most of it isn't combat ready. Ukraine doesn't just suffer from a
lack of manpower, they don't have the resources to feed and clothe their soldiers, which
limits their ability field an army.
By contrast the armies of people's republics have 40-60 thousand men – that's
impressive level of mobilisation, and they achieved this without implementing draft.
@APSo your idea is equivalent to American fantasies of Iraqis greeting their troops with
flowers.
The local populations in Iraq were congenial to begin with, at least outside some Sunni
centers. It was never an object of American policy to stay in Iraq indefinitely.
Kharkiv does appear to be lightly defended, though not undefended (it has a motorized
infantry brigade and a lot of air defenses).
How many people does this "motorized infantry brigade" have? And more importantly what is
its level of combat readiness? Couldn't we just smash this brigade with a termobaric bomb
while they are sleeping?
Ukraine is full of shit. They had 20.000 troops in Crimea, "a lot of air defenses" and it
didn't make a iota of difference. Somehow you expect me to believe Ukraine has a completely
different army now. Why should I? They don't have the resources to afford a better army, so
it is logical to assume that Ukrainian army is still crap.
Russian nationalists always like to think of Ukraine as if it is 2014-2015. It is
comforting for them.
Betwixt and between all the trash talking, they've forgotten that the last occasion on
which one country attempted to conquer an absorb another country with a population anywhere
near 30% of its own was during the 2d World War. Didn't work out so well for Germany and
Japan.
@for-the-recordAustria, on the other hand, has survived for more than 60 years without the US "umbrella"
to protect it (and with a military strength rated below that of Angola and Chile), so why
couldn't Germany?
Austria hasn't been absorbed by Germany or Italy therefore Germany doesn't have a use for
security guarantees or an armed force. Do I render your argument correctly?
Not completely true, Germany didn't participate in the Iraq war and in the bombing of
Libya.
I'm hardly an expert on military matters, but it would seem just common sense to me that a
state needs sufficient armed forces to protect its own territory if you don't have that, you
risk becoming a passive object whose fate is decided by other powers. Doesn't mean Germany
should have a monstrously bloated military budget like the US, just sufficient forces to
protect its own territory and that of neighbouring allies (which is what the German army
should be for instead of participating in futile counter-insurgency projects in places like
Afghanistan). Potential for conflict in Europe is obviously greatest regarding Russia it's
still quite low imo, and I want good relations with Russia and disagree vehemently with such
insanely provocative ideas as NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia, but it would be stupid
not to have credible deterrence (whose point it is to prevent hostilities after all). I don't
think that's an anti-Russian position, it's just realistic.
Apart from that Germany doesn't probably need much in the way of military capabilities maybe
some naval forces for participation in international anti-piracy missions.
Regarding nuclear weapons, that's obviously something Germany can't or shouldn't do on its
own (probably wouldn't be tolerated anyway given 20th century history), so it would have to
be in some form of common European project. Hard to tell now if something like this could
eventually become possible or necessary.
@Felix
Keverich Sorry to prickle your little fantasy world once again tovarishch, but according
to current CIA statistics Ukraine has 182,000 active personnel, and 1,000,000 reservists! For
a complete rundown of Ukraine's military strength, read this and weep:
@Art
DecoThey've had ample opportunity over a period of 26 years to make the decision you
favor. It hasn't happened, and there's no reason to fancy they'll be more amenable a decade
from now.
Yes, these people had been sold a vision. If only they leave behind the backward, Asiatic,
mongoloid Russia, they will instantly Join Europe. They will have all of the good stuff:
European level of prosperity, rule of law, international approval, and so on; and none of the
bad stuff that they associated with Russia, like poverty, corruption, and civil strife.
Official Ukrainian propaganda worked overtime, and still works today, to hammer this into
people's heads. And it's an attractive vision. An office dweller in Kiev wants to live in a
shiny European capital, not in a bleak provincial city of a corrupt Asian empire. The problem
is, it's ain't working. For a while Ukraine managed to get Russia to subsidize Ukrainian
European dream. Now this is over. The vision is starting to fail even harder.
The experience of Communism shows that it may take decades but eventually people notice
that the state ideology is a lie. Once they do, they change their mind about things rather
quickly.
It goes without saying that Putin doesn't share my nationalist approach to Ukraine
problem: he does not see the destruction of Ukrainian project as necessary or even
desirable.
Agreed, and he happens to be in the right here. Russia actually has a good hand in
Ukraine, if only she keeps her cool . More military adventurism is foolish for at
least three reasons:
(1) All the civilian deaths in the Donbass, somewhat perversely, play to Russia's
advantage in that they take some of the sting out of the "Ukraine is the victim" narrative.
Common people know full well that the Ukrainian troops are hated in the Donbass (I once
watched a Ukrainian soldier shock the audience by saying this on Shuster Live), and they know
also that Kiev has a blame in all those dead women and children. These are promising
conditions for future reconciliation, and they would be squandered overnight if Russian
troops moved further westward.
(2) The geopolitical repercussions would be enormous. As I and others have already
written, the present situation is just about what people in elite Western circles can
stomach. Any Russian escalation would seriously jeopardize European trade with Russia, among
other things.
(3) There is a good chance that Crimea will eventually be internationally recognized as
part of the RF (a British parliamentary report on this matter in 2015, I think it was, made
this quite clear). The same might also be true of the Donbass. These "acquisitions," too,
would be jeopardized by more military action.
You mean Putin mercs kill more Ukrainian civilians and we 'take some of the sting out of
the 'Ukraine is a victim narrative'? Sounds like a plan.
No, I wrote that those civilians are already gone and that both sides had a hand in their
deaths, which will help the peace process since no side can claim sole victimhood.
And your assumption that the separatists are mercenaries is groundless speculation.
Estimations are that well over half of the separatists are born and bred in Ukraine, and
there is no evidence to suggest that they are fighting for the love of money.
Did you cc the folks in Ramallah and Jerusalem about that?
Risible comparison. Theirs is a conflict involving three major religions and the survival
of the Israeli state at stake. On the Crimean question, we have already heard influential
Westerners voice the possibility that it might one day be accepted as Russian, and if you
read between the lines, many Ukrainians are of a similiar mind.
@Felix
KeverichUnfortunately, the Ukraine has been spending 5%* of its GDP on the military
since c.2015 (versus close to 1% before 2014).
Doesn't really matter if tons of money continues to be stolen, or even the recession
– with that kind of raw increase, a major enhancement in capabilities is
inevitable.
Like it or not, but outright war with Maidanist Ukraine has been ruled out from the
beginning, as the more perceptive analysts like Rostislav Ischenko have long recognized. If
there was a time and a place for it, it was either in April 2014, or August 2014 at the
very latest. Since then, the Ukrainian Army has gotten much stronger. It has been purged of
its "Russophile" elements, and even though it has lost a substantial percentage of its
remnant Soviet-era military capital in the war of attrition with the LDNR, it has more than
made up for it with wartime XP gain and the banal fact of a quintupling in military
spending as a percentage of GDP from 1% to 5%.
This translates to an effective quadrupling
in absolute military spending, even when accounting for Ukraine's post-Maidan economic
collapse.
Russia can still crush Ukraine in a full-scale conventional conflict, and that
will remain the case for the foreseeable future, but it will no longer be the happy cruise
to the Dnepr that it would have been two years earlier.
The entire Ukrainian army is around 200.000 men, including the navy (LOL), the airforce,
but most of it isn't combat ready.
250,000. Combat readiness is very different from 2014.
Ukraine doesn't just suffer from a lack of manpower, they don't have the resources to
feed and clothe their soldiers, which limits their ability field an army.
Again, it isn't 2014 anymore. Military budget has increased significantly, from 3.2
billion in 2015 to 5.17 billion in 2017. In spite of theft, much more is getting through.
By contrast the armies of people's republics have 40-60 thousand men – that's
impressive level of mobilisation, and they achieved this without implementing draft
It's one of the only ways to make any money in the Republics, so draft is
unnecessaary.
Estimations are that well over half of the separatists are born and bred in Ukraine, and
there is no evidence to suggest that they are fighting for the love of money.
80% are natives. Perhaps as much as 90%. However, often it a way to make a meager salary
in those territories, so there is a mercenary aspect to it. Lots of unemployed workers go
into the Republic military.
Estimations are that well over half of the separatists are born and bred in Ukraine, and
there is no evidence to suggest that they are fighting for the love of money.
80% in 2014-15, to be precise; another 10% from the Kuban; 10% from Russia, the Russian
world, and the world at large.
NAF salaries are good by post-2014 Donbass standards, but a massive cut for Russians
– no Russian went there to get rich.
That said, I strongly doubt there will ever be international recognition of Crimea, let
alone Donbass. Israel has by far the world's most influential ethnic lobby. Even NATO member
Turkey hasn't gotten Northern Cyprus internationally recognized, so what exactly are the
chances of the international community (read: The West) recognizing the claims of Russia,
which is fast becoming established in Western minds as the arch-enemy of civilization?
@Anatoly
Karlin Fascinating link. The numbers for the military budget are a lot lower than
reported elsewhere.
Mobilization percentages by region:
"Among the leaders of the fourth and fifth wave of partial mobilisation were the
Khmelnitsky,
Dnipropetrovsk, Vinnytsia, Kirovohrad and Zaporizhia regions, as well as the city
of Kyiv, whose mobilisation plan was fulfilled 80-100% (the record was Vinnytsia oblast,
which achieved 100% mobilisation). At the opposite extreme are the Kharkiv, Chernivtsi,
Donetsk, Ivano-Frankivsk, Lugansk, Sumy, Ternopil and Transcarpathian regions, where
the results of the mobilisation varied from 25 to 60%."
Summary:
2014:
The true face of the Ukrainian armed forces was revealed by the Russian annexation of
Crimea and the first weeks of the war in the Donbas – they were nothing more than a
fossilised structure, unfit for any effective function upon even a minimum engagement with
the enemy, during which a significant part of the troops only realised whom they were
representing in the course of the conflict and more than once, from the perspective of
service in one of the post-Soviet military districts, they chose to serve in the Russian
army
2017:
The war in the Donbas shaped the Ukrainian army. It gave awareness and motivation to the
soldiers, and forced the leadership of the Defence Ministry and the government of the state
to adapt the army's structure – for the first time since its creation – to real
operational needs, and also to bear the costs of halting the collapses in the fields of
training and equipment, at least to such an extent which would allow the army to fight a
close battle with the pro-Russian separatists. Despite all these problems, the Ukrainian
armed forces of the year 2017 now number 200,000, most of whom have come under fire, and
are seasoned in battle. They have a trained reserve ready for mobilisation in the event of
a larger conflict*; their weapons are not the latest or the most modern, but the vast
majority of them now work properly; and they are ready for the defence of the vital
interests of the state (even if some of the personnel still care primarily about their own
vested interests). They have no chance of winning a potential military clash with Russia,
but they have a reason to fight. The Ukrainian armed forces of the year 2014, in a
situation where their home territory was occupied by foreign troops, were incapable of
mounting an adequate response. The changes since the Donbas war started mean that Ukraine
now has the best army it has ever had in its history.
* The Ukrainian armed forces have an operational reserve of 130,000 men, relatively well
trained and with real combat experience, who since 2016 have been moulded out of veterans
of the Donbas (as well as from formations subordinate to the Interior Ministry). It must be
stressed, however, that those counted in the reserve represent only half of the veterans of
the anti-terrorist operation (by October 2016, 280,000 Ukrainians had served in the Donbas
in all formations subordinate to the government in Kyiv, with 266,000 reservists gaining
combat status; at the beginning of February 2017, 193,400 reservists were in the armed
forces). Thanks to that, at least in terms of the human factor, it should be possible in a
relatively short period of time to increase the Ukrainian army's degree of combat
readiness, as well as to fight a relatively close battle with a comparable opponent,
something the Ukrainian armed forces were not capable of doing at the beginning of
2014.
NAF salaries are good by post-2014 Donbass standards, but a massive cut for Russians
– no Russian went there to get rich.
Which further points to the critical role played by Russians. Many of the local volunteers
are participating because doing so offers a salary, which is very important in a wrecked,
sanctioned Donbas. The Russian 10%-20% are motivated, often Chechen combat vets. They are
more important than their % indicates.
@Gerard2
..and lets not forget the failure in mobilisation from the Ukrainian military
That and having to hire loads of Georgians, Chechens, Poles and other mercenaries. Pretty much tallys perfectly with the failed shithole Ukraine government structure full of
everyone else .but Ukrainians
@melanf
What is almost incomprehensible for me in these endless Russia vs Ukraine arguments is how
they (yes both sides) always ignore the real issues and instead keep on raising relatively
petty points while thinking that mass non white immigration and things like the EU
commissioner of immigration stating openly that Europe needs endless immigration, are not
important.
It's like white South Africans who still debate the Boer war or the Irish debate
the northern Ireland question, and are completely oblivious to the fact that these things
don't matter anymore if you have an entirely new people ruling your land (ok in South Africa
they were not new, but you know what I mean).
I have read a article mentioned something like Putin said, to annexed whole Ukraine means to
share the enormous resource wealth of vast Russia land with them, which make no economic
sense. If Russia is worst than Ukraine, then there won't be million of Ukrainian migrating
over after the Maidan coup.
So are all those Baltic states. Russia don't want these countries as it burden, it is
probably only interested in selected strategic areas like the Eastern Ukraine industrial belt
and military important Crimea warm water deep seaport, and skilled migrants. Ukraine has one
of lowest per capital income now, with extreme corrupted politicians controlled by USNato
waging foolish civil war killing own people resulting in collapsing economic and exudes of
skilled people.
What it got to lose to unify with Russia to have peace, prosperity and been a nation of a
great country instead of poor war torn? Plus a bonus of free Russia market access, unlimited
cheap natural gas and pipeline toll to tax instead of buying LNG from US at double price.
Sorry this s just my opinion based on mostly fake news we are fed, only the Ukrainian know
the best and able to decde themselves.
Agreed, and he happens to be in the right here. Russia actually has a good hand in
Ukraine, if only she keeps her cool. More military adventurism is foolish for at least
three reasons:
Yes, this is my view also. I think Russia was never in a position to do much more than it
has, and those who talk about more vigorous military interference are just naïve, or
engaging in wishful thinking, about the consequences. I think Putin played a very bad hand as
well as could reasonably be expected in Ukraine and Crimea. No doubt mistakes were made, and
perhaps more support at the key moment for the separatists (assassinations of some of the key
oligarchs who chose the Ukrainian side and employed thugs to suppress the separatists in
eastern cities, perhaps) could have resulted in a better situation now with much more of the
eastern part of Ukraine separated, but if Russians want someone to blame for the situation in
Ukraine apart from their enemies, they should look at Yanukovich, not Putin.
In the long run, it seems likely the appeal of NATO and the EU (assuming both still even
exist in their current forms in a few years time) is probably peaking, but strategic patience
and only limited covert and economic interference is advisable.
The return of Crimea to Russia alone has been a dramatic improvement in the inherent
stability of the region. A proper division of the territory currently forming the Ukraine
into a genuine Ukrainian nation in the west and an eastern half returned to Russia would be
the ideal long term outcome, but Russia can surely live with a neutralised Ukraine.
You realise that Ukraine's GDP declined in dollar terms by a factor of 2-3 times, right? A
bigger share of a smaller economy translates into the same paltry sum. It is still under $5
billion.
Futhermore an army that's actively deployed and engaged in fighting spends more money than
during peacetime. A lot of this money goes to fuel, repairs, providing for soldiers and their
wages rather than qualitatively improving capabilities of the army.
The bottom-line is Ukraine spent the last 3,5 years preparing to fight a war against the
People's Republic of Donetsk. I'll admit Ukrainian army can hold its own against the People's
Republic of Donetsk. Yet it remains hopelessly outmatched in a potential clash with Russia. A
short, but brutal bombing campaign can whipe out Ukrainian command and control, will make it
impossible to mount any kind of effective defence. Ukrainian conscripts have no experience in
urban warfare, and their national loyalties are unclear.
AP predicts that the cities of Kharkov, Dniepropetrovsk will be reduced to something akin
to Aleppo. But it has taken 3 years of constant shelling to cause the damage in Aleppo. A
more likely outcome is that Ukrainian soldiers will promptly ditch their uniforms, once they
realise the Russian are coming and their command is gone.
@Felix
Keverich Nominal GDP collapsed, but real GDP only fell by around 20%. This matters more,
since the vast majority of Ukrainian military spending occurs in grivnas.
By various calculations, Ukrainian military spending went up from 1% of GDP, to 2.5%-5%.
Minus 20%, that translates to a doubling to quadrupling.
What it does mean is that they are even less capable of paying for advanced weapons from
the West than before, but those were never going to make a cardinal difference anyway.
AP is certainly exaggerating wrt Kharkov looking like Aleppo and I certainly didn't agree
with him on that. In reality Russia will still be able to smash the Ukraine, assuming no
large-scale American intervention, but it will no longer be the trivial task it would have
been in 2014, and will likely involve thousands as opposed to hundreds (or even dozens) of
Russian military deaths in the event of an offensive up to the Dnieper.
It's one of the only ways to make any money in the Republics, so draft is
unnecessaary.
It's not like the regime-controlled parts of the country are doing much better! LOL
My point is that this bodes well for our ability to recruit proxies in Ukraine, don't you
think? We could easily assemble another 50.000-strong local army, once we're in Kharkov.
That's the approach I would use in Ukraine: strip away parts of it piece by piece, create
local proxies, use them to maintain control and absorb casualties in the fighting on the
ground.
In reality Russia will still be able to smash the Ukraine, assuming no large-scale
American intervention, but it will no longer be the trivial task it would have been in
2014, and will likely involve thousands as opposed to hundreds (or even dozens) of Russian
military deaths in the event of an offensive up to the Dnieper.
Fortunately, we'll not be seeing a replay of the sacking and destruction of Novgorod as
was done in the 15th century by Ivan III, and all of its ugly repercussions in Ukraine.
Besides, since the 15th century, we've seen the emergence of three separate nationalities out
of the loose amalgamation of principalities known a Rus. Trying to recreate something (one
Rus nation) out of something that never in effect existed, now in the 21st century is a
ridiculous concept at best.
"It's one of the only ways to make any money in the Republics, so draft is
unnecessaary."
It's not like the regime-controlled parts of the country are doing much better! LOL
Well, they are, at least in the center and west. Kievans don't volunteer to fight because
they have no other way of making money. But you probably believe the fairytale that Ukraine
is in total collapse, back to the 90s.
We could easily assemble another 50.000-strong local army, once we're in Kharkov.
If in the process of taking Kharkiv the local economy goes into ruin due to wrecked
factories and sanctions so that picking up a gun is the only way to feed one's family for
some people, sure. But again, keep in mind that Kharkiv is much less pro-Russian than Donbas
so this could be more complicated.
@Anatoly
KarlinHow so? Poland and France (together around equal to Germany's population)
worked out perfectly for Nazi Germany.
You're forgetting a few things. In the United States, about 1/3 of the country's
productive capacity was devoted to the war effort during the period running from 1940 to
1946. I'll wager you it was higher than that in Britain and continental Europe. That's what
Germany was drawing on to attempt to sustain its holdings for just the 4-5 year period in
which they occupied France and Poland. (Russia currently devotes 4% of its productive
capacity to the military). Germany had to be exceedingly coercive as well. They were facing
escalating partisan resistance that whole time (especially in the Balkans).
Someone whose decisions matter is going to ask the question of whether it's really worth
the candle.
@Art
Deco Thanks for the correction. This suggests that transforming Iraq into a solidly
pro-Western stable democracy would have been much harder than doing so for Japan. This I
think would have been the only legitimate reason to invade in Iraq in 2003 (WMDs weren't
there, and in 2003 the regime was not genocidal as it had been decades earlier when IMO an
invasion would have been justified)
Again, much of Iraq is quiet and has been for a decade. What's not would be the
provinces where Sunnis form a critical mass. Their political vanguards are fouling their
own nest and imposing costs on others in the vicinity, such as the country's Christian
population and the Kurds living in mixed provinces like Kirkuk.
Correct, but most of this have been the case had the Baathists remained in power?
You've seen severe internal disorders in the Arab world over 60 years in Algeria, Libya,
the Sudan, the Yemen, the Dhofar region of Oman, Lebanon, Syria, and central Iraq.
Which is why one ought to either not invade a country and remove a regime that maintains
stability and peace, or if one does so – take on the responsibility of investing
massive effort and treasure in order to prevent the inevitable chaos and violence that would
erupt as a result of one's invasion.
@Anatoly
Karlin To be honest, I don't think it'll be necessary to sacrifice so many lives of
Russian military personnel. Use LDNR army: transport them to Belgorod and with Russians they
could move to take Kharkov, while facing minimal opposition. Then move futher to the West and
South until the entire Ukrainian army in Donbass becomes encircled at which point they will
likely surrender.
After supressing Ukrainian air-defence, our airforce should be able to destroy command and
control, artillery, armoured formations, airfields, bridges over Dnieper, other
infrustructure. Use the proxies to absord casualties in the fighting on the ground.
but it will no longer be the happy cruise to the Dnepr that it would have been two years
earlier.
Anatoly, please, don't write on things you have no qualification on writing. You can not
even grasp the generational (that is qualitative) abyss which separates two armed forces. The
question will not be in this:
but it will no longer be the happy cruise to the Dnepr that it would have been two years
earlier.
By the time the "cruising" would commence there will be no Ukrainian Army as an organized
formation or even units left–anything larger than platoon will be hunted down and
annihilated. It is really painful to read this, honestly. The question is not in Russian
"ambition" or rah-rah but in the fact that Ukraine's armed forces do not posses ANY C4ISR
capability which is crucial for a dynamics of a modern war. None. Mopping up in the East
would still be much easier than it would be in Central, let alone, Western Ukraine but Russia
has no business there anyway. More complex issues were under consideration than merely
probable losses of Russian Army when it was decided (rightly so) not to invade.
I will open
some "secret"–nations DO bear collective responsibility and always were subjected to
collective punishment -- latest example being Germany in both WWs -- the bacillus of
Ukrainian "nationalism" is more effectively addressed by letting those moyahataskainikam
experience all "privileges" of it. In the end, Russia's resources were used way better than
paying for mentally ill country. 2019 is approaching fast.
P.S. In all of your military "analysis" on Ukraine one thing is missing leaving a gaping
hole–Russian Armed Forces themselves which since 2014 were increasing combat potential
exponentially. Ukies? Not so much–some patches here and there. Russian Armed Forces of
2018 are not those of 2013. Just for shits and giggles check how many Ratnik sets have been
delivered to Russian Army since 2011. That may explain to you why timing in war and politics
is everything.
AP is certainly exaggerating wrt Kharkov looking like Aleppo and I certainly didn't
agree with him on that.
I wrote that parts of the city would look like that. I don't think there would be enough
massive resistance that the entire city would be destroyed. But rooting out a couple thousand
armed, experienced militiamen or soldiers in the urban area would cause a lot of expensive
damage and, as is the case when civilians died in Kiev's efforts to secure Donbas, would
probably not endear the invaders to the locals who after all do not want Russia to invade
them.
And Kharkiv would be the easiest to take. Dnipropetrovsk would be much more Aleppo-like,
and Kiev Felix was proposing for Russia to take all these areas.
To be honest, I don't think it'll be necessary to sacrifice so many lives of Russian
military personnel.
The question is not in losses, per se. Russians CAN accept losses if the deal becomes hot
in Ukraine–it is obvious. The question is in geopolitical dynamics and the way said
Russian Armed Forces were being honed since 2013, when Shoigu came on-board and the General
Staff got its mojo returned to it. All Command and Control circuit of Ukie army will be
destroyed with minimal losses if need be, and only then cavalry will be let in. How many
Russian or LDNR lives? I don't know, I am sure GOU has estimates by now. Once you control
escalation (Russia DOES control escalation today since can respond to any contingency) you
get way more flexibility (geo)politcally. Today, namely December 2017, situation is such that
Russia controls escalation completely. If Ukies want to attack, as they are inevitably forced
to do so, we all know what will happen. Ukraine has about a year left to do something.
Meanwhile considering EU intentions to sanction Poland, well, we are witnessing the start of
a major shitstorm.
Trying to recreate something (one Rus nation) out of something that never in effect
existed, now in the 21st century is a ridiculous concept at best.
A stupid comment for an adult. Ukraine, in effect never existed before Russia/Stalin/Lenin
created it. Kiev is a historical Russian city, and 5 of the 7 most populated areas in Ukraine
are Russian/Soviet created cities, Russian language is favourite spoken by most Ukrainians (
see even Saakashvili in court, speaking only in Russian even though he speaks fluent
Ukrainian now and all the judges and lawyers speaking in Russian too), the millions of
Ukrainians living happily in Russia and of course, the topic of what exactly is a Ukrainian
is obsolete because pretty much every Ukrainian has a close Russian relative the level of
intermarriage was at the level of one culturally identical people.
AK: Improvement! The first paragraph was acceptable, hence not hidden.
@Mr.
Hack economics, hope that the west and their puppets in Kiev would act like sane and
decent people, threat of sanctions and so on.
As is obvious, if the west had remained neutral ( an absurd hypothetical because the west
were the ringmasters of the farce in this failed state) ..and not supported the coup and then
the evil war brought on the Donbass people, then a whole different situation works out in
Ukraine ( for the better)
@S3
Nietzsche famously foresaw the rise and fall of communism and the destruction of Germany in
the two world wars. He also liked to think of himself as a Polish nobleman. Maybe this is
what he meant.
Its very amusing reading all the comments so far. But reality is that Russia should take back
all the lands conquered by the Tsars, and that includes Finland.
Look at America. Currently the US has troops stationed in other countries all over the
world. And most of those "independent" countries can't take virtually no decision without
America's approval. This is definitely the case with Germany and Japan, where their
"presidents" have to take an oath of loyalty to the US on assuming office. Now America has
even moved into Eastern Europe, and has troops and radars and nuclear capable missile
batteries stationed there. So America is just expanding and expanding its grasp while Russia
must contract its territories even further and further. Yippee.
So Russia must take back all the territories conquered by the Tsars so as to not lose this
game of monopoly. Those in those territories not too happy about such matters can move to
America or deal with the Red Army. This is not a matter of cost benefits analysis but a
matter of Russia's national security, as in the case of Chechnya.
The territories to Russia's East are especially necessary for Russia's security; when the
chips are down, when all the satellites have been blown out of space, all the aircraft blown
out of the air, all the ground hardware blown to smithereens; when the battle is reduced to
eye to eye rat like warfare, then those assorted Mongol mongrels from Russia's East come into
their element. Genghis Khan was the biggest mass murderer in history, he made Hitler look
like a school boy, his genes live on in those to Russia's East. So if America were to get
involved in Ukraine Russia would have no issues losing a million troops in a matter of days
while the US has never even lost a million troops in its civil war and WW2 combined.
Lets face it, those Mongol mongrels make much better fighters than the effete Sunni Arabs
any day, so Russia should get them on her side. In Syria those ISIS idiots would never have
got as far as they did were it not for those few Chechens in their midst's.
But alas, Russia has to eat humble pie at the moment, internationally and at the Olympics.
But humble pie tastes good when its washed down with bottles of vodka, and its only
momentarily after all.
@gTLook at America. Currently the US has troops stationed in other countries all over the
world.
Since 1945, between 70% and 87% of American military manpower has been stationed in the
United States and its possession. The vast bulk of the remainder is generally to be found in
about a half-dozen countries. (In recent years, that would be Germany, Japan, Iraq,
Afghanistan, and Kuwait). Andrew Bacevich once went on a whinge about the stupidity of having
a 'Southern Command' without bothering to tell his readers that the Southern Command had
2,000 billets at that time, that nearly half were stationed at Guantanamo Bay (an American
possession since 1902), that no country had more than 200 American soldiers resident, and
that the primary activity of the Southern Command was drug interdiction. On the entire
African continent, there were 5,000 billets at that time.
And most of those "independent" countries can't take virtually no decision without
America's approval. This is definitely the case with Germany and Japan, where their
"presidents" have to take an oath of loyalty to the US on assuming office.
I especially like the bit about "Though most of the German officers were not originally
inclined against America, a lot of them being educated in the United States, they are now
experiencing disappointment and even disgust with Washington's policies."
Seems its not only
the Russians who are getting increasingly pissed off with the US when at first they actually
liked the US. No wonder the Germans are just letting their submarines and tanks rot away.
"... North Korea's air defenses are so weak that we had to notify them we were flying B1 bombers near their airspace–they didn't even know our aircraft were coming. This reminds me of the "fearsome" Republican Guard that Saddam had in the Persian Gulf. Turns out we had total air superiority and just bombed the crap out of them and they surrendered in droves. ..."
"... We have already seen what happens when an army has huge amounts of outdated Soviet weaponry versus the most technologically advanced force in the world. It's a slaughter. Also, there has to be weaponry up the USA's sleeve that would be used in the event of an attack. Don't forget our cyber warfare abilities that would undoubtedly be implemented as well. This writer seems to always hype Russia's capabilities and denigrate the US's capabilities. Sure, Russia has the capacity to nuke the US into smithereens, and vice versa. But if its a head to head shooting war, the US and NATO would dominate. FACT. ..."
"... Commander's intent: ..."
"... Decapitate the top leadership and remove retaliatory capability. ..."
"... Massive missile/bombing campaign (including carpet) of top leadership locations, tactical missile locations and DMZ artillery belt. Destruction of surface fleet and air force. ..."
"... Advance into DMZ artillery belt up to a range of 240 mm cannon. Not further (local tactical considerations taken into account of course). ..."
"... Phase three: "break the enemy's will to fight" and destroy the "regime support infrastructure" ..."
"... I guess an American attack on North Korea would consist of preemptive strategic nuking to destroy the entire country before it can do anything. Since North Korea itself contributes essentially nothing to the world economy, no one would lose money. ..."
"... These examples perfectly illustrate the kind of mindset induced by what Professor John Marciano called "Empire as a way of life" [1] which is characterized by a set of basic characteristics: ..."
"... there has to be ..."
"... would undoubtedly ..."
"... the act of simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct, often in distinct social contexts ..."
"... A perfect illustration of that is the famous quote " it became necessary to destroy the town to save it ..."
"... I watch CNN, but I'm not sure I can tell you, the difference in Iraq and Iran, but I know Jesus and I talk to God ..."
"... this applies to the vast majority of US politicians, decision-makers and elected officials, hence Putin's remark that " It's difficult to talk with people who confuse Austria and Australia ". ..."
"... As a result, there is no more discernible US diplomacy left: all the State Department does is deliver threats, ultimatums and condemnations. Meaningful *negotiations* have basically been removed form the US foreign policy toolkit. ..."
"... That belief is also the standard cop out in any conversation of morality, ethnics, or even the notions of right and wrong. An anti-religious view par excellence . ..."
"... The US policies towards Russia, China and Iran all have the potential of resulting in a disaster of major magnitude. The world is dealing with situation in which a completely delusional regime is threatening everybody with various degrees of confrontation. This is like being in the same room with a monkey playing with a hand grenade. Except for that hand grenade is nuclear. ..."
"... This situation places a special burden of responsibility on all other nations, especially those currently in Uncle Sam's cross-hairs, to act with restraint and utmost restraint. That is not fair, but life rarely is. It is all very well and easy to declare that force must be met by force and that the Empire interprets restraint as weakness until you realize that any miscalculation can result in the death of millions of people. I am therefore very happy that the DPRK is the only country which chose to resort to a policy of hyperbolic threats while Iran, Russia and China acted, and are still acting, with the utmost restraint. ..."
"... they plan, and Allah plans. And Allah is the best of planners ..."
"... If the U.S. attacks North Korea or Iran we will become a pariah among nations (especially once the pictures start pouring in). We will be loathed. Countries may very well decide that we are not worthy of having the world's reserve currency. In that case the dollar will collapse as will our economy. ..."
"... Maybe it's just me, but it seems that NK is just another tyranny in a long list of tyrannies throughout millennia, and like all of them it will just implode on its own. Therefore, the best thing you can do is simply to ignore it (thus denying the tyrant an external threat to rally the populace) and wait for the NK people to say enough is enough. ..."
"... I agree with the logic that as Americans become dumber the ability to have a powerful military also degrades, however an increasingly declining America also makes it more dangerous. As ever more ideologues rule the corridors of power and the generally stupid population that will consent to everything they are told, America will start involving itself in ever more reckless conflicts. This means they despite being a near idiocracy, the nuclear weapons and military bases all over world make America an ever greater threat for the world ..."
My recent analysis of the potential consequences of a US attack on the DPRK has elicited a wide range of reactions. There is one
type of reaction which I find particularly interesting and most important and I would like to focus on it today: the ones which entirely
dismissed my whole argument. The following is a selection of some of the most telling reactions of this kind:
Example 1:
North Korea's air defenses are so weak that we had to notify them we were flying B1 bombers near their airspace–they didn't
even know our aircraft were coming. This reminds me of the "fearsome" Republican Guard that Saddam had in the Persian Gulf. Turns
out we had total air superiority and just bombed the crap out of them and they surrendered in droves.
We have already seen what happens when an army has huge amounts of outdated Soviet weaponry versus the most technologically
advanced force in the world. It's a slaughter. Also, there has to be weaponry up the USA's sleeve that would be used in the event
of an attack. Don't forget our cyber warfare abilities that would undoubtedly be implemented as well. This writer seems to always
hype Russia's capabilities and denigrate the US's capabilities. Sure, Russia has the capacity to nuke the US into smithereens,
and vice versa. But if its a head to head shooting war, the US and NATO would dominate. FACT.
Example 2:
Commander's intent:
Decapitate the top leadership and remove retaliatory capability.
Execution:
Phase one:
Massive missile/bombing campaign (including carpet) of top leadership locations, tactical missile locations and DMZ artillery
belt. Destruction of surface fleet and air force.
Phase two:
Advance into DMZ artillery belt up to a range of 240 mm cannon. Not further (local tactical considerations taken into account
of course).
Phase three: "break the enemy's will to fight" and destroy the "regime support infrastructure"
Phase four: Regime change.
There you go .
Example 3:
I guess an American attack on North Korea would consist of preemptive strategic nuking to destroy the entire country before
it can do anything. Since North Korea itself contributes essentially nothing to the world economy, no one would lose money.
These examples perfectly illustrate the kind of mindset induced by what
Professor John Marciano called "Empire as a way of life"
[1] which is characterized
by a set of basic characteristics:
First foremost, simple, very simple one-sentence "arguments" . Gone are the days when argument were built in some logical sequence,
when facts were established, then evaluated for their accuracy and relevance, then analyzed and then conclusions presented. Where
in the past one argument per page or paragraph constituted the norm, we now have tweet-like 140 character statements which are more
akin to shouted slogans than to arguments (no wonder that tweeting is something a bird does – hence the expression "bird brain").
You will see that kind of person writing what initially appears to be a paragraph, but when you look closer you realize that the
paragraph is really little more than a sequence of independent statements and not really an argument of any type. A quasi-religious
belief in one's superiority which is accepted as axiomatic .
Nothing new here: the Communists considered themselves as the superior for class reasons, the Nazis by reason of racial superiority,
the US Americans just "because" – no explanation offered (I am not sure that this constitutes of form of progress). In the US case,
that superiority is cultural, political, financial and, sometimes but not always, racial. This superiority is also technological,
hence the " there has to be " or the " would undoubtedly " in the example #1 above. This is pure faith and not
something which can be challenged by fact or logic. Contempt for all others . This really flows from #2 above. Example 3 basically
declares all of North Korea (including its people) as worthless. This is where all the expressions like "sand niggers" "hadjis" and
other "gooks" come from: the dehumanization of the "others" as a preparation for their for mass slaughter. Notice how in the example
#2 the DPRK leaders are assumed to be totally impotent, dull and, above all, passive.
The notion that they might do something unexpected is never even considered (a classical recipe for military disaster, but more
about that later). Contempt for rules, norms and laws . This notion is well expressed by the famous US 19th century slogan of "
my country, right or wrong " but goes far
beyond that as it also includes the belief that the USA has God-given (or equivalent) right to ignore international law, the public
opinion of the rest of the planet or even the values underlying the documents which founded the USA. In fact, in the logic of such
imperial drone the belief in US superiority actually serves as a premise to the conclusion that the USA has a "mission" or a "responsibility"
to rule the world. This is "might makes right" elevated to the rank of dogma and, therefore, never challenged. A very high reliance
on doublethink . Doublethink defined by Wikipedia as " the act of simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs
as correct, often in distinct social contexts ".
A perfect illustration of that is the famous quote " it became necessary
to destroy the town to save it ". Most US Americans are aware of the fact that US policies have resulted in them being hated
worldwide, even amongst putatively allied or "protected" countries such as South Korea, Israel, Germany or Japan. Yet at the very
same time, they continue to think that the USA should "defend" "allies", even if the latter can't wait for Uncle Sam's soldiers to
pack and leave. Doublethink is also what makes it possible for ideological drones to be aware of the fact that the US has become
a subservient Israeli colony while, at the same time, arguing for the support and financing of Israel.
As a result, there is no more discernible US diplomacy left: all the State Department does is deliver threats, ultimatums and
condemnations. Meaningful *negotiations* have basically been removed form the US foreign policy toolkit.
A totally uncritical acceptance
of ideologically correct narratives even when they are self-evidently nonsensical to an even superficial critical analysis. An great
example of this kind of self-evidently stupid stories is all the nonsense about the Russians trying to meddle in US elections or
the latest
hysteria about relatively small-size military exercises in Russia .
The acceptance of the official 9/11 narrative is a perfect
example of that. Something repeated by the "respectable" Ziomedia is accepted as dogma, no matter how self-evidently stupid. A profound
belief that everything is measured in dollars . From this flow a number of corollary beliefs such as "US weapons are most expensive,
they are therefore superior" or "everybody has his price" [aka "whom we can't kill we will simply buy"]. In my experience folks like
these are absolutely unable to even imagine that some people might not motivated by greed or other egoistic interests: ideological
drones project their own primitive motives unto everybody else with total confidence.
That belief is also the standard cop out in
any conversation of morality, ethnics, or even the notions of right and wrong. An anti-religious view par excellence .
Notice the total absence of any more complex consideration which might require some degree of knowledge or expertise: the imperial
mindset is not only ignoramus-compatible, it is ignoramus based . This is what Orwell was referring to in his famous book 1984 with
the slogan "Ignorance is Strength". However, it goes way beyond simple ignorance of facts and includes the ability to "think in slogans"
(example #2 is a prefect example of this).
There are, of course, many more psychological characteristics for the perfect "ideological drone", but the ones above already
paint a pretty decent picture of the kind of person I am sure we all have seen many times over. What is crucial to understand about
them is that even though they are far from being a majority, they compensate for that with a tremendous motivational drive. It might
be due to a need to repeatedly reassert their certitudes or a way to cope with some deep-seated cognitive dissonance, but in my experience
folks like that have energy levels that many sane people would envy. This is absolutely crucial to how the Empire, and any other
oppressive regime, works: by repressing those who can understand a complex argument by means of those who cannot. Let me explain:
Unless there are mechanisms set in to prevent that, in a debate/dispute between an educated and intelligent person and an ideological
drone the latter will always prevail because of the immense advantage the latter has over the former. Indeed, while the educated
and intelligent person will be able to immediately identify numerous factual and logical gaps in his opponent's arguments, he will
always need far more "space" to debunk the nonsense spewed by the drone than the drone who will simply dismiss every argument with
one or several slogans. This is why I personally never debate or even talk with such people: it is utterly pointless.
As a result, a fact-based and logical argument now gets the same consideration and treatment as a collection of nonsensical slogans
(political correctness mercilessly enforces that principle: you can't call an idiot and idiot any more). Falling education standards
have resulted in a dramatic degradation of the public debate: to be well-educated, well-read, well-traveled, to speak several languages
and feel comfortable in different cultures used to be considered a prerequisite to expressing an opinion, now they are all treated
as superfluous and even useless characteristics. Actual, formal, expertise in a topic is now becoming extremely rare. A most interesting
kind of illustration of this point can be found in this truly amazing video posted by Peter Schiff:
One could be tempted to conclude that this kind of 'debating' is a Black issue. It is not. The three quotes given at the beginning
of this article are a good reminder of this (unless, of course, they were all written by Blacks, which we have no reason to believe).
Twitter might have done to minds what MTV has done to rock music: laid total waste to it.
Consequences:
There are a number of important consequences from the presence of such ideological drones in any society. The first one is that
any ideology-based regime will always and easily find numerous spontaneous supporters who willingly collaborate with it. Combined
with a completely subservient media, such drones form the rontline force of any ideological debate. For instance, a journalist can
always be certain to easily find a done to interview, just as a politician can count on them to support him during a public speech
or debate. The truth is that, unfortunately, we live in a society that places much more emphasis on the right to have an opinion
than on the actual ability to form one .
By the way, the intellectually challenged always find a natural ally in the coward and the "follower" (as opposed to "leader types")
because it is always much easier and safer to follow the herd and support the regime in power than to oppose it. You will always
see "stupid drones" backed by "coward drones". As for the politicians , they naturally cater to all types of drones since they always
provide a much bigger "bang for the buck" than those inclined to critical thinking whose loyalty to whatever "cause" is always dubious.
The drone-type of mindset also comes with some major weaknesses including a very high degree of predictability, an inability to
learn from past mistakes, an inability to imagine somebody operating with a completely different set of motives and many others.
One of the most interesting ones for those who actively resist the AngloZionist Empire is that the ideological drone has very little
staying power because as soon as the real world, in all its beauty and complexity, comes crashing through the door of the drone's
delusional and narrow imagination his cocky arrogance is almost instantaneously replaced by a total sense of panic and despair. I
have had the chance to speak Russian officers who were present during the initial interrogation of US POWs in Iraq and they were
absolutely amazed at how terrified and broken the US POWs immediately became (even though they were not mistreated in any way). It
was as if they had no sense of risk at all, until it was too late and they were captured, at which point they inner strength instantly
gave way abject terror. This is one of the reasons that the Empire cannot afford a protracted war: not because of casualty aversion
as some suggest, but to keep the imperial delusions/illusions unchallenged by reality . As long as the defeat can be hidden or explained
away, the Empire can fight on, but as soon as it becomes impossible to obfuscate the disaster the Empire has to simply declare victory
and leave.
Thus we have a paradox here: the US military is superbly skilled at killing people in large numbers, but but not at winning wars
. And yet, because this latter fact is easily dismissed on grounds #2 #5 and #7 above (all of them, really), failing to actually
win wars does not really affect the US determination to initiate new wars, even potentially very dangerous ones. I would even argue
that each defeat even strengthens the Empire's desire to show it power by hoping to finally identify one victim small enough to be
convincingly defeated. The perfect example of that was Ronald Reagan's decision to invade Grenada right after the US Marines barracks
bombing in Beirut. The fact that the invasion of Grenada was one of the worst military operations in world history did not prevent
the US government from handing out more medals for it than the total number of people involved – such is the power of the drone-mindset!
We have another paradox here: history shows that if the US gets entangled in a military conflict it is most likely to end up defeated
(if "not winning" is accepted as a euphemism for "losing"). And yet, the United States are also extremely hard to deter. This is
not just a case of " Fools rush
in where angels fear to tread " but the direct result of a form of conditioning which begins in grade schools. From the point
of view of an empire, repeated but successfully concealed defeats are much preferable to the kind of mental paralysis induced in
drone populations, at least temporarily, by well-publicized defeats . Likewise, when the loss of face is seen as a calamity much
worse than body bags, lessons from the past are learned by academics and specialists, but not by the nation as a whole (there are
numerous US academics and officers who have always known all of what I describe above, in fact – they were the ones who first taught
me about it!).
If this was only limited to low-IQ drones this would not be as dangerous, but the problem is that words have their own power and
that politicians and ideological drones jointly form a self-feeding positive feedback loop when the former lie to the latter only
to then be bound by what they said which, in turn, brings them to join the ideological drones in a self-enclosed pseudo-reality of
their own.
What all this means for North Korea and the rest of us
I hate to admit it, but I have to concede that there is a good argument to be made that all the over-the-top grandstanding and
threatening by the North Koreans does make sense, at least to some degree. While for an educated and intelligent person threatening
the continental United States with nuclear strikes might appear as the epitome of irresponsibility, this might well be the only way
to warn the ideological drone types of the potential consequences of a US attack on the DPRK. Think of it: if you had to deter somebody
with the set of beliefs outlined in #1 through #8 above, would you rather explain that a war on the Korean Peninsula would immediately
involve the entire region or simple say "them crazy gook guys might just nuke the shit out of you!"? I think that the North Koreans
might be forgiven for thinking that an ideological drone can only be deterred by primitive and vastly exaggerated threats.
Still, my strictly personal conclusion is that ideological drones are pretty much "argument proof" and that they cannot be swayed
neither by primitive nor by sophisticated arguments. This is why I personally never directly engage them. But this is hardly an option
for a country desperate to avoid a devastating war (the North Koreans have no illusions on that account as they, unlike most US Americans,
remember the previous war in Korea).
But here is the worst aspect of it all: this is not only a North Korean problem
The US policies towards Russia, China and Iran all have the potential of resulting in a disaster of major magnitude. The world
is dealing with situation in which a completely delusional regime is threatening everybody with various degrees of confrontation.
This is like being in the same room with a monkey playing with a hand grenade. Except for that hand grenade is nuclear.
This situation places a special burden of responsibility on all other nations, especially those currently in Uncle Sam's cross-hairs,
to act with restraint and utmost restraint. That is not fair, but life rarely is. It is all very well and easy to declare that force
must be met by force and that the Empire interprets restraint as weakness until you realize that any miscalculation can result in
the death of millions of people. I am therefore very happy that the DPRK is the only country which chose to resort to a policy of
hyperbolic threats while Iran, Russia and China acted, and are still acting, with the utmost restraint.
In practical terms, there is no way for the rest of the planet to disarm the monkey. The only option is therefore to incapacitate
the monkey itself or, alternatively, to create the conditions in which the monkey will be too busy with something else to pay attention
to his grenade. An internal political crisis triggered by an external military defeat remains, I believe, the most likely and desirable
scenario (see here if that
topic is of interest to you). Still, the future is impossible to predict and, as the Quran says, " they plan, and Allah plans.
And Allah is the best of planners ". All we can do is try to mitigate the impact of the ideological drones on our society as
much as we can, primarily by *not* engaging them and limiting our interaction with those still capable of critical thought. It is
by excluding ideological drones from the debate about the future of our world that we can create a better environment for those truly
seeking solutions to our current predicament.
-- -- -
1. If you have not listened to his lectures on this topic, which I highly recommend, you can find them here:
If the U.S. attacks North Korea or Iran we will become a pariah among nations (especially once the pictures start pouring in).
We will be loathed. Countries may very well decide that we are not worthy of having the world's reserve currency. In that case
the dollar will collapse as will our economy.
North Korea is a nationalistic country that traces their race back to antiquity. America on the other hand is a degenerated country
that is ruled over by Jews. The flag waving American s may call the Koreans gooks but if we apply the American racial ideology
on themselves, the Americans are the the 56percent Untermensch. While the north Koreans are superior for having rejected modern
degeneracy.
A key point, which signifies a serious cultural degeneration from values of chivalry and honoring the opposite side to a very
Asiatic MO which absolutely rules current US establishment. This, and, of course, complete detachment from the realities of the
warfare.
It is all talk, because China makes them invulnerable to sanctions and NK has nukes. The US will have to go to China to deal with
NK and China will want to continue economically raping the US in exchange. That is why China gave NK an H bomb and ICBM tech (
it's known to have gave those same things to Pakistan). The real action will be in the Middle East. The Saudi are counting on
the US giving them CO2 fracking in the future, and Iran being toppled soon. William S. Lind says Iran will be hit by Trump and
Israel will use the ensuing chaos to expel the West Bank Palestinians (back to the country whose passports they travel on).
Maybe it's just me, but it seems that NK is just another tyranny in a long list of tyrannies throughout millennia, and
like all of them it will just implode on its own. Therefore, the best thing you can do is simply to ignore it (thus denying the
tyrant an external threat to rally the populace) and wait for the NK people to say enough is enough.
There's no doubt in my mind that Kim will end up like Nikolae Ceaușescu in Romania, put up against a wall by his own military
and shot on TV. All anyone has to do is be patient and not drink the Rah-Rah Kool-Aid.*
Just a thought.
VicB3
*Was talking with a 82nd Major at the Starbucks, and mentioned NK, Ceausecu, sitting tight, etc. (Mentioned we might help things
along by blanketing the whole country with netbooks, wi-fi, and even small arms.) Got the careerist ladder- climber standard response
of how advanced our weapons are, the people in charge know what they're doing, blah blah blah. Wouldn't even consider an alternative
view (and didn't know or understand half of what I was talking about). It was the same response I got from an Air Force Colonel
before the U.S. went into Afghanistan and Iraq and I told him the whole thing was/would be insanely stupid.
His party-line team-player response was when I knew for certain that any action in NK would/will fail spectacularly for the
U.S., possibly even resulting in and economic collapse and civil war/revolution on this end.
Excellent post. But the US public education "system", while awful, is not the main reason that America is increasingly packed
with drones and idiots. IQ is decreasing rapidly, as revealed in the College Board's data on SAT scores over the last 60 years
.In addition, Dr. James Thompson has a Dec.15 post on Unz that shows a shocking decline in the ability of UK children to understand
basic principles of physics, which are usually acquired on a developmental curve. Mike Judge's movie 'Idiocracy' appears to have
been set unrealistically far in the future ..
In short, the current situation can and will get a lot worse in America. On the other hand, America's armed forces will be deteriorating
apace, so they are becoming less dangerous to the rest of the world.
The good thing about democracy is that anyone can express an opinion. The bad thing about democracy is that anyone can express
an opinion. I have to laugh at all the internet commandos and wannabe Napoleons that roost on the internet giving us their advice.
It's easy to cherrypick opinions that range from uninformed to downright stupid and bizarre. Those people don't actually run anything
though, fortunately. Keep in mind that half the population is mentally average or below average and that average is quite mediocre.
Throw in a few degrees above mediocre and you've got a majority, a majority that can and is regularly bamboozled. The majority
of the population is just there to pay taxes and provide cannon fodder, that's all, like a farmer's herd of cows provides for
his support. Ideological drones are desired in this case. It's my suspicion that the educational system is geared towards producing
such a product as well as all other aspects of popular culture also induce stupefying effects. Insofar as American policy goes,
look at what it actually does rather than what it says, the latter being a form of show biz playing to a domestic audience. I
just skip the more obnoxious commenters since they're just annoying and add nothing but confusion to any discussion.
but it seems that NK is just another tyranny in a long list of tyrannies throughout millennia, and like all of them it will
just implode on its own
.
There's no doubt in my mind that Kim will end up like Nikolae Ceaușescu in Romania, put up against a wall by his own military
and shot on TV.
All things come to an end eventually, and I agree with you that the best course of action for the US over NK would be to leave
it alone (and stop poking it), but this idea that "tyrannies always collapse" seems pretty unsupported by reality.
Off the top of my head all of the following autocrats died more or less peacefully in office and handed their "tyranny" on
intact to a successor, just in the past few decades: Mao, Castro, Franco, Stalin, Assad senior, two successive Kims (so much for
the assumption that the latest Kim will necessarily end up like Ceausescu). In the past, if a tyrant and his tyranny lasted long
enough and arranged a good succession, it often came to be remembered as a golden age, as with the Roman, Augustus.
I suspect it might be a matter of you having a rather selective idea of what counts as a tyranny (I wouldn't count Franco in
that list, myself, but establishment opinion is against me there, I think). You might be selectively remembering only the tyrannies
that came to a bad end.
so they are becoming less dangerous to the rest of the world
I agree with the logic that as Americans become dumber the ability to have a powerful military also degrades, however an
increasingly declining America also makes it more dangerous. As ever more ideologues rule the corridors of power and the generally
stupid population that will consent to everything they are told, America will start involving itself in ever more reckless conflicts.
This means they despite being a near idiocracy, the nuclear weapons and military bases all over world make America an ever greater
threat for the world.
The good thing about democracy is that anyone can express an opinion.
Not sure if this is a joke or not. In case you are serious, you clearly have not been following the news, from USA to Germany
all these so called democracies have been undertaking massive censorship operations. From jailing people to shutting down online
conversations to ordering news to not report on things that threaten their power.
A bizarre posting utterly detached from reality. Don't you understand that if a blustering lunatic presses a megaton-pistol against
our collective foreheads and threatens to pull the trigger, it represents a very disquieting situation? And if we contemplate
actions that would cause a million utterly harmless and innocent Koreans to be incinerated, to prevent a million of our own brains
from being blown out, aren't we allowed to do so without being accused of being vile bigots that think yellow gook lives are worthless?
Aren't we entitled to any instinct of self preservation at all?
What the Korean situation obviously entails is a high-stakes experiment in human psychology. All that attention-seeking little
freak probably wants is to be treated with respect, and like somebody important. Trump started out in a sensible way, by treating
Kim courteously, but for that he was pilloried by the insanely-partisan opposition within his own party – McCain I'm mainly thinking
of. That's the true obstacle to a sane resolution of the problem. I say if the twerp would feel good if we gave him a tickertape
parade down Fifth Avenue and a day pass to Disneyland, we should do so – it's small enough a concession in view of what's at stake.
But if rabid congress-critters obstruct propitiation, then intimidation and even preemptive megadeath may be all that's left.
I suspect the true conversation about the topic will start when all that becomes really serious. I mean more serious than posting
the latest selfie on a Facebook. Hangs around that warhead miniaturization/hardening timetable, IMHO. Maybe too late then.
Also, one man's tyranny is another mans return to stability. For better or worse, Mao got rid of the Warlords. Franco got rid
of the Communists and kept Spain out of WWII. The Assads are Baath Party and both secular and modernizers.
Stalin? Depends on who you talk to, but the Russians do like a strong hand.
Kim? His people only have to look West to China and Russia, or def. to the South, to know that things could be much better.
And more and more he can't control the flow of information. That, and the rank and file of his army have roundworms. And guns.
At some point, the light comes on. And that same rank and file with guns tells itself "You know, we could be doing better."
Double think is not just a question of ignorance or self contradiction because often it's important to make people embrace COMPLEXITY
instead CONFUSION believing the late it's basically the first
Saker and his legion of fanboys here didn't "attack" the text but the writer.
In the first place, there's nothing in the text to "attack". It's a laundry list of disconnected slogans and so is not a different
point of view at all. Released from the confines of the author's gamer world, it evaporates into nothing. I pointed this out to
you at some length elsewhere.
In the second, it appears you missed the point of the article. Hint: it's stated in the title. The article's about the mindsets
of the authors of such "texts", and not about the texts themselves.
It appears that I am sort of a "dissident" here.
You flatter yourself. To be a dissident requires, at the very least, comprehension of the argument one is disagreeing with.
Your "texts" are the equivalent of shouting slogans and waving placards. It may work for a street protest, but is totally out
of place on a webzine discussion forum. Hence your screeds here do not constitute real dissension, but trolling.
Destroying the Taliban government, yes. Building "democracy" is just stupid, though.
They should've quickly left after the initial victory and let the Afghans to just eat each
other with Stroganoff sauce if they so wished. It's not our business.
In fact destroying the Taliban government was both illegal and foolish (but the latter was
by far the more important). It seems clear now the Taliban were quite willing to hand bin
Laden over for trial in a third party country, and pretty clearly either had had no clue what
he had been planning or were crapping themselves at what he had achieved. Bush declined that
offer because he had an urgent political need to be seen to be kicking some foreign ass in
order to appease American shame.
The illegality is not a particularly big deal in the case of Afghanistan because it's
clear that in the post-9/11 context the US could easily have gotten UNSC authorisation for
the attack and made it legal. Bush II deliberately declined to do so precisely in order to
make the point that the US (in Americans' view) is above petty details of international law
and its own treaty commitments. A rogue state, in other words.
But an attack on Afghanistan was unnecessary and foolish (for genuine American national
interests, that is, not for the self-interested lobbies driving policy obviously), as the
astronomical ongoing costs have demonstrated. A trial of bin Laden would have been highly
informative (and some would argue that was why the US regime was not interested in such a
thing), and would if nothing else have brought him out into the open. Yes, he would have had
the opportunity to grandstand, but if the US were really such an innocent victim of
unprovoked aggression why would the US have anything to fear from that? The whole world,
pretty much, was on the US's side after 9/11.
The US could have treated terrorism as what it is, after 9/11 -- a criminal matter. It
chose instead to make it a military matter, because that suited the various lobbies seeking
to benefit from a more militarised and aggressive US foreign policy. The result of a US
attack on the government of (most of) Afghanistan would always have been either a chaotic
jihadi-riddled anarchy in Afghanistan worse than the Taliban-controlled regime that existed
in 2001, or a US-backed regime trying to hold the lid down on the jihadists, that the US
would have to prop up forever. And so indeed it came to pass.
Christmas came early for Donald Trump. He signed a historic tax cut, kept the Government
funded and operating and, to the delight of many in his base, used UN Ambassador Nikki Haley as
a mouthpiece to tell the rest of the world to go pound sand. He is feeling groovy. But Donald
Trump is still his own worst enemy. And his Presidency will be fatally harmed if he continues
with his erratic foreign policy and his empty talk on dealing with the opioid plague.
Let's start with his wildly fluctuating foreign policy. There is no consistency nor is their
a theme. When he announced that he was recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, many
assumed he was on the Israeli leash and was behaving as any obedient dog would. Perhaps.
The Trump administration has approved the largest U.S. commercial sale of lethal defensive
weapons to Ukraine since 2014. . . . Administration officials confirmed that the State
Department this month approved a commercial license authorizing the export of Model M107A1
Sniper Systems, ammunition, and associated parts and accessories to Ukraine, a sale valued at
$41.5 million. These weapons address a specific vulnerability of Ukrainian forces fighting a
Russian-backed separatist movement in two eastern provinces.
The people we are arming in the Ukraine are the actual and intellectual descendants of the
Nazi sympathizers who helped the Einsatzgruppen murder more than a million Jews after Hitler
invaded the Soviet Union. Scholar Richard Sakwa provides the horrifying details on the pro-Nazi
ideological foundation of the key Ukrainian political groups we are backing:
"The Orange revolution, like the later Euromaidan events, was democratic in intent but gave
an impetus 'to the revival of the radical versions of [the] Ukrainian national movement that
first appeared on the historical scene in the course of World War II and a national discourse
focused on fighting against the enemy'.41 " . . . .
"In Dnepropetrovsk, for example, instead of the anticipated 60 street-name changes, 350 were
planned. Everywhere 'Lenin Streets' became 'Bandera Avenues' as everything Russian was purged.
One set of mass murderers was changed for another. Just as the Soviet regime had changed
toponyms to inscribe its power into the physical environment, so now the Euromaidan revolution
seeks to remould daily life. In Germany today the names of Nazis and their collaborators are
anathema, whereas in Ukraine they are glorified."
Excerpt From: Richard Sakwa. "Frontline Ukraine : Crisis in the Borderlands." from the
Afterward
At the very moment we are signaling our support for Israel, the country founded largely
because of the horror over the Shoah, we are also giving weapons to political groups whose
parents and grand parents helped carry out the Shoah. Oh yeah, in the process of doing this we
are providing a tangible threat to Russia. Imagine what our reaction would be if Russia decided
to step up its weapons supplies to Cuba.
Then we have Trump's tough talk on the opioid slaughter taking place across America. Let me
be clear. He is not responsible for the start of this plague. The Obama Administration carries
a heavy burden on that front. CBS 60 Minutes has done a magnificent job in exposing the role
that the Obama Justice Department refused to play in going after the major corporate opiate
drug pusher--i.e.,
the McKesson Corporation :
In October, we joined forces with the Washington Post and reported a disturbing story of
Washington at its worst - about an act of Congress that crippled the DEA's ability to fight the
worst drug crisis in American history - the opioid addiction crisis. Now, a new front of that
joint investigation. It is also disturbing. It's the inside story of the biggest case the DEA
ever built against a drug company: the McKesson Corporation, the country's largest drug
distributor. It's also the story of a company too big to prosecute.
In 2014, after two years of painstaking inquiry by nine DEA field divisions and 12 U.S.
Attorneys, investigators built a powerful case against McKesson for the company's role in the
opioid crisis.
[According to DEA Agent Schiller] This is the best case we've ever had against a major
distributor in the history of the Drug Enforcement Administration. How do we not go after the
number one organization? In the height of the epidemic, when people are dying everywhere,
doesn't somebody have to be held accountable? McKesson needs to be held accountable.
Holding McKesson accountable meant going after the 5th largest corporation in the country.
Headquartered in San Francisco, McKesson has 76,000 employees and earns almost $200 billion a
year in revenues, about the same as Exxon Mobil. Since the 1990s, McKesson has made billions
from the distribution of addictive opioids.
So what has Donald Trump done? That is the wrong question. What has he failed to do? We are
approaching the one year anniversary of his Presidency and Trump has failed to nominate a
Director for the Drug Enforcement Administration, a Director for the Office of National Drug
Control Policy, a Director for the National Institute of Justice and an Assistant Secretary of
State for the Bureau of International
Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs . In other words, none of the people who would be on
the policy frontline putting the President's tough words into action have been nominated. Not
one. And those agencies and departments are drifting like a rudderless ship on stormy seas.
Another problem for Trump is his mixed signals on getting entangled in foreign wars. During
the campaign he made a point of ridiculing those candidates who wanted to go to war in Syria.
Now that he is in office, Trump, along with several members of his cabinet, are threatening
Iran on almost a daily basis. The Veteran
Intelligence Professionals for Sanity just put out a memo on this very subject (which, I'm
happy to note, reflects some of the themes I've written about previously):
Iran has come out ahead in Iraq and, with the 2015 nuclear agreement in place, Iran's
commercial and other ties have improved with key NATO allies and the other major world players
-- Russia and China in particular.
Official pronouncements on critical national security matters need to be based on facts.
Hyperbole in describing Iran's terrorist activities can be counterproductive. For this reason,
we call attention to Ambassador Nikki Haley's recent statement that it is hard to find a
"terrorist group in the Middle East that does not have Iran's fingerprints all over it." The
truth is quite different. The majority of terrorist groups in the region are neither creatures
nor puppets of Iran. ISIS, Al-Qaeda and Al-Nusra are three of the more prominent that come to
mind.
You have presented yourself as someone willing to speak hard truths in the face of
establishment pressure and not to accept the status quo. You spoke out during the campaign
against the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq as a historic mistake of epic proportions. You also
correctly captured the mood of many Americans fatigued from constant war in far away lands. Yet
the torrent of warnings from Washington about the dangers supposedly posed by Iran and the need
to confront them are being widely perceived as steps toward reversing your pledge not to get
embroiled in new wars.
We encourage you to reflect on the warning
we raised with President George W. Bush almost 15 years ago, at a similar historic
juncture:
"after watching Secretary Powell today, we are convinced that you would be well served if
you widened the discussion beyond the circle of those advisers clearly bent on a war for which
we see no compelling reason and from which we believe the unintended consequences are likely to
be catastrophic."
Finally, there is the recognition of Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel. I defer to Colonel
Lang on this. He believes that this single decision has planted an odious seed that will sprout
into a global anti-U.S. sentiment that will reduce our global influence and tangibly damage our
leadership on the world stage. While I suppose there always is a chance for a different kind of
outcome, I learned long ago not to bet against the old warrior on matters like this.
Taking all of this together I think we are looking at a 2018 where U.S. foreign policy will
continue to careen around the globe devoid of a strategic vision.
'' The people we are arming in the Ukraine are the actual and intellectual descendants of the
Nazi sympathizers who helped the Einsatzgruppen murder more than a million Jews after Hitler
invaded the Soviet Union''
They are also the descendants of the Ukrainians who were starved to death by the
Bolsheviks plundering of their crops first then starved again by Stalin.
That Jews figured large in the Bolsheviks is a fact and noted:..then and later.
A collection of reports on Bolshevism in Russia
by Great Britain. Foreign Office
''..anti-Semitism is growing, probably because the food supply committees are entirely in
the hands of Jews and voices can be heard sometimes calling for a " pogrom."
So I am giving Ukraine a pass on their so called threat to the Chosen.
You make my point. The NAZIS came up with lots of nifty reasons to justify exterminating
Jews. Starvation by Stalin, therefore kill the Jews. Yeah, that makes sense (sarcasm fully
intended).
"... And if anything Americans make their own shamelessness worse when they fabricate imaginary pretexts for weaselling out of their country's commitment, such as a wholly imaginary entitlement for them to decide for themselves when there is a "humanitarian" justification for doing so, or make up wholesale fantasy allegations about "weapons of mass destruction" that even if true wouldn't justify war. ..."
"... r Correction. It's the elites that don't want to join Russia. And the reason they don't is because the West gives them goodies for being anti-Russian. This kind of strategy worked pretty well so far (for the West) in Eastern Europe and it will continue to work for some time yet. But not forever, not in Ukraine and Belorussia. ..."
"... They are indeed, but my assumption is that Russia's present elite is, for the most part, corruptible. Putin will be gone before 2024, and his successor will be under immense pressure -- carrot and stick -- to deregulate Russia's media landscape, which will make foreign money pour into Russian media outlets, which will in turn lead to more positive coverage and more positive views of the West. Only a few days ago, we learnt that Washington ruled out signing a non-interference agreement with Moscow since it would preclude Washington from meddling in Russia's internal affairs. What does this tell you about the Western elite's plan for Russia? ..."
"... The 1996 Presidential Election campaign suggests that the Russian public is no less suggestible, and so does Russian (and Ukrainian) opinions on the crisis in the Donbass. ..."
"... Soviets and Soviet Union were always in awe of America. You could see it in "between-the-lines" of the texts of the so-called anti-imperialist, anti-American Soviet propaganda. It was about catching up with American in steel production and TV sets ownership and so on. American was the ultimate goal and people did not think of American as an enemy. ..."
"... Then there is the fact that Bolsheviks and Soviet Union owed a lot to America though this knowledge was not commonly known. Perhaps one should take look at these hidden connections to see what was the real mechanism bending the plug being pulled off the USSR. There might be even an analogy to South Africa but that is another story. ..."
"... Moreover, post-democratic post-Yanukovich Ukraine is clearly inferior to its predecessor. For one thing, under Yanukovich, Sevastopol was still Ukrainian ..."
"... There is no pro-Ukrainian insurgency in Crimea or inside the republics in Donbass, and it's not due to the lack of local football hooligans. ..."
"... Even among Svoboda voters, I suspect only a small minority of them are the militant types. We should be to contain them through the use of local proxies. The armies of Donbass republics currently number some 40-60 thousand men according to Cassad blog, which compares with the size of the entire Ukrainian army. ..."
"... Official Ukrainian propaganda worked overtime, and still works today, to hammer this into people's heads. And it's an attractive vision. An office dweller in Kiev wants to live in a shiny European capital, not in a bleak provincial city of a corrupt Asian empire. The problem is, it's ain't working. For a while Ukraine managed to get Russia to subsidize Ukrainian European dream. Now this is over. The vision is starting to fail even harder. ..."
"... Unfortunately, the Ukraine has been spending 5%* of its GDP on the military since c.2015 (versus close to 1% before 2014). ..."
"... Doesn't really matter if tons of money continues to be stolen, or even the recession – with that kind of raw increase, a major enhancement in capabilities is inevitable. ..."
"... I have read a article mentioned something like Putin said, to annexed whole Ukraine means to share the enormous resource wealth of vast Russia land with them, which make no economic sense. If Russia is worst than Ukraine, then there won't be million of Ukrainian migrating over after the Maidan coup. ..."
"... So are all those Baltic states. Russia don't want these countries as it burden, it is probably only interested in selected strategic areas like the Eastern Ukraine industrial belt and military important Crimea warm water deep seaport, and skilled migrants. Ukraine has one of lowest per capital income now, with extreme corrupted politicians controlled by USNato waging foolish civil war killing own people resulting in collapsing economic and exudes of skilled people. ..."
"... Agreed, and he happens to be in the right here. Russia actually has a good hand in Ukraine, if only she keeps her cool. More military adventurism is foolish for at least three reasons ..."
"... The return of Crimea to Russia alone has been a dramatic improvement in the inherent stability of the region. A proper division of the territory currently forming the Ukraine into a genuine Ukrainian nation in the west and an eastern half returned to Russia would be the ideal long term outcome, but Russia can surely live with a neutralised Ukraine. ..."
"... You realise that Ukraine's GDP declined in dollar terms by a factor of 2-3 times, right? A bigger share of a smaller economy translates into the same paltry sum. It is still under $5 billion. ..."
"... Futhermore an army that's actively deployed and engaged in fighting spends more money than during peacetime. A lot of this money goes to fuel, repairs, providing for soldiers and their wages rather than qualitatively improving capabilities of the army. ..."
"... The bottom-line is Ukraine spent the last 3,5 years preparing to fight a war against the People's Republic of Donetsk. I'll admit Ukrainian army can hold its own against the People's Republic of Donetsk. Yet it remains hopelessly outmatched in a potential clash with Russia. A short, but brutal bombing campaign can whipe out Ukrainian command and control, will make it impossible to mount any kind of effective defence. Ukrainian conscripts have no experience in urban warfare, and their national loyalties are unclear. ..."
"... Most ukrops even admit that Kharkov could easily have gone in 2014, if Russia had wanted it/feasible ..."
Russians would have to acknowledge that they were naive idiots who threw away an empire
centuries in the making
What's remarkable to me about that graph of opinion over time is how pig-headedly
resilient Russian naivety about the US has been. Time after time it appears the scales
would fall from Russians' eyes after the US regime disgraced itself particularly egregiously
(Kosovo, Iraq, Georgia), and within a few months approval would be back up to 50% or above.
It took the interference in the Ukraine in 2014 to finally make the truth stick.
There are no disgraces incorporated into any of these events
That might be your opinion, but Kosovo and Iraq were openly illegal wars of aggression in
which the US shamelessly flouted its own treaty commitments, and supporting Georgia was, like
NATO expansion in general and numerous other consistently provocative US foreign policy
measures directed against post-Soviet Russia, a literally stupid matter of turning a
potential ally against the real rival China into an enemy and ally of said rival.
You are perfectly entitled to endorse mere stupidity on the part of your rulers, but the
fact that you so shamelessly approve of waging illegal wars counter to treaty commitments
discredits any opinions you might have on such matters.
Russians would have to acknowledge that they were naive idiots who threw away an empire
centuries in the making to end up within the borders of old Muscovy
Actually, present Russian borders are more those of Peter the Great, circa 1717, than Old
Muscovy. Russia, unlike nearly all the Great Powers of the C20th, has retained its Empire
– Siberia, the Russian Far East, Kamchatka, South Russia and the Crimea ( first
acquired as recently as 1783 ).
Once those dim-witted Ukies finally implode the Ukrainian economy, Russia will be able to
gobble up the rest of southern and eastern Ukraine – all the way to Odessa.
The places that seceded from the Soviet Union are places that Russians don't want ( Northern
Kazakhstan excepted ) and are urgently required to receive all those Central Asian immigrants
who will be deported by sensible Russian governments in the near future. ( I exclude
Armenians from the last clause )
Yes, US had squandered a lot of good will in exchange for extremely valuable "geopolitical
foothold in Eastern Europe."
Incidentally, Soviet propaganda was never anti-American. It was anti-capitalist, an
important distinction. Whereas in America, anti-Russian propaganda has always been anti-
Russian .
@RandalThat might be your opinion, but Kosovo and Iraq were openly illegal wars of aggression in
which the US shamelessly flouted its own treaty commitments,
We had no treaty commitments with either Serbia or Iraq and both places had it coming.
Correction: Russian Federation is not a nation state. It is a rump state . Its
Western borders are artificial, drawn by the Communists in the 20th century, they exclude
those parts of Russia, which the Communists decided to incorporate into separate republics of
Belarus and Ukraine.
I don't know of any Russian nationalist, who wants Azerbaijan back, but reclaiming Belarus
and Ukraine is absolutely essential to have a country, we could all proudly call 'home'
– an actual Russian nation-state. Again, what really matters here is not the size of
the country, it's that all the land that's historically Russian should be fully within the
borders of this country.
PS: just because we had trouble holding onto Chechnya doesn't mean that annexing Belarus
will be hard. Sure, we can expect blowback in the form of Western sanctions, but I don't
anticipate much resistance from inside Belarus.
It took the interference in the Ukraine in 2014 to finally make the truth stick.
Another possibility is that the change since 2014 is rather the result of more
anti-American reporting in Russia's state-owned media. This would mean, as I suspect, that
the pendulum will swing back once the Kremlin loosens its tight grip of the media.
@Art
Deco With that kind of thinking I don't see how you can criticise Russia's incursions
into the Ukraine. At least Russia has an actual reason to fight a war in the Ukraine.
US invaded and destroyed Iraqi state for no reason whatsoever. US interests suffered as a
result of its ill-advised agression, they ended up empowering their avowed enemy –
Iran.
This would mean, as I suspect, that the pendulum will swing back once the Kremlin
loosens its tight grip of the media.
How do you see this happening? Why would the Kremlin give up its control of the media?
These people are smart enough to understand that whoever controls the media controls public
opinion.
@Felix
KeverichCorrection: Russian Federation is not a nation state. It is a rump state.
Your 'rump state' extends over 6.6 million sq miles and has a population of 152
million.
Its Western borders are artificial, drawn by the Communists in the 20th century, they
exclude those parts of Russia, which the Communists decided to incorporate into separate
republics of Belarus and Ukraine.
It's western borders are no more artificial than that of any other country not bounded by
mountains or water.
I don't know of any Russian nationalist, who wants Azerbaijan back, but reclaiming
Belarus and Ukraine is absolutely essential to have a country, we could all proudly call
'home' –
'Essential'? You just can't get through the day without Minsk?
As for White Russia, your constituency there has in its dimensions fallen by half in the
last 20 years.
As for the Ukraine, you've no discernable constituency for reunification. The constituency
for a Russophile foreign policy weighs in there at about 12% of the public. VP's
three-dimensional chess game is going swimmingly.
My own forebears discovered in 1813 that the residue of British North America was quite
content with gracious George III, and our boys got their assess handed to them by them
Cannucks. We got over it and so can you. Miss Ukraine is just not that into you. Best not to
play the stalker.
@Felix
KeverichWith that kind of thinking I don't see how you can criticise Russia's
incursions into the Ukraine. At least Russia has an actual reason to fight a war in the
Ukraine.
They dissed you. La di dah. My own countrymen have put up with that from an array of
Eurotrash and 3d world kleptocrats every time we open the newspaper.
US invaded and destroyed Iraqi state for no reason whatsoever.
No, we did so because that was the best alternative. The other alternative was a sanctions
regime which Big Consciences were assuring the world was causing a six-digit population of
excess deaths each year or taking the sanctions off and letting Saddam and the other Tikritis
to follow their Id. Iraq was a charnel house, and the world is well rid of the Tikriti
regime, especially Iraq's Kurdish and Shia provinces, which have been quiet for a decade. You
don't take an interest in the ocean of blood for which the Ba'ath Party was responsible, but
you're terribly butthurt that politicians in Kiev don't take orders from Moscow. Felix, I can
taste teh Crazy.
Your 'rump state' extends over 6.6 million sq miles and has a population of 152
million.
Exactly, and you're missing the point. Re-read my previous comment again: I don't know of any Russian nationalist, who wants Azerbaijan back, but reclaiming Belarus
and Ukraine is absolutely essential to have a country, we could all proudly call 'home'
– an actual Russian nation-state. Again, what really matters here is not the size of
the country, it's that all the land that's historically Russian should be fully within the
borders of this country.
Russians know more about these things than you do. The vast majority of us do not regard
Belarus and Ukraine as part of
"заграница" – foreign countries.
Ukrainians and in particular Belorussians are simply variants of us, just like regional
differences exist between the Russians in Siberia and Kuban'.
I don't care, because this isn't a popularity contest. There were similar polls in Crimea
showing majority support for the EU, just before the peninsula voted overwhelmingly to rejoin
Russia. LOL
The question that matters to me is will there be a vast resistance movement inside Belarus
following the annexation, and to be honest I don't expect one.
We had no treaty commitments with either Serbia or Iraq
The treaty commitment in question was with almost the entire rest of the world, namely
when your country entirely voluntarily signed up to a commitment to "refrain in their
international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or
political independence of any state". If your country had retained the slightest trace of
integrity and self-respect it would at least have had the decency to withdraw from membership
of the the UN when it chose to breach those treaty commitments.
And if anything Americans make their own shamelessness worse when they fabricate imaginary
pretexts for weaselling out of their country's commitment, such as a wholly imaginary
entitlement for them to decide for themselves when there is a "humanitarian" justification
for doing so, or make up wholesale fantasy allegations about "weapons of mass destruction"
that even if true wouldn't justify war.
An entire nation state behaving like a lying '60s hippy or a shamelessly dishonest
aggressor.
I'm sure you're proud.
and both places had it coming.
A straightforward confession of lawless rogue state behaviour, basically.
Do you actually think somehow you are improving your country's position with such
arguments? Better for a real American patriot to just stop digging and keep sheepishly quiet
about the past three decades of foreign policy.
@reiner
Tor Correction. It's the elites that don't want to join Russia. And the reason they don't
is because the West gives them goodies for being anti-Russian. This kind of strategy worked
pretty well so far (for the West) in Eastern Europe and it will continue to work for some
time yet. But not forever, not in Ukraine and Belorussia.
That's because the population of these places is Russian (no matter what they were taught
to call themselves by the Commies.) Their culture is Russian. The rulers of Ukraine and, to a
much lesser degree, Belorussia are trying to erect cultural barriers between themselves and
Russia. Good luck with that, in the 21st century. It's more likely the culture will further
homogenize, as is the trend anywhere in the world. Eventually it will tell.
Now, the question is if Russians will even want Ukraine back. This is not so clear.
What needs to be explained is not the sustained low opinion after 2014 but rather the
remarkable recoveries after 1999, 2003 and 2008.
Yugoslavia and Iraq were not that close to Russia and Russian elite was still pushing for
Integration into West at that time. After 2008, "Reset" and Obama happened.
It seems unlikely the Russian media would have been as sycophantically pro-Obama merely
for his blackness and Democrat-ness, though, and of course he wasn't around anyway in 2000
and in 2004.
Keep in mind that Obama's opponent in 2008 was McCain, that McCain.
Just like Trump, Obama seemed like the lesser evil and not to blame for previous
conflicts.
That's because the population of these places is Russian (no matter what they were
taught to call themselves by the Commies.) Their culture is Russian.
This is for them to decide, not for you.
It's more likely the culture will further homogenize, as is the trend anywhere in the
world.
Yeah, the culture homogenizes around the world, into global Hollywood corporate culture.
In the long there, "traditional Russian culture" is as doomed as "traditional Ukrainian
culture" and "traditional American culture" if there is anything left of it.
Polling by the Razumkov Centre in 2008 found that 63.8% of Crimeans (76% of Russians,
55% of Ukrainians, and 14% of Crimean Tatars, respectively) would like Crimea to secede from
Ukraine and join Russia and 53.8% would like to preserve its current status, but with
expanded powers and rights . A poll by the International Republican Institute in May 2013
found that 53% wanted "Autonomy in Ukraine (as today)", 12% were for "Crimean Tatar autonomy
within Ukraine", 2% for "Common oblast of Ukraine" and 23% voted for "Crimea should be
separated and given to Russia".
The takeaway is that Crimeans were satisfied being part of Ukraine as long as Ukraine had
an ethnic Russian, generally pro-Russian president like Yanukovich in charge (2013 poll), but
preferred being part of Russia to being part of a Ukrainian state run by Ukrainians (2008
poll, post-Maidan).
That's because the population of these places is Russian (no matter what they were
taught to call themselves by the Commies.) Their culture is Russian.
Believer of Russian nationalist fairytales tells Russian nationalist fairytales. You
managed to fit 3 of them into 2 sentences, good job.
@AP I
was referring specifically to Russian attitudes about Ukrainians. I know that among
Ukrainians themselves, there is quite the confusion on this subject.
@Mitleser
Fair points, though you seem to concede to the Russian elites a significant degree of
competence at managing public opinion, in 2000 and in 2004.
I was under the impression that Putin personally was still quite naïve about the US
even after Kosovo, which partly accounts for his rather desperately helpful approach after
9/11, though not so much after Iraq.
But I have been told by Russians who ought to have some knowledge of these things that
Putin and the wider regime were not so naïve even back in the late 1990s, so the case
can be made both ways.
reclaiming Belarus and Ukraine is absolutely essential to have a country, we could all
proudly call 'home' – an actual Russian nation-state.
In which 25 million or so Ukrainians actively resist you, and another 5 million or so
Ukrainians plus a few million Belarusians nonviolently resent your rule. You will reduce the
cities or parts of them to something like Aleppo, and rebuild them (perhaps with coerced
local labor) while under a sanctions regime. Obviously there will have to be a militarized
occupation regime and prison camps and a network of informants. A proud home.
Again, what really matters here is not the size of the country, it's that all the land
that's historically Russian should be fully within the borders of this country.
Baltics were Russian longer than Ukraine. Central Poland became Russian at the same time
as did half of Ukraine. According to the 1897 census, there were about as many Great Russian
speakers in Kiev governate as in Warsaw. Take the Baltics and Warsaw back too?
@AP
These polls vary greatly from time to time and depending on the group conducting them. These
polls are meaningless : most ordinary people go about their daily lives never thinking
about that kind of issues, when suddenly prompted by a pollster they give a meaningless
answer.
I'm sure, support for reunification will go up in Belarus, if the Kremlin shows some
leadership on this issue. We will find enough people willing to work with us, the rest will
just have to accept the new reality and go about their daily lifes as usual.
The situation in Ukraine is different, it differs wildly by region and will require us to
modify our approach.
@German_readerUS started in a demented attempt at reshaping the region according to its own
preferences.
It did nothing of the kind. It ejected two governments for reasons of state. One we'd been
a state of belligerency with for 12 years, the other was responsible for a gruesome casus
belli. Now, having done that, we needed to put in place a new government. There was no better
alternative means of so doing than electoral contests.
How do you see this happening? Why would the Kremlin give up its control of the media?
These people are smart enough to understand that whoever controls the media controls public
opinion.
They are indeed, but my assumption is that Russia's present elite is, for the most part,
corruptible. Putin will be gone before 2024, and his successor will be under immense pressure
-- carrot and stick -- to deregulate Russia's media landscape, which will make foreign money
pour into Russian media outlets, which will in turn lead to more positive coverage and more
positive views of the West. Only a few days ago, we learnt that Washington ruled out signing
a non-interference agreement with Moscow since it would preclude Washington from meddling in
Russia's internal affairs. What does this tell you about the Western elite's plan for
Russia?
Another possibility is that the change since 2014 is rather the result of more
anti-American reporting in Russia's state-owned media. This would mean, as I suspect, that
the pendulum will swing back once the Kremlin loosens its tight grip of the media.
Definitely no.
American propaganda (itself without the help of Putin) were able to convince the Russians
that America is the enemy. Propaganda of Putin to this could add almost nothing.
Fair points, though you seem to concede to the Russian elites a significant degree of
competence at managing public opinion, in 2000 and in 2004.
I am just taking into account that the early 00s were right after the 1990s when
pro-Americanism was at its peak in Russia. Yugoslavia and Iraq were too distant too alienate
the majority permanently.
I was under the impression that Putin personally was still quite naïve about the US
even after Kosovo, which partly accounts for his rather desperately helpful approach after
9/11, though not so much after Iraq.
Why do you think did he suggest joining NATO as an option?
Not because NATO are "good guys", but because it would ensure that Russia has a voice that
cannot be ignored. After all, the Kosovo War showed the limits of the UNSC and by extension
of Russia's voice in the unipolar world.
Putin will be gone before 2024, and his successor will be under immense pressure --
carrot and stick -- to deregulate Russia's media landscape, which will make foreign money
pour into Russian media outlets, which will in turn lead to more positive coverage and more
positive views of the West.
There is no reason to assume that West will offer the Russian elite enough carrot to
deregulate the Russian media order and the stick is just more reason not to do it and to
retain control.
What does this tell you about the Western elite's plan for Russia?
And you think that people in Russian elite are not aware of it?
In which 25 million or so Ukrainians actively resist you, and another 5 million or so
Ukrainians plus a few million Belarusians nonviolently resent your rule. You will reduce
the cities or parts of them to something like Aleppo, and rebuild them (perhaps with
coerced local labor) while under a sanctions regime.
This is a fantasy. Look, the effective size of Ukrainian army right now is around 70.000
– does this look like a strong, united nation willing and able to defend itself?
On the left side of the Dnieper truly crazy svidomy types is a small minority – they
stand out from the crowd, can be easily identified and neutralised just like in Donbass. A
typical Ukrainian nationalist east of Dnieper is a business owner, university educated white
collar professional, a student, a journalist, "human rights activist" – these are not
the kind of individuals, who will engage in guerilla warfare, they will just flee (like they
already fled from Donbass).
In the west, opinion of the US was managed upwards with the Obama presidency because he
fitted so well with US sphere establishment antiracist and leftist dogmas that he had
almost universally positive (even hagiographic) mainstream media coverage throughout the US
sphere, but with Trump opinions of the US are mostly back down where Bush II left them.
I agree with most of this, but you leave out precisely why public opinion shifts.
My, rather cynical, view is that media is by far the main driver in shifting public views,
and so whoever gives the media marching orders is the Pied Piper here.
An example close to home was the consternation among some of my conservative friends over
the events Charlottesville. They knew nothing about the American alt-right, and still less
about the context of what happened that day, yet they still spoke of what a disgrace it was
for Trump not to distance himself from these deplorables. This was, of course, fully the
making of Swedish media.
The 1996 Presidential Election campaign suggests that the Russian
public is no less suggestible, and so does Russian (and Ukrainian) opinions on the crisis in
the Donbass.
ruled out signing a non-interference agreement with Moscow since it would
preclude Washington from meddling in Russia's internal affairs. What does this tell you about
the Western elite's plan for Russia?
It tells me the reporters are confused or you are. There is no 'agreement' that will
prevent 'Russia' from 'meddling' in American political life or the converse. The utility of
agreements is that they make understandings between nations more precise and incorporate
triggers which provide signals to one party or the other as to when the deal is off.
Soviets and Soviet Union were always in awe of America. You could see it in
"between-the-lines" of the texts of the so-called anti-imperialist, anti-American Soviet
propaganda. It was about catching up with American in steel production and TV sets ownership
and so on. American was the ultimate goal and people did not think of American as an enemy.
Then there is the fact that Bolsheviks and Soviet Union owed a lot to America though this
knowledge was not commonly known. Perhaps one should take look at these hidden connections to
see what was the real mechanism bending the plug being pulled off the USSR. There might be
even an analogy to South Africa but that is another story.
Two powerful countries beside one another are natural enemies, they can never be friends
until one has been relegated by defeat. Britain and France were enemies until France became
too weak to present a threat, then Britain's enemy was Germany (it still is, Brexit is
another Dunkirk with the UK realizing it cannot compete with Germany on the continent).
Russia cannot be a friend of China against the US until Russia has been relegated in the way
France has been. France has irrecoverably given up control of its currency, they are
relegated to Germany's sidekick.
China is like Bitcoin. The smart money (Google) is going there. Received wisdom in the US
keeps expecting China's economic growth to slow down but it isn't going to happen. When it
becomes clear that the US is going to be overtaken, America will try and slow down China's
economic growth, that will be Russia's opportunity.
American propaganda (itself without the help of Putin) were able to convince the
Russians that America is the enemy. Propaganda of Putin to this could add almost
nothing.
Being Russian, you would be in a better position than I am to comment on this, but the
obvious counter to that line is who channeled this American propaganda to the Russian
public and for what purpose? This article might hold the answer:
oh well, I get it, US nationalists like you think you're the responsible adults dealing
with a dangerous world, while ungrateful European pussies favor appeasement, are free riders
on US benevolent hegemony etc. I've heard and read all that a thousand times before, it's all
very unoriginal by now.
No, I'm a fat middle aged man who thinks most of what people say on political topics is
some species of self-congratulation. And a great deal of it is perverse. The two phenomena
are symbiotic. And, of course, I'm unimpressed with kvetching foreigners. Kvetching Europeans
might ask where is the evidence that they with their own skills and resources can
improve some situation using methods which differ from those we have applied and
kvetching Latin Americans can quit sticking the bill for their unhappy histories with Uncle
Sam, and kvetching Arabs can at least take responsibility for something rather than
projecting it on some wire-pulling other (Jews, Americans, conspiracy x).
Do they have one more soldier at their command and one more piece of equipment because
we had troops in Iraq?
Well, according to the likes of Mattis they certainly do. Have you never heard of the
Iraqi Popular Mobilisation Forces (PMU), a large faction of which reportedly swear allegiance
directly to Khamenei.
Is that "victory" for you?
An of course they now have a direct land route to Hezbollah, to make it easier for them to
assist that national defence militia to deter further Israeli attacks. That's something they
never could have had when Saddam was in charge of Iraq.
Is that "victory" for you?
And they don't have to worry about their western neighbour invading them with US backing
again.
These polls vary greatly from time to time and depending on the group conducting them.
These polls are meaningless: most ordinary people go about their daily lives never thinking
about that kind of issues, when suddenly prompted by a pollster they give a meaningless
answer.
So according to you when hundreds or thousands of people are asked a question they are not
prepared for, their collective answer is meaningless and does not indicate their
preference?
So it's a total coincidence that when Ukraine was ruled by Ukrainians most Crimeans
preferred to join Russia, when Ukraine was ruled by a Russian, Crimeans were satisfied within
Ukraine but when Ukrainian nationalists came to power Crimeans again preferred being part of
Russia?
Are all political polls also meaningless according to you, or just ones that contradict
your idealistic views?
This is a fantasy. Look, the effective size of Ukrainian army right now is around 70.000
– does this look like a strong, united nation willing and able to defend itself?
In fairness, the young Ukrainians I have spoken to avoid the "draft" mainly out of fear
that they will be underequipped and used as cannon fodder. (I'm not sure "draft" is the word
I'm looking for. My understanding is that they are temporarily exempt from military service
if they study at university or have good jobs.)
but the obvious counter to that line is who channeled this American propaganda to the
Russian public and for what purpose?
It is known – the minions of Putin translated into Russian language American (and
European) propaganda, and putting it on the website http://inosmi.ru/ .
The Americans also try: there is a special "Radio Liberty" that 24-hour broadcasts (in
Russian) hate speech against the Russian.
But it only speeds up the process (which will happen anyway) .
This is a fantasy. Look, the effective size of Ukrainian army right now is around 70.000
– does this look like a strong, united nation willing and able to defend itself?
It was about 50,000 in 2014, about 200,000-250,000 now.
Polish military has 105,000 personnel. Poland also not united or willing to defend
itself?
On the left side of the Dnieper truly crazy svidomy types is a small minority –
they stand out from the crowd, can be easily identified and neutralised just like in
Donbass
Avakov, Poroshenko's interior minister and sponsor of the neo-Nazi Azov battalion, in 2010
got 48% of the vote in Kharkiv's mayoral race in 2010 when he ran as the "Orange" candidate.
In 2012 election about 30% of Kharkiv oblast voters chose nationalist candidates, vs. about
10% in Donetsk oblast. Vkontakte, a good source for judging youth attitudes, was split 50/50
between pro-Maidan and anti-Maidan in Kharkiv (IIRC it was 80/20 anti-Maidan winning in
Donetsk). Kharkiv is just like Donbas, right?
A typical Ukrainian nationalist east of Dnieper is a business owner, university educated
white collar professional, a student, a journalist, "human rights activist"
Football hooligans in these places are also Ukrainian nationalists. Azov battalion and
Right Sector are both based in Eastern Ukraine.
Here is how Azov started:
The Azov Battalion has its roots in a group of Ultras of FC Metalist Kharkiv named "Sect
82″ (1982 is the year of the founding of the group).[18] "Sect 82″ was (at least
until September 2013) allied with FC Spartak Moscow Ultras.[18] Late February 2014, during
the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine when a separatist movement was active in Kharkiv,
"Sect 82″ occupied the Kharkiv Oblast regional administration building in Kharkiv and
served as a local "self-defense"-force.[18] Soon, on the basis of "Sect 82″ there was
formed a volunteer militia called "Eastern Corps".[18]
Here is Azov battalion commander-turned-Kiev oblast police chief, Kharkiv native Vadim
Troyan:
Does he look like an intellectual to you? Before Maidan he was a cop.
these are not the kind of individuals, who will engage in guerilla warfare,
On the contrary, they will probably dig in while seeking cover in urban areas that they
know well, where they have some significant support (as Donbas rebels did in Donetsk),
forcing the Russian invaders to fight house to house and causing massive damage while
fighting native boys such as Azov. About 1/3 of Kharkiv overall and 1/2 of its youth are
nationalists. I wouldn't expect mass resistance by the Kharkiv population itself, but passive
support for the rebels by many. Russia will then end up rebuilding a large city full of a
resentful population that will remember its dead (same problem Kiev will face if it gets
Donbas back). This scenario can be repeated for Odessa. Dnipropetrovsk, the home base of
Right Sector, is actually much more nationalistic than either Odessa or Kharkiv. And Kiev is
a different world again. Bitter urban warfare in a city of 3 million (officially, most likely
about 4 million) followed by massive reconstruction and maintenance of a repression regime
while under international sanctions.
Russia's government has adequate intelligence services who know better what Ukraine is
actually like, than you do. There is a reason why they limited their support to Crimea and
Donbas.
Your wishful thinking about Ukraine would be charming and harmless if not for the fact
that such wishful thinking often leads to tragic actions that harm both the invader and the
invaded. Remember the Iraqis were supposed to welcome the American liberators with flowers
after their cakewalk.
In fairness, the young Ukrainians I have spoken to avoid the "draft" mainly out of fear
that they will be underequipped and used as cannon fodder.
Correct. The thinking often was – "the corrupt officers will screw up and get us
killed, or sell out our positions to the Russians for money, if the Russians came to our city
I'd fight them but I don't wanna go to Donbas.." This is very different from avoiding the
draft because one wouldn't mind if Russia annexed Ukraine. Indeed, Dnipropetrovsk in the East
has contributed a lot to Ukraine's war effort, primarily because it borders Donbas –
ones hears from people there that if they don't fight in Donbas and keep the rebels contained
there, they'd have to fight at home.
@AP
LMAO, Ukrainians are nothing like Arabs. They are soft Eastern-European types. And in Eastern
regions like Kharkov most of them will be on our side.
The best thing about Ukrainian neo-Nazis such as Azov battalion is that there is very few
of them – no more than 10.000 in the entire country. I assume Russian security services
know all of them by name.
To deal with Ukronazi problem, I would first take out their leaders, then target their
HQs, arms depots and training camps. I would kill or intimidate their sponsors. Ukronazis
would be left decapitated, without resources, undermanned and demoralised, trying to fight an
insurgency amongst the population that hates and despises them. It will be a short lived
insurgency.
LMAO, Ukrainians are nothing like Arabs. They are soft Eastern-European types.
And Russians and Poles were also soft when someone invaded their country? Ukrainians are
not modern western Euros.
And in Eastern regions like Kharkov most of them will be on our side.
Most pensioners. It will be about 50/50 among young fighting-age people.
The best thing about Ukrainian neo-Nazis such as Azov battalion is that there is very
few of them – no more than 10.000 in the entire country
Maybe. Ukrainian government claims 46,000 in volunteer self-defense battalions (including
Azov) but this is probably an exaggeration.
OTOH there are a couple 100,000 demobilized young people with combat experience who would
be willing to fight if their homeland were attacked, who are not neo-Nazis in Azov. Plus a
military of 200,000-250,000 people, many of whom would imitate the Donbas rebels and probably
redeploy in places like Kharkiv where they have cover. Good look fighting it out block by
block.
trying to fight an insurgency amongst the population that hates and despises them
In 2010, 48% of Kharkiv voters chose a nationalist for their mayor. In 2012 about 30%
voted for nationalist parties. Judging by pro vs, anti-Maidan, the youth are evenly split
although in 2014 the Ukrainian nationalist youths ended up controlling the streets, not the
Russian nationalist ones as in Donbas. This is in the most pro-Russian part of Ukraine.
Suuure, the population of Kharkiv will despise their kids, grandkids, nephews, classmates
etc,. but will welcome the invaders from Russia who will be bombing their city. Such idealism
and optimism in Russia!
@AP
Again, supporting Maidan doesn't mean you're ready to take up Kalashnikov and go fight.
Ukrainian youth is dodging draft en masse. It's a fact.
This is what typical Maidanist Ukrainian youths look like; these people certainly don't
look like they have a lot of fight in them: They remind me of Navalny supporters in Russia. These kind of people can throw a tantrum,
but they are fundamentally weak people, who are easily crushed.
@Felix
Keverich Northern Kazakhstan is/was ethnically Russian, since the 1700s. This should have
been folded into Russia; the North Caucasus should have been cut loose. My opinion.
@Felix
Keverich Typical Russian mistakes regarding Ukraine: weak student-types in Russia are the
main supporters of Ukraine in Russia, thus the same type must be the main pro-Maidan people
in Ukraine. Because Ukraine = Russia. This silly dream of Ukraine being just like Russia
leads to ridiculous ideas and hopes.
As I already said, the Azov battalion grew out of brawling football ultras in Kharkiv.
Maidan itself was a cross-section – of students, yes, but also plenty of Afghan war
vets, workers, far right brawlers, professionals, etc. It's wasn't simply "weak" students,
nor was it simply far-right fascists (another claim by Russia) but a mass effort of the
western half of the country.
Here are Afghan war vets at Maidan:
Look at those weak Maidan people running away from the enemy:
Azov people in their native Kharkiv:
Kharkiv kids:
Ukrainian youth is dodging draft en masse. It's a fact.
Dodging the draft in order to avoid fighting in Donbas, where you are not wanted by the
locals, is very different from dodging the draft to avoid fighting when your own town is
being invaded.
@AP
Summer camp was in Kiev, but there is another outside Kharkiv.
To be clear, most Ukrainians fighting against Russia are not these unsavory types, though
they make for dramatic video. Point is that pro-Maidan types in Ukraine are far from being
exclusively liberal student-types.
- The Russians ALWAYS were Americanophiles – ever since the Revolution. Russia has been
an American ally most often explicit but occasionally tacit – in EVERY major American
conflict, including the War on Terror and excluding Korea and Vietnam (both not major
compared to the Civil War or WW2). The only comparable Great Power US ally is France. Russia
and the US are natural allies.
- Russians are Americanophiles – they like Hollywood movies, American music, American
idealism, American video games, American fashion, American inventions, American support in
WW2, American can-do-aittude, American badassery and Americana in general.
- There are two Ukraines. One is essentially a part of Russia, and a chunk of it was
repatriated in 2014. The other was historically Polish and Habsburg. It is a strange entity
that is not Russian.
- The Maidan was a foreign-backed putsch against a democratically elected government.
Yanukovich was certainly a corrupt scoundrel. But he was a democratically elected corrupt
scoundrel. To claim Russian intervention in his election is a joke in light of the CIA-backed
2004 and 2014 coups.
Moreover, post-democratic post-Yanukovich Ukraine is clearly inferior to
its predecessor. For one thing, under Yanukovich, Sevastopol was still Ukrainian
@Felix
Keverich I think this poll is the most relevant for assessing the question, since it
covered different regions and used the same methodology.
Takeaway:
1. Support for uniting into a single state with Russia at 41% in Crimea at a time when it
was becoming quite clear the Yanukovych regime was doomed.
2. Now translates into ~90% support (according to both Russian and international polls) in
Crimea. I.e., a more than a standard deviation shift in "Russophile" sentiment on this
matter.
3. Assuming a similar shift in other regions, Novorossiya would be quite fine being with
Russia post facto . Though there would be significant discontent in Kharkov,
Dnepropetrovsk, Zaporozhye, and Kherson (e.g., probably on the scale of Donbass unhappiness
with the Ukraine before 2014).
4. Central and West Ukraine would not be, which is why their reintegration would be far
more difficult – and probably best left for sometime in the future.
5. What we have instead seen is a one standard deviation shift in "Ukrainophile" sentiment
within all those regions that remained in the Ukraine. If this change is "deep," then AP is
quite correct that their assimilation into Russia has been made impossible by Putin's
vacillations in 2014.
The Maidan was a foreign-backed putsch against a democratically elected government
Typical Russian nationalist half-truth about Ukraine.
To be clear – Yanukovich was democratically elected in 2010, into a position where
his powers were limited and where he was faced with a hostile parliament. His post-election
accumulation of powers (overthrowing the Opposition parliament, granting himself additional
powers, stacking the court with local judges from his hometown) was not democratic. None of
these actions enjoyed popular support, none were made through democratic processes such as
referendums or popular elections. Had that been the case, he would not have been overthrown
in what was a popular mass revolt by half the country.
There are two Ukraines. One is essentially a part of Russia, and a chunk of it was
repatriated in 2014. The other was historically Polish and Habsburg. It is a strange entity
that is not Russian.
A bit closer to the truth, but much too simplistic in a way that favors Russian idealism.
Crimea (60% Russian) was simply not Ukraine, so lumping it in together with a place such as
Kharkiv (oblast 70% Ukrainian) and saying that Russia took one part of this uniformly
"Russian Ukraine" is not accurate.
You are correct that the western half of the country are a non-Russian Polish-but-not
Habsburg central Ukraine/Volynia, and Polish-and-Habsburg Galicia.
But the other half consisted of two parts: ethnic Russian Crimea (60% Russian) and largely
ethniuc-Russian urban Donbas (about 45% Russian, 50% Ukrainian), and a heavily Russified but
ethnic Ukrainian Kharkiv oblast (70% Ukrainian, 26% Russian), Dnipropetrovsk (80% Ukrainian,
20% Russian), Kherson (82% Ukrainian, 14% Russian), and Odessa oblast (63% Ukrainian, 21%
Russian).
The former group (Crimea definitely, and urban Donbas less strongly) like being part of
Russia. The latter group, on the other hand, preferred that Ukraine and Russia have friendly
ties, preferred Russian as a legal language, preferred economic union with Russia, but did
not favor loss of independence. Think of them as pro-NAFTA American-phile Canadians who would
nevertheless be opposed to annexation by the USA and would be angered if the USA grabbed a
chunk of Canada. In grabbing a chunk of Ukraine and supporting a rebellion in which Kharkiv
and Dnipropetrovsk kids are being shot by Russian-trained fighters using Russian-supplied
bullets, Putin has turned these people off the Russian state.
3. Assuming a similar shift in other regions, Novorossiya would be quite fine being with
Russia post facto. Though there would be significant discontent in Kharkov, Dnepropetrovsk,
Zaporozhye, and Kherson (e.g., probably on the scale of Donbass unhappiness with the
Ukraine before 2014).
'Asumptions' like this are what provide Swiss cheese the airy substance that makes it less
caloric! Looks like only the retired sovok population in the countryside is up to supporting
your mythical 'NovoRosija' while the more populated city dwellers would be opposed, even by
your own admission (and even this is questionable). I'm surprised that the dutifully loyal
and most astute opposition (AP) has let this blooper pass without any comment?
@Anatoly
Karlin I think when answering this question, most people simple give what they consider
to be the socially acceptable answer, especially in contemporary Ukraine, where you will go
to prison for displaying Russian flag – who wants to be seen as a "separatist"?
In Crimea it has become more socially acceptable to identify with Russia following the
reunification, which is why the number of people who answer this way shot up . The
same effect will seen in Belarus and Ukraine – I'm fairly certain of it.
Though there would be significant discontent in Kharkov, Dnepropetrovsk, Zaporozhye, and
Kherson
Discontent will be limited to educated, affluent, upwardly mobile circles of society.
Demographic profile of Ukrainian nationalist East of Dnieper resembles demographic profile of
Navalny supporters in Russia. These people are not fighters. Most of them will react to
Russian takeover by self-deporting – they have the money and resources to do it.
Demographic profile of Ukrainian nationalist East of Dnieper resembles demographic
profile of Navalny supporters in Russia. These people are not fighters.
The Azov Battalion has its roots in a group of Ultras of FC Metalist Kharkiv named "Sect
82″ (1982 is the year of the founding of the group).[18] "Sect 82″ was (at least
until September 2013) allied with FC Spartak Moscow Ultras.[18] Late February 2014, during
the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine when a separatist movement was active in Kharkiv,
"Sect 82″ occupied the Kharkiv Oblast regional administration building in Kharkiv and
served as a local "self-defense"-force.[18] Soon, on the basis of "Sect 82″ there was
formed a volunteer militia called "Eastern Corps".[18]
The brawling East Ukrainian nationalists who took the streets of Kharkiv and Odessa were
not mostly rich, fey hipsters.
Discontent will be limited to educated, affluent, upwardly mobile circles of
society.
So, even by tour own admission, the only folks that would be for unifying with Russia are
the uneducated, poor and those with no hopes of ever amounting to much in society. I don't
agree with you, but I do see your logic. These are just the type of people that are the most
easily manipulated by Russian propoganda – a lot of this went on in the Donbas, and we
can see the results of that fiasco to this day.
a)Post-WWII American power elites are both incompetent and arrogant (which is a first
derivative of incompetence) to understand that–this is largely the problem with most
"Western" elites.
b) Currently the United States doesn't have enough (if any) geopolitical currency and
clout to "buy" Russia. In fact, Russia can take what she needs (and she doesn't have "global"
appetites) with or without the US. Plus, China is way more interested in Russia's services
that the US, which will continue to increasingly find out more about its own severe
military-political limitations.
c) The United States foreign policy is not designed and is not being conducted to serve
real US national interests. In fact, US can not even define those interests beyond the
tiresome platitudes about "global interests" and being "exceptional".
@AP I
like how I got you talking about the Ukronazis, it's kinda funny actually, so let me pose as
Ukraine's "defender" here:
This neo-Nazi scum is not in any way representative of the population of Eastern
Ukraine. These are delinquents, criminals, low-lifes. They are despised, looked down upon
by the normal people, pro-Russian and pro-Ukrainian alike. A typical Ukrainian nationalist
East of Dnieper is a business owner, a journalist, an office worker, a student who dodges
draft. It's just the way it is.
@AP The
way to think about Azov battalion is to treat them like a simple group of delinquents, for
whom Ukrainian nationalism has become a path to obtain money, resources, bigger guns and
perhaps even political power. Azov is simply a gang. And Russian security services
have plenty of experience dealing with gangs, so I don't expect Ukronazis to pose a major
challenge.
@Felix
Keverich I'm not sure about Ukrainian football hooligans, but football hooligans in
Hungary are not necessarily "low -lifes, criminals, delinquents", in fact, the majority of
them aren't. Most groups consist mostly of working class (including a lot of security guards
and similar) members, but there are some middle class (I know of a school headmaster, though
I think he's no longer very active in the group) and working class entrepreneur types (e.g.
the car mechanic who ended up owning a car dealership) and similar. I think outright criminal
types are a small minority. Since it costs money to attend the matches, outright failures
(the permanently unemployed and similar ne'er-do-wells) are rarely found in such groups.
@reiner
Tor LOL I classify all football hooligans as low-lifes simply due to the nature of their
pastime. Ukrainian neo-Nazi militias have been involved in actual crimes including murder,
kidnapping and racketeering. Their criminal activities go unpunished by the regime, because
they are considered "heroes" or something.
This neo-Nazi scum is not in any way representative of the population of Eastern
Ukraine.
If by "representative" you mean majority, sure. Neither are artsy students, or Afghan war
veterans, or schoolteachers, any other group a majority.
Also not all of the street fighters turned militias neo-Nazis, as are Azov. Right Sector
are not neo-Nazis, they are more fascists.
These are delinquents, criminals, low-lifes.
As reiner tor correctly pointed out, this movement which grew out of the football ultra
community is rather working class but is not lumpens. You fail again.
A typical Ukrainian nationalist East of Dnieper is a business owner, a journalist, an
office worker, a student who dodges draft
Are there more business owners, students (many of whom do not dodge the draft), office
workers combined than there are ultras/far-right brawlers? Probably. 30% of Kharkiv voted for
nationalist parties (mostly Tymoshenko's and Klitschko's moderates) in the 2012 parliamentary
elections, under Yanukovich. That represents about 900,000 people in that oblast. There
aren't 900,000 brawling far-rightists in Kharkiv. So?
The exteme nationalist Banderist Svoboda party got about 4% of the vote in Kharkiv oblast
in 2012. This would make Bandera twice as popular in Kharkiv as the democratic opposition is
in Russia.
I classify all football hooligans as low-lifes simply due to the nature of their
pastime.
They are well integrated into the rest of society, so you can call them low-lifes, but
they will still be quite different from ordinary criminals.
Ukrainian neo-Nazi militias have been involved in actual crimes including murder,
kidnapping and racketeering.
But that's quite different from being professional criminals. Members of the Waffen-SS
also committed unspeakable crimes, but they rarely had professional criminal backgrounds, and
were, in fact, quite well integrated into German society.
The way to think about Azov battalion is to treat them like a simple group of
delinquents, for whom Ukrainian nationalism has become a path to obtain money, resources,
bigger guns and perhaps even political power
Yes, there are elements of this, but not only. If they were ethnic Russians, as in Donbas,
they would have taken a different path, as did the pro-Russian militants in Donbas who are
similar to the ethnic Ukrainian Azovites. Young guys who like to brawl and are ethnic
Russians or identify s such joined organizations like Oplot and moved to Donbas to fight
against Ukraine, similar types who identified as Ukrainians became Azovites or joined similar
pro-Ukrainian militias. Also not all of these were delinquents, many were working class,
security guards, etc.
Good that you admit that in Eastern Ukraine nationalism is not limited to student
activists and businessmen.
And Russian security services have plenty of experience dealing with gangs,
They chose to stay away from Kharkiv and limit Russia's action to Donbas, knowing that
there would be too much opposition, and not enough support, to Russian rule in Kharkiv to
make the effort worthwhile.
@Anon
Out of all hypotheses on the JFK assassination the one that Israel was behind it is the
strongest. There is no question about it. From the day one when conspiracy theories were
floated everything was done to hide how Israel benefited form the assassination.
@reiner
Tor I feel that comparing Azov to SS gives it too much credit.
My point is that this way of life is not something that many people in Ukraine are willing
to actively participate in. Most people are not willing to condone it either. AP says that
Azov and the like can act like underground insurgency in Eastern cities. But I don't see how
this could work – there will a thousand people around them willing to rat them out.
There is no pro-Ukrainian insurgency in Crimea or inside the republics in Donbass, and
it's not due to the lack of local football hooligans.
That represents about 900,000 people in that oblast. There aren't 900,000 brawling
far-rightists in Kharkiv. So?
This means these people won't pose a big problem. These folks will take care of themselves
either through self-deportation or gradually coming to terms with the new reality in Kharkov,
just like their compatriots in Crimea did.
Even among Svoboda voters, I suspect only a small minority of them are the militant types.
We should be to contain them through the use of local proxies. The armies of Donbass
republics currently number some 40-60 thousand men according to Cassad blog, which compares with the size of the entire
Ukrainian army. We should be able to recruit more local Ukrainian proxies once we're in Kharkov.
AP says that Azov and the like can act like underground insurgency in Eastern cities.
But I don't see how this could work – there will a thousand people around them
willing to rat them out.
About 1/3 of the population in Eastern Ukrainian regions voted for Ukrainian nationalists
in 2012, compared to only 10% in Donbas. Three times as many. Likely after 2014 many of the
hardcore pro-Russians left Kharkiv, just as hardcore pro-Ukrainians left Donetsk. Furthermore
anti-Russian attitudes have hardened, due to the war, Crimea, etc. So there would be plenty
of local support for native insurgents.
Russians say, correctly, that after Kiev has shelled Donetsk how can the people of Donetsk
reconcile themselves with Kiev?
The time when Russia could have bloodlessly marched into Kharkiv is over. Ukrainian forces
have dug in. How will Kharkiv people feel towards uninvited Russian invaders shelling their
city in order to to take it under their control?
There is no pro-Ukrainian insurgency in Crimea or inside the republics in Donbass, and
it's not due to the lack of local football hooligans.
Crimea was 60% Russian, Donbas Republics territory about 45% Russian; Kharkiv oblast is
only 25% Russian.
With Donbas – there are actually local pro-Ukrainian militants from Donbas, in the
Donbas and Aidar battalions.
@AP It
was a decision that Putin personally made. He wasn't going to move in Crimea either, until
Maidanists overthrew his friend
It goes without saying that Putin doesn't share my nationalist approach to Ukraine
problem: he does not see the destruction of Ukrainian project as necessary or even desirable.
And I'm sure the restraint Putin has shown on Ukraine doesn't come from him being intimidated
by Azov militia.
These folks will take care of themselves either through self-deportation or gradually
coming to terms with the new reality in Kharkov, just like their compatriots in Crimea
did
The problem with this comparison is that Crimeans were far more in favor of joining Russia
that are Kharkivites.
The armies of Donbass republics currently number some 40-60 thousand men according to
Cassad blog, which compares with the size of the entire Ukrainian army.
Ukrainian military has 200,000 – 250,000 active members and about 100,000 reserves.
Where did you get your information? The end of 2014?
We should be able to recruit more local Ukrainian proxies once we're in Kharkov.
You would be able to recruit some local proxies in Kharkiv. Kiev even did so in Donbas.
But given the fact that Ukrainian nationalism was 3 times more popular on Kharkiv than in
Donetsk, and that Kharkiv youth were split 50/50 in terms of or versus anti Maidan support
(versus 80/20 IIIRC anti-Maidan in Donbas), it would not be so easy. Moreover, by now many of
the hardcore anti-Kiev people have already left Kharkiv, while Kharkiv has had some
settlement by pro-Ukrainian dissidents from Donbas. So the situation even in 2014 was hard
enough that Russia chose to stay away, now it is even worse for the pro-Russians.
And I'm sure the restraint Putin has shown on Ukraine doesn't come from him being
intimidated by Azov militia.
This is rather a symptom of a much wider phenomenon: the population simply doesn't see
itself as Russian and doesn't want to be part of Russia. So its hooligan-types go for
Ukrainian, not Russian, nationalism as is the case in Russia.
The time when Russia could have bloodlessly marched into Kharkiv is over. Ukrainian
forces have dug in. How will Kharkiv people feel towards uninvited Russian invaders
shelling their city in order to to take it under their control?
The locals will move to disarm Ukrainian forces, who have taken their city hostage, then
welcome Russian liberators with open arms, what else they are going to do? lol
It's just a joke though. In reality there is virtually no Ukrainian forces in city of
Kharkov. They don't have the manpower. Ukrainian regime managed to fortify Perekop and the
perimeter of the people's republics, but the rest of Ukraine-Russia border remains completely
undefended. It's wide open!
It goes without saying that Putin doesn't share my nationalist approach to Ukraine
problem: he does not see the destruction of Ukrainian project as necessary or even
desirable.
Well there you have it. Putin is a much smarter guy than you are Felix (BTW, are you
Jewish, all of the Felix's that I've known were Jewish?). Good to see that you're nothing
more than a blackshirted illusionist.*
@for-the-record
German and European reliance on US security guarantees is a problem, since it's become pretty
clear that the US political system is dysfunctional and US "elites" are dangerous extremists.
We need our own security structures to be independent from the US so they can't drag us into
their stupid projects or blackmail us anymore why do you think Merkel didn't react much to
the revelations about American spying on Germany? Because we're totally dependent on the
Americans in security matters.
And while I don't believe Russia or Iran are really serious threats to Europe, it would be
foolish to have no credible deterrence.
"How will Kharkiv people feel towards uninvited Russian invaders shelling their city in
order to to take it under their control?"
They will move to disarm ther Ukrainian forces, who have taken their city hostage, then
welcome their Russian liberators with open arms, what else they are going to do? lol
While about 1/3 of Kharkiv voted for Ukrainian nationalists, only perhaps 10%-20% of the
city would actually like to be part of Russia (and I am being generous to you). So your idea
is equivalent to American fantasies of Iraqis greeting their troops with flowers.
It's just a joke though. In reality there is virtually no Ukrainian forces in city of
Kharkov. They don't have the manpower. Ukrainian regime managed to fortify Perekop and the
perimeter of the people's republics, but the rest of Ukraine-Russia border remains
completely undefended.
Are you living in 2014? Russian nationalists always like to think of Ukraine as if it is
2014-2015. It is comforting for them.
Ukraine currently has 200,000-250,000 active troops. About 60,000 of them are around
Donbas.
Here is a map of various positions in 2017:
Kharkiv does appear to be lightly defended, though not undefended (it has a motorized
infantry brigade and a lot of air defenses). The map does not include national guard units
such as Azov, however, which would add a few thousand troops to Kharkiv's defense.
It looks like rather than stationing their military in forward positions vs. a possible
Russian attack, Ukraine, has put lot of troops in Dnipropetrovsk, Mykolaiv, Kiev and
Odessa.
Ukrainian military has 200,000 – 250,000 active members and about 100,000
reserves. Where did you get your information? The end of 2014?
I read Kassad blog, and he says Ukrainian formations assembled in Donbass number some
50-70 thousands men. The entire Ukrainian army is around 200.000 men, including the navy
(LOL), the airforce, but most of it isn't combat ready. Ukraine doesn't just suffer from a
lack of manpower, they don't have the resources to feed and clothe their soldiers, which
limits their ability field an army.
By contrast the armies of people's republics have 40-60 thousand men – that's
impressive level of mobilisation, and they achieved this without implementing draft.
@APSo your idea is equivalent to American fantasies of Iraqis greeting their troops with
flowers.
The local populations in Iraq were congenial to begin with, at least outside some Sunni
centers. It was never an object of American policy to stay in Iraq indefinitely.
Kharkiv does appear to be lightly defended, though not undefended (it has a motorized
infantry brigade and a lot of air defenses).
How many people does this "motorized infantry brigade" have? And more importantly what is
its level of combat readiness? Couldn't we just smash this brigade with a termobaric bomb
while they are sleeping?
Ukraine is full of shit. They had 20.000 troops in Crimea, "a lot of air defenses" and it
didn't make a iota of difference. Somehow you expect me to believe Ukraine has a completely
different army now. Why should I? They don't have the resources to afford a better army, so
it is logical to assume that Ukrainian army is still crap.
Russian nationalists always like to think of Ukraine as if it is 2014-2015. It is
comforting for them.
Betwixt and between all the trash talking, they've forgotten that the last occasion on
which one country attempted to conquer an absorb another country with a population anywhere
near 30% of its own was during the 2d World War. Didn't work out so well for Germany and
Japan.
@for-the-recordAustria, on the other hand, has survived for more than 60 years without the US "umbrella"
to protect it (and with a military strength rated below that of Angola and Chile), so why
couldn't Germany?
Austria hasn't been absorbed by Germany or Italy therefore Germany doesn't have a use for
security guarantees or an armed force. Do I render your argument correctly?
Not completely true, Germany didn't participate in the Iraq war and in the bombing of
Libya.
I'm hardly an expert on military matters, but it would seem just common sense to me that a
state needs sufficient armed forces to protect its own territory if you don't have that, you
risk becoming a passive object whose fate is decided by other powers. Doesn't mean Germany
should have a monstrously bloated military budget like the US, just sufficient forces to
protect its own territory and that of neighbouring allies (which is what the German army
should be for instead of participating in futile counter-insurgency projects in places like
Afghanistan). Potential for conflict in Europe is obviously greatest regarding Russia it's
still quite low imo, and I want good relations with Russia and disagree vehemently with such
insanely provocative ideas as NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia, but it would be stupid
not to have credible deterrence (whose point it is to prevent hostilities after all). I don't
think that's an anti-Russian position, it's just realistic.
Apart from that Germany doesn't probably need much in the way of military capabilities maybe
some naval forces for participation in international anti-piracy missions.
Regarding nuclear weapons, that's obviously something Germany can't or shouldn't do on its
own (probably wouldn't be tolerated anyway given 20th century history), so it would have to
be in some form of common European project. Hard to tell now if something like this could
eventually become possible or necessary.
@Felix
Keverich Sorry to prickle your little fantasy world once again tovarishch, but according
to current CIA statistics Ukraine has 182,000 active personnel, and 1,000,000 reservists! For
a complete rundown of Ukraine's military strength, read this and weep:
@Art
DecoThey've had ample opportunity over a period of 26 years to make the decision you
favor. It hasn't happened, and there's no reason to fancy they'll be more amenable a decade
from now.
Yes, these people had been sold a vision. If only they leave behind the backward, Asiatic,
mongoloid Russia, they will instantly Join Europe. They will have all of the good stuff:
European level of prosperity, rule of law, international approval, and so on; and none of the
bad stuff that they associated with Russia, like poverty, corruption, and civil strife.
Official Ukrainian propaganda worked overtime, and still works today, to hammer this into
people's heads. And it's an attractive vision. An office dweller in Kiev wants to live in a
shiny European capital, not in a bleak provincial city of a corrupt Asian empire. The problem
is, it's ain't working. For a while Ukraine managed to get Russia to subsidize Ukrainian
European dream. Now this is over. The vision is starting to fail even harder.
The experience of Communism shows that it may take decades but eventually people notice
that the state ideology is a lie. Once they do, they change their mind about things rather
quickly.
It goes without saying that Putin doesn't share my nationalist approach to Ukraine
problem: he does not see the destruction of Ukrainian project as necessary or even
desirable.
Agreed, and he happens to be in the right here. Russia actually has a good hand in
Ukraine, if only she keeps her cool . More military adventurism is foolish for at
least three reasons:
(1) All the civilian deaths in the Donbass, somewhat perversely, play to Russia's
advantage in that they take some of the sting out of the "Ukraine is the victim" narrative.
Common people know full well that the Ukrainian troops are hated in the Donbass (I once
watched a Ukrainian soldier shock the audience by saying this on Shuster Live), and they know
also that Kiev has a blame in all those dead women and children. These are promising
conditions for future reconciliation, and they would be squandered overnight if Russian
troops moved further westward.
(2) The geopolitical repercussions would be enormous. As I and others have already
written, the present situation is just about what people in elite Western circles can
stomach. Any Russian escalation would seriously jeopardize European trade with Russia, among
other things.
(3) There is a good chance that Crimea will eventually be internationally recognized as
part of the RF (a British parliamentary report on this matter in 2015, I think it was, made
this quite clear). The same might also be true of the Donbass. These "acquisitions," too,
would be jeopardized by more military action.
You mean Putin mercs kill more Ukrainian civilians and we 'take some of the sting out of
the 'Ukraine is a victim narrative'? Sounds like a plan.
No, I wrote that those civilians are already gone and that both sides had a hand in their
deaths, which will help the peace process since no side can claim sole victimhood.
And your assumption that the separatists are mercenaries is groundless speculation.
Estimations are that well over half of the separatists are born and bred in Ukraine, and
there is no evidence to suggest that they are fighting for the love of money.
Did you cc the folks in Ramallah and Jerusalem about that?
Risible comparison. Theirs is a conflict involving three major religions and the survival
of the Israeli state at stake. On the Crimean question, we have already heard influential
Westerners voice the possibility that it might one day be accepted as Russian, and if you
read between the lines, many Ukrainians are of a similiar mind.
@Felix
KeverichUnfortunately, the Ukraine has been spending 5%* of its GDP on the military
since c.2015 (versus close to 1% before 2014).
Doesn't really matter if tons of money continues to be stolen, or even the recession
– with that kind of raw increase, a major enhancement in capabilities is
inevitable.
Like it or not, but outright war with Maidanist Ukraine has been ruled out from the
beginning, as the more perceptive analysts like Rostislav Ischenko have long recognized. If
there was a time and a place for it, it was either in April 2014, or August 2014 at the
very latest. Since then, the Ukrainian Army has gotten much stronger. It has been purged of
its "Russophile" elements, and even though it has lost a substantial percentage of its
remnant Soviet-era military capital in the war of attrition with the LDNR, it has more than
made up for it with wartime XP gain and the banal fact of a quintupling in military
spending as a percentage of GDP from 1% to 5%.
This translates to an effective quadrupling
in absolute military spending, even when accounting for Ukraine's post-Maidan economic
collapse.
Russia can still crush Ukraine in a full-scale conventional conflict, and that
will remain the case for the foreseeable future, but it will no longer be the happy cruise
to the Dnepr that it would have been two years earlier.
The entire Ukrainian army is around 200.000 men, including the navy (LOL), the airforce,
but most of it isn't combat ready.
250,000. Combat readiness is very different from 2014.
Ukraine doesn't just suffer from a lack of manpower, they don't have the resources to
feed and clothe their soldiers, which limits their ability field an army.
Again, it isn't 2014 anymore. Military budget has increased significantly, from 3.2
billion in 2015 to 5.17 billion in 2017. In spite of theft, much more is getting through.
By contrast the armies of people's republics have 40-60 thousand men – that's
impressive level of mobilisation, and they achieved this without implementing draft
It's one of the only ways to make any money in the Republics, so draft is
unnecessaary.
Estimations are that well over half of the separatists are born and bred in Ukraine, and
there is no evidence to suggest that they are fighting for the love of money.
80% are natives. Perhaps as much as 90%. However, often it a way to make a meager salary
in those territories, so there is a mercenary aspect to it. Lots of unemployed workers go
into the Republic military.
Estimations are that well over half of the separatists are born and bred in Ukraine, and
there is no evidence to suggest that they are fighting for the love of money.
80% in 2014-15, to be precise; another 10% from the Kuban; 10% from Russia, the Russian
world, and the world at large.
NAF salaries are good by post-2014 Donbass standards, but a massive cut for Russians
– no Russian went there to get rich.
That said, I strongly doubt there will ever be international recognition of Crimea, let
alone Donbass. Israel has by far the world's most influential ethnic lobby. Even NATO member
Turkey hasn't gotten Northern Cyprus internationally recognized, so what exactly are the
chances of the international community (read: The West) recognizing the claims of Russia,
which is fast becoming established in Western minds as the arch-enemy of civilization?
@Anatoly
Karlin Fascinating link. The numbers for the military budget are a lot lower than
reported elsewhere.
Mobilization percentages by region:
"Among the leaders of the fourth and fifth wave of partial mobilisation were the
Khmelnitsky,
Dnipropetrovsk, Vinnytsia, Kirovohrad and Zaporizhia regions, as well as the city
of Kyiv, whose mobilisation plan was fulfilled 80-100% (the record was Vinnytsia oblast,
which achieved 100% mobilisation). At the opposite extreme are the Kharkiv, Chernivtsi,
Donetsk, Ivano-Frankivsk, Lugansk, Sumy, Ternopil and Transcarpathian regions, where
the results of the mobilisation varied from 25 to 60%."
Summary:
2014:
The true face of the Ukrainian armed forces was revealed by the Russian annexation of
Crimea and the first weeks of the war in the Donbas – they were nothing more than a
fossilised structure, unfit for any effective function upon even a minimum engagement with
the enemy, during which a significant part of the troops only realised whom they were
representing in the course of the conflict and more than once, from the perspective of
service in one of the post-Soviet military districts, they chose to serve in the Russian
army
2017:
The war in the Donbas shaped the Ukrainian army. It gave awareness and motivation to the
soldiers, and forced the leadership of the Defence Ministry and the government of the state
to adapt the army's structure – for the first time since its creation – to real
operational needs, and also to bear the costs of halting the collapses in the fields of
training and equipment, at least to such an extent which would allow the army to fight a
close battle with the pro-Russian separatists. Despite all these problems, the Ukrainian
armed forces of the year 2017 now number 200,000, most of whom have come under fire, and
are seasoned in battle. They have a trained reserve ready for mobilisation in the event of
a larger conflict*; their weapons are not the latest or the most modern, but the vast
majority of them now work properly; and they are ready for the defence of the vital
interests of the state (even if some of the personnel still care primarily about their own
vested interests). They have no chance of winning a potential military clash with Russia,
but they have a reason to fight. The Ukrainian armed forces of the year 2014, in a
situation where their home territory was occupied by foreign troops, were incapable of
mounting an adequate response. The changes since the Donbas war started mean that Ukraine
now has the best army it has ever had in its history.
* The Ukrainian armed forces have an operational reserve of 130,000 men, relatively well
trained and with real combat experience, who since 2016 have been moulded out of veterans
of the Donbas (as well as from formations subordinate to the Interior Ministry). It must be
stressed, however, that those counted in the reserve represent only half of the veterans of
the anti-terrorist operation (by October 2016, 280,000 Ukrainians had served in the Donbas
in all formations subordinate to the government in Kyiv, with 266,000 reservists gaining
combat status; at the beginning of February 2017, 193,400 reservists were in the armed
forces). Thanks to that, at least in terms of the human factor, it should be possible in a
relatively short period of time to increase the Ukrainian army's degree of combat
readiness, as well as to fight a relatively close battle with a comparable opponent,
something the Ukrainian armed forces were not capable of doing at the beginning of
2014.
NAF salaries are good by post-2014 Donbass standards, but a massive cut for Russians
– no Russian went there to get rich.
Which further points to the critical role played by Russians. Many of the local volunteers
are participating because doing so offers a salary, which is very important in a wrecked,
sanctioned Donbas. The Russian 10%-20% are motivated, often Chechen combat vets. They are
more important than their % indicates.
@Gerard2
..and lets not forget the failure in mobilisation from the Ukrainian military
That and having to hire loads of Georgians, Chechens, Poles and other mercenaries. Pretty much tallys perfectly with the failed shithole Ukraine government structure full of
everyone else .but Ukrainians
@melanf
What is almost incomprehensible for me in these endless Russia vs Ukraine arguments is how
they (yes both sides) always ignore the real issues and instead keep on raising relatively
petty points while thinking that mass non white immigration and things like the EU
commissioner of immigration stating openly that Europe needs endless immigration, are not
important.
It's like white South Africans who still debate the Boer war or the Irish debate
the northern Ireland question, and are completely oblivious to the fact that these things
don't matter anymore if you have an entirely new people ruling your land (ok in South Africa
they were not new, but you know what I mean).
I have read a article mentioned something like Putin said, to annexed whole Ukraine means to
share the enormous resource wealth of vast Russia land with them, which make no economic
sense. If Russia is worst than Ukraine, then there won't be million of Ukrainian migrating
over after the Maidan coup.
So are all those Baltic states. Russia don't want these countries as it burden, it is
probably only interested in selected strategic areas like the Eastern Ukraine industrial belt
and military important Crimea warm water deep seaport, and skilled migrants. Ukraine has one
of lowest per capital income now, with extreme corrupted politicians controlled by USNato
waging foolish civil war killing own people resulting in collapsing economic and exudes of
skilled people.
What it got to lose to unify with Russia to have peace, prosperity and been a nation of a
great country instead of poor war torn? Plus a bonus of free Russia market access, unlimited
cheap natural gas and pipeline toll to tax instead of buying LNG from US at double price.
Sorry this s just my opinion based on mostly fake news we are fed, only the Ukrainian know
the best and able to decde themselves.
Agreed, and he happens to be in the right here. Russia actually has a good hand in
Ukraine, if only she keeps her cool. More military adventurism is foolish for at least
three reasons:
Yes, this is my view also. I think Russia was never in a position to do much more than it
has, and those who talk about more vigorous military interference are just naïve, or
engaging in wishful thinking, about the consequences. I think Putin played a very bad hand as
well as could reasonably be expected in Ukraine and Crimea. No doubt mistakes were made, and
perhaps more support at the key moment for the separatists (assassinations of some of the key
oligarchs who chose the Ukrainian side and employed thugs to suppress the separatists in
eastern cities, perhaps) could have resulted in a better situation now with much more of the
eastern part of Ukraine separated, but if Russians want someone to blame for the situation in
Ukraine apart from their enemies, they should look at Yanukovich, not Putin.
In the long run, it seems likely the appeal of NATO and the EU (assuming both still even
exist in their current forms in a few years time) is probably peaking, but strategic patience
and only limited covert and economic interference is advisable.
The return of Crimea to Russia alone has been a dramatic improvement in the inherent
stability of the region. A proper division of the territory currently forming the Ukraine
into a genuine Ukrainian nation in the west and an eastern half returned to Russia would be
the ideal long term outcome, but Russia can surely live with a neutralised Ukraine.
You realise that Ukraine's GDP declined in dollar terms by a factor of 2-3 times, right? A
bigger share of a smaller economy translates into the same paltry sum. It is still under $5
billion.
Futhermore an army that's actively deployed and engaged in fighting spends more money than
during peacetime. A lot of this money goes to fuel, repairs, providing for soldiers and their
wages rather than qualitatively improving capabilities of the army.
The bottom-line is Ukraine spent the last 3,5 years preparing to fight a war against the
People's Republic of Donetsk. I'll admit Ukrainian army can hold its own against the People's
Republic of Donetsk. Yet it remains hopelessly outmatched in a potential clash with Russia. A
short, but brutal bombing campaign can whipe out Ukrainian command and control, will make it
impossible to mount any kind of effective defence. Ukrainian conscripts have no experience in
urban warfare, and their national loyalties are unclear.
AP predicts that the cities of Kharkov, Dniepropetrovsk will be reduced to something akin
to Aleppo. But it has taken 3 years of constant shelling to cause the damage in Aleppo. A
more likely outcome is that Ukrainian soldiers will promptly ditch their uniforms, once they
realise the Russian are coming and their command is gone.
@Felix
Keverich Nominal GDP collapsed, but real GDP only fell by around 20%. This matters more,
since the vast majority of Ukrainian military spending occurs in grivnas.
By various calculations, Ukrainian military spending went up from 1% of GDP, to 2.5%-5%.
Minus 20%, that translates to a doubling to quadrupling.
What it does mean is that they are even less capable of paying for advanced weapons from
the West than before, but those were never going to make a cardinal difference anyway.
AP is certainly exaggerating wrt Kharkov looking like Aleppo and I certainly didn't agree
with him on that. In reality Russia will still be able to smash the Ukraine, assuming no
large-scale American intervention, but it will no longer be the trivial task it would have
been in 2014, and will likely involve thousands as opposed to hundreds (or even dozens) of
Russian military deaths in the event of an offensive up to the Dnieper.
It's one of the only ways to make any money in the Republics, so draft is
unnecessaary.
It's not like the regime-controlled parts of the country are doing much better! LOL
My point is that this bodes well for our ability to recruit proxies in Ukraine, don't you
think? We could easily assemble another 50.000-strong local army, once we're in Kharkov.
That's the approach I would use in Ukraine: strip away parts of it piece by piece, create
local proxies, use them to maintain control and absorb casualties in the fighting on the
ground.
In reality Russia will still be able to smash the Ukraine, assuming no large-scale
American intervention, but it will no longer be the trivial task it would have been in
2014, and will likely involve thousands as opposed to hundreds (or even dozens) of Russian
military deaths in the event of an offensive up to the Dnieper.
Fortunately, we'll not be seeing a replay of the sacking and destruction of Novgorod as
was done in the 15th century by Ivan III, and all of its ugly repercussions in Ukraine.
Besides, since the 15th century, we've seen the emergence of three separate nationalities out
of the loose amalgamation of principalities known a Rus. Trying to recreate something (one
Rus nation) out of something that never in effect existed, now in the 21st century is a
ridiculous concept at best.
"It's one of the only ways to make any money in the Republics, so draft is
unnecessaary."
It's not like the regime-controlled parts of the country are doing much better! LOL
Well, they are, at least in the center and west. Kievans don't volunteer to fight because
they have no other way of making money. But you probably believe the fairytale that Ukraine
is in total collapse, back to the 90s.
We could easily assemble another 50.000-strong local army, once we're in Kharkov.
If in the process of taking Kharkiv the local economy goes into ruin due to wrecked
factories and sanctions so that picking up a gun is the only way to feed one's family for
some people, sure. But again, keep in mind that Kharkiv is much less pro-Russian than Donbas
so this could be more complicated.
@Anatoly
KarlinHow so? Poland and France (together around equal to Germany's population)
worked out perfectly for Nazi Germany.
You're forgetting a few things. In the United States, about 1/3 of the country's
productive capacity was devoted to the war effort during the period running from 1940 to
1946. I'll wager you it was higher than that in Britain and continental Europe. That's what
Germany was drawing on to attempt to sustain its holdings for just the 4-5 year period in
which they occupied France and Poland. (Russia currently devotes 4% of its productive
capacity to the military). Germany had to be exceedingly coercive as well. They were facing
escalating partisan resistance that whole time (especially in the Balkans).
Someone whose decisions matter is going to ask the question of whether it's really worth
the candle.
@Art
Deco Thanks for the correction. This suggests that transforming Iraq into a solidly
pro-Western stable democracy would have been much harder than doing so for Japan. This I
think would have been the only legitimate reason to invade in Iraq in 2003 (WMDs weren't
there, and in 2003 the regime was not genocidal as it had been decades earlier when IMO an
invasion would have been justified)
Again, much of Iraq is quiet and has been for a decade. What's not would be the
provinces where Sunnis form a critical mass. Their political vanguards are fouling their
own nest and imposing costs on others in the vicinity, such as the country's Christian
population and the Kurds living in mixed provinces like Kirkuk.
Correct, but most of this have been the case had the Baathists remained in power?
You've seen severe internal disorders in the Arab world over 60 years in Algeria, Libya,
the Sudan, the Yemen, the Dhofar region of Oman, Lebanon, Syria, and central Iraq.
Which is why one ought to either not invade a country and remove a regime that maintains
stability and peace, or if one does so – take on the responsibility of investing
massive effort and treasure in order to prevent the inevitable chaos and violence that would
erupt as a result of one's invasion.
@Anatoly
Karlin To be honest, I don't think it'll be necessary to sacrifice so many lives of
Russian military personnel. Use LDNR army: transport them to Belgorod and with Russians they
could move to take Kharkov, while facing minimal opposition. Then move futher to the West and
South until the entire Ukrainian army in Donbass becomes encircled at which point they will
likely surrender.
After supressing Ukrainian air-defence, our airforce should be able to destroy command and
control, artillery, armoured formations, airfields, bridges over Dnieper, other
infrustructure. Use the proxies to absord casualties in the fighting on the ground.
but it will no longer be the happy cruise to the Dnepr that it would have been two years
earlier.
Anatoly, please, don't write on things you have no qualification on writing. You can not
even grasp the generational (that is qualitative) abyss which separates two armed forces. The
question will not be in this:
but it will no longer be the happy cruise to the Dnepr that it would have been two years
earlier.
By the time the "cruising" would commence there will be no Ukrainian Army as an organized
formation or even units left–anything larger than platoon will be hunted down and
annihilated. It is really painful to read this, honestly. The question is not in Russian
"ambition" or rah-rah but in the fact that Ukraine's armed forces do not posses ANY C4ISR
capability which is crucial for a dynamics of a modern war. None. Mopping up in the East
would still be much easier than it would be in Central, let alone, Western Ukraine but Russia
has no business there anyway. More complex issues were under consideration than merely
probable losses of Russian Army when it was decided (rightly so) not to invade.
I will open
some "secret"–nations DO bear collective responsibility and always were subjected to
collective punishment -- latest example being Germany in both WWs -- the bacillus of
Ukrainian "nationalism" is more effectively addressed by letting those moyahataskainikam
experience all "privileges" of it. In the end, Russia's resources were used way better than
paying for mentally ill country. 2019 is approaching fast.
P.S. In all of your military "analysis" on Ukraine one thing is missing leaving a gaping
hole–Russian Armed Forces themselves which since 2014 were increasing combat potential
exponentially. Ukies? Not so much–some patches here and there. Russian Armed Forces of
2018 are not those of 2013. Just for shits and giggles check how many Ratnik sets have been
delivered to Russian Army since 2011. That may explain to you why timing in war and politics
is everything.
AP is certainly exaggerating wrt Kharkov looking like Aleppo and I certainly didn't
agree with him on that.
I wrote that parts of the city would look like that. I don't think there would be enough
massive resistance that the entire city would be destroyed. But rooting out a couple thousand
armed, experienced militiamen or soldiers in the urban area would cause a lot of expensive
damage and, as is the case when civilians died in Kiev's efforts to secure Donbas, would
probably not endear the invaders to the locals who after all do not want Russia to invade
them.
And Kharkiv would be the easiest to take. Dnipropetrovsk would be much more Aleppo-like,
and Kiev Felix was proposing for Russia to take all these areas.
To be honest, I don't think it'll be necessary to sacrifice so many lives of Russian
military personnel.
The question is not in losses, per se. Russians CAN accept losses if the deal becomes hot
in Ukraine–it is obvious. The question is in geopolitical dynamics and the way said
Russian Armed Forces were being honed since 2013, when Shoigu came on-board and the General
Staff got its mojo returned to it. All Command and Control circuit of Ukie army will be
destroyed with minimal losses if need be, and only then cavalry will be let in. How many
Russian or LDNR lives? I don't know, I am sure GOU has estimates by now. Once you control
escalation (Russia DOES control escalation today since can respond to any contingency) you
get way more flexibility (geo)politcally. Today, namely December 2017, situation is such that
Russia controls escalation completely. If Ukies want to attack, as they are inevitably forced
to do so, we all know what will happen. Ukraine has about a year left to do something.
Meanwhile considering EU intentions to sanction Poland, well, we are witnessing the start of
a major shitstorm.
Trying to recreate something (one Rus nation) out of something that never in effect
existed, now in the 21st century is a ridiculous concept at best.
A stupid comment for an adult. Ukraine, in effect never existed before Russia/Stalin/Lenin
created it. Kiev is a historical Russian city, and 5 of the 7 most populated areas in Ukraine
are Russian/Soviet created cities, Russian language is favourite spoken by most Ukrainians (
see even Saakashvili in court, speaking only in Russian even though he speaks fluent
Ukrainian now and all the judges and lawyers speaking in Russian too), the millions of
Ukrainians living happily in Russia and of course, the topic of what exactly is a Ukrainian
is obsolete because pretty much every Ukrainian has a close Russian relative the level of
intermarriage was at the level of one culturally identical people.
AK: Improvement! The first paragraph was acceptable, hence not hidden.
@Mr.
Hack economics, hope that the west and their puppets in Kiev would act like sane and
decent people, threat of sanctions and so on.
As is obvious, if the west had remained neutral ( an absurd hypothetical because the west
were the ringmasters of the farce in this failed state) ..and not supported the coup and then
the evil war brought on the Donbass people, then a whole different situation works out in
Ukraine ( for the better)
@S3
Nietzsche famously foresaw the rise and fall of communism and the destruction of Germany in
the two world wars. He also liked to think of himself as a Polish nobleman. Maybe this is
what he meant.
Its very amusing reading all the comments so far. But reality is that Russia should take back
all the lands conquered by the Tsars, and that includes Finland.
Look at America. Currently the US has troops stationed in other countries all over the
world. And most of those "independent" countries can't take virtually no decision without
America's approval. This is definitely the case with Germany and Japan, where their
"presidents" have to take an oath of loyalty to the US on assuming office. Now America has
even moved into Eastern Europe, and has troops and radars and nuclear capable missile
batteries stationed there. So America is just expanding and expanding its grasp while Russia
must contract its territories even further and further. Yippee.
So Russia must take back all the territories conquered by the Tsars so as to not lose this
game of monopoly. Those in those territories not too happy about such matters can move to
America or deal with the Red Army. This is not a matter of cost benefits analysis but a
matter of Russia's national security, as in the case of Chechnya.
The territories to Russia's East are especially necessary for Russia's security; when the
chips are down, when all the satellites have been blown out of space, all the aircraft blown
out of the air, all the ground hardware blown to smithereens; when the battle is reduced to
eye to eye rat like warfare, then those assorted Mongol mongrels from Russia's East come into
their element. Genghis Khan was the biggest mass murderer in history, he made Hitler look
like a school boy, his genes live on in those to Russia's East. So if America were to get
involved in Ukraine Russia would have no issues losing a million troops in a matter of days
while the US has never even lost a million troops in its civil war and WW2 combined.
Lets face it, those Mongol mongrels make much better fighters than the effete Sunni Arabs
any day, so Russia should get them on her side. In Syria those ISIS idiots would never have
got as far as they did were it not for those few Chechens in their midst's.
But alas, Russia has to eat humble pie at the moment, internationally and at the Olympics.
But humble pie tastes good when its washed down with bottles of vodka, and its only
momentarily after all.
@gTLook at America. Currently the US has troops stationed in other countries all over the
world.
Since 1945, between 70% and 87% of American military manpower has been stationed in the
United States and its possession. The vast bulk of the remainder is generally to be found in
about a half-dozen countries. (In recent years, that would be Germany, Japan, Iraq,
Afghanistan, and Kuwait). Andrew Bacevich once went on a whinge about the stupidity of having
a 'Southern Command' without bothering to tell his readers that the Southern Command had
2,000 billets at that time, that nearly half were stationed at Guantanamo Bay (an American
possession since 1902), that no country had more than 200 American soldiers resident, and
that the primary activity of the Southern Command was drug interdiction. On the entire
African continent, there were 5,000 billets at that time.
And most of those "independent" countries can't take virtually no decision without
America's approval. This is definitely the case with Germany and Japan, where their
"presidents" have to take an oath of loyalty to the US on assuming office.
I especially like the bit about "Though most of the German officers were not originally
inclined against America, a lot of them being educated in the United States, they are now
experiencing disappointment and even disgust with Washington's policies."
Seems its not only
the Russians who are getting increasingly pissed off with the US when at first they actually
liked the US. No wonder the Germans are just letting their submarines and tanks rot away.
"... North Korea's air defenses are so weak that we had to notify them we were flying B1 bombers near their airspace–they didn't even know our aircraft were coming. This reminds me of the "fearsome" Republican Guard that Saddam had in the Persian Gulf. Turns out we had total air superiority and just bombed the crap out of them and they surrendered in droves. ..."
"... We have already seen what happens when an army has huge amounts of outdated Soviet weaponry versus the most technologically advanced force in the world. It's a slaughter. Also, there has to be weaponry up the USA's sleeve that would be used in the event of an attack. Don't forget our cyber warfare abilities that would undoubtedly be implemented as well. This writer seems to always hype Russia's capabilities and denigrate the US's capabilities. Sure, Russia has the capacity to nuke the US into smithereens, and vice versa. But if its a head to head shooting war, the US and NATO would dominate. FACT. ..."
"... Commander's intent: ..."
"... Decapitate the top leadership and remove retaliatory capability. ..."
"... Massive missile/bombing campaign (including carpet) of top leadership locations, tactical missile locations and DMZ artillery belt. Destruction of surface fleet and air force. ..."
"... Advance into DMZ artillery belt up to a range of 240 mm cannon. Not further (local tactical considerations taken into account of course). ..."
"... Phase three: "break the enemy's will to fight" and destroy the "regime support infrastructure" ..."
"... I guess an American attack on North Korea would consist of preemptive strategic nuking to destroy the entire country before it can do anything. Since North Korea itself contributes essentially nothing to the world economy, no one would lose money. ..."
"... These examples perfectly illustrate the kind of mindset induced by what Professor John Marciano called "Empire as a way of life" [1] which is characterized by a set of basic characteristics: ..."
"... there has to be ..."
"... would undoubtedly ..."
"... the act of simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct, often in distinct social contexts ..."
"... A perfect illustration of that is the famous quote " it became necessary to destroy the town to save it ..."
"... I watch CNN, but I'm not sure I can tell you, the difference in Iraq and Iran, but I know Jesus and I talk to God ..."
"... this applies to the vast majority of US politicians, decision-makers and elected officials, hence Putin's remark that " It's difficult to talk with people who confuse Austria and Australia ". ..."
"... As a result, there is no more discernible US diplomacy left: all the State Department does is deliver threats, ultimatums and condemnations. Meaningful *negotiations* have basically been removed form the US foreign policy toolkit. ..."
"... That belief is also the standard cop out in any conversation of morality, ethnics, or even the notions of right and wrong. An anti-religious view par excellence . ..."
"... The US policies towards Russia, China and Iran all have the potential of resulting in a disaster of major magnitude. The world is dealing with situation in which a completely delusional regime is threatening everybody with various degrees of confrontation. This is like being in the same room with a monkey playing with a hand grenade. Except for that hand grenade is nuclear. ..."
"... This situation places a special burden of responsibility on all other nations, especially those currently in Uncle Sam's cross-hairs, to act with restraint and utmost restraint. That is not fair, but life rarely is. It is all very well and easy to declare that force must be met by force and that the Empire interprets restraint as weakness until you realize that any miscalculation can result in the death of millions of people. I am therefore very happy that the DPRK is the only country which chose to resort to a policy of hyperbolic threats while Iran, Russia and China acted, and are still acting, with the utmost restraint. ..."
"... they plan, and Allah plans. And Allah is the best of planners ..."
"... If the U.S. attacks North Korea or Iran we will become a pariah among nations (especially once the pictures start pouring in). We will be loathed. Countries may very well decide that we are not worthy of having the world's reserve currency. In that case the dollar will collapse as will our economy. ..."
"... Maybe it's just me, but it seems that NK is just another tyranny in a long list of tyrannies throughout millennia, and like all of them it will just implode on its own. Therefore, the best thing you can do is simply to ignore it (thus denying the tyrant an external threat to rally the populace) and wait for the NK people to say enough is enough. ..."
"... I agree with the logic that as Americans become dumber the ability to have a powerful military also degrades, however an increasingly declining America also makes it more dangerous. As ever more ideologues rule the corridors of power and the generally stupid population that will consent to everything they are told, America will start involving itself in ever more reckless conflicts. This means they despite being a near idiocracy, the nuclear weapons and military bases all over world make America an ever greater threat for the world ..."
My recent analysis of the potential consequences of a US attack on the DPRK has elicited a wide range of reactions. There is one
type of reaction which I find particularly interesting and most important and I would like to focus on it today: the ones which entirely
dismissed my whole argument. The following is a selection of some of the most telling reactions of this kind:
Example 1:
North Korea's air defenses are so weak that we had to notify them we were flying B1 bombers near their airspace–they didn't
even know our aircraft were coming. This reminds me of the "fearsome" Republican Guard that Saddam had in the Persian Gulf. Turns
out we had total air superiority and just bombed the crap out of them and they surrendered in droves.
We have already seen what happens when an army has huge amounts of outdated Soviet weaponry versus the most technologically
advanced force in the world. It's a slaughter. Also, there has to be weaponry up the USA's sleeve that would be used in the event
of an attack. Don't forget our cyber warfare abilities that would undoubtedly be implemented as well. This writer seems to always
hype Russia's capabilities and denigrate the US's capabilities. Sure, Russia has the capacity to nuke the US into smithereens,
and vice versa. But if its a head to head shooting war, the US and NATO would dominate. FACT.
Example 2:
Commander's intent:
Decapitate the top leadership and remove retaliatory capability.
Execution:
Phase one:
Massive missile/bombing campaign (including carpet) of top leadership locations, tactical missile locations and DMZ artillery
belt. Destruction of surface fleet and air force.
Phase two:
Advance into DMZ artillery belt up to a range of 240 mm cannon. Not further (local tactical considerations taken into account
of course).
Phase three: "break the enemy's will to fight" and destroy the "regime support infrastructure"
Phase four: Regime change.
There you go .
Example 3:
I guess an American attack on North Korea would consist of preemptive strategic nuking to destroy the entire country before
it can do anything. Since North Korea itself contributes essentially nothing to the world economy, no one would lose money.
These examples perfectly illustrate the kind of mindset induced by what
Professor John Marciano called "Empire as a way of life"
[1] which is characterized
by a set of basic characteristics:
First foremost, simple, very simple one-sentence "arguments" . Gone are the days when argument were built in some logical sequence,
when facts were established, then evaluated for their accuracy and relevance, then analyzed and then conclusions presented. Where
in the past one argument per page or paragraph constituted the norm, we now have tweet-like 140 character statements which are more
akin to shouted slogans than to arguments (no wonder that tweeting is something a bird does – hence the expression "bird brain").
You will see that kind of person writing what initially appears to be a paragraph, but when you look closer you realize that the
paragraph is really little more than a sequence of independent statements and not really an argument of any type. A quasi-religious
belief in one's superiority which is accepted as axiomatic .
Nothing new here: the Communists considered themselves as the superior for class reasons, the Nazis by reason of racial superiority,
the US Americans just "because" – no explanation offered (I am not sure that this constitutes of form of progress). In the US case,
that superiority is cultural, political, financial and, sometimes but not always, racial. This superiority is also technological,
hence the " there has to be " or the " would undoubtedly " in the example #1 above. This is pure faith and not
something which can be challenged by fact or logic. Contempt for all others . This really flows from #2 above. Example 3 basically
declares all of North Korea (including its people) as worthless. This is where all the expressions like "sand niggers" "hadjis" and
other "gooks" come from: the dehumanization of the "others" as a preparation for their for mass slaughter. Notice how in the example
#2 the DPRK leaders are assumed to be totally impotent, dull and, above all, passive.
The notion that they might do something unexpected is never even considered (a classical recipe for military disaster, but more
about that later). Contempt for rules, norms and laws . This notion is well expressed by the famous US 19th century slogan of "
my country, right or wrong " but goes far
beyond that as it also includes the belief that the USA has God-given (or equivalent) right to ignore international law, the public
opinion of the rest of the planet or even the values underlying the documents which founded the USA. In fact, in the logic of such
imperial drone the belief in US superiority actually serves as a premise to the conclusion that the USA has a "mission" or a "responsibility"
to rule the world. This is "might makes right" elevated to the rank of dogma and, therefore, never challenged. A very high reliance
on doublethink . Doublethink defined by Wikipedia as " the act of simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs
as correct, often in distinct social contexts ".
A perfect illustration of that is the famous quote " it became necessary
to destroy the town to save it ". Most US Americans are aware of the fact that US policies have resulted in them being hated
worldwide, even amongst putatively allied or "protected" countries such as South Korea, Israel, Germany or Japan. Yet at the very
same time, they continue to think that the USA should "defend" "allies", even if the latter can't wait for Uncle Sam's soldiers to
pack and leave. Doublethink is also what makes it possible for ideological drones to be aware of the fact that the US has become
a subservient Israeli colony while, at the same time, arguing for the support and financing of Israel.
As a result, there is no more discernible US diplomacy left: all the State Department does is deliver threats, ultimatums and
condemnations. Meaningful *negotiations* have basically been removed form the US foreign policy toolkit.
A totally uncritical acceptance
of ideologically correct narratives even when they are self-evidently nonsensical to an even superficial critical analysis. An great
example of this kind of self-evidently stupid stories is all the nonsense about the Russians trying to meddle in US elections or
the latest
hysteria about relatively small-size military exercises in Russia .
The acceptance of the official 9/11 narrative is a perfect
example of that. Something repeated by the "respectable" Ziomedia is accepted as dogma, no matter how self-evidently stupid. A profound
belief that everything is measured in dollars . From this flow a number of corollary beliefs such as "US weapons are most expensive,
they are therefore superior" or "everybody has his price" [aka "whom we can't kill we will simply buy"]. In my experience folks like
these are absolutely unable to even imagine that some people might not motivated by greed or other egoistic interests: ideological
drones project their own primitive motives unto everybody else with total confidence.
That belief is also the standard cop out in
any conversation of morality, ethnics, or even the notions of right and wrong. An anti-religious view par excellence .
Notice the total absence of any more complex consideration which might require some degree of knowledge or expertise: the imperial
mindset is not only ignoramus-compatible, it is ignoramus based . This is what Orwell was referring to in his famous book 1984 with
the slogan "Ignorance is Strength". However, it goes way beyond simple ignorance of facts and includes the ability to "think in slogans"
(example #2 is a prefect example of this).
There are, of course, many more psychological characteristics for the perfect "ideological drone", but the ones above already
paint a pretty decent picture of the kind of person I am sure we all have seen many times over. What is crucial to understand about
them is that even though they are far from being a majority, they compensate for that with a tremendous motivational drive. It might
be due to a need to repeatedly reassert their certitudes or a way to cope with some deep-seated cognitive dissonance, but in my experience
folks like that have energy levels that many sane people would envy. This is absolutely crucial to how the Empire, and any other
oppressive regime, works: by repressing those who can understand a complex argument by means of those who cannot. Let me explain:
Unless there are mechanisms set in to prevent that, in a debate/dispute between an educated and intelligent person and an ideological
drone the latter will always prevail because of the immense advantage the latter has over the former. Indeed, while the educated
and intelligent person will be able to immediately identify numerous factual and logical gaps in his opponent's arguments, he will
always need far more "space" to debunk the nonsense spewed by the drone than the drone who will simply dismiss every argument with
one or several slogans. This is why I personally never debate or even talk with such people: it is utterly pointless.
As a result, a fact-based and logical argument now gets the same consideration and treatment as a collection of nonsensical slogans
(political correctness mercilessly enforces that principle: you can't call an idiot and idiot any more). Falling education standards
have resulted in a dramatic degradation of the public debate: to be well-educated, well-read, well-traveled, to speak several languages
and feel comfortable in different cultures used to be considered a prerequisite to expressing an opinion, now they are all treated
as superfluous and even useless characteristics. Actual, formal, expertise in a topic is now becoming extremely rare. A most interesting
kind of illustration of this point can be found in this truly amazing video posted by Peter Schiff:
One could be tempted to conclude that this kind of 'debating' is a Black issue. It is not. The three quotes given at the beginning
of this article are a good reminder of this (unless, of course, they were all written by Blacks, which we have no reason to believe).
Twitter might have done to minds what MTV has done to rock music: laid total waste to it.
Consequences:
There are a number of important consequences from the presence of such ideological drones in any society. The first one is that
any ideology-based regime will always and easily find numerous spontaneous supporters who willingly collaborate with it. Combined
with a completely subservient media, such drones form the rontline force of any ideological debate. For instance, a journalist can
always be certain to easily find a done to interview, just as a politician can count on them to support him during a public speech
or debate. The truth is that, unfortunately, we live in a society that places much more emphasis on the right to have an opinion
than on the actual ability to form one .
By the way, the intellectually challenged always find a natural ally in the coward and the "follower" (as opposed to "leader types")
because it is always much easier and safer to follow the herd and support the regime in power than to oppose it. You will always
see "stupid drones" backed by "coward drones". As for the politicians , they naturally cater to all types of drones since they always
provide a much bigger "bang for the buck" than those inclined to critical thinking whose loyalty to whatever "cause" is always dubious.
The drone-type of mindset also comes with some major weaknesses including a very high degree of predictability, an inability to
learn from past mistakes, an inability to imagine somebody operating with a completely different set of motives and many others.
One of the most interesting ones for those who actively resist the AngloZionist Empire is that the ideological drone has very little
staying power because as soon as the real world, in all its beauty and complexity, comes crashing through the door of the drone's
delusional and narrow imagination his cocky arrogance is almost instantaneously replaced by a total sense of panic and despair. I
have had the chance to speak Russian officers who were present during the initial interrogation of US POWs in Iraq and they were
absolutely amazed at how terrified and broken the US POWs immediately became (even though they were not mistreated in any way). It
was as if they had no sense of risk at all, until it was too late and they were captured, at which point they inner strength instantly
gave way abject terror. This is one of the reasons that the Empire cannot afford a protracted war: not because of casualty aversion
as some suggest, but to keep the imperial delusions/illusions unchallenged by reality . As long as the defeat can be hidden or explained
away, the Empire can fight on, but as soon as it becomes impossible to obfuscate the disaster the Empire has to simply declare victory
and leave.
Thus we have a paradox here: the US military is superbly skilled at killing people in large numbers, but but not at winning wars
. And yet, because this latter fact is easily dismissed on grounds #2 #5 and #7 above (all of them, really), failing to actually
win wars does not really affect the US determination to initiate new wars, even potentially very dangerous ones. I would even argue
that each defeat even strengthens the Empire's desire to show it power by hoping to finally identify one victim small enough to be
convincingly defeated. The perfect example of that was Ronald Reagan's decision to invade Grenada right after the US Marines barracks
bombing in Beirut. The fact that the invasion of Grenada was one of the worst military operations in world history did not prevent
the US government from handing out more medals for it than the total number of people involved – such is the power of the drone-mindset!
We have another paradox here: history shows that if the US gets entangled in a military conflict it is most likely to end up defeated
(if "not winning" is accepted as a euphemism for "losing"). And yet, the United States are also extremely hard to deter. This is
not just a case of " Fools rush
in where angels fear to tread " but the direct result of a form of conditioning which begins in grade schools. From the point
of view of an empire, repeated but successfully concealed defeats are much preferable to the kind of mental paralysis induced in
drone populations, at least temporarily, by well-publicized defeats . Likewise, when the loss of face is seen as a calamity much
worse than body bags, lessons from the past are learned by academics and specialists, but not by the nation as a whole (there are
numerous US academics and officers who have always known all of what I describe above, in fact – they were the ones who first taught
me about it!).
If this was only limited to low-IQ drones this would not be as dangerous, but the problem is that words have their own power and
that politicians and ideological drones jointly form a self-feeding positive feedback loop when the former lie to the latter only
to then be bound by what they said which, in turn, brings them to join the ideological drones in a self-enclosed pseudo-reality of
their own.
What all this means for North Korea and the rest of us
I hate to admit it, but I have to concede that there is a good argument to be made that all the over-the-top grandstanding and
threatening by the North Koreans does make sense, at least to some degree. While for an educated and intelligent person threatening
the continental United States with nuclear strikes might appear as the epitome of irresponsibility, this might well be the only way
to warn the ideological drone types of the potential consequences of a US attack on the DPRK. Think of it: if you had to deter somebody
with the set of beliefs outlined in #1 through #8 above, would you rather explain that a war on the Korean Peninsula would immediately
involve the entire region or simple say "them crazy gook guys might just nuke the shit out of you!"? I think that the North Koreans
might be forgiven for thinking that an ideological drone can only be deterred by primitive and vastly exaggerated threats.
Still, my strictly personal conclusion is that ideological drones are pretty much "argument proof" and that they cannot be swayed
neither by primitive nor by sophisticated arguments. This is why I personally never directly engage them. But this is hardly an option
for a country desperate to avoid a devastating war (the North Koreans have no illusions on that account as they, unlike most US Americans,
remember the previous war in Korea).
But here is the worst aspect of it all: this is not only a North Korean problem
The US policies towards Russia, China and Iran all have the potential of resulting in a disaster of major magnitude. The world
is dealing with situation in which a completely delusional regime is threatening everybody with various degrees of confrontation.
This is like being in the same room with a monkey playing with a hand grenade. Except for that hand grenade is nuclear.
This situation places a special burden of responsibility on all other nations, especially those currently in Uncle Sam's cross-hairs,
to act with restraint and utmost restraint. That is not fair, but life rarely is. It is all very well and easy to declare that force
must be met by force and that the Empire interprets restraint as weakness until you realize that any miscalculation can result in
the death of millions of people. I am therefore very happy that the DPRK is the only country which chose to resort to a policy of
hyperbolic threats while Iran, Russia and China acted, and are still acting, with the utmost restraint.
In practical terms, there is no way for the rest of the planet to disarm the monkey. The only option is therefore to incapacitate
the monkey itself or, alternatively, to create the conditions in which the monkey will be too busy with something else to pay attention
to his grenade. An internal political crisis triggered by an external military defeat remains, I believe, the most likely and desirable
scenario (see here if that
topic is of interest to you). Still, the future is impossible to predict and, as the Quran says, " they plan, and Allah plans.
And Allah is the best of planners ". All we can do is try to mitigate the impact of the ideological drones on our society as
much as we can, primarily by *not* engaging them and limiting our interaction with those still capable of critical thought. It is
by excluding ideological drones from the debate about the future of our world that we can create a better environment for those truly
seeking solutions to our current predicament.
-- -- -
1. If you have not listened to his lectures on this topic, which I highly recommend, you can find them here:
If the U.S. attacks North Korea or Iran we will become a pariah among nations (especially once the pictures start pouring in).
We will be loathed. Countries may very well decide that we are not worthy of having the world's reserve currency. In that case
the dollar will collapse as will our economy.
North Korea is a nationalistic country that traces their race back to antiquity. America on the other hand is a degenerated country
that is ruled over by Jews. The flag waving American s may call the Koreans gooks but if we apply the American racial ideology
on themselves, the Americans are the the 56percent Untermensch. While the north Koreans are superior for having rejected modern
degeneracy.
A key point, which signifies a serious cultural degeneration from values of chivalry and honoring the opposite side to a very
Asiatic MO which absolutely rules current US establishment. This, and, of course, complete detachment from the realities of the
warfare.
It is all talk, because China makes them invulnerable to sanctions and NK has nukes. The US will have to go to China to deal with
NK and China will want to continue economically raping the US in exchange. That is why China gave NK an H bomb and ICBM tech (
it's known to have gave those same things to Pakistan). The real action will be in the Middle East. The Saudi are counting on
the US giving them CO2 fracking in the future, and Iran being toppled soon. William S. Lind says Iran will be hit by Trump and
Israel will use the ensuing chaos to expel the West Bank Palestinians (back to the country whose passports they travel on).
Maybe it's just me, but it seems that NK is just another tyranny in a long list of tyrannies throughout millennia, and
like all of them it will just implode on its own. Therefore, the best thing you can do is simply to ignore it (thus denying the
tyrant an external threat to rally the populace) and wait for the NK people to say enough is enough.
There's no doubt in my mind that Kim will end up like Nikolae Ceaușescu in Romania, put up against a wall by his own military
and shot on TV. All anyone has to do is be patient and not drink the Rah-Rah Kool-Aid.*
Just a thought.
VicB3
*Was talking with a 82nd Major at the Starbucks, and mentioned NK, Ceausecu, sitting tight, etc. (Mentioned we might help things
along by blanketing the whole country with netbooks, wi-fi, and even small arms.) Got the careerist ladder- climber standard response
of how advanced our weapons are, the people in charge know what they're doing, blah blah blah. Wouldn't even consider an alternative
view (and didn't know or understand half of what I was talking about). It was the same response I got from an Air Force Colonel
before the U.S. went into Afghanistan and Iraq and I told him the whole thing was/would be insanely stupid.
His party-line team-player response was when I knew for certain that any action in NK would/will fail spectacularly for the
U.S., possibly even resulting in and economic collapse and civil war/revolution on this end.
Excellent post. But the US public education "system", while awful, is not the main reason that America is increasingly packed
with drones and idiots. IQ is decreasing rapidly, as revealed in the College Board's data on SAT scores over the last 60 years
.In addition, Dr. James Thompson has a Dec.15 post on Unz that shows a shocking decline in the ability of UK children to understand
basic principles of physics, which are usually acquired on a developmental curve. Mike Judge's movie 'Idiocracy' appears to have
been set unrealistically far in the future ..
In short, the current situation can and will get a lot worse in America. On the other hand, America's armed forces will be deteriorating
apace, so they are becoming less dangerous to the rest of the world.
The good thing about democracy is that anyone can express an opinion. The bad thing about democracy is that anyone can express
an opinion. I have to laugh at all the internet commandos and wannabe Napoleons that roost on the internet giving us their advice.
It's easy to cherrypick opinions that range from uninformed to downright stupid and bizarre. Those people don't actually run anything
though, fortunately. Keep in mind that half the population is mentally average or below average and that average is quite mediocre.
Throw in a few degrees above mediocre and you've got a majority, a majority that can and is regularly bamboozled. The majority
of the population is just there to pay taxes and provide cannon fodder, that's all, like a farmer's herd of cows provides for
his support. Ideological drones are desired in this case. It's my suspicion that the educational system is geared towards producing
such a product as well as all other aspects of popular culture also induce stupefying effects. Insofar as American policy goes,
look at what it actually does rather than what it says, the latter being a form of show biz playing to a domestic audience. I
just skip the more obnoxious commenters since they're just annoying and add nothing but confusion to any discussion.
but it seems that NK is just another tyranny in a long list of tyrannies throughout millennia, and like all of them it will
just implode on its own
.
There's no doubt in my mind that Kim will end up like Nikolae Ceaușescu in Romania, put up against a wall by his own military
and shot on TV.
All things come to an end eventually, and I agree with you that the best course of action for the US over NK would be to leave
it alone (and stop poking it), but this idea that "tyrannies always collapse" seems pretty unsupported by reality.
Off the top of my head all of the following autocrats died more or less peacefully in office and handed their "tyranny" on
intact to a successor, just in the past few decades: Mao, Castro, Franco, Stalin, Assad senior, two successive Kims (so much for
the assumption that the latest Kim will necessarily end up like Ceausescu). In the past, if a tyrant and his tyranny lasted long
enough and arranged a good succession, it often came to be remembered as a golden age, as with the Roman, Augustus.
I suspect it might be a matter of you having a rather selective idea of what counts as a tyranny (I wouldn't count Franco in
that list, myself, but establishment opinion is against me there, I think). You might be selectively remembering only the tyrannies
that came to a bad end.
so they are becoming less dangerous to the rest of the world
I agree with the logic that as Americans become dumber the ability to have a powerful military also degrades, however an
increasingly declining America also makes it more dangerous. As ever more ideologues rule the corridors of power and the generally
stupid population that will consent to everything they are told, America will start involving itself in ever more reckless conflicts.
This means they despite being a near idiocracy, the nuclear weapons and military bases all over world make America an ever greater
threat for the world.
The good thing about democracy is that anyone can express an opinion.
Not sure if this is a joke or not. In case you are serious, you clearly have not been following the news, from USA to Germany
all these so called democracies have been undertaking massive censorship operations. From jailing people to shutting down online
conversations to ordering news to not report on things that threaten their power.
A bizarre posting utterly detached from reality. Don't you understand that if a blustering lunatic presses a megaton-pistol against
our collective foreheads and threatens to pull the trigger, it represents a very disquieting situation? And if we contemplate
actions that would cause a million utterly harmless and innocent Koreans to be incinerated, to prevent a million of our own brains
from being blown out, aren't we allowed to do so without being accused of being vile bigots that think yellow gook lives are worthless?
Aren't we entitled to any instinct of self preservation at all?
What the Korean situation obviously entails is a high-stakes experiment in human psychology. All that attention-seeking little
freak probably wants is to be treated with respect, and like somebody important. Trump started out in a sensible way, by treating
Kim courteously, but for that he was pilloried by the insanely-partisan opposition within his own party – McCain I'm mainly thinking
of. That's the true obstacle to a sane resolution of the problem. I say if the twerp would feel good if we gave him a tickertape
parade down Fifth Avenue and a day pass to Disneyland, we should do so – it's small enough a concession in view of what's at stake.
But if rabid congress-critters obstruct propitiation, then intimidation and even preemptive megadeath may be all that's left.
I suspect the true conversation about the topic will start when all that becomes really serious. I mean more serious than posting
the latest selfie on a Facebook. Hangs around that warhead miniaturization/hardening timetable, IMHO. Maybe too late then.
Also, one man's tyranny is another mans return to stability. For better or worse, Mao got rid of the Warlords. Franco got rid
of the Communists and kept Spain out of WWII. The Assads are Baath Party and both secular and modernizers.
Stalin? Depends on who you talk to, but the Russians do like a strong hand.
Kim? His people only have to look West to China and Russia, or def. to the South, to know that things could be much better.
And more and more he can't control the flow of information. That, and the rank and file of his army have roundworms. And guns.
At some point, the light comes on. And that same rank and file with guns tells itself "You know, we could be doing better."
Double think is not just a question of ignorance or self contradiction because often it's important to make people embrace COMPLEXITY
instead CONFUSION believing the late it's basically the first
Saker and his legion of fanboys here didn't "attack" the text but the writer.
In the first place, there's nothing in the text to "attack". It's a laundry list of disconnected slogans and so is not a different
point of view at all. Released from the confines of the author's gamer world, it evaporates into nothing. I pointed this out to
you at some length elsewhere.
In the second, it appears you missed the point of the article. Hint: it's stated in the title. The article's about the mindsets
of the authors of such "texts", and not about the texts themselves.
It appears that I am sort of a "dissident" here.
You flatter yourself. To be a dissident requires, at the very least, comprehension of the argument one is disagreeing with.
Your "texts" are the equivalent of shouting slogans and waving placards. It may work for a street protest, but is totally out
of place on a webzine discussion forum. Hence your screeds here do not constitute real dissension, but trolling.
Destroying the Taliban government, yes. Building "democracy" is just stupid, though.
They should've quickly left after the initial victory and let the Afghans to just eat each
other with Stroganoff sauce if they so wished. It's not our business.
In fact destroying the Taliban government was both illegal and foolish (but the latter was
by far the more important). It seems clear now the Taliban were quite willing to hand bin
Laden over for trial in a third party country, and pretty clearly either had had no clue what
he had been planning or were crapping themselves at what he had achieved. Bush declined that
offer because he had an urgent political need to be seen to be kicking some foreign ass in
order to appease American shame.
The illegality is not a particularly big deal in the case of Afghanistan because it's
clear that in the post-9/11 context the US could easily have gotten UNSC authorisation for
the attack and made it legal. Bush II deliberately declined to do so precisely in order to
make the point that the US (in Americans' view) is above petty details of international law
and its own treaty commitments. A rogue state, in other words.
But an attack on Afghanistan was unnecessary and foolish (for genuine American national
interests, that is, not for the self-interested lobbies driving policy obviously), as the
astronomical ongoing costs have demonstrated. A trial of bin Laden would have been highly
informative (and some would argue that was why the US regime was not interested in such a
thing), and would if nothing else have brought him out into the open. Yes, he would have had
the opportunity to grandstand, but if the US were really such an innocent victim of
unprovoked aggression why would the US have anything to fear from that? The whole world,
pretty much, was on the US's side after 9/11.
The US could have treated terrorism as what it is, after 9/11 -- a criminal matter. It
chose instead to make it a military matter, because that suited the various lobbies seeking
to benefit from a more militarised and aggressive US foreign policy. The result of a US
attack on the government of (most of) Afghanistan would always have been either a chaotic
jihadi-riddled anarchy in Afghanistan worse than the Taliban-controlled regime that existed
in 2001, or a US-backed regime trying to hold the lid down on the jihadists, that the US
would have to prop up forever. And so indeed it came to pass.
"... In Africa, from Nigeria to Somalia, infusions of U.S. troops have not measurably improved regional stability. Quite the opposite, despite the protestations of U.S. Africa Command. In fact, there are now more radical Islamist groups than ever before and terrorist attacks have all but exploded on that continent. ..."
"... Call me a pessimist but I have no doubt that the United States is in for at least three more years of perpetual war – and it probably won't end there either. There's no silver bullet for such conflicts, so the military won't be able to end them in any reasonably easy way or it would have done so years ago. And that's assuming that far worse in the way of war isn't in store for us in the Koreas or Iran. ..."
"... on Twitter and join us on Facebook . Check out the newest Dispatch Book, Alfred McCoy's ..."
In a Washington politically riven in ways not seen since the pre-Civil War era, take hope.
Despite everything you've read, bipartisanship is not dead. On one issue,
congressional Democrats and Republicans, as well as Donald Trump, all speak with a single
resounding voice, with, in fact, unmatched unanimity and fervor as they stretch hands across
the aisle in a spirit of cooperation. Perhaps you've already guessed, but I'm referring to
the Pentagon budget. By staggering
majorities , both houses of Congress just passed an almost $700
billion defense bill, more money than even President Trump had requested and he's already
happily signed it.
And Americans generally seem to partake of the same spirit. After all, while esteem for
other American institutions like, uh, Congress has fallen radically in
these years, the U.S. military hasn't lost a step. Last June, for instance, Gallup's
pollsters found that public confidence in U.S. institutions generally had dropped to a dismal
32%, but a soaring
73% of Americans had the highest possible confidence in the military, which means that
Donald Trump's decision to surround himself with three generals as secretary of defense,
White House chief of staff, and national security adviser was undoubtedly a popular one. In a
similar vein, it's striking that America's war on terror, now entering its 17th dismal year
and still expanding
, and the military that wages it remain essentially
beyond criticism or
protest . It hardly seems to matter that, in this century of constant warfare across
significant parts of the planet, that military has yet to bring home a real victory of any
sort.
Who cares? That military is, by now, a distinctly Teflon outfit to which no criticism
sticks, even through it and the rest of the national security state swallow
stunning amounts of taxpayer dollars as if there were no tomorrow, while the Pentagon
experiences
cost overruns of every kind for its weapons systems, has proven
incapable of auditing itself (ever!), and recently couldn't even account for
44,000 (yes, 44,000!) of its troops deployed somewhere in the imperium, though who knows
where. No wonder Donald Trump, a man of no fixed beliefs (except about himself), but with a
finely tuned sense of what might be popular with his base, has loosed
that military from many of the already modest bounds within which it's fought its largely
losing wars of these last years, and seems to be leaving its generals (and the
CIA ) to do their escalatory damnedest from Afghanistan
to Niger ,
Syria
to
Somalia .
With all of this in mind, as another year in which permanent war is the barely noticed
background hum of American life, I asked TomDispatch regular U.S. Army Major Danny Sjursen, author of Ghost Riders of
Baghdad , to assess American war in 2017 and consider just where we're headed. ~
Tom
America's Wars: Yet More of More of the Same? By Danny Sjursen
I remember the day President Obama let me down.
It was December 1, 2009, and as soon as the young president took the podium at West Point
and – calm and cool as ever – announced
a new troop surge in Afghanistan, I knew. There wasn't a doubt in my mind. In that instant,
George W. Bush's wars had become Barack Obama's.
But where Bush had seemed, however foolishly, to believe his own rhetoric about America's
glorious military mission in the world, you always sensed that Obama's heart just wasn't in
it. He'd been steamrolled by
ambitious generals who pioneered generational warfare and hawkish cabinet members like
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Bush-holdover Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. Then
again, what choice did he have, given the way he'd run his presidential campaign on the idea
that Afghanistan was a "
war of necessity " and so the foil for Iraq, the " dumb war "? Now he was
stuck with that landlocked, inhospitable little war, come what may. As we all know (and as I
had little doubt then), it didn't
work out . Not at all.
Like many other idealistic Americans, I'd bet big on Obama. The madness and futility of my
own 15 months in
Iraq as a scout platoon leader – you know, one of those "warriors" you're obligated
to thank endlessly for his service – had forever soured me on nation-building crusades
in faraway lands. And the young, inspiring senator from Illinois seemed to have some
authentic anti-war chops . Unlike
Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden, he was untarnished by the October 2002 Iraq War resolution vote
that gave the Bush administration the right to shock and awe the hell out of Saddam Hussein.
Looking back, I suppose I should have known better. Obama had only been a state senator with
an essentially nonexistent record on foreign policy when he first criticized Operation
Iraqi Freedom. Still, after so many years of Bush's messianic adventures, anyone seemed
preferable.
That was more than eight years ago and somehow the United States military is still
slogging along in Iraq and Afghanistan. What's more, Bush's wars have only expanded in
breadth, if not in depth, to Syria, Yemen, Libya, Somalia, and Niger, among other places.
Yes, ISIS as a "caliphate" has been defeated. As a now-global franchise, however, anything
but, and victory – whatever that might mean at this point – couldn't be further
off as our next president, Donald Trump, approaches his one year mark in office and he and
"his" military only
ratchet up those wars further.
Good Instincts?
The Trump-Clinton election fiasco of 2016 was, to say the least, disturbing. And while I
was no fan of Mr. Trump's language, demeanor, or (however vague) policies, when it came to
our wars he did seem to demonstrate some redeeming qualities. Running against Hillary
the hawk presented him with genuine opportunities. She, after all, had been wrong about
every major foreign policy decision for more than a decade. Iraq? She
voted for it. Afghanistan? She
wanted another "surge." Libya? She was all in and had a
fine chuckle when autocrat Muammar Gaddafi was killed.
Mr. Trump, on the other hand, while visibly ill informed and anything but polished on such
subjects, occasionally sounded strangely rational and ready to topple more than a few sacred
cows of the foreign policy establishment. He
called both the Iraq and Afghan wars "stupid," criticized
the poorly planned and executed Libyan operation that had indeed loosed chaos and weaponry
from Gaddafi's looted arsenals across North Africa, and had even questioned
whether military escalation, supposedly to balance Russian moves in Eastern Europe, was
necessary. Whether he really believed any of that stuff or was just being an effective attack
dog by pouncing on Hillary's grim record we may never know.
What already seems clear, however, is that Trump's version of global strategy – to
the extent that he even has one – is turning out to be yet more of more of the
same. He did, of course, quickly
surround himself with three generals from America's losing wars clearly convinced that
they could "surge" their way out of anything. More troublesome yet, it seems to have
registered on him that military escalation, air strikes of various sorts, special operations
raids, and general bellicosity all look "presidential" and so play well with the American
people.
In constant need of positive reinforcement, Trump has seemed to revel in the role of war
president. When he simply led a round of applause for a widow whose husband had died in a
botched raid in Yemen early in his presidency, CNN commentator Van Jones typically
gushed that he "just became president of the United States, period." After he ordered the
launching of a few dozen cruise missiles targeting one of Bashar al-Assad's air bases in
Syria, even Washington Post columnist and CNN host Fareed Zakaria
lauded him for acting "presidential." War sells, as does fear, especially in the America
of 2017, a country filled with outsized fears of Islamic terrorism that no one knows how to
stoke better than Donald Trump. So expect more, much more, of each next year.
A Brief Tour of Trump's Wars
Where exactly does that leave us? Like Obama before him, and Bush before him, President
Trump has opted for continuing, even escalating, America's war for the Greater Middle East.
Long gone are the critiques of "stupid" interventions. As he
announced a new mini-surge in Afghanistan, he did admit that his instinct had been to end
America's longest war, but it wasn't an instinct that stood tall in the face of his
war-fighting generals.
Now, after nearly a year in office, those instincts of his seem limited to whatever his
generals tell him. An ever-so-brief tour of his wars suggests – to give you a little
preview of what's to come (should Americans
even care ) – two things: first, that on the horizon is more of more of the same;
second, that the result is likely to be, as it has largely been in these last years, some
version of stalemate verging on defeat.
* Afghanistan is a true mess. Now entering its 17th year, the war in that infamous
graveyard of
empires has left the U.S. military short on answers.
Afghan Security Forces (ASF), the foundation of American "strategy" there, are being
killed and wounded at an unsustainable rate. And all that sacrifice – to the tune
of perhaps 20,000 ASF casualties annually – has delivered precious little in the way of
stability. More Afghan provinces and districts are contested or under direct Taliban
control today than at any time in these years of American intervention.
Corruption is still endemic in the government and the military and few rural Afghans seem
to consider the regime in Kabul legitimate.
It's all been so futile that it borders on the absurd. Without an indefinite influx of
Western money, training, and logistical support, the Afghan government simply cannot hold
out. Despite the efforts of hundreds of thousands of American troops and countless
bureaucrats, Washington has never been able to deal with or alter the essential quandary that
lies at the heart of the Afghan mission: the Taliban still counts on sanctuary in the tribal
borderlands of Pakistan and so long as that's available – and it seems it will be in
perpetuity – there is no way to militarily defeat them. Besides, the Taliban harbor no
discernible transnational aspirations and most al-Qaeda operatives have long since left
Afghanistan's mountains for other locales throughout the Greater Middle East.
Mr. Trump's generals and their troops on the ground have no answers to these confounding
challenges. One thing is guaranteed: 3,000, or even 50,000 more
troops won't break the stalemate, nor will loosing
some of the last Vietnam-era B-52s to bomb the countryside. When I last
surged into Afghanistan myself in 2011-2012, I was joined by more than 100,000 fellow
Americans. It didn't matter. We achieved about as much as this current "strategy" will:
stasis.
* Iraq is rarely in the headlines anymore, except maybe as an offshoot of America's
anti-ISIS campaign in Syria. Nonetheless, with more than
5,200 U.S. troops on the ground (and don't forget the private contractors also in-country), you've
not heard the last of Washington's 14-year-old campaign there. What exactly is the U.S.
charter in Iraq these days anyway? To defeat ISIS? That's (mostly) done, in a conventional
sense anyway. The so-called caliphate has fallen, though ISIS as a global brand is thriving
. To stabilize the country in order to avoid ISIS 2.0 or block the growth and spread of
well-armed Shia militias? Don't count on a few thousand troops succeeding where 150,000
servicemen failed at
similar tasks the last time around.
Iraq remains divided and ultimately unstable. In the north, the Kurds want autonomy, which
the Shia-dominated Baghdad regime will have none
of. In the north and west, Sunnis, living in the rubble of their unreconstructed cities,
remain distrustful of Baghdad. (A year after its "liberation" from ISIS, for instance,
significant parts of Fallujah still
lack water or electricity .) Unless they are somehow integrated more equitably into the
Shia-controlled political heartland, they will predictably support the next iteration of
Islamist extremists.
The only real
winner in the Iraq War was Iran. A mostly friendly, Shia-heavy government in Baghdad suits
Tehran just fine. In fact, by toppling Saddam Hussein, the United States all but ensured that
Iran would gain increased regional influence. The bottom line is that Iraq has many
challenges ahead and Washington doesn't have a hope in hell of meaningfully solving any of
them.
How will Baghdad divide power between its various sects and factions? How will it
demobilize and/or integrate those Shia militia units that checked ISIS's expansion in
2014-2015 into its military or will it? How much autonomy will President Haider al-Abadi
allow the Kurds?
The all but perpetual American military presence in that country seems unlikely to help
with any of Iraq's countless problems. And given that, like just about anyone else on this
planet, Arabs don't take kindly to even the most minimalist of occupations, whatever they may
officially be called, expect those U.S. troops to end up in someone's line of fire sooner or
later. (Recent history suggests that sooner is more likely.)
* When it comes to Syria, can anyone articulate a coherent strategy in the devastated
ruins of that country amid a byzantine network of factions, terror groups, and the once again
ascendant government and military of Bashar al-Assad? It seems like another formula for
certain disaster. Somehow, Syria makes even the situation in Iraq seem simple. Perhaps
2,000 U.S. troops are on the ground in north and southeast Syria. Getting in was the easy
part, getting out may be all but impossible.
U.S.-sponsored, mainly Kurdish forces, backed by American air power and artillery, seized
ISIS's self-proclaimed capital, Raqqa, and helped turn the militants of the Islamic State
back into a guerilla force. Now what? Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Syrian
President Assad, Russian President Vladimir Putin, and the Iranians all loathe the Kurds and
are none-too-keen to allow them any form of long-term autonomy. A tenuous stalemate has
developed between Assad's army and his foreign backers on one side and the small U.S. force
with its allied Kurdish fighters on the other. Sooner or later, however, it's a recipe for
disaster as the possibilities of "accidental" conflict abound. The Trump team, like Obama's
before them, appears to have no consistent vision for Syria's future. Can Assad stay in
power? Does the U.S. even have a say in that question any longer? Assad, Putin, and Hezbollah
appear to hold a far stronger hand in that country's six-year civil war.
In addition to yet more destruction, division, and chaos, it's unclear what the U.S.
stands to achieve in Syria. Nevertheless, Secretary of Defense James Mattis and the Pentagon
recently
announced that, just as in Iraq, U.S. troops would stay in Syria after the final defeat
of ISIS. On the subject, a Pentagon spokesperson was quite
emphatic : "We are going to maintain our commitment on the ground as long as we need to,
to support our partners and prevent the return of terrorist groups." In other words, the U.S.
military will remain there until when exactly? Long enough for the civil war to end and
liberal democracy to burst forth in the Syrian countryside?
That country is hardly a vital national security interest of the United States and the
Trump team's plans seem as vague as they are foolish. Nonetheless, on the intervention goes
and where it ends nobody knows. It's not, however, likely to end well.
* Yemen, Niger, Somalia, Libya, and various other smaller conflicts round out the
exhausting list of what are now Trump's wars. U.S. troops still occasionally die in those
places, which few Americans could find on a map. Even hawkish wonks like Senator Lindsey
Graham seem
unclear about how many troops the U.S. has in Africa. Fear not, however, Senator Graham
assures us that Americans should expect
"more, not less" intervention on that continent in the years to come and, given what we're
learning about the Pentagon's latest
plans for places like Somalia suggests that he couldn't be more accurate and that the
American version of what retired general and ex-CIA Director David Petraeus has termed (in
relation to Afghanistan) "
generational " warfare is now
spreading from the Greater Middle East to Africa.
Washington's efforts in Yemen and North Africa have been and continue to be nothing if not
counterproductive. In Yemen, the United States is complicit in
the Saudi blockading and terror bombing of the poorest Arab state and a resultant famine and
cholera outbreak that could affect millions, especially children. This campaign isn't winning
America any friends on the "Arab street" and only seems to have empowered al-Qaeda in the
Arabian Peninsula.
In Africa, from Nigeria to Somalia, infusions of U.S. troops have not measurably
improved regional stability. Quite the opposite, despite the protestations of
U.S. Africa Command. In fact, there are now more radical Islamist groups than ever before and
terrorist attacks have all but exploded on that continent.
All these wars, once Obama's, are now Trump's. The only differences, it seems, are of form
rather than substance. Unlike Obama, Trump delegates
troop-level decisions to his secretary of defense and the generals. Furthermore, when it
comes to what the public can know, there appears to be even less
transparency about the exact number of soldiers being deployed across the Middle East and
North Africa than had previously been the case. And that seems to suit most Americans just
fine. A warrior caste of professionals fights the country's various undeclared
wars, taxes remain low, and little is asked of the populace.
Call me a pessimist but I have no doubt that the United States is in for at least
three more years of perpetual war – and it probably won't end there either. There's no
silver bullet for such conflicts, so the military won't be able to end them in any reasonably
easy way or it would have done so years ago. And that's assuming that far worse in the way of war
isn't in store for us in the Koreas or Iran.
Trump will not be impeached. He may even win a second term. Crazier things have happened,
like, well, his election in 2016. And even if he were gone, America's wars like the
Pentagon's
budget have proven remarkably bipartisan affairs. As the Obama years make clear, don't
count on a Democratic president to end them.
Children born after 9/11 will vote in 2020. In that sense, at least, General Petraeus is
right. These wars truly are generational.
Major Danny Sjursen, a
TomDispatch regular , is a U.S. Army strategist and former history instructor at West
Point. He served tours with reconnaissance units in Iraq and Afghanistan. He has written a
memoir and critical analysis of the Iraq War, Ghost Riders of Baghdad:
Soldiers, Civilians, and the Myth of the Surge . He lives with his wife and four sons in
Lawrence, Kansas. Follow him on Twitter at @SkepticalVet .
[ Note: The views expressed in this article are those of the author, expressed in an
unofficial capacity, and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of
the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. government.]
"... In Africa, from Nigeria to Somalia, infusions of U.S. troops have not measurably improved regional stability. Quite the opposite, despite the protestations of U.S. Africa Command. In fact, there are now more radical Islamist groups than ever before and terrorist attacks have all but exploded on that continent. ..."
"... Call me a pessimist but I have no doubt that the United States is in for at least three more years of perpetual war – and it probably won't end there either. There's no silver bullet for such conflicts, so the military won't be able to end them in any reasonably easy way or it would have done so years ago. And that's assuming that far worse in the way of war isn't in store for us in the Koreas or Iran. ..."
"... on Twitter and join us on Facebook . Check out the newest Dispatch Book, Alfred McCoy's ..."
In a Washington politically riven in ways not seen since the pre-Civil War era, take hope.
Despite everything you've read, bipartisanship is not dead. On one issue,
congressional Democrats and Republicans, as well as Donald Trump, all speak with a single
resounding voice, with, in fact, unmatched unanimity and fervor as they stretch hands across
the aisle in a spirit of cooperation. Perhaps you've already guessed, but I'm referring to
the Pentagon budget. By staggering
majorities , both houses of Congress just passed an almost $700
billion defense bill, more money than even President Trump had requested and he's already
happily signed it.
And Americans generally seem to partake of the same spirit. After all, while esteem for
other American institutions like, uh, Congress has fallen radically in
these years, the U.S. military hasn't lost a step. Last June, for instance, Gallup's
pollsters found that public confidence in U.S. institutions generally had dropped to a dismal
32%, but a soaring
73% of Americans had the highest possible confidence in the military, which means that
Donald Trump's decision to surround himself with three generals as secretary of defense,
White House chief of staff, and national security adviser was undoubtedly a popular one. In a
similar vein, it's striking that America's war on terror, now entering its 17th dismal year
and still expanding
, and the military that wages it remain essentially
beyond criticism or
protest . It hardly seems to matter that, in this century of constant warfare across
significant parts of the planet, that military has yet to bring home a real victory of any
sort.
Who cares? That military is, by now, a distinctly Teflon outfit to which no criticism
sticks, even through it and the rest of the national security state swallow
stunning amounts of taxpayer dollars as if there were no tomorrow, while the Pentagon
experiences
cost overruns of every kind for its weapons systems, has proven
incapable of auditing itself (ever!), and recently couldn't even account for
44,000 (yes, 44,000!) of its troops deployed somewhere in the imperium, though who knows
where. No wonder Donald Trump, a man of no fixed beliefs (except about himself), but with a
finely tuned sense of what might be popular with his base, has loosed
that military from many of the already modest bounds within which it's fought its largely
losing wars of these last years, and seems to be leaving its generals (and the
CIA ) to do their escalatory damnedest from Afghanistan
to Niger ,
Syria
to
Somalia .
With all of this in mind, as another year in which permanent war is the barely noticed
background hum of American life, I asked TomDispatch regular U.S. Army Major Danny Sjursen, author of Ghost Riders of
Baghdad , to assess American war in 2017 and consider just where we're headed. ~
Tom
America's Wars: Yet More of More of the Same? By Danny Sjursen
I remember the day President Obama let me down.
It was December 1, 2009, and as soon as the young president took the podium at West Point
and – calm and cool as ever – announced
a new troop surge in Afghanistan, I knew. There wasn't a doubt in my mind. In that instant,
George W. Bush's wars had become Barack Obama's.
But where Bush had seemed, however foolishly, to believe his own rhetoric about America's
glorious military mission in the world, you always sensed that Obama's heart just wasn't in
it. He'd been steamrolled by
ambitious generals who pioneered generational warfare and hawkish cabinet members like
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Bush-holdover Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. Then
again, what choice did he have, given the way he'd run his presidential campaign on the idea
that Afghanistan was a "
war of necessity " and so the foil for Iraq, the " dumb war "? Now he was
stuck with that landlocked, inhospitable little war, come what may. As we all know (and as I
had little doubt then), it didn't
work out . Not at all.
Like many other idealistic Americans, I'd bet big on Obama. The madness and futility of my
own 15 months in
Iraq as a scout platoon leader – you know, one of those "warriors" you're obligated
to thank endlessly for his service – had forever soured me on nation-building crusades
in faraway lands. And the young, inspiring senator from Illinois seemed to have some
authentic anti-war chops . Unlike
Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden, he was untarnished by the October 2002 Iraq War resolution vote
that gave the Bush administration the right to shock and awe the hell out of Saddam Hussein.
Looking back, I suppose I should have known better. Obama had only been a state senator with
an essentially nonexistent record on foreign policy when he first criticized Operation
Iraqi Freedom. Still, after so many years of Bush's messianic adventures, anyone seemed
preferable.
That was more than eight years ago and somehow the United States military is still
slogging along in Iraq and Afghanistan. What's more, Bush's wars have only expanded in
breadth, if not in depth, to Syria, Yemen, Libya, Somalia, and Niger, among other places.
Yes, ISIS as a "caliphate" has been defeated. As a now-global franchise, however, anything
but, and victory – whatever that might mean at this point – couldn't be further
off as our next president, Donald Trump, approaches his one year mark in office and he and
"his" military only
ratchet up those wars further.
Good Instincts?
The Trump-Clinton election fiasco of 2016 was, to say the least, disturbing. And while I
was no fan of Mr. Trump's language, demeanor, or (however vague) policies, when it came to
our wars he did seem to demonstrate some redeeming qualities. Running against Hillary
the hawk presented him with genuine opportunities. She, after all, had been wrong about
every major foreign policy decision for more than a decade. Iraq? She
voted for it. Afghanistan? She
wanted another "surge." Libya? She was all in and had a
fine chuckle when autocrat Muammar Gaddafi was killed.
Mr. Trump, on the other hand, while visibly ill informed and anything but polished on such
subjects, occasionally sounded strangely rational and ready to topple more than a few sacred
cows of the foreign policy establishment. He
called both the Iraq and Afghan wars "stupid," criticized
the poorly planned and executed Libyan operation that had indeed loosed chaos and weaponry
from Gaddafi's looted arsenals across North Africa, and had even questioned
whether military escalation, supposedly to balance Russian moves in Eastern Europe, was
necessary. Whether he really believed any of that stuff or was just being an effective attack
dog by pouncing on Hillary's grim record we may never know.
What already seems clear, however, is that Trump's version of global strategy – to
the extent that he even has one – is turning out to be yet more of more of the
same. He did, of course, quickly
surround himself with three generals from America's losing wars clearly convinced that
they could "surge" their way out of anything. More troublesome yet, it seems to have
registered on him that military escalation, air strikes of various sorts, special operations
raids, and general bellicosity all look "presidential" and so play well with the American
people.
In constant need of positive reinforcement, Trump has seemed to revel in the role of war
president. When he simply led a round of applause for a widow whose husband had died in a
botched raid in Yemen early in his presidency, CNN commentator Van Jones typically
gushed that he "just became president of the United States, period." After he ordered the
launching of a few dozen cruise missiles targeting one of Bashar al-Assad's air bases in
Syria, even Washington Post columnist and CNN host Fareed Zakaria
lauded him for acting "presidential." War sells, as does fear, especially in the America
of 2017, a country filled with outsized fears of Islamic terrorism that no one knows how to
stoke better than Donald Trump. So expect more, much more, of each next year.
A Brief Tour of Trump's Wars
Where exactly does that leave us? Like Obama before him, and Bush before him, President
Trump has opted for continuing, even escalating, America's war for the Greater Middle East.
Long gone are the critiques of "stupid" interventions. As he
announced a new mini-surge in Afghanistan, he did admit that his instinct had been to end
America's longest war, but it wasn't an instinct that stood tall in the face of his
war-fighting generals.
Now, after nearly a year in office, those instincts of his seem limited to whatever his
generals tell him. An ever-so-brief tour of his wars suggests – to give you a little
preview of what's to come (should Americans
even care ) – two things: first, that on the horizon is more of more of the same;
second, that the result is likely to be, as it has largely been in these last years, some
version of stalemate verging on defeat.
* Afghanistan is a true mess. Now entering its 17th year, the war in that infamous
graveyard of
empires has left the U.S. military short on answers.
Afghan Security Forces (ASF), the foundation of American "strategy" there, are being
killed and wounded at an unsustainable rate. And all that sacrifice – to the tune
of perhaps 20,000 ASF casualties annually – has delivered precious little in the way of
stability. More Afghan provinces and districts are contested or under direct Taliban
control today than at any time in these years of American intervention.
Corruption is still endemic in the government and the military and few rural Afghans seem
to consider the regime in Kabul legitimate.
It's all been so futile that it borders on the absurd. Without an indefinite influx of
Western money, training, and logistical support, the Afghan government simply cannot hold
out. Despite the efforts of hundreds of thousands of American troops and countless
bureaucrats, Washington has never been able to deal with or alter the essential quandary that
lies at the heart of the Afghan mission: the Taliban still counts on sanctuary in the tribal
borderlands of Pakistan and so long as that's available – and it seems it will be in
perpetuity – there is no way to militarily defeat them. Besides, the Taliban harbor no
discernible transnational aspirations and most al-Qaeda operatives have long since left
Afghanistan's mountains for other locales throughout the Greater Middle East.
Mr. Trump's generals and their troops on the ground have no answers to these confounding
challenges. One thing is guaranteed: 3,000, or even 50,000 more
troops won't break the stalemate, nor will loosing
some of the last Vietnam-era B-52s to bomb the countryside. When I last
surged into Afghanistan myself in 2011-2012, I was joined by more than 100,000 fellow
Americans. It didn't matter. We achieved about as much as this current "strategy" will:
stasis.
* Iraq is rarely in the headlines anymore, except maybe as an offshoot of America's
anti-ISIS campaign in Syria. Nonetheless, with more than
5,200 U.S. troops on the ground (and don't forget the private contractors also in-country), you've
not heard the last of Washington's 14-year-old campaign there. What exactly is the U.S.
charter in Iraq these days anyway? To defeat ISIS? That's (mostly) done, in a conventional
sense anyway. The so-called caliphate has fallen, though ISIS as a global brand is thriving
. To stabilize the country in order to avoid ISIS 2.0 or block the growth and spread of
well-armed Shia militias? Don't count on a few thousand troops succeeding where 150,000
servicemen failed at
similar tasks the last time around.
Iraq remains divided and ultimately unstable. In the north, the Kurds want autonomy, which
the Shia-dominated Baghdad regime will have none
of. In the north and west, Sunnis, living in the rubble of their unreconstructed cities,
remain distrustful of Baghdad. (A year after its "liberation" from ISIS, for instance,
significant parts of Fallujah still
lack water or electricity .) Unless they are somehow integrated more equitably into the
Shia-controlled political heartland, they will predictably support the next iteration of
Islamist extremists.
The only real
winner in the Iraq War was Iran. A mostly friendly, Shia-heavy government in Baghdad suits
Tehran just fine. In fact, by toppling Saddam Hussein, the United States all but ensured that
Iran would gain increased regional influence. The bottom line is that Iraq has many
challenges ahead and Washington doesn't have a hope in hell of meaningfully solving any of
them.
How will Baghdad divide power between its various sects and factions? How will it
demobilize and/or integrate those Shia militia units that checked ISIS's expansion in
2014-2015 into its military or will it? How much autonomy will President Haider al-Abadi
allow the Kurds?
The all but perpetual American military presence in that country seems unlikely to help
with any of Iraq's countless problems. And given that, like just about anyone else on this
planet, Arabs don't take kindly to even the most minimalist of occupations, whatever they may
officially be called, expect those U.S. troops to end up in someone's line of fire sooner or
later. (Recent history suggests that sooner is more likely.)
* When it comes to Syria, can anyone articulate a coherent strategy in the devastated
ruins of that country amid a byzantine network of factions, terror groups, and the once again
ascendant government and military of Bashar al-Assad? It seems like another formula for
certain disaster. Somehow, Syria makes even the situation in Iraq seem simple. Perhaps
2,000 U.S. troops are on the ground in north and southeast Syria. Getting in was the easy
part, getting out may be all but impossible.
U.S.-sponsored, mainly Kurdish forces, backed by American air power and artillery, seized
ISIS's self-proclaimed capital, Raqqa, and helped turn the militants of the Islamic State
back into a guerilla force. Now what? Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Syrian
President Assad, Russian President Vladimir Putin, and the Iranians all loathe the Kurds and
are none-too-keen to allow them any form of long-term autonomy. A tenuous stalemate has
developed between Assad's army and his foreign backers on one side and the small U.S. force
with its allied Kurdish fighters on the other. Sooner or later, however, it's a recipe for
disaster as the possibilities of "accidental" conflict abound. The Trump team, like Obama's
before them, appears to have no consistent vision for Syria's future. Can Assad stay in
power? Does the U.S. even have a say in that question any longer? Assad, Putin, and Hezbollah
appear to hold a far stronger hand in that country's six-year civil war.
In addition to yet more destruction, division, and chaos, it's unclear what the U.S.
stands to achieve in Syria. Nevertheless, Secretary of Defense James Mattis and the Pentagon
recently
announced that, just as in Iraq, U.S. troops would stay in Syria after the final defeat
of ISIS. On the subject, a Pentagon spokesperson was quite
emphatic : "We are going to maintain our commitment on the ground as long as we need to,
to support our partners and prevent the return of terrorist groups." In other words, the U.S.
military will remain there until when exactly? Long enough for the civil war to end and
liberal democracy to burst forth in the Syrian countryside?
That country is hardly a vital national security interest of the United States and the
Trump team's plans seem as vague as they are foolish. Nonetheless, on the intervention goes
and where it ends nobody knows. It's not, however, likely to end well.
* Yemen, Niger, Somalia, Libya, and various other smaller conflicts round out the
exhausting list of what are now Trump's wars. U.S. troops still occasionally die in those
places, which few Americans could find on a map. Even hawkish wonks like Senator Lindsey
Graham seem
unclear about how many troops the U.S. has in Africa. Fear not, however, Senator Graham
assures us that Americans should expect
"more, not less" intervention on that continent in the years to come and, given what we're
learning about the Pentagon's latest
plans for places like Somalia suggests that he couldn't be more accurate and that the
American version of what retired general and ex-CIA Director David Petraeus has termed (in
relation to Afghanistan) "
generational " warfare is now
spreading from the Greater Middle East to Africa.
Washington's efforts in Yemen and North Africa have been and continue to be nothing if not
counterproductive. In Yemen, the United States is complicit in
the Saudi blockading and terror bombing of the poorest Arab state and a resultant famine and
cholera outbreak that could affect millions, especially children. This campaign isn't winning
America any friends on the "Arab street" and only seems to have empowered al-Qaeda in the
Arabian Peninsula.
In Africa, from Nigeria to Somalia, infusions of U.S. troops have not measurably
improved regional stability. Quite the opposite, despite the protestations of
U.S. Africa Command. In fact, there are now more radical Islamist groups than ever before and
terrorist attacks have all but exploded on that continent.
All these wars, once Obama's, are now Trump's. The only differences, it seems, are of form
rather than substance. Unlike Obama, Trump delegates
troop-level decisions to his secretary of defense and the generals. Furthermore, when it
comes to what the public can know, there appears to be even less
transparency about the exact number of soldiers being deployed across the Middle East and
North Africa than had previously been the case. And that seems to suit most Americans just
fine. A warrior caste of professionals fights the country's various undeclared
wars, taxes remain low, and little is asked of the populace.
Call me a pessimist but I have no doubt that the United States is in for at least
three more years of perpetual war – and it probably won't end there either. There's no
silver bullet for such conflicts, so the military won't be able to end them in any reasonably
easy way or it would have done so years ago. And that's assuming that far worse in the way of war
isn't in store for us in the Koreas or Iran.
Trump will not be impeached. He may even win a second term. Crazier things have happened,
like, well, his election in 2016. And even if he were gone, America's wars like the
Pentagon's
budget have proven remarkably bipartisan affairs. As the Obama years make clear, don't
count on a Democratic president to end them.
Children born after 9/11 will vote in 2020. In that sense, at least, General Petraeus is
right. These wars truly are generational.
Major Danny Sjursen, a
TomDispatch regular , is a U.S. Army strategist and former history instructor at West
Point. He served tours with reconnaissance units in Iraq and Afghanistan. He has written a
memoir and critical analysis of the Iraq War, Ghost Riders of Baghdad:
Soldiers, Civilians, and the Myth of the Surge . He lives with his wife and four sons in
Lawrence, Kansas. Follow him on Twitter at @SkepticalVet .
[ Note: The views expressed in this article are those of the author, expressed in an
unofficial capacity, and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of
the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. government.]
The overall direction of the empire was never going to change with or without Trump and we are seeing it play out now.
Notable quotes:
"... Ok, he has been called the most pro Israel President by Netanyahu himself, his administration just recognized Jerusalem as
the capital of Israel, something even most ardent analysts in here did not predict. His son-in-law who he listens to is a pure Zionist
and the neo-con lap dog Hailey is quite clearly gearing the audience up for a confrontation with Iran. One way or another....watch out
2018. ..."
"... But no he is not controlled enough by the Zionists? The overall direction of the empire was never going to change with or without
Trump and we are seeing it play out now. ..."
"... America is a particularly vivid example of indoctrinated groupthink and I just cannot see anyone/movement espousing alternative
ways of operating getting traction. ..."
"... Simply pay attention to what those monsters actually do. The Trump Administration has continued and expanded US domestic and
foreign policy precisely as has his predecessors. NATO is bigger, better funded, and more heavily deployed along Russia's "near abroad"
than at any time in history. The Pentagon now admits we have 2,000 to 5,000 active "boots on the ground" in Syria, and they have no
intention of ever leaving. Goldman Sachs is embedded in every Executive Branch office. Taxes on the wealthy and corporations are being
slashed soon to be followed in social services, as neo-liberal economics remains the god worshipped by all. ..."
"I won't be optimistic about AmeriKKKa until Russia and/or China announce a Zero Tolerance policy toward US military adventurism
in countries on the borders of Russia/China - by promising to bomb the continental USA if it attacks a Russia/China neighbor.
Imo it's absolutely essential to light a big bonfire under AmeriKKKa's Impunity. And it would be delightful, sobering,
and a big boost for Peace and Diplomacy to hear the Yankees whingeing about being threatened by entities quite capable of following
through on their threats."
Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Dec 19, 2017 11:10:32 AM | 14
Hell yes, I'd love that scenario, but never happen. Too much $to be made by kissing up to the empire.
Sad Canuck @ 31: Abso fukken 'lutely!!
b, you better change what you're smoken' if you believe the empire is going isolationist.
@48 They did not want him lol? So many comments in here make me chuckle.
Ok, he has been called the most pro Israel President by Netanyahu himself, his administration just recognized Jerusalem
as the capital of Israel, something even most ardent analysts in here did not predict. His son-in-law who he listens to is a pure
Zionist and the neo-con lap dog Hailey is quite clearly gearing the audience up for a confrontation with Iran. One way or another....watch
out 2018.
But no he is not controlled enough by the Zionists? The overall direction of the empire was never going to change with
or without Trump and we are seeing it play out now.
@26 "I think you would find that the vast majority of Americans would be quite happy to disengage militarily from the rest of
the world, and put resources at work on domestic problems."
Disengage militarily? I would like to think so sleepy but why do they keep getting so involved internationally? Instead of
concentrating on domestic issues putting 'America first' seems to mean bullying any country that doesn't do what it's told.
@ Debsisdead with the end of his comment
" America is a particularly vivid example of indoctrinated groupthink and I just cannot see anyone/movement espousing alternative
ways of operating getting traction.
"
There are those that say the same (vivid example of indoctrinated groupthink) about China, so there might be some competition
in our world yet.
I , for one, want to end private finance and maybe give the China way a go. Anyone else? I did future studies in college and
am intrigued by planning processes at the scale that China has done 13 of....their 5-year plans.
May we live to see structural change in the way our species comports itself......soon, I hope
NemesisCalling, I suggest paying little to know attention to Trump's (or any other politician/oligarch) platitudes.
Simply pay attention to what those monsters actually do. The Trump Administration has continued and expanded US domestic
and foreign policy precisely as has his predecessors. NATO is bigger, better funded, and more heavily deployed along Russia's
"near abroad" than at any time in history. The Pentagon now admits we have 2,000 to 5,000 active "boots on the ground" in Syria,
and they have no intention of ever leaving. Goldman Sachs is embedded in every Executive Branch office. Taxes on the wealthy and
corporations are being slashed soon to be followed in social services, as neo-liberal economics remains the god worshipped by
all.
I remain amazed that people who KNOW that the MSM lies to us constantly, about things big and small, still believe with all
their hearts the MSM narrative that Trump is an "outsider" whom the Establishment hates and has fought against ever since they
gave him $5 billion in free advertising.
Disengage? In 2017, U.S. Special Operations forces, including Navy SEALs and Army Green Berets, deployed to 149 countries around
the world, according to figures provided to TomDispatch by U.S. Special Operations Command. That's around 75 percent of the nations
on the planet.
What the vast majority of Americans might want has been cast aside by this president after he got their votes. There go hope
and change again, damn.
It is hard to imagine the US cooperating with the rest of the world in a positive manner on
most issues, at this stage at least, so isolationism is certainly the most reassuring
course.
Notable quotes:
"... The interventions after 1991 occurred even while the U.S. had lost the ideological rationale of "countering communism" and while the chance of military operations against itself was smaller than before. Moreover many of these intervention were not successful. Other states have found means to counter overwhelming military might. ..."
"... The unchecked United States felt no necessity to weight potential responses from competitors. It did not show a "decent respect for the opinions of mankind". It proved itself to be a danger to global peace. It intervened because it could, not because there was a real national interest at stake, or even a decent chance of winning. The "unilateral moment" has cost the U.S. a lot of money and good will, and it brought little gain. ..."
"... As a global citizens I welcome this development. A U.S. that again feels limited in its global reach will likely be more careful when it considers initiating new conflicts. It will do less damage to others and to itself. ..."
on paper
- more idealistic version of Obama's imperial strategy. There is less schmoozing about "values"
and a new emphasis on "rivals", most importantly China and Russia.
Labeling those two countries as rivals implies that they are again seen on a similar level
than the U.S. itself. It thus marks the end of the "unilateral moment" moment that the U.S.
felt entitled to after the end of the Soviet Union. Sure, the U.S. is still trying to set
itself apart from others. It just ridiculously vetoed
a UN Security Council resolution that reaffirmed the occupied status of Jerusalem. But voting
against all other members of the UNSC, including close allies like Britain, is not a sign of
global leadership but of a pariah state.
That the "unilateral moment" has passed might have some very positive aspects for the world.
The end of a global competition had allowed the U.S. to
wage more wars :
[W]hile the United States engaged in forty-six military interventions from 1948–1991,
from 1992–2017 that number increased fourfold to 188.
The interventions after 1991 occurred even while the U.S. had lost the ideological
rationale of "countering communism" and while the chance of military operations against itself
was smaller than before. Moreover many of these intervention were not successful. Other states
have found means to counter overwhelming military might.
The unchecked United States felt no necessity to weight potential responses from
competitors. It did not show a "decent respect for the opinions of mankind". It proved itself
to be a danger to global peace. It intervened because it could, not because there was a real
national interest at stake, or even a decent chance of winning. The "unilateral moment" has
cost the U.S. a lot of money and good will, and it brought little gain.
A rational U.S. strategy would recognize that the unilateral approach failed and thus
emphasize other means. Real global cooperation and increasing economic and diplomatic power
would likely be more successful than military might. The new National Security Strategy does
not do that. While it says it "will advance American influence" it ignores or rejects climate
change and international "rules of the road", like the United Nations Convention on the Law of
the Sea (UNCLOS). The Trump administration in putting more resources into the military and less
into diplomatic and economic foreign policy measures. It is thereby, true to Trump's campaign
stance, isolationist.
One can either have an overwhelming role or finesse ones influence through cooperation with
others. The overwhelming role, demonstrated by military interventions, has not been successful.
The cooperation approach is spelled out in the words of the NSS but rejected in its specific
policies. The third way it is paving is one of isolation.
As a global citizens I welcome this development. A U.S. that again feels limited in its
global reach will likely be more careful when it considers initiating new conflicts. It will do
less damage to others and to itself.
Several months ago I read a Pentagon paper on the US narrowing its allies that
it would 'protect' down to a small number of core allies, which I take to mean five eyes,
Israel, Japan ect. I cannot remember the name of the paper or where to find it now, but since
reading it I have thought the US seemed to be moving in this direction.
From what I can remember of it, the paper seemed to be about US strategy for living in the
emerging multi polar world where the US would be forced to cede ground to China and Russia in
some parts of the world.
Posted by: Peter AU 1 , Dec 19, 2017 7:44:20 AM |
3
Several months ago I read a Pentagon paper on the US narrowing its allies that it would
'protect' down to a small number of core allies, which I take to mean five eyes, Israel,
Japan ect. I cannot remember the name of the paper or where to find it now, but since reading
it I have thought the US seemed to be moving in this direction.
From what I can remember of it, the paper seemed to be about US strategy for living in the
emerging multi polar world where the US would be forced to cede ground to China and Russia in
some parts of the world.
Posted by: Peter AU 1 | Dec 19, 2017 7:44:20 AM |
3 /div
A rational U.S. strategy would recognize that the unilateral approach failed and thus
emphasize other means. Real global cooperation and increasing economic and diplomatic power
would likely be more successful than military might. The new National Security Strategy does
not do that. While it says it "will advance American influence" it ignores or rejects climate
change and international "rules of the road", like the United Nations Convention on the Law
of the Sea (UNCLOS). The Trump administration in putting more resources into the military and
less into diplomatic and economic foreign policy measures. It is thereby, true to Trump's
campaign stance, isolationist.
b
I, for one, do not believe the deep state is so easily swayed; isolationist? Not in the
forseeable future, IMO.
Just look at the Syrian situation; the U.S. insists to have a presence; illegal or not; they
don't bloody care; damn international law; the U.S. will have its way.
Russia could easily declare Syrian air-space a total no-fly zone; but they don't.
I understand why; but at some point; the law must be enforced or all is lost to the
chaos...
Where was the Trump from 2016 who wondered why we were wasting trillions of dollars on
winless pointless wars on the other side of the world? Where was the Trump who asked why we
are still defending South Korea more than half a century after the Korean war? Who asked why
would could not get along with Russia? Who pointed out that in order to keep Americans safe
from terrorists, we don't need to remake the entire world in our image, just not let them
come here (like Japan does, and very well, I might add).
TG @6 seems to think 'just not let them come here' will be a winning strategy. The
'terrorist' are not folks that got up one day and said looks like a good day to turn
terrorist. They are the results of decades of attacks by the Americans and Five Eyes on their
families and homes. The 'terrorist' may not come America but they are for sure going to take
out their 'blood debt' on the European lap dogs. Expect the Europeans to soon start throwing
rocks at American tourist. Isolation! You bet.
Conmen do not have to have consistency. Actually, it's part of being a conman to tell
people what they want to hear and then fleece them. Or screw them in an number of ways.
Trump's statement contains contradictions which allows both Neocons and those who oppose them
to see what they want. While he disparages nation building, Russia and China are called
revisionist powers who challenge the U.S. established world order and U.S. values.
One must look at Trump's actions. Anti-Neocon:
1. Trump dropped Syrian regime change (for now, U.S. troops and protection of rebels still
present in Syria).
Pro-Neocon:
1. U.S. buildup of forces in Eastern Europe ongoing, along with call for EU/NATO to pitch in,
air patrols close to Crimea ongoing, and arms authorized for Ukraine and mention of soft
power in Central Asia.
2. Military buildup and South China Seas operations ongoing.
3. Pro-Saudi operations in Yemen beefed up along with strong arming Iraqi govt against
Iran.
Isolationism...the old playground, 'I'm taking my ball and going home,' psychology. Good for
the US! Go home and sulk. The playground will be a better place. Problem is the US has
outsourced all its industry for Wall St. So all that is left is manufacturing war. Who they
gonna fight?
Broke, in debt, no more money to print, no future but death. Decades long NSS equals more
war. Those who lead (as in pillage) have no other way out. Really, no other way out!
"We will not allow adversaries to use threats of nuclear escalation or other irresponsible
nuclear behaviors to coerce the United States, our allies, and our partners. Fear of
escalation will not prevent the United States from defending our vital interests and those of
our allies and partners." (Tronald's-NSS)
"As a global citizens I welcome this development. A U.S. that again feels limited in its
global reach will likely be more careful when it considers initiating new conflicts. It will
do less damage to others and to itself." (B's conclusion)
Very well said b. This article by Julie Hyland resonates well with this.
Women's rights is definitely a great issue but doesn't seem to be our true concern. What
seems most needed is a multipolar moderation to the US aggression which has taken place since
1991.
""With the juridical liquidation of the Soviet Union in 1991, NATO's aggressive stance became
more overt as it mounted direct military operations in the Balkans, Afghanistan and, more
recently, Libya and Syria aimed ultimately at encircling, and dismembering Russia and
China.
Hundreds of thousands of people have lost their lives as a result and millions more have
been injured and displaced. These wars, moreover, have been accompanied by the evisceration
of all pretence at maintaining democratic norms -- including extraordinary rendition and
targeted assassinations by drone strikes, not to speak of the gutting of civil liberties "at
home."
It is to conceal its predatory aims that Stoltenberg/Jolie attempt to recast NATO as a
tool of female emancipation.
NATO will integrate "gender issues into its strategic thinking", reinforce a "culture of
integration of women throughout the organisation, including in leadership positions", promote
"the role of women in the military", and deploy "gender advisers to local communities", where
"NATO's female soldiers are able to reach and engage with local communities," they write.
Without a trace of shame, the op-ed targets Ukraine and Syria as in particular need of
NATO's gender crusade. This on behalf of an organisation that supported fascists in the first
conflict, and worked with Islamic extremists, such as the Al Nusra front in the other.""
@7 "Expect the Europeans to soon start throwing rocks at American tourist."
Or start spitting in the soup. Unfortunately that sort of thing will just make them more
paranoid. I think deep down Americans want to be loved. The problem is reconciling that with
the need to be number one.
As I started reading b's post, BBC Impact began broadcasting snippets from Yalda Hakim's
interview with HR McMaster, a certifiable member of AmeriKKKa's Lunatic Fringe. He was
issuing threats to Russia & China and promising to rid the world of North Korea's nukes
with or without NK's consent. Which made me wonder if McMaster had read the NatSec Strategy
memo?
Whether he has or not is neither here nor there because both Russia and China have read it
and have told Trump to shove it where the sun doesn't shine - according to Zio Jazeera.
I won't be optimistic about AmeriKKKa until Russia and/or China announce a Zero Tolerance
policy toward US military adventurism in countries on the borders of Russia/China - by
promising to bomb the continental USA if it attacks a Russia/China neighbor.
Imo it's absolutely essential to light a big bonfire under AmeriKKKa's Impunity.
And it would be delightful, sobering, and a big boost for Peace and Diplomacy to hear the
Yankees whingeing about being threatened by entities quite capable of following through on
their threats.
NSS: "We will preserve peace through strength by rebuilding our military so that it remains
preeminent, deters our adversaries, and if necessary, is able to fight and win."
Currently the military is in poor shape. Half the fighter planes can't fly, only one of
eleven aircraft carriers is deployed, and the Pentagon has struggled to send one brigade to
Europe. Morale is low, the Air Force has a deficit of about 2,000 pilots, Navy personnel are
poorly trained in seamanship so collisions occur, and the Army is struggling to recruit
because young people in the recruit pool have drug and weight problems (and better things to
do).
The current "rebuilding" is characterized by spending tons of money on complex systems
that don't work well, like the F-35 strike fighter, the Ford-class aircraft carrier, the
stealth destroyer and the Littoral Combat Ship.
Budget limitations including sequestration mean that the defense budget funds for
rebuilding are not available, and as the out-of-power Democrat Party insists that domestic
needs be considered equally with "defense." (That's the good news.)
Of course the military budget has little to do with defense and mostly has served for
elective wars which the US has consistently lost, and then paid to correct such as the $60
billion used for Iraq reconstruction in a country the US converted from an Iran enemy to an
Iran ally (Iran says thank you Uncle Sam).
Trump has promised to expand the half-million person Army when in fact there is no need
for a US ground force; Canada and Mexico are quite benign. The NSS in fact makes it clear
that the objective is not defense but increasing world hegemony: "We will advance American
influence because a world that supports American interests and reflects our values makes
America more secure and prosperous." Baloney, the wars have made America less secure and will
continue to do so as new wars on North Korea and Iran are promoted.
Thus hundreds of billions of dollars are wasted on the military in a country with dire
domestic needs. That's no way to Make America Great Again, is it. That's just being
stupid.
The NSS is a declaration of Hegemony. The intention is to break the China-Russia multi-polar
project, to suffocate China's development, to prevent Eurasian development, to undermine
security with the maritime containment arc of the Indo-Pacific Quad navies, and to
destabilize Russia with a never-ending hybrid war.
If that is isolationism, I'm staring into the Looking Glass.
The greatest danger of the US's decline in power relative to the rest of the world is an
overreaction by the US to try to halt such decline. This has been true for a while; Trump's
belligerence just brings it into sharper focus. Obama was actually pretty much the same but
he hid it behind smoother language.
It's amazing how much slack this board is ready to cut Trump as long as he's chumming with
Putin.
"he may find that that this doesn't work"
"he may be isolationist"
FFS..he's starkers. Taking all references to climate change out of his environmental dept.
Just as California burns and his coastal cities are underwater.
Roiling the whole Muslim world with his Jerusalem policy.
Continuing to poke the rattlesnake in North Korea and risk the lives of millions because
he's too vain to negotiate.
On a mission to gut the benefits of the poor and elderly in his own country. Surely the
most telling feature of his total lack of empathy for the people he's supposed to be looking
afterward.
Case in point, the new tax bill kills the Obamacare mandate. That kills Obamacare dead.
It's been described by you fucking geniuses as a total scam but in your heart you know
better. It was passed under distress because of heartless Republican demand for changes to it
and since Trump took office they have spent most of their energy trying to repeal it. Well,
they finally succeeded. It provided at least some level of coverage for many millions with no
other access and you fucking clowns think killing it is great.
As a child of the '60's I have always found US/UK/et al elites a tad suss (more than a tad!)
but have liked individual US people. Now unfortunately even the number of individuals I like
and find interesting, sane if you will, to be just one or two & a dog, with the sweet
puppy #1, woof.
The elites have not changed nor have their policies. That these people find themselves
exceptional is an exceptionally deluded division from "others" everywhere....but not when
there's money it.
That competition is required for a "balance" is a nonsense of education from birth in
order to continue the states quo, or, to continue us all living as yesterday people for today
& tomorrow, limited or not by competition, or not.
The Gorbachev revolution (Russians say disaster), was the offered chance of change for
this era, and any era that might remain and you blew it, or more accurately, conned us all
again (see the previous para).
So, enjoy all your yesterdays yesterday people - Viva conflict & division forever. -
Ta for the article.
Don Bacon@15, Don, projected costs of the Afghan and Iraq wars are not billions but
trillions.
Kennedy School professor Linda Bilmes finds that the all-in costs of the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan will measure in the $4 trillion to $6 trillion range when all is said and done.
But that's not the most terrifying element of her survey of the fiscal impact of the "war on
terror" and related undertakings. What should really strike fear into your heart is her
finding that "the largest portion of that bill is yet to be paid."
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/03/28/cost_of_iraq_linda_bilmes_says_iraq_and_afghanistan_wars_could_cost_6_trillion.html
So much for Trumps 'fix our infrastructure' first promises. instead of MAGA we get MIGA make
Israel great again.
@16, "The NSS is a declaration of Hegemony. The intention is to break the China-Russia
multi-polar project, to suffocate China's development, to prevent Eurasian development, to
undermine security with the maritime containment arc of the Indo-Pacific Quad navies, and
to destabilize Russia with a never-ending hybrid war.
If that is isolationism, I'm staring into the Looking Glass."
Red Ryder, that is EXACTLY how I read it too.
After DT leaves office, we will still have hybrid warfare in central Asia, a spiffy nuclear
arms race, a $750B military budget, troops in the M.E., a navy making useless gestures at
China, ...
The irony here is that we have become the Soviet Union at the peak of its most inefficient
cycle. I'm convinced that human nature being what it is, we will stay in denial until we
collapse under the burden of our own stupidity. The thing that kills me is that the morons
who shoved us into this path are not the ones who will have to answer for it.
I concur with you. The bully learns when he is hit back. And to prevent
innumerable sufferings, China and Russia should draw a red line and
promise swift and heavy nuclear retaliation to the KKka if it trespasses.
But, as a matter of fact, the arms business if of such nature and profits
so great that the MIC will always push for transgressions.
Sooner or later, this will end in Nuclear exchange.
But a good part of the World's woes would end if Russia and China
were to impress the Israelis that there is a limit to their wrongdoings.
Buyers remorse?
Trump said he'd drain the SWAMP. Luckily, Swamp Hillary was relying on Divine Intervention to
compensate for her lazy and incompetent campaign. AmeriKKKa dodged a bullet when she lost the
race. It would be Im-possible for Trump to be worse than Hillary. The ppl who voted for Trump
wanted the SWAMP drained but didn't know how. Trump reckons he knows how and they're not
going to quibble with his methods or the sequence.
Taking all references to climate change out of his environmental dept. Just as California
burns and his coastal cities are underwater.
The existing policies were not doing enough to prevent climate change. Perhaps when people
start to see real impacts from climate change they might take effective action. Perhaps a
fire that impacts the entire state of California.
Roiling the whole Muslim world with his Jerusalem policy.
The existing Israeli policy was slow ethnic cleansing/genocide and other countries did
fuck all. Allowing Netanyahu to demonstrate what a bastard he is, might persuade some (but
not Washington) that continued support for Israel is too dangerous and immoral.
Continuing to poke the rattlesnake in North Korea and risk the lives of millions because
he's too vain to negotiate.
The North Koreans claimed they had completed their nuclear weapons program so what's the
rush. There are more important things for the president to work on such as reducing the taxes
on the extremely wealthy and organising a victory parade for the defeat of ISIS. I wonder if
we'll see al-Baghdadi being dragged behind Trump's golden chariot? Give him six months and
the American public will have forgotten about this crisis, so he can cancel the biannual war
games as by then everyone will be wondering why the United States has to pay for them when
South Korea is itself wealthy enough to pay the bill with a bit of help from Japan.
On a mission to gut the benefits of the poor and elderly in his own country. Surely the
most telling feature of his total lack of empathy for the people he's supposed to be
looking afterward.
You can hardly call it a welfare state so what's the problem?
Case in point, the new tax bill kills the Obamacare mandate. That kills Obamacare dead.
According to Scott Lemieux, one of the Clintonists (Clintion personality cultists) over at
Lawyers, Gun and Money , it will merely "repeal the tax penalty for not
carrying health insurance in the Affordable Care Act". While this will be bad for many, it
won't be the end of the ACA. But let's face it, the ACA was pandering to the healthcare
industry, Big Pharma, Wall Street and the Oligarchy. The only rational solution is a national
health service funded by federal insurance as a percentage of income. The economies from
getting rid of the private insurers would mean it would cost less than the existing pile of
crap.
I still can't work Trump out. Is he just a wealthy cunt, or might he be one of the
greatest revolutionaries the world has ever seen. After all the shit he's dumping on the the
American public, if there isn't a libertarian socialist or libertarian communist revolution
soon, then I'll know that the Americans really are sheep (perhaps that's why they rarely eat
lamb, hogget or mutton). If it's a communist one, I hope they remember that Bolshevism
doesn't work or are their memories too short even to remember that?
@7 "Expect the Europeans to soon start throwing rocks at American tourist."
Or start spitting in the soup. Unfortunately that sort of thing will just make them more
paranoid. I think deep down Americans want to be loved. The problem is reconciling that
with the need to be number one.
Posted by: dh | Dec 19, 2017 10:28:57 AM | 13
I think you would find that the vast majority of Americans would be quite happy to
disengage militarily from the rest of the world, and put resources at work on domestic
problems.
Nineteenth-century empires were often led on from one war to another as a result
of developments which imperial governments did not plan and domestic populations did
not desire. In part this was the result of plotting by individual 'prancing
proconsuls', convinced they could gain a reputation at small risk, given the
superiority of their armies to any conceivable opposition; but it was also the result
of factors inherent in the imperial process.
The difference today is that overwhelming military advantage is possessed not by a
set of competing Western states, but by one state alone. Other countries may
possess elements of the technology, and many states are more warlike than America;
but none possesses anything like the ability of the US to integrate these elements
(including Intelligence) into an effective whole, and to combine them with weight
of firepower, capacity to transport forces over long distances and national
bellicosity. The most important question now facing the world is the use the Bush
Administration will make of its military dominance, especially in the Middle East.
The next question is when and in what form resistance to US domination over the
Middle East will arise. That there will be resistance is certain. It would be
contrary to every historical precedent to believe that such a quasi-imperial
hegemony will not stir up resentment, which sooner or later is bound to find an
effective means of expression.
US domination over the Middle East will, for the
most part, be exercised indirectly, and will provoke less grievance than direct
administration would, but one likely cause of trouble is the 'proletarian
colonisation' of Israel – the Jewish settlements in the Occupied Territories.
Given past experience and the indications now coming from Israel, there is little
reason to hope for any fundamental change in Israeli policies. Sharon may
eventually withdraw a few settlements – allowing the US Administration and the
Israeli lobby to present this as a major concession and sacrifice – but
unless
there is a tremendous upheaval in both Israeli and US domestic politics, he and
his successors are unlikely to offer the Palestinians anything more than tightly
controlled bantustans.
Palestinian terrorism, Israeli repression and wider Arab and Muslim
resentment seem likely to continue for the foreseeable future.
How long it will be before serious resistance grows is hard to tell. In some
19th-century cases, notably Afghanistan, imperial rule never consolidated itself
and was overthrown almost immediately by new revolts. In others, it lasted for
decades without involving too much direct repression, and ended only after
tremendous social, economic, political and cultural changes had taken place not
only in the colonies and dependencies but in the Western imperial countries
themselves. Any attempt to predict the future of the Middle East must recognise
that
the new era which began on 11 September 2001 has not only brought into
the open certain latent pathologies in American and British society, culture and
politics; it has also fully revealed the complete absence of democratic
modernisation, or indeed any modernisation, in all too much of the Muslim world.
The fascination and the horror of the present time is that so many different
and potentially disastrous possibilities suggest themselves. The immediate issue
is whether the US will attack any other state. Or, to put the question another
way: will the US move from hegemony to empire in the Middle East? And if it does,
will it continue to march from victory to victory, or will it suffer defeats which
will sour American public support for the entire enterprise?
For Britain, the most important question is whether Tony Blair, in his capacity
as a senior adviser to President Bush, can help to stop US moves in this direction
and, if he fails, whether
Britain is prepared to play the only role it is
likely to be offered in a US empire: that fulfilled by Nepal in the British Empire
– a loyal provider of brave soldiers with special military skills.
Will the
British accept a situation in which their chief international function is to
provide auxiliary cohorts to accompany the Roman legions of the US, with the added
disadvantage that British cities, so far from being protected in return by the
empire, will be exposed to destruction by 'barbarian' counter-attacks?
As is clear from their public comments, let alone their private
conversations, the Neo-Conservatives in America and their allies in Israel would
indeed like to see a long-term imperial war against any part of the Muslim world
which defies the US and Israel, with ideological justification provided by the
American
mission civilisatrice
– 'democratisation'.
In the words of
the Israeli Major-General Ya'akov Amidror, writing in April under the auspices of
the Jerusalem Centre for Public Affairs, 'Iraq is not the ultimate goal. The
ultimate goal is the Middle East, the Arab world and the Muslim world. Iraq will
be the first step in this direction; winning the war against terrorism means
structurally changing the entire area.'
The Neo-Con model is the struggle
against 'Communism', which they are convinced was won by the Reaganite conflation
of military toughness and ideological crusading. The ultimate goal here would be
world hegemony by means of absolute military superiority.
The Neo-Cons may be deluding themselves, however. It may well be that, as many
US officials say in private, Bush's new national security strategy is 'a doctrine
for one case only' – namely Iraq. Those who take this position can point to the
unwillingness of most Americans to see themselves in imperial terms, coupled with
their powerful aversion to foreign entanglements, commitments and sacrifices. The
Bush Administration may have made menacing statements about Syria, but it has also
assured the American people that the US military occupation of Iraq will last 18
months at the very most. Furthermore, if the economy continues to falter, it is
still possible that Bush will be ejected from office in next year's elections.
Should this happen, some of the US's imperial tendencies will no doubt remain in
place – scholars as different as Andrew Bacevich and Walter Russell Mead have
stressed the continuity in this regard from Bush through Clinton to Bush, and
indeed throughout US history. However, without the specific configuration of
hardline elements empowered by the Bush Administration, American ambitions would
probably take on a less megalomaniac and frightening aspect.
In this analysis, both the grotesque public optimism of the Neo-Con
rhetoric about democratisation and its exaggeration of threats to the US stem from
the fact that it takes a lot to stir ordinary Americans out of their customary
apathy with regard to international affairs. While it is true that an element of
democratic messianism is built into what Samuel Huntington and others have called
'the American Creed', it is also the case that many Americans have a deep
scepticism – healthy or chauvinist according to taste – about the ability of other
countries to develop their own forms of democracy.
In the case of Iraq, this scepticism has been increased by the scenes of
looting and disorder. In addition, there have been well-publicised harbingers both
of incipient ethnic conflict and of strong mass opposition to a long-term US
military presence and a US-chosen Iraqi Government. Even the
Washington Post
,
which was one of the cheerleaders for this war in the 'serious' American press,
and which has not been too anxious to publicise Iraqi civilian casualties, has
reported frankly on the opposition to US plans for Iraq among the country's Shia
population in particular.
Even if most Americans and a majority of the Administration want to move to
indirect control over Iraq, the US may well find that it has no choice but to
exercise direct rule. Indeed, even those who hated the war may find themselves
morally trapped into supporting direct rule if the alternative appears to be a
collapse into anarchy, immiseration and ethnic conflict. There is a tremendous
difference in this regard between Iraq and Afghanistan. In Afghanistan, the mass
of the population has been accustomed to fend for itself with very little help
from the state, very little modern infrastructure and for that matter very little
formal employment. In these circumstances, it was possible for the US to install a
ramshackle pretence of a coalition government in Kabul, with a tenuous truce
between its elements held in place by an international peacekeeping force backed
by US firepower. The rest of the country could be left in the hands of warlords,
clans and ethnic militias, as long as they made their territories open hunting
ranges for US troops in their search for al-Qaida. The US forces launch these
raids from airbases and heavily fortified, isolated camps in which most soldiers
are kept rigidly separated from Afghans.
Doubtless many US planners would be delighted to dominate Iraq in the same
semi-detached way, but Iraq is a far more modern society than Afghanistan, and
much more heavily urbanised: without elements of modern infrastructure and
services and a state to guarantee them, living standards there will not recover.
Iraq needs a state; but for a whole set of reasons, it will find the creation of a
workable democratic state extremely difficult. The destruction of the Baath regime
has involved the destruction of the Sunni Arab military dominance on which the
Iraqi state has depended since its creation by the British. Neither the US nor
anyone else has any clear idea of what to put in its place (if one ignores the
fatuous plan of Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz to install Ahmad Chalabi as an American
puppet and Iraqi strongman). Equally important, the US will not allow the creation
of a truly independent state. Ultimately, it may well see itself as having no
choice but to create the state itself and remain deeply involved not just in
supporting it but in running it, as the British did in Egypt for some sixty years.
Very often – perhaps most of the time – the old imperial powers preferred to
exercise control indirectly, through client states. This was far cheaper, far
easier to justify domestically and ran far less chance of provoking native revolt.
The problem was that the very act of turning a country into a client tended to
cripple the domestic prestige of the client regime, and to place such economic,
political and moral pressures on it that it was liable to collapse. The imperial
power then had the choice of either pulling out (and allowing the area to fall
into the hands of enemies) or stepping in and imposing direct control. This
phenomenon can be seen from Awadh and Punjab in the 1840s to the Soviet invasion
of Afghanistan in 1989.
Of course, the threat to imperial client states did not come only from
within their own borders. In a world where ethnic, clan, religious and personal
loyalties spilled across national boundaries, a power that seized one territory
was likely to find itself inexorably drawn to conquering its neighbours. There
were always military, commercial or missionary interests to agitate for this
expansion, often backed by exiled opposition groups ready to stress that the mass
of the population would rejoice in an imperial invasion to bring them to power.
Whatever the Neo-Cons and the Israeli Government may wish, there is I believe
no fixed intention on the part of the US Administration to attack either Syria or
Iran, let alone Saudi Arabia. What it had in mind was that an easy and crushing US
victory over Iraq would so terrify other Muslim states that they would give up any
support for terrorist groups, collaborate fully in cracking down on terrorists and
Islamist radicals, and abandon their own plans to develop weapons of mass
destruction, thereby making it unnecessary for the US to attack them. This applied
not only to perceived enemies such as Syria, Iran and Libya, but to Saudi Arabia,
Pakistan, Yemen and other states seen as unreliable allies in the 'war against
terrorism'. If the US restricts itself to this strategy and this goal, it may
enjoy success – for a while at least. Several states in the region are clearly
running very scared. Moreover, every single state in the region – including Iran –
feels under threat from the forces of Sunni Islamist revolution as represented by
al-Qaida and its ideological allies; so there is a genuine common interest in
combating them.
But for this strategy to work across such a wide range of states and societies
as those of the Muslim world, US policymakers would have to display considerable
sensitivity and discrimination. These are virtues not usually associated with the
Bush Administration, least of all in its present triumphalist mood. The policy is
in any case not without its dangers. What happens if the various pressures put on
the client regimes cause them to collapse? And what happens if an enemy calls
America's bluff, and challenges it to invade? It is all too easy to see how a new
US offensive could result. Another major terrorist attack on the US could upset
all equations and incite another wave of mass hysteria that would make anything
possible. If, for example, it were once again perceived to have been financed and
staffed by Saudis, the pressure for an attack on Saudi Arabia could become
overwhelming. The Iranian case is even trickier. According to informed European
sources, the Iranians may be within two years of developing a nuclear deterrent
(it's even possible that successful pressure on Russia to cut off nuclear trade
would not make any crucial difference). Israel in particular is determined to
forestall Iranian nuclear capability, and Israeli commentators have made it clear
that Israel will take unilateral military action if necessary. If the US and
Israeli Governments are indeed determined to stop Iran acquiring nuclear weapons,
they may not have much time.
The second factor is the behaviour of the Shias of Iraq, and especially of
Iranian-backed factions. Leading Shia groups have boycotted the initial
discussions on forming a government. If they maintain this position, and if the US
fails to create even the appearance of a viable Iraqi government, with disorder
spreading in consequence, Iran will be blamed, rightly or not, by powerful
elements in Washington. They will use it as an additional reason to strike against
Iranian nuclear sites. In response, Tehran might well promote not only a further
destabilisation of Iraq but a terrorist campaign against the US, which would in
turn provoke more US retaliations until a full-scale war became a real
possibility.
Although the idea of an American invasion of Iran is viewed with horror by
most military analysts (and, as far as I can gather, by the uniformed military),
the latest polls suggest that around 50 per cent of Americans are already prepared
to support a war to prevent Iran acquiring nuclear weapons.
Moreover, the
voices of moderation among the military tend to be the same ones which warned – as
I did – of the possibility of stiff Iraqi resistance to a US invasion and the
dangers of urban warfare in Baghdad, opposed Rumsfeld's plans to invade with
limited numbers of relatively lightly armed troops and felt vindicated in their
concern by the initial setbacks around Nasiriya and elsewhere. The aftermath has
shown Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld to have been correct in their purely military
calculations about Iraq, and this will undoubtedly strengthen them in future
clashes with the uniformed military. Rumsfeld's whole strategy of relying on
lighter, more easily transportable forces is, of course, precisely designed to
make such imperial expeditions easier.
As for the majority of Americans, well, they have already been duped once, by a
propaganda programme which for systematic mendacity has few parallels in peacetime
democracies: by the end of it, between 42 and 56 per cent of Americans (the polls
vary) were convinced that Saddam Hussein was directly involved in the attacks of
11 September. This gave the run-up to the war a peculiarly nightmarish quality in
the US. It was as if the full truth about Tonkin Gulf, instead of emerging in
dribs and drabs over a decade, had been fully available and in the open the whole
time – and the US intervention in Vietnam had happened anyway.
While the special place of Saddam Hussein in American demonology means that
this wouldn't be an easy trick to repeat, the American public's ignorance of
international affairs in general and the Muslim world in particular make it by no
means impossible. It isn't just Fox TV: numerous even more rabid media outlets,
the Christian Coalition and parts of the Israeli lobby are all dedicated to
whipping up hatred of Arabs and Muslims. More important is the fact that most
Americans accept Bush's equation of terrorism and 'evil', which makes it extremely
difficult to conduct any serious public discussion of threats from the Muslim
world in terms which would be acceptable or even comprehensible to a mass American
audience. Add to this the severe constraints on the discussion of the role of
Israel, and you have a state of public debate close to that described by Marcuse.
If America suffered another massive terrorist attack in the coming years, the
dangers would be incomparably greater.
If the plans of the Neo-Cons depended on mass support for imperialism
within the US, they would be doomed to failure. The attacks of 11 September,
however, have given American imperialists the added force of wounded nationalism –
a much deeper, more popular and more dangerous phenomenon, strengthened by the
Israeli nationalism of much of the American Jewish community. Another attack on
the American mainland would further inflame that nationalism, and strengthen
support for even more aggressive and ambitious 'retaliations'.
The terrorists
may hope that they will exhaust Americans' will to fight, as the Vietcong did; if
so, they may have underestimated both the tenacity and the ferocity of Americans
when they feel themselves to have been directly attacked. The capacity for
ruthlessness of the nationalist or Jacksonian element in the American democratic
tradition – as in the firebombing of Japan and North Korea, neither of which had
targeted American civilians – has been noted by Walter Russell Mead, and was
recently expressed by MacGregor Knox, an American ex-soldier, now a professor at
the LSE: Europeans 'may believe that the natural order of things as they perceive
it – the restraint of American power through European wisdom – will sooner or
later triumph. But such expectations are delusional. Those who find militant Islam
terrifying have clearly never seen a militant democracy.'
America could certainly be worn out by a protracted guerrilla struggle on
the scale of Vietnam. It seems unlikely, however, that a similar struggle could be
mounted in the Middle East – unless the US were to invade Iran, at which point all
bets and predictions would be off. Another terrorist attack on the US mainland,
using some form of weapons of mass destruction, far from demoralising the US
population would probably whip it into chauvinist fury.
To understand why successful guerrilla warfare against the US is unlikely
(quite apart from the fact that there are no jungles in the Middle East), it is
necessary to remember that the imperial domination made possible by 19th-century
Western military superiority was eventually destroyed by three factors: first, the
development of military technology (notably such weapons as the automatic rifle,
the grenade and modern explosives) which considerably narrowed the odds between
Western armies and 'native' insurgents. Second, the development of modern
ideologies of resistance – Communist, nationalist or a combination of the two –
which in turn produced the cadres and structures to organise resistance. Third,
weariness on the part of 'metropolitan' populations and elites, stemming partly
from social and cultural change, and partly from a growing awareness that direct
empire did not pay economically.
Guerrilla warfare against the US is now a good deal more difficult because
of two undramatic but immensely important innovations: superbly effective and
light bullet-proof vests and helmets which make the US and British soldier almost
as well protected as the medieval knight; and night-vision equipment which denies
the guerrilla the aid of his oldest friend and ally, darkness. Both of these
advantages can be countered, but it will be a long time before the odds are
narrowed again. Of course, local allies of the US can be targeted, but their
deaths are hardly noticed by US public opinion. More and more, therefore,
'asymmetric warfare' will encourage a move to terrorism.
The absence or failure of revolutionary parties led by cadres working for mass
mobilisation confirms this. The Islamists may alter this situation, despite the
disillusioning fate of the Iranian Revolution. But as far as the nationalists are
concerned, it has been tried in the past, and while it succeeded in expelling the
colonialists and their local clients, it failed miserably to produce modernised
states. Algeria is a clear example: a hideously savage but also heroic rebellion
against a particularly revolting form of colonialism – which eventually led to
such an utterly rotten and unsuccessful independent state that much of the
population eventually turned to Islamic revolution.
And now this, too, is discredited, above all in the one major country where it
succeeded, Iran. Arab states have failed to develop economically, politically and
socially, and they have also failed properly to unite. When they have united for
the purposes of war, they have been defeated. Rebellion against the US may take
place in Iraq. Elsewhere, the mass response to the latest Arab defeat seems more
likely to be a further wave of despair, disillusionment and retreat into private
life – an 'internal emigration'. In some fortunate cases, this may lead to a new
Islamist politics focused on genuine reform and democratic development – along the
lines of the changes in Turkey. But a cynicism which only feeds corruption and
oppression is just as likely a result.
Even if despair and apathy turn out to be the responses of the Arab majority,
there will also be a minority which is too proud, too radical, too fanatical or
too embittered – take your pick – for such a course. They are the natural recruits
for terrorism, and it seems likely that their numbers will only have been
increased by the latest American victory. We must fear both the strengthening of
Islamist terrorism and the reappearance of secular nationalist terrorism, not only
among Palestinians but among Arabs in general. The danger is not so much that the
Bush Administration will consciously adopt the whole Neo-Con imperialist programme
as that the Neo-Cons and their allies will contribute to tendencies stemming
inexorably from the US occupation of Iraq and that the result will be a vicious
circle of terrorism and war. If this proves to be the case, then the damage
inflicted over time by the US on the Muslim world and by Muslims on the US and its
allies is likely to be horrendous. We have already shown that we can destroy
Muslim states. Even the most ferocious terrorist attacks will not do that to
Western states; but if continued over decades, they stand a good chance of
destroying democracy in America and any state associated with it.
The overall direction of the empire was never going to change with or without Trump and we are seeing it play out now.
Notable quotes:
"... Ok, he has been called the most pro Israel President by Netanyahu himself, his administration just recognized Jerusalem as
the capital of Israel, something even most ardent analysts in here did not predict. His son-in-law who he listens to is a pure Zionist
and the neo-con lap dog Hailey is quite clearly gearing the audience up for a confrontation with Iran. One way or another....watch out
2018. ..."
"... But no he is not controlled enough by the Zionists? The overall direction of the empire was never going to change with or without
Trump and we are seeing it play out now. ..."
"... America is a particularly vivid example of indoctrinated groupthink and I just cannot see anyone/movement espousing alternative
ways of operating getting traction. ..."
"... Simply pay attention to what those monsters actually do. The Trump Administration has continued and expanded US domestic and
foreign policy precisely as has his predecessors. NATO is bigger, better funded, and more heavily deployed along Russia's "near abroad"
than at any time in history. The Pentagon now admits we have 2,000 to 5,000 active "boots on the ground" in Syria, and they have no
intention of ever leaving. Goldman Sachs is embedded in every Executive Branch office. Taxes on the wealthy and corporations are being
slashed soon to be followed in social services, as neo-liberal economics remains the god worshipped by all. ..."
"I won't be optimistic about AmeriKKKa until Russia and/or China announce a Zero Tolerance policy toward US military adventurism
in countries on the borders of Russia/China - by promising to bomb the continental USA if it attacks a Russia/China neighbor.
Imo it's absolutely essential to light a big bonfire under AmeriKKKa's Impunity. And it would be delightful, sobering,
and a big boost for Peace and Diplomacy to hear the Yankees whingeing about being threatened by entities quite capable of following
through on their threats."
Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Dec 19, 2017 11:10:32 AM | 14
Hell yes, I'd love that scenario, but never happen. Too much $to be made by kissing up to the empire.
Sad Canuck @ 31: Abso fukken 'lutely!!
b, you better change what you're smoken' if you believe the empire is going isolationist.
@48 They did not want him lol? So many comments in here make me chuckle.
Ok, he has been called the most pro Israel President by Netanyahu himself, his administration just recognized Jerusalem
as the capital of Israel, something even most ardent analysts in here did not predict. His son-in-law who he listens to is a pure
Zionist and the neo-con lap dog Hailey is quite clearly gearing the audience up for a confrontation with Iran. One way or another....watch
out 2018.
But no he is not controlled enough by the Zionists? The overall direction of the empire was never going to change with
or without Trump and we are seeing it play out now.
@26 "I think you would find that the vast majority of Americans would be quite happy to disengage militarily from the rest of
the world, and put resources at work on domestic problems."
Disengage militarily? I would like to think so sleepy but why do they keep getting so involved internationally? Instead of
concentrating on domestic issues putting 'America first' seems to mean bullying any country that doesn't do what it's told.
@ Debsisdead with the end of his comment
" America is a particularly vivid example of indoctrinated groupthink and I just cannot see anyone/movement espousing alternative
ways of operating getting traction.
"
There are those that say the same (vivid example of indoctrinated groupthink) about China, so there might be some competition
in our world yet.
I , for one, want to end private finance and maybe give the China way a go. Anyone else? I did future studies in college and
am intrigued by planning processes at the scale that China has done 13 of....their 5-year plans.
May we live to see structural change in the way our species comports itself......soon, I hope
NemesisCalling, I suggest paying little to know attention to Trump's (or any other politician/oligarch) platitudes.
Simply pay attention to what those monsters actually do. The Trump Administration has continued and expanded US domestic
and foreign policy precisely as has his predecessors. NATO is bigger, better funded, and more heavily deployed along Russia's
"near abroad" than at any time in history. The Pentagon now admits we have 2,000 to 5,000 active "boots on the ground" in Syria,
and they have no intention of ever leaving. Goldman Sachs is embedded in every Executive Branch office. Taxes on the wealthy and
corporations are being slashed soon to be followed in social services, as neo-liberal economics remains the god worshipped by
all.
I remain amazed that people who KNOW that the MSM lies to us constantly, about things big and small, still believe with all
their hearts the MSM narrative that Trump is an "outsider" whom the Establishment hates and has fought against ever since they
gave him $5 billion in free advertising.
Disengage? In 2017, U.S. Special Operations forces, including Navy SEALs and Army Green Berets, deployed to 149 countries around
the world, according to figures provided to TomDispatch by U.S. Special Operations Command. That's around 75 percent of the nations
on the planet.
What the vast majority of Americans might want has been cast aside by this president after he got their votes. There go hope
and change again, damn.
It is hard to imagine the US cooperating with the rest of the world in a positive manner on
most issues, at this stage at least, so isolationism is certainly the most reassuring
course.
Notable quotes:
"... The interventions after 1991 occurred even while the U.S. had lost the ideological rationale of "countering communism" and while the chance of military operations against itself was smaller than before. Moreover many of these intervention were not successful. Other states have found means to counter overwhelming military might. ..."
"... The unchecked United States felt no necessity to weight potential responses from competitors. It did not show a "decent respect for the opinions of mankind". It proved itself to be a danger to global peace. It intervened because it could, not because there was a real national interest at stake, or even a decent chance of winning. The "unilateral moment" has cost the U.S. a lot of money and good will, and it brought little gain. ..."
"... As a global citizens I welcome this development. A U.S. that again feels limited in its global reach will likely be more careful when it considers initiating new conflicts. It will do less damage to others and to itself. ..."
on paper
- more idealistic version of Obama's imperial strategy. There is less schmoozing about "values"
and a new emphasis on "rivals", most importantly China and Russia.
Labeling those two countries as rivals implies that they are again seen on a similar level
than the U.S. itself. It thus marks the end of the "unilateral moment" moment that the U.S.
felt entitled to after the end of the Soviet Union. Sure, the U.S. is still trying to set
itself apart from others. It just ridiculously vetoed
a UN Security Council resolution that reaffirmed the occupied status of Jerusalem. But voting
against all other members of the UNSC, including close allies like Britain, is not a sign of
global leadership but of a pariah state.
That the "unilateral moment" has passed might have some very positive aspects for the world.
The end of a global competition had allowed the U.S. to
wage more wars :
[W]hile the United States engaged in forty-six military interventions from 1948–1991,
from 1992–2017 that number increased fourfold to 188.
The interventions after 1991 occurred even while the U.S. had lost the ideological
rationale of "countering communism" and while the chance of military operations against itself
was smaller than before. Moreover many of these intervention were not successful. Other states
have found means to counter overwhelming military might.
The unchecked United States felt no necessity to weight potential responses from
competitors. It did not show a "decent respect for the opinions of mankind". It proved itself
to be a danger to global peace. It intervened because it could, not because there was a real
national interest at stake, or even a decent chance of winning. The "unilateral moment" has
cost the U.S. a lot of money and good will, and it brought little gain.
A rational U.S. strategy would recognize that the unilateral approach failed and thus
emphasize other means. Real global cooperation and increasing economic and diplomatic power
would likely be more successful than military might. The new National Security Strategy does
not do that. While it says it "will advance American influence" it ignores or rejects climate
change and international "rules of the road", like the United Nations Convention on the Law of
the Sea (UNCLOS). The Trump administration in putting more resources into the military and less
into diplomatic and economic foreign policy measures. It is thereby, true to Trump's campaign
stance, isolationist.
One can either have an overwhelming role or finesse ones influence through cooperation with
others. The overwhelming role, demonstrated by military interventions, has not been successful.
The cooperation approach is spelled out in the words of the NSS but rejected in its specific
policies. The third way it is paving is one of isolation.
As a global citizens I welcome this development. A U.S. that again feels limited in its
global reach will likely be more careful when it considers initiating new conflicts. It will do
less damage to others and to itself.
Several months ago I read a Pentagon paper on the US narrowing its allies that
it would 'protect' down to a small number of core allies, which I take to mean five eyes,
Israel, Japan ect. I cannot remember the name of the paper or where to find it now, but since
reading it I have thought the US seemed to be moving in this direction.
From what I can remember of it, the paper seemed to be about US strategy for living in the
emerging multi polar world where the US would be forced to cede ground to China and Russia in
some parts of the world.
Posted by: Peter AU 1 , Dec 19, 2017 7:44:20 AM |
3
Several months ago I read a Pentagon paper on the US narrowing its allies that it would
'protect' down to a small number of core allies, which I take to mean five eyes, Israel,
Japan ect. I cannot remember the name of the paper or where to find it now, but since reading
it I have thought the US seemed to be moving in this direction.
From what I can remember of it, the paper seemed to be about US strategy for living in the
emerging multi polar world where the US would be forced to cede ground to China and Russia in
some parts of the world.
Posted by: Peter AU 1 | Dec 19, 2017 7:44:20 AM |
3 /div
A rational U.S. strategy would recognize that the unilateral approach failed and thus
emphasize other means. Real global cooperation and increasing economic and diplomatic power
would likely be more successful than military might. The new National Security Strategy does
not do that. While it says it "will advance American influence" it ignores or rejects climate
change and international "rules of the road", like the United Nations Convention on the Law
of the Sea (UNCLOS). The Trump administration in putting more resources into the military and
less into diplomatic and economic foreign policy measures. It is thereby, true to Trump's
campaign stance, isolationist.
b
I, for one, do not believe the deep state is so easily swayed; isolationist? Not in the
forseeable future, IMO.
Just look at the Syrian situation; the U.S. insists to have a presence; illegal or not; they
don't bloody care; damn international law; the U.S. will have its way.
Russia could easily declare Syrian air-space a total no-fly zone; but they don't.
I understand why; but at some point; the law must be enforced or all is lost to the
chaos...
Where was the Trump from 2016 who wondered why we were wasting trillions of dollars on
winless pointless wars on the other side of the world? Where was the Trump who asked why we
are still defending South Korea more than half a century after the Korean war? Who asked why
would could not get along with Russia? Who pointed out that in order to keep Americans safe
from terrorists, we don't need to remake the entire world in our image, just not let them
come here (like Japan does, and very well, I might add).
TG @6 seems to think 'just not let them come here' will be a winning strategy. The
'terrorist' are not folks that got up one day and said looks like a good day to turn
terrorist. They are the results of decades of attacks by the Americans and Five Eyes on their
families and homes. The 'terrorist' may not come America but they are for sure going to take
out their 'blood debt' on the European lap dogs. Expect the Europeans to soon start throwing
rocks at American tourist. Isolation! You bet.
Conmen do not have to have consistency. Actually, it's part of being a conman to tell
people what they want to hear and then fleece them. Or screw them in an number of ways.
Trump's statement contains contradictions which allows both Neocons and those who oppose them
to see what they want. While he disparages nation building, Russia and China are called
revisionist powers who challenge the U.S. established world order and U.S. values.
One must look at Trump's actions. Anti-Neocon:
1. Trump dropped Syrian regime change (for now, U.S. troops and protection of rebels still
present in Syria).
Pro-Neocon:
1. U.S. buildup of forces in Eastern Europe ongoing, along with call for EU/NATO to pitch in,
air patrols close to Crimea ongoing, and arms authorized for Ukraine and mention of soft
power in Central Asia.
2. Military buildup and South China Seas operations ongoing.
3. Pro-Saudi operations in Yemen beefed up along with strong arming Iraqi govt against
Iran.
Isolationism...the old playground, 'I'm taking my ball and going home,' psychology. Good for
the US! Go home and sulk. The playground will be a better place. Problem is the US has
outsourced all its industry for Wall St. So all that is left is manufacturing war. Who they
gonna fight?
Broke, in debt, no more money to print, no future but death. Decades long NSS equals more
war. Those who lead (as in pillage) have no other way out. Really, no other way out!
"We will not allow adversaries to use threats of nuclear escalation or other irresponsible
nuclear behaviors to coerce the United States, our allies, and our partners. Fear of
escalation will not prevent the United States from defending our vital interests and those of
our allies and partners." (Tronald's-NSS)
"As a global citizens I welcome this development. A U.S. that again feels limited in its
global reach will likely be more careful when it considers initiating new conflicts. It will
do less damage to others and to itself." (B's conclusion)
Very well said b. This article by Julie Hyland resonates well with this.
Women's rights is definitely a great issue but doesn't seem to be our true concern. What
seems most needed is a multipolar moderation to the US aggression which has taken place since
1991.
""With the juridical liquidation of the Soviet Union in 1991, NATO's aggressive stance became
more overt as it mounted direct military operations in the Balkans, Afghanistan and, more
recently, Libya and Syria aimed ultimately at encircling, and dismembering Russia and
China.
Hundreds of thousands of people have lost their lives as a result and millions more have
been injured and displaced. These wars, moreover, have been accompanied by the evisceration
of all pretence at maintaining democratic norms -- including extraordinary rendition and
targeted assassinations by drone strikes, not to speak of the gutting of civil liberties "at
home."
It is to conceal its predatory aims that Stoltenberg/Jolie attempt to recast NATO as a
tool of female emancipation.
NATO will integrate "gender issues into its strategic thinking", reinforce a "culture of
integration of women throughout the organisation, including in leadership positions", promote
"the role of women in the military", and deploy "gender advisers to local communities", where
"NATO's female soldiers are able to reach and engage with local communities," they write.
Without a trace of shame, the op-ed targets Ukraine and Syria as in particular need of
NATO's gender crusade. This on behalf of an organisation that supported fascists in the first
conflict, and worked with Islamic extremists, such as the Al Nusra front in the other.""
@7 "Expect the Europeans to soon start throwing rocks at American tourist."
Or start spitting in the soup. Unfortunately that sort of thing will just make them more
paranoid. I think deep down Americans want to be loved. The problem is reconciling that with
the need to be number one.
As I started reading b's post, BBC Impact began broadcasting snippets from Yalda Hakim's
interview with HR McMaster, a certifiable member of AmeriKKKa's Lunatic Fringe. He was
issuing threats to Russia & China and promising to rid the world of North Korea's nukes
with or without NK's consent. Which made me wonder if McMaster had read the NatSec Strategy
memo?
Whether he has or not is neither here nor there because both Russia and China have read it
and have told Trump to shove it where the sun doesn't shine - according to Zio Jazeera.
I won't be optimistic about AmeriKKKa until Russia and/or China announce a Zero Tolerance
policy toward US military adventurism in countries on the borders of Russia/China - by
promising to bomb the continental USA if it attacks a Russia/China neighbor.
Imo it's absolutely essential to light a big bonfire under AmeriKKKa's Impunity.
And it would be delightful, sobering, and a big boost for Peace and Diplomacy to hear the
Yankees whingeing about being threatened by entities quite capable of following through on
their threats.
NSS: "We will preserve peace through strength by rebuilding our military so that it remains
preeminent, deters our adversaries, and if necessary, is able to fight and win."
Currently the military is in poor shape. Half the fighter planes can't fly, only one of
eleven aircraft carriers is deployed, and the Pentagon has struggled to send one brigade to
Europe. Morale is low, the Air Force has a deficit of about 2,000 pilots, Navy personnel are
poorly trained in seamanship so collisions occur, and the Army is struggling to recruit
because young people in the recruit pool have drug and weight problems (and better things to
do).
The current "rebuilding" is characterized by spending tons of money on complex systems
that don't work well, like the F-35 strike fighter, the Ford-class aircraft carrier, the
stealth destroyer and the Littoral Combat Ship.
Budget limitations including sequestration mean that the defense budget funds for
rebuilding are not available, and as the out-of-power Democrat Party insists that domestic
needs be considered equally with "defense." (That's the good news.)
Of course the military budget has little to do with defense and mostly has served for
elective wars which the US has consistently lost, and then paid to correct such as the $60
billion used for Iraq reconstruction in a country the US converted from an Iran enemy to an
Iran ally (Iran says thank you Uncle Sam).
Trump has promised to expand the half-million person Army when in fact there is no need
for a US ground force; Canada and Mexico are quite benign. The NSS in fact makes it clear
that the objective is not defense but increasing world hegemony: "We will advance American
influence because a world that supports American interests and reflects our values makes
America more secure and prosperous." Baloney, the wars have made America less secure and will
continue to do so as new wars on North Korea and Iran are promoted.
Thus hundreds of billions of dollars are wasted on the military in a country with dire
domestic needs. That's no way to Make America Great Again, is it. That's just being
stupid.
The NSS is a declaration of Hegemony. The intention is to break the China-Russia multi-polar
project, to suffocate China's development, to prevent Eurasian development, to undermine
security with the maritime containment arc of the Indo-Pacific Quad navies, and to
destabilize Russia with a never-ending hybrid war.
If that is isolationism, I'm staring into the Looking Glass.
The greatest danger of the US's decline in power relative to the rest of the world is an
overreaction by the US to try to halt such decline. This has been true for a while; Trump's
belligerence just brings it into sharper focus. Obama was actually pretty much the same but
he hid it behind smoother language.
It's amazing how much slack this board is ready to cut Trump as long as he's chumming with
Putin.
"he may find that that this doesn't work"
"he may be isolationist"
FFS..he's starkers. Taking all references to climate change out of his environmental dept.
Just as California burns and his coastal cities are underwater.
Roiling the whole Muslim world with his Jerusalem policy.
Continuing to poke the rattlesnake in North Korea and risk the lives of millions because
he's too vain to negotiate.
On a mission to gut the benefits of the poor and elderly in his own country. Surely the
most telling feature of his total lack of empathy for the people he's supposed to be looking
afterward.
Case in point, the new tax bill kills the Obamacare mandate. That kills Obamacare dead.
It's been described by you fucking geniuses as a total scam but in your heart you know
better. It was passed under distress because of heartless Republican demand for changes to it
and since Trump took office they have spent most of their energy trying to repeal it. Well,
they finally succeeded. It provided at least some level of coverage for many millions with no
other access and you fucking clowns think killing it is great.
As a child of the '60's I have always found US/UK/et al elites a tad suss (more than a tad!)
but have liked individual US people. Now unfortunately even the number of individuals I like
and find interesting, sane if you will, to be just one or two & a dog, with the sweet
puppy #1, woof.
The elites have not changed nor have their policies. That these people find themselves
exceptional is an exceptionally deluded division from "others" everywhere....but not when
there's money it.
That competition is required for a "balance" is a nonsense of education from birth in
order to continue the states quo, or, to continue us all living as yesterday people for today
& tomorrow, limited or not by competition, or not.
The Gorbachev revolution (Russians say disaster), was the offered chance of change for
this era, and any era that might remain and you blew it, or more accurately, conned us all
again (see the previous para).
So, enjoy all your yesterdays yesterday people - Viva conflict & division forever. -
Ta for the article.
Don Bacon@15, Don, projected costs of the Afghan and Iraq wars are not billions but
trillions.
Kennedy School professor Linda Bilmes finds that the all-in costs of the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan will measure in the $4 trillion to $6 trillion range when all is said and done.
But that's not the most terrifying element of her survey of the fiscal impact of the "war on
terror" and related undertakings. What should really strike fear into your heart is her
finding that "the largest portion of that bill is yet to be paid."
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/03/28/cost_of_iraq_linda_bilmes_says_iraq_and_afghanistan_wars_could_cost_6_trillion.html
So much for Trumps 'fix our infrastructure' first promises. instead of MAGA we get MIGA make
Israel great again.
@16, "The NSS is a declaration of Hegemony. The intention is to break the China-Russia
multi-polar project, to suffocate China's development, to prevent Eurasian development, to
undermine security with the maritime containment arc of the Indo-Pacific Quad navies, and
to destabilize Russia with a never-ending hybrid war.
If that is isolationism, I'm staring into the Looking Glass."
Red Ryder, that is EXACTLY how I read it too.
After DT leaves office, we will still have hybrid warfare in central Asia, a spiffy nuclear
arms race, a $750B military budget, troops in the M.E., a navy making useless gestures at
China, ...
The irony here is that we have become the Soviet Union at the peak of its most inefficient
cycle. I'm convinced that human nature being what it is, we will stay in denial until we
collapse under the burden of our own stupidity. The thing that kills me is that the morons
who shoved us into this path are not the ones who will have to answer for it.
I concur with you. The bully learns when he is hit back. And to prevent
innumerable sufferings, China and Russia should draw a red line and
promise swift and heavy nuclear retaliation to the KKka if it trespasses.
But, as a matter of fact, the arms business if of such nature and profits
so great that the MIC will always push for transgressions.
Sooner or later, this will end in Nuclear exchange.
But a good part of the World's woes would end if Russia and China
were to impress the Israelis that there is a limit to their wrongdoings.
Buyers remorse?
Trump said he'd drain the SWAMP. Luckily, Swamp Hillary was relying on Divine Intervention to
compensate for her lazy and incompetent campaign. AmeriKKKa dodged a bullet when she lost the
race. It would be Im-possible for Trump to be worse than Hillary. The ppl who voted for Trump
wanted the SWAMP drained but didn't know how. Trump reckons he knows how and they're not
going to quibble with his methods or the sequence.
Taking all references to climate change out of his environmental dept. Just as California
burns and his coastal cities are underwater.
The existing policies were not doing enough to prevent climate change. Perhaps when people
start to see real impacts from climate change they might take effective action. Perhaps a
fire that impacts the entire state of California.
Roiling the whole Muslim world with his Jerusalem policy.
The existing Israeli policy was slow ethnic cleansing/genocide and other countries did
fuck all. Allowing Netanyahu to demonstrate what a bastard he is, might persuade some (but
not Washington) that continued support for Israel is too dangerous and immoral.
Continuing to poke the rattlesnake in North Korea and risk the lives of millions because
he's too vain to negotiate.
The North Koreans claimed they had completed their nuclear weapons program so what's the
rush. There are more important things for the president to work on such as reducing the taxes
on the extremely wealthy and organising a victory parade for the defeat of ISIS. I wonder if
we'll see al-Baghdadi being dragged behind Trump's golden chariot? Give him six months and
the American public will have forgotten about this crisis, so he can cancel the biannual war
games as by then everyone will be wondering why the United States has to pay for them when
South Korea is itself wealthy enough to pay the bill with a bit of help from Japan.
On a mission to gut the benefits of the poor and elderly in his own country. Surely the
most telling feature of his total lack of empathy for the people he's supposed to be
looking afterward.
You can hardly call it a welfare state so what's the problem?
Case in point, the new tax bill kills the Obamacare mandate. That kills Obamacare dead.
According to Scott Lemieux, one of the Clintonists (Clintion personality cultists) over at
Lawyers, Gun and Money , it will merely "repeal the tax penalty for not
carrying health insurance in the Affordable Care Act". While this will be bad for many, it
won't be the end of the ACA. But let's face it, the ACA was pandering to the healthcare
industry, Big Pharma, Wall Street and the Oligarchy. The only rational solution is a national
health service funded by federal insurance as a percentage of income. The economies from
getting rid of the private insurers would mean it would cost less than the existing pile of
crap.
I still can't work Trump out. Is he just a wealthy cunt, or might he be one of the
greatest revolutionaries the world has ever seen. After all the shit he's dumping on the the
American public, if there isn't a libertarian socialist or libertarian communist revolution
soon, then I'll know that the Americans really are sheep (perhaps that's why they rarely eat
lamb, hogget or mutton). If it's a communist one, I hope they remember that Bolshevism
doesn't work or are their memories too short even to remember that?
@7 "Expect the Europeans to soon start throwing rocks at American tourist."
Or start spitting in the soup. Unfortunately that sort of thing will just make them more
paranoid. I think deep down Americans want to be loved. The problem is reconciling that
with the need to be number one.
Posted by: dh | Dec 19, 2017 10:28:57 AM | 13
I think you would find that the vast majority of Americans would be quite happy to
disengage militarily from the rest of the world, and put resources at work on domestic
problems.
Nineteenth-century empires were often led on from one war to another as a result
of developments which imperial governments did not plan and domestic populations did
not desire. In part this was the result of plotting by individual 'prancing
proconsuls', convinced they could gain a reputation at small risk, given the
superiority of their armies to any conceivable opposition; but it was also the result
of factors inherent in the imperial process.
The difference today is that overwhelming military advantage is possessed not by a
set of competing Western states, but by one state alone. Other countries may
possess elements of the technology, and many states are more warlike than America;
but none possesses anything like the ability of the US to integrate these elements
(including Intelligence) into an effective whole, and to combine them with weight
of firepower, capacity to transport forces over long distances and national
bellicosity. The most important question now facing the world is the use the Bush
Administration will make of its military dominance, especially in the Middle East.
The next question is when and in what form resistance to US domination over the
Middle East will arise. That there will be resistance is certain. It would be
contrary to every historical precedent to believe that such a quasi-imperial
hegemony will not stir up resentment, which sooner or later is bound to find an
effective means of expression.
US domination over the Middle East will, for the
most part, be exercised indirectly, and will provoke less grievance than direct
administration would, but one likely cause of trouble is the 'proletarian
colonisation' of Israel – the Jewish settlements in the Occupied Territories.
Given past experience and the indications now coming from Israel, there is little
reason to hope for any fundamental change in Israeli policies. Sharon may
eventually withdraw a few settlements – allowing the US Administration and the
Israeli lobby to present this as a major concession and sacrifice – but
unless
there is a tremendous upheaval in both Israeli and US domestic politics, he and
his successors are unlikely to offer the Palestinians anything more than tightly
controlled bantustans.
Palestinian terrorism, Israeli repression and wider Arab and Muslim
resentment seem likely to continue for the foreseeable future.
How long it will be before serious resistance grows is hard to tell. In some
19th-century cases, notably Afghanistan, imperial rule never consolidated itself
and was overthrown almost immediately by new revolts. In others, it lasted for
decades without involving too much direct repression, and ended only after
tremendous social, economic, political and cultural changes had taken place not
only in the colonies and dependencies but in the Western imperial countries
themselves. Any attempt to predict the future of the Middle East must recognise
that
the new era which began on 11 September 2001 has not only brought into
the open certain latent pathologies in American and British society, culture and
politics; it has also fully revealed the complete absence of democratic
modernisation, or indeed any modernisation, in all too much of the Muslim world.
The fascination and the horror of the present time is that so many different
and potentially disastrous possibilities suggest themselves. The immediate issue
is whether the US will attack any other state. Or, to put the question another
way: will the US move from hegemony to empire in the Middle East? And if it does,
will it continue to march from victory to victory, or will it suffer defeats which
will sour American public support for the entire enterprise?
For Britain, the most important question is whether Tony Blair, in his capacity
as a senior adviser to President Bush, can help to stop US moves in this direction
and, if he fails, whether
Britain is prepared to play the only role it is
likely to be offered in a US empire: that fulfilled by Nepal in the British Empire
– a loyal provider of brave soldiers with special military skills.
Will the
British accept a situation in which their chief international function is to
provide auxiliary cohorts to accompany the Roman legions of the US, with the added
disadvantage that British cities, so far from being protected in return by the
empire, will be exposed to destruction by 'barbarian' counter-attacks?
As is clear from their public comments, let alone their private
conversations, the Neo-Conservatives in America and their allies in Israel would
indeed like to see a long-term imperial war against any part of the Muslim world
which defies the US and Israel, with ideological justification provided by the
American
mission civilisatrice
– 'democratisation'.
In the words of
the Israeli Major-General Ya'akov Amidror, writing in April under the auspices of
the Jerusalem Centre for Public Affairs, 'Iraq is not the ultimate goal. The
ultimate goal is the Middle East, the Arab world and the Muslim world. Iraq will
be the first step in this direction; winning the war against terrorism means
structurally changing the entire area.'
The Neo-Con model is the struggle
against 'Communism', which they are convinced was won by the Reaganite conflation
of military toughness and ideological crusading. The ultimate goal here would be
world hegemony by means of absolute military superiority.
The Neo-Cons may be deluding themselves, however. It may well be that, as many
US officials say in private, Bush's new national security strategy is 'a doctrine
for one case only' – namely Iraq. Those who take this position can point to the
unwillingness of most Americans to see themselves in imperial terms, coupled with
their powerful aversion to foreign entanglements, commitments and sacrifices. The
Bush Administration may have made menacing statements about Syria, but it has also
assured the American people that the US military occupation of Iraq will last 18
months at the very most. Furthermore, if the economy continues to falter, it is
still possible that Bush will be ejected from office in next year's elections.
Should this happen, some of the US's imperial tendencies will no doubt remain in
place – scholars as different as Andrew Bacevich and Walter Russell Mead have
stressed the continuity in this regard from Bush through Clinton to Bush, and
indeed throughout US history. However, without the specific configuration of
hardline elements empowered by the Bush Administration, American ambitions would
probably take on a less megalomaniac and frightening aspect.
In this analysis, both the grotesque public optimism of the Neo-Con
rhetoric about democratisation and its exaggeration of threats to the US stem from
the fact that it takes a lot to stir ordinary Americans out of their customary
apathy with regard to international affairs. While it is true that an element of
democratic messianism is built into what Samuel Huntington and others have called
'the American Creed', it is also the case that many Americans have a deep
scepticism – healthy or chauvinist according to taste – about the ability of other
countries to develop their own forms of democracy.
In the case of Iraq, this scepticism has been increased by the scenes of
looting and disorder. In addition, there have been well-publicised harbingers both
of incipient ethnic conflict and of strong mass opposition to a long-term US
military presence and a US-chosen Iraqi Government. Even the
Washington Post
,
which was one of the cheerleaders for this war in the 'serious' American press,
and which has not been too anxious to publicise Iraqi civilian casualties, has
reported frankly on the opposition to US plans for Iraq among the country's Shia
population in particular.
Even if most Americans and a majority of the Administration want to move to
indirect control over Iraq, the US may well find that it has no choice but to
exercise direct rule. Indeed, even those who hated the war may find themselves
morally trapped into supporting direct rule if the alternative appears to be a
collapse into anarchy, immiseration and ethnic conflict. There is a tremendous
difference in this regard between Iraq and Afghanistan. In Afghanistan, the mass
of the population has been accustomed to fend for itself with very little help
from the state, very little modern infrastructure and for that matter very little
formal employment. In these circumstances, it was possible for the US to install a
ramshackle pretence of a coalition government in Kabul, with a tenuous truce
between its elements held in place by an international peacekeeping force backed
by US firepower. The rest of the country could be left in the hands of warlords,
clans and ethnic militias, as long as they made their territories open hunting
ranges for US troops in their search for al-Qaida. The US forces launch these
raids from airbases and heavily fortified, isolated camps in which most soldiers
are kept rigidly separated from Afghans.
Doubtless many US planners would be delighted to dominate Iraq in the same
semi-detached way, but Iraq is a far more modern society than Afghanistan, and
much more heavily urbanised: without elements of modern infrastructure and
services and a state to guarantee them, living standards there will not recover.
Iraq needs a state; but for a whole set of reasons, it will find the creation of a
workable democratic state extremely difficult. The destruction of the Baath regime
has involved the destruction of the Sunni Arab military dominance on which the
Iraqi state has depended since its creation by the British. Neither the US nor
anyone else has any clear idea of what to put in its place (if one ignores the
fatuous plan of Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz to install Ahmad Chalabi as an American
puppet and Iraqi strongman). Equally important, the US will not allow the creation
of a truly independent state. Ultimately, it may well see itself as having no
choice but to create the state itself and remain deeply involved not just in
supporting it but in running it, as the British did in Egypt for some sixty years.
Very often – perhaps most of the time – the old imperial powers preferred to
exercise control indirectly, through client states. This was far cheaper, far
easier to justify domestically and ran far less chance of provoking native revolt.
The problem was that the very act of turning a country into a client tended to
cripple the domestic prestige of the client regime, and to place such economic,
political and moral pressures on it that it was liable to collapse. The imperial
power then had the choice of either pulling out (and allowing the area to fall
into the hands of enemies) or stepping in and imposing direct control. This
phenomenon can be seen from Awadh and Punjab in the 1840s to the Soviet invasion
of Afghanistan in 1989.
Of course, the threat to imperial client states did not come only from
within their own borders. In a world where ethnic, clan, religious and personal
loyalties spilled across national boundaries, a power that seized one territory
was likely to find itself inexorably drawn to conquering its neighbours. There
were always military, commercial or missionary interests to agitate for this
expansion, often backed by exiled opposition groups ready to stress that the mass
of the population would rejoice in an imperial invasion to bring them to power.
Whatever the Neo-Cons and the Israeli Government may wish, there is I believe
no fixed intention on the part of the US Administration to attack either Syria or
Iran, let alone Saudi Arabia. What it had in mind was that an easy and crushing US
victory over Iraq would so terrify other Muslim states that they would give up any
support for terrorist groups, collaborate fully in cracking down on terrorists and
Islamist radicals, and abandon their own plans to develop weapons of mass
destruction, thereby making it unnecessary for the US to attack them. This applied
not only to perceived enemies such as Syria, Iran and Libya, but to Saudi Arabia,
Pakistan, Yemen and other states seen as unreliable allies in the 'war against
terrorism'. If the US restricts itself to this strategy and this goal, it may
enjoy success – for a while at least. Several states in the region are clearly
running very scared. Moreover, every single state in the region – including Iran –
feels under threat from the forces of Sunni Islamist revolution as represented by
al-Qaida and its ideological allies; so there is a genuine common interest in
combating them.
But for this strategy to work across such a wide range of states and societies
as those of the Muslim world, US policymakers would have to display considerable
sensitivity and discrimination. These are virtues not usually associated with the
Bush Administration, least of all in its present triumphalist mood. The policy is
in any case not without its dangers. What happens if the various pressures put on
the client regimes cause them to collapse? And what happens if an enemy calls
America's bluff, and challenges it to invade? It is all too easy to see how a new
US offensive could result. Another major terrorist attack on the US could upset
all equations and incite another wave of mass hysteria that would make anything
possible. If, for example, it were once again perceived to have been financed and
staffed by Saudis, the pressure for an attack on Saudi Arabia could become
overwhelming. The Iranian case is even trickier. According to informed European
sources, the Iranians may be within two years of developing a nuclear deterrent
(it's even possible that successful pressure on Russia to cut off nuclear trade
would not make any crucial difference). Israel in particular is determined to
forestall Iranian nuclear capability, and Israeli commentators have made it clear
that Israel will take unilateral military action if necessary. If the US and
Israeli Governments are indeed determined to stop Iran acquiring nuclear weapons,
they may not have much time.
The second factor is the behaviour of the Shias of Iraq, and especially of
Iranian-backed factions. Leading Shia groups have boycotted the initial
discussions on forming a government. If they maintain this position, and if the US
fails to create even the appearance of a viable Iraqi government, with disorder
spreading in consequence, Iran will be blamed, rightly or not, by powerful
elements in Washington. They will use it as an additional reason to strike against
Iranian nuclear sites. In response, Tehran might well promote not only a further
destabilisation of Iraq but a terrorist campaign against the US, which would in
turn provoke more US retaliations until a full-scale war became a real
possibility.
Although the idea of an American invasion of Iran is viewed with horror by
most military analysts (and, as far as I can gather, by the uniformed military),
the latest polls suggest that around 50 per cent of Americans are already prepared
to support a war to prevent Iran acquiring nuclear weapons.
Moreover, the
voices of moderation among the military tend to be the same ones which warned – as
I did – of the possibility of stiff Iraqi resistance to a US invasion and the
dangers of urban warfare in Baghdad, opposed Rumsfeld's plans to invade with
limited numbers of relatively lightly armed troops and felt vindicated in their
concern by the initial setbacks around Nasiriya and elsewhere. The aftermath has
shown Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld to have been correct in their purely military
calculations about Iraq, and this will undoubtedly strengthen them in future
clashes with the uniformed military. Rumsfeld's whole strategy of relying on
lighter, more easily transportable forces is, of course, precisely designed to
make such imperial expeditions easier.
As for the majority of Americans, well, they have already been duped once, by a
propaganda programme which for systematic mendacity has few parallels in peacetime
democracies: by the end of it, between 42 and 56 per cent of Americans (the polls
vary) were convinced that Saddam Hussein was directly involved in the attacks of
11 September. This gave the run-up to the war a peculiarly nightmarish quality in
the US. It was as if the full truth about Tonkin Gulf, instead of emerging in
dribs and drabs over a decade, had been fully available and in the open the whole
time – and the US intervention in Vietnam had happened anyway.
While the special place of Saddam Hussein in American demonology means that
this wouldn't be an easy trick to repeat, the American public's ignorance of
international affairs in general and the Muslim world in particular make it by no
means impossible. It isn't just Fox TV: numerous even more rabid media outlets,
the Christian Coalition and parts of the Israeli lobby are all dedicated to
whipping up hatred of Arabs and Muslims. More important is the fact that most
Americans accept Bush's equation of terrorism and 'evil', which makes it extremely
difficult to conduct any serious public discussion of threats from the Muslim
world in terms which would be acceptable or even comprehensible to a mass American
audience. Add to this the severe constraints on the discussion of the role of
Israel, and you have a state of public debate close to that described by Marcuse.
If America suffered another massive terrorist attack in the coming years, the
dangers would be incomparably greater.
If the plans of the Neo-Cons depended on mass support for imperialism
within the US, they would be doomed to failure. The attacks of 11 September,
however, have given American imperialists the added force of wounded nationalism –
a much deeper, more popular and more dangerous phenomenon, strengthened by the
Israeli nationalism of much of the American Jewish community. Another attack on
the American mainland would further inflame that nationalism, and strengthen
support for even more aggressive and ambitious 'retaliations'.
The terrorists
may hope that they will exhaust Americans' will to fight, as the Vietcong did; if
so, they may have underestimated both the tenacity and the ferocity of Americans
when they feel themselves to have been directly attacked. The capacity for
ruthlessness of the nationalist or Jacksonian element in the American democratic
tradition – as in the firebombing of Japan and North Korea, neither of which had
targeted American civilians – has been noted by Walter Russell Mead, and was
recently expressed by MacGregor Knox, an American ex-soldier, now a professor at
the LSE: Europeans 'may believe that the natural order of things as they perceive
it – the restraint of American power through European wisdom – will sooner or
later triumph. But such expectations are delusional. Those who find militant Islam
terrifying have clearly never seen a militant democracy.'
America could certainly be worn out by a protracted guerrilla struggle on
the scale of Vietnam. It seems unlikely, however, that a similar struggle could be
mounted in the Middle East – unless the US were to invade Iran, at which point all
bets and predictions would be off. Another terrorist attack on the US mainland,
using some form of weapons of mass destruction, far from demoralising the US
population would probably whip it into chauvinist fury.
To understand why successful guerrilla warfare against the US is unlikely
(quite apart from the fact that there are no jungles in the Middle East), it is
necessary to remember that the imperial domination made possible by 19th-century
Western military superiority was eventually destroyed by three factors: first, the
development of military technology (notably such weapons as the automatic rifle,
the grenade and modern explosives) which considerably narrowed the odds between
Western armies and 'native' insurgents. Second, the development of modern
ideologies of resistance – Communist, nationalist or a combination of the two –
which in turn produced the cadres and structures to organise resistance. Third,
weariness on the part of 'metropolitan' populations and elites, stemming partly
from social and cultural change, and partly from a growing awareness that direct
empire did not pay economically.
Guerrilla warfare against the US is now a good deal more difficult because
of two undramatic but immensely important innovations: superbly effective and
light bullet-proof vests and helmets which make the US and British soldier almost
as well protected as the medieval knight; and night-vision equipment which denies
the guerrilla the aid of his oldest friend and ally, darkness. Both of these
advantages can be countered, but it will be a long time before the odds are
narrowed again. Of course, local allies of the US can be targeted, but their
deaths are hardly noticed by US public opinion. More and more, therefore,
'asymmetric warfare' will encourage a move to terrorism.
The absence or failure of revolutionary parties led by cadres working for mass
mobilisation confirms this. The Islamists may alter this situation, despite the
disillusioning fate of the Iranian Revolution. But as far as the nationalists are
concerned, it has been tried in the past, and while it succeeded in expelling the
colonialists and their local clients, it failed miserably to produce modernised
states. Algeria is a clear example: a hideously savage but also heroic rebellion
against a particularly revolting form of colonialism – which eventually led to
such an utterly rotten and unsuccessful independent state that much of the
population eventually turned to Islamic revolution.
And now this, too, is discredited, above all in the one major country where it
succeeded, Iran. Arab states have failed to develop economically, politically and
socially, and they have also failed properly to unite. When they have united for
the purposes of war, they have been defeated. Rebellion against the US may take
place in Iraq. Elsewhere, the mass response to the latest Arab defeat seems more
likely to be a further wave of despair, disillusionment and retreat into private
life – an 'internal emigration'. In some fortunate cases, this may lead to a new
Islamist politics focused on genuine reform and democratic development – along the
lines of the changes in Turkey. But a cynicism which only feeds corruption and
oppression is just as likely a result.
Even if despair and apathy turn out to be the responses of the Arab majority,
there will also be a minority which is too proud, too radical, too fanatical or
too embittered – take your pick – for such a course. They are the natural recruits
for terrorism, and it seems likely that their numbers will only have been
increased by the latest American victory. We must fear both the strengthening of
Islamist terrorism and the reappearance of secular nationalist terrorism, not only
among Palestinians but among Arabs in general. The danger is not so much that the
Bush Administration will consciously adopt the whole Neo-Con imperialist programme
as that the Neo-Cons and their allies will contribute to tendencies stemming
inexorably from the US occupation of Iraq and that the result will be a vicious
circle of terrorism and war. If this proves to be the case, then the damage
inflicted over time by the US on the Muslim world and by Muslims on the US and its
allies is likely to be horrendous. We have already shown that we can destroy
Muslim states. Even the most ferocious terrorist attacks will not do that to
Western states; but if continued over decades, they stand a good chance of
destroying democracy in America and any state associated with it.
The waves, the artificial tides of anti-Russian propaganda continue to beat upon the ears
and eyes of Western citizens, spurred by US politicians, bureaucrats and tycoons whose motives
vary from duplicitous to blatantly commercial. It is no coincidence that there has been vastly
increased expenditure on US weaponry by Eastern European countries.
Complementing the weapons' build-up, which is so sustaining and lucrative for the US
industrial-military complex, the naval, air and ground forces of the US-NATO military alliance
continue operations ever closer to Russia's borders.
Shares and dividends in US arms manufacturing companies have rocketed, in a most
satisfactory spinoff from Washington's policy of global confrontation, and the Congressional
Research Service (CRS) records that "arms sales are recognized widely
as an important instrument of state power. States have many incentives to export arms. These
include enhancing the security of allies or partners; constraining the behavior of adversaries;
using the prospect of arms transfers as leverage on governments' internal or external behavior;
and creating the economics of scale necessary to support a domestic arms industry."
The CRS notes that arms deals "are often a key component in Congress's approach to advancing
US foreign policy objectives," which is especially notable around the Baltic and throughout the
Middle East, where US wars have created a bonanza for US weapons makers -- and for the
politicians whom the manufacturers reward so generously for their
support. (Additionally, in 2017 arms manufacturers spent $93,937,493 on
lobbying Congress.)
Some countries, however, do not wish to purchase US weaponry, and they are automatically
categorized as being influenced by Russia, which is blamed for all that has
gone wrong in America over the past couple of years. This classification is especially notable
in the Central Asian Republics.
The US military's Central Command (Centcom) states that its "area of responsibility
spans more than 4 million square miles and is populated by more than 550 million people from 22
ethnic groups, speaking 18 languages . . . and confessing [ sic; probably
'professing'] multiple religions which transect national borders. The demographics create
opportunities for tension and rivalry." Centcom is deeply engaged in the US wars in Iraq, Syria
and Afghanistan, while supporting Saudi Arabia in its war on Yemen, and the extent of its
influence in the Pentagon's self-allotted geographical Area of Responsibility is intriguing, to
say the least. Some of its priorities were revealed in March 2017 by the Commander of this
enormous military realm, General Joseph Votel, in
testimony to the Armed Services Committee of the House of Representatives in
Washington.
General Votel's description of US "responsibilities" was astonishing in its imperialistic
arrogance.
As Commander of Centcom, General Votel gave the Armed Services Committee a colorful tour of
his territory, describing nations in terms ranging from condescendingly supportive to patently
insolent, and he devoted much time to describing relations with countries abutting Russia, Iran
and China, which nations, he
declared , are trying "to limit US influence in the sub-region." That "sub-region" includes
many countries immediately on the borders of Russia, Iran and China, and averaging 7,000 miles
(11,000 kilometers) from Washington.
First he dealt with Kazakhstan with which the US has its "most advanced military
relationship in Central Asia" in furtherance of which Washington is "making notable progress .
. . despite enduring Russian influence." It is obviously unacceptable to the Pentagon that
Russia wishes to maintain cordial relations with a country with which it has a border of 6,800
kilometers. Then General Votel went into fantasyland by claiming that "Kazakhstan remains the
most significant regional contributor to Afghan stability . . ." which even the members of the
Congressional Committee would have realized is spurious nonsense.
But more nonsense was to follow, with General Votel
referring to Kyrgyzstan in patronizing terms usually associated with a Viceroy or other
colonial master of a region that Votel describes as "widely characterized by pervasive
instability and conflict," which he failed to note were caused by the US wars in Afghanistan
and Iraq.
He told the Committee that Kyrgyzstan "sees political pressure from its larger, more
powerful neighbors, including Russia, hosting a small Russian airbase outside the capital,
Bishkek. Despite ongoing challenges in our bilateral and security cooperation, we continue to
seek opportunities to improve our mil-to-mil relationship." He did not explain why Kyrgyzstan
should be expected to embrace a military alliance with United States Central Command, but
Viceroys don't have to provide explanations.
Votel then moved to describe Tajikistan with which "our mil-to-mil relationship is deepening
despite Moscow's enduring ties and the presence of the military base near Tajikistan's capital
of Dushanbe, Russia's largest military base outside of its borders." Not only this, says Votel,
but China (having a 400 kilometer border with Tajikistan) has had the temerity to have
"initiated a much stronger military cooperation partnership with Tajikistan, adding further
complexity to Tajikistan's multi-faceted approach to security cooperation."
No : China hasn't added any complexity to Tajikistan's circumstances. What has complicated
their relations is the fact that Afghanistan is in a state of chaos, following the US invasion
of 2001, and drugs and terrorists cross the border (1,300 kilometers long) from Afghanistan
into Tajikistan, which is trying to protect itself. During its sixteen years of war in
Afghanistan there has been no attempt by the United States to secure that border.
None of these countries wants to be forced into a military pact with the United States, and
Turkmenistan (border with Afghanistan 750 kilometers) has made it clear it doesn't want to be
aligned with anyone. But General Votel states that its "UN-recognized policy of 'positive
neutrality' presents a challenge with respect to US engagement." No matter what is desired by
Turkmenistan, it seems, there must always be a way for the United States Central Command to
establish military relations and, as General Votel told the Defence Committee, "we are
encouraged somewhat by Turkmenistan's expressed interest in increased mil-to-mil engagement
with the US within the limits of their 'positive neutrality' policy."
In the minds (to use the word loosely) of General Votel and his kind, it doesn't matter if a
country wants nothing whatever to do with the United States' military machine, and wants very
much to be left alone to get on with its affairs without interference. Adoption of such a
policy by any nation presents a "challenge" and the United States, which in this region is
overseen by General Votel's Central Command, is determined to seek military "engagement"
irrespective of what is desired by governments. Arms sales would swiftly follow.
Votel's tour of his area of responsibility covered Afghanistan, about which his most absurd
assertion was "I believe what Russia is attempting to do is they are attempting to be an
influential party in this part of the world. I think it is fair to assume they may be providing
some sort of support to [the Taliban] in terms of weapons or other things that may be
there."
There was not a shred of evidence provided, but the Committee accepted his pronouncement
without question. If an allegation is made about Russia it doesn't matter if it is false. It
must be believed. But unfortunately for the imperial Votel and his deferential audience, a
person with some sense of truth and balance came up two months later with a statement
rubbishing Votel's unfounded and provocative accusation. In May the Director of the US Defence
Intelligence Agency
told a Senate Committee that "We have seen indication that [Russia] offered some level of
support [to the Taliban], but I have not seen real physical evidence of weapons or money being
transferred." The mainstream media gave no publicity to the truth, and continue to blame Russia
for all the ills that befall the US Empire, at home and overseas.
The state of affairs was summed up admirably by
Jacob Hornberger of the Future of Freedom Foundation on December 4 when he wrote that "Central
to any national-security state is the need for official enemies, ones that are used to frighten
and agitate the citizenry. If there are no official enemies, the American citizenry might begin
asking some discomforting questions: What do we need a national-security state for? Why not
abolish the CIA and dismantle the military-industrial complex and the NSA. Why can't we have
our limited-government, constitutional republic back?"
The Motto of the Pentagon's Central
Command is "Prepare, Pursue, Prevail." and the Central Asian Republics would be well-advised to
bear in mind these threats and think hard about the underlying motif of the US
military-industrial complex which is "Propagandize, Provoke, Profit."
The waves, the artificial tides of anti-Russian propaganda continue to beat upon the ears
and eyes of Western citizens, spurred by US politicians, bureaucrats and tycoons whose motives
vary from duplicitous to blatantly commercial. It is no coincidence that there has been vastly
increased expenditure on US weaponry by Eastern European countries.
Complementing the weapons' build-up, which is so sustaining and lucrative for the US
industrial-military complex, the naval, air and ground forces of the US-NATO military alliance
continue operations ever closer to Russia's borders.
Shares and dividends in US arms manufacturing companies have rocketed, in a most
satisfactory spinoff from Washington's policy of global confrontation, and the Congressional
Research Service (CRS) records that "arms sales are recognized widely
as an important instrument of state power. States have many incentives to export arms. These
include enhancing the security of allies or partners; constraining the behavior of adversaries;
using the prospect of arms transfers as leverage on governments' internal or external behavior;
and creating the economics of scale necessary to support a domestic arms industry."
The CRS notes that arms deals "are often a key component in Congress's approach to advancing
US foreign policy objectives," which is especially notable around the Baltic and throughout the
Middle East, where US wars have created a bonanza for US weapons makers -- and for the
politicians whom the manufacturers reward so generously for their
support. (Additionally, in 2017 arms manufacturers spent $93,937,493 on
lobbying Congress.)
Some countries, however, do not wish to purchase US weaponry, and they are automatically
categorized as being influenced by Russia, which is blamed for all that has
gone wrong in America over the past couple of years. This classification is especially notable
in the Central Asian Republics.
The US military's Central Command (Centcom) states that its "area of responsibility
spans more than 4 million square miles and is populated by more than 550 million people from 22
ethnic groups, speaking 18 languages . . . and confessing [ sic; probably
'professing'] multiple religions which transect national borders. The demographics create
opportunities for tension and rivalry." Centcom is deeply engaged in the US wars in Iraq, Syria
and Afghanistan, while supporting Saudi Arabia in its war on Yemen, and the extent of its
influence in the Pentagon's self-allotted geographical Area of Responsibility is intriguing, to
say the least. Some of its priorities were revealed in March 2017 by the Commander of this
enormous military realm, General Joseph Votel, in
testimony to the Armed Services Committee of the House of Representatives in
Washington.
General Votel's description of US "responsibilities" was astonishing in its imperialistic
arrogance.
As Commander of Centcom, General Votel gave the Armed Services Committee a colorful tour of
his territory, describing nations in terms ranging from condescendingly supportive to patently
insolent, and he devoted much time to describing relations with countries abutting Russia, Iran
and China, which nations, he
declared , are trying "to limit US influence in the sub-region." That "sub-region" includes
many countries immediately on the borders of Russia, Iran and China, and averaging 7,000 miles
(11,000 kilometers) from Washington.
First he dealt with Kazakhstan with which the US has its "most advanced military
relationship in Central Asia" in furtherance of which Washington is "making notable progress .
. . despite enduring Russian influence." It is obviously unacceptable to the Pentagon that
Russia wishes to maintain cordial relations with a country with which it has a border of 6,800
kilometers. Then General Votel went into fantasyland by claiming that "Kazakhstan remains the
most significant regional contributor to Afghan stability . . ." which even the members of the
Congressional Committee would have realized is spurious nonsense.
But more nonsense was to follow, with General Votel
referring to Kyrgyzstan in patronizing terms usually associated with a Viceroy or other
colonial master of a region that Votel describes as "widely characterized by pervasive
instability and conflict," which he failed to note were caused by the US wars in Afghanistan
and Iraq.
He told the Committee that Kyrgyzstan "sees political pressure from its larger, more
powerful neighbors, including Russia, hosting a small Russian airbase outside the capital,
Bishkek. Despite ongoing challenges in our bilateral and security cooperation, we continue to
seek opportunities to improve our mil-to-mil relationship." He did not explain why Kyrgyzstan
should be expected to embrace a military alliance with United States Central Command, but
Viceroys don't have to provide explanations.
Votel then moved to describe Tajikistan with which "our mil-to-mil relationship is deepening
despite Moscow's enduring ties and the presence of the military base near Tajikistan's capital
of Dushanbe, Russia's largest military base outside of its borders." Not only this, says Votel,
but China (having a 400 kilometer border with Tajikistan) has had the temerity to have
"initiated a much stronger military cooperation partnership with Tajikistan, adding further
complexity to Tajikistan's multi-faceted approach to security cooperation."
No : China hasn't added any complexity to Tajikistan's circumstances. What has complicated
their relations is the fact that Afghanistan is in a state of chaos, following the US invasion
of 2001, and drugs and terrorists cross the border (1,300 kilometers long) from Afghanistan
into Tajikistan, which is trying to protect itself. During its sixteen years of war in
Afghanistan there has been no attempt by the United States to secure that border.
None of these countries wants to be forced into a military pact with the United States, and
Turkmenistan (border with Afghanistan 750 kilometers) has made it clear it doesn't want to be
aligned with anyone. But General Votel states that its "UN-recognized policy of 'positive
neutrality' presents a challenge with respect to US engagement." No matter what is desired by
Turkmenistan, it seems, there must always be a way for the United States Central Command to
establish military relations and, as General Votel told the Defence Committee, "we are
encouraged somewhat by Turkmenistan's expressed interest in increased mil-to-mil engagement
with the US within the limits of their 'positive neutrality' policy."
In the minds (to use the word loosely) of General Votel and his kind, it doesn't matter if a
country wants nothing whatever to do with the United States' military machine, and wants very
much to be left alone to get on with its affairs without interference. Adoption of such a
policy by any nation presents a "challenge" and the United States, which in this region is
overseen by General Votel's Central Command, is determined to seek military "engagement"
irrespective of what is desired by governments. Arms sales would swiftly follow.
Votel's tour of his area of responsibility covered Afghanistan, about which his most absurd
assertion was "I believe what Russia is attempting to do is they are attempting to be an
influential party in this part of the world. I think it is fair to assume they may be providing
some sort of support to [the Taliban] in terms of weapons or other things that may be
there."
There was not a shred of evidence provided, but the Committee accepted his pronouncement
without question. If an allegation is made about Russia it doesn't matter if it is false. It
must be believed. But unfortunately for the imperial Votel and his deferential audience, a
person with some sense of truth and balance came up two months later with a statement
rubbishing Votel's unfounded and provocative accusation. In May the Director of the US Defence
Intelligence Agency
told a Senate Committee that "We have seen indication that [Russia] offered some level of
support [to the Taliban], but I have not seen real physical evidence of weapons or money being
transferred." The mainstream media gave no publicity to the truth, and continue to blame Russia
for all the ills that befall the US Empire, at home and overseas.
The state of affairs was summed up admirably by
Jacob Hornberger of the Future of Freedom Foundation on December 4 when he wrote that "Central
to any national-security state is the need for official enemies, ones that are used to frighten
and agitate the citizenry. If there are no official enemies, the American citizenry might begin
asking some discomforting questions: What do we need a national-security state for? Why not
abolish the CIA and dismantle the military-industrial complex and the NSA. Why can't we have
our limited-government, constitutional republic back?"
The Motto of the Pentagon's Central
Command is "Prepare, Pursue, Prevail." and the Central Asian Republics would be well-advised to
bear in mind these threats and think hard about the underlying motif of the US
military-industrial complex which is "Propagandize, Provoke, Profit."
Canada has taken a lead among NATO countries in approving heavy weapons sales to the
government and armed forces of Ukraine. The Liberal Party government of Prime Minister Justin
Trudeau announced the decision on December 13.
The decision by Washington's junior partner in Ottawa is a blow to human rights
organizations and others in the U.S. and internationally who argue that increasing the arms
flow to the regime in Kyiv will only escalate Ukraine's violence against the people's republics
of Donetsk and Lugansk in eastern Ukraine.
Ukraine was compelled to sign the 'Minsk-2' ceasefire and peace agreement on Feb 12, 2015.
Germany and France endorsed the agreement and have pretended to stand by it. But Ukraine has
violated Minsk-2 ( text here ) ever
since its signing, with impunity from Kyiv's allies in western Europe and North America.
Minsk-2 was endorsed by the UN Security Council on
Feb 17, 2015. That shows the regard which NATO members such as the U.S. and Canada attach to
the world body -- the UN it is a useful tool when it can be manipulated to serve their
interests, otherwise it is an annoyance to be ignored. Witness their boycotting of the UN
General Assembly discussion (and eventual adoption) on July 7, 2017 of the Treaty on the
Abolition of Nuclear Weapons .
Canada has taken a lead among NATO countries in approving heavy weapons sales to the
government and armed forces of Ukraine. The Liberal Party government of Prime Minister Justin
Trudeau announced the decision on December 13.
The decision by Washington's junior partner in Ottawa is a blow to human rights
organizations and others in the U.S. and internationally who argue that increasing the arms
flow to the regime in Kyiv will only escalate Ukraine's violence against the people's republics
of Donetsk and Lugansk in eastern Ukraine.
Ukraine was compelled to sign the 'Minsk-2' ceasefire and peace agreement on Feb 12, 2015.
Germany and France endorsed the agreement and have pretended to stand by it. But Ukraine has
violated Minsk-2 ( text here ) ever
since its signing, with impunity from Kyiv's allies in western Europe and North America.
Minsk-2 was endorsed by the UN Security Council on
Feb 17, 2015. That shows the regard which NATO members such as the U.S. and Canada attach to
the world body -- the UN it is a useful tool when it can be manipulated to serve their
interests, otherwise it is an annoyance to be ignored. Witness their boycotting of the UN
General Assembly discussion (and eventual adoption) on July 7, 2017 of the Treaty on the
Abolition of Nuclear Weapons .
"... straight from the lips of Pavlo Munchkin. The west will not react to Saakashvili's detention , and considers it to be an internal Ukrainian matter. So Kiev can make up whatever wild charges it wants, and Uncle Sam will not ride to the rescue. Saakashvili has apparently outlived his usefulness. ..."
"... Well, indeed, it looks like the collective West decided to just say to poor, ageing, clumsy Mishiko "I know thee not, old man!". The ritualistic spitting and trampling of Saakasvhili effigy in the Freest Press in the World (Western one) will commence soon enough. But before that – a quick reminder of what they were saying, before re-alignment of the winds, blowing from Washington's ObCom. ..."
"... "AFTER the Maidan revolution and the start of the Russian war against Ukraine in 2014, Western policy had two aims: to halt and punish Russian aggression and to help Ukraine become a democratic state governed by the rule of law. America imposed sanctions on Russia, ordered the president, Petro Poroshenko, to establish an anti-corruption force and sent Joe Biden, then vice-president, on repeated visits to insist on fighting graft. The EU imposed sanctions on Russia, and made support for civil-society and the rule of law a linchpin of the association agreement it signed with Ukraine in 2014. ..."
"... In that light, the news out of Ukraine over the past few weeks has been dire. The country's prosecutor-general has disrupted investigations by its National Anti-corruption Bureau, with the apparent consent of Mr Poroshenko. The interior minister has intervened to protect his son from similar scrutiny. Officers in the security service, the SBU, have tried to arrest Mikheil Saakashvili, the former Georgian president turned Ukrainian corruption-fighter, only to be driven back by protesters. Prosecutors are targeting anti-corruption activists; the army, interior-ministry troops and private militias work at cross-purposes, answering to different politicians or oligarchs . Mr Poroshenko's government has been seriously weakened. ..."
"... "To some Europeans and Americans, this picture suggests that their efforts to persuade Ukraine to turn over a new leaf were always doomed to fail. That is a misreading. In fact, the recent chaos in Ukraine comes in part because in the past year, especially since the inauguration of President Donald Trump, Europe and America have eased the pressure. If they do not restore their commitment to defending anti-corruption reforms, Ukraine risks sinking back into the morass from which it tried to extricate itself with Maidan. ..."
"... Ukraine's grubby politicians and oligarchs have tried to frustrate Western aims without openly defying them (see article ). Partly as a result, policy under Mr Trump has lost its focus on fighting graft. Kurt Volker, the American envoy to Ukraine, works on external security; America may soon sell the country lethal weapons for the first time. But when the State Department complains about corruption, it is ignored -- because (unlike Mr Biden) the White House offers it no support. As for the EU, few believe it would jeopardise its association agreement with Ukraine for the sake of the rule of law. So, the country's elite no longer fears attacking investigators and activists." ..."
"... "Lay off the pay-offs ..."
"... If they succeed in ending the attempts to fight graft, it will be a disaster for Ukraine -- and a step back for Europe and America, too. The country is the focal point of the West's conflict with Russia. Weak and divided, it is vulnerable to Russian encroachment, especially if Vladimir Putin decides he needs to fire up patriotic Russian voters. Chaos would also buttress Mr Putin's claim that the West's aims in Ukraine are purely anti-Russian and have nothing to do with democracy or the rule of law. All this would undermine the rules-based global order, with consequences in the South China Sea and elsewhere. ..."
"... Now that Ukraine is defying complaints by America's State Department and the EU's foreign-policy arm, it is vital that America and Europe use every tool at their disposal to support corruption-fighters in Kiev. The EU should make plain that the benefits of the association pact depend on progress against graft; America should attach the same conditions to arms sales. Prosecutors in Western capitals should investigate the laundering of ill-gotten Ukrainian wealth. Support for Ukraine's territorial integrity should not involve tolerance for the lack of integrity among its politicians." ..."
Al Jazeera English
Published on 9 Dec 2017
SUBSCRIBE 1.7M
He was the president of Georgia, then a governor in Ukraine, and now he's in jail on hunger
strike.
The arrest, and re-arrest, of Mikhail Saakashvii in Kiev has stirred protests which evoke
memories of the Ukrainian revolution three years ago.
Saakashvili's supporters say his detention is based on lies and they want him let go. They
already freed him once earlier this week – from a police van.
Tuesday's dramatic scenes saw a former president being dragged across a roof. Police arrested him for allegedly conspiring with Russia against the Ukrainian state. Saakashvili then escaped custody, before police tracked him down again on Friday. The former Georgian leader says his arrest is politically motivated.
But is it really?
Presenter: Sami Zeidan
Guests:
Alexander Korman – Former Head of the Public Council and First Deputy Chairman of
Public Council to the Ministry of Foreign Relations of Ukraine.
Sergey Markov – Former Russian MP & spokesman for President Vladimir Putin.
Lilit Gevorgyan – IHS Global Insigh tanalyst and principal economist covering Russia
& Ukraine.
Aaaaand there you have it, folks, straight from the lips of Pavlo Munchkin. The west will not react to
Saakashvili's detention , and considers it to be an internal Ukrainian matter. So Kiev
can make up whatever wild charges it wants, and Uncle Sam will not ride to the rescue.
Saakashvili has apparently outlived his usefulness.
I don't really feel sorry for him, because I've always thought he was a twat and his
preening over being the golden child of Washington was sickening. In fact, he probably
deserves whatever happens to him, although I expect the west will make some kind of private
deal to get him out on the promise that he will stay out of Ukraine. Where he will go then is
anyone's guess, since he is a stateless person with no citizenship. But it is significant to
note how much weight Ukraine still swings with the west, even though Europe is getting
impatient about its hamfisted anti-corruption charade. Kiev just said "Stay out of it", and
the west retired smartly.
I think you will agree that is hardly a climate in which Poroshenko will feel moved to do
anything much about corruption beyond making a lot of noise and promises.
Well, indeed, it looks like the collective West decided to just say to poor, ageing, clumsy
Mishiko "I know
thee not, old man!". The ritualistic spitting and trampling of Saakasvhili effigy in the
Freest Press in the World (Western one) will commence soon enough. But before that – a
quick reminder of what they were saying, before re-alignment of the winds, blowing from
Washington's ObCom.
Ukraine is a mess? Nooooo waaaaaay! Are you sure? Tell me more!
"AFTER the Maidan revolution and the start of the Russian war against Ukraine in 2014,
Western policy had two aims: to halt and punish Russian aggression and to help Ukraine become
a democratic state governed by the rule of law. America imposed sanctions on Russia, ordered
the president, Petro Poroshenko, to establish an anti-corruption force and sent Joe Biden,
then vice-president, on repeated visits to insist on fighting graft. The EU imposed sanctions
on Russia, and made support for civil-society and the rule of law a linchpin of the
association agreement it signed with Ukraine in 2014.
In that light, the news out of Ukraine over the past few weeks has been dire. The
country's prosecutor-general has disrupted investigations by its National Anti-corruption
Bureau, with the apparent consent of Mr Poroshenko. The interior minister has intervened to
protect his son from similar scrutiny. Officers in the security service, the SBU, have tried
to arrest Mikheil Saakashvili, the former Georgian president turned Ukrainian
corruption-fighter, only to be driven back by protesters. Prosecutors are targeting
anti-corruption activists; the army, interior-ministry troops and private militias work at
cross-purposes, answering to different politicians or oligarchs . Mr Poroshenko's government
has been seriously weakened. "
That's important part – keep it mind. But here comes the "meat" of the article! Good
flunkies of Ed Lukas has found the answer to the eternal question "Whom to blame?" as
pertains to the Ukraine and its current woes! Are you ready? Here it is:
"To some Europeans and Americans, this picture suggests that their efforts to persuade
Ukraine to turn over a new leaf were always doomed to fail. That is a misreading. In fact,
the recent chaos in Ukraine comes in part because in the past year, especially since the
inauguration of President Donald Trump, Europe and America have eased the pressure. If they
do not restore their commitment to defending anti-corruption reforms, Ukraine risks sinking
back into the morass from which it tried to extricate itself with Maidan.
Ukraine's grubby politicians and oligarchs have tried to frustrate Western aims
without openly defying them (see
article ). Partly as a result, policy under Mr Trump has lost its focus on fighting
graft. Kurt Volker, the American envoy to Ukraine, works on external security; America may
soon sell the country lethal weapons for the first time. But when the State Department
complains about corruption, it is ignored -- because (unlike Mr Biden) the White House offers
it no support. As for the EU, few believe it would jeopardise its association agreement with
Ukraine for the sake of the rule of law. So, the country's elite no longer fears attacking
investigators and activists."
Trump! It is all Trump's fault! Because – surely! – under the watch of the
President of Peace B. Obama and gramps Biden no dodgy things ever happened in the Ukraine,
noooope! Biden (and his son) gonna defend this PO like lions! This also welcomes nasty
question – aren't Mr. Poroshenko himself an oligarch, whose personal wealth skyrocketed
since his election? And maybe – I'm not insisting, no-no – having lots of cash
stashed in "Panama Papers Fund" precludes him from actually fighting corruption – and
not, you know, the election of Trump? Heresy, I know!
But the articles goes from strength to strength, boldly skipping to the "What to do?"
section. The solution is as brilliant and though-over as everything else in there:
"Lay off the pay-offs
If they succeed in ending the attempts to fight graft, it will be a disaster for Ukraine --
and a step back for Europe and America, too. The country is the focal point of the West's
conflict with Russia. Weak and divided, it is vulnerable to Russian encroachment, especially
if Vladimir Putin decides he needs to fire up patriotic Russian voters. Chaos would also
buttress Mr Putin's claim that the West's aims in Ukraine are purely anti-Russian and have
nothing to do with democracy or the rule of law. All this would undermine the rules-based
global order, with consequences in the South China Sea and elsewhere.
Now that Ukraine is defying complaints by America's State Department and the EU's
foreign-policy arm, it is vital that America and Europe use every tool at their disposal to
support corruption-fighters in Kiev. The EU should make plain that the benefits of the
association pact depend on progress against graft; America should attach the same conditions
to arms sales. Prosecutors in Western capitals should investigate the laundering of
ill-gotten Ukrainian wealth. Support for Ukraine's territorial integrity should not involve
tolerance for the lack of integrity among its politicians."
Nope. Your Russophobia is high (and you yourself dear Western elites are also high most of
the time when it comes to Russia) that you will allow this unholy corrupt mess to persist.
Because, really, you are not interested in "democracy" and "open society". Not at the prize
of people electing someone, whose strings you cannot pull.
At the same time – this is "big: and "respectable" The Economist we are talking
about. They smell the fire from the yet unlit tires of new Maidan. They are afraid .
They know, that their "Operation: SHOWCASE" of turning Ukraine into a "democratic alternative
to Russia" failed. They are in denial.
The obligatory "rules-based global order" makes a tardy but welcome cameo appearance like an
aging well-loved Thespian milking the audience for a final burst of applause before
retirement. Great stuff!
Ukrainians voted for a return of the "criminal regime" of Yanukovich
01:24 – 10.12.2017
Ninety-two percent of the audience of the Ukrainian TV channel "NewsOne" voted for the
return of the regime of former President Viktor Yanukovych, reports the news portal
"Politnavigator".
In Saturday's broadcast, viewers were asked to choose one of two options to answer the
question "For whom would you vote: for the last criminal power or the current one?". Out of
46,686 people only eight per cent supported the policy of the current president, Petro
Poroshenko.
On 23 October, the Centre for social studies "Sofia" published the results of a poll in
which 79 percent of the population in varying degrees did not approve of Poroshenko being
head of state: the answer "fully approve of the President" was chosen by only 1.6
percent.
On October 17, the Prosecutor General of the Ukraine, Yuriy Lutsenko, accused former
president Viktor Yanukovich of embezzling assets worth $40 billion. According to the head of
the supervisory authority, this was comparable with the annual budget of the country.
Yanukovych was President of the Ukraine from 2010 to 2014. After a violent regime
change by means of the Euromaidan mass protests in Kiev and other cities, he left the
country.
In the Ukraine, there have been initiated several criminal cases made against the
former head of state and his property on the territory of the country has been
seized.
There's a useful lesson there for someone: more than 90% – arguably; we have no way to
know how scientific or representative this poll was – of the population does not
support the current government, in a country that has considerable and recent practical
experience of revolution. Yet the current government prevails with complete impunity, and
even flaunts its contempt for accountability. How can these two realities coexist? Is it
possible the violent nationalist element wields disproportionate influence, despite all the
quacking about its low support in the polls and Russian exaggeration of its extremist
beliefs?
Can't vouch for the entire web site but this was interesting:
Baiting is the act of deliberately annoying or provoking someone to extreme emotion.
When a person baits another, they are deliberately taunting in order to provoke a response
from the offender's attack.
If you are a fisherman, it might be fun but if you're the fish -- or worse a worm
squirming on a hook, being used to entice a predator to amuse? It's simply not as much fun
for people who are the victims of any form of bait and switch attack.
Truly believing the world as they know it revolves around them, they tend to
symptomatically behave in ways that are compulsively self-promoting, grandiose, illogical,
irrational, egocentric, and grandiose.
Every social interaction is seen as a competition of sorts, with the Narcissist
behaving as if their distorted, self-deluded version of any fact, story, or reality is
somehow rooted in divine truth (rather than being recognized as a symptom of psychiatric
dysfunction and outright gaslighting tales and lies).
The condition -- a personality TYPE classification, rather than an actual diagnosis of
illness (per se) -- tends to be rooted in cultural nurturing, for the most part.
People all over the world are protesting against globalisation, inequality and
selfishness. Democratic liberalism is supposed to solve these problems, but liberalism and
its big brother neoliberalism are actually the cause of these problems. Furthermore, once a
country has adopted neoliberalist policies it is very hard for it ever to reject them.
Three years later Russia is still standing... Still to a neoliberal state and not to be a USA vassal is a pipe dream. The system
is Washington-centric by design. but what is the alternative in unclear. Russia is still a neoliberal state and Putin is not eternal.
Contrary to Putin's vision, a neoliberal state can't be sovereign, it can only be a vassal of Washington. As soon as a neoliberal
state shows some independence it became a "rogue state" and punishment via financial system (and for smaller states via military actions)
will follow. Dominance in finance sphere gives the USA the ability to punish Russia to almost any extent they wish without significant
possibilities of retaliation, unless formal block of Russia and China is created.\
Russia can only retaliate in selected carefully chosen "weak spots". NGOs, media, the USA food companies (Coca-cola, junk food,
chickens, etc), financial and consulting firms (and first of all Big Three, closely connected with the USA government). Not so far nine
got under Russian government knife.
Notable quotes:
"... Yep, how dare the Russkies retaliate, when they ought to come begging on their knees to be allowed to do what the grand master in DC wants them to do ..."
"... Russians are using "trade as a geopolitical tool," warns a Washington think tank. Russia engaging in trade war – How despicable! ..."
"... And next Russans claim that "Fruit shipments from the EU have recently contained Oriental fruit moths " ..."
"... "It's not unusual for Russia to find something wrong when they have a political reason to do so". ..."
"... No word on whether his tongue immediately turned black and started to smoke, then fell out of his mouth. It's not unusual for the United States to apply sanctions when they have a political reason to do so, and fuck-all else. ..."
"... I was wrong about Rosoboronexport. It is EXEMPT from the list of sanctions. No doubt some of the deals (titanium) are critical for the US's own MIC. ..."
"... The baying audience of FOX-friends might be stoked at the idea of economic war with Russia, but the cold-eyed businessmen are likely to be unenthused at best ..."
Found at zerohedge, a US reaction on Russia's reaction to the sanctions:
"Assuming that they take this action, it would be blatant protectionism," Clayton Yeutter, a U.S. Trade Representative
under President Ronald Reagan, said in a phone interview. "There is little or no legitimacy to their complaints."
Russians are using "trade as a geopolitical tool," warns a Washington think tank. Russia engaging in trade war – How despicable!
First Russkies pretend to find antibiotics in McDonalds "cheese" products. But everybody knows the cheese cannot possibly contain
antibiotics, because it's not even real cheese! (it's a kind of edible plastic substance )
And next Russans claim that "Fruit shipments from the EU have recently contained Oriental fruit moths "
That's a lie too.
Everybody knows that if you eat your Polish quinces with a runcible spoon, then they will not contain any measurable amounts
of moth larvae.
"It's not unusual for Russia to find something wrong when they have a political reason to do so".
No word on whether his tongue immediately turned black and started to smoke, then fell out of his mouth. It's not unusual for
the United States to apply sanctions when they have a political reason to do so, and fuck-all else.
I was wrong about Rosoboronexport. It is EXEMPT from the list of sanctions. No doubt some of the deals (titanium) are critical
for the US's own MIC. Put Kadyrov or someone on the board and force Congress to slit Boeing's throat.
Or hire him to the company that produces rolled titanium alloys for Boeing and Airbus. A shot across the bow to say that Western
leaders will have to be standing in front of their populations as they crash their economies. Russia won't do it for them.
Excellent reasoning. The baying audience of FOX-friends might be stoked at the idea of economic war with Russia, but the cold-eyed
businessmen are likely to be unenthused at best. This is a great plan for achieving leverage cheaply and easily, and the
U.S. government would be left 'splaining to Boeing that they had to lay off a couple of thousand workers because a bad man was
appointed to the board of their major supplier.
The west is locked into its lame sanctions groove, and too proud to back down.
This might be
the big shootout from which only one currency will walk away.
"... straight from the lips of Pavlo Munchkin. The west will not react to Saakashvili's detention , and considers it to be an internal Ukrainian matter. So Kiev can make up whatever wild charges it wants, and Uncle Sam will not ride to the rescue. Saakashvili has apparently outlived his usefulness. ..."
"... Well, indeed, it looks like the collective West decided to just say to poor, ageing, clumsy Mishiko "I know thee not, old man!". The ritualistic spitting and trampling of Saakasvhili effigy in the Freest Press in the World (Western one) will commence soon enough. But before that – a quick reminder of what they were saying, before re-alignment of the winds, blowing from Washington's ObCom. ..."
"... "AFTER the Maidan revolution and the start of the Russian war against Ukraine in 2014, Western policy had two aims: to halt and punish Russian aggression and to help Ukraine become a democratic state governed by the rule of law. America imposed sanctions on Russia, ordered the president, Petro Poroshenko, to establish an anti-corruption force and sent Joe Biden, then vice-president, on repeated visits to insist on fighting graft. The EU imposed sanctions on Russia, and made support for civil-society and the rule of law a linchpin of the association agreement it signed with Ukraine in 2014. ..."
"... In that light, the news out of Ukraine over the past few weeks has been dire. The country's prosecutor-general has disrupted investigations by its National Anti-corruption Bureau, with the apparent consent of Mr Poroshenko. The interior minister has intervened to protect his son from similar scrutiny. Officers in the security service, the SBU, have tried to arrest Mikheil Saakashvili, the former Georgian president turned Ukrainian corruption-fighter, only to be driven back by protesters. Prosecutors are targeting anti-corruption activists; the army, interior-ministry troops and private militias work at cross-purposes, answering to different politicians or oligarchs . Mr Poroshenko's government has been seriously weakened. ..."
"... "To some Europeans and Americans, this picture suggests that their efforts to persuade Ukraine to turn over a new leaf were always doomed to fail. That is a misreading. In fact, the recent chaos in Ukraine comes in part because in the past year, especially since the inauguration of President Donald Trump, Europe and America have eased the pressure. If they do not restore their commitment to defending anti-corruption reforms, Ukraine risks sinking back into the morass from which it tried to extricate itself with Maidan. ..."
"... Ukraine's grubby politicians and oligarchs have tried to frustrate Western aims without openly defying them (see article ). Partly as a result, policy under Mr Trump has lost its focus on fighting graft. Kurt Volker, the American envoy to Ukraine, works on external security; America may soon sell the country lethal weapons for the first time. But when the State Department complains about corruption, it is ignored -- because (unlike Mr Biden) the White House offers it no support. As for the EU, few believe it would jeopardise its association agreement with Ukraine for the sake of the rule of law. So, the country's elite no longer fears attacking investigators and activists." ..."
"... "Lay off the pay-offs ..."
"... If they succeed in ending the attempts to fight graft, it will be a disaster for Ukraine -- and a step back for Europe and America, too. The country is the focal point of the West's conflict with Russia. Weak and divided, it is vulnerable to Russian encroachment, especially if Vladimir Putin decides he needs to fire up patriotic Russian voters. Chaos would also buttress Mr Putin's claim that the West's aims in Ukraine are purely anti-Russian and have nothing to do with democracy or the rule of law. All this would undermine the rules-based global order, with consequences in the South China Sea and elsewhere. ..."
"... Now that Ukraine is defying complaints by America's State Department and the EU's foreign-policy arm, it is vital that America and Europe use every tool at their disposal to support corruption-fighters in Kiev. The EU should make plain that the benefits of the association pact depend on progress against graft; America should attach the same conditions to arms sales. Prosecutors in Western capitals should investigate the laundering of ill-gotten Ukrainian wealth. Support for Ukraine's territorial integrity should not involve tolerance for the lack of integrity among its politicians." ..."
Al Jazeera English
Published on 9 Dec 2017
SUBSCRIBE 1.7M
He was the president of Georgia, then a governor in Ukraine, and now he's in jail on hunger
strike.
The arrest, and re-arrest, of Mikhail Saakashvii in Kiev has stirred protests which evoke
memories of the Ukrainian revolution three years ago.
Saakashvili's supporters say his detention is based on lies and they want him let go. They
already freed him once earlier this week – from a police van.
Tuesday's dramatic scenes saw a former president being dragged across a roof. Police arrested him for allegedly conspiring with Russia against the Ukrainian state. Saakashvili then escaped custody, before police tracked him down again on Friday. The former Georgian leader says his arrest is politically motivated.
But is it really?
Presenter: Sami Zeidan
Guests:
Alexander Korman – Former Head of the Public Council and First Deputy Chairman of
Public Council to the Ministry of Foreign Relations of Ukraine.
Sergey Markov – Former Russian MP & spokesman for President Vladimir Putin.
Lilit Gevorgyan – IHS Global Insigh tanalyst and principal economist covering Russia
& Ukraine.
Aaaaand there you have it, folks, straight from the lips of Pavlo Munchkin. The west will not react to
Saakashvili's detention , and considers it to be an internal Ukrainian matter. So Kiev
can make up whatever wild charges it wants, and Uncle Sam will not ride to the rescue.
Saakashvili has apparently outlived his usefulness.
I don't really feel sorry for him, because I've always thought he was a twat and his
preening over being the golden child of Washington was sickening. In fact, he probably
deserves whatever happens to him, although I expect the west will make some kind of private
deal to get him out on the promise that he will stay out of Ukraine. Where he will go then is
anyone's guess, since he is a stateless person with no citizenship. But it is significant to
note how much weight Ukraine still swings with the west, even though Europe is getting
impatient about its hamfisted anti-corruption charade. Kiev just said "Stay out of it", and
the west retired smartly.
I think you will agree that is hardly a climate in which Poroshenko will feel moved to do
anything much about corruption beyond making a lot of noise and promises.
Well, indeed, it looks like the collective West decided to just say to poor, ageing, clumsy
Mishiko "I know
thee not, old man!". The ritualistic spitting and trampling of Saakasvhili effigy in the
Freest Press in the World (Western one) will commence soon enough. But before that – a
quick reminder of what they were saying, before re-alignment of the winds, blowing from
Washington's ObCom.
Ukraine is a mess? Nooooo waaaaaay! Are you sure? Tell me more!
"AFTER the Maidan revolution and the start of the Russian war against Ukraine in 2014,
Western policy had two aims: to halt and punish Russian aggression and to help Ukraine become
a democratic state governed by the rule of law. America imposed sanctions on Russia, ordered
the president, Petro Poroshenko, to establish an anti-corruption force and sent Joe Biden,
then vice-president, on repeated visits to insist on fighting graft. The EU imposed sanctions
on Russia, and made support for civil-society and the rule of law a linchpin of the
association agreement it signed with Ukraine in 2014.
In that light, the news out of Ukraine over the past few weeks has been dire. The
country's prosecutor-general has disrupted investigations by its National Anti-corruption
Bureau, with the apparent consent of Mr Poroshenko. The interior minister has intervened to
protect his son from similar scrutiny. Officers in the security service, the SBU, have tried
to arrest Mikheil Saakashvili, the former Georgian president turned Ukrainian
corruption-fighter, only to be driven back by protesters. Prosecutors are targeting
anti-corruption activists; the army, interior-ministry troops and private militias work at
cross-purposes, answering to different politicians or oligarchs . Mr Poroshenko's government
has been seriously weakened. "
That's important part – keep it mind. But here comes the "meat" of the article! Good
flunkies of Ed Lukas has found the answer to the eternal question "Whom to blame?" as
pertains to the Ukraine and its current woes! Are you ready? Here it is:
"To some Europeans and Americans, this picture suggests that their efforts to persuade
Ukraine to turn over a new leaf were always doomed to fail. That is a misreading. In fact,
the recent chaos in Ukraine comes in part because in the past year, especially since the
inauguration of President Donald Trump, Europe and America have eased the pressure. If they
do not restore their commitment to defending anti-corruption reforms, Ukraine risks sinking
back into the morass from which it tried to extricate itself with Maidan.
Ukraine's grubby politicians and oligarchs have tried to frustrate Western aims
without openly defying them (see
article ). Partly as a result, policy under Mr Trump has lost its focus on fighting
graft. Kurt Volker, the American envoy to Ukraine, works on external security; America may
soon sell the country lethal weapons for the first time. But when the State Department
complains about corruption, it is ignored -- because (unlike Mr Biden) the White House offers
it no support. As for the EU, few believe it would jeopardise its association agreement with
Ukraine for the sake of the rule of law. So, the country's elite no longer fears attacking
investigators and activists."
Trump! It is all Trump's fault! Because – surely! – under the watch of the
President of Peace B. Obama and gramps Biden no dodgy things ever happened in the Ukraine,
noooope! Biden (and his son) gonna defend this PO like lions! This also welcomes nasty
question – aren't Mr. Poroshenko himself an oligarch, whose personal wealth skyrocketed
since his election? And maybe – I'm not insisting, no-no – having lots of cash
stashed in "Panama Papers Fund" precludes him from actually fighting corruption – and
not, you know, the election of Trump? Heresy, I know!
But the articles goes from strength to strength, boldly skipping to the "What to do?"
section. The solution is as brilliant and though-over as everything else in there:
"Lay off the pay-offs
If they succeed in ending the attempts to fight graft, it will be a disaster for Ukraine --
and a step back for Europe and America, too. The country is the focal point of the West's
conflict with Russia. Weak and divided, it is vulnerable to Russian encroachment, especially
if Vladimir Putin decides he needs to fire up patriotic Russian voters. Chaos would also
buttress Mr Putin's claim that the West's aims in Ukraine are purely anti-Russian and have
nothing to do with democracy or the rule of law. All this would undermine the rules-based
global order, with consequences in the South China Sea and elsewhere.
Now that Ukraine is defying complaints by America's State Department and the EU's
foreign-policy arm, it is vital that America and Europe use every tool at their disposal to
support corruption-fighters in Kiev. The EU should make plain that the benefits of the
association pact depend on progress against graft; America should attach the same conditions
to arms sales. Prosecutors in Western capitals should investigate the laundering of
ill-gotten Ukrainian wealth. Support for Ukraine's territorial integrity should not involve
tolerance for the lack of integrity among its politicians."
Nope. Your Russophobia is high (and you yourself dear Western elites are also high most of
the time when it comes to Russia) that you will allow this unholy corrupt mess to persist.
Because, really, you are not interested in "democracy" and "open society". Not at the prize
of people electing someone, whose strings you cannot pull.
At the same time – this is "big: and "respectable" The Economist we are talking
about. They smell the fire from the yet unlit tires of new Maidan. They are afraid .
They know, that their "Operation: SHOWCASE" of turning Ukraine into a "democratic alternative
to Russia" failed. They are in denial.
The obligatory "rules-based global order" makes a tardy but welcome cameo appearance like an
aging well-loved Thespian milking the audience for a final burst of applause before
retirement. Great stuff!
Ukrainians voted for a return of the "criminal regime" of Yanukovich
01:24 – 10.12.2017
Ninety-two percent of the audience of the Ukrainian TV channel "NewsOne" voted for the
return of the regime of former President Viktor Yanukovych, reports the news portal
"Politnavigator".
In Saturday's broadcast, viewers were asked to choose one of two options to answer the
question "For whom would you vote: for the last criminal power or the current one?". Out of
46,686 people only eight per cent supported the policy of the current president, Petro
Poroshenko.
On 23 October, the Centre for social studies "Sofia" published the results of a poll in
which 79 percent of the population in varying degrees did not approve of Poroshenko being
head of state: the answer "fully approve of the President" was chosen by only 1.6
percent.
On October 17, the Prosecutor General of the Ukraine, Yuriy Lutsenko, accused former
president Viktor Yanukovich of embezzling assets worth $40 billion. According to the head of
the supervisory authority, this was comparable with the annual budget of the country.
Yanukovych was President of the Ukraine from 2010 to 2014. After a violent regime
change by means of the Euromaidan mass protests in Kiev and other cities, he left the
country.
In the Ukraine, there have been initiated several criminal cases made against the
former head of state and his property on the territory of the country has been
seized.
There's a useful lesson there for someone: more than 90% – arguably; we have no way to
know how scientific or representative this poll was – of the population does not
support the current government, in a country that has considerable and recent practical
experience of revolution. Yet the current government prevails with complete impunity, and
even flaunts its contempt for accountability. How can these two realities coexist? Is it
possible the violent nationalist element wields disproportionate influence, despite all the
quacking about its low support in the polls and Russian exaggeration of its extremist
beliefs?
Can't vouch for the entire web site but this was interesting:
Baiting is the act of deliberately annoying or provoking someone to extreme emotion.
When a person baits another, they are deliberately taunting in order to provoke a response
from the offender's attack.
If you are a fisherman, it might be fun but if you're the fish -- or worse a worm
squirming on a hook, being used to entice a predator to amuse? It's simply not as much fun
for people who are the victims of any form of bait and switch attack.
Truly believing the world as they know it revolves around them, they tend to
symptomatically behave in ways that are compulsively self-promoting, grandiose, illogical,
irrational, egocentric, and grandiose.
Every social interaction is seen as a competition of sorts, with the Narcissist
behaving as if their distorted, self-deluded version of any fact, story, or reality is
somehow rooted in divine truth (rather than being recognized as a symptom of psychiatric
dysfunction and outright gaslighting tales and lies).
The condition -- a personality TYPE classification, rather than an actual diagnosis of
illness (per se) -- tends to be rooted in cultural nurturing, for the most part.
People all over the world are protesting against globalisation, inequality and
selfishness. Democratic liberalism is supposed to solve these problems, but liberalism and
its big brother neoliberalism are actually the cause of these problems. Furthermore, once a
country has adopted neoliberalist policies it is very hard for it ever to reject them.
Three years later Russia is still standing... Still to a neoliberal state and not to be a USA vassal is a pipe dream. The system
is Washington-centric by design. but what is the alternative in unclear. Russia is still a neoliberal state and Putin is not eternal.
Contrary to Putin's vision, a neoliberal state can't be sovereign, it can only be a vassal of Washington. As soon as a neoliberal
state shows some independence it became a "rogue state" and punishment via financial system (and for smaller states via military actions)
will follow. Dominance in finance sphere gives the USA the ability to punish Russia to almost any extent they wish without significant
possibilities of retaliation, unless formal block of Russia and China is created.\
Russia can only retaliate in selected carefully chosen "weak spots". NGOs, media, the USA food companies (Coca-cola, junk food,
chickens, etc), financial and consulting firms (and first of all Big Three, closely connected with the USA government). Not so far nine
got under Russian government knife.
Notable quotes:
"... Yep, how dare the Russkies retaliate, when they ought to come begging on their knees to be allowed to do what the grand master in DC wants them to do ..."
"... Russians are using "trade as a geopolitical tool," warns a Washington think tank. Russia engaging in trade war – How despicable! ..."
"... And next Russans claim that "Fruit shipments from the EU have recently contained Oriental fruit moths " ..."
"... "It's not unusual for Russia to find something wrong when they have a political reason to do so". ..."
"... No word on whether his tongue immediately turned black and started to smoke, then fell out of his mouth. It's not unusual for the United States to apply sanctions when they have a political reason to do so, and fuck-all else. ..."
"... I was wrong about Rosoboronexport. It is EXEMPT from the list of sanctions. No doubt some of the deals (titanium) are critical for the US's own MIC. ..."
"... The baying audience of FOX-friends might be stoked at the idea of economic war with Russia, but the cold-eyed businessmen are likely to be unenthused at best ..."
Found at zerohedge, a US reaction on Russia's reaction to the sanctions:
"Assuming that they take this action, it would be blatant protectionism," Clayton Yeutter, a U.S. Trade Representative
under President Ronald Reagan, said in a phone interview. "There is little or no legitimacy to their complaints."
Russians are using "trade as a geopolitical tool," warns a Washington think tank. Russia engaging in trade war – How despicable!
First Russkies pretend to find antibiotics in McDonalds "cheese" products. But everybody knows the cheese cannot possibly contain
antibiotics, because it's not even real cheese! (it's a kind of edible plastic substance )
And next Russans claim that "Fruit shipments from the EU have recently contained Oriental fruit moths "
That's a lie too.
Everybody knows that if you eat your Polish quinces with a runcible spoon, then they will not contain any measurable amounts
of moth larvae.
"It's not unusual for Russia to find something wrong when they have a political reason to do so".
No word on whether his tongue immediately turned black and started to smoke, then fell out of his mouth. It's not unusual for
the United States to apply sanctions when they have a political reason to do so, and fuck-all else.
I was wrong about Rosoboronexport. It is EXEMPT from the list of sanctions. No doubt some of the deals (titanium) are critical
for the US's own MIC. Put Kadyrov or someone on the board and force Congress to slit Boeing's throat.
Or hire him to the company that produces rolled titanium alloys for Boeing and Airbus. A shot across the bow to say that Western
leaders will have to be standing in front of their populations as they crash their economies. Russia won't do it for them.
Excellent reasoning. The baying audience of FOX-friends might be stoked at the idea of economic war with Russia, but the cold-eyed
businessmen are likely to be unenthused at best. This is a great plan for achieving leverage cheaply and easily, and the
U.S. government would be left 'splaining to Boeing that they had to lay off a couple of thousand workers because a bad man was
appointed to the board of their major supplier.
The west is locked into its lame sanctions groove, and too proud to back down.
This might be
the big shootout from which only one currency will walk away.
"... William Roebuck, the American embassy's chargé d'affaires in Damascus, thus urged Washington in 2006 to coordinate with Egypt and Saudi Arabia to encourage Sunni Syrian fears of Shi'ite Iranian proselytizing even though such concerns are "often exaggerated." It was akin to playing up fears of Jewish dominance in the 1930s in coordination with Nazi Germany. ..."
"... A year later, former NATO commander Wesley Clark learned of a classified Defense Department memo stating that U.S. policy was now to "attack and destroy the governments in seven countries in five years," first Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran. (Quote starts at 2:07 .) ..."
"... So the answer was not to oppose the Islamists, but to use them. Even though "the Islamist surge will not be a picnic for the Syrian people," Gambill said, "it has two important silver linings for US interests." One is that the jihadis "are simply more effective fighters than their secular counterparts" thanks to their skill with "suicide bombings and roadside bombs." ..."
"... The other is that a Sunni Islamist victory in Syria will result in "a full-blown strategic defeat" for Iran, thereby putting Washington at least part way toward fulfilling the seven-country demolition job discussed by Wesley Clark. ..."
"... The U.S. would settle with the jihadis only after the jihadis had settled with Assad. The good would ultimately outweigh the bad. This kind of self-centered moral calculus would not have mattered had Gambill only spoken for himself. But he didn't. Rather, he was expressing the viewpoint of Official Washington in general, which is why the ultra-respectable FP ran his piece in the first place. ..."
"... The parallels with the DIA are striking. "The west, gulf countries, and Turkey support the opposition," the intelligence report declared, even though "the Salafist[s], the Muslim Brotherhood, and AQI [i.e. Al Qaeda in Iraq] are the major forces driving the insurgency." ..."
"... ancien régime, ..."
"... With the Saudis footing the bill, the U.S. would exercise untrammeled sway. ..."
"... Has a forecast that ever gone more spectacularly wrong? Syria's Baathist government is hardly blameless in this affair. But thanks largely to the U.S.-backed sectarian offensive, 400,000 Syrians or more have died since Gambill's article appeared, with another 6.1 million displaced and an estimated 4.8 million fleeing abroad. ..."
"... So instead of advancing U.S. policy goals, Gambill helped do the opposite. The Middle East is more explosive than ever while U.S. influence has fallen to sub-basement levels. Iranian influence now extends from the Arabian Sea to the Mediterranean, while the country that now seems to be wobbling out of control is Saudi Arabia where Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman is lurching from one self-induced crisis to another. The country that Gambill counted on to shore up the status quo turns out to be undermining it. ..."
"... It's not easy to screw things up so badly, but somehow Washington's bloated foreign-policy establishment has done it. Since helping to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, Gambill has moved on to a post at the rightwing Middle East Forum where Daniel Pipes, the group's founder and chief, now inveighs against the same Sunni ethnic cleansing that his employee defended or at least apologized for. ..."
"... The Frozen Republic: How the Constitution Is Paralyzing Democracy ..."
"... I do not believe than anyone in the civil or military command ever believed that arming the jihadists would bring any sort of stability or peace to the region. I do not believe that peace was ever an interest of the US until it has once again gained hegemonic control of central Asia. This is a fight to retain US global domination – causalities do not matter. The US and its partners or co-rulers of the Empire the Saud family and the Zionist oligarchy will slaughter with impunity until someone stops them or their own corruption defeats them. ..."
"... The Empire can not exist without relentless ongoing slaughter it has been at it every day now for 73 years. It worked for them all that time but that time has run out. China has already set the date for when its currency will become fully freely exchanged, less than 5 years. ..."
"... Even the most stupid person on earth couldn't think that the US was using murdering, butchering head choppers in a bid to bring peace and stability to the middle East. The Neocons and the other criminals that infest Washington don't want peace at any price because its bad for business. ..."
"... It's the same GROTESQUE caricature of these wars that the mainstream media always presents: that the U.S. is on the side of good, and fights for good, even though every war INVARIABLY ends up in a bloodbath, with no one caring how many civilians have died, what state the country is left in, that civilian infrastructure and civilians were targeted, let alone whether war could have been prevented. For example, in 1991, shortly after the first Gulf War, Iraqis rose up against their regime, but George H. Bush allowed Saddam to fly his military helicopters (permission was needed due to the no-fly zones), and quell the rebellion in blood – tens of thousands were butchered! Bush said that when he told Iraqis to rebel, he meant the military generals, NOT the Iraqi people themselves. In other words, the U.S. wanted Saddam gone, but the same regime in place. The U.S. never cared about the people! ..."
"... The military-industrial-complex sicced Mueller on Trump because they despise his overtures towards rapprochement with the Kremlin. The military-industrial-complex MUST have a villain to justify the gigantic defense [sic] spending which permeates the entire U.S. politico-economic system. Putin and Russia were always the preferred demon because they easily fit the bill in the minds of an easily brainwashed American public. Of course saber rattling towards Moscow puts the world on the brink of nuclear war, but no matter, the careerism and fat contracts are all that matter to the MIC. Trump's rhetoric about making peace with the Kremlin has always mortified the MIC. ..."
"... This is a rare instance of our elites battling it out behind the scenes, both groups being reprehensible power hungry greed heads and sociopaths, it's hard to tell how this will end. ..."
"... Lets be clear: The military-industrial-complex wants plenty of low intensity conflict to fuel ever more fabulous weapons sales, not a really hot war where all those pretty expensive toys are falling out of the sky in droves. ..."
"... On 24 October 2017, the Intercept released an NSA document unearthed from leaked intelligence files provided by Edward Snowden which reveals that terrorist militants in Syria were under the direct command of foreign governments from the early years of the war which has now claimed half a million lives. ..."
"... The US intelligence memo is evidence of internal US government confirmation of the direct role that both the Saudi and US governments played in fueling attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure, as well as military targets in pursuit of "regime change" in Syria. ..."
"... Israel's support for terrorist forces in Syria is well established. The Israelis and Saudis coordinate their activities. ..."
"... An August 2012 DIA report (written when the U.S. was monitoring weapons flows from Libya to Syria), said that the opposition in Syria was driven by al Qaeda and other extremist groups: "the Salafist, the Muslim Brotherhood, and AQI are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria." The "deterioration of the situation" was predicted to have "dire consequences" for Iraq, which included the "grave danger" of a terrorist "Islamic state". Some of the "dire consequences" are blacked out but the DIA warned one such consequence would be the "renewing facilitation of terrorist elements from all over the Arab world entering into Iraqi Arena." ..."
"... The heavily redacted DIA memo specifically mentions "the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran)." ..."
"... To clarify just who these "supporting powers" were, mentioned in the document who sought the creation of a "Salafist principality," the DIA memo explained: "The West, Gulf countries, and Turkey support the opposition; while Russia, China, and Iran support the regime." ..."
"... The DIA memo clearly indicates when it was decided to transform US, Saudi, and Turkish-backed Al Qaeda affiliates into ISIS: the "Salafist" (Islamic) "principality" (State). NATO member state Turkey has been directly supporting terrorism in Syria, and specifically, supporting ISIS. In 2014, Germany's international broadcaster Deutsche Welle's reported "'IS' supply channels through Turkey." DW exposed fleets of hundreds of trucks a day, passing unchallenged through Turkey's border crossings with Syria, clearly bound for the defacto ISIS capital of Raqqa. Starting in September 2015, Russian airpower in Syria successfully interdicted ISIS supply lines. ..."
"... The usual suspects in Western media launched a relentless propaganda campaign against Russian support for Syria. The Atlantic Council's Bellingcat disinformation operation started working overtime. ..."
"... The propaganda effort culminated in the 4 April 2017 Khan Shaykhun false flag chemical incident in Idlib. Bellingcat's Eliot Higgins and Dan Kaszeta have been paraded by "First Draft" coalition media "partners" in a vigorous effort to somehow implicate the Russians. ..."
"... In a January 2016 interview on Al Jazeera, former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency Michael Flynn admitted that he "paid very close attention" to the August 2012 DIA report predicting the rise of a "declared or undeclared Salafist Principality" in Syria. Flynn even asserts that the White House's sponsoring of terrorists (that would emerge as Al Nusra and ISIS) against the Syrian regime was "a willful decision." ..."
"... Flynn was interviewed by British journalist Mehdi Hasan for Al Jazeera's Head to Head program. Flynn made it clear that the policies that led to the "the rise of the Islamic State, the rise of terrorism" were not merely the result of ignorance or looking the other way, but the result of conscious decision making ..."
"... General Flynn explained to Hersh that 'If the American public saw the intelligence we were producing daily, at the most sensitive level, they would go ballistic.' Hersh's investigative report exposed a kind of intelligence schism between the Pentagon and CIA concerning the covert program in Syria. ..."
"... The article raises a very serious charge. Up till now it appeared that supplying weapons to Al Qaeda affiliates in Syria was just another example of Pentagon incompetence but the suggestion here is that it was a concerted policy and it's hard to believe that there was no one in the Pentagon that was privy to that policy who wouldn't raise an objection. ..."
"... That it conformed with Israeli, Saudi and CIA designs is not surprising, but that there was no dissension within the Pentagon is appalling (or that Obama didn't raise objections). Clark's comment should put him on the hot seat for a congressional investigation but, of course, there is no one in congress to run with it. The policy is so manifestly evil that it seems to dwarf even the reckless ignorance of preceding "interventions". ..."
"... The DIA report released by Gen. Flynn in 2012 predicted the Islamic State with alarm. That is why Flynn was fired as Director of DIA. He objected to the insane policy of supporting the CIA/Saudi madness and saw it as not only counter-productive but disastrous. His comments to AlJazeera in 2016 reinforced this position. Gen Flynn's faction of the American military has been consistent in its opposition to CIA support of terrorist forces. ..."
"... I see Gen. Flynn as a whistleblower. The 2012 report he circulated saw the rise of the Salafist Islamic state with alarm ..."
"... Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, director of the DIA between 2012 and 2014, confirmed that his agency had sent a constant stream of classified warnings to the civilian leadership about the dire consequences of toppling Assad. ..."
"... Thank you. Gen Flynn also urged coordination with Russia against ISIS, so it doesn't take much to see why he was targeted. ..."
"... The use of Islamist proxy warriors to help achieve American geo-political ends goes back to at least 1979, including Afghanistan, Bosnia, Libya, and Syria. One of the better books on 9/11 is Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed's "The War On Truth: 9/11, Disinformation, and the Anatomy of Terrorism". The first section of that book – "The Geopolitics of Terrorism" – covers, across 150 well-sourced pages, the history and background of this involvement. It is highly recommended for anyone who wishes to be better informed on this topic. ..."
"... Jaycee, actually you have to go back much further than that to WW2. Hitler used the marginalized Turkic people in Russia and turned them into effective fighters to create internal factions within the Soviet Union. After Hitler lost and the Cold War began, the US, who had no understanding of the Soviets at the time radicalized and empowered Islamist including the Muslim Brotherhood to weaponize Islam against the Soviet Union. ..."
"... All these western imperial geostrategic planners are certifiably insane and have no business anywhere near the levers of government policy. They are the number one enemy of humanity. If we don't find a way to remove them from power, they may actually succeed in destroying life on Earth. ..."
"... There is a volume of evidence that the war criminals in our midst were arming and training "jihadists." See link below. http://graysinfo.blogspot.ca/2016/10/the-evidence-of-planning-of-wars.html ..."
"... Incompetence and stupidity are their only defense because if anyone acknowledged that trillions of dollars have been made by the usual suspects committing these crimes, the industrialists of war would face a justice symbolized by Nuremberg. ..."
"... The American groupthink rarely allows propaganda and disinformation disturb: endless wars and endless lies and criminality, have not disturbed this mindset. It is clever to manipulate people to think in a way opposite of truth so consistently. All the atrocities by the US have been surrounded by media propaganda and mastery of groupthink techniques go down well. Mention something unusual or real news and you might get heavily criticized for daring to think outside the box and doubt what are (supposedly) "religious truths". Tell a lie long enough and it becomes the truth. ..."
"... The CIA was a key force behind the creation of both al Qaeda and ISIS. Most major incidents of "Islamic Terrorism" have some kind of CIA backing behind them. See this large collection of links for compiled evidence: http://www.pearltrees.com/joshstern/government-supporting/id18814292 ..."
"... This journalist and other journalists writing on some of my favorite Russian propaganda news websites, have reported the US empire routinely makes "deals with the devil", the enemy of my enemy is my friend, if doing so furthers their goal of perpetual war and global hegemony. Yet, inexplicably, these journalists buy the US empire's 911 story without question, in the face of many unanswered questions ..."
"... Bin Laden (CIA staffer) and a handful of his men, all from close allied countries to the US, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt, delivered the 2nd Pearl Harbor on 911. What a timely coincidence! We accept the US Empire provides weapons and military support to the same enemy, and worse, who attacked us on 911, but one is labeled a "conspiracy nut" if they believe that same US Empire would orchestrate 911 to justify their long planned global war. One thing about being a "conspiracy nut", if you live long enough, often you will see your beliefs vindicated ..."
"... So many questions, and so much left unanswered, but don't worry America may run out of money for domestic vital needs but the U.S. always has the money to go fight another war. It's a culture thing, and if you ain't into it then you just don't pay no attention to it. In fact if your life is better off from all of these U.S. led invasions, then your probably not posting any comments here, either. ..."
"... From the October 1973 Yom Kippur War onward, the United States had no foreign policy in the Middle East other than Israel's. Daniel Lazare should read "A clean break: a new strategy for the Realm". ..."
"... For the majority of amoral opportunists of the US, money=power=virtue and they will attack all who disagree. ..."
"... I am stunned that anyone could be so foolish as to think that the US military machine, US imperialism, does things "naively", bumbling like a helpless giant into wars that destroy entire nations with no end in sight. One need not be a "conspiracy theorist" to understand that the Pentagon does not control the world with an ever-expanding war budget equal to the next 10 countries combined, that it does this just because it is stuck on the wrong path. No! US imperialism develops these "big guns" to use them, to overpower, take over and dominate the world for the sake of profits and protection of the right to exploit for private profit. ..."
"... Daniel Pipes, from what I've read of him, is among those who counsel the U.S. government to use its military power to support the losing side in any civil wars fought within Israel's enemy states, so that the wars will continue, sparing Israel the threat of unified enemy states. What normal human beings consider a humanitarian disaster, repeated in Iraq, Syria and Libya, would be reckoned a success according to this way of thinking. The thinking would appear to lead to similar treatment of Iran, with even more catastrophic consequences. ..."
"... I think this pattern of using Salafists for regime change started already in Afghanistan, with Brzezinski plotting with Saudi-Arabia and Pakistan to pay and train Osama bin Laden to attack the pro Russia regime and trying to get the USSR involved in it, also trying to blame the USSR for its agression, like they did in Syri"r? ..."
"... Yes, the Brzezinski/Reagan support of fanatic insurgencies began in AfPak and was revived for the zionists. Russia happened to be on the side more or less tending to progress in both cases, so it had to be opposed. The warmongers are always the US MIC/intel, allied with the anti-American zionist fascists for Mideast wars. ..."
"... Sheldon Adelson, Soros, Saban all wanted carving up of Arabic states into small sectarian pieces (No Nasseric pan-Arabic states, a threat to Israël). And protracted wars of total destruction. Easy. ..."
"... Of course, they were told (by whom?) that the jihadists were 'democratic rebels' and 'freedom fighters' who just wanted to 'bring democracy' to Syria, and get rid of the 'tyrant Assad.' 5 years later, so much of the nonsense about "local councils" and "white helmets" has been exposed for what it was. Yet many 'free thinking' people bought the propaganda. Just like they do on Russiagate. Who needs an "alt-right" when America's "left" is a total disgrace? ..."
When a Department of Defense intelligence
report about the Syrian rebel movement became public in May 2015, lots of people didn't
know what to make of it. After all, what the report said was unthinkable – not only that
Al Qaeda had dominated the so-called democratic revolt against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad
for years, but that the West continued to support the jihadis regardless, even to the point of
backing their goal of creating a Sunni Salafist principality in the eastern deserts.
Journalist James Foley shortly before he was executed by an Islamic State operative in
August 2014.
The United States lining up behind Sunni terrorism – how could this be? How could a
nice liberal like Barack Obama team up with the same people who had brought down the World
Trade Center?
It was impossible, which perhaps explains why the report remained a non-story long after it
was released courtesy of a Judicial Watch freedom-of-information
lawsuit . The New York Times didn't mention it until
six months later while the Washington Post waited more than a year before
dismissing it as "loopy" and "relatively unimportant." With ISIS rampaging across much of
Syria and Iraq, no one wanted to admit that U.S. attitudes were ever anything other than
hostile.
But three years earlier, when the Defense Intelligence Agency was compiling the report,
attitudes were different. Jihadis were heroes rather than terrorists, and all the experts
agreed that they were a low-risk, high-yield way of removing Assad from office.
After spending five days with a Syrian rebel unit, for instance, New York Times reporter
C.J. Chivers
wrote that the group "mixes paramilitary discipline, civilian policing, Islamic law, and
the harsh demands of necessity with battlefield coldness and outright cunning."
Paul Salem, director of the Carnegie Middle East Center in Beirut,
assured the Washington Post that "al Qaeda is a fringe element" among the rebels, while,
not to be outdone, the gossip site Buzzfeed published a
pin-up of a "ridiculously photogenic" jihadi toting an RPG.
"Hey girl," said the subhead. "Nothing sexier than fighting the oppression of tyranny."
And then there was Foreign Policy, the magazine founded by neocon guru Samuel P. Huntington,
which was most enthusiastic of all. Gary Gambill's " Two Cheers for Syrian
Islamists ," which ran on the FP web site just a couple of weeks after the DIA report was
completed, didn't distort the facts or make stuff up in any obvious way. Nonetheless, it is a
classic of U.S. propaganda. Its subhead glibly observed: "So the rebels aren't secular
Jeffersonians. As far as America is concerned, it doesn't much matter."
Assessing the Damage
Five years later, it's worth a second look to see how Washington uses self-serving logic to
reduce an entire nation to rubble.
First a bit of background. After displacing France and Britain as the region's prime
imperial overlord during the 1956 Suez Crisis and then breaking with Egyptian President Gamal
Abdel Nasser a few years later, the United States committed itself to the goal of defeating
Arab nationalism and Soviet Communism, two sides of the same coin as far as Washington was
concerned. Over the next half-century, this would mean steering Egypt to the right with
assistance from the Saudis, isolating Libyan strong man Muammar Gaddafi, and doing what it
could to undermine the Syrian Baathist regime as well.
William Roebuck, the American embassy's chargé d'affaires in Damascus, thus
urged
Washington in 2006 to coordinate with Egypt and Saudi Arabia to encourage Sunni Syrian fears of
Shi'ite Iranian proselytizing even though such concerns are "often exaggerated." It was akin to
playing up fears of Jewish dominance in the 1930s in coordination with Nazi Germany.
A year later, former NATO commander Wesley Clark learned of a classified Defense Department
memo stating that U.S. policy was now to "attack and destroy the governments in seven countries
in five years," first Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran. (Quote starts
at 2:07 .)
Since the United States didn't like what such governments were doing, the solution was to
install more pliable ones in their place. Hence Washington's joy when the Arab Spring struck
Syria in March 2011 and it appeared that protesters would soon topple the Baathists on their
own.
Even when lofty democratic rhetoric gave way to ominous sectarian
chants of "Christians to Beirut, Alawites to the coffin," U.S. enthusiasm remained strong.
With Sunnis accounting for perhaps 60 percent of the population, strategists figured that there
was no way Assad could hold out against religious outrage welling up from below.
Enter Gambill and the FP. The big news, his article began, is that secularists are no longer
in command of the burgeoning Syrian rebel movement and that Sunni Islamists are taking the lead
instead. As unfortunate as this might seem, he argued that such a development was both
unavoidable and far from entirely negative.
"Islamist political ascendancy is inevitable in a majority Sunni Muslim country brutalized
for more than four decades by a secular minoritarian dictatorship," he wrote in reference to
the Baathists. "Moreover, enormous financial resources are pouring in from the Arab-Islamic
world to promote explicitly Islamist resistance to Assad's Alawite-dominated, Iranian-backed
regime."
So the answer was not to oppose the Islamists, but to use them. Even though "the Islamist
surge will not be a picnic for the Syrian people," Gambill said, "it has two important silver
linings for US interests." One is that the jihadis "are simply more effective fighters than
their secular counterparts" thanks to their skill with "suicide bombings and roadside
bombs."
The other is that a Sunni Islamist victory in Syria will result in "a full-blown strategic
defeat" for Iran, thereby putting Washington at least part way toward fulfilling the
seven-country demolition job discussed by Wesley Clark.
"So long as Syrian jihadis are committed to fighting Iran and its Arab proxies," the article
concluded, "we should quietly root for them – while keeping our distance from a conflict
that is going to get very ugly before the smoke clears. There will be plenty of time to tame
the beast after Iran's regional hegemonic ambitions have gone down in flames."
Deals with the Devil
The U.S. would settle with the jihadis only after the jihadis had settled with Assad. The
good would ultimately outweigh the bad. This kind of self-centered moral calculus would not
have mattered had Gambill only spoken for himself. But he didn't. Rather, he was expressing the
viewpoint of Official Washington in general, which is why the ultra-respectable FP ran his
piece in the first place.The Islamists were something America could employ to their advantage and then throw away
like a squeezed lemon. A few Syrians would suffer, but America would win, and that's all that
counts.
The parallels with the DIA are striking. "The west, gulf countries, and Turkey support the
opposition," the intelligence report declared, even though "the Salafist[s], the Muslim
Brotherhood, and AQI [i.e. Al Qaeda in Iraq] are the major forces driving the insurgency."
Where Gambill predicted that "Assad and his minions will likely retreat to northwestern
Syria," the DIA speculated that the jihadis might establish "a declared or undeclared Salafist
principality" at the other end of the country near cities like Hasaka and Der Zor (also known
as Deir ez-Zor).
Where the FP said that the ultimate aim was to roll back Iranian influence and undermine
Shi'ite rule, the DIA said that a Salafist principality "is exactly what the supporting powers
to the opposition want in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic
depth of Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran)."
Bottle up the Shi'ites in northwestern Syria, in other words, while encouraging Sunni
extremists to establish a base in the east so as to put pressure on Shi'ite-influenced Iraq and
Shi'ite-ruled Iran.
As Gambill put it: "Whatever misfortunes Sunni Islamists may visit upon the Syrian people,
any government they form will be strategically preferable to the Assad regime, for
three reasons: A new government in Damascus will find continuing the alliance with Tehran
unthinkable, it won't have to distract Syrians from its minority status with foreign policy
adventurism like the ancien régime, and it will be flush with petrodollars from
Arab Gulf states (relatively) friendly to Washington."
With the Saudis footing the bill, the U.S. would exercise untrammeled sway.
Disastrous Thinking
Has a forecast that ever gone more spectacularly wrong? Syria's Baathist government is
hardly blameless in this affair. But thanks largely to the U.S.-backed sectarian offensive,
400,000
Syrians or more have died since Gambill's article appeared, with another 6.1 million
displaced and an estimated 4.8 million fleeing abroad.
U.S.-backed Syrian "moderate" rebels smile as they prepare to behead a 12-year-old boy
(left), whose severed head is held aloft triumphantly in a later part of the video. [Screenshot
from the YouTube video] War-time destruction totals around $250
billion , according to U.N. estimates, a staggering sum for a country of 18.8 million
people where per-capita income prior to the outbreak of violence was under $3,000. From Syria,
the specter of sectarian violence has spread across Asia and Africa and into Europe and North
America as well. Political leaders throughout the advanced industrial world are still
struggling to contain the populist fury that the Middle East refugee crisis, the result of
U.S.-instituted regime change, helped set off.
So instead of advancing U.S. policy goals, Gambill helped do the opposite. The Middle East
is more explosive than ever while U.S. influence has fallen to sub-basement levels. Iranian
influence now extends from the Arabian Sea to the Mediterranean, while the country that now
seems to be wobbling out of control is Saudi Arabia where Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman is
lurching from one self-induced crisis to another. The country that Gambill counted on to shore
up the status quo turns out to be undermining it.
It's not easy to screw things up so badly, but somehow Washington's bloated foreign-policy
establishment has done it. Since helping to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, Gambill has
moved on to a post at the rightwing Middle East Forum where Daniel Pipes, the group's founder
and chief, now inveighs against the same Sunni ethnic cleansing that his employee
defended or at least apologized for.
The forum is particularly well known for its Campus Watch program, which targets academic
critics of Israel, Islamists, and – despite Gambill's kind words about "suicide bombings
and roadside bombs" – anyone it considers the least bit apologetic about Islamic
terrorism.
Double your standard, double the fun. Terrorism, it seems, is only terrorism when others do
it to the U.S., not when the U.S. does it to others.
Daniel Lazare is the author of several books including The Frozen Republic: How the
Constitution Is Paralyzing Democracy (Harcourt Brace).
Babyl-on , December 8, 2017 at 5:26 pm
I do not believe than anyone in the civil or military command ever believed that arming
the jihadists would bring any sort of stability or peace to the region. I do not believe that
peace was ever an interest of the US until it has once again gained hegemonic control of
central Asia. This is a fight to retain US global domination – causalities do not matter. The US
and its partners or co-rulers of the Empire the Saud family and the Zionist oligarchy will
slaughter with impunity until someone stops them or their own corruption defeats them.
The Empire can not exist without relentless ongoing slaughter it has been at it every day
now for 73 years. It worked for them all that time but that time has run out. China has
already set the date for when its currency will become fully freely exchanged, less than 5
years. When that happens the world will return to the gold standard + Bitcoin possibly and US
dollar hegemony will end. After that the trillion dollar a year military and the 20 trillion
debt take on a different meaning. Before that slaughter non-stop will continue.
john wilson , December 9, 2017 at 6:31 am
Really, Baby-lon, your first short paragraph sums this piece by Lazare perfectly and makes
the rest of his blog seem rather pointless. Even the most stupid person on earth couldn't
think that the US was using murdering, butchering head choppers in a bid to bring peace and
stability to the middle East. The Neocons and the other criminals that infest Washington
don't want peace at any price because its bad for business.
Babyl-on and John Wilson: you have nailed it. The last thing the US (gov't.) wants is
peace. War is big business; casualties are of no concern (3 million Koreans died in the
Korean War; 3 million Vietnamese in that war; 100's of thousands in Iraq [including Clinton's
sanctions] and Afghanistan). The US has used jihadi proxies since the mujahedeen in 1980's
Afghanistan and Contras in Nicaragua. To the US (gov't.), a Salafist dictatorship (such as
Saudi Arabia) is highly preferable to a secular, nationalist ruler (such as Egypt's Nasser,
Libya's Gaddafi, Syria's Assad).
So the cover story of the jjihadi's has changed – first they are freedom fighters, then
terrorists. What does not change is that in either case they are pawns of the US (gov't.)
goal of hegemony.
(Incidentally, Drew Hunkins must be responding to a different article.)
Exactly Baby right on, Either USA strategists are extremely ignorant or they are attempting
to create chaos, probably both.
Perhaps not continuously but surely frequently the USA has promoted war prior to the last 73
years. Native Genocide , Mexican Wars, Spanish War, WWI ( USA banker repayment war)
Richard , December 9, 2017 at 5:24 pm
Exactly Babylon! Looks like consortiumnews is turning into another propaganda rag. Assad
was allied with Russia and Iran – that's why the U.S. wanted him removed. Israel said
that they would preferred ISIS in power over Assad. The U.S. would have happily wiped out 90%
of the population using its terrorist proxies if it thought it could have got what it
wanted.
Sam F , December 10, 2017 at 8:50 am
CN tends to make moderate statements so as to communicate with those most in need of
them.
One must start with the understandings of the audience and show them that the evidence leads
further.
Richard , December 10, 2017 at 10:27 am
Sam F, no, it's a DELIBERATE lie in support of U.S. foreign policy. The guy wrote: "the
NAIVE belief that jihadist proxies could be used to TRANSFORM THE REGION FOR THE BETTER." It
could have been written as: "the stated justification by the president that he wanted to
transform the region for the better, even though there are often ulterior motives."
It's the same GROTESQUE caricature of these wars that the mainstream media always
presents: that the U.S. is on the side of good, and fights for good, even though every war
INVARIABLY ends up in a bloodbath, with no one caring how many civilians have died, what
state the country is left in, that civilian infrastructure and civilians were targeted, let
alone whether war could have been prevented. For example, in 1991, shortly after the first
Gulf War, Iraqis rose up against their regime, but George H. Bush allowed Saddam to fly his
military helicopters (permission was needed due to the no-fly zones), and quell the rebellion
in blood – tens of thousands were butchered! Bush said that when he told Iraqis to
rebel, he meant the military generals, NOT the Iraqi people themselves. In other words, the
U.S. wanted Saddam gone, but the same regime in place. The U.S. never cared about the
people!
Either Robert Parry or the author wrote that introduction. I suspect Mr Parry – he
always portrays the president as having a heart of gold, but, always, sadly, misinformed;
being a professional journalist, he knows full well that people often only read the start and
end of an article.
Drew Hunkins , December 8, 2017 at 5:31 pm
What we have occurring right now in the United States is a rare divergence of interests
within our ruling class. The elites are currently made up of Zionist-militarists. What we're
now witnessing is a rare conflict between the two factions. This particular internecine
battle has reared its head in the past, the Dubai armaments deal comes to mind off the top of
my head.
Trump started the Jerusalem imbroglio because he's concerned about Mueller's witch
hunt.
The military-industrial-complex sicced Mueller on Trump because they despise his overtures
towards rapprochement with the Kremlin. The military-industrial-complex MUST have a villain
to justify the gigantic defense [sic] spending which permeates the entire U.S.
politico-economic system. Putin and Russia were always the preferred demon because they
easily fit the bill in the minds of an easily brainwashed American public. Of course saber
rattling towards Moscow puts the world on the brink of nuclear war, but no matter, the
careerism and fat contracts are all that matter to the MIC. Trump's rhetoric about making
peace with the Kremlin has always mortified the MIC.
Since Trump's concerned about 1.) Mueller's witch hunt (he definitely should be deeply
concerned, this is an out of control prosecutor on mission creep), and 2.) the almost total
negative coverage the press has given him over the last two years, he's made a deal with the
Zionist Power Configuration; Trump, effectively saying to them: "I'll give you Jerusalem, you
use your immense influence in the American mass media to tamp down the relentlessly hostile
coverage toward me, and perhaps smear Mueller's witch hunt a bit ".
This is a rare instance of our elites battling it out behind the scenes, both groups being
reprehensible power hungry greed heads and sociopaths, it's hard to tell how this will
end.
How this all eventually plays out is anyone's guess indeed. Let's just make sure it
doesn't end with mushroom clouds over Tehran, Saint Petersburg, Paris, Chicago, London, NYC,
Washington and Berlin.
Abe , December 8, 2017 at 7:57 pm
Trump's purported deviation from foreign policy orthodoxy regarding both Russia and Israel
was a propaganda scam engineered by the pro-Israel Lobby from the very beginning. As Russia-gate fiction is progressively deconstructed, the Israel-gate reality becomes
ever more despicably obvious.
The shamelessly Israel-pandering Trump received the "Liberty Award" for his contributions
to US-Israel relations at a 3 February 2015 gala hosted by The Algemeiner Journal, a New
York-based newspaper, covering American and international Jewish and Israel-related news.
After the event, Trump did not renew his television contract for The Apprentice, which
raised speculation about a Trump bid for the presidency. Trump announced his candidacy in
June 2015.
Trump's purported break with GOP orthodoxy, questioning of Israel's commitment to peace,
calls for even treatment in Israeli-Palestinian deal-making, and refusal to call for
Jerusalem to be Israel's undivided capital, were all stage-managed for the campaign.
Cheap theatrics notwithstanding, the Netanyahu regime in Israel has "1000 percent" support
from the Trump regime.
Drew Hunkins , December 8, 2017 at 8:10 pm
If Trump were totally and completely subservient to Netanyahu he would have bombed
Damascus to remove Assad and would have bombed Tehran to obliterate Iran. Of course thus far
he has done neither. Don't get me wrong, Trump is essentially part and parcel of the Zionist
cabal, but I don't quite think he's 1,000% under their thumb (not yet?).
I don't think the Zionist Power Configuration concocted Trump's policy of relative peace
with the Kremlin. Yes, the ZPC is extremely powerful in America, but Trump's position of
detente with Moscow seemed to be genuine. He caught way too much heat from the mass media for
it to be a stunt, it's almost torpedoed his presidency, and may eventually do just that. It
was actually one of the very few things Trump got right; peace with Russia, cordial relations
with the Kremlin are a no-brainer. A no-brainer to everyone but the
military-industrial-complex.
Abe , December 8, 2017 at 10:59 pm
Russian. Missiles. Lets be clear: The military-industrial-complex wants plenty of low intensity conflict to
fuel ever more fabulous weapons sales, not a really hot war where all those pretty expensive
toys are falling out of the sky in droves.
Whether it was "bird strike" or something more technological that recently grounded the
"mighty" Israeli F-35I, it's clear that America isn't eager to have those "Inherent Resolve"
jets, so busily not bombing ISIS, painted with Russian SAM radar.
Russia made it clear that Trump's Tomahawk Tweet in April 2017 was not only under totally
false pretenses. It had posed a threat to Russian troops and Moscow took extra measures to
protect them.
Russian deployment of the advanced S-400 system on the Syrian coast in Latakia also
impacts Israel's regional air superiority. The S-400 can track and shoot down targets some
400 kilometers (250 miles) away. That range encompasses half of Israel's airspace, including
Ben Gurion International Airport. In addition to surface-to-air missiles installations, Russian aircraft in Syria are
equipped with air-to-air missiles. Those weapons are part of an calculus of Israeli aggression in the region.
Of course, there's much more to say about this subject.
Surely, Drew, even the brain washed sheep otherwise known as the American public can't
seriously believe that their government armed head choppers in a bid to bring peace to the
region, can they?
Drew Hunkins , December 9, 2017 at 1:34 pm
Yup Mr. Wilson. It's too much cognitive dissonance for them to process. After all, we're
the exceptional nation, the beacon on the hill, the country that ONLY intervenes abroad when
there is a 'right to protect!' or it's a 'humanitarian intervention.' As Ken Burns would say:
Washington only acts "with good intentions. They're just sometimes misplaced." That's all.
The biggest global empire the world has ever seen is completely out of the picture.
mike k , December 8, 2017 at 5:34 pm
When evil people with evil intentions set out to do something in the world, the result is
evil. Like Libya, or Iraq, or Syria. Why do I call these people who killed millions for their
own selfish greed for power evil? If you have to ask that, then you just don't understand
what evil is – and you have a lot of company, because many people believe that evil
does not even exist! Such sheeple become the perfect victims of the evil ones, who are
destroying our world.
john wilson , December 9, 2017 at 6:36 am
Correction, Mike. The public do believe that evil exists but they sincerely think that
Putin and Russia are the evil ones'
mike k , December 9, 2017 at 5:41 pm
One of the ways to avoid recognizing evil is to ascribe it to inappropriate, incorrect
sources usually as a result of believing misleading propaganda. Another common maneuver is to
deny evil's presence in oneself, and believe it is always "out there". Or one can feel that
"evil" is an outmoded religious concept that is only used to hit at those one does not
like.
Mild - ly Facetious , December 8, 2017 at 6:22 pm
Oh Jerusalem: Requiem for the two-state solution (Gas masks required)
On 24 October 2017, the Intercept released an NSA document unearthed from leaked
intelligence files provided by Edward Snowden which reveals that terrorist militants in Syria
were under the direct command of foreign governments from the early years of the war which
has now claimed half a million lives.
Marked "Top Secret" the NSA memo focuses on events that unfolded outside Damascus in March
of 2013.
The US intelligence memo is evidence of internal US government confirmation of the direct
role that both the Saudi and US governments played in fueling attacks on civilians and
civilian infrastructure, as well as military targets in pursuit of "regime change" in
Syria.
Israel's support for terrorist forces in Syria is well established. The Israelis and
Saudis coordinate their activities.
Abe , December 8, 2017 at 6:27 pm
An August 2012 DIA report (written when the U.S. was monitoring weapons flows from Libya
to Syria), said that the opposition in Syria was driven by al Qaeda and other extremist
groups: "the Salafist, the Muslim Brotherhood, and AQI are the major forces driving the
insurgency in Syria." The "deterioration of the situation" was predicted to have "dire consequences" for Iraq,
which included the "grave danger" of a terrorist "Islamic state". Some of the "dire consequences" are blacked out but the DIA warned one such consequence
would be the "renewing facilitation of terrorist elements from all over the Arab world
entering into Iraqi Arena."
The heavily redacted DIA memo specifically mentions "the possibility of establishing a
declared or undeclared Salafist principality in eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this
is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian
regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran)."
To clarify just who these "supporting powers" were, mentioned in the document who sought
the creation of a "Salafist principality," the DIA memo explained: "The West, Gulf countries, and Turkey support the opposition; while Russia, China, and
Iran support the regime."
The DIA memo clearly indicates when it was decided to transform US, Saudi, and
Turkish-backed Al Qaeda affiliates into ISIS: the "Salafist" (Islamic) "principality"
(State). NATO member state Turkey has been directly supporting terrorism in Syria, and
specifically, supporting ISIS. In 2014, Germany's international broadcaster Deutsche Welle's reported "'IS' supply
channels through Turkey." DW exposed fleets of hundreds of trucks a day, passing unchallenged
through Turkey's border crossings with Syria, clearly bound for the defacto ISIS capital of
Raqqa. Starting in September 2015, Russian airpower in Syria successfully interdicted ISIS supply
lines.
The usual suspects in Western media launched a relentless propaganda campaign against
Russian support for Syria. The Atlantic Council's Bellingcat disinformation operation started
working overtime.
The propaganda effort culminated in the 4 April 2017 Khan Shaykhun false flag chemical
incident in Idlib. Bellingcat's Eliot Higgins and Dan Kaszeta have been paraded by "First
Draft" coalition media "partners" in a vigorous effort to somehow implicate the Russians.
Abe , December 9, 2017 at 12:26 pm
In a January 2016 interview on Al Jazeera, former director of the Defense Intelligence
Agency Michael Flynn admitted that he "paid very close attention" to the August 2012 DIA
report predicting the rise of a "declared or undeclared Salafist Principality" in Syria. Flynn even asserts that the White House's sponsoring of terrorists (that would emerge as
Al Nusra and ISIS) against the Syrian regime was "a willful decision."
Flynn was interviewed by British journalist Mehdi Hasan for Al Jazeera's Head to Head
program. Flynn made it clear that the policies that led to the "the rise of the Islamic State, the
rise of terrorism" were not merely the result of ignorance or looking the other way, but the
result of conscious decision making:
Hasan: "You are basically saying that even in government at the time you knew these groups
were around, you saw this analysis, and you were arguing against it, but who wasn't
listening?"
Flynn: "I think the administration."
Hasan: "So the administration turned a blind eye to your analysis?"
Flynn: "I don't know that they turned a blind eye, I think it was a decision. I think it
was a willful decision."
Hasan: "A willful decision to support an insurgency that had Salafists, Al Qaeda and the
Muslim Brotherhood?"
Flynn: "It was a willful decision to do what they're doing."
Holding up a paper copy of the 2012 DIA report declassified through FOIA, Hasan read aloud
key passages such as, "there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared
Salafist principality in Eastern Syria, and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the
opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime."
Rather than downplay the importance of the document and these startling passages, as did
the State Department soon after its release, Flynn did the opposite: he confirmed that while
acting DIA chief he "paid very close attention" to this report in particular and later added
that "the intelligence was very clear."
Lt. Gen. Flynn, speaking safely from retirement, is the highest ranking intelligence
official to go on record saying the United States and other state sponsors of rebels in Syria
knowingly gave political backing and shipped weapons to Al-Qaeda in order to put pressure on
the Syrian regime:
Hasan: "In 2012 the U.S. was helping coordinate arms transfers to those same groups
[Salafists, Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda in Iraq], why did you not stop that if you're
worried about the rise of quote-unquote Islamic extremists?"
Flynn: "I hate to say it's not my job but that my job was to was to to ensure that the
accuracy of our intelligence that was being presented was as good as it could be."
Flynn unambiguously confirmed that the 2012 DIA document served as source material in his
own discussions over Syria policy with the White House. Flynn served as Director of Intelligence for Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC)
during a time when its prime global mission was dismantling Al-Qaeda.
Flynn's admission that the White House was in fact arming and bolstering Al-Qaeda linked
groups in Syria is especially shocking given his stature. The Pentagon's former highest ranking intelligence officer in charge of the hunt for Osama
bin Laden confessed that the United States directly aided the Al Qaeda terrorist legions of
Ayman al-Zawahiri beginning in at least 2012 in Syria.
Abe , December 9, 2017 at 12:44 pm
Mehdi Hasan goes Head to Head with Michael Flynn, former head of the US Defense
Intelligence Agency
"Flynn would later tell the New York Times that this 2012 intelligence report in
particular was seen at the White House where it was 'disregarded' because it 'didn't meet the
narrative' on the war in Syria. He would further confirm to investigative journalist Seymour
Hersh that Defense Department (DoD) officials and DIA intelligence in particular, were loudly
warning the administration that jihadists were leading the opposition in Syria -- warnings
which were met with 'enormous pushback.' Instead of walking back his Al Jazeera comments,
General Flynn explained to Hersh that 'If the American public saw the intelligence we were
producing daily, at the most sensitive level, they would go ballistic.' Hersh's investigative
report exposed a kind of intelligence schism between the Pentagon and CIA concerning the
covert program in Syria.
"In a personal exchange on his blog Sic Semper Tyrannis, legendary DoD intelligence
officer and former presidential briefer Pat Lang explained [ ] that the DIA memo was used as
a 'warning shot across the [administration's] bow.' Lang has elsewhere stated that DIA
Director Flynn had 'tried to persuade people in the Obama Administration not to provide
assistance to the Nusra group.' It must be remembered that in 2012 what would eventually
emerge as distinct 'ISIS' and 'Nusra' (AQ in Syria) groups was at that time a singular entity
desiring a unified 'Islamic State.' The nascent ISIS organization (referenced in the memo as
'ISI' or Islamic State in Iraq) was still one among many insurgent groups fighting to topple
Assad.
"In fact, only one year after the DIA memo was produced (dated August 12, 2012) a
coalition of rebels fighting under the US-backed Revolutionary Military Council of Aleppo
were busy celebrating their most strategic victory to date, which served to open an
opposition corridor in Northern Syria. The seizure of the Syrian government's Menagh Airbase
in August 2013 was only accomplished with the military prowess of fighters identifying
themselves in front of cameras and to reporters on the ground as the Islamic State of Iraq
and al-Sham.
"Public embarrassment came for Ambassador to Syria Robert Ford who reluctantly confirmed
that in fact, yes, the US-funded and supplied FSA commander on the ground had personally led
ISIS and Nusra fighters in the attack (Ford himself was previously filmed alongside the
commander). This after the New York Times publicized unambiguous video proof of the fact.
Even the future high commander of Islamic State's military operations, Omar al-Shishani,
himself played a leading role in the US sponsored FSA operation."
"one first needs to understand what has happened in Syria and other Middle Eastern
countries in recent years. The original plan of the US and Saudi Arabia (behind whom stood an
invisible Israel) was the overthrow of Bashar al-Assad and his replacement with Islamic
fundamentalists or takfiris (Daesh, al-Qaeda, Jabhat al-Nusra).
"The plan involved the following steps:
sweep away a strong secular Arab state with a political culture, armed forces and
security services;
generate total chaos and horror in Syria that would justify the creation of Israel's
'security zone', not only in Golan Heights, but also further north;
start a civil war in Lebanon and incite takfiri violence against Hezbollah, leading
to them both bleeding to death and then create a "security zone", this time in Lebanon;
prevent the creation of a "Shiite axis" of Iran/Iraq/Syria/Lebanon;
continue the division of Syria along ethnic and religious lines, establish an
independent Kurdistan and then to use them against Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran.
give Israel the opportunity to become the unquestioned major player in the region and
force Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman, Kuwait and everyone else to apply for permission from Israel
in order to implement any oil and gas projects;
gradually isolate, threaten, undermine and ultimately attack Iran with a wide
regional coalition, removing all Shiite centers of power in the middle East.
"It was an ambitious plan, and the Israelis were completely convinced that the United
States would provide all the necessary resources to see it through. But the Syrian government
has survived thanks to military intervention by Russia, Iran and Hezbollah. Daesh is almost
defeated and Iran and Hezbollah are so firmly entrenched in Syria that it has driven the
Israelis into a state of fear bordering on panic. Lebanon remains stable, and even the recent
attempt by the Saudis to abduct Prime Minister Saad Hariri failed.
"As a result, Saudi Arabia and Israel have developed a new plan: force the US to attack
Iran. To this end, the 'axis of good"' (USA-Israel-Saudi Arabia) was created, although this
is nothing new. Saudi Arabia and the other Arab States in the Persian Gulf have in the past
spoken in favor of intervention in Syria. It is well known that the Saudis invaded Bahrain,
are occupying it de facto, and are now at war in Yemen.
"The Israelis will participate in any plan that will finally split the Sunnis and Shiites,
turning the region into rubble. It was not by chance that, having failed in Lebanon, they are
now trying to do the same in Yemen after the murder of Ali Abdullah Saleh.
"For the Saudis and Israelis, the problem lies in the fact that they have rather weak
armed forces; expensive and high-tech, but when it comes to full-scale hostilities,
especially against a really strong opponent such as the Iranians or Hezbollah, the
'Israel/Wahhabis' have no chance and they know it, even if they do not admit it. So, one
simply needs to think up some kind of plan to force the Shiites to pay a high price.
"So they developed a new plan. Firstly, the goal is now not the defeat of Hezbollah or
Iran. For all their rhetoric, the Israelis know that neither they nor especially the Saudis
are able to seriously threaten Iran or even Hezbollah. Their plan is much more basic:
initiate a serious conflict and then force the US to intervene. Only today, the armed forces
of the United States have no way of winning a war with Iran, and this may be a problem. The
US military knows this and they are doing everything to tell the neo-cons 'sorry, we just
can't.' This is the only reason why a US attack on Iran has not already taken place. From the
Israeli point of view this is totally unacceptable and the solution is simple: just force the
US to participate in a war they do not really need. As for the Iranians, the Israeli goal of
provoking an attack on Iran by the US is not to defeat Iran, but just to bring about
destruction – a lot of destruction [ ]
"You would need to be crazy to attack Iran. The problem, however, is that the Saudis and
the Israelis are close to this state. And they have proved it many times. So it just remains
to hope that Israel and the KSA are 'crazy', but 'not that crazy'."
The article raises a very serious charge. Up till now it appeared that supplying weapons to
Al Qaeda affiliates in Syria was just another example of Pentagon incompetence but the
suggestion here is that it was a concerted policy and it's hard to believe that there was no
one in the Pentagon that was privy to that policy who wouldn't raise an objection.
That it
conformed with Israeli, Saudi and CIA designs is not surprising, but that there was no
dissension within the Pentagon is appalling (or that Obama didn't raise objections). Clark's
comment should put him on the hot seat for a congressional investigation but, of course,
there is no one in congress to run with it. The policy is so manifestly evil that it seems to
dwarf even the reckless ignorance of preceding "interventions".
Linda Wood , December 8, 2017 at 10:24 pm
There WAS dissension within the Pentagon, not only about being in a coalition with the
Gulf States and Turkey in support of terrorist forces, but about allowing ISIS to invade
Ramadi, which CENTCOM exposed by making public that US forces watched it happen and did
nothing. In addition, CENTCOM and SOCOM publicly opposed switching sides in Yemen.
A senior commander at Central Command (CENTCOM), speaking on condition of anonymity,
scoffed at that argument. "The reason the Saudis didn't inform us of their plans," he said,
"is because they knew we would have told them exactly what we think -- that it was a bad
idea.
Military sources said that a number of regional special forces officers and officers at
U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) argued strenuously against supporting the Saudi-led
intervention because the target of the intervention, the Shia Houthi movement -- which has
taken over much of Yemen and which Riyadh accuses of being a proxy for Tehran -- has been
an effective counter to Al-Qaeda.
The DIA report released by Gen. Flynn in 2012 predicted the Islamic State with alarm. That
is why Flynn was fired as Director of DIA. He objected to the insane policy of supporting the
CIA/Saudi madness and saw it as not only counter-productive but disastrous. His comments to
AlJazeera in 2016 reinforced this position. Gen Flynn's faction of the American military has
been consistent in its opposition to CIA support of terrorist forces.
Thanks, I never read anything about it in the MSM (perhaps Aljazeera was an exception?).
However, this doesn't explain Gen. Flynn's tight relationship with Turkey's Erdogan who
clearly backed the Al Qaeda affiliated rebels to the point of shooting down a Russian jet
over Syria.
Sam F , December 10, 2017 at 8:57 am
The fighter shoot-down incident was before Erdogan's reversals in Syria policy.
Linda Wood , December 8, 2017 at 10:28 pm
I see Gen. Flynn as a whistleblower. The 2012 report he circulated saw the rise of the
Salafist Islamic state with alarm.
B. THE SALAFIST, THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD, AND AQI ARE THE MAJOR FORCES DRIVING THE
INSURGENCY IN SYRIA.
C. THE WEST, GULF COUNTRIES, AND TURKEY SUPPORT THE OPPOSITION; WHILE RUSSIA, CHINA, AND
IRAN SUPPORT THE REGIME.
C. IF THE SITUATION UNRAVELS THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING A DECLARED OR
UNDECLARED SALAFIST PRINCIPALITY IN EASTERN SYRIA (HASAKA AND DER ZOR), AND THIS IS EXACTLY
WHAT THE SUPPORTING POWERS TO THE OPPOSITION WANT, IN ORDER TO ISOLATE THE SYRIAN REGIME,
WHICH IS CONSIDERED THE STRATEGIC DEPTH OF THE SHIA EXPANSION (IRAQ AND IRAN).
D. THE DETERIORATION OF THE SITUATION HAS DIRE CONSEQUENCES ON THE IRAQI SITUATION AND
ARE AS FOLLOWS:
–1. THIS CREATES THE IDEAL ATMOSPHERE FOR AQI TO RETURN TO ITS OLD POCKETS IN
MOSUL AND RAMADI, AND WILL PROVIDE A RENEWED MOMENTUM UNDER THE PRESUMPTION OF UNIFYING THE
JIHAD AMONG SUNNI IRAQ AND SYRIA ISI COULD ALSO DECLARE AN ISLAMIC STATE THROUGH ITS UNION
WITH OTHER TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS IN IRAQ AND SYRIA, WHICH WILL CREATE GRAVE DANGER IN
REGARDS TO UNIFYING IRAQ AND THE PROTECTION OF ITS TERRITORY
Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, director of the DIA between 2012 and 2014, confirmed
that his agency had sent a constant stream of classified warnings to the civilian
leadership about the dire consequences of toppling Assad. The jihadists, he said, were in
control of the opposition. Turkey wasn't doing enough to stop the smuggling of foreign
fighters and weapons across the border. 'If the American public saw the intelligence we
were producing daily, at the most sensitive level, they would go ballistic,' Flynn told me.
'We understood Isis's long-term strategy and its campaign plans, and we also discussed the
fact that Turkey was looking the other way when it came to the growth of the Islamic State
inside Syria.' The DIA's reporting, he said, 'got enormous pushback' from the Obama
administration. 'I felt that they did not want to hear the truth.'
j. D. D. , December 9, 2017 at 8:33 am
Thank you. Gen Flynn also urged coordination with Russia against ISIS, so it doesn't take
much to see why he was targeted. Ironically, the MSM is now going bananas over his support
for nuclear power in the region, which he had tied to desalination of sea water, toward
alleviating that crucial source of conflict in the area.
Abbybwood , December 9, 2017 at 11:24 pm
I believe Wesley Clark told Amy Goodman that he was handed the classified memo regarding
the U.S. overthrowing seven countries in five years starting with Iraq and ending with Iran,
in 2001, not 2006. He said it was right after 9/11 when he visited the Pentagon and Joint
Chief of Staff's office and was handed the memo.
jaycee , December 8, 2017 at 7:19 pm
The use of Islamist proxy warriors to help achieve American geo-political ends goes back
to at least 1979, including Afghanistan, Bosnia, Libya, and Syria. One of the better books on
9/11 is Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed's "The War On Truth: 9/11, Disinformation, and the Anatomy of
Terrorism". The first section of that book – "The Geopolitics of Terrorism" –
covers, across 150 well-sourced pages, the history and background of this involvement. It is
highly recommended for anyone who wishes to be better informed on this topic.
One disturbing common feature across the years have been US sponsored airlifts of Islamist
fighters facing defeat, as seen in Afghanistan in late 2001 and just recently in eastern
Syria. In 2001, some of those fighters were relocated to North Africa, specifically Mali
– the roots of the Islamist insurgency which has destabilized that country over the
past few years. Where exactly the ISIS rebels assisted some weeks ago were relocated is yet
unknown.
turk151 , December 9, 2017 at 10:03 pm
Jaycee, actually you have to go back much further than that to WW2. Hitler used the
marginalized Turkic people in Russia and turned them into effective fighters to create
internal factions within the Soviet Union. After Hitler lost and the Cold War began, the US,
who had no understanding of the Soviets at the time radicalized and empowered Islamist
including the Muslim Brotherhood to weaponize Islam against the Soviet Union.
Hence the birth of the Mujaheddin and Bin Laden, the rest is history.
j. D. D. , December 8, 2017 at 7:57 pm
The article does not support the sub-headline. There is no evidence provided, nor is there
any evidence to be found, that Washington's policy in the region was motivated by anything
other than geopolitical objectives.
David G , December 9, 2017 at 7:25 am
I think that phrasing may point to the hand of editor Robert Parry. The incredible value
of CN notwithstanding, Parry in his own pieces (erroneously in my eyes) maintains a belief
that Obama somehow meant well. Hence the imputation of some "naïve" but ultimately
benevolent motive on the part of the U.S. genocidaires, as the whole Syria catastrophe got
going on Obama's watch.
Anon , December 9, 2017 at 9:14 am
The imputation of naivete works to avoid accusation of a specific strategy without
sufficient evidence.
Skip Scott , December 9, 2017 at 9:45 am
Although I am no fan of Obama, and most especially the continuation of the warmongering
for his 8 years, he did balk at the "Red line" when he found out he was being set up, and it
wasn't Assad who used chemical weapons. I don't think he "meant well" so much as he knew the
exact length of his leash. His bragging about going against "The Washington playbook" was of
course laughable; just as his whole hopey/changey thing was laughable with Citigroup picking
his cabinet.
All these western imperial geostrategic planners are certifiably insane and have no
business anywhere near the levers of government policy. They are the number one enemy of
humanity. If we don't find a way to remove them from power, they may actually succeed in
destroying life on Earth.
"Official Washington helped unleash hell on Syria and across the Mideast behind the
naïve belief that jihadist proxies could be used to transform the region for the better,
explains Daniel Lazare." What a load of old rubbish, naïve belief indeed. it is difficult to believe that
anyone could write this stuff with a straight face.
Linda Wood , December 8, 2017 at 10:37 pm
Incompetence and stupidity are their only defense because if anyone acknowledged that
trillions of dollars have been made by the usual suspects committing these crimes, the
industrialists of war would face a justice symbolized by Nuremberg.
Zachary Smith , December 8, 2017 at 11:37 pm
That Gary Gambill character "outed" himself as a Zionist on September 4 of this year. He
appears to have mastered the propaganda associated with the breed. At the link see if
you can find any mention of the murders, thefts, ethnic cleansing, or apartheid of his
adopted nation. Blaming the victim may be this fellow's specialty. Sample:
The well-intentioned flocked in droves to the belief that Israeli- Palestinian peace was
achievable provided Israel made the requisite concessions, and that this would liberate the
Arab-Islamic world from a host of other problems allegedly arising from it: bloated
military budgets, intolerance of dissent, Islamic extremism, you name it.
Why tackle each of these problems head on when they can be alleviated all at once when
Israel is brought to heel? Twenty years later, the Middle East is suffering the
consequences of this conspiracy of silence.
The American groupthink rarely allows propaganda and disinformation disturb: endless wars
and endless lies and criminality, have not disturbed this mindset. It is clever to manipulate
people to think in a way opposite of truth so consistently. All the atrocities by the US have
been surrounded by media propaganda and mastery of groupthink techniques go down well.
Mention something unusual or real news and you might get heavily criticized for daring to
think outside the box and doubt what are (supposedly) "religious truths". Tell a lie long
enough and it becomes the truth.
It takes courage to go against the flow of course and one can only hope that the Americans
are what they think they are: courageous and strong enough to hear their cherished truths
smashed, allow the scales before their eyes to fall and practise free speech and free
thought.
Theo , December 9, 2017 at 6:35 am
Thanks for this article and many others on this site.In Europe and in Germany you hardly
hear,read or see any of these facts and their connections.It seems to be only of marginal
interest.
The CIA was a key force behind the creation of both al Qaeda and ISIS. Most major
incidents of "Islamic Terrorism" have some kind of CIA backing behind them. See this large
collection of links for compiled evidence:
http://www.pearltrees.com/joshstern/government-supporting/id18814292
triekc , December 9, 2017 at 8:27 am
This journalist and other journalists writing on some of my favorite Russian propaganda
news websites, have reported the US empire routinely makes "deals with the devil", the enemy
of my enemy is my friend, if doing so furthers their goal of perpetual war and global
hegemony. Yet, inexplicably, these journalists buy the US empire's 911 story without
question, in the face of many unanswered questions.
Beginning in the 1990's, neocons who
would become W's cabinet, wrote detailed plans of military regime change in Middle East, but
stating they needed a "strong external shock to the United States -- a latter-day 'Pearl
Harbor", to get US sheeple to support increased militarism and global war. Few months after W
took office, and had appointed those war mongering neocons to positions of power, Bin Laden
(CIA staffer) and a handful of his men, all from close allied countries to the US, Saudi
Arabia, UAE, Egypt, delivered the 2nd Pearl Harbor on 911. What a timely coincidence! We
accept the US Empire provides weapons and military support to the same enemy, and worse, who
attacked us on 911, but one is labeled a "conspiracy nut" if they believe that same US Empire
would orchestrate 911 to justify their long planned global war. One thing about being a
"conspiracy nut", if you live long enough, often you will see your beliefs vindicated
Joe Tedesky , December 9, 2017 at 11:27 am
You commented on what I was thinking, and that was, 'remember when al Queda was our enemy
on 911'? So now that bin Laden is dead, and his al Queda now fights on our side, shouldn't
the war be over? And, just for the record who did attack us on 911?
So many questions, and so much left unanswered, but don't worry America may run out of
money for domestic vital needs but the U.S. always has the money to go fight another war.
It's a culture thing, and if you ain't into it then you just don't pay no attention to it. In
fact if your life is better off from all of these U.S. led invasions, then your probably not
posting any comments here, either.
Knowing the Pentagon mentality they probably have an 'al Queda combat medal' to pin on the
terrorists chest. Sarcasm I know, but seriously is anything not within the realm of
believable when it comes to this MIC establishment?
Christene Bartels , December 9, 2017 at 8:53 am
Great article and spot on as far as the author takes it. But the world is hurtling towards
Armageddon so I'd like to back things up about one hundred years and get down to brass
tacks.
The fact of the matter is, the M.E. has never been at total peace but it has been nothing
but one colossal FUBAR since the Ottoman Empire was defeated after WWI and the Allied Forces
got their grubby, greedy mitts on its M.E. territories and all of that luscious black gold.
First up was the British Empire and France and then it really went nuclear (literally) in
1946 when Truman and the U.S. joined in the fun and decided to figure out how we could carve
out that ancient prime piece of real estate and resurrect Israel. By 1948 ..violà
..there she was.
So now here we sit as the hundred year delusion that we knew what the hell we were doing
comes crashing down around us. Seriously, whoever the people have been who thought that a
country with the historical perspective of a toddler was going to be able to successfully
manage and manipulate a region filled with people who are still tribal in perspective and are
still holding grudges and settling scores from five thousand years ago were complete and
total arrogant morons. Every single one of them. Up to the present moment.
Which gets me down to those brass tacks I alluded to at the beginning of my comment.
Delusional crusades lead by arrogant morons always, always, always end up as ash heaps. So, I
would suggest we all prepare for that rapidly approaching conclusion accordingly. For me,
that means hitting my knees.
Gregory Herr , December 9, 2017 at 1:00 pm
Middle Eastern people are no more "tribal" or prone to holding grudges than any other
people. Middle Eastern people have exhibited and practiced peaceful and tolerant living
arrangements within several different contexts over the centuries. Iraq had a fairly thriving
middle class and the Syrians are a cultured and educated people.
Gregory Herr , December 9, 2017 at 10:07 pm
Syrian society is constructed very much within the construct of close family ties and a
sense of a Syrian homeland. It is solely the business of the Syrian people to decide whether
the socialist Ba'ath government functions according to their own sense of realities and
standards. Some of those realities may include aspects of a necessitated national security
state (necessitated by CIA and Israeli subterfuge) that prompts shills to immediately
characterize the Assad government as "an authoritarian regime" and of course that's all you
need to know. Part of what pisses the West off about the Syrians is that they are so
competent, and that includes their intelligence and security services. One of the other parts
is the socialist example of government functioning in interests of the general population,
not selling out to vultures.
It bothers me that Mr. Lazare wrote: "Syria's Baathist government is hardly blameless in
this affair." Really? Well the Syrian government can hardly be blamed for the vile strategy
of using terrorist mercenaries to take or destroy a people's homeland–killing horrific
numbers of fathers, mothers, and children on the way to establish some kind of Wild West
control over Damascus that can then be manipulated for the typical elite deviances. What was
purposely planned and visited upon the Syrian people has had human consequences that were
known and disregarded by the planners. It has been and continues to be a grave crime against
our common humanity that should be raised to the roof of objection! People like Gambill
should be excoriated for their crass appraisal of human costs .and for their contrived and
twisted rationalizations and deceits. President Assad recently gave an interview to teleSUR
that is worth a listen. He talks about human costs with understanding for what he is talking
about. Gambill doesn't give a damn.
BASLE , December 9, 2017 at 10:46 am
From the October 1973 Yom Kippur War onward, the United States had no foreign policy in
the Middle East other than Israel's. Daniel Lazare should read "A clean break: a new strategy
for the Realm".
Sam F , December 10, 2017 at 9:08 am
Yes, Israel is the cut-out or fence for US politicians stealing campaign money from the
federal budget.
US policy is that of the bribery sources and nothing else. And it believes that to be
professional competence.
For the majority of amoral opportunists of the US, money=power=virtue and they will attack
all who disagree.
"Official Washington helped unleash hell on Syria and across the Mideast behind the
naïve belief that jihadist proxies could be used to transform the region for the better,
explains Daniel Lazare."
Lazare makes the case very well about our amoral foreign policy but I think he errs in
saying our aim was to "transform the region for the better." Recent history, going back to
Afghanistan shows a very different goal, to defeat our enemies and the enemies of our allies
with little concern for the aftermath. Just observing what has happened to the people where
we supported extremists is evidence enough.
Peace on Earth, Goodwill toward men. We hope the conscience of our nation is bothered by
our behavior but we know that is not true, and we sleep very well, thank you.
Marilyn Vogt-Downey , December 9, 2017 at 11:18 am
I am stunned that anyone could be so foolish as to think that the US military machine, US
imperialism, does things "naively", bumbling like a helpless giant into wars that destroy
entire nations with no end in sight. One need not be a "conspiracy theorist" to understand
that the Pentagon does not control the world with an ever-expanding war budget equal to the
next 10 countries combined, that it does this just because it is stuck on the wrong path. No!
US imperialism develops these "big guns" to use them, to overpower, take over and dominate
the world for the sake of profits and protection of the right to exploit for private
profit.
There is ample evidence–see the Brookings Institute study among many
others–that the Gulf monarchies–flunkies of US imperialism–who "host"
dozens of US military bases in the region, some of them central to US war
strategy–initiated and nourished and armed and financed the "jihadi armies" in Syria
AND Libya AND elsewhere; they did not do this on their own. The US government–the
executive committee of the US ruling class–does not naively support the Gulf monarchies
because it doesn't know any better! Washington (following British imperialism) organized,
established and backed these flunky regimes. They are autocratic, antediluvian regimes,
allowing virtually civil rights, with no local proletariat to speak of, no popular base. They
are no more than sheriffs for imperialism in that region of the world, along with the Zionist
state of Israel, helping imperialism do the really dirty work.
Look at the evidence. Stop the totally foolish assessment that the US government spends
all this money on a war machine just to "naively" blunder into wars that level entire
nations–and is not taking on destruction of the entire continent of Africa to eliminate
any obstacles to its domination.
No! That is foolish and destructive. Unless we look in the face what is going on–the
US government since its "secret" intervention in Afghanistan in the 1970s and 1980s, has
recruited, trained, armed, funded and relied on jihadi armies to unseat regimes and
destabilize and destroy populations and regimes the US government wants to overthrow, and
destroy, any that could potentially develop into an alternative model of nationalist,
bourgeois industrial development on any level.
Wake up!!! The evidence is there. There is no reason to bumble and bungle along as if we
are in the dark.
Randal Marlin , December 9, 2017 at 11:26 am
Daniel Pipes, from what I've read of him, is among those who counsel the U.S. government
to use its military power to support the losing side in any civil wars fought within Israel's
enemy states, so that the wars will continue, sparing Israel the threat of unified enemy
states. What normal human beings consider a humanitarian disaster, repeated in Iraq, Syria
and Libya, would be reckoned a success according to this way of thinking.
The thinking would appear to lead to similar treatment of Iran, with even more catastrophic
consequences.
Behind all this is the thinking that the survival of Israel outweighs anything else in any
global ethical calculus.
Those who don't accept this moral premise but who believe in supporting the survival of
Israel have their work cut out for them.
This work would be made easier if the U.S. population saw clearly what was going on, instead
of being preoccupied with salacious sexual misconduct stories or other distractions.
Zachary Smith , December 9, 2017 at 2:43 pm
A Russian interceptor has been scrambled to stop a rogue US fighter jet from actively
interfering with an anti-terrorist operation, the Russian Defense Ministry said. It also
accused the US of provoking close encounters with the Russian jets in Syria.
A US F-22 fighter was preventing two Russian Su-25 strike aircraft from bombing an
Islamic State (IS, former ISIS) base to the west of the Euphrates November 23, according to
the ministry. The ministry's spokesman, Major General Igor Konashenkov described the
episode as yet another example of US aircraft attempts to prevent Russian forces from
carrying out strikes against Islamic State.
"The F-22 launched decoy flares and used airbrakes while constantly maneuvering [near
the Russian strike jets], imitating an air fight," Konashenkov said. He added that the US
jet ceased its dangerous maneuvers only after a Russian Su-35S fighter jet joined the two
strike planes.
If this story is true, then it illustrates a number of things. First, the US is still
providing ISIS air cover. Second, either the F-22 pilot or his commander is dumber than dirt.
The F-22 may be a fine airplane, but getting into a contest with an equally fine non-stealth
airplane at eyeball distances means throwing away every advantage of the super-expensive
stealth.
Israel obtained operational nuclear weapons capability by 1967, with the mass production
of nuclear warheads occurring immediately after the Six-Day War. In addition to the Israeli
nuclear arsenal, Israel has offensive chemical and biological warfare stockpiles.
Israel, the Middle East's sole nuclear power, is not a signatory to the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty.
In 2015, the US-based Institute for Science and International Security estimated that
Israel had 115 nuclear warheads. Outside estimates of Israel's nuclear arsenal range up to
400 nuclear weapons.
Israeli nuclear weapons delivery mechanisms include Jericho 3 missiles, with a range of
4,800 km to 6,500 km (though a 2004 source estimated its range at up to 11,500 km), as well
as regional coverage from road mobile Jericho 2 IRBMs.
Additionally, Israel is believed to have an offshore nuclear capability using
submarine-launched nuclear-capable cruise missiles, which can be launched from the Israeli
Navy's Dolphin-class submarines.
The Israeli Air Force has F-15I and F-16I Sufa fighter aircraft are capable of delivering
tactical and strategic nuclear weapons at long distances using conformal fuel tanks and
supported by their aerial refueling fleet of modified Boeing 707's.
In 1986, Mordechai Vanunu, a former technician at Dimona, fled to the United Kingdom and
revealed to the media some evidence of Israel's nuclear program and explained the purposes of
each building, also revealing a top-secret underground facility directly below the
installation.
The Mossad, Israel's secret service, sent a female agent who lured Vanunu to Italy, where
he was kidnapped by Mossad agents and smuggled to Israel aboard a freighter. An Israeli court
then tried him in secret on charges of treason and espionage, and sentenced him to eighteen
years imprisonment.
At the time of Vanunu's kidnapping, The Times reported that Israel had material for
approximately 20 hydrogen bombs and 200 fission bombs by 1986. In the spring of 2004, Vanunu
was released from prison, and placed under several strict restrictions, such as the denial of
a passport, freedom of movement limitations and restrictions on communications with the
press. Since his release, he has been rearrested and charged multiple times for violations of
the terms of his release.
Safety concerns about this 40-year-old reactor have been reported. In 2004, as a
preventive measure, Israeli authorities distributed potassium iodide anti-radiation tablets
to thousands of residents living nearby. Local residents have raised concerns regarding
serious threats to health from living near the reactor.
According to a lawsuit filed in Be'er Sheva Labor Tribunal, workers at the center were
subjected to human experimentation in 1998. According to Julius Malick, the worker who
submitted the lawsuit, they were given drinks containing uranium without medical supervision
and without obtaining written consent or warning them about risks of side effects.
In April 2016 the U.S. National Security Archive declassified dozens of documents from
1960 to 1970, which detail what American intelligence viewed as Israel's attempts to
obfuscate the purpose and details of its nuclear program. The Americans involved in
discussions with Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion and other Israelis believed the country was
providing "untruthful cover" about intentions to build nuclear weapons.
mike k , December 9, 2017 at 6:38 pm
The machinations of those seeking to gain advantages for themselves by hurting others, are
truly appalling. If we fail to name evil for what it is, then we fail as human beings.Those
who look the other way as their country engages in an organized reign of terror, are
complicit in that enormous crime.
Den Lille Abe , December 9, 2017 at 8:54 pm
The path the US has chosen since the end of WWII has been over dead bodies. In the name of
"security", bringing "Freedom" and "Democracy" and complete unconstrained greed it has
trampled countless nations into piles of rubble.
To say it is despised or loathed is an overwhelming understatement. It is almost universally
hated in the third world. Rightly.
Bringing this monstrosity to a halt is a difficult task, and probably cannot be done
militarily without a nuclear war, economically could in the end have the same outcome, then
how?
Easy! Ruin its population. This process has started, long ago.
The decline in the US of health, general wealth, nutrition, production, education, equality,
ethics and morals is already showing as cracks in the fabrics of the US.
A population of incarcerated, obese, low iQ zealot junkies, armed to teeth with guns, in a
country with a crumbling infrastructure, full of environmental disasters is 21 st century for
most Americans.
In all the areas I mentioned the US is going backwards compared to most other countries.
So the monster will come down.
turk151 , December 9, 2017 at 10:20 pm
I think you are being a little hard on the incarcerated, obese, low iQ zealot junkies,
armed to teeth with guns
I am not sure who is more loathsome the evangelicals who were supporting the Bush / Cheney
cabal murderous wars until the bitter end or the liberal intelligentsia careerist
cheerleaders for Obama and Hilary's Wars in Iraq and Syria, who also dont give a damn about
another Arab country being destroyed and sold into slavery as long as Hillary gets elected.
At least with the former group, you can chalk it up to a lack of education.
Linda Wood , December 10, 2017 at 1:52 am
This is possibly the most intelligent and hopeful discussion I have read since 9/11. It
says that at least some Americans do see that we have a fascist cell in our government. That
is the first step in finding a way to unplug it. Best wishes to all of you who have written
here. We will find a way to put war out of business.
Barbara van der Wal-Kylstra , December 10, 2017 at 2:46 am
I think this pattern of using Salafists for regime change started already in Afghanistan,
with Brzezinski plotting with Saudi-Arabia and Pakistan to pay and train Osama bin Laden to
attack the pro Russia regime and trying to get the USSR involved in it, also trying to blame
the USSR for its agression, like they did in Syri"r?
Sam F , December 10, 2017 at 9:18 am
Yes, the Brzezinski/Reagan support of fanatic insurgencies began in AfPak and was revived
for the zionists.
Russia happened to be on the side more or less tending to progress in both cases, so it had
to be opposed.
The warmongers are always the US MIC/intel, allied with the anti-American zionist fascists
for Mideast wars.
Luutzen , December 10, 2017 at 9:15 am
Sheldon Adelson, Soros, Saban all wanted carving up of Arabic states into small sectarian
pieces (No Nasseric pan-Arabic states, a threat to Israël). And protracted wars of total
destruction. Easy.
mike k , December 10, 2017 at 11:05 am
The US Military is part of the largest terrorist organization on Earth. For the super rich
and powerful rulers of that US Mafia, the ignorant religious fanatics and other tools of
Empire are just pawns in their game of world domination and universal slavery for all but
themselves. These monsters of evil delight in profiting from the destruction of others; but
their insatiable greed for more power will never be satisfied, and will become the cause of
the annihilation of every living thing – including themselves. But like other sold out
human addicts, at this point they don't really care, and will blindly pursue their nightmare
quest to the very end – and perhaps they secretly hope that that final end of
everything will at last quench their burning appetite for blood and gold.
Joe Tedesky , December 10, 2017 at 11:12 am
I'm leaving a link to a very long David Swanson article, where Mr Swanson goes into quite
a lot of detail to how the U.S. wages war.
What's interesting of course is how not just Washington, but much of the 'left' also
cheered on the jihadists.
Of course, they were told (by whom?) that the jihadists were 'democratic rebels' and
'freedom fighters' who just wanted to 'bring democracy' to Syria, and get rid of the 'tyrant
Assad.' 5 years later, so much of the nonsense about "local councils" and "white helmets" has
been exposed for what it was. Yet many 'free thinking' people bought the propaganda. Just
like they do on Russiagate. Who needs an "alt-right" when America's "left" is a total
disgrace?
When national security establishment is trying to undermine sitting President this is iether color revolution or coup d'état. In
the USa it looks more like color revolution.
"Now you have this interesting dynamic where the national security establishment is effectively undermining a duly elected president
of the United States. I recognize that Trump is vulnerable, but these types of investigations often become highly politicized."
Notable quotes:
"... The Credico subpoena, after he declined a request for a "voluntary" interview, underscores how the investigation is moving into areas of "guilt by association" and further isolating whistleblowers who defy the powers-that-be through unauthorized release of information to the public, a point made by National Security Agency whistleblower Thomas Drake in an interview. ..."
"... Drake knows well what it means to blow the whistle on government misconduct and get prosecuted for it. A former senior NSA executive, Drake complained about a multi-billion-dollar fraud, waste, and widespread violation of the rights of civilians through secret mass surveillance programs. As a result, the Obama administration indicted Drake in 2010, "as the first whistleblower since Daniel Ellsberg charged with espionage," according to the Institute for Public Accuracy. ..."
"... In 2011, the government's case against him, which carried a potential 35 years in prison, collapsed. Drake went free in a plea deal and was awarded the 2011 Ridenhour Truth Telling Prize. ..."
"... In this hyper-inflated, politicized environment, it is extremely difficult to wade through the massive amount of disinformation on all sides. Hacking is something all modern nation-states engage in, including the United States, including Russia. The challenge here is trying to figure out who the players are, whose ox is being gored, and who is doing the goring. ..."
"... From all accounts, Trump was duly elected. Now you have the Mueller investigation and the House investigation. Where is this all leading? The US intelligence agency hasn't done itself any favors. The ICA provides no proof either, in terms of allegations that the Russians "hacked" the election. We do have the evidence disclosed by Reality Winner that maybe there was some interference. But the hyper-politicization is making it extraordinarily difficult. ..."
"... Well, if you consider the content of those emails .Certainly, the Clinton folks got rid of Bernie Sanders. ..."
"... The national security establishment was far more comfortable having Clinton as president. Someone central to my own case, General Michael Hayden, just a couple days ago went apoplectic because of a tweet from Trump taking on the mainstream media. Hayden got over 100,000 likes on his response. Well, Hayden was central to what we did in deep secrecy at the highest levels of government after 9/11, engaging in widespread surveillance and then justifying it as "raw executive authority." ..."
"... Now you have this interesting dynamic where the national security establishment is effectively undermining a duly elected president of the United States. I recognize that Trump is vulnerable, but these types of investigations often become highly politicized. I worry that what is really happening is being sacrificed on the altar of entertainment and the stage of political theater. ..."
"... What is happening to Randy is symptomatic of a larger trend. If you dare speak truth to power, you are going to pay the price. Is Randy that much of a threat, just because he is questioning authority? Are we afraid of the press? Are we afraid of having the uncomfortable conversations, of dealing with the inconvenient truths about ourselves? ..."
"... Yeah, it is definitely a way of describing the concept of fascism without using the word. The present Yankee regime seems to be quite far along that road, and the full-on types seem to be engaged in a coup to eliminate those they fear may not be as much in the fascist deep-state bag. ..."
"... How disgusting to have to live today in the society so accurately described by Orwell in 1984. It was a nice book to read, but not to live in! ..."
"... Truth is he enemy of coercive power. Lies and secrecy are essential in leading the sheeple to their slaughter. ..."
"... Perhaps the one good thing about Trumps election is that its shows democracy is still just about alive and breathing in the US, because as is pointed out in this article, Trump was never expected to win and those who lost are still in a state of shock and disbelief. ..."
"... One things for sure: the Neocons, the deep state, and all the rest of the skunks that infest Washington will make absolutely sure that future elections will go the way as planned, so perhaps we should celebrate Trump, because he may well be the last manifestation of the democracy in the US. ..."
"... In the end, what will bring this monstrously lumbering "Russia-gate" dog and pony show crashing down is that stupid, fake Fusion GPS dossier that was commissioned, paid for, and disseminated by Team Hillary and the DNC. Then, as with the sinking of the Titanic, all of the flotsam and jetsam floating within its radius of destruction will go down with it. What will left to pluck from the lifeboats afterwards is anyone's guess. All thanks to Hillary. ..."
The investigation to somehow blame Russia for Donald Trump's election has now merged with another establishment goal of isolating
and intimidating whistleblowers and other dissidents, as Dennis J Bernstein describes.
The Russia-gate investigation has reached into the ranks of journalism with the House Intelligence Committee's subpoena of Randy
Credico, who produced a series about WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange for Pacifica Radio and apparently is suspected of having passed
on early word about leaked Democratic emails to Donald Trump's supporter Roger Stone.
The Credico subpoena, after he declined a request for a "voluntary" interview, underscores how the investigation is moving
into areas of "guilt by association" and further isolating whistleblowers who defy the powers-that-be through unauthorized release
of information to the public, a point made by National Security Agency whistleblower Thomas Drake in an interview.
Drake knows well what it means to blow the whistle on government misconduct and get prosecuted for it. A former senior NSA
executive, Drake complained about a multi-billion-dollar fraud, waste, and widespread violation of the rights of civilians through
secret mass surveillance programs. As a result, the Obama administration indicted Drake in 2010, "as the first whistleblower since
Daniel Ellsberg charged with espionage," according to the Institute for Public Accuracy.
In 2011, the government's case against him, which carried a potential 35 years in prison, collapsed. Drake went free in a
plea deal and was awarded the 2011 Ridenhour Truth Telling Prize.
I interviewed Drake about the significance of Credico's subpoena, which Credico believes resulted from his journalism about the
persecution of Julian Assange for releasing information that powerful people would prefer kept hidden from the public. (I had a small
role in Credico's 14-part radio series, Julian Assange: Countdown to Freedom . It was broadcast first as part of his Live
on the Fly Series, over WBAI and later on KPFA and across the country on community radio.)
Credico got his start as a satirist and became a political candidate for mayor of New York City and later governor of New York,
making mainstream politicians deal with issues they would rather not deal with.
I spoke to Thomas Drake by telephone on Nov. 30, 2017.
Dennis Bernstein: How do you look at Russiagate, based on what you know about what has already transpired in terms of the
movement of information? How do you see Credico's role in this?
Thomas Drake: Information is the coin of the realm. It is the currency of power. Anyone who questions authority or is perceived
as mocking authority -- as hanging out with "State enemies" -- had better be careful. But this latest development is quite troubling,
I must say. This is the normalization of everything that has been going on since 9/11. Randy is a sort of 21st century Diogenes who
is confronting authority and pointing out corruption. This subpoena sends a chilling message. It's a double whammy for Randy because,
in the eyes of the US government, he is a media figure hanging out with the wrong media figure [Julian Assange].
Dennis Bernstein: Could you say a little bit about what your work was and what you tried to do with your expose?
Thomas Drake: My experience was quite telling, in terms of how far the government will go to try to destroy someone's life.
The attempt by the government to silence me was extraordinary. They threw everything they had at me, all because I spoke the truth.
I spoke up about abuse of power, I spoke up about the mass surveillance regime. My crime was that I made the choice to go to the
media. And the government was not just coming after me, they were sending a really chilling message to the media: If you print this,
you are also under the gun.
Dennis Bernstein: We have heard the charges again and again, that this was a Russian hack. What was the source? Let's trace
it back as best we can.
Thomas Drake:In this hyper-inflated, politicized environment, it is extremely difficult to wade through the massive
amount of disinformation on all sides. Hacking is something all modern nation-states engage in, including the United States, including
Russia. The challenge here is trying to figure out who the players are, whose ox is being gored, and who is doing the goring.
From all accounts, Trump was duly elected. Now you have the Mueller investigation and the House investigation. Where is this
all leading? The US intelligence agency hasn't done itself any favors. The ICA provides no proof either, in terms of allegations
that the Russians "hacked" the election. We do have the evidence disclosed by Reality Winner that maybe there was some interference.
But the hyper-politicization is making it extraordinarily difficult.
The advantage that intelligence has is that they can hide behind what they are doing. They don't actually have to tell the truth,
they can shade it, they can influence it and shape it. This is where information can be politicized and used as a weapon. Randy has
found himself caught up in these investigations by virtue of being a media figure and hanging out with "the wrong people."
Dennis Bernstein: It looks like the Russiagaters in Congress are trying to corner Randy. All his life he has spoken truth
to power. But what do you think the role of the press should be?
Thomas Drake: The press amplifies just about everything they focus on, especially with today's 24-hour, in-your-face social
media. Even the mainstream media is publishing directly to their webpages. You have to get behind the cacophony of all that noise
and ask, "Why?" What are the intentions here?
I believe there are still enough independent journalists who are looking further and deeper. But clearly there are those who are
hell-bent on making life as difficult as possible for the current president and those who are going to defend him to the hilt. I
was not surprised at all that Trump won. A significant percentage of the American electorate were looking for something different.
Dennis Bernstein : Well, if you consider the content of those emails .Certainly, the Clinton folks got rid of Bernie
Sanders.
Thomas Drake: That would have been an interesting race, to have Bernie vs. Trump. Sanders was appealing, especially to
young audiences. He was raising legitimate issues.
Dennis Bernstein: In Clinton, they had a known quantity who supported the national security state.
Thomas Drake:The national security establishment was far more comfortable having Clinton as president. Someone central
to my own case, General Michael Hayden, just a couple days ago went apoplectic because of a tweet from Trump taking on the mainstream
media. Hayden got over 100,000 likes on his response. Well, Hayden was central to what we did in deep secrecy at the highest levels
of government after 9/11, engaging in widespread surveillance and then justifying it as "raw executive authority."
Now you have this interesting dynamic where the national security establishment is effectively undermining a duly elected
president of the United States. I recognize that Trump is vulnerable, but these types of investigations often become highly politicized.
I worry that what is really happening is being sacrificed on the altar of entertainment and the stage of political theater.
What is happening to Randy is symptomatic of a larger trend. If you dare speak truth to power, you are going to pay the price.
Is Randy that much of a threat, just because he is questioning authority? Are we afraid of the press? Are we afraid of having the
uncomfortable conversations, of dealing with the inconvenient truths about ourselves?
"Raw Executive Authority" means Totalitarianism/Fascism.
exiled off mainstreet , December 7, 2017 at 4:23 pm
Yeah, it is definitely a way of describing the concept of fascism without using the word. The present Yankee regime seems
to be quite far along that road, and the full-on types seem to be engaged in a coup to eliminate those they fear may not be as
much in the fascist deep-state bag.
It is highly encouraging to know that a great many good and decent men and women Americans are 100% supportive of Mr, Randy
Credico as he prepares for his testimony before the House Intelligence Committee. Remember all those standing right there beside
you, speak what rightly needs to be spoken, and make history Mr. Credico!
jaycee , December 7, 2017 at 3:56 pm
The intensification of panic/hysteria was obviously triggered by the shock election of Trump. Where this is all heading is
on display in Australia, as the government is writing legislation to "criminalise covert and deceptive activities of foreign actors
that fall short of espionage but are intended to interfere with our democratic systems and processes or support the intelligence
activities of a foreign government." The legislation will apparently be accompanied by new requirements of public registration
of those deemed "foreign agents". (see http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/12/07/auch-d07.html
).
This will be an attack on free speech, free thought, and political freedoms, justified by an orchestrated hysteria which ridiculously
assumes a "pure" political realm (i.e. the "homeland") under assault by impure foreign agents and their dirty ideas. Yes, that
is a fascist construct and the liberal establishment will see it through, not the alt-right blowhards.
mike k , December 7, 2017 at 5:49 pm
How disgusting to have to live today in the society so accurately described by Orwell in 1984. It was a nice book to read,
but not to live in!
john wilson , December 8, 2017 at 5:48 am
Actually Mike, the book was a prophesy but you aren't seen nothing yet. You me and the rest of the posters here may well find
ourselves going for a visit to room 101 yet.
fudmier , December 7, 2017 at 4:42 pm
Those who govern (527 of them) at the pleasure of the constitution are about to breach the contract that entitles them to govern.
Limiting the scope of information allowed to those who are the governed, silencing the voices of those with concerns and serious
doubts, policing every word uttered by those who are the governed, as well as abusing the constitutional privilege of force and
judicial authority, to deny peaceful protests of the innocents is approaching the final straw.
The governors and their corporate sponsors have imposed on those the governors govern much concern. Exactly the condition that
existed prior to July 4, 1776, which elicited the following:
When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the Political bands which connected them
with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the laws of nature and of Nature's
God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to
the separation.
Those who govern (527 of them and the puppet master oligarch behind them) will make certain that there's no support for the
next declaration. There's no respect to the opinions of the mankind, what matters is keeping the current status quo in place and
further advance it by silencing the independent media.
Maybe when the next "Mother of all bubbles" come, there's an opportunity for the mankind to be heard, but it's doubtful. What
has taken place during the last bubble is that the rich has gotten richer and the poor, well, you know the routine.
Truth is he enemy of coercive power. Lies and secrecy are essential in leading the sheeple to their slaughter.
john wilson , December 8, 2017 at 5:44 am
Perhaps the one good thing about Trumps election is that its shows democracy is still just about alive and breathing in
the US, because as is pointed out in this article, Trump was never expected to win and those who lost are still in a state of
shock and disbelief.
Trump's election has also shown us in vivid technicolour, just what is really going on in the deep state. Absolutely none of
this stuff would have come out had Clinton won and anything there was would have been covered up as though under the concrete
foundation of a tower block. However, Trump still has four years left and as a British prime minister once said, "a week is a
long time in politics". Well four more years of Trump is a hell of a lot longer so who knows what might happen in that time.
One things for sure: the Neocons, the deep state, and all the rest of the skunks that infest Washington will make absolutely
sure that future elections will go the way as planned, so perhaps we should celebrate Trump, because he may well be the last manifestation
of the democracy in the US.
Christene Bartels , December 8, 2017 at 9:57 am
In the end, what will bring this monstrously lumbering "Russia-gate" dog and pony show crashing down is that stupid, fake
Fusion GPS dossier that was commissioned, paid for, and disseminated by Team Hillary and the DNC. Then, as with the sinking of
the Titanic, all of the flotsam and jetsam floating within its radius of destruction will go down with it. What will left to pluck
from the lifeboats afterwards is anyone's guess. All thanks to Hillary.
Apparently, Santa isn't the only one making a list and checking it twice this year. He's going to have to share the limelight
with Karma.
"... William Roebuck, the American embassy's chargé d'affaires in Damascus, thus urged Washington in 2006 to coordinate with Egypt and Saudi Arabia to encourage Sunni Syrian fears of Shi'ite Iranian proselytizing even though such concerns are "often exaggerated." It was akin to playing up fears of Jewish dominance in the 1930s in coordination with Nazi Germany. ..."
"... A year later, former NATO commander Wesley Clark learned of a classified Defense Department memo stating that U.S. policy was now to "attack and destroy the governments in seven countries in five years," first Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran. (Quote starts at 2:07 .) ..."
"... So the answer was not to oppose the Islamists, but to use them. Even though "the Islamist surge will not be a picnic for the Syrian people," Gambill said, "it has two important silver linings for US interests." One is that the jihadis "are simply more effective fighters than their secular counterparts" thanks to their skill with "suicide bombings and roadside bombs." ..."
"... The other is that a Sunni Islamist victory in Syria will result in "a full-blown strategic defeat" for Iran, thereby putting Washington at least part way toward fulfilling the seven-country demolition job discussed by Wesley Clark. ..."
"... The U.S. would settle with the jihadis only after the jihadis had settled with Assad. The good would ultimately outweigh the bad. This kind of self-centered moral calculus would not have mattered had Gambill only spoken for himself. But he didn't. Rather, he was expressing the viewpoint of Official Washington in general, which is why the ultra-respectable FP ran his piece in the first place. ..."
"... The parallels with the DIA are striking. "The west, gulf countries, and Turkey support the opposition," the intelligence report declared, even though "the Salafist[s], the Muslim Brotherhood, and AQI [i.e. Al Qaeda in Iraq] are the major forces driving the insurgency." ..."
"... ancien régime, ..."
"... With the Saudis footing the bill, the U.S. would exercise untrammeled sway. ..."
"... Has a forecast that ever gone more spectacularly wrong? Syria's Baathist government is hardly blameless in this affair. But thanks largely to the U.S.-backed sectarian offensive, 400,000 Syrians or more have died since Gambill's article appeared, with another 6.1 million displaced and an estimated 4.8 million fleeing abroad. ..."
"... So instead of advancing U.S. policy goals, Gambill helped do the opposite. The Middle East is more explosive than ever while U.S. influence has fallen to sub-basement levels. Iranian influence now extends from the Arabian Sea to the Mediterranean, while the country that now seems to be wobbling out of control is Saudi Arabia where Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman is lurching from one self-induced crisis to another. The country that Gambill counted on to shore up the status quo turns out to be undermining it. ..."
"... It's not easy to screw things up so badly, but somehow Washington's bloated foreign-policy establishment has done it. Since helping to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, Gambill has moved on to a post at the rightwing Middle East Forum where Daniel Pipes, the group's founder and chief, now inveighs against the same Sunni ethnic cleansing that his employee defended or at least apologized for. ..."
"... The Frozen Republic: How the Constitution Is Paralyzing Democracy ..."
"... I do not believe than anyone in the civil or military command ever believed that arming the jihadists would bring any sort of stability or peace to the region. I do not believe that peace was ever an interest of the US until it has once again gained hegemonic control of central Asia. This is a fight to retain US global domination – causalities do not matter. The US and its partners or co-rulers of the Empire the Saud family and the Zionist oligarchy will slaughter with impunity until someone stops them or their own corruption defeats them. ..."
"... The Empire can not exist without relentless ongoing slaughter it has been at it every day now for 73 years. It worked for them all that time but that time has run out. China has already set the date for when its currency will become fully freely exchanged, less than 5 years. ..."
"... Even the most stupid person on earth couldn't think that the US was using murdering, butchering head choppers in a bid to bring peace and stability to the middle East. The Neocons and the other criminals that infest Washington don't want peace at any price because its bad for business. ..."
"... It's the same GROTESQUE caricature of these wars that the mainstream media always presents: that the U.S. is on the side of good, and fights for good, even though every war INVARIABLY ends up in a bloodbath, with no one caring how many civilians have died, what state the country is left in, that civilian infrastructure and civilians were targeted, let alone whether war could have been prevented. For example, in 1991, shortly after the first Gulf War, Iraqis rose up against their regime, but George H. Bush allowed Saddam to fly his military helicopters (permission was needed due to the no-fly zones), and quell the rebellion in blood – tens of thousands were butchered! Bush said that when he told Iraqis to rebel, he meant the military generals, NOT the Iraqi people themselves. In other words, the U.S. wanted Saddam gone, but the same regime in place. The U.S. never cared about the people! ..."
"... The military-industrial-complex sicced Mueller on Trump because they despise his overtures towards rapprochement with the Kremlin. The military-industrial-complex MUST have a villain to justify the gigantic defense [sic] spending which permeates the entire U.S. politico-economic system. Putin and Russia were always the preferred demon because they easily fit the bill in the minds of an easily brainwashed American public. Of course saber rattling towards Moscow puts the world on the brink of nuclear war, but no matter, the careerism and fat contracts are all that matter to the MIC. Trump's rhetoric about making peace with the Kremlin has always mortified the MIC. ..."
"... This is a rare instance of our elites battling it out behind the scenes, both groups being reprehensible power hungry greed heads and sociopaths, it's hard to tell how this will end. ..."
"... Lets be clear: The military-industrial-complex wants plenty of low intensity conflict to fuel ever more fabulous weapons sales, not a really hot war where all those pretty expensive toys are falling out of the sky in droves. ..."
"... On 24 October 2017, the Intercept released an NSA document unearthed from leaked intelligence files provided by Edward Snowden which reveals that terrorist militants in Syria were under the direct command of foreign governments from the early years of the war which has now claimed half a million lives. ..."
"... The US intelligence memo is evidence of internal US government confirmation of the direct role that both the Saudi and US governments played in fueling attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure, as well as military targets in pursuit of "regime change" in Syria. ..."
"... Israel's support for terrorist forces in Syria is well established. The Israelis and Saudis coordinate their activities. ..."
"... An August 2012 DIA report (written when the U.S. was monitoring weapons flows from Libya to Syria), said that the opposition in Syria was driven by al Qaeda and other extremist groups: "the Salafist, the Muslim Brotherhood, and AQI are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria." The "deterioration of the situation" was predicted to have "dire consequences" for Iraq, which included the "grave danger" of a terrorist "Islamic state". Some of the "dire consequences" are blacked out but the DIA warned one such consequence would be the "renewing facilitation of terrorist elements from all over the Arab world entering into Iraqi Arena." ..."
"... The heavily redacted DIA memo specifically mentions "the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran)." ..."
"... To clarify just who these "supporting powers" were, mentioned in the document who sought the creation of a "Salafist principality," the DIA memo explained: "The West, Gulf countries, and Turkey support the opposition; while Russia, China, and Iran support the regime." ..."
"... The DIA memo clearly indicates when it was decided to transform US, Saudi, and Turkish-backed Al Qaeda affiliates into ISIS: the "Salafist" (Islamic) "principality" (State). NATO member state Turkey has been directly supporting terrorism in Syria, and specifically, supporting ISIS. In 2014, Germany's international broadcaster Deutsche Welle's reported "'IS' supply channels through Turkey." DW exposed fleets of hundreds of trucks a day, passing unchallenged through Turkey's border crossings with Syria, clearly bound for the defacto ISIS capital of Raqqa. Starting in September 2015, Russian airpower in Syria successfully interdicted ISIS supply lines. ..."
"... The usual suspects in Western media launched a relentless propaganda campaign against Russian support for Syria. The Atlantic Council's Bellingcat disinformation operation started working overtime. ..."
"... The propaganda effort culminated in the 4 April 2017 Khan Shaykhun false flag chemical incident in Idlib. Bellingcat's Eliot Higgins and Dan Kaszeta have been paraded by "First Draft" coalition media "partners" in a vigorous effort to somehow implicate the Russians. ..."
"... In a January 2016 interview on Al Jazeera, former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency Michael Flynn admitted that he "paid very close attention" to the August 2012 DIA report predicting the rise of a "declared or undeclared Salafist Principality" in Syria. Flynn even asserts that the White House's sponsoring of terrorists (that would emerge as Al Nusra and ISIS) against the Syrian regime was "a willful decision." ..."
"... Flynn was interviewed by British journalist Mehdi Hasan for Al Jazeera's Head to Head program. Flynn made it clear that the policies that led to the "the rise of the Islamic State, the rise of terrorism" were not merely the result of ignorance or looking the other way, but the result of conscious decision making ..."
"... General Flynn explained to Hersh that 'If the American public saw the intelligence we were producing daily, at the most sensitive level, they would go ballistic.' Hersh's investigative report exposed a kind of intelligence schism between the Pentagon and CIA concerning the covert program in Syria. ..."
"... The article raises a very serious charge. Up till now it appeared that supplying weapons to Al Qaeda affiliates in Syria was just another example of Pentagon incompetence but the suggestion here is that it was a concerted policy and it's hard to believe that there was no one in the Pentagon that was privy to that policy who wouldn't raise an objection. ..."
"... That it conformed with Israeli, Saudi and CIA designs is not surprising, but that there was no dissension within the Pentagon is appalling (or that Obama didn't raise objections). Clark's comment should put him on the hot seat for a congressional investigation but, of course, there is no one in congress to run with it. The policy is so manifestly evil that it seems to dwarf even the reckless ignorance of preceding "interventions". ..."
"... The DIA report released by Gen. Flynn in 2012 predicted the Islamic State with alarm. That is why Flynn was fired as Director of DIA. He objected to the insane policy of supporting the CIA/Saudi madness and saw it as not only counter-productive but disastrous. His comments to AlJazeera in 2016 reinforced this position. Gen Flynn's faction of the American military has been consistent in its opposition to CIA support of terrorist forces. ..."
"... I see Gen. Flynn as a whistleblower. The 2012 report he circulated saw the rise of the Salafist Islamic state with alarm ..."
"... Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, director of the DIA between 2012 and 2014, confirmed that his agency had sent a constant stream of classified warnings to the civilian leadership about the dire consequences of toppling Assad. ..."
"... Thank you. Gen Flynn also urged coordination with Russia against ISIS, so it doesn't take much to see why he was targeted. ..."
"... The use of Islamist proxy warriors to help achieve American geo-political ends goes back to at least 1979, including Afghanistan, Bosnia, Libya, and Syria. One of the better books on 9/11 is Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed's "The War On Truth: 9/11, Disinformation, and the Anatomy of Terrorism". The first section of that book – "The Geopolitics of Terrorism" – covers, across 150 well-sourced pages, the history and background of this involvement. It is highly recommended for anyone who wishes to be better informed on this topic. ..."
"... Jaycee, actually you have to go back much further than that to WW2. Hitler used the marginalized Turkic people in Russia and turned them into effective fighters to create internal factions within the Soviet Union. After Hitler lost and the Cold War began, the US, who had no understanding of the Soviets at the time radicalized and empowered Islamist including the Muslim Brotherhood to weaponize Islam against the Soviet Union. ..."
"... All these western imperial geostrategic planners are certifiably insane and have no business anywhere near the levers of government policy. They are the number one enemy of humanity. If we don't find a way to remove them from power, they may actually succeed in destroying life on Earth. ..."
"... There is a volume of evidence that the war criminals in our midst were arming and training "jihadists." See link below. http://graysinfo.blogspot.ca/2016/10/the-evidence-of-planning-of-wars.html ..."
"... Incompetence and stupidity are their only defense because if anyone acknowledged that trillions of dollars have been made by the usual suspects committing these crimes, the industrialists of war would face a justice symbolized by Nuremberg. ..."
"... The American groupthink rarely allows propaganda and disinformation disturb: endless wars and endless lies and criminality, have not disturbed this mindset. It is clever to manipulate people to think in a way opposite of truth so consistently. All the atrocities by the US have been surrounded by media propaganda and mastery of groupthink techniques go down well. Mention something unusual or real news and you might get heavily criticized for daring to think outside the box and doubt what are (supposedly) "religious truths". Tell a lie long enough and it becomes the truth. ..."
"... The CIA was a key force behind the creation of both al Qaeda and ISIS. Most major incidents of "Islamic Terrorism" have some kind of CIA backing behind them. See this large collection of links for compiled evidence: http://www.pearltrees.com/joshstern/government-supporting/id18814292 ..."
"... This journalist and other journalists writing on some of my favorite Russian propaganda news websites, have reported the US empire routinely makes "deals with the devil", the enemy of my enemy is my friend, if doing so furthers their goal of perpetual war and global hegemony. Yet, inexplicably, these journalists buy the US empire's 911 story without question, in the face of many unanswered questions ..."
"... Bin Laden (CIA staffer) and a handful of his men, all from close allied countries to the US, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt, delivered the 2nd Pearl Harbor on 911. What a timely coincidence! We accept the US Empire provides weapons and military support to the same enemy, and worse, who attacked us on 911, but one is labeled a "conspiracy nut" if they believe that same US Empire would orchestrate 911 to justify their long planned global war. One thing about being a "conspiracy nut", if you live long enough, often you will see your beliefs vindicated ..."
"... So many questions, and so much left unanswered, but don't worry America may run out of money for domestic vital needs but the U.S. always has the money to go fight another war. It's a culture thing, and if you ain't into it then you just don't pay no attention to it. In fact if your life is better off from all of these U.S. led invasions, then your probably not posting any comments here, either. ..."
"... From the October 1973 Yom Kippur War onward, the United States had no foreign policy in the Middle East other than Israel's. Daniel Lazare should read "A clean break: a new strategy for the Realm". ..."
"... For the majority of amoral opportunists of the US, money=power=virtue and they will attack all who disagree. ..."
"... I am stunned that anyone could be so foolish as to think that the US military machine, US imperialism, does things "naively", bumbling like a helpless giant into wars that destroy entire nations with no end in sight. One need not be a "conspiracy theorist" to understand that the Pentagon does not control the world with an ever-expanding war budget equal to the next 10 countries combined, that it does this just because it is stuck on the wrong path. No! US imperialism develops these "big guns" to use them, to overpower, take over and dominate the world for the sake of profits and protection of the right to exploit for private profit. ..."
"... Daniel Pipes, from what I've read of him, is among those who counsel the U.S. government to use its military power to support the losing side in any civil wars fought within Israel's enemy states, so that the wars will continue, sparing Israel the threat of unified enemy states. What normal human beings consider a humanitarian disaster, repeated in Iraq, Syria and Libya, would be reckoned a success according to this way of thinking. The thinking would appear to lead to similar treatment of Iran, with even more catastrophic consequences. ..."
"... I think this pattern of using Salafists for regime change started already in Afghanistan, with Brzezinski plotting with Saudi-Arabia and Pakistan to pay and train Osama bin Laden to attack the pro Russia regime and trying to get the USSR involved in it, also trying to blame the USSR for its agression, like they did in Syri"r? ..."
"... Yes, the Brzezinski/Reagan support of fanatic insurgencies began in AfPak and was revived for the zionists. Russia happened to be on the side more or less tending to progress in both cases, so it had to be opposed. The warmongers are always the US MIC/intel, allied with the anti-American zionist fascists for Mideast wars. ..."
"... Sheldon Adelson, Soros, Saban all wanted carving up of Arabic states into small sectarian pieces (No Nasseric pan-Arabic states, a threat to Israël). And protracted wars of total destruction. Easy. ..."
"... Of course, they were told (by whom?) that the jihadists were 'democratic rebels' and 'freedom fighters' who just wanted to 'bring democracy' to Syria, and get rid of the 'tyrant Assad.' 5 years later, so much of the nonsense about "local councils" and "white helmets" has been exposed for what it was. Yet many 'free thinking' people bought the propaganda. Just like they do on Russiagate. Who needs an "alt-right" when America's "left" is a total disgrace? ..."
When a Department of Defense intelligence
report about the Syrian rebel movement became public in May 2015, lots of people didn't
know what to make of it. After all, what the report said was unthinkable – not only that
Al Qaeda had dominated the so-called democratic revolt against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad
for years, but that the West continued to support the jihadis regardless, even to the point of
backing their goal of creating a Sunni Salafist principality in the eastern deserts.
Journalist James Foley shortly before he was executed by an Islamic State operative in
August 2014.
The United States lining up behind Sunni terrorism – how could this be? How could a
nice liberal like Barack Obama team up with the same people who had brought down the World
Trade Center?
It was impossible, which perhaps explains why the report remained a non-story long after it
was released courtesy of a Judicial Watch freedom-of-information
lawsuit . The New York Times didn't mention it until
six months later while the Washington Post waited more than a year before
dismissing it as "loopy" and "relatively unimportant." With ISIS rampaging across much of
Syria and Iraq, no one wanted to admit that U.S. attitudes were ever anything other than
hostile.
But three years earlier, when the Defense Intelligence Agency was compiling the report,
attitudes were different. Jihadis were heroes rather than terrorists, and all the experts
agreed that they were a low-risk, high-yield way of removing Assad from office.
After spending five days with a Syrian rebel unit, for instance, New York Times reporter
C.J. Chivers
wrote that the group "mixes paramilitary discipline, civilian policing, Islamic law, and
the harsh demands of necessity with battlefield coldness and outright cunning."
Paul Salem, director of the Carnegie Middle East Center in Beirut,
assured the Washington Post that "al Qaeda is a fringe element" among the rebels, while,
not to be outdone, the gossip site Buzzfeed published a
pin-up of a "ridiculously photogenic" jihadi toting an RPG.
"Hey girl," said the subhead. "Nothing sexier than fighting the oppression of tyranny."
And then there was Foreign Policy, the magazine founded by neocon guru Samuel P. Huntington,
which was most enthusiastic of all. Gary Gambill's " Two Cheers for Syrian
Islamists ," which ran on the FP web site just a couple of weeks after the DIA report was
completed, didn't distort the facts or make stuff up in any obvious way. Nonetheless, it is a
classic of U.S. propaganda. Its subhead glibly observed: "So the rebels aren't secular
Jeffersonians. As far as America is concerned, it doesn't much matter."
Assessing the Damage
Five years later, it's worth a second look to see how Washington uses self-serving logic to
reduce an entire nation to rubble.
First a bit of background. After displacing France and Britain as the region's prime
imperial overlord during the 1956 Suez Crisis and then breaking with Egyptian President Gamal
Abdel Nasser a few years later, the United States committed itself to the goal of defeating
Arab nationalism and Soviet Communism, two sides of the same coin as far as Washington was
concerned. Over the next half-century, this would mean steering Egypt to the right with
assistance from the Saudis, isolating Libyan strong man Muammar Gaddafi, and doing what it
could to undermine the Syrian Baathist regime as well.
William Roebuck, the American embassy's chargé d'affaires in Damascus, thus
urged
Washington in 2006 to coordinate with Egypt and Saudi Arabia to encourage Sunni Syrian fears of
Shi'ite Iranian proselytizing even though such concerns are "often exaggerated." It was akin to
playing up fears of Jewish dominance in the 1930s in coordination with Nazi Germany.
A year later, former NATO commander Wesley Clark learned of a classified Defense Department
memo stating that U.S. policy was now to "attack and destroy the governments in seven countries
in five years," first Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran. (Quote starts
at 2:07 .)
Since the United States didn't like what such governments were doing, the solution was to
install more pliable ones in their place. Hence Washington's joy when the Arab Spring struck
Syria in March 2011 and it appeared that protesters would soon topple the Baathists on their
own.
Even when lofty democratic rhetoric gave way to ominous sectarian
chants of "Christians to Beirut, Alawites to the coffin," U.S. enthusiasm remained strong.
With Sunnis accounting for perhaps 60 percent of the population, strategists figured that there
was no way Assad could hold out against religious outrage welling up from below.
Enter Gambill and the FP. The big news, his article began, is that secularists are no longer
in command of the burgeoning Syrian rebel movement and that Sunni Islamists are taking the lead
instead. As unfortunate as this might seem, he argued that such a development was both
unavoidable and far from entirely negative.
"Islamist political ascendancy is inevitable in a majority Sunni Muslim country brutalized
for more than four decades by a secular minoritarian dictatorship," he wrote in reference to
the Baathists. "Moreover, enormous financial resources are pouring in from the Arab-Islamic
world to promote explicitly Islamist resistance to Assad's Alawite-dominated, Iranian-backed
regime."
So the answer was not to oppose the Islamists, but to use them. Even though "the Islamist
surge will not be a picnic for the Syrian people," Gambill said, "it has two important silver
linings for US interests." One is that the jihadis "are simply more effective fighters than
their secular counterparts" thanks to their skill with "suicide bombings and roadside
bombs."
The other is that a Sunni Islamist victory in Syria will result in "a full-blown strategic
defeat" for Iran, thereby putting Washington at least part way toward fulfilling the
seven-country demolition job discussed by Wesley Clark.
"So long as Syrian jihadis are committed to fighting Iran and its Arab proxies," the article
concluded, "we should quietly root for them – while keeping our distance from a conflict
that is going to get very ugly before the smoke clears. There will be plenty of time to tame
the beast after Iran's regional hegemonic ambitions have gone down in flames."
Deals with the Devil
The U.S. would settle with the jihadis only after the jihadis had settled with Assad. The
good would ultimately outweigh the bad. This kind of self-centered moral calculus would not
have mattered had Gambill only spoken for himself. But he didn't. Rather, he was expressing the
viewpoint of Official Washington in general, which is why the ultra-respectable FP ran his
piece in the first place.The Islamists were something America could employ to their advantage and then throw away
like a squeezed lemon. A few Syrians would suffer, but America would win, and that's all that
counts.
The parallels with the DIA are striking. "The west, gulf countries, and Turkey support the
opposition," the intelligence report declared, even though "the Salafist[s], the Muslim
Brotherhood, and AQI [i.e. Al Qaeda in Iraq] are the major forces driving the insurgency."
Where Gambill predicted that "Assad and his minions will likely retreat to northwestern
Syria," the DIA speculated that the jihadis might establish "a declared or undeclared Salafist
principality" at the other end of the country near cities like Hasaka and Der Zor (also known
as Deir ez-Zor).
Where the FP said that the ultimate aim was to roll back Iranian influence and undermine
Shi'ite rule, the DIA said that a Salafist principality "is exactly what the supporting powers
to the opposition want in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic
depth of Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran)."
Bottle up the Shi'ites in northwestern Syria, in other words, while encouraging Sunni
extremists to establish a base in the east so as to put pressure on Shi'ite-influenced Iraq and
Shi'ite-ruled Iran.
As Gambill put it: "Whatever misfortunes Sunni Islamists may visit upon the Syrian people,
any government they form will be strategically preferable to the Assad regime, for
three reasons: A new government in Damascus will find continuing the alliance with Tehran
unthinkable, it won't have to distract Syrians from its minority status with foreign policy
adventurism like the ancien régime, and it will be flush with petrodollars from
Arab Gulf states (relatively) friendly to Washington."
With the Saudis footing the bill, the U.S. would exercise untrammeled sway.
Disastrous Thinking
Has a forecast that ever gone more spectacularly wrong? Syria's Baathist government is
hardly blameless in this affair. But thanks largely to the U.S.-backed sectarian offensive,
400,000
Syrians or more have died since Gambill's article appeared, with another 6.1 million
displaced and an estimated 4.8 million fleeing abroad.
U.S.-backed Syrian "moderate" rebels smile as they prepare to behead a 12-year-old boy
(left), whose severed head is held aloft triumphantly in a later part of the video. [Screenshot
from the YouTube video] War-time destruction totals around $250
billion , according to U.N. estimates, a staggering sum for a country of 18.8 million
people where per-capita income prior to the outbreak of violence was under $3,000. From Syria,
the specter of sectarian violence has spread across Asia and Africa and into Europe and North
America as well. Political leaders throughout the advanced industrial world are still
struggling to contain the populist fury that the Middle East refugee crisis, the result of
U.S.-instituted regime change, helped set off.
So instead of advancing U.S. policy goals, Gambill helped do the opposite. The Middle East
is more explosive than ever while U.S. influence has fallen to sub-basement levels. Iranian
influence now extends from the Arabian Sea to the Mediterranean, while the country that now
seems to be wobbling out of control is Saudi Arabia where Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman is
lurching from one self-induced crisis to another. The country that Gambill counted on to shore
up the status quo turns out to be undermining it.
It's not easy to screw things up so badly, but somehow Washington's bloated foreign-policy
establishment has done it. Since helping to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, Gambill has
moved on to a post at the rightwing Middle East Forum where Daniel Pipes, the group's founder
and chief, now inveighs against the same Sunni ethnic cleansing that his employee
defended or at least apologized for.
The forum is particularly well known for its Campus Watch program, which targets academic
critics of Israel, Islamists, and – despite Gambill's kind words about "suicide bombings
and roadside bombs" – anyone it considers the least bit apologetic about Islamic
terrorism.
Double your standard, double the fun. Terrorism, it seems, is only terrorism when others do
it to the U.S., not when the U.S. does it to others.
Daniel Lazare is the author of several books including The Frozen Republic: How the
Constitution Is Paralyzing Democracy (Harcourt Brace).
Babyl-on , December 8, 2017 at 5:26 pm
I do not believe than anyone in the civil or military command ever believed that arming
the jihadists would bring any sort of stability or peace to the region. I do not believe that
peace was ever an interest of the US until it has once again gained hegemonic control of
central Asia. This is a fight to retain US global domination – causalities do not matter. The US
and its partners or co-rulers of the Empire the Saud family and the Zionist oligarchy will
slaughter with impunity until someone stops them or their own corruption defeats them.
The Empire can not exist without relentless ongoing slaughter it has been at it every day
now for 73 years. It worked for them all that time but that time has run out. China has
already set the date for when its currency will become fully freely exchanged, less than 5
years. When that happens the world will return to the gold standard + Bitcoin possibly and US
dollar hegemony will end. After that the trillion dollar a year military and the 20 trillion
debt take on a different meaning. Before that slaughter non-stop will continue.
john wilson , December 9, 2017 at 6:31 am
Really, Baby-lon, your first short paragraph sums this piece by Lazare perfectly and makes
the rest of his blog seem rather pointless. Even the most stupid person on earth couldn't
think that the US was using murdering, butchering head choppers in a bid to bring peace and
stability to the middle East. The Neocons and the other criminals that infest Washington
don't want peace at any price because its bad for business.
Babyl-on and John Wilson: you have nailed it. The last thing the US (gov't.) wants is
peace. War is big business; casualties are of no concern (3 million Koreans died in the
Korean War; 3 million Vietnamese in that war; 100's of thousands in Iraq [including Clinton's
sanctions] and Afghanistan). The US has used jihadi proxies since the mujahedeen in 1980's
Afghanistan and Contras in Nicaragua. To the US (gov't.), a Salafist dictatorship (such as
Saudi Arabia) is highly preferable to a secular, nationalist ruler (such as Egypt's Nasser,
Libya's Gaddafi, Syria's Assad).
So the cover story of the jjihadi's has changed – first they are freedom fighters, then
terrorists. What does not change is that in either case they are pawns of the US (gov't.)
goal of hegemony.
(Incidentally, Drew Hunkins must be responding to a different article.)
Exactly Baby right on, Either USA strategists are extremely ignorant or they are attempting
to create chaos, probably both.
Perhaps not continuously but surely frequently the USA has promoted war prior to the last 73
years. Native Genocide , Mexican Wars, Spanish War, WWI ( USA banker repayment war)
Richard , December 9, 2017 at 5:24 pm
Exactly Babylon! Looks like consortiumnews is turning into another propaganda rag. Assad
was allied with Russia and Iran – that's why the U.S. wanted him removed. Israel said
that they would preferred ISIS in power over Assad. The U.S. would have happily wiped out 90%
of the population using its terrorist proxies if it thought it could have got what it
wanted.
Sam F , December 10, 2017 at 8:50 am
CN tends to make moderate statements so as to communicate with those most in need of
them.
One must start with the understandings of the audience and show them that the evidence leads
further.
Richard , December 10, 2017 at 10:27 am
Sam F, no, it's a DELIBERATE lie in support of U.S. foreign policy. The guy wrote: "the
NAIVE belief that jihadist proxies could be used to TRANSFORM THE REGION FOR THE BETTER." It
could have been written as: "the stated justification by the president that he wanted to
transform the region for the better, even though there are often ulterior motives."
It's the same GROTESQUE caricature of these wars that the mainstream media always
presents: that the U.S. is on the side of good, and fights for good, even though every war
INVARIABLY ends up in a bloodbath, with no one caring how many civilians have died, what
state the country is left in, that civilian infrastructure and civilians were targeted, let
alone whether war could have been prevented. For example, in 1991, shortly after the first
Gulf War, Iraqis rose up against their regime, but George H. Bush allowed Saddam to fly his
military helicopters (permission was needed due to the no-fly zones), and quell the rebellion
in blood – tens of thousands were butchered! Bush said that when he told Iraqis to
rebel, he meant the military generals, NOT the Iraqi people themselves. In other words, the
U.S. wanted Saddam gone, but the same regime in place. The U.S. never cared about the
people!
Either Robert Parry or the author wrote that introduction. I suspect Mr Parry – he
always portrays the president as having a heart of gold, but, always, sadly, misinformed;
being a professional journalist, he knows full well that people often only read the start and
end of an article.
Drew Hunkins , December 8, 2017 at 5:31 pm
What we have occurring right now in the United States is a rare divergence of interests
within our ruling class. The elites are currently made up of Zionist-militarists. What we're
now witnessing is a rare conflict between the two factions. This particular internecine
battle has reared its head in the past, the Dubai armaments deal comes to mind off the top of
my head.
Trump started the Jerusalem imbroglio because he's concerned about Mueller's witch
hunt.
The military-industrial-complex sicced Mueller on Trump because they despise his overtures
towards rapprochement with the Kremlin. The military-industrial-complex MUST have a villain
to justify the gigantic defense [sic] spending which permeates the entire U.S.
politico-economic system. Putin and Russia were always the preferred demon because they
easily fit the bill in the minds of an easily brainwashed American public. Of course saber
rattling towards Moscow puts the world on the brink of nuclear war, but no matter, the
careerism and fat contracts are all that matter to the MIC. Trump's rhetoric about making
peace with the Kremlin has always mortified the MIC.
Since Trump's concerned about 1.) Mueller's witch hunt (he definitely should be deeply
concerned, this is an out of control prosecutor on mission creep), and 2.) the almost total
negative coverage the press has given him over the last two years, he's made a deal with the
Zionist Power Configuration; Trump, effectively saying to them: "I'll give you Jerusalem, you
use your immense influence in the American mass media to tamp down the relentlessly hostile
coverage toward me, and perhaps smear Mueller's witch hunt a bit ".
This is a rare instance of our elites battling it out behind the scenes, both groups being
reprehensible power hungry greed heads and sociopaths, it's hard to tell how this will
end.
How this all eventually plays out is anyone's guess indeed. Let's just make sure it
doesn't end with mushroom clouds over Tehran, Saint Petersburg, Paris, Chicago, London, NYC,
Washington and Berlin.
Abe , December 8, 2017 at 7:57 pm
Trump's purported deviation from foreign policy orthodoxy regarding both Russia and Israel
was a propaganda scam engineered by the pro-Israel Lobby from the very beginning. As Russia-gate fiction is progressively deconstructed, the Israel-gate reality becomes
ever more despicably obvious.
The shamelessly Israel-pandering Trump received the "Liberty Award" for his contributions
to US-Israel relations at a 3 February 2015 gala hosted by The Algemeiner Journal, a New
York-based newspaper, covering American and international Jewish and Israel-related news.
After the event, Trump did not renew his television contract for The Apprentice, which
raised speculation about a Trump bid for the presidency. Trump announced his candidacy in
June 2015.
Trump's purported break with GOP orthodoxy, questioning of Israel's commitment to peace,
calls for even treatment in Israeli-Palestinian deal-making, and refusal to call for
Jerusalem to be Israel's undivided capital, were all stage-managed for the campaign.
Cheap theatrics notwithstanding, the Netanyahu regime in Israel has "1000 percent" support
from the Trump regime.
Drew Hunkins , December 8, 2017 at 8:10 pm
If Trump were totally and completely subservient to Netanyahu he would have bombed
Damascus to remove Assad and would have bombed Tehran to obliterate Iran. Of course thus far
he has done neither. Don't get me wrong, Trump is essentially part and parcel of the Zionist
cabal, but I don't quite think he's 1,000% under their thumb (not yet?).
I don't think the Zionist Power Configuration concocted Trump's policy of relative peace
with the Kremlin. Yes, the ZPC is extremely powerful in America, but Trump's position of
detente with Moscow seemed to be genuine. He caught way too much heat from the mass media for
it to be a stunt, it's almost torpedoed his presidency, and may eventually do just that. It
was actually one of the very few things Trump got right; peace with Russia, cordial relations
with the Kremlin are a no-brainer. A no-brainer to everyone but the
military-industrial-complex.
Abe , December 8, 2017 at 10:59 pm
Russian. Missiles. Lets be clear: The military-industrial-complex wants plenty of low intensity conflict to
fuel ever more fabulous weapons sales, not a really hot war where all those pretty expensive
toys are falling out of the sky in droves.
Whether it was "bird strike" or something more technological that recently grounded the
"mighty" Israeli F-35I, it's clear that America isn't eager to have those "Inherent Resolve"
jets, so busily not bombing ISIS, painted with Russian SAM radar.
Russia made it clear that Trump's Tomahawk Tweet in April 2017 was not only under totally
false pretenses. It had posed a threat to Russian troops and Moscow took extra measures to
protect them.
Russian deployment of the advanced S-400 system on the Syrian coast in Latakia also
impacts Israel's regional air superiority. The S-400 can track and shoot down targets some
400 kilometers (250 miles) away. That range encompasses half of Israel's airspace, including
Ben Gurion International Airport. In addition to surface-to-air missiles installations, Russian aircraft in Syria are
equipped with air-to-air missiles. Those weapons are part of an calculus of Israeli aggression in the region.
Of course, there's much more to say about this subject.
Surely, Drew, even the brain washed sheep otherwise known as the American public can't
seriously believe that their government armed head choppers in a bid to bring peace to the
region, can they?
Drew Hunkins , December 9, 2017 at 1:34 pm
Yup Mr. Wilson. It's too much cognitive dissonance for them to process. After all, we're
the exceptional nation, the beacon on the hill, the country that ONLY intervenes abroad when
there is a 'right to protect!' or it's a 'humanitarian intervention.' As Ken Burns would say:
Washington only acts "with good intentions. They're just sometimes misplaced." That's all.
The biggest global empire the world has ever seen is completely out of the picture.
mike k , December 8, 2017 at 5:34 pm
When evil people with evil intentions set out to do something in the world, the result is
evil. Like Libya, or Iraq, or Syria. Why do I call these people who killed millions for their
own selfish greed for power evil? If you have to ask that, then you just don't understand
what evil is – and you have a lot of company, because many people believe that evil
does not even exist! Such sheeple become the perfect victims of the evil ones, who are
destroying our world.
john wilson , December 9, 2017 at 6:36 am
Correction, Mike. The public do believe that evil exists but they sincerely think that
Putin and Russia are the evil ones'
mike k , December 9, 2017 at 5:41 pm
One of the ways to avoid recognizing evil is to ascribe it to inappropriate, incorrect
sources usually as a result of believing misleading propaganda. Another common maneuver is to
deny evil's presence in oneself, and believe it is always "out there". Or one can feel that
"evil" is an outmoded religious concept that is only used to hit at those one does not
like.
Mild - ly Facetious , December 8, 2017 at 6:22 pm
Oh Jerusalem: Requiem for the two-state solution (Gas masks required)
On 24 October 2017, the Intercept released an NSA document unearthed from leaked
intelligence files provided by Edward Snowden which reveals that terrorist militants in Syria
were under the direct command of foreign governments from the early years of the war which
has now claimed half a million lives.
Marked "Top Secret" the NSA memo focuses on events that unfolded outside Damascus in March
of 2013.
The US intelligence memo is evidence of internal US government confirmation of the direct
role that both the Saudi and US governments played in fueling attacks on civilians and
civilian infrastructure, as well as military targets in pursuit of "regime change" in
Syria.
Israel's support for terrorist forces in Syria is well established. The Israelis and
Saudis coordinate their activities.
Abe , December 8, 2017 at 6:27 pm
An August 2012 DIA report (written when the U.S. was monitoring weapons flows from Libya
to Syria), said that the opposition in Syria was driven by al Qaeda and other extremist
groups: "the Salafist, the Muslim Brotherhood, and AQI are the major forces driving the
insurgency in Syria." The "deterioration of the situation" was predicted to have "dire consequences" for Iraq,
which included the "grave danger" of a terrorist "Islamic state". Some of the "dire consequences" are blacked out but the DIA warned one such consequence
would be the "renewing facilitation of terrorist elements from all over the Arab world
entering into Iraqi Arena."
The heavily redacted DIA memo specifically mentions "the possibility of establishing a
declared or undeclared Salafist principality in eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this
is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian
regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran)."
To clarify just who these "supporting powers" were, mentioned in the document who sought
the creation of a "Salafist principality," the DIA memo explained: "The West, Gulf countries, and Turkey support the opposition; while Russia, China, and
Iran support the regime."
The DIA memo clearly indicates when it was decided to transform US, Saudi, and
Turkish-backed Al Qaeda affiliates into ISIS: the "Salafist" (Islamic) "principality"
(State). NATO member state Turkey has been directly supporting terrorism in Syria, and
specifically, supporting ISIS. In 2014, Germany's international broadcaster Deutsche Welle's reported "'IS' supply
channels through Turkey." DW exposed fleets of hundreds of trucks a day, passing unchallenged
through Turkey's border crossings with Syria, clearly bound for the defacto ISIS capital of
Raqqa. Starting in September 2015, Russian airpower in Syria successfully interdicted ISIS supply
lines.
The usual suspects in Western media launched a relentless propaganda campaign against
Russian support for Syria. The Atlantic Council's Bellingcat disinformation operation started
working overtime.
The propaganda effort culminated in the 4 April 2017 Khan Shaykhun false flag chemical
incident in Idlib. Bellingcat's Eliot Higgins and Dan Kaszeta have been paraded by "First
Draft" coalition media "partners" in a vigorous effort to somehow implicate the Russians.
Abe , December 9, 2017 at 12:26 pm
In a January 2016 interview on Al Jazeera, former director of the Defense Intelligence
Agency Michael Flynn admitted that he "paid very close attention" to the August 2012 DIA
report predicting the rise of a "declared or undeclared Salafist Principality" in Syria. Flynn even asserts that the White House's sponsoring of terrorists (that would emerge as
Al Nusra and ISIS) against the Syrian regime was "a willful decision."
Flynn was interviewed by British journalist Mehdi Hasan for Al Jazeera's Head to Head
program. Flynn made it clear that the policies that led to the "the rise of the Islamic State, the
rise of terrorism" were not merely the result of ignorance or looking the other way, but the
result of conscious decision making:
Hasan: "You are basically saying that even in government at the time you knew these groups
were around, you saw this analysis, and you were arguing against it, but who wasn't
listening?"
Flynn: "I think the administration."
Hasan: "So the administration turned a blind eye to your analysis?"
Flynn: "I don't know that they turned a blind eye, I think it was a decision. I think it
was a willful decision."
Hasan: "A willful decision to support an insurgency that had Salafists, Al Qaeda and the
Muslim Brotherhood?"
Flynn: "It was a willful decision to do what they're doing."
Holding up a paper copy of the 2012 DIA report declassified through FOIA, Hasan read aloud
key passages such as, "there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared
Salafist principality in Eastern Syria, and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the
opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime."
Rather than downplay the importance of the document and these startling passages, as did
the State Department soon after its release, Flynn did the opposite: he confirmed that while
acting DIA chief he "paid very close attention" to this report in particular and later added
that "the intelligence was very clear."
Lt. Gen. Flynn, speaking safely from retirement, is the highest ranking intelligence
official to go on record saying the United States and other state sponsors of rebels in Syria
knowingly gave political backing and shipped weapons to Al-Qaeda in order to put pressure on
the Syrian regime:
Hasan: "In 2012 the U.S. was helping coordinate arms transfers to those same groups
[Salafists, Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda in Iraq], why did you not stop that if you're
worried about the rise of quote-unquote Islamic extremists?"
Flynn: "I hate to say it's not my job but that my job was to was to to ensure that the
accuracy of our intelligence that was being presented was as good as it could be."
Flynn unambiguously confirmed that the 2012 DIA document served as source material in his
own discussions over Syria policy with the White House. Flynn served as Director of Intelligence for Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC)
during a time when its prime global mission was dismantling Al-Qaeda.
Flynn's admission that the White House was in fact arming and bolstering Al-Qaeda linked
groups in Syria is especially shocking given his stature. The Pentagon's former highest ranking intelligence officer in charge of the hunt for Osama
bin Laden confessed that the United States directly aided the Al Qaeda terrorist legions of
Ayman al-Zawahiri beginning in at least 2012 in Syria.
Abe , December 9, 2017 at 12:44 pm
Mehdi Hasan goes Head to Head with Michael Flynn, former head of the US Defense
Intelligence Agency
"Flynn would later tell the New York Times that this 2012 intelligence report in
particular was seen at the White House where it was 'disregarded' because it 'didn't meet the
narrative' on the war in Syria. He would further confirm to investigative journalist Seymour
Hersh that Defense Department (DoD) officials and DIA intelligence in particular, were loudly
warning the administration that jihadists were leading the opposition in Syria -- warnings
which were met with 'enormous pushback.' Instead of walking back his Al Jazeera comments,
General Flynn explained to Hersh that 'If the American public saw the intelligence we were
producing daily, at the most sensitive level, they would go ballistic.' Hersh's investigative
report exposed a kind of intelligence schism between the Pentagon and CIA concerning the
covert program in Syria.
"In a personal exchange on his blog Sic Semper Tyrannis, legendary DoD intelligence
officer and former presidential briefer Pat Lang explained [ ] that the DIA memo was used as
a 'warning shot across the [administration's] bow.' Lang has elsewhere stated that DIA
Director Flynn had 'tried to persuade people in the Obama Administration not to provide
assistance to the Nusra group.' It must be remembered that in 2012 what would eventually
emerge as distinct 'ISIS' and 'Nusra' (AQ in Syria) groups was at that time a singular entity
desiring a unified 'Islamic State.' The nascent ISIS organization (referenced in the memo as
'ISI' or Islamic State in Iraq) was still one among many insurgent groups fighting to topple
Assad.
"In fact, only one year after the DIA memo was produced (dated August 12, 2012) a
coalition of rebels fighting under the US-backed Revolutionary Military Council of Aleppo
were busy celebrating their most strategic victory to date, which served to open an
opposition corridor in Northern Syria. The seizure of the Syrian government's Menagh Airbase
in August 2013 was only accomplished with the military prowess of fighters identifying
themselves in front of cameras and to reporters on the ground as the Islamic State of Iraq
and al-Sham.
"Public embarrassment came for Ambassador to Syria Robert Ford who reluctantly confirmed
that in fact, yes, the US-funded and supplied FSA commander on the ground had personally led
ISIS and Nusra fighters in the attack (Ford himself was previously filmed alongside the
commander). This after the New York Times publicized unambiguous video proof of the fact.
Even the future high commander of Islamic State's military operations, Omar al-Shishani,
himself played a leading role in the US sponsored FSA operation."
"one first needs to understand what has happened in Syria and other Middle Eastern
countries in recent years. The original plan of the US and Saudi Arabia (behind whom stood an
invisible Israel) was the overthrow of Bashar al-Assad and his replacement with Islamic
fundamentalists or takfiris (Daesh, al-Qaeda, Jabhat al-Nusra).
"The plan involved the following steps:
sweep away a strong secular Arab state with a political culture, armed forces and
security services;
generate total chaos and horror in Syria that would justify the creation of Israel's
'security zone', not only in Golan Heights, but also further north;
start a civil war in Lebanon and incite takfiri violence against Hezbollah, leading
to them both bleeding to death and then create a "security zone", this time in Lebanon;
prevent the creation of a "Shiite axis" of Iran/Iraq/Syria/Lebanon;
continue the division of Syria along ethnic and religious lines, establish an
independent Kurdistan and then to use them against Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran.
give Israel the opportunity to become the unquestioned major player in the region and
force Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman, Kuwait and everyone else to apply for permission from Israel
in order to implement any oil and gas projects;
gradually isolate, threaten, undermine and ultimately attack Iran with a wide
regional coalition, removing all Shiite centers of power in the middle East.
"It was an ambitious plan, and the Israelis were completely convinced that the United
States would provide all the necessary resources to see it through. But the Syrian government
has survived thanks to military intervention by Russia, Iran and Hezbollah. Daesh is almost
defeated and Iran and Hezbollah are so firmly entrenched in Syria that it has driven the
Israelis into a state of fear bordering on panic. Lebanon remains stable, and even the recent
attempt by the Saudis to abduct Prime Minister Saad Hariri failed.
"As a result, Saudi Arabia and Israel have developed a new plan: force the US to attack
Iran. To this end, the 'axis of good"' (USA-Israel-Saudi Arabia) was created, although this
is nothing new. Saudi Arabia and the other Arab States in the Persian Gulf have in the past
spoken in favor of intervention in Syria. It is well known that the Saudis invaded Bahrain,
are occupying it de facto, and are now at war in Yemen.
"The Israelis will participate in any plan that will finally split the Sunnis and Shiites,
turning the region into rubble. It was not by chance that, having failed in Lebanon, they are
now trying to do the same in Yemen after the murder of Ali Abdullah Saleh.
"For the Saudis and Israelis, the problem lies in the fact that they have rather weak
armed forces; expensive and high-tech, but when it comes to full-scale hostilities,
especially against a really strong opponent such as the Iranians or Hezbollah, the
'Israel/Wahhabis' have no chance and they know it, even if they do not admit it. So, one
simply needs to think up some kind of plan to force the Shiites to pay a high price.
"So they developed a new plan. Firstly, the goal is now not the defeat of Hezbollah or
Iran. For all their rhetoric, the Israelis know that neither they nor especially the Saudis
are able to seriously threaten Iran or even Hezbollah. Their plan is much more basic:
initiate a serious conflict and then force the US to intervene. Only today, the armed forces
of the United States have no way of winning a war with Iran, and this may be a problem. The
US military knows this and they are doing everything to tell the neo-cons 'sorry, we just
can't.' This is the only reason why a US attack on Iran has not already taken place. From the
Israeli point of view this is totally unacceptable and the solution is simple: just force the
US to participate in a war they do not really need. As for the Iranians, the Israeli goal of
provoking an attack on Iran by the US is not to defeat Iran, but just to bring about
destruction – a lot of destruction [ ]
"You would need to be crazy to attack Iran. The problem, however, is that the Saudis and
the Israelis are close to this state. And they have proved it many times. So it just remains
to hope that Israel and the KSA are 'crazy', but 'not that crazy'."
The article raises a very serious charge. Up till now it appeared that supplying weapons to
Al Qaeda affiliates in Syria was just another example of Pentagon incompetence but the
suggestion here is that it was a concerted policy and it's hard to believe that there was no
one in the Pentagon that was privy to that policy who wouldn't raise an objection.
That it
conformed with Israeli, Saudi and CIA designs is not surprising, but that there was no
dissension within the Pentagon is appalling (or that Obama didn't raise objections). Clark's
comment should put him on the hot seat for a congressional investigation but, of course,
there is no one in congress to run with it. The policy is so manifestly evil that it seems to
dwarf even the reckless ignorance of preceding "interventions".
Linda Wood , December 8, 2017 at 10:24 pm
There WAS dissension within the Pentagon, not only about being in a coalition with the
Gulf States and Turkey in support of terrorist forces, but about allowing ISIS to invade
Ramadi, which CENTCOM exposed by making public that US forces watched it happen and did
nothing. In addition, CENTCOM and SOCOM publicly opposed switching sides in Yemen.
A senior commander at Central Command (CENTCOM), speaking on condition of anonymity,
scoffed at that argument. "The reason the Saudis didn't inform us of their plans," he said,
"is because they knew we would have told them exactly what we think -- that it was a bad
idea.
Military sources said that a number of regional special forces officers and officers at
U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) argued strenuously against supporting the Saudi-led
intervention because the target of the intervention, the Shia Houthi movement -- which has
taken over much of Yemen and which Riyadh accuses of being a proxy for Tehran -- has been
an effective counter to Al-Qaeda.
The DIA report released by Gen. Flynn in 2012 predicted the Islamic State with alarm. That
is why Flynn was fired as Director of DIA. He objected to the insane policy of supporting the
CIA/Saudi madness and saw it as not only counter-productive but disastrous. His comments to
AlJazeera in 2016 reinforced this position. Gen Flynn's faction of the American military has
been consistent in its opposition to CIA support of terrorist forces.
Thanks, I never read anything about it in the MSM (perhaps Aljazeera was an exception?).
However, this doesn't explain Gen. Flynn's tight relationship with Turkey's Erdogan who
clearly backed the Al Qaeda affiliated rebels to the point of shooting down a Russian jet
over Syria.
Sam F , December 10, 2017 at 8:57 am
The fighter shoot-down incident was before Erdogan's reversals in Syria policy.
Linda Wood , December 8, 2017 at 10:28 pm
I see Gen. Flynn as a whistleblower. The 2012 report he circulated saw the rise of the
Salafist Islamic state with alarm.
B. THE SALAFIST, THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD, AND AQI ARE THE MAJOR FORCES DRIVING THE
INSURGENCY IN SYRIA.
C. THE WEST, GULF COUNTRIES, AND TURKEY SUPPORT THE OPPOSITION; WHILE RUSSIA, CHINA, AND
IRAN SUPPORT THE REGIME.
C. IF THE SITUATION UNRAVELS THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING A DECLARED OR
UNDECLARED SALAFIST PRINCIPALITY IN EASTERN SYRIA (HASAKA AND DER ZOR), AND THIS IS EXACTLY
WHAT THE SUPPORTING POWERS TO THE OPPOSITION WANT, IN ORDER TO ISOLATE THE SYRIAN REGIME,
WHICH IS CONSIDERED THE STRATEGIC DEPTH OF THE SHIA EXPANSION (IRAQ AND IRAN).
D. THE DETERIORATION OF THE SITUATION HAS DIRE CONSEQUENCES ON THE IRAQI SITUATION AND
ARE AS FOLLOWS:
–1. THIS CREATES THE IDEAL ATMOSPHERE FOR AQI TO RETURN TO ITS OLD POCKETS IN
MOSUL AND RAMADI, AND WILL PROVIDE A RENEWED MOMENTUM UNDER THE PRESUMPTION OF UNIFYING THE
JIHAD AMONG SUNNI IRAQ AND SYRIA ISI COULD ALSO DECLARE AN ISLAMIC STATE THROUGH ITS UNION
WITH OTHER TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS IN IRAQ AND SYRIA, WHICH WILL CREATE GRAVE DANGER IN
REGARDS TO UNIFYING IRAQ AND THE PROTECTION OF ITS TERRITORY
Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, director of the DIA between 2012 and 2014, confirmed
that his agency had sent a constant stream of classified warnings to the civilian
leadership about the dire consequences of toppling Assad. The jihadists, he said, were in
control of the opposition. Turkey wasn't doing enough to stop the smuggling of foreign
fighters and weapons across the border. 'If the American public saw the intelligence we
were producing daily, at the most sensitive level, they would go ballistic,' Flynn told me.
'We understood Isis's long-term strategy and its campaign plans, and we also discussed the
fact that Turkey was looking the other way when it came to the growth of the Islamic State
inside Syria.' The DIA's reporting, he said, 'got enormous pushback' from the Obama
administration. 'I felt that they did not want to hear the truth.'
j. D. D. , December 9, 2017 at 8:33 am
Thank you. Gen Flynn also urged coordination with Russia against ISIS, so it doesn't take
much to see why he was targeted. Ironically, the MSM is now going bananas over his support
for nuclear power in the region, which he had tied to desalination of sea water, toward
alleviating that crucial source of conflict in the area.
Abbybwood , December 9, 2017 at 11:24 pm
I believe Wesley Clark told Amy Goodman that he was handed the classified memo regarding
the U.S. overthrowing seven countries in five years starting with Iraq and ending with Iran,
in 2001, not 2006. He said it was right after 9/11 when he visited the Pentagon and Joint
Chief of Staff's office and was handed the memo.
jaycee , December 8, 2017 at 7:19 pm
The use of Islamist proxy warriors to help achieve American geo-political ends goes back
to at least 1979, including Afghanistan, Bosnia, Libya, and Syria. One of the better books on
9/11 is Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed's "The War On Truth: 9/11, Disinformation, and the Anatomy of
Terrorism". The first section of that book – "The Geopolitics of Terrorism" –
covers, across 150 well-sourced pages, the history and background of this involvement. It is
highly recommended for anyone who wishes to be better informed on this topic.
One disturbing common feature across the years have been US sponsored airlifts of Islamist
fighters facing defeat, as seen in Afghanistan in late 2001 and just recently in eastern
Syria. In 2001, some of those fighters were relocated to North Africa, specifically Mali
– the roots of the Islamist insurgency which has destabilized that country over the
past few years. Where exactly the ISIS rebels assisted some weeks ago were relocated is yet
unknown.
turk151 , December 9, 2017 at 10:03 pm
Jaycee, actually you have to go back much further than that to WW2. Hitler used the
marginalized Turkic people in Russia and turned them into effective fighters to create
internal factions within the Soviet Union. After Hitler lost and the Cold War began, the US,
who had no understanding of the Soviets at the time radicalized and empowered Islamist
including the Muslim Brotherhood to weaponize Islam against the Soviet Union.
Hence the birth of the Mujaheddin and Bin Laden, the rest is history.
j. D. D. , December 8, 2017 at 7:57 pm
The article does not support the sub-headline. There is no evidence provided, nor is there
any evidence to be found, that Washington's policy in the region was motivated by anything
other than geopolitical objectives.
David G , December 9, 2017 at 7:25 am
I think that phrasing may point to the hand of editor Robert Parry. The incredible value
of CN notwithstanding, Parry in his own pieces (erroneously in my eyes) maintains a belief
that Obama somehow meant well. Hence the imputation of some "naïve" but ultimately
benevolent motive on the part of the U.S. genocidaires, as the whole Syria catastrophe got
going on Obama's watch.
Anon , December 9, 2017 at 9:14 am
The imputation of naivete works to avoid accusation of a specific strategy without
sufficient evidence.
Skip Scott , December 9, 2017 at 9:45 am
Although I am no fan of Obama, and most especially the continuation of the warmongering
for his 8 years, he did balk at the "Red line" when he found out he was being set up, and it
wasn't Assad who used chemical weapons. I don't think he "meant well" so much as he knew the
exact length of his leash. His bragging about going against "The Washington playbook" was of
course laughable; just as his whole hopey/changey thing was laughable with Citigroup picking
his cabinet.
All these western imperial geostrategic planners are certifiably insane and have no
business anywhere near the levers of government policy. They are the number one enemy of
humanity. If we don't find a way to remove them from power, they may actually succeed in
destroying life on Earth.
"Official Washington helped unleash hell on Syria and across the Mideast behind the
naïve belief that jihadist proxies could be used to transform the region for the better,
explains Daniel Lazare." What a load of old rubbish, naïve belief indeed. it is difficult to believe that
anyone could write this stuff with a straight face.
Linda Wood , December 8, 2017 at 10:37 pm
Incompetence and stupidity are their only defense because if anyone acknowledged that
trillions of dollars have been made by the usual suspects committing these crimes, the
industrialists of war would face a justice symbolized by Nuremberg.
Zachary Smith , December 8, 2017 at 11:37 pm
That Gary Gambill character "outed" himself as a Zionist on September 4 of this year. He
appears to have mastered the propaganda associated with the breed. At the link see if
you can find any mention of the murders, thefts, ethnic cleansing, or apartheid of his
adopted nation. Blaming the victim may be this fellow's specialty. Sample:
The well-intentioned flocked in droves to the belief that Israeli- Palestinian peace was
achievable provided Israel made the requisite concessions, and that this would liberate the
Arab-Islamic world from a host of other problems allegedly arising from it: bloated
military budgets, intolerance of dissent, Islamic extremism, you name it.
Why tackle each of these problems head on when they can be alleviated all at once when
Israel is brought to heel? Twenty years later, the Middle East is suffering the
consequences of this conspiracy of silence.
The American groupthink rarely allows propaganda and disinformation disturb: endless wars
and endless lies and criminality, have not disturbed this mindset. It is clever to manipulate
people to think in a way opposite of truth so consistently. All the atrocities by the US have
been surrounded by media propaganda and mastery of groupthink techniques go down well.
Mention something unusual or real news and you might get heavily criticized for daring to
think outside the box and doubt what are (supposedly) "religious truths". Tell a lie long
enough and it becomes the truth.
It takes courage to go against the flow of course and one can only hope that the Americans
are what they think they are: courageous and strong enough to hear their cherished truths
smashed, allow the scales before their eyes to fall and practise free speech and free
thought.
Theo , December 9, 2017 at 6:35 am
Thanks for this article and many others on this site.In Europe and in Germany you hardly
hear,read or see any of these facts and their connections.It seems to be only of marginal
interest.
The CIA was a key force behind the creation of both al Qaeda and ISIS. Most major
incidents of "Islamic Terrorism" have some kind of CIA backing behind them. See this large
collection of links for compiled evidence:
http://www.pearltrees.com/joshstern/government-supporting/id18814292
triekc , December 9, 2017 at 8:27 am
This journalist and other journalists writing on some of my favorite Russian propaganda
news websites, have reported the US empire routinely makes "deals with the devil", the enemy
of my enemy is my friend, if doing so furthers their goal of perpetual war and global
hegemony. Yet, inexplicably, these journalists buy the US empire's 911 story without
question, in the face of many unanswered questions.
Beginning in the 1990's, neocons who
would become W's cabinet, wrote detailed plans of military regime change in Middle East, but
stating they needed a "strong external shock to the United States -- a latter-day 'Pearl
Harbor", to get US sheeple to support increased militarism and global war. Few months after W
took office, and had appointed those war mongering neocons to positions of power, Bin Laden
(CIA staffer) and a handful of his men, all from close allied countries to the US, Saudi
Arabia, UAE, Egypt, delivered the 2nd Pearl Harbor on 911. What a timely coincidence! We
accept the US Empire provides weapons and military support to the same enemy, and worse, who
attacked us on 911, but one is labeled a "conspiracy nut" if they believe that same US Empire
would orchestrate 911 to justify their long planned global war. One thing about being a
"conspiracy nut", if you live long enough, often you will see your beliefs vindicated
Joe Tedesky , December 9, 2017 at 11:27 am
You commented on what I was thinking, and that was, 'remember when al Queda was our enemy
on 911'? So now that bin Laden is dead, and his al Queda now fights on our side, shouldn't
the war be over? And, just for the record who did attack us on 911?
So many questions, and so much left unanswered, but don't worry America may run out of
money for domestic vital needs but the U.S. always has the money to go fight another war.
It's a culture thing, and if you ain't into it then you just don't pay no attention to it. In
fact if your life is better off from all of these U.S. led invasions, then your probably not
posting any comments here, either.
Knowing the Pentagon mentality they probably have an 'al Queda combat medal' to pin on the
terrorists chest. Sarcasm I know, but seriously is anything not within the realm of
believable when it comes to this MIC establishment?
Christene Bartels , December 9, 2017 at 8:53 am
Great article and spot on as far as the author takes it. But the world is hurtling towards
Armageddon so I'd like to back things up about one hundred years and get down to brass
tacks.
The fact of the matter is, the M.E. has never been at total peace but it has been nothing
but one colossal FUBAR since the Ottoman Empire was defeated after WWI and the Allied Forces
got their grubby, greedy mitts on its M.E. territories and all of that luscious black gold.
First up was the British Empire and France and then it really went nuclear (literally) in
1946 when Truman and the U.S. joined in the fun and decided to figure out how we could carve
out that ancient prime piece of real estate and resurrect Israel. By 1948 ..violà
..there she was.
So now here we sit as the hundred year delusion that we knew what the hell we were doing
comes crashing down around us. Seriously, whoever the people have been who thought that a
country with the historical perspective of a toddler was going to be able to successfully
manage and manipulate a region filled with people who are still tribal in perspective and are
still holding grudges and settling scores from five thousand years ago were complete and
total arrogant morons. Every single one of them. Up to the present moment.
Which gets me down to those brass tacks I alluded to at the beginning of my comment.
Delusional crusades lead by arrogant morons always, always, always end up as ash heaps. So, I
would suggest we all prepare for that rapidly approaching conclusion accordingly. For me,
that means hitting my knees.
Gregory Herr , December 9, 2017 at 1:00 pm
Middle Eastern people are no more "tribal" or prone to holding grudges than any other
people. Middle Eastern people have exhibited and practiced peaceful and tolerant living
arrangements within several different contexts over the centuries. Iraq had a fairly thriving
middle class and the Syrians are a cultured and educated people.
Gregory Herr , December 9, 2017 at 10:07 pm
Syrian society is constructed very much within the construct of close family ties and a
sense of a Syrian homeland. It is solely the business of the Syrian people to decide whether
the socialist Ba'ath government functions according to their own sense of realities and
standards. Some of those realities may include aspects of a necessitated national security
state (necessitated by CIA and Israeli subterfuge) that prompts shills to immediately
characterize the Assad government as "an authoritarian regime" and of course that's all you
need to know. Part of what pisses the West off about the Syrians is that they are so
competent, and that includes their intelligence and security services. One of the other parts
is the socialist example of government functioning in interests of the general population,
not selling out to vultures.
It bothers me that Mr. Lazare wrote: "Syria's Baathist government is hardly blameless in
this affair." Really? Well the Syrian government can hardly be blamed for the vile strategy
of using terrorist mercenaries to take or destroy a people's homeland–killing horrific
numbers of fathers, mothers, and children on the way to establish some kind of Wild West
control over Damascus that can then be manipulated for the typical elite deviances. What was
purposely planned and visited upon the Syrian people has had human consequences that were
known and disregarded by the planners. It has been and continues to be a grave crime against
our common humanity that should be raised to the roof of objection! People like Gambill
should be excoriated for their crass appraisal of human costs .and for their contrived and
twisted rationalizations and deceits. President Assad recently gave an interview to teleSUR
that is worth a listen. He talks about human costs with understanding for what he is talking
about. Gambill doesn't give a damn.
BASLE , December 9, 2017 at 10:46 am
From the October 1973 Yom Kippur War onward, the United States had no foreign policy in
the Middle East other than Israel's. Daniel Lazare should read "A clean break: a new strategy
for the Realm".
Sam F , December 10, 2017 at 9:08 am
Yes, Israel is the cut-out or fence for US politicians stealing campaign money from the
federal budget.
US policy is that of the bribery sources and nothing else. And it believes that to be
professional competence.
For the majority of amoral opportunists of the US, money=power=virtue and they will attack
all who disagree.
"Official Washington helped unleash hell on Syria and across the Mideast behind the
naïve belief that jihadist proxies could be used to transform the region for the better,
explains Daniel Lazare."
Lazare makes the case very well about our amoral foreign policy but I think he errs in
saying our aim was to "transform the region for the better." Recent history, going back to
Afghanistan shows a very different goal, to defeat our enemies and the enemies of our allies
with little concern for the aftermath. Just observing what has happened to the people where
we supported extremists is evidence enough.
Peace on Earth, Goodwill toward men. We hope the conscience of our nation is bothered by
our behavior but we know that is not true, and we sleep very well, thank you.
Marilyn Vogt-Downey , December 9, 2017 at 11:18 am
I am stunned that anyone could be so foolish as to think that the US military machine, US
imperialism, does things "naively", bumbling like a helpless giant into wars that destroy
entire nations with no end in sight. One need not be a "conspiracy theorist" to understand
that the Pentagon does not control the world with an ever-expanding war budget equal to the
next 10 countries combined, that it does this just because it is stuck on the wrong path. No!
US imperialism develops these "big guns" to use them, to overpower, take over and dominate
the world for the sake of profits and protection of the right to exploit for private
profit.
There is ample evidence–see the Brookings Institute study among many
others–that the Gulf monarchies–flunkies of US imperialism–who "host"
dozens of US military bases in the region, some of them central to US war
strategy–initiated and nourished and armed and financed the "jihadi armies" in Syria
AND Libya AND elsewhere; they did not do this on their own. The US government–the
executive committee of the US ruling class–does not naively support the Gulf monarchies
because it doesn't know any better! Washington (following British imperialism) organized,
established and backed these flunky regimes. They are autocratic, antediluvian regimes,
allowing virtually civil rights, with no local proletariat to speak of, no popular base. They
are no more than sheriffs for imperialism in that region of the world, along with the Zionist
state of Israel, helping imperialism do the really dirty work.
Look at the evidence. Stop the totally foolish assessment that the US government spends
all this money on a war machine just to "naively" blunder into wars that level entire
nations–and is not taking on destruction of the entire continent of Africa to eliminate
any obstacles to its domination.
No! That is foolish and destructive. Unless we look in the face what is going on–the
US government since its "secret" intervention in Afghanistan in the 1970s and 1980s, has
recruited, trained, armed, funded and relied on jihadi armies to unseat regimes and
destabilize and destroy populations and regimes the US government wants to overthrow, and
destroy, any that could potentially develop into an alternative model of nationalist,
bourgeois industrial development on any level.
Wake up!!! The evidence is there. There is no reason to bumble and bungle along as if we
are in the dark.
Randal Marlin , December 9, 2017 at 11:26 am
Daniel Pipes, from what I've read of him, is among those who counsel the U.S. government
to use its military power to support the losing side in any civil wars fought within Israel's
enemy states, so that the wars will continue, sparing Israel the threat of unified enemy
states. What normal human beings consider a humanitarian disaster, repeated in Iraq, Syria
and Libya, would be reckoned a success according to this way of thinking.
The thinking would appear to lead to similar treatment of Iran, with even more catastrophic
consequences.
Behind all this is the thinking that the survival of Israel outweighs anything else in any
global ethical calculus.
Those who don't accept this moral premise but who believe in supporting the survival of
Israel have their work cut out for them.
This work would be made easier if the U.S. population saw clearly what was going on, instead
of being preoccupied with salacious sexual misconduct stories or other distractions.
Zachary Smith , December 9, 2017 at 2:43 pm
A Russian interceptor has been scrambled to stop a rogue US fighter jet from actively
interfering with an anti-terrorist operation, the Russian Defense Ministry said. It also
accused the US of provoking close encounters with the Russian jets in Syria.
A US F-22 fighter was preventing two Russian Su-25 strike aircraft from bombing an
Islamic State (IS, former ISIS) base to the west of the Euphrates November 23, according to
the ministry. The ministry's spokesman, Major General Igor Konashenkov described the
episode as yet another example of US aircraft attempts to prevent Russian forces from
carrying out strikes against Islamic State.
"The F-22 launched decoy flares and used airbrakes while constantly maneuvering [near
the Russian strike jets], imitating an air fight," Konashenkov said. He added that the US
jet ceased its dangerous maneuvers only after a Russian Su-35S fighter jet joined the two
strike planes.
If this story is true, then it illustrates a number of things. First, the US is still
providing ISIS air cover. Second, either the F-22 pilot or his commander is dumber than dirt.
The F-22 may be a fine airplane, but getting into a contest with an equally fine non-stealth
airplane at eyeball distances means throwing away every advantage of the super-expensive
stealth.
Israel obtained operational nuclear weapons capability by 1967, with the mass production
of nuclear warheads occurring immediately after the Six-Day War. In addition to the Israeli
nuclear arsenal, Israel has offensive chemical and biological warfare stockpiles.
Israel, the Middle East's sole nuclear power, is not a signatory to the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty.
In 2015, the US-based Institute for Science and International Security estimated that
Israel had 115 nuclear warheads. Outside estimates of Israel's nuclear arsenal range up to
400 nuclear weapons.
Israeli nuclear weapons delivery mechanisms include Jericho 3 missiles, with a range of
4,800 km to 6,500 km (though a 2004 source estimated its range at up to 11,500 km), as well
as regional coverage from road mobile Jericho 2 IRBMs.
Additionally, Israel is believed to have an offshore nuclear capability using
submarine-launched nuclear-capable cruise missiles, which can be launched from the Israeli
Navy's Dolphin-class submarines.
The Israeli Air Force has F-15I and F-16I Sufa fighter aircraft are capable of delivering
tactical and strategic nuclear weapons at long distances using conformal fuel tanks and
supported by their aerial refueling fleet of modified Boeing 707's.
In 1986, Mordechai Vanunu, a former technician at Dimona, fled to the United Kingdom and
revealed to the media some evidence of Israel's nuclear program and explained the purposes of
each building, also revealing a top-secret underground facility directly below the
installation.
The Mossad, Israel's secret service, sent a female agent who lured Vanunu to Italy, where
he was kidnapped by Mossad agents and smuggled to Israel aboard a freighter. An Israeli court
then tried him in secret on charges of treason and espionage, and sentenced him to eighteen
years imprisonment.
At the time of Vanunu's kidnapping, The Times reported that Israel had material for
approximately 20 hydrogen bombs and 200 fission bombs by 1986. In the spring of 2004, Vanunu
was released from prison, and placed under several strict restrictions, such as the denial of
a passport, freedom of movement limitations and restrictions on communications with the
press. Since his release, he has been rearrested and charged multiple times for violations of
the terms of his release.
Safety concerns about this 40-year-old reactor have been reported. In 2004, as a
preventive measure, Israeli authorities distributed potassium iodide anti-radiation tablets
to thousands of residents living nearby. Local residents have raised concerns regarding
serious threats to health from living near the reactor.
According to a lawsuit filed in Be'er Sheva Labor Tribunal, workers at the center were
subjected to human experimentation in 1998. According to Julius Malick, the worker who
submitted the lawsuit, they were given drinks containing uranium without medical supervision
and without obtaining written consent or warning them about risks of side effects.
In April 2016 the U.S. National Security Archive declassified dozens of documents from
1960 to 1970, which detail what American intelligence viewed as Israel's attempts to
obfuscate the purpose and details of its nuclear program. The Americans involved in
discussions with Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion and other Israelis believed the country was
providing "untruthful cover" about intentions to build nuclear weapons.
mike k , December 9, 2017 at 6:38 pm
The machinations of those seeking to gain advantages for themselves by hurting others, are
truly appalling. If we fail to name evil for what it is, then we fail as human beings.Those
who look the other way as their country engages in an organized reign of terror, are
complicit in that enormous crime.
Den Lille Abe , December 9, 2017 at 8:54 pm
The path the US has chosen since the end of WWII has been over dead bodies. In the name of
"security", bringing "Freedom" and "Democracy" and complete unconstrained greed it has
trampled countless nations into piles of rubble.
To say it is despised or loathed is an overwhelming understatement. It is almost universally
hated in the third world. Rightly.
Bringing this monstrosity to a halt is a difficult task, and probably cannot be done
militarily without a nuclear war, economically could in the end have the same outcome, then
how?
Easy! Ruin its population. This process has started, long ago.
The decline in the US of health, general wealth, nutrition, production, education, equality,
ethics and morals is already showing as cracks in the fabrics of the US.
A population of incarcerated, obese, low iQ zealot junkies, armed to teeth with guns, in a
country with a crumbling infrastructure, full of environmental disasters is 21 st century for
most Americans.
In all the areas I mentioned the US is going backwards compared to most other countries.
So the monster will come down.
turk151 , December 9, 2017 at 10:20 pm
I think you are being a little hard on the incarcerated, obese, low iQ zealot junkies,
armed to teeth with guns
I am not sure who is more loathsome the evangelicals who were supporting the Bush / Cheney
cabal murderous wars until the bitter end or the liberal intelligentsia careerist
cheerleaders for Obama and Hilary's Wars in Iraq and Syria, who also dont give a damn about
another Arab country being destroyed and sold into slavery as long as Hillary gets elected.
At least with the former group, you can chalk it up to a lack of education.
Linda Wood , December 10, 2017 at 1:52 am
This is possibly the most intelligent and hopeful discussion I have read since 9/11. It
says that at least some Americans do see that we have a fascist cell in our government. That
is the first step in finding a way to unplug it. Best wishes to all of you who have written
here. We will find a way to put war out of business.
Barbara van der Wal-Kylstra , December 10, 2017 at 2:46 am
I think this pattern of using Salafists for regime change started already in Afghanistan,
with Brzezinski plotting with Saudi-Arabia and Pakistan to pay and train Osama bin Laden to
attack the pro Russia regime and trying to get the USSR involved in it, also trying to blame
the USSR for its agression, like they did in Syri"r?
Sam F , December 10, 2017 at 9:18 am
Yes, the Brzezinski/Reagan support of fanatic insurgencies began in AfPak and was revived
for the zionists.
Russia happened to be on the side more or less tending to progress in both cases, so it had
to be opposed.
The warmongers are always the US MIC/intel, allied with the anti-American zionist fascists
for Mideast wars.
Luutzen , December 10, 2017 at 9:15 am
Sheldon Adelson, Soros, Saban all wanted carving up of Arabic states into small sectarian
pieces (No Nasseric pan-Arabic states, a threat to Israël). And protracted wars of total
destruction. Easy.
mike k , December 10, 2017 at 11:05 am
The US Military is part of the largest terrorist organization on Earth. For the super rich
and powerful rulers of that US Mafia, the ignorant religious fanatics and other tools of
Empire are just pawns in their game of world domination and universal slavery for all but
themselves. These monsters of evil delight in profiting from the destruction of others; but
their insatiable greed for more power will never be satisfied, and will become the cause of
the annihilation of every living thing – including themselves. But like other sold out
human addicts, at this point they don't really care, and will blindly pursue their nightmare
quest to the very end – and perhaps they secretly hope that that final end of
everything will at last quench their burning appetite for blood and gold.
Joe Tedesky , December 10, 2017 at 11:12 am
I'm leaving a link to a very long David Swanson article, where Mr Swanson goes into quite
a lot of detail to how the U.S. wages war.
What's interesting of course is how not just Washington, but much of the 'left' also
cheered on the jihadists.
Of course, they were told (by whom?) that the jihadists were 'democratic rebels' and
'freedom fighters' who just wanted to 'bring democracy' to Syria, and get rid of the 'tyrant
Assad.' 5 years later, so much of the nonsense about "local councils" and "white helmets" has
been exposed for what it was. Yet many 'free thinking' people bought the propaganda. Just
like they do on Russiagate. Who needs an "alt-right" when America's "left" is a total
disgrace?
When national security establishment is trying to undermine sitting President this is iether color revolution or coup d'état. In
the USa it looks more like color revolution.
"Now you have this interesting dynamic where the national security establishment is effectively undermining a duly elected president
of the United States. I recognize that Trump is vulnerable, but these types of investigations often become highly politicized."
Notable quotes:
"... The Credico subpoena, after he declined a request for a "voluntary" interview, underscores how the investigation is moving into areas of "guilt by association" and further isolating whistleblowers who defy the powers-that-be through unauthorized release of information to the public, a point made by National Security Agency whistleblower Thomas Drake in an interview. ..."
"... Drake knows well what it means to blow the whistle on government misconduct and get prosecuted for it. A former senior NSA executive, Drake complained about a multi-billion-dollar fraud, waste, and widespread violation of the rights of civilians through secret mass surveillance programs. As a result, the Obama administration indicted Drake in 2010, "as the first whistleblower since Daniel Ellsberg charged with espionage," according to the Institute for Public Accuracy. ..."
"... In 2011, the government's case against him, which carried a potential 35 years in prison, collapsed. Drake went free in a plea deal and was awarded the 2011 Ridenhour Truth Telling Prize. ..."
"... In this hyper-inflated, politicized environment, it is extremely difficult to wade through the massive amount of disinformation on all sides. Hacking is something all modern nation-states engage in, including the United States, including Russia. The challenge here is trying to figure out who the players are, whose ox is being gored, and who is doing the goring. ..."
"... From all accounts, Trump was duly elected. Now you have the Mueller investigation and the House investigation. Where is this all leading? The US intelligence agency hasn't done itself any favors. The ICA provides no proof either, in terms of allegations that the Russians "hacked" the election. We do have the evidence disclosed by Reality Winner that maybe there was some interference. But the hyper-politicization is making it extraordinarily difficult. ..."
"... Well, if you consider the content of those emails .Certainly, the Clinton folks got rid of Bernie Sanders. ..."
"... The national security establishment was far more comfortable having Clinton as president. Someone central to my own case, General Michael Hayden, just a couple days ago went apoplectic because of a tweet from Trump taking on the mainstream media. Hayden got over 100,000 likes on his response. Well, Hayden was central to what we did in deep secrecy at the highest levels of government after 9/11, engaging in widespread surveillance and then justifying it as "raw executive authority." ..."
"... Now you have this interesting dynamic where the national security establishment is effectively undermining a duly elected president of the United States. I recognize that Trump is vulnerable, but these types of investigations often become highly politicized. I worry that what is really happening is being sacrificed on the altar of entertainment and the stage of political theater. ..."
"... What is happening to Randy is symptomatic of a larger trend. If you dare speak truth to power, you are going to pay the price. Is Randy that much of a threat, just because he is questioning authority? Are we afraid of the press? Are we afraid of having the uncomfortable conversations, of dealing with the inconvenient truths about ourselves? ..."
"... Yeah, it is definitely a way of describing the concept of fascism without using the word. The present Yankee regime seems to be quite far along that road, and the full-on types seem to be engaged in a coup to eliminate those they fear may not be as much in the fascist deep-state bag. ..."
"... How disgusting to have to live today in the society so accurately described by Orwell in 1984. It was a nice book to read, but not to live in! ..."
"... Truth is he enemy of coercive power. Lies and secrecy are essential in leading the sheeple to their slaughter. ..."
"... Perhaps the one good thing about Trumps election is that its shows democracy is still just about alive and breathing in the US, because as is pointed out in this article, Trump was never expected to win and those who lost are still in a state of shock and disbelief. ..."
"... One things for sure: the Neocons, the deep state, and all the rest of the skunks that infest Washington will make absolutely sure that future elections will go the way as planned, so perhaps we should celebrate Trump, because he may well be the last manifestation of the democracy in the US. ..."
"... In the end, what will bring this monstrously lumbering "Russia-gate" dog and pony show crashing down is that stupid, fake Fusion GPS dossier that was commissioned, paid for, and disseminated by Team Hillary and the DNC. Then, as with the sinking of the Titanic, all of the flotsam and jetsam floating within its radius of destruction will go down with it. What will left to pluck from the lifeboats afterwards is anyone's guess. All thanks to Hillary. ..."
The investigation to somehow blame Russia for Donald Trump's election has now merged with another establishment goal of isolating
and intimidating whistleblowers and other dissidents, as Dennis J Bernstein describes.
The Russia-gate investigation has reached into the ranks of journalism with the House Intelligence Committee's subpoena of Randy
Credico, who produced a series about WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange for Pacifica Radio and apparently is suspected of having passed
on early word about leaked Democratic emails to Donald Trump's supporter Roger Stone.
The Credico subpoena, after he declined a request for a "voluntary" interview, underscores how the investigation is moving
into areas of "guilt by association" and further isolating whistleblowers who defy the powers-that-be through unauthorized release
of information to the public, a point made by National Security Agency whistleblower Thomas Drake in an interview.
Drake knows well what it means to blow the whistle on government misconduct and get prosecuted for it. A former senior NSA
executive, Drake complained about a multi-billion-dollar fraud, waste, and widespread violation of the rights of civilians through
secret mass surveillance programs. As a result, the Obama administration indicted Drake in 2010, "as the first whistleblower since
Daniel Ellsberg charged with espionage," according to the Institute for Public Accuracy.
In 2011, the government's case against him, which carried a potential 35 years in prison, collapsed. Drake went free in a
plea deal and was awarded the 2011 Ridenhour Truth Telling Prize.
I interviewed Drake about the significance of Credico's subpoena, which Credico believes resulted from his journalism about the
persecution of Julian Assange for releasing information that powerful people would prefer kept hidden from the public. (I had a small
role in Credico's 14-part radio series, Julian Assange: Countdown to Freedom . It was broadcast first as part of his Live
on the Fly Series, over WBAI and later on KPFA and across the country on community radio.)
Credico got his start as a satirist and became a political candidate for mayor of New York City and later governor of New York,
making mainstream politicians deal with issues they would rather not deal with.
I spoke to Thomas Drake by telephone on Nov. 30, 2017.
Dennis Bernstein: How do you look at Russiagate, based on what you know about what has already transpired in terms of the
movement of information? How do you see Credico's role in this?
Thomas Drake: Information is the coin of the realm. It is the currency of power. Anyone who questions authority or is perceived
as mocking authority -- as hanging out with "State enemies" -- had better be careful. But this latest development is quite troubling,
I must say. This is the normalization of everything that has been going on since 9/11. Randy is a sort of 21st century Diogenes who
is confronting authority and pointing out corruption. This subpoena sends a chilling message. It's a double whammy for Randy because,
in the eyes of the US government, he is a media figure hanging out with the wrong media figure [Julian Assange].
Dennis Bernstein: Could you say a little bit about what your work was and what you tried to do with your expose?
Thomas Drake: My experience was quite telling, in terms of how far the government will go to try to destroy someone's life.
The attempt by the government to silence me was extraordinary. They threw everything they had at me, all because I spoke the truth.
I spoke up about abuse of power, I spoke up about the mass surveillance regime. My crime was that I made the choice to go to the
media. And the government was not just coming after me, they were sending a really chilling message to the media: If you print this,
you are also under the gun.
Dennis Bernstein: We have heard the charges again and again, that this was a Russian hack. What was the source? Let's trace
it back as best we can.
Thomas Drake:In this hyper-inflated, politicized environment, it is extremely difficult to wade through the massive
amount of disinformation on all sides. Hacking is something all modern nation-states engage in, including the United States, including
Russia. The challenge here is trying to figure out who the players are, whose ox is being gored, and who is doing the goring.
From all accounts, Trump was duly elected. Now you have the Mueller investigation and the House investigation. Where is this
all leading? The US intelligence agency hasn't done itself any favors. The ICA provides no proof either, in terms of allegations
that the Russians "hacked" the election. We do have the evidence disclosed by Reality Winner that maybe there was some interference.
But the hyper-politicization is making it extraordinarily difficult.
The advantage that intelligence has is that they can hide behind what they are doing. They don't actually have to tell the truth,
they can shade it, they can influence it and shape it. This is where information can be politicized and used as a weapon. Randy has
found himself caught up in these investigations by virtue of being a media figure and hanging out with "the wrong people."
Dennis Bernstein: It looks like the Russiagaters in Congress are trying to corner Randy. All his life he has spoken truth
to power. But what do you think the role of the press should be?
Thomas Drake: The press amplifies just about everything they focus on, especially with today's 24-hour, in-your-face social
media. Even the mainstream media is publishing directly to their webpages. You have to get behind the cacophony of all that noise
and ask, "Why?" What are the intentions here?
I believe there are still enough independent journalists who are looking further and deeper. But clearly there are those who are
hell-bent on making life as difficult as possible for the current president and those who are going to defend him to the hilt. I
was not surprised at all that Trump won. A significant percentage of the American electorate were looking for something different.
Dennis Bernstein : Well, if you consider the content of those emails .Certainly, the Clinton folks got rid of Bernie
Sanders.
Thomas Drake: That would have been an interesting race, to have Bernie vs. Trump. Sanders was appealing, especially to
young audiences. He was raising legitimate issues.
Dennis Bernstein: In Clinton, they had a known quantity who supported the national security state.
Thomas Drake:The national security establishment was far more comfortable having Clinton as president. Someone central
to my own case, General Michael Hayden, just a couple days ago went apoplectic because of a tweet from Trump taking on the mainstream
media. Hayden got over 100,000 likes on his response. Well, Hayden was central to what we did in deep secrecy at the highest levels
of government after 9/11, engaging in widespread surveillance and then justifying it as "raw executive authority."
Now you have this interesting dynamic where the national security establishment is effectively undermining a duly elected
president of the United States. I recognize that Trump is vulnerable, but these types of investigations often become highly politicized.
I worry that what is really happening is being sacrificed on the altar of entertainment and the stage of political theater.
What is happening to Randy is symptomatic of a larger trend. If you dare speak truth to power, you are going to pay the price.
Is Randy that much of a threat, just because he is questioning authority? Are we afraid of the press? Are we afraid of having the
uncomfortable conversations, of dealing with the inconvenient truths about ourselves?
"Raw Executive Authority" means Totalitarianism/Fascism.
exiled off mainstreet , December 7, 2017 at 4:23 pm
Yeah, it is definitely a way of describing the concept of fascism without using the word. The present Yankee regime seems
to be quite far along that road, and the full-on types seem to be engaged in a coup to eliminate those they fear may not be as
much in the fascist deep-state bag.
It is highly encouraging to know that a great many good and decent men and women Americans are 100% supportive of Mr, Randy
Credico as he prepares for his testimony before the House Intelligence Committee. Remember all those standing right there beside
you, speak what rightly needs to be spoken, and make history Mr. Credico!
jaycee , December 7, 2017 at 3:56 pm
The intensification of panic/hysteria was obviously triggered by the shock election of Trump. Where this is all heading is
on display in Australia, as the government is writing legislation to "criminalise covert and deceptive activities of foreign actors
that fall short of espionage but are intended to interfere with our democratic systems and processes or support the intelligence
activities of a foreign government." The legislation will apparently be accompanied by new requirements of public registration
of those deemed "foreign agents". (see http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/12/07/auch-d07.html
).
This will be an attack on free speech, free thought, and political freedoms, justified by an orchestrated hysteria which ridiculously
assumes a "pure" political realm (i.e. the "homeland") under assault by impure foreign agents and their dirty ideas. Yes, that
is a fascist construct and the liberal establishment will see it through, not the alt-right blowhards.
mike k , December 7, 2017 at 5:49 pm
How disgusting to have to live today in the society so accurately described by Orwell in 1984. It was a nice book to read,
but not to live in!
john wilson , December 8, 2017 at 5:48 am
Actually Mike, the book was a prophesy but you aren't seen nothing yet. You me and the rest of the posters here may well find
ourselves going for a visit to room 101 yet.
fudmier , December 7, 2017 at 4:42 pm
Those who govern (527 of them) at the pleasure of the constitution are about to breach the contract that entitles them to govern.
Limiting the scope of information allowed to those who are the governed, silencing the voices of those with concerns and serious
doubts, policing every word uttered by those who are the governed, as well as abusing the constitutional privilege of force and
judicial authority, to deny peaceful protests of the innocents is approaching the final straw.
The governors and their corporate sponsors have imposed on those the governors govern much concern. Exactly the condition that
existed prior to July 4, 1776, which elicited the following:
When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the Political bands which connected them
with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the laws of nature and of Nature's
God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to
the separation.
Those who govern (527 of them and the puppet master oligarch behind them) will make certain that there's no support for the
next declaration. There's no respect to the opinions of the mankind, what matters is keeping the current status quo in place and
further advance it by silencing the independent media.
Maybe when the next "Mother of all bubbles" come, there's an opportunity for the mankind to be heard, but it's doubtful. What
has taken place during the last bubble is that the rich has gotten richer and the poor, well, you know the routine.
Truth is he enemy of coercive power. Lies and secrecy are essential in leading the sheeple to their slaughter.
john wilson , December 8, 2017 at 5:44 am
Perhaps the one good thing about Trumps election is that its shows democracy is still just about alive and breathing in
the US, because as is pointed out in this article, Trump was never expected to win and those who lost are still in a state of
shock and disbelief.
Trump's election has also shown us in vivid technicolour, just what is really going on in the deep state. Absolutely none of
this stuff would have come out had Clinton won and anything there was would have been covered up as though under the concrete
foundation of a tower block. However, Trump still has four years left and as a British prime minister once said, "a week is a
long time in politics". Well four more years of Trump is a hell of a lot longer so who knows what might happen in that time.
One things for sure: the Neocons, the deep state, and all the rest of the skunks that infest Washington will make absolutely
sure that future elections will go the way as planned, so perhaps we should celebrate Trump, because he may well be the last manifestation
of the democracy in the US.
Christene Bartels , December 8, 2017 at 9:57 am
In the end, what will bring this monstrously lumbering "Russia-gate" dog and pony show crashing down is that stupid, fake
Fusion GPS dossier that was commissioned, paid for, and disseminated by Team Hillary and the DNC. Then, as with the sinking of
the Titanic, all of the flotsam and jetsam floating within its radius of destruction will go down with it. What will left to pluck
from the lifeboats afterwards is anyone's guess. All thanks to Hillary.
Apparently, Santa isn't the only one making a list and checking it twice this year. He's going to have to share the limelight
with Karma.
Paradoxically it was language question which by-and-large fueled Crimea secession and Donbass
uprising. Now they decide to step on the same rake again.
If Ukraine strive to be like Canada and the part of EU why do not adopt English as an
official language, to defuse the tensions relegating Ukrainian and Russian to the role of
regional languages (which both of them now actually are). That will instantly diminish the
influence of Russia and thus fulfill the main goal of Western Ukrainian nationalists who are in
power after Maydan (at least partially). English is a great, cultural and scientifically dominant
language now and countries like Canada enjoy full benefits of this situation. Because cultural
and political influence of Russia is what Ukrainian nationalists are most afraid of. English is
politically acceptable to them. That also will save money of textbooks and like, especially
university level textbooks.
They now actually gave a powerful tool for Russia to further limit economic ties claiming
discrimination of Russian speaking population. Not that Ukrainian nationalist care much about
Russian reaction.
But Western Ukrainian nationalists have a penchant for making disastrous for the Ukrainian
economy moves to feed their ambitions and stereotypes. Which led to the situation when Ukraine is
just debt slave nation with limited sovereignty and huge problems due to impoverishment of
population and decay of Soviet era infrastructure. Neoliberalism is not a friend of such
countries as Ukraine, despite all population expectations after Maydan. They want to milk
Ukraine, not to help. and they are very skillful in that as Ukraine probably leaned during 90th.
This is what neoliberal " disaster capitalism "
is about. In other words Ukraine which previously somehow managed to balance between West and
East milking both, moved itself in the zugzwang position.
As for adoption of Ukrainian (which is a beautiful language, BTW), think what would happen if
Canadian French nationalists managed to force French upon the county as official language while
bordering with the USA (actually like in Ukraine where in western part of the country there are
few people who do not speak Russian, there are few people in Canada who neither speak nor
understand English)
It is critical now that the population can speak English because the markets for Ukraine now
are in the West. Ukraine by and large lost Russian market. Probably for a long time.
Notable quotes:
"... "The less favorable treatment of these (non-EU) languages is difficult to justify and therefore raises issues of discrimination," it said. Language is a sensitive issue in Ukraine. ..."
"... After the pro-European Maidan uprising in 2014, the decision to scrap a law allowing some regions to use Russian as an official second language fueled anti-Ukrainian unrest in the east that escalated into a Russia-backed separatist insurgency. ..."
Kiev has submitted the law for review by the Venice Commission, a body which rules on rights
and democracy disputes in Europe and whose decisions member states, which include Ukraine,
commit to respecting.
In an opinion adopted formally on Friday, the commission said it was legitimate for Ukraine
to address inequalities by helping citizens gain fluency in the state language, Ukrainian.
"However, the strong domestic and international criticism drawn especially by the provisions
reducing the scope of education in minority languages seems justified," it said in a
statement.
It said the ambiguous wording of parts of the 'Article 7' legislation raised questions about
how the shift to all-Ukrainian secondary education would be implemented while safeguarding the
rights of ethnic minorities.
As of 2015, Ukraine had 621 schools that taught in Russian, 78 in Romanian, 68 in Hungarian
and five in Polish, according to education ministry data. The commission said a provision in
the new law to allow some subjects to be taught in official EU languages, such as Hungarian,
Romanian and Polish, appeared to discriminate against speakers of Russian, the most widely used
non-state language.
"The less favorable treatment of these (non-EU) languages is difficult to justify and
therefore raises issues of discrimination," it said. Language is a sensitive issue in
Ukraine.
After the pro-European Maidan uprising in 2014, the decision to scrap a law allowing some
regions to use Russian as an official second language fueled anti-Ukrainian unrest in the east
that escalated into a Russia-backed separatist insurgency.
Poor Ukraine. It is now just a prey of major powers and other neoliberal predators, including transnational
corporations. Each wants a fat piece. Looks after Poroshenko "revolt" against anti-corruption bureau prompted Washington
to "switch horses during crossing the river" (which is very Tramp-style decision). A new favorite most probably is Timoshenko
(about whom they have a lot of compromising material, so she will always be on the hook). When a neoliberals poodle like Aslund tweets "
"President Poroshenko appears to have abandoned the fight against corruption, any ambition for
economic growth, EU or IMF funding," you can be sure that Washington priorities now definitely
changed. Such a brave man telling people the hard truth ;-) This guy would praise
Poroshenko to skies, if that wouldn't be case. .. The message from Bershidsky handlers who ordered this "hit piece" is
that same -- "The moor has done his duty, moor has
to go". Such a hatchet job in MSM like Bloomberg, NYT or Wapo is usually done only under direct order from powers that be.
Re-appearance of Saakashvili with this farce of illegal crossing of the border (imagine this !) on the political scene is
probably also orchestrated from Washington.
Formally Poroshenko is accused that he is trying to undermine the work of anti-corruption bureau controlled by FBI. The real situation
might be that gradually Poroshenko probably understood that blind following of
Washington political line is the road to nowhere and leads to further impoverishing of
population. Also "independent" status of anti-corruption buro to a certain extent makes Ukrain a colony with colonial
administration. Specifically it give FBI the possibility to persecute any Ukrainian politician. On the other hand
Poroshenko also have far right nationalists sitting behind his back and
they are probably not too exited by neoliberal reforms Poroshenko pursue. Standard of
living in Ukraine dropped to the level when it corresponds to standard of living of some Central African countries -- less
then $2 a day. It became a "sex shop" for Western Europeans, especially French. Most of
prostitutes in Western Europe are Ukrainian woman. In other words both Ukraine and Poroshenko are now is zugzwang situation.
So in desperation Poroshenko probably started making some "unapproved" moves interfering with work of FBI controlled
anti-corruption buro (which actually did not jail a single US citizen for corruption). Probably following Polish example of '
disobedience " to neoliberal dictate. A reaction followed.
Charges of corruption is such a classic tool of "color revolutions" that now it can be viewed
as just a symbol of renewed attempt to interfere into Ukraine political life. A Washington Obcom dictate, if you wish.
Actually corruption a little bit complicates looting of the country which if done by financial mechanisms as it means that in
contracts Western companies have some disadvantage and need a local "roof" which negatively affects the profits.
Notable quotes:
"... He and his first prime minister, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, knew what the U.S. State Department and Vice President Joe Biden, who acted as the Obama administration's point man on Ukraine, wanted to hear. ..."
President Petro Poroshenko is sacrificing Westernization to a personal political agenda.
It's become increasingly clear that Obama-era U.S. politicians backed the wrong people in
Ukraine. President Petro Poroshenko's moves to consolidate his power now include sidelining the
anti-corruption institutions he was forced to set up by Ukraine's Western allies.
Poroshenko, who had briefly served as Ukraine's foreign minister, looked worldlier than his
predecessor, the deposed Viktor Yanukovych, and spoke passable English. He and his first
prime minister, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, knew what the U.S. State Department and Vice President Joe
Biden, who acted as the Obama administration's point man on Ukraine, wanted to hear. So,
as Ukraine emerged from the revolutionary chaos of January and February 2014, the U.S., and
with it the EU, backed Poroshenko and Yatsenyuk as Ukraine's next leaders. Armed with this
support, not least with promises of major technical aid and International Monetary Fund loans,
they won elections, posing as Westernizers who would lead Ukraine into Europe. But their
agendas turned out to be more self-serving.
... ... ...
After a failed attempt to kick Saakashvili, an anti-corruption firebrand, out of Ukraine for
allegedly obtaining its citizenship under false pretences, Poroshenko's law enforcement
apparatus has harassed and deported the Georgian-born politician's allies. Finance Minister
Oleksandr Danilyuk, who helped Saakashvili set up a think tank in Kiev -- which is now under
investigation for suspected financial violations -- has accused law-enforcement agencies of
"putting pressure on business, on those who want to change the country." Danilyuk himself is
being investigated for tax evasion.
... ... ...
"President Poroshenko appears to have abandoned the fight against corruption, any ambition
for economic growth, EU or IMF funding," economist Anders Aslund, who has long been optimistic
about Ukrainian reforms, tweeted recently.
... ... ...
Poroshenko, however, would have gotten nowhere -- and wouldn't be defending Ukraine's
opaque, corrupt, backward political system today -- without Western support. No amount of
friendly pressure is going to change him. If Ukrainians shake up their apathy to do to him what
they did to Yanukovych -- or when he comes up for reelection in 2019 -- this mistake shouldn't
be repeated. It's not easy to find younger, more principled, genuinely European-oriented
politicians in Ukraine, but they exist. Otherwise, Western politicians and analysts will have
to keep acting shocked that another representative of the old elite is suddenly looking a lot
like Yanukovych.
In no way Mr. Saakashvili is an independent political player, he is just a pawn of some complex gambit against Poroshenko. Who
is behind him? Timoshenko, the far right nationalists (that would be very strange), the USA is completely unclear. But in no way
he of his own can command loyalty of the crowd in Kiev, this crowd most probably consist of Timoshenko
supporters, who were communicated the the "wish" of their leader that "we need to support Mr. Saakashvili, he is one of us".
In any case those events are a huge surprise to most observers, who assumes that the USA firmly backs Poroshenko.
Notable quotes:
"... "With a Ukrainian flag draped across his shoulders and a pair of handcuffs still attached to one of his wrists, Mr. Saakashvili then led hundreds of supporters in a march across Kiev toward Parliament. Speaking through a bullhorn he called for 'peaceful protests' to remove Mr. Poroshenko from office, just as protests had toppled the former President, Victor F. Yanukovych, in February 2014." ..."
"... And there was broad support for bringing Georgia into NATO. This would have given Saakashvili an ability to ignite a confrontation with Russia, which could have forced U.S. intervention.Consider Ukraine. Three years ago, McCain was declaring, in support of the overthrow of the elected pro-Russian government in Kiev, "We are all Ukrainians now." Following that coup, U.S. elites were urging us to confront Putin in Crimea, bring Ukraine, as well as Georgia, into NATO, and send Kiev the lethal weapons needed to defeat Russian-backed rebels in the East. This could have led straight to a Ukraine-Russia war, precipitated by our sending of U.S. arms. ..."
"... Alliances, after all, are the transmission belts of war. ..."
"... These all purpose internationalist revolutionaries who keep turning up here and there like the proverbial bad penny usually have deep state connections. ..."
"... Neocons are a scourge on the planet. Somehow they always manage to stay in control of things even when they make so many war mongering blunders. They must have supernatural help, but not the good kind. ..."
"... "These all purpose internationalist revolutionaries who keep turning up here and there like the proverbial bad penny ' Saakashvili as a latter day Che Guevara? Ha, ha, ha. "History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce." K. Marx. ..."
"... Expanding NATO was a damn fool thing to do. The Romans couldn't hang onto Mesopotamia; overextension is real. Let's hope we get a leader who will retrench. Oh, and bring back Giraldi. Yes, Veruschka, there is an Israel Lobby. ..."
Even interventionists are regretting some of the wars into
which they helped plunge the United States in this century. Among those wars are Afghanistan and Iraq, the longest in our history; Libya, which was left
without a stable government; Syria's civil war, a six-year human rights disaster we helped kick
off by arming rebels to overthrow Bashar Assad; and Yemen, where a U.S.-backed Saudi bombing
campaign and starvation blockade is causing a humanitarian catastrophe. Yet, twice this century, the War Party was beaten back when seeking a clash with Putin's
Russia. And the "neo-isolationists" who won those arguments served America well.
What triggered this observation was an item on Page 1 of Wednesday's New York Times that
read in its entirety: "Mikheil Saakashvili, former president of Georgia, led marchers through Kiev after
threatening to jump from a five-story building to evade arrest. Page A4"
Who is Saakashvili? The wunderkind elected in 2004 in Tbilisi after a "Rose Revolution" we
backed during George W. Bush's crusade for global democracy. During the Beijing Olympics in August 2008, Saakashvili sent his army crashing into the tiny
enclave of South Ossetia, which had broken free of Georgia when Georgia broke free of
Russia. In overrunning the enclave, however, Saakashvili's troops killed Russian peacekeepers. Big
mistake. Within 24 hours, Putin's tanks and troops were pouring through Roki Tunnel, running
Saakashvili's army out of South Ossetia, and occupying parts of Georgia itself. As defeat loomed for the neocon hero, U.S. foreign policy elites were alive with
denunciations of "Russian aggression" and calls to send in the 82nd Airborne, bring Georgia
into NATO, and station U.S. forces in the Caucasus.
"We are all Georgians!" thundered John McCain. Not quite. When an outcry arose against getting into a collision with Russia, Bush, reading
the nation right, decided to confine U.S. protests to the nonviolent. A wise call. And Saakashvili? He held power until 2013, and then saw his party defeated, was charged with
corruption, and fled to Ukraine. There, President Boris Poroshenko, beneficiary of the Kiev
coup the U.S. had backed in 2014, put him in charge of Odessa, one of the most corrupt
provinces in a country rife with corruption.
In 2016, an exasperated Saakashvili quit, charged his patron Poroshenko with corruption, and
fled Ukraine. In September, with a band of supporters, he made a forced entry back across the
border.
Here is the Times' Andrew Higgins on his latest antics:
"On Tuesday Saakashvili, onetime darling of the West, took his high-wire political career to
bizarre new heights when he climbed onto the roof of his five-story apartment building in the
center of Kiev... As hundreds of supporters gathered below, he shouted insults at Ukraine's leaders and
threatened to jump if security agents tried to grab him. Dragged from the roof after denouncing Mr. Poroshenko as a traitor and a thief, the former
Georgian leader was detained but then freed by his supporters, who blocked a security service
van before it could take Mr. Saakashvili to a Kiev detention center and allowed him to
escape.
"With a Ukrainian flag draped across his shoulders and a pair of handcuffs still
attached to one of his wrists, Mr. Saakashvili then led hundreds of supporters in a march
across Kiev toward Parliament. Speaking through a bullhorn he called for 'peaceful protests' to
remove Mr. Poroshenko from office, just as protests had toppled the former President, Victor F.
Yanukovych, in February 2014."
This reads like a script for a Peter Sellers movie in the '60s. Yet this clown was president
of Georgia, for whose cause in South Ossetia some in our foreign policy elite thought we should
go to the brink of war with Russia.
And there was broad support for bringing Georgia into NATO. This would have given
Saakashvili an ability to ignite a confrontation with Russia, which could have forced U.S.
intervention.Consider Ukraine. Three years ago, McCain was declaring, in support of the
overthrow of the elected pro-Russian government in Kiev, "We are all Ukrainians now." Following
that coup, U.S. elites were urging us to confront Putin in Crimea, bring Ukraine, as well as
Georgia, into NATO, and send Kiev the lethal weapons needed to defeat Russian-backed rebels in
the East. This could have led straight to a Ukraine-Russia war, precipitated by our sending of
U.S. arms.
Do we really want to cede to folks of the temperament of Mikhail Saakashvili an ability to
instigate a war with a nuclear-armed Russia, which every Cold War president was resolved to
avoid, even if it meant accepting Moscow's hegemony in Eastern Europe all the way to the
Elbe?
Watching Saakashvili losing it in the streets of Kiev like some blitzed college student
should cause us to reassess the stability of all these allies to whom we have ceded a capacity
to drag us into war. Alliances, after all, are the transmission belts of war.
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, Nixon's White House Wars: The
Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.
I'd bet that Saak is a CIA asset who is probably moon-lighting for other intelligence
services as well. Israel? Russia? Iran? Turkey? Who knows? These all purpose internationalist
revolutionaries who keep turning up here and there like the proverbial bad penny usually have
deep state connections.
Neocons are a scourge on the planet. Somehow they always manage to stay in control of things
even when they make so many war mongering blunders. They must have supernatural help, but not
the good kind.
Maybe its time conservatives acknowledged that the Rosenbergs did a good thing by helping the
Soviet Union get the A-bomb. It's obvious that the only thing stopping our bloodthirsty, mad
dog foreign policy establishment from attacking Russia or North Korea is their nukes, just as
the threat of Soviet nukes is what kept U.S. presidents from dropping ours on North Korea and
North Vietnam. If the so-called "foreign policy realists" – whose forebears have
copious amounts of Latin American, African and Asian blood on their hands – ever get
back into Foggy Bottom and the West Wing, maybe they could prevail on the President to issue
a posthumous pardon for the Rosenbergs and all of the other American Communists who greased
the wheels for the Red Bomb.
Mr Buchanan's standard line. Vladimir Putin must be allowed to inflict a humiliating defeat
on the evil United States. What Mr Buchanan sidesteps is the inherent contradiction in his
argument. As anyone who has read his articles over the years will know, his enemy is the EU,
which he wants to destroy at all costs, probably because he sees it as a challenge to US
global hegemony. In the original neocon scam, Putin was a "useful idiot" to serve as a
battering ram to break up the EU and a bogeyman to frighten the resulting plethora of weak
statelets to submit to US hegemony in return for such protection as the US vouchsafed to give
them. In return for his services, the US would give Putin such part of the European cake as
it vouchsafed to give him. Putin, at that point, would, of course, have been an American
stooge, logical in the context of US global hegemony. However, by grabbing Ukrainian
territory by military force, Putin challenged US global hegemony and as long as he is allowed
to occupy Ukrainian territory, US global hegemony is worthless. That, in its turn, will
probably provoke a Soviet-style implosion of the whole American house of cards. Thus, in
order to maintain US global hegemony by destroying the EU, Mr Buchanan has to destroy US
global hegemony by backing Putin!
"These all purpose internationalist revolutionaries who keep turning up here and there like
the proverbial bad penny '
Saakashvili as a latter day Che Guevara? Ha, ha, ha. "History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce." K. Marx.
Expanding NATO was a damn fool thing to do. The Romans couldn't hang onto Mesopotamia;
overextension is real. Let's hope we get a leader who will retrench.
Oh, and bring back Giraldi. Yes, Veruschka, there is an Israel Lobby.
I'm having trouble understanding why I should care about the Ukraine, or NATO, or this
Saakashvili person. Someone please tell me how they affect me personally.
That Saakashvili has always been a few bricks short of a full load is not in dispute but to
argue that this means the US and Europe should back away from making it clear to Putin that
parts of Eastern Europe are not going to be ceded to Russian domination again makes no sense.
Like Premier Xi of China who in now trying to argue that Chinese domination of Asia is
justified by some prior period in Chinese history, Putin would like us to believe that
Russian domination of large parts of Eastern Europe is perfectly natural because of past
Russian history or even on religious grounds. We forget at our peril that Putin was a former
communist and atheist and a part of an organization that not only believed the West was
decadent and deserved to be defeated but also worked to suppress and eradicate religion.
Putin now cravenly uses religiously based arguments to justify Russian actions and would like
us to believe he is defending Christianity from Western decadence. We might as well put the
proverbial fox in charge of the hen house if we allow ourselves to accept that Putin really
has any interest in defending Christianity or doesn't lust for the restoration of Russian
domination of Eastern Europe.
Russia may no longer be the "Evil Empire" that it was called when it was the USSR but it
would be pure folly to not push back against Putin's dreams of Russian hegemony any more than
it would make sense for the US to assume that Russian and China are not going to push back
against what they perceive as US hegemony. Conversely we need to guard against assuming that
just because a country declares itself to be a democracy that the actions of any new
democratic leaders automatically deserves our support and protection. In fairness to Georgia,
the Soviets weren't known for allowing deep pools of democracy supporting leaders to develop
which unfortunately means that people like Saakashvili will float to the top.
"Three years ago, McCain was declaring, in support of the overthrow of the elected
pro-Russian government in Kiev, "We are all Ukrainians now."
The neocons probably won't be saying "We're all Kazkhstans now" in a few years when the
long-serving president of Kazakhstan dies without a clear successor and Russia moves in to
the north and east of Kazakhstan to crush the ensuing acts of Islamic terrorism and
incidentally help protect China's crucial border state of Xinjiang from ISIS, giving Russia
the balance of power in Central Asia and thus restoring it to superpower status.
Contemplating the behavior of this gentleman really makes one think that in some cases
college student is a state of mind. On the other hand, if wanted to threaten someone with his
suicide, he could have swallowed a non-lethal quantity of belladonna berries instead of a
dull standing on a roof. Politically the outcome would have likely been the same, but knowing
the mental impact of tropane alkaloids, with a hell lot of fun along the way.
Setting this walking curiosity aside for a moment there, I also join those wishing the
return of Mr. Giraldi.
Paradoxically it was language question which by-and-large fueled Crimea secession and Donbass
uprising. Now they decide to step on the same rake again.
If Ukraine strive to be like Canada and the part of EU why do not adopt English as an
official language, to defuse the tensions relegating Ukrainian and Russian to the role of
regional languages (which both of them now actually are). That will instantly diminish the
influence of Russia and thus fulfill the main goal of Western Ukrainian nationalists who are in
power after Maydan (at least partially). English is a great, cultural and scientifically dominant
language now and countries like Canada enjoy full benefits of this situation. Because cultural
and political influence of Russia is what Ukrainian nationalists are most afraid of. English is
politically acceptable to them. That also will save money of textbooks and like, especially
university level textbooks.
They now actually gave a powerful tool for Russia to further limit economic ties claiming
discrimination of Russian speaking population. Not that Ukrainian nationalist care much about
Russian reaction.
But Western Ukrainian nationalists have a penchant for making disastrous for the Ukrainian
economy moves to feed their ambitions and stereotypes. Which led to the situation when Ukraine is
just debt slave nation with limited sovereignty and huge problems due to impoverishment of
population and decay of Soviet era infrastructure. Neoliberalism is not a friend of such
countries as Ukraine, despite all population expectations after Maydan. They want to milk
Ukraine, not to help. and they are very skillful in that as Ukraine probably leaned during 90th.
This is what neoliberal " disaster capitalism "
is about. In other words Ukraine which previously somehow managed to balance between West and
East milking both, moved itself in the zugzwang position.
As for adoption of Ukrainian (which is a beautiful language, BTW), think what would happen if
Canadian French nationalists managed to force French upon the county as official language while
bordering with the USA (actually like in Ukraine where in western part of the country there are
few people who do not speak Russian, there are few people in Canada who neither speak nor
understand English)
It is critical now that the population can speak English because the markets for Ukraine now
are in the West. Ukraine by and large lost Russian market. Probably for a long time.
Notable quotes:
"... "The less favorable treatment of these (non-EU) languages is difficult to justify and therefore raises issues of discrimination," it said. Language is a sensitive issue in Ukraine. ..."
"... After the pro-European Maidan uprising in 2014, the decision to scrap a law allowing some regions to use Russian as an official second language fueled anti-Ukrainian unrest in the east that escalated into a Russia-backed separatist insurgency. ..."
Kiev has submitted the law for review by the Venice Commission, a body which rules on rights
and democracy disputes in Europe and whose decisions member states, which include Ukraine,
commit to respecting.
In an opinion adopted formally on Friday, the commission said it was legitimate for Ukraine
to address inequalities by helping citizens gain fluency in the state language, Ukrainian.
"However, the strong domestic and international criticism drawn especially by the provisions
reducing the scope of education in minority languages seems justified," it said in a
statement.
It said the ambiguous wording of parts of the 'Article 7' legislation raised questions about
how the shift to all-Ukrainian secondary education would be implemented while safeguarding the
rights of ethnic minorities.
As of 2015, Ukraine had 621 schools that taught in Russian, 78 in Romanian, 68 in Hungarian
and five in Polish, according to education ministry data. The commission said a provision in
the new law to allow some subjects to be taught in official EU languages, such as Hungarian,
Romanian and Polish, appeared to discriminate against speakers of Russian, the most widely used
non-state language.
"The less favorable treatment of these (non-EU) languages is difficult to justify and
therefore raises issues of discrimination," it said. Language is a sensitive issue in
Ukraine.
After the pro-European Maidan uprising in 2014, the decision to scrap a law allowing some
regions to use Russian as an official second language fueled anti-Ukrainian unrest in the east
that escalated into a Russia-backed separatist insurgency.
Poor Ukraine. It is now just a prey of major powers and other neoliberal predators, including transnational
corporations. Each wants a fat piece. Looks after Poroshenko "revolt" against anti-corruption bureau prompted Washington
to "switch horses during crossing the river" (which is very Tramp-style decision). A new favorite most probably is Timoshenko
(about whom they have a lot of compromising material, so she will always be on the hook). When a neoliberals poodle like Aslund tweets "
"President Poroshenko appears to have abandoned the fight against corruption, any ambition for
economic growth, EU or IMF funding," you can be sure that Washington priorities now definitely
changed. Such a brave man telling people the hard truth ;-) This guy would praise
Poroshenko to skies, if that wouldn't be case. .. The message from Bershidsky handlers who ordered this "hit piece" is
that same -- "The moor has done his duty, moor has
to go". Such a hatchet job in MSM like Bloomberg, NYT or Wapo is usually done only under direct order from powers that be.
Re-appearance of Saakashvili with this farce of illegal crossing of the border (imagine this !) on the political scene is
probably also orchestrated from Washington.
Formally Poroshenko is accused that he is trying to undermine the work of anti-corruption bureau controlled by FBI. The real situation
might be that gradually Poroshenko probably understood that blind following of
Washington political line is the road to nowhere and leads to further impoverishing of
population. Also "independent" status of anti-corruption buro to a certain extent makes Ukrain a colony with colonial
administration. Specifically it give FBI the possibility to persecute any Ukrainian politician. On the other hand
Poroshenko also have far right nationalists sitting behind his back and
they are probably not too exited by neoliberal reforms Poroshenko pursue. Standard of
living in Ukraine dropped to the level when it corresponds to standard of living of some Central African countries -- less
then $2 a day. It became a "sex shop" for Western Europeans, especially French. Most of
prostitutes in Western Europe are Ukrainian woman. In other words both Ukraine and Poroshenko are now is zugzwang situation.
So in desperation Poroshenko probably started making some "unapproved" moves interfering with work of FBI controlled
anti-corruption buro (which actually did not jail a single US citizen for corruption). Probably following Polish example of '
disobedience " to neoliberal dictate. A reaction followed.
Charges of corruption is such a classic tool of "color revolutions" that now it can be viewed
as just a symbol of renewed attempt to interfere into Ukraine political life. A Washington Obcom dictate, if you wish.
Actually corruption a little bit complicates looting of the country which if done by financial mechanisms as it means that in
contracts Western companies have some disadvantage and need a local "roof" which negatively affects the profits.
Notable quotes:
"... He and his first prime minister, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, knew what the U.S. State Department and Vice President Joe Biden, who acted as the Obama administration's point man on Ukraine, wanted to hear. ..."
President Petro Poroshenko is sacrificing Westernization to a personal political agenda.
It's become increasingly clear that Obama-era U.S. politicians backed the wrong people in
Ukraine. President Petro Poroshenko's moves to consolidate his power now include sidelining the
anti-corruption institutions he was forced to set up by Ukraine's Western allies.
Poroshenko, who had briefly served as Ukraine's foreign minister, looked worldlier than his
predecessor, the deposed Viktor Yanukovych, and spoke passable English. He and his first
prime minister, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, knew what the U.S. State Department and Vice President Joe
Biden, who acted as the Obama administration's point man on Ukraine, wanted to hear. So,
as Ukraine emerged from the revolutionary chaos of January and February 2014, the U.S., and
with it the EU, backed Poroshenko and Yatsenyuk as Ukraine's next leaders. Armed with this
support, not least with promises of major technical aid and International Monetary Fund loans,
they won elections, posing as Westernizers who would lead Ukraine into Europe. But their
agendas turned out to be more self-serving.
... ... ...
After a failed attempt to kick Saakashvili, an anti-corruption firebrand, out of Ukraine for
allegedly obtaining its citizenship under false pretences, Poroshenko's law enforcement
apparatus has harassed and deported the Georgian-born politician's allies. Finance Minister
Oleksandr Danilyuk, who helped Saakashvili set up a think tank in Kiev -- which is now under
investigation for suspected financial violations -- has accused law-enforcement agencies of
"putting pressure on business, on those who want to change the country." Danilyuk himself is
being investigated for tax evasion.
... ... ...
"President Poroshenko appears to have abandoned the fight against corruption, any ambition
for economic growth, EU or IMF funding," economist Anders Aslund, who has long been optimistic
about Ukrainian reforms, tweeted recently.
... ... ...
Poroshenko, however, would have gotten nowhere -- and wouldn't be defending Ukraine's
opaque, corrupt, backward political system today -- without Western support. No amount of
friendly pressure is going to change him. If Ukrainians shake up their apathy to do to him what
they did to Yanukovych -- or when he comes up for reelection in 2019 -- this mistake shouldn't
be repeated. It's not easy to find younger, more principled, genuinely European-oriented
politicians in Ukraine, but they exist. Otherwise, Western politicians and analysts will have
to keep acting shocked that another representative of the old elite is suddenly looking a lot
like Yanukovych.
In no way Mr. Saakashvili is an independent political player, he is just a pawn of some complex gambit against Poroshenko. Who
is behind him? Timoshenko, the far right nationalists (that would be very strange), the USA is completely unclear. But in no way
he of his own can command loyalty of the crowd in Kiev, this crowd most probably consist of Timoshenko
supporters, who were communicated the the "wish" of their leader that "we need to support Mr. Saakashvili, he is one of us".
In any case those events are a huge surprise to most observers, who assumes that the USA firmly backs Poroshenko.
Notable quotes:
"... "With a Ukrainian flag draped across his shoulders and a pair of handcuffs still attached to one of his wrists, Mr. Saakashvili then led hundreds of supporters in a march across Kiev toward Parliament. Speaking through a bullhorn he called for 'peaceful protests' to remove Mr. Poroshenko from office, just as protests had toppled the former President, Victor F. Yanukovych, in February 2014." ..."
"... And there was broad support for bringing Georgia into NATO. This would have given Saakashvili an ability to ignite a confrontation with Russia, which could have forced U.S. intervention.Consider Ukraine. Three years ago, McCain was declaring, in support of the overthrow of the elected pro-Russian government in Kiev, "We are all Ukrainians now." Following that coup, U.S. elites were urging us to confront Putin in Crimea, bring Ukraine, as well as Georgia, into NATO, and send Kiev the lethal weapons needed to defeat Russian-backed rebels in the East. This could have led straight to a Ukraine-Russia war, precipitated by our sending of U.S. arms. ..."
"... Alliances, after all, are the transmission belts of war. ..."
"... These all purpose internationalist revolutionaries who keep turning up here and there like the proverbial bad penny usually have deep state connections. ..."
"... Neocons are a scourge on the planet. Somehow they always manage to stay in control of things even when they make so many war mongering blunders. They must have supernatural help, but not the good kind. ..."
"... "These all purpose internationalist revolutionaries who keep turning up here and there like the proverbial bad penny ' Saakashvili as a latter day Che Guevara? Ha, ha, ha. "History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce." K. Marx. ..."
"... Expanding NATO was a damn fool thing to do. The Romans couldn't hang onto Mesopotamia; overextension is real. Let's hope we get a leader who will retrench. Oh, and bring back Giraldi. Yes, Veruschka, there is an Israel Lobby. ..."
Even interventionists are regretting some of the wars into
which they helped plunge the United States in this century. Among those wars are Afghanistan and Iraq, the longest in our history; Libya, which was left
without a stable government; Syria's civil war, a six-year human rights disaster we helped kick
off by arming rebels to overthrow Bashar Assad; and Yemen, where a U.S.-backed Saudi bombing
campaign and starvation blockade is causing a humanitarian catastrophe. Yet, twice this century, the War Party was beaten back when seeking a clash with Putin's
Russia. And the "neo-isolationists" who won those arguments served America well.
What triggered this observation was an item on Page 1 of Wednesday's New York Times that
read in its entirety: "Mikheil Saakashvili, former president of Georgia, led marchers through Kiev after
threatening to jump from a five-story building to evade arrest. Page A4"
Who is Saakashvili? The wunderkind elected in 2004 in Tbilisi after a "Rose Revolution" we
backed during George W. Bush's crusade for global democracy. During the Beijing Olympics in August 2008, Saakashvili sent his army crashing into the tiny
enclave of South Ossetia, which had broken free of Georgia when Georgia broke free of
Russia. In overrunning the enclave, however, Saakashvili's troops killed Russian peacekeepers. Big
mistake. Within 24 hours, Putin's tanks and troops were pouring through Roki Tunnel, running
Saakashvili's army out of South Ossetia, and occupying parts of Georgia itself. As defeat loomed for the neocon hero, U.S. foreign policy elites were alive with
denunciations of "Russian aggression" and calls to send in the 82nd Airborne, bring Georgia
into NATO, and station U.S. forces in the Caucasus.
"We are all Georgians!" thundered John McCain. Not quite. When an outcry arose against getting into a collision with Russia, Bush, reading
the nation right, decided to confine U.S. protests to the nonviolent. A wise call. And Saakashvili? He held power until 2013, and then saw his party defeated, was charged with
corruption, and fled to Ukraine. There, President Boris Poroshenko, beneficiary of the Kiev
coup the U.S. had backed in 2014, put him in charge of Odessa, one of the most corrupt
provinces in a country rife with corruption.
In 2016, an exasperated Saakashvili quit, charged his patron Poroshenko with corruption, and
fled Ukraine. In September, with a band of supporters, he made a forced entry back across the
border.
Here is the Times' Andrew Higgins on his latest antics:
"On Tuesday Saakashvili, onetime darling of the West, took his high-wire political career to
bizarre new heights when he climbed onto the roof of his five-story apartment building in the
center of Kiev... As hundreds of supporters gathered below, he shouted insults at Ukraine's leaders and
threatened to jump if security agents tried to grab him. Dragged from the roof after denouncing Mr. Poroshenko as a traitor and a thief, the former
Georgian leader was detained but then freed by his supporters, who blocked a security service
van before it could take Mr. Saakashvili to a Kiev detention center and allowed him to
escape.
"With a Ukrainian flag draped across his shoulders and a pair of handcuffs still
attached to one of his wrists, Mr. Saakashvili then led hundreds of supporters in a march
across Kiev toward Parliament. Speaking through a bullhorn he called for 'peaceful protests' to
remove Mr. Poroshenko from office, just as protests had toppled the former President, Victor F.
Yanukovych, in February 2014."
This reads like a script for a Peter Sellers movie in the '60s. Yet this clown was president
of Georgia, for whose cause in South Ossetia some in our foreign policy elite thought we should
go to the brink of war with Russia.
And there was broad support for bringing Georgia into NATO. This would have given
Saakashvili an ability to ignite a confrontation with Russia, which could have forced U.S.
intervention.Consider Ukraine. Three years ago, McCain was declaring, in support of the
overthrow of the elected pro-Russian government in Kiev, "We are all Ukrainians now." Following
that coup, U.S. elites were urging us to confront Putin in Crimea, bring Ukraine, as well as
Georgia, into NATO, and send Kiev the lethal weapons needed to defeat Russian-backed rebels in
the East. This could have led straight to a Ukraine-Russia war, precipitated by our sending of
U.S. arms.
Do we really want to cede to folks of the temperament of Mikhail Saakashvili an ability to
instigate a war with a nuclear-armed Russia, which every Cold War president was resolved to
avoid, even if it meant accepting Moscow's hegemony in Eastern Europe all the way to the
Elbe?
Watching Saakashvili losing it in the streets of Kiev like some blitzed college student
should cause us to reassess the stability of all these allies to whom we have ceded a capacity
to drag us into war. Alliances, after all, are the transmission belts of war.
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, Nixon's White House Wars: The
Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.
I'd bet that Saak is a CIA asset who is probably moon-lighting for other intelligence
services as well. Israel? Russia? Iran? Turkey? Who knows? These all purpose internationalist
revolutionaries who keep turning up here and there like the proverbial bad penny usually have
deep state connections.
Neocons are a scourge on the planet. Somehow they always manage to stay in control of things
even when they make so many war mongering blunders. They must have supernatural help, but not
the good kind.
Maybe its time conservatives acknowledged that the Rosenbergs did a good thing by helping the
Soviet Union get the A-bomb. It's obvious that the only thing stopping our bloodthirsty, mad
dog foreign policy establishment from attacking Russia or North Korea is their nukes, just as
the threat of Soviet nukes is what kept U.S. presidents from dropping ours on North Korea and
North Vietnam. If the so-called "foreign policy realists" – whose forebears have
copious amounts of Latin American, African and Asian blood on their hands – ever get
back into Foggy Bottom and the West Wing, maybe they could prevail on the President to issue
a posthumous pardon for the Rosenbergs and all of the other American Communists who greased
the wheels for the Red Bomb.
Mr Buchanan's standard line. Vladimir Putin must be allowed to inflict a humiliating defeat
on the evil United States. What Mr Buchanan sidesteps is the inherent contradiction in his
argument. As anyone who has read his articles over the years will know, his enemy is the EU,
which he wants to destroy at all costs, probably because he sees it as a challenge to US
global hegemony. In the original neocon scam, Putin was a "useful idiot" to serve as a
battering ram to break up the EU and a bogeyman to frighten the resulting plethora of weak
statelets to submit to US hegemony in return for such protection as the US vouchsafed to give
them. In return for his services, the US would give Putin such part of the European cake as
it vouchsafed to give him. Putin, at that point, would, of course, have been an American
stooge, logical in the context of US global hegemony. However, by grabbing Ukrainian
territory by military force, Putin challenged US global hegemony and as long as he is allowed
to occupy Ukrainian territory, US global hegemony is worthless. That, in its turn, will
probably provoke a Soviet-style implosion of the whole American house of cards. Thus, in
order to maintain US global hegemony by destroying the EU, Mr Buchanan has to destroy US
global hegemony by backing Putin!
"These all purpose internationalist revolutionaries who keep turning up here and there like
the proverbial bad penny '
Saakashvili as a latter day Che Guevara? Ha, ha, ha. "History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce." K. Marx.
Expanding NATO was a damn fool thing to do. The Romans couldn't hang onto Mesopotamia;
overextension is real. Let's hope we get a leader who will retrench.
Oh, and bring back Giraldi. Yes, Veruschka, there is an Israel Lobby.
I'm having trouble understanding why I should care about the Ukraine, or NATO, or this
Saakashvili person. Someone please tell me how they affect me personally.
That Saakashvili has always been a few bricks short of a full load is not in dispute but to
argue that this means the US and Europe should back away from making it clear to Putin that
parts of Eastern Europe are not going to be ceded to Russian domination again makes no sense.
Like Premier Xi of China who in now trying to argue that Chinese domination of Asia is
justified by some prior period in Chinese history, Putin would like us to believe that
Russian domination of large parts of Eastern Europe is perfectly natural because of past
Russian history or even on religious grounds. We forget at our peril that Putin was a former
communist and atheist and a part of an organization that not only believed the West was
decadent and deserved to be defeated but also worked to suppress and eradicate religion.
Putin now cravenly uses religiously based arguments to justify Russian actions and would like
us to believe he is defending Christianity from Western decadence. We might as well put the
proverbial fox in charge of the hen house if we allow ourselves to accept that Putin really
has any interest in defending Christianity or doesn't lust for the restoration of Russian
domination of Eastern Europe.
Russia may no longer be the "Evil Empire" that it was called when it was the USSR but it
would be pure folly to not push back against Putin's dreams of Russian hegemony any more than
it would make sense for the US to assume that Russian and China are not going to push back
against what they perceive as US hegemony. Conversely we need to guard against assuming that
just because a country declares itself to be a democracy that the actions of any new
democratic leaders automatically deserves our support and protection. In fairness to Georgia,
the Soviets weren't known for allowing deep pools of democracy supporting leaders to develop
which unfortunately means that people like Saakashvili will float to the top.
"Three years ago, McCain was declaring, in support of the overthrow of the elected
pro-Russian government in Kiev, "We are all Ukrainians now."
The neocons probably won't be saying "We're all Kazkhstans now" in a few years when the
long-serving president of Kazakhstan dies without a clear successor and Russia moves in to
the north and east of Kazakhstan to crush the ensuing acts of Islamic terrorism and
incidentally help protect China's crucial border state of Xinjiang from ISIS, giving Russia
the balance of power in Central Asia and thus restoring it to superpower status.
Contemplating the behavior of this gentleman really makes one think that in some cases
college student is a state of mind. On the other hand, if wanted to threaten someone with his
suicide, he could have swallowed a non-lethal quantity of belladonna berries instead of a
dull standing on a roof. Politically the outcome would have likely been the same, but knowing
the mental impact of tropane alkaloids, with a hell lot of fun along the way.
Setting this walking curiosity aside for a moment there, I also join those wishing the
return of Mr. Giraldi.
This is two years old article. Not much changed... Comments sound as written yesterday. Check it out !
The key incentive to Iran deal is using Iran as a Trojan horse against Russia in oil market -- the force which helps to keep oil prices low, benefitting
the USA and other G7 members and hurting Russia and other oil-producing nations. Iran might also serve as a replacement market for EU
goods as Russian market is partially lost. Due to sanctions EU now lost (and probably irrevocably) Russian market for food, and have difficulties in maintaining their share in other
sectors (cars, machinery) as Asian tigers come in.
Notable quotes:
"... The waning clout stems from the lobby siding with the revanchist Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, whose Iran strategy since the 2012 US presidential campaign has been to unabashedly side with Republican hawks. AIPAC's alignment with the position effectively caused the group to marginalize itself; the GOP is now the only place where AIPAC can today find lockstep support. The tens of millions AIPAC spent lobbying against the deal were unable to obscure this dynamic. ..."
"... Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina took to the floor during the debate and pulled out an old trick from the run-up to the Iraq war: blaming Iran for 9/11 and saying a failure to act would result in a worse attack – is any indication, even Democrats like the pro-Israel hawk Chuck Schumer will find it untenable to sidle up to AIPAC and the Republicans. ..."
"... The problem with the right in the USA is that they offer no alternatives, nothing, nada and zilch they have become the opposition party of opposition. They rely on talking point memes and fear, and it has become the party of extremism and simplicity offering low hanging fruit and red meat this was on perfect display at their anti Iran deal rally, palin, trump, beck and phil robinson who commands ducks apparently. ..."
"... Is it any wonder the Iranians don't trust the US. After the US's spying exploits during the Iraqi WMD inspections, why are you surprised that Iran asks for 24 days notice of inspection (enough time to clear out conventional weapons development but not enough to remove evidence of nuclear weapons development). ..."
"... Most Americans don't know the CIA overthrew the Iranian government in 1953 and installed the Shaw. Most Republicans know that most Americans will believe what Fox news tells them. Republicans live in an alternate universe where there is no climate change, mammon is worshiped and wisdom is rejected hatred is accepted negotiation is replaced by perpetual warfare. Now most Americans are tired of stupid leadership and the Republicans are in big trouble. ..."
"... AIPAC - Eventually everything is seen for what is truly is. ..."
"... Israel is opposed because they wish to maintain their nuclear weapons monopoly in the region ..."
"... With the threat you describe from Israel it seems only sensible for Iran to develop nuclear weapons - if my was country (Scotland) was in Iran's place and what you said is true i would only support politicians who promised fast and large scale production of atomic weapons to counter the clear threat to my nation. ..."
"... Netanyahu loves to play the victim, but he is the primary cause that Jews worldwide, but especially in the United States, are rethinking the idea of "Israel." I know very few people who willingly identify with a strident right wing government comprised of rabid nationalists, religious fundamentalists, and a violent, almost apocalyptic settler community. ..."
"... The Israeli electorate has indicated which path it wishes to travel, but that does not obligate Jews throughout the world to support a government whose policies they find odious. ..."
"... As part of this deal the US and allies should guarantee Iran protection against Israeli aggression. Otherwise, considering Israel's threats, Iran is well justified in seeking a nuclear deterrent. ..."
"... AIPAC's defeat shows that their grip on the testicles of congress has been broken. ..."
"... Their primary goal was to keep Iran isolated and economically weak. They knew full well that the Iranians hadn't had a nuclear program since 2003, but Netanhayu needed an existential threat to Israel in order to justify his grip on power. All of this charade has bee at the instigation of and directed by Israel. And they lost They were beaten by that hated schwartze and the liberals that Israel normally counts on for unthinking support. ..."
"... No doubt Netanyahu will raise the level of his anger; he just can't accept that a United States president would do anything on which Israel hadn't stamped its imprimatur. It gets tiresome listening to him. ..."
"... It is this deal that feeds the military industrial complex. We've already heard Kerry give Israel and Saudi Arabia assurances of more weapons. And that $150 billion released to Iran? A healthy portion will be spent for arms..American, Russian, Chinese. Most of the commenters have this completely backwards. This deal means a bonanza for the arms industry. ..."
"... The Iran nuclear agreement accomplishes the US policy goal of preventing the creation of the fissionable material required for an Iranian nuclear weapons program. What the agreement does not do is eliminate Iran as a regional military and economic power, as the Israelis and Saudis -- who have invested hundreds of millions of dollars to lobby American politicians and brainwash American TV viewers -- would prefer. ..."
"... Rejection equals war. It's not surprising that the same crowd most stridently demanding rejection of the agreement advocated the disastrous invasion and occupation of Iraq. These homicidal fools never learn, or don't care as long as it's not their lives at risk. ..."
"... And how did the Republicans' foreign policy work out? Reagan created and financed Al Qaeda. Then Bush II invades Iraq with promises the Iraqis will welcome us with flowers (!), the war will be over in a few weeks and pay for itself, and the middle east will have a nascent democracy (Iraq) that will be a grateful US ally. ..."
"... I've seen Iranian statements playing internal politics, but I have never seen any actual Iranian threats. I've seen plenty about Israel assassinating people in other countries, using incendiaries and chemical weapons against civilians in other countries, conducting illegal kidnappings overseas, using terrorism as a weapon of war, developing nuclear weapons illegally, ethnically cleansing illegally occupied territories, that sort of thing. ..."
"... Iran is not a made-up country like Iraq it is as old as Greece. If the Iraq war was sold as pushover and failed miserably then an Iran war would be unthinkable. War can be started in an instant diplomacy take time. UK, France, Germany & EU all agree its an acceptable alternative to war. So as these countries hardly ever agree it is clear the deal is a good one. ..."
"... Rank and file Americans don't even know what the Iran deal is. And can't be bothered to actually find out. They just listen to sound bites from politicians the loudest of whom have been the wildly partisan republicans claiming that it gives Iran a green light to a nuclear weapon. Not to mention those "less safe" polls are completely loaded. Certain buzz words will always produce negative results. If you associate something positive "feeling safe" or "in favor of" anything that Iran signs off on it comes across as indirectly supporting Iran and skews the results of the poll. "Iran" has been so strongly associated with evil and negative all you have to do is insert it into a sentence to make people feel negatively about the entire sentence. In order to get true data on the deal you would have to poll people on the individual clauses the deal. ..."
"... American Jews are facing one of the most interesting choices of recent US history. The Republican Party, which is pissing into a stiff wind of unfavorable demographics, seems to have decided it can even the playing field by peeling Jews away from the Democrats with promises to do whatever Israel wants. So we have the very strange (but quite real) prospect of Jews increasingly throwing in their lot with the party of Christian extremists whose ranks also include violent antiSemites. ..."
"... The American Warmonger Establishment (that now fully entrenched "Military Industrial Complex" against which no more keen observer than President Dwight Eisenhower warned us), is rip-shit over the Iran Agreement. WHAT? We can't Do More War? That will be terrible for further increasing our obscene 1-percent wealth. Let's side with Israeli wingnut Netanyahu, who cynically leverages "an eye for an eye for an eye for an eye" to hold his "Power." ..."
"... AIPAC is a dangerous anti-american organization, and a real and extant threat to the sovereignty of the U.S. Any elected official acting in concert with AIPAC is colluding with a foreign government to harm the U.S. and should be considered treasonous and an enemy of the American people. ..."
The waning clout stems from the lobby siding with the revanchist Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, whose Iran strategy
since the 2012 US presidential campaign has been to unabashedly side with Republican hawks. AIPAC's alignment with the position effectively
caused the group to marginalize itself; the GOP is now the only place where AIPAC can today find lockstep support. The tens of millions
AIPAC spentlobbying against the deal were unable to obscure this dynamic.
We may not look back at this as a sea change – some Senate Democrats who held firm against opposition to the deal are working
with AIPAC to pass subsequent legislation that contains poison pills designed to kill it – but rather as a rising tide eroding the
once sturdy bipartisan pro-Israeli government consensus on Capitol Hill. Some relationships have been frayed; previously stalwart
allies of the Israel's interests, such as Vice President Joe Biden, have reportedly said the Iran deal fight soured them on AIPAC.
Even with the boundaries of its abilities on display, however, AIPAC will continue its efforts. "We urge those who have blocked
a vote today to reconsider," the group said in a spin-heavy
statement casting a pretty objective defeat as victory with the headline, "Bipartisan Senate Majority Rejects Iran Nuclear Deal."
The group's allies in the Senate Republican Party have already promised to rehash the procedural vote next week, and its lobbyists
are still rallying for support in the House. But the Senate's refusal to halt US support for the deal means that Senate Democrats
are unlikely to reconsider, especially after witnessing Thursday's Republican hijinx in the House. These ploys look like little more
than efforts to embarrass Obama into needing to cast a veto.
If Republicans' rhetoric leading up to to their flop in the Senate – Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina took to the
floor during the debate and pulled out an old trick from the run-up to the Iraq war:
blaming Iran for 9/11 and
saying a failure to act would result in a worse attack – is any indication, even Democrats like the pro-Israel hawk Chuck Schumer
will find it untenable to sidle up to AIPAC and the Republicans.
Opponents of the deal want to say the Democrats played politics instead of evaluating the deal honestly. That charge is ironic,
to say the least, since most experts agree the nuclear deal is sound and the best agreement diplomacy could achieve. But there were
politics at play: rather than siding with Obama, Congressional Democrats lined up against the Republican/Netanyahu alliance. The
adamance of AIPAC ended up working against its stated interests.
Groups like AIPAC will go on touting their bipartisan bona fides without considering that their adoption of Netanyahu's own partisanship
doomed them to a partisan result. Meanwhile, the ensuing fight, which will no doubt bring more of the legislative chaos we saw this
week, won't be a cakewalk, so to speak, but will put the lie to AIPAC's claims it has a bipartisan consensus behind it. Despite their
best efforts, Obama won't be the one embarrassed by the scrambling on the horizon.
TiredOldDog 13 Sep 2015 21:47
a foreign country whose still hell bent on committing war crimes
I guess this may mean Israel. If it does, how about we compare Assad's Syria, Iran and Israel. How many war crimes per day
in the last 4 years and, maybe, some forecasts. Otherwise it's the usual gratuitous use of bad words at Israel. It has a purpose.
To denigrate and dehumanize Israel or, at least, Zionism.
ID7612455 13 Sep 2015 18:04
The problem with the right in the USA is that they offer no alternatives, nothing, nada and zilch they have become the
opposition party of opposition. They rely on talking point memes and fear, and it has become the party of extremism and simplicity
offering low hanging fruit and red meat this was on perfect display at their anti Iran deal rally, palin, trump, beck and phil
robinson who commands ducks apparently.
winemaster2 13 Sep 2015 17:01
Put a Brush Mustache on the control freak, greed creed, Nentanhayu the SOB not only looks like but has the same mentality as
Hitler and his Nazism crap.
Martin Hutton -> mantishrimp 12 Sep 2015 23:50
I wondered when someone was going to bring up that "forgotten" fact. Is it any wonder the Iranians don't trust the US.
After the US's spying exploits during the Iraqi WMD inspections, why are you surprised that Iran asks for 24 days notice of inspection
(enough time to clear out conventional weapons development but not enough to remove evidence of nuclear weapons development).
mantishrimp 12 Sep 2015 20:51
Most Americans don't know the CIA overthrew the Iranian government in 1953 and installed the Shaw. Most Republicans know
that most Americans will believe what Fox news tells them. Republicans live in an alternate universe where there is no climate
change, mammon is worshiped and wisdom is rejected hatred is accepted negotiation is replaced by perpetual warfare. Now most Americans
are tired of stupid leadership and the Republicans are in big trouble.
ByThePeople -> Sieggy 12 Sep 2015 20:27
Is pitiful how for months and months, certain individuals blathered on and on and on when it was fairly clear from the get
go that this was a done deal and no one was about cater to the war criminal. I suppose it was good for them, sucking every last
dime they could out of the AICPA & Co. while they acted like there was 'a chance'. Nope, only chance is that at the end of the
day, a politician is a politician and he'll suck you dry as long as you let 'em.
What a pleasure it is to see the United States Congress finally not pimp themselves out completely to a foreign country whose
still hell bent on committing war crimes. A once off I suppose, but it's one small step for Americans.
ByThePeople 12 Sep 2015 20:15
AIPAC - Eventually everything is seen for what is truly is.
ambushinthenight -> Greg Zeglen 12 Sep 2015 18:18
Seems that it makes a lot of sense to most everyone else in the world, it is now at the point where it really makes no difference
whether the U.S. ratifies the deal or not. Israel is opposed because they wish to maintain their nuclear weapons monopoly in the
region. Politicians here object for one of two reasons. They are Israeli first and foremost not American or for political expediency
and a chance to try undo another of this President's achievements. Been a futile effort so far I'd say.
hello1678 -> BrianGriffin 12 Sep 2015 16:42
With the threat you describe from Israel it seems only sensible for Iran to develop nuclear weapons - if my was country (Scotland)
was in Iran's place and what you said is true i would only support politicians who promised fast and large scale production of
atomic weapons to counter the clear threat to my nation.
nardone -> Bruce Bahmani 12 Sep 2015 14:12
Netanyahu loves to play the victim, but he is the primary cause that Jews worldwide, but especially in the United States,
are rethinking the idea of "Israel." I know very few people who willingly identify with a strident right wing government comprised
of rabid nationalists, religious fundamentalists, and a violent, almost apocalyptic settler community.
The Israeli electorate has indicated which path it wishes to travel, but that does not obligate Jews throughout the world to
support a government whose policies they find odious.
Greg Zeglen -> Glenn Gang 12 Sep 2015 13:51
good point which is found almost nowhere else...it is still necessary to understand that the whole line of diplomacy regarding
the west on the part of Iran has been for generations one of deceit...and people are intensely jealous of what they hold dear
- especially safety and liberty with in their country....
EarthyByNature -> Bruce Bahmani 12 Sep 2015 13:45
I do trust your on salary with a decent benefits package with the Israeli government or one of it's slavish US lobbyists. Let's
face it, got to be hard work pouring out such hateful drivel.
BrianGriffin -> imipak 12 Sep 2015 12:53
The USA took about six years to build a bomb from scratch. The UK took almost six years to build a bomb. Russia was able to
build a bomb in only four years (1945-1949). France took four years to build a bomb. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
As part of this deal the US and allies should guarantee Iran protection against Israeli aggression. Otherwise, considering
Israel's threats, Iran is well justified in seeking a nuclear deterrent.
BrianGriffin -> HauptmannGurski 12 Sep 2015 12:35
"Europe needs business desperately."
Sieggy 12 Sep 2015 12:32
In other words, once again, Obama out-played and out-thought both the GOP and AIPAC. He was playing multidimensional chess
while they were playing checkers. The democrats kept their party discipline while the republicans ran around like a schoolyard
full of sugared-up children. This is what happens when you have grownups competing with adolescents. The republican party, to
put it very bluntly, can't get it together long enough to whistle 'Yankee Doodle Dandy' in unison.
They lost. Again. And worse than being losers, they're sore, whining, sniveling, blubbering losers. Even when they've been
spanked - hard - they swear it's not over and they're gonna get even, just you wait and see! Get over it. They lost - badly -
and the simple fact that their party is coming apart at the seams before our very eyes means they're going to be losing a lot
more, too.
AIPAC's defeat shows that their grip on the testicles of congress has been broken. All the way around, a glorious victory for
Obama, and an ignominious defeat for the republicans. And most especially, Israel. Their primary goal was to keep Iran isolated
and economically weak. They knew full well that the Iranians hadn't had a nuclear program since 2003, but Netanhayu needed an
existential threat to Israel in order to justify his grip on power. All of this charade has bee at the instigation of and directed
by Israel. And they lost They were beaten by that hated schwartze and the liberals that Israel normally counts on for unthinking
support.
Their worst loss, however, was losing the support of the American jews. Older, orthodox jews are Israel-firsters. The younger,
less observant jews are Americans first. Netanhayu's behavior has driven a wedge between the US and Israel that is only going
to deepen over time. And on top of that, Iran is re-entering the community of nations, and soon their economy will dominate the
region. Bibi overplayed his hand very, very stupidly, and the real price that Israel will pay for his bungling will unfold over
the next few decades.
BrianGriffin -> TiredOldDog 12 Sep 2015 12:18
"The Constitution provides that the president 'shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make
Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur'"
Hardly a done deal. If Obama releases funds to Iran he probably would be committing an impeachable crime under US law. Even
many Democrats would vote to impeach Obama for providing billions to a sworn enemy of Israel.
Glenn Gang -> Bruce Bahmani 12 Sep 2015 12:07
"...institutionally Iranclad(sic) HATRED towards the west..." Since you like all-caps so much, try this: "B.S."
The American propel(sic) actually figured out something else---that hardline haters like yourself are desperate to keep the
cycle of Islamophobic mistrust and suspicion alive, and blind themselves to the fact that the rest of us have left you behind.
FACT: More than half of the population of Iran today was NOT EVEN BORN when radical students captured the U.S. Embassy in Teheran
in 1979.
People like you, Bruce, conveniently ignore the fact that Ahmedinejad and his hardline followers were voted out of power in
2013, and that Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei further marginalized them by allowing the election of new President Hassan Rouhani
to stand, though he was and is an outspoken reformer advocating rapprochement with the west. While his outward rhetoric still
has stern warnings about anticipated treachery by the 'Great Satan', Khamenei has allowed the Vienna agreement to go forward,
and shows no sign of interfering with its implementation.
He is an old man, but he is neither stupid nor senile, and has clearly seen the crippling effects the international sanctions
have had on his country and his people. Haters like you, Bruce, will insist that he ALWAYS has evil motives, just as Iranian hardliners
(like Ahmedinejad) will ALWAYS believe that the U.S. has sinister motives and cannot EVER be trusted to uphold our end of any
agreement. You ascribe HATRED in all caps to Iran, the whole country, while not acknowledging your own simmering hatred.
People like you will always find a 'boogeyman,' someone else to blame for your problems, real or imagined. You should get some
help.
beenheretoolong 12 Sep 2015 10:57
No doubt Netanyahu will raise the level of his anger; he just can't accept that a United States president would do anything
on which Israel hadn't stamped its imprimatur. It gets tiresome listening to him.
geneob 12 Sep 2015 10:12
It is this deal that feeds the military industrial complex. We've already heard Kerry give Israel and Saudi Arabia assurances
of more weapons. And that $150 billion released to Iran? A healthy portion will be spent for arms..American, Russian, Chinese.
Most of the commenters have this completely backwards. This deal means a bonanza for the arms industry.
Jack Hughes 12 Sep 2015 08:38
The Iran nuclear agreement accomplishes the US policy goal of preventing the creation of the fissionable material required
for an Iranian nuclear weapons program.
What the agreement does not do is eliminate Iran as a regional military and economic power, as the Israelis and Saudis -- who
have invested hundreds of millions of dollars to lobby American politicians and brainwash American TV viewers -- would prefer.
To reject the agreement is to accept the status quo, which is unacceptable, leaving an immediate and unprovoked American-led
bombing campaign as the only other option.
Rejection equals war. It's not surprising that the same crowd most stridently demanding rejection of the agreement advocated
the disastrous invasion and occupation of Iraq. These homicidal fools never learn, or don't care as long as it's not their lives
at risk.
American politicians opposed to the agreement are serving their short-term partisan political interests and, under America's
system of legalized bribery, their Israeli and Saudi paymasters -- not America's long-term policy interests.
ID293404 -> Jeremiah2000 12 Sep 2015 05:01
And how did the Republicans' foreign policy work out? Reagan created and financed Al Qaeda. Then Bush II invades Iraq with
promises the Iraqis will welcome us with flowers (!), the war will be over in a few weeks and pay for itself, and the middle east
will have a nascent democracy (Iraq) that will be a grateful US ally.
He then has pictures taken of himself in a jet pilot's uniform on a US aircraft carrier with a huge sign saying Mission Accomplished.
He attacks Afghanistan to capture Osama, lets him get away, and then attacks Iraq instead, which had nothing to do with 9/11 and
no ties with Al Qaeda.
So then we have two interminable wars going on, thanks to brilliant Republican foreign policy, and spend gazillions of dollars
while creating a mess that may never be straightened out. Never mind all the friends we won in the middle east and the enhanced
reputation of our country through torture, the use of mercenaries, and the deaths and displacement of hundreds of thousands of
civilians. Yeah, we really need those bright Republicans running the show over in the Middle East!
HauptmannGurski -> lazman 12 Sep 2015 02:31
That is a very difficult point to understand, just look at this sentence "not understanding the fact in international affairs
that to disrespect an American president is to disrespect Americans" ... too much emperor thinking for me. We have this conversation
with regard to Putin everywhere now, so we disrespect all 143 million Russians? There's not a lot of disrespect around for Japanese
PM Abe and Chinese Xi - does this now mean we respect them and all Japanese and Chinese? Election campaigns create such enormous
personality cults that people seem to lose perspective.
On the Iran deal, if the US had dropped out of it it would have caused quite a rift because many countries would have just
done what they wanted anyway. The international Atomic Energy Organisation or what it is would have done their inspections. Siemens
would have sold medical machines. Countries would grow up as it were. But as cooperation is always better than confrontation it
is nice the US have stayed in the agreement that was apparently 10 years in the making. It couldn't have gone on like that. With
Europe needing gazillions to finance Greece, Ukraine, and millions of refugees (the next waves will roll on with the next spring
and summer from April), Europe needs business desparately. Israel was happy to buy oil through Marc Rich under sanctions, now
it's Europe's turn to snatch some business.
imipak -> BrianGriffin 11 Sep 2015 21:56
Iran lacks weapons-grade uranium and the means to produce it. Iran has made no efforts towards nuclear weapons technology for
over a decade. Iran is a signatory of the NPT and is entitled to the rights enshrined therein. If Israel launches a nuclear war
against Iran over Iran having a medical reactor (needed to produce isotopes for medicine, isotopes America can barely produce
enough of for itself) that poses no security threat to anyone, then Israel will have transgressed so many international laws that
if it survives the radioactive fallout (unlikely), it won't survive the political fallout.
It is a crime of the highest order to use weapons of mass destruction (although that didn't stop the Israelis using them against
Palestinian civilians) and pre-emtive self-defence is why most believe Bush and Blair should be on trial at the ICJ, or (given
the severity of their crimes) Nuremberg.
Israel's right to self-defense is questionable, I'm not sure any such right exists for anyone, but even allowing for it, Israel
has no right to wage unprovoked war on another nation on the grounds of a potential threat discovered through divination using
tea leaves.
imipak -> Jeremiah2000 11 Sep 2015 21:43
Iran's sponsorship of terrorism is of no concern. Such acts do not determine its competency to handle nuclear material at the
5% level (which you can find naturally). There are only three questions that matter - can Iran produce the 90-95% purity needed
to build a bomb (no), can Iran produce such purity clandestinely (no), and can Iran use its nuclear technology to threaten Israel
(no).
Israel also supports international terrorism, has used chemical weapons against civilians, has directly indulged in terrorism,
actually has nuclear weapons and is paranoid enough that it may use them against other nations without cause.
I respect Israel's right to exist and the intelligence of most Israelis. But I neither respect nor tolerate unreasoned fear
nor delusions of Godhood.
imipak -> commish 11 Sep 2015 21:33
I've seen Iranian statements playing internal politics, but I have never seen any actual Iranian threats. I've seen plenty
about Israel assassinating people in other countries, using incendiaries and chemical weapons against civilians in other countries,
conducting illegal kidnappings overseas, using terrorism as a weapon of war, developing nuclear weapons illegally, ethnically
cleansing illegally occupied territories, that sort of thing.
Until such time as Israel implements the Oslo Accords, withdraws to its internationally recognized boundary and provides the
International Court of Justice a full accounting of state-enacted and state-sponsored terrorism, it gets no claims on sainthood
and gets no free rides.
Iran has its own crimes to answer, but directly threatening Israel in words or deeds has not been one of them within this past
decade. Its actual crimes are substantial and cannot be ignored, but it is guilty only of those and not fictional works claimed
by psychotic paranoid ultra-nationalists.
imipak -> moishe 11 Sep 2015 21:18
Domestic politics. Of no real consequence, it's just a way of controlling a populace through fear and a never-ending pseudo-war.
It's how Iran actually feels that is important.
For the last decade, they've backed off any nuclear weapons research and you can't make a bomb with centrifuges that can only
manage 20% enriched uranium. You need something like 90% enrichment, which requires centrifuges many, many times more advanced.
It'd be hard to smuggle something like that in and the Iranians lack the skills, technology and science to make them.
Iran's conventional forces are busy fighting ISIS. What they do afterwards is a concern, but Israel has a sizable military
presence on the Golan Heights. The most likely outcome is for Iran to install puppet regimes (or directly control) Syria and ISIS'
caliphate.
I could see those two regions plus Iraq being fully absorbed into Iran, that would make some sense given the new geopolitical
situation. But that would tie up Iran for decades. Which would not be a bad thing and America would be better off encouraging
it rather than sabre-rattling.
(These are areas that contribute a lot to global warming and political instability elsewhere. Merging the lot and encouraging
nuclear energy will do a lot for the planet. The inherent instability of large empires will reduce mischief-making elsewhere to
more acceptable levels - they'll be too busy. It's idle hands that you need to be scared of.)
Israelis worry too much. If they spent less time fretting and more time developing, they'd be impervious to any natural or
unnatural threat by now. Their teaching of Roman history needs work, but basically Israel has a combined intellect vastly superior
to that of any nearby nation.
That matters. If you throw away fear and focus only on problems, you can stop and even defeat armies and empires vastly greater
than your own. History is replete with examples, so is the mythologicized history of the Israeli people. Israel's fear is Israel's
only threat.
mostfree 11 Sep 2015 21:10
Warmongers on all sides would had loved another round of fear and hysteria. Those dark military industrial complexes on all
sides are dissipating in the face of the high rising light of peace for now . Please let it shine.
bishoppeter4 11 Sep 2015 20:09
The rabid Republicans working for a foreign power against the interest of the United States -- US citizens will know just what
to do.
"Netanyahu has no right to dictate what the US does."
But he has every right to point out how Obama is a weak fool. How's Obama's red line working in Syria? How is his toppling
of Qadaffi in Libya working? How about his completely inept dealings with Egypt, throwing support behind the Muslim Brotherhood
leaders? The leftists cheer Obama's weakening of American influence abroad. But they don't talk much about its replacement with
Russian and Chinese influence.
Russian build-up in Syria part of secret deal with Iran's Quds Force leader. Obama and Kerry are sending a strongly
worded message.
Susan Dechancey -> whateverworks4u 11 Sep 2015 19:05
Incredible to see someone prefer war to diplomacy - guess you are an armchair General not a real one.
Susan Dechancey -> commish 11 Sep 2015 19:04
Except all its neighbours ... not only threatened but entered military conflict and stole land ... murdered Iranian Scientists
but apart from that just a kitten
Susan Dechancey -> moishe 11 Sep 2015 19:00
Israel has nukes so why are they afraid ?? Iran will never use nukes against Israel and even Mossad told nuttyyahoo sabre rattling
Susan Dechancey 11 Sep 2015 18:57
Iran is not a made-up country like Iraq it is as old as Greece. If the Iraq war was sold as pushover and failed miserably
then an Iran war would be unthinkable. War can be started in an instant diplomacy take time. UK, France, Germany & EU all agree
its an acceptable alternative to war. So as these countries hardly ever agree it is clear the deal is a good one.
To be honest the USA can do what it likes now .. UK has set up an embassy - trade missions are landing Tehran from Europe.
So if Israel and US congress want war - they will be alone and maybe if US keeps up the Nuttyahoo rhetoric European firms can
win contracts to help us pay for the last US regime change Iraq / Isis / Refugees...
lswingly -> commish 11 Sep 2015 16:58
Rank and file Americans don't even know what the Iran deal is. And can't be bothered to actually find out. They just listen
to sound bites from politicians the loudest of whom have been the wildly partisan republicans claiming that it gives Iran a green
light to a nuclear weapon. Not to mention those "less safe" polls are completely loaded. Certain buzz words will always produce
negative results. If you associate something positive "feeling safe" or "in favor of" anything that Iran signs off on it comes
across as indirectly supporting Iran and skews the results of the poll. "Iran" has been so strongly associated with evil and negative
all you have to do is insert it into a sentence to make people feel negatively about the entire sentence. In order to get true
data on the deal you would have to poll people on the individual clauses the deal.
It's no different from how when you run a poll on who's in favor "Obamacare" the results will be majority negative. But
if you poll on whether you are in favor of "The Affordable Care Act" most people are in favor of it and if you break it down and
poll on the individual planks of "Obamacare" people overwhelming approve of the things that "Obamacare does". The disapproval
is based on the fact that Republican's have successfully turned "Obamacare" into a pejorative and has almost no reflection of
people feelings on actual policy.
To illustrate how meaningless those poll numbers are a Jewish poll (supposedly the people who have the most to lose if this
deal is bad) found that a narrow majority of Jews approve of the deal. You're numbers are essentially meaningless.
The alternative to this plan is essentially war if not now, in the very near future, according to almost all non-partisan policy
wonks. Go run a poll on whether we should go to war with Iran and see how that turns out. Last time we destabilized the region
we removed a secular dictator who was enemies with Al Queda and created a power vacuum that led to increased religious extremism
and the rise of Isis. You want to double down on that strategy?
MadManMark -> whateverworks4u 11 Sep 2015 16:34
You need to reread this article. It's exactly this attitude of yours (and AIPAC and Netanyahu) that this deal is not 100% perfect,
but then subsequently failed to suggest ANY way to get something better -- other than war, which I'm sorry most people don't want
another Republican "preemptive" war -- caused a lot people originally uncertain about this deal (like me) to conclude there may
not be a better alternative. Again, read the article: What you think about me, I now think about deal critics like you ("It seems
people will endorse anything to justify their political views.)
USfan 11 Sep 2015 15:34
American Jews are facing one of the most interesting choices of recent US history. The Republican Party, which is pissing
into a stiff wind of unfavorable demographics, seems to have decided it can even the playing field by peeling Jews away from the
Democrats with promises to do whatever Israel wants. So we have the very strange (but quite real) prospect of Jews increasingly
throwing in their lot with the party of Christian extremists whose ranks also include violent antiSemites.
Interesting times. We'll see how this plays out. My family is Jewish and I have not been shy in telling them that alliances
with the GOP for short-term gains for Israel is not a wise policy. The GOP establishment are not antiSemtic but the base often
is, and if Trump's candidacy shows anything it's that the base is in control of the Republicans.
But we'll see.
niyiakinlabu 11 Sep 2015 15:29
Central question: how come nobody talks about Israel's nukes?
hello1678 -> BrianGriffin 11 Sep 2015 14:02
Iran will not accept being forced into dependence on outside powers. We may dislike their government but they have as much
right as anyone else to enrich their own fuel.
JackHep 11 Sep 2015 13:30
Netanyahu is an example of all that is bad about the Israeli political, hence military industrial, establishment. Why Cameron's
government allowed him on British soil is beyond belief. Surely the PM's treatment of other "hate preachers" would not have been
lost on Netanyahu? Sadly our PM seems to miss the point with Israel.
The American Warmonger Establishment (that now fully entrenched "Military Industrial Complex" against which no more keen
observer than President Dwight Eisenhower warned us), is rip-shit over the Iran Agreement. WHAT? We can't Do More War? That will
be terrible for further increasing our obscene 1-percent wealth. Let's side with Israeli wingnut Netanyahu, who cynically leverages
"an eye for an eye for an eye for an eye" to hold his "Power."
And let's be treasonous against the United States by trying to undermine U.S. Foreign Policy FOR OUR OWN PROFIT. We are LONG
overdue for serious jail time for these sociopaths, who already have our country "brainwashed" into 53% of our budget going to
the War Profiteers and to pretending to be a 19th century Neo-Colonial Power -- in an Endless State of Eternal War. These people
are INSANE. Time to simply say so.
Boredwiththeusa 11 Sep 2015 12:58
At the rally to end the Iran deal in the Capitol on Wednesday, one of the AIPAC worshipping attendees had this to say to Jim
Newell of Slate:
""Obama is a black, Jew-hating, jihadist putting America and Israel and the rest of the planet in grave danger," said Bob
Kunst of Miami. Kunst-pairing a Hillary Clinton rubber mask with a blue T-shirt reading "INFIDEL"-was holding one sign that
accused Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John Kerry of "Fulfilling Hitler's Dreams" and another that queried, "DIDN'T WE LEARN ANYTHING
FROM 1938?"
His only reassurance was that, when Iran launches its attack on the mainland, it'll be stopped quickly by America's heavily
armed citizenry."
That is indicative of the mindset of those opposed to the agreement.
Boredwiththeusa 11 Sep 2015 12:47
AIPAC is a dangerous anti-american organization, and a real and extant threat to the sovereignty of the U.S. Any elected
official acting in concert with AIPAC is colluding with a foreign government to harm the U.S. and should be considered treasonous
and an enemy of the American people.
tunejunky 11 Sep 2015 12:47
AIPAC, its constituent republicans, and the government of Israel all made the same mistake in a common episode of hubris. by
not understanding the American public, war, and without the deference shown from a proxy to its hegemon, Israel's right wing has
flown the Israeli cause into a wall. not understanding the fact in international affairs that to disrespect an American president
is to disrespect Americans, the Israeli government acted as a spoiled first-born - while to American eyes it was a greedy, ungrateful
ward foisted upon barely willing hands. it presumed far too much and is receiving the much deserved rebuke.
impartial12 11 Sep 2015 12:37
This deal is the best thing that happened in the region in a while. We tried war and death. It didn't work out. Why not try
this?
This article is two years old, but still sounds current. The only difference now is that the conflict between Western nationalists and
neoliberal central government of President Poroshenko became more acute. Nationalists do not understand that "The Moor has done his duty, Moor can go" and neoliberal government of Poroshenko do not need
(and actually is afraid of) them.
"... Even in Kiev they view Western Ukrainians as strangers. ..."
"... So they didn't have any hate back towards the West Ukrainians. Besides, West Ukraine was sufficiently far from Donbass for Russians there not to feel threatened. ..."
"... So the Western [Ukrainians] hate towards Russians vs. Russian neutral attitude towards Ukrainians has existed for decades. ..."
"... "criminalizes the denial or justification of Russia's aggression against Ukraine" with a fine equivalent to 22 to 44,000 USD for the first offense and up to three years in prison for repeat offenders. ..."
"... But isn't it wrong that the faith of those people will depend on what EU or US will allow them to do rather than on their natural desire? How does it co-exist with all those democratic ideas. ..."
"... They key thing in all of this is to stop being naive. Learn it, remember it. Our media will only care for the "right" journalists and will throw campaigns only for them and there will be rallies only over the death of "right" people, while we won't pay attention to thousands of deaths of the "wrong" people. ..."
"... The US actively encouraged the overthrow of the democratically elected president of Ukraine, a void filled by right wing nationalists and an act that led directly to the current conflict ..."
"... In turn, the maidan coup d'etat de facto disenfranchised the culturally russian majority in SE-ukr. ..."
"... the NW-ukr neonazi bands fighting in SE-ukr are de facto foreign in SE-ukr, both culturally and geo-politically, and are there to give this majority a lesson. ..."
"... In Zakarpattia Oblast, only 410 out of 1,110 people who received draft notices came to mobilization centers, Oleg Lysenko, a representative of General Staff said recently.(kyiv news) ..."
"... For some reason that isn't quite clear to me, discussion among Western experts has overwhelmingly centered not on the imminent economic apocalypse facing Kiev, but on whether or not the United States should supply it with advanced weapons systems to beat back the Russians. ..."
"... It might be inconvenient to note, but Russia is positively crucial to Ukraine's economy not merely as a source of raw materials and energy but as a destination for industrial production that would otherwise be unable to find willing customers. According to Ukrainian government data, Russia accounted for roughly a quarter of the country's total foreign trade. The equivalent figure from the Russian side? Somewhere between 6 and 7%. Given that reality, Russia's leverage over Ukraine is obviously much greater that Ukraine's leverage over Russia. ..."
"... During the Vietnam War, the draft was a huge issue with many thousands of young men going to Canada, thousand who were in the military receiving less than honorable discharges and still others doing jail time. The war was view as an unjust war by the better educated and those who didn't have to enlist for food and shelter ("three hots and a cot"). ..."
"... The rebellion against the draft in Ukraine tells us that the war against the people in the Eastern area is an unjust war. People don't need a degree in history to understand when they are being use in ways that is not in their interest. We find only the fascist battalion who are hungry for this war. The US and EU should keep out of this internal civil struggle in Ukraine. ..."
The distrust between the West and the rest of Ukraine is not 14 months old. It has always existed. Since the War at the very
list. Even in Kiev they view Western Ukrainians as strangers. Western Ukrainians would call everyone a moscovite, and
in the East and the South, the Russians were neutral because their lives were much closer to Russia than to all this Ukrainian
bullshit. So they didn't have any hate back towards the West Ukrainians. Besides, West Ukraine was sufficiently far from Donbass
for Russians there not to feel threatened.
So the Western [Ukrainians] hate towards Russians vs. Russian neutral attitude towards Ukrainians has existed for decades.
Systematic
A new law to likely be approved by the Rada "criminalizes the denial or justification of Russia's aggression against Ukraine"
with a fine equivalent to 22 to 44,000 USD for the first offense and up to three years in prison for repeat offenders.
Meanwhile, while the law is not approved,
In February 8 in Mariupol a rally was planned against mobilization. On the eve the adviser of Interior Minister Anton Gerashchenko
said that everyone who comes there will be arrested, "Everyone who comes to the rally tomorrow against mobilization, will be
delayed for several hours for identification and after fingerprinting and photographing until released. Let me remind you that
I and my fellow lawmaker Boris Filatov has filed a bill to impose criminal liability for public calls for the failure of mobilization
"- he wrote on his page on Facebook. As a result, the action did not take place.
With all the hot headed claims of how the Soviet Union just grabbed the piece of land from Poland, Ukraine has a good chance
to correct those misdeeds. Give West Ukraine to Poland, Transkarpathia - to Hungary, and the South West - to Romania. That would be restoring historical
injustice.
vr13vr -> SallyWa 10 Feb 2015 18:18
But isn't it wrong that the faith of those people will depend on what EU or US will allow them to do rather than on their
natural desire? How does it co-exist with all those democratic ideas.
Besides, federalization may or may not protect them. Kiev may or may not adhere to rules in the future, there will be a tax
issue, there will be cultural issues as Kiev will try to Ukrainize those areas subtly - you know those programs that are not anti-Russian
per se but that increase Ukrainian presence, thus diluting the original population. Remaining under the same roof with Kiev and
L'vov isn't really the best solution for Donbass if they want to preserve their independence and identity.
SallyWa -> VladimirM 10 Feb 2015 18:16
They key thing in all of this is to stop being naive. Learn it, remember it. Our media will only care for the "right" journalists
and will throw campaigns only for them and there will be rallies only over the death of "right" people, while we won't pay attention
to thousands of deaths of the "wrong" people.
theeskimo -> ridibundus 10 Feb 2015 18:02
The US actively encouraged the overthrow of the democratically elected president of Ukraine, a void filled by right wing nationalists
and an act that led directly to the current conflict. Now they want to arm a leadership with no national mandate who have ceded
responsibility for prosecuting their war in the east to an ultra nationalist bunch of thugs.
I think it's you who should keep up with what's happening. By the time this is over, Ukraine will be no more.
newsflashUK 10 Feb 2015 18:01
Scraping the barrel for cannon fodder by pro-NATO puppet Poroshenko regime: "The draft officers have been tapping men from
20 to 60 years old and women of 20 to 50 years old with relevant military service experience and training. The age limit for senior
officers that could be mobilized is 65 years. Vladyslav Seleznev, spokesman of General Staff, said" (Kyiv news).
theeskimo -> ridibundus 10 Feb 2015 18:02
The US actively encouraged the overthrow of the democratically elected president of Ukraine, a void filled by right wing
nationalists and an act that led directly to the current conflict. Now they want to arm a leadership with no national mandate
who have ceded responsibility for prosecuting their war in the east to an ultra nationalist bunch of thugs.
I think it's you who should keep up with what's happening. By the time this is over, Ukraine will be no more.
newsflashUK 10 Feb 2015 18:01
Scraping the barrel for cannon fodder by pro-NATO puppet Poroshenko regime: "The draft officers have been tapping men from
20 to 60 years old and women of 20 to 50 years old with relevant military service experience and training. The age limit for senior
officers that could be mobilized is 65 years. Vladyslav Seleznev, spokesman of General Staff, said" (Kyiv news).
erpiu 10 Feb 2015 17:59
The focus on Putin and geopolitics forces the actual ukr people out of the picture and blurrs understanding.
The maidan was a genuinely popular NW-ukr rebellion after NW-ukr had lost all recent pre-2014 elections to the culturally Russian
majority of voters mainly in SE-ukr.
In turn, the maidan coup d'etat de facto disenfranchised the culturally russian majority in SE-ukr.
the NW-ukr neonazi bands fighting in SE-ukr are de facto foreign in SE-ukr, both culturally and geo-politically, and are
there to give this majority a lesson.
USA+EU weapons would only help the punitive "pacification" of SE ukr, the place that was deciding UKR elections until the coup.
The real festering conflict is the incompatibility of the anti-Russian feelings in NW ukr (little else is shared by the various
maidan factions) with the cccp/russian heritage of most people in SE ukr... that incompatibility is the main problem that needs
to be "solved".
Neither the maidan coup nor yanukovich&the pre-coup electoral dominance of SE ukr voters were ever stable solutions.
newsflashUK 10 Feb 2015 17:57
In Zakarpattia Oblast, only 410 out of 1,110 people who received draft notices came to mobilization centers, Oleg Lysenko,
a representative of General Staff said recently.(kyiv news)
SallyWa 10 Feb 2015 17:51
Ukraine's Economy Is Collapsing And The West Doesn't Seem To Care
For some reason that isn't quite clear to me, discussion among Western experts has overwhelmingly centered not on the imminent
economic apocalypse facing Kiev, but on whether or not the United States should supply it with advanced weapons systems to
beat back the Russians.
It might be inconvenient to note, but Russia is positively crucial to Ukraine's economy not merely as a source of raw
materials and energy but as a destination for industrial production that would otherwise be unable to find willing customers.
According to Ukrainian government data, Russia accounted for roughly a quarter of the country's total foreign trade. The equivalent
figure from the Russian side? Somewhere between 6 and 7%. Given that reality, Russia's leverage over Ukraine is obviously much
greater that Ukraine's leverage over Russia.
During WW 2 Draft dodging was almost unheard of. The war was perceived as "just", a righteous cause. Thus, men correctly saw
it as their duty to take up arms against fascism.
During the Vietnam War, the draft was a huge issue with many thousands of young men going to Canada, thousand who were
in the military receiving less than honorable discharges and still others doing jail time. The war was view as an unjust war by
the better educated and those who didn't have to enlist for food and shelter ("three hots and a cot").
The rebellion against the draft in Ukraine tells us that the war against the people in the Eastern area is an unjust war.
People don't need a degree in history to understand when they are being use in ways that is not in their interest. We find only
the fascist battalion who are hungry for this war. The US and EU should keep out of this internal civil struggle in Ukraine.
In reality Ukraine is run by neoliberals. Still this is an interesting propaganda twist. Actually "antisemitism" bait works perfectly well
in most cases.
80% of the readers will not read more than that headline.
The first paragraph:
Donetsk (Ukraine) (AFP) - Ukraine's pro-Russian rebel chief on Monday branded the country's leaders
"miserable" Jews in an apparent anti-Semitic jibe.
Of those 20% of the readers who will read the first paragraph only one forth will also read the
second one. The "anti-semitic" accusation has thereby been planted in 95% of the readership. Now
here is the second paragraph:
Alexander Zakharchenko, leader of the self-proclaimed Donetsk People's Republic, claimed that
Kiev's pro-Western leaders were "miserable representatives of the great Jewish people".
Saying that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were "miserable representatives of the great American
people" would be "anti-American"? What is anti-semitic in calling "the Jewish people" "great"?
The AFP reporter and editor who put that up deserve an Orwellian reward. It is one of the most
misleading quotations I have ever seen. Accusing Zakharchenko of anti-semitism when he is actually
lauding Jews.
Now I do not agree with Zakharchenko. There is
no such
thing as "the Jewish people" in the sense of a racial or national determination. There are people
of various nationalities and racial heritages who assert that they follow, or their ancestors followed,
religious Jewish believes. Some of them may have been or are "great".
But that does not make them "the Jewish people" just like followers of Scientology do not make
"the Scientologish people".
Saker has a link to the youtube, the audio in Russian with English subtitles. It begins at
about 12:30.
@3
When Sarkozy came in AFP really hit the skids. Like the NYTimes and Bush XLIII.
Lysander | Feb 3, 2015 12:02:09 PM | 13
What Zacharchenko did that was unforgivable is to draw attention to the fact that Kiev's current
leadership is largely Jewish. From Yats to Petro (Waltzman) Poroshenko To Igor Kolomoiski. No
matter how gracefully Zach would put it, it is the content that they hate.
Not saying there is anything wrong with that, but I guess there are some who would rather you
not notice.
Right-wing nazi-rag KyivPost has a miserable coverage of same piece. "Agence France-Presse:
Russia's guy says Ukraine run by 'miserable Jews'" Zhakharchenko is "Russia's guy," his picture
under the headline with a totally unrelated caption, subtitled by the first paragraph of the AFP
fake "news" (sic!)"Ukraine's pro-Russian rebel chief on Monday branded the country's leaders
"miserable" Jews in an apparent anti-Semitic jibe.", and a link to Yahoo news reproducing
the AFP piece in full.
Zionazi thieves stole the word "semitic" to mean "Jews," when in fact it comprehends many other
languages and peoples. Zhakharchenko's AFP phony "anti-Semitic jibe" would be insulting to all
these many peoples.
"...Semitic peoples and their languages, in ancient historic times (between the 30th and
20th centuries BC), covered a broad area which encompassed what are today the modern states and
regions of Iraq, Syria, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Palestinian territories, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait,
Oman, Yemen, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and the Sinai Peninsula and Malta..."
...The word "Semite" and most uses of the word "Semitic" relate to any people whose native
tongue is, or was historically, a member of the associated language family.[35][36] The term "anti-Semite",
however, came by a circuitous route to refer most commonly to one hostile or discriminatory towards
Jews in particular...[37]
Yet another historical theft by the so-called "chosen" crooks.
So the anti-Russian campaign probably started after Sochi Olympics if nor earlier. Now we see just a new stage of it.
Notable quotes:
"... Western media, analysts and commentator spew the same inane nonsense regarding Russia. Either Putin is the new Hitler or he is just like Stalin or trying to become a new Tsar. Western experts accuse Putin of trying to revive the USSR one day only to accuse Putin re-establishing the Russian Empire the day afterwards. ..."
"... West media oscillates from Russia is about collapse to Russia is about to invade Europe and conquer the world! ..."
"... For nearly two hours, the Russian president reeled off a litany of resentments. The west had proclaimed victory in the cold war. It had cheated Moscow by expanding the EU and Nato right to Russia's borders. It had ignored international rules to pursue reckless policies in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. ..."
"... So far, the sanctions have acted as what one US official calls an "accelerant" to the unexpected plunge in oil prices, pushing Russia into a deep economic crisis. The rouble has tumbled, leaving Russia facing recession and spiralling inflation, challenging its ability to fund its costly stealth war in Ukraine (where the Kremlin insists there are no Russian soldiers on the ground, despite ample evidence to the contrary [Where is the evidence? Please state what the evidence is.]). ..."
"... I stopped reading the FT years ago . For the financial stuff it was quite good (!) and had a good level for people not accompli in such matters, but it always sucked ass * politically as it is generally to the far right of Ghengis Khan (my apologies to him as I am probably one of the descendents of the many beautiful ladies he porked – apparently 1 in 7 of us are). ..."
Western media, analysts and commentator spew the same inane nonsense regarding Russia. Either
Putin is the new Hitler or he is just like Stalin or trying to become a new Tsar. Western experts
accuse Putin of trying to revive the USSR one day only to accuse Putin re-establishing the Russian
Empire the day afterwards.
West media oscillates from Russia is about collapse to Russia is about to invade Europe and
conquer the world!
Extracts from the FT article: "Battle for Ukraine:
How the west lost Putin"
It was past 10pm and the German chancellor was sitting in a Hilton hotel conference room
in Brisbane, Australia. Her interlocutor was the implacable Vladimir Putin. For nearly two hours,
the Russian president reeled off a litany of resentments. The west had proclaimed victory in the
cold war. It had cheated Moscow by expanding the EU and Nato right to Russia's borders. It had
ignored international rules to pursue reckless policies in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya.
The chancellor steered the conversation back to eastern Ukraine, where Russian-backed separatists
were engaged in a bloody struggle against the western-backed government in Kiev, according
to a person familiar with the meeting [WHO? No names, no pack drill?]. Since
the crisis began, Ms Merkel [Why Ms? She is "Frau" and she is married. Does the journalist
not know that? Does he think that Bundeskanzlerin Merkel wants to keep her marital status a secret?
Fucking PC crap!] had worked hard to extract some sense from Mr Putin of what he wanted - something
she could use to construct an agreement. When he finally offered a solution, she was shocked.
Mr Putin declared Kiev should deal with the rebels the way he had dealt with Russia's breakaway
Chechnya region: by buying them off with autonomy and money. A reasonable idea, perhaps, to an
ex-KGB colonel. But for an East German pastor's daughter, with a deeply-ingrained sense of fairness,
this was unacceptable.
Ms Merkel had asked her closest advisers to stay outside during the Brisbane meeting,
on November 15 last year. "She wanted to be alone . . . to test whether she could get Putin to
be more open about what he really wants",says someone briefed on the conversation [WHO?].
"But he wouldn't say what his strategy is, because he doesn't know".
For Moscow, too, something snapped. Weeks later, a Kremlin official [WHO?]
dismissed the notion, often cited in diplomatic circles, that there had ever been a "special relationship"
between the two leaders. "Putin and Merkel could never stand each other", he told the Financial
Times. "Of course, they are professionals, so they tried to make the best of it for a long time.
But that seems to have changed now."
The Merkel-Putin encounter in Australia marked a turning point. After a year of crisis,
the west realised that it had been pursuing an illusion: for all its post-communist tribulations,
Russia was always seen to be on an inexorable path of convergence with Europe and the west - what a senior German official [WHO?]
calls the notion that "in the end,
they'll all become like us".
So far, the sanctions have acted as what one US official calls an "accelerant" to the
unexpected plunge in oil prices, pushing Russia into a deep economic crisis. The rouble has tumbled,
leaving Russia facing recession and spiralling inflation, challenging its ability to fund its
costly stealth war in Ukraine (where the Kremlin insists there are no Russian soldiers on the
ground, despite ample evidence to the contrary [Where is the evidence? Please state
what the evidence is.]).
According to a senior Washington official [WHO?], Mr Poroshenko,
the oligarch elected Ukraine's president in May, was anxious to hold face-to-face meetings with
Mr Putin. But he wanted other leaders in the room capable of holding Mr Putin to commitments.
Ms Merkel was the obvious choice. "The administration's view is that she's the best interlocutor
that we have in the west with Putin," says an ex-US diplomat [WHO?].
US President Barack Obama has held his own share of calls with Mr Putin, but he has largely
taken a back seat. US insiders [WHO?] say the president feels Mr Putin
was unresponsive to efforts to build a relationship. "Obama sees the world in win-win terms, Putin
sees it in zero-sum terms", says the ex-diplomat. The two have a visible lack of chemistry. In
Mr Obama's words, Mr Putin has a "kind of slouch, looking like the bored kid in the back of the
classroom".
Diplomats suspect [WHICH DIPLOMATS?] Mr Putin is surrounded
by yes-men afraid to give him the unvarnished truth. They suggest, for example, that he has been
surprised by the strength of EU unity over sanctions.
She prepares meticulously, studying maps of eastern Ukraine and poring over them in meetings
and phone calls with Mr Putin. "There are maps and charts, with roads and checkpoints", says a European diplomat [WHO?]. "She has these details. She knows about
them."
In public, Ms Merkel has not said Mr Putin has lied, but she has in private
[TO WHOM?]. "'He's lying', that's what she says to all the other leaders," says
the EU diplomat.
A partygoer [WHO?] close to Ms Merkel recalls her saying little
about the disaster. "The chancellor doesn't like to speak about something until she is sure of
her facts. But she was shaken. It was horrendous."
"The Russians just weren't credible. They got beaten", says a senior Washington official
[WHO?].
Asked why Mr Putin did not turn MH17 into an opportunity for reconciliation, a
former senior Kremlin official [WHO?] said: "Because he was insulted. He acted emotionally.
Because your side came out before anything was clear, accusing him of all sorts of things".
and on and on and on.
I've just got fed up of noting the unsubstantiated statements. And to make all this even more
annoying,each time I cut and pasted, I received the following notification off FT:
"High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others
using the link below, do not cut & paste the article."
I stopped reading the FT years ago. For the financial stuff it was quite good (!) and had
a good level for people not accompli in such matters, but it always sucked ass*
politically as it is generally to the far right of Ghengis Khan (my apologies to him as I am probably
one of the descendents of the many beautiful ladies he porked – apparently 1 in 7 of us are).
The thing is, none of this should surprise us as established journalism has only got
worse. Alternative media fortunately has grown on the back of this atrophy of the circle jerk
club. What this goes to show is that the discerning news consumer now looks elsewhere for its
news because the Pork Pie News Networks are so transparently bullshit in the extreme and even
more unapologetic when they are caught with their pants down pretending to be milking grandma's
cow in the middle of the night.
If Putin became 'emotional' every time he was insulted by the west, he wouldn't have gotten out
of bed since about 2003. Jeez, the crap these guys write.
This is two years old article. Not much changed... Comments sound as written yesterday. Check it out !
The key incentive to Iran deal is using Iran as a Trojan horse against Russia in oil market -- the force which helps to keep oil prices low, benefitting
the USA and other G7 members and hurting Russia and other oil-producing nations. Iran might also serve as a replacement market for EU
goods as Russian market is partially lost. Due to sanctions EU now lost (and probably irrevocably) Russian market for food, and have difficulties in maintaining their share in other
sectors (cars, machinery) as Asian tigers come in.
Notable quotes:
"... The waning clout stems from the lobby siding with the revanchist Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, whose Iran strategy since the 2012 US presidential campaign has been to unabashedly side with Republican hawks. AIPAC's alignment with the position effectively caused the group to marginalize itself; the GOP is now the only place where AIPAC can today find lockstep support. The tens of millions AIPAC spent lobbying against the deal were unable to obscure this dynamic. ..."
"... Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina took to the floor during the debate and pulled out an old trick from the run-up to the Iraq war: blaming Iran for 9/11 and saying a failure to act would result in a worse attack – is any indication, even Democrats like the pro-Israel hawk Chuck Schumer will find it untenable to sidle up to AIPAC and the Republicans. ..."
"... The problem with the right in the USA is that they offer no alternatives, nothing, nada and zilch they have become the opposition party of opposition. They rely on talking point memes and fear, and it has become the party of extremism and simplicity offering low hanging fruit and red meat this was on perfect display at their anti Iran deal rally, palin, trump, beck and phil robinson who commands ducks apparently. ..."
"... Is it any wonder the Iranians don't trust the US. After the US's spying exploits during the Iraqi WMD inspections, why are you surprised that Iran asks for 24 days notice of inspection (enough time to clear out conventional weapons development but not enough to remove evidence of nuclear weapons development). ..."
"... Most Americans don't know the CIA overthrew the Iranian government in 1953 and installed the Shaw. Most Republicans know that most Americans will believe what Fox news tells them. Republicans live in an alternate universe where there is no climate change, mammon is worshiped and wisdom is rejected hatred is accepted negotiation is replaced by perpetual warfare. Now most Americans are tired of stupid leadership and the Republicans are in big trouble. ..."
"... AIPAC - Eventually everything is seen for what is truly is. ..."
"... Israel is opposed because they wish to maintain their nuclear weapons monopoly in the region ..."
"... With the threat you describe from Israel it seems only sensible for Iran to develop nuclear weapons - if my was country (Scotland) was in Iran's place and what you said is true i would only support politicians who promised fast and large scale production of atomic weapons to counter the clear threat to my nation. ..."
"... Netanyahu loves to play the victim, but he is the primary cause that Jews worldwide, but especially in the United States, are rethinking the idea of "Israel." I know very few people who willingly identify with a strident right wing government comprised of rabid nationalists, religious fundamentalists, and a violent, almost apocalyptic settler community. ..."
"... The Israeli electorate has indicated which path it wishes to travel, but that does not obligate Jews throughout the world to support a government whose policies they find odious. ..."
"... As part of this deal the US and allies should guarantee Iran protection against Israeli aggression. Otherwise, considering Israel's threats, Iran is well justified in seeking a nuclear deterrent. ..."
"... AIPAC's defeat shows that their grip on the testicles of congress has been broken. ..."
"... Their primary goal was to keep Iran isolated and economically weak. They knew full well that the Iranians hadn't had a nuclear program since 2003, but Netanhayu needed an existential threat to Israel in order to justify his grip on power. All of this charade has bee at the instigation of and directed by Israel. And they lost They were beaten by that hated schwartze and the liberals that Israel normally counts on for unthinking support. ..."
"... No doubt Netanyahu will raise the level of his anger; he just can't accept that a United States president would do anything on which Israel hadn't stamped its imprimatur. It gets tiresome listening to him. ..."
"... It is this deal that feeds the military industrial complex. We've already heard Kerry give Israel and Saudi Arabia assurances of more weapons. And that $150 billion released to Iran? A healthy portion will be spent for arms..American, Russian, Chinese. Most of the commenters have this completely backwards. This deal means a bonanza for the arms industry. ..."
"... The Iran nuclear agreement accomplishes the US policy goal of preventing the creation of the fissionable material required for an Iranian nuclear weapons program. What the agreement does not do is eliminate Iran as a regional military and economic power, as the Israelis and Saudis -- who have invested hundreds of millions of dollars to lobby American politicians and brainwash American TV viewers -- would prefer. ..."
"... Rejection equals war. It's not surprising that the same crowd most stridently demanding rejection of the agreement advocated the disastrous invasion and occupation of Iraq. These homicidal fools never learn, or don't care as long as it's not their lives at risk. ..."
"... And how did the Republicans' foreign policy work out? Reagan created and financed Al Qaeda. Then Bush II invades Iraq with promises the Iraqis will welcome us with flowers (!), the war will be over in a few weeks and pay for itself, and the middle east will have a nascent democracy (Iraq) that will be a grateful US ally. ..."
"... I've seen Iranian statements playing internal politics, but I have never seen any actual Iranian threats. I've seen plenty about Israel assassinating people in other countries, using incendiaries and chemical weapons against civilians in other countries, conducting illegal kidnappings overseas, using terrorism as a weapon of war, developing nuclear weapons illegally, ethnically cleansing illegally occupied territories, that sort of thing. ..."
"... Iran is not a made-up country like Iraq it is as old as Greece. If the Iraq war was sold as pushover and failed miserably then an Iran war would be unthinkable. War can be started in an instant diplomacy take time. UK, France, Germany & EU all agree its an acceptable alternative to war. So as these countries hardly ever agree it is clear the deal is a good one. ..."
"... Rank and file Americans don't even know what the Iran deal is. And can't be bothered to actually find out. They just listen to sound bites from politicians the loudest of whom have been the wildly partisan republicans claiming that it gives Iran a green light to a nuclear weapon. Not to mention those "less safe" polls are completely loaded. Certain buzz words will always produce negative results. If you associate something positive "feeling safe" or "in favor of" anything that Iran signs off on it comes across as indirectly supporting Iran and skews the results of the poll. "Iran" has been so strongly associated with evil and negative all you have to do is insert it into a sentence to make people feel negatively about the entire sentence. In order to get true data on the deal you would have to poll people on the individual clauses the deal. ..."
"... American Jews are facing one of the most interesting choices of recent US history. The Republican Party, which is pissing into a stiff wind of unfavorable demographics, seems to have decided it can even the playing field by peeling Jews away from the Democrats with promises to do whatever Israel wants. So we have the very strange (but quite real) prospect of Jews increasingly throwing in their lot with the party of Christian extremists whose ranks also include violent antiSemites. ..."
"... The American Warmonger Establishment (that now fully entrenched "Military Industrial Complex" against which no more keen observer than President Dwight Eisenhower warned us), is rip-shit over the Iran Agreement. WHAT? We can't Do More War? That will be terrible for further increasing our obscene 1-percent wealth. Let's side with Israeli wingnut Netanyahu, who cynically leverages "an eye for an eye for an eye for an eye" to hold his "Power." ..."
"... AIPAC is a dangerous anti-american organization, and a real and extant threat to the sovereignty of the U.S. Any elected official acting in concert with AIPAC is colluding with a foreign government to harm the U.S. and should be considered treasonous and an enemy of the American people. ..."
The waning clout stems from the lobby siding with the revanchist Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, whose Iran strategy
since the 2012 US presidential campaign has been to unabashedly side with Republican hawks. AIPAC's alignment with the position effectively
caused the group to marginalize itself; the GOP is now the only place where AIPAC can today find lockstep support. The tens of millions
AIPAC spentlobbying against the deal were unable to obscure this dynamic.
We may not look back at this as a sea change – some Senate Democrats who held firm against opposition to the deal are working
with AIPAC to pass subsequent legislation that contains poison pills designed to kill it – but rather as a rising tide eroding the
once sturdy bipartisan pro-Israeli government consensus on Capitol Hill. Some relationships have been frayed; previously stalwart
allies of the Israel's interests, such as Vice President Joe Biden, have reportedly said the Iran deal fight soured them on AIPAC.
Even with the boundaries of its abilities on display, however, AIPAC will continue its efforts. "We urge those who have blocked
a vote today to reconsider," the group said in a spin-heavy
statement casting a pretty objective defeat as victory with the headline, "Bipartisan Senate Majority Rejects Iran Nuclear Deal."
The group's allies in the Senate Republican Party have already promised to rehash the procedural vote next week, and its lobbyists
are still rallying for support in the House. But the Senate's refusal to halt US support for the deal means that Senate Democrats
are unlikely to reconsider, especially after witnessing Thursday's Republican hijinx in the House. These ploys look like little more
than efforts to embarrass Obama into needing to cast a veto.
If Republicans' rhetoric leading up to to their flop in the Senate – Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina took to the
floor during the debate and pulled out an old trick from the run-up to the Iraq war:
blaming Iran for 9/11 and
saying a failure to act would result in a worse attack – is any indication, even Democrats like the pro-Israel hawk Chuck Schumer
will find it untenable to sidle up to AIPAC and the Republicans.
Opponents of the deal want to say the Democrats played politics instead of evaluating the deal honestly. That charge is ironic,
to say the least, since most experts agree the nuclear deal is sound and the best agreement diplomacy could achieve. But there were
politics at play: rather than siding with Obama, Congressional Democrats lined up against the Republican/Netanyahu alliance. The
adamance of AIPAC ended up working against its stated interests.
Groups like AIPAC will go on touting their bipartisan bona fides without considering that their adoption of Netanyahu's own partisanship
doomed them to a partisan result. Meanwhile, the ensuing fight, which will no doubt bring more of the legislative chaos we saw this
week, won't be a cakewalk, so to speak, but will put the lie to AIPAC's claims it has a bipartisan consensus behind it. Despite their
best efforts, Obama won't be the one embarrassed by the scrambling on the horizon.
TiredOldDog 13 Sep 2015 21:47
a foreign country whose still hell bent on committing war crimes
I guess this may mean Israel. If it does, how about we compare Assad's Syria, Iran and Israel. How many war crimes per day
in the last 4 years and, maybe, some forecasts. Otherwise it's the usual gratuitous use of bad words at Israel. It has a purpose.
To denigrate and dehumanize Israel or, at least, Zionism.
ID7612455 13 Sep 2015 18:04
The problem with the right in the USA is that they offer no alternatives, nothing, nada and zilch they have become the
opposition party of opposition. They rely on talking point memes and fear, and it has become the party of extremism and simplicity
offering low hanging fruit and red meat this was on perfect display at their anti Iran deal rally, palin, trump, beck and phil
robinson who commands ducks apparently.
winemaster2 13 Sep 2015 17:01
Put a Brush Mustache on the control freak, greed creed, Nentanhayu the SOB not only looks like but has the same mentality as
Hitler and his Nazism crap.
Martin Hutton -> mantishrimp 12 Sep 2015 23:50
I wondered when someone was going to bring up that "forgotten" fact. Is it any wonder the Iranians don't trust the US.
After the US's spying exploits during the Iraqi WMD inspections, why are you surprised that Iran asks for 24 days notice of inspection
(enough time to clear out conventional weapons development but not enough to remove evidence of nuclear weapons development).
mantishrimp 12 Sep 2015 20:51
Most Americans don't know the CIA overthrew the Iranian government in 1953 and installed the Shaw. Most Republicans know
that most Americans will believe what Fox news tells them. Republicans live in an alternate universe where there is no climate
change, mammon is worshiped and wisdom is rejected hatred is accepted negotiation is replaced by perpetual warfare. Now most Americans
are tired of stupid leadership and the Republicans are in big trouble.
ByThePeople -> Sieggy 12 Sep 2015 20:27
Is pitiful how for months and months, certain individuals blathered on and on and on when it was fairly clear from the get
go that this was a done deal and no one was about cater to the war criminal. I suppose it was good for them, sucking every last
dime they could out of the AICPA & Co. while they acted like there was 'a chance'. Nope, only chance is that at the end of the
day, a politician is a politician and he'll suck you dry as long as you let 'em.
What a pleasure it is to see the United States Congress finally not pimp themselves out completely to a foreign country whose
still hell bent on committing war crimes. A once off I suppose, but it's one small step for Americans.
ByThePeople 12 Sep 2015 20:15
AIPAC - Eventually everything is seen for what is truly is.
ambushinthenight -> Greg Zeglen 12 Sep 2015 18:18
Seems that it makes a lot of sense to most everyone else in the world, it is now at the point where it really makes no difference
whether the U.S. ratifies the deal or not. Israel is opposed because they wish to maintain their nuclear weapons monopoly in the
region. Politicians here object for one of two reasons. They are Israeli first and foremost not American or for political expediency
and a chance to try undo another of this President's achievements. Been a futile effort so far I'd say.
hello1678 -> BrianGriffin 12 Sep 2015 16:42
With the threat you describe from Israel it seems only sensible for Iran to develop nuclear weapons - if my was country (Scotland)
was in Iran's place and what you said is true i would only support politicians who promised fast and large scale production of
atomic weapons to counter the clear threat to my nation.
nardone -> Bruce Bahmani 12 Sep 2015 14:12
Netanyahu loves to play the victim, but he is the primary cause that Jews worldwide, but especially in the United States,
are rethinking the idea of "Israel." I know very few people who willingly identify with a strident right wing government comprised
of rabid nationalists, religious fundamentalists, and a violent, almost apocalyptic settler community.
The Israeli electorate has indicated which path it wishes to travel, but that does not obligate Jews throughout the world to
support a government whose policies they find odious.
Greg Zeglen -> Glenn Gang 12 Sep 2015 13:51
good point which is found almost nowhere else...it is still necessary to understand that the whole line of diplomacy regarding
the west on the part of Iran has been for generations one of deceit...and people are intensely jealous of what they hold dear
- especially safety and liberty with in their country....
EarthyByNature -> Bruce Bahmani 12 Sep 2015 13:45
I do trust your on salary with a decent benefits package with the Israeli government or one of it's slavish US lobbyists. Let's
face it, got to be hard work pouring out such hateful drivel.
BrianGriffin -> imipak 12 Sep 2015 12:53
The USA took about six years to build a bomb from scratch. The UK took almost six years to build a bomb. Russia was able to
build a bomb in only four years (1945-1949). France took four years to build a bomb. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
As part of this deal the US and allies should guarantee Iran protection against Israeli aggression. Otherwise, considering
Israel's threats, Iran is well justified in seeking a nuclear deterrent.
BrianGriffin -> HauptmannGurski 12 Sep 2015 12:35
"Europe needs business desperately."
Sieggy 12 Sep 2015 12:32
In other words, once again, Obama out-played and out-thought both the GOP and AIPAC. He was playing multidimensional chess
while they were playing checkers. The democrats kept their party discipline while the republicans ran around like a schoolyard
full of sugared-up children. This is what happens when you have grownups competing with adolescents. The republican party, to
put it very bluntly, can't get it together long enough to whistle 'Yankee Doodle Dandy' in unison.
They lost. Again. And worse than being losers, they're sore, whining, sniveling, blubbering losers. Even when they've been
spanked - hard - they swear it's not over and they're gonna get even, just you wait and see! Get over it. They lost - badly -
and the simple fact that their party is coming apart at the seams before our very eyes means they're going to be losing a lot
more, too.
AIPAC's defeat shows that their grip on the testicles of congress has been broken. All the way around, a glorious victory for
Obama, and an ignominious defeat for the republicans. And most especially, Israel. Their primary goal was to keep Iran isolated
and economically weak. They knew full well that the Iranians hadn't had a nuclear program since 2003, but Netanhayu needed an
existential threat to Israel in order to justify his grip on power. All of this charade has bee at the instigation of and directed
by Israel. And they lost They were beaten by that hated schwartze and the liberals that Israel normally counts on for unthinking
support.
Their worst loss, however, was losing the support of the American jews. Older, orthodox jews are Israel-firsters. The younger,
less observant jews are Americans first. Netanhayu's behavior has driven a wedge between the US and Israel that is only going
to deepen over time. And on top of that, Iran is re-entering the community of nations, and soon their economy will dominate the
region. Bibi overplayed his hand very, very stupidly, and the real price that Israel will pay for his bungling will unfold over
the next few decades.
BrianGriffin -> TiredOldDog 12 Sep 2015 12:18
"The Constitution provides that the president 'shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make
Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur'"
Hardly a done deal. If Obama releases funds to Iran he probably would be committing an impeachable crime under US law. Even
many Democrats would vote to impeach Obama for providing billions to a sworn enemy of Israel.
Glenn Gang -> Bruce Bahmani 12 Sep 2015 12:07
"...institutionally Iranclad(sic) HATRED towards the west..." Since you like all-caps so much, try this: "B.S."
The American propel(sic) actually figured out something else---that hardline haters like yourself are desperate to keep the
cycle of Islamophobic mistrust and suspicion alive, and blind themselves to the fact that the rest of us have left you behind.
FACT: More than half of the population of Iran today was NOT EVEN BORN when radical students captured the U.S. Embassy in Teheran
in 1979.
People like you, Bruce, conveniently ignore the fact that Ahmedinejad and his hardline followers were voted out of power in
2013, and that Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei further marginalized them by allowing the election of new President Hassan Rouhani
to stand, though he was and is an outspoken reformer advocating rapprochement with the west. While his outward rhetoric still
has stern warnings about anticipated treachery by the 'Great Satan', Khamenei has allowed the Vienna agreement to go forward,
and shows no sign of interfering with its implementation.
He is an old man, but he is neither stupid nor senile, and has clearly seen the crippling effects the international sanctions
have had on his country and his people. Haters like you, Bruce, will insist that he ALWAYS has evil motives, just as Iranian hardliners
(like Ahmedinejad) will ALWAYS believe that the U.S. has sinister motives and cannot EVER be trusted to uphold our end of any
agreement. You ascribe HATRED in all caps to Iran, the whole country, while not acknowledging your own simmering hatred.
People like you will always find a 'boogeyman,' someone else to blame for your problems, real or imagined. You should get some
help.
beenheretoolong 12 Sep 2015 10:57
No doubt Netanyahu will raise the level of his anger; he just can't accept that a United States president would do anything
on which Israel hadn't stamped its imprimatur. It gets tiresome listening to him.
geneob 12 Sep 2015 10:12
It is this deal that feeds the military industrial complex. We've already heard Kerry give Israel and Saudi Arabia assurances
of more weapons. And that $150 billion released to Iran? A healthy portion will be spent for arms..American, Russian, Chinese.
Most of the commenters have this completely backwards. This deal means a bonanza for the arms industry.
Jack Hughes 12 Sep 2015 08:38
The Iran nuclear agreement accomplishes the US policy goal of preventing the creation of the fissionable material required
for an Iranian nuclear weapons program.
What the agreement does not do is eliminate Iran as a regional military and economic power, as the Israelis and Saudis -- who
have invested hundreds of millions of dollars to lobby American politicians and brainwash American TV viewers -- would prefer.
To reject the agreement is to accept the status quo, which is unacceptable, leaving an immediate and unprovoked American-led
bombing campaign as the only other option.
Rejection equals war. It's not surprising that the same crowd most stridently demanding rejection of the agreement advocated
the disastrous invasion and occupation of Iraq. These homicidal fools never learn, or don't care as long as it's not their lives
at risk.
American politicians opposed to the agreement are serving their short-term partisan political interests and, under America's
system of legalized bribery, their Israeli and Saudi paymasters -- not America's long-term policy interests.
ID293404 -> Jeremiah2000 12 Sep 2015 05:01
And how did the Republicans' foreign policy work out? Reagan created and financed Al Qaeda. Then Bush II invades Iraq with
promises the Iraqis will welcome us with flowers (!), the war will be over in a few weeks and pay for itself, and the middle east
will have a nascent democracy (Iraq) that will be a grateful US ally.
He then has pictures taken of himself in a jet pilot's uniform on a US aircraft carrier with a huge sign saying Mission Accomplished.
He attacks Afghanistan to capture Osama, lets him get away, and then attacks Iraq instead, which had nothing to do with 9/11 and
no ties with Al Qaeda.
So then we have two interminable wars going on, thanks to brilliant Republican foreign policy, and spend gazillions of dollars
while creating a mess that may never be straightened out. Never mind all the friends we won in the middle east and the enhanced
reputation of our country through torture, the use of mercenaries, and the deaths and displacement of hundreds of thousands of
civilians. Yeah, we really need those bright Republicans running the show over in the Middle East!
HauptmannGurski -> lazman 12 Sep 2015 02:31
That is a very difficult point to understand, just look at this sentence "not understanding the fact in international affairs
that to disrespect an American president is to disrespect Americans" ... too much emperor thinking for me. We have this conversation
with regard to Putin everywhere now, so we disrespect all 143 million Russians? There's not a lot of disrespect around for Japanese
PM Abe and Chinese Xi - does this now mean we respect them and all Japanese and Chinese? Election campaigns create such enormous
personality cults that people seem to lose perspective.
On the Iran deal, if the US had dropped out of it it would have caused quite a rift because many countries would have just
done what they wanted anyway. The international Atomic Energy Organisation or what it is would have done their inspections. Siemens
would have sold medical machines. Countries would grow up as it were. But as cooperation is always better than confrontation it
is nice the US have stayed in the agreement that was apparently 10 years in the making. It couldn't have gone on like that. With
Europe needing gazillions to finance Greece, Ukraine, and millions of refugees (the next waves will roll on with the next spring
and summer from April), Europe needs business desparately. Israel was happy to buy oil through Marc Rich under sanctions, now
it's Europe's turn to snatch some business.
imipak -> BrianGriffin 11 Sep 2015 21:56
Iran lacks weapons-grade uranium and the means to produce it. Iran has made no efforts towards nuclear weapons technology for
over a decade. Iran is a signatory of the NPT and is entitled to the rights enshrined therein. If Israel launches a nuclear war
against Iran over Iran having a medical reactor (needed to produce isotopes for medicine, isotopes America can barely produce
enough of for itself) that poses no security threat to anyone, then Israel will have transgressed so many international laws that
if it survives the radioactive fallout (unlikely), it won't survive the political fallout.
It is a crime of the highest order to use weapons of mass destruction (although that didn't stop the Israelis using them against
Palestinian civilians) and pre-emtive self-defence is why most believe Bush and Blair should be on trial at the ICJ, or (given
the severity of their crimes) Nuremberg.
Israel's right to self-defense is questionable, I'm not sure any such right exists for anyone, but even allowing for it, Israel
has no right to wage unprovoked war on another nation on the grounds of a potential threat discovered through divination using
tea leaves.
imipak -> Jeremiah2000 11 Sep 2015 21:43
Iran's sponsorship of terrorism is of no concern. Such acts do not determine its competency to handle nuclear material at the
5% level (which you can find naturally). There are only three questions that matter - can Iran produce the 90-95% purity needed
to build a bomb (no), can Iran produce such purity clandestinely (no), and can Iran use its nuclear technology to threaten Israel
(no).
Israel also supports international terrorism, has used chemical weapons against civilians, has directly indulged in terrorism,
actually has nuclear weapons and is paranoid enough that it may use them against other nations without cause.
I respect Israel's right to exist and the intelligence of most Israelis. But I neither respect nor tolerate unreasoned fear
nor delusions of Godhood.
imipak -> commish 11 Sep 2015 21:33
I've seen Iranian statements playing internal politics, but I have never seen any actual Iranian threats. I've seen plenty
about Israel assassinating people in other countries, using incendiaries and chemical weapons against civilians in other countries,
conducting illegal kidnappings overseas, using terrorism as a weapon of war, developing nuclear weapons illegally, ethnically
cleansing illegally occupied territories, that sort of thing.
Until such time as Israel implements the Oslo Accords, withdraws to its internationally recognized boundary and provides the
International Court of Justice a full accounting of state-enacted and state-sponsored terrorism, it gets no claims on sainthood
and gets no free rides.
Iran has its own crimes to answer, but directly threatening Israel in words or deeds has not been one of them within this past
decade. Its actual crimes are substantial and cannot be ignored, but it is guilty only of those and not fictional works claimed
by psychotic paranoid ultra-nationalists.
imipak -> moishe 11 Sep 2015 21:18
Domestic politics. Of no real consequence, it's just a way of controlling a populace through fear and a never-ending pseudo-war.
It's how Iran actually feels that is important.
For the last decade, they've backed off any nuclear weapons research and you can't make a bomb with centrifuges that can only
manage 20% enriched uranium. You need something like 90% enrichment, which requires centrifuges many, many times more advanced.
It'd be hard to smuggle something like that in and the Iranians lack the skills, technology and science to make them.
Iran's conventional forces are busy fighting ISIS. What they do afterwards is a concern, but Israel has a sizable military
presence on the Golan Heights. The most likely outcome is for Iran to install puppet regimes (or directly control) Syria and ISIS'
caliphate.
I could see those two regions plus Iraq being fully absorbed into Iran, that would make some sense given the new geopolitical
situation. But that would tie up Iran for decades. Which would not be a bad thing and America would be better off encouraging
it rather than sabre-rattling.
(These are areas that contribute a lot to global warming and political instability elsewhere. Merging the lot and encouraging
nuclear energy will do a lot for the planet. The inherent instability of large empires will reduce mischief-making elsewhere to
more acceptable levels - they'll be too busy. It's idle hands that you need to be scared of.)
Israelis worry too much. If they spent less time fretting and more time developing, they'd be impervious to any natural or
unnatural threat by now. Their teaching of Roman history needs work, but basically Israel has a combined intellect vastly superior
to that of any nearby nation.
That matters. If you throw away fear and focus only on problems, you can stop and even defeat armies and empires vastly greater
than your own. History is replete with examples, so is the mythologicized history of the Israeli people. Israel's fear is Israel's
only threat.
mostfree 11 Sep 2015 21:10
Warmongers on all sides would had loved another round of fear and hysteria. Those dark military industrial complexes on all
sides are dissipating in the face of the high rising light of peace for now . Please let it shine.
bishoppeter4 11 Sep 2015 20:09
The rabid Republicans working for a foreign power against the interest of the United States -- US citizens will know just what
to do.
"Netanyahu has no right to dictate what the US does."
But he has every right to point out how Obama is a weak fool. How's Obama's red line working in Syria? How is his toppling
of Qadaffi in Libya working? How about his completely inept dealings with Egypt, throwing support behind the Muslim Brotherhood
leaders? The leftists cheer Obama's weakening of American influence abroad. But they don't talk much about its replacement with
Russian and Chinese influence.
Russian build-up in Syria part of secret deal with Iran's Quds Force leader. Obama and Kerry are sending a strongly
worded message.
Susan Dechancey -> whateverworks4u 11 Sep 2015 19:05
Incredible to see someone prefer war to diplomacy - guess you are an armchair General not a real one.
Susan Dechancey -> commish 11 Sep 2015 19:04
Except all its neighbours ... not only threatened but entered military conflict and stole land ... murdered Iranian Scientists
but apart from that just a kitten
Susan Dechancey -> moishe 11 Sep 2015 19:00
Israel has nukes so why are they afraid ?? Iran will never use nukes against Israel and even Mossad told nuttyyahoo sabre rattling
Susan Dechancey 11 Sep 2015 18:57
Iran is not a made-up country like Iraq it is as old as Greece. If the Iraq war was sold as pushover and failed miserably
then an Iran war would be unthinkable. War can be started in an instant diplomacy take time. UK, France, Germany & EU all agree
its an acceptable alternative to war. So as these countries hardly ever agree it is clear the deal is a good one.
To be honest the USA can do what it likes now .. UK has set up an embassy - trade missions are landing Tehran from Europe.
So if Israel and US congress want war - they will be alone and maybe if US keeps up the Nuttyahoo rhetoric European firms can
win contracts to help us pay for the last US regime change Iraq / Isis / Refugees...
lswingly -> commish 11 Sep 2015 16:58
Rank and file Americans don't even know what the Iran deal is. And can't be bothered to actually find out. They just listen
to sound bites from politicians the loudest of whom have been the wildly partisan republicans claiming that it gives Iran a green
light to a nuclear weapon. Not to mention those "less safe" polls are completely loaded. Certain buzz words will always produce
negative results. If you associate something positive "feeling safe" or "in favor of" anything that Iran signs off on it comes
across as indirectly supporting Iran and skews the results of the poll. "Iran" has been so strongly associated with evil and negative
all you have to do is insert it into a sentence to make people feel negatively about the entire sentence. In order to get true
data on the deal you would have to poll people on the individual clauses the deal.
It's no different from how when you run a poll on who's in favor "Obamacare" the results will be majority negative. But
if you poll on whether you are in favor of "The Affordable Care Act" most people are in favor of it and if you break it down and
poll on the individual planks of "Obamacare" people overwhelming approve of the things that "Obamacare does". The disapproval
is based on the fact that Republican's have successfully turned "Obamacare" into a pejorative and has almost no reflection of
people feelings on actual policy.
To illustrate how meaningless those poll numbers are a Jewish poll (supposedly the people who have the most to lose if this
deal is bad) found that a narrow majority of Jews approve of the deal. You're numbers are essentially meaningless.
The alternative to this plan is essentially war if not now, in the very near future, according to almost all non-partisan policy
wonks. Go run a poll on whether we should go to war with Iran and see how that turns out. Last time we destabilized the region
we removed a secular dictator who was enemies with Al Queda and created a power vacuum that led to increased religious extremism
and the rise of Isis. You want to double down on that strategy?
MadManMark -> whateverworks4u 11 Sep 2015 16:34
You need to reread this article. It's exactly this attitude of yours (and AIPAC and Netanyahu) that this deal is not 100% perfect,
but then subsequently failed to suggest ANY way to get something better -- other than war, which I'm sorry most people don't want
another Republican "preemptive" war -- caused a lot people originally uncertain about this deal (like me) to conclude there may
not be a better alternative. Again, read the article: What you think about me, I now think about deal critics like you ("It seems
people will endorse anything to justify their political views.)
USfan 11 Sep 2015 15:34
American Jews are facing one of the most interesting choices of recent US history. The Republican Party, which is pissing
into a stiff wind of unfavorable demographics, seems to have decided it can even the playing field by peeling Jews away from the
Democrats with promises to do whatever Israel wants. So we have the very strange (but quite real) prospect of Jews increasingly
throwing in their lot with the party of Christian extremists whose ranks also include violent antiSemites.
Interesting times. We'll see how this plays out. My family is Jewish and I have not been shy in telling them that alliances
with the GOP for short-term gains for Israel is not a wise policy. The GOP establishment are not antiSemtic but the base often
is, and if Trump's candidacy shows anything it's that the base is in control of the Republicans.
But we'll see.
niyiakinlabu 11 Sep 2015 15:29
Central question: how come nobody talks about Israel's nukes?
hello1678 -> BrianGriffin 11 Sep 2015 14:02
Iran will not accept being forced into dependence on outside powers. We may dislike their government but they have as much
right as anyone else to enrich their own fuel.
JackHep 11 Sep 2015 13:30
Netanyahu is an example of all that is bad about the Israeli political, hence military industrial, establishment. Why Cameron's
government allowed him on British soil is beyond belief. Surely the PM's treatment of other "hate preachers" would not have been
lost on Netanyahu? Sadly our PM seems to miss the point with Israel.
The American Warmonger Establishment (that now fully entrenched "Military Industrial Complex" against which no more keen
observer than President Dwight Eisenhower warned us), is rip-shit over the Iran Agreement. WHAT? We can't Do More War? That will
be terrible for further increasing our obscene 1-percent wealth. Let's side with Israeli wingnut Netanyahu, who cynically leverages
"an eye for an eye for an eye for an eye" to hold his "Power."
And let's be treasonous against the United States by trying to undermine U.S. Foreign Policy FOR OUR OWN PROFIT. We are LONG
overdue for serious jail time for these sociopaths, who already have our country "brainwashed" into 53% of our budget going to
the War Profiteers and to pretending to be a 19th century Neo-Colonial Power -- in an Endless State of Eternal War. These people
are INSANE. Time to simply say so.
Boredwiththeusa 11 Sep 2015 12:58
At the rally to end the Iran deal in the Capitol on Wednesday, one of the AIPAC worshipping attendees had this to say to Jim
Newell of Slate:
""Obama is a black, Jew-hating, jihadist putting America and Israel and the rest of the planet in grave danger," said Bob
Kunst of Miami. Kunst-pairing a Hillary Clinton rubber mask with a blue T-shirt reading "INFIDEL"-was holding one sign that
accused Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John Kerry of "Fulfilling Hitler's Dreams" and another that queried, "DIDN'T WE LEARN ANYTHING
FROM 1938?"
His only reassurance was that, when Iran launches its attack on the mainland, it'll be stopped quickly by America's heavily
armed citizenry."
That is indicative of the mindset of those opposed to the agreement.
Boredwiththeusa 11 Sep 2015 12:47
AIPAC is a dangerous anti-american organization, and a real and extant threat to the sovereignty of the U.S. Any elected
official acting in concert with AIPAC is colluding with a foreign government to harm the U.S. and should be considered treasonous
and an enemy of the American people.
tunejunky 11 Sep 2015 12:47
AIPAC, its constituent republicans, and the government of Israel all made the same mistake in a common episode of hubris. by
not understanding the American public, war, and without the deference shown from a proxy to its hegemon, Israel's right wing has
flown the Israeli cause into a wall. not understanding the fact in international affairs that to disrespect an American president
is to disrespect Americans, the Israeli government acted as a spoiled first-born - while to American eyes it was a greedy, ungrateful
ward foisted upon barely willing hands. it presumed far too much and is receiving the much deserved rebuke.
impartial12 11 Sep 2015 12:37
This deal is the best thing that happened in the region in a while. We tried war and death. It didn't work out. Why not try
this?
This article is two years old, but still sounds current. The only difference now is that the conflict between Western nationalists and
neoliberal central government of President Poroshenko became more acute. Nationalists do not understand that "The Moor has done his duty, Moor can go" and neoliberal government of Poroshenko do not need
(and actually is afraid of) them.
"... Even in Kiev they view Western Ukrainians as strangers. ..."
"... So they didn't have any hate back towards the West Ukrainians. Besides, West Ukraine was sufficiently far from Donbass for Russians there not to feel threatened. ..."
"... So the Western [Ukrainians] hate towards Russians vs. Russian neutral attitude towards Ukrainians has existed for decades. ..."
"... "criminalizes the denial or justification of Russia's aggression against Ukraine" with a fine equivalent to 22 to 44,000 USD for the first offense and up to three years in prison for repeat offenders. ..."
"... But isn't it wrong that the faith of those people will depend on what EU or US will allow them to do rather than on their natural desire? How does it co-exist with all those democratic ideas. ..."
"... They key thing in all of this is to stop being naive. Learn it, remember it. Our media will only care for the "right" journalists and will throw campaigns only for them and there will be rallies only over the death of "right" people, while we won't pay attention to thousands of deaths of the "wrong" people. ..."
"... The US actively encouraged the overthrow of the democratically elected president of Ukraine, a void filled by right wing nationalists and an act that led directly to the current conflict ..."
"... In turn, the maidan coup d'etat de facto disenfranchised the culturally russian majority in SE-ukr. ..."
"... the NW-ukr neonazi bands fighting in SE-ukr are de facto foreign in SE-ukr, both culturally and geo-politically, and are there to give this majority a lesson. ..."
"... In Zakarpattia Oblast, only 410 out of 1,110 people who received draft notices came to mobilization centers, Oleg Lysenko, a representative of General Staff said recently.(kyiv news) ..."
"... For some reason that isn't quite clear to me, discussion among Western experts has overwhelmingly centered not on the imminent economic apocalypse facing Kiev, but on whether or not the United States should supply it with advanced weapons systems to beat back the Russians. ..."
"... It might be inconvenient to note, but Russia is positively crucial to Ukraine's economy not merely as a source of raw materials and energy but as a destination for industrial production that would otherwise be unable to find willing customers. According to Ukrainian government data, Russia accounted for roughly a quarter of the country's total foreign trade. The equivalent figure from the Russian side? Somewhere between 6 and 7%. Given that reality, Russia's leverage over Ukraine is obviously much greater that Ukraine's leverage over Russia. ..."
"... During the Vietnam War, the draft was a huge issue with many thousands of young men going to Canada, thousand who were in the military receiving less than honorable discharges and still others doing jail time. The war was view as an unjust war by the better educated and those who didn't have to enlist for food and shelter ("three hots and a cot"). ..."
"... The rebellion against the draft in Ukraine tells us that the war against the people in the Eastern area is an unjust war. People don't need a degree in history to understand when they are being use in ways that is not in their interest. We find only the fascist battalion who are hungry for this war. The US and EU should keep out of this internal civil struggle in Ukraine. ..."
The distrust between the West and the rest of Ukraine is not 14 months old. It has always existed. Since the War at the very
list. Even in Kiev they view Western Ukrainians as strangers. Western Ukrainians would call everyone a moscovite, and
in the East and the South, the Russians were neutral because their lives were much closer to Russia than to all this Ukrainian
bullshit. So they didn't have any hate back towards the West Ukrainians. Besides, West Ukraine was sufficiently far from Donbass
for Russians there not to feel threatened.
So the Western [Ukrainians] hate towards Russians vs. Russian neutral attitude towards Ukrainians has existed for decades.
Systematic
A new law to likely be approved by the Rada "criminalizes the denial or justification of Russia's aggression against Ukraine"
with a fine equivalent to 22 to 44,000 USD for the first offense and up to three years in prison for repeat offenders.
Meanwhile, while the law is not approved,
In February 8 in Mariupol a rally was planned against mobilization. On the eve the adviser of Interior Minister Anton Gerashchenko
said that everyone who comes there will be arrested, "Everyone who comes to the rally tomorrow against mobilization, will be
delayed for several hours for identification and after fingerprinting and photographing until released. Let me remind you that
I and my fellow lawmaker Boris Filatov has filed a bill to impose criminal liability for public calls for the failure of mobilization
"- he wrote on his page on Facebook. As a result, the action did not take place.
With all the hot headed claims of how the Soviet Union just grabbed the piece of land from Poland, Ukraine has a good chance
to correct those misdeeds. Give West Ukraine to Poland, Transkarpathia - to Hungary, and the South West - to Romania. That would be restoring historical
injustice.
vr13vr -> SallyWa 10 Feb 2015 18:18
But isn't it wrong that the faith of those people will depend on what EU or US will allow them to do rather than on their
natural desire? How does it co-exist with all those democratic ideas.
Besides, federalization may or may not protect them. Kiev may or may not adhere to rules in the future, there will be a tax
issue, there will be cultural issues as Kiev will try to Ukrainize those areas subtly - you know those programs that are not anti-Russian
per se but that increase Ukrainian presence, thus diluting the original population. Remaining under the same roof with Kiev and
L'vov isn't really the best solution for Donbass if they want to preserve their independence and identity.
SallyWa -> VladimirM 10 Feb 2015 18:16
They key thing in all of this is to stop being naive. Learn it, remember it. Our media will only care for the "right" journalists
and will throw campaigns only for them and there will be rallies only over the death of "right" people, while we won't pay attention
to thousands of deaths of the "wrong" people.
theeskimo -> ridibundus 10 Feb 2015 18:02
The US actively encouraged the overthrow of the democratically elected president of Ukraine, a void filled by right wing nationalists
and an act that led directly to the current conflict. Now they want to arm a leadership with no national mandate who have ceded
responsibility for prosecuting their war in the east to an ultra nationalist bunch of thugs.
I think it's you who should keep up with what's happening. By the time this is over, Ukraine will be no more.
newsflashUK 10 Feb 2015 18:01
Scraping the barrel for cannon fodder by pro-NATO puppet Poroshenko regime: "The draft officers have been tapping men from
20 to 60 years old and women of 20 to 50 years old with relevant military service experience and training. The age limit for senior
officers that could be mobilized is 65 years. Vladyslav Seleznev, spokesman of General Staff, said" (Kyiv news).
theeskimo -> ridibundus 10 Feb 2015 18:02
The US actively encouraged the overthrow of the democratically elected president of Ukraine, a void filled by right wing
nationalists and an act that led directly to the current conflict. Now they want to arm a leadership with no national mandate
who have ceded responsibility for prosecuting their war in the east to an ultra nationalist bunch of thugs.
I think it's you who should keep up with what's happening. By the time this is over, Ukraine will be no more.
newsflashUK 10 Feb 2015 18:01
Scraping the barrel for cannon fodder by pro-NATO puppet Poroshenko regime: "The draft officers have been tapping men from
20 to 60 years old and women of 20 to 50 years old with relevant military service experience and training. The age limit for senior
officers that could be mobilized is 65 years. Vladyslav Seleznev, spokesman of General Staff, said" (Kyiv news).
erpiu 10 Feb 2015 17:59
The focus on Putin and geopolitics forces the actual ukr people out of the picture and blurrs understanding.
The maidan was a genuinely popular NW-ukr rebellion after NW-ukr had lost all recent pre-2014 elections to the culturally Russian
majority of voters mainly in SE-ukr.
In turn, the maidan coup d'etat de facto disenfranchised the culturally russian majority in SE-ukr.
the NW-ukr neonazi bands fighting in SE-ukr are de facto foreign in SE-ukr, both culturally and geo-politically, and are
there to give this majority a lesson.
USA+EU weapons would only help the punitive "pacification" of SE ukr, the place that was deciding UKR elections until the coup.
The real festering conflict is the incompatibility of the anti-Russian feelings in NW ukr (little else is shared by the various
maidan factions) with the cccp/russian heritage of most people in SE ukr... that incompatibility is the main problem that needs
to be "solved".
Neither the maidan coup nor yanukovich&the pre-coup electoral dominance of SE ukr voters were ever stable solutions.
newsflashUK 10 Feb 2015 17:57
In Zakarpattia Oblast, only 410 out of 1,110 people who received draft notices came to mobilization centers, Oleg Lysenko,
a representative of General Staff said recently.(kyiv news)
SallyWa 10 Feb 2015 17:51
Ukraine's Economy Is Collapsing And The West Doesn't Seem To Care
For some reason that isn't quite clear to me, discussion among Western experts has overwhelmingly centered not on the imminent
economic apocalypse facing Kiev, but on whether or not the United States should supply it with advanced weapons systems to
beat back the Russians.
It might be inconvenient to note, but Russia is positively crucial to Ukraine's economy not merely as a source of raw
materials and energy but as a destination for industrial production that would otherwise be unable to find willing customers.
According to Ukrainian government data, Russia accounted for roughly a quarter of the country's total foreign trade. The equivalent
figure from the Russian side? Somewhere between 6 and 7%. Given that reality, Russia's leverage over Ukraine is obviously much
greater that Ukraine's leverage over Russia.
During WW 2 Draft dodging was almost unheard of. The war was perceived as "just", a righteous cause. Thus, men correctly saw
it as their duty to take up arms against fascism.
During the Vietnam War, the draft was a huge issue with many thousands of young men going to Canada, thousand who were
in the military receiving less than honorable discharges and still others doing jail time. The war was view as an unjust war by
the better educated and those who didn't have to enlist for food and shelter ("three hots and a cot").
The rebellion against the draft in Ukraine tells us that the war against the people in the Eastern area is an unjust war.
People don't need a degree in history to understand when they are being use in ways that is not in their interest. We find only
the fascist battalion who are hungry for this war. The US and EU should keep out of this internal civil struggle in Ukraine.
In reality Ukraine is run by neoliberals. Still this is an interesting propaganda twist. Actually "antisemitism" bait works perfectly well
in most cases.
80% of the readers will not read more than that headline.
The first paragraph:
Donetsk (Ukraine) (AFP) - Ukraine's pro-Russian rebel chief on Monday branded the country's leaders
"miserable" Jews in an apparent anti-Semitic jibe.
Of those 20% of the readers who will read the first paragraph only one forth will also read the
second one. The "anti-semitic" accusation has thereby been planted in 95% of the readership. Now
here is the second paragraph:
Alexander Zakharchenko, leader of the self-proclaimed Donetsk People's Republic, claimed that
Kiev's pro-Western leaders were "miserable representatives of the great Jewish people".
Saying that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were "miserable representatives of the great American
people" would be "anti-American"? What is anti-semitic in calling "the Jewish people" "great"?
The AFP reporter and editor who put that up deserve an Orwellian reward. It is one of the most
misleading quotations I have ever seen. Accusing Zakharchenko of anti-semitism when he is actually
lauding Jews.
Now I do not agree with Zakharchenko. There is
no such
thing as "the Jewish people" in the sense of a racial or national determination. There are people
of various nationalities and racial heritages who assert that they follow, or their ancestors followed,
religious Jewish believes. Some of them may have been or are "great".
But that does not make them "the Jewish people" just like followers of Scientology do not make
"the Scientologish people".
Saker has a link to the youtube, the audio in Russian with English subtitles. It begins at
about 12:30.
@3
When Sarkozy came in AFP really hit the skids. Like the NYTimes and Bush XLIII.
Lysander | Feb 3, 2015 12:02:09 PM | 13
What Zacharchenko did that was unforgivable is to draw attention to the fact that Kiev's current
leadership is largely Jewish. From Yats to Petro (Waltzman) Poroshenko To Igor Kolomoiski. No
matter how gracefully Zach would put it, it is the content that they hate.
Not saying there is anything wrong with that, but I guess there are some who would rather you
not notice.
Right-wing nazi-rag KyivPost has a miserable coverage of same piece. "Agence France-Presse:
Russia's guy says Ukraine run by 'miserable Jews'" Zhakharchenko is "Russia's guy," his picture
under the headline with a totally unrelated caption, subtitled by the first paragraph of the AFP
fake "news" (sic!)"Ukraine's pro-Russian rebel chief on Monday branded the country's leaders
"miserable" Jews in an apparent anti-Semitic jibe.", and a link to Yahoo news reproducing
the AFP piece in full.
Zionazi thieves stole the word "semitic" to mean "Jews," when in fact it comprehends many other
languages and peoples. Zhakharchenko's AFP phony "anti-Semitic jibe" would be insulting to all
these many peoples.
"...Semitic peoples and their languages, in ancient historic times (between the 30th and
20th centuries BC), covered a broad area which encompassed what are today the modern states and
regions of Iraq, Syria, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Palestinian territories, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait,
Oman, Yemen, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and the Sinai Peninsula and Malta..."
...The word "Semite" and most uses of the word "Semitic" relate to any people whose native
tongue is, or was historically, a member of the associated language family.[35][36] The term "anti-Semite",
however, came by a circuitous route to refer most commonly to one hostile or discriminatory towards
Jews in particular...[37]
Yet another historical theft by the so-called "chosen" crooks.
So the anti-Russian campaign probably started after Sochi Olympics if nor earlier. Now we see just a new stage of it.
Notable quotes:
"... Western media, analysts and commentator spew the same inane nonsense regarding Russia. Either Putin is the new Hitler or he is just like Stalin or trying to become a new Tsar. Western experts accuse Putin of trying to revive the USSR one day only to accuse Putin re-establishing the Russian Empire the day afterwards. ..."
"... West media oscillates from Russia is about collapse to Russia is about to invade Europe and conquer the world! ..."
"... For nearly two hours, the Russian president reeled off a litany of resentments. The west had proclaimed victory in the cold war. It had cheated Moscow by expanding the EU and Nato right to Russia's borders. It had ignored international rules to pursue reckless policies in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. ..."
"... So far, the sanctions have acted as what one US official calls an "accelerant" to the unexpected plunge in oil prices, pushing Russia into a deep economic crisis. The rouble has tumbled, leaving Russia facing recession and spiralling inflation, challenging its ability to fund its costly stealth war in Ukraine (where the Kremlin insists there are no Russian soldiers on the ground, despite ample evidence to the contrary [Where is the evidence? Please state what the evidence is.]). ..."
"... I stopped reading the FT years ago . For the financial stuff it was quite good (!) and had a good level for people not accompli in such matters, but it always sucked ass * politically as it is generally to the far right of Ghengis Khan (my apologies to him as I am probably one of the descendents of the many beautiful ladies he porked – apparently 1 in 7 of us are). ..."
Western media, analysts and commentator spew the same inane nonsense regarding Russia. Either
Putin is the new Hitler or he is just like Stalin or trying to become a new Tsar. Western experts
accuse Putin of trying to revive the USSR one day only to accuse Putin re-establishing the Russian
Empire the day afterwards.
West media oscillates from Russia is about collapse to Russia is about to invade Europe and
conquer the world!
Extracts from the FT article: "Battle for Ukraine:
How the west lost Putin"
It was past 10pm and the German chancellor was sitting in a Hilton hotel conference room
in Brisbane, Australia. Her interlocutor was the implacable Vladimir Putin. For nearly two hours,
the Russian president reeled off a litany of resentments. The west had proclaimed victory in the
cold war. It had cheated Moscow by expanding the EU and Nato right to Russia's borders. It had
ignored international rules to pursue reckless policies in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya.
The chancellor steered the conversation back to eastern Ukraine, where Russian-backed separatists
were engaged in a bloody struggle against the western-backed government in Kiev, according
to a person familiar with the meeting [WHO? No names, no pack drill?]. Since
the crisis began, Ms Merkel [Why Ms? She is "Frau" and she is married. Does the journalist
not know that? Does he think that Bundeskanzlerin Merkel wants to keep her marital status a secret?
Fucking PC crap!] had worked hard to extract some sense from Mr Putin of what he wanted - something
she could use to construct an agreement. When he finally offered a solution, she was shocked.
Mr Putin declared Kiev should deal with the rebels the way he had dealt with Russia's breakaway
Chechnya region: by buying them off with autonomy and money. A reasonable idea, perhaps, to an
ex-KGB colonel. But for an East German pastor's daughter, with a deeply-ingrained sense of fairness,
this was unacceptable.
Ms Merkel had asked her closest advisers to stay outside during the Brisbane meeting,
on November 15 last year. "She wanted to be alone . . . to test whether she could get Putin to
be more open about what he really wants",says someone briefed on the conversation [WHO?].
"But he wouldn't say what his strategy is, because he doesn't know".
For Moscow, too, something snapped. Weeks later, a Kremlin official [WHO?]
dismissed the notion, often cited in diplomatic circles, that there had ever been a "special relationship"
between the two leaders. "Putin and Merkel could never stand each other", he told the Financial
Times. "Of course, they are professionals, so they tried to make the best of it for a long time.
But that seems to have changed now."
The Merkel-Putin encounter in Australia marked a turning point. After a year of crisis,
the west realised that it had been pursuing an illusion: for all its post-communist tribulations,
Russia was always seen to be on an inexorable path of convergence with Europe and the west - what a senior German official [WHO?]
calls the notion that "in the end,
they'll all become like us".
So far, the sanctions have acted as what one US official calls an "accelerant" to the
unexpected plunge in oil prices, pushing Russia into a deep economic crisis. The rouble has tumbled,
leaving Russia facing recession and spiralling inflation, challenging its ability to fund its
costly stealth war in Ukraine (where the Kremlin insists there are no Russian soldiers on the
ground, despite ample evidence to the contrary [Where is the evidence? Please state
what the evidence is.]).
According to a senior Washington official [WHO?], Mr Poroshenko,
the oligarch elected Ukraine's president in May, was anxious to hold face-to-face meetings with
Mr Putin. But he wanted other leaders in the room capable of holding Mr Putin to commitments.
Ms Merkel was the obvious choice. "The administration's view is that she's the best interlocutor
that we have in the west with Putin," says an ex-US diplomat [WHO?].
US President Barack Obama has held his own share of calls with Mr Putin, but he has largely
taken a back seat. US insiders [WHO?] say the president feels Mr Putin
was unresponsive to efforts to build a relationship. "Obama sees the world in win-win terms, Putin
sees it in zero-sum terms", says the ex-diplomat. The two have a visible lack of chemistry. In
Mr Obama's words, Mr Putin has a "kind of slouch, looking like the bored kid in the back of the
classroom".
Diplomats suspect [WHICH DIPLOMATS?] Mr Putin is surrounded
by yes-men afraid to give him the unvarnished truth. They suggest, for example, that he has been
surprised by the strength of EU unity over sanctions.
She prepares meticulously, studying maps of eastern Ukraine and poring over them in meetings
and phone calls with Mr Putin. "There are maps and charts, with roads and checkpoints", says a European diplomat [WHO?]. "She has these details. She knows about
them."
In public, Ms Merkel has not said Mr Putin has lied, but she has in private
[TO WHOM?]. "'He's lying', that's what she says to all the other leaders," says
the EU diplomat.
A partygoer [WHO?] close to Ms Merkel recalls her saying little
about the disaster. "The chancellor doesn't like to speak about something until she is sure of
her facts. But she was shaken. It was horrendous."
"The Russians just weren't credible. They got beaten", says a senior Washington official
[WHO?].
Asked why Mr Putin did not turn MH17 into an opportunity for reconciliation, a
former senior Kremlin official [WHO?] said: "Because he was insulted. He acted emotionally.
Because your side came out before anything was clear, accusing him of all sorts of things".
and on and on and on.
I've just got fed up of noting the unsubstantiated statements. And to make all this even more
annoying,each time I cut and pasted, I received the following notification off FT:
"High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others
using the link below, do not cut & paste the article."
I stopped reading the FT years ago. For the financial stuff it was quite good (!) and had
a good level for people not accompli in such matters, but it always sucked ass*
politically as it is generally to the far right of Ghengis Khan (my apologies to him as I am probably
one of the descendents of the many beautiful ladies he porked – apparently 1 in 7 of us are).
The thing is, none of this should surprise us as established journalism has only got
worse. Alternative media fortunately has grown on the back of this atrophy of the circle jerk
club. What this goes to show is that the discerning news consumer now looks elsewhere for its
news because the Pork Pie News Networks are so transparently bullshit in the extreme and even
more unapologetic when they are caught with their pants down pretending to be milking grandma's
cow in the middle of the night.
If Putin became 'emotional' every time he was insulted by the west, he wouldn't have gotten out
of bed since about 2003. Jeez, the crap these guys write.
If their words (and deeds) are any indication, they have taken measure of the damage
that's been, and continues to be done to both the American state and its people by Hegemony
generally, and financial hegemony ($ Reserve) specifically. That "One Ring to Rule " has a
pull on those who have, or seek power that's all but irresistible, and they've sacrificed
America's enormous and creative productive capacities, and finally its socio-political
coherence in support of their lunge for it. After that process was reaching its apex, they
started sacrificing their vassals' (the EU's) as well. That the inevitability of such an
outcome was noted and decried in academic circles in the '60s (even the '50s) went ignored.
Its poets and seers, of course had been decrying it from Spengler (even Nietzsche)
onwards.
Half a century later, here we are. "No-one saw it coming"? Yeah, my flaming arse
The lesson is that ultimately, Hegemony destroys the nation that goes for it, and if
they're not sufficiently deft at pulling themselves away, its vassals as well.
That's the lesson from history a few people here would do well to learn. Both the Chinese
and Russian "empire(s)" learned this lesson several times in their long histories, and don't
need to re-learn it. China's borders changed little for a millennium (or even 2), Russia's
for centuries. Their current leadership knows it well. The founders of the US knew it and
tried to inoculate their new nation against its siren call. Its more recent rulers forgot or
never learned it. There's always a first time, I guess.
Whether or not the Russian & Chinese elites have honestly learned the lessons of
history, the reality is that seeking Global Hegemony in a world that's entering the "right
hand side" of the anomalous developmental/demographic step function that the 19th and 20th
centuries represent is a fool's errand. There's no there there. The low-hanging resource
fruits that sustain profitable Hegemonic control, much less growth are gone, and they ain't
coming back. To attempt it is to set a course for the abyss, and perhaps take your vassals
and, in the nuclear age, even the RoW with you.
To be sure, Russia and China's current leadership will be replaced, and whether their
successors will be as enlightened is a crap shoot. 'Twas ever thus. As the 21stC goes by, the
world's and individual nations' leadership and situation will morph with the times.
Multipolarity is not some infinitely powerful panacea that solves all of humanity's problems
forever. It's simply the only viable answer to the problems posed by Globalization in a world
of diminishing resources, and offers a template (mutatis mutandis) that can be used in
solving future problems. Only up to a point, of course but multipolarity's great advantage as
a global system is that it can dissolve itself, in whole or in part without threatening life
on earth. Global Hegemony carries far greater risks when it fails.
"U.S. imports goods and "pays" for them with printed money, it is basically stealing
those goods"
Yes, that's technically true. But as with lying, it takes two to do it. A lier needs a
willing accomplice to lie to, and a scam with fiat money also requires two sides to do the
transactions. US has invested a lot (of that same printed money) to buy itself elite loyalty
in Europe. It is the core of the system – people in Europe who play along get
rewarded.
So it can go on for quite some time. It is a well-thought out system. As with all
quasi-pyramide schemes it stops working when it cannot grow more and starts shrinking. That's
when people head for the exits. The same positive dynamic that drove it on the way up creates
a panic on the way down. We are probably one or two generations away from that point –
there is a lot of room to grow left. And all the resistance around the world makes it more
stable because it provides a meaning and a sense of boundaries.
Why do you think so? I think we are about to enter an occasional plateau and things will
be stable or even improve for a while.
The Rome analogies are instructive, but they only take you so far. E.g. Rome was
collapsing for about two centuries, on and off. Rome was also infinitely more brutal than
today's West and the 'barbarians' were real barbarians, not aspiring migrants led by
well-paid NGO comprador class.
Why do you think so? I think we are about to enter an occasional plateau and things will
be stable or even improve for a while.
The Rome analogies are instructive, but they only take you so far. E.g. Rome was
collapsing for about two centuries, on and off. Rome was also infinitely more brutal than
today's West and the 'barbarians' were real barbarians, not aspiring migrants led by
well-paid NGO comprador class.
If their words (and deeds) are any indication, they have taken measure of the damage
that's been, and continues to be done to both the American state and its people by Hegemony
generally, and financial hegemony ($ Reserve) specifically. That "One Ring to Rule " has a
pull on those who have, or seek power that's all but irresistible, and they've sacrificed
America's enormous and creative productive capacities, and finally its socio-political
coherence in support of their lunge for it. After that process was reaching its apex, they
started sacrificing their vassals' (the EU's) as well. That the inevitability of such an
outcome was noted and decried in academic circles in the '60s (even the '50s) went ignored.
Its poets and seers, of course had been decrying it from Spengler (even Nietzsche)
onwards.
Half a century later, here we are. "No-one saw it coming"? Yeah, my flaming arse
The lesson is that ultimately, Hegemony destroys the nation that goes for it, and if
they're not sufficiently deft at pulling themselves away, its vassals as well.
That's the lesson from history a few people here would do well to learn. Both the Chinese
and Russian "empire(s)" learned this lesson several times in their long histories, and don't
need to re-learn it. China's borders changed little for a millennium (or even 2), Russia's
for centuries. Their current leadership knows it well. The founders of the US knew it and
tried to inoculate their new nation against its siren call. Its more recent rulers forgot or
never learned it. There's always a first time, I guess.
Whether or not the Russian & Chinese elites have honestly learned the lessons of
history, the reality is that seeking Global Hegemony in a world that's entering the "right
hand side" of the anomalous developmental/demographic step function that the 19th and 20th
centuries represent is a fool's errand. There's no there there. The low-hanging resource
fruits that sustain profitable Hegemonic control, much less growth are gone, and they ain't
coming back. To attempt it is to set a course for the abyss, and perhaps take your vassals
and, in the nuclear age, even the RoW with you.
To be sure, Russia and China's current leadership will be replaced, and whether their
successors will be as enlightened is a crap shoot. 'Twas ever thus. As the 21stC goes by, the
world's and individual nations' leadership and situation will morph with the times.
Multipolarity is not some infinitely powerful panacea that solves all of humanity's problems
forever. It's simply the only viable answer to the problems posed by Globalization in a world
of diminishing resources, and offers a template (mutatis mutandis) that can be used in
solving future problems. Only up to a point, of course but multipolarity's great advantage as
a global system is that it can dissolve itself, in whole or in part without threatening life
on earth. Global Hegemony carries far greater risks when it fails.
"U.S. imports goods and "pays" for them with printed money, it is basically stealing
those goods"
Yes, that's technically true. But as with lying, it takes two to do it. A lier needs a
willing accomplice to lie to, and a scam with fiat money also requires two sides to do the
transactions. US has invested a lot (of that same printed money) to buy itself elite loyalty
in Europe. It is the core of the system – people in Europe who play along get
rewarded.
So it can go on for quite some time. It is a well-thought out system. As with all
quasi-pyramide schemes it stops working when it cannot grow more and starts shrinking. That's
when people head for the exits. The same positive dynamic that drove it on the way up creates
a panic on the way down. We are probably one or two generations away from that point –
there is a lot of room to grow left. And all the resistance around the world makes it more
stable because it provides a meaning and a sense of boundaries.
Why do you think so? I think we are about to enter an occasional plateau and things will
be stable or even improve for a while.
The Rome analogies are instructive, but they only take you so far. E.g. Rome was
collapsing for about two centuries, on and off. Rome was also infinitely more brutal than
today's West and the 'barbarians' were real barbarians, not aspiring migrants led by
well-paid NGO comprador class.
Why do you think so? I think we are about to enter an occasional plateau and things will
be stable or even improve for a while.
The Rome analogies are instructive, but they only take you so far. E.g. Rome was
collapsing for about two centuries, on and off. Rome was also infinitely more brutal than
today's West and the 'barbarians' were real barbarians, not aspiring migrants led by
well-paid NGO comprador class.
This is two years old Foreign Affair article, which actually can be viewed as a precursor of the current anti-Russian
witch hunt. Foreign Affairs firmly belong to the neocons swamp, so be prepared ;-). As usual for such publications as Foreign
Affairs comments are more interesting that the article. BTW the resistance to the neoliberal empire led by the USA can probably
be mentioned as a part of Russian national idea. In this sense Stanislav Belkovsky observation that "the search for Russia's
national idea, which began after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, is finally over. Now, it is evident that Russia's national idea
is Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin." Putin simply became expression of this resistance to neocolonial rule, much like Gandy became in India
before.
The US neoliberal elite is fixated on the idea of destroying Russia much like Roman elite was fixated on the idea of destroying
Carnage.
This analysis is from 2015 or two years from now. It Is interesting to compare it (along with comments) with he current situation
and new developments...
Notable quotes:
"... "the search for Russia's national idea, which began after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, is finally over. Now, it is evident that Russia's national idea is Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin." ..."
"... Russia is classified as a high-income economy by the World Bank (having a per capita GDP exceeding $14,000). Its unemployment remains low (around five percent); until recently, consumer spending had been expanding at more than five percent annually; life expectancy has been rising; and Internet penetration exceeds that of some countries in the European Union. ..."
"... it is the predatory West's efforts to enslave people to the European weltanschauung. ..."
"... This is no World Order: it a man eat man world that has been created. ..."
"... Before America decided to KILL Gadhafi by indiscriminatingly arming gangsters to carry out their will, the incipient-unity state of Libya did not have the sectarian violence that we presently hear about. ..."
"... let us examine your assertion for a moment: Bush was a Moron but Saddam was a murderous dictator. By your logic we American must be the epitome of Moron-ness, for we ELECTED Bush; Iraqis must be a gentle and good people who were overpowered by the Saddam, the Murderous Dictator.. ..."
"... By the way, how many Iraqis did Saddam murder? And then, how many Iraqis were murdered, at the command of Bush? Since the Iraqis were killed/murdered at the command of Bush, and Americans elected Bush, Americans are responsible for the murders. We Americans have blood on our hands! ..."
"... My assertion is that America is responsible for 2'000'000 deaths in Iraq ..."
"... Dear Jamil: As an American citizen, I take my hat off to you for telling the exact truth -- that the terrorist state is the United States of America and our media's propaganda stream is now in overdrive, especially in regard to Russia, which is our latest target. ..."
"... The US State Department's Victoria Nuland and our CIA (+ Blackwater mercenaries) installed the puppet Yatsenyuk/Poroshenko govt. in Kiev (to do our bidding) and CIA Dir. James Brennan himself went to Kiev to launch the civil war against the Eastern provinces that Europeans, at least, are now trying to bring to a halt. The US does leave nothing but failed states behind it, and Western Ukraine will be the next failed state in a long list. Since the end of WWII, the best estimate is that the United States, in 67 military operations and countless covert CIA operations, has destroyed between 20 and 30 million people world-wide, largely in the interest of commandeering their resources or serving the interests of the banks to which they owe money--money they were usually cajoled into borrowing. ..."
"... I hold to my original point that Islamic terrorism has been created by unjustified Western interference. ..."
"... He advocates a world ruled by an elite (unspecified). ..."
"... You seem unable to differentiate between an imperialist and a "good Samaritan". You had earlier written that, as a street walker in Europe you had not seen any slaves, my response to that posting simply told you where you could go to see slavery. And specific reference to India was simply to help you find slavery most easily - with 14 million slaves India is the centre of Modern Slavery. However, in my conversations with Indians, especially the demi-literate ones, instead of admitting to the prevailing REALITY in India, they do not admit to seeing it. With their eyes open, the street walkers do not see it ..."
"... Putin-Putin-Putin-Putin-Putin-Putin... :)) Hmmm... oк, about Putin: Look at Putin's foreign agenda this past year: Latin America just as the sanctions came in - an intentional finger in Washington's eye, as I read it - then China, China again recently, Turkey more recently, India just now. He has not been to Iran, but there, as in all these other places, he has forged or reiterated promising relations. The deals cut are too numerous to list. A couple are worth mentioning. The twin gas deals with China, worth nearly three-quarters of a trillion dollars, are historic all by themselves. In six years' time China will be buying more gas from Russia than the latter now sells to Europe. And do not miss this: My sources tell me that this gas can be priced such as to crowd the U.S. at least partially out of the Asian market. Other side of the world: Putin has just canceled a planned pipeline to southeastern Europe, the South Stream. This is the defeat Western media put it over as, surely: Russia loses some customers ..."
How did twenty-first-century Russia end up, yet again, in personal rule? An advanced industrial country of 142 million people, it
has no enduring political parties that organize and respond to voter preferences.
The military is sprawling yet tame; the immense
secret police are effectively in one man's pocket. The hydrocarbon sector is a personal bank, and indeed much of the economy is increasingly
treated as an individual fiefdom. Mass media move more or less in lockstep with the commands of the presidential administration.
Competing interest groups abound, but there is no rival center of power. In late October 2014, after a top aide to Russia's president
told the annual forum of the Valdai Discussion Club, which brings together Russian and foreign experts, that Russians understand
"if there is no Putin, there is no Russia," the pundit Stanislav Belkovsky observed that "the search for Russia's national idea,
which began after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, is finally over. Now, it is evident that Russia's national idea is Vladimir
Vladimirovich Putin."
Russia is classified as a high-income economy by the World Bank (having a per capita GDP exceeding $14,000). Its unemployment
remains low (around five percent); until recently, consumer spending had been expanding at more than five percent annually; life
expectancy has been rising; and Internet penetration exceeds that of some countries in the European Union.
But Russia is now beset by economic stagnation alongside high inflation, its labor productivity remains dismally low, and its
once-vaunted school system has deteriorated alarmingly. And it is astonishingly corrupt. Not only the bullying central authorities
in Moscow but regional state bodies, too, have been systematically criminalizing revenue streams, while giant swaths of territory
lack basic public services and local vigilante groups proliferate.
Across the country, officials who have purchased their positions for hefty sums team up with organized crime syndicates and use
friendly prosecutors and judges to extort and expropriate rivals. President Vladimir Putin's vaunted "stability," in short, has turned
into spoliation. But Putin has been in power for 15 years, and there is no end in sight. Stalin ruled for some three decades...
Jamil M Chaudri
Interesting but slanted and one-sided, myopic analysis. Why would the 1.6 billion Muslims spread over three continents, accept
Mr Kotkin's concept of "World Order".
There is no World Order; it is the predatory West's efforts to enslave people to the European weltanschauung. It is
an effort by the colonialists to prolong their hegemony over Muslim lands and people.
One of the biggest mistakes Pakia made was to join the West in destroying Soviet Russia. A bi-polar world was a better world
than a unipolar world, where the west is destroying Muslim nations (one after the other).
This is no World Order: it a man eat man world that has been created.
Jamil M Chaudri -> JACK RICE
Before the invasion (and total destruction) of Afghanis there was no daily violence in Afghania. Before the invasion (and total
destruction) of Iraqia, there is no daily violence in Iraqia. Before Pakia allied itself with America (leading to the further
debasement of an evolving state) there were no (practically) daily suicide bombings in Pakia. Before America decided to aid Ethiopia
(and joined it) in destroying Somalia, the state of Somalia had a pretty vibrant civil society, and no gangster precipitate violence.
Before America decided to KILL Gadhafi by indiscriminatingly arming gangsters to carry out their will, the incipient-unity
state of Libya did not have the sectarian violence that we presently hear about. Before America decided to Destroy the Syrian
State, by leading a crusade (guised as a push for, of all things, DEMOCRACY), Syria was a fast-developing state. ......... This
list could be stretched back to the days of Pilgrim Fathers. But I am hoping you follow the drift.
If the hat fits, wear it! If the shoe fits, wear them!! From the top of the head to the sole of the shoes, everything is dyed
deep in BLOOD.
At the moment with more than 2'000'000 deaths in Iraqia, and more than 250'000 deaths in Afgania and more than 10'000 deaths
in Pakia,
Jamil M Chaudri -> BAKER ALLON
Take some smelling salts, and read what happened in North and South America, when whole nations were destroyed by the colonialists,
and kept in RESERVATIONS; their children were taken to missions for conversion to Christianity, their dwellings were destroyed.
Read about the Trail of Tears, when a whole nation was banished from their ancestral lands. Read about 2'000'000 deaths in Afghania.
For you destruction of HUMAN LIFE is less important than destruction of statues? Shows the kind of person you are. There are many
clips available on the internet showing the destruction of Human Life in most parts of Iraqia(including Mosel) by the blood thirsty
invaders. Harping about statues and museums, and totally callus about human lives (millions of them) you are indeed a museum piece!
Go back to the shelf you have come off.
Renee Barclay -> Jamil M Chaudri • 19 days ago
Bush was a moron but that doesn't change the fact that Saddam was a murderous dictator. And Saddam's sons were known rapists
and murderers.
Iraqi Sunnis and Shiites turned on each other after Bush eliminated Saddam and that's the simple fact. And they're STILL killing
each other to this day. Google it.
Jamil M Chaudri -> Renee Barclay
I do not have to Google such assertions. They are non sequitur, in nature. Even then, let us examine your assertion for
a moment: Bush was a Moron but Saddam was a murderous dictator. By your logic we American must be the epitome of Moron-ness, for
we ELECTED Bush; Iraqis must be a gentle and good people who were overpowered by the Saddam, the Murderous Dictator..
By the way, how many Iraqis did Saddam murder? And then, how many Iraqis were murdered, at the command of Bush? Since the
Iraqis were killed/murdered at the command of Bush, and Americans elected Bush, Americans are responsible for the murders. We
Americans have blood on our hands!
My assertion is that America is responsible for 2'000'000 deaths in Iraq.
On your non-sequitur. If a good man has evils sons, does the man become evil? Again, Sunnis turned against Shias; so what?
About the American Civil War, Google says: Though the number of killed and wounded in the Civil War is not known precisely, most
sources agree that the total number killed was between 640,000 and 700,000.
There was no civil war in Iraq before American Invasion and destruction of Iraqi State and Society. Thus, America is TOTALLY
responsible for 2'000'000 deaths in Iraq.
Vivienne Perkins -> Jamil M Chaudri
Dear Jamil: As an American citizen, I take my hat off to you for telling the exact truth -- that the terrorist state is
the United States of America and our media's propaganda stream is now in overdrive, especially in regard to Russia, which is our
latest target.
The US State Department's Victoria Nuland and our CIA (+ Blackwater mercenaries) installed the puppet Yatsenyuk/Poroshenko
govt. in Kiev (to do our bidding) and CIA Dir. James Brennan himself went to Kiev to launch the civil war against the Eastern
provinces that Europeans, at least, are now trying to bring to a halt. The US does leave nothing but failed states behind it,
and Western Ukraine will be the next failed state in a long list. Since the end of WWII, the best estimate is that the United
States, in 67 military operations and countless covert CIA operations, has destroyed between 20 and 30 million people world-wide,
largely in the interest of commandeering their resources or serving the interests of the banks to which they owe money--money
they were usually cajoled into borrowing.
As for political corruption, I don't know much about Russian levels of corruption, but I know a lot about the total corruption
of our system of government and the evisceration of all of our civil liberties, subsequent to the passage of the so-called and
mis-named Patriot Act. By the provisions of the NDAA, any US citizen can be picked up and held in indefinite military detention
without charge or trial. I wonder how much worse is Russia than that?
And since Citizens United, nearly every legislator in our Congress is absolutely bought and paid for. Maybe we should leave
Russia alone and think about how to restore what we once thought of as a democratic system of governance h ere in the United States.
jlord37 -> Vivienne Perkins
One thing has nothing to do with the other. While I'm in agreement with you on the Ukrainian matter, lets not forget that Vladimir
Putin's Russia also has a very big problem with Islamic extremists in their territories as does a number of countries around the
world .
Vivienne Perkins -> jlord37
I'm not sure I get your point. Maybe we should think about why the West has trouble with Islamic extremists. Might it be because
for over a hundred years the Western powers have chosen the dictatorial rulers of Muslim countries, drawn their boundaries, supported
leaders or removed them at its own whim (as S. Hussein in Iraq, the Shah in Iran, Mubarak in Egypt, Khaddafi in Libya, etc.) and
inserted Israel into Arab territory for its own reasons. Has it ever occurred to you that if Muslim nations had been allowed to
develop according to their own preferences, we might possibly have a more rational and peaceful world today? I can't prove this
obviously, but it does seem clear that the more the US attacks and interferes, the more hostile the Muslims become. As an American
I would like to see my country behave in a more decent way and with less self-serving propaganda.
jlord37 -> Vivienne Perkins
And was America to blame for Jihadi activity thousands of years ago before its existence? Do you not realize that their actvity
is given full sanction, and indeed commands them to go to war with the Kufar? Currently, there is Jihadi activity in countries
stretching from India toChechnya and in several African countries. They all have to do with Islamic aggression against there neighbors
and almost nothing to do with " western imperialism'
Vivienne Perkins -> jlord37
"Thousands of years ago" Islam did not exist. I hold to my original point that Islamic terrorism has been created by unjustified
Western interference.
jlord37 -> Vivienne Perkins
Islam first appeared on the world stage in about the year 620 AD.
Vivienne Perkins -> jlord37
Which means it is now 1,395 years old (not thousands) and I doubt that it's legitimate to equate its idea that it was entitled
to make forcible conversions to the present situation, which seems to me to have arisen fairly recently as a response to Western
meddling in Arab lands.
Jamil M Chaudri -> jlord37
The answer to the one of your question is a LOWD Yes: It was the FIRST CRUSADES that brought religiosity into the GAME OF KINGS:
enlarging kingdoms at the expense of neighbouring kingdoms. The First Crusade was indeed nearly a thousand years ago. The only
differences between JIHAD and CRUSADE are:
1. CRUSADERS are more cruel, surreptitious, deceptive, etc.
2. Crusades have no moral component, the goal is political supremacy. Jihad is about moral supremacy, justice and equality.
Since you bring religion into the mix, try to re-read the bible (the new and the old, both of which) PRESCRIBE DEATH to heretics
and non-believers. Here is a action in pursuance of such biblical dictate:
"A Spanish missionary, Bartolome de las Casas, described eye-witness accounts of mass murder, torture and rape. 2 Author Barry
Lopez, summarizing Las Casas' report wrote:
"One day, in front of Las Casas, the Spanish dismembered, beheaded, or raped 3000 people. 'Such inhumanities and barbarisms
were committed in my sight,' he says, 'as no age can parallel....' The Spanish cut off the legs of children who ran from them.
They poured people full of boiling soap. They made bets as to who, with one sweep of his sword, could cut a person in half. They
loosed dogs that 'devoured an Indian like a hog, at first sight, in less than a moment.' They used nursing infants for dog food."
3
Currently there is CRUSADING MISSIONARY activity in all non-Christian lands by religious warrior-fanatics (wearing the piety
hat of the Christian hue). Read about the recent reaction local Hindu population in India against such activity.
First the Western nations used the RELIGION hat to subdue MORALLY SUPPERIOR but less BLOOD-THURSTY peoples; When that strategy
ceased to work they rolled out a second version called DEMOCRACY. The second is as much of a sham as the earlier attempt.
Even internal to American, the "down trodden" masses are beginning to cry foul. The prevailing poverty rate in America is staggering.
See the figures in most authoritative publications.
Reading does bring enlightenment. That is why I read from diverse sources.
jlord37 -> Jamil M Chaudri
Yes that's why millions of people are seeking to emigrate by any means necessary., and not the reverse. I can assure the "
impoverished masses" in the west are in a lot better shape than they are in your neck of the woods.
But I think your trying to deflect once again. That Christianity ad well as other religions has had a bloody past, is no revelation,
band I for one am no big fan. But steps have been taken since than, to temper the extremism that brought on these acts. One does
not read of to many beheadings and or sucide bombings in the name of Jesus, Buddha, or Shiva. This is not meant as a criticism
of Muslim people per se, or a put down of that particular of the world, it is merely mea by as a critique of some of the problems
that I, and countless others see in the Islamic faith. There's no question that the leadership in the west, can be very corrupt
and rapacious at times, but I think the general trend is towards an attempt at understanding and accommodation. Now, I think it
is time for the Muslim world to attempt some sort of inner dialogue where they take steps towards a dressing and correcting their
own problems. I enjoyed our discussion, and I hope we will be able to part in civil terms. Best wishes.
Jamil M Chaudri -> jlord37
First of all let me disabuse your notion of "my neck of the woods". In one of my earlier posting I have clearly stated that
I am a proud American Citizen, living in a well wooded and watered part of the US of A. But as my country has gone wayward (essentially
in pursuit of the buck) from its charter I am trying to bring America back to its promise.
You have levied accusation against me of "deflecting" arguments. Let me tell you what your problem is: you want to levy unsubstantiated
accusations against others, and when they, with references, confront your falsehoods and soothsaying, you accuse the other of
"deflecting" or "hijacking" the discussion! Pot calling the kettle black? Man, it is you who is unable to stick to the argument
– but then, as you have no argument, of course, you have nothing to stick to. Your statements are based on your penchant for name-calling,
bad mouthing, others. Perhaps your mind-set suggests that with such strategies, you will be the last "man standing" (?).
.
In my first posing on Dr Kotkin's article, I simply wanted to repudiate the so called "World Order". By what right have Great
Britain and France seats at the Security Council. By definition in a democratic set-up, every unit has equal rights. What Dr Kotkins
calls a World Order is therefore a sham democracy, created to benefit the West.
Under the guise of bringing democracy to Iraqia, Afghania, Libya, the Yemen, etc. the west is simply trying to prolong its
hegemony. It is a sham democracy they impose on weak nations. Pliant regimes are being installed, and millions of people being
killed. Any voice that is raised against such pseudo-democracy is silenced by force, by the thugs installed as "democratic" regimes.
This is western patronage.
Presently, you read about EXCESSES done by the lunatic fringes of the Muslim Society (these groups, by the way, were created
by and operate with the support of CIA – so that organisations like HOMELAND Security can get more dollars), because 90% of the
news buzz is created by American media.
The USA is a state trying to improve its democracy on a continuous basis. In 1777 did America treat all people the same way?
When was the promulgation of freedom (of SLAVES) passed in America? When was the voting rights acts passed? Are the economic developments
of the Whites and Blacks (call it Afro-American, if you like) even TODAY at the same level?
I wish you and your, the very best. May Allah have his mercy on us as a Nation, so that we can STANDING TOGETHER still sing
the Star-Spangled Banner.
jlord37 -> Jamil M Chaudri
We currently have a black president, black attorney General, a black director of homeland security, and a black national security
adviser. That's not to mention the various statutes and regulations on the books that are strictly enforced to prevent discrimination
and instances of inequality. Are these details of such small consequence? With regards to your observations of so called regime
change, I am in complete agreement with you . I against such interventions wether it is Cairo or Kiev. It is up to the indigenous
population of that country to determine the course that their country should take, and not have to be subjected to outside interference.
However, I have to ask the question, do you really think that the CIA bears the sole responsibility for the for the existence
of these groups? Could it be that they're trying to co opt them and use them for their own purposes? Im almost certain that the
CIA didn't create the leaders who take certain texts and use them for recruitment purposes. All I'm suggesting is that we need
to hear more from the moderate elements, and that some sort of reformation May have to be undertaken, much in the way it occurred
in other religions. ( Christianity for example )
Finally, Im not sure where you got the idea that I " have a penchant of bad mouthing others" but nevertheless, I sincerely
apologize if I have offended you in anyway. You are a worthy opponent, and it's been an enlightening discussion to say the least.
Robert Munro -> Jamil M Chaudri
Stephen Kotkin is a Jewish shill for the oligarchy.
Jamil M Chaudri -> Robert Munro
I only knew Dr Kotkin's background as a historian; his religious affiliation did not concern me. The only part of his writing
that offended me was the concept of "World Order". I do not accept nor do I want anybody else to be suppressed by the unbridled-capitalists.
Unfortunately, to exercise unbridled capitalism, the underpinning is provided by exercise of power over others. It is the RAPE
OF NATIONS.
Robert Munro -> Jamil M Chaudri
I've read Kotkin before. He advocates a world ruled by an elite (unspecified). However, from his background and affiliations,
it's very possible that his mind-set matches that of Baruch Levy, below..........
"The Jewish people as a whole will become its own Messiah. It will attain world domination by the dissolution of other races,
by the abolition of frontiers, the annihilation of monarchy and by the establishment of a world republic in which the Jews will
everywhere exercise the privilege of citizenship.
In this New World Order, the children of Israel will furnish all the leaders without encountering opposition. The Governments
of the different peoples forming the world republic will fall without difficulty into the hands of the
Jews. It will then be possible for the Jewish rulers to abolish private property and everywhere to make use of the
resources of the state.
Thus will the promise of the Talmud be fulfilled, in which it is said that when the Messianic time is come, the Jews will have
all the property of the whole world in their hands."
Baruch Levy, Letter to Karl Marx (1879), printed in La Revue de Paris, p. 574, June 1, 1928
Given the 3000 year history of Judaism, its religious writings, its possession of nuclear weapons and control of the American
government/economy/media, it seems appropriate to take such claims very seriously.
Robert Munro -> BAKER ALLON
Here's some more "fantasy" about your barbaric cult............
http://www.haaretz.com/news/di...
http://www.richardsilverstein....
http://www.btselem.org/downloa...
BTW- All three of the links above are to Jewish web sites - civilized Jews.
Robert Munro -> BAKER ALLON
It is the cult for which you shill that is the disease.......for 3000 years you have been a malignant cancer trying to metastasize
throughout our world.
Robert Munro -> BAKER ALLON
The disease that sickens and, hopefully, will kill your cult is truth...............
"To communicate anything with a Goy about our relations would be equal to the killing of all Jews, for if the Goyim knew what
we teach about them, they would kill us openly." (found in both the Torah and Talmud)
Jamil M Chaudri -> ARJAN VELLEKOOP
Of course, of course. But then, there are even some people with eyes who do not see. For them it is a blessing, for they see
no evil. It is really a mental condition due to aberrant eye. By the way, Yogi Berra is supposed to have said: "You can observe
a lot just by watching". But perhaps street-walkers in Europe do not watch, because their game is different, and they are enjoying
the benefits of their game.
I do not want to shatter your innocence, but slaves are not seen by street-walkers: Slaves are consigned to SLAVE QUARTERS.
Present day, western world has built slave quarters in India, Pakistan, Sudan, Congo, etc. This is where the Western Worlds Slaves
Live. If you want to read the whole report goto: http://www.globalslaveryindex....
India has the largest number of slaves in the world (14 million).
Mind you, A related concept is "wage slavery". To understand this concept requires sensibility.
Yet another but even more subtle concept is "mental slavery". A variation of this is known as the Stockholm Syndrome. Mental
Slavery is a totally abject state where the person ceases to think eigenartig but assumes the likes and hates of the person/people
who have programmed him/her.
From the last line in your post, I can only assume that deep programming has been done. Programmed consciousness is virtual
reality.
ARJAN VELLEKOOP -> Jamil M Chaudri
So, now the west should care for what governments in other countries do with their citizens? I thought you hated imperialists!
Your reference to India is just idiotic. Why should the west feel responsible for the condition India is in?! You are probably
going to say the colonial past. Well, thats bullcrap since there are plenty of countries which have grown, since their liberty,
into decent and reasonably wealthy states. The west is not responsible for India, India is responsible for itself.
Particularly the Middle Eastern countries have shown behaviour to shift the blame away from their own failures. Maybe it have
to do with their Islamic background, in which so many actions are based/motivated from religious basis. And of course the prophet
is never wrong, so it must be the fault of a imperialist outsider.
Get real. The countries which contain these so called slaves, can make their own choices. They dont have to be part of the
capitalist terrible world order. They can make the better choice like you and other believe it. Sadly enough, that idea is, apparently,
not that good. Because good ideas sell itself.
Jamil M Chaudri -> ARJAN VELLEKOOP
You seem unable to differentiate between an imperialist and a "good Samaritan". You had earlier written that, as a street
walker in Europe you had not seen any slaves, my response to that posting simply told you where you could go to see slavery. And
specific reference to India was simply to help you find slavery most easily - with 14 million slaves India is the centre of Modern
Slavery. However, in my conversations with Indians, especially the demi-literate ones, instead of admitting to the prevailing
REALITY in India, they do not admit to seeing it. With their eyes open, the street walkers do not see it.
There is absolutely no religious underpinning for State Government in any of the states where Muslims are in Majority. The
Saudi Family are are there because of America; the present rule in Iran is a reaction to America (re-)installing the 2-cent "SHAH"
to rule the Iranian Nation. The present excesses of the Iranian state are essentially defense postures against America intransigence,
and mechanisms to harm (and if possible) destroy the Iranian Nation.
I experience reality every day. If you would just come out of your VIRTUAL REALITY, you might by just watching observe some.
I know deprogramming is not easy, and self-deprogramming is even more difficult.
All the same, I suggest that you wake up and smell the Coffee; if not try some smelling salts.
Robert Munro -> ARJAN VELLEKOOP
And we have read the drivel of thousands of shills for the oligarchy and the Zionist/Fascist cult...............such as yourself.
Ivan Night Terrible
Putin-Putin-Putin-Putin-Putin-Putin... :)) Hmmm... oк, about Putin: Look at Putin's foreign agenda this past year: Latin
America just as the sanctions came in - an intentional finger in Washington's eye, as I read it - then China, China again recently,
Turkey more recently, India just now. He has not been to Iran, but there, as in all these other places, he has forged or reiterated
promising relations. The deals cut are too numerous to list. A couple are worth mentioning. The twin gas deals with China, worth
nearly three-quarters of a trillion dollars, are historic all by themselves. In six years' time China will be buying more gas
from Russia than the latter now sells to Europe. And do not miss this: My sources tell me that this gas can be priced such as
to crowd the U.S. at least partially out of the Asian market. Other side of the world: Putin has just canceled a planned pipeline
to southeastern Europe, the South Stream. This is the defeat Western media put it over as, surely: Russia loses some customers.
But two points:
One, it was soon enough clear that the Europeans, having used South Stream as leverage in the sanctions game, probably
overplayed their hand. The day following the announcement they were struggling for composure so far as I can make out.
Two, Putin stunned everyone with his decision from Ankara, where he stood with Recep Tayyip Erdoğan to announce that South
Stream would be rerouted to serve the Turkish market. Think about this: It is more than a new deal; there are significant political
and diplomatic implications in this, given Turkey's traditional alliances, its EU aspirations and so on.
Actually it was the West, especially the USA which created political Islam to fight Soviets. They essentially created Osama bin
Laden as a political figure. The USA is also the main protector of Saudi Arabia were Wahhabism is the official religion. Then
they tried to partition Russia by supporting Chechen islamists and financed the jihadist groups in Russia (especially in Dagestan).
Obama administration flirted with Muslim Brotherhood and unleashed the wars in Lybia and Siria were islamists were trying to
take down the legitimate governments.
So Political Islam despite its anti-Western message used as a tool as a patsy for the destabilization of "unfriendly", the dogs
that could be unleashed when weapons and money started to flow.
Now it looks like boomerang returns home.
Notable quotes:
"... I'd say that in modern times the main culprit was Zbigniew Brzezynski, who freely admitted in an interview with the French weekly magazine Le Nouvel Observateur in 1998 that he had this, as he called it, "brilliant idea" to let the Islamist genie out of the bottle to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan following the Soviet occupation in 1979. At that time he was President Carter's National Security Advisor. The transmission belt, from the CIA and various other U.S. agencies to the jihadists in Afghanistan, went via Pakistan. The ISI, the all-powerful military Inter-Service Intelligence-an institution which is pro-jihadist to boot-was used by the U.S. to arm elements which later morphed into al-Qaeda. The breeding ground for the modern, one might say postmodern form of jihadism, was Afghanistan-and it was made possible by U.S. policy inputs which helped its development. ..."
"... Instead of utter anarchy, I think we are more likely to see the ever more stringent control of the social media. The German government has already imposed on Google and Twitter which is based on the German draconian "hate speech" legislation, rather than on the universally accepted standards. On the whole we see everywhere in Europe that when you have a political party or a person trying to call a spade by its name, to call for a moratorium on immigration or for a fundamental change in the way of thinking, they will be demonized. ..."
"... The answer is fairly simple, but it would require a fundamental transformation of the mindset of the political decision-makers. It is to start treating Islamic activism not as "religious" but as an eminently political activity -- subversive political activity, in the same way as communist subversion was treated during the Cold War. ..."
"... To start with, every single potential U.S. citizen from the Islamic world needs to be interviewed in great detail about his or her beliefs and commitments. It is simply impossible for a believing Muslim to swear the oath of allegiance to the United States. None of them, if they are true believers, can regard the U.S. Constitution as superior to the Sharia-which is the law of God, while the U.S. Constitution is a man-made document. ..."
"... If there is to be a civil war in Europe, it would be pursued between the elite class which wants to continue pursuing multiculturalism and unlimited immigration --for example Germany, where over a million migrants from the Middle East, North Africa etc. were admitted in 2015 alone-and the majority of the population who have not been consulted, and who feel that their home country is being irretrievably lost. ..."
FPR:Your book
The Sword of the Prophet was published back in 2002, yet here we are-15 years later-still scratching our heads over this problem.
Defeating Jihad you wrote ten years ago, and yet we are still fumbling around in the dark. It seems like we don't have the
ability to say what is right and what is wrong. We've lost the ability we had had during the Cold War to say out way is better than
their way . . .
ST: I'm afraid the problem is deeper than that. It is in the unwillingness of the ruling elite in the Western world to come to
grips with the nature of Islam-as-such. There is this constant tendency by the politicians, the media and the academia to treat jihadism
as some sort of aberration which is alien to "true" Islam. We had an example of that in 2014, when President Obama went so far as
to say that ISIS was "un-Islamic"! It is rather curious that the President of the United States assumes the authority of a theologian
who can pass definite judgments on whether a certain phenomenon is "Islamic" or not. Likewise we have this constant repetition of
the mantra of the "religion of peace and tolerance," which is simply not supported by 14 centuries of historical experience. What
I've tried to emphasize in both those books you've mentioned, and in my various other writings and public appearances, is that the
problem of Islam resides in the core texts, in the Kuran and the Hadith , the "Traditions" of the prophet of Islam,
Muhammed. This is the source from which the historical practice has been derived ever since. The problem is not in the jihadists
misinterpreting Islam, but rather in interpreting it all too well. This mythical "moderate Islam," for which everybody seems to be
looking these days, is an exception and not the rule.
In answer to your question, I'd say that "scratching one's head" is-by now-only the phenomenon of those who refuse to face reality.
Reasonable people who are capable of judging phenomena on their merits and on the basis of ample empirical evidence, are no longer
in doubt. They see that the problem is not in the alleged misinterpretation of the Islamic teaching, but rather in its rigorous application
and literal understanding. I'm afraid things will not get better, because with each and every new jihadist attack, such as the
Charlie Hebdo slaughter in Paris a year ago, or again in Paris last November, or the New Year's Eve violence in Germany, we are
witnessing-time and over again-the same problem. The Islamic mindset, the Islamic understanding of the world, the Muslim Weltanschauung
, world outlook, is fundamentally incompatible with the Western value system and the Western way of life.
FPR:. . . It seems obvious, regarding Islam, that its "freedom of religion" is impacting other people, and it's dictated to
do so-it must go out and fight the infidels. And that's where we have the disconnect. Maybe there is some traction to the statement,
as you put it, that fundamentalism reflects a far more thorough following of Islam, and that it is simply incompatible with the Constitution?
ST: It is inevitable, because if you are an orthodox, practicing, mainstream Muslim, then you necessarily believe in the need
to impose Sharia as the law of the land. Sharia is much more than a legal code. It is also a political program, it is a code of social
behavior, it is the blueprint for the totality of human experience. That's why it is impossible to make Sharia compatible with the
liberal principle of "live and let live": it is inherently aggressive to non-Islam. In the Islamic paradigm, the world is divided
in the Manichean manner, black-and-white, into "the World of Faith," Dar al-Islam , literally "the world of submission," and
"the World of War, Dar al-Harb .
It is the divine duty of each and every Muslim to seek the expansion of Dar al-Islam at the expense of Dar al-Harb
until the one true faith is triumphant throughout the world. In this sense the Islamic mindset is very similar to Bolshevism.
The Bolsheviks also believed that "the first country of Socialism" should expand its reach and control until the whole world has
undergone the proletarian revolution and has become one in the march to the Utopia of communism. There is constant inner tension
in the Islamic world, in the sense that for as long as non-Islam exists, it is inherently perceived as "the other," as an abomination.
In that sense, Muslims perceive any concession made by the West-for instance in allowing mass immigration into Western Europe-not
as a gesture of good will and multicultural tolerance, but as a sign of weakness that needs to be exploited and used as a means to
an end.
FPR:The Roman Catholic Church has its Catechism which decides the issues of doctrine. Until there's an Islamic "catechism"
which can say "no, this is no longer the right interpretation, this is not what it means any more"-and I don't think this would be
a short-term thing, because you'd still have the splinter groups dissenting against the "traitors"-but is this the only way to go
to the center of theological jurisprudence in the Islamic world?
ST: The problem is twofold. First of all, there is no "interpretation" of the Kuran . Classical Islamic sources are adamant
that the Kuran needs to be taken at face value, literally. If it says in Sura 9, verse 5, "fight the infidels wherever you find them,
and let them go if they convert," or if it says time and over again that the choice for a non-Muslim is to accept Islam, or to live
as a second-class citizen-the dhimmi -under Islamic supremacy, or else to be killed it is very hard to imagine what sort of
authority in the Islamic world would be capable of saying "now we are going to relativize and soften the message."
The second part of the problem is that there is no single authority in Islam. It is not organized in a hierarchical way like the
Roman Catholic Church, where if the Pope speaks ex cathedra his pronouncements are obligatory for all Catholics everywhere.
Islam is a diffused religion, with various centers of learning and various ullema who may or may not agree on certain peripheral
details. Yet any any one of them who'd dare say "look, now we rally need to reinterpret the fundamental sources, the Kuran
and the Hadith, so as to make it compatible with the pluralist society"-they'd immediately be condemned as heretics. We've seen attempts
at reform in the past. In the end the orthodox interpretation always prevails, because it is-sadly-the right interpretation of the
core texts. With neither the hierarchy capable of imposing a new form of teaching on the faithful, nor the existence of alternative
core texts which would provide grounds for such reinterpretation, it is very hard to see how it could be done.
FPR:How do we go forward? . . . How does the end-game play out?
ST:I'd say that in modern times the main culprit was Zbigniew Brzezynski, who freely admitted in an interview with the French
weekly magazine Le Nouvel Observateur in 1998 that he had this, as he called it, "brilliant idea" to let the Islamist genie
out of the bottle to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan following the Soviet occupation in 1979. At that time he was President Carter's
National Security Advisor. The transmission belt, from the CIA and various other U.S. agencies to the jihadists in Afghanistan, went
via Pakistan. The ISI, the all-powerful military Inter-Service Intelligence-an institution which is pro-jihadist to boot-was used
by the U.S. to arm elements which later morphed into al-Qaeda. The breeding ground for the modern, one might say postmodern form
of jihadism, was Afghanistan-and it was made possible by U.S. policy inputs which helped its development.
But if we look at the past 14 centuries, time and over again we see the same phenomenon. The first time they tried to conquer
Europe was across the Straits of Gibraltar and across the Iberian Peninsula, today's Spain. Then they crossed the Pyrinees and were
only stopped at Poitiers by Charles Martel in 732AD. Then they were gradually being pushed back, and the Reconquista -- the reconquest
of Spain-lasted 800 years, until 1492, when Cordoba finally fell to the Christian forces. Then came the second, Ottoman onslaught,
in the XIVth century, which went across the Dardanelles into the Balkan Peninsula. The Turks were only finally stopped at the gates
of Vienna in 1683. Pushing Turkey out of Europe went all the way to 1912, to the First Balkan War.
So we may say that we are now witnessing the third Islamic conquest of Europe. This time it is not using armed janissaries,
it is using so-called refugees. In fact most of them are healthy young men, and the whole process is obviously a strategic exercise
-- a joint venture between Ankara and Riyadh, who are logistically and financially helping this mass transfer of people from the
Turkish and Middle Eastern refugee camps to the heart of Europe. The effect may be the same, but this time it is far more dangerous
because, on the European side-unlike in 732, or 1683-there is no political will and there is no moral strength to resist. This is
happening because the migrants, the invaders, see Europe as the candy store with a busted lock and they are taking advantage of that
fact.
FPR: When you see the horrors of rapes and sexual assaults that took place across Germany, and now we see the Germans' response
. . . vigilantes on their streets . . . this is something that we either control politically and with leadership, or else it falls
apart into anarchy, Prof. Trifkovic?
ST: Instead of anarchy I think we will have a form of postmodern totalitarianism. The elite class, the government of Germany etc,
and the media, will demonize those who try to resist. In fact we already have the spectacle of the minister of the interior of one
of the German states saying that "hate speech" on the social networks and websites was far worse than the "incidents" in Cologne.
And the Mayor of Cologne-an ultra-feminist who is also a pro-immigration enthusiast-said that in order to prevent such events in
the future women should observe a "code of conduct" and keep distance "at an arm's length" from men. It's a classic example of blaming
the victim. The victims of Islamic violence should change their behavior in order to adapt themselves to the code of conduct and
values of the invaders. This is truly unprecedented.
Instead of utter anarchy, I think we are more likely to see the ever more stringent control of the social media. The German government
has already imposed on Google and Twitter which is based on the German draconian "hate speech" legislation, rather than on the universally
accepted standards. On the whole we see everywhere in Europe that when you have a political party or a person trying to call a spade
by its name, to call for a moratorium on immigration or for a fundamental change in the way of thinking, they will be demonized.
The same applies to Marine Le Pen in France and to her party, the Front National , or to Geert Wilders in Holland, or to Strache
in Austria. Whoever tries to articulate a coherent plan of action that includes a ban or limits on Islamic immigration is immediately
demonized as a right-wing fanatic or a fascist. Instead of facing the reality of the situation, that you have a multi-million Islamic
diaspora in Europe which is not assimilating, which refuses even to accept a code of conduct of the host population, the reaction
is always the same: blame the victim, and demonize those who try to articulate some form of resistance.
FPR: Dr. Trifkovic, how does a country such as ours, the United States, fix this problem . . .
ST: The answer is fairly simple, but it would require a fundamental transformation of the mindset of the political decision-makers.
It is to start treating Islamic activism not as "religious" but as an eminently political activity -- subversive
political activity, in the same way as communist subversion was treated during the Cold War. In both cases we have a committed, highly motivated group
of people who want to effect a fundamental transformation of the United States in a way that is contrary to the U.S. Constitution,
to the American way of life, and to the American values. It is time to stop the Islamists from hiding behind the "freedom of religion"
mantra. What they are seeking is not some "freedom of religion" but the freedom to organize in order to pursue political subversion.
They do not accept the U.S. Constitution.
To start with, every single potential U.S. citizen from the Islamic world needs to be interviewed in great detail about his or
her beliefs and commitments. It is simply impossible for a believing Muslim to swear the oath of allegiance to the United States.
None of them, if they are true believers, can regard the U.S. Constitution as superior to the Sharia-which is the law of God, while
the U.S. Constitution is a man-made document. I happen to know the oath because I am myself a naturalized U.S. citizen. They can
do it "in good faith" from their point of view by practicing taqqiya . This is the Arab word for the art of dissimulation,
when the Muslim lies to the infidel in order to protect the faith. For them to lie to investigators or to immigration officials about
their beliefs and their objectives does not create any conflict of conscience. The prophet of Islam himself has mandated the use
of taqqiya if it serves the objective of spreading the faith.
FPR: Can a civil war come out of this? Is it conceivable?
ST: If there is to be a civil war in Europe, it would be pursued between the elite class which wants to continue pursuing multiculturalism
and unlimited immigration --for example Germany, where over a million migrants from the Middle East, North Africa etc. were admitted
in 2015 alone-and the majority of the population who have not been consulted, and who feel that their home country is being irretrievably
lost. I do not believe that there will be many people fighting on the side of the multiculturalists' suicide, but nevertheless we
still have very effective forces of coercion and control on the government side which can be deployed to prevent the articulation
of any long-term, coherent plan of resistance.
FPR: Where can people continue to read you writings, Dr. Trifkovic?
ST: On Chroniclesmagazine.org where I publish weekly
online commentaries, and also in the print edition of Chronicles where I have my regular column.
This is two years old Foreign Affair article, which actually can be viewed as a precursor of the current anti-Russian
witch hunt. Foreign Affairs firmly belong to the neocons swamp, so be prepared ;-). As usual for such publications as Foreign
Affairs comments are more interesting that the article. BTW the resistance to the neoliberal empire led by the USA can probably
be mentioned as a part of Russian national idea. In this sense Stanislav Belkovsky observation that "the search for Russia's
national idea, which began after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, is finally over. Now, it is evident that Russia's national idea
is Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin." Putin simply became expression of this resistance to neocolonial rule, much like Gandy became in India
before.
The US neoliberal elite is fixated on the idea of destroying Russia much like Roman elite was fixated on the idea of destroying
Carnage.
This analysis is from 2015 or two years from now. It Is interesting to compare it (along with comments) with he current situation
and new developments...
Notable quotes:
"... "the search for Russia's national idea, which began after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, is finally over. Now, it is evident that Russia's national idea is Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin." ..."
"... Russia is classified as a high-income economy by the World Bank (having a per capita GDP exceeding $14,000). Its unemployment remains low (around five percent); until recently, consumer spending had been expanding at more than five percent annually; life expectancy has been rising; and Internet penetration exceeds that of some countries in the European Union. ..."
"... it is the predatory West's efforts to enslave people to the European weltanschauung. ..."
"... This is no World Order: it a man eat man world that has been created. ..."
"... Before America decided to KILL Gadhafi by indiscriminatingly arming gangsters to carry out their will, the incipient-unity state of Libya did not have the sectarian violence that we presently hear about. ..."
"... let us examine your assertion for a moment: Bush was a Moron but Saddam was a murderous dictator. By your logic we American must be the epitome of Moron-ness, for we ELECTED Bush; Iraqis must be a gentle and good people who were overpowered by the Saddam, the Murderous Dictator.. ..."
"... By the way, how many Iraqis did Saddam murder? And then, how many Iraqis were murdered, at the command of Bush? Since the Iraqis were killed/murdered at the command of Bush, and Americans elected Bush, Americans are responsible for the murders. We Americans have blood on our hands! ..."
"... My assertion is that America is responsible for 2'000'000 deaths in Iraq ..."
"... Dear Jamil: As an American citizen, I take my hat off to you for telling the exact truth -- that the terrorist state is the United States of America and our media's propaganda stream is now in overdrive, especially in regard to Russia, which is our latest target. ..."
"... The US State Department's Victoria Nuland and our CIA (+ Blackwater mercenaries) installed the puppet Yatsenyuk/Poroshenko govt. in Kiev (to do our bidding) and CIA Dir. James Brennan himself went to Kiev to launch the civil war against the Eastern provinces that Europeans, at least, are now trying to bring to a halt. The US does leave nothing but failed states behind it, and Western Ukraine will be the next failed state in a long list. Since the end of WWII, the best estimate is that the United States, in 67 military operations and countless covert CIA operations, has destroyed between 20 and 30 million people world-wide, largely in the interest of commandeering their resources or serving the interests of the banks to which they owe money--money they were usually cajoled into borrowing. ..."
"... I hold to my original point that Islamic terrorism has been created by unjustified Western interference. ..."
"... He advocates a world ruled by an elite (unspecified). ..."
"... You seem unable to differentiate between an imperialist and a "good Samaritan". You had earlier written that, as a street walker in Europe you had not seen any slaves, my response to that posting simply told you where you could go to see slavery. And specific reference to India was simply to help you find slavery most easily - with 14 million slaves India is the centre of Modern Slavery. However, in my conversations with Indians, especially the demi-literate ones, instead of admitting to the prevailing REALITY in India, they do not admit to seeing it. With their eyes open, the street walkers do not see it ..."
"... Putin-Putin-Putin-Putin-Putin-Putin... :)) Hmmm... oк, about Putin: Look at Putin's foreign agenda this past year: Latin America just as the sanctions came in - an intentional finger in Washington's eye, as I read it - then China, China again recently, Turkey more recently, India just now. He has not been to Iran, but there, as in all these other places, he has forged or reiterated promising relations. The deals cut are too numerous to list. A couple are worth mentioning. The twin gas deals with China, worth nearly three-quarters of a trillion dollars, are historic all by themselves. In six years' time China will be buying more gas from Russia than the latter now sells to Europe. And do not miss this: My sources tell me that this gas can be priced such as to crowd the U.S. at least partially out of the Asian market. Other side of the world: Putin has just canceled a planned pipeline to southeastern Europe, the South Stream. This is the defeat Western media put it over as, surely: Russia loses some customers ..."
How did twenty-first-century Russia end up, yet again, in personal rule? An advanced industrial country of 142 million people, it
has no enduring political parties that organize and respond to voter preferences.
The military is sprawling yet tame; the immense
secret police are effectively in one man's pocket. The hydrocarbon sector is a personal bank, and indeed much of the economy is increasingly
treated as an individual fiefdom. Mass media move more or less in lockstep with the commands of the presidential administration.
Competing interest groups abound, but there is no rival center of power. In late October 2014, after a top aide to Russia's president
told the annual forum of the Valdai Discussion Club, which brings together Russian and foreign experts, that Russians understand
"if there is no Putin, there is no Russia," the pundit Stanislav Belkovsky observed that "the search for Russia's national idea,
which began after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, is finally over. Now, it is evident that Russia's national idea is Vladimir
Vladimirovich Putin."
Russia is classified as a high-income economy by the World Bank (having a per capita GDP exceeding $14,000). Its unemployment
remains low (around five percent); until recently, consumer spending had been expanding at more than five percent annually; life
expectancy has been rising; and Internet penetration exceeds that of some countries in the European Union.
But Russia is now beset by economic stagnation alongside high inflation, its labor productivity remains dismally low, and its
once-vaunted school system has deteriorated alarmingly. And it is astonishingly corrupt. Not only the bullying central authorities
in Moscow but regional state bodies, too, have been systematically criminalizing revenue streams, while giant swaths of territory
lack basic public services and local vigilante groups proliferate.
Across the country, officials who have purchased their positions for hefty sums team up with organized crime syndicates and use
friendly prosecutors and judges to extort and expropriate rivals. President Vladimir Putin's vaunted "stability," in short, has turned
into spoliation. But Putin has been in power for 15 years, and there is no end in sight. Stalin ruled for some three decades...
Jamil M Chaudri
Interesting but slanted and one-sided, myopic analysis. Why would the 1.6 billion Muslims spread over three continents, accept
Mr Kotkin's concept of "World Order".
There is no World Order; it is the predatory West's efforts to enslave people to the European weltanschauung. It is
an effort by the colonialists to prolong their hegemony over Muslim lands and people.
One of the biggest mistakes Pakia made was to join the West in destroying Soviet Russia. A bi-polar world was a better world
than a unipolar world, where the west is destroying Muslim nations (one after the other).
This is no World Order: it a man eat man world that has been created.
Jamil M Chaudri -> JACK RICE
Before the invasion (and total destruction) of Afghanis there was no daily violence in Afghania. Before the invasion (and total
destruction) of Iraqia, there is no daily violence in Iraqia. Before Pakia allied itself with America (leading to the further
debasement of an evolving state) there were no (practically) daily suicide bombings in Pakia. Before America decided to aid Ethiopia
(and joined it) in destroying Somalia, the state of Somalia had a pretty vibrant civil society, and no gangster precipitate violence.
Before America decided to KILL Gadhafi by indiscriminatingly arming gangsters to carry out their will, the incipient-unity
state of Libya did not have the sectarian violence that we presently hear about. Before America decided to Destroy the Syrian
State, by leading a crusade (guised as a push for, of all things, DEMOCRACY), Syria was a fast-developing state. ......... This
list could be stretched back to the days of Pilgrim Fathers. But I am hoping you follow the drift.
If the hat fits, wear it! If the shoe fits, wear them!! From the top of the head to the sole of the shoes, everything is dyed
deep in BLOOD.
At the moment with more than 2'000'000 deaths in Iraqia, and more than 250'000 deaths in Afgania and more than 10'000 deaths
in Pakia,
Jamil M Chaudri -> BAKER ALLON
Take some smelling salts, and read what happened in North and South America, when whole nations were destroyed by the colonialists,
and kept in RESERVATIONS; their children were taken to missions for conversion to Christianity, their dwellings were destroyed.
Read about the Trail of Tears, when a whole nation was banished from their ancestral lands. Read about 2'000'000 deaths in Afghania.
For you destruction of HUMAN LIFE is less important than destruction of statues? Shows the kind of person you are. There are many
clips available on the internet showing the destruction of Human Life in most parts of Iraqia(including Mosel) by the blood thirsty
invaders. Harping about statues and museums, and totally callus about human lives (millions of them) you are indeed a museum piece!
Go back to the shelf you have come off.
Renee Barclay -> Jamil M Chaudri • 19 days ago
Bush was a moron but that doesn't change the fact that Saddam was a murderous dictator. And Saddam's sons were known rapists
and murderers.
Iraqi Sunnis and Shiites turned on each other after Bush eliminated Saddam and that's the simple fact. And they're STILL killing
each other to this day. Google it.
Jamil M Chaudri -> Renee Barclay
I do not have to Google such assertions. They are non sequitur, in nature. Even then, let us examine your assertion for
a moment: Bush was a Moron but Saddam was a murderous dictator. By your logic we American must be the epitome of Moron-ness, for
we ELECTED Bush; Iraqis must be a gentle and good people who were overpowered by the Saddam, the Murderous Dictator..
By the way, how many Iraqis did Saddam murder? And then, how many Iraqis were murdered, at the command of Bush? Since the
Iraqis were killed/murdered at the command of Bush, and Americans elected Bush, Americans are responsible for the murders. We
Americans have blood on our hands!
My assertion is that America is responsible for 2'000'000 deaths in Iraq.
On your non-sequitur. If a good man has evils sons, does the man become evil? Again, Sunnis turned against Shias; so what?
About the American Civil War, Google says: Though the number of killed and wounded in the Civil War is not known precisely, most
sources agree that the total number killed was between 640,000 and 700,000.
There was no civil war in Iraq before American Invasion and destruction of Iraqi State and Society. Thus, America is TOTALLY
responsible for 2'000'000 deaths in Iraq.
Vivienne Perkins -> Jamil M Chaudri
Dear Jamil: As an American citizen, I take my hat off to you for telling the exact truth -- that the terrorist state is
the United States of America and our media's propaganda stream is now in overdrive, especially in regard to Russia, which is our
latest target.
The US State Department's Victoria Nuland and our CIA (+ Blackwater mercenaries) installed the puppet Yatsenyuk/Poroshenko
govt. in Kiev (to do our bidding) and CIA Dir. James Brennan himself went to Kiev to launch the civil war against the Eastern
provinces that Europeans, at least, are now trying to bring to a halt. The US does leave nothing but failed states behind it,
and Western Ukraine will be the next failed state in a long list. Since the end of WWII, the best estimate is that the United
States, in 67 military operations and countless covert CIA operations, has destroyed between 20 and 30 million people world-wide,
largely in the interest of commandeering their resources or serving the interests of the banks to which they owe money--money
they were usually cajoled into borrowing.
As for political corruption, I don't know much about Russian levels of corruption, but I know a lot about the total corruption
of our system of government and the evisceration of all of our civil liberties, subsequent to the passage of the so-called and
mis-named Patriot Act. By the provisions of the NDAA, any US citizen can be picked up and held in indefinite military detention
without charge or trial. I wonder how much worse is Russia than that?
And since Citizens United, nearly every legislator in our Congress is absolutely bought and paid for. Maybe we should leave
Russia alone and think about how to restore what we once thought of as a democratic system of governance h ere in the United States.
jlord37 -> Vivienne Perkins
One thing has nothing to do with the other. While I'm in agreement with you on the Ukrainian matter, lets not forget that Vladimir
Putin's Russia also has a very big problem with Islamic extremists in their territories as does a number of countries around the
world .
Vivienne Perkins -> jlord37
I'm not sure I get your point. Maybe we should think about why the West has trouble with Islamic extremists. Might it be because
for over a hundred years the Western powers have chosen the dictatorial rulers of Muslim countries, drawn their boundaries, supported
leaders or removed them at its own whim (as S. Hussein in Iraq, the Shah in Iran, Mubarak in Egypt, Khaddafi in Libya, etc.) and
inserted Israel into Arab territory for its own reasons. Has it ever occurred to you that if Muslim nations had been allowed to
develop according to their own preferences, we might possibly have a more rational and peaceful world today? I can't prove this
obviously, but it does seem clear that the more the US attacks and interferes, the more hostile the Muslims become. As an American
I would like to see my country behave in a more decent way and with less self-serving propaganda.
jlord37 -> Vivienne Perkins
And was America to blame for Jihadi activity thousands of years ago before its existence? Do you not realize that their actvity
is given full sanction, and indeed commands them to go to war with the Kufar? Currently, there is Jihadi activity in countries
stretching from India toChechnya and in several African countries. They all have to do with Islamic aggression against there neighbors
and almost nothing to do with " western imperialism'
Vivienne Perkins -> jlord37
"Thousands of years ago" Islam did not exist. I hold to my original point that Islamic terrorism has been created by unjustified
Western interference.
jlord37 -> Vivienne Perkins
Islam first appeared on the world stage in about the year 620 AD.
Vivienne Perkins -> jlord37
Which means it is now 1,395 years old (not thousands) and I doubt that it's legitimate to equate its idea that it was entitled
to make forcible conversions to the present situation, which seems to me to have arisen fairly recently as a response to Western
meddling in Arab lands.
Jamil M Chaudri -> jlord37
The answer to the one of your question is a LOWD Yes: It was the FIRST CRUSADES that brought religiosity into the GAME OF KINGS:
enlarging kingdoms at the expense of neighbouring kingdoms. The First Crusade was indeed nearly a thousand years ago. The only
differences between JIHAD and CRUSADE are:
1. CRUSADERS are more cruel, surreptitious, deceptive, etc.
2. Crusades have no moral component, the goal is political supremacy. Jihad is about moral supremacy, justice and equality.
Since you bring religion into the mix, try to re-read the bible (the new and the old, both of which) PRESCRIBE DEATH to heretics
and non-believers. Here is a action in pursuance of such biblical dictate:
"A Spanish missionary, Bartolome de las Casas, described eye-witness accounts of mass murder, torture and rape. 2 Author Barry
Lopez, summarizing Las Casas' report wrote:
"One day, in front of Las Casas, the Spanish dismembered, beheaded, or raped 3000 people. 'Such inhumanities and barbarisms
were committed in my sight,' he says, 'as no age can parallel....' The Spanish cut off the legs of children who ran from them.
They poured people full of boiling soap. They made bets as to who, with one sweep of his sword, could cut a person in half. They
loosed dogs that 'devoured an Indian like a hog, at first sight, in less than a moment.' They used nursing infants for dog food."
3
Currently there is CRUSADING MISSIONARY activity in all non-Christian lands by religious warrior-fanatics (wearing the piety
hat of the Christian hue). Read about the recent reaction local Hindu population in India against such activity.
First the Western nations used the RELIGION hat to subdue MORALLY SUPPERIOR but less BLOOD-THURSTY peoples; When that strategy
ceased to work they rolled out a second version called DEMOCRACY. The second is as much of a sham as the earlier attempt.
Even internal to American, the "down trodden" masses are beginning to cry foul. The prevailing poverty rate in America is staggering.
See the figures in most authoritative publications.
Reading does bring enlightenment. That is why I read from diverse sources.
jlord37 -> Jamil M Chaudri
Yes that's why millions of people are seeking to emigrate by any means necessary., and not the reverse. I can assure the "
impoverished masses" in the west are in a lot better shape than they are in your neck of the woods.
But I think your trying to deflect once again. That Christianity ad well as other religions has had a bloody past, is no revelation,
band I for one am no big fan. But steps have been taken since than, to temper the extremism that brought on these acts. One does
not read of to many beheadings and or sucide bombings in the name of Jesus, Buddha, or Shiva. This is not meant as a criticism
of Muslim people per se, or a put down of that particular of the world, it is merely mea by as a critique of some of the problems
that I, and countless others see in the Islamic faith. There's no question that the leadership in the west, can be very corrupt
and rapacious at times, but I think the general trend is towards an attempt at understanding and accommodation. Now, I think it
is time for the Muslim world to attempt some sort of inner dialogue where they take steps towards a dressing and correcting their
own problems. I enjoyed our discussion, and I hope we will be able to part in civil terms. Best wishes.
Jamil M Chaudri -> jlord37
First of all let me disabuse your notion of "my neck of the woods". In one of my earlier posting I have clearly stated that
I am a proud American Citizen, living in a well wooded and watered part of the US of A. But as my country has gone wayward (essentially
in pursuit of the buck) from its charter I am trying to bring America back to its promise.
You have levied accusation against me of "deflecting" arguments. Let me tell you what your problem is: you want to levy unsubstantiated
accusations against others, and when they, with references, confront your falsehoods and soothsaying, you accuse the other of
"deflecting" or "hijacking" the discussion! Pot calling the kettle black? Man, it is you who is unable to stick to the argument
– but then, as you have no argument, of course, you have nothing to stick to. Your statements are based on your penchant for name-calling,
bad mouthing, others. Perhaps your mind-set suggests that with such strategies, you will be the last "man standing" (?).
.
In my first posing on Dr Kotkin's article, I simply wanted to repudiate the so called "World Order". By what right have Great
Britain and France seats at the Security Council. By definition in a democratic set-up, every unit has equal rights. What Dr Kotkins
calls a World Order is therefore a sham democracy, created to benefit the West.
Under the guise of bringing democracy to Iraqia, Afghania, Libya, the Yemen, etc. the west is simply trying to prolong its
hegemony. It is a sham democracy they impose on weak nations. Pliant regimes are being installed, and millions of people being
killed. Any voice that is raised against such pseudo-democracy is silenced by force, by the thugs installed as "democratic" regimes.
This is western patronage.
Presently, you read about EXCESSES done by the lunatic fringes of the Muslim Society (these groups, by the way, were created
by and operate with the support of CIA – so that organisations like HOMELAND Security can get more dollars), because 90% of the
news buzz is created by American media.
The USA is a state trying to improve its democracy on a continuous basis. In 1777 did America treat all people the same way?
When was the promulgation of freedom (of SLAVES) passed in America? When was the voting rights acts passed? Are the economic developments
of the Whites and Blacks (call it Afro-American, if you like) even TODAY at the same level?
I wish you and your, the very best. May Allah have his mercy on us as a Nation, so that we can STANDING TOGETHER still sing
the Star-Spangled Banner.
jlord37 -> Jamil M Chaudri
We currently have a black president, black attorney General, a black director of homeland security, and a black national security
adviser. That's not to mention the various statutes and regulations on the books that are strictly enforced to prevent discrimination
and instances of inequality. Are these details of such small consequence? With regards to your observations of so called regime
change, I am in complete agreement with you . I against such interventions wether it is Cairo or Kiev. It is up to the indigenous
population of that country to determine the course that their country should take, and not have to be subjected to outside interference.
However, I have to ask the question, do you really think that the CIA bears the sole responsibility for the for the existence
of these groups? Could it be that they're trying to co opt them and use them for their own purposes? Im almost certain that the
CIA didn't create the leaders who take certain texts and use them for recruitment purposes. All I'm suggesting is that we need
to hear more from the moderate elements, and that some sort of reformation May have to be undertaken, much in the way it occurred
in other religions. ( Christianity for example )
Finally, Im not sure where you got the idea that I " have a penchant of bad mouthing others" but nevertheless, I sincerely
apologize if I have offended you in anyway. You are a worthy opponent, and it's been an enlightening discussion to say the least.
Robert Munro -> Jamil M Chaudri
Stephen Kotkin is a Jewish shill for the oligarchy.
Jamil M Chaudri -> Robert Munro
I only knew Dr Kotkin's background as a historian; his religious affiliation did not concern me. The only part of his writing
that offended me was the concept of "World Order". I do not accept nor do I want anybody else to be suppressed by the unbridled-capitalists.
Unfortunately, to exercise unbridled capitalism, the underpinning is provided by exercise of power over others. It is the RAPE
OF NATIONS.
Robert Munro -> Jamil M Chaudri
I've read Kotkin before. He advocates a world ruled by an elite (unspecified). However, from his background and affiliations,
it's very possible that his mind-set matches that of Baruch Levy, below..........
"The Jewish people as a whole will become its own Messiah. It will attain world domination by the dissolution of other races,
by the abolition of frontiers, the annihilation of monarchy and by the establishment of a world republic in which the Jews will
everywhere exercise the privilege of citizenship.
In this New World Order, the children of Israel will furnish all the leaders without encountering opposition. The Governments
of the different peoples forming the world republic will fall without difficulty into the hands of the
Jews. It will then be possible for the Jewish rulers to abolish private property and everywhere to make use of the
resources of the state.
Thus will the promise of the Talmud be fulfilled, in which it is said that when the Messianic time is come, the Jews will have
all the property of the whole world in their hands."
Baruch Levy, Letter to Karl Marx (1879), printed in La Revue de Paris, p. 574, June 1, 1928
Given the 3000 year history of Judaism, its religious writings, its possession of nuclear weapons and control of the American
government/economy/media, it seems appropriate to take such claims very seriously.
Robert Munro -> BAKER ALLON
Here's some more "fantasy" about your barbaric cult............
http://www.haaretz.com/news/di...
http://www.richardsilverstein....
http://www.btselem.org/downloa...
BTW- All three of the links above are to Jewish web sites - civilized Jews.
Robert Munro -> BAKER ALLON
It is the cult for which you shill that is the disease.......for 3000 years you have been a malignant cancer trying to metastasize
throughout our world.
Robert Munro -> BAKER ALLON
The disease that sickens and, hopefully, will kill your cult is truth...............
"To communicate anything with a Goy about our relations would be equal to the killing of all Jews, for if the Goyim knew what
we teach about them, they would kill us openly." (found in both the Torah and Talmud)
Jamil M Chaudri -> ARJAN VELLEKOOP
Of course, of course. But then, there are even some people with eyes who do not see. For them it is a blessing, for they see
no evil. It is really a mental condition due to aberrant eye. By the way, Yogi Berra is supposed to have said: "You can observe
a lot just by watching". But perhaps street-walkers in Europe do not watch, because their game is different, and they are enjoying
the benefits of their game.
I do not want to shatter your innocence, but slaves are not seen by street-walkers: Slaves are consigned to SLAVE QUARTERS.
Present day, western world has built slave quarters in India, Pakistan, Sudan, Congo, etc. This is where the Western Worlds Slaves
Live. If you want to read the whole report goto: http://www.globalslaveryindex....
India has the largest number of slaves in the world (14 million).
Mind you, A related concept is "wage slavery". To understand this concept requires sensibility.
Yet another but even more subtle concept is "mental slavery". A variation of this is known as the Stockholm Syndrome. Mental
Slavery is a totally abject state where the person ceases to think eigenartig but assumes the likes and hates of the person/people
who have programmed him/her.
From the last line in your post, I can only assume that deep programming has been done. Programmed consciousness is virtual
reality.
ARJAN VELLEKOOP -> Jamil M Chaudri
So, now the west should care for what governments in other countries do with their citizens? I thought you hated imperialists!
Your reference to India is just idiotic. Why should the west feel responsible for the condition India is in?! You are probably
going to say the colonial past. Well, thats bullcrap since there are plenty of countries which have grown, since their liberty,
into decent and reasonably wealthy states. The west is not responsible for India, India is responsible for itself.
Particularly the Middle Eastern countries have shown behaviour to shift the blame away from their own failures. Maybe it have
to do with their Islamic background, in which so many actions are based/motivated from religious basis. And of course the prophet
is never wrong, so it must be the fault of a imperialist outsider.
Get real. The countries which contain these so called slaves, can make their own choices. They dont have to be part of the
capitalist terrible world order. They can make the better choice like you and other believe it. Sadly enough, that idea is, apparently,
not that good. Because good ideas sell itself.
Jamil M Chaudri -> ARJAN VELLEKOOP
You seem unable to differentiate between an imperialist and a "good Samaritan". You had earlier written that, as a street
walker in Europe you had not seen any slaves, my response to that posting simply told you where you could go to see slavery. And
specific reference to India was simply to help you find slavery most easily - with 14 million slaves India is the centre of Modern
Slavery. However, in my conversations with Indians, especially the demi-literate ones, instead of admitting to the prevailing
REALITY in India, they do not admit to seeing it. With their eyes open, the street walkers do not see it.
There is absolutely no religious underpinning for State Government in any of the states where Muslims are in Majority. The
Saudi Family are are there because of America; the present rule in Iran is a reaction to America (re-)installing the 2-cent "SHAH"
to rule the Iranian Nation. The present excesses of the Iranian state are essentially defense postures against America intransigence,
and mechanisms to harm (and if possible) destroy the Iranian Nation.
I experience reality every day. If you would just come out of your VIRTUAL REALITY, you might by just watching observe some.
I know deprogramming is not easy, and self-deprogramming is even more difficult.
All the same, I suggest that you wake up and smell the Coffee; if not try some smelling salts.
Robert Munro -> ARJAN VELLEKOOP
And we have read the drivel of thousands of shills for the oligarchy and the Zionist/Fascist cult...............such as yourself.
Ivan Night Terrible
Putin-Putin-Putin-Putin-Putin-Putin... :)) Hmmm... oк, about Putin: Look at Putin's foreign agenda this past year: Latin
America just as the sanctions came in - an intentional finger in Washington's eye, as I read it - then China, China again recently,
Turkey more recently, India just now. He has not been to Iran, but there, as in all these other places, he has forged or reiterated
promising relations. The deals cut are too numerous to list. A couple are worth mentioning. The twin gas deals with China, worth
nearly three-quarters of a trillion dollars, are historic all by themselves. In six years' time China will be buying more gas
from Russia than the latter now sells to Europe. And do not miss this: My sources tell me that this gas can be priced such as
to crowd the U.S. at least partially out of the Asian market. Other side of the world: Putin has just canceled a planned pipeline
to southeastern Europe, the South Stream. This is the defeat Western media put it over as, surely: Russia loses some customers.
But two points:
One, it was soon enough clear that the Europeans, having used South Stream as leverage in the sanctions game, probably
overplayed their hand. The day following the announcement they were struggling for composure so far as I can make out.
Two, Putin stunned everyone with his decision from Ankara, where he stood with Recep Tayyip Erdoğan to announce that South
Stream would be rerouted to serve the Turkish market. Think about this: It is more than a new deal; there are significant political
and diplomatic implications in this, given Turkey's traditional alliances, its EU aspirations and so on.
Actually it was the West, especially the USA which created political Islam to fight Soviets. They essentially created Osama bin
Laden as a political figure. The USA is also the main protector of Saudi Arabia were Wahhabism is the official religion. Then
they tried to partition Russia by supporting Chechen islamists and financed the jihadist groups in Russia (especially in Dagestan).
Obama administration flirted with Muslim Brotherhood and unleashed the wars in Lybia and Siria were islamists were trying to
take down the legitimate governments.
So Political Islam despite its anti-Western message used as a tool as a patsy for the destabilization of "unfriendly", the dogs
that could be unleashed when weapons and money started to flow.
Now it looks like boomerang returns home.
Notable quotes:
"... I'd say that in modern times the main culprit was Zbigniew Brzezynski, who freely admitted in an interview with the French weekly magazine Le Nouvel Observateur in 1998 that he had this, as he called it, "brilliant idea" to let the Islamist genie out of the bottle to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan following the Soviet occupation in 1979. At that time he was President Carter's National Security Advisor. The transmission belt, from the CIA and various other U.S. agencies to the jihadists in Afghanistan, went via Pakistan. The ISI, the all-powerful military Inter-Service Intelligence-an institution which is pro-jihadist to boot-was used by the U.S. to arm elements which later morphed into al-Qaeda. The breeding ground for the modern, one might say postmodern form of jihadism, was Afghanistan-and it was made possible by U.S. policy inputs which helped its development. ..."
"... Instead of utter anarchy, I think we are more likely to see the ever more stringent control of the social media. The German government has already imposed on Google and Twitter which is based on the German draconian "hate speech" legislation, rather than on the universally accepted standards. On the whole we see everywhere in Europe that when you have a political party or a person trying to call a spade by its name, to call for a moratorium on immigration or for a fundamental change in the way of thinking, they will be demonized. ..."
"... The answer is fairly simple, but it would require a fundamental transformation of the mindset of the political decision-makers. It is to start treating Islamic activism not as "religious" but as an eminently political activity -- subversive political activity, in the same way as communist subversion was treated during the Cold War. ..."
"... To start with, every single potential U.S. citizen from the Islamic world needs to be interviewed in great detail about his or her beliefs and commitments. It is simply impossible for a believing Muslim to swear the oath of allegiance to the United States. None of them, if they are true believers, can regard the U.S. Constitution as superior to the Sharia-which is the law of God, while the U.S. Constitution is a man-made document. ..."
"... If there is to be a civil war in Europe, it would be pursued between the elite class which wants to continue pursuing multiculturalism and unlimited immigration --for example Germany, where over a million migrants from the Middle East, North Africa etc. were admitted in 2015 alone-and the majority of the population who have not been consulted, and who feel that their home country is being irretrievably lost. ..."
FPR:Your book
The Sword of the Prophet was published back in 2002, yet here we are-15 years later-still scratching our heads over this problem.
Defeating Jihad you wrote ten years ago, and yet we are still fumbling around in the dark. It seems like we don't have the
ability to say what is right and what is wrong. We've lost the ability we had had during the Cold War to say out way is better than
their way . . .
ST: I'm afraid the problem is deeper than that. It is in the unwillingness of the ruling elite in the Western world to come to
grips with the nature of Islam-as-such. There is this constant tendency by the politicians, the media and the academia to treat jihadism
as some sort of aberration which is alien to "true" Islam. We had an example of that in 2014, when President Obama went so far as
to say that ISIS was "un-Islamic"! It is rather curious that the President of the United States assumes the authority of a theologian
who can pass definite judgments on whether a certain phenomenon is "Islamic" or not. Likewise we have this constant repetition of
the mantra of the "religion of peace and tolerance," which is simply not supported by 14 centuries of historical experience. What
I've tried to emphasize in both those books you've mentioned, and in my various other writings and public appearances, is that the
problem of Islam resides in the core texts, in the Kuran and the Hadith , the "Traditions" of the prophet of Islam,
Muhammed. This is the source from which the historical practice has been derived ever since. The problem is not in the jihadists
misinterpreting Islam, but rather in interpreting it all too well. This mythical "moderate Islam," for which everybody seems to be
looking these days, is an exception and not the rule.
In answer to your question, I'd say that "scratching one's head" is-by now-only the phenomenon of those who refuse to face reality.
Reasonable people who are capable of judging phenomena on their merits and on the basis of ample empirical evidence, are no longer
in doubt. They see that the problem is not in the alleged misinterpretation of the Islamic teaching, but rather in its rigorous application
and literal understanding. I'm afraid things will not get better, because with each and every new jihadist attack, such as the
Charlie Hebdo slaughter in Paris a year ago, or again in Paris last November, or the New Year's Eve violence in Germany, we are
witnessing-time and over again-the same problem. The Islamic mindset, the Islamic understanding of the world, the Muslim Weltanschauung
, world outlook, is fundamentally incompatible with the Western value system and the Western way of life.
FPR:. . . It seems obvious, regarding Islam, that its "freedom of religion" is impacting other people, and it's dictated to
do so-it must go out and fight the infidels. And that's where we have the disconnect. Maybe there is some traction to the statement,
as you put it, that fundamentalism reflects a far more thorough following of Islam, and that it is simply incompatible with the Constitution?
ST: It is inevitable, because if you are an orthodox, practicing, mainstream Muslim, then you necessarily believe in the need
to impose Sharia as the law of the land. Sharia is much more than a legal code. It is also a political program, it is a code of social
behavior, it is the blueprint for the totality of human experience. That's why it is impossible to make Sharia compatible with the
liberal principle of "live and let live": it is inherently aggressive to non-Islam. In the Islamic paradigm, the world is divided
in the Manichean manner, black-and-white, into "the World of Faith," Dar al-Islam , literally "the world of submission," and
"the World of War, Dar al-Harb .
It is the divine duty of each and every Muslim to seek the expansion of Dar al-Islam at the expense of Dar al-Harb
until the one true faith is triumphant throughout the world. In this sense the Islamic mindset is very similar to Bolshevism.
The Bolsheviks also believed that "the first country of Socialism" should expand its reach and control until the whole world has
undergone the proletarian revolution and has become one in the march to the Utopia of communism. There is constant inner tension
in the Islamic world, in the sense that for as long as non-Islam exists, it is inherently perceived as "the other," as an abomination.
In that sense, Muslims perceive any concession made by the West-for instance in allowing mass immigration into Western Europe-not
as a gesture of good will and multicultural tolerance, but as a sign of weakness that needs to be exploited and used as a means to
an end.
FPR:The Roman Catholic Church has its Catechism which decides the issues of doctrine. Until there's an Islamic "catechism"
which can say "no, this is no longer the right interpretation, this is not what it means any more"-and I don't think this would be
a short-term thing, because you'd still have the splinter groups dissenting against the "traitors"-but is this the only way to go
to the center of theological jurisprudence in the Islamic world?
ST: The problem is twofold. First of all, there is no "interpretation" of the Kuran . Classical Islamic sources are adamant
that the Kuran needs to be taken at face value, literally. If it says in Sura 9, verse 5, "fight the infidels wherever you find them,
and let them go if they convert," or if it says time and over again that the choice for a non-Muslim is to accept Islam, or to live
as a second-class citizen-the dhimmi -under Islamic supremacy, or else to be killed it is very hard to imagine what sort of
authority in the Islamic world would be capable of saying "now we are going to relativize and soften the message."
The second part of the problem is that there is no single authority in Islam. It is not organized in a hierarchical way like the
Roman Catholic Church, where if the Pope speaks ex cathedra his pronouncements are obligatory for all Catholics everywhere.
Islam is a diffused religion, with various centers of learning and various ullema who may or may not agree on certain peripheral
details. Yet any any one of them who'd dare say "look, now we rally need to reinterpret the fundamental sources, the Kuran
and the Hadith, so as to make it compatible with the pluralist society"-they'd immediately be condemned as heretics. We've seen attempts
at reform in the past. In the end the orthodox interpretation always prevails, because it is-sadly-the right interpretation of the
core texts. With neither the hierarchy capable of imposing a new form of teaching on the faithful, nor the existence of alternative
core texts which would provide grounds for such reinterpretation, it is very hard to see how it could be done.
FPR:How do we go forward? . . . How does the end-game play out?
ST:I'd say that in modern times the main culprit was Zbigniew Brzezynski, who freely admitted in an interview with the French
weekly magazine Le Nouvel Observateur in 1998 that he had this, as he called it, "brilliant idea" to let the Islamist genie
out of the bottle to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan following the Soviet occupation in 1979. At that time he was President Carter's
National Security Advisor. The transmission belt, from the CIA and various other U.S. agencies to the jihadists in Afghanistan, went
via Pakistan. The ISI, the all-powerful military Inter-Service Intelligence-an institution which is pro-jihadist to boot-was used
by the U.S. to arm elements which later morphed into al-Qaeda. The breeding ground for the modern, one might say postmodern form
of jihadism, was Afghanistan-and it was made possible by U.S. policy inputs which helped its development.
But if we look at the past 14 centuries, time and over again we see the same phenomenon. The first time they tried to conquer
Europe was across the Straits of Gibraltar and across the Iberian Peninsula, today's Spain. Then they crossed the Pyrinees and were
only stopped at Poitiers by Charles Martel in 732AD. Then they were gradually being pushed back, and the Reconquista -- the reconquest
of Spain-lasted 800 years, until 1492, when Cordoba finally fell to the Christian forces. Then came the second, Ottoman onslaught,
in the XIVth century, which went across the Dardanelles into the Balkan Peninsula. The Turks were only finally stopped at the gates
of Vienna in 1683. Pushing Turkey out of Europe went all the way to 1912, to the First Balkan War.
So we may say that we are now witnessing the third Islamic conquest of Europe. This time it is not using armed janissaries,
it is using so-called refugees. In fact most of them are healthy young men, and the whole process is obviously a strategic exercise
-- a joint venture between Ankara and Riyadh, who are logistically and financially helping this mass transfer of people from the
Turkish and Middle Eastern refugee camps to the heart of Europe. The effect may be the same, but this time it is far more dangerous
because, on the European side-unlike in 732, or 1683-there is no political will and there is no moral strength to resist. This is
happening because the migrants, the invaders, see Europe as the candy store with a busted lock and they are taking advantage of that
fact.
FPR: When you see the horrors of rapes and sexual assaults that took place across Germany, and now we see the Germans' response
. . . vigilantes on their streets . . . this is something that we either control politically and with leadership, or else it falls
apart into anarchy, Prof. Trifkovic?
ST: Instead of anarchy I think we will have a form of postmodern totalitarianism. The elite class, the government of Germany etc,
and the media, will demonize those who try to resist. In fact we already have the spectacle of the minister of the interior of one
of the German states saying that "hate speech" on the social networks and websites was far worse than the "incidents" in Cologne.
And the Mayor of Cologne-an ultra-feminist who is also a pro-immigration enthusiast-said that in order to prevent such events in
the future women should observe a "code of conduct" and keep distance "at an arm's length" from men. It's a classic example of blaming
the victim. The victims of Islamic violence should change their behavior in order to adapt themselves to the code of conduct and
values of the invaders. This is truly unprecedented.
Instead of utter anarchy, I think we are more likely to see the ever more stringent control of the social media. The German government
has already imposed on Google and Twitter which is based on the German draconian "hate speech" legislation, rather than on the universally
accepted standards. On the whole we see everywhere in Europe that when you have a political party or a person trying to call a spade
by its name, to call for a moratorium on immigration or for a fundamental change in the way of thinking, they will be demonized.
The same applies to Marine Le Pen in France and to her party, the Front National , or to Geert Wilders in Holland, or to Strache
in Austria. Whoever tries to articulate a coherent plan of action that includes a ban or limits on Islamic immigration is immediately
demonized as a right-wing fanatic or a fascist. Instead of facing the reality of the situation, that you have a multi-million Islamic
diaspora in Europe which is not assimilating, which refuses even to accept a code of conduct of the host population, the reaction
is always the same: blame the victim, and demonize those who try to articulate some form of resistance.
FPR: Dr. Trifkovic, how does a country such as ours, the United States, fix this problem . . .
ST: The answer is fairly simple, but it would require a fundamental transformation of the mindset of the political decision-makers.
It is to start treating Islamic activism not as "religious" but as an eminently political activity -- subversive
political activity, in the same way as communist subversion was treated during the Cold War. In both cases we have a committed, highly motivated group
of people who want to effect a fundamental transformation of the United States in a way that is contrary to the U.S. Constitution,
to the American way of life, and to the American values. It is time to stop the Islamists from hiding behind the "freedom of religion"
mantra. What they are seeking is not some "freedom of religion" but the freedom to organize in order to pursue political subversion.
They do not accept the U.S. Constitution.
To start with, every single potential U.S. citizen from the Islamic world needs to be interviewed in great detail about his or
her beliefs and commitments. It is simply impossible for a believing Muslim to swear the oath of allegiance to the United States.
None of them, if they are true believers, can regard the U.S. Constitution as superior to the Sharia-which is the law of God, while
the U.S. Constitution is a man-made document. I happen to know the oath because I am myself a naturalized U.S. citizen. They can
do it "in good faith" from their point of view by practicing taqqiya . This is the Arab word for the art of dissimulation,
when the Muslim lies to the infidel in order to protect the faith. For them to lie to investigators or to immigration officials about
their beliefs and their objectives does not create any conflict of conscience. The prophet of Islam himself has mandated the use
of taqqiya if it serves the objective of spreading the faith.
FPR: Can a civil war come out of this? Is it conceivable?
ST: If there is to be a civil war in Europe, it would be pursued between the elite class which wants to continue pursuing multiculturalism
and unlimited immigration --for example Germany, where over a million migrants from the Middle East, North Africa etc. were admitted
in 2015 alone-and the majority of the population who have not been consulted, and who feel that their home country is being irretrievably
lost. I do not believe that there will be many people fighting on the side of the multiculturalists' suicide, but nevertheless we
still have very effective forces of coercion and control on the government side which can be deployed to prevent the articulation
of any long-term, coherent plan of resistance.
FPR: Where can people continue to read you writings, Dr. Trifkovic?
ST: On Chroniclesmagazine.org where I publish weekly
online commentaries, and also in the print edition of Chronicles where I have my regular column.
The problem is that neoliberal ideology entered the state of the crisis in 2008 much like Bolshevik ideology entered the
crisis after WWII. The USSR managed to survive for another 50 years after that.
Notable quotes:
"... Multipolar is just that – leave exercise of power and responsibility as close to the local situation as possible. Brussels telling Poland who should be a TV presenter, or Washington deciding what people in rural Hungary should read is idiotic. What's the point of all this busy-body behaviour? It is always justified by some slogans about preventing 'human rights violations'. Right. We have seen the results – a lot more people have died and suffered because of 'humanitarian' interventions than from anything else in the last 20+ years. ..."
"... I do find the current rapprochement between Russia and the major Moslem states amusing. It goes beyond Turkey and Iran, Moscow is working all of them, Egypt, Sudan, I suspect it is a clever attempt to beat US at its own game – US has spent about four decades arming and unleashing any Islamic force it could find against Russians (and Slavs in general), using methods that were beyond brutal and hypocrisy that eventually backfired. Maybe turning it around is a good strategy. It is inconsistent, but when you fight extreme stupidity, often the only thing that works is to use more stupidity ..."
"... Orwell's vision is but one of the possibilities. Another is Armageddon. Yet another is a "(Failed) West and a multipolar Rest". The latter is what I think will actually happen in the near and medium term. Things being what they are, it may even be the best we can hope for. ..."
"... I don't see any other power than the West (=US) aspiring to 'manage the world'. Maybe some ISIS fanatics have the same dream, but they are not in a position to achieve it. West has 'managed' it very poorly: mindless interventions, wars, migrants, hypocrisy, threats and blackmail. ..."
"... The other 'powers' have very modest, regional aspirations. Russia or China really don't care that much who wins the elections in Portugal, or what regional papers write in Hungary – US seems to be obsessed with it. And the only justification that Western defenders offer when pressed is that 'there would be a vacuum' and 'Russians would move in'. This is obvious nonsense and only elderly paranoid Cold Warrior types believe it ..."
"... Europeans have been invited to join the Eurasian Project, to create a continental market from "Lisbon to Vladivostok". Latent dreams of Hegemony hold at least some of their elites back. ..."
"... The West rode an ahistorical rogue wave of development to a point just short of Global Hegemony. That wave broke, and is now rolling back out into the world leaving the West just short of its civilizational resource requirements. No way to get back on a broken wave. In any case, China now holds the $$$ hammer, and Russia holds the military hammer, and they've now got the surfboard. Both of them, led by historically aware elites, know that Hegemony doesn't work, so will focus on keeping their neck of the woods as stable & prosperous as possible while hell blazes elsewhere. ..."
"The same "hegemon with allies/vassals" as it is now, only in that case divided in
three"
Why? There is absolutely nothing about 'multipolar' that dictates three, or four
'hegemons', or even lists who would the 'multis' be. The idea is simply that most people,
most of the time are better off left alone.
Is that so hard to understand? Why should people in Washington (or Moscow, Beijing,
Brussels, ) be intimately involved with how others live their lives, with their fights and
alliances? Knowledge always dissipates with distance, and most of the 'masters of the
universe' are not that smart to start with.
Multipolar is just that – leave exercise of power and responsibility as close to the
local situation as possible. Brussels telling Poland who should be a TV presenter, or
Washington deciding what people in rural Hungary should read is idiotic. What's the point of
all this busy-body behaviour? It is always justified by some slogans about preventing 'human
rights violations'. Right. We have seen the results – a lot more people have died and
suffered because of 'humanitarian' interventions than from anything else in the last 20+
years.
I do find the current rapprochement between Russia and the major Moslem states amusing. It
goes beyond Turkey and Iran, Moscow is working all of them, Egypt, Sudan, I suspect it is a
clever attempt to beat US at its own game – US has spent about four decades arming and
unleashing any Islamic force it could find against Russians (and Slavs in general), using
methods that were beyond brutal and hypocrisy that eventually backfired. Maybe turning it
around is a good strategy. It is inconsistent, but when you fight extreme stupidity, often
the only thing that works is to use more stupidity
"The same "hegemon with allies/vassals" as it is now, only in that case divided in
three"
Why? There is absolutely nothing about 'multipolar' that dictates three, or four
'hegemons', or even lists who would the 'multis' be. The idea is simply that most people,
most of the time are better off left alone.
Peter's is the apocalyptic view made famous by Orwell. He may be right, it may all unravel
and Oceania, Eurasia & Eastasia run a classic 3-power calculus of shifting alliances in a
struggle for control of the "hinterlands". Not at all impossible, but certainly not what the
proponents of the multipolar world want.
The idea is much more than the notion that most people want to "be left alone". The
Multipolar world as it is actually being constructed by its proponents, from its monetary
structures to its security, commercial and trade regimes, is precisely the attempt to prevent
that Orwellian development in the face of Western decline. Their foundational tenet is that
Globalization as a world-historical trend is here to stay (for at least the next few
generations), and the "compartmentalization" of the world into alliances and hegemonies as
historically occurred is no longer a viable option. The 3 Orwellian powers are all nuclear
now, and the #1 priority is to mitigate the risk of war between them. Best to do that by
dissolving them into a matrix of commercial and developmental programs that they'd be loathe
to destroy.
EG: Though Russia considers both China and Iran "strategic partners", there is no formal
alliance with either of them, and there won't be. Alliances cannot be "forbidden", but the
countries that have signed onto the multipolar world program view alliances with
suspicion.
As a introduction to the coming multipolar world, Kupchan's Western-centric analysis is a
good place to start: https://www.amazon.com/No-Ones-World-Council-Relations/dp/0199325227 "Kupchan provides a detailed strategy for striking a bargain between the West and the
rising rest by fashioning a new consensus on issues of legitimacy, sovereignty, and
governance."
Assuming he even knows the least thing about what the multipolar world is trying to do,
Peter's view is that their attempt will fail. Maybe so.
To "fashion a new consensus on issues of legitimacy, sovereignty, and governance" requires
that the professional criminal class that grabbed the remains of Western power a decade and a
half ago has been forced to let go. If not, the world indeed faces an abyss.
Orwell's vision is but one of the possibilities. Another is Armageddon. Yet another is a
"(Failed) West and a multipolar Rest". The latter is what I think will actually happen in the
near and medium term. Things being what they are, it may even be the best we can hope
for.
"(Failed) West and a multipolar Rest". The latter is what I think will actually happen
in the near and medium term.
I think we already have it, except I don't think West has failed yet. Or it has in a way,
the process of failing goes on, but the consequences have not been felt much in the West
yet.
I don't see any other power than the West (=US) aspiring to 'manage the world'. Maybe some
ISIS fanatics have the same dream, but they are not in a position to achieve it. West has
'managed' it very poorly: mindless interventions, wars, migrants, hypocrisy, threats and
blackmail.
The other 'powers' have very modest, regional aspirations. Russia or China really don't
care that much who wins the elections in Portugal, or what regional papers write in Hungary
– US seems to be obsessed with it. And the only justification that Western defenders
offer when pressed is that 'there would be a vacuum' and 'Russians would move in'. This is
obvious nonsense and only elderly paranoid Cold Warrior types believe it (peterAUS?). What is
really going on is that West has over-reached and can barely handle its own problems. So they
scream 'Russians are coming' to distract, or to prolong the agony. Russians are not coming,
they don't care in 2017, they can barely control their huge territory today. More you see
squealing and lying in the Western media, more it shows that they have not much else to work
with.
"(Failed) West and a multipolar Rest". The latter is what I think will actually happen
in the near and medium term.
I think we already have it, except I don't think West has failed yet. Or it has in a
way, the process of failing goes on, but the consequences have not been felt much in the
West yet.
Well, exogenous events aside, "decline and fall" is necessarily a process. A series of
steps and plateaus is typical. A major step occurred in 2007/8, when the money failed. The
bankers, in a frankly heroic display of coordination, propped up the $$$ and the West got a
decade long plateau. Things are going wobbly again, financially speaking and I suspect the
next step function to occur rather soon. Stays of execution have been exhausted, so it'll be
interesting how the West handles it, and how the RoW reacts.
Europeans have been invited to join the Eurasian Project, to create a continental market from
"Lisbon to Vladivostok". Latent dreams of Hegemony hold at least some of their elites back.
The USA has also been invited, but its dreams remain much more virile. That is, until Trump
who's backers seem to read the writing on the wall better than the Straussians.
I don't see any other power than the West (=US) aspiring to 'manage the world' .
The other 'powers' have very modest, regional aspirations US seems to be obsessed with
it.
The fact is that the rise of the West to global dominance is due to a historical anomaly.
It was fuelled (literally) by the discovery and harnessing of the chemical energy embedded in
coal (late 18thC) and then oil (late 19thC). The first doubled the population, and as first
movers gave the West a running start. The second turned on the afterburners, and population
grew >3.5 fold. Again the West led the way. To fuel that ahistorical step-function growth
curve, control of resources on a global scale became its civilizational imperative.
That growth curve has plateaued, and the rest of the world has caught/is catching up
developmentally. The resources the West needs aren't going to be available to it in the way
they were 100 years ago. Them days is over, for everybody really, but especially for the West
because it has depleted its own hi-ROI resources, and both of its means of control (IMF$
System & U$M) of what's left of everybody else's are failing simultaneously. So its
plateau will not be flat, or not flat for long between increasingly violent steps.
The West rode an ahistorical rogue wave of development to a point just short of Global
Hegemony. That wave broke, and is now rolling back out into the world leaving the West just
short of its civilizational resource requirements. No way to get back on a broken wave. In
any case, China now holds the $$$ hammer, and Russia holds the military hammer, and they've
now got the surfboard. Both of them, led by historically aware elites, know that Hegemony
doesn't work, so will focus on keeping their neck of the woods as stable & prosperous as
possible while hell blazes elsewhere.
What is really going on is that West has over-reached and can barely handle its own
problems.
IMHO, what's really going on is that the West's problems are simply symptomatic of what
"decline and fall", if not "collapse" looks like from within a failing system. A long time
ago I read the diary of a Roman nobleman who in the most matter-of-fact style wrote of
exactly the same things Westerners complain about today. How this, that or the other thing no
longer works the way it did. For all of his 60+ years, every day was infinitesimally worse
than the day before, until finally he decides to pack up his Roman households and move to his
estates in Spain. It took 170(iirc) more years of continuous decline until Alaric finally
arrived at the Gates of Rome. If wholly due to internal causes, collapse is almost always a
slow motion train wreck.
'there would be a vacuum' and 'Russians would move in'. This is obvious nonsense and
only elderly paranoid Cold Warrior types believe it (peterAUS?).
Actually, it's just stupid. Cold Warrior or not, the view betrays a deep and abiding
ignorance of both history and a large part of what drove the West's hegemonic successes. That
both militate against anyone else ever even trying such a thing on a global scale can't be
seen if you look at historical developments and the rest of the world through 10′ of
1″ pipe.
The idea that Russia wants/needs the Baltics is even more laughable than that it
wants/needs the Ukraine or Poland. None of these tarbabies have anything to offer but
trouble. Noisome flies on an elephant, it is only if they make themselves more troublesome as
outsiders than they would be as vassals would Russia move.
Why do you think so? I think we are about to enter an occasional plateau and things will
be stable or even improve for a while. The Rome analogies are instructive, but they only take you so far. E.g. Rome was
collapsing for about two centuries, on and off. Rome was also infinitely more brutal than
today's West and the 'barbarians' were real barbarians, not aspiring migrants led by
well-paid NGO comprador class. Why do you think it is getting wobbly?
The problem is that neoliberal ideology entered the state of the crisis in 2008 much like Bolshevik ideology entered the
crisis after WWII. The USSR managed to survive for another 50 years after that.
Notable quotes:
"... Multipolar is just that – leave exercise of power and responsibility as close to the local situation as possible. Brussels telling Poland who should be a TV presenter, or Washington deciding what people in rural Hungary should read is idiotic. What's the point of all this busy-body behaviour? It is always justified by some slogans about preventing 'human rights violations'. Right. We have seen the results – a lot more people have died and suffered because of 'humanitarian' interventions than from anything else in the last 20+ years. ..."
"... I do find the current rapprochement between Russia and the major Moslem states amusing. It goes beyond Turkey and Iran, Moscow is working all of them, Egypt, Sudan, I suspect it is a clever attempt to beat US at its own game – US has spent about four decades arming and unleashing any Islamic force it could find against Russians (and Slavs in general), using methods that were beyond brutal and hypocrisy that eventually backfired. Maybe turning it around is a good strategy. It is inconsistent, but when you fight extreme stupidity, often the only thing that works is to use more stupidity ..."
"... Orwell's vision is but one of the possibilities. Another is Armageddon. Yet another is a "(Failed) West and a multipolar Rest". The latter is what I think will actually happen in the near and medium term. Things being what they are, it may even be the best we can hope for. ..."
"... I don't see any other power than the West (=US) aspiring to 'manage the world'. Maybe some ISIS fanatics have the same dream, but they are not in a position to achieve it. West has 'managed' it very poorly: mindless interventions, wars, migrants, hypocrisy, threats and blackmail. ..."
"... The other 'powers' have very modest, regional aspirations. Russia or China really don't care that much who wins the elections in Portugal, or what regional papers write in Hungary – US seems to be obsessed with it. And the only justification that Western defenders offer when pressed is that 'there would be a vacuum' and 'Russians would move in'. This is obvious nonsense and only elderly paranoid Cold Warrior types believe it ..."
"... Europeans have been invited to join the Eurasian Project, to create a continental market from "Lisbon to Vladivostok". Latent dreams of Hegemony hold at least some of their elites back. ..."
"... The West rode an ahistorical rogue wave of development to a point just short of Global Hegemony. That wave broke, and is now rolling back out into the world leaving the West just short of its civilizational resource requirements. No way to get back on a broken wave. In any case, China now holds the $$$ hammer, and Russia holds the military hammer, and they've now got the surfboard. Both of them, led by historically aware elites, know that Hegemony doesn't work, so will focus on keeping their neck of the woods as stable & prosperous as possible while hell blazes elsewhere. ..."
"The same "hegemon with allies/vassals" as it is now, only in that case divided in
three"
Why? There is absolutely nothing about 'multipolar' that dictates three, or four
'hegemons', or even lists who would the 'multis' be. The idea is simply that most people,
most of the time are better off left alone.
Is that so hard to understand? Why should people in Washington (or Moscow, Beijing,
Brussels, ) be intimately involved with how others live their lives, with their fights and
alliances? Knowledge always dissipates with distance, and most of the 'masters of the
universe' are not that smart to start with.
Multipolar is just that – leave exercise of power and responsibility as close to the
local situation as possible. Brussels telling Poland who should be a TV presenter, or
Washington deciding what people in rural Hungary should read is idiotic. What's the point of
all this busy-body behaviour? It is always justified by some slogans about preventing 'human
rights violations'. Right. We have seen the results – a lot more people have died and
suffered because of 'humanitarian' interventions than from anything else in the last 20+
years.
I do find the current rapprochement between Russia and the major Moslem states amusing. It
goes beyond Turkey and Iran, Moscow is working all of them, Egypt, Sudan, I suspect it is a
clever attempt to beat US at its own game – US has spent about four decades arming and
unleashing any Islamic force it could find against Russians (and Slavs in general), using
methods that were beyond brutal and hypocrisy that eventually backfired. Maybe turning it
around is a good strategy. It is inconsistent, but when you fight extreme stupidity, often
the only thing that works is to use more stupidity
"The same "hegemon with allies/vassals" as it is now, only in that case divided in
three"
Why? There is absolutely nothing about 'multipolar' that dictates three, or four
'hegemons', or even lists who would the 'multis' be. The idea is simply that most people,
most of the time are better off left alone.
Peter's is the apocalyptic view made famous by Orwell. He may be right, it may all unravel
and Oceania, Eurasia & Eastasia run a classic 3-power calculus of shifting alliances in a
struggle for control of the "hinterlands". Not at all impossible, but certainly not what the
proponents of the multipolar world want.
The idea is much more than the notion that most people want to "be left alone". The
Multipolar world as it is actually being constructed by its proponents, from its monetary
structures to its security, commercial and trade regimes, is precisely the attempt to prevent
that Orwellian development in the face of Western decline. Their foundational tenet is that
Globalization as a world-historical trend is here to stay (for at least the next few
generations), and the "compartmentalization" of the world into alliances and hegemonies as
historically occurred is no longer a viable option. The 3 Orwellian powers are all nuclear
now, and the #1 priority is to mitigate the risk of war between them. Best to do that by
dissolving them into a matrix of commercial and developmental programs that they'd be loathe
to destroy.
EG: Though Russia considers both China and Iran "strategic partners", there is no formal
alliance with either of them, and there won't be. Alliances cannot be "forbidden", but the
countries that have signed onto the multipolar world program view alliances with
suspicion.
As a introduction to the coming multipolar world, Kupchan's Western-centric analysis is a
good place to start: https://www.amazon.com/No-Ones-World-Council-Relations/dp/0199325227 "Kupchan provides a detailed strategy for striking a bargain between the West and the
rising rest by fashioning a new consensus on issues of legitimacy, sovereignty, and
governance."
Assuming he even knows the least thing about what the multipolar world is trying to do,
Peter's view is that their attempt will fail. Maybe so.
To "fashion a new consensus on issues of legitimacy, sovereignty, and governance" requires
that the professional criminal class that grabbed the remains of Western power a decade and a
half ago has been forced to let go. If not, the world indeed faces an abyss.
Orwell's vision is but one of the possibilities. Another is Armageddon. Yet another is a
"(Failed) West and a multipolar Rest". The latter is what I think will actually happen in the
near and medium term. Things being what they are, it may even be the best we can hope
for.
"(Failed) West and a multipolar Rest". The latter is what I think will actually happen
in the near and medium term.
I think we already have it, except I don't think West has failed yet. Or it has in a way,
the process of failing goes on, but the consequences have not been felt much in the West
yet.
I don't see any other power than the West (=US) aspiring to 'manage the world'. Maybe some
ISIS fanatics have the same dream, but they are not in a position to achieve it. West has
'managed' it very poorly: mindless interventions, wars, migrants, hypocrisy, threats and
blackmail.
The other 'powers' have very modest, regional aspirations. Russia or China really don't
care that much who wins the elections in Portugal, or what regional papers write in Hungary
– US seems to be obsessed with it. And the only justification that Western defenders
offer when pressed is that 'there would be a vacuum' and 'Russians would move in'. This is
obvious nonsense and only elderly paranoid Cold Warrior types believe it (peterAUS?). What is
really going on is that West has over-reached and can barely handle its own problems. So they
scream 'Russians are coming' to distract, or to prolong the agony. Russians are not coming,
they don't care in 2017, they can barely control their huge territory today. More you see
squealing and lying in the Western media, more it shows that they have not much else to work
with.
"(Failed) West and a multipolar Rest". The latter is what I think will actually happen
in the near and medium term.
I think we already have it, except I don't think West has failed yet. Or it has in a
way, the process of failing goes on, but the consequences have not been felt much in the
West yet.
Well, exogenous events aside, "decline and fall" is necessarily a process. A series of
steps and plateaus is typical. A major step occurred in 2007/8, when the money failed. The
bankers, in a frankly heroic display of coordination, propped up the $$$ and the West got a
decade long plateau. Things are going wobbly again, financially speaking and I suspect the
next step function to occur rather soon. Stays of execution have been exhausted, so it'll be
interesting how the West handles it, and how the RoW reacts.
Europeans have been invited to join the Eurasian Project, to create a continental market from
"Lisbon to Vladivostok". Latent dreams of Hegemony hold at least some of their elites back.
The USA has also been invited, but its dreams remain much more virile. That is, until Trump
who's backers seem to read the writing on the wall better than the Straussians.
I don't see any other power than the West (=US) aspiring to 'manage the world' .
The other 'powers' have very modest, regional aspirations US seems to be obsessed with
it.
The fact is that the rise of the West to global dominance is due to a historical anomaly.
It was fuelled (literally) by the discovery and harnessing of the chemical energy embedded in
coal (late 18thC) and then oil (late 19thC). The first doubled the population, and as first
movers gave the West a running start. The second turned on the afterburners, and population
grew >3.5 fold. Again the West led the way. To fuel that ahistorical step-function growth
curve, control of resources on a global scale became its civilizational imperative.
That growth curve has plateaued, and the rest of the world has caught/is catching up
developmentally. The resources the West needs aren't going to be available to it in the way
they were 100 years ago. Them days is over, for everybody really, but especially for the West
because it has depleted its own hi-ROI resources, and both of its means of control (IMF$
System & U$M) of what's left of everybody else's are failing simultaneously. So its
plateau will not be flat, or not flat for long between increasingly violent steps.
The West rode an ahistorical rogue wave of development to a point just short of Global
Hegemony. That wave broke, and is now rolling back out into the world leaving the West just
short of its civilizational resource requirements. No way to get back on a broken wave. In
any case, China now holds the $$$ hammer, and Russia holds the military hammer, and they've
now got the surfboard. Both of them, led by historically aware elites, know that Hegemony
doesn't work, so will focus on keeping their neck of the woods as stable & prosperous as
possible while hell blazes elsewhere.
What is really going on is that West has over-reached and can barely handle its own
problems.
IMHO, what's really going on is that the West's problems are simply symptomatic of what
"decline and fall", if not "collapse" looks like from within a failing system. A long time
ago I read the diary of a Roman nobleman who in the most matter-of-fact style wrote of
exactly the same things Westerners complain about today. How this, that or the other thing no
longer works the way it did. For all of his 60+ years, every day was infinitesimally worse
than the day before, until finally he decides to pack up his Roman households and move to his
estates in Spain. It took 170(iirc) more years of continuous decline until Alaric finally
arrived at the Gates of Rome. If wholly due to internal causes, collapse is almost always a
slow motion train wreck.
'there would be a vacuum' and 'Russians would move in'. This is obvious nonsense and
only elderly paranoid Cold Warrior types believe it (peterAUS?).
Actually, it's just stupid. Cold Warrior or not, the view betrays a deep and abiding
ignorance of both history and a large part of what drove the West's hegemonic successes. That
both militate against anyone else ever even trying such a thing on a global scale can't be
seen if you look at historical developments and the rest of the world through 10′ of
1″ pipe.
The idea that Russia wants/needs the Baltics is even more laughable than that it
wants/needs the Ukraine or Poland. None of these tarbabies have anything to offer but
trouble. Noisome flies on an elephant, it is only if they make themselves more troublesome as
outsiders than they would be as vassals would Russia move.
Why do you think so? I think we are about to enter an occasional plateau and things will
be stable or even improve for a while. The Rome analogies are instructive, but they only take you so far. E.g. Rome was
collapsing for about two centuries, on and off. Rome was also infinitely more brutal than
today's West and the 'barbarians' were real barbarians, not aspiring migrants led by
well-paid NGO comprador class. Why do you think it is getting wobbly?
"... There's a continuity in American policies that transcend whatever administration happens to be in office. This is particularly true in foreign policy. The US has been expansionist and interventionist since 1898 and continues on this track which inevitably leads to conflict with other countries who don't care to be under the US thumb. ..."
"... Hence the current crop of enemies and war drum pounding. This would be the same were Clinton to have been elected. Unfortunately the mass of Americans are getting dragged along with this at increasing peril to them with no recourse available. ..."
most dangerous developments under Trump trace back to Obama initiatives --
There's a continuity in American policies that transcend whatever administration happens
to be in office. This is particularly true in foreign policy. The US has been expansionist and
interventionist since 1898 and continues on this track which inevitably leads to conflict with
other countries who don't care to be under the US thumb.
Hence the current crop of enemies and war drum pounding. This would be the same were Clinton
to have been elected. Unfortunately the mass of Americans are getting dragged along with this
at increasing peril to them with no recourse available.
"... Why? Because the U.N. has basically been the complete opposite of what its angriest critics claim. It is not out to get the U.S. Rather, it has largely been America's tool since its inception and, in particular, it has repeatedly covered Uncle Sam's overly-exposed butt as he (a.k.a. "the royal we") has gone around the world on a three decade-long military bender since the end of the Cold War. ..."
"... Or what about America's complicity in the catastrophe of Yemen? Where are those sanctions? And what exactly has the U.N. done to punish any number of extra-legal maneuver by a succession of American presidents over the course of the "Global War on Terror"? The simple answer is nothing. ..."
"... Instead, the Secretary General is largely beholden to the disproportionate influence of the United States. The Security Council's agenda is basically set by the United States and that's particularly true since the Soviet Union collapsed. At the same time, the U.N.'s occasionally contentious debates do little more than offer the imprimatur of international approbation or well-noted disdain despite the functionally inconsequential nature of those debates. ..."
"... Either way it is a win for Uncle Sam because the presence of a neutered United Nations provides the United States with a fig leaf just big enough to cover the dangly parts of America's otherwise naked empire. ..."
"... The money that does go from the U.S. Treasury into the minutia around the margins like UNESCO programs and United Nations Development Program (UNDP) and the World Health Organization (WHO) and all the other little crumbs that get thrown around the world these are payoffs. This is what the world gets for mostly keeping its mouth shut in the face of America's globe-spanning empire. The tiny amount of aid that trickles down past the bureaucracy much like the bureaucracy itself is not an example of America "getting played" by wasteful foreigners with hidden agendas. This is America paying to play the world like organ grinder with a hurdy-gurdy monkey. ..."
"... Frankly, the " 28.5% of the overall peacekeeping bill " that Trump calls "unfair" ( about $2.2 billion of the $3.3 billion the U.S. gives to the UN annually ) is a pittance particularly if you want the unchecked right to tell Persians what they can and cannot do in the Persian Gulf, to tell the Chinese what they can and cannot build in the South China Sea, and to tell every other power on the face of the earth why they cannot have the same nuclear capability America not only has but is currently "upgrading" to the tune of $1.5 trillion . ..."
"... Even more amazingly, the U.S. wants to deny these nations the only real insurance policy against U.S.-led regime change. And why is that? Because there ain't a Curveball's chance in Hell that the U.N. will ever be able to stop Uncle Sam from marching where he wants, when he wants and for whatever reason he wants to cook-up. That's a historically provable fact . ..."
"... The only real check on U.S. power is the ability of an asymmetrical power to go nuclear. And let's admit it, they are ALL asymmetrical powers when compared to America's gargantuan, trillion-dollar national security beast . ..."
"... But like it was tested by Team Bush, the IAEA is going to be tested again as Trump and Netanyahu make their bogus case without a hint of irony that Iran is the world's greatest threat. But that's really just par for a course that's riddled with falsified flags haphazardly stuck into the shallow holes of a back nine that's actually been built by and for a club-wielding Uncle Sam. ..."
"... And in the case of the U.N., that projected guilt is in spite of the fact that it is often tasked with quietly cleaning up some of the collateral damage wrought by their main accuser. They just have to do so without any real power or the funds to do the job. That's the simple truth you won't hear in Trump's speech or any speech, for that matter. ..."
"... It's the fact that the U.N.'s meager amount of "wasteful spending" doesn't even begin to cover the cost of doing business when your business depends of paying the world to look the other way while you get away with murder. ..."
For decades the American Right has decried the U.N. for encroaching on American sovereignty, but the truth is that the U.N. is
a chief U.S. accomplice in violating the sovereignty of other nations, notes J.P. Sottile.
President Trump
opened his big United Nations week and his famous mouth with a
predictable plug for one of his properties and
some playful glad-handing with French President Emmanuel Macron. Trump also
scolded the U.N.'s unwieldy scrum for "not living
up to its potential." He made a passing reference to the U.N.'s wasteful use of American money. And he called for "reform" of the
much-maligned international forum.
It was a stolid prelude
to what will no doubt be "must-see" TV when he speaks to the
UN General Assembly on
Tuesday about North Korea and Iran. And it was a far cry from the way America's leading "America Firster" spent the campaign
lamenting how unfair the U.N
. is to the poor schlemiel we call Uncle Sam.
He is likely to use his speech to throw a little bit of that same red meat to his base, but his call for reform falls well short
of what
his supporters want which is an abrupt end of U.S. involvement in the international body. They are motivated by a grab-bag of
reasons that point to the U.N. being a threat to their guns, their bank accounts and their God-given freedom.
Oddly enough, these conspiratorial narratives have been around for decades and they mostly center on a grand plan by U.N. elites
to abscond American sovereignty and dissolve the U.S. into a U.N.-led world government. And the evidence of this is the way the U.N.
harasses and restricts Uncle Sam while siphoning-off America's wealth. At least, that's what some think.
Most ominously, many object to the way U.N. funds are being used to quietly deploy
gun-grabbing U.N. soldiers in advance of
the big takeover . But like so
much of Trump's intoxicating
irredentism this is a grievance more likely rooted in a three-day meth bender in a Tallahassee trailer park than it is from shocking
evidence gathered from well-traveled observation. It's paranoia. But really, it's worse than that.
Why? Because the U.N. has basically been the complete opposite of what its angriest critics claim. It is not out to get the
U.S. Rather, it has largely been America's tool since its inception and, in particular, it has repeatedly covered Uncle Sam's overly-exposed
butt as he (a.k.a. "the royal we") has gone around the world on a three decade-long military bender since the end of the Cold War.
Yes, the Gulf War was U.N. approved and the whole world got behind it because (
April Glaspie's
backstory notwithstanding) the prima facie case was strong and it was a fairly clear-cut example of unwarranted aggression.
That was an easy call.
Global Violence
But since then, the calls have been nothing short of murky as the U.S. has bombed and droned and deployed and invaded and covertly-acted
and regime-changed all around the globe. And the unspoken truth is that the United Nations has been America's all-too silent partner
as Uncle Sam traipsed around the planet with a loaded gun, remote control assassination machines and paper-thin rationales for intervention.
Although the U.N. occasionally puts a bug up Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu's ass on the issue of the slow-motion ethnic
cleansing in the West Bank what other issue is there where the U.N. has taken a real stand against the U.S. or U.S. policy objectives?
Where is the U.N.'s punishment for being lied to by then-Secretary of State Colin Powell? And where is the punishment for destroying
a bystander nation under false pretenses? Where is the punishment for Abu Ghraib or Gitmo?
Where is the punishment for America's summary execution of "suspected militants" around the Muslim world simply because they are
of "military age" and in the wrong place at the right time and for the CIA, it is always the right time to kill a suspect no matter
how wrong the place many be. And where is the condemnation of America's destabilizing role as the
world's
leading supermarket of military hardware ?
How about mounting civilian causalities from an ever-widening widening bombing campaign? The U.N. can say the killings are "
unacceptable ," but does it really matter if there is no sanction? There haven't been any sanctions after children were killed
in a "
U.S.-backed raid " in Somalia. Go figure, right?
Or what about America's complicity in the catastrophe of Yemen? Where are those sanctions? And what exactly has the U.N. done
to punish any number of extra-legal maneuver by a succession of American presidents over the course of the "Global War on Terror"?
The simple answer is nothing.
Instead, the Secretary General is largely beholden to the disproportionate influence of the United States. The Security Council's
agenda is basically set by the United States and that's particularly true since the Soviet Union collapsed. At the same time, the
U.N.'s occasionally contentious debates do little more than offer the imprimatur of international approbation or well-noted disdain
despite the functionally inconsequential nature of those debates.
A Fig Leaf for Empire
Either way it is a win for Uncle Sam because the presence of a neutered United Nations provides the United States with a fig
leaf just big enough to cover the dangly parts of America's otherwise naked empire.
The money that does go from the U.S. Treasury into the minutia around the margins like UNESCO programs and United Nations
Development Program (UNDP) and the World Health Organization (WHO) and all the other little crumbs that get thrown around the world
these are payoffs. This is what the world gets for mostly keeping its mouth shut in the face of America's globe-spanning empire.
The tiny amount of aid that trickles down past the bureaucracy much like the bureaucracy itself is not an example of America "getting
played" by wasteful foreigners with hidden agendas. This is America paying to play the world like organ grinder with a hurdy-gurdy
monkey.
Even more amazingly, the U.S. wants to deny these nations the only real insurance policy against U.S.-led regime change. And why
is that? Because there ain't a
Curveball's chance
in Hell that the U.N. will ever be able to stop Uncle Sam from marching where he wants, when he wants and for whatever reason he
wants to cook-up. That's a historically
provable fact.
The only real check on U.S. power is the ability of an asymmetrical power to go nuclear. And let's admit it, they are ALL asymmetrical
powers when compared to America's gargantuan,
trillion-dollar national security beast . And this is why the U.N.'s "partnership" with International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
is the only U.N.-associated agency that really matters. They can't do much, but they can throw a wrench into another WMD snipe hunt
like they are doing now with the Iran Nuclear Deal .
But like it was tested by Team Bush, the IAEA is going to be tested again as Trump and Netanyahu
make their bogus case without
a hint of irony that Iran is the world's greatest threat. But that's really just par for a course that's riddled with falsified flags
haphazardly stuck into the shallow holes of a back nine that's actually been built by and for a club-wielding Uncle Sam.
A Cult of Grievance
And therein lies the truly pernicious part of the Trumped-up case against the U.N. because, like so much of America's growing
cult of grievance, it reflects an ever-widening gap between America's stated ideals and its self-serving behavior around the world.
As we are learning almost daily, Americans tried to square that circle by electing a profligate liar who fully embodies America's
insatiable desire to take credit, particularly where none is due and to outsource the blame to scapegoats like the U.N., particularly
when the only alternative is a long look into the mirror.
And in the case of the U.N., that projected guilt is in spite of the fact that it is often tasked with quietly cleaning up
some of the collateral damage wrought by their main accuser. They just have to do so without any real power or the funds to do
the job. That's the simple truth you won't hear in Trump's speech or any speech, for that matter.
It's the fact that the U.N.'s meager amount of "wasteful spending" doesn't even begin to cover the cost of doing business when
your business depends of paying the world to look the other way while you get away with murder.
JP Sottile is a freelance journalist, radio co-host, documentary filmmaker and former broadcast news producer in Washington,
D.C. He blogs at Newsvandal.com or you can
follow him on Twitter .
By JP Sottile / Republished with permission / Consortium News
This is guy is definitely a plain vanilla neocon propagandist like Robert "Nulandgate" Kagan (writing is almost undistinguishable):
"Throughout history, Russia's cold climate, incomparable vastness and lack of defensible borders have made both autocracy and incipient
chaos more natural to it than liberal democracy -- so that through Russian eyes, as
Joseph Conrad wrote , freedom
itself can look like "a form of debauch." Boris Yeltsin's rule in the 1990s was as much an experiment in quasi-anarchy as in democracy".
What a simplistic neocon prostitute masquerading as a political scientist. Of course MIC pays well, but intellectual prostitution is
always intellectual prostitution.
Notable quotes:
"... This is a verbose way of saying that unless US recovers (or find anew) some sort of "monster" in abroad to which to put sword on it, then, her "national unity" will not survive long. In other words, his argument is that of the same Neo-Conservative's great American Project, which in turn could only be the "glue" that could hold America together. And that glue will be a "quasi-Empire" clothed in high-minded language of liberal Humanitarianism and lofty internationalism. ..."
"... And his arguments was, that, the "elites of the political regime" (broadly defined) must "channel" the atavistic energies of the teeming plebs of any nations (particularly any democratic nation) into some sort of laudatory projects, lofty schemes, and other national self-congratulatory agendas, lest otherwise their abundant energies may degenerate into a nihilistic self-harm to the nation itself. Consequently, it's a far cry from what John Adams have said about America, in 1821, which was when he said this: ..."
"... Hence, lets see what this new cry for an old song will amount to this time around, since, the last "great national project" in which people like Bob Kaplan have championed seems to have run aground in the deserts of Arabia. ..."
Indeed, of late, American democracy has been less an inspiration than a tawdry spectacle. Congress has seen a degree of partisan
dysfunction unknown since nineteenth-century frontier days. The president, by any account, simply lacks the decorum of all former
modern presidents. The monied classes essentially run Washington, a process that has been maturing and abundantly commented upon
for decades. Despite the quiet dedication of an often-maligned, policy-driven bureaucratic elite, America is less and less the "city
upon a hill." In all of this, keep in mind that it is less important how Americans see themselves than how others see them.
This is a verbose way of saying that unless US recovers (or find anew) some sort of "monster" in abroad to which to put
sword on it, then, her "national unity" will not survive long. In other words, his argument is that of the same Neo-Conservative's
great American Project, which in turn could only be the "glue" that could hold America together. And that glue will be a "quasi-Empire"
clothed in high-minded language of liberal Humanitarianism and lofty internationalism.
Hence, we seemed to be back to that old Straussian's school of double-speak (which was what Dr Leo Strauss's real political
arguments was, and what he then "imparted" as an political educations to the Neo-Conservative's clique who used to congregate
at his feet back in Chicago University).
And his arguments was, that, the "elites of the political regime" (broadly defined) must "channel" the atavistic energies
of the teeming plebs of any nations (particularly any democratic nation) into some sort of laudatory projects, lofty schemes,
and other national self-congratulatory agendas, lest otherwise their abundant energies may degenerate into a nihilistic self-harm
to the nation itself. Consequently, it's a far cry from what John Adams have said about America, in 1821, which was when he said
this:
"....Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions
and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence
of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own...."
Hence, lets see what this new cry for an old song will amount to this time around, since, the last "great national project"
in which people like Bob Kaplan have championed seems to have run aground in the deserts of Arabia.
"... There's a continuity in American policies that transcend whatever administration happens to be in office. This is particularly true in foreign policy. The US has been expansionist and interventionist since 1898 and continues on this track which inevitably leads to conflict with other countries who don't care to be under the US thumb. ..."
"... Hence the current crop of enemies and war drum pounding. This would be the same were Clinton to have been elected. Unfortunately the mass of Americans are getting dragged along with this at increasing peril to them with no recourse available. ..."
most dangerous developments under Trump trace back to Obama initiatives --
There's a continuity in American policies that transcend whatever administration happens
to be in office. This is particularly true in foreign policy. The US has been expansionist and
interventionist since 1898 and continues on this track which inevitably leads to conflict with
other countries who don't care to be under the US thumb.
Hence the current crop of enemies and war drum pounding. This would be the same were Clinton
to have been elected. Unfortunately the mass of Americans are getting dragged along with this
at increasing peril to them with no recourse available.
"... Why? Because the U.N. has basically been the complete opposite of what its angriest critics claim. It is not out to get the U.S. Rather, it has largely been America's tool since its inception and, in particular, it has repeatedly covered Uncle Sam's overly-exposed butt as he (a.k.a. "the royal we") has gone around the world on a three decade-long military bender since the end of the Cold War. ..."
"... Or what about America's complicity in the catastrophe of Yemen? Where are those sanctions? And what exactly has the U.N. done to punish any number of extra-legal maneuver by a succession of American presidents over the course of the "Global War on Terror"? The simple answer is nothing. ..."
"... Instead, the Secretary General is largely beholden to the disproportionate influence of the United States. The Security Council's agenda is basically set by the United States and that's particularly true since the Soviet Union collapsed. At the same time, the U.N.'s occasionally contentious debates do little more than offer the imprimatur of international approbation or well-noted disdain despite the functionally inconsequential nature of those debates. ..."
"... Either way it is a win for Uncle Sam because the presence of a neutered United Nations provides the United States with a fig leaf just big enough to cover the dangly parts of America's otherwise naked empire. ..."
"... The money that does go from the U.S. Treasury into the minutia around the margins like UNESCO programs and United Nations Development Program (UNDP) and the World Health Organization (WHO) and all the other little crumbs that get thrown around the world these are payoffs. This is what the world gets for mostly keeping its mouth shut in the face of America's globe-spanning empire. The tiny amount of aid that trickles down past the bureaucracy much like the bureaucracy itself is not an example of America "getting played" by wasteful foreigners with hidden agendas. This is America paying to play the world like organ grinder with a hurdy-gurdy monkey. ..."
"... Frankly, the " 28.5% of the overall peacekeeping bill " that Trump calls "unfair" ( about $2.2 billion of the $3.3 billion the U.S. gives to the UN annually ) is a pittance particularly if you want the unchecked right to tell Persians what they can and cannot do in the Persian Gulf, to tell the Chinese what they can and cannot build in the South China Sea, and to tell every other power on the face of the earth why they cannot have the same nuclear capability America not only has but is currently "upgrading" to the tune of $1.5 trillion . ..."
"... Even more amazingly, the U.S. wants to deny these nations the only real insurance policy against U.S.-led regime change. And why is that? Because there ain't a Curveball's chance in Hell that the U.N. will ever be able to stop Uncle Sam from marching where he wants, when he wants and for whatever reason he wants to cook-up. That's a historically provable fact . ..."
"... The only real check on U.S. power is the ability of an asymmetrical power to go nuclear. And let's admit it, they are ALL asymmetrical powers when compared to America's gargantuan, trillion-dollar national security beast . ..."
"... But like it was tested by Team Bush, the IAEA is going to be tested again as Trump and Netanyahu make their bogus case without a hint of irony that Iran is the world's greatest threat. But that's really just par for a course that's riddled with falsified flags haphazardly stuck into the shallow holes of a back nine that's actually been built by and for a club-wielding Uncle Sam. ..."
"... And in the case of the U.N., that projected guilt is in spite of the fact that it is often tasked with quietly cleaning up some of the collateral damage wrought by their main accuser. They just have to do so without any real power or the funds to do the job. That's the simple truth you won't hear in Trump's speech or any speech, for that matter. ..."
"... It's the fact that the U.N.'s meager amount of "wasteful spending" doesn't even begin to cover the cost of doing business when your business depends of paying the world to look the other way while you get away with murder. ..."
For decades the American Right has decried the U.N. for encroaching on American sovereignty, but the truth is that the U.N. is
a chief U.S. accomplice in violating the sovereignty of other nations, notes J.P. Sottile.
President Trump
opened his big United Nations week and his famous mouth with a
predictable plug for one of his properties and
some playful glad-handing with French President Emmanuel Macron. Trump also
scolded the U.N.'s unwieldy scrum for "not living
up to its potential." He made a passing reference to the U.N.'s wasteful use of American money. And he called for "reform" of the
much-maligned international forum.
It was a stolid prelude
to what will no doubt be "must-see" TV when he speaks to the
UN General Assembly on
Tuesday about North Korea and Iran. And it was a far cry from the way America's leading "America Firster" spent the campaign
lamenting how unfair the U.N
. is to the poor schlemiel we call Uncle Sam.
He is likely to use his speech to throw a little bit of that same red meat to his base, but his call for reform falls well short
of what
his supporters want which is an abrupt end of U.S. involvement in the international body. They are motivated by a grab-bag of
reasons that point to the U.N. being a threat to their guns, their bank accounts and their God-given freedom.
Oddly enough, these conspiratorial narratives have been around for decades and they mostly center on a grand plan by U.N. elites
to abscond American sovereignty and dissolve the U.S. into a U.N.-led world government. And the evidence of this is the way the U.N.
harasses and restricts Uncle Sam while siphoning-off America's wealth. At least, that's what some think.
Most ominously, many object to the way U.N. funds are being used to quietly deploy
gun-grabbing U.N. soldiers in advance of
the big takeover . But like so
much of Trump's intoxicating
irredentism this is a grievance more likely rooted in a three-day meth bender in a Tallahassee trailer park than it is from shocking
evidence gathered from well-traveled observation. It's paranoia. But really, it's worse than that.
Why? Because the U.N. has basically been the complete opposite of what its angriest critics claim. It is not out to get the
U.S. Rather, it has largely been America's tool since its inception and, in particular, it has repeatedly covered Uncle Sam's overly-exposed
butt as he (a.k.a. "the royal we") has gone around the world on a three decade-long military bender since the end of the Cold War.
Yes, the Gulf War was U.N. approved and the whole world got behind it because (
April Glaspie's
backstory notwithstanding) the prima facie case was strong and it was a fairly clear-cut example of unwarranted aggression.
That was an easy call.
Global Violence
But since then, the calls have been nothing short of murky as the U.S. has bombed and droned and deployed and invaded and covertly-acted
and regime-changed all around the globe. And the unspoken truth is that the United Nations has been America's all-too silent partner
as Uncle Sam traipsed around the planet with a loaded gun, remote control assassination machines and paper-thin rationales for intervention.
Although the U.N. occasionally puts a bug up Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu's ass on the issue of the slow-motion ethnic
cleansing in the West Bank what other issue is there where the U.N. has taken a real stand against the U.S. or U.S. policy objectives?
Where is the U.N.'s punishment for being lied to by then-Secretary of State Colin Powell? And where is the punishment for destroying
a bystander nation under false pretenses? Where is the punishment for Abu Ghraib or Gitmo?
Where is the punishment for America's summary execution of "suspected militants" around the Muslim world simply because they are
of "military age" and in the wrong place at the right time and for the CIA, it is always the right time to kill a suspect no matter
how wrong the place many be. And where is the condemnation of America's destabilizing role as the
world's
leading supermarket of military hardware ?
How about mounting civilian causalities from an ever-widening widening bombing campaign? The U.N. can say the killings are "
unacceptable ," but does it really matter if there is no sanction? There haven't been any sanctions after children were killed
in a "
U.S.-backed raid " in Somalia. Go figure, right?
Or what about America's complicity in the catastrophe of Yemen? Where are those sanctions? And what exactly has the U.N. done
to punish any number of extra-legal maneuver by a succession of American presidents over the course of the "Global War on Terror"?
The simple answer is nothing.
Instead, the Secretary General is largely beholden to the disproportionate influence of the United States. The Security Council's
agenda is basically set by the United States and that's particularly true since the Soviet Union collapsed. At the same time, the
U.N.'s occasionally contentious debates do little more than offer the imprimatur of international approbation or well-noted disdain
despite the functionally inconsequential nature of those debates.
A Fig Leaf for Empire
Either way it is a win for Uncle Sam because the presence of a neutered United Nations provides the United States with a fig
leaf just big enough to cover the dangly parts of America's otherwise naked empire.
The money that does go from the U.S. Treasury into the minutia around the margins like UNESCO programs and United Nations
Development Program (UNDP) and the World Health Organization (WHO) and all the other little crumbs that get thrown around the world
these are payoffs. This is what the world gets for mostly keeping its mouth shut in the face of America's globe-spanning empire.
The tiny amount of aid that trickles down past the bureaucracy much like the bureaucracy itself is not an example of America "getting
played" by wasteful foreigners with hidden agendas. This is America paying to play the world like organ grinder with a hurdy-gurdy
monkey.
Even more amazingly, the U.S. wants to deny these nations the only real insurance policy against U.S.-led regime change. And why
is that? Because there ain't a
Curveball's chance
in Hell that the U.N. will ever be able to stop Uncle Sam from marching where he wants, when he wants and for whatever reason he
wants to cook-up. That's a historically
provable fact.
The only real check on U.S. power is the ability of an asymmetrical power to go nuclear. And let's admit it, they are ALL asymmetrical
powers when compared to America's gargantuan,
trillion-dollar national security beast . And this is why the U.N.'s "partnership" with International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
is the only U.N.-associated agency that really matters. They can't do much, but they can throw a wrench into another WMD snipe hunt
like they are doing now with the Iran Nuclear Deal .
But like it was tested by Team Bush, the IAEA is going to be tested again as Trump and Netanyahu
make their bogus case without
a hint of irony that Iran is the world's greatest threat. But that's really just par for a course that's riddled with falsified flags
haphazardly stuck into the shallow holes of a back nine that's actually been built by and for a club-wielding Uncle Sam.
A Cult of Grievance
And therein lies the truly pernicious part of the Trumped-up case against the U.N. because, like so much of America's growing
cult of grievance, it reflects an ever-widening gap between America's stated ideals and its self-serving behavior around the world.
As we are learning almost daily, Americans tried to square that circle by electing a profligate liar who fully embodies America's
insatiable desire to take credit, particularly where none is due and to outsource the blame to scapegoats like the U.N., particularly
when the only alternative is a long look into the mirror.
And in the case of the U.N., that projected guilt is in spite of the fact that it is often tasked with quietly cleaning up
some of the collateral damage wrought by their main accuser. They just have to do so without any real power or the funds to do
the job. That's the simple truth you won't hear in Trump's speech or any speech, for that matter.
It's the fact that the U.N.'s meager amount of "wasteful spending" doesn't even begin to cover the cost of doing business when
your business depends of paying the world to look the other way while you get away with murder.
JP Sottile is a freelance journalist, radio co-host, documentary filmmaker and former broadcast news producer in Washington,
D.C. He blogs at Newsvandal.com or you can
follow him on Twitter .
By JP Sottile / Republished with permission / Consortium News
This is guy is definitely a plain vanilla neocon propagandist like Robert "Nulandgate" Kagan (writing is almost undistinguishable):
"Throughout history, Russia's cold climate, incomparable vastness and lack of defensible borders have made both autocracy and incipient
chaos more natural to it than liberal democracy -- so that through Russian eyes, as
Joseph Conrad wrote , freedom
itself can look like "a form of debauch." Boris Yeltsin's rule in the 1990s was as much an experiment in quasi-anarchy as in democracy".
What a simplistic neocon prostitute masquerading as a political scientist. Of course MIC pays well, but intellectual prostitution is
always intellectual prostitution.
Notable quotes:
"... This is a verbose way of saying that unless US recovers (or find anew) some sort of "monster" in abroad to which to put sword on it, then, her "national unity" will not survive long. In other words, his argument is that of the same Neo-Conservative's great American Project, which in turn could only be the "glue" that could hold America together. And that glue will be a "quasi-Empire" clothed in high-minded language of liberal Humanitarianism and lofty internationalism. ..."
"... And his arguments was, that, the "elites of the political regime" (broadly defined) must "channel" the atavistic energies of the teeming plebs of any nations (particularly any democratic nation) into some sort of laudatory projects, lofty schemes, and other national self-congratulatory agendas, lest otherwise their abundant energies may degenerate into a nihilistic self-harm to the nation itself. Consequently, it's a far cry from what John Adams have said about America, in 1821, which was when he said this: ..."
"... Hence, lets see what this new cry for an old song will amount to this time around, since, the last "great national project" in which people like Bob Kaplan have championed seems to have run aground in the deserts of Arabia. ..."
Indeed, of late, American democracy has been less an inspiration than a tawdry spectacle. Congress has seen a degree of partisan
dysfunction unknown since nineteenth-century frontier days. The president, by any account, simply lacks the decorum of all former
modern presidents. The monied classes essentially run Washington, a process that has been maturing and abundantly commented upon
for decades. Despite the quiet dedication of an often-maligned, policy-driven bureaucratic elite, America is less and less the "city
upon a hill." In all of this, keep in mind that it is less important how Americans see themselves than how others see them.
This is a verbose way of saying that unless US recovers (or find anew) some sort of "monster" in abroad to which to put
sword on it, then, her "national unity" will not survive long. In other words, his argument is that of the same Neo-Conservative's
great American Project, which in turn could only be the "glue" that could hold America together. And that glue will be a "quasi-Empire"
clothed in high-minded language of liberal Humanitarianism and lofty internationalism.
Hence, we seemed to be back to that old Straussian's school of double-speak (which was what Dr Leo Strauss's real political
arguments was, and what he then "imparted" as an political educations to the Neo-Conservative's clique who used to congregate
at his feet back in Chicago University).
And his arguments was, that, the "elites of the political regime" (broadly defined) must "channel" the atavistic energies
of the teeming plebs of any nations (particularly any democratic nation) into some sort of laudatory projects, lofty schemes,
and other national self-congratulatory agendas, lest otherwise their abundant energies may degenerate into a nihilistic self-harm
to the nation itself. Consequently, it's a far cry from what John Adams have said about America, in 1821, which was when he said
this:
"....Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions
and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence
of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own...."
Hence, lets see what this new cry for an old song will amount to this time around, since, the last "great national project"
in which people like Bob Kaplan have championed seems to have run aground in the deserts of Arabia.
It's interesting to reread this two years article by
Here is an extremely shred observation: "I lived in the USSR during the 1970s and would not wish that kind of restrictive regime on anyone. Until it fell apart, though,
it was militarily strong enough to deter Wolfowitz-style adventurism. And I will say that – for the millions of people now dead,
injured or displaced by U.S. military action in the Middle East over the past dozen years – the collapse of the Soviet Union as a
deterrent to U.S. war-making was not only a "geopolitical catastrophe" but an unmitigated disaster.
Notable quotes:
"... how Paul Wolfowitz and his neoconservative co-conspirators implemented their sweeping plan to destabilize key Middle Eastern countries once it became clear that post-Soviet Russia "won't stop us." ..."
"... the neocons had been enabled by their assessment that -- after the collapse of the Soviet Union – Russia had become neutralized and posed no deterrent to U.S. military action in the Middle East. ..."
"... the significance of Clark's depiction of Wolfowitz in 1992 gloating over what he judged to be a major lesson learned from the Desert Storm attack on Iraq in 1991; namely, "the Soviets won't stop us." ..."
"... Would the neocons – widely known as "the crazies" at least among the remaining sane people of Washington – have been crazy enough to opt for war to re-arrange the Middle East if the Soviet Union had not fallen apart in 1991? ..."
"... The geopolitical vacuum that enabled the neocons to try out their "regime change" scheme in the Middle East may have been what Russian President Vladimir Putin was referring to in his state-of-the-nation address on April 25, 2005, when he called the collapse of the Soviet Union "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the [past] century." Putin's comment has been a favorite meme of those who seek to demonize Putin by portraying him as lusting to re-establish a powerful USSR through aggression in Europe. ..."
"... Putin seemed correct at least in how the neocons exploited the absence of the Russian counterweight to over-extend American power in ways that were harmful to the world, devastating to the people at the receiving end of the neocon interventions, and even detrimental to the United States. ..."
"... I lived in the USSR during the 1970s and would not wish that kind of restrictive regime on anyone. Until it fell apart, though, it was militarily strong enough to deter Wolfowitz-style adventurism. And I will say that – for the millions of people now dead, injured or displaced by U.S. military action in the Middle East over the past dozen years – the collapse of the Soviet Union as a deterrent to U.S. war-making was not only a "geopolitical catastrophe" but an unmitigated disaster. ..."
"... "We should have gotten rid of Saddam Hussein. The truth is, one thing we did learn is that we can use our military in the Middle East and the Soviets won't stop us. We've got about five or 10 years to clean up those old Soviet client regimes – Syria, Iran (sic), Iraq – before the next great superpower comes on to challenge us." ..."
"... the scene was surreal – funereal, even, with both Wolfowitz and Lieberman very much down-in-the-mouth, behaving as though they had just watched their favorite team lose the Super Bowl. ..."
"... In her article, entitled "Israel Backs Limited Strike Against Syria," Rudoren noted that the Israelis were arguing, quietly, that the best outcome for Syria's (then) 2 ˝-year-old civil war, at least for the moment, was no outcome: ..."
"... In September 2013, shortly after Rudoren's article, Israeli Ambassador to the United States Michael Oren, then a close adviser to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, told the Jerusalem Post that Israel favored the Sunni extremists over Assad. ..."
"... "The greatest danger to Israel is by the strategic arc that extends from Tehran, to Damascus to Beirut. And we saw the Assad regime as the keystone in that arc," Oren said in an interview . "We always wanted Bashar Assad to go, we always preferred the bad guys who weren't backed by Iran to the bad guys who were backed by Iran." He said this was the case even if the "bad guys" were affiliated with Al-Qaeda. ..."
"... In June 2014, Oren – then speaking as a former ambassador – said Israel would even prefer a victory by the Islamic State, which was massacring captured Iraqi soldiers and beheading Westerners, than the continuation of the Iranian-backed Assad in Syria. "From Israel's perspective, if there's got to be an evil that's got to prevail, let the Sunni evil prevail," Oren said. ..."
"... That Syria's main ally is Iran with which it has a mutual defense treaty plays a role in Israeli calculations. Accordingly, while some Western leaders would like to achieve a realistic if imperfect settlement of the Syrian civil war, others who enjoy considerable influence in Washington would just as soon see the Assad government and the entire region bleed out. ..."
"... As cynical and cruel as this strategy is, it isn't all that hard to understand. Yet, it seems to be one of those complicated, politically charged situations well above the pay-grade of the sophomores advising President Obama – who, sad to say, are no match for the neocons in the Washington Establishment. Not to mention the Netanyahu-mesmerized Congress. ..."
"... Speaking of Congress, a year after Rudoren's report, Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tennessee, who now chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, divulged some details about the military attack that had been planned against Syria, while lamenting that it was canceled. In doing so, Corker called Obama's abrupt change on Aug. 31, 2013, in opting for negotiations over open war on Syria, "the worst moment in U.S. foreign policy since I've been here." Following the neocon script, Corker blasted the deal (since fully implemented) with Putin and the Syrians to rid Syria of its chemical weapons. ..."
"... Wolfowitz, typically, has landed on his feet. He is now presidential hopeful Jeb Bush's foreign policy/defense adviser, no doubt outlining his preferred approach to the Middle East chessboard to his new boss. Does anyone know the plural of "bedlam? ..."
Former Washington insider and four-star General Wesley Clark spilled the beans several years ago on how Paul Wolfowitz and his
neoconservative co-conspirators implemented their sweeping plan to destabilize key Middle Eastern countries once it became clear
that post-Soviet Russia "won't stop us."
As I recently reviewed a YouTube
eight-minute clip of General Clark's October 2007 speech, what leaped out
at me was that the neocons had been enabled by their assessment that -- after the collapse of the Soviet Union – Russia had become
neutralized and posed no deterrent to U.S. military action in the Middle East.
While Clark's public exposé largely escaped attention in the neocon-friendly "mainstream media" (surprise, surprise!), he recounted
being told by a senior general at the Pentagon shortly after the 9/11 attacks in 2001 about the Donald Rumsfeld/Paul Wolfowitz-led
plan for "regime change" in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran.
This was startling enough, I grant you, since officially the United States presents itself as a nation that respects international
law, frowns upon other powerful nations overthrowing the governments of weaker states, and – in the aftermath of World War II – condemned
past aggressions by Nazi Germany and decried Soviet "subversion" of pro-U.S. nations.
But what caught my eye this time was the significance of Clark's depiction of Wolfowitz in 1992 gloating over what he judged
to be a major lesson learned from the Desert Storm attack on Iraq in 1991; namely, "the Soviets won't stop us."
That remark directly addresses a question that has troubled me since March 2003 when George W. Bush attacked Iraq. Would the
neocons – widely known as "the crazies" at least among the remaining sane people of Washington – have been crazy enough to opt for
war to re-arrange the Middle East if the Soviet Union had not fallen apart in 1991?
The question is not an idle one. Despite the debacle in Iraq and elsewhere, the neocon "crazies" still exercise huge influence
in Establishment Washington. Thus, the question now becomes whether, with Russia far more stable and much stronger, the "crazies"
are prepared to risk military escalation with Russia over Ukraine, what retired U.S. diplomat William R. Polk
deemed a potentially dangerous nuclear
confrontation, a "Cuban Missile Crisis in reverse."
Putin's Comment
The geopolitical vacuum that enabled the neocons to try out their "regime change" scheme in the Middle East may have been what
Russian President Vladimir Putin was referring to in his state-of-the-nation address on April 25, 2005, when he called the collapse
of the Soviet Union "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the [past] century." Putin's comment has been a favorite meme of those
who seek to demonize Putin by portraying him as lusting to re-establish a powerful USSR through aggression in Europe.
But, commenting two years after the Iraq invasion, Putin seemed correct at least in how the neocons exploited the absence
of the Russian counterweight to over-extend American power in ways that were harmful to the world, devastating to the people at the
receiving end of the neocon interventions, and even detrimental to the United States.
If one takes a step back and attempts an unbiased look at the spread of violence in the Middle East over the past quarter-century,
it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that Putin's comment was on the mark. With Russia a much-weakened military power in the 1990s
and early 2000s, there was nothing to deter U.S. policymakers from the kind of adventurism at Russia's soft underbelly that, in earlier
years, would have carried considerable risk of armed U.S.-USSR confrontation.
I lived in the USSR during the 1970s and would not wish that kind of restrictive regime on anyone. Until it fell apart, though,
it was militarily strong enough to deter Wolfowitz-style adventurism. And I will say that – for the millions of people now dead,
injured or displaced by U.S. military action in the Middle East over the past dozen years – the collapse of the Soviet Union as a
deterrent to U.S. war-making was not only a "geopolitical catastrophe" but an unmitigated disaster.
Visiting Wolfowitz
In his 2007 speech, General Clark related how in early 1991 he dropped in on Paul Wolfowitz, then Under Secretary of Defense for
Policy (and later, from 2001 to 2005, Deputy Secretary of Defense). It was just after a major Shia uprising in Iraq in March 1991.
President George H.W. Bush's administration had provoked it, but then did nothing to rescue the Shia from brutal retaliation by Saddam
Hussein, who had just survived his Persian Gulf defeat.
According to Clark, Wolfowitz said: "We should have gotten rid of Saddam Hussein. The truth is, one thing we did learn is
that we can use our military in the Middle East and the Soviets won't stop us. We've got about five or 10 years to clean up those
old Soviet client regimes – Syria, Iran (sic), Iraq – before the next great superpower comes on to challenge us."
It's now been more than 10 years, of course. But do not be deceived into thinking Wolfowitz and his neocon colleagues believe
they have failed in any major way. The unrest they initiated keeps mounting – in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Lebanon – not to mention
fresh violence now in full swing in Yemen and the crisis in Ukraine. Yet, the Teflon coating painted on the neocons continues to
cover and protect them in the "mainstream media."
True, one neocon disappointment is Iran. It is more stable and less isolated than before; it is playing a sophisticated role in
Iraq; and it is on the verge of concluding a major nuclear agreement with the West – barring the throwing of a neocon/Israeli monkey
wrench into the works to thwart it, as has been done
in the past.
An earlier setback for the neocons came at the end of August 2013 when President Barack Obama decided not to let himself be mouse-trapped
by the neocons into ordering U.S. forces to attack Syria. Wolfowitz et al. were on the threshold of having the U.S. formally join
the war against Bashar al-Assad's government of Syria when there was the proverbial slip between cup and lip. With the aid of the
neocons' new devil-incarnate Vladimir Putin, Obama faced them down and avoided war.
A week after it became clear that the neocons were not going to get their war in Syria, I found myself at the main CNN studio
in Washington together with Paul Wolfowitz and former Sen. Joe Lieberman, another important neocon. As I reported in "How
War on Syria Lost Its Way," the scene was surreal – funereal, even, with both Wolfowitz and Lieberman very much down-in-the-mouth,
behaving as though they had just watched their favorite team lose the Super Bowl.
Israeli/Neocon Preferences
But the neocons are nothing if not resilient. Despite their grotesque disasters, like the Iraq War, and their disappointments,
like not getting their war on Syria, they neither learn lessons nor change goals. They just readjust their aim, shooting now at Putin
over Ukraine as a way to clear the path again for "regime change" in Syria and Iran. [See Consortiumnews.com's "Why
Neocons Seek to Destabilize Russia."]
The neocons also can take some solace from their "success" at enflaming the Middle East with Shia and Sunni now at each other's
throats – a bad thing for many people of the world and certainly for the many innocent victims in the region, but not so bad for
the neocons. After all, it is the view of Israeli leaders and their neocon bedfellows (and women) that the internecine wars among
Muslims provide at least some short-term advantages for Israel as it consolidates control over the Palestinian West Bank.
In a Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
memorandum for President Obama on Sept. 6, 2013,
we called attention to an uncommonly candid
report
about Israeli/neocon motivation, written by none other than the Israel-friendly New York Times Bureau Chief in Jerusalem Jodi Rudoren
on Sept. 2, 2013, just two days after Obama took advantage of Putin's success in persuading the Syrians to allow their chemical weapons
to be destroyed and called off the planned attack on Syria, causing consternation among neocons in Washington.
Rudoren can perhaps be excused for her naďve lack of "political correctness." She had been barely a year on the job, had very
little prior experience with reporting on the Middle East, and – in the excitement about the almost-attack on Syria – she apparently
forgot the strictures normally imposed on the Times' reporting from Jerusalem. In any case, Israel's priorities became crystal clear
in what Rudoren wrote.
In her article, entitled "Israel Backs Limited Strike Against Syria," Rudoren noted that the Israelis were arguing, quietly,
that the best outcome for Syria's (then) 2 ˝-year-old civil war, at least for the moment, was no outcome:
"For Jerusalem, the status quo, horrific as it may be from a humanitarian perspective, seems preferable to either a victory
by Mr. Assad's government and his Iranian backers or a strengthening of rebel groups, increasingly dominated by Sunni jihadis.
"'This is a playoff situation in which you need both teams to lose, but at least you don't want one to win - we'll settle for
a tie,' said Alon Pinkas, a former Israeli consul general in New York. 'Let them both bleed, hemorrhage to death: that's the strategic
thinking here. As long as this lingers, there's no real threat from Syria.'"
Clear enough? If this is the way Israel's leaders continue to regard the situation in Syria, then they look on deeper U.S. involvement
– overt or covert – as likely to ensure that there is no early resolution of the conflict there. The longer Sunni and Shia are killing
each other, not only in Syria but also across the region as a whole, the safer Tel Aviv's leaders calculate Israel is.
Favoring Jihadis
But Israeli leaders have also made clear that if one side must win, they would prefer the Sunni side, despite its bloody extremists
from Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State. In September 2013, shortly after Rudoren's article, Israeli Ambassador to the United States
Michael Oren, then a close adviser to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, told the Jerusalem Post that Israel favored
the Sunni extremists over Assad.
"The greatest danger to Israel is by the strategic arc that extends from Tehran, to Damascus to Beirut. And we saw the Assad regime
as the keystone in that arc," Oren said in
an interview. "We always wanted Bashar Assad to go, we always preferred the bad guys who weren't backed by Iran to the bad guys
who were backed by Iran." He said this was the case even if the "bad guys" were affiliated with Al-Qaeda.
In June 2014, Oren – then speaking as a former ambassador – said Israel
would even prefer a victory by the Islamic State, which was massacring captured Iraqi soldiers and beheading Westerners, than the
continuation of the Iranian-backed Assad in Syria. "From Israel's perspective, if there's got to be an evil that's got to prevail,
let the Sunni evil prevail," Oren said.
Netanyahu sounded a similar theme in his March 3, 2015 speech to the U.S. Congress in which he trivialized the threat from the
Islamic State with its "butcher knives, captured weapons and YouTube" when compared to Iran, which he accused of "gobbling up the
nations" of the Middle East.
That Syria's main ally is Iran with which it has a mutual defense treaty plays a role in Israeli calculations. Accordingly, while
some Western leaders would like to achieve a realistic if imperfect settlement of the Syrian civil war, others who enjoy considerable
influence in Washington would just as soon see the Assad government and the entire region bleed out.
As cynical and cruel as this strategy is, it isn't all that hard to understand. Yet, it seems to be one of those complicated,
politically charged situations well above the pay-grade of the sophomores advising President Obama – who, sad to say, are no match
for the neocons in the Washington Establishment. Not to mention the Netanyahu-mesmerized Congress.
Corker Uncorked
Speaking of Congress, a year after Rudoren's report, Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tennessee, who now chairs the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee, divulged some
details about the military attack that had been planned against Syria, while lamenting that it was canceled. In doing so, Corker called Obama's abrupt change on Aug. 31, 2013, in opting for negotiations over open war on Syria, "the worst
moment in U.S. foreign policy since I've been here." Following the neocon script, Corker blasted the deal (since fully implemented)
with Putin and the Syrians to rid Syria of its chemical weapons.
Corker complained, "In essence – I'm sorry to be slightly rhetorical – we jumped into Putin's lap." A big No-No, of course – especially
in Congress – to "jump into Putin's lap" even though Obama was able to achieve the destruction of Syria's chemical weapons without
the United States jumping into another Middle East war.
It would have been nice, of course, if General Clark had thought to share his inside-Pentagon information earlier with the rest
of us. In no way should he be seen as a whistleblower.
At the time of his September 2007 speech, he was deep into his quixotic attempt to win the Democratic nomination for president
in 2008. In other words, Clark broke the omerta code of silence observed by virtually all U.S. generals, even post-retirement, merely
to put some distance between himself and the debacle in Iraq – and win some favor among anti-war Democrats. It didn't work, so he
endorsed Hillary Clinton; that didn't work, so he endorsed Barack Obama.
Wolfowitz, typically, has landed on his feet. He is now presidential hopeful Jeb Bush's foreign policy/defense adviser, no
doubt outlining his preferred approach to the Middle East chessboard to his new boss. Does anyone know the plural of "bedlam?"
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. He
is a 30-year veteran of the CIA and Army intelligence and co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). McGovern
served for considerable periods in all four of CIA's main directorates.
The most important part of power elite in neoliberal society might not be financial oligarchy, but intelligence agencies elite.
If you look at the role
of Brennan in "Purple color revolution" against Trump that became clear that heads of the agencies are powerful political players
with resources at hand, that are not available to other politicians.
Notable quotes:
"... Men in positions of great power have been forced to realize that their aspirations and responsibilities have exceeded the horizons of their own experience, knowledge, and capability. Yet, because they are in chargeof this high-technology society, they are compelled to do something. This overpowering necessity to do something -- although our leaders do not know precisely what to do or how to do it -- creates in the power elite an overbearing fear of the people. It is the fear not of you and me as individuals but of the smoldering threat of vast populations and of potential uprisings of the masses. ..."
"... This power elite is not easy to define; but the fact that it exists makes itself known from time to time. Concerning the power elite, R. Buckminster Fuller wrote of the "vastly ambitious individuals who [have] become so effectively powerful because of their ability to remain invisible while operating behind the national scenery." Fuller noted also, "Always their victories [are] in the name of some powerful sovereign-ruled country. The real power structures [are] always the invisible ones behind the visible sovereign powers." ..."
"... This report, as presented in the novel, avers that war is necessary to sustain society, the nation, and national sovereignty, a view that has existed for millennia. Through the ages, totally uncontrolled warfare -- the only kind of "real" war -- got bigger and "better" as time and technology churned on, finally culminating in World War II with the introduction of atomic bombs. ..."
"... This is why, even before the end of World War II, the newly structured bipolar confrontation between the world of Communism and the West resulted in the employment of enormous intelligence agencies that had the power, invisibly, to wage underground warfare, economic and well as military, anywhere -- including methods of warfare never before imagined. These conflicts had to be tactically designed to remain short of the utilization of the H-bomb by either side. There can never be victories in such wars, but tremendous loss of life could occur, and there is the much-desired consumption and attrition of trillions of dollars', and rubles', worth of war equipment. ..."
"... Since WWII, there has been an epidemic of murders at the highest level in many countries. Without question the most dynamic of these assassinations was the murder of President John F. Kennedy, but JFK was just one of many in a long list that includes bankers, corporate leaders, newsmen, rising political spokesmen, and religious leaders. ..."
"... The ever-present threat of assassination seriously limits the number of men who would normally attempt to strive for positions of leadership, if for no other reason than that they could be singled out for murder at any time. This is not a new tactic, but it is one that has become increasingly utilized in pressure spots around the world. ..."
"... Under totalitarian or highly centralized nondemocratic regimes, the intelligence organization is a political, secret service with police powers. It is designed primarily to provide personal security to those who control the authority of the state against all political opponents, foreign and domestic. These leaders are forced to depend upon these secret elite forces to remain alive and in power. Such an organization operates in deep secrecy and has the responsibility for carrying out espionage, counterespionage, and pseudoterrorism. This methodology is as true of Israel, Chile, or Jordan as it has been of the Soviet Union. ..."
"... The second category of intelligence organization is one whose agents are limited to the gathering and reporting of intelligence and who have no police functions or the power to arrest at home or abroad. This type of organization is what the CIA was created to be; however, it does not exist. ..."
"... Over the decades since the CIA was created, it has acquired more sinister functions. All intelligence agencies, in time, tend to develop along similar lines. The CIA today is a far cry hum the agency that was created in 1947 by the National Security Act. As President Harry S. Truman confided to close friends, the greatest mistake of his administration took place when he signed that National Security Act of 1947 into law. It was that act which, among other things it did, created the Central Intelligence Agency.3 ..."
True existence of these multimegaton hydrogen bombs has so drastically changed the Grand Strategy of world powers that, today
and for the future, that strategy is being carried out by the invisible forces of the CIA, what remains of the KGB, and their lesser
counterparts around the world.
Men in positions of great power have been forced to realize that their aspirations and responsibilities have exceeded the
horizons of their own experience, knowledge, and capability. Yet, because they are in chargeof this high-technology society, they
are compelled to do something. This overpowering necessity to do something -- although our leaders do not know precisely what to
do or how to do it -- creates in the power elite an overbearing fear of the people. It is the fear not of you and me as individuals
but of the smoldering threat of vast populations and of potential uprisings of the masses.
This power elite is not easy to define; but the fact that it exists makes itself known from time to time. Concerning the power
elite, R. Buckminster Fuller wrote of the "vastly ambitious individuals who [have] become so effectively powerful because of their
ability to remain invisible while operating behind the national scenery." Fuller noted also, "Always their victories [are] in the
name of some powerful sovereign-ruled country. The real power structures [are] always the invisible ones behind the visible sovereign
powers."
The power elite is not a group from one nation or even of one alliance of nations. It operates throughout the world and no doubt
has done so for many, many centuries.
... ... ...
From this point ot view, warfare, and the preparation tor war, is an absolute necessity for the welfare of the state and for control
of population masses, as has been so ably documented in that remarkable novel by Leonard Lewin Report From Iron Mountain on
the Possibility and Desirability of Peace and attributed by Lewin to "the Special Study Group in 1966," an organization whose
existence was so highly classified that there is no record, to this day, of who the men in the group were or with what sectors of
the government or private life they were connected.
This report, as presented in the novel, avers that war is necessary to sustain society, the nation, and national sovereignty,
a view that has existed for millennia. Through the ages, totally uncontrolled warfare -- the only kind of "real" war -- got bigger
and "better" as time and technology churned on, finally culminating in World War II with the introduction of atomic bombs.
Not long after that great war, the world leaders were faced suddenly with the reality of a great dilemma. At the root of this
dilemma was the new fission-fusion-fission H-bomb. Is it some uncontrollable Manichean device, or is it truly a weapon of war?
... ... ...
Such knowledge is sufficient. The dilemma is now fact. There can no longer be a classic or traditional war, at least not the all-out,
go-for-broke-type warfare there has been down through the ages, a war that leads to a meaningful victory for one side and abject
defeat for the other.
Witness what has been called warfare in Korea, and Vietnam, and the later, more limited experiment with new weaponry called the
Gulf War in Iraq.
... ... ...
This is why, even before the end of World War II, the newly structured bipolar confrontation between the world of Communism
and the West resulted in the employment of enormous intelligence agencies that had the power, invisibly, to wage underground warfare,
economic and well as military, anywhere -- including methods of warfare never before imagined. These conflicts had to be tactically
designed to remain short of the utilization of the H-bomb by either side. There can never be victories in such wars, but tremendous
loss of life could occur, and there is the much-desired consumption and attrition of trillions of dollars', and rubles', worth of
war equipment.
One objective of this book is to discuss these new forces. It will present an insider's view of the CIA story and provide
comparisons with the intelligence organizations -- those invisible forces -- of other countries. To be more realistic with the priorities
of these agencies themselves, more will be said about operational matters than about actual intelligence gathering as a profession.
This subject cannot be explored fully without a discussion of assassination. Since WWII, there has been an epidemic of murders
at the highest level in many countries. Without question the most dynamic of these assassinations was the murder of President John
F. Kennedy, but JFK was just one of many in a long list that includes bankers, corporate leaders, newsmen, rising political spokesmen,
and religious leaders.
The ever-present threat of assassination seriously limits the number of men who would normally attempt to strive for positions
of leadership, if for no other reason than that they could be singled out for murder at any time. This is not a new tactic, but it
is one that has become increasingly utilized in pressure spots around the world.
It is essential to note that there are two principal categories of intelligence organizations and that their functions are determined
generally by the characteristics of the type of government they serve -- not by the citizens of the government, but by its leaders.
Under totalitarian or highly centralized nondemocratic regimes, the intelligence organization is a political, secret service
with police powers. It is designed primarily to provide personal security to those who control the authority of the state against
all political opponents, foreign and domestic. These leaders are forced to depend upon these secret elite forces to remain alive
and in power. Such an organization operates in deep secrecy and has the responsibility for carrying out espionage, counterespionage,
and pseudoterrorism. This methodology is as true of Israel, Chile, or Jordan as it has been of the Soviet Union.
The second category of intelligence organization is one whose agents are limited to the gathering and reporting of intelligence
and who have no police functions or the power to arrest at home or abroad. This type of organization is what the CIA was created
to be; however, it does not exist.
Over the decades since the CIA was created, it has acquired more sinister functions. All intelligence agencies, in time, tend
to develop along similar lines. The CIA today is a far cry hum the agency that was created in 1947 by the National Security Act.
As President Harry S. Truman confided to close friends, the greatest mistake of his administration took place when he signed that
National Security Act of 1947 into law. It was that act which, among other things it did, created the Central Intelligence Agency.3
It's interesting to reread this two years article by
Here is an extremely shred observation: "I lived in the USSR during the 1970s and would not wish that kind of restrictive regime on anyone. Until it fell apart, though,
it was militarily strong enough to deter Wolfowitz-style adventurism. And I will say that – for the millions of people now dead,
injured or displaced by U.S. military action in the Middle East over the past dozen years – the collapse of the Soviet Union as a
deterrent to U.S. war-making was not only a "geopolitical catastrophe" but an unmitigated disaster.
Notable quotes:
"... how Paul Wolfowitz and his neoconservative co-conspirators implemented their sweeping plan to destabilize key Middle Eastern countries once it became clear that post-Soviet Russia "won't stop us." ..."
"... the neocons had been enabled by their assessment that -- after the collapse of the Soviet Union – Russia had become neutralized and posed no deterrent to U.S. military action in the Middle East. ..."
"... the significance of Clark's depiction of Wolfowitz in 1992 gloating over what he judged to be a major lesson learned from the Desert Storm attack on Iraq in 1991; namely, "the Soviets won't stop us." ..."
"... Would the neocons – widely known as "the crazies" at least among the remaining sane people of Washington – have been crazy enough to opt for war to re-arrange the Middle East if the Soviet Union had not fallen apart in 1991? ..."
"... The geopolitical vacuum that enabled the neocons to try out their "regime change" scheme in the Middle East may have been what Russian President Vladimir Putin was referring to in his state-of-the-nation address on April 25, 2005, when he called the collapse of the Soviet Union "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the [past] century." Putin's comment has been a favorite meme of those who seek to demonize Putin by portraying him as lusting to re-establish a powerful USSR through aggression in Europe. ..."
"... Putin seemed correct at least in how the neocons exploited the absence of the Russian counterweight to over-extend American power in ways that were harmful to the world, devastating to the people at the receiving end of the neocon interventions, and even detrimental to the United States. ..."
"... I lived in the USSR during the 1970s and would not wish that kind of restrictive regime on anyone. Until it fell apart, though, it was militarily strong enough to deter Wolfowitz-style adventurism. And I will say that – for the millions of people now dead, injured or displaced by U.S. military action in the Middle East over the past dozen years – the collapse of the Soviet Union as a deterrent to U.S. war-making was not only a "geopolitical catastrophe" but an unmitigated disaster. ..."
"... "We should have gotten rid of Saddam Hussein. The truth is, one thing we did learn is that we can use our military in the Middle East and the Soviets won't stop us. We've got about five or 10 years to clean up those old Soviet client regimes – Syria, Iran (sic), Iraq – before the next great superpower comes on to challenge us." ..."
"... the scene was surreal – funereal, even, with both Wolfowitz and Lieberman very much down-in-the-mouth, behaving as though they had just watched their favorite team lose the Super Bowl. ..."
"... In her article, entitled "Israel Backs Limited Strike Against Syria," Rudoren noted that the Israelis were arguing, quietly, that the best outcome for Syria's (then) 2 ˝-year-old civil war, at least for the moment, was no outcome: ..."
"... In September 2013, shortly after Rudoren's article, Israeli Ambassador to the United States Michael Oren, then a close adviser to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, told the Jerusalem Post that Israel favored the Sunni extremists over Assad. ..."
"... "The greatest danger to Israel is by the strategic arc that extends from Tehran, to Damascus to Beirut. And we saw the Assad regime as the keystone in that arc," Oren said in an interview . "We always wanted Bashar Assad to go, we always preferred the bad guys who weren't backed by Iran to the bad guys who were backed by Iran." He said this was the case even if the "bad guys" were affiliated with Al-Qaeda. ..."
"... In June 2014, Oren – then speaking as a former ambassador – said Israel would even prefer a victory by the Islamic State, which was massacring captured Iraqi soldiers and beheading Westerners, than the continuation of the Iranian-backed Assad in Syria. "From Israel's perspective, if there's got to be an evil that's got to prevail, let the Sunni evil prevail," Oren said. ..."
"... That Syria's main ally is Iran with which it has a mutual defense treaty plays a role in Israeli calculations. Accordingly, while some Western leaders would like to achieve a realistic if imperfect settlement of the Syrian civil war, others who enjoy considerable influence in Washington would just as soon see the Assad government and the entire region bleed out. ..."
"... As cynical and cruel as this strategy is, it isn't all that hard to understand. Yet, it seems to be one of those complicated, politically charged situations well above the pay-grade of the sophomores advising President Obama – who, sad to say, are no match for the neocons in the Washington Establishment. Not to mention the Netanyahu-mesmerized Congress. ..."
"... Speaking of Congress, a year after Rudoren's report, Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tennessee, who now chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, divulged some details about the military attack that had been planned against Syria, while lamenting that it was canceled. In doing so, Corker called Obama's abrupt change on Aug. 31, 2013, in opting for negotiations over open war on Syria, "the worst moment in U.S. foreign policy since I've been here." Following the neocon script, Corker blasted the deal (since fully implemented) with Putin and the Syrians to rid Syria of its chemical weapons. ..."
"... Wolfowitz, typically, has landed on his feet. He is now presidential hopeful Jeb Bush's foreign policy/defense adviser, no doubt outlining his preferred approach to the Middle East chessboard to his new boss. Does anyone know the plural of "bedlam? ..."
Former Washington insider and four-star General Wesley Clark spilled the beans several years ago on how Paul Wolfowitz and his
neoconservative co-conspirators implemented their sweeping plan to destabilize key Middle Eastern countries once it became clear
that post-Soviet Russia "won't stop us."
As I recently reviewed a YouTube
eight-minute clip of General Clark's October 2007 speech, what leaped out
at me was that the neocons had been enabled by their assessment that -- after the collapse of the Soviet Union – Russia had become
neutralized and posed no deterrent to U.S. military action in the Middle East.
While Clark's public exposé largely escaped attention in the neocon-friendly "mainstream media" (surprise, surprise!), he recounted
being told by a senior general at the Pentagon shortly after the 9/11 attacks in 2001 about the Donald Rumsfeld/Paul Wolfowitz-led
plan for "regime change" in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran.
This was startling enough, I grant you, since officially the United States presents itself as a nation that respects international
law, frowns upon other powerful nations overthrowing the governments of weaker states, and – in the aftermath of World War II – condemned
past aggressions by Nazi Germany and decried Soviet "subversion" of pro-U.S. nations.
But what caught my eye this time was the significance of Clark's depiction of Wolfowitz in 1992 gloating over what he judged
to be a major lesson learned from the Desert Storm attack on Iraq in 1991; namely, "the Soviets won't stop us."
That remark directly addresses a question that has troubled me since March 2003 when George W. Bush attacked Iraq. Would the
neocons – widely known as "the crazies" at least among the remaining sane people of Washington – have been crazy enough to opt for
war to re-arrange the Middle East if the Soviet Union had not fallen apart in 1991?
The question is not an idle one. Despite the debacle in Iraq and elsewhere, the neocon "crazies" still exercise huge influence
in Establishment Washington. Thus, the question now becomes whether, with Russia far more stable and much stronger, the "crazies"
are prepared to risk military escalation with Russia over Ukraine, what retired U.S. diplomat William R. Polk
deemed a potentially dangerous nuclear
confrontation, a "Cuban Missile Crisis in reverse."
Putin's Comment
The geopolitical vacuum that enabled the neocons to try out their "regime change" scheme in the Middle East may have been what
Russian President Vladimir Putin was referring to in his state-of-the-nation address on April 25, 2005, when he called the collapse
of the Soviet Union "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the [past] century." Putin's comment has been a favorite meme of those
who seek to demonize Putin by portraying him as lusting to re-establish a powerful USSR through aggression in Europe.
But, commenting two years after the Iraq invasion, Putin seemed correct at least in how the neocons exploited the absence
of the Russian counterweight to over-extend American power in ways that were harmful to the world, devastating to the people at the
receiving end of the neocon interventions, and even detrimental to the United States.
If one takes a step back and attempts an unbiased look at the spread of violence in the Middle East over the past quarter-century,
it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that Putin's comment was on the mark. With Russia a much-weakened military power in the 1990s
and early 2000s, there was nothing to deter U.S. policymakers from the kind of adventurism at Russia's soft underbelly that, in earlier
years, would have carried considerable risk of armed U.S.-USSR confrontation.
I lived in the USSR during the 1970s and would not wish that kind of restrictive regime on anyone. Until it fell apart, though,
it was militarily strong enough to deter Wolfowitz-style adventurism. And I will say that – for the millions of people now dead,
injured or displaced by U.S. military action in the Middle East over the past dozen years – the collapse of the Soviet Union as a
deterrent to U.S. war-making was not only a "geopolitical catastrophe" but an unmitigated disaster.
Visiting Wolfowitz
In his 2007 speech, General Clark related how in early 1991 he dropped in on Paul Wolfowitz, then Under Secretary of Defense for
Policy (and later, from 2001 to 2005, Deputy Secretary of Defense). It was just after a major Shia uprising in Iraq in March 1991.
President George H.W. Bush's administration had provoked it, but then did nothing to rescue the Shia from brutal retaliation by Saddam
Hussein, who had just survived his Persian Gulf defeat.
According to Clark, Wolfowitz said: "We should have gotten rid of Saddam Hussein. The truth is, one thing we did learn is
that we can use our military in the Middle East and the Soviets won't stop us. We've got about five or 10 years to clean up those
old Soviet client regimes – Syria, Iran (sic), Iraq – before the next great superpower comes on to challenge us."
It's now been more than 10 years, of course. But do not be deceived into thinking Wolfowitz and his neocon colleagues believe
they have failed in any major way. The unrest they initiated keeps mounting – in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Lebanon – not to mention
fresh violence now in full swing in Yemen and the crisis in Ukraine. Yet, the Teflon coating painted on the neocons continues to
cover and protect them in the "mainstream media."
True, one neocon disappointment is Iran. It is more stable and less isolated than before; it is playing a sophisticated role in
Iraq; and it is on the verge of concluding a major nuclear agreement with the West – barring the throwing of a neocon/Israeli monkey
wrench into the works to thwart it, as has been done
in the past.
An earlier setback for the neocons came at the end of August 2013 when President Barack Obama decided not to let himself be mouse-trapped
by the neocons into ordering U.S. forces to attack Syria. Wolfowitz et al. were on the threshold of having the U.S. formally join
the war against Bashar al-Assad's government of Syria when there was the proverbial slip between cup and lip. With the aid of the
neocons' new devil-incarnate Vladimir Putin, Obama faced them down and avoided war.
A week after it became clear that the neocons were not going to get their war in Syria, I found myself at the main CNN studio
in Washington together with Paul Wolfowitz and former Sen. Joe Lieberman, another important neocon. As I reported in "How
War on Syria Lost Its Way," the scene was surreal – funereal, even, with both Wolfowitz and Lieberman very much down-in-the-mouth,
behaving as though they had just watched their favorite team lose the Super Bowl.
Israeli/Neocon Preferences
But the neocons are nothing if not resilient. Despite their grotesque disasters, like the Iraq War, and their disappointments,
like not getting their war on Syria, they neither learn lessons nor change goals. They just readjust their aim, shooting now at Putin
over Ukraine as a way to clear the path again for "regime change" in Syria and Iran. [See Consortiumnews.com's "Why
Neocons Seek to Destabilize Russia."]
The neocons also can take some solace from their "success" at enflaming the Middle East with Shia and Sunni now at each other's
throats – a bad thing for many people of the world and certainly for the many innocent victims in the region, but not so bad for
the neocons. After all, it is the view of Israeli leaders and their neocon bedfellows (and women) that the internecine wars among
Muslims provide at least some short-term advantages for Israel as it consolidates control over the Palestinian West Bank.
In a Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
memorandum for President Obama on Sept. 6, 2013,
we called attention to an uncommonly candid
report
about Israeli/neocon motivation, written by none other than the Israel-friendly New York Times Bureau Chief in Jerusalem Jodi Rudoren
on Sept. 2, 2013, just two days after Obama took advantage of Putin's success in persuading the Syrians to allow their chemical weapons
to be destroyed and called off the planned attack on Syria, causing consternation among neocons in Washington.
Rudoren can perhaps be excused for her naďve lack of "political correctness." She had been barely a year on the job, had very
little prior experience with reporting on the Middle East, and – in the excitement about the almost-attack on Syria – she apparently
forgot the strictures normally imposed on the Times' reporting from Jerusalem. In any case, Israel's priorities became crystal clear
in what Rudoren wrote.
In her article, entitled "Israel Backs Limited Strike Against Syria," Rudoren noted that the Israelis were arguing, quietly,
that the best outcome for Syria's (then) 2 ˝-year-old civil war, at least for the moment, was no outcome:
"For Jerusalem, the status quo, horrific as it may be from a humanitarian perspective, seems preferable to either a victory
by Mr. Assad's government and his Iranian backers or a strengthening of rebel groups, increasingly dominated by Sunni jihadis.
"'This is a playoff situation in which you need both teams to lose, but at least you don't want one to win - we'll settle for
a tie,' said Alon Pinkas, a former Israeli consul general in New York. 'Let them both bleed, hemorrhage to death: that's the strategic
thinking here. As long as this lingers, there's no real threat from Syria.'"
Clear enough? If this is the way Israel's leaders continue to regard the situation in Syria, then they look on deeper U.S. involvement
– overt or covert – as likely to ensure that there is no early resolution of the conflict there. The longer Sunni and Shia are killing
each other, not only in Syria but also across the region as a whole, the safer Tel Aviv's leaders calculate Israel is.
Favoring Jihadis
But Israeli leaders have also made clear that if one side must win, they would prefer the Sunni side, despite its bloody extremists
from Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State. In September 2013, shortly after Rudoren's article, Israeli Ambassador to the United States
Michael Oren, then a close adviser to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, told the Jerusalem Post that Israel favored
the Sunni extremists over Assad.
"The greatest danger to Israel is by the strategic arc that extends from Tehran, to Damascus to Beirut. And we saw the Assad regime
as the keystone in that arc," Oren said in
an interview. "We always wanted Bashar Assad to go, we always preferred the bad guys who weren't backed by Iran to the bad guys
who were backed by Iran." He said this was the case even if the "bad guys" were affiliated with Al-Qaeda.
In June 2014, Oren – then speaking as a former ambassador – said Israel
would even prefer a victory by the Islamic State, which was massacring captured Iraqi soldiers and beheading Westerners, than the
continuation of the Iranian-backed Assad in Syria. "From Israel's perspective, if there's got to be an evil that's got to prevail,
let the Sunni evil prevail," Oren said.
Netanyahu sounded a similar theme in his March 3, 2015 speech to the U.S. Congress in which he trivialized the threat from the
Islamic State with its "butcher knives, captured weapons and YouTube" when compared to Iran, which he accused of "gobbling up the
nations" of the Middle East.
That Syria's main ally is Iran with which it has a mutual defense treaty plays a role in Israeli calculations. Accordingly, while
some Western leaders would like to achieve a realistic if imperfect settlement of the Syrian civil war, others who enjoy considerable
influence in Washington would just as soon see the Assad government and the entire region bleed out.
As cynical and cruel as this strategy is, it isn't all that hard to understand. Yet, it seems to be one of those complicated,
politically charged situations well above the pay-grade of the sophomores advising President Obama – who, sad to say, are no match
for the neocons in the Washington Establishment. Not to mention the Netanyahu-mesmerized Congress.
Corker Uncorked
Speaking of Congress, a year after Rudoren's report, Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tennessee, who now chairs the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee, divulged some
details about the military attack that had been planned against Syria, while lamenting that it was canceled. In doing so, Corker called Obama's abrupt change on Aug. 31, 2013, in opting for negotiations over open war on Syria, "the worst
moment in U.S. foreign policy since I've been here." Following the neocon script, Corker blasted the deal (since fully implemented)
with Putin and the Syrians to rid Syria of its chemical weapons.
Corker complained, "In essence – I'm sorry to be slightly rhetorical – we jumped into Putin's lap." A big No-No, of course – especially
in Congress – to "jump into Putin's lap" even though Obama was able to achieve the destruction of Syria's chemical weapons without
the United States jumping into another Middle East war.
It would have been nice, of course, if General Clark had thought to share his inside-Pentagon information earlier with the rest
of us. In no way should he be seen as a whistleblower.
At the time of his September 2007 speech, he was deep into his quixotic attempt to win the Democratic nomination for president
in 2008. In other words, Clark broke the omerta code of silence observed by virtually all U.S. generals, even post-retirement, merely
to put some distance between himself and the debacle in Iraq – and win some favor among anti-war Democrats. It didn't work, so he
endorsed Hillary Clinton; that didn't work, so he endorsed Barack Obama.
Wolfowitz, typically, has landed on his feet. He is now presidential hopeful Jeb Bush's foreign policy/defense adviser, no
doubt outlining his preferred approach to the Middle East chessboard to his new boss. Does anyone know the plural of "bedlam?"
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. He
is a 30-year veteran of the CIA and Army intelligence and co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). McGovern
served for considerable periods in all four of CIA's main directorates.
The most important part of power elite in neoliberal society might not be financial oligarchy, but intelligence agencies elite.
If you look at the role
of Brennan in "Purple color revolution" against Trump that became clear that heads of the agencies are powerful political players
with resources at hand, that are not available to other politicians.
Notable quotes:
"... Men in positions of great power have been forced to realize that their aspirations and responsibilities have exceeded the horizons of their own experience, knowledge, and capability. Yet, because they are in chargeof this high-technology society, they are compelled to do something. This overpowering necessity to do something -- although our leaders do not know precisely what to do or how to do it -- creates in the power elite an overbearing fear of the people. It is the fear not of you and me as individuals but of the smoldering threat of vast populations and of potential uprisings of the masses. ..."
"... This power elite is not easy to define; but the fact that it exists makes itself known from time to time. Concerning the power elite, R. Buckminster Fuller wrote of the "vastly ambitious individuals who [have] become so effectively powerful because of their ability to remain invisible while operating behind the national scenery." Fuller noted also, "Always their victories [are] in the name of some powerful sovereign-ruled country. The real power structures [are] always the invisible ones behind the visible sovereign powers." ..."
"... This report, as presented in the novel, avers that war is necessary to sustain society, the nation, and national sovereignty, a view that has existed for millennia. Through the ages, totally uncontrolled warfare -- the only kind of "real" war -- got bigger and "better" as time and technology churned on, finally culminating in World War II with the introduction of atomic bombs. ..."
"... This is why, even before the end of World War II, the newly structured bipolar confrontation between the world of Communism and the West resulted in the employment of enormous intelligence agencies that had the power, invisibly, to wage underground warfare, economic and well as military, anywhere -- including methods of warfare never before imagined. These conflicts had to be tactically designed to remain short of the utilization of the H-bomb by either side. There can never be victories in such wars, but tremendous loss of life could occur, and there is the much-desired consumption and attrition of trillions of dollars', and rubles', worth of war equipment. ..."
"... Since WWII, there has been an epidemic of murders at the highest level in many countries. Without question the most dynamic of these assassinations was the murder of President John F. Kennedy, but JFK was just one of many in a long list that includes bankers, corporate leaders, newsmen, rising political spokesmen, and religious leaders. ..."
"... The ever-present threat of assassination seriously limits the number of men who would normally attempt to strive for positions of leadership, if for no other reason than that they could be singled out for murder at any time. This is not a new tactic, but it is one that has become increasingly utilized in pressure spots around the world. ..."
"... Under totalitarian or highly centralized nondemocratic regimes, the intelligence organization is a political, secret service with police powers. It is designed primarily to provide personal security to those who control the authority of the state against all political opponents, foreign and domestic. These leaders are forced to depend upon these secret elite forces to remain alive and in power. Such an organization operates in deep secrecy and has the responsibility for carrying out espionage, counterespionage, and pseudoterrorism. This methodology is as true of Israel, Chile, or Jordan as it has been of the Soviet Union. ..."
"... The second category of intelligence organization is one whose agents are limited to the gathering and reporting of intelligence and who have no police functions or the power to arrest at home or abroad. This type of organization is what the CIA was created to be; however, it does not exist. ..."
"... Over the decades since the CIA was created, it has acquired more sinister functions. All intelligence agencies, in time, tend to develop along similar lines. The CIA today is a far cry hum the agency that was created in 1947 by the National Security Act. As President Harry S. Truman confided to close friends, the greatest mistake of his administration took place when he signed that National Security Act of 1947 into law. It was that act which, among other things it did, created the Central Intelligence Agency.3 ..."
True existence of these multimegaton hydrogen bombs has so drastically changed the Grand Strategy of world powers that, today
and for the future, that strategy is being carried out by the invisible forces of the CIA, what remains of the KGB, and their lesser
counterparts around the world.
Men in positions of great power have been forced to realize that their aspirations and responsibilities have exceeded the
horizons of their own experience, knowledge, and capability. Yet, because they are in chargeof this high-technology society, they
are compelled to do something. This overpowering necessity to do something -- although our leaders do not know precisely what to
do or how to do it -- creates in the power elite an overbearing fear of the people. It is the fear not of you and me as individuals
but of the smoldering threat of vast populations and of potential uprisings of the masses.
This power elite is not easy to define; but the fact that it exists makes itself known from time to time. Concerning the power
elite, R. Buckminster Fuller wrote of the "vastly ambitious individuals who [have] become so effectively powerful because of their
ability to remain invisible while operating behind the national scenery." Fuller noted also, "Always their victories [are] in the
name of some powerful sovereign-ruled country. The real power structures [are] always the invisible ones behind the visible sovereign
powers."
The power elite is not a group from one nation or even of one alliance of nations. It operates throughout the world and no doubt
has done so for many, many centuries.
... ... ...
From this point ot view, warfare, and the preparation tor war, is an absolute necessity for the welfare of the state and for control
of population masses, as has been so ably documented in that remarkable novel by Leonard Lewin Report From Iron Mountain on
the Possibility and Desirability of Peace and attributed by Lewin to "the Special Study Group in 1966," an organization whose
existence was so highly classified that there is no record, to this day, of who the men in the group were or with what sectors of
the government or private life they were connected.
This report, as presented in the novel, avers that war is necessary to sustain society, the nation, and national sovereignty,
a view that has existed for millennia. Through the ages, totally uncontrolled warfare -- the only kind of "real" war -- got bigger
and "better" as time and technology churned on, finally culminating in World War II with the introduction of atomic bombs.
Not long after that great war, the world leaders were faced suddenly with the reality of a great dilemma. At the root of this
dilemma was the new fission-fusion-fission H-bomb. Is it some uncontrollable Manichean device, or is it truly a weapon of war?
... ... ...
Such knowledge is sufficient. The dilemma is now fact. There can no longer be a classic or traditional war, at least not the all-out,
go-for-broke-type warfare there has been down through the ages, a war that leads to a meaningful victory for one side and abject
defeat for the other.
Witness what has been called warfare in Korea, and Vietnam, and the later, more limited experiment with new weaponry called the
Gulf War in Iraq.
... ... ...
This is why, even before the end of World War II, the newly structured bipolar confrontation between the world of Communism
and the West resulted in the employment of enormous intelligence agencies that had the power, invisibly, to wage underground warfare,
economic and well as military, anywhere -- including methods of warfare never before imagined. These conflicts had to be tactically
designed to remain short of the utilization of the H-bomb by either side. There can never be victories in such wars, but tremendous
loss of life could occur, and there is the much-desired consumption and attrition of trillions of dollars', and rubles', worth of
war equipment.
One objective of this book is to discuss these new forces. It will present an insider's view of the CIA story and provide
comparisons with the intelligence organizations -- those invisible forces -- of other countries. To be more realistic with the priorities
of these agencies themselves, more will be said about operational matters than about actual intelligence gathering as a profession.
This subject cannot be explored fully without a discussion of assassination. Since WWII, there has been an epidemic of murders
at the highest level in many countries. Without question the most dynamic of these assassinations was the murder of President John
F. Kennedy, but JFK was just one of many in a long list that includes bankers, corporate leaders, newsmen, rising political spokesmen,
and religious leaders.
The ever-present threat of assassination seriously limits the number of men who would normally attempt to strive for positions
of leadership, if for no other reason than that they could be singled out for murder at any time. This is not a new tactic, but it
is one that has become increasingly utilized in pressure spots around the world.
It is essential to note that there are two principal categories of intelligence organizations and that their functions are determined
generally by the characteristics of the type of government they serve -- not by the citizens of the government, but by its leaders.
Under totalitarian or highly centralized nondemocratic regimes, the intelligence organization is a political, secret service
with police powers. It is designed primarily to provide personal security to those who control the authority of the state against
all political opponents, foreign and domestic. These leaders are forced to depend upon these secret elite forces to remain alive
and in power. Such an organization operates in deep secrecy and has the responsibility for carrying out espionage, counterespionage,
and pseudoterrorism. This methodology is as true of Israel, Chile, or Jordan as it has been of the Soviet Union.
The second category of intelligence organization is one whose agents are limited to the gathering and reporting of intelligence
and who have no police functions or the power to arrest at home or abroad. This type of organization is what the CIA was created
to be; however, it does not exist.
Over the decades since the CIA was created, it has acquired more sinister functions. All intelligence agencies, in time, tend
to develop along similar lines. The CIA today is a far cry hum the agency that was created in 1947 by the National Security Act.
As President Harry S. Truman confided to close friends, the greatest mistake of his administration took place when he signed that
National Security Act of 1947 into law. It was that act which, among other things it did, created the Central Intelligence Agency.3
Heritage Foundation is just a neocon swamp filled with "national security parasites". What you can expect from them ?
Notable quotes:
"... A 2009 Heritage Foundation report, " Maintaining the Superiority of America's Defense Industrial Base ," called for further government investment in aircraft weaponry for "ensuring a superior fighting force" and "sustaining international stability." ..."
"... These special pleas pose a question: which came first, Heritage's heavy dependence on funds from defense giants, or the foundation's belief that unless we steadily increase our military arsenal we'll be endangering "international stability"? Perhaps the answer lies somewhere in the middle: someone who is predisposed to go in a certain direction may be more inclined to do so if he is being rewarded in return. ..."
"... No doubt both corporations will continue to look after Heritage, which will predictably call for further increases, whether they be in aerospace or shipbuilding. ..."
"... National Review ..."
"... Like American higher education, Conservatism Inc. is very big business. Whatever else it's about rates a very far second to keeping the money flowing. "Conservative" positions are often simply causes for which foundations and media enterprises that have the word "conservative" attached to them are paid to represent. It is the label carried by an institution or publication, not necessarily the position it takes, that makes what NR or Heritage advocates "conservative." ..."
According to recent
reports the Heritage Foundation, clearly the most established and many would say politically influential conservative think tank
in Washington, is considering David Trulio, Lockheed Martin vice president and longtime lobbyist for the defense industry, to be
its next president. While Heritage's connection to Washington's sprawling national security industry is already well-established,
naming Trulio as its president might be seen as gilding the lily.
If anything, reading this report made me more aware of the degree to which the "conservative policy community" in Washington depends
on the whims and interests of particular donors.
And this relationship is apparently no longer something to be concealed or embarrassed by. One can now be open about being in
the pocket of the defense industry. Trulio's potential elevation to Heritage president at what we can assume will be an astronomical
salary, will no doubt grease the already well-oiled pipeline of funds from major contractors to this "conservative" foundation, which
already operates with an
annual disclosed budget of almost $100 million.
A 2009 Heritage Foundation report, "
Maintaining
the Superiority of America's Defense Industrial Base ," called for further government investment in aircraft weaponry for "ensuring
a superior fighting force" and "sustaining international stability." In 2011, senior national security fellow James Carafano
wrote " Five Steps
to Defend America's Industrial Defense Base ," which complained about a "fifty billion dollar under-procurement by the Pentagon"
for buying new weaponry. In 2016,
Heritage made the case for
several years of reinvestment to get the military back on "sound footing," with an increase in fiscal year 2016 described as "an
encouraging start."
These special pleas pose a question: which came first, Heritage's heavy dependence on funds from defense giants, or the foundation's
belief that unless we steadily increase our military arsenal we'll be endangering "international stability"? Perhaps the answer lies
somewhere in the middle: someone who is predisposed to go in a certain direction may be more inclined to do so if he is being rewarded
in return. Incidentally, the 2009 position paper seems to be directing the government to throw more taxpayer dollars to Boeing
than to its competitor Lockheed. But it seems both defense giants have landed a joint contract this year to produce a new submersible
for the Navy, so it may no longer be necessary to pick sides on that one at least. No doubt both corporations will continue to
look after Heritage, which will predictably call for further increases, whether they be in aerospace or shipbuilding.
Although one needn't reduce everything to dollars and cents, if we're looking at the issues Heritage and other likeminded foundations
are likely to push today, it's far more probable they'll be emphasizing the national security state rather than, say, opposition
to gay marriage or the defense of traditional gender roles. There's lots more money to be made advocating for the former rather than
the latter. In May 2013, Heritage
sponsored a formal debate between "two conservatives" and "two liberals" on the issue of defense spending, with Heritage and
National Review presenting the "conservative" side. I wondered as I listened to part of this verbal battle why is was considered
"conservative" to call for burdening American taxpayers with massive increases in the purchase of Pentagon weaponry and planes that
take
17 years to get off the ground.
Like American higher education, Conservatism Inc. is very big business. Whatever else it's about rates a very far second to
keeping the money flowing. "Conservative" positions are often simply causes for which foundations and media enterprises that have
the word "conservative" attached to them are paid to represent. It is the label carried by an institution or publication, not necessarily
the position it takes, that makes what NR or Heritage advocates "conservative."
In any event, Mr. Trulio won't have to travel far if he takes the Heritage helm. He and his corporation are already ensconced
only a few miles away from Heritage's Massachusetts Avenue headquarters, if the information provided by Lockheed Martin is correct.
It says: "Headquartered in Bethesda, Maryland, Lockheed Martin is a global security and aerospace company that employs approximately
98,000 people worldwide and is principally engaged in the research, design, development, manufacture, integration and sustainment
of advanced technology systems, products and services." A company like that can certainly afford to underwrite a think tank -- if
the price is right.
Paul Gottfried is Raffensperger Professor of Humanities Emeritus at Elizabethtown College, where he taught for twenty-five
years. He is a Guggenheim recipient and a Yale PhD. He writes for many websites and scholarly journals and is the author of thirteen
books, most recently Fascism: Career of a Concept and Revisions and Dissents . His books have been translated into multiple
languages and seem to enjoy special success in Eastern Europe.
"... Since World War II the United States has used the Dollar Standard and its dominant role in the IMF and World Bank to steer trade and investment along lines benefiting its own economy. But now that the growth of China's mixed economy has outstripped all others while Russia finally is beginning to recover, countries have the option of borrowing from the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) and other non-U.S. consortia. ..."
"... The problem with surrendering is that this Washington Consensus is extractive and lives in the short run, laying the seeds of financial dependency, debt-leveraged bubbles and subsequent debt deflation and austerity. The financial business plan is to carve out opportunities for price gouging and corporate profits. Today's U.S.-sponsored trade and investment treaties would make governments pay fines equal to the amount that environmental and price regulations, laws protecting consumers and other social policies might reduce corporate profits. "Companies would be able to demand compensation from countries whose health, financial, environmental and other public interest policies they thought to be undermining their interests, and take governments before extrajudicial tribunals. These tribunals, organised under World Bank and UN rules, would have the power to order taxpayers to pay extensive compensation over legislation seen as undermining a company's 'expected future profits.' ..."
"... At the center of today's global split are the last few centuries of Western social and democratic reform. Seeking to follow the classical Western development path by retaining a mixed public/private economy, China, Russia and other nations find it easier to create new institutions such as the AIIB than to reform the dollar standard IMF and World Bank. Their choice is between short-term gains by dependency leading to austerity, or long-term development with independence and ultimate prosperity. ..."
"... The price of resistance involves risking military or covert overthrow. Long before the Ukraine crisis, the United States has dropped the pretense of backing democracies. The die was cast in 1953 with the coup against Iran's secular government, and the 1954 coup in Guatemala to oppose land reform. Support for client oligarchies and dictatorships in Latin America in the 1960 and '70s was highlighted by the overthrow of Allende in Chile and Operation Condor's assassination program throughout the continent. Under President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the United States has claimed that America's status as the world's "indispensible nation" entitled it back the recent coups in Honduras and Ukraine, and to sponsor the NATO attack on Libya and Syria, leaving Europe to absorb the refugees. ..."
"... The trans-Atlantic financial bubble has left a legacy of austerity since 2008. Debt-ridden economies are being told to cope with their downturns by privatizing their public domain. ..."
"... The immediate question facing Germany and the rest of Western Europe is how long they will sacrifice their trade and investment opportunities with Russia, Iran and other economies by adhering to U.S.-sponsored sanctions. American intransigence threatens to force an either/or choice in what looms as a seismic geopolitical shift over the proper role of governments: Should their public sectors provide basic services and protect populations from predatory monopolies, rent extraction and financial polarization? ..."
"... Today's global financial crisis can be traced back to World War I and its aftermath. The principle that needed to be voiced was the right of sovereign nations not to be forced to sacrifice their economic survival on the altar of inter-government and private debt demands. The concept of nationhood embodied in the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia based international law on the principle of parity of sovereign states and non-interference. Without a global alternative to letting debt dynamics polarize societies and tear economies apart, monetary imperialism by creditor nations is inevitable. ..."
"... The past century's global fracture between creditor and debtor economies has interrupted what seemed to be Europe's democratic destiny to empower governments to override financial and other rentier interests. Instead, the West is following U.S. diplomatic leadership back into the age when these interests ruled governments. This conflict between creditors and democracy, between oligarchy and economic growth (and indeed, survival) will remain the defining issue of our epoch over the next generation, and probably for the remainder of the 21 st century. ..."
"... wiki/Anglo-Persian Oil Company "In 1901 William Knox D'Arcy, a millionaire London socialite, negotiated an oil concession with Mozaffar al-Din Shah Qajar of Persia. He financed this with capital he had made from his shares in the highly profitable Mount Morgan mine in Queensland, Australia. D'Arcy assumed exclusive rights to prospect for oil for 60 years in a vast tract of territory including most of Iran. In exchange the Shah received Ł20,000 (Ł2.0 million today),[1] an equal amount in shares of D'Arcy's company, and a promise of 16% of future profits." Note the 16% = ~1/6, the rest going off-shore. ..."
"... The Greens in Aus researched the resources sector in Aus, to find that it is 83% 'owned' by off-shore entities. Note that 83% = ~5/6, which goes off-shore. Coincidence? ..."
"... Note that in Aus, the democratically elected so-called 'leaders' not only allow exactly this sort of economic rape, they actively assist it by, say, crippling the central bank and pleading for FDI = selling our, we the people's interests, out. Those traitor-leaders are reversing 'Enlightenment' provisions, privatising whatever they can and, as Michael Hudson well points out the principles, running Aus into debt and austerity. ..."
"... US banking oligarchs will expend the last drop of our blood to prevent a such a linking, just as they were willing to sacrifice our blood and treasure in WW1 and 2, as is alluded to here.: ..."
"... The past century's global fracture between creditor and debtor economies has interrupted what seemed to be Europe's democratic destiny to empower governments to override financial and other rentier interests. Instead, the West is following U.S. diplomatic leadership back into the age when these interests ruled governments. This conflict between creditors and democracy, between oligarchy and economic growth (and indeed, survival) will remain the defining issue of our epoch over the next generation, and probably for the remainder of the 21st century. ..."
"... It's important to note that such interests have ruled (owned, actually) imperial Britain for centuries and the US since its inception, and the anti-federalists knew it. ..."
"... "After World War I the U.S. Government deviated from what had been traditional European policy – forgiving military support costs among the victors. U.S. officials demanded payment for the arms shipped to its Allies in the years before America entered the Great War in 1917. The Allies turned to Germany for reparations to pay these debts." The Yank banker, the Yankee Wall Street super rich, set off a process of greed that led to Hitler. ..."
"... But they didn't invent anything. They learned from their WASP forebears in the British Empire, whose banking back to Oliver Cromwell had become inextricably entangled with Jewish money and Jewish interests to the point that Jews per capita dominated it even at the height of the British Empire, when simpleton WASPs assume that WASPs truly ran everything, and that WASP power was for the good of even the poorest WASPs. ..."
"... The Berlin Baghdad railway was an important cause for WWI. ..."
"... Bingo. Stopping it was a huge factor. There was no way the banksters of the world were going to let that go forward, nor were they going to let Germany and Russia link up in any other ways. They certainly were not about to allow any threats to the Suez Canal nor any chance to let the oil fields slip from their control either. ..."
"... This is not how the Enlightenment was supposed to evolve ..."
"... In fact, this is exactly how it was supposed to work. The wave of liberal democracies was precisely to overturn the monarchies, which were the last bulwark protecting the people from the full tyranny of the financiers, who were, by nature, one-world internationalists. ..."
"... The real problem with this is that any form of monetary arrangement involves an implied trusteeship, with obligations on, as well as benefits for, the trustee. The US is so abusing its trusteeship through the continual use of an irresponsible sanctions regime that it risks a good portion of the world economy abandoning its system for someone else's, which may be perceived to be run more responsibility. The disaster scenario would be the US having therefore in the future to access that other system to purchase oil or minerals, and having that system do to us what we previously did to them -- sanction us out. ..."
"... " Marx believed that capitalism was inherently built upon practices of usury and thus inevitably leading to the separation of society into two classes: one composed of those who produce value and the other, which feeds upon the first one. In "Theories of Surplus Value" (written 1862-1863), he states " that interest (in contrast to industrial profit) and rent (that is the form of landed property created by capitalist production itself) are superfetations (i.e., excessive accumulations) which are not essential to capitalist production and of which it can rid itself." ..."
In theory, the global financial system is supposed to help every country gain. Mainstream teaching of international finance, trade
and "foreign aid" (defined simply as any government credit) depicts an almost utopian system uplifting all countries, not stripping
their assets and imposing austerity. The reality since World War I is that the United States has taken the lead in shaping the international
financial system to promote gains for its own bankers, farm exporters, its oil and gas sector, and buyers of foreign resources –
and most of all, to collect on debts owed to it.
Each time this global system has broken down over the past century, the major destabilizing force has been American over-reach
and the drive by its bankers and bondholders for short-term gains. The dollar-centered financial system is leaving more industrial
as well as Third World countries debt-strapped. Its three institutional pillars – the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank
and World Trade Organization – have imposed monetary, fiscal and financial dependency, most recently by the post-Soviet Baltics,
Greece and the rest of southern Europe. The resulting strains are now reaching the point where they are breaking apart the arrangements
put in place after World War II.
The most destructive fiction of international finance is that all debts can be paid, and indeed should be paid, even when
this tears economies apart by forcing them into austerity – to save bondholders, not labor and industry. Yet European countries,
and especially Germany, have shied from pressing for a more balanced global economy that would foster growth for all countries and
avoid the current economic slowdown and debt deflation.
Imposing austerity on Germany after World War I
After World War I the U.S. Government deviated from what had been traditional European policy – forgiving military support costs
among the victors. U.S. officials demanded payment for the arms shipped to its Allies in the years before America entered the Great
War in 1917. The Allies turned to Germany for reparations to pay these debts. Headed by John Maynard Keynes, British diplomats sought
to clean their hands of responsibility for the consequences by promising that all the money they received from Germany would simply
be forwarded to the U.S. Treasury.
The sums were so unpayably high that Germany was driven into austerity and collapse. The nation suffered hyperinflation as the
Reichsbank printed marks to throw onto the foreign exchange also were pushed into financial collapse. The debt deflation was much
like that of Third World debtors a generation ago, and today's southern European PIIGS (Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece and Spain).
In a pretense that the reparations and Inter-Ally debt tangle could be made solvent, a triangular flow of payments was facilitated
by a convoluted U.S. easy-money policy. American investors sought high returns by buying German local bonds; German municipalities
turned over the dollars they received to the Reichsbank for domestic currency; and the Reichsbank used this foreign exchange to pay
reparations to Britain and other Allies, enabling these countries to pay the United States what it demanded.
But solutions based on attempts to keep debts of such magnitude in place by lending debtors the money to pay can only be temporary.
The U.S. Federal Reserve sustained this triangular flow by holding down U.S. interest rates. This made it attractive for American
investors to buy German municipal bonds and other high-yielding debts. It also deterred Wall Street from drawing funds away from
Britain, which would have driven its economy deeper into austerity after the General Strike of 1926. But domestically, low U.S. interest
rates and easy credit spurred a real estate bubble, followed by a stock market bubble that burst in 1929. The triangular flow of
payments broke down in 1931, leaving a legacy of debt deflation burdening the U.S. and European economies. The Great Depression lasted
until outbreak of World War II in 1939.
Planning for the postwar period took shape as the war neared its end. U.S. diplomats had learned an important lesson. This time
there would be no arms debts or reparations. The global financial system would be stabilized – on the basis of gold, and on creditor-oriented
rules. By the end of the 1940s the United States held some 75 percent of the world's monetary gold stock. That established the U.S.
dollar as the world's reserve currency, freely convertible into gold at the 1933 parity of $35 an ounce.
It also implied that once again, as in the 1920s, European balance-of-payments deficits would have to be financed mainly by the
United States. Recycling of official government credit was to be filtered via the IMF and World Bank, in which U.S. diplomats alone
had veto power to reject policies they found not to be in their national interest. International financial "stability" thus became
a global control mechanism – to maintain creditor-oriented rules centered in the United States.
To obtain gold or dollars as backing for their own domestic monetary systems, other countries had to follow the trade and investment
rules laid down by the United States. These rules called for relinquishing control over capital movements or restrictions on foreign
takeovers of natural resources and the public domain as well as local industry and banking systems.
By 1950 the dollar-based global economic system had become increasingly untenable. Gold continued flowing to the United States,
strengthening the dollar – until the Korean War reversed matters. From 1951 through 1971 the United States ran a deepening balance-of-payments
deficit, which stemmed entirely from overseas military spending. (Private-sector trade and investment was steadily in balance.)
U.S. Treasury debt replaces the gold exchange standard
The foreign military spending that helped return American gold to Europe became a flood as the Vietnam War spread across Asia
after 1962. The Treasury kept the dollar's exchange rate stable by selling gold via the London Gold Pool at $35 an ounce. Finally,
in August 1971, President Nixon stopped the drain by closing the Gold Pool and halting gold convertibility of the dollar.
There was no plan for what would happen next. Most observers viewed cutting the dollar's link to gold as a defeat for the United
States. It certainly ended the postwar financial order as designed in 1944. But what happened next was just the reverse of a defeat.
No longer able to buy gold after 1971 (without inciting strong U.S. disapproval), central banks found only one asset in which to
hold their balance-of-payments surpluses: U.S. Treasury debt. These securities no longer were "as good as gold." The United States
issued them at will to finance soaring domestic budget deficits.
By shifting from gold to the dollars thrown off by the U.S. balance-of-payments deficit, the foundation of global monetary reserves
came to be dominated by the U.S. military spending that continued to flood foreign central banks with surplus dollars. America's
balance-of-payments deficit thus supplied the dollars that financed its domestic budget deficits and bank credit creation – via foreign
central banks recycling U.S. foreign spending back to the U.S. Treasury.
In effect, foreign countries have been taxed without representation over how their loans to the U.S. Government are employed.
European central banks were not yet prepared to create their own sovereign wealth funds to invest their dollar inflows in foreign
stocks or direct ownership of businesses. They simply used their trade and payments surpluses to finance the U.S. budget deficit.
This enabled the Treasury to cut domestic tax rates, above all on the highest income brackets.
U.S. monetary imperialism confronted European and Asian central banks with a dilemma that remains today: If they do not turn around
and buy dollar assets, their currencies will rise against the dollar. Buying U.S. Treasury securities is the only practical way to
stabilize their exchange rates – and in so doing, to prevent their exports from rising in dollar terms and being priced out of dollar-area
markets.
The system may have developed without foresight, but quickly became deliberate. My book Super Imperialism sold best in
the Washington DC area, and I was given a large contract through the Hudson Institute to explain to the Defense Department exactly
how this extractive financial system worked. I was brought to the White House to explain it, and U.S. geostrategists used my book
as a how-to-do-it manual (not my original intention).
Attention soon focused on the oil-exporting countries. After the U.S. quadrupled its grain export prices shortly after the 1971
gold suspension, the oil-exporting countries quadrupled their oil prices. I was informed at a White House meeting that U.S. diplomats
had let Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries know that they could charge as much as they wanted for their oil, but that the United
States would treat it as an act of war not to keep their oil proceeds in U.S. dollar assets.
This was the point at which the international financial system became explicitly extractive. But it took until 2009, for the first
attempt to withdraw from this system to occur. A conference was convened at Yekaterinburg, Russia, by the Shanghai Cooperation Organization
(SCO). The alliance comprised Russia, China, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Kirghizstan and Uzbekistan, with observer status for Iran, India,
Pakistan and Mongolia. U.S. officials asked to attend as observers, but their request was rejected.
The U.S. response has been to extend the new Cold War into the financial sector, rewriting the rules of international finance
to benefit the United States and its satellites – and to deter countries from seeking to break free from America's financial free
ride.
The IMF changes its rules to isolate Russia and China
Aiming to isolate Russia and China, the Obama Administration's confrontational diplomacy has drawn the Bretton Woods institutions
more tightly under US/NATO control. In so doing, it is disrupting the linkages put in place after World War II.
The U.S. plan was to hurt Russia's economy so much that it would be ripe for regime change ("color revolution"). But the effect
was to drive it eastward, away from Western Europe to consolidate its long-term relations with China and Central Asia. Pressing Europe
to shift its oil and gas purchases to U.S. allies, U.S. sanctions have disrupted German and other European trade and investment with
Russia and China. It also has meant lost opportunities for European farmers, other exporters and investors – and a flood of refugees
from failed post-Soviet states drawn into the NATO orbit, most recently Ukraine.
To U.S. strategists, what made changing IMF rules urgent was Ukraine's $3 billion debt falling due to Russia's National Wealth
Fund in December 2015. The IMF had long withheld credit to countries refusing to pay other governments. This policy aimed primarily
at protecting the financial claims of the U.S. Government, which usually played a lead role in consortia with other governments and
U.S. banks. But under American pressure the IMF changed its rules in January 2015. Henceforth, it announced, it would indeed be willing
to provide credit to countries in arrears other governments – implicitly headed by China (which U.S. geostrategists consider to be
their main long-term adversary), Russia and others that U.S. financial warriors might want to isolate in order to force neoliberal
privatization policies. [1] I provide the full
background in "The IMF Changes its Rules to Isolate China and Russia," December 9, 2015, available on michael-hudson.com, Naked
Capitalism , Counterpunch and Johnson's Russia List .
Article I of the IMF's 1944-45 founding charter
prohibits it from lending to a member engaged in civil war or at war with another member state, or for military purposes generally.
An obvious reason for this rule is that such a country is unlikely to earn the foreign exchange to pay its debt. Bombing Ukraine's
own Donbass region in the East after its February 2014 coup d'état destroyed its export industry, mainly to Russia.
Withholding IMF credit could have been a lever to force adherence to the Minsk peace agreements, but U.S. diplomacy rejected that
opportunity. When IMF head Christine Lagarde made a new loan to Ukraine in spring 2015, she merely expressed a verbal hope for peace.
Ukrainian President Porochenko announced the next day that he would step up his civil war against the Russian-speaking population
in eastern Ukraine. One and a half-billion dollars of the IMF loan were given to banker Ihor Kolomoiski and disappeared offshore,
while the oligarch used his domestic money to finance an anti-Donbass army. A million refugees were driven east into Russia; others
fled west via Poland as the economy and Ukraine's currency plunged.
The IMF broke four of its rules by lending to Ukraine: (1) Not to lend to a country that has no visible means to pay back the
loan (the "No More Argentinas" rule, adopted after the IMF's disastrous 2001 loan to that country). (2) Not to lend to a country
that repudiates its debt to official creditors (the rule originally intended to enforce payment to U.S.-based institutions). (3)
Not to lend to a country at war – and indeed, destroying its export capacity and hence its balance-of-payments ability to pay back
the loan. Finally (4), not to lend to a country unlikely to impose the IMF's austerity "conditionalities." Ukraine did agree to override
democratic opposition and cut back pensions, but its junta proved too unstable to impose the austerity terms on which the IMF insisted.
U.S. neoliberalism promotes privatization carve-ups of debtor countries
Since World War II the United States has used the Dollar Standard and its dominant role in the IMF and World Bank to steer
trade and investment along lines benefiting its own economy. But now that the growth of China's mixed economy has outstripped all
others while Russia finally is beginning to recover, countries have the option of borrowing from the Asian Infrastructure Investment
Bank (AIIB) and other non-U.S. consortia.
At stake is much more than just which nations will get the contracting and banking business. At issue is whether the philosophy
of development will follow the classical path based on public infrastructure investment, or whether public sectors will be privatized
and planning turned over to rent-seeking corporations.
What made the United States and Germany the leading industrial nations of the 20 th century – and more recently, China
– has been public investment in economic infrastructure. The aim was to lower the price of living and doing business by providing
basic services on a subsidized basis or freely. By contrast, U.S. privatizers have brought debt leverage to bear on Third World countries,
post-Soviet economies and most recently on southern Europe to force selloffs. Current plans to cap neoliberal policy with the Trans-Pacific
Partnership (TPP), Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and Transatlantic Free Trade Agreement (TAFTA) go so far
as to disable government planning power to the financial and corporate sector.
American strategists evidently hoped that the threat of isolating Russia, China and other countries would bring them to heel if
they tried to denominate trade and investment in their own national currencies. Their choice would be either to suffer sanctions
like those imposed on Cuba and Iran, or to avoid exclusion by acquiescing in the dollarized financial and trade system and its drives
to financialize their economies under U.S. control.
The problem with surrendering is that this Washington Consensus is extractive and lives in the short run, laying the seeds
of financial dependency, debt-leveraged bubbles and subsequent debt deflation and austerity. The financial business plan is to carve
out opportunities for price gouging and corporate profits. Today's U.S.-sponsored trade and investment treaties would make governments
pay fines equal to the amount that environmental and price regulations, laws protecting consumers and other social policies might
reduce corporate profits. "Companies would be able to demand compensation from countries whose health, financial, environmental and
other public interest policies they thought to be undermining their interests, and take governments before extrajudicial tribunals.
These tribunals, organised under World Bank and UN rules, would have the power to order taxpayers to pay extensive compensation over
legislation seen as undermining a company's 'expected future profits.' "
This policy threat is splitting the world into pro-U.S. satellites and economies maintaining public infrastructure investment
and what used to be viewed as progressive capitalism. U.S.-sponsored neoliberalism supporting its own financial and corporate interests
has driven Russia, China and other members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization into an alliance to protect their economic self-sufficiency
rather than becoming dependent on dollarized credit enmeshing them in foreign-currency debt.
At the center of today's global split are the last few centuries of Western social and democratic reform. Seeking to follow
the classical Western development path by retaining a mixed public/private economy, China, Russia and other nations find it easier
to create new institutions such as the AIIB than to reform the dollar standard IMF and World Bank. Their choice is between short-term
gains by dependency leading to austerity, or long-term development with independence and ultimate prosperity.
The price of resistance involves risking military or covert overthrow. Long before the Ukraine crisis, the United States has
dropped the pretense of backing democracies. The die was cast in 1953 with the coup against Iran's secular government, and the 1954
coup in Guatemala to oppose land reform. Support for client oligarchies and dictatorships in Latin America in the 1960 and '70s was
highlighted by the overthrow of Allende in Chile and Operation Condor's assassination program throughout the continent. Under President
Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the United States has claimed that America's status as the world's "indispensible
nation" entitled it back the recent coups in Honduras and Ukraine, and to sponsor the NATO attack on Libya and Syria, leaving Europe
to absorb the refugees.
Germany's choice
This is not how the Enlightenment was supposed to evolve. The industrial takeoff of Germany and other European nations involved
a long fight to free markets from the land rents and financial charges siphoned off by their landed aristocracies and bankers. That
was the essence of classical 19 th -century political economy and 20 th -century social democracy. Most economists
a century ago expected industrial capitalism to produce an economy of abundance, and democratic reforms to endorse public infrastructure
investment and regulation to hold down the cost of living and doing business. But U.S. economic diplomacy now threatens to radically
reverse this economic ideology by aiming to dismantle public regulatory power and impose a radical privatization agenda under the
TTIP and TAFTA.
Textbook trade theory depicts trade and investment as helping poorer countries catch up, compelling them to survive by becoming
more democratic to overcome their vested interests and oligarchies along the lines pioneered by European and North American industrial
economies. Instead, the world is polarizing, not converging. The trans-Atlantic financial bubble has left a legacy of austerity
since 2008. Debt-ridden economies are being told to cope with their downturns by privatizing their public domain.
The immediate question facing Germany and the rest of Western Europe is how long they will sacrifice their trade and investment
opportunities with Russia, Iran and other economies by adhering to U.S.-sponsored sanctions. American intransigence threatens to
force an either/or choice in what looms as a seismic geopolitical shift over the proper role of governments: Should their public
sectors provide basic services and protect populations from predatory monopolies, rent extraction and financial polarization?
Today's global financial crisis can be traced back to World War I and its aftermath. The principle that needed to be voiced
was the right of sovereign nations not to be forced to sacrifice their economic survival on the altar of inter-government and private
debt demands. The concept of nationhood embodied in the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia based international law on the principle of parity
of sovereign states and non-interference. Without a global alternative to letting debt dynamics polarize societies and tear economies
apart, monetary imperialism by creditor nations is inevitable.
The past century's global fracture between creditor and debtor economies has interrupted what seemed to be Europe's democratic
destiny to empower governments to override financial and other rentier interests. Instead, the West is following U.S. diplomatic
leadership back into the age when these interests ruled governments. This conflict between creditors and democracy, between oligarchy
and economic growth (and indeed, survival) will remain the defining issue of our epoch over the next generation, and probably for
the remainder of the 21 st century.
Endnotes
[1] I provide the full background in
"The IMF Changes its Rules to Isolate China and Russia," December 9, 2015, available on michael-hudson.com, Naked Capitalism
, Counterpunch and Johnson's Russia List .
"Austerity" is such a misused word these days. What the Allies did to Germany after Versailles was austerity, and everyone paid
dearly for it.
What the IMF and the Western Banking Cartel do to third world countries is akin to a pusher hopping up addicts on debt and
then taking it away while stripping them of their assets, pretty much hurting only the people of the third world country; certainly
not the WBC, and almost certainly not the criminal elite who took the deal.
The Austerity everyone complains about in the developed world these days is a joke, hardly austerity, for it has never meant
more than doing a little less deficit-spending than in prior periods, e.g. UK Labour whining about "Austerity" is a joke, as the
UK debt has done nothing but grow, which in terms understandable to simple folk like me means they are spending more than they
can afford to carry.
" The immediate question facing Germany and the rest of Western Europe is how long they will sacrifice their trade and investment
opportunities with Russia, Iran and other economies by adhering to U.S.-sponsored sanctions "
In the whole article not a word about the euro, also an instrument of imperialism, that mainly benefits Germany, the country
that has to maintain a high level of exports, in order to feed the Germans, and import raw materials for Germany's industries.
Isolating China and Russia, with the other BRICS countries, S Africa, Brazil, India, dangerous game.
This effort forced China and Russia to close cooperation, the economic expression of this is the Peking Petersburg railway, with
a hub in Khazakstan, where the containers are lifted from the Chinese to the Russian system, the width differs.
Four days for the trip.
The Berlin Baghdad railway was an important cause for WWI.
Let us hope that history does not repeat itself in the nuclear era.
Edward Mead Earle, Ph.D., 'Turkey, The Great Powers and The Bagdad Railway, A study in Imperialism', 1923, 1924, New York
The U.S. response has been to extend the new Cold War into the financial sector, rewriting the rules of international finance
to benefit the United States and its satellites – and to deter countries from seeking t o break free from America's
financial free ride .
Nah, the NY banksters wouldn't dream of doing such a thing; would they?
This is not how the Enlightenment was supposed to evolve
What I said, and beautifully put, the whole article.
World War I may well have been an important way-point, but the miserable mercantile modus operandi was well established
long before.
An interesting A/B case:
a) wiki/Anglo-Persian Oil Company
"In 1901 William Knox D'Arcy, a millionaire London socialite, negotiated an oil concession with Mozaffar al-Din Shah Qajar of
Persia. He financed this with capital he had made from his shares in the highly profitable Mount Morgan mine in Queensland, Australia.
D'Arcy assumed exclusive rights to prospect for oil for 60 years in a vast tract of territory including most of Iran. In exchange
the Shah received Ł20,000 (Ł2.0 million today),[1] an equal amount in shares of D'Arcy's company, and a promise of 16% of future
profits." Note the 16% = ~1/6, the rest going off-shore.
b) The Greens in Aus researched the resources sector in Aus, to find that it is 83% 'owned' by off-shore entities. Note
that 83% = ~5/6, which goes off-shore. Coincidence?
Then see what happened when the erstwhile APOC was nationalized; the US/UK perpetrated a coup against the democratically elected
Mossadegh, eventual blow-back resulting in the 1979 revolution, basically taking Iran out of 'the West.'
Note that in Aus, the democratically elected so-called 'leaders' not only allow exactly this sort of economic rape, they
actively assist it by, say, crippling the central bank and pleading for FDI = selling our, we the people's interests, out. Those
traitor-leaders are reversing 'Enlightenment' provisions, privatising whatever they can and, as Michael Hudson well points out
the principles, running Aus into debt and austerity.
We the people are powerless passengers, and to add insult to injury, the taxpayer-funded AusBC lies to us continually. Ho,
hum; just like the mainly US/Z MSM and the BBC do – all corrupt and venal. Bah!
Now, cue the trolls: "But Russia/China are worse!"
The immediate question facing Germany and the rest of Western Europe is how long they will sacrifice their trade and investment
opportunities with Russia, Iran and other economies by adhering to U.S.-sponsored sanctions.
US banking oligarchs will expend the last drop of our blood to prevent a such a linking, just as they were willing to sacrifice
our blood and treasure in WW1 and 2, as is alluded to here.:
Today's global financial crisis can be traced back to World War I and its aftermath.
Excellent.:
The principle that needed to be voiced was the right of sovereign nations not to be forced to sacrifice their economic survival
on the altar of inter-government and private debt demands Without a global alternative to letting debt dynamics polarize societies
and tear economies apart, monetary imperialism by creditor nations is inevitable.
This is a gem of a summary.:
The past century's global fracture between creditor and debtor economies has interrupted what seemed to be Europe's
democratic destiny to empower governments to override financial and other rentier interests. Instead, the West is following
U.S. diplomatic leadership back into the age when these interests ruled governments. This conflict between creditors and democracy,
between oligarchy and economic growth (and indeed, survival) will remain the defining issue of our epoch over the next generation,
and probably for the remainder of the 21st century.
Instead, the West is following U.S. diplomatic leadership back into the age when these interests ruled governments. It's
important to note that such interests have ruled (owned, actually) imperial Britain for centuries and the US since its inception,
and the anti-federalists knew it.
Here is a revolution as radical as that which separated us from Great Britain.
You will find all the strength of this country in the hands of your enemies [ ed comment: the money grubbers ]
Patrick Henry June 5 and 7, 1788―1788-1789 Petersburg, Virginia edition of the Debates and other Proceedings . . . Of the
Virginia Convention of 1788
The Constitution had been laid down under unacceptable auspices; its history had been that of a coup d'état.
It had been drafted, in the first place, by men representing special economic interests. Four-fifths of them were
public creditors, one-third were land speculators, and one-fifth represented interests in shipping, manufacturing, and merchandising.
Most of them were lawyers. Not one of them represented the interest of production -- Vilescit origine tali.
- Albert Jay Nock [Excerpted from chapter 5 of Albert Jay Nock's Jefferson, published in 1926]
"After World War I the U.S. Government deviated from what had been traditional European policy – forgiving military support
costs among the victors. U.S. officials demanded payment for the arms shipped to its Allies in the years before America entered
the Great War in 1917. The Allies turned to Germany for reparations to pay these debts." The Yank banker, the Yankee Wall Street
super rich, set off a process of greed that led to Hitler.
But they didn't invent anything. They learned from their
WASP forebears in the British Empire, whose banking back to Oliver Cromwell had become inextricably entangled with Jewish money
and Jewish interests to the point that Jews per capita dominated it even at the height of the British Empire, when simpleton WASPs
assume that WASPs truly ran everything, and that WASP power was for the good of even the poorest WASPs.
To Michael Hudson,
Great article. Evidence based, factually argued, enjoyably readable.
Replacements for the dollar dominated financial system are well into development. Digital dollars, credit cards, paypal, stock
and currency exchange online platforms, and perhaps most intriguing The exponential rise of Bitcoin and similar crypto-currencies.
The internet is also exponentially exposing the screwing we peasants have been getting by the psychopath, narcissistic, hedonistic,
predatory lenders and controllers. Next comes the widespread, easily usable, and inexpensive cell phone apps, social media exposures,
alternative websites (like Unz.com), and other technologies that will quickly identify every lying, evil, jerk so they can be
neutrilized / avoided
"Textbook trade theory depicts trade and investment as helping poorer countries catch up, compelling them to survive by
becoming more democratic to overcome their vested interests and oligarchies along the lines pioneered by European and North
American industrial economies."
I must be old; the economic textbooks I had did explain the benefits of freer trade among nations using Ricardo and Trade Indifference
Curves, but didn't prescribe any one political system being fostered by or even necessary for the benefits of international trade
to be reaped.
to be honest, this way of running things only need to last for 10-20 more years before automation will replace 800 million jobs.
then we will have a few trillionaire overlords unless true AI comes online. by that point nothing matters as we will become zoo
animals.
What the IMF and the Western Banking Cartel do to third world countries is akin to a pusher hopping up addicts on debt and
then taking it away while stripping them of their assets, pretty much hurting only the people of the third world country; certainly
not the WBC, and almost certainly not the criminal elite who took the deal.
That's true and the criminals do similar asset stripping to their own as well, through various means.
It's always the big criminals against the rest of us.
The Berlin Baghdad railway was an important cause for WWI.
Bingo. Stopping it was a huge factor. There was no way the banksters of the world were going to let that go forward, nor
were they going to let Germany and Russia link up in any other ways. They certainly were not about to allow any threats to the
Suez Canal nor any chance to let the oil fields slip from their control either.
The wars were also instigated to prevent either Germany or Russia having control of, and free access to warm water ports
and the wars also were an excuse to steal vast amounts of wealth from both Germany and Russia through various means.
All pious and pompous pretexts aside, economics was the motive for (the) war (s), and the issues are not settled to this day.
I.e., it's the same class of monstrously insatiable criminals who want everything for themselves who're causing the major troubles
of the day.
Unfortunately, as long as we have SoB's who're eager to sacrifice our blood and treasure for their
benfit, things will never change.
The golden rule is one thing. The paper rule is something else.
May you live in interesting times.
The golden rule is for dreamers, unfortunately. Those who control paper money rule, and your wish has been granted; we live
in times that are both interesting and fascinating, but are nevertheless the same old thing. Only the particular particulars
have changed.
Essentially, the anti-EU and anti-euro line that Professor Hudson has being pushing for years, which has now morphed into a pro-Putin
line as the anti-EU faction in the US have sought to use Putin as a "useful idiot" to destroy the EU. Since nobody in Europe reads
these articles, Ii doesn't really matter and I certainly don't see any EU leader following the advice of someone who has never
concealed his hostility to the EU's very existence: note the use of the racist slur "PIIGS" to refer to certain EU Member States.
Thus, Professor Hudson is simply pushing the "let Putin win in Ukraine" line dressed up in fine-sounding economic jargon.
Since nobody in Europe reads these articles, Ii doesn't really matter
None of it rally matters anyway, no matter how valid. To paraphrase Thucydides, the money grubbers do what they want and the
rest of us are forced to suck it up and limp along.
and I certainly don't see any EU leader following the advice
I doubt that that's Hudson's intent in writing the article. I see it as his attempt to explain the situation to those of us
who care about them even though our concern is pretty much useless.
I do thank him for taking the time to pen this stuff which I consider worthwhile and high quality.
That sounds good but social media is the weapon of choice in the EU too. Lot's of kids know and love Hudson. Any half capable
writer who empathetically explains why you're getting fucked is going to have some followers. Watering, nutrition, weeding. Before
too long you'll be on the Eurail to your destination.
said: "The Yank banker, the Yankee Wall Street super rich, set off a process of greed that led to Hitler." If true, so what?
That's a classic example of 'garbage in, garbage out'. http://www.codoh.com
This is not how the Enlightenment was supposed to evolve
In fact, this is exactly how it was supposed to work. The wave of liberal democracies was precisely to overturn the monarchies,
which were the last bulwark protecting the people from the full tyranny of the financiers, who were, by nature, one-world internationalists.
The real problem with this is that any form of monetary arrangement involves an implied trusteeship, with obligations on,
as well as benefits for, the trustee. The US is so abusing its trusteeship through the continual use of an irresponsible
sanctions regime that it risks a good portion of the world economy abandoning its system for someone else's, which may be perceived
to be run more responsibility. The disaster scenario would be the US having therefore in the future to access that other system
to purchase oil or minerals, and having that system do to us what we previously did to them -- sanction us out.
The proper
use by the US of its controlled system thus should be a defensive one -- mainly to act so fairly to all players that it, not someone
else, remains in control of the dominant worldwide exchange system. This sensible course of conduct, unfortunately, is not being
pursued by the US.
there is fuzzy, and then there is very fuzzy, and then there is the fuzziness compounded many-fold. The latter is this article.
Here from wiki: "
" Marx believed that capitalism was inherently built upon practices of usury and thus inevitably leading to the separation
of society into two classes: one composed of those who produce value and the other, which feeds upon the first one. In "Theories
of Surplus Value" (written 1862-1863), he states " that interest (in contrast to industrial profit) and rent (that is the form
of landed property created by capitalist production itself) are superfetations (i.e., excessive accumulations) which are not
essential to capitalist production and of which it can rid itself."
Wiki goes on to identify "rentier" as used by Marx, to be the same thing as "capitalists." What the above quotation says
is that capitalism CAN rid itself of genuine rent capital. First, the feudal rents that were extracted by landowners were NOT
part of a free market system. Serfdom was only one part of unfree conditions. A general condition of anarchy in rules and laws
by petty principalities characteristic of feudalism, both contained commerce and human beings. There was no freedom, political
or economic.
The conflation (collapsing) of rents and interest is a Marxist error which expands into complete nonsense when a competitive
economy has replaced feudal conditions. ON top of that, profits from a business, firm, or industrial enterprise are NOT rents.
Any marxist is a fool to pretend otherwise, and is just another ideological (False consciousness ) fanatic.
Germany loans money back to the poorer nations who buy her exports just as China loans money to the United States (they purchase
roughly a third of our Treasury bonds) so that Americans can continue to buy Chinese manufactured goods.
The role to be played by the USA in the "new world order" is that of being the farmer to the world. The meticulous Asians will
make stuff.
The problem with this is that it is based on 19th century notions of manufacturing. Technique today is vastly more complicated
than it was in the 1820′s and a nation must do everything in its power to protect and nurture its manufacturing and scientific
excellence. In the United States we have been giving this away to our competitors. We educate their children at our taxpayer's
expense and they take the knowledge gained back to their native countries where, with state subsidies, they build factories that
put Americans out of work. We fall further and further behind.
Heritage Foundation is just a neocon swamp filled with "national security parasites". What you can expect from them ?
Notable quotes:
"... A 2009 Heritage Foundation report, " Maintaining the Superiority of America's Defense Industrial Base ," called for further government investment in aircraft weaponry for "ensuring a superior fighting force" and "sustaining international stability." ..."
"... These special pleas pose a question: which came first, Heritage's heavy dependence on funds from defense giants, or the foundation's belief that unless we steadily increase our military arsenal we'll be endangering "international stability"? Perhaps the answer lies somewhere in the middle: someone who is predisposed to go in a certain direction may be more inclined to do so if he is being rewarded in return. ..."
"... No doubt both corporations will continue to look after Heritage, which will predictably call for further increases, whether they be in aerospace or shipbuilding. ..."
"... National Review ..."
"... Like American higher education, Conservatism Inc. is very big business. Whatever else it's about rates a very far second to keeping the money flowing. "Conservative" positions are often simply causes for which foundations and media enterprises that have the word "conservative" attached to them are paid to represent. It is the label carried by an institution or publication, not necessarily the position it takes, that makes what NR or Heritage advocates "conservative." ..."
According to recent
reports the Heritage Foundation, clearly the most established and many would say politically influential conservative think tank
in Washington, is considering David Trulio, Lockheed Martin vice president and longtime lobbyist for the defense industry, to be
its next president. While Heritage's connection to Washington's sprawling national security industry is already well-established,
naming Trulio as its president might be seen as gilding the lily.
If anything, reading this report made me more aware of the degree to which the "conservative policy community" in Washington depends
on the whims and interests of particular donors.
And this relationship is apparently no longer something to be concealed or embarrassed by. One can now be open about being in
the pocket of the defense industry. Trulio's potential elevation to Heritage president at what we can assume will be an astronomical
salary, will no doubt grease the already well-oiled pipeline of funds from major contractors to this "conservative" foundation, which
already operates with an
annual disclosed budget of almost $100 million.
A 2009 Heritage Foundation report, "
Maintaining
the Superiority of America's Defense Industrial Base ," called for further government investment in aircraft weaponry for "ensuring
a superior fighting force" and "sustaining international stability." In 2011, senior national security fellow James Carafano
wrote " Five Steps
to Defend America's Industrial Defense Base ," which complained about a "fifty billion dollar under-procurement by the Pentagon"
for buying new weaponry. In 2016,
Heritage made the case for
several years of reinvestment to get the military back on "sound footing," with an increase in fiscal year 2016 described as "an
encouraging start."
These special pleas pose a question: which came first, Heritage's heavy dependence on funds from defense giants, or the foundation's
belief that unless we steadily increase our military arsenal we'll be endangering "international stability"? Perhaps the answer lies
somewhere in the middle: someone who is predisposed to go in a certain direction may be more inclined to do so if he is being rewarded
in return. Incidentally, the 2009 position paper seems to be directing the government to throw more taxpayer dollars to Boeing
than to its competitor Lockheed. But it seems both defense giants have landed a joint contract this year to produce a new submersible
for the Navy, so it may no longer be necessary to pick sides on that one at least. No doubt both corporations will continue to
look after Heritage, which will predictably call for further increases, whether they be in aerospace or shipbuilding.
Although one needn't reduce everything to dollars and cents, if we're looking at the issues Heritage and other likeminded foundations
are likely to push today, it's far more probable they'll be emphasizing the national security state rather than, say, opposition
to gay marriage or the defense of traditional gender roles. There's lots more money to be made advocating for the former rather than
the latter. In May 2013, Heritage
sponsored a formal debate between "two conservatives" and "two liberals" on the issue of defense spending, with Heritage and
National Review presenting the "conservative" side. I wondered as I listened to part of this verbal battle why is was considered
"conservative" to call for burdening American taxpayers with massive increases in the purchase of Pentagon weaponry and planes that
take
17 years to get off the ground.
Like American higher education, Conservatism Inc. is very big business. Whatever else it's about rates a very far second to
keeping the money flowing. "Conservative" positions are often simply causes for which foundations and media enterprises that have
the word "conservative" attached to them are paid to represent. It is the label carried by an institution or publication, not necessarily
the position it takes, that makes what NR or Heritage advocates "conservative."
In any event, Mr. Trulio won't have to travel far if he takes the Heritage helm. He and his corporation are already ensconced
only a few miles away from Heritage's Massachusetts Avenue headquarters, if the information provided by Lockheed Martin is correct.
It says: "Headquartered in Bethesda, Maryland, Lockheed Martin is a global security and aerospace company that employs approximately
98,000 people worldwide and is principally engaged in the research, design, development, manufacture, integration and sustainment
of advanced technology systems, products and services." A company like that can certainly afford to underwrite a think tank -- if
the price is right.
Paul Gottfried is Raffensperger Professor of Humanities Emeritus at Elizabethtown College, where he taught for twenty-five
years. He is a Guggenheim recipient and a Yale PhD. He writes for many websites and scholarly journals and is the author of thirteen
books, most recently Fascism: Career of a Concept and Revisions and Dissents . His books have been translated into multiple
languages and seem to enjoy special success in Eastern Europe.
"... Since World War II the United States has used the Dollar Standard and its dominant role in the IMF and World Bank to steer trade and investment along lines benefiting its own economy. But now that the growth of China's mixed economy has outstripped all others while Russia finally is beginning to recover, countries have the option of borrowing from the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) and other non-U.S. consortia. ..."
"... The problem with surrendering is that this Washington Consensus is extractive and lives in the short run, laying the seeds of financial dependency, debt-leveraged bubbles and subsequent debt deflation and austerity. The financial business plan is to carve out opportunities for price gouging and corporate profits. Today's U.S.-sponsored trade and investment treaties would make governments pay fines equal to the amount that environmental and price regulations, laws protecting consumers and other social policies might reduce corporate profits. "Companies would be able to demand compensation from countries whose health, financial, environmental and other public interest policies they thought to be undermining their interests, and take governments before extrajudicial tribunals. These tribunals, organised under World Bank and UN rules, would have the power to order taxpayers to pay extensive compensation over legislation seen as undermining a company's 'expected future profits.' ..."
"... At the center of today's global split are the last few centuries of Western social and democratic reform. Seeking to follow the classical Western development path by retaining a mixed public/private economy, China, Russia and other nations find it easier to create new institutions such as the AIIB than to reform the dollar standard IMF and World Bank. Their choice is between short-term gains by dependency leading to austerity, or long-term development with independence and ultimate prosperity. ..."
"... The price of resistance involves risking military or covert overthrow. Long before the Ukraine crisis, the United States has dropped the pretense of backing democracies. The die was cast in 1953 with the coup against Iran's secular government, and the 1954 coup in Guatemala to oppose land reform. Support for client oligarchies and dictatorships in Latin America in the 1960 and '70s was highlighted by the overthrow of Allende in Chile and Operation Condor's assassination program throughout the continent. Under President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the United States has claimed that America's status as the world's "indispensible nation" entitled it back the recent coups in Honduras and Ukraine, and to sponsor the NATO attack on Libya and Syria, leaving Europe to absorb the refugees. ..."
"... The trans-Atlantic financial bubble has left a legacy of austerity since 2008. Debt-ridden economies are being told to cope with their downturns by privatizing their public domain. ..."
"... The immediate question facing Germany and the rest of Western Europe is how long they will sacrifice their trade and investment opportunities with Russia, Iran and other economies by adhering to U.S.-sponsored sanctions. American intransigence threatens to force an either/or choice in what looms as a seismic geopolitical shift over the proper role of governments: Should their public sectors provide basic services and protect populations from predatory monopolies, rent extraction and financial polarization? ..."
"... Today's global financial crisis can be traced back to World War I and its aftermath. The principle that needed to be voiced was the right of sovereign nations not to be forced to sacrifice their economic survival on the altar of inter-government and private debt demands. The concept of nationhood embodied in the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia based international law on the principle of parity of sovereign states and non-interference. Without a global alternative to letting debt dynamics polarize societies and tear economies apart, monetary imperialism by creditor nations is inevitable. ..."
"... The past century's global fracture between creditor and debtor economies has interrupted what seemed to be Europe's democratic destiny to empower governments to override financial and other rentier interests. Instead, the West is following U.S. diplomatic leadership back into the age when these interests ruled governments. This conflict between creditors and democracy, between oligarchy and economic growth (and indeed, survival) will remain the defining issue of our epoch over the next generation, and probably for the remainder of the 21 st century. ..."
"... wiki/Anglo-Persian Oil Company "In 1901 William Knox D'Arcy, a millionaire London socialite, negotiated an oil concession with Mozaffar al-Din Shah Qajar of Persia. He financed this with capital he had made from his shares in the highly profitable Mount Morgan mine in Queensland, Australia. D'Arcy assumed exclusive rights to prospect for oil for 60 years in a vast tract of territory including most of Iran. In exchange the Shah received Ł20,000 (Ł2.0 million today),[1] an equal amount in shares of D'Arcy's company, and a promise of 16% of future profits." Note the 16% = ~1/6, the rest going off-shore. ..."
"... The Greens in Aus researched the resources sector in Aus, to find that it is 83% 'owned' by off-shore entities. Note that 83% = ~5/6, which goes off-shore. Coincidence? ..."
"... Note that in Aus, the democratically elected so-called 'leaders' not only allow exactly this sort of economic rape, they actively assist it by, say, crippling the central bank and pleading for FDI = selling our, we the people's interests, out. Those traitor-leaders are reversing 'Enlightenment' provisions, privatising whatever they can and, as Michael Hudson well points out the principles, running Aus into debt and austerity. ..."
"... US banking oligarchs will expend the last drop of our blood to prevent a such a linking, just as they were willing to sacrifice our blood and treasure in WW1 and 2, as is alluded to here.: ..."
"... The past century's global fracture between creditor and debtor economies has interrupted what seemed to be Europe's democratic destiny to empower governments to override financial and other rentier interests. Instead, the West is following U.S. diplomatic leadership back into the age when these interests ruled governments. This conflict between creditors and democracy, between oligarchy and economic growth (and indeed, survival) will remain the defining issue of our epoch over the next generation, and probably for the remainder of the 21st century. ..."
"... It's important to note that such interests have ruled (owned, actually) imperial Britain for centuries and the US since its inception, and the anti-federalists knew it. ..."
"... "After World War I the U.S. Government deviated from what had been traditional European policy – forgiving military support costs among the victors. U.S. officials demanded payment for the arms shipped to its Allies in the years before America entered the Great War in 1917. The Allies turned to Germany for reparations to pay these debts." The Yank banker, the Yankee Wall Street super rich, set off a process of greed that led to Hitler. ..."
"... But they didn't invent anything. They learned from their WASP forebears in the British Empire, whose banking back to Oliver Cromwell had become inextricably entangled with Jewish money and Jewish interests to the point that Jews per capita dominated it even at the height of the British Empire, when simpleton WASPs assume that WASPs truly ran everything, and that WASP power was for the good of even the poorest WASPs. ..."
"... The Berlin Baghdad railway was an important cause for WWI. ..."
"... Bingo. Stopping it was a huge factor. There was no way the banksters of the world were going to let that go forward, nor were they going to let Germany and Russia link up in any other ways. They certainly were not about to allow any threats to the Suez Canal nor any chance to let the oil fields slip from their control either. ..."
"... This is not how the Enlightenment was supposed to evolve ..."
"... In fact, this is exactly how it was supposed to work. The wave of liberal democracies was precisely to overturn the monarchies, which were the last bulwark protecting the people from the full tyranny of the financiers, who were, by nature, one-world internationalists. ..."
"... The real problem with this is that any form of monetary arrangement involves an implied trusteeship, with obligations on, as well as benefits for, the trustee. The US is so abusing its trusteeship through the continual use of an irresponsible sanctions regime that it risks a good portion of the world economy abandoning its system for someone else's, which may be perceived to be run more responsibility. The disaster scenario would be the US having therefore in the future to access that other system to purchase oil or minerals, and having that system do to us what we previously did to them -- sanction us out. ..."
"... " Marx believed that capitalism was inherently built upon practices of usury and thus inevitably leading to the separation of society into two classes: one composed of those who produce value and the other, which feeds upon the first one. In "Theories of Surplus Value" (written 1862-1863), he states " that interest (in contrast to industrial profit) and rent (that is the form of landed property created by capitalist production itself) are superfetations (i.e., excessive accumulations) which are not essential to capitalist production and of which it can rid itself." ..."
In theory, the global financial system is supposed to help every country gain. Mainstream teaching of international finance, trade
and "foreign aid" (defined simply as any government credit) depicts an almost utopian system uplifting all countries, not stripping
their assets and imposing austerity. The reality since World War I is that the United States has taken the lead in shaping the international
financial system to promote gains for its own bankers, farm exporters, its oil and gas sector, and buyers of foreign resources –
and most of all, to collect on debts owed to it.
Each time this global system has broken down over the past century, the major destabilizing force has been American over-reach
and the drive by its bankers and bondholders for short-term gains. The dollar-centered financial system is leaving more industrial
as well as Third World countries debt-strapped. Its three institutional pillars – the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank
and World Trade Organization – have imposed monetary, fiscal and financial dependency, most recently by the post-Soviet Baltics,
Greece and the rest of southern Europe. The resulting strains are now reaching the point where they are breaking apart the arrangements
put in place after World War II.
The most destructive fiction of international finance is that all debts can be paid, and indeed should be paid, even when
this tears economies apart by forcing them into austerity – to save bondholders, not labor and industry. Yet European countries,
and especially Germany, have shied from pressing for a more balanced global economy that would foster growth for all countries and
avoid the current economic slowdown and debt deflation.
Imposing austerity on Germany after World War I
After World War I the U.S. Government deviated from what had been traditional European policy – forgiving military support costs
among the victors. U.S. officials demanded payment for the arms shipped to its Allies in the years before America entered the Great
War in 1917. The Allies turned to Germany for reparations to pay these debts. Headed by John Maynard Keynes, British diplomats sought
to clean their hands of responsibility for the consequences by promising that all the money they received from Germany would simply
be forwarded to the U.S. Treasury.
The sums were so unpayably high that Germany was driven into austerity and collapse. The nation suffered hyperinflation as the
Reichsbank printed marks to throw onto the foreign exchange also were pushed into financial collapse. The debt deflation was much
like that of Third World debtors a generation ago, and today's southern European PIIGS (Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece and Spain).
In a pretense that the reparations and Inter-Ally debt tangle could be made solvent, a triangular flow of payments was facilitated
by a convoluted U.S. easy-money policy. American investors sought high returns by buying German local bonds; German municipalities
turned over the dollars they received to the Reichsbank for domestic currency; and the Reichsbank used this foreign exchange to pay
reparations to Britain and other Allies, enabling these countries to pay the United States what it demanded.
But solutions based on attempts to keep debts of such magnitude in place by lending debtors the money to pay can only be temporary.
The U.S. Federal Reserve sustained this triangular flow by holding down U.S. interest rates. This made it attractive for American
investors to buy German municipal bonds and other high-yielding debts. It also deterred Wall Street from drawing funds away from
Britain, which would have driven its economy deeper into austerity after the General Strike of 1926. But domestically, low U.S. interest
rates and easy credit spurred a real estate bubble, followed by a stock market bubble that burst in 1929. The triangular flow of
payments broke down in 1931, leaving a legacy of debt deflation burdening the U.S. and European economies. The Great Depression lasted
until outbreak of World War II in 1939.
Planning for the postwar period took shape as the war neared its end. U.S. diplomats had learned an important lesson. This time
there would be no arms debts or reparations. The global financial system would be stabilized – on the basis of gold, and on creditor-oriented
rules. By the end of the 1940s the United States held some 75 percent of the world's monetary gold stock. That established the U.S.
dollar as the world's reserve currency, freely convertible into gold at the 1933 parity of $35 an ounce.
It also implied that once again, as in the 1920s, European balance-of-payments deficits would have to be financed mainly by the
United States. Recycling of official government credit was to be filtered via the IMF and World Bank, in which U.S. diplomats alone
had veto power to reject policies they found not to be in their national interest. International financial "stability" thus became
a global control mechanism – to maintain creditor-oriented rules centered in the United States.
To obtain gold or dollars as backing for their own domestic monetary systems, other countries had to follow the trade and investment
rules laid down by the United States. These rules called for relinquishing control over capital movements or restrictions on foreign
takeovers of natural resources and the public domain as well as local industry and banking systems.
By 1950 the dollar-based global economic system had become increasingly untenable. Gold continued flowing to the United States,
strengthening the dollar – until the Korean War reversed matters. From 1951 through 1971 the United States ran a deepening balance-of-payments
deficit, which stemmed entirely from overseas military spending. (Private-sector trade and investment was steadily in balance.)
U.S. Treasury debt replaces the gold exchange standard
The foreign military spending that helped return American gold to Europe became a flood as the Vietnam War spread across Asia
after 1962. The Treasury kept the dollar's exchange rate stable by selling gold via the London Gold Pool at $35 an ounce. Finally,
in August 1971, President Nixon stopped the drain by closing the Gold Pool and halting gold convertibility of the dollar.
There was no plan for what would happen next. Most observers viewed cutting the dollar's link to gold as a defeat for the United
States. It certainly ended the postwar financial order as designed in 1944. But what happened next was just the reverse of a defeat.
No longer able to buy gold after 1971 (without inciting strong U.S. disapproval), central banks found only one asset in which to
hold their balance-of-payments surpluses: U.S. Treasury debt. These securities no longer were "as good as gold." The United States
issued them at will to finance soaring domestic budget deficits.
By shifting from gold to the dollars thrown off by the U.S. balance-of-payments deficit, the foundation of global monetary reserves
came to be dominated by the U.S. military spending that continued to flood foreign central banks with surplus dollars. America's
balance-of-payments deficit thus supplied the dollars that financed its domestic budget deficits and bank credit creation – via foreign
central banks recycling U.S. foreign spending back to the U.S. Treasury.
In effect, foreign countries have been taxed without representation over how their loans to the U.S. Government are employed.
European central banks were not yet prepared to create their own sovereign wealth funds to invest their dollar inflows in foreign
stocks or direct ownership of businesses. They simply used their trade and payments surpluses to finance the U.S. budget deficit.
This enabled the Treasury to cut domestic tax rates, above all on the highest income brackets.
U.S. monetary imperialism confronted European and Asian central banks with a dilemma that remains today: If they do not turn around
and buy dollar assets, their currencies will rise against the dollar. Buying U.S. Treasury securities is the only practical way to
stabilize their exchange rates – and in so doing, to prevent their exports from rising in dollar terms and being priced out of dollar-area
markets.
The system may have developed without foresight, but quickly became deliberate. My book Super Imperialism sold best in
the Washington DC area, and I was given a large contract through the Hudson Institute to explain to the Defense Department exactly
how this extractive financial system worked. I was brought to the White House to explain it, and U.S. geostrategists used my book
as a how-to-do-it manual (not my original intention).
Attention soon focused on the oil-exporting countries. After the U.S. quadrupled its grain export prices shortly after the 1971
gold suspension, the oil-exporting countries quadrupled their oil prices. I was informed at a White House meeting that U.S. diplomats
had let Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries know that they could charge as much as they wanted for their oil, but that the United
States would treat it as an act of war not to keep their oil proceeds in U.S. dollar assets.
This was the point at which the international financial system became explicitly extractive. But it took until 2009, for the first
attempt to withdraw from this system to occur. A conference was convened at Yekaterinburg, Russia, by the Shanghai Cooperation Organization
(SCO). The alliance comprised Russia, China, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Kirghizstan and Uzbekistan, with observer status for Iran, India,
Pakistan and Mongolia. U.S. officials asked to attend as observers, but their request was rejected.
The U.S. response has been to extend the new Cold War into the financial sector, rewriting the rules of international finance
to benefit the United States and its satellites – and to deter countries from seeking to break free from America's financial free
ride.
The IMF changes its rules to isolate Russia and China
Aiming to isolate Russia and China, the Obama Administration's confrontational diplomacy has drawn the Bretton Woods institutions
more tightly under US/NATO control. In so doing, it is disrupting the linkages put in place after World War II.
The U.S. plan was to hurt Russia's economy so much that it would be ripe for regime change ("color revolution"). But the effect
was to drive it eastward, away from Western Europe to consolidate its long-term relations with China and Central Asia. Pressing Europe
to shift its oil and gas purchases to U.S. allies, U.S. sanctions have disrupted German and other European trade and investment with
Russia and China. It also has meant lost opportunities for European farmers, other exporters and investors – and a flood of refugees
from failed post-Soviet states drawn into the NATO orbit, most recently Ukraine.
To U.S. strategists, what made changing IMF rules urgent was Ukraine's $3 billion debt falling due to Russia's National Wealth
Fund in December 2015. The IMF had long withheld credit to countries refusing to pay other governments. This policy aimed primarily
at protecting the financial claims of the U.S. Government, which usually played a lead role in consortia with other governments and
U.S. banks. But under American pressure the IMF changed its rules in January 2015. Henceforth, it announced, it would indeed be willing
to provide credit to countries in arrears other governments – implicitly headed by China (which U.S. geostrategists consider to be
their main long-term adversary), Russia and others that U.S. financial warriors might want to isolate in order to force neoliberal
privatization policies. [1] I provide the full
background in "The IMF Changes its Rules to Isolate China and Russia," December 9, 2015, available on michael-hudson.com, Naked
Capitalism , Counterpunch and Johnson's Russia List .
Article I of the IMF's 1944-45 founding charter
prohibits it from lending to a member engaged in civil war or at war with another member state, or for military purposes generally.
An obvious reason for this rule is that such a country is unlikely to earn the foreign exchange to pay its debt. Bombing Ukraine's
own Donbass region in the East after its February 2014 coup d'état destroyed its export industry, mainly to Russia.
Withholding IMF credit could have been a lever to force adherence to the Minsk peace agreements, but U.S. diplomacy rejected that
opportunity. When IMF head Christine Lagarde made a new loan to Ukraine in spring 2015, she merely expressed a verbal hope for peace.
Ukrainian President Porochenko announced the next day that he would step up his civil war against the Russian-speaking population
in eastern Ukraine. One and a half-billion dollars of the IMF loan were given to banker Ihor Kolomoiski and disappeared offshore,
while the oligarch used his domestic money to finance an anti-Donbass army. A million refugees were driven east into Russia; others
fled west via Poland as the economy and Ukraine's currency plunged.
The IMF broke four of its rules by lending to Ukraine: (1) Not to lend to a country that has no visible means to pay back the
loan (the "No More Argentinas" rule, adopted after the IMF's disastrous 2001 loan to that country). (2) Not to lend to a country
that repudiates its debt to official creditors (the rule originally intended to enforce payment to U.S.-based institutions). (3)
Not to lend to a country at war – and indeed, destroying its export capacity and hence its balance-of-payments ability to pay back
the loan. Finally (4), not to lend to a country unlikely to impose the IMF's austerity "conditionalities." Ukraine did agree to override
democratic opposition and cut back pensions, but its junta proved too unstable to impose the austerity terms on which the IMF insisted.
U.S. neoliberalism promotes privatization carve-ups of debtor countries
Since World War II the United States has used the Dollar Standard and its dominant role in the IMF and World Bank to steer
trade and investment along lines benefiting its own economy. But now that the growth of China's mixed economy has outstripped all
others while Russia finally is beginning to recover, countries have the option of borrowing from the Asian Infrastructure Investment
Bank (AIIB) and other non-U.S. consortia.
At stake is much more than just which nations will get the contracting and banking business. At issue is whether the philosophy
of development will follow the classical path based on public infrastructure investment, or whether public sectors will be privatized
and planning turned over to rent-seeking corporations.
What made the United States and Germany the leading industrial nations of the 20 th century – and more recently, China
– has been public investment in economic infrastructure. The aim was to lower the price of living and doing business by providing
basic services on a subsidized basis or freely. By contrast, U.S. privatizers have brought debt leverage to bear on Third World countries,
post-Soviet economies and most recently on southern Europe to force selloffs. Current plans to cap neoliberal policy with the Trans-Pacific
Partnership (TPP), Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and Transatlantic Free Trade Agreement (TAFTA) go so far
as to disable government planning power to the financial and corporate sector.
American strategists evidently hoped that the threat of isolating Russia, China and other countries would bring them to heel if
they tried to denominate trade and investment in their own national currencies. Their choice would be either to suffer sanctions
like those imposed on Cuba and Iran, or to avoid exclusion by acquiescing in the dollarized financial and trade system and its drives
to financialize their economies under U.S. control.
The problem with surrendering is that this Washington Consensus is extractive and lives in the short run, laying the seeds
of financial dependency, debt-leveraged bubbles and subsequent debt deflation and austerity. The financial business plan is to carve
out opportunities for price gouging and corporate profits. Today's U.S.-sponsored trade and investment treaties would make governments
pay fines equal to the amount that environmental and price regulations, laws protecting consumers and other social policies might
reduce corporate profits. "Companies would be able to demand compensation from countries whose health, financial, environmental and
other public interest policies they thought to be undermining their interests, and take governments before extrajudicial tribunals.
These tribunals, organised under World Bank and UN rules, would have the power to order taxpayers to pay extensive compensation over
legislation seen as undermining a company's 'expected future profits.' "
This policy threat is splitting the world into pro-U.S. satellites and economies maintaining public infrastructure investment
and what used to be viewed as progressive capitalism. U.S.-sponsored neoliberalism supporting its own financial and corporate interests
has driven Russia, China and other members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization into an alliance to protect their economic self-sufficiency
rather than becoming dependent on dollarized credit enmeshing them in foreign-currency debt.
At the center of today's global split are the last few centuries of Western social and democratic reform. Seeking to follow
the classical Western development path by retaining a mixed public/private economy, China, Russia and other nations find it easier
to create new institutions such as the AIIB than to reform the dollar standard IMF and World Bank. Their choice is between short-term
gains by dependency leading to austerity, or long-term development with independence and ultimate prosperity.
The price of resistance involves risking military or covert overthrow. Long before the Ukraine crisis, the United States has
dropped the pretense of backing democracies. The die was cast in 1953 with the coup against Iran's secular government, and the 1954
coup in Guatemala to oppose land reform. Support for client oligarchies and dictatorships in Latin America in the 1960 and '70s was
highlighted by the overthrow of Allende in Chile and Operation Condor's assassination program throughout the continent. Under President
Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the United States has claimed that America's status as the world's "indispensible
nation" entitled it back the recent coups in Honduras and Ukraine, and to sponsor the NATO attack on Libya and Syria, leaving Europe
to absorb the refugees.
Germany's choice
This is not how the Enlightenment was supposed to evolve. The industrial takeoff of Germany and other European nations involved
a long fight to free markets from the land rents and financial charges siphoned off by their landed aristocracies and bankers. That
was the essence of classical 19 th -century political economy and 20 th -century social democracy. Most economists
a century ago expected industrial capitalism to produce an economy of abundance, and democratic reforms to endorse public infrastructure
investment and regulation to hold down the cost of living and doing business. But U.S. economic diplomacy now threatens to radically
reverse this economic ideology by aiming to dismantle public regulatory power and impose a radical privatization agenda under the
TTIP and TAFTA.
Textbook trade theory depicts trade and investment as helping poorer countries catch up, compelling them to survive by becoming
more democratic to overcome their vested interests and oligarchies along the lines pioneered by European and North American industrial
economies. Instead, the world is polarizing, not converging. The trans-Atlantic financial bubble has left a legacy of austerity
since 2008. Debt-ridden economies are being told to cope with their downturns by privatizing their public domain.
The immediate question facing Germany and the rest of Western Europe is how long they will sacrifice their trade and investment
opportunities with Russia, Iran and other economies by adhering to U.S.-sponsored sanctions. American intransigence threatens to
force an either/or choice in what looms as a seismic geopolitical shift over the proper role of governments: Should their public
sectors provide basic services and protect populations from predatory monopolies, rent extraction and financial polarization?
Today's global financial crisis can be traced back to World War I and its aftermath. The principle that needed to be voiced
was the right of sovereign nations not to be forced to sacrifice their economic survival on the altar of inter-government and private
debt demands. The concept of nationhood embodied in the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia based international law on the principle of parity
of sovereign states and non-interference. Without a global alternative to letting debt dynamics polarize societies and tear economies
apart, monetary imperialism by creditor nations is inevitable.
The past century's global fracture between creditor and debtor economies has interrupted what seemed to be Europe's democratic
destiny to empower governments to override financial and other rentier interests. Instead, the West is following U.S. diplomatic
leadership back into the age when these interests ruled governments. This conflict between creditors and democracy, between oligarchy
and economic growth (and indeed, survival) will remain the defining issue of our epoch over the next generation, and probably for
the remainder of the 21 st century.
Endnotes
[1] I provide the full background in
"The IMF Changes its Rules to Isolate China and Russia," December 9, 2015, available on michael-hudson.com, Naked Capitalism
, Counterpunch and Johnson's Russia List .
"Austerity" is such a misused word these days. What the Allies did to Germany after Versailles was austerity, and everyone paid
dearly for it.
What the IMF and the Western Banking Cartel do to third world countries is akin to a pusher hopping up addicts on debt and
then taking it away while stripping them of their assets, pretty much hurting only the people of the third world country; certainly
not the WBC, and almost certainly not the criminal elite who took the deal.
The Austerity everyone complains about in the developed world these days is a joke, hardly austerity, for it has never meant
more than doing a little less deficit-spending than in prior periods, e.g. UK Labour whining about "Austerity" is a joke, as the
UK debt has done nothing but grow, which in terms understandable to simple folk like me means they are spending more than they
can afford to carry.
" The immediate question facing Germany and the rest of Western Europe is how long they will sacrifice their trade and investment
opportunities with Russia, Iran and other economies by adhering to U.S.-sponsored sanctions "
In the whole article not a word about the euro, also an instrument of imperialism, that mainly benefits Germany, the country
that has to maintain a high level of exports, in order to feed the Germans, and import raw materials for Germany's industries.
Isolating China and Russia, with the other BRICS countries, S Africa, Brazil, India, dangerous game.
This effort forced China and Russia to close cooperation, the economic expression of this is the Peking Petersburg railway, with
a hub in Khazakstan, where the containers are lifted from the Chinese to the Russian system, the width differs.
Four days for the trip.
The Berlin Baghdad railway was an important cause for WWI.
Let us hope that history does not repeat itself in the nuclear era.
Edward Mead Earle, Ph.D., 'Turkey, The Great Powers and The Bagdad Railway, A study in Imperialism', 1923, 1924, New York
The U.S. response has been to extend the new Cold War into the financial sector, rewriting the rules of international finance
to benefit the United States and its satellites – and to deter countries from seeking t o break free from America's
financial free ride .
Nah, the NY banksters wouldn't dream of doing such a thing; would they?
This is not how the Enlightenment was supposed to evolve
What I said, and beautifully put, the whole article.
World War I may well have been an important way-point, but the miserable mercantile modus operandi was well established
long before.
An interesting A/B case:
a) wiki/Anglo-Persian Oil Company
"In 1901 William Knox D'Arcy, a millionaire London socialite, negotiated an oil concession with Mozaffar al-Din Shah Qajar of
Persia. He financed this with capital he had made from his shares in the highly profitable Mount Morgan mine in Queensland, Australia.
D'Arcy assumed exclusive rights to prospect for oil for 60 years in a vast tract of territory including most of Iran. In exchange
the Shah received Ł20,000 (Ł2.0 million today),[1] an equal amount in shares of D'Arcy's company, and a promise of 16% of future
profits." Note the 16% = ~1/6, the rest going off-shore.
b) The Greens in Aus researched the resources sector in Aus, to find that it is 83% 'owned' by off-shore entities. Note
that 83% = ~5/6, which goes off-shore. Coincidence?
Then see what happened when the erstwhile APOC was nationalized; the US/UK perpetrated a coup against the democratically elected
Mossadegh, eventual blow-back resulting in the 1979 revolution, basically taking Iran out of 'the West.'
Note that in Aus, the democratically elected so-called 'leaders' not only allow exactly this sort of economic rape, they
actively assist it by, say, crippling the central bank and pleading for FDI = selling our, we the people's interests, out. Those
traitor-leaders are reversing 'Enlightenment' provisions, privatising whatever they can and, as Michael Hudson well points out
the principles, running Aus into debt and austerity.
We the people are powerless passengers, and to add insult to injury, the taxpayer-funded AusBC lies to us continually. Ho,
hum; just like the mainly US/Z MSM and the BBC do – all corrupt and venal. Bah!
Now, cue the trolls: "But Russia/China are worse!"
The immediate question facing Germany and the rest of Western Europe is how long they will sacrifice their trade and investment
opportunities with Russia, Iran and other economies by adhering to U.S.-sponsored sanctions.
US banking oligarchs will expend the last drop of our blood to prevent a such a linking, just as they were willing to sacrifice
our blood and treasure in WW1 and 2, as is alluded to here.:
Today's global financial crisis can be traced back to World War I and its aftermath.
Excellent.:
The principle that needed to be voiced was the right of sovereign nations not to be forced to sacrifice their economic survival
on the altar of inter-government and private debt demands Without a global alternative to letting debt dynamics polarize societies
and tear economies apart, monetary imperialism by creditor nations is inevitable.
This is a gem of a summary.:
The past century's global fracture between creditor and debtor economies has interrupted what seemed to be Europe's
democratic destiny to empower governments to override financial and other rentier interests. Instead, the West is following
U.S. diplomatic leadership back into the age when these interests ruled governments. This conflict between creditors and democracy,
between oligarchy and economic growth (and indeed, survival) will remain the defining issue of our epoch over the next generation,
and probably for the remainder of the 21st century.
Instead, the West is following U.S. diplomatic leadership back into the age when these interests ruled governments. It's
important to note that such interests have ruled (owned, actually) imperial Britain for centuries and the US since its inception,
and the anti-federalists knew it.
Here is a revolution as radical as that which separated us from Great Britain.
You will find all the strength of this country in the hands of your enemies [ ed comment: the money grubbers ]
Patrick Henry June 5 and 7, 1788―1788-1789 Petersburg, Virginia edition of the Debates and other Proceedings . . . Of the
Virginia Convention of 1788
The Constitution had been laid down under unacceptable auspices; its history had been that of a coup d'état.
It had been drafted, in the first place, by men representing special economic interests. Four-fifths of them were
public creditors, one-third were land speculators, and one-fifth represented interests in shipping, manufacturing, and merchandising.
Most of them were lawyers. Not one of them represented the interest of production -- Vilescit origine tali.
- Albert Jay Nock [Excerpted from chapter 5 of Albert Jay Nock's Jefferson, published in 1926]
"After World War I the U.S. Government deviated from what had been traditional European policy – forgiving military support
costs among the victors. U.S. officials demanded payment for the arms shipped to its Allies in the years before America entered
the Great War in 1917. The Allies turned to Germany for reparations to pay these debts." The Yank banker, the Yankee Wall Street
super rich, set off a process of greed that led to Hitler.
But they didn't invent anything. They learned from their
WASP forebears in the British Empire, whose banking back to Oliver Cromwell had become inextricably entangled with Jewish money
and Jewish interests to the point that Jews per capita dominated it even at the height of the British Empire, when simpleton WASPs
assume that WASPs truly ran everything, and that WASP power was for the good of even the poorest WASPs.
To Michael Hudson,
Great article. Evidence based, factually argued, enjoyably readable.
Replacements for the dollar dominated financial system are well into development. Digital dollars, credit cards, paypal, stock
and currency exchange online platforms, and perhaps most intriguing The exponential rise of Bitcoin and similar crypto-currencies.
The internet is also exponentially exposing the screwing we peasants have been getting by the psychopath, narcissistic, hedonistic,
predatory lenders and controllers. Next comes the widespread, easily usable, and inexpensive cell phone apps, social media exposures,
alternative websites (like Unz.com), and other technologies that will quickly identify every lying, evil, jerk so they can be
neutrilized / avoided
"Textbook trade theory depicts trade and investment as helping poorer countries catch up, compelling them to survive by
becoming more democratic to overcome their vested interests and oligarchies along the lines pioneered by European and North
American industrial economies."
I must be old; the economic textbooks I had did explain the benefits of freer trade among nations using Ricardo and Trade Indifference
Curves, but didn't prescribe any one political system being fostered by or even necessary for the benefits of international trade
to be reaped.
to be honest, this way of running things only need to last for 10-20 more years before automation will replace 800 million jobs.
then we will have a few trillionaire overlords unless true AI comes online. by that point nothing matters as we will become zoo
animals.
What the IMF and the Western Banking Cartel do to third world countries is akin to a pusher hopping up addicts on debt and
then taking it away while stripping them of their assets, pretty much hurting only the people of the third world country; certainly
not the WBC, and almost certainly not the criminal elite who took the deal.
That's true and the criminals do similar asset stripping to their own as well, through various means.
It's always the big criminals against the rest of us.
The Berlin Baghdad railway was an important cause for WWI.
Bingo. Stopping it was a huge factor. There was no way the banksters of the world were going to let that go forward, nor
were they going to let Germany and Russia link up in any other ways. They certainly were not about to allow any threats to the
Suez Canal nor any chance to let the oil fields slip from their control either.
The wars were also instigated to prevent either Germany or Russia having control of, and free access to warm water ports
and the wars also were an excuse to steal vast amounts of wealth from both Germany and Russia through various means.
All pious and pompous pretexts aside, economics was the motive for (the) war (s), and the issues are not settled to this day.
I.e., it's the same class of monstrously insatiable criminals who want everything for themselves who're causing the major troubles
of the day.
Unfortunately, as long as we have SoB's who're eager to sacrifice our blood and treasure for their
benfit, things will never change.
The golden rule is one thing. The paper rule is something else.
May you live in interesting times.
The golden rule is for dreamers, unfortunately. Those who control paper money rule, and your wish has been granted; we live
in times that are both interesting and fascinating, but are nevertheless the same old thing. Only the particular particulars
have changed.
Essentially, the anti-EU and anti-euro line that Professor Hudson has being pushing for years, which has now morphed into a pro-Putin
line as the anti-EU faction in the US have sought to use Putin as a "useful idiot" to destroy the EU. Since nobody in Europe reads
these articles, Ii doesn't really matter and I certainly don't see any EU leader following the advice of someone who has never
concealed his hostility to the EU's very existence: note the use of the racist slur "PIIGS" to refer to certain EU Member States.
Thus, Professor Hudson is simply pushing the "let Putin win in Ukraine" line dressed up in fine-sounding economic jargon.
Since nobody in Europe reads these articles, Ii doesn't really matter
None of it rally matters anyway, no matter how valid. To paraphrase Thucydides, the money grubbers do what they want and the
rest of us are forced to suck it up and limp along.
and I certainly don't see any EU leader following the advice
I doubt that that's Hudson's intent in writing the article. I see it as his attempt to explain the situation to those of us
who care about them even though our concern is pretty much useless.
I do thank him for taking the time to pen this stuff which I consider worthwhile and high quality.
That sounds good but social media is the weapon of choice in the EU too. Lot's of kids know and love Hudson. Any half capable
writer who empathetically explains why you're getting fucked is going to have some followers. Watering, nutrition, weeding. Before
too long you'll be on the Eurail to your destination.
said: "The Yank banker, the Yankee Wall Street super rich, set off a process of greed that led to Hitler." If true, so what?
That's a classic example of 'garbage in, garbage out'. http://www.codoh.com
This is not how the Enlightenment was supposed to evolve
In fact, this is exactly how it was supposed to work. The wave of liberal democracies was precisely to overturn the monarchies,
which were the last bulwark protecting the people from the full tyranny of the financiers, who were, by nature, one-world internationalists.
The real problem with this is that any form of monetary arrangement involves an implied trusteeship, with obligations on,
as well as benefits for, the trustee. The US is so abusing its trusteeship through the continual use of an irresponsible
sanctions regime that it risks a good portion of the world economy abandoning its system for someone else's, which may be perceived
to be run more responsibility. The disaster scenario would be the US having therefore in the future to access that other system
to purchase oil or minerals, and having that system do to us what we previously did to them -- sanction us out.
The proper
use by the US of its controlled system thus should be a defensive one -- mainly to act so fairly to all players that it, not someone
else, remains in control of the dominant worldwide exchange system. This sensible course of conduct, unfortunately, is not being
pursued by the US.
there is fuzzy, and then there is very fuzzy, and then there is the fuzziness compounded many-fold. The latter is this article.
Here from wiki: "
" Marx believed that capitalism was inherently built upon practices of usury and thus inevitably leading to the separation
of society into two classes: one composed of those who produce value and the other, which feeds upon the first one. In "Theories
of Surplus Value" (written 1862-1863), he states " that interest (in contrast to industrial profit) and rent (that is the form
of landed property created by capitalist production itself) are superfetations (i.e., excessive accumulations) which are not
essential to capitalist production and of which it can rid itself."
Wiki goes on to identify "rentier" as used by Marx, to be the same thing as "capitalists." What the above quotation says
is that capitalism CAN rid itself of genuine rent capital. First, the feudal rents that were extracted by landowners were NOT
part of a free market system. Serfdom was only one part of unfree conditions. A general condition of anarchy in rules and laws
by petty principalities characteristic of feudalism, both contained commerce and human beings. There was no freedom, political
or economic.
The conflation (collapsing) of rents and interest is a Marxist error which expands into complete nonsense when a competitive
economy has replaced feudal conditions. ON top of that, profits from a business, firm, or industrial enterprise are NOT rents.
Any marxist is a fool to pretend otherwise, and is just another ideological (False consciousness ) fanatic.
Germany loans money back to the poorer nations who buy her exports just as China loans money to the United States (they purchase
roughly a third of our Treasury bonds) so that Americans can continue to buy Chinese manufactured goods.
The role to be played by the USA in the "new world order" is that of being the farmer to the world. The meticulous Asians will
make stuff.
The problem with this is that it is based on 19th century notions of manufacturing. Technique today is vastly more complicated
than it was in the 1820′s and a nation must do everything in its power to protect and nurture its manufacturing and scientific
excellence. In the United States we have been giving this away to our competitors. We educate their children at our taxpayer's
expense and they take the knowledge gained back to their native countries where, with state subsidies, they build factories that
put Americans out of work. We fall further and further behind.
"... "The World Wealth and Inequality project's latest white-paper, co-authored by Thomas "Capital in the 21st Century" Piketty,
painstaking pieces together fragmentary data-sources to build up a detailed picture of wealth inequality in Russia in the pre-revolutionary
period; during phases of the Soviet era; on the eve of the collapse of the USSR; and ever since. ..."
"... According to our benchmark estimates, top income shares are now similar to (or higher than) the levels observed in the United
States. We also find that inequality has increased substantially more in Russia than in China and other ex-communist countries in Eastern
Europe. We relate this finding to the specific transition strategy followed in Russia. According to our benchmark estimates, the wealth
held offshore by rich Russians is about three times larger than official net foreign reserves, and is comparable in magnitude to total
household financial assets held in Russia. ..."
"... For my money, Saker emphasises the supposed friendliness of the Western people towards Russia too much. It is not the Western
people who want to attack Russia then the Western Anglozionist elite, but the Western people really do not care, as long as it is not
the blood of their progeny and their own money paying for bringing Russia to heel. ..."
"... And if Russia is destroyed, just like Ukraine, then there could be some lucrative jobs when the Western Zio-elite starts dismembering
the Russian corpse. And well paying jobs are in great demand in the bankrupt West. The unwritten contract that the Western people have
with their Anglozionist elite says: find a way to destroy Russia without a global nuclear war, cheaply, without serious dying on our
side and throw us a few bones and we will gladly hybernate our moral conscience. ..."
The people who worked in int'l finance in the 90s (representing countries to the WB and IMF) knew about the criminal callousness
of these institutions when pushing 'austerity' or 'reform' policies. Local elites sometimes were complacent and profited (those
privatizations! those newly opened markets!), sometimes resisted, but the US and the multilateral system –financial or otherwise–
are ruthless and very hard to resist.
Many countries suffered, not because they were Russian or Brazilian or Mexican, but because the opportunity for gain was there.
There's some common ground between the reds and whites in that the reds tapped into nationalist sentiments, hence the wars of
national liberation around the world being supported by the communists: Korea, Vietnam, insurgencies in Latin America, Africa,
etc. The script has flipped with the western countries now being the 'godless' ones who are trying to destroy religion, the family
and traditional ways of life. The 1% were horrified that there was an ideology out there that advocated taking their loot away
so they used all their resources in combatting it, even being willing to take the world to the brink of nuclear Armageddon in
doing so. They'd take the world down with them rather than lose their positions of power and money. Now that the ideology is no
longer there it's just back to the business of robbing everyone weaker than them. All the hysteria about Putin is simply that
he's built up the Russian state to where they can resist and that he's not a fellow slaveholder like them.
The intervention in Syria has unhinged parts of the west where they thought they could rob and kill anywhere they pleased but
now have been successfully resisted. Political systems come and go but the people have endured for the past thousand years, something
the fat cats of the west are trying to destroy to enlarge their slave plantation.
" Russia has greater economic disparity than any other major global power. In 2016, Credit Suisse's Global Wealth Report found
that the wealthiest 10% of people in Russia controlled 89% of the country's wealth ..
"The World Wealth and Inequality project's latest white-paper, co-authored by Thomas "Capital in the 21st Century" Piketty,
painstaking pieces together fragmentary data-sources to build up a detailed picture of wealth inequality in Russia in the pre-revolutionary
period; during phases of the Soviet era; on the eve of the collapse of the USSR; and ever since.
The headline findings: official Russian estimates drastically understate national inequality; Russia is as unequal as the USA
or even moreso; Russian inequality is more intense than the inequality in other post-Soviet states and in post-Deng China.
This paper combines national accounts, survey, wealth and fiscal data (including recently released tax data on high-income
taxpayers) in order to provide consistent series on the accumulation and distribution of income and wealth in Russia from the
Soviet period until the present day. We find that official survey-based measures vastly under-estimate the rise of inequality
since 1990. According to our benchmark estimates, top income shares are now similar to (or higher than) the levels observed
in the United States. We also find that inequality has increased substantially more in Russia than in China and other ex-communist
countries in Eastern Europe. We relate this finding to the specific transition strategy followed in Russia. According to our benchmark
estimates, the wealth held offshore by rich Russians is about three times larger than official net foreign reserves, and is comparable
in magnitude to total household financial assets held in Russia.
From Soviets to Oligarchs: Inequality and Property in Russia 1905-2016 [Filip Novokmet, Thomas Piketty, Gabriel Zucman/World
Wealth and Income Database]"
People used to stage revolutions in order to bring communism to their countries. Plenty of examples for that: Russia, China,
Cuba and many others. Of course, those people were deluded, right? Who would want to bring a system that preaches economic equality?
It must be someone who is out of their mind. Has there ever been a capitalist revolution where someone took up arms trying to
bring capitalism to their country? Must be because it's such a humane and desirable system. Also, a lot of people think that Islam
is a backward religion. Really? Then how come it tolerates socialism (communism), better than Christianity ever did? Libya, Iraq,
Syria, Afghanistan they were all socialist at some point. That's why the greatest democracy set their sights on them to destroy
them. Because, you see, by their calculations, no matter how extremist and backward the Islam gets, it's still more progressive
than socialism or communism. Helluva math there. The game has always been about preserving capitalism, and not the most benign
version either. Which is too bad, because capitalism has been known to tolerate dictatorship, fascism, Nazism, slavery – pretty
much the ugliest forms of government the sick human mind can come up with, but it can't tolerate little bit of socialism. Because
you see, socialism is worse than any of those lovely political systems. Democracy (capitalism) is too pure for that, such a fragile
and delicate thing that it is.
I am surprised Sweden hasn't been bombed yet, for their flirting with socialism, but the way the things are going over there,
they don't have to be bombed. They did themselves in by following someone's stupid ideas about multiculturalism – which of course
is also a form of socialism – racial one, instead the real deal – the economic socialism that the greatest democracy of them all
is so afraid of.
When the Serbians in different parts of Yugoslavia started being attacked by the West, I was constantly pointing out that in recent
times, since WW1, an attack on Serbia has been a kind of introduction to an attack on Russia. In other words, I had no doubt that
Russia was next.
But, there is one huge difference between Serbia and Russia. Whilst the Serbians killed very few of those Western Zionist military
mercenaries who were killing Serbians directly or using their Croat, Muslim and Albanian proxies, if attacked the Russian military
could kill hundreds of thousands of the Western mercenaries. This is why whilst the war on Serbia was real and bloody only on
Serbians and the Bosnian Muslim proxies, the war on Russia would be totally disastrous for the Anglozionist Empire. This is the
only reason a shooting war on Russia has not started already.
For my money, Saker emphasises the supposed friendliness of the Western people towards Russia too much. It is not the Western
people who want to attack Russia then the Western Anglozionist elite, but the Western people really do not care, as long as it
is not the blood of their progeny and their own money paying for bringing Russia to heel.
And if Russia is destroyed, just like Ukraine, then there could be some lucrative jobs when the Western Zio-elite starts
dismembering the Russian corpse. And well paying jobs are in great demand in the bankrupt West. The unwritten contract that the
Western people have with their Anglozionist elite says: find a way to destroy Russia without a global nuclear war, cheaply, without
serious dying on our side and throw us a few bones and we will gladly hybernate our moral conscience.
Well, what evidence have you for asserting that Putin is a thug? You saw through the media's false reporting earlier as you
admit, so how come you again swallow the load of marbles that they dish out?
And while Putin may or may not be feared by "near abroad" he certainly is feared by those who seek total dominance of the planet.
The thing is, he is not an easy pushover and that is what is behind the thug claims. Many thinking people admire his intellect,
statesmanship, and skill in dealing with major problems of our times. The media also hates him because he shows up the western
leaders for the clowns that they are.
A principled US Government would have dealt very differently with Russia and Putin. There is no inherent conflict of interest
with Russia once global dominance is discarded as the main policy objective.
{The only people that fear Putin is the near abroad, .}
Sure, if you say so, Bub.
Texas* is, of course, 'near aboard' .
[Russia has begun testing of its new intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), the RS-28 Sarmat. Sarmat can carry a payload
of up to ten tons of nukes. The missile system is set to enter service in 2018.
The RS-28 Sarmat is the first entirely new Russian ICBM in decades. The heavyweight missile weighs 100 tons and can boost 10 tons.
Russia claims the Sarmat can lift 10 heavyweight warheads, or 16 lighter ones, and Russian state media has described it as being
able to wipe out an area the size of Texas or France.]
_______________________
*
[Russia's New ICBM Could "Wipe Out Texas"]
Wow, this is the most refreshing and clear minded comment I've seen here in a while. Nice job WorkingClass, you've managed
to keep your mind clear and not buy into the BS. You've given me some hope Thank you.
The supposed leaders of the West are busy trying to replace or at the very least water down their own populations with a totally
different set of people from far away. Obviously these supposedly democratic leaders loathe what are supposed to be their own
people but rather see all those below them as just so many replaceable units of labor, the mark of a "slaveholder". Putin has
helped his people immensely. Life expectancies had plummeted into the 50′s and that's now been improved greatly as well as living
standards. He's popular because he's done much for the people he identifies with, unlike Western leaders who hold their noses
when anywhere near the citizenry. If the Russians like him then they must not be as worried about some issues as critics outside
the country appear to be.
It is hard to find people in the West who "hate the Russian people themselves"; but in place of hatred there is definitely
fear – fear of Russia's military strength.
Disagree. The enormous propagandistic effort to demonize Russia in the West, not only reveals fear. It also reveals hate, at
least on most of the elites. Most people are indifferent toward Russia but elites definitively have fear to the bear. You can
test some people by simply naming "Russia" and you will see on their eyes a quite irrationala mix of hate and fear. I think this
is result of an Orwellian propaganda effort aimed at injecting fear to "Eurasia".
This fear is exaggerated by the US military-industrial complex for its own purposes;
Given any two races or culture , what they are and what I think of them hardly matters. However pitted against each other it
will cultivate and create good conditions for the scum of both of them and embroil the rest in the conflict. It is an against
of chaos for a hostile order.
Right. Those were capitalist revolutions. You are bang on. Capitalism is one of the most tolerant systems of all kinds of extremism,
as I already mentioned. Capitalism has been known to tolerate monarchy, fascism, Nazism, various forms of dictatorships, slavery,
pretty much everything. But they draw the line at tolerating socialism, like it's the worst extremism they have ever tolerated.
My point is, capitalism is pretty robust system, it's not some delicate beauty that will fall apart if it comes in touch with
socialism. Democracy is only a window dressing, it has never been about democracy, it has always been about capitalism.
There's nothing easier nowadays than becoming a Kremlin (or any other kind of) Troll. Just start talking about things as they
are and you're half way through. Keep talking that way a bit longer, and you'll forever become another precious source of income
for the army of no-talent crooks with unlimited rights and zero oversee from those for whom they officially work. These guys are
simply used to build their entire careers and financial well-beings by adjusting reality to their needs. They've been doing it
for decades. Why not, as long as the true bosses are happy ? Why not, when the MSM will make population to swallow anything, no
matter how idiotic and illogical it is ?
State Department is actually has dual function -- one is to be an intelligence agency. And as such it is fully responsible for the
current anti-Russian witch hunt. So the level of hypocrisy is simply staggering. But not surprising: way too many neocons infiltrated
the agency under Hillary Clinton and her predecessor.
The problem with responding to this move is that the USA is still the global superpower and technological leader in many areas,
including semiconductors. So Russians need to be very careful not to overstep the boundaries and slip into tip for tat mode.
The huge advantage of the USA is that it conducts its propaganda campaign against Russia mostly via private newspapers that have
foreign correspondents in Russia as well as fifth column of Russian neoliberals and their news outlets. Which are closely working with
the US sponsored NGO. Same is true for GB. Actually after reading Guardian correspondents coverage from Russia it is unclear whether
Guardian is a branch on MI6 or not ;-). I don not remember the name of a person who was expelled from Russia for collecting information
from the transmitter masked as a "stone" in Moscow park.
Some minor measures directly against "foreign financed" domestic new outlets actually could be more effective that sweeping registration
of (mostly ineffective and unpopular) US government channels as "foreign agents".
Notable quotes:
"... Today the U.S. State Department hit the ball of hypocrisy out of the park. It remarked that "legislation that allows .. to label media outlets as 'foreign agents' ... presents yet another threat to free media". It noted that "freedom of expression -- including speech and media ... is a universal human rights obligation". ..."
"... The whole issue started with the notable liar James Clapper under the Obama administration. He and other 'intelligence' people found that RT ..."
"... The Russian government had warned several times that the application of FARA against RT ..."
"... "We could do with having a USIA on steroids to fight this information war [with Russia] a lot more aggressively than we're doing right now," Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told members of the Senate Armed Services Committee. ..."
"... "[Russia Today] was very active in promoting a particular point of view, disparaging our system, our alleged hypocrisy about human rights," he said. "Whatever crack, fissure they could find in our tapestry, they would exploit it," via the state-owned news network. ..."
"... Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Jan 6 2017 - Annex I, originally published on 11 December 2012 by the Open Source Center ..."
"... RT aired a documentary about the Occupy Wall Street movement on 1, 2, and 4 November. RT framed the movement as a fight against "the ruling class" and described the current US political system as corrupt and dominated by corporations. ..."
"... RT's reports often characterize the United States as a "surveillance state" and allege widespread infringements of civil liberties, police brutality, and drone use. ..."
"... RT has also focused on criticism of the US economic system, US currency policy, alleged Wall Street greed, and the US national debt. ..."
"... RT is a leading media voice opposing Western intervention in the Syrian conflict and blaming the West for waging "information wars" against the Syrian Government. ..."
"... It is so embarrassing to live in a country where the government issues nothing but lies and hypocrisy. I realize that to the players it's all a game and maybe funny but to this citizen and probably others this game is putting our lives in danger,,, and we don't find that 'funny'. ..."
"... "And at that moment, we will have to repeat that the Iraqi people, the Syrian people, the Lebanese people, all the elites and all the leaders and peoples of the region should reflect, weigh and return to the question of the identity of the creators, supporters, advocates and promoters of ISIS, that enabled them to commit these terrorist massacres [US, UK, France, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar ], and the identity of those who have stood against ISIS, fought them, offered martyrs in this fight [Iran, Syria, Irak, Hezbollah, Russia] and inflicted a defeat on ISIS and all those who stand behind them. This is a discussion to be held with depth and strength so that the (Muslim) believers do not become victims twice of the same ills." ..."
"... After I have been writing about the fact that the Western hemisphere as a whole is no longer democratic and that the CIA and the NSA dictate the policies of the US regime and its vassals, my cell phone started to turn itself off and on frequently and now my Mac is turning itself on in the middle of the night and the hard drive indicator lights turn red - what they have never done before. Every option to "wake up on call" is disabled. For WiFi (turned off - no Wifi here) and Bluetooth. The Mac is only connected to the power outlet. ..."
"... The so called 'State Department' that has already a disturbing history of cooperation with Fascists throughout its existence, is now totally unhinged. It's actions make it clear beyond any doubt that the US is no longer and has likely not been since 2000 (or 1964, depending on view point) what goes for a 'democratic republic'. ..."
"... Illegal wars and toppling of democratically elected socialist governments for the Safety and Happiness of the American people? That must be it. ..."
"... Behind the persona, Trump may be far smarter than Obama or Clinton, and perhaps more dangerous as far as keeping the US empire alive, depending on which way he goes. I am starting think he won't create any new wars though, just let the neo-con establishment do their thing within a limit, to build up leverage and pressure against countries that he may well try and strike some sort of deal with in the future. ..."
"... Trump is difficult to fathom but has too much morgue to be a good leader. When compared to Putin or even Rouhani, he is far too impulsive. ..."
"... RT is reporting that US Congressional authorities have withdrawn RT Network accreditaton. RT correspondents have been directed to turn in their credentials to the Congressional authorities. This effectively blacklists RT reporters from covering Congress; without credentials, they can't attend hearings, press conferences, etc. ..."
"... Trump's persona is like an inversion layer in air or water. An inversion layer in air can create mirages, and in water, submarines can, or used to be able to hide under inversion layers. Pat Lang put in a comment at his blog, of a study of Trump that showed him change, or his public image change over the years, starting back in the eighties, as he developed the persona. He mentions Stallone in his book as somebody he respects as Stallone had the ability to deliver a product that a large percentage of Americans liked and wanted. I think the persona is somewhat based on Stallone's fictional characters. ..."
"... Maybe even worse, the US PTB seem to have ZERO faith/confidence/belief in the "rightness" and resilience of our own system (certainly with cause), which makes them twitchy (re unstable) as a whole. Like a loaded gun in a shaky hand pointed at humanity. ..."
"... To think there are so many people that watch TV for fake intrigue and ignore the real world machinations all around them.....sigh ..."
"... To be honest, with Americans I prefer the conservatives, red necks and all the other nutjobs over Clintonists because while some of the former are hypocrites, none of them are as sickeningly hypocritical as the Clintonists and their führer. ..."
"... Best analysis of USA policy since WW2. Monetary Imperialism by Michael Hudson If you think it is just about military weapons and bombings then you are seeing only the tip of the iceberg. There is a reason USA is initiating all those wars and coups. https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/11/29/monetary-imperialism/ ..."
"... US and most of the west is a perpetual caricature of itself; at every moment it is the mockery and the contradiction of what it is pretending to be. A good word for this is Orwellian. ..."
"... Truth has been sacrificed for Propaganda since Bernay showed in WWI that Americans are helpless against it. Some combination of Fear, Nationalism and a Calvinistic God is all you need to get support for War, as well as some way to control the MSM to stay online with the message ..."
"... It strikes me that Calvinism is not much different than Zionism and Islamism in terms of violence, intolerance and basically an unloving God so War Propaganda is just as effective in Israel and the Islamic world as in the West. ..."
"... I'm calling them the Worst Generation. Too early? Too late? Thanks b and all. Carthage must be rebuilt. ..."
"... i would think the land of the free and brave weren't such chicken shits when it came to info, but obviously i am wrong here and thus the chicken shit designation of the crumbling us empire... ..."
"... 1. US perfected propaganda to the extent Goebbels would be proud of them. Thousands of PhDs/psychologists craft fake news presentation and masses manipulation, and it works. Just ask most of the Westerners, who believe that Assad or Iranians are evil, that Russia is a threat to the Worlds Peace, etc. ..."
"... 2. If Russia doesn't respond, US thinks they got away without repercussions and escalate, and then escalate some more. They will do that anyway now, but at the same time harming their own interests. ..."
"... An anecdote I read one time. A Soviet journalist in the cold war era goes to the US for a while to work with US journalists. The actual story is a bit longer, but the ending is along these lines. The Soviet journalist says to the US journalists "It is very good. Americans believe your propaganda, whereas our people don't believe ours. ..."
"... Now the situation is reversed, where US propaganda is not believed, and all Russia has to do is print the facts or ensure US propaganda gets broadcast within Russia. Russia seems to be doing both and it is driving the US nuts. ..."
State Department Condemns* Designation Of Media As Foreign Agents (*only applies to Russia)
UPDATED below
---
Today the U.S. State Department hit the ball of hypocrisy out of the park. It remarked that "legislation that allows .. to
label media outlets as 'foreign agents' ... presents yet another threat to free media". It noted that "freedom of expression -- including
speech and media ... is a universal human rights obligation".
The remark came after the U.S. Department of Justice required the Russian outlet RT America to register as a 'foreign
agent' under the Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA). RT registered as ordered on November 13.
But the State Department statement was NOT in response to the DOJ requirement against RT . The State Department reacted
to a new Russian law that was issued in response to the demand against RT . The new Russian law is a mirror
to the U.S. FARA law. It demands that foreign media which are active in Russia register as 'foreign agents'. The EU poodles followed
the State Department nonsense with an equally dumb statement.)
With its criticism of the Russian version of the FARA law while ignoring the U.S. FARA action against RT, the State Department
confirmed the allegations of hypocrisy RT and other media have raised against the U.S. government.
The whole issue started with the notable liar James Clapper under the Obama administration. He and other 'intelligence' people
found that RT was too truthful in its reporting to be allowed to inform the U.S. public. Publication of criticism of the
U.S. government based on verifiable facts is seen as an unfriendly act which must be punished.
Congress and the U.S. Justice Department under the Trump administration followed up on that. FARA is originally NOT directed against
foreign media. The Trump Justice Department circumvented the spirit of the law to apply it to RT .
The Russian government had warned several times that the application of FARA against RT would be followed up on with
a similar requirement against U.S. media in Russia. The Trump administration ignored those warnings. It now condemns the Russian
move.
"We could do with having a USIA on steroids to fight this information war [with Russia] a lot more aggressively than we're
doing right now," Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told members of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
... "[Russia Today] was very active in promoting a particular point of view, disparaging our system, our alleged hypocrisy about
human rights," he said. "Whatever crack, fissure they could find in our tapestry, they would exploit it," via the state-owned
news network.
Intelligence Report on Russian Hacking - Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Jan 6 2017 - Annex I, originally
published on 11 December 2012 by the Open Source Center
RT America TV , a Kremlin-financed channel operated from within the United States, has substantially expanded its repertoire of
programming that highlights criticism of alleged US shortcomings in democracy and civil liberties
... RT aired a documentary about the Occupy Wall Street movement on 1, 2, and 4 November. RT framed the movement as a fight against
"the ruling class" and described the current US political system as corrupt and dominated by corporations.
... RT's reports often characterize the United States as a "surveillance state" and allege widespread infringements of civil liberties,
police brutality, and drone use.
... RT has also focused on criticism of the US economic system, US currency policy, alleged Wall Street greed, and the US national
debt.
... RT is a leading media voice opposing Western intervention in the Syrian conflict and blaming the West for waging "information
wars" against the Syrian Government.
U.S. Congressman David N. Cicilline (D-RI), who serves as co-chair of the Democratic Policy and Communications Committee (DPCC),
and U.S. Congressman Matthew Gaetz (R-FL) today introduced legislation to close a loophole in foreign agent registration requirements
that Russia Today exploited extensively during last year's presidential election.
RT said late Monday that the company that supplies all the services for its RT America channel was told by the DOJ in a letter
that it is obligated to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act , an act aimed at lobbyists and lawyers representing
foreign political interests.
...
FARA specifically exempts US and foreign news organizations, and the DOJ focus on the company that supplies services for RT
might be a way around that stipulation.
MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia's parliament warned on Friday some U.S. and other foreign media could be declared "foreign agents" and
obliged to regularly declare full details of their funding, finances and staffing.
...
Russian lawmakers said the move was retaliation for a demand by the U.S. Department of Justice that Kremlin-backed TV station
RT register in the United States as a "foreign agent", something Moscow has said it regards as an unfriendly act.
MOSCOW/WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Kremlin-backed television station RT America registered Monday with the U.S. Department of Justice
as a "foreign agent" in the United States, the outlet's editor in chief said and the Department of Justice confirmed later in
the day.
MOSCOW – Russia's Justice Ministry has warned several U.S. government-funded news outlets they could be designated as foreign
agents under a new bill that has yet to be fully approved.
The bill , endorsed by Russia's lower house on Wednesday, comes in response to U.S. demands that Russian state-funded RT TV
register as a foreign agent. It needs to be approved by the upper house and signed by President Vladimir Putin to become law.
Russian President Vladimir Putin signed into law Saturday a new bill designating international media outlets as foreign agents
in retaliation for a similar measure taken by the U.S. Department of Justice against the state-funded RT television
BRUSSELS -- The European Union has criticized legislation signed by President Vladimir Putin that empowers Russia's government
to designate media outlets receiving funding from abroad as "foreign agents" and impose sanctions against them.
...
Maja Kocijancic, the spokesperson of the European Commission for Neighborhood Policy and Enlargement Negotiations, said in
a November 26 statement that the "legislation goes against Russia's human rights obligations and commitments."
New Russian legislation that allows the Ministry of Justice to label media outlets as "foreign agents" and to monitor or block
certain internet activity presents yet another threat to free media in Russia. Freedom of expression -- including speech and media
which a government may find inconvenient -- is a universal human rights obligation Russia has pledged to uphold.
With a few words less the statement by the State Department would have gained universality. It would have made perfect sense.
See here for a corrected version:
Unfortunately the State Department's spokesperson
added some verbose lamenting about one specific
country. It thereby exposed itself to the very criticism the U.S. government strives to suppress.
---
UPDATE - Nov 30 0:50am
As consequence of the FARA designation of RT 's U.S. production company RT is
now losing access to
the Congressional Gallery. Congress Gallery access is in turn required to get White House press credentials. RT is now likely
to lose those too.
Meanwhile a consultative Congress commission is
pressing to designate the Chinese news-agency XINHUA as 'foreign agent'. It also wants all staff of XINHUA
to register as such. That would make it nearly impossible for freelancer and others who work for multiple media to continue with
their XINHUA gigs.
Posted by b on November 29, 2017 at 01:27 PM |
Permalink
Yeah. Whatever. This is how Russia is supposed to respond. If the US does something, Russia is should respond immediately. Not
several months or a year down the road. Stop waiting for the spoiled brat to get it. They never will.
It is so embarrassing to live in a country where the government issues nothing but lies and hypocrisy. I realize that to the
players it's all a game and maybe funny but to this citizen and probably others this game is putting our lives in danger,,, and
we don't find that 'funny'.
thanks b... well, once again american hypocrisy is on public display... i guess someone is hoping that ignorance and a short memory
will rule the day..
Speaking of hypocrisy, on 20 Nov 2017, one day after the Arab League Confab--which now ought to become known as the Zionist-Arab
League -- Nasrallah gave a speech calling out all those nations that supported Daesh, particularly the Outlaw US Empire. Video
of the speech in French with English subs and a very partial transcript are here,
http://sayed7asan.blogspot.com/ with a longer partial transcript
available at The Saker's blog.
Excerpt:
"Of course, we will also need real festivities to celebrate the victory because it will be a great victory, a victory against
the organization representing the greatest danger (for all) that soiled more than anyone the religion of Muhammad b. Abdillah,
peace and blessings be upon him and his family, since 1,400 years. This will be the victory of humanistic and moral values against
horrific bestiality, cruelty and violence. A victory that will have a huge impact on the cultural, religious, humanitarian, military,
security, political levels, as well as on the very image (of Islam and Muslims) and at all levels.
"And at that moment, we will have to repeat that the Iraqi people, the Syrian people, the Lebanese people, all the elites
and all the leaders and peoples of the region should reflect, weigh and return to the question of the identity of the creators,
supporters, advocates and promoters of ISIS, that enabled them to commit these terrorist massacres [US, UK, France, Saudi Arabia,
Turkey, Qatar ], and the identity of those who have stood against ISIS, fought them, offered martyrs in this fight [Iran, Syria,
Irak, Hezbollah, Russia] and inflicted a defeat on ISIS and all those who stand behind them. This is a discussion to be held with
depth and strength so that the (Muslim) believers do not become victims twice of the same ills."
Once again, how much longer will people deny that what was formerly know as US government has turned into a Fascist regime - with
the dictating done by Plutocrats whose names are not even known, in spite of everybody being surveilled. Just not the owners of
the Nazi Sicherheits Agentur.
After I have been writing about the fact that the Western hemisphere as a whole is no longer democratic and that the CIA
and the NSA dictate the policies of the US regime and its vassals, my cell phone started to turn itself off and on frequently
and now my Mac is turning itself on in the middle of the night and the hard drive indicator lights turn red - what they have never
done before. Every option to "wake up on call" is disabled. For WiFi (turned off - no Wifi here) and Bluetooth. The Mac is only
connected to the power outlet.
Please let me know if anybody else has the same experience with their hardware. Also, I can no longer send emails on all accounts,
but I do receive junk.
------
The so called 'State Department' that has already a disturbing history of cooperation with Fascists throughout its existence,
is now totally unhinged. It's actions make it clear beyond any doubt that the US is no longer and has likely not been since 2000
(or 1964, depending on view point) what goes for a 'democratic republic'.
The paymasters don't even bother any longer that the public is waking up based on their Fascist activities and actions. They
don't give the proverbial F about people finding out and understanding what is actually happening in the Nazi High Five regimes.
What are people going to do? Demonstrate against Fascism? Concerting a total consumer boycott - the antonym of 'go shopping'?
Writing letters to misrepresentatives?
It certainly looks like the shit has piled up behind the fan like never before and the so called "happy holidays" seem to be
the perfect time to flip the switch to "ON".
Sad, that through the incessant propaganda and Nationalism force fed to the lesser mentally gifted part of the population for
centuries now, the people are no longer capable to do what the Declaration of Independence provides them to do (theoretically):
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish
it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them
shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
The authors of these 'goddamn pieces of papers' must have already used Orwellian lingo, since it appears that this paragraph
only refers to regime change in other Nations, just not in the US.
Illegal wars and toppling of democratically elected socialist governments for the Safety and Happiness of the American
people? That must be it.
Maybe one can call in at the regime department and tell them about psychological projection? The number is 1-800-FUC-KYOU.
Yes, it's almost the same number Obama had chosen for criticism of the ACA - 1-800-381-2596. That is what these parasites think
about "the people".
Now what? Following the advice of some people to not only see the negative shit on Earth? Sure, the genocide on the Palestinians
and the Yemenis (plus countless other 'obstacles') is actually a good thing, correct? Because those who are exterminated now,
won't have to experience worse down the line.
Apologies for the sarcasm, but this is getting out of public hands faster than the Ludicrous Speed of the "We Brake
For Nobody"-Imperial Starship.
Trump's as naked as the ape he actually is. Weird way to go about cultivating better relations with Russia. As with Obama previously,
much of what Trump campaigned on is being reversed, the opposite of his orated intent being implemented instead. A commentator
at Sputnik was shocked that I lumped Trump together with the criminals Clinton and Obama, wanting an explanation why I did so.
Obviously, that person isn't paying attention, and I told him so.
Even supposedly impartial international organizations continue to abet the Outlaw US Empire's Big Lies: "A press freedom watchdog,
Reporters Without Borders, has asked the Swiss Press Club to cancel a panel discussion on the 'true agenda' of the controversial
White Helmets group. But the club's director won't budge, noting that such demands are typically made by oppressive regimes."
Kudos for foreign agent RT for providing the report,
https://www.rt.com/news/411116-reporters-white-helmets-censorship/
Activist Post tells us that the presentation's by Vanessa Beeley, with Bradon Turbeville adding this observation: "Rather than
attend the event to ask questions and present its side of the argument, RWB responded with insults and hid away under the guise
of boycotting the panel. Pouting in the corner and refusing to take part in the discussion, however, did not stop the discussion
from taking place." Lots of additional info and many links here,
https://www.activistpost.com/2017/11/despite-western-funded-ngos-boycott-vanessa-beeley-exposes-white-helmets-at-swiss-press-club.html
Behind the persona, Trump may be far smarter than Obama or Clinton, and perhaps more dangerous as far as keeping the US
empire alive, depending on which way he goes. I am starting think he won't create any new wars though, just let the neo-con establishment
do their thing within a limit, to build up leverage and pressure against countries that he may well try and strike some sort of
deal with in the future.
I don't give a damn what the Federal government wants me to see or hear, but obviously this is being done for the "benefit" of
the majority of the public who will not look very far to get "informed" about current/world events. I don't see any end to this
fascist process here in the "land of the free"; how long before they just shut down the net or limit it to approved websites?
Beyond the personae and the relative intelligence of Clinton vs Obama vs Trump, one must admit that times are different. Both
China and Russia are on the rise. China is now a formidable rival in economic terms and is rising militarily. And fast. Russia
is recuperating from Gorbachev's treason and getting stronger by the day and is nowa World player to be reckoned with.
There is one thing that must be solved and that is the money exchange system through which gates most countries must pass to
obtain their dues. China and Russia are working on it. Once this is complete, US sanctions will work no more. Even new internets
are being created that will bypass the US controlled one.
There is not much anybody can do against the realignment of the globe. The Unipolar model is gone because the US could not
manage it. Greed, U.S. greed, and exceptionalism killed it.
North Korea just proves that the US power and influence have limits. I presume, I may be wrong, that once KJU has a good enough
number of warheads and rockets, he will want the US to vacate South Korea. Both the Russians and Chinese will love that. He will
want sanctions lifted and see normal relations resume between NOKO and China and Russia.
There is no point for him to rock the boat if he does not pursue greater aims.
Trump is difficult to fathom but has too much morgue to be a good leader. When compared to Putin or even Rouhani, he is
far too impulsive. But I guess deep down we would like the outcome to be better than the circumstances would lead us
to expect. The US will remain a Zionist puppet for as long as Israel exists. If it is down to Israel's will, America will pass,
but Zion will prevail. Jared is now the transmission belt in the Saudi, Israel, US triad. Which means that Israel has a personal
ambassador to Trump. Because of the internal opposition to Trump, he must look for an external happening that will remove him
from public scrutiny. He wont tackle Kim but he might believe Iran is gamer as he has allies in the endeavor.
Nobody will win this war but Israel may lose more than expected.
Another line just got crossed. I dislike the phrase "breaking news"-- it's a fraternal twin to "breaking wind"-- butRT is reporting that US Congressional authorities have withdrawn RT Network accreditaton. RT correspondents have
been directed to turn in their credentials to the Congressional authorities. This effectively blacklists RT reporters from covering
Congress; without credentials, they can't attend hearings, press conferences, etc.
Sorry to not provide a link, but this
is so recent it isn't even on YouTube yet. It will be interesting to see whether the Western civil-liberties and "media-watchdog"
organizations, including the ACLU, react to this draconian development, much less vociferously protest it. In any case, I doubt
if we'll see the rest of the Congressional press corps stage a walkout in sympathy and solidarity with their silenced and censored
RT colleagues.
Agree on China Russia ect, though I am starting to believe Trump is not impulsive, rather, he runs very well thought out stratagies.
The impulsiveness is part of the persona. I run onto an analysis of how Trump opertes the persona within a narrow band, and he
uses it to gain attention and then direct attention to where he wants it.
I think this video is worth watching - the first half deals mainly with Trump's persona.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWA5pOmSDgQ
Trump's persona is like an inversion layer in air or water. An inversion layer in air can create mirages, and in water,
submarines can, or used to be able to hide under inversion layers. Pat Lang put in a comment at his blog, of a study of Trump
that showed him change, or his public image change over the years, starting back in the eighties, as he developed the persona.
He mentions Stallone in his book as somebody he respects as Stallone had the ability to deliver a product that a large percentage
of Americans liked and wanted. I think the persona is somewhat based on Stallone's fictional characters.
Perimetr: Censoring the Internet is what the Net Neutrality debate is all about. If they repeal Net Neutrality, we can expect
sites like Moon of Alabama to just spool and spool but never load, whereas CNN and Fox will load immediately.
RE SlapHappy. That makes sense. I already see that happening with RT on my iPhone. So now we will need Radio Free Russia
to be set up in where, Mexico?
There is not much new in the heavy-handed methods employed by the Empire - they have always employed intimidation, false flags,
fake news, bribery and corruption, even assassination -but up till now went to some pains to cloak their actions in a mantle of
morality. They usually attempted to swing public opinion behind their endeavours. What is frightening lately, is their brashness
and total disregard for the public's opinion. Because they know that short of armed revolt, they have little to fear. The presstitute
media shall whitewash their hypocrisy and all their crimes, and at election time they will once more own all the candidates.
Happening on google/youtube excessively. Stuff like the Jimmy Dore show, or any other critical outlet does not load, or takes
forever respectively. Doggie videos and those showing stupid people doing stupid stuff - load instantly. It will be interesting
to see, whence net neutrality is neutered, how the owners of the country will deal with the backlash of billions in lost revenue
from online commerce.
Because people that can't get what they want when they don't shop, are unlikely to shop online any longer. The stench of censorship
will keep those online consumers away - if not alone for endless loading times due to not being able to pay $ 800 per month for
high speed internet.
First time US legalized targeting of media as "terrorists" thanks to neocon John Bolton and his zionist cohorts. Being labeled
foreign agent is getting off easy http://la.indymedia.org/news/2006/07/168921.html
Are shortwave radios going to make a comeback? RT World Service?
It's tough to make out what the US endgame is in all this. It's probably even tougher to make out if the PTB in the US know
what the endgame is. Open-ended, freestyle, ante-upping (by the US) devolution of any and all rational forms of coexistence, imo,
with zero good outcomes.
Maybe even worse, the US PTB seem to have ZERO faith/confidence/belief in the "rightness" and resilience of our own system
(certainly with cause), which makes them twitchy (re unstable) as a whole. Like a loaded gun in a shaky hand pointed at humanity.
Today the U.S. State Department hit the ball of hypocrisy out of the park. After the park come
the state/region/nation/world/universe. See how far yet they have to expand their hypocrisy.....why they are just getting warmed
up......is China news next? To think there are so many people that watch TV for fake intrigue and ignore the real world machinations
all around them.....sigh
Would be interesting to read the transcript of the next State Department Press Briefing, which the State spokesmodel must be dreading
- talk about being handed an impossible brief......
Those briefings normally start with Matt Lee from Associated Press asking the first question, but I suspect that this time
he'll start by turning to the RT reporter who is sitting in the back of the room and saying something along the lines of "No,
please, you go first.....".
While people are distracted by what is happening between Washington and Moscow, an election is being stolen and Clintonists
will do nothing about it because Clinton and Obama made the thief, Juan Orlando Hernández, president of Honduras.
Back in 2009:
a cadre of military officers, businessmen, and right-wing politicians, including Hernández, overthrew the leftist President
Manuel Zelaya
with encouragement and assistance from Hillary Clinton and the State Department.
Contrary to what the New Yorker goes on to say " after he vowed to run for re-election" Zelaya tried to organise a referendum
to change the constitution to allow him to run a second time which many Clintonists attacked as being anti-democratic. Juan Orlando
Hernández then packed the Supreme Court with his own supporters and had the constitution changed without a word of complaint from
the State Department under Obama or any of the Clintonists who'd accused Zelaya of being anti-democratic.
Over the next few days I expect to see those same Clintonists accusing Trump of being anti-democratic for failing to object
to Juan Orlando Hernández stealing the election but ignoring or excusing the responsibility Hillary Clinton has for what has happened
just like they claim that Hillary Clinton has no responsibility for restoring slavery to Libya.
To be honest, with Americans I prefer the conservatives, red necks and all the other nutjobs over Clintonists because while
some of the former are hypocrites, none of them are as sickeningly hypocritical as the Clintonists and their führer.
Best analysis of USA policy since WW2. Monetary Imperialism by Michael Hudson If you think it is just about military weapons
and bombings then you are seeing only the tip of the iceberg. There is a reason USA is initiating all those wars and coups.
https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/11/29/monetary-imperialism/
US and most of the west is a perpetual caricature of itself; at every moment it is the mockery and the contradiction of what
it is pretending to be. A good word for this is Orwellian.
Truth has been sacrificed for Propaganda since Bernay showed in WWI that Americans are helpless against it. Some combination
of Fear, Nationalism and a Calvinistic God is all you need to get support for War, as well as some way to control the MSM to stay
online with the message
It strikes me that Calvinism is not much different than Zionism and Islamism in terms of violence, intolerance and basically
an unloving God so War Propaganda is just as effective in Israel and the Islamic world as in the West.
failure of imagination | Nov 29, 2017 11:03:32 PM |
42
Full Spectrum Quicksand. Grasping for national interests and not looking too confident. When I watch it on TV at other's places
( I just don't get TV...) I noticed it next to PornPerPay in the guide for a reason , tho not a fair one. They've had a CFR member
on staff, so my Mockingbird tinfoil strainer gets going finer. I don't hear them being accused of wrong stories so, it's sour
gripes. The couple of times RT came into a conversation was about Redacted Tonite.
I'm calling them the Worst Generation.
Too early? Too late? Thanks b and all. Carthage must be rebuilt.
@41 forest.. thanks.. if that is what toivo thinks, then all i got to say to that is fascinating! i see it exactly the opposite..
it is the usa that is constantly lying... i would think the land of the free and brave weren't such chicken shits when it
came to info, but obviously i am wrong here and thus the chicken shit designation of the crumbling us empire...
@all - I updated the post with RT's
loss of Congress Gallery
credentials because it has now been put under FARA. Following from that RT will also lose White House credentials. Additionally
a congress commission now
wants to put The Chinese Xinhua agency under FARA and also all individually staff that works for Xinhua.
Interesting times of the media war. US removed RT credentials to access Congress, I'm sure they will follow up with banning RT
from the White House too. Russia will probably ban US media from Kremlin and other institutions in the mirror law. Whats
next? US ban on Russian-linked media from US networks/satellites like they did with Iran? Will they dare to apply similar treatment
to China? Interesting times indeed.
@ ToivoS | 34
why ban US propagated bullshit
Two reasons:
1. US perfected propaganda to the extent Goebbels would be proud of them. Thousands of PhDs/psychologists craft fake news
presentation and masses manipulation, and it works. Just ask most of the Westerners, who believe that Assad or Iranians are evil,
that Russia is a threat to the Worlds Peace, etc.
2. If Russia doesn't respond, US thinks they got away without repercussions and escalate, and then escalate some more.
They will do that anyway now, but at the same time harming their own interests. How they will affect Russia's presidential
elections, etc. if they are as confined as RT, but are losing even more because they have many more channels? They shot one
bullet at Russia and got a ricochet of 10 bullets :)
An anecdote I read one time. A Soviet journalist in the cold war era goes to the US for a while to work with US journalists.
The actual story is a bit longer, but the ending is along these lines. The Soviet journalist says to the US journalists "It is
very good. Americans believe your propaganda, whereas our people don't believe ours.
Now the situation is reversed, where US propaganda is not believed, and all Russia has to do is print the facts or ensure
US propaganda gets broadcast within Russia. Russia seems to be doing both and it is driving the US nuts.
The people who worked in int'l finance in the 90s (representing countries to the WB and IMF) knew about the criminal callousness
of these institutions when pushing 'austerity' or 'reform' policies. Local elites sometimes were complacent and profited (those
privatizations! those newly opened markets!), sometimes resisted, but the US and the multilateral system –financial or otherwise–
are ruthless and very hard to resist.
Many countries suffered, not because they were Russian or Brazilian or Mexican, but because the opportunity for gain was there.
There's some common ground between the reds and whites in that the reds tapped into nationalist sentiments, hence the wars of
national liberation around the world being supported by the communists: Korea, Vietnam, insurgencies in Latin America, Africa,
etc. The script has flipped with the western countries now being the 'godless' ones who are trying to destroy religion, the family
and traditional ways of life. The 1% were horrified that there was an ideology out there that advocated taking their loot away
so they used all their resources in combatting it, even being willing to take the world to the brink of nuclear Armageddon in
doing so. They'd take the world down with them rather than lose their positions of power and money. Now that the ideology is no
longer there it's just back to the business of robbing everyone weaker than them. All the hysteria about Putin is simply that
he's built up the Russian state to where they can resist and that he's not a fellow slaveholder like them.
The intervention in Syria has unhinged parts of the west where they thought they could rob and kill anywhere they pleased but
now have been successfully resisted. Political systems come and go but the people have endured for the past thousand years, something
the fat cats of the west are trying to destroy to enlarge their slave plantation.
" Russia has greater economic disparity than any other major global power. In 2016, Credit Suisse's Global Wealth Report found
that the wealthiest 10% of people in Russia controlled 89% of the country's wealth ..
"The World Wealth and Inequality project's latest white-paper, co-authored by Thomas "Capital in the 21st Century" Piketty,
painstaking pieces together fragmentary data-sources to build up a detailed picture of wealth inequality in Russia in the pre-revolutionary
period; during phases of the Soviet era; on the eve of the collapse of the USSR; and ever since.
The headline findings: official Russian estimates drastically understate national inequality; Russia is as unequal as the USA
or even moreso; Russian inequality is more intense than the inequality in other post-Soviet states and in post-Deng China.
This paper combines national accounts, survey, wealth and fiscal data (including recently released tax data on high-income
taxpayers) in order to provide consistent series on the accumulation and distribution of income and wealth in Russia from the
Soviet period until the present day. We find that official survey-based measures vastly under-estimate the rise of inequality
since 1990. According to our benchmark estimates, top income shares are now similar to (or higher than) the levels observed
in the United States. We also find that inequality has increased substantially more in Russia than in China and other ex-communist
countries in Eastern Europe. We relate this finding to the specific transition strategy followed in Russia. According to our benchmark
estimates, the wealth held offshore by rich Russians is about three times larger than official net foreign reserves, and is comparable
in magnitude to total household financial assets held in Russia.
From Soviets to Oligarchs: Inequality and Property in Russia 1905-2016 [Filip Novokmet, Thomas Piketty, Gabriel Zucman/World
Wealth and Income Database]"
People used to stage revolutions in order to bring communism to their countries. Plenty of examples for that: Russia, China,
Cuba and many others. Of course, those people were deluded, right? Who would want to bring a system that preaches economic equality?
It must be someone who is out of their mind. Has there ever been a capitalist revolution where someone took up arms trying to
bring capitalism to their country? Must be because it's such a humane and desirable system. Also, a lot of people think that Islam
is a backward religion. Really? Then how come it tolerates socialism (communism), better than Christianity ever did? Libya, Iraq,
Syria, Afghanistan they were all socialist at some point. That's why the greatest democracy set their sights on them to destroy
them. Because, you see, by their calculations, no matter how extremist and backward the Islam gets, it's still more progressive
than socialism or communism. Helluva math there. The game has always been about preserving capitalism, and not the most benign
version either. Which is too bad, because capitalism has been known to tolerate dictatorship, fascism, Nazism, slavery – pretty
much the ugliest forms of government the sick human mind can come up with, but it can't tolerate little bit of socialism. Because
you see, socialism is worse than any of those lovely political systems. Democracy (capitalism) is too pure for that, such a fragile
and delicate thing that it is.
I am surprised Sweden hasn't been bombed yet, for their flirting with socialism, but the way the things are going over there,
they don't have to be bombed. They did themselves in by following someone's stupid ideas about multiculturalism – which of course
is also a form of socialism – racial one, instead the real deal – the economic socialism that the greatest democracy of them all
is so afraid of.
When the Serbians in different parts of Yugoslavia started being attacked by the West, I was constantly pointing out that in recent
times, since WW1, an attack on Serbia has been a kind of introduction to an attack on Russia. In other words, I had no doubt that
Russia was next.
But, there is one huge difference between Serbia and Russia. Whilst the Serbians killed very few of those Western Zionist military
mercenaries who were killing Serbians directly or using their Croat, Muslim and Albanian proxies, if attacked the Russian military
could kill hundreds of thousands of the Western mercenaries. This is why whilst the war on Serbia was real and bloody only on
Serbians and the Bosnian Muslim proxies, the war on Russia would be totally disastrous for the Anglozionist Empire. This is the
only reason a shooting war on Russia has not started already.
For my money, Saker emphasises the supposed friendliness of the Western people towards Russia too much. It is not the Western
people who want to attack Russia then the Western Anglozionist elite, but the Western people really do not care, as long as it
is not the blood of their progeny and their own money paying for bringing Russia to heel.
And if Russia is destroyed, just like Ukraine, then there could be some lucrative jobs when the Western Zio-elite starts
dismembering the Russian corpse. And well paying jobs are in great demand in the bankrupt West. The unwritten contract that the
Western people have with their Anglozionist elite says: find a way to destroy Russia without a global nuclear war, cheaply, without
serious dying on our side and throw us a few bones and we will gladly hybernate our moral conscience.
Well, what evidence have you for asserting that Putin is a thug? You saw through the media's false reporting earlier as you
admit, so how come you again swallow the load of marbles that they dish out?
And while Putin may or may not be feared by "near abroad" he certainly is feared by those who seek total dominance of the planet.
The thing is, he is not an easy pushover and that is what is behind the thug claims. Many thinking people admire his intellect,
statesmanship, and skill in dealing with major problems of our times. The media also hates him because he shows up the western
leaders for the clowns that they are.
A principled US Government would have dealt very differently with Russia and Putin. There is no inherent conflict of interest
with Russia once global dominance is discarded as the main policy objective.
{The only people that fear Putin is the near abroad, .}
Sure, if you say so, Bub.
Texas* is, of course, 'near aboard' .
[Russia has begun testing of its new intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), the RS-28 Sarmat. Sarmat can carry a payload
of up to ten tons of nukes. The missile system is set to enter service in 2018.
The RS-28 Sarmat is the first entirely new Russian ICBM in decades. The heavyweight missile weighs 100 tons and can boost 10 tons.
Russia claims the Sarmat can lift 10 heavyweight warheads, or 16 lighter ones, and Russian state media has described it as being
able to wipe out an area the size of Texas or France.]
_______________________
*
[Russia's New ICBM Could "Wipe Out Texas"]
Wow, this is the most refreshing and clear minded comment I've seen here in a while. Nice job WorkingClass, you've managed
to keep your mind clear and not buy into the BS. You've given me some hope Thank you.
The supposed leaders of the West are busy trying to replace or at the very least water down their own populations with a totally
different set of people from far away. Obviously these supposedly democratic leaders loathe what are supposed to be their own
people but rather see all those below them as just so many replaceable units of labor, the mark of a "slaveholder". Putin has
helped his people immensely. Life expectancies had plummeted into the 50′s and that's now been improved greatly as well as living
standards. He's popular because he's done much for the people he identifies with, unlike Western leaders who hold their noses
when anywhere near the citizenry. If the Russians like him then they must not be as worried about some issues as critics outside
the country appear to be.
It is hard to find people in the West who "hate the Russian people themselves"; but in place of hatred there is definitely
fear – fear of Russia's military strength.
Disagree. The enormous propagandistic effort to demonize Russia in the West, not only reveals fear. It also reveals hate, at
least on most of the elites. Most people are indifferent toward Russia but elites definitively have fear to the bear. You can
test some people by simply naming "Russia" and you will see on their eyes a quite irrationala mix of hate and fear. I think this
is result of an Orwellian propaganda effort aimed at injecting fear to "Eurasia".
This fear is exaggerated by the US military-industrial complex for its own purposes;
Given any two races or culture , what they are and what I think of them hardly matters. However pitted against each other it
will cultivate and create good conditions for the scum of both of them and embroil the rest in the conflict. It is an against
of chaos for a hostile order.
Right. Those were capitalist revolutions. You are bang on. Capitalism is one of the most tolerant systems of all kinds of extremism,
as I already mentioned. Capitalism has been known to tolerate monarchy, fascism, Nazism, various forms of dictatorships, slavery,
pretty much everything. But they draw the line at tolerating socialism, like it's the worst extremism they have ever tolerated.
My point is, capitalism is pretty robust system, it's not some delicate beauty that will fall apart if it comes in touch with
socialism. Democracy is only a window dressing, it has never been about democracy, it has always been about capitalism.
There's nothing easier nowadays than becoming a Kremlin (or any other kind of) Troll. Just start talking about things as they
are and you're half way through. Keep talking that way a bit longer, and you'll forever become another precious source of income
for the army of no-talent crooks with unlimited rights and zero oversee from those for whom they officially work. These guys are
simply used to build their entire careers and financial well-beings by adjusting reality to their needs. They've been doing it
for decades. Why not, as long as the true bosses are happy ? Why not, when the MSM will make population to swallow anything, no
matter how idiotic and illogical it is ?
"... "The World Wealth and Inequality project's latest white-paper, co-authored by Thomas "Capital in the 21st Century" Piketty,
painstaking pieces together fragmentary data-sources to build up a detailed picture of wealth inequality in Russia in the pre-revolutionary
period; during phases of the Soviet era; on the eve of the collapse of the USSR; and ever since. ..."
"... According to our benchmark estimates, top income shares are now similar to (or higher than) the levels observed in the United
States. We also find that inequality has increased substantially more in Russia than in China and other ex-communist countries in Eastern
Europe. We relate this finding to the specific transition strategy followed in Russia. According to our benchmark estimates, the wealth
held offshore by rich Russians is about three times larger than official net foreign reserves, and is comparable in magnitude to total
household financial assets held in Russia. ..."
"... For my money, Saker emphasises the supposed friendliness of the Western people towards Russia too much. It is not the Western
people who want to attack Russia then the Western Anglozionist elite, but the Western people really do not care, as long as it is not
the blood of their progeny and their own money paying for bringing Russia to heel. ..."
"... And if Russia is destroyed, just like Ukraine, then there could be some lucrative jobs when the Western Zio-elite starts dismembering
the Russian corpse. And well paying jobs are in great demand in the bankrupt West. The unwritten contract that the Western people have
with their Anglozionist elite says: find a way to destroy Russia without a global nuclear war, cheaply, without serious dying on our
side and throw us a few bones and we will gladly hybernate our moral conscience. ..."
The people who worked in int'l finance in the 90s (representing countries to the WB and IMF) knew about the criminal callousness
of these institutions when pushing 'austerity' or 'reform' policies. Local elites sometimes were complacent and profited (those
privatizations! those newly opened markets!), sometimes resisted, but the US and the multilateral system –financial or otherwise–
are ruthless and very hard to resist.
Many countries suffered, not because they were Russian or Brazilian or Mexican, but because the opportunity for gain was there.
There's some common ground between the reds and whites in that the reds tapped into nationalist sentiments, hence the wars of
national liberation around the world being supported by the communists: Korea, Vietnam, insurgencies in Latin America, Africa,
etc. The script has flipped with the western countries now being the 'godless' ones who are trying to destroy religion, the family
and traditional ways of life. The 1% were horrified that there was an ideology out there that advocated taking their loot away
so they used all their resources in combatting it, even being willing to take the world to the brink of nuclear Armageddon in
doing so. They'd take the world down with them rather than lose their positions of power and money. Now that the ideology is no
longer there it's just back to the business of robbing everyone weaker than them. All the hysteria about Putin is simply that
he's built up the Russian state to where they can resist and that he's not a fellow slaveholder like them.
The intervention in Syria has unhinged parts of the west where they thought they could rob and kill anywhere they pleased but
now have been successfully resisted. Political systems come and go but the people have endured for the past thousand years, something
the fat cats of the west are trying to destroy to enlarge their slave plantation.
" Russia has greater economic disparity than any other major global power. In 2016, Credit Suisse's Global Wealth Report found
that the wealthiest 10% of people in Russia controlled 89% of the country's wealth ..
"The World Wealth and Inequality project's latest white-paper, co-authored by Thomas "Capital in the 21st Century" Piketty,
painstaking pieces together fragmentary data-sources to build up a detailed picture of wealth inequality in Russia in the pre-revolutionary
period; during phases of the Soviet era; on the eve of the collapse of the USSR; and ever since.
The headline findings: official Russian estimates drastically understate national inequality; Russia is as unequal as the USA
or even moreso; Russian inequality is more intense than the inequality in other post-Soviet states and in post-Deng China.
This paper combines national accounts, survey, wealth and fiscal data (including recently released tax data on high-income
taxpayers) in order to provide consistent series on the accumulation and distribution of income and wealth in Russia from the
Soviet period until the present day. We find that official survey-based measures vastly under-estimate the rise of inequality
since 1990. According to our benchmark estimates, top income shares are now similar to (or higher than) the levels observed
in the United States. We also find that inequality has increased substantially more in Russia than in China and other ex-communist
countries in Eastern Europe. We relate this finding to the specific transition strategy followed in Russia. According to our benchmark
estimates, the wealth held offshore by rich Russians is about three times larger than official net foreign reserves, and is comparable
in magnitude to total household financial assets held in Russia.
From Soviets to Oligarchs: Inequality and Property in Russia 1905-2016 [Filip Novokmet, Thomas Piketty, Gabriel Zucman/World
Wealth and Income Database]"
People used to stage revolutions in order to bring communism to their countries. Plenty of examples for that: Russia, China,
Cuba and many others. Of course, those people were deluded, right? Who would want to bring a system that preaches economic equality?
It must be someone who is out of their mind. Has there ever been a capitalist revolution where someone took up arms trying to
bring capitalism to their country? Must be because it's such a humane and desirable system. Also, a lot of people think that Islam
is a backward religion. Really? Then how come it tolerates socialism (communism), better than Christianity ever did? Libya, Iraq,
Syria, Afghanistan they were all socialist at some point. That's why the greatest democracy set their sights on them to destroy
them. Because, you see, by their calculations, no matter how extremist and backward the Islam gets, it's still more progressive
than socialism or communism. Helluva math there. The game has always been about preserving capitalism, and not the most benign
version either. Which is too bad, because capitalism has been known to tolerate dictatorship, fascism, Nazism, slavery – pretty
much the ugliest forms of government the sick human mind can come up with, but it can't tolerate little bit of socialism. Because
you see, socialism is worse than any of those lovely political systems. Democracy (capitalism) is too pure for that, such a fragile
and delicate thing that it is.
I am surprised Sweden hasn't been bombed yet, for their flirting with socialism, but the way the things are going over there,
they don't have to be bombed. They did themselves in by following someone's stupid ideas about multiculturalism – which of course
is also a form of socialism – racial one, instead the real deal – the economic socialism that the greatest democracy of them all
is so afraid of.
When the Serbians in different parts of Yugoslavia started being attacked by the West, I was constantly pointing out that in recent
times, since WW1, an attack on Serbia has been a kind of introduction to an attack on Russia. In other words, I had no doubt that
Russia was next.
But, there is one huge difference between Serbia and Russia. Whilst the Serbians killed very few of those Western Zionist military
mercenaries who were killing Serbians directly or using their Croat, Muslim and Albanian proxies, if attacked the Russian military
could kill hundreds of thousands of the Western mercenaries. This is why whilst the war on Serbia was real and bloody only on
Serbians and the Bosnian Muslim proxies, the war on Russia would be totally disastrous for the Anglozionist Empire. This is the
only reason a shooting war on Russia has not started already.
For my money, Saker emphasises the supposed friendliness of the Western people towards Russia too much. It is not the Western
people who want to attack Russia then the Western Anglozionist elite, but the Western people really do not care, as long as it
is not the blood of their progeny and their own money paying for bringing Russia to heel.
And if Russia is destroyed, just like Ukraine, then there could be some lucrative jobs when the Western Zio-elite starts
dismembering the Russian corpse. And well paying jobs are in great demand in the bankrupt West. The unwritten contract that the
Western people have with their Anglozionist elite says: find a way to destroy Russia without a global nuclear war, cheaply, without
serious dying on our side and throw us a few bones and we will gladly hybernate our moral conscience.
Well, what evidence have you for asserting that Putin is a thug? You saw through the media's false reporting earlier as you
admit, so how come you again swallow the load of marbles that they dish out?
And while Putin may or may not be feared by "near abroad" he certainly is feared by those who seek total dominance of the planet.
The thing is, he is not an easy pushover and that is what is behind the thug claims. Many thinking people admire his intellect,
statesmanship, and skill in dealing with major problems of our times. The media also hates him because he shows up the western
leaders for the clowns that they are.
A principled US Government would have dealt very differently with Russia and Putin. There is no inherent conflict of interest
with Russia once global dominance is discarded as the main policy objective.
{The only people that fear Putin is the near abroad, .}
Sure, if you say so, Bub.
Texas* is, of course, 'near aboard' .
[Russia has begun testing of its new intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), the RS-28 Sarmat. Sarmat can carry a payload
of up to ten tons of nukes. The missile system is set to enter service in 2018.
The RS-28 Sarmat is the first entirely new Russian ICBM in decades. The heavyweight missile weighs 100 tons and can boost 10 tons.
Russia claims the Sarmat can lift 10 heavyweight warheads, or 16 lighter ones, and Russian state media has described it as being
able to wipe out an area the size of Texas or France.]
_______________________
*
[Russia's New ICBM Could "Wipe Out Texas"]
Wow, this is the most refreshing and clear minded comment I've seen here in a while. Nice job WorkingClass, you've managed
to keep your mind clear and not buy into the BS. You've given me some hope Thank you.
The supposed leaders of the West are busy trying to replace or at the very least water down their own populations with a totally
different set of people from far away. Obviously these supposedly democratic leaders loathe what are supposed to be their own
people but rather see all those below them as just so many replaceable units of labor, the mark of a "slaveholder". Putin has
helped his people immensely. Life expectancies had plummeted into the 50′s and that's now been improved greatly as well as living
standards. He's popular because he's done much for the people he identifies with, unlike Western leaders who hold their noses
when anywhere near the citizenry. If the Russians like him then they must not be as worried about some issues as critics outside
the country appear to be.
It is hard to find people in the West who "hate the Russian people themselves"; but in place of hatred there is definitely
fear – fear of Russia's military strength.
Disagree. The enormous propagandistic effort to demonize Russia in the West, not only reveals fear. It also reveals hate, at
least on most of the elites. Most people are indifferent toward Russia but elites definitively have fear to the bear. You can
test some people by simply naming "Russia" and you will see on their eyes a quite irrationala mix of hate and fear. I think this
is result of an Orwellian propaganda effort aimed at injecting fear to "Eurasia".
This fear is exaggerated by the US military-industrial complex for its own purposes;
Given any two races or culture , what they are and what I think of them hardly matters. However pitted against each other it
will cultivate and create good conditions for the scum of both of them and embroil the rest in the conflict. It is an against
of chaos for a hostile order.
Right. Those were capitalist revolutions. You are bang on. Capitalism is one of the most tolerant systems of all kinds of extremism,
as I already mentioned. Capitalism has been known to tolerate monarchy, fascism, Nazism, various forms of dictatorships, slavery,
pretty much everything. But they draw the line at tolerating socialism, like it's the worst extremism they have ever tolerated.
My point is, capitalism is pretty robust system, it's not some delicate beauty that will fall apart if it comes in touch with
socialism. Democracy is only a window dressing, it has never been about democracy, it has always been about capitalism.
There's nothing easier nowadays than becoming a Kremlin (or any other kind of) Troll. Just start talking about things as they
are and you're half way through. Keep talking that way a bit longer, and you'll forever become another precious source of income
for the army of no-talent crooks with unlimited rights and zero oversee from those for whom they officially work. These guys are
simply used to build their entire careers and financial well-beings by adjusting reality to their needs. They've been doing it
for decades. Why not, as long as the true bosses are happy ? Why not, when the MSM will make population to swallow anything, no
matter how idiotic and illogical it is ?
State Department is actually has dual function -- one is to be an intelligence agency. And as such it is fully responsible for the
current anti-Russian witch hunt. So the level of hypocrisy is simply staggering. But not surprising: way too many neocons infiltrated
the agency under Hillary Clinton and her predecessor.
The problem with responding to this move is that the USA is still the global superpower and technological leader in many areas,
including semiconductors. So Russians need to be very careful not to overstep the boundaries and slip into tip for tat mode.
The huge advantage of the USA is that it conducts its propaganda campaign against Russia mostly via private newspapers that have
foreign correspondents in Russia as well as fifth column of Russian neoliberals and their news outlets. Which are closely working with
the US sponsored NGO. Same is true for GB. Actually after reading Guardian correspondents coverage from Russia it is unclear whether
Guardian is a branch on MI6 or not ;-). I don not remember the name of a person who was expelled from Russia for collecting information
from the transmitter masked as a "stone" in Moscow park.
Some minor measures directly against "foreign financed" domestic new outlets actually could be more effective that sweeping registration
of (mostly ineffective and unpopular) US government channels as "foreign agents".
Notable quotes:
"... Today the U.S. State Department hit the ball of hypocrisy out of the park. It remarked that "legislation that allows .. to label media outlets as 'foreign agents' ... presents yet another threat to free media". It noted that "freedom of expression -- including speech and media ... is a universal human rights obligation". ..."
"... The whole issue started with the notable liar James Clapper under the Obama administration. He and other 'intelligence' people found that RT ..."
"... The Russian government had warned several times that the application of FARA against RT ..."
"... "We could do with having a USIA on steroids to fight this information war [with Russia] a lot more aggressively than we're doing right now," Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told members of the Senate Armed Services Committee. ..."
"... "[Russia Today] was very active in promoting a particular point of view, disparaging our system, our alleged hypocrisy about human rights," he said. "Whatever crack, fissure they could find in our tapestry, they would exploit it," via the state-owned news network. ..."
"... Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Jan 6 2017 - Annex I, originally published on 11 December 2012 by the Open Source Center ..."
"... RT aired a documentary about the Occupy Wall Street movement on 1, 2, and 4 November. RT framed the movement as a fight against "the ruling class" and described the current US political system as corrupt and dominated by corporations. ..."
"... RT's reports often characterize the United States as a "surveillance state" and allege widespread infringements of civil liberties, police brutality, and drone use. ..."
"... RT has also focused on criticism of the US economic system, US currency policy, alleged Wall Street greed, and the US national debt. ..."
"... RT is a leading media voice opposing Western intervention in the Syrian conflict and blaming the West for waging "information wars" against the Syrian Government. ..."
"... It is so embarrassing to live in a country where the government issues nothing but lies and hypocrisy. I realize that to the players it's all a game and maybe funny but to this citizen and probably others this game is putting our lives in danger,,, and we don't find that 'funny'. ..."
"... "And at that moment, we will have to repeat that the Iraqi people, the Syrian people, the Lebanese people, all the elites and all the leaders and peoples of the region should reflect, weigh and return to the question of the identity of the creators, supporters, advocates and promoters of ISIS, that enabled them to commit these terrorist massacres [US, UK, France, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar ], and the identity of those who have stood against ISIS, fought them, offered martyrs in this fight [Iran, Syria, Irak, Hezbollah, Russia] and inflicted a defeat on ISIS and all those who stand behind them. This is a discussion to be held with depth and strength so that the (Muslim) believers do not become victims twice of the same ills." ..."
"... After I have been writing about the fact that the Western hemisphere as a whole is no longer democratic and that the CIA and the NSA dictate the policies of the US regime and its vassals, my cell phone started to turn itself off and on frequently and now my Mac is turning itself on in the middle of the night and the hard drive indicator lights turn red - what they have never done before. Every option to "wake up on call" is disabled. For WiFi (turned off - no Wifi here) and Bluetooth. The Mac is only connected to the power outlet. ..."
"... The so called 'State Department' that has already a disturbing history of cooperation with Fascists throughout its existence, is now totally unhinged. It's actions make it clear beyond any doubt that the US is no longer and has likely not been since 2000 (or 1964, depending on view point) what goes for a 'democratic republic'. ..."
"... Illegal wars and toppling of democratically elected socialist governments for the Safety and Happiness of the American people? That must be it. ..."
"... Behind the persona, Trump may be far smarter than Obama or Clinton, and perhaps more dangerous as far as keeping the US empire alive, depending on which way he goes. I am starting think he won't create any new wars though, just let the neo-con establishment do their thing within a limit, to build up leverage and pressure against countries that he may well try and strike some sort of deal with in the future. ..."
"... Trump is difficult to fathom but has too much morgue to be a good leader. When compared to Putin or even Rouhani, he is far too impulsive. ..."
"... RT is reporting that US Congressional authorities have withdrawn RT Network accreditaton. RT correspondents have been directed to turn in their credentials to the Congressional authorities. This effectively blacklists RT reporters from covering Congress; without credentials, they can't attend hearings, press conferences, etc. ..."
"... Trump's persona is like an inversion layer in air or water. An inversion layer in air can create mirages, and in water, submarines can, or used to be able to hide under inversion layers. Pat Lang put in a comment at his blog, of a study of Trump that showed him change, or his public image change over the years, starting back in the eighties, as he developed the persona. He mentions Stallone in his book as somebody he respects as Stallone had the ability to deliver a product that a large percentage of Americans liked and wanted. I think the persona is somewhat based on Stallone's fictional characters. ..."
"... Maybe even worse, the US PTB seem to have ZERO faith/confidence/belief in the "rightness" and resilience of our own system (certainly with cause), which makes them twitchy (re unstable) as a whole. Like a loaded gun in a shaky hand pointed at humanity. ..."
"... To think there are so many people that watch TV for fake intrigue and ignore the real world machinations all around them.....sigh ..."
"... To be honest, with Americans I prefer the conservatives, red necks and all the other nutjobs over Clintonists because while some of the former are hypocrites, none of them are as sickeningly hypocritical as the Clintonists and their führer. ..."
"... Best analysis of USA policy since WW2. Monetary Imperialism by Michael Hudson If you think it is just about military weapons and bombings then you are seeing only the tip of the iceberg. There is a reason USA is initiating all those wars and coups. https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/11/29/monetary-imperialism/ ..."
"... US and most of the west is a perpetual caricature of itself; at every moment it is the mockery and the contradiction of what it is pretending to be. A good word for this is Orwellian. ..."
"... Truth has been sacrificed for Propaganda since Bernay showed in WWI that Americans are helpless against it. Some combination of Fear, Nationalism and a Calvinistic God is all you need to get support for War, as well as some way to control the MSM to stay online with the message ..."
"... It strikes me that Calvinism is not much different than Zionism and Islamism in terms of violence, intolerance and basically an unloving God so War Propaganda is just as effective in Israel and the Islamic world as in the West. ..."
"... I'm calling them the Worst Generation. Too early? Too late? Thanks b and all. Carthage must be rebuilt. ..."
"... i would think the land of the free and brave weren't such chicken shits when it came to info, but obviously i am wrong here and thus the chicken shit designation of the crumbling us empire... ..."
"... 1. US perfected propaganda to the extent Goebbels would be proud of them. Thousands of PhDs/psychologists craft fake news presentation and masses manipulation, and it works. Just ask most of the Westerners, who believe that Assad or Iranians are evil, that Russia is a threat to the Worlds Peace, etc. ..."
"... 2. If Russia doesn't respond, US thinks they got away without repercussions and escalate, and then escalate some more. They will do that anyway now, but at the same time harming their own interests. ..."
"... An anecdote I read one time. A Soviet journalist in the cold war era goes to the US for a while to work with US journalists. The actual story is a bit longer, but the ending is along these lines. The Soviet journalist says to the US journalists "It is very good. Americans believe your propaganda, whereas our people don't believe ours. ..."
"... Now the situation is reversed, where US propaganda is not believed, and all Russia has to do is print the facts or ensure US propaganda gets broadcast within Russia. Russia seems to be doing both and it is driving the US nuts. ..."
State Department Condemns* Designation Of Media As Foreign Agents (*only applies to Russia)
UPDATED below
---
Today the U.S. State Department hit the ball of hypocrisy out of the park. It remarked that "legislation that allows .. to
label media outlets as 'foreign agents' ... presents yet another threat to free media". It noted that "freedom of expression -- including
speech and media ... is a universal human rights obligation".
The remark came after the U.S. Department of Justice required the Russian outlet RT America to register as a 'foreign
agent' under the Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA). RT registered as ordered on November 13.
But the State Department statement was NOT in response to the DOJ requirement against RT . The State Department reacted
to a new Russian law that was issued in response to the demand against RT . The new Russian law is a mirror
to the U.S. FARA law. It demands that foreign media which are active in Russia register as 'foreign agents'. The EU poodles followed
the State Department nonsense with an equally dumb statement.)
With its criticism of the Russian version of the FARA law while ignoring the U.S. FARA action against RT, the State Department
confirmed the allegations of hypocrisy RT and other media have raised against the U.S. government.
The whole issue started with the notable liar James Clapper under the Obama administration. He and other 'intelligence' people
found that RT was too truthful in its reporting to be allowed to inform the U.S. public. Publication of criticism of the
U.S. government based on verifiable facts is seen as an unfriendly act which must be punished.
Congress and the U.S. Justice Department under the Trump administration followed up on that. FARA is originally NOT directed against
foreign media. The Trump Justice Department circumvented the spirit of the law to apply it to RT .
The Russian government had warned several times that the application of FARA against RT would be followed up on with
a similar requirement against U.S. media in Russia. The Trump administration ignored those warnings. It now condemns the Russian
move.
"We could do with having a USIA on steroids to fight this information war [with Russia] a lot more aggressively than we're
doing right now," Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told members of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
... "[Russia Today] was very active in promoting a particular point of view, disparaging our system, our alleged hypocrisy about
human rights," he said. "Whatever crack, fissure they could find in our tapestry, they would exploit it," via the state-owned
news network.
Intelligence Report on Russian Hacking - Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Jan 6 2017 - Annex I, originally
published on 11 December 2012 by the Open Source Center
RT America TV , a Kremlin-financed channel operated from within the United States, has substantially expanded its repertoire of
programming that highlights criticism of alleged US shortcomings in democracy and civil liberties
... RT aired a documentary about the Occupy Wall Street movement on 1, 2, and 4 November. RT framed the movement as a fight against
"the ruling class" and described the current US political system as corrupt and dominated by corporations.
... RT's reports often characterize the United States as a "surveillance state" and allege widespread infringements of civil liberties,
police brutality, and drone use.
... RT has also focused on criticism of the US economic system, US currency policy, alleged Wall Street greed, and the US national
debt.
... RT is a leading media voice opposing Western intervention in the Syrian conflict and blaming the West for waging "information
wars" against the Syrian Government.
U.S. Congressman David N. Cicilline (D-RI), who serves as co-chair of the Democratic Policy and Communications Committee (DPCC),
and U.S. Congressman Matthew Gaetz (R-FL) today introduced legislation to close a loophole in foreign agent registration requirements
that Russia Today exploited extensively during last year's presidential election.
RT said late Monday that the company that supplies all the services for its RT America channel was told by the DOJ in a letter
that it is obligated to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act , an act aimed at lobbyists and lawyers representing
foreign political interests.
...
FARA specifically exempts US and foreign news organizations, and the DOJ focus on the company that supplies services for RT
might be a way around that stipulation.
MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia's parliament warned on Friday some U.S. and other foreign media could be declared "foreign agents" and
obliged to regularly declare full details of their funding, finances and staffing.
...
Russian lawmakers said the move was retaliation for a demand by the U.S. Department of Justice that Kremlin-backed TV station
RT register in the United States as a "foreign agent", something Moscow has said it regards as an unfriendly act.
MOSCOW/WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Kremlin-backed television station RT America registered Monday with the U.S. Department of Justice
as a "foreign agent" in the United States, the outlet's editor in chief said and the Department of Justice confirmed later in
the day.
MOSCOW – Russia's Justice Ministry has warned several U.S. government-funded news outlets they could be designated as foreign
agents under a new bill that has yet to be fully approved.
The bill , endorsed by Russia's lower house on Wednesday, comes in response to U.S. demands that Russian state-funded RT TV
register as a foreign agent. It needs to be approved by the upper house and signed by President Vladimir Putin to become law.
Russian President Vladimir Putin signed into law Saturday a new bill designating international media outlets as foreign agents
in retaliation for a similar measure taken by the U.S. Department of Justice against the state-funded RT television
BRUSSELS -- The European Union has criticized legislation signed by President Vladimir Putin that empowers Russia's government
to designate media outlets receiving funding from abroad as "foreign agents" and impose sanctions against them.
...
Maja Kocijancic, the spokesperson of the European Commission for Neighborhood Policy and Enlargement Negotiations, said in
a November 26 statement that the "legislation goes against Russia's human rights obligations and commitments."
New Russian legislation that allows the Ministry of Justice to label media outlets as "foreign agents" and to monitor or block
certain internet activity presents yet another threat to free media in Russia. Freedom of expression -- including speech and media
which a government may find inconvenient -- is a universal human rights obligation Russia has pledged to uphold.
With a few words less the statement by the State Department would have gained universality. It would have made perfect sense.
See here for a corrected version:
Unfortunately the State Department's spokesperson
added some verbose lamenting about one specific
country. It thereby exposed itself to the very criticism the U.S. government strives to suppress.
---
UPDATE - Nov 30 0:50am
As consequence of the FARA designation of RT 's U.S. production company RT is
now losing access to
the Congressional Gallery. Congress Gallery access is in turn required to get White House press credentials. RT is now likely
to lose those too.
Meanwhile a consultative Congress commission is
pressing to designate the Chinese news-agency XINHUA as 'foreign agent'. It also wants all staff of XINHUA
to register as such. That would make it nearly impossible for freelancer and others who work for multiple media to continue with
their XINHUA gigs.
Posted by b on November 29, 2017 at 01:27 PM |
Permalink
Yeah. Whatever. This is how Russia is supposed to respond. If the US does something, Russia is should respond immediately. Not
several months or a year down the road. Stop waiting for the spoiled brat to get it. They never will.
It is so embarrassing to live in a country where the government issues nothing but lies and hypocrisy. I realize that to the
players it's all a game and maybe funny but to this citizen and probably others this game is putting our lives in danger,,, and
we don't find that 'funny'.
thanks b... well, once again american hypocrisy is on public display... i guess someone is hoping that ignorance and a short memory
will rule the day..
Speaking of hypocrisy, on 20 Nov 2017, one day after the Arab League Confab--which now ought to become known as the Zionist-Arab
League -- Nasrallah gave a speech calling out all those nations that supported Daesh, particularly the Outlaw US Empire. Video
of the speech in French with English subs and a very partial transcript are here,
http://sayed7asan.blogspot.com/ with a longer partial transcript
available at The Saker's blog.
Excerpt:
"Of course, we will also need real festivities to celebrate the victory because it will be a great victory, a victory against
the organization representing the greatest danger (for all) that soiled more than anyone the religion of Muhammad b. Abdillah,
peace and blessings be upon him and his family, since 1,400 years. This will be the victory of humanistic and moral values against
horrific bestiality, cruelty and violence. A victory that will have a huge impact on the cultural, religious, humanitarian, military,
security, political levels, as well as on the very image (of Islam and Muslims) and at all levels.
"And at that moment, we will have to repeat that the Iraqi people, the Syrian people, the Lebanese people, all the elites
and all the leaders and peoples of the region should reflect, weigh and return to the question of the identity of the creators,
supporters, advocates and promoters of ISIS, that enabled them to commit these terrorist massacres [US, UK, France, Saudi Arabia,
Turkey, Qatar ], and the identity of those who have stood against ISIS, fought them, offered martyrs in this fight [Iran, Syria,
Irak, Hezbollah, Russia] and inflicted a defeat on ISIS and all those who stand behind them. This is a discussion to be held with
depth and strength so that the (Muslim) believers do not become victims twice of the same ills."
Once again, how much longer will people deny that what was formerly know as US government has turned into a Fascist regime - with
the dictating done by Plutocrats whose names are not even known, in spite of everybody being surveilled. Just not the owners of
the Nazi Sicherheits Agentur.
After I have been writing about the fact that the Western hemisphere as a whole is no longer democratic and that the CIA
and the NSA dictate the policies of the US regime and its vassals, my cell phone started to turn itself off and on frequently
and now my Mac is turning itself on in the middle of the night and the hard drive indicator lights turn red - what they have never
done before. Every option to "wake up on call" is disabled. For WiFi (turned off - no Wifi here) and Bluetooth. The Mac is only
connected to the power outlet.
Please let me know if anybody else has the same experience with their hardware. Also, I can no longer send emails on all accounts,
but I do receive junk.
------
The so called 'State Department' that has already a disturbing history of cooperation with Fascists throughout its existence,
is now totally unhinged. It's actions make it clear beyond any doubt that the US is no longer and has likely not been since 2000
(or 1964, depending on view point) what goes for a 'democratic republic'.
The paymasters don't even bother any longer that the public is waking up based on their Fascist activities and actions. They
don't give the proverbial F about people finding out and understanding what is actually happening in the Nazi High Five regimes.
What are people going to do? Demonstrate against Fascism? Concerting a total consumer boycott - the antonym of 'go shopping'?
Writing letters to misrepresentatives?
It certainly looks like the shit has piled up behind the fan like never before and the so called "happy holidays" seem to be
the perfect time to flip the switch to "ON".
Sad, that through the incessant propaganda and Nationalism force fed to the lesser mentally gifted part of the population for
centuries now, the people are no longer capable to do what the Declaration of Independence provides them to do (theoretically):
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish
it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them
shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
The authors of these 'goddamn pieces of papers' must have already used Orwellian lingo, since it appears that this paragraph
only refers to regime change in other Nations, just not in the US.
Illegal wars and toppling of democratically elected socialist governments for the Safety and Happiness of the American
people? That must be it.
Maybe one can call in at the regime department and tell them about psychological projection? The number is 1-800-FUC-KYOU.
Yes, it's almost the same number Obama had chosen for criticism of the ACA - 1-800-381-2596. That is what these parasites think
about "the people".
Now what? Following the advice of some people to not only see the negative shit on Earth? Sure, the genocide on the Palestinians
and the Yemenis (plus countless other 'obstacles') is actually a good thing, correct? Because those who are exterminated now,
won't have to experience worse down the line.
Apologies for the sarcasm, but this is getting out of public hands faster than the Ludicrous Speed of the "We Brake
For Nobody"-Imperial Starship.
Trump's as naked as the ape he actually is. Weird way to go about cultivating better relations with Russia. As with Obama previously,
much of what Trump campaigned on is being reversed, the opposite of his orated intent being implemented instead. A commentator
at Sputnik was shocked that I lumped Trump together with the criminals Clinton and Obama, wanting an explanation why I did so.
Obviously, that person isn't paying attention, and I told him so.
Even supposedly impartial international organizations continue to abet the Outlaw US Empire's Big Lies: "A press freedom watchdog,
Reporters Without Borders, has asked the Swiss Press Club to cancel a panel discussion on the 'true agenda' of the controversial
White Helmets group. But the club's director won't budge, noting that such demands are typically made by oppressive regimes."
Kudos for foreign agent RT for providing the report,
https://www.rt.com/news/411116-reporters-white-helmets-censorship/
Activist Post tells us that the presentation's by Vanessa Beeley, with Bradon Turbeville adding this observation: "Rather than
attend the event to ask questions and present its side of the argument, RWB responded with insults and hid away under the guise
of boycotting the panel. Pouting in the corner and refusing to take part in the discussion, however, did not stop the discussion
from taking place." Lots of additional info and many links here,
https://www.activistpost.com/2017/11/despite-western-funded-ngos-boycott-vanessa-beeley-exposes-white-helmets-at-swiss-press-club.html
Behind the persona, Trump may be far smarter than Obama or Clinton, and perhaps more dangerous as far as keeping the US
empire alive, depending on which way he goes. I am starting think he won't create any new wars though, just let the neo-con establishment
do their thing within a limit, to build up leverage and pressure against countries that he may well try and strike some sort of
deal with in the future.
I don't give a damn what the Federal government wants me to see or hear, but obviously this is being done for the "benefit" of
the majority of the public who will not look very far to get "informed" about current/world events. I don't see any end to this
fascist process here in the "land of the free"; how long before they just shut down the net or limit it to approved websites?
Beyond the personae and the relative intelligence of Clinton vs Obama vs Trump, one must admit that times are different. Both
China and Russia are on the rise. China is now a formidable rival in economic terms and is rising militarily. And fast. Russia
is recuperating from Gorbachev's treason and getting stronger by the day and is nowa World player to be reckoned with.
There is one thing that must be solved and that is the money exchange system through which gates most countries must pass to
obtain their dues. China and Russia are working on it. Once this is complete, US sanctions will work no more. Even new internets
are being created that will bypass the US controlled one.
There is not much anybody can do against the realignment of the globe. The Unipolar model is gone because the US could not
manage it. Greed, U.S. greed, and exceptionalism killed it.
North Korea just proves that the US power and influence have limits. I presume, I may be wrong, that once KJU has a good enough
number of warheads and rockets, he will want the US to vacate South Korea. Both the Russians and Chinese will love that. He will
want sanctions lifted and see normal relations resume between NOKO and China and Russia.
There is no point for him to rock the boat if he does not pursue greater aims.
Trump is difficult to fathom but has too much morgue to be a good leader. When compared to Putin or even Rouhani, he is
far too impulsive. But I guess deep down we would like the outcome to be better than the circumstances would lead us
to expect. The US will remain a Zionist puppet for as long as Israel exists. If it is down to Israel's will, America will pass,
but Zion will prevail. Jared is now the transmission belt in the Saudi, Israel, US triad. Which means that Israel has a personal
ambassador to Trump. Because of the internal opposition to Trump, he must look for an external happening that will remove him
from public scrutiny. He wont tackle Kim but he might believe Iran is gamer as he has allies in the endeavor.
Nobody will win this war but Israel may lose more than expected.
Another line just got crossed. I dislike the phrase "breaking news"-- it's a fraternal twin to "breaking wind"-- butRT is reporting that US Congressional authorities have withdrawn RT Network accreditaton. RT correspondents have
been directed to turn in their credentials to the Congressional authorities. This effectively blacklists RT reporters from covering
Congress; without credentials, they can't attend hearings, press conferences, etc.
Sorry to not provide a link, but this
is so recent it isn't even on YouTube yet. It will be interesting to see whether the Western civil-liberties and "media-watchdog"
organizations, including the ACLU, react to this draconian development, much less vociferously protest it. In any case, I doubt
if we'll see the rest of the Congressional press corps stage a walkout in sympathy and solidarity with their silenced and censored
RT colleagues.
Agree on China Russia ect, though I am starting to believe Trump is not impulsive, rather, he runs very well thought out stratagies.
The impulsiveness is part of the persona. I run onto an analysis of how Trump opertes the persona within a narrow band, and he
uses it to gain attention and then direct attention to where he wants it.
I think this video is worth watching - the first half deals mainly with Trump's persona.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWA5pOmSDgQ
Trump's persona is like an inversion layer in air or water. An inversion layer in air can create mirages, and in water,
submarines can, or used to be able to hide under inversion layers. Pat Lang put in a comment at his blog, of a study of Trump
that showed him change, or his public image change over the years, starting back in the eighties, as he developed the persona.
He mentions Stallone in his book as somebody he respects as Stallone had the ability to deliver a product that a large percentage
of Americans liked and wanted. I think the persona is somewhat based on Stallone's fictional characters.
Perimetr: Censoring the Internet is what the Net Neutrality debate is all about. If they repeal Net Neutrality, we can expect
sites like Moon of Alabama to just spool and spool but never load, whereas CNN and Fox will load immediately.
RE SlapHappy. That makes sense. I already see that happening with RT on my iPhone. So now we will need Radio Free Russia
to be set up in where, Mexico?
There is not much new in the heavy-handed methods employed by the Empire - they have always employed intimidation, false flags,
fake news, bribery and corruption, even assassination -but up till now went to some pains to cloak their actions in a mantle of
morality. They usually attempted to swing public opinion behind their endeavours. What is frightening lately, is their brashness
and total disregard for the public's opinion. Because they know that short of armed revolt, they have little to fear. The presstitute
media shall whitewash their hypocrisy and all their crimes, and at election time they will once more own all the candidates.
Happening on google/youtube excessively. Stuff like the Jimmy Dore show, or any other critical outlet does not load, or takes
forever respectively. Doggie videos and those showing stupid people doing stupid stuff - load instantly. It will be interesting
to see, whence net neutrality is neutered, how the owners of the country will deal with the backlash of billions in lost revenue
from online commerce.
Because people that can't get what they want when they don't shop, are unlikely to shop online any longer. The stench of censorship
will keep those online consumers away - if not alone for endless loading times due to not being able to pay $ 800 per month for
high speed internet.
First time US legalized targeting of media as "terrorists" thanks to neocon John Bolton and his zionist cohorts. Being labeled
foreign agent is getting off easy http://la.indymedia.org/news/2006/07/168921.html
Are shortwave radios going to make a comeback? RT World Service?
It's tough to make out what the US endgame is in all this. It's probably even tougher to make out if the PTB in the US know
what the endgame is. Open-ended, freestyle, ante-upping (by the US) devolution of any and all rational forms of coexistence, imo,
with zero good outcomes.
Maybe even worse, the US PTB seem to have ZERO faith/confidence/belief in the "rightness" and resilience of our own system
(certainly with cause), which makes them twitchy (re unstable) as a whole. Like a loaded gun in a shaky hand pointed at humanity.
Today the U.S. State Department hit the ball of hypocrisy out of the park. After the park come
the state/region/nation/world/universe. See how far yet they have to expand their hypocrisy.....why they are just getting warmed
up......is China news next? To think there are so many people that watch TV for fake intrigue and ignore the real world machinations
all around them.....sigh
Would be interesting to read the transcript of the next State Department Press Briefing, which the State spokesmodel must be dreading
- talk about being handed an impossible brief......
Those briefings normally start with Matt Lee from Associated Press asking the first question, but I suspect that this time
he'll start by turning to the RT reporter who is sitting in the back of the room and saying something along the lines of "No,
please, you go first.....".
While people are distracted by what is happening between Washington and Moscow, an election is being stolen and Clintonists
will do nothing about it because Clinton and Obama made the thief, Juan Orlando Hernández, president of Honduras.
Back in 2009:
a cadre of military officers, businessmen, and right-wing politicians, including Hernández, overthrew the leftist President
Manuel Zelaya
with encouragement and assistance from Hillary Clinton and the State Department.
Contrary to what the New Yorker goes on to say " after he vowed to run for re-election" Zelaya tried to organise a referendum
to change the constitution to allow him to run a second time which many Clintonists attacked as being anti-democratic. Juan Orlando
Hernández then packed the Supreme Court with his own supporters and had the constitution changed without a word of complaint from
the State Department under Obama or any of the Clintonists who'd accused Zelaya of being anti-democratic.
Over the next few days I expect to see those same Clintonists accusing Trump of being anti-democratic for failing to object
to Juan Orlando Hernández stealing the election but ignoring or excusing the responsibility Hillary Clinton has for what has happened
just like they claim that Hillary Clinton has no responsibility for restoring slavery to Libya.
To be honest, with Americans I prefer the conservatives, red necks and all the other nutjobs over Clintonists because while
some of the former are hypocrites, none of them are as sickeningly hypocritical as the Clintonists and their führer.
Best analysis of USA policy since WW2. Monetary Imperialism by Michael Hudson If you think it is just about military weapons
and bombings then you are seeing only the tip of the iceberg. There is a reason USA is initiating all those wars and coups.
https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/11/29/monetary-imperialism/
US and most of the west is a perpetual caricature of itself; at every moment it is the mockery and the contradiction of what
it is pretending to be. A good word for this is Orwellian.
Truth has been sacrificed for Propaganda since Bernay showed in WWI that Americans are helpless against it. Some combination
of Fear, Nationalism and a Calvinistic God is all you need to get support for War, as well as some way to control the MSM to stay
online with the message
It strikes me that Calvinism is not much different than Zionism and Islamism in terms of violence, intolerance and basically
an unloving God so War Propaganda is just as effective in Israel and the Islamic world as in the West.
failure of imagination | Nov 29, 2017 11:03:32 PM |
42
Full Spectrum Quicksand. Grasping for national interests and not looking too confident. When I watch it on TV at other's places
( I just don't get TV...) I noticed it next to PornPerPay in the guide for a reason , tho not a fair one. They've had a CFR member
on staff, so my Mockingbird tinfoil strainer gets going finer. I don't hear them being accused of wrong stories so, it's sour
gripes. The couple of times RT came into a conversation was about Redacted Tonite.
I'm calling them the Worst Generation.
Too early? Too late? Thanks b and all. Carthage must be rebuilt.
@41 forest.. thanks.. if that is what toivo thinks, then all i got to say to that is fascinating! i see it exactly the opposite..
it is the usa that is constantly lying... i would think the land of the free and brave weren't such chicken shits when it
came to info, but obviously i am wrong here and thus the chicken shit designation of the crumbling us empire...
@all - I updated the post with RT's
loss of Congress Gallery
credentials because it has now been put under FARA. Following from that RT will also lose White House credentials. Additionally
a congress commission now
wants to put The Chinese Xinhua agency under FARA and also all individually staff that works for Xinhua.
Interesting times of the media war. US removed RT credentials to access Congress, I'm sure they will follow up with banning RT
from the White House too. Russia will probably ban US media from Kremlin and other institutions in the mirror law. Whats
next? US ban on Russian-linked media from US networks/satellites like they did with Iran? Will they dare to apply similar treatment
to China? Interesting times indeed.
@ ToivoS | 34
why ban US propagated bullshit
Two reasons:
1. US perfected propaganda to the extent Goebbels would be proud of them. Thousands of PhDs/psychologists craft fake news
presentation and masses manipulation, and it works. Just ask most of the Westerners, who believe that Assad or Iranians are evil,
that Russia is a threat to the Worlds Peace, etc.
2. If Russia doesn't respond, US thinks they got away without repercussions and escalate, and then escalate some more.
They will do that anyway now, but at the same time harming their own interests. How they will affect Russia's presidential
elections, etc. if they are as confined as RT, but are losing even more because they have many more channels? They shot one
bullet at Russia and got a ricochet of 10 bullets :)
An anecdote I read one time. A Soviet journalist in the cold war era goes to the US for a while to work with US journalists.
The actual story is a bit longer, but the ending is along these lines. The Soviet journalist says to the US journalists "It is
very good. Americans believe your propaganda, whereas our people don't believe ours.
Now the situation is reversed, where US propaganda is not believed, and all Russia has to do is print the facts or ensure
US propaganda gets broadcast within Russia. Russia seems to be doing both and it is driving the US nuts.
The people who worked in int'l finance in the 90s (representing countries to the WB and IMF) knew about the criminal callousness
of these institutions when pushing 'austerity' or 'reform' policies. Local elites sometimes were complacent and profited (those
privatizations! those newly opened markets!), sometimes resisted, but the US and the multilateral system –financial or otherwise–
are ruthless and very hard to resist.
Many countries suffered, not because they were Russian or Brazilian or Mexican, but because the opportunity for gain was there.
There's some common ground between the reds and whites in that the reds tapped into nationalist sentiments, hence the wars of
national liberation around the world being supported by the communists: Korea, Vietnam, insurgencies in Latin America, Africa,
etc. The script has flipped with the western countries now being the 'godless' ones who are trying to destroy religion, the family
and traditional ways of life. The 1% were horrified that there was an ideology out there that advocated taking their loot away
so they used all their resources in combatting it, even being willing to take the world to the brink of nuclear Armageddon in
doing so. They'd take the world down with them rather than lose their positions of power and money. Now that the ideology is no
longer there it's just back to the business of robbing everyone weaker than them. All the hysteria about Putin is simply that
he's built up the Russian state to where they can resist and that he's not a fellow slaveholder like them.
The intervention in Syria has unhinged parts of the west where they thought they could rob and kill anywhere they pleased but
now have been successfully resisted. Political systems come and go but the people have endured for the past thousand years, something
the fat cats of the west are trying to destroy to enlarge their slave plantation.
" Russia has greater economic disparity than any other major global power. In 2016, Credit Suisse's Global Wealth Report found
that the wealthiest 10% of people in Russia controlled 89% of the country's wealth ..
"The World Wealth and Inequality project's latest white-paper, co-authored by Thomas "Capital in the 21st Century" Piketty,
painstaking pieces together fragmentary data-sources to build up a detailed picture of wealth inequality in Russia in the pre-revolutionary
period; during phases of the Soviet era; on the eve of the collapse of the USSR; and ever since.
The headline findings: official Russian estimates drastically understate national inequality; Russia is as unequal as the USA
or even moreso; Russian inequality is more intense than the inequality in other post-Soviet states and in post-Deng China.
This paper combines national accounts, survey, wealth and fiscal data (including recently released tax data on high-income
taxpayers) in order to provide consistent series on the accumulation and distribution of income and wealth in Russia from the
Soviet period until the present day. We find that official survey-based measures vastly under-estimate the rise of inequality
since 1990. According to our benchmark estimates, top income shares are now similar to (or higher than) the levels observed
in the United States. We also find that inequality has increased substantially more in Russia than in China and other ex-communist
countries in Eastern Europe. We relate this finding to the specific transition strategy followed in Russia. According to our benchmark
estimates, the wealth held offshore by rich Russians is about three times larger than official net foreign reserves, and is comparable
in magnitude to total household financial assets held in Russia.
From Soviets to Oligarchs: Inequality and Property in Russia 1905-2016 [Filip Novokmet, Thomas Piketty, Gabriel Zucman/World
Wealth and Income Database]"
People used to stage revolutions in order to bring communism to their countries. Plenty of examples for that: Russia, China,
Cuba and many others. Of course, those people were deluded, right? Who would want to bring a system that preaches economic equality?
It must be someone who is out of their mind. Has there ever been a capitalist revolution where someone took up arms trying to
bring capitalism to their country? Must be because it's such a humane and desirable system. Also, a lot of people think that Islam
is a backward religion. Really? Then how come it tolerates socialism (communism), better than Christianity ever did? Libya, Iraq,
Syria, Afghanistan they were all socialist at some point. That's why the greatest democracy set their sights on them to destroy
them. Because, you see, by their calculations, no matter how extremist and backward the Islam gets, it's still more progressive
than socialism or communism. Helluva math there. The game has always been about preserving capitalism, and not the most benign
version either. Which is too bad, because capitalism has been known to tolerate dictatorship, fascism, Nazism, slavery – pretty
much the ugliest forms of government the sick human mind can come up with, but it can't tolerate little bit of socialism. Because
you see, socialism is worse than any of those lovely political systems. Democracy (capitalism) is too pure for that, such a fragile
and delicate thing that it is.
I am surprised Sweden hasn't been bombed yet, for their flirting with socialism, but the way the things are going over there,
they don't have to be bombed. They did themselves in by following someone's stupid ideas about multiculturalism – which of course
is also a form of socialism – racial one, instead the real deal – the economic socialism that the greatest democracy of them all
is so afraid of.
When the Serbians in different parts of Yugoslavia started being attacked by the West, I was constantly pointing out that in recent
times, since WW1, an attack on Serbia has been a kind of introduction to an attack on Russia. In other words, I had no doubt that
Russia was next.
But, there is one huge difference between Serbia and Russia. Whilst the Serbians killed very few of those Western Zionist military
mercenaries who were killing Serbians directly or using their Croat, Muslim and Albanian proxies, if attacked the Russian military
could kill hundreds of thousands of the Western mercenaries. This is why whilst the war on Serbia was real and bloody only on
Serbians and the Bosnian Muslim proxies, the war on Russia would be totally disastrous for the Anglozionist Empire. This is the
only reason a shooting war on Russia has not started already.
For my money, Saker emphasises the supposed friendliness of the Western people towards Russia too much. It is not the Western
people who want to attack Russia then the Western Anglozionist elite, but the Western people really do not care, as long as it
is not the blood of their progeny and their own money paying for bringing Russia to heel.
And if Russia is destroyed, just like Ukraine, then there could be some lucrative jobs when the Western Zio-elite starts
dismembering the Russian corpse. And well paying jobs are in great demand in the bankrupt West. The unwritten contract that the
Western people have with their Anglozionist elite says: find a way to destroy Russia without a global nuclear war, cheaply, without
serious dying on our side and throw us a few bones and we will gladly hybernate our moral conscience.
Well, what evidence have you for asserting that Putin is a thug? You saw through the media's false reporting earlier as you
admit, so how come you again swallow the load of marbles that they dish out?
And while Putin may or may not be feared by "near abroad" he certainly is feared by those who seek total dominance of the planet.
The thing is, he is not an easy pushover and that is what is behind the thug claims. Many thinking people admire his intellect,
statesmanship, and skill in dealing with major problems of our times. The media also hates him because he shows up the western
leaders for the clowns that they are.
A principled US Government would have dealt very differently with Russia and Putin. There is no inherent conflict of interest
with Russia once global dominance is discarded as the main policy objective.
{The only people that fear Putin is the near abroad, .}
Sure, if you say so, Bub.
Texas* is, of course, 'near aboard' .
[Russia has begun testing of its new intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), the RS-28 Sarmat. Sarmat can carry a payload
of up to ten tons of nukes. The missile system is set to enter service in 2018.
The RS-28 Sarmat is the first entirely new Russian ICBM in decades. The heavyweight missile weighs 100 tons and can boost 10 tons.
Russia claims the Sarmat can lift 10 heavyweight warheads, or 16 lighter ones, and Russian state media has described it as being
able to wipe out an area the size of Texas or France.]
_______________________
*
[Russia's New ICBM Could "Wipe Out Texas"]
Wow, this is the most refreshing and clear minded comment I've seen here in a while. Nice job WorkingClass, you've managed
to keep your mind clear and not buy into the BS. You've given me some hope Thank you.
The supposed leaders of the West are busy trying to replace or at the very least water down their own populations with a totally
different set of people from far away. Obviously these supposedly democratic leaders loathe what are supposed to be their own
people but rather see all those below them as just so many replaceable units of labor, the mark of a "slaveholder". Putin has
helped his people immensely. Life expectancies had plummeted into the 50′s and that's now been improved greatly as well as living
standards. He's popular because he's done much for the people he identifies with, unlike Western leaders who hold their noses
when anywhere near the citizenry. If the Russians like him then they must not be as worried about some issues as critics outside
the country appear to be.
It is hard to find people in the West who "hate the Russian people themselves"; but in place of hatred there is definitely
fear – fear of Russia's military strength.
Disagree. The enormous propagandistic effort to demonize Russia in the West, not only reveals fear. It also reveals hate, at
least on most of the elites. Most people are indifferent toward Russia but elites definitively have fear to the bear. You can
test some people by simply naming "Russia" and you will see on their eyes a quite irrationala mix of hate and fear. I think this
is result of an Orwellian propaganda effort aimed at injecting fear to "Eurasia".
This fear is exaggerated by the US military-industrial complex for its own purposes;
Given any two races or culture , what they are and what I think of them hardly matters. However pitted against each other it
will cultivate and create good conditions for the scum of both of them and embroil the rest in the conflict. It is an against
of chaos for a hostile order.
Right. Those were capitalist revolutions. You are bang on. Capitalism is one of the most tolerant systems of all kinds of extremism,
as I already mentioned. Capitalism has been known to tolerate monarchy, fascism, Nazism, various forms of dictatorships, slavery,
pretty much everything. But they draw the line at tolerating socialism, like it's the worst extremism they have ever tolerated.
My point is, capitalism is pretty robust system, it's not some delicate beauty that will fall apart if it comes in touch with
socialism. Democracy is only a window dressing, it has never been about democracy, it has always been about capitalism.
There's nothing easier nowadays than becoming a Kremlin (or any other kind of) Troll. Just start talking about things as they
are and you're half way through. Keep talking that way a bit longer, and you'll forever become another precious source of income
for the army of no-talent crooks with unlimited rights and zero oversee from those for whom they officially work. These guys are
simply used to build their entire careers and financial well-beings by adjusting reality to their needs. They've been doing it
for decades. Why not, as long as the true bosses are happy ? Why not, when the MSM will make population to swallow anything, no
matter how idiotic and illogical it is ?
This year old article written at the beginning of anti-Russian witch hunt makes it easier to understand the tribe of "national security
parasites" to which Ferguson firmly belongs. Like many other members of the national security parasites tribe, he made a brilliant career
pandering to right-wing think tanks.
The very simple message of this tribe is "Carnage should be destroyed" and argumentation is selectively produced to support this
very idea. This is a dangerous level of political paranoia, or imperial sense of inferiority, if you wish. He is so incoherent and selective
in his rendering of Russian history that he looks like a charlatan, not historian.
Note that the term "neoliberalism" and "US neoliberal empire" are not even mentioned by this "historian". The tribe prohibits using
those terms.
Also not mentioned was an attempt by Clinton administration to subjugate Russia and convert it into vassal state which was instrumental
in bringing Putin to power.
As for Ukraine he conveniently forgot the role of Victoria Nuland in Maydan events (aka Nulandgate). The idea to break China-Russia
cooperation by dangling different carrots at both, the carrots the move then apart, is the replay of British strategy to prevent any
possible alliance between Germany and and Russia. Nothing new here. It is a standard imperial policy to destroy any alliance that threaten
the empire global domination.
Notable quotes:
"... Nevertheless, it is important to remember what exactly Putin said on that occasion. In remarks that seemed mainly directed at the Europeans in the room, he warned that a "unipolar world" - meaning one dominated by the United States - would prove "pernicious not only for all those within this system but also for the sovereign itself." America's "hyper use of force," Putin said, was "plunging the world into an abyss of permanent conflicts." Speaking at a time when neither Iraq nor Afghanistan seemed especially good advertisements for U.S. military intervention, those words had a certain force, especially in German ears. ..."
"... If I look back on what I thought and wrote during the administration of George W. Bush, I would say that I underestimated the extent to which the expansion of both NATO and the European Union was antagonizing the Russians. ..."
"... Though notionally intended to detect and counter Iranian missiles, these installations were bound to be regarded by the Russians as directed at them. The subsequent deployment of Iskander short-range missiles to Kaliningrad was a predictable retaliation. ..."
"... The biggest miscalculation, however, was the willingness of the Bush administration to consider Ukraine for NATO membership and the later backing by the Obama administration of EU efforts to offer Ukraine an association agreement. ..."
"... This was despite an explicit warning from Putin's aide Sergei Glazyev, who attended the conference, that signing the EU association agreement would lead to "political and social unrest," a dramatic decline in living standards, and "chaos." ..."
"... "I don't really even need George Kennan right now," President Obama told the New Yorker ..."
"... It was foolish to expect Russians to view with equanimity the departure into the Western sphere of influence of the heartland of medieval Russia, the breadbasket of the tsarist empire, the setting for Mikhail Bulgakov's The White Guard ..."
"... One might have thought the events of 2014 would have taught U.S. policymakers a lesson. Yet the Obama administration has persisted in misreading Russia. It was arguably a mistake to leave Germany and France to handle the Ukraine crisis, when more direct U.S. involvement might have made the Minsk agreements effective. ..."
"... President Obama has been right in saying that Russia is a much weaker power than the United States. His failure has been to exploit that American advantage. ..."
"... After all, an economic system that prefers an oil price closer to $100 a barrel than $50 benefits more than most from escalating conflict in the Middle East and North Africa - preferably conflict that spills over into the oil fields of the Persian Gulf. ..."
"... However, if that is the goal of Russia's strategy, then it is hard to see for how much longer Beijing and Moscow will be able to cooperate in the Security Council. Beijing needs stability in oil production and low oil prices as much as Russia needs the opposite. Because of recent tensions with the United States, Russia has been acquiescent as the "One Belt, One Road" program extends China's economic influence into Central Asia, once a Russian domain. There is potential conflict of interest there, too. ..."
Moscow may no longer be a superpower, but its revanchist politics are unsettling the international order. How should Donald
Trump deal with Vladimir Putin?
... ... ...
It did not have to be this way. Twenty-five years ago, the dissolution of the Soviet Union marked not only the end of the Cold
War but also the beginning of what should have been a golden era of friendly relations between Russia and the West. With enthusiasm,
it seemed, Russians embraced both capitalism and democracy. To an extent that was startling, Russian cities became Westernized. Empty
shelves and po-faced propaganda gave way to abundance and dazzling advertisements.
Contrary to the fears of some, there was a new world order after 1991. The world became a markedly more peaceful place as the
flows of money and arms that had turned so many regional disputes into proxy wars dried up. American economists rushed to advise
Russian politicians. American multinationals hurried to invest.
Go back a quarter century to 1991 and imagine three more or less equally plausible futures. First, imagine that the coup by hard-liners
in August of that year had been more competently executed and that the Soviet Union had been preserved. Second, imagine a much more
violent dissolution of the Soviet system in which ethnic and regional tensions escalated much further, producing the kind of "super-Yugoslavia"
Kissinger has occasionally warned about. Finally, imagine a happily-ever-after history, in which Russia's economy thrived on the
basis of capitalism and globalization, growing at Asian rates.
Russia could have been deep-frozen. It could have disintegrated. It could have boomed. No one in 1991 knew which of these futures
we would get. In fact, we got none of them. Russia has retained the democratic institutions that were established after 1991, but
the rule of law has not taken root, and, under Vladimir Putin, an authoritarian nationalist form of government has established itself
that is notably ruthless in its suppression of opposition and criticism. Despite centrifugal forces, most obviously in the Caucasus,
the Russian Federation has held together. However, the economy has performed much less well than might have been hoped. Between 1992
and 2016, the real compound annual
growth rate of Russian per capita GDP has been 1.5 percent. Compare that with equivalent figures for India (5.1 percent) and
China (8.9 percent).
Today, the Russian economy accounts for just over 3 percent of global output, according to the International Monetary Fund's
estimates based on purchasing
power parity. The U.S. share is 16 percent. The Chinese share is 18 percent. Calculated on a current dollar basis, Russia's GDP is
less than 7 percent of America's. The British economy is twice the size of Russia's.
Moreover, the reliance of the Russian economy on exported fossil fuels - as well as other primary products - is shocking. Nearly
two-thirds of Russian exports are petroleum (63 percent), according the
Observatory of Economic Complexity.
... ... ...
Nevertheless, it is important to remember what exactly Putin said on that occasion. In remarks that seemed mainly directed
at the Europeans in the room, he warned that a "unipolar world" - meaning one dominated by the United States - would prove "pernicious
not only for all those within this system but also for the sovereign itself." America's "hyper use of force," Putin said, was "plunging
the world into an abyss of permanent conflicts." Speaking at a time when neither Iraq nor Afghanistan seemed especially good advertisements
for U.S. military intervention, those words had a certain force, especially in German ears.
Nearly 10 years later, even Putin's most splenetic critics would be well-advised to reflect for a moment on our own part in the
deterioration of relations between Washington and Moscow. The Russian view that the fault lies partly with Western overreach deserves
to be taken more seriously than it generally is.
Is the West to blame?
If I look back on what I thought and wrote during the administration of George W. Bush, I would say that I underestimated
the extent to which the expansion of both NATO and the European Union was antagonizing the Russians.
Certain decisions still seem to me defensible. Given their experiences in the middle of the 20th century, the Poles and the Czechs
deserved both the security afforded by NATO membership (from 1999, when they joined along with Hungary) and the economic opportunities
offered by EU membership (from 2004). Yet the U.S. decision in March 2007 to build an anti-ballistic missile defense site in Poland
along with a radar station in the Czech Republic seems, with hindsight, more questionable, as does the subsequent decision to deploy
10 two-stage missile interceptors and a battery of MIM-104 Patriot missiles in Poland. Though notionally intended to detect and
counter Iranian missiles, these installations were bound to be regarded by the Russians as directed at them. The
subsequent deployment of Iskander
short-range missiles to Kaliningrad was a predictable retaliation.
A similar act of retaliation followed in 2008 when, with encouragement from some EU states, Kosovo unilaterally declared independence
from Serbia. In response, Russia recognized rebels in South
Ossetia and Abkhazia and invaded those parts of Georgia. From a Russian perspective, this was no different from what the West had
done in Kosovo.
The biggest miscalculation, however, was the willingness of the Bush administration to consider Ukraine for NATO membership
and the later backing by the Obama administration of EU efforts to offer Ukraine an association agreement. I well remember the
giddy mood at a pro-European conference in Yalta in September 2013, when Western representatives almost unanimously exhorted Ukraine
to follow the Polish path. Not nearly enough consideration was given to the very different way Russia regards Ukraine nor to the
obvious West-East divisions within Ukraine itself. This was despite an explicit
warning from Putin's
aide Sergei Glazyev, who attended the conference, that signing the EU association agreement would lead to "political and social unrest,"
a dramatic decline in living standards, and "chaos."
This is not in any way to legitimize the Russian actions of 2014, which were in clear violation of international law and agreements.
It is to criticize successive administrations for paying too little heed to Russia's sensitivities and likely reactions.
"I don't really even need George Kennan right now," President Obama
told the New Yorker's
David Remnick in early 2014. The very opposite was true. He and his predecessor badly needed advisors who understood Russia as well
as Kennan did. As Kissinger has often remarked, history is to nations what character is to people. In recent years, American
policymakers have tended to forget that and then to wax indignant when other states act in ways that a knowledge of history might
have enabled them to anticipate. No country, it might be said, has had its character more conditioned by its history than Russia.
It was foolish to expect Russians to view with equanimity the departure into the Western sphere of influence of the heartland of
medieval Russia, the breadbasket of the tsarist empire, the setting for Mikhail Bulgakov's The White Guard, the crime
scene of Joseph Stalin's man-made famine, and the main target of Adolf Hitler's Operation Barbarossa.
One might have thought the events of 2014 would have taught U.S. policymakers a lesson. Yet the Obama administration has persisted
in misreading Russia. It was arguably a mistake to leave Germany and France to handle the Ukraine crisis, when more direct U.S. involvement
might have made the Minsk agreements effective. It was certainly a disastrous blunder to give Putin an admission ticket into
the Syrian conflict by leaving to him the (partial) removal of Bashar al-Assad's chemical weapons. One of Kissinger's lasting achievements
in the early 1970s was to squeeze the Soviets out of the Middle East. The Obama administration has undone that, with dire consequences.
We see in Aleppo the Russian military for what it is: a master of the mid-20th-century tactic of winning victories through the indiscriminate
bombing of cities.
Left: Free Syrian Army fighters fire an anti-aircraft weapon in Aleppo on Dec. 12. (Photo by AFP/Getty Images); Right: Far-right
Ukrainian activists attack the office of the pro-Russian movement "Ukrainian Choice" in Kiev on Nov. 21. (Photo by SERGEI SUPINSKY/AFP/Getty
Images)
What price peace?
Yet I remain to be convinced that the correct response to these errors of American policy is to swing from underestimating Russia
to overestimating it. Such an approach has the potential to be just another variation on the theme of misunderstanding.
It is not difficult to infer what Putin would like to get in any "great deal" between himself and Trump. Item No. 1 would be a
lifting of sanctions. Item No. 2 would be an end to the war in Syria on Russia's terms - which would include the preservation of
Assad in power for at least some "decent interval." Item No. 3 would be a de facto recognition of Russia's annexation of Crimea and
some constitutional change designed to render the government in Kiev impotent by giving the country's eastern Donbass region a permanent
pro-Russian veto power.
What is hard to understand is why the United States would want give Russia even a fraction of all this. What exactly would Russia
be giving the United States in return for such concessions? That is the question that Trump's national security team needs to ask
itself before he so much as takes a courtesy call from the Kremlin.
There is no question that the war in Syria needs to end, just as the frozen conflict in eastern Ukraine needs resolution. But
the terms of peace can and must be very different from those that Putin has in mind. Any deal that pacified Syria by sacrificing
Ukraine would be a grave mistake.
President Obama has been right in saying that Russia is a much weaker power than the United States. His failure has been to
exploit that American advantage.
... ... ...
The Russian Question itself can be settled another day. But by reframing the international order on the basis of cooperation rather
than deadlock in the Security Council, the United States at least poses the question in a new way. Will Russia learn to cooperate
with the other great powers? Or will it continue to be the opponent of international order? Perhaps the latter is the option it will
choose. After all, an economic system that prefers an oil price closer to $100 a barrel than $50 benefits more than most from
escalating conflict in the Middle East and North Africa - preferably conflict that spills over into the oil fields of the Persian
Gulf.
However, if that is the goal of Russia's strategy, then it is hard to see for how much longer Beijing and Moscow will be able
to cooperate in the Security Council. Beijing needs stability in oil production and low oil prices as much as Russia needs the opposite.
Because of recent tensions with the United States, Russia has been acquiescent as the "One Belt, One Road" program extends China's
economic influence into Central Asia, once a Russian domain. There is potential conflict of interest there, too.
This year old article written at the beginning of anti-Russian witch hunt makes it easier to understand the tribe of "national security
parasites" to which Ferguson firmly belongs. Like many other members of the national security parasites tribe, he made a brilliant career
pandering to right-wing think tanks.
The very simple message of this tribe is "Carnage should be destroyed" and argumentation is selectively produced to support this
very idea. This is a dangerous level of political paranoia, or imperial sense of inferiority, if you wish. He is so incoherent and selective
in his rendering of Russian history that he looks like a charlatan, not historian.
Note that the term "neoliberalism" and "US neoliberal empire" are not even mentioned by this "historian". The tribe prohibits using
those terms.
Also not mentioned was an attempt by Clinton administration to subjugate Russia and convert it into vassal state which was instrumental
in bringing Putin to power.
As for Ukraine he conveniently forgot the role of Victoria Nuland in Maydan events (aka Nulandgate). The idea to break China-Russia
cooperation by dangling different carrots at both, the carrots the move then apart, is the replay of British strategy to prevent any
possible alliance between Germany and and Russia. Nothing new here. It is a standard imperial policy to destroy any alliance that threaten
the empire global domination.
Notable quotes:
"... Nevertheless, it is important to remember what exactly Putin said on that occasion. In remarks that seemed mainly directed at the Europeans in the room, he warned that a "unipolar world" - meaning one dominated by the United States - would prove "pernicious not only for all those within this system but also for the sovereign itself." America's "hyper use of force," Putin said, was "plunging the world into an abyss of permanent conflicts." Speaking at a time when neither Iraq nor Afghanistan seemed especially good advertisements for U.S. military intervention, those words had a certain force, especially in German ears. ..."
"... If I look back on what I thought and wrote during the administration of George W. Bush, I would say that I underestimated the extent to which the expansion of both NATO and the European Union was antagonizing the Russians. ..."
"... Though notionally intended to detect and counter Iranian missiles, these installations were bound to be regarded by the Russians as directed at them. The subsequent deployment of Iskander short-range missiles to Kaliningrad was a predictable retaliation. ..."
"... The biggest miscalculation, however, was the willingness of the Bush administration to consider Ukraine for NATO membership and the later backing by the Obama administration of EU efforts to offer Ukraine an association agreement. ..."
"... This was despite an explicit warning from Putin's aide Sergei Glazyev, who attended the conference, that signing the EU association agreement would lead to "political and social unrest," a dramatic decline in living standards, and "chaos." ..."
"... "I don't really even need George Kennan right now," President Obama told the New Yorker ..."
"... It was foolish to expect Russians to view with equanimity the departure into the Western sphere of influence of the heartland of medieval Russia, the breadbasket of the tsarist empire, the setting for Mikhail Bulgakov's The White Guard ..."
"... One might have thought the events of 2014 would have taught U.S. policymakers a lesson. Yet the Obama administration has persisted in misreading Russia. It was arguably a mistake to leave Germany and France to handle the Ukraine crisis, when more direct U.S. involvement might have made the Minsk agreements effective. ..."
"... President Obama has been right in saying that Russia is a much weaker power than the United States. His failure has been to exploit that American advantage. ..."
"... After all, an economic system that prefers an oil price closer to $100 a barrel than $50 benefits more than most from escalating conflict in the Middle East and North Africa - preferably conflict that spills over into the oil fields of the Persian Gulf. ..."
"... However, if that is the goal of Russia's strategy, then it is hard to see for how much longer Beijing and Moscow will be able to cooperate in the Security Council. Beijing needs stability in oil production and low oil prices as much as Russia needs the opposite. Because of recent tensions with the United States, Russia has been acquiescent as the "One Belt, One Road" program extends China's economic influence into Central Asia, once a Russian domain. There is potential conflict of interest there, too. ..."
Moscow may no longer be a superpower, but its revanchist politics are unsettling the international order. How should Donald
Trump deal with Vladimir Putin?
... ... ...
It did not have to be this way. Twenty-five years ago, the dissolution of the Soviet Union marked not only the end of the Cold
War but also the beginning of what should have been a golden era of friendly relations between Russia and the West. With enthusiasm,
it seemed, Russians embraced both capitalism and democracy. To an extent that was startling, Russian cities became Westernized. Empty
shelves and po-faced propaganda gave way to abundance and dazzling advertisements.
Contrary to the fears of some, there was a new world order after 1991. The world became a markedly more peaceful place as the
flows of money and arms that had turned so many regional disputes into proxy wars dried up. American economists rushed to advise
Russian politicians. American multinationals hurried to invest.
Go back a quarter century to 1991 and imagine three more or less equally plausible futures. First, imagine that the coup by hard-liners
in August of that year had been more competently executed and that the Soviet Union had been preserved. Second, imagine a much more
violent dissolution of the Soviet system in which ethnic and regional tensions escalated much further, producing the kind of "super-Yugoslavia"
Kissinger has occasionally warned about. Finally, imagine a happily-ever-after history, in which Russia's economy thrived on the
basis of capitalism and globalization, growing at Asian rates.
Russia could have been deep-frozen. It could have disintegrated. It could have boomed. No one in 1991 knew which of these futures
we would get. In fact, we got none of them. Russia has retained the democratic institutions that were established after 1991, but
the rule of law has not taken root, and, under Vladimir Putin, an authoritarian nationalist form of government has established itself
that is notably ruthless in its suppression of opposition and criticism. Despite centrifugal forces, most obviously in the Caucasus,
the Russian Federation has held together. However, the economy has performed much less well than might have been hoped. Between 1992
and 2016, the real compound annual
growth rate of Russian per capita GDP has been 1.5 percent. Compare that with equivalent figures for India (5.1 percent) and
China (8.9 percent).
Today, the Russian economy accounts for just over 3 percent of global output, according to the International Monetary Fund's
estimates based on purchasing
power parity. The U.S. share is 16 percent. The Chinese share is 18 percent. Calculated on a current dollar basis, Russia's GDP is
less than 7 percent of America's. The British economy is twice the size of Russia's.
Moreover, the reliance of the Russian economy on exported fossil fuels - as well as other primary products - is shocking. Nearly
two-thirds of Russian exports are petroleum (63 percent), according the
Observatory of Economic Complexity.
... ... ...
Nevertheless, it is important to remember what exactly Putin said on that occasion. In remarks that seemed mainly directed
at the Europeans in the room, he warned that a "unipolar world" - meaning one dominated by the United States - would prove "pernicious
not only for all those within this system but also for the sovereign itself." America's "hyper use of force," Putin said, was "plunging
the world into an abyss of permanent conflicts." Speaking at a time when neither Iraq nor Afghanistan seemed especially good advertisements
for U.S. military intervention, those words had a certain force, especially in German ears.
Nearly 10 years later, even Putin's most splenetic critics would be well-advised to reflect for a moment on our own part in the
deterioration of relations between Washington and Moscow. The Russian view that the fault lies partly with Western overreach deserves
to be taken more seriously than it generally is.
Is the West to blame?
If I look back on what I thought and wrote during the administration of George W. Bush, I would say that I underestimated
the extent to which the expansion of both NATO and the European Union was antagonizing the Russians.
Certain decisions still seem to me defensible. Given their experiences in the middle of the 20th century, the Poles and the Czechs
deserved both the security afforded by NATO membership (from 1999, when they joined along with Hungary) and the economic opportunities
offered by EU membership (from 2004). Yet the U.S. decision in March 2007 to build an anti-ballistic missile defense site in Poland
along with a radar station in the Czech Republic seems, with hindsight, more questionable, as does the subsequent decision to deploy
10 two-stage missile interceptors and a battery of MIM-104 Patriot missiles in Poland. Though notionally intended to detect and
counter Iranian missiles, these installations were bound to be regarded by the Russians as directed at them. The
subsequent deployment of Iskander
short-range missiles to Kaliningrad was a predictable retaliation.
A similar act of retaliation followed in 2008 when, with encouragement from some EU states, Kosovo unilaterally declared independence
from Serbia. In response, Russia recognized rebels in South
Ossetia and Abkhazia and invaded those parts of Georgia. From a Russian perspective, this was no different from what the West had
done in Kosovo.
The biggest miscalculation, however, was the willingness of the Bush administration to consider Ukraine for NATO membership
and the later backing by the Obama administration of EU efforts to offer Ukraine an association agreement. I well remember the
giddy mood at a pro-European conference in Yalta in September 2013, when Western representatives almost unanimously exhorted Ukraine
to follow the Polish path. Not nearly enough consideration was given to the very different way Russia regards Ukraine nor to the
obvious West-East divisions within Ukraine itself. This was despite an explicit
warning from Putin's
aide Sergei Glazyev, who attended the conference, that signing the EU association agreement would lead to "political and social unrest,"
a dramatic decline in living standards, and "chaos."
This is not in any way to legitimize the Russian actions of 2014, which were in clear violation of international law and agreements.
It is to criticize successive administrations for paying too little heed to Russia's sensitivities and likely reactions.
"I don't really even need George Kennan right now," President Obama
told the New Yorker's
David Remnick in early 2014. The very opposite was true. He and his predecessor badly needed advisors who understood Russia as well
as Kennan did. As Kissinger has often remarked, history is to nations what character is to people. In recent years, American
policymakers have tended to forget that and then to wax indignant when other states act in ways that a knowledge of history might
have enabled them to anticipate. No country, it might be said, has had its character more conditioned by its history than Russia.
It was foolish to expect Russians to view with equanimity the departure into the Western sphere of influence of the heartland of
medieval Russia, the breadbasket of the tsarist empire, the setting for Mikhail Bulgakov's The White Guard, the crime
scene of Joseph Stalin's man-made famine, and the main target of Adolf Hitler's Operation Barbarossa.
One might have thought the events of 2014 would have taught U.S. policymakers a lesson. Yet the Obama administration has persisted
in misreading Russia. It was arguably a mistake to leave Germany and France to handle the Ukraine crisis, when more direct U.S. involvement
might have made the Minsk agreements effective. It was certainly a disastrous blunder to give Putin an admission ticket into
the Syrian conflict by leaving to him the (partial) removal of Bashar al-Assad's chemical weapons. One of Kissinger's lasting achievements
in the early 1970s was to squeeze the Soviets out of the Middle East. The Obama administration has undone that, with dire consequences.
We see in Aleppo the Russian military for what it is: a master of the mid-20th-century tactic of winning victories through the indiscriminate
bombing of cities.
Left: Free Syrian Army fighters fire an anti-aircraft weapon in Aleppo on Dec. 12. (Photo by AFP/Getty Images); Right: Far-right
Ukrainian activists attack the office of the pro-Russian movement "Ukrainian Choice" in Kiev on Nov. 21. (Photo by SERGEI SUPINSKY/AFP/Getty
Images)
What price peace?
Yet I remain to be convinced that the correct response to these errors of American policy is to swing from underestimating Russia
to overestimating it. Such an approach has the potential to be just another variation on the theme of misunderstanding.
It is not difficult to infer what Putin would like to get in any "great deal" between himself and Trump. Item No. 1 would be a
lifting of sanctions. Item No. 2 would be an end to the war in Syria on Russia's terms - which would include the preservation of
Assad in power for at least some "decent interval." Item No. 3 would be a de facto recognition of Russia's annexation of Crimea and
some constitutional change designed to render the government in Kiev impotent by giving the country's eastern Donbass region a permanent
pro-Russian veto power.
What is hard to understand is why the United States would want give Russia even a fraction of all this. What exactly would Russia
be giving the United States in return for such concessions? That is the question that Trump's national security team needs to ask
itself before he so much as takes a courtesy call from the Kremlin.
There is no question that the war in Syria needs to end, just as the frozen conflict in eastern Ukraine needs resolution. But
the terms of peace can and must be very different from those that Putin has in mind. Any deal that pacified Syria by sacrificing
Ukraine would be a grave mistake.
President Obama has been right in saying that Russia is a much weaker power than the United States. His failure has been to
exploit that American advantage.
... ... ...
The Russian Question itself can be settled another day. But by reframing the international order on the basis of cooperation rather
than deadlock in the Security Council, the United States at least poses the question in a new way. Will Russia learn to cooperate
with the other great powers? Or will it continue to be the opponent of international order? Perhaps the latter is the option it will
choose. After all, an economic system that prefers an oil price closer to $100 a barrel than $50 benefits more than most from
escalating conflict in the Middle East and North Africa - preferably conflict that spills over into the oil fields of the Persian
Gulf.
However, if that is the goal of Russia's strategy, then it is hard to see for how much longer Beijing and Moscow will be able
to cooperate in the Security Council. Beijing needs stability in oil production and low oil prices as much as Russia needs the opposite.
Because of recent tensions with the United States, Russia has been acquiescent as the "One Belt, One Road" program extends China's
economic influence into Central Asia, once a Russian domain. There is potential conflict of interest there, too.
At some point quantity of duplicity turns into quality. and affect international relations. Economic decline can speed this process
up. The US elite has way too easy life since 1991. And that destroyed the tiny patina of self-restraint that it has during Cold War
with negative (hugely negative) consequences first of all for the US population. Empire building is a costly project even if it supported
by the dominance of neoliberal ideology and technological advances in computers and telecommunication. . The idea of "full spectrum
dominance" was a disaster. But the realization of this came too late and at huge cost for the world and for the US population. Russia
decimated its own elite twice in the last century. In might be the time for the USA to follow the Russia example and do it once in XXI
century. If we thing about Hillary Clinton Jon McCain, Joe Biden, Niki Haley, as member of the US elite it is clear that "something
is rotten in the state of Denmark).
Notable quotes:
"... How Washington's chronic deceit -- especially towards Russia -- has sabotaged U.S. foreign policy. ..."
"... Unfortunately, North Korean leaders have abundant reasons to be wary of such U.S. enticements. Trump's transparent attempt to renege on Washington's commitment to the deal with Iran known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) -- which the United States and other major powers signed in 2015 to curb Tehran's nuclear program -- certainly does not increase Pyongyang's incentive to sign a similar agreement. His decision to decertify Iran's compliance with the JCPOA, even when the United Nations confirms that Tehran is adhering to its obligations, appears more than a little disingenuous. ..."
"... There seems to be no limit to Washington's desire to crowd Russia. NATO has even added the Baltic republics, which had been part of the Soviet Union itself. In early 2008, President George W. Bush unsuccessfully tried to admit Georgia and Ukraine, which would have engineered yet another alliance move eastward. By that time, Vladimir Putin and other Russian leaders were beyond furious. ..."
"... The timing of Bush's attempted ploy could scarcely have been worse. It came on the heels of Russia's resentment at another example of U.S. duplicity. In 1999, Moscow had reluctantly accepted a UN mandate to cover NATO's military intervention against Serbia, a long-standing Russian client. The alliance airstrikes and subsequent moves to detach and occupy Serbia's restless province of Kosovo for the ostensible reason of protecting innocent civilians from atrocities was the same "humanitarian" justification that the West would use subsequently in Libya. ..."
"... Nine years after the initial Kosovo intervention, the United States adopted an evasive policy move, showing utter contempt for Russia's wishes and interests in the process. Kosovo wanted to declare its formal independence from Serbia, but it was clear that such a move would face a certain Russian (and probable Chinese) veto in the UN Security Council. Washington and an ad-hoc coalition of European Union countries brazenly bypassed the Council and approved Pristina's independence declaration. It was an extremely controversial move. Not even all EU members were on board with the policy, since some of them (e.g., Spain) had secessionist problems of their own. ..."
"... Russia's leaders protested vehemently and warned that the West's unauthorized action established a dangerous, destabilizing international precedent. Washington rebuffed their complaints, arguing that the Kosovo situation was unique. Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs R. Nicholas Burns made that point explicitly in a February 2008 State Department briefing. Both the illogic and the hubris of that position were breathtaking. ..."
"... This -- in the context of the long history of US and EU deceit and duplicity in their dealings with Russia is why Russia is supporting Catalan separatism (e.g. RT en Espańol's constant attacks on Spain and promotion of the separatists). The US and the EU effectively gave Russia permission to do this back in the 1990s. We set a precedent for their actions in Catalonia -- and, more famously, in Ukraine. ..."
"... One could scarcely ask for a better summary of why the Cold War seems, sadly, to be reheating as well as why Democratic attempts to blame it on Russian meddling are a equally sad evasion of their share of bipartisan responsibility for creating this mess. Reinhold Niebuhr's prayer for, "the courage to change the things I can," is painfully appropriate. ..."
"... "No one forced any eastern European country to join NATO and the EU – decisions that indicate these countries feared a Russian revival after the collapse of the USSR. Russia always believed that these countries were in their near abroad or backyard." ..."
"... Putin is a rationally calculating man. He has made his strategic objectives well known. They are economic. He sees Russia as the great linchpin of the pan-Eurasian One Belt/One Road (OB/OR) initiative proposed by China as well as the AIIB. In that construct, Europe and East Asia are Russia's customers and bilateral trading partners. Military conquest would wreck that vision and Putin knows it. ..."
"... He's been remarkably restrained when egged on by Big Mouth Nikki Haley, Mad Dog Mattis or that other Pentagon nutcase Phillip Breedlove (former Supreme Commander of NATO) who have gone out of their way to demonize Russia. Unfortunately, with those Pentagon hacks whispering in Trump's ear, too much war-mongering is never enough. ..."
"... U.S. foreign policy is an unmitigated disaster. The War Machine Hammer wrecks everything that it touches while sending the befuddled taxpayers the bill. ..."
"... When you meet individual Americans, they are frequently so nice and level-headed that you are perplexed trying to imagine where their leaders come from. And while we're on that subject, America does not actually have a foreign policy, as such. Its foreign policy is to bend every other living soul on the planet to the service of America. ..."
How Washington's chronic deceit -- especially towards Russia -- has sabotaged U.S. foreign policy.
For any country, the foundation of successful diplomacy is a reputation for credibility and reliability. Governments are wary
of concluding agreements with a negotiating partner that violates existing commitments and has a record of duplicity. Recent U.S.
administrations have ignored that principle, and their actions have backfired majorly, damaging American foreign policy in the process.
The consequences of previous deceit are most evident in the ongoing effort to achieve a diplomatic solution to the North Korean
nuclear crisis. During his recent trip to East Asia, President Trump
urged
Kim Jong-un's regime to "come to the negotiating table" and "do the right thing" -- relinquish the country's nuclear weapons and
ballistic missile programs. Presumably, that concession would lead to a lifting (or at least an easing) of international economic
sanctions and a more normal relationship between Pyongyang and the international community.
Unfortunately, North Korean leaders have
abundant reasons to be wary of such U.S. enticements. Trump's transparent attempt to renege on Washington's commitment to the
deal with Iran known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) -- which the United States and other major powers signed in
2015 to curb Tehran's nuclear program -- certainly does not increase Pyongyang's incentive to sign a similar agreement. His decision
to decertify Iran's compliance with the JCPOA, even when the United Nations confirms that
Tehran is adhering to its obligations, appears more than a little disingenuous.
North Korea is likely focused on another incident that raises even greater doubts about U.S. credibility. Libyan dictator Muammar
Qaddafi capitulated on the nuclear issue in December of 2003, abandoning his country's nuclear program and reiterating a commitment
to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. In exchange, the United States and its allies lifted economic sanctions and welcomed Libya
back into the community of respectable nations. Barely seven years later, though, Washington and its NATO partners double-crossed
Qaddafi, launching airstrikes and cruise missile attacks to assist rebels in their campaign to overthrow the Libyan strongman. North
Korea and other powers took notice of Qaddafi's fate, making the already difficult task of getting a de-nuclearization agreement
with Pyongyang
nearly
impossible.
The Libya intervention sullied America's reputation in another way. Washington and its NATO allies prevailed on the UN Security
Council to pass a resolution endorsing a military intervention to protect innocent civilians. Russia and China refrained from vetoing
that resolution after Washington's assurances that military action would be limited in scope and solely for humanitarian purposes.
Once the assault began, it quickly became evident that the resolution was merely a fig leaf for another U.S.-led regime-change war.
Beijing, and especially Moscow, understandably felt duped. Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates
succinctly described Russia's reaction, both short-term and long-term:
The Russians later firmly believed they had been deceived on Libya. They had been persuaded to abstain at the UN on the grounds
that the resolution provided for a humanitarian mission to prevent the slaughter of civilians. Yet as the list of bombing targets
steadily grew, it became obvious that very few targets were off-limits, and that NATO was intent on getting rid of Qaddafi. Convinced
they had been tricked, the Russians would subsequently block any such future resolutions, including against President Bashar al-Assad
in Syria.
The Libya episode was hardly the first time the Russians concluded that U.S. leaders had
cynically
misled them . Moscow asserts that when East Germany unraveled in 1990, both U.S. Secretary of State James Baker and West German
Foreign Minister Hans Dietrich Genscher offered verbal assurances that, if Russia accepted a unified Germany within NATO, the alliance
would not expand beyond Germany's eastern border. The official U.S. position that there was nothing in writing affirming such a limitation
is correct -- and the clarity, extent, and duration of any verbal commitment to refrain from enlargement are certainly
matters of
intensecontroversy . But invoking
a "you didn't get it in writing" dodge does not inspire another government's trust.
There seems to be no limit to Washington's desire to crowd Russia. NATO has even added the Baltic republics, which had been
part of the Soviet Union itself. In early 2008, President George W. Bush unsuccessfully
tried to admit Georgia and Ukraine, which
would have engineered yet another alliance move eastward. By that time, Vladimir Putin and other Russian leaders were beyond furious.
The timing of Bush's attempted ploy could scarcely have been worse. It came on the heels of Russia's resentment at another
example of U.S. duplicity. In 1999, Moscow had reluctantly accepted a UN mandate to cover NATO's military intervention against Serbia,
a long-standing Russian client. The alliance airstrikes and subsequent moves to detach and occupy Serbia's restless province of Kosovo
for the ostensible reason of protecting innocent civilians from atrocities was the same "humanitarian" justification that the West
would use subsequently in Libya.
Nine years after the initial Kosovo intervention, the United States adopted an evasive policy move, showing utter contempt
for Russia's wishes and interests in the process. Kosovo wanted to declare its formal independence from Serbia, but it was clear
that such a move would face a certain Russian (and probable Chinese) veto in the UN Security Council. Washington and an ad-hoc coalition
of European Union countries brazenly bypassed the Council and approved Pristina's independence declaration. It was an extremely controversial
move. Not even all EU members were on board with the policy, since some of them (e.g., Spain) had secessionist problems of their
own.
Russia's leaders protested vehemently and warned that the West's unauthorized action established a dangerous, destabilizing
international precedent. Washington rebuffed their complaints, arguing that the Kosovo situation was unique. Under Secretary of State
for Political Affairs R. Nicholas Burns made that point
explicitly in a February 2008 State Department
briefing. Both the illogic and the hubris of that position were breathtaking.
It is painful for any American to admit that the United States has acquired a well-deserved reputation for duplicity in its foreign
policy. But the evidence for that proposition is quite substantial. Indeed, disingenuous U.S. behavior regarding NATO expansion and
the resolution of Kosovo's political status may be the single most important factor for the poisoned bilateral relationship with
Moscow. The U.S. track record of duplicity and betrayal is one reason why prospects for resolving the North Korean nuclear issue
through diplomacy are so bleak.
Actions have consequences, and Washington's reputation for disingenuous behavior has complicated America's own foreign policy
objectives. This is a textbook example of a great power shooting itself in the foot.
Ted Galen Carpenter, a senior fellow in defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, is the author of 10 books,
the contributing editor of 10 books, and the author of more than 700 articles and policy studies on international affairs.
you are dead ON! I have been saying this since IRAQ
fiasco (not one Iraqi onboard on 9/11) we should have invaded egypt and saudi arabia. how the foolish american public(sheep) just
buys the american propaganda is beyond me.. don't blame the Russians one spittle!!
Excellent piece. The US really has destroyed its credibility over the years.
This points Ted Galen Carpenter makes in this piece go a long way toward explaining Russia's destabilizing behavior in recent
years.
One point in particular jumped out at me:
"Kosovo wanted to declare its formal independence from Serbia, but it was clear that such a move would face a certain Russian
(and probable Chinese) veto in the UN Security Council. Washington and an ad-hoc coalition of European Union countries brazenly
bypassed the Council and approved Pristina's independence declaration. It was an extremely controversial move. Not even all EU
members were on board with the policy, since some of them (e.g., Spain) had secessionist problems of their own. Russia's leaders
protested vehemently and warned that the West's unauthorized action established a dangerous, destabilizing international precedent.
Washington rebuffed their complaints, arguing that the Kosovo situation was unique."
This -- in the context of the long history of US and EU deceit and duplicity in their dealings with Russia is why Russia
is supporting Catalan separatism (e.g. RT en Espańol's constant attacks on Spain and promotion of the separatists). The US and
the EU effectively gave Russia permission to do this back in the 1990s. We set a precedent for their actions in Catalonia -- and,
more famously, in Ukraine.
You have made a reasonable case that the US and Europe have not always been reliable, but the expansion of NATO is not one
of them. No one forced any eastern European country to join NATO and the EU – decisions that indicate these countries feared a
Russian revival after the collapse of the USSR. Russia always believed that these countries were in their near abroad or backyard.
The idea of a "sphere of influence" is a cold war relic which Russia invoked with the Medvedev Doctrine in 2008. This is currently
on display in Ukraine. Russia is aggressively denying Ukraine their sovereignty. Who could possibly blame former Soviet Block
countries for hightailing it to NATO during a lull in Russian aggression?
One could scarcely ask for a better summary of why the Cold War seems, sadly, to be reheating as well as why Democratic attempts
to blame it on Russian meddling are a equally sad evasion of their share of bipartisan responsibility for creating this mess.
Reinhold Niebuhr's prayer for, "the courage to change the things I can," is painfully appropriate.
The whole weakness of the author's argument is a classic American one: very few Americans seem to be able to get their heads around
the fact that the Soviet Union ceased to exist 26 years ago! They are still totally locked into their cold war mentality. He thus
unquestioningly accepts Putin's pre-1789 "sphere of influence" theory in which there are "superior" and "inferior" races, with
only the superior races being entitled to have a sovereign state and the inferior races being forced to submit to being ruled
by foreigners. Mr Carpenter really needs to put his cold war mentality aside and come into the 21st century!
Most seriously
of all, Mr Carpenter offers no solution for improving relations between the US and Russia. Saying that past US actions were wrong,
even if true, says nothing about the present and offers nothing for the future. At best, Mr Carpenter's article is empty moralising.
And the unspoken, but perfectly obvious, subtext, namely that the US should "atone for its sins" by capitulating to Putin,
is morally reprehensible and politically unrealistic. Since, by Mr Carpenter's own account, the problem is caused by US wrongdoing,
isn't it for the US to put things right (for example, by getting Putin out of Ukraine) and not simply make a mess in someone else's
country and then run for home with its tail between its legs? Who gave Americans the right to give away other people's countries?
The one problem with your argument if, you are an american as I am, is that Russia is not acting in our names. If the US government,
supposedly a government of, by, and for the people breaks its word, then you and I are foresworn oathbreakers as well because
the government is (theoretically, at least) acting on OUR authority.
Really?! "Russia always believed that these countries were in their near abroad or backyard."
I think that if you look at a map or a globe, you will find that this is not a belief but a fact. How you could overlook this,
I don't know.
"The idea of a "sphere of influence" is a cold war relic "
If you are going to try and use history to influence opinion, it is best to check your facts. This is a very old concept.What
do you think the Great Game between Imperial Russia and the British Empire in Central Asia was about? For that matter, what we
call the Byzantine Commonwealth was a clearly attempt by the Romaoi to establish a political, cultural, and religious sphere of
influence to support the power of the Empire, much as the United States has been doing over the past several decades.
You could make the case that Iraq too in 2003 is another reason why the Russians and the North Koreans distrust the US.
At this point, it is fairly certain that the Bush Administration knew that Saddam was not building nuclear weapons of mass
destruction, which is what Bush strongly implied in his ramp up to the war.
One other takeaway that the North Koreans mag have from the 2003 Iraq invasion is that the US will lie any way to get what
it wants.
Not saying that Russia or North Korea are perfect. Far from it. But the US needs to take a hard look in the mirror.
Re: craigsummers, "No one forced any eastern European country to join NATO and the EU – decisions that indicate these countries
feared a Russian revival after the collapse of the USSR. Russia always believed that these countries were in their near abroad
or backyard."
Except both here and abroad, the Global Cop Elites in Washington shape the strategy space through propaganda, fear-mongering
and subversion. Moreover, the Eastern European countries are happy to join NATO when it's the American taxpayers who foot a large
percentage of the bill.
Standard U.S. MO: create the threat, inflate the threat, send in the War Machine at massive cost to sustain the threat.
Rather than being broadened, NATO should have been ratcheted back after the fall of the Soviet Union, and the U.S. military
presence in Europe massively reduced. Then normalized relations between Europe and Russia would have been designed and developed
by Europe and Russia. Not the 800 pound Gorilla Global Cop that is good at little more than breaking things. (And perversely,
after flushing TRILLIONS of tax dollars down the toilet, duping Americans to wildly applaud the "Warrior-Heroes" for a job well
done.)
The 2008 war between Georgia and Russia was, per observers at the time, in Russian word and thought directly linked to the Balkan
's precedent.
The subtext here – of nation states, sovereignty, separatism and secessionist movements – is even more relevant with respect
to US-China relationships. Since WW2 and that brief, transient monopoly on nuclear weapons, US foreign policy has eroded the Peace
of Westphalia while attempting to erect an "international order" of convenience on top if it.
Both China and Russia know that nothing will stop the expansionism of US "national interests". In response to the doctrinal
aspirations of the Soviets, the US has committed itself to an ideology that is just a greedy and relentless. In retrospect, it
is hard to tell how many decades ago the Cold War stopped being about opposition to Soviet ideology, and instead became about
"projecting" – in every sense of the word – an equally globalist US ideology.
We are the redcoats now. Now wonder the neocons and neolibs are shouting "Russia!" at every opportunity.
I am amazed how many masochistic conservatives are in USA conservative circles especially in the CATO institute. Mr. T. G. Carpenter,
as is clear from not only this and other articles, is a staunch defender of Yalta and proponent of Yalta 2 after the Cold War
ended. As far as I remember Libya was the hatchet job of the Europeans especially the French and British. B. Obama at first didn't
want to attack Libya but gave in after lobbying by the French, British and the neoliberal/neo-conservative lobby and supporters
of the Arab Spring in the USA. America lost credibility after and only since the conservatives neoliberals and neocons manipulated
USA and the West's foreign politics for thirty plus years. USA is still a democratic country so it is easy to blame everything
on the US. In today's Putin's Russia similar critics of the Russian politics wouldn't be so "easy".
The Central Europe doesn't want Russia's sphere of influence precisely because of centuries of Russian occupation and atrocities
in there especially after WW2, brutal and bloody invasion of Hungary, Czechoslovakia, the Cuban Crisis, Afghanistan, Chechnya
etc. Now you have infiltration by Russia of the American electoral process and political system and some conservatives still can't
connect the dots and see what is going on. I wonder why the western conservatives and US in particular are such great supporters
of Russia. If Russia should be allowed to keep her sphere of influence after the Cold War then what was the reason to fight the
Cold War in the first place. Wouldn't it be easier to surrender to Russia right after WW2.
One other observation about Russia that should be made but isn't is that the Russia-phobes can't point to an actual motive for
Russian military aggression. There is no "Putin Plan" for conquest and domination by Russia like in Das Kapital or Hitler's
Mein Kampf . What strategic value would Russia see from overrunning Poland and then having to perpetually suppress 35
million resistors? Or retaking the Baltic states that have only minority ethnic Russian populations?
Putin is a rationally calculating man. He has made his strategic objectives well known. They are economic. He sees Russia
as the great linchpin of the pan-Eurasian One Belt/One Road (OB/OR) initiative proposed by China as well as the AIIB. In that
construct, Europe and East Asia are Russia's customers and bilateral trading partners. Military conquest would wreck that vision
and Putin knows it.
In the gangster movies, a mob boss often says that he hates bloodshed because it's bad for business. That's Putin. He's
been remarkably restrained when egged on by Big Mouth Nikki Haley, Mad Dog Mattis or that other Pentagon nutcase Phillip Breedlove
(former Supreme Commander of NATO) who have gone out of their way to demonize Russia. Unfortunately, with those Pentagon hacks
whispering in Trump's ear, too much war-mongering is never enough.
U.S. foreign policy is an unmitigated disaster. The War Machine Hammer wrecks everything that it touches while sending
the befuddled taxpayers the bill.
"And, Mr. Carpenter, when you have time off from your job as Russian apologist, learn the meaning of "verbal." It's not a synonym
for "oral."
I imagine you thought you were being funny; and you were, just not in the way you foresaw. In fact, verbal is a synonym for
oral; to wit, "spoken rather than written; oral. "a verbal agreement". Synonyms: oral, spoken, stated, said, verbalized, expressed."
Of course anyone who attempts to portray the United States as duplicitous and sneaky (those are synonyms!)is immediately branded
a "Russian apologist". As if there are certain countries which automatically have no rights, and can be assumed to be lying every
time they speak. Except they're not, and the verbal agreement that NATO would not advance further east in exchange for Russian
cooperation has been acknowledged by western principals who were present.
As SteveM implies, NATO's reason for being evaporated with the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, and was dead as a dodo with
the breakup of the Soviet Union. Everything since has been a rationalization for keeping it going, including regular demonizations
of imaginary enemies until they become real enemies. You can't just 'join NATO' because it's the in-crowd, you know. No, there
are actually criteria, one of which is the premise that your acceptance materially enhances the security of the alliance. Pretty
comical imagining Montenegro in that context, isn't it?
When you meet individual Americans, they are frequently so nice and level-headed that you are perplexed trying to imagine
where their leaders come from. And while we're on that subject, America does not actually have a foreign policy, as such. Its
foreign policy is to bend every other living soul on the planet to the service of America.
At some point quantity of duplicity turns into quality. and affect international relations. Economic decline can speed this process
up. The US elite has way too easy life since 1991. And that destroyed the tiny patina of self-restraint that it has during Cold War
with negative (hugely negative) consequences first of all for the US population. Empire building is a costly project even if it supported
by the dominance of neoliberal ideology and technological advances in computers and telecommunication. . The idea of "full spectrum
dominance" was a disaster. But the realization of this came too late and at huge cost for the world and for the US population. Russia
decimated its own elite twice in the last century. In might be the time for the USA to follow the Russia example and do it once in XXI
century. If we thing about Hillary Clinton Jon McCain, Joe Biden, Niki Haley, as member of the US elite it is clear that "something
is rotten in the state of Denmark).
Notable quotes:
"... How Washington's chronic deceit -- especially towards Russia -- has sabotaged U.S. foreign policy. ..."
"... Unfortunately, North Korean leaders have abundant reasons to be wary of such U.S. enticements. Trump's transparent attempt to renege on Washington's commitment to the deal with Iran known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) -- which the United States and other major powers signed in 2015 to curb Tehran's nuclear program -- certainly does not increase Pyongyang's incentive to sign a similar agreement. His decision to decertify Iran's compliance with the JCPOA, even when the United Nations confirms that Tehran is adhering to its obligations, appears more than a little disingenuous. ..."
"... There seems to be no limit to Washington's desire to crowd Russia. NATO has even added the Baltic republics, which had been part of the Soviet Union itself. In early 2008, President George W. Bush unsuccessfully tried to admit Georgia and Ukraine, which would have engineered yet another alliance move eastward. By that time, Vladimir Putin and other Russian leaders were beyond furious. ..."
"... The timing of Bush's attempted ploy could scarcely have been worse. It came on the heels of Russia's resentment at another example of U.S. duplicity. In 1999, Moscow had reluctantly accepted a UN mandate to cover NATO's military intervention against Serbia, a long-standing Russian client. The alliance airstrikes and subsequent moves to detach and occupy Serbia's restless province of Kosovo for the ostensible reason of protecting innocent civilians from atrocities was the same "humanitarian" justification that the West would use subsequently in Libya. ..."
"... Nine years after the initial Kosovo intervention, the United States adopted an evasive policy move, showing utter contempt for Russia's wishes and interests in the process. Kosovo wanted to declare its formal independence from Serbia, but it was clear that such a move would face a certain Russian (and probable Chinese) veto in the UN Security Council. Washington and an ad-hoc coalition of European Union countries brazenly bypassed the Council and approved Pristina's independence declaration. It was an extremely controversial move. Not even all EU members were on board with the policy, since some of them (e.g., Spain) had secessionist problems of their own. ..."
"... Russia's leaders protested vehemently and warned that the West's unauthorized action established a dangerous, destabilizing international precedent. Washington rebuffed their complaints, arguing that the Kosovo situation was unique. Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs R. Nicholas Burns made that point explicitly in a February 2008 State Department briefing. Both the illogic and the hubris of that position were breathtaking. ..."
"... This -- in the context of the long history of US and EU deceit and duplicity in their dealings with Russia is why Russia is supporting Catalan separatism (e.g. RT en Espańol's constant attacks on Spain and promotion of the separatists). The US and the EU effectively gave Russia permission to do this back in the 1990s. We set a precedent for their actions in Catalonia -- and, more famously, in Ukraine. ..."
"... One could scarcely ask for a better summary of why the Cold War seems, sadly, to be reheating as well as why Democratic attempts to blame it on Russian meddling are a equally sad evasion of their share of bipartisan responsibility for creating this mess. Reinhold Niebuhr's prayer for, "the courage to change the things I can," is painfully appropriate. ..."
"... "No one forced any eastern European country to join NATO and the EU – decisions that indicate these countries feared a Russian revival after the collapse of the USSR. Russia always believed that these countries were in their near abroad or backyard." ..."
"... Putin is a rationally calculating man. He has made his strategic objectives well known. They are economic. He sees Russia as the great linchpin of the pan-Eurasian One Belt/One Road (OB/OR) initiative proposed by China as well as the AIIB. In that construct, Europe and East Asia are Russia's customers and bilateral trading partners. Military conquest would wreck that vision and Putin knows it. ..."
"... He's been remarkably restrained when egged on by Big Mouth Nikki Haley, Mad Dog Mattis or that other Pentagon nutcase Phillip Breedlove (former Supreme Commander of NATO) who have gone out of their way to demonize Russia. Unfortunately, with those Pentagon hacks whispering in Trump's ear, too much war-mongering is never enough. ..."
"... U.S. foreign policy is an unmitigated disaster. The War Machine Hammer wrecks everything that it touches while sending the befuddled taxpayers the bill. ..."
"... When you meet individual Americans, they are frequently so nice and level-headed that you are perplexed trying to imagine where their leaders come from. And while we're on that subject, America does not actually have a foreign policy, as such. Its foreign policy is to bend every other living soul on the planet to the service of America. ..."
How Washington's chronic deceit -- especially towards Russia -- has sabotaged U.S. foreign policy.
For any country, the foundation of successful diplomacy is a reputation for credibility and reliability. Governments are wary
of concluding agreements with a negotiating partner that violates existing commitments and has a record of duplicity. Recent U.S.
administrations have ignored that principle, and their actions have backfired majorly, damaging American foreign policy in the process.
The consequences of previous deceit are most evident in the ongoing effort to achieve a diplomatic solution to the North Korean
nuclear crisis. During his recent trip to East Asia, President Trump
urged
Kim Jong-un's regime to "come to the negotiating table" and "do the right thing" -- relinquish the country's nuclear weapons and
ballistic missile programs. Presumably, that concession would lead to a lifting (or at least an easing) of international economic
sanctions and a more normal relationship between Pyongyang and the international community.
Unfortunately, North Korean leaders have
abundant reasons to be wary of such U.S. enticements. Trump's transparent attempt to renege on Washington's commitment to the
deal with Iran known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) -- which the United States and other major powers signed in
2015 to curb Tehran's nuclear program -- certainly does not increase Pyongyang's incentive to sign a similar agreement. His decision
to decertify Iran's compliance with the JCPOA, even when the United Nations confirms that
Tehran is adhering to its obligations, appears more than a little disingenuous.
North Korea is likely focused on another incident that raises even greater doubts about U.S. credibility. Libyan dictator Muammar
Qaddafi capitulated on the nuclear issue in December of 2003, abandoning his country's nuclear program and reiterating a commitment
to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. In exchange, the United States and its allies lifted economic sanctions and welcomed Libya
back into the community of respectable nations. Barely seven years later, though, Washington and its NATO partners double-crossed
Qaddafi, launching airstrikes and cruise missile attacks to assist rebels in their campaign to overthrow the Libyan strongman. North
Korea and other powers took notice of Qaddafi's fate, making the already difficult task of getting a de-nuclearization agreement
with Pyongyang
nearly
impossible.
The Libya intervention sullied America's reputation in another way. Washington and its NATO allies prevailed on the UN Security
Council to pass a resolution endorsing a military intervention to protect innocent civilians. Russia and China refrained from vetoing
that resolution after Washington's assurances that military action would be limited in scope and solely for humanitarian purposes.
Once the assault began, it quickly became evident that the resolution was merely a fig leaf for another U.S.-led regime-change war.
Beijing, and especially Moscow, understandably felt duped. Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates
succinctly described Russia's reaction, both short-term and long-term:
The Russians later firmly believed they had been deceived on Libya. They had been persuaded to abstain at the UN on the grounds
that the resolution provided for a humanitarian mission to prevent the slaughter of civilians. Yet as the list of bombing targets
steadily grew, it became obvious that very few targets were off-limits, and that NATO was intent on getting rid of Qaddafi. Convinced
they had been tricked, the Russians would subsequently block any such future resolutions, including against President Bashar al-Assad
in Syria.
The Libya episode was hardly the first time the Russians concluded that U.S. leaders had
cynically
misled them . Moscow asserts that when East Germany unraveled in 1990, both U.S. Secretary of State James Baker and West German
Foreign Minister Hans Dietrich Genscher offered verbal assurances that, if Russia accepted a unified Germany within NATO, the alliance
would not expand beyond Germany's eastern border. The official U.S. position that there was nothing in writing affirming such a limitation
is correct -- and the clarity, extent, and duration of any verbal commitment to refrain from enlargement are certainly
matters of
intensecontroversy . But invoking
a "you didn't get it in writing" dodge does not inspire another government's trust.
There seems to be no limit to Washington's desire to crowd Russia. NATO has even added the Baltic republics, which had been
part of the Soviet Union itself. In early 2008, President George W. Bush unsuccessfully
tried to admit Georgia and Ukraine, which
would have engineered yet another alliance move eastward. By that time, Vladimir Putin and other Russian leaders were beyond furious.
The timing of Bush's attempted ploy could scarcely have been worse. It came on the heels of Russia's resentment at another
example of U.S. duplicity. In 1999, Moscow had reluctantly accepted a UN mandate to cover NATO's military intervention against Serbia,
a long-standing Russian client. The alliance airstrikes and subsequent moves to detach and occupy Serbia's restless province of Kosovo
for the ostensible reason of protecting innocent civilians from atrocities was the same "humanitarian" justification that the West
would use subsequently in Libya.
Nine years after the initial Kosovo intervention, the United States adopted an evasive policy move, showing utter contempt
for Russia's wishes and interests in the process. Kosovo wanted to declare its formal independence from Serbia, but it was clear
that such a move would face a certain Russian (and probable Chinese) veto in the UN Security Council. Washington and an ad-hoc coalition
of European Union countries brazenly bypassed the Council and approved Pristina's independence declaration. It was an extremely controversial
move. Not even all EU members were on board with the policy, since some of them (e.g., Spain) had secessionist problems of their
own.
Russia's leaders protested vehemently and warned that the West's unauthorized action established a dangerous, destabilizing
international precedent. Washington rebuffed their complaints, arguing that the Kosovo situation was unique. Under Secretary of State
for Political Affairs R. Nicholas Burns made that point
explicitly in a February 2008 State Department
briefing. Both the illogic and the hubris of that position were breathtaking.
It is painful for any American to admit that the United States has acquired a well-deserved reputation for duplicity in its foreign
policy. But the evidence for that proposition is quite substantial. Indeed, disingenuous U.S. behavior regarding NATO expansion and
the resolution of Kosovo's political status may be the single most important factor for the poisoned bilateral relationship with
Moscow. The U.S. track record of duplicity and betrayal is one reason why prospects for resolving the North Korean nuclear issue
through diplomacy are so bleak.
Actions have consequences, and Washington's reputation for disingenuous behavior has complicated America's own foreign policy
objectives. This is a textbook example of a great power shooting itself in the foot.
Ted Galen Carpenter, a senior fellow in defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, is the author of 10 books,
the contributing editor of 10 books, and the author of more than 700 articles and policy studies on international affairs.
you are dead ON! I have been saying this since IRAQ
fiasco (not one Iraqi onboard on 9/11) we should have invaded egypt and saudi arabia. how the foolish american public(sheep) just
buys the american propaganda is beyond me.. don't blame the Russians one spittle!!
Excellent piece. The US really has destroyed its credibility over the years.
This points Ted Galen Carpenter makes in this piece go a long way toward explaining Russia's destabilizing behavior in recent
years.
One point in particular jumped out at me:
"Kosovo wanted to declare its formal independence from Serbia, but it was clear that such a move would face a certain Russian
(and probable Chinese) veto in the UN Security Council. Washington and an ad-hoc coalition of European Union countries brazenly
bypassed the Council and approved Pristina's independence declaration. It was an extremely controversial move. Not even all EU
members were on board with the policy, since some of them (e.g., Spain) had secessionist problems of their own. Russia's leaders
protested vehemently and warned that the West's unauthorized action established a dangerous, destabilizing international precedent.
Washington rebuffed their complaints, arguing that the Kosovo situation was unique."
This -- in the context of the long history of US and EU deceit and duplicity in their dealings with Russia is why Russia
is supporting Catalan separatism (e.g. RT en Espańol's constant attacks on Spain and promotion of the separatists). The US and
the EU effectively gave Russia permission to do this back in the 1990s. We set a precedent for their actions in Catalonia -- and,
more famously, in Ukraine.
You have made a reasonable case that the US and Europe have not always been reliable, but the expansion of NATO is not one
of them. No one forced any eastern European country to join NATO and the EU – decisions that indicate these countries feared a
Russian revival after the collapse of the USSR. Russia always believed that these countries were in their near abroad or backyard.
The idea of a "sphere of influence" is a cold war relic which Russia invoked with the Medvedev Doctrine in 2008. This is currently
on display in Ukraine. Russia is aggressively denying Ukraine their sovereignty. Who could possibly blame former Soviet Block
countries for hightailing it to NATO during a lull in Russian aggression?
One could scarcely ask for a better summary of why the Cold War seems, sadly, to be reheating as well as why Democratic attempts
to blame it on Russian meddling are a equally sad evasion of their share of bipartisan responsibility for creating this mess.
Reinhold Niebuhr's prayer for, "the courage to change the things I can," is painfully appropriate.
The whole weakness of the author's argument is a classic American one: very few Americans seem to be able to get their heads around
the fact that the Soviet Union ceased to exist 26 years ago! They are still totally locked into their cold war mentality. He thus
unquestioningly accepts Putin's pre-1789 "sphere of influence" theory in which there are "superior" and "inferior" races, with
only the superior races being entitled to have a sovereign state and the inferior races being forced to submit to being ruled
by foreigners. Mr Carpenter really needs to put his cold war mentality aside and come into the 21st century!
Most seriously
of all, Mr Carpenter offers no solution for improving relations between the US and Russia. Saying that past US actions were wrong,
even if true, says nothing about the present and offers nothing for the future. At best, Mr Carpenter's article is empty moralising.
And the unspoken, but perfectly obvious, subtext, namely that the US should "atone for its sins" by capitulating to Putin,
is morally reprehensible and politically unrealistic. Since, by Mr Carpenter's own account, the problem is caused by US wrongdoing,
isn't it for the US to put things right (for example, by getting Putin out of Ukraine) and not simply make a mess in someone else's
country and then run for home with its tail between its legs? Who gave Americans the right to give away other people's countries?
The one problem with your argument if, you are an american as I am, is that Russia is not acting in our names. If the US government,
supposedly a government of, by, and for the people breaks its word, then you and I are foresworn oathbreakers as well because
the government is (theoretically, at least) acting on OUR authority.
Really?! "Russia always believed that these countries were in their near abroad or backyard."
I think that if you look at a map or a globe, you will find that this is not a belief but a fact. How you could overlook this,
I don't know.
"The idea of a "sphere of influence" is a cold war relic "
If you are going to try and use history to influence opinion, it is best to check your facts. This is a very old concept.What
do you think the Great Game between Imperial Russia and the British Empire in Central Asia was about? For that matter, what we
call the Byzantine Commonwealth was a clearly attempt by the Romaoi to establish a political, cultural, and religious sphere of
influence to support the power of the Empire, much as the United States has been doing over the past several decades.
You could make the case that Iraq too in 2003 is another reason why the Russians and the North Koreans distrust the US.
At this point, it is fairly certain that the Bush Administration knew that Saddam was not building nuclear weapons of mass
destruction, which is what Bush strongly implied in his ramp up to the war.
One other takeaway that the North Koreans mag have from the 2003 Iraq invasion is that the US will lie any way to get what
it wants.
Not saying that Russia or North Korea are perfect. Far from it. But the US needs to take a hard look in the mirror.
Re: craigsummers, "No one forced any eastern European country to join NATO and the EU – decisions that indicate these countries
feared a Russian revival after the collapse of the USSR. Russia always believed that these countries were in their near abroad
or backyard."
Except both here and abroad, the Global Cop Elites in Washington shape the strategy space through propaganda, fear-mongering
and subversion. Moreover, the Eastern European countries are happy to join NATO when it's the American taxpayers who foot a large
percentage of the bill.
Standard U.S. MO: create the threat, inflate the threat, send in the War Machine at massive cost to sustain the threat.
Rather than being broadened, NATO should have been ratcheted back after the fall of the Soviet Union, and the U.S. military
presence in Europe massively reduced. Then normalized relations between Europe and Russia would have been designed and developed
by Europe and Russia. Not the 800 pound Gorilla Global Cop that is good at little more than breaking things. (And perversely,
after flushing TRILLIONS of tax dollars down the toilet, duping Americans to wildly applaud the "Warrior-Heroes" for a job well
done.)
The 2008 war between Georgia and Russia was, per observers at the time, in Russian word and thought directly linked to the Balkan
's precedent.
The subtext here – of nation states, sovereignty, separatism and secessionist movements – is even more relevant with respect
to US-China relationships. Since WW2 and that brief, transient monopoly on nuclear weapons, US foreign policy has eroded the Peace
of Westphalia while attempting to erect an "international order" of convenience on top if it.
Both China and Russia know that nothing will stop the expansionism of US "national interests". In response to the doctrinal
aspirations of the Soviets, the US has committed itself to an ideology that is just a greedy and relentless. In retrospect, it
is hard to tell how many decades ago the Cold War stopped being about opposition to Soviet ideology, and instead became about
"projecting" – in every sense of the word – an equally globalist US ideology.
We are the redcoats now. Now wonder the neocons and neolibs are shouting "Russia!" at every opportunity.
I am amazed how many masochistic conservatives are in USA conservative circles especially in the CATO institute. Mr. T. G. Carpenter,
as is clear from not only this and other articles, is a staunch defender of Yalta and proponent of Yalta 2 after the Cold War
ended. As far as I remember Libya was the hatchet job of the Europeans especially the French and British. B. Obama at first didn't
want to attack Libya but gave in after lobbying by the French, British and the neoliberal/neo-conservative lobby and supporters
of the Arab Spring in the USA. America lost credibility after and only since the conservatives neoliberals and neocons manipulated
USA and the West's foreign politics for thirty plus years. USA is still a democratic country so it is easy to blame everything
on the US. In today's Putin's Russia similar critics of the Russian politics wouldn't be so "easy".
The Central Europe doesn't want Russia's sphere of influence precisely because of centuries of Russian occupation and atrocities
in there especially after WW2, brutal and bloody invasion of Hungary, Czechoslovakia, the Cuban Crisis, Afghanistan, Chechnya
etc. Now you have infiltration by Russia of the American electoral process and political system and some conservatives still can't
connect the dots and see what is going on. I wonder why the western conservatives and US in particular are such great supporters
of Russia. If Russia should be allowed to keep her sphere of influence after the Cold War then what was the reason to fight the
Cold War in the first place. Wouldn't it be easier to surrender to Russia right after WW2.
One other observation about Russia that should be made but isn't is that the Russia-phobes can't point to an actual motive for
Russian military aggression. There is no "Putin Plan" for conquest and domination by Russia like in Das Kapital or Hitler's
Mein Kampf . What strategic value would Russia see from overrunning Poland and then having to perpetually suppress 35
million resistors? Or retaking the Baltic states that have only minority ethnic Russian populations?
Putin is a rationally calculating man. He has made his strategic objectives well known. They are economic. He sees Russia
as the great linchpin of the pan-Eurasian One Belt/One Road (OB/OR) initiative proposed by China as well as the AIIB. In that
construct, Europe and East Asia are Russia's customers and bilateral trading partners. Military conquest would wreck that vision
and Putin knows it.
In the gangster movies, a mob boss often says that he hates bloodshed because it's bad for business. That's Putin. He's
been remarkably restrained when egged on by Big Mouth Nikki Haley, Mad Dog Mattis or that other Pentagon nutcase Phillip Breedlove
(former Supreme Commander of NATO) who have gone out of their way to demonize Russia. Unfortunately, with those Pentagon hacks
whispering in Trump's ear, too much war-mongering is never enough.
U.S. foreign policy is an unmitigated disaster. The War Machine Hammer wrecks everything that it touches while sending
the befuddled taxpayers the bill.
"And, Mr. Carpenter, when you have time off from your job as Russian apologist, learn the meaning of "verbal." It's not a synonym
for "oral."
I imagine you thought you were being funny; and you were, just not in the way you foresaw. In fact, verbal is a synonym for
oral; to wit, "spoken rather than written; oral. "a verbal agreement". Synonyms: oral, spoken, stated, said, verbalized, expressed."
Of course anyone who attempts to portray the United States as duplicitous and sneaky (those are synonyms!)is immediately branded
a "Russian apologist". As if there are certain countries which automatically have no rights, and can be assumed to be lying every
time they speak. Except they're not, and the verbal agreement that NATO would not advance further east in exchange for Russian
cooperation has been acknowledged by western principals who were present.
As SteveM implies, NATO's reason for being evaporated with the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, and was dead as a dodo with
the breakup of the Soviet Union. Everything since has been a rationalization for keeping it going, including regular demonizations
of imaginary enemies until they become real enemies. You can't just 'join NATO' because it's the in-crowd, you know. No, there
are actually criteria, one of which is the premise that your acceptance materially enhances the security of the alliance. Pretty
comical imagining Montenegro in that context, isn't it?
When you meet individual Americans, they are frequently so nice and level-headed that you are perplexed trying to imagine
where their leaders come from. And while we're on that subject, America does not actually have a foreign policy, as such. Its
foreign policy is to bend every other living soul on the planet to the service of America.
"... I am not in a position to gauge whether the confidence she expresses in the continued enthusiasm of the American military for Israel is well-founded. What makes me slightly skeptical is her description of 'the British' as 'our other best friend in the world'. This may still be largely true, if one looks solely at the élite level, but in pursuing 'neoconservative' and 'neoliberal' policies the leaderships of both major parties have drastically undermined their own legitimacy. To an extent the resulting backlash is already turning antisemitic, and may become much more so. ..."
"The biggest element of US-Israeli military-technical cooperation is military aid. Israel is
the main recipient of US military aid in the form of grants and direct deliveries of equipment
on advantageous terms. Since 1976, Israel has been the biggest recipient of annual US aid, and
since 1987 of US military aid. In addition, by some estimates Israel receives $1 billion a year
in the form of charity contributions, and a similar sum through short- and long-term funds. US
provide aid to Israel in various forms: Foreign Military Sales, Direct Commercial Sales, Excess
Defense Articles, and also funds to support research and development. Moreover, the Foreign
Military Financing program implemented by the US Department of State has become, over the
years, the largest of all such programs implemented by the US. One should note that, for
example, out of $5.7 billion budgeted for this program in 2014, $3.1 went to Israel, In other
words, Israel obtains more military assistance through this program than the rest of the world
combined. This sum does not include the financing for Israel's ABM programs, which are
estimated at another $500 million. Unlike other programs, FMF allows Israel to spend up to 25%
of US-provided funding on own military programs. All other countries receiving military aid
must spend it only on US weapons and equipment." SF
-----------
IMO it is debatable as to which side is the donkey in the US/Israeli military relationship.
In my experience as the head DoD liaison to IDF general staff intelligence (7 years worth),
"what's theirs is theirs, and what's yours is theirs as well." I was an SES then with the
spigot to intelligence largesse in my hand and I found them to be completely bloody minded
about sharing information with the US. To get anything from them was like pulling molars
without anesthetic.
I don't doubt that US government gifts to Israel benefit American defense industry, but
these gifts come right out of the pocket of the American taxpayer and what do we get for it? Is
it salved conscience for FDR's unwillingness to open the floodgates to European Jewry during
WW2? Perhaps that is so or is it the brute force arm twisting and virtual bribery that AIPAC
works upon Congress?
Israeli forces are in no way at the disposition of the US. They are not assets of American
policy. Israel sees itself as an self-defining island in the world and the only real home for
Jews. As such it thinks it cannot afford to be sentimental about any predominately gentile
state, in other words, all others.
And then, there is the repeated phenomenon of Israel either skirting the provisions of
proprietary agreements about equipment sales or shared R&D or simply outright violations of
these agreements in sales to third parties.
No, there is no doubt, we are the ass. Hee Haw! pl
Go to Breitbart or other Zionist supporting websites and ask the same question. Only frame it
differently i.e. 'When will Israel start fighting it's own wars?'
Once Israel has sucked America dry . . got them in a strangle hold in National debt, bought
out all Corporations that are profitable and useful for their cause . . and all the time
Americans believe Israel is doing them a favour in the Middle East.
Remember that's what the Russians believed, the British, the German, the French, the Arabs
& the Turks believed. Now its China's turn . . now their done with the U.S. . . how long
or how deep in debt must you go before you wake up America and how many Goyim children must
die for these Talmudists. Work it out . .
thanks pat.. good quick overview from you who have worked on the inside enough to get a
better glimpse of the dynamic. when will this insane relationship stop?
FDR's unwillingness? According to Alfred M. Lilienthal ("The Zionist Connection. What Price
Peace?", pp. 35 f.), it was the Jewish lobby that prevented a legislation enabling the
immigration of the doomed.
The Zionist Connection is a wonderful eye opening book that completely turned my thinking
around when I first read it 39 years ago. Highly recommended.
Zionist shenanigans with the foreign policy of the most powerful country in the world
represent yet another stark warning against the dangers of diversity and multiculturalism.
Predatory rent seeking minorities, protected by the liberal mind virus, leveraging the power
structure for their own gain.
And its not limited to just Jews. Even whites who originated further away from the largely
northern European founding stock of the US play their little games. Few know concentrations
of Poles in key swing states like Ohio have extracted significant concessions from various
presidential campaigns on the matter of Eastern European foreign policy. This was why when
unapologetic WASPs ruled the United States, they were highly selective of who could come in,
and ruthlessly stamped out any value systems and cultural traits distinct from new world
Anglo norms. America was never a 'melting pot' as a London based Jew tried to claim in the
early 20th century in his hack play. It was an Anglo run forge which inducted selected
adjacent groups who could be assimilated into to the whig Anglo tradition.
"Zionist shenanigans with the foreign policy of the most powerful country in the world
represent yet another stark warning against the dangers of diversity and multiculturalism."
I
believe diversity and multicultuarlism may be a superior counterbalance to your 'rent seeking
minorities', Perhaps this nation needs some new blood to help 'drain the swamp'.
Not to mention the blatant theft of US nuclear materials in support of their nuclear weapons
program.
Not to mention they are always on the FBI's list of the countries most engaged in
espionage against the US. The FBI was up in arms over the fact that Israeli firms were operating the US
communications eavesdropping equipment until they got caught selling intercept information to
California drug dealers.
Israel has learned that the best way to spy on other countries is to be the country
selling those countries all the surveillance equipment.
Not to mention Israel's hacking ability. The latest Russiagate nonsense involved the
Kaspersky Labs, an infosec company, being hacked by Israel who then claimed Kaspersky was
connected to Russian intelligence. This resulted in the US banning Kaspersky products inside
the US government and severely hurt Kaspersky's business model.
Not to mention their agents knew all about 9/11 prior to the attack and waited until a
couple weeks before to mention it to US intelligence, as a means of CYA. Their agents
actually filmed the attack from New Jersey while high-fiving themselves.
Not to mention they were involved in "false flag" terrorist attacks against Western
targets until they got caught at it.
Not to mention the USS Liberty, a flagrant attack on a US intelligence ship with the
expressed purpose of killing every US sailor on board.
The list of Israeli aggression against the US is long and sickening. It should be
considered treason to support that country in any way.
So is our U.S. becoming a more police state atmosphere like Israel? The same Israel where
censorship and the state message rule the day, seems is being passed onto our U.S.. U.S.
taxpayer funded startup GOOGLE is now on-board to become America's censor. Was British Author
George Orwell looking into a crystal ball when he created the writing "1984"? Hmmm..
Why not let the American people do their own censoring, where if they don't like the
internet message (RT,Sputnik, Russian news), they can change the subject or move on to
something they are more interested in.
I'd say the parasitical more than the symbiosis is the meme.
America's police being trained in Israeli tactics of force upon the unarmed, the Israeli
tactics to dehumanize is now percolating within U.S. law enforcement tactics and employment
methods, is also spreading to thought and message control.
I believe Google has been doing this for quite some time. The information is there but you
must make an effort to find it, and assess its factualness. The only thing Schmidt is doing
is prioritizing Western propaganda over Russian propaganda.
This was one of the scariest things I noticed traveling in Israel/Palestine around 2006-2008.
Just about every draconian security measure was used as part of daily life. They've since
become common place in the US now all as a result of the same need to "fight terrorism."
That US police forces send delegations to Israel to learn about policing tactics are also
worrisome.
Tail truly wags the dog here. Maybe not overall but certainly as far as foreign
policy/middle east/constant need for an enemy are concerned.
Focuses on the end times, Israel and now the Saudis, not necessarily in any order of
importance. And damn India - they've cancelled a $500 million missile deal with Israel .
Smart policy move from India? Leave Israel wanting to get back into India's good graces with
some extra technology transfers. My impression is that India plays Israel well on arms tech.
Get as much as they can with as little in return as possible. Don't the US sometimes put
their foot down and blocks an arms deal.
"India has become one of Israel's largest buyers of military hardware, with annual defense
deals worth over $1b.
"Usually, all the [defense] deals between Israel and India included some technology
transfer, which India could not get anywhere else in Europe or America," said Shapir. "As
long as we can supply better technology on better terms, India will welcome it." He added
that relations could deteriorate again, due to India's strong ties to Iran and much of the
Arab world."
A long time ago I worked at Collins in Cedar Rapids in the GPS group. My boss at the time was
head of R&D. He told me that when the Israelis came to town they were almost impossible
to work with since they were constantly trying to steal intellectual property and classified
material. Other foreign nationals would occasionally try something but they never tried to
get away anything near what the Israelis did. As I'm sure that many of your readers would be
aware of GPS is crucial to communication security.
Never forget that a Palestinian and an Israeli put their pants on the same way that you do.
That's the way I try to look at the inhabitants of this world. In my heart I'm hoping that
most Israelis would agree
They will suck the last drop of blood from USA, then they will move out to better heavens....
They have already started moving lots and lots of funds and assets out of the USA...., for in
their schemes, the US is nearing a breaking point to the worst...
The two major problems your country faces as an independent country are Saudi money, and Gods
chosen people (according to the bible).
Saudi money is corruption legalised.
Israel - many people of influence in the US seem to give their loyalty to Israel rather than
the US, for I guess religious reasons.
Be interesting to see how much Saudi "sponsorship" money flows into the US after the MBS
corruption enquiries. Israel is a harder nut to crack. A bit of chemo in the US required?
When I claimed that Nato was little more than the Rothschild Army I was lambasted here. If
the US military, which has control of Nato, is the ass of the Donkey, then what does that
make Nato? Somehow every Nato secretary ends up being a Zionist/Neocon too, so the control is
clearly complete.
In 1917, the Balfour declaration was addressed to Lord Rothschild, who simultaneously was
instigating the Russian Revolution and the murder of his sworn enemy, the czar.
The point here is that Israel, more than anything else, is a creation of the House of
Rothschild and during the decades of its creation there were numerous Jews who were rabidly
opposed to the false claims of biblical justification. This is one reason why there are
dozens of fake claims in the Zionist dominated newspapers of "6,000,000 dead Jews" starting
in the pogroms of the late 1890's until they finally found a holocaust that they could make
stick to use to justify land theft and extortion.
And extortion is the point here. Not only the US is being extorted for a few billion every
year, other countries are forced to make massive extortion payoff's too. Switzerland and
Sweden were forced to pay billions due to their having traded with Germany during the war and
having accepted "nazi gold". Merkel famously gifted diesel-electric submarines to Israel, on
top of the tribute that Germany still pays yearly.
There are dozens of ways that Israel, and jews in general, extort money from gentiles in
forms of special jew taxes. One of these is the OU kosher certification which many
manufacturers are forced to provide.
The Lavi fighter saga epitomizes the perverse nature of US-Israeli relations. The US offered
over a billion dollars for its R&D, 250 million to be spent in Israel. The primary
beneficiary was IAI a company which illegally tried to sell its Kfir jet to Peru in direct
competition with Northrup, illegal because the Kfir's GE J-79 engines came free of charge and
with an End User Certificate preventing their re-export. Informed of this Congress responded
by increasing the Israeli largess to 450 million.
In the end Israel decided not to build the
plane but sold the plans to the Chinese whose J-10 aircraft, their first home-grown state of
the art fighter, while not a part for part copy does bear a striking resemblance to the Lavi.
Both the British and American aviation press claim the J-10 could not have been built as
quickly and cheaply as it was without Israeli help. With friends like these .....
>is it the brute force arm twisting and virtual bribery that AIPAC works upon Congress?
Mostly it is about the bribery. To some degree it is about the blackmail. If Hillary gets
convicted for uranium - or pizza trafficking - perhaps the extent of corruption will become
widely known, and perhaps the populace will be moved to wrath.
The notes from the recent speech given by Shoshana Bryen at the American Zionist
Conference which were published under the title 'The U.S. Military as a Zionist Organisation'
are I think very interesting – thanks to 'b' for the link.
I am not in a position to gauge whether the confidence she expresses in the continued
enthusiasm of the American military for Israel is well-founded. What makes me slightly
skeptical is her description of 'the British' as 'our other best friend in the world'. This
may still be largely true, if one looks solely at the élite level, but in pursuing
'neoconservative' and 'neoliberal' policies the leaderships of both major parties have
drastically undermined their own legitimacy. To an extent the resulting backlash is already
turning antisemitic, and may become much more so.
It was also interesting that Ms Bryen relied extensively on the views of our former Chief
Rabbi, Lord Jonathan Sacks, given that he has little understanding of the attitudes of people
in this country outside the narrow circles in which it appears he moves.
In September 2016, he gave a speech to the European Parliament entitled 'The Mutating
Virus: Understanding Antisemitism', in which it was claimed that: 'Antisemitism is not about
Jews. It is about anti-Semites. It is about people who cannot accept responsibility for their
own failures and have instead to blame someone else.'
Seems to me the Jewish predicament is that they number 15 million in a world with 1.3 and 1.4
billion Indians and Chinese respectively. Am guessing this is experienced as a threat to
their post-ww2 intellectual, cultural, and economic supremacy.
All living organisms at all levels of organization have survival strategies for overcoming
disadvantage. See Darwin and/or Adler and/or Clausewitz and/or Kautilya for different but
similar -- variations on a theme -- descriptions of how that goes.
as usual, your analysis is provocative and I mostly agree, but you say
"to dismiss the convictions of people who think that Jews have too much influence as
scapegoating is, again, simply silly. The wrong Jews do."
In my view, Jews do have too much influence over the government of the USA, but it is NOT
just a matter of "the wrong jews" as you state.
Consider the Supreme Court, where 3 of 9 justices are jews, also noteworthy that 5 are
catholic. Gorsuch is the 9th, and he was raised catholic but became an episcopalian. Until
Gorsuch was appointed, there were no protestants on the Court, none, zero.
And of course there are no atheists, or muslims or buddhists or hindus.
I do not fault the jewish members of the Court, rather I ask for analysis of how this small
minority of perhaps 2% came to occupy one third of the seats of the Court.
And catholics with 22% of the population, hold 5 of 9 seats on the Court.
Perhaps the answer is there are no intelligent articulate protestants in the USA?? I don't
think that is the answer.
"... I am not in a position to gauge whether the confidence she expresses in the continued enthusiasm of the American military for Israel is well-founded. What makes me slightly skeptical is her description of 'the British' as 'our other best friend in the world'. This may still be largely true, if one looks solely at the élite level, but in pursuing 'neoconservative' and 'neoliberal' policies the leaderships of both major parties have drastically undermined their own legitimacy. To an extent the resulting backlash is already turning antisemitic, and may become much more so. ..."
"The biggest element of US-Israeli military-technical cooperation is military aid. Israel is
the main recipient of US military aid in the form of grants and direct deliveries of equipment
on advantageous terms. Since 1976, Israel has been the biggest recipient of annual US aid, and
since 1987 of US military aid. In addition, by some estimates Israel receives $1 billion a year
in the form of charity contributions, and a similar sum through short- and long-term funds. US
provide aid to Israel in various forms: Foreign Military Sales, Direct Commercial Sales, Excess
Defense Articles, and also funds to support research and development. Moreover, the Foreign
Military Financing program implemented by the US Department of State has become, over the
years, the largest of all such programs implemented by the US. One should note that, for
example, out of $5.7 billion budgeted for this program in 2014, $3.1 went to Israel, In other
words, Israel obtains more military assistance through this program than the rest of the world
combined. This sum does not include the financing for Israel's ABM programs, which are
estimated at another $500 million. Unlike other programs, FMF allows Israel to spend up to 25%
of US-provided funding on own military programs. All other countries receiving military aid
must spend it only on US weapons and equipment." SF
-----------
IMO it is debatable as to which side is the donkey in the US/Israeli military relationship.
In my experience as the head DoD liaison to IDF general staff intelligence (7 years worth),
"what's theirs is theirs, and what's yours is theirs as well." I was an SES then with the
spigot to intelligence largesse in my hand and I found them to be completely bloody minded
about sharing information with the US. To get anything from them was like pulling molars
without anesthetic.
I don't doubt that US government gifts to Israel benefit American defense industry, but
these gifts come right out of the pocket of the American taxpayer and what do we get for it? Is
it salved conscience for FDR's unwillingness to open the floodgates to European Jewry during
WW2? Perhaps that is so or is it the brute force arm twisting and virtual bribery that AIPAC
works upon Congress?
Israeli forces are in no way at the disposition of the US. They are not assets of American
policy. Israel sees itself as an self-defining island in the world and the only real home for
Jews. As such it thinks it cannot afford to be sentimental about any predominately gentile
state, in other words, all others.
And then, there is the repeated phenomenon of Israel either skirting the provisions of
proprietary agreements about equipment sales or shared R&D or simply outright violations of
these agreements in sales to third parties.
No, there is no doubt, we are the ass. Hee Haw! pl
Go to Breitbart or other Zionist supporting websites and ask the same question. Only frame it
differently i.e. 'When will Israel start fighting it's own wars?'
Once Israel has sucked America dry . . got them in a strangle hold in National debt, bought
out all Corporations that are profitable and useful for their cause . . and all the time
Americans believe Israel is doing them a favour in the Middle East.
Remember that's what the Russians believed, the British, the German, the French, the Arabs
& the Turks believed. Now its China's turn . . now their done with the U.S. . . how long
or how deep in debt must you go before you wake up America and how many Goyim children must
die for these Talmudists. Work it out . .
thanks pat.. good quick overview from you who have worked on the inside enough to get a
better glimpse of the dynamic. when will this insane relationship stop?
FDR's unwillingness? According to Alfred M. Lilienthal ("The Zionist Connection. What Price
Peace?", pp. 35 f.), it was the Jewish lobby that prevented a legislation enabling the
immigration of the doomed.
The Zionist Connection is a wonderful eye opening book that completely turned my thinking
around when I first read it 39 years ago. Highly recommended.
Zionist shenanigans with the foreign policy of the most powerful country in the world
represent yet another stark warning against the dangers of diversity and multiculturalism.
Predatory rent seeking minorities, protected by the liberal mind virus, leveraging the power
structure for their own gain.
And its not limited to just Jews. Even whites who originated further away from the largely
northern European founding stock of the US play their little games. Few know concentrations
of Poles in key swing states like Ohio have extracted significant concessions from various
presidential campaigns on the matter of Eastern European foreign policy. This was why when
unapologetic WASPs ruled the United States, they were highly selective of who could come in,
and ruthlessly stamped out any value systems and cultural traits distinct from new world
Anglo norms. America was never a 'melting pot' as a London based Jew tried to claim in the
early 20th century in his hack play. It was an Anglo run forge which inducted selected
adjacent groups who could be assimilated into to the whig Anglo tradition.
"Zionist shenanigans with the foreign policy of the most powerful country in the world
represent yet another stark warning against the dangers of diversity and multiculturalism."
I
believe diversity and multicultuarlism may be a superior counterbalance to your 'rent seeking
minorities', Perhaps this nation needs some new blood to help 'drain the swamp'.
Not to mention the blatant theft of US nuclear materials in support of their nuclear weapons
program.
Not to mention they are always on the FBI's list of the countries most engaged in
espionage against the US. The FBI was up in arms over the fact that Israeli firms were operating the US
communications eavesdropping equipment until they got caught selling intercept information to
California drug dealers.
Israel has learned that the best way to spy on other countries is to be the country
selling those countries all the surveillance equipment.
Not to mention Israel's hacking ability. The latest Russiagate nonsense involved the
Kaspersky Labs, an infosec company, being hacked by Israel who then claimed Kaspersky was
connected to Russian intelligence. This resulted in the US banning Kaspersky products inside
the US government and severely hurt Kaspersky's business model.
Not to mention their agents knew all about 9/11 prior to the attack and waited until a
couple weeks before to mention it to US intelligence, as a means of CYA. Their agents
actually filmed the attack from New Jersey while high-fiving themselves.
Not to mention they were involved in "false flag" terrorist attacks against Western
targets until they got caught at it.
Not to mention the USS Liberty, a flagrant attack on a US intelligence ship with the
expressed purpose of killing every US sailor on board.
The list of Israeli aggression against the US is long and sickening. It should be
considered treason to support that country in any way.
So is our U.S. becoming a more police state atmosphere like Israel? The same Israel where
censorship and the state message rule the day, seems is being passed onto our U.S.. U.S.
taxpayer funded startup GOOGLE is now on-board to become America's censor. Was British Author
George Orwell looking into a crystal ball when he created the writing "1984"? Hmmm..
Why not let the American people do their own censoring, where if they don't like the
internet message (RT,Sputnik, Russian news), they can change the subject or move on to
something they are more interested in.
I'd say the parasitical more than the symbiosis is the meme.
America's police being trained in Israeli tactics of force upon the unarmed, the Israeli
tactics to dehumanize is now percolating within U.S. law enforcement tactics and employment
methods, is also spreading to thought and message control.
I believe Google has been doing this for quite some time. The information is there but you
must make an effort to find it, and assess its factualness. The only thing Schmidt is doing
is prioritizing Western propaganda over Russian propaganda.
This was one of the scariest things I noticed traveling in Israel/Palestine around 2006-2008.
Just about every draconian security measure was used as part of daily life. They've since
become common place in the US now all as a result of the same need to "fight terrorism."
That US police forces send delegations to Israel to learn about policing tactics are also
worrisome.
Tail truly wags the dog here. Maybe not overall but certainly as far as foreign
policy/middle east/constant need for an enemy are concerned.
Focuses on the end times, Israel and now the Saudis, not necessarily in any order of
importance. And damn India - they've cancelled a $500 million missile deal with Israel .
Smart policy move from India? Leave Israel wanting to get back into India's good graces with
some extra technology transfers. My impression is that India plays Israel well on arms tech.
Get as much as they can with as little in return as possible. Don't the US sometimes put
their foot down and blocks an arms deal.
"India has become one of Israel's largest buyers of military hardware, with annual defense
deals worth over $1b.
"Usually, all the [defense] deals between Israel and India included some technology
transfer, which India could not get anywhere else in Europe or America," said Shapir. "As
long as we can supply better technology on better terms, India will welcome it." He added
that relations could deteriorate again, due to India's strong ties to Iran and much of the
Arab world."
A long time ago I worked at Collins in Cedar Rapids in the GPS group. My boss at the time was
head of R&D. He told me that when the Israelis came to town they were almost impossible
to work with since they were constantly trying to steal intellectual property and classified
material. Other foreign nationals would occasionally try something but they never tried to
get away anything near what the Israelis did. As I'm sure that many of your readers would be
aware of GPS is crucial to communication security.
Never forget that a Palestinian and an Israeli put their pants on the same way that you do.
That's the way I try to look at the inhabitants of this world. In my heart I'm hoping that
most Israelis would agree
They will suck the last drop of blood from USA, then they will move out to better heavens....
They have already started moving lots and lots of funds and assets out of the USA...., for in
their schemes, the US is nearing a breaking point to the worst...
The two major problems your country faces as an independent country are Saudi money, and Gods
chosen people (according to the bible).
Saudi money is corruption legalised.
Israel - many people of influence in the US seem to give their loyalty to Israel rather than
the US, for I guess religious reasons.
Be interesting to see how much Saudi "sponsorship" money flows into the US after the MBS
corruption enquiries. Israel is a harder nut to crack. A bit of chemo in the US required?
When I claimed that Nato was little more than the Rothschild Army I was lambasted here. If
the US military, which has control of Nato, is the ass of the Donkey, then what does that
make Nato? Somehow every Nato secretary ends up being a Zionist/Neocon too, so the control is
clearly complete.
In 1917, the Balfour declaration was addressed to Lord Rothschild, who simultaneously was
instigating the Russian Revolution and the murder of his sworn enemy, the czar.
The point here is that Israel, more than anything else, is a creation of the House of
Rothschild and during the decades of its creation there were numerous Jews who were rabidly
opposed to the false claims of biblical justification. This is one reason why there are
dozens of fake claims in the Zionist dominated newspapers of "6,000,000 dead Jews" starting
in the pogroms of the late 1890's until they finally found a holocaust that they could make
stick to use to justify land theft and extortion.
And extortion is the point here. Not only the US is being extorted for a few billion every
year, other countries are forced to make massive extortion payoff's too. Switzerland and
Sweden were forced to pay billions due to their having traded with Germany during the war and
having accepted "nazi gold". Merkel famously gifted diesel-electric submarines to Israel, on
top of the tribute that Germany still pays yearly.
There are dozens of ways that Israel, and jews in general, extort money from gentiles in
forms of special jew taxes. One of these is the OU kosher certification which many
manufacturers are forced to provide.
The Lavi fighter saga epitomizes the perverse nature of US-Israeli relations. The US offered
over a billion dollars for its R&D, 250 million to be spent in Israel. The primary
beneficiary was IAI a company which illegally tried to sell its Kfir jet to Peru in direct
competition with Northrup, illegal because the Kfir's GE J-79 engines came free of charge and
with an End User Certificate preventing their re-export. Informed of this Congress responded
by increasing the Israeli largess to 450 million.
In the end Israel decided not to build the
plane but sold the plans to the Chinese whose J-10 aircraft, their first home-grown state of
the art fighter, while not a part for part copy does bear a striking resemblance to the Lavi.
Both the British and American aviation press claim the J-10 could not have been built as
quickly and cheaply as it was without Israeli help. With friends like these .....
>is it the brute force arm twisting and virtual bribery that AIPAC works upon Congress?
Mostly it is about the bribery. To some degree it is about the blackmail. If Hillary gets
convicted for uranium - or pizza trafficking - perhaps the extent of corruption will become
widely known, and perhaps the populace will be moved to wrath.
The notes from the recent speech given by Shoshana Bryen at the American Zionist
Conference which were published under the title 'The U.S. Military as a Zionist Organisation'
are I think very interesting – thanks to 'b' for the link.
I am not in a position to gauge whether the confidence she expresses in the continued
enthusiasm of the American military for Israel is well-founded. What makes me slightly
skeptical is her description of 'the British' as 'our other best friend in the world'. This
may still be largely true, if one looks solely at the élite level, but in pursuing
'neoconservative' and 'neoliberal' policies the leaderships of both major parties have
drastically undermined their own legitimacy. To an extent the resulting backlash is already
turning antisemitic, and may become much more so.
It was also interesting that Ms Bryen relied extensively on the views of our former Chief
Rabbi, Lord Jonathan Sacks, given that he has little understanding of the attitudes of people
in this country outside the narrow circles in which it appears he moves.
In September 2016, he gave a speech to the European Parliament entitled 'The Mutating
Virus: Understanding Antisemitism', in which it was claimed that: 'Antisemitism is not about
Jews. It is about anti-Semites. It is about people who cannot accept responsibility for their
own failures and have instead to blame someone else.'
Seems to me the Jewish predicament is that they number 15 million in a world with 1.3 and 1.4
billion Indians and Chinese respectively. Am guessing this is experienced as a threat to
their post-ww2 intellectual, cultural, and economic supremacy.
All living organisms at all levels of organization have survival strategies for overcoming
disadvantage. See Darwin and/or Adler and/or Clausewitz and/or Kautilya for different but
similar -- variations on a theme -- descriptions of how that goes.
as usual, your analysis is provocative and I mostly agree, but you say
"to dismiss the convictions of people who think that Jews have too much influence as
scapegoating is, again, simply silly. The wrong Jews do."
In my view, Jews do have too much influence over the government of the USA, but it is NOT
just a matter of "the wrong jews" as you state.
Consider the Supreme Court, where 3 of 9 justices are jews, also noteworthy that 5 are
catholic. Gorsuch is the 9th, and he was raised catholic but became an episcopalian. Until
Gorsuch was appointed, there were no protestants on the Court, none, zero.
And of course there are no atheists, or muslims or buddhists or hindus.
I do not fault the jewish members of the Court, rather I ask for analysis of how this small
minority of perhaps 2% came to occupy one third of the seats of the Court.
And catholics with 22% of the population, hold 5 of 9 seats on the Court.
Perhaps the answer is there are no intelligent articulate protestants in the USA?? I don't
think that is the answer.
Yesterday, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson swore into office a new Assistant
Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs. Dr. A. Wess Mitchell became the Trump
Administration's top
diplomat for Europe , "responsible for diplomatic relations with 50 countries in Europe and
Eurasia, and with NATO, the EU and the OSCE."
Readers will recall that the position was most recently held during the Obama Administration
by Kagan family neocon, Victoria Nuland, who was key catalyst and cookie provider for the
US-backed coup overthrowing the elected government in Ukraine. Victoria Nuland's virulently
anti-Russia position was a trademark of the neocon persuasion and she put ideology into action
by " midwifing ,"
in her own words, an illegal change of government in Ukraine.
It was Nuland's coup that laid the groundwork for a precipitous decay in US/Russia
relations, as Washington's neocons peddled the false line that "Russia invaded Ukraine" to
cover up for the fact that it was the US government that had meddled in Ukrainian affairs. The
coup was bloody and divisive ,
resulting in a de-facto split in the country that continues to the day. Ukraine did not
flourish as a result of this neocon scheme, but has in fact been in
economic free-fall since the US government installed its preferred politicians into
positions of power.
You don't hear much about Ukraine these days because the neocons hate to talk about their
failures. But the
corruption of the US-installed government has crippled the country, extreme nationalist
elements that make up the core of the post-coup elites have imposed a new education law so
vicious toward an age-old Hungarian population stuck inside arbitrarily re-drawn post-WWI
borders that the Hungarian government has blocked
Ukraine's further integration into NATO, and a new "Maidan" protest has steadily
gathered steam in Kiev despite Western cameras being uninterested this time.
Fortunately Donald Trump campaigned on and was elected to improve relations with Russia and
end the Obama Administration's neocon-fueled launch of a new Cold War. He raised eyebrows when
he directly challenged
the neocon shibboleth -- amplified by the mainstream media -- that Russia was invading
Ukraine. But candidate Trump really blew neocon minds -- and delighted voters -- when he
said he was looking
into ending US sanctions on Russia imposed by Obama and may recognize Crimea as Russian
territory.
Which brings us back to Wess Mitchell. Certainly President Trump, seeing the destruction of
Assistant Secretary of State for Europe and Eurasia Victoria Nuland's anti-Russia
interventionism, would he finally restore a sane diplomat to the position vacated by the
unmourned former Assistant Secretary. Would appoint someone in line with the rhetoric that
landed him the Oval Office. Right?
Wrong!
If anything, Wess Mitchell may well prove to be Victoria Nuland on steroids. He was
co-founder and CEO of the neocon-dominated Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA). Mitchell's CEPA is
funded largely by the US
government, NATO, neocon grant-making mega-foundations, and the military-industrial complex.
The "think tank" does the bidding of its funders, finding a Russian threat under every rock
that requires a NATO and defense industry response -- or we're doomed!
Last month, CEPA put on its big conference, the " CEPA Forum 2017 ." Speakers included central European heavy
hitter politicos like the president of Latvia and also Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges, Commanding General
of U.S. Army Europe, who gave a talk on how "the unity of the NATO Alliance" is "what Russia
fears the most." The grand event was funded, as might be expected, by war contractors Raytheon
and Lockheed-Martin. But also, surprisingly, significant funding came from the Hungarian
government of Viktor Orban, who is seen as somewhat of a maverick in central Europe for
refusing to sign on to the intense Russia-hate seen in the Baltics and in Poland.
The no-doubt extraordinarily expensive conference was funded by no less than three Hungarian
government entities: the Embassy of Hungary in Washington, DC, the Hungarian Institute for Foreign Affairs and Trade ,
and the Hungarian Presidency of the Visegrad
Group . Again, given Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban's reputation for bucking neocon
positions vis-a-vis Russia it is surprised to see the virulently anti-Russia CEPA conference so
awash in Hungarian taxpayer money. Perhaps there is something to explore in the fact that the
recently-fired Hungarian Ambassador to Washington,Réka Szemerkényi, was
recently named
executive vice president of CEPA. Hmmm. Makes you wonder.
But back to Mitchell. So he founded a neocon think tank funded by a NATO desperate for new
missions and a military-industrial complex desperate for new wars. What about his own views?
Surely he can't be as bad as Nuland. Right? Wrong! Fortunately Assistant Secretary Mitchell is
a prolific writer, so it's easy to track his thinking. In a recent piece for neocon Francis
Fukuyama's American Interest , titled "Predators on the Frontiers," Mitchell
warns that,
"From eastern Ukraine and the Persian Gulf to the South China Sea, large rivals of the United
States are modernizing their military forces, grabbing strategic real estate, and threatening
vulnerable US allies."
Mitchell continues, in a voice right out of the neocon canon, that:
By degrees, the world is entering the path to war. Not since the 1980s have the conditions
been riper for a major international military crisis. Not since the 1930s has the world
witnessed the emergence of multiple large, predatory states determined to revise the global
order to their advantage -- if necessary by force.
We are on a path to war not seen since the 1930s! And why are our "enemies" so
hell-bent on destroying us? Because we are just so isolationist!
Writes Mitchell: "Over the past few years, Russia, China, and, to a degree, Iran have sensed
that the United States is retreating in their respective regions..."
We are "retreating"?
So what can we do? Mitchell again does the bidding of his paymasters in advising that the
only thing we can do to save ourselves is...spend more on militarism:
The United States should therefore enhance its nuclear arsenal by maintaining and modernizing
it. It needs to sustain a credible nuclear extended deterrent at a time when revisionist
states are gradually pushing their spheres of influence and control closer to, if not
against, U.S. allies. Moreover, it should use the limited tactical nuclear weapons at its
disposal and seed them in a few of the most vulnerable and capable frontline states (Poland
and Japan, for instance) under "nuclear sharing" agreements.
Yesterday, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson swore into office a new Assistant
Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs. Dr. A. Wess Mitchell became the Trump
Administration's top
diplomat for Europe , "responsible for diplomatic relations with 50 countries in Europe and
Eurasia, and with NATO, the EU and the OSCE."
Readers will recall that the position was most recently held during the Obama Administration
by Kagan family neocon, Victoria Nuland, who was key catalyst and cookie provider for the
US-backed coup overthrowing the elected government in Ukraine. Victoria Nuland's virulently
anti-Russia position was a trademark of the neocon persuasion and she put ideology into action
by " midwifing ,"
in her own words, an illegal change of government in Ukraine.
It was Nuland's coup that laid the groundwork for a precipitous decay in US/Russia
relations, as Washington's neocons peddled the false line that "Russia invaded Ukraine" to
cover up for the fact that it was the US government that had meddled in Ukrainian affairs. The
coup was bloody and divisive ,
resulting in a de-facto split in the country that continues to the day. Ukraine did not
flourish as a result of this neocon scheme, but has in fact been in
economic free-fall since the US government installed its preferred politicians into
positions of power.
You don't hear much about Ukraine these days because the neocons hate to talk about their
failures. But the
corruption of the US-installed government has crippled the country, extreme nationalist
elements that make up the core of the post-coup elites have imposed a new education law so
vicious toward an age-old Hungarian population stuck inside arbitrarily re-drawn post-WWI
borders that the Hungarian government has blocked
Ukraine's further integration into NATO, and a new "Maidan" protest has steadily
gathered steam in Kiev despite Western cameras being uninterested this time.
Fortunately Donald Trump campaigned on and was elected to improve relations with Russia and
end the Obama Administration's neocon-fueled launch of a new Cold War. He raised eyebrows when
he directly challenged
the neocon shibboleth -- amplified by the mainstream media -- that Russia was invading
Ukraine. But candidate Trump really blew neocon minds -- and delighted voters -- when he
said he was looking
into ending US sanctions on Russia imposed by Obama and may recognize Crimea as Russian
territory.
Which brings us back to Wess Mitchell. Certainly President Trump, seeing the destruction of
Assistant Secretary of State for Europe and Eurasia Victoria Nuland's anti-Russia
interventionism, would he finally restore a sane diplomat to the position vacated by the
unmourned former Assistant Secretary. Would appoint someone in line with the rhetoric that
landed him the Oval Office. Right?
Wrong!
If anything, Wess Mitchell may well prove to be Victoria Nuland on steroids. He was
co-founder and CEO of the neocon-dominated Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA). Mitchell's CEPA is
funded largely by the US
government, NATO, neocon grant-making mega-foundations, and the military-industrial complex.
The "think tank" does the bidding of its funders, finding a Russian threat under every rock
that requires a NATO and defense industry response -- or we're doomed!
Last month, CEPA put on its big conference, the " CEPA Forum 2017 ." Speakers included central European heavy
hitter politicos like the president of Latvia and also Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges, Commanding General
of U.S. Army Europe, who gave a talk on how "the unity of the NATO Alliance" is "what Russia
fears the most." The grand event was funded, as might be expected, by war contractors Raytheon
and Lockheed-Martin. But also, surprisingly, significant funding came from the Hungarian
government of Viktor Orban, who is seen as somewhat of a maverick in central Europe for
refusing to sign on to the intense Russia-hate seen in the Baltics and in Poland.
The no-doubt extraordinarily expensive conference was funded by no less than three Hungarian
government entities: the Embassy of Hungary in Washington, DC, the Hungarian Institute for Foreign Affairs and Trade ,
and the Hungarian Presidency of the Visegrad
Group . Again, given Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban's reputation for bucking neocon
positions vis-a-vis Russia it is surprised to see the virulently anti-Russia CEPA conference so
awash in Hungarian taxpayer money. Perhaps there is something to explore in the fact that the
recently-fired Hungarian Ambassador to Washington,Réka Szemerkényi, was
recently named
executive vice president of CEPA. Hmmm. Makes you wonder.
But back to Mitchell. So he founded a neocon think tank funded by a NATO desperate for new
missions and a military-industrial complex desperate for new wars. What about his own views?
Surely he can't be as bad as Nuland. Right? Wrong! Fortunately Assistant Secretary Mitchell is
a prolific writer, so it's easy to track his thinking. In a recent piece for neocon Francis
Fukuyama's American Interest , titled "Predators on the Frontiers," Mitchell
warns that,
"From eastern Ukraine and the Persian Gulf to the South China Sea, large rivals of the United
States are modernizing their military forces, grabbing strategic real estate, and threatening
vulnerable US allies."
Mitchell continues, in a voice right out of the neocon canon, that:
By degrees, the world is entering the path to war. Not since the 1980s have the conditions
been riper for a major international military crisis. Not since the 1930s has the world
witnessed the emergence of multiple large, predatory states determined to revise the global
order to their advantage -- if necessary by force.
We are on a path to war not seen since the 1930s! And why are our "enemies" so
hell-bent on destroying us? Because we are just so isolationist!
Writes Mitchell: "Over the past few years, Russia, China, and, to a degree, Iran have sensed
that the United States is retreating in their respective regions..."
We are "retreating"?
So what can we do? Mitchell again does the bidding of his paymasters in advising that the
only thing we can do to save ourselves is...spend more on militarism:
The United States should therefore enhance its nuclear arsenal by maintaining and modernizing
it. It needs to sustain a credible nuclear extended deterrent at a time when revisionist
states are gradually pushing their spheres of influence and control closer to, if not
against, U.S. allies. Moreover, it should use the limited tactical nuclear weapons at its
disposal and seed them in a few of the most vulnerable and capable frontline states (Poland
and Japan, for instance) under "nuclear sharing" agreements.
"... Such fears were then exaggerated further, thanks to hawkish journalists of the era like Joseph Alsop and prominent Democratic senators like John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, as well as Stuart Symington, who just happened to be a friend and former colleague of an executive at the aircraft manufacturing company Convair, which, in turn, just happened to make ICBMs. As a result, he lobbied hard on behalf of a Pentagon plan to build more of that corporation's Atlas ballistic missiles, while Kennedy would famously make the nonexistent missile gap a central theme of his successful 1960 campaign for the presidency. ..."
"... Eisenhower couldn't have been more clear-eyed about all of this. He saw the missile gap for the fiction it was or, as he put it, a "useful piece of political demagoguery" for his opponents. "Munitions makers," he insisted , "are making tremendous efforts towards getting more contracts and in fact seem to be exerting undue influence over the Senators." ..."
"... William D. Hartung, a ..."
"... , is the director of the Arms and Security Project at the Center for International Policy and the author of ..."
"... . An earlier version of this essay appears in ..."
"... , edited by Helen Caldicott (the New Press). ..."
One thing is certain, however: the president has plenty of nuclear weapons to back up his
aggressive rhetoric -- more than 4,000 of them in the
active U.S. stockpile, when a mere handful of them could obliterate North Korea
at the cost of millions of
lives . Indeed, a few hundred nuclear warheads could do the same for even the largest of
nations and those 4,000, if ever used, could essentially destroy the planet.
In other words, in every sense of the term, the U.S. nuclear arsenal already represents
overkill on an almost unimaginable scale. Independent experts from U.S. war colleges suggest that about
300 warheads would be more than enough to deter any country from launching a nuclear attack on
the United States.
Despite this, Donald Trump is all in (and more) on the Pentagon's plan --
developed under Barack Obama -- to build a new generation of nuclear-armed bombers,
submarines, and missiles, as well as new generations of warheads to go with them. The cost of
this " modernization
" program? The Congressional Budget Office recently pegged it at
$1.7 trillion over the next three decades, adjusted for inflation. As Derek Johnson,
director of the antinuclear organization Global Zero, has
noted , "That's money we don't have for an arsenal we don't need."
Building a Nuclear Complex
Why the desire for so many nukes? There is, in fact, a dirty little secret behind the
massive U.S. arsenal: it has more to do with the power and profits of this country's major
weapons makers than it does with any imaginable strategic considerations.
It may not surprise you to learn that there's nothing new about the influence the nuclear
weapons lobby has over Pentagon spending priorities. The successful machinations of the makers
of strategic bombers and intercontinental ballistic missiles, intended to keep taxpayer dollars
flowing their way, date back to the dawn of the nuclear age and are the primary reason
President Dwight D. Eisenhower coined the term " military-industrial complex "
and warned of its dangers in his 1961 farewell address.
Without the development of such weapons, that complex simply would not exist in the form it
does today. The Manhattan Project , the
vast scientific-industrial endeavor that produced the first such weaponry during World War II,
was one of the largest government-funded research and manufacturing projects in history.
Today's
nuclear warhead complex is still largely built around facilities and locations that date
back to that time.
The Manhattan Project was the first building block of the permanent arms establishment that
came to rule Washington. In addition, the nuclear arms race against that other superpower of
the era, the Soviet Union, was crucial to the rationale for a permanent war state. In those
years, it was the key to sustaining the building, funding, and institutionalizing of the arms
establishment.
As Eisenhower noted in that farewell address of his, "a permanent arms industry of vast
proportions" had developed for a simple enough reason. In a nuclear age, America had to be
ready ahead of time. As he put it, "We can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national
defense." And that was for a simple enough reason: in an era of potential nuclear war, any
society could be destroyed in a matter of hours. There would be no time, as in the past, to
mobilize or prepare after the fact.
In addition, there were some very specific ways in which the quest for more nuclear weapons
and delivery vehicles drove Eisenhower to give that farewell address. One of his biggest fights
was over whether to build a new nuclear bomber. The Air Force and the arms industry were
desperate to do so. Eisenhower thought it a
waste of money , given all the other nuclear delivery vehicles the U.S. was building at the
time. He even cancelled the bomber, only to find himself forced to revive it under immense
pressure from the arms lobby. In the process, he lost the larger struggle to rein in the
nation's nuclear buildup and corral the burgeoning military-industrial complex.
At the same time, there were rumblings in the intelligence community, the military
establishment, the media, and Congress about a "missile gap" with the Soviet Union. The notion
was that Moscow had somehow jumped ahead of the United States in developing and building
intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). There was no definitive intelligence to
substantiate the claim (and it was later proved to be false). However, a wave of worst-case
scenarios leaked by or promoted by intelligence analysts and eagerly backed by industry
propaganda made that missile gap part of the everyday news of the time.
Such fears were then exaggerated further, thanks to hawkish
journalists of the era like Joseph Alsop and prominent Democratic senators like John F. Kennedy
and Lyndon Johnson, as well as Stuart Symington, who just happened to be a friend and former
colleague of an executive at the aircraft manufacturing company Convair, which, in turn, just
happened to make ICBMs. As a result, he lobbied
hard on behalf of a Pentagon plan to build more of that corporation's Atlas ballistic missiles,
while Kennedy would famously make the nonexistent missile gap a central theme of his successful
1960 campaign for the presidency.
Eisenhower couldn't have been more clear-eyed about all of this. He saw
the missile gap for the fiction it was or, as he put it, a "useful piece of political
demagoguery" for his opponents. "Munitions makers," he insisted
, "are making tremendous efforts towards getting more contracts and in fact seem to be exerting
undue influence over the Senators."
Once Kennedy took office, it became all too apparent that there was no missile
gap , but by then it hardly mattered. The damage had been done. Billions of dollars more
were flowing into the nuclear-industrial complex to build up an American arsenal of ICBMs
already unmatched on the planet.
The techniques that the arms lobby and its allies in government used more than half a
century ago to promote sky-high nuclear weapons spending continue to be wielded to this day.
The twenty-first-century arms complex employs tools of influence that Kennedy and his
compatriots would have found familiar indeed -- including millions of dollars in campaign
contributions that flow to members of Congress and the continual employment of 700
to 1,000 lobbyists to influence them. At certain moments, in other words, there have been
nearly two arms lobbyists for every member of Congress. Much of this sort of activity remains
focused on ensuring that nuclear weapons of all types are amply financed and that the funding
for the new generations of the bombers, submarines, and missiles that will deliver them stays
on track.
across the country . There are nuclear weapons labs in California and New Mexico; a nuclear
weapons testing and research site in Nevada; a nuclear warhead assembly and disassembly plant
in Texas; a factory in Kansas City, Missouri, that builds nonnuclear parts for such weapons;
and a plant in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, that enriches uranium for those same weapons. There are
factories or bases for ICBMs, bombers, and ballistic missile submarines in Connecticut,
Georgia, Washington State, California, Ohio, Massachusetts, Louisiana, North Dakota, and
Wyoming. Such a nuclear geography ensures that a striking number of congressional
representatives will automatically favor more spending on nuclear weapons.
In reality, the jobs argument is deeply flawed. As the experts know, virtually any other
activity into which such funding flowed would create significantly more jobs than Pentagon
spending. A study
by economists at the University of Massachusetts, for example, found infrastructure investment
would create one and one-half times as many jobs as Pentagon funding and education spending
twice as many.
In most cases it hasn't seemed to matter that the jobs claims for weapons spending are
grotesquely exaggerated and better alternatives litter the landscape. The argument remains
remarkably potent in states and communities that are particularly dependent on the Pentagon.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, members of Congress from such areas are disproportionately represented
on the committees that decide how much will be spent on nuclear and conventional weaponry.
A Field Guide to Influencing Nuclear Thinking in Washington
Another way the nuclear weapons industry (like the rest of the military-industrial complex)
tries to control and focus public debate is by funding hawkish, right-wing think tanks. The
advantage to weapons makers is that those institutions and their associated "experts" can serve
as front groups for the complex, while posing as objective policy analysts. Think of it as an
intellectual version of money laundering.
One of the most effective industry-funded think tanks in
terms of promoting costly, ill-advised policies has undoubtedly been Frank Gaffney's Center for
Security Policy. In 1983, when President Ronald Reagan
first announced his Strategic Defense Initiative (which soon gained the nickname "Star
Wars"), the high-tech space weapons system that was either meant to defend the country against
a future Soviet first strike or -- depending on how you looked at it -- free the country to use
its nuclear weapons without fear of being attacked, Gaffney was its biggest booster. More
recently, he has become a prominent
purveyor of Islamophobia, but the impact of his promotional work for Star Wars continues to
be felt in contracts for future weaponry to this day.
He had served in the Reagan-era Pentagon, but left because even that administration wasn't
anti-Soviet enough for his tastes, once the president and his advisers began to discuss things
like reducing nuclear weapons in Europe. It didn't take him long to set up his center with
funding from Boeing, Lockheed, and other defense contractors.
Another key industry-backed think tank in the nuclear policy field is the National Institute for Public Policy (NIPP). It released a
report on
nuclear weapons policy just as George W. Bush was entering the White House that would be
adopted almost wholesale by his administration for its first key nuclear posture review. It
advocated such things as increasing the number of countries targeted by the country's nuclear
arsenal and building a new, more "usable," bunker-busting nuke. At that time, NIPP had an
executive from Boeing on its board and its director was Keith Payne. He would become infamous
in the annals of nuclear policy for co-authoring a 1980
article at Foreign Policy entitled "Victory Is Possible," suggesting that the
United States could actually win a nuclear war, while "only" losing 30 million to 40 million
people. This is the kind of expert the nuclear weapons complex chose to fund to promulgate its
views.
Then there is the Lexington
Institute , the think tank that never met a weapons system it didn't like. Their key front
man, Loren Thompson, is frequently quoted in news stories on defense issues. It is rarely
pointed out that he is funded by
Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and other nuclear weapons contractors.
And these are just a small sampling of Washington's research and advocacy groups that take
money from weapons contractors, ranging from organizations on the right like the Heritage
Foundation to Democratic-leaning outfits like the Center for a New American Security , co-founded by former Obama
administration Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Michèle Flournoy (who was believed
to have the inside track on being appointed secretary of defense had Hillary Clinton won the
2016 election).
And you may not be surprised to learn that Donald Trump is no piker when it comes to
colluding with the weapons industry. His strong preference for populating his administration
with former arms industry executives is so blatant that Senator John McCain recently
pledged to oppose any new nominees with industry ties. Examples of Trump's industry-heavy
administration include Secretary of Defense James Mattis, a former board member at General
Dynamics; White House Chief of Staff John Kelly, who worked for a number of defense firms and
was an adviser to DynCorp, a private security firm that has done everything from (poorly)
training the Iraqi police to contracting with the Department of Homeland Security; former
Boeing executive and now Deputy Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan; former Lockheed Martin
executive John Rood, nominated as undersecretary of defense for policy; former Raytheon Vice
President Mark Esper, newly confirmed as secretary of the Army; Heather Wilson, a former
consultant to Lockheed Martin, who is secretary of the Air Force; Ellen Lord, a former CEO for
the aerospace company Textron, who is undersecretary of defense for acquisition; and National
Security Council Chief of Staff Keith Kellogg, a former employee of the major defense and
intelligence contractor CACI, where he dealt with "ground combat systems" among other things.
And keep in mind that these high-profile industry figures are just the tip of the iceberg when
it comes to the corporate revolving door
that has for decades been installed in the Pentagon (as documented by Lee Fang of the
Intercept in a story from early in Trump's
tenure).
When it comes to the art of the deal, at least where arms sales are concerned, American
presidents, their administrations, and the Pentagon have long been Trumpian in nature. Their
role has been to beat the drums (of war) for the major American weapons makers and it's been a
highly profitable and successful activity. In 2015, for instance, the U.S. once again took the
top
spot in global weapons sales, $40 billion dollars of them, or a staggering 50.2% of the
world market. (Russia came in a distant third with $11.2 billion in sales.) The U.S. also
topped sales of
weaponry to developing nations. In these years, Washington has, in fact, peddled the products
of those arms makers to
at least 100 countries , a staggering figure if you stop a moment to think about the
violence on this planet. Internationally, in other words, the U.S. has always been an
open-carry nation.
Donald Trump has, however, changed this process in one obvious way. He's shoved the
president's role as arms-purveyor-in-chief in everybody's face. He did so on his initial trip
abroad when, in Riyadh, he
bragged ceaselessly about ringing up $110 billion dollars in arms sales to the Saudis. Some
of those had, in fact, already been brokered by the Obama administration and some weren't
actually "sales" at all, just "
letters of intent ." Still, he took the most fulsome of credit and, when it comes to his
"achievements," exaggeration is, of course, the name of his game.
And he's just done it again on his blustery jaunt through Japan and South Korea. There,
using the
North Korean threat, he plugged
American weaponry mercilessly (so to speak), while claiming potential deals and future American
jobs galore. In the presence of Shinzo Abe, for instance, he
swore that the Japanese Prime Minister would "shoot [North Korean missiles] out of the sky
when he completes the purchase of a lot of military equipment from the United States." Both the
Japanese and the South Korean leaders, seeing a way into his well-armored heart, humored him
relentlessly on the subject and on his claims of bringing home jobs to the U.S. (In fact, one
of the weapons systems he was plugging, the F-35 ,
would actually be assembled in Japan!)
Strangely enough, however, the president didn't bring up an issue he raises regularly when
it comes to weapons sales in the United States (at least, sales to white people, not Muslims,
with an urge to kill):
mental health . Isn't it curious that, as he peddles some of the more destructive weaponry
imaginable across Asia and the Middle East, he never brings that up? Fortunately, TomDispatch regular and
expert on American arms sales William Hartung raises the issue today in an adaptation of a
piece he wrote for Sleepwalking to
Armageddon: The Threat of Nuclear Annihilation , a book just published by the New
Press. You might say that he considers the most mentally unnerving aspect of American arms
sales: the way, since the 1950s, the nuclear lobby has sold planet-destroying weaponry of every
sort to presidents, the Pentagon, and Congress. And if that doesn't represent a disturbing
mental health record of the first order, what does?
"... Such fears were then exaggerated further, thanks to hawkish journalists of the era like Joseph Alsop and prominent Democratic senators like John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, as well as Stuart Symington, who just happened to be a friend and former colleague of an executive at the aircraft manufacturing company Convair, which, in turn, just happened to make ICBMs. As a result, he lobbied hard on behalf of a Pentagon plan to build more of that corporation's Atlas ballistic missiles, while Kennedy would famously make the nonexistent missile gap a central theme of his successful 1960 campaign for the presidency. ..."
"... Eisenhower couldn't have been more clear-eyed about all of this. He saw the missile gap for the fiction it was or, as he put it, a "useful piece of political demagoguery" for his opponents. "Munitions makers," he insisted , "are making tremendous efforts towards getting more contracts and in fact seem to be exerting undue influence over the Senators." ..."
"... William D. Hartung, a ..."
"... , is the director of the Arms and Security Project at the Center for International Policy and the author of ..."
"... . An earlier version of this essay appears in ..."
"... , edited by Helen Caldicott (the New Press). ..."
One thing is certain, however: the president has plenty of nuclear weapons to back up his
aggressive rhetoric -- more than 4,000 of them in the
active U.S. stockpile, when a mere handful of them could obliterate North Korea
at the cost of millions of
lives . Indeed, a few hundred nuclear warheads could do the same for even the largest of
nations and those 4,000, if ever used, could essentially destroy the planet.
In other words, in every sense of the term, the U.S. nuclear arsenal already represents
overkill on an almost unimaginable scale. Independent experts from U.S. war colleges suggest that about
300 warheads would be more than enough to deter any country from launching a nuclear attack on
the United States.
Despite this, Donald Trump is all in (and more) on the Pentagon's plan --
developed under Barack Obama -- to build a new generation of nuclear-armed bombers,
submarines, and missiles, as well as new generations of warheads to go with them. The cost of
this " modernization
" program? The Congressional Budget Office recently pegged it at
$1.7 trillion over the next three decades, adjusted for inflation. As Derek Johnson,
director of the antinuclear organization Global Zero, has
noted , "That's money we don't have for an arsenal we don't need."
Building a Nuclear Complex
Why the desire for so many nukes? There is, in fact, a dirty little secret behind the
massive U.S. arsenal: it has more to do with the power and profits of this country's major
weapons makers than it does with any imaginable strategic considerations.
It may not surprise you to learn that there's nothing new about the influence the nuclear
weapons lobby has over Pentagon spending priorities. The successful machinations of the makers
of strategic bombers and intercontinental ballistic missiles, intended to keep taxpayer dollars
flowing their way, date back to the dawn of the nuclear age and are the primary reason
President Dwight D. Eisenhower coined the term " military-industrial complex "
and warned of its dangers in his 1961 farewell address.
Without the development of such weapons, that complex simply would not exist in the form it
does today. The Manhattan Project , the
vast scientific-industrial endeavor that produced the first such weaponry during World War II,
was one of the largest government-funded research and manufacturing projects in history.
Today's
nuclear warhead complex is still largely built around facilities and locations that date
back to that time.
The Manhattan Project was the first building block of the permanent arms establishment that
came to rule Washington. In addition, the nuclear arms race against that other superpower of
the era, the Soviet Union, was crucial to the rationale for a permanent war state. In those
years, it was the key to sustaining the building, funding, and institutionalizing of the arms
establishment.
As Eisenhower noted in that farewell address of his, "a permanent arms industry of vast
proportions" had developed for a simple enough reason. In a nuclear age, America had to be
ready ahead of time. As he put it, "We can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national
defense." And that was for a simple enough reason: in an era of potential nuclear war, any
society could be destroyed in a matter of hours. There would be no time, as in the past, to
mobilize or prepare after the fact.
In addition, there were some very specific ways in which the quest for more nuclear weapons
and delivery vehicles drove Eisenhower to give that farewell address. One of his biggest fights
was over whether to build a new nuclear bomber. The Air Force and the arms industry were
desperate to do so. Eisenhower thought it a
waste of money , given all the other nuclear delivery vehicles the U.S. was building at the
time. He even cancelled the bomber, only to find himself forced to revive it under immense
pressure from the arms lobby. In the process, he lost the larger struggle to rein in the
nation's nuclear buildup and corral the burgeoning military-industrial complex.
At the same time, there were rumblings in the intelligence community, the military
establishment, the media, and Congress about a "missile gap" with the Soviet Union. The notion
was that Moscow had somehow jumped ahead of the United States in developing and building
intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). There was no definitive intelligence to
substantiate the claim (and it was later proved to be false). However, a wave of worst-case
scenarios leaked by or promoted by intelligence analysts and eagerly backed by industry
propaganda made that missile gap part of the everyday news of the time.
Such fears were then exaggerated further, thanks to hawkish
journalists of the era like Joseph Alsop and prominent Democratic senators like John F. Kennedy
and Lyndon Johnson, as well as Stuart Symington, who just happened to be a friend and former
colleague of an executive at the aircraft manufacturing company Convair, which, in turn, just
happened to make ICBMs. As a result, he lobbied
hard on behalf of a Pentagon plan to build more of that corporation's Atlas ballistic missiles,
while Kennedy would famously make the nonexistent missile gap a central theme of his successful
1960 campaign for the presidency.
Eisenhower couldn't have been more clear-eyed about all of this. He saw
the missile gap for the fiction it was or, as he put it, a "useful piece of political
demagoguery" for his opponents. "Munitions makers," he insisted
, "are making tremendous efforts towards getting more contracts and in fact seem to be exerting
undue influence over the Senators."
Once Kennedy took office, it became all too apparent that there was no missile
gap , but by then it hardly mattered. The damage had been done. Billions of dollars more
were flowing into the nuclear-industrial complex to build up an American arsenal of ICBMs
already unmatched on the planet.
The techniques that the arms lobby and its allies in government used more than half a
century ago to promote sky-high nuclear weapons spending continue to be wielded to this day.
The twenty-first-century arms complex employs tools of influence that Kennedy and his
compatriots would have found familiar indeed -- including millions of dollars in campaign
contributions that flow to members of Congress and the continual employment of 700
to 1,000 lobbyists to influence them. At certain moments, in other words, there have been
nearly two arms lobbyists for every member of Congress. Much of this sort of activity remains
focused on ensuring that nuclear weapons of all types are amply financed and that the funding
for the new generations of the bombers, submarines, and missiles that will deliver them stays
on track.
across the country . There are nuclear weapons labs in California and New Mexico; a nuclear
weapons testing and research site in Nevada; a nuclear warhead assembly and disassembly plant
in Texas; a factory in Kansas City, Missouri, that builds nonnuclear parts for such weapons;
and a plant in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, that enriches uranium for those same weapons. There are
factories or bases for ICBMs, bombers, and ballistic missile submarines in Connecticut,
Georgia, Washington State, California, Ohio, Massachusetts, Louisiana, North Dakota, and
Wyoming. Such a nuclear geography ensures that a striking number of congressional
representatives will automatically favor more spending on nuclear weapons.
In reality, the jobs argument is deeply flawed. As the experts know, virtually any other
activity into which such funding flowed would create significantly more jobs than Pentagon
spending. A study
by economists at the University of Massachusetts, for example, found infrastructure investment
would create one and one-half times as many jobs as Pentagon funding and education spending
twice as many.
In most cases it hasn't seemed to matter that the jobs claims for weapons spending are
grotesquely exaggerated and better alternatives litter the landscape. The argument remains
remarkably potent in states and communities that are particularly dependent on the Pentagon.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, members of Congress from such areas are disproportionately represented
on the committees that decide how much will be spent on nuclear and conventional weaponry.
A Field Guide to Influencing Nuclear Thinking in Washington
Another way the nuclear weapons industry (like the rest of the military-industrial complex)
tries to control and focus public debate is by funding hawkish, right-wing think tanks. The
advantage to weapons makers is that those institutions and their associated "experts" can serve
as front groups for the complex, while posing as objective policy analysts. Think of it as an
intellectual version of money laundering.
One of the most effective industry-funded think tanks in
terms of promoting costly, ill-advised policies has undoubtedly been Frank Gaffney's Center for
Security Policy. In 1983, when President Ronald Reagan
first announced his Strategic Defense Initiative (which soon gained the nickname "Star
Wars"), the high-tech space weapons system that was either meant to defend the country against
a future Soviet first strike or -- depending on how you looked at it -- free the country to use
its nuclear weapons without fear of being attacked, Gaffney was its biggest booster. More
recently, he has become a prominent
purveyor of Islamophobia, but the impact of his promotional work for Star Wars continues to
be felt in contracts for future weaponry to this day.
He had served in the Reagan-era Pentagon, but left because even that administration wasn't
anti-Soviet enough for his tastes, once the president and his advisers began to discuss things
like reducing nuclear weapons in Europe. It didn't take him long to set up his center with
funding from Boeing, Lockheed, and other defense contractors.
Another key industry-backed think tank in the nuclear policy field is the National Institute for Public Policy (NIPP). It released a
report on
nuclear weapons policy just as George W. Bush was entering the White House that would be
adopted almost wholesale by his administration for its first key nuclear posture review. It
advocated such things as increasing the number of countries targeted by the country's nuclear
arsenal and building a new, more "usable," bunker-busting nuke. At that time, NIPP had an
executive from Boeing on its board and its director was Keith Payne. He would become infamous
in the annals of nuclear policy for co-authoring a 1980
article at Foreign Policy entitled "Victory Is Possible," suggesting that the
United States could actually win a nuclear war, while "only" losing 30 million to 40 million
people. This is the kind of expert the nuclear weapons complex chose to fund to promulgate its
views.
Then there is the Lexington
Institute , the think tank that never met a weapons system it didn't like. Their key front
man, Loren Thompson, is frequently quoted in news stories on defense issues. It is rarely
pointed out that he is funded by
Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and other nuclear weapons contractors.
And these are just a small sampling of Washington's research and advocacy groups that take
money from weapons contractors, ranging from organizations on the right like the Heritage
Foundation to Democratic-leaning outfits like the Center for a New American Security , co-founded by former Obama
administration Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Michèle Flournoy (who was believed
to have the inside track on being appointed secretary of defense had Hillary Clinton won the
2016 election).
And you may not be surprised to learn that Donald Trump is no piker when it comes to
colluding with the weapons industry. His strong preference for populating his administration
with former arms industry executives is so blatant that Senator John McCain recently
pledged to oppose any new nominees with industry ties. Examples of Trump's industry-heavy
administration include Secretary of Defense James Mattis, a former board member at General
Dynamics; White House Chief of Staff John Kelly, who worked for a number of defense firms and
was an adviser to DynCorp, a private security firm that has done everything from (poorly)
training the Iraqi police to contracting with the Department of Homeland Security; former
Boeing executive and now Deputy Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan; former Lockheed Martin
executive John Rood, nominated as undersecretary of defense for policy; former Raytheon Vice
President Mark Esper, newly confirmed as secretary of the Army; Heather Wilson, a former
consultant to Lockheed Martin, who is secretary of the Air Force; Ellen Lord, a former CEO for
the aerospace company Textron, who is undersecretary of defense for acquisition; and National
Security Council Chief of Staff Keith Kellogg, a former employee of the major defense and
intelligence contractor CACI, where he dealt with "ground combat systems" among other things.
And keep in mind that these high-profile industry figures are just the tip of the iceberg when
it comes to the corporate revolving door
that has for decades been installed in the Pentagon (as documented by Lee Fang of the
Intercept in a story from early in Trump's
tenure).
When it comes to the art of the deal, at least where arms sales are concerned, American
presidents, their administrations, and the Pentagon have long been Trumpian in nature. Their
role has been to beat the drums (of war) for the major American weapons makers and it's been a
highly profitable and successful activity. In 2015, for instance, the U.S. once again took the
top
spot in global weapons sales, $40 billion dollars of them, or a staggering 50.2% of the
world market. (Russia came in a distant third with $11.2 billion in sales.) The U.S. also
topped sales of
weaponry to developing nations. In these years, Washington has, in fact, peddled the products
of those arms makers to
at least 100 countries , a staggering figure if you stop a moment to think about the
violence on this planet. Internationally, in other words, the U.S. has always been an
open-carry nation.
Donald Trump has, however, changed this process in one obvious way. He's shoved the
president's role as arms-purveyor-in-chief in everybody's face. He did so on his initial trip
abroad when, in Riyadh, he
bragged ceaselessly about ringing up $110 billion dollars in arms sales to the Saudis. Some
of those had, in fact, already been brokered by the Obama administration and some weren't
actually "sales" at all, just "
letters of intent ." Still, he took the most fulsome of credit and, when it comes to his
"achievements," exaggeration is, of course, the name of his game.
And he's just done it again on his blustery jaunt through Japan and South Korea. There,
using the
North Korean threat, he plugged
American weaponry mercilessly (so to speak), while claiming potential deals and future American
jobs galore. In the presence of Shinzo Abe, for instance, he
swore that the Japanese Prime Minister would "shoot [North Korean missiles] out of the sky
when he completes the purchase of a lot of military equipment from the United States." Both the
Japanese and the South Korean leaders, seeing a way into his well-armored heart, humored him
relentlessly on the subject and on his claims of bringing home jobs to the U.S. (In fact, one
of the weapons systems he was plugging, the F-35 ,
would actually be assembled in Japan!)
Strangely enough, however, the president didn't bring up an issue he raises regularly when
it comes to weapons sales in the United States (at least, sales to white people, not Muslims,
with an urge to kill):
mental health . Isn't it curious that, as he peddles some of the more destructive weaponry
imaginable across Asia and the Middle East, he never brings that up? Fortunately, TomDispatch regular and
expert on American arms sales William Hartung raises the issue today in an adaptation of a
piece he wrote for Sleepwalking to
Armageddon: The Threat of Nuclear Annihilation , a book just published by the New
Press. You might say that he considers the most mentally unnerving aspect of American arms
sales: the way, since the 1950s, the nuclear lobby has sold planet-destroying weaponry of every
sort to presidents, the Pentagon, and Congress. And if that doesn't represent a disturbing
mental health record of the first order, what does?
Israel's next desperate gamble is direct military attack on Lebanon and Syria.
On 5 November, the ever more delusional Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
complained to the BBC about an "Iranian takeover" of Lebanon.
On 9 November, the equally delusional Israeli Intelligence Minister Israel Katz complained
to the Associated Press that "Lebanon is Hezbollah and Hezbollah is Iran".
Israel is by no means content to merely "contemplate" a war.
With the rollback of ISIS and Al Qaeda terrorist proxy forces in Syria, and the failure of
Kurdish separatist efforts in Iraq, Israel plans to launch military attacks against southern
Lebanon and Syria.
War against Lebanon and Syria is the next stage of the Israeli-Saudi-US Axis
"project".
Saudi Arabia and the United States are very much available to "assist" the upcoming
Israeli military adventure.
South Front has presented a cogent and fairly detailed analysis of Israel's upcoming war
in southern Lebanon.
Conspicuously absent from the South Front analysis is any discussion of the Israeli
planned assault on Syria, or possible responses to the conflict from the United States or
Russia.
Israeli propaganda preparations for attack are already in high gear. Unfortunately, sober
heads are in perilously short supply in Israel and the U.S., so the prognosis can hardly be
optimistic.
"Scenarios for the Third Lebanon War
Over time, IDF's military effectiveness had declined. [ ] In the Second Lebanon War of
2006 due to the overwhelming numerical superiority in men and equipment the IDF managed to
occupy key strong points but failed to inflict a decisive defeat on Hezbollah. The frequency
of attacks in Israeli territory was not reduced; the units of the IDF became bogged down in
the fighting in the settlements and suffered significant losses. There now exists
considerable political pressure to reassert IDF's lost military dominance and, despite the
complexity and unpredictability of the situation we may assume the future conflict will
feature only two sides, IDF and Hezbollah. Based on the bellicose statements of the
leadership of the Jewish state, the fighting will be initiated by Israel.
"The operation will begin with a massive evacuation of residents from the settlements in
the north and centre of Israel. Since Hezbollah has agents within the IDF, it will not be
possible to keep secret the concentration of troops on the border and a mass evacuation of
civilians. Hezbollah units will will be ordered to occupy a prepared defensive position and
simultaneously open fire on places were IDF units are concentrated. The civilian population
of southern Lebanon will most likely be evacuated. IDF will launch massive bombing causing
great damage to the social infrastructure and some damage to Hezbollah's military
infrastructure, but without destroying the carefully protected and camouflaged rocket
launchers and launch sites.
"Hezbollah control and communications systems have elements of redundancy. Consequently,
regardless of the use of specialized precision-guided munitions, the command posts and
electronic warfare systems will not be paralysed, maintaining communications including
through the use of fibre-optic communications means. IDF discovered that the movement has
such equipment during the 2006 war. Smaller units will operate independently, working with
open communication channels, using the pre-defined call signs and codes.
"Israeli troops will then cross the border of Lebanon, despite the presence of the UN
peacekeeping mission in southern Lebanon, beginning a ground operation with the involvement
of a greater number of units than in the 2006 war. The IDF troops will occupy commanding
heights and begin to prepare for assaults on settlements and actions in the tunnels. The
Israelis do not score a quick victory as they suffer heavy losses in built-up areas. The need
to secure occupied territory with patrols and checkpoints will cause further losses.
"The fact that Israel itself started the war and caused damage to the civilian
infrastructure, allows the leadership of the movement to use its missile arsenal on Israeli
cities. While Israel's missile defence systems can successfully intercept the launched
missiles, there are not enough of them to blunt the bombardment. The civilian evacuation
paralyzes life in the country. As soon IDF's Iron Dome and other medium-range systems are
spent on short-range Hezbollah rockets, the bombardment of Israel with long-range missiles
may commence. Hezbollah's Iranian solid-fuel rockets do not require much time to prepare for
launch and may target the entire territory of Israel, causing further losses.
"It is difficult to assess the duration of actions of this war. One thing that seems
certain is that Israel shouldn't count on its rapid conclusion, similar to last September's
exercises. Hezbollah units are stronger and more capable than during the 2006 war, despite
the fact that they are fighting in Syria and suffered losses there.
"Conclusions
"The combination of large-scale exercises and bellicose rhetoric is intended to muster
Israeli public support for the aggression against Hezbollah by convincing the public the
victory would be swift and bloodless. Instead of restraint based on a sober assessment of
relative capabilities, Israeli leaders appear to be in a state of blood lust. In contrast,
the Hezbollah has thus far demonstrated restraint and diplomacy.
"Underestimating the adversary is always the first step towards a defeat. Such mistakes
are paid for with soldiers' blood and commanders' careers. The latest IDF exercises suggest
Israeli leaders underestimate the opponent and, more importantly, consider them to be quite
dumb. In reality, Hezbollah units will not cross the border. There is no need to provoke the
already too nervous neighbor and to suffer losses solely to plant a flag and photograph it
for their leader. For Hezbollah, it is easier and safer when the Israeli soldiers come to
them. According to the IDF soldiers who served in Gaza and southern Lebanon, it is easier to
operate on the plains of Gaza than the mountainous terrain of southern Lebanon. This is a
problem for armoured vehicles fighting for control of heights, tunnels, and settlements,
where they are exposed to anti-armor weapons.
"While the Israeli establishment is in a state of patriotic frenzy, it would be a good
time for them to turn to the wisdom of their ancestors. After all, as the old Jewish proverb
says: 'War is a big swamp, easy to go into but hard to get out'."
The Saudi Royal Family has bottomless pockets when it comes to controlling negative press
coverage.
Zachary Smith , November 10, 2017 at 10:28 pm
And in the shadows, at the back of the gaming room, stands Israeli Prime Minister Bibi
Netanyahu. The idea of going to the casino was his, in the first place. If the hero lands
on black, he will share in the joy, but if it is red never mind: Bibi's home is not
forfeit.
At first glance it looks to me as if Netanyahu wins any coin flip, whether it is "heads"
or "tails". No matter what happens, Saudi Arabia is going to be severely shaken up, and chaos
in surrounding Muslim nations is almost always a "plus" for Israel.
But at second glance I imagine I can also see a downside. The Arabian Peninsula has a
hefty population, and if the Kingdom here does shatter, there is a possibility that an Arabic
Napoleon could emerge. During the time of Muhammad there was an outward-moving crusade, and
might it not happen again? Saudi Arabia may not have much of an army at the moment, but that
could change quickly. A glance at a world globe shows Israel to be very close by. This sort
of thing would cause me to lose sleep if I were an Israeli strategist.
At the moment the KSA is being taken over by a young numbskull, if all the accounts I've
read are even remotely true. Perhaps Israel is providing the brains. The Moon of Alabama
blogger has a low opinion of the young man.
Saudi Arabia – This "Liberal Reformer" Is An Impulsive Tyrant
The singular fact that the planned next royal succession from Salman to MbS will be the
first from father to son since the death of Abdulaziz seems to me to add a whole other level
of uncertainty to what is already a difficult time for the kingdom.
Israel's next desperate gamble is direct military attack on Lebanon and Syria.
On 5 November, the ever more delusional Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
complained to the BBC about an "Iranian takeover" of Lebanon.
On 9 November, the equally delusional Israeli Intelligence Minister Israel Katz complained
to the Associated Press that "Lebanon is Hezbollah and Hezbollah is Iran".
Israel is by no means content to merely "contemplate" a war.
With the rollback of ISIS and Al Qaeda terrorist proxy forces in Syria, and the failure of
Kurdish separatist efforts in Iraq, Israel plans to launch military attacks against southern
Lebanon and Syria.
War against Lebanon and Syria is the next stage of the Israeli-Saudi-US Axis
"project".
Saudi Arabia and the United States are very much available to "assist" the upcoming
Israeli military adventure.
South Front has presented a cogent and fairly detailed analysis of Israel's upcoming war
in southern Lebanon.
Conspicuously absent from the South Front analysis is any discussion of the Israeli
planned assault on Syria, or possible responses to the conflict from the United States or
Russia.
Israeli propaganda preparations for attack are already in high gear. Unfortunately, sober
heads are in perilously short supply in Israel and the U.S., so the prognosis can hardly be
optimistic.
"Scenarios for the Third Lebanon War
Over time, IDF's military effectiveness had declined. [ ] In the Second Lebanon War of
2006 due to the overwhelming numerical superiority in men and equipment the IDF managed to
occupy key strong points but failed to inflict a decisive defeat on Hezbollah. The frequency
of attacks in Israeli territory was not reduced; the units of the IDF became bogged down in
the fighting in the settlements and suffered significant losses. There now exists
considerable political pressure to reassert IDF's lost military dominance and, despite the
complexity and unpredictability of the situation we may assume the future conflict will
feature only two sides, IDF and Hezbollah. Based on the bellicose statements of the
leadership of the Jewish state, the fighting will be initiated by Israel.
"The operation will begin with a massive evacuation of residents from the settlements in
the north and centre of Israel. Since Hezbollah has agents within the IDF, it will not be
possible to keep secret the concentration of troops on the border and a mass evacuation of
civilians. Hezbollah units will will be ordered to occupy a prepared defensive position and
simultaneously open fire on places were IDF units are concentrated. The civilian population
of southern Lebanon will most likely be evacuated. IDF will launch massive bombing causing
great damage to the social infrastructure and some damage to Hezbollah's military
infrastructure, but without destroying the carefully protected and camouflaged rocket
launchers and launch sites.
"Hezbollah control and communications systems have elements of redundancy. Consequently,
regardless of the use of specialized precision-guided munitions, the command posts and
electronic warfare systems will not be paralysed, maintaining communications including
through the use of fibre-optic communications means. IDF discovered that the movement has
such equipment during the 2006 war. Smaller units will operate independently, working with
open communication channels, using the pre-defined call signs and codes.
"Israeli troops will then cross the border of Lebanon, despite the presence of the UN
peacekeeping mission in southern Lebanon, beginning a ground operation with the involvement
of a greater number of units than in the 2006 war. The IDF troops will occupy commanding
heights and begin to prepare for assaults on settlements and actions in the tunnels. The
Israelis do not score a quick victory as they suffer heavy losses in built-up areas. The need
to secure occupied territory with patrols and checkpoints will cause further losses.
"The fact that Israel itself started the war and caused damage to the civilian
infrastructure, allows the leadership of the movement to use its missile arsenal on Israeli
cities. While Israel's missile defence systems can successfully intercept the launched
missiles, there are not enough of them to blunt the bombardment. The civilian evacuation
paralyzes life in the country. As soon IDF's Iron Dome and other medium-range systems are
spent on short-range Hezbollah rockets, the bombardment of Israel with long-range missiles
may commence. Hezbollah's Iranian solid-fuel rockets do not require much time to prepare for
launch and may target the entire territory of Israel, causing further losses.
"It is difficult to assess the duration of actions of this war. One thing that seems
certain is that Israel shouldn't count on its rapid conclusion, similar to last September's
exercises. Hezbollah units are stronger and more capable than during the 2006 war, despite
the fact that they are fighting in Syria and suffered losses there.
"Conclusions
"The combination of large-scale exercises and bellicose rhetoric is intended to muster
Israeli public support for the aggression against Hezbollah by convincing the public the
victory would be swift and bloodless. Instead of restraint based on a sober assessment of
relative capabilities, Israeli leaders appear to be in a state of blood lust. In contrast,
the Hezbollah has thus far demonstrated restraint and diplomacy.
"Underestimating the adversary is always the first step towards a defeat. Such mistakes
are paid for with soldiers' blood and commanders' careers. The latest IDF exercises suggest
Israeli leaders underestimate the opponent and, more importantly, consider them to be quite
dumb. In reality, Hezbollah units will not cross the border. There is no need to provoke the
already too nervous neighbor and to suffer losses solely to plant a flag and photograph it
for their leader. For Hezbollah, it is easier and safer when the Israeli soldiers come to
them. According to the IDF soldiers who served in Gaza and southern Lebanon, it is easier to
operate on the plains of Gaza than the mountainous terrain of southern Lebanon. This is a
problem for armoured vehicles fighting for control of heights, tunnels, and settlements,
where they are exposed to anti-armor weapons.
"While the Israeli establishment is in a state of patriotic frenzy, it would be a good
time for them to turn to the wisdom of their ancestors. After all, as the old Jewish proverb
says: 'War is a big swamp, easy to go into but hard to get out'."
The Saudi Royal Family has bottomless pockets when it comes to controlling negative press
coverage.
Zachary Smith , November 10, 2017 at 10:28 pm
And in the shadows, at the back of the gaming room, stands Israeli Prime Minister Bibi
Netanyahu. The idea of going to the casino was his, in the first place. If the hero lands
on black, he will share in the joy, but if it is red never mind: Bibi's home is not
forfeit.
At first glance it looks to me as if Netanyahu wins any coin flip, whether it is "heads"
or "tails". No matter what happens, Saudi Arabia is going to be severely shaken up, and chaos
in surrounding Muslim nations is almost always a "plus" for Israel.
But at second glance I imagine I can also see a downside. The Arabian Peninsula has a
hefty population, and if the Kingdom here does shatter, there is a possibility that an Arabic
Napoleon could emerge. During the time of Muhammad there was an outward-moving crusade, and
might it not happen again? Saudi Arabia may not have much of an army at the moment, but that
could change quickly. A glance at a world globe shows Israel to be very close by. This sort
of thing would cause me to lose sleep if I were an Israeli strategist.
At the moment the KSA is being taken over by a young numbskull, if all the accounts I've
read are even remotely true. Perhaps Israel is providing the brains. The Moon of Alabama
blogger has a low opinion of the young man.
Saudi Arabia – This "Liberal Reformer" Is An Impulsive Tyrant
The singular fact that the planned next royal succession from Salman to MbS will be the
first from father to son since the death of Abdulaziz seems to me to add a whole other level
of uncertainty to what is already a difficult time for the kingdom.
Russiagate witch hunt is destroying CIA franchise in Facebook and Twitter, which were used
by many Russians and Eastern Europeans in general.
One telling sign of the national security state is "demonizing enemies of the state" including
using neo-McCarthyism methods, typically for Russiagate.
In the beginning, "Russiagate" was about alleged actions by Russian secret services. Evidence
for these allegations has never emerged, and it seems that the Russiagate conspiracy theorists largely
gave up on this part (they still sometimes write about it as if it was an established fact, but since
the only thing in support of it they can adduce is the canard about the 17 intelligence services, it
probably is not that interesting any more).
Now, they have dropped the mask, and the object of their hatred are openly all Russian people,
as the new Undermensch. If these people and US MSM recognized the reality that they are now
a particularly rabid part of the xenophobic far right in the United States
Notable quotes:
"... Buried in the story's "jump" is the acknowledgement that Milner's "companies sold those holdings several years ago." But such is the anti-Russia madness gripping the Establishment of Washington and New York that any contact with any Russian constitutes a scandal worthy of front-page coverage. On Monday, The Washington Post published a page-one article entitled, "9 in Trump's orbit had contacts with Russians." ..."
"... The anti-Russian madness has reached such extremes that even when you say something that's obviously true – but that RT, the Russian television network, also reported – you are attacked for spreading "Russian propaganda." ..."
"... We saw that when former Democratic National Committee chairwoman Donna Brazile disclosed in her new book that she considered the possibility of replacing Hillary Clinton on the Democratic ticket after Clinton's public fainting spell and worries about her health. ..."
"... In other words, the go-to excuse for everything these days is to blame the Russians and smear anyone who says anything – no matter how true – if it also was reported on RT. ..."
"... The CIA has an entire bureaucracy dedicated to propaganda and disinformation, with some of those efforts farmed out to newer entities such as the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) or paid for by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). NATO has a special command in Latvia that undertakes "strategic communications." ..."
"... Israel is another skilled player in this field, tapping into its supporters around the world to harass people who criticize the Zionist project. Indeed, since the 1980s, Israel has pioneered many of the tactics of computer spying and sabotage that were adopted and expanded by America's National Security Agency, explaining why the Obama administration teamed up with Israel in a scheme to plant malicious code into Iranian centrifuges to sabotage Iran's nuclear program. ..."
"... And, if you're really concerned about foreign interference in U.S. elections and policies, there's the remarkable influence of Israel and its perceived ability to effect the defeat of almost any politician who deviates from what the Israeli government wants, going back at least to the 1980s when Sen. Chuck Percy and Rep. Paul Findley were among the political casualties after pursuing contacts with the Palestinians. ..."
"... The answer seems to be the widespread hatred for President Trump combined with vested interests in favor of whipping up the New Cold War. That is a goal valued by both the Military-Industrial Complex, which sees trillions of dollars in strategic weapons systems in the future, and the neoconservatives, who view Russia as a threat to their "regime change" agendas for Syria and Iran. ..."
"... After all, if Russia and its independent-minded President Putin can be beaten back and beaten down, then a big obstacle to the neocon/Israeli goal of expanding the Mideast wars will be removed. ..."
"... Right now, the neocons are openly lusting for a "regime change" in Moscow despite the obvious risks that such turmoil in a nuclear-armed country might create, including the possibility that Putin would be succeeded not by some compliant Western client like the late Boris Yeltsin but by an extreme nationalist who might consider launching a nuclear strike to protect the honor of Mother Russia. ..."
"... The likely outcome from the anti-Russian show trials on Capitol Hill is that technology giants will bow to the bipartisan demand for new algorithms and other methods for stigmatizing, marginalizing and eliminating information that challenges the mainstream storylines in the cause of fighting "Russian propaganda." ..."
"... America's Stolen Narrative, ..."
"... witch hunt by congressional Democrats, working with the intelligence agencies and leading media outlets, to legitimize censorship and attack free speech on the Internet. ..."
"... The aim of this campaign is to claim that social conflict within the United States arises not from the scale of social inequality in America, greater than in any other country in the developed world, but rather from the actions of "outside agitators" working in the service of the Kremlin. ..."
"... The McCarthyite witch hunts of the 1950s sought to suppress left-wing thought and label all forms of dissent as illegitimate and treasonous. Those who led them worked to purge left-wing opinion from Hollywood, the trade unions and the universities. ..."
"... Likewise, the new McCarthyism is aimed at creating a political climate in which left-wing organizations and figures are demonized as agents of the Kremlin who are essentially engaged in treasonous activity deserving of criminal prosecution. ..."
"... Danny there was a time not to long ago, I would have said of how we are 'moving towards' to us becoming a police state, well instead replace that prediction of 'moving towards' to the stark reality to be described as 'that now we are', and there you will have it that we have finally arrived to becoming a full blown 'police state'. ..."
"... Thanks to Mr. Parry for this very fair and complete review of the latest attempts to generate a fake foreign enemy. The tyrant over a democracy must generate fake foreign enemies to pose falsely as a protector, so as to demand domestic power and accuse his opponents of disloyalty, as Aristotle and Plato warned thousands of years ago. ..."
"... The insanity of the entire "Russian hacking" narrative has been revealed over and over, including this past weekend when +/-100 Clinton loyalists published a screed on Medium saying Donna Brazile had been taken in by Russian propaganda. ..."
"... I have come to expect just about anything when it comes to Russia-Gate, but I was taken aback by the Hillary bots' accusation that videos of Hillary stumbling and others showing her apparently having a fit of some kind and also needing to be helped up the steps to someone's house -- which were taken by Americans and shown by Americans and seen by millions of shocked Americans -- were driven by Russia-Gate. ..."
"... Now, since the extremist xenophobic idea that contact with *any* Russians is a scandal has taken hold in the United States, people are probably not too eager to mention these contacts in these atmosphere of extreme xenophobic anti-Russian hatred in today's United States. Furthermore, people who have contact with large numbers of people probably really have difficulties remembering and listing these all. ..."
"... Their contacts are with Russian business and maybe the Russian mob, not the Russian state. There is really not question that Trump and his cronies are crooks, but they are crooks in the US and in all the other countries where they do business, not just Russia. I'm sure Mueller will be able to tie Trump directly to some of the sleeze. But there is no evidence that the Russian government is involved in any of it. "Russia-gate" implies Russian government involvement, not just random Russians. There is no evidence of that and moreover the logic is against. ..."
"... Mr. Cash . I think George Papadopoulis, Trump's young Aide, was an inside mole for neocon pro-Israel interests. Those interests needed to knock the unreliable President Trump out of the way to get the "system" back where it belonged – in their pocket. Papadopoulis, on his own, was rummaging around making Trump/Russian connections that finally ended with the the William (Richard?) Browder (well-known Washington DC neocon)/Natalia Veselnitskaya/Donald Trump, Jr. fiasco. The Trumps knew nothing of those negotiations, and young Trump left when he realized Natalia was only interested in Americans being allowed to adopt Russian children again and had no dirt on Hillary. ..."
"... It was never my impression that Cold War liberals opposed McCarthy or the anti-Communist witch hunt. Where they didn't gleefully join in, they watched quietly from the sidelines while the American left was eviscerated, jailed, driven from public life. Then the liberals stepped in when it was clear things were going a little too far and just as the steam had run out of McCarthy's slander machine. ..."
"... At that point figures like Adlai Stevenson, Hubert Humphrey and John F. Kennedy found the path clear for their brand of political stagecraft. They were imperialists to a man, something they proved abundantly when given the chance. Liberals supplanted the left in U.S. life- in the unions, the teaching profession, publishing and every other field where criticism of the Cold War and the enduring prevalence of worker solidarity across international lines threatened the new order. ..."
"... The book concludes that by equating dissent with disloyalty, promoting guilt by association, and personally commanding loyalty programs, ""Truman and his advisors employed all the political and programmatic techniques that in later years were to become associated with the broad phenomenon of McCarthyism."" ..."
"... Formed by Google in June 2015 with Eliot Higgins of the Atlantic Council's Bellingcat as a founding member, the "First Draft" coalition includes all the usual mainstream media "partners" in "regime change" war propaganda: the Washington Post, New York Times, CNN, the UK Guardian and Telegraph, BBC News, the Atlantic Council's Digital Forensics Research Lab and Kiev-based Stopfake. ..."
"... In the beginning, "Russiagate" was about alleged actions by Russian secret services. Evidence for these allegations has never emerged, and it seems that the Russiagate conspiracy theorists largely gave up on this part (they still sometimes write about it as if it was an established fact, but since the only thing in support of it they can adduce is the canard about the 17 intelligence services, it probably is not that interesting any more) ..."
"... Now, they have dropped the mask, and the object of their hatred are openly all Russian people, anyone who is "Russian linked" by ever having logged in to social networks from Russia or using Cyrillic letters. If these people and their media at least recognized the reality that they are now a particularly rabid part of the xenophobic far right in the United States ..."
"... The interview of Roger Waters on RT is one of the best I have seen in a long while. I wish some other artists get the courage to raise their voices. The link to the Roger Waters interview is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7jcvfbLoIA This Roger Waters interview is worth watching. ..."
"... It would seem that everyone on the US telivision , newspaper and internet news has mastered the art of hand over mouth , gasp and looking horrified every time Russia is mentioned. It looks to me that the US is in the middle of another of it´s mid life crises. Panic reigns supreme every where. If it was not so sad it would be funny. i was born in the 1940s and remember the McCarthy witch hunts and the daily shower of people jumping out of windows as a result of it. ..."
"... In The Fifties (1993), American journalist and historian David Halberstam addressed the noxious effect of McCarthyism: "McCarthy's carnival like four year spree of accusation charges, and threats touched something deep in the American body politic, something that lasted long after his own recklessness, carelessness and boozing ended his career in shame." (page 53) ..."
"... Halberstam specifically discussed how readily the so-called "free" press acquiesced to McCarthy's masquerading: "The real scandal in all this was the behavior of the members of the Washington press corps, who, more often than not, knew better. They were delighted to be a part of his traveling road show, chronicling each charge and then moving on to the next town, instead of bothering to stay behind and follow up. They had little interest in reporting how careless McCarthy was or how little it all meant to him." (page 55) ..."
"... Why have they not investigated James Comey? Why has the MSM instead created a Russian Boogeyman? Why was he invited to testify about the Russian connection but never cross examined about his own influence? Why is the clearest reason for election meddling by James Comey not even spoken of by the MSM? This is because the MSM does not want to cover events as they happened but wants to recreate a alternate reality suitable to themselves which serves their interests and convinces us that the MSM has no part at all in downplaying the involvement of themselves in the election but wants to create a foreign enemy to blame. ..."
Special Report: Many American liberals who once denounced McCarthyism as evil are now learning
to love the ugly tactic when it can be used to advance the Russia-gate "scandal" and silence dissent,
reports Robert Parry.
The New York Times has finally detected some modern-day McCarthyism, but not in the anti-Russia
hysteria that the newspaper has fueled for several years amid the smearing of American skeptics as
"useful idiots" and the like. No, the Times editors
are accusing a Long Island Republican of McCarthyism for linking his Democratic rival to "New
York City special interest groups." As the Times laments, "It's the old guilt by association."
Yet, the Times sees no McCarthyism in the frenzy of Russia-bashing and guilt by association for
any American who can be linked even indirectly to any Russian who might have some ill-defined links
to Russian President Vladimir Putin.
On Monday, in the same edition that expressed editorial outrage over that Long Island political
ad's McCarthyism, the Times ran two front-page articles under the headline: "A Complex Paper Trail:
Blurring Kremlin's Ties to Key U.S. Businesses."
Buried in the story's "jump" is the acknowledgement that Milner's "companies sold those holdings
several years ago." But such is the anti-Russia madness gripping the Establishment of Washington
and New York that any contact with any Russian constitutes a scandal worthy of front-page coverage.
On Monday, The Washington Post published
a page-one article entitled, "9 in Trump's orbit had contacts with Russians."
The anti-Russian madness has reached such extremes that even when you say something that's obviously
true – but that RT, the Russian television network, also reported – you are attacked for spreading
"Russian propaganda."
We saw that when former Democratic National Committee chairwoman Donna Brazile disclosed in her
new book that she considered the possibility of replacing Hillary Clinton on the Democratic ticket
after Clinton's public fainting spell and worries about her health.
Though there was a video of Clinton's collapse on Sept. 11, 2016, followed by her departure from
the campaign trail to fight pneumonia – not to mention her earlier scare with blood clots – the
response from a group of 100 Clinton supporters was to question Brazile's patriotism: "It is
particularly troubling and puzzling that she would seemingly buy into false Russian-fueled propaganda,
spread by both the Russians and our opponents about our candidate's health."
In other words, the go-to excuse for everything these days is to blame the Russians and smear
anyone who says anything – no matter how true – if it also was reported on RT.
Pressing the Tech Companies
Just as Sen. Joe McCarthy liked to haul suspected "communists" and "fellow-travelers" before his
committee in the 1950s, the New McCarthyism has its own witch-hunt hearings, such as last week's
Senate grilling of executives from Facebook, Twitter and Google for supposedly allowing Russians
to have input into the Internet's social networks. Executives from Facebook, Twitter and Google hauled
before a Senate Judiciary subcommittee on crime and terrorism on Oct. 31, 2017.Trying to appease Congress and fend off threats of government regulation, the rich tech companies
displayed their eagerness to eradicate any Russian taint.
Twitter's general counsel Sean J. Edgett
told the Senate Judiciary subcommittee on crime and terrorism that Twitter adopted an "expansive
approach to defining what qualifies as a Russian-linked account."
Edgett said the criteria included "whether the account was created in Russia, whether the user
registered the account with a Russian phone carrier or a Russian email address, whether the user's
display name contains Cyrillic characters, whether the user frequently Tweets in Russian, and whether
the user has logged in from any Russian IP address, even a single time. We considered an account
to be Russian-linked if it had even one of the relevant criteria."
The trouble with Twitter's methodology was that none of those criteria would connect an account
to the Russian government, let alone Russian intelligence or some Kremlin-controlled "troll farm."
But the criteria could capture individual Russians with no link to the Kremlin as well as people
who weren't Russian at all, including, say, American or European visitors to Russia who logged onto
Twitter through a Moscow hotel.
Also left unsaid is that Russians are not the only national group that uses the Cyrillic alphabet.
It is considered a standard script for writing in Belarus, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Serbo-Croatia and
Ukraine. So, for instance, a Ukrainian using the Cyrillic alphabet could end up falling into the
category of "Russian-linked" even if he or she hated Putin.
Twitter's attorney also said the company conducted a separate analysis from information provided
by unidentified "third party sources" who pointed toward accounts supposedly controlled by the St.
Petersburg-based Internet Research Agency (IRA), totaling 2,752 accounts. The IRA is typically described
in the U.S. press as a "troll farm" which employs tech-savvy employees who combat news and opinions
that are hostile to Russia and the Russian government. But exactly how those specific accounts were
traced back to this organization was not made clear.
And, to put that number in some perspective, Twitter claims 330 million active monthly users,
which makes the 2,752 accounts less than 0.001 percent of the total.
The Trouble with 'Trolling'
While the Russia-gate investigation has sought to portray the IRA effort as exotic and somehow
unique to Russia, the strategy is followed by any number of governments, political movements and
corporations – sometimes using enthusiastic volunteers but often employing professionals skilled
at challenging critical information or at least muddying the waters.
Those of us who operate on the Internet are familiar with harassment from "trolls" who may use
access to "comment" sections to inject propaganda and disinformation to sow confusion, to cause disruption,
or to discredit the site by promoting ugly opinions and nutty conspiracy theories.
As annoying as this "trolling" is, it's just a modern version of more traditional strategies used
by powerful entities for generations – hiring public-relations specialists, lobbyists, lawyers and
supposedly impartial "activists" to burnish images, fend off negative news and intimidate nosy investigators.
In this competition, modern Russia is both a late-comer and a piker.
The U.S. government fields legions of publicists, propagandists, paid journalists,
psy-ops specialists , contractors and non-governmental organizations to promote Washington's
positions and undermine rivals through information warfare.
The CIA has an entire bureaucracy dedicated to propaganda and disinformation, with some of
those
efforts farmed out to newer entities such as the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) or paid
for by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). NATO has a special command in Latvia
that undertakes
"strategic communications."
Israel is another skilled player in this field, tapping into its supporters around the world
to harass people who criticize the Zionist project. Indeed, since the 1980s, Israel has pioneered
many of the tactics of computer spying and sabotage that were adopted and expanded by America's National
Security Agency, explaining why the Obama administration teamed up with Israel in a scheme to plant
malicious code into Iranian centrifuges to sabotage Iran's nuclear program.
It's also ironic that the U.S. government touted social media as a great benefit in advancing
so-called "color revolutions" aimed at "regime change" in troublesome countries. For instance, when
the "green revolution" was underway in Iran in 2009 after the reelection of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad,
the Obama administration asked Twitter to postpone scheduled maintenance so the street protesters
could continue using the platform to organize against Ahmadinejad and to distribute their side of
the story to the outside world.
During the so-called Arab Spring in 2011, Facebook, Twitter and Skype won praise as a means of
organizing mass demonstrations to destabilize governments in Tunisia, Egypt and Syria. Back then,
the U.S. government denounced any attempts to throttle these social media platforms and the free
flow of information that they permitted as proof of dictatorship.
Social media also was a favorite of the U.S. government in Ukraine in 2013-14 when the Maidan
protests exploited these platforms to help destabilize and ultimately overthrow the elected government
of Ukraine, the key event that launched the New Cold War with Russia.
Swinging the Social Media Club
The truth is that, in those instances, the U.S. governments and its agencies were eagerly exploiting
the platforms to advance Washington's geopolitical agenda by disseminating American propaganda and
deploying U.S.-funded non-governmental organizations, which
taught
activists how to use social media to advance "regime change" scenarios.
A White Helmets volunteer pointing to the aftermath of a military attack.
While these uprisings were sold to Western audiences as genuine outpourings of public anger –
and there surely was some of that – the protests also benefited from U.S. funding and expertise.
In particular, NED and USAID provided money, equipment and training for anti-government operatives
challenging regimes in U.S. disfavor.
One of the most successful of these propaganda operations occurred in Syria where anti-government
rebels operating in areas controlled by Al Qaeda and its fellow Islamic militants used social media
to get their messaging to Western mainstream journalists who couldn't enter those sectors without
fear of beheading.
Since the rebels' goal of overthrowing President Bashar al-Assad meshed with the objectives of
the U.S. government and its allies in Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states, Western journalists
uncritically accepted the words and images provided by Al Qaeda's collaborators.
The success of this propaganda was so extraordinary that the White Helmets, a "civil defense"
group that worked in Al Qaeda territory, became the go-to source for dramatic video and even was
awarded the short-documentary
Oscar for an info-mercial produced for Netflix – despite evidence that the White Helmets were
staging some of the scenes for propaganda purposes.
Indeed, one argument for believing that Putin and the Kremlin might have "meddled" in last year's
U.S. election is that they could have felt it was time to give the United States a taste of its own
medicine.
After all, the United States intervened in the 1996 Russian election to ensure the continued rule
of the corrupt and pliable Boris Yeltsin. And there were the U.S.-backed street protests in Moscow
against the 2011 and 2012 elections in which Putin strengthened his political mandate. Those
protests earned the "color" designation the "snow revolution."
However, whatever Russia may or may not have done before last year's U.S. election, the Russia-gate
investigations have always sought to exaggerate the impact of that alleged "meddling" and molded
the narrative to whatever weak evidence was available.
The original storyline was that Putin authorized the "hacking" of Democratic emails as part of
a "disinformation" operation to undermine Hillary Clinton's candidacy and to help elect Donald Trump
– although
no hard evidence has been presented to establish that Putin gave such an order or that Russia
"hacked" the emails. WikiLeaks has repeatedly denied getting the emails from Russia, which also denies
any meddling.
Further, the emails were not "disinformation"; they were both real and, in many cases, newsworthy.
The DNC emails provided evidence that the DNC unethically tilted the playing field in favor of Clinton
and against Sen. Bernie Sanders, a point that Brazile also discovered in reviewing staffing and financing
relationships that Clinton had with the DNC under the prior chairwoman, Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
The purloined emails of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta revealed the contents of Clinton's
paid speeches to Wall Street (information that she was trying to hide from voters) and pay-to-play
features of the Clinton Foundation.
A Manchurian Candidate?
Still, the original narrative was that Putin wanted his Manchurian Candidate (Trump) in the White
House and took the extraordinary risk of infuriating the odds-on favorite (Clinton) by releasing
the emails even though they appeared unlikely to prevent Clinton's victory. So, there was always
that logical gap in the Russia-gate theory.
Since then, however, the U.S. mainstream narrative has shifted, in part, because the evidence
of Russian election "meddling" was so shaky. Under intense congressional pressure to find something,
Facebook reported
$100,000 in allegedly "Russian-linked" ads purchased in 2015-17, but noted that only 44 percent
were bought before the election. So, not only was the "Russian-linked" pebble tiny – compared to
Facebook's annual revenue of $27 billion – but more than half of the pebble was tossed into this
very large lake after Clinton had already lost.
So, the storyline was transformed into some vague Russian scheme to exacerbate social tensions
in the United States by taking different sides of hot-button issues, such as police brutality against
blacks. The New York Times reported that one of these "Russian-linked" pages
featured photos of cute puppies , which the Times speculated must have had some evil purpose
although it was hard to fathom. (Oh, those devious Russians!).
The estimate of how many Americans may have seen one of these "Russian-linked" ads also keeps
growing, now up to as many as 126 million or about one-third of the U.S. population. Of course, the
way the Internet works – with any item possibly going viral – you might as well say the ads could
have reached billions of people.
Whenever I write an article or send out a Tweet, I too could be reaching 126 million or even billions
of people, but the reality is that I'd be lucky if the number were in the thousands. But amid the
Russia-gate frenzy, no exaggeration is too outlandish or too extreme.
Another odd element of Russia-gate is that the intensity of this investigation is disproportionate
to the lack of interest shown toward far better documented cases of actual foreign-government interference
in American elections and policymaking.
For instance, the major U.S. media long ignored the extremely well-documented case of Richard
Nixon colluding with South Vietnamese officials to sabotage President Lyndon Johnson's Vietnam
War peace talks to gain an advantage for Nixon in the 1968 election. That important chapter of history
only gained
The
New York Times' seal of approval earlier this year after the Times had dismissed the earlier
volumes of evidence as "rumors."
In the 1980 election, Ronald Reagan's team – especially his campaign director William Casey in
collaboration with Israel and Iran – appeared to have gone behind President Jimmy Carter's back
to undercut Carter's negotiations to free 52 American hostages then held in Iran and essentially
doom Carter's reelection hopes.
There were a couple of dozen witnesses to that scheme who spoke with me and other investigative
journalists – as well as documentary evidence showing that President Reagan did authorize secret
arms shipments to Iran via Israel shortly after the hostages were freed during Reagan's inauguration
on Jan. 20, 1981.
However, since Vice President (later President) George H.W. Bush, who was implicated in the scheme,
was well-liked on both sides of the aisle and because Reagan had become a Republican icon, the October
Surprise case of 1980 was pooh-poohed by the major media and dismissed by a congressional investigation
in the early 1990s. Despite the extraordinary number of witnesses and supporting documents, Wikipedia
listed the scandal as a "conspiracy theory."
Israeli Influence
And, if you're really concerned about foreign interference in U.S. elections and policies,
there's the remarkable influence of Israel and its perceived ability to effect the defeat of almost
any politician who deviates from what the Israeli government wants, going back at least to the 1980s
when
Sen.
Chuck Percy and Rep. Paul Findley were among the political casualties after pursuing contacts
with the Palestinians.
If anyone doubts how Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has continued to pull the strings
of U.S. politicians, just watch one of his record-tying three addresses to joint sessions of Congress
and count how often
Republicans and Democrats jump to their feet in enthusiastic applause. (The only other foreign
leader to get the joint-session honor three times was Great Britain's Prime Minister Winston Churchill.)
So, what makes Russia-gate different from the other cases? Did Putin conspire with Trump to extend
a bloody war as Nixon did with the South Vietnamese leaders? Did Putin lengthen the captivity of
U.S. hostages to give Trump a political edge? Did Putin manipulate U.S. policy in the Middle East
to entice President George W. Bush to invade Iraq and set the region ablaze, as Israel's Netanyahu
did? Is Putin even now pushing for wider Mideast wars, as Netanyahu is?
Indeed, one point that's never addressed in any serious way is why is the U.S. so angry with Russia
while these other cases, in which U.S. interests were clearly damaged and American democracy compromised,
were treated largely as non-stories.
Why is Russia-gate a big deal while the other cases weren't? Why are opposite rules in play now
– with Democrats, many Republicans and the major news media flogging fragile "links," needling what
little evidence there is, and assuming the worst rather than insisting that only perfect evidence
and perfect witnesses be accepted as in the earlier cases?
The answer seems to be the widespread hatred for President Trump combined with vested interests
in favor of whipping up the New Cold War. That is a goal valued by both the Military-Industrial Complex,
which sees trillions of dollars in strategic weapons systems in the future, and the neoconservatives,
who view Russia as a threat to their "regime change" agendas for Syria and Iran.
After all, if Russia and its independent-minded President Putin can be beaten back and beaten
down, then a big obstacle to the neocon/Israeli goal of expanding the Mideast wars will be removed.
Right now, the neocons are openly lusting for a
"regime change" in Moscow despite the obvious risks that such turmoil in a nuclear-armed country
might create, including the possibility that Putin would be succeeded not by some compliant Western
client like the late Boris Yeltsin but by an extreme nationalist who might consider launching a nuclear
strike to protect the honor of Mother Russia.
The Democrats, the liberals and even many progressives justify their collusion with the neocons
by the need to remove Trump by any means necessary and "stop fascism." But their contempt for Trump
and their exaggeration of the "Hitler" threat that this incompetent buffoon supposedly poses have
blinded them to
the extraordinary risks attendant to their course of action and how they are playing into the
hands of the war-hungry neocons.
A Smokescreen for Repression
There also seems to be little or no concern that the Establishment is using Russia-gate as a smokescreen
for
clamping down on independent media sites on the Internet. Traditional supporters of civil liberties
have looked the other way as the rights of people associated with the Trump campaign have been trampled
and journalists who simply question the State Department's narratives on, say, Syria and Ukraine
are denounced as "Moscow stooges" and "useful idiots."
The likely outcome from the anti-Russian show trials on Capitol Hill is that technology giants
will bow to the bipartisan demand for new algorithms and other methods for stigmatizing, marginalizing
and eliminating information that challenges the mainstream storylines in the cause of fighting "Russian
propaganda."
The warning from powerful senators was crystal clear. "I don't think you get it," Sen. Dianne
Feinstein, D-California,
warned social media executives last week. "You bear this responsibility. You created these platforms,
and now they are being misused. And you have to be the ones who do something about it. Or we will."
As this authoritarian if not totalitarian future looms and as the dangers of nuclear annihilation
from an intentional or unintentional nuclear war with Russia grow, many people who should know better
are caught up in the Russia-gate frenzy.
I used to think that liberals and progressives opposed McCarthyism because they regarded it as
a grave threat to freedom of thought and to genuine democracy, but now it appears that they have
learned to love McCarthyism except, of course, when it rears its ugly head in some Long Island political
ad criticizing New York City.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated
Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative,
either in
print here or as an e-book (from
Amazon and
barnesandnoble.com ).
Joe Tedesky , November 6, 2017 at 3:12 pm
I watched the C-Span 'Russian/2016 Election Investigation Hearings' in horror, as each congressperson
grilled the Hi-Tech executives in a way to suggest that our First Amendment Rights are now on
life support, and our Congress is ready to pull the plug at any moment. I thought, of how this
wasn't the America I was brought up to believe in. So as I have reached the age in life where
nothing should surprise me, I realize now how fragile our Rights are, in this warring nation that
calls itself America.
When it comes to Israel I have two names, Jonathan Pollard & the USS Liberty, and with that,
that is enough said.
Danny Weil , November 6, 2017 at 6:33 pm
This week's congressional hearings on "extremist content" on the Internet mark a new stage
in the McCarthyite witch hunt by congressional Democrats, working with the intelligence agencies
and leading media outlets, to legitimize censorship and attack free speech on the Internet.
One after another, congressmen and senators goaded representatives of Google, Twitter and Facebook
to admit that their platforms were used to sow "social divisions" and "extremist" political opinions.
The aim of this campaign is to claim that social conflict within the United States arises
not from the scale of social inequality in America, greater than in any other country in the developed
world, but rather from the actions of "outside agitators" working in the service of the Kremlin.
The hearings revolved around claims that Russia sought to "weaponize" the Internet by harnessing
social anger within the United States. "Russia," said Democratic Congressman Adam Schiff, promoted
"discord in the US by inflaming passions on a range of divisive issues." It sought to "mobilize
real Americans to sign online petitions and join rallies and protests."
The McCarthyite witch hunts of the 1950s sought to suppress left-wing thought and label
all forms of dissent as illegitimate and treasonous. Those who led them worked to purge left-wing
opinion from Hollywood, the trade unions and the universities.
Likewise, the new McCarthyism is aimed at creating a political climate in which left-wing
organizations and figures are demonized as agents of the Kremlin who are essentially engaged in
treasonous activity deserving of criminal prosecution.
Watching this Orwellian tragedy play out in our American society, where our Congress is insisting
that disclaimers and restrictions be placed upon suspicious adbuys and editorial essays, is counterintuitive
to what we Americans were brought up to belief. Why, all my life teachers, and adults, would warn
us students of reading the news to not to believe everything we read as pure fact, but to research
a subject before coming to a conclusion toward your accepting an opinion to wit. And with these
warnings of avoiding us being suckered into a wrong belief, we were told that this was the price
we were required to pay for having a free press society. This freedom of speech was, and has always
been the bedrock of our hopes and wishes for our belief in the American Dream.
Danny there was a time not to long ago, I would have said of how we are 'moving towards'
to us becoming a police state, well instead replace that prediction of 'moving towards' to the
stark reality to be described as 'that now we are', and there you will have it that we have finally
arrived to becoming a full blown 'police state'. Little by little, and especially since 911
one by one our civil liberties were taken away. Here again our freedom of speech is being destroyed,
and with this America is now where Germany had been in the mid-thirties. America's own guilty
conscience is rapidly doing some physiological projections onto their imaginary villain Russia.
All I keep hearing is my dear sweet mother lecturing me on how one lie always leads to another
lie until the truth will finally jump up and bite you in the ass, and think to myself of how wise
my mother had been with her young girl Southside philosophy. May you Rest In Peace Mum.
Martin , November 7, 2017 at 3:21 pm
Yankees chicks are coming home to roost. So many peoples rights and lives had to be extinguished
for Americans to have the illusion of pursuing their happiness, well, what goes around comes around.
Gregory Herr , November 7, 2017 at 8:39 pm
Gee wiz Adam Schiff you make it sound as if signing petitions and rallying to causes and civil
protests are unamerican or something. And Russians on the internet are harnessing social anger!
Pathetic. These jerks who would have us believe they are interested in "saving" democracy or stopping
fascism have sure got it backward.
Geoffrey de Galles , November 8, 2017 at 12:33 pm
Joe, Allow me please, respectfully, to add Mordecai Vanunu -- Israel's own Daniel Ellsberg
-- to your two names.
Erik G , November 6, 2017 at 3:55 pm
Thanks to Mr. Parry for this very fair and complete review of the latest attempts to generate
a fake foreign enemy. The tyrant over a democracy must generate fake foreign enemies to pose falsely
as a protector, so as to demand domestic power and accuse his opponents of disloyalty, as Aristotle
and Plato warned thousands of years ago.
It is especially significant that the zionists are the sole beneficiaries of this scam as well
as the primary sponsors of the DNC, hoping to attack Russia and Iran to support Israeli land thefts
in the Mideast. It is well established that zionists control US mass media, which never examine
the central issue of our times, the corruption of democracy by the zionist/MIC/WallSt influence
upon the US government and mass media. Russia-gate is in fact a coverup for Israel-gate.
Why did we ever believe that the democrat party was a defender of free speech? These bought
and paid for tools of the economic elites are only interested in serving their masters with slavish
devotion. Selfishness and immorality are their stock in trade; betraying the public their real
intention.
Cratylus , November 6, 2017 at 4:11 pm
Great essay.
But one disagreement. I may agree with Trump on very, very few things, among them getting rid
of the horrible TPP, one cornerstone of Hillary's pivot; meeting with Putin in Hamburg; the Lavrov-Tillerson
arranged cease-fire in SE Syria; the termination of the CIA's support for anti-Assad jihadis in
Syria; a second meeting with Putin at the ASEAN conference this week; and in general the idea
of "getting along with Russia" (a biggie) which Russia-gate is slowing to a crawl as designed
by the neocons.
But Trump as an "incompetent buffoon" is a stretch albeit de rigueur on the pages of the NYT,
the programs of NPR and in all "respectable" precincts. Trump won the presidency for god's sake
– something that eluded the 17 other GOP primary candidates, some of them considered very"smart"
and Bernie and Jill, and in the past, Ralph Nader and Ron Paul – and the supposedly "very smart"
Hillary for which we should be eternally grateful. "Incompetent" hardly seems accurate. The respectable
commentariat has continually underestimated Trump. We should heed Putin who marveled at Trump's
seemingly impossible victory.
Bill Cash , November 6, 2017 at 4:13 pm
How do you explain all the connections between Trump acolytes and Russia and their lying about
it. I think they've all lied about their contacts. Why would they do that?I lived through the
real McCarthyism and, so far, this isn't close to what happened then.
Bill , November 6, 2017 at 4:40 pm
Probably because they are corruptly involved. Thing is, the higher priority is to avoid another
decades-long cold war risking nuclear war. Do you remember how many close calls we had in the
last one?
I'm more suspicious of Trump than most here, but even I think we need some priorities. Far
more extensive corruption of a similar variety keeps occurring and no one cares, as Mr. Parry
points out here yet again.
As for McCarthyism, whatever the current severity, the result is unfolding as a new campaign
against dissenting voices on the internet. That's supremely not-okay with me.
Gregory Herr , November 7, 2017 at 8:46 pm
Right. Just because we don't yet have another fulll-fledged HUAC happening doesn't mean severe
perils aren't attached to this new McCarthyism. Censorship of dissent is supremely not-okay with
me as well.
That class of people lie as a matter of course; it's standard procedure. If you exacerbate
it by adding on the anti-Russia hysteria that was spewed out by the Democrats before the ink was
dry on the ballots, what possible reason would they have for being truthful?
The insanity of the entire "Russian hacking" narrative has been revealed over and over,
including this past weekend when +/-100 Clinton loyalists published a screed on Medium saying
Donna Brazile had been taken in by Russian propaganda.
Litchfield , November 6, 2017 at 7:10 pm
I have come to expect just about anything when it comes to Russia-Gate, but I was taken
aback by the Hillary bots' accusation that videos of Hillary stumbling and others showing her
apparently having a fit of some kind and also needing to be helped up the steps to someone's house
-- which were taken by Americans and shown by Americans and seen by millions of shocked Americans
-- were driven by Russia-Gate.
Obviously, Brazile, like millions of voters, saw these films and made appropriate inferences:
that Hillary's basic health and stamina were a question mark. Of course, Hillary also offered
Americans nothing in her campaign rhetoric. She came across as the mother-in-law from hell.
Was it also a Russia-Gate initiative when Hillary hid from her supporters on election night
and let Podesta face the screaming sobbing supporters? Too much spiked vodka or something? Our
political stage in the USA is a madhouse.
Adrian Engler , November 6, 2017 at 6:20 pm
These people probably have "connections" with a relatively large number of people, and only
very small fraction of the people they have contact with are probably Russians. Now, since
the extremist xenophobic idea that contact with *any* Russians is a scandal has taken hold in
the United States, people are probably not too eager to mention these contacts in these atmosphere
of extreme xenophobic anti-Russian hatred in today's United States. Furthermore, people who have
contact with large numbers of people probably really have difficulties remembering and listing
these all.
Today's political atmosphere in the United States probably has a lot in common with the Soviet
Union. There, people got in trouble if they had contacts with people from Western, capitalist
countries – and if they were asked and did not mention these contacts in order to avoid problems,
they could get in trouble even more.
I think it is absolutely clear that no one who takes part in this hateful anti-Russian campaign
can pretend to be liberal or progressive. The kind of society these xenophobes who detest pluralism
and accuse everyone who has opinions outside the mainstream of being a foreign agent is absolutely
abhorrent, in my view.
Leslie F , November 6, 2017 at 6:40 pm
Their contacts are with Russian business and maybe the Russian mob, not the Russian state.
There is really not question that Trump and his cronies are crooks, but they are crooks in the
US and in all the other countries where they do business, not just Russia. I'm sure Mueller will
be able to tie Trump directly to some of the sleeze. But there is no evidence that the Russian
government is involved in any of it. "Russia-gate" implies Russian government involvement, not
just random Russians. There is no evidence of that and moreover the logic is against.
occupy on , November 7, 2017 at 12:47 am
Mr. Cash . I think George Papadopoulis, Trump's young Aide, was an inside mole for neocon
pro-Israel interests. Those interests needed to knock the unreliable President Trump out of the
way to get the "system" back where it belonged – in their pocket. Papadopoulis, on his own, was
rummaging around making Trump/Russian connections that finally ended with the the William (Richard?)
Browder (well-known Washington DC neocon)/Natalia Veselnitskaya/Donald Trump, Jr. fiasco. The
Trumps knew nothing of those negotiations, and young Trump left when he realized Natalia was only
interested in Americans being allowed to adopt Russian children again and had no dirt on Hillary.
In the meantime, Trump Jr. was connected with an evil Russian (Natalia), William Browder was
able to link the neocon-hated Trump Sr with neocon-hated, evil Russians (who currently have a
warrant out for Browder's arrest on a 15 [or 50?] million dollar tax evasion charge), and neocons
have a good chance of claiming victory out of chaos (as is their style and was their intent for
the Middle East [not Washington DC!] in the neocon Project For a New American Century – 1998).
Clinton may have lost power in Washington DC, but Clinton-supporting neocons may not have – thanks
to George Papadopoulis. We shall see. Something tells me the best is yet to come out of the Mueller
Investigations.
Roy G Biv , November 7, 2017 at 2:03 pm
You are seeing it clearly Bill. This site was once a go-to-source for investigative journalism.
Now it is a place for opinion screeds, mostly with head buried in the sand about the blatant Russian
manipulation of the 2016 election. The dominant gang of posters here squash any dissent and dissenting
comments usually get deleted within a day. I don't understand why and how it came to be so, but
the hysterical labeling of Comey/Mueller investigations as McCarthyism by Parry has ruined his
sterling reputation for me.
Stygg , November 7, 2017 at 2:24 pm
If this "Russian manipulation" was as blatant as everyone keeps telling me, how come it's all
based on ridiculous BS instead of evidence? Where's the beef?
anon , November 7, 2017 at 3:22 pm
Unable to substantiate anything you say nor argue against anything said here, you disgrace
yourself. Do you think anyone is fooled by your repeated lie that you are a disaffected former
supporter of this site? And you made the "Stygg" reply above.
Tom Hall , November 6, 2017 at 4:46 pm
It was never my impression that Cold War liberals opposed McCarthy or the anti-Communist
witch hunt. Where they didn't gleefully join in, they watched quietly from the sidelines while
the American left was eviscerated, jailed, driven from public life. Then the liberals stepped
in when it was clear things were going a little too far and just as the steam had run out of McCarthy's
slander machine.
At that point figures like Adlai Stevenson, Hubert Humphrey and John F. Kennedy found the
path clear for their brand of political stagecraft. They were imperialists to a man, something
they proved abundantly when given the chance. Liberals supplanted the left in U.S. life- in the
unions, the teaching profession, publishing and every other field where criticism of the Cold
War and the enduring prevalence of worker solidarity across international lines threatened the
new order.
So it's no surprise that liberalism is the rallying point for a new wave of repression. The
dangerous buffoon currently occupying the White House stands as a perfect foil to the phony indignation
of the liberal leadership- Schumer, Pelosi et al.. The jerk was made to order, and they mean to
dump him as their ideological forebears unloaded old Tail Gunner Joe. In fact, Trump is so odious,
the Democrats, their media colleagues and major elements of the national security state believe
that bringing down the bozo can be made to look like a triumph of democracy. Of course, by then
dissent will have been stamped out far more efficiently than Trump and his half-assed cohorts
could have achieved. And it will be done in the name of restoring sanity, honoring the constitution,
and protecting everyone from the Russians. I was born in the fifties, and it looks like I'm going
to die in the fifties.
Danny Weil , November 6, 2017 at 6:37 pm
Truman started it. And he used it very well.
THE TRUMAN DOCTRINE AND ORIGINS OF ""McCARTHYISM
By Richard M. Freeland
This book argues that Truman used anti-Communist scare tactics to force Congress to implement
his plans for multilateral free trade and specifically to pass the Marshall Plan. This is a sound
emphasis, but other elements of postwar anti-Communist campaigns are neglected, especially anti-labor
legislation; and Freeland attributes to Truman a ""go-soft"" attitude toward the Soviets, which
is certainly not proven by the fact that he restrained the ultras Forrestal, Kennan, and Byrnes
-- indeed, some of Freeland's own citations confirm Truman's violent anti-Soviet spirit.
The book concludes that by equating dissent with disloyalty, promoting guilt by association,
and personally commanding loyalty programs, ""Truman and his advisors employed all the political
and programmatic techniques that in later years were to become associated with the broad phenomenon
of McCarthyism."" Freeland's revisionism is confined and conservative: he deems the Soviets
most responsible for the Cold War and implies that ""subversion"" was in fact a menace.
You are one of the very few critical journalists today willing to print objective measures
of the truth, while the MSM spins out of control under the guise of "protecting America" (and
their vital sources), while at the same time actually undermining the very principles of a working
democracy they sanctimoniously pretend to defend. It makes me nostalgic for the McCarthy era,
when we could safely satirize the Army-McCarthy Hearings (unless you were a witness!). I offer
the following as a retrospective of a lost era.:
Top-Ten Criteria for being a Putin Stooge, and a Chance at Winning A One Way Lottery Ticket:to
the Gala Gitmo Hotel:
:
(1) Reading Consortium News, Truth Dig, The Real News Network, RT and Al Jeziera
(2) Drinking Starbucks and vodka at the Russian Tea Room with Russian tourists (with an embedded
FSS agent) in NYC.
(3) Meeting suspicious tour guides in Red Square who accept dollars for their historical jokes.
(4) Claiming to catch a cell phone photo of the Putin limousine passing through the Kremlin Tower
gate.
(4) Starting a joint venture with a Russian trading partner who sells grain to feed Putin's stable
of stallions. .
(5) Catching the flu while being sneezed upon in Niagara Falls by a Russian violinist.
(6) Finding the hidden jewels in the Twelfth Chair were nothing but cut glass.
(7) Reading War and Peace on the Brighton Beach ferry.
(8) Playing the iPod version of Rachmaninoff's "Vespers" through ear buds while attending mass
in Dallas, TX..
(9) Water skiing on the Potomac flying a pennant saying "Wasn't Boris Good Enough?"
(10) Having audibly chuckled even once at items (1) – (9). Thanks Bob, Please don't let up!
Lisa , November 6, 2017 at 7:47 pm
Howard,
I chuckled loudly more than once – but luckily, no one heard me! No witnesses! So you are acquainted
with the masterpiece "12 chairs"? Very suspicious.
David G , November 6, 2017 at 8:42 pm
I've heard that's Mel Brooks favorite among his own movies.
David G , November 6, 2017 at 8:48 pm
I always find it exasperating when I have to remind the waiter at the diner to bring Russian
dressing along with the reuben sandwich, but these days I wonder if my loyalty is being tested.
Dave P. , November 6, 2017 at 10:27 pm
David G –
They will change the name of dressing very soon. Remember 2003 when French refused to endorse
the invasion of Iraq. I think they unofficially changed the name of "French Fries" to "Freedom
Fries".
It is just the start. The whole History is being rewritten – in compliance with Zionist Ideology.
Those evil Russkies will be shown as they are!
Clearly, since I've published one book by a Russian, one by a now-deceased US ex-pat living
in Russia, and have our catalog made available in Russia via our international distributor, I
am a traitor to the US. If you add in my staunch resistance to the whole Russiagate narrative
AND the fact I post links to stories in RT America, I'm doomed.
I wish I could think I'm being wholly sarcastic.
Danny Weil , November 6, 2017 at 6:38 pm
You are not alone. Many of us live outside the open air prison and feel the same way
Abe , November 6, 2017 at 5:29 pm
Robert Parry has described "the New McCarthyism" having "its own witch-hunt hearings". In fact
"last week's Senate grilling of executives from Facebook, Twitter and Google" was merely an exercise
in political theatre because all three entities already belong to the "First Draft" coalition:
Formed by Google in June 2015 with Eliot Higgins of the Atlantic Council's Bellingcat as
a founding member, the "First Draft" coalition includes all the usual mainstream media "partners"
in "regime change" war propaganda: the Washington Post, New York Times, CNN, the UK Guardian and
Telegraph, BBC News, the Atlantic Council's Digital Forensics Research Lab and Kiev-based Stopfake.
In a remarkable post-truth declaration, the "First Draft" coalition insists that members will
"work together to tackle common issues, including ways to streamline the verification process".
In the "post-truth" regime of US and NATO hybrid warfare, the deliberate distortion of truth
and facts is called "verification".
The Washington Post / PropOrNot imbroglio, and "First Draft" coalition "partner" organizations'
zeal to "verify" US intelligence-backed fake news claims about Russian hacking of the US presidential
election, reveal the "post-truth" mission of this new Google-backed hybrid war propaganda alliance.
Hysterical demonization of Russia escalated dramatically after Russia thwarted the Israeli-Saudi-US
plan to dismember the Syrian state.
With the rollback of ISIS and Al Qaeda terrorist proxy forces in Syria, and the failure of
Kurdish separatist efforts in Iraq, Israel plans to launch military attacks against southern Lebanon
and Syria.
South Front has presented a cogent and fairly detailed analysis of Israel's upcoming war in
southern Lebanon.
Conspicuously absent from the South Front analysis is any discussion of the Israeli planned
assault on Syria, or possible responses to the conflict from the United States or Russia.
Israeli propaganda preparations for attack are already in high gear. Unfortunately, sober heads
are in perilously short supply in Israel and the U.S., so the prognosis can hardly be optimistic.
"Scenarios for the Third Lebanon War
Over time, IDF's military effectiveness had declined. [ ] In the Second Lebanon War of 2006
due to the overwhelming numerical superiority in men and equipment the IDF managed to occupy key
strong points but failed to inflict a decisive defeat on Hezbollah. The frequency of attacks in
Israeli territory was not reduced; the units of the IDF became bogged down in the fighting in
the settlements and suffered significant losses. There now exists considerable political pressure
to reassert IDF's lost military dominance and, despite the complexity and unpredictability of
the situation we may assume the future conflict will feature only two sides, IDF and Hezbollah.
Based on the bellicose statements of the leadership of the Jewish state, the fighting will be
initiated by Israel.
"The operation will begin with a massive evacuation of residents from the settlements in the
north and centre of Israel. Since Hezbollah has agents within the IDF, it will not be possible
to keep secret the concentration of troops on the border and a mass evacuation of civilians. Hezbollah
units will will be ordered to occupy a prepared defensive position and simultaneously open fire
on places were IDF units are concentrated. The civilian population of southern Lebanon will most
likely be evacuated. IDF will launch massive bombing causing great damage to the social infrastructure
and some damage to Hezbollah's military infrastructure, but without destroying the carefully protected
and camouflaged rocket launchers and launch sites.
"Hezbollah control and communications systems have elements of redundancy. Consequently, regardless
of the use of specialized precision-guided munitions, the command posts and electronic warfare
systems will not be paralysed, maintaining communications including through the use of fibre-optic
communications means. IDF discovered that the movement has such equipment during the 2006 war.
Smaller units will operate independently, working with open communication channels, using the
pre-defined call signs and codes.
"Israeli troops will then cross the border of Lebanon, despite the presence of the UN peacekeeping
mission in southern Lebanon, beginning a ground operation with the involvement of a greater number
of units than in the 2006 war. The IDF troops will occupy commanding heights and begin to prepare
for assaults on settlements and actions in the tunnels. The Israelis do not score a quick victory
as they suffer heavy losses in built-up areas. The need to secure occupied territory with patrols
and checkpoints will cause further losses.
"The fact that Israel itself started the war and caused damage to the civilian infrastructure,
allows the leadership of the movement to use its missile arsenal on Israeli cities. While Israel's
missile defence systems can successfully intercept the launched missiles, there are not enough
of them to blunt the bombardment. The civilian evacuation paralyzes life in the country. As soon
IDF's Iron Dome and other medium-range systems are spent on short-range Hezbollah rockets, the
bombardment of Israel with long-range missiles may commence. Hezbollah's Iranian solid-fuel rockets
do not require much time to prepare for launch and may target the entire territory of Israel,
causing further losses.
"It is difficult to assess the duration of actions of this war. One thing that seems certain
is that Israel shouldn't count on its rapid conclusion, similar to last September's exercises.
Hezbollah units are stronger and more capable than during the 2006 war, despite the fact that
they are fighting in Syria and suffered losses there.
"Conclusions
"The combination of large-scale exercises and bellicose rhetoric is intended to muster Israeli
public support for the aggression against Hezbollah by convincing the public the victory would
be swift and bloodless. Instead of restraint based on a sober assessment of relative capabilities,
Israeli leaders appear to be in a state of blood lust. In contrast, the Hezbollah has thus far
demonstrated restraint and diplomacy.
"Underestimating the adversary is always the first step towards a defeat. Such mistakes are
paid for with soldiers' blood and commanders' careers. The latest IDF exercises suggest Israeli
leaders underestimate the opponent and, more importantly, consider them to be quite dumb. In reality,
Hezbollah units will not cross the border. There is no need to provoke the already too nervous
neighbor and to suffer losses solely to plant a flag and photograph it for their leader. For Hezbollah,
it is easier and safer when the Israeli soldiers come to them. According to the IDF soldiers who
served in Gaza and southern Lebanon, it is easier to operate on the plains of Gaza than the mountainous
terrain of southern Lebanon. This is a problem for armoured vehicles fighting for control of heights,
tunnels, and settlements, where they are exposed to anti-armor weapons.
"While the Israeli establishment is in a state of patriotic frenzy, it would be a good time
for them to turn to the wisdom of their ancestors. After all, as the old Jewish proverb says:
'War is a big swamp, easy to go into but hard to get out'."
Yes, the latest "big fish" outed yesterday as an agent of the Kremlin was the U.S. Secretary
of Commerce (Wilbur Ross) who was discovered to hold stock in a shipping company that does business
with a Russian petrochemical company (Sibur) whose owners include Vladimir Putin's son-in-law
(Kirill Shamalov). Obviously the orders flow directly from Putin to Shamalov to Sibur to the shipping
company to Ross to Trump, all to the detriment of American citizens.
From RT (another tainted source!): "US Commerce Secretary Wilbur L. Ross Jr. has a stake in
a shipping firm that receives millions of dollars a year in revenue from a company whose key owners
include Russian President Vladimir Putin's son-in-law and a Russian tycoon sanctioned by the U.S.
Treasury Department as a member of Putin's inner circle," says the International Consortium of
Investigative Journalists (ICIJ), the main publisher of the Paradise Papers. After the report
was published, some US lawmakers accused Ross of misleading Congress during his confirmation hearings."
Don't go mistaking the "International Consortium of Investigative Journalists for "Consortium
News." These guys are dedicated witch hunters, searching for anyone with six degrees of separation
to Vladimir Putin and his grand plan to thwart the United States and effect regime change within
its borders.
In a clear attempt to weasel out of his traitorous transgression, Ross stated "In a separate
interview with CNBC, that Sibur [which is NOT the company he owned stock in] was not subject to
US sanctions." 'A company not under sanction is just like any other company, period. It was a
normal commercial relationship and one that I had nothing to do with the creation of, and do not
know the shareholders who were apparently sanctioned at some later point in time,' he said." Since
when can we start allowing excuses like that? Not knowing that someone holds stock in a company
that does business with a company in which you own stock may at some later point in time become
sanctioned by the all-wise and all-good American federal government?
I can't wait till they make the first Ben Stiller comedy based on this fiasco twenty years
from now. It will be hilarious slap-stick, maybe titled "Can You Believe these Mother Fockers?"
President Chelea Clinton of our great and noble idiocracy will throw out the first witch on opening
day of the movie.
Danny Weil , November 6, 2017 at 6:27 pm
Let's be honest. Most Americans think McCarthy is a retail store. No education. And they think
Russia is the Soviet Union. Meanwhile, Trump is in Japan to start war with N. Korea to hide the
blemishes or the canker on his ass. America is rapidly collapsing.
Adrian Engler , November 6, 2017 at 6:34 pm
In the beginning, "Russiagate" was about alleged actions by Russian secret services. Evidence
for these allegations has never emerged, and it seems that the Russiagate conspiracy theorists
largely gave up on this part (they still sometimes write about it as if it was an established
fact, but since the only thing in support of it they can adduce is the canard about the 17 intelligence
services, it probably is not that interesting any more).
Now, they have dropped the mask, and the object of their hatred are openly all Russian
people, anyone who is "Russian linked" by ever having logged in to social networks from Russia
or using Cyrillic letters. If these people and their media at least recognized the reality that
they are now a particularly rabid part of the xenophobic far right in the United States
But when people daily spew hate against anything and anyone "Russia linked" and still don't
recognize that they have gone over to the far right and even claim they are liberal or progressive,
this is completely absurd.
McCarthyism, as terrible as it was, at least originally was motivated by hatred against a certain
political ideology that also had its bad sides. But today's Russiagate peddlers clearly are motivated
by hatred against a certain ethnicity, a certain country, and a certain language. I don't think
there is any way to avoid the conclusion that with their hatred against anyone who is "Russia
linked", they have become right-wing extremists.
Litchfield , November 6, 2017 at 6:46 pm
"Israel is another skilled player in this field, tapping into its supporters around the world
to harass people who criticize the Zionist project."
Yes, very well organized.
In fact virtually every synagogue is a center for organizing people to harass others who are exercising
their First Amendment rights to diseminate information about Israel's occupation of Palestine.
The link below is to a protest and really, personal attack, against a Unitarian minister in Marblehead,
Mass., for daring to screen the film ""The Occupation of the American Mind, Israel's Public Relations
War in the United States." In other words, for daring to provide an dissenting opinion and, simply,
to tell the truth. Ironic is that the protesters' comment actually reinforce the basic message
of the film.
No other views on Israel will be allowed to enter the public for a good airing and discussion
and debate. The truth about the illegal Israeli occupation will be shouted down, and those who
try to provide information to the public on this subject will be vilified as "anti-semites." Kudos
to this minister for screening the film.
The Occupation of the American Mind: Israel's Public Relations War in the United States (2016)
examines pro-Israel Hasbara propaganda efforts within the U.S.
This important documentary, narrated by Roger waters, exposes how the Israeli government, the
U.S. government, and the pro-Israel Lobby join forces to shape American media coverage in Israel's
favor.
Documentary producer Sut Jhally is professor of Communication at the University of Massachusetts,
and a leading scholar on advertising, public relations, and political propaganda. He is also the
founder and Executive Director of the Media Education Foundation, a documentary film company that
looks at issues related to U.S. media and public attitudes.
Jhally is the producer and director of dozens of documentaries about U.S. politics and media
culture, including Peace, Propaganda & the Promised Land: U.S. Media & the Israeli–Palestinian
Conflict.
The Occupation of the American Mind provides a sweeping analysis of Israel's decades-long battle
for the hearts, minds, and tax dollars of the American people – a battle that has only intensified
over the past few years in the face of widening international condemnation of Israel's increasingly
right-wing policies.
Dave P. , November 7, 2017 at 2:45 am
Abe –
The interview of Roger Waters on RT is one of the best I have seen in a long while. I wish
some other artists get the courage to raise their voices. The link to the Roger Waters interview
is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7jcvfbLoIA
This Roger Waters interview is worth watching.
It would seem that everyone on the US telivision , newspaper and internet news has mastered
the art of hand over mouth , gasp and looking horrified every time Russia is mentioned. It looks
to me that the US is in the middle of another of it´s mid life crises. Panic reigns supreme every
where. If it was not so sad it would be funny. i was born in the 1940s and remember the McCarthy
witch hunts and the daily shower of people jumping out of windows as a result of it.
As a Canadian I could not get over, even though I was just a teenager back then, just how a
people in a supposedly advanced country could be so collectively paniced. I think back then it
was just a scam to get rid of unions and any kind of collective action against the owners of the
country, and this time around I think it is just a continuation of that scam, to frighten people
into subservience to the police state. I heard a women on TV today commenting on the Texas masscre,
she said " The devil never sleeps", well in the USA the 1/10 of 1% never sleeps when it comes
to more control, more pwoer and more wealth, in fact I think they are after the very last shekle
still left in the pockets of the bottom 99.9 % of the population. Those evil Russians are just
a ploy in the scam.
Litchfield , November 6, 2017 at 6:58 pm
"The Democrats, the liberals and even many progressives justify their collusion with the neocons
by the need to remove Trump by any means necessary and "stop fascism." But their contempt for
Trump and their exaggeration of the "Hitler" threat that this incompetent buffoon supposedly poses
have blinded them to the extraordinary risks attendant to their course of action and how they
are playing into the hands of the war-hungry neocons."
And they are driving more and more actual and potential Dem Party members away in droves, further
weakening the party and depriving it of its most intelligent members. Any non-senile person knows
that this is all BS and these people are not only turning their backs on the Dem Party but I think
many of them are being driven to the right by their disgust with this circus and the exposure
of the party's critical weaknesses and derangement.
Paolo , November 6, 2017 at 6:59 pm
You correctly write that "the United States intervened in the 1996 Russian election to ensure
the continued rule of the corrupt and pliable Boris Yeltsin". The irony is that a few years later
Yeltsin chose Putin as his successor, and presumably the 'mericans gave him a hand to win his
first term.
How extremely sad it is to see the USA going totally nuts.
Abe , November 6, 2017 at 9:00 pm
In The Fifties (1993), American journalist and historian David Halberstam addressed
the noxious effect of McCarthyism: "McCarthy's carnival like four year spree of accusation charges,
and threats touched something deep in the American body politic, something that lasted long after
his own recklessness, carelessness and boozing ended his career in shame." (page 53)
Halberstam specifically discussed how readily the so-called "free" press acquiesced to
McCarthy's masquerading: "The real scandal in all this was the behavior of the members of the
Washington press corps, who, more often than not, knew better. They were delighted to be a part
of his traveling road show, chronicling each charge and then moving on to the next town, instead
of bothering to stay behind and follow up. They had little interest in reporting how careless
McCarthy was or how little it all meant to him." (page 55)
Abe , November 6, 2017 at 9:15 pm
On March 9, 1954, Edward R. Murrow and a news team at CBS produced a half-hour See It Now special
titled "A Report on Senator Joseph McCarthy".
Murrow interspersed his own comments and clarifications into a damaging series of film clips
from McCarthy's speeches. He ended the broadcast with a warning:
"As a nation we have come into our full inheritance at a tender age. We proclaim ourselves–as
indeed we are–the defenders of freedom, what's left of it, but we cannot defend freedom abroad
by deserting it at home. The actions of the junior senator from Wisconsin have caused alarm and
dismay amongst our allies abroad and given considerable comfort to our enemies, and whose fault
is that? Not really his. He didn't create the situation of fear; he merely exploited it, and rather
successfully. Cassius was right: 'The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars but in ourselves.'"
CBS reported that of the 12,000 phone calls received within 24 hours of the broadcast, positive
responses to the program outnumbered negative 15 to 1. McCarthy's favorable rating in the Gallup
Poll dropped and was never to rise again.
Gary , November 6, 2017 at 11:34 pm
Sad to see so many hypocrites here espousing freedom from McCarthyism while they continue to
vote for capitalist candidates year in year out. Think about the fact that in 2010 when Citizens
United managed to get the Supreme Court to certify corporations as people the fear among many
was that this would open US company subsidiaries to be infiltrated by foreign money. I guess it
is happening in spades with collusion between Russian money & Trump's organization along with
Facebook, Twitter & many others. How Mr. Parry can maintain that this parallels the 1950s anti-communist
crusade is quite ingenuous. When libertarians, the likes of Bannon, Mercer, Trump et al, with
their "destruction of the administrative state" credo are compared to the US communists of the
50s we know progressives have become about as disoriented as can be.
geeyp , November 7, 2017 at 3:30 am
I guess these "Paradise Papers" were released just yesterday, i.e., Sunday the 5th. Somehow
I didn't get to it.
john wilson , November 7, 2017 at 6:01 am
So it looks like Hillary will be crossing Putin off her Xmas card list this year! I sometimes
wonder if all we posters on here and other similar sites are on a list somewhere and when the
day of reckoning comes, the list will be produced and we will have to account for our treasonous
behaviour? Of course, one man's treason is another man's truth. I suppose in the end it boils
down to the power thing. If you have a perceived enemy you can claim the need for an army. If
you have an army you have power and with that power you can dispose of anyone who disagrees with
you simply by calling them the enemy.
Lisa , November 7, 2017 at 9:38 am
John, your post made me wonder whether I would be on a list of traitors. I've written three
posts, starting yesterday, and tried to explain something about the background of Yuri Milner,
mentioned in the article. After "your comment has been posted, thank you" nothing has appeared
on this thread.
Well, once more: Milner is known to me as a well-educated physicist from Moscow State University,
and the co-founder and financier of The Breakthrough Prize, handing out yearly awards to promising
scientists, with a much larger sum than the humble Nobel Prize. The awarding ceremony is held
in December in Silicon Valley.
john wilson , November 7, 2017 at 12:34 pm
Hi Lisa, I have just looked up Milner on Wiki and he appears to be into everything including
investment in internet companies. He is the co-founder of the "break through prize" that you mention
and seems to have backed face book and twitter in their start up. I don't see why you posts haven't
appeared as anyone can look Milner up on Wiki and elsewhere in great detail. You don't say where
you have tried to post, but I would have thought on this site you would have no trouble whatever.
If you have watched the last episode of 'cross talk' on RT you will see that anyone who as ever
mentioned Russia in a public place is regarded as some kind of traitor. I guess you and me are
due for rendition anytime now!! LOL
Lisa , November 7, 2017 at 1:49 pm
Hi John,
Naturally I had been trying to post on this site. First I tried three times in the comment space
below all other posts, and they never went through. Only when I posted a reply to someone else's
comment, my reply appeared. Maybe some technical problem on the site.
My motive was to show that Milner is doing worthwhile things with his millions, even if he
is an "evil Russian oligarch". The mentioned prize has its own website: breakthroughprize.org.
Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook) is a board member.
The prize is certainly a "Putin conspiracy", as it has links to Russia. (sarc)
Zachary Smith , November 7, 2017 at 8:05 pm
Maybe some technical problem on the site.
Possibly that's the case. Disappearing-forever posts happen to me from time to time. For at
least a while afterwards I cut/paste what I'm about to attempt to "post" to a WORD file before
hitting the "post comment" button.
In any event, avoid links whenever possible. By cut/pasting the exact title of the piece you're
using as a reference, others can quickly locate it themselves without a link.
K , November 7, 2017 at 9:44 am
I'm a lifelong Democrat. I was a Bernie supporter. But logic dictates my thinking. The Russia
nonsense is cover for Hillary's loss and a convenient hammer with which to attack Trump. Not biting.
Bill Maher is fixated on this. The Rob Reiner crowd is an embarrassment. The whole thing is embarrassing.
The media is inept. Very bizarre times.
Excellent article which should shed light on the misunderstandings manifested to manipulate
and censor Americans. Personally, it's ludicrous to imply that Russia was the primary reason I
could not vote for Hillary. My interest in Twitter peaked when Sidney Blumenthal's name popped
up selling arms in Libya. He was on The Clinton Foundation's Payroll for $120K, while the Obama
Administration specifically told HRC Sidney Blumenthal was not to work for the State Department.
Further research showed Chris Stevens had no knowledge of Sidney Blumenthal selling arms in
Libya. Hillary NEVER even gave Chris Stevens, a candidate with an outstanding background for diplomatic
relations in the Middle East, her email. Chris Stevens possessed a Law Degree in International
Trade, and had previously worked for Senator Lugar (R). Senator Lugar had warned HRC not to co-mingle
State Department business with The Clinton Foundation.
To add salt to the wound Hillary choose to put a third rate security firm in Libya, changing
firms a couple of short weeks before the bombing. I think she anticipated the bombing, remarking
"What difference does it make? " at the congressional hearings.
If you remember Guccifer (that hacker) he said he'd hacked both Hillary and Sidney Blumenthal.
He also said he found Sidney Blumenthal's account more interesting.
That's just one reason why I started surfing the internet. Sidney Blumenthal was a name that
hung in the cobwebs of my memory, and I wanted to know what this scum-job of a journalist was
doing!
Then there was Clinton Cash, BoysonTheTracks, Clinton Chronicles, the outrageous audacity of
the Democrats Superdelegates voting before a single primary ballot had been cast, MSM bias to
Hillary, Kathy Shelton's video "I thought you should know." and maybe around September 2016, wondering
what dirty things Hillary had done with Russia since 1993?
So I guess it's true. In the end after witnessing what has transpired since the election I
would not vote for Hillary because she'd rather risk WWIII, than have the TRUTH come out why she
lost.
After living in Europe much of the last three years we've recently returned to the U.S. I must
say that life here feels very much like I'm living within a strange Absurdist theatre play of
some sort (not that Europe is vastly better). Truth, meaning, rationality, mean absolutely nothing
at this juncture here in the United States. Reality has been turned on its head. The only difference
between our political parties runs along identity politics lines: "do you prefer your drone strikes,
illegal invasions, regime change black-ops, economic warfare and massive government spying 'with'
or 'without' gender specific bathrooms?" MSM refer to this situation as "democracy" while of course
any thinking person knows we are actually living within a totalitarian nightmare. Theatre of the
Absurd as a way of life. I must admit it feels pretty creepy being home again.
I wish it wasn't asking too much, but I suspect it is. If the NYT was reporting it, I'd feel
better about our chances. But the Deep State controls the narrative, and thus controls Pompeo,
Trump's order notwithstanding. I hope I'm wrong.
Dave P. , November 7, 2017 at 4:17 pm
Yes Joe. It is rather painful to watch as you said this Orwellian Tragedy playing out in the
Country which has just about become a police state. For those of us who grew up admiring the Western
Civilization starting with the Greeks and Romans, and then for its institutions enshrining Individual
Rights; and its scientific, literary, and cultural achievements, it is as if it still happening
in some dream, though it has been coming for some time now – more than two decades now at least.
The System was not perfect but I think that it was good as it could get. The system had been in
decline for four decades or so now.
From Robert Parry's article:
"The warning from powerful senators was crystal clear. "I don't think you get it," Sen. Dianne
Feinstein, D-California, warned social media executives last week. "You bear this responsibility.
You created these platforms, and now they are being misused. And you have to be the ones who do
something about it. Or we will."
Diane Feinstein's multi-billionaire husband was implicated in those Loan and Savings scandals
of Reagan and G.H.W. Bush Era and in many other financial scandals later on but Law did not touch
him. He has a dual residency in Israel. These are very corrupt people.
Paul Wolfowitz, Elliot Abrams, Perle, Nulad-Kagan clan, Kristol, Gaffney . . . the list goes
on; add Netanyahu to it. In the Hollywood Harvey Weinstein, Rob Reiner. and the rest . . . In
Finance and wall Street characters like Sandy Weiss and the gang. The Media and TV is directly
or indirectly owned and controlled by "The Chosen People". So, where would you put the blame for
all what is going on in this country, and all this chaos, death, and destruction going on in ME
and many countries in Africa.
Any body who points out their role in it or utters a word of criticism of Israel is immediately
called an anti-semite. Just to tell my own connections, my wife youngest sister is married to
person who is Jewish (non-practicing). In all the relatives we have, they are closest to us for
more than thirty five years now. They are those transgender common restroom liberals, but we have
many common views and interests. In life, I have never differentiated people based on their ethnic
or racial backgrounds; you look at the principles they stand for.
As I see it, this era of Russia-Gate and witch hunt is hundred times worse than McCarthy era.
It seems irreversible. There is no one in the political establishment or elsewhere in Media or
academia left for regeneration of the "Body Politic". In fact, what we are witnessing here is
much worse than it was in the Soviet Union. It is complete degeneration of political leadership
in this country. It extends to Media and other institutions as well. People in Soviet Union did
not believe the lies they were told by the government there. And there arose writers like Aleksandr
Solzhenitsyn in Soviet Union. What is left here now except are these few websites?
Maedhros , November 7, 2017 at 4:27 pm
If there is evidence, you should be able to provide some so that readers can analyze and discuss
it. Exactly what evidence has been provided that the Russian government manipulated the 2016 election?
CitizenOne , November 7, 2017 at 10:42 pm
Robert Parry You Nailed It!!!
I need to do a little research to see how far back you used the term "New McCarthyism" to describe
the next cold war with Russia. It was about the same time the first allegations of a Trump-Russia
conspiracy was floated by the MSM. I do not pretend to know how much airtime they spent covering
their coverup for all that the MSM did to profit from SuperPacs. They have webed a weave that
conspires to conceive to the tunes of billions of dollars spent to reprieve their intent to deceive
us and distract us away from their investment in Donald Trump which was the real influence in
the public spaces to gain mega profits from extorting the SuperPacs into spending their dollars
to defeat the trumped up candidate they created and boosted. One has to look no further than the
Main Stream Press (MSM) to find the guilty party with motive and opportunity to cash in on a candidacy
which if not for the money motive would not pass any test of journalistic integrity but would
make money for the Media.
The Russian Boogeyman was created shortly after the election and is an obvious attempt to shield
and defend the actions of the MSM which was the real fake news covered in the nightly news leading
up to the election which sought to get money rather than present the facts.
This is an example of how much power and influence the MSM has on us all to be able to upend
a National election and turn around and blame some foreign Devil for the results of an election.
The Russians had little to do with Trumps election. The MSM had everything to do with it. They
cast blame on the Russians and in so doing create a new Cold War which suits the power establishment
and suitably diverts all of our attention away from their machinations to influence the last presidential
election.
Win Win. More Nuclear Weapons and more money for the MIC and more money for all of the corporations
who would profit from a new Cold War.
Profit in times of deceit make more money from those who cheat.
CitizenOne , November 7, 2017 at 11:25 pm
Things not talked about:
1. James Comey and his very real influence on the election has never entered the media space
for an instant. It has gone down the collective memory hole. That silence has been deafening because
he was the person who against DOJ advice reopened the investigation into Hillary Clinton and the
Servergate investigation after it had been closed by the FBI just days before the election.
The silence of the media on the influence on the election by the reopening of James Comey's
Servergate investigation and how the mass media press coverage implicating Hillary Clinton (again)
in supposed crimes (which never resulted in an indictment) influenced the National Election in
ways that have never been examined by the MSM is a nail in the coffin of media impartiality.
Why have they not investigated James Comey? Why has the MSM instead created a Russian Boogeyman?
Why was he invited to testify about the Russian connection but never cross examined about his
own influence? Why is the clearest reason for election meddling by James Comey not even spoken
of by the MSM? This is because the MSM does not want to cover events as they happened but wants
to recreate a alternate reality suitable to themselves which serves their interests and convinces
us that the MSM has no part at all in downplaying the involvement of themselves in the election
but wants to create a foreign enemy to blame.
It serves many interests. The MSM lies to all of us for the benefit of the MIC. It serves to
support White House which will deliver maximum investments in the Defense Industry. It does this
by creating a foreign enemy which they create for us to fear and be afraid of.
It is obvious to everyone with a clear eyed history of how the last election went down and
how the MSM and the government later played upon our fears to grab more cash have cashed in under
the present administration.
It is up to us to elect leaders who will reject this manipulation by the media and who will
not be cowed by the establishment. We have the power enshrined in our Constitution to elect leaders
who will pave the path forward to a better future.
Those future leaders will have to do battle with a media infrastructure that serves the power
structure and conspires to deceive us all.
Clear critical thinking must accompany free speech, however, and irrationality seems to have
beset Americans, too stuck in the mud of identity politics. Can they get out? I have hopes that
a push is coming from the new multipolar world Xi and Putin are advocating, as well as others
(but not the George Soros NWO variety). The big bully American government, actually ruled by oligarchy,
has not been serving its regular folks well, so things are falling apart. Seems like the sex scandals,
political scandals especially of the Democrat brand, money scandals are unraveling to expose underlying
societal sickness in the Disunited States of America.
It is interesting that this purge shakeup in Saudi Arabia is happening in 2017, one hundred
years since the shakeup in Russia, the Bolshevik Revolution. So shake-ups are happening everywhere.
I think a pattern is emerging of major changes in world events. Just yesterday I read that because
"Russia-gate" isn't working well, senators are looking to start a "China-gate", for evidence of
Trump collusion with Chinese oligarchs. Ludicrous. As Seer once said, "The Empire in panic mode".
Patricia, thanks for the info on Sid Blumenthal, HRC and the selling of arms from Libya to
ME jihadists, which seems to exonerate Chris Stevens from those dirty deeds and lays blame squarely
at Blumenthal's and Clinton's doorstep; changes my thinking. And thanks to Robert Parry for continuing
to push back at the participation of MSM and government players in the Orwellian masquerade being
pulled on the sheeple.
Truther , November 8, 2017 at 12:54 pm
Just the facts for those of you who have minds still open. suggest you bookmark it quickly
as the moderator will delete it within the hour.
Russiagate witch hunt is destroying CIA franchise in Facebook and Twitter, which were used
by many Russians and Eastern Europeans in general.
One telling sign of the national security state is "demonizing enemies of the state" including
using neo-McCarthyism methods, typically for Russiagate.
In the beginning, "Russiagate" was about alleged actions by Russian secret services. Evidence
for these allegations has never emerged, and it seems that the Russiagate conspiracy theorists largely
gave up on this part (they still sometimes write about it as if it was an established fact, but since
the only thing in support of it they can adduce is the canard about the 17 intelligence services, it
probably is not that interesting any more).
Now, they have dropped the mask, and the object of their hatred are openly all Russian people,
as the new Undermensch. If these people and US MSM recognized the reality that they are now
a particularly rabid part of the xenophobic far right in the United States
Notable quotes:
"... Buried in the story's "jump" is the acknowledgement that Milner's "companies sold those holdings several years ago." But such is the anti-Russia madness gripping the Establishment of Washington and New York that any contact with any Russian constitutes a scandal worthy of front-page coverage. On Monday, The Washington Post published a page-one article entitled, "9 in Trump's orbit had contacts with Russians." ..."
"... The anti-Russian madness has reached such extremes that even when you say something that's obviously true – but that RT, the Russian television network, also reported – you are attacked for spreading "Russian propaganda." ..."
"... We saw that when former Democratic National Committee chairwoman Donna Brazile disclosed in her new book that she considered the possibility of replacing Hillary Clinton on the Democratic ticket after Clinton's public fainting spell and worries about her health. ..."
"... In other words, the go-to excuse for everything these days is to blame the Russians and smear anyone who says anything – no matter how true – if it also was reported on RT. ..."
"... The CIA has an entire bureaucracy dedicated to propaganda and disinformation, with some of those efforts farmed out to newer entities such as the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) or paid for by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). NATO has a special command in Latvia that undertakes "strategic communications." ..."
"... Israel is another skilled player in this field, tapping into its supporters around the world to harass people who criticize the Zionist project. Indeed, since the 1980s, Israel has pioneered many of the tactics of computer spying and sabotage that were adopted and expanded by America's National Security Agency, explaining why the Obama administration teamed up with Israel in a scheme to plant malicious code into Iranian centrifuges to sabotage Iran's nuclear program. ..."
"... And, if you're really concerned about foreign interference in U.S. elections and policies, there's the remarkable influence of Israel and its perceived ability to effect the defeat of almost any politician who deviates from what the Israeli government wants, going back at least to the 1980s when Sen. Chuck Percy and Rep. Paul Findley were among the political casualties after pursuing contacts with the Palestinians. ..."
"... The answer seems to be the widespread hatred for President Trump combined with vested interests in favor of whipping up the New Cold War. That is a goal valued by both the Military-Industrial Complex, which sees trillions of dollars in strategic weapons systems in the future, and the neoconservatives, who view Russia as a threat to their "regime change" agendas for Syria and Iran. ..."
"... After all, if Russia and its independent-minded President Putin can be beaten back and beaten down, then a big obstacle to the neocon/Israeli goal of expanding the Mideast wars will be removed. ..."
"... Right now, the neocons are openly lusting for a "regime change" in Moscow despite the obvious risks that such turmoil in a nuclear-armed country might create, including the possibility that Putin would be succeeded not by some compliant Western client like the late Boris Yeltsin but by an extreme nationalist who might consider launching a nuclear strike to protect the honor of Mother Russia. ..."
"... The likely outcome from the anti-Russian show trials on Capitol Hill is that technology giants will bow to the bipartisan demand for new algorithms and other methods for stigmatizing, marginalizing and eliminating information that challenges the mainstream storylines in the cause of fighting "Russian propaganda." ..."
"... America's Stolen Narrative, ..."
"... witch hunt by congressional Democrats, working with the intelligence agencies and leading media outlets, to legitimize censorship and attack free speech on the Internet. ..."
"... The aim of this campaign is to claim that social conflict within the United States arises not from the scale of social inequality in America, greater than in any other country in the developed world, but rather from the actions of "outside agitators" working in the service of the Kremlin. ..."
"... The McCarthyite witch hunts of the 1950s sought to suppress left-wing thought and label all forms of dissent as illegitimate and treasonous. Those who led them worked to purge left-wing opinion from Hollywood, the trade unions and the universities. ..."
"... Likewise, the new McCarthyism is aimed at creating a political climate in which left-wing organizations and figures are demonized as agents of the Kremlin who are essentially engaged in treasonous activity deserving of criminal prosecution. ..."
"... Danny there was a time not to long ago, I would have said of how we are 'moving towards' to us becoming a police state, well instead replace that prediction of 'moving towards' to the stark reality to be described as 'that now we are', and there you will have it that we have finally arrived to becoming a full blown 'police state'. ..."
"... Thanks to Mr. Parry for this very fair and complete review of the latest attempts to generate a fake foreign enemy. The tyrant over a democracy must generate fake foreign enemies to pose falsely as a protector, so as to demand domestic power and accuse his opponents of disloyalty, as Aristotle and Plato warned thousands of years ago. ..."
"... The insanity of the entire "Russian hacking" narrative has been revealed over and over, including this past weekend when +/-100 Clinton loyalists published a screed on Medium saying Donna Brazile had been taken in by Russian propaganda. ..."
"... I have come to expect just about anything when it comes to Russia-Gate, but I was taken aback by the Hillary bots' accusation that videos of Hillary stumbling and others showing her apparently having a fit of some kind and also needing to be helped up the steps to someone's house -- which were taken by Americans and shown by Americans and seen by millions of shocked Americans -- were driven by Russia-Gate. ..."
"... Now, since the extremist xenophobic idea that contact with *any* Russians is a scandal has taken hold in the United States, people are probably not too eager to mention these contacts in these atmosphere of extreme xenophobic anti-Russian hatred in today's United States. Furthermore, people who have contact with large numbers of people probably really have difficulties remembering and listing these all. ..."
"... Their contacts are with Russian business and maybe the Russian mob, not the Russian state. There is really not question that Trump and his cronies are crooks, but they are crooks in the US and in all the other countries where they do business, not just Russia. I'm sure Mueller will be able to tie Trump directly to some of the sleeze. But there is no evidence that the Russian government is involved in any of it. "Russia-gate" implies Russian government involvement, not just random Russians. There is no evidence of that and moreover the logic is against. ..."
"... Mr. Cash . I think George Papadopoulis, Trump's young Aide, was an inside mole for neocon pro-Israel interests. Those interests needed to knock the unreliable President Trump out of the way to get the "system" back where it belonged – in their pocket. Papadopoulis, on his own, was rummaging around making Trump/Russian connections that finally ended with the the William (Richard?) Browder (well-known Washington DC neocon)/Natalia Veselnitskaya/Donald Trump, Jr. fiasco. The Trumps knew nothing of those negotiations, and young Trump left when he realized Natalia was only interested in Americans being allowed to adopt Russian children again and had no dirt on Hillary. ..."
"... It was never my impression that Cold War liberals opposed McCarthy or the anti-Communist witch hunt. Where they didn't gleefully join in, they watched quietly from the sidelines while the American left was eviscerated, jailed, driven from public life. Then the liberals stepped in when it was clear things were going a little too far and just as the steam had run out of McCarthy's slander machine. ..."
"... At that point figures like Adlai Stevenson, Hubert Humphrey and John F. Kennedy found the path clear for their brand of political stagecraft. They were imperialists to a man, something they proved abundantly when given the chance. Liberals supplanted the left in U.S. life- in the unions, the teaching profession, publishing and every other field where criticism of the Cold War and the enduring prevalence of worker solidarity across international lines threatened the new order. ..."
"... The book concludes that by equating dissent with disloyalty, promoting guilt by association, and personally commanding loyalty programs, ""Truman and his advisors employed all the political and programmatic techniques that in later years were to become associated with the broad phenomenon of McCarthyism."" ..."
"... Formed by Google in June 2015 with Eliot Higgins of the Atlantic Council's Bellingcat as a founding member, the "First Draft" coalition includes all the usual mainstream media "partners" in "regime change" war propaganda: the Washington Post, New York Times, CNN, the UK Guardian and Telegraph, BBC News, the Atlantic Council's Digital Forensics Research Lab and Kiev-based Stopfake. ..."
"... In the beginning, "Russiagate" was about alleged actions by Russian secret services. Evidence for these allegations has never emerged, and it seems that the Russiagate conspiracy theorists largely gave up on this part (they still sometimes write about it as if it was an established fact, but since the only thing in support of it they can adduce is the canard about the 17 intelligence services, it probably is not that interesting any more) ..."
"... Now, they have dropped the mask, and the object of their hatred are openly all Russian people, anyone who is "Russian linked" by ever having logged in to social networks from Russia or using Cyrillic letters. If these people and their media at least recognized the reality that they are now a particularly rabid part of the xenophobic far right in the United States ..."
"... The interview of Roger Waters on RT is one of the best I have seen in a long while. I wish some other artists get the courage to raise their voices. The link to the Roger Waters interview is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7jcvfbLoIA This Roger Waters interview is worth watching. ..."
"... It would seem that everyone on the US telivision , newspaper and internet news has mastered the art of hand over mouth , gasp and looking horrified every time Russia is mentioned. It looks to me that the US is in the middle of another of it´s mid life crises. Panic reigns supreme every where. If it was not so sad it would be funny. i was born in the 1940s and remember the McCarthy witch hunts and the daily shower of people jumping out of windows as a result of it. ..."
"... In The Fifties (1993), American journalist and historian David Halberstam addressed the noxious effect of McCarthyism: "McCarthy's carnival like four year spree of accusation charges, and threats touched something deep in the American body politic, something that lasted long after his own recklessness, carelessness and boozing ended his career in shame." (page 53) ..."
"... Halberstam specifically discussed how readily the so-called "free" press acquiesced to McCarthy's masquerading: "The real scandal in all this was the behavior of the members of the Washington press corps, who, more often than not, knew better. They were delighted to be a part of his traveling road show, chronicling each charge and then moving on to the next town, instead of bothering to stay behind and follow up. They had little interest in reporting how careless McCarthy was or how little it all meant to him." (page 55) ..."
"... Why have they not investigated James Comey? Why has the MSM instead created a Russian Boogeyman? Why was he invited to testify about the Russian connection but never cross examined about his own influence? Why is the clearest reason for election meddling by James Comey not even spoken of by the MSM? This is because the MSM does not want to cover events as they happened but wants to recreate a alternate reality suitable to themselves which serves their interests and convinces us that the MSM has no part at all in downplaying the involvement of themselves in the election but wants to create a foreign enemy to blame. ..."
Special Report: Many American liberals who once denounced McCarthyism as evil are now learning
to love the ugly tactic when it can be used to advance the Russia-gate "scandal" and silence dissent,
reports Robert Parry.
The New York Times has finally detected some modern-day McCarthyism, but not in the anti-Russia
hysteria that the newspaper has fueled for several years amid the smearing of American skeptics as
"useful idiots" and the like. No, the Times editors
are accusing a Long Island Republican of McCarthyism for linking his Democratic rival to "New
York City special interest groups." As the Times laments, "It's the old guilt by association."
Yet, the Times sees no McCarthyism in the frenzy of Russia-bashing and guilt by association for
any American who can be linked even indirectly to any Russian who might have some ill-defined links
to Russian President Vladimir Putin.
On Monday, in the same edition that expressed editorial outrage over that Long Island political
ad's McCarthyism, the Times ran two front-page articles under the headline: "A Complex Paper Trail:
Blurring Kremlin's Ties to Key U.S. Businesses."
Buried in the story's "jump" is the acknowledgement that Milner's "companies sold those holdings
several years ago." But such is the anti-Russia madness gripping the Establishment of Washington
and New York that any contact with any Russian constitutes a scandal worthy of front-page coverage.
On Monday, The Washington Post published
a page-one article entitled, "9 in Trump's orbit had contacts with Russians."
The anti-Russian madness has reached such extremes that even when you say something that's obviously
true – but that RT, the Russian television network, also reported – you are attacked for spreading
"Russian propaganda."
We saw that when former Democratic National Committee chairwoman Donna Brazile disclosed in her
new book that she considered the possibility of replacing Hillary Clinton on the Democratic ticket
after Clinton's public fainting spell and worries about her health.
Though there was a video of Clinton's collapse on Sept. 11, 2016, followed by her departure from
the campaign trail to fight pneumonia – not to mention her earlier scare with blood clots – the
response from a group of 100 Clinton supporters was to question Brazile's patriotism: "It is
particularly troubling and puzzling that she would seemingly buy into false Russian-fueled propaganda,
spread by both the Russians and our opponents about our candidate's health."
In other words, the go-to excuse for everything these days is to blame the Russians and smear
anyone who says anything – no matter how true – if it also was reported on RT.
Pressing the Tech Companies
Just as Sen. Joe McCarthy liked to haul suspected "communists" and "fellow-travelers" before his
committee in the 1950s, the New McCarthyism has its own witch-hunt hearings, such as last week's
Senate grilling of executives from Facebook, Twitter and Google for supposedly allowing Russians
to have input into the Internet's social networks. Executives from Facebook, Twitter and Google hauled
before a Senate Judiciary subcommittee on crime and terrorism on Oct. 31, 2017.Trying to appease Congress and fend off threats of government regulation, the rich tech companies
displayed their eagerness to eradicate any Russian taint.
Twitter's general counsel Sean J. Edgett
told the Senate Judiciary subcommittee on crime and terrorism that Twitter adopted an "expansive
approach to defining what qualifies as a Russian-linked account."
Edgett said the criteria included "whether the account was created in Russia, whether the user
registered the account with a Russian phone carrier or a Russian email address, whether the user's
display name contains Cyrillic characters, whether the user frequently Tweets in Russian, and whether
the user has logged in from any Russian IP address, even a single time. We considered an account
to be Russian-linked if it had even one of the relevant criteria."
The trouble with Twitter's methodology was that none of those criteria would connect an account
to the Russian government, let alone Russian intelligence or some Kremlin-controlled "troll farm."
But the criteria could capture individual Russians with no link to the Kremlin as well as people
who weren't Russian at all, including, say, American or European visitors to Russia who logged onto
Twitter through a Moscow hotel.
Also left unsaid is that Russians are not the only national group that uses the Cyrillic alphabet.
It is considered a standard script for writing in Belarus, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Serbo-Croatia and
Ukraine. So, for instance, a Ukrainian using the Cyrillic alphabet could end up falling into the
category of "Russian-linked" even if he or she hated Putin.
Twitter's attorney also said the company conducted a separate analysis from information provided
by unidentified "third party sources" who pointed toward accounts supposedly controlled by the St.
Petersburg-based Internet Research Agency (IRA), totaling 2,752 accounts. The IRA is typically described
in the U.S. press as a "troll farm" which employs tech-savvy employees who combat news and opinions
that are hostile to Russia and the Russian government. But exactly how those specific accounts were
traced back to this organization was not made clear.
And, to put that number in some perspective, Twitter claims 330 million active monthly users,
which makes the 2,752 accounts less than 0.001 percent of the total.
The Trouble with 'Trolling'
While the Russia-gate investigation has sought to portray the IRA effort as exotic and somehow
unique to Russia, the strategy is followed by any number of governments, political movements and
corporations – sometimes using enthusiastic volunteers but often employing professionals skilled
at challenging critical information or at least muddying the waters.
Those of us who operate on the Internet are familiar with harassment from "trolls" who may use
access to "comment" sections to inject propaganda and disinformation to sow confusion, to cause disruption,
or to discredit the site by promoting ugly opinions and nutty conspiracy theories.
As annoying as this "trolling" is, it's just a modern version of more traditional strategies used
by powerful entities for generations – hiring public-relations specialists, lobbyists, lawyers and
supposedly impartial "activists" to burnish images, fend off negative news and intimidate nosy investigators.
In this competition, modern Russia is both a late-comer and a piker.
The U.S. government fields legions of publicists, propagandists, paid journalists,
psy-ops specialists , contractors and non-governmental organizations to promote Washington's
positions and undermine rivals through information warfare.
The CIA has an entire bureaucracy dedicated to propaganda and disinformation, with some of
those
efforts farmed out to newer entities such as the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) or paid
for by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). NATO has a special command in Latvia
that undertakes
"strategic communications."
Israel is another skilled player in this field, tapping into its supporters around the world
to harass people who criticize the Zionist project. Indeed, since the 1980s, Israel has pioneered
many of the tactics of computer spying and sabotage that were adopted and expanded by America's National
Security Agency, explaining why the Obama administration teamed up with Israel in a scheme to plant
malicious code into Iranian centrifuges to sabotage Iran's nuclear program.
It's also ironic that the U.S. government touted social media as a great benefit in advancing
so-called "color revolutions" aimed at "regime change" in troublesome countries. For instance, when
the "green revolution" was underway in Iran in 2009 after the reelection of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad,
the Obama administration asked Twitter to postpone scheduled maintenance so the street protesters
could continue using the platform to organize against Ahmadinejad and to distribute their side of
the story to the outside world.
During the so-called Arab Spring in 2011, Facebook, Twitter and Skype won praise as a means of
organizing mass demonstrations to destabilize governments in Tunisia, Egypt and Syria. Back then,
the U.S. government denounced any attempts to throttle these social media platforms and the free
flow of information that they permitted as proof of dictatorship.
Social media also was a favorite of the U.S. government in Ukraine in 2013-14 when the Maidan
protests exploited these platforms to help destabilize and ultimately overthrow the elected government
of Ukraine, the key event that launched the New Cold War with Russia.
Swinging the Social Media Club
The truth is that, in those instances, the U.S. governments and its agencies were eagerly exploiting
the platforms to advance Washington's geopolitical agenda by disseminating American propaganda and
deploying U.S.-funded non-governmental organizations, which
taught
activists how to use social media to advance "regime change" scenarios.
A White Helmets volunteer pointing to the aftermath of a military attack.
While these uprisings were sold to Western audiences as genuine outpourings of public anger –
and there surely was some of that – the protests also benefited from U.S. funding and expertise.
In particular, NED and USAID provided money, equipment and training for anti-government operatives
challenging regimes in U.S. disfavor.
One of the most successful of these propaganda operations occurred in Syria where anti-government
rebels operating in areas controlled by Al Qaeda and its fellow Islamic militants used social media
to get their messaging to Western mainstream journalists who couldn't enter those sectors without
fear of beheading.
Since the rebels' goal of overthrowing President Bashar al-Assad meshed with the objectives of
the U.S. government and its allies in Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states, Western journalists
uncritically accepted the words and images provided by Al Qaeda's collaborators.
The success of this propaganda was so extraordinary that the White Helmets, a "civil defense"
group that worked in Al Qaeda territory, became the go-to source for dramatic video and even was
awarded the short-documentary
Oscar for an info-mercial produced for Netflix – despite evidence that the White Helmets were
staging some of the scenes for propaganda purposes.
Indeed, one argument for believing that Putin and the Kremlin might have "meddled" in last year's
U.S. election is that they could have felt it was time to give the United States a taste of its own
medicine.
After all, the United States intervened in the 1996 Russian election to ensure the continued rule
of the corrupt and pliable Boris Yeltsin. And there were the U.S.-backed street protests in Moscow
against the 2011 and 2012 elections in which Putin strengthened his political mandate. Those
protests earned the "color" designation the "snow revolution."
However, whatever Russia may or may not have done before last year's U.S. election, the Russia-gate
investigations have always sought to exaggerate the impact of that alleged "meddling" and molded
the narrative to whatever weak evidence was available.
The original storyline was that Putin authorized the "hacking" of Democratic emails as part of
a "disinformation" operation to undermine Hillary Clinton's candidacy and to help elect Donald Trump
– although
no hard evidence has been presented to establish that Putin gave such an order or that Russia
"hacked" the emails. WikiLeaks has repeatedly denied getting the emails from Russia, which also denies
any meddling.
Further, the emails were not "disinformation"; they were both real and, in many cases, newsworthy.
The DNC emails provided evidence that the DNC unethically tilted the playing field in favor of Clinton
and against Sen. Bernie Sanders, a point that Brazile also discovered in reviewing staffing and financing
relationships that Clinton had with the DNC under the prior chairwoman, Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
The purloined emails of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta revealed the contents of Clinton's
paid speeches to Wall Street (information that she was trying to hide from voters) and pay-to-play
features of the Clinton Foundation.
A Manchurian Candidate?
Still, the original narrative was that Putin wanted his Manchurian Candidate (Trump) in the White
House and took the extraordinary risk of infuriating the odds-on favorite (Clinton) by releasing
the emails even though they appeared unlikely to prevent Clinton's victory. So, there was always
that logical gap in the Russia-gate theory.
Since then, however, the U.S. mainstream narrative has shifted, in part, because the evidence
of Russian election "meddling" was so shaky. Under intense congressional pressure to find something,
Facebook reported
$100,000 in allegedly "Russian-linked" ads purchased in 2015-17, but noted that only 44 percent
were bought before the election. So, not only was the "Russian-linked" pebble tiny – compared to
Facebook's annual revenue of $27 billion – but more than half of the pebble was tossed into this
very large lake after Clinton had already lost.
So, the storyline was transformed into some vague Russian scheme to exacerbate social tensions
in the United States by taking different sides of hot-button issues, such as police brutality against
blacks. The New York Times reported that one of these "Russian-linked" pages
featured photos of cute puppies , which the Times speculated must have had some evil purpose
although it was hard to fathom. (Oh, those devious Russians!).
The estimate of how many Americans may have seen one of these "Russian-linked" ads also keeps
growing, now up to as many as 126 million or about one-third of the U.S. population. Of course, the
way the Internet works – with any item possibly going viral – you might as well say the ads could
have reached billions of people.
Whenever I write an article or send out a Tweet, I too could be reaching 126 million or even billions
of people, but the reality is that I'd be lucky if the number were in the thousands. But amid the
Russia-gate frenzy, no exaggeration is too outlandish or too extreme.
Another odd element of Russia-gate is that the intensity of this investigation is disproportionate
to the lack of interest shown toward far better documented cases of actual foreign-government interference
in American elections and policymaking.
For instance, the major U.S. media long ignored the extremely well-documented case of Richard
Nixon colluding with South Vietnamese officials to sabotage President Lyndon Johnson's Vietnam
War peace talks to gain an advantage for Nixon in the 1968 election. That important chapter of history
only gained
The
New York Times' seal of approval earlier this year after the Times had dismissed the earlier
volumes of evidence as "rumors."
In the 1980 election, Ronald Reagan's team – especially his campaign director William Casey in
collaboration with Israel and Iran – appeared to have gone behind President Jimmy Carter's back
to undercut Carter's negotiations to free 52 American hostages then held in Iran and essentially
doom Carter's reelection hopes.
There were a couple of dozen witnesses to that scheme who spoke with me and other investigative
journalists – as well as documentary evidence showing that President Reagan did authorize secret
arms shipments to Iran via Israel shortly after the hostages were freed during Reagan's inauguration
on Jan. 20, 1981.
However, since Vice President (later President) George H.W. Bush, who was implicated in the scheme,
was well-liked on both sides of the aisle and because Reagan had become a Republican icon, the October
Surprise case of 1980 was pooh-poohed by the major media and dismissed by a congressional investigation
in the early 1990s. Despite the extraordinary number of witnesses and supporting documents, Wikipedia
listed the scandal as a "conspiracy theory."
Israeli Influence
And, if you're really concerned about foreign interference in U.S. elections and policies,
there's the remarkable influence of Israel and its perceived ability to effect the defeat of almost
any politician who deviates from what the Israeli government wants, going back at least to the 1980s
when
Sen.
Chuck Percy and Rep. Paul Findley were among the political casualties after pursuing contacts
with the Palestinians.
If anyone doubts how Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has continued to pull the strings
of U.S. politicians, just watch one of his record-tying three addresses to joint sessions of Congress
and count how often
Republicans and Democrats jump to their feet in enthusiastic applause. (The only other foreign
leader to get the joint-session honor three times was Great Britain's Prime Minister Winston Churchill.)
So, what makes Russia-gate different from the other cases? Did Putin conspire with Trump to extend
a bloody war as Nixon did with the South Vietnamese leaders? Did Putin lengthen the captivity of
U.S. hostages to give Trump a political edge? Did Putin manipulate U.S. policy in the Middle East
to entice President George W. Bush to invade Iraq and set the region ablaze, as Israel's Netanyahu
did? Is Putin even now pushing for wider Mideast wars, as Netanyahu is?
Indeed, one point that's never addressed in any serious way is why is the U.S. so angry with Russia
while these other cases, in which U.S. interests were clearly damaged and American democracy compromised,
were treated largely as non-stories.
Why is Russia-gate a big deal while the other cases weren't? Why are opposite rules in play now
– with Democrats, many Republicans and the major news media flogging fragile "links," needling what
little evidence there is, and assuming the worst rather than insisting that only perfect evidence
and perfect witnesses be accepted as in the earlier cases?
The answer seems to be the widespread hatred for President Trump combined with vested interests
in favor of whipping up the New Cold War. That is a goal valued by both the Military-Industrial Complex,
which sees trillions of dollars in strategic weapons systems in the future, and the neoconservatives,
who view Russia as a threat to their "regime change" agendas for Syria and Iran.
After all, if Russia and its independent-minded President Putin can be beaten back and beaten
down, then a big obstacle to the neocon/Israeli goal of expanding the Mideast wars will be removed.
Right now, the neocons are openly lusting for a
"regime change" in Moscow despite the obvious risks that such turmoil in a nuclear-armed country
might create, including the possibility that Putin would be succeeded not by some compliant Western
client like the late Boris Yeltsin but by an extreme nationalist who might consider launching a nuclear
strike to protect the honor of Mother Russia.
The Democrats, the liberals and even many progressives justify their collusion with the neocons
by the need to remove Trump by any means necessary and "stop fascism." But their contempt for Trump
and their exaggeration of the "Hitler" threat that this incompetent buffoon supposedly poses have
blinded them to
the extraordinary risks attendant to their course of action and how they are playing into the
hands of the war-hungry neocons.
A Smokescreen for Repression
There also seems to be little or no concern that the Establishment is using Russia-gate as a smokescreen
for
clamping down on independent media sites on the Internet. Traditional supporters of civil liberties
have looked the other way as the rights of people associated with the Trump campaign have been trampled
and journalists who simply question the State Department's narratives on, say, Syria and Ukraine
are denounced as "Moscow stooges" and "useful idiots."
The likely outcome from the anti-Russian show trials on Capitol Hill is that technology giants
will bow to the bipartisan demand for new algorithms and other methods for stigmatizing, marginalizing
and eliminating information that challenges the mainstream storylines in the cause of fighting "Russian
propaganda."
The warning from powerful senators was crystal clear. "I don't think you get it," Sen. Dianne
Feinstein, D-California,
warned social media executives last week. "You bear this responsibility. You created these platforms,
and now they are being misused. And you have to be the ones who do something about it. Or we will."
As this authoritarian if not totalitarian future looms and as the dangers of nuclear annihilation
from an intentional or unintentional nuclear war with Russia grow, many people who should know better
are caught up in the Russia-gate frenzy.
I used to think that liberals and progressives opposed McCarthyism because they regarded it as
a grave threat to freedom of thought and to genuine democracy, but now it appears that they have
learned to love McCarthyism except, of course, when it rears its ugly head in some Long Island political
ad criticizing New York City.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated
Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative,
either in
print here or as an e-book (from
Amazon and
barnesandnoble.com ).
Joe Tedesky , November 6, 2017 at 3:12 pm
I watched the C-Span 'Russian/2016 Election Investigation Hearings' in horror, as each congressperson
grilled the Hi-Tech executives in a way to suggest that our First Amendment Rights are now on
life support, and our Congress is ready to pull the plug at any moment. I thought, of how this
wasn't the America I was brought up to believe in. So as I have reached the age in life where
nothing should surprise me, I realize now how fragile our Rights are, in this warring nation that
calls itself America.
When it comes to Israel I have two names, Jonathan Pollard & the USS Liberty, and with that,
that is enough said.
Danny Weil , November 6, 2017 at 6:33 pm
This week's congressional hearings on "extremist content" on the Internet mark a new stage
in the McCarthyite witch hunt by congressional Democrats, working with the intelligence agencies
and leading media outlets, to legitimize censorship and attack free speech on the Internet.
One after another, congressmen and senators goaded representatives of Google, Twitter and Facebook
to admit that their platforms were used to sow "social divisions" and "extremist" political opinions.
The aim of this campaign is to claim that social conflict within the United States arises
not from the scale of social inequality in America, greater than in any other country in the developed
world, but rather from the actions of "outside agitators" working in the service of the Kremlin.
The hearings revolved around claims that Russia sought to "weaponize" the Internet by harnessing
social anger within the United States. "Russia," said Democratic Congressman Adam Schiff, promoted
"discord in the US by inflaming passions on a range of divisive issues." It sought to "mobilize
real Americans to sign online petitions and join rallies and protests."
The McCarthyite witch hunts of the 1950s sought to suppress left-wing thought and label
all forms of dissent as illegitimate and treasonous. Those who led them worked to purge left-wing
opinion from Hollywood, the trade unions and the universities.
Likewise, the new McCarthyism is aimed at creating a political climate in which left-wing
organizations and figures are demonized as agents of the Kremlin who are essentially engaged in
treasonous activity deserving of criminal prosecution.
Watching this Orwellian tragedy play out in our American society, where our Congress is insisting
that disclaimers and restrictions be placed upon suspicious adbuys and editorial essays, is counterintuitive
to what we Americans were brought up to belief. Why, all my life teachers, and adults, would warn
us students of reading the news to not to believe everything we read as pure fact, but to research
a subject before coming to a conclusion toward your accepting an opinion to wit. And with these
warnings of avoiding us being suckered into a wrong belief, we were told that this was the price
we were required to pay for having a free press society. This freedom of speech was, and has always
been the bedrock of our hopes and wishes for our belief in the American Dream.
Danny there was a time not to long ago, I would have said of how we are 'moving towards'
to us becoming a police state, well instead replace that prediction of 'moving towards' to the
stark reality to be described as 'that now we are', and there you will have it that we have finally
arrived to becoming a full blown 'police state'. Little by little, and especially since 911
one by one our civil liberties were taken away. Here again our freedom of speech is being destroyed,
and with this America is now where Germany had been in the mid-thirties. America's own guilty
conscience is rapidly doing some physiological projections onto their imaginary villain Russia.
All I keep hearing is my dear sweet mother lecturing me on how one lie always leads to another
lie until the truth will finally jump up and bite you in the ass, and think to myself of how wise
my mother had been with her young girl Southside philosophy. May you Rest In Peace Mum.
Martin , November 7, 2017 at 3:21 pm
Yankees chicks are coming home to roost. So many peoples rights and lives had to be extinguished
for Americans to have the illusion of pursuing their happiness, well, what goes around comes around.
Gregory Herr , November 7, 2017 at 8:39 pm
Gee wiz Adam Schiff you make it sound as if signing petitions and rallying to causes and civil
protests are unamerican or something. And Russians on the internet are harnessing social anger!
Pathetic. These jerks who would have us believe they are interested in "saving" democracy or stopping
fascism have sure got it backward.
Geoffrey de Galles , November 8, 2017 at 12:33 pm
Joe, Allow me please, respectfully, to add Mordecai Vanunu -- Israel's own Daniel Ellsberg
-- to your two names.
Erik G , November 6, 2017 at 3:55 pm
Thanks to Mr. Parry for this very fair and complete review of the latest attempts to generate
a fake foreign enemy. The tyrant over a democracy must generate fake foreign enemies to pose falsely
as a protector, so as to demand domestic power and accuse his opponents of disloyalty, as Aristotle
and Plato warned thousands of years ago.
It is especially significant that the zionists are the sole beneficiaries of this scam as well
as the primary sponsors of the DNC, hoping to attack Russia and Iran to support Israeli land thefts
in the Mideast. It is well established that zionists control US mass media, which never examine
the central issue of our times, the corruption of democracy by the zionist/MIC/WallSt influence
upon the US government and mass media. Russia-gate is in fact a coverup for Israel-gate.
Why did we ever believe that the democrat party was a defender of free speech? These bought
and paid for tools of the economic elites are only interested in serving their masters with slavish
devotion. Selfishness and immorality are their stock in trade; betraying the public their real
intention.
Cratylus , November 6, 2017 at 4:11 pm
Great essay.
But one disagreement. I may agree with Trump on very, very few things, among them getting rid
of the horrible TPP, one cornerstone of Hillary's pivot; meeting with Putin in Hamburg; the Lavrov-Tillerson
arranged cease-fire in SE Syria; the termination of the CIA's support for anti-Assad jihadis in
Syria; a second meeting with Putin at the ASEAN conference this week; and in general the idea
of "getting along with Russia" (a biggie) which Russia-gate is slowing to a crawl as designed
by the neocons.
But Trump as an "incompetent buffoon" is a stretch albeit de rigueur on the pages of the NYT,
the programs of NPR and in all "respectable" precincts. Trump won the presidency for god's sake
– something that eluded the 17 other GOP primary candidates, some of them considered very"smart"
and Bernie and Jill, and in the past, Ralph Nader and Ron Paul – and the supposedly "very smart"
Hillary for which we should be eternally grateful. "Incompetent" hardly seems accurate. The respectable
commentariat has continually underestimated Trump. We should heed Putin who marveled at Trump's
seemingly impossible victory.
Bill Cash , November 6, 2017 at 4:13 pm
How do you explain all the connections between Trump acolytes and Russia and their lying about
it. I think they've all lied about their contacts. Why would they do that?I lived through the
real McCarthyism and, so far, this isn't close to what happened then.
Bill , November 6, 2017 at 4:40 pm
Probably because they are corruptly involved. Thing is, the higher priority is to avoid another
decades-long cold war risking nuclear war. Do you remember how many close calls we had in the
last one?
I'm more suspicious of Trump than most here, but even I think we need some priorities. Far
more extensive corruption of a similar variety keeps occurring and no one cares, as Mr. Parry
points out here yet again.
As for McCarthyism, whatever the current severity, the result is unfolding as a new campaign
against dissenting voices on the internet. That's supremely not-okay with me.
Gregory Herr , November 7, 2017 at 8:46 pm
Right. Just because we don't yet have another fulll-fledged HUAC happening doesn't mean severe
perils aren't attached to this new McCarthyism. Censorship of dissent is supremely not-okay with
me as well.
That class of people lie as a matter of course; it's standard procedure. If you exacerbate
it by adding on the anti-Russia hysteria that was spewed out by the Democrats before the ink was
dry on the ballots, what possible reason would they have for being truthful?
The insanity of the entire "Russian hacking" narrative has been revealed over and over,
including this past weekend when +/-100 Clinton loyalists published a screed on Medium saying
Donna Brazile had been taken in by Russian propaganda.
Litchfield , November 6, 2017 at 7:10 pm
I have come to expect just about anything when it comes to Russia-Gate, but I was taken
aback by the Hillary bots' accusation that videos of Hillary stumbling and others showing her
apparently having a fit of some kind and also needing to be helped up the steps to someone's house
-- which were taken by Americans and shown by Americans and seen by millions of shocked Americans
-- were driven by Russia-Gate.
Obviously, Brazile, like millions of voters, saw these films and made appropriate inferences:
that Hillary's basic health and stamina were a question mark. Of course, Hillary also offered
Americans nothing in her campaign rhetoric. She came across as the mother-in-law from hell.
Was it also a Russia-Gate initiative when Hillary hid from her supporters on election night
and let Podesta face the screaming sobbing supporters? Too much spiked vodka or something? Our
political stage in the USA is a madhouse.
Adrian Engler , November 6, 2017 at 6:20 pm
These people probably have "connections" with a relatively large number of people, and only
very small fraction of the people they have contact with are probably Russians. Now, since
the extremist xenophobic idea that contact with *any* Russians is a scandal has taken hold in
the United States, people are probably not too eager to mention these contacts in these atmosphere
of extreme xenophobic anti-Russian hatred in today's United States. Furthermore, people who have
contact with large numbers of people probably really have difficulties remembering and listing
these all.
Today's political atmosphere in the United States probably has a lot in common with the Soviet
Union. There, people got in trouble if they had contacts with people from Western, capitalist
countries – and if they were asked and did not mention these contacts in order to avoid problems,
they could get in trouble even more.
I think it is absolutely clear that no one who takes part in this hateful anti-Russian campaign
can pretend to be liberal or progressive. The kind of society these xenophobes who detest pluralism
and accuse everyone who has opinions outside the mainstream of being a foreign agent is absolutely
abhorrent, in my view.
Leslie F , November 6, 2017 at 6:40 pm
Their contacts are with Russian business and maybe the Russian mob, not the Russian state.
There is really not question that Trump and his cronies are crooks, but they are crooks in the
US and in all the other countries where they do business, not just Russia. I'm sure Mueller will
be able to tie Trump directly to some of the sleeze. But there is no evidence that the Russian
government is involved in any of it. "Russia-gate" implies Russian government involvement, not
just random Russians. There is no evidence of that and moreover the logic is against.
occupy on , November 7, 2017 at 12:47 am
Mr. Cash . I think George Papadopoulis, Trump's young Aide, was an inside mole for neocon
pro-Israel interests. Those interests needed to knock the unreliable President Trump out of the
way to get the "system" back where it belonged – in their pocket. Papadopoulis, on his own, was
rummaging around making Trump/Russian connections that finally ended with the the William (Richard?)
Browder (well-known Washington DC neocon)/Natalia Veselnitskaya/Donald Trump, Jr. fiasco. The
Trumps knew nothing of those negotiations, and young Trump left when he realized Natalia was only
interested in Americans being allowed to adopt Russian children again and had no dirt on Hillary.
In the meantime, Trump Jr. was connected with an evil Russian (Natalia), William Browder was
able to link the neocon-hated Trump Sr with neocon-hated, evil Russians (who currently have a
warrant out for Browder's arrest on a 15 [or 50?] million dollar tax evasion charge), and neocons
have a good chance of claiming victory out of chaos (as is their style and was their intent for
the Middle East [not Washington DC!] in the neocon Project For a New American Century – 1998).
Clinton may have lost power in Washington DC, but Clinton-supporting neocons may not have – thanks
to George Papadopoulis. We shall see. Something tells me the best is yet to come out of the Mueller
Investigations.
Roy G Biv , November 7, 2017 at 2:03 pm
You are seeing it clearly Bill. This site was once a go-to-source for investigative journalism.
Now it is a place for opinion screeds, mostly with head buried in the sand about the blatant Russian
manipulation of the 2016 election. The dominant gang of posters here squash any dissent and dissenting
comments usually get deleted within a day. I don't understand why and how it came to be so, but
the hysterical labeling of Comey/Mueller investigations as McCarthyism by Parry has ruined his
sterling reputation for me.
Stygg , November 7, 2017 at 2:24 pm
If this "Russian manipulation" was as blatant as everyone keeps telling me, how come it's all
based on ridiculous BS instead of evidence? Where's the beef?
anon , November 7, 2017 at 3:22 pm
Unable to substantiate anything you say nor argue against anything said here, you disgrace
yourself. Do you think anyone is fooled by your repeated lie that you are a disaffected former
supporter of this site? And you made the "Stygg" reply above.
Tom Hall , November 6, 2017 at 4:46 pm
It was never my impression that Cold War liberals opposed McCarthy or the anti-Communist
witch hunt. Where they didn't gleefully join in, they watched quietly from the sidelines while
the American left was eviscerated, jailed, driven from public life. Then the liberals stepped
in when it was clear things were going a little too far and just as the steam had run out of McCarthy's
slander machine.
At that point figures like Adlai Stevenson, Hubert Humphrey and John F. Kennedy found the
path clear for their brand of political stagecraft. They were imperialists to a man, something
they proved abundantly when given the chance. Liberals supplanted the left in U.S. life- in the
unions, the teaching profession, publishing and every other field where criticism of the Cold
War and the enduring prevalence of worker solidarity across international lines threatened the
new order.
So it's no surprise that liberalism is the rallying point for a new wave of repression. The
dangerous buffoon currently occupying the White House stands as a perfect foil to the phony indignation
of the liberal leadership- Schumer, Pelosi et al.. The jerk was made to order, and they mean to
dump him as their ideological forebears unloaded old Tail Gunner Joe. In fact, Trump is so odious,
the Democrats, their media colleagues and major elements of the national security state believe
that bringing down the bozo can be made to look like a triumph of democracy. Of course, by then
dissent will have been stamped out far more efficiently than Trump and his half-assed cohorts
could have achieved. And it will be done in the name of restoring sanity, honoring the constitution,
and protecting everyone from the Russians. I was born in the fifties, and it looks like I'm going
to die in the fifties.
Danny Weil , November 6, 2017 at 6:37 pm
Truman started it. And he used it very well.
THE TRUMAN DOCTRINE AND ORIGINS OF ""McCARTHYISM
By Richard M. Freeland
This book argues that Truman used anti-Communist scare tactics to force Congress to implement
his plans for multilateral free trade and specifically to pass the Marshall Plan. This is a sound
emphasis, but other elements of postwar anti-Communist campaigns are neglected, especially anti-labor
legislation; and Freeland attributes to Truman a ""go-soft"" attitude toward the Soviets, which
is certainly not proven by the fact that he restrained the ultras Forrestal, Kennan, and Byrnes
-- indeed, some of Freeland's own citations confirm Truman's violent anti-Soviet spirit.
The book concludes that by equating dissent with disloyalty, promoting guilt by association,
and personally commanding loyalty programs, ""Truman and his advisors employed all the political
and programmatic techniques that in later years were to become associated with the broad phenomenon
of McCarthyism."" Freeland's revisionism is confined and conservative: he deems the Soviets
most responsible for the Cold War and implies that ""subversion"" was in fact a menace.
You are one of the very few critical journalists today willing to print objective measures
of the truth, while the MSM spins out of control under the guise of "protecting America" (and
their vital sources), while at the same time actually undermining the very principles of a working
democracy they sanctimoniously pretend to defend. It makes me nostalgic for the McCarthy era,
when we could safely satirize the Army-McCarthy Hearings (unless you were a witness!). I offer
the following as a retrospective of a lost era.:
Top-Ten Criteria for being a Putin Stooge, and a Chance at Winning A One Way Lottery Ticket:to
the Gala Gitmo Hotel:
:
(1) Reading Consortium News, Truth Dig, The Real News Network, RT and Al Jeziera
(2) Drinking Starbucks and vodka at the Russian Tea Room with Russian tourists (with an embedded
FSS agent) in NYC.
(3) Meeting suspicious tour guides in Red Square who accept dollars for their historical jokes.
(4) Claiming to catch a cell phone photo of the Putin limousine passing through the Kremlin Tower
gate.
(4) Starting a joint venture with a Russian trading partner who sells grain to feed Putin's stable
of stallions. .
(5) Catching the flu while being sneezed upon in Niagara Falls by a Russian violinist.
(6) Finding the hidden jewels in the Twelfth Chair were nothing but cut glass.
(7) Reading War and Peace on the Brighton Beach ferry.
(8) Playing the iPod version of Rachmaninoff's "Vespers" through ear buds while attending mass
in Dallas, TX..
(9) Water skiing on the Potomac flying a pennant saying "Wasn't Boris Good Enough?"
(10) Having audibly chuckled even once at items (1) – (9). Thanks Bob, Please don't let up!
Lisa , November 6, 2017 at 7:47 pm
Howard,
I chuckled loudly more than once – but luckily, no one heard me! No witnesses! So you are acquainted
with the masterpiece "12 chairs"? Very suspicious.
David G , November 6, 2017 at 8:42 pm
I've heard that's Mel Brooks favorite among his own movies.
David G , November 6, 2017 at 8:48 pm
I always find it exasperating when I have to remind the waiter at the diner to bring Russian
dressing along with the reuben sandwich, but these days I wonder if my loyalty is being tested.
Dave P. , November 6, 2017 at 10:27 pm
David G –
They will change the name of dressing very soon. Remember 2003 when French refused to endorse
the invasion of Iraq. I think they unofficially changed the name of "French Fries" to "Freedom
Fries".
It is just the start. The whole History is being rewritten – in compliance with Zionist Ideology.
Those evil Russkies will be shown as they are!
Clearly, since I've published one book by a Russian, one by a now-deceased US ex-pat living
in Russia, and have our catalog made available in Russia via our international distributor, I
am a traitor to the US. If you add in my staunch resistance to the whole Russiagate narrative
AND the fact I post links to stories in RT America, I'm doomed.
I wish I could think I'm being wholly sarcastic.
Danny Weil , November 6, 2017 at 6:38 pm
You are not alone. Many of us live outside the open air prison and feel the same way
Abe , November 6, 2017 at 5:29 pm
Robert Parry has described "the New McCarthyism" having "its own witch-hunt hearings". In fact
"last week's Senate grilling of executives from Facebook, Twitter and Google" was merely an exercise
in political theatre because all three entities already belong to the "First Draft" coalition:
Formed by Google in June 2015 with Eliot Higgins of the Atlantic Council's Bellingcat as
a founding member, the "First Draft" coalition includes all the usual mainstream media "partners"
in "regime change" war propaganda: the Washington Post, New York Times, CNN, the UK Guardian and
Telegraph, BBC News, the Atlantic Council's Digital Forensics Research Lab and Kiev-based Stopfake.
In a remarkable post-truth declaration, the "First Draft" coalition insists that members will
"work together to tackle common issues, including ways to streamline the verification process".
In the "post-truth" regime of US and NATO hybrid warfare, the deliberate distortion of truth
and facts is called "verification".
The Washington Post / PropOrNot imbroglio, and "First Draft" coalition "partner" organizations'
zeal to "verify" US intelligence-backed fake news claims about Russian hacking of the US presidential
election, reveal the "post-truth" mission of this new Google-backed hybrid war propaganda alliance.
Hysterical demonization of Russia escalated dramatically after Russia thwarted the Israeli-Saudi-US
plan to dismember the Syrian state.
With the rollback of ISIS and Al Qaeda terrorist proxy forces in Syria, and the failure of
Kurdish separatist efforts in Iraq, Israel plans to launch military attacks against southern Lebanon
and Syria.
South Front has presented a cogent and fairly detailed analysis of Israel's upcoming war in
southern Lebanon.
Conspicuously absent from the South Front analysis is any discussion of the Israeli planned
assault on Syria, or possible responses to the conflict from the United States or Russia.
Israeli propaganda preparations for attack are already in high gear. Unfortunately, sober heads
are in perilously short supply in Israel and the U.S., so the prognosis can hardly be optimistic.
"Scenarios for the Third Lebanon War
Over time, IDF's military effectiveness had declined. [ ] In the Second Lebanon War of 2006
due to the overwhelming numerical superiority in men and equipment the IDF managed to occupy key
strong points but failed to inflict a decisive defeat on Hezbollah. The frequency of attacks in
Israeli territory was not reduced; the units of the IDF became bogged down in the fighting in
the settlements and suffered significant losses. There now exists considerable political pressure
to reassert IDF's lost military dominance and, despite the complexity and unpredictability of
the situation we may assume the future conflict will feature only two sides, IDF and Hezbollah.
Based on the bellicose statements of the leadership of the Jewish state, the fighting will be
initiated by Israel.
"The operation will begin with a massive evacuation of residents from the settlements in the
north and centre of Israel. Since Hezbollah has agents within the IDF, it will not be possible
to keep secret the concentration of troops on the border and a mass evacuation of civilians. Hezbollah
units will will be ordered to occupy a prepared defensive position and simultaneously open fire
on places were IDF units are concentrated. The civilian population of southern Lebanon will most
likely be evacuated. IDF will launch massive bombing causing great damage to the social infrastructure
and some damage to Hezbollah's military infrastructure, but without destroying the carefully protected
and camouflaged rocket launchers and launch sites.
"Hezbollah control and communications systems have elements of redundancy. Consequently, regardless
of the use of specialized precision-guided munitions, the command posts and electronic warfare
systems will not be paralysed, maintaining communications including through the use of fibre-optic
communications means. IDF discovered that the movement has such equipment during the 2006 war.
Smaller units will operate independently, working with open communication channels, using the
pre-defined call signs and codes.
"Israeli troops will then cross the border of Lebanon, despite the presence of the UN peacekeeping
mission in southern Lebanon, beginning a ground operation with the involvement of a greater number
of units than in the 2006 war. The IDF troops will occupy commanding heights and begin to prepare
for assaults on settlements and actions in the tunnels. The Israelis do not score a quick victory
as they suffer heavy losses in built-up areas. The need to secure occupied territory with patrols
and checkpoints will cause further losses.
"The fact that Israel itself started the war and caused damage to the civilian infrastructure,
allows the leadership of the movement to use its missile arsenal on Israeli cities. While Israel's
missile defence systems can successfully intercept the launched missiles, there are not enough
of them to blunt the bombardment. The civilian evacuation paralyzes life in the country. As soon
IDF's Iron Dome and other medium-range systems are spent on short-range Hezbollah rockets, the
bombardment of Israel with long-range missiles may commence. Hezbollah's Iranian solid-fuel rockets
do not require much time to prepare for launch and may target the entire territory of Israel,
causing further losses.
"It is difficult to assess the duration of actions of this war. One thing that seems certain
is that Israel shouldn't count on its rapid conclusion, similar to last September's exercises.
Hezbollah units are stronger and more capable than during the 2006 war, despite the fact that
they are fighting in Syria and suffered losses there.
"Conclusions
"The combination of large-scale exercises and bellicose rhetoric is intended to muster Israeli
public support for the aggression against Hezbollah by convincing the public the victory would
be swift and bloodless. Instead of restraint based on a sober assessment of relative capabilities,
Israeli leaders appear to be in a state of blood lust. In contrast, the Hezbollah has thus far
demonstrated restraint and diplomacy.
"Underestimating the adversary is always the first step towards a defeat. Such mistakes are
paid for with soldiers' blood and commanders' careers. The latest IDF exercises suggest Israeli
leaders underestimate the opponent and, more importantly, consider them to be quite dumb. In reality,
Hezbollah units will not cross the border. There is no need to provoke the already too nervous
neighbor and to suffer losses solely to plant a flag and photograph it for their leader. For Hezbollah,
it is easier and safer when the Israeli soldiers come to them. According to the IDF soldiers who
served in Gaza and southern Lebanon, it is easier to operate on the plains of Gaza than the mountainous
terrain of southern Lebanon. This is a problem for armoured vehicles fighting for control of heights,
tunnels, and settlements, where they are exposed to anti-armor weapons.
"While the Israeli establishment is in a state of patriotic frenzy, it would be a good time
for them to turn to the wisdom of their ancestors. After all, as the old Jewish proverb says:
'War is a big swamp, easy to go into but hard to get out'."
Yes, the latest "big fish" outed yesterday as an agent of the Kremlin was the U.S. Secretary
of Commerce (Wilbur Ross) who was discovered to hold stock in a shipping company that does business
with a Russian petrochemical company (Sibur) whose owners include Vladimir Putin's son-in-law
(Kirill Shamalov). Obviously the orders flow directly from Putin to Shamalov to Sibur to the shipping
company to Ross to Trump, all to the detriment of American citizens.
From RT (another tainted source!): "US Commerce Secretary Wilbur L. Ross Jr. has a stake in
a shipping firm that receives millions of dollars a year in revenue from a company whose key owners
include Russian President Vladimir Putin's son-in-law and a Russian tycoon sanctioned by the U.S.
Treasury Department as a member of Putin's inner circle," says the International Consortium of
Investigative Journalists (ICIJ), the main publisher of the Paradise Papers. After the report
was published, some US lawmakers accused Ross of misleading Congress during his confirmation hearings."
Don't go mistaking the "International Consortium of Investigative Journalists for "Consortium
News." These guys are dedicated witch hunters, searching for anyone with six degrees of separation
to Vladimir Putin and his grand plan to thwart the United States and effect regime change within
its borders.
In a clear attempt to weasel out of his traitorous transgression, Ross stated "In a separate
interview with CNBC, that Sibur [which is NOT the company he owned stock in] was not subject to
US sanctions." 'A company not under sanction is just like any other company, period. It was a
normal commercial relationship and one that I had nothing to do with the creation of, and do not
know the shareholders who were apparently sanctioned at some later point in time,' he said." Since
when can we start allowing excuses like that? Not knowing that someone holds stock in a company
that does business with a company in which you own stock may at some later point in time become
sanctioned by the all-wise and all-good American federal government?
I can't wait till they make the first Ben Stiller comedy based on this fiasco twenty years
from now. It will be hilarious slap-stick, maybe titled "Can You Believe these Mother Fockers?"
President Chelea Clinton of our great and noble idiocracy will throw out the first witch on opening
day of the movie.
Danny Weil , November 6, 2017 at 6:27 pm
Let's be honest. Most Americans think McCarthy is a retail store. No education. And they think
Russia is the Soviet Union. Meanwhile, Trump is in Japan to start war with N. Korea to hide the
blemishes or the canker on his ass. America is rapidly collapsing.
Adrian Engler , November 6, 2017 at 6:34 pm
In the beginning, "Russiagate" was about alleged actions by Russian secret services. Evidence
for these allegations has never emerged, and it seems that the Russiagate conspiracy theorists
largely gave up on this part (they still sometimes write about it as if it was an established
fact, but since the only thing in support of it they can adduce is the canard about the 17 intelligence
services, it probably is not that interesting any more).
Now, they have dropped the mask, and the object of their hatred are openly all Russian
people, anyone who is "Russian linked" by ever having logged in to social networks from Russia
or using Cyrillic letters. If these people and their media at least recognized the reality that
they are now a particularly rabid part of the xenophobic far right in the United States
But when people daily spew hate against anything and anyone "Russia linked" and still don't
recognize that they have gone over to the far right and even claim they are liberal or progressive,
this is completely absurd.
McCarthyism, as terrible as it was, at least originally was motivated by hatred against a certain
political ideology that also had its bad sides. But today's Russiagate peddlers clearly are motivated
by hatred against a certain ethnicity, a certain country, and a certain language. I don't think
there is any way to avoid the conclusion that with their hatred against anyone who is "Russia
linked", they have become right-wing extremists.
Litchfield , November 6, 2017 at 6:46 pm
"Israel is another skilled player in this field, tapping into its supporters around the world
to harass people who criticize the Zionist project."
Yes, very well organized.
In fact virtually every synagogue is a center for organizing people to harass others who are exercising
their First Amendment rights to diseminate information about Israel's occupation of Palestine.
The link below is to a protest and really, personal attack, against a Unitarian minister in Marblehead,
Mass., for daring to screen the film ""The Occupation of the American Mind, Israel's Public Relations
War in the United States." In other words, for daring to provide an dissenting opinion and, simply,
to tell the truth. Ironic is that the protesters' comment actually reinforce the basic message
of the film.
No other views on Israel will be allowed to enter the public for a good airing and discussion
and debate. The truth about the illegal Israeli occupation will be shouted down, and those who
try to provide information to the public on this subject will be vilified as "anti-semites." Kudos
to this minister for screening the film.
The Occupation of the American Mind: Israel's Public Relations War in the United States (2016)
examines pro-Israel Hasbara propaganda efforts within the U.S.
This important documentary, narrated by Roger waters, exposes how the Israeli government, the
U.S. government, and the pro-Israel Lobby join forces to shape American media coverage in Israel's
favor.
Documentary producer Sut Jhally is professor of Communication at the University of Massachusetts,
and a leading scholar on advertising, public relations, and political propaganda. He is also the
founder and Executive Director of the Media Education Foundation, a documentary film company that
looks at issues related to U.S. media and public attitudes.
Jhally is the producer and director of dozens of documentaries about U.S. politics and media
culture, including Peace, Propaganda & the Promised Land: U.S. Media & the Israeli–Palestinian
Conflict.
The Occupation of the American Mind provides a sweeping analysis of Israel's decades-long battle
for the hearts, minds, and tax dollars of the American people – a battle that has only intensified
over the past few years in the face of widening international condemnation of Israel's increasingly
right-wing policies.
Dave P. , November 7, 2017 at 2:45 am
Abe –
The interview of Roger Waters on RT is one of the best I have seen in a long while. I wish
some other artists get the courage to raise their voices. The link to the Roger Waters interview
is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7jcvfbLoIA
This Roger Waters interview is worth watching.
It would seem that everyone on the US telivision , newspaper and internet news has mastered
the art of hand over mouth , gasp and looking horrified every time Russia is mentioned. It looks
to me that the US is in the middle of another of it´s mid life crises. Panic reigns supreme every
where. If it was not so sad it would be funny. i was born in the 1940s and remember the McCarthy
witch hunts and the daily shower of people jumping out of windows as a result of it.
As a Canadian I could not get over, even though I was just a teenager back then, just how a
people in a supposedly advanced country could be so collectively paniced. I think back then it
was just a scam to get rid of unions and any kind of collective action against the owners of the
country, and this time around I think it is just a continuation of that scam, to frighten people
into subservience to the police state. I heard a women on TV today commenting on the Texas masscre,
she said " The devil never sleeps", well in the USA the 1/10 of 1% never sleeps when it comes
to more control, more pwoer and more wealth, in fact I think they are after the very last shekle
still left in the pockets of the bottom 99.9 % of the population. Those evil Russians are just
a ploy in the scam.
Litchfield , November 6, 2017 at 6:58 pm
"The Democrats, the liberals and even many progressives justify their collusion with the neocons
by the need to remove Trump by any means necessary and "stop fascism." But their contempt for
Trump and their exaggeration of the "Hitler" threat that this incompetent buffoon supposedly poses
have blinded them to the extraordinary risks attendant to their course of action and how they
are playing into the hands of the war-hungry neocons."
And they are driving more and more actual and potential Dem Party members away in droves, further
weakening the party and depriving it of its most intelligent members. Any non-senile person knows
that this is all BS and these people are not only turning their backs on the Dem Party but I think
many of them are being driven to the right by their disgust with this circus and the exposure
of the party's critical weaknesses and derangement.
Paolo , November 6, 2017 at 6:59 pm
You correctly write that "the United States intervened in the 1996 Russian election to ensure
the continued rule of the corrupt and pliable Boris Yeltsin". The irony is that a few years later
Yeltsin chose Putin as his successor, and presumably the 'mericans gave him a hand to win his
first term.
How extremely sad it is to see the USA going totally nuts.
Abe , November 6, 2017 at 9:00 pm
In The Fifties (1993), American journalist and historian David Halberstam addressed
the noxious effect of McCarthyism: "McCarthy's carnival like four year spree of accusation charges,
and threats touched something deep in the American body politic, something that lasted long after
his own recklessness, carelessness and boozing ended his career in shame." (page 53)
Halberstam specifically discussed how readily the so-called "free" press acquiesced to
McCarthy's masquerading: "The real scandal in all this was the behavior of the members of the
Washington press corps, who, more often than not, knew better. They were delighted to be a part
of his traveling road show, chronicling each charge and then moving on to the next town, instead
of bothering to stay behind and follow up. They had little interest in reporting how careless
McCarthy was or how little it all meant to him." (page 55)
Abe , November 6, 2017 at 9:15 pm
On March 9, 1954, Edward R. Murrow and a news team at CBS produced a half-hour See It Now special
titled "A Report on Senator Joseph McCarthy".
Murrow interspersed his own comments and clarifications into a damaging series of film clips
from McCarthy's speeches. He ended the broadcast with a warning:
"As a nation we have come into our full inheritance at a tender age. We proclaim ourselves–as
indeed we are–the defenders of freedom, what's left of it, but we cannot defend freedom abroad
by deserting it at home. The actions of the junior senator from Wisconsin have caused alarm and
dismay amongst our allies abroad and given considerable comfort to our enemies, and whose fault
is that? Not really his. He didn't create the situation of fear; he merely exploited it, and rather
successfully. Cassius was right: 'The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars but in ourselves.'"
CBS reported that of the 12,000 phone calls received within 24 hours of the broadcast, positive
responses to the program outnumbered negative 15 to 1. McCarthy's favorable rating in the Gallup
Poll dropped and was never to rise again.
Gary , November 6, 2017 at 11:34 pm
Sad to see so many hypocrites here espousing freedom from McCarthyism while they continue to
vote for capitalist candidates year in year out. Think about the fact that in 2010 when Citizens
United managed to get the Supreme Court to certify corporations as people the fear among many
was that this would open US company subsidiaries to be infiltrated by foreign money. I guess it
is happening in spades with collusion between Russian money & Trump's organization along with
Facebook, Twitter & many others. How Mr. Parry can maintain that this parallels the 1950s anti-communist
crusade is quite ingenuous. When libertarians, the likes of Bannon, Mercer, Trump et al, with
their "destruction of the administrative state" credo are compared to the US communists of the
50s we know progressives have become about as disoriented as can be.
geeyp , November 7, 2017 at 3:30 am
I guess these "Paradise Papers" were released just yesterday, i.e., Sunday the 5th. Somehow
I didn't get to it.
john wilson , November 7, 2017 at 6:01 am
So it looks like Hillary will be crossing Putin off her Xmas card list this year! I sometimes
wonder if all we posters on here and other similar sites are on a list somewhere and when the
day of reckoning comes, the list will be produced and we will have to account for our treasonous
behaviour? Of course, one man's treason is another man's truth. I suppose in the end it boils
down to the power thing. If you have a perceived enemy you can claim the need for an army. If
you have an army you have power and with that power you can dispose of anyone who disagrees with
you simply by calling them the enemy.
Lisa , November 7, 2017 at 9:38 am
John, your post made me wonder whether I would be on a list of traitors. I've written three
posts, starting yesterday, and tried to explain something about the background of Yuri Milner,
mentioned in the article. After "your comment has been posted, thank you" nothing has appeared
on this thread.
Well, once more: Milner is known to me as a well-educated physicist from Moscow State University,
and the co-founder and financier of The Breakthrough Prize, handing out yearly awards to promising
scientists, with a much larger sum than the humble Nobel Prize. The awarding ceremony is held
in December in Silicon Valley.
john wilson , November 7, 2017 at 12:34 pm
Hi Lisa, I have just looked up Milner on Wiki and he appears to be into everything including
investment in internet companies. He is the co-founder of the "break through prize" that you mention
and seems to have backed face book and twitter in their start up. I don't see why you posts haven't
appeared as anyone can look Milner up on Wiki and elsewhere in great detail. You don't say where
you have tried to post, but I would have thought on this site you would have no trouble whatever.
If you have watched the last episode of 'cross talk' on RT you will see that anyone who as ever
mentioned Russia in a public place is regarded as some kind of traitor. I guess you and me are
due for rendition anytime now!! LOL
Lisa , November 7, 2017 at 1:49 pm
Hi John,
Naturally I had been trying to post on this site. First I tried three times in the comment space
below all other posts, and they never went through. Only when I posted a reply to someone else's
comment, my reply appeared. Maybe some technical problem on the site.
My motive was to show that Milner is doing worthwhile things with his millions, even if he
is an "evil Russian oligarch". The mentioned prize has its own website: breakthroughprize.org.
Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook) is a board member.
The prize is certainly a "Putin conspiracy", as it has links to Russia. (sarc)
Zachary Smith , November 7, 2017 at 8:05 pm
Maybe some technical problem on the site.
Possibly that's the case. Disappearing-forever posts happen to me from time to time. For at
least a while afterwards I cut/paste what I'm about to attempt to "post" to a WORD file before
hitting the "post comment" button.
In any event, avoid links whenever possible. By cut/pasting the exact title of the piece you're
using as a reference, others can quickly locate it themselves without a link.
K , November 7, 2017 at 9:44 am
I'm a lifelong Democrat. I was a Bernie supporter. But logic dictates my thinking. The Russia
nonsense is cover for Hillary's loss and a convenient hammer with which to attack Trump. Not biting.
Bill Maher is fixated on this. The Rob Reiner crowd is an embarrassment. The whole thing is embarrassing.
The media is inept. Very bizarre times.
Excellent article which should shed light on the misunderstandings manifested to manipulate
and censor Americans. Personally, it's ludicrous to imply that Russia was the primary reason I
could not vote for Hillary. My interest in Twitter peaked when Sidney Blumenthal's name popped
up selling arms in Libya. He was on The Clinton Foundation's Payroll for $120K, while the Obama
Administration specifically told HRC Sidney Blumenthal was not to work for the State Department.
Further research showed Chris Stevens had no knowledge of Sidney Blumenthal selling arms in
Libya. Hillary NEVER even gave Chris Stevens, a candidate with an outstanding background for diplomatic
relations in the Middle East, her email. Chris Stevens possessed a Law Degree in International
Trade, and had previously worked for Senator Lugar (R). Senator Lugar had warned HRC not to co-mingle
State Department business with The Clinton Foundation.
To add salt to the wound Hillary choose to put a third rate security firm in Libya, changing
firms a couple of short weeks before the bombing. I think she anticipated the bombing, remarking
"What difference does it make? " at the congressional hearings.
If you remember Guccifer (that hacker) he said he'd hacked both Hillary and Sidney Blumenthal.
He also said he found Sidney Blumenthal's account more interesting.
That's just one reason why I started surfing the internet. Sidney Blumenthal was a name that
hung in the cobwebs of my memory, and I wanted to know what this scum-job of a journalist was
doing!
Then there was Clinton Cash, BoysonTheTracks, Clinton Chronicles, the outrageous audacity of
the Democrats Superdelegates voting before a single primary ballot had been cast, MSM bias to
Hillary, Kathy Shelton's video "I thought you should know." and maybe around September 2016, wondering
what dirty things Hillary had done with Russia since 1993?
So I guess it's true. In the end after witnessing what has transpired since the election I
would not vote for Hillary because she'd rather risk WWIII, than have the TRUTH come out why she
lost.
After living in Europe much of the last three years we've recently returned to the U.S. I must
say that life here feels very much like I'm living within a strange Absurdist theatre play of
some sort (not that Europe is vastly better). Truth, meaning, rationality, mean absolutely nothing
at this juncture here in the United States. Reality has been turned on its head. The only difference
between our political parties runs along identity politics lines: "do you prefer your drone strikes,
illegal invasions, regime change black-ops, economic warfare and massive government spying 'with'
or 'without' gender specific bathrooms?" MSM refer to this situation as "democracy" while of course
any thinking person knows we are actually living within a totalitarian nightmare. Theatre of the
Absurd as a way of life. I must admit it feels pretty creepy being home again.
I wish it wasn't asking too much, but I suspect it is. If the NYT was reporting it, I'd feel
better about our chances. But the Deep State controls the narrative, and thus controls Pompeo,
Trump's order notwithstanding. I hope I'm wrong.
Dave P. , November 7, 2017 at 4:17 pm
Yes Joe. It is rather painful to watch as you said this Orwellian Tragedy playing out in the
Country which has just about become a police state. For those of us who grew up admiring the Western
Civilization starting with the Greeks and Romans, and then for its institutions enshrining Individual
Rights; and its scientific, literary, and cultural achievements, it is as if it still happening
in some dream, though it has been coming for some time now – more than two decades now at least.
The System was not perfect but I think that it was good as it could get. The system had been in
decline for four decades or so now.
From Robert Parry's article:
"The warning from powerful senators was crystal clear. "I don't think you get it," Sen. Dianne
Feinstein, D-California, warned social media executives last week. "You bear this responsibility.
You created these platforms, and now they are being misused. And you have to be the ones who do
something about it. Or we will."
Diane Feinstein's multi-billionaire husband was implicated in those Loan and Savings scandals
of Reagan and G.H.W. Bush Era and in many other financial scandals later on but Law did not touch
him. He has a dual residency in Israel. These are very corrupt people.
Paul Wolfowitz, Elliot Abrams, Perle, Nulad-Kagan clan, Kristol, Gaffney . . . the list goes
on; add Netanyahu to it. In the Hollywood Harvey Weinstein, Rob Reiner. and the rest . . . In
Finance and wall Street characters like Sandy Weiss and the gang. The Media and TV is directly
or indirectly owned and controlled by "The Chosen People". So, where would you put the blame for
all what is going on in this country, and all this chaos, death, and destruction going on in ME
and many countries in Africa.
Any body who points out their role in it or utters a word of criticism of Israel is immediately
called an anti-semite. Just to tell my own connections, my wife youngest sister is married to
person who is Jewish (non-practicing). In all the relatives we have, they are closest to us for
more than thirty five years now. They are those transgender common restroom liberals, but we have
many common views and interests. In life, I have never differentiated people based on their ethnic
or racial backgrounds; you look at the principles they stand for.
As I see it, this era of Russia-Gate and witch hunt is hundred times worse than McCarthy era.
It seems irreversible. There is no one in the political establishment or elsewhere in Media or
academia left for regeneration of the "Body Politic". In fact, what we are witnessing here is
much worse than it was in the Soviet Union. It is complete degeneration of political leadership
in this country. It extends to Media and other institutions as well. People in Soviet Union did
not believe the lies they were told by the government there. And there arose writers like Aleksandr
Solzhenitsyn in Soviet Union. What is left here now except are these few websites?
Maedhros , November 7, 2017 at 4:27 pm
If there is evidence, you should be able to provide some so that readers can analyze and discuss
it. Exactly what evidence has been provided that the Russian government manipulated the 2016 election?
CitizenOne , November 7, 2017 at 10:42 pm
Robert Parry You Nailed It!!!
I need to do a little research to see how far back you used the term "New McCarthyism" to describe
the next cold war with Russia. It was about the same time the first allegations of a Trump-Russia
conspiracy was floated by the MSM. I do not pretend to know how much airtime they spent covering
their coverup for all that the MSM did to profit from SuperPacs. They have webed a weave that
conspires to conceive to the tunes of billions of dollars spent to reprieve their intent to deceive
us and distract us away from their investment in Donald Trump which was the real influence in
the public spaces to gain mega profits from extorting the SuperPacs into spending their dollars
to defeat the trumped up candidate they created and boosted. One has to look no further than the
Main Stream Press (MSM) to find the guilty party with motive and opportunity to cash in on a candidacy
which if not for the money motive would not pass any test of journalistic integrity but would
make money for the Media.
The Russian Boogeyman was created shortly after the election and is an obvious attempt to shield
and defend the actions of the MSM which was the real fake news covered in the nightly news leading
up to the election which sought to get money rather than present the facts.
This is an example of how much power and influence the MSM has on us all to be able to upend
a National election and turn around and blame some foreign Devil for the results of an election.
The Russians had little to do with Trumps election. The MSM had everything to do with it. They
cast blame on the Russians and in so doing create a new Cold War which suits the power establishment
and suitably diverts all of our attention away from their machinations to influence the last presidential
election.
Win Win. More Nuclear Weapons and more money for the MIC and more money for all of the corporations
who would profit from a new Cold War.
Profit in times of deceit make more money from those who cheat.
CitizenOne , November 7, 2017 at 11:25 pm
Things not talked about:
1. James Comey and his very real influence on the election has never entered the media space
for an instant. It has gone down the collective memory hole. That silence has been deafening because
he was the person who against DOJ advice reopened the investigation into Hillary Clinton and the
Servergate investigation after it had been closed by the FBI just days before the election.
The silence of the media on the influence on the election by the reopening of James Comey's
Servergate investigation and how the mass media press coverage implicating Hillary Clinton (again)
in supposed crimes (which never resulted in an indictment) influenced the National Election in
ways that have never been examined by the MSM is a nail in the coffin of media impartiality.
Why have they not investigated James Comey? Why has the MSM instead created a Russian Boogeyman?
Why was he invited to testify about the Russian connection but never cross examined about his
own influence? Why is the clearest reason for election meddling by James Comey not even spoken
of by the MSM? This is because the MSM does not want to cover events as they happened but wants
to recreate a alternate reality suitable to themselves which serves their interests and convinces
us that the MSM has no part at all in downplaying the involvement of themselves in the election
but wants to create a foreign enemy to blame.
It serves many interests. The MSM lies to all of us for the benefit of the MIC. It serves to
support White House which will deliver maximum investments in the Defense Industry. It does this
by creating a foreign enemy which they create for us to fear and be afraid of.
It is obvious to everyone with a clear eyed history of how the last election went down and
how the MSM and the government later played upon our fears to grab more cash have cashed in under
the present administration.
It is up to us to elect leaders who will reject this manipulation by the media and who will
not be cowed by the establishment. We have the power enshrined in our Constitution to elect leaders
who will pave the path forward to a better future.
Those future leaders will have to do battle with a media infrastructure that serves the power
structure and conspires to deceive us all.
Clear critical thinking must accompany free speech, however, and irrationality seems to have
beset Americans, too stuck in the mud of identity politics. Can they get out? I have hopes that
a push is coming from the new multipolar world Xi and Putin are advocating, as well as others
(but not the George Soros NWO variety). The big bully American government, actually ruled by oligarchy,
has not been serving its regular folks well, so things are falling apart. Seems like the sex scandals,
political scandals especially of the Democrat brand, money scandals are unraveling to expose underlying
societal sickness in the Disunited States of America.
It is interesting that this purge shakeup in Saudi Arabia is happening in 2017, one hundred
years since the shakeup in Russia, the Bolshevik Revolution. So shake-ups are happening everywhere.
I think a pattern is emerging of major changes in world events. Just yesterday I read that because
"Russia-gate" isn't working well, senators are looking to start a "China-gate", for evidence of
Trump collusion with Chinese oligarchs. Ludicrous. As Seer once said, "The Empire in panic mode".
Patricia, thanks for the info on Sid Blumenthal, HRC and the selling of arms from Libya to
ME jihadists, which seems to exonerate Chris Stevens from those dirty deeds and lays blame squarely
at Blumenthal's and Clinton's doorstep; changes my thinking. And thanks to Robert Parry for continuing
to push back at the participation of MSM and government players in the Orwellian masquerade being
pulled on the sheeple.
Truther , November 8, 2017 at 12:54 pm
Just the facts for those of you who have minds still open. suggest you bookmark it quickly
as the moderator will delete it within the hour.
"... Third, Manafort's efforts mattered bigly. In 2010, he helped Victor F. Yanukovych become president of Ukraine. An unquestionably nasty piece of work, Yanukovych was, according to Farkas, "Putin's man in Kiev." Yet like it or not, he came to power as the result of democratic election. In 2013, Yanukovych opted against joining the EU, which along with NATO, had, in Farkas's words, "experienced a burst of membership expansion" right up to Russia's own borders. ..."
"... In response to Yanukovych's action, "the Ukrainian people," that is, the enlightened ones, "took to the streets," forcing him to flee the country. Rather than bowing to the expressed will of the people, however, Russia's Vladimir Putin "instigated a separatist movement" in eastern Ukraine, thereby triggering "a war between Russia and Ukraine that continues to this day." ..."
"... To accept Farkas's account as truthful, one would necessarily conclude that as Manafort was hijacking history, the United States remained quietly on the sidelines, an innocent bystander sending prayers heavenward in hopes that freedom and democracy might everywhere prevail ..."
"... Furthermore, Russia was not alone in its meddling. The United States has been equally guilty. When "the Ukrainian people took to the streets," as Farkas puts it, the State Department and CIA were behind the scenes vigorously pulling strings. Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland believed it was incumbent upon the United States to decide who should govern Ukraine. ("Yats is the guy," she said on a leaked call). Nuland would brook no interference from allies slow to follow Washington's lead. ("F–k the EU," she told the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine.) ..."
"... That Ukraine is, as Farkas correctly states, a torn country, did not give Nuland pause. Since the end of the Cold War, U.S. policymakers have assigned to themselves a magical ability to repair such tears and to make broken countries whole. The results of their labors are amply on display everywhere from Somalia and Haiti to Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. Now add Ukraine to that sorry list. ..."
"... Even so, can't we at least assume Nuland's motives were morally superior to Putin's? After all, President Putin is clearly a thug whereas Nuland is an estimable product of the American foreign policy establishment. She's married to Robert Kagan, for heaven's sake. ..."
"... This is why we should disband politically oriented NGO's. In essence, a country is only a democracy if it is pro-U.S. Resistance is futile. Meddling at this level will only bring about more conflict, instability and military obligations will follow. It is good to be king but it is also quite expensive and ultimately ruinous. ..."
"... Imperialism rules other peoples against their will, necessitating for its survival the lessening of democratic accountability at home, too, since it lessens the importance of citizens' own concerns, also requiring for its warmaking security keeping voters in the dark. ..."
"... Make that, More 'Fake News,' Of Course From the New York Times. Saturated with Fake News of various manifestations, the NY Times and its rancid analog Washington Post on the other end of the Crony-Elite NY-DC axis are unreadable. ..."
"... Given a ham-fisted EU run by Elite hacks in Brussels that is white washing Europe's Christian legacy, mandating overbearing economic and social controls and absorbing millions of net negative migrants, the Czechs, Poles, Hungarians and Balts seem to be having second thoughts. BTW, The Russians will not and do not want to invade those countries. As the EU spins out of control and the One Belt One Road initiative develops, Russia only needs to ask them what direction they want to face in the future. ..."
"... So, having said that, on foreign policy they, all newspapers and the vast majority of magazines, are war-peddling neo-con supporters. ..."
"... Do not buy any major newspaper. Let them wither away and, it wasn't fake spun 'news' we have been getting only this year: fake agenda driven bull has been going on for decades. Go to the internet and overseas for news think what I said over and you will see ..."
"... All this social, economic and political mess is the result of deregulation in the economic, social, political spheres. The effects of those deregulations are now quite obvious in: economy, society, morality and politics that are already corrupted to the core, but the corruption is not stopping there, it is consuming everything else on its way. There is no end to it, and what is even more surprising is that people want even more of all kinds of deregulations etc. ..."
"... Wouldn't it be more logical to bring back responsibility, moral standards and decency to politics, society and economy etc? What I now see in media is the total lack of any ideas on how to correct the obvious, but instead everybody is spinning his/her lies to make them more believable to the yet unconverted. This is pure relativism and sophistry and it destroys not only the USA, but the West as well. ..."
"... If an opinion piece in NYT or other MSM blatantly distorts the facts, then it belongs to the category of "fake news." Which should probably be called "malicious rumors." So the defense of some commenters that you can blatantly lie in opinion pieces (the right NYT exercised to the full extent in this particular example and for which Bacevich criticized them) is wrong. Anti-Russian witch hunt in NYT and other MSM destroys the credibility of the USA version of neoliberalism as well as the USA foreign policy. Along with Trump election, I view it as a symptom of the crisis of neoliberalism for which the US elite is unable to find a more suitable answer than scapegoating. Also the fact that Nuland is married to neocon warmonger Kagan is a material fact. ..."
Disregarding President Trump's insistent claim that the establishment press propagates "fake
news" requires a constant effort -- especially when a prestigious outlet like the New York
Times allows itself to be used for blatantly fraudulent purposes.
I cherish the First Amendment. Mark me down as favoring journalism that is loud, lively, and
confrontational. When members of the media snooze -- falling for fictitious claims about
Saddam's WMD program or Gaddafi's genocidal intentions, for example -- we all lose.
So the recent decision by Times editors to
publish an op-ed regarding Paul Manafort's involvement in Ukraine is disturbing. That the
Times is keen to bring down Donald Trump is no doubt the case. Yet if efforts to do so
entail grotesque distortions of U.S. policy before Trump, then we are courting real
trouble. Put simply, ousting Trump should not come at the cost of whitewashing the follies that
contributed to Trump's rise in the first place.
The offending Times op-ed, the handiwork of Evelyn N. Farkas, appears under the title
"With Manafort, It Really Is About Russia, Not Ukraine." During the Obama administration,
Farkas served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Russia, Ukraine, Eurasia, and Mess
Kit Repair. Okay, I added that last bit, but it does seem like quite an expansive charter for a
mere deputy assistant secretary.
The story Farkas tells goes like this.
First, from the moment it achieved independence in 1991, Ukraine was a divided nation, "torn
between Western Europe and Russia." Ukrainians in the country's western precincts wanted to
join the European Union and NATO. Those further to east "oriented themselves toward Russia,
which exerted maximum influence to keep Ukraine closely aligned." In one camp were enlightened
Ukrainians. In the other camp, the unenlightened.
Second, Manafort's involvement in this intra-Ukrainian dispute was -- shockingly -- never
about "advanc[ing] the interests of democracy, Western Europe or the United States." Manafort's
motives were strictly venal. In what Farkas describes as a "standoff between democracy and
autocracy," he threw in with the autocrats, thereby raking in millions.
Third, Manafort's efforts mattered bigly. In 2010, he helped Victor F. Yanukovych become
president of Ukraine. An unquestionably nasty piece of work, Yanukovych was, according to
Farkas, "Putin's man in Kiev." Yet like it or not, he came to power as the result of democratic
election. In 2013, Yanukovych opted against joining the EU, which along with NATO, had, in
Farkas's words, "experienced a burst of membership expansion" right up to Russia's own
borders.
In response to Yanukovych's action, "the Ukrainian people," that is, the enlightened
ones, "took to the streets," forcing him to flee the country. Rather than bowing to the
expressed will of the people, however, Russia's Vladimir Putin "instigated a separatist
movement" in eastern Ukraine, thereby triggering "a war between Russia and Ukraine that
continues to this day."
To accept Farkas's account as truthful, one would necessarily conclude that as Manafort
was hijacking history, the United States remained quietly on the sidelines, an innocent
bystander sending prayers heavenward in hopes that freedom and democracy might everywhere
prevail .
Such was hardly the case, however. One need not be a Putin apologist to note that the United
States was itself engaged in a program of instigation, one that ultimately induced a hostile --
but arguably defensive -- Russian response.
In the wake of the Cold War, the EU and NATO did not experience a "burst" of expansion, a
formulation suggesting joyous spontaneity. Rather, with Washington's enthusiastic support, the
West embarked upon a deliberate eastward march at the Kremlin's expense, an undertaking made
possible by (and intended to exploit) Russia's weakened state. In football, it's called piling
on.
That this project worked to the benefit of Czechs, Poles, Hungarians, the Baltic Republics,
and others is very much the case. On that score, it is to be applauded.
That at some point a resentful Russia would push back was all but certain. Indeed, more than
a few Western observers had warned against such a response.
The proposed incorporation of Ukraine into NATO brought matters to a head. For Putin, this
was an unacceptable prospect. He acted as would any U.S. president contemplating the absorption
of a near neighbor into hostile bloc of nations. Indeed, he acted much as had Dwight D.
Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy when they assessed the implications of Cuba joining the Soviet
bloc.
That doesn't justify or excuse Putin's meddling in Ukraine. Yet it suggests an explanation
for Russian behavior other than the bitterness of an ex-KGB colonel still with his shorts in a
knot over losing the Cold War. Russia has an obvious and compelling interest in who controls
Ukraine, even if few in Washington or in the editorial offices of the New York Times
will acknowledge that reality.
Furthermore, Russia was not alone in its meddling. The United States has been equally
guilty. When "the Ukrainian people took to the streets," as Farkas puts it, the State
Department and CIA were behind the scenes vigorously pulling strings. Assistant Secretary of
State Victoria Nuland believed it was incumbent upon the United States to decide who should
govern Ukraine. ("Yats is the guy," she said on a leaked call). Nuland would brook no
interference from allies slow to follow Washington's lead. ("F–k the EU," she told the
U.S. ambassador to Ukraine.)
That Ukraine is, as Farkas correctly states, a torn country, did not give Nuland pause.
Since the end of the Cold War, U.S. policymakers have assigned to themselves a magical ability
to repair such tears and to make broken countries whole. The results of their labors are amply
on display everywhere from Somalia and Haiti to Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. Now add Ukraine
to that sorry list.
Even so, can't we at least assume Nuland's motives were morally superior to Putin's?
After all, President Putin is clearly a thug whereas Nuland is an estimable product of the
American foreign policy establishment. She's married to Robert Kagan, for heaven's
sake.
Persuade yourself that the United States is all about democracy promotion, as Farkas appears
to believe, and the answer to that question is clearly yes. Alas, the record of American
statecraft stretching over decades provides an abundance of contrary evidence. In practice, the
United States supports democracy only when it finds it convenient to do so. Should
circumstances require, it unhesitatingly befriends despots, especially rich ones that pay cash
while purchasing American weaponry.
Yanukovych was Putin's man, "and therefore, indirectly, so was Mr. Manafort," Farkas
concludes. All that now remains is to determine "the extent to which Mr. Manafort was Putin's
man in Washington." For Farkas, the self-evident answer to that question cannot come too
soon.
As to whether Russia -- or any other great power -- might have legitimate security interests
that the United States would do well to respect, that's not a matter worth bothering about.
Thus does the imperative of ousting Trump eclipse the need to confront the pretensions and the
hubris that helped make Trump possible.
Andrew Bacevich is writer-at-large at The American Conservative
This is why the term "fake news" is so harmful and should not be used by media outlets. The
use of "bad journalism" would be much more useful as it forces the claimants to justify their
reasons for doing so.
"Fake news" is just a dog whistle.
Has it not occurred to the foreign policy establishment in Washington that it is more in
America's national interests for Ukraine to remain in Moscow's orbit, so as to strengthen
U.S.-Russian relations, not exacerbate tensions, rather than to pull them into the EU, or,
God forbid, NATO? Isn't this what any of the seasoned experts at Foggy Bottom would tell you?
Why aren't they doing so?
1) Yanukovich won in 2004 as well and the election results were hijacked by 'Maidan'
2) Yanukovich wasn't Putin man back in 2010. As a matter of fact, he and his party actively
promoted EU integration deal, until they read its actual conditions. After that they
backtracked and rushed to Putin for a support.
So it was classical case of sitting on two chairs simultaneously.
Completely agree with John Fargo. "Fake News" should be reserved for deliberate falsehoods
published knowingly. This NYT op-ed amounts to "an interpretation of history Bacevich doesn't
agree with." I may not agree with it either – but it's not like claiming that the Vegas
shooter was anti-Trump, or creating a Facebook account for a non-existent person or
organization.
Mr Fargo: Disagree. "Bad journalism" implies the author is lazy yet innocent in their way.
"Fake news" is more about narrative control and manipulation of the reader through
reinvention or exaggeration, et cetera. Calling articles and outlets fake news is more
accurate and levies much more weight against the lies and deceit than simply accusing someone
or thing of bad journalism.
This is why we should disband politically oriented NGO's. In essence, a country is only a
democracy if it is pro-U.S. Resistance is futile. Meddling at this level will only bring about more conflict, instability and military
obligations will follow. It is good to be king but it is also quite expensive and ultimately
ruinous.
If it were all about democracy promotion, they wouldn't also be so anxious to negate an
election here at home. Imperialism rules other peoples against their will, necessitating for
its survival the lessening of democratic accountability at home, too, since it lessens the
importance of citizens' own concerns, also requiring for its warmaking security keeping
voters in the dark.
Re: "More 'Fake News,' Alas, From the New York Times"
Make that, More 'Fake News,' Of Course From the New York Times. Saturated with Fake News of various manifestations, the NY Times and its rancid analog
Washington Post on the other end of the Crony-Elite NY-DC axis are unreadable.
Re: "That this project worked to the benefit of Czechs, Poles, Hungarians, the Baltic
Republics, and others is very much the case. On that score, it is to be applauded."
Given a ham-fisted EU run by Elite hacks in Brussels that is white washing Europe's
Christian legacy, mandating overbearing economic and social controls and absorbing millions
of net negative migrants, the Czechs, Poles, Hungarians and Balts seem to be having second
thoughts. BTW, The Russians will not and do not want to invade those countries. As the EU spins out
of control and the One Belt One Road initiative develops, Russia only needs to ask them what
direction they want to face in the future.
How is it someone's "opinion" constitutes "fake News"? Trump did not win by policy issues, he
rode the right-wing outrage at all things clinton/libtard better than anyone else. His policy
positions were mostly promise everything to everyone, but his campaign was about Lock her up/
build the wall! After bashing Goldman Sachs during the election, once he won he promptly
filled his cabinet with them and other mega donor types.
@John Fargo – I'm in almost complete sympathy with Mr. Bacevich's essay, but you make
an excellent point. "Bad journalism" is the better term. In fact, the only criticism I can
make of your statement is that "dog whistle" is the wrong term. Everyone associates the term
"fake news" with Donald Trump. (If it were possible, he no doubt would have trademarked it.)
Using the term alienates the very people who need to hear criticisms like those in Mr.
Bacevich's essay. They hear it, too; and upon hearing it, they stop listening.
Look, elite and non-elite self-delusion about the purity of U.S. motives abroad dates back to
the Roosevelt administration at least -- and I mean the Teddy Roosevelt administration. I
don't see how any of this amounts to a defense of charges of money-laundering against
Manafort.
I disagree with John Fargo. The news that NYT, Washington Post, and other media outlets (not
only liberal ) "produce" is the "Fake News". "Bad journalism" should be reserved and used in
the sense Nolan explains. Besides the "Fake News" on the so called "left" in American
politics in general is the problem of "double speak" and speaking with the "forked tongues".
American "right" is the camp of the white flag.
Besides the "Fake News" on the so called "left" in American politics in general is the
problem of "double speak" and speaking with the "forked tongues". American "right" is the
camp of the white flag.
I've mentioned the various "flavors" of Fake News before. There is (1) the obvious –
what is claimed as true is actually false. But also (2), what is claimed as important,
actually isn't. And (3) what is important, is weakly or not reported at all.
An example of Type 2 is the WaPost reporting on its front page before the 2016 that Jared
Kushner may have been greased into the Harvard MBA program. As if Ivy League greasing by
monied Elites is unheard of. How was that front page news? And how about the acceptances of
Chelsea Clinton (Stanford) and Malia Obama (Harvard)?
The cases of Type 3 Fake News are much more egregious. For example, the reasoned arguments
and analysis by retired American intelligence officers and academics that the Syrian forces
"chemical weapon attack" in April was almost certainly a false flag with staged recovery
activity.
The NY Times and WaPost have consistently refused to acknowledge that those arguments and
analysis even exist.
The linking of Russia to the DNC email leaks as factual by the Times, Post and NPR without
a scintilla of published hard evidence is another example.
There are many more examples of Type 3 Fake News that could be demonstrated. Much of what
claims to be journalism by the MSM is now Fake News trash.
Disregarding President Trump's insistent claim that the establishment press propagates
"fake news" requires a constant effort -- especially when a prestigious outlet like the New
York Times allows itself to be used for blatantly fraudulent purposes.
I agree in principal, although I note that President Trump and his team are as guilty of
fake news as anyone, and the president himself appears to be positively delusional. I might
at times disagree with Bacevich as to which news is fake.
I would also agree that there has been a great deal of "fake news" out of Ukraine, and
what is really going on their is a former SSR with a bitterly divided population that each
has about equal numbers, proponderance in some territories compared to others, and equally
opportunistic leadership showing no great commitment to anything recognizable as
"democracy."
Say, can we refrain from using the word 'journalism' when we refer to the American media?
We should.
The internet and sources overseas, such as the Independent News paper/site out of
Britain,
have news that is not purposely spun as is by the neo-con American news papers and magazines.
Not as much, anyway.
Several points here, for example of what bad news (pun intended) the joke of American media
is:
1- quit calling the main stream media liberal or left. They are liberal in a 'social issues
sense,' that is, to be politically correct.
2- So, having said that, on foreign policy they, all newspapers and the vast majority of
magazines, are war-peddling neo-con supporters.
3-They have agendas.
Do we not remember how they, at the new york times, peddled the war against Iraq and how,
when you look at the editorial page you feel that these people and the guests opinion writers
are soulless people that have no concern for America's 'flyover' country?
4- Yeah, isn't that ironic that these people look down on America's middle class, blue collar
workers and yes, it's troops, by that constant bashing of nations here and there and pushing
for aggressive stands or even military attacks?
Let the people at the major newspapers like this n.y.times rag tell us when they served in
the U.S. military or their when their offspring did or when they're gonna join and volunteer
for combat duty.
Never mind, I've got the answer-none of 'em.
Do not buy any major newspaper.
Let them wither away and, it wasn't fake spun 'news' we have been getting only this year:
fake agenda driven bull has been going on for decades. Go to the internet and overseas for news
think what I said over and you will see
Not everybody has the time to analyze the deluge of all the "Fake News" and categorize it
into classes and/or sub-classes you or somebody else proposes. Where all that leads? Soon we
will have new sociopolitical discipline and experts on "fake-newsology" that will introduce
another layer of pseudo-information that will have to be translated to the uninitiated and
unwashed.
All this social, economic and political mess is the result of deregulation in the
economic, social, political spheres. The effects of those deregulations are now quite obvious
in: economy, society, morality and politics that are already corrupted to the core, but the
corruption is not stopping there, it is consuming everything else on its way. There is no end
to it, and what is even more surprising is that people want even more of all kinds of
deregulations etc.
Wouldn't it be more logical to bring back responsibility, moral standards
and decency to politics, society and economy etc? What I now see in media is the total lack
of any ideas on how to correct the obvious, but instead everybody is spinning his/her lies to
make them more believable to the yet unconverted. This is pure relativism and sophistry and
it destroys not only the USA, but the West as well.
nikbez
If an opinion piece in NYT or other MSM blatantly distorts the facts, then it belongs
to the category of "fake news." Which should probably be called "malicious rumors."
So the defense of some commenters that you can blatantly lie in opinion pieces (the right NYT
exercised to the full extent in this particular example and for which Bacevich criticized
them) is wrong.
Anti-Russian witch hunt in NYT and other MSM destroys the credibility of the USA version of
neoliberalism as well as the USA foreign policy. Along with Trump election, I view it as a
symptom of the crisis of neoliberalism for which the US elite is unable to find a more
suitable answer than scapegoating.
Also the fact that Nuland is married to neocon warmonger Kagan is a material fact.
It is interesting to access
George
Friedman after two and half years since it was made. Looks like he is a bad forcaster.
The Us plot to move Ukraine to the "Baltic states model" was the major geopolitical victory of the
Obama administration. and the EU has similar goals, so we can talk about joint invasion into traditional
Russian geopolitical space by the USA and EU.
Notable quotes:
"... This week, we revisit a Geopolitical Weekly first published in July 2014 that explored whether Russian President Vladimir Putin could hold on to power despite his miscalculations in Ukraine, a topic that returned to prominence with his recent temporary absence from public view . While Putin has since reappeared, the issues highlighted by his disappearing act persist. ..."
"... Ukraine is, of course, the place to start. The country is vital to Russia as a buffer against the West and as a route for delivering energy to Europe, which is the foundation of the Russian economy. ..."
"... Part of the reason Putin had replaced Boris Yeltsin in 2000 was Yeltsin's performance during the Kosovo war. Russia was allied with the Serbs and had not wanted NATO to launch a war against Serbia. Russian wishes were disregarded. The Russian views simply didn't matter to the West. Still, when the air war failed to force Belgrade's capitulation, the Russians negotiated a settlement that allowed U.S. and other NATO troops to enter and administer Kosovo. As part of that settlement, Russian troops were promised a significant part in peacekeeping in Kosovo. But the Russians were never allowed to take up that role, and Yeltsin proved unable to respond to the insult. ..."
"... Putin also replaced Yeltsin because of the disastrous state of the Russian economy. Though Russia had always been poor, there was a pervasive sense that it been a force to be reckoned with in international affairs. Under Yeltsin, however, Russia had become even poorer and was now held in contempt in international affairs. Putin had to deal with both issues. ..."
"... The breaking point came in Ukraine during the Orange Revolution of 2004. Yanukovich was elected president that year under dubious circumstances, but demonstrators forced him to submit to a second election. He lost, and a pro-Western government took office. At that time, Putin accused the CIA and other Western intelligence agencies of having organized the demonstrations. Fairly publicly, this was the point when Putin became convinced that the West intended to destroy the Russian Federation, sending it the way of the Soviet Union. ..."
"... The Ukrainian crisis has made things worse. Capital flight from Russia in the first six months stood at $76 billion, compared to $63 billion for all of 2013. Foreign direct investment fell 50 percent in the first half of 2014 compared to the same period in 2013. And all this happened in spite of oil prices remaining higher than $100 per barrel. ..."
"... The Politburo model is designed for a leader to build coalitions among factions. Putin has been very good at doing that, but then he has been very successful at all the things he has done until now. His ability to hold things together declines as trust in his abilities declines and various factions concerned about the consequences of remaining closely tied to a failing leader start to maneuver. Like Khrushchev, who was failing in economic and foreign policy, Putin could have his colleagues remove him. ..."
"... Ultimately, politicians who miscalculate and mismanage tend not to survive. Putin miscalculated in Ukraine, failing to anticipate the fall of an ally, failing to respond effectively and then stumbling badly in trying to recoup. His management of the economy has not been exemplary of late either, to say the least. He has colleagues who believe they could do a better job, and now there are important people in Europe who would be glad to see him go. He must reverse this tide rapidly, or he may be replaced. ..."
Editor's Note: This week, we revisit a Geopolitical Weekly first published in
July 2014 that explored whether Russian President Vladimir Putin could hold on to power despite his
miscalculations in Ukraine, a topic that returned to prominence with his recent
temporary absence
from public view. While Putin has since reappeared, the issues highlighted by his disappearing
act persist.
There is a general view that Vladimir Putin governs the Russian Federation as
a dictator, that he has defeated and intimidated his opponents and that he has marshaled a powerful
threat to surrounding countries. This is a reasonable view, but perhaps it should be re-evaluated
in the context of recent events.
Ukraine and the Bid to Reverse Russia's Decline
Ukraine is, of course, the place to start. The country is vital to Russia as a buffer against
the West and as a route for delivering energy to Europe, which is the foundation of the Russian economy.
On Jan. 1, Ukraine's president was Viktor Yanukovich, generally regarded as favorably inclined to
Russia. Given the complexity of Ukrainian society and politics, it would be unreasonable to say Ukraine
under him was merely a Russian puppet. But it is fair to say that under Yanukovich and his supporters,
fundamental Russian interests in Ukraine were secure.
This was extremely important to Putin. Part of the reason Putin had replaced Boris Yeltsin in
2000 was Yeltsin's performance during the Kosovo war. Russia was allied with the Serbs and had not
wanted NATO to launch a war against Serbia. Russian wishes were disregarded. The Russian views simply
didn't matter to the West. Still, when the air war failed to force Belgrade's capitulation, the Russians
negotiated a settlement that allowed U.S. and other NATO troops to enter and administer Kosovo. As
part of that settlement, Russian troops were promised a significant part in peacekeeping in Kosovo.
But the Russians were never allowed to take up that role, and Yeltsin proved unable to respond to
the insult.
Putin also replaced Yeltsin because of the disastrous state of the Russian economy. Though
Russia had always been poor, there was a pervasive sense that it been a force to be reckoned with
in international affairs. Under Yeltsin, however, Russia had become even poorer and was now held
in contempt in international affairs. Putin had to deal with both issues. He took a long time
before moving to
recreate Russian power, though he said early on that the fall of the Soviet Union had been the
greatest geopolitical disaster of the 20th century. This did not mean he wanted to resurrect the
Soviet Union in its failed form, but rather that he wanted Russian power to be taken seriously again,
and he wanted to protect and enhance Russian national interests.
The breaking point came in Ukraine during the Orange Revolution of 2004. Yanukovich was elected
president that year under dubious circumstances, but demonstrators forced him to submit to a second
election. He lost, and a pro-Western government took office. At that time, Putin accused the CIA
and other Western intelligence agencies of having organized the demonstrations. Fairly publicly,
this was the point when Putin became convinced that the West intended to destroy the Russian Federation,
sending it the way of the Soviet Union. For him, Ukraine's importance to Russia was self-evident.
He therefore believed that the CIA organized the demonstration to put Russia in a dangerous position,
and that the only reason for this was the overarching desire to cripple or destroy Russia. Following
the Kosovo affair, Putin publicly moved from suspicion to hostility to the West.
The Russians worked from 2004 to 2010 to undo the Orange Revolution. They worked to rebuild the
Russian military, focus their intelligence apparatus and use whatever economic influence they had
to reshape their relationship with Ukraine. If they couldn't control Ukraine, they did not want it
to be controlled by the United States and Europe. This was, of course, not their only international
interest, but it was the pivotal one.
Russia's invasion of Georgia had more to do with Ukraine than it had to do with the Caucasus.
At the time, the United States was still bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan. While Washington had
no formal obligation to Georgia, there were close ties and implicit guarantees. The invasion of Georgia
was designed to do two things. The first was to show the region that the Russian military, which
had been in shambles in 2000, was able to act decisively in 2008. The second was to demonstrate to
the region, and particularly to Kiev, that American guarantees, explicit or implicit, had no value.
In 2010, Yanukovich was elected president of Ukraine, reversing the Orange Revolution and limiting
Western influence in the country.
Recognizing the rift that was developing with Russia and the general trend against the United
States in the region, the Obama administration tried to recreate older models of relationships when
Hillary Clinton presented Putin with a "reset" button in 2009. But Washington wanted to restore the
relationship in place during what Putin regarded as the "bad old days." He naturally had no interest
in such a reset. Instead, he saw the United States as having adopted a defensive posture, and he
intended to exploit his advantage.
One place he did so was in Europe, using EU dependence on Russian energy to grow closer to the
Continent, particularly Germany. But his high point came during the Syrian affair, when the Obama
administration threatened airstrikes after Damascus used chemical weapons only to back off from its
threat. The Russians aggressively opposed Obama's move, proposing a process of negotiations instead.
The Russians emerged from the crisis appearing decisive and capable, the United States indecisive
and feckless. Russian power accordingly appeared on the rise, and in spite of a weakening economy,
this boosted Putin's standing.
The Tide Turns Against Putin
Events in Ukraine this year, by contrast, have proved devastating to Putin. In January, Russia
dominated Ukraine. By February, Yanukovich had fled the country and a pro-Western government had
taken power. The general uprising against Kiev that Putin had been expecting in eastern Ukraine after
Yanukovich's ouster never happened. Meanwhile, the Kiev government, with Western advisers, implanted
itself more firmly. By July, the Russians controlled only small parts of Ukraine. These included
Crimea, where the Russians had always held overwhelming military force by virtue of treaty, and a
triangle of territory from Donetsk to Luhansk to Severodonetsk, where a small number of insurgents
apparently supported by Russian special operations forces controlled a dozen or so towns.
If no Ukrainian uprising occurred, Putin's strategy was to allow the
government in Kiev to unravel of its own accord and to split the United States from Europe by
exploiting Russia's strong trade and energy ties with the Continent. And this is where the
crash of the Malaysia Airlines jet is crucial. If it turns out - as appears to be the case -
that Russia supplied air defense systems to the separatists and sent crews to man them (since operating
those systems requires extensive training), Russia could be held responsible for shooting down the
plane. And this means Moscow's ability to divide the Europeans from the Americans would decline.
Putin then moves from being an effective, sophisticated ruler who ruthlessly uses power to being
a dangerous incompetent supporting a hopeless insurrection with wholly inappropriate weapons. And
the West, no matter how opposed some countries might be to a split with Putin, must come to grips
with how effective and rational he really is.
Meanwhile, Putin must consider the fate of his predecessors. Nikita Khrushchev returned from vacation
in October 1964 to find himself replaced by his protege, Leonid Brezhnev, and facing charges of,
among other things, "harebrained scheming." Khrushchev had recently been humiliated in the Cuban
missile crisis. This plus his failure to move the economy forward after about a decade in power saw
his closest colleagues "retire" him. A massive setback in foreign affairs and economic failures had
resulted in an apparently unassailable figure being deposed.
Russia's economic situation is nowhere near as catastrophic as it was under Khrushchev or Yeltsin,
but
it has deteriorated substantially recently, and perhaps more important, has failed to meet expectations.
After recovering from the 2008 crisis, Russia has seen several years of declining gross domestic
product growth rates, and its central bank is forecasting zero growth this year. Given current pressures,
we would guess the Russian economy will slide into recession sometime in 2014. The debt levels of
regional governments have doubled in the past four years, and several regions are close to bankruptcy.
Moreover, some metals and mining firms are facing bankruptcy. The Ukrainian crisis has made things
worse. Capital flight from Russia in the first six months stood at $76 billion, compared to $63 billion
for all of 2013. Foreign direct investment fell 50 percent in the first half of 2014 compared to
the same period in 2013. And all this happened in spite of oil prices remaining higher than $100
per barrel.
Putin's popularity at home soared after the successful Sochi Winter Olympics and after the Western
media made him look like the aggressor in Crimea. He has, after all, built his reputation on being
tough and aggressive. But as the reality of the situation in Ukraine becomes more obvious, the great
victory will be seen as covering a retreat coming at a time of serious economic problems. For many
leaders, the events in Ukraine would not represent such an immense challenge. But Putin has built
his image on a tough foreign policy, and the economy meant his ratings were not very high before
Ukraine.
Imagining Russia After Putin
In the sort of regime that Putin has helped craft, the democratic process may not be the key to
understanding what will happen next. Putin has restored Soviet elements to the structure of the government,
even using the term "Politburo" for his inner Cabinets. These are all men of his choosing, of course,
and so one might assume they would be loyal to him. But in the Soviet-style Politburo, close colleagues
were frequently the most feared.
The Politburo model is designed for a leader to build coalitions among factions. Putin has been
very good at doing that, but then he has been very successful at all the things he has done until
now. His ability to hold things together declines as trust in his abilities declines and various
factions concerned about the consequences of remaining closely tied to a failing leader start to
maneuver. Like Khrushchev, who was failing in economic and foreign policy, Putin could have his colleagues
remove him.
It is difficult to know how a succession crisis would play out, given that the constitutional
process of succession exists alongside the informal government Putin has created. From a democratic
standpoint, Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu and Moscow Mayor Sergei Sobyanin are as popular as Putin
is, and I suspect they both will become more popular in time. In a Soviet-style struggle, Chief of
Staff Sergei Ivanov and Security Council Chief Nicolai Patryushev would be possible contenders. But
there are others. Who, after all, expected the emergence of Mikhail Gorbachev?
Ultimately, politicians who miscalculate and mismanage tend not to survive. Putin miscalculated
in Ukraine, failing to anticipate the fall of an ally, failing to respond effectively and then stumbling
badly in trying to recoup. His management of the economy has not been exemplary of late either, to
say the least. He has colleagues who believe they could do a better job, and now there are important
people in Europe who would be glad to see him go. He must reverse this tide rapidly, or he may be
replaced.
Putin is far from finished. But he has governed for 14 years counting the time Dmitri Medvedev
was officially in charge, and that is a long time. He may well regain his footing, but as things
stand at the moment, I would expect quiet thoughts to be stirring in his colleagues' minds. Putin
himself must be re-examining his options daily. Retreating in the face of the West and accepting
the status quo in Ukraine would be difficult, given that the Kosovo issue that helped propel him
to power and given what he has said about Ukraine over the years. But the current situation cannot
sustain itself. The wild card in this situation is that if Putin finds himself in serious political
trouble, he might become more rather than less aggressive. Whether Putin is in real trouble is not
something I can be certain of, but too many things have gone wrong for him lately for me not to consider
the possibility. And as in any political crisis, more and more extreme options are contemplated if
the situation deteriorates.
Those who think that Putin is both the most repressive and aggressive Russian leader imaginable
should bear in mind that this is far from the case. Lenin, for example, was fearsome. But Stalin
was much worse. There may similarly come a time when the world looks at the Putin era as a time of
liberality. For if the struggle by Putin to survive, and by his challengers to displace him, becomes
more intense, the willingness of all to become more brutal might well increase.
Cyril Wecht - Wikipedia
Cyril Harrison Wecht (born March 20, 1931) is an American
forensic pathologist.
He has been a consultant in numerous high-profile cases, but is perhaps best known for his criticism
of the Warren Commission's
findings concerning the
assassination
of John F. Kennedy. See books: Into EVIDENCE: Truth, Lies and Unresolved Mysteries in the Murder
of JFK; November 22, 1963: A Reference Guide to the JFK Assassination
Notable quotes:
"... "about 500 people gathered at Duquesne University for a JFK symposium sponsored by the university's Institute of Forensic Science and Law, which is named for Wecht. Appearances by Stone and a doctor who tended to Kennedy brought national attention. People sneered when they mentioned Specter's name or the single-bullet theory. ..."
"... (Specter has been useful to the deep state in other ways: he protected Zalman Shapiro, former head of NUMEC, from prosecution for his part in smuggling uranium to Israel. http://israellobby.org/numec/ ..."
deHaven Smith is not that impressive on several counts.
one example: book opens:
"Although most Americans today reject the official (lone gunman) account of the Kennedy
assassination, they also have doubts about conspiracy theories and those who believe them.
This means the CIA program was successful, for its aim was not to sell the Warren Commission,
but to sow uncertainty about the commission's critics. Today, people are not only uncertain,
they have given up ever learning the truth. "
At least one high-profile person and an entire community that supports him does not have doubts,
has not given up. Cyril Wecht blasted holes in Arlen Specter's "one bullet" theory in 1965. He's
still at it. In 2013, the fiftieth anniversary of JFK's assassination,
"about 500 people gathered at Duquesne University for a JFK symposium sponsored by the
university's Institute of Forensic Science and Law, which is named for Wecht. Appearances by
Stone and a doctor who tended to Kennedy brought national attention. People sneered when they
mentioned Specter's name or the single-bullet theory.
Across the state, the Single Bullet exhibit opened on Oct. 21. It's the first exhibition
in Philadelphia University's Arlen Specter Center for Public Policy. Willens, the former Kennedy
aide, delivered a speech. The center's coordinator, Karen Albert, said he was looking forward
to defending his conclusion on the 50th anniversary. "
http://triblive.com/news/allegheny/5017529-74/wecht-commission-specter
Smith did not even mention Wecht or Specter and the single-bullet theory in his book. The omission
is important insofar as its inclusion would have demonstrated that for many years the populace
has been aware of the dishonesty of the US government and some have been raising their voices
against and continue to do so.
That knowledge should give encouragement to activists such as those who demand accountability
for Israel's attack on the USS Liberty and the deliberate killing of 34 US sailors and other personnel.
(Specter has been useful to the deep state in other ways: he protected Zalman Shapiro,
former head of NUMEC, from prosecution for his part in smuggling uranium to Israel.
http://israellobby.org/numec/
It is interesting to access
George
Friedman after two and half years since it was made. Looks like he is a bad forcaster.
The Us plot to move Ukraine to the "Baltic states model" was the major geopolitical victory of the
Obama administration. and the EU has similar goals, so we can talk about joint invasion into traditional
Russian geopolitical space by the USA and EU.
Notable quotes:
"... This week, we revisit a Geopolitical Weekly first published in July 2014 that explored whether Russian President Vladimir Putin could hold on to power despite his miscalculations in Ukraine, a topic that returned to prominence with his recent temporary absence from public view . While Putin has since reappeared, the issues highlighted by his disappearing act persist. ..."
"... Ukraine is, of course, the place to start. The country is vital to Russia as a buffer against the West and as a route for delivering energy to Europe, which is the foundation of the Russian economy. ..."
"... Part of the reason Putin had replaced Boris Yeltsin in 2000 was Yeltsin's performance during the Kosovo war. Russia was allied with the Serbs and had not wanted NATO to launch a war against Serbia. Russian wishes were disregarded. The Russian views simply didn't matter to the West. Still, when the air war failed to force Belgrade's capitulation, the Russians negotiated a settlement that allowed U.S. and other NATO troops to enter and administer Kosovo. As part of that settlement, Russian troops were promised a significant part in peacekeeping in Kosovo. But the Russians were never allowed to take up that role, and Yeltsin proved unable to respond to the insult. ..."
"... Putin also replaced Yeltsin because of the disastrous state of the Russian economy. Though Russia had always been poor, there was a pervasive sense that it been a force to be reckoned with in international affairs. Under Yeltsin, however, Russia had become even poorer and was now held in contempt in international affairs. Putin had to deal with both issues. ..."
"... The breaking point came in Ukraine during the Orange Revolution of 2004. Yanukovich was elected president that year under dubious circumstances, but demonstrators forced him to submit to a second election. He lost, and a pro-Western government took office. At that time, Putin accused the CIA and other Western intelligence agencies of having organized the demonstrations. Fairly publicly, this was the point when Putin became convinced that the West intended to destroy the Russian Federation, sending it the way of the Soviet Union. ..."
"... The Ukrainian crisis has made things worse. Capital flight from Russia in the first six months stood at $76 billion, compared to $63 billion for all of 2013. Foreign direct investment fell 50 percent in the first half of 2014 compared to the same period in 2013. And all this happened in spite of oil prices remaining higher than $100 per barrel. ..."
"... The Politburo model is designed for a leader to build coalitions among factions. Putin has been very good at doing that, but then he has been very successful at all the things he has done until now. His ability to hold things together declines as trust in his abilities declines and various factions concerned about the consequences of remaining closely tied to a failing leader start to maneuver. Like Khrushchev, who was failing in economic and foreign policy, Putin could have his colleagues remove him. ..."
"... Ultimately, politicians who miscalculate and mismanage tend not to survive. Putin miscalculated in Ukraine, failing to anticipate the fall of an ally, failing to respond effectively and then stumbling badly in trying to recoup. His management of the economy has not been exemplary of late either, to say the least. He has colleagues who believe they could do a better job, and now there are important people in Europe who would be glad to see him go. He must reverse this tide rapidly, or he may be replaced. ..."
Editor's Note: This week, we revisit a Geopolitical Weekly first published in
July 2014 that explored whether Russian President Vladimir Putin could hold on to power despite his
miscalculations in Ukraine, a topic that returned to prominence with his recent
temporary absence
from public view. While Putin has since reappeared, the issues highlighted by his disappearing
act persist.
There is a general view that Vladimir Putin governs the Russian Federation as
a dictator, that he has defeated and intimidated his opponents and that he has marshaled a powerful
threat to surrounding countries. This is a reasonable view, but perhaps it should be re-evaluated
in the context of recent events.
Ukraine and the Bid to Reverse Russia's Decline
Ukraine is, of course, the place to start. The country is vital to Russia as a buffer against
the West and as a route for delivering energy to Europe, which is the foundation of the Russian economy.
On Jan. 1, Ukraine's president was Viktor Yanukovich, generally regarded as favorably inclined to
Russia. Given the complexity of Ukrainian society and politics, it would be unreasonable to say Ukraine
under him was merely a Russian puppet. But it is fair to say that under Yanukovich and his supporters,
fundamental Russian interests in Ukraine were secure.
This was extremely important to Putin. Part of the reason Putin had replaced Boris Yeltsin in
2000 was Yeltsin's performance during the Kosovo war. Russia was allied with the Serbs and had not
wanted NATO to launch a war against Serbia. Russian wishes were disregarded. The Russian views simply
didn't matter to the West. Still, when the air war failed to force Belgrade's capitulation, the Russians
negotiated a settlement that allowed U.S. and other NATO troops to enter and administer Kosovo. As
part of that settlement, Russian troops were promised a significant part in peacekeeping in Kosovo.
But the Russians were never allowed to take up that role, and Yeltsin proved unable to respond to
the insult.
Putin also replaced Yeltsin because of the disastrous state of the Russian economy. Though
Russia had always been poor, there was a pervasive sense that it been a force to be reckoned with
in international affairs. Under Yeltsin, however, Russia had become even poorer and was now held
in contempt in international affairs. Putin had to deal with both issues. He took a long time
before moving to
recreate Russian power, though he said early on that the fall of the Soviet Union had been the
greatest geopolitical disaster of the 20th century. This did not mean he wanted to resurrect the
Soviet Union in its failed form, but rather that he wanted Russian power to be taken seriously again,
and he wanted to protect and enhance Russian national interests.
The breaking point came in Ukraine during the Orange Revolution of 2004. Yanukovich was elected
president that year under dubious circumstances, but demonstrators forced him to submit to a second
election. He lost, and a pro-Western government took office. At that time, Putin accused the CIA
and other Western intelligence agencies of having organized the demonstrations. Fairly publicly,
this was the point when Putin became convinced that the West intended to destroy the Russian Federation,
sending it the way of the Soviet Union. For him, Ukraine's importance to Russia was self-evident.
He therefore believed that the CIA organized the demonstration to put Russia in a dangerous position,
and that the only reason for this was the overarching desire to cripple or destroy Russia. Following
the Kosovo affair, Putin publicly moved from suspicion to hostility to the West.
The Russians worked from 2004 to 2010 to undo the Orange Revolution. They worked to rebuild the
Russian military, focus their intelligence apparatus and use whatever economic influence they had
to reshape their relationship with Ukraine. If they couldn't control Ukraine, they did not want it
to be controlled by the United States and Europe. This was, of course, not their only international
interest, but it was the pivotal one.
Russia's invasion of Georgia had more to do with Ukraine than it had to do with the Caucasus.
At the time, the United States was still bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan. While Washington had
no formal obligation to Georgia, there were close ties and implicit guarantees. The invasion of Georgia
was designed to do two things. The first was to show the region that the Russian military, which
had been in shambles in 2000, was able to act decisively in 2008. The second was to demonstrate to
the region, and particularly to Kiev, that American guarantees, explicit or implicit, had no value.
In 2010, Yanukovich was elected president of Ukraine, reversing the Orange Revolution and limiting
Western influence in the country.
Recognizing the rift that was developing with Russia and the general trend against the United
States in the region, the Obama administration tried to recreate older models of relationships when
Hillary Clinton presented Putin with a "reset" button in 2009. But Washington wanted to restore the
relationship in place during what Putin regarded as the "bad old days." He naturally had no interest
in such a reset. Instead, he saw the United States as having adopted a defensive posture, and he
intended to exploit his advantage.
One place he did so was in Europe, using EU dependence on Russian energy to grow closer to the
Continent, particularly Germany. But his high point came during the Syrian affair, when the Obama
administration threatened airstrikes after Damascus used chemical weapons only to back off from its
threat. The Russians aggressively opposed Obama's move, proposing a process of negotiations instead.
The Russians emerged from the crisis appearing decisive and capable, the United States indecisive
and feckless. Russian power accordingly appeared on the rise, and in spite of a weakening economy,
this boosted Putin's standing.
The Tide Turns Against Putin
Events in Ukraine this year, by contrast, have proved devastating to Putin. In January, Russia
dominated Ukraine. By February, Yanukovich had fled the country and a pro-Western government had
taken power. The general uprising against Kiev that Putin had been expecting in eastern Ukraine after
Yanukovich's ouster never happened. Meanwhile, the Kiev government, with Western advisers, implanted
itself more firmly. By July, the Russians controlled only small parts of Ukraine. These included
Crimea, where the Russians had always held overwhelming military force by virtue of treaty, and a
triangle of territory from Donetsk to Luhansk to Severodonetsk, where a small number of insurgents
apparently supported by Russian special operations forces controlled a dozen or so towns.
If no Ukrainian uprising occurred, Putin's strategy was to allow the
government in Kiev to unravel of its own accord and to split the United States from Europe by
exploiting Russia's strong trade and energy ties with the Continent. And this is where the
crash of the Malaysia Airlines jet is crucial. If it turns out - as appears to be the case -
that Russia supplied air defense systems to the separatists and sent crews to man them (since operating
those systems requires extensive training), Russia could be held responsible for shooting down the
plane. And this means Moscow's ability to divide the Europeans from the Americans would decline.
Putin then moves from being an effective, sophisticated ruler who ruthlessly uses power to being
a dangerous incompetent supporting a hopeless insurrection with wholly inappropriate weapons. And
the West, no matter how opposed some countries might be to a split with Putin, must come to grips
with how effective and rational he really is.
Meanwhile, Putin must consider the fate of his predecessors. Nikita Khrushchev returned from vacation
in October 1964 to find himself replaced by his protege, Leonid Brezhnev, and facing charges of,
among other things, "harebrained scheming." Khrushchev had recently been humiliated in the Cuban
missile crisis. This plus his failure to move the economy forward after about a decade in power saw
his closest colleagues "retire" him. A massive setback in foreign affairs and economic failures had
resulted in an apparently unassailable figure being deposed.
Russia's economic situation is nowhere near as catastrophic as it was under Khrushchev or Yeltsin,
but
it has deteriorated substantially recently, and perhaps more important, has failed to meet expectations.
After recovering from the 2008 crisis, Russia has seen several years of declining gross domestic
product growth rates, and its central bank is forecasting zero growth this year. Given current pressures,
we would guess the Russian economy will slide into recession sometime in 2014. The debt levels of
regional governments have doubled in the past four years, and several regions are close to bankruptcy.
Moreover, some metals and mining firms are facing bankruptcy. The Ukrainian crisis has made things
worse. Capital flight from Russia in the first six months stood at $76 billion, compared to $63 billion
for all of 2013. Foreign direct investment fell 50 percent in the first half of 2014 compared to
the same period in 2013. And all this happened in spite of oil prices remaining higher than $100
per barrel.
Putin's popularity at home soared after the successful Sochi Winter Olympics and after the Western
media made him look like the aggressor in Crimea. He has, after all, built his reputation on being
tough and aggressive. But as the reality of the situation in Ukraine becomes more obvious, the great
victory will be seen as covering a retreat coming at a time of serious economic problems. For many
leaders, the events in Ukraine would not represent such an immense challenge. But Putin has built
his image on a tough foreign policy, and the economy meant his ratings were not very high before
Ukraine.
Imagining Russia After Putin
In the sort of regime that Putin has helped craft, the democratic process may not be the key to
understanding what will happen next. Putin has restored Soviet elements to the structure of the government,
even using the term "Politburo" for his inner Cabinets. These are all men of his choosing, of course,
and so one might assume they would be loyal to him. But in the Soviet-style Politburo, close colleagues
were frequently the most feared.
The Politburo model is designed for a leader to build coalitions among factions. Putin has been
very good at doing that, but then he has been very successful at all the things he has done until
now. His ability to hold things together declines as trust in his abilities declines and various
factions concerned about the consequences of remaining closely tied to a failing leader start to
maneuver. Like Khrushchev, who was failing in economic and foreign policy, Putin could have his colleagues
remove him.
It is difficult to know how a succession crisis would play out, given that the constitutional
process of succession exists alongside the informal government Putin has created. From a democratic
standpoint, Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu and Moscow Mayor Sergei Sobyanin are as popular as Putin
is, and I suspect they both will become more popular in time. In a Soviet-style struggle, Chief of
Staff Sergei Ivanov and Security Council Chief Nicolai Patryushev would be possible contenders. But
there are others. Who, after all, expected the emergence of Mikhail Gorbachev?
Ultimately, politicians who miscalculate and mismanage tend not to survive. Putin miscalculated
in Ukraine, failing to anticipate the fall of an ally, failing to respond effectively and then stumbling
badly in trying to recoup. His management of the economy has not been exemplary of late either, to
say the least. He has colleagues who believe they could do a better job, and now there are important
people in Europe who would be glad to see him go. He must reverse this tide rapidly, or he may be
replaced.
Putin is far from finished. But he has governed for 14 years counting the time Dmitri Medvedev
was officially in charge, and that is a long time. He may well regain his footing, but as things
stand at the moment, I would expect quiet thoughts to be stirring in his colleagues' minds. Putin
himself must be re-examining his options daily. Retreating in the face of the West and accepting
the status quo in Ukraine would be difficult, given that the Kosovo issue that helped propel him
to power and given what he has said about Ukraine over the years. But the current situation cannot
sustain itself. The wild card in this situation is that if Putin finds himself in serious political
trouble, he might become more rather than less aggressive. Whether Putin is in real trouble is not
something I can be certain of, but too many things have gone wrong for him lately for me not to consider
the possibility. And as in any political crisis, more and more extreme options are contemplated if
the situation deteriorates.
Those who think that Putin is both the most repressive and aggressive Russian leader imaginable
should bear in mind that this is far from the case. Lenin, for example, was fearsome. But Stalin
was much worse. There may similarly come a time when the world looks at the Putin era as a time of
liberality. For if the struggle by Putin to survive, and by his challengers to displace him, becomes
more intense, the willingness of all to become more brutal might well increase.
Cyril Wecht - Wikipedia
Cyril Harrison Wecht (born March 20, 1931) is an American
forensic pathologist.
He has been a consultant in numerous high-profile cases, but is perhaps best known for his criticism
of the Warren Commission's
findings concerning the
assassination
of John F. Kennedy. See books: Into EVIDENCE: Truth, Lies and Unresolved Mysteries in the Murder
of JFK; November 22, 1963: A Reference Guide to the JFK Assassination
Notable quotes:
"... "about 500 people gathered at Duquesne University for a JFK symposium sponsored by the university's Institute of Forensic Science and Law, which is named for Wecht. Appearances by Stone and a doctor who tended to Kennedy brought national attention. People sneered when they mentioned Specter's name or the single-bullet theory. ..."
"... (Specter has been useful to the deep state in other ways: he protected Zalman Shapiro, former head of NUMEC, from prosecution for his part in smuggling uranium to Israel. http://israellobby.org/numec/ ..."
deHaven Smith is not that impressive on several counts.
one example: book opens:
"Although most Americans today reject the official (lone gunman) account of the Kennedy
assassination, they also have doubts about conspiracy theories and those who believe them.
This means the CIA program was successful, for its aim was not to sell the Warren Commission,
but to sow uncertainty about the commission's critics. Today, people are not only uncertain,
they have given up ever learning the truth. "
At least one high-profile person and an entire community that supports him does not have doubts,
has not given up. Cyril Wecht blasted holes in Arlen Specter's "one bullet" theory in 1965. He's
still at it. In 2013, the fiftieth anniversary of JFK's assassination,
"about 500 people gathered at Duquesne University for a JFK symposium sponsored by the
university's Institute of Forensic Science and Law, which is named for Wecht. Appearances by
Stone and a doctor who tended to Kennedy brought national attention. People sneered when they
mentioned Specter's name or the single-bullet theory.
Across the state, the Single Bullet exhibit opened on Oct. 21. It's the first exhibition
in Philadelphia University's Arlen Specter Center for Public Policy. Willens, the former Kennedy
aide, delivered a speech. The center's coordinator, Karen Albert, said he was looking forward
to defending his conclusion on the 50th anniversary. "
http://triblive.com/news/allegheny/5017529-74/wecht-commission-specter
Smith did not even mention Wecht or Specter and the single-bullet theory in his book. The omission
is important insofar as its inclusion would have demonstrated that for many years the populace
has been aware of the dishonesty of the US government and some have been raising their voices
against and continue to do so.
That knowledge should give encouragement to activists such as those who demand accountability
for Israel's attack on the USS Liberty and the deliberate killing of 34 US sailors and other personnel.
(Specter has been useful to the deep state in other ways: he protected Zalman Shapiro,
former head of NUMEC, from prosecution for his part in smuggling uranium to Israel.
http://israellobby.org/numec/
When you have a Global Cop War Machine hammer and surround yourself with a Pentagon/Security
State steering committee advising you to use it, everything else is a nail. I have to admit,
Trump is even a much smaller man than I imagined him to be at his worst.
Belligerent global power projection is currently unaffordable and quickly becoming
obsolete. While China is eating America's lunch with it's productive foreign aid and
investments that do not involve killing, destroying and intimidation.
Neither of which Trump comprehends. And of his in-house Neocon minions ("my generals"), it
goes without saying
Every time a diplomat works to reduce tensions, build relationships, avoid conflict, this is
literally taking money and opportunity out of the pockets of the Military/Industrial complex.
Trump, being ironically a terrible negotiator and, as @SDS notes above, has never had the
temperament, intelligence, or empathy to be much more than a bully, is the perfect tool for
the military/industrial complex.
"... On the next day, Woolsey and his wife met separately with the same two Turkish businessmen at the Peninsula Hotel in New York City and discussed with them a more general but broadly based $10 million plan of their own that would combine lobbying with public relations to discredit Gülen both in the press and in congress. Woolsey stressed that he had the kind of contacts in government and the media to make the plan work. ..."
"... Woolsey did not get the $10 million contract that he sought and Flynn's well-remunerated work for Turkey reportedly consisted of some research, a short documentary that may or may not have been produced, and a November op-ed in The Hill ..."
"... But the real story about Flynn and Woolsey is the fashion in which senior ex-government employees shamelessly exploit their status to turn money from any and all comers without any regard for either the long- or short- term consequences of what they are doing. ..."
"... Just think. Casino king, lord of vice industry, is the #1 donor to the GOP. Politics was always about money, but now it's totally shameless. ..."
"... So did Flynn take the considerable risks of nondisclosure because he was an ideologue or was it primarily for the money? And was it pathological or just stupidly brazen? The Gereral's pardon awaits. ..."
"... What does one expect in a country where money dominates all ? The USA is a great country to live in when one is rich, anything goes, and horror when one is poor. The only way to escape horror is to get rich, and stay rich. I am severely ill, the Dutch health care system keeps me alive, at great cost. In the USA I would either be broke and dead, or simply dead. ..."
"... Just a couple observations here, but the world economy went into the toilet around the time the big Western economies started pushing all this anti-corruption stuff for businesses, and one cannot help but notice that political corruption in the West has become far more sophisticated in the past twenty years, with payoffs arriving after the fact to provide some degree of plausible deniability for the politicos and apparatchiks involved. ..."
"... 'As the sociologist Georg Simmel wrote over a century ago, if you make money the center of your value system, then finally you have no value system, because money is not a value'. ..."
"... Then, Errol Morris was interviewed about his documentary film on Donald Rumfseld. Morris was scathing: Rumsfeld was all about his career, his voluminous "snowflake" memos were meandering BS, self-aggrandizing; Morris was especially outraged with Rumsfeld's reaction to a seriously wounded soldier -- it was a photo op; no measure of humanity was in evidence. Interesting contrast between McNamara and Rumsfeld ..."
Enter former General Michael Flynn and former Bill Clinton CIA Director James Woolsey, both
of whom were national security advisers to candidate Donald Trump during his campaign when they
competed for contracts with Turkish businessmen linked to the Erdogan government to discredit
Gülen and possibly even enable his abduction and illegal transfer to Turkey. If, as a
consequence of their labors, Gülen were to be somehow returned home he would potentially
be tried on treason charges, which might in the near future carry
the death penalty in Turkey.
Both Flynn and Woolsey are highly controversial figures. Woolsey, in spite of having no
intelligence experience, was notoriously appointed CIA Director by Bill Clinton to reward the
neoconservatives for their support of his candidacy. But Woolsey never met privately with the
president during his two years in office. He is regarded as an ardent neocon and Islamophobe
affiliated with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), the Jewish Institute for
National Security of America (JINSA) and the AIPAC-founded Washington Institute for Near East
Policy (WINEP). I once debated him on NPR where he asserted that Israel does not spy on the
United States, a delusional viewpoint to be sure. Former CIA Senior analyst Mel Goodman,
recalling Woolsey's tenure at the Agency,
commented in 2003 that "[he] was a disaster as CIA director in the 90s and is now running
around this country calling for a World War IV to deal with the Islamic problem. This is a
dangerous individual "
Flynn, is, of course, better known, and not for any good qualities that he might possess. He
is, like Woolsey, an ardent hawk on Iran and other related issues but is also ready to make a
buck through his company The Flynn Intel Group, where Woolsey served as an unpaid adviser. In
the summer of 2016 Flynn had obtained a three-month contract for $530,000 to "research"
Gülen and produce a short documentary film discrediting him, an arrangement that should
have been reported under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, but the big prize was a
possible contract in the millions of dollars to create a negative narrative on the
Hizmet founder and put pressure on the U.S. government to bring about his
extradition.
Woolsey and Flynn, both Trump advisers at the time, found themselves in competition for the
money. Flynn had a New York meeting at the Essex House with the businessmen accompanied by the
Turkish Foreign and Energy Ministers as well as Erdogan's son-in-law on September 19
th 2016 where, inter alia, the possibility of kidnapping Gülen and flying him
to Turkey was discussed. Flynn has denied that the possibility of kidnapping was ever raised,
but Woolsey, who was at the meeting for a brief time,
insists that "whisking away" Gülen in the dead of night was on the agenda, though he
concedes that the discussion was "hypothetical."
On the next day, Woolsey and his wife met separately with the same two Turkish businessmen
at the Peninsula Hotel in New York City and discussed with them a more general but broadly
based $10 million plan of their own that would combine lobbying with public relations to
discredit Gülen both in the press and in congress. Woolsey stressed that he had the kind
of contacts in government and the media to make the plan work.
Woolsey did not get the $10 million contract that he sought and Flynn's well-remunerated
work for Turkey reportedly consisted of some research, a short documentary that may or may not
have been produced, and a November
op-ed in The Hill by Flynn that denounced Gülen as a "radical Islamist who
portrays himself as a moderate."
But the real story about Flynn and Woolsey is the fashion in which senior ex-government
employees shamelessly exploit their status to turn money from any and all comers without any
regard for either the long- or short- term consequences of what they are doing. The guilt or
innocence of Fetullah Gülen was never an issue for them, nor the reputation of the United
States judiciary in a case which has all the hallmarks of a political witch hunt. And if a
kidnapping actually was contemplated, it begs one to pause and consider what kind of people are
in power in this country.
Neither Flynn nor Woolsey ever considered that their working as presidential campaign
advisers while simultaneously getting embroiled in an acrimonious political dispute involving a
major ally just might be seen as a serious conflict of interest, even if it was technically
not-illegal. All that motivated them was the desire to exploit a situation that they cared not
at all about for profit to themselves.
No one expects top rank ex-officials to retire from the world, but out of respect for their
former positions, they should retain at least a modicum of decency. This is lacking across the
board from the Clintons on down to the Flynns and Woolseys as Americans apparently now expect
less and less from their elected officials and have even ceased to demand minimal ethical
standards.
I've heard it said that Gülen was stateside precisely because of his potential leverage
over Ankara. One could be forgiven thinking, therefor, that he had outlived his usefulness
after the failed/faked coup. One might even consider sending him home would be a diplomatic
gift to such a "major ally," as Turkey. Apparently Langley does not want this bargaining chip
off the table just yet. Or do they? Who would even know?
Do you expect Americans to trust current national security state employees more than ex-,
if indeed ex- even has the connotation one expects? On what basis would they make this
judgement? Are most of the people in either camp not appointments from various
neocon-influenced administrations? What would popular resentment of this corruption even look
like? Would they demand the passing of legislation that could be ignored?
What ethical standards can be applied to an organization that can lie, under oath, without
repercussion? In a world in which sixth generation American citizens are equated in every way
with aggressive third-world refugees, the words "loyalty," and "corruption," have lost any
foundation upon which they might have meaning.
By CRAIG WHITLOCK | The Washington Post | Published: November 5, 2017
The "Fat Leonard" corruption investigation has expanded to include more than 60 admirals
and hundreds of other U.S. Navy officers under scrutiny for their contacts with a defense
contractor in Asia who systematically bribed sailors with sex, liquor and other temptations
[like cash], according to the Navy.
Most of the admirals are suspected of attending extravagant feasts at Asia's best
restaurants paid for by Leonard Glenn Francis, a Singapore-based maritime tycoon who made an
illicit fortune supplying Navy vessels in ports from Vladivostok, Russia, to Brisbane,
Australia. Francis also was renowned for hosting alcohol-soaked, after-dinner parties, which
often featured imported prostitutes and sometimes lasted for days, according to federal court
records.
the sell-out.. disease.. afflicting officials in national security.
corruption from the top down a combination of greed and dishonesty
Amen, Phil, and Americans are collateral damage.
General Michael Hayden abandoned an NSA cyber program –that could have prevented the
9/11 attack– in favor of a less effective plan that was more profitable for corporate
security firms, and generated greater funding for the intelligence agency.
"A Good American" tells the story of former Technical director of NSA, Bill Binney,
and a program called ThinThread. He and a small team within NSA created a surveillance tool
that could pick up any electronic signal on earth, filter it for targets and render results
in real-time. NSA leadership dumped it – three weeks prior to 9/11.
Watch it free, before it's taken down. https://youtu.be/FlkAxAc7EjI
So did Flynn take the considerable risks of nondisclosure because he was an ideologue or was
it primarily for the money? And was it pathological or just stupidly brazen?
The Gereral's pardon awaits.
What does one expect in a country where money dominates all ?
The USA is a great country to live in when one is rich, anything goes, and horror when one is
poor.
The only way to escape horror is to get rich, and stay rich.
I am severely ill, the Dutch health care system keeps me alive, at great cost.
In the USA I would either be broke and dead, or simply dead.
Oddly enough, I thought that Gülen was a Company asset, and that that was the reason
they took Flynn down. Not that I know anything, just speculation.
Meanwhile, in the private sector, for anybody below the C-Suite there is an ever
increasing pressure for compliance policies that outlaw all but the most trivial gifts or
meals and entertainment in order to prevent corruption and abuse of position.
Just a couple observations here, but the world economy went into the toilet around the
time the big Western economies started pushing all this anti-corruption stuff for businesses,
and one cannot help but notice that political corruption in the West has become far more
sophisticated in the past twenty years, with payoffs arriving after the fact to provide some
degree of plausible deniability for the politicos and apparatchiks involved.
Phil, thanks. Every sentence tells here of an America off the rails.
A onetime local mayor in my area may offer an idea of the type of person we need. Pat U.
has balls of steel. The Mob was against him. City hall bureaucrats were against him. The
unions were against him. The police were against him. Corrupt cops threatened to frame him.
The priest who'd married him and his wife was enlisted as an errand boy to deliver bribe
money. Pat once publicly described our area as a "banana republic". He had a remote car
starter installed to guard against assassination by car bombing. He was elected for multiple
terms, and survived all attempts to crush him.
What did Pat have going for him? Personal anatomy. A wife who'd been a very young Polish
WWII refugee, and who knew a thing or two about government gone bad and people gone bad. A
strong, incorruptible law director, and a strong, incorruptible budget and finance guy.
Charisma, and, of course, votes. He kept a local Mr. Big, a zillionaire briber of
politicians, at a distance and worked warily with him. Pat met the challenges of an
economically collapsing area pretty well.
How many politicians could weather the permanent storm of American corruption as well as
Pat? Not a whole lot.
The corruption in DC must be setting a record unmatched in history. It doesn't help that our
craven, corrupt Congress sets its own rules regarding pay and benefits, but has also passed
laws saying its 'OK' for those elite to engage in insider trading.
Each Rep and Senator knows that kissing up to the Fortune 500 guarantees them a job after
they leave Congress, with a fat paycheck, bennies and sexy secretaries more than happy to
take DICKtation, all provided by the company's they took care of while in Congress.
Compounding the situation is the equally rotten DOJ, who has no problem going after
blue-collar crime, but won't touch the real problem, those TBTF Wall Street banks acting like
out-of-control casinos who then dump their losses on the backs on the American taxpayer. The
latest USAG head Sessions is more confirmation that the Senate is a 'good ol' boys' and girls
club that will not go after current and former members, as Sessions will NOT go after the
thieving, lying, traitorous Hillary for her many crimes.
Its impossible to Drain the Swamp when it has so many creatures that snack on Americans
and protect each other.
Short of a revolution, this can only end badly for Americans.
I would love to have seen that debate.
I am not a fan of the contention that Iran embodies all things evil about Islam. But it is
disappointing that Gen Flynn's advocacy is mired in a competition for financial contract.
"We Americans appear to have done it all to ourselves through inexplicable tolerance for a
combination of greed and fundamental dishonesty on the part of our elected and appointed
government officials".
One thing about you Americans that often surprises foreigners is your readiness to believe
that all this corruption is something new or different. It has been going on ever since well
before 1776.
My own opinion is that systematic corruption is a more or less inevitable consequence of
Americans' attempts to cut themselves off from all previous history and moral standards.
There were to be no royalty, nobility, gentry – no one exceptional at all in any
way.
Well, human nature abhors a lack of hierarchy: we need it almost as much as water, air,
food, security. If you try to abolish all forms of hierarchy, all that happens is that it
goes underground. What do Americans respect – what, indeed, have they respected most
since (at least) the 1850s? Money. That's it. Cold hard cash. Wealth is next to godliness.
The more money you have, the better a person you are thought to be – absolutely
regardless of whether you got it by grinding the faces of the workers, murder, torture, drug
dealing, or anything else.
But money is not, cannot be a value. Marx explained this in fairly simple terms, but the
following is my favorite way of putting it.
'As the sociologist Georg Simmel wrote over a century ago, if you make money the center of
your value system, then finally you have no value system, because money is not a value'.
We Americans appear to have done it all to ourselves through inexplicable tolerance for
a combination of greed and fundamental dishonesty on the part of our elected and appointed
government officials.
One might call it stupid to believe that a nation could invest its government with the
power to handle and disburse vast sums of money without becoming corrupt. Then again one might call that belief insane. One thing is clear, giving the government that much power and money is sure to corrupt
it. Anyone who expects anything else of human beings does not know much about human
beings.
Flynn was the worst associate that Trump fell in love with. That's a flaw of Trump. He did
get rid of Gorka and one or two other NeoCons, unfortunately he has an 'influential' son in
law that he can't get rid of that easily whose connected by blood to Joo land. And
then again he has a Zionist speech writer Steven Miller, who's very good pushing back the
anti Trump press, but still a Zionist Joo .
'Second Coming' anyone? (Grin)
„I know of no other country where love of money has such a grip on men's hearts or
where stronger scorn is expressed for the theory of permanent equality of property."
Tocqueville
Dishonesty and greed – the American way from the beginning.
My own opinion is that systematic corruption is a more or less inevitable consequence of
Americans' attempts to cut themselves off from all previous history and moral standards.
There were to be no royalty, nobility, gentry – no one exceptional at all in any
way.
Well, the royalty, nobility, gentry as well as the chief priests and rabbis and and almost
everyone in a position of power have historically been pretty corrupt, I'd say. In fact it's
probably accurate to say that all of them have been based on violence, treachery and bullshit
or some varying mixture of those things has been the rule since rule began.
As far as worshipping money, you are correct, but the systemic corruption is baked into
the cake by the way most political systems generally arise, and it's not only an American
phenomenon since a person reading Aristophanes, Plutarch, Juvenal, Herbert Spencer and tons
more could as well be writing of current events. The concepts are unchanged; only the names,
dates and minor particular issues have changed.
Upon arriving at Messene Philip proceeded to devastate the country like an enemy acting
from passion rather than from reason. For he expected, apparently, that while he
continued to inflict injuries, the sufferers would never feel any resentment or hatred
towards him.
-The Histories of Polybius , Book VIII, pg 465, Section III. Affairs of Greece, Philip,
and Messenia. published in Vol. III
of the Loeb Classical Library edition, 1922 thru 1927
The concept is not only ancient, but cross-cultural too.
" The Master said, 'Why do you not leave this place?' The answer was, 'There is no
oppressive government here.' The Master then said to his disciples: 'Remember this, my
little children. Oppressive government is more terrible than tigers.'"
-Confucius as quoted in The Ethics of Confucius, by Miles Menander Dawson, [1915]
What's PG griping about? Our elected leaders, senior officials and corporate captains
pretty accurately reflect what our country has devolved into.
Sorry good sir, but no devolution needed. It was baked in the cake from inception. The "anti-federalists" warned us but the warnings
fell on deaf (and powerless and preoccupied) ears.
I'm not trolling you, Jilles, you just keep showing up on this site bashing America with
factually wrong statements. I'm aware that the Netherlands is a pleasant nation, both my wife
and I have some Dutch ancestry, but the Netherlands, like the US, isn't perfect. The fact is
that every country, from Venezuela to Monaco, is a great country when one is rich, I'd bet
even Holland is nice if you've got a few bucks.
To your point about your health issues. Here in the US there are two primary medical
insurance programs run by the government, Medicare and Medicaid. If you're over 65 you are
automatically covered by Medicare, there are some low costs associated with it, but if you're
too poor to pay them, you don't have to. Medicaid is a government run health insurance
program for the poor and uninsured in the US. In most cases all medical conditions are
covered for free in this program. No hospital emergency room in the US is allowed to refuse
treatment, either. Could the system be better? Of course, but people aren't really dying in
the streets, desperate for medical attention, as the leftists you read are telling you.
Contrary to the proverb, fish DO NOT rot from the head down but from the gut. The rampant
corruption practiced by elected and unelected US officials alike, simply mirrors that of the
nation as a whole.
Our government is not our government anymore , it is a criminal cabal ran for and by
criminals and as such is not legitimate anymore and this has led to perpetual war for
perpetual profit and perpetual corruption, we are Rome and the end is near.
Amazing changes for the Good are taking place at an ever more rapid rate. The exposure of the
shenanigans of Flynn and Woolsey are literal examples of the figurative "The darkness hates
the Light because the Light exposes the darkness for it's evil deeds". The internet and
authors like this allow the Light (Truth) into Humanities Consciousness. Keep it up Giraldi!
Could the system be better? Of course, but people aren't really dying in the
streets, desperate for medical attention, as the leftists you read are telling you.
That may or may not be so, I'd have to see some statistics. The evidence of my lyon' eyes tells me plenty of people are living on the
streets. My gentrified neighborhood insisted that police remove the men who slept under dumpsters
in the alleys -- they moved them to bridge abutments and abandoned industrial sites.
Public libraries are ersatz day-care-for-hoboes; libraries now have police patrolling to
ensure that the mentally ill regulars do not act out too loudly or stink too badly. Washington, DC libraries post extensive rules on the bathroom doors: NO shaving, NO
showering, NO sex in the bathrooms.
Ben Franklin's famous quote while voting to adopt the US Constitution.
"Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think
a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a
blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be
well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have
done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government,
being incapable of any other."
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -
And that was back when the Fed Govt was designed to be much smaller and much less powerful
than today. Today's great power concentrated in the US govt, including the power to destroy
entire countries or businesses and of course people, as well as a great deal of money which
can then thus make people fabulously wealthy, means that this govt is far more susceptable to
corruption than the one old Ben Franklin was referring to.
In a country where money means anything and can buy anything, then one must assume that
everything is corrupt.
As a nation, we want to go nuts over a few hundred or perhaps a thousand deaths from
illegal aliens, but we look the other way as tens of thousands die in order to make people
rich(er) from a for-profit medical system.
Who are these hobos living in the street? Here in NYC they are drug addicts or mentally
unstable people. Why are they allowed to live in the street? Because leftist judges and
politicians have made it illegal to force them into mental hospitals or drug addiction
facilities. Leftists believe this is a sign of their benevolence. I don't know of anyone who
is actually homeless because of poverty in the US. There's just too many programs, from
section 8, to welfare, to public housing available.
as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need
despotic Government, being incapable of any other."
I could be classified as a big fan of BF, but I think today he'd change that to as other forms have done before it, when the leaders shall become so corrupted as
to benefit even more from despotic Government, being incapable of any other. It seems to me that the fish is always on the verge of rotting, and I on't know if it
starts at the head or not, but the thing still stinks, and the head, at least, has always
been pretty rotten.
A couple references to "2017" should be corrected to 2016. Thank you for using this wonderfully bipartisan example. One has to be pretty naive to
think that R and D mean much in Washington. Flush twice!
Of course, top officials sell out to anyone for anything. It is always that way in any
Empire, save the ones ruled by very bright and brutal men who make it clear that so doing
will cost in the biggest ways.
And then there is the fact of WASP culture being one in which everything is for sale. You
can see the issue in all kinds of works of literature, from Jonson's The Alchemist to Hardy's
Tess of the D'Urbervilles and beyond. That is what underlay the English rotating between fury
and amusement that the Irish and Highlanders were to too stupid about pence and pounds to
know when to sell, including their freedom and family heritage. The same dynamic was
highlighted in Yankee WASPs versus Southerners, whose sense of honor was both hated furiously
and laughed ay endlessly by pure-blood Anglo-Saxon Yankees.
Academics, working from CDC statistics, estimated in 2009 that 45,000 Americans die
every year from lack of medical care As a nation, we want to go nuts over a few hundred or
perhaps a thousand deaths from illegal aliens, but we look the other way as tens of
thousands die in order to make people rich(er) from a for-profit medical system.
Actually, I think the former figure is a *gigantic* over-estimate. Offhand, I'd say there are something like 100 million middle-class white Americans and
maybe 11 million or so illegal immigrants. And there were also over 17,000 total homicides
during 2016.
Now if we're talking about ordinary middle-class whites murdered by illegals, I doubt the
figure is even remotely close to 1-in-a-million per year, which would be a total of 100. In
fact, I'm quite skeptical about whether the total is above 10/year, which would be
one-in-10-million. That's the reason that neither VDare nor any of the other anti-immigrant
webzines can almost ever find any real-life cases to talk about.
In my opinion, the notion that anything more than an infinitesimal number of American
whites are murdered by illegals is just a total Internet hoax that's been endlessly
propagated by silly activists.
If anyone on this thread thinks I'm wrong then I challenge them to locate at least 10
cases of ordinary middle-class whites murdered by illegals in 2016 (I'm not talking about
Aryan Brotherhood gang members shivved in prison brawls or wives killing husbands/husbands
killing wives). If you can't find ten cases in all of America during an entire year, then I'm
probably right.
Did Flynn get crossways with the Mossad – is that why he is in trouble today? Clearly Gülen has protection in America – that has to mean Mossad/CIA
backing. I have seen writing that says that Gülen has ties to Israel. That explains a lot. Think Peace -- Art
Is corruption uniquely part of the US system of government (beyond the obvious propensity for
all systems to become corrupted);
or does the US system of governance have unique loopholes, or systemic weaknesses, that make
corruption more likely;
or is/has the US system of governance been corrupted by the machinations of a group or of
some 'bad apples,'
Are Woolsey/Flynn examples of the "bad apple" notion: their lack of character has spread
rot to the larger system? Their rot has normalized corruption?
Just watched two interviews, a conversation with Robert McNamara and Errol Morris, who
directed the documentary, Fog of War, about McNamara's controversial career and decisions
about war.
McNamara is widely described as an SOB of dubious moral fiber. In this conversation, he
does not hide from his complicity in enormously harmful decisions, but does spell out the
forces involved, not only the venal, career-protecting influences but also the realization
that decisions involve the lives of large numbers of US men in uniform.
McNamara also tries to articulate the complexities -- and restraint -- with which past
political leaders such as himself must approach their post-employment situation: while they
do have knowledge, from experience, about situations, McNamara argues that it was his belief
that he had to tread very lightly in making public opinions or prescriptions.
Then, Errol Morris was interviewed about his documentary film on Donald Rumfseld. Morris
was scathing: Rumsfeld was all about his career, his voluminous "snowflake" memos were
meandering BS, self-aggrandizing; Morris was especially outraged with Rumsfeld's reaction to
a seriously wounded soldier -- it was a photo op; no measure of humanity was in evidence.
Interesting contrast between McNamara and Rumsfeld
"Cometh the hour, cometh the man." Or Cometh the man, rot-eth the barrel."
McNamara is widely described as an SOB of dubious moral fiber. In this conversation, he
does not hide from his complicity in enormously harmful decisions, but does spell out the
forces involved, not only the venal, career-protecting influences but also the realization
that decisions involve the lives of large numbers of US men in uniform.
Interesting that you mentioned it. I remember years ago watching McNamara's Q&A
session after his lecture in one of the US "liberal" universities. I found myself surprised
(in a good sense) with his into your face readiness to face anything thrown at him. He went
ballistic when some student shouted "murderer" from back seats of the auditorium but McNamara
spoke to this student passionately and personally. He was absolutely human and vulnerable,
yet honest. In some sense it was very touching and you could see how it also tormented him.
As per neocons, from what I observed so far, I never encountered any indication of any of
them being simply decent humans–they are human sewer.
"... On the next day, Woolsey and his wife met separately with the same two Turkish businessmen at the Peninsula Hotel in New York City and discussed with them a more general but broadly based $10 million plan of their own that would combine lobbying with public relations to discredit Gülen both in the press and in congress. Woolsey stressed that he had the kind of contacts in government and the media to make the plan work. ..."
"... Woolsey did not get the $10 million contract that he sought and Flynn's well-remunerated work for Turkey reportedly consisted of some research, a short documentary that may or may not have been produced, and a November op-ed in The Hill ..."
"... But the real story about Flynn and Woolsey is the fashion in which senior ex-government employees shamelessly exploit their status to turn money from any and all comers without any regard for either the long- or short- term consequences of what they are doing. ..."
"... Just think. Casino king, lord of vice industry, is the #1 donor to the GOP. Politics was always about money, but now it's totally shameless. ..."
"... So did Flynn take the considerable risks of nondisclosure because he was an ideologue or was it primarily for the money? And was it pathological or just stupidly brazen? The Gereral's pardon awaits. ..."
"... What does one expect in a country where money dominates all ? The USA is a great country to live in when one is rich, anything goes, and horror when one is poor. The only way to escape horror is to get rich, and stay rich. I am severely ill, the Dutch health care system keeps me alive, at great cost. In the USA I would either be broke and dead, or simply dead. ..."
"... Just a couple observations here, but the world economy went into the toilet around the time the big Western economies started pushing all this anti-corruption stuff for businesses, and one cannot help but notice that political corruption in the West has become far more sophisticated in the past twenty years, with payoffs arriving after the fact to provide some degree of plausible deniability for the politicos and apparatchiks involved. ..."
"... 'As the sociologist Georg Simmel wrote over a century ago, if you make money the center of your value system, then finally you have no value system, because money is not a value'. ..."
"... Then, Errol Morris was interviewed about his documentary film on Donald Rumfseld. Morris was scathing: Rumsfeld was all about his career, his voluminous "snowflake" memos were meandering BS, self-aggrandizing; Morris was especially outraged with Rumsfeld's reaction to a seriously wounded soldier -- it was a photo op; no measure of humanity was in evidence. Interesting contrast between McNamara and Rumsfeld ..."
Enter former General Michael Flynn and former Bill Clinton CIA Director James Woolsey, both
of whom were national security advisers to candidate Donald Trump during his campaign when they
competed for contracts with Turkish businessmen linked to the Erdogan government to discredit
Gülen and possibly even enable his abduction and illegal transfer to Turkey. If, as a
consequence of their labors, Gülen were to be somehow returned home he would potentially
be tried on treason charges, which might in the near future carry
the death penalty in Turkey.
Both Flynn and Woolsey are highly controversial figures. Woolsey, in spite of having no
intelligence experience, was notoriously appointed CIA Director by Bill Clinton to reward the
neoconservatives for their support of his candidacy. But Woolsey never met privately with the
president during his two years in office. He is regarded as an ardent neocon and Islamophobe
affiliated with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), the Jewish Institute for
National Security of America (JINSA) and the AIPAC-founded Washington Institute for Near East
Policy (WINEP). I once debated him on NPR where he asserted that Israel does not spy on the
United States, a delusional viewpoint to be sure. Former CIA Senior analyst Mel Goodman,
recalling Woolsey's tenure at the Agency,
commented in 2003 that "[he] was a disaster as CIA director in the 90s and is now running
around this country calling for a World War IV to deal with the Islamic problem. This is a
dangerous individual "
Flynn, is, of course, better known, and not for any good qualities that he might possess. He
is, like Woolsey, an ardent hawk on Iran and other related issues but is also ready to make a
buck through his company The Flynn Intel Group, where Woolsey served as an unpaid adviser. In
the summer of 2016 Flynn had obtained a three-month contract for $530,000 to "research"
Gülen and produce a short documentary film discrediting him, an arrangement that should
have been reported under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, but the big prize was a
possible contract in the millions of dollars to create a negative narrative on the
Hizmet founder and put pressure on the U.S. government to bring about his
extradition.
Woolsey and Flynn, both Trump advisers at the time, found themselves in competition for the
money. Flynn had a New York meeting at the Essex House with the businessmen accompanied by the
Turkish Foreign and Energy Ministers as well as Erdogan's son-in-law on September 19
th 2016 where, inter alia, the possibility of kidnapping Gülen and flying him
to Turkey was discussed. Flynn has denied that the possibility of kidnapping was ever raised,
but Woolsey, who was at the meeting for a brief time,
insists that "whisking away" Gülen in the dead of night was on the agenda, though he
concedes that the discussion was "hypothetical."
On the next day, Woolsey and his wife met separately with the same two Turkish businessmen
at the Peninsula Hotel in New York City and discussed with them a more general but broadly
based $10 million plan of their own that would combine lobbying with public relations to
discredit Gülen both in the press and in congress. Woolsey stressed that he had the kind
of contacts in government and the media to make the plan work.
Woolsey did not get the $10 million contract that he sought and Flynn's well-remunerated
work for Turkey reportedly consisted of some research, a short documentary that may or may not
have been produced, and a November
op-ed in The Hill by Flynn that denounced Gülen as a "radical Islamist who
portrays himself as a moderate."
But the real story about Flynn and Woolsey is the fashion in which senior ex-government
employees shamelessly exploit their status to turn money from any and all comers without any
regard for either the long- or short- term consequences of what they are doing. The guilt or
innocence of Fetullah Gülen was never an issue for them, nor the reputation of the United
States judiciary in a case which has all the hallmarks of a political witch hunt. And if a
kidnapping actually was contemplated, it begs one to pause and consider what kind of people are
in power in this country.
Neither Flynn nor Woolsey ever considered that their working as presidential campaign
advisers while simultaneously getting embroiled in an acrimonious political dispute involving a
major ally just might be seen as a serious conflict of interest, even if it was technically
not-illegal. All that motivated them was the desire to exploit a situation that they cared not
at all about for profit to themselves.
No one expects top rank ex-officials to retire from the world, but out of respect for their
former positions, they should retain at least a modicum of decency. This is lacking across the
board from the Clintons on down to the Flynns and Woolseys as Americans apparently now expect
less and less from their elected officials and have even ceased to demand minimal ethical
standards.
I've heard it said that Gülen was stateside precisely because of his potential leverage
over Ankara. One could be forgiven thinking, therefor, that he had outlived his usefulness
after the failed/faked coup. One might even consider sending him home would be a diplomatic
gift to such a "major ally," as Turkey. Apparently Langley does not want this bargaining chip
off the table just yet. Or do they? Who would even know?
Do you expect Americans to trust current national security state employees more than ex-,
if indeed ex- even has the connotation one expects? On what basis would they make this
judgement? Are most of the people in either camp not appointments from various
neocon-influenced administrations? What would popular resentment of this corruption even look
like? Would they demand the passing of legislation that could be ignored?
What ethical standards can be applied to an organization that can lie, under oath, without
repercussion? In a world in which sixth generation American citizens are equated in every way
with aggressive third-world refugees, the words "loyalty," and "corruption," have lost any
foundation upon which they might have meaning.
By CRAIG WHITLOCK | The Washington Post | Published: November 5, 2017
The "Fat Leonard" corruption investigation has expanded to include more than 60 admirals
and hundreds of other U.S. Navy officers under scrutiny for their contacts with a defense
contractor in Asia who systematically bribed sailors with sex, liquor and other temptations
[like cash], according to the Navy.
Most of the admirals are suspected of attending extravagant feasts at Asia's best
restaurants paid for by Leonard Glenn Francis, a Singapore-based maritime tycoon who made an
illicit fortune supplying Navy vessels in ports from Vladivostok, Russia, to Brisbane,
Australia. Francis also was renowned for hosting alcohol-soaked, after-dinner parties, which
often featured imported prostitutes and sometimes lasted for days, according to federal court
records.
the sell-out.. disease.. afflicting officials in national security.
corruption from the top down a combination of greed and dishonesty
Amen, Phil, and Americans are collateral damage.
General Michael Hayden abandoned an NSA cyber program –that could have prevented the
9/11 attack– in favor of a less effective plan that was more profitable for corporate
security firms, and generated greater funding for the intelligence agency.
"A Good American" tells the story of former Technical director of NSA, Bill Binney,
and a program called ThinThread. He and a small team within NSA created a surveillance tool
that could pick up any electronic signal on earth, filter it for targets and render results
in real-time. NSA leadership dumped it – three weeks prior to 9/11.
Watch it free, before it's taken down. https://youtu.be/FlkAxAc7EjI
So did Flynn take the considerable risks of nondisclosure because he was an ideologue or was
it primarily for the money? And was it pathological or just stupidly brazen?
The Gereral's pardon awaits.
What does one expect in a country where money dominates all ?
The USA is a great country to live in when one is rich, anything goes, and horror when one is
poor.
The only way to escape horror is to get rich, and stay rich.
I am severely ill, the Dutch health care system keeps me alive, at great cost.
In the USA I would either be broke and dead, or simply dead.
Oddly enough, I thought that Gülen was a Company asset, and that that was the reason
they took Flynn down. Not that I know anything, just speculation.
Meanwhile, in the private sector, for anybody below the C-Suite there is an ever
increasing pressure for compliance policies that outlaw all but the most trivial gifts or
meals and entertainment in order to prevent corruption and abuse of position.
Just a couple observations here, but the world economy went into the toilet around the
time the big Western economies started pushing all this anti-corruption stuff for businesses,
and one cannot help but notice that political corruption in the West has become far more
sophisticated in the past twenty years, with payoffs arriving after the fact to provide some
degree of plausible deniability for the politicos and apparatchiks involved.
Phil, thanks. Every sentence tells here of an America off the rails.
A onetime local mayor in my area may offer an idea of the type of person we need. Pat U.
has balls of steel. The Mob was against him. City hall bureaucrats were against him. The
unions were against him. The police were against him. Corrupt cops threatened to frame him.
The priest who'd married him and his wife was enlisted as an errand boy to deliver bribe
money. Pat once publicly described our area as a "banana republic". He had a remote car
starter installed to guard against assassination by car bombing. He was elected for multiple
terms, and survived all attempts to crush him.
What did Pat have going for him? Personal anatomy. A wife who'd been a very young Polish
WWII refugee, and who knew a thing or two about government gone bad and people gone bad. A
strong, incorruptible law director, and a strong, incorruptible budget and finance guy.
Charisma, and, of course, votes. He kept a local Mr. Big, a zillionaire briber of
politicians, at a distance and worked warily with him. Pat met the challenges of an
economically collapsing area pretty well.
How many politicians could weather the permanent storm of American corruption as well as
Pat? Not a whole lot.
The corruption in DC must be setting a record unmatched in history. It doesn't help that our
craven, corrupt Congress sets its own rules regarding pay and benefits, but has also passed
laws saying its 'OK' for those elite to engage in insider trading.
Each Rep and Senator knows that kissing up to the Fortune 500 guarantees them a job after
they leave Congress, with a fat paycheck, bennies and sexy secretaries more than happy to
take DICKtation, all provided by the company's they took care of while in Congress.
Compounding the situation is the equally rotten DOJ, who has no problem going after
blue-collar crime, but won't touch the real problem, those TBTF Wall Street banks acting like
out-of-control casinos who then dump their losses on the backs on the American taxpayer. The
latest USAG head Sessions is more confirmation that the Senate is a 'good ol' boys' and girls
club that will not go after current and former members, as Sessions will NOT go after the
thieving, lying, traitorous Hillary for her many crimes.
Its impossible to Drain the Swamp when it has so many creatures that snack on Americans
and protect each other.
Short of a revolution, this can only end badly for Americans.
I would love to have seen that debate.
I am not a fan of the contention that Iran embodies all things evil about Islam. But it is
disappointing that Gen Flynn's advocacy is mired in a competition for financial contract.
"We Americans appear to have done it all to ourselves through inexplicable tolerance for a
combination of greed and fundamental dishonesty on the part of our elected and appointed
government officials".
One thing about you Americans that often surprises foreigners is your readiness to believe
that all this corruption is something new or different. It has been going on ever since well
before 1776.
My own opinion is that systematic corruption is a more or less inevitable consequence of
Americans' attempts to cut themselves off from all previous history and moral standards.
There were to be no royalty, nobility, gentry – no one exceptional at all in any
way.
Well, human nature abhors a lack of hierarchy: we need it almost as much as water, air,
food, security. If you try to abolish all forms of hierarchy, all that happens is that it
goes underground. What do Americans respect – what, indeed, have they respected most
since (at least) the 1850s? Money. That's it. Cold hard cash. Wealth is next to godliness.
The more money you have, the better a person you are thought to be – absolutely
regardless of whether you got it by grinding the faces of the workers, murder, torture, drug
dealing, or anything else.
But money is not, cannot be a value. Marx explained this in fairly simple terms, but the
following is my favorite way of putting it.
'As the sociologist Georg Simmel wrote over a century ago, if you make money the center of
your value system, then finally you have no value system, because money is not a value'.
We Americans appear to have done it all to ourselves through inexplicable tolerance for
a combination of greed and fundamental dishonesty on the part of our elected and appointed
government officials.
One might call it stupid to believe that a nation could invest its government with the
power to handle and disburse vast sums of money without becoming corrupt. Then again one might call that belief insane. One thing is clear, giving the government that much power and money is sure to corrupt
it. Anyone who expects anything else of human beings does not know much about human
beings.
Flynn was the worst associate that Trump fell in love with. That's a flaw of Trump. He did
get rid of Gorka and one or two other NeoCons, unfortunately he has an 'influential' son in
law that he can't get rid of that easily whose connected by blood to Joo land. And
then again he has a Zionist speech writer Steven Miller, who's very good pushing back the
anti Trump press, but still a Zionist Joo .
'Second Coming' anyone? (Grin)
„I know of no other country where love of money has such a grip on men's hearts or
where stronger scorn is expressed for the theory of permanent equality of property."
Tocqueville
Dishonesty and greed – the American way from the beginning.
My own opinion is that systematic corruption is a more or less inevitable consequence of
Americans' attempts to cut themselves off from all previous history and moral standards.
There were to be no royalty, nobility, gentry – no one exceptional at all in any
way.
Well, the royalty, nobility, gentry as well as the chief priests and rabbis and and almost
everyone in a position of power have historically been pretty corrupt, I'd say. In fact it's
probably accurate to say that all of them have been based on violence, treachery and bullshit
or some varying mixture of those things has been the rule since rule began.
As far as worshipping money, you are correct, but the systemic corruption is baked into
the cake by the way most political systems generally arise, and it's not only an American
phenomenon since a person reading Aristophanes, Plutarch, Juvenal, Herbert Spencer and tons
more could as well be writing of current events. The concepts are unchanged; only the names,
dates and minor particular issues have changed.
Upon arriving at Messene Philip proceeded to devastate the country like an enemy acting
from passion rather than from reason. For he expected, apparently, that while he
continued to inflict injuries, the sufferers would never feel any resentment or hatred
towards him.
-The Histories of Polybius , Book VIII, pg 465, Section III. Affairs of Greece, Philip,
and Messenia. published in Vol. III
of the Loeb Classical Library edition, 1922 thru 1927
The concept is not only ancient, but cross-cultural too.
" The Master said, 'Why do you not leave this place?' The answer was, 'There is no
oppressive government here.' The Master then said to his disciples: 'Remember this, my
little children. Oppressive government is more terrible than tigers.'"
-Confucius as quoted in The Ethics of Confucius, by Miles Menander Dawson, [1915]
What's PG griping about? Our elected leaders, senior officials and corporate captains
pretty accurately reflect what our country has devolved into.
Sorry good sir, but no devolution needed. It was baked in the cake from inception. The "anti-federalists" warned us but the warnings
fell on deaf (and powerless and preoccupied) ears.
I'm not trolling you, Jilles, you just keep showing up on this site bashing America with
factually wrong statements. I'm aware that the Netherlands is a pleasant nation, both my wife
and I have some Dutch ancestry, but the Netherlands, like the US, isn't perfect. The fact is
that every country, from Venezuela to Monaco, is a great country when one is rich, I'd bet
even Holland is nice if you've got a few bucks.
To your point about your health issues. Here in the US there are two primary medical
insurance programs run by the government, Medicare and Medicaid. If you're over 65 you are
automatically covered by Medicare, there are some low costs associated with it, but if you're
too poor to pay them, you don't have to. Medicaid is a government run health insurance
program for the poor and uninsured in the US. In most cases all medical conditions are
covered for free in this program. No hospital emergency room in the US is allowed to refuse
treatment, either. Could the system be better? Of course, but people aren't really dying in
the streets, desperate for medical attention, as the leftists you read are telling you.
Contrary to the proverb, fish DO NOT rot from the head down but from the gut. The rampant
corruption practiced by elected and unelected US officials alike, simply mirrors that of the
nation as a whole.
Our government is not our government anymore , it is a criminal cabal ran for and by
criminals and as such is not legitimate anymore and this has led to perpetual war for
perpetual profit and perpetual corruption, we are Rome and the end is near.
Amazing changes for the Good are taking place at an ever more rapid rate. The exposure of the
shenanigans of Flynn and Woolsey are literal examples of the figurative "The darkness hates
the Light because the Light exposes the darkness for it's evil deeds". The internet and
authors like this allow the Light (Truth) into Humanities Consciousness. Keep it up Giraldi!
Could the system be better? Of course, but people aren't really dying in the
streets, desperate for medical attention, as the leftists you read are telling you.
That may or may not be so, I'd have to see some statistics. The evidence of my lyon' eyes tells me plenty of people are living on the
streets. My gentrified neighborhood insisted that police remove the men who slept under dumpsters
in the alleys -- they moved them to bridge abutments and abandoned industrial sites.
Public libraries are ersatz day-care-for-hoboes; libraries now have police patrolling to
ensure that the mentally ill regulars do not act out too loudly or stink too badly. Washington, DC libraries post extensive rules on the bathroom doors: NO shaving, NO
showering, NO sex in the bathrooms.
Ben Franklin's famous quote while voting to adopt the US Constitution.
"Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think
a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a
blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be
well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have
done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government,
being incapable of any other."
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -
And that was back when the Fed Govt was designed to be much smaller and much less powerful
than today. Today's great power concentrated in the US govt, including the power to destroy
entire countries or businesses and of course people, as well as a great deal of money which
can then thus make people fabulously wealthy, means that this govt is far more susceptable to
corruption than the one old Ben Franklin was referring to.
In a country where money means anything and can buy anything, then one must assume that
everything is corrupt.
As a nation, we want to go nuts over a few hundred or perhaps a thousand deaths from
illegal aliens, but we look the other way as tens of thousands die in order to make people
rich(er) from a for-profit medical system.
Who are these hobos living in the street? Here in NYC they are drug addicts or mentally
unstable people. Why are they allowed to live in the street? Because leftist judges and
politicians have made it illegal to force them into mental hospitals or drug addiction
facilities. Leftists believe this is a sign of their benevolence. I don't know of anyone who
is actually homeless because of poverty in the US. There's just too many programs, from
section 8, to welfare, to public housing available.
as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need
despotic Government, being incapable of any other."
I could be classified as a big fan of BF, but I think today he'd change that to as other forms have done before it, when the leaders shall become so corrupted as
to benefit even more from despotic Government, being incapable of any other. It seems to me that the fish is always on the verge of rotting, and I on't know if it
starts at the head or not, but the thing still stinks, and the head, at least, has always
been pretty rotten.
A couple references to "2017" should be corrected to 2016. Thank you for using this wonderfully bipartisan example. One has to be pretty naive to
think that R and D mean much in Washington. Flush twice!
Of course, top officials sell out to anyone for anything. It is always that way in any
Empire, save the ones ruled by very bright and brutal men who make it clear that so doing
will cost in the biggest ways.
And then there is the fact of WASP culture being one in which everything is for sale. You
can see the issue in all kinds of works of literature, from Jonson's The Alchemist to Hardy's
Tess of the D'Urbervilles and beyond. That is what underlay the English rotating between fury
and amusement that the Irish and Highlanders were to too stupid about pence and pounds to
know when to sell, including their freedom and family heritage. The same dynamic was
highlighted in Yankee WASPs versus Southerners, whose sense of honor was both hated furiously
and laughed ay endlessly by pure-blood Anglo-Saxon Yankees.
Academics, working from CDC statistics, estimated in 2009 that 45,000 Americans die
every year from lack of medical care As a nation, we want to go nuts over a few hundred or
perhaps a thousand deaths from illegal aliens, but we look the other way as tens of
thousands die in order to make people rich(er) from a for-profit medical system.
Actually, I think the former figure is a *gigantic* over-estimate. Offhand, I'd say there are something like 100 million middle-class white Americans and
maybe 11 million or so illegal immigrants. And there were also over 17,000 total homicides
during 2016.
Now if we're talking about ordinary middle-class whites murdered by illegals, I doubt the
figure is even remotely close to 1-in-a-million per year, which would be a total of 100. In
fact, I'm quite skeptical about whether the total is above 10/year, which would be
one-in-10-million. That's the reason that neither VDare nor any of the other anti-immigrant
webzines can almost ever find any real-life cases to talk about.
In my opinion, the notion that anything more than an infinitesimal number of American
whites are murdered by illegals is just a total Internet hoax that's been endlessly
propagated by silly activists.
If anyone on this thread thinks I'm wrong then I challenge them to locate at least 10
cases of ordinary middle-class whites murdered by illegals in 2016 (I'm not talking about
Aryan Brotherhood gang members shivved in prison brawls or wives killing husbands/husbands
killing wives). If you can't find ten cases in all of America during an entire year, then I'm
probably right.
Did Flynn get crossways with the Mossad – is that why he is in trouble today? Clearly Gülen has protection in America – that has to mean Mossad/CIA
backing. I have seen writing that says that Gülen has ties to Israel. That explains a lot. Think Peace -- Art
Is corruption uniquely part of the US system of government (beyond the obvious propensity for
all systems to become corrupted);
or does the US system of governance have unique loopholes, or systemic weaknesses, that make
corruption more likely;
or is/has the US system of governance been corrupted by the machinations of a group or of
some 'bad apples,'
Are Woolsey/Flynn examples of the "bad apple" notion: their lack of character has spread
rot to the larger system? Their rot has normalized corruption?
Just watched two interviews, a conversation with Robert McNamara and Errol Morris, who
directed the documentary, Fog of War, about McNamara's controversial career and decisions
about war.
McNamara is widely described as an SOB of dubious moral fiber. In this conversation, he
does not hide from his complicity in enormously harmful decisions, but does spell out the
forces involved, not only the venal, career-protecting influences but also the realization
that decisions involve the lives of large numbers of US men in uniform.
McNamara also tries to articulate the complexities -- and restraint -- with which past
political leaders such as himself must approach their post-employment situation: while they
do have knowledge, from experience, about situations, McNamara argues that it was his belief
that he had to tread very lightly in making public opinions or prescriptions.
Then, Errol Morris was interviewed about his documentary film on Donald Rumfseld. Morris
was scathing: Rumsfeld was all about his career, his voluminous "snowflake" memos were
meandering BS, self-aggrandizing; Morris was especially outraged with Rumsfeld's reaction to
a seriously wounded soldier -- it was a photo op; no measure of humanity was in evidence.
Interesting contrast between McNamara and Rumsfeld
"Cometh the hour, cometh the man." Or Cometh the man, rot-eth the barrel."
McNamara is widely described as an SOB of dubious moral fiber. In this conversation, he
does not hide from his complicity in enormously harmful decisions, but does spell out the
forces involved, not only the venal, career-protecting influences but also the realization
that decisions involve the lives of large numbers of US men in uniform.
Interesting that you mentioned it. I remember years ago watching McNamara's Q&A
session after his lecture in one of the US "liberal" universities. I found myself surprised
(in a good sense) with his into your face readiness to face anything thrown at him. He went
ballistic when some student shouted "murderer" from back seats of the auditorium but McNamara
spoke to this student passionately and personally. He was absolutely human and vulnerable,
yet honest. In some sense it was very touching and you could see how it also tormented him.
As per neocons, from what I observed so far, I never encountered any indication of any of
them being simply decent humans–they are human sewer.
"... "China is the world leader in payments made by mobile devices", ..."
"... Financial Times ..."
"... Financial Times ..."
"... Financial Times ..."
"... 80% recognize that the Congress is dysfunctional and 86% believe that Washington is dishonest. Never has an empire of such limitless power crumbled and declined with so few accomplishments. ..."
Lumpen Capitalism refers to an economic system in which the financial and military sector
exploits the state treasury and productive economy for the 1% of the population.)
Introduction
US journalists and commentators, politicians and Sinologists spend considerable time and space
speculating on the personality of China's President Xi Jinping and his appointments to the leading
bodies of the Chinese government, as if these were the most important aspects of the entire 19th
National Congress of the Communist Party of China (October 18-24, 2017) .
(The 19th National Congress was attended by 2,280 delegates representing 89 million members.)
Mired down in gossip, idle speculation and petty denigration of its leaders, the Western press
has once again failed to take account of the world-historical changes which are currently taking
place in China and throughout the world.
World historical changes, as articulated by Chinese President Xi Jinping, are present in the vision,
strategy and program of the Congress. These are based on a rigorous survey of China's past, present
and future accomplishments.
The serious purpose, projections and the presence of China's President stand in stark contrast
to the chaos, rabble-rousing demagogy and slanders characterizing the multi-billion dollar US Presidential
campaign and its shameful aftermath.
The clarity and coherence of a deep strategic thinker like President Xi Jinping contrasts to the
improvised, contradictory and incoherent utterances from the US President and Congress. This is not
a matter of mere style but of substantive content.
We will proceed in the essay by contrasting the context, content and direction of the two political
systems.
China: Strategic Thinking and Positive Outcomes
China, first and foremost, has established well-defined strategic guidelines that emphasize macro-socio-economic
and military priorities over the next five, ten and twenty years.
China is committed to reducing pollution in all of its manifestations via the transformation of
the economy from heavy industry to a high-tech service economy, moving from quantitative to qualitative
indicators.
Secondly, China will increase the relative importance of the domestic market and reduce its dependence
on exports. China will increase investments in health, education, public services, pensions and family
allowances.
Thirdly, China plans to invest heavily in ten economic priority sectors. These include computerized
machinery, robotics, energy saving vehicles, medical devices, aerospace technology, and maritime
and rail transport. It targets three billion (US) dollars to upgrade technology in key industries,
including electrical vehicles, energy saving technology, numerical control (digitalization) and several
other areas. China plans to increase investment in research and development from .95% to 2% of GDP.
Moreover, China has already taken steps to launch the 'petro-Yuan', and end US global financial
dominance.
China has emerged as the world's leader in advancing global infrastructure networks with its One
Belt One Road (Silk Road) across Eurasia. Chinese-built ports, airports and railroads already connect
twenty Chinese cities to Central Asia, West Asia, South-East Asia, Africa and Europe. China has established
a multi-lateral Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (with over 60 member nations) contributing 100
billion dollars for initial financing.
China has combined its revolution in data collection and analysis with central planning to conquer
corruption and improve the efficiency in credit allocation. Beijing's digital economy is now at the
center of the global digital economy. According to one expert, "China is the world leader in
payments made by mobile devices", (11 times the US). One in three of the world's start-ups,
valued at more than $1 billion, take place in China ( FT 10/28/17, p. 7). Digital technology
has been harnessed to state-owned banks in order to evaluate credit risks and sharply reduce bad
debt. This will ensure that financing is creating a new dynamic flexible model combining rational
planning with entrepreneurial vigor (ibid).
As a result, the US/EU-controlled World Bank has lost its centrality in global financing. China
is already Germany's largest trading partner and is on its way to becoming Russia's leading trade
partner and sanctions-busting ally.
China has widened and expanded its trade missions throughout the globe, replacing the role of
the US in Iran, Venezuela and Russia and wherever Washington has imposed belligerent sanctions.
While China has modernized its military defense programs and increased military spending, almost
all of the focus is on 'home defense' and protection of maritime trade routes. China has not engaged
in a single war in decades.
China's system of central planning allows the government to allocate resources to the productive
economy and to its high priority sectors. Under President Xi Jinping, China has created an investigation
and judicial system leading to the arrest and prosecution of over a million corrupt officials in
the public and private sector. High status is no protection from the government's anti-corruption
campaign: Over 150 Central Committee members and billionaire plutocrats have fallen. Equally important,
China's central control over capital flows (outward and inward) allows for the allocation of financial
resources to high tech productive sectors while limiting the flight of capital or its diversion into
the speculative economy.
As a result, China's GNP has been growing between 6.5% – 6.9% a year – four times the rate of
the EU and three times the US.
As far as demand is concerned, China is the world's biggest market and growing. Income is growing
– especially for wage and salaried workers. President Xi Jinping has identified social inequalities
as a major area to rectify over the next five years.
The US: Chaos, Retreat and Reaction
In contrast, the United States President and Congress have not fashioned a strategic vision for
the country, least of all one linked to concrete proposals and socio-economic priorities, which might
benefit the citizenry.
The US has 240,000 active and reserve armed forces stationed in 172 countries. China has less
than 5,000 in one country – Djibouti. The US stations 40,000 troops in Japan, 23,000 in South Korea,
36,000 in Germany, 8,000 in the UK and over 1,000 in Turkey. What China has is an equivalent number
of highly skilled civilian personnel engaged in productive activity around the world. China's overseas
missions and its experts have worked to benefit both global and Chinese economic growth.
The United States' open-ended, multiple military conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya,
Yemen, Niger, Somalia, Jordan and elsewhere have absorbed and diverted hundreds of billions of dollars
away from productive investments in the domestic economy. In only a few cases, military spending
has built useful roads and infrastructure, which could be counted a 'dual use', but overwhelmingly
US military activities abroad have been brutally destructive, as shown by the deliberate dismemberment
of Yugoslavia, Iraq and Libya.
The US lacks the coherence of China's policy making and strategic leadership. While chaos has
been inherent in the politics of the US 'free market' financial system, it is especially widespread
and dangerous during the Trump regime.
Congressional Democrats and Republicans, united and divided, actively confront President Trump
on every issue no matter how important or petty. Trump improvises and alters his policies by the
hour or, at most, by the day. The US possesses a party system where one party officially rules in
the Administration with two militarist big business wings.
US has been spending over 700 billion dollars a year to pursue seven wars and foment 'regime changes'
or coups d'état on four continents and eight regions over the past two decades. This has only caused
disinvestment in the domestic economy with deterioration of critical infrastructure, loss of markets,
widespread socioeconomic decline and a reduction of spending on research and development for goods
and services.
The top 500 US corporations invest overseas, mainly to take advantage of low tax region and sources
of cheap labor, while shunning American workers and avoiding US taxes. At the same time, these corporations
share US technology and markets with the Chinese.
Today, US capitalism is largely directed by and for financial institutions, which absorb and divert
capital from productive investments, generating an unbalanced crisis-prone economy. In contrast,
China determines the timing and location of investments as well as bank interest rates, targeting
priority investments, especially in advanced high-tech sectors.
Washington has spent billions on costly and unproductive military-centered infrastructure (military
bases, naval ports, air stations etc.) in order to buttress stagnant and corrupt allied regimes.
As a result, the US has nothing comparable to China's hundred-billion-dollar 'One Belt-One Road'
(Silk Road) infrastructure project linking continents and major regional markets and generating millions
of productive jobs.
The US has broken global linkages with dynamic growth centers. Washington resorts to self-defecating,
mindless chauvinistic rhetoric to impose trade policy, while China promotes global networks via joint
ventures. China incorporates international supply linkages by securing high tech in the West and
low cost labor in the East.
Big US industrial groups' earnings and rising stock in construction and aerospace are products
of their strong ties with China. Caterpillar, United Technologies 3M and US car companies reported
double-digit growth on sales to China.
In contrast, the Trump regime has allocated (and spent) billions in military procurement to threaten
wars against China's peripheral neighbors and interfere with its maritime commerce.
US Decline and Media Frenzy
The retreat and decline of US economic power has driven the mass media into a frenzy of idiotic
ad hominem assaults on China's political leader President Xi Jinping. Among the nose pickers in print,
the scribes of the Financial Times take the prize for mindless vitriol. Mercenaries and
holy men in Tibet are described as paragons of democracy and 'victims' of a flourishing modernizing
Chinese state lacking the 'western values' (sic) of floundering Anglo-American warmongers!
To denigrate China's system of national planning and its consequential efforts to link its high
tech economy with improving the standard of living for the population, the FT journalists
castigate President Xi Jinping for the following faults:
For not being as dedicated a Communist as Mao Zedong or Deng Xiaopeng For being too 'authoritarian'
(or too successful) in his campaign to root out corrupt officials. For setting serious long-term
goals while confronting and overcoming economic problems by addressing the 'dangerous' level of debt.
While China has broadened its cultural horizon, the Anglo-Saxon global elite increases possibility
of nuclear warfare. China's cultural and economic outreach throughout the world is dismissed by the
Financial Times as 'subversive soft power'. Police-state minds and media in the West see
China's outreach as a plot or conspiracy. Any serious writer, thinker or policymaker who has studied
and praised China's success is dismissed as a dupe or agent of the sly President Xi Jinping. Without
substance or reflection, the FT (10/27/17) warns its readers and police officials to be
vigilant and avoid being seduced by China's success stories!
China's growing leadership in automobile production is evident in its advance towards dominating
the market for electric vehicles. Every major US and EU auto company has ignored the warnings of
the Western media ideologues and rushed to form joint ventures with China.
China has an industrial policy. The US has a war policy. China plans to surpass the US and Germany
in artificial intelligence, robotics, semi-conductors and electric vehicles by 2025. And it will
-- because those are its carefully pronounced scientific and economic priorities.
Shamelessly and insanely, the US press pursues the expanding stories of raging Hollywood rapists
like the powerful movie mogul, Harvey Weinstein, and the hundreds of victims, while ignoring the
world historic news of China's rapid economic advances.
The US business elites are busy pushing their President and the US Congress to lower taxes for
the billionaire elite, while 100 million US citizens remain without health care and register decreased
life expectancy! Washington seems committed to in State-planned regression.
As US bombs fall on Yemen and the American taxpayers finance the giant Israeli concentration camp
once known as 'Palestine', while China builds systems of roads and rail linking the Himalayas and
Central Asia with Europe.
While Sherlock Holmes applies the science of observation and deduction, the US media and politicians
perfect the art of obfuscation and deception.
In China, scientists and innovators play a central role in producing and increasing goods and
services for the burgeoning middle and working class. In the US, the economic elite play the central
role in exacerbating inequalities, increasing profits by lowering taxes and transforming the American
worker into poorly-paid temp-labor – destined to die prematurely of preventable conditions.
While Chinese President Xi Jinping works in concert with the nation's best technocrats to subordinate
the military to civilian goals, President Trump and his Administration subordinate their economic
decisions to a military-industrial-financial-Israeli complex. Beijing invests in global networks
of scientists, researchers and scholars. The US 'opposition' Democrats and disgruntled Republicans
work with the giant corporate media (including the respectable Financial Times ) to fund
and fabricate conspiracies and plots under Trump's Presidential bed.
Conclusion
China fires and prosecutes corrupt officials while supporting innovators. Its economy grows through
investments, joint ventures and a great capacity to learn from experience and powerful data collection.
The US squanders its domestic resources in pursuing multiple wars, financial speculation and rampant
Wall Street corruption.
China investigates and punishes its corrupt business and public officials while corruption seems
to be the primary criteria for election or appointment to high office in the US. The US media worships
its tax-dodging billionaires and thinks it can mesmerize the public with a dazzling display of bluster,
incompetence and arrogance.
China directs its planned economy to address domestic priorities. It uses its financial resources
to pursue historic global infrastructure programs, which will enhance global partnerships in mutually
beneficial projects.
It is no wonder that China is seen as moving toward the future with great advances while the US
is seen as a chaotic frightening threat to world peace and its publicists as willing accomplices.
China is not without shortcomings in the spheres of political expression and civil rights. Failure
to rectify social inequalities and failure to stop the outflow of billions of dollars of illicit
wealth, and the unresolved problems with regime corruption will continue to generate class conflicts.
But the important point to note is the direction China has chosen to take and its capacity and
commitment to identify and correct the major problems it faces.
The US has abdicated its responsibilities. It is unwilling or unable to harness its banks to invest
in domestic production to expand the domestic market. It is completely unwilling to identify and
purge the manifestly incompetent and to incarcerate the grossly corrupt officials and politicians
of both parties and the elites.
Today overwhelming majorities of US citizens despise, distrust and reject the political elite.
Over 70% think that the inane factional political divisions are at their greatest level in over 50
years and have paralyzed the government.
80% recognize that the Congress is dysfunctional and 86% believe that Washington is dishonest.
Never has an empire of such limitless power crumbled and declined with so few accomplishments.
China is a rising economic empire, but it advances through its active engagement in the market
of ideas and not through futile wars against successful competitors and adversaries. As the US declines,
its publicists degenerate.
The media's ceaseless denigration of China's challenges and its accomplishments is a poor substitute
for analysis. The flawed political and policy making structures in the US and its incompetent free-market
political leaders lacking any strategic vision crumble in contrast to China's advances.
"... "China is the world leader in payments made by mobile devices", ..."
"... Financial Times ..."
"... Financial Times ..."
"... Financial Times ..."
"... 80% recognize that the Congress is dysfunctional and 86% believe that Washington is dishonest. Never has an empire of such limitless power crumbled and declined with so few accomplishments. ..."
Lumpen Capitalism refers to an economic system in which the financial and military sector
exploits the state treasury and productive economy for the 1% of the population.)
Introduction
US journalists and commentators, politicians and Sinologists spend considerable time and space
speculating on the personality of China's President Xi Jinping and his appointments to the leading
bodies of the Chinese government, as if these were the most important aspects of the entire 19th
National Congress of the Communist Party of China (October 18-24, 2017) .
(The 19th National Congress was attended by 2,280 delegates representing 89 million members.)
Mired down in gossip, idle speculation and petty denigration of its leaders, the Western press
has once again failed to take account of the world-historical changes which are currently taking
place in China and throughout the world.
World historical changes, as articulated by Chinese President Xi Jinping, are present in the vision,
strategy and program of the Congress. These are based on a rigorous survey of China's past, present
and future accomplishments.
The serious purpose, projections and the presence of China's President stand in stark contrast
to the chaos, rabble-rousing demagogy and slanders characterizing the multi-billion dollar US Presidential
campaign and its shameful aftermath.
The clarity and coherence of a deep strategic thinker like President Xi Jinping contrasts to the
improvised, contradictory and incoherent utterances from the US President and Congress. This is not
a matter of mere style but of substantive content.
We will proceed in the essay by contrasting the context, content and direction of the two political
systems.
China: Strategic Thinking and Positive Outcomes
China, first and foremost, has established well-defined strategic guidelines that emphasize macro-socio-economic
and military priorities over the next five, ten and twenty years.
China is committed to reducing pollution in all of its manifestations via the transformation of
the economy from heavy industry to a high-tech service economy, moving from quantitative to qualitative
indicators.
Secondly, China will increase the relative importance of the domestic market and reduce its dependence
on exports. China will increase investments in health, education, public services, pensions and family
allowances.
Thirdly, China plans to invest heavily in ten economic priority sectors. These include computerized
machinery, robotics, energy saving vehicles, medical devices, aerospace technology, and maritime
and rail transport. It targets three billion (US) dollars to upgrade technology in key industries,
including electrical vehicles, energy saving technology, numerical control (digitalization) and several
other areas. China plans to increase investment in research and development from .95% to 2% of GDP.
Moreover, China has already taken steps to launch the 'petro-Yuan', and end US global financial
dominance.
China has emerged as the world's leader in advancing global infrastructure networks with its One
Belt One Road (Silk Road) across Eurasia. Chinese-built ports, airports and railroads already connect
twenty Chinese cities to Central Asia, West Asia, South-East Asia, Africa and Europe. China has established
a multi-lateral Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (with over 60 member nations) contributing 100
billion dollars for initial financing.
China has combined its revolution in data collection and analysis with central planning to conquer
corruption and improve the efficiency in credit allocation. Beijing's digital economy is now at the
center of the global digital economy. According to one expert, "China is the world leader in
payments made by mobile devices", (11 times the US). One in three of the world's start-ups,
valued at more than $1 billion, take place in China ( FT 10/28/17, p. 7). Digital technology
has been harnessed to state-owned banks in order to evaluate credit risks and sharply reduce bad
debt. This will ensure that financing is creating a new dynamic flexible model combining rational
planning with entrepreneurial vigor (ibid).
As a result, the US/EU-controlled World Bank has lost its centrality in global financing. China
is already Germany's largest trading partner and is on its way to becoming Russia's leading trade
partner and sanctions-busting ally.
China has widened and expanded its trade missions throughout the globe, replacing the role of
the US in Iran, Venezuela and Russia and wherever Washington has imposed belligerent sanctions.
While China has modernized its military defense programs and increased military spending, almost
all of the focus is on 'home defense' and protection of maritime trade routes. China has not engaged
in a single war in decades.
China's system of central planning allows the government to allocate resources to the productive
economy and to its high priority sectors. Under President Xi Jinping, China has created an investigation
and judicial system leading to the arrest and prosecution of over a million corrupt officials in
the public and private sector. High status is no protection from the government's anti-corruption
campaign: Over 150 Central Committee members and billionaire plutocrats have fallen. Equally important,
China's central control over capital flows (outward and inward) allows for the allocation of financial
resources to high tech productive sectors while limiting the flight of capital or its diversion into
the speculative economy.
As a result, China's GNP has been growing between 6.5% – 6.9% a year – four times the rate of
the EU and three times the US.
As far as demand is concerned, China is the world's biggest market and growing. Income is growing
– especially for wage and salaried workers. President Xi Jinping has identified social inequalities
as a major area to rectify over the next five years.
The US: Chaos, Retreat and Reaction
In contrast, the United States President and Congress have not fashioned a strategic vision for
the country, least of all one linked to concrete proposals and socio-economic priorities, which might
benefit the citizenry.
The US has 240,000 active and reserve armed forces stationed in 172 countries. China has less
than 5,000 in one country – Djibouti. The US stations 40,000 troops in Japan, 23,000 in South Korea,
36,000 in Germany, 8,000 in the UK and over 1,000 in Turkey. What China has is an equivalent number
of highly skilled civilian personnel engaged in productive activity around the world. China's overseas
missions and its experts have worked to benefit both global and Chinese economic growth.
The United States' open-ended, multiple military conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya,
Yemen, Niger, Somalia, Jordan and elsewhere have absorbed and diverted hundreds of billions of dollars
away from productive investments in the domestic economy. In only a few cases, military spending
has built useful roads and infrastructure, which could be counted a 'dual use', but overwhelmingly
US military activities abroad have been brutally destructive, as shown by the deliberate dismemberment
of Yugoslavia, Iraq and Libya.
The US lacks the coherence of China's policy making and strategic leadership. While chaos has
been inherent in the politics of the US 'free market' financial system, it is especially widespread
and dangerous during the Trump regime.
Congressional Democrats and Republicans, united and divided, actively confront President Trump
on every issue no matter how important or petty. Trump improvises and alters his policies by the
hour or, at most, by the day. The US possesses a party system where one party officially rules in
the Administration with two militarist big business wings.
US has been spending over 700 billion dollars a year to pursue seven wars and foment 'regime changes'
or coups d'état on four continents and eight regions over the past two decades. This has only caused
disinvestment in the domestic economy with deterioration of critical infrastructure, loss of markets,
widespread socioeconomic decline and a reduction of spending on research and development for goods
and services.
The top 500 US corporations invest overseas, mainly to take advantage of low tax region and sources
of cheap labor, while shunning American workers and avoiding US taxes. At the same time, these corporations
share US technology and markets with the Chinese.
Today, US capitalism is largely directed by and for financial institutions, which absorb and divert
capital from productive investments, generating an unbalanced crisis-prone economy. In contrast,
China determines the timing and location of investments as well as bank interest rates, targeting
priority investments, especially in advanced high-tech sectors.
Washington has spent billions on costly and unproductive military-centered infrastructure (military
bases, naval ports, air stations etc.) in order to buttress stagnant and corrupt allied regimes.
As a result, the US has nothing comparable to China's hundred-billion-dollar 'One Belt-One Road'
(Silk Road) infrastructure project linking continents and major regional markets and generating millions
of productive jobs.
The US has broken global linkages with dynamic growth centers. Washington resorts to self-defecating,
mindless chauvinistic rhetoric to impose trade policy, while China promotes global networks via joint
ventures. China incorporates international supply linkages by securing high tech in the West and
low cost labor in the East.
Big US industrial groups' earnings and rising stock in construction and aerospace are products
of their strong ties with China. Caterpillar, United Technologies 3M and US car companies reported
double-digit growth on sales to China.
In contrast, the Trump regime has allocated (and spent) billions in military procurement to threaten
wars against China's peripheral neighbors and interfere with its maritime commerce.
US Decline and Media Frenzy
The retreat and decline of US economic power has driven the mass media into a frenzy of idiotic
ad hominem assaults on China's political leader President Xi Jinping. Among the nose pickers in print,
the scribes of the Financial Times take the prize for mindless vitriol. Mercenaries and
holy men in Tibet are described as paragons of democracy and 'victims' of a flourishing modernizing
Chinese state lacking the 'western values' (sic) of floundering Anglo-American warmongers!
To denigrate China's system of national planning and its consequential efforts to link its high
tech economy with improving the standard of living for the population, the FT journalists
castigate President Xi Jinping for the following faults:
For not being as dedicated a Communist as Mao Zedong or Deng Xiaopeng For being too 'authoritarian'
(or too successful) in his campaign to root out corrupt officials. For setting serious long-term
goals while confronting and overcoming economic problems by addressing the 'dangerous' level of debt.
While China has broadened its cultural horizon, the Anglo-Saxon global elite increases possibility
of nuclear warfare. China's cultural and economic outreach throughout the world is dismissed by the
Financial Times as 'subversive soft power'. Police-state minds and media in the West see
China's outreach as a plot or conspiracy. Any serious writer, thinker or policymaker who has studied
and praised China's success is dismissed as a dupe or agent of the sly President Xi Jinping. Without
substance or reflection, the FT (10/27/17) warns its readers and police officials to be
vigilant and avoid being seduced by China's success stories!
China's growing leadership in automobile production is evident in its advance towards dominating
the market for electric vehicles. Every major US and EU auto company has ignored the warnings of
the Western media ideologues and rushed to form joint ventures with China.
China has an industrial policy. The US has a war policy. China plans to surpass the US and Germany
in artificial intelligence, robotics, semi-conductors and electric vehicles by 2025. And it will
-- because those are its carefully pronounced scientific and economic priorities.
Shamelessly and insanely, the US press pursues the expanding stories of raging Hollywood rapists
like the powerful movie mogul, Harvey Weinstein, and the hundreds of victims, while ignoring the
world historic news of China's rapid economic advances.
The US business elites are busy pushing their President and the US Congress to lower taxes for
the billionaire elite, while 100 million US citizens remain without health care and register decreased
life expectancy! Washington seems committed to in State-planned regression.
As US bombs fall on Yemen and the American taxpayers finance the giant Israeli concentration camp
once known as 'Palestine', while China builds systems of roads and rail linking the Himalayas and
Central Asia with Europe.
While Sherlock Holmes applies the science of observation and deduction, the US media and politicians
perfect the art of obfuscation and deception.
In China, scientists and innovators play a central role in producing and increasing goods and
services for the burgeoning middle and working class. In the US, the economic elite play the central
role in exacerbating inequalities, increasing profits by lowering taxes and transforming the American
worker into poorly-paid temp-labor – destined to die prematurely of preventable conditions.
While Chinese President Xi Jinping works in concert with the nation's best technocrats to subordinate
the military to civilian goals, President Trump and his Administration subordinate their economic
decisions to a military-industrial-financial-Israeli complex. Beijing invests in global networks
of scientists, researchers and scholars. The US 'opposition' Democrats and disgruntled Republicans
work with the giant corporate media (including the respectable Financial Times ) to fund
and fabricate conspiracies and plots under Trump's Presidential bed.
Conclusion
China fires and prosecutes corrupt officials while supporting innovators. Its economy grows through
investments, joint ventures and a great capacity to learn from experience and powerful data collection.
The US squanders its domestic resources in pursuing multiple wars, financial speculation and rampant
Wall Street corruption.
China investigates and punishes its corrupt business and public officials while corruption seems
to be the primary criteria for election or appointment to high office in the US. The US media worships
its tax-dodging billionaires and thinks it can mesmerize the public with a dazzling display of bluster,
incompetence and arrogance.
China directs its planned economy to address domestic priorities. It uses its financial resources
to pursue historic global infrastructure programs, which will enhance global partnerships in mutually
beneficial projects.
It is no wonder that China is seen as moving toward the future with great advances while the US
is seen as a chaotic frightening threat to world peace and its publicists as willing accomplices.
China is not without shortcomings in the spheres of political expression and civil rights. Failure
to rectify social inequalities and failure to stop the outflow of billions of dollars of illicit
wealth, and the unresolved problems with regime corruption will continue to generate class conflicts.
But the important point to note is the direction China has chosen to take and its capacity and
commitment to identify and correct the major problems it faces.
The US has abdicated its responsibilities. It is unwilling or unable to harness its banks to invest
in domestic production to expand the domestic market. It is completely unwilling to identify and
purge the manifestly incompetent and to incarcerate the grossly corrupt officials and politicians
of both parties and the elites.
Today overwhelming majorities of US citizens despise, distrust and reject the political elite.
Over 70% think that the inane factional political divisions are at their greatest level in over 50
years and have paralyzed the government.
80% recognize that the Congress is dysfunctional and 86% believe that Washington is dishonest.
Never has an empire of such limitless power crumbled and declined with so few accomplishments.
China is a rising economic empire, but it advances through its active engagement in the market
of ideas and not through futile wars against successful competitors and adversaries. As the US declines,
its publicists degenerate.
The media's ceaseless denigration of China's challenges and its accomplishments is a poor substitute
for analysis. The flawed political and policy making structures in the US and its incompetent free-market
political leaders lacking any strategic vision crumble in contrast to China's advances.
"... The United States spends $600 billion, not counting veteran's benefits, on war every year. This expense is approved unanimously by the Congress, elected representatives of the people. The "Defense" budget is not even mentioned in the national political debate raging over taxes, health care, etc. ..."
"... Obviously, this expense is intended to create an American Empire. To put it extremely mildly, it has and will fail. The death throes are going to threaten the existence of mankind. All because some religious, slave-holding lunatics were expelled from England, England forsooth, in the 17th century. OMG. ..."
"... Do these moves in Lebanon stem from US & Israeli demands that Iranian forces leave Syria? Or is that an excuse? When US & Israel refer to "Iranian forces" is that meant to include Hezbollah? Should we see these developments in Lebanon as primarily anti-Iranian (degrade Hezbollah forces) or anti-Assad (i.e. a second front)? ..."
"... Best comment above: that the Hegemon is merciless. It looks like the plan is to draw Hezbollah out of Syria. This will force Iran to commit more to Syria. That, in turn, will justify stronger measures by Israel, Saudi Arabia, the US, etc.. Syria's worst sufferings, as it seems, have yet to begin. ..."
Trump fired 59 missiles into Syria. Trump's missile volley came 7 months after Russia's first
volley of 26 Kalibr cruise missiles (Putin's candles") on Putin's birthday in October 2015.
26 years before (November 1989) was the fall of the Berlin Wall and end of the Cold War. Russians
were told that NATO would not advance "one inch" eastward.
Also: when US-led Coalition attacked Deir Ezzor in September 2016 the Russians were put on
hold for 27 minutes - possibly also referring back to 1989 (an 'answer' to the Russian reference)
.
In November 1958, Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev issued the Western powers an ultimatum to
withdraw from Berlin within six months and make it a free, demilitarised city. This ultimately
led to the Berlin Crisis of 1961. The term "strategic patience" comes from this period.
If 59 missiles was a reference to 1958, what could be the import?
- foreshadowing an intervention in Lebanon?
- warning Putin not to demand that US leave Syria?
- a signal that US would be resolute? or stand by allies?
- a symbolic request for Russian to practice strategic patience because Trump's missile
volley was forced by Saudi Arabia?
Given the signs of at least a modicum of detente between Saudi and Russia following the King's
visit to Moscow last month, the threatening statements by Thamer and the resignation of Hariri
are indeed alarming. My understanding is that Russia generally has a 'hands off' stance vis a
vis Hezbullah so as not to antagonize Israel, but this also necessitates a delicate balancing
act with regard to relations with Syria and Iran. Which raises the question: was the Saudi delegation's
visit to Moscow really just a diversion tactic?
There is no mercy from the US/Saudi/Israeli axis, unfortunately. After all Lebanon has been through,
the last thing it needs is Wahhabist terrorists invading its territory to cause more misery.
The United States spends $600 billion, not counting veteran's benefits, on war every year.
This expense is approved unanimously by the Congress, elected representatives of the people. The
"Defense" budget is not even mentioned in the national political debate raging over taxes, health
care, etc.
Obviously, this expense is intended to create an American Empire. To put it extremely mildly,
it has and will fail. The death throes are going to threaten the existence of mankind. All because
some religious, slave-holding lunatics were expelled from England, England forsooth, in the 17th
century. OMG.
Do these moves in Lebanon stem from US & Israeli demands that Iranian forces leave Syria?
Or is that an excuse? When US & Israel refer to "Iranian forces" is that meant to include Hezbollah?
Should we see these developments in Lebanon as primarily anti-Iranian (degrade Hezbollah forces)
or anti-Assad (i.e. a second front)?
Best comment above: that the Hegemon is merciless. It looks like the plan is to draw Hezbollah
out of Syria. This will force Iran to commit more to Syria. That, in turn, will justify stronger
measures by Israel, Saudi Arabia, the US, etc.. Syria's worst sufferings, as it seems, have yet
to begin.
China is a neoliberal country which plays by the rules of neoliberalism. that means
tremendous level of corruption within Communist Party. So the levers remains in Washington hands.
I think the article is too optimistic. Washington definitely can put same sand into China
industrial wheels. Right now they simply concentrate on "regime change" in Russia as the weakest
link in Russo-Chinese alliance and leave China alone. China growing class of billionaires now
represent a potent fifth column within the country and can be played. Attempt to do this were
already evident in Hong Hong failed color revolution. Hong Cong remain is heir lines of US color
revolution specialist and intelligence agencies.
Notable quotes:
"... The 'China doomsters' with 'logs in their own eyes' have systematically distorted reality, fabricated whimsical tales and paint vision, which, in truth, reflect their own societies. ..."
"... As each false claim is refuted, the frogs alter their tunes: When predictions of imminent collapse fail to materialize, they add a year or even a decade to their crystal ball. When their warnings of negative national social, economic and structural trends instead move in a positive direction, their nimble fingers re-calibrate the scope and depth of the crisis, citing anecdotal 'revelations' from some village or town or taxi driver conversation. ..."
From their dismal swamps, US academic and financial journal editorialists, the
mass media and contemporary 'Asia experts', Western progressive and conservative politicians
croak in unison about China's environmental and impending collapse.
They have variably proclaimed (1) China's economy is in decline; (2) the debt is
overwhelming; a Chinese real estate bubble is ready to burst; (3) the country is rife with
corruption and poisoned with pollution; and (4) Chinese workers are staging paralyzing strikes
and protests amid growing repression -- the result of exploitation and sharp class inequality.
The financial frogs croak about China as an imminent military threat to the security of the US
and its Asian partners. Other frogs leap for that fly in the sky -- arguing that the Chinese
now threatens the entire universe!
The 'China doomsters' with 'logs in their own eyes' have systematically distorted reality,
fabricated whimsical tales and paint vision, which, in truth, reflect their own societies.
As each false claim is refuted, the frogs alter their tunes: When predictions of imminent
collapse fail to materialize, they add a year or even a decade to their crystal ball. When
their warnings of negative national social, economic and structural trends instead move in a
positive direction, their nimble fingers re-calibrate the scope and depth of the crisis, citing
anecdotal 'revelations' from some village or town or taxi driver conversation.
As long-predicted failures fail to materialize, the experts re-hash the data by questioning
the reliability of China's official statistics.
Worst of all, Western 'Asia' experts and scholars try 'role reversal': While US bases and
ships increasingly encircle China, the Chinese become the aggressors and the bellicose US
imperialists whine about their victim-hood.
Cutting through the swamp of these fabrications, this essay aims to outline an alternative
and more objective account of China's current socio-economic and political realty.
China: Fiction and Fact
We repeatedly read about China's 'cheap wage' economy and the brutal exploitation of its
slaving workers by billionaire oligarchs and corrupt political officials. In fact, the average
wage in China's manufacturing sector has tripled during this decade. China's labor force
receives wages which exceed those of Latin America countries, with one dubious exception.
Chinese manufacturing wages now approach those of the downwardly mobile countries in the EU.
Meanwhile, the neo-liberal regimes, under EU and US pressure, have halved wages in Greece, and
significantly reduced incomes in Brazil, Mexico and Portugal. In China, workers wages now
surpass Argentina, Colombia and Thailand. While not high by US-EU standards, China's 2015 wages
stood at $3.60 per hour -- improving the living standards of 1.4 billion workers. During the
time that China tripled its workers 'wages, the wages of Indian workers stagnate at $0.70 per
hour and South African wages fell from $4.30 to $3.60 per hour.
This spectacular increase in Chinese worker's wages are largely attributed to skyrocketing
productivity, resulting from steady improvements in worker health, education and technical
training, as well as sustained organized worker pressure and class struggle. President Xi
Jinping's successful campaign for remove and arrest of hundreds of thousands of corrupt and
exploitative officials and factory bosses has boosted worker power. Chinese workers are closing
the gap with the US minimum wage. At the current rate of growth, the gap, which had narrowed
from one tenth to one half the US wage in ten years, will disappear in the near future.
China is no longer merely a low-wage, unskilled, labor intensive, assembly plant and
export-oriented economy. Today twenty thousand technical schools graduate millions of skilled
workers. High tech factories are incorporating robotics on a massive scale to replace unskilled
workers. The service sector is increasing to meet the domestic consumer market. Faced with
growing US political and military hostility, China has diversified its export market, turning
from the US to Russia, the EU, Asia, Latin America and Africa.
Despite these impressive objective advances, the chorus of 'crooked croakers' continue to
churn out annual predictions of China's economic decline and decay. Their analyses are not
altered by China's 6.7% GNP growth in 2016; they jump on the 2017 forecast of 'decline' to 6.6%
as proof of its looming collapse! Not be dissuaded by reality, the chorus of 'Wall Street
croakers' wildly celebrate when the US announces a GNP increase from 1% to 1.5%!
While China has acknowledged its serious environmental problems, it is a leader in
committing billions of dollars (2% of GNP) to reduce greenhouse gases -- closing factories and
mines. Their efforts far exceed those of the US and EU.
China, like the rest of Asia, as well as the US, needs to vastly increase investments in
rebuilding its decaying or non-existent infrastructure. The Chinese government is alone among
nations in keeping up with and even exceeding its growing transportation needs -- spending $800
billion a year on high speed railroads, rail lines, sea- ports, airports subways and
bridges.
While the US has rejected multi-national trade and investment treaties with eleven Pacific
countries, China has promoted and financed global trade and investment treaties with more than
fifty Asia-Pacific (minus Japan and the US), as well as African and European states.
China's leadership under President Xi Jinping has launched an effective large-scale
anti-corruption campaign leading to the arrest or ouster of over 200,000 business and public
officials, including billionaires, and top politburo and Central Committee members. As a result
of this national campaign, purchases of luxury items have significantly declined. The practice
of using public funds for elaborate 12 course dinners and the ritual of gift giving and taking
are on the wane.
Meanwhile, despite the political campaigns to 'drain the swamp' and successful populist
referenda, nothing remotely resembling China's anticorruption campaign have taken root in the
US and the UK despite daily reports of swindles and fraud involving the hundred leading
investment banks in the Anglo-American world. China's anti- corruption campaign may have
succeeded in reducing inequalities. It clearly has earned the overwhelming support of the
Chinese workers and farmers.
Journalists and academics, who like to parrot the Anglo-American and NATO Generals, warn
that China's military program poses a direct threat to the security of the US, Asia and indeed
the rest of world.
Historical amnesia infects these most deep diving frogs. Forgotten is how the post WW2 US
invaded and destroyed Korea and Indo-China (Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia) killing over nine
million inhabitants, both civilian and defenders. The US invaded, colonized and neo-colonized
the Philippines at the turn of the 20th century, killing up to one million inhabitants. It
continues to build and expands its network of military bases encircling China, It recently
moved powerful, nuclear armed THADD missiles to the North Korean border, capable of attacking
Chinese and even Russian cities. The US is the worlds' largest arms exporter, surpassing the
collective production and sale of the next five leading merchants of death.
In contrast, China has not unilaterally attacked, invaded or occupied anyone in hundreds of
years. It does not place nuclear missiles on the US coast or borders. In fact, it does not have
a single overseas military base. Its own military bases, in the South China Sea, are
established to protect its vital maritime routes from pirates and the increasingly provocative
US naval armada. China's military budget, scheduled to increase by 7% in 2017, is still less
than one-fourth of the US budget.
For its part, the US promotes aggressive military alliances, points radar and satellite
guided missiles at China, Iran and Russia, and threatens to obliterate North Korea. China's
military program has been and continues to be defensive. Its increase is based on its response
to US provocation. China's foreign imperial thrust is based on a global market strategy while
Washington continues to pursue a militarist imperial strategy, designed to impose global
domination by force.
Conclusion
The frogs of the Western intelligentsia have crocked loud and long. They strut and pose as
the world's leading fly catchers -- but producing nothing credible in terms of objective
analyses.
China has serious social, economic and structural problems, but they are systematically
confronting them. The Chinese are committed to improving their society, economy and political
system on their own terms. They seek to solve immensely challenging problems, while refusing to
sacrifice their national sovereignty and the welfare of their people.
In confronting China as a world capitalist competitor, the US official policy is to surround
China with military bases and threaten to disrupt its economy. As part of this strategy,
Western media and so-called 'experts' magnify China's problems and minimize their own.
Unlike China, the US is wallowing at less than 2% annual growth. Wages stagnate for decades;
real wages and living standards decline. The costs of education and health care skyrocket,
while the quality of these vital services decline dramatically. Costs are growing,
un-employment is growing and worker suicide and mortality is growing. It is absolutely vital
that the West acknowledge China's impressive advances in order to learn, borrow and foster a
similar pattern of positive growth and equity. Co-operation between China and the US is
essential for promoting peace and justice in Asia.
Unfortunately, the previous US President Obama and the current President Trump have chosen
the path of military confrontation and aggression. The two terms of Obama's administration
present a record of failing wars, financial crises, burgeoning prisons and declining domestic
living standards. But for all their noise, these frogs, croaking in unison, will not change the
real world.
There is about as much Communism in the Peoples Communist Party of China as there is
Democracy in the US Democratic Party. Therein lies the problem. Old words and slogans are
used to obfuscate power plays by willful participants and to pretend the US is still vital in
the world. Empire stops at the bottom line which was broached in about 1986 when we became a
Debtor Nation. When China tires of lending us the money to build bases to harass them, it all
ends. Our troops will have to find their own way home to put down all the incredible unrest
here, then join the bread lines.
In contrast, China has not unilaterally attacked, invaded or occupied anyone in hundreds
of years. It does not place nuclear missiles on the US coast or borders. In fact, it does
not have a single overseas military base. Its own military bases, in the South China Sea,
are established to protect its vital maritime routes from pirates and the increasingly
provocative US naval armada. China's military budget, scheduled to increase by 7% in 2017,
is still less than one-fourth of the US budget.
One solution to China's "ghost cities" is to put a university there. China is also leading
the way on LFTR reactors. So you combine the two with a major college or university that has
a LFTR based industry like an advanced ceramics or solar cells or fuels manufacturing
facility and you have recipe for growth.
Modular LFTR reactors will allow China to replace coal burning with nuclear reactors.
The 1979 Sino-Vietnamese war occurred during the cold war. From the beginning China made
it clear that the war will be short and it is meant to punish Vietnam. The war has several
objectives. First it is to demonstrate the then Soviet Union's impotency. Soviet Union and
Vietnam signed a mutual defense agreement several months before the war. Soviet Union did
nothing when the war happened. Second the war is meant to put pressure on Vietnam to withdrew
from Cambodia. Third it is a reaction to Vietnam's belligerence border aggression. Before the
war Vietnam constantly lobbed grenade across the border into China. After the war peace and
tranquility at the border restored.
After China made its point, China swiftly withdrew its troops back to its border. China
and Vietnam has no land border disputes but China and Vietnam has maritime boundary disputes.
Vietnam is the most aggressive of all the parties in the South China Sea disputes by a wide
margin.
I buy a lot of stuff from China, mostly aliexpress.com and I have noticed that since the
American election the delivery times on most items have doubled or worse. I live in Canada,
how did he do that? I don't see the bargains that I did previously as well. All very spooky.
"Vietnam is the most aggressive of all the parties in the South China Sea disputes by a wide
margin."
Curious about this. How do you draw that conclusion.
Separately, while I agree with the tone of the article and general direction, a few
comments:
- China has an overseas military base under construction in Djibouti. Brigade strength
force will be deployed there.
- China's national (not provincial or locally published GDP numbers) GDP growth figures are
approximately correct. However, currently there is lots of state directed lending to keep the
growth up. The credit bubble might not pop but down the line dealing with so many bad loans
will prevent fresh loans and that will slow down growth.
- While the economy is a miracle for blue collar workers, for non-workers in the most hard up
parts of the country, social conditions are horrendous for a middle income country with lots
of central revenue and administrative ability. In the western hills of Guangxi 10% of the
kids are malnourished.
- China hasn't been expansionist in 250 years (not since Qing Empire into present day
southwest Xinjaing in the 1760s) however there are still a few black marks: Sino-Vietnamese
War, supporting nuclear proliferation in Pakistan, not doing enough to control North Korea
(this is the stupidest blunder of all and leaves Beijing vulnerable to nuclear attack one day
if the Kim family is about to go), and threatening war publicly against Philippines at one
point during the South China Sea crisis of the past several years (all forms of pressure are
permitted but its uncivilized to outright threaten war).
"Vietnam is the most aggressive of all the parties in the South China Sea disputes by a
wide margin."
Curious about this. How do you draw that conclusion.
I draw my conclusion on this article and here is the excerpt:
"In 1996, Vietnam occupied 24 features in the Spratly Islands (source). At that time,
according to the same source, China occupied nine. By 2015, according to the United States
government, Vietnam occupied 48 features, and China occupied eight.
On May 13, U.S. Assistant Secretary of Defense, David Shear, said this to the Senate Foreign
relations Committee: "Vietnam has 48 outposts; the Philippines, 8; China, 8; Malaysia, 5, and
Taiwan, 1."
In the past 20 years, according to the United States, China has not physically occupied
additional features. By contrast, Vietnam has doubled its holdings, and much of that activity
has occurred recently. The Vietnamese occupations appear to have increased from 30 to 48 in
the last six years.
Shear also pointed out that as of his speech, China did not have an airfield as other
claimants did. He said:
All of these same claimants have also engaged in construction activity of differing scope and
degree. The types of outpost upgrades vary across claimants but broadly are comprised of land
reclamation, building construction and extension, and defense emplacements. Between 2009 and
2014, Vietnam was the most active claimant in terms of both outpost upgrades and land
reclamation, reclaiming approximately 60 acres. All territorial claimants, with the exception
of China and Brunei, have also already built airstrips of varying sizes and functionality on
disputed features in the Spratlys."
Seems like they are operating as a National Socialist system now. The means of production
are owned by corporations but a powerful government keeps close control and directs business
activities to the benefit of the nation. The owners are rewarded with wealth and the
government advances their mutual interests for national progress.
They also place a heavy emphasis on cultural and racial pride.
Downside of course is that the types of civil liberties we enjoy are constricted and getting
out of line gets you smacked real good, sometimes supposedly up to the point of bullet to the
back of your head, and your family gets billed for the bullet.
A tough system to compete against unless the powers-that-be lacking effective external checks
and balance do something stupid like invade Russia or bomb Pearl Harbor.
The USA is character disordered. Demonize, belittle, bellicosity, and outright war. All we
need is liberty and enforcement of property rights and we'd be leaving the Chinese and
everyone else in the dust.
With the strangulation of our economy at home through the unconstitutional
regulatory/administrative law colossus, instead of outgrowing our competitors we wish to
shoot them down.
The term "Contain China" aptly demonstrates our stupidity insofar as forward thinking is
concerned. You don't improve your lot by dedicating yourself to holding others down. It
doesn't work in athletics, education, in relationships, or in free enterprise.
So it is odd to see nary a whit of protest to the idea when it should be ridiculed on the
face of it.
I do of course see the same worn-out playbook of demonize, demonize, demonize being used
by the Washington establishment. We have to "do something" about China. Not do something to
our appalling education performance, savings and capital formation, strangulatory laws,
etc.
I married into a Filipino family and have a house there. The Filipinos were fond of saying
that the USA wanted to fight to the last Filipino over the South China Sea. They've been
smart enough to work with the Chinese, who are investing billions of dollars there developing
hydrocarbons and ports for transhipment like Singapore instead of launching a foolhardy war
with China.
When I encounter people screeching about Chinese aggression against the poor little
Filipinos or fiction about threats to international shipping it really strikes me how out of
their minds people can be. We want to see our family working on ships there, not dying in a
foolhardy confrontation. The Chinese have a long history of trading and running businesses in
the Philippines. It is only our invincible ignorance, arrogance, and narcissism that results
in a failure to see why the Philippines has turned towards China.
I go through Shanghai Pudong a lot and over the years it has been obvious how the people
have become wealthier, how the infrastructure has stepped up to first world standards, and
how smart/snappy the people are. We are really underestimating the Chinese and making a lot
of self-serving rationalizations for their success.
We need to fix our own failings instead of trying to cut others down. China is already
larger in GDP and can easily be twice ours before 2030 with relative growth rates the way
they are.
China showed own impotence and lack of serious military capabilities in that war.
Vietnamese forces were not even participating while local militia was kicking Chinese
military back side. They obviously had to withdraw telling they gave a lesson. It is typical
Chinese way to cut losses and avoid total loss of face aka du lian.
It looks like lots of people think that country with 1.4 billion population can prosper long
term and keep rising living standards of her population in the future on limited planet. They
so far have managed to achieve improvements but at a cost of long term sustainability. Their
ecological troubles are of huge magnitude and so are debt and demographic issues. We are
already at each other throats fighting for diminishing resources, so it is highly doubtful
Chinese or Indian projects can last.
To be fair, comparing nominal military budgets can be very misleading and just dumb.
Sure, they are an easy way to rank different different militaries, but when you compare
Western vs. Emerging powers and their military budgets, or countries with their large-scale
MICs (which to be fair, there are only a few USA, Russia, China, France to some extent, India
in the future, but certainly not today) vs. weapons exporters, the results are largely BS.
Price levels are so different. Not to mention that the maintenance costs in the US military
are absolutely massive.
Currently Russia is a great example. The devaluation is basically irrelevant for the
Russian military. It should be obvious that Saudi Arabian military doesn't have a higher
budget. The US certainly doesn't have 10-15 times more resources at its disposal. Russia
spends rubles, it doesn't import weapons. So in reality the difference vs. the US something
like 4x at most.
China is the same. The yuan has devalued vs. the dollar, so in dollar terms their growth
has stagnated, which doesn't have anything to do with reality.
So overall, in comparable terms, let's say that the US spends $600 billion. In that
case:
Russia spends atleast 120-150 billion
China spends atleast 250 billion, probably closer to 300 billion
And whereas the US capabilities are spread all around the world, Russia and China are focused
on their backyards.
So in reality China's "real" military spending is atleast something like 40% of the US
level already, not less than 1/4,.
The Sovs or the Chicoms would have sent Petras to the gulag ages ago. In the enlightened
West, we merely consign him to places like UR, thus marginalising him and making it
increasingly difficult to eke out a living. See Fred Reed's piece on columnists and wonder
why more of them don't end up sucking on the business end of a firearm when they fail to toe
the party line.
Hard to get balance on this topic because it is human nature to favour false champions &
heroes & rivals fake 'opposition' Don't like USA-Nato? Why then, plenty of fanboys to
offer you Russia, China, Iran etc James Petras as above, André Vltchek, Andrei 'The
Saker' Raevsky, Dick Cheney's hoaxer friend 'Edward Snowden', Netanyahu's hoaxer friend
Julian Assange etc all selling 'opposition hero' tickets
The West has lots of stupid anti-China rubbish, sure but let's recall the Chinese official
who said they learned how to do fake statistics & propaganda from Yank Americans The
China reality is as follows:
China was the prime beneficiary of the global credit bubble 1990s-2000s, they will crash
along with the rest of the world when all blows up, but crash worse because bad China debt is
so huge think USA 1929, it won't stop China's long-term rise, but they will have a horrible
decade & maybe ChiComs will lose power in the upheaval
China is a huge US-style bully, ask ASEAN people privately, or other Asians but as seen
with the USA, other countries feel they must kiss up to the bully whilst e.g., Vietnam has
been a bully to Cambodia on smaller scale
China, Russia, Iran do some things right, principally working to see that middle classes
rise & expand & most people are better off economically, for as long as they were
able to do this, Turkey's Erdogan too, it is a magic formula, like Hitler's 1930s Germany
economic success
But all of these US 'rivals' have skeletons in the closet, hundreds of slow-torture
hangings & killing women by stones annually in Iran, China's thousands of executions
& ethnic repression & sea-lane bullying, Russia's past killing of perhaps 100,000
Muslims just to keep Chechnya-Dagestan oil & gas income
But pundits need someone to love & admire & promote the fake 'hero' the fake
'opposition' in the West the mafia gangsterism we know best is the US-Nato kind, so we go
gaga over fake 'dissident' or foreign 'heroes' served up to us There are 'good things' in the
West despite the bullying mass-killing horrors ditto with China Russia etc,, & people
ignore the bad when they hero-worship, either East or West
The fake 'hero opposition' is the most successful of all oligarch memes It's plain as day,
for example, that Dick Cheney's little friend, anti-9-11-truth, nothing-really-new 'Edward
Snowden' is a fraud along with Rothschild employee & ex-gay-p-rnographer Glenn Greenwald
Snowden maybe already having helped identify, silence, kill real dissidents duped into
contacting Greenwald or his NY Times or UK Guardian pumpers yet most still eagerly hold on to
fake 'opposition hero' themes, China or Russia, or Assange or 'Snowden' -
Yes that's true, but Astuteobservor is also correct that the paragraph as written is
inaccurate and misleading. It should be amended, imo, as it's a blot on an otherwise very
good and timely piece. It's an anti-missile system, not one that can attack cities, and it's
kinetic not nuclear armed.
I love prof. Petraus. But wages itself do not reflect reality. (Growth of the wages
maybe)
Wages must be accompanied by price of bread and price of rent.
Volume of production allows larger engineering and research and development sections.
That is the most significant factor in the competition in the world.
After the Vietnam War, the Vietnamese claimed they were the 3rd strongest nation in the
world based on the the amount of military hardware left behind by the US, and the Vietnamese
started to invade China to reclaim their "entitled land, " and conqure Laos and Cambodia to
build their Great Indo-China Federation. The Sino-Vietnam war was the war Chinese repelled
Vietnamese invadors just like war in 1962, China repelled Indian invadors in Tibet.
Downside of course is that the types of civil liberties we enjoy are constricted and
getting out of line gets you smacked real good
Where do people get the romantic notion that we enjoy civil liberties?
Anyone who reads of Lincoln's, Wilson's, FDR's and GWB's ( to name a few) wholesale
dismissal of civil liberties could write a book on the subject.
I'd like to know how we can possibly have much by way of said liberties in a centralized,
bureaucratized, militarized, police state effectively owned and ruled by vicious
oligarchs.
Our loss of civil liberties began long ago.
"But while I beheld with pleasure the dawn of liberty rising in Europe, I saw with
regret the lustre of it fading in America
But a faction, acting in disguise, was rising in America; they had lost sight of first
principles. They were beginning to contemplate government as a profitable monopoly, and the
people as hereditary property ."
THOMAS PAINE TO THE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES,
And particularly to the Leaders of the Federal Faction.
LETTER I, Nov 15,1802
"The enlightened part of Europe have given us the greatest credit for inventing the
instrument of security for the rights of the people and have been not a little surprised to
see us so soon give it up."
Thomas Jefferson letter to Francis Hopkinson of March 13, 1789
Men haven't got the freedom today that they had when the Constitution was written. The
men in the West had a great deal of freedoms more than the men in the East
who copied the traditions of Europe.
-Jeanette Rankin, interview ~1977
Rankin, running as a Republican Progressive, was the first woman voted to congress
Well, I suppose I might say "relative" civil liberties. To your point, yes, as soon as we
started exercising our inherent, inalienable liberties, State and commercial actors started
working to turn them from natural rights to licenses that may be granted by the State only as
long as it served the purposes of the State.
It is hard not to imagine that the Chinese system, in contrast to Western Liberal-Democracy,
is the wave of the future. What is more is that China will invariably increase its
geopolitical influence in the coming decades.
Most comments on the Sino Vietnamese War reveals quite a lot of ignorance about it.
When Deng Xiaopeng and Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore first met, Lee Kuan Yew began with
thanking him for the China's kinetic military R2P mission
Why?
Lee Kuan Yew had operational plans to deploy a Singapore military force to Thailand and
their army was manned largely by conscripted teenagers mostly. He had to sell the public to
send their sons to war because it be too late if they had to fight the Vietnamese when they
were across in Malaysia, so fight now. The Vietnamese were already having skirmishes the
Thais across the Mekong.
Next, the PLA was pretty dismissive of Vietnam, told Deng, we would not need to use no
stinking air power. Just the army would suffice. Why? Giap was "assisted" by a couple of
Chinese generals through the Vietnam War. Walk in the park.
Turned out it wasn't a walk in the park but it was comfortable enough that the PLA got
themselves into artillery range of Hanoi and deployed and use their arty units but not
hitting Hanoi. Then while being not a walk in the park and thus egg in their face operation
which Deng then used as leverage over the generals about PLA reform, it remained comfy enough
that the PLA began a sure and steady scorch earth withdrawal.
And those Vietnamese troop concentrations across the Mekong were gone and Lee Kuan Yew was
one happy camper alright.
The sight of those artillery units with range of Hanoi and the scorch earth withdrawal
left quite an impression on Giap who till his death warned the rest of the Vietnamese elite
never to go to war with China.
And it didn't end with the withdrawal. Deng may have been so taken by Lee Kuan Yew's words
that he scheduled regular border incursions to keep the Vietnamese on their toes thru the
80s. Or maybe he didn't like the subsequent pogroms against the Hoa and who inspite of this
are now the lords of commerce in Vietnam.
But all these are old musty stuff.
And the anti China propaganda never really worked and doesn't really matter as FDI into
China grew and grew with years passing. Heck even Netanyahu knows who is buttering his toast.
Cut ties over the UNSC vote? Nah smoke and mirrors probably for local politics reasons.
The conservative estimates of Chinese abortions since the mid-1970s is over 400 million.
China is the fastest, aging country in the world. The Chinese were never that smart to begin
with (contra propaganda from Jews and white degenerates who marry the Chinese). In the 1980s
Japan was going to take over the world. Place your bets on Caucasian/European Christians,
pagans.
Get back to us when the rule of law in China is such that China is considered a safe haven
for capital -- when Chinese with money stop voting with their feet about that -- when Chinese
women stop 'birth tourism' to the US -- when Chinese students desperate to gain entry to a
good US university stop cheating on the SAT -- also, perhaps talk to the numerous victims of
Chinese 'reverse merger' etc stock scams, people who have no recourse because the Chinese
government refuses to cooperate.
Two elite Vietnamese divisions that kicked the American out of South Vietnam were
destroyed by the PLA in that short period of time. The Vietnamese central government had to
vacate Hanoi before the PLA's bombardment of Hanoi. Without Deng's order PLA would divide
Vietnam in two again. Finally the American was on China's side on the war to punish the
Vietnamese; the American was so grateful that Chinese took vengeance against the Vietnamese
for them.
Russian should know Russia is not USSR, and they should not be upset when USSR's
incompetence is mentioned and troll fake news with boiling blood neck.
so just how much has Mr. Xi paid you for this piece?
1) Actual salaries are irrelevant as you ought to know because in the end it boils down to
PPP.
2) Mr. Xi "remove" – ought to be "removal" btw is simply political battle for survival
using "corruption" as an excuse. Should Mr. Xi be serious about fighting real corruption, 99%
or more of entire politburo incl. himself ought to have been executed or in jail.
3) How about PRC destruction of Philippine's corrals (from another left wing publication
– http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-35106631
)
4) Artificial islands (weaponized) in South China sea?
Look US is as much war criminal as PRC – it is just that your Goebbels-like (or
should I say Lev Davidovic like) propaganda makes me want to throw up.
I really enjoy UNZ for offering different – usually independent and critical –
platform.
Your article is beyond disgrace a la New York Times / WaPo / Pravda /Rt.com / Spiegel /
Xinhua and other "news" sources. Perhaps you might consider publishing there and stop
polluting independent websites.
Thomas
PS I have visited PRC and Taiwan about 20 times, speak passable Mandarin and live with a
Chinese born partner FYI.
It seems here is another insect in the US dismal swamps trolling zero-sum cold war
mentality wet dream. You should know Chinese lend RMB to the locals to bust growth and
Chinese can print RMB thru the thin air just like the Fed, in addition China has already set
up state owned funds to offload banks' debt load in exchange for their equity ownership, so
the banks are back to healthy books and do the lending again just like the Fed, it is
puzzling why such sophisticate safety mechanism will allow bad loans preventing fresh loans
to be made.
Not doing the American bidding is black mark? Wow, this is surely an example of American
exceptionalism without bound.
Would you accept that the USA is a 'God-fearing' morally defunct evil 'puritan' nation? If
you don't then you should not take what you are fed from cradle to grave the propaganda
cooked up by those insects with a mindset belonging to the past, stalled in the old days of
colonialism and constrained by the zero-sum cold war mentality from their dismal swamps.
China has not engaged the rest of the world in military confrontation, colonialist
adventurism and wars while establishing itself on the world stage. Perhaps they have learned
something from Western History (or the failures of), or the teachings of Confucius. I suspect
the latter, for they have not done very well when practicing the forceful and brutal ways of
the West.
They are on a roll, and it looks like they will get there, and probably stay there, for
some time to come.
I do not like the way Newsweek Columnist, F. Zakaria
(the neocon ? I don't know exactly what to call him, but I am sure the Indians have a term
for one of their own who joined the British Raj, put on their pretty uniforms, took their
pay, and began to see himself as one of them, pure, high and mighty in his new white skin,
topee and title, ever the S'arn't Major, never the Brigadier!, with riding crop and bayonet,
and boots with which to downtrod!)
writes, or the things he usually writes about, but his article "Does the Future Belong to
China?" was right on the money to me. I'll give credit to the support he seems to have had
from other writers worldwide, which may be, perhaps, what makes it so good and, in my
opinion, prophetic.
He writes: "When historians look back at the last decades of the 20th century, they
might well point to 1979 as a watershed. That year the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan,
digging its grave as a superpower. It was also the year that China began its economic
reforms. They were launched at a most unlikely gathering, the Third Plenum of the 11th
Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, held in December 1978. Before the formal
meetings, at a working-group session, the newly empowered party boss, Deng Xiaoping, gave a
speech that turned out to be the most important one in modern Chinese history. He urged
that the regime focus on development and modernization, and let facts-not ideology-guide
its path. "It doesn't matter if it is a black cat or a white cat," Deng often said. "As
long as it can catch mice, it's a good cat." Since then, China has done just that, pursued
a modernization path that is ruthlessly pragmatic and non-ideological. The results have
been astonishing. China has grown around 9 percent a year for more than 25 years, the
fastest growth rate for a major economy in recorded history. In that same period it has
moved 300 million people out of poverty and quadrupled the average Chinese person's income.
And all this has happened, so far, without catastrophic social upheavals. The Chinese
leadership has to be given credit for this historic achievement. There are many who
criticize China's economic path. They argue that the numbers are fudged, that corruption is
rampant, that its banks are teetering on the edge, that regional tensions will explode,
that inequality is rising dangerously and that things are coming to a head. For a decade
now they have been predicting, "This cannot last, China will crash, it cannot keep this
up." So far at least, none of these prognoses has come true. And while China has many
problems, it also has something any Third World country would kill for-consistently high
growth."
We are living in changing times, and the times are changing at an ever increasing
exponential rate!
*Worst of all, Western 'Asia' experts and scholars try 'role reversal':
While US bases and ships increasingly encircle China, the Chinese become the aggressors
and the bellicose US imperialists whine about their victim-hood.*
Like i say,
ROBBER CRYING OUT ROBBERY.
Of all the slimy traits of the unitedsnake, this one takes the cake !
Washington has just invaded Syria, its 500th victim since 1785.
To Assad's protest of illegal invasion, Centcom commander Votel sniffs,
'We'r going after the ISIS , we dont need no stinking permission from nobody'
The hubris befitting the world's no 1 rogue state !
Monsul in Iraq is being 'turned to shards' ala Fallujah.
this time 'no more stinking rule of engagement that tie one hand behind our back, this time
we fight to win' ,
promised Trump the
'anti establishment' prez ! [1]
Already civilian casualties have runned into the hundreds.
In Yemen, the Washington sponsored genocidal war waged by Saudis rages on.
Its another gigantic shooting fish in a barrel slaughter where the
coalition of killing [usa/saudi/UAE] seal off the whole country then pummel the trapped
populace with F16, Apache gunships and artillery. Its Fallujah x 1000 . !
Meanwhile in Oz where permier Li Ke Qiang is visiting,
the ever so santimonous press/ pundits ponder,
' We already have our friends in Washington who share our values in human rights and rule
of law ,
why should we engage this 'human rights abuser and SCS bully,?'
What fucked up mind,
What a fucked up world !
[1]
Nam/Iraq were 'restrained' wars ?
Only in the USA,
Where the inmates are running the asylum !
Nuclear armed THADD? This sentence alone betrays a lot of the authors ignorance. Ignoring the
fact that the name of the weapons system is THAAD (Terminal High Altidude Area Defense),
which could be a simple typo, even a short Google search would have shown the author that
THAAD-missiles do not even carry explosives, much less nuclear bombs.
THAAD missiles are basically bullets that rely on kinetic impact alone to destroy incoming
ballistic missiles. Even if they somehow could be nuclear armed, their range is only 200 kms
which is nowhere near enough to reach China from South Korea.
China's objection to the system being stationed in Korea is not that the missiles are an
offensive threat, but that THAAD's powerful radar could be used to see deep into Chinese
territory.
It took until 22 comments for anyone to really take a look at reality. These article
always only look at one side of the balance sheet. China has gone on a MASSIVE printing spree
to achieve the "growth" they currently have, the US is no better but for some reason facts
matter for the US.
China also has a demographic (as was mentioned in another comment) time bomb waiting in
the wings (just like all western nations) and yet it's also never mentioned in these "China =
great, USA = lame" hit pieces.
A market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent.
And finally, what is the author really saying? That socialism or quasi communism is a
better economic system? It appears so
p.s. And apparently China economic statistics are honest and accurate at least to this
author.
One is reminded that, contrary to popular propaganda, Malthus was right. It is an iron law
of development that no nation has become prosperous until AFTER fertility rates moderated.
(it is mostly the RATE of population increase, not absolute numbers).
Under Mao the government deliberately created a massive population explosion – and
when that was (predictably) a disaster did an about face. It was ugly – and would not
have been needed at all except for the initial pro-natalist policies – but it has given
China a chance to progress.
India has seen economic growth higher than China's – and all swallowed up by ever
more people.
Mexico, the United States, and South America all have aggressive policies aimed at
maximizing population growth – with, again, predictable results. Wages for the many go
down and profits for the few go up.
Yes there is more to it than just demographics. But demographics are nevertheless
powerful. And the Chinese government has apparently decided not to cancel out the effects of
high wages by increasing the supply of people. At least for now.
In the USA. a war of opposing certitudes and denunciations is waged day to day between the
long-ruling US corporate media and the White House. Both continuously proclaim ringing
recriminations of the other's 'fake news'. Over months they both portray each other as
malevolent liars.
To the Americans anything does not fit their liking is fake news, malevolent liars, even
including their elected president.
Shouldn't all the governments be "Government of the people, by the people, for the people"
regardless their ideology? It seems you have been brainwashed from cradle to grave and are so
deep in the ideology that you don't know what a government is for.
I know it hurts, but China failed to achieve war objectives hence masquerading as lesson
given and withdrawal. Chinese army lost lost about 10% of total army strength and had to
withdraw. While USSR did not participate directly Soviet advisors were helping with military
operational planning.
I also forgot to mention that what we see in China is US manufacturing moved there. USA
can blame only herself for creating her geopolitical rival. Avarice is a mortal sin. It was
never enough for US propertied classes. As Marx told that for 100% returns capitalist are
ready to break own neck and there is no crime capitalists would not commit for 300% annual
returns. So, destroying own country's future, I mean USA, is a small pickle.
When I first time came to China in 1988, many steal wore Mao suits and the country was dirt
poor. China with or without Deng did not have resources and know hows to rise without outside
investments on massive scale.
Material domination has supplanted spiritual development as the primary goal of western
society, when everyone else despises that approach to life.
I don't think shacking up with your partner without marriage plans, or the glamorization
of homosexuality and pornography will ever gain approval in traditionalist China.
murkkans like to bleat about their 'freedom' to choose their leaders.
Well every four/eight years that vaunted system offers them a choice bet the likes of Bush
senior/Bush junior/Clinton the sex fiend/Clinton the witch/Obomber/Donald *The swamp thing*
Trump,
the end result being a continuous streak of 45 war criminals in the WH.
Well if thats something to be proud about,
good luck to them !
"Chinese can print RMB thru the thin air just like the Fed"
Explain how a high rate of inflation will not disrupt economic stability and therefore
growth.
"China has already set up state owned funds to offload banks' debt load in exchange for
their equity ownership"
The equity ownership is in companies that are troubled is not worth much. What you are
therefore talking about is not an exchange but write downs equivalent to hundreds of billions
of dollars. To put it in the most elementary way, the depletion of resources to write down
hundreds of billions of dollars of bad loans diverts finite resources that would otherwise be
used for new lending.
"Not doing the American bidding is black mark"
Do you recognize there are various positions besides against us or with us? So not
supporting China publicly using threats of war to settle disputes (e.g. a general appearing
on state tv threatening war against the Philippines during the height of the diplomatic
dispute in 2014), in your mind means being pro-American, anti-Chinese. Do you recognize there
are several other positions than simply either being this or that?
"Under Mao the government deliberately created a massive population explosion – and
when that was (predictably) a disaster did an about face."
What?! Under Mao, well BEFORE the 1-child policy of the late 1970s, fertility had dropped
off to ~3. That would be from ~6 around the time of the revolution.
Perhaps you are unaware that, globally, serious poverty has declined dramatically over the
last 20 years -- and it is ALL (yes, 100%) due to the lifting of hundreds of millions of
Chinese poor people out of poverty. The wages of those formerly-poor people reflect a new,
much-improved reality.
The clearest way to articulate what's going on with placing a 'missile defence' system
next to North Korea (and thus close to China) is that it's (1) tactically defensive, to be
used against any incoming missiles, and (2) strategically aggressive, being used close to
someone else's borders to enable an aggressive strike. The same is true of 'missile defence'
systems set up in Poland against Russia.
"... The United States spends $600 billion, not counting veteran's benefits, on war every year. This expense is approved unanimously by the Congress, elected representatives of the people. The "Defense" budget is not even mentioned in the national political debate raging over taxes, health care, etc. ..."
"... Obviously, this expense is intended to create an American Empire. To put it extremely mildly, it has and will fail. The death throes are going to threaten the existence of mankind. All because some religious, slave-holding lunatics were expelled from England, England forsooth, in the 17th century. OMG. ..."
"... Do these moves in Lebanon stem from US & Israeli demands that Iranian forces leave Syria? Or is that an excuse? When US & Israel refer to "Iranian forces" is that meant to include Hezbollah? Should we see these developments in Lebanon as primarily anti-Iranian (degrade Hezbollah forces) or anti-Assad (i.e. a second front)? ..."
"... Best comment above: that the Hegemon is merciless. It looks like the plan is to draw Hezbollah out of Syria. This will force Iran to commit more to Syria. That, in turn, will justify stronger measures by Israel, Saudi Arabia, the US, etc.. Syria's worst sufferings, as it seems, have yet to begin. ..."
Trump fired 59 missiles into Syria. Trump's missile volley came 7 months after Russia's first
volley of 26 Kalibr cruise missiles (Putin's candles") on Putin's birthday in October 2015.
26 years before (November 1989) was the fall of the Berlin Wall and end of the Cold War. Russians
were told that NATO would not advance "one inch" eastward.
Also: when US-led Coalition attacked Deir Ezzor in September 2016 the Russians were put on
hold for 27 minutes - possibly also referring back to 1989 (an 'answer' to the Russian reference)
.
In November 1958, Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev issued the Western powers an ultimatum to
withdraw from Berlin within six months and make it a free, demilitarised city. This ultimately
led to the Berlin Crisis of 1961. The term "strategic patience" comes from this period.
If 59 missiles was a reference to 1958, what could be the import?
- foreshadowing an intervention in Lebanon?
- warning Putin not to demand that US leave Syria?
- a signal that US would be resolute? or stand by allies?
- a symbolic request for Russian to practice strategic patience because Trump's missile
volley was forced by Saudi Arabia?
Given the signs of at least a modicum of detente between Saudi and Russia following the King's
visit to Moscow last month, the threatening statements by Thamer and the resignation of Hariri
are indeed alarming. My understanding is that Russia generally has a 'hands off' stance vis a
vis Hezbullah so as not to antagonize Israel, but this also necessitates a delicate balancing
act with regard to relations with Syria and Iran. Which raises the question: was the Saudi delegation's
visit to Moscow really just a diversion tactic?
There is no mercy from the US/Saudi/Israeli axis, unfortunately. After all Lebanon has been through,
the last thing it needs is Wahhabist terrorists invading its territory to cause more misery.
The United States spends $600 billion, not counting veteran's benefits, on war every year.
This expense is approved unanimously by the Congress, elected representatives of the people. The
"Defense" budget is not even mentioned in the national political debate raging over taxes, health
care, etc.
Obviously, this expense is intended to create an American Empire. To put it extremely mildly,
it has and will fail. The death throes are going to threaten the existence of mankind. All because
some religious, slave-holding lunatics were expelled from England, England forsooth, in the 17th
century. OMG.
Do these moves in Lebanon stem from US & Israeli demands that Iranian forces leave Syria?
Or is that an excuse? When US & Israel refer to "Iranian forces" is that meant to include Hezbollah?
Should we see these developments in Lebanon as primarily anti-Iranian (degrade Hezbollah forces)
or anti-Assad (i.e. a second front)?
Best comment above: that the Hegemon is merciless. It looks like the plan is to draw Hezbollah
out of Syria. This will force Iran to commit more to Syria. That, in turn, will justify stronger
measures by Israel, Saudi Arabia, the US, etc.. Syria's worst sufferings, as it seems, have yet
to begin.
China is a neoliberal country which plays by the rules of neoliberalism. that means
tremendous level of corruption within Communist Party. So the levers remains in Washington hands.
I think the article is too optimistic. Washington definitely can put same sand into China
industrial wheels. Right now they simply concentrate on "regime change" in Russia as the weakest
link in Russo-Chinese alliance and leave China alone. China growing class of billionaires now
represent a potent fifth column within the country and can be played. Attempt to do this were
already evident in Hong Hong failed color revolution. Hong Cong remain is heir lines of US color
revolution specialist and intelligence agencies.
Notable quotes:
"... The 'China doomsters' with 'logs in their own eyes' have systematically distorted reality, fabricated whimsical tales and paint vision, which, in truth, reflect their own societies. ..."
"... As each false claim is refuted, the frogs alter their tunes: When predictions of imminent collapse fail to materialize, they add a year or even a decade to their crystal ball. When their warnings of negative national social, economic and structural trends instead move in a positive direction, their nimble fingers re-calibrate the scope and depth of the crisis, citing anecdotal 'revelations' from some village or town or taxi driver conversation. ..."
From their dismal swamps, US academic and financial journal editorialists, the
mass media and contemporary 'Asia experts', Western progressive and conservative politicians
croak in unison about China's environmental and impending collapse.
They have variably proclaimed (1) China's economy is in decline; (2) the debt is
overwhelming; a Chinese real estate bubble is ready to burst; (3) the country is rife with
corruption and poisoned with pollution; and (4) Chinese workers are staging paralyzing strikes
and protests amid growing repression -- the result of exploitation and sharp class inequality.
The financial frogs croak about China as an imminent military threat to the security of the US
and its Asian partners. Other frogs leap for that fly in the sky -- arguing that the Chinese
now threatens the entire universe!
The 'China doomsters' with 'logs in their own eyes' have systematically distorted reality,
fabricated whimsical tales and paint vision, which, in truth, reflect their own societies.
As each false claim is refuted, the frogs alter their tunes: When predictions of imminent
collapse fail to materialize, they add a year or even a decade to their crystal ball. When
their warnings of negative national social, economic and structural trends instead move in a
positive direction, their nimble fingers re-calibrate the scope and depth of the crisis, citing
anecdotal 'revelations' from some village or town or taxi driver conversation.
As long-predicted failures fail to materialize, the experts re-hash the data by questioning
the reliability of China's official statistics.
Worst of all, Western 'Asia' experts and scholars try 'role reversal': While US bases and
ships increasingly encircle China, the Chinese become the aggressors and the bellicose US
imperialists whine about their victim-hood.
Cutting through the swamp of these fabrications, this essay aims to outline an alternative
and more objective account of China's current socio-economic and political realty.
China: Fiction and Fact
We repeatedly read about China's 'cheap wage' economy and the brutal exploitation of its
slaving workers by billionaire oligarchs and corrupt political officials. In fact, the average
wage in China's manufacturing sector has tripled during this decade. China's labor force
receives wages which exceed those of Latin America countries, with one dubious exception.
Chinese manufacturing wages now approach those of the downwardly mobile countries in the EU.
Meanwhile, the neo-liberal regimes, under EU and US pressure, have halved wages in Greece, and
significantly reduced incomes in Brazil, Mexico and Portugal. In China, workers wages now
surpass Argentina, Colombia and Thailand. While not high by US-EU standards, China's 2015 wages
stood at $3.60 per hour -- improving the living standards of 1.4 billion workers. During the
time that China tripled its workers 'wages, the wages of Indian workers stagnate at $0.70 per
hour and South African wages fell from $4.30 to $3.60 per hour.
This spectacular increase in Chinese worker's wages are largely attributed to skyrocketing
productivity, resulting from steady improvements in worker health, education and technical
training, as well as sustained organized worker pressure and class struggle. President Xi
Jinping's successful campaign for remove and arrest of hundreds of thousands of corrupt and
exploitative officials and factory bosses has boosted worker power. Chinese workers are closing
the gap with the US minimum wage. At the current rate of growth, the gap, which had narrowed
from one tenth to one half the US wage in ten years, will disappear in the near future.
China is no longer merely a low-wage, unskilled, labor intensive, assembly plant and
export-oriented economy. Today twenty thousand technical schools graduate millions of skilled
workers. High tech factories are incorporating robotics on a massive scale to replace unskilled
workers. The service sector is increasing to meet the domestic consumer market. Faced with
growing US political and military hostility, China has diversified its export market, turning
from the US to Russia, the EU, Asia, Latin America and Africa.
Despite these impressive objective advances, the chorus of 'crooked croakers' continue to
churn out annual predictions of China's economic decline and decay. Their analyses are not
altered by China's 6.7% GNP growth in 2016; they jump on the 2017 forecast of 'decline' to 6.6%
as proof of its looming collapse! Not be dissuaded by reality, the chorus of 'Wall Street
croakers' wildly celebrate when the US announces a GNP increase from 1% to 1.5%!
While China has acknowledged its serious environmental problems, it is a leader in
committing billions of dollars (2% of GNP) to reduce greenhouse gases -- closing factories and
mines. Their efforts far exceed those of the US and EU.
China, like the rest of Asia, as well as the US, needs to vastly increase investments in
rebuilding its decaying or non-existent infrastructure. The Chinese government is alone among
nations in keeping up with and even exceeding its growing transportation needs -- spending $800
billion a year on high speed railroads, rail lines, sea- ports, airports subways and
bridges.
While the US has rejected multi-national trade and investment treaties with eleven Pacific
countries, China has promoted and financed global trade and investment treaties with more than
fifty Asia-Pacific (minus Japan and the US), as well as African and European states.
China's leadership under President Xi Jinping has launched an effective large-scale
anti-corruption campaign leading to the arrest or ouster of over 200,000 business and public
officials, including billionaires, and top politburo and Central Committee members. As a result
of this national campaign, purchases of luxury items have significantly declined. The practice
of using public funds for elaborate 12 course dinners and the ritual of gift giving and taking
are on the wane.
Meanwhile, despite the political campaigns to 'drain the swamp' and successful populist
referenda, nothing remotely resembling China's anticorruption campaign have taken root in the
US and the UK despite daily reports of swindles and fraud involving the hundred leading
investment banks in the Anglo-American world. China's anti- corruption campaign may have
succeeded in reducing inequalities. It clearly has earned the overwhelming support of the
Chinese workers and farmers.
Journalists and academics, who like to parrot the Anglo-American and NATO Generals, warn
that China's military program poses a direct threat to the security of the US, Asia and indeed
the rest of world.
Historical amnesia infects these most deep diving frogs. Forgotten is how the post WW2 US
invaded and destroyed Korea and Indo-China (Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia) killing over nine
million inhabitants, both civilian and defenders. The US invaded, colonized and neo-colonized
the Philippines at the turn of the 20th century, killing up to one million inhabitants. It
continues to build and expands its network of military bases encircling China, It recently
moved powerful, nuclear armed THADD missiles to the North Korean border, capable of attacking
Chinese and even Russian cities. The US is the worlds' largest arms exporter, surpassing the
collective production and sale of the next five leading merchants of death.
In contrast, China has not unilaterally attacked, invaded or occupied anyone in hundreds of
years. It does not place nuclear missiles on the US coast or borders. In fact, it does not have
a single overseas military base. Its own military bases, in the South China Sea, are
established to protect its vital maritime routes from pirates and the increasingly provocative
US naval armada. China's military budget, scheduled to increase by 7% in 2017, is still less
than one-fourth of the US budget.
For its part, the US promotes aggressive military alliances, points radar and satellite
guided missiles at China, Iran and Russia, and threatens to obliterate North Korea. China's
military program has been and continues to be defensive. Its increase is based on its response
to US provocation. China's foreign imperial thrust is based on a global market strategy while
Washington continues to pursue a militarist imperial strategy, designed to impose global
domination by force.
Conclusion
The frogs of the Western intelligentsia have crocked loud and long. They strut and pose as
the world's leading fly catchers -- but producing nothing credible in terms of objective
analyses.
China has serious social, economic and structural problems, but they are systematically
confronting them. The Chinese are committed to improving their society, economy and political
system on their own terms. They seek to solve immensely challenging problems, while refusing to
sacrifice their national sovereignty and the welfare of their people.
In confronting China as a world capitalist competitor, the US official policy is to surround
China with military bases and threaten to disrupt its economy. As part of this strategy,
Western media and so-called 'experts' magnify China's problems and minimize their own.
Unlike China, the US is wallowing at less than 2% annual growth. Wages stagnate for decades;
real wages and living standards decline. The costs of education and health care skyrocket,
while the quality of these vital services decline dramatically. Costs are growing,
un-employment is growing and worker suicide and mortality is growing. It is absolutely vital
that the West acknowledge China's impressive advances in order to learn, borrow and foster a
similar pattern of positive growth and equity. Co-operation between China and the US is
essential for promoting peace and justice in Asia.
Unfortunately, the previous US President Obama and the current President Trump have chosen
the path of military confrontation and aggression. The two terms of Obama's administration
present a record of failing wars, financial crises, burgeoning prisons and declining domestic
living standards. But for all their noise, these frogs, croaking in unison, will not change the
real world.
There is about as much Communism in the Peoples Communist Party of China as there is
Democracy in the US Democratic Party. Therein lies the problem. Old words and slogans are
used to obfuscate power plays by willful participants and to pretend the US is still vital in
the world. Empire stops at the bottom line which was broached in about 1986 when we became a
Debtor Nation. When China tires of lending us the money to build bases to harass them, it all
ends. Our troops will have to find their own way home to put down all the incredible unrest
here, then join the bread lines.
In contrast, China has not unilaterally attacked, invaded or occupied anyone in hundreds
of years. It does not place nuclear missiles on the US coast or borders. In fact, it does
not have a single overseas military base. Its own military bases, in the South China Sea,
are established to protect its vital maritime routes from pirates and the increasingly
provocative US naval armada. China's military budget, scheduled to increase by 7% in 2017,
is still less than one-fourth of the US budget.
One solution to China's "ghost cities" is to put a university there. China is also leading
the way on LFTR reactors. So you combine the two with a major college or university that has
a LFTR based industry like an advanced ceramics or solar cells or fuels manufacturing
facility and you have recipe for growth.
Modular LFTR reactors will allow China to replace coal burning with nuclear reactors.
The 1979 Sino-Vietnamese war occurred during the cold war. From the beginning China made
it clear that the war will be short and it is meant to punish Vietnam. The war has several
objectives. First it is to demonstrate the then Soviet Union's impotency. Soviet Union and
Vietnam signed a mutual defense agreement several months before the war. Soviet Union did
nothing when the war happened. Second the war is meant to put pressure on Vietnam to withdrew
from Cambodia. Third it is a reaction to Vietnam's belligerence border aggression. Before the
war Vietnam constantly lobbed grenade across the border into China. After the war peace and
tranquility at the border restored.
After China made its point, China swiftly withdrew its troops back to its border. China
and Vietnam has no land border disputes but China and Vietnam has maritime boundary disputes.
Vietnam is the most aggressive of all the parties in the South China Sea disputes by a wide
margin.
I buy a lot of stuff from China, mostly aliexpress.com and I have noticed that since the
American election the delivery times on most items have doubled or worse. I live in Canada,
how did he do that? I don't see the bargains that I did previously as well. All very spooky.
"Vietnam is the most aggressive of all the parties in the South China Sea disputes by a wide
margin."
Curious about this. How do you draw that conclusion.
Separately, while I agree with the tone of the article and general direction, a few
comments:
- China has an overseas military base under construction in Djibouti. Brigade strength
force will be deployed there.
- China's national (not provincial or locally published GDP numbers) GDP growth figures are
approximately correct. However, currently there is lots of state directed lending to keep the
growth up. The credit bubble might not pop but down the line dealing with so many bad loans
will prevent fresh loans and that will slow down growth.
- While the economy is a miracle for blue collar workers, for non-workers in the most hard up
parts of the country, social conditions are horrendous for a middle income country with lots
of central revenue and administrative ability. In the western hills of Guangxi 10% of the
kids are malnourished.
- China hasn't been expansionist in 250 years (not since Qing Empire into present day
southwest Xinjaing in the 1760s) however there are still a few black marks: Sino-Vietnamese
War, supporting nuclear proliferation in Pakistan, not doing enough to control North Korea
(this is the stupidest blunder of all and leaves Beijing vulnerable to nuclear attack one day
if the Kim family is about to go), and threatening war publicly against Philippines at one
point during the South China Sea crisis of the past several years (all forms of pressure are
permitted but its uncivilized to outright threaten war).
"Vietnam is the most aggressive of all the parties in the South China Sea disputes by a
wide margin."
Curious about this. How do you draw that conclusion.
I draw my conclusion on this article and here is the excerpt:
"In 1996, Vietnam occupied 24 features in the Spratly Islands (source). At that time,
according to the same source, China occupied nine. By 2015, according to the United States
government, Vietnam occupied 48 features, and China occupied eight.
On May 13, U.S. Assistant Secretary of Defense, David Shear, said this to the Senate Foreign
relations Committee: "Vietnam has 48 outposts; the Philippines, 8; China, 8; Malaysia, 5, and
Taiwan, 1."
In the past 20 years, according to the United States, China has not physically occupied
additional features. By contrast, Vietnam has doubled its holdings, and much of that activity
has occurred recently. The Vietnamese occupations appear to have increased from 30 to 48 in
the last six years.
Shear also pointed out that as of his speech, China did not have an airfield as other
claimants did. He said:
All of these same claimants have also engaged in construction activity of differing scope and
degree. The types of outpost upgrades vary across claimants but broadly are comprised of land
reclamation, building construction and extension, and defense emplacements. Between 2009 and
2014, Vietnam was the most active claimant in terms of both outpost upgrades and land
reclamation, reclaiming approximately 60 acres. All territorial claimants, with the exception
of China and Brunei, have also already built airstrips of varying sizes and functionality on
disputed features in the Spratlys."
Seems like they are operating as a National Socialist system now. The means of production
are owned by corporations but a powerful government keeps close control and directs business
activities to the benefit of the nation. The owners are rewarded with wealth and the
government advances their mutual interests for national progress.
They also place a heavy emphasis on cultural and racial pride.
Downside of course is that the types of civil liberties we enjoy are constricted and getting
out of line gets you smacked real good, sometimes supposedly up to the point of bullet to the
back of your head, and your family gets billed for the bullet.
A tough system to compete against unless the powers-that-be lacking effective external checks
and balance do something stupid like invade Russia or bomb Pearl Harbor.
The USA is character disordered. Demonize, belittle, bellicosity, and outright war. All we
need is liberty and enforcement of property rights and we'd be leaving the Chinese and
everyone else in the dust.
With the strangulation of our economy at home through the unconstitutional
regulatory/administrative law colossus, instead of outgrowing our competitors we wish to
shoot them down.
The term "Contain China" aptly demonstrates our stupidity insofar as forward thinking is
concerned. You don't improve your lot by dedicating yourself to holding others down. It
doesn't work in athletics, education, in relationships, or in free enterprise.
So it is odd to see nary a whit of protest to the idea when it should be ridiculed on the
face of it.
I do of course see the same worn-out playbook of demonize, demonize, demonize being used
by the Washington establishment. We have to "do something" about China. Not do something to
our appalling education performance, savings and capital formation, strangulatory laws,
etc.
I married into a Filipino family and have a house there. The Filipinos were fond of saying
that the USA wanted to fight to the last Filipino over the South China Sea. They've been
smart enough to work with the Chinese, who are investing billions of dollars there developing
hydrocarbons and ports for transhipment like Singapore instead of launching a foolhardy war
with China.
When I encounter people screeching about Chinese aggression against the poor little
Filipinos or fiction about threats to international shipping it really strikes me how out of
their minds people can be. We want to see our family working on ships there, not dying in a
foolhardy confrontation. The Chinese have a long history of trading and running businesses in
the Philippines. It is only our invincible ignorance, arrogance, and narcissism that results
in a failure to see why the Philippines has turned towards China.
I go through Shanghai Pudong a lot and over the years it has been obvious how the people
have become wealthier, how the infrastructure has stepped up to first world standards, and
how smart/snappy the people are. We are really underestimating the Chinese and making a lot
of self-serving rationalizations for their success.
We need to fix our own failings instead of trying to cut others down. China is already
larger in GDP and can easily be twice ours before 2030 with relative growth rates the way
they are.
China showed own impotence and lack of serious military capabilities in that war.
Vietnamese forces were not even participating while local militia was kicking Chinese
military back side. They obviously had to withdraw telling they gave a lesson. It is typical
Chinese way to cut losses and avoid total loss of face aka du lian.
It looks like lots of people think that country with 1.4 billion population can prosper long
term and keep rising living standards of her population in the future on limited planet. They
so far have managed to achieve improvements but at a cost of long term sustainability. Their
ecological troubles are of huge magnitude and so are debt and demographic issues. We are
already at each other throats fighting for diminishing resources, so it is highly doubtful
Chinese or Indian projects can last.
To be fair, comparing nominal military budgets can be very misleading and just dumb.
Sure, they are an easy way to rank different different militaries, but when you compare
Western vs. Emerging powers and their military budgets, or countries with their large-scale
MICs (which to be fair, there are only a few USA, Russia, China, France to some extent, India
in the future, but certainly not today) vs. weapons exporters, the results are largely BS.
Price levels are so different. Not to mention that the maintenance costs in the US military
are absolutely massive.
Currently Russia is a great example. The devaluation is basically irrelevant for the
Russian military. It should be obvious that Saudi Arabian military doesn't have a higher
budget. The US certainly doesn't have 10-15 times more resources at its disposal. Russia
spends rubles, it doesn't import weapons. So in reality the difference vs. the US something
like 4x at most.
China is the same. The yuan has devalued vs. the dollar, so in dollar terms their growth
has stagnated, which doesn't have anything to do with reality.
So overall, in comparable terms, let's say that the US spends $600 billion. In that
case:
Russia spends atleast 120-150 billion
China spends atleast 250 billion, probably closer to 300 billion
And whereas the US capabilities are spread all around the world, Russia and China are focused
on their backyards.
So in reality China's "real" military spending is atleast something like 40% of the US
level already, not less than 1/4,.
The Sovs or the Chicoms would have sent Petras to the gulag ages ago. In the enlightened
West, we merely consign him to places like UR, thus marginalising him and making it
increasingly difficult to eke out a living. See Fred Reed's piece on columnists and wonder
why more of them don't end up sucking on the business end of a firearm when they fail to toe
the party line.
Hard to get balance on this topic because it is human nature to favour false champions &
heroes & rivals fake 'opposition' Don't like USA-Nato? Why then, plenty of fanboys to
offer you Russia, China, Iran etc James Petras as above, André Vltchek, Andrei 'The
Saker' Raevsky, Dick Cheney's hoaxer friend 'Edward Snowden', Netanyahu's hoaxer friend
Julian Assange etc all selling 'opposition hero' tickets
The West has lots of stupid anti-China rubbish, sure but let's recall the Chinese official
who said they learned how to do fake statistics & propaganda from Yank Americans The
China reality is as follows:
China was the prime beneficiary of the global credit bubble 1990s-2000s, they will crash
along with the rest of the world when all blows up, but crash worse because bad China debt is
so huge think USA 1929, it won't stop China's long-term rise, but they will have a horrible
decade & maybe ChiComs will lose power in the upheaval
China is a huge US-style bully, ask ASEAN people privately, or other Asians but as seen
with the USA, other countries feel they must kiss up to the bully whilst e.g., Vietnam has
been a bully to Cambodia on smaller scale
China, Russia, Iran do some things right, principally working to see that middle classes
rise & expand & most people are better off economically, for as long as they were
able to do this, Turkey's Erdogan too, it is a magic formula, like Hitler's 1930s Germany
economic success
But all of these US 'rivals' have skeletons in the closet, hundreds of slow-torture
hangings & killing women by stones annually in Iran, China's thousands of executions
& ethnic repression & sea-lane bullying, Russia's past killing of perhaps 100,000
Muslims just to keep Chechnya-Dagestan oil & gas income
But pundits need someone to love & admire & promote the fake 'hero' the fake
'opposition' in the West the mafia gangsterism we know best is the US-Nato kind, so we go
gaga over fake 'dissident' or foreign 'heroes' served up to us There are 'good things' in the
West despite the bullying mass-killing horrors ditto with China Russia etc,, & people
ignore the bad when they hero-worship, either East or West
The fake 'hero opposition' is the most successful of all oligarch memes It's plain as day,
for example, that Dick Cheney's little friend, anti-9-11-truth, nothing-really-new 'Edward
Snowden' is a fraud along with Rothschild employee & ex-gay-p-rnographer Glenn Greenwald
Snowden maybe already having helped identify, silence, kill real dissidents duped into
contacting Greenwald or his NY Times or UK Guardian pumpers yet most still eagerly hold on to
fake 'opposition hero' themes, China or Russia, or Assange or 'Snowden' -
Yes that's true, but Astuteobservor is also correct that the paragraph as written is
inaccurate and misleading. It should be amended, imo, as it's a blot on an otherwise very
good and timely piece. It's an anti-missile system, not one that can attack cities, and it's
kinetic not nuclear armed.
I love prof. Petraus. But wages itself do not reflect reality. (Growth of the wages
maybe)
Wages must be accompanied by price of bread and price of rent.
Volume of production allows larger engineering and research and development sections.
That is the most significant factor in the competition in the world.
After the Vietnam War, the Vietnamese claimed they were the 3rd strongest nation in the
world based on the the amount of military hardware left behind by the US, and the Vietnamese
started to invade China to reclaim their "entitled land, " and conqure Laos and Cambodia to
build their Great Indo-China Federation. The Sino-Vietnam war was the war Chinese repelled
Vietnamese invadors just like war in 1962, China repelled Indian invadors in Tibet.
Downside of course is that the types of civil liberties we enjoy are constricted and
getting out of line gets you smacked real good
Where do people get the romantic notion that we enjoy civil liberties?
Anyone who reads of Lincoln's, Wilson's, FDR's and GWB's ( to name a few) wholesale
dismissal of civil liberties could write a book on the subject.
I'd like to know how we can possibly have much by way of said liberties in a centralized,
bureaucratized, militarized, police state effectively owned and ruled by vicious
oligarchs.
Our loss of civil liberties began long ago.
"But while I beheld with pleasure the dawn of liberty rising in Europe, I saw with
regret the lustre of it fading in America
But a faction, acting in disguise, was rising in America; they had lost sight of first
principles. They were beginning to contemplate government as a profitable monopoly, and the
people as hereditary property ."
THOMAS PAINE TO THE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES,
And particularly to the Leaders of the Federal Faction.
LETTER I, Nov 15,1802
"The enlightened part of Europe have given us the greatest credit for inventing the
instrument of security for the rights of the people and have been not a little surprised to
see us so soon give it up."
Thomas Jefferson letter to Francis Hopkinson of March 13, 1789
Men haven't got the freedom today that they had when the Constitution was written. The
men in the West had a great deal of freedoms more than the men in the East
who copied the traditions of Europe.
-Jeanette Rankin, interview ~1977
Rankin, running as a Republican Progressive, was the first woman voted to congress
Well, I suppose I might say "relative" civil liberties. To your point, yes, as soon as we
started exercising our inherent, inalienable liberties, State and commercial actors started
working to turn them from natural rights to licenses that may be granted by the State only as
long as it served the purposes of the State.
It is hard not to imagine that the Chinese system, in contrast to Western Liberal-Democracy,
is the wave of the future. What is more is that China will invariably increase its
geopolitical influence in the coming decades.
Most comments on the Sino Vietnamese War reveals quite a lot of ignorance about it.
When Deng Xiaopeng and Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore first met, Lee Kuan Yew began with
thanking him for the China's kinetic military R2P mission
Why?
Lee Kuan Yew had operational plans to deploy a Singapore military force to Thailand and
their army was manned largely by conscripted teenagers mostly. He had to sell the public to
send their sons to war because it be too late if they had to fight the Vietnamese when they
were across in Malaysia, so fight now. The Vietnamese were already having skirmishes the
Thais across the Mekong.
Next, the PLA was pretty dismissive of Vietnam, told Deng, we would not need to use no
stinking air power. Just the army would suffice. Why? Giap was "assisted" by a couple of
Chinese generals through the Vietnam War. Walk in the park.
Turned out it wasn't a walk in the park but it was comfortable enough that the PLA got
themselves into artillery range of Hanoi and deployed and use their arty units but not
hitting Hanoi. Then while being not a walk in the park and thus egg in their face operation
which Deng then used as leverage over the generals about PLA reform, it remained comfy enough
that the PLA began a sure and steady scorch earth withdrawal.
And those Vietnamese troop concentrations across the Mekong were gone and Lee Kuan Yew was
one happy camper alright.
The sight of those artillery units with range of Hanoi and the scorch earth withdrawal
left quite an impression on Giap who till his death warned the rest of the Vietnamese elite
never to go to war with China.
And it didn't end with the withdrawal. Deng may have been so taken by Lee Kuan Yew's words
that he scheduled regular border incursions to keep the Vietnamese on their toes thru the
80s. Or maybe he didn't like the subsequent pogroms against the Hoa and who inspite of this
are now the lords of commerce in Vietnam.
But all these are old musty stuff.
And the anti China propaganda never really worked and doesn't really matter as FDI into
China grew and grew with years passing. Heck even Netanyahu knows who is buttering his toast.
Cut ties over the UNSC vote? Nah smoke and mirrors probably for local politics reasons.
The conservative estimates of Chinese abortions since the mid-1970s is over 400 million.
China is the fastest, aging country in the world. The Chinese were never that smart to begin
with (contra propaganda from Jews and white degenerates who marry the Chinese). In the 1980s
Japan was going to take over the world. Place your bets on Caucasian/European Christians,
pagans.
Get back to us when the rule of law in China is such that China is considered a safe haven
for capital -- when Chinese with money stop voting with their feet about that -- when Chinese
women stop 'birth tourism' to the US -- when Chinese students desperate to gain entry to a
good US university stop cheating on the SAT -- also, perhaps talk to the numerous victims of
Chinese 'reverse merger' etc stock scams, people who have no recourse because the Chinese
government refuses to cooperate.
Two elite Vietnamese divisions that kicked the American out of South Vietnam were
destroyed by the PLA in that short period of time. The Vietnamese central government had to
vacate Hanoi before the PLA's bombardment of Hanoi. Without Deng's order PLA would divide
Vietnam in two again. Finally the American was on China's side on the war to punish the
Vietnamese; the American was so grateful that Chinese took vengeance against the Vietnamese
for them.
Russian should know Russia is not USSR, and they should not be upset when USSR's
incompetence is mentioned and troll fake news with boiling blood neck.
so just how much has Mr. Xi paid you for this piece?
1) Actual salaries are irrelevant as you ought to know because in the end it boils down to
PPP.
2) Mr. Xi "remove" – ought to be "removal" btw is simply political battle for survival
using "corruption" as an excuse. Should Mr. Xi be serious about fighting real corruption, 99%
or more of entire politburo incl. himself ought to have been executed or in jail.
3) How about PRC destruction of Philippine's corrals (from another left wing publication
– http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-35106631
)
4) Artificial islands (weaponized) in South China sea?
Look US is as much war criminal as PRC – it is just that your Goebbels-like (or
should I say Lev Davidovic like) propaganda makes me want to throw up.
I really enjoy UNZ for offering different – usually independent and critical –
platform.
Your article is beyond disgrace a la New York Times / WaPo / Pravda /Rt.com / Spiegel /
Xinhua and other "news" sources. Perhaps you might consider publishing there and stop
polluting independent websites.
Thomas
PS I have visited PRC and Taiwan about 20 times, speak passable Mandarin and live with a
Chinese born partner FYI.
It seems here is another insect in the US dismal swamps trolling zero-sum cold war
mentality wet dream. You should know Chinese lend RMB to the locals to bust growth and
Chinese can print RMB thru the thin air just like the Fed, in addition China has already set
up state owned funds to offload banks' debt load in exchange for their equity ownership, so
the banks are back to healthy books and do the lending again just like the Fed, it is
puzzling why such sophisticate safety mechanism will allow bad loans preventing fresh loans
to be made.
Not doing the American bidding is black mark? Wow, this is surely an example of American
exceptionalism without bound.
Would you accept that the USA is a 'God-fearing' morally defunct evil 'puritan' nation? If
you don't then you should not take what you are fed from cradle to grave the propaganda
cooked up by those insects with a mindset belonging to the past, stalled in the old days of
colonialism and constrained by the zero-sum cold war mentality from their dismal swamps.
China has not engaged the rest of the world in military confrontation, colonialist
adventurism and wars while establishing itself on the world stage. Perhaps they have learned
something from Western History (or the failures of), or the teachings of Confucius. I suspect
the latter, for they have not done very well when practicing the forceful and brutal ways of
the West.
They are on a roll, and it looks like they will get there, and probably stay there, for
some time to come.
I do not like the way Newsweek Columnist, F. Zakaria
(the neocon ? I don't know exactly what to call him, but I am sure the Indians have a term
for one of their own who joined the British Raj, put on their pretty uniforms, took their
pay, and began to see himself as one of them, pure, high and mighty in his new white skin,
topee and title, ever the S'arn't Major, never the Brigadier!, with riding crop and bayonet,
and boots with which to downtrod!)
writes, or the things he usually writes about, but his article "Does the Future Belong to
China?" was right on the money to me. I'll give credit to the support he seems to have had
from other writers worldwide, which may be, perhaps, what makes it so good and, in my
opinion, prophetic.
He writes: "When historians look back at the last decades of the 20th century, they
might well point to 1979 as a watershed. That year the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan,
digging its grave as a superpower. It was also the year that China began its economic
reforms. They were launched at a most unlikely gathering, the Third Plenum of the 11th
Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, held in December 1978. Before the formal
meetings, at a working-group session, the newly empowered party boss, Deng Xiaoping, gave a
speech that turned out to be the most important one in modern Chinese history. He urged
that the regime focus on development and modernization, and let facts-not ideology-guide
its path. "It doesn't matter if it is a black cat or a white cat," Deng often said. "As
long as it can catch mice, it's a good cat." Since then, China has done just that, pursued
a modernization path that is ruthlessly pragmatic and non-ideological. The results have
been astonishing. China has grown around 9 percent a year for more than 25 years, the
fastest growth rate for a major economy in recorded history. In that same period it has
moved 300 million people out of poverty and quadrupled the average Chinese person's income.
And all this has happened, so far, without catastrophic social upheavals. The Chinese
leadership has to be given credit for this historic achievement. There are many who
criticize China's economic path. They argue that the numbers are fudged, that corruption is
rampant, that its banks are teetering on the edge, that regional tensions will explode,
that inequality is rising dangerously and that things are coming to a head. For a decade
now they have been predicting, "This cannot last, China will crash, it cannot keep this
up." So far at least, none of these prognoses has come true. And while China has many
problems, it also has something any Third World country would kill for-consistently high
growth."
We are living in changing times, and the times are changing at an ever increasing
exponential rate!
*Worst of all, Western 'Asia' experts and scholars try 'role reversal':
While US bases and ships increasingly encircle China, the Chinese become the aggressors
and the bellicose US imperialists whine about their victim-hood.*
Like i say,
ROBBER CRYING OUT ROBBERY.
Of all the slimy traits of the unitedsnake, this one takes the cake !
Washington has just invaded Syria, its 500th victim since 1785.
To Assad's protest of illegal invasion, Centcom commander Votel sniffs,
'We'r going after the ISIS , we dont need no stinking permission from nobody'
The hubris befitting the world's no 1 rogue state !
Monsul in Iraq is being 'turned to shards' ala Fallujah.
this time 'no more stinking rule of engagement that tie one hand behind our back, this time
we fight to win' ,
promised Trump the
'anti establishment' prez ! [1]
Already civilian casualties have runned into the hundreds.
In Yemen, the Washington sponsored genocidal war waged by Saudis rages on.
Its another gigantic shooting fish in a barrel slaughter where the
coalition of killing [usa/saudi/UAE] seal off the whole country then pummel the trapped
populace with F16, Apache gunships and artillery. Its Fallujah x 1000 . !
Meanwhile in Oz where permier Li Ke Qiang is visiting,
the ever so santimonous press/ pundits ponder,
' We already have our friends in Washington who share our values in human rights and rule
of law ,
why should we engage this 'human rights abuser and SCS bully,?'
What fucked up mind,
What a fucked up world !
[1]
Nam/Iraq were 'restrained' wars ?
Only in the USA,
Where the inmates are running the asylum !
Nuclear armed THADD? This sentence alone betrays a lot of the authors ignorance. Ignoring the
fact that the name of the weapons system is THAAD (Terminal High Altidude Area Defense),
which could be a simple typo, even a short Google search would have shown the author that
THAAD-missiles do not even carry explosives, much less nuclear bombs.
THAAD missiles are basically bullets that rely on kinetic impact alone to destroy incoming
ballistic missiles. Even if they somehow could be nuclear armed, their range is only 200 kms
which is nowhere near enough to reach China from South Korea.
China's objection to the system being stationed in Korea is not that the missiles are an
offensive threat, but that THAAD's powerful radar could be used to see deep into Chinese
territory.
It took until 22 comments for anyone to really take a look at reality. These article
always only look at one side of the balance sheet. China has gone on a MASSIVE printing spree
to achieve the "growth" they currently have, the US is no better but for some reason facts
matter for the US.
China also has a demographic (as was mentioned in another comment) time bomb waiting in
the wings (just like all western nations) and yet it's also never mentioned in these "China =
great, USA = lame" hit pieces.
A market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent.
And finally, what is the author really saying? That socialism or quasi communism is a
better economic system? It appears so
p.s. And apparently China economic statistics are honest and accurate at least to this
author.
One is reminded that, contrary to popular propaganda, Malthus was right. It is an iron law
of development that no nation has become prosperous until AFTER fertility rates moderated.
(it is mostly the RATE of population increase, not absolute numbers).
Under Mao the government deliberately created a massive population explosion – and
when that was (predictably) a disaster did an about face. It was ugly – and would not
have been needed at all except for the initial pro-natalist policies – but it has given
China a chance to progress.
India has seen economic growth higher than China's – and all swallowed up by ever
more people.
Mexico, the United States, and South America all have aggressive policies aimed at
maximizing population growth – with, again, predictable results. Wages for the many go
down and profits for the few go up.
Yes there is more to it than just demographics. But demographics are nevertheless
powerful. And the Chinese government has apparently decided not to cancel out the effects of
high wages by increasing the supply of people. At least for now.
In the USA. a war of opposing certitudes and denunciations is waged day to day between the
long-ruling US corporate media and the White House. Both continuously proclaim ringing
recriminations of the other's 'fake news'. Over months they both portray each other as
malevolent liars.
To the Americans anything does not fit their liking is fake news, malevolent liars, even
including their elected president.
Shouldn't all the governments be "Government of the people, by the people, for the people"
regardless their ideology? It seems you have been brainwashed from cradle to grave and are so
deep in the ideology that you don't know what a government is for.
I know it hurts, but China failed to achieve war objectives hence masquerading as lesson
given and withdrawal. Chinese army lost lost about 10% of total army strength and had to
withdraw. While USSR did not participate directly Soviet advisors were helping with military
operational planning.
I also forgot to mention that what we see in China is US manufacturing moved there. USA
can blame only herself for creating her geopolitical rival. Avarice is a mortal sin. It was
never enough for US propertied classes. As Marx told that for 100% returns capitalist are
ready to break own neck and there is no crime capitalists would not commit for 300% annual
returns. So, destroying own country's future, I mean USA, is a small pickle.
When I first time came to China in 1988, many steal wore Mao suits and the country was dirt
poor. China with or without Deng did not have resources and know hows to rise without outside
investments on massive scale.
Material domination has supplanted spiritual development as the primary goal of western
society, when everyone else despises that approach to life.
I don't think shacking up with your partner without marriage plans, or the glamorization
of homosexuality and pornography will ever gain approval in traditionalist China.
murkkans like to bleat about their 'freedom' to choose their leaders.
Well every four/eight years that vaunted system offers them a choice bet the likes of Bush
senior/Bush junior/Clinton the sex fiend/Clinton the witch/Obomber/Donald *The swamp thing*
Trump,
the end result being a continuous streak of 45 war criminals in the WH.
Well if thats something to be proud about,
good luck to them !
"Chinese can print RMB thru the thin air just like the Fed"
Explain how a high rate of inflation will not disrupt economic stability and therefore
growth.
"China has already set up state owned funds to offload banks' debt load in exchange for
their equity ownership"
The equity ownership is in companies that are troubled is not worth much. What you are
therefore talking about is not an exchange but write downs equivalent to hundreds of billions
of dollars. To put it in the most elementary way, the depletion of resources to write down
hundreds of billions of dollars of bad loans diverts finite resources that would otherwise be
used for new lending.
"Not doing the American bidding is black mark"
Do you recognize there are various positions besides against us or with us? So not
supporting China publicly using threats of war to settle disputes (e.g. a general appearing
on state tv threatening war against the Philippines during the height of the diplomatic
dispute in 2014), in your mind means being pro-American, anti-Chinese. Do you recognize there
are several other positions than simply either being this or that?
"Under Mao the government deliberately created a massive population explosion – and
when that was (predictably) a disaster did an about face."
What?! Under Mao, well BEFORE the 1-child policy of the late 1970s, fertility had dropped
off to ~3. That would be from ~6 around the time of the revolution.
Perhaps you are unaware that, globally, serious poverty has declined dramatically over the
last 20 years -- and it is ALL (yes, 100%) due to the lifting of hundreds of millions of
Chinese poor people out of poverty. The wages of those formerly-poor people reflect a new,
much-improved reality.
The clearest way to articulate what's going on with placing a 'missile defence' system
next to North Korea (and thus close to China) is that it's (1) tactically defensive, to be
used against any incoming missiles, and (2) strategically aggressive, being used close to
someone else's borders to enable an aggressive strike. The same is true of 'missile defence'
systems set up in Poland against Russia.
Iraq war was the war for oil... Bush was just a puppet.
Notable quotes:
"... Erik Edstrom is a graduate of the West Point class of 2007. He was an infantry officer, Army Ranger, and Bronze Star Medal recipient who deployed to direct combat in Afghanistan. ..."
In George W. Bush's home state of Texas, if you are an ordinary citizen found guilty of capital
murder, the mandatory sentence is either life in prison or the death penalty. If, however, you are
a former president of the United States responsible for initiating two illegal wars of aggression,
which killed 7,000
U.S. servicemen and at least
210,000 civilians
, displaced more than
10 million people
from their homes, condoned torture, initiated a global drone assassination campaign, and imprisoned
people for years without substantive evidence or trial in Guantanamo Bay, the punishment evidently
is to be given the Thayer Award at West Point.
On October 19th, George W. Bush traveled to the United States Military Academy, my alma mater
, to receive the
Sylvanus Thayer
Award at a ceremony hosted by that school's current superintendent and presented on behalf of
the West Point Association of Graduates. The honor is "given to a citizen whose outstanding character,
accomplishments, and stature in the civilian community draw wholesome comparison to the qualities
for which West Point strives."
... ... ...
Erik Edstrom is a graduate of the West Point class of 2007. He was an infantry officer, Army
Ranger, and Bronze Star Medal recipient who deployed to direct combat in Afghanistan.
Bush is a war criminal and should not be rewarded for upholding moral standards,
he should be in prison or on the end of a piano wire.
But, the seed does not fall far from the tree (from which both should hang).
Lt Col Pete Kilner styles himself an ethicist and teaches/counsels ethics and morality to West
Pointers and helps military personnel deal with post-engagement moral issues. Kilner published
this essay a few days ago:
MORAL MISCONCEPTIONS: FIVE FLAWED ASSUMPTIONS CONFUSE MORAL JUDGMENTS ON WAR
imo nearly every argument Kilner makes to refute the "5 misconceptions" are childishly simplistic;
some rely on distortions or omissions of key facts.
For example, Kilner writes:
Misconception 4
Motives must be pure:The 1990–91 First Gulf War was a paradigm case of a just war.
Iraq invaded and occupied Kuwait, and the U.S. and other countries assisted Kuwaiti forces
in liberating their country and re-establishing their government. Critics of the war claim
that the United States' involvement was motivated by a desire to keep oil prices low. Even
if they are right, would it matter?
No, the Gulf War was NOT a "paradigm case of a just war." Just war theory / Jus Ad Bellum
Convention holds that the just war must:
have just cause, be a last resort, be declared by a proper authority, possess right intention,
have a reasonable chance of success, and the end must be proportional to the means used. .
. http://www.iep.utm.edu/justwar/#H2
First of all, if you have to lie to gain assent to wage war, then any moral claim to having
a just cause is null.
Incubator babies??
In almost every other way the Persian Gulf war waged by George H W Bush violated jus ad bellum
principles but especially:
War should always be a last resort. This connects intimately with presenting a just cause
– all other forms of solution must have been attempted prior to the declaration of war.
As Vernon Loeb
recorded -- and the
George
H W Bush archives as examined by historian Jeff Engel affirm, King Hussein of Jordan, in concert
with other Arab leaders, had achieved a resolution to which Saddam would have agreed, and repeatedly
asked Bush to let the Arabs take care of their own conflict. Likewise, Mikhael Gorbachev persisted
to the point of annoyance in calling Bush and urging him NOT to go to war to resolve the conflict.
Bush shouted at him and ignored his advice.
All other options had NOT been exhausted.
The Berlin wall had fallen, USSR and Gorbachev no longer had power to counterbalance US power;
George H W Bush was King of the Mountain and he wielded his power recklessly. The world is still
reeling -- and hundreds of thousands are dead, because of his reckless disregard of thousand-year
old principles of Justice in War.
It's astonishing that an ethicist who teaches West Pointers did not make this basic analysis.
In summary, if Lt. Col. Pete Kilner is representative of the "moral foundation" provided West
Point cadets, the institution -- and the United States that, according to a Gallup poll, trusts
the military more than any other institution in USA -- are in deeper trouble than Erik Erdstrom
comprehends.
Previously had the impression that Dubya was a dumb but decent person, manipulated by others.
I didn't know for example his eager participation in the speechmaking/lecture circus. This mental
picture has changed somewhat in recent years, but I remained greatly ignorant of a lot of details.
Now these two articles about him shed some light how he really is a piece of shit, just like the
others. Maybe not so extremely dumb, though.
This article is (sadly) on the money. However, it is just another illustration revealing the mockery
that most such prestigious awards have made of themselves in recent years. Awarding Barack Obama
the Nobel Prize was one recent instance of this – a president that at one point had us engaged
in seven wars at once. But at least in that case, it can be claimed that the award was aspirational,
as the totality of his "accomplishment" did not become a matter of record until after the award
was made. In the case described above, the honor is being awarded with full knowledge of the recipient's
history.
Trump's brutal comment to the dead soldier in Florida was on the money: That's what you signed
up for. It would be gratifying to think that Trump knew exactly what he was saying; Scott Adams
thinks Trump is a master communicator. Conversely, tragic to hear the Florida Rep gripe that she
was so upset at Trump's callousness because she "had mentored the young man and helped him get
in the military." That's just like helping you get a job with Goldman Sachs, right? No risk, no
moral quandaries. re Lt Col Kilner -- he's Chhristiian: here's a piece he wrote for Christianity
Today:
Thank you for that link. A VERY GOOD article. A gem really. Some parts I found particularly
good:
This insight is that combat deployments affect our souls so deeply because they allow us
to taste something of heaven and hell, in ways that civilian life rarely does. The profound
purpose, unity, and love that soldiers in a small unit experience is almost impossible to replicate
outside of war; it is a foretaste of heaven. At the same time, the dehumanizing suffering and
apparent absence of God that characterize a war zone instruct veterans on how awful human existence
can be; there's a reason we say "war is hell."
Soldiers are pawns in a conflict started by others.
And for the first time in most soldiers' lives, we encounter undisguised evil.
Hidden beneath the ugly destructiveness of war, however, is a sublime beauty that is known
only to the veterans who have experienced it.
The greater the dangers and adversity that soldiers face and overcome, the greater those
bonds. Some soldiers become closer to each other than to their own families.
, it explains why soldiers want to be deployed. We're not warmongers; we're longing for
another taste of heaven alongside other warriors. Second, it explains why life outside of war
can seem so mundane and even meaningless. Having gone through heaven and hell, our everyday
lives can feel like limbo.
We've seen what humans are capable of, for better and for worse. Reflecting on our experiences
of war, we are alternately inspired and appalled. We have glimpsed what was previously unimaginable:
the happiness of heaven, the desolation of hell.
I'm not sure why that's supposed to be surprising. Leadership across swathes of institutions has
abdicated their responsibility to lead or govern and instead adopted baby-sitting and appeasement.
Solonto: You've posted more than 2,600 comments on this website? "You" are likely a group of
Russians working full time to sow discord. But let's charitably assume that you're a real person.
Your knowledge of the history of the 1990-91 Gulf War is terrible. I assume that you were too
young to remember the events leading up to it. Watch President George H. W. Bush's speech to the
world and learn:
That may be the best explanation in terms of Just War you'll ever hear a politician give. He
checks every block of jus ad bellum.
Also, about your snide comment, "Lt Col Pete Kilner styles himself an ethicist." I have a masters
degree in philosophical ethics from an excellent program, and I've researched, written on, and
taught ethics for 20 years. I may "style" myself a comedian or good dancer, but I'm pretty well-credentialed
as an ethicist.
Obama turned war itself into a prolonged assassination campaign via remote drone and he awarded
himself every conceivable medal. Previous administrations successfully circumvented genocide as
a crime against humanity by raining annihilation from the skies. Which part of the government
of our country do you fail to understand?
"This past Summer, after months of private discussions about POW treatment at Gitmo, the
Red Cross openly declared the US Government in violation of the Geneva Conventions based upon
first hand reports from Cuba "
Why doesn't the Red Cross do something useful, like making the same claim about Puerto Rico?
Then we'd be forced to grant them independence. It's way overdue.
I was around 1990/91 and I followed what was happening. I do not agree with SolontoCroesus
take on Bush and Gulf War. I already once had exchanged comments with him about it, I think, but
my points did not make a dent.
Bush never looked thrilled to go to this war. I had impression that his arms had to be twisted.
He seemed like he would not mind letting Saddam Hussein slide. It was his meeting with Margaret
Thatcher in Aspen that changed everything. Bush built broad coalition including many Arab and
Muslim nations and went to war. He head to give $500 millions to Israel to keep them away and
not retaliating against Iraq in order to not upset Arab allies in the coalition.
The war was won. Bush did not go to Bagdad but only liberated Kuwait. It was reported in papers
that his popularity hit 90% which was 20% more than what Hitler got after the Anschluss of Austria
in 1938, as I remember thinking this at that time.
In summer 1991 Bush decided to use his political capital and tried to say no Israel illegal
settlements by holding money slated for Israel. Yitzhak Shamir got furious and the Lobby attacked.
Everybody was against hime. Most people did not know what was happening. Bush backed off and instead
of turning to American people and leveling with them on what was going on he only complained that
he was all alone in WH.
It was decided (I do not know how, when and where and by whom but it was decided nevertheless)
that Bush could not be trusted with the 2nd term. He did not take advantage of the golden opportunity
to occupy Iraq and then he had audacity to challenge Israel which last time happened in early
summer 1993 by JFK when said no to the development of nuclear weapons by Israel. So everything
was done what had to be done for him to lose. And he knew that it would be so. He did not fight.
He got impatient with the campaign and looked at his watch during the debate to show his disdain.
He had no chance to win. Ross Perot played the same role as Teddy Roosevelt in 1912 election to
deprive Taft the 2nd term. Unlike Roosevelt Ross Perot probably did not know what role he was
cast to play.
Why Bush did what he did? Why he did not occupy Iraq? Why he challenged Israel? My take is
that he really did not want this war. That he really believed that after the wall coming down
and Soviet Union falling apart America can change the course and start reducing military spending.
He seemed to really believe in the peace dividends. The end of the Cold War was his greatest achievement
and it was ruined by Saddam Hussein invasion of Kuwait. So the most important question is to find
out who TF whispered to Saddam Hussein's ear to convince him that he will get away with his attack
on Kuwait? The same people who wanted Iraq destroyed who eventually had it destroyed 12 years
later and all those who did not want peace dividends and who feared the cuts in military spending?
I think Bush knew who was really behind Hussain? Who screwed up his vision of post Cold War peace,
who deprived him of his legacy. So he said no to Israel when he had the highest approval rating
in recent history but then he chickened out. He was intimidated by something. In retrospect he
was not a bad guy but he wasted possibly the last opportunity to have America extricated from
the iron grip of the Lobby.
Just read the chapter on the Vietnam war by Howard Zinn A Peoples History of the USA. Or read
an Eisenhower letter, written after WWII, 'we should have killed much more Germans'. James Bacque,
´Der geplante Tod, Deutsche Kriegsgefangene in amerikanischen und französischen Lagern 1945 –
1946, Frankfurt/M, 1989, 1994 (Other losses, Toronto, 1989)
The United States Military Academy is, or at least should be, a steward of American military
values
But they are upholding American values, like lying, cheating, murdering, stealing, which is
what many American presidents, but definitely since President Clinton, have engaged in around
the world.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the liars with Operation Inherent Resolve, the gangster outfit
that is overseeing the 'Wars for Wall Street and Israel' in SW Asia and the ME, bomb to
smithereens civilians on a daily basis, then get in front of the cameras and LIE that they didn't
do it, it was those Rooskies. Then, when they're outed with evidence, they LIE again, promising
to investigate and that's the last you'll hear of the latest American-made mass murder. Aren't all those command types at Operation Butcher Muslims, sorry, Inherent Resolve West Point
or Annapolis graduates, that lie, cheat, steal and murder on a daily basis, yet they get their
chests festooned with medals from a grateful nation for being basically, unhinged psycho-killers,
so you see, West Point is upholding American values.
I have read elsewhere that Mr. Bush had the largest contingent of rabbis in his administration,
as advisors behind the scenes, to provide him with moral guidance. What is a person to make of
that? Was he that obtuse?
Thank you Mr. Edstrom!
Most of them annoy the bleep outta me because they seem like more of the sappy (unctuous even),over
romanticized, self aggrandizing, claptrap that we've come to expect from functionaries of the
state.
This, type of nonsense, in particular, galls me.:
Hidden beneath the ugly destructiveness of war, however, is a sublime beauty that is known
only to the veterans who have experienced it.
What a disgustingly hollow load of bulshit that is! Oh, but the rest of us, who haven't experienced
the "sublime beauty" of war, aren't counted amongst the anointed elite who know things the rest
of us mere mortals don't.
"Sublime beauty?"
Who do you think yer kidding? I was a grunt (volunteer, not drafted) in Vietnam, and I never
saw any beauty in war, sublime, mundane, or otherwise.
Here's how a man with integrity views the military.:
"Military life in general depraves men. It places them in conditions of complete idleness,
that is, absence of all rational and useful work; frees them from their common human duties,
also puts them into conditions of servile obedience to those of higher ranks than themselves."
― Leo Tolstoy Resurrection Or, The Awakening, 1899
In 1851 Tolstoy and his older brother went to the Caucasus where he joined the Russian army
as an artillery officer.
In 1854, during the Crimean War Tolstoy transferred to Wallachia to fight against the French,
British and Ottoman Empire and defend Sevastopol.
Here's what military establishments are really about; I wonder if they deal with this at West
Point, or in "ethics" classes.
A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions
to liberty. The means of defence against foreign danger have been always the instruments of
tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt
was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending,
have enslaved the people.
James Madison, Speech, Constitutional Convention (1787-06-29), from Max Farrand's Records
of the Federal Convention of 1787, vol. I [1] (1911), p. 465
Standing armies are un-American, and no amount of cloyingly romantic slight of hand with the
truth will change it. Here's all one needs to know about the "ethics" of state sponsored terrorism.:
Wherever an army is established, it introduces a revolution in manners, corrupts the morals,
propagates every species of vice, and degrades the human character."
Mercy Otis Warren, Revolution-era historian,
History of the Rise, Progress, and Termination of the American Revolution vol. 1, Ch3, 1805
But they are upholding American values, like lying, cheating, murdering, stealing, which
is what many American presidents, but definitely since President Clinton, have engaged in around
the world.
True, but one could argue that Lincoln was the first of the worst. Teddy Roosevelt, Wilson,
and FDR took hypocrisy and mockery of "American values" to new depths and it's been downhill since
then.
We have to face the fact that none of us is fit to wield the levers of so much power. To think
otherwise is positively deranged.
Also, about your snide comment, "Lt Col Pete Kilner styles himself an ethicist." I have
a masters degree in philosophical ethics from an excellent program, and I've researched, written
on, and taught ethics for 20 years.
I must tell you that the comment, whether snide or not, is spot on.
Your other credentials are worth about as much as Bush's award or O-bomb-a's "peace" prize,
and any adult should know that.
Still, as criminal as Bush and Obama's actions were, between Wilson, FDR, Truman, and Kennedy/Johnson,
there are way more Americans dead for nothing than these pikers killed.
Bush jr. and Bush sr. are both war criminals and were front men for the Zionists who really control
this country and both were complicit with Israel and the deep state in 911.
They are evil incarnate with satan and also their henchman Cheney, straight from hell.
Whatever one thinks of Trump, one must appreciate the public service that he did in utterly humiliating
Jeb! Bush and pretty much putting a stake in the heart of the Bush political dynasty. One takes
ones guilty pleasures where one finds them.
All of your comment is true and I'd like to add that the fetid scent of Zionist sympathies
can be detected at least as far back as Wilson and FDR as well, and probably even goes further
back.
This quote is interesting though I do not mean to conflate Judaism with Zionism.:
We recognize in Judaism, therefore, a general anti-social element of the present
time, an element which through historical development – to which in this harmful respect the
Jews have zealously contributed – has been brought to its present high level
In the final analysis, the emancipation of the Jews is the emancipation of mankind from
Judaism.
The Jew has already emancipated himself in a Jewish way.
"The Jew, who in Vienna, for example, is only tolerated, determines the fate of the whole
Empire by his financial power. The Jew, who may have no rights in the smallest German state,
decides the fate of Europe. While corporations and guilds refuse to admit Jews, or have
not yet adopted a favorable attitude towards them, the audacity of industry mocks at the obstinacy
of the material institutions." (Bruno Bauer, The Jewish Question, p. 114)
This is no isolated fact. The Jew has emancipated himself in a Jewish manner, not only
because he has acquired financial power, but also because, through him and also apart from
him, money has become a world power and the practical Jewish spirit has become the practical
spirit of the Christian nations. The Jews have emancipated themselves insofar as the Christians
have become Jews.
A someone very fond of the Bush family, I have to admit, as someone who opposed both conflict
(one outright) the other as to scale and purpose) this article is a very heavy indictment, less
of the executive but of members of congress, the foreign policy establishment and the military
advocates for invasion (men and women alike).
I have always thought that Pres Bush ignored his bet instincts on the matter and was ill advised.
I don't know what recompense the country will garner for our actions, but I don't think it has
yet come. We need to pull up and consider the dark space into which are knee-jerking our way into.
-- –
However, I don't think this is about Pres. Bush or even a stamp of approval on needless and
careless interventions as much as it an attempt to wedge the military against Pres Trump or tangentially
express discomfit by some in the higher echelons with the Pres.
Deeply appreciated this a article. No argument against those invasion penetrated the cloud
of revenge the country was bent on exacting. And it is deeply troubling – when the case against
invasion was so blatantly clear.
At West Point, it's still possible to believe that we are fighting in the interests of the
Afghan people
If that's true then they are mentally deficient. Mercenaries and the mentally defective working
under the leadership of the morally corrupt, the perfect dance partners.
I apologize to those who may find my comments excessive, but some of the attitudes expressed here
need to be confronted. I regret that I can't do it in person.
To those who postulate such insubstantial, quasi-profound, faux-poetic pornography, if not
swinishly orgasmic, fanciful hooey as:
combat deployments affect our souls so deeply because they allow us to taste something
of heaven and hell, in ways that civilian life rarely does. The profound purpose, unity,
and love that soldiers in a small unit experience is almost impossible to replicate outside
of war; it is a foretaste of heaven.
we're longing for another taste of heaven alongside other warriors . Second, it explains
why life outside of war can seem so mundane and even meaningless. Having gone through heaven
and hell , our everyday lives can feel like limbo.
Having gone through heaven and hell, our everyday lives can feel like limbo.
I say that Aristophanes, to name just one, saw through the self adulating humbug, millennia
ago.
SAUSAGE-SELLER
you wish the war to conceal your rogueries as in a mist , that Demos may see
nothing of them, and harassed by cares, may only depend on yourself for his bread. But if ever
peace is restored to him, if ever he returns to his lands to comfort himself once more with
good cakes, to greet his cherished olives, he will know the blessings you have kept him out
of, even though paying him a salary; and, filled with hatred and rage, he will rise, burning
with desire to vote against you. You know this only too well; it is for this you rock him
to sleep with your lies.
Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, and Obama all fit in the category of war criminal, and were there such
a thing as authentic and impartial international justice, they could all be in the dock of a new
Nuremberg Tribunal – albeit one without the kangaroo court and vae victis characteristics of the
eponymous one.
George Bush served in the Texas Air National Guard during Vietnam and his dad served as a naval
aviator during WWII. Quite a difference. At one time, the people who started wars fought in them. The last English king to serve in
combat was the much-maligned Richard III, killed at the Battle of Bosworth in 1485. James IV of
Scotland was killed at the Battle of Flodden Field in 1513. George II was commander at the Battle
of Dettingen in 1743.
Prince Harry saw service in Afghanistan and Andrew in the Falklands. So, the denigrated Royals
have a better track record than the elites in a democracy. In Robert Heinlein's Starship Trooper novel, only people who served their society in a dangerous
position had the right to vote. That would weed out almost of the "cloud people" who dominate
the West.
Bush II could be called a war criminal by reason of stupidity. The real culprit is the bastard
standing next to him in the picture. He controlled George W. Bush and was the real President.
To this day, he continues to push for war against Iran.
Blaming Bush for starting wars is sort of like blaming bin Laden for 9/11 or Putin for Hilary's
defeat. There were a lot more people involved in recent and ongoing US wars, including many people
from the "opposing" party, Joe Biden and Al Gore come to mind.
Previously had the impression that Dubya was a dumb but
He's obviously no intellectual and it's unlikely he's ever read any book on his own. He appears
to lack curiosity whatever his mental level may be. His speeches, like everyone else, are written
by others and just simply read as an actor reads their lines. However, his job was to deliver
and that he did in spades. He ratcheted up the security state to a historic level and diverted
trillions from the US treasury for the biggest gravy train ever. It's an income transfer scheme,
from the masses to the upper classes, all while scaring everyone with nonexistent hobgoblins.
He did nothing about unchecked illegal immigration, giving his constituency, the haves and the
have-mores, their cheap labor. Historians will argue as to who the worst president of all time
was and Bush's name will figure prominently. He'll be seen as one of the downward turning points
in American history, a person who ruined what was left of American credibility and pride. He had
a lot of enablers though, and did not act alone, standing astride a mountain of bones. So, smart
or not, the evil nature of this man will continue to cast it's shadow for years to come.
2013 Madeleine Korbel Albright • speech • biography • video
2012 Isaac Newton "Ike" Skelton • speech • biography
2011 Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates • speech • biography
2010 Honorable James A. Baker, III • speech • biography • photos
2009 H. Ross Perot • speech • biography • photos
2008 William J. Perry • article • biography
2007 General (Retired) Frederick Kroesen • speech • article • biography
2006 Tom Brokaw • speech • article •biography
I stopped with Tom Brokaw because that seems odd to most. Watch this funny and insightful Jimmy
Dore clip about how Brokaw was a no newsman, but a Pentagon bootlicker, hence the award.
I think what we can all be thankful is the fact that we are no longer dependant on the NY time/Washington
Post etc to see the World through their prizes l
President Bush may have been dumb or naive or he may have been smart. It's difficult to know what
a person really thinks. The Iraq war was a mistake but Bush the Younger also pushed for implementation
of other policies which look to be highly dubious. Does anyone remember "No Child left Behind"
or "The Housing Gap"? These two policies were hairbrained to say the least. Only a foolish person
could ever believe in such nonsense. He truly believed that we were all created equal, he was
they ultimate champion of the "Blank Slate" theory. A delusional fool who I actually voted for
in 2000.
Yes I think he was "A True Believer" in Social Justice causes.
I daresay that (((Howard Zinn))) approved of that.
Rather not. Zinn on one of his last missions as a member of USAF bomber crew was sent to bomb
with napalm large groupings of German soldiers who were just awaiting to surrender somewhere in
northern France. The front line past them and was much further West. He did not like it at all.
He thought that the only purpose of the mission was to test how the new napalm worked.
West Point? Isn't that some place where the Jooies indoctrinate their latest crop of servile Goy
Gurkhas? Change those posters to: Uncle Samuel Wants You with a pic of Samuel in his beanie pointing
a bony finger out at you, the suckers.
In Robert Heinlein's Starship Trooper novel, only people who served their society in a dangerous
position had the right to vote. That would weed out almost of the "cloud people" who dominate
the West.
Now, there is one country which adheres to that rule a bit:Israel.
Interesting, isn't it?
Easy, especially on sites like this, to heap abuse on, say, Netanyahu.
Just from Wikipedia, though:
Netanyahu joined the Israel Defense Forces shortly after the Six-Day War in 1967, and became
a team leader in the Sayeret Matkal special forces unit . Netanyahu took part in many
missions, including Operation Inferno (1968), Operation Gift (1968) and Operation Isotope (1972),
during which he was shot in the shoulder . Netanyahu fought on the front lines in the
War of Attrition and the Yom Kippur War in 1973, taking part in special forces raids along
the Suez Canal, and then leading a commando assault deep into Syrian territory.[3][4] Netanyahu
achieved the rank of captain before being discharged.
You have to give them: they got that right. Now, we'll see, say, 20 replies with 20 links each about .. .them .
Will keep the article busy though.
Interested in topic could just skip them.
Thanks for the article about how the elite soldiers are morally conditioned in these days.
Did they teach anything about General Smedley Butler? Some of his second thoughts he had?
What's the matter with these academics who run everthing now, are they senile?
Or, much worse, (maybe not though,) there is a policy on high, to effect the intentional dilution,
and then destruction of standards. Prominently, auspicious prizes given to idiots and worse scoundrels!
what's that do to the mental and moral health of the youths, will they wise up and see through
it and not show up?
No, just replaced with a lower order, who will be more monstrous .
All this decay of stuff is everywhere, who benefits Cui Bono? They don't need smart soldiers
what with robots and AI etc. and the real work is in dumbing down the peeps, for the eventual
enclosures .
Most of it's already been said above, but we've been a war nation for more than a generation.
Mr. Bush's predecessor bombed Iraq for years. Bush himself (or Cheney or whoever) turned it into
an official and seemingly permanent war, using what are now known to be bold-faced lies. Torture
as a matter of routine also started during Cheney's reign. Nobel Peace Prize Obama ramped us up
to 6 or 7 wars, normalized drone murder, and in his usual unctuous way told us to stop harping
on Abu Graib ("It's important we don't get too sanctimonious"). Now Mr. Trump is starting/threatening
even more war, complete with nukes, and bragging about the torture.
My point is that someone we don't even see is calling the shots, for all of them. These guys
on TV just work for them, and are paid handsomely. The awards they get mean even less than their
elections. I don't see us (the proletariat, wage slaves, trying to raise a family) ever even figuring
out what's going on, much less doing anything about it.
"The former president deserves a cold metal bench in a stockade awaiting trial, not an award and
a warm round of applause from the academy. No coffee table books featuring his paintings -- a
perverse form of macabre exhibitionism -- will atone for his actions. If West Point and its Association
of Graduates want to maintain any credible pretense of adhering to the values they claim to espouse,
they should revoke the most recent Thayer Award immediately."
NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. Excellent essay. What has happened to West Point to act this way?? No one with any sense could think of Bush
as anything other than a moron at best, a traitorous moron at worst. There must be an explanation–FOLLOW THE MONEY.
Iraq war was the war for oil... Bush was just a puppet.
Notable quotes:
"... Erik Edstrom is a graduate of the West Point class of 2007. He was an infantry officer, Army Ranger, and Bronze Star Medal recipient who deployed to direct combat in Afghanistan. ..."
In George W. Bush's home state of Texas, if you are an ordinary citizen found guilty of capital
murder, the mandatory sentence is either life in prison or the death penalty. If, however, you are
a former president of the United States responsible for initiating two illegal wars of aggression,
which killed 7,000
U.S. servicemen and at least
210,000 civilians
, displaced more than
10 million people
from their homes, condoned torture, initiated a global drone assassination campaign, and imprisoned
people for years without substantive evidence or trial in Guantanamo Bay, the punishment evidently
is to be given the Thayer Award at West Point.
On October 19th, George W. Bush traveled to the United States Military Academy, my alma mater
, to receive the
Sylvanus Thayer
Award at a ceremony hosted by that school's current superintendent and presented on behalf of
the West Point Association of Graduates. The honor is "given to a citizen whose outstanding character,
accomplishments, and stature in the civilian community draw wholesome comparison to the qualities
for which West Point strives."
... ... ...
Erik Edstrom is a graduate of the West Point class of 2007. He was an infantry officer, Army
Ranger, and Bronze Star Medal recipient who deployed to direct combat in Afghanistan.
Bush is a war criminal and should not be rewarded for upholding moral standards,
he should be in prison or on the end of a piano wire.
But, the seed does not fall far from the tree (from which both should hang).
Lt Col Pete Kilner styles himself an ethicist and teaches/counsels ethics and morality to West
Pointers and helps military personnel deal with post-engagement moral issues. Kilner published
this essay a few days ago:
MORAL MISCONCEPTIONS: FIVE FLAWED ASSUMPTIONS CONFUSE MORAL JUDGMENTS ON WAR
imo nearly every argument Kilner makes to refute the "5 misconceptions" are childishly simplistic;
some rely on distortions or omissions of key facts.
For example, Kilner writes:
Misconception 4
Motives must be pure:The 1990–91 First Gulf War was a paradigm case of a just war.
Iraq invaded and occupied Kuwait, and the U.S. and other countries assisted Kuwaiti forces
in liberating their country and re-establishing their government. Critics of the war claim
that the United States' involvement was motivated by a desire to keep oil prices low. Even
if they are right, would it matter?
No, the Gulf War was NOT a "paradigm case of a just war." Just war theory / Jus Ad Bellum
Convention holds that the just war must:
have just cause, be a last resort, be declared by a proper authority, possess right intention,
have a reasonable chance of success, and the end must be proportional to the means used. .
. http://www.iep.utm.edu/justwar/#H2
First of all, if you have to lie to gain assent to wage war, then any moral claim to having
a just cause is null.
Incubator babies??
In almost every other way the Persian Gulf war waged by George H W Bush violated jus ad bellum
principles but especially:
War should always be a last resort. This connects intimately with presenting a just cause
– all other forms of solution must have been attempted prior to the declaration of war.
As Vernon Loeb
recorded -- and the
George
H W Bush archives as examined by historian Jeff Engel affirm, King Hussein of Jordan, in concert
with other Arab leaders, had achieved a resolution to which Saddam would have agreed, and repeatedly
asked Bush to let the Arabs take care of their own conflict. Likewise, Mikhael Gorbachev persisted
to the point of annoyance in calling Bush and urging him NOT to go to war to resolve the conflict.
Bush shouted at him and ignored his advice.
All other options had NOT been exhausted.
The Berlin wall had fallen, USSR and Gorbachev no longer had power to counterbalance US power;
George H W Bush was King of the Mountain and he wielded his power recklessly. The world is still
reeling -- and hundreds of thousands are dead, because of his reckless disregard of thousand-year
old principles of Justice in War.
It's astonishing that an ethicist who teaches West Pointers did not make this basic analysis.
In summary, if Lt. Col. Pete Kilner is representative of the "moral foundation" provided West
Point cadets, the institution -- and the United States that, according to a Gallup poll, trusts
the military more than any other institution in USA -- are in deeper trouble than Erik Erdstrom
comprehends.
Previously had the impression that Dubya was a dumb but decent person, manipulated by others.
I didn't know for example his eager participation in the speechmaking/lecture circus. This mental
picture has changed somewhat in recent years, but I remained greatly ignorant of a lot of details.
Now these two articles about him shed some light how he really is a piece of shit, just like the
others. Maybe not so extremely dumb, though.
This article is (sadly) on the money. However, it is just another illustration revealing the mockery
that most such prestigious awards have made of themselves in recent years. Awarding Barack Obama
the Nobel Prize was one recent instance of this – a president that at one point had us engaged
in seven wars at once. But at least in that case, it can be claimed that the award was aspirational,
as the totality of his "accomplishment" did not become a matter of record until after the award
was made. In the case described above, the honor is being awarded with full knowledge of the recipient's
history.
Trump's brutal comment to the dead soldier in Florida was on the money: That's what you signed
up for. It would be gratifying to think that Trump knew exactly what he was saying; Scott Adams
thinks Trump is a master communicator. Conversely, tragic to hear the Florida Rep gripe that she
was so upset at Trump's callousness because she "had mentored the young man and helped him get
in the military." That's just like helping you get a job with Goldman Sachs, right? No risk, no
moral quandaries. re Lt Col Kilner -- he's Chhristiian: here's a piece he wrote for Christianity
Today:
Thank you for that link. A VERY GOOD article. A gem really. Some parts I found particularly
good:
This insight is that combat deployments affect our souls so deeply because they allow us
to taste something of heaven and hell, in ways that civilian life rarely does. The profound
purpose, unity, and love that soldiers in a small unit experience is almost impossible to replicate
outside of war; it is a foretaste of heaven. At the same time, the dehumanizing suffering and
apparent absence of God that characterize a war zone instruct veterans on how awful human existence
can be; there's a reason we say "war is hell."
Soldiers are pawns in a conflict started by others.
And for the first time in most soldiers' lives, we encounter undisguised evil.
Hidden beneath the ugly destructiveness of war, however, is a sublime beauty that is known
only to the veterans who have experienced it.
The greater the dangers and adversity that soldiers face and overcome, the greater those
bonds. Some soldiers become closer to each other than to their own families.
, it explains why soldiers want to be deployed. We're not warmongers; we're longing for
another taste of heaven alongside other warriors. Second, it explains why life outside of war
can seem so mundane and even meaningless. Having gone through heaven and hell, our everyday
lives can feel like limbo.
We've seen what humans are capable of, for better and for worse. Reflecting on our experiences
of war, we are alternately inspired and appalled. We have glimpsed what was previously unimaginable:
the happiness of heaven, the desolation of hell.
I'm not sure why that's supposed to be surprising. Leadership across swathes of institutions has
abdicated their responsibility to lead or govern and instead adopted baby-sitting and appeasement.
Solonto: You've posted more than 2,600 comments on this website? "You" are likely a group of
Russians working full time to sow discord. But let's charitably assume that you're a real person.
Your knowledge of the history of the 1990-91 Gulf War is terrible. I assume that you were too
young to remember the events leading up to it. Watch President George H. W. Bush's speech to the
world and learn:
That may be the best explanation in terms of Just War you'll ever hear a politician give. He
checks every block of jus ad bellum.
Also, about your snide comment, "Lt Col Pete Kilner styles himself an ethicist." I have a masters
degree in philosophical ethics from an excellent program, and I've researched, written on, and
taught ethics for 20 years. I may "style" myself a comedian or good dancer, but I'm pretty well-credentialed
as an ethicist.
Obama turned war itself into a prolonged assassination campaign via remote drone and he awarded
himself every conceivable medal. Previous administrations successfully circumvented genocide as
a crime against humanity by raining annihilation from the skies. Which part of the government
of our country do you fail to understand?
"This past Summer, after months of private discussions about POW treatment at Gitmo, the
Red Cross openly declared the US Government in violation of the Geneva Conventions based upon
first hand reports from Cuba "
Why doesn't the Red Cross do something useful, like making the same claim about Puerto Rico?
Then we'd be forced to grant them independence. It's way overdue.
I was around 1990/91 and I followed what was happening. I do not agree with SolontoCroesus
take on Bush and Gulf War. I already once had exchanged comments with him about it, I think, but
my points did not make a dent.
Bush never looked thrilled to go to this war. I had impression that his arms had to be twisted.
He seemed like he would not mind letting Saddam Hussein slide. It was his meeting with Margaret
Thatcher in Aspen that changed everything. Bush built broad coalition including many Arab and
Muslim nations and went to war. He head to give $500 millions to Israel to keep them away and
not retaliating against Iraq in order to not upset Arab allies in the coalition.
The war was won. Bush did not go to Bagdad but only liberated Kuwait. It was reported in papers
that his popularity hit 90% which was 20% more than what Hitler got after the Anschluss of Austria
in 1938, as I remember thinking this at that time.
In summer 1991 Bush decided to use his political capital and tried to say no Israel illegal
settlements by holding money slated for Israel. Yitzhak Shamir got furious and the Lobby attacked.
Everybody was against hime. Most people did not know what was happening. Bush backed off and instead
of turning to American people and leveling with them on what was going on he only complained that
he was all alone in WH.
It was decided (I do not know how, when and where and by whom but it was decided nevertheless)
that Bush could not be trusted with the 2nd term. He did not take advantage of the golden opportunity
to occupy Iraq and then he had audacity to challenge Israel which last time happened in early
summer 1993 by JFK when said no to the development of nuclear weapons by Israel. So everything
was done what had to be done for him to lose. And he knew that it would be so. He did not fight.
He got impatient with the campaign and looked at his watch during the debate to show his disdain.
He had no chance to win. Ross Perot played the same role as Teddy Roosevelt in 1912 election to
deprive Taft the 2nd term. Unlike Roosevelt Ross Perot probably did not know what role he was
cast to play.
Why Bush did what he did? Why he did not occupy Iraq? Why he challenged Israel? My take is
that he really did not want this war. That he really believed that after the wall coming down
and Soviet Union falling apart America can change the course and start reducing military spending.
He seemed to really believe in the peace dividends. The end of the Cold War was his greatest achievement
and it was ruined by Saddam Hussein invasion of Kuwait. So the most important question is to find
out who TF whispered to Saddam Hussein's ear to convince him that he will get away with his attack
on Kuwait? The same people who wanted Iraq destroyed who eventually had it destroyed 12 years
later and all those who did not want peace dividends and who feared the cuts in military spending?
I think Bush knew who was really behind Hussain? Who screwed up his vision of post Cold War peace,
who deprived him of his legacy. So he said no to Israel when he had the highest approval rating
in recent history but then he chickened out. He was intimidated by something. In retrospect he
was not a bad guy but he wasted possibly the last opportunity to have America extricated from
the iron grip of the Lobby.
Just read the chapter on the Vietnam war by Howard Zinn A Peoples History of the USA. Or read
an Eisenhower letter, written after WWII, 'we should have killed much more Germans'. James Bacque,
´Der geplante Tod, Deutsche Kriegsgefangene in amerikanischen und französischen Lagern 1945 –
1946, Frankfurt/M, 1989, 1994 (Other losses, Toronto, 1989)
The United States Military Academy is, or at least should be, a steward of American military
values
But they are upholding American values, like lying, cheating, murdering, stealing, which is
what many American presidents, but definitely since President Clinton, have engaged in around
the world.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the liars with Operation Inherent Resolve, the gangster outfit
that is overseeing the 'Wars for Wall Street and Israel' in SW Asia and the ME, bomb to
smithereens civilians on a daily basis, then get in front of the cameras and LIE that they didn't
do it, it was those Rooskies. Then, when they're outed with evidence, they LIE again, promising
to investigate and that's the last you'll hear of the latest American-made mass murder. Aren't all those command types at Operation Butcher Muslims, sorry, Inherent Resolve West Point
or Annapolis graduates, that lie, cheat, steal and murder on a daily basis, yet they get their
chests festooned with medals from a grateful nation for being basically, unhinged psycho-killers,
so you see, West Point is upholding American values.
I have read elsewhere that Mr. Bush had the largest contingent of rabbis in his administration,
as advisors behind the scenes, to provide him with moral guidance. What is a person to make of
that? Was he that obtuse?
Thank you Mr. Edstrom!
Most of them annoy the bleep outta me because they seem like more of the sappy (unctuous even),over
romanticized, self aggrandizing, claptrap that we've come to expect from functionaries of the
state.
This, type of nonsense, in particular, galls me.:
Hidden beneath the ugly destructiveness of war, however, is a sublime beauty that is known
only to the veterans who have experienced it.
What a disgustingly hollow load of bulshit that is! Oh, but the rest of us, who haven't experienced
the "sublime beauty" of war, aren't counted amongst the anointed elite who know things the rest
of us mere mortals don't.
"Sublime beauty?"
Who do you think yer kidding? I was a grunt (volunteer, not drafted) in Vietnam, and I never
saw any beauty in war, sublime, mundane, or otherwise.
Here's how a man with integrity views the military.:
"Military life in general depraves men. It places them in conditions of complete idleness,
that is, absence of all rational and useful work; frees them from their common human duties,
also puts them into conditions of servile obedience to those of higher ranks than themselves."
― Leo Tolstoy Resurrection Or, The Awakening, 1899
In 1851 Tolstoy and his older brother went to the Caucasus where he joined the Russian army
as an artillery officer.
In 1854, during the Crimean War Tolstoy transferred to Wallachia to fight against the French,
British and Ottoman Empire and defend Sevastopol.
Here's what military establishments are really about; I wonder if they deal with this at West
Point, or in "ethics" classes.
A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions
to liberty. The means of defence against foreign danger have been always the instruments of
tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt
was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending,
have enslaved the people.
James Madison, Speech, Constitutional Convention (1787-06-29), from Max Farrand's Records
of the Federal Convention of 1787, vol. I [1] (1911), p. 465
Standing armies are un-American, and no amount of cloyingly romantic slight of hand with the
truth will change it. Here's all one needs to know about the "ethics" of state sponsored terrorism.:
Wherever an army is established, it introduces a revolution in manners, corrupts the morals,
propagates every species of vice, and degrades the human character."
Mercy Otis Warren, Revolution-era historian,
History of the Rise, Progress, and Termination of the American Revolution vol. 1, Ch3, 1805
But they are upholding American values, like lying, cheating, murdering, stealing, which
is what many American presidents, but definitely since President Clinton, have engaged in around
the world.
True, but one could argue that Lincoln was the first of the worst. Teddy Roosevelt, Wilson,
and FDR took hypocrisy and mockery of "American values" to new depths and it's been downhill since
then.
We have to face the fact that none of us is fit to wield the levers of so much power. To think
otherwise is positively deranged.
Also, about your snide comment, "Lt Col Pete Kilner styles himself an ethicist." I have
a masters degree in philosophical ethics from an excellent program, and I've researched, written
on, and taught ethics for 20 years.
I must tell you that the comment, whether snide or not, is spot on.
Your other credentials are worth about as much as Bush's award or O-bomb-a's "peace" prize,
and any adult should know that.
Still, as criminal as Bush and Obama's actions were, between Wilson, FDR, Truman, and Kennedy/Johnson,
there are way more Americans dead for nothing than these pikers killed.
Bush jr. and Bush sr. are both war criminals and were front men for the Zionists who really control
this country and both were complicit with Israel and the deep state in 911.
They are evil incarnate with satan and also their henchman Cheney, straight from hell.
Whatever one thinks of Trump, one must appreciate the public service that he did in utterly humiliating
Jeb! Bush and pretty much putting a stake in the heart of the Bush political dynasty. One takes
ones guilty pleasures where one finds them.
All of your comment is true and I'd like to add that the fetid scent of Zionist sympathies
can be detected at least as far back as Wilson and FDR as well, and probably even goes further
back.
This quote is interesting though I do not mean to conflate Judaism with Zionism.:
We recognize in Judaism, therefore, a general anti-social element of the present
time, an element which through historical development – to which in this harmful respect the
Jews have zealously contributed – has been brought to its present high level
In the final analysis, the emancipation of the Jews is the emancipation of mankind from
Judaism.
The Jew has already emancipated himself in a Jewish way.
"The Jew, who in Vienna, for example, is only tolerated, determines the fate of the whole
Empire by his financial power. The Jew, who may have no rights in the smallest German state,
decides the fate of Europe. While corporations and guilds refuse to admit Jews, or have
not yet adopted a favorable attitude towards them, the audacity of industry mocks at the obstinacy
of the material institutions." (Bruno Bauer, The Jewish Question, p. 114)
This is no isolated fact. The Jew has emancipated himself in a Jewish manner, not only
because he has acquired financial power, but also because, through him and also apart from
him, money has become a world power and the practical Jewish spirit has become the practical
spirit of the Christian nations. The Jews have emancipated themselves insofar as the Christians
have become Jews.
A someone very fond of the Bush family, I have to admit, as someone who opposed both conflict
(one outright) the other as to scale and purpose) this article is a very heavy indictment, less
of the executive but of members of congress, the foreign policy establishment and the military
advocates for invasion (men and women alike).
I have always thought that Pres Bush ignored his bet instincts on the matter and was ill advised.
I don't know what recompense the country will garner for our actions, but I don't think it has
yet come. We need to pull up and consider the dark space into which are knee-jerking our way into.
-- –
However, I don't think this is about Pres. Bush or even a stamp of approval on needless and
careless interventions as much as it an attempt to wedge the military against Pres Trump or tangentially
express discomfit by some in the higher echelons with the Pres.
Deeply appreciated this a article. No argument against those invasion penetrated the cloud
of revenge the country was bent on exacting. And it is deeply troubling – when the case against
invasion was so blatantly clear.
At West Point, it's still possible to believe that we are fighting in the interests of the
Afghan people
If that's true then they are mentally deficient. Mercenaries and the mentally defective working
under the leadership of the morally corrupt, the perfect dance partners.
I apologize to those who may find my comments excessive, but some of the attitudes expressed here
need to be confronted. I regret that I can't do it in person.
To those who postulate such insubstantial, quasi-profound, faux-poetic pornography, if not
swinishly orgasmic, fanciful hooey as:
combat deployments affect our souls so deeply because they allow us to taste something
of heaven and hell, in ways that civilian life rarely does. The profound purpose, unity,
and love that soldiers in a small unit experience is almost impossible to replicate outside
of war; it is a foretaste of heaven.
we're longing for another taste of heaven alongside other warriors . Second, it explains
why life outside of war can seem so mundane and even meaningless. Having gone through heaven
and hell , our everyday lives can feel like limbo.
Having gone through heaven and hell, our everyday lives can feel like limbo.
I say that Aristophanes, to name just one, saw through the self adulating humbug, millennia
ago.
SAUSAGE-SELLER
you wish the war to conceal your rogueries as in a mist , that Demos may see
nothing of them, and harassed by cares, may only depend on yourself for his bread. But if ever
peace is restored to him, if ever he returns to his lands to comfort himself once more with
good cakes, to greet his cherished olives, he will know the blessings you have kept him out
of, even though paying him a salary; and, filled with hatred and rage, he will rise, burning
with desire to vote against you. You know this only too well; it is for this you rock him
to sleep with your lies.
Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, and Obama all fit in the category of war criminal, and were there such
a thing as authentic and impartial international justice, they could all be in the dock of a new
Nuremberg Tribunal – albeit one without the kangaroo court and vae victis characteristics of the
eponymous one.
George Bush served in the Texas Air National Guard during Vietnam and his dad served as a naval
aviator during WWII. Quite a difference. At one time, the people who started wars fought in them. The last English king to serve in
combat was the much-maligned Richard III, killed at the Battle of Bosworth in 1485. James IV of
Scotland was killed at the Battle of Flodden Field in 1513. George II was commander at the Battle
of Dettingen in 1743.
Prince Harry saw service in Afghanistan and Andrew in the Falklands. So, the denigrated Royals
have a better track record than the elites in a democracy. In Robert Heinlein's Starship Trooper novel, only people who served their society in a dangerous
position had the right to vote. That would weed out almost of the "cloud people" who dominate
the West.
Bush II could be called a war criminal by reason of stupidity. The real culprit is the bastard
standing next to him in the picture. He controlled George W. Bush and was the real President.
To this day, he continues to push for war against Iran.
Blaming Bush for starting wars is sort of like blaming bin Laden for 9/11 or Putin for Hilary's
defeat. There were a lot more people involved in recent and ongoing US wars, including many people
from the "opposing" party, Joe Biden and Al Gore come to mind.
Previously had the impression that Dubya was a dumb but
He's obviously no intellectual and it's unlikely he's ever read any book on his own. He appears
to lack curiosity whatever his mental level may be. His speeches, like everyone else, are written
by others and just simply read as an actor reads their lines. However, his job was to deliver
and that he did in spades. He ratcheted up the security state to a historic level and diverted
trillions from the US treasury for the biggest gravy train ever. It's an income transfer scheme,
from the masses to the upper classes, all while scaring everyone with nonexistent hobgoblins.
He did nothing about unchecked illegal immigration, giving his constituency, the haves and the
have-mores, their cheap labor. Historians will argue as to who the worst president of all time
was and Bush's name will figure prominently. He'll be seen as one of the downward turning points
in American history, a person who ruined what was left of American credibility and pride. He had
a lot of enablers though, and did not act alone, standing astride a mountain of bones. So, smart
or not, the evil nature of this man will continue to cast it's shadow for years to come.
2013 Madeleine Korbel Albright • speech • biography • video
2012 Isaac Newton "Ike" Skelton • speech • biography
2011 Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates • speech • biography
2010 Honorable James A. Baker, III • speech • biography • photos
2009 H. Ross Perot • speech • biography • photos
2008 William J. Perry • article • biography
2007 General (Retired) Frederick Kroesen • speech • article • biography
2006 Tom Brokaw • speech • article •biography
I stopped with Tom Brokaw because that seems odd to most. Watch this funny and insightful Jimmy
Dore clip about how Brokaw was a no newsman, but a Pentagon bootlicker, hence the award.
I think what we can all be thankful is the fact that we are no longer dependant on the NY time/Washington
Post etc to see the World through their prizes l
President Bush may have been dumb or naive or he may have been smart. It's difficult to know what
a person really thinks. The Iraq war was a mistake but Bush the Younger also pushed for implementation
of other policies which look to be highly dubious. Does anyone remember "No Child left Behind"
or "The Housing Gap"? These two policies were hairbrained to say the least. Only a foolish person
could ever believe in such nonsense. He truly believed that we were all created equal, he was
they ultimate champion of the "Blank Slate" theory. A delusional fool who I actually voted for
in 2000.
Yes I think he was "A True Believer" in Social Justice causes.
I daresay that (((Howard Zinn))) approved of that.
Rather not. Zinn on one of his last missions as a member of USAF bomber crew was sent to bomb
with napalm large groupings of German soldiers who were just awaiting to surrender somewhere in
northern France. The front line past them and was much further West. He did not like it at all.
He thought that the only purpose of the mission was to test how the new napalm worked.
West Point? Isn't that some place where the Jooies indoctrinate their latest crop of servile Goy
Gurkhas? Change those posters to: Uncle Samuel Wants You with a pic of Samuel in his beanie pointing
a bony finger out at you, the suckers.
In Robert Heinlein's Starship Trooper novel, only people who served their society in a dangerous
position had the right to vote. That would weed out almost of the "cloud people" who dominate
the West.
Now, there is one country which adheres to that rule a bit:Israel.
Interesting, isn't it?
Easy, especially on sites like this, to heap abuse on, say, Netanyahu.
Just from Wikipedia, though:
Netanyahu joined the Israel Defense Forces shortly after the Six-Day War in 1967, and became
a team leader in the Sayeret Matkal special forces unit . Netanyahu took part in many
missions, including Operation Inferno (1968), Operation Gift (1968) and Operation Isotope (1972),
during which he was shot in the shoulder . Netanyahu fought on the front lines in the
War of Attrition and the Yom Kippur War in 1973, taking part in special forces raids along
the Suez Canal, and then leading a commando assault deep into Syrian territory.[3][4] Netanyahu
achieved the rank of captain before being discharged.
You have to give them: they got that right. Now, we'll see, say, 20 replies with 20 links each about .. .them .
Will keep the article busy though.
Interested in topic could just skip them.
Thanks for the article about how the elite soldiers are morally conditioned in these days.
Did they teach anything about General Smedley Butler? Some of his second thoughts he had?
What's the matter with these academics who run everthing now, are they senile?
Or, much worse, (maybe not though,) there is a policy on high, to effect the intentional dilution,
and then destruction of standards. Prominently, auspicious prizes given to idiots and worse scoundrels!
what's that do to the mental and moral health of the youths, will they wise up and see through
it and not show up?
No, just replaced with a lower order, who will be more monstrous .
All this decay of stuff is everywhere, who benefits Cui Bono? They don't need smart soldiers
what with robots and AI etc. and the real work is in dumbing down the peeps, for the eventual
enclosures .
Most of it's already been said above, but we've been a war nation for more than a generation.
Mr. Bush's predecessor bombed Iraq for years. Bush himself (or Cheney or whoever) turned it into
an official and seemingly permanent war, using what are now known to be bold-faced lies. Torture
as a matter of routine also started during Cheney's reign. Nobel Peace Prize Obama ramped us up
to 6 or 7 wars, normalized drone murder, and in his usual unctuous way told us to stop harping
on Abu Graib ("It's important we don't get too sanctimonious"). Now Mr. Trump is starting/threatening
even more war, complete with nukes, and bragging about the torture.
My point is that someone we don't even see is calling the shots, for all of them. These guys
on TV just work for them, and are paid handsomely. The awards they get mean even less than their
elections. I don't see us (the proletariat, wage slaves, trying to raise a family) ever even figuring
out what's going on, much less doing anything about it.
"The former president deserves a cold metal bench in a stockade awaiting trial, not an award and
a warm round of applause from the academy. No coffee table books featuring his paintings -- a
perverse form of macabre exhibitionism -- will atone for his actions. If West Point and its Association
of Graduates want to maintain any credible pretense of adhering to the values they claim to espouse,
they should revoke the most recent Thayer Award immediately."
NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. Excellent essay. What has happened to West Point to act this way?? No one with any sense could think of Bush
as anything other than a moron at best, a traitorous moron at worst. There must be an explanation–FOLLOW THE MONEY.
"... The president, he claims, had angered the military-industrial establishment with his procurement policies and his determination to withdraw from Vietnam, and had threatened to break the CIA into "a thousand pieces" after the Bay of Pigs fiasco. ..."
"... His death was in effect a coup d'etat that placed in the White House a very different man with a very different approach -- one much more acceptable to what Prouty consistently calls "the power elite." ..."
"... Mr. Prouty points to what he calls "the power elite" as the movers of geopolitics and war. JFK had other ideas as to what makes the world turn. It's the age old battle, as Lincoln put it, "between the divine rights of kings and the common rights of man"... ..."
"... Mr Prouty is no "conspiracy theorist". He worked in the Pentagon and arranged the support for the CIA operations until he retired in 1964. He knew everyone from Allen Dulles to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. ..."
"... He was in a particularly excellent position, due to his official responsibilities, to know intimately of the OSS and later CIA operations, as well as the White House positions under various presidents, for he saw and worked with their communications. ..."
"... His book is full of specifics, many to most of which few people know or knew. He served under three presidents. He was liaison between the Joint Chiefs and the CIA In 1954 he was ordered to establish the Office of Special Operations, and in 1964 retired as chief of Special Operations. In 1963 he wrote the formal directive on covert ops used by Joint Chiefs of Staff for all military services.. What this man, Prouty, said cannot be tossed aside. He knew the subject, and he knew what was done. ..."
"... His book really has two entwined themes, the role of CIA operations including the real power which drives those operations and the assassination of JFK. ..."
"... As for the assassination, he takes apart the Warren Commission in detail, point by point. He knew what was at stake between interested parties, and provides quotes from key JFK White House documents. He goes into the source and evolution of the Indochina / Vietnam war, beginning in 1943, as he was present at those allied high level meetings. He provides eye-opening historical material about which I expect few of our citizens are cognizant. ..."
"... The premise of this book is that Pres. Kennedy wanted to pull out of Vietnam, and the military-industrial complex didn't want that to happen. Today there is contention whether this is indeed true or not. I think JFK was uncertain himself ..."
"... After Pres. Kennedy was assasinated it is undeniable we went head first into Vietnam. He had made numerous enemies. The banking industry, the military, the CIA, J. Edgar Hoover, etc. He was a maverick going against conventional thinking and he had to be removed. As the author states those gunshots on Elm street(which by the way, isn't it interesting that the Hollywood "cabal" chose to use as a title to a famous movie series) were a message to all future Presidents that the "secret team" is running the show now. ..."
"... According to prouty kennedy was a victim of a military-industrial complex plot triggered by his plan to withdraw from vietnam, the most important was a top secret National Security Action Memorandum (NSAM 263) drafted only six weeks before the assassination once NSAM 263 was signed, kennedy was, for all intents, a dead man. ..."
"... It's not hard to understand why Obama hasn't pulled out of Iraq or Afghanistan. He can't. The military industrial complex and their bankers won't let him. ..."
"... ***Note: Anyone interested in the Kennedy Assassination should realize that there is a "misinformation plant" in the Library Journal review department. Every honest book on the subject has been unconvincingly discredited by them, while they praise and try to steer you towards known flake CIA-financed writers such as Gerald Posner. ..."
"... It's rather common to hear of wrongdoing by the CIA I saw a graph recently that showed American citizen's belief in their government plummeting after the Kennedy Assassination. Almost no one accepted the Warren Commission Report and such a cover up has casted doubt on our government ever since. ..."
"... However, for all its problems as a book, the info contained herein meshes with several other books I've read recently that all point to the fact that Kennedy was moving from a Cold Warrior to a peacenik, (elsewhere attributed to his taking LSD with his mistress Mary Meyer. Who knows?) ..."
"... Oh yes, another of Prouty's big ideas is that the weapons of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a huge error on the part of the Cabal/Elite, since it made normal war impossible, hence a turn to guerrilla warfare by proxy. Again, the belief that everything is part of a master plan. The outcome is valid, but the idea of an invisible hand behind the scenes stage-managing all this is not reasonable to me. ..."
"... Is it credible that the CIA could have been involved in Kennedy's assassination? On this point, I think the answer is yes. The old objection that people wouldn't be able to keep quiet if there were a conspiracy is pretty much moot if we're talking about the CIA, since by definition, these are guys who could do unimaginable things, have a cigarette, and then never speak of it again. ..."
"... I think there is pretty decent evidence that Oswald was connected to the CIA (The defection and then un-defection in and of itself is pretty incredible, and his statement that he was the patsy is more likely if he was in fact a patsy, than if he were a either a nut job or a Castro sympathizer. Both of those types want credit!) ..."
"... And this book also confirms the feeling that I often get that in fact the US has many of the characteristics of a fascist state, minus the concentration camps for Jews. It is true that we have wrought havoc in many other people's countries, that we maintain a near-constant state of war, and that *if* a president tried to go in a different direction, there are forces within the military-industrial-intelligence complex that might both want and be capable of taking them out. ..."
From Publishers Weekly Prouty, who was a Washington insider for
nearly 20 years--in the last few of them as Chief of Special Operations for the Joint Chiefs of
Staff under President Kennedy--has a highly unusual perspective to offer on the assassination
and the events that led up to it. Familiar to moviegoers as the original of the anonymous
Washington figure, played by Donald Sutherland in the Oliver Stone's movie JFK , who asks hero
Jim Garrison to ponder why Kennedy was killed, Prouty leaves no doubt where he stands.
The president, he claims, had angered the military-industrial establishment with his
procurement policies and his determination to withdraw from Vietnam, and had threatened to
break the CIA into "a thousand pieces" after the Bay of Pigs fiasco.
His death was in effect a coup d'etat that placed in the White House a very different
man with a very different approach -- one much more acceptable to what Prouty consistently
calls "the power elite." Although he declares that such an elite has operated,
supranationally, throughout history, and is all-powerful, he never satisfactorily explains who
its members are and how it functions--or how it has allowed the current East-West rapprochement
to take place.
Still, this behind-the-scenes look at how the CIA has shaped postwar U.S. foreign policy is
fascinating, as are Prouty's telling questions about the security arrangements in Dallas, his
knowledge of the extraordinary government movements at that time (every member of the Cabinet
was out of the country when Kennedy was shot) and his perception that most of the press has
joined in the cover-up ever since. Photos not seen by PW.
Copyright 1992 Reed Business Information, Inc. --This text refers to an out of print or
unavailable edition of this title. From Library Journal Prouty, the mysterious "X" in
Oliver Stone's JFK , promises to explain why Kennedy was assassinated. Instead, he delivers a
muddled collection of undocumented, bizarre theories, most significantly that a super-powerful,
avaricious power elite engineered the Cold War and all its pivotal events -- Korea, Vietnam,
the U-2 incident, the Bay of Pigs, and the Kennedy assassination.
Although they are never identified, these shadowy technocrats, working through the CIA,
allegedly had Kennedy murdered because he was on the brink of ending America's commitment to
Vietnam, along with its billions of dollars of military contracts.
Prouty avoids some very important issues. Would Kennedy, a Cold War warrior's warrior, have
indeed ended American support for Diem? And why couldn't the omnipotent power elite ensure the
election of Richard Nixon, its preferred candidate, in 1960--especially since Kennedy won by
only .02 percent? A much better choice is John M. Newman's JFK and Vietnam: Deception,
Intrigue, and the Struggle for Power ( LJ 3/15/92). See also James DiEugenio's Destiny
Betrayed: JFK, Cuba, and the Garrison Case , reviewed in this issue, p. 123.--Ed.
We are living through that kind of paradigm except they now wear suits and carry
briefcases and never get theirs hands dirty. Mr
Mr. Prouty points to what he calls "the power elite" as the movers of geopolitics and
war. JFK had other ideas as to what makes the world turn. It's the age old battle, as Lincoln
put it, "between the divine rights of kings and the common rights of man"... .
We are living through that kind of paradigm except they now wear suits and carry
briefcases and never get theirs hands dirty.
Mr Prouty is no "conspiracy theorist". He worked in the Pentagon and arranged the
support for the CIA operations until he retired in 1964. He knew everyone from Allen Dulles
to the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
This is a very important book. It is difficult to read, because Prouty's writing is
disorganized, perhaps not so to him, but to a reader. The fact is he had first hand knowledge
of a great deal of what went on and into the period covering the latter part of WWII, all of
Indochina / Vietnam, and into the Cold War. He was in a particularly excellent position,
due to his official responsibilities, to know intimately of the OSS and later CIA operations,
as well as the White House positions under various presidents, for he saw and worked with
their communications.
His book is full of specifics, many to most of which few people know or knew. He
served under three presidents. He was liaison between the Joint Chiefs and the CIA In 1954
he was ordered to establish the Office of Special Operations, and in 1964 retired as chief of
Special Operations. In 1963 he wrote the formal directive on covert ops used by Joint Chiefs
of Staff for all military services.. What this man, Prouty, said cannot be tossed aside. He
knew the subject, and he knew what was done.
His book really has two entwined themes, the role of CIA operations including the real
power which drives those operations and the assassination of JFK. The lessons are real.
It would have helped had his writing been more organized, rather than jumping around with
much repetition, but he does provide abundant specifics in support of his positions. In many
cases he uses first person, as he was present. He knew what he was talking about. He has
specifics.
As for the assassination, he takes apart the Warren Commission in detail, point by
point. He knew what was at stake between interested parties, and provides quotes from key JFK
White House documents. He goes into the source and evolution of the Indochina / Vietnam war,
beginning in 1943, as he was present at those allied high level meetings. He provides
eye-opening historical material about which I expect few of our citizens are
cognizant.
His material, cleaned up, should be taught in schools, but such history is never taught in
classes. It is only learned `in the field' so to speak. And no nation wants it advertised
exactly what drives covert operations and to whose benefit.
I agree with the author's premise of a conspiracy to murder JFK. There is information in
this book that I have not read in any other historical reference. For example, the author
states that the CIA transported the northern based people of Vietnam called the Tonkin and
moved them to the south. He claims that this created a turmoil in the land as people began to
fight for resources(food)to live. He states that it was this turmoil that was made to look
like a communist infiltration of the country. All of this being a CIA manipulated event.
Another interesting aspect is that we had been aiding the French occupation of Vietnam. This
continued up until 1954; a few months before Diem being installed as President. We had been
helping the enemy of the South Vietnamese people just prior to Diem's installation.
The premise of this book is that Pres. Kennedy wanted to pull out of Vietnam, and the
military-industrial complex didn't want that to happen. Today there is contention whether
this is indeed true or not. I think JFK was uncertain himself and that is why you can
find facts supporting both schools of thought. For example, Pres. Kennedy stated he wanted to
be the first to put a man on the moon. A direct challenge to the cold war enemy Russia. Yet
the book states later that Kennedy signed a memorandum desiring cooperation with Russia in
the exploration of space. This is obviously an affront to the "cabal" that wanted the cold
war to continue. There was alot of money to be made. I was disappointed the author didn't
write about Pres.Kennedy issuing silver certificates in defiance of the Federal Reserve.
After Pres. Kennedy was assasinated it is undeniable we went head first into Vietnam.
He had made numerous enemies. The banking industry, the military, the CIA, J. Edgar Hoover,
etc. He was a maverick going against conventional thinking and he had to be removed. As the
author states those gunshots on Elm street(which by the way, isn't it interesting that the
Hollywood "cabal" chose to use as a title to a famous movie series) were a message to all
future Presidents that the "secret team" is running the show now.
This book is not an easy read. One negative about this book is that the author's points
are repeated. It also left me feeling dismayed and bewildered. If you take the author's
premise at face value, almost everything we see and read now has the possibility of being a
planned event. The fascinating aspect about the JFK assassination is to see how this "secret
team" that works behind the scenes is in control of almost all positions of authority that we
have in this country. A chief justice resides on the Warren Commission and signs off on the
absurd Warren report, police in Dallas allowing reporters direct access to Oswald; at the
time the suspect for the murder. Police allowing Jack Ruby to just waltz up to Oswald and
shoot him. LBJ and Hoover having a conversation about not wanting a congressional
investigation of the assassination and just wanting to use the Hoover/Warren reports. This is
way too many coincidences not to have been a conspiracy. Fletcher Prouty may not be 100%
accurate, but I'll believe his version over our official history any day.
"This is one of the greatest books written on the assassination of John F. Kennedy,the
author Col L. Fletcher Prouty contribution from his work in the pentagon and his common sense
view that someone needed to level the playing field-to let the public know that military
spending and goals are completely unrealistic. We have to learn from the past and Col. Prouty
is one of the few who explain the uncomfortable truth. This uncomfortable feeling goes on
today. How do we know when we've won in Iraq or Afghanistan? Will this repeat in Iran and
North Korea? What is the next military action that will be another unwinnable war designed to
keep the Defense Department in business despite the astronomical costs as it bankrupts the
nation? It's time that everyone examine what Col. Fletcher Prouty wrote as a warning of what
was really going on as opposed to what was reported regarding the Vietnam war and the removal
of John F. Kennedy.
Col. Prouty blows the lid right off our official history and reveal what is probably the
closest to the truth that we will ever get regarding the assassination of JFK, this is a true
example of what is done in the dark will come to the light..anyone who wants to continue to
hide from the truth, then this book is not for you because you cannot handle the truth,it's
too much for you.
This is a very important book unique in this big mess that continues to surround Kennedy's
murder it is a story that has been buried for decades. It is an account the government didnot
want you to hear, and actually fabricated evidence in order to keep you from hearing the
truth. There are no crackpot theories here, these are facts this great cabal ( the power
elite) has control high enough in government or at least in the councils of government, to be
able to influence the travel plans of the president, vice-president and a presidential
candidate (Nixon) and all members of the kennedy cabinet. They were powerful enough to have
orders issued to the army, and were able to mount a massive campaign to control the media
during and after the assassination. Now if that is not power in the wrong hands, i donot know
what is..there is something about Col. Prouty manner that speaks of authority, knowledge and
above all, old fashioned honesty."
According to prouty kennedy was a victim of a military-industrial complex plot
triggered by his plan to withdraw from vietnam, the most important was a top secret National
Security Action Memorandum (NSAM 263) drafted only six weeks before the assassination once
NSAM 263 was signed, kennedy was, for all intents, a dead man.
Vietnam for the powers that be... represented the potential of tens of billions of
dollars. This is what caused him to be murdered, it was a military-style ambush from start to
finish, "a coup d'etat."
One of the most memorable lines in the book and the movie JFK: "Sometimes i think the
organizing principle of any society is for war, the authority of the state over its people
resides in its war powers war readiness accounts for approximately a tenth of the output of
the world's economy. This power elite together they stand above the law, can any president
ever be strong enough really to rule?
And what about the outright theft of the president's brain from the national archives? And
the total and complete failure of the secret service to protect JFK in dallas? It boggles the
mind, they tagged him as a dangerous traitor plotted his assassination, and orchested the
subsequent cover-up. This is an unspeakable refers to an evil whose depth and deceit seemed
to go beyond the capacity of words to describe.
If you are not afraid to face the truth then this book is were you would want to start. So
many things make sense when you start to put the piece's of the puzzle together and facts and
common sense go a long way. That is why most people want to remain ignorant,they cannot face
the truth so they try to discredit people like Col. Prouty, Oliver Stone, Jim Garrison, Jesse
Ventura to make them sound like lone nuts, sound like de'ja vu huh?
Col. Prouty was a Washington insider for nearly 20 years as chief of staff under president
Kennedy this man lived this part of our history, who can better tell us the real deal than
someone who was there and lived though it and who does not have anything to gain by keeping
the biggest lie told to the american people on-going. Just sticking to the facts of this case
and what just take basic common sense is to ask yourself "Why? that's the real question isn't
it--why? the how is just scenery,Oswald, Ruby, Cuba, Mafia it keeps people guessing like a
parlor game, but it prevents them from asking the most important question--why?
Why was kennedy killed? Who benefited? Who had the power to cover it up? This book is a
must read for anyone out there who still believes in truth and justice for all. Don't believe
me or anyone else..do your own thinking for yourself and you might surprise yourself in the
process of searching for that truth. I would like to end this by saying thank-you to Col.
Prouty, Mr. jim garrison, Oliver Stone, and Jesse Ventura for being courageous enough to step
forward to shine a light on the truth.
And for the non-believer's out there i feel sorry for you that you are satisfied with
never really knowing the truth and how much it still effects your life today. I was not even
born yet when president kennedy was assassinate but i was born one year later..and the
deferences between me and you is i will always search for the truth and question it until i
do find it.
I leave you with this quote: Those who can't remember the past, are condemned to repeat
it. Everyone should own a copy of this part of history go out now and purchase this book
before it disappear,just like the truth about JFK assassination.
I read this book a second time, about 1 year after I read it the first time. Mr Prouty had
a very long and interesting career in the Air Air Corps which became the USAF. He has first
hand knowledge of much of what he writes about in this book. His book is really the history
of the USA since WW II with respect to the warnings of IKE "Beware of the military industrial
complex".
If you did not like President Kennedy but wonder why the US has constantly been "at war"
somewhere in the world since WW II then I think you will get a lot out of this book. When I
was in the USAF back in the 1970's the higher ranking pilots that I flew with told me that
Viet Nam was not a great war but it was the only war they had. Well, wars were good for
career building if you were in the war, if you were the military industrial complex war was
very good and necessary for profits.
I'm reading a stunning book written by the late L. Fletcher Prouty who served as the chief
of special operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Kennedy presidency. A retired
colonel of the U.S. Air Force, Prouty was in charge of the global system designed to provide
military support for the CIA's secret activities. He knew where the bodies were buried and
the file cabinet containing the paperwork used to cover it up.
Prouty was a source for Oliver Stone's movie "JFK" and was portrayed as "Mr. X" by Donald
Sutherland, the man in black who advised New Orleans DA Jim Garrison (portrayed by Kevin
Costner) that he was on the trail to the truth.
If you have ANY interest whatsoever in learning the truth of the events that led to what
happened to our country on Nov. 22nd, 1963 and changed the course of its direction, read
it.
A brief excerpt from the 375+ page book that is the most detailed account of the inception
of the CIA and the events that culminated in the coup d'etat on Elm Street in Dallas on a
sunny day in November.
Excerpt:
From Chapter 16 - Government by Coup d'Etat
The year was 1964. Pres. John F. Kennedy had been shot dead months before by bursts of
"automatic gunfire" in Dallas by "mechanics," that is, skilled gunmen, hired by a power
cabal determined to exert control over the United States government. Lyndon B. Johnson,
JFK's successor, had been only a few feet under the bullets fired at Kennedy as he rode two
cars back in that fatal procession.
By 1964 Johnson was becoming mired in the swamp of the Indochina conflict. Kennedy, who
had vowed to "break the CIA into a thousand pieces," was dead. LBJ, who had heard those
fatal bullets zing past his ears, had learned the ultimate lesson; and for good measure,
Richard Nixon was in Dallas on that fatal day, so that he, too, had the fact of this
ever-present danger imprinted on his memory for future use by his masters.
From Chapter 18 - Setting the Stage for the Death of JFK
"The significance of all this was that I had introduced President Kennedy's Vietnam
policy statement NSAM #263, into these discussions. It is my belief that the policy
announced so forcefully by Kennedy in his earlier NSAM #55 and in NSAM #263 had been the
major factor in causing the decision by certain elements of the power elite to do away with
Kennedy before his reelection and to take control of the U.S. government in the
process.
Kennedy's NSAM #263 policy would have assured that Americans by the hundreds of
thousands would not have been sent to the war in Vietnam. This policy was anathema to
elements of the military-industrial complex, their bankers, and their allies in the
government. This policy and the almost certain fact that Kennedy would have been reelected
President in 1964 set the stage for the plot to assassinate him."
I can't put this book down. It is without doubt, the most thorough explanation of the
rogue CIA, it's influence and impact on America's involvement in paramilitary operations
around the world and subsequent growing conflicts. It is, as Prouty describes:
"...For the world as a whole, the CIA has now become the bogey that communism had been
for America. Wherever there is trouble, violence, suffering, tragedy, the rest of us are
now quick to suspect the CIA had a hand in it. Our phobia about the CIA is, no doubt, as
fantastically excessive as America's phobia about world communism; but in this case, too,
there is just enough convincing guidance to make the phobia genuine...
"This is what the destruction of sovereignty and disregard for the rule of law means,
and it will not stop there. With it will go property rights -- as we have witnessed in
Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union -- and the rights of man."
It's not hard to understand why Obama hasn't pulled out of Iraq or Afghanistan. He
can't. The military industrial complex and their bankers won't let him.
This is a fascinating look into the world of the power elite: the supremely powerful
international bankers who keep the books and balances for each side.
"They make these transactions possible by offering the loans, issuing letters of credit,
and collecting the interest on the entire package. In many LDCs (third world "less developed
countries") the total amount of interest paid to the banks and their international financing
structure amounts to more than half of the total value of dollars earned by their exports.
For this reason, annual payments are seldom more than the interest involved and none of the
principal. This is one reason why the principal never comes back to the United States." (p.
243 - Ch. Sixteen - Government by Coup d'Etat)
Though the title focuses on the CIA, Vietnam and the plot to kill JFK, this 355 page (not
including six pages of notes) book goes much further. It lays out and explains the real power
-- the international power elite -- that designs the strategy and moves the pieces on the
global chess board of politics, finance, and wars, domestic and international.
Prouty's very detailed book is based on a 19-part magazine series first developed by
Prouty, with and published by Freedom Magazine. Prouty served as the chief of special
operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Kennedy presidency. A retired U.S. Air
Force colonel, Prouty was in charge of the global system that provided military support for
the CIA's secret activities. He was witness to activities, machinations and policy-making in
the Pentagon and the White House that few others can claim. Prouty died in 2001.
"The year was 1964. Pres. John F. Kennedy had been shot dead months before by bursts of
"automatic gunfire" in Dallas by "mechanics," that is, skilled gunmen hired by a power cabal
determined to exert control over the United States government. Lyndon B. Johnson, JFK's
successor, had been only a few feet under the bullets fired at Kennedy as he rode two cars
back in that fatal procession.
"By 1964 Johnson was becoming mired in the swamp of the Indochina conflict. Kennedy, who
had vowed to "break the CIA into a thousand pieces," was dead. LBJ, who heard those fatal
bullets zing past his ears, had learned the ultimate lesson; and for good measure, Richard
Nixon was in Dallas on that fateful day, so that he, too, had the fact of this ever-present
danger imprinted on his memory for future use by his masters. (Ch. Sixteen, Government by
Coup d'Etat - p 232)
~~*~~
When World War II ended with the nuclear bomb, the military industrial complex had a
dilemma -- it understood that the next world war would be the final one, Yet it needed a way
to keep the lucrative business of war making alive and profitable. How? By fighting a war
waged for dollars, without a true military objective, under the control of civilian leaders,
a war never intended to achieve victory. Enter Vietnam. Sound familiar?
Chapter Eighteen - "Setting the Stage for the Death of JFK"
[p 267]
Kennedy's NSAM #265 policy would have assured that Americans by the hundreds of thousands
would not have been sent to the war in Vietnam. This policy was anathema to elements of the
military-industrial complex, their bankers, and their allies in the government. This policy
and the almost certain fact that Kennedy would be reelected President in 1964 set the stage
for the plot to assassinate him.
[snip]
First of all, NSAM #263, October 11, 1963, was a crucial White House document. Much of it,
guided by White House policy, was actually written by my boss in the Pentagon, General
Krulak, myself, and others of his staff. I am familiar with it and with events which led to
its creation.
[snip]
Our history books and the basic sources of history which lie buried in the archives of
government documents that have been concealed from the public, and worse still, government
documents that have been tampered with and forged. As I have just demonstrated above, this
most important policy statement, NSAM #263, that so many historians and journalists say does
not exist, has been divided into two sections in the Pentagon Papers source history.
~~*~~
Chapter Nineteen - Visions of a Kennedy Dynasty
[pp 289-290]
"With Kennedy's announcement that he was getting Americans out of Vietnam, he confirmed
that he was moving away from the pattern of Cold War confrontation in favor of
détente. He asked Congress to cut the defense budget. Major programs were being phased
out. As a result, pressure from several fronts began to build against the young President.
The pressure came from those most affected by cuts in the military budget, in the NASA space
program, and in the enormous potential cost -- and profit -- of the Vietnam War.
Kennedy's plans would mean an end to the warfare in Indochina, which the United States had
been supporting for nearly two decades. This would mean the end to some very big business
plans, as the following anecdote will illustrate.
It was reported in an earlier chapter that the First National Bank of Boston had sent
William F. Thompson, a vice president, to my office in the Pentagon in 1959, presumably after
discussions with CIA officials, to explore "the future of the utilization of the helicopter
in [clandestine] military operations" that had been taking place in Indochina up to 1959.
A client of that bank was Textron, Inc. The bank had suggested to Textron officials that
the acquisition of the near-bankrupt Bell Aircraft Company, and particularly its helicopter
division, might be a good move. What the bank and Textron needed to determine was the extent
of use of helicopters by the military and by the CIA then and the potential for their future
in Indochina.
Both parties were satisfied with the information they acquired from the Pentagon and from
other sources in Washington. In due time the acquisition took place, and on October 13, 1963,
news media in South Vietnam reported that an elite paramilitary force had made its first
helicopter strike against the Vietcong from "Huey" Bell-Textron helicopters. It was also
reported in an earlier chapter that more than five thousand helicopters were ultimately
destroyed in Indochina and that billions of dollars were spent on helicopter purchases for
those lost and their replacements.
Continuing the warfare in Vietnam, in other words, was of vital importance to these
particular powerful financial and manufacturing groups. And helicopters, of course, were but
one part of the $220 billion cost of U.S. participation in that conflict. Most of the $220
billion, in fact, was spent after 1963; only $2 - $3 billion had been spent on direct U.S.
military activities in Vietnam in all of the years since World War II up to and including
1963. Had Kennedy lived, it would not have gone much higher than that.
It is often difficult to retrace episodes in history and to locate an incident that became
crucial to subsequent events. Here, however, we have a rare opportunity.
The success of the deal between the First National Bank of Boston, Textron, and Bell
hinged on the escalation of the war in Indochina. A key man in this plan was Walter
Dornberger, chief of the German Rocket Center at Peenemunde, Germany, during World War II and
later an official with the Bell Aircraft Company. Dornberger's associate and later
protegé from Peenumunde, Wehrner von Braun, who had been instrumental in the
development of the army's Pershing and Jupiter rocket systems, became a central figure in
NASA's plans for the race to the moon. Such connections among skilled technicians can be of
great importance within the military-industrial complex, as they generally lead to bigger
budgets for all related programs.
Kennedy had announced a reduced military budget, the end of American participation in
Indochina, and a major change in the race to the moon. It takes no special wisdom or inside
knowledge to understand that certain vested interests considered the Kennedy proposal to
defuse Vietnam and these other major budget items to be extremely dangerous to their own
plans.
The pressure brought to bear on Kennedy was intense, but some sort of major event was
needed that would stir emotions and trigger action. It is very likely that the death of
President Ngo Dinh Diem of Vietnam and his brother, Ngo Dinh Nhu, on November 1, 1963, in
Saigon was one of those events. There were at least eight or nine more that, in retrospect,
indicate that a plot against Kennedy had begun to unfold."
~~*~~
Is it any wonder that despite his campaign rhetoric to the contrary, Obama is still in
Iraq and Afghanistan???
If you apply what Prouty reveals, it follows that Obama does not do anything unless it is
decreed by the international power elite -- from pulling out of Iraq/Afghanistan to
protecting our Gulf Coast oil-stained states.
JFK didn't dance to the tune of his masters. He did it his way. It cost him his life.
Obama is the creation of his masters. He serves at their pleasure. He won't make JFK's
mistake. You can count on it.
Mr. Prouty served in the Pentagon's Office of Special Operations during a significant
portion of his professional military career. In this role, he observed first-hand how the CIA
arranged/staged coups d'etat in the Phillipines and other nations around the globe. In the
Office of Special Operations, Mr. Prouty was responsible for providing U.S. military support
for CIA operations. This experience serves as the basis for Mr. Prouty's strong inference
that the assassination of President Kennedy was a CIA-style coup d'etat. The "why" of the
coup d'etat is strongly established by Mr. Prouty. JFK intended to withdraw 1,000 military
personnel from Vietnam by the close of 1963 and hoped to complete the full withdrawal of U.S.
military personnel from Vietnam by the close of 1965. To do this, JFK needed to get
re-elected. His decision to withdraw from Vietnam was based upon the McNamara-Taylor report
of early October, 1963 and codified in National Security Action Memorandum#263 of October 11,
1963. [For a thorough, scholarly analysis of the evolution of JFK's Vietnam policy, see "JFK
and Vietnam" by John M. Newman (New York: Warner Books, 1992). Mr. Newman is a professional
historian and a faculty member at the University of Maryland]. Powerful interests in the CIA,
Pentagon and the corporate world were "gung ho" in favor of large-scale military intervention
in Vietnam. The prospective war promised billions of dollars in military contracts for the
defense industry. JFK's intention to withdraw from Vietnam would deny these elements in the
CIA, Pentagon and corporate communities their pot of gold. Immediately after the
assassination of JFK, LBJ issued NSAM#273 on November 26, 1963 which was a complete reversal
of JFK's policy. NSAM#273 authorized U.S. military raids into North Vietnam. These raids
precipitated the Gulf of Tonkin incidents of July-August 1963, led to Congress' Gulf of
Tonkin Resolution and massive U.S. military intervention in Vietnam. LBJ gave the CIA,
Pentagon and defense contractors what JFK would have denied them: billions of dollars in
defense contracts in support of the full-scale war in Vietnam. For Mr. Prouty, the ultimate
inference is irresistible: to effectuate the complete turn-around of Vietnam policy proposed
by JFK, a CIA-style coup d'etat was carried out in Dallas on November 22, 1963. LBJ's
NSAM#273 reversing JFK's Vietnam policy [from withdrawal to establishing the foundation for
massive U.S. intervention] was issued on November 26, 1963. The goals of the coup were
obtained immediately following the assassination. Prouty gives us the "why" of the coup.
Further research remains to be done in order to give us "who" and the "how". Prouty's work is
a valuable starting point for further inquiry and deserves our appreciation for its
autobiographical honesty and heartfelt analysis.
Very disappointing. I was looking forward to reading this book primarily because the
author was so close to the action. But as other reviewers have pointed out, the focus of the
book is a far reaching review of US history since 1944-45. Unfortunately, in this regard, the
book is a failure.
Prouty isn't a historian and I'm sure that he doesn't claim to be one. But to attempt to
cover the ground that he does, he's lacking a lot of background knowledge. This shows up
quickly in the book - let me give you a couple of examples;
- He states that President Roosevelt died suddenly, unexpectedly is the word he uses, and
this simply isn't true. Roosevelt was bed-ridden for about 6 months before his death and the
US government was effectively run by his advisors during this period.
- He claims that the USA and Russia were allies at the close of WWII (true), but also that
an atmosphere of trust existed between the two countries (false). He continues to make the
claim that but for the actions of the CIA, the Cold War would not have happened. That's
simply not the case - Roosevelt and his advisors weren't happy with Stalin and vice versa.
The CIA didn't even formally exist until Truman created them in 1947 and they didn't act
without full political approval of the US governments of the time.
Look, I'm no fan of the CIA, and I completely agree with him that they plotted and
achieved the death of JFK. But that doesn't mean that they and the KGB were responsible for
creating the Cold War! Does Prouty think that the KGB could have acted in anyway without the
full and knowing approval of Stalin himself? And that the Dulles brothers somehow manipulated
the USA into the Cold War without the support and approval of Roosevelt and Truman?
Apparently, he does!
Much of his thesis is based on the concept that there is a "power elite" that has actually
been in control of world of US and Russian actions since 1944. Perhaps he is correct that a
cabal currently sits behind our governments and influences events, but I disagree with his
notion that they have controlled political events in the detailed way that he suggests
throughout the world since 1944.
This really isn't a book about JFK and his assassination as it is a somewhat innacurate
attempt to describe world history since WWII.
This book presents a very strange and sinister theory.
People who are into conspiracy theories talk about groups like the Bilderberg Group who
collude in secret to make decisions that are good for them but disastrous for everyone else.
Those types of groups, so the theory goes, are not associated with any one particular
government or country. Author Fletcher Prouty describes something like that although he says
it is not the Bilderberg Group.
I've always believed in the JFK conspiracy but I never thought this conspiracy extended
beyond the United States government and Lyndon Johnson. But yet I have to ask myself, if
Fletcher is wrong what is the alternative ? Could he be right ?
Fletcher Prouty was deeply saddened by what he observed first hand in Vietnam. People who
had lived in peace for many thousands of years in northern Vietnam were uprooted from their
ancestral lands and moved to the south with nothing but the clothes on their backs. This was
done to create hopelessness and a boiling cauldron of despair which was the perfect
environment for igniting the inferno of warfare.
This was all accomplished by that most sinister of organizations called the CIA This
agency is expert at creating confusion, human misery, and death on a massive scale with no
regard for human life whatsoever.
Fletcher spends a few chapters analyzing the official story about the Kennedy
assassination as far as Oswald's involvement (he was not involved), the number of shooters,
and the many unexplained lapses of following official and long held procedures for protecting
the president.
He was able to easily see through the smoke screen of lies created by the government about
the JFK assassination and many other things because he saw all this from the inside. He was
part of the very machine that caused the escalation in Vietnam and the JFK assassination. The
Warren Commission's story does not hold up for many, many reasons. For one thing there were
too many bullets fired. What a strange coincidence that on the day JFK was killed Fletcher
happened to be in Antarctica serving as a military escort for a bunch of diplomats on some
sight seeing excursion.
But yet it seems the nefarious group that ordered this assassination didn't really care if
people thought there was a conspiracy because they knew nobody can do anything anyway. That's
what's so scary about all this.
Fletcher feels this High Cabal, as Winston Churchill called it, has existed for 2,000
years or more in some form. Perhaps this is that great, lying beast and multi headed hydra
described in the bible in the Book Of Revelation.
Some of the groups Fletcher feels are part of this cabal are the CIA and the other
American intelligence agencies, the American military, international bankers, industrialists,
and the Dallas police department. But beyond that even Fletcher doesn't know who is really at
the very top of this super elite power structure.
For Fletcher this cabal is much more powerful than the president of the United States and
they will disregard what the president says if they want to. That's exactly what happened
when the CIA sent Gary Powers on a U2 spy plane mission over Russia and made sure the plane
malfunctioned. As a result a planned peace summit between president Eisenhower and Nikita
Khrushchev was cancelled. Ike had given orders to stop all covert activity until this summit
was over.
They also cancelled a mission to shoot up Fidel Castro's three aircraft before the Bay Of
Pigs fiasco. That was a direct failure to follow president Kennedy's orders to make sure
these planes were destroyed before the invasion. They did this to embarrass president
Kennedy. That's because peace is the High Cabal's greatest fear and enemy.
The election of president Kennedy was a disaster for the High Cabal. JFK was interfering
with their plans to spend, not billions, but trillions of dollars in Vietnam and on their
other Cold War projects. JFK was interfering with their ability to control the American
government. So they killed him and regained that power, partially through their murderous
accomplice Lyin' Lyndon Johnson.
After World War II the High Cabal created the perception in the public's mind of an epic
struggle between Communism and the West. They used this false premise to create limited,
protracted warfare all over the world. But they had to ensure the fighting did not become too
intense because of the ever present menace of nuclear weapons.
Could it really be that the High Cabal doesn't care about the ideological struggle between
Communism and the West or any other ideology for that matter ? Could the CIA, the KGB, and
other similar groups really be providing weapons to the combatants on all sides just to
prolong warfare forever ? That's what Fletcher Prouty says in this book.
Another point is the Vietnam conflict did not have any well defined military objective so
it was doomed to become a protracted and ultimately unsuccessful bloodbath with the body
count being the only measure of success.
Here's an exchange between Lyin' Lyndon Johnson and military legend General Creighton
Abrams and his aide:
Lyndon:
"Abe, you are going over there to win. You will have an army of 550,000 men, one of the
most powerful air forces ever assembled, and the invincible Seventh Fleet of the U.S. Navy
offshore. Now go over there and do it."
Aide:
"Mr. President, you have told us to go over there and do 'it'. Would you care to define
what 'it' is ?"
Johnson remained silent as he ushered General Abrams and his men out of the Oval
Office.
Fletcher appears in an episode of the documentary 'The Men Who Killed Kennedy'. The
hypocrites have taken legal action to have some of those episodes pulled off the market and
the DVDs are no longer available for those 'Final Chapter' episodes. However 'The Men Who
Killed Kennedy' can still be watched on the internet which I highly recommend.
Fletcher served as an advisor for Oliver Stone when Stone created his JFK movie. Stone's
movie created a lot of controversy with the public and as a result people called for more
hearings about the assassination. But those later investigations ran into the same brick wall
of secrecy and deception that continues to this very day.
Fletcher drops another bomb shell in the notes section at the end of the book. He says on
the day of the assassination JFK was shot with a poisonous flechette that was launched from
an umbrella. A flechette is a very small, rocket propelled dart which travels at a very high
velocity and which is very difficult to detect during an autopsy. Why they poisoned JFK even
though they were planning on shooting him anyway I don't know. This may have been insurance
in case JFK was not shot or not shot fatally.
The people who did this were professional killers. They leave very little to chance and
account for many different scenarios.
For all intents and pruposes, Prouty was serving behind the scenes of US Intelligence
services in one capacity or another since before WWII (as special duty at both the Cairo and
Tehran Conferences), until the day he retired. So how do you know he isn't just like all the
other shills and "company men" from the inside who tell the public only what the elite want
them to know? There is no better illustration of Prouty's willingness to tell his whole story
-- with the vast information at his disposal -- than Page 260, which in this edition, is in
Chapter 17 JFK's Plan to End the Vietnam Warfare:
"Why did the US government in 1945, before the end of World War II, choose to arm and
equip Ho Chi Minh? Why did the United States, a few short years later, shift its allegiance
from Ho Chi Minh to the French in their losing struggle that ended ignominiously with the
battle of Dien Bien Phu? Why, after creating the Diem government in 1954 and after supporting
that government for ten years, did the United States shift again and encourage those
Vietnamese who planned to overthrow it? And finally, why, after creating an enormous military
force in Indochina, did the US government fail to go ahead and defeat this same Ho Chi Minh
when, by all traditional standards of warfare, it possessed the means to do so?"
And this makes-up the majority of this work by Prouty. He wisely stays with the evidence
that HE has at his disposal. In other words, what Prouty effectively laid out for the reader,
is the "Why" in the Kennedy assassination. He does so without assuming very much, as when
reading the book, you see very well that there was quite a large swath of the Military
Industrial Complex that stood to loose billions if Kennedy had lived. And thankfully, Prouty
effectively explains in great detail that any myth about Kennedy escalating the Vietnam war
is just that -- a myth. And Prouty's evidence of this? Documents from his time in the
Pentagon and White House, not to mention press members and administration members who backed
Kennedy's own words that US forces would be pulled out of the region after he was
reelected.
For those who wish to research this subject further than the events in Dealey Plaza,
Prouty's book is for you. If you want an idea as to "why" Kennedy was killed, I couldn't
recommend this book highly enough.
JFK: The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy
Events in the real world and society are mostly planned, they do not just happen. This
book presents selected events from 1943 to 1990. The major events of this time were craftily
and systematically planned by the power elite. This book will attempt to explain the Cold
War, the Korean and Vietnam wars, the effects of the development of the hydrogen bomb, and
why the "military-industrial complex" removed JFK from the Presidency. L. Fletcher Prouty
spent 1955-64 as chief of special operations. Page xxxiii tells of one incident he witnessed
of the "power elite". Page 4 explains how an agent for the East India Company created an
ideological justification for eliminating unwanted people. Page 8 says that neither H-bombs
or "Star Wars" can prevent warfare by terrorists.
Pages 15-16 tells of the driving force of acquisitiveness. Mineral wealth is controlled by
corporate interests directly, or by the World Bank or International Monetary Fund. Genocide
is regularly practices to limit the "excess population", particularly those who object to
this exploitation. He repeats Elliot Roosevelt's story about Stalin's claim that FDR was
poisoned (he had spies everywhere?). "Many of the skilled saboteurs and terrorists of today
are the CIA students of yesterday" (p.37). "The first aerial hijackings were publicly
solicited by the US in return for big cash awards, plus sanctuary". Page 56 tells why so many
of our leaders are lawyers: they are trained to work under the direction of their clients.
Their "lawyer-client confidence" ensures secrecy, even in court; they work for international
law firms in government, banks, and major industries.
Chapter Six, "Genocide by Transfer", tells how over a million Tonkinese were moved to
Cochin China; it caused a rice shortage in a previously rice-exporting country! The
destruction of self-sufficient villages created consumers of imported food (like post-1962
Burma), and enriched merchants and shippers. It also created a source of cheap labor? Chapter
Seven tells of the destruction of the village economy, and the resulting banditry. The
depopulation of rural counties and the "urban renewal" in the big cities caused internal
migration and a rise in the crime rate here in America too. After Textron Corporation bought
Bell helicopters, there was now a need for these helicopters in Vietnam. Page 108 tells how
43% of lives lost were "not from action by hostile forces" - just accidents! The high cost of
machines and their need for maintenance (supplies, personnel) helped to lose the war.
L. Fletcher Prouty says the massive slaughter in Cambodia, the Iran-Iraq war, "Desert
Storm", and the Middle East hostilities are an example of Malthusian social engineering
(p.187). Chapter 16 explains the economic reasons for coups d' etat, whether Marcos in the
Phillipines, Batista, Somoza, or Trujillo (pp. 236-7). Once a puppet ruler in s country tries
to counteract its exploitation, its goodbye. Page 238 tells how "foreign aid" is used to
support American companies moving their factories and machinery to foreign countries. Page
240 explains why Vietnam (like Korea) was a limited "unwinnable" war.
On November 22, 1963 JFK was removed from office by a powerful group that wanted to
escalate the war in Vietnam, and increase government spending (p.257). Pages 261-4 answers
those who mistakenly claim JFK did not want to withdraw military forces from Vietnam. Prouty
presents information from the public record and his personal experience. NSAM#263 shows that
JFK did plan to withdraw military personnel from Vietnam in 1963. The death of JFK changed
the war in Indochina from low-intensity to a major operation. Page 291 lists the many things
done as standard security procedure which were NOT done on 11-22-1963. If the Warren Report
is wrong on any key point, then it is false. Governor Connally contradicted the key point of
the Warren Report to his dying day. The assassination of JFK demonstrated that most major
events of world significance are masterfully planned and orchestrated by an elite coterie of
enormously powerful people (p.334). You can read Jim Marrs' "Rule by Secrecy". The August 31,
1983 downing of Korean Air flight 007 resulted in the largest Defense Department budget ever
passed in peacetime.
A must read if you're wanting answers. I was and I've read a lot of books about this era
because I lived through it and wanted answers to questions I had. Now it all makes sense. I
would also suggest reading "Official and Confidential: The Secret Life of J. Edgar Hoover" by
Anthony Summers. I had a hard time putting that book down too.
JFK The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy
by Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty
The Long Journey to Dallas Texas
Spoiler alert: This is neither the shortest version, nor the shortest route to
understanding the JFK assassination. But it is as close to the complete canonical text and
understanding of the assassination as there is ever likely to be. It is told by an insider,
the high priest of understanding about the JFK assassination if you ask me (or Oliver Stone),
one who has been around long enough, and has resided deep enough inside the bowels of the US
government to know where all the skeletons are buried.
Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty was also a member of "The Secret Team," which he wrote a very
revealing book about, of the same name. It has proven to be a critical part of the unfolding
of the 50-year old drama of the JFK assassination. (Read my Amazon review of it.)
Here Col Prouty takes us by the hand and guides us on a journey, moving slowly but
steadily and deliberately along a long winding path, through the historical underbrush
beginning at the end of WW-II. He then leads us out into a clearing called "the Cold War,"
where events are craftily orchestrated around the threat of a nuclear holocaust. But it is
orchestrated in such a way that the right to continue endless conventional wars is preserved
and the world is made forever safe "for wars of profit" by other more novel means. Korea,
would be the first but not the last of the "make money wars." The mother of all such
un-winnable "money wars," however was Vietnam. It would represent a signature turn in the
road that would "vector" directly to the JFK assassination. However, along the way the reader
will also be introduced to Saudi Arabia, Iran and the oil angle, and then on to Cuba and the
threat of nuclear war, finally ending up at high noon on 11/22/63 with the assassination of
our 35th president.
As enlightening as the journey is it is not an easy trip for a "democratically trained
mind." For along the way, we must unlearn the old rules of democracy in favor of learning a
new set, with a new unwritten covenant, as well as a new vocabulary of reactionary and
self-destructive power politics. And with them, we must also adopt and adapt to wearing a new
kind of emotional straitjacket, armor better to make us comfortable granting involuntary
consent to these altered understandings of how our more twisted and diminished democracy is
supposed to work.
To wit: We the people, and they, our new anonymous ruling power elite, consent to govern
us from above but forever behind the screen, promising nothing but to be unreliable invisible
puppet-masters. And in return "we the people" are expected to close our "lying eyes" and
pretend that when "we" see JFK's head snap violently back and to the left, it did not really
happen? Now, and henceforth, our only reality tests are those prepared for us by our "lying
media," the lemmings bought and paid for by our new invisible rulers. In short, the new
contract mandates that we go along quietly, without whimpering, and accept the fact that "we
the people" have been robbed of all previous contractual understandings of what a democratic
government is supposed to mean.
What government "by," "for" and "of" the people used to mean, has been permanently
altered. In this new "hyper real context" of being governed by an anonymous power elite, who
are constantly pulling the strings from behind the curtains, government "by," "for" and "of"
the people now means whatever our anonymous puppet-masters' media outlets tell us it
means.
Those steeped in the conspiracy paranoia of the likes of the Bilderburghers, the
Trilateralists, and the Council of Foreign Relations, must understand that what Colonel
Prouty is telling us here is not the same. They will find no comfort here on this journey for
cheap conspiracy nonsense. Instead, they will find here just the clean facts, with all of the
dots connected, convincingly written by one of the last of America's authentic patriots. When
readers complete this book, they will then understand why the Bilderburghers, the
Trilateralists, and the Council of Foreign Relations, are all superfluous and unnecessary.
All of the questions one can imagine about the JFK assassination are answered here.
A "Rough" Summary of Colonel Prouty's Story
After World War II, and owing primarily to the creation of the CIA, the U.S entered a new
"hyper covert reality" in which, just as General Eisenhower had warned in his farewell
address, the machinery of government was effectively commandeered by reactionary warmongers
and war profiteers. The post-war power elite ruled by calling for continuous wars, with the
CIA and the military acting as their vanguard and shock troops. There was nothing subtle
about this take over, nor is reference to it just knee-jerk conspiracy nonsense. Colonel
Prouty provides us a framework and a clear discrete paper trail that reveals every step of
the "take over process," steps that he argues convincingly led inexorably to the JFK
assassination.
Step one was carefully embedded within policy memorandum NSC-5412, which among other
things, gave all covert operations over to the CIA, and specifically prohibited the active
military from engaging in them. However, after the spectacular debacle of the John Foster
Dulles led Bay of Pigs operation, JFK issued (and was in the process of implementing at the
time of his very timely assassination), a reversal of this policy with NSC-55, which would
have given the responsibility for covert operations back to the active military through the
JCS. Not only was this reversing directive never implemented, but with JFK's death, all of
the generals running the Vietnam War, were actually CIA officers operating under military
cover and rank. According to Colonel Prouty, this was nail #1 in the JFK coffin.
Nail number two involved an excruciatingly carefully worked out policy directive, NSAM-65
by the JFK national security team. It was the policy directive initiating the complete
withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Vietnam by 1965. NSAM-65 was drawn up after an
unprecedented 23 high-level meetings by JFK's and his national security team. Not only was
NSAM-65 not implemented, but it was reversed in a week after the assassination by LBJ
initiated policy directives NSC-273 and NSC-288.
The final nail in the coffin, according to Colonel Prouty, the one that actually signaled
that assassination plans were already afoot, is the tell-tale fact that in the Pentagon
papers that had been released within the government before JFK was assassinated (and later
exposed publicly by Daniel Ellsberg), one-page cover sheets were entered in the text at the
point where the substance of JFK's two policy directives should have been? Twenty-five
stars
Today America has become the nightmare (Arnold Toynbee)
Prouty's autobiography is very revealing indeed. Of course, it contains controversial
items (Would JFK have stopped the Vietnam War?). But, it is the general picture that counts,
and here, the author is prophetic.
Prouty presents his world view as follows: `The world is ruled by a power elite. The basic
motivations are always the same. Money lays at the root ... the enormous amount spent on
military matériel.'
This elite wields its power partly and most importantly through invisible intelligence
agencies. `The power of any agency allowed to operate in secrecy is boundless'.
Nationally, JFK would probably be reelected in 1964, also via carefully directed
investments, which should have influenced favorably the voting in heavily contested states.
This reelection for another 4 years was very hard to swallow for a part of the power elite.
JFK had promised to cut the defense budget and destroy one of its power bases (`split an
intelligence agency into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds.')
JFK's masterfully planned assassination was a coup d'état, not less than a total
takeover of the US government. The cover-up of the assassination, which is still going on,
shows the immense power of the culprits. They controlled the Warner Commission and could
(can) force, until today, the media and Congress to pay lip service to them. Congress was
never capable to launch an adequate investigation into the murder.
Internationally, `the world's power elite benefited splendidly from the staggering sums
involved in the Vietnam War.' The author's moving evocation of the fate of a pastoral
Vietnamese village shows that `people's lives are valueless when they get in the way of
elitist interests.' (Mark Curtis)
The powerful show absolutely no respect for national sovereignty (e.g., Vietnam, Bolivia,
Nicaragua, Afghanistan, Panama, Iraq, the Philippines, even Grenada), which is the principle
on which `the family of nations exists, with its property rights and the rights of man.'
At the end, Prouty is even prophetic: `the power elite utilizes all manner of plots to
achieve their ambitious goal. That gamesmanship is called `Terrorism'.
This book is a must read for all those wanting to understand the world we live in.
In his perceptive book JFK: THE CIA, VIETNAM, AND THE PLOT TO ASSASSINATE JOHN F. KENNEDY
(2011), Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty (Retired, U.S. Air Force) admirably demonstrates that he
understands the dynamics involved in the Vietnam War. Time and again, Col. Prouty draws on
his own personal experience to elucidate various matters he discusses.
Concerning the Vietnam War, President Lyndon B. Johnson used trumped-up charges to
escalate the conflict between North Vietnam and South Vietnam into a major tragedy - and a
defeat for the United States. Col. Prouty sees the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) as
having orchestrated the conflict between North Vietnam and South Vietnam. Allen Dulles was
the director of the CIA - until President John F. Kennedy fired him as a result of the CIA
adventure to invade Cuba known as the Bay of Pigs debacle. During the Eisenhower
administration, Allen Dulles' brother, John Foster Dulles, served as the Secretary of State.
The Dulles brothers were fervently anti-communist. Moreover, they regarded nation-states not
aligned with the U.S. as aligned with the communists - the enemy in the Cold War.
Concerning the Dulles brothers, see Stephen Kinzer's book THE BROTHERS: JOHN FOSTER
DULLES, ALLEN DULLES, AND THEIR SECRET WORLD WAR (2013). In my estimate, Kinzer does fine job
of tracing the American anti-communist spirit back to the time of the Bolshevik Revolution in
Russia in 1917. But Col. Prouty does not advert to this earlier history of the American
anti-communist spirit. Instead, he picks up the story in the waning times of World War II
(WWII). As he points out, Joseph Stalin's Soviet Union was one of our allies in WWII against
Adolf Hitler's Nazis in Germany. As Col. Prouty also points out, Chiang Kai-shek's China was
one of our allies in WWII against Japan. (Subsequently, Chiang Kai-shek was defeated by Moa
Tse-tung's communist forces.)
Col. Prouty explains how 1.1 million peasants had earlier been transported about a
thousand miles from their traditional culture in what then became known as the nation-state
of North Vietnam and had been relocated in what then became known as the nation-state of
South Vietnam, where they were landless and poor. Their relocation was orchestrated by the
CIA
As a result of their dire needs for food, many of them became bandits. As Col. Prouty
repeatedly explains, those bandits had been relocated in the Mekong Delta. The Mekong Delta
is so far to the south of North Vietnam as to preclude their having infiltrated from North
Vietnam. Unfortunately, those bandits were considered to be communist "infiltrators" from
North Vietnam - the enemy. Those bandits came to be referred to as the Vietcong.
With admirable clear-sightedness, Col. Prouty also explains the complicated logistics of
helicopter warfare in the Vietnam War.
Because President Harry Truman had dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to get
Japan to surrender, most powerful Americans had subsequently figured out that another all-out
war like WWII would result in the nuclear destruction of human life on the planet. As a
result, Col. Prouty claims, President Johnson would not authorize the American military to
fight for victory over North Vietnam because such a fight would of necessity run the risk of
expanding the conflict to bring in China and perhaps the Soviet Union - and thereby risk the
dreaded nuclear holocaust. Thus American forces were consigned to waging the Vietnam War
without risking victory - and the dreaded nuclear holocaust.
Even though Col. Prouty's overall discussion of the Vietnam War is astute, his major
thesis in the book is that President John F. Kennedy was assassinated on November 22, 1963,
by experienced assassins hired to do the job. In CIA parlance, such hired assassins were
referred to as "mechanics."
President Kennedy had ordered that all American advisers would be out of Vietnam by the
end of 1965. Moreover, he was likely to win re-election in 1964, which would mean that he
could make his order stick.
However, for years, the CIA had been cultivating Vietnam for a war there. A war there
would serve the purposes of enriching what President Dwight D. Eisenhower in his farewell
address had referred to as the military-industrial complex - in plain English, war
profiteers. No doubt the war profiteers did profit enormously from the Vietnam War. (Of
course the war profiteers employed many Americans in their civilian work force.)
Despite the fact that Col. Prouty suggests that the CIA was probably involved in President
Kennedy's assassination, he stops well short of naming specific CIA and other government
officials who were involved in the carefully orchestrated plot to assassinate President
Kennedy. In this respect, we could say that Col. Prouty paints the big picture - but he ably
paints the big picture.
In conclusion, Col. Prouty's book JFK: THE CIA, VIETNAM, AND THE PLOT TO ASSASSINATE JOHN
F. KENNEDY (2011) is well written and ably researched.
This is a shocking book. L. Fletcher Prouty is a world class whistleblower. After reading
this masterpiece take another look at the official 9/11 report. The secret cabal running our
planet has been exposed by many writers and few politicians; this is an insider's report on
that cabal. False flag attacks are now used by the cabal, not only in USA but in any country
where the locals are not towing the line as demanded by the banksters.
"To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize. --
Voltaire"
Amazing, the cabal has kept the lid on the murder of JFK for over 50 years. How long will
we be kept in the dark about 9/11?
So somebody finally pulls it all together--the conspiracy is not a theory, it's all facts.
Circumstantial, but no lies
Best editorial trick revealed: Leslie H. Gelb, who was to the Watergate papers what Phil
Zelikow was to the 9/11 Commission novel, used the neat writer's trick (Gelb was a New York
Times editor, you may recall) to hide something in black ink on a white page. Gelb uses the
title President to avoid mentioning that JFK's presidency was ended with bullets. The
President (JFK) had NSAM #263 written & promulgated, 1 Oct 63. The memo noted that the
troops could be pulled out of Vietnam by the end of 1965. Ending the CIA-guided Indochina war
they'd begun in September of 1945. So Gelb has "The President" as author of #263, have a
mind-change with his cabinet, all of who had decided to go to Honolulu for the 22nd. On the
23rd, when an official speaks with The President, and a new NSAM is issued--#273, which
called for an escalation of Conflict. The President of #263 has changed his mind and issued
#273. The title stays the same, but the brain of the President who commissioned #263 was
blown away by, what, Hornady hollow-point, boat-tail bullets (the kind the Abteilung der
Heimats Versicherheit (dept of "home" "security"). And "The President" of the second instance
just happened to be a different president, LBJ.
That's some clever and wondrously deliberate writing. The words are there in front of your
nose, in plain sight. And yet they hide the circumstances, that, in the brief period between
Nov. 21 and Nov. 23, the title President had not changed--just the life and body for which it
represented. (In the newspaper biz, novices are instructed to "write around" facts that are
missing. In this case, a few years after the Assassination of JFK, i think most people had
gotten the news that JFK was dead and gone. Gelb and his boss were in that news loop, so I
doubt Gelb would testify that he didn't know that JFK had been murdered (by a head shot fired
from the Grassy Knoll, of course, but who's quibbling). No reason to fail to mention that The
President (JFK) had been replaced by The President (LBJ), except if you want to avoid the
"chance" that people will notice that Presidential Policy on Nov 21, 1963 (NSAM 263 (JFK)
hand changed 180 degrees to Presidential Policy (NSAM 273) on Nov. 23 (LBJ).
So in the murder investigation, you'd want to bring Gelb in to get his story. You might
want to set a water-board in the witness box right next to him--perhaps the special,
autographed KSM (Khalid Sheikh Mohammad) model, guaranteed to last at least 168 uses (whether
by one "detainee" (POW) or a succession of them. And you'd want to get all this moving while
at least a few of the players are still alive. I'd like to hear what David R. and the rest of
the Wall Street Banksters and lawyers have to say about JFK, RFK, Tonkin, USS Liberty, 9/11,
etc. And also what Cheney and Shrub I and Shrub II and Rumsfeld & Wolfowitz and Pearle,
etc., have to say about all the above.
At any rate, Prouty is a must-read. As is William Pepper's "An Act of State: The
assassination of MLKjr." which puts the quietus to the phrase "conspiracy theory". Not a
theory any longer, but a conspiracy fact. But who will prosecute members of the High Cabal?
They run the government, with their private army, the CIA, and have since Nov. 22, 1963. Not
that anybody cares, of course.
JFK: The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy
Events in the real world and society are mostly planned, they do not just happen. This
book presents selected events from 1943 to 1990. The major events of this time were craftily
and systematically planned by the power elite. This book will attempt to explain the Cold
War, the Korean and Vietnam wars, the effects of the development of the hydrogen bomb, and
why the "military-industrial complex" removed JFK from the Presidency. L. Fletcher Prouty
spent 1955-64 as chief of special operations. Page xxxiii tells of one incident he witnessed
of the "power elite". Page 4 explains how an agent for the East India Company created an
ideological justification for eliminating unwanted people. Page 8 says that neither H-bombs
or "Star Wars" can prevent warfare by terrorists.
Pages 15-16 tells of the driving force of acquisitiveness. Mineral wealth is controlled by
corporate interests directly, or by the World Bank or International Monetary Fund. Genocide
is regularly practices to limit the "excess population", particularly those who object to
this exploitation. He repeats Elliot Roosevelt's story about Stalin's claim that FDR was
poisoned (he had spies everywhere?). "Many of the skilled saboteurs and terrorists of today
are the CIA students of yesterday" (p.37). "The first aerial hijackings were publicly
solicited by the US in return for big cash awards, plus sanctuary". Page 56 tells why so many
of our leaders are lawyers: they are trained to work under the direction of their clients.
Their "lawyer-client confidence" ensures secrecy, even in court; they work for international
law firms in government, banks, and major industries.
Chapter Six, "Genocide by Transfer", tells how over a million Tonkinese were moved to
Cochin China; it caused a rice shortage in a previously rice-exporting country! The
destruction of self-sufficient villages created consumers of imported food (like post-1962
Burma), and enriched merchants and shippers. It also created a source of cheap labor? Chapter
Seven tells of the destruction of the village economy, and the resulting banditry. The
depopulation of rural counties and the "urban renewal" in the big cities caused internal
migration and a rise in the crime rate here in America too. After Textron Corporation bought
Bell helicopters, there was now a need for these helicopters in Vietnam. Page 108 tells how
43% of lives lost were "not from action by hostile forces" - just accidents! The high cost of
machines and their need for maintenance (supplies, personnel) helped to lose the war.
L. Fletcher Prouty says the massive slaughter in Cambodia, the Iran-Iraq war, "Desert
Storm", and the Middle East hostilities are an example of Malthusian social engineering
(p.187). Chapter 16 explains the economic reasons for coups d' etat, whether Marcos in the
Phillipines, Batista, Somoza, or Trujillo (pp. 236-7). Once a puppet ruler in s country tries
to counteract its exploitation, its goodbye. Page 238 tells how "foreign aid" is used to
support American companies moving their factories and machinery to foreign countries. Page
240 explains why Vietnam (like Korea) was a limited "unwinnable" war.
On November 22, 1963 JFK was removed from office by a powerful group that wanted to
escalate the war in Vietnam, and increase government spending (p.257). Pages 261-4 answers
those who mistakenly claim JFK did not want to withdraw military forces from Vietnam. Prouty
presents information from the public record and his personal experience. NSAM#263 shows that
JFK did plan to withdraw military personnel from Vietnam in 1963. The death of JFK changed
the war in Indochina from low-intensity to a major operation. Page 291 lists the many things
done as standard security procedure which were NOT done on 11-22-1963. If the Warren Report
is wrong on any key point, then it is false. Governor Connally contradicted the key point of
the Warren Report to his dying day. The assassination of JFK demonstrated that most major
events of world significance are masterfully planned and orchestrated by an elite coterie of
enormously powerful people (p.334). You can read Jim Marrs' "Rule by Secrecy". The August 31,
1983 downing of Korean Air flight 007 resulted in the largest Defense Department budget ever
passed in peacetime.
In this volume, Colonel Fletcher Prouty captures both the secret history of the United
States from 1945 to 1975 and the reasons behind the plot to kill President Kennedy. Herein,
the courageous Colonel illustrates quite clearly that the clandestine history and the
assassination plot were intrinsically linked.
From the important information in this book, we learn that the war in Vietnam actually
began on September 2, 1945, when Ho Chi Minh was established as the new leader of Vietnam by
our OSS, the predecessor of the CIA, and the US Army. The United States was thoughtful enough
to provide all the weapons, ammunition, and supplies necessary for Ho and Giap to pursue
their war against the French, which culminated in the French defeat at Dien Bien Phu.
Following that defeat, the CIA arranged for the transfer of 1.1 million "refugees" from the
North of Vietnam to the South. These folks caused such disruption in the fragile agricultural
economy of the South that their arrival ultimately drove the orginal residents to banditry in
order that they might survive. These displaced bandits became what was later known as the
Viet Cong. Hence, the CIA created the conditions necessary for a full scale war in
Vietnam.
On coming to office, Kennedy, a brilliant and studious man, came soon to understand the
perfidy of the CIA One of first his acts on realizing this was to fire CIA director Allen
Dulles. Soon thereafter, he issued one the most important, and unknown, documents of US
history, NSAM 263. Issued in October of 1963, this document called for 1,000 US military
personnel to come home from Vietnam by that Christmas. The remainder were to be out of
Vietnam by the end of 1965. Had John Kennedy lived, what Americans know as the war in Vietnam
would never have happened.
Prouty demonstrates herein that the powers that be ultimately made the decision that they
could not allow Kennedy to live. He makes it clear that assassination researches who make a
career of examining the details of the government's false cover story truly miss the point.
What matters is not how the President was killed, but why. And the answer to that question is
that the assassination was a coup d'etat, transferring control of the government of the
United States to a power elite, which has been in control ever since. Hence, we have the
strange silence of every succeeding President on the issue of the cover up of the Kennedy
assassination.
The book is well written and extraordinarily important. He would understand our nation and
how it came to be in the condition that now obtains would be well advised to read carefully
this terribly important book. God bless.
This book is written by someone who was sitting in the middle of Eisenhower's feared
military-industrial complex, instead of an outside researcher. Col Prouty lived what he tells
us for several years. He saw the Korean & the Vietnam War buildup from the inside; he
watched as the Bay of Pigs went down and No, it was not JFK's fault.
I was most impressed that Col Prouty is the actual person depicted as "Mr. X" and
portrayed by Donald Sutherland in Oliver Stone's JFK.
If only half of what he tells us is the truth, then we need to demand another look at
JFK's murder.
Fascinating read, from a man inside the Military Complex
Overall, this was a fascinatiing read, and an awesome addition to my already humongous JFK
Assassination collection. My only points of contention: 1)The name of it (and I realize the
name needs to attract the reader) should have been The Military Complex / The Power Elite:
How it works and it's connection to the JFK Assassination. The first three quarters of this
book was all about the High Cabal and the Military complex. Incredibly detailed and
compelling reading, but I just could not wait for it to end so we could get to the JFK part.
But when it did...BAM! I could not put the book down. 2) This may be minor, but parts were
extremely repetitve. I stopped counting how many times he referred to the one million
Vietnemese who migrated to South Vietnam. I know he was trying to bang the point home, but it
got to a point where it was not needed. 3) Once he got to the assassination itself I truly
thought he would get into names...who made up this High Cabal or Power Elite that is more
powerful than the President and US Government. I understand this could be dangerous...but a
little hint would have been nice. 4) I thought he would get into more detail how the
Assassination was pulled off. He drops a lot of hints and possibilities, but never really
gives details to his personal thoughts. I cannot believe Mr. Prouty, after all his years
serving in the military in the sensitive positions he held, could not come up with some kind
of idea. Be that as it my, I truly believe this is as close the truth that we could ever get.
I think this give the Why and Who would benefit. But would love even more detail. Maybe
that's asking too much... Whether or not you are a JFK Assassination buff...this is truly an
amazing read.
An Admirble Attempt at Truth-telling by a Good Man
If you have come to this book looking for another lean, persuasive investigation of the
various conspiracies that could have led to the killing of JFK, you have come to the wrong
place. prouty's book reaches far wider than that narrow scope, exploring every square inch of
his vast, first-hand knowledge of the workings and consequences of the so-called Cold War
(though I don't see how the bloody loss of millions of lives during that time constitute a
war that was anything but blazing hot).
Prouty, a former Air Force colonel and CIA insider, manages to observe his life's work
from an objective standpoint that raises countless probing and often hair-raising questions
and warnings. Reaching back to the origins of the cold war and its effects on the policy and
history that would soon be made, Prouty paints an expansive, thorough and detailed account
not only of the JFK assassination, but of the entire political and industrial framework
festering in the 20 years leading up to that moment that allowed such a tragedy to take
place.
Contrary to most other books that deal --either obliquely or directly -- with JFK's
murder, prouty's endures with a relevance that has as much to say about our own time as it
does about Kennedy's. He foresees all the problems of a tyrannically powerful CIA that
functions as the President's puppet master. "Many of the skilled saboteurs and terrorists of
today are CIA students of yesterday," Prouty asserts in what amounts to an astonishing
revelation when one considers that, among others, Osama Bin Laden is one of those "CIA
students of yesterday." But it isn't only terrorists: it is the people we put in place as
American puppets around the world. Take Hamad Karzai, for example, former CIA agent and
millionaire now serving as President of Afghanistan.
The intimate and omnipotent mingling of money, military, covert intelligence operations
and politics is precisely the network of power Prouty implicates not only in the crime that
was the JFK murder, but the crime of so many brutal wars and coups performed by the CIA
throughout the world to this very day. We are under the tyranny of an intelligence elite, an
elite that happens to have the most powerful military and political machines on the planet at
its service.
As prouty shows, Truman regretted his approval of the formation of the CIA toward the end
of his presidency. Eisenhower tried to curb its powers but failed miserably, and when Kennedy
fired Allen Dulles -- CIA chief at the time -- and not only threatened but actually worked to
break the CIA "into a thousand pieces," he was killed. If that strieks you as an irrational
logical leap, you need to read Prouty's book.
It is admirable that he undertook the writing of the book himself, rather than resorting
to the services of some professional writer as so many politicians and military officials do
for their memoirs and other books. Consequently, Prouty's book suffers a bit from a lack of
the kind of polish it might have had. He struggles to organize his vast knowledge into the
kind of coherant narrative he envisions and promises to no avail throughout. The reader has
to work a little harder here to put the many pieces together that prouty lays out.
Nonetheless, Prouty's book reads like a desperate, angry and even frantic attempt at
telling the truth by a man whose writing voice belies a remarkable warmth and sincerity. He
knows so much and is so appalled at the hypocrisy he witnessed throughout his career --
hypocrisy that turned to horror -- that his book reads like the result of a minor god angrily
shaking his fists and roaring in a locked room. His background, littered with merits and
accolades, backs up every claim he makes here.
Prouty's book is entirely based on first-hand knowledge and expertise he gleaned over the
course of a distinguished career: the precarious security arrangements in Dallas that day,
Kennedy's advocacy of a US note that would compete with the federal note, his vow to remove
all troops from Vietnam by 1965 and how this threatened the money-making machine that was the
Vietnam "conflict," the utter astonishment in Washington at Kennedy's victory over Nixon, a
man for whom various war and intelligence initiatives had already been drawn up for him to
sign off on at the start of his presidency -- before he was even elected!
From its first hour, Kennedy's thousand-day presidency threatened so many established
powers, so many benefactors of the military industrial complex, that there was no way it
could have ended up otherwise. Even Robert McNamara, a great admirer of the president and
godfather to one of Bobby Kennedy's kids, understood that a helicopter-augmented war like
Vietnam would "churn out big dollars," that the war itself was capable of creating the $500
billion in military-industrial profits it eventually raised. Any former Ford executive
understands the profits inherent in the collusion between military and industry.
As Prouty reports, quoting the controversial novel "Report From iron Mountain," "The war
system is indispensable to the stable political structure . . . war provides the sense of
external necessity without which no government can long remain in power." This is precisely
the bleak "necessity" that Kennedy eventually grew to rebuke, and it was that rebuke that put
the nails in his coffin long before his trip to Dallas.
By A customer on June 15, 1996
Very, very good.
I am a fan of Col Prouty, ever since I read The Secret Team.
Oliver Stone is in excellent company, because both of these men aren't afraid to tell the
truth.
It is exactly the lack of truth that is killing the
United States.
Those who attack this book, and Stone, with the usual ignorant hysterics, are part of the
cancer that is destroying the very innards of the last, great democracy on earth.
JFK's assasination was just a symptom of disease that is ravageing us today. This book
supports this point.
By the way, if you believe the results of the Warren Commmission, (the House Select Comm.
on Assasinations didn't, in 1976-78),then you are part of the problem.
This book gives an excellent pre-text to the take-over plans of the war-industy
complex,starting after World War II. Prouty clearly states how the US Navy took part in the
destabilization of Viet Nam by assisting in exporting tribes to the south. The resulting mess
fell into Kennedy's hands.
You can understand why the fascists would have to dispatch a man like Kennedy, because he
tried to do what was right. He was too charismatic, and he was correct. He could move too get
emotionally involved, and then to act. This was viewed to be a dangerous thing.
Kennedy's Presidential Memorandum #263 was the spark the could ignite a conflagration,
pulling the armed forces out of Viet Nam. This correct moral action would lead to other
positive events, such as the deconstruction of the war machine at home. If this course was
allowed to be taken. It didn't , of course.
The Military Right Wing and Ultra Hawks of the US had to liquidate Kennedy. Then, later,
Bobby, Malcom X, King... and I am sure that it was They were all done in by the same smoking
gun. They couldn't stand in the light of truth, like a vampire can stand the light of the
sun.
The prolem is still rampant today, Ladies and Gentlemen.
Read this book before revisionist history forces it from the shelves. Keep it alive, talk
about it. You'll find that you will defend it when you see the context that is carefully
presented by Prouty.
Also, think about how (now) Sen. Arlen Specter told us how the "magic" bullet is proof of
the single assasin theory. Then think about how he told us that this same bullet dediced to
wait in the air 1.6 seconds before striking Gov. Connally, and then move on to kill President
Kennedy, and still later was recovered with absolutely no loss of mass. Think, then reject
the fantasy tale outright.Specter was a liar, then as he is today, and the Warren
Commisssion's finding are pathetically false.
You should then read this book. It's not fantasy.
The cancer grows as you read this, but it is not too late... I think. If enough people get
informed, and then act according to their conscience, they can then eradicate the cancer.
There are not enough liar/fascists to stop a revolution of the truth. Today, they are
afraid, and for good reason.
Thank you.
MBF
By A customer on December 24, 1998
"The Truth Shall Set You Free" - Plaque at CIA's entrance
These words of St. John are displayed at CIA's Head Quarters in Langley, VA. The DCI,
(Director of Central Intelligence), Allen Dulles, was not known for his ability to write good
"original" material... At one time, he commissioned one E. Howard Hunt to ghost write for
him. That might be likened to a liar who hires a thief to tell the truth! Colonel Leroy
Fletcher Prouty was not cast from the same "mold" that produced the likes of Colson,
MacGruder, Hunt, Sturgis, McCord, Liddy, Mitchell, Hoover, LeMay, Lansdale, and all the
rest... No, he was cast from a very different mold... a mold of integrity and dedication to
his country, the United States of America.
Imagine a patriotic young man, who enlists into the military, sees combat as a subordinate
on the front lines, is commissioned by his superiors (as they recognized the leadership
capabilities that he possessed), and is eventually placed in a newly created position: Chief
of Special Operations, as an adjunct to his previous title of "Focal Point Officer/Military
Liaison" in support of all CIA Clandestine Operations, as per National Security Council
Directive #5412. It is from this very perspective that the good Colonel speaks... and he
does, in fact, speak the truth.
I would do a disservice to those who seek an accurate account of the CIA, Vietnam, and the
Plot to Assassinate JFK, if I failed to mention the following:
Those who criticize or attack the content of this most important "work" of Fletcher, have
failed to understand that: "In the interest of a LEGITIMATE National Security Agenda" many
covert activities were necessary to insure the continued security of the United States. In
such instances any and all of the brave men and women, be they CIA, military, or civilian
personnel, who have engaged in such activity, including Fletcher Prouty, are to be commended
for their heroism and dedication to the freedom of us all, as unpalatable as many of these
activities may seem to those of us who have only known "peace" in our home land. Without the
work of the many "human assets" whose dedication to preserving our security at times
included, what is euphemistically called "Black Ops"-- we would not be free today to speak of
these issues. In this context, "Black Ops" can be seen as a necessary, albeit "unfortunate
choice" - However, choosing the lesser of two or more evils MUST be made at times.
At what point does one say "enough is enough?" I believe Colonel Prouty's insight is
extremely acute because of the honesty of the man AND the unique "position" he held at the
fulcrum of the meeting point between the military, industrial and intelligence complex, of
the United States. If one who is in such a position:
1. "Knows the signature of black ops" from years of experience;
2. Witnesses the "breakdown" of the Law mandated by Congress as a "Control Mechanism" --
i.e., the NSC's ability to DIRECT the activities of the intelligence community;
3. Ultimately recognizes that the removal of the main member of the NSC, President John F.
Kennedy, was saturated with the "fingerprints" of a very carefully orchestrated "coup
d'etat";
Then, (if such an individual is a true patriot), he is under an obligation to "right the
wrongs" to the best of his ability... even if it may mean speaking of things that, despite
their truth, will tend to strain the credibility of the messenger.
I applaud Colonel Prouty's courage, dedication, wisdom, excellent reportage, attention to
detail, and finally, his relentless committment... He is an excellent messenger.
In the words of Jim Garrison: "Do not forget your dying king..."
Events in the real world and society are mostly planned, they do not just happen. This
book presents selected events from 1943 to 1990. The major events of this time were craftily
and systematically planned by the power elite. This book will attempt to explain the Cold
War, the Korean and Vietnam wars, the effects of the development of the hydrogen bomb, and
why the "military-industrial complex" removed JFK from the Presidency.
L. Fletcher Prouty spent 1955-64 as chief of special operations. Page xxxiii tells of one
incident he witnessed of the "power elite". Page 4 explains how an agent for the East India
Company created an ideological justification for eliminating unwanted people. Page 8 says
that neither H-bombs or "Star Wars" can prevent warfare by terrorists.
Pages 15-16 tells of the driving force of acquisitiveness. Mineral wealth is controlled by
corporate interests directly, or by the World Bank or International Monetary Fund. Genocide
is regularly practices to limit the "excess population", particularly those who object to
this exploitation. He repeats Elliot Roosevelt's story about Stalin's claim that FDR was
poisoned (he had spies everywhere?).
"Many of the skilled saboteurs and terrorists of today are the CIA students of yesterday"
(p.37). "The first aerial hijackings were publicly solicited by the US in return for big cash
awards, plus sanctuary". Page 56 tells why so many of our leaders are lawyers: they are
trained to work under the direction of their clients. Their "lawyer-client confidence"
ensures secrecy, even in court; they work for international law firms in government, banks,
and major industries.
Chapter Six, "Genocide by Transfer", tells how over a million Tonkinese were moved to
Cochin China; it caused a rice shortage in a previously rice-exporting country! The
destruction of self-sufficient villages created consumers of imported food (like post-1962
Burma), and enriched merchants and shippers. It also created a source of cheap labor?
Chapter Seven tells of the destruction of the village economy, and the resulting banditry.
The depopulation of rural counties and the "urban renewal" in the big cities caused internal
migration and a rise in the crime rate here in America too. After Textron Corporation bought
Bell helicopters, there was now a need for these helicopters in Vietnam. Page 108 tells how
43% of lives lost were "not from action by hostile forces" - just accidents! The high cost of
machines and their need for maintenance (supplies, personnel) helped to lose the war.
L. Fletcher Prouty says the massive slaughter in Cambodia, the Iran-Iraq war, "Desert
Storm", and the Middle East hostilities are an example of Malthusian social engineering
(p.187).
Chapter 16 explains the economic reasons for coups d' etat, whether Marcos in the
Phillipines, Batista, Somoza, or Trujillo (pp. 236-7). Once a puppet ruler in s country tries
to counteract its exploitation, its goodbye. Page 238 tells how "foreign aid" is used to
support American companies moving their factories and machinery to foreign countries. Page
240 explains why Vietnam (like Korea) was a limited "unwinnable" war.
On November 22, 1963 JFK was removed from office by a powerful group that wanted to
escalate the war in Vietnam, and increase government spending (p.257). Pages 261-4 answers
those who mistakenly claim JFK did not want to withdraw military forces from Vietnam. Prouty
presents information from the public record and his personal experience. NSAM#263 shows that
JFK did plan to withdraw military personnel from Vietnam in 1963. The death of JFK changed
the war in Indochina from low-intensity to a major operation. Page 291 lists the many things
done as standard security procedure which were NOT done on 11-22-1963. If the Warren Report
is wrong on any key point, then it is false. Governor Connally contradicted the key point of
the Warren Report to his dying day.
The assassination of JFK demonstrated that most major events of world significance are
masterfully planned and orchestrated by an elite coterie of enormously powerful people
(p.334). You can read Jim Marrs' "Rule by Secrecy". The August 31, 1983 downing of Korean Air
flight 007 resulted in the largest Defense Department budget ever passed in peacetime.
By A customer on December 24, 1998
"The Truth Shall Set You Free" - Plaque at CIA's entrance
These words of St. John are displayed at CIA's Head Quarters in Langley, VA. The DCI,
(Director of Central Intelligence), Allen Dulles, was not known for his ability to write good
"original" material... At one time, he commissioned one E. Howard Hunt to ghost write for
him. That might be likened to a liar who hires a thief to tell the truth! Colonel Leroy
Fletcher Prouty was not cast from the same "mold" that produced the likes of Colson,
MacGruder, Hunt, Sturgis, McCord, Liddy, Mitchell, Hoover, LeMay, Lansdale, and all the
rest... No, he was cast from a very different mold... a mold of integrity and dedication to
his country, the United States of America.
Imagine a patriotic young man, who enlists into the military, sees combat as a subordinate
on the front lines, is commissioned by his superiors (as they recognized the leadership
capabilities that he possessed), and is eventually placed in a newly created position: Chief
of Special Operations, as an adjunct to his previous title of "Focal Point Officer/Military
Liaison" in support of all CIA Clandestine Operations, as per National Security Council
Directive #5412. It is from this very perspective that the good Colonel speaks... and he
does, in fact, speak the truth.
I would do a disservice to those who seek an accurate account of the CIA, Vietnam, and the
Plot to Assassinate JFK, if I failed to mention the following:
Those who criticize or attack the content of this most important "work" of Fletcher, have
failed to understand that: "In the interest of a LEGITIMATE National Security Agenda" many
covert activities were necessary to insure the continued security of the United States. In
such instances any and all of the brave men and women, be they CIA, military, or civilian
personnel, who have engaged in such activity, including Fletcher Prouty, are to be commended
for their heroism and dedication to the freedom of us all, as unpalatable as many of these
activities may seem to those of us who have only known "peace" in our home land. Without the
work of the many "human assets" whose dedication to preserving our security at times
included, what is euphemistically called "Black Ops"-- we would not be free today to speak of
these issues. In this context, "Black Ops" can be seen as a necessary, albeit "unfortunate
choice" - However, choosing the lesser of two or more evils MUST be made at times.
At what point does one say "enough is enough?" I believe Colonel Prouty's insight is
extremely acute because of the honesty of the man AND the unique "position" he held at the
fulcrum of the meeting point between the military, industrial and intelligence complex, of
the United States. If one who is in such a position:
1. "Knows the signature of black ops" from years of experience;
2. Witnesses the "breakdown" of the Law mandated by Congress as a "Control Mechanism" --
i.e., the NSC's ability to DIRECT the activities of the intelligence community;
3. Ultimately recognizes that the removal of the main member of the NSC, President John F.
Kennedy, was saturated with the "fingerprints" of a very carefully orchestrated "coup
d'etat";
Then, (if such an individual is a true patriot), he is under an obligation to "right the
wrongs" to the best of his ability... even if it may mean speaking of things that, despite
their truth, will tend to strain the credibility of the messenger.
I applaud Colonel Prouty's courage, dedication, wisdom, excellent reportage, attention to
detail, and finally, his relentless committment... He is an excellent messenger.
In the words of Jim Garrison: "Do not forget your dying king..."
Constitutional Implications of the JFK Assassination
A recent poll taken by CNBC and a "news-eum" shows that the assassination of John F.
Kennedy was the 6th most important event of the twentieth century. How or why those polled
justify this choice is not clear. But anyone familiar with American history, American
culture, and the myths and assumptions most Americans carry as a foundation of their beliefs
-- can deduce the relevance of November 22, 1963 and its implications.
Every school kid is taught that we live in a country where there is no need for coup
d'etat. We don't assassinate our leaders; we retire them at the voting booth. In this,
derives the faith we have in all our other institutions, and especially, the Constitution and
the Bill of Rights. From the dawn of our individual consciousness, we are made to believe and
assume that we are "safe," that we can think and say and do as we please, so long as we don't
tread on the rights of others. And every school kid learns by rote the Preamble to the
Constitution -- "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union,
establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense . . secure the
blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity . . . ."
So for thirty-five years, most of us have been living in some form of illusion and denial.
We were told and made to accept the story that the President of the United States was killed
by a single, crazed person -- a relative nobody, an insect. The Warren Commission Report
assured a majority of people over some part of those 35 years that our institutions are safe.
It attempted to assure us, among other things, that our public officials continue to be
honest; that our judges continue to value and protect Justice and Truth above everything
else; that our policemen and local officials can be relied upon to protect us; and that the
government, when it tells us to send the flower of our youth to war, does so for good reason.
In a way, the Report was a means of continuing the myths that we all believe, especially,
that "We the People" are the ultimate source of authority and power in our government.
Unfortunately for the authors of the 26-volume Report -- but fortunately for the rest of
us -- it has lost its credibility. That credibility began to erode almost as soon as the
Report was published, as Jim Garrison, District Attorney of New Orleans parish, resurrected
his investigation into the activities and actors of the building at Lafayette and Camp
streets. Almost from the beginning, the work of Garrison and his staff was hampered by the
seemingly unexplainable efforts of the FBI and the Central Intelligence Agency. Since that
time, we have been slowly awakened to the possible involvement of as many as three elected
presidents in the Warren Commission coverup, and there are echoes of something worse,
something more sinister.
We owe this awakening in part to the efforts of Garrison, and to the contribution of the
man who anonymously assisted him in that investigation of the late 60's. Col. L. Fletcher
Prouty, the "Mr. X" of Oliver Stone's "JFK," retired from the CIA not more than a year after
the assassination. New facts in the assassination have slowly accumulated, partly due to the
efforts of Prouty, Garrison, an emerging army of quiet and persistent historical researchers,
investigative journalists, and -- yes -- even elected officials.
Now there are several variations on the conspiracy theme, which polls show is now accepted
or suspected by as much as 78 percent of the American population. Some believed that Castro
was the source of the plot to kill JFK. Others accepted the most reasonable theory that
organized crime, namely Carlos Marcello, was the dark force behind the assassination. How
comforting. We can now change the TV channel to "The Brady Bunch" -- we are still safe as
long as the identity of the bogeyman that robbed us of a President and half a century's
history doesn't challenge our basic beliefs in the institutions of government. And of course,
the institutions of the powerful are also safe from a skeptical and inquiring public.
Other theories are more troubling, and as Prouty tells us apologetically, advocates of
these theories perennially suffer the labels of "conspiracy nut" and "paranoid." But Prouty
was the post-war pilot who shuttled dignitaries to the major conferences of World War II and
facilitated the "rescue" of Nazi intelligence officers from their potential Soviet captors.
He was on Okinawa when the thousands of tons of war materiel suddenly deemed unnecessary for
an invasion of Japan were unexplainably shipped to Haiphong Harbor for the VietMinh. He was
privy to the CIA's covert operations from that point forward which slowly enmired America in
a war without strategic objectives -- the war in Vietnam. He was in the midst of CIA staff
who planned the covert initiatives against Castro, notably Operation Mongoose and the Bay of
Pigs. He presents detailed, plausible explanations of the reasons why these efforts failed.
This provides a basis for a most incredible argument that a "High Cabal" of individuals and
agencies -- above politics, even above government itself -- set in motion the decisions,
events, and coordination that enabled the murder of a President.
Prouty was Oliver Stone's closest consultant in forging the epic movie "JFK." The
underlying theory of the movie has been labeled "Conspiracy-a-Go-Go," the essence of a plot
masterminded by a "High Cabal." The features of such a plot are merely hinted by the movie.
Viewers may take away from the film an awakened sense of suspicion mixed with disbelief, and
this does not detract from the film as good cinematic art. But Prouty's book offers some
solid history and autobiography. It doesn't digest as impassioned rhetoric or the rantings of
an extremist paranoid. It comes off as the ruminations and reflections of a witness who has
both feet on solid ground.
The author consistently reminds us that an explanation of Kennedy's murder must be
grounded in economic reasoning. "Who stood to benefit?" "Why?" He tells us that he doesn't
want to concern himself with the identities of the contract assassins themselves, and indeed
he informs us that it is in the nature of this underworld thick with professional "mechanics"
that their identities may never be entirely known. Instead, he provides us a review of
history and foreign policy during the initial and most frightening stages of the Cold War,
and he reminds us that individuals are at the core of power where decisions of enormous scope
are made frequently without either the participation or the knowledge of the public. So
rather than point the finger explicitly at conspirators -- whose identities may be suggested
or mentioned as part of the book's historical message -- he leaves it to the reader's
judgment.
I cannot fault the book for its failure to present solutions. Ted Kazynski, in his
"Manifesto," levels accusations against the same dark, if not anonymous forces, and most
people will overlook the scribblings of someone diagnosed as criminally insane. But we cannot
ignore any longer the existence of a "power elite" and the imperatives of large-scale global
organization which support its existence. If we wish to live in society and partake of the
benefits of a civilization thousands of years in the making, we have to accept these
distortions to the democratic myths that saturate our consciousness and perceptions. Offering
a practical prescription for controlling those forces was never Prouty's objective in writing
this book. More aptly, "JFK: The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy"
is a profound wake-up call.
Prescriptions do not come easily. Those interested in what should prove to be a long and
protracted debate should read Gerry Spence's "Give Me Liberty." But one cannot address the
problem unless he or she is aware of it. To this end, Prouty's book provides sharp historical
focus.
Col. Prouty's most informative book exposes the vicious, greedy, and super-anonymous hand
of the "High Cabal" as none other has dared attempt. It clearly demonstrates the bizarre and
disgusting chain of events (created by the OSS and CIA) that began before the end of WWII;
events that led to President Eisenhower's unprecedented farewell address (and warning) to the
nation. These events also led to the creation of President John F. Kennedy's National
Security Action Memorandum #263, which called for de-escalation of the Vietnam War and
withdrawal of all troops from Vietnam; the memorandum that ultimately led to his death.
This work exposes the planned genocide of millions of innocent, non-combatant Southeast
Asian civilians, under the guise of such noble sounding terms as "pacification." Readers
learn that none of these attacks on the peace-loving Southeast Asians were undertaken to
protect any nation or preserve any ideology. Rather, they were thrust upon the Southeast
Asians to further feed the exceedingly bulging pockets of greedy international bankers and
the insidious military-industrial complex. These events also served to further perpetuate the
High Cabal's iron-fisted, though ultra-secret, control over American government, among
others, and the world economy. Vietnam is but one homeland that the High Cabal has decimated
to serve its own purposes. There have indeed been many others throughout history. The
question is: who's next? Perhaps us? Every American should read this vitally important book.
And, think about it...
Hats off to Col. L. Fletcher Prouty. A truly great American! I proudly salute you,
Sir.
I want those readers who have not read this book to read my opinions below.
First, this is a great book simply because Prouty has provided more inside ammunition for
researchers to mine the depths of our secret government. This is the government of men who
controlled the secret programs of assassination, the secret slush funds of
counterintelligence, the operatives who dilligently carried out their secret orders,their
programs of stealth, quasi-law breaking, and other publically inaccessible information.
Prouty's book quite correctly points the finger at Dulles, Lansdale, and others in CIA, who
were paranoid about communism and Castro. They viewed Kennedy as a traitor and he stood in
the way of the war machine they were operating, both overtly, but especially covertly. The
termination of raids to Cuba, the failure of follow-up air support at the Bay of Pigs, the
promise not to invade Cuba after the Cuban missile crisis, were all blamed on Kennedy. The
firing of Dulles, Cabell, and Bissell contributed to the intelligence community wanting JFK
removed from command. It is astonishing that so few have commented on the contrast between
now and then: in 1963 we were fed lies depicting Oswald as a crazed nut, a loner, and
defector. These days we have mountains of evidence he was much more than these pictures of
him. He associated with Clay Shaw, David Ferrie, anti-castro cubans, and others. He returned
to the US without a hitch, but in those days a defector would have been hounded and closely
watched. If this were true,then why wasn't the FBI catching all his associations and illegal
activities? Prouty has produced the superstructure of the conspiracy by showing the history,
and context of the cold war and the CIA
If one can view a supposed loser like Oswald pulling off this assassination as being
totally ridiculous, then one can entertain other possibilities. Why was Lyndon Johnson
reversing NSAMs so quickly concerning Vietnam? Why did Johnson appoint Warren, Dulles, Ford,
et al? Why wasn't the Dulles appointment perceived as a conflict of interest? Here is the
fired subordinate investigating the dead boss! Dulles definitely kept information from the
panel, especially about the assassination plots being orchestrated by the CIA, with the Mafia
as the gunmen. In this connection, another book of importance should be read and that is by
Peter Dale Scott: Deep Politics and the Death of JFK. It is a difficult book because he
describes a quasi government,over-and-above government institutions, which controlled the
plot and the outcome. This corresponds to some observations about Prouty's book, which fails
to name names. But that isn't quite correct. Prouty does name many persons who were in
command positions and had the power to orchestrate the assassination.Two prominent persons
were Dulles and Lansdale. Any clever and alert reader who watched Stone's movie JFK will see
a very short (about 2 second)sequence in the movie where General X is making the call to the
network to carry out the plot and kill JFK. On his desk is a nameplate which clearly says
"Lansdale".
The Prouty book establishes that Kennedy "was getting Americans out of Vietnam, he
confirmed that he was moving away from the pattern of Cold War confrontation in favor of
detente.He asked congress to cut the defense budget.Major programs were being phased out. As
a result, pressure from several fronts began to to build against the young President.The
pressure came from those most affected by cuts in the military budget, in the NASA space
program, and in the enormous potential cost-and profit-of the Vietnam War."
It is very ironic that his enemies in government brought about detente with the Soviet
Union. The notion that Oswald was a lone killer is preposterous and if it were true, why
would the full truth be kept from us so long after the collapse of communism? This was the
facile justification for locking up the evidence until 2025: that our outrage against a
communist conspiracy would demand a war against the communists. The real truth was to control
the information to the American public, so as to cover their tracks, and establish a legend
to the JFK killing.
Everyone should read this book. I heartily recommend this book to anyone seeking insight
into the question about insiders being involved in the killing.
Prouty gives us the point of view of both an ace historian and an insider taking us from
the origins of the cold war up through the assassination of President Kennedy, and then on up
through tomorrow night's evening news. It's haunting how the power elite's patterns of
military strategies and propaganda tactics of that era correlate with many of today's current
events. Just the other day somebody on TV was screaming, "Why wasn't there an objective in
Desert Fox?!" while at the same time I'm reading the answer in Prouty's book, yet the book
was written 6 or 7 years ago.
This isn't a book only on the Kennedy assassination, but Kennedy's bold decisions which
led to his death and the forces behind it all. He explains clearly the post-H-bomb military
strategy of aiding both sides of the fence in Vietnam to win the REAL war - big business. We
get an inside look at the Dulles brothers and their direct line to the "High Cabal" which
overrules even the White House.
I once heard Col. Prouty say in an interview that he's never read a page of the Warren
Commission's 26 volumes of hearings on the assassination. He said he didn't have to because
he knew who did it. I thought that was a bit odd, but after reading this book I understand
what he means. Prouty had worked with these guys! These are the same forces that overthrew
the Philipines, Greece, Iran, Bulgaria and Guatemala (to name just a few).
Out of all the books written about the Kennedy assassination this is easily one of the
best. Check out his website!
By A customer on October 22, 1999
A disturbing and enlightening insight into the Cold War
This book uncovers the many reasons for the Korean & Vietnam conflicts. It clearly
implicates the OSS/CIA during the end of World War II in their involvement in providing
supplies for the Koreans and then later for the Vietminh. Colonel Prouty indicates how the
CIA are quite often able to live in a secret world while manipulating other federal agencies
to their desired ends. When Kennedy took office in 1960 he inherited $6.5 billion in surplus
from the previous administration. When he planned not to include a major defense manufacturer
to build the TFX and gave that bid to General Dynamics the CIA and their constituents were
vey upset. Prouty points out that Kennedy never had any intention in building great offensive
systems for war. Kennedy wanted to create a united peace in the world through his reelection
by implementing domestic policies that would focus on the problems "at home." He also desired
better foreign relations with the Soviet Union. Kennedy planned to bring 1000 troops home
from Viet Nam by Christmas of 1963. McNamara's report on the Indonesian situation indicated
that all military units in Vietnam could be home by Kennedy's due date of 1965. But major
corporations having an investment in the manufacturing of war machines do not thrive during
peacetime. This was a critical area for Kennedy because of his change in the national policy.
Prouty shows that the President's shift prompted many businessmen to seriously think about
Kennedy's position as president. This book answers the whys of the cold war period as well as
the assassination motives. Prouty's book points out the wasted time in focusing on a "patsy"
as the lone assasin of JFK. In all probability Oswald was a soldier carrying out commands
from his superior officers not fully knowing the extent of the damage. L. Fletcher Prouty
wrote this history from his personal experiences with covert operations and his involvement
with government agencies. After reading this book the author leaves one feeling disturbed,
yet enlightened by the rich insight he has provided. I am grateful to Colonel Prouty for his
willingness to share his knowledge so that many may have an alternative view and perhaps a
better understanding regarding the Cold War era.
Prouty was well postioned to tell his story as seen from inside the intelligence
community. Unknown to most people Kennedy challenged the hegemony of the privately owned and
controlled Federal Reserve. In the summer of 1963 Kennedy signed an executive order to create
4 billion dollars in United States Notes, in direct competion to Federal Reserve Notes. Why?
The United States Notes were based on the government silver stores and their creation did not
create interest payements to the world bankers and owners of the Fed. Bills in denominations
of $2, $5, $10, and $20's were authorized and the $2's and $5's were printed and in
circulation. The $10's and $20 were being printed when Kenndy was killed. In Johnsons first
month in office the US Notes were recalled from circulation. Go to any good coin shop and ask
to buy a 1963 US Note. See it for yourself! The one gem in Prouty's book that ties Kennedy to
this issue is a few sentences where he discusses Kennedy sending Robert McNamara to meet with
the Governors of the Federal Reserve to let them know that there are going to be big changes
in the nations money system. There is very little information out there about Kennedy and
money and Prouty clearly knew there was a connection. Why is the topic of Kennedy and the
money he created so obscure and unknown? The only other president in the history of the
country to create US Notes directly from the authority of the US Government was Lincoln with
his greenbacks during the civil war. The only two presidents to buck the money powers were
both assasinated in office. I think Prouty shows a possible origin of one of the smoking
guns.
By A customer on January 4, 1998
The key to the mystery of the crime of the century.
As a United States Marine in the Vietnam war, I never challenged my country's intentions
to stem the tide against communist aggression throughout the world. After my extended tour of
duty in that war zone, I came home to ponder how we became involved in such a protracted war
that divided the country (USA) so. It all points back to the tradgic event on 22 November
1963. With the death of our beloved President Kennedy, the powers to be had free reign to
curtail the planned withdrawl of the small amount of troops in that zone. Only 16,000 at that
time. This book is an excellent reference to how real events were managed to create so much
grief for the people of South Vietnam and the United States. As a former Marine who left
enough of his friends to pay the ultimate sacrifice, I highly recommend Colonel Prouty's fine
book. "Those of us who made it have an obligation to find the goodness in man and make this
world a better place in which to live." Long live the memory of JFK.
America has Waited a Long Time to Hear the Truth...
Finally, those involved are getting old enough not to place concern about their own
welfare above truth anymore.
This book provides so many connections, such a depth of behind the scenes knowledge and
inner workings of the specific programs operating at the time, you can't help but be bowled
over.
***Note: Anyone interested in the Kennedy Assassination should realize that there is a
"misinformation plant" in the Library Journal review department. Every honest book on the
subject has been unconvincingly discredited by them, while they praise and try to steer you
towards known flake CIA-financed writers such as Gerald Posner.
It's rather common to hear of wrongdoing by the CIA I saw a graph recently that
showed American citizen's belief in their government plummeting after the Kennedy
Assassination. Almost no one accepted the Warren Commission Report and such a cover up has
casted doubt on our government ever since.
This "High Cabal" as Churchill called them obviously doesn't start with the CIA, or the
Federal Reserve. It predates Christianity, but it's quite simple. There are bums who seek
handouts and never try to rise, and there are bums who gain a position over others but still
yearn for that same handout, taking it by force, by skimming, whatever is necessary to defeat
justice, honor and civility. These are not great men and they will not be remembered like an
Edison or a Ford. They are the most creative parasites on the planet, and the most deeply
engrained.
Currency control has changed EIGHT times since America's inception. The most vocal fighter
against irrational banking was Andrew Jackson; not Kennedy or Lincoln (google "Jackson Bank
Veto"). He fought and defeated in his time what has morphed into the Federal Reserve Bank.
Before the Civil War, such bankers were buying politicians, planting press stories, steering
elections, stealing freedoms, killing people--anything to assure a fascist cushion between
themselves and existence.
Do we ever hear anything bad about the Federal Reserve? In Jackson's time, they were
entrenched 16 years deep and it was difficult to rout them out then. They did try to kill
him. Now they are ninety years deep. They have owned many Presidents, they control the
Justice and State Departments, and the CIA secretly furthers their agenda.
Nothing happens at the Assassination Level without their approval. In today's world,
America is struggling in recession (bankruptcy) mostly due to the $360 Billion we now pay to
the Fed for their generous "Debt-Money" System, and that is an exponentially increasing
burden. EVERY dollar in our country has interest being paid on it as if it were borrowed! Due
to this, bankruptcy for America is a mathematical certainty. (Imagine if you had to pay
interest not just on every dollar you owed, but on every dollar you made! America IS!)
With changes in the laws, soon none of us will be permitted to walk away from our debts
and start over--as if our hard economic times is our own personal fault.
We are all about to become debt slaves, as they intend. If you want to have a chance at
recovery, if you want your kids to have a chance at a decent future, join me and I'll give
you the Moral Armor neccessary to beat down these parasites and restore America to what it
was meant to be. They CAN be defeated, but not without YOUR empowerment. If you can't stand
up or are afraid to, I'll show you how. Invest in yourself right now and let's save this
ship!
Hard to believe for various reasons. First, other reviewers have commented on the "logic"
of the author's arguments. There are, however, numerous fallacies in the book. Lots of, "X
happened, and then Y happened, THEREFORE..." but the conclusions are never proven and don't
follow logically from the premises. Second, the author doesn't seem to notice some of the
absurdities in his thesis when applied to November of 1963. For example, we're told that an
international elite working above the leaders elected to the highest offices of government
have created and controlled world wide war efforts, power transfers, government overthrows,
and economic and monetary conditions among other things, since the end of WWII.
They must be pretty well organized, financed and intelligent to do so. Yet, they were
unable to ensure the election of Nixon in the closest election in history up to that
point?
Seems odd to be able to start wars but not rig an election that was lost by .02 percent.
And, if that isn't a good enough example, let's try another one.
The author gives us several photos in the book of the Dallas "Police" who transported a
band of vagabonds on the day JFK was killed and points out the facts that their uniforms
aren't standard DPD issue, their uniforms don't match, and their caps and weapons are not
standard.
The obvious allusion is that they weren't real policemen and were somehow a part of or
hired by this power elite who operated to kill on that day. Yet, wouldn't a "High Cabal"
capable of all I mentioned above, have made sure to procure authentic police uniforms, caps,
badges and weapons for such an important day, leaving nothing to chance, and preparing for
every contingency? It seems like a very sloppy oversight by a group with such limitless
powers and ability.
These are just two examples of many where common sense seems to trump the passionate
arguments of the author. That being said, there is some interesting information in the book
on the inner workings of the CIA and government especially during the Vietnam War. If you are
going to read it, just be on the lookout for the faulty logic and use common, critical
thinking skills to help sort possibility from probability.
In "JFK", Fletcher Prouty shares numerous fascinating observations garnered from his
position as a mid-grade officer in what I call the "Conglomerate of Covert Cold Warriors"
(OSS/CIA/Military Intelligence/Special Operations/etc) from the 1940s until the early 1960s.
Some of the conclusions he draws, however, are completely unsubstantiated and require a real
stretch of the imagination.
Chief among these is the existence of some sort of secret "high cabal" of bankers and
industrialists (but not the Illuminati, Bilderbergs, Council on Foreign Relations,
Freemasons, Trilateral Commision, Pentaverate,or any other previously speculated secret
organization) which has been manipulating the governments of the world into conflicts large
and small for at least the last hundred years for the purpose of generating profits on the
sale and/or financing of war materials.
Prouty further supposes that the CIA and KGB were the two principal levers with which this
supposed cabal have exerted their influence on the world in the post-WWII era.
Prouty also suggests that the Korean and Vietnam Wars were prearranged prior to the close
of World War II, and that everything that happened in Vietnam from '45 on was part of a
master plan by the OSS/CIA to set the table for a protracted large-scale US engagement in a
later decade. Kennedy's intent to deviate from this carefully and painstaking constructed
plan for Vietnam supposedly was the instigation for the high cabal to orchestrate his
murder.
While Prouty brings to light many interesting connections between the "Conglomerate" and
world events, the need to attribute credit/blame for everything to some "invisible elite"
group of power brokers who pull the strings of the CIA is difficult to accept. It seems to me
that the fact that the CIA was a very insular group, created and led by a small cadre of
extremely ambitious ideologues who operated with a nearly unlimited budget and almost no
accountability means they were likely responsible on their own for most things that Prouty
blames on "the cabal."
At times Prouty contradicts himself, suggesting on one hand that various apparent CIA
miscalculations that drag us farther into the Vietnam war were actually intentional, while
later claiming that the CIA were surprised when the same actions did not yield any strategic
gains.
One last criticism I have is that Prouty often repeats himself. Certain themes are
addressed over and over, with little or no additional detail brought to the table. Some
passages were so similar to ones in previous chapters I wondered if my kindle was
malfunctioning and moving me back to pages I'd already read. I blame this more on the editors
than Prouty; they should have restructured his ideas more logically and could have cut 50-100
pages from this book without removing any value.
If you can look past the cabal angle and sloppy organization, there are some interesting
ideas presented. Prouty makes a strong case that JFK intended to take the country in a
direction in Vietnam that was counter to the aims of the "Conglomerate" and that certain
individuals were conspicuously well prepared to reverse that policy in the immediate
aftermath of the assassination. He also fairly criticizes the failure of the "Pentagon
Papers" to put the the dramatic shift in Vietnam policy that occurred in late November, 1963,
in the context of of a violent change in the presidency. His theory that the CIA-sponsored
relocation of ~1,000,0000 Tonkinese Vietnamese from the North to the Mekong Delta in the
South spawned the Viet Cong is compelling, whether or not you buy his supposition that it was
a calculated result.
The fact that Prouty is the mysterious "Mr X" from Garrisons book "On the Trail of the
Assassins" and Stone's movie "JFK" is reason enough for any assassination buff to read this
book despite the shortcomings. That there are other interesting and salient nuggets burried
in the muck of the "high cabal" theme is a bonus.
A customer on September 5, 1999
Prouty long on entrigue - short on facts.
I once had the opportunity to ask Col. Prouty (via e-mail) if he had retained any of the
orders he states he received, or could produce another officer who shared his perspective on
events surrounding the assassination of JFK. Instead of answers, what I got in return was a
geriatric tirade and a sermon on respect for the men who have served this great nation. His
thesis on the Bay of Pigs, given documentation now available (_Bay of Pigs Declassified_,
1998 National Security Archive, [...]) demonstrates that, where facts are concerned, Prouty
is victim to his own perspective. Prouty reports that JFK was advised through CIA channels
that Castro's air force had to be disabled prior to the April 17, Bay of Pigs attack, by
Cuban exiles/CIA forces. Prouty states that JFK gave the green light for the initial April 15
attack, which decommissioned all but three of Castro's T-33 aircraft, and conveys that when
JFK was advised on April 16 that three planes remained, he authorized their destruction with
a second wave attack. Col. Prouty contends that McGeorge Bundy made a secure call to General
Charles Cabell (brother of the Dallas mayor when JFK was assassinated, Earle Cabell) giving
the president's approval, but that Cabell delayed deployment of the exile air force at
Nicaragua. The Colonel contends that Cabell's delay in passing the order was the reason
Kennedy later had him relieved of duty, and that the Mayor of Dallas retaliated for his
brother's dismissal by participating in JFK's assassination.
Prouty makes the case that Cabell foiled any chances of success for the maritime operation
by delaying the order for the B-26 aircraft to return to Cuba and destroy three remaining
T-33s. But, Prouty is way off the mark on this one. Recently released documentation proves
JFK wanted deniabilty and did not authorize the second wave of air attacks. While a question
may remain as to whether the CIA adequately briefed Kennedy on the importance of the second
wave attacks by the Cuban exiles, there is little doubt that whomever or whatever caused
Prouty to print his version of the events will not contribute to Prouty's reputation for
accuracy when confidently stating things as fact.
In a realm where hard evidence is a must, Prouty tells interesting tales. If his accounts
of the events are to be believed, Col Prouty should furnish us military sources who agree
with the Colonel, or concede that historically he simply cannot prove his assertions.
What a sad mess of a book. It is really unfortunate that the people who were active adults
in 1963 are now approaching their dotage, 50 years later, and in addition, that few serious
publishers will touch the more controversial points of view with a 10-foot pole. As a result,
we get books like this, from someone who might actually know something, but who can't write
or edit a book into shape so that we can tell whether it makes any sense.
Prouty has several bugs in his bonnet:
There is a secret Cabal of elites who run the entire world and have for centuries.
Presidents and generals are puppets, mostly clueless as to what is really going on. (barely
credible.)
The fact that the earth is round, plus Malthus and Darwin, are the keys to the past 500
years of history, and the source of private property, colonialism, and pretty much all
evil. (not credible to me.)
Before WW2 had even ended, the US had already decided that its ally, the USSR, was
going to be its next enemy and that Germany would be its ally, and started acting on this
in the closing days of the war. The reason for this decision is that we, like all
countries, need perpetual war to maintain sovereignty. (semi-credible--I doubt that any of
this was conscious, if it happened at all.)
A decision was made in 1945 that after WW2, we would next fight in Korea and Vietnam,
and we sent weapons there for that purpose. (not credible to me. Yes, we may have sent
weapons there, but I really doubt that there was a master plan in place.)
By now you're probably wondering what any or all of this has to do with the assassination
of JFK. Well, that's the problem--this book is so all over the place that he spends
essentially the whole book on deep background stuff, and the actual explanation of what this
has to do with Kennedy is scattered throughout the book. He keeps bringing the story up to
1963 in every chapter, and then backtracking again and again. And again!
However, for all its problems as a book, the info contained herein meshes with several
other books I've read recently that all point to the fact that Kennedy was moving from a Cold
Warrior to a peacenik, (elsewhere attributed to his taking LSD with his mistress Mary Meyer.
Who knows?) He *did* found a thing called the Peace Corps. He did give a speech at an
American university that is called his Peace speech. Supposedly, he and Khrushchev were sort
of pen pals, and they had both stared into the nuclear abyss and decided to make love not
war.
Oh yes, another of Prouty's big ideas is that the weapons of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
were a huge error on the part of the Cabal/Elite, since it made normal war impossible, hence
a turn to guerrilla warfare by proxy. Again, the belief that everything is part of a master
plan. The outcome is valid, but the idea of an invisible hand behind the scenes
stage-managing all this is not reasonable to me.
Is it credible that the CIA could have been involved in Kennedy's assassination? On
this point, I think the answer is yes. The old objection that people wouldn't be able to keep
quiet if there were a conspiracy is pretty much moot if we're talking about the CIA, since by
definition, these are guys who could do unimaginable things, have a cigarette, and then never
speak of it again.
I think there is pretty decent evidence that Oswald was connected to the CIA (The
defection and then un-defection in and of itself is pretty incredible, and his statement that
he was the patsy is more likely if he was in fact a patsy, than if he were a either a nut job
or a Castro sympathizer. Both of those types want credit!)
And this book also confirms the feeling that I often get that in fact the US has many
of the characteristics of a fascist state, minus the concentration camps for Jews. It is true
that we have wrought havoc in many other people's countries, that we maintain a near-constant
state of war, and that *if* a president tried to go in a different direction, there are
forces within the military-industrial-intelligence complex that might both want and be
capable of taking them out.
I am fairly knowledgeable about the assassination scenarios, but I found this book rough
going, because it goes into a lot of political detail about the internal politics of Vietnam
as well as very detailed descriptions of Washington politics. Perhaps if you are a bit older
than me (I was 11 in 1963), or more knowledgeable about all the names and politics of that
time, it would all come together. But a good editor would have helped tremendously to make it
accessible to the general public.
In Oliver Stone's film "JFK" in the Mall Scene meeting between D.A. Jim Garrison (played
by Kevin Costner) and "Man X" (played by Donald Sutherland), a flashback scene presented a
nameplate from the desk of an Air Force military general speaking on the phone, and partialy
showing his name as Maj/Gen. E.G. (unknown)?
Who was Stone attempting to make reference to and cast aspersions upon Maj. General E.G.
Lansdale?
Does anybody know?? Will check back from time-to-time is see "IF" any comments are posted
to my inquiry. Thanks!
Contrary to popular belief today, Kennedy was a cold warrior. There is no evidence at all
that he was (in his second term, if he even got one) going to end the cold war, or pull out
of Vietnam. Michael Lind in his book 'Vietnam: The Necessary War' addresses this issue, and
points out that the record clearly shows otherwise.
Several of the people who claim that Kennedy told them he was going to pull out of Vietnam
revealed this information in the late 60's after the war had become traumatic for the
country. Robert McNamara (one of the original architects of the Vietnam War), who has
speculated for years that Kennedy would have withdrawn from Vietnam, admits that Kennedy
never told him he was going to pull out.
In an interview with Walter Cronkite a few months before he was assassinated Kennedy said
(about Vietnam): "I think it would be a mistake to withdraw." Oliver Stone (cleverly), only
shows bits and pieces of the interview at the beginning of JFK. Editing the interview to make
it look like Kennedy was going to withdraw. In fact, the day he was assassinated Kennedy gave
a speech endorsing our involvement in Vietnam. The claim that Kennedy was going to pull out
of Vietnam is speculation at best. Go to : [...]
This post details many of the myths surrounding JFK's policy stances, and shows that (by
today's standards) Kennedy (most likely) would have been a moderate Republican. There was no
motive (as Prouty claims) to kill Kennedy.
Also go to: [...]
For some more of Prouty's crackpot opinions.
Kennedy was a cold warrior: he was conspicuously absent (as a representative from
Massachusetts) when the House of Representatives voted to censure Joseph McCarthy (he even
praised McCarthy on several occasions). He ran against Nixon in 1960 on the missile gap (i.e.
we were behind the Soviets in the number of ICBM's). He said in his inaugural address:
"......Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price,
bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the
survival and the success of liberty." Doesn't sound to me like he was going to "bug out" of
Vietnam.
Also, check out: [...]
This further debunks the idea that JFK was going to withdraw from Vietnam.
"... The president, he claims, had angered the military-industrial establishment with his procurement policies and his determination to withdraw from Vietnam, and had threatened to break the CIA into "a thousand pieces" after the Bay of Pigs fiasco. ..."
"... His death was in effect a coup d'etat that placed in the White House a very different man with a very different approach -- one much more acceptable to what Prouty consistently calls "the power elite." ..."
"... Mr. Prouty points to what he calls "the power elite" as the movers of geopolitics and war. JFK had other ideas as to what makes the world turn. It's the age old battle, as Lincoln put it, "between the divine rights of kings and the common rights of man"... ..."
"... Mr Prouty is no "conspiracy theorist". He worked in the Pentagon and arranged the support for the CIA operations until he retired in 1964. He knew everyone from Allen Dulles to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. ..."
"... He was in a particularly excellent position, due to his official responsibilities, to know intimately of the OSS and later CIA operations, as well as the White House positions under various presidents, for he saw and worked with their communications. ..."
"... His book is full of specifics, many to most of which few people know or knew. He served under three presidents. He was liaison between the Joint Chiefs and the CIA In 1954 he was ordered to establish the Office of Special Operations, and in 1964 retired as chief of Special Operations. In 1963 he wrote the formal directive on covert ops used by Joint Chiefs of Staff for all military services.. What this man, Prouty, said cannot be tossed aside. He knew the subject, and he knew what was done. ..."
"... His book really has two entwined themes, the role of CIA operations including the real power which drives those operations and the assassination of JFK. ..."
"... As for the assassination, he takes apart the Warren Commission in detail, point by point. He knew what was at stake between interested parties, and provides quotes from key JFK White House documents. He goes into the source and evolution of the Indochina / Vietnam war, beginning in 1943, as he was present at those allied high level meetings. He provides eye-opening historical material about which I expect few of our citizens are cognizant. ..."
"... The premise of this book is that Pres. Kennedy wanted to pull out of Vietnam, and the military-industrial complex didn't want that to happen. Today there is contention whether this is indeed true or not. I think JFK was uncertain himself ..."
"... After Pres. Kennedy was assasinated it is undeniable we went head first into Vietnam. He had made numerous enemies. The banking industry, the military, the CIA, J. Edgar Hoover, etc. He was a maverick going against conventional thinking and he had to be removed. As the author states those gunshots on Elm street(which by the way, isn't it interesting that the Hollywood "cabal" chose to use as a title to a famous movie series) were a message to all future Presidents that the "secret team" is running the show now. ..."
"... According to prouty kennedy was a victim of a military-industrial complex plot triggered by his plan to withdraw from vietnam, the most important was a top secret National Security Action Memorandum (NSAM 263) drafted only six weeks before the assassination once NSAM 263 was signed, kennedy was, for all intents, a dead man. ..."
"... It's not hard to understand why Obama hasn't pulled out of Iraq or Afghanistan. He can't. The military industrial complex and their bankers won't let him. ..."
"... ***Note: Anyone interested in the Kennedy Assassination should realize that there is a "misinformation plant" in the Library Journal review department. Every honest book on the subject has been unconvincingly discredited by them, while they praise and try to steer you towards known flake CIA-financed writers such as Gerald Posner. ..."
"... It's rather common to hear of wrongdoing by the CIA I saw a graph recently that showed American citizen's belief in their government plummeting after the Kennedy Assassination. Almost no one accepted the Warren Commission Report and such a cover up has casted doubt on our government ever since. ..."
"... However, for all its problems as a book, the info contained herein meshes with several other books I've read recently that all point to the fact that Kennedy was moving from a Cold Warrior to a peacenik, (elsewhere attributed to his taking LSD with his mistress Mary Meyer. Who knows?) ..."
"... Oh yes, another of Prouty's big ideas is that the weapons of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a huge error on the part of the Cabal/Elite, since it made normal war impossible, hence a turn to guerrilla warfare by proxy. Again, the belief that everything is part of a master plan. The outcome is valid, but the idea of an invisible hand behind the scenes stage-managing all this is not reasonable to me. ..."
"... Is it credible that the CIA could have been involved in Kennedy's assassination? On this point, I think the answer is yes. The old objection that people wouldn't be able to keep quiet if there were a conspiracy is pretty much moot if we're talking about the CIA, since by definition, these are guys who could do unimaginable things, have a cigarette, and then never speak of it again. ..."
"... I think there is pretty decent evidence that Oswald was connected to the CIA (The defection and then un-defection in and of itself is pretty incredible, and his statement that he was the patsy is more likely if he was in fact a patsy, than if he were a either a nut job or a Castro sympathizer. Both of those types want credit!) ..."
"... And this book also confirms the feeling that I often get that in fact the US has many of the characteristics of a fascist state, minus the concentration camps for Jews. It is true that we have wrought havoc in many other people's countries, that we maintain a near-constant state of war, and that *if* a president tried to go in a different direction, there are forces within the military-industrial-intelligence complex that might both want and be capable of taking them out. ..."
From Publishers Weekly Prouty, who was a Washington insider for
nearly 20 years--in the last few of them as Chief of Special Operations for the Joint Chiefs of
Staff under President Kennedy--has a highly unusual perspective to offer on the assassination
and the events that led up to it. Familiar to moviegoers as the original of the anonymous
Washington figure, played by Donald Sutherland in the Oliver Stone's movie JFK , who asks hero
Jim Garrison to ponder why Kennedy was killed, Prouty leaves no doubt where he stands.
The president, he claims, had angered the military-industrial establishment with his
procurement policies and his determination to withdraw from Vietnam, and had threatened to
break the CIA into "a thousand pieces" after the Bay of Pigs fiasco.
His death was in effect a coup d'etat that placed in the White House a very different
man with a very different approach -- one much more acceptable to what Prouty consistently
calls "the power elite." Although he declares that such an elite has operated,
supranationally, throughout history, and is all-powerful, he never satisfactorily explains who
its members are and how it functions--or how it has allowed the current East-West rapprochement
to take place.
Still, this behind-the-scenes look at how the CIA has shaped postwar U.S. foreign policy is
fascinating, as are Prouty's telling questions about the security arrangements in Dallas, his
knowledge of the extraordinary government movements at that time (every member of the Cabinet
was out of the country when Kennedy was shot) and his perception that most of the press has
joined in the cover-up ever since. Photos not seen by PW.
Copyright 1992 Reed Business Information, Inc. --This text refers to an out of print or
unavailable edition of this title. From Library Journal Prouty, the mysterious "X" in
Oliver Stone's JFK , promises to explain why Kennedy was assassinated. Instead, he delivers a
muddled collection of undocumented, bizarre theories, most significantly that a super-powerful,
avaricious power elite engineered the Cold War and all its pivotal events -- Korea, Vietnam,
the U-2 incident, the Bay of Pigs, and the Kennedy assassination.
Although they are never identified, these shadowy technocrats, working through the CIA,
allegedly had Kennedy murdered because he was on the brink of ending America's commitment to
Vietnam, along with its billions of dollars of military contracts.
Prouty avoids some very important issues. Would Kennedy, a Cold War warrior's warrior, have
indeed ended American support for Diem? And why couldn't the omnipotent power elite ensure the
election of Richard Nixon, its preferred candidate, in 1960--especially since Kennedy won by
only .02 percent? A much better choice is John M. Newman's JFK and Vietnam: Deception,
Intrigue, and the Struggle for Power ( LJ 3/15/92). See also James DiEugenio's Destiny
Betrayed: JFK, Cuba, and the Garrison Case , reviewed in this issue, p. 123.--Ed.
We are living through that kind of paradigm except they now wear suits and carry
briefcases and never get theirs hands dirty. Mr
Mr. Prouty points to what he calls "the power elite" as the movers of geopolitics and
war. JFK had other ideas as to what makes the world turn. It's the age old battle, as Lincoln
put it, "between the divine rights of kings and the common rights of man"... .
We are living through that kind of paradigm except they now wear suits and carry
briefcases and never get theirs hands dirty.
Mr Prouty is no "conspiracy theorist". He worked in the Pentagon and arranged the
support for the CIA operations until he retired in 1964. He knew everyone from Allen Dulles
to the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
This is a very important book. It is difficult to read, because Prouty's writing is
disorganized, perhaps not so to him, but to a reader. The fact is he had first hand knowledge
of a great deal of what went on and into the period covering the latter part of WWII, all of
Indochina / Vietnam, and into the Cold War. He was in a particularly excellent position,
due to his official responsibilities, to know intimately of the OSS and later CIA operations,
as well as the White House positions under various presidents, for he saw and worked with
their communications.
His book is full of specifics, many to most of which few people know or knew. He
served under three presidents. He was liaison between the Joint Chiefs and the CIA In 1954
he was ordered to establish the Office of Special Operations, and in 1964 retired as chief of
Special Operations. In 1963 he wrote the formal directive on covert ops used by Joint Chiefs
of Staff for all military services.. What this man, Prouty, said cannot be tossed aside. He
knew the subject, and he knew what was done.
His book really has two entwined themes, the role of CIA operations including the real
power which drives those operations and the assassination of JFK. The lessons are real.
It would have helped had his writing been more organized, rather than jumping around with
much repetition, but he does provide abundant specifics in support of his positions. In many
cases he uses first person, as he was present. He knew what he was talking about. He has
specifics.
As for the assassination, he takes apart the Warren Commission in detail, point by
point. He knew what was at stake between interested parties, and provides quotes from key JFK
White House documents. He goes into the source and evolution of the Indochina / Vietnam war,
beginning in 1943, as he was present at those allied high level meetings. He provides
eye-opening historical material about which I expect few of our citizens are
cognizant.
His material, cleaned up, should be taught in schools, but such history is never taught in
classes. It is only learned `in the field' so to speak. And no nation wants it advertised
exactly what drives covert operations and to whose benefit.
I agree with the author's premise of a conspiracy to murder JFK. There is information in
this book that I have not read in any other historical reference. For example, the author
states that the CIA transported the northern based people of Vietnam called the Tonkin and
moved them to the south. He claims that this created a turmoil in the land as people began to
fight for resources(food)to live. He states that it was this turmoil that was made to look
like a communist infiltration of the country. All of this being a CIA manipulated event.
Another interesting aspect is that we had been aiding the French occupation of Vietnam. This
continued up until 1954; a few months before Diem being installed as President. We had been
helping the enemy of the South Vietnamese people just prior to Diem's installation.
The premise of this book is that Pres. Kennedy wanted to pull out of Vietnam, and the
military-industrial complex didn't want that to happen. Today there is contention whether
this is indeed true or not. I think JFK was uncertain himself and that is why you can
find facts supporting both schools of thought. For example, Pres. Kennedy stated he wanted to
be the first to put a man on the moon. A direct challenge to the cold war enemy Russia. Yet
the book states later that Kennedy signed a memorandum desiring cooperation with Russia in
the exploration of space. This is obviously an affront to the "cabal" that wanted the cold
war to continue. There was alot of money to be made. I was disappointed the author didn't
write about Pres.Kennedy issuing silver certificates in defiance of the Federal Reserve.
After Pres. Kennedy was assasinated it is undeniable we went head first into Vietnam.
He had made numerous enemies. The banking industry, the military, the CIA, J. Edgar Hoover,
etc. He was a maverick going against conventional thinking and he had to be removed. As the
author states those gunshots on Elm street(which by the way, isn't it interesting that the
Hollywood "cabal" chose to use as a title to a famous movie series) were a message to all
future Presidents that the "secret team" is running the show now.
This book is not an easy read. One negative about this book is that the author's points
are repeated. It also left me feeling dismayed and bewildered. If you take the author's
premise at face value, almost everything we see and read now has the possibility of being a
planned event. The fascinating aspect about the JFK assassination is to see how this "secret
team" that works behind the scenes is in control of almost all positions of authority that we
have in this country. A chief justice resides on the Warren Commission and signs off on the
absurd Warren report, police in Dallas allowing reporters direct access to Oswald; at the
time the suspect for the murder. Police allowing Jack Ruby to just waltz up to Oswald and
shoot him. LBJ and Hoover having a conversation about not wanting a congressional
investigation of the assassination and just wanting to use the Hoover/Warren reports. This is
way too many coincidences not to have been a conspiracy. Fletcher Prouty may not be 100%
accurate, but I'll believe his version over our official history any day.
"This is one of the greatest books written on the assassination of John F. Kennedy,the
author Col L. Fletcher Prouty contribution from his work in the pentagon and his common sense
view that someone needed to level the playing field-to let the public know that military
spending and goals are completely unrealistic. We have to learn from the past and Col. Prouty
is one of the few who explain the uncomfortable truth. This uncomfortable feeling goes on
today. How do we know when we've won in Iraq or Afghanistan? Will this repeat in Iran and
North Korea? What is the next military action that will be another unwinnable war designed to
keep the Defense Department in business despite the astronomical costs as it bankrupts the
nation? It's time that everyone examine what Col. Fletcher Prouty wrote as a warning of what
was really going on as opposed to what was reported regarding the Vietnam war and the removal
of John F. Kennedy.
Col. Prouty blows the lid right off our official history and reveal what is probably the
closest to the truth that we will ever get regarding the assassination of JFK, this is a true
example of what is done in the dark will come to the light..anyone who wants to continue to
hide from the truth, then this book is not for you because you cannot handle the truth,it's
too much for you.
This is a very important book unique in this big mess that continues to surround Kennedy's
murder it is a story that has been buried for decades. It is an account the government didnot
want you to hear, and actually fabricated evidence in order to keep you from hearing the
truth. There are no crackpot theories here, these are facts this great cabal ( the power
elite) has control high enough in government or at least in the councils of government, to be
able to influence the travel plans of the president, vice-president and a presidential
candidate (Nixon) and all members of the kennedy cabinet. They were powerful enough to have
orders issued to the army, and were able to mount a massive campaign to control the media
during and after the assassination. Now if that is not power in the wrong hands, i donot know
what is..there is something about Col. Prouty manner that speaks of authority, knowledge and
above all, old fashioned honesty."
According to prouty kennedy was a victim of a military-industrial complex plot
triggered by his plan to withdraw from vietnam, the most important was a top secret National
Security Action Memorandum (NSAM 263) drafted only six weeks before the assassination once
NSAM 263 was signed, kennedy was, for all intents, a dead man.
Vietnam for the powers that be... represented the potential of tens of billions of
dollars. This is what caused him to be murdered, it was a military-style ambush from start to
finish, "a coup d'etat."
One of the most memorable lines in the book and the movie JFK: "Sometimes i think the
organizing principle of any society is for war, the authority of the state over its people
resides in its war powers war readiness accounts for approximately a tenth of the output of
the world's economy. This power elite together they stand above the law, can any president
ever be strong enough really to rule?
And what about the outright theft of the president's brain from the national archives? And
the total and complete failure of the secret service to protect JFK in dallas? It boggles the
mind, they tagged him as a dangerous traitor plotted his assassination, and orchested the
subsequent cover-up. This is an unspeakable refers to an evil whose depth and deceit seemed
to go beyond the capacity of words to describe.
If you are not afraid to face the truth then this book is were you would want to start. So
many things make sense when you start to put the piece's of the puzzle together and facts and
common sense go a long way. That is why most people want to remain ignorant,they cannot face
the truth so they try to discredit people like Col. Prouty, Oliver Stone, Jim Garrison, Jesse
Ventura to make them sound like lone nuts, sound like de'ja vu huh?
Col. Prouty was a Washington insider for nearly 20 years as chief of staff under president
Kennedy this man lived this part of our history, who can better tell us the real deal than
someone who was there and lived though it and who does not have anything to gain by keeping
the biggest lie told to the american people on-going. Just sticking to the facts of this case
and what just take basic common sense is to ask yourself "Why? that's the real question isn't
it--why? the how is just scenery,Oswald, Ruby, Cuba, Mafia it keeps people guessing like a
parlor game, but it prevents them from asking the most important question--why?
Why was kennedy killed? Who benefited? Who had the power to cover it up? This book is a
must read for anyone out there who still believes in truth and justice for all. Don't believe
me or anyone else..do your own thinking for yourself and you might surprise yourself in the
process of searching for that truth. I would like to end this by saying thank-you to Col.
Prouty, Mr. jim garrison, Oliver Stone, and Jesse Ventura for being courageous enough to step
forward to shine a light on the truth.
And for the non-believer's out there i feel sorry for you that you are satisfied with
never really knowing the truth and how much it still effects your life today. I was not even
born yet when president kennedy was assassinate but i was born one year later..and the
deferences between me and you is i will always search for the truth and question it until i
do find it.
I leave you with this quote: Those who can't remember the past, are condemned to repeat
it. Everyone should own a copy of this part of history go out now and purchase this book
before it disappear,just like the truth about JFK assassination.
I read this book a second time, about 1 year after I read it the first time. Mr Prouty had
a very long and interesting career in the Air Air Corps which became the USAF. He has first
hand knowledge of much of what he writes about in this book. His book is really the history
of the USA since WW II with respect to the warnings of IKE "Beware of the military industrial
complex".
If you did not like President Kennedy but wonder why the US has constantly been "at war"
somewhere in the world since WW II then I think you will get a lot out of this book. When I
was in the USAF back in the 1970's the higher ranking pilots that I flew with told me that
Viet Nam was not a great war but it was the only war they had. Well, wars were good for
career building if you were in the war, if you were the military industrial complex war was
very good and necessary for profits.
I'm reading a stunning book written by the late L. Fletcher Prouty who served as the chief
of special operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Kennedy presidency. A retired
colonel of the U.S. Air Force, Prouty was in charge of the global system designed to provide
military support for the CIA's secret activities. He knew where the bodies were buried and
the file cabinet containing the paperwork used to cover it up.
Prouty was a source for Oliver Stone's movie "JFK" and was portrayed as "Mr. X" by Donald
Sutherland, the man in black who advised New Orleans DA Jim Garrison (portrayed by Kevin
Costner) that he was on the trail to the truth.
If you have ANY interest whatsoever in learning the truth of the events that led to what
happened to our country on Nov. 22nd, 1963 and changed the course of its direction, read
it.
A brief excerpt from the 375+ page book that is the most detailed account of the inception
of the CIA and the events that culminated in the coup d'etat on Elm Street in Dallas on a
sunny day in November.
Excerpt:
From Chapter 16 - Government by Coup d'Etat
The year was 1964. Pres. John F. Kennedy had been shot dead months before by bursts of
"automatic gunfire" in Dallas by "mechanics," that is, skilled gunmen, hired by a power
cabal determined to exert control over the United States government. Lyndon B. Johnson,
JFK's successor, had been only a few feet under the bullets fired at Kennedy as he rode two
cars back in that fatal procession.
By 1964 Johnson was becoming mired in the swamp of the Indochina conflict. Kennedy, who
had vowed to "break the CIA into a thousand pieces," was dead. LBJ, who had heard those
fatal bullets zing past his ears, had learned the ultimate lesson; and for good measure,
Richard Nixon was in Dallas on that fatal day, so that he, too, had the fact of this
ever-present danger imprinted on his memory for future use by his masters.
From Chapter 18 - Setting the Stage for the Death of JFK
"The significance of all this was that I had introduced President Kennedy's Vietnam
policy statement NSAM #263, into these discussions. It is my belief that the policy
announced so forcefully by Kennedy in his earlier NSAM #55 and in NSAM #263 had been the
major factor in causing the decision by certain elements of the power elite to do away with
Kennedy before his reelection and to take control of the U.S. government in the
process.
Kennedy's NSAM #263 policy would have assured that Americans by the hundreds of
thousands would not have been sent to the war in Vietnam. This policy was anathema to
elements of the military-industrial complex, their bankers, and their allies in the
government. This policy and the almost certain fact that Kennedy would have been reelected
President in 1964 set the stage for the plot to assassinate him."
I can't put this book down. It is without doubt, the most thorough explanation of the
rogue CIA, it's influence and impact on America's involvement in paramilitary operations
around the world and subsequent growing conflicts. It is, as Prouty describes:
"...For the world as a whole, the CIA has now become the bogey that communism had been
for America. Wherever there is trouble, violence, suffering, tragedy, the rest of us are
now quick to suspect the CIA had a hand in it. Our phobia about the CIA is, no doubt, as
fantastically excessive as America's phobia about world communism; but in this case, too,
there is just enough convincing guidance to make the phobia genuine...
"This is what the destruction of sovereignty and disregard for the rule of law means,
and it will not stop there. With it will go property rights -- as we have witnessed in
Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union -- and the rights of man."
It's not hard to understand why Obama hasn't pulled out of Iraq or Afghanistan. He
can't. The military industrial complex and their bankers won't let him.
This is a fascinating look into the world of the power elite: the supremely powerful
international bankers who keep the books and balances for each side.
"They make these transactions possible by offering the loans, issuing letters of credit,
and collecting the interest on the entire package. In many LDCs (third world "less developed
countries") the total amount of interest paid to the banks and their international financing
structure amounts to more than half of the total value of dollars earned by their exports.
For this reason, annual payments are seldom more than the interest involved and none of the
principal. This is one reason why the principal never comes back to the United States." (p.
243 - Ch. Sixteen - Government by Coup d'Etat)
Though the title focuses on the CIA, Vietnam and the plot to kill JFK, this 355 page (not
including six pages of notes) book goes much further. It lays out and explains the real power
-- the international power elite -- that designs the strategy and moves the pieces on the
global chess board of politics, finance, and wars, domestic and international.
Prouty's very detailed book is based on a 19-part magazine series first developed by
Prouty, with and published by Freedom Magazine. Prouty served as the chief of special
operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Kennedy presidency. A retired U.S. Air
Force colonel, Prouty was in charge of the global system that provided military support for
the CIA's secret activities. He was witness to activities, machinations and policy-making in
the Pentagon and the White House that few others can claim. Prouty died in 2001.
"The year was 1964. Pres. John F. Kennedy had been shot dead months before by bursts of
"automatic gunfire" in Dallas by "mechanics," that is, skilled gunmen hired by a power cabal
determined to exert control over the United States government. Lyndon B. Johnson, JFK's
successor, had been only a few feet under the bullets fired at Kennedy as he rode two cars
back in that fatal procession.
"By 1964 Johnson was becoming mired in the swamp of the Indochina conflict. Kennedy, who
had vowed to "break the CIA into a thousand pieces," was dead. LBJ, who heard those fatal
bullets zing past his ears, had learned the ultimate lesson; and for good measure, Richard
Nixon was in Dallas on that fateful day, so that he, too, had the fact of this ever-present
danger imprinted on his memory for future use by his masters. (Ch. Sixteen, Government by
Coup d'Etat - p 232)
~~*~~
When World War II ended with the nuclear bomb, the military industrial complex had a
dilemma -- it understood that the next world war would be the final one, Yet it needed a way
to keep the lucrative business of war making alive and profitable. How? By fighting a war
waged for dollars, without a true military objective, under the control of civilian leaders,
a war never intended to achieve victory. Enter Vietnam. Sound familiar?
Chapter Eighteen - "Setting the Stage for the Death of JFK"
[p 267]
Kennedy's NSAM #265 policy would have assured that Americans by the hundreds of thousands
would not have been sent to the war in Vietnam. This policy was anathema to elements of the
military-industrial complex, their bankers, and their allies in the government. This policy
and the almost certain fact that Kennedy would be reelected President in 1964 set the stage
for the plot to assassinate him.
[snip]
First of all, NSAM #263, October 11, 1963, was a crucial White House document. Much of it,
guided by White House policy, was actually written by my boss in the Pentagon, General
Krulak, myself, and others of his staff. I am familiar with it and with events which led to
its creation.
[snip]
Our history books and the basic sources of history which lie buried in the archives of
government documents that have been concealed from the public, and worse still, government
documents that have been tampered with and forged. As I have just demonstrated above, this
most important policy statement, NSAM #263, that so many historians and journalists say does
not exist, has been divided into two sections in the Pentagon Papers source history.
~~*~~
Chapter Nineteen - Visions of a Kennedy Dynasty
[pp 289-290]
"With Kennedy's announcement that he was getting Americans out of Vietnam, he confirmed
that he was moving away from the pattern of Cold War confrontation in favor of
détente. He asked Congress to cut the defense budget. Major programs were being phased
out. As a result, pressure from several fronts began to build against the young President.
The pressure came from those most affected by cuts in the military budget, in the NASA space
program, and in the enormous potential cost -- and profit -- of the Vietnam War.
Kennedy's plans would mean an end to the warfare in Indochina, which the United States had
been supporting for nearly two decades. This would mean the end to some very big business
plans, as the following anecdote will illustrate.
It was reported in an earlier chapter that the First National Bank of Boston had sent
William F. Thompson, a vice president, to my office in the Pentagon in 1959, presumably after
discussions with CIA officials, to explore "the future of the utilization of the helicopter
in [clandestine] military operations" that had been taking place in Indochina up to 1959.
A client of that bank was Textron, Inc. The bank had suggested to Textron officials that
the acquisition of the near-bankrupt Bell Aircraft Company, and particularly its helicopter
division, might be a good move. What the bank and Textron needed to determine was the extent
of use of helicopters by the military and by the CIA then and the potential for their future
in Indochina.
Both parties were satisfied with the information they acquired from the Pentagon and from
other sources in Washington. In due time the acquisition took place, and on October 13, 1963,
news media in South Vietnam reported that an elite paramilitary force had made its first
helicopter strike against the Vietcong from "Huey" Bell-Textron helicopters. It was also
reported in an earlier chapter that more than five thousand helicopters were ultimately
destroyed in Indochina and that billions of dollars were spent on helicopter purchases for
those lost and their replacements.
Continuing the warfare in Vietnam, in other words, was of vital importance to these
particular powerful financial and manufacturing groups. And helicopters, of course, were but
one part of the $220 billion cost of U.S. participation in that conflict. Most of the $220
billion, in fact, was spent after 1963; only $2 - $3 billion had been spent on direct U.S.
military activities in Vietnam in all of the years since World War II up to and including
1963. Had Kennedy lived, it would not have gone much higher than that.
It is often difficult to retrace episodes in history and to locate an incident that became
crucial to subsequent events. Here, however, we have a rare opportunity.
The success of the deal between the First National Bank of Boston, Textron, and Bell
hinged on the escalation of the war in Indochina. A key man in this plan was Walter
Dornberger, chief of the German Rocket Center at Peenemunde, Germany, during World War II and
later an official with the Bell Aircraft Company. Dornberger's associate and later
protegé from Peenumunde, Wehrner von Braun, who had been instrumental in the
development of the army's Pershing and Jupiter rocket systems, became a central figure in
NASA's plans for the race to the moon. Such connections among skilled technicians can be of
great importance within the military-industrial complex, as they generally lead to bigger
budgets for all related programs.
Kennedy had announced a reduced military budget, the end of American participation in
Indochina, and a major change in the race to the moon. It takes no special wisdom or inside
knowledge to understand that certain vested interests considered the Kennedy proposal to
defuse Vietnam and these other major budget items to be extremely dangerous to their own
plans.
The pressure brought to bear on Kennedy was intense, but some sort of major event was
needed that would stir emotions and trigger action. It is very likely that the death of
President Ngo Dinh Diem of Vietnam and his brother, Ngo Dinh Nhu, on November 1, 1963, in
Saigon was one of those events. There were at least eight or nine more that, in retrospect,
indicate that a plot against Kennedy had begun to unfold."
~~*~~
Is it any wonder that despite his campaign rhetoric to the contrary, Obama is still in
Iraq and Afghanistan???
If you apply what Prouty reveals, it follows that Obama does not do anything unless it is
decreed by the international power elite -- from pulling out of Iraq/Afghanistan to
protecting our Gulf Coast oil-stained states.
JFK didn't dance to the tune of his masters. He did it his way. It cost him his life.
Obama is the creation of his masters. He serves at their pleasure. He won't make JFK's
mistake. You can count on it.
Mr. Prouty served in the Pentagon's Office of Special Operations during a significant
portion of his professional military career. In this role, he observed first-hand how the CIA
arranged/staged coups d'etat in the Phillipines and other nations around the globe. In the
Office of Special Operations, Mr. Prouty was responsible for providing U.S. military support
for CIA operations. This experience serves as the basis for Mr. Prouty's strong inference
that the assassination of President Kennedy was a CIA-style coup d'etat. The "why" of the
coup d'etat is strongly established by Mr. Prouty. JFK intended to withdraw 1,000 military
personnel from Vietnam by the close of 1963 and hoped to complete the full withdrawal of U.S.
military personnel from Vietnam by the close of 1965. To do this, JFK needed to get
re-elected. His decision to withdraw from Vietnam was based upon the McNamara-Taylor report
of early October, 1963 and codified in National Security Action Memorandum#263 of October 11,
1963. [For a thorough, scholarly analysis of the evolution of JFK's Vietnam policy, see "JFK
and Vietnam" by John M. Newman (New York: Warner Books, 1992). Mr. Newman is a professional
historian and a faculty member at the University of Maryland]. Powerful interests in the CIA,
Pentagon and the corporate world were "gung ho" in favor of large-scale military intervention
in Vietnam. The prospective war promised billions of dollars in military contracts for the
defense industry. JFK's intention to withdraw from Vietnam would deny these elements in the
CIA, Pentagon and corporate communities their pot of gold. Immediately after the
assassination of JFK, LBJ issued NSAM#273 on November 26, 1963 which was a complete reversal
of JFK's policy. NSAM#273 authorized U.S. military raids into North Vietnam. These raids
precipitated the Gulf of Tonkin incidents of July-August 1963, led to Congress' Gulf of
Tonkin Resolution and massive U.S. military intervention in Vietnam. LBJ gave the CIA,
Pentagon and defense contractors what JFK would have denied them: billions of dollars in
defense contracts in support of the full-scale war in Vietnam. For Mr. Prouty, the ultimate
inference is irresistible: to effectuate the complete turn-around of Vietnam policy proposed
by JFK, a CIA-style coup d'etat was carried out in Dallas on November 22, 1963. LBJ's
NSAM#273 reversing JFK's Vietnam policy [from withdrawal to establishing the foundation for
massive U.S. intervention] was issued on November 26, 1963. The goals of the coup were
obtained immediately following the assassination. Prouty gives us the "why" of the coup.
Further research remains to be done in order to give us "who" and the "how". Prouty's work is
a valuable starting point for further inquiry and deserves our appreciation for its
autobiographical honesty and heartfelt analysis.
Very disappointing. I was looking forward to reading this book primarily because the
author was so close to the action. But as other reviewers have pointed out, the focus of the
book is a far reaching review of US history since 1944-45. Unfortunately, in this regard, the
book is a failure.
Prouty isn't a historian and I'm sure that he doesn't claim to be one. But to attempt to
cover the ground that he does, he's lacking a lot of background knowledge. This shows up
quickly in the book - let me give you a couple of examples;
- He states that President Roosevelt died suddenly, unexpectedly is the word he uses, and
this simply isn't true. Roosevelt was bed-ridden for about 6 months before his death and the
US government was effectively run by his advisors during this period.
- He claims that the USA and Russia were allies at the close of WWII (true), but also that
an atmosphere of trust existed between the two countries (false). He continues to make the
claim that but for the actions of the CIA, the Cold War would not have happened. That's
simply not the case - Roosevelt and his advisors weren't happy with Stalin and vice versa.
The CIA didn't even formally exist until Truman created them in 1947 and they didn't act
without full political approval of the US governments of the time.
Look, I'm no fan of the CIA, and I completely agree with him that they plotted and
achieved the death of JFK. But that doesn't mean that they and the KGB were responsible for
creating the Cold War! Does Prouty think that the KGB could have acted in anyway without the
full and knowing approval of Stalin himself? And that the Dulles brothers somehow manipulated
the USA into the Cold War without the support and approval of Roosevelt and Truman?
Apparently, he does!
Much of his thesis is based on the concept that there is a "power elite" that has actually
been in control of world of US and Russian actions since 1944. Perhaps he is correct that a
cabal currently sits behind our governments and influences events, but I disagree with his
notion that they have controlled political events in the detailed way that he suggests
throughout the world since 1944.
This really isn't a book about JFK and his assassination as it is a somewhat innacurate
attempt to describe world history since WWII.
This book presents a very strange and sinister theory.
People who are into conspiracy theories talk about groups like the Bilderberg Group who
collude in secret to make decisions that are good for them but disastrous for everyone else.
Those types of groups, so the theory goes, are not associated with any one particular
government or country. Author Fletcher Prouty describes something like that although he says
it is not the Bilderberg Group.
I've always believed in the JFK conspiracy but I never thought this conspiracy extended
beyond the United States government and Lyndon Johnson. But yet I have to ask myself, if
Fletcher is wrong what is the alternative ? Could he be right ?
Fletcher Prouty was deeply saddened by what he observed first hand in Vietnam. People who
had lived in peace for many thousands of years in northern Vietnam were uprooted from their
ancestral lands and moved to the south with nothing but the clothes on their backs. This was
done to create hopelessness and a boiling cauldron of despair which was the perfect
environment for igniting the inferno of warfare.
This was all accomplished by that most sinister of organizations called the CIA This
agency is expert at creating confusion, human misery, and death on a massive scale with no
regard for human life whatsoever.
Fletcher spends a few chapters analyzing the official story about the Kennedy
assassination as far as Oswald's involvement (he was not involved), the number of shooters,
and the many unexplained lapses of following official and long held procedures for protecting
the president.
He was able to easily see through the smoke screen of lies created by the government about
the JFK assassination and many other things because he saw all this from the inside. He was
part of the very machine that caused the escalation in Vietnam and the JFK assassination. The
Warren Commission's story does not hold up for many, many reasons. For one thing there were
too many bullets fired. What a strange coincidence that on the day JFK was killed Fletcher
happened to be in Antarctica serving as a military escort for a bunch of diplomats on some
sight seeing excursion.
But yet it seems the nefarious group that ordered this assassination didn't really care if
people thought there was a conspiracy because they knew nobody can do anything anyway. That's
what's so scary about all this.
Fletcher feels this High Cabal, as Winston Churchill called it, has existed for 2,000
years or more in some form. Perhaps this is that great, lying beast and multi headed hydra
described in the bible in the Book Of Revelation.
Some of the groups Fletcher feels are part of this cabal are the CIA and the other
American intelligence agencies, the American military, international bankers, industrialists,
and the Dallas police department. But beyond that even Fletcher doesn't know who is really at
the very top of this super elite power structure.
For Fletcher this cabal is much more powerful than the president of the United States and
they will disregard what the president says if they want to. That's exactly what happened
when the CIA sent Gary Powers on a U2 spy plane mission over Russia and made sure the plane
malfunctioned. As a result a planned peace summit between president Eisenhower and Nikita
Khrushchev was cancelled. Ike had given orders to stop all covert activity until this summit
was over.
They also cancelled a mission to shoot up Fidel Castro's three aircraft before the Bay Of
Pigs fiasco. That was a direct failure to follow president Kennedy's orders to make sure
these planes were destroyed before the invasion. They did this to embarrass president
Kennedy. That's because peace is the High Cabal's greatest fear and enemy.
The election of president Kennedy was a disaster for the High Cabal. JFK was interfering
with their plans to spend, not billions, but trillions of dollars in Vietnam and on their
other Cold War projects. JFK was interfering with their ability to control the American
government. So they killed him and regained that power, partially through their murderous
accomplice Lyin' Lyndon Johnson.
After World War II the High Cabal created the perception in the public's mind of an epic
struggle between Communism and the West. They used this false premise to create limited,
protracted warfare all over the world. But they had to ensure the fighting did not become too
intense because of the ever present menace of nuclear weapons.
Could it really be that the High Cabal doesn't care about the ideological struggle between
Communism and the West or any other ideology for that matter ? Could the CIA, the KGB, and
other similar groups really be providing weapons to the combatants on all sides just to
prolong warfare forever ? That's what Fletcher Prouty says in this book.
Another point is the Vietnam conflict did not have any well defined military objective so
it was doomed to become a protracted and ultimately unsuccessful bloodbath with the body
count being the only measure of success.
Here's an exchange between Lyin' Lyndon Johnson and military legend General Creighton
Abrams and his aide:
Lyndon:
"Abe, you are going over there to win. You will have an army of 550,000 men, one of the
most powerful air forces ever assembled, and the invincible Seventh Fleet of the U.S. Navy
offshore. Now go over there and do it."
Aide:
"Mr. President, you have told us to go over there and do 'it'. Would you care to define
what 'it' is ?"
Johnson remained silent as he ushered General Abrams and his men out of the Oval
Office.
Fletcher appears in an episode of the documentary 'The Men Who Killed Kennedy'. The
hypocrites have taken legal action to have some of those episodes pulled off the market and
the DVDs are no longer available for those 'Final Chapter' episodes. However 'The Men Who
Killed Kennedy' can still be watched on the internet which I highly recommend.
Fletcher served as an advisor for Oliver Stone when Stone created his JFK movie. Stone's
movie created a lot of controversy with the public and as a result people called for more
hearings about the assassination. But those later investigations ran into the same brick wall
of secrecy and deception that continues to this very day.
Fletcher drops another bomb shell in the notes section at the end of the book. He says on
the day of the assassination JFK was shot with a poisonous flechette that was launched from
an umbrella. A flechette is a very small, rocket propelled dart which travels at a very high
velocity and which is very difficult to detect during an autopsy. Why they poisoned JFK even
though they were planning on shooting him anyway I don't know. This may have been insurance
in case JFK was not shot or not shot fatally.
The people who did this were professional killers. They leave very little to chance and
account for many different scenarios.
For all intents and pruposes, Prouty was serving behind the scenes of US Intelligence
services in one capacity or another since before WWII (as special duty at both the Cairo and
Tehran Conferences), until the day he retired. So how do you know he isn't just like all the
other shills and "company men" from the inside who tell the public only what the elite want
them to know? There is no better illustration of Prouty's willingness to tell his whole story
-- with the vast information at his disposal -- than Page 260, which in this edition, is in
Chapter 17 JFK's Plan to End the Vietnam Warfare:
"Why did the US government in 1945, before the end of World War II, choose to arm and
equip Ho Chi Minh? Why did the United States, a few short years later, shift its allegiance
from Ho Chi Minh to the French in their losing struggle that ended ignominiously with the
battle of Dien Bien Phu? Why, after creating the Diem government in 1954 and after supporting
that government for ten years, did the United States shift again and encourage those
Vietnamese who planned to overthrow it? And finally, why, after creating an enormous military
force in Indochina, did the US government fail to go ahead and defeat this same Ho Chi Minh
when, by all traditional standards of warfare, it possessed the means to do so?"
And this makes-up the majority of this work by Prouty. He wisely stays with the evidence
that HE has at his disposal. In other words, what Prouty effectively laid out for the reader,
is the "Why" in the Kennedy assassination. He does so without assuming very much, as when
reading the book, you see very well that there was quite a large swath of the Military
Industrial Complex that stood to loose billions if Kennedy had lived. And thankfully, Prouty
effectively explains in great detail that any myth about Kennedy escalating the Vietnam war
is just that -- a myth. And Prouty's evidence of this? Documents from his time in the
Pentagon and White House, not to mention press members and administration members who backed
Kennedy's own words that US forces would be pulled out of the region after he was
reelected.
For those who wish to research this subject further than the events in Dealey Plaza,
Prouty's book is for you. If you want an idea as to "why" Kennedy was killed, I couldn't
recommend this book highly enough.
JFK: The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy
Events in the real world and society are mostly planned, they do not just happen. This
book presents selected events from 1943 to 1990. The major events of this time were craftily
and systematically planned by the power elite. This book will attempt to explain the Cold
War, the Korean and Vietnam wars, the effects of the development of the hydrogen bomb, and
why the "military-industrial complex" removed JFK from the Presidency. L. Fletcher Prouty
spent 1955-64 as chief of special operations. Page xxxiii tells of one incident he witnessed
of the "power elite". Page 4 explains how an agent for the East India Company created an
ideological justification for eliminating unwanted people. Page 8 says that neither H-bombs
or "Star Wars" can prevent warfare by terrorists.
Pages 15-16 tells of the driving force of acquisitiveness. Mineral wealth is controlled by
corporate interests directly, or by the World Bank or International Monetary Fund. Genocide
is regularly practices to limit the "excess population", particularly those who object to
this exploitation. He repeats Elliot Roosevelt's story about Stalin's claim that FDR was
poisoned (he had spies everywhere?). "Many of the skilled saboteurs and terrorists of today
are the CIA students of yesterday" (p.37). "The first aerial hijackings were publicly
solicited by the US in return for big cash awards, plus sanctuary". Page 56 tells why so many
of our leaders are lawyers: they are trained to work under the direction of their clients.
Their "lawyer-client confidence" ensures secrecy, even in court; they work for international
law firms in government, banks, and major industries.
Chapter Six, "Genocide by Transfer", tells how over a million Tonkinese were moved to
Cochin China; it caused a rice shortage in a previously rice-exporting country! The
destruction of self-sufficient villages created consumers of imported food (like post-1962
Burma), and enriched merchants and shippers. It also created a source of cheap labor? Chapter
Seven tells of the destruction of the village economy, and the resulting banditry. The
depopulation of rural counties and the "urban renewal" in the big cities caused internal
migration and a rise in the crime rate here in America too. After Textron Corporation bought
Bell helicopters, there was now a need for these helicopters in Vietnam. Page 108 tells how
43% of lives lost were "not from action by hostile forces" - just accidents! The high cost of
machines and their need for maintenance (supplies, personnel) helped to lose the war.
L. Fletcher Prouty says the massive slaughter in Cambodia, the Iran-Iraq war, "Desert
Storm", and the Middle East hostilities are an example of Malthusian social engineering
(p.187). Chapter 16 explains the economic reasons for coups d' etat, whether Marcos in the
Phillipines, Batista, Somoza, or Trujillo (pp. 236-7). Once a puppet ruler in s country tries
to counteract its exploitation, its goodbye. Page 238 tells how "foreign aid" is used to
support American companies moving their factories and machinery to foreign countries. Page
240 explains why Vietnam (like Korea) was a limited "unwinnable" war.
On November 22, 1963 JFK was removed from office by a powerful group that wanted to
escalate the war in Vietnam, and increase government spending (p.257). Pages 261-4 answers
those who mistakenly claim JFK did not want to withdraw military forces from Vietnam. Prouty
presents information from the public record and his personal experience. NSAM#263 shows that
JFK did plan to withdraw military personnel from Vietnam in 1963. The death of JFK changed
the war in Indochina from low-intensity to a major operation. Page 291 lists the many things
done as standard security procedure which were NOT done on 11-22-1963. If the Warren Report
is wrong on any key point, then it is false. Governor Connally contradicted the key point of
the Warren Report to his dying day. The assassination of JFK demonstrated that most major
events of world significance are masterfully planned and orchestrated by an elite coterie of
enormously powerful people (p.334). You can read Jim Marrs' "Rule by Secrecy". The August 31,
1983 downing of Korean Air flight 007 resulted in the largest Defense Department budget ever
passed in peacetime.
A must read if you're wanting answers. I was and I've read a lot of books about this era
because I lived through it and wanted answers to questions I had. Now it all makes sense. I
would also suggest reading "Official and Confidential: The Secret Life of J. Edgar Hoover" by
Anthony Summers. I had a hard time putting that book down too.
JFK The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy
by Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty
The Long Journey to Dallas Texas
Spoiler alert: This is neither the shortest version, nor the shortest route to
understanding the JFK assassination. But it is as close to the complete canonical text and
understanding of the assassination as there is ever likely to be. It is told by an insider,
the high priest of understanding about the JFK assassination if you ask me (or Oliver Stone),
one who has been around long enough, and has resided deep enough inside the bowels of the US
government to know where all the skeletons are buried.
Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty was also a member of "The Secret Team," which he wrote a very
revealing book about, of the same name. It has proven to be a critical part of the unfolding
of the 50-year old drama of the JFK assassination. (Read my Amazon review of it.)
Here Col Prouty takes us by the hand and guides us on a journey, moving slowly but
steadily and deliberately along a long winding path, through the historical underbrush
beginning at the end of WW-II. He then leads us out into a clearing called "the Cold War,"
where events are craftily orchestrated around the threat of a nuclear holocaust. But it is
orchestrated in such a way that the right to continue endless conventional wars is preserved
and the world is made forever safe "for wars of profit" by other more novel means. Korea,
would be the first but not the last of the "make money wars." The mother of all such
un-winnable "money wars," however was Vietnam. It would represent a signature turn in the
road that would "vector" directly to the JFK assassination. However, along the way the reader
will also be introduced to Saudi Arabia, Iran and the oil angle, and then on to Cuba and the
threat of nuclear war, finally ending up at high noon on 11/22/63 with the assassination of
our 35th president.
As enlightening as the journey is it is not an easy trip for a "democratically trained
mind." For along the way, we must unlearn the old rules of democracy in favor of learning a
new set, with a new unwritten covenant, as well as a new vocabulary of reactionary and
self-destructive power politics. And with them, we must also adopt and adapt to wearing a new
kind of emotional straitjacket, armor better to make us comfortable granting involuntary
consent to these altered understandings of how our more twisted and diminished democracy is
supposed to work.
To wit: We the people, and they, our new anonymous ruling power elite, consent to govern
us from above but forever behind the screen, promising nothing but to be unreliable invisible
puppet-masters. And in return "we the people" are expected to close our "lying eyes" and
pretend that when "we" see JFK's head snap violently back and to the left, it did not really
happen? Now, and henceforth, our only reality tests are those prepared for us by our "lying
media," the lemmings bought and paid for by our new invisible rulers. In short, the new
contract mandates that we go along quietly, without whimpering, and accept the fact that "we
the people" have been robbed of all previous contractual understandings of what a democratic
government is supposed to mean.
What government "by," "for" and "of" the people used to mean, has been permanently
altered. In this new "hyper real context" of being governed by an anonymous power elite, who
are constantly pulling the strings from behind the curtains, government "by," "for" and "of"
the people now means whatever our anonymous puppet-masters' media outlets tell us it
means.
Those steeped in the conspiracy paranoia of the likes of the Bilderburghers, the
Trilateralists, and the Council of Foreign Relations, must understand that what Colonel
Prouty is telling us here is not the same. They will find no comfort here on this journey for
cheap conspiracy nonsense. Instead, they will find here just the clean facts, with all of the
dots connected, convincingly written by one of the last of America's authentic patriots. When
readers complete this book, they will then understand why the Bilderburghers, the
Trilateralists, and the Council of Foreign Relations, are all superfluous and unnecessary.
All of the questions one can imagine about the JFK assassination are answered here.
A "Rough" Summary of Colonel Prouty's Story
After World War II, and owing primarily to the creation of the CIA, the U.S entered a new
"hyper covert reality" in which, just as General Eisenhower had warned in his farewell
address, the machinery of government was effectively commandeered by reactionary warmongers
and war profiteers. The post-war power elite ruled by calling for continuous wars, with the
CIA and the military acting as their vanguard and shock troops. There was nothing subtle
about this take over, nor is reference to it just knee-jerk conspiracy nonsense. Colonel
Prouty provides us a framework and a clear discrete paper trail that reveals every step of
the "take over process," steps that he argues convincingly led inexorably to the JFK
assassination.
Step one was carefully embedded within policy memorandum NSC-5412, which among other
things, gave all covert operations over to the CIA, and specifically prohibited the active
military from engaging in them. However, after the spectacular debacle of the John Foster
Dulles led Bay of Pigs operation, JFK issued (and was in the process of implementing at the
time of his very timely assassination), a reversal of this policy with NSC-55, which would
have given the responsibility for covert operations back to the active military through the
JCS. Not only was this reversing directive never implemented, but with JFK's death, all of
the generals running the Vietnam War, were actually CIA officers operating under military
cover and rank. According to Colonel Prouty, this was nail #1 in the JFK coffin.
Nail number two involved an excruciatingly carefully worked out policy directive, NSAM-65
by the JFK national security team. It was the policy directive initiating the complete
withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Vietnam by 1965. NSAM-65 was drawn up after an
unprecedented 23 high-level meetings by JFK's and his national security team. Not only was
NSAM-65 not implemented, but it was reversed in a week after the assassination by LBJ
initiated policy directives NSC-273 and NSC-288.
The final nail in the coffin, according to Colonel Prouty, the one that actually signaled
that assassination plans were already afoot, is the tell-tale fact that in the Pentagon
papers that had been released within the government before JFK was assassinated (and later
exposed publicly by Daniel Ellsberg), one-page cover sheets were entered in the text at the
point where the substance of JFK's two policy directives should have been? Twenty-five
stars
Today America has become the nightmare (Arnold Toynbee)
Prouty's autobiography is very revealing indeed. Of course, it contains controversial
items (Would JFK have stopped the Vietnam War?). But, it is the general picture that counts,
and here, the author is prophetic.
Prouty presents his world view as follows: `The world is ruled by a power elite. The basic
motivations are always the same. Money lays at the root ... the enormous amount spent on
military matériel.'
This elite wields its power partly and most importantly through invisible intelligence
agencies. `The power of any agency allowed to operate in secrecy is boundless'.
Nationally, JFK would probably be reelected in 1964, also via carefully directed
investments, which should have influenced favorably the voting in heavily contested states.
This reelection for another 4 years was very hard to swallow for a part of the power elite.
JFK had promised to cut the defense budget and destroy one of its power bases (`split an
intelligence agency into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds.')
JFK's masterfully planned assassination was a coup d'état, not less than a total
takeover of the US government. The cover-up of the assassination, which is still going on,
shows the immense power of the culprits. They controlled the Warner Commission and could
(can) force, until today, the media and Congress to pay lip service to them. Congress was
never capable to launch an adequate investigation into the murder.
Internationally, `the world's power elite benefited splendidly from the staggering sums
involved in the Vietnam War.' The author's moving evocation of the fate of a pastoral
Vietnamese village shows that `people's lives are valueless when they get in the way of
elitist interests.' (Mark Curtis)
The powerful show absolutely no respect for national sovereignty (e.g., Vietnam, Bolivia,
Nicaragua, Afghanistan, Panama, Iraq, the Philippines, even Grenada), which is the principle
on which `the family of nations exists, with its property rights and the rights of man.'
At the end, Prouty is even prophetic: `the power elite utilizes all manner of plots to
achieve their ambitious goal. That gamesmanship is called `Terrorism'.
This book is a must read for all those wanting to understand the world we live in.
In his perceptive book JFK: THE CIA, VIETNAM, AND THE PLOT TO ASSASSINATE JOHN F. KENNEDY
(2011), Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty (Retired, U.S. Air Force) admirably demonstrates that he
understands the dynamics involved in the Vietnam War. Time and again, Col. Prouty draws on
his own personal experience to elucidate various matters he discusses.
Concerning the Vietnam War, President Lyndon B. Johnson used trumped-up charges to
escalate the conflict between North Vietnam and South Vietnam into a major tragedy - and a
defeat for the United States. Col. Prouty sees the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) as
having orchestrated the conflict between North Vietnam and South Vietnam. Allen Dulles was
the director of the CIA - until President John F. Kennedy fired him as a result of the CIA
adventure to invade Cuba known as the Bay of Pigs debacle. During the Eisenhower
administration, Allen Dulles' brother, John Foster Dulles, served as the Secretary of State.
The Dulles brothers were fervently anti-communist. Moreover, they regarded nation-states not
aligned with the U.S. as aligned with the communists - the enemy in the Cold War.
Concerning the Dulles brothers, see Stephen Kinzer's book THE BROTHERS: JOHN FOSTER
DULLES, ALLEN DULLES, AND THEIR SECRET WORLD WAR (2013). In my estimate, Kinzer does fine job
of tracing the American anti-communist spirit back to the time of the Bolshevik Revolution in
Russia in 1917. But Col. Prouty does not advert to this earlier history of the American
anti-communist spirit. Instead, he picks up the story in the waning times of World War II
(WWII). As he points out, Joseph Stalin's Soviet Union was one of our allies in WWII against
Adolf Hitler's Nazis in Germany. As Col. Prouty also points out, Chiang Kai-shek's China was
one of our allies in WWII against Japan. (Subsequently, Chiang Kai-shek was defeated by Moa
Tse-tung's communist forces.)
Col. Prouty explains how 1.1 million peasants had earlier been transported about a
thousand miles from their traditional culture in what then became known as the nation-state
of North Vietnam and had been relocated in what then became known as the nation-state of
South Vietnam, where they were landless and poor. Their relocation was orchestrated by the
CIA
As a result of their dire needs for food, many of them became bandits. As Col. Prouty
repeatedly explains, those bandits had been relocated in the Mekong Delta. The Mekong Delta
is so far to the south of North Vietnam as to preclude their having infiltrated from North
Vietnam. Unfortunately, those bandits were considered to be communist "infiltrators" from
North Vietnam - the enemy. Those bandits came to be referred to as the Vietcong.
With admirable clear-sightedness, Col. Prouty also explains the complicated logistics of
helicopter warfare in the Vietnam War.
Because President Harry Truman had dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to get
Japan to surrender, most powerful Americans had subsequently figured out that another all-out
war like WWII would result in the nuclear destruction of human life on the planet. As a
result, Col. Prouty claims, President Johnson would not authorize the American military to
fight for victory over North Vietnam because such a fight would of necessity run the risk of
expanding the conflict to bring in China and perhaps the Soviet Union - and thereby risk the
dreaded nuclear holocaust. Thus American forces were consigned to waging the Vietnam War
without risking victory - and the dreaded nuclear holocaust.
Even though Col. Prouty's overall discussion of the Vietnam War is astute, his major
thesis in the book is that President John F. Kennedy was assassinated on November 22, 1963,
by experienced assassins hired to do the job. In CIA parlance, such hired assassins were
referred to as "mechanics."
President Kennedy had ordered that all American advisers would be out of Vietnam by the
end of 1965. Moreover, he was likely to win re-election in 1964, which would mean that he
could make his order stick.
However, for years, the CIA had been cultivating Vietnam for a war there. A war there
would serve the purposes of enriching what President Dwight D. Eisenhower in his farewell
address had referred to as the military-industrial complex - in plain English, war
profiteers. No doubt the war profiteers did profit enormously from the Vietnam War. (Of
course the war profiteers employed many Americans in their civilian work force.)
Despite the fact that Col. Prouty suggests that the CIA was probably involved in President
Kennedy's assassination, he stops well short of naming specific CIA and other government
officials who were involved in the carefully orchestrated plot to assassinate President
Kennedy. In this respect, we could say that Col. Prouty paints the big picture - but he ably
paints the big picture.
In conclusion, Col. Prouty's book JFK: THE CIA, VIETNAM, AND THE PLOT TO ASSASSINATE JOHN
F. KENNEDY (2011) is well written and ably researched.
This is a shocking book. L. Fletcher Prouty is a world class whistleblower. After reading
this masterpiece take another look at the official 9/11 report. The secret cabal running our
planet has been exposed by many writers and few politicians; this is an insider's report on
that cabal. False flag attacks are now used by the cabal, not only in USA but in any country
where the locals are not towing the line as demanded by the banksters.
"To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize. --
Voltaire"
Amazing, the cabal has kept the lid on the murder of JFK for over 50 years. How long will
we be kept in the dark about 9/11?
So somebody finally pulls it all together--the conspiracy is not a theory, it's all facts.
Circumstantial, but no lies
Best editorial trick revealed: Leslie H. Gelb, who was to the Watergate papers what Phil
Zelikow was to the 9/11 Commission novel, used the neat writer's trick (Gelb was a New York
Times editor, you may recall) to hide something in black ink on a white page. Gelb uses the
title President to avoid mentioning that JFK's presidency was ended with bullets. The
President (JFK) had NSAM #263 written & promulgated, 1 Oct 63. The memo noted that the
troops could be pulled out of Vietnam by the end of 1965. Ending the CIA-guided Indochina war
they'd begun in September of 1945. So Gelb has "The President" as author of #263, have a
mind-change with his cabinet, all of who had decided to go to Honolulu for the 22nd. On the
23rd, when an official speaks with The President, and a new NSAM is issued--#273, which
called for an escalation of Conflict. The President of #263 has changed his mind and issued
#273. The title stays the same, but the brain of the President who commissioned #263 was
blown away by, what, Hornady hollow-point, boat-tail bullets (the kind the Abteilung der
Heimats Versicherheit (dept of "home" "security"). And "The President" of the second instance
just happened to be a different president, LBJ.
That's some clever and wondrously deliberate writing. The words are there in front of your
nose, in plain sight. And yet they hide the circumstances, that, in the brief period between
Nov. 21 and Nov. 23, the title President had not changed--just the life and body for which it
represented. (In the newspaper biz, novices are instructed to "write around" facts that are
missing. In this case, a few years after the Assassination of JFK, i think most people had
gotten the news that JFK was dead and gone. Gelb and his boss were in that news loop, so I
doubt Gelb would testify that he didn't know that JFK had been murdered (by a head shot fired
from the Grassy Knoll, of course, but who's quibbling). No reason to fail to mention that The
President (JFK) had been replaced by The President (LBJ), except if you want to avoid the
"chance" that people will notice that Presidential Policy on Nov 21, 1963 (NSAM 263 (JFK)
hand changed 180 degrees to Presidential Policy (NSAM 273) on Nov. 23 (LBJ).
So in the murder investigation, you'd want to bring Gelb in to get his story. You might
want to set a water-board in the witness box right next to him--perhaps the special,
autographed KSM (Khalid Sheikh Mohammad) model, guaranteed to last at least 168 uses (whether
by one "detainee" (POW) or a succession of them. And you'd want to get all this moving while
at least a few of the players are still alive. I'd like to hear what David R. and the rest of
the Wall Street Banksters and lawyers have to say about JFK, RFK, Tonkin, USS Liberty, 9/11,
etc. And also what Cheney and Shrub I and Shrub II and Rumsfeld & Wolfowitz and Pearle,
etc., have to say about all the above.
At any rate, Prouty is a must-read. As is William Pepper's "An Act of State: The
assassination of MLKjr." which puts the quietus to the phrase "conspiracy theory". Not a
theory any longer, but a conspiracy fact. But who will prosecute members of the High Cabal?
They run the government, with their private army, the CIA, and have since Nov. 22, 1963. Not
that anybody cares, of course.
JFK: The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy
Events in the real world and society are mostly planned, they do not just happen. This
book presents selected events from 1943 to 1990. The major events of this time were craftily
and systematically planned by the power elite. This book will attempt to explain the Cold
War, the Korean and Vietnam wars, the effects of the development of the hydrogen bomb, and
why the "military-industrial complex" removed JFK from the Presidency. L. Fletcher Prouty
spent 1955-64 as chief of special operations. Page xxxiii tells of one incident he witnessed
of the "power elite". Page 4 explains how an agent for the East India Company created an
ideological justification for eliminating unwanted people. Page 8 says that neither H-bombs
or "Star Wars" can prevent warfare by terrorists.
Pages 15-16 tells of the driving force of acquisitiveness. Mineral wealth is controlled by
corporate interests directly, or by the World Bank or International Monetary Fund. Genocide
is regularly practices to limit the "excess population", particularly those who object to
this exploitation. He repeats Elliot Roosevelt's story about Stalin's claim that FDR was
poisoned (he had spies everywhere?). "Many of the skilled saboteurs and terrorists of today
are the CIA students of yesterday" (p.37). "The first aerial hijackings were publicly
solicited by the US in return for big cash awards, plus sanctuary". Page 56 tells why so many
of our leaders are lawyers: they are trained to work under the direction of their clients.
Their "lawyer-client confidence" ensures secrecy, even in court; they work for international
law firms in government, banks, and major industries.
Chapter Six, "Genocide by Transfer", tells how over a million Tonkinese were moved to
Cochin China; it caused a rice shortage in a previously rice-exporting country! The
destruction of self-sufficient villages created consumers of imported food (like post-1962
Burma), and enriched merchants and shippers. It also created a source of cheap labor? Chapter
Seven tells of the destruction of the village economy, and the resulting banditry. The
depopulation of rural counties and the "urban renewal" in the big cities caused internal
migration and a rise in the crime rate here in America too. After Textron Corporation bought
Bell helicopters, there was now a need for these helicopters in Vietnam. Page 108 tells how
43% of lives lost were "not from action by hostile forces" - just accidents! The high cost of
machines and their need for maintenance (supplies, personnel) helped to lose the war.
L. Fletcher Prouty says the massive slaughter in Cambodia, the Iran-Iraq war, "Desert
Storm", and the Middle East hostilities are an example of Malthusian social engineering
(p.187). Chapter 16 explains the economic reasons for coups d' etat, whether Marcos in the
Phillipines, Batista, Somoza, or Trujillo (pp. 236-7). Once a puppet ruler in s country tries
to counteract its exploitation, its goodbye. Page 238 tells how "foreign aid" is used to
support American companies moving their factories and machinery to foreign countries. Page
240 explains why Vietnam (like Korea) was a limited "unwinnable" war.
On November 22, 1963 JFK was removed from office by a powerful group that wanted to
escalate the war in Vietnam, and increase government spending (p.257). Pages 261-4 answers
those who mistakenly claim JFK did not want to withdraw military forces from Vietnam. Prouty
presents information from the public record and his personal experience. NSAM#263 shows that
JFK did plan to withdraw military personnel from Vietnam in 1963. The death of JFK changed
the war in Indochina from low-intensity to a major operation. Page 291 lists the many things
done as standard security procedure which were NOT done on 11-22-1963. If the Warren Report
is wrong on any key point, then it is false. Governor Connally contradicted the key point of
the Warren Report to his dying day. The assassination of JFK demonstrated that most major
events of world significance are masterfully planned and orchestrated by an elite coterie of
enormously powerful people (p.334). You can read Jim Marrs' "Rule by Secrecy". The August 31,
1983 downing of Korean Air flight 007 resulted in the largest Defense Department budget ever
passed in peacetime.
In this volume, Colonel Fletcher Prouty captures both the secret history of the United
States from 1945 to 1975 and the reasons behind the plot to kill President Kennedy. Herein,
the courageous Colonel illustrates quite clearly that the clandestine history and the
assassination plot were intrinsically linked.
From the important information in this book, we learn that the war in Vietnam actually
began on September 2, 1945, when Ho Chi Minh was established as the new leader of Vietnam by
our OSS, the predecessor of the CIA, and the US Army. The United States was thoughtful enough
to provide all the weapons, ammunition, and supplies necessary for Ho and Giap to pursue
their war against the French, which culminated in the French defeat at Dien Bien Phu.
Following that defeat, the CIA arranged for the transfer of 1.1 million "refugees" from the
North of Vietnam to the South. These folks caused such disruption in the fragile agricultural
economy of the South that their arrival ultimately drove the orginal residents to banditry in
order that they might survive. These displaced bandits became what was later known as the
Viet Cong. Hence, the CIA created the conditions necessary for a full scale war in
Vietnam.
On coming to office, Kennedy, a brilliant and studious man, came soon to understand the
perfidy of the CIA One of first his acts on realizing this was to fire CIA director Allen
Dulles. Soon thereafter, he issued one the most important, and unknown, documents of US
history, NSAM 263. Issued in October of 1963, this document called for 1,000 US military
personnel to come home from Vietnam by that Christmas. The remainder were to be out of
Vietnam by the end of 1965. Had John Kennedy lived, what Americans know as the war in Vietnam
would never have happened.
Prouty demonstrates herein that the powers that be ultimately made the decision that they
could not allow Kennedy to live. He makes it clear that assassination researches who make a
career of examining the details of the government's false cover story truly miss the point.
What matters is not how the President was killed, but why. And the answer to that question is
that the assassination was a coup d'etat, transferring control of the government of the
United States to a power elite, which has been in control ever since. Hence, we have the
strange silence of every succeeding President on the issue of the cover up of the Kennedy
assassination.
The book is well written and extraordinarily important. He would understand our nation and
how it came to be in the condition that now obtains would be well advised to read carefully
this terribly important book. God bless.
This book is written by someone who was sitting in the middle of Eisenhower's feared
military-industrial complex, instead of an outside researcher. Col Prouty lived what he tells
us for several years. He saw the Korean & the Vietnam War buildup from the inside; he
watched as the Bay of Pigs went down and No, it was not JFK's fault.
I was most impressed that Col Prouty is the actual person depicted as "Mr. X" and
portrayed by Donald Sutherland in Oliver Stone's JFK.
If only half of what he tells us is the truth, then we need to demand another look at
JFK's murder.
Fascinating read, from a man inside the Military Complex
Overall, this was a fascinatiing read, and an awesome addition to my already humongous JFK
Assassination collection. My only points of contention: 1)The name of it (and I realize the
name needs to attract the reader) should have been The Military Complex / The Power Elite:
How it works and it's connection to the JFK Assassination. The first three quarters of this
book was all about the High Cabal and the Military complex. Incredibly detailed and
compelling reading, but I just could not wait for it to end so we could get to the JFK part.
But when it did...BAM! I could not put the book down. 2) This may be minor, but parts were
extremely repetitve. I stopped counting how many times he referred to the one million
Vietnemese who migrated to South Vietnam. I know he was trying to bang the point home, but it
got to a point where it was not needed. 3) Once he got to the assassination itself I truly
thought he would get into names...who made up this High Cabal or Power Elite that is more
powerful than the President and US Government. I understand this could be dangerous...but a
little hint would have been nice. 4) I thought he would get into more detail how the
Assassination was pulled off. He drops a lot of hints and possibilities, but never really
gives details to his personal thoughts. I cannot believe Mr. Prouty, after all his years
serving in the military in the sensitive positions he held, could not come up with some kind
of idea. Be that as it my, I truly believe this is as close the truth that we could ever get.
I think this give the Why and Who would benefit. But would love even more detail. Maybe
that's asking too much... Whether or not you are a JFK Assassination buff...this is truly an
amazing read.
An Admirble Attempt at Truth-telling by a Good Man
If you have come to this book looking for another lean, persuasive investigation of the
various conspiracies that could have led to the killing of JFK, you have come to the wrong
place. prouty's book reaches far wider than that narrow scope, exploring every square inch of
his vast, first-hand knowledge of the workings and consequences of the so-called Cold War
(though I don't see how the bloody loss of millions of lives during that time constitute a
war that was anything but blazing hot).
Prouty, a former Air Force colonel and CIA insider, manages to observe his life's work
from an objective standpoint that raises countless probing and often hair-raising questions
and warnings. Reaching back to the origins of the cold war and its effects on the policy and
history that would soon be made, Prouty paints an expansive, thorough and detailed account
not only of the JFK assassination, but of the entire political and industrial framework
festering in the 20 years leading up to that moment that allowed such a tragedy to take
place.
Contrary to most other books that deal --either obliquely or directly -- with JFK's
murder, prouty's endures with a relevance that has as much to say about our own time as it
does about Kennedy's. He foresees all the problems of a tyrannically powerful CIA that
functions as the President's puppet master. "Many of the skilled saboteurs and terrorists of
today are CIA students of yesterday," Prouty asserts in what amounts to an astonishing
revelation when one considers that, among others, Osama Bin Laden is one of those "CIA
students of yesterday." But it isn't only terrorists: it is the people we put in place as
American puppets around the world. Take Hamad Karzai, for example, former CIA agent and
millionaire now serving as President of Afghanistan.
The intimate and omnipotent mingling of money, military, covert intelligence operations
and politics is precisely the network of power Prouty implicates not only in the crime that
was the JFK murder, but the crime of so many brutal wars and coups performed by the CIA
throughout the world to this very day. We are under the tyranny of an intelligence elite, an
elite that happens to have the most powerful military and political machines on the planet at
its service.
As prouty shows, Truman regretted his approval of the formation of the CIA toward the end
of his presidency. Eisenhower tried to curb its powers but failed miserably, and when Kennedy
fired Allen Dulles -- CIA chief at the time -- and not only threatened but actually worked to
break the CIA "into a thousand pieces," he was killed. If that strieks you as an irrational
logical leap, you need to read Prouty's book.
It is admirable that he undertook the writing of the book himself, rather than resorting
to the services of some professional writer as so many politicians and military officials do
for their memoirs and other books. Consequently, Prouty's book suffers a bit from a lack of
the kind of polish it might have had. He struggles to organize his vast knowledge into the
kind of coherant narrative he envisions and promises to no avail throughout. The reader has
to work a little harder here to put the many pieces together that prouty lays out.
Nonetheless, Prouty's book reads like a desperate, angry and even frantic attempt at
telling the truth by a man whose writing voice belies a remarkable warmth and sincerity. He
knows so much and is so appalled at the hypocrisy he witnessed throughout his career --
hypocrisy that turned to horror -- that his book reads like the result of a minor god angrily
shaking his fists and roaring in a locked room. His background, littered with merits and
accolades, backs up every claim he makes here.
Prouty's book is entirely based on first-hand knowledge and expertise he gleaned over the
course of a distinguished career: the precarious security arrangements in Dallas that day,
Kennedy's advocacy of a US note that would compete with the federal note, his vow to remove
all troops from Vietnam by 1965 and how this threatened the money-making machine that was the
Vietnam "conflict," the utter astonishment in Washington at Kennedy's victory over Nixon, a
man for whom various war and intelligence initiatives had already been drawn up for him to
sign off on at the start of his presidency -- before he was even elected!
From its first hour, Kennedy's thousand-day presidency threatened so many established
powers, so many benefactors of the military industrial complex, that there was no way it
could have ended up otherwise. Even Robert McNamara, a great admirer of the president and
godfather to one of Bobby Kennedy's kids, understood that a helicopter-augmented war like
Vietnam would "churn out big dollars," that the war itself was capable of creating the $500
billion in military-industrial profits it eventually raised. Any former Ford executive
understands the profits inherent in the collusion between military and industry.
As Prouty reports, quoting the controversial novel "Report From iron Mountain," "The war
system is indispensable to the stable political structure . . . war provides the sense of
external necessity without which no government can long remain in power." This is precisely
the bleak "necessity" that Kennedy eventually grew to rebuke, and it was that rebuke that put
the nails in his coffin long before his trip to Dallas.
By A customer on June 15, 1996
Very, very good.
I am a fan of Col Prouty, ever since I read The Secret Team.
Oliver Stone is in excellent company, because both of these men aren't afraid to tell the
truth.
It is exactly the lack of truth that is killing the
United States.
Those who attack this book, and Stone, with the usual ignorant hysterics, are part of the
cancer that is destroying the very innards of the last, great democracy on earth.
JFK's assasination was just a symptom of disease that is ravageing us today. This book
supports this point.
By the way, if you believe the results of the Warren Commmission, (the House Select Comm.
on Assasinations didn't, in 1976-78),then you are part of the problem.
This book gives an excellent pre-text to the take-over plans of the war-industy
complex,starting after World War II. Prouty clearly states how the US Navy took part in the
destabilization of Viet Nam by assisting in exporting tribes to the south. The resulting mess
fell into Kennedy's hands.
You can understand why the fascists would have to dispatch a man like Kennedy, because he
tried to do what was right. He was too charismatic, and he was correct. He could move too get
emotionally involved, and then to act. This was viewed to be a dangerous thing.
Kennedy's Presidential Memorandum #263 was the spark the could ignite a conflagration,
pulling the armed forces out of Viet Nam. This correct moral action would lead to other
positive events, such as the deconstruction of the war machine at home. If this course was
allowed to be taken. It didn't , of course.
The Military Right Wing and Ultra Hawks of the US had to liquidate Kennedy. Then, later,
Bobby, Malcom X, King... and I am sure that it was They were all done in by the same smoking
gun. They couldn't stand in the light of truth, like a vampire can stand the light of the
sun.
The prolem is still rampant today, Ladies and Gentlemen.
Read this book before revisionist history forces it from the shelves. Keep it alive, talk
about it. You'll find that you will defend it when you see the context that is carefully
presented by Prouty.
Also, think about how (now) Sen. Arlen Specter told us how the "magic" bullet is proof of
the single assasin theory. Then think about how he told us that this same bullet dediced to
wait in the air 1.6 seconds before striking Gov. Connally, and then move on to kill President
Kennedy, and still later was recovered with absolutely no loss of mass. Think, then reject
the fantasy tale outright.Specter was a liar, then as he is today, and the Warren
Commisssion's finding are pathetically false.
You should then read this book. It's not fantasy.
The cancer grows as you read this, but it is not too late... I think. If enough people get
informed, and then act according to their conscience, they can then eradicate the cancer.
There are not enough liar/fascists to stop a revolution of the truth. Today, they are
afraid, and for good reason.
Thank you.
MBF
By A customer on December 24, 1998
"The Truth Shall Set You Free" - Plaque at CIA's entrance
These words of St. John are displayed at CIA's Head Quarters in Langley, VA. The DCI,
(Director of Central Intelligence), Allen Dulles, was not known for his ability to write good
"original" material... At one time, he commissioned one E. Howard Hunt to ghost write for
him. That might be likened to a liar who hires a thief to tell the truth! Colonel Leroy
Fletcher Prouty was not cast from the same "mold" that produced the likes of Colson,
MacGruder, Hunt, Sturgis, McCord, Liddy, Mitchell, Hoover, LeMay, Lansdale, and all the
rest... No, he was cast from a very different mold... a mold of integrity and dedication to
his country, the United States of America.
Imagine a patriotic young man, who enlists into the military, sees combat as a subordinate
on the front lines, is commissioned by his superiors (as they recognized the leadership
capabilities that he possessed), and is eventually placed in a newly created position: Chief
of Special Operations, as an adjunct to his previous title of "Focal Point Officer/Military
Liaison" in support of all CIA Clandestine Operations, as per National Security Council
Directive #5412. It is from this very perspective that the good Colonel speaks... and he
does, in fact, speak the truth.
I would do a disservice to those who seek an accurate account of the CIA, Vietnam, and the
Plot to Assassinate JFK, if I failed to mention the following:
Those who criticize or attack the content of this most important "work" of Fletcher, have
failed to understand that: "In the interest of a LEGITIMATE National Security Agenda" many
covert activities were necessary to insure the continued security of the United States. In
such instances any and all of the brave men and women, be they CIA, military, or civilian
personnel, who have engaged in such activity, including Fletcher Prouty, are to be commended
for their heroism and dedication to the freedom of us all, as unpalatable as many of these
activities may seem to those of us who have only known "peace" in our home land. Without the
work of the many "human assets" whose dedication to preserving our security at times
included, what is euphemistically called "Black Ops"-- we would not be free today to speak of
these issues. In this context, "Black Ops" can be seen as a necessary, albeit "unfortunate
choice" - However, choosing the lesser of two or more evils MUST be made at times.
At what point does one say "enough is enough?" I believe Colonel Prouty's insight is
extremely acute because of the honesty of the man AND the unique "position" he held at the
fulcrum of the meeting point between the military, industrial and intelligence complex, of
the United States. If one who is in such a position:
1. "Knows the signature of black ops" from years of experience;
2. Witnesses the "breakdown" of the Law mandated by Congress as a "Control Mechanism" --
i.e., the NSC's ability to DIRECT the activities of the intelligence community;
3. Ultimately recognizes that the removal of the main member of the NSC, President John F.
Kennedy, was saturated with the "fingerprints" of a very carefully orchestrated "coup
d'etat";
Then, (if such an individual is a true patriot), he is under an obligation to "right the
wrongs" to the best of his ability... even if it may mean speaking of things that, despite
their truth, will tend to strain the credibility of the messenger.
I applaud Colonel Prouty's courage, dedication, wisdom, excellent reportage, attention to
detail, and finally, his relentless committment... He is an excellent messenger.
In the words of Jim Garrison: "Do not forget your dying king..."
Events in the real world and society are mostly planned, they do not just happen. This
book presents selected events from 1943 to 1990. The major events of this time were craftily
and systematically planned by the power elite. This book will attempt to explain the Cold
War, the Korean and Vietnam wars, the effects of the development of the hydrogen bomb, and
why the "military-industrial complex" removed JFK from the Presidency.
L. Fletcher Prouty spent 1955-64 as chief of special operations. Page xxxiii tells of one
incident he witnessed of the "power elite". Page 4 explains how an agent for the East India
Company created an ideological justification for eliminating unwanted people. Page 8 says
that neither H-bombs or "Star Wars" can prevent warfare by terrorists.
Pages 15-16 tells of the driving force of acquisitiveness. Mineral wealth is controlled by
corporate interests directly, or by the World Bank or International Monetary Fund. Genocide
is regularly practices to limit the "excess population", particularly those who object to
this exploitation. He repeats Elliot Roosevelt's story about Stalin's claim that FDR was
poisoned (he had spies everywhere?).
"Many of the skilled saboteurs and terrorists of today are the CIA students of yesterday"
(p.37). "The first aerial hijackings were publicly solicited by the US in return for big cash
awards, plus sanctuary". Page 56 tells why so many of our leaders are lawyers: they are
trained to work under the direction of their clients. Their "lawyer-client confidence"
ensures secrecy, even in court; they work for international law firms in government, banks,
and major industries.
Chapter Six, "Genocide by Transfer", tells how over a million Tonkinese were moved to
Cochin China; it caused a rice shortage in a previously rice-exporting country! The
destruction of self-sufficient villages created consumers of imported food (like post-1962
Burma), and enriched merchants and shippers. It also created a source of cheap labor?
Chapter Seven tells of the destruction of the village economy, and the resulting banditry.
The depopulation of rural counties and the "urban renewal" in the big cities caused internal
migration and a rise in the crime rate here in America too. After Textron Corporation bought
Bell helicopters, there was now a need for these helicopters in Vietnam. Page 108 tells how
43% of lives lost were "not from action by hostile forces" - just accidents! The high cost of
machines and their need for maintenance (supplies, personnel) helped to lose the war.
L. Fletcher Prouty says the massive slaughter in Cambodia, the Iran-Iraq war, "Desert
Storm", and the Middle East hostilities are an example of Malthusian social engineering
(p.187).
Chapter 16 explains the economic reasons for coups d' etat, whether Marcos in the
Phillipines, Batista, Somoza, or Trujillo (pp. 236-7). Once a puppet ruler in s country tries
to counteract its exploitation, its goodbye. Page 238 tells how "foreign aid" is used to
support American companies moving their factories and machinery to foreign countries. Page
240 explains why Vietnam (like Korea) was a limited "unwinnable" war.
On November 22, 1963 JFK was removed from office by a powerful group that wanted to
escalate the war in Vietnam, and increase government spending (p.257). Pages 261-4 answers
those who mistakenly claim JFK did not want to withdraw military forces from Vietnam. Prouty
presents information from the public record and his personal experience. NSAM#263 shows that
JFK did plan to withdraw military personnel from Vietnam in 1963. The death of JFK changed
the war in Indochina from low-intensity to a major operation. Page 291 lists the many things
done as standard security procedure which were NOT done on 11-22-1963. If the Warren Report
is wrong on any key point, then it is false. Governor Connally contradicted the key point of
the Warren Report to his dying day.
The assassination of JFK demonstrated that most major events of world significance are
masterfully planned and orchestrated by an elite coterie of enormously powerful people
(p.334). You can read Jim Marrs' "Rule by Secrecy". The August 31, 1983 downing of Korean Air
flight 007 resulted in the largest Defense Department budget ever passed in peacetime.
By A customer on December 24, 1998
"The Truth Shall Set You Free" - Plaque at CIA's entrance
These words of St. John are displayed at CIA's Head Quarters in Langley, VA. The DCI,
(Director of Central Intelligence), Allen Dulles, was not known for his ability to write good
"original" material... At one time, he commissioned one E. Howard Hunt to ghost write for
him. That might be likened to a liar who hires a thief to tell the truth! Colonel Leroy
Fletcher Prouty was not cast from the same "mold" that produced the likes of Colson,
MacGruder, Hunt, Sturgis, McCord, Liddy, Mitchell, Hoover, LeMay, Lansdale, and all the
rest... No, he was cast from a very different mold... a mold of integrity and dedication to
his country, the United States of America.
Imagine a patriotic young man, who enlists into the military, sees combat as a subordinate
on the front lines, is commissioned by his superiors (as they recognized the leadership
capabilities that he possessed), and is eventually placed in a newly created position: Chief
of Special Operations, as an adjunct to his previous title of "Focal Point Officer/Military
Liaison" in support of all CIA Clandestine Operations, as per National Security Council
Directive #5412. It is from this very perspective that the good Colonel speaks... and he
does, in fact, speak the truth.
I would do a disservice to those who seek an accurate account of the CIA, Vietnam, and the
Plot to Assassinate JFK, if I failed to mention the following:
Those who criticize or attack the content of this most important "work" of Fletcher, have
failed to understand that: "In the interest of a LEGITIMATE National Security Agenda" many
covert activities were necessary to insure the continued security of the United States. In
such instances any and all of the brave men and women, be they CIA, military, or civilian
personnel, who have engaged in such activity, including Fletcher Prouty, are to be commended
for their heroism and dedication to the freedom of us all, as unpalatable as many of these
activities may seem to those of us who have only known "peace" in our home land. Without the
work of the many "human assets" whose dedication to preserving our security at times
included, what is euphemistically called "Black Ops"-- we would not be free today to speak of
these issues. In this context, "Black Ops" can be seen as a necessary, albeit "unfortunate
choice" - However, choosing the lesser of two or more evils MUST be made at times.
At what point does one say "enough is enough?" I believe Colonel Prouty's insight is
extremely acute because of the honesty of the man AND the unique "position" he held at the
fulcrum of the meeting point between the military, industrial and intelligence complex, of
the United States. If one who is in such a position:
1. "Knows the signature of black ops" from years of experience;
2. Witnesses the "breakdown" of the Law mandated by Congress as a "Control Mechanism" --
i.e., the NSC's ability to DIRECT the activities of the intelligence community;
3. Ultimately recognizes that the removal of the main member of the NSC, President John F.
Kennedy, was saturated with the "fingerprints" of a very carefully orchestrated "coup
d'etat";
Then, (if such an individual is a true patriot), he is under an obligation to "right the
wrongs" to the best of his ability... even if it may mean speaking of things that, despite
their truth, will tend to strain the credibility of the messenger.
I applaud Colonel Prouty's courage, dedication, wisdom, excellent reportage, attention to
detail, and finally, his relentless committment... He is an excellent messenger.
In the words of Jim Garrison: "Do not forget your dying king..."
Constitutional Implications of the JFK Assassination
A recent poll taken by CNBC and a "news-eum" shows that the assassination of John F.
Kennedy was the 6th most important event of the twentieth century. How or why those polled
justify this choice is not clear. But anyone familiar with American history, American
culture, and the myths and assumptions most Americans carry as a foundation of their beliefs
-- can deduce the relevance of November 22, 1963 and its implications.
Every school kid is taught that we live in a country where there is no need for coup
d'etat. We don't assassinate our leaders; we retire them at the voting booth. In this,
derives the faith we have in all our other institutions, and especially, the Constitution and
the Bill of Rights. From the dawn of our individual consciousness, we are made to believe and
assume that we are "safe," that we can think and say and do as we please, so long as we don't
tread on the rights of others. And every school kid learns by rote the Preamble to the
Constitution -- "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union,
establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense . . secure the
blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity . . . ."
So for thirty-five years, most of us have been living in some form of illusion and denial.
We were told and made to accept the story that the President of the United States was killed
by a single, crazed person -- a relative nobody, an insect. The Warren Commission Report
assured a majority of people over some part of those 35 years that our institutions are safe.
It attempted to assure us, among other things, that our public officials continue to be
honest; that our judges continue to value and protect Justice and Truth above everything
else; that our policemen and local officials can be relied upon to protect us; and that the
government, when it tells us to send the flower of our youth to war, does so for good reason.
In a way, the Report was a means of continuing the myths that we all believe, especially,
that "We the People" are the ultimate source of authority and power in our government.
Unfortunately for the authors of the 26-volume Report -- but fortunately for the rest of
us -- it has lost its credibility. That credibility began to erode almost as soon as the
Report was published, as Jim Garrison, District Attorney of New Orleans parish, resurrected
his investigation into the activities and actors of the building at Lafayette and Camp
streets. Almost from the beginning, the work of Garrison and his staff was hampered by the
seemingly unexplainable efforts of the FBI and the Central Intelligence Agency. Since that
time, we have been slowly awakened to the possible involvement of as many as three elected
presidents in the Warren Commission coverup, and there are echoes of something worse,
something more sinister.
We owe this awakening in part to the efforts of Garrison, and to the contribution of the
man who anonymously assisted him in that investigation of the late 60's. Col. L. Fletcher
Prouty, the "Mr. X" of Oliver Stone's "JFK," retired from the CIA not more than a year after
the assassination. New facts in the assassination have slowly accumulated, partly due to the
efforts of Prouty, Garrison, an emerging army of quiet and persistent historical researchers,
investigative journalists, and -- yes -- even elected officials.
Now there are several variations on the conspiracy theme, which polls show is now accepted
or suspected by as much as 78 percent of the American population. Some believed that Castro
was the source of the plot to kill JFK. Others accepted the most reasonable theory that
organized crime, namely Carlos Marcello, was the dark force behind the assassination. How
comforting. We can now change the TV channel to "The Brady Bunch" -- we are still safe as
long as the identity of the bogeyman that robbed us of a President and half a century's
history doesn't challenge our basic beliefs in the institutions of government. And of course,
the institutions of the powerful are also safe from a skeptical and inquiring public.
Other theories are more troubling, and as Prouty tells us apologetically, advocates of
these theories perennially suffer the labels of "conspiracy nut" and "paranoid." But Prouty
was the post-war pilot who shuttled dignitaries to the major conferences of World War II and
facilitated the "rescue" of Nazi intelligence officers from their potential Soviet captors.
He was on Okinawa when the thousands of tons of war materiel suddenly deemed unnecessary for
an invasion of Japan were unexplainably shipped to Haiphong Harbor for the VietMinh. He was
privy to the CIA's covert operations from that point forward which slowly enmired America in
a war without strategic objectives -- the war in Vietnam. He was in the midst of CIA staff
who planned the covert initiatives against Castro, notably Operation Mongoose and the Bay of
Pigs. He presents detailed, plausible explanations of the reasons why these efforts failed.
This provides a basis for a most incredible argument that a "High Cabal" of individuals and
agencies -- above politics, even above government itself -- set in motion the decisions,
events, and coordination that enabled the murder of a President.
Prouty was Oliver Stone's closest consultant in forging the epic movie "JFK." The
underlying theory of the movie has been labeled "Conspiracy-a-Go-Go," the essence of a plot
masterminded by a "High Cabal." The features of such a plot are merely hinted by the movie.
Viewers may take away from the film an awakened sense of suspicion mixed with disbelief, and
this does not detract from the film as good cinematic art. But Prouty's book offers some
solid history and autobiography. It doesn't digest as impassioned rhetoric or the rantings of
an extremist paranoid. It comes off as the ruminations and reflections of a witness who has
both feet on solid ground.
The author consistently reminds us that an explanation of Kennedy's murder must be
grounded in economic reasoning. "Who stood to benefit?" "Why?" He tells us that he doesn't
want to concern himself with the identities of the contract assassins themselves, and indeed
he informs us that it is in the nature of this underworld thick with professional "mechanics"
that their identities may never be entirely known. Instead, he provides us a review of
history and foreign policy during the initial and most frightening stages of the Cold War,
and he reminds us that individuals are at the core of power where decisions of enormous scope
are made frequently without either the participation or the knowledge of the public. So
rather than point the finger explicitly at conspirators -- whose identities may be suggested
or mentioned as part of the book's historical message -- he leaves it to the reader's
judgment.
I cannot fault the book for its failure to present solutions. Ted Kazynski, in his
"Manifesto," levels accusations against the same dark, if not anonymous forces, and most
people will overlook the scribblings of someone diagnosed as criminally insane. But we cannot
ignore any longer the existence of a "power elite" and the imperatives of large-scale global
organization which support its existence. If we wish to live in society and partake of the
benefits of a civilization thousands of years in the making, we have to accept these
distortions to the democratic myths that saturate our consciousness and perceptions. Offering
a practical prescription for controlling those forces was never Prouty's objective in writing
this book. More aptly, "JFK: The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy"
is a profound wake-up call.
Prescriptions do not come easily. Those interested in what should prove to be a long and
protracted debate should read Gerry Spence's "Give Me Liberty." But one cannot address the
problem unless he or she is aware of it. To this end, Prouty's book provides sharp historical
focus.
Col. Prouty's most informative book exposes the vicious, greedy, and super-anonymous hand
of the "High Cabal" as none other has dared attempt. It clearly demonstrates the bizarre and
disgusting chain of events (created by the OSS and CIA) that began before the end of WWII;
events that led to President Eisenhower's unprecedented farewell address (and warning) to the
nation. These events also led to the creation of President John F. Kennedy's National
Security Action Memorandum #263, which called for de-escalation of the Vietnam War and
withdrawal of all troops from Vietnam; the memorandum that ultimately led to his death.
This work exposes the planned genocide of millions of innocent, non-combatant Southeast
Asian civilians, under the guise of such noble sounding terms as "pacification." Readers
learn that none of these attacks on the peace-loving Southeast Asians were undertaken to
protect any nation or preserve any ideology. Rather, they were thrust upon the Southeast
Asians to further feed the exceedingly bulging pockets of greedy international bankers and
the insidious military-industrial complex. These events also served to further perpetuate the
High Cabal's iron-fisted, though ultra-secret, control over American government, among
others, and the world economy. Vietnam is but one homeland that the High Cabal has decimated
to serve its own purposes. There have indeed been many others throughout history. The
question is: who's next? Perhaps us? Every American should read this vitally important book.
And, think about it...
Hats off to Col. L. Fletcher Prouty. A truly great American! I proudly salute you,
Sir.
I want those readers who have not read this book to read my opinions below.
First, this is a great book simply because Prouty has provided more inside ammunition for
researchers to mine the depths of our secret government. This is the government of men who
controlled the secret programs of assassination, the secret slush funds of
counterintelligence, the operatives who dilligently carried out their secret orders,their
programs of stealth, quasi-law breaking, and other publically inaccessible information.
Prouty's book quite correctly points the finger at Dulles, Lansdale, and others in CIA, who
were paranoid about communism and Castro. They viewed Kennedy as a traitor and he stood in
the way of the war machine they were operating, both overtly, but especially covertly. The
termination of raids to Cuba, the failure of follow-up air support at the Bay of Pigs, the
promise not to invade Cuba after the Cuban missile crisis, were all blamed on Kennedy. The
firing of Dulles, Cabell, and Bissell contributed to the intelligence community wanting JFK
removed from command. It is astonishing that so few have commented on the contrast between
now and then: in 1963 we were fed lies depicting Oswald as a crazed nut, a loner, and
defector. These days we have mountains of evidence he was much more than these pictures of
him. He associated with Clay Shaw, David Ferrie, anti-castro cubans, and others. He returned
to the US without a hitch, but in those days a defector would have been hounded and closely
watched. If this were true,then why wasn't the FBI catching all his associations and illegal
activities? Prouty has produced the superstructure of the conspiracy by showing the history,
and context of the cold war and the CIA
If one can view a supposed loser like Oswald pulling off this assassination as being
totally ridiculous, then one can entertain other possibilities. Why was Lyndon Johnson
reversing NSAMs so quickly concerning Vietnam? Why did Johnson appoint Warren, Dulles, Ford,
et al? Why wasn't the Dulles appointment perceived as a conflict of interest? Here is the
fired subordinate investigating the dead boss! Dulles definitely kept information from the
panel, especially about the assassination plots being orchestrated by the CIA, with the Mafia
as the gunmen. In this connection, another book of importance should be read and that is by
Peter Dale Scott: Deep Politics and the Death of JFK. It is a difficult book because he
describes a quasi government,over-and-above government institutions, which controlled the
plot and the outcome. This corresponds to some observations about Prouty's book, which fails
to name names. But that isn't quite correct. Prouty does name many persons who were in
command positions and had the power to orchestrate the assassination.Two prominent persons
were Dulles and Lansdale. Any clever and alert reader who watched Stone's movie JFK will see
a very short (about 2 second)sequence in the movie where General X is making the call to the
network to carry out the plot and kill JFK. On his desk is a nameplate which clearly says
"Lansdale".
The Prouty book establishes that Kennedy "was getting Americans out of Vietnam, he
confirmed that he was moving away from the pattern of Cold War confrontation in favor of
detente.He asked congress to cut the defense budget.Major programs were being phased out. As
a result, pressure from several fronts began to to build against the young President.The
pressure came from those most affected by cuts in the military budget, in the NASA space
program, and in the enormous potential cost-and profit-of the Vietnam War."
It is very ironic that his enemies in government brought about detente with the Soviet
Union. The notion that Oswald was a lone killer is preposterous and if it were true, why
would the full truth be kept from us so long after the collapse of communism? This was the
facile justification for locking up the evidence until 2025: that our outrage against a
communist conspiracy would demand a war against the communists. The real truth was to control
the information to the American public, so as to cover their tracks, and establish a legend
to the JFK killing.
Everyone should read this book. I heartily recommend this book to anyone seeking insight
into the question about insiders being involved in the killing.
Prouty gives us the point of view of both an ace historian and an insider taking us from
the origins of the cold war up through the assassination of President Kennedy, and then on up
through tomorrow night's evening news. It's haunting how the power elite's patterns of
military strategies and propaganda tactics of that era correlate with many of today's current
events. Just the other day somebody on TV was screaming, "Why wasn't there an objective in
Desert Fox?!" while at the same time I'm reading the answer in Prouty's book, yet the book
was written 6 or 7 years ago.
This isn't a book only on the Kennedy assassination, but Kennedy's bold decisions which
led to his death and the forces behind it all. He explains clearly the post-H-bomb military
strategy of aiding both sides of the fence in Vietnam to win the REAL war - big business. We
get an inside look at the Dulles brothers and their direct line to the "High Cabal" which
overrules even the White House.
I once heard Col. Prouty say in an interview that he's never read a page of the Warren
Commission's 26 volumes of hearings on the assassination. He said he didn't have to because
he knew who did it. I thought that was a bit odd, but after reading this book I understand
what he means. Prouty had worked with these guys! These are the same forces that overthrew
the Philipines, Greece, Iran, Bulgaria and Guatemala (to name just a few).
Out of all the books written about the Kennedy assassination this is easily one of the
best. Check out his website!
By A customer on October 22, 1999
A disturbing and enlightening insight into the Cold War
This book uncovers the many reasons for the Korean & Vietnam conflicts. It clearly
implicates the OSS/CIA during the end of World War II in their involvement in providing
supplies for the Koreans and then later for the Vietminh. Colonel Prouty indicates how the
CIA are quite often able to live in a secret world while manipulating other federal agencies
to their desired ends. When Kennedy took office in 1960 he inherited $6.5 billion in surplus
from the previous administration. When he planned not to include a major defense manufacturer
to build the TFX and gave that bid to General Dynamics the CIA and their constituents were
vey upset. Prouty points out that Kennedy never had any intention in building great offensive
systems for war. Kennedy wanted to create a united peace in the world through his reelection
by implementing domestic policies that would focus on the problems "at home." He also desired
better foreign relations with the Soviet Union. Kennedy planned to bring 1000 troops home
from Viet Nam by Christmas of 1963. McNamara's report on the Indonesian situation indicated
that all military units in Vietnam could be home by Kennedy's due date of 1965. But major
corporations having an investment in the manufacturing of war machines do not thrive during
peacetime. This was a critical area for Kennedy because of his change in the national policy.
Prouty shows that the President's shift prompted many businessmen to seriously think about
Kennedy's position as president. This book answers the whys of the cold war period as well as
the assassination motives. Prouty's book points out the wasted time in focusing on a "patsy"
as the lone assasin of JFK. In all probability Oswald was a soldier carrying out commands
from his superior officers not fully knowing the extent of the damage. L. Fletcher Prouty
wrote this history from his personal experiences with covert operations and his involvement
with government agencies. After reading this book the author leaves one feeling disturbed,
yet enlightened by the rich insight he has provided. I am grateful to Colonel Prouty for his
willingness to share his knowledge so that many may have an alternative view and perhaps a
better understanding regarding the Cold War era.
Prouty was well postioned to tell his story as seen from inside the intelligence
community. Unknown to most people Kennedy challenged the hegemony of the privately owned and
controlled Federal Reserve. In the summer of 1963 Kennedy signed an executive order to create
4 billion dollars in United States Notes, in direct competion to Federal Reserve Notes. Why?
The United States Notes were based on the government silver stores and their creation did not
create interest payements to the world bankers and owners of the Fed. Bills in denominations
of $2, $5, $10, and $20's were authorized and the $2's and $5's were printed and in
circulation. The $10's and $20 were being printed when Kenndy was killed. In Johnsons first
month in office the US Notes were recalled from circulation. Go to any good coin shop and ask
to buy a 1963 US Note. See it for yourself! The one gem in Prouty's book that ties Kennedy to
this issue is a few sentences where he discusses Kennedy sending Robert McNamara to meet with
the Governors of the Federal Reserve to let them know that there are going to be big changes
in the nations money system. There is very little information out there about Kennedy and
money and Prouty clearly knew there was a connection. Why is the topic of Kennedy and the
money he created so obscure and unknown? The only other president in the history of the
country to create US Notes directly from the authority of the US Government was Lincoln with
his greenbacks during the civil war. The only two presidents to buck the money powers were
both assasinated in office. I think Prouty shows a possible origin of one of the smoking
guns.
By A customer on January 4, 1998
The key to the mystery of the crime of the century.
As a United States Marine in the Vietnam war, I never challenged my country's intentions
to stem the tide against communist aggression throughout the world. After my extended tour of
duty in that war zone, I came home to ponder how we became involved in such a protracted war
that divided the country (USA) so. It all points back to the tradgic event on 22 November
1963. With the death of our beloved President Kennedy, the powers to be had free reign to
curtail the planned withdrawl of the small amount of troops in that zone. Only 16,000 at that
time. This book is an excellent reference to how real events were managed to create so much
grief for the people of South Vietnam and the United States. As a former Marine who left
enough of his friends to pay the ultimate sacrifice, I highly recommend Colonel Prouty's fine
book. "Those of us who made it have an obligation to find the goodness in man and make this
world a better place in which to live." Long live the memory of JFK.
America has Waited a Long Time to Hear the Truth...
Finally, those involved are getting old enough not to place concern about their own
welfare above truth anymore.
This book provides so many connections, such a depth of behind the scenes knowledge and
inner workings of the specific programs operating at the time, you can't help but be bowled
over.
***Note: Anyone interested in the Kennedy Assassination should realize that there is a
"misinformation plant" in the Library Journal review department. Every honest book on the
subject has been unconvincingly discredited by them, while they praise and try to steer you
towards known flake CIA-financed writers such as Gerald Posner.
It's rather common to hear of wrongdoing by the CIA I saw a graph recently that
showed American citizen's belief in their government plummeting after the Kennedy
Assassination. Almost no one accepted the Warren Commission Report and such a cover up has
casted doubt on our government ever since.
This "High Cabal" as Churchill called them obviously doesn't start with the CIA, or the
Federal Reserve. It predates Christianity, but it's quite simple. There are bums who seek
handouts and never try to rise, and there are bums who gain a position over others but still
yearn for that same handout, taking it by force, by skimming, whatever is necessary to defeat
justice, honor and civility. These are not great men and they will not be remembered like an
Edison or a Ford. They are the most creative parasites on the planet, and the most deeply
engrained.
Currency control has changed EIGHT times since America's inception. The most vocal fighter
against irrational banking was Andrew Jackson; not Kennedy or Lincoln (google "Jackson Bank
Veto"). He fought and defeated in his time what has morphed into the Federal Reserve Bank.
Before the Civil War, such bankers were buying politicians, planting press stories, steering
elections, stealing freedoms, killing people--anything to assure a fascist cushion between
themselves and existence.
Do we ever hear anything bad about the Federal Reserve? In Jackson's time, they were
entrenched 16 years deep and it was difficult to rout them out then. They did try to kill
him. Now they are ninety years deep. They have owned many Presidents, they control the
Justice and State Departments, and the CIA secretly furthers their agenda.
Nothing happens at the Assassination Level without their approval. In today's world,
America is struggling in recession (bankruptcy) mostly due to the $360 Billion we now pay to
the Fed for their generous "Debt-Money" System, and that is an exponentially increasing
burden. EVERY dollar in our country has interest being paid on it as if it were borrowed! Due
to this, bankruptcy for America is a mathematical certainty. (Imagine if you had to pay
interest not just on every dollar you owed, but on every dollar you made! America IS!)
With changes in the laws, soon none of us will be permitted to walk away from our debts
and start over--as if our hard economic times is our own personal fault.
We are all about to become debt slaves, as they intend. If you want to have a chance at
recovery, if you want your kids to have a chance at a decent future, join me and I'll give
you the Moral Armor neccessary to beat down these parasites and restore America to what it
was meant to be. They CAN be defeated, but not without YOUR empowerment. If you can't stand
up or are afraid to, I'll show you how. Invest in yourself right now and let's save this
ship!
Hard to believe for various reasons. First, other reviewers have commented on the "logic"
of the author's arguments. There are, however, numerous fallacies in the book. Lots of, "X
happened, and then Y happened, THEREFORE..." but the conclusions are never proven and don't
follow logically from the premises. Second, the author doesn't seem to notice some of the
absurdities in his thesis when applied to November of 1963. For example, we're told that an
international elite working above the leaders elected to the highest offices of government
have created and controlled world wide war efforts, power transfers, government overthrows,
and economic and monetary conditions among other things, since the end of WWII.
They must be pretty well organized, financed and intelligent to do so. Yet, they were
unable to ensure the election of Nixon in the closest election in history up to that
point?
Seems odd to be able to start wars but not rig an election that was lost by .02 percent.
And, if that isn't a good enough example, let's try another one.
The author gives us several photos in the book of the Dallas "Police" who transported a
band of vagabonds on the day JFK was killed and points out the facts that their uniforms
aren't standard DPD issue, their uniforms don't match, and their caps and weapons are not
standard.
The obvious allusion is that they weren't real policemen and were somehow a part of or
hired by this power elite who operated to kill on that day. Yet, wouldn't a "High Cabal"
capable of all I mentioned above, have made sure to procure authentic police uniforms, caps,
badges and weapons for such an important day, leaving nothing to chance, and preparing for
every contingency? It seems like a very sloppy oversight by a group with such limitless
powers and ability.
These are just two examples of many where common sense seems to trump the passionate
arguments of the author. That being said, there is some interesting information in the book
on the inner workings of the CIA and government especially during the Vietnam War. If you are
going to read it, just be on the lookout for the faulty logic and use common, critical
thinking skills to help sort possibility from probability.
In "JFK", Fletcher Prouty shares numerous fascinating observations garnered from his
position as a mid-grade officer in what I call the "Conglomerate of Covert Cold Warriors"
(OSS/CIA/Military Intelligence/Special Operations/etc) from the 1940s until the early 1960s.
Some of the conclusions he draws, however, are completely unsubstantiated and require a real
stretch of the imagination.
Chief among these is the existence of some sort of secret "high cabal" of bankers and
industrialists (but not the Illuminati, Bilderbergs, Council on Foreign Relations,
Freemasons, Trilateral Commision, Pentaverate,or any other previously speculated secret
organization) which has been manipulating the governments of the world into conflicts large
and small for at least the last hundred years for the purpose of generating profits on the
sale and/or financing of war materials.
Prouty further supposes that the CIA and KGB were the two principal levers with which this
supposed cabal have exerted their influence on the world in the post-WWII era.
Prouty also suggests that the Korean and Vietnam Wars were prearranged prior to the close
of World War II, and that everything that happened in Vietnam from '45 on was part of a
master plan by the OSS/CIA to set the table for a protracted large-scale US engagement in a
later decade. Kennedy's intent to deviate from this carefully and painstaking constructed
plan for Vietnam supposedly was the instigation for the high cabal to orchestrate his
murder.
While Prouty brings to light many interesting connections between the "Conglomerate" and
world events, the need to attribute credit/blame for everything to some "invisible elite"
group of power brokers who pull the strings of the CIA is difficult to accept. It seems to me
that the fact that the CIA was a very insular group, created and led by a small cadre of
extremely ambitious ideologues who operated with a nearly unlimited budget and almost no
accountability means they were likely responsible on their own for most things that Prouty
blames on "the cabal."
At times Prouty contradicts himself, suggesting on one hand that various apparent CIA
miscalculations that drag us farther into the Vietnam war were actually intentional, while
later claiming that the CIA were surprised when the same actions did not yield any strategic
gains.
One last criticism I have is that Prouty often repeats himself. Certain themes are
addressed over and over, with little or no additional detail brought to the table. Some
passages were so similar to ones in previous chapters I wondered if my kindle was
malfunctioning and moving me back to pages I'd already read. I blame this more on the editors
than Prouty; they should have restructured his ideas more logically and could have cut 50-100
pages from this book without removing any value.
If you can look past the cabal angle and sloppy organization, there are some interesting
ideas presented. Prouty makes a strong case that JFK intended to take the country in a
direction in Vietnam that was counter to the aims of the "Conglomerate" and that certain
individuals were conspicuously well prepared to reverse that policy in the immediate
aftermath of the assassination. He also fairly criticizes the failure of the "Pentagon
Papers" to put the the dramatic shift in Vietnam policy that occurred in late November, 1963,
in the context of of a violent change in the presidency. His theory that the CIA-sponsored
relocation of ~1,000,0000 Tonkinese Vietnamese from the North to the Mekong Delta in the
South spawned the Viet Cong is compelling, whether or not you buy his supposition that it was
a calculated result.
The fact that Prouty is the mysterious "Mr X" from Garrisons book "On the Trail of the
Assassins" and Stone's movie "JFK" is reason enough for any assassination buff to read this
book despite the shortcomings. That there are other interesting and salient nuggets burried
in the muck of the "high cabal" theme is a bonus.
A customer on September 5, 1999
Prouty long on entrigue - short on facts.
I once had the opportunity to ask Col. Prouty (via e-mail) if he had retained any of the
orders he states he received, or could produce another officer who shared his perspective on
events surrounding the assassination of JFK. Instead of answers, what I got in return was a
geriatric tirade and a sermon on respect for the men who have served this great nation. His
thesis on the Bay of Pigs, given documentation now available (_Bay of Pigs Declassified_,
1998 National Security Archive, [...]) demonstrates that, where facts are concerned, Prouty
is victim to his own perspective. Prouty reports that JFK was advised through CIA channels
that Castro's air force had to be disabled prior to the April 17, Bay of Pigs attack, by
Cuban exiles/CIA forces. Prouty states that JFK gave the green light for the initial April 15
attack, which decommissioned all but three of Castro's T-33 aircraft, and conveys that when
JFK was advised on April 16 that three planes remained, he authorized their destruction with
a second wave attack. Col. Prouty contends that McGeorge Bundy made a secure call to General
Charles Cabell (brother of the Dallas mayor when JFK was assassinated, Earle Cabell) giving
the president's approval, but that Cabell delayed deployment of the exile air force at
Nicaragua. The Colonel contends that Cabell's delay in passing the order was the reason
Kennedy later had him relieved of duty, and that the Mayor of Dallas retaliated for his
brother's dismissal by participating in JFK's assassination.
Prouty makes the case that Cabell foiled any chances of success for the maritime operation
by delaying the order for the B-26 aircraft to return to Cuba and destroy three remaining
T-33s. But, Prouty is way off the mark on this one. Recently released documentation proves
JFK wanted deniabilty and did not authorize the second wave of air attacks. While a question
may remain as to whether the CIA adequately briefed Kennedy on the importance of the second
wave attacks by the Cuban exiles, there is little doubt that whomever or whatever caused
Prouty to print his version of the events will not contribute to Prouty's reputation for
accuracy when confidently stating things as fact.
In a realm where hard evidence is a must, Prouty tells interesting tales. If his accounts
of the events are to be believed, Col Prouty should furnish us military sources who agree
with the Colonel, or concede that historically he simply cannot prove his assertions.
What a sad mess of a book. It is really unfortunate that the people who were active adults
in 1963 are now approaching their dotage, 50 years later, and in addition, that few serious
publishers will touch the more controversial points of view with a 10-foot pole. As a result,
we get books like this, from someone who might actually know something, but who can't write
or edit a book into shape so that we can tell whether it makes any sense.
Prouty has several bugs in his bonnet:
There is a secret Cabal of elites who run the entire world and have for centuries.
Presidents and generals are puppets, mostly clueless as to what is really going on. (barely
credible.)
The fact that the earth is round, plus Malthus and Darwin, are the keys to the past 500
years of history, and the source of private property, colonialism, and pretty much all
evil. (not credible to me.)
Before WW2 had even ended, the US had already decided that its ally, the USSR, was
going to be its next enemy and that Germany would be its ally, and started acting on this
in the closing days of the war. The reason for this decision is that we, like all
countries, need perpetual war to maintain sovereignty. (semi-credible--I doubt that any of
this was conscious, if it happened at all.)
A decision was made in 1945 that after WW2, we would next fight in Korea and Vietnam,
and we sent weapons there for that purpose. (not credible to me. Yes, we may have sent
weapons there, but I really doubt that there was a master plan in place.)
By now you're probably wondering what any or all of this has to do with the assassination
of JFK. Well, that's the problem--this book is so all over the place that he spends
essentially the whole book on deep background stuff, and the actual explanation of what this
has to do with Kennedy is scattered throughout the book. He keeps bringing the story up to
1963 in every chapter, and then backtracking again and again. And again!
However, for all its problems as a book, the info contained herein meshes with several
other books I've read recently that all point to the fact that Kennedy was moving from a Cold
Warrior to a peacenik, (elsewhere attributed to his taking LSD with his mistress Mary Meyer.
Who knows?) He *did* found a thing called the Peace Corps. He did give a speech at an
American university that is called his Peace speech. Supposedly, he and Khrushchev were sort
of pen pals, and they had both stared into the nuclear abyss and decided to make love not
war.
Oh yes, another of Prouty's big ideas is that the weapons of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
were a huge error on the part of the Cabal/Elite, since it made normal war impossible, hence
a turn to guerrilla warfare by proxy. Again, the belief that everything is part of a master
plan. The outcome is valid, but the idea of an invisible hand behind the scenes
stage-managing all this is not reasonable to me.
Is it credible that the CIA could have been involved in Kennedy's assassination? On
this point, I think the answer is yes. The old objection that people wouldn't be able to keep
quiet if there were a conspiracy is pretty much moot if we're talking about the CIA, since by
definition, these are guys who could do unimaginable things, have a cigarette, and then never
speak of it again.
I think there is pretty decent evidence that Oswald was connected to the CIA (The
defection and then un-defection in and of itself is pretty incredible, and his statement that
he was the patsy is more likely if he was in fact a patsy, than if he were a either a nut job
or a Castro sympathizer. Both of those types want credit!)
And this book also confirms the feeling that I often get that in fact the US has many
of the characteristics of a fascist state, minus the concentration camps for Jews. It is true
that we have wrought havoc in many other people's countries, that we maintain a near-constant
state of war, and that *if* a president tried to go in a different direction, there are
forces within the military-industrial-intelligence complex that might both want and be
capable of taking them out.
I am fairly knowledgeable about the assassination scenarios, but I found this book rough
going, because it goes into a lot of political detail about the internal politics of Vietnam
as well as very detailed descriptions of Washington politics. Perhaps if you are a bit older
than me (I was 11 in 1963), or more knowledgeable about all the names and politics of that
time, it would all come together. But a good editor would have helped tremendously to make it
accessible to the general public.
In Oliver Stone's film "JFK" in the Mall Scene meeting between D.A. Jim Garrison (played
by Kevin Costner) and "Man X" (played by Donald Sutherland), a flashback scene presented a
nameplate from the desk of an Air Force military general speaking on the phone, and partialy
showing his name as Maj/Gen. E.G. (unknown)?
Who was Stone attempting to make reference to and cast aspersions upon Maj. General E.G.
Lansdale?
Does anybody know?? Will check back from time-to-time is see "IF" any comments are posted
to my inquiry. Thanks!
Contrary to popular belief today, Kennedy was a cold warrior. There is no evidence at all
that he was (in his second term, if he even got one) going to end the cold war, or pull out
of Vietnam. Michael Lind in his book 'Vietnam: The Necessary War' addresses this issue, and
points out that the record clearly shows otherwise.
Several of the people who claim that Kennedy told them he was going to pull out of Vietnam
revealed this information in the late 60's after the war had become traumatic for the
country. Robert McNamara (one of the original architects of the Vietnam War), who has
speculated for years that Kennedy would have withdrawn from Vietnam, admits that Kennedy
never told him he was going to pull out.
In an interview with Walter Cronkite a few months before he was assassinated Kennedy said
(about Vietnam): "I think it would be a mistake to withdraw." Oliver Stone (cleverly), only
shows bits and pieces of the interview at the beginning of JFK. Editing the interview to make
it look like Kennedy was going to withdraw. In fact, the day he was assassinated Kennedy gave
a speech endorsing our involvement in Vietnam. The claim that Kennedy was going to pull out
of Vietnam is speculation at best. Go to : [...]
This post details many of the myths surrounding JFK's policy stances, and shows that (by
today's standards) Kennedy (most likely) would have been a moderate Republican. There was no
motive (as Prouty claims) to kill Kennedy.
Also go to: [...]
For some more of Prouty's crackpot opinions.
Kennedy was a cold warrior: he was conspicuously absent (as a representative from
Massachusetts) when the House of Representatives voted to censure Joseph McCarthy (he even
praised McCarthy on several occasions). He ran against Nixon in 1960 on the missile gap (i.e.
we were behind the Soviets in the number of ICBM's). He said in his inaugural address:
"......Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price,
bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the
survival and the success of liberty." Doesn't sound to me like he was going to "bug out" of
Vietnam.
Also, check out: [...]
This further debunks the idea that JFK was going to withdraw from Vietnam.
"All along Trump has been the candidate of the military. The other two power centers of
the
power triangle , the corporate and the executive government (CIA), had gone for Clinton.
The Pentagon's proxy defeated the CIA proxy. (Last months' fight over Raqqa was similar - with
a similar outcome.)"
Notable quotes:
"... All along Trump has been the candidate of the military. The other two power centers of the power triangle , the corporate and the executive government (CIA), had gone for Clinton. The Pentagon's proxy defeated the CIA proxy. (Last months' fight over Raqqa was similar - with a similar outcome.) ..."
"... Former U.S. Army Captain and now CIA director Mike Pompeo was educated at the United States Military Academy at West Point. He is part of the Junta circle, installed to control the competition. ..."
"... Is the U.S. military really qualified to teach anyone how to respect human rights? Did it learn that from committing mass atrocities in about each campaign it ever fought? ..."
"... The deep-seated problems plaguing the USA do have solutions, but they are not those being forwarded by the very radical conservatives now in charge of Congress and many statehouses. And the junta members share their mindsets. So, I see the domestic situation continuing to spiral further out-of-control with no sign anywhere of a countervailing power arising with the potential to steer the ship-of-state away from the massive reef it's rapidly heading for ..."
"... Ah, Masha Gessen, literally cancer. Who elevated her? I find it interesting that she does the "translating" for the CIA-scripted FX show "The Americans", a show which has probably more effectively demonized Russians for the cud-chewing crowd than the sum total of Cold War propaganda since the 50s AND the daily Russian hate columns in Wapo et al that trickle down to the Buzzfeed crowd. ..."
"... Military junta or not b, make no mistake, the real power behind the throne are a cabal of billionaires who buy their way by co-opting the politicians who make the laws. Democracy is indeed dead here in the U$A. It's now a full-blown Oligarchy. ..."
"... I agree with this division of power and would add that Trump is also the candidate of the police. I see the media though as more being in the CIA/corporate camps. I think the military backing is necessary as you mention to take the CIA down a few notches. So far I'd say the result in Syria is promising. ..."
"... This tribal civil war is also spilling over into places like Las Vegas, which clearly is run by the Jewish Mafia. There still is no plausible motive given for the shooting incident, but we know that the owners of MGM would never willingly have allowed this to happen on their own property. So it clearly was a hit, and with Area 51 down the road and all the MIC contractors in Vegas, it is highly unlikely that they were not involved or at least aware of the operation. ..."
"... The ground work, or state-of-affairs that lead to what one might call a soft military coup in the US (see b) = within what, at one extreme could be called Ayn-Randian rabid individualism, and at the other a sort of neo-liberal capitalism which is nevertheless highly 'socialist' in the sense re-distributive from the center of power (if only to create a slave/subservient class and prevent uprisings), there is NO public space for 'solidarity' within (besides familial, or close, etc.) ..."
"... historically, dying empires invest in the double prong, military conquest + internal control (can be vicious) ..."
"... I don't think it is all that clear. Corps or better conglomerates of power like 'the media', the 'silicons', banking and finance, Energy, electronics, Big Pharma, etc. are politcally inclined (say!) to some form of corporate fascism, > bought pols from all-sides of any-aisle. Their ties to the military / milit. type power at home are not very strong, they may collaborate on occasion. Some of these 'industries' fear domination that goes beyond soft power and they loathe sanctions - think about who/what/how is doing lucrative deals and has continuing biz success in Iraq, Iran, Russia, Ukraine, etc. - NOT US cos./corps. ..."
"... First, if the only two choices were the Executive CIA and the Military "Junta" with Trump why would we continue the farce of elections? And if the elections were pre-determined and the ruling Junta took over in a coup, then how and why is the CIA out of power? ..."
"... The "farce of elections" is accurate because Trump is not doing what he claimed he would do, not unusual actually. It was Trump who sprang the "junta" on us. And who claimed that the CIA would be out of power? ..."
"... I used to think it was a counter-coup also. But sheep-dog Sanders and Trump's having supported Hillary in 2008 among other things caused me to conclude that it all bullshit. I now believe that the hyper-partisanship is just a show. The political system in the US is designed to prevent any real populist from gaining power. We are being played. Trump is the Republican Obama. ..."
"... The excuse for this was that while US hands were tied (because public wouldn't support further adventurism after Iraq) close allies could push forward. But the new Cold War has changed the calculus. ..."
"... The US isn't giving up on Empire. It's just a different type of Empire for a different type of environment. When Trump talks about "draining the swamp" I think he merely refers to foreign influence. ..."
"... Trump has one ally and that is the 65million voters who put him into office. He surrendered his top people. Saker says it was lack of character. I think when they point the gun at you, your family, your closest friends in your life, you acquiesce. They even took from him Keith Schiller, his personal security man for years. Kelly forced him out of the WH. ..."
"... On the bright side, members of Congress are at least nominally elected. Four star Generals, not so much. It's still a felony carrying a prison term of 5 to 10 years per incident to lie to Congress. The military have no precedent to recommend them either as a source of information or in their decision making ability. They are way out of their depth when it comes to administering a nation. ..."
"... Moon of Alabama always writes interesting and insightful critiques of the Deep State, the military, and the imperialist/war party, but falls flat on his face in his naive faith in the supposed anti-establishment, populist, and America First Nationalist proclivities of Donald Trump, and his arch-reactionary Svengali Steve Bannon. There is indeed at least one major split in the ranks of the ruling class, but to present Trump and Bannon as either valiant figures struggling for the national good, or noble isolated men surrounded by vipers and traitors is absurd. ..."
"... Now, in its late imperial decline, the U.S. has become unable to continue to exercise hegemony, the way it became accustomed to in the first 70+ years in the Post-WW 2 period. The number one Client/Ally/Master, Israel and their deeply embedded 5th Column in the U.S., the Zionists with their associated Pro-Zionist factions within the War Party, now nearly directly and openly controls U.S. foreign policy and military actions in the regions that the Likudnik faction in Israel cares about (i.e. the Levant, North Africa, and the Horn of Africa). ..."
"... Hollowed out economically and industrially the U.S. Empire is clearly on the way out. The various factions fighting for control of policy seem to be oblivious to this basic fact. ..."
In an advertising campaign in 2008 the U.S. Air Force declared itself to be "Above
All". The slogan and symbol of the campaign
was similar to the
German "Deutschland Über Alles" campaign of 1933. It was a sign of things to come.
On Thursday Masha Gessen watched the press briefing of White House Chief of Staff General
John Kelly and
concluded :
The press briefing could serve as a preview of what a military coup in this country would
look like, for it was in the logic of such a coup that Kelly advanced his four arguments .
Those who criticize the President don't know what they're talking about because they
haven't served in the military . ...
The President did the right thing because he did exactly what his generals told him to
do . ...
Communication between the President and a military widow is no one's business but
theirs. ...
Citizens are ranked based on their proximity to dying for their country. ...
Gessen is late. The coup happened months ago. A military junta is in strong control of White
House polices. It is now widening its claim to power.
All along Trump has been the candidate of the military. The other two power centers of
the
power triangle , the corporate and the executive government (CIA), had gone for Clinton.
The Pentagon's proxy defeated the CIA proxy. (Last months' fight over Raqqa was similar - with
a similar outcome.)
The military will demand its due beyond the three generals now in Trump's cabinet.
With the help of the media the generals in the White House defeated their civilian
adversary. In August the Trump ship dropped its ideological
pilot . Steve Bannon went from board. Bannon's militarist enemy, National Security Advisor
General McMaster, had won. I
stated :
Trump's success as the "Not-Hillary"
candidate was based on an anti-establishment insurgency. Representatives of that
insurgency, Flynn, Bannon and the MAGA voters, drove him through his first months in office.
An intense media campaign was launched to counter them and the military took control of the
White House. The anti-establishment insurgents were fired. Trump is now reduced to public
figure head of a stratocracy - a military junta which nominally follows the rule of law.
The military took full control of White House processes and policies:
Everything of importance now passes through
the Junta's hands ... To control Trump the Junta filters his information input
and eliminates any potentially alternative view ... The Junta members dictate their policies
to Trump by only proposing certain alternatives to him. The one that is most preferable to
them, will be presented as the only desirable one. "There are no alternatives," Trump will be
told again and again.
With the power center captured the Junta starts to implement its ideology and to suppress
any and all criticism against itself.
On Thursday the 19th Kelly
criticized Congresswoman Frederica Wilson of South Florida for hearing in (invited) on a
phone-call Trump had with some dead soldiers wife:
Kelly then continued his criticism of Wilson, mentioning the 2015 dedication of the Miramar
FBI building, saying she focused in her speech that she "got the money" for the building.
The video of the Congresswoman's speech (above link) proves that Kelly's claim was a
fabrication. But one is no longer allowed to point such out. The Junta, by definition, does not
lie. When the next day journalists asked the White House Press Secretary about Kelly's
unjustified attack she
responded:
MS. SANDERS: If you want to go after General Kelly, that's up to you. But I think that that
-- if you want to get into a debate with a four-star Marine general, I think that that's
something highly inappropriate
It is now "highly inappropriate" to even question the Junta that rules the empire.
... ... ...
If the soldiers do not work "for any other reason than that they love this country" why do
they ask to be paid? Why is the public asked to finance 200 military
golf courses ? Because the soldiers "love the country"? Only a few 10,000 of the 2,000,000
strong U.S. military will ever see an active front-line.
And imagine the "wonderful joy" Kelly "got in his heart" when he
commanded the illegal torture camp of Guantanamo Bay:
Presiding over a population of detainees not charged or convicted of crimes, over whom he had
maximum custodial control, Kelly treated them with brutality. His response to the detainees'
peaceful hunger strike in 2013 was punitive force-feeding, solitary confinement, and rubber
bullets. Furthermore, he sabotaged efforts by the Obama administration to resettle detainees,
consistently undermining the will of his commander in chief.
Former U.S. Army Captain and now CIA director Mike Pompeo was educated at the United States
Military Academy at West Point. He is part of the Junta circle, installed to control the
competition. Pompeo also wants to again feel the "wonderful joy". On Friday he
promised that the CIA would become a "much more vicious agency". Instead of merely
waterboarding 'terrorists' and drone-bombing brown families, Pompeo's more vicious CIA will
rape the 'terrorist's' kids and nuke whole villages. Pompeo's remark was made at a
get-together of the Junta and neo-conservative warmongers.
On October 19 Defense Secretary General Mattis was asked in Congress about the recent
incident in Niger during which, among others, several U.S. soldiers were killed. Mattis
set
(vid 5:29pm) a curious new metric for deploying U.S. troops:
Any time we commit out troops anywhere it is based on a simple first question and that is -
is the well-being of the American people sufficiently enhanced by putting our troops there ,
by putting our troops in a position to die?
In his October 20 press briefing General Kelly also tried to
explain why U.S. soldiers are in Niger:
So why were they there ? They're there working with partners, local -- all across Africa --
in this case, Niger -- working with partners, teaching them how to be better soldiers;
teaching them how to respect human rights ...
Is the U.S. military really qualified to teach anyone how to respect human rights? Did it
learn that from committing mass atrocities in about
each campaign it ever fought?
One of the soldiers who were killed in Niger while "teaching how to respect human rights"
was
a 39 year old "chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear specialist" with "more than a
dozen awards and decorations". The U.S. military sent a highly qualified WMD specialist on a "routine patrol" in Niger to
teach local soldiers "to respect human rights" due to which presumably "the well-being of the
American people" would be "sufficiently enhanced"? Will anyone really buy that bridge?
But who would dare to ask more about this? It is" highly inappropriate " to doubt whatever
the military says. Soon that will change into "verboten". Any doubt, any question will be
declared "fake news" and a sign of devious foreign influence. Whoever spreads such will be
blocked from communicating.
The military is now indeed "Above All". That air force slogan was a remake of a 1933
"Über Alles" campaign in Germany. One wonders what other historic similarities will
develop from it.
Posted by b on October 21, 2017 at 03:58 PM | Permalink
The military junta rely on the US dollar as reserve currency for their lurks and perks. The
more they take power, the faster this will slip away. So called allies will move towards
China/Russia and other currencies.
Dangerous times but the downfall of the US is gaining momentum.
@1 While I understand the temptation to link Trump to Neo-con policies, I think it over
simplifies the issue.
Thierry Meyssan has a recent article in which he questions how seriously we should take
the US's anti-Iran policy. In it he states "We have to keep in mind that Donald Trump is not
a professional politician, but a real estate promoter, and that he acts like one. He gained
his professional success by spreading panic with his outrageous statements and observing the
reactions he had created amongst his competitors and his partners."
That statement is a great summary of one of the key precepts of what I called
'asymmetrical leadership' - which I think characterizes Trumps leadership style (an
application of asymmetrical warfare techniques to the political arena). This does not mean
that the Junta has not taken over control. I would agree with b on this. However, the forms
by which that control get expressed will still run through Trump and will still reflect his
'asymmetric' style.
It does take someone on the other side of the world to give perspective. I don't think it is
as much a military junta as things are falling apart. The generals are attempting to keep
their corrupt war profits flowing. The media moguls still hate Donald Trump; only as an
oligarch hates another. Donald Trump is firing up his base. Expect, the whole of the
alt-right propaganda is false. It relies on the hatred of others. All he will do is speed up
the splintering. If your home is foreclosed, flooded, polluted, burned down or blown apart;
reality is slapping you in the face.
One of your most important posts, b. At first I thought it strange that you would quote Masha
Gessen, an infamous anti-Putin journalist and Khodorkovsky fan, but then it didn't seem so
strange. Gessen is a Zionist, therefore she is aligned with the CIA/Wall Street faction,
which as you perceptively say lost out with Trump and Raqqa. I say Wall Street as opposed to
corporate because, as I have pointed out before, non-financial corporates - and that includes
most of the Dow Jones or FTSE - have fuck all say on anything except how they are going to
meet next quarterly's earnings estimates. And the CIA is very close to Wall Street.
What interests me is how this relates to Iran, on which both factions appear to be in
agreement, but there must be nuances. The Saker published an article where,in my opinion, he
failed to give enough weight to how circumstances around Iran have changed over the last
decade. I see little green men in large green aircraft weaving their way down the Caspian
Sea, not to mention invisible Chinese hardware in the sense of how did it get there, and a
Europe which is in disarray with their tongues hanging out for deals with Iran. The success
of the anti-Trump MSM narrative combined with fears of potentially millions of Iranian
refugees would surely indicate this is the worst possible time to attack Iran. So how can
they conjure a war out of this?
On a far more insidious note, one has to wonder what an radiological 'expert' was doing in
Niger - thanks b for that important piece of info.
When that info is combined with:
1) US Special ops in Mali from 2006
2) US operation Oasis Enabler (2009) looking to infiltrate and control Elite Malian army
units
3) March 2012 Coup brought to power American trained Capt. Amadou Sanogo
4) French Operation Serval, at the request of the 'interim government' fights to control
northern Malian territory and URANIUM mines along the Mali - Niger border (they said they
fought ISIS but what they actually fought was a Tuareg separatist movement)
together with the presence of ISIS (the US trained, evacuated from Syria version?) in the
area... Ominous is hardly strong enough to describe the feeling...
I start my comment by referencing these since the operational doctrine of the Outlaw US
Empire is to keep any such challenges to its perceived dominance--and quest for total
dominance--subdued to the point of insignificance. As you can clearly read, Xi, China, Putin,
Russia, and their allies aren't going to allow any junta to stop their integration and
development plans preparing their nations and region for the future--plans and thinking
woefully absent from any sector of the Outlaw US Empire excepting perhaps weapon development.
The just completed Valdai Conference provides an excellent insight to the drama, the comments
and visions are as important as they're powerful, http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/55882
I could pile more of the same for barflies to digest, but I don't think that's required.
There's a very longstanding joke about the joining together of these two words--military
intelligence--and for good reason, particularly within the Outlaw US Empire. I don't think
anyone within the governmental establishment has any idea of what to do about the
Eurasian/Muiltipolar Challenge other than trying to break it--no ideas of how to compete or
join it so as to also profit from it. The reason for this as I see it is ideological--Zero
Sumism and Randian junk economics is so deeply ingrained they've polluted minds to the point
where their blinded and unable to think outside the box they've caged themselves within:
Hoisted by their own petard as the saying goes. They just can't accept Win/Win as something
viable--sharing is for sissies and commies. Problem is that well over half of humanity sees
Win/Win as eminently viable and far more welcome than the demonstrably failed Zero Sum Game
promoted by Randian political-economists and enforced through the barrel a gun.
The deep-seated problems plaguing the USA do have solutions, but they are not those being
forwarded by the very radical conservatives now in charge of Congress and many statehouses.
And the junta members share their mindsets. So, I see the domestic situation continuing to
spiral further out-of-control with no sign anywhere of a countervailing power arising with
the potential to steer the ship-of-state away from the massive reef it's rapidly heading for.
There might be a surprise in store from the junta, however--it might just take on a bit of
the massive corruption plaguing the USA by attacking the Clinton Foundation and its related
sewage. Although, that just solves one part of a huge host of problems.
funny thing that just accord to me that i had not thought of for nearly ten years, one of the
initial "benefits" of the state of Israel, was the cutting off of Africa from asia, and its
pretty glaring that a project to connect Asia Africa and Europe does not include the logical
land route as well.
At least in the times of Caesar and Augustus, military junta who seized power could claim to
be effective and victorious military, able to crush significant enemy armies. The current top
military in the US were at best kiddies the last time the US actually managed to defeat a
truly powerful enemy, back in 1945. (though this criticism can apply to all major powers)
Ah, Masha Gessen, literally cancer. Who elevated her? I find it interesting that she does the
"translating" for the CIA-scripted FX show "The Americans", a show which has probably more
effectively demonized Russians for the cud-chewing crowd than the sum total of Cold War
propaganda since the 50s AND the daily Russian hate columns in Wapo et al that trickle down
to the Buzzfeed crowd.
We need to start calling the CIA traitors, actual traitors. Masha Gessen is CIA, CIA
ghostwrites for most MSM. Traitors all. But even without the constant hagiographies, would
people start to get it? "Americans", I mean?
Here's a bit of what Hamid Karzai at the Valdai Club had to say about what the junta
accomplished in Afghanistan:
"Today, I am one of the greatest critics of the US policy in Afghanistan. Not because I am
anti-Western, I am a very Western person. My education is Western, my ideas are Western. I am
very democratic in my inner instincts. And I love their culture. But I am against the US
policy because it is not succeeding. It is causing us immense trouble and the rise of
extremism and radicalism and terrorism. I am against the US policy because on their watch,
under their total control of the Afghan air space, the Afghan intelligence and the Afghan
military, of all that they have, that super power, there is Daesh in Afghanistan. How come
Daesh emerged in Afghanistan 14–15 years after the US presence in Afghanistan with that
mass of resources and money and expenditure? Why is the world not as cooperative with America
in Afghanistan today as it was before? How come Russia now has doubts about the intentions of
the US in Afghanistan or the result of its work in Afghanistan? How come China does not view
it the same way? How come Iran has immense difficulty with the way things are conducted in
Afghanistan?
"Therefore, as an Afghan in the middle of this great game, I propose to our ally, the
United States, the following: we will all succeed if you tell us that you have failed. We
would understand. Russia would understand, China would understand. Iran, Pakistan, everybody
would understand. India would understand. We have our Indian friends there. We see all signs
of failure there, but if you do not tell us you failed, what is this, a game?"
I doubt the junta will do any better than its performed in Afghanistan because it only
knows how to play the game Karzai describes. Link is same as one above.
We can now add the Air Force being 'Above All' to the supremacist 'exceptional and
indispensable' lunatic attitude in the US that is definitely psychologically the same as
another people that thought they were 'Uber Alles'.
You stated: The insurgency that brought Trump to the top was defeated by a
counter-insurgency campaign waged by the U.S. military. (Historically its first successful
one).
I differ. JFK was taken out by a combined US Naval Intel and CIA plot. The beneficiary was
the MIC. Eleven days later, LBJ reversed the executive order by JFK to end the US involvement
in Nam. For 11 more years the Military got what it wanted--war.
LBJ got what he wanted--the Presidency. The Cuban-Americans got what they wanted--revenge for failure at Bay of Pigs by
Kennedy. The Mafia got what they wanted--revenge for Bobby Kennedy.
One other thing about the counter-insurgency. It was not so much Military. They waited while
the IC ran the leaks and counter-insurgency. Then,Trump fell into the Military's arms. He had
been cut off from his base and key supporters and had to empower them by obedience to their
plans. Foreign policy is what they wanted. He can still have all the domestic policy he can
get, which is basically nothing much. A SC justice, some EOs, and all the Twitter-shit he can
muster.
American democracy is indeed dead. The US Military's only real victory after WWII. After
Vietnam, the generals said: "Freedom of speech and of the press and of assembly and the right
to trial by jury and all that crap has got to go! And they got rid of it all! The Junta is in
control. And the only positive aspect is that we have a rolling Fukushima disaster in Trump,
who could implode and then explode in a nuclear Holocaust any second from all the humiliation
and investigations crushing in on him--if the Junta did not keep tight control over all the
information coming in to him. So you better leave them in place or... BAM! That's the
blackmail. But it only works as long as Trump has sole authority to launch our nuclear
arsenal. If someone else with a 2nd launch key were required to agree, the Junta would no
longer be needed to "protect" us Mafia-style.
Military junta or not b, make no mistake, the real power behind the throne are a cabal of
billionaires who buy their way by co-opting the politicians who make the laws. Democracy is indeed dead here in the U$A. It's now a full-blown Oligarchy.
Re Bill Wedin at 18, you wrote "the blackmail only works as long as Trump has sole authority
to launch our nuclear arsenal."
Authority to launch also includes predelegation to some of the highest ranking military,
in the event of a perceived nuclear attack, in which the National Command Authority is
disrupted and unable to give launch orders. However, this leaves open the question as to
whether the President could be bypassed in the process.
Trident sub commanders also have the necessary launch codes on board to initiate a nuclear
strike. Yes, the codes are under lock and key, but the key is on board.
The current US militarism also reflects on the kneeling during the national anthem, which is
also an ode to the flag in a war setting -- "by the rockets red glare" etc. President Trump
has said the protests (against police killing blacks) are unpatriotic and disrespectful of
military veterans. Trump has initiated a petition: "The President has asked for a list of
supporters who stand for the National Anthem. Add your name below to show your patriotism and
support."
Randolph Bourne (see #8) had some thoughts on this.
. . . We reverence not our country but the flag. We may criticize ever so severely our
country, but we are disrespectful to the flag at our peril. It is the flag and the uniform
that make men's heart beat high and fill them with noble emotions, not the thought of and
pious hopes for America as a free and enlightened nation. It cannot be said that the object
of emotion is the same, because the flag is the symbol of the nation, so that in
reverencing the American flag we are reverencing the nation. For the flag is not a symbol
of the country as a cultural group, following certain ideals of life, but solely a symbol
of the political State, inseparable from its prestige and expansion.
""All along Trump has been the candidate of the military. The other two power centers of the
power triangle, the corporate and the executive government (CIA), had gone for Clinton. The
Pentagon proxy won over the CIA proxy. (Last months' fight over Raqqa was similar - with the
same outcome.)""
I agree with this division of power and would add that Trump is also the candidate of the
police. I see the media though as more being in the CIA/corporate camps. I think the military backing is necessary as you mention to take the CIA down a few
notches. So far I'd say the result in Syria is promising.
I think this CIA/corporate power has to be dealt with first to give progressive/socialist
ideas much of a chance. It's a fine line but the military is supposed to protect against
enemies foreign and domestic.
The corporate part of course has huge power over Congress.
a 39 year old "chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear specialist"
This is Niger - Remember back in 2002/2003 :
The Italian letter and Yellow Cake. These days we have Areva mining uranium in Niger
Hence the French military offering both security and protecting the "assets" of French
Establishment. Those soldiers were not ambushed but were conducting a raid and something went
wrong!
If there was a coup Masha would be singing praises free n the rooftop because the waragenda
she is paid to shill for would be back on. The fact that the lying bitch is gnashing her teeth would suggest that the NeoCon agenda,
especially for war against Russia, has been derailed. Fuck you Masha. You suck.
This is great news! I hope the military junta smashes the CIA into little tiny pieces.
Why? Because the US military is in its most easily defeatable state ever - they haven't won a
war in generations, their generals are armchair soldiers most who have never seen combat, and
they have a fondness for massively overpriced technological pieces of MIC enriching garbage
for weapons. The CIA owns the media, and without an effective propaganda arm, the military
will only ever face another Vietnam.
On the topic of losing generals I'm reminded of Harry Truman. A couple of Truman quotes:
"It's the fellows who go to West Point and are trained to think they're gods in uniform that
I plan to take apart". . ."I didn't fire him [General MacArthur] because he was a dumb son of
a bitch, although he was, but that's not against the law for generals. If it was, half to
three quarters of them would be in jail."
> It's worse now. Most generals got where they are by sucking up, not performing.
> Donald Trump is no Harry Truman, for sure.
Remember CNN? That fake MSM outlet that never tells the truth? Well, they have been skewering Kelly since he ran his mouth about that Florida
congresswoman. So have the other outlets. Huckabee-Sanders is now something of a national
joke after her comments. Kelly's shit doesn't hold up and he's been called out
repeatedly. "It is now "highly inappropriate" to even question the Junta that rules over the
empire." Bullshit.
Look in the Twitter archives and you will find a counter-tweet for almost anything Trump
says, including one criticizing four-star general Colin Powell...
"The slogan and symbol of the campaign was similar to the German "Deutschland Über
Alles" campaign of 1933."
This is once again typical anti-German propaganda that was used to get both WWI and WWII
started, and is now being used against Putin and Russia as well as nationalists across Europe
and the Anglo world. In 1933 France still had control of the Saar and the Rhineland, Germany
was saddled with monumental war debts, and Hitler was clearly not running a campaign on the
slogan "Germany should rule the world", which is what the Anglo-Zionist narrative would have
us believe. The meaning "Über Alles" was clearly "Germany First". That means look out
for the German people first. The Weimar government clearly wasn't doing this. Call it
Hitler's "MAGA".
The real truth is that it is this same US military industrial complex who worked for
Roosevelt, Churchill, and their Zionist masters to get the second world war started, and who
now are desperate for a third. They are sadistic, murdering globalists. Hitler was a
nationalist. He never planned to rule the world the same way the Zionists already do, as is
evidenced by the never ending strife in the Middle East, and their ongoing tribal civil war
which is also being waged within the US government.
This tribal civil war is also spilling over into places like Las Vegas, which clearly is
run by the Jewish Mafia. There still is no plausible motive given for the shooting incident,
but we know that the owners of MGM would never willingly have allowed this to happen on their
own property. So it clearly was a hit, and with Area 51 down the road and all the MIC
contractors in Vegas, it is highly unlikely that they were not involved or at least aware of
the operation.
Here is a LV company where for $3500 you can fly around the desert in a Helicopter
shooting up targets with a SAW-249.
The original meaning of "Deutschland über alles" came about in the early 1800's when
there was no united Germany: it meant that there should be a united Germany above all the
minor German states, duchies and principalities that existed at the time.
For those who want to avoid being datamined by nhs, the original link about "Why Donald Trump
is the perfect tool in the hands of neocons right now" is here: https://failedevolution.blogspot.com/
"One of the soldiers who were killed in Niger while "teaching how to respect human rights"
was a 39 year old "chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear specialist" with "more than
a dozen awards and decorations".
The U.S. military sent a highly qualified WMD specialist on a "routine patrol" in Niger to
teach local soldiers "to respect human rights" due to which presumably "the well-being of the
American people" would be "sufficiently enhanced"?" It's all about the uranium in Agades, then?
Trump is either very gullible and ignorant (most likely) or he is diabolically clever.
Everything he does - every action, every appointment, every utterance - could not be better
formulated to undermine the Zioamerican empire. Which is kind of what he promised to do.
The brazen arrogance of these jerks like Kelly is stupefying. Infuriatingly shameless.
The guy has never done an honest day's work IN HIS LIFE, has had his snout in the public
trough continuously and has materially contributed to the ruination of his country. STFU you
stupid twat. He is also a scumbag that no doubt had a lot to do with his son's demise -
imagine being this a-hole's son?
These clowns call themselves "General" and we are supposed to think that puts them in the
same class as a Wellington or a Caesar or Napoleon? They were all first class bastards,
ruthless, but fine Generals. Tough, bold, audacious leaders of men and brilliant strategists,
who took risks, including with their own lives. Hell, the Prussian officer training system
turned out Quartermasters that were better field Generals than these American frauds.
As I have said in another thread, the US has none of the martial virtues. Not as a people,
not as military institutions, not as individual soldiers or sailors (their airmen are
obviously cowards or psychopaths so not necessary even to consider in this context). Virtues
such as steadfastness in adversity, discipline when under fire, self-sacrifice for comrades
and the cause. Not saying anything about the morality of any particular cause here, just what
makes a professional army. To compare the US military with Rome's Legions, say, is laughable.
The biggest difference between these American whackers is that in real armies individuals are
expected to be able to contend with a worthy adversary. To take risks. To fight when it is
HARD to fight. Even Rome's patricians understood that every now and then they had to expose
themselves to danger if they were to have any honour, as Crassus, richest of them all, found
out very dramatically when he met his end at the head of the Syrian Legions. (Defeated by the
Iranians! - they've seen 'em all come and go). Windbags like Kelly wouldn't know what honour
is.
The US has NEVER fought an adversary on anything like equal terms. They preen themselves
about WW2. I call BS. They waited until the Soviets had broken the back of the most fearsome
war machine in history, the Wehrmacht and then faced teenagers and old men in France. On the
occasions when they did face professional German troops they had their whiney arses kicked.
As for the Pacific war, they stood off island after island and rained a stupendous amount of
naval shells and bombs on the Japanese garrisons to the point where they were insane with the
cacophany and pure physical terror to turn your bowels to water, before setting foot on them,
while the aerial destruction of Japanese cities is one of the great atrocities in history,
disgraceful and completely without honour. I suspect a disproportionate number of US military
casualties are due to being run over by a forklift, training accidents, friendly fire,
syphilis or fragging of their own.
The qualities the US military (they don't deserve the epithet "army") exemplifies are
cowardice, incompetence, viciousness and wanton destructiveness. No wonder, as the corruption
(plenty of fiscal as well as moral) starts at the top with the Kellys and drips down like a
putrid slime from there.
He and his ilk are just a bunch of murderous bags of human excrement. No decent person can
have anything but contempt for them.
It is little surprise if a junta has taken over. Many Democrats would support a military
junta over Trump. Now we are hearing similar calls from Republicans.
One of the latest is this opinion piece by Michael Gerson in the Washington Post
from October 12, 2017:
Republicans, it's time to panic The Washington Examiner has a short
summary:
Michael Gerson, who's also a columnist for the Washington Post, wrote in an op-ed Friday
that "the security of our country -- and potentially the lives of millions of people abroad
-- depends on Trump being someone else entirely."
"The time for whispered criticisms and quiet snickering is over. The time for panic and
decision is upon us. The thin line of sane, responsible advisers at the White House -- such
as Chief of Staff John F. Kelly, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and Secretary of State Rex
Tillerson -- could break at any moment," Gerson wrote. "The American government now has a
dangerous fragility at its very center. Its welfare is as thin as an eggshell -- perhaps as
thin as Donald Trump's skin."
The op-ed comes amid Trump's feud with Republican Sen. Bob Corker, who warned that the
president's reckless threats could lead to "World War III."
"I know for a fact that every single day at the White House, it's a situation of trying
to contain him," Corker told the New York Times.
At this point in history to be US president is to be a criminal.
An "autonomous" US president has not existed at least since JFK, perhaps not since
Lincoln. Kelley, like his boss, routinely "clowns" the media, and however unctuous Kelley's remarks
are, they fit into that mode.
Our generals are weak men. If they weren't, they wouldn't need a Trump, or a whatever to
run for office and win that office.
They can't run and win any better than they can conduct warfare as a rational means to a
rational end; and as the post eloquently points out, again: they are experts at rape, murder,
war crimes, mayhem and destruction. The ubiquitous propaganda to hide that is all they have
that saves them from the penal colony where they belong.
Their project to rule the world would be as successful as any "they destroyed it in order
to save it" attempts.
MG's fragmented consciousness permit her to be rational at times, and irresponsible at
others.
re: Presiding over a population of detainees not charged or convicted of crimes, over whom
he had maximum custodial control, Kelly treated them with brutality. . .
The US needed go show progress in the "war on terror" and one way was to accumulate some
prisoners of the "war." CIA operatives were sent to the tribal areas of Afghanistan &
Pakistan with cash to entice "bounty hunters." It was easy, because every tribal chief had
enemies, which he would capture and present for a big payoff. So the Guantanamo (Gitmo)
prison was set up in Cuba and soon accumulated 7-800 "detainees" who were bullied and
tortured.
None of them were tried because there was no evidence they had done anything wrong.
The Supreme Court ruled that they should have a judicial process but (except a few cases) it
was never done. Most of the prisoners detainees were released, including a
13 yo boy and a 92 yo man, and about 200 remained. I guess it's less now.
Meanwhile the
Washington politicians were able to crow about all those dangerous people in Gitmo, and
prattle about the "recidivism" danger if and when they would be released. What were they
supposed to do, forgive and forget all the terrible treatment they had received?? So yes,
Kelly is scum, but that's not unusual for a general.
The ground work, or state-of-affairs that lead to what one might call a soft military coup in
the US (see b) = within what, at one extreme could be called Ayn-Randian rabid individualism,
and at the other a sort of neo-liberal capitalism which is nevertheless highly 'socialist' in
the sense re-distributive from the center of power (if only to create a slave/subservient
class and prevent uprisings), there is NO public space for 'solidarity' within (besides
familial, or close, etc.)
Therefore, the belonging or 'solidarity' is activated only facing an outside enemy who is
personalised as e.g. communist, ugly dictator, intends to attack the US, poisons babies, etc.
That gives the military an edge.. Then natch, historically, dying empires invest in the
double prong, military conquest + internal control (can be vicious), ain't flash news.
.... I don't think it is all that clear. Corps or better conglomerates of power like 'the
media', the 'silicons', banking and finance, Energy, electronics, Big Pharma, etc. are
politcally inclined (say!) to some form of corporate fascism, > bought pols from all-sides
of any-aisle. Their ties to the military / milit. type power at home are not very strong,
they may collaborate on occasion. Some of these 'industries' fear domination that goes beyond
soft power and they loathe sanctions - think about who/what/how is doing lucrative deals and
has continuing biz success in Iraq, Iran, Russia, Ukraine, etc. - NOT US cos./corps.
To me this looks more like total disorganisation than anything else.
First, if the only two choices were the Executive CIA and the Military "Junta" with Trump
why would we continue the farce of elections? And if the elections were pre-determined and
the ruling Junta took over in a coup, then how and why is the CIA out of power?
Secondly, same question will be here for you when a) the military and Trump get booted
with impeachment, or b) when the next election comes.
Van Morrison once penned "politics, superstition and religion go hand in hand." It never
fails, those out of power go from being logical, critical thinkers to becoming outlandish
bores who exaggerate things and fabricate what they see. It's called delusion.
@J 49 The "farce of elections" is accurate because Trump is not doing what he claimed he would do,
not unusual actually. It was Trump who sprang the "junta" on us. And who claimed that the CIA
would be out of power?
Kelly: So why were they there? They're there working with partners, local -- all across
Africa -- in this case, Niger -- working with partners, teaching them how to be better
soldiers; teaching them how to respect human rights
These guys didn't die teaching, nor in combat in Niger, they were (according to news
reports) trying to track down an accomplice of one Abu Adnan al-Sahraoui. In other words they
were doing police work in a foreign country, an absolutely ridiculous task which they were
not trained or able to do and which put their lives needlessly in danger. This criticism
applies to the whole "war on terror" which has proven to be a tragic farce (if there can be
such a thing).
I used to think it was a counter-coup also. But sheep-dog Sanders and Trump's having
supported Hillary in 2008 among other things caused me to conclude that it all
bullshit. I now believe that the hyper-partisanship is just a show. The political system in the
US is designed to prevent any real populist from gaining power. We are being played. Trump is the Republican Obama.
I really think that this is the case in this instance. Trump is bellicose and erratic. In
the realm of foreign policy and military, it yielded one positive change: his obsession with
ISIS led to huge decrease of fighting between "moderate opposition" in Syria with "SAA and
allies", allowing the latter to effectively reduce the territory controlled by ISIS,
similarly, Obama's efforts to sideline "sectarian forces trained by Iran" from fighting with
ISIS were apparently abandoned with similar effect. But otherwise, no "reset" with Russia,
clown show concerning the nuclear program of North Korea, berating allies who spend
insufficiently to fight threats that they do not have, increasing domestic military budget
(again, to fight threats that we do not have) and so on. Formation of the new axis of evil,
North Korea, Iran and Venezuela is a notable novelty.
Trump was so contradictory is his campaign statements that it is almost amazing that ANY
positive element can be discerned. At the time, I paid attention to his praises of John
Bolton, a proud walrus-American who communicates using bellowing, in other words, resembles a
walrus both in the way he looks, but also in the way he speaks.
Needless to say, Dotard in Chief can exercise power only through underlings that may try
to make sense of what he says. In some cases, like reforming American healthcare according to
his promises, this is flatly impossible. So generals are seemingly in the same position, and
of course, when in doubt, they do what they would do anyway.
Not that I am any more or less in the loop than any of these fine commenters, but what pops
into my mind when reading of the ambush of the four special forces servicemen is the crash of
the helicopter that took out so many of the seal team six who supposedly took out Osama.
Maybe they knew too much would be my guess. Why else would they put such a knowledgable
specialist out on the perimeter? Makes no sense. Offing your own is part and parcel in the
military. Heroes of convenience.
What seems to have been lost in the discussion is what exactly the "counter-coup" is all
about.
1. During the Obama years, "successes" like Lybia and Ukraine were matched by "failures"
like the lost proxy war for Syria and pushing Russia into the arms of China. The new 'Cold
War' makes US nationalism more important as 'hot' conflicts become more likely.
2. Obama/Clinton-led civilian authority was abusing power to promote an "Empire-first"
vision of governance, Obama/Clinton:
>> replaced/retired many military officers;
>> placed US resources/forces in a support role ("leading from behind")
;
>> grew a 'radical center' (aka "Third Way") that sought to undermine traditional
nationalist/patriotism via immigration and divisive 'wedge issues'.
The excuse for this was that while US hands were tied (because public wouldn't support
further adventurism after Iraq) close allies could push forward. But the new Cold War has
changed the calculus.
The US isn't giving up on Empire. It's just a different type of Empire for a different
type of environment. When Trump talks about "draining the swamp" I think he merely refers to
foreign influence.
So Trump pivots US policy based on Obama's record (as Obama did off Bush's record), and
the next President will pivot off Trump's record, but the direction is always the same.
Trump has one ally and that is the 65million voters who put him into office.
He surrendered his top people.
Saker says it was lack of character.
I think when they point the gun at you, your family, your closest friends in your life, you
acquiesce. They even took from him Keith Schiller, his personal security man for years. Kelly forced
him out of the WH.
Trump is powerless except when he functions as Leader of the rallies. As President, even
with the cabal running the Oval Office, they all are limited by the Shadow Government, Deep
State, IC, Khazarian Matrix. No President is a free man empowered to act.
He now is focused on what is possible. Perhaps that will be a tax cut and a few more SC
justices and a few score of judges for the fed district courts. Those don't interfere with
Financial Power and MIC and the Hegemony of Empire.
There is one hope. Putin + Xi.
And we know the limits they face.
Inside the Tyranny of American government, there is no hope. During the Trump time Putin
and Xi have to make the most of the Swamp creating their own problems. It is that moment of
opportunity, though it looks bleak.
One thing for certain, the US military does not want a direct war. It wants more of these
terror conflicts. Africa will become huge over the next few years. Graham is already selling
it big. Trillions of dollars is what is the goal.
SE Asia and Africa are the new big "markets" for MIC. ISIS/AQ are the product. War is the
service industry being sold as the "solution".
The Long War of anti-terror is the scam Smedley Butler told us about in the thirties.
-- Excerpt from a speech delivered in 1933, by Major General Smedley Butler, USMC.
War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not
what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It
is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.
I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over
here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns
6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the
flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.
I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the
bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and
the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.
There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has
its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men"
to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.
It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels
me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of
this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned
ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my
time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In
short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.
I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the
members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service.
My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups.
This is typical with everyone in the military service.
I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I
helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues
in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of
Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long.
I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in
1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic
for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went
its way unmolested.
During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket.
Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could
do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.
On the bright side, members of Congress are at least nominally elected. Four star Generals,
not so much. It's still a felony carrying a prison term of 5 to 10 years per incident to lie
to Congress.
The military have no precedent to recommend them either as a source of information or in
their decision making ability. They are way out of their depth when it comes to administering
a nation.
In none of their unwarranted invasions (all the result of bad information and poor judgment)
of other nations have they been successful the day after the bombs stopped falling.
IDIOTS!!! you forget the fact that if clinton won you would first be glowing GREEN and now
dead. On Oct 16th 2016 Putin said "if hillary wins its WW3" on you tube. guess what we are
alive and have to deal with that taxevader trump. we will survive!
The time has long passed since one can ignore JFK's failed insistence on the inspections
of the illegal Israeli nuclear weapons program at Dimona, and then his sudden death.
Factoring Israel into the equation greatly simplifies understanding the make-up of the Warren
Commission, LBJ's about turn on the relation to the illegal nuclear weapons program and his
reaction to the attack on the Liberty, and the evolution of US politics more generally.
One would be more pressed to argue why one thinks it is not a primary cause.
We voted for change and as usual, we got more of the same. All I can say is thank God it's
not Hillary in the White House. At least Trump's not spoiling for a war with Russia.
Democracy has been dead in America for a long time. I'd rather Kelly run the country than
Hillary Clinton. She would have us all annihilated in a war with Russia and China
It's going to be hard to fight a junta. The military is at least halfway competent, something
that can't be said for either the administration or congress. Look at this latest flap - on
the one side you have Wilson the rodeo clown, on the other you have Trump, who can't resist
the urge to pop off on twitter.
Then you have Kelly, who at least comes off like an adult.
Before people start pointing to all the nefarious things the military is doing, let me just
say I'm talking about perception.
Good post sans the Africa bit. They are having a tough time explaining the Niger debacle
to people. I don't think African conflicts have the same glamorous draw as MENA conflicts.
Once the economy goes to shit, it will be an even tougher sell.
Trump is walking a narrow line. He has not brought us into a war with either Russia or
NoKo...yet. This deserves some praise. The media blitz against Trump has always had a twofold
reasoning behind it: it puts pressure on his ego to acquiesce and, two, if he doesn't, the
public has been inoculated against feeling too bad when a lone-gunmen puts a bullet in his
brain. I guess if you believe that, as I do, it explains why even a bumbling policy is a
positive aspect of a Trump presidency, instead of the true-believer approach from Hillary and
her ilk. There really is no other choice. It's either war or watch the empire crumble. The
true believers might have chosen the former, but President Trump, I believe, has sabotaged
that possibility. So take all the Trump-bashers in here with a grain or salt. They are asking
for the stars, but watching the empire's police implode suits me just fine.
"But the white supremacists...KKK!" What a fucking joke.
Moon of Alabama always writes interesting and insightful critiques of the Deep State, the
military, and the imperialist/war party, but falls flat on his face in his naive faith in the
supposed anti-establishment, populist, and America First Nationalist proclivities of Donald
Trump, and his arch-reactionary Svengali Steve Bannon. There is indeed at least one major
split in the ranks of the ruling class, but to present Trump and Bannon as either valiant
figures struggling for the national good, or noble isolated men surrounded by vipers and
traitors is absurd.
Now, in its late imperial decline, the U.S. has become unable to continue to exercise
hegemony, the way it became accustomed to in the first 70+ years in the Post-WW 2 period. The
number one Client/Ally/Master, Israel and their deeply embedded 5th Column in the U.S., the
Zionists with their associated Pro-Zionist factions within the War Party, now nearly directly
and openly controls U.S. foreign policy and military actions in the regions that the Likudnik
faction in Israel cares about (i.e. the Levant, North Africa, and the Horn of Africa).
Hollowed out economically and industrially the U.S. Empire is clearly on the way out. The
various factions fighting for control of policy seem to be oblivious to this basic fact. The
actual situation is similar to that the U.S. participated in during period from the late
1800s - WW 2; the declining hegemon accustomed to calling the shots in international affairs
(then the British Empire, now the U.S.), ends up overextended and committed in far too many
areas, with declining resources and domestic solidarity to dedicate to the tasks; the rising
hegemon (then the U.S. now China) is still focused on issues of internal and external
economic development and the exercise of regional power. China is already either equal in
power to the U.S. or more powerful and will only continue to grow in power as the U.S.
continues to decline. The Israelis/Zionists fully realize that the U.S. would not survive
another disastrous war (like the air war they want the U.S. to wage against Iran, the U.S.
does not have the capability to conduct a land war against Iran) intact. They are willing to
try to force the issue to achieve one more step in their plan to establish "Eretz Israel"
whose territory would extend from the Nile to the Euphrates and from the Sinai to Turkey.
Their plans are just as crazy as those of the NeoCons and the NeoLiberals and their endless
disastrous wars; and Trump/Bannon are their agents in the U.S.
"All along Trump has been the candidate of the military. The other two power centers of
the
power triangle , the corporate and the executive government (CIA), had gone for Clinton.
The Pentagon's proxy defeated the CIA proxy. (Last months' fight over Raqqa was similar - with
a similar outcome.)"
Notable quotes:
"... All along Trump has been the candidate of the military. The other two power centers of the power triangle , the corporate and the executive government (CIA), had gone for Clinton. The Pentagon's proxy defeated the CIA proxy. (Last months' fight over Raqqa was similar - with a similar outcome.) ..."
"... Former U.S. Army Captain and now CIA director Mike Pompeo was educated at the United States Military Academy at West Point. He is part of the Junta circle, installed to control the competition. ..."
"... Is the U.S. military really qualified to teach anyone how to respect human rights? Did it learn that from committing mass atrocities in about each campaign it ever fought? ..."
"... The deep-seated problems plaguing the USA do have solutions, but they are not those being forwarded by the very radical conservatives now in charge of Congress and many statehouses. And the junta members share their mindsets. So, I see the domestic situation continuing to spiral further out-of-control with no sign anywhere of a countervailing power arising with the potential to steer the ship-of-state away from the massive reef it's rapidly heading for ..."
"... Ah, Masha Gessen, literally cancer. Who elevated her? I find it interesting that she does the "translating" for the CIA-scripted FX show "The Americans", a show which has probably more effectively demonized Russians for the cud-chewing crowd than the sum total of Cold War propaganda since the 50s AND the daily Russian hate columns in Wapo et al that trickle down to the Buzzfeed crowd. ..."
"... Military junta or not b, make no mistake, the real power behind the throne are a cabal of billionaires who buy their way by co-opting the politicians who make the laws. Democracy is indeed dead here in the U$A. It's now a full-blown Oligarchy. ..."
"... I agree with this division of power and would add that Trump is also the candidate of the police. I see the media though as more being in the CIA/corporate camps. I think the military backing is necessary as you mention to take the CIA down a few notches. So far I'd say the result in Syria is promising. ..."
"... This tribal civil war is also spilling over into places like Las Vegas, which clearly is run by the Jewish Mafia. There still is no plausible motive given for the shooting incident, but we know that the owners of MGM would never willingly have allowed this to happen on their own property. So it clearly was a hit, and with Area 51 down the road and all the MIC contractors in Vegas, it is highly unlikely that they were not involved or at least aware of the operation. ..."
"... The ground work, or state-of-affairs that lead to what one might call a soft military coup in the US (see b) = within what, at one extreme could be called Ayn-Randian rabid individualism, and at the other a sort of neo-liberal capitalism which is nevertheless highly 'socialist' in the sense re-distributive from the center of power (if only to create a slave/subservient class and prevent uprisings), there is NO public space for 'solidarity' within (besides familial, or close, etc.) ..."
"... historically, dying empires invest in the double prong, military conquest + internal control (can be vicious) ..."
"... I don't think it is all that clear. Corps or better conglomerates of power like 'the media', the 'silicons', banking and finance, Energy, electronics, Big Pharma, etc. are politcally inclined (say!) to some form of corporate fascism, > bought pols from all-sides of any-aisle. Their ties to the military / milit. type power at home are not very strong, they may collaborate on occasion. Some of these 'industries' fear domination that goes beyond soft power and they loathe sanctions - think about who/what/how is doing lucrative deals and has continuing biz success in Iraq, Iran, Russia, Ukraine, etc. - NOT US cos./corps. ..."
"... First, if the only two choices were the Executive CIA and the Military "Junta" with Trump why would we continue the farce of elections? And if the elections were pre-determined and the ruling Junta took over in a coup, then how and why is the CIA out of power? ..."
"... The "farce of elections" is accurate because Trump is not doing what he claimed he would do, not unusual actually. It was Trump who sprang the "junta" on us. And who claimed that the CIA would be out of power? ..."
"... I used to think it was a counter-coup also. But sheep-dog Sanders and Trump's having supported Hillary in 2008 among other things caused me to conclude that it all bullshit. I now believe that the hyper-partisanship is just a show. The political system in the US is designed to prevent any real populist from gaining power. We are being played. Trump is the Republican Obama. ..."
"... The excuse for this was that while US hands were tied (because public wouldn't support further adventurism after Iraq) close allies could push forward. But the new Cold War has changed the calculus. ..."
"... The US isn't giving up on Empire. It's just a different type of Empire for a different type of environment. When Trump talks about "draining the swamp" I think he merely refers to foreign influence. ..."
"... Trump has one ally and that is the 65million voters who put him into office. He surrendered his top people. Saker says it was lack of character. I think when they point the gun at you, your family, your closest friends in your life, you acquiesce. They even took from him Keith Schiller, his personal security man for years. Kelly forced him out of the WH. ..."
"... On the bright side, members of Congress are at least nominally elected. Four star Generals, not so much. It's still a felony carrying a prison term of 5 to 10 years per incident to lie to Congress. The military have no precedent to recommend them either as a source of information or in their decision making ability. They are way out of their depth when it comes to administering a nation. ..."
"... Moon of Alabama always writes interesting and insightful critiques of the Deep State, the military, and the imperialist/war party, but falls flat on his face in his naive faith in the supposed anti-establishment, populist, and America First Nationalist proclivities of Donald Trump, and his arch-reactionary Svengali Steve Bannon. There is indeed at least one major split in the ranks of the ruling class, but to present Trump and Bannon as either valiant figures struggling for the national good, or noble isolated men surrounded by vipers and traitors is absurd. ..."
"... Now, in its late imperial decline, the U.S. has become unable to continue to exercise hegemony, the way it became accustomed to in the first 70+ years in the Post-WW 2 period. The number one Client/Ally/Master, Israel and their deeply embedded 5th Column in the U.S., the Zionists with their associated Pro-Zionist factions within the War Party, now nearly directly and openly controls U.S. foreign policy and military actions in the regions that the Likudnik faction in Israel cares about (i.e. the Levant, North Africa, and the Horn of Africa). ..."
"... Hollowed out economically and industrially the U.S. Empire is clearly on the way out. The various factions fighting for control of policy seem to be oblivious to this basic fact. ..."
In an advertising campaign in 2008 the U.S. Air Force declared itself to be "Above
All". The slogan and symbol of the campaign
was similar to the
German "Deutschland Über Alles" campaign of 1933. It was a sign of things to come.
On Thursday Masha Gessen watched the press briefing of White House Chief of Staff General
John Kelly and
concluded :
The press briefing could serve as a preview of what a military coup in this country would
look like, for it was in the logic of such a coup that Kelly advanced his four arguments .
Those who criticize the President don't know what they're talking about because they
haven't served in the military . ...
The President did the right thing because he did exactly what his generals told him to
do . ...
Communication between the President and a military widow is no one's business but
theirs. ...
Citizens are ranked based on their proximity to dying for their country. ...
Gessen is late. The coup happened months ago. A military junta is in strong control of White
House polices. It is now widening its claim to power.
All along Trump has been the candidate of the military. The other two power centers of
the
power triangle , the corporate and the executive government (CIA), had gone for Clinton.
The Pentagon's proxy defeated the CIA proxy. (Last months' fight over Raqqa was similar - with
a similar outcome.)
The military will demand its due beyond the three generals now in Trump's cabinet.
With the help of the media the generals in the White House defeated their civilian
adversary. In August the Trump ship dropped its ideological
pilot . Steve Bannon went from board. Bannon's militarist enemy, National Security Advisor
General McMaster, had won. I
stated :
Trump's success as the "Not-Hillary"
candidate was based on an anti-establishment insurgency. Representatives of that
insurgency, Flynn, Bannon and the MAGA voters, drove him through his first months in office.
An intense media campaign was launched to counter them and the military took control of the
White House. The anti-establishment insurgents were fired. Trump is now reduced to public
figure head of a stratocracy - a military junta which nominally follows the rule of law.
The military took full control of White House processes and policies:
Everything of importance now passes through
the Junta's hands ... To control Trump the Junta filters his information input
and eliminates any potentially alternative view ... The Junta members dictate their policies
to Trump by only proposing certain alternatives to him. The one that is most preferable to
them, will be presented as the only desirable one. "There are no alternatives," Trump will be
told again and again.
With the power center captured the Junta starts to implement its ideology and to suppress
any and all criticism against itself.
On Thursday the 19th Kelly
criticized Congresswoman Frederica Wilson of South Florida for hearing in (invited) on a
phone-call Trump had with some dead soldiers wife:
Kelly then continued his criticism of Wilson, mentioning the 2015 dedication of the Miramar
FBI building, saying she focused in her speech that she "got the money" for the building.
The video of the Congresswoman's speech (above link) proves that Kelly's claim was a
fabrication. But one is no longer allowed to point such out. The Junta, by definition, does not
lie. When the next day journalists asked the White House Press Secretary about Kelly's
unjustified attack she
responded:
MS. SANDERS: If you want to go after General Kelly, that's up to you. But I think that that
-- if you want to get into a debate with a four-star Marine general, I think that that's
something highly inappropriate
It is now "highly inappropriate" to even question the Junta that rules the empire.
... ... ...
If the soldiers do not work "for any other reason than that they love this country" why do
they ask to be paid? Why is the public asked to finance 200 military
golf courses ? Because the soldiers "love the country"? Only a few 10,000 of the 2,000,000
strong U.S. military will ever see an active front-line.
And imagine the "wonderful joy" Kelly "got in his heart" when he
commanded the illegal torture camp of Guantanamo Bay:
Presiding over a population of detainees not charged or convicted of crimes, over whom he had
maximum custodial control, Kelly treated them with brutality. His response to the detainees'
peaceful hunger strike in 2013 was punitive force-feeding, solitary confinement, and rubber
bullets. Furthermore, he sabotaged efforts by the Obama administration to resettle detainees,
consistently undermining the will of his commander in chief.
Former U.S. Army Captain and now CIA director Mike Pompeo was educated at the United States
Military Academy at West Point. He is part of the Junta circle, installed to control the
competition. Pompeo also wants to again feel the "wonderful joy". On Friday he
promised that the CIA would become a "much more vicious agency". Instead of merely
waterboarding 'terrorists' and drone-bombing brown families, Pompeo's more vicious CIA will
rape the 'terrorist's' kids and nuke whole villages. Pompeo's remark was made at a
get-together of the Junta and neo-conservative warmongers.
On October 19 Defense Secretary General Mattis was asked in Congress about the recent
incident in Niger during which, among others, several U.S. soldiers were killed. Mattis
set
(vid 5:29pm) a curious new metric for deploying U.S. troops:
Any time we commit out troops anywhere it is based on a simple first question and that is -
is the well-being of the American people sufficiently enhanced by putting our troops there ,
by putting our troops in a position to die?
In his October 20 press briefing General Kelly also tried to
explain why U.S. soldiers are in Niger:
So why were they there ? They're there working with partners, local -- all across Africa --
in this case, Niger -- working with partners, teaching them how to be better soldiers;
teaching them how to respect human rights ...
Is the U.S. military really qualified to teach anyone how to respect human rights? Did it
learn that from committing mass atrocities in about
each campaign it ever fought?
One of the soldiers who were killed in Niger while "teaching how to respect human rights"
was
a 39 year old "chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear specialist" with "more than a
dozen awards and decorations". The U.S. military sent a highly qualified WMD specialist on a "routine patrol" in Niger to
teach local soldiers "to respect human rights" due to which presumably "the well-being of the
American people" would be "sufficiently enhanced"? Will anyone really buy that bridge?
But who would dare to ask more about this? It is" highly inappropriate " to doubt whatever
the military says. Soon that will change into "verboten". Any doubt, any question will be
declared "fake news" and a sign of devious foreign influence. Whoever spreads such will be
blocked from communicating.
The military is now indeed "Above All". That air force slogan was a remake of a 1933
"Über Alles" campaign in Germany. One wonders what other historic similarities will
develop from it.
Posted by b on October 21, 2017 at 03:58 PM | Permalink
The military junta rely on the US dollar as reserve currency for their lurks and perks. The
more they take power, the faster this will slip away. So called allies will move towards
China/Russia and other currencies.
Dangerous times but the downfall of the US is gaining momentum.
@1 While I understand the temptation to link Trump to Neo-con policies, I think it over
simplifies the issue.
Thierry Meyssan has a recent article in which he questions how seriously we should take
the US's anti-Iran policy. In it he states "We have to keep in mind that Donald Trump is not
a professional politician, but a real estate promoter, and that he acts like one. He gained
his professional success by spreading panic with his outrageous statements and observing the
reactions he had created amongst his competitors and his partners."
That statement is a great summary of one of the key precepts of what I called
'asymmetrical leadership' - which I think characterizes Trumps leadership style (an
application of asymmetrical warfare techniques to the political arena). This does not mean
that the Junta has not taken over control. I would agree with b on this. However, the forms
by which that control get expressed will still run through Trump and will still reflect his
'asymmetric' style.
It does take someone on the other side of the world to give perspective. I don't think it is
as much a military junta as things are falling apart. The generals are attempting to keep
their corrupt war profits flowing. The media moguls still hate Donald Trump; only as an
oligarch hates another. Donald Trump is firing up his base. Expect, the whole of the
alt-right propaganda is false. It relies on the hatred of others. All he will do is speed up
the splintering. If your home is foreclosed, flooded, polluted, burned down or blown apart;
reality is slapping you in the face.
One of your most important posts, b. At first I thought it strange that you would quote Masha
Gessen, an infamous anti-Putin journalist and Khodorkovsky fan, but then it didn't seem so
strange. Gessen is a Zionist, therefore she is aligned with the CIA/Wall Street faction,
which as you perceptively say lost out with Trump and Raqqa. I say Wall Street as opposed to
corporate because, as I have pointed out before, non-financial corporates - and that includes
most of the Dow Jones or FTSE - have fuck all say on anything except how they are going to
meet next quarterly's earnings estimates. And the CIA is very close to Wall Street.
What interests me is how this relates to Iran, on which both factions appear to be in
agreement, but there must be nuances. The Saker published an article where,in my opinion, he
failed to give enough weight to how circumstances around Iran have changed over the last
decade. I see little green men in large green aircraft weaving their way down the Caspian
Sea, not to mention invisible Chinese hardware in the sense of how did it get there, and a
Europe which is in disarray with their tongues hanging out for deals with Iran. The success
of the anti-Trump MSM narrative combined with fears of potentially millions of Iranian
refugees would surely indicate this is the worst possible time to attack Iran. So how can
they conjure a war out of this?
On a far more insidious note, one has to wonder what an radiological 'expert' was doing in
Niger - thanks b for that important piece of info.
When that info is combined with:
1) US Special ops in Mali from 2006
2) US operation Oasis Enabler (2009) looking to infiltrate and control Elite Malian army
units
3) March 2012 Coup brought to power American trained Capt. Amadou Sanogo
4) French Operation Serval, at the request of the 'interim government' fights to control
northern Malian territory and URANIUM mines along the Mali - Niger border (they said they
fought ISIS but what they actually fought was a Tuareg separatist movement)
together with the presence of ISIS (the US trained, evacuated from Syria version?) in the
area... Ominous is hardly strong enough to describe the feeling...
I start my comment by referencing these since the operational doctrine of the Outlaw US
Empire is to keep any such challenges to its perceived dominance--and quest for total
dominance--subdued to the point of insignificance. As you can clearly read, Xi, China, Putin,
Russia, and their allies aren't going to allow any junta to stop their integration and
development plans preparing their nations and region for the future--plans and thinking
woefully absent from any sector of the Outlaw US Empire excepting perhaps weapon development.
The just completed Valdai Conference provides an excellent insight to the drama, the comments
and visions are as important as they're powerful, http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/55882
I could pile more of the same for barflies to digest, but I don't think that's required.
There's a very longstanding joke about the joining together of these two words--military
intelligence--and for good reason, particularly within the Outlaw US Empire. I don't think
anyone within the governmental establishment has any idea of what to do about the
Eurasian/Muiltipolar Challenge other than trying to break it--no ideas of how to compete or
join it so as to also profit from it. The reason for this as I see it is ideological--Zero
Sumism and Randian junk economics is so deeply ingrained they've polluted minds to the point
where their blinded and unable to think outside the box they've caged themselves within:
Hoisted by their own petard as the saying goes. They just can't accept Win/Win as something
viable--sharing is for sissies and commies. Problem is that well over half of humanity sees
Win/Win as eminently viable and far more welcome than the demonstrably failed Zero Sum Game
promoted by Randian political-economists and enforced through the barrel a gun.
The deep-seated problems plaguing the USA do have solutions, but they are not those being
forwarded by the very radical conservatives now in charge of Congress and many statehouses.
And the junta members share their mindsets. So, I see the domestic situation continuing to
spiral further out-of-control with no sign anywhere of a countervailing power arising with
the potential to steer the ship-of-state away from the massive reef it's rapidly heading for.
There might be a surprise in store from the junta, however--it might just take on a bit of
the massive corruption plaguing the USA by attacking the Clinton Foundation and its related
sewage. Although, that just solves one part of a huge host of problems.
funny thing that just accord to me that i had not thought of for nearly ten years, one of the
initial "benefits" of the state of Israel, was the cutting off of Africa from asia, and its
pretty glaring that a project to connect Asia Africa and Europe does not include the logical
land route as well.
At least in the times of Caesar and Augustus, military junta who seized power could claim to
be effective and victorious military, able to crush significant enemy armies. The current top
military in the US were at best kiddies the last time the US actually managed to defeat a
truly powerful enemy, back in 1945. (though this criticism can apply to all major powers)
Ah, Masha Gessen, literally cancer. Who elevated her? I find it interesting that she does the
"translating" for the CIA-scripted FX show "The Americans", a show which has probably more
effectively demonized Russians for the cud-chewing crowd than the sum total of Cold War
propaganda since the 50s AND the daily Russian hate columns in Wapo et al that trickle down
to the Buzzfeed crowd.
We need to start calling the CIA traitors, actual traitors. Masha Gessen is CIA, CIA
ghostwrites for most MSM. Traitors all. But even without the constant hagiographies, would
people start to get it? "Americans", I mean?
Here's a bit of what Hamid Karzai at the Valdai Club had to say about what the junta
accomplished in Afghanistan:
"Today, I am one of the greatest critics of the US policy in Afghanistan. Not because I am
anti-Western, I am a very Western person. My education is Western, my ideas are Western. I am
very democratic in my inner instincts. And I love their culture. But I am against the US
policy because it is not succeeding. It is causing us immense trouble and the rise of
extremism and radicalism and terrorism. I am against the US policy because on their watch,
under their total control of the Afghan air space, the Afghan intelligence and the Afghan
military, of all that they have, that super power, there is Daesh in Afghanistan. How come
Daesh emerged in Afghanistan 14–15 years after the US presence in Afghanistan with that
mass of resources and money and expenditure? Why is the world not as cooperative with America
in Afghanistan today as it was before? How come Russia now has doubts about the intentions of
the US in Afghanistan or the result of its work in Afghanistan? How come China does not view
it the same way? How come Iran has immense difficulty with the way things are conducted in
Afghanistan?
"Therefore, as an Afghan in the middle of this great game, I propose to our ally, the
United States, the following: we will all succeed if you tell us that you have failed. We
would understand. Russia would understand, China would understand. Iran, Pakistan, everybody
would understand. India would understand. We have our Indian friends there. We see all signs
of failure there, but if you do not tell us you failed, what is this, a game?"
I doubt the junta will do any better than its performed in Afghanistan because it only
knows how to play the game Karzai describes. Link is same as one above.
We can now add the Air Force being 'Above All' to the supremacist 'exceptional and
indispensable' lunatic attitude in the US that is definitely psychologically the same as
another people that thought they were 'Uber Alles'.
You stated: The insurgency that brought Trump to the top was defeated by a
counter-insurgency campaign waged by the U.S. military. (Historically its first successful
one).
I differ. JFK was taken out by a combined US Naval Intel and CIA plot. The beneficiary was
the MIC. Eleven days later, LBJ reversed the executive order by JFK to end the US involvement
in Nam. For 11 more years the Military got what it wanted--war.
LBJ got what he wanted--the Presidency. The Cuban-Americans got what they wanted--revenge for failure at Bay of Pigs by
Kennedy. The Mafia got what they wanted--revenge for Bobby Kennedy.
One other thing about the counter-insurgency. It was not so much Military. They waited while
the IC ran the leaks and counter-insurgency. Then,Trump fell into the Military's arms. He had
been cut off from his base and key supporters and had to empower them by obedience to their
plans. Foreign policy is what they wanted. He can still have all the domestic policy he can
get, which is basically nothing much. A SC justice, some EOs, and all the Twitter-shit he can
muster.
American democracy is indeed dead. The US Military's only real victory after WWII. After
Vietnam, the generals said: "Freedom of speech and of the press and of assembly and the right
to trial by jury and all that crap has got to go! And they got rid of it all! The Junta is in
control. And the only positive aspect is that we have a rolling Fukushima disaster in Trump,
who could implode and then explode in a nuclear Holocaust any second from all the humiliation
and investigations crushing in on him--if the Junta did not keep tight control over all the
information coming in to him. So you better leave them in place or... BAM! That's the
blackmail. But it only works as long as Trump has sole authority to launch our nuclear
arsenal. If someone else with a 2nd launch key were required to agree, the Junta would no
longer be needed to "protect" us Mafia-style.
Military junta or not b, make no mistake, the real power behind the throne are a cabal of
billionaires who buy their way by co-opting the politicians who make the laws. Democracy is indeed dead here in the U$A. It's now a full-blown Oligarchy.
Re Bill Wedin at 18, you wrote "the blackmail only works as long as Trump has sole authority
to launch our nuclear arsenal."
Authority to launch also includes predelegation to some of the highest ranking military,
in the event of a perceived nuclear attack, in which the National Command Authority is
disrupted and unable to give launch orders. However, this leaves open the question as to
whether the President could be bypassed in the process.
Trident sub commanders also have the necessary launch codes on board to initiate a nuclear
strike. Yes, the codes are under lock and key, but the key is on board.
The current US militarism also reflects on the kneeling during the national anthem, which is
also an ode to the flag in a war setting -- "by the rockets red glare" etc. President Trump
has said the protests (against police killing blacks) are unpatriotic and disrespectful of
military veterans. Trump has initiated a petition: "The President has asked for a list of
supporters who stand for the National Anthem. Add your name below to show your patriotism and
support."
Randolph Bourne (see #8) had some thoughts on this.
. . . We reverence not our country but the flag. We may criticize ever so severely our
country, but we are disrespectful to the flag at our peril. It is the flag and the uniform
that make men's heart beat high and fill them with noble emotions, not the thought of and
pious hopes for America as a free and enlightened nation. It cannot be said that the object
of emotion is the same, because the flag is the symbol of the nation, so that in
reverencing the American flag we are reverencing the nation. For the flag is not a symbol
of the country as a cultural group, following certain ideals of life, but solely a symbol
of the political State, inseparable from its prestige and expansion.
""All along Trump has been the candidate of the military. The other two power centers of the
power triangle, the corporate and the executive government (CIA), had gone for Clinton. The
Pentagon proxy won over the CIA proxy. (Last months' fight over Raqqa was similar - with the
same outcome.)""
I agree with this division of power and would add that Trump is also the candidate of the
police. I see the media though as more being in the CIA/corporate camps. I think the military backing is necessary as you mention to take the CIA down a few
notches. So far I'd say the result in Syria is promising.
I think this CIA/corporate power has to be dealt with first to give progressive/socialist
ideas much of a chance. It's a fine line but the military is supposed to protect against
enemies foreign and domestic.
The corporate part of course has huge power over Congress.
a 39 year old "chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear specialist"
This is Niger - Remember back in 2002/2003 :
The Italian letter and Yellow Cake. These days we have Areva mining uranium in Niger
Hence the French military offering both security and protecting the "assets" of French
Establishment. Those soldiers were not ambushed but were conducting a raid and something went
wrong!
If there was a coup Masha would be singing praises free n the rooftop because the waragenda
she is paid to shill for would be back on. The fact that the lying bitch is gnashing her teeth would suggest that the NeoCon agenda,
especially for war against Russia, has been derailed. Fuck you Masha. You suck.
This is great news! I hope the military junta smashes the CIA into little tiny pieces.
Why? Because the US military is in its most easily defeatable state ever - they haven't won a
war in generations, their generals are armchair soldiers most who have never seen combat, and
they have a fondness for massively overpriced technological pieces of MIC enriching garbage
for weapons. The CIA owns the media, and without an effective propaganda arm, the military
will only ever face another Vietnam.
On the topic of losing generals I'm reminded of Harry Truman. A couple of Truman quotes:
"It's the fellows who go to West Point and are trained to think they're gods in uniform that
I plan to take apart". . ."I didn't fire him [General MacArthur] because he was a dumb son of
a bitch, although he was, but that's not against the law for generals. If it was, half to
three quarters of them would be in jail."
> It's worse now. Most generals got where they are by sucking up, not performing.
> Donald Trump is no Harry Truman, for sure.
Remember CNN? That fake MSM outlet that never tells the truth? Well, they have been skewering Kelly since he ran his mouth about that Florida
congresswoman. So have the other outlets. Huckabee-Sanders is now something of a national
joke after her comments. Kelly's shit doesn't hold up and he's been called out
repeatedly. "It is now "highly inappropriate" to even question the Junta that rules over the
empire." Bullshit.
Look in the Twitter archives and you will find a counter-tweet for almost anything Trump
says, including one criticizing four-star general Colin Powell...
"The slogan and symbol of the campaign was similar to the German "Deutschland Über
Alles" campaign of 1933."
This is once again typical anti-German propaganda that was used to get both WWI and WWII
started, and is now being used against Putin and Russia as well as nationalists across Europe
and the Anglo world. In 1933 France still had control of the Saar and the Rhineland, Germany
was saddled with monumental war debts, and Hitler was clearly not running a campaign on the
slogan "Germany should rule the world", which is what the Anglo-Zionist narrative would have
us believe. The meaning "Über Alles" was clearly "Germany First". That means look out
for the German people first. The Weimar government clearly wasn't doing this. Call it
Hitler's "MAGA".
The real truth is that it is this same US military industrial complex who worked for
Roosevelt, Churchill, and their Zionist masters to get the second world war started, and who
now are desperate for a third. They are sadistic, murdering globalists. Hitler was a
nationalist. He never planned to rule the world the same way the Zionists already do, as is
evidenced by the never ending strife in the Middle East, and their ongoing tribal civil war
which is also being waged within the US government.
This tribal civil war is also spilling over into places like Las Vegas, which clearly is
run by the Jewish Mafia. There still is no plausible motive given for the shooting incident,
but we know that the owners of MGM would never willingly have allowed this to happen on their
own property. So it clearly was a hit, and with Area 51 down the road and all the MIC
contractors in Vegas, it is highly unlikely that they were not involved or at least aware of
the operation.
Here is a LV company where for $3500 you can fly around the desert in a Helicopter
shooting up targets with a SAW-249.
The original meaning of "Deutschland über alles" came about in the early 1800's when
there was no united Germany: it meant that there should be a united Germany above all the
minor German states, duchies and principalities that existed at the time.
For those who want to avoid being datamined by nhs, the original link about "Why Donald Trump
is the perfect tool in the hands of neocons right now" is here: https://failedevolution.blogspot.com/
"One of the soldiers who were killed in Niger while "teaching how to respect human rights"
was a 39 year old "chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear specialist" with "more than
a dozen awards and decorations".
The U.S. military sent a highly qualified WMD specialist on a "routine patrol" in Niger to
teach local soldiers "to respect human rights" due to which presumably "the well-being of the
American people" would be "sufficiently enhanced"?" It's all about the uranium in Agades, then?
Trump is either very gullible and ignorant (most likely) or he is diabolically clever.
Everything he does - every action, every appointment, every utterance - could not be better
formulated to undermine the Zioamerican empire. Which is kind of what he promised to do.
The brazen arrogance of these jerks like Kelly is stupefying. Infuriatingly shameless.
The guy has never done an honest day's work IN HIS LIFE, has had his snout in the public
trough continuously and has materially contributed to the ruination of his country. STFU you
stupid twat. He is also a scumbag that no doubt had a lot to do with his son's demise -
imagine being this a-hole's son?
These clowns call themselves "General" and we are supposed to think that puts them in the
same class as a Wellington or a Caesar or Napoleon? They were all first class bastards,
ruthless, but fine Generals. Tough, bold, audacious leaders of men and brilliant strategists,
who took risks, including with their own lives. Hell, the Prussian officer training system
turned out Quartermasters that were better field Generals than these American frauds.
As I have said in another thread, the US has none of the martial virtues. Not as a people,
not as military institutions, not as individual soldiers or sailors (their airmen are
obviously cowards or psychopaths so not necessary even to consider in this context). Virtues
such as steadfastness in adversity, discipline when under fire, self-sacrifice for comrades
and the cause. Not saying anything about the morality of any particular cause here, just what
makes a professional army. To compare the US military with Rome's Legions, say, is laughable.
The biggest difference between these American whackers is that in real armies individuals are
expected to be able to contend with a worthy adversary. To take risks. To fight when it is
HARD to fight. Even Rome's patricians understood that every now and then they had to expose
themselves to danger if they were to have any honour, as Crassus, richest of them all, found
out very dramatically when he met his end at the head of the Syrian Legions. (Defeated by the
Iranians! - they've seen 'em all come and go). Windbags like Kelly wouldn't know what honour
is.
The US has NEVER fought an adversary on anything like equal terms. They preen themselves
about WW2. I call BS. They waited until the Soviets had broken the back of the most fearsome
war machine in history, the Wehrmacht and then faced teenagers and old men in France. On the
occasions when they did face professional German troops they had their whiney arses kicked.
As for the Pacific war, they stood off island after island and rained a stupendous amount of
naval shells and bombs on the Japanese garrisons to the point where they were insane with the
cacophany and pure physical terror to turn your bowels to water, before setting foot on them,
while the aerial destruction of Japanese cities is one of the great atrocities in history,
disgraceful and completely without honour. I suspect a disproportionate number of US military
casualties are due to being run over by a forklift, training accidents, friendly fire,
syphilis or fragging of their own.
The qualities the US military (they don't deserve the epithet "army") exemplifies are
cowardice, incompetence, viciousness and wanton destructiveness. No wonder, as the corruption
(plenty of fiscal as well as moral) starts at the top with the Kellys and drips down like a
putrid slime from there.
He and his ilk are just a bunch of murderous bags of human excrement. No decent person can
have anything but contempt for them.
It is little surprise if a junta has taken over. Many Democrats would support a military
junta over Trump. Now we are hearing similar calls from Republicans.
One of the latest is this opinion piece by Michael Gerson in the Washington Post
from October 12, 2017:
Republicans, it's time to panic The Washington Examiner has a short
summary:
Michael Gerson, who's also a columnist for the Washington Post, wrote in an op-ed Friday
that "the security of our country -- and potentially the lives of millions of people abroad
-- depends on Trump being someone else entirely."
"The time for whispered criticisms and quiet snickering is over. The time for panic and
decision is upon us. The thin line of sane, responsible advisers at the White House -- such
as Chief of Staff John F. Kelly, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and Secretary of State Rex
Tillerson -- could break at any moment," Gerson wrote. "The American government now has a
dangerous fragility at its very center. Its welfare is as thin as an eggshell -- perhaps as
thin as Donald Trump's skin."
The op-ed comes amid Trump's feud with Republican Sen. Bob Corker, who warned that the
president's reckless threats could lead to "World War III."
"I know for a fact that every single day at the White House, it's a situation of trying
to contain him," Corker told the New York Times.
At this point in history to be US president is to be a criminal.
An "autonomous" US president has not existed at least since JFK, perhaps not since
Lincoln. Kelley, like his boss, routinely "clowns" the media, and however unctuous Kelley's remarks
are, they fit into that mode.
Our generals are weak men. If they weren't, they wouldn't need a Trump, or a whatever to
run for office and win that office.
They can't run and win any better than they can conduct warfare as a rational means to a
rational end; and as the post eloquently points out, again: they are experts at rape, murder,
war crimes, mayhem and destruction. The ubiquitous propaganda to hide that is all they have
that saves them from the penal colony where they belong.
Their project to rule the world would be as successful as any "they destroyed it in order
to save it" attempts.
MG's fragmented consciousness permit her to be rational at times, and irresponsible at
others.
re: Presiding over a population of detainees not charged or convicted of crimes, over whom
he had maximum custodial control, Kelly treated them with brutality. . .
The US needed go show progress in the "war on terror" and one way was to accumulate some
prisoners of the "war." CIA operatives were sent to the tribal areas of Afghanistan &
Pakistan with cash to entice "bounty hunters." It was easy, because every tribal chief had
enemies, which he would capture and present for a big payoff. So the Guantanamo (Gitmo)
prison was set up in Cuba and soon accumulated 7-800 "detainees" who were bullied and
tortured.
None of them were tried because there was no evidence they had done anything wrong.
The Supreme Court ruled that they should have a judicial process but (except a few cases) it
was never done. Most of the prisoners detainees were released, including a
13 yo boy and a 92 yo man, and about 200 remained. I guess it's less now.
Meanwhile the
Washington politicians were able to crow about all those dangerous people in Gitmo, and
prattle about the "recidivism" danger if and when they would be released. What were they
supposed to do, forgive and forget all the terrible treatment they had received?? So yes,
Kelly is scum, but that's not unusual for a general.
The ground work, or state-of-affairs that lead to what one might call a soft military coup in
the US (see b) = within what, at one extreme could be called Ayn-Randian rabid individualism,
and at the other a sort of neo-liberal capitalism which is nevertheless highly 'socialist' in
the sense re-distributive from the center of power (if only to create a slave/subservient
class and prevent uprisings), there is NO public space for 'solidarity' within (besides
familial, or close, etc.)
Therefore, the belonging or 'solidarity' is activated only facing an outside enemy who is
personalised as e.g. communist, ugly dictator, intends to attack the US, poisons babies, etc.
That gives the military an edge.. Then natch, historically, dying empires invest in the
double prong, military conquest + internal control (can be vicious), ain't flash news.
.... I don't think it is all that clear. Corps or better conglomerates of power like 'the
media', the 'silicons', banking and finance, Energy, electronics, Big Pharma, etc. are
politcally inclined (say!) to some form of corporate fascism, > bought pols from all-sides
of any-aisle. Their ties to the military / milit. type power at home are not very strong,
they may collaborate on occasion. Some of these 'industries' fear domination that goes beyond
soft power and they loathe sanctions - think about who/what/how is doing lucrative deals and
has continuing biz success in Iraq, Iran, Russia, Ukraine, etc. - NOT US cos./corps.
To me this looks more like total disorganisation than anything else.
First, if the only two choices were the Executive CIA and the Military "Junta" with Trump
why would we continue the farce of elections? And if the elections were pre-determined and
the ruling Junta took over in a coup, then how and why is the CIA out of power?
Secondly, same question will be here for you when a) the military and Trump get booted
with impeachment, or b) when the next election comes.
Van Morrison once penned "politics, superstition and religion go hand in hand." It never
fails, those out of power go from being logical, critical thinkers to becoming outlandish
bores who exaggerate things and fabricate what they see. It's called delusion.
@J 49 The "farce of elections" is accurate because Trump is not doing what he claimed he would do,
not unusual actually. It was Trump who sprang the "junta" on us. And who claimed that the CIA
would be out of power?
Kelly: So why were they there? They're there working with partners, local -- all across
Africa -- in this case, Niger -- working with partners, teaching them how to be better
soldiers; teaching them how to respect human rights
These guys didn't die teaching, nor in combat in Niger, they were (according to news
reports) trying to track down an accomplice of one Abu Adnan al-Sahraoui. In other words they
were doing police work in a foreign country, an absolutely ridiculous task which they were
not trained or able to do and which put their lives needlessly in danger. This criticism
applies to the whole "war on terror" which has proven to be a tragic farce (if there can be
such a thing).
I used to think it was a counter-coup also. But sheep-dog Sanders and Trump's having
supported Hillary in 2008 among other things caused me to conclude that it all
bullshit. I now believe that the hyper-partisanship is just a show. The political system in the
US is designed to prevent any real populist from gaining power. We are being played. Trump is the Republican Obama.
I really think that this is the case in this instance. Trump is bellicose and erratic. In
the realm of foreign policy and military, it yielded one positive change: his obsession with
ISIS led to huge decrease of fighting between "moderate opposition" in Syria with "SAA and
allies", allowing the latter to effectively reduce the territory controlled by ISIS,
similarly, Obama's efforts to sideline "sectarian forces trained by Iran" from fighting with
ISIS were apparently abandoned with similar effect. But otherwise, no "reset" with Russia,
clown show concerning the nuclear program of North Korea, berating allies who spend
insufficiently to fight threats that they do not have, increasing domestic military budget
(again, to fight threats that we do not have) and so on. Formation of the new axis of evil,
North Korea, Iran and Venezuela is a notable novelty.
Trump was so contradictory is his campaign statements that it is almost amazing that ANY
positive element can be discerned. At the time, I paid attention to his praises of John
Bolton, a proud walrus-American who communicates using bellowing, in other words, resembles a
walrus both in the way he looks, but also in the way he speaks.
Needless to say, Dotard in Chief can exercise power only through underlings that may try
to make sense of what he says. In some cases, like reforming American healthcare according to
his promises, this is flatly impossible. So generals are seemingly in the same position, and
of course, when in doubt, they do what they would do anyway.
Not that I am any more or less in the loop than any of these fine commenters, but what pops
into my mind when reading of the ambush of the four special forces servicemen is the crash of
the helicopter that took out so many of the seal team six who supposedly took out Osama.
Maybe they knew too much would be my guess. Why else would they put such a knowledgable
specialist out on the perimeter? Makes no sense. Offing your own is part and parcel in the
military. Heroes of convenience.
What seems to have been lost in the discussion is what exactly the "counter-coup" is all
about.
1. During the Obama years, "successes" like Lybia and Ukraine were matched by "failures"
like the lost proxy war for Syria and pushing Russia into the arms of China. The new 'Cold
War' makes US nationalism more important as 'hot' conflicts become more likely.
2. Obama/Clinton-led civilian authority was abusing power to promote an "Empire-first"
vision of governance, Obama/Clinton:
>> replaced/retired many military officers;
>> placed US resources/forces in a support role ("leading from behind")
;
>> grew a 'radical center' (aka "Third Way") that sought to undermine traditional
nationalist/patriotism via immigration and divisive 'wedge issues'.
The excuse for this was that while US hands were tied (because public wouldn't support
further adventurism after Iraq) close allies could push forward. But the new Cold War has
changed the calculus.
The US isn't giving up on Empire. It's just a different type of Empire for a different
type of environment. When Trump talks about "draining the swamp" I think he merely refers to
foreign influence.
So Trump pivots US policy based on Obama's record (as Obama did off Bush's record), and
the next President will pivot off Trump's record, but the direction is always the same.
Trump has one ally and that is the 65million voters who put him into office.
He surrendered his top people.
Saker says it was lack of character.
I think when they point the gun at you, your family, your closest friends in your life, you
acquiesce. They even took from him Keith Schiller, his personal security man for years. Kelly forced
him out of the WH.
Trump is powerless except when he functions as Leader of the rallies. As President, even
with the cabal running the Oval Office, they all are limited by the Shadow Government, Deep
State, IC, Khazarian Matrix. No President is a free man empowered to act.
He now is focused on what is possible. Perhaps that will be a tax cut and a few more SC
justices and a few score of judges for the fed district courts. Those don't interfere with
Financial Power and MIC and the Hegemony of Empire.
There is one hope. Putin + Xi.
And we know the limits they face.
Inside the Tyranny of American government, there is no hope. During the Trump time Putin
and Xi have to make the most of the Swamp creating their own problems. It is that moment of
opportunity, though it looks bleak.
One thing for certain, the US military does not want a direct war. It wants more of these
terror conflicts. Africa will become huge over the next few years. Graham is already selling
it big. Trillions of dollars is what is the goal.
SE Asia and Africa are the new big "markets" for MIC. ISIS/AQ are the product. War is the
service industry being sold as the "solution".
The Long War of anti-terror is the scam Smedley Butler told us about in the thirties.
-- Excerpt from a speech delivered in 1933, by Major General Smedley Butler, USMC.
War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not
what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It
is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.
I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over
here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns
6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the
flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.
I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the
bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and
the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.
There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has
its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men"
to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.
It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels
me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of
this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned
ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my
time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In
short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.
I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the
members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service.
My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups.
This is typical with everyone in the military service.
I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I
helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues
in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of
Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long.
I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in
1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic
for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went
its way unmolested.
During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket.
Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could
do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.
On the bright side, members of Congress are at least nominally elected. Four star Generals,
not so much. It's still a felony carrying a prison term of 5 to 10 years per incident to lie
to Congress.
The military have no precedent to recommend them either as a source of information or in
their decision making ability. They are way out of their depth when it comes to administering
a nation.
In none of their unwarranted invasions (all the result of bad information and poor judgment)
of other nations have they been successful the day after the bombs stopped falling.
IDIOTS!!! you forget the fact that if clinton won you would first be glowing GREEN and now
dead. On Oct 16th 2016 Putin said "if hillary wins its WW3" on you tube. guess what we are
alive and have to deal with that taxevader trump. we will survive!
The time has long passed since one can ignore JFK's failed insistence on the inspections
of the illegal Israeli nuclear weapons program at Dimona, and then his sudden death.
Factoring Israel into the equation greatly simplifies understanding the make-up of the Warren
Commission, LBJ's about turn on the relation to the illegal nuclear weapons program and his
reaction to the attack on the Liberty, and the evolution of US politics more generally.
One would be more pressed to argue why one thinks it is not a primary cause.
We voted for change and as usual, we got more of the same. All I can say is thank God it's
not Hillary in the White House. At least Trump's not spoiling for a war with Russia.
Democracy has been dead in America for a long time. I'd rather Kelly run the country than
Hillary Clinton. She would have us all annihilated in a war with Russia and China
It's going to be hard to fight a junta. The military is at least halfway competent, something
that can't be said for either the administration or congress. Look at this latest flap - on
the one side you have Wilson the rodeo clown, on the other you have Trump, who can't resist
the urge to pop off on twitter.
Then you have Kelly, who at least comes off like an adult.
Before people start pointing to all the nefarious things the military is doing, let me just
say I'm talking about perception.
Good post sans the Africa bit. They are having a tough time explaining the Niger debacle
to people. I don't think African conflicts have the same glamorous draw as MENA conflicts.
Once the economy goes to shit, it will be an even tougher sell.
Trump is walking a narrow line. He has not brought us into a war with either Russia or
NoKo...yet. This deserves some praise. The media blitz against Trump has always had a twofold
reasoning behind it: it puts pressure on his ego to acquiesce and, two, if he doesn't, the
public has been inoculated against feeling too bad when a lone-gunmen puts a bullet in his
brain. I guess if you believe that, as I do, it explains why even a bumbling policy is a
positive aspect of a Trump presidency, instead of the true-believer approach from Hillary and
her ilk. There really is no other choice. It's either war or watch the empire crumble. The
true believers might have chosen the former, but President Trump, I believe, has sabotaged
that possibility. So take all the Trump-bashers in here with a grain or salt. They are asking
for the stars, but watching the empire's police implode suits me just fine.
"But the white supremacists...KKK!" What a fucking joke.
Moon of Alabama always writes interesting and insightful critiques of the Deep State, the
military, and the imperialist/war party, but falls flat on his face in his naive faith in the
supposed anti-establishment, populist, and America First Nationalist proclivities of Donald
Trump, and his arch-reactionary Svengali Steve Bannon. There is indeed at least one major
split in the ranks of the ruling class, but to present Trump and Bannon as either valiant
figures struggling for the national good, or noble isolated men surrounded by vipers and
traitors is absurd.
Now, in its late imperial decline, the U.S. has become unable to continue to exercise
hegemony, the way it became accustomed to in the first 70+ years in the Post-WW 2 period. The
number one Client/Ally/Master, Israel and their deeply embedded 5th Column in the U.S., the
Zionists with their associated Pro-Zionist factions within the War Party, now nearly directly
and openly controls U.S. foreign policy and military actions in the regions that the Likudnik
faction in Israel cares about (i.e. the Levant, North Africa, and the Horn of Africa).
Hollowed out economically and industrially the U.S. Empire is clearly on the way out. The
various factions fighting for control of policy seem to be oblivious to this basic fact. The
actual situation is similar to that the U.S. participated in during period from the late
1800s - WW 2; the declining hegemon accustomed to calling the shots in international affairs
(then the British Empire, now the U.S.), ends up overextended and committed in far too many
areas, with declining resources and domestic solidarity to dedicate to the tasks; the rising
hegemon (then the U.S. now China) is still focused on issues of internal and external
economic development and the exercise of regional power. China is already either equal in
power to the U.S. or more powerful and will only continue to grow in power as the U.S.
continues to decline. The Israelis/Zionists fully realize that the U.S. would not survive
another disastrous war (like the air war they want the U.S. to wage against Iran, the U.S.
does not have the capability to conduct a land war against Iran) intact. They are willing to
try to force the issue to achieve one more step in their plan to establish "Eretz Israel"
whose territory would extend from the Nile to the Euphrates and from the Sinai to Turkey.
Their plans are just as crazy as those of the NeoCons and the NeoLiberals and their endless
disastrous wars; and Trump/Bannon are their agents in the U.S.
Empire inevitably breeds corruption among ruled and rulers alike. The truth of the matter is,
it's no longer easy to discern what being loyal to the United States means anymore, with so
much of government acting against the peoples' interests, and huge swathes of the population
hating one another. Commonality has been lost and there is no longer an American consensus,
except among an elite oligarchy and its Deep State, which have supplanted democratic
accountability.
Marine General Smedley Butler: "Like all the members of the military profession, I never had
a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended
animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the
military service."
General Kelly is the victim of 45 years of service without a thought of his own, so he's new at
it, and at a severe disadvantage when dealing with civilians who have been thinking for awhile.
That's why Kelly says dumb things, e.g. "He told Ingraham on Monday that he did not believe he
had anything to apologize for."
See, in the Marines one never apologizes when one is obviously wrong. Never. It's not something
one thinks about. This thinking thing is all new to Kelly.
The US's imperial wars were fought on behalf of a handful of the wealthy and powerful
Americans. Ordinary Americans have less support from the government and the oligarchs that
dominate it than any other developed nation. Their struggle is more daunting, their lives
less secure than their European counterparts. With each new military adventure, they become
less well off with less access to decent housing, a healthy diet, healthcare,
education....etc.
I disagree. The biggest problem I see with Americans is whenever there's a problem the
finger gets pointed outside the country. The rot is within, not outside.
People are making a lot of money from foreign wars and they back politicians who help them
keep making money, that's the problem. After the Cold War a new enemy was needed, and that's
terrorism. The problem is there weren't enough, so now foreign policy is to create as many as
possible.
American politics is about keeping the US coffers open so the pigs can keep eating at the
trough, it doesn't even matter that there's no money left. Look at trump pandering to neocons
and republicans that just want a tax cut, forgetting about the debt, at all costs. He's
trying to stay in power at this point and is playing the political game.
When stripped naked to the core the elements at-hand come into the fore-front : Cui
bono?
"To the preceding pieces of advice, one more should be added: always make a sketch or plan
of whatever presents itself to your mind, so as to see what sort of thing it is when stripped
down to its essence, as a whole and in its separate parts; and tell yourself its proper name,
and the names of the elements from which it has been put together and into which it will
finally be resolved. For nothing is as effective in creating greatness of mind as being able
to examine methodically and truthfully everything that presents itself in life, and always
viewing things in such a way as to consider what kind of use each thing serves in what kind
of a universe, and what value it has to human beings as citizens of that highest of cities of
which all other cities are, as it were, mere households, and what this object is that
presently makes an impression on me, and what it is composed of, and how long it will
naturally persist, and what virtue is needed in the face of it, such as gentleness, courage,
truthfulness, good faith, simplicity, self-sufficiency, and so forth. So, as each case
presents itself, you should say: this has come from god, this from the co-ordination and
interweaving of the threads of fate and similar kinds of coincidence and chance, this from
one of my own kind, a relation and companion, who is however ignorant of what is natural for
him. But I am not ignorant of that, and thus I will therefore treat him kindly and justly,
according to the natural law of companionship, though aiming at the same time at what he
deserves with regard to things that are morally indifferent."
"Fifty-six leading conservative foreign-policy experts wrote an open letter Friday to U.S.
President Barack Obama calling on him to directly aid the Syrian opposition and protect the
lives of Syrian civilians."
The usual suspects
"The letter was organized jointly by the Foreign Policy Initiative and the Foundation for
the Defense of Democracies, both conservative policy organizations in Washington, D.C.
Signees included Max Boot Paul Bremer Elizabeth Cheney Eric Edelman , Jamie Fly John Hannah
William Inboden William Kristol Michael Ledeen , Clifford May Robert McFarlane Martin Peretz
Danielle Pletka John Podhoretz Stephen Rademaker Karl Rove Randy Scheunemann Dan Senor James
Woolsey , Dov Zakheim and Radwan Ziadeh , a member of the Syrian National Council."
Empire inevitably breeds corruption among ruled and rulers alike. The truth of the matter is,
it's no longer easy to discern what being loyal to the United States means anymore, with so
much of government acting against the peoples' interests, and huge swathes of the population
hating one another. Commonality has been lost and there is no longer an American consensus,
except among an elite oligarchy and its Deep State, which have supplanted democratic
accountability.
Marine General Smedley Butler: "Like all the members of the military profession, I never had
a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended
animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the
military service."
General Kelly is the victim of 45 years of service without a thought of his own, so he's new at
it, and at a severe disadvantage when dealing with civilians who have been thinking for awhile.
That's why Kelly says dumb things, e.g. "He told Ingraham on Monday that he did not believe he
had anything to apologize for."
See, in the Marines one never apologizes when one is obviously wrong. Never. It's not something
one thinks about. This thinking thing is all new to Kelly.
The US's imperial wars were fought on behalf of a handful of the wealthy and powerful
Americans. Ordinary Americans have less support from the government and the oligarchs that
dominate it than any other developed nation. Their struggle is more daunting, their lives
less secure than their European counterparts. With each new military adventure, they become
less well off with less access to decent housing, a healthy diet, healthcare,
education....etc.
I disagree. The biggest problem I see with Americans is whenever there's a problem the
finger gets pointed outside the country. The rot is within, not outside.
People are making a lot of money from foreign wars and they back politicians who help them
keep making money, that's the problem. After the Cold War a new enemy was needed, and that's
terrorism. The problem is there weren't enough, so now foreign policy is to create as many as
possible.
American politics is about keeping the US coffers open so the pigs can keep eating at the
trough, it doesn't even matter that there's no money left. Look at trump pandering to neocons
and republicans that just want a tax cut, forgetting about the debt, at all costs. He's
trying to stay in power at this point and is playing the political game.
When stripped naked to the core the elements at-hand come into the fore-front : Cui
bono?
"To the preceding pieces of advice, one more should be added: always make a sketch or plan
of whatever presents itself to your mind, so as to see what sort of thing it is when stripped
down to its essence, as a whole and in its separate parts; and tell yourself its proper name,
and the names of the elements from which it has been put together and into which it will
finally be resolved. For nothing is as effective in creating greatness of mind as being able
to examine methodically and truthfully everything that presents itself in life, and always
viewing things in such a way as to consider what kind of use each thing serves in what kind
of a universe, and what value it has to human beings as citizens of that highest of cities of
which all other cities are, as it were, mere households, and what this object is that
presently makes an impression on me, and what it is composed of, and how long it will
naturally persist, and what virtue is needed in the face of it, such as gentleness, courage,
truthfulness, good faith, simplicity, self-sufficiency, and so forth. So, as each case
presents itself, you should say: this has come from god, this from the co-ordination and
interweaving of the threads of fate and similar kinds of coincidence and chance, this from
one of my own kind, a relation and companion, who is however ignorant of what is natural for
him. But I am not ignorant of that, and thus I will therefore treat him kindly and justly,
according to the natural law of companionship, though aiming at the same time at what he
deserves with regard to things that are morally indifferent."
"Fifty-six leading conservative foreign-policy experts wrote an open letter Friday to U.S.
President Barack Obama calling on him to directly aid the Syrian opposition and protect the
lives of Syrian civilians."
The usual suspects
"The letter was organized jointly by the Foreign Policy Initiative and the Foundation for
the Defense of Democracies, both conservative policy organizations in Washington, D.C.
Signees included Max Boot Paul Bremer Elizabeth Cheney Eric Edelman , Jamie Fly John Hannah
William Inboden William Kristol Michael Ledeen , Clifford May Robert McFarlane Martin Peretz
Danielle Pletka John Podhoretz Stephen Rademaker Karl Rove Randy Scheunemann Dan Senor James
Woolsey , Dov Zakheim and Radwan Ziadeh , a member of the Syrian National Council."
Memo to Senator John McCain: Senator, the other day I noticed that, as chairman of
the Armed Services Committee, you
threatened to subpoena the Trump administration for information about the recent attack in
Niger that killed four American soldiers. "There's a mindset over there that they're a
unicameral government," you said. "It was easier under Obama We are coequal branches of
government; we should be informed at all times. We're just not getting the information in the
timely fashion that we need."
How true! But let me make one small suggestion. If you really want to know what led to those
deaths in Niger, the first place you might consider looking -- no subpoena needed -- is this
very website, TomDispatch .
Or, to be more specific, Nick Turse's coverage of the way
U.S. Africa Command and American
Special Operations forces have, with a certain stealth but also without significant
coverage in the mainstream media, extended the war on terror deep into Africa. He alone has
covered this story and the
secret bases , widespread " training
missions " (like the one in Niger), and barely noticed wars being fought there since at
least 2012, when I was already writing this of his work:
"So here's another question: Who decided in 2007 that a U.S. Africa Command should be set
up to begin a process of turning that continent into a web of U.S. bases and other
operations? Who decided that every Islamist rebel group in Africa, no matter how local or
locally focused, was a threat to the U.S., calling for a military response? Certainly not the
American people, who know nothing about this, who were never asked if expanding the U.S.
global military mission to Africa was something they favored, who never heard the slightest
debate, or even a single peep from Washington on the subject."
By 2013, in a passage that sounds eerily up to date as we
read of ISIS-allied militants on the
lawless Niger-Mali border, he was already reporting
that
"while correlation doesn't equal causation, there is ample evidence to suggest the United
States has facilitated a terror diaspora, imperiling nations and endangering peoples across
Africa. In the wake of 9/11, Pentagon officials were hard-pressed to show evidence of a major
African terror threat. Today, the continent is thick with militant groups that are
increasingly crossing borders, sowing insecurity, and throwing the limits of U.S. power into
broad relief. After 10 years of U.S. operations to promote stability by military means, the
results have been the opposite. Africa has become blowback central."
Four years later, when the Niger events occurred, nothing had changed, except that the U.S.
military had moved, again with little attention (except from Turse),
even deeper into the heart of Africa, setting up a remarkable array of bases and outposts
of every sort (including two drone bases in Niger).
Questionable analysis by Saker (omitted for brevity). Some good comments in the discussion. The situation with the standard of living
in Ukraine is really bad and it is unclear how it can improve. If you get 4000 grivna monthly salary and pay for the apartment around
2000 (heating with gas at winter often is over 1000 grivna) you can barely survive on the remaining money (2000 grivna is around 66
grivna a day) . Even food is a problem, unless you adhere to basic diet of bread, milk, eggs and potatoes. You simply can't. They are
in a trap. This war in Donbass just make the bad situation even worse. But it sill continue, because there are powerful forces interesting
in escalation of this war.
Notable quotes:
"... Just because one thinks American moves are not "strategic" only means you don't fully grasp what is going on. Remember, the narrative which is being presented here is that the United States has caused both conflicts. A coup in Ukraine and supporting regime-change in Syria. That necessitates that Russia is reacting – not calling the shots. ..."
"... Ask yourself a simple question: would Washington be better off with the status quo ante, would they be happy to go back to 2012? Of course they would – Crimea would be in Ukraine and in play, Russia would be subsidising Ukraine (not EU or IMF). But most importantly Russia would be sweating what 'might happen' with Crimea. Once West made its move and lost that threat was gone. It was just stupid. ..."
"... My take is that people there, based on a long experience, simply recognize that they are caught between two oligarchies, and unwilling to choose between them. That lethargy (for a lack of better word) is interesting. They don't buy US/West vision anymore. The thing is, they don't buy Russian either. They just don't care. Maybe that's worse than fighting for either side. ..."
"... The United States does not care about Poland or Estonia or Crimea or Ukraine or Syria or Georgia or even whether the other NATO members spend enough money. It cares about the bigger long-term picture. ..."
"... All this stuff like the coup in Ukraine, sanctions over Crimea – it's just probing moves, games. The US has Putin boxed in. He's got to scrape and claw over nothing. ..."
"... I guess it's kinda true in the sense that the US specifically (not necessarily the West as such, it seems) needs to have the uninterrupted chain of wars and cartoonish all-powerful super-evil adversaries threatening its very existence. I suppose it's needed for economic (mic) reasons, to maintain the internal unity/morale/discipline, and to run the usual protection racket abroad. Sorta like Oceania in Orwell's 1984. ..."
"... Russia is boxed in by its geography, and so is China. There is nothing new there. Enemies have been pressing on Russia's extensive borders forever. It is not likely that anyone would actually try to cross that border given this one reality: nuclear weapons. Unless the constant prodding has an answer to that reality, what is it all about? What's the point? ..."
"... Wars happen even if nobody 'wants' them. There are situations when wars happen almost on their own and nobody ever claims ownership. And if there is a war, there will be fighting in Poland – it is literally ground zero (as so often before), and no amount of NY Times editorials will make any damn difference. The country is too small, so it would be annihilated. Poland is storing missiles and 'defensive' divisions for its allies across the Atlantic with an open admission that they are targeting Russia. What do you think would happen in a real crisis or a war? Do you think US would look kindly at Russian missiles in Canada or Mexico? That is the true madness, and Poland is kind of in a heart of it. As so often before. ..."
"... At the end, I suspect, when/if it comes to renewal of hostilities, it will be: First and foremost artillery exchanges. Nothing changes. Then, small unit raids. Nothing changes. Then, tactical incursions by Ukrainian best. After initial success they'll be met by Donbas best.Because either side don't have many of those nothing changes too. A lot of talk from Washington and Moscow. Some dead/mutilated mercenaries. And while those "games" go the rest of peoples there just keep what they've been doing so far. Oceania vs Eurasia .. ..."
"... The single best way to assure that there isn't a 'regime change' is by constant probing of Russia's borders, by constant attacks, etc So I don't buy that, the experts in Washington are not that stupid. They understand fully well that placing missiles, coups, border harassment are by far the most reliable way to make sure that nothing changes in Moscow. ..."
"... The Ukraine situation will not be decided by fighting in Donbass, or in Moscow. It will be decided in Kiev (and Odessa, Lviv, Charkov) by the currently passive masses. Unless a miracle happens, or most people emigrate, this is not a sustainable situation. They are living worse than in 2013, and they already had it very bad in 2013. Marshall Plan isn't coming, membership in EU isn't coming either. Once that sinks in – it might take 5-10 years – things will change. ..."
"... That seems to be Russia's strategy. I agree that by far the best thing Moscow could do is to improve quality of life in Russia. Nato strategy is to delay it by any means: sanctions, energy, new arms race, whatever they can think off, lately mostly media campaigns. ..."
"... In Ukraine the EU-West infatuation will take a long time to dissipate. Getting hurt will eventually lead to making things better in the head , but it will take at least a generation. And things don't stay quiet for that long, other events will intervene. A circle cannot be squared: Kiev has attempted a great leap into its imagined future – Europe!!! – they bet everything on it, cut off all else, and there is no realistic way the leap will land Ukraine happily and soon enough in EU. EU will not agree to absorb 40 million poor people who mostly just want to live immediately like Germans, or move there. This is a mad dream, reality will intervene. ..."
"... I am sorry but I have to say this. How has led by Kissinger and Nixon strategy of opening China worked out? Is creating major geopolitical foe where there was none considered a sign of deep strategically long term thinking? ..."
"... The Ukrainian nationalists think that based on their accomplishments as a nation (there are none) they rightfully deserve to be geographically located somewhere between Germany and France. For this state of affairs they again blame the Russians. You see, because Russia is so big, and definitely in Eastern Europe, that they have the gravitational force that keeps Ukraine in Eastern Europe. If it wasn't for the Russians, Ukraine would have long ago catapulted into Western Europe – probably even geographically. It's only Russia that prevents them from acquiring their rightful place in the heart of Europe. ..."
"... In Ukrainians' defence, they have a bad location: wide-open, unprotected, with few geographic features and at the same time very high-quality earth. On second thought, if Ukraine, as is, was located in Western Europe 'somewhere between Germany and France' , I would be willing to bet that not a single Ukrainian would exist today. The Western Europeans know their genocide and know how to pacify populations. They almost got to them during WWII, Ukraine was the lebensraum that Nazis dreamt about. ..."
"... the assassination attempt on Mosiychuk [the former deputy commander of the infamous neo-Nazi Azov Battalio] is the initial phase of an escalation of the conflict between the Nazis and Jewish oligarchs headed by President Poroshenko, an escalation which is transitioning from a political to a "hot", or armed phase. ..."
"... Btw, Kolomoysky is an Israeli citizen. Speaking about Holocaust deniers – is it kosher to support neo-Nazi and work on the resurrection of Nazism in Ukraine and to remain an honorable Israeli citizen? It seems that Kolomoysky is such case. Next time the Israel-firsters attempt to squeal about any critics of "Holocaust story" they should be presented with the story of Jewish oligarch Kolomoysky. ..."
"... Your usage of the imbecilic word 'regime' betrays bias. What the f k is a'regime'? Is EU a 'regime', or the Saudi king, or China? If not, why not? Stick with term government and use it for all and you won't sound like a bitter dead-ender unable to see things rationally. ..."
"... Decent article, although some generalizations which is understandable. Couple points about Poland. Yes its allied with neocons atm (the bad). The government has some forces somewhat supporting Ukraine (Basically as long as the blame is focused on Russia). The government knows there are "neonazi" elements, as has mentioned Ukraine will not join EU until they stop that. As for the people Poland is divided like crazy on the Ukraine issue. ..."
"... Pax Americana's wave broke and is now rolling back out to sea, creating undertows as it goes. ..."
"... The ramifications of that sea change will take years, maybe decades, to play themselves out, but my assessment is that there will be no active "roll back (of the) '90s" or that said roll back is desirable/possible. The Ukraine and Serbia/Kosovo will wind up having to fit themselves into whatever new paradigm the world will be living under at the time. That paradigm won't be American led, or of American design. ..."
"... I don't see much of a future for Ukraine. Neither the West nor Russia is willing to underwrite the massive investment that would be required to rebuild the economy. Sure it makes sense to split the country. However, both sides are more than willing to live with an impoverished buffer between NATO and Russia. If the country is split, there is no longer any territorial disputes and the new West Ukraine ultimately becomes a NATO member and NATO weapons move hundreds of miles closer to the Russian border. Not to mention the fact that Russia would find it expensive to subsidize the new government. Same with the EU. ..."
"... The Black Sea may be important to Russia's regional aspirations, but for the US, what could be better than have as many Russian naval vessels as possible parked there? ..."
Russian activity in Syria and Ukraine are moves of desperation from a position of weakness. The United States has Russia boxed
in. The United States forced Putin to take these actions. He would be removed from power otherwise. He had no choice. He is not
in control.
In Russia you are either strong and in total control or they murder you. At least that has been the case for the last thousand
years.
There was no "huge effort not to intervene." If there was, I'd like to know who made it and when.
This is not Iraq or Afghanistan. Comparisons to American involvement in these two places have limited utility.
Just because one thinks American moves are not "strategic" only means you don't fully grasp what is going on. Remember,
the narrative which is being presented here is that the United States has caused both conflicts. A coup in Ukraine and supporting
regime-change in Syria. That necessitates that Russia is reacting – not calling the shots.
The United States is not in "control" either, but it has the initiative and has Putin off-balance.
To better understand what is going on, all three groups -- crooks, clowns, and nazis -- fall into the schnook category. They are
being duped and used by the Globalist Empire that also controls the US. US is the Jewel in the Crown of the Globalist Empire but
still a subject than a sovereign nation. It's like India was the Jewel in the Crown of the British Empire but not a free independent
nation.
Assigning emotional labels is not helpful. You are right that Ukraine is nothing like Iraq or Afghanistan, it is hard to understand
why Saker would use such a facile analogy.
You are also right that US-West have the initiative. But that is not necessarily a sustainable advantage. Hitler had the initiative
too, and so did Napoleon, they had all the initiative until they didn't. (I know poor analogy, but tempting).
The prize in Ukraine was Crimea and the Russian Naval base. That was the prize, not who gets to grow potatoes in Lviv or scoop
up coal in Donbass. Crimea is gone, and I think all rational people would agree that for now that is irreversible. So what is
the fight about? Torch marching in Kiev, Nato relevancy, or who gets to subsidise 40 million very poor people? To control Ukraine
(Kiev really) is now a hot potato that nobody particularly wants. It is like fighting over who has the control of Bihar in India,
or eastern Nigeria, or any number of poor, non-strategic backwaters full of people who mostly want to emigrate.
Washington (with Poland and a few other fire-eating nut-cases in EU) made a strong move in 2013-14 trying to get their hands
on Crimea and to replace the very strategic Russian Navy base in Sebastopol with a Nato base. They invested a lot in it, and they
had the initiative. But the locals screwed up, they were too slow, too unfocused and too distracted by nationalism. So Russia
won Crimea and all else are just provincial consequences of little long-term interest.
Ask yourself a simple question: would Washington be better off with the status quo ante, would they be happy to go back
to 2012? Of course they would – Crimea would be in Ukraine and in play, Russia would be subsidising Ukraine (not EU or IMF). But
most importantly Russia would be sweating what 'might happen' with Crimea. Once West made its move and lost that threat was gone.
It was just stupid.
A coup in Ukraine and supporting regime-change in Syria. That necessitates that Russia is reacting – not calling the shots.
The United States is not in "control" either, but it has the initiative and has Putin off-balance.
Well, I'd say:
A coup in Ukraine and supporting regime-change in Syria. That necessitates that Russia was reacting – not calling the shots.
The United States is not in "control" either, but it has the initiative and had Putin off-balance.
What has been interesting to me is something Martyanov hinted to here:
no part of the Novorossia, with the exception of Lugansk and Donetsk, matched even one tenth of scale and effort required
to get back to Russia, or, at least, get away from Kiev. I don't blame them but it is what it is and this couldn't be ignored
and it is not being ignored, thankfully.
My take is that people there, based on a long experience, simply recognize that they are caught between two oligarchies,
and unwilling to choose between them. That lethargy (for a lack of better word) is interesting. They don't buy US/West vision
anymore. The thing is, they don't buy Russian either. They just don't care. Maybe that's worse than fighting for either side.
When you are, effectively, in a state of constant conflict between states and most of population doesn't care, that looks as
people there got their spirit crushed. And, oligarchies do like people with crushed spirit. Just a pliable mass doing what's told.
Just a thought.
Initiative means that US-West are the ones starting conflicts. It is neither good nor bad and initiatives that fail are worse
than if they had done nothing. That is true about Iraq, Syria, Libya and Ukraine; in each case the status quo before the 'initiative'
was better. Russia and China don't show anywhere as much 'initiative', they mostly react, they don't set the agenda.
People with too much initiative get stuck in muck of their own creation and eventually lose even what they safely controlled
before. But the Washington-Brussels elites cannot help it, they must start things because they are not fully serious, they have
had it too good, they believe in their own mythologized narratives, and their careers are based on it. So they will keep it going.
The insurgencies within the domestic domain are still very minor, this has years to go, maybe decades.
My feeling is that The Saker is always talking about the superiority of Russian "strategy" in retrospect while speculating
about the minutiae of tactical deployments.
Americans rarely talk strategy and there is always an ongoing discussion in the higher levels of foreign policy academia and
journals about what exactly the policy or strategy is or whether we even need one.
This, however, does not mean there is no strategy.
The United States does not care about Poland or Estonia or Crimea or Ukraine or Syria or Georgia or even whether the other
NATO members spend enough money. It cares about the bigger long-term picture.
We are not fighting insurgencies (as Mao Cheng Ji contends). That ended in Iraq in about 2010 and Afghanistan in about 2012.
Since 1980, Russia and the Soviet Union have lost FAR more troops (especially as a proportion of total population) in combat
than the United States.
Everywhere US elite light infantry troops are stationed now they basically sit on their asses safe in bases. Occasionally they
go out and call in airstrikes for local allies or conduct a raid on a "high-value target." Occasionally they die or get suicide-bombed
by a local infiltrator.
All the guys I've ever met that are in these units LIVE to do what they are doing. I even know a couple dozen guys who have
been either kicked out of the military or been wounded in Afghanistan or Iraq and they still say that the best time of their lives
was walking around over there with a rifle.
They would be quite surprised by the notion that they are being forced to do what they do by the "ZioMedia" – whatever that
is. This is not 1968 in Vietnam.
Syria has no oil. Ukraine is a basket-case economy with too many people. Georgia has 4 million people. That's more than Albania
and less than Massachusetts. Most Americans couldn't find the state of Georgia on a map – nevermind the country.
Now in 2008 Russia launched an assault on Georgia that it had been planning for at least a decade after provoking what it wanted.
It didn't go well technically but it went okay tactically, but because of the size mismatch it couldn't not be a success for the
Russians. But it was quick because the Georgians are stupid but not that stupid. So it could be called an operational and strategic
win. The United States tailored its response. But here you will always see it portrayed as some great Russian victory over a NATO-trained
military and an attempted genocide of the South Ossetians. The Russians it appears used it successfully as a learning experience
and got their act together militarily.
All along the periphery of the Russian Empire/former Soviet Union the US and the Russians play games. It's a big game.
Saker's last article was about whose propaganda is better. It's a big game. It keeps people employed in the respective defense
industries.
The latest thing I read is that the US is spending $8 Billion on a rapid response division or something in Eastern Europe.
There was a Toyota ad I think for an armor brigade in Poland during the Super Bowl. Ridiculous. A single division.
Nobody wants a war. There isn't going to be any fighting in Poland. If Russians and Ukrainians want to kill themselves over
Kharkov, Americans don't care. I think the Russians and Germans fought three times over Kharkov. I guess it had a railroad track
or something. Americans don't care.
All this stuff like the coup in Ukraine, sanctions over Crimea – it's just probing moves, games. The US has Putin boxed
in. He's got to scrape and claw over nothing.
The Saker always talks about Russia having a "defensive" strategy. Change the perspective for a second. Knowing that all the
planet's real estate is "owned"- where the US Empire stands now – trade routes, bases everywhere around the remaining oilfields
in the Middle East. AND, here is the kicker – what if you consider that the US has the defensive strategy now? That is some serious
flexible depth.
Initiative means that US-West are the ones starting conflicts.
I guess it's kinda true in the sense that the US specifically (not necessarily the West as such, it seems) needs to have
the uninterrupted chain of wars and cartoonish all-powerful super-evil adversaries threatening its very existence. I suppose it's
needed for economic (mic) reasons, to maintain the internal unity/morale/discipline, and to run the usual protection racket abroad.
Sorta like Oceania in Orwell's 1984.
But I don't think this amounts to 'initiative' in any flattering sense. By the same token a rabid dog shows 'initiative'.
Change the perspective for a second. Knowing that all the planet's real estate is "owned"- where the US Empire stands now
– trade routes, bases everywhere around the remaining oilfields in the Middle East. AND, here is the kicker – what if you consider
that the US has the defensive strategy now? That is some serious flexible depth.
You can call it 'depth', or you can also call it being exposed with too long supply lines. I don't think there is an automatic
benefit to being everywhere, it could be a liability in a multi-site crisis. Hitler controlled almost all of continental Europe
(and so did Napoleon), all it did was that when he was forced on a defensive (in the east), all of those territories became potential
liabilities with allied landings, rebellions, countries switching sides, etc
Another problem is that US is trying to do it on the cheap with bombing, technology and allies – but with minimal casualties.
The inability to take casualties is a weakness, you cannot in the long-run control all this geography and also protect every GI's
life.
And Russia is still boxed in.
Russia is boxed in by its geography, and so is China. There is nothing new there. Enemies have been pressing on Russia's
extensive borders forever. It is not likely that anyone would actually try to cross that border given this one reality: nuclear
weapons. Unless the constant prodding has an answer to that reality, what is it all about? What's the point?
Nobody wants a war. There isn't going to be any fighting in Poland.
Wars happen even if nobody 'wants' them. There are situations when wars happen almost on their own and nobody ever claims
ownership. And if there is a war, there will be fighting in Poland – it is literally ground zero (as so often before), and no
amount of NY Times editorials will make any damn difference. The country is too small, so it would be annihilated. Poland is storing
missiles and 'defensive' divisions for its allies across the Atlantic with an open admission that they are targeting Russia. What
do you think would happen in a real crisis or a war? Do you think US would look kindly at Russian missiles in Canada or Mexico?
That is the true madness, and Poland is kind of in a heart of it. As so often before.
I don't think either Russia or West have better or worse 'strategy'. They play with what they have. Lately Russia has been
prevailing, maybe because West pushed too far and is on thin ice in most of these far-away places.
By the way, your description of the Georgia conflict in 2008 omitted the key event: as the Beijing Olympics were starting,
Georgia attacked S Ossetia with massive bombardment (100+ civilians killed). You say that somehow Russia 'anticipated' it and
took advantage. Isn't it their job to 'anticipate'? Wouldn't any country? But the key point is that without the extremely stupid,
almost suicidial attack by Georgia, none of that would happened. Who the hell told Saakasvilli that this would be a good idea?
Some 'strategist' who likes to 'poke the Russian borders' to keep them in a 'box'? This is abstract thinking at its worst. Get
real.
Speaking of crooks and thieves. True, those Ukrainian elites are that. Can't argue that most of US/Western elite aren't. But,
Russian (current) regime elite? How about this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_of_crooks_and_thieves
So, I guess that an average Ukrainian ponders a simple question: For which crook I am supposed to lose my life and limb? And risking
the same for people I care for? Tough decision. If if doubt do nothing feels as the best option. Keep your head down, keep your
mouth shut and try to scrap a living there. Or, if you can, emigrate somewhere. If you can that is.
That rhetorical question? Regime change in Moscow->incorporating Russia into Empire at vassal level. Or back to happy Yeltsin
era. Happy for some I mean. With vengeance.
As for this:
There are situations when wars happen almost on their own and nobody ever claims ownership
Couldn't agree more. That's the real worry at present. Combination of who are people in power and means of warfare.
People on the ground in Ukraine at "West" side incompetent and weak crooks. People on the ground in Ukraine at "East" side
are also incompetent crooks. Not so sure how weak they are, though. They must be weak enough to obey Moscow but hard enough to
keep .ahm..pruning own ranks from those unpopular with Moscow. Besides, they got into power by armed insurrection so usually those
types can be hard.
I, personally, don't see much fuss about all this. Could be wrong, of course. The real question would be how, really, good
Ukrainian armed forces are.
Have they used the time well to get good enough to create a serious problem for Donbass. My feeling .(haven't spent much time
researching it) is they have not. Now, not so sure, whatever Saker is saying here, how good Donbass military is. In reality. I
concede that they got better organized and equipped. Doesn't mean much , IMHO. The more important is how WILLING they would be
to face an attack.
I .suspect .that the will when it was all started isn't there anymore. Could be wrong. Still think I am not. Or, better .feel
that way. Those assassinations, plus overall quality of life there, plus unclear future (not what Moscow is saying, people on
the ground don't buy that) aren't good for combat morale.
At the end, I suspect, when/if it comes to renewal of hostilities, it will be: First and foremost artillery exchanges.
Nothing changes.
Then, small unit raids. Nothing changes. Then, tactical incursions by Ukrainian best. After initial success they'll be met by
Donbas best.Because either side don't have many of those nothing changes too. A lot of talk from Washington and Moscow. Some dead/mutilated
mercenaries. And while those "games" go the rest of peoples there just keep what they've been doing so far. Oceania vs Eurasia
..
Saker writing a Philip Giraldi level expose from that angle would probably have him out of a job. The Russian ruling class
is not interested in making an enemy of Israel or vice versa.
The single best way to assure that there isn't a 'regime change' is by constant probing of Russia's borders, by constant
attacks, etc So I don't buy that, the experts in Washington are not that stupid. They understand fully well that placing missiles,
coups, border harassment are by far the most reliable way to make sure that nothing changes in Moscow.
The Ukraine situation will not be decided by fighting in Donbass, or in Moscow. It will be decided in Kiev (and Odessa,
Lviv, Charkov) by the currently passive masses. Unless a miracle happens, or most people emigrate, this is not a sustainable situation.
They are living worse than in 2013, and they already had it very bad in 2013. Marshall Plan isn't coming, membership in EU isn't
coming either. Once that sinks in – it might take 5-10 years – things will change.
They understand fully well that placing missiles, coups, border harassment are by far the most reliable way to make sure
that nothing changes in Moscow.
That's one way to look at it. Another is that they believe that's exactly what's needed. Worked rather well since '91
I think. US soldier couldn't get pass Germany (West/East) border. Now
It will be decided in Kiev (and Odessa, Lviv, Charkov) by the currently passive masses.
"'Novorussian' fighting forces have from the very beginning just been a rag tag collection of Chechen and Russian
mercenaries ,with a few local alcoholic yahoos , all directed by imported Russian degenerates,
supported all along with Russian national troops and armaments"
All soldiers today get paid, thus you can call all of them 'mercenaries'. All soldiers drink. Their ethnicities are hard to
establish and generalize. Words like 'rag tag', 'yahoos', 'degenerates' mean literally nothing in this context, you just add them
to make yourself feel better.
If you take what your wrote and strip out the unnecessary poetry you might be closer to the truth: Novorussian forces are a
combination of local separatists and volunteers who joined them mostly from Russia; Russia has provided most of their modern arms.
Russia also acts as a backstop in case of another Kiev offensive to make sure that they cannot be defeated.
See, I fixed it for you. Now drop the poetic abuse and tell us what can be done about it. And take into account interests of
all parties and their relative strength. All people are equal, applying emotional adjectives to your enemies changes nothing.
Well said. Regarding: { . a rag tag collection of Chechen and Russian mercenaries,with a few local alcoholic yahoos, all
directed by imported Russian degenerates }
If that is true, then it means Ukrainian military is even more incompetent than it is, being soundly defeated by a 'rag
tag collection of mercenaries, alcoholic yahoos, and degenerates'. Being defeated by a professional opposing force is bad
enough, but being defeated and chased out of Novorussia by 'degenerates'? How embarrassing for the Kiev junta.
That seems to be Russia's strategy. I agree that by far the best thing Moscow could do is to improve quality of life in
Russia. Nato strategy is to delay it by any means: sanctions, energy, new arms race, whatever they can think off, lately mostly
media campaigns. With Russia's resources, favourable demographics and global economic realities (China), it will not work.
And then what?Once the quality of life is comparable to the average EU country, the gig will be up. Today Russia is
slightly worse off than Poland and Lithuania, but better off than Romania or Bulgaria. But it is dramatically worse off than Germany,
Czech R or Austria. Between 2000-2014 Germany and Russia were feeding off each other's growth, now they both suffer. We will see
how that plays out, but there was a natural synergy that was artificially curtailed. More than anything else the Atlantic neo-cons
fear more prosperity in Russia, so they will do almost anything to prevent it.
In Ukraine the EU-West infatuation will take a long time to dissipate. Getting hurt will eventually lead to making things
better in the head , but it will take at least a generation. And things don't stay quiet for that long, other events will intervene.
A circle cannot be squared: Kiev has attempted a great leap into its imagined future – Europe!!! – they bet everything on it,
cut off all else, and there is no realistic way the leap will land Ukraine happily and soon enough in EU. EU will not agree to
absorb 40 million poor people who mostly just want to live immediately like Germans, or move there. This is a mad dream, reality
will intervene.
Those still hoping for a happy ending have not been paying attention.
I am sorry but I have to say this. How has led by Kissinger and Nixon strategy of opening China worked out? Is creating
major geopolitical foe where there was none considered a sign of deep strategically long term thinking?
One often hears about "historical injustices" being committed against this nation or that ethnic group. Ukraine is probably
a unique (basket) case because they think (the stupid ones) that beside historical injustices, they have also suffered geographical
injustice.
The Ukrainian nationalists think that based on their accomplishments as a nation (there are none) they rightfully deserve
to be geographically located somewhere between Germany and France. For this state of affairs they again blame the Russians. You
see, because Russia is so big, and definitely in Eastern Europe, that they have the gravitational force that keeps Ukraine in
Eastern Europe. If it wasn't for the Russians, Ukraine would have long ago catapulted into Western Europe – probably even geographically.
It's only Russia that prevents them from acquiring their rightful place in the heart of Europe.
And so a solution is to have a war against geography. That usually goes very well, check with the Georgians :)
In Ukrainians' defence, they have a bad location: wide-open, unprotected, with few geographic features and at the same
time very high-quality earth. On second thought, if Ukraine, as is, was located in Western Europe 'somewhere between Germany and
France' , I would be willing to bet that not a single Ukrainian would exist today. The Western Europeans know their genocide and
know how to pacify populations. They almost got to them during WWII, Ukraine was the lebensraum that Nazis dreamt about.
My estimate would be that if Russia had not sacrificed 20 million people to defeat Germany, today there would be no Poles,
no Ukrainians, and no Czechs. A few smaller nations, like Croats, Slovaks, Slovenians, would exist as tiny folklor-only curiosity,
regularly brutally culled for potential dissenters. Those 'damn Russkies', how dare they stop this? No wonder the sneaky Westerners
will never forgive them. But one wonders why some of the designated victims, Poles, Ukrainians, Czechs, are also angry that the
lebensraum genocide Nazi plan was not allowed to take place. But we are leaving geography and getting into psychiatry
" the assassination attempt on Mosiychuk [the former deputy commander of the infamous neo-Nazi Azov Battalio] is the
initial phase of an escalation of the conflict between the Nazis and Jewish oligarchs headed by President Poroshenko, an escalation
which is transitioning from a political to a "hot", or armed phase.
Ironically enough, it is the Jewish oligarch Kolomoysky who is financing the operations of such Nazi revolutionaries. Indeed,
all of the "Ukrainian revolutions," as is well known, have been done with Jewish money and through the hands of Ukrainian Nazis.
By all accounts, Mosiychuk himself is one of the key figures behind preparing a Nazi coup d'etat."
Any reaction from the diligent ADL? Any peep from AIPAC? Kolomoysky is an Israeli citizen and a pillar of the Jewish community
of Ukraine. He has been financing the Ukrainian neo-Nazis for several years already; Kolomoysky is also implicated in the downing
of MH17. Still no interest from the Israel-occupied US Congress? Amazing. In the US, the "victims of Holocaust" from the Kagans'
clan have been plotting and implementing the collaborative projects with Ukrainian neo-Nazis. Interesting times.
Btw, Kolomoysky is an Israeli citizen. Speaking about Holocaust deniers – is it kosher to support neo-Nazi and work on
the resurrection of Nazism in Ukraine and to remain an honorable Israeli citizen? It seems that Kolomoysky is such case. Next
time the Israel-firsters attempt to squeal about any critics of "Holocaust story" they should be presented with the story of Jewish
oligarch Kolomoysky.
You use language very loosely: 'total control, 'fully integrated', 'force's skeleton', all those terms are both unprovable
and meaningless in Donbass context. There are millions of Russians in Donbass, they have always lived there. They are willing
to oppose post-coup Kiev government on their own. All else is vague verbiage that means nothing.
"the regime in Moscow decide to abandon the project it could dissolve that force in 12 hours tops and leave Novorussia ripe
for takeover by the regime in Kiev"
Your usage of the imbecilic word 'regime' betrays bias. What the f k is a'regime'? Is EU a 'regime', or the Saudi king,
or China? If not, why not? Stick with term government and use it for all and you won't sound like a bitter dead-ender unable
to see things rationally.
Russia cannot abandon Donbass because the Kiev government would massacre many Russians living in Donbass. Or they would let
their nationalist allies do it. In any case, millions would either be expelled, imprisoned or killed. That would mean the end
of Putin's government. The fact that Brussels and Mme Merkel would look the other way and that Western media would pretend that
not much was happening would not help either. So that's not going to happen, Russia is committed, it cannot 'abandon the project'.
Kiev will either negotiate seriously now, or in the future. And time is definitely not on their side, longer this goes on, worse
deal will be on the table for Kiev.
" it might take 5-10 years – things will change." It is already on the go:
http://www.fort-russ.com/2017/10/mosiychuk-assassination-attempt.html
" another Maidan to be held under openly Nazi slogans and leading to the overthrow of the Jewish oligarchs led by Petro Poroshenko
who seized power in Ukraine. Ukrainian Nazis are the most consistent and terrifying enemies of the Poroshenko regime, which they
call an "internal occupation regime." We are now seeing a rehearsal for such a Nazi Maidan. Apparently, Poroshenko is taking a
serious turn, and now terrorist methods are being used against the regime's mortal enemies."
Decent article, although some generalizations which is understandable. Couple points about Poland. Yes its allied with neocons
atm (the bad).
The government has some forces somewhat supporting Ukraine (Basically as long as the blame is focused on Russia). The government
knows there are "neonazi" elements, as has mentioned Ukraine will not join EU until they stop that. As for the people Poland is
divided like crazy on the Ukraine issue.
Lots of people changed from Russians into Ukrainians. I see many guys with Russian surnames there from news who are rabidly
antirussians. Give some time. When Russia rises and life in Russia will be good there will be suddenly 90% of Ukrainian population
Russians.
Alas, you've yet again missed the salient point you're commenting on. The sea change I talk about is "a sea change in both
capability and prospects" . And yes, a sea change in the sense that the high water mark of the USA's capabilities and prospects
is now plainly visible. Its role has been reduced from world leader to that of spoiler in Syriaq, Philippines, MENA, ECS & SCS,
in Africa, and in Europe itself. A spoiler's role is a very far cry from the world leader at "the end of history" it proclaimed
itself to be in the early '90s. Pax Americana's wave broke and is now rolling back out to sea, creating undertows as it goes.
The ramifications of that sea change will take years, maybe decades, to play themselves out, but my assessment is that
there will be no active "roll back (of the) '90s" or that said roll back is desirable/possible. The Ukraine and Serbia/Kosovo
will wind up having to fit themselves into whatever new paradigm the world will be living under at the time. That paradigm won't
be American led, or of American design.
Prof Cohen, he is smart on Russian affairs, for a Jewish guy suprising he speaks favorably of the Russians. I dont know his
political views. Certainly a change from the Neocon bs.
I don't see much of a future for Ukraine. Neither the West nor Russia is willing to underwrite the massive investment that
would be required to rebuild the economy. Sure it makes sense to split the country. However, both sides are more than willing
to live with an impoverished buffer between NATO and Russia. If the country is split, there is no longer any territorial disputes
and the new West Ukraine ultimately becomes a NATO member and NATO weapons move hundreds of miles closer to the Russian border.
Not to mention the fact that Russia would find it expensive to subsidize the new government. Same with the EU.
The obsession with theoretical military engagements ignore the reality that 'winning' is simply taking a nation that is still
a paying customer for natural gas and turning them into an expense.
As far as the value of Ukraine as an agricultural power -- Russia no longer cares. Russia (thanks to the US sanctions, among
other things) is now the world's largest grain exporter.
The Black Sea may be important to Russia's regional aspirations, but for the US, what could be better than have as many
Russian naval vessels as possible parked there?
The Saker does indeed peddle a lot of BS, but you are hardly one to talk.
1. The Chechens were briefly involved in 2014, have long since left.
2. The vast majority of the NAF (80%) are Ukrainian
citizens , as confirmed by multiple sources including a list of names leaked by your ideological comrades at the Peacekeeper
website. About another 10% are Russians from the Kuban, which is ethnically and culturally close to the Donbass, while the last
10% are Russians and other adventurers from the wider world.
So yes, it is indeed very homegrown, though it is true that the NAF would not have survived in its embryonic stages without
the more competent and experienced Russian volunteers like Strelkov, as well as Russian logistical and artillery support.
3. NAF volunteers are indeed probably lower than average on the socio-economic scale, but I would be exceedingly surprised
if it was otherwise for the UAF and the independent batallions. Certainly the chronic
drunkeness
, accidents, etc. in the Ukrainian Army that are constantly being written about indicates that doesn't harvest the cream of Ukraine's
crop. (And that makes sense – apart from a hard core of patriots and nationalists, any Ukrainian would pay to avoid conscription,
if he has the means).
"... The UN has 193 member states -- and the U.S. government has a military presence in at least 89 percent of them! The Times ..."
"... Sheldon Richman , author of America's Counter-Revolution: The Constitution Revisited , keeps the blog Free Association and is a senior fellow and chair of the trustees of the Center for a Stateless Society , and a contributing editor at Antiwar.com . He is also the Executive Editor of The Libertarian Institute. ..."
One big advantage the war party has is the public's ignorance about the activities of the
far-flung American empire. Athough frustrating, that ignorance is easy to understand and has
been explained countless times by writers in the public choice tradition. Most people are too
busy with their lives, families, and communities to pay the close attention required to know
that the empire exists and what it is up to. The opportunity cost of paying attention is huge,
considering that the payoff is so small: even a well-informed individual could not take
decisive action to rein in the out-of-control national security state. One vote means nothing,
and being knowledgeable about the U.S. government's nefarious foreign policy is more likely to
alienate friends and other people than influence them. Why give up time with family and friends
just so one can be accused of "hating America"?
In light of this systemic rational ignorance, we must be grateful when a prominent
institution acknowledges how much the government intervenes around the world. Such an
acknowledgment came from the New York Times editorial board this week. The editorial
drips with irony since the Times has done so much to gin up public support for
America's imperial wars. (See, for example, its 2001-02 coverage of Iraq and its phantom WMD.)
Stlll, the piece is noteworthy.
The United States has been at war continuously since the attacks of 9/11 and now has just
over 240,000 active-duty and reserve troops in at least 172 countries and territories.
That alone ought to come as a shock to nearly all Americans. The UN has 193 member
states -- and the U.S. government has a military presence in at least 89 percent of them! The
Times does not mention that the government also maintains at least 800 military bases
and installations around the world. That's a big government we're talking about. And
empires are bloody expensive.
Memo to Senator John McCain: Senator, the other day I noticed that, as chairman of
the Armed Services Committee, you
threatened to subpoena the Trump administration for information about the recent attack in
Niger that killed four American soldiers. "There's a mindset over there that they're a
unicameral government," you said. "It was easier under Obama We are coequal branches of
government; we should be informed at all times. We're just not getting the information in the
timely fashion that we need."
How true! But let me make one small suggestion. If you really want to know what led to those
deaths in Niger, the first place you might consider looking -- no subpoena needed -- is this
very website, TomDispatch .
Or, to be more specific, Nick Turse's coverage of the way
U.S. Africa Command and American
Special Operations forces have, with a certain stealth but also without significant
coverage in the mainstream media, extended the war on terror deep into Africa. He alone has
covered this story and the
secret bases , widespread " training
missions " (like the one in Niger), and barely noticed wars being fought there since at
least 2012, when I was already writing this of his work:
"So here's another question: Who decided in 2007 that a U.S. Africa Command should be set
up to begin a process of turning that continent into a web of U.S. bases and other
operations? Who decided that every Islamist rebel group in Africa, no matter how local or
locally focused, was a threat to the U.S., calling for a military response? Certainly not the
American people, who know nothing about this, who were never asked if expanding the U.S.
global military mission to Africa was something they favored, who never heard the slightest
debate, or even a single peep from Washington on the subject."
By 2013, in a passage that sounds eerily up to date as we
read of ISIS-allied militants on the
lawless Niger-Mali border, he was already reporting
that
"while correlation doesn't equal causation, there is ample evidence to suggest the United
States has facilitated a terror diaspora, imperiling nations and endangering peoples across
Africa. In the wake of 9/11, Pentagon officials were hard-pressed to show evidence of a major
African terror threat. Today, the continent is thick with militant groups that are
increasingly crossing borders, sowing insecurity, and throwing the limits of U.S. power into
broad relief. After 10 years of U.S. operations to promote stability by military means, the
results have been the opposite. Africa has become blowback central."
Four years later, when the Niger events occurred, nothing had changed, except that the U.S.
military had moved, again with little attention (except from Turse),
even deeper into the heart of Africa, setting up a remarkable array of bases and outposts
of every sort (including two drone bases in Niger).
Questionable analysis by Saker (omitted for brevity). Some good comments in the discussion. The situation with the standard of living
in Ukraine is really bad and it is unclear how it can improve. If you get 4000 grivna monthly salary and pay for the apartment around
2000 (heating with gas at winter often is over 1000 grivna) you can barely survive on the remaining money (2000 grivna is around 66
grivna a day) . Even food is a problem, unless you adhere to basic diet of bread, milk, eggs and potatoes. You simply can't. They are
in a trap. This war in Donbass just make the bad situation even worse. But it sill continue, because there are powerful forces interesting
in escalation of this war.
Notable quotes:
"... Just because one thinks American moves are not "strategic" only means you don't fully grasp what is going on. Remember, the narrative which is being presented here is that the United States has caused both conflicts. A coup in Ukraine and supporting regime-change in Syria. That necessitates that Russia is reacting – not calling the shots. ..."
"... Ask yourself a simple question: would Washington be better off with the status quo ante, would they be happy to go back to 2012? Of course they would – Crimea would be in Ukraine and in play, Russia would be subsidising Ukraine (not EU or IMF). But most importantly Russia would be sweating what 'might happen' with Crimea. Once West made its move and lost that threat was gone. It was just stupid. ..."
"... My take is that people there, based on a long experience, simply recognize that they are caught between two oligarchies, and unwilling to choose between them. That lethargy (for a lack of better word) is interesting. They don't buy US/West vision anymore. The thing is, they don't buy Russian either. They just don't care. Maybe that's worse than fighting for either side. ..."
"... The United States does not care about Poland or Estonia or Crimea or Ukraine or Syria or Georgia or even whether the other NATO members spend enough money. It cares about the bigger long-term picture. ..."
"... All this stuff like the coup in Ukraine, sanctions over Crimea – it's just probing moves, games. The US has Putin boxed in. He's got to scrape and claw over nothing. ..."
"... I guess it's kinda true in the sense that the US specifically (not necessarily the West as such, it seems) needs to have the uninterrupted chain of wars and cartoonish all-powerful super-evil adversaries threatening its very existence. I suppose it's needed for economic (mic) reasons, to maintain the internal unity/morale/discipline, and to run the usual protection racket abroad. Sorta like Oceania in Orwell's 1984. ..."
"... Russia is boxed in by its geography, and so is China. There is nothing new there. Enemies have been pressing on Russia's extensive borders forever. It is not likely that anyone would actually try to cross that border given this one reality: nuclear weapons. Unless the constant prodding has an answer to that reality, what is it all about? What's the point? ..."
"... Wars happen even if nobody 'wants' them. There are situations when wars happen almost on their own and nobody ever claims ownership. And if there is a war, there will be fighting in Poland – it is literally ground zero (as so often before), and no amount of NY Times editorials will make any damn difference. The country is too small, so it would be annihilated. Poland is storing missiles and 'defensive' divisions for its allies across the Atlantic with an open admission that they are targeting Russia. What do you think would happen in a real crisis or a war? Do you think US would look kindly at Russian missiles in Canada or Mexico? That is the true madness, and Poland is kind of in a heart of it. As so often before. ..."
"... At the end, I suspect, when/if it comes to renewal of hostilities, it will be: First and foremost artillery exchanges. Nothing changes. Then, small unit raids. Nothing changes. Then, tactical incursions by Ukrainian best. After initial success they'll be met by Donbas best.Because either side don't have many of those nothing changes too. A lot of talk from Washington and Moscow. Some dead/mutilated mercenaries. And while those "games" go the rest of peoples there just keep what they've been doing so far. Oceania vs Eurasia .. ..."
"... The single best way to assure that there isn't a 'regime change' is by constant probing of Russia's borders, by constant attacks, etc So I don't buy that, the experts in Washington are not that stupid. They understand fully well that placing missiles, coups, border harassment are by far the most reliable way to make sure that nothing changes in Moscow. ..."
"... The Ukraine situation will not be decided by fighting in Donbass, or in Moscow. It will be decided in Kiev (and Odessa, Lviv, Charkov) by the currently passive masses. Unless a miracle happens, or most people emigrate, this is not a sustainable situation. They are living worse than in 2013, and they already had it very bad in 2013. Marshall Plan isn't coming, membership in EU isn't coming either. Once that sinks in – it might take 5-10 years – things will change. ..."
"... That seems to be Russia's strategy. I agree that by far the best thing Moscow could do is to improve quality of life in Russia. Nato strategy is to delay it by any means: sanctions, energy, new arms race, whatever they can think off, lately mostly media campaigns. ..."
"... In Ukraine the EU-West infatuation will take a long time to dissipate. Getting hurt will eventually lead to making things better in the head , but it will take at least a generation. And things don't stay quiet for that long, other events will intervene. A circle cannot be squared: Kiev has attempted a great leap into its imagined future – Europe!!! – they bet everything on it, cut off all else, and there is no realistic way the leap will land Ukraine happily and soon enough in EU. EU will not agree to absorb 40 million poor people who mostly just want to live immediately like Germans, or move there. This is a mad dream, reality will intervene. ..."
"... I am sorry but I have to say this. How has led by Kissinger and Nixon strategy of opening China worked out? Is creating major geopolitical foe where there was none considered a sign of deep strategically long term thinking? ..."
"... The Ukrainian nationalists think that based on their accomplishments as a nation (there are none) they rightfully deserve to be geographically located somewhere between Germany and France. For this state of affairs they again blame the Russians. You see, because Russia is so big, and definitely in Eastern Europe, that they have the gravitational force that keeps Ukraine in Eastern Europe. If it wasn't for the Russians, Ukraine would have long ago catapulted into Western Europe – probably even geographically. It's only Russia that prevents them from acquiring their rightful place in the heart of Europe. ..."
"... In Ukrainians' defence, they have a bad location: wide-open, unprotected, with few geographic features and at the same time very high-quality earth. On second thought, if Ukraine, as is, was located in Western Europe 'somewhere between Germany and France' , I would be willing to bet that not a single Ukrainian would exist today. The Western Europeans know their genocide and know how to pacify populations. They almost got to them during WWII, Ukraine was the lebensraum that Nazis dreamt about. ..."
"... the assassination attempt on Mosiychuk [the former deputy commander of the infamous neo-Nazi Azov Battalio] is the initial phase of an escalation of the conflict between the Nazis and Jewish oligarchs headed by President Poroshenko, an escalation which is transitioning from a political to a "hot", or armed phase. ..."
"... Btw, Kolomoysky is an Israeli citizen. Speaking about Holocaust deniers – is it kosher to support neo-Nazi and work on the resurrection of Nazism in Ukraine and to remain an honorable Israeli citizen? It seems that Kolomoysky is such case. Next time the Israel-firsters attempt to squeal about any critics of "Holocaust story" they should be presented with the story of Jewish oligarch Kolomoysky. ..."
"... Your usage of the imbecilic word 'regime' betrays bias. What the f k is a'regime'? Is EU a 'regime', or the Saudi king, or China? If not, why not? Stick with term government and use it for all and you won't sound like a bitter dead-ender unable to see things rationally. ..."
"... Decent article, although some generalizations which is understandable. Couple points about Poland. Yes its allied with neocons atm (the bad). The government has some forces somewhat supporting Ukraine (Basically as long as the blame is focused on Russia). The government knows there are "neonazi" elements, as has mentioned Ukraine will not join EU until they stop that. As for the people Poland is divided like crazy on the Ukraine issue. ..."
"... Pax Americana's wave broke and is now rolling back out to sea, creating undertows as it goes. ..."
"... The ramifications of that sea change will take years, maybe decades, to play themselves out, but my assessment is that there will be no active "roll back (of the) '90s" or that said roll back is desirable/possible. The Ukraine and Serbia/Kosovo will wind up having to fit themselves into whatever new paradigm the world will be living under at the time. That paradigm won't be American led, or of American design. ..."
"... I don't see much of a future for Ukraine. Neither the West nor Russia is willing to underwrite the massive investment that would be required to rebuild the economy. Sure it makes sense to split the country. However, both sides are more than willing to live with an impoverished buffer between NATO and Russia. If the country is split, there is no longer any territorial disputes and the new West Ukraine ultimately becomes a NATO member and NATO weapons move hundreds of miles closer to the Russian border. Not to mention the fact that Russia would find it expensive to subsidize the new government. Same with the EU. ..."
"... The Black Sea may be important to Russia's regional aspirations, but for the US, what could be better than have as many Russian naval vessels as possible parked there? ..."
Russian activity in Syria and Ukraine are moves of desperation from a position of weakness. The United States has Russia boxed
in. The United States forced Putin to take these actions. He would be removed from power otherwise. He had no choice. He is not
in control.
In Russia you are either strong and in total control or they murder you. At least that has been the case for the last thousand
years.
There was no "huge effort not to intervene." If there was, I'd like to know who made it and when.
This is not Iraq or Afghanistan. Comparisons to American involvement in these two places have limited utility.
Just because one thinks American moves are not "strategic" only means you don't fully grasp what is going on. Remember,
the narrative which is being presented here is that the United States has caused both conflicts. A coup in Ukraine and supporting
regime-change in Syria. That necessitates that Russia is reacting – not calling the shots.
The United States is not in "control" either, but it has the initiative and has Putin off-balance.
To better understand what is going on, all three groups -- crooks, clowns, and nazis -- fall into the schnook category. They are
being duped and used by the Globalist Empire that also controls the US. US is the Jewel in the Crown of the Globalist Empire but
still a subject than a sovereign nation. It's like India was the Jewel in the Crown of the British Empire but not a free independent
nation.
Assigning emotional labels is not helpful. You are right that Ukraine is nothing like Iraq or Afghanistan, it is hard to understand
why Saker would use such a facile analogy.
You are also right that US-West have the initiative. But that is not necessarily a sustainable advantage. Hitler had the initiative
too, and so did Napoleon, they had all the initiative until they didn't. (I know poor analogy, but tempting).
The prize in Ukraine was Crimea and the Russian Naval base. That was the prize, not who gets to grow potatoes in Lviv or scoop
up coal in Donbass. Crimea is gone, and I think all rational people would agree that for now that is irreversible. So what is
the fight about? Torch marching in Kiev, Nato relevancy, or who gets to subsidise 40 million very poor people? To control Ukraine
(Kiev really) is now a hot potato that nobody particularly wants. It is like fighting over who has the control of Bihar in India,
or eastern Nigeria, or any number of poor, non-strategic backwaters full of people who mostly want to emigrate.
Washington (with Poland and a few other fire-eating nut-cases in EU) made a strong move in 2013-14 trying to get their hands
on Crimea and to replace the very strategic Russian Navy base in Sebastopol with a Nato base. They invested a lot in it, and they
had the initiative. But the locals screwed up, they were too slow, too unfocused and too distracted by nationalism. So Russia
won Crimea and all else are just provincial consequences of little long-term interest.
Ask yourself a simple question: would Washington be better off with the status quo ante, would they be happy to go back
to 2012? Of course they would – Crimea would be in Ukraine and in play, Russia would be subsidising Ukraine (not EU or IMF). But
most importantly Russia would be sweating what 'might happen' with Crimea. Once West made its move and lost that threat was gone.
It was just stupid.
A coup in Ukraine and supporting regime-change in Syria. That necessitates that Russia is reacting – not calling the shots.
The United States is not in "control" either, but it has the initiative and has Putin off-balance.
Well, I'd say:
A coup in Ukraine and supporting regime-change in Syria. That necessitates that Russia was reacting – not calling the shots.
The United States is not in "control" either, but it has the initiative and had Putin off-balance.
What has been interesting to me is something Martyanov hinted to here:
no part of the Novorossia, with the exception of Lugansk and Donetsk, matched even one tenth of scale and effort required
to get back to Russia, or, at least, get away from Kiev. I don't blame them but it is what it is and this couldn't be ignored
and it is not being ignored, thankfully.
My take is that people there, based on a long experience, simply recognize that they are caught between two oligarchies,
and unwilling to choose between them. That lethargy (for a lack of better word) is interesting. They don't buy US/West vision
anymore. The thing is, they don't buy Russian either. They just don't care. Maybe that's worse than fighting for either side.
When you are, effectively, in a state of constant conflict between states and most of population doesn't care, that looks as
people there got their spirit crushed. And, oligarchies do like people with crushed spirit. Just a pliable mass doing what's told.
Just a thought.
Initiative means that US-West are the ones starting conflicts. It is neither good nor bad and initiatives that fail are worse
than if they had done nothing. That is true about Iraq, Syria, Libya and Ukraine; in each case the status quo before the 'initiative'
was better. Russia and China don't show anywhere as much 'initiative', they mostly react, they don't set the agenda.
People with too much initiative get stuck in muck of their own creation and eventually lose even what they safely controlled
before. But the Washington-Brussels elites cannot help it, they must start things because they are not fully serious, they have
had it too good, they believe in their own mythologized narratives, and their careers are based on it. So they will keep it going.
The insurgencies within the domestic domain are still very minor, this has years to go, maybe decades.
My feeling is that The Saker is always talking about the superiority of Russian "strategy" in retrospect while speculating
about the minutiae of tactical deployments.
Americans rarely talk strategy and there is always an ongoing discussion in the higher levels of foreign policy academia and
journals about what exactly the policy or strategy is or whether we even need one.
This, however, does not mean there is no strategy.
The United States does not care about Poland or Estonia or Crimea or Ukraine or Syria or Georgia or even whether the other
NATO members spend enough money. It cares about the bigger long-term picture.
We are not fighting insurgencies (as Mao Cheng Ji contends). That ended in Iraq in about 2010 and Afghanistan in about 2012.
Since 1980, Russia and the Soviet Union have lost FAR more troops (especially as a proportion of total population) in combat
than the United States.
Everywhere US elite light infantry troops are stationed now they basically sit on their asses safe in bases. Occasionally they
go out and call in airstrikes for local allies or conduct a raid on a "high-value target." Occasionally they die or get suicide-bombed
by a local infiltrator.
All the guys I've ever met that are in these units LIVE to do what they are doing. I even know a couple dozen guys who have
been either kicked out of the military or been wounded in Afghanistan or Iraq and they still say that the best time of their lives
was walking around over there with a rifle.
They would be quite surprised by the notion that they are being forced to do what they do by the "ZioMedia" – whatever that
is. This is not 1968 in Vietnam.
Syria has no oil. Ukraine is a basket-case economy with too many people. Georgia has 4 million people. That's more than Albania
and less than Massachusetts. Most Americans couldn't find the state of Georgia on a map – nevermind the country.
Now in 2008 Russia launched an assault on Georgia that it had been planning for at least a decade after provoking what it wanted.
It didn't go well technically but it went okay tactically, but because of the size mismatch it couldn't not be a success for the
Russians. But it was quick because the Georgians are stupid but not that stupid. So it could be called an operational and strategic
win. The United States tailored its response. But here you will always see it portrayed as some great Russian victory over a NATO-trained
military and an attempted genocide of the South Ossetians. The Russians it appears used it successfully as a learning experience
and got their act together militarily.
All along the periphery of the Russian Empire/former Soviet Union the US and the Russians play games. It's a big game.
Saker's last article was about whose propaganda is better. It's a big game. It keeps people employed in the respective defense
industries.
The latest thing I read is that the US is spending $8 Billion on a rapid response division or something in Eastern Europe.
There was a Toyota ad I think for an armor brigade in Poland during the Super Bowl. Ridiculous. A single division.
Nobody wants a war. There isn't going to be any fighting in Poland. If Russians and Ukrainians want to kill themselves over
Kharkov, Americans don't care. I think the Russians and Germans fought three times over Kharkov. I guess it had a railroad track
or something. Americans don't care.
All this stuff like the coup in Ukraine, sanctions over Crimea – it's just probing moves, games. The US has Putin boxed
in. He's got to scrape and claw over nothing.
The Saker always talks about Russia having a "defensive" strategy. Change the perspective for a second. Knowing that all the
planet's real estate is "owned"- where the US Empire stands now – trade routes, bases everywhere around the remaining oilfields
in the Middle East. AND, here is the kicker – what if you consider that the US has the defensive strategy now? That is some serious
flexible depth.
Initiative means that US-West are the ones starting conflicts.
I guess it's kinda true in the sense that the US specifically (not necessarily the West as such, it seems) needs to have
the uninterrupted chain of wars and cartoonish all-powerful super-evil adversaries threatening its very existence. I suppose it's
needed for economic (mic) reasons, to maintain the internal unity/morale/discipline, and to run the usual protection racket abroad.
Sorta like Oceania in Orwell's 1984.
But I don't think this amounts to 'initiative' in any flattering sense. By the same token a rabid dog shows 'initiative'.
Change the perspective for a second. Knowing that all the planet's real estate is "owned"- where the US Empire stands now
– trade routes, bases everywhere around the remaining oilfields in the Middle East. AND, here is the kicker – what if you consider
that the US has the defensive strategy now? That is some serious flexible depth.
You can call it 'depth', or you can also call it being exposed with too long supply lines. I don't think there is an automatic
benefit to being everywhere, it could be a liability in a multi-site crisis. Hitler controlled almost all of continental Europe
(and so did Napoleon), all it did was that when he was forced on a defensive (in the east), all of those territories became potential
liabilities with allied landings, rebellions, countries switching sides, etc
Another problem is that US is trying to do it on the cheap with bombing, technology and allies – but with minimal casualties.
The inability to take casualties is a weakness, you cannot in the long-run control all this geography and also protect every GI's
life.
And Russia is still boxed in.
Russia is boxed in by its geography, and so is China. There is nothing new there. Enemies have been pressing on Russia's
extensive borders forever. It is not likely that anyone would actually try to cross that border given this one reality: nuclear
weapons. Unless the constant prodding has an answer to that reality, what is it all about? What's the point?
Nobody wants a war. There isn't going to be any fighting in Poland.
Wars happen even if nobody 'wants' them. There are situations when wars happen almost on their own and nobody ever claims
ownership. And if there is a war, there will be fighting in Poland – it is literally ground zero (as so often before), and no
amount of NY Times editorials will make any damn difference. The country is too small, so it would be annihilated. Poland is storing
missiles and 'defensive' divisions for its allies across the Atlantic with an open admission that they are targeting Russia. What
do you think would happen in a real crisis or a war? Do you think US would look kindly at Russian missiles in Canada or Mexico?
That is the true madness, and Poland is kind of in a heart of it. As so often before.
I don't think either Russia or West have better or worse 'strategy'. They play with what they have. Lately Russia has been
prevailing, maybe because West pushed too far and is on thin ice in most of these far-away places.
By the way, your description of the Georgia conflict in 2008 omitted the key event: as the Beijing Olympics were starting,
Georgia attacked S Ossetia with massive bombardment (100+ civilians killed). You say that somehow Russia 'anticipated' it and
took advantage. Isn't it their job to 'anticipate'? Wouldn't any country? But the key point is that without the extremely stupid,
almost suicidial attack by Georgia, none of that would happened. Who the hell told Saakasvilli that this would be a good idea?
Some 'strategist' who likes to 'poke the Russian borders' to keep them in a 'box'? This is abstract thinking at its worst. Get
real.
Speaking of crooks and thieves. True, those Ukrainian elites are that. Can't argue that most of US/Western elite aren't. But,
Russian (current) regime elite? How about this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_of_crooks_and_thieves
So, I guess that an average Ukrainian ponders a simple question: For which crook I am supposed to lose my life and limb? And risking
the same for people I care for? Tough decision. If if doubt do nothing feels as the best option. Keep your head down, keep your
mouth shut and try to scrap a living there. Or, if you can, emigrate somewhere. If you can that is.
That rhetorical question? Regime change in Moscow->incorporating Russia into Empire at vassal level. Or back to happy Yeltsin
era. Happy for some I mean. With vengeance.
As for this:
There are situations when wars happen almost on their own and nobody ever claims ownership
Couldn't agree more. That's the real worry at present. Combination of who are people in power and means of warfare.
People on the ground in Ukraine at "West" side incompetent and weak crooks. People on the ground in Ukraine at "East" side
are also incompetent crooks. Not so sure how weak they are, though. They must be weak enough to obey Moscow but hard enough to
keep .ahm..pruning own ranks from those unpopular with Moscow. Besides, they got into power by armed insurrection so usually those
types can be hard.
I, personally, don't see much fuss about all this. Could be wrong, of course. The real question would be how, really, good
Ukrainian armed forces are.
Have they used the time well to get good enough to create a serious problem for Donbass. My feeling .(haven't spent much time
researching it) is they have not. Now, not so sure, whatever Saker is saying here, how good Donbass military is. In reality. I
concede that they got better organized and equipped. Doesn't mean much , IMHO. The more important is how WILLING they would be
to face an attack.
I .suspect .that the will when it was all started isn't there anymore. Could be wrong. Still think I am not. Or, better .feel
that way. Those assassinations, plus overall quality of life there, plus unclear future (not what Moscow is saying, people on
the ground don't buy that) aren't good for combat morale.
At the end, I suspect, when/if it comes to renewal of hostilities, it will be: First and foremost artillery exchanges.
Nothing changes.
Then, small unit raids. Nothing changes. Then, tactical incursions by Ukrainian best. After initial success they'll be met by
Donbas best.Because either side don't have many of those nothing changes too. A lot of talk from Washington and Moscow. Some dead/mutilated
mercenaries. And while those "games" go the rest of peoples there just keep what they've been doing so far. Oceania vs Eurasia
..
Saker writing a Philip Giraldi level expose from that angle would probably have him out of a job. The Russian ruling class
is not interested in making an enemy of Israel or vice versa.
The single best way to assure that there isn't a 'regime change' is by constant probing of Russia's borders, by constant
attacks, etc So I don't buy that, the experts in Washington are not that stupid. They understand fully well that placing missiles,
coups, border harassment are by far the most reliable way to make sure that nothing changes in Moscow.
The Ukraine situation will not be decided by fighting in Donbass, or in Moscow. It will be decided in Kiev (and Odessa,
Lviv, Charkov) by the currently passive masses. Unless a miracle happens, or most people emigrate, this is not a sustainable situation.
They are living worse than in 2013, and they already had it very bad in 2013. Marshall Plan isn't coming, membership in EU isn't
coming either. Once that sinks in – it might take 5-10 years – things will change.
They understand fully well that placing missiles, coups, border harassment are by far the most reliable way to make sure
that nothing changes in Moscow.
That's one way to look at it. Another is that they believe that's exactly what's needed. Worked rather well since '91
I think. US soldier couldn't get pass Germany (West/East) border. Now
It will be decided in Kiev (and Odessa, Lviv, Charkov) by the currently passive masses.
"'Novorussian' fighting forces have from the very beginning just been a rag tag collection of Chechen and Russian
mercenaries ,with a few local alcoholic yahoos , all directed by imported Russian degenerates,
supported all along with Russian national troops and armaments"
All soldiers today get paid, thus you can call all of them 'mercenaries'. All soldiers drink. Their ethnicities are hard to
establish and generalize. Words like 'rag tag', 'yahoos', 'degenerates' mean literally nothing in this context, you just add them
to make yourself feel better.
If you take what your wrote and strip out the unnecessary poetry you might be closer to the truth: Novorussian forces are a
combination of local separatists and volunteers who joined them mostly from Russia; Russia has provided most of their modern arms.
Russia also acts as a backstop in case of another Kiev offensive to make sure that they cannot be defeated.
See, I fixed it for you. Now drop the poetic abuse and tell us what can be done about it. And take into account interests of
all parties and their relative strength. All people are equal, applying emotional adjectives to your enemies changes nothing.
Well said. Regarding: { . a rag tag collection of Chechen and Russian mercenaries,with a few local alcoholic yahoos, all
directed by imported Russian degenerates }
If that is true, then it means Ukrainian military is even more incompetent than it is, being soundly defeated by a 'rag
tag collection of mercenaries, alcoholic yahoos, and degenerates'. Being defeated by a professional opposing force is bad
enough, but being defeated and chased out of Novorussia by 'degenerates'? How embarrassing for the Kiev junta.
That seems to be Russia's strategy. I agree that by far the best thing Moscow could do is to improve quality of life in
Russia. Nato strategy is to delay it by any means: sanctions, energy, new arms race, whatever they can think off, lately mostly
media campaigns. With Russia's resources, favourable demographics and global economic realities (China), it will not work.
And then what?Once the quality of life is comparable to the average EU country, the gig will be up. Today Russia is
slightly worse off than Poland and Lithuania, but better off than Romania or Bulgaria. But it is dramatically worse off than Germany,
Czech R or Austria. Between 2000-2014 Germany and Russia were feeding off each other's growth, now they both suffer. We will see
how that plays out, but there was a natural synergy that was artificially curtailed. More than anything else the Atlantic neo-cons
fear more prosperity in Russia, so they will do almost anything to prevent it.
In Ukraine the EU-West infatuation will take a long time to dissipate. Getting hurt will eventually lead to making things
better in the head , but it will take at least a generation. And things don't stay quiet for that long, other events will intervene.
A circle cannot be squared: Kiev has attempted a great leap into its imagined future – Europe!!! – they bet everything on it,
cut off all else, and there is no realistic way the leap will land Ukraine happily and soon enough in EU. EU will not agree to
absorb 40 million poor people who mostly just want to live immediately like Germans, or move there. This is a mad dream, reality
will intervene.
Those still hoping for a happy ending have not been paying attention.
I am sorry but I have to say this. How has led by Kissinger and Nixon strategy of opening China worked out? Is creating
major geopolitical foe where there was none considered a sign of deep strategically long term thinking?
One often hears about "historical injustices" being committed against this nation or that ethnic group. Ukraine is probably
a unique (basket) case because they think (the stupid ones) that beside historical injustices, they have also suffered geographical
injustice.
The Ukrainian nationalists think that based on their accomplishments as a nation (there are none) they rightfully deserve
to be geographically located somewhere between Germany and France. For this state of affairs they again blame the Russians. You
see, because Russia is so big, and definitely in Eastern Europe, that they have the gravitational force that keeps Ukraine in
Eastern Europe. If it wasn't for the Russians, Ukraine would have long ago catapulted into Western Europe – probably even geographically.
It's only Russia that prevents them from acquiring their rightful place in the heart of Europe.
And so a solution is to have a war against geography. That usually goes very well, check with the Georgians :)
In Ukrainians' defence, they have a bad location: wide-open, unprotected, with few geographic features and at the same
time very high-quality earth. On second thought, if Ukraine, as is, was located in Western Europe 'somewhere between Germany and
France' , I would be willing to bet that not a single Ukrainian would exist today. The Western Europeans know their genocide and
know how to pacify populations. They almost got to them during WWII, Ukraine was the lebensraum that Nazis dreamt about.
My estimate would be that if Russia had not sacrificed 20 million people to defeat Germany, today there would be no Poles,
no Ukrainians, and no Czechs. A few smaller nations, like Croats, Slovaks, Slovenians, would exist as tiny folklor-only curiosity,
regularly brutally culled for potential dissenters. Those 'damn Russkies', how dare they stop this? No wonder the sneaky Westerners
will never forgive them. But one wonders why some of the designated victims, Poles, Ukrainians, Czechs, are also angry that the
lebensraum genocide Nazi plan was not allowed to take place. But we are leaving geography and getting into psychiatry
" the assassination attempt on Mosiychuk [the former deputy commander of the infamous neo-Nazi Azov Battalio] is the
initial phase of an escalation of the conflict between the Nazis and Jewish oligarchs headed by President Poroshenko, an escalation
which is transitioning from a political to a "hot", or armed phase.
Ironically enough, it is the Jewish oligarch Kolomoysky who is financing the operations of such Nazi revolutionaries. Indeed,
all of the "Ukrainian revolutions," as is well known, have been done with Jewish money and through the hands of Ukrainian Nazis.
By all accounts, Mosiychuk himself is one of the key figures behind preparing a Nazi coup d'etat."
Any reaction from the diligent ADL? Any peep from AIPAC? Kolomoysky is an Israeli citizen and a pillar of the Jewish community
of Ukraine. He has been financing the Ukrainian neo-Nazis for several years already; Kolomoysky is also implicated in the downing
of MH17. Still no interest from the Israel-occupied US Congress? Amazing. In the US, the "victims of Holocaust" from the Kagans'
clan have been plotting and implementing the collaborative projects with Ukrainian neo-Nazis. Interesting times.
Btw, Kolomoysky is an Israeli citizen. Speaking about Holocaust deniers – is it kosher to support neo-Nazi and work on
the resurrection of Nazism in Ukraine and to remain an honorable Israeli citizen? It seems that Kolomoysky is such case. Next
time the Israel-firsters attempt to squeal about any critics of "Holocaust story" they should be presented with the story of Jewish
oligarch Kolomoysky.
You use language very loosely: 'total control, 'fully integrated', 'force's skeleton', all those terms are both unprovable
and meaningless in Donbass context. There are millions of Russians in Donbass, they have always lived there. They are willing
to oppose post-coup Kiev government on their own. All else is vague verbiage that means nothing.
"the regime in Moscow decide to abandon the project it could dissolve that force in 12 hours tops and leave Novorussia ripe
for takeover by the regime in Kiev"
Your usage of the imbecilic word 'regime' betrays bias. What the f k is a'regime'? Is EU a 'regime', or the Saudi king,
or China? If not, why not? Stick with term government and use it for all and you won't sound like a bitter dead-ender unable
to see things rationally.
Russia cannot abandon Donbass because the Kiev government would massacre many Russians living in Donbass. Or they would let
their nationalist allies do it. In any case, millions would either be expelled, imprisoned or killed. That would mean the end
of Putin's government. The fact that Brussels and Mme Merkel would look the other way and that Western media would pretend that
not much was happening would not help either. So that's not going to happen, Russia is committed, it cannot 'abandon the project'.
Kiev will either negotiate seriously now, or in the future. And time is definitely not on their side, longer this goes on, worse
deal will be on the table for Kiev.
" it might take 5-10 years – things will change." It is already on the go:
http://www.fort-russ.com/2017/10/mosiychuk-assassination-attempt.html
" another Maidan to be held under openly Nazi slogans and leading to the overthrow of the Jewish oligarchs led by Petro Poroshenko
who seized power in Ukraine. Ukrainian Nazis are the most consistent and terrifying enemies of the Poroshenko regime, which they
call an "internal occupation regime." We are now seeing a rehearsal for such a Nazi Maidan. Apparently, Poroshenko is taking a
serious turn, and now terrorist methods are being used against the regime's mortal enemies."
Decent article, although some generalizations which is understandable. Couple points about Poland. Yes its allied with neocons
atm (the bad).
The government has some forces somewhat supporting Ukraine (Basically as long as the blame is focused on Russia). The government
knows there are "neonazi" elements, as has mentioned Ukraine will not join EU until they stop that. As for the people Poland is
divided like crazy on the Ukraine issue.
Lots of people changed from Russians into Ukrainians. I see many guys with Russian surnames there from news who are rabidly
antirussians. Give some time. When Russia rises and life in Russia will be good there will be suddenly 90% of Ukrainian population
Russians.
Alas, you've yet again missed the salient point you're commenting on. The sea change I talk about is "a sea change in both
capability and prospects" . And yes, a sea change in the sense that the high water mark of the USA's capabilities and prospects
is now plainly visible. Its role has been reduced from world leader to that of spoiler in Syriaq, Philippines, MENA, ECS & SCS,
in Africa, and in Europe itself. A spoiler's role is a very far cry from the world leader at "the end of history" it proclaimed
itself to be in the early '90s. Pax Americana's wave broke and is now rolling back out to sea, creating undertows as it goes.
The ramifications of that sea change will take years, maybe decades, to play themselves out, but my assessment is that
there will be no active "roll back (of the) '90s" or that said roll back is desirable/possible. The Ukraine and Serbia/Kosovo
will wind up having to fit themselves into whatever new paradigm the world will be living under at the time. That paradigm won't
be American led, or of American design.
Prof Cohen, he is smart on Russian affairs, for a Jewish guy suprising he speaks favorably of the Russians. I dont know his
political views. Certainly a change from the Neocon bs.
I don't see much of a future for Ukraine. Neither the West nor Russia is willing to underwrite the massive investment that
would be required to rebuild the economy. Sure it makes sense to split the country. However, both sides are more than willing
to live with an impoverished buffer between NATO and Russia. If the country is split, there is no longer any territorial disputes
and the new West Ukraine ultimately becomes a NATO member and NATO weapons move hundreds of miles closer to the Russian border.
Not to mention the fact that Russia would find it expensive to subsidize the new government. Same with the EU.
The obsession with theoretical military engagements ignore the reality that 'winning' is simply taking a nation that is still
a paying customer for natural gas and turning them into an expense.
As far as the value of Ukraine as an agricultural power -- Russia no longer cares. Russia (thanks to the US sanctions, among
other things) is now the world's largest grain exporter.
The Black Sea may be important to Russia's regional aspirations, but for the US, what could be better than have as many
Russian naval vessels as possible parked there?
The Saker does indeed peddle a lot of BS, but you are hardly one to talk.
1. The Chechens were briefly involved in 2014, have long since left.
2. The vast majority of the NAF (80%) are Ukrainian
citizens , as confirmed by multiple sources including a list of names leaked by your ideological comrades at the Peacekeeper
website. About another 10% are Russians from the Kuban, which is ethnically and culturally close to the Donbass, while the last
10% are Russians and other adventurers from the wider world.
So yes, it is indeed very homegrown, though it is true that the NAF would not have survived in its embryonic stages without
the more competent and experienced Russian volunteers like Strelkov, as well as Russian logistical and artillery support.
3. NAF volunteers are indeed probably lower than average on the socio-economic scale, but I would be exceedingly surprised
if it was otherwise for the UAF and the independent batallions. Certainly the chronic
drunkeness
, accidents, etc. in the Ukrainian Army that are constantly being written about indicates that doesn't harvest the cream of Ukraine's
crop. (And that makes sense – apart from a hard core of patriots and nationalists, any Ukrainian would pay to avoid conscription,
if he has the means).
"... The UN has 193 member states -- and the U.S. government has a military presence in at least 89 percent of them! The Times ..."
"... Sheldon Richman , author of America's Counter-Revolution: The Constitution Revisited , keeps the blog Free Association and is a senior fellow and chair of the trustees of the Center for a Stateless Society , and a contributing editor at Antiwar.com . He is also the Executive Editor of The Libertarian Institute. ..."
One big advantage the war party has is the public's ignorance about the activities of the
far-flung American empire. Athough frustrating, that ignorance is easy to understand and has
been explained countless times by writers in the public choice tradition. Most people are too
busy with their lives, families, and communities to pay the close attention required to know
that the empire exists and what it is up to. The opportunity cost of paying attention is huge,
considering that the payoff is so small: even a well-informed individual could not take
decisive action to rein in the out-of-control national security state. One vote means nothing,
and being knowledgeable about the U.S. government's nefarious foreign policy is more likely to
alienate friends and other people than influence them. Why give up time with family and friends
just so one can be accused of "hating America"?
In light of this systemic rational ignorance, we must be grateful when a prominent
institution acknowledges how much the government intervenes around the world. Such an
acknowledgment came from the New York Times editorial board this week. The editorial
drips with irony since the Times has done so much to gin up public support for
America's imperial wars. (See, for example, its 2001-02 coverage of Iraq and its phantom WMD.)
Stlll, the piece is noteworthy.
The United States has been at war continuously since the attacks of 9/11 and now has just
over 240,000 active-duty and reserve troops in at least 172 countries and territories.
That alone ought to come as a shock to nearly all Americans. The UN has 193 member
states -- and the U.S. government has a military presence in at least 89 percent of them! The
Times does not mention that the government also maintains at least 800 military bases
and installations around the world. That's a big government we're talking about. And
empires are bloody expensive.
"... The answer to the question in the title of this article is that Russiagate was created by CIA director John Brennan.The CIA started what is called Russiagate in order to prevent Trump from being able to normalize relations with Russia. The CIA and the military/security complex need an enemy in order to justify their huge budgets and unaccountable power. Russia has been assigned that role. The Democrats joined in as a way of attacking Trump. They hoped to have him tarnished as cooperating with Russia to steal the presidential election from Hillary and to have him impeached. I don't think the Democrats have considered the consequence of further worsening the relations between the US and Russia. ..."
"... Russia bashing became more intense when Washington's coup in Ukraine failed to deliver Crimea. Washington had intended for the new Ukrainian regime to evict the Russians from their naval base on the Black Sea. This goal was frustrated when Crimea voted to rejoin Russia. ..."
"... The neoconservative ideology of US world hegemony requires the principal goal of US foreign policy to be to prevent the rise of other countries that can serve as a restraint on US unilateralism. This is the main basis for the hostility of US foreign policy toward Russia, and of course there also is the material interests of the military/security complex. ..."
"... Washington is fully aware that there was no Russian interference in the presidential election or in the state elections. The military/security complex, the neoconservatives, and the Democratic Party are merely using the accusations to serve their own agendas. ..."
The answer to the question in the title of this article is that Russiagate was created
by CIA director John Brennan.The CIA started what is called Russiagate in order to prevent
Trump from being able to normalize relations with Russia. The CIA and the military/security
complex need an enemy in order to justify their huge budgets and unaccountable power. Russia
has been assigned that role. The Democrats joined in as a way of attacking Trump. They hoped to
have him tarnished as cooperating with Russia to steal the presidential election from Hillary
and to have him impeached. I don't think the Democrats have considered the consequence of
further worsening the relations between the US and Russia.
Public Russia bashing pre-dates Trump. It has been going on privately in neoconservative
circles for years, but appeared publicly during the Obama regime when Russia blocked
Washington's plans to invade Syria and to bomb Iran.
Russia bashing became more intense when Washington's coup in Ukraine failed to deliver
Crimea. Washington had intended for the new Ukrainian regime to evict the Russians from their
naval base on the Black Sea. This goal was frustrated when Crimea voted to rejoin
Russia.
The neoconservative ideology of US world hegemony requires the principal goal of US
foreign policy to be to prevent the rise of other countries that can serve as a restraint on US
unilateralism. This is the main basis for the hostility of US foreign policy toward Russia, and
of course there also is the material interests of the military/security complex.
Russia bashing is much larger than merely Russiagate. The danger lies in Washington
convincing Russia that Washington is planning a surprise attack on Russia. With US and NATO
bases on Russia's borders, efforts to arm Ukraine and to include Ukraine and Georgia in NATO
provide more evidence that Washington is surrounding Russia for attack. There is nothing more
reckless and irresponsible than convincing a nuclear power that you are going to attack.
Washington is fully aware that there was no Russian interference in the presidential
election or in the state elections. The military/security complex, the neoconservatives, and
the Democratic Party are merely using the accusations to serve their own agendas.
These selfish agendas are a dire threat to life on earth.
"... The answer to the question in the title of this article is that Russiagate was created by CIA director John Brennan.The CIA started what is called Russiagate in order to prevent Trump from being able to normalize relations with Russia. The CIA and the military/security complex need an enemy in order to justify their huge budgets and unaccountable power. Russia has been assigned that role. The Democrats joined in as a way of attacking Trump. They hoped to have him tarnished as cooperating with Russia to steal the presidential election from Hillary and to have him impeached. I don't think the Democrats have considered the consequence of further worsening the relations between the US and Russia. ..."
"... Russia bashing became more intense when Washington's coup in Ukraine failed to deliver Crimea. Washington had intended for the new Ukrainian regime to evict the Russians from their naval base on the Black Sea. This goal was frustrated when Crimea voted to rejoin Russia. ..."
"... The neoconservative ideology of US world hegemony requires the principal goal of US foreign policy to be to prevent the rise of other countries that can serve as a restraint on US unilateralism. This is the main basis for the hostility of US foreign policy toward Russia, and of course there also is the material interests of the military/security complex. ..."
"... Washington is fully aware that there was no Russian interference in the presidential election or in the state elections. The military/security complex, the neoconservatives, and the Democratic Party are merely using the accusations to serve their own agendas. ..."
The answer to the question in the title of this article is that Russiagate was created
by CIA director John Brennan.The CIA started what is called Russiagate in order to prevent
Trump from being able to normalize relations with Russia. The CIA and the military/security
complex need an enemy in order to justify their huge budgets and unaccountable power. Russia
has been assigned that role. The Democrats joined in as a way of attacking Trump. They hoped to
have him tarnished as cooperating with Russia to steal the presidential election from Hillary
and to have him impeached. I don't think the Democrats have considered the consequence of
further worsening the relations between the US and Russia.
Public Russia bashing pre-dates Trump. It has been going on privately in neoconservative
circles for years, but appeared publicly during the Obama regime when Russia blocked
Washington's plans to invade Syria and to bomb Iran.
Russia bashing became more intense when Washington's coup in Ukraine failed to deliver
Crimea. Washington had intended for the new Ukrainian regime to evict the Russians from their
naval base on the Black Sea. This goal was frustrated when Crimea voted to rejoin
Russia.
The neoconservative ideology of US world hegemony requires the principal goal of US
foreign policy to be to prevent the rise of other countries that can serve as a restraint on US
unilateralism. This is the main basis for the hostility of US foreign policy toward Russia, and
of course there also is the material interests of the military/security complex.
Russia bashing is much larger than merely Russiagate. The danger lies in Washington
convincing Russia that Washington is planning a surprise attack on Russia. With US and NATO
bases on Russia's borders, efforts to arm Ukraine and to include Ukraine and Georgia in NATO
provide more evidence that Washington is surrounding Russia for attack. There is nothing more
reckless and irresponsible than convincing a nuclear power that you are going to attack.
Washington is fully aware that there was no Russian interference in the presidential
election or in the state elections. The military/security complex, the neoconservatives, and
the Democratic Party are merely using the accusations to serve their own agendas.
These selfish agendas are a dire threat to life on earth.
Wars eventually deeply affect on the nation
which launches them....
Notable quotes:
"... Stop thinking of this country as the sole superpower or the indispensable nation on Earth and start reimagining it as the great fracturer, the exceptional smasher, the indispensable fragmenter. Its wars of the twenty-first century are starting to come home big time -- home being not just this particular country (though that's true , too) but this planet. Though hardly alone , the U.S. is, for the moment, the most exceptional home-destroyer around and its president is now not just the commander-in-chief but the home-smasher-in-chief. ..."
"... Just this week, for instance, home smashing was in the headlines. After all, the Islamic State's "capital," the city of Raqqa, was " liberated ." We won! The U.S. and the forces it backed in Syria were finally victorious and the brutal Islamic State (a home-smashing movement that emerged from an American military prison in Iraq) was finally driven from that city ( almost !). And oh yes, according to witnesses , the former city of 300,000 lies abandoned with hardly a building left undamaged, unbroken, unsmashed. ..."
"... In the Greater Middle East and Africa, people by the tens of millions , including staggering numbers of children , have been uprooted and displaced, their homes destroyed, their cities and towns devastated, sending survivors fleeing across national borders as refugees in numbers that haven't been seen since a significant part of the planet was leveled in World War II. ..."
Stop thinking of this country as the sole superpower or the indispensable nation on
Earth and start reimagining it as the great fracturer, the exceptional smasher, the
indispensable fragmenter. Its wars of the twenty-first century are starting to come home big
time -- home being not just this particular country (though that's
true , too) but this planet. Though
hardly alone , the U.S. is, for the moment, the most exceptional home-destroyer around and
its president is now not just the commander-in-chief but the home-smasher-in-chief.
Just this week, for instance, home smashing was in the headlines. After all, the Islamic
State's "capital," the city of Raqqa, was " liberated
." We won! The U.S. and the forces it backed in Syria were finally victorious and the brutal
Islamic State (a home-smashing movement that emerged from an American military
prison in Iraq) was finally driven from that city (
almost !). And oh yes, according to witnesses , the former city of 300,000 lies
abandoned with hardly a building left undamaged, unbroken, unsmashed. Over these last
months, the American bombing campaign against Raqqa and the artillery support that went with it
reportedly killed
more than 1,000
civilians and turned significant parts of the city into
rubble -- and what that didn't do, ISIS bombs and other munitions did. (According to
estimates , they could take years to find and remove.) And Raqqa is just the
latest Middle Eastern city to be smashed
more or less to bits.
And since the splintering of the planet is the TomDispatch subject of the day, what
about the recent Austrian election, fought out and
won by right-wing "populists" on the basis of anti-refugee sentiments and Islamophobia?
Where exactly did such sentiments come from? You know perfectly well: from America's war on
terror and the much-vaunted " precision warfare " (smart bombs and the rest)
that continues to fracture a vast swath of the planet from Afghanistan to Libya and beyond.
In the Greater Middle East and Africa, people by the
tens of millions , including staggering numbers of children , have been uprooted and displaced,
their homes destroyed, their cities and towns devastated, sending survivors fleeing across
national borders as refugees in numbers that haven't been seen since a significant part of the
planet was leveled in World War II. In this way, America's 16-year-old war on terror has
been a genuine force for terror, and so for the kind of resentment and fear that's now helping
to crack open a recently united Europe (and in the United States helped elect well, you know
just who).
And that's only a small introduction to the largely unexplored American role in the
fracturing of this planet. Don't even get me started on our president and climate change!
As it happens, the fellow who brought the nature of this splintering home to me was
TomDispatch
regular John Feffer, who in
early 2015 began writing for this website what became his remarkable dystopian novel
Splinterlands
. In it, he imagined our shattered planet in 2050 so vividly that it's stayed with me ever
since -- and evidently with him, too, because today he considers just how quickly the
splintering process he imagined has been occurring not in his fictional version of our world,
but in the all-too-real one.
If we lose the state in a fourth great shattering, we will lose an important part of
ourselves as well: our very humanity.
In many respects the "state", USA that is, is already lost. What we had until the 1950s
was an ongoing mythology known as America; an agreed upon, ongoing concern known abroad for
its popular music, for Hollywood, for a thriving middle class, a healthy working-class and a
supplier of goods and services to the world, envy of all. Well, we shot a few holes in Myth
America!
First to go was the music: replaced by Bubblegum; downhill from there. Tin Pan Alley is
now dumpster heaven. The middle class now resides in Beijing with largess delivered to our
Dollar emporiums (not seen here since the Great Depression). Noticeable gaps in the starving
malls once housed record stores and book shops; remember them?
The final blow has landed on the movie houses across the land. Near empty, struggling.
Even in the depths of the 30′s, movie house were full. But then, "No myth:No nation".
No more.
In other parts in this series, I have discussed the tools that the elite are using to achieve
their goals.
In part I, I talked about how debt is used as a tool of enslavement, and in
part II I explained how central banking is a system of financial control that literally dominates
the entire planet (
Part III and
Part IV here) Professor Quigley also mentioned this system of financial control
in his book
"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create
a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each
country and the economy of the world as a whole."
Today, a system of interlocking global treaties is slowly but surely merging us into a global
economic system. The World Trade Organization was formed on January 1, 1995, and 164 nations now
belong to it. And every time you hear of a new "free trade agreement" being signed, that is another
step toward a one world economy.
Of course economics is just one element of their overall plan. Ultimately the goal is to erode
national sovereignty almost completely and to merge the nations of the world into a single unified
system of global governance.
... ... ...
Once you start looking into these things, you will see that the elite are very openly telling us
what they intend to do.
One of my favorite examples of this phenomenon is a quote from David Rockefeller's book entitled
Memoirs
Some even believe we are a part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United
States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around
the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you
will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty and I am proud of it
As David Rockefeller openly admitted, they are "internationalists" that are intent on establishing
a one world system.
Wars eventually deeply affect on the nation
which launches them....
Notable quotes:
"... Stop thinking of this country as the sole superpower or the indispensable nation on Earth and start reimagining it as the great fracturer, the exceptional smasher, the indispensable fragmenter. Its wars of the twenty-first century are starting to come home big time -- home being not just this particular country (though that's true , too) but this planet. Though hardly alone , the U.S. is, for the moment, the most exceptional home-destroyer around and its president is now not just the commander-in-chief but the home-smasher-in-chief. ..."
"... Just this week, for instance, home smashing was in the headlines. After all, the Islamic State's "capital," the city of Raqqa, was " liberated ." We won! The U.S. and the forces it backed in Syria were finally victorious and the brutal Islamic State (a home-smashing movement that emerged from an American military prison in Iraq) was finally driven from that city ( almost !). And oh yes, according to witnesses , the former city of 300,000 lies abandoned with hardly a building left undamaged, unbroken, unsmashed. ..."
"... In the Greater Middle East and Africa, people by the tens of millions , including staggering numbers of children , have been uprooted and displaced, their homes destroyed, their cities and towns devastated, sending survivors fleeing across national borders as refugees in numbers that haven't been seen since a significant part of the planet was leveled in World War II. ..."
Stop thinking of this country as the sole superpower or the indispensable nation on
Earth and start reimagining it as the great fracturer, the exceptional smasher, the
indispensable fragmenter. Its wars of the twenty-first century are starting to come home big
time -- home being not just this particular country (though that's
true , too) but this planet. Though
hardly alone , the U.S. is, for the moment, the most exceptional home-destroyer around and
its president is now not just the commander-in-chief but the home-smasher-in-chief.
Just this week, for instance, home smashing was in the headlines. After all, the Islamic
State's "capital," the city of Raqqa, was " liberated
." We won! The U.S. and the forces it backed in Syria were finally victorious and the brutal
Islamic State (a home-smashing movement that emerged from an American military
prison in Iraq) was finally driven from that city (
almost !). And oh yes, according to witnesses , the former city of 300,000 lies
abandoned with hardly a building left undamaged, unbroken, unsmashed. Over these last
months, the American bombing campaign against Raqqa and the artillery support that went with it
reportedly killed
more than 1,000
civilians and turned significant parts of the city into
rubble -- and what that didn't do, ISIS bombs and other munitions did. (According to
estimates , they could take years to find and remove.) And Raqqa is just the
latest Middle Eastern city to be smashed
more or less to bits.
And since the splintering of the planet is the TomDispatch subject of the day, what
about the recent Austrian election, fought out and
won by right-wing "populists" on the basis of anti-refugee sentiments and Islamophobia?
Where exactly did such sentiments come from? You know perfectly well: from America's war on
terror and the much-vaunted " precision warfare " (smart bombs and the rest)
that continues to fracture a vast swath of the planet from Afghanistan to Libya and beyond.
In the Greater Middle East and Africa, people by the
tens of millions , including staggering numbers of children , have been uprooted and displaced,
their homes destroyed, their cities and towns devastated, sending survivors fleeing across
national borders as refugees in numbers that haven't been seen since a significant part of the
planet was leveled in World War II. In this way, America's 16-year-old war on terror has
been a genuine force for terror, and so for the kind of resentment and fear that's now helping
to crack open a recently united Europe (and in the United States helped elect well, you know
just who).
And that's only a small introduction to the largely unexplored American role in the
fracturing of this planet. Don't even get me started on our president and climate change!
As it happens, the fellow who brought the nature of this splintering home to me was
TomDispatch
regular John Feffer, who in
early 2015 began writing for this website what became his remarkable dystopian novel
Splinterlands
. In it, he imagined our shattered planet in 2050 so vividly that it's stayed with me ever
since -- and evidently with him, too, because today he considers just how quickly the
splintering process he imagined has been occurring not in his fictional version of our world,
but in the all-too-real one.
If we lose the state in a fourth great shattering, we will lose an important part of
ourselves as well: our very humanity.
In many respects the "state", USA that is, is already lost. What we had until the 1950s
was an ongoing mythology known as America; an agreed upon, ongoing concern known abroad for
its popular music, for Hollywood, for a thriving middle class, a healthy working-class and a
supplier of goods and services to the world, envy of all. Well, we shot a few holes in Myth
America!
First to go was the music: replaced by Bubblegum; downhill from there. Tin Pan Alley is
now dumpster heaven. The middle class now resides in Beijing with largess delivered to our
Dollar emporiums (not seen here since the Great Depression). Noticeable gaps in the starving
malls once housed record stores and book shops; remember them?
The final blow has landed on the movie houses across the land. Near empty, struggling.
Even in the depths of the 30′s, movie house were full. But then, "No myth:No nation".
No more.
In other parts in this series, I have discussed the tools that the elite are using to achieve
their goals.
In part I, I talked about how debt is used as a tool of enslavement, and in
part II I explained how central banking is a system of financial control that literally dominates
the entire planet (
Part III and
Part IV here) Professor Quigley also mentioned this system of financial control
in his book
"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create
a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each
country and the economy of the world as a whole."
Today, a system of interlocking global treaties is slowly but surely merging us into a global
economic system. The World Trade Organization was formed on January 1, 1995, and 164 nations now
belong to it. And every time you hear of a new "free trade agreement" being signed, that is another
step toward a one world economy.
Of course economics is just one element of their overall plan. Ultimately the goal is to erode
national sovereignty almost completely and to merge the nations of the world into a single unified
system of global governance.
... ... ...
Once you start looking into these things, you will see that the elite are very openly telling us
what they intend to do.
One of my favorite examples of this phenomenon is a quote from David Rockefeller's book entitled
Memoirs
Some even believe we are a part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United
States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around
the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you
will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty and I am proud of it
As David Rockefeller openly admitted, they are "internationalists" that are intent on establishing
a one world system.
Maybe US foreign policy as well as the popular sentiments expressed in the thread are well
explained by the fact that the US does not have to worry about any bridges connecting it with
the nations it attacks and devastates.
With two shining seas on either side, and no apparent military concern about the borders
north and south, maybe all wars to be pursued for profit and "interest" are by definition
elective, hence aggression, hence unconstitutional and illegal.
Hamdani was a soldier and Hussein although a competent soldier was first and foremost a
politician.(Qusay was a spoilt child).
Soldiers can win battles and even 'wars' but do not have the end-game in mind.
The only thing that USA could gain was some oil, some gold and a few more years of
Bretton-Woods hegemony. Hussein attacked USA where it hurt. Refusing to go along with the
Dollar exchange and insisting on Euro. Gaddafi did the same with a Gold based Dinar, and see
where it got him. Iran has the same idea with the Tehran oil exchange, which is why they
were/are so hated.
China and Russia and Hussein knew that it is only the first step to win a battle. If you
take ground, you must then occupy that ground. Russia moved millions of Russians to all the
occupied territories, and therefore could rightly claim that Crimea (and Kiev) were Russian
territory inhabited by Russian speaking people. China in Tibet, Israel in Jerusalem. To win
the battle is only a minor step, you need to occupy the land with your people to keep it.
There was/is no way that Americans are going to resettle in Afghanistan or Iraq and
therefore they can never win the war. USA has 'occupied' Europe for as long as their troops
have the 'Russians are coming' was believed and that the US army could enforce the
Bretton-woods diktat. Both are now discredited and the USA will lose everywhere. It is trying
to gain Africa, but there are already a million Chinese who have settled and USA has no
chance. Of course the fact that the Chinese and Russians have gone to Africa with money and
trade whilst the US has only drones and guns to offer will not make them popular either.
USA is dying and the final death throes are painful to watch, but it comes to all
eventually. You had a good run but now is the time to say goodbye.
The British recognised it after the Second World War and handed over the colonies to the
natives. Which then ran them into the ground with Australia, Canada and India being prime
examples of why people need a strong hand to control them, but USA cannot or will not let
go.
Unfortunately it is sad rather than amusing to watch the demise.
Despite all that is said, the USA has not "failed" in Iraq. The invasion of Iraq, as well as
the invasion of Afghanistan and the destabilization of Libya and Syria, are all steps in the
plan to control natural resources and dismember any threat to the zionist entity of israel
whose lackeys actually control the U.S.
In addition, every country that was attacked was placed directly under the control of the
bankers who finance the zionists. Every threat to the hegenomy of these bankers has been
snuffed out and everywhere gold reserves were stolen, and oil, gas and mineral deposits are
now under their control.
Whether you believe it ot like it or not, this is what is happening.
"... CIA agents are tight-lipped, but Steinem spoke openly about her relationship to "The Agency" in the 1950s and '60s after a magazine revealed her employment by a CIA front organization, the Independent Research Service. ..."
"... Wait, what? The CIA was headed up by one of America's most notorious psychopaths during that time, Allen Dulles. She must be aware of this fact. This is an interesting person for women to hold up as a role model, and to help lead the "resistance." ..."
"... Is this feminist crone from time immemorial saying that young women aren't allowed to have fun? ..."
"... It's not confirmation, however this is worth a read imo and mentions Cronkite: https://www.corbettreport.com/the-cia-and-the-news-media-eyeopener-preview/ ..."
The best way to control the opposition is to lead it.
I am of the strong belief that any administration which comes into power in the current environment
of nearly unrestrained executive authority, a lawless and sprawling intelligence agency complex,
and a debt-driven, rent-seeking rewarding fraud economy should be assumed to represent a serious
threat to the civil liberties and remaining freedoms of the American public. This would've been true
under Hillary, and it's also true under Trump.
Personally, I think Trump will be reacting to events outside of his control more than he will
be controlling his own destiny given the extremely precarious point we are in during this geopolitical,
cultural and economic cycle. This is a very dangerous period, and it will likely only get more dangerous
as the years unfold. Not because of Trump, but because of the circumstances we have allowed ourselves
to be boxed into as a people. As such, I fully understand and appreciate the role of non-violent
protest and civil disobedience in the Trump era, just like I understood it and advocated for it during
Obama's transgressions.
Trump's administration got off to a serious bang with the Women's March over the weekend, which
were unquestionably large events. While I think protest is important, and I don't want to minimize
the achievement of getting that many people out in the streets, there were many aspects of it that
left a very foul taste in my mouth. Let's start off with some of the people actively involved.
From the LA Times:
The Women's March on Washington may have been filled with celebrities, singers and all sorts of
Hollywood A-listers, but it was longtime feminist and writer Gloria Steinem who really revved up
the crowd.
Upon exiting the Women's March after her keynote speech in which she emphasized that protest means
more than hitting the "send" button, a crowd formed around Steinem. Mothers rushed up to introduce
their daughters to her; protesters held out their signs for her autograph.
Gloria Steinem, feminist icon and CIA-operative in the 1950's and 60's. Oh, you didn't know that?
From The Chicago Tribune:
CIA agents are tight-lipped, but Steinem spoke openly about her relationship to "The Agency"
in the 1950s and '60s after a magazine revealed her employment by a CIA front organization, the Independent
Research Service.
While popularly pilloried because of her paymaster, Steinem defended the CIA relationship, saying:
"In my experience The Agency was completely different from its image; it was liberal, nonviolent
and honorable."
Wait, what? The CIA was headed up by one of America's most notorious psychopaths during that
time, Allen Dulles. She must be aware of this fact. This is an interesting person for women to hold
up as a role model, and to help lead the "resistance."
Right. And she also admonished young women who supported Bernie Sanders of doing so only to
get close to the 'BernieBros' in their tree houses, presumably to get their share of the action,
the implication being sexual. Is this feminist crone from time immemorial saying that young women
aren't allowed to have fun? Maybe they then belong in that special circle of hell Madeleine Albright
reserved for women who did not vote Hillary. That circle must be really full now.
When these two women vented their venom the SS Clinton took on a whole lot of fatal ballast.
The Women's March was very impressive and I hope all the participants had fun and enjoy nice memories.
The midterms are in 22 months. Another major fail is in the offing if people don't now get organised
and focused on matters outside identity politics, like poor and rich, sick and healthy, environment
and so much more. Sorry to say I doubt this will happen. The Democratic Party will not allow it
to happen.
It's important to remember there are more than a few state elections coming up not in 22 months
but in 11, including governorships. We have to be careful we don't get so focused on Congress
we lose sight of the other upcoming opportunities.
Is this feminist crone from time immemorial saying that young women aren't allowed to have
fun?
I think it's much worse than that. She's implying women have no ability to think for themselves,
or even that they think at all. She's saying no woman is above their hormones. She's saying to
diiffer with her and or Her–> is sub-deplorable.
Had any man said it . much less rapped about it. Treehouse! Really?
I don't think Cronkite was an agent or worked with the CIA He made a big deal of confronting
GHW Bush about it, but you can say of course he would. Cronkite worked for CBS, the ABC reporter
that accused him of it was later found out to be a CIA informant/agent, what ever you want to
call him.
I don't know that it would have made a lot of difference one way or another.
The part that stood out to me is the people labeling themselves organizers. Organizers are
the supervisors. At different jobs, we were subjected to the organizers: the boss who would post
flyers, send e-mails for their child's fundraiser and then call a meeting to see who was in. Ever
been subject to the organizer of a corporate event to extract unpaid labor from you? Aren't you
a team player? Don't you want to volunteer?
Personally, I have the term 'volunteer'. It's labor. Pay people and knock off the language
of the elites to excuse theft.
Maybe US foreign policy as well as the popular sentiments expressed in the thread are well
explained by the fact that the US does not have to worry about any bridges connecting it with
the nations it attacks and devastates.
With two shining seas on either side, and no apparent military concern about the borders
north and south, maybe all wars to be pursued for profit and "interest" are by definition
elective, hence aggression, hence unconstitutional and illegal.
Hamdani was a soldier and Hussein although a competent soldier was first and foremost a
politician.(Qusay was a spoilt child).
Soldiers can win battles and even 'wars' but do not have the end-game in mind.
The only thing that USA could gain was some oil, some gold and a few more years of
Bretton-Woods hegemony. Hussein attacked USA where it hurt. Refusing to go along with the
Dollar exchange and insisting on Euro. Gaddafi did the same with a Gold based Dinar, and see
where it got him. Iran has the same idea with the Tehran oil exchange, which is why they
were/are so hated.
China and Russia and Hussein knew that it is only the first step to win a battle. If you
take ground, you must then occupy that ground. Russia moved millions of Russians to all the
occupied territories, and therefore could rightly claim that Crimea (and Kiev) were Russian
territory inhabited by Russian speaking people. China in Tibet, Israel in Jerusalem. To win
the battle is only a minor step, you need to occupy the land with your people to keep it.
There was/is no way that Americans are going to resettle in Afghanistan or Iraq and
therefore they can never win the war. USA has 'occupied' Europe for as long as their troops
have the 'Russians are coming' was believed and that the US army could enforce the
Bretton-woods diktat. Both are now discredited and the USA will lose everywhere. It is trying
to gain Africa, but there are already a million Chinese who have settled and USA has no
chance. Of course the fact that the Chinese and Russians have gone to Africa with money and
trade whilst the US has only drones and guns to offer will not make them popular either.
USA is dying and the final death throes are painful to watch, but it comes to all
eventually. You had a good run but now is the time to say goodbye.
The British recognised it after the Second World War and handed over the colonies to the
natives. Which then ran them into the ground with Australia, Canada and India being prime
examples of why people need a strong hand to control them, but USA cannot or will not let
go.
Unfortunately it is sad rather than amusing to watch the demise.
Despite all that is said, the USA has not "failed" in Iraq. The invasion of Iraq, as well as
the invasion of Afghanistan and the destabilization of Libya and Syria, are all steps in the
plan to control natural resources and dismember any threat to the zionist entity of israel
whose lackeys actually control the U.S.
In addition, every country that was attacked was placed directly under the control of the
bankers who finance the zionists. Every threat to the hegenomy of these bankers has been
snuffed out and everywhere gold reserves were stolen, and oil, gas and mineral deposits are
now under their control.
Whether you believe it ot like it or not, this is what is happening.
"... CIA agents are tight-lipped, but Steinem spoke openly about her relationship to "The Agency" in the 1950s and '60s after a magazine revealed her employment by a CIA front organization, the Independent Research Service. ..."
"... Wait, what? The CIA was headed up by one of America's most notorious psychopaths during that time, Allen Dulles. She must be aware of this fact. This is an interesting person for women to hold up as a role model, and to help lead the "resistance." ..."
"... Is this feminist crone from time immemorial saying that young women aren't allowed to have fun? ..."
"... It's not confirmation, however this is worth a read imo and mentions Cronkite: https://www.corbettreport.com/the-cia-and-the-news-media-eyeopener-preview/ ..."
The best way to control the opposition is to lead it.
I am of the strong belief that any administration which comes into power in the current environment
of nearly unrestrained executive authority, a lawless and sprawling intelligence agency complex,
and a debt-driven, rent-seeking rewarding fraud economy should be assumed to represent a serious
threat to the civil liberties and remaining freedoms of the American public. This would've been true
under Hillary, and it's also true under Trump.
Personally, I think Trump will be reacting to events outside of his control more than he will
be controlling his own destiny given the extremely precarious point we are in during this geopolitical,
cultural and economic cycle. This is a very dangerous period, and it will likely only get more dangerous
as the years unfold. Not because of Trump, but because of the circumstances we have allowed ourselves
to be boxed into as a people. As such, I fully understand and appreciate the role of non-violent
protest and civil disobedience in the Trump era, just like I understood it and advocated for it during
Obama's transgressions.
Trump's administration got off to a serious bang with the Women's March over the weekend, which
were unquestionably large events. While I think protest is important, and I don't want to minimize
the achievement of getting that many people out in the streets, there were many aspects of it that
left a very foul taste in my mouth. Let's start off with some of the people actively involved.
From the LA Times:
The Women's March on Washington may have been filled with celebrities, singers and all sorts of
Hollywood A-listers, but it was longtime feminist and writer Gloria Steinem who really revved up
the crowd.
Upon exiting the Women's March after her keynote speech in which she emphasized that protest means
more than hitting the "send" button, a crowd formed around Steinem. Mothers rushed up to introduce
their daughters to her; protesters held out their signs for her autograph.
Gloria Steinem, feminist icon and CIA-operative in the 1950's and 60's. Oh, you didn't know that?
From The Chicago Tribune:
CIA agents are tight-lipped, but Steinem spoke openly about her relationship to "The Agency"
in the 1950s and '60s after a magazine revealed her employment by a CIA front organization, the Independent
Research Service.
While popularly pilloried because of her paymaster, Steinem defended the CIA relationship, saying:
"In my experience The Agency was completely different from its image; it was liberal, nonviolent
and honorable."
Wait, what? The CIA was headed up by one of America's most notorious psychopaths during that
time, Allen Dulles. She must be aware of this fact. This is an interesting person for women to hold
up as a role model, and to help lead the "resistance."
Right. And she also admonished young women who supported Bernie Sanders of doing so only to
get close to the 'BernieBros' in their tree houses, presumably to get their share of the action,
the implication being sexual. Is this feminist crone from time immemorial saying that young women
aren't allowed to have fun? Maybe they then belong in that special circle of hell Madeleine Albright
reserved for women who did not vote Hillary. That circle must be really full now.
When these two women vented their venom the SS Clinton took on a whole lot of fatal ballast.
The Women's March was very impressive and I hope all the participants had fun and enjoy nice memories.
The midterms are in 22 months. Another major fail is in the offing if people don't now get organised
and focused on matters outside identity politics, like poor and rich, sick and healthy, environment
and so much more. Sorry to say I doubt this will happen. The Democratic Party will not allow it
to happen.
It's important to remember there are more than a few state elections coming up not in 22 months
but in 11, including governorships. We have to be careful we don't get so focused on Congress
we lose sight of the other upcoming opportunities.
Is this feminist crone from time immemorial saying that young women aren't allowed to have
fun?
I think it's much worse than that. She's implying women have no ability to think for themselves,
or even that they think at all. She's saying no woman is above their hormones. She's saying to
diiffer with her and or Her–> is sub-deplorable.
Had any man said it . much less rapped about it. Treehouse! Really?
I don't think Cronkite was an agent or worked with the CIA He made a big deal of confronting
GHW Bush about it, but you can say of course he would. Cronkite worked for CBS, the ABC reporter
that accused him of it was later found out to be a CIA informant/agent, what ever you want to
call him.
I don't know that it would have made a lot of difference one way or another.
The part that stood out to me is the people labeling themselves organizers. Organizers are
the supervisors. At different jobs, we were subjected to the organizers: the boss who would post
flyers, send e-mails for their child's fundraiser and then call a meeting to see who was in. Ever
been subject to the organizer of a corporate event to extract unpaid labor from you? Aren't you
a team player? Don't you want to volunteer?
Personally, I have the term 'volunteer'. It's labor. Pay people and knock off the language
of the elites to excuse theft.
"... Google is algorithmically burying leftist news and opinion sources such as Alternet, Counterpunch, Global Research, Consortium News, and Truthout, among others. ..."
"... my political essays are often reposted by right-wing and, yes, even pro-Russia blogs. I get mail from former Sanders supporters, Trump supporters, anarchists, socialists, former 1960s radicals, anti-Semites, and other human beings, some of whom I passionately agree with, others of whom I passionately disagree with. As far as I can tell from the emails, none of these readers voted for Clinton, or Macron, or supported the TPP, or the debt-enslavement and looting of Greece, or the ongoing restructuring of the Greater Middle East (and all the lovely knock-on effects that has brought us), or believe that Trump is a Russian operative, or that Obama is Martin Luther Jesus-on-a-stick. ..."
"... What they share, despite their opposing views, is a general awareness that the locus of power in our post-Cold War age is primarily corporate, or global capitalist, and neoliberal in nature. They also recognize that they are being subjected to a massive propaganda campaign designed to lump them all together (again, despite their opposing views) into an intentionally vague and undefinable category comprising anyone and everyone, everywhere, opposing the hegemony of global capitalism, and its non-ideological ideology (the nature of which I'll get into in a moment). ..."
"... Although the term has been around since the Fifth Century BC, the concept of "extremism" as we know it today developed in the late Twentieth Century and has come into vogue in the last three decades. During the Cold War, the preferred exonymics were "subversive," "radical," or just plain old "communist," all of which terms referred to an actual ideological adversary. ..."
"... Which is why, despite the "Russiagate" hysteria the media have been barraging us with, the West is not going to war with Russia. Nor are we going to war with China. Russia and China are developed countries, whose economies are entirely dependent on global capitalism, as are Western economies. The economies of every developed nation on the planet are inextricably linked. This is the nature of the global hegemony I've been referring to throughout this essay. Not American hegemony, but global capitalist hegemony. Systemic, supranational hegemony (which I like to prefer "the Corporatocracy," as it sounds more poetic and less post-structural). ..."
"... Global capitalism, since the end of the Cold War (i.e, immediately after the end of the Cold War), has been conducting a global clean-up operation, eliminating actual and potential insurgencies, mostly in the Middle East, but also in its Western markets. Having won the last ideological war, like any other victorious force, it has been "clear-and-holding" the conquered territory, which in this case happens to be the whole planet. Just for fun, get out a map, and look at the history of invasions, bombings, and other "interventions" conducted by the West and its assorted client states since 1990. Also, once you're done with that, consider how, over the last fifteen years, most Western societies have been militarized, their citizens placed under constant surveillance, and an overall atmosphere of "emergency" fostered, and paranoia about "the threat of extremism" propagated by the corporate media. ..."
"... Short some sort of cataclysm, like an asteroid strike or the zombie apocalypse, or, you know, violent revolution, global capitalism will continue to restructure the planet to conform to its ruthless interests. The world will become increasingly "normal." The scourge of "extremism" and "terrorism" will persist, as will the general atmosphere of "emergency." There will be no more Trumps, Brexit referendums, revolts against the banks, and so on. Identity politics will continue to flourish, providing a forum for leftist activist types (and others with an unhealthy interest in politics), who otherwise might become a nuisance, but any and all forms of actual dissent from global capitalist ideology will be systematically marginalized and pathologized. ..."
"... C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and satirist based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing (USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23 , is published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. He can reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org . ..."
"... That is certainly what the geopolitical establishment is hoping for, but I remain skeptical of their ability to contain what forces they've used to balance the various camps of dissenting proles. They've painted themselves into a corner with non-white identity politics combined with mass immigration. The logical conclusion of where they're going is pogroms and none of the kleptocracy seem bold enough to try and stop this from happening. ..."
"... Germany is the last EU member state where an anti EU party entered parliament. In the last French elections four out of every ten voters voted on anti EU parties. In Austria the anti EU parties now have a majority. So if I were leading a big corporation, thriving by globalism, what also the EU is, I would be worried. ..."
"... This is a great article. The author's identification of "normality" & "extremism" as Capitalism's go-to concepts for social control is spot on accurate. That these terms can mean anything or nothing & are infinitely flexible is central to their power. ..."
Back in October of 2016, I wrote
a somewhat divisive essay in which I suggested that political dissent is being systematically
pathologized. In fact, this process has been ongoing for decades, but it has been significantly accelerated
since the Brexit referendum and the Rise of Trump (or, rather, the Fall of Hillary Clinton, as it
was Americans' lack of enthusiasm for eight more years of corporatocracy with a sugar coating of
identity politics, and not their enthusiasm for Trump, that mostly put the clown in office.)
In the twelve months since I wrote that piece, we have been subjected to a concerted campaign
of corporate media propaganda for which there is no historical precedent. Virtually every major organ
of the Western media apparatus (the most powerful propaganda machine in the annals of powerful propaganda
machines) has been relentlessly churning out variations on a new official ideological narrative designed
to generate and enforce conformity. The gist of this propaganda campaign is that "Western democracy"
is under attack by a confederacy of Russians and white supremacists, as well as "the terrorists"
and other "extremists" it's been under attack by for the last sixteen years.
I've been writing about this campaign for a year now, so I'm not going to rehash all the details.
Suffice to say we've gone from
Russian operatives hacking the American elections to "Russia-linked" persons "apparently" setting
up "illegitimate" Facebook accounts, "likely operated out of Russia," and publishing ads that are
"indistinguishable from legitimate political speech" on the Internet. This is what the corporate
media is presenting as evidence of
"an unprecedented foreign invasion of American democracy," a handful of political ads on Facebook.
In addition to the Russian hacker propaganda, since August, we have also been treated to relentless
white supremacist hysteria and daily reminders from the corporate media that
"white nationalism is destroying the West." The negligible American neo-Nazi subculture has been
blown up into a biblical Behemoth inexorably slouching its way towards the White House to officially
launch the Trumpian Reich.
At the same time, government and corporate entities have been aggressively restricting (and in
many cases eliminating) fundamental civil liberties such as freedom of expression, freedom of the
press, the right of assembly, the right to privacy, and the right to due process under the law. The
justification for this curtailment of rights (which started in earnest in 2001, following the September
11 attacks) is protecting the public from the threat of "terrorism," which apparently shows no signs
of abating. As of now, the United States has been in
a State of Emergency for over sixteen years. The UK is in
a virtual State of Emergency . France is now in the process of enshrining
its permanent State of Emergency into law. Draconian counter-terrorism measures have been
implemented throughout the EU . Not just
the notorious American police but
police
throughout the West have been militarized . Every other day we learn of some
new emergency security measure designed to keep us safe from "the terrorists," the "lone wolf
shooters," and other "extremists."
Conveniently, since the Brexit referendum and unexpected election of Trump (which is when the
capitalist ruling classes first recognized that they had a widespread nationalist backlash on their
hands), the definition of "terrorism" (or, more broadly, "extremism") has been expanded to include
not just Al Qaeda, or ISIS, or whoever we're calling "the terrorists" these days, but anyone else
the ruling classes decide they need to label "extremists." The FBI has designated Black Lives Matter
"Black Identity Extremists." The FBI and the DHS have designated Antifa
"domestic terrorists."
Whatever your opinion of these organizations and "extremist" persons is beside the point. I'm
not a big fan of neo-Nazis, personally, but neither am I a fan of Antifa. I don't have much use for
conspiracy theories, or a lot of the nonsense one finds on the Internet, but I consume a fair amount
of alternative media, and I publish in CounterPunch, The Unz Review, ColdType, and other non-corporate
journals.
I consider myself a leftist, basically, but my political essays are often reposted by right-wing
and, yes, even pro-Russia blogs. I get mail from former Sanders supporters, Trump supporters, anarchists,
socialists, former 1960s radicals, anti-Semites, and other human beings, some of whom I passionately
agree with, others of whom I passionately disagree with. As far as I can tell from the emails, none
of these readers voted for Clinton, or Macron, or supported the TPP, or the debt-enslavement and
looting of Greece, or the ongoing restructuring of the Greater Middle East (and all the lovely knock-on
effects that has brought us), or believe that Trump is a Russian operative, or that Obama is Martin
Luther Jesus-on-a-stick.
What they share, despite their opposing views, is a general awareness that the locus of power
in our post-Cold War age is primarily corporate, or global capitalist, and neoliberal in nature.
They also recognize that they are being subjected to a massive propaganda campaign designed to lump
them all together (again, despite their opposing views) into an intentionally vague and undefinable
category comprising anyone and everyone, everywhere, opposing the hegemony of global capitalism,
and its non-ideological ideology (the nature of which I'll get into in a moment).
As I wrote in that essay a year ago, "a line is being drawn in the ideological sand." This line
cuts across both Left and Right, dividing what the capitalist ruling classes designate "normal" from
what they label "extremist." The traditional ideological paradigm, Left versus Right, is disappearing
(except as a kind of minstrel show), and is being replaced, or overwritten, by a pathological
paradigm based upon the concept of "extremism."
* * *
Although the term has been around since the Fifth Century BC, the concept of "extremism" as
we know it today developed in the late Twentieth Century and has come into vogue in the last three
decades. During the Cold War, the preferred exonymics were "subversive," "radical," or just plain
old "communist," all of which terms referred to an actual ideological adversary.
In the early 1990s, as the U.S.S.R. disintegrated, and globalized Western capitalism became the
unrivaled global-hegemonic ideological system that it is today, a new concept was needed to represent
the official enemy and its ideology. The concept of "extremism" does that perfectly, as it connotes,
not an external enemy with a definable ideological goal, but rather, a deviation from the norm. The
nature of the deviation (e.g., right-wing, left-wing, faith-based, and so on) is secondary, almost
incidental. The deviation itself is the point. The "terrorist," the "extremist," the "white supremacist,"
the "religious fanatic," the "violent anarchist" these figures are not rational actors whose ideas
we need to intellectually engage with in order to debate or debunk. They are pathological deviations,
mutant cells within the body of "normality," which we need to identify and eliminate, not for ideological
reasons, but purely in order to maintain "security."
A truly global-hegemonic system like contemporary global capitalism (the first of this kind in
human history), technically, has no ideology. "Normality" is its ideology an ideology which erases
itself and substitutes the concept of what's "normal," or, in other words, "just the way it is."
The specific characteristics of "normality," although not quite arbitrary, are ever-changing. In
the West, for example, thirty years ago, smoking was normal. Now, it's abnormal. Being gay was abnormal.
Now, it's normal. Being transgender is becoming normal, although we're still in the early stages
of the process. Racism has become abnormal. Body hair is currently abnormal. Walking down the street
in a semi-fugue state robotically thumbing the screen of a smartphone that you just finished thumbing
a minute ago is "normal." Capitalism has no qualms with these constant revisions to what is considered
normal, because none of them are threats to capitalism. On the contrary, as far as values are concerned,
the more flexible and commodifiable the better.
See, despite what intersectionalists will tell you, capitalism has no interest in racism, misogyny,
homophobia, xenophobia, or any other despotic values (though it has no problem working with these
values when they serve its broader strategic purposes). Capitalism is an economic system, which we
have elevated to a social system. It only has one fundamental value, exchange value, which isn't
much of a value, at least not in terms of organizing society or maintaining any sort of human culture
or reverence for the natural world it exists in. In capitalist society, everything, everyone, every
object and sentient being, every concept and human emotion, is worth exactly what the market will
bear no more, no less, than its market price. There is no other measure of value.
Yes, we all want there to be other values, and we pretend there are, but there aren't, not really.
Although we're free to enjoy parochial subcultures based on alternative values (i.e., religious bodies,
the arts, and so on), these subcultures operate within capitalist society, and ultimately conform
to its rules. In the arts, for example, works are either commercial products, like any other commodity,
or they are subsidized by what could be called "the simulated aristocracy," the ivy league-educated
leisure classes (and lower class artists aspiring thereto) who need to pretend that they still have
"culture" in order to feel superior to the masses. In the latter case, this feeling of superiority
is the upscale product being sold. In the former, it is entertainment, distraction from the depressing
realities of living, not in a society at all, but in a marketplace with no real human values. (In
the absence of any real cultural values, there is no qualitative difference between Gerhard
Richter and Adam Sandler, for example. They're both successful capitalist artists. They're just selling
their products in different markets.)
The fact that it has no human values is the evil genius of global capitalist society. Unlike the
despotic societies it replaced, it has no allegiance to any cultural identities, or traditions, or
anything other than money. It can accommodate any form of government, as long as it plays ball with
global capitalism. Thus, the window dressing of "normality" is markedly different from country to
country, but the essence of "normality" remains the same. Even in countries with state religions
(like Iran) or state ideologies (like China), the governments play by the rules of global capitalism
like everyone else. If they don't, they can expect to receive a visit from global capitalism's Regime
Change Department (i.e., the US military and its assorted partners).
Which is why, despite the "Russiagate" hysteria the media have been barraging us with, the
West is not going to war with Russia. Nor are we going to war with China. Russia and China are developed
countries, whose economies are entirely dependent on global capitalism, as are Western economies.
The economies of every developed nation on the planet are inextricably linked. This is the nature
of the global hegemony I've been referring to throughout this essay. Not American hegemony, but global
capitalist hegemony. Systemic, supranational hegemony (which I like to prefer "the Corporatocracy,"
as it sounds more poetic and less post-structural).
We haven't really got our minds around it yet, because we're still in the early stages of it,
but we have entered an epoch in which historical events are primarily being driven, and societies
reshaped, not by sovereign nation states acting in their national interests but by supranational
corporations acting in their corporate interests. Paramount among these corporate interests is the
maintenance and expansion of global capitalism, and the elimination of any impediments thereto. Forget
about the United States (i.e., the actual nation state) for a moment, and look at what's been happening
since the early 1990s. The US military's "disastrous misadventures" in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan,
Syria, and the former Yugoslavia, among other exotic places (which have obviously had nothing to
do with the welfare or security of any actual Americans), begin to make a lot more sense.
Global capitalism, since the end of the Cold War (i.e, immediately after the end of the Cold
War), has been conducting a global clean-up operation, eliminating actual and potential insurgencies,
mostly in the Middle East, but also in its Western markets. Having won the last ideological war,
like any other victorious force, it has been
"clear-and-holding" the
conquered territory, which in this case happens to be the whole planet. Just for fun, get out a map,
and look at the history of invasions, bombings, and other "interventions" conducted by the West and
its assorted client states since 1990. Also, once you're done with that, consider how, over the last
fifteen years, most Western societies have been militarized, their citizens placed under constant
surveillance, and an overall atmosphere of "emergency" fostered, and paranoia about "the threat of
extremism" propagated by the corporate media.
I'm not suggesting there's a bunch of capitalists sitting around in a room somewhere in their
shiny black top hats planning all of this. I'm talking about systemic development, which is a little
more complex than that, and much more difficult to intelligently discuss because we're used to perceiving
historico-political events in the context of competing nation states, rather than competing ideological
systems or non-competing ideological systems, for capitalism has no competition . What it
has, instead, is a variety of insurgencies, the faith-based Islamic fundamentalist insurgency and
the neo-nationalist insurgency chief among them. There will certainly be others throughout the near
future as global capitalism consolidates control and restructures societies according to its values.
None of these insurgencies will be successful.
Short some sort of cataclysm, like an asteroid strike or the zombie apocalypse, or, you know,
violent revolution, global capitalism will continue to restructure the planet to conform to its ruthless
interests. The world will become increasingly "normal." The scourge of "extremism" and "terrorism"
will persist, as will the general atmosphere of "emergency." There will be no more Trumps, Brexit
referendums, revolts against the banks, and so on. Identity politics will continue to flourish, providing
a forum for leftist activist types (and others with an unhealthy interest in politics), who otherwise
might become a nuisance, but any and all forms of actual dissent from global capitalist ideology
will be systematically marginalized and pathologized.
This won't happen right away, of course. Things are liable to get ugly first (as if they weren't
ugly enough already), but probably not in the way we're expecting, or being trained to expect by
the corporate media. Look, I'll give you a dollar if it turns out I'm wrong, and the Russians, terrorists,
white supremacists, and other "extremists" do bring down "democracy" and launch their Islamic, white
supremacist, Russo-Nazi Reich, or whatever, but from where I sit it looks pretty clear tomorrow belongs
to the Corporatocracy.
C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and satirist based in Berlin.
His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing (USA). His debut
novel,
ZONE
23 , is published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. He can reached at
cjhopkins.com or
consentfactory.org .
Brilliant Article. But this has been going on for nearly a century or more. New York Jewish bankers
fund the Bolshevik revolution which gets rid of the Romanov dynasty and many of the revolutionaries
are not even Russian. What many people do not know is that many Western companies invested money
in Bolshevik Russia as the Bolsheviks were speeding up the modernising of the country. What many
do not know is that Feminism, destruction of families and traditional societies, homoerotic art
etc . was forced on the new Soviet population in a shock therapy sort of way. The same process
has been implemented in the West by the elites using a much slower 'boiling the frog' method using
Cultural Marxism. The aim of the Soviet Union was to spread Communism around the World and hence
bring about the One World Government as wished by the globalists. Their national anthem was the
'Internationale'. The globalists were funding revolutionary movements throughout Europe and other
parts of the world. One such attempt went extremely wrong and that was in Germany where instead
of the Communists coming in power, the National Socialists come in power which was the most dangerous
challenge faced by the Zio/globalists/elite gang. The Globalists force a war using false flag
events like Pearl Harbour etc and crushed the powers which challenged their rule i.e. Germany,
Japan and Italy. That is why Capitalist USA funded Communist Soviet Union using the land lease
program, which on the surface never makes any sense.
However in Soviet Russia, a power struggle leads to Stalin destroying the old Communist order
of Lenin Trotsky. Trotsky and his supporters leave the Soviet Union. Many of the present Neo Cons
are ex Trotskyites and hence the crazy hatred for Russia even today in American politics. These
Neocons do not have any principles, they will use any ideology such as Communism, Islam, twisted
Western Conservatism anything to attain their global goals.
Now with Stalin coming to power, things actually improved and the war with Hitler's Third Reich
gave Stalin the chance to purge many old school globalist commies and then the Soviet Union went
towards a more nationalist road. Jews slowly started losing their hold on power with Russians
and eventually other Soviets gaining more powerful positions. These folks found the ugly modern
art culture of the early Soviet period revolting and started a new movement where the messages
of Socialism can be delivered with more healthy beautiful art and culture. This process was called
'Social Realism'. So strangely what happened was that the Capitalist Christian West was becoming
more and more less traditional with time (Cultural Marxism/Fabien Socialism via media, education,
Hollywood) while the Eastern block was slowly moving in an opposite direction. The CIA (which
is basically the intelligence agency arm of Wall Street Bankers) was working to stop this 'Social
Realism' movement.
These same globalists also funded Mao and pulled the rug under Chiang Kai Shek who they were
supporting earlier. Yes, Mao was funded by the Rockerfeller/ Rothschild Cabal. Now, even if the
Globalists were not happy with Stalin gaining power in the Soviet Union (they preferred the internationalist
Trotskyites), they still found that they could work out with the Soviet Union. That is why during
the 2nd World war, the USA supports the USSR with money and material, Stalin gets a facelift as
'friendly Uncle Joe' for the Western audience. Many Cossack families who had escaped the Soviet
Union to the West were sent to their deaths after the War to the Soviet Union. Why? Mr. Eden of
Britain who could not stand Hitler wanted a New World Order where they could work with the more
murderous Soviet Union.
Now we have the cold war. What is not known is that behind the scenes at a higher level, the
Americans and the Soviets cooperated with each other exchanging technology, basically the cold
war was quite fake. But the Cold war gave the American government (basically the Globalists) to
take American Tax payers hard earned money to fund many projects such as Star Wars programme etc
All this was not needed, as a gentleman named Keenan had shown in his book that all the Americans
needed to do was to make sure Japan, Germany and Britain did not fall to the Soviets, that's it.
Thus trillions of American tax payer money would be saved. But obviously the Military Industrial
Complex did not like that idea. Both the Soviet and the American governments got the excuse spend
their people's hard money on weapons research as well as exchanging some of that technology in
the back ground. It is during this period that the precursor to the Internet was already developed.
Many of the technology we use today was already invented much earlier by government agencies but
released to the people later.
Then we have the Vietnam war. Now you must realise that the Globalist government of America
uses wars not only to change enemy societies but also the domestic society in the West. So during
the Vietnam War, the US government using the alphabet agencies such as the CIA kick start the
fake opposition hippie movements. The CIA not only drugged the Vietnamese population using drugs
from the Golden Triangle but later released them on the home population in the USA and the West.
This was all part of the Cultural Marxist plan to change or social engineer American/ Western
society. Many institutes like the Travestock Institute were part of this process. For example
one of the main hochos of the Cultural Marxism, a Mr. Aderno was closely related to the Beatles
movement.
Several experiments was done on mind control such as MK Ultra, monarch programming, Edward
Bernay's works etc Their aim was to destroy traditional Western society and the long term goal
is a New World Order. Blacks for example were used as weapons against Whites at the same time
the black social order was destroyed further via the media etc
Now, Nixon going to China was to start a long term (long planned) process to bring about Corporate
Communism. Yes that is going to be economic system in the coming New World Order. China is the
test tube, where the Worst of Communism and the Worst of Crony Capitalism be brought together
as an experiment. As the Soviet Union was going in a direction, the globalist was not happy about
(it was becoming more nationalist), they worked to bring the Soviet Union down and thus the Soviet
experiment ended only to be continued in China.
NATO today is the core military arm of the globalists, a precursor to a One World Military
Force. That explains why after the Warsaw pact was dismantled, NATO was not or why NATO would
interfere in the Middle East which is far away from the Atlantic Ocean.
The coming Cashless society will finally lead to a moneyless or distribution society, in other
words Communism, that is the long term plan.
My point is, many of the geo political events as well as social movements of the last century
(feminism for example) were all planned for a long time and are not accidents. The coming technologies
like the internet of things, 5G technology, Cashless society, biometric identification everywhere
etc are all designed to help bring about the final aim of the globalists. The final aim is a one
world government with Corporate ruled Communism where we, the worker bees will be living in our
shitty inner city like ghetto homes eating GM plastic foods and listening to crappy music. That
is the future they have planned for us. A inner city ghetto like place under Communism ruled by
greedy evil corporates.
"Short some sort of cataclysm, like an asteroid strike or the zombie apocalypse, or, you know,
violent revolution, global capitalism will continue to restructure the planet to conform to its
ruthless interests."
That is certainly what the geopolitical establishment is hoping for, but I remain skeptical
of their ability to contain what forces they've used to balance the various camps of dissenting
proles. They've painted themselves into a corner with non-white identity politics combined with
mass immigration. The logical conclusion of where they're going is pogroms and none of the kleptocracy
seem bold enough to try and stop this from happening.
That is certainly what the geopolitical establishment is hoping for, but I remain skeptical
of their ability to contain what forces they've used to balance the various camps of dissenting
proles.
There must be some evidence for your assertions about the long term plans and aims of globalists
and others if there is truth in them. The sort of people you are referring to would often have
kept private diaries and certainly written many hundreds or thousands of letters. Can you give
any references to such evidence of say 80 to 130 years ago?
.. puzzling that the writer feels the need to virtue-signal by saying he "doesn't have much
time for conspiracy theories" while condemning an absolutely massive conspiracy to present establishment
lies as truth.
That is one of the most depressing demonstrations of the success of the ruling creeps that
I have yet come across.
Germany is the last EU member state where an anti EU party entered parliament. In the last
French elections four out of every ten voters voted on anti EU parties. In Austria the anti EU
parties now have a majority. So if I were leading a big corporation, thriving by globalism, what
also the EU is, I would be worried.
"See, despite what intersectionalists will tell you, capitalism has no interest in racism, misogyny,
homophobia, xenophobia, or any other despotic values (though it has no problem working with these
values when they serve its broader strategic purposes). Capitalism is an economic system, which
we have elevated to a social system. It only has one fundamental value, exchange value, which
isn't much of a value, at least not in terms of organizing society or maintaining any sort of
human culture or reverence for the natural world it exists in. In capitalist society, everything,
everyone, every object and sentient being, every concept and human emotion, is worth exactly what
the market will bear no more, no less, than its market price. There is no other measure of value."
This is a great article. The author's identification of "normality" & "extremism" as Capitalism's
go-to concepts for social control is spot on accurate. That these terms can mean anything or nothing
& are infinitely flexible is central to their power.
Mr Hopkins is also correct when he points out that Capitalism has essentially NO values (exchange
value is a value, but also a mechanism). Again, Capitalism stands for nothing: any form of government
is acceptable as long as it bows to neoliberal markets.
However, the author probably goes to far:
"Nor are we going to war with China. Russia and China are developed countries, whose economies
are entirely dependent on global capitalism, as are Western economies. The economies of every
developed nation on the planet are inextricably linked. This is the nature of the global hegemony
I've been referring to throughout this essay. Not American hegemony, but global capitalist hegemony.
Systemic, supranational hegemony".
Capitalism has no values: however the Masters of the capitalist system most certainly do: Capitalism
is a means, the most thorough, profound means yet invented, for the attainment of that value which
has NO exchange value: POWER.
Capitalism is a supranational hegemony – yet the Elites which control it, who will act as one
when presented with any external threats to Capitalism itself, are not unified internally. Indeed,
they will engage in cut throat competition, whether considered as individuals or nations or as
particular industries.
US Imperialism is not imaginary, it is not a mere appearance or mirage of Capitalism, supranational
or not. US Imperialism in essence empowers certain sets of Capitalists over other sets. No, they
may not purposely endanger the System as a whole, however, that still leaves plenty of space for
aggressive competition, up to & including war.
Imperialism is the political corollary to the ultimate economic goal of the individual Capitalist:
Monopoly.
Psychologically daring (being no minstrel to corporatocracy nor irrelevant activism and other
"religions" that endorse the current world global system as the overhead), rationally correct,
relevant, core definition of the larger geo-world and deeper "ideological" grounding( in the case
of capitalism the quite shallow brute forcing of greed as an incentive, as sterile a society as
possible), and adhering to longer timelines of reality of planet earth. Perfectly captures the
"essence" of the dynamics of our times.
The few come to the authors' through-sites by many venue-ways, that's where some of the corporocratic
world, by sheer statistics wind up also. Why do they not get the overhand into molding the shallow
into anything better in the long haul. No world leader, no intellectual within power circles,
even within confined quarters, speaks to the absurdity of the ongoing slugging and maltering of
global human?
The elites of now are too dumb to consider the planet exo-human as a limited resource. Immigration,
migration, is the de facto path to "normalization" in the terms of the author. Reducing the world
population is not "in" the capitalist ideology. A major weakness, or if one prefers the stake
that pinches the concept of capitalism: more instead of quality principles.
The game changers, the possible game changers: eugenics and how they play out as to the elites
( understanding the genome and manipulating it), artificial intelligence ( defining it first,
not the "Elon Musk" definition), and as a far outlier exo-planetary arguments.
Confront the above with the "unexpected", the not-human engineered possible events (astroids
and the like, secondary effects of human induced toxicity, others), and the chances to get to
the author's "dollar" and what it by then might mean is indeed tiny.
As to the content, one of the utmost relevant articles, it is "art" to condense such broad
a world view into a few words, it requires a deep understanding foremost, left to wonder what
can be grasped by most reading above. Some-one try the numbers?, "big data" anyone, they might
turn out in favor of what the author undoubtedly absorbed as the nucleus of twenty-first thinking,
strategy and engineering.
This kind of thinking and "Harvard" conventionality, what a distance.
Great article, spot on. Indeed we are all at the mercy now of a relatively small clique of ruthless
criminals who are served by armies of desensitized, stupid mercenaries: MBAs, politicians, thugs,
college professors, "whorenalists", etc. I am afraid that the best answer to the current and future
dystopia is what the Germans call "innere Emigration," to psychologically detach oneself
from the contemporary world.
Thus, the only way out of this hellhole is through reading and thinking, which every self-respecting
individual should engage in. Shun most contemporary "literature" and instead turn to the classics
of European culture: there you will find all you need.
For an earlier and ever so pertinent analysis of the contemporary desert, I can heartily recommend
Umberto Galimberti's I vizi capitali e i nuovi vizi (Milan, 2003).
And yes, another verbally strong expression of the in your face truth, though for so few to
grasp. The author again has a deep understanding, if one prefers, it points to the venueway of
coming to terms, the empirical pathway as to the understanding.
"Plasticky" society is my preferred term for designating the aberrance that most (within the
elites), the rest who cares (as an historical truth), do not seem to identify as proper cluelessness
in the light of longer timelines. The current global ideology, religion of capitalism-democracy
is the equivalent of opportunistic naval staring of the elites. They are not aware that suffocation
will irreversibly affect oneself. Not enough air is the equivalent of no air in the end.
The negligible American neo-Nazi subculture has been blown up into a biblical Behemoth inexorably
slouching its way towards the White House to officially launch the Trumpian Reich.
While the above is true, I hope most folks understand that the basic concept of controlling
people through fear is nothing new. The much vaunted constitution was crammed down our collective
throats by the rich scoundrels of the time in the words of more than one anti-federalist through
the conjuring of quite a set of threats, all bogus.
I address my most fervent prayer to prevent our adopting a system destructive to liberty
We are told there are dangers, but those dangers are ideal; they cannot be demonstrated.
- Patrick Henry, Foreign Wars, Civil Wars, and Indian Wars -- Three Bugbears, June 5, 7,
and 9, 1788
Bottom line: Concentrated wealth and power suck.The USA was ruled by a plutoligarchy from its
inception, and the material benefits we still enjoy have occurred not because of it but
despite it.
For today's goofy "right wing" big business "conservatives" who think the US won WW2, I got news
for you. Monopoly capitalism, complete with increasing centralization of the economy and political
forces were given boosts by both world wars.
It was precisely in reaction to their impending defeat at the hands of the competitive storms
of the market tha t business turned, increasingly after the 1900′s, to the federal government
for aid and protection. In short, the intervention by the federal government was designed,
not to curb big business monopoly for the sake of the public weal, but to create monopolies
that big business (as well as trade associations smaller business) had not been able
to establish amidst the competitive gales of the free market. Both Left and Right have been
persistently misled by the notion that intervention by the government is ipso facto leftish
and anti-business. Hence the mythology of the New-Fair Deal-as-Red that is endemic on the Right.
Both the big businessmen, led by the Morgan interests, and Professor Kolko almost uniquely
in the academic world, have realized that monopoly privilege can only be created by the
State and not as a result of free market operations.
-Murray N. Rothbard, Rothbard Left and Right: The Prospects for Liberty, [Originally appeared
in Left and Right, Spring 1965, pp. 4-22.]
It was all about connecting the dots really. Connecting the dots of too many books I have gobe
through and videos I have seen. Too many to list here.
You can get a lot of info from the book 'Tragedy and Hope' by Carroll Quigley though he avoids
mantioning Jews and calls it the Anglo American establishment, Anthony Sutton however I completely
disagree about funding of the Third Reich but he does talk a lot about the secret relationship
between the USA and the USSR, Revilo Oliver etc.. etc Well you could read the Protocols. Now if
you think that the protocols was a forgery, you gotta see this, especially the last part.
Also check this out
Also check out what this Wall Street guy realised in his career.
Also this 911 firefighter, what he found out after some research
Capitalism is an economic system, which we have elevated to a social system. It only
has one fundamental value, exchange value, which isn't much of a value, at least not in terms
of organizing society or maintaining any sort of human culture or reverence for the natural
world it exists in. In capitalist society, everything, everyone, every object and sentient
being, every concept and human emotion, is worth exactly what the market will bear no more,
no less, than its market price. There is no other measure of value.
This looks like the "financialization" of society with Citizens morphing into Consumers.
And it's worth saying that Citizenship and Consumership are completely different concepts:
Citizenship – Dictionary.com
1. – the state of being vested with the rights, privileges, and duties of a citizen.
2. – the character of an individual viewed as a member of society;behavior in terms of the
duties, obligations, and functions of a citizen:
an award for good citizenship.
The Consumer – Dictionary.com
1. a person or thing that consumes.
2. Economics. a person or organization that uses a commodity or service.
A good citizen can then define themselves in a rather non-selfish, non-financial way as for
example, someone who respects others, contributes to local decisions (politically active), gains
respect through work and ethical standards etc.
A good consumer on the other hand, seems to be more a self-idea, essentially someone who buys
and consumes a lot (financial idea), has little political interest – and probably defines themselves
(and others) by how they spend money and what they own.
It's clear that US, and global capitalism, prefers active consumers over active citizens, and
maybe it explains why the US has such a worthless and dysfunctional political process.
Some folks are completely unable to connect the dots even when spoon fed the evidence. You'll
note that some, in risible displays of quasi-intellectual arrogance, make virtually impossible
demands for proof, none of which they'll ever accept. Rather, they flock to self aggrandizing
mythology like flies to fresh sewage which the plutoligarchy produces nearly infinitely.
Your observations appear pretty accurate and self justifying I'd say.
Look up the film director Aaron Russo (recently deceased), discussing how David Rockefeller
tried to bring him over to the dark side. Rockefeller discussed for example the women's movement,
its engineering. Also, there's Aldous Huxley's speech The Ultimate Revolution, on how drugs are
the final solution to rabble troubles–we will think we're happy even in the most appalling societal
conditions.
I can only say Beware of Zinn, best friend of Chomsky, endlessly tauted by shysters like Amy
Goodman and Counterpunch. Like all liberal gatekeepers, he wouldn't touch 911. I saw him speak
not long before he died, and when questioned on this he said, 'That was a long time ago, let's
talk about now.'
This from a professed historian, and it was only 7 years after 911. He seemed to have the same
old Jewish agenda, make Europeans look really bad at all times. He was always on message, like
the shyster Chomsky. Sincerely probing for the truth was not part of his agenda; his truths were
highly selective, and such a colossal event as 911 concerned him not at all, with the ensuing
wars, Patriot Acts, bullshit war on Terror, etc etc
" capitalism has no interest in racism, misogyny, homophobia, xenophobia, or any other despotic
values (though it has no problem working with these values when they serve its broader strategic
purposes). Capitalism is an economic system, which we have elevated to a social system."
This is a typical Left Lie. Capitalism in its present internationalist phase absolutely requires
Anti-Racism to lubricate sales uh, internationally and domestically. We are all Equal.
Then, the ticking-off of the rest of the bad isms, and labeling them 'despotic' is another
Leftwing and poetic attack on more or less all of us white folks, who have largely invented Capitalism,
from a racialist point of view.
"Poetic" because it is an emotional appeal, not a rational argument. The other 'despotisms'
are not despotic, unless you claim, like I do that racial personalities are more, or less despotic,
with Whites being the least despotic. The Left totalitarian thinks emotional despotism's source
is political or statist. It are not. However, Capitalism has been far less despotic than communism,
etc.
Emotional Despotism is part of who Homo Sapiens is, and this emotional despotism is not racially
equal. Whites are the least despotic, and have organized law and rules to contain such despotism.
Systems arise naturally from the Human Condition, like it or not. The attempt here is to sully
the Capitalist system, and that is all it is. This article itself is despotic propaganda.
Arguably, human nature is despotic, and White civilization has attempted to limit our despotic
nature.
This is another story.
As for elevating capitalism into a 'social system' .this is somewhat true. However, that is
not totally bad, as capitalism delivers the goods, which is the first thing, after getting out
of bed.
The second thing, is having a conformable social environment, and that is where racial accord
enters.
People want familiar and trustworthy people around them and that is just the way human nature
is genetic similarity, etc.
Beyond that, the various Leftie complaints-without-end, are also just the way it is. And yes
they can be addressed and ameliorated to some degree, but human nature is not a System to be manipulated,
even thought the current crop of scientistic lefties talk a good storyline about epigenetics and
other Hopes, false of course, like communist planning which makes its first priority, Social Change
which is always despotic. Society takes care of itself, especially racial society.
As Senator Vail said about the 1924 Immigration Act which held the line against Immigration,
"if there is going to be any changing being done, we will do it and nobody else." That 'we' was
a White we.
Capitalism must be national. International capital is tyranny.
US oil companies make about five cents off a single gallon of gasoline, on the other hand US
Big Government taxes on a single gallon are around seventy-one cents for US states & rising, the
tax is now $1.00 per gallon for CA.
IOW, greedy US governments make fourteen to twenty times what oil companies make, and it is
the oil companies who make & deliver the vital product to the marketplace.
And that is just in the US. Have a look at Europe's taxes. My, my.
Some agendas require the "state sponsored" part to be hidden.
That is part of the reason why the constitutional convention was held in secret as well.
The cunning connivers who ram government down our throats don't like their designs exposed,
and it's an old trick which nearly always works.
Here's Aristophanes on the subject. His play is worth a read. Short and great satire on the
politicians of the day.
SAUSAGE-SELLER
No, Cleon, little you care for his reigning in Arcadia, it's to pillage and impose on the
allies at will that you reckon; y ou wish the war to conceal your rogueries as in a mist,
that Demos may see nothing of them, and harassed by cares, may only depend on yourself for
his bread. But if ever peace is restored to him, if ever he returns to his lands to comfort
himself once more with good cakes, to greet his cherished olives, he will know the blessings
you have kept him out of, even though paying him a salary; and, filled with hatred and rage,
he will rise, burning with desire to vote against you. You know this only too well; it is
for this you rock him to sleep with your lies.
The first loyalty of jews is supposed to be to jews.
Norman Finkelstein is called a traitor by jews, the Dutch jew Hamburger is called a traitor
by Dutch jews, he's the chairman of 'Een ander joodse geluid', best translated by 'another jewish
opinion', the organisation criticises Israel.
Jewish involvement in Sept 11 seems probable, the 'dancing Israelis', the assertion that most
jews working in the Twin Towers at the time were either sick or took a day off, the fact that
the Towers were jewish property, ready for a costly demolition, much abestos in the buildings,
thus the 'terrorist' act brought a great profit.
Can one expect a jew to expose things like this ?
On his book, I did not find inconsistencies with literature I already knew.
The merit of the book is listing many events that affected common people in the USA, and destroying
the myth that 'in the USA who is poor has only himself to blame'.
This nonsense becomes clear even from the diaries of Harold L Ickes, or from Jonathan Raban
Bad Land, 1997.
As for Zinn's criticism of the adored USA constitution, I read that Charles A Beard already
in 1919 resigned because he also criticised this constitution.
Indeed, in our countries about half the national income goes to the governments by taxes, this
is the reason a country like Denmark is the best country to live in.
"... Google is algorithmically burying leftist news and opinion sources such as Alternet, Counterpunch, Global Research, Consortium News, and Truthout, among others. ..."
"... my political essays are often reposted by right-wing and, yes, even pro-Russia blogs. I get mail from former Sanders supporters, Trump supporters, anarchists, socialists, former 1960s radicals, anti-Semites, and other human beings, some of whom I passionately agree with, others of whom I passionately disagree with. As far as I can tell from the emails, none of these readers voted for Clinton, or Macron, or supported the TPP, or the debt-enslavement and looting of Greece, or the ongoing restructuring of the Greater Middle East (and all the lovely knock-on effects that has brought us), or believe that Trump is a Russian operative, or that Obama is Martin Luther Jesus-on-a-stick. ..."
"... What they share, despite their opposing views, is a general awareness that the locus of power in our post-Cold War age is primarily corporate, or global capitalist, and neoliberal in nature. They also recognize that they are being subjected to a massive propaganda campaign designed to lump them all together (again, despite their opposing views) into an intentionally vague and undefinable category comprising anyone and everyone, everywhere, opposing the hegemony of global capitalism, and its non-ideological ideology (the nature of which I'll get into in a moment). ..."
"... Although the term has been around since the Fifth Century BC, the concept of "extremism" as we know it today developed in the late Twentieth Century and has come into vogue in the last three decades. During the Cold War, the preferred exonymics were "subversive," "radical," or just plain old "communist," all of which terms referred to an actual ideological adversary. ..."
"... Which is why, despite the "Russiagate" hysteria the media have been barraging us with, the West is not going to war with Russia. Nor are we going to war with China. Russia and China are developed countries, whose economies are entirely dependent on global capitalism, as are Western economies. The economies of every developed nation on the planet are inextricably linked. This is the nature of the global hegemony I've been referring to throughout this essay. Not American hegemony, but global capitalist hegemony. Systemic, supranational hegemony (which I like to prefer "the Corporatocracy," as it sounds more poetic and less post-structural). ..."
"... Global capitalism, since the end of the Cold War (i.e, immediately after the end of the Cold War), has been conducting a global clean-up operation, eliminating actual and potential insurgencies, mostly in the Middle East, but also in its Western markets. Having won the last ideological war, like any other victorious force, it has been "clear-and-holding" the conquered territory, which in this case happens to be the whole planet. Just for fun, get out a map, and look at the history of invasions, bombings, and other "interventions" conducted by the West and its assorted client states since 1990. Also, once you're done with that, consider how, over the last fifteen years, most Western societies have been militarized, their citizens placed under constant surveillance, and an overall atmosphere of "emergency" fostered, and paranoia about "the threat of extremism" propagated by the corporate media. ..."
"... Short some sort of cataclysm, like an asteroid strike or the zombie apocalypse, or, you know, violent revolution, global capitalism will continue to restructure the planet to conform to its ruthless interests. The world will become increasingly "normal." The scourge of "extremism" and "terrorism" will persist, as will the general atmosphere of "emergency." There will be no more Trumps, Brexit referendums, revolts against the banks, and so on. Identity politics will continue to flourish, providing a forum for leftist activist types (and others with an unhealthy interest in politics), who otherwise might become a nuisance, but any and all forms of actual dissent from global capitalist ideology will be systematically marginalized and pathologized. ..."
"... C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and satirist based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing (USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23 , is published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. He can reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org . ..."
"... That is certainly what the geopolitical establishment is hoping for, but I remain skeptical of their ability to contain what forces they've used to balance the various camps of dissenting proles. They've painted themselves into a corner with non-white identity politics combined with mass immigration. The logical conclusion of where they're going is pogroms and none of the kleptocracy seem bold enough to try and stop this from happening. ..."
"... Germany is the last EU member state where an anti EU party entered parliament. In the last French elections four out of every ten voters voted on anti EU parties. In Austria the anti EU parties now have a majority. So if I were leading a big corporation, thriving by globalism, what also the EU is, I would be worried. ..."
"... This is a great article. The author's identification of "normality" & "extremism" as Capitalism's go-to concepts for social control is spot on accurate. That these terms can mean anything or nothing & are infinitely flexible is central to their power. ..."
Back in October of 2016, I wrote
a somewhat divisive essay in which I suggested that political dissent is being systematically
pathologized. In fact, this process has been ongoing for decades, but it has been significantly accelerated
since the Brexit referendum and the Rise of Trump (or, rather, the Fall of Hillary Clinton, as it
was Americans' lack of enthusiasm for eight more years of corporatocracy with a sugar coating of
identity politics, and not their enthusiasm for Trump, that mostly put the clown in office.)
In the twelve months since I wrote that piece, we have been subjected to a concerted campaign
of corporate media propaganda for which there is no historical precedent. Virtually every major organ
of the Western media apparatus (the most powerful propaganda machine in the annals of powerful propaganda
machines) has been relentlessly churning out variations on a new official ideological narrative designed
to generate and enforce conformity. The gist of this propaganda campaign is that "Western democracy"
is under attack by a confederacy of Russians and white supremacists, as well as "the terrorists"
and other "extremists" it's been under attack by for the last sixteen years.
I've been writing about this campaign for a year now, so I'm not going to rehash all the details.
Suffice to say we've gone from
Russian operatives hacking the American elections to "Russia-linked" persons "apparently" setting
up "illegitimate" Facebook accounts, "likely operated out of Russia," and publishing ads that are
"indistinguishable from legitimate political speech" on the Internet. This is what the corporate
media is presenting as evidence of
"an unprecedented foreign invasion of American democracy," a handful of political ads on Facebook.
In addition to the Russian hacker propaganda, since August, we have also been treated to relentless
white supremacist hysteria and daily reminders from the corporate media that
"white nationalism is destroying the West." The negligible American neo-Nazi subculture has been
blown up into a biblical Behemoth inexorably slouching its way towards the White House to officially
launch the Trumpian Reich.
At the same time, government and corporate entities have been aggressively restricting (and in
many cases eliminating) fundamental civil liberties such as freedom of expression, freedom of the
press, the right of assembly, the right to privacy, and the right to due process under the law. The
justification for this curtailment of rights (which started in earnest in 2001, following the September
11 attacks) is protecting the public from the threat of "terrorism," which apparently shows no signs
of abating. As of now, the United States has been in
a State of Emergency for over sixteen years. The UK is in
a virtual State of Emergency . France is now in the process of enshrining
its permanent State of Emergency into law. Draconian counter-terrorism measures have been
implemented throughout the EU . Not just
the notorious American police but
police
throughout the West have been militarized . Every other day we learn of some
new emergency security measure designed to keep us safe from "the terrorists," the "lone wolf
shooters," and other "extremists."
Conveniently, since the Brexit referendum and unexpected election of Trump (which is when the
capitalist ruling classes first recognized that they had a widespread nationalist backlash on their
hands), the definition of "terrorism" (or, more broadly, "extremism") has been expanded to include
not just Al Qaeda, or ISIS, or whoever we're calling "the terrorists" these days, but anyone else
the ruling classes decide they need to label "extremists." The FBI has designated Black Lives Matter
"Black Identity Extremists." The FBI and the DHS have designated Antifa
"domestic terrorists."
Whatever your opinion of these organizations and "extremist" persons is beside the point. I'm
not a big fan of neo-Nazis, personally, but neither am I a fan of Antifa. I don't have much use for
conspiracy theories, or a lot of the nonsense one finds on the Internet, but I consume a fair amount
of alternative media, and I publish in CounterPunch, The Unz Review, ColdType, and other non-corporate
journals.
I consider myself a leftist, basically, but my political essays are often reposted by right-wing
and, yes, even pro-Russia blogs. I get mail from former Sanders supporters, Trump supporters, anarchists,
socialists, former 1960s radicals, anti-Semites, and other human beings, some of whom I passionately
agree with, others of whom I passionately disagree with. As far as I can tell from the emails, none
of these readers voted for Clinton, or Macron, or supported the TPP, or the debt-enslavement and
looting of Greece, or the ongoing restructuring of the Greater Middle East (and all the lovely knock-on
effects that has brought us), or believe that Trump is a Russian operative, or that Obama is Martin
Luther Jesus-on-a-stick.
What they share, despite their opposing views, is a general awareness that the locus of power
in our post-Cold War age is primarily corporate, or global capitalist, and neoliberal in nature.
They also recognize that they are being subjected to a massive propaganda campaign designed to lump
them all together (again, despite their opposing views) into an intentionally vague and undefinable
category comprising anyone and everyone, everywhere, opposing the hegemony of global capitalism,
and its non-ideological ideology (the nature of which I'll get into in a moment).
As I wrote in that essay a year ago, "a line is being drawn in the ideological sand." This line
cuts across both Left and Right, dividing what the capitalist ruling classes designate "normal" from
what they label "extremist." The traditional ideological paradigm, Left versus Right, is disappearing
(except as a kind of minstrel show), and is being replaced, or overwritten, by a pathological
paradigm based upon the concept of "extremism."
* * *
Although the term has been around since the Fifth Century BC, the concept of "extremism" as
we know it today developed in the late Twentieth Century and has come into vogue in the last three
decades. During the Cold War, the preferred exonymics were "subversive," "radical," or just plain
old "communist," all of which terms referred to an actual ideological adversary.
In the early 1990s, as the U.S.S.R. disintegrated, and globalized Western capitalism became the
unrivaled global-hegemonic ideological system that it is today, a new concept was needed to represent
the official enemy and its ideology. The concept of "extremism" does that perfectly, as it connotes,
not an external enemy with a definable ideological goal, but rather, a deviation from the norm. The
nature of the deviation (e.g., right-wing, left-wing, faith-based, and so on) is secondary, almost
incidental. The deviation itself is the point. The "terrorist," the "extremist," the "white supremacist,"
the "religious fanatic," the "violent anarchist" these figures are not rational actors whose ideas
we need to intellectually engage with in order to debate or debunk. They are pathological deviations,
mutant cells within the body of "normality," which we need to identify and eliminate, not for ideological
reasons, but purely in order to maintain "security."
A truly global-hegemonic system like contemporary global capitalism (the first of this kind in
human history), technically, has no ideology. "Normality" is its ideology an ideology which erases
itself and substitutes the concept of what's "normal," or, in other words, "just the way it is."
The specific characteristics of "normality," although not quite arbitrary, are ever-changing. In
the West, for example, thirty years ago, smoking was normal. Now, it's abnormal. Being gay was abnormal.
Now, it's normal. Being transgender is becoming normal, although we're still in the early stages
of the process. Racism has become abnormal. Body hair is currently abnormal. Walking down the street
in a semi-fugue state robotically thumbing the screen of a smartphone that you just finished thumbing
a minute ago is "normal." Capitalism has no qualms with these constant revisions to what is considered
normal, because none of them are threats to capitalism. On the contrary, as far as values are concerned,
the more flexible and commodifiable the better.
See, despite what intersectionalists will tell you, capitalism has no interest in racism, misogyny,
homophobia, xenophobia, or any other despotic values (though it has no problem working with these
values when they serve its broader strategic purposes). Capitalism is an economic system, which we
have elevated to a social system. It only has one fundamental value, exchange value, which isn't
much of a value, at least not in terms of organizing society or maintaining any sort of human culture
or reverence for the natural world it exists in. In capitalist society, everything, everyone, every
object and sentient being, every concept and human emotion, is worth exactly what the market will
bear no more, no less, than its market price. There is no other measure of value.
Yes, we all want there to be other values, and we pretend there are, but there aren't, not really.
Although we're free to enjoy parochial subcultures based on alternative values (i.e., religious bodies,
the arts, and so on), these subcultures operate within capitalist society, and ultimately conform
to its rules. In the arts, for example, works are either commercial products, like any other commodity,
or they are subsidized by what could be called "the simulated aristocracy," the ivy league-educated
leisure classes (and lower class artists aspiring thereto) who need to pretend that they still have
"culture" in order to feel superior to the masses. In the latter case, this feeling of superiority
is the upscale product being sold. In the former, it is entertainment, distraction from the depressing
realities of living, not in a society at all, but in a marketplace with no real human values. (In
the absence of any real cultural values, there is no qualitative difference between Gerhard
Richter and Adam Sandler, for example. They're both successful capitalist artists. They're just selling
their products in different markets.)
The fact that it has no human values is the evil genius of global capitalist society. Unlike the
despotic societies it replaced, it has no allegiance to any cultural identities, or traditions, or
anything other than money. It can accommodate any form of government, as long as it plays ball with
global capitalism. Thus, the window dressing of "normality" is markedly different from country to
country, but the essence of "normality" remains the same. Even in countries with state religions
(like Iran) or state ideologies (like China), the governments play by the rules of global capitalism
like everyone else. If they don't, they can expect to receive a visit from global capitalism's Regime
Change Department (i.e., the US military and its assorted partners).
Which is why, despite the "Russiagate" hysteria the media have been barraging us with, the
West is not going to war with Russia. Nor are we going to war with China. Russia and China are developed
countries, whose economies are entirely dependent on global capitalism, as are Western economies.
The economies of every developed nation on the planet are inextricably linked. This is the nature
of the global hegemony I've been referring to throughout this essay. Not American hegemony, but global
capitalist hegemony. Systemic, supranational hegemony (which I like to prefer "the Corporatocracy,"
as it sounds more poetic and less post-structural).
We haven't really got our minds around it yet, because we're still in the early stages of it,
but we have entered an epoch in which historical events are primarily being driven, and societies
reshaped, not by sovereign nation states acting in their national interests but by supranational
corporations acting in their corporate interests. Paramount among these corporate interests is the
maintenance and expansion of global capitalism, and the elimination of any impediments thereto. Forget
about the United States (i.e., the actual nation state) for a moment, and look at what's been happening
since the early 1990s. The US military's "disastrous misadventures" in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan,
Syria, and the former Yugoslavia, among other exotic places (which have obviously had nothing to
do with the welfare or security of any actual Americans), begin to make a lot more sense.
Global capitalism, since the end of the Cold War (i.e, immediately after the end of the Cold
War), has been conducting a global clean-up operation, eliminating actual and potential insurgencies,
mostly in the Middle East, but also in its Western markets. Having won the last ideological war,
like any other victorious force, it has been
"clear-and-holding" the
conquered territory, which in this case happens to be the whole planet. Just for fun, get out a map,
and look at the history of invasions, bombings, and other "interventions" conducted by the West and
its assorted client states since 1990. Also, once you're done with that, consider how, over the last
fifteen years, most Western societies have been militarized, their citizens placed under constant
surveillance, and an overall atmosphere of "emergency" fostered, and paranoia about "the threat of
extremism" propagated by the corporate media.
I'm not suggesting there's a bunch of capitalists sitting around in a room somewhere in their
shiny black top hats planning all of this. I'm talking about systemic development, which is a little
more complex than that, and much more difficult to intelligently discuss because we're used to perceiving
historico-political events in the context of competing nation states, rather than competing ideological
systems or non-competing ideological systems, for capitalism has no competition . What it
has, instead, is a variety of insurgencies, the faith-based Islamic fundamentalist insurgency and
the neo-nationalist insurgency chief among them. There will certainly be others throughout the near
future as global capitalism consolidates control and restructures societies according to its values.
None of these insurgencies will be successful.
Short some sort of cataclysm, like an asteroid strike or the zombie apocalypse, or, you know,
violent revolution, global capitalism will continue to restructure the planet to conform to its ruthless
interests. The world will become increasingly "normal." The scourge of "extremism" and "terrorism"
will persist, as will the general atmosphere of "emergency." There will be no more Trumps, Brexit
referendums, revolts against the banks, and so on. Identity politics will continue to flourish, providing
a forum for leftist activist types (and others with an unhealthy interest in politics), who otherwise
might become a nuisance, but any and all forms of actual dissent from global capitalist ideology
will be systematically marginalized and pathologized.
This won't happen right away, of course. Things are liable to get ugly first (as if they weren't
ugly enough already), but probably not in the way we're expecting, or being trained to expect by
the corporate media. Look, I'll give you a dollar if it turns out I'm wrong, and the Russians, terrorists,
white supremacists, and other "extremists" do bring down "democracy" and launch their Islamic, white
supremacist, Russo-Nazi Reich, or whatever, but from where I sit it looks pretty clear tomorrow belongs
to the Corporatocracy.
C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and satirist based in Berlin.
His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing (USA). His debut
novel,
ZONE
23 , is published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. He can reached at
cjhopkins.com or
consentfactory.org .
Brilliant Article. But this has been going on for nearly a century or more. New York Jewish bankers
fund the Bolshevik revolution which gets rid of the Romanov dynasty and many of the revolutionaries
are not even Russian. What many people do not know is that many Western companies invested money
in Bolshevik Russia as the Bolsheviks were speeding up the modernising of the country. What many
do not know is that Feminism, destruction of families and traditional societies, homoerotic art
etc . was forced on the new Soviet population in a shock therapy sort of way. The same process
has been implemented in the West by the elites using a much slower 'boiling the frog' method using
Cultural Marxism. The aim of the Soviet Union was to spread Communism around the World and hence
bring about the One World Government as wished by the globalists. Their national anthem was the
'Internationale'. The globalists were funding revolutionary movements throughout Europe and other
parts of the world. One such attempt went extremely wrong and that was in Germany where instead
of the Communists coming in power, the National Socialists come in power which was the most dangerous
challenge faced by the Zio/globalists/elite gang. The Globalists force a war using false flag
events like Pearl Harbour etc and crushed the powers which challenged their rule i.e. Germany,
Japan and Italy. That is why Capitalist USA funded Communist Soviet Union using the land lease
program, which on the surface never makes any sense.
However in Soviet Russia, a power struggle leads to Stalin destroying the old Communist order
of Lenin Trotsky. Trotsky and his supporters leave the Soviet Union. Many of the present Neo Cons
are ex Trotskyites and hence the crazy hatred for Russia even today in American politics. These
Neocons do not have any principles, they will use any ideology such as Communism, Islam, twisted
Western Conservatism anything to attain their global goals.
Now with Stalin coming to power, things actually improved and the war with Hitler's Third Reich
gave Stalin the chance to purge many old school globalist commies and then the Soviet Union went
towards a more nationalist road. Jews slowly started losing their hold on power with Russians
and eventually other Soviets gaining more powerful positions. These folks found the ugly modern
art culture of the early Soviet period revolting and started a new movement where the messages
of Socialism can be delivered with more healthy beautiful art and culture. This process was called
'Social Realism'. So strangely what happened was that the Capitalist Christian West was becoming
more and more less traditional with time (Cultural Marxism/Fabien Socialism via media, education,
Hollywood) while the Eastern block was slowly moving in an opposite direction. The CIA (which
is basically the intelligence agency arm of Wall Street Bankers) was working to stop this 'Social
Realism' movement.
These same globalists also funded Mao and pulled the rug under Chiang Kai Shek who they were
supporting earlier. Yes, Mao was funded by the Rockerfeller/ Rothschild Cabal. Now, even if the
Globalists were not happy with Stalin gaining power in the Soviet Union (they preferred the internationalist
Trotskyites), they still found that they could work out with the Soviet Union. That is why during
the 2nd World war, the USA supports the USSR with money and material, Stalin gets a facelift as
'friendly Uncle Joe' for the Western audience. Many Cossack families who had escaped the Soviet
Union to the West were sent to their deaths after the War to the Soviet Union. Why? Mr. Eden of
Britain who could not stand Hitler wanted a New World Order where they could work with the more
murderous Soviet Union.
Now we have the cold war. What is not known is that behind the scenes at a higher level, the
Americans and the Soviets cooperated with each other exchanging technology, basically the cold
war was quite fake. But the Cold war gave the American government (basically the Globalists) to
take American Tax payers hard earned money to fund many projects such as Star Wars programme etc
All this was not needed, as a gentleman named Keenan had shown in his book that all the Americans
needed to do was to make sure Japan, Germany and Britain did not fall to the Soviets, that's it.
Thus trillions of American tax payer money would be saved. But obviously the Military Industrial
Complex did not like that idea. Both the Soviet and the American governments got the excuse spend
their people's hard money on weapons research as well as exchanging some of that technology in
the back ground. It is during this period that the precursor to the Internet was already developed.
Many of the technology we use today was already invented much earlier by government agencies but
released to the people later.
Then we have the Vietnam war. Now you must realise that the Globalist government of America
uses wars not only to change enemy societies but also the domestic society in the West. So during
the Vietnam War, the US government using the alphabet agencies such as the CIA kick start the
fake opposition hippie movements. The CIA not only drugged the Vietnamese population using drugs
from the Golden Triangle but later released them on the home population in the USA and the West.
This was all part of the Cultural Marxist plan to change or social engineer American/ Western
society. Many institutes like the Travestock Institute were part of this process. For example
one of the main hochos of the Cultural Marxism, a Mr. Aderno was closely related to the Beatles
movement.
Several experiments was done on mind control such as MK Ultra, monarch programming, Edward
Bernay's works etc Their aim was to destroy traditional Western society and the long term goal
is a New World Order. Blacks for example were used as weapons against Whites at the same time
the black social order was destroyed further via the media etc
Now, Nixon going to China was to start a long term (long planned) process to bring about Corporate
Communism. Yes that is going to be economic system in the coming New World Order. China is the
test tube, where the Worst of Communism and the Worst of Crony Capitalism be brought together
as an experiment. As the Soviet Union was going in a direction, the globalist was not happy about
(it was becoming more nationalist), they worked to bring the Soviet Union down and thus the Soviet
experiment ended only to be continued in China.
NATO today is the core military arm of the globalists, a precursor to a One World Military
Force. That explains why after the Warsaw pact was dismantled, NATO was not or why NATO would
interfere in the Middle East which is far away from the Atlantic Ocean.
The coming Cashless society will finally lead to a moneyless or distribution society, in other
words Communism, that is the long term plan.
My point is, many of the geo political events as well as social movements of the last century
(feminism for example) were all planned for a long time and are not accidents. The coming technologies
like the internet of things, 5G technology, Cashless society, biometric identification everywhere
etc are all designed to help bring about the final aim of the globalists. The final aim is a one
world government with Corporate ruled Communism where we, the worker bees will be living in our
shitty inner city like ghetto homes eating GM plastic foods and listening to crappy music. That
is the future they have planned for us. A inner city ghetto like place under Communism ruled by
greedy evil corporates.
"Short some sort of cataclysm, like an asteroid strike or the zombie apocalypse, or, you know,
violent revolution, global capitalism will continue to restructure the planet to conform to its
ruthless interests."
That is certainly what the geopolitical establishment is hoping for, but I remain skeptical
of their ability to contain what forces they've used to balance the various camps of dissenting
proles. They've painted themselves into a corner with non-white identity politics combined with
mass immigration. The logical conclusion of where they're going is pogroms and none of the kleptocracy
seem bold enough to try and stop this from happening.
That is certainly what the geopolitical establishment is hoping for, but I remain skeptical
of their ability to contain what forces they've used to balance the various camps of dissenting
proles.
There must be some evidence for your assertions about the long term plans and aims of globalists
and others if there is truth in them. The sort of people you are referring to would often have
kept private diaries and certainly written many hundreds or thousands of letters. Can you give
any references to such evidence of say 80 to 130 years ago?
.. puzzling that the writer feels the need to virtue-signal by saying he "doesn't have much
time for conspiracy theories" while condemning an absolutely massive conspiracy to present establishment
lies as truth.
That is one of the most depressing demonstrations of the success of the ruling creeps that
I have yet come across.
Germany is the last EU member state where an anti EU party entered parliament. In the last
French elections four out of every ten voters voted on anti EU parties. In Austria the anti EU
parties now have a majority. So if I were leading a big corporation, thriving by globalism, what
also the EU is, I would be worried.
"See, despite what intersectionalists will tell you, capitalism has no interest in racism, misogyny,
homophobia, xenophobia, or any other despotic values (though it has no problem working with these
values when they serve its broader strategic purposes). Capitalism is an economic system, which
we have elevated to a social system. It only has one fundamental value, exchange value, which
isn't much of a value, at least not in terms of organizing society or maintaining any sort of
human culture or reverence for the natural world it exists in. In capitalist society, everything,
everyone, every object and sentient being, every concept and human emotion, is worth exactly what
the market will bear no more, no less, than its market price. There is no other measure of value."
This is a great article. The author's identification of "normality" & "extremism" as Capitalism's
go-to concepts for social control is spot on accurate. That these terms can mean anything or nothing
& are infinitely flexible is central to their power.
Mr Hopkins is also correct when he points out that Capitalism has essentially NO values (exchange
value is a value, but also a mechanism). Again, Capitalism stands for nothing: any form of government
is acceptable as long as it bows to neoliberal markets.
However, the author probably goes to far:
"Nor are we going to war with China. Russia and China are developed countries, whose economies
are entirely dependent on global capitalism, as are Western economies. The economies of every
developed nation on the planet are inextricably linked. This is the nature of the global hegemony
I've been referring to throughout this essay. Not American hegemony, but global capitalist hegemony.
Systemic, supranational hegemony".
Capitalism has no values: however the Masters of the capitalist system most certainly do: Capitalism
is a means, the most thorough, profound means yet invented, for the attainment of that value which
has NO exchange value: POWER.
Capitalism is a supranational hegemony – yet the Elites which control it, who will act as one
when presented with any external threats to Capitalism itself, are not unified internally. Indeed,
they will engage in cut throat competition, whether considered as individuals or nations or as
particular industries.
US Imperialism is not imaginary, it is not a mere appearance or mirage of Capitalism, supranational
or not. US Imperialism in essence empowers certain sets of Capitalists over other sets. No, they
may not purposely endanger the System as a whole, however, that still leaves plenty of space for
aggressive competition, up to & including war.
Imperialism is the political corollary to the ultimate economic goal of the individual Capitalist:
Monopoly.
Psychologically daring (being no minstrel to corporatocracy nor irrelevant activism and other
"religions" that endorse the current world global system as the overhead), rationally correct,
relevant, core definition of the larger geo-world and deeper "ideological" grounding( in the case
of capitalism the quite shallow brute forcing of greed as an incentive, as sterile a society as
possible), and adhering to longer timelines of reality of planet earth. Perfectly captures the
"essence" of the dynamics of our times.
The few come to the authors' through-sites by many venue-ways, that's where some of the corporocratic
world, by sheer statistics wind up also. Why do they not get the overhand into molding the shallow
into anything better in the long haul. No world leader, no intellectual within power circles,
even within confined quarters, speaks to the absurdity of the ongoing slugging and maltering of
global human?
The elites of now are too dumb to consider the planet exo-human as a limited resource. Immigration,
migration, is the de facto path to "normalization" in the terms of the author. Reducing the world
population is not "in" the capitalist ideology. A major weakness, or if one prefers the stake
that pinches the concept of capitalism: more instead of quality principles.
The game changers, the possible game changers: eugenics and how they play out as to the elites
( understanding the genome and manipulating it), artificial intelligence ( defining it first,
not the "Elon Musk" definition), and as a far outlier exo-planetary arguments.
Confront the above with the "unexpected", the not-human engineered possible events (astroids
and the like, secondary effects of human induced toxicity, others), and the chances to get to
the author's "dollar" and what it by then might mean is indeed tiny.
As to the content, one of the utmost relevant articles, it is "art" to condense such broad
a world view into a few words, it requires a deep understanding foremost, left to wonder what
can be grasped by most reading above. Some-one try the numbers?, "big data" anyone, they might
turn out in favor of what the author undoubtedly absorbed as the nucleus of twenty-first thinking,
strategy and engineering.
This kind of thinking and "Harvard" conventionality, what a distance.
Great article, spot on. Indeed we are all at the mercy now of a relatively small clique of ruthless
criminals who are served by armies of desensitized, stupid mercenaries: MBAs, politicians, thugs,
college professors, "whorenalists", etc. I am afraid that the best answer to the current and future
dystopia is what the Germans call "innere Emigration," to psychologically detach oneself
from the contemporary world.
Thus, the only way out of this hellhole is through reading and thinking, which every self-respecting
individual should engage in. Shun most contemporary "literature" and instead turn to the classics
of European culture: there you will find all you need.
For an earlier and ever so pertinent analysis of the contemporary desert, I can heartily recommend
Umberto Galimberti's I vizi capitali e i nuovi vizi (Milan, 2003).
And yes, another verbally strong expression of the in your face truth, though for so few to
grasp. The author again has a deep understanding, if one prefers, it points to the venueway of
coming to terms, the empirical pathway as to the understanding.
"Plasticky" society is my preferred term for designating the aberrance that most (within the
elites), the rest who cares (as an historical truth), do not seem to identify as proper cluelessness
in the light of longer timelines. The current global ideology, religion of capitalism-democracy
is the equivalent of opportunistic naval staring of the elites. They are not aware that suffocation
will irreversibly affect oneself. Not enough air is the equivalent of no air in the end.
The negligible American neo-Nazi subculture has been blown up into a biblical Behemoth inexorably
slouching its way towards the White House to officially launch the Trumpian Reich.
While the above is true, I hope most folks understand that the basic concept of controlling
people through fear is nothing new. The much vaunted constitution was crammed down our collective
throats by the rich scoundrels of the time in the words of more than one anti-federalist through
the conjuring of quite a set of threats, all bogus.
I address my most fervent prayer to prevent our adopting a system destructive to liberty
We are told there are dangers, but those dangers are ideal; they cannot be demonstrated.
- Patrick Henry, Foreign Wars, Civil Wars, and Indian Wars -- Three Bugbears, June 5, 7,
and 9, 1788
Bottom line: Concentrated wealth and power suck.The USA was ruled by a plutoligarchy from its
inception, and the material benefits we still enjoy have occurred not because of it but
despite it.
For today's goofy "right wing" big business "conservatives" who think the US won WW2, I got news
for you. Monopoly capitalism, complete with increasing centralization of the economy and political
forces were given boosts by both world wars.
It was precisely in reaction to their impending defeat at the hands of the competitive storms
of the market tha t business turned, increasingly after the 1900′s, to the federal government
for aid and protection. In short, the intervention by the federal government was designed,
not to curb big business monopoly for the sake of the public weal, but to create monopolies
that big business (as well as trade associations smaller business) had not been able
to establish amidst the competitive gales of the free market. Both Left and Right have been
persistently misled by the notion that intervention by the government is ipso facto leftish
and anti-business. Hence the mythology of the New-Fair Deal-as-Red that is endemic on the Right.
Both the big businessmen, led by the Morgan interests, and Professor Kolko almost uniquely
in the academic world, have realized that monopoly privilege can only be created by the
State and not as a result of free market operations.
-Murray N. Rothbard, Rothbard Left and Right: The Prospects for Liberty, [Originally appeared
in Left and Right, Spring 1965, pp. 4-22.]
It was all about connecting the dots really. Connecting the dots of too many books I have gobe
through and videos I have seen. Too many to list here.
You can get a lot of info from the book 'Tragedy and Hope' by Carroll Quigley though he avoids
mantioning Jews and calls it the Anglo American establishment, Anthony Sutton however I completely
disagree about funding of the Third Reich but he does talk a lot about the secret relationship
between the USA and the USSR, Revilo Oliver etc.. etc Well you could read the Protocols. Now if
you think that the protocols was a forgery, you gotta see this, especially the last part.
Also check this out
Also check out what this Wall Street guy realised in his career.
Also this 911 firefighter, what he found out after some research
Capitalism is an economic system, which we have elevated to a social system. It only
has one fundamental value, exchange value, which isn't much of a value, at least not in terms
of organizing society or maintaining any sort of human culture or reverence for the natural
world it exists in. In capitalist society, everything, everyone, every object and sentient
being, every concept and human emotion, is worth exactly what the market will bear no more,
no less, than its market price. There is no other measure of value.
This looks like the "financialization" of society with Citizens morphing into Consumers.
And it's worth saying that Citizenship and Consumership are completely different concepts:
Citizenship – Dictionary.com
1. – the state of being vested with the rights, privileges, and duties of a citizen.
2. – the character of an individual viewed as a member of society;behavior in terms of the
duties, obligations, and functions of a citizen:
an award for good citizenship.
The Consumer – Dictionary.com
1. a person or thing that consumes.
2. Economics. a person or organization that uses a commodity or service.
A good citizen can then define themselves in a rather non-selfish, non-financial way as for
example, someone who respects others, contributes to local decisions (politically active), gains
respect through work and ethical standards etc.
A good consumer on the other hand, seems to be more a self-idea, essentially someone who buys
and consumes a lot (financial idea), has little political interest – and probably defines themselves
(and others) by how they spend money and what they own.
It's clear that US, and global capitalism, prefers active consumers over active citizens, and
maybe it explains why the US has such a worthless and dysfunctional political process.
Some folks are completely unable to connect the dots even when spoon fed the evidence. You'll
note that some, in risible displays of quasi-intellectual arrogance, make virtually impossible
demands for proof, none of which they'll ever accept. Rather, they flock to self aggrandizing
mythology like flies to fresh sewage which the plutoligarchy produces nearly infinitely.
Your observations appear pretty accurate and self justifying I'd say.
Look up the film director Aaron Russo (recently deceased), discussing how David Rockefeller
tried to bring him over to the dark side. Rockefeller discussed for example the women's movement,
its engineering. Also, there's Aldous Huxley's speech The Ultimate Revolution, on how drugs are
the final solution to rabble troubles–we will think we're happy even in the most appalling societal
conditions.
I can only say Beware of Zinn, best friend of Chomsky, endlessly tauted by shysters like Amy
Goodman and Counterpunch. Like all liberal gatekeepers, he wouldn't touch 911. I saw him speak
not long before he died, and when questioned on this he said, 'That was a long time ago, let's
talk about now.'
This from a professed historian, and it was only 7 years after 911. He seemed to have the same
old Jewish agenda, make Europeans look really bad at all times. He was always on message, like
the shyster Chomsky. Sincerely probing for the truth was not part of his agenda; his truths were
highly selective, and such a colossal event as 911 concerned him not at all, with the ensuing
wars, Patriot Acts, bullshit war on Terror, etc etc
" capitalism has no interest in racism, misogyny, homophobia, xenophobia, or any other despotic
values (though it has no problem working with these values when they serve its broader strategic
purposes). Capitalism is an economic system, which we have elevated to a social system."
This is a typical Left Lie. Capitalism in its present internationalist phase absolutely requires
Anti-Racism to lubricate sales uh, internationally and domestically. We are all Equal.
Then, the ticking-off of the rest of the bad isms, and labeling them 'despotic' is another
Leftwing and poetic attack on more or less all of us white folks, who have largely invented Capitalism,
from a racialist point of view.
"Poetic" because it is an emotional appeal, not a rational argument. The other 'despotisms'
are not despotic, unless you claim, like I do that racial personalities are more, or less despotic,
with Whites being the least despotic. The Left totalitarian thinks emotional despotism's source
is political or statist. It are not. However, Capitalism has been far less despotic than communism,
etc.
Emotional Despotism is part of who Homo Sapiens is, and this emotional despotism is not racially
equal. Whites are the least despotic, and have organized law and rules to contain such despotism.
Systems arise naturally from the Human Condition, like it or not. The attempt here is to sully
the Capitalist system, and that is all it is. This article itself is despotic propaganda.
Arguably, human nature is despotic, and White civilization has attempted to limit our despotic
nature.
This is another story.
As for elevating capitalism into a 'social system' .this is somewhat true. However, that is
not totally bad, as capitalism delivers the goods, which is the first thing, after getting out
of bed.
The second thing, is having a conformable social environment, and that is where racial accord
enters.
People want familiar and trustworthy people around them and that is just the way human nature
is genetic similarity, etc.
Beyond that, the various Leftie complaints-without-end, are also just the way it is. And yes
they can be addressed and ameliorated to some degree, but human nature is not a System to be manipulated,
even thought the current crop of scientistic lefties talk a good storyline about epigenetics and
other Hopes, false of course, like communist planning which makes its first priority, Social Change
which is always despotic. Society takes care of itself, especially racial society.
As Senator Vail said about the 1924 Immigration Act which held the line against Immigration,
"if there is going to be any changing being done, we will do it and nobody else." That 'we' was
a White we.
Capitalism must be national. International capital is tyranny.
US oil companies make about five cents off a single gallon of gasoline, on the other hand US
Big Government taxes on a single gallon are around seventy-one cents for US states & rising, the
tax is now $1.00 per gallon for CA.
IOW, greedy US governments make fourteen to twenty times what oil companies make, and it is
the oil companies who make & deliver the vital product to the marketplace.
And that is just in the US. Have a look at Europe's taxes. My, my.
Some agendas require the "state sponsored" part to be hidden.
That is part of the reason why the constitutional convention was held in secret as well.
The cunning connivers who ram government down our throats don't like their designs exposed,
and it's an old trick which nearly always works.
Here's Aristophanes on the subject. His play is worth a read. Short and great satire on the
politicians of the day.
SAUSAGE-SELLER
No, Cleon, little you care for his reigning in Arcadia, it's to pillage and impose on the
allies at will that you reckon; y ou wish the war to conceal your rogueries as in a mist,
that Demos may see nothing of them, and harassed by cares, may only depend on yourself for
his bread. But if ever peace is restored to him, if ever he returns to his lands to comfort
himself once more with good cakes, to greet his cherished olives, he will know the blessings
you have kept him out of, even though paying him a salary; and, filled with hatred and rage,
he will rise, burning with desire to vote against you. You know this only too well; it is
for this you rock him to sleep with your lies.
The first loyalty of jews is supposed to be to jews.
Norman Finkelstein is called a traitor by jews, the Dutch jew Hamburger is called a traitor
by Dutch jews, he's the chairman of 'Een ander joodse geluid', best translated by 'another jewish
opinion', the organisation criticises Israel.
Jewish involvement in Sept 11 seems probable, the 'dancing Israelis', the assertion that most
jews working in the Twin Towers at the time were either sick or took a day off, the fact that
the Towers were jewish property, ready for a costly demolition, much abestos in the buildings,
thus the 'terrorist' act brought a great profit.
Can one expect a jew to expose things like this ?
On his book, I did not find inconsistencies with literature I already knew.
The merit of the book is listing many events that affected common people in the USA, and destroying
the myth that 'in the USA who is poor has only himself to blame'.
This nonsense becomes clear even from the diaries of Harold L Ickes, or from Jonathan Raban
Bad Land, 1997.
As for Zinn's criticism of the adored USA constitution, I read that Charles A Beard already
in 1919 resigned because he also criticised this constitution.
Indeed, in our countries about half the national income goes to the governments by taxes, this
is the reason a country like Denmark is the best country to live in.
"... This is why hawks like John McCain, while receiving a "Liberty" award from Joe Biden, can, with a straight face, get away with denouncing those Americans who have become tired of playing at being the world's policeman. He describes them as fearful of "the world we have organized and led for three-quarters of a century, [abandoning] the ideals we have advanced around the globe, [refusing] the obligations of international leadership and our duty to remain 'the last best hope of earth' for the sake of some half-baked, spurious nationalism." ..."
"... And this is why we are where we are -- our government is infested by the likes of McCain, Lindsay Graham, and hundreds of others of their ilk. There is no milk of human kindness that flows in my veins when I look at these despicable creatures who have done so much harm to so many people and continue to exist, cancer and all, like Darth Cheney with his nuclear heart, while the innocents fall by the wayside from their evil. ..."
"... I can't find that citation at the moment, but I recall a report from US military experts that placed the accuracy of interceptor missiles at about 10% in real-world conditions. I vaguely recall that during the Gulf war, we had placed Patriot interceptors in Israel to protect the chosen from Saddam's Scud missiles, and apparently only a few of those decrepit scuds were successfully intercepted. I believe the lack of accuracy of these Patriot missiles was hushed up. ..."
Americans consequently do not know war except as something that happens elsewhere and to foreigners,
requiring only that the U.S. step in on occasion and bail things out, or screw things up depending
on one's point of view. This is why hawks like John McCain, while receiving a "Liberty" award from
Joe Biden, can, with a straight face, get away with
denouncing those Americans who have become tired of playing at being the world's policeman. He
describes them as fearful of "the world we have organized and led for three-quarters of a century,
[abandoning] the ideals we have advanced around the globe, [refusing] the obligations of international
leadership and our duty to remain 'the last best hope of earth' for the sake of some half-baked,
spurious nationalism."
McCain's completely fatuous account of recent world history befits a Navy pilot who was adept
at crashing his planes and almost sank his own aircraft carrier. He also made propaganda radio broadcasts
for the North Vietnamese after he was captured. The McCain globalist-American Exceptionalism narrative
is also, unfortunately, echoed by the media. The steady ingestion of lies and half-truths is why
the public puts up with unending demands for increased defense spending, accepting that the world
outside is a dangerous place that must be kept in line by force majeure . Yes, we are the
good guys.
But underlying the citizenry's willingness to accept that the military establishment should encircle
the globe with foreign bases to keep the world "safe" is the assumption that the 48 States are invulnerable,
isolated by broad oceans and friendly nations to the north and south. And protected from far distant
threats by technology, interceptor systems developed and maintained at enormous expense to intercept
and shoot down incoming ballistic missiles launched by enemies overseas.
This is why hawks like John McCain, while receiving a "Liberty" award from Joe Biden, can,
with a straight face, get away with denouncing those Americans who have become tired of playing
at being the world's policeman. He describes them as fearful of "the world we have organized
and led for three-quarters of a century, [abandoning] the ideals we have advanced around the
globe, [refusing] the obligations of international leadership and our duty to remain 'the last
best hope of earth' for the sake of some half-baked, spurious nationalism."
And this is why we are where we are -- our government is infested by the likes of McCain,
Lindsay Graham, and hundreds of others of their ilk. There is no milk of human kindness that flows
in my veins when I look at these despicable creatures who have done so much harm to so many people
and continue to exist, cancer and all, like Darth Cheney with his nuclear heart, while the innocents
fall by the wayside from their evil.
I had wished him dead, but as a friend reminded me, it is better for him to live, suffering
from excruciating agony as cancer demolishes him one cell at a time, jabbing his brain every second
of every day -- to the brink of madness and just a step behind the precipice that would end his
life, living for decades more, tortured and despised.
Towards thee I roll, thou all-destroying but unconquering whale; to the last, I grapple
with thee; From Hell's heart, I stab at thee; For hate's sake, I spit my last breath at thee.
-- Herman Melville
Even the federal government watchdog agencies have concluded that the missile interception
system seldom performs.
I can't find that citation at the moment, but I recall a report from US military experts
that placed the accuracy of interceptor missiles at about 10% in real-world conditions. I vaguely
recall that during the Gulf war, we had placed Patriot interceptors in Israel to protect the chosen
from Saddam's Scud missiles, and apparently only a few of those decrepit scuds were successfully
intercepted. I believe the lack of accuracy of these Patriot missiles was hushed up.
Meanwhile, the Russian S-300, S-400, and the soon-to-appear S-500 missile batteries have demonstrated
very impressive results. Now our "allies" are all scampering over to Moscow to acquire these instead
of our duds, following the utter failure of our $0.5 Trillion F-35 embarrassment.
It is high time for us to ask how we got here and who is responsible. I will give you three
guesses, and the first two don't count.
"... although I haven't heard of private equity pushing Puerto Rican toll roads they would own ..."
"... My dear Lambert, were I a vulture capitalist (which I am not!), I would not put one plugged nickel into infrastructure in PR. Not toll roads, not resorts, not power grid, not rebuilding the pharma factories, nada. Because another Maria will just happen again and trash it all before sufficient ROI, and who's gonna insure it now? Insurance companies believe in climate change, whether they will admit it or not. ..."
"... But I would put a few $$$ into PR debt, and gamble that the US govt will bail *me*and my fellow vultures (not PR) out. Am I cynical enough? ..."
"... This is just incompetence. Load up cargo ships (which are the most enormous transportation devices on the planet) and bring an aircraft carrier or two with cargo helicopters to bring the goods inland: ..."
"... "The political class seems to have lost the ability to mobilize on behalf of its citizens.". It wasn't always this way. Read http://northernwoodlands.org/articles/article/thirty-eight-new-england-lumber-storm . ..."
"... When I read what the FDR Administration was able to accomplish amidst the devastation of New England's forests wrought by the hurricane of 1938, it brought tears to my eyes. ..."
"... "The political class seems to have lost the ability to mobilize on behalf of its citizens." ..."
"... most convenient/fast/cost effective ..."
"... If the U.S. is not an empire, Puerto Rico would not be a protectorate or whatever. If the U.S. is an empire in decline, Puerto Rico being abandoned would be a signal to the world that the U.S. dollar is in serious trouble. ..."
"... What with PR's situation and the apparent U.S. tendency to retreat from simple truths, could a collapse in preference falsification* be in progress? ..."
Somehow, I think our government's response to PR/Maria will be the new norm unless there
are a bunch of billionaire's calling the gov reps they bought to complain. And even they may
be frustrated by the current boob in the WH.
although I haven't heard of private equity pushing Puerto Rican toll roads they would
own
My dear Lambert, were I a vulture capitalist (which I am not!), I would not put one
plugged nickel into infrastructure in PR. Not toll roads, not resorts, not power grid, not
rebuilding the pharma factories, nada. Because another Maria will just happen again and trash
it all before sufficient ROI, and who's gonna insure it now? Insurance companies believe in
climate change, whether they will admit it or not.
But I would put a few $$$ into PR debt, and gamble that the US govt will bail *me*and
my fellow vultures (not PR) out. Am I cynical enough?
What about the cars? I would imagine that many cars were destroyed, heavely damaged, or
simply lost. Getting cars repaired and replaced will also be a major challenge. And this I
bet would fall on the backs of the individual owners who will already be strapped for cash
to begin with.
Pretty well, yup. Insurance companies gonna pay pennies on the dollar, assuming you actually
have insurance for stuff like this. Poor people tend to get the very minimum needed to get
their vehicle on the road, which is usually liability. If you do have bountiful; coverage for
Acts O'God, where are you going to get your car repaired or replaced anyway? This may sound
super-cynical, even for me, but looking at those washed out and blown-away roads, getting cargo
into remote places in PR is a job for sure-footed critters like mules and horses. Dirt bikes
can move people over difficult terrain. So can
bicycles , and they
have been preparing for such a thing.
The crisis in PR compared to the crises in FL and TX really opened my eyes to how dangerous
and precarious it must be to live on an island, even one ostensibly connected to a powerful
country. The logistical nightmare of getting things there is compounded so much by that sea
barrier. At least in TX, you can call in the cajun navy who can drive their boats to the location,
then launch.
So now one thing is even clearer to me: the first losers of rising sea levels and climate
change disasters will be islanders. Places like the Maldives and the Leewards will have a really
hard time in the next few decades.
??? The sea is how people got things everywhere long, long before the first steam engine
(and I'm talking those Roman toy ones) was even conceived?
This is just incompetence. Load up cargo ships (which are the most enormous transportation
devices on the planet) and bring an aircraft carrier or two with cargo helicopters to bring
the goods inland:
"The CH-53E heavylift transport helicopter can carry cargo with a maximum weight of 13.6
t internally or 14.5 t externally."
I get what both of you are saying vis a vis sea travel, Jones Act and all, but even in the
best of all possible human organizations, it's still a major factor in any relief effort. It's
just not nearly as easy to get people from point A to point B by boat. If your car breaks down,
you're stranded, if your boat breaks down, you could easily die.
Much of the sea barrier is man-made, namely the Jones Act. As a result, it is more expensive
for Puerto Rico to get supplies form the US than from non-American sources because of shipping
costs.
We do live on a global island. Soot from Chinese coal burning lands on the few remaining
glaciers in Glacier National Park and hastens their demise. Methane from melting permafrost
in the Northwest Territories acts as a blanket to increase solar heating of the ocean surface.
Increased ocean temperatures help hurricanes to explode from Category 1 to 5 almost overnight
and stall over Houston as a Biblical deluge.
Three well-placed air-burst EMP nuclear bombs can disable communication and transport over
most of the country. And a week without water and food being transported into New York would
turn it into San Juan with no rescue boats on the horizon and frozen corpses piling up in the
alleys in mid-winter.
We all live on an island -- one held together by a thin spider web of technology and resting
upon an biosphere that we are waging war against with our insatiable imperative of growth.
When I read what the FDR Administration was able to accomplish amidst the devastation
of New England's forests wrought by the hurricane of 1938, it brought tears to my eyes.
"The political class seems to have lost the ability to mobilize on behalf of its citizens."
My momma used to say, "Where there's a will, there's a way." I have observed that if there's
'no way', it's because there is no will. I think this is the case in PR, as it was in NOLA,
and as it seems to be in Houston (except for the *nice* neighbourhoods, of course). Cali fire
victims, prepare to be On Your Own(tm).
Great job, Lambert .insight and solid research into a topic overlooked by the MSM and the
politicals .
If your interest and time permits, I would love a report on what FEMA will/has provided
for LONG TERM HOUSING for PR, Northern CA, and the areas hit hard by hurricanes on the USA
mainland ..
I have not been able to locate much on this topic
Last I heard was that FEMA had Zero trailers on hand and had let out a contract to some
company(s) to build new trailers.
In the interim, there was a report that FEMA would be distributing TENTS to some people
in need of shelter. I believe this article was a report from Florida after the fist Hurricane
hit there.
A look at Puerto Rico shows that there at lots of homes without roofs ..and they are probably
not accessible for a trailer delivery up in the hills. In Santa Rosa, CA, there is very little
affordable and available housing close to Santa Rosa. The rains will arrive and then the Mud
will Turn the Sand into YUCK and MUCK.
I remember, after Katrina and her friends beat up New Orleans, a lot of folks were flown
away from New Orleans (Barbara Bush opined it was probably a good deal for a lot of 'em) and
many did not return. Others were put in FEMA trailers. (TREME on HBO covered the KATRINA aftermath
as only David Simon can!)
Anyone else, who can provide me with links or information, is most welcome to respond.
FEMA's mission is emergency/first response mobilization. It is not their job or within its
functionality or budget to provide long-term rebuilding solutions. That falls on the island's
government, with congressional financial assistance if congress allocates money for it.
The Army Corps of Engineers are one thing, the other things are the Combat Engineers, organized
perhaps as regiments and assigned to combat brigades. These are the people who do roads, airfields,
etc., and the ones you would have wanted on the spot in Puerto Rico from maybe day two.
I strongly believe the problem is the deployment to the Middle East. Bullies strongly believe
they must never, ever show weakness. So they believe that they can't pull Combat Engineers
out of Whateveristan without looking weak.
So they don't – and they bless their lucky stars that Puerto Rico isn't a state and Puerto
Ricans aren't considered Americans by most Americans. However – how many of those deployed
to the ME are from Puerto Rico, and how are they reacting? I gotta wonder.
To get a road open, you need to clear the trees and debris, repair bridges, and repair landslides.
In rugged terrain, this is a serious effort as just one break makes the road unusable for deliveries
beyond the break.
Puerto Rico has one of the highest rates of car ownership in the world, thanks to urban
sprawl and the government's failure to build public transportation that commuters might
actually use . Puerto Ricans are isolated without cars About 931,000 Puerto Ricans drive
or carpool to work out of 3.4 million total residents, according to U.S. Census data. [T]he
island has the fifth-highest number of vehicles per capita in the world.
The only thing I would like to mention is that people don't drive because there soley because
there is no public transportation, they drive because it is the most convenient/fast/cost
effective mode of travel available. You could build all the lightrail in the world, but
if it wasn't more convenient/cheaper/cost effective than driving, people wouldn't take it.
Disincentives for driving are much more powerful than incentives for transit.
How much road do they have per inhabitant there? Maybe disasters like these could be a wakeup
call for how we lay out our development and where we spend our infrastructure dollars? Unfortunately
probably not.
I haven't read the book or seen the movie, so maybe my comment is off base, but I'll proceed
anyway. This article makes me think of the post-apocalyptic drama "The Road", by Cormac McCarthy.
If the U.S. is not an empire, Puerto Rico would not be a protectorate or whatever. If
the U.S. is an empire in decline, Puerto Rico being abandoned would be a signal to the world
that the U.S. dollar is in serious trouble.
What with PR's situation and the apparent U.S. tendency to retreat from simple truths,
could a collapse in preference falsification* be in progress?
From my side of the world, the U.S. is becoming more than ever a busted flush of apparent
and unsustainable inconsistencies which might take us all down with it.
Here's hoping that there is a bounty of brilliant minds and and excellent administrators
in the U.S. military leadership who are ready to step up.
By report Puerto Rico is making a deal with a Washington (state) power company on power
line repair, the issues involved in running power lines through PR and through inland Washington
being rather similar. the last Saffir 3, 4, or 5 hurricanes ot hit the island did so in 1928
and 1932, or so I have read, so on one hand there is plenty of time to get a return on investment,
and on the other hand, there was no rationale for building power lines that could survive a
force 4 or 5 hurricane.
Puerto Rico is third world lite. They could rebuild and become a model for the third world.
There are only 3 million people on the island. They dont have to pay Fed income tax. It could
be a great retirement location for elderly whites. It just requires investment. Currently the
single largest employer is the US govt. They need leadership from within.
Here's what the IRS says about Puerto Rico and income taxes (quoted from
Wikipedia
):
In general, United States citizens and resident aliens who are bona fide residents of
Puerto Rico during the entire tax year, which for most individuals is January 1 to December
31, are only required to file a U.S. federal income tax return if they have income sources
outside of Puerto Rico or if they are employees of the U.S. government. Bona fide residents
of Puerto Rico generally do not report income received from sources within Puerto Rico on
their U.S. income tax return.
So they pay income tax, but only on income from outside Puerto Rico. Also from Wikipedia:
In 2009, Puerto Rico paid $3.742 billion into the US Treasury.[10] Residents of Puerto
Rico pay into Social Security, and are thus eligible for Social Security benefits upon retirement.
However, they are excluded from the Supplemental Security Income.
The federal taxes paid by Puerto Rico residents include import/export taxes,[11] federal
commodity taxes,[12] and others. Residents also pay federal payroll taxes, such as Social
Security[13] and Medicare taxes.[14]
If neoliberalism is the belief that the proper role of government is to enrich the rich --
in Democratic circles they call it "wealth creation" to hide the recipients; Republicans are
much more blatant -- then the " shock doctrine " is its action plan.
Click the link above for more information (or read the book ), but in essence the idea is to
use any form of disaster, whether earthquake or economic/political crisis, to remake a society
in the neoliberal image. To reconstruct the destroyed world, in other words, to the liking of
holders of great wealth -- by privatizing everything of value held by the public (think water
rights, public roads); by forcing austerity on cash-strapped governments as the price for "aid"
(think loans, not grants, repaid by unwritten social insurance checks); by putting "managers,"
or simply loan officers, in charge of democratic decision-making.
In simple, a "shock doctrine" solution always takes this form: "Yes, we'll help you, but we
now own your farm and what it produces. Also, your family must work on it for the next 50
years."
This is what happened in Chile after Pinochet and his coup murdered the democratically
elected socialist Salvador Allende and took over the government. It's what's happening to
Greece, victim of collusion between greedy international bankers and the corrupt Greek
politicians they cultivated. And it's what happened in the U.S. during the 2008 bailout of
bankers, by which government money was sent in buckets to companies like AIG so they could pay
their debts in full to companies like Goldman Sachs. While millions of mortgaged homeowners
crashed and burned to the ground.
The populist reaction to neoliberal "reform" is usually social revolt, often or usually
ineffective, since creditors are, almost by definition, people with money, and people with
money, almost by definition, control most governments. In Greece, the revolt sparked the
election of an (ineffective) "socialist" government -- plus the rise of the Greek neo-Nazi
party, Golden Dawn. In the U.S. the revolt still still sparks universal (and ineffective)
hatred of the 2008 bank bailout -- plus the rise of the failed Sanders candidacy and the
successful Trump presidency.
The form this same revolt will take in 2018 and 2020 is still to be determined.
The Shock Doctrine and Puerto Rico
The "shock doctrine" -- the stripping of wealth from the devastated by the
already-way-too-wealthy -- is now being applied to Puerto Rico. Even before the hurricanes hit
it, Puerto Rico was a second-class citizen relative to states of the U.S., even among its
non-state territories. In contrast to Puerto Rico, for example, the American Virgin Islands
were instantly much better treated when it came to relief from the Jones Act ,
a sign of already-established prejudice.
The reason should be obvious. In Puerto Rico , English is the primary
language of less than 10% of the people, while Spanish is the dominant language of the school
system and daily life. In the American Virgin
Islands , English is the dominant language, and Spanish is spoken by less than 20% of the
population. The fact that two-thirds of the population of the U.S. Virgin Islands is black
seems to be lost on most Americans, a fact that likely benefits those inhabitants greatly in
times like these.
Thus, to most Americans the citizens of Puerto Rico are conveniently (for neoliberals) easy
to paint as "them," the undeserving, which changes what atrocities can be committed in the name
of "aid" -- much like it did after Hurricane Katrina devastated "them"-inhabited New
Orleans.
Congress passed a law back in the 80's prohibiting PR from defaulting. Repudiation of PR
debt would entail getting our current congress and prez to pass legislation to repudiate it,
so in other words divine intervention ;-).
When NAFTA was passed, Congress also stripped companies of tax benefits for having
operations in Puerto Rico. In addition, the Jones Act makes shipping to and from Puerto Rico
more expensive than shipping to and from Mexico. Oddly enough, many companies moved
operations from Puerto Rico and Puerto Rico has been in recession/depression ever since.
I think Puerto Rico will be interesting to watch to see if anti neoliberal sentiment can
take hold and survive. In one sense, every individual abandoned or ensnared in debt is in the
same boat. Once put in a situation of debt servitude, the only recourse to extricate oneself
is to become self reliant and attempt to build supporting networks. The trouble is, once
those networks start to form, the traditional game plan is to bring in force and break them
up.
If strong, self-supporting communities can form in PR, it will provide inspiration for
communities on the mainland.
It will be also interesting to see if self-funded initiatives can make headway against the
banking and financial interests.
This situation in PR is important in that it can change the focus of community building
away form personal self-interest as now exists in America, and towards the common good, as it
should be. The same is happening all across the mainland in economically devastated
communities, but successfully blacked out in the media.
This truly is a long term endeavor, but tragically, climate change will increase the
opportunities for proper action. The proper long term investment is in people and life
skills. Lets roll up our sleeves.
an aside:
" Once put in a situation of debt servitude, the only recourse to extricate oneself is to
become self reliant and attempt to build supporting networks. "
US people born 1880 – 1900 were adults/young adults with families when the Great
Depression hit. Their children, sometimes referred to as The Greatest Generation, were
children or teens during the depression and saw how debt destroyed families. When those
children grew up they were debt averse. The Depression/Greatest Gen's children, the Baby
Boomers, would often joke their parents, who were Depression kids, could squeeze a nickel
until it screamed. Boomers, having no memory of systemic economic bad times, took on large
debts for school and housing on the theory their income would always increase as it had for
their parents. Now the Boomers children are facing a wholly different economy, more like the
Great Depression than the Booming 50's and 60's.
I expect today's younger generation will become debt averse. That would hurt the FIRE
sector's reliance on ever increasing debt payment rents. Reducing the FIRE sectors influence
would be good for both the Main Street economy and individuals, imo.
In turn, Puerto Rico's govt debt crisis led to the imposition of a crushing 11.5% sales
tax, making retail prices already jacked up by the Jones Act even more unaffordable.
Puerto Rico's recovery will depend almost entirely on how much of a haircut is imposed on
bondholders versus restructuring and extending in the Greek fashion, which would doom PR
forevahhhh.
It would be interesting to compare the pace of recovery in Cuba with that of Puerto Rico.
Both were hit by category 5 hurricanes within days of each other. In the case of Cuba, Havana
was every much at the center of the bulls eye as San Juan Puerto Rico if I am correct. But
I've not been able to uncover a single scrap of reporting that draws the comparison. Perhaps
it would be embarrassing to the defenders of "free market" capitalism and social
organization?
But hurricanes are last month's news. We've moved on to the startling revelations that fat
pig movie directors are pussy grabbers just like our President.
I have always believed that one of the primary aims of the Cuba travel ban was to keep us
Puerto Ricans from traveling there to see what isolation and poverty -- the constant threats
leveled at those who support PR independence -- could look like.
Thanks for posting this journalism from an Indian source. While it may be accurate, the
writing style reads like it was copied straight from the Ideologe's Bible. So I'll file it
along most commentary from outlets like the Washington Post– assume it is fraudulent
propaganda until proven otherwise.
It's very nice to talk about how to rebuild Puerto Rico but how long will it be before
Puerto Rico is hit by another major hurricane? And while we're thinking of Puerto Rico what
about Houston, and Florida? What about the North Carolina sea coast -- or New Jersey -- NYC?
I don't expect anything reasonable will be done in rebuilding any of these places or
beginning an orderly retreat to higher ground.
Some parts of these areas may remain habitable -- at least long enough to make it
worthwhile to build infrastructure but I believe it will be a mistake to simply "rebuild".
Replacement infrastructure should be built to better withstand the future storms and rising
seas. I am aware that not "rebuilding" is neither socially nor politically viable. It just
seems a shame to waste what time and resources remain.
I was fortunate enough to get to meet a number of Puerto Rican cooperators at this year's
Assoc. of Cooperative Educators Institute in Denver. Puerto Rico has a very strong
cooperative sector/movement. Co-ops in Puerto Rico don't pay tax to the gov't. Instead, each
co-op provides (iirc) 2% of net revenues to Liga
de Cooperativas de Puerto Rico , the apex co-op organization for the island. This
provides an internally funded support mechanism for co-ops and has helped create a thriving
co-op ecosystem.
So I've got some optimism that my Puerto Rican friends will be able to replace at least
some of the failed systems that have been afflicting them with cooperative, sustainable,
alternative solutions.
Puerto Rico has agreed to pay a reported $300 million for the restoration of its power
grid to a tiny utility company which is primarily financed by a private equity firm founded
and run by a man who contributed large sums of money to President Trump, an investigation
conducted by The Daily Beast has found.
Whitefish Energy Holdings, which had a reported staff of only two full-time employees
when Hurricane Maria touched down, appears ill-equipped to handle the daunting task of
restoring electricity to Puerto Rico's over 3 million residents.
As usual, donate a few thousand, reap millions.
FEC data compiled by The Daily Beast shows that Colonnetta contributed $20,000 to the
"Trump Victory" PAC during the general election, $27,000 to Trump's primary election
campaign (then the maximum amount permitted), $27,000 to Trump's general election campaign
(also the maximum), and a total of $30,700 to the Republican National Committee in 2016
alone.
Colonnetta's wife, Kimberly, is no stranger to Republican politics either; shortly after
Trump's victory she gave $33,400 to the Republican National Committee, the maximum
contribution permitted for party committees in 2016.
Bears repeating, we're not only 'ruled' by whores, we're ruled by cheap whores.
Of course I make apologies to all ladies of negotiable affection.
"... This is why hawks like John McCain, while receiving a "Liberty" award from Joe Biden, can, with a straight face, get away with denouncing those Americans who have become tired of playing at being the world's policeman. He describes them as fearful of "the world we have organized and led for three-quarters of a century, [abandoning] the ideals we have advanced around the globe, [refusing] the obligations of international leadership and our duty to remain 'the last best hope of earth' for the sake of some half-baked, spurious nationalism." ..."
"... And this is why we are where we are -- our government is infested by the likes of McCain, Lindsay Graham, and hundreds of others of their ilk. There is no milk of human kindness that flows in my veins when I look at these despicable creatures who have done so much harm to so many people and continue to exist, cancer and all, like Darth Cheney with his nuclear heart, while the innocents fall by the wayside from their evil. ..."
"... I can't find that citation at the moment, but I recall a report from US military experts that placed the accuracy of interceptor missiles at about 10% in real-world conditions. I vaguely recall that during the Gulf war, we had placed Patriot interceptors in Israel to protect the chosen from Saddam's Scud missiles, and apparently only a few of those decrepit scuds were successfully intercepted. I believe the lack of accuracy of these Patriot missiles was hushed up. ..."
Americans consequently do not know war except as something that happens elsewhere and to foreigners,
requiring only that the U.S. step in on occasion and bail things out, or screw things up depending
on one's point of view. This is why hawks like John McCain, while receiving a "Liberty" award from
Joe Biden, can, with a straight face, get away with
denouncing those Americans who have become tired of playing at being the world's policeman. He
describes them as fearful of "the world we have organized and led for three-quarters of a century,
[abandoning] the ideals we have advanced around the globe, [refusing] the obligations of international
leadership and our duty to remain 'the last best hope of earth' for the sake of some half-baked,
spurious nationalism."
McCain's completely fatuous account of recent world history befits a Navy pilot who was adept
at crashing his planes and almost sank his own aircraft carrier. He also made propaganda radio broadcasts
for the North Vietnamese after he was captured. The McCain globalist-American Exceptionalism narrative
is also, unfortunately, echoed by the media. The steady ingestion of lies and half-truths is why
the public puts up with unending demands for increased defense spending, accepting that the world
outside is a dangerous place that must be kept in line by force majeure . Yes, we are the
good guys.
But underlying the citizenry's willingness to accept that the military establishment should encircle
the globe with foreign bases to keep the world "safe" is the assumption that the 48 States are invulnerable,
isolated by broad oceans and friendly nations to the north and south. And protected from far distant
threats by technology, interceptor systems developed and maintained at enormous expense to intercept
and shoot down incoming ballistic missiles launched by enemies overseas.
This is why hawks like John McCain, while receiving a "Liberty" award from Joe Biden, can,
with a straight face, get away with denouncing those Americans who have become tired of playing
at being the world's policeman. He describes them as fearful of "the world we have organized
and led for three-quarters of a century, [abandoning] the ideals we have advanced around the
globe, [refusing] the obligations of international leadership and our duty to remain 'the last
best hope of earth' for the sake of some half-baked, spurious nationalism."
And this is why we are where we are -- our government is infested by the likes of McCain,
Lindsay Graham, and hundreds of others of their ilk. There is no milk of human kindness that flows
in my veins when I look at these despicable creatures who have done so much harm to so many people
and continue to exist, cancer and all, like Darth Cheney with his nuclear heart, while the innocents
fall by the wayside from their evil.
I had wished him dead, but as a friend reminded me, it is better for him to live, suffering
from excruciating agony as cancer demolishes him one cell at a time, jabbing his brain every second
of every day -- to the brink of madness and just a step behind the precipice that would end his
life, living for decades more, tortured and despised.
Towards thee I roll, thou all-destroying but unconquering whale; to the last, I grapple
with thee; From Hell's heart, I stab at thee; For hate's sake, I spit my last breath at thee.
-- Herman Melville
Even the federal government watchdog agencies have concluded that the missile interception
system seldom performs.
I can't find that citation at the moment, but I recall a report from US military experts
that placed the accuracy of interceptor missiles at about 10% in real-world conditions. I vaguely
recall that during the Gulf war, we had placed Patriot interceptors in Israel to protect the chosen
from Saddam's Scud missiles, and apparently only a few of those decrepit scuds were successfully
intercepted. I believe the lack of accuracy of these Patriot missiles was hushed up.
Meanwhile, the Russian S-300, S-400, and the soon-to-appear S-500 missile batteries have demonstrated
very impressive results. Now our "allies" are all scampering over to Moscow to acquire these instead
of our duds, following the utter failure of our $0.5 Trillion F-35 embarrassment.
It is high time for us to ask how we got here and who is responsible. I will give you three
guesses, and the first two don't count.
"... although I haven't heard of private equity pushing Puerto Rican toll roads they would own ..."
"... My dear Lambert, were I a vulture capitalist (which I am not!), I would not put one plugged nickel into infrastructure in PR. Not toll roads, not resorts, not power grid, not rebuilding the pharma factories, nada. Because another Maria will just happen again and trash it all before sufficient ROI, and who's gonna insure it now? Insurance companies believe in climate change, whether they will admit it or not. ..."
"... But I would put a few $$$ into PR debt, and gamble that the US govt will bail *me*and my fellow vultures (not PR) out. Am I cynical enough? ..."
"... This is just incompetence. Load up cargo ships (which are the most enormous transportation devices on the planet) and bring an aircraft carrier or two with cargo helicopters to bring the goods inland: ..."
"... "The political class seems to have lost the ability to mobilize on behalf of its citizens.". It wasn't always this way. Read http://northernwoodlands.org/articles/article/thirty-eight-new-england-lumber-storm . ..."
"... When I read what the FDR Administration was able to accomplish amidst the devastation of New England's forests wrought by the hurricane of 1938, it brought tears to my eyes. ..."
"... "The political class seems to have lost the ability to mobilize on behalf of its citizens." ..."
"... most convenient/fast/cost effective ..."
"... If the U.S. is not an empire, Puerto Rico would not be a protectorate or whatever. If the U.S. is an empire in decline, Puerto Rico being abandoned would be a signal to the world that the U.S. dollar is in serious trouble. ..."
"... What with PR's situation and the apparent U.S. tendency to retreat from simple truths, could a collapse in preference falsification* be in progress? ..."
Somehow, I think our government's response to PR/Maria will be the new norm unless there
are a bunch of billionaire's calling the gov reps they bought to complain. And even they may
be frustrated by the current boob in the WH.
although I haven't heard of private equity pushing Puerto Rican toll roads they would
own
My dear Lambert, were I a vulture capitalist (which I am not!), I would not put one
plugged nickel into infrastructure in PR. Not toll roads, not resorts, not power grid, not
rebuilding the pharma factories, nada. Because another Maria will just happen again and trash
it all before sufficient ROI, and who's gonna insure it now? Insurance companies believe in
climate change, whether they will admit it or not.
But I would put a few $$$ into PR debt, and gamble that the US govt will bail *me*and
my fellow vultures (not PR) out. Am I cynical enough?
What about the cars? I would imagine that many cars were destroyed, heavely damaged, or
simply lost. Getting cars repaired and replaced will also be a major challenge. And this I
bet would fall on the backs of the individual owners who will already be strapped for cash
to begin with.
Pretty well, yup. Insurance companies gonna pay pennies on the dollar, assuming you actually
have insurance for stuff like this. Poor people tend to get the very minimum needed to get
their vehicle on the road, which is usually liability. If you do have bountiful; coverage for
Acts O'God, where are you going to get your car repaired or replaced anyway? This may sound
super-cynical, even for me, but looking at those washed out and blown-away roads, getting cargo
into remote places in PR is a job for sure-footed critters like mules and horses. Dirt bikes
can move people over difficult terrain. So can
bicycles , and they
have been preparing for such a thing.
The crisis in PR compared to the crises in FL and TX really opened my eyes to how dangerous
and precarious it must be to live on an island, even one ostensibly connected to a powerful
country. The logistical nightmare of getting things there is compounded so much by that sea
barrier. At least in TX, you can call in the cajun navy who can drive their boats to the location,
then launch.
So now one thing is even clearer to me: the first losers of rising sea levels and climate
change disasters will be islanders. Places like the Maldives and the Leewards will have a really
hard time in the next few decades.
??? The sea is how people got things everywhere long, long before the first steam engine
(and I'm talking those Roman toy ones) was even conceived?
This is just incompetence. Load up cargo ships (which are the most enormous transportation
devices on the planet) and bring an aircraft carrier or two with cargo helicopters to bring
the goods inland:
"The CH-53E heavylift transport helicopter can carry cargo with a maximum weight of 13.6
t internally or 14.5 t externally."
I get what both of you are saying vis a vis sea travel, Jones Act and all, but even in the
best of all possible human organizations, it's still a major factor in any relief effort. It's
just not nearly as easy to get people from point A to point B by boat. If your car breaks down,
you're stranded, if your boat breaks down, you could easily die.
Much of the sea barrier is man-made, namely the Jones Act. As a result, it is more expensive
for Puerto Rico to get supplies form the US than from non-American sources because of shipping
costs.
We do live on a global island. Soot from Chinese coal burning lands on the few remaining
glaciers in Glacier National Park and hastens their demise. Methane from melting permafrost
in the Northwest Territories acts as a blanket to increase solar heating of the ocean surface.
Increased ocean temperatures help hurricanes to explode from Category 1 to 5 almost overnight
and stall over Houston as a Biblical deluge.
Three well-placed air-burst EMP nuclear bombs can disable communication and transport over
most of the country. And a week without water and food being transported into New York would
turn it into San Juan with no rescue boats on the horizon and frozen corpses piling up in the
alleys in mid-winter.
We all live on an island -- one held together by a thin spider web of technology and resting
upon an biosphere that we are waging war against with our insatiable imperative of growth.
When I read what the FDR Administration was able to accomplish amidst the devastation
of New England's forests wrought by the hurricane of 1938, it brought tears to my eyes.
"The political class seems to have lost the ability to mobilize on behalf of its citizens."
My momma used to say, "Where there's a will, there's a way." I have observed that if there's
'no way', it's because there is no will. I think this is the case in PR, as it was in NOLA,
and as it seems to be in Houston (except for the *nice* neighbourhoods, of course). Cali fire
victims, prepare to be On Your Own(tm).
Great job, Lambert .insight and solid research into a topic overlooked by the MSM and the
politicals .
If your interest and time permits, I would love a report on what FEMA will/has provided
for LONG TERM HOUSING for PR, Northern CA, and the areas hit hard by hurricanes on the USA
mainland ..
I have not been able to locate much on this topic
Last I heard was that FEMA had Zero trailers on hand and had let out a contract to some
company(s) to build new trailers.
In the interim, there was a report that FEMA would be distributing TENTS to some people
in need of shelter. I believe this article was a report from Florida after the fist Hurricane
hit there.
A look at Puerto Rico shows that there at lots of homes without roofs ..and they are probably
not accessible for a trailer delivery up in the hills. In Santa Rosa, CA, there is very little
affordable and available housing close to Santa Rosa. The rains will arrive and then the Mud
will Turn the Sand into YUCK and MUCK.
I remember, after Katrina and her friends beat up New Orleans, a lot of folks were flown
away from New Orleans (Barbara Bush opined it was probably a good deal for a lot of 'em) and
many did not return. Others were put in FEMA trailers. (TREME on HBO covered the KATRINA aftermath
as only David Simon can!)
Anyone else, who can provide me with links or information, is most welcome to respond.
FEMA's mission is emergency/first response mobilization. It is not their job or within its
functionality or budget to provide long-term rebuilding solutions. That falls on the island's
government, with congressional financial assistance if congress allocates money for it.
The Army Corps of Engineers are one thing, the other things are the Combat Engineers, organized
perhaps as regiments and assigned to combat brigades. These are the people who do roads, airfields,
etc., and the ones you would have wanted on the spot in Puerto Rico from maybe day two.
I strongly believe the problem is the deployment to the Middle East. Bullies strongly believe
they must never, ever show weakness. So they believe that they can't pull Combat Engineers
out of Whateveristan without looking weak.
So they don't – and they bless their lucky stars that Puerto Rico isn't a state and Puerto
Ricans aren't considered Americans by most Americans. However – how many of those deployed
to the ME are from Puerto Rico, and how are they reacting? I gotta wonder.
To get a road open, you need to clear the trees and debris, repair bridges, and repair landslides.
In rugged terrain, this is a serious effort as just one break makes the road unusable for deliveries
beyond the break.
Puerto Rico has one of the highest rates of car ownership in the world, thanks to urban
sprawl and the government's failure to build public transportation that commuters might
actually use . Puerto Ricans are isolated without cars About 931,000 Puerto Ricans drive
or carpool to work out of 3.4 million total residents, according to U.S. Census data. [T]he
island has the fifth-highest number of vehicles per capita in the world.
The only thing I would like to mention is that people don't drive because there soley because
there is no public transportation, they drive because it is the most convenient/fast/cost
effective mode of travel available. You could build all the lightrail in the world, but
if it wasn't more convenient/cheaper/cost effective than driving, people wouldn't take it.
Disincentives for driving are much more powerful than incentives for transit.
How much road do they have per inhabitant there? Maybe disasters like these could be a wakeup
call for how we lay out our development and where we spend our infrastructure dollars? Unfortunately
probably not.
I haven't read the book or seen the movie, so maybe my comment is off base, but I'll proceed
anyway. This article makes me think of the post-apocalyptic drama "The Road", by Cormac McCarthy.
If the U.S. is not an empire, Puerto Rico would not be a protectorate or whatever. If
the U.S. is an empire in decline, Puerto Rico being abandoned would be a signal to the world
that the U.S. dollar is in serious trouble.
What with PR's situation and the apparent U.S. tendency to retreat from simple truths,
could a collapse in preference falsification* be in progress?
From my side of the world, the U.S. is becoming more than ever a busted flush of apparent
and unsustainable inconsistencies which might take us all down with it.
Here's hoping that there is a bounty of brilliant minds and and excellent administrators
in the U.S. military leadership who are ready to step up.
By report Puerto Rico is making a deal with a Washington (state) power company on power
line repair, the issues involved in running power lines through PR and through inland Washington
being rather similar. the last Saffir 3, 4, or 5 hurricanes ot hit the island did so in 1928
and 1932, or so I have read, so on one hand there is plenty of time to get a return on investment,
and on the other hand, there was no rationale for building power lines that could survive a
force 4 or 5 hurricane.
Puerto Rico is third world lite. They could rebuild and become a model for the third world.
There are only 3 million people on the island. They dont have to pay Fed income tax. It could
be a great retirement location for elderly whites. It just requires investment. Currently the
single largest employer is the US govt. They need leadership from within.
Here's what the IRS says about Puerto Rico and income taxes (quoted from
Wikipedia
):
In general, United States citizens and resident aliens who are bona fide residents of
Puerto Rico during the entire tax year, which for most individuals is January 1 to December
31, are only required to file a U.S. federal income tax return if they have income sources
outside of Puerto Rico or if they are employees of the U.S. government. Bona fide residents
of Puerto Rico generally do not report income received from sources within Puerto Rico on
their U.S. income tax return.
So they pay income tax, but only on income from outside Puerto Rico. Also from Wikipedia:
In 2009, Puerto Rico paid $3.742 billion into the US Treasury.[10] Residents of Puerto
Rico pay into Social Security, and are thus eligible for Social Security benefits upon retirement.
However, they are excluded from the Supplemental Security Income.
The federal taxes paid by Puerto Rico residents include import/export taxes,[11] federal
commodity taxes,[12] and others. Residents also pay federal payroll taxes, such as Social
Security[13] and Medicare taxes.[14]
If neoliberalism is the belief that the proper role of government is to enrich the rich --
in Democratic circles they call it "wealth creation" to hide the recipients; Republicans are
much more blatant -- then the " shock doctrine " is its action plan.
Click the link above for more information (or read the book ), but in essence the idea is to
use any form of disaster, whether earthquake or economic/political crisis, to remake a society
in the neoliberal image. To reconstruct the destroyed world, in other words, to the liking of
holders of great wealth -- by privatizing everything of value held by the public (think water
rights, public roads); by forcing austerity on cash-strapped governments as the price for "aid"
(think loans, not grants, repaid by unwritten social insurance checks); by putting "managers,"
or simply loan officers, in charge of democratic decision-making.
In simple, a "shock doctrine" solution always takes this form: "Yes, we'll help you, but we
now own your farm and what it produces. Also, your family must work on it for the next 50
years."
This is what happened in Chile after Pinochet and his coup murdered the democratically
elected socialist Salvador Allende and took over the government. It's what's happening to
Greece, victim of collusion between greedy international bankers and the corrupt Greek
politicians they cultivated. And it's what happened in the U.S. during the 2008 bailout of
bankers, by which government money was sent in buckets to companies like AIG so they could pay
their debts in full to companies like Goldman Sachs. While millions of mortgaged homeowners
crashed and burned to the ground.
The populist reaction to neoliberal "reform" is usually social revolt, often or usually
ineffective, since creditors are, almost by definition, people with money, and people with
money, almost by definition, control most governments. In Greece, the revolt sparked the
election of an (ineffective) "socialist" government -- plus the rise of the Greek neo-Nazi
party, Golden Dawn. In the U.S. the revolt still still sparks universal (and ineffective)
hatred of the 2008 bank bailout -- plus the rise of the failed Sanders candidacy and the
successful Trump presidency.
The form this same revolt will take in 2018 and 2020 is still to be determined.
The Shock Doctrine and Puerto Rico
The "shock doctrine" -- the stripping of wealth from the devastated by the
already-way-too-wealthy -- is now being applied to Puerto Rico. Even before the hurricanes hit
it, Puerto Rico was a second-class citizen relative to states of the U.S., even among its
non-state territories. In contrast to Puerto Rico, for example, the American Virgin Islands
were instantly much better treated when it came to relief from the Jones Act ,
a sign of already-established prejudice.
The reason should be obvious. In Puerto Rico , English is the primary
language of less than 10% of the people, while Spanish is the dominant language of the school
system and daily life. In the American Virgin
Islands , English is the dominant language, and Spanish is spoken by less than 20% of the
population. The fact that two-thirds of the population of the U.S. Virgin Islands is black
seems to be lost on most Americans, a fact that likely benefits those inhabitants greatly in
times like these.
Thus, to most Americans the citizens of Puerto Rico are conveniently (for neoliberals) easy
to paint as "them," the undeserving, which changes what atrocities can be committed in the name
of "aid" -- much like it did after Hurricane Katrina devastated "them"-inhabited New
Orleans.
Congress passed a law back in the 80's prohibiting PR from defaulting. Repudiation of PR
debt would entail getting our current congress and prez to pass legislation to repudiate it,
so in other words divine intervention ;-).
When NAFTA was passed, Congress also stripped companies of tax benefits for having
operations in Puerto Rico. In addition, the Jones Act makes shipping to and from Puerto Rico
more expensive than shipping to and from Mexico. Oddly enough, many companies moved
operations from Puerto Rico and Puerto Rico has been in recession/depression ever since.
I think Puerto Rico will be interesting to watch to see if anti neoliberal sentiment can
take hold and survive. In one sense, every individual abandoned or ensnared in debt is in the
same boat. Once put in a situation of debt servitude, the only recourse to extricate oneself
is to become self reliant and attempt to build supporting networks. The trouble is, once
those networks start to form, the traditional game plan is to bring in force and break them
up.
If strong, self-supporting communities can form in PR, it will provide inspiration for
communities on the mainland.
It will be also interesting to see if self-funded initiatives can make headway against the
banking and financial interests.
This situation in PR is important in that it can change the focus of community building
away form personal self-interest as now exists in America, and towards the common good, as it
should be. The same is happening all across the mainland in economically devastated
communities, but successfully blacked out in the media.
This truly is a long term endeavor, but tragically, climate change will increase the
opportunities for proper action. The proper long term investment is in people and life
skills. Lets roll up our sleeves.
an aside:
" Once put in a situation of debt servitude, the only recourse to extricate oneself is to
become self reliant and attempt to build supporting networks. "
US people born 1880 – 1900 were adults/young adults with families when the Great
Depression hit. Their children, sometimes referred to as The Greatest Generation, were
children or teens during the depression and saw how debt destroyed families. When those
children grew up they were debt averse. The Depression/Greatest Gen's children, the Baby
Boomers, would often joke their parents, who were Depression kids, could squeeze a nickel
until it screamed. Boomers, having no memory of systemic economic bad times, took on large
debts for school and housing on the theory their income would always increase as it had for
their parents. Now the Boomers children are facing a wholly different economy, more like the
Great Depression than the Booming 50's and 60's.
I expect today's younger generation will become debt averse. That would hurt the FIRE
sector's reliance on ever increasing debt payment rents. Reducing the FIRE sectors influence
would be good for both the Main Street economy and individuals, imo.
In turn, Puerto Rico's govt debt crisis led to the imposition of a crushing 11.5% sales
tax, making retail prices already jacked up by the Jones Act even more unaffordable.
Puerto Rico's recovery will depend almost entirely on how much of a haircut is imposed on
bondholders versus restructuring and extending in the Greek fashion, which would doom PR
forevahhhh.
It would be interesting to compare the pace of recovery in Cuba with that of Puerto Rico.
Both were hit by category 5 hurricanes within days of each other. In the case of Cuba, Havana
was every much at the center of the bulls eye as San Juan Puerto Rico if I am correct. But
I've not been able to uncover a single scrap of reporting that draws the comparison. Perhaps
it would be embarrassing to the defenders of "free market" capitalism and social
organization?
But hurricanes are last month's news. We've moved on to the startling revelations that fat
pig movie directors are pussy grabbers just like our President.
I have always believed that one of the primary aims of the Cuba travel ban was to keep us
Puerto Ricans from traveling there to see what isolation and poverty -- the constant threats
leveled at those who support PR independence -- could look like.
Thanks for posting this journalism from an Indian source. While it may be accurate, the
writing style reads like it was copied straight from the Ideologe's Bible. So I'll file it
along most commentary from outlets like the Washington Post– assume it is fraudulent
propaganda until proven otherwise.
It's very nice to talk about how to rebuild Puerto Rico but how long will it be before
Puerto Rico is hit by another major hurricane? And while we're thinking of Puerto Rico what
about Houston, and Florida? What about the North Carolina sea coast -- or New Jersey -- NYC?
I don't expect anything reasonable will be done in rebuilding any of these places or
beginning an orderly retreat to higher ground.
Some parts of these areas may remain habitable -- at least long enough to make it
worthwhile to build infrastructure but I believe it will be a mistake to simply "rebuild".
Replacement infrastructure should be built to better withstand the future storms and rising
seas. I am aware that not "rebuilding" is neither socially nor politically viable. It just
seems a shame to waste what time and resources remain.
I was fortunate enough to get to meet a number of Puerto Rican cooperators at this year's
Assoc. of Cooperative Educators Institute in Denver. Puerto Rico has a very strong
cooperative sector/movement. Co-ops in Puerto Rico don't pay tax to the gov't. Instead, each
co-op provides (iirc) 2% of net revenues to Liga
de Cooperativas de Puerto Rico , the apex co-op organization for the island. This
provides an internally funded support mechanism for co-ops and has helped create a thriving
co-op ecosystem.
So I've got some optimism that my Puerto Rican friends will be able to replace at least
some of the failed systems that have been afflicting them with cooperative, sustainable,
alternative solutions.
Puerto Rico has agreed to pay a reported $300 million for the restoration of its power
grid to a tiny utility company which is primarily financed by a private equity firm founded
and run by a man who contributed large sums of money to President Trump, an investigation
conducted by The Daily Beast has found.
Whitefish Energy Holdings, which had a reported staff of only two full-time employees
when Hurricane Maria touched down, appears ill-equipped to handle the daunting task of
restoring electricity to Puerto Rico's over 3 million residents.
As usual, donate a few thousand, reap millions.
FEC data compiled by The Daily Beast shows that Colonnetta contributed $20,000 to the
"Trump Victory" PAC during the general election, $27,000 to Trump's primary election
campaign (then the maximum amount permitted), $27,000 to Trump's general election campaign
(also the maximum), and a total of $30,700 to the Republican National Committee in 2016
alone.
Colonnetta's wife, Kimberly, is no stranger to Republican politics either; shortly after
Trump's victory she gave $33,400 to the Republican National Committee, the maximum
contribution permitted for party committees in 2016.
Bears repeating, we're not only 'ruled' by whores, we're ruled by cheap whores.
Of course I make apologies to all ladies of negotiable affection.
"... The best label for these students is "Jacobin," even if it's unlikely many of them would refer to themselves that way. Historically, the Jacobins were a faction in the French Revolution that carried out the Reign of Terror and orchestrated the genocidal suppression of the reactionary Catholic and Monarchist counter-revolutionaries. While the original Jacobins are long gone, the spirit of their revolutionary ideology lingers, seeking nothing less than to end evil itself by sweeping away the status quo and replacing it with a new and just order. ..."
"... The Jacobins would rather embrace revolutionary violence and tear society apart than tolerate injustices and oppression temporarily while changes are made. In the end that leaves everyone, including the oppressed, worse off. ..."
"... Reflections on the Revolution in France ..."
"... why do the pampered Hollywood elite go out and march against Trump? It is surely not because he threatens their way of life or freedom to hit the casting couch ..."
"... The reality is that our country has become so divorced from anything real and meaningful in the lives of most people, particularly sheltered coastal elites and snowflake students, that they are desperately looking for something to gives their lives meaning. It just so happens that the imminent Nazi takeover of the local independent coffee house gives them the lightning rod they need. ..."
"... Are they dangerous? Sure. Are they potentially going to be a long term problem? Maybe, especially if America begins to split apart at the seams. They're not much different from ISIS, outside of a lack of religion. ..."
They prefer fists and fires over words, but to what end?
Recently, the University of California at Berkeley paidapproximately
$600,000 for security so their chapter of Young Americans for Freedom could host
conservative pundit Ben Shapiro without riots breaking out. Similarly, Reed College was forced
to
cancel the first meeting of its core "Introduction to Humanities: Ancient Greece and the
Mediterranean" class -- which has been mandatory for freshman since 1943 -- after students
objected that the course was Eurocentric and racist, and disrupted its classes. These protests
are increasingly common on college campuses. They're almost always carried out in the name of
denying alleged oppressors a platform to spew "hateful" rhetoric.
But
it's a recent incident at the College of William and Mary that provides the best window
into the disruptors' way of thinking. A speech by a representative of the ACLU was interrupted
by protesters who objected to the group's defense of First Amendment rights for everyone --
including white supremacists -- and demanded zero tolerance for views they deem unacceptable.
If one sorts through their various chants and screams, it becomes readily apparent why they
reject free speech: they view it as an inherently conservative institution that stands in the
way of "progress."
The best label for these students is "Jacobin," even if it's unlikely many of them would
refer to themselves that way. Historically, the Jacobins were a faction in the French
Revolution that carried out the Reign of Terror and orchestrated the genocidal suppression of
the reactionary Catholic and Monarchist counter-revolutionaries. While the original Jacobins
are long gone, the spirit of their revolutionary ideology lingers, seeking nothing less than to
end evil itself by sweeping away the status quo and replacing it with a new and just order.
Campus Jacobins, like many of their fellow students, see ills like racism, sexism, and
bigotry, and desire to end them. However, to the Jacobin mind, anything short of immediate and
radical reform is tantamount to colluding with evil. With that in mind, it becomes clear why
these students are opposed to free speech and open inquiry: trying to fix things by working out
differences through words is a very slow process that allows injustices to continue existing in
the short term. In the words of one student, trying to right wrongs through debate merely "
tricks you into thinking social problems can be resolved if only people tolerate their
oppression just a LITTLE while longer ."
The Jacobins would rather embrace revolutionary violence and tear society apart than
tolerate injustices and oppression temporarily while changes are made. In the end that leaves
everyone, including the oppressed, worse off. Slow positive change is much preferable to rapid
and revolutionary upheaval. As Edmund Burke, the 18th-century political theorist and staunch
opponent of the French Revolution, said in his Reflections on the Revolution in France
, "mind must conspire with mind. Time is required to produce that union of minds which alone
can produce all the good we aim at. Our patience will achieve more than our force."
Burke argues for caution, reflection, and restraint when seeking to make necessary changes,
rather than revolutions that lead to more problems that before. This requires humility and the
acknowledgement that one might not possess the ultimate answer to a problem. The open and free
exchange of ideas is the best way of accomplishing such a task because it allows the
aggregation of knowledge and perspectives to arrive together at a general conclusion, rather
than violently enforcing one conclusion on everyone. Campus Jacobins have no patience for that;
despite their youth and inexperience, they've concluded that they already possess all the
information they need, and therefore there is no need for discussion, only compliance with
their demands.
Unfortunately, the oft unsaid -- and perhaps unrealized -- implication of the rejection of
free expression is that force and violence are the only alternatives to bring about change. If
one is so supremely self-assured in one's conclusions that one sees those who hold differing
views not as acting in good faith but rather perpetrating evil, then it follows that dissent
should not be reasoned or compromised with but rather eradicated. When everyone does not carry
out their demands merely because they demand them, the morally absolute are left only with
upheaval.
Hopefully, the majority of college students see the destructive path that the campus
Jacobins are heading down and choose to defend free speech and open inquiry, which has provided
the basis for so much social harmony, despite our differences. If not, the future of civil
coexistence looks bleak.
Zachary Yost is a Young Voices Advocate who lives
and works in the Pittsburgh area. Hide 20 comments 20 Responses to Neo-Jacobins
Demand Zero Tolerance, Or Else
I have a relative who marches with these clowns, or at least is a fellow traveler. He
lamented a few years ago that there was no great protest movement like the sixties to take
part in, so he became a campus agitator himself.
Likewise, why do the pampered Hollywood elite go out and march against Trump? It is surely
not because he threatens their way of life or freedom to hit the casting couch.
The reality is that our country has become so divorced from anything real and meaningful
in the lives of most people, particularly sheltered coastal elites and snowflake students,
that they are desperately looking for something to gives their lives meaning. It just so
happens that the imminent Nazi takeover of the local independent coffee house gives them the
lightning rod they need.
Are they dangerous? Sure. Are they potentially going to be a long term problem? Maybe,
especially if America begins to split apart at the seams. They're not much different from
ISIS, outside of a lack of religion. I don't think they are going to effect the widespread
social change they want, other than hastening the collapse of the higher ed bubble as parents
begin to hesitate sending their kids to these schools.
The German National Socialists were just like the Jacobins. They had different ideas about
what they wanted but their methods were identical. We need to be much less "understanding" of
the current crop of fascists.
The Jacobins would rather embrace revolutionary violence and tear society apart than
tolerate injustices and oppression temporarily while changes are made.
Unlike the original Jacobins, who were a product rather than the progenitors of a
revolution that followed nobody's plan or principles, these "infantile disorders" as Lenin
would have called them are puffed up fish in a very small pond. They have no mass base to
support any kind of upsurge, peaceful or violent, and they wouldn't last long outside their
campus cocoons. They wouldn't last long there if, e.g., Reed College would simply expel any
student who disrupted a scheduled class. Think John Reed would have a problem with that?
Joseph Stalin wouldn't.
I take it then that you reject the violence of the founder's revolution.
Which i why i take the poition that the founders were not conservatives or conservatives
who temporarily threw off reason . . . a temporary losing of their rational selves.
I've dealt with a lot of progressives and radicals over the years who dismissed the need for
long-term thinking and planning and demanded immediate action and immediate responses from
those in power, and I've often been critical of such thinking and of activism that seemed to
be more about you making yourself feel useful than about really changing things. I can't say
I've been right every time, but overall, I'm comfortable with that perspective.
However, Mr. Yost, you make some very broad generalizations when you say that
"revolutionary violence In the end leaves everyone, including the oppressed, worse off."
Revolutionary violence contributed to the raising up of the French peasantry that left it, as
a class, far better off than it was under the Old Regime. The French Revolution was also
defended by mobilized masses who defeated virtually every army that the European monarchies
threw at them, and inspired the eventual replacement of monarchy by republican forms of
governance, which begs the question whether many Frenchmen thought that revolutionary
violence had been, on balance, worse for everyone.
I could make similar arguments about the American, Russian and Chinese revolutions –
as horrible as the Great Chinese Famine of 1959-61 was, Maoist China still increased
lifespans and improved overall quality of life more than India did in the same period –
but let's move on to your argument that "Slow positive change is much preferable to rapid and
revolutionary upheaval."
Generally speaking, I would agree with you, but if the change is snail-paced or virtually
non-existent, and if the powers that be have proved resistant to Edmund Burke's "union of
minds," then patience is just a fool's game. I've had friends argue that chattel slavery
would have died out within two or three generations of the American Civil War, so the
enormous waste of the war was unjustifiable. Yet the slaveowners were working actively
against that fate, expanding the practice to Texas and looking to extend it further west and
south, including into a conquered Mexico. Nor were they afraid of violating free speech
rights or bending the Constitution and laws of the Republic to their benefit.
I, too, appreciate caution, reflection, restraint and humility, and the open and free
exchange of ideas, but I also recognize that consensus does not always happen, no matter the
quality of the debate and the mutual regard of the debaters. Most orthodox Trotskyists I know
do not support shouting down or "no platforming" political opponents, even ones we may
consider racist, homophobic or just bat-sh*t crazy (Ann Coulter, come on down!). But
right-wingers with a history or current practice of violence are another story, which is why
you'll see Trotskyists and other Marxists organizing for a MASS response when the Klan or the
neo-Nazis are in town, ready and willing to help the masses drive them from the streets.
My problem with so many young "social justice warriors" today, and their mentors, is that
they refuse to make the necessary distinctions between the ACLU – which has defended
us, too, you know! – Ann Coulter and the KKK. You need to deepen your ability to make
distinctions, too, I think.
By the way, the article on Reed College was very interesting and actually somewhat
heartening. Thank you for the link.
By the way, I read your Op-Ed piece at the Washington Examiner about unions. Sigh.
Using seniority as the basis for awarding shifts or making seniority-based pay increases
is not the perfect system, but it is the least imperfect one (that's usually an argument that
appeals to conservatives, by the way). Along with across-the-board and cost-of-living wage
increases, seniority pay can stabilize a workforce, reducing wasteful turnover and staff
churning, and leave a better trained and more competent and knowledgeable staff in place. In
an ideal world, merit pay would actually reward merit, but in the real world, it usually
rewards friends and sycophants. And while any union shop steward can tell you tales of
employees they wish they didn't have to defend and who should lose their jobs, due process
means that the bosses have rules to follow when they want to fire anyone, including the
excellent employee who somehow got under someone's bonnet.
You might also want to brush up on your understanding of "basic economics" as many studies
have called into doubt the idea that increased minimum wages decrease job creation, even in
those municipalities competing directly with lower minimum wage neighbors. And at some point,
yielding to captial's demand for ever lower wages becomes a zero sum game and demands
restrictions on capital's power, not on labor's price.
Moving on, if you think workers in highly skilled jobs or unions do not have to fear
technological unemployment, I suggest you read about the automation of brokerage jobs on Wall
Street and Amazon's on-going effort to automate human responses to language, grammar and
thought.
Back to your appeal to "basic economics" – a favorite trope of libertarians, by the
way, as if there are not different schools of economic thought, including within capitalist
economic theory – if productivity and not unions were responsible for increased wages,
why have wages fallen or remained stagnant for the last nearly 40 years even though
productivity has gone through the roof while unions have been busted and capital
deregulated?
The naivete of you arguing that "learning more skills and gaining workplace experience" is
the best way to secure one's future might be charming in a post-Great Recession "gig" economy
if you weren't also so insulting as to say that supporting unions means that you "are
comfortable with stasis, enjoy having underachieving colleagues, and are largely lacking in
ambition." My ambition is for workers, in general, to have a weekend, an annual vacation,
paid sick time and personal time off, paid parental leave and wages enough to afford a home,
car (and private school if I so choose), which would be a radical break from the employment
trends of the last 40 years (so no stasis there).
And if all that and due process rights and solidarity come at the cost of living with the
occasional underachieving colleague, so be it. It's not as if the ranks of management aren't
filled with incompetents, or that being non-union ensures that all of one's colleagues will
know what the hell they are doing. But I'll take the trade-offs that come with unions, thank
you, and so would most American workers if they didn't face constant anti-union harassment or
the threat of closing down the workplace and losing their jobs if they vote to unionize.
Thinking that we are okay because there is a more tolerant majority is not true. The only
way that there will be a balance is if members of the Right exert equal or greater
intolerance than the Left.
The irony of the American politics is that the Right is always caricatured as "intolerant"
and "bigots" when in fact they are clearly more tolerant and less bigoted than the Left,
hence the increasing Leftward turn towards pervasive political correctness.
Further, these folks aren't Jacobins, they are revolutionary throat-slitting Communists in
the image of Stalin and Lenin. If they win, there will be mass executions, gulags, and
unimaginable state repression.
Reading about our privileged "radicals," I'm reminded of Morgan Earp's remark in Tombstone:
"They're bugs, Wyatt. There's no live-and-let-live with bugs." It's sad that college
administrators are so spineless.
I take it then that you reject the violence of the founder's revolution.
EliteCommInc:
"Which i why i take the poition that the founders were not conservatives or conservatives who
temporarily threw off reason . . . a temporary losing of their rational selves.
s you say according to Edmund Burke,
" . . . mind meets mind . . .""
They actually were conservatives/traditionalists. If you know history from the beginning
of English settlement in America until and through the War for Independence, it is clear that
they are. By the time of the Revolution, there were different American ways. Also, the
Revolution was sparked by a Constitutional crisis (one of the British constitution).
Parliament and King were subverting the British constitution, and interfering in the American
ways that had developed since 1607. As M.E. Bradford said, it was a revolution prevented, not
made. Essentially, it was a "revolution" to preserve the existing social and political ways
of the different colonies.
"They wouldn't last long if . . . Reed College would simply expel any student who disrupted a
scheduled class. Think John Reed would have a problem with that? Joseph Stalin wouldn't."
I had to check to see whether Reed College could actually have been named for John Reed,
but it wasn't, and I don't think Mr Jenkins was implying that it was. But that would have
been wonderful irony along the lines of chickens coming home to roost. Now, William and Mary,
on the other hand. . . . Name a college after illegitimate usurpers, and see what eventually
happens!
Darn, Colonel Bogey, we've agree twice this month, and now you go trashing the Glorious
Revolution. Very much in character though.
I believe that John Reed was related to the family that gave Reed College its name, but
no, he wasn't a founder nor was it named after him.
Further, these folks aren't Jacobins, they are revolutionary throat-slitting Communists
in the image of Stalin and Lenin.
Most of them are anarchists, and not particularly ideological anarchists at that. They
have some commonality with the Red Guards in China -- which the communist party eventually
had to forcibly dislodge from their roost on the campuseses, but they lack the administrative
ability to maintain a Guglag. And they also lack a mass base.
This piece gives Antifa way too much credit for sincerity. Antifa never attack the rallies of
Neocon politicians, or those of Democrat liberal interventionists – even though these
folks' wars kill more non-whites in a day than the the various Klan groups managed in 150
years. And they never attack the meetings of the Israel first politicians in both parties
– even though Israel is an open and
unabashed ethnostate.
It's quite clear therefore that Antifa are not an anti-racist group, but rather the street
enforcers of the global super-capitalist class – whatever their ludicrous jargon ridden
manifestoes may claim to the contrary
Leaving aside the delicious irony that a self-described anti-authoritarian and anti-racist
movement is itself explicitly authoritarian and racist, I'd be remiss if I didn't point out
that Professor Robert Reich, formerly of the Clinton Administration and strong supporter of
Bernie Sanders, considers this whole pheonomenon, all of it, to be nothing more than a
right-wing false flag operation:
"The reality is that our country has become so divorced from anything real and meaningful
in the lives of most people, particularly sheltered coastal elites and snowflake students,
that they are desperately looking for something to gives their lives meaning."
True enough. Sadly, there's a conservative version of this which is just as sick,
un-American, and divorced from reality. And you can find it in certain places in the
"heartland". For example, this law in Texas that you can't get hurricane relief unless you
sign a document swearing not to (wait for it) boycott Israel . Whoever thought that
one up ought to be deported to Tel Aviv and have their US citizenship revoked.
We all need to stop and take a breath and remember back to when we were in school. As a
member of the so-called Boomer generation I can well recall the protests over everything from
civil rights, the war in Vietnam, and whether somebody with socialist/communist sympathies
should be allowed to speak on campus and how parents, the press and politicians of that time
were sure that all these protests a sure sign that America was going to hell in a hand
basket. Well guess what? The vast majority of those young Boomers who directly or indirectly
supported all those protests have become the biggest defenders of the status quo and now
bemoan that their children or grand children are protesting against the status quo.
Instead of bemoaning that some of the protesters consider a course on democracy to be
euro-centric as a sign of the decay of youth perhaps the better response would be to admit
that yes the course is euro-centric but ask for examples of any other culture that has made
any significant contribution to our understanding of what democracy means today. Just as the
concept of the zero in math was developed by Arab mathematicians, many cultures have made
contributions to society but in the case of democracy, for better or worse it was European
thinkers who developed the concept of democracy.
Instead of worrying what the demands of today's protesters mean for the future we would be
wise to remember that in youth all issues have hard edges and that just like we Boomers
today's protesters will become the next generation to face the protests of their children and
they will be just a perplexed by some of their protests.
cda2nd, you speak well for the left. As a Burkean conservative, I'm glad to hear your voice.
While we likely disagree on solutions, we likely agree on the problems.
The real reason for all this craziness is our federal reserve. It has allowed this rampant
crony capitalism that keeps the government from reining in monopolies. It allows governments
and corporations to live beyond their means while holding the average Joe down. Not having
real money has kept wages stagnant while financial assets and political contributions have
continued to rise. It is the Feds fault. They have insulated us from a realistic risk-reward
environment.
In order to make the world safer, first you need to make it more dangerous.
We try to keep everyone safe by eliminating the consequences of unsafe behavior. Better
for there to be consequences for acting unsafely. In Pittsburgh for instance, Mr Yost will
recognize, people don't text and drive. It's too dangerous; they might die.
"... "Everyone knows that five-billion contracts are not signed by the defense minister or by his deputy, or even by any head of the Defense Ministry department. All politicians know who signs five-billion contracts. And this is the president of Ukraine," Tymoshenko said, while commenting on the scandal with the detention by the NABU of Deputy Defense Minister Ihor Pavlovsky and director of the public procurement department at the Defense Ministry Volodymyr Hulevych. ..."
Only just got some time to start following Mishiko's "Mikho-Maidan" (English-language hashtag is
#Mikhomaidan .
Apparently Saakashvili came up with a humdinger this morning: He promised his followers from the stump that the Ukraine
will become a superpower dictating conditions to Europe and the world.
"Там где есть сила, там будет Украинская сверхдержава, которая будет диктовать условия в Европе и всем другим, и где люди будут
жить достойно Что стоит между нами и этим будущим? Это маленькая кучка олигархов, барыг – президент и его окружение", -- сказал
он, заверив, что сменить нынешнюю власть при желании населения можно "очень быстро и очень безболезненно".
"Кто-то говорит – "вот, этот гастролер, зачем он тут?" Все очень просто. Нет будущего ни у Грузии, ни у Молдовы, ни у Белоруссии,
ни у кого в регионе, если не будет Украины", -- подчеркнул Саакашвили.
TRANSLATION:
"If people shall unite as a force, then there will be a Ukrainian superpower which will dictate conditions in Europe and to all
the others; and people [here] will be able to live their lives with dignity. What stands between us and that future? A tiny clique
of oligarchs and speculators: The President and his entourage," he said, assuring people that it would be a very quick and painless
matter to overturn the existing government, given the desire of the people.
"Some people say, oh, here is that travelling showman, why is he here? It's very simple: There can be no future, neither for Gruzia,
nor Moldavia, nor Belorussia, not for anyone in this region, if a Ukraine doesn't exist," Saakashvili underscored.
Some people say, oh, here is that travelling showman, why is he here?
A good question yet to be answered by Mr. Saakashvili. The answer probably includes money, food, cocaine, public attention,
food, sex and did I mention food?
Mmmmm ..that sounds suspiciously like his oratory while President of Georgia, when he predicted that within X years of his modernizations
like the Glass Bridge in Tbilisi (between 3 and 5, I forget now and the source was assimilated into the government's propaganda-pablum
machine), there would be more tourists in Georgia than there were Georgians. Or like the time he told the US Senate that Georgia
was so honest a place that people did not even lock their doors, the same year the US Government's State Department released a
travel warning for Georgia that warned against pickpockets and various forms of thieving, including stopping your car on the road
and robbing you or making you get out and taking the car. Crimes carried out by Georgian and Ukrainian organized criminals are
often blamed on the Russian mafia.
Also don't forget when Mishka bragged that Gruzia didn't need no stinking Russian wine market – they could always sell their best
stuff to Western Europe!
'cause, see, the French and Germans and Italians don't produce any good wines
Yes, that's right! And then when the Russian market opened up again, it was greeted with great relief by the Georgian winemakers,
and impartial sources remarked that there was not much of an appetite in Europe for Georgia's sweet and somewhat heavy wines,
while Russians were very fond of them. Ukraine is learning the same bitter lesson now, and there would be nobody like Mishka to
teach them. For the west's part, they would probably be quite willing to give Mishka another project, to keep him busy and keep
Ukraine from slipping back into the Russian orbit.
Don't forget that Poroshenko is not likely to be going anywhere, since Ukraine is making him richer and richer, and he is likely
to dabble in politics even after he is evicted in the next election. But having Mishka there to split the vote could easily result
in a Tymoshenko victory. And that would be just perfect, with all her histrionic squalling about getting a machine gun and going
to kill some Katsaps. She did say 'we'. Go ahead, Yooooolia. Let's see you bring it.
"Everyone knows that five-billion contracts are not signed by the defense minister or by his deputy, or even by any head
of the Defense Ministry department. All politicians know who signs five-billion contracts. And this is the president of Ukraine,"
Tymoshenko said, while commenting on the scandal with the detention by the NABU of Deputy Defense Minister Ihor Pavlovsky and
director of the public procurement department at the Defense Ministry Volodymyr Hulevych.
Ponder for a moment the irony of Tymoshenko – who browbeat the director of Naftogaz into signing the take-or-pay contract with
Russia which caused Ukraine such grief and then flew to Russia herself to wrap it up, after being specifically told by the Rada
cabinet not to do it – pointing the accusing finger at corruption in the energy business.
The problem with the USA is that the USA empire lost legitimacy with the dissolution of
the USSR and has to be reconstructed as a new neoliberal empire. For a while rise of
neoliberalism was a cover for this expansion, but this period is probably over. Now neoliberalism
is also under attack and neoliberal ideology is discredited (Trump and Brexit are just two signs
of it). So now the USA is the empire with decaying ideology, not that dissimilar to the USSR
in 80th, which is still trying to achieve its imperial goals despite rejection of them by most of
of the world population. In such circumstances huge military superiority that the USA enjoys
is not everything.
Notable quotes:
"... The CIA is expanding its covert operations in Afghanistan, sending small teams of highly experienced officers and contractors alongside Afghan forces to hunt and kill Taliban militants across the country ... ..."
"... This is not going to be a counter-insurgency campaign, even when some will assert that. A counter-insurgency campaign requires political, security, economic, and informational components. It can only be successful in support of a legitimate authority. ..."
"... The current Afghan government has little legitimacy. It was bribed together by the U.S. embassy after wide and open election fraud threatened to devolve into total chaos. ..."
"... A campaign solely centered on "security" will end up as a random torture and killing expedition without the necessary context and with no positive results. ..."
"... The campaign will be a boon for the Taliban. While it will likely kill a some Taliban aligned insurgents here and there, it will also alienate many more Afghan people. Most of the Taliban fighters are locals. Killing them creates new local recruits for the insurgency. It will also give it better population cover for future operations. ..."
"... A similar campaign during the Vietnam war was known as Operation Phoenix . Then some 50,000 South-Vietnamese, all of course 'suspected communists', were killed by the CIA's roving gangs ..."
"... [Phoenix] was designed to identify and "neutralize" (via infiltration, capture, counter-terrorism, interrogation, and assassination) the infrastructure of the National Liberation Front of South Vietnam (NLF or Viet Cong). The CIA described it as "a set of programs that sought to attack and destroy the political infrastructure of the Viet Cong". ..."
"... The Phoenix program was embedded into a larger civil political and economic development program known as CORDS . The accepted historical judgement is that Phoenix failed to achieve its purpose despite its wider conceptualization. The passive support for the Viet Cong increased due to the campaign. In recent years there have been revisionists efforts by the Pentagon's RAND Corporation to change that view. ..."
"... The now announced campaign looks similar to Phoenix but lacks any political component. It is not designed to pacify insurgents but to eliminate any and all resistance: ..."
"... There are only a few dozen officers in the CIA Special Activities Division that can support such a campaign. The lede to the article suggests that 'contractors' will have a significant role. In August the former head of the mercenary outlet Blackwater, Eric Prince, lobbied the Trump administration for a contractor led war in Afghanistan. We can safely assume that Prince and some Blackwater offspring will be involved in the new CIA campaign. The major intelligence groundwork though will have to be done by the NDS. ..."
"... "Iraq's campaign in the Euphrates and Tigris River valleys, the Kurdish campaign in western Syria and the Saudi and UAE campaign against the Houtis in Yemen have been devastating and vicious assaults on populations, critical infrastructure and housing, that coupled with nighttime commando raids that terrorize entire villages and neighborhoods, look not to bring a political settlement, reconciliation or peace, but rather subjugate, along ethnic and sectarian lines, entire population groups to achieve American political desires in the Muslim world. ..."
"... As I have said previously here - the failure of English policy in South Africa in 1899 showed the myth of the British Empire and contributed to the emboldenment of 'a rising ' Germany, challenging England for 'market' share in 1914 . ..."
"... BTW, in the early days of the British occupation of Helmand Province, the price of wheat was higher than heroin in Afghanistan and many of the farmers asked for help to convert to growing wheat which never happened because American farmers wouldn't allow it. ..."
"... Perhaps you could provide a link to back up your claim, but I expect one from 1979 when the United States started the American War in Afghanistan before the Soviet Union intervened in defense of modernity over medieval headchoppers aka KSA? Or perhaps you can name the empires brought low by Afghanistan but don't bother naming the British Empire. ..."
"... I quite agree that Afghanistan is a narco-state but the trade is not controlled by the CIA, the Pentagon , the so-called American Deep State or even the Rothschilds . At most, the CIA and Pentagon turn a blind eye to its operation, and HSBC probably launder some of the money ..."
"... Published May 22, 2001. ...gift of $43 million to the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan, the gift, announced last Thursday by Secretary of State Colin Powell, in addition to other recent aid, makes the United States the main sponsor of the Taliban... ..."
"... On reading B's excellent post, I found myself thinking Israel has similar assassination units operating under the name Sayeret Matkal. No doubt those Israeli units would only be too happy to give training and other support to the CIA's covert program of assassination units attached to Afghan forces. ..."
"... There are two US initiatives to counter China's One Belt, One Road (OBOR) strategy which is budgeted at about a trillion dollars, and way out of anything the US could afford. So the US has come up with these two plans, neither one showing any promise except as a reason to continue with the AfPak war. SecState Tillerson is the point man on these initiatives. They both include a new initiative to work closely with India, and one of them requires ownership of Afghanistan. ..."
"... The second initiative is the Indo-Pacific Economic Corridor, still at a very nascent stage. It would focus on the "economic corridors between South and Southeast Asia" which implies working with India and against China. The US naval challenges in the South China Sea are probably one example. Tillerson has talked about challenging Chinese financing -- good luck on that. ..."
"... Finally, the inclusion of India in Afghan affairs is what drives Pakistan to oppose the US strategy. It hasn't matter that the US has given Pakistan billions of dollars, Pakistan still sponsors the Taliban fighters who kill US troops. The current US destruction of Afghanistan and its people is not a choice of Pakistan, but it's less important to Pakistan than having an Indian presence on both flanks. Pakistan does not want to become an Indian sandwich. The two countries are arch-enemies. ..."
Phoenix 2.0 - CIA's Vietnam Terror Unleashed Upon Afghanistan
Last week the new head of the CIA Mike Pompeo publicly
threatened to make the CIA a "much more vicious agency". His first step towards that is to
unleash
CIA sponsored killer gangs onto the people of Afghanistan:
The CIA is expanding its covert operations in Afghanistan, sending small teams of highly
experienced officers and contractors alongside Afghan forces to hunt and kill Taliban
militants across the country ...
...
The CIA's expanded role will augment missions carried out by military units, meaning more
of the United States' combat role in Afghanistan will be hidden from public view
This is not going to be a counter-insurgency campaign, even when some will assert that. A
counter-insurgency campaign requires political, security, economic, and informational
components. It can only be successful in support of a legitimate authority.
The current Afghan government has little legitimacy. It was bribed together by the U.S.
embassy after wide and open election fraud threatened to devolve into total chaos. In August
CIA director Pompeo met the Afghan president
Ashraf Ghani and likely discussed the new plan. But the now announced campaign has neither a
political nor an economic component. A campaign solely centered on "security" will end up as a
random torture and killing expedition without the necessary context and with no positive
results.
The campaign will be a boon for the Taliban. While it will likely kill a some Taliban
aligned insurgents here and there, it will also alienate many more Afghan people. Most of the
Taliban fighters are locals. Killing them creates new local recruits for the insurgency. It
will also give it better population cover for future operations.
A similar campaign during the Vietnam war was known as Operation Phoenix . Then some 50,000
South-Vietnamese, all of course 'suspected communists', were killed by the CIA's roving
gangs:
[Phoenix] was designed to identify and "neutralize" (via infiltration, capture,
counter-terrorism, interrogation, and assassination) the infrastructure of the National
Liberation Front of South Vietnam (NLF or Viet Cong). The CIA described it as "a set of
programs that sought to attack and destroy the political infrastructure of the Viet
Cong". The major two components of the program were Provincial Reconnaissance Units
(PRUs) and regional interrogation centers. PRUs would kill or capture suspected NLF members,
as well as civilians who were thought to have information on NLF activities. Many of these
people were then taken to interrogation centers where many were allegedly tortured in an
attempt to gain intelligence on VC activities in the area. The information extracted at the
centers was then given to military commanders, who would use it to task the PRU with further
capture and assassination missions.
The Phoenix program was embedded into a larger civil political and economic development
program known as CORDS
. The accepted historical judgement is that Phoenix failed to achieve its
purpose despite its wider conceptualization. The passive support for the Viet Cong increased
due to the campaign. In recent years there have been revisionists
efforts by the Pentagon's RAND Corporation to change that view.
The now announced campaign
looks similar to Phoenix but lacks any political component. It is not designed to pacify
insurgents but to eliminate any and all resistance:
The new effort will be led by small units known as counterterrorism pursuit teams. They are
managed by CIA paramilitary officers from the agency's Special Activities Division and
operatives from the National Directorate of Security, Afghanistan's intelligence arm , and
include elite American troops from the Joint Special Operations Command. The majority of the
forces, however, are Afghan militia members
There are only a few dozen officers in the CIA Special Activities Division that can
support such a campaign. The lede to the article suggests that 'contractors' will have a
significant role. In August the former head of the mercenary outlet Blackwater, Eric Prince,
lobbied the Trump administration for a contractor led war in Afghanistan. We can safely
assume that Prince and some Blackwater offspring will be involved in the new CIA campaign. The
major intelligence groundwork though will have to be done by the NDS.
The Afghan National Directorate of Security was build by the CIA from elements of the former
Northern Alliance, the opponents of the original Taliban. In the late 1990s the Northern
Alliance under Ahmed Shah Massoud was financed by the CIA . Shah Massoud's intelligence
chief Amrullah Saleh, a dual citizen,
received CIA training. After the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan Saleh headed the new
intelligence service, the NDS. Then President Hamid Karzai fired Saleh in 2010 when he
resisted Karzai's efforts to reconcile with the Taliban. In March 2017 the current
President Ashraf Ghani appointed Saleh as State Minister for Security Reforms. Saleh
resigned(?) in June after Ghani reached a peace agreement with the anti-government warlord and
former Taliban ally Gulbuddin Hekmatyar.
Saleh is an ethnic Tajik and an unforgiving hardliner. He is wary of Pashtun who are the
most populous ethnic group in Afghanistan and the base population for the Taliban. Saleh
recently founded his own political party. He obviously has further ambitions. He always had
excellent relations with the CIA and especially its hardline counter-terrorism center. I find
it highly likely that he was involved in the planning of this new campaign.
In the ethnically mixed north of Afghanistan the involvement of NDS led local militia will
probably cause large scale ethnic cleansing. In the Pashtun south and east it will lack all
local support as such militia have terrorized the country for quite some time:
For years, the primary job of the CIA's paramilitary officers in the country has been
training the Afghan militias. The CIA has also used members of these indigenous militias
to develop informant networks and collect intelligence.
...
The American commandos -- part of the Pentagon's Omega program, which lends Special
Operations forces to the CIA -- allow the Afghan militias to work together with
conventional troops by calling in airstrikes and medical evacuations.
...
The units have long had a wide run of the battlefield and have been accused of
indiscriminately killing Afghan civilians in raids and with airstrikes.
It is utterly predictable how this campaign will end up. The CIA itself has few, if any,
independent sources in the country. It will depend on the NDS, stuffed with Saleh's Tajik
kinsmen, as well as on ethnic and tribal militia. Each of these will have their own agenda. A
'security' campaign as the planned one depends on reliable intelligence. Who, in this or that
hamlet, is a member of the Taliban? For lack of trusted local sources the militia, under CIA or
contractor command, will resort to extremely brutal torture. They will squeeze 'informants' and
'suspects' until these come up with names of a new rounds of 'suspects'. Rinse-repeat - in the
end all of the 'suspects' will be killed.
The new plan was intentionally 'leaked' to the New York Times by "two senior American
officials". It is set into a positive light:
[T]he mission is a tacit acknowledgment that to bring the Taliban to the negotiating table --
a key component of Mr. Trump's strategy for the country -- the United States will need to
aggressively fight the insurgents
That claim is of course utter nonsense. The U.S. already has for years "aggressively fought
the insurgents". The Taliban were always willing to negotiate. Their main condition for a peace
agreement is that U.S. forces end their occupation and leave the country. The U.S. is simply
not willing to do so. Killing more 'suspect' Taliban sympathizers will not change the Taliban's
demand nor will it make serious negations more likely.
Five years from now, when the utter brutality and uselessness of the campaign will come into
full light, the NYT will be shocked, SHOCKED, that such a campaign could ever have
happened.
Posted by b on October 24, 2017 at 06:43 AM |
Permalink
I wonder how much of the "OPIUM" production these "killer gangs" will receive. Of course,
it's too late for the top dogs to use the U.S.A. as a dumping ground, but there's still
potential within the 3rd world for expansion. It's just too lucrative to lose, which would
probably happen if the Taliban were to regain control of Afghanistan. Makes one wonder just
who the addicted really are.
I do wish I could express shock, or even surprise, at Phoenix 2.0; but it's been obvious for
decades that the U.S. is an outlaw empire not beholden to any and all laws on planet
earth.
They (the U.S.) now own the planet and will rule as they see fit: End of discusion...
The other things this illustrates are a complete lack of creativity and adaptation by the
CIA They have used the same playbook, passed down for 70 years and never changed anything
but the jerseys the players wear. When a simple analysis like b has done indicates the result
will not be what is desired (apparently), then maybe the CIA desires something else? Like
maybe a big payoff by the mercs they contract out to?
One would think that heading for the hills, bugging out, would be the strategy the Taliban
adopts - because it has worked when the invaders numbers are too low, even in the face of
higher tech weapons and surveillance. This will likely happen once again, and then there will
be a call for "moar, moar!" to finish the 'mission'. Which has no set goal other than to be a
mission to spread the money around among the players.
The Taliban goal hasn't wavered and is simple and uniformly appealing - they want the
Yanks to go home. It's amazing that the same pitfall setup by the CIA entangled Russia, and
then the CIA and US military walked into their own old pit. Next they still stand about,
unable to concede the mission is impossible?
So this looks to me like an OP to spend money and hide it by spreading it around yet
again. Very similar to Iraq, only without any spoils to spread around. Unless, of course,
opium production rises again, and the protection racket baksheesh rises with it for the mercs
we send.
The 3rd par of your commentary on the NYT text spells out the obvious flaw in this (same old)
Full Spectrum Depravity scheme, b...
"The campaign will be a boon for the Taliban. While it will likely kill a some Taliban
aligned insurgents here and there, it will also alienate many more Afghan people. Most of the
Taliban fighters are locals. Killing them creates new local recruits for the insurgency. It
will also give it better population cover for future operations."
One of the arguments for having permanent bureaucracies as opposed to political appointments
is to maintain a collective memory but we are in a cycle where we keep trying failed ideas
over and over again. To add insult to injury, our 'watchdog' press never calls them out on
this.
I know, let's use our air power to bomb ...
I know, let's have a counter-insurgency operation ...
I know, let's fund rebels in a foreign country ...
I know, let's have assassination teams ...
I know, let's have a surge ...
@4 -- "They have used the same playbook, passed down for 70 years and never changed anything
but the jerseys the players wear."
Hopefully they aren't using Monsanto's "Agent Orange" on the poppy fields this time round
like they did in Vietnam and Cambodia etc -- that would really undermine the Black Budget and
criminal opioid supply system.
The result was the US ran for its life, in disgrace, General Giap's tanks chasing them out
of his country.
As for the Taliban negotiating. Something is going on with Russia and the Taliban. So the
US is determined to disrupt it as severely as possible. This will make Putin and Lavrov's job
easier.
This Afghan war will end when the Taliban hoist half a dozen dead SOF up on a bridge or
overpass for the flies and buzzards to feast while the photos go viral.
Then America will stand down. And only then, when it is a PR nightmare and historical
iconic image. Fallujah, Somalia, etc.
The Pentagon and CIA won't care. The American citizens will be the ones shocked by the
denouement. They are already being primed for AFRICOM adventures. Niger Ambush. Those damn
Frenchies didn't save our boys. Those Mirages (an apt name for imperial aircraft in the
deserts of N.Africa) never opened fire. 'Twasn't our fault. Blame the Frenchies.
b, that was a lot of information presented in an excellent piece of writing. As
always, I admire your economy of words. Thanks for the take.
Posted by: Grieved | Oct 24, 2017 10:34:47 AM |
11
b, that was a lot of information presented in an excellent piece of writing. As always, I
admire your economy of words. Thanks for the take.
Posted by: Grieved | Oct 24, 2017 10:34:47 AM |
11 /div
This is not a continuation of the Afghan war by other means. This is a colonial occupation.
We now have a forward base in the Far East that borders both China and Russia that we will
never abandon. Defeating the Taliban is a non-issue in the broader strategic sense. In fact,
engaging the Taliban justifies the long-term occupation under the banner of defeating
terrorism. Death squads are the perfect way to keep a restive population restive. Since every
place on earth is a sanctuary for terrorism, every place is now deserving of American
occupation, and none more so than Afghanistan. Stirring up the locals is small price to pay
to distract the American people and Congress from the long term goal of maintaining a
military and prison colony in the path of the Great Silk Road for at least 1,000 years.
Appointing an American Viceroy to rule the colony has already been publicly discussed. With
sufficient CIA success, we may achieve enough cover to allow for resource extraction to
benefit our strategic stockpile without any consideration for environmental standards. Only
then, will Afghanistan achieve full 19th Century colony status.
And which empires did?
British Empire? Nope.
Mongol Empire? Nope.
Russian Empire? Nope.
Qing dynasty? Nope.
Spanish Empire? Nope.
Second French colonial empire? Nope.
Abbasid Caliphate? Nope.
Umayyad Caliphate? Nope.
Yuan dynasty? Nope.
Portuguese Empire? Nope.
(Top ten empires of all time according to Wikipedia)
Looking through the entire list of fifty empires that controlled more than 2% of the earth's
land surface, I couldn't identify one that had been destroyed by Afghanistan. However,
Montgomery's Rules of War should be amended to include "Don't go anywhere near Afghanistan
because the fly-infested shithole ain't worth anything".
It didn't even come close to defeating the Soviet Empire which wisely got out of the
stalemate created by American and Saudi support of the jihadists. Americans need to get it
into their pea-sized brains that the Soviet Union was not defeated in Afghanistan or anywhere
else for that matter but broke up because its leaders had woken up to the fact that
Bolshevism doesn't really work in the long term. Once Americans understand this, they should
be capable of understanding that realising they are in a stalemate and just getting the fuck
out doesn't mean that the Taliban have defeated them because any time it wants the US can go
back, kick the Taliban out at minimal cost and the Taliban knows that. Anybody who knows
about the First Anglo-Afghan War should understand what I'm saying
The US has also greatly increased the aerial bombing. This will be further increased. The
additional troops being dispatched will be used by the Afghan Army at battalion level to call
in air strikes.
news report excerpt:
The second R, "realignment," will push U.S. advisors and trainers down to Afghan forces'
battalions, and the third, "reinforce," means adding 3,000 or so U.S. troops to help do so,
Mattis said. In recent years, U.S. advisors have been embedded only at the senior levels of
the conventional Afghan military and with the Afghan special forces.
"Two levels down below is where the decisive action is taking place, and we didn't have any
advisors," Dunford said. "So even though we had some aviation capabilities, some
intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities, it wasn't being delivered to
those Afghan units who were perhaps most relevant to the fight."
That means more Afghan forces -- there's 300,000 all told today, both officials said --
will have U.S. troops with them capable of requesting air strikes around the country.
And the targets they'll be able to strike have expanded as well.
"At one time, sir, we could not help Afghan forces unless they were in extremis" -- that
is, under direct, urgent threat, Mattis said. "And then eventually that was rescinded, but
they still had to be in proximity. They had to be in contact. Today, wherever we find them,
the terrorists -- anyone trying to throw the NATO plan off, trying to attack the Afghan
people and the Afghan government -- then we can go after them."
President Trump has told us that the real policy change in Afghanistan is no longer to build
needed infrastructure, but to destroy it. The US must destroy Afghanistan to save it.
Excerpts from his August speech remarks:
> have the necessary tools and rules of engagement to make this strategy work
> I have already lifted restrictions
> we are already seeing dramatic results in the campaign to defeat ISIS, including the
liberation of Mosul in Iraq. (Mosul has been completely destroyed.)
> apply swift, decisive, and overwhelming force.
These american overseas missions seem to have several goals one of which is for criminal
government representatives and their corporate masters to set up rat lines and pay to play
schemes. Of course perpetuating "boogey man" propaganda for the american public's benefit has
so far kept citizens quiet and deluded.
The USG has ceased having any accountability to american citizens.
CIA further grasping at straws. Eventually, the collective action of the SCO, of which
Afghanistan will eventually become a full member, will finally drive the Yanks and their NATO
lackeys out of South Asia, but it won't happen anytime soon. Adam Garrie at The Duran points
out the "dissonance" in the Outlaw US Empire's policy (which is directly related to the
reasons for Tillerson's ineffectiveness I wrote about yesterday) and well described in this
excerpt:
"Making matters all the more awkward for the US, while the US continues to attempt and
fight the Taliban while treating the group as a kind of terrorist organisation, in reality,
the Taliban are in fact the 'moderate rebel' which the US once spoke about in Syria, even
though in Syria, moderate rebels objectively do not exist. Yet in a country, where there is a
'moderate rebellion', the US continues to take a generally hard-line approach. This attitude
goes against the grain of world opinion including that of Russia, Pakistan and China who each
favour military de-escalation and a peace process that, once certain conditions are met,
would include the more amiable factions of the Taliban."
Still lacking is sufficient rationale for why all this expensive destructive killing behavior
is necessary in this landlocked illiterate tribal country on the other side of the planet.
The old tired explanations didn't work sixteen years ago and they are less worthy now.
> eliminate safe haven
> disallow planning for future 9/11
Of course they can't use the real reasons:
> Prevent "losing" Afghanistan, maintenance of the empire
> Set the example for other countries thinking of slipping the reins (or US reign)
The only long-term interest the US has in Afghanistan is the TAPI pipeline route. Gotta get
those stranded Central Asia oil & gas assets to global markets without going through
Russian or Iranian pipeline routes. Chevron & Exxon just dumped another $37 billion into
the Tengiz. And they're still flogging TAPI:
(2013) In a major development, the four countries that are part of the Turkmenistan,
Afghanistan, Pakistan and India (TAPI) gas pipeline project have selected two US-based
energy giants for financing and operating the multi-billion-dollar pipeline.
So the CIA has been tasked with making this possible. So they'll let one group of ethnic
warlords run all the criminal drug rackets they like, in exchange for their cooperation with
CIA and contractors, as in Laos with the Hmong and the opium cartel in Southeast Asia.
It's a broken record and has been for decades. First it was buy off the Taliban, open
TAPI. Then it was defeat the Taliban, open TAPI. This is just another tired repeat of the
same stupid imperial pet tricks. If you look back at the past decade in Afghanistan, it's
obvious that every single U.S. military action has been focused on controlling the TAPI route
- and this is obvious to the Afghan people, too. So they'll keep blowing up any pipeline
effort. And Exxon and Chevron and the CIA and US military will keep trying to push it
through.
b said:"The campaign will be a boon for the Taliban."
Absolutely true. Historical context proves this over and over again, but, the corporate
empire will have their resources, no matter the cost in blood and treasure.
Ghostship @ 14: good post, nothing like reality to sober up thought.
Until the reserve currency problem is solved by the world, this BS will continue..
regardless of the reason - none of them are valid reasons on the world stage and everyone
knows this, including the contractors, corporations and profiteers off any or all of it..
the usa is a rogue nation that got taken over some time ago.. that much is obvious.. when
will other countries step up and put a stop to this madness?
FFS Ghostship. You are the one sporting Bollocks.. Ask the boys who manage the processing
labs; load the coffins and the routing of said coffins. They are not ghosts but carriers,
like pigeons. Pentagon vs. see aye a.
No? Why is production up since the "occupation"
At the start of the US Afghani war, NYT's cartoon posted the list of empires defeated in
Afghanistan. You may remain in denial, revising history. It's your choice. Some of us are
closer to the facts on the ground - first hand accounts.
Also, within the R S link above, read the related article written Feb 10, 2012 by Michael
Hastings' "The Afghanistan Report the Pentagon Doesn't Want You to Read" – that
Michael Hastings whose Benz, with Michael at the wheel, had a fiery end in a single vehicle
accident on June 18, 2013.
It is the perfect platform to use against all those nations.
As long as they can fly in what they need to supply their proxies and the small numbers of
special forces and some CIA guys, it works like a massive aircraft carrier.
The other thing is the trillions in minerals. Not so much to rape and take, but to deny
them to China.
This is part of containment and strangulation of China and destabilization of CSTO/SCO
nations.
The USA is out of tricks on Afghanistan. It now thinks that a CIA covert operations will be
less deadly on US military.
Pompeo has been pressed by Trump to find something that would make the Taliban small.
History shows that CIA intervention blows back years after in a worse situation.
Neither Trump nor Pompeo will be there to feel the blow back...
Ghostship@14 - The costs of Iraq/Afghanistan are now estimated to be about $4.7 trillion in
constant dollars. Most of that was on credit - we created IOU's and sold them to the highest
bidder. Those $4.7 trillion of IOUs also have interest that will total $7.9 trillion (if
rates remain low), and that's just from IOUs created up until 2013 and payable through 2053.
None of the Syria/Iraq anti-ISIS operations after 2013 nor the cost of Afghanistan since 2013
have been counted in those numbers.
Unmanageable future national debt use to be controlled in the US by inflating it away. The
Fed no longer has the power to do that anymore, and US inflation will just drive more US
businesses and jobs out of the country. We might actually be the first empire to fall
because of (at least in part) Afghanistan.
James @ 21 said:"3 choices - could be 1, 2 or all 3.."
feeding the war machine.
opium
pipelines.
No doubt, there there are a myriad of reasons, all involve they making of profits. And
that, is why some people refer to this current empire as a corporate driven one. But then,
weren't they all?
I very strongly recommend that everyone read Douglas Valentine's newest book, "The CIA as
Organized Crime: How Illegal Operations Corrupt America and the World." More than fulfilling
its ambitious title, this book documents how the goals and tactics of Phoenix have been
deployed in the US, and also makes clear the foundational funding of CIA from narcotics.
It builds on his excellent 2014 book, "The Phoenix Program: America's Use of Terror in
Vietnam" in which he documents Phoenix through the eyes of the CIA, military and private
contractors who designed and implemented it. He won the trust of former CIA Director William
Colby, who gave him access to - and the trust of - these terrorists. So they not only
admitted, but bragged about the program that became the blueprint for the modernization of
COINTELPRO we see today.
Paveway 26
I suspect Syria is the trigger for the fall of the US empire. Russia's entry into Syria
opened many peoples eyes, and countries, to what the US is about. Now, US actions in
Afghanistan, Iraq, and anywhere else will be veiwed with Syria in mind.
Difficult to agree with much that is being said, no one really knows the exact numbers of
vietnamese murdered by amerika during operation phoenix but it was many tens of thousands of
citizens and neither them, their families, nor Vietnamese people as whole regarded this
sociopathic slaughter as some minor or peripheral easily dismissed event.
I think I've already posted here about meeting, getting to know and narrowly avoiding
getting into a business relationship with an operation Phoenix 'manager' in Asia about a
decade after the amerikan defeat. This guy was one of the crummiest blokes I have ever met.
He had a big coke habit at a time when coke wasn't readily available in the country he was
deployed into. In addition to using coke pretty much continuously (AFAIK by way of amerikan
diplomatic pouches) the guy was a bully who regularly used intelligence he accessed via his
station, to bully the local police if they had the gall to try and protect the local children
from his raping. Although mostly this was done by remote control via CIA connections with the
national police who regarded local cops as little more than parking wardens - they actually
performed the most vital role in law enforcement one that amerikan policing methods appear to
have long despised - that is as a community based service trying to protect people within
their local community but that's another story.
How did I learn all this? From the arsehole's alcohol fuelled, coke crazed tirades that is
how.
I was fairly unsurprised by it as what I heard just confirmed what I had already concluded
about Operation Phoenix which up until that time was the subject of hushed horror stories,
but unfortunately my business partner back then had bought into that 1980's greed is good
nonsense and it took entirely too much work to persuade him to get as far away from the deal
as poss - to just gtfo out until the arsehole came unstuck. That happened not long after but
there was no great sense of schadenfreude cos he was just moved to another station still in
South East Asia.
Anyway the point I wanted to make was that altho it is unlikely that cia bosses can be
blind to boozing & snorting any more, the game remains the same, so they will be using
contemporaneously acceptable sociopaths, as always.
The result will be devastating for afghans. As former State Department official Matthew
Hoh puts
it:
"Iraq's campaign in the Euphrates and Tigris River valleys, the Kurdish campaign in western
Syria and the Saudi and UAE campaign against the Houtis in Yemen have been devastating and
vicious assaults on populations, critical infrastructure and housing, that coupled with
nighttime commando raids that terrorize entire villages and neighborhoods, look not to
bring a political settlement, reconciliation or peace, but rather subjugate, along ethnic
and sectarian lines, entire population groups to achieve American political desires in the
Muslim world.
This CIA program of using Afghan militias to conduct commando raids, the vast majority
of which will be used against civilians despite what the CIA states, falls in line with
American plans to escalate the use of air and artillery strikes against the Afghan people
in Taliban-held areas, almost all of whom are Pashtuns.
Again, the purpose of this campaign is not to achieve a political settlement or
reconciliation, but to brutally subjugate and punish the people, mostly rural Pashtuns, who
support the Taliban and will not give in to the corrupt American run government in
Kabul."
As I have said previously here - the failure of English policy in South Africa in 1899 showed
the myth of the British Empire and contributed to the emboldenment of 'a rising ' Germany,
challenging England for 'market' share in 1914 .
It is ironic , in the light of present events that the 1890's U S secret service warned
England not to try military solutions against Paul Kruger at the horn of Africa .
I am sure the US / Anglo interests were warned in similar historical terms at this bloody
juncture in the Middle East .
@31 Not saying your Phoenix guy wasn't the real thing but I've spent quite a bit of time in
SE Asia and Central America, some of it in bars. Just about every American I met was some
kind of CIA agent either active or retired. The Brits tended to be mostly ex-SAS.
Frankly, we're in the last days of the US occupation of Afghanistan. There's nowhere for them
to go now, to improve their position. They're just waiting for the next Taliban attack.
Sooner or later one will succeed.
Because the Taliban decided to suppress production and when the Taliban were kicked out
the Afghan farmers needed to make an income so they went back to doing what they did best,
growing opium poppies and paying off the American-backed warlords. Then the Taliban decided
they needed a source of income so they moved into the opium trade to raise about 60% of their
income. BTW, in the early days of the British occupation of Helmand Province, the price of
wheat was higher than heroin in Afghanistan and many of the farmers asked for help to convert
to growing wheat which never happened because American farmers wouldn't allow it.
At the start of the US Afghani war, NYT's cartoon posted the list of empires defeated in
Afghanistan. You may remain in denial, revising history. It's your choice. Some of us are
closer to the facts on the ground - first hand accounts.
A cartoon??????? Perhaps you could provide a link to back up your claim, but I expect one
from 1979 when the United States started the American War in Afghanistan before the Soviet
Union intervened in defense of modernity over medieval headchoppers aka KSA? Or perhaps you
can name the empires brought low by Afghanistan but don't bother naming the British
Empire.
As for the rest, I quite agree that Afghanistan is a narco-state but the trade is not
controlled by the CIA, the Pentagon , the so-called American Deep State or even the
Rothschilds . At most, the CIA and Pentagon turn a blind eye to its operation, and
HSBC probably launder some of the money
>>>> PavewayIV | Oct 24, 2017 2:19:14 PM | 26
We might actually be the first empire to fall because of (at least in part) Afghanistan.
You could very well be right but I really hope it happens peacefully.
Anyway off to get my weekly dose of opium provided by the state to calm me down a
bit.
Afghanistan is another backyard to Iran. From Kabul, head west and slaughter lots of shia up
to the border of Iran. That's what Israel has requested and that's what the Yankees will do.
On the side they will grossly enrich the military industrial complex and all will be well in
the world.
The kurdistan game has been foiled and the Iraq government will not play ball on the
mindless Israeli hatred for shia and passion for divisive politics. So lets try
Afghanistan.
@33 I forgot to mention....you can usually tell the real ones from their collection of dried
Gook ears. They like to keep a couple in their pockets for show and tell.
Published May 22, 2001. ...gift of $43 million to the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan, the gift, announced last
Thursday by Secretary of State Colin Powell, in addition to other recent aid, makes the
United States the main sponsor of the Taliban...
On reading B's excellent post, I found myself thinking Israel has similar assassination units
operating under the name Sayeret Matkal. No doubt those Israeli units would only be too happy to give training and other support to
the CIA's covert program of assassination units attached to Afghan forces.
How much respect and loyalty the Afghan government will have left among its people when
the CIA starts its program of police state terror in earnest is another question.
There are two US initiatives to counter China's One Belt, One Road (OBOR) strategy which is
budgeted at about a trillion dollars, and way out of anything the US could afford. So the US
has come up with these two plans, neither one showing any promise except as a reason to
continue with the AfPak war. SecState Tillerson is the point man on these initiatives. They
both include a new initiative to work closely with India, and one of them requires ownership
of Afghanistan.
The US has revived two major infrastructure projects in South and Southeast Asia in which
India would be a vital player, the 'New Silk Road" initiative and the Indo-Pacific Economic
Corridor linking South and Southeast Asia. The US New Silk Road Strategy is based upon the
Silk Road Strategy Acts of 1999 and 2006. What port(s) would be used to get to Afghanistan at
the doorstep of the -Stans? The US Silk Road products would have to come through the Iran
port of Chabahar. That would be off limits to the US. India is supposed to be doing some
development there, but it's slow. India has built a highway from Chabahar to Afghanistan. The
nearby Pakistan port of Gwadar is now being developed by China and so is also off limits to
the US. The US has put a major diplomatic and economic effort into the -Stans, including
using USAID funds to train the locals to take over US jobs in conjunction with US companies
in the International Chamber of Commerce, an offshoot of the US Chamber.
The second initiative is the Indo-Pacific Economic Corridor, still at a very nascent
stage. It would focus on the "economic corridors between South and Southeast Asia" which
implies working with India and against China. The US naval challenges in the South China Sea
are probably one example. Tillerson has talked about challenging Chinese financing -- good
luck on that. Tillerson: "It is important that those emerging democracies and economies (in
Asa-Pacific) have alternative means of developing both the infrastructure they need but also
developing the economies. We have watched the activities and actions of others in the region
. . .It is important that those emerging democracies and economies (in Asa-Pacific) have
alternative means of developing both the infrastructure they need but also developing the
economies. We have watched the activities and actions of others in the region" . .
here
Finally, the inclusion of India in Afghan affairs is what drives Pakistan to oppose the US
strategy. It hasn't matter that the US has given Pakistan billions of dollars, Pakistan still
sponsors the Taliban fighters who kill US troops. The current US destruction of Afghanistan
and its people is not a choice of Pakistan, but it's less important to Pakistan than having
an Indian presence on both flanks. Pakistan does not want to become an Indian sandwich. The
two countries are arch-enemies.
"... The best label for these students is "Jacobin," even if it's unlikely many of them would refer to themselves that way. Historically, the Jacobins were a faction in the French Revolution that carried out the Reign of Terror and orchestrated the genocidal suppression of the reactionary Catholic and Monarchist counter-revolutionaries. While the original Jacobins are long gone, the spirit of their revolutionary ideology lingers, seeking nothing less than to end evil itself by sweeping away the status quo and replacing it with a new and just order. ..."
"... The Jacobins would rather embrace revolutionary violence and tear society apart than tolerate injustices and oppression temporarily while changes are made. In the end that leaves everyone, including the oppressed, worse off. ..."
"... Reflections on the Revolution in France ..."
"... why do the pampered Hollywood elite go out and march against Trump? It is surely not because he threatens their way of life or freedom to hit the casting couch ..."
"... The reality is that our country has become so divorced from anything real and meaningful in the lives of most people, particularly sheltered coastal elites and snowflake students, that they are desperately looking for something to gives their lives meaning. It just so happens that the imminent Nazi takeover of the local independent coffee house gives them the lightning rod they need. ..."
"... Are they dangerous? Sure. Are they potentially going to be a long term problem? Maybe, especially if America begins to split apart at the seams. They're not much different from ISIS, outside of a lack of religion. ..."
They prefer fists and fires over words, but to what end?
Recently, the University of California at Berkeley paidapproximately
$600,000 for security so their chapter of Young Americans for Freedom could host
conservative pundit Ben Shapiro without riots breaking out. Similarly, Reed College was forced
to
cancel the first meeting of its core "Introduction to Humanities: Ancient Greece and the
Mediterranean" class -- which has been mandatory for freshman since 1943 -- after students
objected that the course was Eurocentric and racist, and disrupted its classes. These protests
are increasingly common on college campuses. They're almost always carried out in the name of
denying alleged oppressors a platform to spew "hateful" rhetoric.
But
it's a recent incident at the College of William and Mary that provides the best window
into the disruptors' way of thinking. A speech by a representative of the ACLU was interrupted
by protesters who objected to the group's defense of First Amendment rights for everyone --
including white supremacists -- and demanded zero tolerance for views they deem unacceptable.
If one sorts through their various chants and screams, it becomes readily apparent why they
reject free speech: they view it as an inherently conservative institution that stands in the
way of "progress."
The best label for these students is "Jacobin," even if it's unlikely many of them would
refer to themselves that way. Historically, the Jacobins were a faction in the French
Revolution that carried out the Reign of Terror and orchestrated the genocidal suppression of
the reactionary Catholic and Monarchist counter-revolutionaries. While the original Jacobins
are long gone, the spirit of their revolutionary ideology lingers, seeking nothing less than to
end evil itself by sweeping away the status quo and replacing it with a new and just order.
Campus Jacobins, like many of their fellow students, see ills like racism, sexism, and
bigotry, and desire to end them. However, to the Jacobin mind, anything short of immediate and
radical reform is tantamount to colluding with evil. With that in mind, it becomes clear why
these students are opposed to free speech and open inquiry: trying to fix things by working out
differences through words is a very slow process that allows injustices to continue existing in
the short term. In the words of one student, trying to right wrongs through debate merely "
tricks you into thinking social problems can be resolved if only people tolerate their
oppression just a LITTLE while longer ."
The Jacobins would rather embrace revolutionary violence and tear society apart than
tolerate injustices and oppression temporarily while changes are made. In the end that leaves
everyone, including the oppressed, worse off. Slow positive change is much preferable to rapid
and revolutionary upheaval. As Edmund Burke, the 18th-century political theorist and staunch
opponent of the French Revolution, said in his Reflections on the Revolution in France
, "mind must conspire with mind. Time is required to produce that union of minds which alone
can produce all the good we aim at. Our patience will achieve more than our force."
Burke argues for caution, reflection, and restraint when seeking to make necessary changes,
rather than revolutions that lead to more problems that before. This requires humility and the
acknowledgement that one might not possess the ultimate answer to a problem. The open and free
exchange of ideas is the best way of accomplishing such a task because it allows the
aggregation of knowledge and perspectives to arrive together at a general conclusion, rather
than violently enforcing one conclusion on everyone. Campus Jacobins have no patience for that;
despite their youth and inexperience, they've concluded that they already possess all the
information they need, and therefore there is no need for discussion, only compliance with
their demands.
Unfortunately, the oft unsaid -- and perhaps unrealized -- implication of the rejection of
free expression is that force and violence are the only alternatives to bring about change. If
one is so supremely self-assured in one's conclusions that one sees those who hold differing
views not as acting in good faith but rather perpetrating evil, then it follows that dissent
should not be reasoned or compromised with but rather eradicated. When everyone does not carry
out their demands merely because they demand them, the morally absolute are left only with
upheaval.
Hopefully, the majority of college students see the destructive path that the campus
Jacobins are heading down and choose to defend free speech and open inquiry, which has provided
the basis for so much social harmony, despite our differences. If not, the future of civil
coexistence looks bleak.
Zachary Yost is a Young Voices Advocate who lives
and works in the Pittsburgh area. Hide 20 comments 20 Responses to Neo-Jacobins
Demand Zero Tolerance, Or Else
I have a relative who marches with these clowns, or at least is a fellow traveler. He
lamented a few years ago that there was no great protest movement like the sixties to take
part in, so he became a campus agitator himself.
Likewise, why do the pampered Hollywood elite go out and march against Trump? It is surely
not because he threatens their way of life or freedom to hit the casting couch.
The reality is that our country has become so divorced from anything real and meaningful
in the lives of most people, particularly sheltered coastal elites and snowflake students,
that they are desperately looking for something to gives their lives meaning. It just so
happens that the imminent Nazi takeover of the local independent coffee house gives them the
lightning rod they need.
Are they dangerous? Sure. Are they potentially going to be a long term problem? Maybe,
especially if America begins to split apart at the seams. They're not much different from
ISIS, outside of a lack of religion. I don't think they are going to effect the widespread
social change they want, other than hastening the collapse of the higher ed bubble as parents
begin to hesitate sending their kids to these schools.
The German National Socialists were just like the Jacobins. They had different ideas about
what they wanted but their methods were identical. We need to be much less "understanding" of
the current crop of fascists.
The Jacobins would rather embrace revolutionary violence and tear society apart than
tolerate injustices and oppression temporarily while changes are made.
Unlike the original Jacobins, who were a product rather than the progenitors of a
revolution that followed nobody's plan or principles, these "infantile disorders" as Lenin
would have called them are puffed up fish in a very small pond. They have no mass base to
support any kind of upsurge, peaceful or violent, and they wouldn't last long outside their
campus cocoons. They wouldn't last long there if, e.g., Reed College would simply expel any
student who disrupted a scheduled class. Think John Reed would have a problem with that?
Joseph Stalin wouldn't.
I take it then that you reject the violence of the founder's revolution.
Which i why i take the poition that the founders were not conservatives or conservatives
who temporarily threw off reason . . . a temporary losing of their rational selves.
I've dealt with a lot of progressives and radicals over the years who dismissed the need for
long-term thinking and planning and demanded immediate action and immediate responses from
those in power, and I've often been critical of such thinking and of activism that seemed to
be more about you making yourself feel useful than about really changing things. I can't say
I've been right every time, but overall, I'm comfortable with that perspective.
However, Mr. Yost, you make some very broad generalizations when you say that
"revolutionary violence In the end leaves everyone, including the oppressed, worse off."
Revolutionary violence contributed to the raising up of the French peasantry that left it, as
a class, far better off than it was under the Old Regime. The French Revolution was also
defended by mobilized masses who defeated virtually every army that the European monarchies
threw at them, and inspired the eventual replacement of monarchy by republican forms of
governance, which begs the question whether many Frenchmen thought that revolutionary
violence had been, on balance, worse for everyone.
I could make similar arguments about the American, Russian and Chinese revolutions –
as horrible as the Great Chinese Famine of 1959-61 was, Maoist China still increased
lifespans and improved overall quality of life more than India did in the same period –
but let's move on to your argument that "Slow positive change is much preferable to rapid and
revolutionary upheaval."
Generally speaking, I would agree with you, but if the change is snail-paced or virtually
non-existent, and if the powers that be have proved resistant to Edmund Burke's "union of
minds," then patience is just a fool's game. I've had friends argue that chattel slavery
would have died out within two or three generations of the American Civil War, so the
enormous waste of the war was unjustifiable. Yet the slaveowners were working actively
against that fate, expanding the practice to Texas and looking to extend it further west and
south, including into a conquered Mexico. Nor were they afraid of violating free speech
rights or bending the Constitution and laws of the Republic to their benefit.
I, too, appreciate caution, reflection, restraint and humility, and the open and free
exchange of ideas, but I also recognize that consensus does not always happen, no matter the
quality of the debate and the mutual regard of the debaters. Most orthodox Trotskyists I know
do not support shouting down or "no platforming" political opponents, even ones we may
consider racist, homophobic or just bat-sh*t crazy (Ann Coulter, come on down!). But
right-wingers with a history or current practice of violence are another story, which is why
you'll see Trotskyists and other Marxists organizing for a MASS response when the Klan or the
neo-Nazis are in town, ready and willing to help the masses drive them from the streets.
My problem with so many young "social justice warriors" today, and their mentors, is that
they refuse to make the necessary distinctions between the ACLU – which has defended
us, too, you know! – Ann Coulter and the KKK. You need to deepen your ability to make
distinctions, too, I think.
By the way, the article on Reed College was very interesting and actually somewhat
heartening. Thank you for the link.
By the way, I read your Op-Ed piece at the Washington Examiner about unions. Sigh.
Using seniority as the basis for awarding shifts or making seniority-based pay increases
is not the perfect system, but it is the least imperfect one (that's usually an argument that
appeals to conservatives, by the way). Along with across-the-board and cost-of-living wage
increases, seniority pay can stabilize a workforce, reducing wasteful turnover and staff
churning, and leave a better trained and more competent and knowledgeable staff in place. In
an ideal world, merit pay would actually reward merit, but in the real world, it usually
rewards friends and sycophants. And while any union shop steward can tell you tales of
employees they wish they didn't have to defend and who should lose their jobs, due process
means that the bosses have rules to follow when they want to fire anyone, including the
excellent employee who somehow got under someone's bonnet.
You might also want to brush up on your understanding of "basic economics" as many studies
have called into doubt the idea that increased minimum wages decrease job creation, even in
those municipalities competing directly with lower minimum wage neighbors. And at some point,
yielding to captial's demand for ever lower wages becomes a zero sum game and demands
restrictions on capital's power, not on labor's price.
Moving on, if you think workers in highly skilled jobs or unions do not have to fear
technological unemployment, I suggest you read about the automation of brokerage jobs on Wall
Street and Amazon's on-going effort to automate human responses to language, grammar and
thought.
Back to your appeal to "basic economics" – a favorite trope of libertarians, by the
way, as if there are not different schools of economic thought, including within capitalist
economic theory – if productivity and not unions were responsible for increased wages,
why have wages fallen or remained stagnant for the last nearly 40 years even though
productivity has gone through the roof while unions have been busted and capital
deregulated?
The naivete of you arguing that "learning more skills and gaining workplace experience" is
the best way to secure one's future might be charming in a post-Great Recession "gig" economy
if you weren't also so insulting as to say that supporting unions means that you "are
comfortable with stasis, enjoy having underachieving colleagues, and are largely lacking in
ambition." My ambition is for workers, in general, to have a weekend, an annual vacation,
paid sick time and personal time off, paid parental leave and wages enough to afford a home,
car (and private school if I so choose), which would be a radical break from the employment
trends of the last 40 years (so no stasis there).
And if all that and due process rights and solidarity come at the cost of living with the
occasional underachieving colleague, so be it. It's not as if the ranks of management aren't
filled with incompetents, or that being non-union ensures that all of one's colleagues will
know what the hell they are doing. But I'll take the trade-offs that come with unions, thank
you, and so would most American workers if they didn't face constant anti-union harassment or
the threat of closing down the workplace and losing their jobs if they vote to unionize.
Thinking that we are okay because there is a more tolerant majority is not true. The only
way that there will be a balance is if members of the Right exert equal or greater
intolerance than the Left.
The irony of the American politics is that the Right is always caricatured as "intolerant"
and "bigots" when in fact they are clearly more tolerant and less bigoted than the Left,
hence the increasing Leftward turn towards pervasive political correctness.
Further, these folks aren't Jacobins, they are revolutionary throat-slitting Communists in
the image of Stalin and Lenin. If they win, there will be mass executions, gulags, and
unimaginable state repression.
Reading about our privileged "radicals," I'm reminded of Morgan Earp's remark in Tombstone:
"They're bugs, Wyatt. There's no live-and-let-live with bugs." It's sad that college
administrators are so spineless.
I take it then that you reject the violence of the founder's revolution.
EliteCommInc:
"Which i why i take the poition that the founders were not conservatives or conservatives who
temporarily threw off reason . . . a temporary losing of their rational selves.
s you say according to Edmund Burke,
" . . . mind meets mind . . .""
They actually were conservatives/traditionalists. If you know history from the beginning
of English settlement in America until and through the War for Independence, it is clear that
they are. By the time of the Revolution, there were different American ways. Also, the
Revolution was sparked by a Constitutional crisis (one of the British constitution).
Parliament and King were subverting the British constitution, and interfering in the American
ways that had developed since 1607. As M.E. Bradford said, it was a revolution prevented, not
made. Essentially, it was a "revolution" to preserve the existing social and political ways
of the different colonies.
"They wouldn't last long if . . . Reed College would simply expel any student who disrupted a
scheduled class. Think John Reed would have a problem with that? Joseph Stalin wouldn't."
I had to check to see whether Reed College could actually have been named for John Reed,
but it wasn't, and I don't think Mr Jenkins was implying that it was. But that would have
been wonderful irony along the lines of chickens coming home to roost. Now, William and Mary,
on the other hand. . . . Name a college after illegitimate usurpers, and see what eventually
happens!
Darn, Colonel Bogey, we've agree twice this month, and now you go trashing the Glorious
Revolution. Very much in character though.
I believe that John Reed was related to the family that gave Reed College its name, but
no, he wasn't a founder nor was it named after him.
Further, these folks aren't Jacobins, they are revolutionary throat-slitting Communists
in the image of Stalin and Lenin.
Most of them are anarchists, and not particularly ideological anarchists at that. They
have some commonality with the Red Guards in China -- which the communist party eventually
had to forcibly dislodge from their roost on the campuseses, but they lack the administrative
ability to maintain a Guglag. And they also lack a mass base.
This piece gives Antifa way too much credit for sincerity. Antifa never attack the rallies of
Neocon politicians, or those of Democrat liberal interventionists – even though these
folks' wars kill more non-whites in a day than the the various Klan groups managed in 150
years. And they never attack the meetings of the Israel first politicians in both parties
– even though Israel is an open and
unabashed ethnostate.
It's quite clear therefore that Antifa are not an anti-racist group, but rather the street
enforcers of the global super-capitalist class – whatever their ludicrous jargon ridden
manifestoes may claim to the contrary
Leaving aside the delicious irony that a self-described anti-authoritarian and anti-racist
movement is itself explicitly authoritarian and racist, I'd be remiss if I didn't point out
that Professor Robert Reich, formerly of the Clinton Administration and strong supporter of
Bernie Sanders, considers this whole pheonomenon, all of it, to be nothing more than a
right-wing false flag operation:
"The reality is that our country has become so divorced from anything real and meaningful
in the lives of most people, particularly sheltered coastal elites and snowflake students,
that they are desperately looking for something to gives their lives meaning."
True enough. Sadly, there's a conservative version of this which is just as sick,
un-American, and divorced from reality. And you can find it in certain places in the
"heartland". For example, this law in Texas that you can't get hurricane relief unless you
sign a document swearing not to (wait for it) boycott Israel . Whoever thought that
one up ought to be deported to Tel Aviv and have their US citizenship revoked.
We all need to stop and take a breath and remember back to when we were in school. As a
member of the so-called Boomer generation I can well recall the protests over everything from
civil rights, the war in Vietnam, and whether somebody with socialist/communist sympathies
should be allowed to speak on campus and how parents, the press and politicians of that time
were sure that all these protests a sure sign that America was going to hell in a hand
basket. Well guess what? The vast majority of those young Boomers who directly or indirectly
supported all those protests have become the biggest defenders of the status quo and now
bemoan that their children or grand children are protesting against the status quo.
Instead of bemoaning that some of the protesters consider a course on democracy to be
euro-centric as a sign of the decay of youth perhaps the better response would be to admit
that yes the course is euro-centric but ask for examples of any other culture that has made
any significant contribution to our understanding of what democracy means today. Just as the
concept of the zero in math was developed by Arab mathematicians, many cultures have made
contributions to society but in the case of democracy, for better or worse it was European
thinkers who developed the concept of democracy.
Instead of worrying what the demands of today's protesters mean for the future we would be
wise to remember that in youth all issues have hard edges and that just like we Boomers
today's protesters will become the next generation to face the protests of their children and
they will be just a perplexed by some of their protests.
cda2nd, you speak well for the left. As a Burkean conservative, I'm glad to hear your voice.
While we likely disagree on solutions, we likely agree on the problems.
The real reason for all this craziness is our federal reserve. It has allowed this rampant
crony capitalism that keeps the government from reining in monopolies. It allows governments
and corporations to live beyond their means while holding the average Joe down. Not having
real money has kept wages stagnant while financial assets and political contributions have
continued to rise. It is the Feds fault. They have insulated us from a realistic risk-reward
environment.
In order to make the world safer, first you need to make it more dangerous.
We try to keep everyone safe by eliminating the consequences of unsafe behavior. Better
for there to be consequences for acting unsafely. In Pittsburgh for instance, Mr Yost will
recognize, people don't text and drive. It's too dangerous; they might die.
"... "Everyone knows that five-billion contracts are not signed by the defense minister or by his deputy, or even by any head of the Defense Ministry department. All politicians know who signs five-billion contracts. And this is the president of Ukraine," Tymoshenko said, while commenting on the scandal with the detention by the NABU of Deputy Defense Minister Ihor Pavlovsky and director of the public procurement department at the Defense Ministry Volodymyr Hulevych. ..."
Only just got some time to start following Mishiko's "Mikho-Maidan" (English-language hashtag is
#Mikhomaidan .
Apparently Saakashvili came up with a humdinger this morning: He promised his followers from the stump that the Ukraine
will become a superpower dictating conditions to Europe and the world.
"Там где есть сила, там будет Украинская сверхдержава, которая будет диктовать условия в Европе и всем другим, и где люди будут
жить достойно Что стоит между нами и этим будущим? Это маленькая кучка олигархов, барыг – президент и его окружение", -- сказал
он, заверив, что сменить нынешнюю власть при желании населения можно "очень быстро и очень безболезненно".
"Кто-то говорит – "вот, этот гастролер, зачем он тут?" Все очень просто. Нет будущего ни у Грузии, ни у Молдовы, ни у Белоруссии,
ни у кого в регионе, если не будет Украины", -- подчеркнул Саакашвили.
TRANSLATION:
"If people shall unite as a force, then there will be a Ukrainian superpower which will dictate conditions in Europe and to all
the others; and people [here] will be able to live their lives with dignity. What stands between us and that future? A tiny clique
of oligarchs and speculators: The President and his entourage," he said, assuring people that it would be a very quick and painless
matter to overturn the existing government, given the desire of the people.
"Some people say, oh, here is that travelling showman, why is he here? It's very simple: There can be no future, neither for Gruzia,
nor Moldavia, nor Belorussia, not for anyone in this region, if a Ukraine doesn't exist," Saakashvili underscored.
Some people say, oh, here is that travelling showman, why is he here?
A good question yet to be answered by Mr. Saakashvili. The answer probably includes money, food, cocaine, public attention,
food, sex and did I mention food?
Mmmmm ..that sounds suspiciously like his oratory while President of Georgia, when he predicted that within X years of his modernizations
like the Glass Bridge in Tbilisi (between 3 and 5, I forget now and the source was assimilated into the government's propaganda-pablum
machine), there would be more tourists in Georgia than there were Georgians. Or like the time he told the US Senate that Georgia
was so honest a place that people did not even lock their doors, the same year the US Government's State Department released a
travel warning for Georgia that warned against pickpockets and various forms of thieving, including stopping your car on the road
and robbing you or making you get out and taking the car. Crimes carried out by Georgian and Ukrainian organized criminals are
often blamed on the Russian mafia.
Also don't forget when Mishka bragged that Gruzia didn't need no stinking Russian wine market – they could always sell their best
stuff to Western Europe!
'cause, see, the French and Germans and Italians don't produce any good wines
Yes, that's right! And then when the Russian market opened up again, it was greeted with great relief by the Georgian winemakers,
and impartial sources remarked that there was not much of an appetite in Europe for Georgia's sweet and somewhat heavy wines,
while Russians were very fond of them. Ukraine is learning the same bitter lesson now, and there would be nobody like Mishka to
teach them. For the west's part, they would probably be quite willing to give Mishka another project, to keep him busy and keep
Ukraine from slipping back into the Russian orbit.
Don't forget that Poroshenko is not likely to be going anywhere, since Ukraine is making him richer and richer, and he is likely
to dabble in politics even after he is evicted in the next election. But having Mishka there to split the vote could easily result
in a Tymoshenko victory. And that would be just perfect, with all her histrionic squalling about getting a machine gun and going
to kill some Katsaps. She did say 'we'. Go ahead, Yooooolia. Let's see you bring it.
"Everyone knows that five-billion contracts are not signed by the defense minister or by his deputy, or even by any head
of the Defense Ministry department. All politicians know who signs five-billion contracts. And this is the president of Ukraine,"
Tymoshenko said, while commenting on the scandal with the detention by the NABU of Deputy Defense Minister Ihor Pavlovsky and
director of the public procurement department at the Defense Ministry Volodymyr Hulevych.
Ponder for a moment the irony of Tymoshenko – who browbeat the director of Naftogaz into signing the take-or-pay contract with
Russia which caused Ukraine such grief and then flew to Russia herself to wrap it up, after being specifically told by the Rada
cabinet not to do it – pointing the accusing finger at corruption in the energy business.
The problem with the USA is that the USA empire lost legitimacy with the dissolution of
the USSR and has to be reconstructed as a new neoliberal empire. For a while rise of
neoliberalism was a cover for this expansion, but this period is probably over. Now neoliberalism
is also under attack and neoliberal ideology is discredited (Trump and Brexit are just two signs
of it). So now the USA is the empire with decaying ideology, not that dissimilar to the USSR
in 80th, which is still trying to achieve its imperial goals despite rejection of them by most of
of the world population. In such circumstances huge military superiority that the USA enjoys
is not everything.
Notable quotes:
"... The CIA is expanding its covert operations in Afghanistan, sending small teams of highly experienced officers and contractors alongside Afghan forces to hunt and kill Taliban militants across the country ... ..."
"... This is not going to be a counter-insurgency campaign, even when some will assert that. A counter-insurgency campaign requires political, security, economic, and informational components. It can only be successful in support of a legitimate authority. ..."
"... The current Afghan government has little legitimacy. It was bribed together by the U.S. embassy after wide and open election fraud threatened to devolve into total chaos. ..."
"... A campaign solely centered on "security" will end up as a random torture and killing expedition without the necessary context and with no positive results. ..."
"... The campaign will be a boon for the Taliban. While it will likely kill a some Taliban aligned insurgents here and there, it will also alienate many more Afghan people. Most of the Taliban fighters are locals. Killing them creates new local recruits for the insurgency. It will also give it better population cover for future operations. ..."
"... A similar campaign during the Vietnam war was known as Operation Phoenix . Then some 50,000 South-Vietnamese, all of course 'suspected communists', were killed by the CIA's roving gangs ..."
"... [Phoenix] was designed to identify and "neutralize" (via infiltration, capture, counter-terrorism, interrogation, and assassination) the infrastructure of the National Liberation Front of South Vietnam (NLF or Viet Cong). The CIA described it as "a set of programs that sought to attack and destroy the political infrastructure of the Viet Cong". ..."
"... The Phoenix program was embedded into a larger civil political and economic development program known as CORDS . The accepted historical judgement is that Phoenix failed to achieve its purpose despite its wider conceptualization. The passive support for the Viet Cong increased due to the campaign. In recent years there have been revisionists efforts by the Pentagon's RAND Corporation to change that view. ..."
"... The now announced campaign looks similar to Phoenix but lacks any political component. It is not designed to pacify insurgents but to eliminate any and all resistance: ..."
"... There are only a few dozen officers in the CIA Special Activities Division that can support such a campaign. The lede to the article suggests that 'contractors' will have a significant role. In August the former head of the mercenary outlet Blackwater, Eric Prince, lobbied the Trump administration for a contractor led war in Afghanistan. We can safely assume that Prince and some Blackwater offspring will be involved in the new CIA campaign. The major intelligence groundwork though will have to be done by the NDS. ..."
"... "Iraq's campaign in the Euphrates and Tigris River valleys, the Kurdish campaign in western Syria and the Saudi and UAE campaign against the Houtis in Yemen have been devastating and vicious assaults on populations, critical infrastructure and housing, that coupled with nighttime commando raids that terrorize entire villages and neighborhoods, look not to bring a political settlement, reconciliation or peace, but rather subjugate, along ethnic and sectarian lines, entire population groups to achieve American political desires in the Muslim world. ..."
"... As I have said previously here - the failure of English policy in South Africa in 1899 showed the myth of the British Empire and contributed to the emboldenment of 'a rising ' Germany, challenging England for 'market' share in 1914 . ..."
"... BTW, in the early days of the British occupation of Helmand Province, the price of wheat was higher than heroin in Afghanistan and many of the farmers asked for help to convert to growing wheat which never happened because American farmers wouldn't allow it. ..."
"... Perhaps you could provide a link to back up your claim, but I expect one from 1979 when the United States started the American War in Afghanistan before the Soviet Union intervened in defense of modernity over medieval headchoppers aka KSA? Or perhaps you can name the empires brought low by Afghanistan but don't bother naming the British Empire. ..."
"... I quite agree that Afghanistan is a narco-state but the trade is not controlled by the CIA, the Pentagon , the so-called American Deep State or even the Rothschilds . At most, the CIA and Pentagon turn a blind eye to its operation, and HSBC probably launder some of the money ..."
"... Published May 22, 2001. ...gift of $43 million to the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan, the gift, announced last Thursday by Secretary of State Colin Powell, in addition to other recent aid, makes the United States the main sponsor of the Taliban... ..."
"... On reading B's excellent post, I found myself thinking Israel has similar assassination units operating under the name Sayeret Matkal. No doubt those Israeli units would only be too happy to give training and other support to the CIA's covert program of assassination units attached to Afghan forces. ..."
"... There are two US initiatives to counter China's One Belt, One Road (OBOR) strategy which is budgeted at about a trillion dollars, and way out of anything the US could afford. So the US has come up with these two plans, neither one showing any promise except as a reason to continue with the AfPak war. SecState Tillerson is the point man on these initiatives. They both include a new initiative to work closely with India, and one of them requires ownership of Afghanistan. ..."
"... The second initiative is the Indo-Pacific Economic Corridor, still at a very nascent stage. It would focus on the "economic corridors between South and Southeast Asia" which implies working with India and against China. The US naval challenges in the South China Sea are probably one example. Tillerson has talked about challenging Chinese financing -- good luck on that. ..."
"... Finally, the inclusion of India in Afghan affairs is what drives Pakistan to oppose the US strategy. It hasn't matter that the US has given Pakistan billions of dollars, Pakistan still sponsors the Taliban fighters who kill US troops. The current US destruction of Afghanistan and its people is not a choice of Pakistan, but it's less important to Pakistan than having an Indian presence on both flanks. Pakistan does not want to become an Indian sandwich. The two countries are arch-enemies. ..."
Phoenix 2.0 - CIA's Vietnam Terror Unleashed Upon Afghanistan
Last week the new head of the CIA Mike Pompeo publicly
threatened to make the CIA a "much more vicious agency". His first step towards that is to
unleash
CIA sponsored killer gangs onto the people of Afghanistan:
The CIA is expanding its covert operations in Afghanistan, sending small teams of highly
experienced officers and contractors alongside Afghan forces to hunt and kill Taliban
militants across the country ...
...
The CIA's expanded role will augment missions carried out by military units, meaning more
of the United States' combat role in Afghanistan will be hidden from public view
This is not going to be a counter-insurgency campaign, even when some will assert that. A
counter-insurgency campaign requires political, security, economic, and informational
components. It can only be successful in support of a legitimate authority.
The current Afghan government has little legitimacy. It was bribed together by the U.S.
embassy after wide and open election fraud threatened to devolve into total chaos. In August
CIA director Pompeo met the Afghan president
Ashraf Ghani and likely discussed the new plan. But the now announced campaign has neither a
political nor an economic component. A campaign solely centered on "security" will end up as a
random torture and killing expedition without the necessary context and with no positive
results.
The campaign will be a boon for the Taliban. While it will likely kill a some Taliban
aligned insurgents here and there, it will also alienate many more Afghan people. Most of the
Taliban fighters are locals. Killing them creates new local recruits for the insurgency. It
will also give it better population cover for future operations.
A similar campaign during the Vietnam war was known as Operation Phoenix . Then some 50,000
South-Vietnamese, all of course 'suspected communists', were killed by the CIA's roving
gangs:
[Phoenix] was designed to identify and "neutralize" (via infiltration, capture,
counter-terrorism, interrogation, and assassination) the infrastructure of the National
Liberation Front of South Vietnam (NLF or Viet Cong). The CIA described it as "a set of
programs that sought to attack and destroy the political infrastructure of the Viet
Cong". The major two components of the program were Provincial Reconnaissance Units
(PRUs) and regional interrogation centers. PRUs would kill or capture suspected NLF members,
as well as civilians who were thought to have information on NLF activities. Many of these
people were then taken to interrogation centers where many were allegedly tortured in an
attempt to gain intelligence on VC activities in the area. The information extracted at the
centers was then given to military commanders, who would use it to task the PRU with further
capture and assassination missions.
The Phoenix program was embedded into a larger civil political and economic development
program known as CORDS
. The accepted historical judgement is that Phoenix failed to achieve its
purpose despite its wider conceptualization. The passive support for the Viet Cong increased
due to the campaign. In recent years there have been revisionists
efforts by the Pentagon's RAND Corporation to change that view.
The now announced campaign
looks similar to Phoenix but lacks any political component. It is not designed to pacify
insurgents but to eliminate any and all resistance:
The new effort will be led by small units known as counterterrorism pursuit teams. They are
managed by CIA paramilitary officers from the agency's Special Activities Division and
operatives from the National Directorate of Security, Afghanistan's intelligence arm , and
include elite American troops from the Joint Special Operations Command. The majority of the
forces, however, are Afghan militia members
There are only a few dozen officers in the CIA Special Activities Division that can
support such a campaign. The lede to the article suggests that 'contractors' will have a
significant role. In August the former head of the mercenary outlet Blackwater, Eric Prince,
lobbied the Trump administration for a contractor led war in Afghanistan. We can safely
assume that Prince and some Blackwater offspring will be involved in the new CIA campaign. The
major intelligence groundwork though will have to be done by the NDS.
The Afghan National Directorate of Security was build by the CIA from elements of the former
Northern Alliance, the opponents of the original Taliban. In the late 1990s the Northern
Alliance under Ahmed Shah Massoud was financed by the CIA . Shah Massoud's intelligence
chief Amrullah Saleh, a dual citizen,
received CIA training. After the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan Saleh headed the new
intelligence service, the NDS. Then President Hamid Karzai fired Saleh in 2010 when he
resisted Karzai's efforts to reconcile with the Taliban. In March 2017 the current
President Ashraf Ghani appointed Saleh as State Minister for Security Reforms. Saleh
resigned(?) in June after Ghani reached a peace agreement with the anti-government warlord and
former Taliban ally Gulbuddin Hekmatyar.
Saleh is an ethnic Tajik and an unforgiving hardliner. He is wary of Pashtun who are the
most populous ethnic group in Afghanistan and the base population for the Taliban. Saleh
recently founded his own political party. He obviously has further ambitions. He always had
excellent relations with the CIA and especially its hardline counter-terrorism center. I find
it highly likely that he was involved in the planning of this new campaign.
In the ethnically mixed north of Afghanistan the involvement of NDS led local militia will
probably cause large scale ethnic cleansing. In the Pashtun south and east it will lack all
local support as such militia have terrorized the country for quite some time:
For years, the primary job of the CIA's paramilitary officers in the country has been
training the Afghan militias. The CIA has also used members of these indigenous militias
to develop informant networks and collect intelligence.
...
The American commandos -- part of the Pentagon's Omega program, which lends Special
Operations forces to the CIA -- allow the Afghan militias to work together with
conventional troops by calling in airstrikes and medical evacuations.
...
The units have long had a wide run of the battlefield and have been accused of
indiscriminately killing Afghan civilians in raids and with airstrikes.
It is utterly predictable how this campaign will end up. The CIA itself has few, if any,
independent sources in the country. It will depend on the NDS, stuffed with Saleh's Tajik
kinsmen, as well as on ethnic and tribal militia. Each of these will have their own agenda. A
'security' campaign as the planned one depends on reliable intelligence. Who, in this or that
hamlet, is a member of the Taliban? For lack of trusted local sources the militia, under CIA or
contractor command, will resort to extremely brutal torture. They will squeeze 'informants' and
'suspects' until these come up with names of a new rounds of 'suspects'. Rinse-repeat - in the
end all of the 'suspects' will be killed.
The new plan was intentionally 'leaked' to the New York Times by "two senior American
officials". It is set into a positive light:
[T]he mission is a tacit acknowledgment that to bring the Taliban to the negotiating table --
a key component of Mr. Trump's strategy for the country -- the United States will need to
aggressively fight the insurgents
That claim is of course utter nonsense. The U.S. already has for years "aggressively fought
the insurgents". The Taliban were always willing to negotiate. Their main condition for a peace
agreement is that U.S. forces end their occupation and leave the country. The U.S. is simply
not willing to do so. Killing more 'suspect' Taliban sympathizers will not change the Taliban's
demand nor will it make serious negations more likely.
Five years from now, when the utter brutality and uselessness of the campaign will come into
full light, the NYT will be shocked, SHOCKED, that such a campaign could ever have
happened.
Posted by b on October 24, 2017 at 06:43 AM |
Permalink
I wonder how much of the "OPIUM" production these "killer gangs" will receive. Of course,
it's too late for the top dogs to use the U.S.A. as a dumping ground, but there's still
potential within the 3rd world for expansion. It's just too lucrative to lose, which would
probably happen if the Taliban were to regain control of Afghanistan. Makes one wonder just
who the addicted really are.
I do wish I could express shock, or even surprise, at Phoenix 2.0; but it's been obvious for
decades that the U.S. is an outlaw empire not beholden to any and all laws on planet
earth.
They (the U.S.) now own the planet and will rule as they see fit: End of discusion...
The other things this illustrates are a complete lack of creativity and adaptation by the
CIA They have used the same playbook, passed down for 70 years and never changed anything
but the jerseys the players wear. When a simple analysis like b has done indicates the result
will not be what is desired (apparently), then maybe the CIA desires something else? Like
maybe a big payoff by the mercs they contract out to?
One would think that heading for the hills, bugging out, would be the strategy the Taliban
adopts - because it has worked when the invaders numbers are too low, even in the face of
higher tech weapons and surveillance. This will likely happen once again, and then there will
be a call for "moar, moar!" to finish the 'mission'. Which has no set goal other than to be a
mission to spread the money around among the players.
The Taliban goal hasn't wavered and is simple and uniformly appealing - they want the
Yanks to go home. It's amazing that the same pitfall setup by the CIA entangled Russia, and
then the CIA and US military walked into their own old pit. Next they still stand about,
unable to concede the mission is impossible?
So this looks to me like an OP to spend money and hide it by spreading it around yet
again. Very similar to Iraq, only without any spoils to spread around. Unless, of course,
opium production rises again, and the protection racket baksheesh rises with it for the mercs
we send.
The 3rd par of your commentary on the NYT text spells out the obvious flaw in this (same old)
Full Spectrum Depravity scheme, b...
"The campaign will be a boon for the Taliban. While it will likely kill a some Taliban
aligned insurgents here and there, it will also alienate many more Afghan people. Most of the
Taliban fighters are locals. Killing them creates new local recruits for the insurgency. It
will also give it better population cover for future operations."
One of the arguments for having permanent bureaucracies as opposed to political appointments
is to maintain a collective memory but we are in a cycle where we keep trying failed ideas
over and over again. To add insult to injury, our 'watchdog' press never calls them out on
this.
I know, let's use our air power to bomb ...
I know, let's have a counter-insurgency operation ...
I know, let's fund rebels in a foreign country ...
I know, let's have assassination teams ...
I know, let's have a surge ...
@4 -- "They have used the same playbook, passed down for 70 years and never changed anything
but the jerseys the players wear."
Hopefully they aren't using Monsanto's "Agent Orange" on the poppy fields this time round
like they did in Vietnam and Cambodia etc -- that would really undermine the Black Budget and
criminal opioid supply system.
The result was the US ran for its life, in disgrace, General Giap's tanks chasing them out
of his country.
As for the Taliban negotiating. Something is going on with Russia and the Taliban. So the
US is determined to disrupt it as severely as possible. This will make Putin and Lavrov's job
easier.
This Afghan war will end when the Taliban hoist half a dozen dead SOF up on a bridge or
overpass for the flies and buzzards to feast while the photos go viral.
Then America will stand down. And only then, when it is a PR nightmare and historical
iconic image. Fallujah, Somalia, etc.
The Pentagon and CIA won't care. The American citizens will be the ones shocked by the
denouement. They are already being primed for AFRICOM adventures. Niger Ambush. Those damn
Frenchies didn't save our boys. Those Mirages (an apt name for imperial aircraft in the
deserts of N.Africa) never opened fire. 'Twasn't our fault. Blame the Frenchies.
b, that was a lot of information presented in an excellent piece of writing. As
always, I admire your economy of words. Thanks for the take.
Posted by: Grieved | Oct 24, 2017 10:34:47 AM |
11
b, that was a lot of information presented in an excellent piece of writing. As always, I
admire your economy of words. Thanks for the take.
Posted by: Grieved | Oct 24, 2017 10:34:47 AM |
11 /div
This is not a continuation of the Afghan war by other means. This is a colonial occupation.
We now have a forward base in the Far East that borders both China and Russia that we will
never abandon. Defeating the Taliban is a non-issue in the broader strategic sense. In fact,
engaging the Taliban justifies the long-term occupation under the banner of defeating
terrorism. Death squads are the perfect way to keep a restive population restive. Since every
place on earth is a sanctuary for terrorism, every place is now deserving of American
occupation, and none more so than Afghanistan. Stirring up the locals is small price to pay
to distract the American people and Congress from the long term goal of maintaining a
military and prison colony in the path of the Great Silk Road for at least 1,000 years.
Appointing an American Viceroy to rule the colony has already been publicly discussed. With
sufficient CIA success, we may achieve enough cover to allow for resource extraction to
benefit our strategic stockpile without any consideration for environmental standards. Only
then, will Afghanistan achieve full 19th Century colony status.
And which empires did?
British Empire? Nope.
Mongol Empire? Nope.
Russian Empire? Nope.
Qing dynasty? Nope.
Spanish Empire? Nope.
Second French colonial empire? Nope.
Abbasid Caliphate? Nope.
Umayyad Caliphate? Nope.
Yuan dynasty? Nope.
Portuguese Empire? Nope.
(Top ten empires of all time according to Wikipedia)
Looking through the entire list of fifty empires that controlled more than 2% of the earth's
land surface, I couldn't identify one that had been destroyed by Afghanistan. However,
Montgomery's Rules of War should be amended to include "Don't go anywhere near Afghanistan
because the fly-infested shithole ain't worth anything".
It didn't even come close to defeating the Soviet Empire which wisely got out of the
stalemate created by American and Saudi support of the jihadists. Americans need to get it
into their pea-sized brains that the Soviet Union was not defeated in Afghanistan or anywhere
else for that matter but broke up because its leaders had woken up to the fact that
Bolshevism doesn't really work in the long term. Once Americans understand this, they should
be capable of understanding that realising they are in a stalemate and just getting the fuck
out doesn't mean that the Taliban have defeated them because any time it wants the US can go
back, kick the Taliban out at minimal cost and the Taliban knows that. Anybody who knows
about the First Anglo-Afghan War should understand what I'm saying
The US has also greatly increased the aerial bombing. This will be further increased. The
additional troops being dispatched will be used by the Afghan Army at battalion level to call
in air strikes.
news report excerpt:
The second R, "realignment," will push U.S. advisors and trainers down to Afghan forces'
battalions, and the third, "reinforce," means adding 3,000 or so U.S. troops to help do so,
Mattis said. In recent years, U.S. advisors have been embedded only at the senior levels of
the conventional Afghan military and with the Afghan special forces.
"Two levels down below is where the decisive action is taking place, and we didn't have any
advisors," Dunford said. "So even though we had some aviation capabilities, some
intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities, it wasn't being delivered to
those Afghan units who were perhaps most relevant to the fight."
That means more Afghan forces -- there's 300,000 all told today, both officials said --
will have U.S. troops with them capable of requesting air strikes around the country.
And the targets they'll be able to strike have expanded as well.
"At one time, sir, we could not help Afghan forces unless they were in extremis" -- that
is, under direct, urgent threat, Mattis said. "And then eventually that was rescinded, but
they still had to be in proximity. They had to be in contact. Today, wherever we find them,
the terrorists -- anyone trying to throw the NATO plan off, trying to attack the Afghan
people and the Afghan government -- then we can go after them."
President Trump has told us that the real policy change in Afghanistan is no longer to build
needed infrastructure, but to destroy it. The US must destroy Afghanistan to save it.
Excerpts from his August speech remarks:
> have the necessary tools and rules of engagement to make this strategy work
> I have already lifted restrictions
> we are already seeing dramatic results in the campaign to defeat ISIS, including the
liberation of Mosul in Iraq. (Mosul has been completely destroyed.)
> apply swift, decisive, and overwhelming force.
These american overseas missions seem to have several goals one of which is for criminal
government representatives and their corporate masters to set up rat lines and pay to play
schemes. Of course perpetuating "boogey man" propaganda for the american public's benefit has
so far kept citizens quiet and deluded.
The USG has ceased having any accountability to american citizens.
CIA further grasping at straws. Eventually, the collective action of the SCO, of which
Afghanistan will eventually become a full member, will finally drive the Yanks and their NATO
lackeys out of South Asia, but it won't happen anytime soon. Adam Garrie at The Duran points
out the "dissonance" in the Outlaw US Empire's policy (which is directly related to the
reasons for Tillerson's ineffectiveness I wrote about yesterday) and well described in this
excerpt:
"Making matters all the more awkward for the US, while the US continues to attempt and
fight the Taliban while treating the group as a kind of terrorist organisation, in reality,
the Taliban are in fact the 'moderate rebel' which the US once spoke about in Syria, even
though in Syria, moderate rebels objectively do not exist. Yet in a country, where there is a
'moderate rebellion', the US continues to take a generally hard-line approach. This attitude
goes against the grain of world opinion including that of Russia, Pakistan and China who each
favour military de-escalation and a peace process that, once certain conditions are met,
would include the more amiable factions of the Taliban."
Still lacking is sufficient rationale for why all this expensive destructive killing behavior
is necessary in this landlocked illiterate tribal country on the other side of the planet.
The old tired explanations didn't work sixteen years ago and they are less worthy now.
> eliminate safe haven
> disallow planning for future 9/11
Of course they can't use the real reasons:
> Prevent "losing" Afghanistan, maintenance of the empire
> Set the example for other countries thinking of slipping the reins (or US reign)
The only long-term interest the US has in Afghanistan is the TAPI pipeline route. Gotta get
those stranded Central Asia oil & gas assets to global markets without going through
Russian or Iranian pipeline routes. Chevron & Exxon just dumped another $37 billion into
the Tengiz. And they're still flogging TAPI:
(2013) In a major development, the four countries that are part of the Turkmenistan,
Afghanistan, Pakistan and India (TAPI) gas pipeline project have selected two US-based
energy giants for financing and operating the multi-billion-dollar pipeline.
So the CIA has been tasked with making this possible. So they'll let one group of ethnic
warlords run all the criminal drug rackets they like, in exchange for their cooperation with
CIA and contractors, as in Laos with the Hmong and the opium cartel in Southeast Asia.
It's a broken record and has been for decades. First it was buy off the Taliban, open
TAPI. Then it was defeat the Taliban, open TAPI. This is just another tired repeat of the
same stupid imperial pet tricks. If you look back at the past decade in Afghanistan, it's
obvious that every single U.S. military action has been focused on controlling the TAPI route
- and this is obvious to the Afghan people, too. So they'll keep blowing up any pipeline
effort. And Exxon and Chevron and the CIA and US military will keep trying to push it
through.
b said:"The campaign will be a boon for the Taliban."
Absolutely true. Historical context proves this over and over again, but, the corporate
empire will have their resources, no matter the cost in blood and treasure.
Ghostship @ 14: good post, nothing like reality to sober up thought.
Until the reserve currency problem is solved by the world, this BS will continue..
regardless of the reason - none of them are valid reasons on the world stage and everyone
knows this, including the contractors, corporations and profiteers off any or all of it..
the usa is a rogue nation that got taken over some time ago.. that much is obvious.. when
will other countries step up and put a stop to this madness?
FFS Ghostship. You are the one sporting Bollocks.. Ask the boys who manage the processing
labs; load the coffins and the routing of said coffins. They are not ghosts but carriers,
like pigeons. Pentagon vs. see aye a.
No? Why is production up since the "occupation"
At the start of the US Afghani war, NYT's cartoon posted the list of empires defeated in
Afghanistan. You may remain in denial, revising history. It's your choice. Some of us are
closer to the facts on the ground - first hand accounts.
Also, within the R S link above, read the related article written Feb 10, 2012 by Michael
Hastings' "The Afghanistan Report the Pentagon Doesn't Want You to Read" – that
Michael Hastings whose Benz, with Michael at the wheel, had a fiery end in a single vehicle
accident on June 18, 2013.
It is the perfect platform to use against all those nations.
As long as they can fly in what they need to supply their proxies and the small numbers of
special forces and some CIA guys, it works like a massive aircraft carrier.
The other thing is the trillions in minerals. Not so much to rape and take, but to deny
them to China.
This is part of containment and strangulation of China and destabilization of CSTO/SCO
nations.
The USA is out of tricks on Afghanistan. It now thinks that a CIA covert operations will be
less deadly on US military.
Pompeo has been pressed by Trump to find something that would make the Taliban small.
History shows that CIA intervention blows back years after in a worse situation.
Neither Trump nor Pompeo will be there to feel the blow back...
Ghostship@14 - The costs of Iraq/Afghanistan are now estimated to be about $4.7 trillion in
constant dollars. Most of that was on credit - we created IOU's and sold them to the highest
bidder. Those $4.7 trillion of IOUs also have interest that will total $7.9 trillion (if
rates remain low), and that's just from IOUs created up until 2013 and payable through 2053.
None of the Syria/Iraq anti-ISIS operations after 2013 nor the cost of Afghanistan since 2013
have been counted in those numbers.
Unmanageable future national debt use to be controlled in the US by inflating it away. The
Fed no longer has the power to do that anymore, and US inflation will just drive more US
businesses and jobs out of the country. We might actually be the first empire to fall
because of (at least in part) Afghanistan.
James @ 21 said:"3 choices - could be 1, 2 or all 3.."
feeding the war machine.
opium
pipelines.
No doubt, there there are a myriad of reasons, all involve they making of profits. And
that, is why some people refer to this current empire as a corporate driven one. But then,
weren't they all?
I very strongly recommend that everyone read Douglas Valentine's newest book, "The CIA as
Organized Crime: How Illegal Operations Corrupt America and the World." More than fulfilling
its ambitious title, this book documents how the goals and tactics of Phoenix have been
deployed in the US, and also makes clear the foundational funding of CIA from narcotics.
It builds on his excellent 2014 book, "The Phoenix Program: America's Use of Terror in
Vietnam" in which he documents Phoenix through the eyes of the CIA, military and private
contractors who designed and implemented it. He won the trust of former CIA Director William
Colby, who gave him access to - and the trust of - these terrorists. So they not only
admitted, but bragged about the program that became the blueprint for the modernization of
COINTELPRO we see today.
Paveway 26
I suspect Syria is the trigger for the fall of the US empire. Russia's entry into Syria
opened many peoples eyes, and countries, to what the US is about. Now, US actions in
Afghanistan, Iraq, and anywhere else will be veiwed with Syria in mind.
Difficult to agree with much that is being said, no one really knows the exact numbers of
vietnamese murdered by amerika during operation phoenix but it was many tens of thousands of
citizens and neither them, their families, nor Vietnamese people as whole regarded this
sociopathic slaughter as some minor or peripheral easily dismissed event.
I think I've already posted here about meeting, getting to know and narrowly avoiding
getting into a business relationship with an operation Phoenix 'manager' in Asia about a
decade after the amerikan defeat. This guy was one of the crummiest blokes I have ever met.
He had a big coke habit at a time when coke wasn't readily available in the country he was
deployed into. In addition to using coke pretty much continuously (AFAIK by way of amerikan
diplomatic pouches) the guy was a bully who regularly used intelligence he accessed via his
station, to bully the local police if they had the gall to try and protect the local children
from his raping. Although mostly this was done by remote control via CIA connections with the
national police who regarded local cops as little more than parking wardens - they actually
performed the most vital role in law enforcement one that amerikan policing methods appear to
have long despised - that is as a community based service trying to protect people within
their local community but that's another story.
How did I learn all this? From the arsehole's alcohol fuelled, coke crazed tirades that is
how.
I was fairly unsurprised by it as what I heard just confirmed what I had already concluded
about Operation Phoenix which up until that time was the subject of hushed horror stories,
but unfortunately my business partner back then had bought into that 1980's greed is good
nonsense and it took entirely too much work to persuade him to get as far away from the deal
as poss - to just gtfo out until the arsehole came unstuck. That happened not long after but
there was no great sense of schadenfreude cos he was just moved to another station still in
South East Asia.
Anyway the point I wanted to make was that altho it is unlikely that cia bosses can be
blind to boozing & snorting any more, the game remains the same, so they will be using
contemporaneously acceptable sociopaths, as always.
The result will be devastating for afghans. As former State Department official Matthew
Hoh puts
it:
"Iraq's campaign in the Euphrates and Tigris River valleys, the Kurdish campaign in western
Syria and the Saudi and UAE campaign against the Houtis in Yemen have been devastating and
vicious assaults on populations, critical infrastructure and housing, that coupled with
nighttime commando raids that terrorize entire villages and neighborhoods, look not to
bring a political settlement, reconciliation or peace, but rather subjugate, along ethnic
and sectarian lines, entire population groups to achieve American political desires in the
Muslim world.
This CIA program of using Afghan militias to conduct commando raids, the vast majority
of which will be used against civilians despite what the CIA states, falls in line with
American plans to escalate the use of air and artillery strikes against the Afghan people
in Taliban-held areas, almost all of whom are Pashtuns.
Again, the purpose of this campaign is not to achieve a political settlement or
reconciliation, but to brutally subjugate and punish the people, mostly rural Pashtuns, who
support the Taliban and will not give in to the corrupt American run government in
Kabul."
As I have said previously here - the failure of English policy in South Africa in 1899 showed
the myth of the British Empire and contributed to the emboldenment of 'a rising ' Germany,
challenging England for 'market' share in 1914 .
It is ironic , in the light of present events that the 1890's U S secret service warned
England not to try military solutions against Paul Kruger at the horn of Africa .
I am sure the US / Anglo interests were warned in similar historical terms at this bloody
juncture in the Middle East .
@31 Not saying your Phoenix guy wasn't the real thing but I've spent quite a bit of time in
SE Asia and Central America, some of it in bars. Just about every American I met was some
kind of CIA agent either active or retired. The Brits tended to be mostly ex-SAS.
Frankly, we're in the last days of the US occupation of Afghanistan. There's nowhere for them
to go now, to improve their position. They're just waiting for the next Taliban attack.
Sooner or later one will succeed.
Because the Taliban decided to suppress production and when the Taliban were kicked out
the Afghan farmers needed to make an income so they went back to doing what they did best,
growing opium poppies and paying off the American-backed warlords. Then the Taliban decided
they needed a source of income so they moved into the opium trade to raise about 60% of their
income. BTW, in the early days of the British occupation of Helmand Province, the price of
wheat was higher than heroin in Afghanistan and many of the farmers asked for help to convert
to growing wheat which never happened because American farmers wouldn't allow it.
At the start of the US Afghani war, NYT's cartoon posted the list of empires defeated in
Afghanistan. You may remain in denial, revising history. It's your choice. Some of us are
closer to the facts on the ground - first hand accounts.
A cartoon??????? Perhaps you could provide a link to back up your claim, but I expect one
from 1979 when the United States started the American War in Afghanistan before the Soviet
Union intervened in defense of modernity over medieval headchoppers aka KSA? Or perhaps you
can name the empires brought low by Afghanistan but don't bother naming the British
Empire.
As for the rest, I quite agree that Afghanistan is a narco-state but the trade is not
controlled by the CIA, the Pentagon , the so-called American Deep State or even the
Rothschilds . At most, the CIA and Pentagon turn a blind eye to its operation, and
HSBC probably launder some of the money
>>>> PavewayIV | Oct 24, 2017 2:19:14 PM | 26
We might actually be the first empire to fall because of (at least in part) Afghanistan.
You could very well be right but I really hope it happens peacefully.
Anyway off to get my weekly dose of opium provided by the state to calm me down a
bit.
Afghanistan is another backyard to Iran. From Kabul, head west and slaughter lots of shia up
to the border of Iran. That's what Israel has requested and that's what the Yankees will do.
On the side they will grossly enrich the military industrial complex and all will be well in
the world.
The kurdistan game has been foiled and the Iraq government will not play ball on the
mindless Israeli hatred for shia and passion for divisive politics. So lets try
Afghanistan.
@33 I forgot to mention....you can usually tell the real ones from their collection of dried
Gook ears. They like to keep a couple in their pockets for show and tell.
Published May 22, 2001. ...gift of $43 million to the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan, the gift, announced last
Thursday by Secretary of State Colin Powell, in addition to other recent aid, makes the
United States the main sponsor of the Taliban...
On reading B's excellent post, I found myself thinking Israel has similar assassination units
operating under the name Sayeret Matkal. No doubt those Israeli units would only be too happy to give training and other support to
the CIA's covert program of assassination units attached to Afghan forces.
How much respect and loyalty the Afghan government will have left among its people when
the CIA starts its program of police state terror in earnest is another question.
There are two US initiatives to counter China's One Belt, One Road (OBOR) strategy which is
budgeted at about a trillion dollars, and way out of anything the US could afford. So the US
has come up with these two plans, neither one showing any promise except as a reason to
continue with the AfPak war. SecState Tillerson is the point man on these initiatives. They
both include a new initiative to work closely with India, and one of them requires ownership
of Afghanistan.
The US has revived two major infrastructure projects in South and Southeast Asia in which
India would be a vital player, the 'New Silk Road" initiative and the Indo-Pacific Economic
Corridor linking South and Southeast Asia. The US New Silk Road Strategy is based upon the
Silk Road Strategy Acts of 1999 and 2006. What port(s) would be used to get to Afghanistan at
the doorstep of the -Stans? The US Silk Road products would have to come through the Iran
port of Chabahar. That would be off limits to the US. India is supposed to be doing some
development there, but it's slow. India has built a highway from Chabahar to Afghanistan. The
nearby Pakistan port of Gwadar is now being developed by China and so is also off limits to
the US. The US has put a major diplomatic and economic effort into the -Stans, including
using USAID funds to train the locals to take over US jobs in conjunction with US companies
in the International Chamber of Commerce, an offshoot of the US Chamber.
The second initiative is the Indo-Pacific Economic Corridor, still at a very nascent
stage. It would focus on the "economic corridors between South and Southeast Asia" which
implies working with India and against China. The US naval challenges in the South China Sea
are probably one example. Tillerson has talked about challenging Chinese financing -- good
luck on that. Tillerson: "It is important that those emerging democracies and economies (in
Asa-Pacific) have alternative means of developing both the infrastructure they need but also
developing the economies. We have watched the activities and actions of others in the region
. . .It is important that those emerging democracies and economies (in Asa-Pacific) have
alternative means of developing both the infrastructure they need but also developing the
economies. We have watched the activities and actions of others in the region" . .
here
Finally, the inclusion of India in Afghan affairs is what drives Pakistan to oppose the US
strategy. It hasn't matter that the US has given Pakistan billions of dollars, Pakistan still
sponsors the Taliban fighters who kill US troops. The current US destruction of Afghanistan
and its people is not a choice of Pakistan, but it's less important to Pakistan than having
an Indian presence on both flanks. Pakistan does not want to become an Indian sandwich. The
two countries are arch-enemies.
"... The best label for these students is "Jacobin," even if it's unlikely many of them would refer to themselves that way. Historically, the Jacobins were a faction in the French Revolution that carried out the Reign of Terror and orchestrated the genocidal suppression of the reactionary Catholic and Monarchist counter-revolutionaries. While the original Jacobins are long gone, the spirit of their revolutionary ideology lingers, seeking nothing less than to end evil itself by sweeping away the status quo and replacing it with a new and just order. ..."
"... The Jacobins would rather embrace revolutionary violence and tear society apart than tolerate injustices and oppression temporarily while changes are made. In the end that leaves everyone, including the oppressed, worse off. ..."
"... Reflections on the Revolution in France ..."
"... why do the pampered Hollywood elite go out and march against Trump? It is surely not because he threatens their way of life or freedom to hit the casting couch ..."
"... The reality is that our country has become so divorced from anything real and meaningful in the lives of most people, particularly sheltered coastal elites and snowflake students, that they are desperately looking for something to gives their lives meaning. It just so happens that the imminent Nazi takeover of the local independent coffee house gives them the lightning rod they need. ..."
"... Are they dangerous? Sure. Are they potentially going to be a long term problem? Maybe, especially if America begins to split apart at the seams. They're not much different from ISIS, outside of a lack of religion. ..."
They prefer fists and fires over words, but to what end?
Recently, the University of California at Berkeley paidapproximately
$600,000 for security so their chapter of Young Americans for Freedom could host
conservative pundit Ben Shapiro without riots breaking out. Similarly, Reed College was forced
to
cancel the first meeting of its core "Introduction to Humanities: Ancient Greece and the
Mediterranean" class -- which has been mandatory for freshman since 1943 -- after students
objected that the course was Eurocentric and racist, and disrupted its classes. These protests
are increasingly common on college campuses. They're almost always carried out in the name of
denying alleged oppressors a platform to spew "hateful" rhetoric.
But
it's a recent incident at the College of William and Mary that provides the best window
into the disruptors' way of thinking. A speech by a representative of the ACLU was interrupted
by protesters who objected to the group's defense of First Amendment rights for everyone --
including white supremacists -- and demanded zero tolerance for views they deem unacceptable.
If one sorts through their various chants and screams, it becomes readily apparent why they
reject free speech: they view it as an inherently conservative institution that stands in the
way of "progress."
The best label for these students is "Jacobin," even if it's unlikely many of them would
refer to themselves that way. Historically, the Jacobins were a faction in the French
Revolution that carried out the Reign of Terror and orchestrated the genocidal suppression of
the reactionary Catholic and Monarchist counter-revolutionaries. While the original Jacobins
are long gone, the spirit of their revolutionary ideology lingers, seeking nothing less than to
end evil itself by sweeping away the status quo and replacing it with a new and just order.
Campus Jacobins, like many of their fellow students, see ills like racism, sexism, and
bigotry, and desire to end them. However, to the Jacobin mind, anything short of immediate and
radical reform is tantamount to colluding with evil. With that in mind, it becomes clear why
these students are opposed to free speech and open inquiry: trying to fix things by working out
differences through words is a very slow process that allows injustices to continue existing in
the short term. In the words of one student, trying to right wrongs through debate merely "
tricks you into thinking social problems can be resolved if only people tolerate their
oppression just a LITTLE while longer ."
The Jacobins would rather embrace revolutionary violence and tear society apart than
tolerate injustices and oppression temporarily while changes are made. In the end that leaves
everyone, including the oppressed, worse off. Slow positive change is much preferable to rapid
and revolutionary upheaval. As Edmund Burke, the 18th-century political theorist and staunch
opponent of the French Revolution, said in his Reflections on the Revolution in France
, "mind must conspire with mind. Time is required to produce that union of minds which alone
can produce all the good we aim at. Our patience will achieve more than our force."
Burke argues for caution, reflection, and restraint when seeking to make necessary changes,
rather than revolutions that lead to more problems that before. This requires humility and the
acknowledgement that one might not possess the ultimate answer to a problem. The open and free
exchange of ideas is the best way of accomplishing such a task because it allows the
aggregation of knowledge and perspectives to arrive together at a general conclusion, rather
than violently enforcing one conclusion on everyone. Campus Jacobins have no patience for that;
despite their youth and inexperience, they've concluded that they already possess all the
information they need, and therefore there is no need for discussion, only compliance with
their demands.
Unfortunately, the oft unsaid -- and perhaps unrealized -- implication of the rejection of
free expression is that force and violence are the only alternatives to bring about change. If
one is so supremely self-assured in one's conclusions that one sees those who hold differing
views not as acting in good faith but rather perpetrating evil, then it follows that dissent
should not be reasoned or compromised with but rather eradicated. When everyone does not carry
out their demands merely because they demand them, the morally absolute are left only with
upheaval.
Hopefully, the majority of college students see the destructive path that the campus
Jacobins are heading down and choose to defend free speech and open inquiry, which has provided
the basis for so much social harmony, despite our differences. If not, the future of civil
coexistence looks bleak.
Zachary Yost is a Young Voices Advocate who lives
and works in the Pittsburgh area. Hide 20 comments 20 Responses to Neo-Jacobins
Demand Zero Tolerance, Or Else
I have a relative who marches with these clowns, or at least is a fellow traveler. He
lamented a few years ago that there was no great protest movement like the sixties to take
part in, so he became a campus agitator himself.
Likewise, why do the pampered Hollywood elite go out and march against Trump? It is surely
not because he threatens their way of life or freedom to hit the casting couch.
The reality is that our country has become so divorced from anything real and meaningful
in the lives of most people, particularly sheltered coastal elites and snowflake students,
that they are desperately looking for something to gives their lives meaning. It just so
happens that the imminent Nazi takeover of the local independent coffee house gives them the
lightning rod they need.
Are they dangerous? Sure. Are they potentially going to be a long term problem? Maybe,
especially if America begins to split apart at the seams. They're not much different from
ISIS, outside of a lack of religion. I don't think they are going to effect the widespread
social change they want, other than hastening the collapse of the higher ed bubble as parents
begin to hesitate sending their kids to these schools.
The German National Socialists were just like the Jacobins. They had different ideas about
what they wanted but their methods were identical. We need to be much less "understanding" of
the current crop of fascists.
The Jacobins would rather embrace revolutionary violence and tear society apart than
tolerate injustices and oppression temporarily while changes are made.
Unlike the original Jacobins, who were a product rather than the progenitors of a
revolution that followed nobody's plan or principles, these "infantile disorders" as Lenin
would have called them are puffed up fish in a very small pond. They have no mass base to
support any kind of upsurge, peaceful or violent, and they wouldn't last long outside their
campus cocoons. They wouldn't last long there if, e.g., Reed College would simply expel any
student who disrupted a scheduled class. Think John Reed would have a problem with that?
Joseph Stalin wouldn't.
I take it then that you reject the violence of the founder's revolution.
Which i why i take the poition that the founders were not conservatives or conservatives
who temporarily threw off reason . . . a temporary losing of their rational selves.
I've dealt with a lot of progressives and radicals over the years who dismissed the need for
long-term thinking and planning and demanded immediate action and immediate responses from
those in power, and I've often been critical of such thinking and of activism that seemed to
be more about you making yourself feel useful than about really changing things. I can't say
I've been right every time, but overall, I'm comfortable with that perspective.
However, Mr. Yost, you make some very broad generalizations when you say that
"revolutionary violence In the end leaves everyone, including the oppressed, worse off."
Revolutionary violence contributed to the raising up of the French peasantry that left it, as
a class, far better off than it was under the Old Regime. The French Revolution was also
defended by mobilized masses who defeated virtually every army that the European monarchies
threw at them, and inspired the eventual replacement of monarchy by republican forms of
governance, which begs the question whether many Frenchmen thought that revolutionary
violence had been, on balance, worse for everyone.
I could make similar arguments about the American, Russian and Chinese revolutions –
as horrible as the Great Chinese Famine of 1959-61 was, Maoist China still increased
lifespans and improved overall quality of life more than India did in the same period –
but let's move on to your argument that "Slow positive change is much preferable to rapid and
revolutionary upheaval."
Generally speaking, I would agree with you, but if the change is snail-paced or virtually
non-existent, and if the powers that be have proved resistant to Edmund Burke's "union of
minds," then patience is just a fool's game. I've had friends argue that chattel slavery
would have died out within two or three generations of the American Civil War, so the
enormous waste of the war was unjustifiable. Yet the slaveowners were working actively
against that fate, expanding the practice to Texas and looking to extend it further west and
south, including into a conquered Mexico. Nor were they afraid of violating free speech
rights or bending the Constitution and laws of the Republic to their benefit.
I, too, appreciate caution, reflection, restraint and humility, and the open and free
exchange of ideas, but I also recognize that consensus does not always happen, no matter the
quality of the debate and the mutual regard of the debaters. Most orthodox Trotskyists I know
do not support shouting down or "no platforming" political opponents, even ones we may
consider racist, homophobic or just bat-sh*t crazy (Ann Coulter, come on down!). But
right-wingers with a history or current practice of violence are another story, which is why
you'll see Trotskyists and other Marxists organizing for a MASS response when the Klan or the
neo-Nazis are in town, ready and willing to help the masses drive them from the streets.
My problem with so many young "social justice warriors" today, and their mentors, is that
they refuse to make the necessary distinctions between the ACLU – which has defended
us, too, you know! – Ann Coulter and the KKK. You need to deepen your ability to make
distinctions, too, I think.
By the way, the article on Reed College was very interesting and actually somewhat
heartening. Thank you for the link.
By the way, I read your Op-Ed piece at the Washington Examiner about unions. Sigh.
Using seniority as the basis for awarding shifts or making seniority-based pay increases
is not the perfect system, but it is the least imperfect one (that's usually an argument that
appeals to conservatives, by the way). Along with across-the-board and cost-of-living wage
increases, seniority pay can stabilize a workforce, reducing wasteful turnover and staff
churning, and leave a better trained and more competent and knowledgeable staff in place. In
an ideal world, merit pay would actually reward merit, but in the real world, it usually
rewards friends and sycophants. And while any union shop steward can tell you tales of
employees they wish they didn't have to defend and who should lose their jobs, due process
means that the bosses have rules to follow when they want to fire anyone, including the
excellent employee who somehow got under someone's bonnet.
You might also want to brush up on your understanding of "basic economics" as many studies
have called into doubt the idea that increased minimum wages decrease job creation, even in
those municipalities competing directly with lower minimum wage neighbors. And at some point,
yielding to captial's demand for ever lower wages becomes a zero sum game and demands
restrictions on capital's power, not on labor's price.
Moving on, if you think workers in highly skilled jobs or unions do not have to fear
technological unemployment, I suggest you read about the automation of brokerage jobs on Wall
Street and Amazon's on-going effort to automate human responses to language, grammar and
thought.
Back to your appeal to "basic economics" – a favorite trope of libertarians, by the
way, as if there are not different schools of economic thought, including within capitalist
economic theory – if productivity and not unions were responsible for increased wages,
why have wages fallen or remained stagnant for the last nearly 40 years even though
productivity has gone through the roof while unions have been busted and capital
deregulated?
The naivete of you arguing that "learning more skills and gaining workplace experience" is
the best way to secure one's future might be charming in a post-Great Recession "gig" economy
if you weren't also so insulting as to say that supporting unions means that you "are
comfortable with stasis, enjoy having underachieving colleagues, and are largely lacking in
ambition." My ambition is for workers, in general, to have a weekend, an annual vacation,
paid sick time and personal time off, paid parental leave and wages enough to afford a home,
car (and private school if I so choose), which would be a radical break from the employment
trends of the last 40 years (so no stasis there).
And if all that and due process rights and solidarity come at the cost of living with the
occasional underachieving colleague, so be it. It's not as if the ranks of management aren't
filled with incompetents, or that being non-union ensures that all of one's colleagues will
know what the hell they are doing. But I'll take the trade-offs that come with unions, thank
you, and so would most American workers if they didn't face constant anti-union harassment or
the threat of closing down the workplace and losing their jobs if they vote to unionize.
Thinking that we are okay because there is a more tolerant majority is not true. The only
way that there will be a balance is if members of the Right exert equal or greater
intolerance than the Left.
The irony of the American politics is that the Right is always caricatured as "intolerant"
and "bigots" when in fact they are clearly more tolerant and less bigoted than the Left,
hence the increasing Leftward turn towards pervasive political correctness.
Further, these folks aren't Jacobins, they are revolutionary throat-slitting Communists in
the image of Stalin and Lenin. If they win, there will be mass executions, gulags, and
unimaginable state repression.
Reading about our privileged "radicals," I'm reminded of Morgan Earp's remark in Tombstone:
"They're bugs, Wyatt. There's no live-and-let-live with bugs." It's sad that college
administrators are so spineless.
I take it then that you reject the violence of the founder's revolution.
EliteCommInc:
"Which i why i take the poition that the founders were not conservatives or conservatives who
temporarily threw off reason . . . a temporary losing of their rational selves.
s you say according to Edmund Burke,
" . . . mind meets mind . . .""
They actually were conservatives/traditionalists. If you know history from the beginning
of English settlement in America until and through the War for Independence, it is clear that
they are. By the time of the Revolution, there were different American ways. Also, the
Revolution was sparked by a Constitutional crisis (one of the British constitution).
Parliament and King were subverting the British constitution, and interfering in the American
ways that had developed since 1607. As M.E. Bradford said, it was a revolution prevented, not
made. Essentially, it was a "revolution" to preserve the existing social and political ways
of the different colonies.
"They wouldn't last long if . . . Reed College would simply expel any student who disrupted a
scheduled class. Think John Reed would have a problem with that? Joseph Stalin wouldn't."
I had to check to see whether Reed College could actually have been named for John Reed,
but it wasn't, and I don't think Mr Jenkins was implying that it was. But that would have
been wonderful irony along the lines of chickens coming home to roost. Now, William and Mary,
on the other hand. . . . Name a college after illegitimate usurpers, and see what eventually
happens!
Darn, Colonel Bogey, we've agree twice this month, and now you go trashing the Glorious
Revolution. Very much in character though.
I believe that John Reed was related to the family that gave Reed College its name, but
no, he wasn't a founder nor was it named after him.
Further, these folks aren't Jacobins, they are revolutionary throat-slitting Communists
in the image of Stalin and Lenin.
Most of them are anarchists, and not particularly ideological anarchists at that. They
have some commonality with the Red Guards in China -- which the communist party eventually
had to forcibly dislodge from their roost on the campuseses, but they lack the administrative
ability to maintain a Guglag. And they also lack a mass base.
This piece gives Antifa way too much credit for sincerity. Antifa never attack the rallies of
Neocon politicians, or those of Democrat liberal interventionists – even though these
folks' wars kill more non-whites in a day than the the various Klan groups managed in 150
years. And they never attack the meetings of the Israel first politicians in both parties
– even though Israel is an open and
unabashed ethnostate.
It's quite clear therefore that Antifa are not an anti-racist group, but rather the street
enforcers of the global super-capitalist class – whatever their ludicrous jargon ridden
manifestoes may claim to the contrary
Leaving aside the delicious irony that a self-described anti-authoritarian and anti-racist
movement is itself explicitly authoritarian and racist, I'd be remiss if I didn't point out
that Professor Robert Reich, formerly of the Clinton Administration and strong supporter of
Bernie Sanders, considers this whole pheonomenon, all of it, to be nothing more than a
right-wing false flag operation:
"The reality is that our country has become so divorced from anything real and meaningful
in the lives of most people, particularly sheltered coastal elites and snowflake students,
that they are desperately looking for something to gives their lives meaning."
True enough. Sadly, there's a conservative version of this which is just as sick,
un-American, and divorced from reality. And you can find it in certain places in the
"heartland". For example, this law in Texas that you can't get hurricane relief unless you
sign a document swearing not to (wait for it) boycott Israel . Whoever thought that
one up ought to be deported to Tel Aviv and have their US citizenship revoked.
We all need to stop and take a breath and remember back to when we were in school. As a
member of the so-called Boomer generation I can well recall the protests over everything from
civil rights, the war in Vietnam, and whether somebody with socialist/communist sympathies
should be allowed to speak on campus and how parents, the press and politicians of that time
were sure that all these protests a sure sign that America was going to hell in a hand
basket. Well guess what? The vast majority of those young Boomers who directly or indirectly
supported all those protests have become the biggest defenders of the status quo and now
bemoan that their children or grand children are protesting against the status quo.
Instead of bemoaning that some of the protesters consider a course on democracy to be
euro-centric as a sign of the decay of youth perhaps the better response would be to admit
that yes the course is euro-centric but ask for examples of any other culture that has made
any significant contribution to our understanding of what democracy means today. Just as the
concept of the zero in math was developed by Arab mathematicians, many cultures have made
contributions to society but in the case of democracy, for better or worse it was European
thinkers who developed the concept of democracy.
Instead of worrying what the demands of today's protesters mean for the future we would be
wise to remember that in youth all issues have hard edges and that just like we Boomers
today's protesters will become the next generation to face the protests of their children and
they will be just a perplexed by some of their protests.
cda2nd, you speak well for the left. As a Burkean conservative, I'm glad to hear your voice.
While we likely disagree on solutions, we likely agree on the problems.
The real reason for all this craziness is our federal reserve. It has allowed this rampant
crony capitalism that keeps the government from reining in monopolies. It allows governments
and corporations to live beyond their means while holding the average Joe down. Not having
real money has kept wages stagnant while financial assets and political contributions have
continued to rise. It is the Feds fault. They have insulated us from a realistic risk-reward
environment.
In order to make the world safer, first you need to make it more dangerous.
We try to keep everyone safe by eliminating the consequences of unsafe behavior. Better
for there to be consequences for acting unsafely. In Pittsburgh for instance, Mr Yost will
recognize, people don't text and drive. It's too dangerous; they might die.
Yes, one can argue that McCain set in motion the series of events that put Trump in the
White House by selecting
Sarah Palin as his running mate in August 2008 . Of course, the counterargument is that
McCain basically had no choice, that he was under severe pressure to throw a bone to the
wingnuts, that he was held hostage by the far right. In other words, it wasn't Palin per
se that caused McCain to lose the 2008 presidential election, but the right-wing forces that
intimidated McCain into making such a choice .
Yes, one can argue that McCain set in motion the series of events that put Trump in the
White House by selecting
Sarah Palin as his running mate in August 2008 . Of course, the counterargument is that
McCain basically had no choice, that he was under severe pressure to throw a bone to the
wingnuts, that he was held hostage by the far right. In other words, it wasn't Palin per
se that caused McCain to lose the 2008 presidential election, but the right-wing forces that
intimidated McCain into making such a choice .
"... Socialism a century ago seemed to be the wave of the future. There were various schools of socialism, but the common ideal was to guarantee support for basic needs, and for state ownership to free society from landlords, predatory banking and monopolies. In the West these hopes are now much further away than they seemed in 1917. Land and natural resources, basic infrastructure monopolies, health care and pensions have been increasingly privatized and financialized. ..."
"... Instead of Germany and other advanced industrial nations leading the way as expected, Russia's October 1917 Revolution made the greatest leap. But the failures of Stalinism became an argument against Marxism – guilt-by-association with Soviet bureaucracy. European parties calling themselves socialist or "labour" since the 1980s have supported neoliberal policies that are the opposite of socialist policy. Russia itself has chosen neoliberalism. ..."
"... Few socialist parties or theorists have dealt with the rise of the Finance, Insurance and Real Estate (FIRE) sector that now accounts for most increase in wealth. Instead of evolving into socialism, Western capitalism is being overcome by predatory finance and rent extraction imposing debt deflation and austerity on industry as well as on labor. ..."
"... Failure of Western economies to recover from the 2008 crisis is leading to a revival of Marxist advocacy. The alternative to socialist reform is stagnation and a relapse into neofeudal financial and monopoly privileges. ..."
"... Russia's Revolution ended after 74 years, leaving the Soviet Union so dispirited that it ended in collapse. The contrast between the low living standards of Russian consumers and what seemed to be Western success became increasingly pronounced. ..."
"... When the Soviet Union dissolved itself in 1991, its leaders took neoliberal advice from its major adversary, the United States, in hope that this would set it on a capitalist road to prosperity. But turning its economies into viable industrial powers was the last thing U.S. advisors wanted to teach Russia. [3] Their aim was to turn it and its former satellites into raw-materials colonies of Wall Street, the City of London and Frankfurt – victims of capitalism, not rival producers. ..."
"... It should not be surprising that banks became the economy's main control centers, as in the West's bubble economies. Instead of the promised prosperity, a new class of billionaires was endowed, headed by the notorious Seven Bankers who appropriated the formerly state-owned oil and gas, nickel and platinum, electricity and aluminum production, as well as real estate, electric utilities and other public enterprises. It was the largest giveaway in modern history. The Soviet nomenklatura became the new lords in outright seizure that Marx would have characterized as "primitive accumulation." ..."
"... The American advisors knew the obvious: Russian savings had been wiped out by the polst-1991 hyperinflation, so the new owners could only cash out by selling shares to Western buyers. The kleptocrats cashed out as expected, by dumping their shares to foreign investors so quickly at such giveaway prices that Russia's stock market became the world's top performer for Western investors in 1994-96. ..."
"... The basic neoliberal idea of prosperity is financial gain based on turning rent extraction into a flow of interest payments by buyers-on-credit. This policy favors financial engineering over industrial investment, reversing the Progressive Era's industrial capitalism that Marx anticipated would be a transition stage leading to socialism. Russia adopted the West's anti-socialist rollback toward neofeudalism. ..."
"... Russia joined the dollar standard. Buying Treasury bonds meant lending to the U.S. Government. The central bank bought U.S. Treasury securities to back its domestic currency. These purchases helped finance Cold War escalation in countries around Russia. Russia paid 100% annual interest in the mid-1990s, creating a bonanza for U.S. investors. On balance, this neoliberal policy lay Russia's economy open to looting by financial institutions seeking natural resource rent, land rent and monopoly rent for themselves. Instead of targeting such rents, Russia imposed taxes mainly on labor via a regressive flat tax – too right wing to be adopted even in the United States! ..."
"... Theories of Surplus Value ..."
"... This Western financial advice became a textbook example of how not ..."
"... By 1991, when the Soviet Union's leaders decided to take the "Western" path, the Western economies themselves were reaching a terminus. Appearances were saved by a wave of unproductive credit and debt creation to sustain the bubble economy that finally crashed in 2008. ..."
"... The same debt overgrowth occurred in the industrial sector, where bank and bondholder credit since the 1980s has been increasingly for corporate takeovers and raiding, stock buybacks and even to pay dividends. Industry has become a vehicle for financial engineering to increase stock prices and strip assets, not to increase the means of production. The result is that capitalism has fallen prey to resurgent rentier ..."
"... Theories of Surplus Value ..."
"... American Journal of Economics and Sociology ..."
"... Super-Imperialism ..."
"... The Great Credit Crash ..."
"... The Contradictions of Austerity: The Socio-Economic Costs of the Neoliberal Baltic Model ..."
Socialism
a century ago seemed to be the wave of the future. There were various schools of socialism, but
the common ideal was to guarantee support for basic needs, and for state ownership to free
society from landlords, predatory banking and monopolies. In the West these hopes are now much
further away than they seemed in 1917. Land and natural resources, basic infrastructure
monopolies, health care and pensions have been increasingly privatized and financialized.
Instead of Germany and other advanced industrial nations leading the way as expected,
Russia's October 1917 Revolution made the greatest leap. But the failures of Stalinism became
an argument against Marxism – guilt-by-association with Soviet bureaucracy. European
parties calling themselves socialist or "labour" since the 1980s have supported neoliberal
policies that are the opposite of socialist policy. Russia itself has chosen
neoliberalism.
Few socialist parties or theorists have dealt with the rise of the Finance, Insurance
and Real Estate (FIRE) sector that now accounts for most increase in wealth. Instead of
evolving into socialism, Western capitalism is being overcome by predatory finance and rent
extraction imposing debt deflation and austerity on industry as well as on labor.
Failure of Western economies to recover from the 2008 crisis is leading to a revival of
Marxist advocacy. The alternative to socialist reform is stagnation and a relapse into
neofeudal financial and monopoly privileges.
Socialism flowered in the 19 th century as a program to reform capitalism by
raising labor's status and living standards, with a widening range of public services and
subsidies to make economies more efficient. Reformers hoped to promote this evolution by
extending voting rights to the working population at large.
Ricardo's discussion of land rent led early industrial capitalists to oppose Europe's
hereditary landlord class. But despite democratic political reform, the world has un-taxed land
rent and is still grappling with the problem of how to keep housing affordable instead of
siphoning off rent to a landlord class – more recently transmuted into mortgage interest
paid to banks by owners who pledge the rental value for loans. Most bank lending today is for
real estate mortgages. The effect is to bid up land prices toward the point where the entire
rental value is paid as interest. This threatens to be a problem for socialist China as well as
for capitalist economies.
Landlords, banks and the cost of living
The classical economists sought to make their nations more competitive by keeping down the
price of labor so as to undersell competitors. The main cost of living was food; today it is
housing. Housing and food prices are determined not by the material costs of production, but by
land rent – the rising market price for land.
In the era of the French Physiocrats, Adam Smith, David Ricardo and John Stuart Mill, this
land rent accrued to Europe's hereditary landlord class. Today, the land's rent is paid mainly
to bankers – because families need credit to buy a home. Or, if they rent, their
landlords use the property rent to pay interest to the banks.
The land issue was central to Russia's October Revolution, as it was for European politics.
But the discussion of land rent and taxation has lost much of the clarity (and passion) that
guided the 19 th century when it dominated classical political economy, liberal
reform, and indeed most early socialist politics.
In 1909/10 Britain experienced a constitutional crisis when the democratically elected House
of Commons passed a land tax, only to be overridden by the House of Lords, governed by the old
aristocracy. The ensuing political crisis was settled by a rule that the Lords never again
could overrule a revenue bill passed by the House of Commons. But that was Britain's last real
opportunity to tax away the economic rents of landlords and natural resource owners. The
liberal drive to tax the land faltered, and never again would gain serious chance of
passage.
The democratization of home ownership during the 20 th century led middle-class
voters to oppose property taxes – including taxes on commercial sites and natural
resources. Tax policy in general has become pro- rentier and anti-labor – the
regressive opposite of 19 th -century liberalism as developed by "Ricardian
socialists" such as John Stuart Mill and Henry George. Today's economic individualism has lost
the early class consciousness that sought to tax economic rent and socialize banking.
The United States enacted an income tax in 1913, falling mainly on rentier income,
not on the working population. Capital gains (the main source of rising wealth today) were
taxed at the same rate as other income. But the vested interests campaigned to reverse this
spirit, slashing capital gains taxes and making tax policy much more regressive. The result is
that today, most wealth is not gained by capital investment for profits. Instead, asset-price
gains have been financed by a debt-leveraged inflation of real estate, stock and bond
prices.
Many middle-class families owe most of their net worth to rising prices for their homes. But
by far the lion's share of the real estate and stock market gains have accrued to just One
Percent of the population. And while bank credit has enabled buyers to bid up housing prices,
the price has been to siphon off more and more of labor's income to pay mortgage loans or
rents. As a result, finance today is what is has been throughout history: the main force
polarizing economies between debtors and creditors.
Global oil and mining companies created flags of convenience to make themselves tax-exempt,
by pretending to make all their production and distribution profits in tax-free trans-shipping
havens such as Liberia and Panama (which use U.S. dollars instead of being real countries with
their own currency and tax systems).
The fact that absentee-owned real estate and natural resource extraction are practically
free of income taxation shows that democratic political reform has not been a sufficient
guarantee of socialist success. Tax rules and public regulation have been captured by the
rentiers , dashing the hopes of 19 th -century classical reformers that
progressive tax policy would produce the same effect as direct public ownership of the means of
production, while leaving "the market" as an individualistic alternative to government
regulation or planning.
In practice, planning and resource allocation has passed to the banking and financial
sector. Many observers hoped that this would evolve into state planning, or at least work in
conjunction with it as in Germany. But liberal "Ricardian socialist" failed, as did
German-style "state socialism" publicly financing transportation and other basic
infrastructure, pensions and similar "external" costs of living and doing business that
industrial employers otherwise would have to bear. Attempts at "half-way" socialism via tax and
regulatory policy against monopolies and banking have faltered repeatedly. As long as major
economic or political choke points are left in private hands, they will serve s springboards to
subvert real reform policies. That is why Marxist policy went beyond these would-be socialist
reforms.
To Marx, the historical task of capitalism was to prepare the way for socializing the means
of production by clearing away feudalism's legacy: a hereditary landlord class, predatory
banking, and the monopolies that financial interests had pried away from governments. The path
of least resistance was to start by socializing land and basic infrastructure. This drive to
free society from economic overhead in the form of hereditary privilege and unearned income by
the "idle rich" was a step toward socialist management, by minimizing rentier costs ("
faux frais of production").
Proto-socialist reform in the leading industrial nations
Marx was by no means alone in expecting a widening range of economic activity to be shifted
away from the market to the public sector. State socialism (basically, state-sponsored
capitalism) subsidized pensions and public health, education and other basic needs so as to
save industrial enterprise from having to bear these charges.
In the United States, Simon Patten – the first economics professor at the new Wharton
business school at the University of Pennsylvania – defined public infrastructure as a
"fourth factor of production" alongside labor, capital and land. The aim of public investment
was not to make a profit, but to lower the cost of living and doing business so as to minimize
industry's wage and infrastructure bill. Public health, pensions, roads and other
transportation, education, research and development were subsidized or provided freely.
[1]
The most advanced industrial economies seemed to be evolving toward some kind of socialism.
Marx shared a Progressive Era optimism that expected industrial capitalism to evolve in the
most logical way, by freeing economies from the landlordship and predatory banking inherited
from Europe's feudal era. That was above all the classical reform program of Adam Smith, John
Stuart Mill and the intellectual mainstream.
But the aftermath of World War I saw the vested interests mount a Counter-Enlightenment.
Banking throughout the Western world find its major market in real estate mortgage lending,
natural resource extraction and monopolies – the Anglo-American model, not that of German
industrial banking that had seemed to be capitalism's financial future in the late 19
th century.
Since 1980 the Western nations have reversed early optimistic hopes to reform market
economies. Instead of the classical dream of taxing away the land rent that had supported
Europe's hereditary landed aristocracies, commercial real estate has been made virtually exempt
from income taxation. Absentee owners avoid tax by a combination of tax-deductibility for
interest payments (as if it is a necessary business expense) and fictitious over-depreciation
tax credits that pretend that buildings and properties are losing value even when market prices
for their land are soaring.
These tax breaks have made real estate the largest bank customers. The effect has been to
financialize property rents into interest payments. Likewise in the industrial sphere,
regulatory capture by lobbyists for the major monopolies has disabled public attempts to keep
prices in line with the cost of production and prevent fraud by breaking up or regulating
monopolies. These too have become major bank clients.
The beginning and end of Russian socialism
Most Marxists expected socialism to emerge first in Germany as the most advanced capitalist
economy. After its October 1917 Revolution, Russia seemed to jump ahead, the first nation to
free itself from rent and interest charges inherited from feudalism. By taking land, industry
and finance into state control, Soviet Russia's October Revolution created an economy without
private landlords and bankers. Russian urban planning did not take account of the natural
rent-of-location, nor did it charge for the use of money created by the state bank. The state
bank created money and credit, so there was no need to rely on a wealthy financial class. And
as property owner, the state did not seek to charge land rent or monopoly rent.
By freeing society from the post-feudal rentier class of landlords, bankers and
predatory finance, the Soviet regime was much more than a bourgeois revolution. The
Revolution's early leaders sought to free wage labor from exploitation by taking industry into
the public domain. State companies provided labor with free lunches, education, sports and
leisure activity, and modest housing.
Agricultural land tenure was a problem. Given its centralized marketing role, the state
could have reallocated land to build up a rural peasantry and helped it invest in
modernization. The state could have manipulated crop prices to siphon off agricultural gains,
much like Cargill does in the United States. Instead, Stalin's collectivization program waged a
war against the kulaks. This political shock led to famine. It was a steep price to pay for
avoiding rent was paid to a landlord class or peasantry.
Marx had said nothing about the military dimension of the transition from progressive
industrial capitalism to socialism. But Russia's Revolution – like that of China three
decades later – showed that the attempt to create a socialist economy had a military
dimension that absorbed the lion's share of the economic surplus. Military aggression by a half
dozen leading capitalist nations seeking to overthrow the Bolshevik government obliged Russia
to adopt War Communism. For over half a century the Soviet Union devoted most of capital to
military investment, not provide sufficient housing or consumer goods for its population beyond
spreading literacy, education and public health.
Despite this military overhead, the fact that the Soviet Union was free of a
rentier class of financiers and absentee landlords should have made the Soviet Union
the world's most competitive low-cost economy in theory. In 1945 the United States certainly
feared the efficiency of socialist planning. Its diplomats opposed Soviet membership on the
ground that state enterprise and pricing would enable such economies to undersell capitalist
countries.
[2] So socialist countries were kept out of the IMF, World Bank and the planned World Trade
Organization, explicitly on the ground that they were free of land rent, natural resource rent,
monopoly rent and financial charges.
Capitalist economies are now privatizing and financializing their basic needs and
infrastructure. Every activity is being forced into "the market," at prices that need to cover
not only the technological costs of production but also interest, ancillary financial fees and
pension set-asides. The cost of living and doing business is further privatized as financial
interests pry roads, health care, water, communications and other public utilities away from
the public sector, while driving housing and commercial real estate deeply into debt.
The Cold War has shown that capitalist countries plan to continue fighting socialist
economies, forcing them to militarize in self-defense. The resulting oppressive military
overhead is then blamed on socialist bureaucracy and inefficiency.
The collapse of Russian Stalinism
Russia's Revolution ended after 74 years, leaving the Soviet Union so dispirited that it
ended in collapse. The contrast between the low living standards of Russian consumers and what
seemed to be Western success became increasingly pronounced. In contrast to China's housing
construction policy, the Soviet regime insisted that families double up. Clothing and other
consumer goods had only drab designs, needlessly suppressing variety. To cap matters, public
opposition to Russia's military personnel losses in Afghanistan caused popular resentment.
When the Soviet Union dissolved itself in 1991, its leaders took neoliberal advice from its
major adversary, the United States, in hope that this would set it on a capitalist road to
prosperity. But turning its economies into viable industrial powers was the last thing U.S.
advisors wanted to teach Russia.
[3] Their aim was to turn it and its former satellites into raw-materials colonies of Wall
Street, the City of London and Frankfurt – victims of capitalism, not rival
producers.
Russia has gone to the furthest anti-socialist extreme by adopting a flat tax that fails to
distinguish wages and profits of labor and capital from unearned rental income. By also having
to pay a value-added tax (VAT) on consumer goods (with no tax on trading in financial assets),
labor is taxed much higher than the wealthy.
Most Western "wealth creation" is achieved by debt-leveraged price increases for real
estate, stocks and bonds, and by privatizing the public domain. The latter process has gained
momentum since the early 1980s in Margaret Thatcher's Britain and Ronald Reagan's America,
followed by Third World countries acting under World Bank tutelage. The pretense is that
privatization will maximize technological efficiency and prosperity for the economy as a
whole.
Following this advice, Russian leaders agreed that the major sources of economic rent
– natural resource wealth, real estate and state companies – should be transferred
to private owners (often to themselves and associated insiders). The "magic of the marketplace"
was supposed to lead the new owners to make the economy more efficient as a byproduct of making
money in the quickest way possible.
Each Russian worker got a "voucher" worth about $25. Most were sold off simply to obtain
money to buy food and other needs as many companies stopped paying wages. Russia had wiped out
domestic savings with hyperinflation after 1991.
It should not be surprising that banks became the economy's main control centers, as in the
West's bubble economies. Instead of the promised prosperity, a new class of billionaires was
endowed, headed by the notorious Seven Bankers who appropriated the formerly state-owned oil
and gas, nickel and platinum, electricity and aluminum production, as well as real estate,
electric utilities and other public enterprises. It was the largest giveaway in modern history.
The Soviet nomenklatura became the new lords in outright seizure that Marx would have
characterized as "primitive accumulation."
The American advisors knew the obvious: Russian savings had been wiped out by the polst-1991
hyperinflation, so the new owners could only cash out by selling shares to Western buyers. The
kleptocrats cashed out as expected, by dumping their shares to foreign investors so quickly at
such giveaway prices that Russia's stock market became the world's top performer for Western
investors in 1994-96.
The Russian oligarchs kept most of their sales proceeds abroad in British and other banks,
beyond the reach of Russian authorities to recapture. Much was spent on London real estate,
sports teams and luxury estates in the world's flight-capital havens. Almost none was invested
in Russian industry. Wage arrears often mounted up half a year behind. Living standards shrank,
along with the population as birth rates plunged throughout the former Soviet economies.
Skilled labor emigrated.
The basic neoliberal idea of prosperity is financial gain based on turning rent extraction
into a flow of interest payments by buyers-on-credit. This policy favors financial engineering
over industrial investment, reversing the Progressive Era's industrial capitalism that Marx
anticipated would be a transition stage leading to socialism. Russia adopted the West's
anti-socialist rollback toward neofeudalism.
Russian officials failed to understand the State Theory of money that is the basis of Modern
Monetary Theory: States can create their own money, giving it value by accepting it in payment
of taxes. The Soviet government financed its economy for seventy years without any need to back
the ruble with foreign exchange. But Russia's central bank was persuaded that "sound money"
required it to back its domestic ruble currency with U.S. Treasury bonds in order to prevent
inflation. Russian leaders did not realize that dollars or other foreign currencies were only
needed to finance balance-of-payments deficits, not domestic spending except as this money was
spent on imports.
Russia joined the dollar standard. Buying Treasury bonds meant lending to the U.S.
Government. The central bank bought U.S. Treasury securities to back its domestic currency.
These purchases helped finance Cold War escalation in countries around Russia. Russia paid 100%
annual interest in the mid-1990s, creating a bonanza for U.S. investors. On balance, this
neoliberal policy lay Russia's economy open to looting by financial institutions seeking
natural resource rent, land rent and monopoly rent for themselves. Instead of targeting such
rents, Russia imposed taxes mainly on labor via a regressive flat tax – too right wing to
be adopted even in the United States!
When the Soviet Union dissolved itself, its officials showed no apprehension of how quickly
their economies would be de-industrialized as a result of accepting U.S. advice to privatize
state enterprises, natural resources and basic infrastructure. Whatever knowledge of Marx's
analysis of capitalism had existed (perhaps in Nicolai Bukharin's time) was long gone. It is as
if no Russian official had read Volumes II and III of Marx's Capital (or Theories
of Surplus Value ) where he reviewed the laws of economic rent and interest-bearing
debt.
The inability of Russia, the Baltics and other post-Soviet countries to understand the FIRE
sector and its financial dynamics provides an object lesson for other countries as to what to
avoid. Reversing the principles of Russia's October 1917 Revolution, the post-Soviet
kleptocracy was akin to the feudal epoch's "primitive accumulation" of the land and commons.
They adopted the neoliberal business plan: to establish monopolies, first and most easily by
privatizing the public infrastructure that had been built up, extracting economic rents and
them paying out the resulting as interest and dividends.
This Western financial advice became a textbook example of how not to organize an
economy.
[4] Having rejoined the global economy free of debt in 1991, Russia's population, companies
and government quickly ran up debts as a result of its man-made disaster. Families could have
been given their homes freely, just as corporate managers were given their entire companies
virtually for free. But Russian managers were as anti-labor as they were greedy to grab their
own assets from the public domain. Soaring housing prices quickly plagued Russian's economy
with one of the world's highest-priced living and business costs. That prevented any thought of
industrial competitiveness with the United States or Europe. What passed for Soviet Marxism
lacked an understanding of how economic rents and the ensuing high labor costs affected
international prices, or how debt service and capital flight affected the currency's exchange
rate.
Adversaries of socialism pronounced Marxist theory dead, as if the Soviet dissolution meant
the end of Marxism. But today, less than three decades later, the leading Western economies are
themselves succumbing to an overgrowth of debt and shrinking prosperity. Russia failed to
recognize that just as its own economy was expiring, so was the West's. Industrial capitalism
is succumbing to a predatory finance capitalism that is leaving Western economies debt-ridden.
[5] The underlying causes were clear already a century ago: unchecked financial
rentiers , absentee ownership and monopolies.
The post-Soviet collapse in the 1990s was not a failure of Marxism, but of the
anti-socialist ideology that is plunging Western economies under domination by the Finance,
Insurance and Real Estate (FIRE) sector's symbiosis of the three forms of rent extraction: land
and natural resource rent, monopoly rent, and interest (financial rent). This is precisely the
fate from which 19 th -century socialism, Marxism and even state capitalism sought
to save the industrial economies.
A silver lining to the Soviet "final" stage has been to free Marxist analysis from Russian
Marxology. Its focus of Soviet Marxology was not an analysis of how the capitalist nations were
becoming financialized neo- rentier economies, but was mainly propagandistic,
ossifying into a stereotyped identity politics appealing to labor and oppressed minorities.
Today's revival of Marxist scholarship has begun to show how the U.S.-centered global economy
is entering a period of chronic austerity, debt deflation, and polarization between creditors
and debtors.
Financialization and privatization are submerging capitalism in debt deflation
By 1991, when the Soviet Union's leaders decided to take the "Western" path, the Western
economies themselves were reaching a terminus. Appearances were saved by a wave of unproductive
credit and debt creation to sustain the bubble economy that finally crashed in 2008.
The pitfalls of this financial dynamic were not apparent in the early years after World War
II, largely because economies emerged with their private sectors free of debt. The ensuing boom
endowed the middle class in the United States and other countries, but was debt financed, first
for home ownership and commercial real estate, then by consumer credit to purchase of
automobiles and appliances, and finally by credit-card debt just to meet living expenses.
The same debt overgrowth occurred in the industrial sector, where bank and bondholder credit
since the 1980s has been increasingly for corporate takeovers and raiding, stock buybacks and
even to pay dividends. Industry has become a vehicle for financial engineering to increase
stock prices and strip assets, not to increase the means of production. The result is that
capitalism has fallen prey to resurgent rentier interests instead of liberating
economies from absentee landlords, predatory banking and monopolies. Banks and bondholders have
found their most lucrative market not in the manufacturing sector but in real estate and
natural resource extraction.
These vested interests have translated their takings into the political power to shed taxes
and dismantle regulations on wealth. The resulting political Counter-Reformation has inverted
the idea of "free market" to mean an economy free for rent extractors, not free
from landlords, monopolists and financial exploitation as Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill
and other classical economists had envisioned. The word "reform" as used by today's neoliberal
media means undoing Progressive Era reforms, dismantling public regulation and
government power – except for control by finance and its allied vested
interests.
All this is the opposite of socialism, which has now sunk to its nadir through the Western
World. The past four decades have seen most of the European and North American parties calling
themselves "socialist" make an about-face to follow Tony Blair's New Labour, the French
socialists-in-name and the Clinton's New Democrats. They support privatization,
financialization and a shift away from progressive taxation to a value-added tax (VAT) falling
on consumers, not on finance or real estate.
China's socialist diplomacy in today's hostile world
Now that Western finance capitalism is stagnating, it is fighting even harder to prevent the
post-2008 crisis from leading to socialist reforms that would re-socialize infrastructure that
has been privatized and put a public banking system in place. Depicting the contrast between
socialist and finance-capitalist economies as a clash of civilizations, U.S.-centered "Western"
diplomacy is using military and political subversion to prevent a transition from capitalism
into socialism.
China is the leading example of socialist success in a mixed economy. Unlike the Soviet
Union, it has not proselytized its economic system or sought to promote revolution abroad to
emulate its economic doctrine. Just the opposite: To avert attack, China has given foreign
investors a stake in its economic growth. The aim has been to mobilize U.S. and other foreign
interests as allies, willing customers for China's exports, and suppliers of modern production
facilities in China.
This is the opposite of the antagonism that confronted Russia. The risk is that it involves
financial investment. But China has protected its autonomy by requiring majority Chinese
ownership in most sectors. The main danger is domestic, in the form of financial dynamics and
private rent extraction. The great economic choice facing China today concerns the degree to
which land and natural resources should be taxed.
The state owns the land, but does fully tax its rising valuation or rent-of-location that
has made many families rich. Letting the resulting real-estate and financialized wealth
dominate its economic growth poses two dangers: First, it increases the price that new buyers
must pay for their home. Second, rising housing prices force these families to borrow –
at interest. This turns the rental value of land – value created by society and public
infrastructure investment – into a flow of interest to the banks. They end up receiving
more over time than the sellers, while increasing the cost of living and doing business. That
is a fate which a socialist economy must avoid at all costs.
At issue is how China can best manage credit and natural resource rent in a way that best
meets the needs of its population. Now that China has built up a prosperous industry and real
estate, its main challenge is to avoid the financial dynamics that are subjecting the West to
debt deflation and burying Western economies. To avoid these dynamics, China must curtail the
proliferation of unproductive debt created merely to transfer property on credit, inflating
asset prices in the process.
Socialism is incompatible with a rentier class of landlords, natural resource
owners and monopolists – the preferred clients of banks hoping to turn economic rent into
interest charges. As a vehicle to allocate resources "the market" reflects the status quo of
property ownership and credit-creation privileges at any given moment of time, without
consideration for what is fair and efficient or predatory. Vested interests claim that such a
market is an immutable force of nature, whose course cannot be altered by government
"interference." This rhetoric of political passivity aims to deter politicians and voters from
regulating economies, leaving the wealthy free to extract as much economic rent and interest as
markets can bear by privatizing real estate, natural resources, banking and other
monopolies.
Such rent seeking is antithetical to socialism's aim to take these assets into the public
domain. That is why the financial sector, oil and mineral extractors and monopolists fight so
passionately to dismantle state regulatory power and public banking. That is the diplomacy of
finance capital, aiming to consolidate American hegemony over a unipolar world. It backs this
strategy with a neoliberal academic curriculum that depicts predatory financial and
rentier gains as if they add to national income, not simply transfer it into the hands
of the rentier classes. This misleading picture of economic reality poses a danger for
China sending its students to study economics at American and European universities.
The century that has elapsed since Russia's October 1917 Revolution has produced a
substantial Marxist literature describing how finance capitalism has overpowered industrial
capitalism. Its dynamics occupied Marx in Volumes II and III of Capital (and also his
Theories of Surplus Value ). Like most observers of his era, Marx expected capitalism
to make a substantial step toward socialism by overcoming the dynamics of parasitic capital,
above all the tendency for debt to keep on expanding at compound interest until it produces a
financial crash.
The only way to control banks and their allied rentier sectors is outright
socialization. The past century has shown that if society does not control the banks and
financial sector, they will control society. Their strategy is to block government money
creation so that economies will be forced to rely on banks and bondholders. Regulatory
authority to limit such financial aggression and the monopoly pricing and rent extraction it
supports has been crippled in the West by "regulatory capture" by the rentier
oligarchy.
Attempts to tax away rental income (the liberal alternative to taking real estate and
natural resources directly into the public domain) is prone to lobbying for loopholes and
evasion, most notoriously via offshore banking centers in tax-avoidance enclaves and the "flags
of convenience" sponsored by the global oil and mining companies. This leaves the only way to
save society from the financial power to convert rent into interest to be a policy of
nationalizing natural resources, fully taxing land rent (where land and minerals are not taken
directly into the public domain), and de-privatizing infrastructure and other key sectors.
Conclusion
Markets have not recovered for the products of American industry and labor since 2008.
Industrial capitalism has been sacrificed to a form of finance capitalism that is looking more
pre-capitalist (or simply oligarchic and neofeudal) with each passing year. The resulting
polarization forces every economy – including China – to choose between saving its
bankers and other creditors or freeing debtors and lowering the economy's cost structure. Will
the government enforce bank and bondholder claims, or will it give priority to the economy and
its people? That is an eternal political question spanning pre-capitalist, capitalist and
post-capitalist economies.
Marx described the mathematics of compound interest expanding to absorb the entire economy
as age-old, long predating industrial capitalism. He characterized the ancient mode of
production as dominated by slavery and usury, and medieval banking as predatory. These
financial dynamics exist in socialist economies just as they did in medieval and ancient
economies. The way in which governments manage the dynamics of credit and debt thus are the
dominant force in every era, and should receive the most pressing attention today as China
shapes its socialist future.
Notes.
[1] I give the details in "Simon Patten on Public Infrastructure and Economic Rent
Capture," American Journal of Economics and Sociology 70 (October 2011):873-903.
[2] My book Super-Imperialism
(1972; new ed. 2002) reviews this discussion during 1944-46.
[3] I discuss the IMF and World Bank plan to wipe out Russian savings with hyperinflation
and make manufacturing investment uneconomic in "How Neoliberal Tax and Financial Policy
Impoverishes Russia – Needlessly," Mir Peremen (The World of Transformations),
2012 (3):49-64 (in Russian). МИР
ПЕРЕМЕН 3/2012 (ISSN 2073-3038) Mir peremen М.
ХАДСОН,
Неолиберальная
налоговая и
финансовая
политика
приводит к
обнищанию
России, 49-64.
"... Socialism a century ago seemed to be the wave of the future. There were various schools of socialism, but the common ideal was to guarantee support for basic needs, and for state ownership to free society from landlords, predatory banking and monopolies. In the West these hopes are now much further away than they seemed in 1917. Land and natural resources, basic infrastructure monopolies, health care and pensions have been increasingly privatized and financialized. ..."
"... Instead of Germany and other advanced industrial nations leading the way as expected, Russia's October 1917 Revolution made the greatest leap. But the failures of Stalinism became an argument against Marxism – guilt-by-association with Soviet bureaucracy. European parties calling themselves socialist or "labour" since the 1980s have supported neoliberal policies that are the opposite of socialist policy. Russia itself has chosen neoliberalism. ..."
"... Few socialist parties or theorists have dealt with the rise of the Finance, Insurance and Real Estate (FIRE) sector that now accounts for most increase in wealth. Instead of evolving into socialism, Western capitalism is being overcome by predatory finance and rent extraction imposing debt deflation and austerity on industry as well as on labor. ..."
"... Failure of Western economies to recover from the 2008 crisis is leading to a revival of Marxist advocacy. The alternative to socialist reform is stagnation and a relapse into neofeudal financial and monopoly privileges. ..."
"... Russia's Revolution ended after 74 years, leaving the Soviet Union so dispirited that it ended in collapse. The contrast between the low living standards of Russian consumers and what seemed to be Western success became increasingly pronounced. ..."
"... When the Soviet Union dissolved itself in 1991, its leaders took neoliberal advice from its major adversary, the United States, in hope that this would set it on a capitalist road to prosperity. But turning its economies into viable industrial powers was the last thing U.S. advisors wanted to teach Russia. [3] Their aim was to turn it and its former satellites into raw-materials colonies of Wall Street, the City of London and Frankfurt – victims of capitalism, not rival producers. ..."
"... It should not be surprising that banks became the economy's main control centers, as in the West's bubble economies. Instead of the promised prosperity, a new class of billionaires was endowed, headed by the notorious Seven Bankers who appropriated the formerly state-owned oil and gas, nickel and platinum, electricity and aluminum production, as well as real estate, electric utilities and other public enterprises. It was the largest giveaway in modern history. The Soviet nomenklatura became the new lords in outright seizure that Marx would have characterized as "primitive accumulation." ..."
"... The American advisors knew the obvious: Russian savings had been wiped out by the polst-1991 hyperinflation, so the new owners could only cash out by selling shares to Western buyers. The kleptocrats cashed out as expected, by dumping their shares to foreign investors so quickly at such giveaway prices that Russia's stock market became the world's top performer for Western investors in 1994-96. ..."
"... The basic neoliberal idea of prosperity is financial gain based on turning rent extraction into a flow of interest payments by buyers-on-credit. This policy favors financial engineering over industrial investment, reversing the Progressive Era's industrial capitalism that Marx anticipated would be a transition stage leading to socialism. Russia adopted the West's anti-socialist rollback toward neofeudalism. ..."
"... Russia joined the dollar standard. Buying Treasury bonds meant lending to the U.S. Government. The central bank bought U.S. Treasury securities to back its domestic currency. These purchases helped finance Cold War escalation in countries around Russia. Russia paid 100% annual interest in the mid-1990s, creating a bonanza for U.S. investors. On balance, this neoliberal policy lay Russia's economy open to looting by financial institutions seeking natural resource rent, land rent and monopoly rent for themselves. Instead of targeting such rents, Russia imposed taxes mainly on labor via a regressive flat tax – too right wing to be adopted even in the United States! ..."
"... Theories of Surplus Value ..."
"... This Western financial advice became a textbook example of how not ..."
"... By 1991, when the Soviet Union's leaders decided to take the "Western" path, the Western economies themselves were reaching a terminus. Appearances were saved by a wave of unproductive credit and debt creation to sustain the bubble economy that finally crashed in 2008. ..."
"... The same debt overgrowth occurred in the industrial sector, where bank and bondholder credit since the 1980s has been increasingly for corporate takeovers and raiding, stock buybacks and even to pay dividends. Industry has become a vehicle for financial engineering to increase stock prices and strip assets, not to increase the means of production. The result is that capitalism has fallen prey to resurgent rentier ..."
"... Theories of Surplus Value ..."
"... American Journal of Economics and Sociology ..."
"... Super-Imperialism ..."
"... The Great Credit Crash ..."
"... The Contradictions of Austerity: The Socio-Economic Costs of the Neoliberal Baltic Model ..."
Socialism
a century ago seemed to be the wave of the future. There were various schools of socialism, but
the common ideal was to guarantee support for basic needs, and for state ownership to free
society from landlords, predatory banking and monopolies. In the West these hopes are now much
further away than they seemed in 1917. Land and natural resources, basic infrastructure
monopolies, health care and pensions have been increasingly privatized and financialized.
Instead of Germany and other advanced industrial nations leading the way as expected,
Russia's October 1917 Revolution made the greatest leap. But the failures of Stalinism became
an argument against Marxism – guilt-by-association with Soviet bureaucracy. European
parties calling themselves socialist or "labour" since the 1980s have supported neoliberal
policies that are the opposite of socialist policy. Russia itself has chosen
neoliberalism.
Few socialist parties or theorists have dealt with the rise of the Finance, Insurance
and Real Estate (FIRE) sector that now accounts for most increase in wealth. Instead of
evolving into socialism, Western capitalism is being overcome by predatory finance and rent
extraction imposing debt deflation and austerity on industry as well as on labor.
Failure of Western economies to recover from the 2008 crisis is leading to a revival of
Marxist advocacy. The alternative to socialist reform is stagnation and a relapse into
neofeudal financial and monopoly privileges.
Socialism flowered in the 19 th century as a program to reform capitalism by
raising labor's status and living standards, with a widening range of public services and
subsidies to make economies more efficient. Reformers hoped to promote this evolution by
extending voting rights to the working population at large.
Ricardo's discussion of land rent led early industrial capitalists to oppose Europe's
hereditary landlord class. But despite democratic political reform, the world has un-taxed land
rent and is still grappling with the problem of how to keep housing affordable instead of
siphoning off rent to a landlord class – more recently transmuted into mortgage interest
paid to banks by owners who pledge the rental value for loans. Most bank lending today is for
real estate mortgages. The effect is to bid up land prices toward the point where the entire
rental value is paid as interest. This threatens to be a problem for socialist China as well as
for capitalist economies.
Landlords, banks and the cost of living
The classical economists sought to make their nations more competitive by keeping down the
price of labor so as to undersell competitors. The main cost of living was food; today it is
housing. Housing and food prices are determined not by the material costs of production, but by
land rent – the rising market price for land.
In the era of the French Physiocrats, Adam Smith, David Ricardo and John Stuart Mill, this
land rent accrued to Europe's hereditary landlord class. Today, the land's rent is paid mainly
to bankers – because families need credit to buy a home. Or, if they rent, their
landlords use the property rent to pay interest to the banks.
The land issue was central to Russia's October Revolution, as it was for European politics.
But the discussion of land rent and taxation has lost much of the clarity (and passion) that
guided the 19 th century when it dominated classical political economy, liberal
reform, and indeed most early socialist politics.
In 1909/10 Britain experienced a constitutional crisis when the democratically elected House
of Commons passed a land tax, only to be overridden by the House of Lords, governed by the old
aristocracy. The ensuing political crisis was settled by a rule that the Lords never again
could overrule a revenue bill passed by the House of Commons. But that was Britain's last real
opportunity to tax away the economic rents of landlords and natural resource owners. The
liberal drive to tax the land faltered, and never again would gain serious chance of
passage.
The democratization of home ownership during the 20 th century led middle-class
voters to oppose property taxes – including taxes on commercial sites and natural
resources. Tax policy in general has become pro- rentier and anti-labor – the
regressive opposite of 19 th -century liberalism as developed by "Ricardian
socialists" such as John Stuart Mill and Henry George. Today's economic individualism has lost
the early class consciousness that sought to tax economic rent and socialize banking.
The United States enacted an income tax in 1913, falling mainly on rentier income,
not on the working population. Capital gains (the main source of rising wealth today) were
taxed at the same rate as other income. But the vested interests campaigned to reverse this
spirit, slashing capital gains taxes and making tax policy much more regressive. The result is
that today, most wealth is not gained by capital investment for profits. Instead, asset-price
gains have been financed by a debt-leveraged inflation of real estate, stock and bond
prices.
Many middle-class families owe most of their net worth to rising prices for their homes. But
by far the lion's share of the real estate and stock market gains have accrued to just One
Percent of the population. And while bank credit has enabled buyers to bid up housing prices,
the price has been to siphon off more and more of labor's income to pay mortgage loans or
rents. As a result, finance today is what is has been throughout history: the main force
polarizing economies between debtors and creditors.
Global oil and mining companies created flags of convenience to make themselves tax-exempt,
by pretending to make all their production and distribution profits in tax-free trans-shipping
havens such as Liberia and Panama (which use U.S. dollars instead of being real countries with
their own currency and tax systems).
The fact that absentee-owned real estate and natural resource extraction are practically
free of income taxation shows that democratic political reform has not been a sufficient
guarantee of socialist success. Tax rules and public regulation have been captured by the
rentiers , dashing the hopes of 19 th -century classical reformers that
progressive tax policy would produce the same effect as direct public ownership of the means of
production, while leaving "the market" as an individualistic alternative to government
regulation or planning.
In practice, planning and resource allocation has passed to the banking and financial
sector. Many observers hoped that this would evolve into state planning, or at least work in
conjunction with it as in Germany. But liberal "Ricardian socialist" failed, as did
German-style "state socialism" publicly financing transportation and other basic
infrastructure, pensions and similar "external" costs of living and doing business that
industrial employers otherwise would have to bear. Attempts at "half-way" socialism via tax and
regulatory policy against monopolies and banking have faltered repeatedly. As long as major
economic or political choke points are left in private hands, they will serve s springboards to
subvert real reform policies. That is why Marxist policy went beyond these would-be socialist
reforms.
To Marx, the historical task of capitalism was to prepare the way for socializing the means
of production by clearing away feudalism's legacy: a hereditary landlord class, predatory
banking, and the monopolies that financial interests had pried away from governments. The path
of least resistance was to start by socializing land and basic infrastructure. This drive to
free society from economic overhead in the form of hereditary privilege and unearned income by
the "idle rich" was a step toward socialist management, by minimizing rentier costs ("
faux frais of production").
Proto-socialist reform in the leading industrial nations
Marx was by no means alone in expecting a widening range of economic activity to be shifted
away from the market to the public sector. State socialism (basically, state-sponsored
capitalism) subsidized pensions and public health, education and other basic needs so as to
save industrial enterprise from having to bear these charges.
In the United States, Simon Patten – the first economics professor at the new Wharton
business school at the University of Pennsylvania – defined public infrastructure as a
"fourth factor of production" alongside labor, capital and land. The aim of public investment
was not to make a profit, but to lower the cost of living and doing business so as to minimize
industry's wage and infrastructure bill. Public health, pensions, roads and other
transportation, education, research and development were subsidized or provided freely.
[1]
The most advanced industrial economies seemed to be evolving toward some kind of socialism.
Marx shared a Progressive Era optimism that expected industrial capitalism to evolve in the
most logical way, by freeing economies from the landlordship and predatory banking inherited
from Europe's feudal era. That was above all the classical reform program of Adam Smith, John
Stuart Mill and the intellectual mainstream.
But the aftermath of World War I saw the vested interests mount a Counter-Enlightenment.
Banking throughout the Western world find its major market in real estate mortgage lending,
natural resource extraction and monopolies – the Anglo-American model, not that of German
industrial banking that had seemed to be capitalism's financial future in the late 19
th century.
Since 1980 the Western nations have reversed early optimistic hopes to reform market
economies. Instead of the classical dream of taxing away the land rent that had supported
Europe's hereditary landed aristocracies, commercial real estate has been made virtually exempt
from income taxation. Absentee owners avoid tax by a combination of tax-deductibility for
interest payments (as if it is a necessary business expense) and fictitious over-depreciation
tax credits that pretend that buildings and properties are losing value even when market prices
for their land are soaring.
These tax breaks have made real estate the largest bank customers. The effect has been to
financialize property rents into interest payments. Likewise in the industrial sphere,
regulatory capture by lobbyists for the major monopolies has disabled public attempts to keep
prices in line with the cost of production and prevent fraud by breaking up or regulating
monopolies. These too have become major bank clients.
The beginning and end of Russian socialism
Most Marxists expected socialism to emerge first in Germany as the most advanced capitalist
economy. After its October 1917 Revolution, Russia seemed to jump ahead, the first nation to
free itself from rent and interest charges inherited from feudalism. By taking land, industry
and finance into state control, Soviet Russia's October Revolution created an economy without
private landlords and bankers. Russian urban planning did not take account of the natural
rent-of-location, nor did it charge for the use of money created by the state bank. The state
bank created money and credit, so there was no need to rely on a wealthy financial class. And
as property owner, the state did not seek to charge land rent or monopoly rent.
By freeing society from the post-feudal rentier class of landlords, bankers and
predatory finance, the Soviet regime was much more than a bourgeois revolution. The
Revolution's early leaders sought to free wage labor from exploitation by taking industry into
the public domain. State companies provided labor with free lunches, education, sports and
leisure activity, and modest housing.
Agricultural land tenure was a problem. Given its centralized marketing role, the state
could have reallocated land to build up a rural peasantry and helped it invest in
modernization. The state could have manipulated crop prices to siphon off agricultural gains,
much like Cargill does in the United States. Instead, Stalin's collectivization program waged a
war against the kulaks. This political shock led to famine. It was a steep price to pay for
avoiding rent was paid to a landlord class or peasantry.
Marx had said nothing about the military dimension of the transition from progressive
industrial capitalism to socialism. But Russia's Revolution – like that of China three
decades later – showed that the attempt to create a socialist economy had a military
dimension that absorbed the lion's share of the economic surplus. Military aggression by a half
dozen leading capitalist nations seeking to overthrow the Bolshevik government obliged Russia
to adopt War Communism. For over half a century the Soviet Union devoted most of capital to
military investment, not provide sufficient housing or consumer goods for its population beyond
spreading literacy, education and public health.
Despite this military overhead, the fact that the Soviet Union was free of a
rentier class of financiers and absentee landlords should have made the Soviet Union
the world's most competitive low-cost economy in theory. In 1945 the United States certainly
feared the efficiency of socialist planning. Its diplomats opposed Soviet membership on the
ground that state enterprise and pricing would enable such economies to undersell capitalist
countries.
[2] So socialist countries were kept out of the IMF, World Bank and the planned World Trade
Organization, explicitly on the ground that they were free of land rent, natural resource rent,
monopoly rent and financial charges.
Capitalist economies are now privatizing and financializing their basic needs and
infrastructure. Every activity is being forced into "the market," at prices that need to cover
not only the technological costs of production but also interest, ancillary financial fees and
pension set-asides. The cost of living and doing business is further privatized as financial
interests pry roads, health care, water, communications and other public utilities away from
the public sector, while driving housing and commercial real estate deeply into debt.
The Cold War has shown that capitalist countries plan to continue fighting socialist
economies, forcing them to militarize in self-defense. The resulting oppressive military
overhead is then blamed on socialist bureaucracy and inefficiency.
The collapse of Russian Stalinism
Russia's Revolution ended after 74 years, leaving the Soviet Union so dispirited that it
ended in collapse. The contrast between the low living standards of Russian consumers and what
seemed to be Western success became increasingly pronounced. In contrast to China's housing
construction policy, the Soviet regime insisted that families double up. Clothing and other
consumer goods had only drab designs, needlessly suppressing variety. To cap matters, public
opposition to Russia's military personnel losses in Afghanistan caused popular resentment.
When the Soviet Union dissolved itself in 1991, its leaders took neoliberal advice from its
major adversary, the United States, in hope that this would set it on a capitalist road to
prosperity. But turning its economies into viable industrial powers was the last thing U.S.
advisors wanted to teach Russia.
[3] Their aim was to turn it and its former satellites into raw-materials colonies of Wall
Street, the City of London and Frankfurt – victims of capitalism, not rival
producers.
Russia has gone to the furthest anti-socialist extreme by adopting a flat tax that fails to
distinguish wages and profits of labor and capital from unearned rental income. By also having
to pay a value-added tax (VAT) on consumer goods (with no tax on trading in financial assets),
labor is taxed much higher than the wealthy.
Most Western "wealth creation" is achieved by debt-leveraged price increases for real
estate, stocks and bonds, and by privatizing the public domain. The latter process has gained
momentum since the early 1980s in Margaret Thatcher's Britain and Ronald Reagan's America,
followed by Third World countries acting under World Bank tutelage. The pretense is that
privatization will maximize technological efficiency and prosperity for the economy as a
whole.
Following this advice, Russian leaders agreed that the major sources of economic rent
– natural resource wealth, real estate and state companies – should be transferred
to private owners (often to themselves and associated insiders). The "magic of the marketplace"
was supposed to lead the new owners to make the economy more efficient as a byproduct of making
money in the quickest way possible.
Each Russian worker got a "voucher" worth about $25. Most were sold off simply to obtain
money to buy food and other needs as many companies stopped paying wages. Russia had wiped out
domestic savings with hyperinflation after 1991.
It should not be surprising that banks became the economy's main control centers, as in the
West's bubble economies. Instead of the promised prosperity, a new class of billionaires was
endowed, headed by the notorious Seven Bankers who appropriated the formerly state-owned oil
and gas, nickel and platinum, electricity and aluminum production, as well as real estate,
electric utilities and other public enterprises. It was the largest giveaway in modern history.
The Soviet nomenklatura became the new lords in outright seizure that Marx would have
characterized as "primitive accumulation."
The American advisors knew the obvious: Russian savings had been wiped out by the polst-1991
hyperinflation, so the new owners could only cash out by selling shares to Western buyers. The
kleptocrats cashed out as expected, by dumping their shares to foreign investors so quickly at
such giveaway prices that Russia's stock market became the world's top performer for Western
investors in 1994-96.
The Russian oligarchs kept most of their sales proceeds abroad in British and other banks,
beyond the reach of Russian authorities to recapture. Much was spent on London real estate,
sports teams and luxury estates in the world's flight-capital havens. Almost none was invested
in Russian industry. Wage arrears often mounted up half a year behind. Living standards shrank,
along with the population as birth rates plunged throughout the former Soviet economies.
Skilled labor emigrated.
The basic neoliberal idea of prosperity is financial gain based on turning rent extraction
into a flow of interest payments by buyers-on-credit. This policy favors financial engineering
over industrial investment, reversing the Progressive Era's industrial capitalism that Marx
anticipated would be a transition stage leading to socialism. Russia adopted the West's
anti-socialist rollback toward neofeudalism.
Russian officials failed to understand the State Theory of money that is the basis of Modern
Monetary Theory: States can create their own money, giving it value by accepting it in payment
of taxes. The Soviet government financed its economy for seventy years without any need to back
the ruble with foreign exchange. But Russia's central bank was persuaded that "sound money"
required it to back its domestic ruble currency with U.S. Treasury bonds in order to prevent
inflation. Russian leaders did not realize that dollars or other foreign currencies were only
needed to finance balance-of-payments deficits, not domestic spending except as this money was
spent on imports.
Russia joined the dollar standard. Buying Treasury bonds meant lending to the U.S.
Government. The central bank bought U.S. Treasury securities to back its domestic currency.
These purchases helped finance Cold War escalation in countries around Russia. Russia paid 100%
annual interest in the mid-1990s, creating a bonanza for U.S. investors. On balance, this
neoliberal policy lay Russia's economy open to looting by financial institutions seeking
natural resource rent, land rent and monopoly rent for themselves. Instead of targeting such
rents, Russia imposed taxes mainly on labor via a regressive flat tax – too right wing to
be adopted even in the United States!
When the Soviet Union dissolved itself, its officials showed no apprehension of how quickly
their economies would be de-industrialized as a result of accepting U.S. advice to privatize
state enterprises, natural resources and basic infrastructure. Whatever knowledge of Marx's
analysis of capitalism had existed (perhaps in Nicolai Bukharin's time) was long gone. It is as
if no Russian official had read Volumes II and III of Marx's Capital (or Theories
of Surplus Value ) where he reviewed the laws of economic rent and interest-bearing
debt.
The inability of Russia, the Baltics and other post-Soviet countries to understand the FIRE
sector and its financial dynamics provides an object lesson for other countries as to what to
avoid. Reversing the principles of Russia's October 1917 Revolution, the post-Soviet
kleptocracy was akin to the feudal epoch's "primitive accumulation" of the land and commons.
They adopted the neoliberal business plan: to establish monopolies, first and most easily by
privatizing the public infrastructure that had been built up, extracting economic rents and
them paying out the resulting as interest and dividends.
This Western financial advice became a textbook example of how not to organize an
economy.
[4] Having rejoined the global economy free of debt in 1991, Russia's population, companies
and government quickly ran up debts as a result of its man-made disaster. Families could have
been given their homes freely, just as corporate managers were given their entire companies
virtually for free. But Russian managers were as anti-labor as they were greedy to grab their
own assets from the public domain. Soaring housing prices quickly plagued Russian's economy
with one of the world's highest-priced living and business costs. That prevented any thought of
industrial competitiveness with the United States or Europe. What passed for Soviet Marxism
lacked an understanding of how economic rents and the ensuing high labor costs affected
international prices, or how debt service and capital flight affected the currency's exchange
rate.
Adversaries of socialism pronounced Marxist theory dead, as if the Soviet dissolution meant
the end of Marxism. But today, less than three decades later, the leading Western economies are
themselves succumbing to an overgrowth of debt and shrinking prosperity. Russia failed to
recognize that just as its own economy was expiring, so was the West's. Industrial capitalism
is succumbing to a predatory finance capitalism that is leaving Western economies debt-ridden.
[5] The underlying causes were clear already a century ago: unchecked financial
rentiers , absentee ownership and monopolies.
The post-Soviet collapse in the 1990s was not a failure of Marxism, but of the
anti-socialist ideology that is plunging Western economies under domination by the Finance,
Insurance and Real Estate (FIRE) sector's symbiosis of the three forms of rent extraction: land
and natural resource rent, monopoly rent, and interest (financial rent). This is precisely the
fate from which 19 th -century socialism, Marxism and even state capitalism sought
to save the industrial economies.
A silver lining to the Soviet "final" stage has been to free Marxist analysis from Russian
Marxology. Its focus of Soviet Marxology was not an analysis of how the capitalist nations were
becoming financialized neo- rentier economies, but was mainly propagandistic,
ossifying into a stereotyped identity politics appealing to labor and oppressed minorities.
Today's revival of Marxist scholarship has begun to show how the U.S.-centered global economy
is entering a period of chronic austerity, debt deflation, and polarization between creditors
and debtors.
Financialization and privatization are submerging capitalism in debt deflation
By 1991, when the Soviet Union's leaders decided to take the "Western" path, the Western
economies themselves were reaching a terminus. Appearances were saved by a wave of unproductive
credit and debt creation to sustain the bubble economy that finally crashed in 2008.
The pitfalls of this financial dynamic were not apparent in the early years after World War
II, largely because economies emerged with their private sectors free of debt. The ensuing boom
endowed the middle class in the United States and other countries, but was debt financed, first
for home ownership and commercial real estate, then by consumer credit to purchase of
automobiles and appliances, and finally by credit-card debt just to meet living expenses.
The same debt overgrowth occurred in the industrial sector, where bank and bondholder credit
since the 1980s has been increasingly for corporate takeovers and raiding, stock buybacks and
even to pay dividends. Industry has become a vehicle for financial engineering to increase
stock prices and strip assets, not to increase the means of production. The result is that
capitalism has fallen prey to resurgent rentier interests instead of liberating
economies from absentee landlords, predatory banking and monopolies. Banks and bondholders have
found their most lucrative market not in the manufacturing sector but in real estate and
natural resource extraction.
These vested interests have translated their takings into the political power to shed taxes
and dismantle regulations on wealth. The resulting political Counter-Reformation has inverted
the idea of "free market" to mean an economy free for rent extractors, not free
from landlords, monopolists and financial exploitation as Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill
and other classical economists had envisioned. The word "reform" as used by today's neoliberal
media means undoing Progressive Era reforms, dismantling public regulation and
government power – except for control by finance and its allied vested
interests.
All this is the opposite of socialism, which has now sunk to its nadir through the Western
World. The past four decades have seen most of the European and North American parties calling
themselves "socialist" make an about-face to follow Tony Blair's New Labour, the French
socialists-in-name and the Clinton's New Democrats. They support privatization,
financialization and a shift away from progressive taxation to a value-added tax (VAT) falling
on consumers, not on finance or real estate.
China's socialist diplomacy in today's hostile world
Now that Western finance capitalism is stagnating, it is fighting even harder to prevent the
post-2008 crisis from leading to socialist reforms that would re-socialize infrastructure that
has been privatized and put a public banking system in place. Depicting the contrast between
socialist and finance-capitalist economies as a clash of civilizations, U.S.-centered "Western"
diplomacy is using military and political subversion to prevent a transition from capitalism
into socialism.
China is the leading example of socialist success in a mixed economy. Unlike the Soviet
Union, it has not proselytized its economic system or sought to promote revolution abroad to
emulate its economic doctrine. Just the opposite: To avert attack, China has given foreign
investors a stake in its economic growth. The aim has been to mobilize U.S. and other foreign
interests as allies, willing customers for China's exports, and suppliers of modern production
facilities in China.
This is the opposite of the antagonism that confronted Russia. The risk is that it involves
financial investment. But China has protected its autonomy by requiring majority Chinese
ownership in most sectors. The main danger is domestic, in the form of financial dynamics and
private rent extraction. The great economic choice facing China today concerns the degree to
which land and natural resources should be taxed.
The state owns the land, but does fully tax its rising valuation or rent-of-location that
has made many families rich. Letting the resulting real-estate and financialized wealth
dominate its economic growth poses two dangers: First, it increases the price that new buyers
must pay for their home. Second, rising housing prices force these families to borrow –
at interest. This turns the rental value of land – value created by society and public
infrastructure investment – into a flow of interest to the banks. They end up receiving
more over time than the sellers, while increasing the cost of living and doing business. That
is a fate which a socialist economy must avoid at all costs.
At issue is how China can best manage credit and natural resource rent in a way that best
meets the needs of its population. Now that China has built up a prosperous industry and real
estate, its main challenge is to avoid the financial dynamics that are subjecting the West to
debt deflation and burying Western economies. To avoid these dynamics, China must curtail the
proliferation of unproductive debt created merely to transfer property on credit, inflating
asset prices in the process.
Socialism is incompatible with a rentier class of landlords, natural resource
owners and monopolists – the preferred clients of banks hoping to turn economic rent into
interest charges. As a vehicle to allocate resources "the market" reflects the status quo of
property ownership and credit-creation privileges at any given moment of time, without
consideration for what is fair and efficient or predatory. Vested interests claim that such a
market is an immutable force of nature, whose course cannot be altered by government
"interference." This rhetoric of political passivity aims to deter politicians and voters from
regulating economies, leaving the wealthy free to extract as much economic rent and interest as
markets can bear by privatizing real estate, natural resources, banking and other
monopolies.
Such rent seeking is antithetical to socialism's aim to take these assets into the public
domain. That is why the financial sector, oil and mineral extractors and monopolists fight so
passionately to dismantle state regulatory power and public banking. That is the diplomacy of
finance capital, aiming to consolidate American hegemony over a unipolar world. It backs this
strategy with a neoliberal academic curriculum that depicts predatory financial and
rentier gains as if they add to national income, not simply transfer it into the hands
of the rentier classes. This misleading picture of economic reality poses a danger for
China sending its students to study economics at American and European universities.
The century that has elapsed since Russia's October 1917 Revolution has produced a
substantial Marxist literature describing how finance capitalism has overpowered industrial
capitalism. Its dynamics occupied Marx in Volumes II and III of Capital (and also his
Theories of Surplus Value ). Like most observers of his era, Marx expected capitalism
to make a substantial step toward socialism by overcoming the dynamics of parasitic capital,
above all the tendency for debt to keep on expanding at compound interest until it produces a
financial crash.
The only way to control banks and their allied rentier sectors is outright
socialization. The past century has shown that if society does not control the banks and
financial sector, they will control society. Their strategy is to block government money
creation so that economies will be forced to rely on banks and bondholders. Regulatory
authority to limit such financial aggression and the monopoly pricing and rent extraction it
supports has been crippled in the West by "regulatory capture" by the rentier
oligarchy.
Attempts to tax away rental income (the liberal alternative to taking real estate and
natural resources directly into the public domain) is prone to lobbying for loopholes and
evasion, most notoriously via offshore banking centers in tax-avoidance enclaves and the "flags
of convenience" sponsored by the global oil and mining companies. This leaves the only way to
save society from the financial power to convert rent into interest to be a policy of
nationalizing natural resources, fully taxing land rent (where land and minerals are not taken
directly into the public domain), and de-privatizing infrastructure and other key sectors.
Conclusion
Markets have not recovered for the products of American industry and labor since 2008.
Industrial capitalism has been sacrificed to a form of finance capitalism that is looking more
pre-capitalist (or simply oligarchic and neofeudal) with each passing year. The resulting
polarization forces every economy – including China – to choose between saving its
bankers and other creditors or freeing debtors and lowering the economy's cost structure. Will
the government enforce bank and bondholder claims, or will it give priority to the economy and
its people? That is an eternal political question spanning pre-capitalist, capitalist and
post-capitalist economies.
Marx described the mathematics of compound interest expanding to absorb the entire economy
as age-old, long predating industrial capitalism. He characterized the ancient mode of
production as dominated by slavery and usury, and medieval banking as predatory. These
financial dynamics exist in socialist economies just as they did in medieval and ancient
economies. The way in which governments manage the dynamics of credit and debt thus are the
dominant force in every era, and should receive the most pressing attention today as China
shapes its socialist future.
Notes.
[1] I give the details in "Simon Patten on Public Infrastructure and Economic Rent
Capture," American Journal of Economics and Sociology 70 (October 2011):873-903.
[2] My book Super-Imperialism
(1972; new ed. 2002) reviews this discussion during 1944-46.
[3] I discuss the IMF and World Bank plan to wipe out Russian savings with hyperinflation
and make manufacturing investment uneconomic in "How Neoliberal Tax and Financial Policy
Impoverishes Russia – Needlessly," Mir Peremen (The World of Transformations),
2012 (3):49-64 (in Russian). МИР
ПЕРЕМЕН 3/2012 (ISSN 2073-3038) Mir peremen М.
ХАДСОН,
Неолиберальная
налоговая и
финансовая
политика
приводит к
обнищанию
России, 49-64.
There is no hatred more complete and no malevolence more fanatical than that held by the
American political class for the American people. The commissar's rage against the kulaks,
the jihadist
's fury against the infidel ,
the
inquisitor 's wrath against the
unbeliever , all of this pales in comparison to the genocidal bloodlust
Senators and
Congressmen have against their own
constituents . And even as they gleefully promote the outsourcing of jobs,
the importation of cheap
labor , and the ruthless extirpation of property, wealth and liberty, these shameless
parasites demand their slaves die to export their filthy System all over the world.
Like a dying venomous snake , McCain
is using his final moments to strike at President Trump and those who supported him.
In remarks gleefully repeated by the sociopathic
controlled media, McCain simpered:
To fear the world we have organized and led for three-quarters of a century, to abandon
the ideals we have advanced around the globe, to refuse the obligations of international
leadership and our duty to remain 'the last best hope of earth' for the sake of some
half-baked, spurious nationalism cooked up by people who would rather find scapegoats than
solve problems is as unpatriotic as an attachment to any other tired dogma of the past that
Americans consigned to the ash heap of history.
McCain's mumblings are practically self-discrediting. But as American journalists exist to
serve power and
suppress
dissent it's unlikely the Senator has been or will ever be asked to defend such ludicrous
claims.
McCain draws a distinction between "nationalism" and "patriotism," with the former being
defined by the concrete realities of history and heritage and the latter formed by mysterious
abstractions.
"We live in a land made of ideals, not blood and soil," he explained. "We are the custodians
of those ideals at home, and their champion abroad."
These ideals, as is customary when they are invoked, are not defined. Yet given McCain's
tributes to the "immigrant's dream," the land which "reinvents itself," and the current
"international order," his remarks are being hyped as a rebuke of "Trump_vs_deep_state" and celebrated by
Leftist journalists who suddenly claim the right to define what is "conservatism" or
"Republicanism" [ John
McCain just delivered a total and complete takedown of Trump_vs_deep_state, by Chris
Cillizza, CNN, October 17, 2017]
McCain's ideals would be unrecognizable
, not only to the Founding Fathers, but to practically any other American generation in
history. Would the Father of Our Country have countenanced endless interventionism? Would
either Jefferson or
Hamilton have
recognized a moral imperative for self-annihilation? Would any Federalist or anti-Federalist
celebrate the replacement of the very people who had just won independence from the British
Empire?
McCain's denunciation of "nationalism" is also selective. McCain is quite eager to defend
the borders of other nations. "We are all Ukrainians," he declared on one occasion [ Senator John
McCain: "We Are All Ukrainians, by Jay Newton-Small, Time, February
28, 2014]. "We are all
Georgians" he pronounced on another.
It is only when it comes to America that McCain's "patriotism" becomes abstract and
imaginary. Indeed, it seems every people on earth has a right to "blood and soil" which must be
safeguarded by American arms, except Americans themselves.
Even as this is written, Kurds and Iraqis are on the brink of war [ The Kurdish War with
Iraq, by Thomas Ricks, Foreign Policy, October 17, 2017]. If it
erupts, once again, the tribal hatreds and border
conflicts of peoples who should be of interest to us
only in anthropology textbooks will be cause for the death of American soldiers.
The sacrifice of our military is framed as "leadership." "That leadership has had its costs,
but we have become incomparably powerful and wealthy as we did," McCain gloats. And he is
right, in speaking of his peers; he and his fellow parasites are indeed incomparably powerful
and wealthy.
But such power and wealth does not trickle down to those he ostensibly represents. The wages
of working Americans have
stagnated for decades , and
even skilled workers can barely earn a wage sufficient to support a family.
And "power?" The tyranny of George III that our forefathers rose against would be a glorious
boon for ordinary Americans of today, as their lives , families,
communities , and property are forfeit to the whims of unelected bureaucrats, publicly
funded "activists," or sadistic reporters eager to rouse a mob. McCain's tribute to America's
"power" and "wealth" is reminiscent of an Ottoman sultan boasting about shared victories to the
janissaries he's kidnapped from Eastern Europe.
The democratic system McCain pledges Americans to defend is a form of government in which
elected officials blatantly lie to their constituents and then taunt them at the very moment of
betrayal. Consider McCain himself. He campaigned on repealing Obamacare, and then gleefully
voted to save it [
Mr. McCain Goes To Washington, by John Fund, National Review, July
30, 2017] He
promised to "complete the danged fence" but instead has done his best to make sure Arizona
ceases to be an American state in any meaningful sense.
One may disagree with monarchy or some other form of unelected leadership, but it seems
vastly preferably to a system where political power is awarded to the most outrageous liar.
Such a system should not be tolerated, let alone fought for.
Besides, the liberal international order McCain defends is nothing of the kind. The Western
world is not free. [ The Liberalism That
Isn't, by Costin Alamariu, Daily Caller, September 7, 2017] East
Germany in the 1980s was in some ways more free than
contemporary Germany is today: it would not have occurred to Erich Honecker to expose his
subjects to mass sexual assault at the hands of Muslim invaders and then arrest anyone who
protests. [ Married couple sentenced for migrant critical Facebook post, by Chris
Tomlinson, Breitbart, July 8, 2016]
The Occupation Government in Washington has presided over the
Death of the West . The world order McCain defends is, quite explicitly, built on the
dispossession of the European-Americans who actually created the American polity. If our
civilization or country is to survive in any meaningful sense, that order must be
destroyed.
And that means replacing the political class, the enemy collaborators, exemplified by the
likes of Senator McCain. His warmongering against a nuclear armed Russia is unhinged
. His desire to hurt our own nation is so unrelenting and energetic one wonders if he
is working under
duress or threat of blackmail . I almost hope so. To think he actually believes these ideas
is a terrifying possibility.
It is not polite to speak ill of the terminally ill. Yet this cruel, murderous and
thoroughly
despicable character poses a threat not just to the existence of the American nation, but
to the very lives of people all over the world.
I wish the Senator no harm. I only offer a desperate prayer in self-defense that his
retirement will be forthcoming and his media megaphone removed.
The political life not just of our country, but of the world, must be rid of this Man of
Blood , this sociopathic butcher -- who, shuffling to his grave, seems determined to drag
us all down with him.
Gee, you didn't even mention his actual collaboration with the actual enemy while a POW in
Hanoi.
Speaking of Germany, they held elections in Niedersachsen the other day, and more than a
few people were surprised to see a large influx of votes for the AfD (so-called
ultra-nationalists) come from immigrants who came to the country legally through the proper
channels aside from so-called Asylum or simply walking in.
Another interesting thing from Germany: The native-German Interior Minister suggests that
Islamic holidays be added to the legal holiday list, and the biggest critic of that turns out
to be the Turkish-descended leader of the Green Party.
Who can forget the humiliation suffered at the hands of this man by the patriotic and
courageous Chuck Hagel, when Mr. Hagel was nominated to be Secretary of Defence under Obama.
That a compromised and morally corrupt, traitorous individual can inflict such demeaning
treatment in the open on the MSM on an outstanding true American, such as Mr. Hagel, speaks
volumes about the state of affairs in the USA today. Thank you Mr. Kirkpatrick!
There's no doubt that the vast majority of Republican congressman utterly loathe their white
constituents and John McAmnesty is one of the worst if not the worst. They're on board with
white race replacement and support the spurious nationalism of Israel as well as the racial
chauvinism of every third world racial group within the United States while condemning white
nationalism.
John McCain especially champions the spurious nationalism of Israel and even lovingly
refers to it as a Jewish state while he insists that it's the U.S.'s destiny to "reinvent"
itself as a multiracial flophouse with no racial core and hothouse of anti-white racial
hatred.
Personally, I hope the evil SOB dies a miserable death whether of cancer or some other
cause. He would richly deserve it.
I didn't realize or had forgotten about McCain's unsavory interrogation of Hagel. A
guttersnipe performance is what one would expect from the good senator. A quick google search
once again proved this to be the case!
"We live in a land made of ideals, not blood and soil," he explained. "We are the custodians
of those ideals at home, and their champion abroad."
How can a land be made of ideals? Land is land. It is rock overlaid with soil. While rock
cannot sustain life, soil can. Soil is the decomposed bodies of all the living things that
have had their abode there. Culture, like soil is the substrate in which the individual is
rooted and from which he draws his sustenance.
It is impossible to think about "ideals" without at the same time invoking culture, the
sum total of inherited wisdom. Inherited wisdom is the fruit of a tree whose sap is the blood
of its forebears. The tree is rooted in soil made up of the figurative decomposed bodies of
its forebears. Ideals that are not rooted in blood and soil float in the air; they are
abstracted, removed and alien.
In his book "The Rebel", Camus drew a distinction between rebellion and revolution.
Observing that revolutions always devoured their own, Camus came to the conclusion that
whereas rebellion was a violent "pushing back" which defined a limit beyond which humans may
not proceed, revolution, based on pure "ideals" was restrained by no such limit. The
consequence of Revolution was a top-down tyranny which gave itself permission to remake
humankind according to its' "ideal" blueprint even if that meant reeducation, radical
reconditioning and ultimately murdering the poor subjects of the grand social experiment.
Revolutions, born in the realm of "ideals" always end in murder and tyranny. Rebellions
are more human affairs. Both the French and Russian revolutions ended in the slaughter of
thousands if not millions under the pretext of creating the perfected human race. Rebellions,
grounded in a man's personal feeling of having "had it up to here" are an act of defiance
that implicitly draws a line in the sand saying "Beyond this line you shall not go." and
"This far and no farther". We see the same limit-drawing in the defiance which the Alt Right
has shown in standing up to today's ruling demagogues. As long as those rebelling hold
themselves in their behavior to the same line or limit they have drawn, then the human race
develops its potentialities.
It is no surprise then that McCain, speaking on behalf of an alien, occupying government,
would espouse an ideal blueprint that undermines the solidarity of this nation's citizens and
which will, if history is any indication, likely result in the slaughter of millions of
us.
Now taking bets as to how long the senile old coot, Tokyo Rose McCain, can defy the reaper.
My guess is 9 months as he is on the best socialized medical plan on the planet .free
everything at Walter Reed in Bethesda. Hell, Cheney has been plugging along for years after
the elite medicos replaced his diseased ticker with an aquarium pump ..so there is no reason
Rose can't make it 9 more months with his mickey mouse brain tumor. Let's see .that would
make it July 18 but maybe the gods are in a playful mood so let's predict July 29, the
anniversary of the day a Rose afterburner prank set the USS Forrestal on fire, killing 134
sailors.
[Pick a single Handle and stick to it, or use Anonymous/Anon. Otherwise, your comments
may get trashed.]
We have doubled the national debt "fighting terrorism". Yet, corrupt Zio puppets like
McCain think the same 3rd world menace that we have spent decades bombing are " cured" of
their terrorist ways once they step on American soil? That is a a level of absolute ignorance
that shouldn't be tolerated.
In order to understand what the ruling class in America is all about, we need to examine 2 of
their most favorite phrases: 1. US is exceptional 2. We are all equal.
These are 2 mutually exclusive statements that only make sense if we identify whom exactly
are they referring to.
It's actually pretty simple. US has 2 classes. 1. Ruling elites 2. Proles
The statement that US are exceptional refers to their ruling elites. They are the ones
that are exceptional and irreplaceable. The statement about "all of us" being equal refers
clearly to the proles – as seen through the eyes of the ruling elites.
Proles are all equal from the perspective of the ruling elites. Not only are the proles
equal among themselves – they are equal to all the proles from all over the world. The
proof of this is – of course the uncontrolled immigration from the 3rd world.
The domestic proles are not only equal to the ones from the 3rd world – they are
also replaceable by them. In order to make this point as clear as possible – the ruling
elites are not only replacing the domestic proles with 3rd world proles – they also
intend to equalize the standards of living between these 2 types of proles – and this
equalization is not working in favor of the domestic proles.
The declining standards of living for the domestic proles meet with the inclining
standards of living for the newly arrived 3rd world proles who are still possible to impress
with declining standards of living of the proles in US – considering that the places
where they come from are even worse off.
Those 2 magnanimous statements about: 1.US being exceptional and 2. We are all equal need
to be replaced with (as spoken through the lying, mendacious and hypocritical mouths of the
ruling elites):
1. We are exceptional (ruling elites) 2. YOU are all equal (all proles regardless of place
of origin). That should put some clarity into the phony generosity of the ruling elites with
which they "embrace" everybody as being "equal".
And it will take this terrible disease to rid the nation of this terrible man as the
voters of Arizona continued to put the traitor in office over far too many years.
Both this article and the comments reflect a segment of this country that has gone off the
rails. This is trash and nothing more than resentful low life expressing their anger, devoid
of any sense of decency.
McCain's a phony and anyone who thinks he's some kind of hero is either deluded or part of
the problem of this country being used and abused by certain actors to obtain power, wealth
and other people's land.
You can bet the house that Johnny Boy would never say "We are all Palestinians" anytime,
let alone when Israel is venting its impotence against its neighbors by carpet-bombing
Gaza.
To selectively advocate for freedom only for those who've donated huge amounts of money or
who your CFR or AIPAC overlords tell you to cheer on is not only craven, but treasonous, as
it gets the USA involved in endless war mongering and nation building.
In a way, McCain is the Harvey Weinstein of the USG, only he doesn't rape little girls,
but nations yearning to be free of Wall Street and a Zionist infested neoCON
government.
"To fear the world we have organized and led for three-quarters of a century, to abandon the
ideals we have advanced around the globe, to refuse the obligations of international
leadership and our duty to remain 'the last best hope of earth' for the sake of some
half-baked, spurious nationalism cooked up by people who would rather find scapegoats than
solve problems is as unpatriotic as an attachment to any other tired dogma of the past that
Americans consigned to the ash heap of history."
"This is trash and nothing more than resentful low life expressing their anger, devoid of
any sense of decency."
You've put the cart before the horse.
We are angry because we are people with a sense of decency who resent the arrogance of a
self-anointed, alien, occupying Elite by whose actions our standard of living is being
lowered.
There is no hatred more complete and no malevolence more fanatical than that held by the
American political class for the American people.
That's s a verity beyond question, and I might add, they no doubt feel the same about the
people everywhere. Albert J. Beveridge's 1898 "March of the Flag " is a must read since he's
quite open about how the ruling plutoligarchs viewed others and it rivals Cecil Rhodes'
"Confession of Faith" (1877).
What surprises me is that most 'Merkins seem so clueless about it and must be constantly
reminded when, in fact, the concept was well known to those who opposed the imposition of the
constitution on the peasant and prol class over 2 centuries ago.
Here are a few excerpts from "The Use of Coercion by the New Goverenment" (1788) that
illustrate the fact that early Americans were better informed than the clueless masses of
'Merkin fools of today. Note the date as well as how many points apply to the situation
today.
Read the said constitution [I] find that we are to receive but little good, and a great
deal of evil.
Aristocracy, or government in the hands of a very few nobles, or RICH MEN, is therein
concealed in the most artful wrote plan that ever was formed to entrap a free people. The
contrivers of it have so completely entrapped you, and laid their plans so sure and
secretly And in order to bring you into their snare, you may daily read new pieces
published in the newspapers, in favor of this new government; and should a writer
dare to publish any piece against it, he is immediately abused and vilified.
Look round you and observe well the RICH MEN, who are to be your only rulers, lords and
masters in future! Are they not all for it? Yes! Ought not this to put you on your guard?
Does not riches beget power, and power, oppression and tyranny?
Let me beg of you to reflect a moment on the danger you run. If you choose these men,
or others like them, they certainly will do everything in their power to adopt the new
government. Should they succeed, your liberty is gone forever; and you will then be
nothing better than a strong ass crouching down between two burdens.
-"A FARMER AND PLANTER" had his work printed in The Maryland Journal, and Baltimore
Advertiser, April 1, 1788.
When McPain talks about the vast merits of this country, surely he must be praising our
penchant for wars of imperialism. There is little for other countries to envy, the US has
gone to the dogs.
This detritic monster must have a radio device in his brain that tells him to utter such
lies with his special brand of contempt.
One aches to ask Senator McCain directly what "problem" he thinks will be more
effectively "solved" by importing the Third World. National security? Health care?
Collapsing wages? Rising inequality? Crumbling infrastructure?
None of the above. As Prof. MacDonald has clearly demonstrated, the truth is that The
Lobby was behind the push for importing the Thirld World.
Here's the source:
Jewish Involvement in Shaping American Immigration Policy, 1881-1965: A Historical
Review
Kevin MacDonald
California State University-Long Beach
This paper discusses Jewish involvement in shaping United States immigration policy. In
addition to a periodic interest in fostering the immigration of co-religionists as a result
of anti-Semitic movements, Jews have an interest in opposing the establishment of
ethnically and culturally homogeneous societies in which they resideas minorities. Jews
have been at the forefront in supporting movements aimed at altering the ethnic
status quo in the United States in favor of immigration of non-European peoples. These
activities have involved leadership in Congress, organizing and funding anti-restrictionist
groups composed of Jews and gentiles, and originating intellectual movements opposed to
evolutionary and biological perspectives in the social sciences.
An excerpt from p. 300:
A congruent opinion is expressed by prominent Jewish social scientist and political
activist Earl Raab' who remarks very positively on the success of revised American
immigration policy in altering the ethnic composition of the United States since 1965.
Raab notes that the Jewish community has taken a leadership role in changing the
Northwestern European bias of American immigration policy (1993a, p. 17), and he has
also maintained that one factor inhibiting anti-Semitism in the contemporary United States
is that "(a)n increasing ethnic heterogeneity, as a result of immigration, has made it even
more difficult for a political party or mass movement of bigotry to develop" (1995, p. 91).
Or more colorfully:
The Census Bureau has just reported that about half of the American population will soon
be non-white or non-European. And they will all be American citizens. We have tipped
beyond the point where a Nazi-Aryan party will be able to prevail in this country. We
[i.e., Jews] have been nourishing the American climate of opposition to bigotry for about
half a century. That climate has not yet been perfected, but the heterogeneous nature of
our population tends to make it irreversible -- and makes our constitutional constraints
against bigotry more practical than ever (Raab, 1993b, p. 23).
Indeed, the "primary objective" of Jewish political activity after 1945 "was to
prevent the emergence of an anti-Semitic reactionary mass movement in the United
States" (Svonkin 1997,1998).
So, as the concluding sentence intimates, The Lobby had pushed for immigration reform for
over a hundred years because it wanted to ensure that pogroms would never occur in the New
World, like they did in the Old World.
As I've previously stated, what we witnessed in Charlottsville, VA is the last spasms of
an organism that has been attacked by the "Diversity Is Our Strength" virus, implanted by The
Lobby. But, as I keep reminding people, the tremendous success of The Lobby may be sowing the
seeds of its own demise, as it will inevitably succumb to hubristic forces and keep reaching
for more and more – e.g., the anti-BDS law that could fine Americans for up to $1M and
imprison them for up to 20 yrs if they support BDS. These types of actions will convince more
and more Americans that The Lobby is working against their interests and a day of reckoning
will come.
To avert this scenario from unfolding, my consistent advice has been for the Jewish
community to take notice of these risks and to work to curb the influence of their powerful
lobbies. These lobbies must immediately cease and desist from pursuing their nefarious
objectives – both domestic (diversity is our strength) and foreign (the phony GWOT that
has drained gallons of blood and trillions of dollars to enhance the security of the villa in
the jungle) – that are inimical to the interests of the American people.
Don't believe me? Here's what Prof. MacDonald predicts the future holds if things continue
on the same path they're currently on:
CONCLUSION
The defeats of 1924 and 1952 did not prevent the ultimate victory of the Jewish interest
in combating the cultural, political, and demographic dominance of the European-derived
peoples of the United States. What is truly remarkable is the tenacity with which Jewish
ethnic interests were pursued for a period of close to 100 years. Also remarkable was the
ability to frame the argument of immigration-restrictionists in terms of racial superiority
in the period from 1924-1965 rather than in such positive terms as the ethnic interests of
the peoples of northern and western Europe in main- taining a status quo as of 1924.
During the period between 1924 and 1965 Jewish interests were largely thwarted, but this
did not prevent the ultimate triumph of the Jewish perspective on immigration.
Although the success of the anti-restrictionist effort is an indication that people can
be induced to be altruistic toward other groups, I rather doubt such altruism will continue
to occur if there are obvious signs that the status and political power of the
European-derived group is decreasing while the power of other groups increases as a result
of immigration and other social policies. The prediction, both on common sense grounds
and on the basis of psychological research on social identity process (e.g., Hogg &
Abrams, 1987) , is that as other groups become increasingly powerful and salient in a
multicultural society, the European-derived peoples of the United States will become
increasingly unified and that contemporary divisive influences among the European-derived
peoples of the United States (e.g., issues related to gender and sexual orientation; social
class differences; religious differences) will be increasingly perceived as unimportant.
Eventually these groups will develop greater cohesion and a sense of common interest in
their interactions with the other ethnic groups with profound consequences on the future
history of America and the West.
Note to authors.: If you intend to have something published, please research the topic
first. You tainted a perfectly fine article with your comment on the military. What we have
is an abomination, and McCain itself makes, and has made use of, the monstrosity for his own
evil ends.
Both this article and the comments reflect a segment of this country that has gone off
the rails.
I got news for ya. The country went off the rails in 1788.
This is trash and nothing more than resentful low life expressing their anger, devoid of
any sense of decency.
Actually your comment is trash. Petulant trash to be more precise. People are expressing
their anger because of the despicable McCain's total lack of decency.
Please re-read the article. McCain is the indecent trash and he does evoke anger. Hell,
rage against that horrid pile of swine scat is justified too, I think.
If he spends eternity simmering in a cauldron of fetid pig body fluids mixed with molten
gold, a punishment similar to those mentioned in the Babylonian Talmud, I wouldn't shed any
tears. It would be deserved and appropriate.
Speaking of McStain and the military, not only did the scumster itself betray its fellows,
but it was excreted by a military family.
Let's look a bit more at what "Brutus" had to say about standing armies what it
attracts
an army will afford a decent support, and agreeable employment to the young men of many
families, who are too indolent to follow occupations that will require care and industry,
and too poor to live without doing any business, we can have little reason to doubt but
that we shall have a large standing army as soon as this government can find money to pay
them, and perhaps sooner.
McCain caused the explosion and fire on the USS FORRESTAL that took the lives of 134 men and
wounded 161 as a result of a wet start prank with his jet and a coverup of the incident took
place as his father was in command of the navy.
McCain also made over 30 tapes for North Vietnam condemning the U.S. and he gave
information on bombing runs that led to American planes being shot down. McCain gave so much
info to the North that he was label by them as the SONGBIRD.
McCain has a filthy mouth as is evident in videos of him on you tube cursing out various
people and especially when asked about his covering up the fact that POWS were left behind in
North Vietnam.
McCain was in on supporting ISIS aka AL CIADA and was pictured with ISIS leaders in Syria
and was an important part in supplying ISIS.
McCain is a absolute fraud and a traitor and a liar.
In short, " the world we have organized and led for three-quarters of a century" is FUBAR,
and yes, our nation is a mix of blood and soil. Mostly the blood of Christians of European
descent, and the soil consecrated by the incredible sacrifices of the latter to win it and
cultivate it.
The providential role of America was to be a great tellurocratic continental power
stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific and to the Gulf of Mexico and to provide a home
for those Christian Europeans eager to avoid the petty dynastic quarrels and internecine
squabbles of Europe. It was never intended to be a dumping ground for the world's refuse nor
an international gendarme.
Unfortunately, the demonic spiritual ancestors of the likes of McCain decided to make the
republic an empire and set their sights upon the Caribbean and the Philippines and the rest
is history. America's blundering into world affairs has been nothing but disastrous, and has
led to the outright destruction of the European homeland's culture, and now a near extinction
of its people.
McCain is a warmongering idiot and a major war criminal who will never face human justice
but who should prepare himself for Divine justice by spending his last years or months on
earth in a monastic cell doing penance.
This reflects the current fight within the US hegemonist camp: who to destroy first, Putin or
the EU. Mr Kirkpatrick's extraordinary fury probably stems from the fact that Mc Cain has
exposed that split in the public arena. McCain sees Putin as having become a far greater
threat to US hegemony than the EU, so he wants to put destroying the EU on the back burner
until the more immediate threat of Putin is removed. Clearly, Mr Kirkpatrick is on the other
side of that argument. He wants to stick to the original plan of using Putin to destroy the
EU and then turning on Putin. The argument about intervention or non-intervention is indeed
"spurious" and "half-baked". The "non-intervention" argument was concocted in haste after
Putin had departed from the US hegemonist "script" by annexing Crimea and has never been more
than a pretext for letting Putin win in Ukraine, which Mr Kirkpatrick goes out of his way to
mention, so that he can get on with the job the US hegemonists have given him of breaking up
the EU. Thus, the reason why the "nationalism" preached by the Breitbart/VDare camp sounds
spurious and half-baked is precisely because it is. Indeed, Mr Kirkpatrick betrays himself by
his comments about Germany. A "non-interventionist" wouldn't care a hoot about what happens
in Germany, on way or the other, and a person on the right of the political spectrum
certainly wouldn't declare a communist dictatorship to be "more free" than a democracy.
People like Mr Kirkpatrick piously preach the rights of white Americans but , we white
Europeans, and we are, after all, the "original" whites, are to have our media manipulated
and our elections and referenda rigged so as to prevent us exercising the national
sovereignty which the same Americans are urging upon us in a way which does not serve the
cause of US global hegemony. That may or may not be spurious and half-baked but it certainly
can't be called "non-intervention"!
McCain legacy in Ukraine: "Ukraine has a Nazi problem " https://www.rt.com/op-edge/406991-western-media-ukraine-nazi/
"On Saturday night, up to 20,000 far-right radicals honored the 75th anniversary of the
Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) – a paramilitary group led by Stepan Bandera, which
actively collaborated with Hitler's Germany. The leaders of the procession included Oleg
Tyahnybok, an associate of US Senators John McCain " https://www.rt.com/op-edge/406991-western-media-ukraine-nazi/
What a family! – the panderers to ziocons (USSLiberty tragedy) and the associates of
neo-Nazis (Ukrainian tragedy).
John McCain was a disaster from day one. He graduated near the bottom of his class at
Annapolis, did an aircraft "hot start" as a "stunt" which killed a number of Navy crewmen,
personally crashed 3 aircraft, and was never punished for it. You see, McCain's daddy was an
admiral who protected "sonny boy" from repercussions for his stupidity.
Captured in North Vietnam, he turned out to be one of the most prolific "stoolies" which
caused untold suffering for his fellow POWs. His POW nickname was "songbird". You can be sure
that he "tweeted" a lot in order to procure preferential treatment for himself.
Fast forward to the "savings and loan" scandal, in which McCain was a principle player. Of
course, his POW "status" got him out of that one. McCain is a Democrat masquerading as a
Republican. He should have been put "out to pasture" a long time ago . . .
Both John McCain (R-Tel Aviv) and John Kerry (D-Tel Aviv) should be put out to pasture. .
. It is no secret that only HALF of our verified Vietnam War POW's were released to us. The
North Vietnamese "held back" HALF of our POWs in anticipation of receiving "war reparations"
(which never materialized).
Most people are unaware that both of these cretins cut off the search for POWs in
Southeast Asia at a time when there were STILL verified sightings of Americans held in
captivity. These sightings took place by satellite imaging ("circle-K") as well as being
verified by various "boots on the ground". McCain and Kerry consigned these brave men to
their suffering deaths. . . So much for "leaving no one behind". . .
by spending his last years or months on earth in a monastic cell doing penance.
I have a suggestion; Abu Ghraib. In a radioactive cell with Hillary and Netan-yahoooo.
How about subjecting these pustulent vermin to an occasional dose of napalm and WP when
they're feeling uppity, and a refreshing shower of Agent Orange now and then? As a
consolation, they can sleep on mattresses stuffed with money.
McCain and Biden are indeed indentical in one key respect.
Both are bought and paid for and always do the bidding of their masters. For McCain, he's
a servant of the Merchants of Death. Or to use their more offical but oxymoronic name, the
'defense contractors.' Biden was once known as the Senator from MasterCard, and Obama picked
him to signal to Obama's banker backers that they'd have their old friend in the White House
alongside Obama.
Thus, neither really represents a personal idealogy. Both simply do whatever the people
who own them tell them to do, and then spout a lot of nonsense that sound like personal
beliefs. But any of those statement will change or be discarded when their owners decide they
want something different. And in between, limited and meaningless statements of what they
think their voters want to hear during campaigns.
The Senator from Boeing and the Senator from MasterCard. A perfect pair.
the Bloodstain will rightly check out of this world the most hated and despised man in
American history
Benedict Arnold or John Wayne Gacy or Jerry Sandusky are all notorious for their evil
deeds, but John McCain, by shear weight of the incomprehensible human suffering and horrors
he's personally responsible for, will surely go down in history as the most execrable human
being to ever defile our nation.
when Gacy breathed his last feculent breath, it was a cause of celebration to all whose
lives he touched
and similarly, hundreds of millions.. indeed; billions of people the world over-
from Russia to the Middle East to America's heartland- will all quietly celebrate in our
hearts, as a united family of humanity, when that evil little man finally goes to meet his
reward in hell.
I sort of wonder if that's why they kept Ariel Sharon on life support for so long, so as
to cheat us all of the quiet celebration we were all entitled to when that toad finally
checked out.
Please Bloodstain, don't linger in that way. Give us all a what we're entitled to! what we
long for..
You are/were, hand's down, the most loathsome human being on the planet during your entire
murderous and treasonous career, at least try at least in some small way, to make up for it
by giving us all, the entire populace of planet Earth, a united cause to celebrate, at least
for one glorious moment!
re: The sacrifice of our military is framed as "leadership."
"Fallen" (dead) soldiers are the sacrificial lambs which sanctify the government's leaders.
It's the blood of the lamb, or the Aztec sacrifices, whatever one's religion, which make the
government's policy holy and right. Religious power correlates wonderfully with government
power, and each promotes the other.
Is it your dedication to zionism or is it your neo-Nazi Ukrainian patriotism that made you
an admirer of the "Tokyo Rose?" McCain is a big friend of both Israel and neo-Nazis; no
conflict here. See also the Jewish citizen Kolomojsky, famous for his financing the neo-Nazi
battalion Azov.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called McCain "A hero. A fighter. A friend." Who
needs another recommendation when Bibi approves McCain? https://www.timesofisrael.com/4-times-john-mccain-went-maverick-with-jewish-friends/
Yes, "non-interventionists" who are race-realists and white advocates, immigration
restrictionists who support and want to conserve what is left of West Civilization in North
America, Australia, and Europe, a civilization that was created and can only be sustained by
Europeans, shouldn't care about the ruination of Germany, France, the UK, Sweden, Belgium,
etc. by Muslims, black Africans, and Somalis who are black and Muslim. They shouldn't care
about Muslim terrorism, about the sexual assaults of hundreds of women and girls in Cologne
and other German cities by Muslim savages and predators and misogynists; about the abduction,
enslavement, torture, and gang-rapes of girls as young as 10 and 11 in Rotherham by Muslim
immigrants from Pakistan; about Arab and Somali Muslims committing over 95% of rapes in
Sweden; about virtually all the nations of Western Europe being transformed into Muslim and
black African-majority hell-holes and dystopias.
This article skirts around the fact that McCain sold himself out to a racist-supremacist,
mideast sect that abuses Americans decades ago. His whole political career has been based on
being a lackey of a corrupt foreign mafia that ponied up "funds" to get him re-elected
whenever a real American posed a threat to the sect's lackey.
google( John McCain; A Closer Look at Evil (Part 2) )
The political genealogy of Arizona Senator John McCain is firmly rooted in organized crime.
Gus Greenbaum, an influential mobster, was close to Meyer Lansky in New York .
google( John McCain; A Closer Look at Evil (Part 4) )
The career of John McCain offers a textbook case confirming how war is waged on the U.S. by
way of deception -- with the help of senior lawmakers. Despite the constancy of his
treasonous conduct, .
Lets remember that as a lackey of the sect, McCain helped introduce the "campaign reform"
that facilitated buying of American elections by the sect with this kind of perversion.
google( How Hillary Clinton Bought the Loyalty of 33 State Democratic Parties counterpunch
)
I'm sorry if I don't agree with the OP author's contention that the FFofA wouldn't recognize
McCain's remarks. Half of the FFofA were Masons or fellow travellers of Masonry like Tom
Paine. George Washington was a Mason as were all of his generals under him. America is the
first Masonic Republic, look at the Seal of the US and the two slogans, "Novus Ordo" and "E
pluribus unum" -- very Masonic sentiments, ideas. The only 'dogma' of Masonry is the
Brotherhood of Man–the rebuilding of the Tower of Babel. McCain is only espousing true
Masonic ideas and values. Masonry calls race those "accidental divisions of mankind". Not all
of America is onboard with Masonry, but much of the Elite, especially the Establisment Swamp
IS Masonic at its core. Masonry is an American tradition.
Masonry is an evil ideology and McCain is only a practitioner of it.
"... The Senator from Arizona represents something relatively new on the American scene: the emerging class of colonial administrators, Pentagon contractors, and high-ranking military personnel, and their families, many of them stationed overseas. These people have a material interest in the expansion of our role as global cop, they number in the tens of thousands, and they are strategically placed in the social order, with enough social power to constitute an influential lobby. ..."
"... As the prototype of this mutant species of Homo Americanus , McCain is the perfect enemy of the new nationalism that handed the White House to Donald Trump and sundered the Brits from the EU. It's no surprise he's become the antipode of the Trumpian "America First" foreign policy doctrine – a doctrine that is almost never implemented, but that's another column. His latest philippic perfectly summarizes the spirit and content of the brazen imperialism that is his credo and the credo of his class, We get the whole grand tour of McCainism as a worldview, from the rather odd idea that "America is an idea" and not an actual place to the glories of the "international order." There is much shedding of blood "to make a better world" – a cause we are told has "made our own civilization more just, freer, more accomplished and prosperous than the America that existed when I watched my father go off to war on December 7, 1941." Now here is crackpot Keynesianism with a vengeance: the destruction of World War II was good for the economy! ..."
"... Having "liberated" the world from itself, the United States, as the champion of World Order, is in danger of turning away from its sacred duty to always be shedding lots and lots of blood on behalf of Others. And we know just who McCain is talking about: ..."
Some people are living symbols, sheer embodiments of a concept that fits their persona as
snugly as their skin: e.g. the Dalai Lama personifies Contemplative Piety, Harvey Weinstein is
the incarnation of Brazen Vulgarity, and John McCain's very person exudes the sweaty blustery
spirit of Empire. His entire history – born in the Panama Canal zone, son of an admiral,
third-generation centurion, the War Party's senatorial spokesman – made it nearly
impossible for him to be other than what he is: the country's most outspoken warmonger and
dedicated internationalist.
As George Orwell remarked, "After forty, everyone has the face they deserve," and in
McCain's case this is doubly true. That Roman head, fit for a coin of high denomination, looks
as if it might sprout a crown of laurel leaves at any moment: Grizzled brow, wrinkled with the
tension of an inborn belligerence, eyes alight with a perpetual flame of self-righteous anger,
McCain is Teddy Roosevelt impersonating Cato the Elder. In the extreme predictability of his
warlike effusions, he's become a bit of a cartoon character. Who can forget his enthusiastic
rendition of " Bomb bomb
bomb Iran! " to the tune of "Barbara Ann"?
The Senator from Arizona represents something relatively new on the American scene: the
emerging class of colonial administrators, Pentagon contractors, and high-ranking military
personnel, and their families, many of them stationed overseas. These people have a material
interest in the expansion of our role as global cop, they number in the tens of thousands, and
they are strategically placed in the social order, with enough social power to constitute an
influential lobby.
As the prototype of this mutant species of Homo Americanus , McCain is the
perfect enemy of the new nationalism that handed the White House to Donald Trump and sundered
the Brits from the EU. It's no surprise he's become the antipode of the Trumpian "America
First" foreign policy doctrine – a doctrine that is almost never implemented, but that's
another column.
His latest philippic perfectly summarizes the spirit and content of the brazen imperialism
that is his credo and the credo of his class, We get the whole grand tour of McCainism as a
worldview, from the rather odd idea that "America is an idea" and not an actual place to
the glories of the "international order." There is much shedding of blood "to make a better
world" – a cause we are told has "made our own civilization more just, freer, more
accomplished and prosperous than the America that existed when I watched my father go off to
war on December 7, 1941." Now here is crackpot Keynesianism with a vengeance:
the destruction of World War II was good for the economy!
Having "liberated" the world from itself, the United States, as the champion of World
Order, is in danger of turning away from its sacred duty to always be shedding lots and lots of
blood on behalf of Others. And we know just who McCain is talking about:
"To fear the world we have organized and led for three-quarters of a century, to abandon
the ideals we have advanced around the globe, to refuse the obligations of international
leadership and our duty to remain 'the last best hope of earth' for the sake of some
half-baked, spurious nationalism cooked up by people who would rather find scapegoats than
solve problems is as unpatriotic as an attachment to any other tired dogma of the past that
Americans consigned to the ash heap of history."
The idea that we led and organized the world for the entire postwar era erases the cold war
from history, a neat trick given McCain's record. And as for our "ideals" and this "last best
hope" business, none of that is worth a single American soldier – nor does it have
anything to do with a soldier's proper job, which is protecting this country. Yet what is one
to expect from someone who actually believes "we live in a land of ideals, not blood and soil."
Blood never comes into it for McCain unless it's being shed in some ill-conceived totally
unnecessary war. And as for soil – there is none. There's just "ideals," floating in a
void.
While admitting that the Trumpian version of American nationalism is somewhat undercooked
– and, perhaps, not all that digestible – one has to wonder: where does a supporter
of the Iraq war, who assured us it would be a glorious victory, get off calling anybody or
anything half-baked?
McCain doesn't even try making a coherent argument: instead, he simply lies by claiming
that, having taken the road to Empire, "we have become incomparably powerful and wealthy as we
did." It's utter nonsense, of course: empires are an expensive luxury. We spend more on the
military than the top ten powers combined, and the national debt is at historic heights. We're
effectively bankrupt thanks to out-of-control military spending and McCain's favored wars of
choice.
The idea that we have a "moral obligation" to enforce McCain's beloved "international order"
is rooted in the crazed post-millennial pietism
that has motivated so much that is mischievous in American history. The
old religious impulse that motivated Prohibition and the "anti-vice" campaigns of the
nineteenth century has, today, been secularized and internationalized. The old fundamentalists
sought to remake the country, their secular successors seek to remake the
world . This accounts for the quasi-religious tone of McCain's remarks, this talk of "moral
obligation" and "shame" if we fail to take up the burden of Empire, manfully and willfully,
because "We will not thrive in a world where our leadership and ideals are absent. We wouldn't
deserve to."
In other words: Americans have no right to live their lives in peace, and to leave others in
the same condition: they must perpetually be sticking their noses in other peoples' business,
sniffing out "injustice" and making sure the trains run on time. McCain hails the crusade to
"help make another, better world" – yet the American people don't want another world,
they want to live in this world in peace and security, rather than sacrificing
themselves to some imaginary "duty" to uplift the world on Uncle Sam's shoulders. That's one
reason why Trump is in the White House and McCain is on the outside looking in.
NOTES IN THE MARGIN
You can check out my Twitter feed by going here . But please note that my tweets are sometimes
deliberately provocative, often made in jest, and largely consist of me thinking out loud.
There is no hatred more complete and no malevolence more fanatical than that held by the
American political class for the American people. The commissar's rage against the kulaks,
the jihadist
's fury against the infidel ,
the
inquisitor 's wrath against the
unbeliever , all of this pales in comparison to the genocidal bloodlust
Senators and
Congressmen have against their own
constituents . And even as they gleefully promote the outsourcing of jobs,
the importation of cheap
labor , and the ruthless extirpation of property, wealth and liberty, these shameless
parasites demand their slaves die to export their filthy System all over the world.
Like a dying venomous snake , McCain
is using his final moments to strike at President Trump and those who supported him.
In remarks gleefully repeated by the sociopathic
controlled media, McCain simpered:
To fear the world we have organized and led for three-quarters of a century, to abandon
the ideals we have advanced around the globe, to refuse the obligations of international
leadership and our duty to remain 'the last best hope of earth' for the sake of some
half-baked, spurious nationalism cooked up by people who would rather find scapegoats than
solve problems is as unpatriotic as an attachment to any other tired dogma of the past that
Americans consigned to the ash heap of history.
McCain's mumblings are practically self-discrediting. But as American journalists exist to
serve power and
suppress
dissent it's unlikely the Senator has been or will ever be asked to defend such ludicrous
claims.
McCain draws a distinction between "nationalism" and "patriotism," with the former being
defined by the concrete realities of history and heritage and the latter formed by mysterious
abstractions.
"We live in a land made of ideals, not blood and soil," he explained. "We are the custodians
of those ideals at home, and their champion abroad."
These ideals, as is customary when they are invoked, are not defined. Yet given McCain's
tributes to the "immigrant's dream," the land which "reinvents itself," and the current
"international order," his remarks are being hyped as a rebuke of "Trump_vs_deep_state" and celebrated by
Leftist journalists who suddenly claim the right to define what is "conservatism" or
"Republicanism" [ John
McCain just delivered a total and complete takedown of Trump_vs_deep_state, by Chris
Cillizza, CNN, October 17, 2017]
McCain's ideals would be unrecognizable
, not only to the Founding Fathers, but to practically any other American generation in
history. Would the Father of Our Country have countenanced endless interventionism? Would
either Jefferson or
Hamilton have
recognized a moral imperative for self-annihilation? Would any Federalist or anti-Federalist
celebrate the replacement of the very people who had just won independence from the British
Empire?
McCain's denunciation of "nationalism" is also selective. McCain is quite eager to defend
the borders of other nations. "We are all Ukrainians," he declared on one occasion [ Senator John
McCain: "We Are All Ukrainians, by Jay Newton-Small, Time, February
28, 2014]. "We are all
Georgians" he pronounced on another.
It is only when it comes to America that McCain's "patriotism" becomes abstract and
imaginary. Indeed, it seems every people on earth has a right to "blood and soil" which must be
safeguarded by American arms, except Americans themselves.
Even as this is written, Kurds and Iraqis are on the brink of war [ The Kurdish War with
Iraq, by Thomas Ricks, Foreign Policy, October 17, 2017]. If it
erupts, once again, the tribal hatreds and border
conflicts of peoples who should be of interest to us
only in anthropology textbooks will be cause for the death of American soldiers.
The sacrifice of our military is framed as "leadership." "That leadership has had its costs,
but we have become incomparably powerful and wealthy as we did," McCain gloats. And he is
right, in speaking of his peers; he and his fellow parasites are indeed incomparably powerful
and wealthy.
But such power and wealth does not trickle down to those he ostensibly represents. The wages
of working Americans have
stagnated for decades , and
even skilled workers can barely earn a wage sufficient to support a family.
And "power?" The tyranny of George III that our forefathers rose against would be a glorious
boon for ordinary Americans of today, as their lives , families,
communities , and property are forfeit to the whims of unelected bureaucrats, publicly
funded "activists," or sadistic reporters eager to rouse a mob. McCain's tribute to America's
"power" and "wealth" is reminiscent of an Ottoman sultan boasting about shared victories to the
janissaries he's kidnapped from Eastern Europe.
The democratic system McCain pledges Americans to defend is a form of government in which
elected officials blatantly lie to their constituents and then taunt them at the very moment of
betrayal. Consider McCain himself. He campaigned on repealing Obamacare, and then gleefully
voted to save it [
Mr. McCain Goes To Washington, by John Fund, National Review, July
30, 2017] He
promised to "complete the danged fence" but instead has done his best to make sure Arizona
ceases to be an American state in any meaningful sense.
One may disagree with monarchy or some other form of unelected leadership, but it seems
vastly preferably to a system where political power is awarded to the most outrageous liar.
Such a system should not be tolerated, let alone fought for.
Besides, the liberal international order McCain defends is nothing of the kind. The Western
world is not free. [ The Liberalism That
Isn't, by Costin Alamariu, Daily Caller, September 7, 2017] East
Germany in the 1980s was in some ways more free than
contemporary Germany is today: it would not have occurred to Erich Honecker to expose his
subjects to mass sexual assault at the hands of Muslim invaders and then arrest anyone who
protests. [ Married couple sentenced for migrant critical Facebook post, by Chris
Tomlinson, Breitbart, July 8, 2016]
The Occupation Government in Washington has presided over the
Death of the West . The world order McCain defends is, quite explicitly, built on the
dispossession of the European-Americans who actually created the American polity. If our
civilization or country is to survive in any meaningful sense, that order must be
destroyed.
And that means replacing the political class, the enemy collaborators, exemplified by the
likes of Senator McCain. His warmongering against a nuclear armed Russia is unhinged
. His desire to hurt our own nation is so unrelenting and energetic one wonders if he
is working under
duress or threat of blackmail . I almost hope so. To think he actually believes these ideas
is a terrifying possibility.
It is not polite to speak ill of the terminally ill. Yet this cruel, murderous and
thoroughly
despicable character poses a threat not just to the existence of the American nation, but
to the very lives of people all over the world.
I wish the Senator no harm. I only offer a desperate prayer in self-defense that his
retirement will be forthcoming and his media megaphone removed.
The political life not just of our country, but of the world, must be rid of this Man of
Blood , this sociopathic butcher -- who, shuffling to his grave, seems determined to drag
us all down with him.
Gee, you didn't even mention his actual collaboration with the actual enemy while a POW in
Hanoi.
Speaking of Germany, they held elections in Niedersachsen the other day, and more than a
few people were surprised to see a large influx of votes for the AfD (so-called
ultra-nationalists) come from immigrants who came to the country legally through the proper
channels aside from so-called Asylum or simply walking in.
Another interesting thing from Germany: The native-German Interior Minister suggests that
Islamic holidays be added to the legal holiday list, and the biggest critic of that turns out
to be the Turkish-descended leader of the Green Party.
Who can forget the humiliation suffered at the hands of this man by the patriotic and
courageous Chuck Hagel, when Mr. Hagel was nominated to be Secretary of Defence under Obama.
That a compromised and morally corrupt, traitorous individual can inflict such demeaning
treatment in the open on the MSM on an outstanding true American, such as Mr. Hagel, speaks
volumes about the state of affairs in the USA today. Thank you Mr. Kirkpatrick!
There's no doubt that the vast majority of Republican congressman utterly loathe their white
constituents and John McAmnesty is one of the worst if not the worst. They're on board with
white race replacement and support the spurious nationalism of Israel as well as the racial
chauvinism of every third world racial group within the United States while condemning white
nationalism.
John McCain especially champions the spurious nationalism of Israel and even lovingly
refers to it as a Jewish state while he insists that it's the U.S.'s destiny to "reinvent"
itself as a multiracial flophouse with no racial core and hothouse of anti-white racial
hatred.
Personally, I hope the evil SOB dies a miserable death whether of cancer or some other
cause. He would richly deserve it.
I didn't realize or had forgotten about McCain's unsavory interrogation of Hagel. A
guttersnipe performance is what one would expect from the good senator. A quick google search
once again proved this to be the case!
"We live in a land made of ideals, not blood and soil," he explained. "We are the custodians
of those ideals at home, and their champion abroad."
How can a land be made of ideals? Land is land. It is rock overlaid with soil. While rock
cannot sustain life, soil can. Soil is the decomposed bodies of all the living things that
have had their abode there. Culture, like soil is the substrate in which the individual is
rooted and from which he draws his sustenance.
It is impossible to think about "ideals" without at the same time invoking culture, the
sum total of inherited wisdom. Inherited wisdom is the fruit of a tree whose sap is the blood
of its forebears. The tree is rooted in soil made up of the figurative decomposed bodies of
its forebears. Ideals that are not rooted in blood and soil float in the air; they are
abstracted, removed and alien.
In his book "The Rebel", Camus drew a distinction between rebellion and revolution.
Observing that revolutions always devoured their own, Camus came to the conclusion that
whereas rebellion was a violent "pushing back" which defined a limit beyond which humans may
not proceed, revolution, based on pure "ideals" was restrained by no such limit. The
consequence of Revolution was a top-down tyranny which gave itself permission to remake
humankind according to its' "ideal" blueprint even if that meant reeducation, radical
reconditioning and ultimately murdering the poor subjects of the grand social experiment.
Revolutions, born in the realm of "ideals" always end in murder and tyranny. Rebellions
are more human affairs. Both the French and Russian revolutions ended in the slaughter of
thousands if not millions under the pretext of creating the perfected human race. Rebellions,
grounded in a man's personal feeling of having "had it up to here" are an act of defiance
that implicitly draws a line in the sand saying "Beyond this line you shall not go." and
"This far and no farther". We see the same limit-drawing in the defiance which the Alt Right
has shown in standing up to today's ruling demagogues. As long as those rebelling hold
themselves in their behavior to the same line or limit they have drawn, then the human race
develops its potentialities.
It is no surprise then that McCain, speaking on behalf of an alien, occupying government,
would espouse an ideal blueprint that undermines the solidarity of this nation's citizens and
which will, if history is any indication, likely result in the slaughter of millions of
us.
Now taking bets as to how long the senile old coot, Tokyo Rose McCain, can defy the reaper.
My guess is 9 months as he is on the best socialized medical plan on the planet .free
everything at Walter Reed in Bethesda. Hell, Cheney has been plugging along for years after
the elite medicos replaced his diseased ticker with an aquarium pump ..so there is no reason
Rose can't make it 9 more months with his mickey mouse brain tumor. Let's see .that would
make it July 18 but maybe the gods are in a playful mood so let's predict July 29, the
anniversary of the day a Rose afterburner prank set the USS Forrestal on fire, killing 134
sailors.
[Pick a single Handle and stick to it, or use Anonymous/Anon. Otherwise, your comments
may get trashed.]
We have doubled the national debt "fighting terrorism". Yet, corrupt Zio puppets like
McCain think the same 3rd world menace that we have spent decades bombing are " cured" of
their terrorist ways once they step on American soil? That is a a level of absolute ignorance
that shouldn't be tolerated.
In order to understand what the ruling class in America is all about, we need to examine 2 of
their most favorite phrases: 1. US is exceptional 2. We are all equal.
These are 2 mutually exclusive statements that only make sense if we identify whom exactly
are they referring to.
It's actually pretty simple. US has 2 classes. 1. Ruling elites 2. Proles
The statement that US are exceptional refers to their ruling elites. They are the ones
that are exceptional and irreplaceable. The statement about "all of us" being equal refers
clearly to the proles – as seen through the eyes of the ruling elites.
Proles are all equal from the perspective of the ruling elites. Not only are the proles
equal among themselves – they are equal to all the proles from all over the world. The
proof of this is – of course the uncontrolled immigration from the 3rd world.
The domestic proles are not only equal to the ones from the 3rd world – they are
also replaceable by them. In order to make this point as clear as possible – the ruling
elites are not only replacing the domestic proles with 3rd world proles – they also
intend to equalize the standards of living between these 2 types of proles – and this
equalization is not working in favor of the domestic proles.
The declining standards of living for the domestic proles meet with the inclining
standards of living for the newly arrived 3rd world proles who are still possible to impress
with declining standards of living of the proles in US – considering that the places
where they come from are even worse off.
Those 2 magnanimous statements about: 1.US being exceptional and 2. We are all equal need
to be replaced with (as spoken through the lying, mendacious and hypocritical mouths of the
ruling elites):
1. We are exceptional (ruling elites) 2. YOU are all equal (all proles regardless of place
of origin). That should put some clarity into the phony generosity of the ruling elites with
which they "embrace" everybody as being "equal".
And it will take this terrible disease to rid the nation of this terrible man as the
voters of Arizona continued to put the traitor in office over far too many years.
Both this article and the comments reflect a segment of this country that has gone off the
rails. This is trash and nothing more than resentful low life expressing their anger, devoid
of any sense of decency.
McCain's a phony and anyone who thinks he's some kind of hero is either deluded or part of
the problem of this country being used and abused by certain actors to obtain power, wealth
and other people's land.
You can bet the house that Johnny Boy would never say "We are all Palestinians" anytime,
let alone when Israel is venting its impotence against its neighbors by carpet-bombing
Gaza.
To selectively advocate for freedom only for those who've donated huge amounts of money or
who your CFR or AIPAC overlords tell you to cheer on is not only craven, but treasonous, as
it gets the USA involved in endless war mongering and nation building.
In a way, McCain is the Harvey Weinstein of the USG, only he doesn't rape little girls,
but nations yearning to be free of Wall Street and a Zionist infested neoCON
government.
"To fear the world we have organized and led for three-quarters of a century, to abandon the
ideals we have advanced around the globe, to refuse the obligations of international
leadership and our duty to remain 'the last best hope of earth' for the sake of some
half-baked, spurious nationalism cooked up by people who would rather find scapegoats than
solve problems is as unpatriotic as an attachment to any other tired dogma of the past that
Americans consigned to the ash heap of history."
"This is trash and nothing more than resentful low life expressing their anger, devoid of
any sense of decency."
You've put the cart before the horse.
We are angry because we are people with a sense of decency who resent the arrogance of a
self-anointed, alien, occupying Elite by whose actions our standard of living is being
lowered.
There is no hatred more complete and no malevolence more fanatical than that held by the
American political class for the American people.
That's s a verity beyond question, and I might add, they no doubt feel the same about the
people everywhere. Albert J. Beveridge's 1898 "March of the Flag " is a must read since he's
quite open about how the ruling plutoligarchs viewed others and it rivals Cecil Rhodes'
"Confession of Faith" (1877).
What surprises me is that most 'Merkins seem so clueless about it and must be constantly
reminded when, in fact, the concept was well known to those who opposed the imposition of the
constitution on the peasant and prol class over 2 centuries ago.
Here are a few excerpts from "The Use of Coercion by the New Goverenment" (1788) that
illustrate the fact that early Americans were better informed than the clueless masses of
'Merkin fools of today. Note the date as well as how many points apply to the situation
today.
Read the said constitution [I] find that we are to receive but little good, and a great
deal of evil.
Aristocracy, or government in the hands of a very few nobles, or RICH MEN, is therein
concealed in the most artful wrote plan that ever was formed to entrap a free people. The
contrivers of it have so completely entrapped you, and laid their plans so sure and
secretly And in order to bring you into their snare, you may daily read new pieces
published in the newspapers, in favor of this new government; and should a writer
dare to publish any piece against it, he is immediately abused and vilified.
Look round you and observe well the RICH MEN, who are to be your only rulers, lords and
masters in future! Are they not all for it? Yes! Ought not this to put you on your guard?
Does not riches beget power, and power, oppression and tyranny?
Let me beg of you to reflect a moment on the danger you run. If you choose these men,
or others like them, they certainly will do everything in their power to adopt the new
government. Should they succeed, your liberty is gone forever; and you will then be
nothing better than a strong ass crouching down between two burdens.
-"A FARMER AND PLANTER" had his work printed in The Maryland Journal, and Baltimore
Advertiser, April 1, 1788.
When McPain talks about the vast merits of this country, surely he must be praising our
penchant for wars of imperialism. There is little for other countries to envy, the US has
gone to the dogs.
This detritic monster must have a radio device in his brain that tells him to utter such
lies with his special brand of contempt.
One aches to ask Senator McCain directly what "problem" he thinks will be more
effectively "solved" by importing the Third World. National security? Health care?
Collapsing wages? Rising inequality? Crumbling infrastructure?
None of the above. As Prof. MacDonald has clearly demonstrated, the truth is that The
Lobby was behind the push for importing the Thirld World.
Here's the source:
Jewish Involvement in Shaping American Immigration Policy, 1881-1965: A Historical
Review
Kevin MacDonald
California State University-Long Beach
This paper discusses Jewish involvement in shaping United States immigration policy. In
addition to a periodic interest in fostering the immigration of co-religionists as a result
of anti-Semitic movements, Jews have an interest in opposing the establishment of
ethnically and culturally homogeneous societies in which they resideas minorities. Jews
have been at the forefront in supporting movements aimed at altering the ethnic
status quo in the United States in favor of immigration of non-European peoples. These
activities have involved leadership in Congress, organizing and funding anti-restrictionist
groups composed of Jews and gentiles, and originating intellectual movements opposed to
evolutionary and biological perspectives in the social sciences.
An excerpt from p. 300:
A congruent opinion is expressed by prominent Jewish social scientist and political
activist Earl Raab' who remarks very positively on the success of revised American
immigration policy in altering the ethnic composition of the United States since 1965.
Raab notes that the Jewish community has taken a leadership role in changing the
Northwestern European bias of American immigration policy (1993a, p. 17), and he has
also maintained that one factor inhibiting anti-Semitism in the contemporary United States
is that "(a)n increasing ethnic heterogeneity, as a result of immigration, has made it even
more difficult for a political party or mass movement of bigotry to develop" (1995, p. 91).
Or more colorfully:
The Census Bureau has just reported that about half of the American population will soon
be non-white or non-European. And they will all be American citizens. We have tipped
beyond the point where a Nazi-Aryan party will be able to prevail in this country. We
[i.e., Jews] have been nourishing the American climate of opposition to bigotry for about
half a century. That climate has not yet been perfected, but the heterogeneous nature of
our population tends to make it irreversible -- and makes our constitutional constraints
against bigotry more practical than ever (Raab, 1993b, p. 23).
Indeed, the "primary objective" of Jewish political activity after 1945 "was to
prevent the emergence of an anti-Semitic reactionary mass movement in the United
States" (Svonkin 1997,1998).
So, as the concluding sentence intimates, The Lobby had pushed for immigration reform for
over a hundred years because it wanted to ensure that pogroms would never occur in the New
World, like they did in the Old World.
As I've previously stated, what we witnessed in Charlottsville, VA is the last spasms of
an organism that has been attacked by the "Diversity Is Our Strength" virus, implanted by The
Lobby. But, as I keep reminding people, the tremendous success of The Lobby may be sowing the
seeds of its own demise, as it will inevitably succumb to hubristic forces and keep reaching
for more and more – e.g., the anti-BDS law that could fine Americans for up to $1M and
imprison them for up to 20 yrs if they support BDS. These types of actions will convince more
and more Americans that The Lobby is working against their interests and a day of reckoning
will come.
To avert this scenario from unfolding, my consistent advice has been for the Jewish
community to take notice of these risks and to work to curb the influence of their powerful
lobbies. These lobbies must immediately cease and desist from pursuing their nefarious
objectives – both domestic (diversity is our strength) and foreign (the phony GWOT that
has drained gallons of blood and trillions of dollars to enhance the security of the villa in
the jungle) – that are inimical to the interests of the American people.
Don't believe me? Here's what Prof. MacDonald predicts the future holds if things continue
on the same path they're currently on:
CONCLUSION
The defeats of 1924 and 1952 did not prevent the ultimate victory of the Jewish interest
in combating the cultural, political, and demographic dominance of the European-derived
peoples of the United States. What is truly remarkable is the tenacity with which Jewish
ethnic interests were pursued for a period of close to 100 years. Also remarkable was the
ability to frame the argument of immigration-restrictionists in terms of racial superiority
in the period from 1924-1965 rather than in such positive terms as the ethnic interests of
the peoples of northern and western Europe in main- taining a status quo as of 1924.
During the period between 1924 and 1965 Jewish interests were largely thwarted, but this
did not prevent the ultimate triumph of the Jewish perspective on immigration.
Although the success of the anti-restrictionist effort is an indication that people can
be induced to be altruistic toward other groups, I rather doubt such altruism will continue
to occur if there are obvious signs that the status and political power of the
European-derived group is decreasing while the power of other groups increases as a result
of immigration and other social policies. The prediction, both on common sense grounds
and on the basis of psychological research on social identity process (e.g., Hogg &
Abrams, 1987) , is that as other groups become increasingly powerful and salient in a
multicultural society, the European-derived peoples of the United States will become
increasingly unified and that contemporary divisive influences among the European-derived
peoples of the United States (e.g., issues related to gender and sexual orientation; social
class differences; religious differences) will be increasingly perceived as unimportant.
Eventually these groups will develop greater cohesion and a sense of common interest in
their interactions with the other ethnic groups with profound consequences on the future
history of America and the West.
Note to authors.: If you intend to have something published, please research the topic
first. You tainted a perfectly fine article with your comment on the military. What we have
is an abomination, and McCain itself makes, and has made use of, the monstrosity for his own
evil ends.
Both this article and the comments reflect a segment of this country that has gone off
the rails.
I got news for ya. The country went off the rails in 1788.
This is trash and nothing more than resentful low life expressing their anger, devoid of
any sense of decency.
Actually your comment is trash. Petulant trash to be more precise. People are expressing
their anger because of the despicable McCain's total lack of decency.
Please re-read the article. McCain is the indecent trash and he does evoke anger. Hell,
rage against that horrid pile of swine scat is justified too, I think.
If he spends eternity simmering in a cauldron of fetid pig body fluids mixed with molten
gold, a punishment similar to those mentioned in the Babylonian Talmud, I wouldn't shed any
tears. It would be deserved and appropriate.
Speaking of McStain and the military, not only did the scumster itself betray its fellows,
but it was excreted by a military family.
Let's look a bit more at what "Brutus" had to say about standing armies what it
attracts
an army will afford a decent support, and agreeable employment to the young men of many
families, who are too indolent to follow occupations that will require care and industry,
and too poor to live without doing any business, we can have little reason to doubt but
that we shall have a large standing army as soon as this government can find money to pay
them, and perhaps sooner.
McCain caused the explosion and fire on the USS FORRESTAL that took the lives of 134 men and
wounded 161 as a result of a wet start prank with his jet and a coverup of the incident took
place as his father was in command of the navy.
McCain also made over 30 tapes for North Vietnam condemning the U.S. and he gave
information on bombing runs that led to American planes being shot down. McCain gave so much
info to the North that he was label by them as the SONGBIRD.
McCain has a filthy mouth as is evident in videos of him on you tube cursing out various
people and especially when asked about his covering up the fact that POWS were left behind in
North Vietnam.
McCain was in on supporting ISIS aka AL CIADA and was pictured with ISIS leaders in Syria
and was an important part in supplying ISIS.
McCain is a absolute fraud and a traitor and a liar.
In short, " the world we have organized and led for three-quarters of a century" is FUBAR,
and yes, our nation is a mix of blood and soil. Mostly the blood of Christians of European
descent, and the soil consecrated by the incredible sacrifices of the latter to win it and
cultivate it.
The providential role of America was to be a great tellurocratic continental power
stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific and to the Gulf of Mexico and to provide a home
for those Christian Europeans eager to avoid the petty dynastic quarrels and internecine
squabbles of Europe. It was never intended to be a dumping ground for the world's refuse nor
an international gendarme.
Unfortunately, the demonic spiritual ancestors of the likes of McCain decided to make the
republic an empire and set their sights upon the Caribbean and the Philippines and the rest
is history. America's blundering into world affairs has been nothing but disastrous, and has
led to the outright destruction of the European homeland's culture, and now a near extinction
of its people.
McCain is a warmongering idiot and a major war criminal who will never face human justice
but who should prepare himself for Divine justice by spending his last years or months on
earth in a monastic cell doing penance.
This reflects the current fight within the US hegemonist camp: who to destroy first, Putin or
the EU. Mr Kirkpatrick's extraordinary fury probably stems from the fact that Mc Cain has
exposed that split in the public arena. McCain sees Putin as having become a far greater
threat to US hegemony than the EU, so he wants to put destroying the EU on the back burner
until the more immediate threat of Putin is removed. Clearly, Mr Kirkpatrick is on the other
side of that argument. He wants to stick to the original plan of using Putin to destroy the
EU and then turning on Putin. The argument about intervention or non-intervention is indeed
"spurious" and "half-baked". The "non-intervention" argument was concocted in haste after
Putin had departed from the US hegemonist "script" by annexing Crimea and has never been more
than a pretext for letting Putin win in Ukraine, which Mr Kirkpatrick goes out of his way to
mention, so that he can get on with the job the US hegemonists have given him of breaking up
the EU. Thus, the reason why the "nationalism" preached by the Breitbart/VDare camp sounds
spurious and half-baked is precisely because it is. Indeed, Mr Kirkpatrick betrays himself by
his comments about Germany. A "non-interventionist" wouldn't care a hoot about what happens
in Germany, on way or the other, and a person on the right of the political spectrum
certainly wouldn't declare a communist dictatorship to be "more free" than a democracy.
People like Mr Kirkpatrick piously preach the rights of white Americans but , we white
Europeans, and we are, after all, the "original" whites, are to have our media manipulated
and our elections and referenda rigged so as to prevent us exercising the national
sovereignty which the same Americans are urging upon us in a way which does not serve the
cause of US global hegemony. That may or may not be spurious and half-baked but it certainly
can't be called "non-intervention"!
McCain legacy in Ukraine: "Ukraine has a Nazi problem " https://www.rt.com/op-edge/406991-western-media-ukraine-nazi/
"On Saturday night, up to 20,000 far-right radicals honored the 75th anniversary of the
Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) – a paramilitary group led by Stepan Bandera, which
actively collaborated with Hitler's Germany. The leaders of the procession included Oleg
Tyahnybok, an associate of US Senators John McCain " https://www.rt.com/op-edge/406991-western-media-ukraine-nazi/
What a family! – the panderers to ziocons (USSLiberty tragedy) and the associates of
neo-Nazis (Ukrainian tragedy).
John McCain was a disaster from day one. He graduated near the bottom of his class at
Annapolis, did an aircraft "hot start" as a "stunt" which killed a number of Navy crewmen,
personally crashed 3 aircraft, and was never punished for it. You see, McCain's daddy was an
admiral who protected "sonny boy" from repercussions for his stupidity.
Captured in North Vietnam, he turned out to be one of the most prolific "stoolies" which
caused untold suffering for his fellow POWs. His POW nickname was "songbird". You can be sure
that he "tweeted" a lot in order to procure preferential treatment for himself.
Fast forward to the "savings and loan" scandal, in which McCain was a principle player. Of
course, his POW "status" got him out of that one. McCain is a Democrat masquerading as a
Republican. He should have been put "out to pasture" a long time ago . . .
Both John McCain (R-Tel Aviv) and John Kerry (D-Tel Aviv) should be put out to pasture. .
. It is no secret that only HALF of our verified Vietnam War POW's were released to us. The
North Vietnamese "held back" HALF of our POWs in anticipation of receiving "war reparations"
(which never materialized).
Most people are unaware that both of these cretins cut off the search for POWs in
Southeast Asia at a time when there were STILL verified sightings of Americans held in
captivity. These sightings took place by satellite imaging ("circle-K") as well as being
verified by various "boots on the ground". McCain and Kerry consigned these brave men to
their suffering deaths. . . So much for "leaving no one behind". . .
by spending his last years or months on earth in a monastic cell doing penance.
I have a suggestion; Abu Ghraib. In a radioactive cell with Hillary and Netan-yahoooo.
How about subjecting these pustulent vermin to an occasional dose of napalm and WP when
they're feeling uppity, and a refreshing shower of Agent Orange now and then? As a
consolation, they can sleep on mattresses stuffed with money.
McCain and Biden are indeed indentical in one key respect.
Both are bought and paid for and always do the bidding of their masters. For McCain, he's
a servant of the Merchants of Death. Or to use their more offical but oxymoronic name, the
'defense contractors.' Biden was once known as the Senator from MasterCard, and Obama picked
him to signal to Obama's banker backers that they'd have their old friend in the White House
alongside Obama.
Thus, neither really represents a personal idealogy. Both simply do whatever the people
who own them tell them to do, and then spout a lot of nonsense that sound like personal
beliefs. But any of those statement will change or be discarded when their owners decide they
want something different. And in between, limited and meaningless statements of what they
think their voters want to hear during campaigns.
The Senator from Boeing and the Senator from MasterCard. A perfect pair.
the Bloodstain will rightly check out of this world the most hated and despised man in
American history
Benedict Arnold or John Wayne Gacy or Jerry Sandusky are all notorious for their evil
deeds, but John McCain, by shear weight of the incomprehensible human suffering and horrors
he's personally responsible for, will surely go down in history as the most execrable human
being to ever defile our nation.
when Gacy breathed his last feculent breath, it was a cause of celebration to all whose
lives he touched
and similarly, hundreds of millions.. indeed; billions of people the world over-
from Russia to the Middle East to America's heartland- will all quietly celebrate in our
hearts, as a united family of humanity, when that evil little man finally goes to meet his
reward in hell.
I sort of wonder if that's why they kept Ariel Sharon on life support for so long, so as
to cheat us all of the quiet celebration we were all entitled to when that toad finally
checked out.
Please Bloodstain, don't linger in that way. Give us all a what we're entitled to! what we
long for..
You are/were, hand's down, the most loathsome human being on the planet during your entire
murderous and treasonous career, at least try at least in some small way, to make up for it
by giving us all, the entire populace of planet Earth, a united cause to celebrate, at least
for one glorious moment!
re: The sacrifice of our military is framed as "leadership."
"Fallen" (dead) soldiers are the sacrificial lambs which sanctify the government's leaders.
It's the blood of the lamb, or the Aztec sacrifices, whatever one's religion, which make the
government's policy holy and right. Religious power correlates wonderfully with government
power, and each promotes the other.
Is it your dedication to zionism or is it your neo-Nazi Ukrainian patriotism that made you
an admirer of the "Tokyo Rose?" McCain is a big friend of both Israel and neo-Nazis; no
conflict here. See also the Jewish citizen Kolomojsky, famous for his financing the neo-Nazi
battalion Azov.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called McCain "A hero. A fighter. A friend." Who
needs another recommendation when Bibi approves McCain? https://www.timesofisrael.com/4-times-john-mccain-went-maverick-with-jewish-friends/
Yes, "non-interventionists" who are race-realists and white advocates, immigration
restrictionists who support and want to conserve what is left of West Civilization in North
America, Australia, and Europe, a civilization that was created and can only be sustained by
Europeans, shouldn't care about the ruination of Germany, France, the UK, Sweden, Belgium,
etc. by Muslims, black Africans, and Somalis who are black and Muslim. They shouldn't care
about Muslim terrorism, about the sexual assaults of hundreds of women and girls in Cologne
and other German cities by Muslim savages and predators and misogynists; about the abduction,
enslavement, torture, and gang-rapes of girls as young as 10 and 11 in Rotherham by Muslim
immigrants from Pakistan; about Arab and Somali Muslims committing over 95% of rapes in
Sweden; about virtually all the nations of Western Europe being transformed into Muslim and
black African-majority hell-holes and dystopias.
This article skirts around the fact that McCain sold himself out to a racist-supremacist,
mideast sect that abuses Americans decades ago. His whole political career has been based on
being a lackey of a corrupt foreign mafia that ponied up "funds" to get him re-elected
whenever a real American posed a threat to the sect's lackey.
google( John McCain; A Closer Look at Evil (Part 2) )
The political genealogy of Arizona Senator John McCain is firmly rooted in organized crime.
Gus Greenbaum, an influential mobster, was close to Meyer Lansky in New York .
google( John McCain; A Closer Look at Evil (Part 4) )
The career of John McCain offers a textbook case confirming how war is waged on the U.S. by
way of deception -- with the help of senior lawmakers. Despite the constancy of his
treasonous conduct, .
Lets remember that as a lackey of the sect, McCain helped introduce the "campaign reform"
that facilitated buying of American elections by the sect with this kind of perversion.
google( How Hillary Clinton Bought the Loyalty of 33 State Democratic Parties counterpunch
)
I'm sorry if I don't agree with the OP author's contention that the FFofA wouldn't recognize
McCain's remarks. Half of the FFofA were Masons or fellow travellers of Masonry like Tom
Paine. George Washington was a Mason as were all of his generals under him. America is the
first Masonic Republic, look at the Seal of the US and the two slogans, "Novus Ordo" and "E
pluribus unum" -- very Masonic sentiments, ideas. The only 'dogma' of Masonry is the
Brotherhood of Man–the rebuilding of the Tower of Babel. McCain is only espousing true
Masonic ideas and values. Masonry calls race those "accidental divisions of mankind". Not all
of America is onboard with Masonry, but much of the Elite, especially the Establisment Swamp
IS Masonic at its core. Masonry is an American tradition.
Masonry is an evil ideology and McCain is only a practitioner of it.
"... The Senator from Arizona represents something relatively new on the American scene: the emerging class of colonial administrators, Pentagon contractors, and high-ranking military personnel, and their families, many of them stationed overseas. These people have a material interest in the expansion of our role as global cop, they number in the tens of thousands, and they are strategically placed in the social order, with enough social power to constitute an influential lobby. ..."
"... As the prototype of this mutant species of Homo Americanus , McCain is the perfect enemy of the new nationalism that handed the White House to Donald Trump and sundered the Brits from the EU. It's no surprise he's become the antipode of the Trumpian "America First" foreign policy doctrine – a doctrine that is almost never implemented, but that's another column. His latest philippic perfectly summarizes the spirit and content of the brazen imperialism that is his credo and the credo of his class, We get the whole grand tour of McCainism as a worldview, from the rather odd idea that "America is an idea" and not an actual place to the glories of the "international order." There is much shedding of blood "to make a better world" – a cause we are told has "made our own civilization more just, freer, more accomplished and prosperous than the America that existed when I watched my father go off to war on December 7, 1941." Now here is crackpot Keynesianism with a vengeance: the destruction of World War II was good for the economy! ..."
"... Having "liberated" the world from itself, the United States, as the champion of World Order, is in danger of turning away from its sacred duty to always be shedding lots and lots of blood on behalf of Others. And we know just who McCain is talking about: ..."
Some people are living symbols, sheer embodiments of a concept that fits their persona as
snugly as their skin: e.g. the Dalai Lama personifies Contemplative Piety, Harvey Weinstein is
the incarnation of Brazen Vulgarity, and John McCain's very person exudes the sweaty blustery
spirit of Empire. His entire history – born in the Panama Canal zone, son of an admiral,
third-generation centurion, the War Party's senatorial spokesman – made it nearly
impossible for him to be other than what he is: the country's most outspoken warmonger and
dedicated internationalist.
As George Orwell remarked, "After forty, everyone has the face they deserve," and in
McCain's case this is doubly true. That Roman head, fit for a coin of high denomination, looks
as if it might sprout a crown of laurel leaves at any moment: Grizzled brow, wrinkled with the
tension of an inborn belligerence, eyes alight with a perpetual flame of self-righteous anger,
McCain is Teddy Roosevelt impersonating Cato the Elder. In the extreme predictability of his
warlike effusions, he's become a bit of a cartoon character. Who can forget his enthusiastic
rendition of " Bomb bomb
bomb Iran! " to the tune of "Barbara Ann"?
The Senator from Arizona represents something relatively new on the American scene: the
emerging class of colonial administrators, Pentagon contractors, and high-ranking military
personnel, and their families, many of them stationed overseas. These people have a material
interest in the expansion of our role as global cop, they number in the tens of thousands, and
they are strategically placed in the social order, with enough social power to constitute an
influential lobby.
As the prototype of this mutant species of Homo Americanus , McCain is the
perfect enemy of the new nationalism that handed the White House to Donald Trump and sundered
the Brits from the EU. It's no surprise he's become the antipode of the Trumpian "America
First" foreign policy doctrine – a doctrine that is almost never implemented, but that's
another column.
His latest philippic perfectly summarizes the spirit and content of the brazen imperialism
that is his credo and the credo of his class, We get the whole grand tour of McCainism as a
worldview, from the rather odd idea that "America is an idea" and not an actual place to
the glories of the "international order." There is much shedding of blood "to make a better
world" – a cause we are told has "made our own civilization more just, freer, more
accomplished and prosperous than the America that existed when I watched my father go off to
war on December 7, 1941." Now here is crackpot Keynesianism with a vengeance:
the destruction of World War II was good for the economy!
Having "liberated" the world from itself, the United States, as the champion of World
Order, is in danger of turning away from its sacred duty to always be shedding lots and lots of
blood on behalf of Others. And we know just who McCain is talking about:
"To fear the world we have organized and led for three-quarters of a century, to abandon
the ideals we have advanced around the globe, to refuse the obligations of international
leadership and our duty to remain 'the last best hope of earth' for the sake of some
half-baked, spurious nationalism cooked up by people who would rather find scapegoats than
solve problems is as unpatriotic as an attachment to any other tired dogma of the past that
Americans consigned to the ash heap of history."
The idea that we led and organized the world for the entire postwar era erases the cold war
from history, a neat trick given McCain's record. And as for our "ideals" and this "last best
hope" business, none of that is worth a single American soldier – nor does it have
anything to do with a soldier's proper job, which is protecting this country. Yet what is one
to expect from someone who actually believes "we live in a land of ideals, not blood and soil."
Blood never comes into it for McCain unless it's being shed in some ill-conceived totally
unnecessary war. And as for soil – there is none. There's just "ideals," floating in a
void.
While admitting that the Trumpian version of American nationalism is somewhat undercooked
– and, perhaps, not all that digestible – one has to wonder: where does a supporter
of the Iraq war, who assured us it would be a glorious victory, get off calling anybody or
anything half-baked?
McCain doesn't even try making a coherent argument: instead, he simply lies by claiming
that, having taken the road to Empire, "we have become incomparably powerful and wealthy as we
did." It's utter nonsense, of course: empires are an expensive luxury. We spend more on the
military than the top ten powers combined, and the national debt is at historic heights. We're
effectively bankrupt thanks to out-of-control military spending and McCain's favored wars of
choice.
The idea that we have a "moral obligation" to enforce McCain's beloved "international order"
is rooted in the crazed post-millennial pietism
that has motivated so much that is mischievous in American history. The
old religious impulse that motivated Prohibition and the "anti-vice" campaigns of the
nineteenth century has, today, been secularized and internationalized. The old fundamentalists
sought to remake the country, their secular successors seek to remake the
world . This accounts for the quasi-religious tone of McCain's remarks, this talk of "moral
obligation" and "shame" if we fail to take up the burden of Empire, manfully and willfully,
because "We will not thrive in a world where our leadership and ideals are absent. We wouldn't
deserve to."
In other words: Americans have no right to live their lives in peace, and to leave others in
the same condition: they must perpetually be sticking their noses in other peoples' business,
sniffing out "injustice" and making sure the trains run on time. McCain hails the crusade to
"help make another, better world" – yet the American people don't want another world,
they want to live in this world in peace and security, rather than sacrificing
themselves to some imaginary "duty" to uplift the world on Uncle Sam's shoulders. That's one
reason why Trump is in the White House and McCain is on the outside looking in.
NOTES IN THE MARGIN
You can check out my Twitter feed by going here . But please note that my tweets are sometimes
deliberately provocative, often made in jest, and largely consist of me thinking out loud.
Please note that grivna generally kept its value and fluctuated in the band of 26-27 grivna per dollar for the same period. The
general impression from 2015 to 2017 is slight growth of economic activity, especially in home building. Standard of living did not
change much for this period and remains low. Food prices were more or less stable, which communal services costs especially house/apartment
heating skyrocketed and even for one bedroom apartment now at winter can well exceed average pension.
Some percentage of foreign trade deficit might well be due to additional costs of import of coal (with some coming from the USA
now) and gas (which is bought not directly but from Eastern European countries which has extra volumes at low prices from Russia). The
continuing war at Donbass although at very low level still also attracts a lot funds.
Notable quotes:
"... Ukrainian foreign trade deficit in January-August has grown to 3.279 billion dollars, which is 2.3 times higher than the deficit for the same period last year - 1.448 billion dollars. ..."
"... The export coverage ratio was 0.89, while in January-August 2016 it was 0.94. ..."
"... For the whole 2016, Ukraine enjoyed a small surplus of foreign trade balance amounted to 337.3 million dollars. ..."
Ukrainian foreign trade deficit in January-August has grown to 3.279 billion dollars, which is 2.3 times higher than the deficit
for the same period last year - 1.448 billion dollars.
Those data were reported by the Ukrainian National State Statistics Service.
Exports of goods from Ukraine over the period in comparison with the same period in 2016 increased by 21,1% - to 27,512 billion
dollars, import - by 27,4%, to 30,791 billion dollars.
The export coverage ratio was 0.89, while in January-August 2016 it was 0.94. Foreign trade operations were conducted
with partners from 219 countries of the world. For the whole 2016, Ukraine enjoyed a small surplus of foreign trade balance amounted
to 337.3 million dollars.
It didn't take long for things in Ukraine to go south in the Trump era.
Before last fall's U.S. election, Ukraine had finally appeared to be stabilizing after several
tumultuous years. The country was receiving generally good grades and assistance from the International
Monetary Fund; it enjoyed the political, diplomatic, and financial -- if not quite military -- support
of the West; and it was making headway on internal reforms in the legal, economic, social, educational,
health, and energy sectors. Finally, its armed forces had successfully transformed themselves from
the 6,000 combat-ready troops available in mid-2014 to a powerful, battle-hardened army that managed
to fight Russia and its proxies to a standstill in the east.
... ... ...
Kiev couldn't turn down such an offer, because it has continually insisted that the Donbass must,
and will, be brought back into the Ukrainian fold. But the consequences of this gift would be ugly.
Kiev would likely face an all-out war with the abandoned separatists, one that it would probably
win, but then have to follow with enormous investments to fix the devastated region and try to win
the hearts and minds of its anti-Kiev population. Estimates of how much it would cost to undo the
damage done by Russia start at $20 billion, according to economist Anders Aslund; Ukraine's entire
budget amounts to about $26 billion.
No less debilitating for Ukraine would be the political consequences of reintegrating the occupied
Donbass. Several million anti-Western voters would be brought into the fold, to vote against Ukraine's
pro-Western reforms. The pro-Russian political forces that ruled and still rule the region would
get a second life. And the oligarchs and thieves who mismanaged the Donbass for decades would return
to power. The Donbass would then play the same retrograde role it has played in Ukrainian politics
since independence in 1991. Political tensions would increase, East-West polarization would return,
Kiev would be rendered politically and economically impotent, and Putin would have achieved what
he wanted all along -- a thoroughly unstable Ukraine, minus the cost of funding a low-level conflict
in an economically doomed enclave.
Of course, it's impossible to say just which of these scenarios -- ranging from all-out war to
dumping the Donbass to some other intermediate move -- will happen. The point is that, with Trump's
unpredictability, radicalism, and pro-Russian sympathies, all of them are now possible or far more
possible than they were before Trump's election.
The point is that, with Trump's unpredictability, radicalism, and pro-Russian sympathies, all
of them are now possible or far more possible than they were before Trump's election.
Since the status quo that has held for the past two years is unlikely to do so for long, Ukraine
needs to develop a realistic strategy toward the occupied Donbass -- one attuned to the new geopolitical
circumstances -- and prepare for all of Trump and Putin's possible faits accomplis.
The good news is that Ukraine is prepared for all-out war with Russia; it is also prepared for
and could cope with aid cutoffs from Washington and the end of sanctions. The bad news is that Kiev
is thoroughly unprepared for the one scenario that could destroy Ukraine at little cost to Putin:
Russia's return of the Donbass.
Whatever Kiev decides to do, Ukrainians must first decide what they believe is more important:
independence or territorial integrity. The Minsk accords enabled Ukraine to enjoy the first and aspire
to the second. This state of affairs could not have lasted forever, but Trump and Putin have brought
it to a premature end.
Before Trump, Ukrainians could avoid making too many tough decisions about their strategic priorities.
After Trump, they cannot.
There is a danger for Ukraine to become "European El Salvador" or, worse, "European
Iraq"
Notable quotes:
"... After an opening chapter that makes the case for Latin America's role in the formation of the U.S. empire, the rest of this hook explores the importance of the region to the consolidation of what could be called a new, revolutionary imperialism. ..."
After an opening chapter that makes the case for Latin America's role in the formation
of the U.S. empire, the rest of this hook explores the importance of the region to the
consolidation of what could be called a new, revolutionary imperialism.
Taken each on their own, the ideas, tactics, politics, and economics that have driven Bush's
global policy are not original. An interventionist military posture, belief that America has a
special role to play in world history, cynical realpolitik, vengeful nationalism, and
free-market capitalism have all driven U.S.
diplomacy in one form or another for nearly two centuries. But whatis new is how potent these
elements have become and how tightly they are bound to the ambitions of America's domestic
ruling conservative coalition -- a coalition that despite its power and influence paints itself
as persecuted, at odds not just with much of the world but with modern life itself.
6
The book goes on to explore the intellectual re-orientation or American diplomacy in the
wake if Vietnam and the increasing willingness of militarists to champion human rights, nation
building, and democratic reform. The third chapter considers how the rehabilitation of
unconventional warfare doctrine in LI Salvador and Nicaragua by militarists in and around the
Reagan White House laid the groundwork for today's offensive military posture. Here, the human
costs of this resurgence of militarism will be addressed. In the many tributes that followed
Reagan's death, pundits enjoyed repeating Margaret Thatcher's comment that Reagan won the Cold
War "without firing a shot." The crescendo of carnage that overw helmed Central America in the
1980s not only gives the lie to such a legacy but highlights the inescapable violence of
empire. The fourth chapter turns to the imperial home front, examining how r the
Reagan administration first confronted and then began to solve the domestic crisis of authority
generated by Vietnam and Watergate. It also argues that Reagan's Central American policy served
as a crucible that forged the coalition that today stands behind George W. Bush. Chanter 5 is
con cerned with the economics of empire, how the financial contraction of the 1970s provided an
opportunity for the avatars of free-market orthodoxy -- the true core of the Bush Doctrine --
to join with other constituencies of the ascendant New Right, inaugurating first in Chile and
then throughout Latin America a new, brutally competitive global economy.
The last chapter tallies the score of the new imperialism in Latin America. Celebrated by
Bill Clinton, and now Bush, as a model of what the United States hopes to accomplish in the
rest of the world, Latin America continues to be gripped by unrelenting poverty and periodic
political instability, as the promise of living under a benevolent American imperialism has
failed to materialize. As a result, new political movements and antagonists have emerged to
contest the terms of
United States-promoted corporate globalization, calling for increased regional integration to
offset the power of the United States and more social spending to alleviate Latin American
inequality. With little to offer the region in terms of development except the increasingly
hollow promises of free trade, Washington is responding to these and similar challenges by once
again militarizing hemispheric relations, with all dissent now set in the crosshairs of the
"global war on terror."
... ... ...
Over the last year, Washington has had some success in preventing leftists and nationalists
from coming to power, in Peru, for instance, and in Mexico. But notwithstanding the outcome of
specific votes, and despite the very real conflicts of interest among Latin American nations,
the centrifugal forces pushing the region out of the U.S.'s orbit will continue.
What, then, will be Washington's long-term response to this independence movement? One could
hope that the Democrats would seize the moment to assert their commitment to nonintervention
and to work with economic nationalists to promote a fair and sustainable economic policy.
Depending on the country, such a policy would include land reform, government regulation of
foreign investment and currency speculation, more equitable contracts with multinationals, debt
relief, increased spending on welfare, education, health care, and public works, and, in the
U.S., a just immigration policy.
Don't count on it. Unlike after WWII, when a confident corporate class threw its backing
behind New Deal political liberalism at home and at least some reform capitalism abroad, the
financiers of today's Democratic Party are too deeply invested in war production and
speculative capital and too intensely committed to keeping the third world open. They will not
brook any sustained attempt to restructure the global economy in a more equitable direction. At
the same time, the party's leadership -- unlike Republicans who are organically linked to their
base -- is terrified of the antimilitarism of its rank-and-file. Thirty percent of the U.S.
population opposed the war in Iraq even when it looked like a cakewalk, even as Dick Cheney and
his cronies held a cocktail party to celebrate the PR-orchestrated toppling of Saddam's statue
in Baghdad -- a significant minority that is much larger than anything the Goldwater insurgency
and the Reagan Revolution started with.
But rather than building on this thirty percent, Democrats run away from it, with one after
the other tripping over themselves to prove they are better equipped to fight the "war on
terror'' than the Republicans. We may hope that the Democratic nominee in the 2008 election
will challenge the ideology and the interests that
have capitalized on the problem of terrorism to launch a war for civilization. It's more likely
we'll see him or her criticizing the way the "war" has been executed and demanding more of a
say in how it is waged.
If there is change in American diplomacy, it will come from the citizens who mobilized to
oppose the occupation of Iraq and who in 2006 gave back the Congress to the Democratic Party.
But to truly break up the New Right, and not just temporarily slow it down, the reactive
antimilitarism that so drives the neocons crazy will have to be converted into a
forward-looking agenda, as cohesive and coherent as the one that led to the catastrophic war in
Iraq. In this task, Latin America, long the workshop of U.S. elites, can provide a different
kind of instruction.
Across the continent, political movements have emerged from decades of unrelenting state
terror underwritten by imperial patronage to creatively and effectively oppose first
corporate-driven neoliberalism and then a renewed U.S. militarism. Through exemplary courage,
perseverance, and organizational skill, Latin American activists have provided a beacon of hope
on an otherwise bleak global landscape. They have multiple agendas and objectives, yet they
share a common set of values: human dignity, local autonomy, a vision of individual freedom
rooted in collective solidarity, and a notion of democracy defined not simply by proceduralism
or individual rights but by economic equity. It is they who are the world's true "democracy
promoters" and who are fighting the real war on terror, and offering lessons to us all.
New York
December 2006
PABG, Somewhere in the world, on August 1, 2011
Unbelievable book
Have you ever wonder why the rest of America despises or doesn't trust the USA? Yes I
wrote America so the people living in the USA will finally comprehend that America is a
continent not a country, people please check your map!!! Well let me tell you why, is because
the USA always interfere or sticks her big nose in the business of her American neighbors,
just to name a few examples/ Guatemala 1954 and Chile 1973, and also a big part of the real
problem is that the USA is not governed by the President, he or she is just a pawn or an
employee of the big corporations, and the person in the Oval Office will do anything in his
or her power to keep the big CEO's happy.
You want proof of this? Think about these recent events, 9\11, the wars on Iraq and
Afghanistan, the tax payer's money given to big corporations to cover the losses caused by
their satanic greed and Guantanamo. Also I'm tired of hearing that illegal immigration has
ruined the USA, let me tell you that if you keep your nose to your own business and leave the
rest of America alone, you won't have a big immigration problem and just to keep in mind that
the USA was built by immigrant hands. Please the USA has enough problems, public education,
public health, a failed economic system and social disintegration just to mention a few, for
the United States' Government to start thinking about building a global empire.
FYI I'm not a leftist or a USA hater, I like the USA and its people very much but I don't
have affection for the neoconservatives and the capitalist pigs that think in big profits
before their fellow human beings. Enough said, peace, live long and prosper. I'M PROUD OF
BEING A REAL AMERICAN!!!!!
"... Fiscally, the AVF is going to break the bank. The land forces in particular are still having difficulties fielding adequate numbers -- even with lowered standards, substituting women for men (from 1.6 percent of the AVF in 1973 to more than 16 percent today), recruitment and reenlistment bonuses totaling tens of millions of dollars, advertising campaigns costing billions, massive recruitment of non-citizens, use of psychotropic drugs to recycle unfit soldiers and Marines to combat zones, and overall pay and allowances that include free world-class health care and excellent retirement plans that are, for the first time in the military's history, comparable to or even exceeding civilian rates and offerings. ..."
"... A glaring case in point is the recent recruitment by the Army of 62,000 men and women, its target for fiscal year 2016. To arrive at that objective, the Army needed 9,000 recruiting staff (equivalent to three combat brigades) working full-time. If one does the math, that equates to each of these recruiters gaining one-point-something recruits every two months -- an utterly astounding statistic. Additionally, the Army had to resort to taking a small percentage of recruits in Mental Category IV -- the lowest category and one that, post-Vietnam, the Army made a silent promise never to resort to again. ..."
"... Moreover, the recruiting and retention process and rich pay and allowances are consuming one half of the Army's entire annual budget slice, precluding any sort of affordable increase in its end strength. This end strength constraint creates the need for more and more private contractors on the nation's battlefields in order to compensate. The employment of private contractors is politically seductive and strategically dangerous. To those enemies we fight they are the enemy and to most reasonable people they are mercenaries. Mercenaries are motivated by profit not patriotism -- despite their CEOs' protestations to the contrary -- and place America on the slippery slope towards compromising the right of sovereign nations to the monopoly of violence for state purposes. In short, Congress and the Pentagon make the Army bigger than the American people believe that it is and the American people allow themselves to be convinced; thus it is a shared delusion that comforts both parties. ..."
"... There is yet another dimension to the AVF that is truly an "unmentionable." As President Barack Obama said to one of us in the Roosevelt Room in November 2015 -- referring to Washington, D.C. -- "There is a bias in this town toward war." ..."
"... What the president meant was quite clear: powerful forces such as the military-industrial complex, a less-than-courageous Congress that has abandoned its constitutional duty with respect to the war power, extreme ideologies, and a nation with no skin in the game, work together to persuade all presidents to consider war as the first instrument of national power rather than the last. ..."
"... Is there anyone among us who would not believe that having an all-volunteer (or, more to the point, an all-recruited) military coming only from the 1 percent does not contribute to the facility with which presidents call upon that instrument? In a rational world, we would be declared insane to believe otherwise. ..."
"... Said more explicitly, if the sons and daughters of members of Congress, of the corporate leadership, of the billionaire class, of the Ivy Leagues, of the elite in general, were exposed to the possibility of combat, would we have less war? From a socio-economic class perspective, the AVF is inherently unfair. ..."
"... "From a socio-economic class perspective, the AVF is inherently unfair." ..."
"... "Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." ..."
"... Now, I, and maybe you, read the 13th amendment to the constitution as clearly banning conscription, but the courts don't think so. Their reasoning actually being, that since conscription was in place at the time of the 13th amendment's passage, the words written and printed couldn't possibly mean what they clearly mean as common English usage. ..."
"... I realize how unpopular this statement will be, but that 1 percent who are bleeding and dying are generally doing so in foreign wars that are not truly defending the 99 percent. They are doing it for the pro-war, pro-intervention subsets of various elite populations, popularly supported by misinformed people of the lower/middle classes. ..."
"... Perhaps the shortage of volunteer soldiers indicates war-weariness? ..."
"... In the late 60s -- early 70s we used to chide Pat Buchanan and his mates with "War is good business -- invest your sons". Of course, even then, he was investing other people's sons. His good mate Trump has already bragged about his "contribution" to the war effort, dodging STIs rather than bullets. ..."
"... The only ethical course of action when faced with an insufficient number of volunteers for a war is, of course, to cancel the war. ..."
"... Simple solution: Constitutional amendment stating, In order to vote in Federal Elections or to hold Federal office, appointed or elected, you must: ..."
"... a DD214 showing honorable discharge ..."
"... Nothing the US Army does "protects America". On the contrary it's a bigger threat than anything it can protect the US from. They fight for combinations of cash, training, education, travel, to carry on the family tradition , travel and adventure. The people who send them to fight do so for power and ego. Not "national interests" There are none only the interests of people who want power. ..."
"... What the old saying about war "Rich man's game with the poor man paying the price." ..."
"... Smedley Butler saw this happening in his time, too. The wars were smaller and less expensive, but they had the same root cause. Wherever our companies go and are thwarted by locals in any way, we find an excuse to deploy and make that area safe for commercial activity. Libya is a shambles now after Gaddafi's removal, but it's out of the news because organized, government-led resistance to oil companies benefiting from one-sided leases is impossible. This year, Libya hit a four-year high for oil production, in the middle of a six-cornered civil war. ..."
As far as we know, the phrase "all-recruited force" was coined by Karl Marlantes, author of
Matterhorn: A Novel of the Vietnam War , a book that provides vivid insight into the
U.S. Marines who fought in that conflict. Mr. Marlantes used the expression to describe what's
happened to today's allegedly "volunteer" force, to say in effect that it is no such thing.
Instead it is composed in large part of people recruited so powerfully and out of such
receptive circumstances that it requires a new way of being described. We agree with Mr.
Marlantes. So do others.
In The Economist back in 2015 , an article about the U.S. All-Volunteer Force
(AVF) posed the question: "Who will fight the next war?" and went on to describe how the AVF is
becoming more and more difficult to field as well as growing ever more distant from the people
from whom it comes and for whom it fights. The piece painted a disturbing scene. That the scene
was painted by a British magazine of such solid reputation in the field of economics is ironic
in a sense but not inexplicable. After all, it is the fiscal aspect of the AVF that is most
immediate and pressing. Recruiting and retaining the force has become far too costly and is
ultimately unsustainable.
When the Gates Commission set up the rationale for the AVF in 1970, it did so at the behest
of a president, Richard Nixon, who had come to see the conscript military as a political dagger
aimed at his own heart. One could argue that the decision to abolish conscription was a
foregone conclusion; the Commission simply provided a rationale for doing it and for
volunteerism to replace it.
But whatever we might think of the Commission's work and Nixon's motivation, what has
happened in the last 16 years -- interminable war -- was never on the Commission's radar
screen. Like most crises, as Colin Powell used to lament when he was chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, this one was unexpected, not planned for, and begs denial as a first
reaction.
That said, after 16 years of war it is plain to all but the most recalcitrant that the U.S.
cannot afford the AVF -- ethically, morally, or fiscally.
Fiscally, the AVF is going to break the bank. The land forces in particular are still
having difficulties fielding adequate numbers -- even with lowered standards, substituting
women for men (from 1.6 percent of the AVF in 1973 to more than 16 percent today), recruitment
and reenlistment bonuses totaling tens of millions of dollars, advertising campaigns costing
billions, massive recruitment of non-citizens, use of psychotropic drugs to recycle unfit
soldiers and Marines to combat zones, and overall pay and allowances that include free
world-class health care and excellent retirement plans that are, for the first time in the
military's history, comparable to or even exceeding civilian rates and offerings.
A glaring case in point is the recent recruitment by the Army of 62,000 men and women,
its target for fiscal year 2016. To arrive at that objective, the Army needed 9,000 recruiting
staff (equivalent to three combat brigades) working full-time. If one does the math, that
equates to each of these recruiters gaining one-point-something recruits every two months -- an
utterly astounding statistic. Additionally, the Army had to resort to taking a small percentage
of recruits in Mental Category IV -- the lowest category and one that, post-Vietnam, the Army
made a silent promise never to resort to again.
Moreover, the recruiting and retention process and rich pay and allowances are consuming
one half of the Army's entire annual budget slice, precluding any sort of affordable increase
in its end strength. This end strength constraint creates the need for more and more private
contractors on the nation's battlefields in order to compensate. The employment of private
contractors is politically seductive and strategically dangerous. To those enemies we fight
they are the enemy and to most reasonable people they are mercenaries. Mercenaries are
motivated by profit not patriotism -- despite their CEOs' protestations to the contrary -- and
place America on the slippery slope towards compromising the right of sovereign nations to the
monopoly of violence for state purposes. In short, Congress and the Pentagon make the Army
bigger than the American people believe that it is and the American people allow themselves to
be convinced; thus it is a shared delusion that comforts both parties.
A more serious challenge for the democracy that is America, however, is the ethical one.
Today, more than 300 million Americans lay claim to rights, liberties, and security that not a
single one of them is obligated to protect and defend. Apparently, only 1 percent of the
population feels that obligation. That 1 percent is bleeding and dying for the other 99
percent.
Further, that 1 percent does not come primarily or even secondarily from the families of the
Ivy Leagues, of Wall Street, of corporate leadership, from the Congress, or from affluent
America; it comes from less well-to-do areas: West Virginia, Maine, Pennsylvania, Oklahoma,
Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama, and elsewhere. For example, the Army now gets more soldiers
from the state of Alabama, population 4.8 million, than it gets from New York, Chicago, and Los
Angeles combined, aggregate metropolitan population more than 25 million. Similarly, 40 percent
of the Army comes from seven states of the Old South. As one of us has documented in his book,
Skin in the Game: Poor Kids and Patriots , this is an ethically poisonous situation. And
as the article in The Economist concludes, it's dangerous as well.
The last 16 years have also generated, as wars tend to do, hundreds of thousands of
veterans. The costs of taking care of these men and women are astronomical today and will only
rise over the next decades, which is one reason our veterans are already being inadequately
cared for. Without the political will to shift funds, there simply is not enough money to
provide the necessary care. And given the awesome debt America now shoulders -- approaching 20
trillion dollars and certain to increase -- it is difficult to see this situation changing for
the better.
In fact, when one calculates today's U.S. national security budget -- not simply the
well-advertised Pentagon budget -- the total expenditure of taxpayer dollars approaches $1.2
trillion annually, or more than twice what most Americans believe they are paying for national
security. This total figure includes the costs of nuclear weapons (Energy Department), homeland
security (Homeland Security Department), veteran care (Veterans Administration), intelligence
needs (CIA and Defense Department), international relations (State Department), and the
military and its operations (the Pentagon and its slush fund, the Overseas Contingency
Operations account). The Pentagon budget alone is larger than that of the next 14 nations in
the world combined. Only recently (September 2016), the Pentagon leadership confessed that as
much as 50 percent of its slush fund (OCO) is not used for war operations -- the fund's
statutory purpose -- but for other expenses, including "military readiness." We suspect this
includes recruiting and associated costs.
There is still another dimension of the AVF that goes basically unmentioned and unreported.
The AVF has compelled the nation to transition its reserve component forces from what they have
been since colonial times -- a strategic reserve -- into being an operational reserve. That's
military-speak for our having used the reserve components to make up for deeply felt shortages
in the active force. Nowhere is this more dramatically reflected than in the rate of
deployment-to-overseas duty of the average reservist, now about once every 3.8 years.
Such an operational tempo causes extreme problems for both civilian employers and for
National Guard and reserve units. What employer, for example, wants to hire a young man or
woman who will be gone for a year every four years on average, when that employer can reach out
and hire someone from the 99 percent who will likely not be absent? And how do the reserve
units keep up recruiting numbers when faced with such a situation?
Moreover, when we look at the reserve component deployment statistics over a decade or so of
what now seems like interminable war, we discover how badly skewed such deployments are. For
example, as of 2011, North Dakota, Mississippi, and South Dakota had Guard/Reserve deployment
rates of over 40 per 10,000, and Iowa had a rate of over 30 per 10,000. In contrast, the
Guard/Reserve deployment burdens for New York, California, and Texas were all less than 15 per
10,000. Perhaps surprisingly, Massachusetts had a higher Guard/Reserve deployment burden per
10,000 than Texas did (these numbers cover the 9/30/01 -- 12/31/10 timeframe).
A deeper look at the county levels within each state demonstrates that the Guard/Reserve
deployment burden really is an urban/suburban vs. rural divide. New York is a case study.
Niagara County (Niagara Falls and Lockport) had a deployment rate of over 30 per 10,000, while
Jefferson County (Watertown) and Clinton County (Plattsburgh) had rates over 25 per 10,000. In
contrast, New York State overall had a Guard/Reserve deployment rate a bit higher than 10 per
10,000, with Kings County (Brooklyn) and New York County (Manhattan) having rates well below 10
per 10,000.
Most Americans are completely ignorant of the facts outlined above, or understand only
partial truths about them. In fact, the majority view the military in general and the way we
man the force in particular through a lens of fear, apathy, ignorance, and guilt. The media is
unhelpful in this regard because in the main journalists and TV personalities are as unknowing
as the people. Few in the military leadership have the courage to speak up about these
realities, or are themselves so brainwashed that they are incapable of doing so. But if the
country does not wake up soon and demand action, we will be looking at another crisis and
asking the question posed by The Economist : "Who will fight the next war?"
Worse, we might be asking the question that Skin in the Game poses: "What if we had a
war and nobody came?"
When we put that question to a U.S. senator recently, he replied that "If the enemy were 'on
the shore,' Americans would respond."
"Would they?" we asked. "And tell us how you know that, please."
"They just would, I know they would," the senator replied.
There is yet another dimension to the AVF that is truly an "unmentionable." As President
Barack Obama said to one of us in the Roosevelt Room in November 2015 -- referring to
Washington, D.C. -- "There is a bias in this town toward war."
What the president meant was quite clear: powerful forces such as the
military-industrial complex, a less-than-courageous Congress that has abandoned its
constitutional duty with respect to the war power, extreme ideologies, and a nation with no
skin in the game, work together to persuade all presidents to consider war as the first
instrument of national power rather than the last.
Is there anyone among us who would not believe that having an all-volunteer (or, more to
the point, an all-recruited) military coming only from the 1 percent does not contribute to the
facility with which presidents call upon that instrument? In a rational world, we would be
declared insane to believe otherwise.
Said more explicitly, if the sons and daughters of members of Congress, of the corporate
leadership, of the billionaire class, of the Ivy Leagues, of the elite in general, were exposed
to the possibility of combat, would we have less war? From a socio-economic class perspective,
the AVF is inherently unfair.
Major General (Ret) Dennis Laich served 35 years in the U.S. Army Reserve. Col. (Ret.)
Lawrence Wilkerson is visiting professor of government and public policy at the College of
William and Mary. He was chief of staff to secretary of state Colin Powell from 2002-05,
special assistant to Powell when Powell was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (1989-93),
and deputy director and director of the USMC War College (1993-97).
These topics are widely discussed within the military. Not in staff meetings mind you. But the
civilians wouldn't realize it regardless. So what is to be done? Is there an organization we
can join that will speak up and get lobbyists to have the concerns heard? This is our national
defense and we all have an interest in knowing that we leave something better behind for the
next generation. Otherwise all our efforts truly are in vain.
"Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime
whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any
place subject to their jurisdiction."
Now, I, and maybe you, read the 13th amendment to the constitution as clearly banning
conscription, but the courts don't think so. Their reasoning actually being, that since
conscription was in place at the time of the 13th amendment's passage, the words written and
printed couldn't possibly mean what they clearly mean as common English usage.
Well, leaving aside for the moment that every (so far at least) man who ever got drafted
felt it was pretty effing involuntary, we can proceed to the greater question:
Why do we perpetually need a million men\women\hesheit qwerty's under arms? By all means,
let us draft every 18 year old in the entire United States into our SJW Social Science\Daycare
center joke of a military, it would at least be a far greater education than college. And
having so infused our armed forces with so much fresh human material, we could spend EVEN MORE
on Contracts, currently about 50% of the near trillion dollar war making budget.
I realize how unpopular this statement will be, but that 1 percent who are bleeding and
dying are generally doing so in foreign wars that are not truly defending the 99 percent. They
are doing it for the pro-war, pro-intervention subsets of various elite populations, popularly
supported by misinformed people of the lower/middle classes.
Perhaps the shortage of volunteer soldiers indicates war-weariness? Less war would
solve the problems of cost, volunteer shortages AND the burgeoning veteran population.
I served in six units during six years with the army military police. I can remember only one
guy I knew whose father was a educated white collar professional (university professor).
One of my children is about as far to the left as I am to the right politically,but we both
agree that the draft should be brought back with a choice of military or community service. No
exceptions made. Everyone serves at 18 for a year or two and can enlist longer if they choose
to. Offers of college or vocational scholorships could apply.
We've had a couple or more generations of self centered, self absorbed young people who
often become self destructive. They could benefit from the discipline, direction, and service
to others.
In the late 60s -- early 70s we used to chide Pat Buchanan and his mates with "War is good
business -- invest your sons". Of course, even then, he was investing other people's sons. His
good mate Trump has already bragged about his "contribution" to the war effort, dodging STIs
rather than bullets.
Wonderful article. The very serious concerns it raises were discussed some years ago by the
philosopher Michael Sandel. He asked how can it be just for the wealthy to risk the lives of
the children of the poor in an AVF when their own children are guaranteed far safer lifestyles.
From a British perspective, the same issues apply in an even more distorted form. In my two
years working in Michigan (1998-2000), I met far more current and former servicemen than in the
other 62 years of my life living in England. The British military is invisible to much of the
middle and upper classes, except in emergencies, despite the fact that you are never far from a
military base in such a small country.
At a recent dinner, I found myself, for the first time in my life, sitting at a table with
three ex-British Army officers. I discussed the near-invisible profile of the Army. My very
smart companion explained that for years Army personnel tried to avoid even wearing uniform in
the street because of the Troubles in Northern Ireland. The Troubles ended, but now, since the
beheading of a soldier in London by an Islamist nutter, the Army has gone back to civvies for
off duty wear.
And the class division is as scandalous as the American class divisions which this excellent
article describes. As at least one scathing observer commented, would Tony Blair have been so
ready to go to war in Iraq if any one of his four children been liable for military service?
And, of course, Blair and his political contemporaries were the first generation not to be
involved in a shooting war or to be liable for National Service (abolished around 1960). The
only place they would see the horrible face of war was in a movie theatre.
Reinstate National Service in the UK and USA? It might be as politically popular as sending
little children up chimneys or could some courageous politician air a desperately important
issue which might find unexpected support in a dangerous world?
"That 1 percent is bleeding and dying for the other 99 percent."
They are not. Nothing the US Army does "protects America". On the contrary it's a bigger
threat than anything it can protect the US from. They fight for combinations of cash, training,
education, travel, to carry on the family tradition , travel and adventure. The people who send
them to fight do so for power and ego. Not "national interests" There are none only the
interests of people who want power.
What the old saying about war "Rich man's game with the poor man paying the price."
Definely bring the Draft back if for no other reason to make those in Power think long and hard
about what military misadventures they're committing America's young men and women to. Imho
America would have been out of these Middle East wars of choice long ago if the draft was still
in effect as the American public would be demanding hard answers to "Why are we still there?"
I served. I was young and stupid and got a draft lottery number that gave me a 50 / 50 chance
of being drafted into the Army. I joined the Marines, instead. 1973 -- 1979, active and reserve
included.
Went on with my life afterwards. I never wanted and never want my kids to serve. The USA is
not the place I thought it was when I did. Heck, it wasn't the place I thought it was even
then.
Leave aside the ethical and moral implications, because America has told the world over and
over again that they don't matter. We will support the second-worst regimes in the world in
their struggles with the worst regimes, we will bomb weddings full of innocents if it gets us
the one man we want, and we do not care how many of our fellow citizens enrolled in the
military jobs programs are killed or maimed.
Smedley Butler saw this happening in his time, too. The wars were smaller and less
expensive, but they had the same root cause. Wherever our companies go and are thwarted by
locals in any way, we find an excuse to deploy and make that area safe for commercial activity.
Libya is a shambles now after Gaddafi's removal, but it's out of the news because organized,
government-led resistance to oil companies benefiting from one-sided leases is impossible. This
year, Libya hit a four-year high for oil production, in the middle of a six-cornered civil
war.
The only way any of this changes is if the public sees military activity as a threat to
benefits on which it depends, or if the price of fielding regular units to deal with these
problems becomes so large that companies will have to employ mercenaries to achieve their ends
abroad.
I believe it is time "our leaders" show what they are made of. Therefore I ask:
Should We Have War Games for the World's Leaders?
Yesterday's enemies are today's friends and today's friends are tomorrow's enemies, such is
the way of the world, and wars of the world. All these wars cause enormous bloodshed,
destruction and suffering to those affected. Therefore, would it not be much simpler to have
war games for all of the world's leaders and elites every few years? We have Olympic Games
every four years where the world's athletes from different countries compete. And many of these
countries are hostile to each other, yet they participate in the Olympics. So if enemies can
participate for sport, why not for war games? All the leaders and elites of the world would
have to lead by example, instead of leading from their political platforms, palaces and
offshore tax havens, while the ordinary people have to do the dirty work in wars. The world's
leaders and elites would all be in the front lines first. A venue could be arranged in a
deserted area and the people of the world could watch via satellite TV their courageous leaders
and other elites leading the charge in the war games .
Okay, probably true as far as it goes, but aren't you ignoring an important issue? Say the U.S.
re-established conscription to catch those elite kids -- what kind of military would you have?
I suspect not one that would be an effective military in any sense.
I'm reminded of a conversation with a friend from Germany, who believed in his country's
policy of universal service (that is, sort of universal -- they can do other volunteer work
instead), but he readily admitted that he and his fellow-conscripts -- i.e., mostly spoiled
children of the middle class -- were not real soldiers. He said it was totally normal in the
barracks to hear 18 and 19-year-olds weeping on the phone to mama about how homesick they were,
and that standards were very low for physical fitness and ability.
According to him, the real career soldiers saw the young conscripts as a completely useless
drag on the military, that merely had to be endured for political reasons rather than for any
actual military or strategic purposes.
the draft should be brought back with a choice of military or community service. No
exceptions made. Everyone serves at 18 for a year or two and can enlist longer if they choose
to. Offers of college or vocational scholorships could apply.
I don't often agree with mrscracker, but this one is right on. Male and female, gay and
straight, no exceptions but for people on life support. (There could be essential work
available for all but the most severely disabled.)
For one thing I think this would bring the practice of getting involved in useless wars to a
screeching halt. If the children of Congresspersons were in danger of being issued rifles and
told to wade into a rice paddy or a desert to be shot at, the people in charge would suddenly
be much more conservative about going to war.
While the USA pursued their geopolitical goals in supporting the coup d'état against
corrupt Yanukovich government by less corrupt western-Ukrainian nationalists (and a difficult clan
on oligarch, as Yanukovich was a puppet of Donetsk oligarch clan) , this is actually disaster
capitalism in action... There is very little Ukrainians can do now to improve their standard
of living which dropped at least two times since 2014. Civil war remains a drain on
economy and selling assets to western companies does not improve the standard fo living iether. For
20K grivna (less then $740 a month) you can hire top level specialist in Ukraine (regular
salary is less then $150 a month). Economy is still supported by the housing boom, but we know
how such things might end.
The neocons are now as important factor in America's foreign policy today as they were during
the darkest days of the Bush administration. And like on old time the Ukrainian coup has all
traces of globalist bankers allied with local compradors operating under fig leaf of
Western-Ukrainian nationalism (which were simply puppets in a much bigger financial and
geopolitical game). It is the same aggressive push by the United States to topple governments and
politicians in Latin America to advance the USA geopolitical or economic interests.
See also
Empire's Workshop Latin America, the United States, and the Rise of the New Imperialism
" Latin America once again became a school where the United States studied how to
execute imperial violence through proxies. After World War II, in the name of containing
Communism, the United States, mostly through the actions of local allies, executed or encouraged
coups in, among other places, Guatemala, Brazil, Chile, Uruguay, and Argentina and patronized a
brutal mercenary war in Nicaragua. Latin America became a laboratory tor counter-insurgency,
as military officials and covert operators applied insights learned in the region to Southeast
Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. By the end of the Cold War, Latin American security forces
trained, funded, equipped, and incited by Washington had executed a reign of bloody terror -
hundreds of thousands killed, an equal number tortured, millions driven into exile - from which
the region has yet to fully recover."
Parry provides an interesting perspective on neoconservative
intellectuals who now are driving the expansion of the US-led neoliberal empire into xUSSR space.
In this sense Ukrainian nationalists serve as a proxies of an American imperialism which is driven
by a combination of neoliberalism, Neoconservatism and the euphoria from the victory Cold War, of
which Ukraine civil war is the tragic endgame.
Parry does not addresses the controversial role of Russia, which actually helped to start the
Donbass civil war as initially Putin promised that the Ukraine territories who will vote "yes" in
referendums to join Russia will be accepted to Russia but soon changed his mind. And later
supplied arms to the insurgents.
Notable quotes:
"... Thus, you have the current hysteria over Russia's supposed "aggression" in Ukraine when the crisis was actually provoked by the West, including by U.S. neocons who helped create today's humanitarian crisis in eastern Ukraine that they now cynically blame on Russian President Vladimir Putin. ..."
"... Many of the old intelligence operatives, including Casey and Raymond, are now dead, but other influential Washington figures who were deeply involved by these strategies remain, such as neocon stalwart Robert Kagan, whose first major job in Washington was as chief of Reagan's State Department Office of Public Diplomacy for Latin America. ..."
"... During the Reagan years, Kagan worked closely on propaganda schemes with Elliott Abrams, then the Assistant Secretary of State for Latin America. After getting convicted and then pardoned in the Iran-Contra scandal, Abrams reemerged on President George W. Bush's National Security Council handling Middle East issues, including the Iraq War, and later "global democracy strategy." Abrams is now a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. ..."
"... These and other neocons were among the most diligent students learning the art of "perception management" from the likes of Raymond and Casey, but those propaganda skills have spread much more widely as "public diplomacy" and "information warfare" have now become an integral part of every U.S. foreign policy initiative. ..."
"... The National Endowment for Democracy, which was formed in 1983 at the urging of CIA Director Casey and under the supervision of Walter Raymond's NSC operation, is still run by the same neocon, Carl Gershman, and has an even bigger budget, now exceeding $100 million a year. ..."
"... Gershman and his NED played important behind-the-scenes roles in instigating the Ukraine crisis by financing activists, journalists and other operatives who supported the coup against elected President Yanukovych. The NED-backed Freedom House also beat the propaganda drums. [See Consortiumnews.com's " A Shadow Foreign Policy. "] ..."
"... Two other Reagan-era veterans, Elliott Abrams and Robert Kagan, have both provided important intellectual support for continuing U.S. interventionism around the world. Earlier this year, Kagan's article for The New Republic, entitled " Superpowers Don't Get to Retire ," touched such a raw nerve with President Obama that he hosted Kagan at a White House lunch and crafted the presidential commencement speech at West Point to deflect some of Kagan's criticism of Obama's hesitancy to use military force. ..."
"... According to the Times article, the husband-and-wife team share both a common world view and professional ambitions, Nuland editing Kagan's articles and Kagan "not permitted to use any official information he overhears or picks up around the house" a suggestion that Kagan's thinking at least may be informed by foreign policy secrets passed on by his wife. ..."
Thus, you have the current
hysteria over Russia's supposed "aggression" in Ukraine when the crisis was actually
provoked by the West, including by U.S. neocons who helped create today's humanitarian crisis
in eastern Ukraine that they now cynically blame on Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Yet, many of these same U.S. foreign policy operatives outraged over Russia's limited
intervention to protect ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine are demanding
that President Obama launch an air war against the Syrian military as a "humanitarian"
intervention there.
In other words, if the Russians act to shield ethnic Russians on their border who are being
bombarded by a coup regime in Kiev that was installed with U.S. support, the Russians are the
villains blamed for the thousands of civilian deaths, even though the vast majority of the
casualties have been inflicted by
the Kiev regime from indiscriminate bombing and from dispatching neo-Nazi militias to do
the street fighting.
In Ukraine, the exigent circumstances don't matter, including the violent overthrow of the
constitutionally elected president last February. It's all about white hats for the current
Kiev regime and black hats for the ethnic Russians and especially for Putin.
... ... ...
For this project, Ronald Reagan's CIA Director William J. Casey sent his top propaganda
specialist Walter Raymond Jr. to the National Security Council staff to manage the inter-agency
task forces that would brainstorm and coordinate this "public diplomacy" strategy.
Many of the old intelligence operatives, including Casey and Raymond, are now dead, but
other influential Washington figures who were deeply involved by these strategies remain, such
as neocon stalwart Robert Kagan, whose first major job in Washington was as chief of Reagan's
State Department Office of Public Diplomacy for Latin America.
Now a fellow at the Brookings Institution and a columnist at the Washington Post, Kagan
remains an expert in presenting foreign policy initiatives within the "good guy/bad guy" frames
that he learned in the 1980s. He is also the husband of Assistant Secretary of State for
European Affairs Victoria Nuland, who oversaw the overthrow of Ukraine's elected President
Viktor Yanukovych last February amid a very effective U.S. propaganda strategy.
During the Reagan years, Kagan worked closely on propaganda schemes with Elliott Abrams,
then the Assistant Secretary of State for Latin America. After getting convicted and then
pardoned in the Iran-Contra scandal, Abrams reemerged on President George W. Bush's National
Security Council handling Middle East issues, including the Iraq War, and later "global
democracy strategy." Abrams is now a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.
These and other neocons were among the most diligent students learning the art of
"perception management" from the likes of Raymond and Casey, but those propaganda skills have
spread much more widely as "public diplomacy" and "information warfare" have now become an
integral part of every U.S. foreign policy initiative.
... ... ...
Though Reagan's creation of a domestic propaganda bureaucracy began more than three decades
ago and Bush's vanquishing of the Vietnam Syndrome was more than two decades ago the legacy of
those actions continue to reverberate today in how the perceptions of the American people are
now routinely managed. That was true during last decade's Iraq War and this decade's conflicts
in Libya, Syria and Ukraine as well as the economic sanctions against Iran and Russia.
Gershman and his NED played important behind-the-scenes roles in instigating the Ukraine
crisis by financing activists, journalists and other operatives who supported the coup against
elected President Yanukovych. The NED-backed Freedom House also beat the propaganda drums. [See
Consortiumnews.com's "
A Shadow Foreign
Policy. "]
Two other Reagan-era veterans, Elliott Abrams and Robert Kagan, have both provided important
intellectual support for continuing U.S. interventionism around the world. Earlier this year,
Kagan's article for The New Republic, entitled "
Superpowers
Don't Get to Retire ," touched such a raw nerve with President Obama that he hosted Kagan
at a White House lunch and crafted the presidential commencement speech at West Point to
deflect some of Kagan's criticism of Obama's hesitancy to use military force.
A New York Times article about Kagan's influence over Obama
reported that Kagan's wife, Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, apparently had a
hand in crafting the attack on her ostensible boss, President Obama.
According to the Times article, the husband-and-wife team share both a common world view and
professional ambitions, Nuland editing Kagan's articles and Kagan "not permitted to use any
official information he overhears or picks up around the house" a suggestion that Kagan's
thinking at least may be informed by foreign policy secrets passed on by his wife.
Though Nuland wouldn't comment specifically on Kagan's attack on President Obama, she
indicated that she holds similar views. "But suffice to say," Nuland said, "that nothing goes
out of the house that I don't think is worthy of his talents. Let's put it that way."
Please note that grivna generally kept its value and fluctuated in the band of 26-27 grivna per dollar for the same period. The
general impression from 2015 to 2017 is slight growth of economic activity, especially in home building. Standard of living did not
change much for this period and remains low. Food prices were more or less stable, which communal services costs especially house/apartment
heating skyrocketed and even for one bedroom apartment now at winter can well exceed average pension.
Some percentage of foreign trade deficit might well be due to additional costs of import of coal (with some coming from the USA
now) and gas (which is bought not directly but from Eastern European countries which has extra volumes at low prices from Russia). The
continuing war at Donbass although at very low level still also attracts a lot funds.
Notable quotes:
"... Ukrainian foreign trade deficit in January-August has grown to 3.279 billion dollars, which is 2.3 times higher than the deficit for the same period last year - 1.448 billion dollars. ..."
"... The export coverage ratio was 0.89, while in January-August 2016 it was 0.94. ..."
"... For the whole 2016, Ukraine enjoyed a small surplus of foreign trade balance amounted to 337.3 million dollars. ..."
Ukrainian foreign trade deficit in January-August has grown to 3.279 billion dollars, which is 2.3 times higher than the deficit
for the same period last year - 1.448 billion dollars.
Those data were reported by the Ukrainian National State Statistics Service.
Exports of goods from Ukraine over the period in comparison with the same period in 2016 increased by 21,1% - to 27,512 billion
dollars, import - by 27,4%, to 30,791 billion dollars.
The export coverage ratio was 0.89, while in January-August 2016 it was 0.94. Foreign trade operations were conducted
with partners from 219 countries of the world. For the whole 2016, Ukraine enjoyed a small surplus of foreign trade balance amounted
to 337.3 million dollars.
It didn't take long for things in Ukraine to go south in the Trump era.
Before last fall's U.S. election, Ukraine had finally appeared to be stabilizing after several
tumultuous years. The country was receiving generally good grades and assistance from the International
Monetary Fund; it enjoyed the political, diplomatic, and financial -- if not quite military -- support
of the West; and it was making headway on internal reforms in the legal, economic, social, educational,
health, and energy sectors. Finally, its armed forces had successfully transformed themselves from
the 6,000 combat-ready troops available in mid-2014 to a powerful, battle-hardened army that managed
to fight Russia and its proxies to a standstill in the east.
... ... ...
Kiev couldn't turn down such an offer, because it has continually insisted that the Donbass must,
and will, be brought back into the Ukrainian fold. But the consequences of this gift would be ugly.
Kiev would likely face an all-out war with the abandoned separatists, one that it would probably
win, but then have to follow with enormous investments to fix the devastated region and try to win
the hearts and minds of its anti-Kiev population. Estimates of how much it would cost to undo the
damage done by Russia start at $20 billion, according to economist Anders Aslund; Ukraine's entire
budget amounts to about $26 billion.
No less debilitating for Ukraine would be the political consequences of reintegrating the occupied
Donbass. Several million anti-Western voters would be brought into the fold, to vote against Ukraine's
pro-Western reforms. The pro-Russian political forces that ruled and still rule the region would
get a second life. And the oligarchs and thieves who mismanaged the Donbass for decades would return
to power. The Donbass would then play the same retrograde role it has played in Ukrainian politics
since independence in 1991. Political tensions would increase, East-West polarization would return,
Kiev would be rendered politically and economically impotent, and Putin would have achieved what
he wanted all along -- a thoroughly unstable Ukraine, minus the cost of funding a low-level conflict
in an economically doomed enclave.
Of course, it's impossible to say just which of these scenarios -- ranging from all-out war to
dumping the Donbass to some other intermediate move -- will happen. The point is that, with Trump's
unpredictability, radicalism, and pro-Russian sympathies, all of them are now possible or far more
possible than they were before Trump's election.
The point is that, with Trump's unpredictability, radicalism, and pro-Russian sympathies, all
of them are now possible or far more possible than they were before Trump's election.
Since the status quo that has held for the past two years is unlikely to do so for long, Ukraine
needs to develop a realistic strategy toward the occupied Donbass -- one attuned to the new geopolitical
circumstances -- and prepare for all of Trump and Putin's possible faits accomplis.
The good news is that Ukraine is prepared for all-out war with Russia; it is also prepared for
and could cope with aid cutoffs from Washington and the end of sanctions. The bad news is that Kiev
is thoroughly unprepared for the one scenario that could destroy Ukraine at little cost to Putin:
Russia's return of the Donbass.
Whatever Kiev decides to do, Ukrainians must first decide what they believe is more important:
independence or territorial integrity. The Minsk accords enabled Ukraine to enjoy the first and aspire
to the second. This state of affairs could not have lasted forever, but Trump and Putin have brought
it to a premature end.
Before Trump, Ukrainians could avoid making too many tough decisions about their strategic priorities.
After Trump, they cannot.
There is a danger for Ukraine to become "European El Salvador" or, worse, "European
Iraq"
Notable quotes:
"... After an opening chapter that makes the case for Latin America's role in the formation of the U.S. empire, the rest of this hook explores the importance of the region to the consolidation of what could be called a new, revolutionary imperialism. ..."
After an opening chapter that makes the case for Latin America's role in the formation
of the U.S. empire, the rest of this hook explores the importance of the region to the
consolidation of what could be called a new, revolutionary imperialism.
Taken each on their own, the ideas, tactics, politics, and economics that have driven Bush's
global policy are not original. An interventionist military posture, belief that America has a
special role to play in world history, cynical realpolitik, vengeful nationalism, and
free-market capitalism have all driven U.S.
diplomacy in one form or another for nearly two centuries. But whatis new is how potent these
elements have become and how tightly they are bound to the ambitions of America's domestic
ruling conservative coalition -- a coalition that despite its power and influence paints itself
as persecuted, at odds not just with much of the world but with modern life itself.
6
The book goes on to explore the intellectual re-orientation or American diplomacy in the
wake if Vietnam and the increasing willingness of militarists to champion human rights, nation
building, and democratic reform. The third chapter considers how the rehabilitation of
unconventional warfare doctrine in LI Salvador and Nicaragua by militarists in and around the
Reagan White House laid the groundwork for today's offensive military posture. Here, the human
costs of this resurgence of militarism will be addressed. In the many tributes that followed
Reagan's death, pundits enjoyed repeating Margaret Thatcher's comment that Reagan won the Cold
War "without firing a shot." The crescendo of carnage that overw helmed Central America in the
1980s not only gives the lie to such a legacy but highlights the inescapable violence of
empire. The fourth chapter turns to the imperial home front, examining how r the
Reagan administration first confronted and then began to solve the domestic crisis of authority
generated by Vietnam and Watergate. It also argues that Reagan's Central American policy served
as a crucible that forged the coalition that today stands behind George W. Bush. Chanter 5 is
con cerned with the economics of empire, how the financial contraction of the 1970s provided an
opportunity for the avatars of free-market orthodoxy -- the true core of the Bush Doctrine --
to join with other constituencies of the ascendant New Right, inaugurating first in Chile and
then throughout Latin America a new, brutally competitive global economy.
The last chapter tallies the score of the new imperialism in Latin America. Celebrated by
Bill Clinton, and now Bush, as a model of what the United States hopes to accomplish in the
rest of the world, Latin America continues to be gripped by unrelenting poverty and periodic
political instability, as the promise of living under a benevolent American imperialism has
failed to materialize. As a result, new political movements and antagonists have emerged to
contest the terms of
United States-promoted corporate globalization, calling for increased regional integration to
offset the power of the United States and more social spending to alleviate Latin American
inequality. With little to offer the region in terms of development except the increasingly
hollow promises of free trade, Washington is responding to these and similar challenges by once
again militarizing hemispheric relations, with all dissent now set in the crosshairs of the
"global war on terror."
... ... ...
Over the last year, Washington has had some success in preventing leftists and nationalists
from coming to power, in Peru, for instance, and in Mexico. But notwithstanding the outcome of
specific votes, and despite the very real conflicts of interest among Latin American nations,
the centrifugal forces pushing the region out of the U.S.'s orbit will continue.
What, then, will be Washington's long-term response to this independence movement? One could
hope that the Democrats would seize the moment to assert their commitment to nonintervention
and to work with economic nationalists to promote a fair and sustainable economic policy.
Depending on the country, such a policy would include land reform, government regulation of
foreign investment and currency speculation, more equitable contracts with multinationals, debt
relief, increased spending on welfare, education, health care, and public works, and, in the
U.S., a just immigration policy.
Don't count on it. Unlike after WWII, when a confident corporate class threw its backing
behind New Deal political liberalism at home and at least some reform capitalism abroad, the
financiers of today's Democratic Party are too deeply invested in war production and
speculative capital and too intensely committed to keeping the third world open. They will not
brook any sustained attempt to restructure the global economy in a more equitable direction. At
the same time, the party's leadership -- unlike Republicans who are organically linked to their
base -- is terrified of the antimilitarism of its rank-and-file. Thirty percent of the U.S.
population opposed the war in Iraq even when it looked like a cakewalk, even as Dick Cheney and
his cronies held a cocktail party to celebrate the PR-orchestrated toppling of Saddam's statue
in Baghdad -- a significant minority that is much larger than anything the Goldwater insurgency
and the Reagan Revolution started with.
But rather than building on this thirty percent, Democrats run away from it, with one after
the other tripping over themselves to prove they are better equipped to fight the "war on
terror'' than the Republicans. We may hope that the Democratic nominee in the 2008 election
will challenge the ideology and the interests that
have capitalized on the problem of terrorism to launch a war for civilization. It's more likely
we'll see him or her criticizing the way the "war" has been executed and demanding more of a
say in how it is waged.
If there is change in American diplomacy, it will come from the citizens who mobilized to
oppose the occupation of Iraq and who in 2006 gave back the Congress to the Democratic Party.
But to truly break up the New Right, and not just temporarily slow it down, the reactive
antimilitarism that so drives the neocons crazy will have to be converted into a
forward-looking agenda, as cohesive and coherent as the one that led to the catastrophic war in
Iraq. In this task, Latin America, long the workshop of U.S. elites, can provide a different
kind of instruction.
Across the continent, political movements have emerged from decades of unrelenting state
terror underwritten by imperial patronage to creatively and effectively oppose first
corporate-driven neoliberalism and then a renewed U.S. militarism. Through exemplary courage,
perseverance, and organizational skill, Latin American activists have provided a beacon of hope
on an otherwise bleak global landscape. They have multiple agendas and objectives, yet they
share a common set of values: human dignity, local autonomy, a vision of individual freedom
rooted in collective solidarity, and a notion of democracy defined not simply by proceduralism
or individual rights but by economic equity. It is they who are the world's true "democracy
promoters" and who are fighting the real war on terror, and offering lessons to us all.
New York
December 2006
PABG, Somewhere in the world, on August 1, 2011
Unbelievable book
Have you ever wonder why the rest of America despises or doesn't trust the USA? Yes I
wrote America so the people living in the USA will finally comprehend that America is a
continent not a country, people please check your map!!! Well let me tell you why, is because
the USA always interfere or sticks her big nose in the business of her American neighbors,
just to name a few examples/ Guatemala 1954 and Chile 1973, and also a big part of the real
problem is that the USA is not governed by the President, he or she is just a pawn or an
employee of the big corporations, and the person in the Oval Office will do anything in his
or her power to keep the big CEO's happy.
You want proof of this? Think about these recent events, 9\11, the wars on Iraq and
Afghanistan, the tax payer's money given to big corporations to cover the losses caused by
their satanic greed and Guantanamo. Also I'm tired of hearing that illegal immigration has
ruined the USA, let me tell you that if you keep your nose to your own business and leave the
rest of America alone, you won't have a big immigration problem and just to keep in mind that
the USA was built by immigrant hands. Please the USA has enough problems, public education,
public health, a failed economic system and social disintegration just to mention a few, for
the United States' Government to start thinking about building a global empire.
FYI I'm not a leftist or a USA hater, I like the USA and its people very much but I don't
have affection for the neoconservatives and the capitalist pigs that think in big profits
before their fellow human beings. Enough said, peace, live long and prosper. I'M PROUD OF
BEING A REAL AMERICAN!!!!!
"... Fiscally, the AVF is going to break the bank. The land forces in particular are still having difficulties fielding adequate numbers -- even with lowered standards, substituting women for men (from 1.6 percent of the AVF in 1973 to more than 16 percent today), recruitment and reenlistment bonuses totaling tens of millions of dollars, advertising campaigns costing billions, massive recruitment of non-citizens, use of psychotropic drugs to recycle unfit soldiers and Marines to combat zones, and overall pay and allowances that include free world-class health care and excellent retirement plans that are, for the first time in the military's history, comparable to or even exceeding civilian rates and offerings. ..."
"... A glaring case in point is the recent recruitment by the Army of 62,000 men and women, its target for fiscal year 2016. To arrive at that objective, the Army needed 9,000 recruiting staff (equivalent to three combat brigades) working full-time. If one does the math, that equates to each of these recruiters gaining one-point-something recruits every two months -- an utterly astounding statistic. Additionally, the Army had to resort to taking a small percentage of recruits in Mental Category IV -- the lowest category and one that, post-Vietnam, the Army made a silent promise never to resort to again. ..."
"... Moreover, the recruiting and retention process and rich pay and allowances are consuming one half of the Army's entire annual budget slice, precluding any sort of affordable increase in its end strength. This end strength constraint creates the need for more and more private contractors on the nation's battlefields in order to compensate. The employment of private contractors is politically seductive and strategically dangerous. To those enemies we fight they are the enemy and to most reasonable people they are mercenaries. Mercenaries are motivated by profit not patriotism -- despite their CEOs' protestations to the contrary -- and place America on the slippery slope towards compromising the right of sovereign nations to the monopoly of violence for state purposes. In short, Congress and the Pentagon make the Army bigger than the American people believe that it is and the American people allow themselves to be convinced; thus it is a shared delusion that comforts both parties. ..."
"... There is yet another dimension to the AVF that is truly an "unmentionable." As President Barack Obama said to one of us in the Roosevelt Room in November 2015 -- referring to Washington, D.C. -- "There is a bias in this town toward war." ..."
"... What the president meant was quite clear: powerful forces such as the military-industrial complex, a less-than-courageous Congress that has abandoned its constitutional duty with respect to the war power, extreme ideologies, and a nation with no skin in the game, work together to persuade all presidents to consider war as the first instrument of national power rather than the last. ..."
"... Is there anyone among us who would not believe that having an all-volunteer (or, more to the point, an all-recruited) military coming only from the 1 percent does not contribute to the facility with which presidents call upon that instrument? In a rational world, we would be declared insane to believe otherwise. ..."
"... Said more explicitly, if the sons and daughters of members of Congress, of the corporate leadership, of the billionaire class, of the Ivy Leagues, of the elite in general, were exposed to the possibility of combat, would we have less war? From a socio-economic class perspective, the AVF is inherently unfair. ..."
"... "From a socio-economic class perspective, the AVF is inherently unfair." ..."
"... "Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." ..."
"... Now, I, and maybe you, read the 13th amendment to the constitution as clearly banning conscription, but the courts don't think so. Their reasoning actually being, that since conscription was in place at the time of the 13th amendment's passage, the words written and printed couldn't possibly mean what they clearly mean as common English usage. ..."
"... I realize how unpopular this statement will be, but that 1 percent who are bleeding and dying are generally doing so in foreign wars that are not truly defending the 99 percent. They are doing it for the pro-war, pro-intervention subsets of various elite populations, popularly supported by misinformed people of the lower/middle classes. ..."
"... Perhaps the shortage of volunteer soldiers indicates war-weariness? ..."
"... In the late 60s -- early 70s we used to chide Pat Buchanan and his mates with "War is good business -- invest your sons". Of course, even then, he was investing other people's sons. His good mate Trump has already bragged about his "contribution" to the war effort, dodging STIs rather than bullets. ..."
"... The only ethical course of action when faced with an insufficient number of volunteers for a war is, of course, to cancel the war. ..."
"... Simple solution: Constitutional amendment stating, In order to vote in Federal Elections or to hold Federal office, appointed or elected, you must: ..."
"... a DD214 showing honorable discharge ..."
"... Nothing the US Army does "protects America". On the contrary it's a bigger threat than anything it can protect the US from. They fight for combinations of cash, training, education, travel, to carry on the family tradition , travel and adventure. The people who send them to fight do so for power and ego. Not "national interests" There are none only the interests of people who want power. ..."
"... What the old saying about war "Rich man's game with the poor man paying the price." ..."
"... Smedley Butler saw this happening in his time, too. The wars were smaller and less expensive, but they had the same root cause. Wherever our companies go and are thwarted by locals in any way, we find an excuse to deploy and make that area safe for commercial activity. Libya is a shambles now after Gaddafi's removal, but it's out of the news because organized, government-led resistance to oil companies benefiting from one-sided leases is impossible. This year, Libya hit a four-year high for oil production, in the middle of a six-cornered civil war. ..."
As far as we know, the phrase "all-recruited force" was coined by Karl Marlantes, author of
Matterhorn: A Novel of the Vietnam War , a book that provides vivid insight into the
U.S. Marines who fought in that conflict. Mr. Marlantes used the expression to describe what's
happened to today's allegedly "volunteer" force, to say in effect that it is no such thing.
Instead it is composed in large part of people recruited so powerfully and out of such
receptive circumstances that it requires a new way of being described. We agree with Mr.
Marlantes. So do others.
In The Economist back in 2015 , an article about the U.S. All-Volunteer Force
(AVF) posed the question: "Who will fight the next war?" and went on to describe how the AVF is
becoming more and more difficult to field as well as growing ever more distant from the people
from whom it comes and for whom it fights. The piece painted a disturbing scene. That the scene
was painted by a British magazine of such solid reputation in the field of economics is ironic
in a sense but not inexplicable. After all, it is the fiscal aspect of the AVF that is most
immediate and pressing. Recruiting and retaining the force has become far too costly and is
ultimately unsustainable.
When the Gates Commission set up the rationale for the AVF in 1970, it did so at the behest
of a president, Richard Nixon, who had come to see the conscript military as a political dagger
aimed at his own heart. One could argue that the decision to abolish conscription was a
foregone conclusion; the Commission simply provided a rationale for doing it and for
volunteerism to replace it.
But whatever we might think of the Commission's work and Nixon's motivation, what has
happened in the last 16 years -- interminable war -- was never on the Commission's radar
screen. Like most crises, as Colin Powell used to lament when he was chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, this one was unexpected, not planned for, and begs denial as a first
reaction.
That said, after 16 years of war it is plain to all but the most recalcitrant that the U.S.
cannot afford the AVF -- ethically, morally, or fiscally.
Fiscally, the AVF is going to break the bank. The land forces in particular are still
having difficulties fielding adequate numbers -- even with lowered standards, substituting
women for men (from 1.6 percent of the AVF in 1973 to more than 16 percent today), recruitment
and reenlistment bonuses totaling tens of millions of dollars, advertising campaigns costing
billions, massive recruitment of non-citizens, use of psychotropic drugs to recycle unfit
soldiers and Marines to combat zones, and overall pay and allowances that include free
world-class health care and excellent retirement plans that are, for the first time in the
military's history, comparable to or even exceeding civilian rates and offerings.
A glaring case in point is the recent recruitment by the Army of 62,000 men and women,
its target for fiscal year 2016. To arrive at that objective, the Army needed 9,000 recruiting
staff (equivalent to three combat brigades) working full-time. If one does the math, that
equates to each of these recruiters gaining one-point-something recruits every two months -- an
utterly astounding statistic. Additionally, the Army had to resort to taking a small percentage
of recruits in Mental Category IV -- the lowest category and one that, post-Vietnam, the Army
made a silent promise never to resort to again.
Moreover, the recruiting and retention process and rich pay and allowances are consuming
one half of the Army's entire annual budget slice, precluding any sort of affordable increase
in its end strength. This end strength constraint creates the need for more and more private
contractors on the nation's battlefields in order to compensate. The employment of private
contractors is politically seductive and strategically dangerous. To those enemies we fight
they are the enemy and to most reasonable people they are mercenaries. Mercenaries are
motivated by profit not patriotism -- despite their CEOs' protestations to the contrary -- and
place America on the slippery slope towards compromising the right of sovereign nations to the
monopoly of violence for state purposes. In short, Congress and the Pentagon make the Army
bigger than the American people believe that it is and the American people allow themselves to
be convinced; thus it is a shared delusion that comforts both parties.
A more serious challenge for the democracy that is America, however, is the ethical one.
Today, more than 300 million Americans lay claim to rights, liberties, and security that not a
single one of them is obligated to protect and defend. Apparently, only 1 percent of the
population feels that obligation. That 1 percent is bleeding and dying for the other 99
percent.
Further, that 1 percent does not come primarily or even secondarily from the families of the
Ivy Leagues, of Wall Street, of corporate leadership, from the Congress, or from affluent
America; it comes from less well-to-do areas: West Virginia, Maine, Pennsylvania, Oklahoma,
Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama, and elsewhere. For example, the Army now gets more soldiers
from the state of Alabama, population 4.8 million, than it gets from New York, Chicago, and Los
Angeles combined, aggregate metropolitan population more than 25 million. Similarly, 40 percent
of the Army comes from seven states of the Old South. As one of us has documented in his book,
Skin in the Game: Poor Kids and Patriots , this is an ethically poisonous situation. And
as the article in The Economist concludes, it's dangerous as well.
The last 16 years have also generated, as wars tend to do, hundreds of thousands of
veterans. The costs of taking care of these men and women are astronomical today and will only
rise over the next decades, which is one reason our veterans are already being inadequately
cared for. Without the political will to shift funds, there simply is not enough money to
provide the necessary care. And given the awesome debt America now shoulders -- approaching 20
trillion dollars and certain to increase -- it is difficult to see this situation changing for
the better.
In fact, when one calculates today's U.S. national security budget -- not simply the
well-advertised Pentagon budget -- the total expenditure of taxpayer dollars approaches $1.2
trillion annually, or more than twice what most Americans believe they are paying for national
security. This total figure includes the costs of nuclear weapons (Energy Department), homeland
security (Homeland Security Department), veteran care (Veterans Administration), intelligence
needs (CIA and Defense Department), international relations (State Department), and the
military and its operations (the Pentagon and its slush fund, the Overseas Contingency
Operations account). The Pentagon budget alone is larger than that of the next 14 nations in
the world combined. Only recently (September 2016), the Pentagon leadership confessed that as
much as 50 percent of its slush fund (OCO) is not used for war operations -- the fund's
statutory purpose -- but for other expenses, including "military readiness." We suspect this
includes recruiting and associated costs.
There is still another dimension of the AVF that goes basically unmentioned and unreported.
The AVF has compelled the nation to transition its reserve component forces from what they have
been since colonial times -- a strategic reserve -- into being an operational reserve. That's
military-speak for our having used the reserve components to make up for deeply felt shortages
in the active force. Nowhere is this more dramatically reflected than in the rate of
deployment-to-overseas duty of the average reservist, now about once every 3.8 years.
Such an operational tempo causes extreme problems for both civilian employers and for
National Guard and reserve units. What employer, for example, wants to hire a young man or
woman who will be gone for a year every four years on average, when that employer can reach out
and hire someone from the 99 percent who will likely not be absent? And how do the reserve
units keep up recruiting numbers when faced with such a situation?
Moreover, when we look at the reserve component deployment statistics over a decade or so of
what now seems like interminable war, we discover how badly skewed such deployments are. For
example, as of 2011, North Dakota, Mississippi, and South Dakota had Guard/Reserve deployment
rates of over 40 per 10,000, and Iowa had a rate of over 30 per 10,000. In contrast, the
Guard/Reserve deployment burdens for New York, California, and Texas were all less than 15 per
10,000. Perhaps surprisingly, Massachusetts had a higher Guard/Reserve deployment burden per
10,000 than Texas did (these numbers cover the 9/30/01 -- 12/31/10 timeframe).
A deeper look at the county levels within each state demonstrates that the Guard/Reserve
deployment burden really is an urban/suburban vs. rural divide. New York is a case study.
Niagara County (Niagara Falls and Lockport) had a deployment rate of over 30 per 10,000, while
Jefferson County (Watertown) and Clinton County (Plattsburgh) had rates over 25 per 10,000. In
contrast, New York State overall had a Guard/Reserve deployment rate a bit higher than 10 per
10,000, with Kings County (Brooklyn) and New York County (Manhattan) having rates well below 10
per 10,000.
Most Americans are completely ignorant of the facts outlined above, or understand only
partial truths about them. In fact, the majority view the military in general and the way we
man the force in particular through a lens of fear, apathy, ignorance, and guilt. The media is
unhelpful in this regard because in the main journalists and TV personalities are as unknowing
as the people. Few in the military leadership have the courage to speak up about these
realities, or are themselves so brainwashed that they are incapable of doing so. But if the
country does not wake up soon and demand action, we will be looking at another crisis and
asking the question posed by The Economist : "Who will fight the next war?"
Worse, we might be asking the question that Skin in the Game poses: "What if we had a
war and nobody came?"
When we put that question to a U.S. senator recently, he replied that "If the enemy were 'on
the shore,' Americans would respond."
"Would they?" we asked. "And tell us how you know that, please."
"They just would, I know they would," the senator replied.
There is yet another dimension to the AVF that is truly an "unmentionable." As President
Barack Obama said to one of us in the Roosevelt Room in November 2015 -- referring to
Washington, D.C. -- "There is a bias in this town toward war."
What the president meant was quite clear: powerful forces such as the
military-industrial complex, a less-than-courageous Congress that has abandoned its
constitutional duty with respect to the war power, extreme ideologies, and a nation with no
skin in the game, work together to persuade all presidents to consider war as the first
instrument of national power rather than the last.
Is there anyone among us who would not believe that having an all-volunteer (or, more to
the point, an all-recruited) military coming only from the 1 percent does not contribute to the
facility with which presidents call upon that instrument? In a rational world, we would be
declared insane to believe otherwise.
Said more explicitly, if the sons and daughters of members of Congress, of the corporate
leadership, of the billionaire class, of the Ivy Leagues, of the elite in general, were exposed
to the possibility of combat, would we have less war? From a socio-economic class perspective,
the AVF is inherently unfair.
Major General (Ret) Dennis Laich served 35 years in the U.S. Army Reserve. Col. (Ret.)
Lawrence Wilkerson is visiting professor of government and public policy at the College of
William and Mary. He was chief of staff to secretary of state Colin Powell from 2002-05,
special assistant to Powell when Powell was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (1989-93),
and deputy director and director of the USMC War College (1993-97).
These topics are widely discussed within the military. Not in staff meetings mind you. But the
civilians wouldn't realize it regardless. So what is to be done? Is there an organization we
can join that will speak up and get lobbyists to have the concerns heard? This is our national
defense and we all have an interest in knowing that we leave something better behind for the
next generation. Otherwise all our efforts truly are in vain.
"Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime
whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any
place subject to their jurisdiction."
Now, I, and maybe you, read the 13th amendment to the constitution as clearly banning
conscription, but the courts don't think so. Their reasoning actually being, that since
conscription was in place at the time of the 13th amendment's passage, the words written and
printed couldn't possibly mean what they clearly mean as common English usage.
Well, leaving aside for the moment that every (so far at least) man who ever got drafted
felt it was pretty effing involuntary, we can proceed to the greater question:
Why do we perpetually need a million men\women\hesheit qwerty's under arms? By all means,
let us draft every 18 year old in the entire United States into our SJW Social Science\Daycare
center joke of a military, it would at least be a far greater education than college. And
having so infused our armed forces with so much fresh human material, we could spend EVEN MORE
on Contracts, currently about 50% of the near trillion dollar war making budget.
I realize how unpopular this statement will be, but that 1 percent who are bleeding and
dying are generally doing so in foreign wars that are not truly defending the 99 percent. They
are doing it for the pro-war, pro-intervention subsets of various elite populations, popularly
supported by misinformed people of the lower/middle classes.
Perhaps the shortage of volunteer soldiers indicates war-weariness? Less war would
solve the problems of cost, volunteer shortages AND the burgeoning veteran population.
I served in six units during six years with the army military police. I can remember only one
guy I knew whose father was a educated white collar professional (university professor).
One of my children is about as far to the left as I am to the right politically,but we both
agree that the draft should be brought back with a choice of military or community service. No
exceptions made. Everyone serves at 18 for a year or two and can enlist longer if they choose
to. Offers of college or vocational scholorships could apply.
We've had a couple or more generations of self centered, self absorbed young people who
often become self destructive. They could benefit from the discipline, direction, and service
to others.
In the late 60s -- early 70s we used to chide Pat Buchanan and his mates with "War is good
business -- invest your sons". Of course, even then, he was investing other people's sons. His
good mate Trump has already bragged about his "contribution" to the war effort, dodging STIs
rather than bullets.
Wonderful article. The very serious concerns it raises were discussed some years ago by the
philosopher Michael Sandel. He asked how can it be just for the wealthy to risk the lives of
the children of the poor in an AVF when their own children are guaranteed far safer lifestyles.
From a British perspective, the same issues apply in an even more distorted form. In my two
years working in Michigan (1998-2000), I met far more current and former servicemen than in the
other 62 years of my life living in England. The British military is invisible to much of the
middle and upper classes, except in emergencies, despite the fact that you are never far from a
military base in such a small country.
At a recent dinner, I found myself, for the first time in my life, sitting at a table with
three ex-British Army officers. I discussed the near-invisible profile of the Army. My very
smart companion explained that for years Army personnel tried to avoid even wearing uniform in
the street because of the Troubles in Northern Ireland. The Troubles ended, but now, since the
beheading of a soldier in London by an Islamist nutter, the Army has gone back to civvies for
off duty wear.
And the class division is as scandalous as the American class divisions which this excellent
article describes. As at least one scathing observer commented, would Tony Blair have been so
ready to go to war in Iraq if any one of his four children been liable for military service?
And, of course, Blair and his political contemporaries were the first generation not to be
involved in a shooting war or to be liable for National Service (abolished around 1960). The
only place they would see the horrible face of war was in a movie theatre.
Reinstate National Service in the UK and USA? It might be as politically popular as sending
little children up chimneys or could some courageous politician air a desperately important
issue which might find unexpected support in a dangerous world?
"That 1 percent is bleeding and dying for the other 99 percent."
They are not. Nothing the US Army does "protects America". On the contrary it's a bigger
threat than anything it can protect the US from. They fight for combinations of cash, training,
education, travel, to carry on the family tradition , travel and adventure. The people who send
them to fight do so for power and ego. Not "national interests" There are none only the
interests of people who want power.
What the old saying about war "Rich man's game with the poor man paying the price."
Definely bring the Draft back if for no other reason to make those in Power think long and hard
about what military misadventures they're committing America's young men and women to. Imho
America would have been out of these Middle East wars of choice long ago if the draft was still
in effect as the American public would be demanding hard answers to "Why are we still there?"
I served. I was young and stupid and got a draft lottery number that gave me a 50 / 50 chance
of being drafted into the Army. I joined the Marines, instead. 1973 -- 1979, active and reserve
included.
Went on with my life afterwards. I never wanted and never want my kids to serve. The USA is
not the place I thought it was when I did. Heck, it wasn't the place I thought it was even
then.
Leave aside the ethical and moral implications, because America has told the world over and
over again that they don't matter. We will support the second-worst regimes in the world in
their struggles with the worst regimes, we will bomb weddings full of innocents if it gets us
the one man we want, and we do not care how many of our fellow citizens enrolled in the
military jobs programs are killed or maimed.
Smedley Butler saw this happening in his time, too. The wars were smaller and less
expensive, but they had the same root cause. Wherever our companies go and are thwarted by
locals in any way, we find an excuse to deploy and make that area safe for commercial activity.
Libya is a shambles now after Gaddafi's removal, but it's out of the news because organized,
government-led resistance to oil companies benefiting from one-sided leases is impossible. This
year, Libya hit a four-year high for oil production, in the middle of a six-cornered civil
war.
The only way any of this changes is if the public sees military activity as a threat to
benefits on which it depends, or if the price of fielding regular units to deal with these
problems becomes so large that companies will have to employ mercenaries to achieve their ends
abroad.
I believe it is time "our leaders" show what they are made of. Therefore I ask:
Should We Have War Games for the World's Leaders?
Yesterday's enemies are today's friends and today's friends are tomorrow's enemies, such is
the way of the world, and wars of the world. All these wars cause enormous bloodshed,
destruction and suffering to those affected. Therefore, would it not be much simpler to have
war games for all of the world's leaders and elites every few years? We have Olympic Games
every four years where the world's athletes from different countries compete. And many of these
countries are hostile to each other, yet they participate in the Olympics. So if enemies can
participate for sport, why not for war games? All the leaders and elites of the world would
have to lead by example, instead of leading from their political platforms, palaces and
offshore tax havens, while the ordinary people have to do the dirty work in wars. The world's
leaders and elites would all be in the front lines first. A venue could be arranged in a
deserted area and the people of the world could watch via satellite TV their courageous leaders
and other elites leading the charge in the war games .
Okay, probably true as far as it goes, but aren't you ignoring an important issue? Say the U.S.
re-established conscription to catch those elite kids -- what kind of military would you have?
I suspect not one that would be an effective military in any sense.
I'm reminded of a conversation with a friend from Germany, who believed in his country's
policy of universal service (that is, sort of universal -- they can do other volunteer work
instead), but he readily admitted that he and his fellow-conscripts -- i.e., mostly spoiled
children of the middle class -- were not real soldiers. He said it was totally normal in the
barracks to hear 18 and 19-year-olds weeping on the phone to mama about how homesick they were,
and that standards were very low for physical fitness and ability.
According to him, the real career soldiers saw the young conscripts as a completely useless
drag on the military, that merely had to be endured for political reasons rather than for any
actual military or strategic purposes.
the draft should be brought back with a choice of military or community service. No
exceptions made. Everyone serves at 18 for a year or two and can enlist longer if they choose
to. Offers of college or vocational scholorships could apply.
I don't often agree with mrscracker, but this one is right on. Male and female, gay and
straight, no exceptions but for people on life support. (There could be essential work
available for all but the most severely disabled.)
For one thing I think this would bring the practice of getting involved in useless wars to a
screeching halt. If the children of Congresspersons were in danger of being issued rifles and
told to wade into a rice paddy or a desert to be shot at, the people in charge would suddenly
be much more conservative about going to war.
While the USA pursued their geopolitical goals in supporting the coup d'état against
corrupt Yanukovich government by less corrupt western-Ukrainian nationalists (and a difficult clan
on oligarch, as Yanukovich was a puppet of Donetsk oligarch clan) , this is actually disaster
capitalism in action... There is very little Ukrainians can do now to improve their standard
of living which dropped at least two times since 2014. Civil war remains a drain on
economy and selling assets to western companies does not improve the standard fo living iether. For
20K grivna (less then $740 a month) you can hire top level specialist in Ukraine (regular
salary is less then $150 a month). Economy is still supported by the housing boom, but we know
how such things might end.
The neocons are now as important factor in America's foreign policy today as they were during
the darkest days of the Bush administration. And like on old time the Ukrainian coup has all
traces of globalist bankers allied with local compradors operating under fig leaf of
Western-Ukrainian nationalism (which were simply puppets in a much bigger financial and
geopolitical game). It is the same aggressive push by the United States to topple governments and
politicians in Latin America to advance the USA geopolitical or economic interests.
See also
Empire's Workshop Latin America, the United States, and the Rise of the New Imperialism
" Latin America once again became a school where the United States studied how to
execute imperial violence through proxies. After World War II, in the name of containing
Communism, the United States, mostly through the actions of local allies, executed or encouraged
coups in, among other places, Guatemala, Brazil, Chile, Uruguay, and Argentina and patronized a
brutal mercenary war in Nicaragua. Latin America became a laboratory tor counter-insurgency,
as military officials and covert operators applied insights learned in the region to Southeast
Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. By the end of the Cold War, Latin American security forces
trained, funded, equipped, and incited by Washington had executed a reign of bloody terror -
hundreds of thousands killed, an equal number tortured, millions driven into exile - from which
the region has yet to fully recover."
Parry provides an interesting perspective on neoconservative
intellectuals who now are driving the expansion of the US-led neoliberal empire into xUSSR space.
In this sense Ukrainian nationalists serve as a proxies of an American imperialism which is driven
by a combination of neoliberalism, Neoconservatism and the euphoria from the victory Cold War, of
which Ukraine civil war is the tragic endgame.
Parry does not addresses the controversial role of Russia, which actually helped to start the
Donbass civil war as initially Putin promised that the Ukraine territories who will vote "yes" in
referendums to join Russia will be accepted to Russia but soon changed his mind. And later
supplied arms to the insurgents.
Notable quotes:
"... Thus, you have the current hysteria over Russia's supposed "aggression" in Ukraine when the crisis was actually provoked by the West, including by U.S. neocons who helped create today's humanitarian crisis in eastern Ukraine that they now cynically blame on Russian President Vladimir Putin. ..."
"... Many of the old intelligence operatives, including Casey and Raymond, are now dead, but other influential Washington figures who were deeply involved by these strategies remain, such as neocon stalwart Robert Kagan, whose first major job in Washington was as chief of Reagan's State Department Office of Public Diplomacy for Latin America. ..."
"... During the Reagan years, Kagan worked closely on propaganda schemes with Elliott Abrams, then the Assistant Secretary of State for Latin America. After getting convicted and then pardoned in the Iran-Contra scandal, Abrams reemerged on President George W. Bush's National Security Council handling Middle East issues, including the Iraq War, and later "global democracy strategy." Abrams is now a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. ..."
"... These and other neocons were among the most diligent students learning the art of "perception management" from the likes of Raymond and Casey, but those propaganda skills have spread much more widely as "public diplomacy" and "information warfare" have now become an integral part of every U.S. foreign policy initiative. ..."
"... The National Endowment for Democracy, which was formed in 1983 at the urging of CIA Director Casey and under the supervision of Walter Raymond's NSC operation, is still run by the same neocon, Carl Gershman, and has an even bigger budget, now exceeding $100 million a year. ..."
"... Gershman and his NED played important behind-the-scenes roles in instigating the Ukraine crisis by financing activists, journalists and other operatives who supported the coup against elected President Yanukovych. The NED-backed Freedom House also beat the propaganda drums. [See Consortiumnews.com's " A Shadow Foreign Policy. "] ..."
"... Two other Reagan-era veterans, Elliott Abrams and Robert Kagan, have both provided important intellectual support for continuing U.S. interventionism around the world. Earlier this year, Kagan's article for The New Republic, entitled " Superpowers Don't Get to Retire ," touched such a raw nerve with President Obama that he hosted Kagan at a White House lunch and crafted the presidential commencement speech at West Point to deflect some of Kagan's criticism of Obama's hesitancy to use military force. ..."
"... According to the Times article, the husband-and-wife team share both a common world view and professional ambitions, Nuland editing Kagan's articles and Kagan "not permitted to use any official information he overhears or picks up around the house" a suggestion that Kagan's thinking at least may be informed by foreign policy secrets passed on by his wife. ..."
Thus, you have the current
hysteria over Russia's supposed "aggression" in Ukraine when the crisis was actually
provoked by the West, including by U.S. neocons who helped create today's humanitarian crisis
in eastern Ukraine that they now cynically blame on Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Yet, many of these same U.S. foreign policy operatives outraged over Russia's limited
intervention to protect ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine are demanding
that President Obama launch an air war against the Syrian military as a "humanitarian"
intervention there.
In other words, if the Russians act to shield ethnic Russians on their border who are being
bombarded by a coup regime in Kiev that was installed with U.S. support, the Russians are the
villains blamed for the thousands of civilian deaths, even though the vast majority of the
casualties have been inflicted by
the Kiev regime from indiscriminate bombing and from dispatching neo-Nazi militias to do
the street fighting.
In Ukraine, the exigent circumstances don't matter, including the violent overthrow of the
constitutionally elected president last February. It's all about white hats for the current
Kiev regime and black hats for the ethnic Russians and especially for Putin.
... ... ...
For this project, Ronald Reagan's CIA Director William J. Casey sent his top propaganda
specialist Walter Raymond Jr. to the National Security Council staff to manage the inter-agency
task forces that would brainstorm and coordinate this "public diplomacy" strategy.
Many of the old intelligence operatives, including Casey and Raymond, are now dead, but
other influential Washington figures who were deeply involved by these strategies remain, such
as neocon stalwart Robert Kagan, whose first major job in Washington was as chief of Reagan's
State Department Office of Public Diplomacy for Latin America.
Now a fellow at the Brookings Institution and a columnist at the Washington Post, Kagan
remains an expert in presenting foreign policy initiatives within the "good guy/bad guy" frames
that he learned in the 1980s. He is also the husband of Assistant Secretary of State for
European Affairs Victoria Nuland, who oversaw the overthrow of Ukraine's elected President
Viktor Yanukovych last February amid a very effective U.S. propaganda strategy.
During the Reagan years, Kagan worked closely on propaganda schemes with Elliott Abrams,
then the Assistant Secretary of State for Latin America. After getting convicted and then
pardoned in the Iran-Contra scandal, Abrams reemerged on President George W. Bush's National
Security Council handling Middle East issues, including the Iraq War, and later "global
democracy strategy." Abrams is now a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.
These and other neocons were among the most diligent students learning the art of
"perception management" from the likes of Raymond and Casey, but those propaganda skills have
spread much more widely as "public diplomacy" and "information warfare" have now become an
integral part of every U.S. foreign policy initiative.
... ... ...
Though Reagan's creation of a domestic propaganda bureaucracy began more than three decades
ago and Bush's vanquishing of the Vietnam Syndrome was more than two decades ago the legacy of
those actions continue to reverberate today in how the perceptions of the American people are
now routinely managed. That was true during last decade's Iraq War and this decade's conflicts
in Libya, Syria and Ukraine as well as the economic sanctions against Iran and Russia.
Gershman and his NED played important behind-the-scenes roles in instigating the Ukraine
crisis by financing activists, journalists and other operatives who supported the coup against
elected President Yanukovych. The NED-backed Freedom House also beat the propaganda drums. [See
Consortiumnews.com's "
A Shadow Foreign
Policy. "]
Two other Reagan-era veterans, Elliott Abrams and Robert Kagan, have both provided important
intellectual support for continuing U.S. interventionism around the world. Earlier this year,
Kagan's article for The New Republic, entitled "
Superpowers
Don't Get to Retire ," touched such a raw nerve with President Obama that he hosted Kagan
at a White House lunch and crafted the presidential commencement speech at West Point to
deflect some of Kagan's criticism of Obama's hesitancy to use military force.
A New York Times article about Kagan's influence over Obama
reported that Kagan's wife, Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, apparently had a
hand in crafting the attack on her ostensible boss, President Obama.
According to the Times article, the husband-and-wife team share both a common world view and
professional ambitions, Nuland editing Kagan's articles and Kagan "not permitted to use any
official information he overhears or picks up around the house" a suggestion that Kagan's
thinking at least may be informed by foreign policy secrets passed on by his wife.
Though Nuland wouldn't comment specifically on Kagan's attack on President Obama, she
indicated that she holds similar views. "But suffice to say," Nuland said, "that nothing goes
out of the house that I don't think is worthy of his talents. Let's put it that way."
"... Despite the potential pitfalls of Cotton and Netanyahu's plan, UN Ambassador Nikki Haley embraced the approach. Haley, a possible replacement for embattled Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, tweeted yesterday, "[Sen. Tom Cotton] has clear understanding of the Iranian regime & flaws in the nuclear deal. His [CFR] speech is worth reading." ..."
"... The United States must cease all appeasement, conciliation, and concessions towards Iran, starting with the sham nuclear negotiations. Certain voices call for congressional restraint, urging Congress not to act now lest Iran walk away from the negotiating table, undermining the fabled yet always absent moderates in Iran. But, the end of these negotiations isn't an unintended consequence of Congressional action, it is very much an intended consequence. A feature, not a bug, so to speak." ..."
"... Any agreement that advances our interests must by necessity compromise Iran's -- doubly so since they are a third-rate power, far from an equal to the United States. The ayatollahs shouldn't be happy with any deal; they should've felt compelled to accept a deal of our choosing lest they face economic devastation and military destruction of their nuclear infrastructure. That Iran welcomes this agreement is both troubling and telling. ..."
"... Ben Armbruster, writing for LobeLog last week, detailed the ways in which Mark Dubowitz , CEO of the neoconservative Foundation for Defense of Democracies , pushes for a so-called "better deal" while explicitly calling for regime change in Tehran. ..."
"... But perhaps a bigger pressure on Trump to de-certify comes from three of his biggest political donors : Sheldon Adelson , Paul Singer , and Bernard Marcus . All three have funded groups that sought to thwart the negotiations leading to the JCPOA, including Dubowitz's FDD, and have given generously to Trump. ..."
"... Adelson has also financed Israel's largest circulation daily newspaper, whose support for Netanyahu and his right-wing government earned it the nickname "Bibiton." ..."
The Post credits Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Sen. Tom Cotton
(R-AR) with this "fix it or nix it" approach to U.S. compliance with the JCPOA. Indeed, Cotton
laid out essentially this very strategy in a speech
at the Council on Foreign Relations in which he proposed that the president should decertify
Iran's compliance with the nuclear deal based on Iran's actions in unrelated areas and toughen
key components of the agreement, arguing that the deal fails to serve U.S. national security
interests.
Despite the potential pitfalls of Cotton and Netanyahu's plan, UN Ambassador Nikki Haley
embraced the approach. Haley, a possible replacement for embattled Secretary of State Rex
Tillerson, tweeted
yesterday, "[Sen. Tom Cotton] has clear understanding of the Iranian regime & flaws in the
nuclear deal. His [CFR] speech is worth reading."
But Cotton has been clear that renegotiating the nuclear deal isn't his actual intention. In
2015, he made no secret of his desire to blow up diplomacy with Iran, saying
:
The United States must cease all appeasement, conciliation, and concessions towards
Iran, starting with the sham nuclear negotiations. Certain voices call for congressional
restraint, urging Congress not to act now lest Iran walk away from the negotiating table,
undermining the fabled yet always absent moderates in Iran. But, the end of these
negotiations isn't an unintended consequence of Congressional action, it is very much an
intended consequence. A feature, not a bug, so to speak."
Later that same year, Cotton explained his terms for any agreement with Iran, qualities that
more closely resemble a surrender document than anything the Iranians would agree to in a
negotiation. Cotton
said :
Any agreement that advances our interests must by necessity compromise Iran's --
doubly so since they are a third-rate power, far from an equal to the United States. The
ayatollahs shouldn't be happy with any deal; they should've felt compelled to accept a deal
of our choosing lest they face economic devastation and military destruction of their nuclear
infrastructure. That Iran welcomes this agreement is both troubling and telling.
Indeed, Cotton and his fellow proponents of the president de-certifying Iranian compliance,
despite all indications that Iran is complying with the JCPOA, have a not-so-thinly-veiled goal
of regime change in Tehran, a position in which the JCPOA and any negotiations with Iran pose a
serious threat. Ben Armbruster, writing for LobeLog last week,
detailed the ways in which Mark Dubowitz , CEO of the
neoconservative Foundation for
Defense of Democracies , pushes for a so-called "better deal" while explicitly calling for
regime change in Tehran.
"I think that Iran is the devil," said Marcus in a 2015 Fox Business interview . Adelson told a Yeshiva University
audience in 2013 that U.S. negotiators should launch a nuclear weapon at Iran as a
negotiating tactic. Adelson may hold radical views about the prudence of a nuclear attack on Iran, but he
appears to enjoy easy access to Trump. Adelson and his wife, Miriam, who were Trump's biggest
financial supporters by far during his presidential run, met with the president at Adelson's
headquarters in Las Vegas recently, ostensibly to discuss the recent mass shooting there.
But Andy Abboud, senior vice president Government Relations for Adelson's Sands Corporation,
told the Adelson-owned Las Vegas Review Journal that the meeting was "pre-arranged and set to
discuss policy,"
according to the paper .
Adelson has also financed Israel's largest circulation daily
newspaper, whose support for Netanyahu and his right-wing government earned it the nickname
"Bibiton."
Eli Clifton reports on money in politics and U.S. foreign policy. He's
previously reported for the American Independent News Network, ThinkProgress, and Inter Press
Service.
"... Nearly every assertion in the president's speech was embarrassingly incorrect. Iran is not allied with al-Qaeda, as the president stated. The money President Obama sent to Iran was their own money. Much of it was a down-payment made to the US for fighter planes that were never delivered when Iran changed from being friend to foe in 1979. The president also falsely claims that Iran targets the United States with terrorism. He claims that Iran has "fueled sectarian violence in Iraq," when it was Iranian militias who prevented Baghdad from being overtaken by ISIS in 2014. There are too many other false statements in the president's speech to mention. ..."
"... Unfortunately the American people are being neoconned into another war. Just as with the disastrous 2003 US attack on Iraq, the media builds up the fear and does the bidding of the warmongers without checking facts or applying the necessary skepticism to neocon claims. ..."
President Trump has been notoriously inconsistent in his foreign policy. He campaigned on and
won the presidency with promises to repair relations with Russia, pull out of no-win wars like Afghanistan,
and end the failed US policy of nation-building overseas. Once in office he pursued policies exactly
the opposite of what he campaigned on. Unfortunately Iran is one of the few areas where the president
has been very consistent. And consistently wrong.
In the president's speech last week he expressed his view that Iran was not "living up to the
spirit" of the 2015 nuclear agreement and that he would turn to Congress to apply new sanctions to
Iran and to, he hopes, take the US out of the deal entirely.
Nearly every assertion in the president's speech was embarrassingly incorrect. Iran is not allied
with al-Qaeda, as the president stated. The money President Obama sent to Iran was their own money.
Much of it was a down-payment made to the US for fighter planes that were never delivered when Iran
changed from being friend to foe in 1979. The president also falsely claims that Iran targets the
United States with terrorism. He claims that Iran has "fueled sectarian violence in Iraq," when it
was Iranian militias who prevented Baghdad from being overtaken by ISIS in 2014. There are too many
other false statements in the president's speech to mention.
How could he be so wrong on so many basic facts about Iran? Here's a clue: the media reports that
his number one advisor on Iran is his Ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley. Ambassador Haley is a "diplomat"
who believes war is the best, first option rather than the last, worst option. She has no prior foreign
policy experience, but her closest mentor is John Bolton – the neocon who lied us into the Iraq war.
How do these people live with themselves when they look around at the death and destruction their
policies have caused?
Unfortunately the American people are being neoconned into another war. Just as with the disastrous
2003 US attack on Iraq, the media builds up the fear and does the bidding of the warmongers without
checking facts or applying the necessary skepticism to neocon claims.
Like most Americans, I do not endorse Iran's style of government. I prefer religion and the state
to be separate and even though our liberties have been under attack by our government, I prefer our
much freer system in the US. But I wonder how many Americans know that Iran has not attacked or "regime-changed"
another country in its modern history. Iran's actions in Syria are at the invitation of the legitimate
Syrian government. And why won't President Trump tell us the truth about Iranian troops in Syria
– that they are fighting ISIS and al-Qaeda, both of which are Sunni extremist groups that are Iran's
(and our) mortal enemies?
How many Americans know that Iran is one of the few countries in the region that actually holds
elections that are contested by candidates with very different philosophies? Do any Americans wonder
why the Saudis are considered one of our greatest allies in the Middle East even though they hold
no elections and have one of the world's worst human rights records?
Let's be clear here: President Trump did not just announce that he was "de-certifying" Iran's
compliance with the nuclear deal. He announced that Iran was from now on going to be in the bullseye
of the US military. Will Americans allow themselves to be lied into another Middle East war?
"Will Americans allow themselves to be lied into another Middle East war?"
The die was cast the minute they ended the draft and mandatory service. What the hell does
anyone in this country care about the next war? Maybe some realize it's a theft, a looting, but
as long as it isn't THEIR blood being spilt, nothing goes nuclear, they don't care. Few outside
our little venue here even understand, they think it's still Rah! Rah! And then, I suppose if
I were in Congress, I might demand votes on these deals. Civilian control of the military, funding
the wars, etc. Of course, if I pushed the point, they'd put a bullet in my HEAD . Just
because. And headline me, my Mistress and my wife on the front page of the Post. Because NSA just
KNOWS shit. Probably set me up with my Mistress to begin with so they'd have something on me,
heh. This is the dilemma the Hill has on a personal level. We don't vote on wars, we gave em a
blank check after 9/11 and that's that. Keeping it all going? That's all private. None-ya.
Tillerson is being moved closer to the door while Halley is taking on the leadership role in
US foreign policy. There is speculation in the media that she will replace Tillerson as
Secretary of State.
With rumours swirling that Rex Tillerson planned on resigning, even before it emerged
that he allegedly called Trump a "fucking moron", there is now an increased possibility that
a hyper-neo-con [Nikki Haley], might soon become the chief foreign policy maker in a Trump
administration that was elected on the basis of opposing the neo-con ideology.
Can Trump be that moronic? Bombast over reason? Threats over diplomacy? Ego over maturity?
Boobs over brains?
The US seems to be in a power dive toward foreign policy catastrophes in Syria, Iran, NK,
Venezuela and most importantly with Russia and China. However, these policies will likely
save Trump's presidency in that these moves are meant, regardless of how badly done, to delay
the collapse of American power. Thus, the media will likely provide enough support to stave
off impeachment.
Players like the EU and KSA are recognizing the end of the American empire is near and can
now place their own interests above that of the US. Yes, a wave of freedom is sweeping the
world!
Trump reminds me of Yeltsin. There was a hope that there must be method to his madness.
But it turns out that Trump (like Yeltsin) is a "fucking moron" per Tillerson. But just to
put events in proper context, Hilary would likely have been worse.
As a side note, it is noteworthy that works like "fuck" and "shit" are now routinely used
in the general media. Back in the day, using those words would get you in big trouble if
uttered in public.
"... The reality is that the above situation outlined by Kerry two years ago has only worsened with Trump's inability to understand that reality leading to the current irrationality in policy-- unless --Trump is actually trying to further the Neocon policy of Full Spectrum Dominance. ..."
"... "Have you met America? That's the country that needs "lives matter" movements because of its prevailing culture of utter indifference to human welfare, but which trips over itself in its eagerness to wage war in defense of the petrodollar." ..."
"... I can easily envision a joint announcement by Russia, China and Iran that all trade conducted with them must be transacted in Yuan, Ruble, Rial, or Euro--that the dollar is no longer welcomed. And given the utter stupidity of the Republican controlled US Congress, more sanctions will be applied to Iran thus sealing the onset of the Outlaw US Empire's international isolation. ..."
"... Imho, the US political establishment, as publically projected, is moving closer to a realm where words, be they snide remarks, lofty pronouncements, declarations of intent, or vile accusations, become substitutes for action. ..."
"... US overt behavior is hapless unless entered into with cold calculation, a specific hidden aim in mind, and levers of control somewhere. Not the case imho, but dismissing Trump as a fool is not useful. We see symptoms of floundering, weakened, posturing Empire -- imho empty sorts o' threats (Iran, NK) are often dismissed by others, rightly so, but that is dangerous too: the US has to play the military domination position combined with the unpredictability card. Extremely volatile situation. ..."
"... Remember when Trump said he would never do a first nuke strike? :) ..."
In the final days of the Iran Deal negotiations, August 2015, I completely missed the
interview Kerry did with Reuters, https://2009-2017.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2015/08/245935.htm
that Mercouris parses for his detailed article proving the Outlaw US Empire's Imperial Policy
is now "irrational"--utterly I'd say since for me it's been irrational for decades when
weighing the actual interests of the United States's populous. The key excerpt:
"But if everybody thinks, 'Oh, no, we're just tough; the United States of America, we have
our secondary sanctions; we can force people to do what we want.' I actually heard that
argument on television this morning. I've heard it from a number of the organisations that
are working that are opposed to this agreement. They're spreading the word, 'America is
strong enough, our banks are tough enough; we can just bring the hammer down and force our
friends to do what we want them to.'
"Well, look – a lot of business people in this room. Are you kidding me? The
United States is going to start sanctioning our allies and their banks and their businesses
because we walked away from a deal and we're going to force them to do what we want them to
do even though they agreed to the deal we came to? Are you kidding ?
"That is a recipe quickly, my friends, for them to walk away from Ukraine, where they are
already very dicey and ready to say, 'Well, we've done our bit.' They were ready in many
cases to say, 'Well, we're the ones paying the price for your sanctions.' We – it was
Obama who went out and actually put together a sanctions regime that had an impact. By
– I went to China. We persuaded China, 'Don't buy more oil.' We persuaded India and
other countries to step back.
"Can you imagine trying to sanction them after persuading them to put in phased
sanctions to bring Iran to the negotiating table, and when they have not only come to the
table but they made a deal, we turn around and nix the deal and then tell them you're going
to have to obey our rules on the sanctions anyway?
"That is a recipe very quickly, my friends, businesspeople here, for the American
dollar to cease to be the reserve currency of the world – which is already bubbling out
there .." (Bold italics in original.)
The reality is that the above situation outlined by Kerry two years ago has only worsened
with Trump's inability to understand that reality leading to the current irrationality in
policy-- unless --Trump is actually trying to further the Neocon policy of Full
Spectrum Dominance. If that is indeed the case, then Trump's behavior is rational in that the
only alternative facing the Outlaw US Empire in its drive to enslave the planet is to launch
a non-proxy hot war to achieve its goals.
Or... Trump's smarter than any of us as he expects
the neocons to fold when faced with the possibility of escalating the ongoing Hybrid Third
World War into one that's no longer Hybrid and promises to bring horrendous amounts of death
and destruction to The Homeland.
yes, I just read that Mercouris piece
and I was excited to read about that Kerry interview, that everyone seems to have missed. So
here's what seems to be the authoritative background on the the Iran deal.
b said in his last piece -
October 14 , linked in his article above:
Obama pushed sanctions onto sanctions to make Iran scream. But the country did not fold.
Each new U.S. sanction step was responded to with an expansion of Iran's nuclear program.
In the end Obama had to offer talks to Iran to get out of the hole he had dug himself.
For me this was the first time I'd seen an explanation of why the Iran deal happened, and
I really wanted to know more. Now this retrospective by Mercouris shows exactly how accurate
b's assessment was, but fills in the detail to show that the EU was already on the verge of a
major split from the dollar. Only the deal, which allowed EU to grow its trade with the huge
market of Iran, saved this potential run from the dollar by Europe.
I read the full Reuters interview , and I find
it debatable how much of Kerry's statement was applied to Russia and China and how much to
Britain, France and Germany. I'll parse it as, Asia will say it out loud, Europe will think
it silently - the unthinkable, that is. Mercouris seems sure it was Europe:
In other words the US was pushed into the JCPOA somewhat against its will at the insistence
of its European allies, who were considering lifting sanctions on Iran unilaterally if the
US rejected the deal which was on offer. The US submitted to their demands because it
feared that the alternative – threatening economic war on its European allies by
imposing sanctions on them – would have hastened the ending of the reserve currency
status of the US dollar.
It is rare to say the least for US officials to so much as contemplate in public the
possibility of the US dollar losing its reserve currency status. The fact that in August
2015 Secretary of State Kerry actually did so shows the pressure that the US was under.
Astonishing. Here we are two years later trying to think that if Trump does whatever
nonsense he does with the Iran deal, it will encourage a rift between the US and the EU - but
actually this has already come to be the situation, and two years ago at that.
This is some serious shit, that we all seem to have missed. EU leaders may be craven, but
European business wants to trade with Iran, and it's simmering around the point of breaking
away from the dollar in order to do it. Surely this calls for a large re-calculation of the
situation.
What happens if Iran starts to negotiate payments settled in Yuan? Hezbollah can take down
Israel militarily. But perhaps Iran can take down the US financially?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/08/05/text-obama-gives-a-speech-about-the-iran-nuclear-deal/?utm_term=.aac92dd70db9
..."Moreover, our closest allies in Europe or in Asia, much less China or Russia, certainly
are not going to enforce existing sanctions for another five, 10, 15 years according to the
dictates of the U.S. Congress because their willingness to support sanctions in the first
place was based on Iran ending its pursuit of nuclear weapons. It was not based on the belief
that Iran cannot have peaceful nuclear power, and it certainly wasn't based on a desire for
regime change in Iran.
As a result, those who say we can just walk away from this deal and maintain sanctions are
selling a fantasy. Instead of strengthening our position, as some have suggested, Congress'
rejection would almost certainly result in multi-lateral sanctions unraveling.
If, as has also been suggested, we tried to maintain unilateral sanctions, beefen them up,
we would be standing alone. We cannot dictate the foreign, economic and energy policies of
every major power in the world. In order to even try to do that, we would have to sanction,
for example, some of the world's largest banks. We'd have to cut off countries like China
from the American financial system. And since they happen to be major purchasers of our debt,
such actions could trigger severe disruptions in our own economy, and, by way, raise
questions internationally about the dollar's role as the world's reserve currency. That's
part of the reason why many of the previous unilateral sanctions were waived."...
Another time when Obama was covincing US to pass the Iran deal, he stated bluntly that not
passing the deal would put the US dollar at risk. Have not been able to find it as yet.
I just read this comment by Oh Homer at another site and felt motivated to share it here.
"Have you met America? That's the country that needs "lives matter" movements because of its
prevailing culture of utter indifference to human welfare, but which trips over itself in its
eagerness to wage war in defense of the petrodollar."
Good questions! The extremely rare candor shown by Kerry, as Mercouris notes, isn't being
shared by the Trumpsters and is likely responsible for their outward state of high anxiety
and knee-jerk reactions to just about anything.
Iran says it has a plan: "Speaker of Iran's parliament Ali Larijani said that Iran 'had a
developed plan and a certain law,' should the United States withdraw from the agreement on
Tehran's nuclear program, adding that Washington would 'regret it.'" https://sputniknews.com/world/201710161058275364-iran-plan-us-nuclear-deal/
RT reports Larijani thusly: "' We have a plan We've recently approved in parliament
what we should do given the Americans undertake certain steps, ' Larijani told reporters
Monday on the sidelines of the Inter-Parliamentary Union meeting in St. Petersburg.
' We will take steps so that the Americans will regret it. '" (Emphasis in
original.) https://www.rt.com/news/406851-iran-has-plan-if-us-withdraws-nuclear/
If that is so, then what Iran plans to do ought to be discerned by looking at its
parliamentary actions on the subject by those able to read Farsi. I rather doubt it's bluff
and bluster.
And the EU won't support Trump's decertification: "After a closed-door meeting [of EU
Foreign Ministers at Luxembourg] chaired by EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini on how
best to proceed on the Iran issue, ministers issued a joint statement saying that the 2015
deal was key to preventing the global spread of nuclear weapons." https://www.rt.com/newsline/406844-iran-eu-us-mogherini/
I can easily envision a joint announcement by Russia, China and Iran that all trade
conducted with them must be transacted in Yuan, Ruble, Rial, or Euro--that the dollar is no
longer welcomed. And given the utter stupidity of the Republican controlled US Congress, more
sanctions will be applied to Iran thus sealing the onset of the Outlaw US Empire's
international isolation.
Imho, the US political establishment, as publically projected, is moving closer to a realm
where words, be they snide remarks, lofty pronouncements, declarations of intent, or vile
accusations, become substitutes for action.
Likewise, minor symbolic moves like withdrawing, "quitting" which is ambiguous, from e.g.
UNESCO - *US didn't pay dues in any case.*
Trump is not alone, all the Dem. Russia-bashing/blaming leads nowhere, the Trump
denigration as well, Trump threatening NK is similar.
The word is sufficient to itself! As are incantatory spells, religious appeals, etc. All
one clumsy step beyond the Rovian "when we act, we create our own reality.." which rests on
the power to act and transform reality (sometimes with sleight of hand, mirages..)
transferring that power to symbols with hope and 'belief'... That's the comforting
take.
US overt behavior is hapless unless entered into with cold calculation, a specific hidden
aim in mind, and levers of control somewhere. Not the case imho, but dismissing Trump as a
fool is not useful. We see symptoms of floundering, weakened, posturing Empire -- imho
empty sorts o' threats (Iran, NK) are often dismissed by others, rightly so, but that is
dangerous too: the US has to play the military domination position combined with the
unpredictability card. Extremely volatile situation.
Remember when Trump said he would never do a first nuke strike? :)
"... Despite the potential pitfalls of Cotton and Netanyahu's plan, UN Ambassador Nikki Haley embraced the approach. Haley, a possible replacement for embattled Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, tweeted yesterday, "[Sen. Tom Cotton] has clear understanding of the Iranian regime & flaws in the nuclear deal. His [CFR] speech is worth reading." ..."
"... The United States must cease all appeasement, conciliation, and concessions towards Iran, starting with the sham nuclear negotiations. Certain voices call for congressional restraint, urging Congress not to act now lest Iran walk away from the negotiating table, undermining the fabled yet always absent moderates in Iran. But, the end of these negotiations isn't an unintended consequence of Congressional action, it is very much an intended consequence. A feature, not a bug, so to speak." ..."
"... Any agreement that advances our interests must by necessity compromise Iran's -- doubly so since they are a third-rate power, far from an equal to the United States. The ayatollahs shouldn't be happy with any deal; they should've felt compelled to accept a deal of our choosing lest they face economic devastation and military destruction of their nuclear infrastructure. That Iran welcomes this agreement is both troubling and telling. ..."
"... Ben Armbruster, writing for LobeLog last week, detailed the ways in which Mark Dubowitz , CEO of the neoconservative Foundation for Defense of Democracies , pushes for a so-called "better deal" while explicitly calling for regime change in Tehran. ..."
"... But perhaps a bigger pressure on Trump to de-certify comes from three of his biggest political donors : Sheldon Adelson , Paul Singer , and Bernard Marcus . All three have funded groups that sought to thwart the negotiations leading to the JCPOA, including Dubowitz's FDD, and have given generously to Trump. ..."
"... Adelson has also financed Israel's largest circulation daily newspaper, whose support for Netanyahu and his right-wing government earned it the nickname "Bibiton." ..."
The Post credits Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Sen. Tom Cotton
(R-AR) with this "fix it or nix it" approach to U.S. compliance with the JCPOA. Indeed, Cotton
laid out essentially this very strategy in a speech
at the Council on Foreign Relations in which he proposed that the president should decertify
Iran's compliance with the nuclear deal based on Iran's actions in unrelated areas and toughen
key components of the agreement, arguing that the deal fails to serve U.S. national security
interests.
Despite the potential pitfalls of Cotton and Netanyahu's plan, UN Ambassador Nikki Haley
embraced the approach. Haley, a possible replacement for embattled Secretary of State Rex
Tillerson, tweeted
yesterday, "[Sen. Tom Cotton] has clear understanding of the Iranian regime & flaws in the
nuclear deal. His [CFR] speech is worth reading."
But Cotton has been clear that renegotiating the nuclear deal isn't his actual intention. In
2015, he made no secret of his desire to blow up diplomacy with Iran, saying
:
The United States must cease all appeasement, conciliation, and concessions towards
Iran, starting with the sham nuclear negotiations. Certain voices call for congressional
restraint, urging Congress not to act now lest Iran walk away from the negotiating table,
undermining the fabled yet always absent moderates in Iran. But, the end of these
negotiations isn't an unintended consequence of Congressional action, it is very much an
intended consequence. A feature, not a bug, so to speak."
Later that same year, Cotton explained his terms for any agreement with Iran, qualities that
more closely resemble a surrender document than anything the Iranians would agree to in a
negotiation. Cotton
said :
Any agreement that advances our interests must by necessity compromise Iran's --
doubly so since they are a third-rate power, far from an equal to the United States. The
ayatollahs shouldn't be happy with any deal; they should've felt compelled to accept a deal
of our choosing lest they face economic devastation and military destruction of their nuclear
infrastructure. That Iran welcomes this agreement is both troubling and telling.
Indeed, Cotton and his fellow proponents of the president de-certifying Iranian compliance,
despite all indications that Iran is complying with the JCPOA, have a not-so-thinly-veiled goal
of regime change in Tehran, a position in which the JCPOA and any negotiations with Iran pose a
serious threat. Ben Armbruster, writing for LobeLog last week,
detailed the ways in which Mark Dubowitz , CEO of the
neoconservative Foundation for
Defense of Democracies , pushes for a so-called "better deal" while explicitly calling for
regime change in Tehran.
"I think that Iran is the devil," said Marcus in a 2015 Fox Business interview . Adelson told a Yeshiva University
audience in 2013 that U.S. negotiators should launch a nuclear weapon at Iran as a
negotiating tactic. Adelson may hold radical views about the prudence of a nuclear attack on Iran, but he
appears to enjoy easy access to Trump. Adelson and his wife, Miriam, who were Trump's biggest
financial supporters by far during his presidential run, met with the president at Adelson's
headquarters in Las Vegas recently, ostensibly to discuss the recent mass shooting there.
But Andy Abboud, senior vice president Government Relations for Adelson's Sands Corporation,
told the Adelson-owned Las Vegas Review Journal that the meeting was "pre-arranged and set to
discuss policy,"
according to the paper .
Adelson has also financed Israel's largest circulation daily
newspaper, whose support for Netanyahu and his right-wing government earned it the nickname
"Bibiton."
Eli Clifton reports on money in politics and U.S. foreign policy. He's
previously reported for the American Independent News Network, ThinkProgress, and Inter Press
Service.
"... Nearly every assertion in the president's speech was embarrassingly incorrect. Iran is not allied with al-Qaeda, as the president stated. The money President Obama sent to Iran was their own money. Much of it was a down-payment made to the US for fighter planes that were never delivered when Iran changed from being friend to foe in 1979. The president also falsely claims that Iran targets the United States with terrorism. He claims that Iran has "fueled sectarian violence in Iraq," when it was Iranian militias who prevented Baghdad from being overtaken by ISIS in 2014. There are too many other false statements in the president's speech to mention. ..."
"... Unfortunately the American people are being neoconned into another war. Just as with the disastrous 2003 US attack on Iraq, the media builds up the fear and does the bidding of the warmongers without checking facts or applying the necessary skepticism to neocon claims. ..."
President Trump has been notoriously inconsistent in his foreign policy. He campaigned on and
won the presidency with promises to repair relations with Russia, pull out of no-win wars like Afghanistan,
and end the failed US policy of nation-building overseas. Once in office he pursued policies exactly
the opposite of what he campaigned on. Unfortunately Iran is one of the few areas where the president
has been very consistent. And consistently wrong.
In the president's speech last week he expressed his view that Iran was not "living up to the
spirit" of the 2015 nuclear agreement and that he would turn to Congress to apply new sanctions to
Iran and to, he hopes, take the US out of the deal entirely.
Nearly every assertion in the president's speech was embarrassingly incorrect. Iran is not allied
with al-Qaeda, as the president stated. The money President Obama sent to Iran was their own money.
Much of it was a down-payment made to the US for fighter planes that were never delivered when Iran
changed from being friend to foe in 1979. The president also falsely claims that Iran targets the
United States with terrorism. He claims that Iran has "fueled sectarian violence in Iraq," when it
was Iranian militias who prevented Baghdad from being overtaken by ISIS in 2014. There are too many
other false statements in the president's speech to mention.
How could he be so wrong on so many basic facts about Iran? Here's a clue: the media reports that
his number one advisor on Iran is his Ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley. Ambassador Haley is a "diplomat"
who believes war is the best, first option rather than the last, worst option. She has no prior foreign
policy experience, but her closest mentor is John Bolton – the neocon who lied us into the Iraq war.
How do these people live with themselves when they look around at the death and destruction their
policies have caused?
Unfortunately the American people are being neoconned into another war. Just as with the disastrous
2003 US attack on Iraq, the media builds up the fear and does the bidding of the warmongers without
checking facts or applying the necessary skepticism to neocon claims.
Like most Americans, I do not endorse Iran's style of government. I prefer religion and the state
to be separate and even though our liberties have been under attack by our government, I prefer our
much freer system in the US. But I wonder how many Americans know that Iran has not attacked or "regime-changed"
another country in its modern history. Iran's actions in Syria are at the invitation of the legitimate
Syrian government. And why won't President Trump tell us the truth about Iranian troops in Syria
– that they are fighting ISIS and al-Qaeda, both of which are Sunni extremist groups that are Iran's
(and our) mortal enemies?
How many Americans know that Iran is one of the few countries in the region that actually holds
elections that are contested by candidates with very different philosophies? Do any Americans wonder
why the Saudis are considered one of our greatest allies in the Middle East even though they hold
no elections and have one of the world's worst human rights records?
Let's be clear here: President Trump did not just announce that he was "de-certifying" Iran's
compliance with the nuclear deal. He announced that Iran was from now on going to be in the bullseye
of the US military. Will Americans allow themselves to be lied into another Middle East war?
"Will Americans allow themselves to be lied into another Middle East war?"
The die was cast the minute they ended the draft and mandatory service. What the hell does
anyone in this country care about the next war? Maybe some realize it's a theft, a looting, but
as long as it isn't THEIR blood being spilt, nothing goes nuclear, they don't care. Few outside
our little venue here even understand, they think it's still Rah! Rah! And then, I suppose if
I were in Congress, I might demand votes on these deals. Civilian control of the military, funding
the wars, etc. Of course, if I pushed the point, they'd put a bullet in my HEAD . Just
because. And headline me, my Mistress and my wife on the front page of the Post. Because NSA just
KNOWS shit. Probably set me up with my Mistress to begin with so they'd have something on me,
heh. This is the dilemma the Hill has on a personal level. We don't vote on wars, we gave em a
blank check after 9/11 and that's that. Keeping it all going? That's all private. None-ya.
Tillerson is being moved closer to the door while Halley is taking on the leadership role in
US foreign policy. There is speculation in the media that she will replace Tillerson as
Secretary of State.
With rumours swirling that Rex Tillerson planned on resigning, even before it emerged
that he allegedly called Trump a "fucking moron", there is now an increased possibility that
a hyper-neo-con [Nikki Haley], might soon become the chief foreign policy maker in a Trump
administration that was elected on the basis of opposing the neo-con ideology.
Can Trump be that moronic? Bombast over reason? Threats over diplomacy? Ego over maturity?
Boobs over brains?
The US seems to be in a power dive toward foreign policy catastrophes in Syria, Iran, NK,
Venezuela and most importantly with Russia and China. However, these policies will likely
save Trump's presidency in that these moves are meant, regardless of how badly done, to delay
the collapse of American power. Thus, the media will likely provide enough support to stave
off impeachment.
Players like the EU and KSA are recognizing the end of the American empire is near and can
now place their own interests above that of the US. Yes, a wave of freedom is sweeping the
world!
Trump reminds me of Yeltsin. There was a hope that there must be method to his madness.
But it turns out that Trump (like Yeltsin) is a "fucking moron" per Tillerson. But just to
put events in proper context, Hilary would likely have been worse.
As a side note, it is noteworthy that works like "fuck" and "shit" are now routinely used
in the general media. Back in the day, using those words would get you in big trouble if
uttered in public.
"... The reality is that the above situation outlined by Kerry two years ago has only worsened with Trump's inability to understand that reality leading to the current irrationality in policy-- unless --Trump is actually trying to further the Neocon policy of Full Spectrum Dominance. ..."
"... "Have you met America? That's the country that needs "lives matter" movements because of its prevailing culture of utter indifference to human welfare, but which trips over itself in its eagerness to wage war in defense of the petrodollar." ..."
"... I can easily envision a joint announcement by Russia, China and Iran that all trade conducted with them must be transacted in Yuan, Ruble, Rial, or Euro--that the dollar is no longer welcomed. And given the utter stupidity of the Republican controlled US Congress, more sanctions will be applied to Iran thus sealing the onset of the Outlaw US Empire's international isolation. ..."
"... Imho, the US political establishment, as publically projected, is moving closer to a realm where words, be they snide remarks, lofty pronouncements, declarations of intent, or vile accusations, become substitutes for action. ..."
"... US overt behavior is hapless unless entered into with cold calculation, a specific hidden aim in mind, and levers of control somewhere. Not the case imho, but dismissing Trump as a fool is not useful. We see symptoms of floundering, weakened, posturing Empire -- imho empty sorts o' threats (Iran, NK) are often dismissed by others, rightly so, but that is dangerous too: the US has to play the military domination position combined with the unpredictability card. Extremely volatile situation. ..."
"... Remember when Trump said he would never do a first nuke strike? :) ..."
In the final days of the Iran Deal negotiations, August 2015, I completely missed the
interview Kerry did with Reuters, https://2009-2017.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2015/08/245935.htm
that Mercouris parses for his detailed article proving the Outlaw US Empire's Imperial Policy
is now "irrational"--utterly I'd say since for me it's been irrational for decades when
weighing the actual interests of the United States's populous. The key excerpt:
"But if everybody thinks, 'Oh, no, we're just tough; the United States of America, we have
our secondary sanctions; we can force people to do what we want.' I actually heard that
argument on television this morning. I've heard it from a number of the organisations that
are working that are opposed to this agreement. They're spreading the word, 'America is
strong enough, our banks are tough enough; we can just bring the hammer down and force our
friends to do what we want them to.'
"Well, look – a lot of business people in this room. Are you kidding me? The
United States is going to start sanctioning our allies and their banks and their businesses
because we walked away from a deal and we're going to force them to do what we want them to
do even though they agreed to the deal we came to? Are you kidding ?
"That is a recipe quickly, my friends, for them to walk away from Ukraine, where they are
already very dicey and ready to say, 'Well, we've done our bit.' They were ready in many
cases to say, 'Well, we're the ones paying the price for your sanctions.' We – it was
Obama who went out and actually put together a sanctions regime that had an impact. By
– I went to China. We persuaded China, 'Don't buy more oil.' We persuaded India and
other countries to step back.
"Can you imagine trying to sanction them after persuading them to put in phased
sanctions to bring Iran to the negotiating table, and when they have not only come to the
table but they made a deal, we turn around and nix the deal and then tell them you're going
to have to obey our rules on the sanctions anyway?
"That is a recipe very quickly, my friends, businesspeople here, for the American
dollar to cease to be the reserve currency of the world – which is already bubbling out
there .." (Bold italics in original.)
The reality is that the above situation outlined by Kerry two years ago has only worsened
with Trump's inability to understand that reality leading to the current irrationality in
policy-- unless --Trump is actually trying to further the Neocon policy of Full
Spectrum Dominance. If that is indeed the case, then Trump's behavior is rational in that the
only alternative facing the Outlaw US Empire in its drive to enslave the planet is to launch
a non-proxy hot war to achieve its goals.
Or... Trump's smarter than any of us as he expects
the neocons to fold when faced with the possibility of escalating the ongoing Hybrid Third
World War into one that's no longer Hybrid and promises to bring horrendous amounts of death
and destruction to The Homeland.
yes, I just read that Mercouris piece
and I was excited to read about that Kerry interview, that everyone seems to have missed. So
here's what seems to be the authoritative background on the the Iran deal.
b said in his last piece -
October 14 , linked in his article above:
Obama pushed sanctions onto sanctions to make Iran scream. But the country did not fold.
Each new U.S. sanction step was responded to with an expansion of Iran's nuclear program.
In the end Obama had to offer talks to Iran to get out of the hole he had dug himself.
For me this was the first time I'd seen an explanation of why the Iran deal happened, and
I really wanted to know more. Now this retrospective by Mercouris shows exactly how accurate
b's assessment was, but fills in the detail to show that the EU was already on the verge of a
major split from the dollar. Only the deal, which allowed EU to grow its trade with the huge
market of Iran, saved this potential run from the dollar by Europe.
I read the full Reuters interview , and I find
it debatable how much of Kerry's statement was applied to Russia and China and how much to
Britain, France and Germany. I'll parse it as, Asia will say it out loud, Europe will think
it silently - the unthinkable, that is. Mercouris seems sure it was Europe:
In other words the US was pushed into the JCPOA somewhat against its will at the insistence
of its European allies, who were considering lifting sanctions on Iran unilaterally if the
US rejected the deal which was on offer. The US submitted to their demands because it
feared that the alternative – threatening economic war on its European allies by
imposing sanctions on them – would have hastened the ending of the reserve currency
status of the US dollar.
It is rare to say the least for US officials to so much as contemplate in public the
possibility of the US dollar losing its reserve currency status. The fact that in August
2015 Secretary of State Kerry actually did so shows the pressure that the US was under.
Astonishing. Here we are two years later trying to think that if Trump does whatever
nonsense he does with the Iran deal, it will encourage a rift between the US and the EU - but
actually this has already come to be the situation, and two years ago at that.
This is some serious shit, that we all seem to have missed. EU leaders may be craven, but
European business wants to trade with Iran, and it's simmering around the point of breaking
away from the dollar in order to do it. Surely this calls for a large re-calculation of the
situation.
What happens if Iran starts to negotiate payments settled in Yuan? Hezbollah can take down
Israel militarily. But perhaps Iran can take down the US financially?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/08/05/text-obama-gives-a-speech-about-the-iran-nuclear-deal/?utm_term=.aac92dd70db9
..."Moreover, our closest allies in Europe or in Asia, much less China or Russia, certainly
are not going to enforce existing sanctions for another five, 10, 15 years according to the
dictates of the U.S. Congress because their willingness to support sanctions in the first
place was based on Iran ending its pursuit of nuclear weapons. It was not based on the belief
that Iran cannot have peaceful nuclear power, and it certainly wasn't based on a desire for
regime change in Iran.
As a result, those who say we can just walk away from this deal and maintain sanctions are
selling a fantasy. Instead of strengthening our position, as some have suggested, Congress'
rejection would almost certainly result in multi-lateral sanctions unraveling.
If, as has also been suggested, we tried to maintain unilateral sanctions, beefen them up,
we would be standing alone. We cannot dictate the foreign, economic and energy policies of
every major power in the world. In order to even try to do that, we would have to sanction,
for example, some of the world's largest banks. We'd have to cut off countries like China
from the American financial system. And since they happen to be major purchasers of our debt,
such actions could trigger severe disruptions in our own economy, and, by way, raise
questions internationally about the dollar's role as the world's reserve currency. That's
part of the reason why many of the previous unilateral sanctions were waived."...
Another time when Obama was covincing US to pass the Iran deal, he stated bluntly that not
passing the deal would put the US dollar at risk. Have not been able to find it as yet.
I just read this comment by Oh Homer at another site and felt motivated to share it here.
"Have you met America? That's the country that needs "lives matter" movements because of its
prevailing culture of utter indifference to human welfare, but which trips over itself in its
eagerness to wage war in defense of the petrodollar."
Good questions! The extremely rare candor shown by Kerry, as Mercouris notes, isn't being
shared by the Trumpsters and is likely responsible for their outward state of high anxiety
and knee-jerk reactions to just about anything.
Iran says it has a plan: "Speaker of Iran's parliament Ali Larijani said that Iran 'had a
developed plan and a certain law,' should the United States withdraw from the agreement on
Tehran's nuclear program, adding that Washington would 'regret it.'" https://sputniknews.com/world/201710161058275364-iran-plan-us-nuclear-deal/
RT reports Larijani thusly: "' We have a plan We've recently approved in parliament
what we should do given the Americans undertake certain steps, ' Larijani told reporters
Monday on the sidelines of the Inter-Parliamentary Union meeting in St. Petersburg.
' We will take steps so that the Americans will regret it. '" (Emphasis in
original.) https://www.rt.com/news/406851-iran-has-plan-if-us-withdraws-nuclear/
If that is so, then what Iran plans to do ought to be discerned by looking at its
parliamentary actions on the subject by those able to read Farsi. I rather doubt it's bluff
and bluster.
And the EU won't support Trump's decertification: "After a closed-door meeting [of EU
Foreign Ministers at Luxembourg] chaired by EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini on how
best to proceed on the Iran issue, ministers issued a joint statement saying that the 2015
deal was key to preventing the global spread of nuclear weapons." https://www.rt.com/newsline/406844-iran-eu-us-mogherini/
I can easily envision a joint announcement by Russia, China and Iran that all trade
conducted with them must be transacted in Yuan, Ruble, Rial, or Euro--that the dollar is no
longer welcomed. And given the utter stupidity of the Republican controlled US Congress, more
sanctions will be applied to Iran thus sealing the onset of the Outlaw US Empire's
international isolation.
Imho, the US political establishment, as publically projected, is moving closer to a realm
where words, be they snide remarks, lofty pronouncements, declarations of intent, or vile
accusations, become substitutes for action.
Likewise, minor symbolic moves like withdrawing, "quitting" which is ambiguous, from e.g.
UNESCO - *US didn't pay dues in any case.*
Trump is not alone, all the Dem. Russia-bashing/blaming leads nowhere, the Trump
denigration as well, Trump threatening NK is similar.
The word is sufficient to itself! As are incantatory spells, religious appeals, etc. All
one clumsy step beyond the Rovian "when we act, we create our own reality.." which rests on
the power to act and transform reality (sometimes with sleight of hand, mirages..)
transferring that power to symbols with hope and 'belief'... That's the comforting
take.
US overt behavior is hapless unless entered into with cold calculation, a specific hidden
aim in mind, and levers of control somewhere. Not the case imho, but dismissing Trump as a
fool is not useful. We see symptoms of floundering, weakened, posturing Empire -- imho
empty sorts o' threats (Iran, NK) are often dismissed by others, rightly so, but that is
dangerous too: the US has to play the military domination position combined with the
unpredictability card. Extremely volatile situation.
Remember when Trump said he would never do a first nuke strike? :)
"... columnist. Klare's previous book, Blood and Oil: The Dangers and Consequences of America's Growing Dependency on Imported Petroleum has been made into a documentary movie -- to order and view a trailer, visit www.bloodandoilmovie.com . ..."
Twenty-nine years ago, President Jimmy Carter adopted the radical and dangerous
policy of using military force to ensure U.S. access to Middle Eastern oil. "Let our position
be absolutely he clear," he said in his State of
the Union address on January 23, 1980. "An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the
Persian Gulf region [and thereby endanger the flow of oil] will be regarded as an assault on
the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by
any means necessary, including military force."
This principle -- known ever since as the Carter Doctrine -- led to U.S. involvement in
three major wars and now risks further military entanglement in the greater Gulf area. It's
time to repudiate this doctrine and satisfy U.S. energy needs without reliance on military
intervention.
Focusing on the Gulf
Carter enunciated his doctrine at a moment when U.S. officials were worried about the recent
Islamic revolution in Iran and the concurrent Soviet invasion and occupation of Afghanistan.
Both actions, it was believed, threatened the U.S. ability to ensure uninterrupted access to
Persian Gulf oil. "The region which is now threatened by Soviet troops in Afghanistan is of
great strategic importance," Carter said in his pivotal address. "It contains more than
two-thirds of the world's exportable oil." Of particular concern: "The Soviet effort to
dominate Afghanistan has brought Soviet military forces to within 300 miles of the Indian Ocean
and close to the Straits of Hormuz, a waterway through which most of the world's oil must
flow."
Because the United States at that time did not possess any forces specifically earmarked for
action in the Gulf, President Carter created a new military body, the Rapid Deployment Joint
Task Force (RDJTF), to undertake operations in the region. He also expanded the U.S. naval
presence in the Gulf and acquired new basing facilities in the wider region. Carter authorized
covert operations in Afghanistan to drive the Soviets out of the country. This effort
eventually involved U.S. support for Osama bin Laden and other Islamic extremists who now seek
to make war on the United States.
Although successive Republican leaders condemned many Carter policies, they warmly embraced
the Carter Doctrine. Every Republican president since 1980 has invoked its basic principle to
initiate war in the President Gulf region.
The first to do so was Ronald Reagan during the Iran-Iraq War of 1980-88. When Iran began
firing on Kuwaiti oil tankers (presumably because Kuwait had loaned money to Saddam Hussein),
Reagan deemed the attacks a threat to the free flow of oil in accordance with the principles of
the Carter Doctrine and ordered U.S. warships to protect the tankers. "Mark this point well,"
he declared on May 19, 1987. "The use of the sea lanes of the Persian Gulf will not be dictated
by the Iranians."
The U.S. decision to protect Kuwaiti tankers led to clashes with Iranian gunboats and thus
amounted to U.S. involvement in the Iran-Iraq War as a de facto ally of Saddam
Hussein. Faced with U.S. and Iraqi opposition, the Iranians were forced to sue for peace in
1988. To what degree this U.S. support led Hussein to believe he could then invade Kuwait with
impunity is unknown. In any case, he seems to have expected a mild U.S. response from the
invasion of Kuwait on August 2, 1990. This assumption, however, didn't take the Carter Doctrine
into account. When President George H.W. Bush met with his advisers at Camp David on August 3
to consider the implications of the invasion they concluded, according to Bob Woodward of
TheWashington Post , that the Iraqi attack constituted a threat to the
safety of Saudi oil and so would have to be repelled in accordance with the Carter policy.
That the basic principles of the Carter Doctrine were in the forefront of Bush's mind when
he initially committed U.S. forces to the Persian Gulf War is plainly evident from the first
public
address he gave on the topic, on August 8, 1990: "Our country now imports nearly half the
oil it consumes and could face a major threat to its economic independence," he said. Hence,
"the sovereign independence of Saudi Arabia is of vital interest to the United States." Bush
later altered his rhetoric to emphasize weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and human rights, but
oil was the starting point.
As is well known, Bush Sr. chose not to invade Baghdad after driving Iraqi forces out of
Kuwait but rather to seek Hussein's ouster through economic warfare. This led to the imposition
of economic sanctions on Iraq -- a policy also embraced by President Bill Clinton. Although
justified in terms of undermining Hussein's ability to acquire WMD and other advanced military
capabilities, the sanctions' ultimate goal was to eliminate a threat to the safety of Persian
Gulf oil, in accordance with the Carter Doctrine. And when these measures failed to achieve the
intended objective -- at least in the eyes of President Bush Jr. -- the only apparent
alternative was direct U.S. military intervention.
Like his father in the days leading up to Operation Desert Storm, George W. Bush avoided
referring to oil and spoke solely of WMD and human rights when talking of the need to eliminate
Saddam Hussein. But his vice president, Dick Cheney, wasn't so reticent. In an August 2002
speech
before the Veterans of Foreign Wars, he laid out the strategic reasons for attacking Iraq,
saying: "Armed with an arsenal of [WMD] and a seat atop 10% of the world's oil reserves, Saddam
Hussein could then be expected to seek domination of the entire Middle East, take control of a
great portion of the world's energy supplies, [and] directly threaten America's friends
throughout the region." As such, the current war in Iraq can best be viewed as part of a series
of U.S. military moves taken in accordance with Carter's January 1980
pronouncement.
Obama and the Carter Doctrine
It would be enormously reassuring to conclude that the Iraq War is the last in this series,
that the departure of President Bush and the arrival of President Obama signifies the end of
U.S. involvement in Middle Eastern wars over oil. But there's no reason to assume that this is
in fact the case. True, Obama has spoken repeatedly of his desire to withdraw U.S. combat
troops from Iraq and to hasten the development of petroleum alternatives so as to reduce U.S.
reliance on Middle Eastern oil. But he has not specifically repudiated the Carter Doctrine or
its underlying premises. Rather, he has emphasized the need to preserve a robust U.S. military
presence in the Persian Gulf area and to use force when necessary to protect vital American
interests there -- though exactly what these interests may be, he has yet to spell out in
detail.
Most of the commentary on Obama's Iraq policy has focused on his pledge to remove U.S.
combat troops from the region. But in his first major speech as a candidate on national
security affairs, at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs on April 23, 2007, he said that he was aware "that
there are risks involved" in reducing American troop levels. "That is why," he continued, "my
plan provides for an over-the-horizon force that could prevent chaos in the wider
region" (emphasis added). Obama hasn't spelled out what he means by such a force, but
presumably it would entail a larger air and naval presence in the greater Gulf region along
with additional U.S. deployments in friendly countries like Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, and the United
Arab Emirates.
President Obama also warned of the threat posed by Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons in
much the same alarmist language George W. Bush used. Although he has emphasized reliance on
diplomacy to achieve a peaceful outcome to this peril, Obama hasn't categorically ruled out the
use of military force. Considering that the Iranians have repeatedly warned they'll respond to
any American attack on their territory by blocking the flow of oil through the Strait of
Hormuz, it's obvious the U.S. dispute with Iran over WMD -- no less than that with Iraq -- is
closely tied to the geopolitical thrust of the Carter Doctrine. Thus, while any U.S. attack on
Iran's nuclear facilities would be aimed in the first instance at neutralizing a potential
nuclear danger, the ultimate objective would be to ensure the safety of Persian Gulf oil
supplies.
So long as the United States adheres to a policy that legitimates the use of military force
to protect the flow of oil, we run the risk of involvement in one war after another in the
ever-volatile Persian Gulf region. True, other issues and objectives have been associated with
these wars, but the underlying strategic premise for every U.S. intervention in the Gulf since
1980 has been the core concept of the Carter Doctrine: to disallow a hostile power from gaining
control of the region and blocking our access to its oil.
This policy has done little to ensure us uninterrupted access to oil, and cost us great
pain, misery, and expense. Despite the $600 billion or so we have already spent on the Iraq War
(on the way to an estimated $2-$3 trillion, when all associated and follow-up costs are
included), Iraq today is producing less oil today than it did when U.S. troops invaded the
country six years ago. And despite the mammoth U.S. military presence in the Gulf area, Iran
emerged as a major regional power amidst a rise in piracy and militant Islam. When all is said
and done, conventional military force is an ineffective tool for protecting far-flung, highly
vulnerable oil facilities and trade routes.
There's only one way to reduce America's vulnerability to the disruption in overseas
petroleum deliveries and that is to become less dependent on oil, period. We can't drill our
way out of this predicament because the United States simply lacks enough domestic petroleum to
satisfy our gargantuan requirements. We possess 2.5% of the world's proved oil reserves, yet
consume 25% of its daily oil output. To achieve any sort of balance we have to cut our
consumption substantially -- and that means driving less, developing alternative fuels,
converting to gas/electric hybrid and eventually all-electric cars, and otherwise transitioning
away from reliance on oil.
President Obama has promised to make a substantial investment in oil alternatives. Such
efforts are expected to be a major component of his economic stimulus package and deserve
strong public backing. But this is only half of the problem. To overcome what he calls the
"tyranny of oil," he must also repudiate the Carter Doctrine and reject the use of military
force to ensure access to Middle Eastern petroleum. Only in this way can we be certain that the
Iraq War will be the last time U.S. soldiers shed their blood for oil. Michael T. Klare is a
professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College, the author ofRising Powers,
Shrinking Planet: The New Geopolitics of Energy (Metropolitan Books, 2008), and a Foreign Policy In Focuscolumnist.
Klare's previous book, Blood and Oil: The Dangers and Consequences of America's Growing
Dependency on Imported Petroleum has been made into a documentary movie -- to order and view a
trailer, visit www.bloodandoilmovie.com .
"... each of Carter's successors has reinterpreted his eponymous doctrine, broadening its scope and using it to justify ever larger ambitions. The ultimate effect has been to militarize U.S. policy across various quarters of the Islamic world. ..."
"... The Carter Doctrine was intended to secure U.S. interests in a region of ostensibly great strategic importance. Those who have applied the Carter Doctrine have assumed that the presence of U.S. forces and the periodic application of American hard power serve to enhance regional stability. Yet the record of the past 30 years suggests just the opposite: The U. S. military presence and activities have served only to promote greater instability. Our exertions, undertaken at great cost to ourselves and others, are making things not better, but worse. ..."
April 1, 2010 For most Americans, the 30th anniversary of the Carter Doctrine – promulgated
by President Jimmy Carter during his January 1980 State of the Union Address – came and went without
notice.
The oversight ranks as an unfortunate one. To an extent that few have fully appreciated, the Carter
Doctrine has had a transformative impact on U.S. national security policy. Both massive and lasting,
its impact has also been almost entirely pernicious. Put simply, the sequence of events that has
landed the United States in the middle of an open-ended war to determine the fate of the Greater
Middle East begins here.
The Carter Doctrine stands in relation to the ongoing Long War as the Truman Doctrine stood in
relation to the Cold War.
In 1947, President Truman announced that it was "the policy of the United States to support free
peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures." Truman's
immediate purpose was to persuade Congress to approve his request for security assistance to Greece
and Turkey. Yet under Truman's successors, his doctrine morphed into something more than he probably
envisioned or intended. Under the guise of resisting Communist mischief-making, the Truman Doctrine
provided a rationale for U. S. intervention, covert and overt, around the world.
Carter's immediate aim in January 1980 was also limited. When he declared that "an attempt by
any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the
vital interests of the United States," to be "repelled by any means necessary," his primary purpose
was to warn the Kremlin against entertaining any thoughts about asserting Soviet dominion over the
world's energy heartland. Yet each of Carter's successors has reinterpreted his eponymous doctrine,
broadening its scope and using it to justify ever larger ambitions. The ultimate effect has been
to militarize U.S. policy across various quarters of the Islamic world.
Prior to January 1980, the Pentagon and the rest of the national security establishment had viewed
the Middle East as a backwater. In terms of U. S. strategic priorities, that region of the world
lagged well behind Europe and East Asia and probably behind Latin America, as well.
Jimmy Carter's announcement that the Persian Gulf constituted a vital U.S. national security interest
changed all that. In short order, the aims implied by the Carter Doctrine expanded. Within a decade,
the United States was not content to prevent outside powers from controlling the Gulf. It sought
to claim for itself a dominant position in the region. Within two decades, the arena in which the
United States sought that dominant role had expanded, eventually encompassing the entire Greater
Middle East.
Directly or indirectly, the Carter Doctrine provided the rationale or justification for the following
episodes involving the use of force by the United States:
Afghanistan War I (1979-1989), the U.S.-led effort to punish the Soviet Union for occupying
that country.
The Beirut Bombing (1983), the name by which Americans choose to remember Ronald Reagan's
intervention in Lebanon.
The war against Khaddafi (1981-1988), a series of inconclusive skirmishes with the Libyan
dictator, culminating in the destruction of Pan Am Flight 103.
The Tanker War (1984-1988), waged by U. S. naval forces against Iran to maintain the flow
of oil through the Strait of Hormuz.
Iraq War I (1990-1991), the first U. S. armed confrontation with Saddam Hussein, commonly
but erroneously thought to have ended with the liberation of Kuwait.
The Somalia Intervention (1992-1993), abruptly terminated by the notorious Mogadishu firefight.
Afghanistan War II (2001-2003), launched in the wake of 9/11, but left in abeyance by the
Bush administration's decision to shift the weight of U.S. military efforts elsewhere.
Iraq War II (2003), the resumption of large-scale hostilities against Saddam Hussein, leading
to his overthrow, but inducing chaos.
Iraq War III (2004-2010?), a war to pacify Iraq in the face of resistance by indigenous insurgents
and Islamic radicals raised up by Iraq War II.
Afghanistan War III (2009 --), the conflict that Bush's successor rediscovered, renewed, and
expanded; given the deepening U.S. military involvement in Pakistan, this war might alternatively
be called the AfPak War.
The Carter Doctrine was intended to secure U.S. interests in a region of ostensibly great strategic
importance. Those who have applied the Carter Doctrine have assumed that the presence of U.S. forces
and the periodic application of American hard power serve to enhance regional stability. Yet the
record of the past 30 years suggests just the opposite: The U. S. military presence and activities
have served only to promote greater instability. Our exertions, undertaken at great cost to ourselves
and others, are making things not better, but worse.
"... in actuality the US Government was concerned that Hollywood was no longer as blindly supportive of government policy as it had been only a few years earlier at the height of WW2. In particular, J. Edgar Hoover had long held the opinion that the entertainment industry should be the propaganda arm for the government in peace time as well as war. ..."
"... However, as WW2 had ended, the defense establishment had lobbied for the creation of a "Cold" war against the Soviet Union, a war not actually to be fought, but constantly to be prepared for at huge cost to the taxpayers. This cost was the visible manifestation of the "Military Industrial Complex" President Eisenhower referred to in his farewell address, and many in Hollywood openly wondered just why so much more money had to be thrown into the war machine during a time of peace, and more to the point, just why we were supposed to be so afraid of the communists. ..."
"... In later years, FBI informants became permanent fixtures at movie studios, and spied for the FBI. ..."
"... While Senator Joseph McCarthy grabbed headlines with his shouts of "Communist", Hoover set about his self-appointed task of purging Hollywood of any he viewed as "disloyal" to the United States, which meant anyone unwilling to make the movies they were told to make, when and how they were told to make them. ..."
"... Stars such as Larry Parks were destroyed because they refused to "name names" of other actors who were party members. Actor Philip Loeb committed suicide. Edward G. Robinson, never a communist, was put on a "grey list," and spent the rest of his life making B movies (except for his final role opposite Charlton Heston in "Soylent Green"). Sam Jaffe, formerly a well-known actor and Oscar winner in 1950 was registered on the black list because he refused to cooperate with the committee. He spent the next 6 years working as a math teacher and living at his sister's until he was able to return to films in 1957. ..."
"... Of course, what was really involved was money. War is good for business. Business had been great during WW2 and the newly created "Cold War" was just a way to keep business good. The Military Industrial Complex NEEDED Hollywood to demonize the Soviets. Otherwise, too many people were going to ask why we were being told to be so afraid of them, and few in the government had a really convincing answer for that question. So, in order to perpetuate the Cold War, those in Hollywood who might sympathize with the designated villains had to be removed; their ruined lives a small price to pay for unending access to the taxpayers' wallets. ..."
"... But the Soviet Union has gone out of business. The word "communist" doesn't carry the same psychological impact it used to, so the war hawk smear squad has come up with a new one, "Anti-Semite." Like "Communist", "Anti-Semite" is used to ruin the lives of people who have not actually done anything wrong other than to challenge the war profiteers. It is a new word for an old trick, and I am amazed that they are still playing the same old game, but I guess the FBI can always find some dumb-assed idiot to fall for it and do their dirty work of wrecking a career for them. ..."
"... Charles Lindbergh the famous aviator commented in a speech in Des Moines in 1941... ..."
"... Our theaters soon became filled with plays portraying the glory of war. Newsreels lost all semblance of objectivity. Newspapers and magazines began to lose advertising if they carried anti-war articles. A smear campaign was instituted against individuals who opposed intervention. The terms "fifth columnist," "traitor," "Nazi," "anti-Semitic" were thrown ceaselessly at any one who dared to suggest that it was not to the best interests of the United States to enter the war. Men lost their jobs if they were frankly anti-war. Many others dared no longer speak. ..."
"... If there is a difference today it is that the American people are better educated. No longer dependent on the state schools, or controlled media, the public understands the tactics used to silence those who speak out. As a result, those who speak out are more and more not only accorded the sympathetic ear that their message deserves, but the effects of the smearing are far less ruinous than in times past. ..."
"... While people like Charlie Sheen, Willie Nelson, Sean Penn, and Marion Cotillard (and to step out of entertainment, former President Jimmy Carter) will be remembered and honored for their courage, history will lump the smear artists together with Stalin's "Useful idiots", little more than no-talent opportunists for whom ratting out someone was the fastest path to advancement. ..."
Back in the year 1947, the House Select Committee began an investigation into the Motion
Picture Industry. Ostensibly the goal was to ferret out communists working in the film
industry. But in actuality the US Government was concerned that Hollywood was no longer as
blindly supportive of government policy as it had been only a few years earlier at the height
of WW2. In particular, J. Edgar Hoover had long held the opinion that the entertainment
industry should be the propaganda arm for the government in peace time as well as war.
However, as WW2 had ended, the defense establishment had lobbied for the creation of a
"Cold" war against the Soviet Union, a war not actually to be fought, but constantly to be
prepared for at huge cost to the taxpayers. This cost was the visible manifestation of the
"Military Industrial Complex" President Eisenhower referred to in his farewell address, and
many in Hollywood openly wondered just why so much more money had to be thrown into the war
machine during a time of peace, and more to the point, just why we were supposed to be so
afraid of the communists.
Hoover's desire to remake Hollywood into a gigantic propaganda machine had started at the
end of WW1 when Hoover tried to persuade Charlie Chaplin to cease making films that portrayed
authority figures as oafish buffoons. Chaplin refused, laughed at Hoover. Years later, as head
of the FBI, Hoover was instrumental in having Charlie Chaplin's citizenship revoked in
retaliation.
Hoover's mania with Hollywood was a seldom reported but constant factor in show business.
The 1959 film, "The FBI Story" starring Air Force General Jimmy Stewart was reportedly directed
by Mervyn LeRoy, but in actuality J. Edgar Hoover was personally supervising the film (and
briefly appears in it, shown only from the back) to make certain the "correct" image of the FBI
was shown.
In later years, FBI informants became permanent fixtures at movie studios, and spied for the
FBI. When Disney Studios made "That Darned Cat", a pre-production copy of the screenplay
"somehow" made its way to the FBI, which promptly sent Disney a memo expressing concern at how
the FBI was to be portrayed.
Likewise, when Paramount Pictures produced, "Skidoo", starring Jackie Gleason, it featured a
single scene in which Gleason's character is seen fleeing a building marked, "FBI" carrying a
file cabinet on his back. That one single scene prompted the following four page memo.
Along with "nudging" the film studios to portray certain things certain ways, the FBI did
not hesitate to wreck the careers of those people it felt posed a dangerous threat to the
government's public image. During the height of the FBI's COINTELPRO program, the FBI destroyed
the career of actress Jean Seberg
Jean Seberg was considered a threat to the US Government because of her public support for
civil rights at a time when the Civil Rights movement was starting to point out the racial bias
in the draft system that placed a disproportionate percentage of black kids on the front lines
of Vietnam. Seberg was also a supporter of the Black Panthers in their pre-militant days when
their agenda was breakfasts for the ghetto kids, local control of school curriculum, and ending
the draft.
Jean Seberg, a well known
actress in the 60s, became pregnant and the FBI sent out letters to the gossip columnists
identifying the baby's father as a Black Panther, in order to cheapen Seberg's image. Keep in
mind that the 60s was an era in which sexual relations between blacks and whites was still
considered taboo by most Americans.
The scans below are of the official FBI letter from Los Angeles to Washington D.C. asking
permission for the scam.
"Bureau permission is requested to publicize the pregnancy of Jean Seberg, well-known
movie actress by (name deleted) Black Panther (BPP) (deleted) by advising Hollywood
"Gossip-Columnists" in the Los Angeles area of the situation. It is felt that the possible
publication of Seberg's plight could cause her embarrassment and serve to cheapen her image
with the general public.
" 'It is proposed that the following letter from a fictitious person be sent to local
columnists:
"I was just thinking about you and remembered I still owe you a favor. So ---- I was in
Paris last week and ran into Jean Seberg, who was heavy with baby. I thought she and Romaine
[sic] had gotten together again, but she confided the child belonged to (deleted) of the
Black Panthers, one (deleted). The dear girl is getting around!
" 'Anyway, I thought you might get a scoop on the others. Be good and I'll see you
soon.
'Love,
" 'Sol.,
"Usual precautions would be taken by the Los Angeles Division to preclude
identification of the Bureau as the source of the letter if approval is granted."
Permission to use the fake letter was granted, but with the suggestion that the smear be
delayed until Jean Seberg's pregnancy was in a very obvious condition.
The story was picked up by Newsweek and the international press. The shock of the story was
so severe that Jean Seberg suffered a miscarriage. The funeral for the child was held with an
open casket, so that the lie stood revealed in its most tragic form. Jean Seberg, her baby dead
and her career shattered by this outright lie, attempted suicide several times, finally
succeeding in a French Hotel.
(The name which was redacted from the memo during the FOIA process is thought by many to
have been Raymond Hewit, a Black Panther leader. His "outright lie" was far more direct. The
FBI typed up a letter on official FBI stationary identifying Hewit as an informant and planted
it where other Black Panthers would find it in the hopes that Hewit would then be killed.)
Following Seberg's death, the Los Angeles Times, the key instrument of her torment, issued a
statement by the FBI.
"The days when the FBI used derogatory information to combat advocates of unpopular causes
have long since passed. We are out of that business forever."
The Senate committee that looked into COINTELPRO disagreed, however.
"Cointelpro activities may continue today under the rubric of 'investigation.'
Finally, no single celebrity filled the government with more fear than did ex-Beatle John
Lennon. Lennon's popularity, and hence his ability to influence popular opinion, coupled with
his strong anti-war stance, made him a real threat in the event the United States decided it
had to go to war. For this reason, Lennon was one of the most watched celebrities, and
according to Lennon's youngest son, the victim of a government assassination plot.
Having documented the FBI's willingness to destroy anyone they feel represents a threat to
the government, let us return to the days of the House Select Committee on UnAmerican
Activities.
While Senator Joseph McCarthy grabbed headlines with his shouts of "Communist", Hoover set
about his self-appointed task of purging Hollywood of any he viewed as "disloyal" to the United
States, which meant anyone unwilling to make the movies they were told to make, when and how
they were told to make them. Senator McCarthy's screed of "Communist" provided Hoover with a
bludgeon he could and did use with impunity on Hollywood's creative talents. Careers were
ruined. Some 400 people, mostly innocent of any actual wrongdoing, were destroyed. Some, like
Jean Seberg would later do, committed suicide. Ten men (the famous Hollywood Ten), Alvah
Bessie, Herbert Biberman, Lester Cole, Ring Lardner jr., John Howard Lawson, Albert Maltz,
Samuel Ornitz, Adrian Scott, Dalton Trumbo, and eminent director Edward Dmytryk were jailed for
contempt of Congress.
Others punished for refusing to cooperate included Larry Adler, Stella Adler, Leonard
Bernstein, Marc Blitzstein, Joseph Bromberg, Charlie Chaplin, Aaron Copland, Hanns Eisler, Carl
Foreman, John Garfield, Howard Da Silva, Dashiell Hammett, E. Y. Harburg, Lillian Hellman, Burl
Ives, Arthur Miller, Dorothy Parker, Philip Loeb, Joseph Losey, Anne Revere, Pete Seeger, Gale
Sondergaard, Louis Untermeyer, Josh White, Clifford Odets, Michael Wilson, Paul Jarrico, Jeff
Corey, John Randolph, Canada Lee, Orson Welles, Paul Green, Sidney Kingsley, Paul Robeson,
Richard Wright and Abraham Polonsky. Lee Grant was registered on the black list because she
refused to give evidence against her husband Arnold Manoff.
Stars such as Larry Parks were destroyed because they refused to "name names" of other
actors who were party members. Actor Philip Loeb committed suicide. Edward G. Robinson, never a
communist, was put on a "grey list," and spent the rest of his life making B movies (except for
his final role opposite Charlton Heston in "Soylent Green"). Sam Jaffe, formerly a well-known
actor and Oscar winner in 1950 was registered on the black list because he refused to cooperate
with the committee. He spent the next 6 years working as a math teacher and living at his
sister's until he was able to return to films in 1957.
Of course, what was really involved was money. War is good for business. Business had been
great during WW2 and the newly created "Cold War" was just a way to keep business good. The
Military Industrial Complex NEEDED Hollywood to demonize the Soviets. Otherwise, too many
people were going to ask why we were being told to be so afraid of them, and few in the
government had a really convincing answer for that question. So, in order to perpetuate the
Cold War, those in Hollywood who might sympathize with the designated villains had to be
removed; their ruined lives a small price to pay for unending access to the taxpayers'
wallets.
But that was then and this is now.
Once again vast sums of money are being spent on a war, this time a hot one and getting
hotter. Once again parties with a vested interest are out to smear and destroy anyone who dares
ask if the wars are worth the sacrifice of our young people (not to mention the money), indeed
if there really is any point at all to the wars aside from justifying the flow of money to
defense contractors.
But the Soviet Union has gone out of business. The word "communist" doesn't carry the same
psychological impact it used to, so the war hawk smear squad has come up with a new one,
"Anti-Semite." Like "Communist", "Anti-Semite" is used to ruin the lives of people who have not
actually done anything wrong other than to challenge the war profiteers. It is a new word for
an old trick, and I am amazed that they are still playing the same old game, but I guess the
FBI can always find some dumb-assed idiot to fall for it and do their dirty work of wrecking a
career for them.
Of course, it really isn't that new a word. Oddly enough, Charles Lindbergh the famous
aviator commented in a speech in Des Moines in 1941...
Our theaters soon became filled with plays portraying the glory of war. Newsreels lost all
semblance of objectivity. Newspapers and magazines began to lose advertising if they carried
anti-war articles. A smear campaign was instituted against individuals who opposed
intervention. The terms "fifth columnist," "traitor," "Nazi," "anti-Semitic" were thrown
ceaselessly at any one who dared to suggest that it was not to the best interests of the
United States to enter the war. Men lost their jobs if they were frankly anti-war. Many
others dared no longer speak.
Today we are seeing once again the heavy hand of the war profiteers trying to reshape the
film industry into a tool to propagandize the public into a high war-fever such that they will
gladly trade their own blood for gold to line the pockets of the defense establishment. And
those individuals who have the courage to speak out are attacked, and once again they are
smeared to silence them. In the 1940s it was "Communist", today it is "Anti-Semite", but aside
from the particular label used, the methods, goals, and morality are little changed from the
days of Joseph McCarthy.
If there is a difference today it is that the American people are better educated. No longer
dependent on the state schools, or controlled media, the public understands the tactics used to
silence those who speak out. As a result, those who speak out are more and more not only
accorded the sympathetic ear that their message deserves, but the effects of the smearing are
far less ruinous than in times past.
Thus, when we see people like Willie Nelson, Sean Penn, and Marion Cotillard speak out and
survive, or when people like Tom Shadyac (or myself) voluntarily walk away from Hollywood
because speaking the truth matters more to them, it sends a message that it is now permissible,
indeed imperative to speak out. This is not to say that there are not risks. Rosie O'Donnell
lost her spot on "The View", but the majority of Americans understand exactly why, and
understand that Rosie sacrificed a great deal trying to get the truth out. Rosie is and will be
remembered as a hero for truth long after her co-hosts on "The View" are properly
forgotten.
In contrast, of course, we look back at those who aided the "Commie" witch-hunts of the
1940s with deserved contempt. No doubt many aided Hoover purely to rid themselves of
competition, and then tried to lull themselves to sleep with the idea that in some way they had
actually done something good for the nation by wrecking their neighbors' careers. I have no
doubt strong liquor played a role in this grossest of self-deception. But if the informants and
smear artists of the 1940s are remembered in a poor light, that should serve as a reminder to
the informants and smear artists of today. It does not matter what you do with the rest of your
life, aiding the new version of McCarthyism is how history will remember you. While people like
Charlie Sheen, Willie Nelson, Sean Penn, and Marion Cotillard (and to step out of
entertainment, former President Jimmy Carter) will be remembered and honored for their courage,
history will lump the smear artists together with Stalin's "Useful idiots", little more than
no-talent opportunists for whom ratting out someone was the fastest path to advancement.
They say that history repeats itself, and indeed that is the major thing wrong with history.
We are seeing history repeat itself again. We have been down this path before, in the 1940s.
Whether the word is "Communist" or "Anti-Semite", Hollywood is making the same mistake all over
again. And Hollywood will have to live with that image in the coming decades.
"... columnist. Klare's previous book, Blood and Oil: The Dangers and Consequences of America's Growing Dependency on Imported Petroleum has been made into a documentary movie -- to order and view a trailer, visit www.bloodandoilmovie.com . ..."
Twenty-nine years ago, President Jimmy Carter adopted the radical and dangerous
policy of using military force to ensure U.S. access to Middle Eastern oil. "Let our position
be absolutely he clear," he said in his State of
the Union address on January 23, 1980. "An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the
Persian Gulf region [and thereby endanger the flow of oil] will be regarded as an assault on
the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by
any means necessary, including military force."
This principle -- known ever since as the Carter Doctrine -- led to U.S. involvement in
three major wars and now risks further military entanglement in the greater Gulf area. It's
time to repudiate this doctrine and satisfy U.S. energy needs without reliance on military
intervention.
Focusing on the Gulf
Carter enunciated his doctrine at a moment when U.S. officials were worried about the recent
Islamic revolution in Iran and the concurrent Soviet invasion and occupation of Afghanistan.
Both actions, it was believed, threatened the U.S. ability to ensure uninterrupted access to
Persian Gulf oil. "The region which is now threatened by Soviet troops in Afghanistan is of
great strategic importance," Carter said in his pivotal address. "It contains more than
two-thirds of the world's exportable oil." Of particular concern: "The Soviet effort to
dominate Afghanistan has brought Soviet military forces to within 300 miles of the Indian Ocean
and close to the Straits of Hormuz, a waterway through which most of the world's oil must
flow."
Because the United States at that time did not possess any forces specifically earmarked for
action in the Gulf, President Carter created a new military body, the Rapid Deployment Joint
Task Force (RDJTF), to undertake operations in the region. He also expanded the U.S. naval
presence in the Gulf and acquired new basing facilities in the wider region. Carter authorized
covert operations in Afghanistan to drive the Soviets out of the country. This effort
eventually involved U.S. support for Osama bin Laden and other Islamic extremists who now seek
to make war on the United States.
Although successive Republican leaders condemned many Carter policies, they warmly embraced
the Carter Doctrine. Every Republican president since 1980 has invoked its basic principle to
initiate war in the President Gulf region.
The first to do so was Ronald Reagan during the Iran-Iraq War of 1980-88. When Iran began
firing on Kuwaiti oil tankers (presumably because Kuwait had loaned money to Saddam Hussein),
Reagan deemed the attacks a threat to the free flow of oil in accordance with the principles of
the Carter Doctrine and ordered U.S. warships to protect the tankers. "Mark this point well,"
he declared on May 19, 1987. "The use of the sea lanes of the Persian Gulf will not be dictated
by the Iranians."
The U.S. decision to protect Kuwaiti tankers led to clashes with Iranian gunboats and thus
amounted to U.S. involvement in the Iran-Iraq War as a de facto ally of Saddam
Hussein. Faced with U.S. and Iraqi opposition, the Iranians were forced to sue for peace in
1988. To what degree this U.S. support led Hussein to believe he could then invade Kuwait with
impunity is unknown. In any case, he seems to have expected a mild U.S. response from the
invasion of Kuwait on August 2, 1990. This assumption, however, didn't take the Carter Doctrine
into account. When President George H.W. Bush met with his advisers at Camp David on August 3
to consider the implications of the invasion they concluded, according to Bob Woodward of
TheWashington Post , that the Iraqi attack constituted a threat to the
safety of Saudi oil and so would have to be repelled in accordance with the Carter policy.
That the basic principles of the Carter Doctrine were in the forefront of Bush's mind when
he initially committed U.S. forces to the Persian Gulf War is plainly evident from the first
public
address he gave on the topic, on August 8, 1990: "Our country now imports nearly half the
oil it consumes and could face a major threat to its economic independence," he said. Hence,
"the sovereign independence of Saudi Arabia is of vital interest to the United States." Bush
later altered his rhetoric to emphasize weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and human rights, but
oil was the starting point.
As is well known, Bush Sr. chose not to invade Baghdad after driving Iraqi forces out of
Kuwait but rather to seek Hussein's ouster through economic warfare. This led to the imposition
of economic sanctions on Iraq -- a policy also embraced by President Bill Clinton. Although
justified in terms of undermining Hussein's ability to acquire WMD and other advanced military
capabilities, the sanctions' ultimate goal was to eliminate a threat to the safety of Persian
Gulf oil, in accordance with the Carter Doctrine. And when these measures failed to achieve the
intended objective -- at least in the eyes of President Bush Jr. -- the only apparent
alternative was direct U.S. military intervention.
Like his father in the days leading up to Operation Desert Storm, George W. Bush avoided
referring to oil and spoke solely of WMD and human rights when talking of the need to eliminate
Saddam Hussein. But his vice president, Dick Cheney, wasn't so reticent. In an August 2002
speech
before the Veterans of Foreign Wars, he laid out the strategic reasons for attacking Iraq,
saying: "Armed with an arsenal of [WMD] and a seat atop 10% of the world's oil reserves, Saddam
Hussein could then be expected to seek domination of the entire Middle East, take control of a
great portion of the world's energy supplies, [and] directly threaten America's friends
throughout the region." As such, the current war in Iraq can best be viewed as part of a series
of U.S. military moves taken in accordance with Carter's January 1980
pronouncement.
Obama and the Carter Doctrine
It would be enormously reassuring to conclude that the Iraq War is the last in this series,
that the departure of President Bush and the arrival of President Obama signifies the end of
U.S. involvement in Middle Eastern wars over oil. But there's no reason to assume that this is
in fact the case. True, Obama has spoken repeatedly of his desire to withdraw U.S. combat
troops from Iraq and to hasten the development of petroleum alternatives so as to reduce U.S.
reliance on Middle Eastern oil. But he has not specifically repudiated the Carter Doctrine or
its underlying premises. Rather, he has emphasized the need to preserve a robust U.S. military
presence in the Persian Gulf area and to use force when necessary to protect vital American
interests there -- though exactly what these interests may be, he has yet to spell out in
detail.
Most of the commentary on Obama's Iraq policy has focused on his pledge to remove U.S.
combat troops from the region. But in his first major speech as a candidate on national
security affairs, at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs on April 23, 2007, he said that he was aware "that
there are risks involved" in reducing American troop levels. "That is why," he continued, "my
plan provides for an over-the-horizon force that could prevent chaos in the wider
region" (emphasis added). Obama hasn't spelled out what he means by such a force, but
presumably it would entail a larger air and naval presence in the greater Gulf region along
with additional U.S. deployments in friendly countries like Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, and the United
Arab Emirates.
President Obama also warned of the threat posed by Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons in
much the same alarmist language George W. Bush used. Although he has emphasized reliance on
diplomacy to achieve a peaceful outcome to this peril, Obama hasn't categorically ruled out the
use of military force. Considering that the Iranians have repeatedly warned they'll respond to
any American attack on their territory by blocking the flow of oil through the Strait of
Hormuz, it's obvious the U.S. dispute with Iran over WMD -- no less than that with Iraq -- is
closely tied to the geopolitical thrust of the Carter Doctrine. Thus, while any U.S. attack on
Iran's nuclear facilities would be aimed in the first instance at neutralizing a potential
nuclear danger, the ultimate objective would be to ensure the safety of Persian Gulf oil
supplies.
So long as the United States adheres to a policy that legitimates the use of military force
to protect the flow of oil, we run the risk of involvement in one war after another in the
ever-volatile Persian Gulf region. True, other issues and objectives have been associated with
these wars, but the underlying strategic premise for every U.S. intervention in the Gulf since
1980 has been the core concept of the Carter Doctrine: to disallow a hostile power from gaining
control of the region and blocking our access to its oil.
This policy has done little to ensure us uninterrupted access to oil, and cost us great
pain, misery, and expense. Despite the $600 billion or so we have already spent on the Iraq War
(on the way to an estimated $2-$3 trillion, when all associated and follow-up costs are
included), Iraq today is producing less oil today than it did when U.S. troops invaded the
country six years ago. And despite the mammoth U.S. military presence in the Gulf area, Iran
emerged as a major regional power amidst a rise in piracy and militant Islam. When all is said
and done, conventional military force is an ineffective tool for protecting far-flung, highly
vulnerable oil facilities and trade routes.
There's only one way to reduce America's vulnerability to the disruption in overseas
petroleum deliveries and that is to become less dependent on oil, period. We can't drill our
way out of this predicament because the United States simply lacks enough domestic petroleum to
satisfy our gargantuan requirements. We possess 2.5% of the world's proved oil reserves, yet
consume 25% of its daily oil output. To achieve any sort of balance we have to cut our
consumption substantially -- and that means driving less, developing alternative fuels,
converting to gas/electric hybrid and eventually all-electric cars, and otherwise transitioning
away from reliance on oil.
President Obama has promised to make a substantial investment in oil alternatives. Such
efforts are expected to be a major component of his economic stimulus package and deserve
strong public backing. But this is only half of the problem. To overcome what he calls the
"tyranny of oil," he must also repudiate the Carter Doctrine and reject the use of military
force to ensure access to Middle Eastern petroleum. Only in this way can we be certain that the
Iraq War will be the last time U.S. soldiers shed their blood for oil. Michael T. Klare is a
professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College, the author ofRising Powers,
Shrinking Planet: The New Geopolitics of Energy (Metropolitan Books, 2008), and a Foreign Policy In Focuscolumnist.
Klare's previous book, Blood and Oil: The Dangers and Consequences of America's Growing
Dependency on Imported Petroleum has been made into a documentary movie -- to order and view a
trailer, visit www.bloodandoilmovie.com .
"... each of Carter's successors has reinterpreted his eponymous doctrine, broadening its scope and using it to justify ever larger ambitions. The ultimate effect has been to militarize U.S. policy across various quarters of the Islamic world. ..."
"... The Carter Doctrine was intended to secure U.S. interests in a region of ostensibly great strategic importance. Those who have applied the Carter Doctrine have assumed that the presence of U.S. forces and the periodic application of American hard power serve to enhance regional stability. Yet the record of the past 30 years suggests just the opposite: The U. S. military presence and activities have served only to promote greater instability. Our exertions, undertaken at great cost to ourselves and others, are making things not better, but worse. ..."
April 1, 2010 For most Americans, the 30th anniversary of the Carter Doctrine – promulgated
by President Jimmy Carter during his January 1980 State of the Union Address – came and went without
notice.
The oversight ranks as an unfortunate one. To an extent that few have fully appreciated, the Carter
Doctrine has had a transformative impact on U.S. national security policy. Both massive and lasting,
its impact has also been almost entirely pernicious. Put simply, the sequence of events that has
landed the United States in the middle of an open-ended war to determine the fate of the Greater
Middle East begins here.
The Carter Doctrine stands in relation to the ongoing Long War as the Truman Doctrine stood in
relation to the Cold War.
In 1947, President Truman announced that it was "the policy of the United States to support free
peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures." Truman's
immediate purpose was to persuade Congress to approve his request for security assistance to Greece
and Turkey. Yet under Truman's successors, his doctrine morphed into something more than he probably
envisioned or intended. Under the guise of resisting Communist mischief-making, the Truman Doctrine
provided a rationale for U. S. intervention, covert and overt, around the world.
Carter's immediate aim in January 1980 was also limited. When he declared that "an attempt by
any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the
vital interests of the United States," to be "repelled by any means necessary," his primary purpose
was to warn the Kremlin against entertaining any thoughts about asserting Soviet dominion over the
world's energy heartland. Yet each of Carter's successors has reinterpreted his eponymous doctrine,
broadening its scope and using it to justify ever larger ambitions. The ultimate effect has been
to militarize U.S. policy across various quarters of the Islamic world.
Prior to January 1980, the Pentagon and the rest of the national security establishment had viewed
the Middle East as a backwater. In terms of U. S. strategic priorities, that region of the world
lagged well behind Europe and East Asia and probably behind Latin America, as well.
Jimmy Carter's announcement that the Persian Gulf constituted a vital U.S. national security interest
changed all that. In short order, the aims implied by the Carter Doctrine expanded. Within a decade,
the United States was not content to prevent outside powers from controlling the Gulf. It sought
to claim for itself a dominant position in the region. Within two decades, the arena in which the
United States sought that dominant role had expanded, eventually encompassing the entire Greater
Middle East.
Directly or indirectly, the Carter Doctrine provided the rationale or justification for the following
episodes involving the use of force by the United States:
Afghanistan War I (1979-1989), the U.S.-led effort to punish the Soviet Union for occupying
that country.
The Beirut Bombing (1983), the name by which Americans choose to remember Ronald Reagan's
intervention in Lebanon.
The war against Khaddafi (1981-1988), a series of inconclusive skirmishes with the Libyan
dictator, culminating in the destruction of Pan Am Flight 103.
The Tanker War (1984-1988), waged by U. S. naval forces against Iran to maintain the flow
of oil through the Strait of Hormuz.
Iraq War I (1990-1991), the first U. S. armed confrontation with Saddam Hussein, commonly
but erroneously thought to have ended with the liberation of Kuwait.
The Somalia Intervention (1992-1993), abruptly terminated by the notorious Mogadishu firefight.
Afghanistan War II (2001-2003), launched in the wake of 9/11, but left in abeyance by the
Bush administration's decision to shift the weight of U.S. military efforts elsewhere.
Iraq War II (2003), the resumption of large-scale hostilities against Saddam Hussein, leading
to his overthrow, but inducing chaos.
Iraq War III (2004-2010?), a war to pacify Iraq in the face of resistance by indigenous insurgents
and Islamic radicals raised up by Iraq War II.
Afghanistan War III (2009 --), the conflict that Bush's successor rediscovered, renewed, and
expanded; given the deepening U.S. military involvement in Pakistan, this war might alternatively
be called the AfPak War.
The Carter Doctrine was intended to secure U.S. interests in a region of ostensibly great strategic
importance. Those who have applied the Carter Doctrine have assumed that the presence of U.S. forces
and the periodic application of American hard power serve to enhance regional stability. Yet the
record of the past 30 years suggests just the opposite: The U. S. military presence and activities
have served only to promote greater instability. Our exertions, undertaken at great cost to ourselves
and others, are making things not better, but worse.
"... in actuality the US Government was concerned that Hollywood was no longer as blindly supportive of government policy as it had been only a few years earlier at the height of WW2. In particular, J. Edgar Hoover had long held the opinion that the entertainment industry should be the propaganda arm for the government in peace time as well as war. ..."
"... However, as WW2 had ended, the defense establishment had lobbied for the creation of a "Cold" war against the Soviet Union, a war not actually to be fought, but constantly to be prepared for at huge cost to the taxpayers. This cost was the visible manifestation of the "Military Industrial Complex" President Eisenhower referred to in his farewell address, and many in Hollywood openly wondered just why so much more money had to be thrown into the war machine during a time of peace, and more to the point, just why we were supposed to be so afraid of the communists. ..."
"... In later years, FBI informants became permanent fixtures at movie studios, and spied for the FBI. ..."
"... While Senator Joseph McCarthy grabbed headlines with his shouts of "Communist", Hoover set about his self-appointed task of purging Hollywood of any he viewed as "disloyal" to the United States, which meant anyone unwilling to make the movies they were told to make, when and how they were told to make them. ..."
"... Stars such as Larry Parks were destroyed because they refused to "name names" of other actors who were party members. Actor Philip Loeb committed suicide. Edward G. Robinson, never a communist, was put on a "grey list," and spent the rest of his life making B movies (except for his final role opposite Charlton Heston in "Soylent Green"). Sam Jaffe, formerly a well-known actor and Oscar winner in 1950 was registered on the black list because he refused to cooperate with the committee. He spent the next 6 years working as a math teacher and living at his sister's until he was able to return to films in 1957. ..."
"... Of course, what was really involved was money. War is good for business. Business had been great during WW2 and the newly created "Cold War" was just a way to keep business good. The Military Industrial Complex NEEDED Hollywood to demonize the Soviets. Otherwise, too many people were going to ask why we were being told to be so afraid of them, and few in the government had a really convincing answer for that question. So, in order to perpetuate the Cold War, those in Hollywood who might sympathize with the designated villains had to be removed; their ruined lives a small price to pay for unending access to the taxpayers' wallets. ..."
"... But the Soviet Union has gone out of business. The word "communist" doesn't carry the same psychological impact it used to, so the war hawk smear squad has come up with a new one, "Anti-Semite." Like "Communist", "Anti-Semite" is used to ruin the lives of people who have not actually done anything wrong other than to challenge the war profiteers. It is a new word for an old trick, and I am amazed that they are still playing the same old game, but I guess the FBI can always find some dumb-assed idiot to fall for it and do their dirty work of wrecking a career for them. ..."
"... Charles Lindbergh the famous aviator commented in a speech in Des Moines in 1941... ..."
"... Our theaters soon became filled with plays portraying the glory of war. Newsreels lost all semblance of objectivity. Newspapers and magazines began to lose advertising if they carried anti-war articles. A smear campaign was instituted against individuals who opposed intervention. The terms "fifth columnist," "traitor," "Nazi," "anti-Semitic" were thrown ceaselessly at any one who dared to suggest that it was not to the best interests of the United States to enter the war. Men lost their jobs if they were frankly anti-war. Many others dared no longer speak. ..."
"... If there is a difference today it is that the American people are better educated. No longer dependent on the state schools, or controlled media, the public understands the tactics used to silence those who speak out. As a result, those who speak out are more and more not only accorded the sympathetic ear that their message deserves, but the effects of the smearing are far less ruinous than in times past. ..."
"... While people like Charlie Sheen, Willie Nelson, Sean Penn, and Marion Cotillard (and to step out of entertainment, former President Jimmy Carter) will be remembered and honored for their courage, history will lump the smear artists together with Stalin's "Useful idiots", little more than no-talent opportunists for whom ratting out someone was the fastest path to advancement. ..."
Back in the year 1947, the House Select Committee began an investigation into the Motion
Picture Industry. Ostensibly the goal was to ferret out communists working in the film
industry. But in actuality the US Government was concerned that Hollywood was no longer as
blindly supportive of government policy as it had been only a few years earlier at the height
of WW2. In particular, J. Edgar Hoover had long held the opinion that the entertainment
industry should be the propaganda arm for the government in peace time as well as war.
However, as WW2 had ended, the defense establishment had lobbied for the creation of a
"Cold" war against the Soviet Union, a war not actually to be fought, but constantly to be
prepared for at huge cost to the taxpayers. This cost was the visible manifestation of the
"Military Industrial Complex" President Eisenhower referred to in his farewell address, and
many in Hollywood openly wondered just why so much more money had to be thrown into the war
machine during a time of peace, and more to the point, just why we were supposed to be so
afraid of the communists.
Hoover's desire to remake Hollywood into a gigantic propaganda machine had started at the
end of WW1 when Hoover tried to persuade Charlie Chaplin to cease making films that portrayed
authority figures as oafish buffoons. Chaplin refused, laughed at Hoover. Years later, as head
of the FBI, Hoover was instrumental in having Charlie Chaplin's citizenship revoked in
retaliation.
Hoover's mania with Hollywood was a seldom reported but constant factor in show business.
The 1959 film, "The FBI Story" starring Air Force General Jimmy Stewart was reportedly directed
by Mervyn LeRoy, but in actuality J. Edgar Hoover was personally supervising the film (and
briefly appears in it, shown only from the back) to make certain the "correct" image of the FBI
was shown.
In later years, FBI informants became permanent fixtures at movie studios, and spied for the
FBI. When Disney Studios made "That Darned Cat", a pre-production copy of the screenplay
"somehow" made its way to the FBI, which promptly sent Disney a memo expressing concern at how
the FBI was to be portrayed.
Likewise, when Paramount Pictures produced, "Skidoo", starring Jackie Gleason, it featured a
single scene in which Gleason's character is seen fleeing a building marked, "FBI" carrying a
file cabinet on his back. That one single scene prompted the following four page memo.
Along with "nudging" the film studios to portray certain things certain ways, the FBI did
not hesitate to wreck the careers of those people it felt posed a dangerous threat to the
government's public image. During the height of the FBI's COINTELPRO program, the FBI destroyed
the career of actress Jean Seberg
Jean Seberg was considered a threat to the US Government because of her public support for
civil rights at a time when the Civil Rights movement was starting to point out the racial bias
in the draft system that placed a disproportionate percentage of black kids on the front lines
of Vietnam. Seberg was also a supporter of the Black Panthers in their pre-militant days when
their agenda was breakfasts for the ghetto kids, local control of school curriculum, and ending
the draft.
Jean Seberg, a well known
actress in the 60s, became pregnant and the FBI sent out letters to the gossip columnists
identifying the baby's father as a Black Panther, in order to cheapen Seberg's image. Keep in
mind that the 60s was an era in which sexual relations between blacks and whites was still
considered taboo by most Americans.
The scans below are of the official FBI letter from Los Angeles to Washington D.C. asking
permission for the scam.
"Bureau permission is requested to publicize the pregnancy of Jean Seberg, well-known
movie actress by (name deleted) Black Panther (BPP) (deleted) by advising Hollywood
"Gossip-Columnists" in the Los Angeles area of the situation. It is felt that the possible
publication of Seberg's plight could cause her embarrassment and serve to cheapen her image
with the general public.
" 'It is proposed that the following letter from a fictitious person be sent to local
columnists:
"I was just thinking about you and remembered I still owe you a favor. So ---- I was in
Paris last week and ran into Jean Seberg, who was heavy with baby. I thought she and Romaine
[sic] had gotten together again, but she confided the child belonged to (deleted) of the
Black Panthers, one (deleted). The dear girl is getting around!
" 'Anyway, I thought you might get a scoop on the others. Be good and I'll see you
soon.
'Love,
" 'Sol.,
"Usual precautions would be taken by the Los Angeles Division to preclude
identification of the Bureau as the source of the letter if approval is granted."
Permission to use the fake letter was granted, but with the suggestion that the smear be
delayed until Jean Seberg's pregnancy was in a very obvious condition.
The story was picked up by Newsweek and the international press. The shock of the story was
so severe that Jean Seberg suffered a miscarriage. The funeral for the child was held with an
open casket, so that the lie stood revealed in its most tragic form. Jean Seberg, her baby dead
and her career shattered by this outright lie, attempted suicide several times, finally
succeeding in a French Hotel.
(The name which was redacted from the memo during the FOIA process is thought by many to
have been Raymond Hewit, a Black Panther leader. His "outright lie" was far more direct. The
FBI typed up a letter on official FBI stationary identifying Hewit as an informant and planted
it where other Black Panthers would find it in the hopes that Hewit would then be killed.)
Following Seberg's death, the Los Angeles Times, the key instrument of her torment, issued a
statement by the FBI.
"The days when the FBI used derogatory information to combat advocates of unpopular causes
have long since passed. We are out of that business forever."
The Senate committee that looked into COINTELPRO disagreed, however.
"Cointelpro activities may continue today under the rubric of 'investigation.'
Finally, no single celebrity filled the government with more fear than did ex-Beatle John
Lennon. Lennon's popularity, and hence his ability to influence popular opinion, coupled with
his strong anti-war stance, made him a real threat in the event the United States decided it
had to go to war. For this reason, Lennon was one of the most watched celebrities, and
according to Lennon's youngest son, the victim of a government assassination plot.
Having documented the FBI's willingness to destroy anyone they feel represents a threat to
the government, let us return to the days of the House Select Committee on UnAmerican
Activities.
While Senator Joseph McCarthy grabbed headlines with his shouts of "Communist", Hoover set
about his self-appointed task of purging Hollywood of any he viewed as "disloyal" to the United
States, which meant anyone unwilling to make the movies they were told to make, when and how
they were told to make them. Senator McCarthy's screed of "Communist" provided Hoover with a
bludgeon he could and did use with impunity on Hollywood's creative talents. Careers were
ruined. Some 400 people, mostly innocent of any actual wrongdoing, were destroyed. Some, like
Jean Seberg would later do, committed suicide. Ten men (the famous Hollywood Ten), Alvah
Bessie, Herbert Biberman, Lester Cole, Ring Lardner jr., John Howard Lawson, Albert Maltz,
Samuel Ornitz, Adrian Scott, Dalton Trumbo, and eminent director Edward Dmytryk were jailed for
contempt of Congress.
Others punished for refusing to cooperate included Larry Adler, Stella Adler, Leonard
Bernstein, Marc Blitzstein, Joseph Bromberg, Charlie Chaplin, Aaron Copland, Hanns Eisler, Carl
Foreman, John Garfield, Howard Da Silva, Dashiell Hammett, E. Y. Harburg, Lillian Hellman, Burl
Ives, Arthur Miller, Dorothy Parker, Philip Loeb, Joseph Losey, Anne Revere, Pete Seeger, Gale
Sondergaard, Louis Untermeyer, Josh White, Clifford Odets, Michael Wilson, Paul Jarrico, Jeff
Corey, John Randolph, Canada Lee, Orson Welles, Paul Green, Sidney Kingsley, Paul Robeson,
Richard Wright and Abraham Polonsky. Lee Grant was registered on the black list because she
refused to give evidence against her husband Arnold Manoff.
Stars such as Larry Parks were destroyed because they refused to "name names" of other
actors who were party members. Actor Philip Loeb committed suicide. Edward G. Robinson, never a
communist, was put on a "grey list," and spent the rest of his life making B movies (except for
his final role opposite Charlton Heston in "Soylent Green"). Sam Jaffe, formerly a well-known
actor and Oscar winner in 1950 was registered on the black list because he refused to cooperate
with the committee. He spent the next 6 years working as a math teacher and living at his
sister's until he was able to return to films in 1957.
Of course, what was really involved was money. War is good for business. Business had been
great during WW2 and the newly created "Cold War" was just a way to keep business good. The
Military Industrial Complex NEEDED Hollywood to demonize the Soviets. Otherwise, too many
people were going to ask why we were being told to be so afraid of them, and few in the
government had a really convincing answer for that question. So, in order to perpetuate the
Cold War, those in Hollywood who might sympathize with the designated villains had to be
removed; their ruined lives a small price to pay for unending access to the taxpayers'
wallets.
But that was then and this is now.
Once again vast sums of money are being spent on a war, this time a hot one and getting
hotter. Once again parties with a vested interest are out to smear and destroy anyone who dares
ask if the wars are worth the sacrifice of our young people (not to mention the money), indeed
if there really is any point at all to the wars aside from justifying the flow of money to
defense contractors.
But the Soviet Union has gone out of business. The word "communist" doesn't carry the same
psychological impact it used to, so the war hawk smear squad has come up with a new one,
"Anti-Semite." Like "Communist", "Anti-Semite" is used to ruin the lives of people who have not
actually done anything wrong other than to challenge the war profiteers. It is a new word for
an old trick, and I am amazed that they are still playing the same old game, but I guess the
FBI can always find some dumb-assed idiot to fall for it and do their dirty work of wrecking a
career for them.
Of course, it really isn't that new a word. Oddly enough, Charles Lindbergh the famous
aviator commented in a speech in Des Moines in 1941...
Our theaters soon became filled with plays portraying the glory of war. Newsreels lost all
semblance of objectivity. Newspapers and magazines began to lose advertising if they carried
anti-war articles. A smear campaign was instituted against individuals who opposed
intervention. The terms "fifth columnist," "traitor," "Nazi," "anti-Semitic" were thrown
ceaselessly at any one who dared to suggest that it was not to the best interests of the
United States to enter the war. Men lost their jobs if they were frankly anti-war. Many
others dared no longer speak.
Today we are seeing once again the heavy hand of the war profiteers trying to reshape the
film industry into a tool to propagandize the public into a high war-fever such that they will
gladly trade their own blood for gold to line the pockets of the defense establishment. And
those individuals who have the courage to speak out are attacked, and once again they are
smeared to silence them. In the 1940s it was "Communist", today it is "Anti-Semite", but aside
from the particular label used, the methods, goals, and morality are little changed from the
days of Joseph McCarthy.
If there is a difference today it is that the American people are better educated. No longer
dependent on the state schools, or controlled media, the public understands the tactics used to
silence those who speak out. As a result, those who speak out are more and more not only
accorded the sympathetic ear that their message deserves, but the effects of the smearing are
far less ruinous than in times past.
Thus, when we see people like Willie Nelson, Sean Penn, and Marion Cotillard speak out and
survive, or when people like Tom Shadyac (or myself) voluntarily walk away from Hollywood
because speaking the truth matters more to them, it sends a message that it is now permissible,
indeed imperative to speak out. This is not to say that there are not risks. Rosie O'Donnell
lost her spot on "The View", but the majority of Americans understand exactly why, and
understand that Rosie sacrificed a great deal trying to get the truth out. Rosie is and will be
remembered as a hero for truth long after her co-hosts on "The View" are properly
forgotten.
In contrast, of course, we look back at those who aided the "Commie" witch-hunts of the
1940s with deserved contempt. No doubt many aided Hoover purely to rid themselves of
competition, and then tried to lull themselves to sleep with the idea that in some way they had
actually done something good for the nation by wrecking their neighbors' careers. I have no
doubt strong liquor played a role in this grossest of self-deception. But if the informants and
smear artists of the 1940s are remembered in a poor light, that should serve as a reminder to
the informants and smear artists of today. It does not matter what you do with the rest of your
life, aiding the new version of McCarthyism is how history will remember you. While people like
Charlie Sheen, Willie Nelson, Sean Penn, and Marion Cotillard (and to step out of
entertainment, former President Jimmy Carter) will be remembered and honored for their courage,
history will lump the smear artists together with Stalin's "Useful idiots", little more than
no-talent opportunists for whom ratting out someone was the fastest path to advancement.
They say that history repeats itself, and indeed that is the major thing wrong with history.
We are seeing history repeat itself again. We have been down this path before, in the 1940s.
Whether the word is "Communist" or "Anti-Semite", Hollywood is making the same mistake all over
again. And Hollywood will have to live with that image in the coming decades.
"... The real answer, however, is both simple and consequential. To wit, the entire prosperity and modus operandi of the Imperial City is based on a panoply of "threats" that are vastly exaggerated or even purely invented; they retain their currency by virtue of endless repetition in the groupthink that passes for analysis. We'd actually put it in the category of cocktail party chatter. ..."
"... The truth is, the US defense budget is hideously oversized for a reason so obvious that it constitutes the ultimate elephant in the room. No matter how you slice it, there just are no real big industrialized, high tech countries in the world which can threaten the American homeland or even have the slightest intention of doing so. ..."
"... That gets us to the bogus Iranian threat. It originated in the early 1990s when the neocon's in the George HW Bush Administration realized that with the cold war's end, the Warfare State was in grave danger of massive demobilization like the US had done after every war until 1945. ..."
"... So among many other invented two-bit threats, the Iranian regime was demonized in order to keep the Imperial City in thrall to its purported national security threat and in support of the vast global armada of military forces, bases and occupations needed to contain it (including the Fifth Fleet in the Persian Gulf and US bases throughout the region). ..."
"... Likewise, what the Imperial City claims to be state sponsored terror is actually nothing more than Iran's foreign policy – something that every sovereign state on the planet is permitted to have. ..."
"... Thus, as the leader of the minority Shiite schism of the Islamic world, Iran has made political and confessional alliances with various Shiite regimes in the region. These include the one that Washington actually installed in Baghdad; the Alawite/Shiite regime in Syria; the largest political party and representative of 40 percent of the population in Lebanon (Hezbollah); and the Houthi/Shiite of Yemen, who historically occupied the northern parts of the country and are now under savage attack by American weapons supplied to Saudi Arabia. ..."
"... In the case of both Syria and Iraq, their respective governments invited Iranian help, which is also their prerogative as sovereign nations. Ironically, it was the Shiite Crescent alliance of Iran/Assad/Hezbollah that bears much of the credit for defeating ISIS on the ground in Mosul, Aleppo, Raqqa, Deir ez-Zor and elsewhere in the now largely defunct Islamic State. ..."
He was right. Russia today is a shadow of what Ronald Reagan called the Evil
Empire. Its GDP of $1.3 trillion is smaller than that of the New York metro area ($1.6
trillion) and only 7 percent of total US GDP.
Moreover, unlike the militarized Soviet economy which devoted upwards of 40 percent of
output to defense, the current Russian defense budget of $60 billion is just 4.5 percent of its
vastly shrunken GDP.
So how in the world did the national security apparatus convince the Donald that we need the
$700 billion defense program for FY 2018 – 12X bigger than Russia's – that he just
signed into law?
What we mean, of course, is how do you explain that – beyond the fact that the Donald
knows virtually nothing about national security policy and history; and, to boot, is surrounded
by generals who have spent a lifetime scouring the earth for enemies and threats to repel and
reasons for more weapons and bigger forces.
The real answer, however, is both simple and consequential. To wit, the entire prosperity
and modus operandi of the Imperial City is based on a panoply of "threats" that are vastly
exaggerated or even purely invented; they retain their currency by virtue of endless repetition
in the groupthink that passes for analysis. We'd actually put it in the category of cocktail
party chatter.
... ... ...
The truth is, the US defense budget is hideously oversized for a reason so obvious that it
constitutes the ultimate elephant in the room. No matter how you slice it, there just are no
real big industrialized, high tech countries in the world which can threaten the American
homeland or even have the slightest intention of doing so.
Indeed, to continue with our historical benchmarks, the American homeland has not been so
immune to foreign military threat since WW II. Yet during all those years of true peril, it
never spent close too the Donald's $700 billion boondoggle.
For instance, during the height of LBJs Vietnam folly (1968) defense spending in today's
dollars was about $400 billion. And even at the top of Reagan's utterly unnecessary military
building up (by the 1980s the Soviet Union was collapsing under the weight of its own socialist
dystopia), total US defense spending was just $550 billion.
That gets us to the bogus Iranian threat. It originated in the early 1990s when the
neocon's in the George HW Bush Administration realized that with the cold war's end, the
Warfare State was in grave danger of massive demobilization like the US had done after every
war until 1945.
So among many other invented two-bit threats, the Iranian regime was demonized in order
to keep the Imperial City in thrall to its purported national security threat and in support of
the vast global armada of military forces, bases and occupations needed to contain it
(including the Fifth Fleet in the Persian Gulf and US bases throughout the region).
The truth, however, is that according to the 2008 NIE ( National Intelligence Estimates) of
the nation's 17 intelligence agency, the Iranian's never had a serious nuclear weapons program,
and the small research effort that they did have was disbanded by orders of the Ayatollah
Khamenei in 2003.
Likewise, what the Imperial City claims to be state sponsored terror is actually nothing
more than Iran's foreign policy – something that every sovereign state on the planet is
permitted to have.
Thus, as the leader of the minority Shiite schism of the Islamic world, Iran has made
political and confessional alliances with various Shiite regimes in the region. These include
the one that Washington actually installed in Baghdad; the Alawite/Shiite regime in Syria; the
largest political party and representative of 40 percent of the population in Lebanon
(Hezbollah); and the Houthi/Shiite of Yemen, who historically occupied the northern parts of
the country and are now under savage attack by American weapons supplied to Saudi
Arabia.
In the case of both Syria and Iraq, their respective governments invited Iranian help,
which is also their prerogative as sovereign nations. Ironically, it was the Shiite Crescent
alliance of Iran/Assad/Hezbollah that bears much of the credit for defeating ISIS on the ground
in Mosul, Aleppo, Raqqa, Deir ez-Zor and elsewhere in the now largely defunct Islamic
State.
In tomorrow's installment we will address the details of the Iran nuke agreement and why the
Donald is making a horrible mistake in proposing to decertify it. But there should be no doubt
about the consequence: It will reinforce the neocon dominance of the Republican party and
insure that the nation's $1 trillion Warfare State remains fully entrenched.
Needless to say, that will also insure that the America's gathering fiscal crisis will turn
into an outright Fiscal Calamity in the years just ahead.
David Stockman has agreed to send every Antiwar.com reader a free copy of his newest
book, Trumped! when you take his special Contra Corner offer. Click here now for the
details.
You can't analyze the USA foreign policy toward Iran without analyzing the needs of the US
led neoliberal empire... Interests of Israel are secondary to the interests of empire.
Notable quotes:
"... 'salami tactics' ..."
"... "color revolution" ..."
"... 'terrorist state' ..."
"... 'responsibility to protect (R2P) ..."
"... Iran responded by developing economic, technical and military agreements with Russia and China in order to counter the US-Israeli-Saudi threats and sanctions. Russia provides advanced defensive weapons systems. China signs large-scale, long-term trade agreements while including Iran in its huge Central Asian infrastructure projects. Most importantly, Iran has succeeded in defending the legitimate government of Syria, while aiding Iraq and Yemen. ..."
"... President Trump is facing a serious coup d'état involving the political-intelligence elite, with the military looking warily on the chaos. The masses are increasingly polarized or disgusted. ..."
"... 'national-capitalist ideology' ..."
"... The Trump regime is full of contradictions: It threatens to end the nuclear agreement with Iran but allows Boeing to sell billions of dollars of civilian aircraft to Teheran. It signs a $300 billion dollar arms sales agreement with Saudi Arabia (business for the for military industries) while losing political influence in the US, where the Saudis are widely despised. ..."
"... And yet the US destroyed Iran's most useful enemy, Saddam's Iraq. Sometimes I wonder whether US foreign policy has any guiding intelligence at all. Maybe it consists only of stupid, reckless flailing. ..."
"... How many Americans and Europeans realize that all Islamic terrorism in the West is Sunni and none of it is Shia, and that all the demonization of Iran and Hezbollah is solely for the benefit of Israel? ..."
"... Bottom line is that most American people are kept under-educated by design and they are being fooled and mislead by the ZIOMSM about the rest of the world! ..."
"... Trump administration has promised to one of many fans of MEK that it has been looking and will continue to look into ways to change the Iranian regime . One of the ways is to harness the terrorism that is embodied by MEK. ..."
"... Next generation might end up repeating 'God forgive America' instead of chanting ad nauseam – ' God bless America' . ..."
"... The younger generation is just as corrupt and unthinking as their teachers -- maybe even more corrupt: for most of the young professionals -- such as a group I met recently -- the primary concern is networking/career building, and if it means acquiescing to regime change, so be it. ..."
"... Hey S2 and KA, how about the [regime change] color revolution that's happening here, with the drive to impeach Trump? Only it's not really regime change, is it. It's the Deep State (with its useful idiot Pussy Brigade) desperate to maintain status quo. ..."
"... Some people think I'm a Trump supporter. Well, I support that he's our duly elected President, and I'm grateful for his disruption (God Bless him for "the system is rigged" and "fake news"), but I don't like most of his policy, and he abandoned the part I did like. But it was just so euphoric to dodge Hilmonster bullet. ..."
"... What's happening now, however, is bigger than persons or parties. The fraudulent accusations of collusion with Russia, intended to derail this administration, are an attack on our democracy and an exercise in persuasion and mind-control of our citizenry. This was underscored for me by a dreadful conversation in church this morning. When I said that I didn't believe that "17 intelligence agencies" had proved that the Russians interfered [directly, by hacking, was the point] in our election, my interlocutor was aghast. Unable to answer in a "Christian" manner, she threw back her head and laughed. It was quite a Hillaryesque gesture. ..."
"... What preceded this was my bringing up the collaboration of the DNC, Crowdstrike, and Ukraine to slander and taint Donald Trump via accusations against Paul Manafort. Rather than cross-examine me about that or discuss it, she came back with, "How about Trump and the Russian oligarchs " and "How about Jared Kushner meeting the Russians.." – IN THE RUSSIAN EMBASSY !!! seemed to be enormously unforgivable in her mind – and a few other 'How abouts.' When none of this impressed me, she was visibly exasperated and went to the '17 agencies,' hoping for a knock-out blow, I guess. ..."
"... Sadly, I turn to anonymous commenters for solace. Also, I encourage all to see the significance of the DNC chicanery, of Crowdstrike not allowing the FBI to see the DNC computers, of Ukraine collaboration. I'm not an unqualified endorser of all Lee Stranahan's views, but he's doing a terrific job investigating this – and he's the only one who is! What he doesn't say in this video: the Dems should be careful what they wish for! After Comey hearing, there will be investigation of Loretta Lynch. ..."
"... The US can only operate in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Syria (and try for Iran) because of Zionist Neo-con dominance of the US government. The public actually voted against ME wars so it's clear that further wars are illegitimate. ..."
US policy in the Middle East and South Asia is shaped by several basic considerations:
US
Imperialism is the force of global domination US imperial policy in the Middle East focuses on
encircling, destroying and dismantling Iran's allies (Syria, Lebanon (Hezbollah), Iraq (Shi'a
Militia), Qatar and Yemen with the intent of overthrowing the government and installing a
client regime in Teheran. The return of Iran to the status of puppet regime will advance
Washington's ultimate goal of encircling and isolating Russia and China. The US overthrow of
the Islamic Republic of Iran will facilitate Israel's final seizure of Palestine, including
Jerusalem, and establish Tel Aviv as the dominant regional power in the Middle East.
Washington's 'Two Track' Policy for Domination
US strategic planners rely on a two-track policy , combining and blending military and
ideological weapons.
Its military strategy relies on slicing up the Middle East - 'salami tactics'
– invading and conquering of each and every country and government, which shares the
Islamic Republic of Iran's policy of national sovereignty and independence. US military
success or failure depends on its alliances in the Middle East, North Africa and Europe. The
US, Saudi Arabia and Israel all sponsor terrorist groups which have attacked Iran's
scientists, its elected representatives and military leaders, as well as its sacred sites
– inside Iran as well as abroad. The political and ideological strategy involves the
penetration and organization of domestic forces to destabilize and weaken Iran's internal
security, defense capability and overseas alliances. Ideological warfare involves: (1)
exploiting regional, ethnic, class and religious differences to undermine stability and
fragment the country; and (2) converting legitimate social critics and political opposition
parties into imperial collaborators.
Ideological attacks are designed to attract Iranian writers, academics, intellectuals and
artists who choose to ignore the history of US imperialism in fomenting bloody coups (Mossadegh
1954), launching proxy wars via Saddam Hussain's invasion (1980- 88) and the terrorist attacks
by Israel and Saudi Arabia, as well as the terrorists backed by Iraq's former dictator.
US propaganda intervention in Iran's electoral process has been designed to promote a
so-called "color revolution" regime change favored by neo-liberal, pro-West parties
and candidates who seek US sponsorship in their ascent to power. The imperial collaborators and
various Western 'human rights' NGOs hide the sordid history of Washington's overt and proxy
wars/coups and occupations in Syria, Iraq, Ukraine, Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen, Libya and
Palestine.
Modern imperialist policies include:
diplomatic and cyber warfare against Iran's defense and security systems; economic sanctions
and the assassination of highly skilled scientists and engineers to undermine economic
growth; political propaganda labeling Iran a 'terrorist state' in order to
intimidate and weaken overseas and domestic allies; and the financing and arming of
terrorists from Europe, the Middle East and North Africa to attack the Islamic Republic.
Linguistic and Conceptual Perversions
Imperial warfare depends on perverting political language and concepts. The US refers to
invasion, which have killed and maimed millions of Muslims and Christians in Iraq (2003-2017)
and Syria (2011-2017) as 'humanitarian interventions'. In reality its policy described an
ongoing 'holocaust' – the massive genocidal violation of the human rights of scores of
millions of people to sovereignty, peace and security of home, life, limb, culture and
faith.
The millions of victims of the West's current holocaust in the Middle East reject and scorn
Washington's imperialist claim of defending 'democratic values' and its so-called
'responsibility to protect (R2P) ' as pronounced by a series of US Administrations
through their mouthpieces in the United Nations.
In contrast, US support for the Saudi monarch's brutal bombing and blockade of Yemen has led
to an entire population facing starvation and a massive, cholera epidemic, which now threatens
over 26 million Yeminis. The campaign against Yemen by the brutal Saudis and their US-EU allies
is the very definition of crimes against humanity and international law.
Sanctions: A Tool of Conquest
US sanctions against Iraq, Syria, Iran and Yemen have been designed to starve working people
into submission while capturing the support of some middle class consumers. US policy of
invading Libya and brutally murdering President Gadhafi and his family members was designed to
systematically destroy a prosperous, independent republic and turn it into a backward,
impoverished fiefdom of tribal warlords, exploited by Western oil companies. Saudi Arabia
joined the European Union in financing terrorists, many trained in the destroyed remnants of
Libya, who later killed innocent civilians in Paris, Nice, London, Manchester and other parts
of Europe.
The strategic goal of the US invasion of Iraq, Syria and Yemen has been to violently divide
these independent republics and turn them into ethnically cleansed, impoverished, mini-states
– in the imperial tradition of 'divide and conquer'. Such tribal fiefdoms are easily
dominated by imperial powers.
Regional and Global Strategy
Washington's imperial strategists have arrived at the conclusion that they cannot conquer
independent states, like Iran, in a single attack, given its size, defense capability, internal
cohesion and regional alliances.
Their strategy is to surround Iran by destroying its allies, one nation at a time.
The first phase of the US invasion, occupation and systematic destruction of Iraq and its
entire governmental infrastructure was designed to overthrow the Baathist state, then
neutralize the Shi'a militia and impose a servile client regime in Baghdad. The second step was
to encourage Sunni tribal warlords to seize control of central Iraq. The third step was to arm
the Kurds to form a mini-state in northern Iraq (so-called "Kurdistan"). This would entail
large-scale ethnic cleansing, the total destruction of Iraq's ancient Christian community, the
extermination of its multiethnic modern educated, scientific, cultural and technocratic work
force. In other words, the US strategy was to obliterate any remnant of the Iraqi Republic in
its war to 'remake the Middle East'.
After Iraq and Libya, the next target for US-EU aggression has been the government of the
Syrian Arab Republic, Iran's ally. The EU, USA, Saudi Arabia and Turkey sponsored an invasion
by mercenary Salafi forces under a network of Daesh-ISIS-al Queda terrorists. Israel, Turkey,
Saudi Arabia and the Emirates have provided military, logistical and financial support to the
terrorists.
After Syria, the fourth target of Anglo-American-Saudi-Israeli military strategy would be to
undermine the national sovereignty of Lebanon and destroy the armed political Hezbollah Party,
the powerful Lebanese resistance organization (allied with Iran). It was consistent with this
strategy for the West to support Israel's brutal air and ground attacks against the civilian
population and infrastructure of Beirut, Lebanese port cities and villages. Tens of thousands
of Lebanese Christians were not spared the Israeli terror bombing campaign.
If a Lebanese campaign were successful and Hezbollah was destroyed, the 'final'
Israeli conquest of Palestine, the fifth objective, could commence: US and world Zionism would
unconditionally celebrate Israel's massive ethnic purge of Palestine's native peoples and
finish off the total confiscation of the homes, mosques, churches, land and resources of
millions of Muslim and Christian Palestinians and other peoples. This would create history's
first 'pure Jewish' state.
The sixth imperial objective would be to disarm Iran's military and security structure and
weaken its economy in order to isolate the Islamic Republic and undermine its Middle Eastern
alliances. This strategic objective explains why Washington promotes its one-sided nuclear arms
agreement with Iran, while the nuclear-armed Israel is excluded! Despite Iran's abiding by the
terms of the agreement, there have been no reciprocal lifting of economic sanctions or the
normalization of trade and diplomatic relations.
Beyond Iran, the global strategy would be to weaken, encircle and isolate the US's big power
rivals, China and Russia and re-establish the US as the uncontested world imperial power.
Iran Counters the US Global Military Threat
Iran responded by developing economic, technical and military agreements with Russia and
China in order to counter the US-Israeli-Saudi threats and sanctions. Russia provides advanced
defensive weapons systems. China signs large-scale, long-term trade agreements while including
Iran in its huge Central Asian infrastructure projects. Most importantly, Iran has succeeded in
defending the legitimate government of Syria, while aiding Iraq and Yemen.
Iran undermined official US sanctions by signing multi-billion dollar agreements with the
giant Boeing Corporation for the purchase of passenger airplanes as well as developing further
agreements with US banks and agro-business exporters and oil companies. These profitable
agreements with the US agro-business export sector can weaken the Pentagon-Zionist
sanctions.
Iran has the diplomatic support of the Non-Aligned Movement opposing Israeli-US Zionist
military threats.
Iran's principled opposition to Saudi Arabia's massive arms purchases, as well as the
Kingdom's vicious alliance with Israel and its genocidal assault against the Yemeni people, has
gained the support of world public opinion – especially the masses of independent Muslims
throughout the world.
Iran's educational, scientific, military and political-electoral advances provide the basis
for national security, economic growth, cultural enrichment, international alliances and the
deepening of social democracy for its people. It provides an alternative independent vision for
many millions of Muslims living under harsh monarchies, military dictators and imperial
oppression.
Conclusion
Since the US and its allies launched their 'hot war' by surrounding, threatening and
destabilizing Iran, Washington's strategy has suffered serious military defeats and political
retreats. Iraq is no longer encircled by the US. Shia-based militias have regional control,
especially south of Baghdad and beyond. Syria, Iran's ally, has fought hard to finally liberate
many towns, cities and territory taken by the terrorist mercenaries despite the
EU-US-Saudi-Israel's initial advances.
Rival rebel forces and mercenary gangsters besiege the US puppet governments in Libya,
Somalia and South Sudan. The classic CIA term, 'blowback', means these terrorists are now
turning their guns on the West. Washington has lost control of Afghanistan. Over a third of the
Afghan military and police recruits defect to the resistance fighters. The central 'government'
in Kabul influences less than a quarter of the country
Despite spending trillions of dollars on wars and propaganda over the past two decades, US
military strategy to encircle and conquer Iran has been a military, diplomatic and economic
failure. The American people have suffered thousands of casualties and its domestic economy is
in permanent crisis with massive unemployment, poverty, recession and stagnation.
Despite US congressional, Presidential and Pentagon support for Israel's Jewish colonization
of Palestine, more countries, trade unions and social movements, around the world, support the
boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israel than ever before. Manu are
speaking up despite government threats to outlaw 'criticism of Israel' as a 'hate crime'.
The turmoil and deep political divisions in the United States between the oligarchs allied
to President Trump and the opposition oligarchs have created a profound institutional crisis,
which has undermined domestic governance and disrupted US global alliances, US-EU relations and
US-Asian trade links.
Despite the bizarre and often theatrical presentation by the US mass media, the American
Congress and President Trump are fighting over fundamental issues, including control of the
national security agencies (CIA, NSA, FBI, Homeland Security, etc.), foreign and military
policy, the economy and environmental agenda, the federal budget, judiciary and the
Presidency.
The political crisis has paralyzed the capacity of the US to start new wars and negotiate
international agreements. President Trump is facing a serious coup d'état involving
the political-intelligence elite, with the military looking warily on the chaos. The masses are
increasingly polarized or disgusted.
In an attempt to deflect from his domestic problems, President Trump deepened the US
alliance with Saudi Arabia and reiterated threats against Iran. Nevertheless he declined
pressure to move the US embassy to Jerusalem. The inconsistent and ad hoc nature of current US
policy alienates friends and foes – with no redeeming features.
The domestic opposition demands an end of President Trump's diplomatic overtures to Russia.
It uses the fake pretext of Russian interference in the US presidential election to move toward
the president's impeachment.
The US faces a CLANDESTINE CIVIL WAR among its elite!
A financial bubble accompanies the American domestic political crisis. The economic elite,
the banks and stock market have benefited through speculation, despite or because of, the
paralysis among rival political oligarchs!
The emergence of Trump's so-called 'national-capitalist ideology' means a decline
in US multi-lateral agreements, such as NATO, the EU, NAFTA and the Trans-Pacific Trade
Partnership (TPP). This explains Trump's effort to renegotiate bilateral agreements, which have
failed
Trump's stated policy objectives have fallen between two chairs: the multi-lateral
agreements have not been replaced by lucrative bilateral deals. Trump relies on big business
offerings and 'nationalist' ideology to minimize his diplomatic failures and ideological
isolation. Trump wants to win contracts for greater US exports and investment. This has been
weakened by the previous administration's pursuit of economic sanctions and expanding wars, as
well as his feckless propaganda.
The Trump regime is full of contradictions: It threatens to end the nuclear agreement
with Iran but allows Boeing to sell billions of dollars of civilian aircraft to Teheran. It
signs a $300 billion dollar arms sales agreement with Saudi Arabia (business for the for
military industries) while losing political influence in the US, where the Saudis are widely
despised.
At least, Trump does not blather on about humanitarian wars; he would prefer signing
business deals. He mentions the need for 'regime change' in Syria and sending more troops to
Afghanistan but does little to implement these goals.
President Trump is fighting for his own political (and personal) survival and to prevent his
impeachment (via a Congressional coup). His strongest defense would be to strengthen the
domestic economy and show some overseas economic successes.
Essentially, Trump's economic agenda depends on his avoiding politically and militarily
costly wars. That was one of his campaign promises that resonated with the nation's core
electorate.
Trump would like to balkanize Syria, while avoiding new troop commitments to Afghanistan. He
would prefer profitable trade relations with Russia and China and perhaps, Iran, over war.
The impediments to any Trump policy success are massive: Trump's Administration includes
zealous neo-conservative Russophobes and Zionist-Iranophobes. These are militarists who would
provoke eventual armed conflict with Moscow and Teheran. Their current focus is on expanding
the war in Syria, sending more US troops to Afghanistan and forging deeper ties with Israel and
Saudi Arabia.
The current internal political contradictions between the Trump regime and the
'Deep' State apparatus, and between the Trump-allied business elite and the
Zionist-neoconservative warmongers, preclude the development of a consequential Trump foreign
policy.
In the meantime, domestic political warfare and the deepening divisions between the US and
EU will create opportunities for Russia, China and Iran to join together in historic economic
political and alliances, which might help re-balance a world on the brink of 'world war',
economic collapse and environmental disaster.
The divisions among NATO countries undermine the establishment of a united front for greater
imperial wars. The fragmentation of the European Union (Brexit, the collapse of Greece, the
EU-sponsored putsch in Ukraine) lessens its global economic influence. The division between the
US Presidential regime and the Opposition Security State apparatus paralyzes the US push for
new imperial wars.
Divisions and conflicts within the imperial camp presents favorable opportunities for
anti-imperialist countries in the Middle East, like Iran, Syria and Lebanon.
The strategic Russo-Chinese economic alliance may create a new global economy based on
peaceful co-existence and greater economic co-operation.
This essay is dedicated to the memory of the innocent martyrs of the recent brutal terrorist
attacks against the Iranian Parliament and the holy shrine and to honor the brave survivors and
family members of the victims.
Mr. Petras, my hats off to you. This is the most to-the-point, honest assessment of what's
going on I've read in a long time.
My only complaint is the use of the term "Middle East". We should all drop this British
colonial era term and just call it what it is: Southwest Asia. Please don't take that as
being nit-picky and looking for fault (not my intention at all) your article is brilliant.
But we have to start somewhere.
Is it possible that many representatives know quite well what's going on, but have
reasons, their own political survival, to pretend they do not know ?
Senator Hollings just dared to speak the truth shortly before he resigned, in 2004.
With respect to Israel's supposedly assigned role, I beg to differ. The US, like Russia
and Iran, is an assimilative empire, established on the basis of welcoming and incorporating
any group or individual willing to adopt the imperial culture and language. In other words,
these are non-exclusive states.
Israel, on the other hand, is built on rigid and comprehensive racial and religious
exclusiveness. Only Jews can join. Israel is the quintessential nation state, built on an
antiquated, romantic 19th-century idea. The self-defeating and ultimately untenable model of
the nation state was demonstrated unequivocally in 1945, but ignoring historical proof,
Israel resuscitated it in 1948.
Therefore, it would seem to me Israel can never become the dominant force in the Middle
East. Even if it somehow succeeds in attaining this position, it will definitely be of a very
short duration. It is a bit like what Guizot once remarked: you can do anything with a
bayonet, except sit on it.
Could have used a bit of information on the
Rothschilds and other dominant Jewish Banking Family Oligarchs, including their role
in the assassination of John F. Kennedy (the last Constitutional President of the United
States ), on November 22, 1963, in the Coup D'etat in Dallas, (the first successful
Modern Arab Spring ). Could have benefitted by references to the horrors of Vietnam and
Indonesia (1965), 9/11, and the attack on the Liberty, among other dark pages of recent
history, which would have taken a sentence. Could have used a bit of a VISION advocacy
of how to Cure this Zionist imperialist plague so nicely described by Petras. The
Restoration of the Republic, destroyed on November 22, 1963, is the Revolutionary Cure
so ignored by the earnest and not so earnest critics of the Zionist New World Order.
Oh for our own Decembrists!God Bless America! Restore the
Republic!
As USA internal rot accelerates she is becoming increasingly erratic and desperate in her
international policy. It increasingly looks like biten by white shark seal trashing
desperately in the water while life along with blood leaving it's body. Others should keep
their cool and patiently wait.
"2) US imperial policy in the Middle East focuses on encircling, destroying and
dismantling Iran's allies (Syria, Lebanon (Hezbollah), Iraq (Shi'a Militia), Qatar and
Yemen with the intent of overthrowing the government and installing a client regime in
Teheran."
And yet the US destroyed Iran's most useful enemy, Saddam's Iraq. Sometimes I wonder
whether US foreign policy has any guiding intelligence at all. Maybe it consists only of
stupid, reckless flailing.
How many Americans and Europeans realize that all Islamic terrorism in the West is
Sunni and none of it is Shia, and that all the demonization of Iran and Hezbollah is solely
for the benefit of Israel?
Excellent article and analysis, kudos and gratitude
If I were to offer any suggestion, I'd just prefer that the author amend the abbreviation
of the US to the Z US (Zionist occupied US), as all of the things he mentions that the
US is doing, are all in direct contravention of the principles and interests and people of
the actual US, and are, rather, all being done to benefit the most sinister and intractable
enemy of the of the US (and so many others including Iran); the Z US.
The American people have suffered thousands of casualties and its domestic economy is in
permanent crisis with massive unemployment, poverty, recession and stagnation.
Trump's economic agenda depends on his avoiding politically and militarily costly wars.
That was one of his campaign promises that resonated with the nation's core electorate.
I spell out my case for calling it the ZUS here:
(which I invite the moderators to including under a blue 'more' link so as not to clutter
up the comment section)
saying US, by which I do not mean ordinary US people then the rotten elite running the
show.
I sort of know that, but I hope you (and others) can understand why that distinction is
so important to us genuine Americans who're horrified at the conduct of the US government
on the world's stage.
The interests of the US government vs. the people of the US, could not be more
diametrically opposed. They're looting our Treasury and our future to fund eternal wars for
Israel- that do nothing but destroy any kind of long-term hope for this country. They're
creating hatred for the American people that will reverberate over generations. They're
systematically dismantling our sacred codified rights (earned in blood) going all the way
back to the Magna Carta. They assassinate our citizens if they prove inconvenient to the
regime, when they aren't burning them alive at places like Waco or the World Trade Center.
There seems to be nothing too demonic that this government will do to us American citizens
if they suspect that by doing so it will somehow augment their power to dominate us even
more.
Today in America is much like the Russians during the Bolshevik / Soviet regime. Our
government is our most intractable and dangerous enemy on the planet. We Americans have
nothing to fear from Russia or Iran. That's laughable. But we have everything to fear from
Washington DC. The drooling fiend that inhabits those think tanks and J-Street and K-Street
and CFR and PNAC and CIA and all the other acronyms of Satan are our worst enemy on this
planet, just as they threaten and menace the rest of the people of the planet, intending to
use our children as cannon fodder even as they commit endless atrocities and war crimes in
our name.
So I guess my point is just that the interests of the US [zio-government], vs. the
interests of the US people are so wildly at odds, that it would be nice if others could see
this as glaringly as those of us American citizens, watching with horror- as our government
perpetrates monstrous crimes all over the globe, and here at home.
The banking cartels are not run by patriotic American citizens, they're run by our
enemies.
The Pentagon is not run by patriotic American citizens, it's run by our enemies.
the FBI and CIA and DEA and NSA are all operated by the enemies of the American
people.
the media are the most sinister and committed enemy we have. No one hates our guts
more.
the universities are nothing but kosher Marxist indoctrination centers, telling our
young people (among other things) that the "US" liberated the people of Kosovo. (is that
what happened?). They tell our students that our participation in the world wars was
honorable and noble. They tell them that what we are doing in the Middle East today is
honorable and noble. They even are attempting to make any criticism of Israel a crime on
the universities and campuses. Outlawing any expression of support for the BDS movement.
Does that sound like our universities are run by and for Americans?!
there are two entities here in the good ol' US of A. There is the ZUSA, that is an enemy
to all of mankind, including the people of the US. And then there are the people of the US;
represented by those who still cling to quaint notions like the Rule of Law, and our
traditions like freedom of speech and fair play. People like Michael Hastings. People like
Seth Rich. People like Pat Tillman or Ron Paul or all of his supporters. People like the
ones that voted for Obama to end the wars, and who voted for Trump to end the wars. People
like Ken O'keefe, who are Americans to the core, and still represent the spirit of what
being an American was all about, until our nation was hijacked in 1913 for the greater
glory of $atan.
the US goal in former Yugoslavia was primarily a rejuvenation of NATO which has lost
its meaning with the demise of SU. Also, the Demoncrats have a natural propensity to
package their imperialism into "humanitarian" interventions, the Republicans are much
less sleazy – the Republicans just say you are with us or against us, no matter
whether what we do is legal or illegal. Therefore, it was a perfect little war for the
Clintons:
1) breath a new life into NATO,
2) clean up the Southern Europe of any residual Russia and/or socialist influence and
3) do a dress rehearsal for attacking Russia (using NATO).
sounds like a perfectly excellent analysis to me.
I remember how we scrambled at the time to make sense of it. WTF were they up to?!
why were they bombing a nation that had been 'our' ally during WWII, and seemingly so
that some KLA terrorists could lay claim to their ancient and sacred lands? Hard won from
the same Muslim hoards that had drenched Kosovo in Christian, Serbian blood for
centuries.
Some of us figured it was kind of a payback for Palestine. 'Yes, we zio-scum are
ravaging your people in Palestine, but as payback, we'll give you Kosovo!
We even wondered if there wasn't some secret, high-level negotiations going on between
the representatives of Islam and the Zionists. 'OK, what do you want for Palestine?' /
'We'll take Kosovo'.
Then there was general Clarks quote regarding the necessity of bombing Serbia:
"Let's not forget what the origin of the problem is. There is no place in
modern Europe for ethnically pure states. That's a 19th century idea and we are trying to
transition into the 21st century, and we are going to do it with multi-ethnic
states."
- General Wesley Clark
so it's been a conundrum, but your analysis sounds like the best so far.
travelling NGO EcoSystem
yes we see it all over the place. But also please keep in mind that the original NGO
that $ubverted and corrupted is the one that took control of the US. The actions of the
'US' (ZUSA) today are no more a representation of the people of the US, than those in Kyiv
or Kabul represent the typical Ukrainian or Afghan. Washington DC no more represents the
300+ million people here than did the actions of Mubarak represented the Egyptian people,
or Yeltsin represented the Russian people, or Tony Blair represented the people of England.
We have all of us been NGO'd by the Fiend, and none more so than us here in the US, where
they declare from their pulpits that there is 'zero daylight between Israel and the
ZUSA!'
So it stings to read about how this or that benefits the US, when all the benefits are
going to the very same Beast that is drooling its putrid saliva all over US too.
However, in your selfish – sectarian way , you manage to blather on without a
passing referral to comment # 6, directly above, which deals similarly with the same
material,
And Includes: A suggestion #3, for a Cure to the Illness we are discussing. The
Cure, which you in your 'brilliant' analysis, manage to avoid – ignore – or,
suggest your own. Whining is OK, but Curative Change, apparently, is Verboten.
Of Necessity, I repeat : " a VISION advocacy of how to Cure this Zionist
imperialist plague so nicely described by Petras. The Restoration of the Republic, destroyed
on November 22, 1963, is the Revolutionary Cure so ignored by the earnest and not so earnest
critics of the Zionist New World Order ."
Great job Mr James Petras! Excellent summary of the past generation and the possibilities
for near future of the Southwest Asia!
I wished you would have elaborated more about the US and Israeli Zionists pulling the west
particularly the US into the Israel's illegal conflicts in the Southwest Asia! Now and in the
near future the Israelis have more freedom to grab more land freely and without any
challenges!
The US government has fallen for this crap at the expense of the American people! But I
don't blame the Israelis to take advantage of the American government! I do blame however the
American people who don't give damn about what their government is doing abroad as long as
they have a job, place to live, food to eat, beer and pop to drink and a couch to sit on and
watch Foux no news!
Bottom line is that most American people are kept under-educated by design and they
are being fooled and mislead by the ZIOMSM about the rest of the world!
Trump administration has promised to one of many fans of MEK that it has been looking
and will continue to look into ways to change the Iranian regime . One of the ways is to
harness the terrorism that is embodied by MEK.
Let's unpack it. America ,few months back apologized or regretted for destroying the
regime of Mossadegh.
America few months back apologized to Guatemalan for changing the regime ( easily violently )
in 50s.
Is there anything to learn here that gives hope? Absolute power corrupts absolutely .
Next generation might end up repeating 'God forgive America' instead of chanting ad
nauseam – ' God bless America' .
It is nauseating . The even greater tragedy, KA, is that the next generation are being
indoctrinated by the same folks who on one day apologize and on the next day plan/carry out
another regime change, without learning the lessons.
The younger generation is just as corrupt and unthinking as their teachers -- maybe
even more corrupt: for most of the young professionals -- such as a group I met recently --
the primary concern is networking/career building, and if it means acquiescing to regime
change, so be it.
Hey S2 and KA, how about the [regime change] color revolution that's happening here,
with the drive to impeach Trump? Only it's not really regime change, is it. It's the Deep
State (with its useful idiot Pussy Brigade) desperate to maintain status quo.
Some people think I'm a Trump supporter. Well, I support that he's our duly elected
President, and I'm grateful for his disruption (God Bless him for "the system is rigged" and
"fake news"), but I don't like most of his policy, and he abandoned the part I did like. But
it was just so euphoric to dodge Hilmonster bullet.
What's happening now, however, is bigger than persons or parties. The fraudulent
accusations of collusion with Russia, intended to derail this administration, are an attack
on our democracy and an exercise in persuasion and mind-control of our citizenry. This was
underscored for me by a dreadful conversation in church this morning. When I said that I
didn't believe that "17 intelligence agencies" had proved that the Russians interfered
[directly, by hacking, was the point] in our election, my interlocutor was aghast. Unable to
answer in a "Christian" manner, she threw back her head and laughed. It was quite a
Hillaryesque gesture.
What preceded this was my bringing up the collaboration of the DNC, Crowdstrike, and
Ukraine to slander and taint Donald Trump via accusations against Paul Manafort. Rather than
cross-examine me about that or discuss it, she came back with, "How about Trump and the
Russian oligarchs " and "How about Jared Kushner meeting the Russians.." – IN THE
RUSSIAN EMBASSY !!! seemed to be enormously unforgivable in her mind – and a few other
'How abouts.' When none of this impressed me, she was visibly exasperated and went to the '17
agencies,' hoping for a knock-out blow, I guess.
Did all this mean that she considers the DNC malfeasance insignificant? DC, and Bethesda,
where this took place, are overwhelmingly Blue. Around here it's poorly tolerated to defend
Trump, or to criticize his detractors. But I didn't realize it was verboten to expose the
DNC. After all, they already know the DNC and DWS stole the primary from Bernie.
Sadly, I turn to anonymous commenters for solace. Also, I encourage all to see the
significance of the DNC chicanery, of Crowdstrike not allowing the FBI to see the DNC
computers, of Ukraine collaboration. I'm not an unqualified endorser of all Lee Stranahan's
views, but he's doing a terrific job investigating this – and he's the only one who is!
What he doesn't say in this video: the Dems should be careful what they wish for! After Comey
hearing, there will be investigation of Loretta Lynch.
What to look for in establishment reaction to the story about Ukrainian election
interference
I do not agree. Germany (1933-1945) was a nation state carried to its extreme
consequences. Moreover, the fundamental concept of the nation is a romantic fallacy. There is
no reason why people speaking the same language would share the same values. How else do you
think civil wars could come about? Switzerland may be many things, but not a nation state. It
is a federation of wildly different entities (Kantons): most speak a German dialect. some
French, one Italian and one Romance. Some are calvinist. some Roman Catholic, some Lutheran
etc. If language be your yardstick, only two states in Europe qualify as nation states:
Portugal and Iceland. I would agree with Rousseau (a Swiss, by the way): the smaller a state,
the more rights (democratic etc.) the citizens tend to have. And indeed, Iceland is the
freest and most democratic state in Europe, and therefore, also in the world.
This article covers a lot of ground but I would have emphasized more what 's happening
internally in the US.
The US can only operate in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Syria (and try for Iran) because
of Zionist Neo-con dominance of the US government. The public actually voted against ME wars
so it's clear that further wars are illegitimate.
It would have been easier for the Zio-cons if HRC had been elected, but she wasn't, so the
emphasis is now on the face-off between Trump's voters (maybe or maybe not represented by
Trump) and the Zio-con/SJW alliance.
It goes without saying that the Zio-con/SJW alliance and the Deep State aren't Democratic,
so they'll probably make another grab for absolute power since their first Coup attempt
(9/11) failed.
How this works out seems to be the prime determinant of future ME action.
And a suspicious aspect are all the recent MSM "Russia" stories.
9/11 needed MSM preparation with Iraq WMD and Al Qaeda stories, so when the "Event"
happened, the outrage could be pointed in the right direction.
Now it looks like preparation for some Russian "Event" / False Flag – probably this
time with a fabricated "Russian surprise attack" on the US military, aimed at legitimizing a
US Emergency Regime dictatorship run by the Zio/Neo-con crowd.
Iran has transitioned away from terrorism and its harsh rhetoric of the 80′s and
early 90′s and is attempting to claim the mantel of being a stabilizing influence in
the M.E. They are contrasting this to the U.S. who they claim (rather convincingly) are
agents of chaos. The kool-aid drinkers in the U.S. can bray 'terrorist state' all they want
but this only plays in Peoria not to anyone who lives in the M.E. and sees what is actually
happening.
The Qatar situation demonstrates this beautifully, while the KSA was asking Qatar to
become a vassal and making a not so subtle threat of invasion, Iran was emphasizing the right
of free commerce, sovereignty, and dialogue regarding differences.
Is Iran taking over the M.E.? yes, but not in the way that Neocons think, they are gaining
influence by showing restraint.
"... The real answer, however, is both simple and consequential. To wit, the entire prosperity and modus operandi of the Imperial City is based on a panoply of "threats" that are vastly exaggerated or even purely invented; they retain their currency by virtue of endless repetition in the groupthink that passes for analysis. We'd actually put it in the category of cocktail party chatter. ..."
"... The truth is, the US defense budget is hideously oversized for a reason so obvious that it constitutes the ultimate elephant in the room. No matter how you slice it, there just are no real big industrialized, high tech countries in the world which can threaten the American homeland or even have the slightest intention of doing so. ..."
"... That gets us to the bogus Iranian threat. It originated in the early 1990s when the neocon's in the George HW Bush Administration realized that with the cold war's end, the Warfare State was in grave danger of massive demobilization like the US had done after every war until 1945. ..."
"... So among many other invented two-bit threats, the Iranian regime was demonized in order to keep the Imperial City in thrall to its purported national security threat and in support of the vast global armada of military forces, bases and occupations needed to contain it (including the Fifth Fleet in the Persian Gulf and US bases throughout the region). ..."
"... Likewise, what the Imperial City claims to be state sponsored terror is actually nothing more than Iran's foreign policy – something that every sovereign state on the planet is permitted to have. ..."
"... Thus, as the leader of the minority Shiite schism of the Islamic world, Iran has made political and confessional alliances with various Shiite regimes in the region. These include the one that Washington actually installed in Baghdad; the Alawite/Shiite regime in Syria; the largest political party and representative of 40 percent of the population in Lebanon (Hezbollah); and the Houthi/Shiite of Yemen, who historically occupied the northern parts of the country and are now under savage attack by American weapons supplied to Saudi Arabia. ..."
"... In the case of both Syria and Iraq, their respective governments invited Iranian help, which is also their prerogative as sovereign nations. Ironically, it was the Shiite Crescent alliance of Iran/Assad/Hezbollah that bears much of the credit for defeating ISIS on the ground in Mosul, Aleppo, Raqqa, Deir ez-Zor and elsewhere in the now largely defunct Islamic State. ..."
He was right. Russia today is a shadow of what Ronald Reagan called the Evil
Empire. Its GDP of $1.3 trillion is smaller than that of the New York metro area ($1.6
trillion) and only 7 percent of total US GDP.
Moreover, unlike the militarized Soviet economy which devoted upwards of 40 percent of
output to defense, the current Russian defense budget of $60 billion is just 4.5 percent of its
vastly shrunken GDP.
So how in the world did the national security apparatus convince the Donald that we need the
$700 billion defense program for FY 2018 – 12X bigger than Russia's – that he just
signed into law?
What we mean, of course, is how do you explain that – beyond the fact that the Donald
knows virtually nothing about national security policy and history; and, to boot, is surrounded
by generals who have spent a lifetime scouring the earth for enemies and threats to repel and
reasons for more weapons and bigger forces.
The real answer, however, is both simple and consequential. To wit, the entire prosperity
and modus operandi of the Imperial City is based on a panoply of "threats" that are vastly
exaggerated or even purely invented; they retain their currency by virtue of endless repetition
in the groupthink that passes for analysis. We'd actually put it in the category of cocktail
party chatter.
... ... ...
The truth is, the US defense budget is hideously oversized for a reason so obvious that it
constitutes the ultimate elephant in the room. No matter how you slice it, there just are no
real big industrialized, high tech countries in the world which can threaten the American
homeland or even have the slightest intention of doing so.
Indeed, to continue with our historical benchmarks, the American homeland has not been so
immune to foreign military threat since WW II. Yet during all those years of true peril, it
never spent close too the Donald's $700 billion boondoggle.
For instance, during the height of LBJs Vietnam folly (1968) defense spending in today's
dollars was about $400 billion. And even at the top of Reagan's utterly unnecessary military
building up (by the 1980s the Soviet Union was collapsing under the weight of its own socialist
dystopia), total US defense spending was just $550 billion.
That gets us to the bogus Iranian threat. It originated in the early 1990s when the
neocon's in the George HW Bush Administration realized that with the cold war's end, the
Warfare State was in grave danger of massive demobilization like the US had done after every
war until 1945.
So among many other invented two-bit threats, the Iranian regime was demonized in order
to keep the Imperial City in thrall to its purported national security threat and in support of
the vast global armada of military forces, bases and occupations needed to contain it
(including the Fifth Fleet in the Persian Gulf and US bases throughout the region).
The truth, however, is that according to the 2008 NIE ( National Intelligence Estimates) of
the nation's 17 intelligence agency, the Iranian's never had a serious nuclear weapons program,
and the small research effort that they did have was disbanded by orders of the Ayatollah
Khamenei in 2003.
Likewise, what the Imperial City claims to be state sponsored terror is actually nothing
more than Iran's foreign policy – something that every sovereign state on the planet is
permitted to have.
Thus, as the leader of the minority Shiite schism of the Islamic world, Iran has made
political and confessional alliances with various Shiite regimes in the region. These include
the one that Washington actually installed in Baghdad; the Alawite/Shiite regime in Syria; the
largest political party and representative of 40 percent of the population in Lebanon
(Hezbollah); and the Houthi/Shiite of Yemen, who historically occupied the northern parts of
the country and are now under savage attack by American weapons supplied to Saudi
Arabia.
In the case of both Syria and Iraq, their respective governments invited Iranian help,
which is also their prerogative as sovereign nations. Ironically, it was the Shiite Crescent
alliance of Iran/Assad/Hezbollah that bears much of the credit for defeating ISIS on the ground
in Mosul, Aleppo, Raqqa, Deir ez-Zor and elsewhere in the now largely defunct Islamic
State.
In tomorrow's installment we will address the details of the Iran nuke agreement and why the
Donald is making a horrible mistake in proposing to decertify it. But there should be no doubt
about the consequence: It will reinforce the neocon dominance of the Republican party and
insure that the nation's $1 trillion Warfare State remains fully entrenched.
Needless to say, that will also insure that the America's gathering fiscal crisis will turn
into an outright Fiscal Calamity in the years just ahead.
David Stockman has agreed to send every Antiwar.com reader a free copy of his newest
book, Trumped! when you take his special Contra Corner offer. Click here now for the
details.
You can't analyze the USA foreign policy toward Iran without analyzing the needs of the US
led neoliberal empire... Interests of Israel are secondary to the interests of empire.
Notable quotes:
"... 'salami tactics' ..."
"... "color revolution" ..."
"... 'terrorist state' ..."
"... 'responsibility to protect (R2P) ..."
"... Iran responded by developing economic, technical and military agreements with Russia and China in order to counter the US-Israeli-Saudi threats and sanctions. Russia provides advanced defensive weapons systems. China signs large-scale, long-term trade agreements while including Iran in its huge Central Asian infrastructure projects. Most importantly, Iran has succeeded in defending the legitimate government of Syria, while aiding Iraq and Yemen. ..."
"... President Trump is facing a serious coup d'état involving the political-intelligence elite, with the military looking warily on the chaos. The masses are increasingly polarized or disgusted. ..."
"... 'national-capitalist ideology' ..."
"... The Trump regime is full of contradictions: It threatens to end the nuclear agreement with Iran but allows Boeing to sell billions of dollars of civilian aircraft to Teheran. It signs a $300 billion dollar arms sales agreement with Saudi Arabia (business for the for military industries) while losing political influence in the US, where the Saudis are widely despised. ..."
"... And yet the US destroyed Iran's most useful enemy, Saddam's Iraq. Sometimes I wonder whether US foreign policy has any guiding intelligence at all. Maybe it consists only of stupid, reckless flailing. ..."
"... How many Americans and Europeans realize that all Islamic terrorism in the West is Sunni and none of it is Shia, and that all the demonization of Iran and Hezbollah is solely for the benefit of Israel? ..."
"... Bottom line is that most American people are kept under-educated by design and they are being fooled and mislead by the ZIOMSM about the rest of the world! ..."
"... Trump administration has promised to one of many fans of MEK that it has been looking and will continue to look into ways to change the Iranian regime . One of the ways is to harness the terrorism that is embodied by MEK. ..."
"... Next generation might end up repeating 'God forgive America' instead of chanting ad nauseam – ' God bless America' . ..."
"... The younger generation is just as corrupt and unthinking as their teachers -- maybe even more corrupt: for most of the young professionals -- such as a group I met recently -- the primary concern is networking/career building, and if it means acquiescing to regime change, so be it. ..."
"... Hey S2 and KA, how about the [regime change] color revolution that's happening here, with the drive to impeach Trump? Only it's not really regime change, is it. It's the Deep State (with its useful idiot Pussy Brigade) desperate to maintain status quo. ..."
"... Some people think I'm a Trump supporter. Well, I support that he's our duly elected President, and I'm grateful for his disruption (God Bless him for "the system is rigged" and "fake news"), but I don't like most of his policy, and he abandoned the part I did like. But it was just so euphoric to dodge Hilmonster bullet. ..."
"... What's happening now, however, is bigger than persons or parties. The fraudulent accusations of collusion with Russia, intended to derail this administration, are an attack on our democracy and an exercise in persuasion and mind-control of our citizenry. This was underscored for me by a dreadful conversation in church this morning. When I said that I didn't believe that "17 intelligence agencies" had proved that the Russians interfered [directly, by hacking, was the point] in our election, my interlocutor was aghast. Unable to answer in a "Christian" manner, she threw back her head and laughed. It was quite a Hillaryesque gesture. ..."
"... What preceded this was my bringing up the collaboration of the DNC, Crowdstrike, and Ukraine to slander and taint Donald Trump via accusations against Paul Manafort. Rather than cross-examine me about that or discuss it, she came back with, "How about Trump and the Russian oligarchs " and "How about Jared Kushner meeting the Russians.." – IN THE RUSSIAN EMBASSY !!! seemed to be enormously unforgivable in her mind – and a few other 'How abouts.' When none of this impressed me, she was visibly exasperated and went to the '17 agencies,' hoping for a knock-out blow, I guess. ..."
"... Sadly, I turn to anonymous commenters for solace. Also, I encourage all to see the significance of the DNC chicanery, of Crowdstrike not allowing the FBI to see the DNC computers, of Ukraine collaboration. I'm not an unqualified endorser of all Lee Stranahan's views, but he's doing a terrific job investigating this – and he's the only one who is! What he doesn't say in this video: the Dems should be careful what they wish for! After Comey hearing, there will be investigation of Loretta Lynch. ..."
"... The US can only operate in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Syria (and try for Iran) because of Zionist Neo-con dominance of the US government. The public actually voted against ME wars so it's clear that further wars are illegitimate. ..."
US policy in the Middle East and South Asia is shaped by several basic considerations:
US
Imperialism is the force of global domination US imperial policy in the Middle East focuses on
encircling, destroying and dismantling Iran's allies (Syria, Lebanon (Hezbollah), Iraq (Shi'a
Militia), Qatar and Yemen with the intent of overthrowing the government and installing a
client regime in Teheran. The return of Iran to the status of puppet regime will advance
Washington's ultimate goal of encircling and isolating Russia and China. The US overthrow of
the Islamic Republic of Iran will facilitate Israel's final seizure of Palestine, including
Jerusalem, and establish Tel Aviv as the dominant regional power in the Middle East.
Washington's 'Two Track' Policy for Domination
US strategic planners rely on a two-track policy , combining and blending military and
ideological weapons.
Its military strategy relies on slicing up the Middle East - 'salami tactics'
– invading and conquering of each and every country and government, which shares the
Islamic Republic of Iran's policy of national sovereignty and independence. US military
success or failure depends on its alliances in the Middle East, North Africa and Europe. The
US, Saudi Arabia and Israel all sponsor terrorist groups which have attacked Iran's
scientists, its elected representatives and military leaders, as well as its sacred sites
– inside Iran as well as abroad. The political and ideological strategy involves the
penetration and organization of domestic forces to destabilize and weaken Iran's internal
security, defense capability and overseas alliances. Ideological warfare involves: (1)
exploiting regional, ethnic, class and religious differences to undermine stability and
fragment the country; and (2) converting legitimate social critics and political opposition
parties into imperial collaborators.
Ideological attacks are designed to attract Iranian writers, academics, intellectuals and
artists who choose to ignore the history of US imperialism in fomenting bloody coups (Mossadegh
1954), launching proxy wars via Saddam Hussain's invasion (1980- 88) and the terrorist attacks
by Israel and Saudi Arabia, as well as the terrorists backed by Iraq's former dictator.
US propaganda intervention in Iran's electoral process has been designed to promote a
so-called "color revolution" regime change favored by neo-liberal, pro-West parties
and candidates who seek US sponsorship in their ascent to power. The imperial collaborators and
various Western 'human rights' NGOs hide the sordid history of Washington's overt and proxy
wars/coups and occupations in Syria, Iraq, Ukraine, Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen, Libya and
Palestine.
Modern imperialist policies include:
diplomatic and cyber warfare against Iran's defense and security systems; economic sanctions
and the assassination of highly skilled scientists and engineers to undermine economic
growth; political propaganda labeling Iran a 'terrorist state' in order to
intimidate and weaken overseas and domestic allies; and the financing and arming of
terrorists from Europe, the Middle East and North Africa to attack the Islamic Republic.
Linguistic and Conceptual Perversions
Imperial warfare depends on perverting political language and concepts. The US refers to
invasion, which have killed and maimed millions of Muslims and Christians in Iraq (2003-2017)
and Syria (2011-2017) as 'humanitarian interventions'. In reality its policy described an
ongoing 'holocaust' – the massive genocidal violation of the human rights of scores of
millions of people to sovereignty, peace and security of home, life, limb, culture and
faith.
The millions of victims of the West's current holocaust in the Middle East reject and scorn
Washington's imperialist claim of defending 'democratic values' and its so-called
'responsibility to protect (R2P) ' as pronounced by a series of US Administrations
through their mouthpieces in the United Nations.
In contrast, US support for the Saudi monarch's brutal bombing and blockade of Yemen has led
to an entire population facing starvation and a massive, cholera epidemic, which now threatens
over 26 million Yeminis. The campaign against Yemen by the brutal Saudis and their US-EU allies
is the very definition of crimes against humanity and international law.
Sanctions: A Tool of Conquest
US sanctions against Iraq, Syria, Iran and Yemen have been designed to starve working people
into submission while capturing the support of some middle class consumers. US policy of
invading Libya and brutally murdering President Gadhafi and his family members was designed to
systematically destroy a prosperous, independent republic and turn it into a backward,
impoverished fiefdom of tribal warlords, exploited by Western oil companies. Saudi Arabia
joined the European Union in financing terrorists, many trained in the destroyed remnants of
Libya, who later killed innocent civilians in Paris, Nice, London, Manchester and other parts
of Europe.
The strategic goal of the US invasion of Iraq, Syria and Yemen has been to violently divide
these independent republics and turn them into ethnically cleansed, impoverished, mini-states
– in the imperial tradition of 'divide and conquer'. Such tribal fiefdoms are easily
dominated by imperial powers.
Regional and Global Strategy
Washington's imperial strategists have arrived at the conclusion that they cannot conquer
independent states, like Iran, in a single attack, given its size, defense capability, internal
cohesion and regional alliances.
Their strategy is to surround Iran by destroying its allies, one nation at a time.
The first phase of the US invasion, occupation and systematic destruction of Iraq and its
entire governmental infrastructure was designed to overthrow the Baathist state, then
neutralize the Shi'a militia and impose a servile client regime in Baghdad. The second step was
to encourage Sunni tribal warlords to seize control of central Iraq. The third step was to arm
the Kurds to form a mini-state in northern Iraq (so-called "Kurdistan"). This would entail
large-scale ethnic cleansing, the total destruction of Iraq's ancient Christian community, the
extermination of its multiethnic modern educated, scientific, cultural and technocratic work
force. In other words, the US strategy was to obliterate any remnant of the Iraqi Republic in
its war to 'remake the Middle East'.
After Iraq and Libya, the next target for US-EU aggression has been the government of the
Syrian Arab Republic, Iran's ally. The EU, USA, Saudi Arabia and Turkey sponsored an invasion
by mercenary Salafi forces under a network of Daesh-ISIS-al Queda terrorists. Israel, Turkey,
Saudi Arabia and the Emirates have provided military, logistical and financial support to the
terrorists.
After Syria, the fourth target of Anglo-American-Saudi-Israeli military strategy would be to
undermine the national sovereignty of Lebanon and destroy the armed political Hezbollah Party,
the powerful Lebanese resistance organization (allied with Iran). It was consistent with this
strategy for the West to support Israel's brutal air and ground attacks against the civilian
population and infrastructure of Beirut, Lebanese port cities and villages. Tens of thousands
of Lebanese Christians were not spared the Israeli terror bombing campaign.
If a Lebanese campaign were successful and Hezbollah was destroyed, the 'final'
Israeli conquest of Palestine, the fifth objective, could commence: US and world Zionism would
unconditionally celebrate Israel's massive ethnic purge of Palestine's native peoples and
finish off the total confiscation of the homes, mosques, churches, land and resources of
millions of Muslim and Christian Palestinians and other peoples. This would create history's
first 'pure Jewish' state.
The sixth imperial objective would be to disarm Iran's military and security structure and
weaken its economy in order to isolate the Islamic Republic and undermine its Middle Eastern
alliances. This strategic objective explains why Washington promotes its one-sided nuclear arms
agreement with Iran, while the nuclear-armed Israel is excluded! Despite Iran's abiding by the
terms of the agreement, there have been no reciprocal lifting of economic sanctions or the
normalization of trade and diplomatic relations.
Beyond Iran, the global strategy would be to weaken, encircle and isolate the US's big power
rivals, China and Russia and re-establish the US as the uncontested world imperial power.
Iran Counters the US Global Military Threat
Iran responded by developing economic, technical and military agreements with Russia and
China in order to counter the US-Israeli-Saudi threats and sanctions. Russia provides advanced
defensive weapons systems. China signs large-scale, long-term trade agreements while including
Iran in its huge Central Asian infrastructure projects. Most importantly, Iran has succeeded in
defending the legitimate government of Syria, while aiding Iraq and Yemen.
Iran undermined official US sanctions by signing multi-billion dollar agreements with the
giant Boeing Corporation for the purchase of passenger airplanes as well as developing further
agreements with US banks and agro-business exporters and oil companies. These profitable
agreements with the US agro-business export sector can weaken the Pentagon-Zionist
sanctions.
Iran has the diplomatic support of the Non-Aligned Movement opposing Israeli-US Zionist
military threats.
Iran's principled opposition to Saudi Arabia's massive arms purchases, as well as the
Kingdom's vicious alliance with Israel and its genocidal assault against the Yemeni people, has
gained the support of world public opinion – especially the masses of independent Muslims
throughout the world.
Iran's educational, scientific, military and political-electoral advances provide the basis
for national security, economic growth, cultural enrichment, international alliances and the
deepening of social democracy for its people. It provides an alternative independent vision for
many millions of Muslims living under harsh monarchies, military dictators and imperial
oppression.
Conclusion
Since the US and its allies launched their 'hot war' by surrounding, threatening and
destabilizing Iran, Washington's strategy has suffered serious military defeats and political
retreats. Iraq is no longer encircled by the US. Shia-based militias have regional control,
especially south of Baghdad and beyond. Syria, Iran's ally, has fought hard to finally liberate
many towns, cities and territory taken by the terrorist mercenaries despite the
EU-US-Saudi-Israel's initial advances.
Rival rebel forces and mercenary gangsters besiege the US puppet governments in Libya,
Somalia and South Sudan. The classic CIA term, 'blowback', means these terrorists are now
turning their guns on the West. Washington has lost control of Afghanistan. Over a third of the
Afghan military and police recruits defect to the resistance fighters. The central 'government'
in Kabul influences less than a quarter of the country
Despite spending trillions of dollars on wars and propaganda over the past two decades, US
military strategy to encircle and conquer Iran has been a military, diplomatic and economic
failure. The American people have suffered thousands of casualties and its domestic economy is
in permanent crisis with massive unemployment, poverty, recession and stagnation.
Despite US congressional, Presidential and Pentagon support for Israel's Jewish colonization
of Palestine, more countries, trade unions and social movements, around the world, support the
boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israel than ever before. Manu are
speaking up despite government threats to outlaw 'criticism of Israel' as a 'hate crime'.
The turmoil and deep political divisions in the United States between the oligarchs allied
to President Trump and the opposition oligarchs have created a profound institutional crisis,
which has undermined domestic governance and disrupted US global alliances, US-EU relations and
US-Asian trade links.
Despite the bizarre and often theatrical presentation by the US mass media, the American
Congress and President Trump are fighting over fundamental issues, including control of the
national security agencies (CIA, NSA, FBI, Homeland Security, etc.), foreign and military
policy, the economy and environmental agenda, the federal budget, judiciary and the
Presidency.
The political crisis has paralyzed the capacity of the US to start new wars and negotiate
international agreements. President Trump is facing a serious coup d'état involving
the political-intelligence elite, with the military looking warily on the chaos. The masses are
increasingly polarized or disgusted.
In an attempt to deflect from his domestic problems, President Trump deepened the US
alliance with Saudi Arabia and reiterated threats against Iran. Nevertheless he declined
pressure to move the US embassy to Jerusalem. The inconsistent and ad hoc nature of current US
policy alienates friends and foes – with no redeeming features.
The domestic opposition demands an end of President Trump's diplomatic overtures to Russia.
It uses the fake pretext of Russian interference in the US presidential election to move toward
the president's impeachment.
The US faces a CLANDESTINE CIVIL WAR among its elite!
A financial bubble accompanies the American domestic political crisis. The economic elite,
the banks and stock market have benefited through speculation, despite or because of, the
paralysis among rival political oligarchs!
The emergence of Trump's so-called 'national-capitalist ideology' means a decline
in US multi-lateral agreements, such as NATO, the EU, NAFTA and the Trans-Pacific Trade
Partnership (TPP). This explains Trump's effort to renegotiate bilateral agreements, which have
failed
Trump's stated policy objectives have fallen between two chairs: the multi-lateral
agreements have not been replaced by lucrative bilateral deals. Trump relies on big business
offerings and 'nationalist' ideology to minimize his diplomatic failures and ideological
isolation. Trump wants to win contracts for greater US exports and investment. This has been
weakened by the previous administration's pursuit of economic sanctions and expanding wars, as
well as his feckless propaganda.
The Trump regime is full of contradictions: It threatens to end the nuclear agreement
with Iran but allows Boeing to sell billions of dollars of civilian aircraft to Teheran. It
signs a $300 billion dollar arms sales agreement with Saudi Arabia (business for the for
military industries) while losing political influence in the US, where the Saudis are widely
despised.
At least, Trump does not blather on about humanitarian wars; he would prefer signing
business deals. He mentions the need for 'regime change' in Syria and sending more troops to
Afghanistan but does little to implement these goals.
President Trump is fighting for his own political (and personal) survival and to prevent his
impeachment (via a Congressional coup). His strongest defense would be to strengthen the
domestic economy and show some overseas economic successes.
Essentially, Trump's economic agenda depends on his avoiding politically and militarily
costly wars. That was one of his campaign promises that resonated with the nation's core
electorate.
Trump would like to balkanize Syria, while avoiding new troop commitments to Afghanistan. He
would prefer profitable trade relations with Russia and China and perhaps, Iran, over war.
The impediments to any Trump policy success are massive: Trump's Administration includes
zealous neo-conservative Russophobes and Zionist-Iranophobes. These are militarists who would
provoke eventual armed conflict with Moscow and Teheran. Their current focus is on expanding
the war in Syria, sending more US troops to Afghanistan and forging deeper ties with Israel and
Saudi Arabia.
The current internal political contradictions between the Trump regime and the
'Deep' State apparatus, and between the Trump-allied business elite and the
Zionist-neoconservative warmongers, preclude the development of a consequential Trump foreign
policy.
In the meantime, domestic political warfare and the deepening divisions between the US and
EU will create opportunities for Russia, China and Iran to join together in historic economic
political and alliances, which might help re-balance a world on the brink of 'world war',
economic collapse and environmental disaster.
The divisions among NATO countries undermine the establishment of a united front for greater
imperial wars. The fragmentation of the European Union (Brexit, the collapse of Greece, the
EU-sponsored putsch in Ukraine) lessens its global economic influence. The division between the
US Presidential regime and the Opposition Security State apparatus paralyzes the US push for
new imperial wars.
Divisions and conflicts within the imperial camp presents favorable opportunities for
anti-imperialist countries in the Middle East, like Iran, Syria and Lebanon.
The strategic Russo-Chinese economic alliance may create a new global economy based on
peaceful co-existence and greater economic co-operation.
This essay is dedicated to the memory of the innocent martyrs of the recent brutal terrorist
attacks against the Iranian Parliament and the holy shrine and to honor the brave survivors and
family members of the victims.
Mr. Petras, my hats off to you. This is the most to-the-point, honest assessment of what's
going on I've read in a long time.
My only complaint is the use of the term "Middle East". We should all drop this British
colonial era term and just call it what it is: Southwest Asia. Please don't take that as
being nit-picky and looking for fault (not my intention at all) your article is brilliant.
But we have to start somewhere.
Is it possible that many representatives know quite well what's going on, but have
reasons, their own political survival, to pretend they do not know ?
Senator Hollings just dared to speak the truth shortly before he resigned, in 2004.
With respect to Israel's supposedly assigned role, I beg to differ. The US, like Russia
and Iran, is an assimilative empire, established on the basis of welcoming and incorporating
any group or individual willing to adopt the imperial culture and language. In other words,
these are non-exclusive states.
Israel, on the other hand, is built on rigid and comprehensive racial and religious
exclusiveness. Only Jews can join. Israel is the quintessential nation state, built on an
antiquated, romantic 19th-century idea. The self-defeating and ultimately untenable model of
the nation state was demonstrated unequivocally in 1945, but ignoring historical proof,
Israel resuscitated it in 1948.
Therefore, it would seem to me Israel can never become the dominant force in the Middle
East. Even if it somehow succeeds in attaining this position, it will definitely be of a very
short duration. It is a bit like what Guizot once remarked: you can do anything with a
bayonet, except sit on it.
Could have used a bit of information on the
Rothschilds and other dominant Jewish Banking Family Oligarchs, including their role
in the assassination of John F. Kennedy (the last Constitutional President of the United
States ), on November 22, 1963, in the Coup D'etat in Dallas, (the first successful
Modern Arab Spring ). Could have benefitted by references to the horrors of Vietnam and
Indonesia (1965), 9/11, and the attack on the Liberty, among other dark pages of recent
history, which would have taken a sentence. Could have used a bit of a VISION advocacy
of how to Cure this Zionist imperialist plague so nicely described by Petras. The
Restoration of the Republic, destroyed on November 22, 1963, is the Revolutionary Cure
so ignored by the earnest and not so earnest critics of the Zionist New World Order.
Oh for our own Decembrists!God Bless America! Restore the
Republic!
As USA internal rot accelerates she is becoming increasingly erratic and desperate in her
international policy. It increasingly looks like biten by white shark seal trashing
desperately in the water while life along with blood leaving it's body. Others should keep
their cool and patiently wait.
"2) US imperial policy in the Middle East focuses on encircling, destroying and
dismantling Iran's allies (Syria, Lebanon (Hezbollah), Iraq (Shi'a Militia), Qatar and
Yemen with the intent of overthrowing the government and installing a client regime in
Teheran."
And yet the US destroyed Iran's most useful enemy, Saddam's Iraq. Sometimes I wonder
whether US foreign policy has any guiding intelligence at all. Maybe it consists only of
stupid, reckless flailing.
How many Americans and Europeans realize that all Islamic terrorism in the West is
Sunni and none of it is Shia, and that all the demonization of Iran and Hezbollah is solely
for the benefit of Israel?
Excellent article and analysis, kudos and gratitude
If I were to offer any suggestion, I'd just prefer that the author amend the abbreviation
of the US to the Z US (Zionist occupied US), as all of the things he mentions that the
US is doing, are all in direct contravention of the principles and interests and people of
the actual US, and are, rather, all being done to benefit the most sinister and intractable
enemy of the of the US (and so many others including Iran); the Z US.
The American people have suffered thousands of casualties and its domestic economy is in
permanent crisis with massive unemployment, poverty, recession and stagnation.
Trump's economic agenda depends on his avoiding politically and militarily costly wars.
That was one of his campaign promises that resonated with the nation's core electorate.
I spell out my case for calling it the ZUS here:
(which I invite the moderators to including under a blue 'more' link so as not to clutter
up the comment section)
saying US, by which I do not mean ordinary US people then the rotten elite running the
show.
I sort of know that, but I hope you (and others) can understand why that distinction is
so important to us genuine Americans who're horrified at the conduct of the US government
on the world's stage.
The interests of the US government vs. the people of the US, could not be more
diametrically opposed. They're looting our Treasury and our future to fund eternal wars for
Israel- that do nothing but destroy any kind of long-term hope for this country. They're
creating hatred for the American people that will reverberate over generations. They're
systematically dismantling our sacred codified rights (earned in blood) going all the way
back to the Magna Carta. They assassinate our citizens if they prove inconvenient to the
regime, when they aren't burning them alive at places like Waco or the World Trade Center.
There seems to be nothing too demonic that this government will do to us American citizens
if they suspect that by doing so it will somehow augment their power to dominate us even
more.
Today in America is much like the Russians during the Bolshevik / Soviet regime. Our
government is our most intractable and dangerous enemy on the planet. We Americans have
nothing to fear from Russia or Iran. That's laughable. But we have everything to fear from
Washington DC. The drooling fiend that inhabits those think tanks and J-Street and K-Street
and CFR and PNAC and CIA and all the other acronyms of Satan are our worst enemy on this
planet, just as they threaten and menace the rest of the people of the planet, intending to
use our children as cannon fodder even as they commit endless atrocities and war crimes in
our name.
So I guess my point is just that the interests of the US [zio-government], vs. the
interests of the US people are so wildly at odds, that it would be nice if others could see
this as glaringly as those of us American citizens, watching with horror- as our government
perpetrates monstrous crimes all over the globe, and here at home.
The banking cartels are not run by patriotic American citizens, they're run by our
enemies.
The Pentagon is not run by patriotic American citizens, it's run by our enemies.
the FBI and CIA and DEA and NSA are all operated by the enemies of the American
people.
the media are the most sinister and committed enemy we have. No one hates our guts
more.
the universities are nothing but kosher Marxist indoctrination centers, telling our
young people (among other things) that the "US" liberated the people of Kosovo. (is that
what happened?). They tell our students that our participation in the world wars was
honorable and noble. They tell them that what we are doing in the Middle East today is
honorable and noble. They even are attempting to make any criticism of Israel a crime on
the universities and campuses. Outlawing any expression of support for the BDS movement.
Does that sound like our universities are run by and for Americans?!
there are two entities here in the good ol' US of A. There is the ZUSA, that is an enemy
to all of mankind, including the people of the US. And then there are the people of the US;
represented by those who still cling to quaint notions like the Rule of Law, and our
traditions like freedom of speech and fair play. People like Michael Hastings. People like
Seth Rich. People like Pat Tillman or Ron Paul or all of his supporters. People like the
ones that voted for Obama to end the wars, and who voted for Trump to end the wars. People
like Ken O'keefe, who are Americans to the core, and still represent the spirit of what
being an American was all about, until our nation was hijacked in 1913 for the greater
glory of $atan.
the US goal in former Yugoslavia was primarily a rejuvenation of NATO which has lost
its meaning with the demise of SU. Also, the Demoncrats have a natural propensity to
package their imperialism into "humanitarian" interventions, the Republicans are much
less sleazy – the Republicans just say you are with us or against us, no matter
whether what we do is legal or illegal. Therefore, it was a perfect little war for the
Clintons:
1) breath a new life into NATO,
2) clean up the Southern Europe of any residual Russia and/or socialist influence and
3) do a dress rehearsal for attacking Russia (using NATO).
sounds like a perfectly excellent analysis to me.
I remember how we scrambled at the time to make sense of it. WTF were they up to?!
why were they bombing a nation that had been 'our' ally during WWII, and seemingly so
that some KLA terrorists could lay claim to their ancient and sacred lands? Hard won from
the same Muslim hoards that had drenched Kosovo in Christian, Serbian blood for
centuries.
Some of us figured it was kind of a payback for Palestine. 'Yes, we zio-scum are
ravaging your people in Palestine, but as payback, we'll give you Kosovo!
We even wondered if there wasn't some secret, high-level negotiations going on between
the representatives of Islam and the Zionists. 'OK, what do you want for Palestine?' /
'We'll take Kosovo'.
Then there was general Clarks quote regarding the necessity of bombing Serbia:
"Let's not forget what the origin of the problem is. There is no place in
modern Europe for ethnically pure states. That's a 19th century idea and we are trying to
transition into the 21st century, and we are going to do it with multi-ethnic
states."
- General Wesley Clark
so it's been a conundrum, but your analysis sounds like the best so far.
travelling NGO EcoSystem
yes we see it all over the place. But also please keep in mind that the original NGO
that $ubverted and corrupted is the one that took control of the US. The actions of the
'US' (ZUSA) today are no more a representation of the people of the US, than those in Kyiv
or Kabul represent the typical Ukrainian or Afghan. Washington DC no more represents the
300+ million people here than did the actions of Mubarak represented the Egyptian people,
or Yeltsin represented the Russian people, or Tony Blair represented the people of England.
We have all of us been NGO'd by the Fiend, and none more so than us here in the US, where
they declare from their pulpits that there is 'zero daylight between Israel and the
ZUSA!'
So it stings to read about how this or that benefits the US, when all the benefits are
going to the very same Beast that is drooling its putrid saliva all over US too.
However, in your selfish – sectarian way , you manage to blather on without a
passing referral to comment # 6, directly above, which deals similarly with the same
material,
And Includes: A suggestion #3, for a Cure to the Illness we are discussing. The
Cure, which you in your 'brilliant' analysis, manage to avoid – ignore – or,
suggest your own. Whining is OK, but Curative Change, apparently, is Verboten.
Of Necessity, I repeat : " a VISION advocacy of how to Cure this Zionist
imperialist plague so nicely described by Petras. The Restoration of the Republic, destroyed
on November 22, 1963, is the Revolutionary Cure so ignored by the earnest and not so earnest
critics of the Zionist New World Order ."
Great job Mr James Petras! Excellent summary of the past generation and the possibilities
for near future of the Southwest Asia!
I wished you would have elaborated more about the US and Israeli Zionists pulling the west
particularly the US into the Israel's illegal conflicts in the Southwest Asia! Now and in the
near future the Israelis have more freedom to grab more land freely and without any
challenges!
The US government has fallen for this crap at the expense of the American people! But I
don't blame the Israelis to take advantage of the American government! I do blame however the
American people who don't give damn about what their government is doing abroad as long as
they have a job, place to live, food to eat, beer and pop to drink and a couch to sit on and
watch Foux no news!
Bottom line is that most American people are kept under-educated by design and they
are being fooled and mislead by the ZIOMSM about the rest of the world!
Trump administration has promised to one of many fans of MEK that it has been looking
and will continue to look into ways to change the Iranian regime . One of the ways is to
harness the terrorism that is embodied by MEK.
Let's unpack it. America ,few months back apologized or regretted for destroying the
regime of Mossadegh.
America few months back apologized to Guatemalan for changing the regime ( easily violently )
in 50s.
Is there anything to learn here that gives hope? Absolute power corrupts absolutely .
Next generation might end up repeating 'God forgive America' instead of chanting ad
nauseam – ' God bless America' .
It is nauseating . The even greater tragedy, KA, is that the next generation are being
indoctrinated by the same folks who on one day apologize and on the next day plan/carry out
another regime change, without learning the lessons.
The younger generation is just as corrupt and unthinking as their teachers -- maybe
even more corrupt: for most of the young professionals -- such as a group I met recently --
the primary concern is networking/career building, and if it means acquiescing to regime
change, so be it.
Hey S2 and KA, how about the [regime change] color revolution that's happening here,
with the drive to impeach Trump? Only it's not really regime change, is it. It's the Deep
State (with its useful idiot Pussy Brigade) desperate to maintain status quo.
Some people think I'm a Trump supporter. Well, I support that he's our duly elected
President, and I'm grateful for his disruption (God Bless him for "the system is rigged" and
"fake news"), but I don't like most of his policy, and he abandoned the part I did like. But
it was just so euphoric to dodge Hilmonster bullet.
What's happening now, however, is bigger than persons or parties. The fraudulent
accusations of collusion with Russia, intended to derail this administration, are an attack
on our democracy and an exercise in persuasion and mind-control of our citizenry. This was
underscored for me by a dreadful conversation in church this morning. When I said that I
didn't believe that "17 intelligence agencies" had proved that the Russians interfered
[directly, by hacking, was the point] in our election, my interlocutor was aghast. Unable to
answer in a "Christian" manner, she threw back her head and laughed. It was quite a
Hillaryesque gesture.
What preceded this was my bringing up the collaboration of the DNC, Crowdstrike, and
Ukraine to slander and taint Donald Trump via accusations against Paul Manafort. Rather than
cross-examine me about that or discuss it, she came back with, "How about Trump and the
Russian oligarchs " and "How about Jared Kushner meeting the Russians.." – IN THE
RUSSIAN EMBASSY !!! seemed to be enormously unforgivable in her mind – and a few other
'How abouts.' When none of this impressed me, she was visibly exasperated and went to the '17
agencies,' hoping for a knock-out blow, I guess.
Did all this mean that she considers the DNC malfeasance insignificant? DC, and Bethesda,
where this took place, are overwhelmingly Blue. Around here it's poorly tolerated to defend
Trump, or to criticize his detractors. But I didn't realize it was verboten to expose the
DNC. After all, they already know the DNC and DWS stole the primary from Bernie.
Sadly, I turn to anonymous commenters for solace. Also, I encourage all to see the
significance of the DNC chicanery, of Crowdstrike not allowing the FBI to see the DNC
computers, of Ukraine collaboration. I'm not an unqualified endorser of all Lee Stranahan's
views, but he's doing a terrific job investigating this – and he's the only one who is!
What he doesn't say in this video: the Dems should be careful what they wish for! After Comey
hearing, there will be investigation of Loretta Lynch.
What to look for in establishment reaction to the story about Ukrainian election
interference
I do not agree. Germany (1933-1945) was a nation state carried to its extreme
consequences. Moreover, the fundamental concept of the nation is a romantic fallacy. There is
no reason why people speaking the same language would share the same values. How else do you
think civil wars could come about? Switzerland may be many things, but not a nation state. It
is a federation of wildly different entities (Kantons): most speak a German dialect. some
French, one Italian and one Romance. Some are calvinist. some Roman Catholic, some Lutheran
etc. If language be your yardstick, only two states in Europe qualify as nation states:
Portugal and Iceland. I would agree with Rousseau (a Swiss, by the way): the smaller a state,
the more rights (democratic etc.) the citizens tend to have. And indeed, Iceland is the
freest and most democratic state in Europe, and therefore, also in the world.
This article covers a lot of ground but I would have emphasized more what 's happening
internally in the US.
The US can only operate in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Syria (and try for Iran) because
of Zionist Neo-con dominance of the US government. The public actually voted against ME wars
so it's clear that further wars are illegitimate.
It would have been easier for the Zio-cons if HRC had been elected, but she wasn't, so the
emphasis is now on the face-off between Trump's voters (maybe or maybe not represented by
Trump) and the Zio-con/SJW alliance.
It goes without saying that the Zio-con/SJW alliance and the Deep State aren't Democratic,
so they'll probably make another grab for absolute power since their first Coup attempt
(9/11) failed.
How this works out seems to be the prime determinant of future ME action.
And a suspicious aspect are all the recent MSM "Russia" stories.
9/11 needed MSM preparation with Iraq WMD and Al Qaeda stories, so when the "Event"
happened, the outrage could be pointed in the right direction.
Now it looks like preparation for some Russian "Event" / False Flag – probably this
time with a fabricated "Russian surprise attack" on the US military, aimed at legitimizing a
US Emergency Regime dictatorship run by the Zio/Neo-con crowd.
Iran has transitioned away from terrorism and its harsh rhetoric of the 80′s and
early 90′s and is attempting to claim the mantel of being a stabilizing influence in
the M.E. They are contrasting this to the U.S. who they claim (rather convincingly) are
agents of chaos. The kool-aid drinkers in the U.S. can bray 'terrorist state' all they want
but this only plays in Peoria not to anyone who lives in the M.E. and sees what is actually
happening.
The Qatar situation demonstrates this beautifully, while the KSA was asking Qatar to
become a vassal and making a not so subtle threat of invasion, Iran was emphasizing the right
of free commerce, sovereignty, and dialogue regarding differences.
Is Iran taking over the M.E.? yes, but not in the way that Neocons think, they are gaining
influence by showing restraint.
The proposition that Putin won't be provoked by a U.S. decision to send lethal arms to
Ukraine amounts to a hunch. It's not supported by evidence, and Putin's past behavior
contradicts it. This is not a minor point: if he does ramp up the war and the Ukrainian army
is forced into retreat, the United States will face three bad choices.
First, Washington could pour even more arms into Ukraine in hopes of concentrating Putin's
mind; but he can easily provide additional firepower to the Donbas insurgents. Second, it
could deepen its military involvement by sending American military advisers, or even troops,
to the frontline to bolster the Ukrainian army; but then Russia could call America's bluff.
Third, the United States could decide not to respond to Russia's escalation given the
geographical disadvantage and the limited strategic interests at stake. That would amount to
backing down, abandoning Ukraine, and shredding the oft-repeated argument that American and
European security hinges on the outcome of the Donbas war.
As hawks often do, advocates of arming Ukraine minimize the potential risks of their
proposal while exaggerating the benefits that it will produce. On the one hand, they insist
that they are "merely" calling for the U.S. to help Ukraine defend itself (they are actually
calling for enabling Ukraine's government to go on the offensive), but at the same time they
believe that in doing so they will "raise the costs" for Russia to such an extent that it will
significantly alter Russian behavior in and towards Ukraine. If the policy is as likely to
change Moscow's behavior as they say, it can't be as low-risk as they claim, but if it doesn't
pose a serious risk it is probably going to have no positive effects at all. In the worst case,
arming Ukraine sets them up for a disastrous defeat that the U.S. will have helped to
enable.
The other flaw in the pro-arming case is that advocates of sending weapons to the Ukrainian
government simply dismiss the negative consequences that are very likely to follow. They assume
that the Russian government has a low tolerance for casualties, but they conveniently forget
that it was Russian casualties in Tskhinvali that served as part of the rallying cry for the
invasion of Georgia in the August 2008 war. The same people that called for pulling Ukraine out
of Moscow's orbit in 2014 didn't anticipate the Russian response to Yanukovych's overthrow, but
they still think that Moscow will be more inclined to back down now when faced with new
provocations. Western hawkish analysts and pundits have consistently underestimated how far
Moscow will go in this conflict, so why should their assurances be trusted now? We should have
learned over the last decade that Moscow is much more likely to respond forcefully to
provocative Western actions than most of us have assumed, and that means that the U.S. should
approach this conflict with greater caution instead of increased recklessness.
Menon and Ruger make another important point that tends to get lost in the debate on this
question:
The case for arming Ukraine also tends to be made in a vacuum, never mind that what the
United States does in Ukraine could determine what Russia does elsewhere. Moscow could
respond by putting more pressure on the Baltics, acting as a spoiler in North Korea or Iran,
or even arming the Taliban (that would be an ironic turn: in the 1980s, the United States
bled the Soviets by arming the Afghan mujahideen). If these outcomes seem impossible,
consider the United States' awful record in foreseeing the effects of its military moves
[bold mine-DL].
The explicit purpose of sending arms to Ukraine is to give their government the means to
kill more Russians and Russian proxies. This may be dressed up in euphemisms by advocates
(e.g., "raising costs," "making them pay a price"), but that is what they expressly hope to
achieve with this policy. If our positions were reversed, our government would not respond to
the deaths of our soldiers and proxies by yielding to the preferences of the government that
provided the weapons that killed them. On the contrary, our government would intensify its
support for whatever policy that government was trying to thwart. It would be foolish to assume
that the Russian government would respond differently. We should assume that they would respond
both directly in Ukraine by increasing their support for separatists and indirectly by aiding
our enemies in other wars. This last part was the point that analyst Michael Kofman made in a
report from August:
Russia's response to scattering Javelins among Ukrainian ground forces should factor into
the decision, Kofman said.
"The Russians have a very clear policy of reciprocity, as we saw in the recent diplomatic
purge. They see this as a premise of the U.S. wanting to kill Russians," Kofman said.
"... There are dangers and threats in the world, but all of the threats from state actors are manageable and deterrable without spending more on the military, and these threats are much less severe than anything the U.S. faced between the 1940s and the end of the Cold War. The U.S. can and should get by safely with a much lower level of military spending, and our government should also adopt a strategy of restraint that keeps us out of unnecessary wars. ..."
"... The Iraq war is just the most obvious example of how the U.S. forcibly intervenes in other parts of the world over the objections of allies, in flagrant disregard for international law, and with no thought for the destabilizing effects that military action will have on the surrounding region. ..."
"... It would be much more accurate to say that the U.S. intervenes often in the affairs of weaker countries because it can, because our leaders leaders want to, and because there is usually no other power willing or able to stop it from happening. Exorbitant military spending far beyond what is needed to provide for our defense makes it possible to take military action on a regular basis, and the constant inflation of foreign threats makes a large part of the public believe that our government's frequent use of force overseas has something to do with self-defense. This frenetic meddling in the affairs of other nations hasn't made and won't make America any safer, it makes far more enemies than it eliminates, and it imposes significant fiscal and human costs on our country and the countries where our government interferes. ..."
"... At least Churchill had a focus. Neocons claim that any country that doesn't yield to our every desire is an existential threat. One article says, 'Iran', another 'China', yet another 'Russia' or 'N. Korea'. ..."
Dakota Wood
makes the usual alarmist case for throwing more money at the military. This passage stood out
for how wrong it is:
Churchill repeatedly warned his countrymen of the dangers of complacency, misguided priorities,
and weakness of will, of the foolishness to see the world and major competitors as being anything
other than what they truly are. While praising the virtues and spirit of moderation that defined
the English-speaking peoples of his day, he also urged them to recognize the necessity of having
the courage to take timely action when dangers threatened and clearly visible trends in an eroding
ability to provide for their common defense were leading toward disaster.
A similar state of affairs afflicts the United States today. To the extent America intervenes
in the affairs of others, it is because the United States has been attacked first, an ally is
in dire need of assistance, or an enemy threatens broader regional stability [bold mine-DL].
Over ten years ago, Rick Santorum talked incessantly about "the gathering storm" in a very conscious
echo of Churchill, and subsequent events have proven his alarmism to have been just as unfounded
and ridiculous as it seemed to be at the time. Hawks are often eager to invoke the 1930s to try to
scare their audience into accepting more aggressive policies and more military spending than our
security actually requires. Some of this may come from believing their own propaganda about the threats
that they exaggerate, and some of it may just be a reflex, but as analysis of the contemporary scene
it is always wrong. There are dangers and threats in the world, but all of the threats from state
actors are manageable and deterrable without spending more on the military, and these threats are
much less severe than anything the U.S. faced between the 1940s and the end of the Cold War. The
U.S. can and should get by safely with a much lower level of military spending, and our government
should also adopt a strategy of restraint that keeps us out of unnecessary wars.
Churchill-quoting alarmists aren't just bad at assessing the scale and nature of foreign threats,
but they are usually also oblivious to the shoddy justifications for intervening and the damage that
our interventionist policies do. The section quoted above reflects an almost touchingly naive belief
that U.S. interventions are always justified and never cause more harm than they prevent. Very few
U.S. interventions over the last thirty years fit the description Wood gives. The only time that
the U.S. has intervened militarily abroad in response to an attack during this period was in Afghanistan
as part of the immediate response to the 9/11 attacks. Every other intervention has been a choice
to attack another country or to take sides in an ongoing conflict, and these interventions have usually
had nothing to do with coming to the defense of an ally or preventing regional instability. Our interference
in the affairs of others is often illegal under both domestic and/or international law (e.g., Kosovo,
Libya, Iraq), it is very rarely related to U.S. or allied security, and it tends to cause a great
deal of harm to the country and the surrounding region that are supposedly being "helped" by our
government's actions.
The Iraq war is just the most obvious example of how the U.S. forcibly intervenes in other parts
of the world over the objections of allies, in flagrant disregard for international law, and with
no thought for the destabilizing effects that military action will have on the surrounding region.
The U.S. didn't invade Panama in 1989 to help an ally or because we were attacked, but simply to
topple the government there. Intervention in Haiti in 1994 didn't come in response to an attack or
to assist an ally, but because Washington wanted to restore a deposed leader. Bombing Yugoslavia
in 1999 was an attack on a country that posed no threat to us or our allies. The Libyan war was a
war for regime change and a war of choice. A few allies did urge the U.S. to intervene in Libya,
but not because they were in "dire need of assistance." The only thing that Britain and France needed
in 2011 was the means to launch an attack on another country whose government posed no threat to
them. Meddling in Syria since at least 2012 had nothing to do with defending the U.S. and our allies.
Wood's description certainly doesn't apply to our support for the shameful Saudi-led war on Yemen,
as the U.S. chose to take part in an attack on another country so that our despotic clients could
be "reassured."
It would be much more accurate to say that the U.S. intervenes often in the affairs of weaker
countries because it can, because our leaders leaders want to, and because there is usually no other
power willing or able to stop it from happening. Exorbitant military spending far beyond what is
needed to provide for our defense makes it possible to take military action on a regular basis, and
the constant inflation of foreign threats makes a large part of the public believe that our government's
frequent use of force overseas has something to do with self-defense. This frenetic meddling in the
affairs of other nations hasn't made and won't make America any safer, it makes far more enemies
than it eliminates, and it imposes significant fiscal and human costs on our country and the countries
where our government interferes.
'The gathering storm' I read that and I was dying to know which storm he was referring too.
At least Churchill had a focus. Neocons claim that any country that doesn't yield to our every
desire is an existential threat. One article says, 'Iran', another 'China', yet another 'Russia'
or 'N. Korea'.
It's surprising how low on the list N. Korea typically ranks as the hawks try to turn attention
quickly back to Iran. 'Iran is funding and developing their nuclear program, Iran is going to
buy their nuclear weapons'. At least in the case of N. Korea we do have a country that obviously
does possess WMD and is developing ICBM's and is likely to sell them in the future (even to our
best friends the Saudis).
The proposition that Putin won't be provoked by a U.S. decision to send lethal arms to
Ukraine amounts to a hunch. It's not supported by evidence, and Putin's past behavior
contradicts it. This is not a minor point: if he does ramp up the war and the Ukrainian army
is forced into retreat, the United States will face three bad choices.
First, Washington could pour even more arms into Ukraine in hopes of concentrating Putin's
mind; but he can easily provide additional firepower to the Donbas insurgents. Second, it
could deepen its military involvement by sending American military advisers, or even troops,
to the frontline to bolster the Ukrainian army; but then Russia could call America's bluff.
Third, the United States could decide not to respond to Russia's escalation given the
geographical disadvantage and the limited strategic interests at stake. That would amount to
backing down, abandoning Ukraine, and shredding the oft-repeated argument that American and
European security hinges on the outcome of the Donbas war.
As hawks often do, advocates of arming Ukraine minimize the potential risks of their
proposal while exaggerating the benefits that it will produce. On the one hand, they insist
that they are "merely" calling for the U.S. to help Ukraine defend itself (they are actually
calling for enabling Ukraine's government to go on the offensive), but at the same time they
believe that in doing so they will "raise the costs" for Russia to such an extent that it will
significantly alter Russian behavior in and towards Ukraine. If the policy is as likely to
change Moscow's behavior as they say, it can't be as low-risk as they claim, but if it doesn't
pose a serious risk it is probably going to have no positive effects at all. In the worst case,
arming Ukraine sets them up for a disastrous defeat that the U.S. will have helped to
enable.
The other flaw in the pro-arming case is that advocates of sending weapons to the Ukrainian
government simply dismiss the negative consequences that are very likely to follow. They assume
that the Russian government has a low tolerance for casualties, but they conveniently forget
that it was Russian casualties in Tskhinvali that served as part of the rallying cry for the
invasion of Georgia in the August 2008 war. The same people that called for pulling Ukraine out
of Moscow's orbit in 2014 didn't anticipate the Russian response to Yanukovych's overthrow, but
they still think that Moscow will be more inclined to back down now when faced with new
provocations. Western hawkish analysts and pundits have consistently underestimated how far
Moscow will go in this conflict, so why should their assurances be trusted now? We should have
learned over the last decade that Moscow is much more likely to respond forcefully to
provocative Western actions than most of us have assumed, and that means that the U.S. should
approach this conflict with greater caution instead of increased recklessness.
Menon and Ruger make another important point that tends to get lost in the debate on this
question:
The case for arming Ukraine also tends to be made in a vacuum, never mind that what the
United States does in Ukraine could determine what Russia does elsewhere. Moscow could
respond by putting more pressure on the Baltics, acting as a spoiler in North Korea or Iran,
or even arming the Taliban (that would be an ironic turn: in the 1980s, the United States
bled the Soviets by arming the Afghan mujahideen). If these outcomes seem impossible,
consider the United States' awful record in foreseeing the effects of its military moves
[bold mine-DL].
The explicit purpose of sending arms to Ukraine is to give their government the means to
kill more Russians and Russian proxies. This may be dressed up in euphemisms by advocates
(e.g., "raising costs," "making them pay a price"), but that is what they expressly hope to
achieve with this policy. If our positions were reversed, our government would not respond to
the deaths of our soldiers and proxies by yielding to the preferences of the government that
provided the weapons that killed them. On the contrary, our government would intensify its
support for whatever policy that government was trying to thwart. It would be foolish to assume
that the Russian government would respond differently. We should assume that they would respond
both directly in Ukraine by increasing their support for separatists and indirectly by aiding
our enemies in other wars. This last part was the point that analyst Michael Kofman made in a
report from August:
Russia's response to scattering Javelins among Ukrainian ground forces should factor into
the decision, Kofman said.
"The Russians have a very clear policy of reciprocity, as we saw in the recent diplomatic
purge. They see this as a premise of the U.S. wanting to kill Russians," Kofman said.
"... There are dangers and threats in the world, but all of the threats from state actors are manageable and deterrable without spending more on the military, and these threats are much less severe than anything the U.S. faced between the 1940s and the end of the Cold War. The U.S. can and should get by safely with a much lower level of military spending, and our government should also adopt a strategy of restraint that keeps us out of unnecessary wars. ..."
"... The Iraq war is just the most obvious example of how the U.S. forcibly intervenes in other parts of the world over the objections of allies, in flagrant disregard for international law, and with no thought for the destabilizing effects that military action will have on the surrounding region. ..."
"... It would be much more accurate to say that the U.S. intervenes often in the affairs of weaker countries because it can, because our leaders leaders want to, and because there is usually no other power willing or able to stop it from happening. Exorbitant military spending far beyond what is needed to provide for our defense makes it possible to take military action on a regular basis, and the constant inflation of foreign threats makes a large part of the public believe that our government's frequent use of force overseas has something to do with self-defense. This frenetic meddling in the affairs of other nations hasn't made and won't make America any safer, it makes far more enemies than it eliminates, and it imposes significant fiscal and human costs on our country and the countries where our government interferes. ..."
"... At least Churchill had a focus. Neocons claim that any country that doesn't yield to our every desire is an existential threat. One article says, 'Iran', another 'China', yet another 'Russia' or 'N. Korea'. ..."
Dakota Wood
makes the usual alarmist case for throwing more money at the military. This passage stood out
for how wrong it is:
Churchill repeatedly warned his countrymen of the dangers of complacency, misguided priorities,
and weakness of will, of the foolishness to see the world and major competitors as being anything
other than what they truly are. While praising the virtues and spirit of moderation that defined
the English-speaking peoples of his day, he also urged them to recognize the necessity of having
the courage to take timely action when dangers threatened and clearly visible trends in an eroding
ability to provide for their common defense were leading toward disaster.
A similar state of affairs afflicts the United States today. To the extent America intervenes
in the affairs of others, it is because the United States has been attacked first, an ally is
in dire need of assistance, or an enemy threatens broader regional stability [bold mine-DL].
Over ten years ago, Rick Santorum talked incessantly about "the gathering storm" in a very conscious
echo of Churchill, and subsequent events have proven his alarmism to have been just as unfounded
and ridiculous as it seemed to be at the time. Hawks are often eager to invoke the 1930s to try to
scare their audience into accepting more aggressive policies and more military spending than our
security actually requires. Some of this may come from believing their own propaganda about the threats
that they exaggerate, and some of it may just be a reflex, but as analysis of the contemporary scene
it is always wrong. There are dangers and threats in the world, but all of the threats from state
actors are manageable and deterrable without spending more on the military, and these threats are
much less severe than anything the U.S. faced between the 1940s and the end of the Cold War. The
U.S. can and should get by safely with a much lower level of military spending, and our government
should also adopt a strategy of restraint that keeps us out of unnecessary wars.
Churchill-quoting alarmists aren't just bad at assessing the scale and nature of foreign threats,
but they are usually also oblivious to the shoddy justifications for intervening and the damage that
our interventionist policies do. The section quoted above reflects an almost touchingly naive belief
that U.S. interventions are always justified and never cause more harm than they prevent. Very few
U.S. interventions over the last thirty years fit the description Wood gives. The only time that
the U.S. has intervened militarily abroad in response to an attack during this period was in Afghanistan
as part of the immediate response to the 9/11 attacks. Every other intervention has been a choice
to attack another country or to take sides in an ongoing conflict, and these interventions have usually
had nothing to do with coming to the defense of an ally or preventing regional instability. Our interference
in the affairs of others is often illegal under both domestic and/or international law (e.g., Kosovo,
Libya, Iraq), it is very rarely related to U.S. or allied security, and it tends to cause a great
deal of harm to the country and the surrounding region that are supposedly being "helped" by our
government's actions.
The Iraq war is just the most obvious example of how the U.S. forcibly intervenes in other parts
of the world over the objections of allies, in flagrant disregard for international law, and with
no thought for the destabilizing effects that military action will have on the surrounding region.
The U.S. didn't invade Panama in 1989 to help an ally or because we were attacked, but simply to
topple the government there. Intervention in Haiti in 1994 didn't come in response to an attack or
to assist an ally, but because Washington wanted to restore a deposed leader. Bombing Yugoslavia
in 1999 was an attack on a country that posed no threat to us or our allies. The Libyan war was a
war for regime change and a war of choice. A few allies did urge the U.S. to intervene in Libya,
but not because they were in "dire need of assistance." The only thing that Britain and France needed
in 2011 was the means to launch an attack on another country whose government posed no threat to
them. Meddling in Syria since at least 2012 had nothing to do with defending the U.S. and our allies.
Wood's description certainly doesn't apply to our support for the shameful Saudi-led war on Yemen,
as the U.S. chose to take part in an attack on another country so that our despotic clients could
be "reassured."
It would be much more accurate to say that the U.S. intervenes often in the affairs of weaker
countries because it can, because our leaders leaders want to, and because there is usually no other
power willing or able to stop it from happening. Exorbitant military spending far beyond what is
needed to provide for our defense makes it possible to take military action on a regular basis, and
the constant inflation of foreign threats makes a large part of the public believe that our government's
frequent use of force overseas has something to do with self-defense. This frenetic meddling in the
affairs of other nations hasn't made and won't make America any safer, it makes far more enemies
than it eliminates, and it imposes significant fiscal and human costs on our country and the countries
where our government interferes.
'The gathering storm' I read that and I was dying to know which storm he was referring too.
At least Churchill had a focus. Neocons claim that any country that doesn't yield to our every
desire is an existential threat. One article says, 'Iran', another 'China', yet another 'Russia'
or 'N. Korea'.
It's surprising how low on the list N. Korea typically ranks as the hawks try to turn attention
quickly back to Iran. 'Iran is funding and developing their nuclear program, Iran is going to
buy their nuclear weapons'. At least in the case of N. Korea we do have a country that obviously
does possess WMD and is developing ICBM's and is likely to sell them in the future (even to our
best friends the Saudis).
"... The US on the other hand is very keen on keeping control over its newest vassal, since, to quote Brzezinski's grand chess board, "without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be an empire, but with Ukraine suborned and then subordinated, Russia automatically becomes an empire" . ..."
Pifer's narrative suggests that Putin's proposal concerning peace in Donbass is not serious
so long as it does not comply with the deployment scheme suggested by the West. This statement
is also quite erroneous. Putin's proposal is serious. The president of Russia does want
peace . But his rules imply the conservation of non-bloc status of Ukraine.
Additionally, the rules mandate that Ukraine cease its attempts to discredit Russia-Europe
energy cooperation vis-à-vis Nord Stream II, bring the "Crimean question" to a close,
remove sanctions, and, presumably, pay special attention and respect to the rights of the
Russian-speaking community in Ukraine.
No offense is intended to the authors of this article, but it wasn't hard to tell they
were Russian even just judging on the contents of the proposal. The entire point of any sort
of DMZ in Ukraine is to make static potentially temporary Russian gains in a fluid
battleground. This hypothetical DMZ would essentially be a third-party Maginot Line for
Russia. Russia has stolen a comfy little buffer zone and would like to see that maintained.
That's why the US would undoubtedly veto this.
Alternatively, the US could call Putin's bluff and use armored units and heavy bombers to
retake Donbas for the Ukrainians, but pointedly stop short of Crimea. Russia maintains
un-plausible deniability in the Donbas, so Putin would be able to save a least a little face.
Crimea is claimed as full Russian territory, Putin would be politically unable to stop war
from occurring if it was retaken by Ukrainian forces. After this a full withdrawal of US
forces would be advisable so as not to trigger Russian fears of encirclement. Ukraine could
be a neutral- but sovereign- nation. It could do more as a positive example to potential
Russian dissidents than it ever could as a NATO member. A full-blown conflict with NATO would
mean Putin's fall from power, and so it is very much in his interests to avoid it. We are
operating from a position of strength, let's take advantage of it.
Ukraine and the West have no interest in ending the war.
This is why Minsk 2 failed, this is why the peace keeper proposal is bound to fail.
Putins proposal is the separation of the opposing forces.
Again: Ukraine has no interest in it. It didn't adhere to it after Minsk, instead using it to
occupy territory vacated by Donbass militias adhering to the peace agreement.
The Western proposal is a complete occupation of the Donbass.
The peace troops would not be impartial, instead they want them to be posed by the West. It
basically is the demand to hand everything over.
A demand with no correlation to the political or military situation on the ground.
And handing over the control of the borders would not merely stop the weapons flow into
Ukraine (something the Donbass never depended on, since some of the worlds largest weapons
storages in the world were located right there and they've got them in abundance), but would
surely be abused to stop any crossings and any trade across this border whatsoever.
Ukraine is blocking almost all trade between the Donbass and the rest of the country.
They don't want them to trade with anyone else. They simply want to starve them out.
And finally: The worst thing that could happen to the regime in Kiev and its Western
backers would be peace. Peace would force them to give up on blaming every fault on everyone
else. Peace would make the Ukrainians wonder what has happened to their country since their
coup. Peace would make them wonder what has happened to their economy since. Peace would make
them wonder what had happened to the tens of thousands of Ukrainian soldiers who simply
"disappeared" since the government tried to keep the already colossal losses down and the
cost of paying annuities to their relatives.
Russia has no interest in this war. It knows that the economic future of Ukraine depends
on Russia, and therefore has ample means to influence its neighbour.
The US on the other hand is very keen on keeping control over its newest vassal, since, to
quote Brzezinski's grand chess board, "without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be an empire,
but with Ukraine suborned and then subordinated, Russia automatically becomes an empire"
.
"To vanquish strategically, one often needs to take a tactical step back. "
in this phrase the authors are coming clear with regards to their goal
of genociding russian speaking population of the eastern Ukraine
and sucking "the Ukraine" into NATO...
"... The US on the other hand is very keen on keeping control over its newest vassal, since, to quote Brzezinski's grand chess board, "without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be an empire, but with Ukraine suborned and then subordinated, Russia automatically becomes an empire" . ..."
Pifer's narrative suggests that Putin's proposal concerning peace in Donbass is not serious
so long as it does not comply with the deployment scheme suggested by the West. This statement
is also quite erroneous. Putin's proposal is serious. The president of Russia does want
peace . But his rules imply the conservation of non-bloc status of Ukraine.
Additionally, the rules mandate that Ukraine cease its attempts to discredit Russia-Europe
energy cooperation vis-à-vis Nord Stream II, bring the "Crimean question" to a close,
remove sanctions, and, presumably, pay special attention and respect to the rights of the
Russian-speaking community in Ukraine.
No offense is intended to the authors of this article, but it wasn't hard to tell they
were Russian even just judging on the contents of the proposal. The entire point of any sort
of DMZ in Ukraine is to make static potentially temporary Russian gains in a fluid
battleground. This hypothetical DMZ would essentially be a third-party Maginot Line for
Russia. Russia has stolen a comfy little buffer zone and would like to see that maintained.
That's why the US would undoubtedly veto this.
Alternatively, the US could call Putin's bluff and use armored units and heavy bombers to
retake Donbas for the Ukrainians, but pointedly stop short of Crimea. Russia maintains
un-plausible deniability in the Donbas, so Putin would be able to save a least a little face.
Crimea is claimed as full Russian territory, Putin would be politically unable to stop war
from occurring if it was retaken by Ukrainian forces. After this a full withdrawal of US
forces would be advisable so as not to trigger Russian fears of encirclement. Ukraine could
be a neutral- but sovereign- nation. It could do more as a positive example to potential
Russian dissidents than it ever could as a NATO member. A full-blown conflict with NATO would
mean Putin's fall from power, and so it is very much in his interests to avoid it. We are
operating from a position of strength, let's take advantage of it.
Ukraine and the West have no interest in ending the war.
This is why Minsk 2 failed, this is why the peace keeper proposal is bound to fail.
Putins proposal is the separation of the opposing forces.
Again: Ukraine has no interest in it. It didn't adhere to it after Minsk, instead using it to
occupy territory vacated by Donbass militias adhering to the peace agreement.
The Western proposal is a complete occupation of the Donbass.
The peace troops would not be impartial, instead they want them to be posed by the West. It
basically is the demand to hand everything over.
A demand with no correlation to the political or military situation on the ground.
And handing over the control of the borders would not merely stop the weapons flow into
Ukraine (something the Donbass never depended on, since some of the worlds largest weapons
storages in the world were located right there and they've got them in abundance), but would
surely be abused to stop any crossings and any trade across this border whatsoever.
Ukraine is blocking almost all trade between the Donbass and the rest of the country.
They don't want them to trade with anyone else. They simply want to starve them out.
And finally: The worst thing that could happen to the regime in Kiev and its Western
backers would be peace. Peace would force them to give up on blaming every fault on everyone
else. Peace would make the Ukrainians wonder what has happened to their country since their
coup. Peace would make them wonder what has happened to their economy since. Peace would make
them wonder what had happened to the tens of thousands of Ukrainian soldiers who simply
"disappeared" since the government tried to keep the already colossal losses down and the
cost of paying annuities to their relatives.
Russia has no interest in this war. It knows that the economic future of Ukraine depends
on Russia, and therefore has ample means to influence its neighbour.
The US on the other hand is very keen on keeping control over its newest vassal, since, to
quote Brzezinski's grand chess board, "without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be an empire,
but with Ukraine suborned and then subordinated, Russia automatically becomes an empire"
.
"To vanquish strategically, one often needs to take a tactical step back. "
in this phrase the authors are coming clear with regards to their goal
of genociding russian speaking population of the eastern Ukraine
and sucking "the Ukraine" into NATO...
"... While serving as defense secretary in the 1960s, Robert McNamara once mused that the "greatest contribution" of the Vietnam War might have been to make it possible for the United States "to go to war without the necessity of arousing the public ire." With regard to the conflict once widely referred to as McNamara's War, his claim proved grotesquely premature. Yet a half-century later, his wish has become reality. ..."
"... Why do Americans today show so little interest in the wars waged in their name and at least nominally on their behalf? Why, as our wars drag on and on, doesn't the disparity between effort expended and benefits accrued arouse more than passing curiosity or mild expressions of dismay? Why, in short, don't we give a [ expletive deleted ..."
"... The true costs of Washington's wars go untabulated. ..."
"... On matters related to war, American citizens have opted out. ..."
"... Terrorism gets hyped and hyped and hyped some more. ..."
"... Blather crowds out substance. ..."
"... Besides, we're too busy. ..."
"... Anyway, the next president will save us. ..."
"... Our culturally progressive military has largely immunized itself from criticism. ..."
"... Well, yes, the US has recently killed 100.000′s of Arab civilians because they were Terrorists (?) or to Bring them Democracy (?) or whatever, or something – or who cares anyway. There's more coverage of the transgender toilet access question. ..."
Consider, if you will, these two indisputable facts. First, the United States is today more
or less permanently engaged in hostilities in not one faraway place, but
at least seven . Second, the vast majority of the American people could not care less.
Nor can it be said that we don't care because we don't know. True, government authorities
withhold certain aspects of ongoing military operations or release only details that they find
convenient. Yet information describing what U.S. forces are doing (and where) is readily
available, even if buried in recent months by barrages of presidential tweets. Here, for anyone
interested, are press releases issued by United States Central Command for just one recent
week:
September 19 : Military airstrikes continue against ISIS terrorists in Syria and Iraq
September 20 : Military airstrikes continue against ISIS terrorists in Syria and Iraq
September 25 : Military airstrikes continue against ISIS terrorists in Syria and Iraq
September 26 : Military airstrikes continue against ISIS terrorists in Syria and Iraq
Ever since the United States launched its war on terror, oceans of military press releases
have poured forth. And those are just for starters. To provide updates on the U.S. military's
various ongoing campaigns, generals, admirals, and high-ranking defense officials regularly
testify before congressional committees or brief members of the press. From the field,
journalists offer updates that fill in at least some of the details -- on civilian casualties,
for example -- that government authorities prefer not to disclose. Contributors to newspaper
op-ed pages and "experts" booked by network and cable TV news shows, including passels of
retired military officers, provide analysis. Trailing behind come books and documentaries that
put things in a broader perspective.
But here's the truth of it. None of it matters.
Like traffic jams or robocalls, war has fallen into the category of things that Americans
may not welcome, but have learned to live with. In twenty-first-century America, war is not
that big a deal.
While serving as defense secretary in the 1960s, Robert McNamara
once mused that the "greatest contribution" of the Vietnam War might have been to make it
possible for the United States "to go to war without the necessity of arousing the public ire."
With regard to the conflict once widely referred to as McNamara's War, his claim proved
grotesquely premature. Yet a half-century later, his wish has become reality.
Why do Americans today show so little interest in the wars waged in their name and at
least nominally on their behalf? Why, as our wars drag on and on, doesn't the disparity between
effort expended and benefits accrued arouse more than passing curiosity or mild expressions of
dismay? Why, in short, don't we give a [ expletive deleted ]?
Perhaps just posing such a question propels us instantly into the realm of the unanswerable,
like trying to figure out why people idolize Justin Bieber, shoot birds, or watch golf on
television.
Without any expectation of actually piercing our collective ennui, let me take a stab at
explaining why we don't give a @#$%&! Here are eight distinctive but mutually reinforcing
explanations, offered in a sequence that begins with the blindingly obvious and ends with the
more speculative.
Americans don't attend all that much to ongoing American wars because:
1. U.S. casualtyrates are low . By using proxies and contractors, and
relying heavily on airpower, America's war managers have been able to keep a tight lid on the
number of U.S. troops being killed and wounded. In all of 2017, for example, a grand total of 11 American soldiers have been
lost in Afghanistan -- about equal to the number of shooting deaths in Chicago over the course of a
typical week. True, in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other countries where the U.S. is engaged in
hostilities, whether directly or indirectly, plenty of people who are not Americans are being
killed and maimed. (The estimated number of Iraqi civilians killed this year alone exceeds 12,000 .) But those
casualties have next to no political salience as far as the United States is concerned. As long
as they don't impede U.S. military operations, they literally don't count (and generally aren't
counted).
2. The true costs of Washington's wars go untabulated. In a famous
speech , dating from early in his presidency, Dwight D. Eisenhower said that "Every gun
that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft
from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed." Dollars spent
on weaponry, Ike insisted, translated directly into schools, hospitals, homes, highways, and
power plants that would go unbuilt. "This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense," he
continued. "[I]t is humanity hanging from a cross of iron." More than six decades later,
Americans have long since accommodated themselves to that cross of iron. Many actually see it
as a boon, a source of corporate profits, jobs, and, of course, campaign contributions. As
such, they avert their eyes from the opportunity costs of our never-ending wars. The dollars
expended pursuant to our post-9/11 conflicts will ultimately number in the multi-trillions . Imagine the benefits of
investing such sums in upgrading the nation's aging infrastructure . Yet don't count on
Congressional leaders, other politicians, or just about anyone else to pursue that
connection.
On matters related to war, American citizens have opted out. Others have made the
point so frequently that it's the equivalent of hearing "Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer" at
Christmastime. Even so, it bears repeating: the American people have defined their obligation
to "support the troops" in the
narrowest imaginable
terms , ensuring above all that such support requires absolutely no sacrifice on their
part. Members of Congress abet this civic apathy, while also taking steps to
insulate themselves from responsibility. In effect, citizens and their elected
representatives in Washington agree: supporting the troops means deferring to the commander in
chief, without inquiring about whether what he has the troops doing makes the slightest sense.
Yes, we set down our beers long enough to applaud those in uniform and
boo those who decline to participate in mandatory rituals of patriotism. What we don't do
is demand anything remotely approximating actual accountability.
4. Terrorism gets hyped and hyped and hyped some more. While international
terrorism isn't a trivial problem (and wasn't for decades before 9/11), it comes
nowhere close to posing an existential threat to the United States. Indeed, other threats,
notably the impact of climate change, constitute a far greater danger to the wellbeing of
Americans. Worried about the safety of your children or grandchildren? The opioid epidemic
constitutes an infinitely greater danger than "Islamic radicalism." Yet having been sold a bill
of goods about a "war on terror" that is essential for "keeping America safe," mere citizens
are easily persuaded that scattering U.S. troops throughout the Islamic world while dropping
bombs on designated evildoers is helping win the former while guaranteeing the latter. To
question that proposition becomes tantamount to suggesting that God might not have given Moses
two stone tablets after all.
5. Blather crowds out substance. When it comes to foreign policy, American public
discourse is -- not to put too fine a point on it -- vacuous, insipid, and mindlessly
repetitive. William Safire of the New York Times once characterized American political
rhetoric as BOMFOG, with those running for high office relentlessly touting the Brotherhood of
Man and the Fatherhood of God. Ask a politician, Republican or Democrat, to expound on this
country's role in the world, and then brace yourself for some variant of WOSFAD, as the speaker
insists that it is incumbent upon the World's Only Superpower to spread Freedom and Democracy.
Terms like leadership and indispensable are introduced, along with warnings
about the dangers of isolationism and appeasement, embellished with ominous
references to Munich . Such grandiose posturing makes it unnecessary to probe too
deeply into the actual origins and purposes of American wars, past or present, or assess the
likelihood of ongoing wars ending in some approximation of actual success. Cheerleading
displaces serious thought.
6. Besides, we're too busy. Think of this as a corollary to point five. Even if the
present-day American political scene included figures like Senators Robert
La Follette or J. William Fulbright ,
who long ago warned against the dangers of militarizing U.S. policy, Americans may not retain a
capacity to attend to such critiques. Responding to the demands of the Information Age is not,
it turns out, conducive to deep reflection. We live in an era (so we are told) when frantic
multitasking has become a sort of duty and when being overscheduled is almost obligatory. Our
attention span shrinks and with it our time horizon. The matters we attend to are those that
happened just hours or minutes ago. Yet like the great solar eclipse of 2017 -- hugely
significant and instantly forgotten -- those matters will, within another few minutes or hours,
be superseded by some other development that briefly captures our attention. As a result, a
dwindling number of Americans -- those not compulsively checking Facebook pages and Twitter
accounts -- have the time or inclination to ponder questions like: When will the Afghanistan
War end? Why has it lasted almost 16 years? Why doesn't the finest fighting force in history actually win?
Can't package an answer in 140 characters or a 30-second made-for-TV sound bite? Well, then,
slowpoke, don't expect anyone to attend to what you have to say.
7. Anyway, the next president will save us. At regular intervals, Americans indulge
in the fantasy that, if we just install the right person in the White House, all will be well.
Ambitious politicians are quick to exploit this expectation. Presidential candidates struggle
to differentiate themselves from their competitors, but all of them promise in one way or
another to wipe the slate clean and Make America Great Again. Ignoring the historical record of
promises broken or unfulfilled, and presidents who turn out not to be deities but flawed human
beings, Americans -- members of the media above all -- pretend to take all this seriously.
Campaigns become longer, more expensive, more circus-like, and ever less substantial. One might
think that the election of Donald Trump would prompt a downward revision in the exalted
expectations of presidents putting things right. Instead, especially in the anti-Trump camp,
getting rid of Trump himself (Collusion! Corruption! Obstruction! Impeachment!) has become the
overriding imperative, with little attention given to restoring the balance intended by the
framers of the Constitution. The irony of Trump perpetuating wars that he once roundly
criticized and then handing the conduct of those wars to generals devoid of ideas for ending
them almost entirely escapes notice.
8. Our culturally progressive military has largely immunized itself from criticism.
As recently as the 1990s, the U.S. military establishment aligned itself with the retrograde
side of the culture wars. Who can forget the gays-in-the-military controversy that rocked Bill
Clinton's administration during his first weeks in office, as senior military leaders publicly
denounced their commander-in-chief? Those days are long gone. Culturally, the armed forces have
moved left. Today, the services go out of their way to project an
image of tolerance and a commitment to equality on all matters related to race, gender, and
sexuality. So when President Trump announced his opposition to transgendered persons serving in
the armed forces, tweeting
that the military "cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that
transgender in the military would entail," senior officers politely but firmly disagreed and
pushed
back . Given the ascendency of cultural issues near the top of the U.S. political agenda,
the military's embrace of diversity helps to insulate it from criticism and from being called
to account for a less than sterling performance in waging wars. Put simply, critics who in an
earlier day might have blasted military leaders for their inability to bring wars to a
successful conclusion hold their fire. Having women graduate from
Ranger School or command
Marines in combat more than compensates for not winning.
A collective indifference to war has become an emblem of contemporary America. But don't
expect your neighbors down the street or the editors of the New York Times to lose any
sleep over that fact. Even to notice it would require them -- and us -- to care.
You have enumerated ten general reasons why Americans "don't attend" to ongoing
wars.
Let me add a further specific one: the draft or lack of same. If there were a draft
in place either the powers-that-be would not even dare to contemplate any of our present
martial misadventures, or failing that the outraged citizenry would burn down the
Congress!
BTW I had never thought about reason #8: the military's embrace of diversity helps to
insulate it from criticism. This explains General Casey's inane statement that diversity
shouldn't be a casualty of the Fort Hood massacre by a "diverse" officer!
One reason Trump won is that he promised to pull back the empire, while suggesting the
Pentagon already has plenty of money. After the election, he demanded a 10% increase, and
threatens North Korea to justify it! This increase alone is bigger than the entire annual
military budget of Russia! The public is informed that this is because of cuts during the
Obama years, but there were no cuts, only limits to increases.
How did the Democrats react? Most voted for a bigger military budget than the mindless
increase proposed by Trump! That news was not reported by our corporate media, as Jimmy Dore
explained:
A collective indifference to war has become an emblem of contemporary America.
Well, yes, the US has recently killed 100.000′s of Arab civilians because they
were Terrorists (?) or to Bring them Democracy (?) or whatever, or something – or who
cares anyway. There's more coverage of the transgender toilet access question.
Structurally, you have arms production, military bases, hospitals, and related service
industries across nearly all the congressional districts in the country.
So it is an enormous set of vested interests with both voting power and corporate money
for campaign treasuries.
Quoting Ike was good, and he mentions the opportunity cost in schools, roads, etc. –
but also the organizing political and economic power of the military industrial complex.
The government schools are with some exceptions worthless. No subject, let alone war, is
taken on seriously.
The legacy media has been co-opted by the MIC/Financial interests. The state is spying on
everyone and everyone knows so. Free speech, free association, free assembly, right to bear
arms, confront your accuser, trial by jury, habeas corpus – all gone now.
So the sheep behave. They walk by the dead whistling, and look straight ahead.
While serving as defense secretary in the 1960s, Robert McNamara once mused that the
"greatest contribution" of the Vietnam War might have been to make it possible for the
United States "to go to war without the necessity of arousing the public ire." With regard
to the conflict once widely referred to as McNamara's War, his claim proved grotesquely
premature. Yet a half-century later, his wish has become reality.
He was dead wrong about this in the 60′s as it soon became obvious to everyone else.
But we learned how "to go to war without the necessity of arousing the public ire." Cut out
the military draft and embed the press into the ranks so they dare not report the actions
they witness.
"... While serving as defense secretary in the 1960s, Robert McNamara once mused that the "greatest contribution" of the Vietnam War might have been to make it possible for the United States "to go to war without the necessity of arousing the public ire." With regard to the conflict once widely referred to as McNamara's War, his claim proved grotesquely premature. Yet a half-century later, his wish has become reality. ..."
"... Why do Americans today show so little interest in the wars waged in their name and at least nominally on their behalf? Why, as our wars drag on and on, doesn't the disparity between effort expended and benefits accrued arouse more than passing curiosity or mild expressions of dismay? Why, in short, don't we give a [ expletive deleted ..."
"... The true costs of Washington's wars go untabulated. ..."
"... On matters related to war, American citizens have opted out. ..."
"... Terrorism gets hyped and hyped and hyped some more. ..."
"... Blather crowds out substance. ..."
"... Besides, we're too busy. ..."
"... Anyway, the next president will save us. ..."
"... Our culturally progressive military has largely immunized itself from criticism. ..."
"... Well, yes, the US has recently killed 100.000′s of Arab civilians because they were Terrorists (?) or to Bring them Democracy (?) or whatever, or something – or who cares anyway. There's more coverage of the transgender toilet access question. ..."
Consider, if you will, these two indisputable facts. First, the United States is today more
or less permanently engaged in hostilities in not one faraway place, but
at least seven . Second, the vast majority of the American people could not care less.
Nor can it be said that we don't care because we don't know. True, government authorities
withhold certain aspects of ongoing military operations or release only details that they find
convenient. Yet information describing what U.S. forces are doing (and where) is readily
available, even if buried in recent months by barrages of presidential tweets. Here, for anyone
interested, are press releases issued by United States Central Command for just one recent
week:
September 19 : Military airstrikes continue against ISIS terrorists in Syria and Iraq
September 20 : Military airstrikes continue against ISIS terrorists in Syria and Iraq
September 25 : Military airstrikes continue against ISIS terrorists in Syria and Iraq
September 26 : Military airstrikes continue against ISIS terrorists in Syria and Iraq
Ever since the United States launched its war on terror, oceans of military press releases
have poured forth. And those are just for starters. To provide updates on the U.S. military's
various ongoing campaigns, generals, admirals, and high-ranking defense officials regularly
testify before congressional committees or brief members of the press. From the field,
journalists offer updates that fill in at least some of the details -- on civilian casualties,
for example -- that government authorities prefer not to disclose. Contributors to newspaper
op-ed pages and "experts" booked by network and cable TV news shows, including passels of
retired military officers, provide analysis. Trailing behind come books and documentaries that
put things in a broader perspective.
But here's the truth of it. None of it matters.
Like traffic jams or robocalls, war has fallen into the category of things that Americans
may not welcome, but have learned to live with. In twenty-first-century America, war is not
that big a deal.
While serving as defense secretary in the 1960s, Robert McNamara
once mused that the "greatest contribution" of the Vietnam War might have been to make it
possible for the United States "to go to war without the necessity of arousing the public ire."
With regard to the conflict once widely referred to as McNamara's War, his claim proved
grotesquely premature. Yet a half-century later, his wish has become reality.
Why do Americans today show so little interest in the wars waged in their name and at
least nominally on their behalf? Why, as our wars drag on and on, doesn't the disparity between
effort expended and benefits accrued arouse more than passing curiosity or mild expressions of
dismay? Why, in short, don't we give a [ expletive deleted ]?
Perhaps just posing such a question propels us instantly into the realm of the unanswerable,
like trying to figure out why people idolize Justin Bieber, shoot birds, or watch golf on
television.
Without any expectation of actually piercing our collective ennui, let me take a stab at
explaining why we don't give a @#$%&! Here are eight distinctive but mutually reinforcing
explanations, offered in a sequence that begins with the blindingly obvious and ends with the
more speculative.
Americans don't attend all that much to ongoing American wars because:
1. U.S. casualtyrates are low . By using proxies and contractors, and
relying heavily on airpower, America's war managers have been able to keep a tight lid on the
number of U.S. troops being killed and wounded. In all of 2017, for example, a grand total of 11 American soldiers have been
lost in Afghanistan -- about equal to the number of shooting deaths in Chicago over the course of a
typical week. True, in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other countries where the U.S. is engaged in
hostilities, whether directly or indirectly, plenty of people who are not Americans are being
killed and maimed. (The estimated number of Iraqi civilians killed this year alone exceeds 12,000 .) But those
casualties have next to no political salience as far as the United States is concerned. As long
as they don't impede U.S. military operations, they literally don't count (and generally aren't
counted).
2. The true costs of Washington's wars go untabulated. In a famous
speech , dating from early in his presidency, Dwight D. Eisenhower said that "Every gun
that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft
from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed." Dollars spent
on weaponry, Ike insisted, translated directly into schools, hospitals, homes, highways, and
power plants that would go unbuilt. "This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense," he
continued. "[I]t is humanity hanging from a cross of iron." More than six decades later,
Americans have long since accommodated themselves to that cross of iron. Many actually see it
as a boon, a source of corporate profits, jobs, and, of course, campaign contributions. As
such, they avert their eyes from the opportunity costs of our never-ending wars. The dollars
expended pursuant to our post-9/11 conflicts will ultimately number in the multi-trillions . Imagine the benefits of
investing such sums in upgrading the nation's aging infrastructure . Yet don't count on
Congressional leaders, other politicians, or just about anyone else to pursue that
connection.
On matters related to war, American citizens have opted out. Others have made the
point so frequently that it's the equivalent of hearing "Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer" at
Christmastime. Even so, it bears repeating: the American people have defined their obligation
to "support the troops" in the
narrowest imaginable
terms , ensuring above all that such support requires absolutely no sacrifice on their
part. Members of Congress abet this civic apathy, while also taking steps to
insulate themselves from responsibility. In effect, citizens and their elected
representatives in Washington agree: supporting the troops means deferring to the commander in
chief, without inquiring about whether what he has the troops doing makes the slightest sense.
Yes, we set down our beers long enough to applaud those in uniform and
boo those who decline to participate in mandatory rituals of patriotism. What we don't do
is demand anything remotely approximating actual accountability.
4. Terrorism gets hyped and hyped and hyped some more. While international
terrorism isn't a trivial problem (and wasn't for decades before 9/11), it comes
nowhere close to posing an existential threat to the United States. Indeed, other threats,
notably the impact of climate change, constitute a far greater danger to the wellbeing of
Americans. Worried about the safety of your children or grandchildren? The opioid epidemic
constitutes an infinitely greater danger than "Islamic radicalism." Yet having been sold a bill
of goods about a "war on terror" that is essential for "keeping America safe," mere citizens
are easily persuaded that scattering U.S. troops throughout the Islamic world while dropping
bombs on designated evildoers is helping win the former while guaranteeing the latter. To
question that proposition becomes tantamount to suggesting that God might not have given Moses
two stone tablets after all.
5. Blather crowds out substance. When it comes to foreign policy, American public
discourse is -- not to put too fine a point on it -- vacuous, insipid, and mindlessly
repetitive. William Safire of the New York Times once characterized American political
rhetoric as BOMFOG, with those running for high office relentlessly touting the Brotherhood of
Man and the Fatherhood of God. Ask a politician, Republican or Democrat, to expound on this
country's role in the world, and then brace yourself for some variant of WOSFAD, as the speaker
insists that it is incumbent upon the World's Only Superpower to spread Freedom and Democracy.
Terms like leadership and indispensable are introduced, along with warnings
about the dangers of isolationism and appeasement, embellished with ominous
references to Munich . Such grandiose posturing makes it unnecessary to probe too
deeply into the actual origins and purposes of American wars, past or present, or assess the
likelihood of ongoing wars ending in some approximation of actual success. Cheerleading
displaces serious thought.
6. Besides, we're too busy. Think of this as a corollary to point five. Even if the
present-day American political scene included figures like Senators Robert
La Follette or J. William Fulbright ,
who long ago warned against the dangers of militarizing U.S. policy, Americans may not retain a
capacity to attend to such critiques. Responding to the demands of the Information Age is not,
it turns out, conducive to deep reflection. We live in an era (so we are told) when frantic
multitasking has become a sort of duty and when being overscheduled is almost obligatory. Our
attention span shrinks and with it our time horizon. The matters we attend to are those that
happened just hours or minutes ago. Yet like the great solar eclipse of 2017 -- hugely
significant and instantly forgotten -- those matters will, within another few minutes or hours,
be superseded by some other development that briefly captures our attention. As a result, a
dwindling number of Americans -- those not compulsively checking Facebook pages and Twitter
accounts -- have the time or inclination to ponder questions like: When will the Afghanistan
War end? Why has it lasted almost 16 years? Why doesn't the finest fighting force in history actually win?
Can't package an answer in 140 characters or a 30-second made-for-TV sound bite? Well, then,
slowpoke, don't expect anyone to attend to what you have to say.
7. Anyway, the next president will save us. At regular intervals, Americans indulge
in the fantasy that, if we just install the right person in the White House, all will be well.
Ambitious politicians are quick to exploit this expectation. Presidential candidates struggle
to differentiate themselves from their competitors, but all of them promise in one way or
another to wipe the slate clean and Make America Great Again. Ignoring the historical record of
promises broken or unfulfilled, and presidents who turn out not to be deities but flawed human
beings, Americans -- members of the media above all -- pretend to take all this seriously.
Campaigns become longer, more expensive, more circus-like, and ever less substantial. One might
think that the election of Donald Trump would prompt a downward revision in the exalted
expectations of presidents putting things right. Instead, especially in the anti-Trump camp,
getting rid of Trump himself (Collusion! Corruption! Obstruction! Impeachment!) has become the
overriding imperative, with little attention given to restoring the balance intended by the
framers of the Constitution. The irony of Trump perpetuating wars that he once roundly
criticized and then handing the conduct of those wars to generals devoid of ideas for ending
them almost entirely escapes notice.
8. Our culturally progressive military has largely immunized itself from criticism.
As recently as the 1990s, the U.S. military establishment aligned itself with the retrograde
side of the culture wars. Who can forget the gays-in-the-military controversy that rocked Bill
Clinton's administration during his first weeks in office, as senior military leaders publicly
denounced their commander-in-chief? Those days are long gone. Culturally, the armed forces have
moved left. Today, the services go out of their way to project an
image of tolerance and a commitment to equality on all matters related to race, gender, and
sexuality. So when President Trump announced his opposition to transgendered persons serving in
the armed forces, tweeting
that the military "cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that
transgender in the military would entail," senior officers politely but firmly disagreed and
pushed
back . Given the ascendency of cultural issues near the top of the U.S. political agenda,
the military's embrace of diversity helps to insulate it from criticism and from being called
to account for a less than sterling performance in waging wars. Put simply, critics who in an
earlier day might have blasted military leaders for their inability to bring wars to a
successful conclusion hold their fire. Having women graduate from
Ranger School or command
Marines in combat more than compensates for not winning.
A collective indifference to war has become an emblem of contemporary America. But don't
expect your neighbors down the street or the editors of the New York Times to lose any
sleep over that fact. Even to notice it would require them -- and us -- to care.
You have enumerated ten general reasons why Americans "don't attend" to ongoing
wars.
Let me add a further specific one: the draft or lack of same. If there were a draft
in place either the powers-that-be would not even dare to contemplate any of our present
martial misadventures, or failing that the outraged citizenry would burn down the
Congress!
BTW I had never thought about reason #8: the military's embrace of diversity helps to
insulate it from criticism. This explains General Casey's inane statement that diversity
shouldn't be a casualty of the Fort Hood massacre by a "diverse" officer!
One reason Trump won is that he promised to pull back the empire, while suggesting the
Pentagon already has plenty of money. After the election, he demanded a 10% increase, and
threatens North Korea to justify it! This increase alone is bigger than the entire annual
military budget of Russia! The public is informed that this is because of cuts during the
Obama years, but there were no cuts, only limits to increases.
How did the Democrats react? Most voted for a bigger military budget than the mindless
increase proposed by Trump! That news was not reported by our corporate media, as Jimmy Dore
explained:
A collective indifference to war has become an emblem of contemporary America.
Well, yes, the US has recently killed 100.000′s of Arab civilians because they
were Terrorists (?) or to Bring them Democracy (?) or whatever, or something – or who
cares anyway. There's more coverage of the transgender toilet access question.
Structurally, you have arms production, military bases, hospitals, and related service
industries across nearly all the congressional districts in the country.
So it is an enormous set of vested interests with both voting power and corporate money
for campaign treasuries.
Quoting Ike was good, and he mentions the opportunity cost in schools, roads, etc. –
but also the organizing political and economic power of the military industrial complex.
The government schools are with some exceptions worthless. No subject, let alone war, is
taken on seriously.
The legacy media has been co-opted by the MIC/Financial interests. The state is spying on
everyone and everyone knows so. Free speech, free association, free assembly, right to bear
arms, confront your accuser, trial by jury, habeas corpus – all gone now.
So the sheep behave. They walk by the dead whistling, and look straight ahead.
While serving as defense secretary in the 1960s, Robert McNamara once mused that the
"greatest contribution" of the Vietnam War might have been to make it possible for the
United States "to go to war without the necessity of arousing the public ire." With regard
to the conflict once widely referred to as McNamara's War, his claim proved grotesquely
premature. Yet a half-century later, his wish has become reality.
He was dead wrong about this in the 60′s as it soon became obvious to everyone else.
But we learned how "to go to war without the necessity of arousing the public ire." Cut out
the military draft and embed the press into the ranks so they dare not report the actions
they witness.
Alt-left paramilitaries remind me Bolsheviks armed squads, the underground, militant part of
the party.
Notable quotes:
"... Independence Day, ..."
"... Of course, most Establishment conservatives were using the term " Alt " as simply a synonym for "bad." And their typical criticism of the black-clad thugs was that they were "the real fascists ." ..."
"... America: Imagine A World Without Her , ..."
"... CounterCurrents, ..."
"... It argues the entire debate about fascism and "anti-fascism" is essentially backwards: Fascism arose as a reaction to the Communist revolution in Russia and the attempted Communist revolutions in Hungary, Slovakia and parts of Germany: ..."
"... "Without communist revolution and without the vanguard leftist parties that launched those revolutions, there would have been no reason for fascism ever to exit," the anonymous author writes. "Essentially, the communist revolutionaries and their 'direct action' tactics had created their own nemesis capable of defeating them in the streets and willing to compete with them for the loyalty of the workers. ..."
"... Homage To Catalonia ..."
"... Antifa: What Americans Need To Know About The Alt-Left ..."
"... No Pasarán! ..."
"... Antifa: What Americans Need To Know About The Alt-Left ..."
"... Just as every Communist regime has always violently targeted " wreckers " to explain policy failures, so must Antifa target ever increasing number of "fascists" as the impossible (and undesirable) goal of "equality" remains forever over the horizon. ..."
"... In any event, this is not "Weimar America". We are in the process of losing two or three colonial wars (a good thing) but most of the people in the US don't even really notice we are involved in those wars. It's not like Germany losing WWI and then suffering a million starvation deaths from the British blockade. But let's see what happens November 4, shall we? I'm expecting saturation media coverage but not much else. ..."
In the alien invasion movie Independence Day, the
beleaguered President of the United States, hoping he can forge some kind of a peace which will
at least allow the survival of the human race, pleads, "What is it you want us to do?" The
alien
's response is simple. "Die."
The mind of a rational person rebels at the suggestion of such an unlimited, existential
conflict. After all, reasonable people should always be able to come to some kind of a
compromise, some settlement which will avoid violence and chaos. But there are some people who
cannot be reasoned with, whose objectives are so unlimited and
irrational that not only compromise, but co-existence
with them is impossible.
Americans face such an existential threat in the form of the Leftist vigilante group that
calls itself AntiFa. And now American have the first examination of the so-called
"anti-fascists" from a patriot perspective in a new book
basically orthodox conservative website WND, the book oddly lists no author).
Antifa have been plaguing immigration patriots for many
years. But it's only recently that the average American has become aware of their
existence. The attacks on Trump supporters
during and
after the presidential campaign has made Americans aware of what the president eventually
termed the "
Alt-Left. "
Of course, most
Establishment conservatives were using the term "
Alt " as simply a synonym for "bad." And their typical criticism of
the black-clad thugs was that they were "the
real fascists ." The huckster Dinesh D'Souza has built an entire career in presenting
this alternate history to the gullible and well-meaning [ America:
Imagine A World Without Her , by Gregory Hood, CounterCurrents, July 17,
2017].
Structured as a
"Special Report,"Antifa rejects this Conservatism Inc. cliché and provides
an accurate history of the rise of
fascism as well as anti-fascism. It argues the entire debate about fascism and
"anti-fascism" is essentially backwards: Fascism arose as a reaction to the Communist
revolution in Russia and the attempted Communist revolutions in Hungary, Slovakia and parts of
Germany:
"Without communist revolution and without the vanguard leftist parties that launched
those revolutions, there would have been no reason for fascism ever to exit," the anonymous
author writes. "Essentially, the communist revolutionaries and their 'direct action' tactics
had created their own nemesis capable of defeating them in the streets and willing to compete
with them for the loyalty of the workers.
... ... ...
"Anti-fascism," as the author details, has been a remarkably consistent slogan of the
Totalitarian Left in all its manifestations. From the Berlin Wall (the
"Anti Fascist Protection Rampart ") to the British "Anti Nazi League" (a creation of the Socialist Workers
Party), this Left (including left-anarchists such as the " autonomists ") always frames itself as the only
defense against "fascism." Of course, by "fascists," it means everyone else in the world.
Given current events, it's worth noting most of Orwell's Homage To
Catalonia is about the vicious infighting between various Spanish leftist factions,
all ostensibly at war with Francisco
Franco. And as Antifa: What Americans Need To Know About The Alt-Left points out, Spanish
Republican heroine Dolores Ibarruri, who famously utilized the Antifa No
Pasarán! slogan during the Battle
for Madrid , was a Stalinist who thoroughly approved of the bloody purges against
Trotskyists and anarchists because she claimed they were "fascists."
Indeed, Antifa: What Americans Need To Know About The Alt-Left is a critical warning to
every American, not just conservatives, that they are all being targeted by Antifa. Just as
every
Communist regime has always violently targeted "
wreckers " to explain policy failures, so must Antifa target ever increasing number of
"fascists" as the impossible (and undesirable) goal of "equality" remains forever over the
horizon.
Pretty slick. TPTB turned Occupy Wall Street into an anti-Alt.Right terror group which
allows Wall Street to go about their thievery without examination by their former tormentors.
Most are Bernie supporters, but Hillary's "people" are sprinkled in, too. Antifa is vile,
hooded, violent and protected by police departments all over the country for pretty much
anything they want to do and whatever crimes they wish to commit.
All their protest years ago
against the thievery Wall Street, the banks, especially the IMF and World Bank commits is
over. Protests against the endless wars, over. They are now reassigned the task of
terrorizing the campuses, Republican events and gatherings.
Which means, they were only ever a terror group and it doesn't and never did matter the
who or the why, only the "when", as directed. Well done, banks and Wall Street. Well done.
Very interesting take. That would be an incredibly masterful strategic move if what you
say is true. And you are right – the Occupy movement seems to have done a complete
about face.
First of all, another great article, Mr. Kirkpatrick, with some truth you don't hear very
much. I just read Mr. Gleimhart's comment, but I am still surprised that World Net Daily
wrote some of this. I used to read a few articles on their site a decade ago or so, and they
seemed like a branch office of Conservative, Inc.
Another reason I'm glad to see the word "Communist" in use here, along with those
comparisons to the commies of yesteryear is this: It seems like many of the alt-righters,
here and elsewhere, are always bringing up points about using the "correct" terms for these
antifa people. "No, they are not Communists. They don't even know what Marxism is. No,
'Cultural Marxism" is the wrong term.", etc. Many think calling these people Communists is
just out-of-date Cold-War-era stuff, and we are hold-outs from a different era. They never
think about the fact that we won the EXTERNAL Cold War, but have been almost completely
defeated in the INTERNAL Cold War.
I don't know all the local history of a century ago, but I kind of wonder if most of the
Commies of old didn't really give a rat's ass about Karl Marx either. Sure, the useful idiots
didn't, but I think even some of the bigger shots did not really care what it was all about
in principle. Like the antifa violent clueless morons of today, they just want to gain power
and stuff. Hard work, diligence, and morals are just too much effort for them.
The tactics of the antifa very much resemble those of the people the brownshirts formed up
to fight in the streets back then, like rhyming history. Those brownshirts were derided for
using the same tactics, fighting fire with fire. If you're a Commie, you can't have that. I
don't know how it will go down here – America is laid out much differently
geographically, economically, and politically, but mainly, we have lots more guns. More here on these
new Commies.
Sounds like an interesting book and a valid analysis. That said, the Antifa is far from
being an existential threat to the country or even especially terrifying unless you happen to
be caught in the middle of a bunch of them.
Communist street action and terrorism was far
more widespread in the US during the late 1960′s and early '70′s. The apparent
desire of many on the right to recruit Vegas shooter Paddock for the Antifa is the strange
mirror image of the desire of the Daesh jihadists to recruit him for themselves.
Without
Paddock, I don't think the Antifa have taken even one life. Now maybe Paddock will turn out
to be Antifa or something pretty close to that but I think we need a bit more evidence than
an Asian girlfriend.
In any event, this is not "Weimar America". We are in the process of
losing two or three colonial wars (a good thing) but most of the people in the US don't even
really notice we are involved in those wars. It's not like Germany losing WWI and then
suffering a million starvation deaths from the British blockade. But let's see what happens
November 4, shall we? I'm expecting saturation media coverage but not much else.
However, I'd like to point out that antifa is a threat to the US in the same sense as
Islamism is a threat to western civilization. Both movements do not of themselves begin to
have enough power to destroy their enemies. Their only real advantage is that their enemies
appear to be determined to commit suicide.
@Achmed
E. Newman First of all, another great article, Mr. Kirkpatrick, with some truth you don't
hear very much. I just read Mr. Gleimhart's comment, but I am still surprised that World Net
Daily wrote some of this. I used to read a few articles on their site a decade ago or so, and
they seemed like a branch office of Conservative, Inc.
Another reason I'm glad to see the word "Communist" in use here, along with those
comparisons to the commies of yesteryear is this: It seems like many of the alt-righters,
here and elsewhere, are always bringing up points about using the "correct" terms for these
antifa people. "No, they are not Communists. They don't even know what Marxism is. No,
'Cultural Marxism" is the wrong term.", etc. Many think calling these people Communists is
just out-of-date Cold-War-era stuff, and we are hold-outs from a different era. They never
think about the fact that we won the EXTERNAL Cold War, but have been almost completely
defeated in the INTERNAL Cold War.
I don't know all the local history of a century ago, but I kind of wonder if most of the
Commies of old didn't really give a rat's ass about Karl Marx either. Sure, the useful idiots
didn't, but I think even some of the bigger shots did not really care what it was all about
in principle. Like the antifa violent clueless morons of today, they just want to gain power
and stuff. Hard work, diligence, and morals are just too much effort for them.
The tactics of the antifa very much resemble those of the people the brownshirts formed up
to fight in the streets back then, like rhyming history. Those brownshirts were derided for
using the same tactics, fighting fire with fire. If you're a Commie, you can't have that. I
don't know how it will go down here - America is laid out much differently geographically,
economically, and politically, but mainly, we have lots more guns. More here on these new Commies.
This is all perhaps an argument over semantics, but I suggest that there is very little
indeed that is Marxist about antifa, at least if by "Marxist" you mean "follower of the
teachings of Karl Marx."
Marx built a very well-developed ideology. But among its absolutely key points were the
unimportance of any divisions between people other than socio-economic ones, the critical
importance of "ownership of the means of production," and the dialectic process of society
advancing with scienticfic inevitability toward a bright and equal future. Embedded in this
was of course an antagonism towards capitalism and western civilization.
Antifa, to the degree it has an identifiable ideology as opposed to simply being
oppositionist, has completely thrown overboard the first three points I mentioned, while
continuing to follow the last two and no doubt other aspects of the original doctrines of
Marx.
Antifa pretty much ignores socio-economic class, being apparently down with the moguls of
Google and Facebook because they are also anti-white. The divisions they are trying to
exploit are instead racial/ethnic and sexual/gender. Identity politics is about as inherently
contradictory to what Marx taught as anything that can be imagined.
Antifa, and the Left in general, isn't interested in owning or running the means of
production, that would be far too much like actual work. They'd much rather create dicta as
to how the owners/managers of the MOP will operate, leaving them to figure out how to comply,
and also tax the bejeebers out of them to pay for their programs.
From what I can see there is nothing at all left in antifa and the left in general of a
belief in the dialectic, the absolute core of Marxism as such.
I will cheerfully agree that antifa is descended in a direct line from Marx and Lenin. It
just seems that at some point a movement can have diverged so much from what was taught by
its founder that it starts to seem silly to call it by the original name. For instance,
Christianity was originally a Jewish heresy. But nobody calls Christianity a Jewish sect any
longer. It used to be, but it isn't any more.
Kirkpatrick slams another home run. The aggressive, totalitarian nature of Antifa must not
be taken lightly. Kirkpatrick makes this abundantly clear. But the sympathetic coverage that
this thug-left movement gets from the MSM is an outrage.
Kirkpatrick reminds us also that 'fascism' (which emerged in Italy in the 1920s) was a
populist bulwark against the most aggressive and murderous political movement in human
history: revolutionary communism. Indeed, without the bloodletting impact of international
communism, fascism might never have arisen.
It's also worth noting that the infamous crimes now associated with fascism and Naziism
occurred only during the final three years of the most brutal (on all sides) military
conflict in world history (WWII).
Communist extremism and communist atrocities however preceded fascism and they have
outlived fascism. Far Left extremism remains a growing and permutating movement. Yet it often
gets sympathetic news coverage; despite the fact that communism has not only claimed far more
lives than fascism, but has commonly erupted even during times of peace. As a 'utopian'
ideology, communism has been an unmatched global disaster.
Indeed, in the name of equality, commies murdered tens of millions of civilians in the
20th century alone. Yet unlike the defeated Nazis, only a handful of the commie perpetrators
responsible for these crimes have ever been brought to justice. Even their reputations
remain, in some cases, largely untarnished.
True to form, today's generation of politically-correct extremists (and their
sympathizers) have successfully infiltrated American classrooms, courts, and our 'mainstream'
media. These operatives foment discord guilt-free, often using their powerful positions to
disparage and humiliate populist 'deplorables'.
Today, Antifa's street warriors are ready and waiting to violently deny the right of Free
Speech to their political opponents as they simultaneously unleash premeditated, physical
attacks. This is pure, unadulterated totalitarianism.
The rise of Antifa represent a real and growing threat to civil discourse and political
liberty.
Republican heroine Dolores Ibarruri was a Stalinist who thoroughly approved of the
bloody purges against Trotskyists and anarchists because she claimed they were
"fascists."
The purging of the (((Trotskyites))) is actually a pretty good reason to respect
Stalin.
@Jim
Christian Pretty slick. TPTB turned Occupy Wall Street into an anti-Alt.Right terror
group which allows Wall Street to go about their thievery without examination by their former
tormentors. Most are Bernie supporters, but Hillary's "people" are sprinkled in, too. Antifa
is vile, hooded, violent and protected by police departments all over the country for pretty
much anything they want to do and whatever crimes they wish to commit. All their protest
years ago against the thievery Wall Street, the banks, especially the IMF and World Bank
commits is over. Protests against the endless wars, over. They are now reassigned the task of
terrorizing the campuses, Republican events and gatherings.
Which means, they were only ever a terror group and it doesn't and never did matter the
who or the why, only the "when", as directed.
Well done, banks and Wall Street. Well done. Good points Jim,
It says something to me that the "Antifa" manifesto, or "explique" has no author attached
to it.
None.
I wonder who the mega donors are, who are nursing this baby ..don't you ?
There was , on the other hand, enormous legitimacy to the Occupy Movement. as there was
enormous legitimacy to the Antiwar Movement.
There was, and is, enormous legitimacy to Bernie Sanders salient comment that too much of
our nation's wealth has migrated into the hands of a very few billionaire oligarchs, and our
middle class is vanishing.
The vanishing wealth of the middle class has substantially drained its political power and
consequently, the right to control its own destiny. Nothing proved this point more then when the oligarchs, displaying their utter contempt
for the peoples say, simply "gifted " the DNC nomination to Queen Hillary.
Antifa, at first blush, does not give two sh#ts about any of this, it seems hollow to the
core right out of the gate. Which, I imagine, is why Big Media has given it such a warm welcome.
As "Anti-fascism" quite explicitly defines itself as anti-liberal (in the classical
sense of liberalism), repudiates the right to free speech and takes upon itself the
responsibility to enforce though violence a remarkably narrow definition of what people can
and cannot say, it is of course quintessentially totalitarian.
Exactly so. It's the street manifestation of the basic violent intolerance inherent in the modern
left, and of the self-righteous arrogance of the crusading
antifascist/anti-racist/anti-anti-Semite/anti-homophobe (etc etc.), that is visible
everywhere in modern political discourse.
Threats of violence and expressions of wishes for suffering to be imposed on those they
disagree with are commonplace from such people, from the "antiracist" academic calling for
"white genocide" to the directly menacing abuse and actual physical violence ("it's ok to
punch a fascist") directed at those who breach the taboos of the left, and routinely
unpunished by any legal process despite the supposed modern politically correct concern to
use the law to punish any kind of "offence" or "hatred" directed at special categories of
victim.
The "Resources" page of the group's website offers a number of publications that promote
violence, including a 36-page manual called the "Mini-Manual of the Urban Guerrilla,"
which advises readers on how to conduct urban warfare, with sections on "sabotage,"
"kidnapping," "executions," and even "terrorism."
AMAZON has a number of these pro-Antifa books, preaching hate and overthrowing the govt
using any means necessary. Guess promoting hate and violence is OK with AMAZON, just don't
ask any questions about WW II.
I wonder who the mega donors are, who are nursing this baby ..don't you ?
Man, follow the donor-tree from Soros down through dozens of organizations, NGOs, the
Clinton Foundation, the Global Initiative, and offshoots from all of these, to boot. They
churn. And, I have to figure there are briefcases full of cash fronting riots and contrived
horseshit like Charlottesville. If a stat that says the kill ratio is 18:1 cops:perps, so I'm
not sure what #blacklivesmatter is but B/S. Yet, it lives on, with lots of franchisees out
there, waiting. I expect marches throughout the season when the cold weather subsides with
trouble clear to the election and trust me, the good folks at Antifa and #blm will be there.
Well, who feeds them? These aren't brain surgeons, these peeps. Where do they sleep when
they're in town? Who has their weapons and masks and transportation lined up when they get
there? For added fun, like in Charlottesville and elsewhere, fringes, local Blacks, playing
the #blm card, will be niggling at the edges, robbing the Whites trying to get out of a
scuffle. Funny: more virtue-signaling Antifa Whites got robbed than Unite-Right Whites.
Funnier: These guys, after they robbed them, they pulled off their pants and left them in the
alley sans wallet, keys, phone and britches. It's unbelievaboo.
Antifa. #blacklivesmatter. Friends of Soros and Democrat-based NGOs worldwide! And, fun
for the whole family! Come on down!
@Mark
Green Yes but how do we tackle it? The British youth have fallen for it and are
ostracising other youth who haven't, it's a wholesale cultural collapse achieved by holding
festival-style protests, controlling people through reward and punishment, and promising hand
outs, which the country cannot afford.
Young people are being brainwashed into accepting a massive loan with an undeclared
interest rate.
@alexander
The only reason any politician give's a rat's behind about the middle class is because it is
the tax cash cow. I have yet to see any tax reform for the middle class actually lower the
taxes on the middle class. Whether GOP or Dem, as soon as they say "middle class tax cut" get
ready for the middle class to take it up the a$$.
Great article and comments. The far left organization known as anti-fa meets the
definition of domestic terrorism, yet they remain untroubled, as far as we know, by DHS or
even many local police. But even more troubling is that without the media's collusion, they
would never have become the force they are now.
Consider the NFL kneeling issue. This was to support BLM. When it was seen as
disrespecting the flag the NFL's solution was to make it about freedom of speech and stand
but link arms to show "solidarity" with BLM. But done once, when will it stop? Do the players
plan on continuing to show solidarity throughout the season? What about next year? After
you've been bullied into obeying anti-fa, at what point can these sympathizers say it's
enough? Thus, the national anthem has been hijacked from being about national unity to being
a symbol of our continued submission to political extremists.
They want to destroy us, by that I mean white America, and a shockingly large number of
whites are good with that. Meeting their demands only results in new demands. Reparations are
a goal, but no doubt by the time we get there that won't be enough either.
Alt-left paramilitaries remind me Bolsheviks armed squads, the underground, militant part of
the party.
Notable quotes:
"... Independence Day, ..."
"... Of course, most Establishment conservatives were using the term " Alt " as simply a synonym for "bad." And their typical criticism of the black-clad thugs was that they were "the real fascists ." ..."
"... America: Imagine A World Without Her , ..."
"... CounterCurrents, ..."
"... It argues the entire debate about fascism and "anti-fascism" is essentially backwards: Fascism arose as a reaction to the Communist revolution in Russia and the attempted Communist revolutions in Hungary, Slovakia and parts of Germany: ..."
"... "Without communist revolution and without the vanguard leftist parties that launched those revolutions, there would have been no reason for fascism ever to exit," the anonymous author writes. "Essentially, the communist revolutionaries and their 'direct action' tactics had created their own nemesis capable of defeating them in the streets and willing to compete with them for the loyalty of the workers. ..."
"... Homage To Catalonia ..."
"... Antifa: What Americans Need To Know About The Alt-Left ..."
"... No Pasarán! ..."
"... Antifa: What Americans Need To Know About The Alt-Left ..."
"... Just as every Communist regime has always violently targeted " wreckers " to explain policy failures, so must Antifa target ever increasing number of "fascists" as the impossible (and undesirable) goal of "equality" remains forever over the horizon. ..."
"... In any event, this is not "Weimar America". We are in the process of losing two or three colonial wars (a good thing) but most of the people in the US don't even really notice we are involved in those wars. It's not like Germany losing WWI and then suffering a million starvation deaths from the British blockade. But let's see what happens November 4, shall we? I'm expecting saturation media coverage but not much else. ..."
In the alien invasion movie Independence Day, the
beleaguered President of the United States, hoping he can forge some kind of a peace which will
at least allow the survival of the human race, pleads, "What is it you want us to do?" The
alien
's response is simple. "Die."
The mind of a rational person rebels at the suggestion of such an unlimited, existential
conflict. After all, reasonable people should always be able to come to some kind of a
compromise, some settlement which will avoid violence and chaos. But there are some people who
cannot be reasoned with, whose objectives are so unlimited and
irrational that not only compromise, but co-existence
with them is impossible.
Americans face such an existential threat in the form of the Leftist vigilante group that
calls itself AntiFa. And now American have the first examination of the so-called
"anti-fascists" from a patriot perspective in a new book
basically orthodox conservative website WND, the book oddly lists no author).
Antifa have been plaguing immigration patriots for many
years. But it's only recently that the average American has become aware of their
existence. The attacks on Trump supporters
during and
after the presidential campaign has made Americans aware of what the president eventually
termed the "
Alt-Left. "
Of course, most
Establishment conservatives were using the term "
Alt " as simply a synonym for "bad." And their typical criticism of
the black-clad thugs was that they were "the
real fascists ." The huckster Dinesh D'Souza has built an entire career in presenting
this alternate history to the gullible and well-meaning [ America:
Imagine A World Without Her , by Gregory Hood, CounterCurrents, July 17,
2017].
Structured as a
"Special Report,"Antifa rejects this Conservatism Inc. cliché and provides
an accurate history of the rise of
fascism as well as anti-fascism. It argues the entire debate about fascism and
"anti-fascism" is essentially backwards: Fascism arose as a reaction to the Communist
revolution in Russia and the attempted Communist revolutions in Hungary, Slovakia and parts of
Germany:
"Without communist revolution and without the vanguard leftist parties that launched
those revolutions, there would have been no reason for fascism ever to exit," the anonymous
author writes. "Essentially, the communist revolutionaries and their 'direct action' tactics
had created their own nemesis capable of defeating them in the streets and willing to compete
with them for the loyalty of the workers.
... ... ...
"Anti-fascism," as the author details, has been a remarkably consistent slogan of the
Totalitarian Left in all its manifestations. From the Berlin Wall (the
"Anti Fascist Protection Rampart ") to the British "Anti Nazi League" (a creation of the Socialist Workers
Party), this Left (including left-anarchists such as the " autonomists ") always frames itself as the only
defense against "fascism." Of course, by "fascists," it means everyone else in the world.
Given current events, it's worth noting most of Orwell's Homage To
Catalonia is about the vicious infighting between various Spanish leftist factions,
all ostensibly at war with Francisco
Franco. And as Antifa: What Americans Need To Know About The Alt-Left points out, Spanish
Republican heroine Dolores Ibarruri, who famously utilized the Antifa No
Pasarán! slogan during the Battle
for Madrid , was a Stalinist who thoroughly approved of the bloody purges against
Trotskyists and anarchists because she claimed they were "fascists."
Indeed, Antifa: What Americans Need To Know About The Alt-Left is a critical warning to
every American, not just conservatives, that they are all being targeted by Antifa. Just as
every
Communist regime has always violently targeted "
wreckers " to explain policy failures, so must Antifa target ever increasing number of
"fascists" as the impossible (and undesirable) goal of "equality" remains forever over the
horizon.
Pretty slick. TPTB turned Occupy Wall Street into an anti-Alt.Right terror group which
allows Wall Street to go about their thievery without examination by their former tormentors.
Most are Bernie supporters, but Hillary's "people" are sprinkled in, too. Antifa is vile,
hooded, violent and protected by police departments all over the country for pretty much
anything they want to do and whatever crimes they wish to commit.
All their protest years ago
against the thievery Wall Street, the banks, especially the IMF and World Bank commits is
over. Protests against the endless wars, over. They are now reassigned the task of
terrorizing the campuses, Republican events and gatherings.
Which means, they were only ever a terror group and it doesn't and never did matter the
who or the why, only the "when", as directed. Well done, banks and Wall Street. Well done.
Very interesting take. That would be an incredibly masterful strategic move if what you
say is true. And you are right – the Occupy movement seems to have done a complete
about face.
First of all, another great article, Mr. Kirkpatrick, with some truth you don't hear very
much. I just read Mr. Gleimhart's comment, but I am still surprised that World Net Daily
wrote some of this. I used to read a few articles on their site a decade ago or so, and they
seemed like a branch office of Conservative, Inc.
Another reason I'm glad to see the word "Communist" in use here, along with those
comparisons to the commies of yesteryear is this: It seems like many of the alt-righters,
here and elsewhere, are always bringing up points about using the "correct" terms for these
antifa people. "No, they are not Communists. They don't even know what Marxism is. No,
'Cultural Marxism" is the wrong term.", etc. Many think calling these people Communists is
just out-of-date Cold-War-era stuff, and we are hold-outs from a different era. They never
think about the fact that we won the EXTERNAL Cold War, but have been almost completely
defeated in the INTERNAL Cold War.
I don't know all the local history of a century ago, but I kind of wonder if most of the
Commies of old didn't really give a rat's ass about Karl Marx either. Sure, the useful idiots
didn't, but I think even some of the bigger shots did not really care what it was all about
in principle. Like the antifa violent clueless morons of today, they just want to gain power
and stuff. Hard work, diligence, and morals are just too much effort for them.
The tactics of the antifa very much resemble those of the people the brownshirts formed up
to fight in the streets back then, like rhyming history. Those brownshirts were derided for
using the same tactics, fighting fire with fire. If you're a Commie, you can't have that. I
don't know how it will go down here – America is laid out much differently
geographically, economically, and politically, but mainly, we have lots more guns. More here on these
new Commies.
Sounds like an interesting book and a valid analysis. That said, the Antifa is far from
being an existential threat to the country or even especially terrifying unless you happen to
be caught in the middle of a bunch of them.
Communist street action and terrorism was far
more widespread in the US during the late 1960′s and early '70′s. The apparent
desire of many on the right to recruit Vegas shooter Paddock for the Antifa is the strange
mirror image of the desire of the Daesh jihadists to recruit him for themselves.
Without
Paddock, I don't think the Antifa have taken even one life. Now maybe Paddock will turn out
to be Antifa or something pretty close to that but I think we need a bit more evidence than
an Asian girlfriend.
In any event, this is not "Weimar America". We are in the process of
losing two or three colonial wars (a good thing) but most of the people in the US don't even
really notice we are involved in those wars. It's not like Germany losing WWI and then
suffering a million starvation deaths from the British blockade. But let's see what happens
November 4, shall we? I'm expecting saturation media coverage but not much else.
However, I'd like to point out that antifa is a threat to the US in the same sense as
Islamism is a threat to western civilization. Both movements do not of themselves begin to
have enough power to destroy their enemies. Their only real advantage is that their enemies
appear to be determined to commit suicide.
@Achmed
E. Newman First of all, another great article, Mr. Kirkpatrick, with some truth you don't
hear very much. I just read Mr. Gleimhart's comment, but I am still surprised that World Net
Daily wrote some of this. I used to read a few articles on their site a decade ago or so, and
they seemed like a branch office of Conservative, Inc.
Another reason I'm glad to see the word "Communist" in use here, along with those
comparisons to the commies of yesteryear is this: It seems like many of the alt-righters,
here and elsewhere, are always bringing up points about using the "correct" terms for these
antifa people. "No, they are not Communists. They don't even know what Marxism is. No,
'Cultural Marxism" is the wrong term.", etc. Many think calling these people Communists is
just out-of-date Cold-War-era stuff, and we are hold-outs from a different era. They never
think about the fact that we won the EXTERNAL Cold War, but have been almost completely
defeated in the INTERNAL Cold War.
I don't know all the local history of a century ago, but I kind of wonder if most of the
Commies of old didn't really give a rat's ass about Karl Marx either. Sure, the useful idiots
didn't, but I think even some of the bigger shots did not really care what it was all about
in principle. Like the antifa violent clueless morons of today, they just want to gain power
and stuff. Hard work, diligence, and morals are just too much effort for them.
The tactics of the antifa very much resemble those of the people the brownshirts formed up
to fight in the streets back then, like rhyming history. Those brownshirts were derided for
using the same tactics, fighting fire with fire. If you're a Commie, you can't have that. I
don't know how it will go down here - America is laid out much differently geographically,
economically, and politically, but mainly, we have lots more guns. More here on these new Commies.
This is all perhaps an argument over semantics, but I suggest that there is very little
indeed that is Marxist about antifa, at least if by "Marxist" you mean "follower of the
teachings of Karl Marx."
Marx built a very well-developed ideology. But among its absolutely key points were the
unimportance of any divisions between people other than socio-economic ones, the critical
importance of "ownership of the means of production," and the dialectic process of society
advancing with scienticfic inevitability toward a bright and equal future. Embedded in this
was of course an antagonism towards capitalism and western civilization.
Antifa, to the degree it has an identifiable ideology as opposed to simply being
oppositionist, has completely thrown overboard the first three points I mentioned, while
continuing to follow the last two and no doubt other aspects of the original doctrines of
Marx.
Antifa pretty much ignores socio-economic class, being apparently down with the moguls of
Google and Facebook because they are also anti-white. The divisions they are trying to
exploit are instead racial/ethnic and sexual/gender. Identity politics is about as inherently
contradictory to what Marx taught as anything that can be imagined.
Antifa, and the Left in general, isn't interested in owning or running the means of
production, that would be far too much like actual work. They'd much rather create dicta as
to how the owners/managers of the MOP will operate, leaving them to figure out how to comply,
and also tax the bejeebers out of them to pay for their programs.
From what I can see there is nothing at all left in antifa and the left in general of a
belief in the dialectic, the absolute core of Marxism as such.
I will cheerfully agree that antifa is descended in a direct line from Marx and Lenin. It
just seems that at some point a movement can have diverged so much from what was taught by
its founder that it starts to seem silly to call it by the original name. For instance,
Christianity was originally a Jewish heresy. But nobody calls Christianity a Jewish sect any
longer. It used to be, but it isn't any more.
Kirkpatrick slams another home run. The aggressive, totalitarian nature of Antifa must not
be taken lightly. Kirkpatrick makes this abundantly clear. But the sympathetic coverage that
this thug-left movement gets from the MSM is an outrage.
Kirkpatrick reminds us also that 'fascism' (which emerged in Italy in the 1920s) was a
populist bulwark against the most aggressive and murderous political movement in human
history: revolutionary communism. Indeed, without the bloodletting impact of international
communism, fascism might never have arisen.
It's also worth noting that the infamous crimes now associated with fascism and Naziism
occurred only during the final three years of the most brutal (on all sides) military
conflict in world history (WWII).
Communist extremism and communist atrocities however preceded fascism and they have
outlived fascism. Far Left extremism remains a growing and permutating movement. Yet it often
gets sympathetic news coverage; despite the fact that communism has not only claimed far more
lives than fascism, but has commonly erupted even during times of peace. As a 'utopian'
ideology, communism has been an unmatched global disaster.
Indeed, in the name of equality, commies murdered tens of millions of civilians in the
20th century alone. Yet unlike the defeated Nazis, only a handful of the commie perpetrators
responsible for these crimes have ever been brought to justice. Even their reputations
remain, in some cases, largely untarnished.
True to form, today's generation of politically-correct extremists (and their
sympathizers) have successfully infiltrated American classrooms, courts, and our 'mainstream'
media. These operatives foment discord guilt-free, often using their powerful positions to
disparage and humiliate populist 'deplorables'.
Today, Antifa's street warriors are ready and waiting to violently deny the right of Free
Speech to their political opponents as they simultaneously unleash premeditated, physical
attacks. This is pure, unadulterated totalitarianism.
The rise of Antifa represent a real and growing threat to civil discourse and political
liberty.
Republican heroine Dolores Ibarruri was a Stalinist who thoroughly approved of the
bloody purges against Trotskyists and anarchists because she claimed they were
"fascists."
The purging of the (((Trotskyites))) is actually a pretty good reason to respect
Stalin.
@Jim
Christian Pretty slick. TPTB turned Occupy Wall Street into an anti-Alt.Right terror
group which allows Wall Street to go about their thievery without examination by their former
tormentors. Most are Bernie supporters, but Hillary's "people" are sprinkled in, too. Antifa
is vile, hooded, violent and protected by police departments all over the country for pretty
much anything they want to do and whatever crimes they wish to commit. All their protest
years ago against the thievery Wall Street, the banks, especially the IMF and World Bank
commits is over. Protests against the endless wars, over. They are now reassigned the task of
terrorizing the campuses, Republican events and gatherings.
Which means, they were only ever a terror group and it doesn't and never did matter the
who or the why, only the "when", as directed.
Well done, banks and Wall Street. Well done. Good points Jim,
It says something to me that the "Antifa" manifesto, or "explique" has no author attached
to it.
None.
I wonder who the mega donors are, who are nursing this baby ..don't you ?
There was , on the other hand, enormous legitimacy to the Occupy Movement. as there was
enormous legitimacy to the Antiwar Movement.
There was, and is, enormous legitimacy to Bernie Sanders salient comment that too much of
our nation's wealth has migrated into the hands of a very few billionaire oligarchs, and our
middle class is vanishing.
The vanishing wealth of the middle class has substantially drained its political power and
consequently, the right to control its own destiny. Nothing proved this point more then when the oligarchs, displaying their utter contempt
for the peoples say, simply "gifted " the DNC nomination to Queen Hillary.
Antifa, at first blush, does not give two sh#ts about any of this, it seems hollow to the
core right out of the gate. Which, I imagine, is why Big Media has given it such a warm welcome.
As "Anti-fascism" quite explicitly defines itself as anti-liberal (in the classical
sense of liberalism), repudiates the right to free speech and takes upon itself the
responsibility to enforce though violence a remarkably narrow definition of what people can
and cannot say, it is of course quintessentially totalitarian.
Exactly so. It's the street manifestation of the basic violent intolerance inherent in the modern
left, and of the self-righteous arrogance of the crusading
antifascist/anti-racist/anti-anti-Semite/anti-homophobe (etc etc.), that is visible
everywhere in modern political discourse.
Threats of violence and expressions of wishes for suffering to be imposed on those they
disagree with are commonplace from such people, from the "antiracist" academic calling for
"white genocide" to the directly menacing abuse and actual physical violence ("it's ok to
punch a fascist") directed at those who breach the taboos of the left, and routinely
unpunished by any legal process despite the supposed modern politically correct concern to
use the law to punish any kind of "offence" or "hatred" directed at special categories of
victim.
The "Resources" page of the group's website offers a number of publications that promote
violence, including a 36-page manual called the "Mini-Manual of the Urban Guerrilla,"
which advises readers on how to conduct urban warfare, with sections on "sabotage,"
"kidnapping," "executions," and even "terrorism."
AMAZON has a number of these pro-Antifa books, preaching hate and overthrowing the govt
using any means necessary. Guess promoting hate and violence is OK with AMAZON, just don't
ask any questions about WW II.
I wonder who the mega donors are, who are nursing this baby ..don't you ?
Man, follow the donor-tree from Soros down through dozens of organizations, NGOs, the
Clinton Foundation, the Global Initiative, and offshoots from all of these, to boot. They
churn. And, I have to figure there are briefcases full of cash fronting riots and contrived
horseshit like Charlottesville. If a stat that says the kill ratio is 18:1 cops:perps, so I'm
not sure what #blacklivesmatter is but B/S. Yet, it lives on, with lots of franchisees out
there, waiting. I expect marches throughout the season when the cold weather subsides with
trouble clear to the election and trust me, the good folks at Antifa and #blm will be there.
Well, who feeds them? These aren't brain surgeons, these peeps. Where do they sleep when
they're in town? Who has their weapons and masks and transportation lined up when they get
there? For added fun, like in Charlottesville and elsewhere, fringes, local Blacks, playing
the #blm card, will be niggling at the edges, robbing the Whites trying to get out of a
scuffle. Funny: more virtue-signaling Antifa Whites got robbed than Unite-Right Whites.
Funnier: These guys, after they robbed them, they pulled off their pants and left them in the
alley sans wallet, keys, phone and britches. It's unbelievaboo.
Antifa. #blacklivesmatter. Friends of Soros and Democrat-based NGOs worldwide! And, fun
for the whole family! Come on down!
@Mark
Green Yes but how do we tackle it? The British youth have fallen for it and are
ostracising other youth who haven't, it's a wholesale cultural collapse achieved by holding
festival-style protests, controlling people through reward and punishment, and promising hand
outs, which the country cannot afford.
Young people are being brainwashed into accepting a massive loan with an undeclared
interest rate.
@alexander
The only reason any politician give's a rat's behind about the middle class is because it is
the tax cash cow. I have yet to see any tax reform for the middle class actually lower the
taxes on the middle class. Whether GOP or Dem, as soon as they say "middle class tax cut" get
ready for the middle class to take it up the a$$.
Great article and comments. The far left organization known as anti-fa meets the
definition of domestic terrorism, yet they remain untroubled, as far as we know, by DHS or
even many local police. But even more troubling is that without the media's collusion, they
would never have become the force they are now.
Consider the NFL kneeling issue. This was to support BLM. When it was seen as
disrespecting the flag the NFL's solution was to make it about freedom of speech and stand
but link arms to show "solidarity" with BLM. But done once, when will it stop? Do the players
plan on continuing to show solidarity throughout the season? What about next year? After
you've been bullied into obeying anti-fa, at what point can these sympathizers say it's
enough? Thus, the national anthem has been hijacked from being about national unity to being
a symbol of our continued submission to political extremists.
They want to destroy us, by that I mean white America, and a shockingly large number of
whites are good with that. Meeting their demands only results in new demands. Reparations are
a goal, but no doubt by the time we get there that won't be enough either.
The quote attributed to Mark Twain and Yogi Berra "It's Difficult to Make Predictions, Especially About the Future"
still holds. This assessment by Pete Escobar about forthcoming bankruptcy of KAS need to be verified
in three years from now. It is unclear whether the key future events (such as prediction that the
current Crown Prince might be
deposed with the CIA help) will take place.
It is, nevertheless, clear that KAS economics is under considerable stress due to low oil prices
and that eventually can bankrupt the kingdom as foreign currency reserves shrink rapidly. What
such economic crisis might entail for KAS we can only guess by reshuffling at the top is quite
probably in this case. So in a way the future of KAS hangs on how soon oil prices will be
pushed back into $100 range.
Notable quotes:
"... MBS is surrounded by inexperienced thirty-something princes, and alienating just about everyone else. ..."
"... "the CIA is outraged that the compromise worked out in April, 2014 has been abrogated wherein the greatest anti-terrorist factor in the Middle East, Mohammed bin Nayef, was arrested." That may prompt "vigorous action taken against MBS possibly in early October." And it might even coincide with the Salman-Trump get together. ..."
"... Asia Times' Gulf business source stresses how "the Saudi economy is under extreme strain based on their oil price war against Russia, and they are behind their bills in paying just about all their contractors. That could lead to the bankruptcy of some of the major enterprises in Saudi Arabia. The Saudi Arabia of MBS features the Crown Prince buying a US$600 million yacht and his father spending US$100 million on his summer vacation, highlighted on the front pages of the New York Times while the Kingdom strangles under their leadership." ..."
"... MBS's pet project, the spun-to-death Vision 2030, in theory aims to diversify from mere oil profits and dependency on the US to a more modern economy (and a more independent foreign policy). That's completely misguided, according to the source, because "the problem in Saudi Arabia is that their companies cannot function with their local population and [are] reliant on expatriates for about 70% or more of their staff. Aramco cannot run without expatriates. Therefore, selling 5% of Aramco to diversify does not solve the problem. If he wants a more productive society, and less handouts and meaningless government jobs, he has to first train and employ his own people." ..."
"... The similarly lauded Aramco IPO, arguably the largest share sale in history and originally scheduled for next year, has once again been postponed – "possibly" to the second half of 2019, according to officials in Riyadh. And still no one knows where shares will be sold; the NYSE is far from a done deal. ..."
"... I n parallel, MBS's war on Yemen, and the Saudi drive for regime change in Syria and to reshape the Greater Middle East, have turned out to be spectacular disasters. ..."
"... The Islamic State project was conceived as the ideal tool to force Iraq to implode. It's now public domain that the organization's funding came mostly from Saudi Arabia. Even the former imam of Mecca has publicly admitted ISIS' leadership "draw their ideas from what is written in our own books, our own principles." ..."
"... Salafi-jihadism is more than alive inside the Kingdom even as MBS tries to spin a (fake) liberal trend (the "baby you can drive my car" stunt). The problem is Riyadh congenitally cannot deliver on any liberal promise; the only legitimacy for the House of Saud lies in those religious "books" and "principles." ..."
"... In Syria, besides the fact that an absolute majority of the country's population does not wish to live in a Takfiristan , Saudi Arabia supported ISIS while Qatar supported al-Qaeda (Jabhat al-Nusra). That ended up in a crossfire bloodbath, with all those non-existent US-supported "moderate rebels" reduced to road kill. ..."
"... In Enemy of the State, the latest Mitch Rapp thriller written by Kyle Mills, President Alexander, sitting at the White House, blurts, "the Middle East is imploding because those Saudi sons of bitches have been pumping up religious fundamentalism to hide the fact that they're robbing their people blind." That's a fair assessment. ..."
"... In terms of what Washington wants, the CIA is not fond of MBS, to say the least. They want "their" man Nayef back. As for the Trump administration, rumors swirl it is " desperate for Saudi money , especially infrastructure investments in the Rust Belt." ..."
"... This piece first appeared in Asia Times . ..."
No wonder, considering that the ousted Crown Prince Mohammed bin Nayef – highly regarded in the
Beltway, especially Langley – is under house arrest. His massive web of agents at the Interior Ministry
has largely been "relieved of their authority". The
new Interior Minister
is Abdulaziz bin Saud bin Nayef, 34, the eldest son of the governor of the country's largely Shi'ite
Eastern Province, where all the oil is. Curiously, the father is now reporting to his son. MBS
is surrounded by inexperienced thirty-something princes, and alienating just about everyone else.
Former King Abdulaziz set up his Saudi succession based on the seniority of his sons; in theory,
if each one lived to the same age all would have a shot at the throne, thus avoiding the bloodletting
historically common in Arabian clans over lines of succession.
Now, says the source, "a bloodbath is predicted to be imminent." Especially because "the CIA
is outraged that the compromise worked out in April, 2014 has been abrogated wherein the greatest
anti-terrorist factor in the Middle East, Mohammed bin Nayef, was arrested." That may prompt "vigorous
action taken against MBS possibly in early October." And it might even coincide with the Salman-Trump
get together.
ISIS playing by the (Saudi) book
Asia Times' Gulf business source stresses how "the Saudi economy is under extreme strain based
on their oil price war against Russia, and they are behind their bills in paying just about all their
contractors. That could lead to the bankruptcy of some of the major enterprises in Saudi Arabia.
The Saudi Arabia of MBS features the Crown Prince buying a US$600 million yacht and his father spending
US$100 million on his summer vacation, highlighted on the front pages of the New York Times while
the Kingdom strangles under their leadership."
MBS's pet project, the spun-to-death Vision 2030, in theory aims to diversify from mere oil
profits and dependency on the US to a more modern economy (and a more independent foreign policy).
That's completely misguided, according to the source, because "the problem in Saudi Arabia is that
their companies cannot function with their local population and [are] reliant on expatriates for
about 70% or more of their staff. Aramco cannot run without expatriates. Therefore, selling 5% of
Aramco to diversify does not solve the problem. If he wants a more productive society, and less handouts
and meaningless government jobs, he has to first train and employ his own people."
The similarly lauded Aramco IPO, arguably the largest share sale in history and originally
scheduled for next year, has once again been postponed – "possibly" to the second half of 2019, according
to officials in Riyadh. And still no one knows where shares will be sold; the NYSE is far from a
done deal.
I n parallel, MBS's war on Yemen, and the Saudi drive for regime change in Syria and to reshape
the Greater Middle East, have turned out to be spectacular disasters. Egypt and Pakistan have
refused to send troops to Yemen, where relentless Saudi air bombing – with US and UK weapons – has
accelerated malnutrition, famine and cholera, and configured a massive humanitarian crisis.
The Islamic State project was conceived as the ideal tool to force Iraq to implode. It's now
public domain that the organization's funding came mostly from Saudi Arabia. Even the former imam
of Mecca has publicly admitted ISIS' leadership "draw their ideas from what is written in our own
books, our own principles."
Which brings us to the ultimate Saudi contradiction. Salafi-jihadism is more than alive inside
the Kingdom even as MBS tries to spin a (fake) liberal trend (the "baby you can drive my car" stunt).
The problem is Riyadh congenitally cannot deliver on any liberal promise; the only legitimacy for
the House of Saud lies in those religious "books" and "principles."
In Syria, besides the fact that an absolute majority of the country's population does not
wish to live in a
Takfiristan , Saudi Arabia supported ISIS while Qatar supported al-Qaeda (Jabhat al-Nusra). That
ended up in a crossfire bloodbath, with all those non-existent US-supported "moderate rebels" reduced
to road kill.
And then there's the economic blockade against Qatar – another brilliant MBS plot. That has only
served to improve Doha's relations with both Ankara and Tehran. Qatari Emir Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani
was not regime-changed, whether or not Trump really dissuaded Riyadh and Abu Dhabi from taking "military
action." There was no economic strangulation: Total, for instance, is about to invest US$2 billion
to expand production of Qatari natural gas. And Qatar, via its sovereign fund, counterpunched with
the ultimate soft power move – it bought global footballing brand
Neymar for PSG , and the "blockade" sank without a trace.
"Robbing their people blind"
In Enemy of the State, the latest Mitch Rapp thriller written by Kyle Mills, President Alexander,
sitting at the White House, blurts, "the Middle East is imploding because those Saudi sons of bitches
have been pumping up religious fundamentalism to hide the fact that they're robbing their people
blind." That's a fair assessment.
No dissent whatsoever is allowed in Saudi Arabia. Even the economic analyst Isam Az-Zamil, very
close to the top, has been arrested during the current repression campaign. So opposition to MBS
does not come only from the royal family or some top clerics – although the official spin rules that
only those supporting Muslim Brotherhood, Turkey, Iran and Qatari "terrorism" are being targeted.
In terms of what Washington wants, the CIA is not fond of MBS, to say the least. They want
"their" man Nayef back. As for the Trump administration, rumors swirl it is "
desperate for
Saudi money , especially infrastructure investments in the Rust Belt."
It will be immensely enlightening to compare what Trump gets from Salman with what Putin gets
from Salman: the ailing King will
visit Moscow in late October. Rosneft is interested in buying shares of Aramco when the IPO takes
place. Riyadh and Moscow are considering an OPEC deal extension as well as an OPEC-non-OPEC cooperation
platform incorporating the Gas Exporting Countries Forum (GECF).
Riyadh has read the writing on the new wall: Moscow's rising political / strategic capital all
across the board, from Iran, Syria and Qatar to Turkey and Yemen. That does not sit well with the
US deep state. Even if Trump gets some Rust Belt deals, the burning question is whether the CIA and
its friends can live with MBS on the House of Saud throne.
No so fast... Five years later (the article was written in 2013) the US empire is still
going strong. meanwhile from 2013 to 2017 it managed to counterattack resource
nationalists (killing Kaddafi) and and win in Libya, making the country a colony again.
I think Venezuela is the next. Oil prices
dropped more then 50% in 2014 (from over $100 to less then $50 per barrel ) and did not yet recovered...
Notable quotes:
"... For an example of the ethical problems of empire, think about the completely unjustifiable attacks on civilians done by the U.S. in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and most prominently in Pakistan and Yemen, especially done by drones. Or consider U.S. use of torture, from Abu Ghraib to Guantanamo Bay. As everyone knows by now, ethical and humanitarian appeals have been completely and categorically rejected by U.S. leaders, not beginning with 9-11, certainly rejected with greater vigor since then. ..."
"... But there is another, often overlooked, analysis of U.S. actions, that is the logical result of engaging in the actions of Empire, and that concerns the logical consequence of using massive amounts of resources to attempt to control the resources being used (the second use of the term resources here includes citizens; the people of a city or nation). As the economic, logistic, and humanitarian costs all rise in direct proportion to Empire's actions, the sustaining of the Empire becomes impossible, on the basis of its own internal logic. ..."
"... When the issue of blowback is added "i.e. that other nations and peoples are unlikely to cooperate willingly in having their resources, humanity, and very lives removed from them "the end result, Empire's fall, could be hastened, and is certainly assured. We can now predict not only how it will happen, but also its imminent coming. ..."
"... First, the heaviest resource consumers of fossil fuels, in order, are the U.S. military, U.S. citizens, China, and India. The Department of Defense per capita energy consumption is 10 times more than per capita energy consumption in China, or 30 times more than that of Africa. ..."
"... Oil accounts for more than three-fourths of DoD’s total energy consumption. The Post Carbon Institute estimates that abroad alone, the U.S. military consumes about 150,000 barrels per day. In 2006, for example, the Air Force consumed 2.6 billion gallons of jet-fuel, which is the same amount of fuel U.S. airplanes consumed during all of WWII (between December 1941 and August 1945) (from The Resilience Group of the Post Carbon Institute, www.resilience.org ). ..."
"... This essays suggests that these two solid arguments should now be combined with an institutional-logical analysis to demonstrate not only the intrinsic, natural limits to empire, but to show reasons how and why empire must and will ultimately disintegrate due to the hubris of ignoring natural limitations of unbridled consumption coupled with attempts at singular control over others' resources and peoples. ..."
There are numerous legal and ethical arguments that can and have been made in opposition to
U.S. foreign policy of raw aggression. For an example of the illegalities of U.S. Empire,
examine the Geneva Conventions, all four of which directly proscribe what they each call
outrages to human dignity, in particular
humiliating and degrading treatment (I, 1, 3). The
outrages are named specifically as torture, mutilation, cruel
treatment, taking hostages, murder, biological experimentation, and passing sentences on
prisoners without benefit of a regularly constituted
court.
Additionally, the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 both underscore the Geneva Conventions
and expand the traditional ethical concerns to rights and duties of neutral states by banning
the use of poison gases or arms, destroying or seizing enemy private property, attacking towns
and cities that are undefended, pillaging, collective punishment, servility of enemy citizens,
and bullets made to wreak havoc once inside the human body. Prescriptions to limit the conduct
of war include the requirements to warn towns of impending attacks, to protect cultural,
religious, and health institutions, and to insure public order and safety.
For an example of the ethical problems of empire, think about the completely unjustifiable
attacks on civilians done by the U.S. in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and most prominently
in Pakistan and Yemen, especially done by drones. Or consider U.S. use of torture, from Abu
Ghraib to Guantanamo Bay. As everyone knows by now, ethical and humanitarian appeals have been
completely and categorically rejected by U.S. leaders, not beginning with 9-11, certainly
rejected with greater vigor since then.
But there is another, often overlooked, analysis of U.S. actions, that is the logical result
of engaging in the actions of Empire, and that concerns the logical consequence of using
massive amounts of resources to attempt to control the resources being used (the second use of
the term resources here includes citizens; the people of a
city or nation). As the economic, logistic, and humanitarian costs all rise in direct
proportion to Empire's actions, the sustaining of the Empire becomes
impossible, on the basis of its own internal logic.
In whatever historical epoch you choose, if you take your compass and draw a circle around
any given tribe, you can see the desired extent of their territorial claims for resource
control. One thus can see that particular group's
resource consumption;
and
circle of desired resource control. But when two further historical developments are
added, such as
technologically-driven consumption (e.g. fossil-fuel guzzling appliances and
cars, etc.); and
now necessary desires for global resources needed to feed that
group's consumption habits "then the situation expands
sufficiently to become one of using extensive amounts of the very resources one is attempting
to control (in the U.S. case, oil and money) for the sake of controlling the resources over
which one needs to exert control! This circular logic cannot be maintained when it meets
a
scarcity of resources; and
the natural-institutional-logical antinomy of using resources in
massive amounts to control the resources you are using for control. In other words, the empire
based on this pattern must end when it runs headlong into resource scarcity, and/or
natural-logical contradictions involving its own internal (economic and resource) limitations.
This argument against U.S. Empire is not based on ethical or legal grounds (although those
remain the best arguments in favor of voluntarily ending empire and regaining our citizenship
[civil rights] and humanness) "since those arguments have been put asunder by the
U.S. administrators of empire. Rather, the institutional-logical analysis argues that an empire
such as the U.S. has constructed exhausts itself by being unable to expand fast enough to
control everything it seeks in order to continue its dominance.
When the issue of blowback is
added "i.e. that other nations and peoples are unlikely to cooperate willingly in
having their resources, humanity, and very lives removed from them "the end result,
Empire's fall, could be hastened, and is certainly assured. We can now
predict not only how it will happen, but also its imminent coming. Here's
how.
First, the heaviest resource consumers of fossil fuels, in order, are the U.S. military,
U.S. citizens, China, and India. The Department of Defense per capita energy consumption is 10
times more than per capita energy consumption in China, or 30 times more than that of Africa.
Oil accounts for more than three-fourths of DoD’s total energy consumption. The Post
Carbon Institute estimates that abroad alone, the U.S. military consumes about 150,000 barrels
per day. In 2006, for example, the Air Force consumed 2.6 billion gallons of jet-fuel, which is
the same amount of fuel U.S. airplanes consumed during all of WWII (between December 1941 and
August 1945) (from The Resilience Group of the Post Carbon Institute, www.resilience.org ).
Second, concerning the global dimension of resource control, one needs only to understand
the preferred method that U.S. Empire acolytes use to justify their actions abroad: the
state of emergency that was declared after 9/11 has continued
unabated since then, due to the ongoing threat of
terrorism (see Jeremy Scahill, Dirty Wars: The World is a
Battlefield , for the latest detailed instances of this process.). The domestic equivalent
to his war has been well underway since 9-11. (For detail on
the domestic front, see also Trevor Aaronson, Terror Factory , regarding FBI domestic
use of the ongoing threat of terrorism to deny basic civil
rights to citizens).
This allows U.S. government administrators to maintain a state of
exception to the rule of law. Georgio Agamben, in his book States of
Exception , defines this phrase as extraordinary governmental actions resulting from
distinctively political crises. As such, the actions of such administrators are in-between
normal political operations and legal ones. This no
man's land of government policy is not only difficult to
define, but brings in its wake a suspension of the entire existing
juridical order. Thus, states of exception are those in which a government in fact
suspends the rule of law for itself, while attempting to maintain some semblance of legal
order, for the purpose of consolidating its power and control (see Georgio Agamben, States
of Exception , Chapter Two).
Regarding the scarcity of resources issue, none other than the World Bank produced a
detailed study of demand and supply projections for the immediate future. The study projects
that, on the basis of current consumption and immediately precedent rises in it, the demand for
food will rise by 50% by 2030, for meat by 85%, for oil by 20 million barrels a day, and for
water by 32%, all by the same year.
This is met by alarming statistics and predictions from the
supply side. In their report, they state that global food growth rates fell by 1.1% over
the past decade, and are continuing to fall, while global food consumption outstripped
production in seven of the eight years between 2000 and 2008. Further, the Food and
Agricultural Organization and the UN Environment Program estimate that 16% of the arable
land used now is degraded. Intensifying competition between different land uses is
likely to emerge in future, including food crops, livestock, etc., and the
world's expanding cities. Current rates of water extraction from
rivers, groundwater and other sources are already unsustainable in many parts of the world.
Over one billion people live in water basins in which the physical scarcity of water is
absolute; by 2025, the figure is projected to rise two billion, with up to two thirds of the
world's population living in water-stressed conditions (mainly in non-OECD
countries).
On oil , the International Energy Agency has warned consistently that there
is a significant risk of a new supply crunch as the global
economy recovers. Additionally, the IEA's
chief economist argues that peak production could take place by 2020 (from the
World Development Report 2011, Background Paper: Resource Scarcity, Climate
Change and the Risk of Violent Conflict, www.worldbank.org ).
The conclusion from all of these points is nearly obvious: if resources are even relatively
scarce, and the habits of and desires for consumption continue to rise among nations, and
especially among the citizens of Empire (as has been documented in part above), and if control
over those resources is the goal of Empire, but if the Empire consumes more resources than it
can logistically or economically control due to natural limitations of those resources
themselves, and/or to the consumption of more resources than is either available to it or that
it needs to survive, then the power of the Empire will naturally-logically end in a sharp
decline, and soon (For applicable details on this, see Richard Heinberg,
The Brief, Tragic Reign of Consumerism "and the Birth of a
Happy Alternative, www.postcarbon.org ).
With all indicators predicting that the contradictions of Empire's
resource consumption, circle of desired resource control, scarcity of resources, and
contradiction in resource use and control, are all about to collide in a few years, not
decades, it is time to start planning for a post-Empire future. To that end, any psychologist
reading this analysis will recognize themes of realistic conflict
theory, which is a theory which explains how intergroup hostility can arise as a
result of conflicting goals and competition over limited resources
The key point in bringing
this psychological theory into the discussion is that in this theory, it is concluded that
friction between groups can be reduced only in the presence of superordinate goals that promote
united, cooperative action (see Wikipedia on Realistic Conflict
Theory for a good overview, summarized here. https://en.wikipedia.org ). Note the agreement of the ethical,
legal, and psychological analyses of Empire's oppression: the most effective
resolution to oppression, (empire) dominance, and conflict is united, cooperative action, not
the attempt to control or destroy people and nations who stand in the way of our control.
We have seen that progressives have had available to them a standard two-pronged argument
against empire "American or any other". Progressives have for good reason appealed
consistently to the ethical and the legal arguments available to help stem the desires for
world and resource domination.
This essays suggests that these two solid arguments should now
be combined with an institutional-logical analysis to demonstrate not only the intrinsic,
natural limits to empire, but to show reasons how and why empire must and will ultimately
disintegrate due to the hubris of ignoring natural limitations of unbridled consumption coupled
with attempts at singular control over others' resources and peoples.
"... It began with Israel's founding father, David Ben Gurion, who devised a strategy of "allying with the periphery" – building military ties to non-Arab states like Turkey, Ethiopia, India and Iran, then ruled by the shahs. The goal was to help Israel to break out of its regional isolation and contain an Arab nationalism led by Egypt's Gamal Abdel Nasser. ..."
"... Israeli general Ariel Sharon expanded this security doctrine in the early 1980s, calling for Israel to become an imperial power in the Middle East. Israel would ensure that it alone in the region possessed nuclear weapons, making it indispensible to the US. ..."
"... Sharon was not explicit about how Israel's empire could be realised, but an indication was provided at around the same time in the Yinon Plan, written for the World Zionist Organisation by a former Israeli foreign ministry official. ..."
"... Oded Yinon proposed the implosion of the Middle East, breaking apart the region's key states – and Israel's main opponents – by fuelling sectarian and ethnic discord. The aim was to fracture these states, weakening them so that Israel could secure its place as sole regional power. ..."
"... The strategy of "Balkanising" the Middle East found favour in the US among a group of hawkish policymakers, known as neoconservatives, who came to prominence during George W Bush's presidency. ..."
"... Heavily influenced by Israel, they promoted the idea of "rolling back" key states, especially Iraq, Iran and Syria, which were opposed to Israeli-US dominance in the region. They prioritised ousting Saddam Hussein, who had fired missiles on Israel during the 1991 Gulf war. ..."
"... Last month at the Herzliya conference, an annual jamboree for Israel's security establishment, justice minister Ayelet Shaked called for a Kurdish state. She has stated that it would be integral to Israeli efforts to "reshape" the Middle East. ..."
"... The unravelling of Britain and France's map of the region would likely lead to chaos of the kind that a strong, nuclear-armed Israel, with backing from Washington, could richly exploit. Not least, yet more bedlam would push the Palestinian cause even further down the international community's list of priorities. ..."
Palestinians and Israelis watched last week's referendum of Iraq's Kurds with special
interest. Israeli officials and many ordinary Palestinians were delighted – for very
different reasons – to see an overwhelming vote to split away from Iraq.
Given the backlash from Baghdad and anger from Iran and Turkey, which have restive Kurdish
minorities, the creation of a Kurdistan in northern Iraq may not happen soon.
Palestinian support for the Kurds is not difficult to understand. Palestinians, too, were
overlooked when Britain and France carved up the Middle East into states a century ago. Like
the Kurds, Palestinians have found themselves trapped in different territories, oppressed by
their overlords.
Israel's complex interests in Kurdish independence are harder to unravel.
Prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu was the sole world leader to back Kurdish independence,
and other politicians spoke of the Kurds' "moral right" to a state. None saw how uneasily that
sat with their approach to the Palestinian case.
On a superficial level, Israel would gain because the Kurds sit on plentiful oil. Unlike the
Arab states and Iran, they are keen to sell to Israel.
But the reasons for Israeli support run deeper. There has been co-operation, much of it
secret, between Israel and the Kurds for decades. Israeli media lapped up tributes from
now-retired generals who trained the Kurds from the 1960s. Those connections have not been
forgotten or ended. Independence rallies featured Israeli flags, and Kurds spoke of their
ambition to become a "second Israel".
Israel views the Kurds as a key ally in an Arab-dominated region. Now, with Islamic State's
influence receding, an independent Kurdistan could help prevent Iran filling the void. Israel
wants a bulwark against Iran transferring its weapons, intelligence and know-how to Shiite
allies in Syria and Lebanon.
Israel's current interests, however, hint at a larger vision it has long harboured for the
region – and one I set out at length in my book Israel and the Clash of
Civilisations.
It began with Israel's founding father, David Ben Gurion, who devised a strategy of
"allying with the periphery" – building military ties to non-Arab states like Turkey,
Ethiopia, India and Iran, then ruled by the shahs. The goal was to help Israel to break out of
its regional isolation and contain an Arab nationalism led by Egypt's Gamal Abdel
Nasser.
Israeli general Ariel Sharon expanded this security doctrine in the early 1980s, calling
for Israel to become an imperial power in the Middle East. Israel would ensure that it alone in
the region possessed nuclear weapons, making it indispensible to the US.
Sharon was not explicit about how Israel's empire could be realised, but an indication
was provided at around the same time in the Yinon Plan, written for the World Zionist
Organisation by a former Israeli foreign ministry official.
Oded Yinon proposed the implosion of the Middle East, breaking apart the region's key
states – and Israel's main opponents – by fuelling sectarian and ethnic discord.
The aim was to fracture these states, weakening them so that Israel could secure its place as
sole regional power.
The inspiration for this idea lay in the occupied territories, where Israel had contained
Palestinians in a series of separate enclaves. Later, Israel would terminally divide the
Palestinian national movement, nurturing an Islamist extremism that coalesced into Hamas and
Islamic Jihad.
In this period, Israel also tested its ideas in neighbouring southern Lebanon, which it
occupied for two decades. There, its presence further stoked sectarian tensions between
Christians, Druze, Sunni and Shiite Muslims.
The strategy of "Balkanising" the Middle East found favour in the US among a group of
hawkish policymakers, known as neoconservatives, who came to prominence during George W Bush's
presidency.
Heavily influenced by Israel, they promoted the idea of "rolling back" key states,
especially Iraq, Iran and Syria, which were opposed to Israeli-US dominance in the region. They
prioritised ousting Saddam Hussein, who had fired missiles on Israel during the 1991 Gulf
war.
Although often assumed to be an unfortunate side effect of the 2003 invasion of Iraq,
Washington's oversight of the country's bloody disintegration into Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish
fiefdoms looked suspiciously intentional. Now, Iraqi Kurds are close to making that break-up
permanent.
Syria has gone a similar way, mired in convulsive fighting that has left its ruler impotent.
And Tehran is, again, the target of efforts by Israel and its allies in the US to tear up the
2015 nuclear accord, backing Iran into a corner. Arab, Baluchi, Kurdish and Azeri minorities
there may be ripe for stirring up.
Last month at the Herzliya conference, an annual jamboree for Israel's security
establishment, justice minister Ayelet Shaked called for a Kurdish state. She has stated that
it would be integral to Israeli efforts to "reshape" the Middle East.
The unravelling of Britain and France's map of the region would likely lead to chaos of
the kind that a strong, nuclear-armed Israel, with backing from Washington, could richly
exploit. Not least, yet more bedlam would push the Palestinian cause even further down the
international community's list of priorities.
A version of this article first appeared in the National, Abu Dhabi.
The quote attributed to Mark Twain and Yogi Berra "It's Difficult to Make Predictions, Especially About the Future"
still holds. This assessment by Pete Escobar about forthcoming bankruptcy of KAS need to be verified
in three years from now. It is unclear whether the key future events (such as prediction that the
current Crown Prince might be
deposed with the CIA help) will take place.
It is, nevertheless, clear that KAS economics is under considerable stress due to low oil prices
and that eventually can bankrupt the kingdom as foreign currency reserves shrink rapidly. What
such economic crisis might entail for KAS we can only guess by reshuffling at the top is quite
probably in this case. So in a way the future of KAS hangs on how soon oil prices will be
pushed back into $100 range.
Notable quotes:
"... MBS is surrounded by inexperienced thirty-something princes, and alienating just about everyone else. ..."
"... "the CIA is outraged that the compromise worked out in April, 2014 has been abrogated wherein the greatest anti-terrorist factor in the Middle East, Mohammed bin Nayef, was arrested." That may prompt "vigorous action taken against MBS possibly in early October." And it might even coincide with the Salman-Trump get together. ..."
"... Asia Times' Gulf business source stresses how "the Saudi economy is under extreme strain based on their oil price war against Russia, and they are behind their bills in paying just about all their contractors. That could lead to the bankruptcy of some of the major enterprises in Saudi Arabia. The Saudi Arabia of MBS features the Crown Prince buying a US$600 million yacht and his father spending US$100 million on his summer vacation, highlighted on the front pages of the New York Times while the Kingdom strangles under their leadership." ..."
"... MBS's pet project, the spun-to-death Vision 2030, in theory aims to diversify from mere oil profits and dependency on the US to a more modern economy (and a more independent foreign policy). That's completely misguided, according to the source, because "the problem in Saudi Arabia is that their companies cannot function with their local population and [are] reliant on expatriates for about 70% or more of their staff. Aramco cannot run without expatriates. Therefore, selling 5% of Aramco to diversify does not solve the problem. If he wants a more productive society, and less handouts and meaningless government jobs, he has to first train and employ his own people." ..."
"... The similarly lauded Aramco IPO, arguably the largest share sale in history and originally scheduled for next year, has once again been postponed – "possibly" to the second half of 2019, according to officials in Riyadh. And still no one knows where shares will be sold; the NYSE is far from a done deal. ..."
"... I n parallel, MBS's war on Yemen, and the Saudi drive for regime change in Syria and to reshape the Greater Middle East, have turned out to be spectacular disasters. ..."
"... The Islamic State project was conceived as the ideal tool to force Iraq to implode. It's now public domain that the organization's funding came mostly from Saudi Arabia. Even the former imam of Mecca has publicly admitted ISIS' leadership "draw their ideas from what is written in our own books, our own principles." ..."
"... Salafi-jihadism is more than alive inside the Kingdom even as MBS tries to spin a (fake) liberal trend (the "baby you can drive my car" stunt). The problem is Riyadh congenitally cannot deliver on any liberal promise; the only legitimacy for the House of Saud lies in those religious "books" and "principles." ..."
"... In Syria, besides the fact that an absolute majority of the country's population does not wish to live in a Takfiristan , Saudi Arabia supported ISIS while Qatar supported al-Qaeda (Jabhat al-Nusra). That ended up in a crossfire bloodbath, with all those non-existent US-supported "moderate rebels" reduced to road kill. ..."
"... In Enemy of the State, the latest Mitch Rapp thriller written by Kyle Mills, President Alexander, sitting at the White House, blurts, "the Middle East is imploding because those Saudi sons of bitches have been pumping up religious fundamentalism to hide the fact that they're robbing their people blind." That's a fair assessment. ..."
"... In terms of what Washington wants, the CIA is not fond of MBS, to say the least. They want "their" man Nayef back. As for the Trump administration, rumors swirl it is " desperate for Saudi money , especially infrastructure investments in the Rust Belt." ..."
"... This piece first appeared in Asia Times . ..."
No wonder, considering that the ousted Crown Prince Mohammed bin Nayef – highly regarded in the
Beltway, especially Langley – is under house arrest. His massive web of agents at the Interior Ministry
has largely been "relieved of their authority". The
new Interior Minister
is Abdulaziz bin Saud bin Nayef, 34, the eldest son of the governor of the country's largely Shi'ite
Eastern Province, where all the oil is. Curiously, the father is now reporting to his son. MBS
is surrounded by inexperienced thirty-something princes, and alienating just about everyone else.
Former King Abdulaziz set up his Saudi succession based on the seniority of his sons; in theory,
if each one lived to the same age all would have a shot at the throne, thus avoiding the bloodletting
historically common in Arabian clans over lines of succession.
Now, says the source, "a bloodbath is predicted to be imminent." Especially because "the CIA
is outraged that the compromise worked out in April, 2014 has been abrogated wherein the greatest
anti-terrorist factor in the Middle East, Mohammed bin Nayef, was arrested." That may prompt "vigorous
action taken against MBS possibly in early October." And it might even coincide with the Salman-Trump
get together.
ISIS playing by the (Saudi) book
Asia Times' Gulf business source stresses how "the Saudi economy is under extreme strain based
on their oil price war against Russia, and they are behind their bills in paying just about all their
contractors. That could lead to the bankruptcy of some of the major enterprises in Saudi Arabia.
The Saudi Arabia of MBS features the Crown Prince buying a US$600 million yacht and his father spending
US$100 million on his summer vacation, highlighted on the front pages of the New York Times while
the Kingdom strangles under their leadership."
MBS's pet project, the spun-to-death Vision 2030, in theory aims to diversify from mere oil
profits and dependency on the US to a more modern economy (and a more independent foreign policy).
That's completely misguided, according to the source, because "the problem in Saudi Arabia is that
their companies cannot function with their local population and [are] reliant on expatriates for
about 70% or more of their staff. Aramco cannot run without expatriates. Therefore, selling 5% of
Aramco to diversify does not solve the problem. If he wants a more productive society, and less handouts
and meaningless government jobs, he has to first train and employ his own people."
The similarly lauded Aramco IPO, arguably the largest share sale in history and originally
scheduled for next year, has once again been postponed – "possibly" to the second half of 2019, according
to officials in Riyadh. And still no one knows where shares will be sold; the NYSE is far from a
done deal.
I n parallel, MBS's war on Yemen, and the Saudi drive for regime change in Syria and to reshape
the Greater Middle East, have turned out to be spectacular disasters. Egypt and Pakistan have
refused to send troops to Yemen, where relentless Saudi air bombing – with US and UK weapons – has
accelerated malnutrition, famine and cholera, and configured a massive humanitarian crisis.
The Islamic State project was conceived as the ideal tool to force Iraq to implode. It's now
public domain that the organization's funding came mostly from Saudi Arabia. Even the former imam
of Mecca has publicly admitted ISIS' leadership "draw their ideas from what is written in our own
books, our own principles."
Which brings us to the ultimate Saudi contradiction. Salafi-jihadism is more than alive inside
the Kingdom even as MBS tries to spin a (fake) liberal trend (the "baby you can drive my car" stunt).
The problem is Riyadh congenitally cannot deliver on any liberal promise; the only legitimacy for
the House of Saud lies in those religious "books" and "principles."
In Syria, besides the fact that an absolute majority of the country's population does not
wish to live in a
Takfiristan , Saudi Arabia supported ISIS while Qatar supported al-Qaeda (Jabhat al-Nusra). That
ended up in a crossfire bloodbath, with all those non-existent US-supported "moderate rebels" reduced
to road kill.
And then there's the economic blockade against Qatar – another brilliant MBS plot. That has only
served to improve Doha's relations with both Ankara and Tehran. Qatari Emir Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani
was not regime-changed, whether or not Trump really dissuaded Riyadh and Abu Dhabi from taking "military
action." There was no economic strangulation: Total, for instance, is about to invest US$2 billion
to expand production of Qatari natural gas. And Qatar, via its sovereign fund, counterpunched with
the ultimate soft power move – it bought global footballing brand
Neymar for PSG , and the "blockade" sank without a trace.
"Robbing their people blind"
In Enemy of the State, the latest Mitch Rapp thriller written by Kyle Mills, President Alexander,
sitting at the White House, blurts, "the Middle East is imploding because those Saudi sons of bitches
have been pumping up religious fundamentalism to hide the fact that they're robbing their people
blind." That's a fair assessment.
No dissent whatsoever is allowed in Saudi Arabia. Even the economic analyst Isam Az-Zamil, very
close to the top, has been arrested during the current repression campaign. So opposition to MBS
does not come only from the royal family or some top clerics – although the official spin rules that
only those supporting Muslim Brotherhood, Turkey, Iran and Qatari "terrorism" are being targeted.
In terms of what Washington wants, the CIA is not fond of MBS, to say the least. They want
"their" man Nayef back. As for the Trump administration, rumors swirl it is "
desperate for
Saudi money , especially infrastructure investments in the Rust Belt."
It will be immensely enlightening to compare what Trump gets from Salman with what Putin gets
from Salman: the ailing King will
visit Moscow in late October. Rosneft is interested in buying shares of Aramco when the IPO takes
place. Riyadh and Moscow are considering an OPEC deal extension as well as an OPEC-non-OPEC cooperation
platform incorporating the Gas Exporting Countries Forum (GECF).
Riyadh has read the writing on the new wall: Moscow's rising political / strategic capital all
across the board, from Iran, Syria and Qatar to Turkey and Yemen. That does not sit well with the
US deep state. Even if Trump gets some Rust Belt deals, the burning question is whether the CIA and
its friends can live with MBS on the House of Saud throne.
No so fast... Five years later (the article was written in 2013) the US empire is still
going strong. meanwhile from 2013 to 2017 it managed to counterattack resource
nationalists (killing Kaddafi) and and win in Libya, making the country a colony again.
I think Venezuela is the next. Oil prices
dropped more then 50% in 2014 (from over $100 to less then $50 per barrel ) and did not yet recovered...
Notable quotes:
"... For an example of the ethical problems of empire, think about the completely unjustifiable attacks on civilians done by the U.S. in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and most prominently in Pakistan and Yemen, especially done by drones. Or consider U.S. use of torture, from Abu Ghraib to Guantanamo Bay. As everyone knows by now, ethical and humanitarian appeals have been completely and categorically rejected by U.S. leaders, not beginning with 9-11, certainly rejected with greater vigor since then. ..."
"... But there is another, often overlooked, analysis of U.S. actions, that is the logical result of engaging in the actions of Empire, and that concerns the logical consequence of using massive amounts of resources to attempt to control the resources being used (the second use of the term resources here includes citizens; the people of a city or nation). As the economic, logistic, and humanitarian costs all rise in direct proportion to Empire's actions, the sustaining of the Empire becomes impossible, on the basis of its own internal logic. ..."
"... When the issue of blowback is added "i.e. that other nations and peoples are unlikely to cooperate willingly in having their resources, humanity, and very lives removed from them "the end result, Empire's fall, could be hastened, and is certainly assured. We can now predict not only how it will happen, but also its imminent coming. ..."
"... First, the heaviest resource consumers of fossil fuels, in order, are the U.S. military, U.S. citizens, China, and India. The Department of Defense per capita energy consumption is 10 times more than per capita energy consumption in China, or 30 times more than that of Africa. ..."
"... Oil accounts for more than three-fourths of DoD’s total energy consumption. The Post Carbon Institute estimates that abroad alone, the U.S. military consumes about 150,000 barrels per day. In 2006, for example, the Air Force consumed 2.6 billion gallons of jet-fuel, which is the same amount of fuel U.S. airplanes consumed during all of WWII (between December 1941 and August 1945) (from The Resilience Group of the Post Carbon Institute, www.resilience.org ). ..."
"... This essays suggests that these two solid arguments should now be combined with an institutional-logical analysis to demonstrate not only the intrinsic, natural limits to empire, but to show reasons how and why empire must and will ultimately disintegrate due to the hubris of ignoring natural limitations of unbridled consumption coupled with attempts at singular control over others' resources and peoples. ..."
There are numerous legal and ethical arguments that can and have been made in opposition to
U.S. foreign policy of raw aggression. For an example of the illegalities of U.S. Empire,
examine the Geneva Conventions, all four of which directly proscribe what they each call
outrages to human dignity, in particular
humiliating and degrading treatment (I, 1, 3). The
outrages are named specifically as torture, mutilation, cruel
treatment, taking hostages, murder, biological experimentation, and passing sentences on
prisoners without benefit of a regularly constituted
court.
Additionally, the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 both underscore the Geneva Conventions
and expand the traditional ethical concerns to rights and duties of neutral states by banning
the use of poison gases or arms, destroying or seizing enemy private property, attacking towns
and cities that are undefended, pillaging, collective punishment, servility of enemy citizens,
and bullets made to wreak havoc once inside the human body. Prescriptions to limit the conduct
of war include the requirements to warn towns of impending attacks, to protect cultural,
religious, and health institutions, and to insure public order and safety.
For an example of the ethical problems of empire, think about the completely unjustifiable
attacks on civilians done by the U.S. in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and most prominently
in Pakistan and Yemen, especially done by drones. Or consider U.S. use of torture, from Abu
Ghraib to Guantanamo Bay. As everyone knows by now, ethical and humanitarian appeals have been
completely and categorically rejected by U.S. leaders, not beginning with 9-11, certainly
rejected with greater vigor since then.
But there is another, often overlooked, analysis of U.S. actions, that is the logical result
of engaging in the actions of Empire, and that concerns the logical consequence of using
massive amounts of resources to attempt to control the resources being used (the second use of
the term resources here includes citizens; the people of a
city or nation). As the economic, logistic, and humanitarian costs all rise in direct
proportion to Empire's actions, the sustaining of the Empire becomes
impossible, on the basis of its own internal logic.
In whatever historical epoch you choose, if you take your compass and draw a circle around
any given tribe, you can see the desired extent of their territorial claims for resource
control. One thus can see that particular group's
resource consumption;
and
circle of desired resource control. But when two further historical developments are
added, such as
technologically-driven consumption (e.g. fossil-fuel guzzling appliances and
cars, etc.); and
now necessary desires for global resources needed to feed that
group's consumption habits "then the situation expands
sufficiently to become one of using extensive amounts of the very resources one is attempting
to control (in the U.S. case, oil and money) for the sake of controlling the resources over
which one needs to exert control! This circular logic cannot be maintained when it meets
a
scarcity of resources; and
the natural-institutional-logical antinomy of using resources in
massive amounts to control the resources you are using for control. In other words, the empire
based on this pattern must end when it runs headlong into resource scarcity, and/or
natural-logical contradictions involving its own internal (economic and resource) limitations.
This argument against U.S. Empire is not based on ethical or legal grounds (although those
remain the best arguments in favor of voluntarily ending empire and regaining our citizenship
[civil rights] and humanness) "since those arguments have been put asunder by the
U.S. administrators of empire. Rather, the institutional-logical analysis argues that an empire
such as the U.S. has constructed exhausts itself by being unable to expand fast enough to
control everything it seeks in order to continue its dominance.
When the issue of blowback is
added "i.e. that other nations and peoples are unlikely to cooperate willingly in
having their resources, humanity, and very lives removed from them "the end result,
Empire's fall, could be hastened, and is certainly assured. We can now
predict not only how it will happen, but also its imminent coming. Here's
how.
First, the heaviest resource consumers of fossil fuels, in order, are the U.S. military,
U.S. citizens, China, and India. The Department of Defense per capita energy consumption is 10
times more than per capita energy consumption in China, or 30 times more than that of Africa.
Oil accounts for more than three-fourths of DoD’s total energy consumption. The Post
Carbon Institute estimates that abroad alone, the U.S. military consumes about 150,000 barrels
per day. In 2006, for example, the Air Force consumed 2.6 billion gallons of jet-fuel, which is
the same amount of fuel U.S. airplanes consumed during all of WWII (between December 1941 and
August 1945) (from The Resilience Group of the Post Carbon Institute, www.resilience.org ).
Second, concerning the global dimension of resource control, one needs only to understand
the preferred method that U.S. Empire acolytes use to justify their actions abroad: the
state of emergency that was declared after 9/11 has continued
unabated since then, due to the ongoing threat of
terrorism (see Jeremy Scahill, Dirty Wars: The World is a
Battlefield , for the latest detailed instances of this process.). The domestic equivalent
to his war has been well underway since 9-11. (For detail on
the domestic front, see also Trevor Aaronson, Terror Factory , regarding FBI domestic
use of the ongoing threat of terrorism to deny basic civil
rights to citizens).
This allows U.S. government administrators to maintain a state of
exception to the rule of law. Georgio Agamben, in his book States of
Exception , defines this phrase as extraordinary governmental actions resulting from
distinctively political crises. As such, the actions of such administrators are in-between
normal political operations and legal ones. This no
man's land of government policy is not only difficult to
define, but brings in its wake a suspension of the entire existing
juridical order. Thus, states of exception are those in which a government in fact
suspends the rule of law for itself, while attempting to maintain some semblance of legal
order, for the purpose of consolidating its power and control (see Georgio Agamben, States
of Exception , Chapter Two).
Regarding the scarcity of resources issue, none other than the World Bank produced a
detailed study of demand and supply projections for the immediate future. The study projects
that, on the basis of current consumption and immediately precedent rises in it, the demand for
food will rise by 50% by 2030, for meat by 85%, for oil by 20 million barrels a day, and for
water by 32%, all by the same year.
This is met by alarming statistics and predictions from the
supply side. In their report, they state that global food growth rates fell by 1.1% over
the past decade, and are continuing to fall, while global food consumption outstripped
production in seven of the eight years between 2000 and 2008. Further, the Food and
Agricultural Organization and the UN Environment Program estimate that 16% of the arable
land used now is degraded. Intensifying competition between different land uses is
likely to emerge in future, including food crops, livestock, etc., and the
world's expanding cities. Current rates of water extraction from
rivers, groundwater and other sources are already unsustainable in many parts of the world.
Over one billion people live in water basins in which the physical scarcity of water is
absolute; by 2025, the figure is projected to rise two billion, with up to two thirds of the
world's population living in water-stressed conditions (mainly in non-OECD
countries).
On oil , the International Energy Agency has warned consistently that there
is a significant risk of a new supply crunch as the global
economy recovers. Additionally, the IEA's
chief economist argues that peak production could take place by 2020 (from the
World Development Report 2011, Background Paper: Resource Scarcity, Climate
Change and the Risk of Violent Conflict, www.worldbank.org ).
The conclusion from all of these points is nearly obvious: if resources are even relatively
scarce, and the habits of and desires for consumption continue to rise among nations, and
especially among the citizens of Empire (as has been documented in part above), and if control
over those resources is the goal of Empire, but if the Empire consumes more resources than it
can logistically or economically control due to natural limitations of those resources
themselves, and/or to the consumption of more resources than is either available to it or that
it needs to survive, then the power of the Empire will naturally-logically end in a sharp
decline, and soon (For applicable details on this, see Richard Heinberg,
The Brief, Tragic Reign of Consumerism "and the Birth of a
Happy Alternative, www.postcarbon.org ).
With all indicators predicting that the contradictions of Empire's
resource consumption, circle of desired resource control, scarcity of resources, and
contradiction in resource use and control, are all about to collide in a few years, not
decades, it is time to start planning for a post-Empire future. To that end, any psychologist
reading this analysis will recognize themes of realistic conflict
theory, which is a theory which explains how intergroup hostility can arise as a
result of conflicting goals and competition over limited resources
The key point in bringing
this psychological theory into the discussion is that in this theory, it is concluded that
friction between groups can be reduced only in the presence of superordinate goals that promote
united, cooperative action (see Wikipedia on Realistic Conflict
Theory for a good overview, summarized here. https://en.wikipedia.org ). Note the agreement of the ethical,
legal, and psychological analyses of Empire's oppression: the most effective
resolution to oppression, (empire) dominance, and conflict is united, cooperative action, not
the attempt to control or destroy people and nations who stand in the way of our control.
We have seen that progressives have had available to them a standard two-pronged argument
against empire "American or any other". Progressives have for good reason appealed
consistently to the ethical and the legal arguments available to help stem the desires for
world and resource domination.
This essays suggests that these two solid arguments should now
be combined with an institutional-logical analysis to demonstrate not only the intrinsic,
natural limits to empire, but to show reasons how and why empire must and will ultimately
disintegrate due to the hubris of ignoring natural limitations of unbridled consumption coupled
with attempts at singular control over others' resources and peoples.
"... It began with Israel's founding father, David Ben Gurion, who devised a strategy of "allying with the periphery" – building military ties to non-Arab states like Turkey, Ethiopia, India and Iran, then ruled by the shahs. The goal was to help Israel to break out of its regional isolation and contain an Arab nationalism led by Egypt's Gamal Abdel Nasser. ..."
"... Israeli general Ariel Sharon expanded this security doctrine in the early 1980s, calling for Israel to become an imperial power in the Middle East. Israel would ensure that it alone in the region possessed nuclear weapons, making it indispensible to the US. ..."
"... Sharon was not explicit about how Israel's empire could be realised, but an indication was provided at around the same time in the Yinon Plan, written for the World Zionist Organisation by a former Israeli foreign ministry official. ..."
"... Oded Yinon proposed the implosion of the Middle East, breaking apart the region's key states – and Israel's main opponents – by fuelling sectarian and ethnic discord. The aim was to fracture these states, weakening them so that Israel could secure its place as sole regional power. ..."
"... The strategy of "Balkanising" the Middle East found favour in the US among a group of hawkish policymakers, known as neoconservatives, who came to prominence during George W Bush's presidency. ..."
"... Heavily influenced by Israel, they promoted the idea of "rolling back" key states, especially Iraq, Iran and Syria, which were opposed to Israeli-US dominance in the region. They prioritised ousting Saddam Hussein, who had fired missiles on Israel during the 1991 Gulf war. ..."
"... Last month at the Herzliya conference, an annual jamboree for Israel's security establishment, justice minister Ayelet Shaked called for a Kurdish state. She has stated that it would be integral to Israeli efforts to "reshape" the Middle East. ..."
"... The unravelling of Britain and France's map of the region would likely lead to chaos of the kind that a strong, nuclear-armed Israel, with backing from Washington, could richly exploit. Not least, yet more bedlam would push the Palestinian cause even further down the international community's list of priorities. ..."
Palestinians and Israelis watched last week's referendum of Iraq's Kurds with special
interest. Israeli officials and many ordinary Palestinians were delighted – for very
different reasons – to see an overwhelming vote to split away from Iraq.
Given the backlash from Baghdad and anger from Iran and Turkey, which have restive Kurdish
minorities, the creation of a Kurdistan in northern Iraq may not happen soon.
Palestinian support for the Kurds is not difficult to understand. Palestinians, too, were
overlooked when Britain and France carved up the Middle East into states a century ago. Like
the Kurds, Palestinians have found themselves trapped in different territories, oppressed by
their overlords.
Israel's complex interests in Kurdish independence are harder to unravel.
Prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu was the sole world leader to back Kurdish independence,
and other politicians spoke of the Kurds' "moral right" to a state. None saw how uneasily that
sat with their approach to the Palestinian case.
On a superficial level, Israel would gain because the Kurds sit on plentiful oil. Unlike the
Arab states and Iran, they are keen to sell to Israel.
But the reasons for Israeli support run deeper. There has been co-operation, much of it
secret, between Israel and the Kurds for decades. Israeli media lapped up tributes from
now-retired generals who trained the Kurds from the 1960s. Those connections have not been
forgotten or ended. Independence rallies featured Israeli flags, and Kurds spoke of their
ambition to become a "second Israel".
Israel views the Kurds as a key ally in an Arab-dominated region. Now, with Islamic State's
influence receding, an independent Kurdistan could help prevent Iran filling the void. Israel
wants a bulwark against Iran transferring its weapons, intelligence and know-how to Shiite
allies in Syria and Lebanon.
Israel's current interests, however, hint at a larger vision it has long harboured for the
region – and one I set out at length in my book Israel and the Clash of
Civilisations.
It began with Israel's founding father, David Ben Gurion, who devised a strategy of
"allying with the periphery" – building military ties to non-Arab states like Turkey,
Ethiopia, India and Iran, then ruled by the shahs. The goal was to help Israel to break out of
its regional isolation and contain an Arab nationalism led by Egypt's Gamal Abdel
Nasser.
Israeli general Ariel Sharon expanded this security doctrine in the early 1980s, calling
for Israel to become an imperial power in the Middle East. Israel would ensure that it alone in
the region possessed nuclear weapons, making it indispensible to the US.
Sharon was not explicit about how Israel's empire could be realised, but an indication
was provided at around the same time in the Yinon Plan, written for the World Zionist
Organisation by a former Israeli foreign ministry official.
Oded Yinon proposed the implosion of the Middle East, breaking apart the region's key
states – and Israel's main opponents – by fuelling sectarian and ethnic discord.
The aim was to fracture these states, weakening them so that Israel could secure its place as
sole regional power.
The inspiration for this idea lay in the occupied territories, where Israel had contained
Palestinians in a series of separate enclaves. Later, Israel would terminally divide the
Palestinian national movement, nurturing an Islamist extremism that coalesced into Hamas and
Islamic Jihad.
In this period, Israel also tested its ideas in neighbouring southern Lebanon, which it
occupied for two decades. There, its presence further stoked sectarian tensions between
Christians, Druze, Sunni and Shiite Muslims.
The strategy of "Balkanising" the Middle East found favour in the US among a group of
hawkish policymakers, known as neoconservatives, who came to prominence during George W Bush's
presidency.
Heavily influenced by Israel, they promoted the idea of "rolling back" key states,
especially Iraq, Iran and Syria, which were opposed to Israeli-US dominance in the region. They
prioritised ousting Saddam Hussein, who had fired missiles on Israel during the 1991 Gulf
war.
Although often assumed to be an unfortunate side effect of the 2003 invasion of Iraq,
Washington's oversight of the country's bloody disintegration into Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish
fiefdoms looked suspiciously intentional. Now, Iraqi Kurds are close to making that break-up
permanent.
Syria has gone a similar way, mired in convulsive fighting that has left its ruler impotent.
And Tehran is, again, the target of efforts by Israel and its allies in the US to tear up the
2015 nuclear accord, backing Iran into a corner. Arab, Baluchi, Kurdish and Azeri minorities
there may be ripe for stirring up.
Last month at the Herzliya conference, an annual jamboree for Israel's security
establishment, justice minister Ayelet Shaked called for a Kurdish state. She has stated that
it would be integral to Israeli efforts to "reshape" the Middle East.
The unravelling of Britain and France's map of the region would likely lead to chaos of
the kind that a strong, nuclear-armed Israel, with backing from Washington, could richly
exploit. Not least, yet more bedlam would push the Palestinian cause even further down the
international community's list of priorities.
A version of this article first appeared in the National, Abu Dhabi.
"... The US military understands it has long ago lost the Afghan War but cannot bear the humiliation of admitting it was defeated by lightly-armed mountain tribesmen fighting for their independence. ..."
"... Vietnam was not a 'tragedy,' as the PBS series asserts, but the product of imperial geopolitics. The same holds true for today's Mideast wars. To paraphrase a famous slogan from Vietnam, we destroyed Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria to make them safe for 'freedom.' ..."
"... The war became aimless and often surreal. We soldiers all knew our senior officers and political leaders were lying. Many soldiers were at the edge of mutiny, like the French Army in 1917. Back in those ancient days, we had expected our political leaders to be men of rectitude who told us the truth. Thanks to Vietnam, the politicians were exposed as liars and heartless cynics with no honor. ..."
"... This same dark cloud hangs over our political landscape today. We have destroyed large parts of the Mideast, Afghanistan and northern Pakistan without a second thought – yet wonder why peoples from these ravaged nations hate us. Now, North Korea seems next. ..."
"... In spite of all, our imperial impulse till throbs. The nightmare Vietnam War in which over 58,000 American soldiers died for nothing has been largely forgotten. ..."
"... For both Vietnam and Afghanistan, as well as other places, the guiding principle is that they live there and we don't. These are all expeditionary wars for the US. Resistant peoples can't be controlled at a distance ..."
"... So, considering that Viet commies stood for patriotism and national sovereignty, maybe the globalist viewpoint is more favorable to US efforts to turn Vietnam into globo-disneyland. ..."
"... Americans at-large have no power. A small cadre runs things now. Once Americans didn't have a draft to worry over, they vacated the streets and left the dying to the farmers' sons (metaphor for the poor). ..."
"... War after war lost, yet the Generals are still revered, money to the pro-war think tanks is never ending and the revolving door between the Pentagon, White House and defense contractors (and their corporate boards) has never been richer. Doesn't matter the war industry doesn't win wars, the money is just so damned good they can't stop, won't stop. And who is to stop them? These are the folks that kill people, that have a file on each of us. Indeed, it is our only remaining industry, flawed and failed though it may be. It certainly is a rich one. And it IS unstoppable. Completely. Utterly. ..."
"... When the communists gave up and joined the party, our globalist masters realized that they could not only amass further wealth by spreading these things to the former communist bloc and under-exploited non-aligned nations, but they could now squeeze even more profit-margin out of the home territories by wearing down the power of the local workforce at all levels, except, of course, for the very pinnacle, by outsourcing production and even many services to the newly "developing world." ..."
"... Ironically, fighting the communist threat probably kept our leadership more honest than they have been in the new world order since the fall of communism. ..."
"... I know opinions vary on Ken Burns/PBS's "Vietnam" documentary, but what struck me is that we're following the same script in Afghanistan and the Middle East as we were in Vietnam and expecting a different (i.e., more favorable) outcome. The script being "pacification" through providing medicine, foodstuffs, soccer balls and American smiles to the local populations combined with placing massive amounts of ordnance on targets deemed hostile. It didn't win hearts and minds then nor is it now. ..."
"... The monumentally stupid war mismanagement of Pentagon chief Robert McNamara, a know-it-all who knew nothing, ..."
"... We have legions of McNamara's calling the shots today. They are called neoconservatives and liberal interventionists. The big brains of the Ivy league do seem to excel at steering us into icebergs time and again. ..."
"... What don't you understand about Clausewitz's dictum "war is the mere continuation of politics with other means"? War is what you do when you can't achieve your political objectives by other means. The United States' political objective in Vietnam was to prevent the American satrapy in the south being re-united by the nationalists in the north. So, where the f ** k is South Vietnam? The United States might believe it won every battle (slight exaggeration) but it still lost the American war. ..."
"... I bet they didn't cover the mutiny in the ranks which is the main reason the US had to withdraw because of a "broken army." That included fragging, mission refusal, and an overall negative attitude as you suggest. Now we have a volunteer army, a warrior class, which changes that dynamic. ..."
"... Too many of the volunteers are really economic draftees. You can have plenty of discipline problems with volunteers, I've seen it up close and personal, although never reaching the level of mutiny. ..."
The current 17-year old US war in Afghanistan has uncanny resemblances to the Vietnam War. In
Kabul and Saigon, the US installed puppet governments that command no loyalty except from minority
groups. They were steeped in drugs and corruption, and kept in power by intensive use of American
air power. As in Vietnam, the US military and civilian effort in Afghanistan is led by a toxic mixture
of deep ignorance and imperial arrogance.
The US military understands it has long ago lost the Afghan War but cannot bear the humiliation
of admitting it was defeated by lightly-armed mountain tribesmen fighting for their independence.
In Vietnam, Washington could not admit that young Vietnamese guerillas and regulars had bested the
US armed forces thanks to their indomitable courage and intelligent tactics. No one outside Vietnam
cared about the 2-3 million civilians killed in the conflict
Unfortunately, the PBS program fails to convey this imperial arrogance and the ignorance that
impelled Washington into the war – the same foolhardy behavior that sent US forces into Somalia,
Afghanistan and Iraq and perhaps may do so in a second Korean War. The imperial spirit still burns
hot in Washington among those who don't know or understand the outside world. The lessons of all
these past conflicts have been forgotten: Washington's collective memory is only three years long.
Vietnam was not a 'tragedy,' as the PBS series asserts, but the product of imperial geopolitics.
The same holds true for today's Mideast wars. To paraphrase a famous slogan from Vietnam, we destroyed
Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria to make them safe for 'freedom.'
One of the craziest things about the Vietnam War has rarely been acknowledged: even at peak deployment,
the 550,000 US soldiers in Vietnam were outnumbered by North Vietnamese fighting units.
That's because the huge US military had only about 50,000 real combat troops in the field. The
other half million were support troops performing logistical and administrative functions behind
the lines: a vast army of typists, cooks, truck drivers, psychologists, and pizza-makers.
Too much tail to teeth, as the army calls it. For Thanksgiving, everyone got turkey dinner with
cranberry sauce, choppered into the remotest outposts. But there were simply not enough riflemen
to take on the Viet Cong and tough North Vietnamese Army whose Soviet M1954 130mm howitzer with a
27 km range were far superior to the US Army's outdated WWII artillery.
Poor generalship, mediocre officers, and lack of discipline ensured that the US war effort in
Vietnam would become and remain a mess. Stupid, pointless attacks against heavily defended hills
inflicted huge casualties on US troops and eroded morale.
The monumentally stupid war mismanagement of Pentagon chief Robert McNamara, a know-it-all who
knew nothing, turned the war into a macabre joke. This was the dumbest command decision since Louis
XV put his girlfriend Madame de Pompadour in charge of his armies.
We soldiers, both in Vietnam and Stateside, scorned the war and mocked our officers. It didn't
help that much of the US force in 'Nam' were often stoned and rebellious.
The January 30, 1968 Tet Offensive put the kibosh on US plans to pursue the war – and even take
it into south-west China. Tet was a military victory of sorts for the US (and why not, with thousands
of warplanes and B-52 heavy bombers) but a huge political/psychological victory for the Communists
in spite of their heavy losses.
I vividly recall standing with a group of GI's reading a typed report on our company barracks
advising that the Special Forces camp in the Central Highlands to which many of our company had been
assigned for immediate duty had been overrun at Tet, and all its defenders killed. After that, the
US Army's motto was 'stay alive, avoid combat, and smoke another reefer.'
The war became aimless and often surreal. We soldiers all knew our senior officers and political
leaders were lying. Many soldiers were at the edge of mutiny, like the French Army in 1917. Back
in those ancient days, we had expected our political leaders to be men of rectitude who told us the
truth. Thanks to Vietnam, the politicians were exposed as liars and heartless cynics with no honor.
This same dark cloud hangs over our political landscape today. We have destroyed large parts
of the Mideast, Afghanistan and northern Pakistan without a second thought – yet wonder why peoples
from these ravaged nations hate us. Now, North Korea seems next.
Showing defiance to Washington brought B-52 bombers, toxic Agent Orange defoliants and endless
storms of napalm and white phosphorus that would burn through one's body until it hit bone.
In spite of all, our imperial impulse till throbs. The nightmare Vietnam War in which over
58,000 American soldiers died for nothing has been largely forgotten. So we can now repeat the
same fatal errors again without shame, remorse or understanding.
(Republished from
EricMargolis.com
by permission of author or representative)
For both Vietnam and Afghanistan, as well as other places, the guiding principle is that
they live there and we don't. These are all expeditionary wars for the US. Resistant peoples can't
be controlled at a distance. Of course the morale of US soldiers ends up being bad when they
realize there's nothing for them to fight for. No one wants to die to help some politician save
face. Insofar as the current much publicized Vietnam documentary goes there doesn't seem to be
anything that's new or original. All of it has been known for many years to anyone who would bother
to brush up on the subject. The question is whether Americans are capable of learning from the
past and the answer seems to be no for the vast majority.
For both Vietnam and Afghanistan, as well as other places, the guiding principle is that they
live there and we don't. These are all expeditionary wars for the US. Resistant peoples can't
be controlled at a distance. Of course the morale of US soldiers ends up being bad when they realize
there's nothing for them to fight for. No one wants to die to help some politician save face.
Insofar as the current much publicized Vietnam documentary goes there doesn't seem to be anything
that's new or original. All of it has been known for many years to anyone who would bother to
brush up on the subject. The question is whether Americans are capable of learning from the past
and the answer seems to be no for the vast majority.
So whose name gets to be the last American killed in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, etc? Dying for
a place on the memorial, boys. "The war was being run by a bunch of four-star clowns who were
going to end up giving the whole circus away."
Some things don't change- I wonder if Rand has a new copy of the Pentagon Papers regarding
post 9/11. And a new Nixon in office .he vowed to get out too -- and yet pushed more into it simply
amazing.
@Sam McGowan First, I was heavily involved in Vietnam from 1965 to 1970. Second, I have written
extensively about the war and read the books. The fact is that the US didn't "lose" the war, the
left-wing presidents that got us into it, JFK and LBJ, has no intention of defeating the communist
insurgency, they just wanted "to contain it". Cam Ranh Bay and made a speech in which he commented
to the troops present that he wanted them to "nail the coonskin to the wall." Richard Nixon began
withdrawing troops immediately after his inauguration and gave Abrams an edict to "reduce American
casualties" shortly afterwards. In fact, Vietnam as well as Korea - as well as other wars around
the world - were continuations of World War II, which Americans thought ended when the Japanese
surrendered. By the way, I am not watching Ken Burn's latest left-wing propaganda piece nor do
I intend to. I don't need him to tell me what happened in Southeast Asia, I was there. Save your
senile hot air for the other menopausal drunks drooling in the VFW lounge. The conscript US military
completely collapsed fragging, rampant drug usage, desertion, abject morale, chain of command
disintegration, and the usual commissioned officer cowardice. Any western country stupid enough
to pursue a land war in Asia deserves what it gets .inevitable defeat and humiliation.
I don't think CucKen Burns is entirely wrong in empathizing with those who got involved. Sure,
there were warmongers. Sure, they were profiteers. Sure, there were power-maniacs. Sure, there
were paranoids.
But Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon were not particularly sadistic or cruel men. Eisenhower
could be aloof and mean. Kennedy could be vain. Johnson was plenty corrupt. Nixon could be nasty.
But were not psychos or radicals like Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, or Mao.
As for military men, well, whaddya expect? They were trained to think of the world in terms
of military power. As for CIA, we are talking of more sinister elements, but let's keep in mind
that Soviets had their intelligence organizations and methods of subversion. Let's remember Soviets
had infiltrated FDR's government and pulled dirty trick. Even got the Bomb during Truman era.
Also, Soviets could be utterly ruthless in their own empire.
Now, would the US have intervened in Vietnam if the nation was to be united by a non-communist
nationalist? Probably not. US didn't intervene in Indonesia when it gained independence under
Sukarno. The only reason US got involved was because Ho was a Soviet-leaning communist. And even
though Domino theory has been 'debunked', it made sense at the time. Even Soviets believed in
it. Mao believed in it. Soviets believed that sign of US weakness could spread the revolution
all around. Che Guevara believed in the Domino Theory. Communist victory over Cuba, he thought,
would herald spread of communism all over Latin America, and then it would spread into US itself.
Che really believed this, which is why he died in Bolivia trying to start an insurgency.
Also, in a way, Domino Theory did come true, at least for awhile. Not so much in Southeast
Asia, though Laos and Cambodia also fell to communism. And keep in mind Indonesia almost could
have become communist if the Peking-backed coup had succeeded. And keep in mind it took lots of
British brutality and ruthlessness to stem the communist movement in Malaysia. Brits built huge
hamlets and concentration camps. They took extreme measures.
At any rate, communism did continue to spread after the fall of Vietnam. US power seemed to
be declining. And not only communists were emboldened by US defeat in Vietnam. Vietnam became
a metaphor for anti-Americanism all over the world. May 68 movement that almost brought down the
French government was fired up partly by Vietnam(though it began as some silly stuff about dorms
and sex). Vietnam was bigger than Algeria because US was seen as the Great Power. French defeat
wasn't all that surprising in Algeria. So, after US left from Vietnam, there was a sense that
David could beat American Goliath. Iran regime fell and Islamists came to power. Afghanistan turned
communist, and Soviets felt emboldened in rolling in tanks. Ethiopia, Mozambique, and Angola turned
communist. Communists won in Nicaragua and almost won in El Salvador. There was a raging Maoist
insurgency in Peru. Allende came to power through elections, and he was pro-Soviet and pro-Cuba.
He was removed only by US-backed coup that did as much harm as good. It blackened US reputation
around the world. So, in a way, the Domino Theory wasn't all wrong. Vietnam did signal a sea-change
in world politics at least for awhile.
In the end, communism wasn't defeated by the US. It defeated itself. Soviet economics just
couldn't sustain the empire. Its subsidies to Cuba were costly. Its support of Marxist regimes
in Africa drained Soviet economy. USSR had to prop up Iron Curtain nations economically. And Vietnamese
communism was a disaster. Maoism was hell on earth. Some might say communism failed cuz Capitalist
West froze the communists out of world trade. But considering that the communist world encompassed
resource-rich Soviet Empire, people-rich China, and lots of nations willing to do business with
communist nations -- India and Arab nations had good relations with Soviets -- , the real reason
for failure of communism was it was its own worst enemy.
And when we look at the aftermath of communist victory in Indochina -- brutal repression in
Vietnam and Laos and psychotic democide in Cambodia -- and when we consider how even communist
nations like China and Vietnam switched to market economics, it's clear that US was on the right
side of history on many issues.
Also, the conflict was complicated because both sides were aggressors. US was the aggressor
in working with the French to divide Vietnam in half, in occupying the southern half, and dropping
bombs and using Viet women as whores. But the communists were also aggressors because they tried
to impose a form of Stalinism on people in the South, most of whom didn't want communism. After
all, many more people fled the north to the south than vice versa. Why? There is something prison-like
about communism. The commissars never leave you alone. Also, North Vietnamese leaders, though
inspired and patriotic, were utterly ruthless in their own way, willing to sacrifice any number
of people for victory just like Japanese militarists were willing to Go All the Way instead of
calling it quits to save lives.
Still, in retrospect, Ho Chi Minh was a genuine patriot, a legendary figure much beloved by
many Viets. And for that reason, US shouldn't have intervened, and the whole mess could have been
avoided.
CucKen Burns makes my skin crawl, but at his best, he can look at both sides of the issue instead
of going for b/w version of history with good guys vs bad guys.
That said, maybe his position reflects globalism. As Proglobalists now control the US, the
neo-Pax-Americana is about the spread of agendas favored by the likes of CucKen Burns, like homomania,
Jewish Power, anti-nationalism, and Afromania. Today's progs want the world to become neo-Americanized.
And in Vietnam, as Linh Dinh reported, there is now homo parades and Afromania and Vietcuckery.
So, considering that Viet commies stood for patriotism and national sovereignty, maybe the
globalist viewpoint is more favorable to US efforts to turn Vietnam into globo-disneyland.
After all, where was CucKen Burns when Obama and Hillary were destroying Libya, Ukraine, Syria,
and etc. Where were he and his ilk when Jews were cooking up New Cold War with Russia with hysteria
that would make McCarthy blush?
"The question is whether Americans are capable of learning from the past and the answer
seems to be no for the vast majority."
Americans at-large have no power. A small cadre runs things now. Once Americans didn't
have a draft to worry over, they vacated the streets and left the dying to the farmers' sons (metaphor
for the poor). That's all it is. The damage done to the economy, the sheer quantities of
cash vacuumed up from the rest of the country and showered over the Washington DC region escapes
the imagination of us out here in the country with our local issues and problems. These, rooted
in the sheer theft of our taxes and handed over to the war-mongers of DC because there simply
isn't enough left over after feeding The Beast in Washington. We have aircraft carriers that can't
launch aircraft, planes that won't fly, weapons that won't work and wrong strategies followed
in war-fighting and procurement, yet still, the theft goes on.
War after war lost, yet the Generals are still revered, money to the pro-war think tanks
is never ending and the revolving door between the Pentagon, White House and defense contractors
(and their corporate boards) has never been richer. Doesn't matter the war industry doesn't win
wars, the money is just so damned good they can't stop, won't stop. And who is to stop them? These
are the folks that kill people, that have a file on each of us. Indeed, it is our only remaining
industry, flawed and failed though it may be. It certainly is a rich one. And it IS unstoppable.
Completely. Utterly.
@Sam McGowan Concur all, McGowan, good takes. Yeah, my Pop was into Naval spook communications
and messaging, he'd pick up the WashPost off the driveway and see various and sundry in the paper
lying and white-washing the effort and just be wild by the time he left for work. He knew the
carriers were having no success, he knew the air-war was a mess, he knew the Marines were getting
killed all over the country. People that knew the truth from the inside hadda keep their traps
shut.
By the time I joined up for a 6 year dose of USN carrier decks in 1976 I got the scoop from
a few of our officers, almost all of whom had flown with VA35 over Vietnam in A-6′s. Clusterfuck,
they could then acknowledge just those few years later, only the most junior officers hadn't served
in the air war over Vietnam. And they had good stories that pointed out the folly throughout.
Now? The military is just a revenue-stream, nothing produced, much destroyed to the enrichment
of a few insiders.
Sir
Recently came across some startling statistics about men who served in Vietnam like you and me.
Of the 2.7 million who served only 850,000 are still alive at last census!!!!!! 700,500 died prematurely
between 1995 census and 2000 census. No country for old men .
"And in Vietnam, as Linh Dinh reported, there is now homo parades and Afromania and Vietcuckery.
So, considering that Viet commies stood for patriotism and national sovereignty, maybe the
globalist viewpoint is more favorable to US efforts to turn Vietnam into globo-disneyland."
Bingo! The only problem is that the globalists are now using the opportunity to also wear down
the populations of the home territories as well. The only reason our national economic imperialism
wasn't enough of a raging success (don't get me wrong by any rational measure it was) was that
it was kept in check by the opposing communist bloc, and still America managed to conquer the
so-called free world with Coca Cola, McDonalds, Hollywood Inc., etc.
When the communists gave up and joined the party, our globalist masters realized that they
could not only amass further wealth by spreading these things to the former communist bloc and
under-exploited non-aligned nations, but they could now squeeze even more profit-margin out of
the home territories by wearing down the power of the local workforce at all levels, except, of
course, for the very pinnacle, by outsourcing production and even many services to the newly "developing
world."
Ironically, fighting the communist threat probably kept our leadership more honest than
they have been in the new world order since the fall of communism.
"No one in Washington seemed to know that China and the Soviet Union had split and become
bitter enemies. As ever, our foreign human intelligence was lousy."
They knew of the rift that had grown since 1960 or so, but they didn't believe it until the
short border war in 1969. The same way that a number of indicators suggested as early as 1983
that the USSR was imploding, but the menace of the USSR was used to keep justifying a buildup
and procurement of new systems until and even beyond its actual implosion a few years later.
I know opinions vary on Ken Burns/PBS's "Vietnam" documentary, but what struck me is that
we're following the same script in Afghanistan and the Middle East as we were in Vietnam and expecting
a different (i.e., more favorable) outcome. The script being "pacification" through providing
medicine, foodstuffs, soccer balls and American smiles to the local populations combined with
placing massive amounts of ordnance on targets deemed hostile. It didn't win hearts and minds
then nor is it now.
The generals keep telling us that with just a few more antibiotics, soccer balls and troops
victory is around the bend.
Hindsight's always 20/20, but to be fair a military force in Vietnam did seem like the right
thing do at least in the early years. Any de-escalation and/or withdrawals would have been perceived
by a rabidly anti-communist population as surrendering to communist aggression and political suicide
for any president proposing it.
The monumentally stupid war mismanagement of Pentagon chief Robert McNamara, a know-it-all
who knew nothing,
We have legions of McNamara's calling the shots today. They are called neoconservatives
and liberal interventionists. The big brains of the Ivy league do seem to excel at steering us
into icebergs time and again.
As it was former allies Vietnam and China briefly fought each other in 1979 and Vietnam didn't
have the desire or the ability to project power much beyond Cambodia and Laos.
"We really believed that if the US did not make a stand in Vietnam the Soviets and Chinese
would overrun all of South Asia."
India played a big role in shaping this narrative. Just five years ago before 1967 China finally
responded to India's creeping land grab after years of trying to warn New Delhi's to stop its
'Forward Policy' by launching a massive anticipatory strike into India. India was defeated militarily
but India was able to fool the world that India was a hapless victim against an agressive China
when in fact the reverse is true.
@Jim Christian A bit off topic, but, since I know that you had naval experience, any take
on why Navy ships keep colliding with merchantmen? Is it reduced competence because of racial
and sexual preferences, or overworked sailors because deployed ships are short-staffed as a result
of pregnancies? Or is it just a run of bad luck? I've read some different theories but I've seen
you post often enough to know that you'll have an informed opinion.
@Sam McGowanWhat don't you understand about Clausewitz's dictum "war is the mere continuation
of politics with other means"? War is what you do when you can't achieve your political objectives
by other means. The United States' political objective in Vietnam was to prevent the American
satrapy in the south being re-united by the nationalists in the north. So, where the f ** k is
South Vietnam? The United States might believe it won every battle (slight exaggeration) but it
still lost the American war.
@Diversity Heretic The military is off-kilter all over. Navigation? Routine. Ought to be.
Not anymore. Procurement? Driven by inertia and the corruption of planners that know a carrier's
planes are useless if the ship has to stand off 500-1000 miles because of a cruise missile environment
that they KNOW every third-world shitbox has been building for 30 years now, starting with the
Norks. From aircraft to ships, a complete clusterfuck.
Personnel? Ya gotta be shitting me, right? Between the sexism, reverse-racism and the cultural
kookiness from the top of a terrorized Central Command and throughout the military, right down
to the pretty little Blonde Hispanic Black Dwarf tranny just dying to terrorize said command with
a complaint, we really haven't much good to say about our staffing. It's not a meritocracy anymore,
hasn't been since Reagan. The entire thing is sitting there waiting to be taken down and humiliated.
And still? We sprinkle the trillions onto the DC region, make the war planners rich, we still
lionize Generals and Admirals that haven't won shit in 75 years and we cycle them through the
think tanks and corporate boards of the defense contractors and make THEM rich too. Then we even
put them in charge at the White House, having discarded the notion of Congressional approval for
the wars they "fight" in our names. And they start wars. And finally, the notion that we have
civilian control of our military is long gone. We are a Junta. There is a coup ongoing, two or
more in our past and we're no more than a broke but dangerous and heavily armed danger to the
rest of the world run by the thugs of the Pentagon, the think tanks, the defense contractors and
the lazy sloth of Congress, who is supposed to keep this shit straight and Constitutional. Doom.
Yes, the word doom comes to mind.
@anonymous re: "No one wants to die to help some politician save face."
I don't have a teevee, but I bet they didn't cover the mutiny in the ranks which is the
main reason the US had to withdraw because of a "broken army." That included fragging, mission
refusal, and an overall negative attitude as you suggest. Now we have a volunteer army, a warrior
class, which changes that dynamic.
One man's opinion. I do wish someone would show me where I'm wrong, but I spent too many years
down in DC doing their tech stuff after I left the Navy (too many women that couldn't, at that
point in 82, go to sea) and so they only had more sea duty because the shore billets were all
taken in their haste to "integrate" women into the Navy. Even instructor duty for Naval Air Maintenance
was hosted by women that had never served a day in carrier air, training the young mice how to
do business on a flight deck. They did offer me, for variety, another four year hitch in a WestPac
squadron aboard one damned carrier deck or another. Already having done 5, I said no thanks and
went back home to Virginia. And so I got familiar with the workings of the spooks, Booze, Allen,
Heritage, Cato, Brookings, the Pentagon, NSA, FBI, Quantico, there were hundreds of them, most
with two or three names in the chain of title. I did their phones for decades, they're psychos,
they're paranoid, everything classified and spooky and ooga-booga. Worthless ants on a big log
and they each think they're steering it down the river.
Bunch of fucking Frank Burns's is what they are..Cheers.
There never was a communist threat. Not since at least the 1920s, when Stalin defeated Trotsky.
Trotsky wanted world revolution. Stalin, for all his bloodthirsty antics in Russia, realised this
was all nonsense. He just wanted Socialism in One Country, developing the country economically.
He wasn't really interested in the outside world.
In the 1930s he was willing to cooperate with right wing western governments till they did
a deal with Hitler in 1938. He was never interested in invading countries to grab land and resources.
Whenever he did so, Poland in 1939, or Eastern Europe post 1945, it was for security reasons.
The part of Poland he occupied in 1939 had been taken from Russia by force in 1920. It was inhabited
by 1o million White Russians and Ukrainians and no Poles.
Wissing's book "Funding the enemy" details the totally corrupt Afghan government and is a compelling
argument why we should pull out at once and needs to be read by anyone with half a brain. I served
in Vietnam also, in 1967, and its deja vu all over again.
@The Alarmist Having been on – site at the time (North Tonkin Gulf), I can tell you that China
gave U.S.N. units free rein over those waters, including Chinese waters. The fix was in. In 1969
onwards. China and Viet Nam were NEVER friends. Did CIA realize this? I don't know.
Anyways, expect the US to keep on wasting money in Afghanistan (and Pakistan and Tajikistan)
until it gets bankrupted by the next Big War!
Or until all the routes into Afghanistan are blocked. At the moment, the only route still open
passes through Pakistan, and that may close at any time.
Of the 58,220 Americans who were sacrificed by the U.S. Government during the Vietnam War,
270 were Jewish. That's approximately 0.46 percent of the total number of American kids who died,
or less than a half of one-percent.
"Statistical Information About Casualties of the Vietnam War"
@Grandpa Charlie The Japanese trained their naval cadets using a mock Pearl Harbor type exercise
annually for a fair number of years prior to WW2. The Russo-Japanese War of 1905 began with a
Japanese surprise attack. You have the unmitigated gall to attack Margolis as an establishment
mouthpiece when you yourself are whitewashhing the "sainted" FDR. No prudent military planner
would absolutely assume that the attack would come in one particular place, whether the Phillipines,
Pearl, or elsewhere.
@Don BaconToo many of the volunteers are really economic draftees. You can have plenty
of discipline problems with volunteers, I've seen it up close and personal, although never reaching
the level of mutiny.
@Capn Mike That is interesting to me. As is the Margolis artictle, never knew he had been
a USA soldier, very interesting article. Thought he was a Canada person.
I have a question for you, Capn Mike.
If the PRC had allowed the USA free rein in Gulf of Tonkin, where were the supply lines to
the Nth. Viet military and Viet Cong?
Must it not still have been overland from PRC at that time you say (1969)?
I don't for a moment believe that the 'saintly' President John Kennedy planned to end the
war but was assassinated by dark, rightwing forces, as is claimed. This is a charming legend.
Richard Nixon, Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson all feared that a withdrawal from Vietnam would lose
them the next election. Republicans were still snarling over 'who lost China'.
I didn't like Kennedy either, but go back and reread the newspapers from the early days of
the Kennedy administration. The oval office was bugged, and the information leaked in ways to
embarrass Kennedy and UN Ambassador Adelai Stevenson. There is only one way that could have happened.
Eisenhower installed those bugs before he left. These same bugs brought down Nixon in the Watergate
crisis. The swamp wanted war, and they pulled the rug out from under both presidents as soon as
they brought peace.
And a new Nixon in office .he vowed to get out too- and yet pushed more into it simply amazing.
He promised to get out and he did get us out. The peace treaty was announced just before the
election in 1972. He knew it was his only hope for re-election. The Vietnamese disputed some of
the terms, and that resulted in the Christmas bombing that year. The American withdrawal began
in January 1973.
Trump promised to get us out of the Middle East. We should give him some rope. Maybe he hangs
himself, or just maybe he can pull it off. He will need to be re-elected in three years.
However, the US foreign policy keeps holocausting the 3-rd world and lately the 2 -cond world.
The holocausts keep coming from US foreign policy of "exceptionalism" = "Nazi Übermensch"="the
chosen ones" over this planet, many executed by the CIA-Nazi's:
The Syrian holocaust
The Yemen holocaust
The Ukranďan holocaust (Euromaidan) by Poroshenko/Nuland neo-nazi"s.
The Libyan holocaust
The Irak holocaust
The Afghanistan holocaust
The Belgrad holocaust
The Indonesian holocaust (Kissiger e.a.)
The Vietnam/Laos/Cambodia/Thailand holocaust (Kissinger e.a)
The Korean holocaust
During WWII:
The Jewish/Polish/Russian holocaust by Nazi's funded by Wallstreet/London bankers
The German holocaust (Die Rheinweisen lager) by US army Morgenthau plan.
Before WWII:
The Ukranian and Russain holocausts 1921-22, 1932-33 (holodomor) by Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin.
All these, were and are financed by the Wallstreet elite owners, the Billionaires who are mega-fascists,
eugenic and satanic in character. Their credo is GREED.
Thanks to Vietnam, the politicians were exposed as liars and heartless cynics with no honor.
A couple of the biggest lies were exposed, but the myths still live that the US government
is an effective and dependable force for peace and freedom, and that the US military is an institution
of dignity worthy of honor.
And people still put their faith (or is it hope) in the heartless cynics ( eunichs, really)
with no balls, fewer brains, no soul, and even less honor.
"... The US military understands it has long ago lost the Afghan War but cannot bear the humiliation of admitting it was defeated by lightly-armed mountain tribesmen fighting for their independence. ..."
"... Vietnam was not a 'tragedy,' as the PBS series asserts, but the product of imperial geopolitics. The same holds true for today's Mideast wars. To paraphrase a famous slogan from Vietnam, we destroyed Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria to make them safe for 'freedom.' ..."
"... The war became aimless and often surreal. We soldiers all knew our senior officers and political leaders were lying. Many soldiers were at the edge of mutiny, like the French Army in 1917. Back in those ancient days, we had expected our political leaders to be men of rectitude who told us the truth. Thanks to Vietnam, the politicians were exposed as liars and heartless cynics with no honor. ..."
"... This same dark cloud hangs over our political landscape today. We have destroyed large parts of the Mideast, Afghanistan and northern Pakistan without a second thought – yet wonder why peoples from these ravaged nations hate us. Now, North Korea seems next. ..."
"... In spite of all, our imperial impulse till throbs. The nightmare Vietnam War in which over 58,000 American soldiers died for nothing has been largely forgotten. ..."
"... For both Vietnam and Afghanistan, as well as other places, the guiding principle is that they live there and we don't. These are all expeditionary wars for the US. Resistant peoples can't be controlled at a distance ..."
"... So, considering that Viet commies stood for patriotism and national sovereignty, maybe the globalist viewpoint is more favorable to US efforts to turn Vietnam into globo-disneyland. ..."
"... Americans at-large have no power. A small cadre runs things now. Once Americans didn't have a draft to worry over, they vacated the streets and left the dying to the farmers' sons (metaphor for the poor). ..."
"... War after war lost, yet the Generals are still revered, money to the pro-war think tanks is never ending and the revolving door between the Pentagon, White House and defense contractors (and their corporate boards) has never been richer. Doesn't matter the war industry doesn't win wars, the money is just so damned good they can't stop, won't stop. And who is to stop them? These are the folks that kill people, that have a file on each of us. Indeed, it is our only remaining industry, flawed and failed though it may be. It certainly is a rich one. And it IS unstoppable. Completely. Utterly. ..."
"... When the communists gave up and joined the party, our globalist masters realized that they could not only amass further wealth by spreading these things to the former communist bloc and under-exploited non-aligned nations, but they could now squeeze even more profit-margin out of the home territories by wearing down the power of the local workforce at all levels, except, of course, for the very pinnacle, by outsourcing production and even many services to the newly "developing world." ..."
"... Ironically, fighting the communist threat probably kept our leadership more honest than they have been in the new world order since the fall of communism. ..."
"... I know opinions vary on Ken Burns/PBS's "Vietnam" documentary, but what struck me is that we're following the same script in Afghanistan and the Middle East as we were in Vietnam and expecting a different (i.e., more favorable) outcome. The script being "pacification" through providing medicine, foodstuffs, soccer balls and American smiles to the local populations combined with placing massive amounts of ordnance on targets deemed hostile. It didn't win hearts and minds then nor is it now. ..."
"... The monumentally stupid war mismanagement of Pentagon chief Robert McNamara, a know-it-all who knew nothing, ..."
"... We have legions of McNamara's calling the shots today. They are called neoconservatives and liberal interventionists. The big brains of the Ivy league do seem to excel at steering us into icebergs time and again. ..."
"... What don't you understand about Clausewitz's dictum "war is the mere continuation of politics with other means"? War is what you do when you can't achieve your political objectives by other means. The United States' political objective in Vietnam was to prevent the American satrapy in the south being re-united by the nationalists in the north. So, where the f ** k is South Vietnam? The United States might believe it won every battle (slight exaggeration) but it still lost the American war. ..."
"... I bet they didn't cover the mutiny in the ranks which is the main reason the US had to withdraw because of a "broken army." That included fragging, mission refusal, and an overall negative attitude as you suggest. Now we have a volunteer army, a warrior class, which changes that dynamic. ..."
"... Too many of the volunteers are really economic draftees. You can have plenty of discipline problems with volunteers, I've seen it up close and personal, although never reaching the level of mutiny. ..."
The current 17-year old US war in Afghanistan has uncanny resemblances to the Vietnam War. In
Kabul and Saigon, the US installed puppet governments that command no loyalty except from minority
groups. They were steeped in drugs and corruption, and kept in power by intensive use of American
air power. As in Vietnam, the US military and civilian effort in Afghanistan is led by a toxic mixture
of deep ignorance and imperial arrogance.
The US military understands it has long ago lost the Afghan War but cannot bear the humiliation
of admitting it was defeated by lightly-armed mountain tribesmen fighting for their independence.
In Vietnam, Washington could not admit that young Vietnamese guerillas and regulars had bested the
US armed forces thanks to their indomitable courage and intelligent tactics. No one outside Vietnam
cared about the 2-3 million civilians killed in the conflict
Unfortunately, the PBS program fails to convey this imperial arrogance and the ignorance that
impelled Washington into the war – the same foolhardy behavior that sent US forces into Somalia,
Afghanistan and Iraq and perhaps may do so in a second Korean War. The imperial spirit still burns
hot in Washington among those who don't know or understand the outside world. The lessons of all
these past conflicts have been forgotten: Washington's collective memory is only three years long.
Vietnam was not a 'tragedy,' as the PBS series asserts, but the product of imperial geopolitics.
The same holds true for today's Mideast wars. To paraphrase a famous slogan from Vietnam, we destroyed
Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria to make them safe for 'freedom.'
One of the craziest things about the Vietnam War has rarely been acknowledged: even at peak deployment,
the 550,000 US soldiers in Vietnam were outnumbered by North Vietnamese fighting units.
That's because the huge US military had only about 50,000 real combat troops in the field. The
other half million were support troops performing logistical and administrative functions behind
the lines: a vast army of typists, cooks, truck drivers, psychologists, and pizza-makers.
Too much tail to teeth, as the army calls it. For Thanksgiving, everyone got turkey dinner with
cranberry sauce, choppered into the remotest outposts. But there were simply not enough riflemen
to take on the Viet Cong and tough North Vietnamese Army whose Soviet M1954 130mm howitzer with a
27 km range were far superior to the US Army's outdated WWII artillery.
Poor generalship, mediocre officers, and lack of discipline ensured that the US war effort in
Vietnam would become and remain a mess. Stupid, pointless attacks against heavily defended hills
inflicted huge casualties on US troops and eroded morale.
The monumentally stupid war mismanagement of Pentagon chief Robert McNamara, a know-it-all who
knew nothing, turned the war into a macabre joke. This was the dumbest command decision since Louis
XV put his girlfriend Madame de Pompadour in charge of his armies.
We soldiers, both in Vietnam and Stateside, scorned the war and mocked our officers. It didn't
help that much of the US force in 'Nam' were often stoned and rebellious.
The January 30, 1968 Tet Offensive put the kibosh on US plans to pursue the war – and even take
it into south-west China. Tet was a military victory of sorts for the US (and why not, with thousands
of warplanes and B-52 heavy bombers) but a huge political/psychological victory for the Communists
in spite of their heavy losses.
I vividly recall standing with a group of GI's reading a typed report on our company barracks
advising that the Special Forces camp in the Central Highlands to which many of our company had been
assigned for immediate duty had been overrun at Tet, and all its defenders killed. After that, the
US Army's motto was 'stay alive, avoid combat, and smoke another reefer.'
The war became aimless and often surreal. We soldiers all knew our senior officers and political
leaders were lying. Many soldiers were at the edge of mutiny, like the French Army in 1917. Back
in those ancient days, we had expected our political leaders to be men of rectitude who told us the
truth. Thanks to Vietnam, the politicians were exposed as liars and heartless cynics with no honor.
This same dark cloud hangs over our political landscape today. We have destroyed large parts
of the Mideast, Afghanistan and northern Pakistan without a second thought – yet wonder why peoples
from these ravaged nations hate us. Now, North Korea seems next.
Showing defiance to Washington brought B-52 bombers, toxic Agent Orange defoliants and endless
storms of napalm and white phosphorus that would burn through one's body until it hit bone.
In spite of all, our imperial impulse till throbs. The nightmare Vietnam War in which over
58,000 American soldiers died for nothing has been largely forgotten. So we can now repeat the
same fatal errors again without shame, remorse or understanding.
(Republished from
EricMargolis.com
by permission of author or representative)
For both Vietnam and Afghanistan, as well as other places, the guiding principle is that
they live there and we don't. These are all expeditionary wars for the US. Resistant peoples can't
be controlled at a distance. Of course the morale of US soldiers ends up being bad when they
realize there's nothing for them to fight for. No one wants to die to help some politician save
face. Insofar as the current much publicized Vietnam documentary goes there doesn't seem to be
anything that's new or original. All of it has been known for many years to anyone who would bother
to brush up on the subject. The question is whether Americans are capable of learning from the
past and the answer seems to be no for the vast majority.
For both Vietnam and Afghanistan, as well as other places, the guiding principle is that they
live there and we don't. These are all expeditionary wars for the US. Resistant peoples can't
be controlled at a distance. Of course the morale of US soldiers ends up being bad when they realize
there's nothing for them to fight for. No one wants to die to help some politician save face.
Insofar as the current much publicized Vietnam documentary goes there doesn't seem to be anything
that's new or original. All of it has been known for many years to anyone who would bother to
brush up on the subject. The question is whether Americans are capable of learning from the past
and the answer seems to be no for the vast majority.
So whose name gets to be the last American killed in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, etc? Dying for
a place on the memorial, boys. "The war was being run by a bunch of four-star clowns who were
going to end up giving the whole circus away."
Some things don't change- I wonder if Rand has a new copy of the Pentagon Papers regarding
post 9/11. And a new Nixon in office .he vowed to get out too -- and yet pushed more into it simply
amazing.
@Sam McGowan First, I was heavily involved in Vietnam from 1965 to 1970. Second, I have written
extensively about the war and read the books. The fact is that the US didn't "lose" the war, the
left-wing presidents that got us into it, JFK and LBJ, has no intention of defeating the communist
insurgency, they just wanted "to contain it". Cam Ranh Bay and made a speech in which he commented
to the troops present that he wanted them to "nail the coonskin to the wall." Richard Nixon began
withdrawing troops immediately after his inauguration and gave Abrams an edict to "reduce American
casualties" shortly afterwards. In fact, Vietnam as well as Korea - as well as other wars around
the world - were continuations of World War II, which Americans thought ended when the Japanese
surrendered. By the way, I am not watching Ken Burn's latest left-wing propaganda piece nor do
I intend to. I don't need him to tell me what happened in Southeast Asia, I was there. Save your
senile hot air for the other menopausal drunks drooling in the VFW lounge. The conscript US military
completely collapsed fragging, rampant drug usage, desertion, abject morale, chain of command
disintegration, and the usual commissioned officer cowardice. Any western country stupid enough
to pursue a land war in Asia deserves what it gets .inevitable defeat and humiliation.
I don't think CucKen Burns is entirely wrong in empathizing with those who got involved. Sure,
there were warmongers. Sure, they were profiteers. Sure, there were power-maniacs. Sure, there
were paranoids.
But Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon were not particularly sadistic or cruel men. Eisenhower
could be aloof and mean. Kennedy could be vain. Johnson was plenty corrupt. Nixon could be nasty.
But were not psychos or radicals like Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, or Mao.
As for military men, well, whaddya expect? They were trained to think of the world in terms
of military power. As for CIA, we are talking of more sinister elements, but let's keep in mind
that Soviets had their intelligence organizations and methods of subversion. Let's remember Soviets
had infiltrated FDR's government and pulled dirty trick. Even got the Bomb during Truman era.
Also, Soviets could be utterly ruthless in their own empire.
Now, would the US have intervened in Vietnam if the nation was to be united by a non-communist
nationalist? Probably not. US didn't intervene in Indonesia when it gained independence under
Sukarno. The only reason US got involved was because Ho was a Soviet-leaning communist. And even
though Domino theory has been 'debunked', it made sense at the time. Even Soviets believed in
it. Mao believed in it. Soviets believed that sign of US weakness could spread the revolution
all around. Che Guevara believed in the Domino Theory. Communist victory over Cuba, he thought,
would herald spread of communism all over Latin America, and then it would spread into US itself.
Che really believed this, which is why he died in Bolivia trying to start an insurgency.
Also, in a way, Domino Theory did come true, at least for awhile. Not so much in Southeast
Asia, though Laos and Cambodia also fell to communism. And keep in mind Indonesia almost could
have become communist if the Peking-backed coup had succeeded. And keep in mind it took lots of
British brutality and ruthlessness to stem the communist movement in Malaysia. Brits built huge
hamlets and concentration camps. They took extreme measures.
At any rate, communism did continue to spread after the fall of Vietnam. US power seemed to
be declining. And not only communists were emboldened by US defeat in Vietnam. Vietnam became
a metaphor for anti-Americanism all over the world. May 68 movement that almost brought down the
French government was fired up partly by Vietnam(though it began as some silly stuff about dorms
and sex). Vietnam was bigger than Algeria because US was seen as the Great Power. French defeat
wasn't all that surprising in Algeria. So, after US left from Vietnam, there was a sense that
David could beat American Goliath. Iran regime fell and Islamists came to power. Afghanistan turned
communist, and Soviets felt emboldened in rolling in tanks. Ethiopia, Mozambique, and Angola turned
communist. Communists won in Nicaragua and almost won in El Salvador. There was a raging Maoist
insurgency in Peru. Allende came to power through elections, and he was pro-Soviet and pro-Cuba.
He was removed only by US-backed coup that did as much harm as good. It blackened US reputation
around the world. So, in a way, the Domino Theory wasn't all wrong. Vietnam did signal a sea-change
in world politics at least for awhile.
In the end, communism wasn't defeated by the US. It defeated itself. Soviet economics just
couldn't sustain the empire. Its subsidies to Cuba were costly. Its support of Marxist regimes
in Africa drained Soviet economy. USSR had to prop up Iron Curtain nations economically. And Vietnamese
communism was a disaster. Maoism was hell on earth. Some might say communism failed cuz Capitalist
West froze the communists out of world trade. But considering that the communist world encompassed
resource-rich Soviet Empire, people-rich China, and lots of nations willing to do business with
communist nations -- India and Arab nations had good relations with Soviets -- , the real reason
for failure of communism was it was its own worst enemy.
And when we look at the aftermath of communist victory in Indochina -- brutal repression in
Vietnam and Laos and psychotic democide in Cambodia -- and when we consider how even communist
nations like China and Vietnam switched to market economics, it's clear that US was on the right
side of history on many issues.
Also, the conflict was complicated because both sides were aggressors. US was the aggressor
in working with the French to divide Vietnam in half, in occupying the southern half, and dropping
bombs and using Viet women as whores. But the communists were also aggressors because they tried
to impose a form of Stalinism on people in the South, most of whom didn't want communism. After
all, many more people fled the north to the south than vice versa. Why? There is something prison-like
about communism. The commissars never leave you alone. Also, North Vietnamese leaders, though
inspired and patriotic, were utterly ruthless in their own way, willing to sacrifice any number
of people for victory just like Japanese militarists were willing to Go All the Way instead of
calling it quits to save lives.
Still, in retrospect, Ho Chi Minh was a genuine patriot, a legendary figure much beloved by
many Viets. And for that reason, US shouldn't have intervened, and the whole mess could have been
avoided.
CucKen Burns makes my skin crawl, but at his best, he can look at both sides of the issue instead
of going for b/w version of history with good guys vs bad guys.
That said, maybe his position reflects globalism. As Proglobalists now control the US, the
neo-Pax-Americana is about the spread of agendas favored by the likes of CucKen Burns, like homomania,
Jewish Power, anti-nationalism, and Afromania. Today's progs want the world to become neo-Americanized.
And in Vietnam, as Linh Dinh reported, there is now homo parades and Afromania and Vietcuckery.
So, considering that Viet commies stood for patriotism and national sovereignty, maybe the
globalist viewpoint is more favorable to US efforts to turn Vietnam into globo-disneyland.
After all, where was CucKen Burns when Obama and Hillary were destroying Libya, Ukraine, Syria,
and etc. Where were he and his ilk when Jews were cooking up New Cold War with Russia with hysteria
that would make McCarthy blush?
"The question is whether Americans are capable of learning from the past and the answer
seems to be no for the vast majority."
Americans at-large have no power. A small cadre runs things now. Once Americans didn't
have a draft to worry over, they vacated the streets and left the dying to the farmers' sons (metaphor
for the poor). That's all it is. The damage done to the economy, the sheer quantities of
cash vacuumed up from the rest of the country and showered over the Washington DC region escapes
the imagination of us out here in the country with our local issues and problems. These, rooted
in the sheer theft of our taxes and handed over to the war-mongers of DC because there simply
isn't enough left over after feeding The Beast in Washington. We have aircraft carriers that can't
launch aircraft, planes that won't fly, weapons that won't work and wrong strategies followed
in war-fighting and procurement, yet still, the theft goes on.
War after war lost, yet the Generals are still revered, money to the pro-war think tanks
is never ending and the revolving door between the Pentagon, White House and defense contractors
(and their corporate boards) has never been richer. Doesn't matter the war industry doesn't win
wars, the money is just so damned good they can't stop, won't stop. And who is to stop them? These
are the folks that kill people, that have a file on each of us. Indeed, it is our only remaining
industry, flawed and failed though it may be. It certainly is a rich one. And it IS unstoppable.
Completely. Utterly.
@Sam McGowan Concur all, McGowan, good takes. Yeah, my Pop was into Naval spook communications
and messaging, he'd pick up the WashPost off the driveway and see various and sundry in the paper
lying and white-washing the effort and just be wild by the time he left for work. He knew the
carriers were having no success, he knew the air-war was a mess, he knew the Marines were getting
killed all over the country. People that knew the truth from the inside hadda keep their traps
shut.
By the time I joined up for a 6 year dose of USN carrier decks in 1976 I got the scoop from
a few of our officers, almost all of whom had flown with VA35 over Vietnam in A-6′s. Clusterfuck,
they could then acknowledge just those few years later, only the most junior officers hadn't served
in the air war over Vietnam. And they had good stories that pointed out the folly throughout.
Now? The military is just a revenue-stream, nothing produced, much destroyed to the enrichment
of a few insiders.
Sir
Recently came across some startling statistics about men who served in Vietnam like you and me.
Of the 2.7 million who served only 850,000 are still alive at last census!!!!!! 700,500 died prematurely
between 1995 census and 2000 census. No country for old men .
"And in Vietnam, as Linh Dinh reported, there is now homo parades and Afromania and Vietcuckery.
So, considering that Viet commies stood for patriotism and national sovereignty, maybe the
globalist viewpoint is more favorable to US efforts to turn Vietnam into globo-disneyland."
Bingo! The only problem is that the globalists are now using the opportunity to also wear down
the populations of the home territories as well. The only reason our national economic imperialism
wasn't enough of a raging success (don't get me wrong by any rational measure it was) was that
it was kept in check by the opposing communist bloc, and still America managed to conquer the
so-called free world with Coca Cola, McDonalds, Hollywood Inc., etc.
When the communists gave up and joined the party, our globalist masters realized that they
could not only amass further wealth by spreading these things to the former communist bloc and
under-exploited non-aligned nations, but they could now squeeze even more profit-margin out of
the home territories by wearing down the power of the local workforce at all levels, except, of
course, for the very pinnacle, by outsourcing production and even many services to the newly "developing
world."
Ironically, fighting the communist threat probably kept our leadership more honest than
they have been in the new world order since the fall of communism.
"No one in Washington seemed to know that China and the Soviet Union had split and become
bitter enemies. As ever, our foreign human intelligence was lousy."
They knew of the rift that had grown since 1960 or so, but they didn't believe it until the
short border war in 1969. The same way that a number of indicators suggested as early as 1983
that the USSR was imploding, but the menace of the USSR was used to keep justifying a buildup
and procurement of new systems until and even beyond its actual implosion a few years later.
I know opinions vary on Ken Burns/PBS's "Vietnam" documentary, but what struck me is that
we're following the same script in Afghanistan and the Middle East as we were in Vietnam and expecting
a different (i.e., more favorable) outcome. The script being "pacification" through providing
medicine, foodstuffs, soccer balls and American smiles to the local populations combined with
placing massive amounts of ordnance on targets deemed hostile. It didn't win hearts and minds
then nor is it now.
The generals keep telling us that with just a few more antibiotics, soccer balls and troops
victory is around the bend.
Hindsight's always 20/20, but to be fair a military force in Vietnam did seem like the right
thing do at least in the early years. Any de-escalation and/or withdrawals would have been perceived
by a rabidly anti-communist population as surrendering to communist aggression and political suicide
for any president proposing it.
The monumentally stupid war mismanagement of Pentagon chief Robert McNamara, a know-it-all
who knew nothing,
We have legions of McNamara's calling the shots today. They are called neoconservatives
and liberal interventionists. The big brains of the Ivy league do seem to excel at steering us
into icebergs time and again.
As it was former allies Vietnam and China briefly fought each other in 1979 and Vietnam didn't
have the desire or the ability to project power much beyond Cambodia and Laos.
"We really believed that if the US did not make a stand in Vietnam the Soviets and Chinese
would overrun all of South Asia."
India played a big role in shaping this narrative. Just five years ago before 1967 China finally
responded to India's creeping land grab after years of trying to warn New Delhi's to stop its
'Forward Policy' by launching a massive anticipatory strike into India. India was defeated militarily
but India was able to fool the world that India was a hapless victim against an agressive China
when in fact the reverse is true.
@Jim Christian A bit off topic, but, since I know that you had naval experience, any take
on why Navy ships keep colliding with merchantmen? Is it reduced competence because of racial
and sexual preferences, or overworked sailors because deployed ships are short-staffed as a result
of pregnancies? Or is it just a run of bad luck? I've read some different theories but I've seen
you post often enough to know that you'll have an informed opinion.
@Sam McGowanWhat don't you understand about Clausewitz's dictum "war is the mere continuation
of politics with other means"? War is what you do when you can't achieve your political objectives
by other means. The United States' political objective in Vietnam was to prevent the American
satrapy in the south being re-united by the nationalists in the north. So, where the f ** k is
South Vietnam? The United States might believe it won every battle (slight exaggeration) but it
still lost the American war.
@Diversity Heretic The military is off-kilter all over. Navigation? Routine. Ought to be.
Not anymore. Procurement? Driven by inertia and the corruption of planners that know a carrier's
planes are useless if the ship has to stand off 500-1000 miles because of a cruise missile environment
that they KNOW every third-world shitbox has been building for 30 years now, starting with the
Norks. From aircraft to ships, a complete clusterfuck.
Personnel? Ya gotta be shitting me, right? Between the sexism, reverse-racism and the cultural
kookiness from the top of a terrorized Central Command and throughout the military, right down
to the pretty little Blonde Hispanic Black Dwarf tranny just dying to terrorize said command with
a complaint, we really haven't much good to say about our staffing. It's not a meritocracy anymore,
hasn't been since Reagan. The entire thing is sitting there waiting to be taken down and humiliated.
And still? We sprinkle the trillions onto the DC region, make the war planners rich, we still
lionize Generals and Admirals that haven't won shit in 75 years and we cycle them through the
think tanks and corporate boards of the defense contractors and make THEM rich too. Then we even
put them in charge at the White House, having discarded the notion of Congressional approval for
the wars they "fight" in our names. And they start wars. And finally, the notion that we have
civilian control of our military is long gone. We are a Junta. There is a coup ongoing, two or
more in our past and we're no more than a broke but dangerous and heavily armed danger to the
rest of the world run by the thugs of the Pentagon, the think tanks, the defense contractors and
the lazy sloth of Congress, who is supposed to keep this shit straight and Constitutional. Doom.
Yes, the word doom comes to mind.
@anonymous re: "No one wants to die to help some politician save face."
I don't have a teevee, but I bet they didn't cover the mutiny in the ranks which is the
main reason the US had to withdraw because of a "broken army." That included fragging, mission
refusal, and an overall negative attitude as you suggest. Now we have a volunteer army, a warrior
class, which changes that dynamic.
One man's opinion. I do wish someone would show me where I'm wrong, but I spent too many years
down in DC doing their tech stuff after I left the Navy (too many women that couldn't, at that
point in 82, go to sea) and so they only had more sea duty because the shore billets were all
taken in their haste to "integrate" women into the Navy. Even instructor duty for Naval Air Maintenance
was hosted by women that had never served a day in carrier air, training the young mice how to
do business on a flight deck. They did offer me, for variety, another four year hitch in a WestPac
squadron aboard one damned carrier deck or another. Already having done 5, I said no thanks and
went back home to Virginia. And so I got familiar with the workings of the spooks, Booze, Allen,
Heritage, Cato, Brookings, the Pentagon, NSA, FBI, Quantico, there were hundreds of them, most
with two or three names in the chain of title. I did their phones for decades, they're psychos,
they're paranoid, everything classified and spooky and ooga-booga. Worthless ants on a big log
and they each think they're steering it down the river.
Bunch of fucking Frank Burns's is what they are..Cheers.
There never was a communist threat. Not since at least the 1920s, when Stalin defeated Trotsky.
Trotsky wanted world revolution. Stalin, for all his bloodthirsty antics in Russia, realised this
was all nonsense. He just wanted Socialism in One Country, developing the country economically.
He wasn't really interested in the outside world.
In the 1930s he was willing to cooperate with right wing western governments till they did
a deal with Hitler in 1938. He was never interested in invading countries to grab land and resources.
Whenever he did so, Poland in 1939, or Eastern Europe post 1945, it was for security reasons.
The part of Poland he occupied in 1939 had been taken from Russia by force in 1920. It was inhabited
by 1o million White Russians and Ukrainians and no Poles.
Wissing's book "Funding the enemy" details the totally corrupt Afghan government and is a compelling
argument why we should pull out at once and needs to be read by anyone with half a brain. I served
in Vietnam also, in 1967, and its deja vu all over again.
@The Alarmist Having been on – site at the time (North Tonkin Gulf), I can tell you that China
gave U.S.N. units free rein over those waters, including Chinese waters. The fix was in. In 1969
onwards. China and Viet Nam were NEVER friends. Did CIA realize this? I don't know.
Anyways, expect the US to keep on wasting money in Afghanistan (and Pakistan and Tajikistan)
until it gets bankrupted by the next Big War!
Or until all the routes into Afghanistan are blocked. At the moment, the only route still open
passes through Pakistan, and that may close at any time.
Of the 58,220 Americans who were sacrificed by the U.S. Government during the Vietnam War,
270 were Jewish. That's approximately 0.46 percent of the total number of American kids who died,
or less than a half of one-percent.
"Statistical Information About Casualties of the Vietnam War"
@Grandpa Charlie The Japanese trained their naval cadets using a mock Pearl Harbor type exercise
annually for a fair number of years prior to WW2. The Russo-Japanese War of 1905 began with a
Japanese surprise attack. You have the unmitigated gall to attack Margolis as an establishment
mouthpiece when you yourself are whitewashhing the "sainted" FDR. No prudent military planner
would absolutely assume that the attack would come in one particular place, whether the Phillipines,
Pearl, or elsewhere.
@Don BaconToo many of the volunteers are really economic draftees. You can have plenty
of discipline problems with volunteers, I've seen it up close and personal, although never reaching
the level of mutiny.
@Capn Mike That is interesting to me. As is the Margolis artictle, never knew he had been
a USA soldier, very interesting article. Thought he was a Canada person.
I have a question for you, Capn Mike.
If the PRC had allowed the USA free rein in Gulf of Tonkin, where were the supply lines to
the Nth. Viet military and Viet Cong?
Must it not still have been overland from PRC at that time you say (1969)?
I don't for a moment believe that the 'saintly' President John Kennedy planned to end the
war but was assassinated by dark, rightwing forces, as is claimed. This is a charming legend.
Richard Nixon, Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson all feared that a withdrawal from Vietnam would lose
them the next election. Republicans were still snarling over 'who lost China'.
I didn't like Kennedy either, but go back and reread the newspapers from the early days of
the Kennedy administration. The oval office was bugged, and the information leaked in ways to
embarrass Kennedy and UN Ambassador Adelai Stevenson. There is only one way that could have happened.
Eisenhower installed those bugs before he left. These same bugs brought down Nixon in the Watergate
crisis. The swamp wanted war, and they pulled the rug out from under both presidents as soon as
they brought peace.
And a new Nixon in office .he vowed to get out too- and yet pushed more into it simply amazing.
He promised to get out and he did get us out. The peace treaty was announced just before the
election in 1972. He knew it was his only hope for re-election. The Vietnamese disputed some of
the terms, and that resulted in the Christmas bombing that year. The American withdrawal began
in January 1973.
Trump promised to get us out of the Middle East. We should give him some rope. Maybe he hangs
himself, or just maybe he can pull it off. He will need to be re-elected in three years.
However, the US foreign policy keeps holocausting the 3-rd world and lately the 2 -cond world.
The holocausts keep coming from US foreign policy of "exceptionalism" = "Nazi Übermensch"="the
chosen ones" over this planet, many executed by the CIA-Nazi's:
The Syrian holocaust
The Yemen holocaust
The Ukranďan holocaust (Euromaidan) by Poroshenko/Nuland neo-nazi"s.
The Libyan holocaust
The Irak holocaust
The Afghanistan holocaust
The Belgrad holocaust
The Indonesian holocaust (Kissiger e.a.)
The Vietnam/Laos/Cambodia/Thailand holocaust (Kissinger e.a)
The Korean holocaust
During WWII:
The Jewish/Polish/Russian holocaust by Nazi's funded by Wallstreet/London bankers
The German holocaust (Die Rheinweisen lager) by US army Morgenthau plan.
Before WWII:
The Ukranian and Russain holocausts 1921-22, 1932-33 (holodomor) by Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin.
All these, were and are financed by the Wallstreet elite owners, the Billionaires who are mega-fascists,
eugenic and satanic in character. Their credo is GREED.
Thanks to Vietnam, the politicians were exposed as liars and heartless cynics with no honor.
A couple of the biggest lies were exposed, but the myths still live that the US government
is an effective and dependable force for peace and freedom, and that the US military is an institution
of dignity worthy of honor.
And people still put their faith (or is it hope) in the heartless cynics ( eunichs, really)
with no balls, fewer brains, no soul, and even less honor.
"... That Europe might become an independent "third force" has been a matter of concern to U.S. planners since World War II. There have long been discussions of something like a Gaullist conception of Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals or, in more recent years, Gorbachev's vision of a common Europe from Brussels to Vladivostok. ..."
"... Barsamian: What do you make of the conflict between the Trump administration and the U.S. intelligence communities? Do you believe in the "deep state"? ..."
Barsamian: You have in the past expressed concern about the European Union. What do
you think will happen as Europe becomes less tied to the U.S. and the U.K.?
Chomsky: The E.U. has fundamental problems, notably the single currency with no political
union. It also has many positive features. There are some sensible ideas aimed at saving what
is good and improving what is harmful. Yanis Varoufakis's DiEM25 initiative for a democratic Europe is a promising
approach.
The U.K. has often been a U.S. surrogate in European politics. Brexit might encourage Europe
to take a more independent role in world affairs, a course that might be accelerated by Trump
policies that increasingly isolate us from the world. While he is shouting loudly and waving an
enormous stick, China could take the lead on global energy policies while extending its
influence to the west and, ultimately, to Europe, based on the Shanghai Cooperation
Organization and the New Silk Road.
That Europe might become an independent "third force" has been a matter of concern to
U.S. planners since World War II. There have long been discussions of something like a Gaullist
conception of Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals or, in more recent years, Gorbachev's
vision of a common Europe from Brussels to Vladivostok.
Whatever happens, Germany is sure to retain a dominant role in European affairs. It is
rather startling to hear a conservative German chancellor, Angela Merkel, lecturing her U.S.
counterpart on human rights, and taking the lead, at least for a time, in confronting the
refugee issue, Europe's deep moral crisis. On the other hand, Germany's insistence on austerity
and paranoia about inflation and its policy of promoting exports by limiting domestic
consumption have no slight responsibility for Europe's economic distress, particularly the dire
situation of the peripheral economies. In the best case, however, which is not beyond
imagination, Germany could influence Europe to become a generally positive force in world
affairs.
Barsamian: What do you make of the conflict between the Trump administration and the
U.S. intelligence communities? Do you believe in the "deep state"?
Chomsky: There is a national security bureaucracy that has persisted since World War II. And
national security analysts, in and out of government, have been appalled by many of Trump's
wild forays. Their concerns are shared by the highly credible experts who set the Doomsday
Clock, advanced to
two and a half minutes to midnight as soon as Trump took office -- the closest it has been
to terminal disaster since 1953, when the U.S. and USSR exploded thermonuclear weapons. But I
see little sign that it goes beyond that, that there is any secret "deep state" conspiracy.
"... Greenwald explains that the US media is so conditioned by the National Security State to see Russian President Putin lurking behind and masterminding attacks on America that it is "now religious dogma" -- a requirement -- to find Russian perfidy everywhere. The result Greenwald correctly says is that "an incredibly reckless, anything-goes climate prevails when it comes to claims about Russia. Media outlets will publish literally any official assertion as Truth without the slightest regard for evidentiary standards." ..."
"... In other words, the United States no longer has a media . It has a propaganda ministry for the military/security complex, the neoconservatives, and the Israel Lobby. And the idiot Americans sit in front of the TV and absorb the propaganda, and they read the New York Times and think that they are sophisticated and in the know. ..."
"... Russia knows that Washington knows that the accusations against Russia are false. ..."
"... This is a serious question, not only for Russia but for the entire world. All previous false accusations from the Clinton regime criminals, the Bush/Cheney regime criminals, and the Obama regime criminals ended in military attacks on the falsely demonized targets. Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea would be within reason to wonder if the false news propaganda attack on them is a prelude to military attack. ..."
"... What is the point of US security agencies such as Homeland Security, CIA, FBI, NSA constantly filling the propaganda machine known as the American Media with lies about Russia? Russia must wonder as well. Russia knows that they are lies. Russia knows that it does no good to refute the lies because the West has a Propaganda Ministry instead of a media. Russia knows that Washington told lies about the Taliban, Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi, Assad, Iran. What does Russia conclude from the constant stream of lies about Russia that flow out of Washington and are presented as truth by the Western presstitutes? ..."
"... I have written many times that provoking nuclear powers such as Russia and China is the most extreme form of recklessness and irresponsibility. ..."
Glenn Greenwald of The Intercept exposes the fake news put out by the US Department of
Homeland Security (an euphemistic name for a Big Brother operation that spies on US citizens) that
Russia hacked 21 US state elections, news that was instantly spread around the world by the presstitute
media. The propagandists running Homeland Security were contradicted by the state governments, forcing
Homeland Security to retract its fake news claims.
https://theintercept.com/2017/09/28/yet-another-major-russia-story-falls-apart-is-skepticism-permissible-yet/
The unasked/unanswered question is why did Homeland Security put out a FAKE NEWS story?
Greenwald explains that the US media is so conditioned by the National Security State to see
Russian President Putin lurking behind and masterminding attacks on America that it is "now religious
dogma" -- a requirement -- to find Russian perfidy everywhere. The result Greenwald correctly says
is that "an incredibly reckless, anything-goes climate prevails when it comes to claims about Russia.
Media outlets will publish literally any official assertion as Truth without the slightest regard
for evidentiary standards."
In other words, the United States no longer has a media . It has a propaganda ministry for
the military/security complex, the neoconservatives, and the Israel Lobby. And the idiot Americans
sit in front of the TV and absorb the propaganda, and they read the New York Times and think that
they are sophisticated and in the know.
What Greenwald doesn't address is the effect of the massive amount of fake news on Russia, China,
Iran, and North Korea. Russia knows that Washington knows that the accusations against Russia
are false. So why is Washington making false accusations against Russia?
This is a serious question, not only for Russia but for the entire world. All previous false
accusations from the Clinton regime criminals, the Bush/Cheney regime criminals, and the Obama regime
criminals ended in military attacks on the falsely demonized targets. Russia, China, Iran, and North
Korea would be within reason to wonder if the false news propaganda attack on them is a prelude to
military attack.
Iran and North Korea cannot attack the US and its European vassals, but Russia and China can.
I have written about the Operational Command of the Russian armed forces conclusion that Washington
is preparing a surprise nuclear attack on Russia. Instead of reassuring the Russians that no such
planning is in the works, Washington has instead pushed further the fake news Russiagate story with
the false report that Russia had hacked the elections of 21 states.
What is the point of US security agencies such as Homeland Security, CIA, FBI, NSA constantly
filling the propaganda machine known as the American Media with lies about Russia? Russia must wonder
as well. Russia knows that they are lies. Russia knows that it does no good to refute the lies because
the West has a Propaganda Ministry instead of a media. Russia knows that Washington told lies about
the Taliban, Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi, Assad, Iran. What does Russia conclude from the constant stream
of lies about Russia that flow out of Washington and are presented as truth by the Western presstitutes?
If you were the Russian government, would you conclude that your country was the next to
be attacked militarily by Washington? If you were the Russian government, you would know that Washington/NATO
cannot possibly attack Russia except by surprise nuclear strike. Knowing this, if you were the Russian
government, would you sit there and wait on the strike? Imagine yourself the Russian government listening
day in, day out, to endless wild improbable charges against Russia. What can Russia possibly conclude
other than this is preparation of Western peoples for a nuclear attack on Russia?
Russia is not going to be hung like Saddan Hussein or murdered like Gaddafi.
I have written many times that provoking nuclear powers such as Russia and China is the most
extreme form of recklessness and irresponsibility. The crazed morons in Washington are risking the
life of the planet. The presstitutes are worse than the whores that they are. They never question
the path to war; they only amplify it. Washington's craven, cowardly, moronic vassal states in UK,
Germany, France, Italy, Netherlands, Belgium, Poland, and the rest of the EU/NATO idiots are, by
their cooperation with Washington, begging for their own destruction.
Nowhere in the West is there a sign of intelligence.
Will Washington follow Adolf Hitler's folly and march into Russia?
"... That Europe might become an independent "third force" has been a matter of concern to U.S. planners since World War II. There have long been discussions of something like a Gaullist conception of Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals or, in more recent years, Gorbachev's vision of a common Europe from Brussels to Vladivostok. ..."
"... Barsamian: What do you make of the conflict between the Trump administration and the U.S. intelligence communities? Do you believe in the "deep state"? ..."
Barsamian: You have in the past expressed concern about the European Union. What do
you think will happen as Europe becomes less tied to the U.S. and the U.K.?
Chomsky: The E.U. has fundamental problems, notably the single currency with no political
union. It also has many positive features. There are some sensible ideas aimed at saving what
is good and improving what is harmful. Yanis Varoufakis's DiEM25 initiative for a democratic Europe is a promising
approach.
The U.K. has often been a U.S. surrogate in European politics. Brexit might encourage Europe
to take a more independent role in world affairs, a course that might be accelerated by Trump
policies that increasingly isolate us from the world. While he is shouting loudly and waving an
enormous stick, China could take the lead on global energy policies while extending its
influence to the west and, ultimately, to Europe, based on the Shanghai Cooperation
Organization and the New Silk Road.
That Europe might become an independent "third force" has been a matter of concern to
U.S. planners since World War II. There have long been discussions of something like a Gaullist
conception of Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals or, in more recent years, Gorbachev's
vision of a common Europe from Brussels to Vladivostok.
Whatever happens, Germany is sure to retain a dominant role in European affairs. It is
rather startling to hear a conservative German chancellor, Angela Merkel, lecturing her U.S.
counterpart on human rights, and taking the lead, at least for a time, in confronting the
refugee issue, Europe's deep moral crisis. On the other hand, Germany's insistence on austerity
and paranoia about inflation and its policy of promoting exports by limiting domestic
consumption have no slight responsibility for Europe's economic distress, particularly the dire
situation of the peripheral economies. In the best case, however, which is not beyond
imagination, Germany could influence Europe to become a generally positive force in world
affairs.
Barsamian: What do you make of the conflict between the Trump administration and the
U.S. intelligence communities? Do you believe in the "deep state"?
Chomsky: There is a national security bureaucracy that has persisted since World War II. And
national security analysts, in and out of government, have been appalled by many of Trump's
wild forays. Their concerns are shared by the highly credible experts who set the Doomsday
Clock, advanced to
two and a half minutes to midnight as soon as Trump took office -- the closest it has been
to terminal disaster since 1953, when the U.S. and USSR exploded thermonuclear weapons. But I
see little sign that it goes beyond that, that there is any secret "deep state" conspiracy.
"... Greenwald explains that the US media is so conditioned by the National Security State to see Russian President Putin lurking behind and masterminding attacks on America that it is "now religious dogma" -- a requirement -- to find Russian perfidy everywhere. The result Greenwald correctly says is that "an incredibly reckless, anything-goes climate prevails when it comes to claims about Russia. Media outlets will publish literally any official assertion as Truth without the slightest regard for evidentiary standards." ..."
"... In other words, the United States no longer has a media . It has a propaganda ministry for the military/security complex, the neoconservatives, and the Israel Lobby. And the idiot Americans sit in front of the TV and absorb the propaganda, and they read the New York Times and think that they are sophisticated and in the know. ..."
"... Russia knows that Washington knows that the accusations against Russia are false. ..."
"... This is a serious question, not only for Russia but for the entire world. All previous false accusations from the Clinton regime criminals, the Bush/Cheney regime criminals, and the Obama regime criminals ended in military attacks on the falsely demonized targets. Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea would be within reason to wonder if the false news propaganda attack on them is a prelude to military attack. ..."
"... What is the point of US security agencies such as Homeland Security, CIA, FBI, NSA constantly filling the propaganda machine known as the American Media with lies about Russia? Russia must wonder as well. Russia knows that they are lies. Russia knows that it does no good to refute the lies because the West has a Propaganda Ministry instead of a media. Russia knows that Washington told lies about the Taliban, Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi, Assad, Iran. What does Russia conclude from the constant stream of lies about Russia that flow out of Washington and are presented as truth by the Western presstitutes? ..."
"... I have written many times that provoking nuclear powers such as Russia and China is the most extreme form of recklessness and irresponsibility. ..."
Glenn Greenwald of The Intercept exposes the fake news put out by the US Department of
Homeland Security (an euphemistic name for a Big Brother operation that spies on US citizens) that
Russia hacked 21 US state elections, news that was instantly spread around the world by the presstitute
media. The propagandists running Homeland Security were contradicted by the state governments, forcing
Homeland Security to retract its fake news claims.
https://theintercept.com/2017/09/28/yet-another-major-russia-story-falls-apart-is-skepticism-permissible-yet/
The unasked/unanswered question is why did Homeland Security put out a FAKE NEWS story?
Greenwald explains that the US media is so conditioned by the National Security State to see
Russian President Putin lurking behind and masterminding attacks on America that it is "now religious
dogma" -- a requirement -- to find Russian perfidy everywhere. The result Greenwald correctly says
is that "an incredibly reckless, anything-goes climate prevails when it comes to claims about Russia.
Media outlets will publish literally any official assertion as Truth without the slightest regard
for evidentiary standards."
In other words, the United States no longer has a media . It has a propaganda ministry for
the military/security complex, the neoconservatives, and the Israel Lobby. And the idiot Americans
sit in front of the TV and absorb the propaganda, and they read the New York Times and think that
they are sophisticated and in the know.
What Greenwald doesn't address is the effect of the massive amount of fake news on Russia, China,
Iran, and North Korea. Russia knows that Washington knows that the accusations against Russia
are false. So why is Washington making false accusations against Russia?
This is a serious question, not only for Russia but for the entire world. All previous false
accusations from the Clinton regime criminals, the Bush/Cheney regime criminals, and the Obama regime
criminals ended in military attacks on the falsely demonized targets. Russia, China, Iran, and North
Korea would be within reason to wonder if the false news propaganda attack on them is a prelude to
military attack.
Iran and North Korea cannot attack the US and its European vassals, but Russia and China can.
I have written about the Operational Command of the Russian armed forces conclusion that Washington
is preparing a surprise nuclear attack on Russia. Instead of reassuring the Russians that no such
planning is in the works, Washington has instead pushed further the fake news Russiagate story with
the false report that Russia had hacked the elections of 21 states.
What is the point of US security agencies such as Homeland Security, CIA, FBI, NSA constantly
filling the propaganda machine known as the American Media with lies about Russia? Russia must wonder
as well. Russia knows that they are lies. Russia knows that it does no good to refute the lies because
the West has a Propaganda Ministry instead of a media. Russia knows that Washington told lies about
the Taliban, Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi, Assad, Iran. What does Russia conclude from the constant stream
of lies about Russia that flow out of Washington and are presented as truth by the Western presstitutes?
If you were the Russian government, would you conclude that your country was the next to
be attacked militarily by Washington? If you were the Russian government, you would know that Washington/NATO
cannot possibly attack Russia except by surprise nuclear strike. Knowing this, if you were the Russian
government, would you sit there and wait on the strike? Imagine yourself the Russian government listening
day in, day out, to endless wild improbable charges against Russia. What can Russia possibly conclude
other than this is preparation of Western peoples for a nuclear attack on Russia?
Russia is not going to be hung like Saddan Hussein or murdered like Gaddafi.
I have written many times that provoking nuclear powers such as Russia and China is the most
extreme form of recklessness and irresponsibility. The crazed morons in Washington are risking the
life of the planet. The presstitutes are worse than the whores that they are. They never question
the path to war; they only amplify it. Washington's craven, cowardly, moronic vassal states in UK,
Germany, France, Italy, Netherlands, Belgium, Poland, and the rest of the EU/NATO idiots are, by
their cooperation with Washington, begging for their own destruction.
Nowhere in the West is there a sign of intelligence.
Will Washington follow Adolf Hitler's folly and march into Russia?
"... As part of his own contribution to that complex, Eisenhower had overseen the creation of both the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, or NASA, and a "high-risk, high-gain" research unit called the Advanced Research Projects Agency, or ARPA, that later added the word "Defense" to its name and became DARPA. ..."
"... Even when defeated or fought to a draw, as in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, the Pentagon's research matrix has demonstrated a recurring resilience that could turn disaster into further technological advance. ..."
"... The Vietnam War, for example, was a thoroughgoing tactical failure, yet it would also prove a technological triumph for the military-industrial complex. Although most Americans remember only the Army's soul-destroying ground combat in the villages of South Vietnam, the Air Force fought the biggest air war in military history there and, while it too failed dismally and destructively, it turned out to be a crucial testing ground for a revolution in robotic weaponry. ..."
"... At a cost of $800 million a year, Operation Igloo White laced that narrow mountain corridor with 20,000 acoustic, seismic, and thermal sensors that sent signals to four EC-121 communications aircraft circling ceaselessly overhead. ..."
"... However, after more than 100,000 North Vietnamese troops with tanks, trucks, and artillery somehow moved through that sensor field undetected for a massive offensive in 1972, the Air Force had to admit that its $6 billion "electronic battlefield" was an unqualified failure ..."
"... In the pressure cooker of history's largest air war, the Air Force also transformed an old weapon, the "Firebee" target drone , into a new technology that would rise to significance three decades later. By 1972, the Air Force could send an "SC/TV" drone, equipped with a camera in its nose, up to 2,400 miles across communist China or North Vietnam while controlling it via a low-resolution television image. The Air Force also made aviation history by test firing the first missile from one of those drones. ..."
"... To effect this technological transformation, starting in 2009 the Pentagon planned to spend $55 billion annually to develop robotics for a data-dense interface of space, cyberspace, and terrestrial battle space. ..."
"... By 2025, the United States will likely deploy advanced aerospace and cyberwarfare to envelop the planet in a robotic matrix theoretically capable of blinding entire armies or atomizing an individual insurgent. ..."
"... Within a decade, the Pentagon apparently hopes to patrol the entire planet ceaselessly via a triple-canopy aerospace shield that would reach from sky to space and be secured by an armada of drones with lethal missiles and Argus-eyed sensors, monitored through an electronic matrix and controlled by robotic systems. It's even possible to take you on a tour of the super-secret realm where future space wars will be fought, if the Pentagon's dreams become reality, by exploring both DARPA websites and those of its various defense contractors. ..."
In 2009, building on advances in digital surveillance under the Bush administration, Obama
launched the U.S. Cyber
Command. Its headquarters were set up inside the National Security Agency (NSA) at Fort Meade,
Maryland, and a cyberwar center staffed by 7,000 Air Force employees was established at
Lackland Air Base in Texas. Two years later, the Pentagon moved beyond conventional combat on
air, land, or sea to declare
cyberspace both an offensive and defensive "operational domain." In August, despite his
wide-ranging attempt to purge the government of anything connected to Barack Obama's "legacy,"
President Trump
implemented his predecessor's long-delayed plan to separate that cyber command from the NSA
in a bid to "strengthen our cyberspace operations."
And what is all this technology being prepared for? In study after study, the intelligence
community , the Pentagon , and
related think
tanks have been unanimous in identifying the main threat to future U.S. global hegemony as
a rival power with an expanding economy, a strengthening military, and global ambitions: China,
the home of those denizens of the Gobi Desert who would, in that old Buck Rogers
fable, destroy Washington four centuries from now. Given that America's economic preeminence is
fading fast, breakthroughs in "information warfare" might indeed prove Washington's best bet
for extending its global hegemony further into this century -- but don't count on it, given the
history of techno-weaponry in past wars.
Techno-Triumph in Vietnam
Ever since the Pentagon with its 17 miles of corridors was completed in 1943, that massive
bureaucratic maze has presided over a creative fusion of science and industry that President
Dwight Eisenhower would dub "the military-industrial complex" in his farewell address to the
nation in 1961. "We can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense," he
told the American people.
"We have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions" sustained
by a "technological revolution" that is "complex and costly." As part of his own contribution
to that complex, Eisenhower had overseen the creation of both the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration, or NASA, and a "high-risk, high-gain" research unit called the Advanced
Research Projects Agency, or ARPA, that later added the word "Defense" to its name and became
DARPA.
For 70 years, this close alliance between the Pentagon and major defense contractors has
produced an unbroken succession of "wonder weapons" that at least theoretically gave it a
critical edge in all major military domains. Even when defeated or fought to a draw, as in
Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, the Pentagon's research matrix has demonstrated a recurring
resilience that could turn disaster into further technological advance.
The Vietnam War, for example, was a thoroughgoing tactical failure, yet it would also prove
a technological triumph for the military-industrial complex. Although most Americans remember
only the Army's soul-destroying ground combat in the villages of South Vietnam, the Air Force
fought the biggest air war in military history there and, while it too failed dismally and
destructively, it turned out to be a crucial testing ground for a revolution in robotic
weaponry.
To stop truck convoys that the North Vietnamese were sending through southern Laos into
South Vietnam, the Pentagon's techno-wizards combined a network of sensors, computers, and
aircraft in a coordinated electronic bombing campaign that, from 1968 to 1973, dropped more
than a million tons of munitions -- equal to the total tonnage for the whole Korean War -- in
that limited area. At a cost of $800 million a year, Operation Igloo White laced
that narrow mountain corridor with 20,000 acoustic, seismic, and thermal sensors that sent
signals to four EC-121 communications aircraft circling ceaselessly overhead.
At a U.S. air base just across the Mekong River in Thailand, Task Force Alpha deployed two
powerful IBM 360/65 mainframe computers, equipped with history's first visual display monitors,
to translate all those sensor signals into "an illuminated line of
light" and so launch jet fighters over the Ho Chi Minh Trail where computers discharged
laser-guided bombs automatically. Bristling with antennae and filled with the latest computers,
its massive concrete bunker seemed, at the time, a futuristic marvel to a visiting Pentagon
official who spoke
rapturously about "being swept up in the beauty and majesty of the Task Force Alpha
temple."
However, after more than 100,000 North Vietnamese troops with tanks, trucks, and artillery
somehow moved through that sensor field undetected for a massive offensive in 1972, the Air
Force had to
admit that its $6 billion "electronic battlefield" was an unqualified failure. Yet that
same bombing campaign would prove to be the first crude step toward a future electronic
battlefield for unmanned robotic warfare.
In the pressure cooker of history's largest air war, the Air Force also transformed an old
weapon, the "Firebee" target
drone , into a new technology that would rise to significance three decades later. By 1972,
the Air Force could send an "SC/TV" drone, equipped with a camera in its nose, up to 2,400
miles across communist China or North Vietnam while controlling it via a low-resolution
television image. The Air Force also made aviation history by test firing the first missile
from one of those drones.
The air war in Vietnam was also an impetus for the development of the Pentagon's global
telecommunications satellite system, another important first. After the Initial Defense
Satellite Communications System launched seven orbital satellites in 1966,
ground terminals in Vietnam started transmitting high-resolution aerial surveillance photos to
Washington -- something NASA called a
"revolutionary development." Those images proved so useful that the Pentagon quickly launched an additional 21
satellites and soon had the first system that could communicate from anywhere on the globe.
Today, according to an Air Force website, the third phase of that system
provides secure command, control, and communications for "the Army's ground mobile forces,
the Air Force's airborne terminals, Navy ships at sea, the White House Communications Agency,
the State Department, and special users" like the CIA and NSA.
At great cost, the Vietnam War marked a watershed in Washington's global information
architecture. Turning defeat into innovation, the Air Force had developed the key components --
satellite communications, remote sensing, computer-triggered bombing, and unmanned aircraft --
that would merge 40 years later into a new system of robotic warfare.
The War on Terror
Facing another set of defeats in Afghanistan and Iraq, the twenty-first-century Pentagon
again accelerated the development of new military technologies. After six years of failing
counterinsurgency campaigns in both countries, the Pentagon discovered the power of biometric
identification and electronic surveillance to help pacify sprawling urban areas. And when
President Obama later conducted his troop "surge" in Afghanistan, that country became a frontier
for testing and perfecting drone warfare
deployed in
the Balkans that very year for photo-reconnaissance. In 2000, it was adapted for real-time
surveillance under the CIA's Operation Afghan Eyes. It would be armed with the tank-killing
Hellfire missile for the agency's first lethal strike in Kandahar, Afghanistan, in October
2001. Seven years later, the Air Force introduced the larger MQ-9 "Reaper" drone with a flying
range of 1,150 miles when fully loaded with Hellfire missiles and GBU-30 bombs, allowing it to
strike targets almost anywhere in Europe, Africa, or Asia. To fulfill its expanding mission as
Washington's
global assassin , the Air Force plans to have 346
Reapers in service by 2021, including 80 for the CIA
Between 2004 and 2010, total flying time for all unmanned aerial vehicles rose
sharply from just 71 hours to 250,000 hours. By 2011, there were already 7,000 drones in a
growing U.S.
armada of unmanned aircraft. So central had they become to its military power that the
Pentagon was
planning to spend $40 billion to expand their numbers by 35% over the following decade. To
service all this growth, the Air Force was training 350 drone pilots,
more than all its bomber and fighter pilots combined.
Miniature or monstrous, hand-held or runway-launched, drones were becoming so commonplace
and so critical for so many military missions that they emerged from the war on terror as one
of America's wonder weapons for preserving its global power. Yet the striking innovations in
drone warfare are, in the long run, likely to be overshadowed by stunning aerospace advances in
the stratosphere and exosphere.
The Pentagon's Triple Canopy
As in Vietnam, despite bitter reverses on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan, Washington's
recent wars have been catalysts for the fusion of aerospace, cyberspace, and artificial
intelligence into a new military regime of robotic warfare.
To effect this technological transformation, starting in 2009 the Pentagon planned to
spend $55 billion annually to develop robotics for a data-dense interface of space,
cyberspace, and terrestrial battle space. Through an annual allocation for new technologies
reaching $18 billion in 2016, the Pentagon had,
according to the New York Times , "put artificial intelligence at the center of
its strategy to maintain the United States' position as the world's dominant military power,"
exemplified by future drones that will be capable of identifying and eliminating enemy targets
without recourse to human overseers. By 2025, the United States will likely deploy advanced
aerospace and cyberwarfare to envelop the planet in a robotic matrix theoretically capable of
blinding entire armies or atomizing an individual insurgent.
During 15 years of nearly limitless military budgets for the war on terror, DARPA has spent
billions of dollars trying to develop new weapons systems worthy of Buck Rogers that
usually die on the drawing board or end in spectacular crashes. Through this astronomically
costly process of trial and error, Pentagon planners seem to have come to the slow realization
that established systems, particularly drones and satellites, could in combination create an
effective aerospace architecture.
Within a decade, the Pentagon apparently hopes to patrol the entire planet ceaselessly via a
triple-canopy aerospace shield that would reach from sky to space and be secured by an armada
of drones with lethal missiles and Argus-eyed sensors, monitored through an electronic matrix
and controlled by robotic systems. It's even possible to take you on a tour of the super-secret
realm where future space wars will be fought, if the Pentagon's dreams become reality, by
exploring both DARPA websites and those of its various defense contractors.
Drones in the Lower Stratosphere
At the bottom tier of this emerging aerospace shield in the lower stratosphere (about 30,000
to 60,000 feet high), the Pentagon is working with defense contractors to develop high-altitude
drones that will replace manned aircraft. To supersede the manned U-2 surveillance aircraft,
for instance, the Pentagon has been preparing a projected armada of 99 Global Hawk drones at a
mind-boggling cost of $223 million each, seven times the price of the current Reaper model. Its
extended 116-foot wingspan (bigger than that of a Boeing 737) is geared to operating at 60,000
feet. Each Global Hawk is
equipped with high-resolution cameras, advanced electronic sensors, and efficient engines
for a continuous 32-hour flight, which means that it can potentially survey up to 40,000 square
miles of the planet's surface daily. With its enormous bandwidth needed to bounce a torrent of
audio-visual data between satellites and ground stations, however, the Global Hawk, like other
long-distance drones in America's armada, may prove vulnerable to a hostile hack attack in some
future conflict.
'Double
standard & hypocrisy': Serbian president on EU denouncement of Catalan referendum
Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic has accused the EU of hypocrisy and double-standards
following its denouncement of the Catalonian referendum as illegal, while acknowledging the
independence of the breakaway province of Kosovo.
" The question every citizen of Serbia has for the European Union today is: How come that in
the case of Catalonia the referendum on independence is not valid, while in the case of Kosovo
secession is allowed even without a referendum, " B92 quoted Vucic as saying during a news
conference.
" How did you proclaim the secession of Kosovo to be legal, even without a referendum, and
how did 22 European Union countries legalize this secession, while destroying European law and
the foundations of European law, on which the European policy and EU policy are based?
"
On Monday the European Commission echoed the Spanish government's stance that the referendum
held in Catalonia was illegal, describing the events on Sunday, which saw voters being beaten
by Spanish riot police, as an "internal matter". By contrast in 2010, the European Parliament
adopted a resolution urging its member states to recognize Kosovo's independence.
" This is the best example of the double standards and hypocrisy of the world politics,
" Vucic said.
"... we should take anything that Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton has to say with a grain of salt. They will say whatever they think will improve their chances of being elected in the fall. That said, I would not expect either of them, if elected, to bring about any serious rethinking of U.S. national security policy. As I suggested in that Harper's piece, they are different versions of hawks. ..."
"... I think that the meeting between FDR and the Saudi King that you cite is a very important waystation. That committed the United States to securing the monarchy, in return for expectations that we would have privileged access to oil in the Persian Gulf. ..."
"... However, I think the real turning point happens in 1980. Prior to 1980, there certainly was a U.S. policy in the greater Middle East, but it was not a U.S. policy that found expression in any serious military commitment. That changes in 1980, when Jimmy Carter promulgates the Carter doctrine. If you recall, that's a statement that designates the Persian Gulf a vital U.S. national security interest, and explicitly a place that we're now willing to fight for. ..."
"... At our present moment, as you and I are speaking, the concern is about ISIS. Certainly it's a, it's reasonable to view ISIS as a threat. It's also true that ISIS would not exist had not the United States invaded Iraq back in 2003. We shattered Iraq, and out of the chaos of Iraq has emerged this new terrorist entity. ..."
"... The foundation of our expectations of being the indispensable nation lie in the belief that we possess military might such as the world has never seen. And yet what we have found time and again in the greater Middle East is our military might is inadequate to the challenge. And we're not willing to admit that. Foreign policy establishment is not willing to admit that. And frankly, I think the majority of the American people are not willing to admit that. Not willing to admit that we are not history's agent. ..."
BACEVICH: Well, I think that's true. I mean, for the moment, we should take anything that
Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton has to say with a grain of salt. They will say whatever they think
will improve their chances of being elected in the fall. That said, I would not expect either of
them, if elected, to bring about any serious rethinking of U.S. national security policy. As I suggested
in that Harper's piece, they are different versions of hawks.
... ... ...
BACEVICH: Well, I think, I think that the meeting between FDR and the Saudi King that you
cite is a very important waystation. That committed the United States to securing the monarchy, in
return for expectations that we would have privileged access to oil in the Persian Gulf.
However, I think the real turning point happens in 1980. Prior to 1980, there certainly was
a U.S. policy in the greater Middle East, but it was not a U.S. policy that found expression in any
serious military commitment. That changes in 1980, when Jimmy Carter promulgates the Carter doctrine.
If you recall, that's a statement that designates the Persian Gulf a vital U.S. national security
interest, and explicitly a place that we're now willing to fight for. So prior to 1980, no major
U.S. military involvement in the region. Beginning in 1980, a pattern of armed interventionism in
the greater Middle East that continues down to the present day, and at least in my judgment has been
unsuccessful, and indeed, counterproductive. So the military narrative really begins in 1980.
JAY: Yeah, it's interesting with a Democratic president, from the Democratic Party, certainly
under the sway of Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was more or less the architect, I think, of the Carter
doctrine, and leads to the war in Afghanistan. I guess--I hope most people know the basic story there,
that the Americans funded jihadists in Afghanistan to suck the Russians in, and then successfully
so, into a quagmire. And even though that led to the forming of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda and Bin
Laden.
And I think you can probably draw a straight line from that Carter doctrine right to 9/11,
in terms of--it's a good example, I think, of what you're talking about, how this foreign policy--.
BACEVICH: I don't, I don't know that I'd call it a straight line, but there's a line. I mean,
there certainly are a whole bunch of dots that can be connected. And I think that the Afghanistan
experience, we're supporting the jihadists, is a good example of the unexpected consequences of U.S.
interventionism.
At our present moment, as you and I are speaking, the concern is about ISIS. Certainly it's
a, it's reasonable to view ISIS as a threat. It's also true that ISIS would not exist had not the
United States invaded Iraq back in 2003. We shattered Iraq, and out of the chaos of Iraq has emerged
this new terrorist entity.
So both of these, Afghanistan in the '80s, Iraq beginning in 2003, illustrate the larger point
that U.S. military interventionism in this region simply has not produced the positive outcomes that
policymakers have, have expected.
... ... ....
BACEVICH: ...The foundation of our expectations of being the indispensable nation lie in the
belief that we possess military might such as the world has never seen. And yet what we have found
time and again in the greater Middle East is our military might is inadequate to the challenge. And
we're not willing to admit that. Foreign policy establishment is not willing to admit that. And frankly,
I think the majority of the American people are not willing to admit that. Not willing to admit that
we are not history's agent.
"... As part of his own contribution to that complex, Eisenhower had overseen the creation of both the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, or NASA, and a "high-risk, high-gain" research unit called the Advanced Research Projects Agency, or ARPA, that later added the word "Defense" to its name and became DARPA. ..."
"... Even when defeated or fought to a draw, as in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, the Pentagon's research matrix has demonstrated a recurring resilience that could turn disaster into further technological advance. ..."
"... The Vietnam War, for example, was a thoroughgoing tactical failure, yet it would also prove a technological triumph for the military-industrial complex. Although most Americans remember only the Army's soul-destroying ground combat in the villages of South Vietnam, the Air Force fought the biggest air war in military history there and, while it too failed dismally and destructively, it turned out to be a crucial testing ground for a revolution in robotic weaponry. ..."
"... At a cost of $800 million a year, Operation Igloo White laced that narrow mountain corridor with 20,000 acoustic, seismic, and thermal sensors that sent signals to four EC-121 communications aircraft circling ceaselessly overhead. ..."
"... However, after more than 100,000 North Vietnamese troops with tanks, trucks, and artillery somehow moved through that sensor field undetected for a massive offensive in 1972, the Air Force had to admit that its $6 billion "electronic battlefield" was an unqualified failure ..."
"... In the pressure cooker of history's largest air war, the Air Force also transformed an old weapon, the "Firebee" target drone , into a new technology that would rise to significance three decades later. By 1972, the Air Force could send an "SC/TV" drone, equipped with a camera in its nose, up to 2,400 miles across communist China or North Vietnam while controlling it via a low-resolution television image. The Air Force also made aviation history by test firing the first missile from one of those drones. ..."
"... To effect this technological transformation, starting in 2009 the Pentagon planned to spend $55 billion annually to develop robotics for a data-dense interface of space, cyberspace, and terrestrial battle space. ..."
"... By 2025, the United States will likely deploy advanced aerospace and cyberwarfare to envelop the planet in a robotic matrix theoretically capable of blinding entire armies or atomizing an individual insurgent. ..."
"... Within a decade, the Pentagon apparently hopes to patrol the entire planet ceaselessly via a triple-canopy aerospace shield that would reach from sky to space and be secured by an armada of drones with lethal missiles and Argus-eyed sensors, monitored through an electronic matrix and controlled by robotic systems. It's even possible to take you on a tour of the super-secret realm where future space wars will be fought, if the Pentagon's dreams become reality, by exploring both DARPA websites and those of its various defense contractors. ..."
In 2009, building on advances in digital surveillance under the Bush administration, Obama
launched the U.S. Cyber
Command. Its headquarters were set up inside the National Security Agency (NSA) at Fort Meade,
Maryland, and a cyberwar center staffed by 7,000 Air Force employees was established at
Lackland Air Base in Texas. Two years later, the Pentagon moved beyond conventional combat on
air, land, or sea to declare
cyberspace both an offensive and defensive "operational domain." In August, despite his
wide-ranging attempt to purge the government of anything connected to Barack Obama's "legacy,"
President Trump
implemented his predecessor's long-delayed plan to separate that cyber command from the NSA
in a bid to "strengthen our cyberspace operations."
And what is all this technology being prepared for? In study after study, the intelligence
community , the Pentagon , and
related think
tanks have been unanimous in identifying the main threat to future U.S. global hegemony as
a rival power with an expanding economy, a strengthening military, and global ambitions: China,
the home of those denizens of the Gobi Desert who would, in that old Buck Rogers
fable, destroy Washington four centuries from now. Given that America's economic preeminence is
fading fast, breakthroughs in "information warfare" might indeed prove Washington's best bet
for extending its global hegemony further into this century -- but don't count on it, given the
history of techno-weaponry in past wars.
Techno-Triumph in Vietnam
Ever since the Pentagon with its 17 miles of corridors was completed in 1943, that massive
bureaucratic maze has presided over a creative fusion of science and industry that President
Dwight Eisenhower would dub "the military-industrial complex" in his farewell address to the
nation in 1961. "We can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense," he
told the American people.
"We have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions" sustained
by a "technological revolution" that is "complex and costly." As part of his own contribution
to that complex, Eisenhower had overseen the creation of both the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration, or NASA, and a "high-risk, high-gain" research unit called the Advanced
Research Projects Agency, or ARPA, that later added the word "Defense" to its name and became
DARPA.
For 70 years, this close alliance between the Pentagon and major defense contractors has
produced an unbroken succession of "wonder weapons" that at least theoretically gave it a
critical edge in all major military domains. Even when defeated or fought to a draw, as in
Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, the Pentagon's research matrix has demonstrated a recurring
resilience that could turn disaster into further technological advance.
The Vietnam War, for example, was a thoroughgoing tactical failure, yet it would also prove
a technological triumph for the military-industrial complex. Although most Americans remember
only the Army's soul-destroying ground combat in the villages of South Vietnam, the Air Force
fought the biggest air war in military history there and, while it too failed dismally and
destructively, it turned out to be a crucial testing ground for a revolution in robotic
weaponry.
To stop truck convoys that the North Vietnamese were sending through southern Laos into
South Vietnam, the Pentagon's techno-wizards combined a network of sensors, computers, and
aircraft in a coordinated electronic bombing campaign that, from 1968 to 1973, dropped more
than a million tons of munitions -- equal to the total tonnage for the whole Korean War -- in
that limited area. At a cost of $800 million a year, Operation Igloo White laced
that narrow mountain corridor with 20,000 acoustic, seismic, and thermal sensors that sent
signals to four EC-121 communications aircraft circling ceaselessly overhead.
At a U.S. air base just across the Mekong River in Thailand, Task Force Alpha deployed two
powerful IBM 360/65 mainframe computers, equipped with history's first visual display monitors,
to translate all those sensor signals into "an illuminated line of
light" and so launch jet fighters over the Ho Chi Minh Trail where computers discharged
laser-guided bombs automatically. Bristling with antennae and filled with the latest computers,
its massive concrete bunker seemed, at the time, a futuristic marvel to a visiting Pentagon
official who spoke
rapturously about "being swept up in the beauty and majesty of the Task Force Alpha
temple."
However, after more than 100,000 North Vietnamese troops with tanks, trucks, and artillery
somehow moved through that sensor field undetected for a massive offensive in 1972, the Air
Force had to
admit that its $6 billion "electronic battlefield" was an unqualified failure. Yet that
same bombing campaign would prove to be the first crude step toward a future electronic
battlefield for unmanned robotic warfare.
In the pressure cooker of history's largest air war, the Air Force also transformed an old
weapon, the "Firebee" target
drone , into a new technology that would rise to significance three decades later. By 1972,
the Air Force could send an "SC/TV" drone, equipped with a camera in its nose, up to 2,400
miles across communist China or North Vietnam while controlling it via a low-resolution
television image. The Air Force also made aviation history by test firing the first missile
from one of those drones.
The air war in Vietnam was also an impetus for the development of the Pentagon's global
telecommunications satellite system, another important first. After the Initial Defense
Satellite Communications System launched seven orbital satellites in 1966,
ground terminals in Vietnam started transmitting high-resolution aerial surveillance photos to
Washington -- something NASA called a
"revolutionary development." Those images proved so useful that the Pentagon quickly launched an additional 21
satellites and soon had the first system that could communicate from anywhere on the globe.
Today, according to an Air Force website, the third phase of that system
provides secure command, control, and communications for "the Army's ground mobile forces,
the Air Force's airborne terminals, Navy ships at sea, the White House Communications Agency,
the State Department, and special users" like the CIA and NSA.
At great cost, the Vietnam War marked a watershed in Washington's global information
architecture. Turning defeat into innovation, the Air Force had developed the key components --
satellite communications, remote sensing, computer-triggered bombing, and unmanned aircraft --
that would merge 40 years later into a new system of robotic warfare.
The War on Terror
Facing another set of defeats in Afghanistan and Iraq, the twenty-first-century Pentagon
again accelerated the development of new military technologies. After six years of failing
counterinsurgency campaigns in both countries, the Pentagon discovered the power of biometric
identification and electronic surveillance to help pacify sprawling urban areas. And when
President Obama later conducted his troop "surge" in Afghanistan, that country became a frontier
for testing and perfecting drone warfare
deployed in
the Balkans that very year for photo-reconnaissance. In 2000, it was adapted for real-time
surveillance under the CIA's Operation Afghan Eyes. It would be armed with the tank-killing
Hellfire missile for the agency's first lethal strike in Kandahar, Afghanistan, in October
2001. Seven years later, the Air Force introduced the larger MQ-9 "Reaper" drone with a flying
range of 1,150 miles when fully loaded with Hellfire missiles and GBU-30 bombs, allowing it to
strike targets almost anywhere in Europe, Africa, or Asia. To fulfill its expanding mission as
Washington's
global assassin , the Air Force plans to have 346
Reapers in service by 2021, including 80 for the CIA
Between 2004 and 2010, total flying time for all unmanned aerial vehicles rose
sharply from just 71 hours to 250,000 hours. By 2011, there were already 7,000 drones in a
growing U.S.
armada of unmanned aircraft. So central had they become to its military power that the
Pentagon was
planning to spend $40 billion to expand their numbers by 35% over the following decade. To
service all this growth, the Air Force was training 350 drone pilots,
more than all its bomber and fighter pilots combined.
Miniature or monstrous, hand-held or runway-launched, drones were becoming so commonplace
and so critical for so many military missions that they emerged from the war on terror as one
of America's wonder weapons for preserving its global power. Yet the striking innovations in
drone warfare are, in the long run, likely to be overshadowed by stunning aerospace advances in
the stratosphere and exosphere.
The Pentagon's Triple Canopy
As in Vietnam, despite bitter reverses on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan, Washington's
recent wars have been catalysts for the fusion of aerospace, cyberspace, and artificial
intelligence into a new military regime of robotic warfare.
To effect this technological transformation, starting in 2009 the Pentagon planned to
spend $55 billion annually to develop robotics for a data-dense interface of space,
cyberspace, and terrestrial battle space. Through an annual allocation for new technologies
reaching $18 billion in 2016, the Pentagon had,
according to the New York Times , "put artificial intelligence at the center of
its strategy to maintain the United States' position as the world's dominant military power,"
exemplified by future drones that will be capable of identifying and eliminating enemy targets
without recourse to human overseers. By 2025, the United States will likely deploy advanced
aerospace and cyberwarfare to envelop the planet in a robotic matrix theoretically capable of
blinding entire armies or atomizing an individual insurgent.
During 15 years of nearly limitless military budgets for the war on terror, DARPA has spent
billions of dollars trying to develop new weapons systems worthy of Buck Rogers that
usually die on the drawing board or end in spectacular crashes. Through this astronomically
costly process of trial and error, Pentagon planners seem to have come to the slow realization
that established systems, particularly drones and satellites, could in combination create an
effective aerospace architecture.
Within a decade, the Pentagon apparently hopes to patrol the entire planet ceaselessly via a
triple-canopy aerospace shield that would reach from sky to space and be secured by an armada
of drones with lethal missiles and Argus-eyed sensors, monitored through an electronic matrix
and controlled by robotic systems. It's even possible to take you on a tour of the super-secret
realm where future space wars will be fought, if the Pentagon's dreams become reality, by
exploring both DARPA websites and those of its various defense contractors.
Drones in the Lower Stratosphere
At the bottom tier of this emerging aerospace shield in the lower stratosphere (about 30,000
to 60,000 feet high), the Pentagon is working with defense contractors to develop high-altitude
drones that will replace manned aircraft. To supersede the manned U-2 surveillance aircraft,
for instance, the Pentagon has been preparing a projected armada of 99 Global Hawk drones at a
mind-boggling cost of $223 million each, seven times the price of the current Reaper model. Its
extended 116-foot wingspan (bigger than that of a Boeing 737) is geared to operating at 60,000
feet. Each Global Hawk is
equipped with high-resolution cameras, advanced electronic sensors, and efficient engines
for a continuous 32-hour flight, which means that it can potentially survey up to 40,000 square
miles of the planet's surface daily. With its enormous bandwidth needed to bounce a torrent of
audio-visual data between satellites and ground stations, however, the Global Hawk, like other
long-distance drones in America's armada, may prove vulnerable to a hostile hack attack in some
future conflict.
'Double
standard & hypocrisy': Serbian president on EU denouncement of Catalan referendum
Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic has accused the EU of hypocrisy and double-standards
following its denouncement of the Catalonian referendum as illegal, while acknowledging the
independence of the breakaway province of Kosovo.
" The question every citizen of Serbia has for the European Union today is: How come that in
the case of Catalonia the referendum on independence is not valid, while in the case of Kosovo
secession is allowed even without a referendum, " B92 quoted Vucic as saying during a news
conference.
" How did you proclaim the secession of Kosovo to be legal, even without a referendum, and
how did 22 European Union countries legalize this secession, while destroying European law and
the foundations of European law, on which the European policy and EU policy are based?
"
On Monday the European Commission echoed the Spanish government's stance that the referendum
held in Catalonia was illegal, describing the events on Sunday, which saw voters being beaten
by Spanish riot police, as an "internal matter". By contrast in 2010, the European Parliament
adopted a resolution urging its member states to recognize Kosovo's independence.
" This is the best example of the double standards and hypocrisy of the world politics,
" Vucic said.
"... we should take anything that Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton has to say with a grain of salt. They will say whatever they think will improve their chances of being elected in the fall. That said, I would not expect either of them, if elected, to bring about any serious rethinking of U.S. national security policy. As I suggested in that Harper's piece, they are different versions of hawks. ..."
"... I think that the meeting between FDR and the Saudi King that you cite is a very important waystation. That committed the United States to securing the monarchy, in return for expectations that we would have privileged access to oil in the Persian Gulf. ..."
"... However, I think the real turning point happens in 1980. Prior to 1980, there certainly was a U.S. policy in the greater Middle East, but it was not a U.S. policy that found expression in any serious military commitment. That changes in 1980, when Jimmy Carter promulgates the Carter doctrine. If you recall, that's a statement that designates the Persian Gulf a vital U.S. national security interest, and explicitly a place that we're now willing to fight for. ..."
"... At our present moment, as you and I are speaking, the concern is about ISIS. Certainly it's a, it's reasonable to view ISIS as a threat. It's also true that ISIS would not exist had not the United States invaded Iraq back in 2003. We shattered Iraq, and out of the chaos of Iraq has emerged this new terrorist entity. ..."
"... The foundation of our expectations of being the indispensable nation lie in the belief that we possess military might such as the world has never seen. And yet what we have found time and again in the greater Middle East is our military might is inadequate to the challenge. And we're not willing to admit that. Foreign policy establishment is not willing to admit that. And frankly, I think the majority of the American people are not willing to admit that. Not willing to admit that we are not history's agent. ..."
BACEVICH: Well, I think that's true. I mean, for the moment, we should take anything that
Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton has to say with a grain of salt. They will say whatever they think
will improve their chances of being elected in the fall. That said, I would not expect either of
them, if elected, to bring about any serious rethinking of U.S. national security policy. As I suggested
in that Harper's piece, they are different versions of hawks.
... ... ...
BACEVICH: Well, I think, I think that the meeting between FDR and the Saudi King that you
cite is a very important waystation. That committed the United States to securing the monarchy, in
return for expectations that we would have privileged access to oil in the Persian Gulf.
However, I think the real turning point happens in 1980. Prior to 1980, there certainly was
a U.S. policy in the greater Middle East, but it was not a U.S. policy that found expression in any
serious military commitment. That changes in 1980, when Jimmy Carter promulgates the Carter doctrine.
If you recall, that's a statement that designates the Persian Gulf a vital U.S. national security
interest, and explicitly a place that we're now willing to fight for. So prior to 1980, no major
U.S. military involvement in the region. Beginning in 1980, a pattern of armed interventionism in
the greater Middle East that continues down to the present day, and at least in my judgment has been
unsuccessful, and indeed, counterproductive. So the military narrative really begins in 1980.
JAY: Yeah, it's interesting with a Democratic president, from the Democratic Party, certainly
under the sway of Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was more or less the architect, I think, of the Carter
doctrine, and leads to the war in Afghanistan. I guess--I hope most people know the basic story there,
that the Americans funded jihadists in Afghanistan to suck the Russians in, and then successfully
so, into a quagmire. And even though that led to the forming of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda and Bin
Laden.
And I think you can probably draw a straight line from that Carter doctrine right to 9/11,
in terms of--it's a good example, I think, of what you're talking about, how this foreign policy--.
BACEVICH: I don't, I don't know that I'd call it a straight line, but there's a line. I mean,
there certainly are a whole bunch of dots that can be connected. And I think that the Afghanistan
experience, we're supporting the jihadists, is a good example of the unexpected consequences of U.S.
interventionism.
At our present moment, as you and I are speaking, the concern is about ISIS. Certainly it's
a, it's reasonable to view ISIS as a threat. It's also true that ISIS would not exist had not the
United States invaded Iraq back in 2003. We shattered Iraq, and out of the chaos of Iraq has emerged
this new terrorist entity.
So both of these, Afghanistan in the '80s, Iraq beginning in 2003, illustrate the larger point
that U.S. military interventionism in this region simply has not produced the positive outcomes that
policymakers have, have expected.
... ... ....
BACEVICH: ...The foundation of our expectations of being the indispensable nation lie in the
belief that we possess military might such as the world has never seen. And yet what we have found
time and again in the greater Middle East is our military might is inadequate to the challenge. And
we're not willing to admit that. Foreign policy establishment is not willing to admit that. And frankly,
I think the majority of the American people are not willing to admit that. Not willing to admit that
we are not history's agent.
"... The Middle East was now a U.S. military priority, and the pursuit of direct American domination of the region came from none other than the supposed peacenik, Jimmy Carter. ..."
"... The result was the Carter Doctrine. Delivered to the American people during the 1980 State of Union Address, Carter started Americas War for the Greater Middle East. ..."
"... he declared Americas right to cheap energy. Let our position be absolutely clear, he said. An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force. ..."
"... Analyzing the Carter Doctrine, Bacevich writes that it represented a broad, open-ended commitment, one that expanded further with time -- one that implied the conversion of the Persian Gulf into an informal American protectorate. Defending the region meant policing it. And police it America has done, wrapping its naked self-interest in the seemingly noble cloth of democratization and human rights. ..."
"... They didnt see that the U.S.-armed Afghan mujahideen also believed they were the victors and that they had every intention of resisting Americas version of modernity as much as they had resisted the Soviet Unions. (Americas self-destructive trend of arming its eventual enemies -- either directly or indirectly from Saddam Hussein to ISIS, respectively -- is a recurring theme of Bacevichs narrative.) ..."
"... History cannot be controlled, and it had its revenge on a U.S. military and political elite who somehow believed they could see the future and manage historical forces toward a predestined end that naturally benefitted America. As Reinhold Niebuhr warned, and Bacevich quotes approvingly, The recalcitrant forces in the historical drama have a power and persistence beyond our reckoning. ..."
"... Another piece of connective tissue, according to Bacevich, is the belief that war is not the failure of diplomacy but a necessary ingredient to its success. The U.S. military establishment learned this lesson in Bosnia when U.S.-led NATO bombing brought Serbia to the negotiating table at the Dayton Peace Accords. The proper role of armed force, writes Bacevich, was not to supplant diplomacy but to make it work. Gen. Wesley Clark was more succinct when he called war coercive diplomacy during the Kosovo conflict. U.S. military force was no longer a last resort, particularly when technology was making it easier to unleash violence without endangering U.S. service members lives. ..."
"... The people on the ground, as the D.C. elites just learned in November, have a way of not going along with the best-laid plans made for them in the epicenters of power. ..."
"... Without any unifying aim or idea, according to Bacevich, the Obama administrations principal contribution to Americas War for the Greater Middle East was to expand its fronts. ..."
"... As Bacevich clearly shows over and over again in his narrative, the men and women who make up the defense establishment have a fanatical, almost theological, belief in the transformational power of American violence. ..."
"... Expect Uncle Sams fangs to grow longer, his talons sharper, his violence huge. ..."
"... Bacevich, himself, is not hopeful. In a note to readers that greets them before the prologue, Bacevich is refreshingly terse with his assessment of Americas war for the Greater Middle East: We have not won it. We are not winning it. Simply trying harder is unlikely to produce a different outcome. ..."
Americas War for the Greater Middle East. Over time, other considerations intruded and
complicated the wars conduct, but oil as a prerequisite of freedom was from day one an abiding consideration.
By 1969, oil imports already made up 20 percent of the daily oil consumption in the United States.
Four years later, Arab oil exporters suspended oil shipments to the United States to punish America
for supporting Israel in the October War. The American economy screeched to a halt, seemingly held
hostage by foreigners -- a big no-no for a country accustomed to getting what it wants. Predictably
the U.S. response was regional domination to keep the oil flowing to America, especially to the Pentagon
and its vast, permanent war machine.
The Middle East was now a U.S. military priority, and the pursuit of direct American domination
of the region came from none other than the supposed peacenik, Jimmy Carter. Before him, Richard
Nixon was content to have the Middle East managed by proxies after the bloodletting America experienced
in Vietnam. His arch-proxy was the despised shah of Iran, whom the United States had installed into
power and then armed to the teeth. When his regime collapsed in 1979, felled by Islamic revolutionaries
who would eventually capture the American embassy and initiate the Iranian hostage crisis, so too
did the Nixon Doctrine. That same year, the Soviet Union rolled into Afghanistan. The world was a
mess, and Carter was under extreme pressure to do something about it, lest he lose his bid for a
second term. (He suffered a crushing defeat anyway.)
Furies beyond reckoning
The result was the Carter Doctrine. Delivered to the American people during the 1980 State
of Union Address, Carter started Americas War for the Greater Middle East. Months earlier, in
his infamous malaise speech, Carter asked Americans to simplify their lives and moderate their energy
use. Now he declared Americas right to cheap energy. Let our position be absolutely clear, he
said. An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded
as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be
repelled by any means necessary, including military force.
Analyzing the Carter Doctrine, Bacevich writes that it represented a broad, open-ended commitment,
one that expanded further with time -- one that implied the conversion of the Persian Gulf into an
informal American protectorate. Defending the region meant policing it. And police it America has
done, wrapping its naked self-interest in the seemingly noble cloth of democratization and human
rights.
It is illustrative, and alarming, to list Bacevichs selected campaigns and operations in the region
since 1980 up to the present, unleashed by Carter and subsequent presidents. Lets go in alphabetical
order by country followed by the campaigns and operations:
While Bacevich deftly takes the reader through the history of all those wars, the most important
aspect of his book is his critique of the United Statess permanent military establishment and the
power it wields in Washington. According to Bacevich, U.S. military leaders have a tendency to engage
in fantastical thinking rife with hubris. Too many believe the United States is a global force for
good that has the messianic duty to usher in secular modernity, a force that no one should ever interfere
with, either militarily or ideologically.
As Bacevich makes plain again and again, history does not back up that mindset. For instance,
after the Soviet Unions crippling defeat in Afghanistan, the Washington elite saw it as an American
victory, the inauguration of the end of history and the inevitable march of democratic capitalism.
They didnt see that the U.S.-armed Afghan mujahideen also believed they were the victors and
that they had every intention of resisting Americas version of modernity as much as they had resisted
the Soviet Unions. (Americas self-destructive trend of arming its eventual enemies -- either directly
or indirectly from Saddam Hussein to ISIS, respectively -- is a recurring theme of Bacevichs narrative.)
Over and over again after 9/11, America would be taught this lesson, as Islamic extremists, both
Sunni and Shia, bloodied the U.S. military across the Greater Middle East, particularly in Afghanistan
and Iraq. History cannot be controlled, and it had its revenge on a U.S. military and political
elite who somehow believed they could see the future and manage historical forces toward a predestined
end that naturally benefitted America. As Reinhold Niebuhr warned, and Bacevich quotes approvingly,
The recalcitrant forces in the historical drama have a power and persistence beyond our reckoning.
Yet across Americas War for the Greater Middle East, presidents would speak theologically of Americas
role in the world, never admitting the United States is not an instrument of the Almighty. George
H.W. Bush would speak of a new world order. Bill Clintons Secretary of State Madeleine Albright would
declare that America is the indispensable nation. George W. Bushs faith in this delusion led him
to declare a global war on terrorism, where American military might would extinguish evil wherever
it resided and initiate Condoleeza Rices 'paradigm of progress -- democracy, limited government,
market economics, and respect for human (and especially womens) rights across the region. As with
all zealots, there was no acknowledgment by the Bush administration, flamboyantly Christian, that
evil resided inside them too. Barack Obama seemed to pull back from this arrogance in his 2009 Cairo
speech, declaring, No system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other.
Yet he continued to articulate his faith that all people desire liberal democracy, even though that
simply isnt true.
All in all, American presidents and their military advisors believed they could impose a democratic
capitalist peace on the world, undeterred that each intervention created more instability and unleashed
new violent forces the United States would eventually engage militarily, such as Saddam Hussein,
al-Qaeda, and ISIS. Bacevich explains that this conviction, deeply embedded in the American collective
psyche, provides one of the connecting threads making the ongoing War for the Greater Middle East
something more than a collection of disparate and geographically scattered skirmishes.
War and diplomacy
Another piece of connective tissue, according to Bacevich, is the belief that war is not the
failure of diplomacy but a necessary ingredient to its success. The U.S. military establishment learned
this lesson in Bosnia when U.S.-led NATO bombing brought Serbia to the negotiating table at the Dayton
Peace Accords. The proper role of armed force, writes Bacevich, was not to supplant diplomacy but
to make it work. Gen. Wesley Clark was more succinct when he called war coercive diplomacy during
the Kosovo conflict. U.S. military force was no longer a last resort, particularly when technology
was making it easier to unleash violence without endangering U.S. service members lives.
This logic would run aground in Iraq after 9/11 during what Bacevich calls the Third Gulf War.
In an act of preventive war, the Bush administration shocked and awed Baghdad, believing U.S. military
supremacy and its almost divine violence would bring other state sponsors of terrorism to heel after
America quickly won the war. Vanquishing Saddam Hussein and destroying his army promised to invest
American diplomacy with the power to coerce. Although the Bush administration believed the war ended
after three weeks, Bacevich notes, the Third Gulf War was destined to continue for another 450.
The people on the ground, as the D.C. elites just learned in November, have a way of not going
along with the best-laid plans made for them in the epicenters of power.
There was hope that Barack Obama, a constitutional professor, would correct the Bush administrations
failures and start to wind down Americas War for the Greater Middle East. Instead, he expanded it
into Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, and West Africa through drone warfare and special-operations
missions. Without any unifying aim or idea, according to Bacevich, the Obama administrations principal
contribution to Americas War for the Greater Middle East was to expand its fronts.
Now this war is in the hands of Donald J. Trump. If there is any upside to a Trump presidency
-- and I find it hard to find many -- its the possibility that the intensity of American imperialism
in the Middle East will wane. But I find that likelihood remote. Trump has promised to wipe out ISIS,
which means continued military action in at least Iraq, Syria, and Libya. He has also called for
more military spending, and I find it hard to believe that he or the national-security establishment
will increase investment in the military and then show restraint in the use of force overseas.
As Bacevich clearly shows over and over again in his narrative, the men and women who make up
the defense establishment have a fanatical, almost theological, belief in the transformational power
of American violence. They persist in this belief despite all evidence to the contrary. These are
the men and women who will be whispering their advice into the new presidents ear. Expect Uncle Sams
fangs to grow longer, his talons sharper, his violence huge.
Bacevich, himself, is not hopeful. In a note to readers that greets them before the prologue,
Bacevich is refreshingly terse with his assessment of Americas war for the Greater Middle East: We
have not won it. We are not winning it. Simply trying harder is unlikely to produce a different outcome.
And to this its not hard to hear Trump retort, Loser! And so the needless violence will continue
on and on with no end in sight unless the American population develops a Middle East syndrome to
replace the Vietnam syndrome that once made Washington wary of war.
That lack of confidence in the masters of war cant come soon enough.
This article was originally published in the July 2017 edition of
Future of Freedom .
SANCTIONS. According to the
UN rapporteur , sanctions and counter-sanctions cost the EU US$3.2 billion a month; the
Russian economy has lost US$55 billion in total. He calculates the total cost to both at US$155
billion.
SANCTIONS. According to the
UN rapporteur , sanctions and counter-sanctions cost the EU US$3.2 billion a month; the
Russian economy has lost US$55 billion in total. He calculates the total cost to both at US$155
billion.
"... The Middle East was now a U.S. military priority, and the pursuit of direct American domination of the region came from none other than the supposed peacenik, Jimmy Carter. ..."
"... The result was the Carter Doctrine. Delivered to the American people during the 1980 State of Union Address, Carter started Americas War for the Greater Middle East. ..."
"... he declared Americas right to cheap energy. Let our position be absolutely clear, he said. An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force. ..."
"... Analyzing the Carter Doctrine, Bacevich writes that it represented a broad, open-ended commitment, one that expanded further with time -- one that implied the conversion of the Persian Gulf into an informal American protectorate. Defending the region meant policing it. And police it America has done, wrapping its naked self-interest in the seemingly noble cloth of democratization and human rights. ..."
"... They didnt see that the U.S.-armed Afghan mujahideen also believed they were the victors and that they had every intention of resisting Americas version of modernity as much as they had resisted the Soviet Unions. (Americas self-destructive trend of arming its eventual enemies -- either directly or indirectly from Saddam Hussein to ISIS, respectively -- is a recurring theme of Bacevichs narrative.) ..."
"... History cannot be controlled, and it had its revenge on a U.S. military and political elite who somehow believed they could see the future and manage historical forces toward a predestined end that naturally benefitted America. As Reinhold Niebuhr warned, and Bacevich quotes approvingly, The recalcitrant forces in the historical drama have a power and persistence beyond our reckoning. ..."
"... Another piece of connective tissue, according to Bacevich, is the belief that war is not the failure of diplomacy but a necessary ingredient to its success. The U.S. military establishment learned this lesson in Bosnia when U.S.-led NATO bombing brought Serbia to the negotiating table at the Dayton Peace Accords. The proper role of armed force, writes Bacevich, was not to supplant diplomacy but to make it work. Gen. Wesley Clark was more succinct when he called war coercive diplomacy during the Kosovo conflict. U.S. military force was no longer a last resort, particularly when technology was making it easier to unleash violence without endangering U.S. service members lives. ..."
"... The people on the ground, as the D.C. elites just learned in November, have a way of not going along with the best-laid plans made for them in the epicenters of power. ..."
"... Without any unifying aim or idea, according to Bacevich, the Obama administrations principal contribution to Americas War for the Greater Middle East was to expand its fronts. ..."
"... As Bacevich clearly shows over and over again in his narrative, the men and women who make up the defense establishment have a fanatical, almost theological, belief in the transformational power of American violence. ..."
"... Expect Uncle Sams fangs to grow longer, his talons sharper, his violence huge. ..."
"... Bacevich, himself, is not hopeful. In a note to readers that greets them before the prologue, Bacevich is refreshingly terse with his assessment of Americas war for the Greater Middle East: We have not won it. We are not winning it. Simply trying harder is unlikely to produce a different outcome. ..."
Americas War for the Greater Middle East. Over time, other considerations intruded and
complicated the wars conduct, but oil as a prerequisite of freedom was from day one an abiding consideration.
By 1969, oil imports already made up 20 percent of the daily oil consumption in the United States.
Four years later, Arab oil exporters suspended oil shipments to the United States to punish America
for supporting Israel in the October War. The American economy screeched to a halt, seemingly held
hostage by foreigners -- a big no-no for a country accustomed to getting what it wants. Predictably
the U.S. response was regional domination to keep the oil flowing to America, especially to the Pentagon
and its vast, permanent war machine.
The Middle East was now a U.S. military priority, and the pursuit of direct American domination
of the region came from none other than the supposed peacenik, Jimmy Carter. Before him, Richard
Nixon was content to have the Middle East managed by proxies after the bloodletting America experienced
in Vietnam. His arch-proxy was the despised shah of Iran, whom the United States had installed into
power and then armed to the teeth. When his regime collapsed in 1979, felled by Islamic revolutionaries
who would eventually capture the American embassy and initiate the Iranian hostage crisis, so too
did the Nixon Doctrine. That same year, the Soviet Union rolled into Afghanistan. The world was a
mess, and Carter was under extreme pressure to do something about it, lest he lose his bid for a
second term. (He suffered a crushing defeat anyway.)
Furies beyond reckoning
The result was the Carter Doctrine. Delivered to the American people during the 1980 State
of Union Address, Carter started Americas War for the Greater Middle East. Months earlier, in
his infamous malaise speech, Carter asked Americans to simplify their lives and moderate their energy
use. Now he declared Americas right to cheap energy. Let our position be absolutely clear, he
said. An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded
as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be
repelled by any means necessary, including military force.
Analyzing the Carter Doctrine, Bacevich writes that it represented a broad, open-ended commitment,
one that expanded further with time -- one that implied the conversion of the Persian Gulf into an
informal American protectorate. Defending the region meant policing it. And police it America has
done, wrapping its naked self-interest in the seemingly noble cloth of democratization and human
rights.
It is illustrative, and alarming, to list Bacevichs selected campaigns and operations in the region
since 1980 up to the present, unleashed by Carter and subsequent presidents. Lets go in alphabetical
order by country followed by the campaigns and operations:
While Bacevich deftly takes the reader through the history of all those wars, the most important
aspect of his book is his critique of the United Statess permanent military establishment and the
power it wields in Washington. According to Bacevich, U.S. military leaders have a tendency to engage
in fantastical thinking rife with hubris. Too many believe the United States is a global force for
good that has the messianic duty to usher in secular modernity, a force that no one should ever interfere
with, either militarily or ideologically.
As Bacevich makes plain again and again, history does not back up that mindset. For instance,
after the Soviet Unions crippling defeat in Afghanistan, the Washington elite saw it as an American
victory, the inauguration of the end of history and the inevitable march of democratic capitalism.
They didnt see that the U.S.-armed Afghan mujahideen also believed they were the victors and
that they had every intention of resisting Americas version of modernity as much as they had resisted
the Soviet Unions. (Americas self-destructive trend of arming its eventual enemies -- either directly
or indirectly from Saddam Hussein to ISIS, respectively -- is a recurring theme of Bacevichs narrative.)
Over and over again after 9/11, America would be taught this lesson, as Islamic extremists, both
Sunni and Shia, bloodied the U.S. military across the Greater Middle East, particularly in Afghanistan
and Iraq. History cannot be controlled, and it had its revenge on a U.S. military and political
elite who somehow believed they could see the future and manage historical forces toward a predestined
end that naturally benefitted America. As Reinhold Niebuhr warned, and Bacevich quotes approvingly,
The recalcitrant forces in the historical drama have a power and persistence beyond our reckoning.
Yet across Americas War for the Greater Middle East, presidents would speak theologically of Americas
role in the world, never admitting the United States is not an instrument of the Almighty. George
H.W. Bush would speak of a new world order. Bill Clintons Secretary of State Madeleine Albright would
declare that America is the indispensable nation. George W. Bushs faith in this delusion led him
to declare a global war on terrorism, where American military might would extinguish evil wherever
it resided and initiate Condoleeza Rices 'paradigm of progress -- democracy, limited government,
market economics, and respect for human (and especially womens) rights across the region. As with
all zealots, there was no acknowledgment by the Bush administration, flamboyantly Christian, that
evil resided inside them too. Barack Obama seemed to pull back from this arrogance in his 2009 Cairo
speech, declaring, No system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other.
Yet he continued to articulate his faith that all people desire liberal democracy, even though that
simply isnt true.
All in all, American presidents and their military advisors believed they could impose a democratic
capitalist peace on the world, undeterred that each intervention created more instability and unleashed
new violent forces the United States would eventually engage militarily, such as Saddam Hussein,
al-Qaeda, and ISIS. Bacevich explains that this conviction, deeply embedded in the American collective
psyche, provides one of the connecting threads making the ongoing War for the Greater Middle East
something more than a collection of disparate and geographically scattered skirmishes.
War and diplomacy
Another piece of connective tissue, according to Bacevich, is the belief that war is not the
failure of diplomacy but a necessary ingredient to its success. The U.S. military establishment learned
this lesson in Bosnia when U.S.-led NATO bombing brought Serbia to the negotiating table at the Dayton
Peace Accords. The proper role of armed force, writes Bacevich, was not to supplant diplomacy but
to make it work. Gen. Wesley Clark was more succinct when he called war coercive diplomacy during
the Kosovo conflict. U.S. military force was no longer a last resort, particularly when technology
was making it easier to unleash violence without endangering U.S. service members lives.
This logic would run aground in Iraq after 9/11 during what Bacevich calls the Third Gulf War.
In an act of preventive war, the Bush administration shocked and awed Baghdad, believing U.S. military
supremacy and its almost divine violence would bring other state sponsors of terrorism to heel after
America quickly won the war. Vanquishing Saddam Hussein and destroying his army promised to invest
American diplomacy with the power to coerce. Although the Bush administration believed the war ended
after three weeks, Bacevich notes, the Third Gulf War was destined to continue for another 450.
The people on the ground, as the D.C. elites just learned in November, have a way of not going
along with the best-laid plans made for them in the epicenters of power.
There was hope that Barack Obama, a constitutional professor, would correct the Bush administrations
failures and start to wind down Americas War for the Greater Middle East. Instead, he expanded it
into Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, and West Africa through drone warfare and special-operations
missions. Without any unifying aim or idea, according to Bacevich, the Obama administrations principal
contribution to Americas War for the Greater Middle East was to expand its fronts.
Now this war is in the hands of Donald J. Trump. If there is any upside to a Trump presidency
-- and I find it hard to find many -- its the possibility that the intensity of American imperialism
in the Middle East will wane. But I find that likelihood remote. Trump has promised to wipe out ISIS,
which means continued military action in at least Iraq, Syria, and Libya. He has also called for
more military spending, and I find it hard to believe that he or the national-security establishment
will increase investment in the military and then show restraint in the use of force overseas.
As Bacevich clearly shows over and over again in his narrative, the men and women who make up
the defense establishment have a fanatical, almost theological, belief in the transformational power
of American violence. They persist in this belief despite all evidence to the contrary. These are
the men and women who will be whispering their advice into the new presidents ear. Expect Uncle Sams
fangs to grow longer, his talons sharper, his violence huge.
Bacevich, himself, is not hopeful. In a note to readers that greets them before the prologue,
Bacevich is refreshingly terse with his assessment of Americas war for the Greater Middle East: We
have not won it. We are not winning it. Simply trying harder is unlikely to produce a different outcome.
And to this its not hard to hear Trump retort, Loser! And so the needless violence will continue
on and on with no end in sight unless the American population develops a Middle East syndrome to
replace the Vietnam syndrome that once made Washington wary of war.
That lack of confidence in the masters of war cant come soon enough.
This article was originally published in the July 2017 edition of
Future of Freedom .
In world polls 25% of the respondants recognize the United States as the greatest threat to
peace in the world. This is 5 times higher than those who regard North Korea and Iran as
threats, much less Venezuela which does not even register. When Trump gave his UN speech he
should have said that the United States, controlled as it is by the CIA and military/security
complex, is the great threat that the entire world faces, including Americans.
But Trump has betrayed us. He accepted the aggressive militarist neoconservative line that
the military/security complex, about which President Eisenhower warned us, to no avail, in
1961, 56 years ago, is the hegemonic police power chosen by History to protect the peace of the
world.
It must reassure the 7 or 8 countries bombed into the stone age by Washington's might that
their destruction is "protecting the peace of the world."
In world polls 25% of the respondants recognize the United States as the greatest threat to
peace in the world. This is 5 times higher than those who regard North Korea and Iran as
threats, much less Venezuela which does not even register. When Trump gave his UN speech he
should have said that the United States, controlled as it is by the CIA and military/security
complex, is the great threat that the entire world faces, including Americans.
But Trump has betrayed us. He accepted the aggressive militarist neoconservative line that
the military/security complex, about which President Eisenhower warned us, to no avail, in
1961, 56 years ago, is the hegemonic police power chosen by History to protect the peace of the
world.
It must reassure the 7 or 8 countries bombed into the stone age by Washington's might that
their destruction is "protecting the peace of the world."
"... Trump's threat of fire and fury is the worst response imaginable ..."
"... The Korean War ended with an armistice, or stand-off, but never a peace treaty, and the US is, in essence, still fighting the Korean War. That is the crux of the problem. ..."
"... I would also add that who started the Korean War is open to some debate. There is some evidence that the North invaded in response to an incursion started from the South. Both sides were attacking each other across the parallel before the 'War' started and there's documentation that the South was keen to invade the North. The Korean leadership on both sides saw the division as unacceptable and themselves as the legitimate government of the entire country. ..."
"... I think you have hit on something I've been thinking about. I believe Trump is deliberately stirring the pot in an attempt to goad Kim Jong Un into doing things that actually rile the Chinese. ..."
"... During the Cold War, the Soviet arsenal posed a far greater danger than North Korea does now. Nevertheless, no US president was so stupid to try and solve the crisis by pressing the USSR into giving up its missiles. Everybody knew we could just lean back and wait for the Soviet Empire to collapse by itself. And that's what happened ..."
"... But Trump doesn't know jacksh*t about history, and he certainly has no patience ..."
"... You certainly have a point. Anyone who thinks that we in the West are not susceptible to propaganda is the best proof that we are. However, flawed as it may be, I still prefer the Western Way of Life to anything else. There is a reason why the East German government had to build the Berlin Wall to keep its own citizens from running off to the West. There is a reason why there are no Americans applying for Russian or Chinese citizenship, but hundreds of Russians and Chinese standing in line in front of US embassies for a Green Card. ..."
"... How about the indoctrination of say people in the USA. Children are taught to sing the National anthem. This is sung at sports and other events in almost mandatory fashion. You see the Star Spangled banner in homes, public buildings almost everywhere. ..."
"... Hollywood and the American media feed the public a constant and pervasive diet of movies, television shows and propaganda about America's might, values and glory. Books,literature, clothing, toys you name it highlight and accentuate this. Try spending a week watching CNN, Fox news MSNBC, BBC et al. ..."
"... The US walked away from negotiations in 2002, after six years of talks, because NK refused to give in on some unreasonable pre-conditions. ..."
Dealing with Kim is not the same as dealing with a fanatic like Osama bin Laden or an apparatchik
like Khrushchev. He is impervious to realpolitik, and the lives of perhaps tens of millions of people
are at stake – by privation, if not war.
Trump's threat of fire and fury is the worst response imaginable to a religious extremist
who believes he alone can save humanity – and that the US and her allies are all that stand in the
way of Korea fulfilling its own destiny.
The Korean War ended with an armistice, or stand-off, but never a peace treaty, and the US
is, in essence, still fighting the Korean War. That is the crux of the problem.
The solution lies in a peace treaty that demilitarizes the whole Korean peninsula and this
treaty must include China, since China was the main adversary to the US during a war that never
really ended after more than 60 years.
No one (Trump or Kim) is so insane that will dare to escalate this verbal war into a real war
that can easily turn into a nuclear war.
If Kim fires first he knows that he, his regime and a great part of his people will be annihilated
by the American fire and fury.
If the US strike first they can't endure the consequences of a nuclear counter- attack by N.
Korea with millions of dead in the ally countries of S. Korea and Japan but even in the US territory
from 60 nukes Kim processes today.
Interesting the author puts so much emphasis on Juche in his assessment of North Korean
political deliberations.
B. R. Myers wrote an influential book on North Korea that made the case that Juche is
a non-philosophy designed solely for the purpose of bamboozling foreigners, and that the motivations
of the DPRK leadership are based around racial nationalism.
It is realpolitik sharpened to a knife edge. The USA acts as nuclear hegemon, because it is in
their own interests to do so. The USSR would like to have done so, and China would still if it
could. We benefit from the status quo.
North Korea having nuclear weapons is odious to the USA as hegemon, so it will not be allowed
to happen. Morality is irrelevant. The only question is who has the will and the power to enforce
that will.
Unfortunately if he so desperately wants war, the price will be immeasurable.
Imagine h actually fires a handful of ICBMs at the continental USA. It really doesn't matter
much at that point whether US missile defence takes them down before impact or not. Either way,
the US would then counterstrike with a force not dissimilar to the hammer of God.
Trump might decide that the best way to stop Seoul getting pulverised by DPRK artillery is
to carpet the area north of the DMZ with small tactical nuclear strikes, and then unleash dozens,
perhaps hundreds of strategic warheads on Pyongyang and every single other target of any value.
It would be over in a morning, but NK would be utterly incinerated.
Yeah, Vietnam, Cuba and China have done some privatizations, so what you say about North Korea
sounds correct to me, but the core of heavy industry there and in all of these countries is still
state-owned.
The only way for any of them to once again be ruled by a capitalist class would be a counterrevolutionary
collapse like the one that happened in the USSR in 1991-92. Such an event would be unmistakeable,
cataclysmic, and most likely catastrophic, for the inhabitants of the country in question, just
as it was in the USSR. It cannot happen as some sort of gradual evolution in the policies of the
governing bureaucracy, although the privatizations and corruption that you mention do make it
a more likely outcome than before. A US invasion and military regime would be a way to restore
capitalist rule to North Korea, though it could easily backfire, and anyway, I don't think the
imperialists could conquer North Korea without first exterminating its entire population, which
I guess is what Trump is threatening.
It's interesting that you say that the North Korean fishing industry started getting privatized
right around the time of the Soviet collapse. That´s also when China started charging university
fees, and when Cuba entered its "Periodo Especial."
They could buy a dozen nuclear weapons and delivery systems before breakfast if they wanted one
- and would happily use it on Iran not Israel (who have plenty too - including submarine based
ones).
Saudis were the majority of the mujahadeen and AQ funders and leaders and the pilots of the
9/11 attackers.
They also have a major US base. Prob with nukes if not all the biggest and deadliest weapons.
And one would add the Americans and then the person put in place to run South Korea, Syngman Rhee,
depended on Japanese collaborators, not a few of whom had already been involved in war crimes
before the end of WWII.
I would also add that who started the Korean War is open to some debate. There is some
evidence that the North invaded in response to an incursion started from the South. Both sides
were attacking each other across the parallel before the 'War' started and there's documentation
that the South was keen to invade the North. The Korean leadership on both sides saw the division
as unacceptable and themselves as the legitimate government of the entire country.
Or Xi Jinping whose grandfather fought against the Japanese. The Chinese have in the past been
very critical of Shinzo Abe's visiting a memorial to people they consider war criminals.
I think you have hit on something I've been thinking about. I believe Trump is deliberately
stirring the pot in an attempt to goad Kim Jong Un into doing things that actually rile the Chinese.
If you have noticed the Chinese have only recently began to get serious about reigning in North
Korea by enforcing sanctions.
North Korea's increased provocations, a reaction to US and her allies have seriously angered
China. Also the threats of economic retaliation on Chinese entities doing business with North
Korea have caused the Chinese to weigh the cost of doing business with the Norks vs the cost of
sanctions.
It seems recently the Chinese have been considering the DPRK as more of a detriment.
I do not believe that KJU could be convinced to change is behaviour. Is practically a God so what
else can be given? Nothing can compare.
I believe there will be war in the Korean peninsular. If we are lucky it will be a sudden military
intervention from China (and perhaps Russia) into North Korea to replace KJU and a few other people.
The objective is to maintain the existence of North Korea as a country and largely a status quo
and NOT a country under the influence of US.
If we are not lucky it will be a messy war US first will battle North Korea and win then US
forces will get involved in a messy and prolonged confrontation on the ground with "local" NK
troops: troop supported by Russian and Chinese volunteers (special forces). It will ultimately
result again in a stalemate but a few millions of people will be dead
... and by the way, who said the world "needs to respond to the threats"? That's exactly the kind
of one-dimensional thinking that led mankind into the First World War.
The more attention the Fat Kid gets, the more noise he makes. Just let him have his silly rockets
and ignore him. What do we care about North Korea? They do not even have oil. Just forget about
that country and let it rot away. This has worked for the last 64 years, and so far North Korea
has not harmed one American soldier.
During the Cold War, the Soviet arsenal posed a far greater danger than North Korea does
now. Nevertheless, no US president was so stupid to try and solve the crisis by pressing the USSR
into giving up its missiles. Everybody knew we could just lean back and wait for the Soviet Empire
to collapse by itself. And that's what happened.
But Trump doesn't know jacksh*t about history, and he certainly has no patience.
"Its central doctrine, the supremacy of man, is based directly on the founding belief of the Cheondogyo
sect: in nae Cheon – 'man is God'. Hmmm. Sounds like Marxism-Leninism to me. You don't get this
kind of crap in anything ancient."---erm, Jesus the man is held by Christians to be God.
Avoiding nuclear war by provoking it makes little sense.
"History crap" is exactly what this idiot in the White House is "thinking". Everyone knows
Trump doesn't read books and has no understanding of history. That's why he is incapable of solving
international problems.
All he can do is insult people and bully them into obedience.
This might work with some provincial politician from Hillbilly Creek, Oklahoma. But it certainly
does not get you anywhere when you are dealing with some Asian dictator and mass-murderer.
You have to know your enemies thoughts - this has been known since the days of Sun Tzu.
You certainly have a point. Anyone who thinks that we in the West are not susceptible to propaganda
is the best proof that we are. However, flawed as it may be, I still prefer the Western Way of
Life to anything else. There is a reason why the East German government had to build the Berlin
Wall to keep its own citizens from running off to the West. There is a reason why there are no
Americans applying for Russian or Chinese citizenship, but hundreds of Russians and Chinese standing
in line in front of US embassies for a Green Card.
There is a reason why Syrian refugees
turn their hopes to Europe and not to Saudi Arabia or Russia.
You talk about the indoctrination of the Korean people and how
it is perpetuated. You approach this from a more introspective level than many others.
How about the indoctrination of say people in the USA. Children are taught to sing the
National anthem. This is sung at sports and other events in almost mandatory fashion. You see
the Star Spangled banner in homes, public buildings almost everywhere.
Hollywood and the American media feed the public a constant and pervasive diet of movies,
television shows and propaganda about America's might, values and glory. Books,literature, clothing,
toys you name it highlight and accentuate this. Try spending a week watching CNN, Fox news MSNBC,
BBC et al.
America presidents and the West loves to holler on about the "Free World". What is this bull-shit
about the Free world. Oh yes it has to be run by them. The American and them has to lead and run
it of course.
The pentagon/NATO loves to talk about defending the west values, ideology and human rights.
So here in the West and America propaganda and indoctrination abounds. It has been this ways for
hundreds of years now.
Funny. You could not choose worse examples. Fishing in North Korea is roughly 90% privately owned,
and this has been the case since the early 1990s. Mines, if you mean coal mines, are indeed largely
state-owned, but tonchu (rich private investors, operating with tacit or open permit of the party-state)
control a noticeable part of the industry. The agriculture, which was remarkably good in generating
famines when it was indeed done by the state, has been privatized after '6-28 instructions', in
2012-2014, and is now run more or less along the Chinese lines.
Very interesting article, Mr Brabazon. But my suspicion is that you might be confusing the regime's
religious-nationalist claim to legitimacy with the actual thinking processes of the regime's leader
himself. Specifically, is Kim Jong-un really 'a religious extremist' in person - something that
would suggest he is not entirely rational - and possibly even quite unhinged?
All signs suggest he is rather in fact an extremely rational, calculating, cold-hearted manipulator.
He has a well-documented history of ramping up diplomatic/military hostilities and then pivoting
at the last moment to extract advantage or concessions (sanctions relief, aid, import/export access,
etc). So to say then that he's 'impervious to realpolitik' seems quite odd indeed. He appears
to be very good at cynical real-political gamesmanship. He just doesn't appear to define NK's
national interest as the pursuit of power for its own sake (as in the European realpolitik tradition),
but for the sake of the survival of his dynastic regime. Similarly, the NK foreign minister reportedly
said just recently that NK's nuclear ambition is 'to balance' the US. The idea of a balance of
power stands at the heart of realpolitik thought.
Kim Jong-un appears driven less by non-rational religious conviction than by a very rational
quest to achieve mutual deterrence with the US by developing nuclear ICBMs. Juche may help explain
why he can't/won't/doesn't need to accept any bribe to abandon this quest, but more likely its
main role is to maintain domestic political control in the face of widespread privation and fear.
Yes we had an agreement with North Korea that President Carter had negotiated for Clinton that
Bush II trashed and NK started building nukes. Felt for some reason they could not trust the US
since we had invaded Iraq for trying to make nukes when they were not. Felt they needed nukes
as the only way to protect themselves from US invasion.
While US politics, society, and global respect obviously decline at the hands of this idiotic
potus...US military spending and force has increased exponentially since 2011. It does not bode
well for anyone on the Korean peninsula that these two pinheads keep hurling childish insults
that could eventually turn into catastrophic military decisions. Trump and Kim will go down in
history as the morons that fought a war over battered little fucktard egos...and that cost a lot
of innocent people their lives. We have to evolve...this is the same damn game cavemen played
except instead of throwing rocks we're throwing globally fatal neutron bombs. Sad.
You must believe every single word printed in the media.
"...and his firing of missiles over our ally..."
The way this is portrayed in the media is akin to deadly missiles flying over Japan at head
height, or at least inside Japanese air space. The facts, of course, are different.
Because of Japan's proximity to the Korean peninsular, test missiles have to be fired from
sea level, straight into space (100kms above sea level) to avoid Japanese air space. The missiles'
trajectories ensure Japanese air space is not encroached upon and while this practice is less
than neighbourly, it's not illegal. The Japanese, given their historical animosity towards Korea,
make such propaganda of these test firings as they can and the western media laps it up.
Michael Brabazon's a historian, not a statesman. We need statesmen, not politicians to fix this
mess, ideally a group comprising representatives from both Koreas, China, Russia and the US. NOT
Japan. Lock them all in a room and don't let them out until the Korean question is resolved.
No it didn't and many people ignore this when commenting on various North Korean responses.
Let's be clear - a state of war still exists between North Korea and its allies and South Korea
and its allies. All that was signed in 1953 was an armistice - a cease-fire. It was not a peace
treaty.
North Korea correctly(?) feels that the US may breech the cease fire and is arming itself accordingly.
While the US and South Korea keep playing war games near the DMZ, that view won't change.
I know, I know, the guy dropping the bombs is always in the wrong.
Do you accept that the Korean war began because a large force came over the 38th parallel from
the north and among other things, occupied Seoul? And that hundreds of thousands of Chinese troops
joined in on the NK side? Not to mention Russian fighter pilots? There is always a context when
bombs are dropping.
It's not just the North Koreans who have existential fears- the South Koreans do as well, and
their worst nightmare would be living under a Kim regime.
Capitalism is defined in any dictionary as private ownership of the means of production. North
Korea has overthrown it. That is why the country got bombed in the 1950s, and that is why America's
capitalist government has been threatening it ever since with more bombing.
Who owns the fishing industry, agriculture and the coal mines in North Korea? The state! These
industries can't be bought by US "investors" because no individual owns them, so the only solution
is to try to erase North Korea from the map again. This plan, if it is a plan, is raving madness,
of course, but capitalism is not a rational system.
Go USA, go the Trump man who knows nothing - he is just a fool and those who follow him have got
blinkers on - thinking make America great again - WTF?? Mate this is not the wild west anymore
nor the movies where you go in with your guns blazing and you always win - you need some sophistication
and some brains to know how to handle these issues. Trump the man and Trump the President are
duds!!
If Obama behaved as Trump has been doing - he would have been shouted down as the black man
behaving badly.
Trump needs to be shouted down as the white man who is behaving extremely badly - get rid of
him through empeachment and get someone who knows that they are doing!!!
Thank you for this article, Mr. Brabazon. I now understand North Korea and the dynamic on the
Korean peninsula better. Your point that Trump doesn't know what he's messing with is well-taken,
but that is something that is true with regards to nearly any topic you could name.
The fact that North Korea has a national indoctrination program of an ideology that has no
grounding in a modern reality - and that cares nothing for the international order that attempts
to keep us all from killing each other - gives valuable perspective. However, it does not change
the fact that North Korea is going to continue to act in ways that threaten other countries, and
that (especially due to its ideology and its disconnection from any real allies) it miscalculate
and find itself erased from the map, likely taking a lot of South Koreans with it.
This has the potential to be a really bad situation: the best result is reform from within,
second best result is implosion of the regime. Everything else looks to involve significant loss
of life.
From 1948 until the invasion, north and south Koreans were facing-off across the DMZ and there
were a significant number of violent incursions by both sides - mostly initiated by South Koreans,
who were itching for a fight. (That's according to the US general in charge of South Korean forces
at the time). The north's invasion was no surprise and the only reason it occurred in June 1950
was because the north had a division of troops fighting with the Chinese communists. Those troops
didn't return to North Korea until early 1950
North Korea has put peace proposals to the UN/US which included offers to cease their nuclear
ambitions, or at least put them on hold. Both the US and South Korea have rejected the offers
out of hand.
It's hard to imagine Shinzo Abe and Kim Jong-un at the same conference table - the two grandchildren
of two of the original protagonists during the Japanese occupation of Korea 1910-45. Some people
have long memories.
The Korean situation is different, in that it was one national entity until 1945, when Japan ceded
Korea to the US as part of the surrender terms. At the time, then (Soviet) Russians, who were
nominally our allies, had moved into northern Korea as part of their push against the Japanese.
This concerned the US, who wanted Korea to remain in their control, so John J. McCloy instructed
Dean Rusk to divide Korea in two and Rusk drew a line through the 38th parallel. The Soviets administered
the north and the US the south until 1948.
You can imagine how Kim Il-sung felt about this - he'd spent the previous 13 years actively
fighting the Japanese invaders in order to reclaim his country and was one of the few surviving
guerrilla leaders. The Japanese had murdered his wife and had ruthlessly suppressed any dissent.
Now all of that was for nothing - all that happened was that other invaders had moved in and split
the country. It was the direct cause of North Korea invading the south in 1950.
"...this article merely makes the point that the current Kim cannot be reasoned with ..."
That's drawing a bit of a long bow. Kim may be many things, but stupid doesn't appear to be
one of them. The same can't be said for Trump. North Korea recently submitted a plan to the UN/US
with a proposal that the north puts a hold on its nuclear weapons development. In return, North
Korea asked for (a) a formal treaty ending the Korean War, with non-aggression guarantees from
both sides, (b) South Korea and the US to cease military exercises close to the DMZ and (c) a
timetable for the reduction of US troops in South Korea. This plan was backed by both Russia and
China. The US and South Korea refused the offer point-blank.
Kim played the anti-US card simply for a political grip on power, and keeps that grip very tight
after the recent displays of nuclear weapons. He's probably even more popular now, in spite of
the famine and poverty.
"...the article reinforces the need to take action before North Korea loses all sense of rational
and morale judgement."
The only problem there is that we're 64 years too late - any resolution should have been in
1953, even if it had meant open war with China. Now, 3, 4 or 5 generations later, the North Koreans
are not going to change their beliefs or mindset. We've missed the boat, unfortunately for all
concerned.
Excuse me but the CIA and ihe intelligence services of the world ate all well informed about Juche.
Since when does the US regard the DPRK as Marxist in any sense? If an analogy is required, the
DPRK, with its emperor worship and nonsense about the divinity of its people, is closer to 1930's
Japan than it is to communism. It's a nationalistic monarchy, for goodness sake.
The US led the attack. The US is the superpower. And Clinton had a personal hatred for Gadhafi.
It was a US drone that tracked him and directed the terrorists to his location where he was raped
with a bayonet and shot.
3 million Koreans dead was not a repel, it was a massacre. Note that North Korea did not have
an air force so so speak. Within a year the US and UK ran out of military targets, and bombed
civilians mercilessly.
"If you want peace, prepare for war" is about the most ancient wisdom there is and over
thousands of years it has proven to be pretty sound advice.
I'm not sure how helpful this is in a nuclear age. We live perilously close to nuclear annihilation,
there are obvious incentives for states to obtain nuclear weapons, and preparation for war does
not seem to be the answer to this problem.
You don't understand what gualtiero is saying. It's very logical. As NK develops ICBM with nuclear
warheads they neutralize the US nuclear option. In 10-20 years, NK could have enough nuclear armed
ICBMs to overwhelm
In other words he is a nut and the people supressed so we just pussy foot around him and
he has the world just where he wants them - living on edge- just like we do with the terrorism
of the world now from our fanatics.
Are you describing Trump here or Kim Jong-un?
There doesn't seem to be a good alternative to diplomacy and negotiation here.
In any case, strategically it seems a good idea to understand where people are coming from.
Also you should ask how on gods earth did such a nut get to have this ability- perhaps another
Obama disaster .
Didn't the North Korean nuclear tests begin under George W Bush?
There haven't been recent attempts at negotiation and diplomacy with North Korea by the United
States.
The US walked away from negotiations in 2002, after six years of talks, because NK refused
to give in on some unreasonable pre-conditions.
Kim is a dictator who uses fear and hatred of an outside enemy to solidify his hold on his
people. He's not suicidal. Destruction of North Korea would be fatal to his goal of spreading
his ideology to the world.
Knee jerk reactions to obvious evil are neither a revelation nor a basis for a practical solution
to the tensions.
Garrett 's book
The People's Pottage The Revolution Was-Ex America-Rise of Empire i ncludes a timeless quote on U.S. foreign policy. "You are imperialistic
all the same, whether you realize it or not... You are trying to make the kind of world you want. You are trying to impose the American
way of life on other people, whether they want it or not." The "Rise of Empire" opens with the sentence "We have crossed the boundary
between Republic and Empire." It contains a critical view of President Truman's usurpation of Congress' power to declare war. Some of
the "distinguishing marks" of an empire taken from history were "Domestic policy becomes subordinate to foreign policy" and " A system
of satellite nations". I think most of us are would be familiar with those two in modern context. His labeling of this policy as the
"Empire of the Bottomless Purse" was historically accurate.
The book was printed in 1953. What's amazing is how little some political ideology has changed since then. Take this quote; "And
the mere thought of 'America First', associated as that term is with 'isolationism', has become a liability so extreme that politicians
feel obliged to deny ever having entertained it." Think back to Ron Paul's 2008 campaign and how he was labeled an "isolationist" for
similar views of nationalism.
Notable quotes:
"... These are not sequential stages of Empire but occur in conjunction with one another and reinforce each other. That means that an attempt to reverse Empire in the direction of a Republic can begin with weakening any of the five characteristics in any order. ..."
"... Deconstructing these executive props, one by one, weakens the Empire. When all five components are deconstructing, the process presents a possible path to dissolving Empire itself. ..."
"... That was why Garrett does not deal with how to reverse the process of Empire. Once an empire is established, he argues, it becomes a "prisoner of history" in a trap of its own making. He writes, "A Republic may change its course, or reverse it, and that will be its own business. But the history of Empire is a world history and belongs to many people. A Republic is not obliged to act upon the world, either to change it or instruct it. Empire, on the other hand, must put forth its power." ..."
"... Collective security and fear are intimately connected concepts. It is no coincidence that the sixth component of Empire -- imprisonment -- comes directly after the two components of "a system of satellite nations" and, "a complex of vaunting and fear." ..."
"... An empire thinks that satellites are necessary for its collective security. Satellites think the empire is necessary for territorial and economic survival; but they are willing to defect if an empire with a better deal beckons. America knows this and scrambles to satisfy satellites that could become fickle. Garrett quotes Harry Truman, who created America's modern system of satellites. "We must make sure that our friends and allies overseas continue to get the help they need to make their full contribution to security and progress for the whole free world. This means not only military aid -- though that is vital -- it also means real programs of economic and technical assistance." ..."
"... Garrett also emphasizes how domestic pressure imprisons Empire. One of the most powerful domestic pressures is fear. An atmosphere of fear -- real or created -- drives public support of foreign policy and makes it more difficult for Empire to retreat from those policies. ..."
"... Empire has "'less control over its own fate than a republic,' he [Garrett] commented because it was a 'prisoner of history', ruled by fear. Fear of what? 'Fear of the barbarian.'" ..."
"... It does not matter whether the enemy is actually a barbarian. What matters is that citizens of Empire believe in the enemy's savagery and support a military posture toward him. Domestic fear drives the constant politics of satellite nations, protective treaties, police actions, and war. Foreign entanglements lead to increased global involvement and deeper commitments. The two reinforce each other. ..."
"... The fifth characteristic of Empire is not merely fear but also "vaunting." Vaunting means boasting about or praising something excessively -- for example, to laud and exaggerate America's role in the world. Fear provides the emotional impetus for conquest; vaunting provides the moral justification for acting upon the fear. The moral duty is variously phrased: leadership, a balance of power, peace, democracy, the preservation of civilization, humanitarianism. From this point, it is a small leap to conclude that the ends sanctify the means. Garrett observes that "there is soon a point from which there is no turning back .The argument for going on is well known. As Woodrow Wilson once asked, 'Shall we break the heart of the world?' So now many are saying, 'We cannot let the free world down'. Moral leadership of the world is not a role you step into and out of as you like." ..."
The Roman Empire never doubted that it was the defender of civilization. Its good intentions were peace, law and order. The Spanish
Empire added salvation. The British Empire added the noble myth of the white man's burden. We have added freedom and democracy.
-- Garet Garrett, Rise of Empire
The first step in creating Empire is to morally justify the invasion and occupation of another nation even if it poses no credible
or substantial threat. But if that's the entering strategy, what is the exit one?
One approach to answering is to explore how Empire has arisen through history and whether the process can be reversed. Another
is to conclude that no exit is possible; an Empire inevitably self-destructs under the increasing weight of what it is -- a nation
exercising ultimate authority over an array of satellite states. Empires are vulnerable to overreach, rebellion, war, domestic turmoil,
financial exhaustion, and competition for dominance.
In his monograph Rise of Empire, the libertarian journalist Garet Garrett (1878–1954), lays out a blueprint for how Empire could
possibly be reversed as well as the reason he believes reversal would not occur. Garrett was in a unique position to comment insightfully
on the American empire because he'd had a front-row seat to events that cemented its status: World War II and the Cold War. World
War II America already had a history of conquest and occupation, of course, but, during the mid to late 20th century, the nation
became a self-consciously and unapologetic empire with a self-granted mandate to spread its ideology around the world.
A path to reversing Empire
Garrett identifies the first five components of Empire:
The dominance of executive power: the White House reigns over Congress and the judiciary.
The subordination of domestic concerns to foreign policy: civil and economic liberties give way to military needs.
The rise of a military mentality: aggressive patriotism and obedience are exalted.
A system of satellite nations (vassals) in the name of collective security ;
A zeitgeist of both zealous patriotism and fear : bellicosity is mixed with and sustained by panic.
These are not sequential stages of Empire but occur in conjunction with one another and reinforce each other. That means that
an attempt to reverse Empire in the direction of a Republic can begin with weakening any of the five characteristics in any order.
Garrett did not directly address the strategy of undoing Empire, but his description of its creation can be used to good advantage.
The first step is to break down each component of Empire into more manageable chunks. For example, the executive branch accumulates
power in various ways. They include:
By delegation -- Congress transfers its constitutional powers to the president.
By reinterpretation of the Constitution by a sympathetic Supreme Court.
Through innovation by which the president assumes powers that are not constitutionally forbidden because the Framers never
considered them.
By administrative agencies that issue regulations with the force of law.
Through usurpation -- the president confronts Congress with a fait accompli that cannot easily be repudiated.Entanglement
in foreign affairs makes presidential power swell because, both by tradition and the Constitution, foreign affairs are his
authority.
Deconstructing these executive props, one by one, weakens the Empire. When all five components are deconstructing, the process
presents a possible path to dissolving Empire itself.
A sixth component of Empire
But in Rise of Empire, Garet Garrett offers a chilling assessment based on his sixth component of Empire. There is no path out.
A judgment that renders prevention all the more essential.
That was why Garrett does not deal with how to reverse the process of Empire. Once an empire is established, he argues, it
becomes a "prisoner of history" in a trap of its own making. He writes, "A Republic may change its course, or reverse it, and that
will be its own business. But the history of Empire is a world history and belongs to many people. A Republic is not obliged to act
upon the world, either to change it or instruct it. Empire, on the other hand, must put forth its power."
In his book For A New Liberty, Murray Rothbard expands on Garrett's point: "[The] United States, like previous empires, feel[s]
itself to be 'a prisoner of history.' For beyond fear lies 'collective security,' and the playing of the supposedly destined American
role upon the world stage."
Collective security and fear are intimately connected concepts. It is no coincidence that the sixth component of Empire --
imprisonment -- comes directly after the two components of "a system of satellite nations" and, "a complex of vaunting and fear."
Satellite nations
"We speak of our own satellites as allies and friends or as freedom loving nations," Garrett wrote. "Nevertheless, satellite is
the right word. The meaning of it is the hired guard." Why hired? Although men of Empire speak of losing China [or] Europe [how]
could we lose China or Europe, since they never belonged to us? What they mean is that we may lose a following of dependent people
who act as an outer guard."
An empire thinks that satellites are necessary for its collective security. Satellites think the empire is necessary for territorial
and economic survival; but they are willing to defect if an empire with a better deal beckons. America knows this and scrambles to
satisfy satellites that could become fickle. Garrett quotes Harry Truman, who created America's modern system of satellites. "We
must make sure that our friends and allies overseas continue to get the help they need to make their full contribution to security
and progress for the whole free world. This means not only military aid -- though that is vital -- it also means real programs of
economic and technical assistance."
In contrast to a Republic, Empire is both a master and a servant because foreign pressure cements it into the military and economic
support of satellite nations around the globe, all of which have their own agendas.
Garrett also emphasizes how domestic pressure imprisons Empire. One of the most powerful domestic pressures is fear. An atmosphere
of fear -- real or created -- drives public support of foreign policy and makes it more difficult for Empire to retreat from those
policies. In his introduction to Garrett's book Ex America, Bruce Ramsey addresses Garrett's point. Ramsey writes, Empire
has "'less control over its own fate than a republic,' he [Garrett] commented because it was a 'prisoner of history', ruled by fear.
Fear of what? 'Fear of the barbarian.'"
It does not matter whether the enemy is actually a barbarian. What matters is that citizens of Empire believe in the enemy's
savagery and support a military posture toward him. Domestic fear drives the constant politics of satellite nations, protective treaties,
police actions, and war. Foreign entanglements lead to increased global involvement and deeper commitments. The two reinforce each
other.
The fifth characteristic of Empire is not merely fear but also "vaunting." Vaunting means boasting about or praising something
excessively -- for example, to laud and exaggerate America's role in the world. Fear provides the emotional impetus for conquest;
vaunting provides the moral justification for acting upon the fear. The moral duty is variously phrased: leadership, a balance of
power, peace, democracy, the preservation of civilization, humanitarianism. From this point, it is a small leap to conclude that
the ends sanctify the means. Garrett observes that "there is soon a point from which there is no turning back .The argument for going
on is well known. As Woodrow Wilson once asked, 'Shall we break the heart of the world?' So now many are saying, 'We cannot let the
free world down'. Moral leadership of the world is not a role you step into and out of as you like."
Conclusion
In this manner, Garrett believed, Empire imprisons itself in the trap of a perpetual war for peace and stability, which are always
stated goals. Yet, as Garrett concluded, the reality is war and instability.
It is not clear whether he was correct that Empire could not be reversed. Whether or not he was, it is at its creation that Empire
is best opposed.
Garrett 's book
The People's Pottage The Revolution Was-Ex America-Rise of Empire i ncludes a timeless quote on U.S. foreign policy. "You are imperialistic
all the same, whether you realize it or not... You are trying to make the kind of world you want. You are trying to impose the American
way of life on other people, whether they want it or not." The "Rise of Empire" opens with the sentence "We have crossed the boundary
between Republic and Empire." It contains a critical view of President Truman's usurpation of Congress' power to declare war. Some of
the "distinguishing marks" of an empire taken from history were "Domestic policy becomes subordinate to foreign policy" and " A system
of satellite nations". I think most of us are would be familiar with those two in modern context. His labeling of this policy as the
"Empire of the Bottomless Purse" was historically accurate.
The book was printed in 1953. What's amazing is how little some political ideology has changed since then. Take this quote; "And
the mere thought of 'America First', associated as that term is with 'isolationism', has become a liability so extreme that politicians
feel obliged to deny ever having entertained it." Think back to Ron Paul's 2008 campaign and how he was labeled an "isolationist" for
similar views of nationalism.
Notable quotes:
"... These are not sequential stages of Empire but occur in conjunction with one another and reinforce each other. That means that an attempt to reverse Empire in the direction of a Republic can begin with weakening any of the five characteristics in any order. ..."
"... Deconstructing these executive props, one by one, weakens the Empire. When all five components are deconstructing, the process presents a possible path to dissolving Empire itself. ..."
"... That was why Garrett does not deal with how to reverse the process of Empire. Once an empire is established, he argues, it becomes a "prisoner of history" in a trap of its own making. He writes, "A Republic may change its course, or reverse it, and that will be its own business. But the history of Empire is a world history and belongs to many people. A Republic is not obliged to act upon the world, either to change it or instruct it. Empire, on the other hand, must put forth its power." ..."
"... Collective security and fear are intimately connected concepts. It is no coincidence that the sixth component of Empire -- imprisonment -- comes directly after the two components of "a system of satellite nations" and, "a complex of vaunting and fear." ..."
"... An empire thinks that satellites are necessary for its collective security. Satellites think the empire is necessary for territorial and economic survival; but they are willing to defect if an empire with a better deal beckons. America knows this and scrambles to satisfy satellites that could become fickle. Garrett quotes Harry Truman, who created America's modern system of satellites. "We must make sure that our friends and allies overseas continue to get the help they need to make their full contribution to security and progress for the whole free world. This means not only military aid -- though that is vital -- it also means real programs of economic and technical assistance." ..."
"... Garrett also emphasizes how domestic pressure imprisons Empire. One of the most powerful domestic pressures is fear. An atmosphere of fear -- real or created -- drives public support of foreign policy and makes it more difficult for Empire to retreat from those policies. ..."
"... Empire has "'less control over its own fate than a republic,' he [Garrett] commented because it was a 'prisoner of history', ruled by fear. Fear of what? 'Fear of the barbarian.'" ..."
"... It does not matter whether the enemy is actually a barbarian. What matters is that citizens of Empire believe in the enemy's savagery and support a military posture toward him. Domestic fear drives the constant politics of satellite nations, protective treaties, police actions, and war. Foreign entanglements lead to increased global involvement and deeper commitments. The two reinforce each other. ..."
"... The fifth characteristic of Empire is not merely fear but also "vaunting." Vaunting means boasting about or praising something excessively -- for example, to laud and exaggerate America's role in the world. Fear provides the emotional impetus for conquest; vaunting provides the moral justification for acting upon the fear. The moral duty is variously phrased: leadership, a balance of power, peace, democracy, the preservation of civilization, humanitarianism. From this point, it is a small leap to conclude that the ends sanctify the means. Garrett observes that "there is soon a point from which there is no turning back .The argument for going on is well known. As Woodrow Wilson once asked, 'Shall we break the heart of the world?' So now many are saying, 'We cannot let the free world down'. Moral leadership of the world is not a role you step into and out of as you like." ..."
The Roman Empire never doubted that it was the defender of civilization. Its good intentions were peace, law and order. The Spanish
Empire added salvation. The British Empire added the noble myth of the white man's burden. We have added freedom and democracy.
-- Garet Garrett, Rise of Empire
The first step in creating Empire is to morally justify the invasion and occupation of another nation even if it poses no credible
or substantial threat. But if that's the entering strategy, what is the exit one?
One approach to answering is to explore how Empire has arisen through history and whether the process can be reversed. Another
is to conclude that no exit is possible; an Empire inevitably self-destructs under the increasing weight of what it is -- a nation
exercising ultimate authority over an array of satellite states. Empires are vulnerable to overreach, rebellion, war, domestic turmoil,
financial exhaustion, and competition for dominance.
In his monograph Rise of Empire, the libertarian journalist Garet Garrett (1878–1954), lays out a blueprint for how Empire could
possibly be reversed as well as the reason he believes reversal would not occur. Garrett was in a unique position to comment insightfully
on the American empire because he'd had a front-row seat to events that cemented its status: World War II and the Cold War. World
War II America already had a history of conquest and occupation, of course, but, during the mid to late 20th century, the nation
became a self-consciously and unapologetic empire with a self-granted mandate to spread its ideology around the world.
A path to reversing Empire
Garrett identifies the first five components of Empire:
The dominance of executive power: the White House reigns over Congress and the judiciary.
The subordination of domestic concerns to foreign policy: civil and economic liberties give way to military needs.
The rise of a military mentality: aggressive patriotism and obedience are exalted.
A system of satellite nations (vassals) in the name of collective security ;
A zeitgeist of both zealous patriotism and fear : bellicosity is mixed with and sustained by panic.
These are not sequential stages of Empire but occur in conjunction with one another and reinforce each other. That means that
an attempt to reverse Empire in the direction of a Republic can begin with weakening any of the five characteristics in any order.
Garrett did not directly address the strategy of undoing Empire, but his description of its creation can be used to good advantage.
The first step is to break down each component of Empire into more manageable chunks. For example, the executive branch accumulates
power in various ways. They include:
By delegation -- Congress transfers its constitutional powers to the president.
By reinterpretation of the Constitution by a sympathetic Supreme Court.
Through innovation by which the president assumes powers that are not constitutionally forbidden because the Framers never
considered them.
By administrative agencies that issue regulations with the force of law.
Through usurpation -- the president confronts Congress with a fait accompli that cannot easily be repudiated.Entanglement
in foreign affairs makes presidential power swell because, both by tradition and the Constitution, foreign affairs are his
authority.
Deconstructing these executive props, one by one, weakens the Empire. When all five components are deconstructing, the process
presents a possible path to dissolving Empire itself.
A sixth component of Empire
But in Rise of Empire, Garet Garrett offers a chilling assessment based on his sixth component of Empire. There is no path out.
A judgment that renders prevention all the more essential.
That was why Garrett does not deal with how to reverse the process of Empire. Once an empire is established, he argues, it
becomes a "prisoner of history" in a trap of its own making. He writes, "A Republic may change its course, or reverse it, and that
will be its own business. But the history of Empire is a world history and belongs to many people. A Republic is not obliged to act
upon the world, either to change it or instruct it. Empire, on the other hand, must put forth its power."
In his book For A New Liberty, Murray Rothbard expands on Garrett's point: "[The] United States, like previous empires, feel[s]
itself to be 'a prisoner of history.' For beyond fear lies 'collective security,' and the playing of the supposedly destined American
role upon the world stage."
Collective security and fear are intimately connected concepts. It is no coincidence that the sixth component of Empire --
imprisonment -- comes directly after the two components of "a system of satellite nations" and, "a complex of vaunting and fear."
Satellite nations
"We speak of our own satellites as allies and friends or as freedom loving nations," Garrett wrote. "Nevertheless, satellite is
the right word. The meaning of it is the hired guard." Why hired? Although men of Empire speak of losing China [or] Europe [how]
could we lose China or Europe, since they never belonged to us? What they mean is that we may lose a following of dependent people
who act as an outer guard."
An empire thinks that satellites are necessary for its collective security. Satellites think the empire is necessary for territorial
and economic survival; but they are willing to defect if an empire with a better deal beckons. America knows this and scrambles to
satisfy satellites that could become fickle. Garrett quotes Harry Truman, who created America's modern system of satellites. "We
must make sure that our friends and allies overseas continue to get the help they need to make their full contribution to security
and progress for the whole free world. This means not only military aid -- though that is vital -- it also means real programs of
economic and technical assistance."
In contrast to a Republic, Empire is both a master and a servant because foreign pressure cements it into the military and economic
support of satellite nations around the globe, all of which have their own agendas.
Garrett also emphasizes how domestic pressure imprisons Empire. One of the most powerful domestic pressures is fear. An atmosphere
of fear -- real or created -- drives public support of foreign policy and makes it more difficult for Empire to retreat from those
policies. In his introduction to Garrett's book Ex America, Bruce Ramsey addresses Garrett's point. Ramsey writes, Empire
has "'less control over its own fate than a republic,' he [Garrett] commented because it was a 'prisoner of history', ruled by fear.
Fear of what? 'Fear of the barbarian.'"
It does not matter whether the enemy is actually a barbarian. What matters is that citizens of Empire believe in the enemy's
savagery and support a military posture toward him. Domestic fear drives the constant politics of satellite nations, protective treaties,
police actions, and war. Foreign entanglements lead to increased global involvement and deeper commitments. The two reinforce each
other.
The fifth characteristic of Empire is not merely fear but also "vaunting." Vaunting means boasting about or praising something
excessively -- for example, to laud and exaggerate America's role in the world. Fear provides the emotional impetus for conquest;
vaunting provides the moral justification for acting upon the fear. The moral duty is variously phrased: leadership, a balance of
power, peace, democracy, the preservation of civilization, humanitarianism. From this point, it is a small leap to conclude that
the ends sanctify the means. Garrett observes that "there is soon a point from which there is no turning back .The argument for going
on is well known. As Woodrow Wilson once asked, 'Shall we break the heart of the world?' So now many are saying, 'We cannot let the
free world down'. Moral leadership of the world is not a role you step into and out of as you like."
Conclusion
In this manner, Garrett believed, Empire imprisons itself in the trap of a perpetual war for peace and stability, which are always
stated goals. Yet, as Garrett concluded, the reality is war and instability.
It is not clear whether he was correct that Empire could not be reversed. Whether or not he was, it is at its creation that Empire
is best opposed.
"... But this is one of the good things about having a Deep State, the existence of which has been proved beyond a shadow of a doubt since the intelligence community declared war on Trump last November. While it prevents Trump from reaching a reasonable modus vivendi ..."
"... If the U.S. says that Moscow's activities in the eastern Ukraine are illegitimate, then, as the world's sole remaining "hyperpower," it will see to it that Russia suffers accordingly. If China demands more of a say in Central Asia or the western Pacific, then right-thinking folks the world over will shake their heads sadly and accuse it of undermining international democracy, which is always synonymous with U.S. foreign policy. ..."
"... There is no one – no institution – that Russia or China can appeal to in such circumstances because the U.S. is also in charge of the appellate division. It is the "indispensable nation" in the immortal words of Madeleine Albright, Secretary of State under Bill Clinton, because "we stand tall and we see further than other countries into the future." Given such amazing brilliance, how can any other country possibly object? ..."
"... Next to go was Mullah Omar of Afghanistan, sent packing in October 2001, followed by Slobodan Milosevic, hauled before an international tribunal in 2002; Saddam Hussein, executed in 2006, and Muammar Gaddafi, killed by a mob in 2011. For a while, the world really did seem like " Gunsmoke ," and the U.S. really did seem like Sheriff Matt Dillon. ..."
"... Although The New York Times wrote that U.S. pressure to cut off North Korean oil supplies has put China "in a tight spot," this was nothing more than whistling past the graveyard. There is no reason to think that Xi is the least bit uncomfortable. To the contrary, he is no doubt enjoying himself immensely as he watches America paint itself into yet another corner. ..."
"... Unipolarity will slink off to the sidelines while multilateralism takes center stage. Given that U.S. share of global GDP has fallen by better than 20 percent since 1989, a retreat is inevitable. America has tried to compensate by making maximum use of its military and political advantages. That would be a losing proposition even if it had the most brilliant leadership in the world. Yet it doesn't. Instead, it has a President who is an international laughingstock, a dysfunctional Congress, and a foreign-policy establishment lost in a neocon dream world. As a consequence, retreat is turning into a disorderly rout. ..."
"... The Frozen Republic: How the Constitution Is Paralyzing Democracy ..."
The bigger picture behind Official Washington's hysteria over Russia, Syria and North
Korea is the image of a decaying but dangerous American hegemon resisting the start of a new
multipolar order, explains Daniel Lazare.
By Daniel Lazare
September 9, 2017
The showdown with the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a seminal event that can only
end in one of two ways: a nuclear exchange or a reconfiguration of the international order.
While complacency is always unwarranted, the first seems increasingly unlikely. As no less a
global strategist than Steven Bannon observed about the possibility of a
pre-emptive U.S. strike: "There's no military solution. Forget it. Until somebody solves the
part of the equation that shows me that ten million people in Seoul don't die in the first 30
minutes from conventional weapons, I don't know what you're talking about. There's no military
solution here. They got us."
This doesn't mean that Donald Trump, Bannon's ex-boss, couldn't still do something rash.
After all, this is a man who prides himself on being unpredictable in business negotiations, as
historian William R. Polk, who worked for the Kennedy administration during the Cuban Missile
Crisis, points out . So maybe
Trump thinks it would be a swell idea to go a bit nuts on the DPRK.
But this is one of the good things about having a Deep State, the existence of which has
been proved beyond a shadow of a doubt since the intelligence community declared war on Trump
last November. While it prevents Trump from reaching a reasonable modus vivendi with
Russia, it also means that the President is continually surrounded by generals, spooks, and
other professionals who know the difference between real estate and nuclear war.
As ideologically fogbound as they may be, they can presumably be counted on to make sure
that Trump does not plunge the world into Armageddon (named, by the way, for a Bronze Age city about 20 miles southeast of
Haifa, Israel).
That leaves option number two: reconfiguration. The two people who know best about the
subject are Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping. Both have been
chafing for years under a new world order in which one nation gets to serve as judge, jury, and
high executioner. This, of course, is the United States.
If the U.S. says that Moscow's activities in the eastern Ukraine are illegitimate, then, as
the world's sole remaining "hyperpower," it will see to it that Russia suffers accordingly. If
China demands more of a say in Central Asia or the western Pacific, then right-thinking folks
the world over will shake their heads sadly and accuse it of undermining international
democracy, which is always synonymous with U.S. foreign policy.
There is no one – no institution – that Russia or China can appeal to in such
circumstances because the U.S. is also in charge of the appellate division. It is the
"indispensable nation" in the immortal words of Madeleine Albright, Secretary of State under
Bill Clinton, because "we stand tall and we see further than other countries into the future."
Given such amazing brilliance, how can any other country possibly object?
Challenging the Rule-Maker
But now that a small and beleaguered state on the Korean peninsula is outmaneuvering the
United States and forcing it to back off, the U.S. no longer seems so far-sighted. If North
Korea really has checkmated the U.S., as Bannon says, then other states will want to do the
same. The American hegemon will be revealed as an overweight 71-year-old man naked except for
his bouffant hairdo.
Not that the U.S. hasn't suffered setbacks before. To the contrary, it was forced to accept
the Castro regime following the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, and it suffered a massive defeat
in Vietnam in 1975. But this time is different. Where both East and West were expected to parry
and thrust during the Cold War, giving as good as they got, the U.S., as the global hegemon,
must now do everything in its power to preserve its aura of invincibility.
Since 1989, this has meant knocking over a string of "bad guys" who had the bad luck to get
in its way. First to go was Manuel Noriega, toppled six weeks after the fall of the Berlin Wall
in an invasion that cost the lives of as many as 500 Panamanian soldiers and
possibly thousands of civilians as well.
Next to go was Mullah Omar of Afghanistan, sent packing in October 2001, followed by
Slobodan Milosevic, hauled before an international tribunal in 2002; Saddam Hussein, executed
in 2006, and Muammar Gaddafi, killed by a mob in 2011. For a while, the world really did seem
like " Gunsmoke ," and the U.S. really did
seem like Sheriff Matt Dillon.
But then came a few bumps in the road. The Obama administration cheered on a
Nazi-spearheaded coup d'état in Kiev in early 2014 only to watch helplessly as Putin,
under intense popular pressure, responded by detaching Crimea, which historically had been part
of Russia and was home to the strategic Russian naval base at Sevastopol, and bringing it back
into Russia.
Backed by Russia, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad dealt Washington another blow by driving
U.S.-backed, pro-Al Qaeda forces out of East Aleppo in December 2016. Predictably, the
Huffington Post compared the Syrian offensive to the fascist
bombing of Guernica .
Fire and Fury
Finally, beginning in March, North Korea's Kim Jong Un entered into a game of one-upmanship
with Trump, firing ballistic missiles into the Sea of Japan,
test-firing an ICBM that might be capable
of hitting California , and then exploding a hydrogen warhead roughly
eight times as powerful as the atomic bomb that leveled Hiroshima in 1945. When Trump vowed
to respond "with fire, fury, and frankly power, the likes of which the world has never seen
before," Kim upped the ante by firing a missile over the northern Japanese island of
Hokkaido.
As bizarre as Kim's behavior can be at times, there is method to his madness. As Putin
explained during the BRICS summit with Brazil, India, China, and South Africa, the DPRK's
"supreme leader" has seen how America destroyed Libya and Iraq and has therefore concluded that
a nuclear delivery system is the only surefire guarantee against U.S. invasion.
"We all remember what happened with Iraq and Saddam Hussein," he
said . "His children were killed, I think his grandson was shot, the whole country was
destroyed and Saddam Hussein was hanged . We all know how this happened and people in North
Korea remember well what happened in Iraq . They will eat grass but will not stop their nuclear
program as long as they do not feel safe."
Since Kim's actions are ultimately defensive in nature, the logical solution would be for
the U.S. to pull back and enter into negotiations. But Trump, desperate to save face, quickly
ruled it out. "Talking is not the answer!" he tweeted . Yet the
result of such bluster is only to make America seem more helpless than ever.
Although The New York Times wrote
that U.S. pressure to cut off North Korean oil supplies has put China "in a tight spot," this
was nothing more than whistling past the graveyard. There is no reason to think that Xi is the
least bit uncomfortable. To the contrary, he is no doubt enjoying himself immensely as he
watches America paint itself into yet another corner.
The U.S. Corner
If Trump backs down at this point, the U.S. standing in the region will suffer while China's
will be correspondingly enhanced. On the other hand, if Trump does something rash, it will be a
golden opportunity for Beijing, Moscow, or both to step in as peacemakers. Japan and South
Korea will have no choice but to recognize that there are now three arbiters in the region
instead of just one while other countries – the Philippines, Indonesia, and maybe even
Australia and New Zealand – will have to follow suit.
Unipolarity will slink off to the sidelines while multilateralism takes center stage. Given
that U.S. share of global GDP has fallen
by better than 20 percent since 1989, a retreat is inevitable. America has tried to
compensate by making maximum use of its military and political advantages. That would be a
losing proposition even if it had the most brilliant leadership in the world. Yet it doesn't.
Instead, it has a President who is an international laughingstock, a dysfunctional Congress,
and a foreign-policy establishment lost in a neocon dream world. As a consequence, retreat is
turning into a disorderly rout.
Assuming a mushroom cloud doesn't go up over Los Angeles, the world is going to be a very
different place coming out of the Korean crisis than when it went in. Of course, if a mushroom
cloud does go up, it will be even more so.
* Daniel Lazare is the author of several books including The Frozen Republic: How the
Constitution Is Paralyzing Democracy (Harcourt Brace).
"... In response to this political pressure – at a time when Facebook is fending off possible anti-trust legislation – its chief
executive Mark Zuckerberg added that he is expanding the investigation to include "additional Russian groups and other former Soviet
states." ..."
"... But why stop there? If the concern is that American political campaigns are being influenced by foreign governments whose interests
may diverge from what's best for America, why not look at countries that have caused the United States far more harm recently than Russia?
..."
"... After all, Saudi Arabia and its Sunni Wahabbi leaders have been pulling the U.S. government into their sectarian wars with
the Shiites, including conflicts in Yemen and Syria that have contributed to anti-Americanism in the region, to the growth of Al Qaeda,
and to a disruptive flow of refugees into Europe. ..."
"... Although the military disaster in Iraq threw a wrench into those plans, the Israeli/neocon agenda never changed. Along with
Israel's new regional ally, Saudi Arabia , a proxy war was fashioned to remove Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. ..."
"... Israel's influence over U.S. politicians is so blatant that presidential contenders queue up every year to grovel before the
Israel Lobby's conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. In 2016, Donald Trump showed up and announced that he was
not there to "pander" and then pandered his pants off. ..."
"... And, if you want a historical review, throw in the British and German propaganda around the two world wars; include how the
South Vietnamese government collaborated with Richard Nixon in 1968 to sabotage President Lyndon Johnson's Paris peace talks; take a
serious look at the collusion between Ronald Reagan's campaign and Iran thwarting President Jimmy Carter's efforts to free 52 American
hostages in Tehran in 1980; open the books on Turkey's covert investments in U.S. politicians and policymakers; and examine how authoritarian
regimes of all stripes have funded important Washington think tanks and law firms. ..."
"... But the Russia-gate investigation is not about fairness and balance; it's a reckless scapegoating of a nuclear-armed country
to explain away – and possibly do away with – Donald Trump's presidency. Rather than putting everything in context and applying a sense
of proportion, Russia-gate is relying on wild exaggerations of factually dubious or relatively isolated incidents as an opportunistic
means to a political end. ..."
"... As reckless as President Trump has been, the supposedly wise men and wise women of Washington are at least his match. ..."
The core absurdity of the Russia-gate frenzy is its complete lack of proportionality. Indeed, the hysteria is reminiscent of Sen.
Joe McCarthy warning that "one communist in the faculty of one university is one communist too many" or Donald Trump's highlighting
a few "bad hombres" raping white American women.
It's not that there were no Americans who espoused communist views at universities and elsewhere or that there are no "bad hombre"
rapists; it's that these rare exceptions were used to generate a dangerous overreaction in service of a propagandistic agenda. Historically,
we have seen this technique used often when demagogues seize on an isolated event and exploit it emotionally to mislead populations
to war.
Today, we have The New York Times and The Washington Post repeatedly publishing front-page articles about allegations that some
Russians with "links" to the Kremlin bought $100,000 in Facebook ads to promote some issues deemed hurtful to Hillary Clinton's campaign
although some of the ads ran after the election.
Initially, Facebook could find no evidence of even that small effort but was pressured in May by Sen. Mark Warner, D-Virginia.
The Washington Post
reported that Warner, who is spearheading the Russia-gate investigation in the Senate Intelligence Committee, flew to Silicon
Valley and urged Facebook executives to take another look at possible ad buys.
Facebook responded to this congressional pressure by scouring its billions of monthly users and announced that it had located
470 suspect accounts associated with ads totaling $100,000 – out of Facebook's $27 billion in annual revenue.
Here is how the Times
described
those findings: "Facebook officials disclosed that they had shut down several hundred accounts that they believe were created by
a Russian company linked to the Kremlin and used to buy $100,000 in ads pushing divisive issues during and after the American election
campaign." (It sometimes appears that every Russian -- all 144 million of them -- is somehow "linked" to the Kremlin.)
Last week, congressional investigators urged Facebook to expand its review into "troll farms" supposedly based in Belarus, Macedonia
and Estonia – although Estonia is by no means a Russian ally; it joined NATO in 2004.
"Warner and his Democratic counterpart on the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Adam B. Schiff of California, have been increasingly
vocal in recent days about their frustrations with Facebook," the Post
reported
Facebook Complies
So, on Thursday, Facebook succumbed to demands that it turn over to Congress copies of the ads, a move that has only justified
more alarmist front-page stories about Russia! Russia! Russia!
In response to this political pressure – at a time when Facebook is fending off possible anti-trust legislation – its chief
executive Mark Zuckerberg added that he is expanding the investigation to include "additional Russian groups and other former Soviet
states."
So, it appears that not only are all Russians "linked" to the Kremlin, but all former Soviet states as well.
But why stop there? If the concern is that American political campaigns are being influenced by foreign governments whose
interests may diverge from what's best for America, why not look at countries that have caused the United States far more harm recently
than Russia?
After all, Saudi Arabia and its Sunni Wahabbi leaders have been
pulling the U.S. government
into their sectarian wars with the Shiites, including conflicts in Yemen and Syria that have contributed to anti-Americanism in the
region, to the growth of Al Qaeda, and to a disruptive flow of refugees into Europe.
And, let's not forget the 8,000-pound gorilla in the room: Israel. Does anyone think that whatever Russia may or may not have
done in trying to influence U.S. politics compares even in the slightest to what Israel does all the time?
Which government used its pressure and that of its American agents (i.e., the neocons) to push the United States into the disastrous
war in Iraq? It wasn't Russia, which was among the countries urging the U.S. not to invade; it was Israel and Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu.
Indeed, the plans for "regime change" in Iraq and Syria can be traced back to the work of key American neoconservatives employed
by Netanyahu's political campaign in 1996. At that time, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and other leading neocons unveiled a seminal
document entitled "
A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm ," which proposed casting aside negotiations with Arabs in favor of simply
replacing the region's anti-Israeli governments.
However, to make that happen required drawing in the powerful U.S. military, so after the 9/11 attacks, the neocons inside President
George W. Bush's administration set in motion a deception campaign to justify invading Iraq, a war which was to be followed by more
"regime changes" in Syria and Iran.
A Wrench in the Plans
Although the military disaster in Iraq threw a wrench into those plans, the Israeli/neocon agenda never changed. Along with
Israel's new regional ally,
Saudi Arabia , a proxy war was fashioned to remove Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
As Israel's Ambassador to the U.S. Michael Oren
explained , the goal was to shatter
the Shiite "strategic arc" running from Iran through Syria to Lebanon and Israel's Hezbollah enemies.
How smashing this Shiite "arc" was in the interests of the American people – or even within their consciousness – is never explained.
But it was what Israel wanted and thus it was what the U.S. government enlisted to do, even to the point of
letting sophisticated U.S. weaponry
fall into the hands of Syria's Al Qaeda affiliate.
Israel's influence
over U.S. politicians is so blatant that presidential contenders queue up every year to grovel before the Israel Lobby's conference
of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. In 2016, Donald Trump showed up and
announced that he was not there
to "pander" and then pandered his pants off.
And, whenever Prime Minister Netanyahu wants to show off his power, he is invited to address a joint session of the U.S. Congress
at which Republicans and
Democrats compete to see how many times and how quickly they can leap to their feet in standing ovations. (Netanyahu holds the
record for the number of times a foreign leader has addressed joint sessions with three such appearances, tied with Winston Churchill.)
Yet, Israeli influence is so engrained in the U.S. political process that even the mention of the existence of an "Israel Lobby"
brings accusations of anti-Semitism. "Israel Lobby" is a forbidden phrase in Washington.
However, pretty much whenever Israel targets a U.S. politician for defeat, that politician goes down, a muscle that Israel flexed
in the early 1980s in taking out
Rep. Paul Findley and Sen. Charles Percy , two moderate Republicans whose crime was to suggest talks with the Palestine Liberation
Organization.
So, if the concern is the purity of the American democratic process and the need to protect it from outside manipulation, let's
have at it. Why not a full-scale review of who is doing what and how? Does anyone think that Israel's influence over U.S. politics
is limited to a few hundred Facebook accounts and $100,000 in ads?
If such an effort were ever proposed, you would get a sense of how sensitive this topic is in Official Washington, where foreign
money and its influence are rampant. There would be accusations of anti-Semitism in connection with Israel and charges of conspiracy
theory even in well-documented cases of collaboration between U.S. politicians and foreign interests.
So, instead of a balanced and comprehensive assessment of this problem, the powers-that-be concentrate on the infinitesimal case
of Russian "meddling" as the excuse for Hillary Clinton's shocking defeat. But the key reasons for Clinton's dismal campaign had
virtually nothing to do with Russia, even if you believe all
the evidence-lite accusations
about Russian "meddling."
The Russians did not tell Clinton to vote for the disastrous Iraq War and
play endless footsy with the neocons
; the Russians didn't advise her to set up a private server to handle her State Department emails and potentially expose classified
information; the Russians didn't lure Clinton and the U.S. into
the Libyan fiasco nor
suggest her ghastly joke in response to Muammar Gaddafi's lynching ("We came, we saw, he died"); the Russians had nothing to do with
her greedy decision to accept millions of dollars in Wall Street speaking fees and then try to keep the speech contents secret from
the voters; the Russians didn't encourage her husband to become a serial philanderer and make a mockery of their marriage; nor did
the Russians suggest to Anthony Weiner, the husband of top Clinton aide Huma Abedin, that he send lewd photos to a teen-ager on a
laptop also used by his wife, a development that led FBI Director James Comey to reopen the Clinton-email investigation just 11 days
before the election; the Russians weren't responsible for Clinton's decision not to campaign in Wisconsin and Michigan; the Russians
didn't stop her from offering a coherent message about how she would help the struggling white working class; and on and on.
But the Russia-gate investigation is not about fairness and balance; it's a reckless scapegoating of a nuclear-armed country
to explain away – and possibly do away with – Donald Trump's presidency. Rather than putting everything in context and applying a
sense of proportion, Russia-gate is relying on wild exaggerations of factually dubious or relatively isolated incidents as an opportunistic
means to a political end.
As reckless as President Trump has been, the supposedly wise men and wise women of Washington are at least his match.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s.
You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in
print here or as an e-book
(from
Amazon and
barnesandnoble.com ).
"... But this is one of the good things about having a Deep State, the existence of which has been proved beyond a shadow of a doubt since the intelligence community declared war on Trump last November. While it prevents Trump from reaching a reasonable modus vivendi ..."
"... If the U.S. says that Moscow's activities in the eastern Ukraine are illegitimate, then, as the world's sole remaining "hyperpower," it will see to it that Russia suffers accordingly. If China demands more of a say in Central Asia or the western Pacific, then right-thinking folks the world over will shake their heads sadly and accuse it of undermining international democracy, which is always synonymous with U.S. foreign policy. ..."
"... There is no one – no institution – that Russia or China can appeal to in such circumstances because the U.S. is also in charge of the appellate division. It is the "indispensable nation" in the immortal words of Madeleine Albright, Secretary of State under Bill Clinton, because "we stand tall and we see further than other countries into the future." Given such amazing brilliance, how can any other country possibly object? ..."
"... Next to go was Mullah Omar of Afghanistan, sent packing in October 2001, followed by Slobodan Milosevic, hauled before an international tribunal in 2002; Saddam Hussein, executed in 2006, and Muammar Gaddafi, killed by a mob in 2011. For a while, the world really did seem like " Gunsmoke ," and the U.S. really did seem like Sheriff Matt Dillon. ..."
"... Although The New York Times wrote that U.S. pressure to cut off North Korean oil supplies has put China "in a tight spot," this was nothing more than whistling past the graveyard. There is no reason to think that Xi is the least bit uncomfortable. To the contrary, he is no doubt enjoying himself immensely as he watches America paint itself into yet another corner. ..."
"... Unipolarity will slink off to the sidelines while multilateralism takes center stage. Given that U.S. share of global GDP has fallen by better than 20 percent since 1989, a retreat is inevitable. America has tried to compensate by making maximum use of its military and political advantages. That would be a losing proposition even if it had the most brilliant leadership in the world. Yet it doesn't. Instead, it has a President who is an international laughingstock, a dysfunctional Congress, and a foreign-policy establishment lost in a neocon dream world. As a consequence, retreat is turning into a disorderly rout. ..."
"... The Frozen Republic: How the Constitution Is Paralyzing Democracy ..."
The bigger picture behind Official Washington's hysteria over Russia, Syria and North
Korea is the image of a decaying but dangerous American hegemon resisting the start of a new
multipolar order, explains Daniel Lazare.
By Daniel Lazare
September 9, 2017
The showdown with the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a seminal event that can only
end in one of two ways: a nuclear exchange or a reconfiguration of the international order.
While complacency is always unwarranted, the first seems increasingly unlikely. As no less a
global strategist than Steven Bannon observed about the possibility of a
pre-emptive U.S. strike: "There's no military solution. Forget it. Until somebody solves the
part of the equation that shows me that ten million people in Seoul don't die in the first 30
minutes from conventional weapons, I don't know what you're talking about. There's no military
solution here. They got us."
This doesn't mean that Donald Trump, Bannon's ex-boss, couldn't still do something rash.
After all, this is a man who prides himself on being unpredictable in business negotiations, as
historian William R. Polk, who worked for the Kennedy administration during the Cuban Missile
Crisis, points out . So maybe
Trump thinks it would be a swell idea to go a bit nuts on the DPRK.
But this is one of the good things about having a Deep State, the existence of which has
been proved beyond a shadow of a doubt since the intelligence community declared war on Trump
last November. While it prevents Trump from reaching a reasonable modus vivendi with
Russia, it also means that the President is continually surrounded by generals, spooks, and
other professionals who know the difference between real estate and nuclear war.
As ideologically fogbound as they may be, they can presumably be counted on to make sure
that Trump does not plunge the world into Armageddon (named, by the way, for a Bronze Age city about 20 miles southeast of
Haifa, Israel).
That leaves option number two: reconfiguration. The two people who know best about the
subject are Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping. Both have been
chafing for years under a new world order in which one nation gets to serve as judge, jury, and
high executioner. This, of course, is the United States.
If the U.S. says that Moscow's activities in the eastern Ukraine are illegitimate, then, as
the world's sole remaining "hyperpower," it will see to it that Russia suffers accordingly. If
China demands more of a say in Central Asia or the western Pacific, then right-thinking folks
the world over will shake their heads sadly and accuse it of undermining international
democracy, which is always synonymous with U.S. foreign policy.
There is no one – no institution – that Russia or China can appeal to in such
circumstances because the U.S. is also in charge of the appellate division. It is the
"indispensable nation" in the immortal words of Madeleine Albright, Secretary of State under
Bill Clinton, because "we stand tall and we see further than other countries into the future."
Given such amazing brilliance, how can any other country possibly object?
Challenging the Rule-Maker
But now that a small and beleaguered state on the Korean peninsula is outmaneuvering the
United States and forcing it to back off, the U.S. no longer seems so far-sighted. If North
Korea really has checkmated the U.S., as Bannon says, then other states will want to do the
same. The American hegemon will be revealed as an overweight 71-year-old man naked except for
his bouffant hairdo.
Not that the U.S. hasn't suffered setbacks before. To the contrary, it was forced to accept
the Castro regime following the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, and it suffered a massive defeat
in Vietnam in 1975. But this time is different. Where both East and West were expected to parry
and thrust during the Cold War, giving as good as they got, the U.S., as the global hegemon,
must now do everything in its power to preserve its aura of invincibility.
Since 1989, this has meant knocking over a string of "bad guys" who had the bad luck to get
in its way. First to go was Manuel Noriega, toppled six weeks after the fall of the Berlin Wall
in an invasion that cost the lives of as many as 500 Panamanian soldiers and
possibly thousands of civilians as well.
Next to go was Mullah Omar of Afghanistan, sent packing in October 2001, followed by
Slobodan Milosevic, hauled before an international tribunal in 2002; Saddam Hussein, executed
in 2006, and Muammar Gaddafi, killed by a mob in 2011. For a while, the world really did seem
like " Gunsmoke ," and the U.S. really did
seem like Sheriff Matt Dillon.
But then came a few bumps in the road. The Obama administration cheered on a
Nazi-spearheaded coup d'état in Kiev in early 2014 only to watch helplessly as Putin,
under intense popular pressure, responded by detaching Crimea, which historically had been part
of Russia and was home to the strategic Russian naval base at Sevastopol, and bringing it back
into Russia.
Backed by Russia, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad dealt Washington another blow by driving
U.S.-backed, pro-Al Qaeda forces out of East Aleppo in December 2016. Predictably, the
Huffington Post compared the Syrian offensive to the fascist
bombing of Guernica .
Fire and Fury
Finally, beginning in March, North Korea's Kim Jong Un entered into a game of one-upmanship
with Trump, firing ballistic missiles into the Sea of Japan,
test-firing an ICBM that might be capable
of hitting California , and then exploding a hydrogen warhead roughly
eight times as powerful as the atomic bomb that leveled Hiroshima in 1945. When Trump vowed
to respond "with fire, fury, and frankly power, the likes of which the world has never seen
before," Kim upped the ante by firing a missile over the northern Japanese island of
Hokkaido.
As bizarre as Kim's behavior can be at times, there is method to his madness. As Putin
explained during the BRICS summit with Brazil, India, China, and South Africa, the DPRK's
"supreme leader" has seen how America destroyed Libya and Iraq and has therefore concluded that
a nuclear delivery system is the only surefire guarantee against U.S. invasion.
"We all remember what happened with Iraq and Saddam Hussein," he
said . "His children were killed, I think his grandson was shot, the whole country was
destroyed and Saddam Hussein was hanged . We all know how this happened and people in North
Korea remember well what happened in Iraq . They will eat grass but will not stop their nuclear
program as long as they do not feel safe."
Since Kim's actions are ultimately defensive in nature, the logical solution would be for
the U.S. to pull back and enter into negotiations. But Trump, desperate to save face, quickly
ruled it out. "Talking is not the answer!" he tweeted . Yet the
result of such bluster is only to make America seem more helpless than ever.
Although The New York Times wrote
that U.S. pressure to cut off North Korean oil supplies has put China "in a tight spot," this
was nothing more than whistling past the graveyard. There is no reason to think that Xi is the
least bit uncomfortable. To the contrary, he is no doubt enjoying himself immensely as he
watches America paint itself into yet another corner.
The U.S. Corner
If Trump backs down at this point, the U.S. standing in the region will suffer while China's
will be correspondingly enhanced. On the other hand, if Trump does something rash, it will be a
golden opportunity for Beijing, Moscow, or both to step in as peacemakers. Japan and South
Korea will have no choice but to recognize that there are now three arbiters in the region
instead of just one while other countries – the Philippines, Indonesia, and maybe even
Australia and New Zealand – will have to follow suit.
Unipolarity will slink off to the sidelines while multilateralism takes center stage. Given
that U.S. share of global GDP has fallen
by better than 20 percent since 1989, a retreat is inevitable. America has tried to
compensate by making maximum use of its military and political advantages. That would be a
losing proposition even if it had the most brilliant leadership in the world. Yet it doesn't.
Instead, it has a President who is an international laughingstock, a dysfunctional Congress,
and a foreign-policy establishment lost in a neocon dream world. As a consequence, retreat is
turning into a disorderly rout.
Assuming a mushroom cloud doesn't go up over Los Angeles, the world is going to be a very
different place coming out of the Korean crisis than when it went in. Of course, if a mushroom
cloud does go up, it will be even more so.
* Daniel Lazare is the author of several books including The Frozen Republic: How the
Constitution Is Paralyzing Democracy (Harcourt Brace).
"... In response to this political pressure – at a time when Facebook is fending off possible anti-trust legislation – its chief
executive Mark Zuckerberg added that he is expanding the investigation to include "additional Russian groups and other former Soviet
states." ..."
"... But why stop there? If the concern is that American political campaigns are being influenced by foreign governments whose interests
may diverge from what's best for America, why not look at countries that have caused the United States far more harm recently than Russia?
..."
"... After all, Saudi Arabia and its Sunni Wahabbi leaders have been pulling the U.S. government into their sectarian wars with
the Shiites, including conflicts in Yemen and Syria that have contributed to anti-Americanism in the region, to the growth of Al Qaeda,
and to a disruptive flow of refugees into Europe. ..."
"... Although the military disaster in Iraq threw a wrench into those plans, the Israeli/neocon agenda never changed. Along with
Israel's new regional ally, Saudi Arabia , a proxy war was fashioned to remove Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. ..."
"... Israel's influence over U.S. politicians is so blatant that presidential contenders queue up every year to grovel before the
Israel Lobby's conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. In 2016, Donald Trump showed up and announced that he was
not there to "pander" and then pandered his pants off. ..."
"... And, if you want a historical review, throw in the British and German propaganda around the two world wars; include how the
South Vietnamese government collaborated with Richard Nixon in 1968 to sabotage President Lyndon Johnson's Paris peace talks; take a
serious look at the collusion between Ronald Reagan's campaign and Iran thwarting President Jimmy Carter's efforts to free 52 American
hostages in Tehran in 1980; open the books on Turkey's covert investments in U.S. politicians and policymakers; and examine how authoritarian
regimes of all stripes have funded important Washington think tanks and law firms. ..."
"... But the Russia-gate investigation is not about fairness and balance; it's a reckless scapegoating of a nuclear-armed country
to explain away – and possibly do away with – Donald Trump's presidency. Rather than putting everything in context and applying a sense
of proportion, Russia-gate is relying on wild exaggerations of factually dubious or relatively isolated incidents as an opportunistic
means to a political end. ..."
"... As reckless as President Trump has been, the supposedly wise men and wise women of Washington are at least his match. ..."
The core absurdity of the Russia-gate frenzy is its complete lack of proportionality. Indeed, the hysteria is reminiscent of Sen.
Joe McCarthy warning that "one communist in the faculty of one university is one communist too many" or Donald Trump's highlighting
a few "bad hombres" raping white American women.
It's not that there were no Americans who espoused communist views at universities and elsewhere or that there are no "bad hombre"
rapists; it's that these rare exceptions were used to generate a dangerous overreaction in service of a propagandistic agenda. Historically,
we have seen this technique used often when demagogues seize on an isolated event and exploit it emotionally to mislead populations
to war.
Today, we have The New York Times and The Washington Post repeatedly publishing front-page articles about allegations that some
Russians with "links" to the Kremlin bought $100,000 in Facebook ads to promote some issues deemed hurtful to Hillary Clinton's campaign
although some of the ads ran after the election.
Initially, Facebook could find no evidence of even that small effort but was pressured in May by Sen. Mark Warner, D-Virginia.
The Washington Post
reported that Warner, who is spearheading the Russia-gate investigation in the Senate Intelligence Committee, flew to Silicon
Valley and urged Facebook executives to take another look at possible ad buys.
Facebook responded to this congressional pressure by scouring its billions of monthly users and announced that it had located
470 suspect accounts associated with ads totaling $100,000 – out of Facebook's $27 billion in annual revenue.
Here is how the Times
described
those findings: "Facebook officials disclosed that they had shut down several hundred accounts that they believe were created by
a Russian company linked to the Kremlin and used to buy $100,000 in ads pushing divisive issues during and after the American election
campaign." (It sometimes appears that every Russian -- all 144 million of them -- is somehow "linked" to the Kremlin.)
Last week, congressional investigators urged Facebook to expand its review into "troll farms" supposedly based in Belarus, Macedonia
and Estonia – although Estonia is by no means a Russian ally; it joined NATO in 2004.
"Warner and his Democratic counterpart on the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Adam B. Schiff of California, have been increasingly
vocal in recent days about their frustrations with Facebook," the Post
reported
Facebook Complies
So, on Thursday, Facebook succumbed to demands that it turn over to Congress copies of the ads, a move that has only justified
more alarmist front-page stories about Russia! Russia! Russia!
In response to this political pressure – at a time when Facebook is fending off possible anti-trust legislation – its chief
executive Mark Zuckerberg added that he is expanding the investigation to include "additional Russian groups and other former Soviet
states."
So, it appears that not only are all Russians "linked" to the Kremlin, but all former Soviet states as well.
But why stop there? If the concern is that American political campaigns are being influenced by foreign governments whose
interests may diverge from what's best for America, why not look at countries that have caused the United States far more harm recently
than Russia?
After all, Saudi Arabia and its Sunni Wahabbi leaders have been
pulling the U.S. government
into their sectarian wars with the Shiites, including conflicts in Yemen and Syria that have contributed to anti-Americanism in the
region, to the growth of Al Qaeda, and to a disruptive flow of refugees into Europe.
And, let's not forget the 8,000-pound gorilla in the room: Israel. Does anyone think that whatever Russia may or may not have
done in trying to influence U.S. politics compares even in the slightest to what Israel does all the time?
Which government used its pressure and that of its American agents (i.e., the neocons) to push the United States into the disastrous
war in Iraq? It wasn't Russia, which was among the countries urging the U.S. not to invade; it was Israel and Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu.
Indeed, the plans for "regime change" in Iraq and Syria can be traced back to the work of key American neoconservatives employed
by Netanyahu's political campaign in 1996. At that time, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and other leading neocons unveiled a seminal
document entitled "
A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm ," which proposed casting aside negotiations with Arabs in favor of simply
replacing the region's anti-Israeli governments.
However, to make that happen required drawing in the powerful U.S. military, so after the 9/11 attacks, the neocons inside President
George W. Bush's administration set in motion a deception campaign to justify invading Iraq, a war which was to be followed by more
"regime changes" in Syria and Iran.
A Wrench in the Plans
Although the military disaster in Iraq threw a wrench into those plans, the Israeli/neocon agenda never changed. Along with
Israel's new regional ally,
Saudi Arabia , a proxy war was fashioned to remove Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
As Israel's Ambassador to the U.S. Michael Oren
explained , the goal was to shatter
the Shiite "strategic arc" running from Iran through Syria to Lebanon and Israel's Hezbollah enemies.
How smashing this Shiite "arc" was in the interests of the American people – or even within their consciousness – is never explained.
But it was what Israel wanted and thus it was what the U.S. government enlisted to do, even to the point of
letting sophisticated U.S. weaponry
fall into the hands of Syria's Al Qaeda affiliate.
Israel's influence
over U.S. politicians is so blatant that presidential contenders queue up every year to grovel before the Israel Lobby's conference
of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. In 2016, Donald Trump showed up and
announced that he was not there
to "pander" and then pandered his pants off.
And, whenever Prime Minister Netanyahu wants to show off his power, he is invited to address a joint session of the U.S. Congress
at which Republicans and
Democrats compete to see how many times and how quickly they can leap to their feet in standing ovations. (Netanyahu holds the
record for the number of times a foreign leader has addressed joint sessions with three such appearances, tied with Winston Churchill.)
Yet, Israeli influence is so engrained in the U.S. political process that even the mention of the existence of an "Israel Lobby"
brings accusations of anti-Semitism. "Israel Lobby" is a forbidden phrase in Washington.
However, pretty much whenever Israel targets a U.S. politician for defeat, that politician goes down, a muscle that Israel flexed
in the early 1980s in taking out
Rep. Paul Findley and Sen. Charles Percy , two moderate Republicans whose crime was to suggest talks with the Palestine Liberation
Organization.
So, if the concern is the purity of the American democratic process and the need to protect it from outside manipulation, let's
have at it. Why not a full-scale review of who is doing what and how? Does anyone think that Israel's influence over U.S. politics
is limited to a few hundred Facebook accounts and $100,000 in ads?
If such an effort were ever proposed, you would get a sense of how sensitive this topic is in Official Washington, where foreign
money and its influence are rampant. There would be accusations of anti-Semitism in connection with Israel and charges of conspiracy
theory even in well-documented cases of collaboration between U.S. politicians and foreign interests.
So, instead of a balanced and comprehensive assessment of this problem, the powers-that-be concentrate on the infinitesimal case
of Russian "meddling" as the excuse for Hillary Clinton's shocking defeat. But the key reasons for Clinton's dismal campaign had
virtually nothing to do with Russia, even if you believe all
the evidence-lite accusations
about Russian "meddling."
The Russians did not tell Clinton to vote for the disastrous Iraq War and
play endless footsy with the neocons
; the Russians didn't advise her to set up a private server to handle her State Department emails and potentially expose classified
information; the Russians didn't lure Clinton and the U.S. into
the Libyan fiasco nor
suggest her ghastly joke in response to Muammar Gaddafi's lynching ("We came, we saw, he died"); the Russians had nothing to do with
her greedy decision to accept millions of dollars in Wall Street speaking fees and then try to keep the speech contents secret from
the voters; the Russians didn't encourage her husband to become a serial philanderer and make a mockery of their marriage; nor did
the Russians suggest to Anthony Weiner, the husband of top Clinton aide Huma Abedin, that he send lewd photos to a teen-ager on a
laptop also used by his wife, a development that led FBI Director James Comey to reopen the Clinton-email investigation just 11 days
before the election; the Russians weren't responsible for Clinton's decision not to campaign in Wisconsin and Michigan; the Russians
didn't stop her from offering a coherent message about how she would help the struggling white working class; and on and on.
But the Russia-gate investigation is not about fairness and balance; it's a reckless scapegoating of a nuclear-armed country
to explain away – and possibly do away with – Donald Trump's presidency. Rather than putting everything in context and applying a
sense of proportion, Russia-gate is relying on wild exaggerations of factually dubious or relatively isolated incidents as an opportunistic
means to a political end.
As reckless as President Trump has been, the supposedly wise men and wise women of Washington are at least his match.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s.
You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in
print here or as an e-book
(from
Amazon and
barnesandnoble.com ).
"... In this paper we will discuss the advantages that the military elite accumulate from the war agenda and the reasons why ' the Generals' have been able to impose their definition of international realities. ..."
"... We will discuss the military's ascendancy over Trump's civilian regime as a result of the relentless degradation of his presidency by his political opposition. ..."
"... The massive US-led bombing and destruction of Libya, the overthrow of the Gadhafi government and the failure of the Obama-Clinton administration to impose a puppet regime, underlined the limitations of US air power and the ineffectiveness of US political-military intervention. The Presidency blundered in its foreign policy in North Africa and demonstrated its military ineptness. ..."
"... The invasion of Syria by US-funded mercenaries and terrorists committed the US to an unreliable ally in a losing war. This led to a reduction in the military budget and encouraged the Generals to view their direct control of overseas wars and foreign policy as the only guarantee of their positions. ..."
"... The Obama-Clinton engineered coup and power grab in the Ukraine brought a corrupt incompetent military junta to power in Kiev and provoked the secession of the Crimea (to Russia) and Eastern Ukraine (allied with Russia). The Generals were sidelined and found that they had tied themselves to Ukrainian kleptocrats while dangerously increasing political tensions with Russia. The Obama regime dictated economic sanctions against Moscow, designed to compensate for their ignominious military-political failures. ..."
"... The Obama-Clinton legacy facing Trump was built around a three-legged stool: an international order based on military aggression and confrontation with Russia; a ' pivot to Asia' defined as the military encirclement and economic isolation of China – via bellicose threats and economic sanctions against North Korea; and the use of the military as the praetorian guards of free trade agreements in Asia excluding China. ..."
"... After only 8 months in office President Trump helplessly gave into the firings, resignations and humiliation of each and every one of his civilian appointees, especially those who were committed to reverse Obama's 'international order'. ..."
"... Trump was elected to replace wars, sanctions and interventions with economic deals beneficial to the American working and middle class. This would include withdrawing the military from its long-term commitments to budget-busting 'nation-building' (occupation) in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya and other Obama-designated endless war zones. ..."
"... The Generals provide a veneer of legitimacy to the Trump regime (especially for the warmongering Obama Democrats and the mass media). However, handing presidential powers over to ' Mad Dog' Mattis and his cohort will come with a heavy price. ..."
"... While the military junta may protect Trump's foreign policy flank, it does not lessen the attacks on his domestic agenda. Moreover, Trump's proposed budget compromise with the Democrats has enraged his own Party's leaders. ..."
"... The military junta is pressuring China against North Korea with the goal of isolating the ruling regime in Pyongyang and increasing the US military encirclement of Beijing. Mad Dog has partially succeeded in turning China against North Korea while securing its advanced THADD anti-missile installations in South Korea, which will be directed against Beijing. ..."
"... Mad Dog's military build-up, especially in Afghanistan and in the Middle East, will not intimidate Iran nor add to any military successes. They entail high costs and low returns, as Obama realized after the better part of a decade of his defeats, fiascos and multi-billion dollar losses. ..."
"... The militarization of US foreign policy provides some important lessons: ..."
"... the escalation from threats to war does not succeed in disarming adversaries who possess the capacity to retaliate. ..."
"... Low intensity multi-lateral war maneuvers reinforce US-led alliances, but they also convince opponents to increase their military preparedness. Mid-level intense wars against non-nuclear adversaries can seize capital cities, as in Iraq, but the occupier faces long-term costly wars of attrition that can undermine military morale, provoke domestic unrest and heighten budget deficits. And they create millions of refugees. ..."
"... Threats and intimidation succeed only against conciliatory adversaries. Undiplomatic verbal thuggery can arouse the spirit of the bully and some of its allies, but it has little chance of convincing its adversaries to capitulate. The US policy of worldwide militarization over-extends the US armed forces and has not led to any permanent military gains. ..."
"... Are there any voices among clear-thinking US military leaders, those not bedazzled by their stars and idiotic admirers in the US media, who could push for more global accommodation and mutual respect among nations? The US Congress and the corrupt media are demonstrably incapable of evaluating past disasters, let alone forging an effective response to new global realities. ..."
"... American actions in Europe, Asia and the middle east appear increasingly irrational to many international observers. Their policy thrusts are excused as containment of evildoers or punishment of peoples who think and act differently. ..."
"... They will drive into a new detente such incompatible parties as Russia and Iran, or China and many countries. America risks losing its way in the world and free peoples see a flickering beacon that once shone brighter. ..."
"... How about this comic book tough guy quote: "I'm pleading with you with tears in my eyes: if you fuck with me, I'll kill you all" notice the first person used repetitively as he talks down to hapless unarmed tribesman in some distant land. A real egomaniacal narcissistic coward. Any of you with military experience would immediately recognize the type ... ..."
"... It seems that the inevitable has happened. Feckless civilians have used military adventures to advance their careers , ensure re- elections, capturr lucrative position as speaker, have a place as member of think tank or lobbying firm or consultant . Now being as stupidly greedy and impatient as these guys are, they have failed to see that neither the policies nor the militaries can succeed against enemies that are generated from the action and the policy itself ..."
Clearly the US has escalated the pivotal role of the military in the making of foreign and, by
extension, domestic policy. The rise of ' the Generals' to strategic positions in the Trump
regime is evident, deepening its role as a highly autonomous force determining US strategic policy
agendas.
In this paper we will discuss the advantages that the military elite accumulate from the war agenda
and the reasons why ' the Generals' have been able to impose their definition of international
realities.
We will discuss the military's ascendancy over Trump's civilian regime as a result of the relentless
degradation of his presidency by his political opposition.
The Prelude to Militarization: Obama's Multi-War Strategy and Its Aftermath
The central role of the military in deciding US foreign policy has its roots in the strategic
decisions taken during the Obama-Clinton Presidency. Several policies were decisive in the rise of
unprecedented military-political power.
The massive increase of US troops in Afghanistan and their subsequent failures and retreat weakened
the Obama-Clinton regime and increased animosity between the military and the Obama's Administration.
As a result of his failures, Obama downgraded the military and weakened Presidential authority.
The massive US-led bombing and destruction of Libya, the overthrow of the Gadhafi government
and the failure of the Obama-Clinton administration to impose a puppet regime, underlined the limitations
of US air power and the ineffectiveness of US political-military intervention. The Presidency blundered
in its foreign policy in North Africa and demonstrated its military ineptness.The invasion
of Syria by US-funded mercenaries and terrorists committed the US to an unreliable ally in a losing
war. This led to a reduction in the military budget and encouraged the Generals to view their direct
control of overseas wars and foreign policy as the only guarantee of their positions. The US
military intervention in Iraq was only a secondary contributing factor in the defeat of ISIS; the
major actors and beneficiaries were Iran and the allied Iraqi Shia militias. The Obama-Clinton
engineered coup and power grab in the Ukraine brought a corrupt incompetent military junta to power
in Kiev and provoked the secession of the Crimea (to Russia) and Eastern Ukraine (allied with Russia).
The Generals were sidelined and found that they had tied themselves to Ukrainian kleptocrats while
dangerously increasing political tensions with Russia. The Obama regime dictated economic sanctions
against Moscow, designed to compensate for their ignominious military-political failures.
The Obama-Clinton legacy facing Trump was built around a three-legged stool: an international
order based on military aggression and confrontation with Russia; a ' pivot to Asia' defined
as the military encirclement and economic isolation of China – via bellicose threats and economic
sanctions against North Korea; and the use of the military as the praetorian guards of free trade
agreements in Asia excluding China.
The Obama 'legacy' consists of an international order of globalized capital and multiple wars.
The continuity of Obama's 'glorious legacy' initially depended on the election of Hillary Clinton.
Donald Trump's presidential campaign, for its part, promised to dismantle or drastically revise
the Obama Doctrine of an international order based on multiple wars , neo-colonial 'nation' building
and free trade. A furious Obama 'informed' (threatened) the newly-elected President Trump that he
would face the combined hostility of the entire State apparatus, Wall Street and the mass media if
he proceeded to fulfill his election promises of economic nationalism and thus undermine the US-centered
global order.
Trump's bid to shift from Obama's sanctions and military confrontation to economic reconciliation
with Russia was countered by a hornet's nest of accusations about a Trump-Russian electoral conspiracy,
darkly hinting at treason and show trials against his close allies and even family members.
The concoction of a Trump-Russia plot was only the first step toward a total war on the new president,
but it succeeded in undermining Trump's economic nationalist agenda and his efforts to change Obama's
global order.
Trump Under Obama's International Order
After only 8 months in office President Trump helplessly gave into the firings, resignations
and humiliation of each and every one of his civilian appointees, especially those who were committed
to reverse Obama's 'international order'.
Trump was elected to replace wars, sanctions and interventions with economic deals beneficial
to the American working and middle class. This would include withdrawing the military from its long-term
commitments to budget-busting 'nation-building' (occupation) in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya and
other Obama-designated endless war zones.
Trump's military priorities were supposed to focus on strengthening domestic frontiers and overseas
markets. He started by demanding that NATO partners pay for their own military defense responsibilities.
Obama's globalists in both political parties were aghast that the US might lose it overwhelming control
of NATO; they united and moved immediately to strip Trump of his economic nationalist allies and
their programs.
Trump quickly capitulated and fell into line with Obama's international order, except for one
proviso – he would select the Cabinet to implement the old/new international order.
A hamstrung Trump chose a military cohort of Generals, led by General James Mattis (famously nicknamed
' Mad Dog' ) as Defense Secretary.
The Generals effectively took over the Presidency. Trump abdicated his responsibilities
as President.
General Mattis: The Militarization of America
General Mattis took up the Obama legacy of global militarization and added his own nuances, including
the 'psychological-warfare' embedded in Trump's emotional ejaculations on 'Twitter'.
The ' Mattis Doctrine' combined high-risk threats with aggressive provocations, bringing
the US (and the world) to the brink of nuclear war.
General Mattis has adopted the targets and fields of operations, defined by the previous Obama
administration as it has sought to re-enforce the existing imperialist international order.
The junta's policies relied on provocations and threats against Russia, with expanded economic
sanctions. Mattis threw more fuel on the US mass media's already hysterical anti-Russian bonfire.
The General promoted a strategy of low intensity diplomatic thuggery, including the unprecedented
seizure and invasion of Russian diplomatic offices and the short-notice expulsion of diplomats and
consular staff.
These military threats and acts of diplomatic intimidation signified that the Generals' Administration
under the Puppet President Trump was ready to sunder diplomatic relations with a major world nuclear
power and indeed push the world to direct nuclear confrontation.
What Mattis seeks in these mad fits of aggression is nothing less than capitulation on the part
of the Russian government regarding long held US military objectives – namely the partition of Syria
(which started under Obama), harsh starvation sanctions on North Korea (which began under Clinton)
and the disarmament of Iran (Tel Aviv's main goal) in preparation for its dismemberment.
The Mattis junta occupying the Trump White House heightened its threats against a North Korea,
which (in Vladimir Putin's words) ' would rather eat grass than disarm' . The US mass media-military
megaphones portrayed the North Korean victims of US sanctions and provocations as an 'existential'
threat to the US mainland.
Sanctions have intensified. The stationing of nuclear weapons on South Korea is being pushed.
Massive joint military exercises are planned and ongoing in the air, sea and land around North Korea.
Mattis twisted Chinese arms (mainly business comprador-linked bureaucrats) and secured their UN Security
Council vote on increased sanctions. Russia joined the Mattis-led anti-Pyongyang chorus, even as
Putin warned of sanctions ineffectiveness! (As if General ' Mad Dog' Mattis would ever take
Putin's advice seriously, especially after Russia voted for the sanctions!)
Mattis further militarized the Persian Gulf, following Obama's policy of partial sanctions and
bellicose provocation against Iran.
When he worked for Obama, Mattis increased US arms shipments to the US's Syrian terrorists and
Ukrainian puppets, ensuring the US would be able to scuttle any ' negotiated settlements'
.
Militarization: An Evaluation
Trump's resort to ' his Generals' is supposed to counter any attacks from members of his
own party and Congressional Democrats about his foreign policy. Trump's appointment of ' Mad Dog'
Mattis, a notorious Russophobe and warmonger, has somewhat pacified the opposition in Congress and
undercut any 'finding' of an election conspiracy between Trump and Moscow dug up by the Special Investigator
Robert Mueller. Trump's maintains a role as nominal President by adapting to what Obama warned him
was ' their international order' – now directed by an unelected military junta composed of
Obama holdovers!
The Generals provide a veneer of legitimacy to the Trump regime (especially for the warmongering
Obama Democrats and the mass media). However, handing presidential powers over to ' Mad Dog'
Mattis and his cohort will come with a heavy price.
While the military junta may protect Trump's foreign policy flank, it does not lessen the
attacks on his domestic agenda. Moreover, Trump's proposed budget compromise with the Democrats has
enraged his own Party's leaders.
In sum, under a weakened President Trump, the militarization of the White House benefits the military
junta and enlarges their power. The ' Mad Dog' Mattis program has had mixed results, at least
in its initial phase: The junta's threats to launch a pre-emptive (possibly nuclear) war against
North Korea have strengthened Pyongyang's commitment to develop and refine its long and medium range
ballistic missile capability and nuclear weapons. Brinksmanship failed to intimidate North Korea.
Mattis cannot impose the Clinton-Bush-Obama doctrine of disarming countries (like Libya and Iraq)
of their advanced defensive weapons systems as a prelude to a US 'regime change' invasion.
Any US attack against North Korea will lead to massive retaliatory strikes costing tens of thousands
of US military lives and will kill and maim millions of civilians in South Korea and Japan.
At most, ' Mad Dog' managed to intimidate Chinese and Russian officials (and their export
business billionaire buddies) to agree to more economic sanctions against North Korea. Mattis and
his allies in the UN and White House, the loony Nikki Hailey and a miniaturized President Trump,
may bellow war – yet they cannot apply the so-called 'military option' without threatening the US
military forces stationed throughout the Asia Pacific region.
The Mad Dog Mattis assault on the Russian embassy did not materially weaken Russia, but
it has revealed the uselessness of Moscow's conciliatory diplomacy toward their so-called 'partners'
in the Trump regime.
The end-result might lead to a formal break in diplomatic ties, which would increase the danger
of a military confrontation and a global nuclear holocaust.
The military junta is pressuring China against North Korea with the goal of isolating the
ruling regime in Pyongyang and increasing the US military encirclement of Beijing. Mad Dog has partially
succeeded in turning China against North Korea while securing its advanced THADD anti-missile installations
in South Korea, which will be directed against Beijing. These are Mattis' short-term gains over
the excessively pliant Chinese bureaucrats. However, if Mad Dog intensifies direct military threats
against China, Beijing can retaliate by dumping tens of billions of US Treasury notes, cutting trade
ties, sowing chaos in the US economy and setting Wall Street against the Pentagon.
Mad Dog's military build-up, especially in Afghanistan and in the Middle East, will not intimidate
Iran nor add to any military successes. They entail high costs and low returns, as Obama realized
after the better part of a decade of his defeats, fiascos and multi-billion dollar losses.
Conclusion
The militarization of US foreign policy, the establishment of a military junta within the Trump
Administration, and the resort to nuclear brinksmanship has not changed the global balance of power.
Domestically Trump's nominal Presidency relies on militarists, like General Mattis. Mattis has
tightened the US control over NATO allies, and even rounded up stray European outliers, like Sweden,
to join in a military crusade against Russia. Mattis has played on the media's passion for bellicose
headlines and its adulation of Four Star Generals.
But for all that – North Korea remains undaunted because it can retaliate. Russia has thousands
of nuclear weapons and remains a counterweight to a US-dominated globe. China owns the US Treasury
and its unimpressed, despite the presence of an increasingly collision-prone US Navy swarming throughout
the South China Sea.
Mad Dog laps up the media attention, with well dressed, scrupulously manicured journalists
hanging on his every bloodthirsty pronouncement. War contractors flock to him, like flies to carrion.
The Four Star General 'Mad Dog' Mattis has attained Presidential status without winning any
election victory (fake or otherwise). No doubt when he steps down, Mattis will be the most eagerly
courted board member or senior consultant for giant military contractors in US history, receiving
lucrative fees for half hour 'pep-talks' and ensuring the fat perks of nepotism for his family's
next three generations. Mad Dog may even run for office, as Senator or even President for
whatever Party.
The militarization of US foreign policy provides some important lessons:
First of all, the escalation from threats to war does not succeed in disarming adversaries
who possess the capacity to retaliate. Intimidation via sanctions can succeed in imposing significant
economic pain on oil export-dependent regimes, but not on hardened, self-sufficient or highly diversified
economies.
Low intensity multi-lateral war maneuvers reinforce US-led alliances, but they also convince
opponents to increase their military preparedness. Mid-level intense wars against non-nuclear adversaries
can seize capital cities, as in Iraq, but the occupier faces long-term costly wars of attrition that
can undermine military morale, provoke domestic unrest and heighten budget deficits. And they create
millions of refugees.
High intensity military brinksmanship carries major risk of massive losses in lives, allies, territory
and piles of radiated ashes – a pyrrhic victory!
In sum:
Threats and intimidation succeed only against conciliatory adversaries. Undiplomatic verbal
thuggery can arouse the spirit of the bully and some of its allies, but it has little chance of convincing
its adversaries to capitulate. The US policy of worldwide militarization over-extends the US armed
forces and has not led to any permanent military gains.
Are there any voices among clear-thinking US military leaders, those not bedazzled by their
stars and idiotic admirers in the US media, who could push for more global accommodation and mutual
respect among nations? The US Congress and the corrupt media are demonstrably incapable of evaluating
past disasters, let alone forging an effective response to new global realities.
American actions in Europe, Asia and the middle east appear increasingly irrational to
many international observers. Their policy thrusts are excused as containment of evildoers or
punishment of peoples who think and act differently. Those policy thrusts will accomplish
the opposite of the stated intention.
They will drive into a new detente such incompatible parties as Russia and Iran, or China
and many countries. America risks losing its way in the world and free peoples see a flickering
beacon that once shone brighter.
Anyone with military experience recognizes the likes of Mad Poodle Mattis arrogant, belligerent,
exceptionally dull, and mainly an inveterate suck-up (mil motto: kiss up and kick down).
Every VFW lounge is filled with these boozy ridiculous blowhards and they are insufferable.
The media and public, raised on ZioVision and JooieWood pablum, worship these cartoonish bloodletters
even though they haven't won a war in 72 years .not one.
How about this comic book tough guy quote: "I'm pleading with you with tears in my eyes:
if you fuck with me, I'll kill you all" notice the first person used repetitively as he talks
down to hapless unarmed tribesman in some distant land. A real egomaniacal narcissistic coward.
Any of you with military experience would immediately recognize the type ...
It seems that the inevitable has happened. Feckless civilians have used military adventures
to advance their careers , ensure re- elections, capturr lucrative position as speaker, have a
place as member of think tank or lobbying firm or consultant . Now being as stupidly greedy and
impatient as these guys are, they have failed to see that neither the policies nor the militaries
can succeed against enemies that are generated from the action and the policy itself .
Now military has decided to reverse the roles . At least the military leaders don't have to
campaign for re employment . But very soon the forces that corrupt and abuse the civilian power
structure will do same to military .
Never met him at any of the parties I attended in the '70s and '80s, so I don't know much about
Mad Dog, but I can say that only in America can the former commander of a recruiting station grow
up to pull the strings of the President.
The problem with neocon chickenhawks is that they all want money from MIC. So their jingoism is
a king of prostitution...
Notable quotes:
"... "Saving Realism" is the handiwork of Hal Brands and Peter Feaver, well-connected scholars employed by elite institutions. Brands teaches at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies and, according to his bio, has "consulted with a range of government offices and agencies in the intelligence and national security communities." Feaver teaches at Duke University. During the George W. Bush administration, he served on the staff of the National Security Council. They are classic policy intellectuals, one foot planted in academe, the other in the corridors of power. ..."
"... Especially since the end of the Cold War, reality itself is impinging on the prerogatives to which members of the American foreign-policy establishment have grown accustomed and to the arrangements that sustain those prerogatives. It therefore becomes incumbent upon scholars who serve that establishment to deflect such threats. They do so by contriving a "reality" conducive to affirming existing prerogatives and arrangements. ..."
"... The only past that matters is the Cold War, carefully curated as a narrative of American triumphalism. Anything that happened before the Cold War qualifies as irrelevant. Cold War episodes that turned out to be less than triumphal!Vietnam, for example!receive the barest acknowledgment. As for misfortunes that may have befallen the United States since the Cold War ended almost three decades ago, Brands and Feaver shrug them off as insignificant. Sure, "the invasion and occupation of Iraq did prove far costlier than expected." But so what? Stuff happens! ..."
"... Stripped to its essentials, their argument reduces to a brazen tautology: Approaches to policy that worked during the Cold War will work today because they worked during the Cold War. Of course, the argument presumes that the world in which we live today is more or less comparable to the world that existed back in the Forties and Fifties. As to how the supple, nuanced doctrine advanced by realists during that Golden Age yielded such dubious propositions as bipolarity, the domino theory, and the bogus enterprise known as nuclear strategy, Brands and Feaver are conveniently silent. ..."
In the September issue of Commentary, a magazine of distinguished lineage, there appears
an essay bearing the title
"Saving Realism from the So-Called Realists." Once upon a time, essays published by Commentary
, penned by such eminences as Jeane Kirkpatrick, Hans Morgenthau, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, and Robert
C. Tucker, shaped the debate over U.S. foreign policy. Those days have long since passed. If "Saving
Realism" serves any purpose, it is to expose the intellectual exhaustion of the foreign-policy establishment.
Those who fancy themselves the source of policy-relevant ideas have given up on actually thinking.
"Saving Realism" is the handiwork of Hal Brands and Peter Feaver, well-connected scholars
employed by elite institutions. Brands teaches at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International
Studies and, according to his bio, has "consulted with a range of government offices and agencies
in the intelligence and national security communities." Feaver teaches at Duke University. During
the George W. Bush administration, he served on the staff of the National Security Council. They
are classic policy intellectuals, one foot planted in academe, the other in the corridors of power.
The chief purpose their essay is to mount a frontal assault on a group of individuals they deride
as "academic realists." Of course, when not occupying positions on the fringes of power, Brands and
Feaver are themselves academics. Here, however, their use of the term drips with ridicule and condescension.
"Academic" becomes a synonym for naďve or wooly-headed or simply irresponsible.
To their credit, Brands and Feaver do not balk at naming names, fingering Stephen Walt, John Mearsheimer,
Barry Posen, and Christopher Layne, prominent political scientists, as dangerous proponents of academic
realism.
Take the claims made by Brands and Feaver at face value and this Gang of Four poses a direct threat
not only to U.S. national security but to the very possibility to creating a decent global order.
"Today's academic realists essentially argue," they write, "that the United States should dismantle
the global architecture that has undergirded the international order" ever since World War II. Academic
realists seek "the deliberate destruction of arrangements that have fostered international stability
and prosperity for decades." They are intent on tearing down "the pillars of a peaceful and prosperous
world." They are, in short, a wrecking crew.
Brands and Feaver do not explain what motivates Walt et al., to undertake this nefarious plot,
merely hinting that personal pique is probably a factor. "Having lost policy arguments that they
thought they should have won," on issues such as NATO expansion and invading Iraq, "academic realists
decided to throw the baby out with the bathwater." They are, in effect, soreheads.
For this reason alone, their critique of U.S. policy, suggesting that since the end of the Cold
War the United States has squandered a uniquely advantageous position, is without merit. So too with
their complaint that in recent decades the United States has misused its military power. What academic
realists are actually proposing, Brands and Feaver charge, is to "stake everything on a leap into
the unknown." Their calls for greater restraint amount to little more than a pose. In reality, they
advocate unvarnished recklessness.
Worse still, Brands and Feaver see worrisome signs that the Gang of Four is making headway. In
Donald Trump's White House academic realism "seems to be finding a sympathetic hearing." Indeed,
they write, "One of the least academic presidents in American history may, ironically, be buying
into some of the most misguided doctrines of the ivory tower."
This is pretty wild stuff. Let me acknowledge that I know each member of this Gang of Four and
hold them in high regard. That said, whether individually or collectively, they wield about as much
clout in present-day Washington as Karl Marx.
Indeed, the reader will search "Saving Realism" in vain for evidence actually linking the Gang
of Four to President Trump. To my knowledge none of the four are Trump supporters. I am unaware of
any of them having endorsed the policies of the Trump administration. As for Trump himself, my bet
is that he could care less about anything Walt, Mearsheimer, Posen, and Layne have to say. If our
president has absorbed the Gang of Four's policy perspective, he must be doing it by osmosis.
In short, the case presented by Brands and Feaver comes precariously close to being a McCarthyite
smear!guilt by association without even establishing that any association actually exists.
To which the average American citizen, tested by the trials of everyday life, might well respond:
Who cares? An intramural tiff among privileged members of the professoriate might merit a panel at
the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association. But should it qualify as a matter
of general interest?
In one specific sense, perhaps it ought to. While it may not be their intended purpose, by mounting
their overheated attack on "academic realism," Brands and Feaver succeed in demonstrating why genuine
realism rarely receives a serious hearing inside the Beltway. The answer is simply this: Especially
since the end of the Cold War, reality itself is impinging on the prerogatives to which members of
the American foreign-policy establishment have grown accustomed and to the arrangements that sustain
those prerogatives. It therefore becomes incumbent upon scholars who serve that establishment to
deflect such threats. They do so by contriving a "reality" conducive to affirming existing prerogatives
and arrangements.
Brands and Feaver do their very best to conjure up such a "reality." Having established to their
own satisfaction that Trump and the Gang of Four are somehow colluding with each other, they offer
their own prescription for a "reformed realism" to be built on "seven bedrock insights."
The seven insights share this common quality: They are unflaggingly banal. Yet the last of the
seven manages to be both banal and immensely instructive: Realism, Brands and Feaver write, "requires
not throwing away what has worked in the past."
Here we come to the heart of the matter. What exactly is the "the past" that remains relevant
to the present and that provides the basis for their version of authentic (as opposed to academic)
realism?
On this point, Brands and Feaver, are admirably candid. The only past that matters is the
Cold War, carefully curated as a narrative of American triumphalism. Anything that happened before
the Cold War qualifies as irrelevant. Cold War episodes that turned out to be less than triumphal!Vietnam,
for example!receive the barest acknowledgment. As for misfortunes that may have befallen the United
States since the Cold War ended almost three decades ago, Brands and Feaver shrug them off as insignificant.
Sure, "the invasion and occupation of Iraq did prove far costlier than expected." But so what? Stuff
happens!
Rather than get hung up on Iraq or Afghanistan or the ongoing debacle of U.S. interventionism
in the Islamic world, Brands and Feaver keep their focus on the early Cold War, which they depict
as a veritable Golden Age of realism and by extension of American statecraft. Peppering their account
are favorable references to "Cold War-era realism" and "Cold War realists." After World War II, "realist
thinkers understood that America was uniquely capable of stabilizing the international order and
containing Soviet power." Back then, serious realists!in contrast to today's academic types!were
the very inverse of wooly-headed. "Cold War realists were willing to see the world as it was," according
to Brands and Feaver. "During the Cold War, then, realism was a supple, nuanced doctrine."
Stripped to its essentials, their argument reduces to a brazen tautology: Approaches to policy
that worked during the Cold War will work today because they worked during the Cold War. Of course,
the argument presumes that the world in which we live today is more or less comparable to the world
that existed back in the Forties and Fifties. As to how the supple, nuanced doctrine advanced by
realists during that Golden Age yielded such dubious propositions as bipolarity, the domino theory,
and the bogus enterprise known as nuclear strategy, Brands and Feaver are conveniently silent.
"Contemporary academic realists," Brands and Feaver charge, "sit atop a pyramid of faulty assumptions."
They themselves require no such pyramid. Their version of realism rests on just a single assumption:
That history is a menu from which Americans can pick and choose. To escape from currently bothersome
predicaments, in no small part the product of our folly, Brands and Feaver would have the United
States choose from that menu only those bits that we find congenial. The rest we can simply ignore.
Come to think of it, that's an approach that might find favor with Donald Trump himself.
Andrew J. Bacevich is The American Conservative 's writer-at-large.
This article will be used by some lobbyist working for Northrop Grumman during his next
meeting with a bunch of congressmen. "I told you, those evil russkies are back at it again,
we are getting outclassed and thus we need more money. $700 billion is not enough".
The congressmen will cry about the electronic warfare gap, the new increased defense budget
will be adopted, multi-billion contracts will be singed, the congressmen will get their fat
kickbacks and everyone will be happy. Only in America
Only in America is money or technology the solution to the problems. I am sorry to to say
that ain't going to cut. It all boils down to strategy and tactics that's where the US has
its greatest deficit.
If we don't free the commoner of social brainwashing, yes, russia will win. They are
really good at that game and that game creates a society like current russia.
So the ruskies didn't do this?
Or do you expect us to lay over and let them pillage our bottom ends?
Do you want to live in russia? Is the American oligarchy just too class mobile for you and
you want the russian version with even worse social structures?
Almost every article I read distresses about how America's military is inferior to Russia,
China and even Iran. We are threatened that our aircraft carriers will soon be sunken nuclear
waste sites, our submarines are inferior, aircraft vulnerable, our tactics outdated, our
civilian leaders corrupt, military leaders incompetent, and sailors, soldiers, airman, and
Marines poorly trained and equiped thugs. Let's save a bunch of money and tell the rest of
the world we are no longer their protector. Bring our men and women home from these
hell-holes and use the money to rebuild our own infrastructure, health and education systems,
and take care of America's citizens.
Still, the Russian are still silently sucking it up after the Israel Air Forces sneaked up
under the S400 radar to bomb Syrian chemical bomb assembly plant in early September 2017.
The Russians took a very different approach to electronic warfare.
In the US, it was pursued as a method to enable air strike packages to get in and hit a
target. Hence, it focused on installations in aircraft.
In Russia, it was pursued as an element of land warfare, part air defense, and part to
enable armored forces to operate. Much of it was put in trailers on the ground, near army HQ
and signals units.
The different locations and roles produced different abilities. They got different things
because they sought different things.
Now the US wants it all. What it got, and what the Russians got. Understandable, but the
Russians are not so much "ahead" as just doing different things.
We are outclassed in EW by the Russians and our AAMs and ASMs and ATACS missiles are also
inferior.
Who in the US military will be courageous enough to take responsibility?
The Russians have been watching, studying and learning about the US military (putting all
their eggs in one basket - technology) for quite awhile. EW is simply a "Method" or strategy
to counter US tech. Blunder after blunder... within the US military to always first seek
advance technology for the solution. They can't seem to grasp that it's all about philosophy
of use and implementation. Strategy and tactics have always won on the battlefield and always
will
It's "yet another surge"... With probably the same results. Military contractors
will became richer. Some US solders will be dead of maimed. A lot of afghans will be killed.
Notable quotes:
"... From now on, our security interests will dictate the length and scope of military operation, not arbitrary benchmarks and timetables set up by politicians. I have also totally changed the rules of engagement in our fight against the Taliban and other terrorist groups. ..."
"... In fact, the US has not had anything remotely resembling a strategy in Afghanistan for years already. If it wasn't so sad, it would be laughable, really. What he really see here is the total absence of any strategy and, again, a total reliance on magical thinking. ..."
"... The amazing reality is that they don't have a goal even defined. How one achieves "victory" when no goal is even defined is anybody's guess. ..."
"... I would say that the only chance to get anything done, any viable result at all, is to negotiate a deal with all the parties that matter: the various Afghan factions, of course, but also with the Taliban, Pakistan, Iran and even Russia. ..."
"... Pakistan and Iran have a de-facto veto power over any outcome for Afghanistan. This may not be what the US would want, but this is the reality. Denying reality is just not a smart approach to these issues, especially if "victory" is the goal ..."
Last month I announced a new strategy for victory in the fight against this evil in
Afghanistan. From now on, our security interests will dictate the length and scope of military
operation, not arbitrary benchmarks and timetables set up by politicians. I have also totally
changed the rules of engagement in our fight against the Taliban and other terrorist
groups.
What we see here is undeniable evidence that far from being "real warriors" or "strategists"
the military gang around Trump (Mattis, McMaster, Kelly, etc.) are either primitive grunts or
folks who owe their rank to political protection. Why do I say that?
Because none of what Trump
describes as a "strategy for victory" is, in fact, a strategy. In fact, the US has not had
anything remotely resembling a strategy in Afghanistan for years already. If it wasn't so sad, it
would be laughable, really. What he really see here is the total absence of any strategy and,
again, a total reliance on magical thinking.
Ask yourself a basic question: have you ever heard from any Trump administration or any US
General anything which would suggest to you that these guys have i) a clear goal in mind ii) an
understanding of what it would take to achieve this goal and iii) a timeframe to achieve this
goal and iv) an exit strategy once this goal is achieved? No? Well, that is not your fault, you
did not miss anything. They really don't have it.
The amazing reality is that they don't have a goal even defined. How one achieves
"victory" when no goal is even defined is anybody's guess.
[Sidebar: without going into a lengthy discussion of Afghanistan, I would say that the only
chance to get anything done, any viable result at all, is to negotiate a deal with all the
parties that matter: the various Afghan factions, of course, but also with the Taliban, Pakistan,
Iran and even Russia.
Pakistan and Iran have a de-facto veto power over any outcome for
Afghanistan. This may not be what the US would want, but this is the reality. Denying reality is
just not a smart approach to these issues, especially if "victory" is the goal]
Sovereignty is oppose of neoliberal globalization, so in a way this is an some kind of
affirmation of Trump election position. How serious it is is not clear. Probably not much as
Imperial faction now controls Trump, making him more of a marionette that a political leader of
the USA.
Notable quotes:
"... Trump labeled the Syrian government "the criminal regime of Bashar al Assad." The "problem in Venezuela", he said, is "that socialism has been faithfully implemented." He called Iran "an economically depleted rogue state whose chief exports are violent, bloodshed and chaos." He forgot to mention pistachios . The aim of such language and threats is usually to goad the other party into some overt act that can than be used as justification for "retaliation". But none of the countries Trump mentioned is prone to such behavior. They will react calmly - if at all. ..."
"... The stressing of sovereignty and the nation state in part one was the point where Trump indeed differed from his interventionist predecessors. But its still difficult to judge if that it is something he genuinely believes in. ..."
"... There is no emphasis on sovereignty b. Trump says that Russia's and China' threat to the sovereignty of countries is bad but the sovereignty of small countries the US does not like is somehow threatened by these countries themselves. Which I interpret as a threat - "you endanger yourself if you don't do as told". ..."
"... "The stressing of sovereignty and the nation state in part one was the point where Trump indeed differed from his interventionist predecessors. But its still difficult to judge if that it is something he genuinely believes in" ..."
"... The word sovereignty has taken on different and sinister implications with the UN Responsibility to Protect Act in 2005. The US pushed for this and it squeaked by and they used it to justify the invasion of Libya in 2011. I think Libya was a major turning point. I don't think Russia and Iran are going to back off easily. (I originally posted this in 2015 at another site) The US also seems to have pretty much lost what humanitarian clout they may have had. ..."
"... He talks about the period from 1989 when we had the Panama invasion and collapse of the Soviet Union as leading to an unleashing of US military power leading to the Iraq War in 2003. This war serious dented the image of the US as being a humanitarian actor and the US pushed for the UN Responsibility to Protect Act in 2005 which was used to justify the Libya invasion. ..."
"... Prashad sees the results of that invasion and what is going on now in Syria as reflecting that the period 2011-2015 is seeing the end of this US unipolarism that lasted from 1989 to 2011. ..."
"... How can Trump believe in defending Westphalia Treaty principles, sovereignty and the nation state, when US policy in the Arab world consists in destroying all these? This is rather like Warren Buffett lamenting that American billionaires are so rich, and pay less taxes than their secretaries. They are just laughing at us in our faces. ..."
"... Sound more or less like Hussein Obomo address at the United Nations General Assembly in New York on Sept. 24, 2013 - America is exceptional ? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HT5BjNDg5W0 No wonder Putin and Xi did not care to attend. Anyway Putin winning in Syria and Xi gaining in economic, science and technology ..."
"... I agree with other commenters about the Orwellian nature of the speech. Sovereignty is an interesting word to abuse and I expect we will see more abuse of it. How can the US ever be a sovereign nation when it does not own its own financial system? But in the interim all other aspects of sovereignty will be examined but not global private finance.....unless the China/Russia axis hand is forced into the open. ..."
"... Trump - the Republican Obama ..."
"... "The sanction game is over. It's only the dying empire of the Federal Reserve, ECB, Wall Street, City of London and their military strong arm operating in the Pentagon that have yet to accept this new reality. ..."
"... The days of bullying nations and simply bombing them into submission is over as well. Russia and China have made it very clear this is no longer acceptable and Russia has all but shut down the operations in Syria. The "ISIS" boogeyman is surrounded and fleeing into Asia and recently showed up in the Philippines. The fact that a group of desert dwellers acquired an ocean going vessel should be enough evidence to even the most brain-dead these desert dwellers are supported by outside forces – like the CIA Otherwise, from where did the ship(s) materialize?" ..."
"... it seems to me with Trump an era of so-called globalization has come to its end. ..."
"... Of course countries subjected to senseless US sanctions, like Russia, are concerned with sovereignty. They are ..."
"... baseless economic attacks by the country that controls world banking. ..."
"... In conclusion, what I take away from this speech is a sense of relief for the rest of the planet and a sense of real worry for the USA. Ever since the Neocons overthrew Trump and made him what is colloquially referred to as their "bitch" the US foreign policy has come to a virtual standstill. ..."
Today the President of the United States Donald Trump
spoke (rush transcript) to the United Nations General Assembly. The speech's main the me was sovereignty. The word occurs 18(!) times. It emphasized
Westphalian
principles .
[W]e do expect all nations to uphold these two core sovereign duties, to respect the
interests of their own people and the rights of every other sovereign nation
All leaders of countries should always put their countries first, he said, and "the nation
state remains the best vehicle for elevating the human condition ."
The Ratification of the Treaty of Münster, 15 May 1648 - bigger
Sovereignty was the core message of his speech. It rhymed well with his somewhat
isolationist emphasis of "America first" during his campaign. The second part of the speech the first by threatened the sovereignty of several countries
the U.S. ruling class traditionally dislikes. This year's "axis of evil"
included North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, Syria and Cuba:
The United States has great strength and patience, but if it is forced to defend itself or
its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea. Rocket man is on a
suicide mission for himself and for his regime. The United States is ready, willing and able,
but hopefully this will not be necessary."
Many people will criticize that as an outrageous and irresponsible use of words. It is. But there is nothing new to it. In fact the U.S., acting on behalf of the UN, totally
destroyed Korea in the 1950s. The last U.S. president
made the same threat Trump made today:
President Barack Obama delivered a stern warning to North Korea on Tuesday, reminding its
"erratic" and "irresponsible" leader that America's nuclear arsenal could "destroy" his
country.
The South Korean military sounds equally belligerent :
A military source told the Yonhap news agency every part of Pyongyang "will be completely
destroyed by ballistic missiles and high-explosives shells". ... The city, the source said,
"will be reduced to ashes and removed from the map".
Trump labeled the Syrian government "the criminal regime of Bashar al Assad." The "problem
in Venezuela", he said, is "that socialism has been faithfully implemented." He called Iran "an
economically depleted rogue state whose chief exports are violent, bloodshed and chaos." He
forgot to mention
pistachios . The aim of such language and threats is usually to goad the other party into some overt act
that can than be used as justification for "retaliation". But none of the countries Trump
mentioned is prone to such behavior. They will react calmly - if at all. There was essentially nothing in Trump's threats than the claptrap the last two U.S.
presidents also delivered. Trump
may be crazy, but the speech today is not a sign of that.
The stressing of sovereignty and the nation state in part one was the point where Trump
indeed differed from his interventionist predecessors. But its still difficult to judge if that it is something he genuinely believes in.
Posted by b on September 19, 2017 at 01:05 PM | Permalink
There is no emphasis on sovereignty b. Trump says that Russia's and China' threat to the
sovereignty of countries is bad but the sovereignty of small countries the US does not like
is somehow threatened by these countries themselves. Which I interpret as a threat - "you
endanger yourself if you don't do as told".
If we desire to lift up our citizens, if we aspire to the approval of history, then we must
fulfill our sovereign duties to the people we faithfully represent. We must protect our
nations, their interests and their futures. We must reject threats to sovereignty from the
Ukraine to the South China Sea. We must uphold respect for law, respect for borders, and
respect for culture, and the peaceful engagement these allow.
And just as the founders of this body intended, we must work together and confront
together those who threatens us with chaos, turmoil, and terror. The score of our planet
today is small regimes that violate every principle that the United Nations is based. They
respect neither their own citizens nor the sovereign rights of their countries. If the
righteous many do not confront the wicked few, then evil will triumph. When decent people
and nations become bystanders to history, the forces of destruction only gather power and
strength.
@2 somebody - yes, unaimed hostile prose from the speechwriter. Such is in the speech of
every U.S. president. But it is not the general theme of the Trump speech when one reads it
as one piece. The weight is put in the other direction (though the media will likely point to
the threats instead of reading the more extraordinary parts where Trump pushes national
sovereignty.)
"The stressing of sovereignty and the nation state in part one was the point where Trump
indeed differed from his interventionist predecessors. But its still difficult to judge if
that it is something he genuinely believes in"
It appears that his generals are instructing him what to "believe in". At least, he
certainly doesn't seem to "believe in" most of his campaign promises, not unlike his recent
predecessors. The whole "democracy and freedom" thing in the US is just a charade, as far as
I am concerned.
The word sovereignty has taken on different and sinister implications with the UN
Responsibility to Protect Act in 2005.
The US pushed for this and it squeaked by and they used it to justify the invasion of
Libya in 2011. I think Libya was a major turning point. I don't think Russia and Iran are going to back
off easily. (I originally posted this in 2015 at another site) The US also seems to have pretty much lost what humanitarian clout they may have had.
I think this was a very good interview of Vijay Prashadby
by Chris Hedges
He talks about the period from 1989 when we had the Panama invasion and collapse of
the Soviet Union as leading to an unleashing of US military power leading to the Iraq War
in 2003. This war serious dented the image of the US as being a humanitarian actor and the
US pushed for the UN Responsibility to Protect Act in 2005 which was used to justify the
Libya invasion.
Prashad sees the results of that invasion and what is going on now in Syria as reflecting
that the period 2011-2015 is seeing the end of this US unipolarism that lasted from 1989 to
2011.
--------
The good news is that Syria is turning out much different than Libya. Would be great to see the US cooperate with the China/Russia etc economic goals rather
than stirring up trouble in the Phillippines, Myanmar etc. The first test will be to see if Trump can deliver single payer health care to the US. :)
ie start to back off on the anti socialism rhetoric
The "nation state" brought us the millions slaughtered in World War 1. The nation states
threatened by the internationalist communist ideology of the USSR (in its early days)
ultimately brought us World War 2. The hypertrophied nation state that is the United States
of America will bring us World War 3 in its drive to secure its total supremacy. Luckily for
us, there will be no World War 4.
How can a country A be "forced to defend itself" by a country B so weak comparatively to
country A it can actually be "totally destroyed" by country A?
How can Trump believe in defending Westphalia Treaty principles, sovereignty and the
nation state, when US policy in the Arab world consists in destroying all these? This is
rather like Warren Buffett lamenting that American billionaires are so rich, and pay less
taxes than their secretaries. They are just laughing at us in our faces.
Sound more or less like Hussein Obomo address at the United Nations General Assembly in New
York on Sept. 24, 2013 - America is exceptional ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HT5BjNDg5W0 No wonder Putin and Xi did not care to attend. Anyway Putin winning in Syria and Xi
gaining in economic, science and technology
The United Nations is based upon the equal sovereignty of nations.
--from the UN Charter --
Article 2
The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act
in accordance with the following Principles.
1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its
Members.
2. All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from
membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with
the present Charter.
3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner
that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of
force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any
other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations
Trump's speech seemed to represent an ignorant mouthy bully with a big stick who is
threatening any nation he is told to hate. I have to agree with Paveway IV that Trump is just
the announcer. The "national sovereignty" comments were just for internal consumption for his
base of supporters.
To a major extent Trump's focus on the "great leader" of countries opposed to the US helps
simplify the hate for the "little people" in the US. They have not noticed that the US (as in
most other Western countries) has many mini "great leaders" who work toward the same goals
while distracting the "little people" with political theatre.
I really don't know what the purpose of this rambling threat to the rest of the world was
supposed to accomplish.
Yes, it really was nothing new. The fundamental material of the speech was the very same
garbage written by the same Washington establishment of previous administrations -
essentially the nuclear armed US regime is 'special' and reserves the right to attack and
destroy any country it chooses to.
While the Trump speech is rightly being both ridiculed around the world, what is very
scary is the humiliated Trump base is seizing on it.
The Trump base is begging for their failed 'God Emperor' to attack someone to feel better
about their own humiliation.
Sovereignty is also an excuse for US intervention, get it? . . .Trump does....
America stands with every person living under a brutal regime. Our respect for sovereignty
is also a call for action. All people deserve a government that cares for their safety,
their interests, and their well-being, including their prosperity.
His speechwriters deserve to be fired and the text size on both teleprompters should have
been increased. Alternatively, he should wear glasses (along with a more suitably fitted
toupee). Sarah Palin would seem like Einstein at the side of this clown.
Trump's speech is Orwellian!
Not just generally-- it is arguably an elaboration of a close paraphase of an Orwell
quote, to wit: "All nations are sovereign, but some nations are more sovereign than others."
I have a strongly ambivalent reaction to Trump's UN appearance-- although I confess that I
can only stand to watch and listen to him for brief time periods. It's appalling and embarrassing to watch any of the US's seemingly inexhaustible supply of
lizard-brained degenerates at the UN. But part of me thinks it's better to have the quintessential Ugly Amerikan beating his
chest and engaging in rhetorical feces-flinging. At least the rest of the world won't be bamboozled, the way they might be by a smooth,
silver-tongued liar.
This is on the heels of Trump's threatening to exclude China from use of SWIFT (the USD)
and China's gold yuan oil futures contract coming mid October as opposed to USD. The
petro-yuan is a game changer; hitting the petro-dollar hegemony that keeps the dollar in
worldwide demand.
The toothless dog has only his bark. Are Americans prepared for hyper-inflation?
I agree with other commenters about the Orwellian nature of the speech. Sovereignty is an interesting word to abuse and I expect we will see more abuse of it. How can the US ever be a sovereign nation when it does not own its own financial
system? But in the interim all other aspects of sovereignty will be examined but not global
private finance.....unless the China/Russia axis hand is forced into the open.
The abuse of the term sovereignty by Trump is part of a crafted Big Lie message. Just like
Trump linking to the poster of him, with a rope over his shoulder, dragging a barge of
companies back to America......the internationalism genie will never go completely back into
the bottle and is counterproductive to all.
John Bolton and the moron, Sean Hannity, love the speech. That should be all anyone needs to
know. It was Orwellian, super-villain, double-speak.
If the righteous many do not confront the wicked few, then evil will triumph.
Madman. How has Iran violated the U.N. charter? They were invited into Iraq and Syria by the UN
recognized govts. Okay, they make veiled threats against Israel, they get a demerit for that. Even if you
argue that they are 'predicting' rather can 'threatening to cause' Israel's demise, I'd take
that as a veiled threat. But Israel makes equally hostile comments towards Iran albeit, in a
passive / aggressive manner. Netanyahu, 'We recognize Iran's right to exist but truth be told
the planet, no wait, the entire universe itself would be better off if they disappeared'.
Well, it has finally arrived at the U.N. speech. Trump is showing his real colors, whether
they are forced or were originally his own. It doesn't matter. He is spouting the same
nonsenze as the neocons and the rest of them. He has crossed over - he maybe never knew the
way through, but was only parroting other's views. He is clearly a chameleon, willing to
change his stripes on a dime. The man is darkly lost in the woods, or is it the swamp?
While there have been hints that the Rohingya "rebels" are receiving funds from
expatriates in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, is there anything concrete that connects the CIA to
the rebels?
Frankly Trump is a big mouth, but there's no evidence that he's more than that. If he wanted
war, we'd already be there. It's different from Saddam in the old days, who went to war
within a year of becoming leader, or the Saudi crown prince, Muhammad bin Salman, who
launched the war against Yemen.
59 Tomahawks, that's the style. I haven't seen different from then.
The advantage of having Trump around is that he seems to diffuse energy. He is not building a
case against N. Korea like Bush did with Iraq, but instead he is big on bluster. There is no
appeal to the emotions of people and their fears and as such he is not marketing it,
something he knows a lot about. In his own way I believe he is defusing the situation by
talking big but remebering Bannon's comments when he left. And as a consummate player at the
table of power (unlike the novice Obama) he has his status.
What interests me is Tillerson and the State Department and its attitude to Israel. Syria
is where Israel met its match and was soundly thrashed. The world will never be the same
again, And the State Department is recognizing this reality. I think there is a recognition
in certain powerful quarters that whole neocon-Zionist shit has got America nowhere. As
Talking Heads said, "We're on the road to nowhere."
The speech (it reminds me on movie The Kings Speech https://youtu.be/PPLIw64rLJc TERRIBLE MOVIE) is for
internal the US purpose, for Amerikkaans. Majority of them, according to the Gov. media
outlets, support military action against DPRK and mostly likely against Iran (the most hatred
nation by far) as well. Amerikkaans will support any crime anywhere and probably destruction
of whole planet Earth.
In the same time his words and deeds are the most irrelevant of any US presidents. I bet
he never heard of that word "sovereignty" before nor for "nation state". This morning when
Trump woke up some member of National Security Council put sheet of paper with the speech on
his desk and tell him "Read this!". Just as they did to Obama in many occasions, one of
example is this: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2016/may/04/obama-drinks-flint-water-video
There some people in the US who knows what is going on:
For all the very considerable expense, however, the American military does not have a very
impressive record of achieving victory. It has won no wars since 1945!especially if victory
is defined as achieving an objective at acceptable cost!except against enemy forces that
essentially didn't exist.
@7 financial matters.. good comment and relevant.. i agree with you.. unipolar no more..
however, not quite multipolar yet either... we are still in a transitional place.. syria is
no libya fortunately.. but causing this kind of shit around the globe is what the usa is
known for.. they will continue to make war projects, especially if you believe as b notes a
couple of threads ago - trump is no longer calling the shots.. it is military guys full on..
I rather liked the film "The King's Speech because it was about speech. Your English is
fucking awful Chancey, not good enough for this forum. Get some lessons and come back.
"The sanction game is over. It's only the dying empire of the Federal Reserve, ECB, Wall
Street, City of London and their military strong arm operating in the Pentagon that have yet
to accept this new reality.
The days of bullying nations and simply bombing them into submission is over as well.
Russia and China have made it very clear this is no longer acceptable and Russia has all but
shut down the operations in Syria. The "ISIS" boogeyman is surrounded and fleeing into Asia
and recently showed up in the Philippines. The fact that a group of desert dwellers acquired
an ocean going vessel should be enough evidence to even the most brain-dead these desert
dwellers are supported by outside forces – like the CIA Otherwise, from where did the
ship(s) materialize?"
For a Nazi.
A question, do you believe in science? Here is one. But does one need to be scientist to
figure this out?"The Rise of Incivility and Bullying in America"
Violating the sovereign sanctity of nations is what the Outlaw US Empire has done without
parallel since the United Nation's formation. One of those nations was Vietnam, and a
somewhat respected documentary film maker looks like he's going to try--again--to pull wool
over the eyes of his intended audience by trying to legitimate the Big Lie that provided the
rationale for the Outlaw US Empire's illegal war against Vietnam. The detailed argument
regarding Ken Burns's effort to "correct" the actual historical record can be read here,
https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/09/19/getting-the-gulf-of-tonkin-wrong-are-ken-burns-and-lynn-novick-telling-stories-about-the-central-events-used-to-legitimize-the-us-attack-against-vietnam/
and it is probably the sort of history Trump would enjoy since he doesn't seem to know any
better.
How many nick/names do you have? You may hide under this and that stupid but your
associations are still here. You stay stupid. I know, I know the truth hurts. You Amerikkaans are not used to it. Go and watch a porn,
before de-dollarization is in full swing. Than you are going to stave to death, no more
credit cards and quantitative easing. That's is Trump's speech for.
Posted by: financial matters | Sep 19, 2017 2:22:58 PM | 7
Nice interview from a couple of years back. Prashad's worldview is worthy of reposting.
Enjoyable. Cheers.
US Americans might have proved themselves very adept at destroying both nation states and
the English language, though it will be Syria who restores true meaning to the word
'sovereign' - with some collective help of course.
The almost failed state will emerge from this steeled with a sense of identity, pride and
purpose. The minnow that refused to buckle.
The Don putting together some performances that finally warrant the unified, rabid
reaction from the press....
"But its still difficult to judge if that it is something he genuinely believes in."
Are you serious? Everything coming out of DC is still the same - sanctions against other
sovereign countries who do not tow the line the US demands, cruise missiles for the little
guys, disavowing and de-legitimizing the JCPOA, unrelenting 'freedom of navigation' patrols,
threats to cut nations off from the SWIFT system, every word out of Nikki Haleys' mouth...
It's really easy to go on and on, and his first year isn't even done.
The amount of disrespect for other sovereign nations by the USA is mind boggling, and that
is only the official stuff. Throw in CIA ops and NGO ops and there you have an entire other
level of the failure to recognize sovereignty.
Can you send me some of what you are smoking? Because it obviously makes you oblivious to
the obvious, and that may help my mood...
Obviously, the UN has became an arena of the one country show and that country puppets.
Zionist PM, the West most "faithful ally" on Middle East, and his speech. Mix of infantilism,
rhetoric and implicit racism of "God Chosen People". And sea of self-congratulating lies.
Great comment re: Vietnam. The Ken Burns documentary is just one more fairy tale of the
U.S. involvement/war in Vietnam.
Among the many myths, foremost is that Ho Chi Minh was a communist; he most assuredly was
not. Yes, he was a member of the party in France, but it is irrelevent to history (Ho was a
nationalist).
Did you know he tried to engage FDR?
Below is a remarkable interview with John Pilger on the real history of the U.S. and Vietnam;
it ain't pretty. Even Mao tried to engage the U.S., which the U.S. duly ignored.
Why is everyone hating on Trump? Be realistic: sometimes you have to genocide 25 million
people to save them. We're the God damn hero here - you bastards should be thanking
the USA.
Well, I guess we're really not trying to save the North Koreans at all. But they refuse to
leave the buffer zone (all of North Korea) that is protecting the world from red Chinese
expansion south. Worse than that, the North Koreans insist on protecting themselves BY FORCE
from the US. How evil is that?
Reminds me of those evil Syrians and Iraqis who refuse to vacate the buffer zone
protecting Israel from Iran. The nerve!
Only US lapdog nations have the right to defend themselves - as long as its with US-made
weapons and they're protecting themselves from anybody except the US. And we get to
build US bases on their soil. Who wouldn't want that? Because the US is... what did Trump
say... RIGHTEOUS. You know:
Tell me which one of those synonyms DOES NOT apply to the US? I prefer 'angelic'.
The first thing psychopaths do when they attain any measure of power and control is to
redefine evil as anything that threatens their power and control. Then constantly
hammer that threat into the minds of the little people so the little people don't think too
hard about stringing them up from the lamp posts.
Everything the US has done in my lifetime has been about preserving and protecting the
US government no matter how corrupt, evil or immoral it acts. Protecting the people is
only given lip service when it can be used to justify further protections for the state.
Creation of the Department of Homeland Security Stazi is probably the end stage for
full-spectrum dominance over the little people - it is slowly morphing (as planned) into a
federal armed force to protect the US government FROM the little people. I guess the
FBI wasn't up to the task.
"The government you elect is the government you deserve" Thomas Jefferson, Founding
Terrorist.
Do you agree that to point of National Interest article seem to be that the US is not
capable of invading and controlling non-European countries?
I did find the Cato Institute author to be very poorly informed about the US invasions of
Granada and Panama, the Balkan wars, the Kosovo invasion and the Syrian war.
As for ISIS, the author does not know anything about the incubation of ISIS by the US
administrations and the Libyan war (Hillary/Obama/Sarkozy) connection . He also does not
discuss the billions in military hardware that the US allowed ISIS to capture in Iraq.
As for the US efforts they are more about preventing the formation of an integrated
economic sphere between Iran, Iraq, Syria and Lebanese Republic. The war efforts by the US in
fighting ISIS are minimal compared to the Syrian and Russian efforts, yet he lies by omission
to pump up the US efforts. At least he didn't attempt to praise Turkey (sic) for their
efforts in cutting off aid to ISIS and Al Qaeda (under all its names).
Remember that the Cato Institute is another flavor of the NGO spider supporting the deep
state!
Please understand that this is not a personal attack as I am here to learn and share.
Canada's Trudeau will follow Trump at the UN on Thursday. Today he received an award from the
Atlantic Council: 'Worldwide the long established international order is being tested..' And
obviously the sexy northern selfie-king knows his place in it... https://youtube.com/watch?v=Kp49TFRMR8g
@ 49
Yes, to save the 25 million North Koreans the US must destroy them!
"No one has shown more contempt for other nations and for the wellbeing of their own people
than the depraved regime in North Korea. It is responsible for the starvation deaths of
millions of North Koreans, and for the imprisonment, torture, killing, and oppression of
countless more."
. ..but there are limits. . .
"The United States has great strength and patience, but if it is forced to defend itself or
its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea."
So give me that "no more contempt" line again, Donald?
(Personally, I can't imagine Hillary doing any less. So much for elections.)
"Why is everyone hating on Trump?"
Preposterous. You give him too much importance. He is rather the object of ridicule.
"The word occurs 18(!) times."
While the word Sovereignty
Sovereignty is actually main subject of the Russian president Putin and he never miss
opportunity to emphasize that. He put it so forcefully in this speech. https://youtu.be/Yumaa4pkxMU
Maybe by accident maybe not just conspicuous coincidence. But it seems to me with Trump an
era of so-called globalization has come to its end. With self-inflicted wounds ($20T Gov.
debt) and new president who is (initially) inward looking, it is time to talk about old
stuff. As if the US statehood has been in question for a moment. Old trick of capitalist
class.
Targeting Iran was never about nuclear weapons (the U.S. let Pakistan expand its nuclear
weapons program without interfering, despite knowing all about the AQ Khan network, because
Pakistan was cooperating with the U.S. agenda in Afghanistan and elsewhere), it was about the
Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline (during the GW Bush era) and the expansion of economic ties with
Syria (during the Obama era).
Now, with the easing of sanctions, Iran's pipeline deals have been revived, such as
Iran-Pakistan,
or Iran-India (undersea) , Iran-Europe, with China and Russia and Turkey as potential
partners. Meanwhile, the proposed TAPI pipeline backed by the Clinton, Bush & Obama State
Departments, as well as Chevron and Exxon, from Turkmenistan to the Indian Ocean, is still
held up due to instability in Afghanistan (i.e. the Taliban would immediately blow it up).
Obama's 30,000 troop surge to 100,000 couldn't solve that, and the recent Trump troop surge
(much smaller) will have little effect on that either. TAPI pipe dreams
continue, Sep 17 2017
There's no way Trump or Tillerson would ever be honest about this in an international
forum, any more than Obama and Clinton would, or Bush and Condi Rice, but it's the same old
"great game" for Central Asian oil and gas that's dominated U.S. regional foreign policy
since the end of the Cold War.
@ 54/55 Of course countries subjected to senseless US sanctions, like Russia, are concerned with
sovereignty. They are subject to baseless economic attacks by the country that controls world banking.
It is foolish to consider the trumpet's lunatic ravings in isolation, according to that organ
of empire
foreign policy dot com , the amerikan airforce is ready and rearing to go and blast the
bejeezuz outta North Korea.
Sure it may be bluster when they come out with seeming tosh like:
""We're ready to fight tonight," Gen. Robin Rand, commander of the Air Force's Global
Strike Command, told reporters at an Air Force conference in Washington on Monday. "We
don't have to spin up, we're ready.""
Because everyone knows that a manned tactical airforce is on the way out, that bombing a
population has only ever served to strengthen resolve within that population, but the first
point that the airforce of jocks n fighters is verging on obsolescence, might just drive the
generals of middle management, concerned that their career is about to hit a brick wall, to
go for one last roll of the dice. Blow some shit up, create a few heroes and maybe the
inevitable can be staved off for long enough for their scum to rise to the surface, jag a
great gig with a contractor, then retire in luxury. I mean to say it's gotta be worth a shot
right? The alternative of layoffs and all the sexy fighting stuff being done by unsexy
drones, is just too awful to consider.
So what if Guam gets wasted, a good memorial at Arlington will balance that shit and when
it is all said and done, most of the people who will get nuked by DPRK aren't amerikans - but
here's the best bit, we can sell them to the idjits just like they were, while we build the
anger and bloodlust, then backpedal on that when it comes down to lawsuits, compensation or
whatever it is those whale-fuckers whine about - right?
A pre-emptive attack based on the possibility that DPRK hasn't yet developed nuke tech
sufficiently, but will do so "if we continue to sit on our asses" would be an easy sell to an
orange derp whose access to alternative points of view has been cut off.
The only real question is whether the rest of the military (the non-airforce parts) go for
it.
The navy likely will because they are in the same boat (pun intended) as the airforce when it
comes down to usefulness as a front line conflict agent and they too will
likely get a role to play in the destruction of North Korea - at the very least as a weapons
platform (just like with the mindless Syria aggression) and may even get to be the forward
C&C base since South Korea isn't mobile and may cop a fair amount of DPRK reaction.
Only the army for whom a pre emptive attack on the people of North Korea has little
upside, but lots of downside, may oppose this insane butchery. The army will be tasked with
neutralising a population whose innate loathing of all things amerikan has just been raised
by about ten notches. So soon after the Iraq debacle, they may see an attack as all negative
in that once again they will cop the blame and even worse the old enemies - the airforce and
navy - will come out smelling like roses. It is true that the bulk of the yellow monkey's
'advisors' are army types, so under normal circumstances they would obstruct any such
bullshit grabs for the brass ring by the navy & airforce upstarts - but there is a high
probability that the army leadership will do no such thing.
The reason for that is as old as humanity itself and I was sad to see that it copped little
mention in the last thread about the 'soft' coup at the whitehouse.
Many people were cheering the takeover by the military doubtless the same people who
imagine that "amerika could be great again - if only we go back to the way it was in the
1950's and 60's". What they miss is that everything is fluid; nothing is held in stasis as a
proof that perfection has been reached. The 'eisenhower/johnson years were merely steps on
the path, the world was never gonna stay in white bourgeois contentment no matter whether
unwhites kicked up or not. There are diverse reasons for that from ambitious careerism
forcing change so a lucky few can ascend one more rung on the ladder, to the reality that it
is impossible for all humans to be content all the time -some groups will be disadvantaged,
advertise that then be 'adopted' by careerists as an excuse for forcing change. That is
inevitable - as inevitable as the reality that once the military gained power, their next
move would be to consolidate it and to try ensure that they kept it for ever.
In other words the initial coup may have been largely bloodless (altho several million
dead mid easterners would strongly disagree if they could) but any study of human behavior
reveals that it is the need to hold on to power which is what really incites oppression
violence and mass murder.
The Pennsylvania Avenue generals understand that the simplest way of retaining control is
gonna be if the orange 'whipped* gains re-election. If the orange chunder is gonna win the
next one he needs to hit some home runs and have a lot less ties or outright defeats.
At this stage it doesn't matter what turkey kicked up the Korea bizzo, or even it it has
any moral dimension at all, what matters is that the trumpet has made it a major issue and if
he doesn't 'prevail' in the short-term, the odds of him retaining support much less gaining
more support, are gone - very likely for the duration of the tangerine prezdency. It's not as
if the ME situation offers the slightest chink of light at the end of the tunnel. Syria is
history now and that Iran thing has a good chance of dividing europe from amerika, just as
climate change has. I reckon that the junta who, individually & institutionally have a
big investment in Nato, will be looking to steer the orange nit away from inciting a
confrontation over the nuke deal. Korea could be the alternate shiny thing the junta draws
trumpet's attention to in order to distract the dingbat.
So even though it is a total cleft stick that the junta is in, I reckon it is extremely
probable that the army branch of the amerikan government will allow the airforce and possibly
the navy as well, their moment in the sun.
The way this fuckwittery is shaping up, people of Korea are more likely to be enduring
Predators up their jacksies than not, before the end of "the
summer of '18'
*anyone who doesn't see that the trumpet displays all the signs (boasting of alleged
performance, number of 'conquests' size of penis etc) of a man who is unable to have his
voice heard above the demands of the women around him, doesn't comprehend the nature of
inter-gender relationships (doncha love 'inter-gender' it sounds exactly like the type of
pallid word the identity-ists would use heheh).
The main problem I have with your post is China. You do not say anything about China.
The Chinese made it clear that if the U.S. pre-emptively attacks the DPRK; China will get
involved; and I should think Russia will be somehow involved as well.
Moon Jae-In has told the U.S. it (SK) will be the one to decide on an attack, as it
should.
But, I do get your drift; I just hope the U.S. will not act...for once.
That said; I do think the U.S. lost its tether decades ago...
There's one little factor about getting it on with DPRK, besides the ones mentioned, and that
is that SecDef Gates several years ago declared that Korea was safe enough to allow it to be
an accompanied tour, i.e. soldiers could have their families join them in the Land of the
Morning Calm. This coincided with the consolidation of US bases, with a ten billion dollar
expansion of Camp Humphreys about seventy miles south of the DMZ. So now we have high-rise
apartments with wives, kids, pets, etc. in this "safe" place, now 35,000 strong including
all. They practice evacuation. From a recent report --
The noncombatant evacuation operations, or NEO, are aimed at making sure everybody knows
their roles in the event of a noncombatant evacuation, which may be ordered in the event of
war, political or civil unrest, or a natural or man-made disaster. "I liken the NEO operation
to being a scaffolding. It's not a fully fleshed out plan because it's preparing for a
million different worst-case scenarios," 1st Lt. Katelyn Radack, a spokeswoman for the 2nd
Combat Aviation Brigade, told Stars and Stripes. ... Brandy Madrigal, 32, was participating
in her third NEO -- so she knew exactly what to pack when she got the call to report to the
Assembly Point at the main gym at Camp Humphreys on June 5. She ticked off the list -- clothes, food for the kids, documents, phone, toiletries
-- before driving with her two
children from their first-floor apartment to the base to be processed.
Imagine that -- all those people assembling in one place for "processing." They'd get
processed, all right. So the US Army won't be red-hot for the mighty US Air Force to (again)
conduct its aerial murder in North Korea, with their loved ones being in rocket range of a
counter-attack. That's in addition to any feelings people have for the ten million plus South
Koreans in Seoul, close to the border.
re: Ken Burns Viet Nam -- one only has to look at the sponsors. Burns will cleave to the
line only more so. Darling of the aristocratic charities. Somehow reaching the glory 50 years
later. Now that Agent Orange has nearly completed the harvest.
Action against Iran and NK, could it really be termed "war", anymore?
I deliberately left China outta the equation because the conflict with DPRK will be
engineered to be kicked off with a provocation allegedly committed by DRPK, amerika will
'respond' andthe war will quickly escalate. Yes PRC may become involved, but getting into a
war with amerika right now is not great for the PRC either, if the most vital concern is the
proximity of amerikan troops to the China border, amerika can give an agreement signed in
blood that amerikan military will pull back behind the 38th parallel once the 'regime has
been changed' and that only Korean men and equipment will remain.
Of course China would be smart to distrust that but sold correctly with incentives and maybe
even the use of some mutually trusted referee, China might decide that is a superior option
to kicking off ww3.
As for the enlisted mens families somehow I doubt that the military cares any more about them
than it does the men and women they have in their forces - so not very much - smart officer
class types will be considering the need to 'further their children's education back home'
right now, whether or not the trump decides to go for broke. As I pointed out before, the
plan will require that DRPK feels trapped into committing some type of really egregious
provocation, or false flagging such a provocation.
Imagine Guam got nuked and all initial evidence pointed to DRPK, China is in a tough spot
plus most amerikans will be of the opinion that protecting the families in South Korean
barracks comes second to vengeance. That would be an easy sell on fox and msnbc.
Amerika seemingly being attacked is also gonna end msnbc & the rest's potshots at the
orange derp, just as 911 halted just about all reference to the view shrub stole the election
from Gore in the MSM.
What scares me the most about the US regime's threats to attack and destroy North Korea is
I had naively assumed that all the talk was just the standard game theory back and forth.
There never was any real threat beyond the occasional minor incident like there have been in
the past few decades.
And I didn't understand why China would so openly and absolutely support North Korea with
any sort of attack by the US regime.
But then I read some of the neocon online postings or writings about North Korea and it
was a sickening shock to realize that I had been so foolish to believe the Korean crisis was
not about Korea, but China.
Getting the US regime's military directly on the Chinese border is something the
neocons are perfectly willing, and most likely gleefully happy, to trade millions to tens of
millions of North and South Korean lives for.
I can't imagine the revulsion and horror the rest of the world must be feeling towards the
United States right now.
The German philosopher and sociologist Ferdinand Tönnies (1855 – 1936)
distinguished between two types of social groupings. Gemeinschaft (often translated as
community or left untranslated) and Gesellschaft (often translated as society). Gemeinschaft
and Gesellschaft describe the crucial distinction between community and "Civil Society";
community being characterized by a dispensationalist consensus or a sacred communal consensus
on a dispensation sent down from on high, and the latter being characterized as a consensus
to "agree to disagree" and to agree that a consensus in any meaningful form can no longer be
reached, paving the way to a "conventional" polity (agreed to by secular-humanist
convention). This "agreement to disagree" which crystalized between the Peace of Augsburg
(1555) and the Peace of Westphalia (1644 – 1648) was, in effect, the West's long and
excruciating decision to throw out the baby of Community with the bathwater of the Church's
malfeasance in the revolutionary fervor of the Reformation and the "Enlightenment" that
followed in its wake. But whereas the integrality of church and state was lost with the Peace
of Westphalia circa 1648 whereat pre-Westphalian communities gave way to the Westphalian
order of "Civil Societies", the Islamic Revolution of 1979 restored community to the Moslem
nation of Iran.
I posted this comment over in the latest Syria summary thread but then thought that it
belongs here as an example of the craven duplicity of empire about Syria sovereignty.
The following is a link and article quote from China news that says Russia is accusing the
US of chickenshit (my term) tactics in Syria
"He said the advancing Syrian government troops supported by the Russian Air Force managed to
break the fierce resistance and liberate more than 60 square km of territory on the left bank of the Euphrates River in the last 24
hours.
But their advance was hampered by a sudden rise of the water level in the Euphrates and a
two-fold increase of the speed of its current after the government troops started crossing the river, Konashenkov said.
In the absence of precipitation, the only source of such changes in the water level could be
a man-made discharge of water at the dams north of the Euphrates, which are held by the opposition formations controlled by the
international coalition led by the United States, he said. "
What's worries me the most in Trumps speech, sounds actually ominously, is the phrases
"dead Poles, fighting [???!!!] French, strong[!] English" ... Is this what's planned
for the near future? I'm not liking it a bit.
Situation in the US is getting worse, seems that this Fall big changes are coming, and no
lies can hide the truth: LIES, LIES & OMG
MORE LIES Who is the enemy? Some names can be found here (and in a recent Eric Zuesse piece):
The Borg, the AngloZio pedo-satanic cabal of the City of London Crown Corporation, the web
of merchants of death and corporate oligarchy have been doing whatever possible to help her
stay relevant and expand information war, blame Russia:
Nice summary but I disagree with the dedollarization part. To me, ending the US dollar as
reserve Currency is just a part of the issue. If that occurs American paper money becomes
worthless as the article states. While this bankrupts the US, what will it do to the global
world of private finance, BIS, SWIFT, IMF, etc.? Does private finance, private property and
inheritance all get dealt with in this adjustment? How long will the adjustment period
take?
What is clear though now is that there are two factions that are moving in "opposite"
directions and the implications will lock up global commerce at some point....fairly soon
(weeks/months)......and hopefully adults from all sides will work things out peacefully.
these 16 years of bin laden wars constitute the most concerted assault on sovereignty
since time out of mind. conspicuously in the cradle of civilization...cultural harmonies
undermined and religious sects set at each others throats, tribes ripped from their roots,
their facilities and systems desecrated, their families ravaged by rack and ruin and
displacement, an alien scourge unleashed on their landscape.
but as someone upstream suggested, the window on these destructive incursions might be
closing, what with Russia and China being unconquerable and all.
of course there are other dark forces gnawing at sovereignty , possibly even more
stealthily treacherous ones...
On the one hand, Trump defended sovereignty as a universal ideal. On the other, he demanded
that America's enemies stop mistreating their people. The result was gobbledygook.
...
to make his incoherence even more explicit, Trump declared that "our respect for
sovereignty is also a call for action. All people deserve a government that cares for their
safety, their interests and their well-being." That's like saying that my respect for your
right to do whatever you want in your garden should be a call to action for you to stop
growing weed.
...
For Trump, by contrast, sovereignty means both that no one can tell the United States what
to do inside its borders and that the United States can do exactly that to the countries it
doesn't like. That's not the liberal internationalism that Obama espoused. Nor is it the
realism of some of Obama's most trenchant critics. It is imperialism. General Pershing, in
the Philippines, would have approved.
In conclusion, what I take away from this speech is a sense of relief for the rest of the
planet and a sense of real worry for the USA. Ever since the Neocons overthrew Trump and
made him what is colloquially referred to as their "bitch" the US foreign policy has come
to a virtual standstill. Sure, the Americans talk a lot, but at least they are doing
nothing. That paralysis, which is a direct consequence of the internal infighting, is a
blessing for the rest of the planet because it allows everybody else to get things done.
Pressure will be intense on U S business in east coast China to refrain from converting their
'yuan' profits into gold .
What a contradictory set of pressures much
"... "We will be spending almost $700 billion on our military and defense. Our military will soon be the strongest it has ever been" ..."
"... while the US military is extremely good at killing people in large numbers, it is also extremely bad at winning wars ..."
"... Trump is under the illusion that spending a lot of money "buys" you a better military. This is completely false ..."
"... If spending money was the key to a competent military force, the US armed forces would have already conquered the entire planet many times over. In reality, they have not won anything meaningful since the war in the Pacific. ..."
"... just like all this predecessors, Trump conflates handing out money to the Military Industrial Complex with preparing for war. ..."
"... Frankly, this is good news: let the Americans spend themselves into bankruptcy, let them further neglect their military and let them continue to believe that this kind of magical thinking will bring them to victory. ..."
"... Sidebar: for the record, I have met and studied with plenty of excellent, well-educated, honorable, courageous and patriotic American officers and the kind of money-centered hubris I describe above is in no way directed at them, if only because they know even much better than I how bad the situation really is. There are plenty of highly-educated officers in the US armed forces who understand history and who know that money bring corruption, not victory. But they are mostly kept at ranks no higher than Colonel and you will often find them in military teaching institutions and academies. ..."
You can read the full (rush,not official) text
here or watch the video here .
Most of it is so vapid that I won't even bother posting the full thing. But there are a few
interesting moments including those:
"We will be spending almost $700 billion on our military and defense. Our military will
soon be the strongest it has ever been"
This short sentence contains the key to unlock the reason behind the fact that while the US
military is extremely good at killing people in large numbers, it is also extremely bad at
winning wars. Like most Americans, Trump is under the illusion that spending a lot of money
"buys" you a better military. This is completely false, of course. If spending money was the
key to a competent military force, the US armed forces would have already conquered the entire
planet many times over. In reality, they have not won anything meaningful since the war in the
Pacific.
Having surrounded himself with "Mad Dog" kind of "experts" on warfare, Trump is now reusing
that old mantra about how money buys you victory and this is something extremely important.
This kind of magical thinking signals to the countries most threatened by the US that the
Americans are unable to engage in a basic "lessons learned" kind of exercise, that history
teaches them nothing and that, just like all this predecessors, Trump conflates handing out
money to the Military Industrial Complex with preparing for war.
Frankly, this is good news: let the Americans spend themselves into bankruptcy, let them
further neglect their military and let them continue to believe that this kind of magical
thinking will bring them to victory.
[ Sidebar: for the record, I have met and studied with plenty of excellent,
well-educated, honorable, courageous and patriotic American officers and the kind of
money-centered hubris I describe above is in no way directed at them, if only because they know
even much better than I how bad the situation really is. There are plenty of highly-educated
officers in the US armed forces who understand history and who know that money bring
corruption, not victory. But they are mostly kept at ranks no higher than Colonel and you will
often find them in military teaching institutions and academies. Having studied with them
and become good friends with many of them, I feel sorry for them and I know that if they had
the means to stop this insanity they would]
The problem with neocon chickenhawks is that they all want money from MIC. So their jingoism is
a king of prostitution...
Notable quotes:
"... "Saving Realism" is the handiwork of Hal Brands and Peter Feaver, well-connected scholars employed by elite institutions. Brands teaches at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies and, according to his bio, has "consulted with a range of government offices and agencies in the intelligence and national security communities." Feaver teaches at Duke University. During the George W. Bush administration, he served on the staff of the National Security Council. They are classic policy intellectuals, one foot planted in academe, the other in the corridors of power. ..."
"... Especially since the end of the Cold War, reality itself is impinging on the prerogatives to which members of the American foreign-policy establishment have grown accustomed and to the arrangements that sustain those prerogatives. It therefore becomes incumbent upon scholars who serve that establishment to deflect such threats. They do so by contriving a "reality" conducive to affirming existing prerogatives and arrangements. ..."
"... The only past that matters is the Cold War, carefully curated as a narrative of American triumphalism. Anything that happened before the Cold War qualifies as irrelevant. Cold War episodes that turned out to be less than triumphal!Vietnam, for example!receive the barest acknowledgment. As for misfortunes that may have befallen the United States since the Cold War ended almost three decades ago, Brands and Feaver shrug them off as insignificant. Sure, "the invasion and occupation of Iraq did prove far costlier than expected." But so what? Stuff happens! ..."
"... Stripped to its essentials, their argument reduces to a brazen tautology: Approaches to policy that worked during the Cold War will work today because they worked during the Cold War. Of course, the argument presumes that the world in which we live today is more or less comparable to the world that existed back in the Forties and Fifties. As to how the supple, nuanced doctrine advanced by realists during that Golden Age yielded such dubious propositions as bipolarity, the domino theory, and the bogus enterprise known as nuclear strategy, Brands and Feaver are conveniently silent. ..."
In the September issue of Commentary, a magazine of distinguished lineage, there appears
an essay bearing the title
"Saving Realism from the So-Called Realists." Once upon a time, essays published by Commentary
, penned by such eminences as Jeane Kirkpatrick, Hans Morgenthau, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, and Robert
C. Tucker, shaped the debate over U.S. foreign policy. Those days have long since passed. If "Saving
Realism" serves any purpose, it is to expose the intellectual exhaustion of the foreign-policy establishment.
Those who fancy themselves the source of policy-relevant ideas have given up on actually thinking.
"Saving Realism" is the handiwork of Hal Brands and Peter Feaver, well-connected scholars
employed by elite institutions. Brands teaches at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International
Studies and, according to his bio, has "consulted with a range of government offices and agencies
in the intelligence and national security communities." Feaver teaches at Duke University. During
the George W. Bush administration, he served on the staff of the National Security Council. They
are classic policy intellectuals, one foot planted in academe, the other in the corridors of power.
The chief purpose their essay is to mount a frontal assault on a group of individuals they deride
as "academic realists." Of course, when not occupying positions on the fringes of power, Brands and
Feaver are themselves academics. Here, however, their use of the term drips with ridicule and condescension.
"Academic" becomes a synonym for naďve or wooly-headed or simply irresponsible.
To their credit, Brands and Feaver do not balk at naming names, fingering Stephen Walt, John Mearsheimer,
Barry Posen, and Christopher Layne, prominent political scientists, as dangerous proponents of academic
realism.
Take the claims made by Brands and Feaver at face value and this Gang of Four poses a direct threat
not only to U.S. national security but to the very possibility to creating a decent global order.
"Today's academic realists essentially argue," they write, "that the United States should dismantle
the global architecture that has undergirded the international order" ever since World War II. Academic
realists seek "the deliberate destruction of arrangements that have fostered international stability
and prosperity for decades." They are intent on tearing down "the pillars of a peaceful and prosperous
world." They are, in short, a wrecking crew.
Brands and Feaver do not explain what motivates Walt et al., to undertake this nefarious plot,
merely hinting that personal pique is probably a factor. "Having lost policy arguments that they
thought they should have won," on issues such as NATO expansion and invading Iraq, "academic realists
decided to throw the baby out with the bathwater." They are, in effect, soreheads.
For this reason alone, their critique of U.S. policy, suggesting that since the end of the Cold
War the United States has squandered a uniquely advantageous position, is without merit. So too with
their complaint that in recent decades the United States has misused its military power. What academic
realists are actually proposing, Brands and Feaver charge, is to "stake everything on a leap into
the unknown." Their calls for greater restraint amount to little more than a pose. In reality, they
advocate unvarnished recklessness.
Worse still, Brands and Feaver see worrisome signs that the Gang of Four is making headway. In
Donald Trump's White House academic realism "seems to be finding a sympathetic hearing." Indeed,
they write, "One of the least academic presidents in American history may, ironically, be buying
into some of the most misguided doctrines of the ivory tower."
This is pretty wild stuff. Let me acknowledge that I know each member of this Gang of Four and
hold them in high regard. That said, whether individually or collectively, they wield about as much
clout in present-day Washington as Karl Marx.
Indeed, the reader will search "Saving Realism" in vain for evidence actually linking the Gang
of Four to President Trump. To my knowledge none of the four are Trump supporters. I am unaware of
any of them having endorsed the policies of the Trump administration. As for Trump himself, my bet
is that he could care less about anything Walt, Mearsheimer, Posen, and Layne have to say. If our
president has absorbed the Gang of Four's policy perspective, he must be doing it by osmosis.
In short, the case presented by Brands and Feaver comes precariously close to being a McCarthyite
smear!guilt by association without even establishing that any association actually exists.
To which the average American citizen, tested by the trials of everyday life, might well respond:
Who cares? An intramural tiff among privileged members of the professoriate might merit a panel at
the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association. But should it qualify as a matter
of general interest?
In one specific sense, perhaps it ought to. While it may not be their intended purpose, by mounting
their overheated attack on "academic realism," Brands and Feaver succeed in demonstrating why genuine
realism rarely receives a serious hearing inside the Beltway. The answer is simply this: Especially
since the end of the Cold War, reality itself is impinging on the prerogatives to which members of
the American foreign-policy establishment have grown accustomed and to the arrangements that sustain
those prerogatives. It therefore becomes incumbent upon scholars who serve that establishment to
deflect such threats. They do so by contriving a "reality" conducive to affirming existing prerogatives
and arrangements.
Brands and Feaver do their very best to conjure up such a "reality." Having established to their
own satisfaction that Trump and the Gang of Four are somehow colluding with each other, they offer
their own prescription for a "reformed realism" to be built on "seven bedrock insights."
The seven insights share this common quality: They are unflaggingly banal. Yet the last of the
seven manages to be both banal and immensely instructive: Realism, Brands and Feaver write, "requires
not throwing away what has worked in the past."
Here we come to the heart of the matter. What exactly is the "the past" that remains relevant
to the present and that provides the basis for their version of authentic (as opposed to academic)
realism?
On this point, Brands and Feaver, are admirably candid. The only past that matters is the
Cold War, carefully curated as a narrative of American triumphalism. Anything that happened before
the Cold War qualifies as irrelevant. Cold War episodes that turned out to be less than triumphal!Vietnam,
for example!receive the barest acknowledgment. As for misfortunes that may have befallen the United
States since the Cold War ended almost three decades ago, Brands and Feaver shrug them off as insignificant.
Sure, "the invasion and occupation of Iraq did prove far costlier than expected." But so what? Stuff
happens!
Rather than get hung up on Iraq or Afghanistan or the ongoing debacle of U.S. interventionism
in the Islamic world, Brands and Feaver keep their focus on the early Cold War, which they depict
as a veritable Golden Age of realism and by extension of American statecraft. Peppering their account
are favorable references to "Cold War-era realism" and "Cold War realists." After World War II, "realist
thinkers understood that America was uniquely capable of stabilizing the international order and
containing Soviet power." Back then, serious realists!in contrast to today's academic types!were
the very inverse of wooly-headed. "Cold War realists were willing to see the world as it was," according
to Brands and Feaver. "During the Cold War, then, realism was a supple, nuanced doctrine."
Stripped to its essentials, their argument reduces to a brazen tautology: Approaches to policy
that worked during the Cold War will work today because they worked during the Cold War. Of course,
the argument presumes that the world in which we live today is more or less comparable to the world
that existed back in the Forties and Fifties. As to how the supple, nuanced doctrine advanced by
realists during that Golden Age yielded such dubious propositions as bipolarity, the domino theory,
and the bogus enterprise known as nuclear strategy, Brands and Feaver are conveniently silent.
"Contemporary academic realists," Brands and Feaver charge, "sit atop a pyramid of faulty assumptions."
They themselves require no such pyramid. Their version of realism rests on just a single assumption:
That history is a menu from which Americans can pick and choose. To escape from currently bothersome
predicaments, in no small part the product of our folly, Brands and Feaver would have the United
States choose from that menu only those bits that we find congenial. The rest we can simply ignore.
Come to think of it, that's an approach that might find favor with Donald Trump himself.
Andrew J. Bacevich is The American Conservative 's writer-at-large.
"... In this paper we will discuss the advantages that the military elite accumulate from the war agenda and the reasons why ' the Generals' have been able to impose their definition of international realities. ..."
"... We will discuss the military's ascendancy over Trump's civilian regime as a result of the relentless degradation of his presidency by his political opposition. ..."
"... The massive US-led bombing and destruction of Libya, the overthrow of the Gadhafi government and the failure of the Obama-Clinton administration to impose a puppet regime, underlined the limitations of US air power and the ineffectiveness of US political-military intervention. The Presidency blundered in its foreign policy in North Africa and demonstrated its military ineptness. ..."
"... The invasion of Syria by US-funded mercenaries and terrorists committed the US to an unreliable ally in a losing war. This led to a reduction in the military budget and encouraged the Generals to view their direct control of overseas wars and foreign policy as the only guarantee of their positions. ..."
"... The Obama-Clinton engineered coup and power grab in the Ukraine brought a corrupt incompetent military junta to power in Kiev and provoked the secession of the Crimea (to Russia) and Eastern Ukraine (allied with Russia). The Generals were sidelined and found that they had tied themselves to Ukrainian kleptocrats while dangerously increasing political tensions with Russia. The Obama regime dictated economic sanctions against Moscow, designed to compensate for their ignominious military-political failures. ..."
"... The Obama-Clinton legacy facing Trump was built around a three-legged stool: an international order based on military aggression and confrontation with Russia; a ' pivot to Asia' defined as the military encirclement and economic isolation of China – via bellicose threats and economic sanctions against North Korea; and the use of the military as the praetorian guards of free trade agreements in Asia excluding China. ..."
"... After only 8 months in office President Trump helplessly gave into the firings, resignations and humiliation of each and every one of his civilian appointees, especially those who were committed to reverse Obama's 'international order'. ..."
"... Trump was elected to replace wars, sanctions and interventions with economic deals beneficial to the American working and middle class. This would include withdrawing the military from its long-term commitments to budget-busting 'nation-building' (occupation) in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya and other Obama-designated endless war zones. ..."
"... The Generals provide a veneer of legitimacy to the Trump regime (especially for the warmongering Obama Democrats and the mass media). However, handing presidential powers over to ' Mad Dog' Mattis and his cohort will come with a heavy price. ..."
"... While the military junta may protect Trump's foreign policy flank, it does not lessen the attacks on his domestic agenda. Moreover, Trump's proposed budget compromise with the Democrats has enraged his own Party's leaders. ..."
"... The military junta is pressuring China against North Korea with the goal of isolating the ruling regime in Pyongyang and increasing the US military encirclement of Beijing. Mad Dog has partially succeeded in turning China against North Korea while securing its advanced THADD anti-missile installations in South Korea, which will be directed against Beijing. ..."
"... Mad Dog's military build-up, especially in Afghanistan and in the Middle East, will not intimidate Iran nor add to any military successes. They entail high costs and low returns, as Obama realized after the better part of a decade of his defeats, fiascos and multi-billion dollar losses. ..."
"... The militarization of US foreign policy provides some important lessons: ..."
"... the escalation from threats to war does not succeed in disarming adversaries who possess the capacity to retaliate. ..."
"... Low intensity multi-lateral war maneuvers reinforce US-led alliances, but they also convince opponents to increase their military preparedness. Mid-level intense wars against non-nuclear adversaries can seize capital cities, as in Iraq, but the occupier faces long-term costly wars of attrition that can undermine military morale, provoke domestic unrest and heighten budget deficits. And they create millions of refugees. ..."
"... Threats and intimidation succeed only against conciliatory adversaries. Undiplomatic verbal thuggery can arouse the spirit of the bully and some of its allies, but it has little chance of convincing its adversaries to capitulate. The US policy of worldwide militarization over-extends the US armed forces and has not led to any permanent military gains. ..."
"... Are there any voices among clear-thinking US military leaders, those not bedazzled by their stars and idiotic admirers in the US media, who could push for more global accommodation and mutual respect among nations? The US Congress and the corrupt media are demonstrably incapable of evaluating past disasters, let alone forging an effective response to new global realities. ..."
"... American actions in Europe, Asia and the middle east appear increasingly irrational to many international observers. Their policy thrusts are excused as containment of evildoers or punishment of peoples who think and act differently. ..."
"... They will drive into a new detente such incompatible parties as Russia and Iran, or China and many countries. America risks losing its way in the world and free peoples see a flickering beacon that once shone brighter. ..."
"... How about this comic book tough guy quote: "I'm pleading with you with tears in my eyes: if you fuck with me, I'll kill you all" notice the first person used repetitively as he talks down to hapless unarmed tribesman in some distant land. A real egomaniacal narcissistic coward. Any of you with military experience would immediately recognize the type ... ..."
"... It seems that the inevitable has happened. Feckless civilians have used military adventures to advance their careers , ensure re- elections, capturr lucrative position as speaker, have a place as member of think tank or lobbying firm or consultant . Now being as stupidly greedy and impatient as these guys are, they have failed to see that neither the policies nor the militaries can succeed against enemies that are generated from the action and the policy itself ..."
Clearly the US has escalated the pivotal role of the military in the making of foreign and, by
extension, domestic policy. The rise of ' the Generals' to strategic positions in the Trump
regime is evident, deepening its role as a highly autonomous force determining US strategic policy
agendas.
In this paper we will discuss the advantages that the military elite accumulate from the war agenda
and the reasons why ' the Generals' have been able to impose their definition of international
realities.
We will discuss the military's ascendancy over Trump's civilian regime as a result of the relentless
degradation of his presidency by his political opposition.
The Prelude to Militarization: Obama's Multi-War Strategy and Its Aftermath
The central role of the military in deciding US foreign policy has its roots in the strategic
decisions taken during the Obama-Clinton Presidency. Several policies were decisive in the rise of
unprecedented military-political power.
The massive increase of US troops in Afghanistan and their subsequent failures and retreat weakened
the Obama-Clinton regime and increased animosity between the military and the Obama's Administration.
As a result of his failures, Obama downgraded the military and weakened Presidential authority.
The massive US-led bombing and destruction of Libya, the overthrow of the Gadhafi government
and the failure of the Obama-Clinton administration to impose a puppet regime, underlined the limitations
of US air power and the ineffectiveness of US political-military intervention. The Presidency blundered
in its foreign policy in North Africa and demonstrated its military ineptness.The invasion
of Syria by US-funded mercenaries and terrorists committed the US to an unreliable ally in a losing
war. This led to a reduction in the military budget and encouraged the Generals to view their direct
control of overseas wars and foreign policy as the only guarantee of their positions. The US
military intervention in Iraq was only a secondary contributing factor in the defeat of ISIS; the
major actors and beneficiaries were Iran and the allied Iraqi Shia militias. The Obama-Clinton
engineered coup and power grab in the Ukraine brought a corrupt incompetent military junta to power
in Kiev and provoked the secession of the Crimea (to Russia) and Eastern Ukraine (allied with Russia).
The Generals were sidelined and found that they had tied themselves to Ukrainian kleptocrats while
dangerously increasing political tensions with Russia. The Obama regime dictated economic sanctions
against Moscow, designed to compensate for their ignominious military-political failures.
The Obama-Clinton legacy facing Trump was built around a three-legged stool: an international
order based on military aggression and confrontation with Russia; a ' pivot to Asia' defined
as the military encirclement and economic isolation of China – via bellicose threats and economic
sanctions against North Korea; and the use of the military as the praetorian guards of free trade
agreements in Asia excluding China.
The Obama 'legacy' consists of an international order of globalized capital and multiple wars.
The continuity of Obama's 'glorious legacy' initially depended on the election of Hillary Clinton.
Donald Trump's presidential campaign, for its part, promised to dismantle or drastically revise
the Obama Doctrine of an international order based on multiple wars , neo-colonial 'nation' building
and free trade. A furious Obama 'informed' (threatened) the newly-elected President Trump that he
would face the combined hostility of the entire State apparatus, Wall Street and the mass media if
he proceeded to fulfill his election promises of economic nationalism and thus undermine the US-centered
global order.
Trump's bid to shift from Obama's sanctions and military confrontation to economic reconciliation
with Russia was countered by a hornet's nest of accusations about a Trump-Russian electoral conspiracy,
darkly hinting at treason and show trials against his close allies and even family members.
The concoction of a Trump-Russia plot was only the first step toward a total war on the new president,
but it succeeded in undermining Trump's economic nationalist agenda and his efforts to change Obama's
global order.
Trump Under Obama's International Order
After only 8 months in office President Trump helplessly gave into the firings, resignations
and humiliation of each and every one of his civilian appointees, especially those who were committed
to reverse Obama's 'international order'.
Trump was elected to replace wars, sanctions and interventions with economic deals beneficial
to the American working and middle class. This would include withdrawing the military from its long-term
commitments to budget-busting 'nation-building' (occupation) in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya and
other Obama-designated endless war zones.
Trump's military priorities were supposed to focus on strengthening domestic frontiers and overseas
markets. He started by demanding that NATO partners pay for their own military defense responsibilities.
Obama's globalists in both political parties were aghast that the US might lose it overwhelming control
of NATO; they united and moved immediately to strip Trump of his economic nationalist allies and
their programs.
Trump quickly capitulated and fell into line with Obama's international order, except for one
proviso – he would select the Cabinet to implement the old/new international order.
A hamstrung Trump chose a military cohort of Generals, led by General James Mattis (famously nicknamed
' Mad Dog' ) as Defense Secretary.
The Generals effectively took over the Presidency. Trump abdicated his responsibilities
as President.
General Mattis: The Militarization of America
General Mattis took up the Obama legacy of global militarization and added his own nuances, including
the 'psychological-warfare' embedded in Trump's emotional ejaculations on 'Twitter'.
The ' Mattis Doctrine' combined high-risk threats with aggressive provocations, bringing
the US (and the world) to the brink of nuclear war.
General Mattis has adopted the targets and fields of operations, defined by the previous Obama
administration as it has sought to re-enforce the existing imperialist international order.
The junta's policies relied on provocations and threats against Russia, with expanded economic
sanctions. Mattis threw more fuel on the US mass media's already hysterical anti-Russian bonfire.
The General promoted a strategy of low intensity diplomatic thuggery, including the unprecedented
seizure and invasion of Russian diplomatic offices and the short-notice expulsion of diplomats and
consular staff.
These military threats and acts of diplomatic intimidation signified that the Generals' Administration
under the Puppet President Trump was ready to sunder diplomatic relations with a major world nuclear
power and indeed push the world to direct nuclear confrontation.
What Mattis seeks in these mad fits of aggression is nothing less than capitulation on the part
of the Russian government regarding long held US military objectives – namely the partition of Syria
(which started under Obama), harsh starvation sanctions on North Korea (which began under Clinton)
and the disarmament of Iran (Tel Aviv's main goal) in preparation for its dismemberment.
The Mattis junta occupying the Trump White House heightened its threats against a North Korea,
which (in Vladimir Putin's words) ' would rather eat grass than disarm' . The US mass media-military
megaphones portrayed the North Korean victims of US sanctions and provocations as an 'existential'
threat to the US mainland.
Sanctions have intensified. The stationing of nuclear weapons on South Korea is being pushed.
Massive joint military exercises are planned and ongoing in the air, sea and land around North Korea.
Mattis twisted Chinese arms (mainly business comprador-linked bureaucrats) and secured their UN Security
Council vote on increased sanctions. Russia joined the Mattis-led anti-Pyongyang chorus, even as
Putin warned of sanctions ineffectiveness! (As if General ' Mad Dog' Mattis would ever take
Putin's advice seriously, especially after Russia voted for the sanctions!)
Mattis further militarized the Persian Gulf, following Obama's policy of partial sanctions and
bellicose provocation against Iran.
When he worked for Obama, Mattis increased US arms shipments to the US's Syrian terrorists and
Ukrainian puppets, ensuring the US would be able to scuttle any ' negotiated settlements'
.
Militarization: An Evaluation
Trump's resort to ' his Generals' is supposed to counter any attacks from members of his
own party and Congressional Democrats about his foreign policy. Trump's appointment of ' Mad Dog'
Mattis, a notorious Russophobe and warmonger, has somewhat pacified the opposition in Congress and
undercut any 'finding' of an election conspiracy between Trump and Moscow dug up by the Special Investigator
Robert Mueller. Trump's maintains a role as nominal President by adapting to what Obama warned him
was ' their international order' – now directed by an unelected military junta composed of
Obama holdovers!
The Generals provide a veneer of legitimacy to the Trump regime (especially for the warmongering
Obama Democrats and the mass media). However, handing presidential powers over to ' Mad Dog'
Mattis and his cohort will come with a heavy price.
While the military junta may protect Trump's foreign policy flank, it does not lessen the
attacks on his domestic agenda. Moreover, Trump's proposed budget compromise with the Democrats has
enraged his own Party's leaders.
In sum, under a weakened President Trump, the militarization of the White House benefits the military
junta and enlarges their power. The ' Mad Dog' Mattis program has had mixed results, at least
in its initial phase: The junta's threats to launch a pre-emptive (possibly nuclear) war against
North Korea have strengthened Pyongyang's commitment to develop and refine its long and medium range
ballistic missile capability and nuclear weapons. Brinksmanship failed to intimidate North Korea.
Mattis cannot impose the Clinton-Bush-Obama doctrine of disarming countries (like Libya and Iraq)
of their advanced defensive weapons systems as a prelude to a US 'regime change' invasion.
Any US attack against North Korea will lead to massive retaliatory strikes costing tens of thousands
of US military lives and will kill and maim millions of civilians in South Korea and Japan.
At most, ' Mad Dog' managed to intimidate Chinese and Russian officials (and their export
business billionaire buddies) to agree to more economic sanctions against North Korea. Mattis and
his allies in the UN and White House, the loony Nikki Hailey and a miniaturized President Trump,
may bellow war – yet they cannot apply the so-called 'military option' without threatening the US
military forces stationed throughout the Asia Pacific region.
The Mad Dog Mattis assault on the Russian embassy did not materially weaken Russia, but
it has revealed the uselessness of Moscow's conciliatory diplomacy toward their so-called 'partners'
in the Trump regime.
The end-result might lead to a formal break in diplomatic ties, which would increase the danger
of a military confrontation and a global nuclear holocaust.
The military junta is pressuring China against North Korea with the goal of isolating the
ruling regime in Pyongyang and increasing the US military encirclement of Beijing. Mad Dog has partially
succeeded in turning China against North Korea while securing its advanced THADD anti-missile installations
in South Korea, which will be directed against Beijing. These are Mattis' short-term gains over
the excessively pliant Chinese bureaucrats. However, if Mad Dog intensifies direct military threats
against China, Beijing can retaliate by dumping tens of billions of US Treasury notes, cutting trade
ties, sowing chaos in the US economy and setting Wall Street against the Pentagon.
Mad Dog's military build-up, especially in Afghanistan and in the Middle East, will not intimidate
Iran nor add to any military successes. They entail high costs and low returns, as Obama realized
after the better part of a decade of his defeats, fiascos and multi-billion dollar losses.
Conclusion
The militarization of US foreign policy, the establishment of a military junta within the Trump
Administration, and the resort to nuclear brinksmanship has not changed the global balance of power.
Domestically Trump's nominal Presidency relies on militarists, like General Mattis. Mattis has
tightened the US control over NATO allies, and even rounded up stray European outliers, like Sweden,
to join in a military crusade against Russia. Mattis has played on the media's passion for bellicose
headlines and its adulation of Four Star Generals.
But for all that – North Korea remains undaunted because it can retaliate. Russia has thousands
of nuclear weapons and remains a counterweight to a US-dominated globe. China owns the US Treasury
and its unimpressed, despite the presence of an increasingly collision-prone US Navy swarming throughout
the South China Sea.
Mad Dog laps up the media attention, with well dressed, scrupulously manicured journalists
hanging on his every bloodthirsty pronouncement. War contractors flock to him, like flies to carrion.
The Four Star General 'Mad Dog' Mattis has attained Presidential status without winning any
election victory (fake or otherwise). No doubt when he steps down, Mattis will be the most eagerly
courted board member or senior consultant for giant military contractors in US history, receiving
lucrative fees for half hour 'pep-talks' and ensuring the fat perks of nepotism for his family's
next three generations. Mad Dog may even run for office, as Senator or even President for
whatever Party.
The militarization of US foreign policy provides some important lessons:
First of all, the escalation from threats to war does not succeed in disarming adversaries
who possess the capacity to retaliate. Intimidation via sanctions can succeed in imposing significant
economic pain on oil export-dependent regimes, but not on hardened, self-sufficient or highly diversified
economies.
Low intensity multi-lateral war maneuvers reinforce US-led alliances, but they also convince
opponents to increase their military preparedness. Mid-level intense wars against non-nuclear adversaries
can seize capital cities, as in Iraq, but the occupier faces long-term costly wars of attrition that
can undermine military morale, provoke domestic unrest and heighten budget deficits. And they create
millions of refugees.
High intensity military brinksmanship carries major risk of massive losses in lives, allies, territory
and piles of radiated ashes – a pyrrhic victory!
In sum:
Threats and intimidation succeed only against conciliatory adversaries. Undiplomatic verbal
thuggery can arouse the spirit of the bully and some of its allies, but it has little chance of convincing
its adversaries to capitulate. The US policy of worldwide militarization over-extends the US armed
forces and has not led to any permanent military gains.
Are there any voices among clear-thinking US military leaders, those not bedazzled by their
stars and idiotic admirers in the US media, who could push for more global accommodation and mutual
respect among nations? The US Congress and the corrupt media are demonstrably incapable of evaluating
past disasters, let alone forging an effective response to new global realities.
American actions in Europe, Asia and the middle east appear increasingly irrational to
many international observers. Their policy thrusts are excused as containment of evildoers or
punishment of peoples who think and act differently. Those policy thrusts will accomplish
the opposite of the stated intention.
They will drive into a new detente such incompatible parties as Russia and Iran, or China
and many countries. America risks losing its way in the world and free peoples see a flickering
beacon that once shone brighter.
Anyone with military experience recognizes the likes of Mad Poodle Mattis arrogant, belligerent,
exceptionally dull, and mainly an inveterate suck-up (mil motto: kiss up and kick down).
Every VFW lounge is filled with these boozy ridiculous blowhards and they are insufferable.
The media and public, raised on ZioVision and JooieWood pablum, worship these cartoonish bloodletters
even though they haven't won a war in 72 years .not one.
How about this comic book tough guy quote: "I'm pleading with you with tears in my eyes:
if you fuck with me, I'll kill you all" notice the first person used repetitively as he talks
down to hapless unarmed tribesman in some distant land. A real egomaniacal narcissistic coward.
Any of you with military experience would immediately recognize the type ...
It seems that the inevitable has happened. Feckless civilians have used military adventures
to advance their careers , ensure re- elections, capturr lucrative position as speaker, have a
place as member of think tank or lobbying firm or consultant . Now being as stupidly greedy and
impatient as these guys are, they have failed to see that neither the policies nor the militaries
can succeed against enemies that are generated from the action and the policy itself .
Now military has decided to reverse the roles . At least the military leaders don't have to
campaign for re employment . But very soon the forces that corrupt and abuse the civilian power
structure will do same to military .
Never met him at any of the parties I attended in the '70s and '80s, so I don't know much about
Mad Dog, but I can say that only in America can the former commander of a recruiting station grow
up to pull the strings of the President.
This article will be used by some lobbyist working for Northrop Grumman during his next
meeting with a bunch of congressmen. "I told you, those evil russkies are back at it again,
we are getting outclassed and thus we need more money. $700 billion is not enough".
The congressmen will cry about the electronic warfare gap, the new increased defense budget
will be adopted, multi-billion contracts will be singed, the congressmen will get their fat
kickbacks and everyone will be happy. Only in America
Only in America is money or technology the solution to the problems. I am sorry to to say
that ain't going to cut. It all boils down to strategy and tactics that's where the US has
its greatest deficit.
If we don't free the commoner of social brainwashing, yes, russia will win. They are
really good at that game and that game creates a society like current russia.
So the ruskies didn't do this?
Or do you expect us to lay over and let them pillage our bottom ends?
Do you want to live in russia? Is the American oligarchy just too class mobile for you and
you want the russian version with even worse social structures?
Almost every article I read distresses about how America's military is inferior to Russia,
China and even Iran. We are threatened that our aircraft carriers will soon be sunken nuclear
waste sites, our submarines are inferior, aircraft vulnerable, our tactics outdated, our
civilian leaders corrupt, military leaders incompetent, and sailors, soldiers, airman, and
Marines poorly trained and equiped thugs. Let's save a bunch of money and tell the rest of
the world we are no longer their protector. Bring our men and women home from these
hell-holes and use the money to rebuild our own infrastructure, health and education systems,
and take care of America's citizens.
Still, the Russian are still silently sucking it up after the Israel Air Forces sneaked up
under the S400 radar to bomb Syrian chemical bomb assembly plant in early September 2017.
The Russians took a very different approach to electronic warfare.
In the US, it was pursued as a method to enable air strike packages to get in and hit a
target. Hence, it focused on installations in aircraft.
In Russia, it was pursued as an element of land warfare, part air defense, and part to
enable armored forces to operate. Much of it was put in trailers on the ground, near army HQ
and signals units.
The different locations and roles produced different abilities. They got different things
because they sought different things.
Now the US wants it all. What it got, and what the Russians got. Understandable, but the
Russians are not so much "ahead" as just doing different things.
We are outclassed in EW by the Russians and our AAMs and ASMs and ATACS missiles are also
inferior.
Who in the US military will be courageous enough to take responsibility?
The Russians have been watching, studying and learning about the US military (putting all
their eggs in one basket - technology) for quite awhile. EW is simply a "Method" or strategy
to counter US tech. Blunder after blunder... within the US military to always first seek
advance technology for the solution. They can't seem to grasp that it's all about philosophy
of use and implementation. Strategy and tactics have always won on the battlefield and always
will
It's "yet another surge"... With probably the same results. Military contractors
will became richer. Some US solders will be dead of maimed. A lot of afghans will be killed.
Notable quotes:
"... From now on, our security interests will dictate the length and scope of military operation, not arbitrary benchmarks and timetables set up by politicians. I have also totally changed the rules of engagement in our fight against the Taliban and other terrorist groups. ..."
"... In fact, the US has not had anything remotely resembling a strategy in Afghanistan for years already. If it wasn't so sad, it would be laughable, really. What he really see here is the total absence of any strategy and, again, a total reliance on magical thinking. ..."
"... The amazing reality is that they don't have a goal even defined. How one achieves "victory" when no goal is even defined is anybody's guess. ..."
"... I would say that the only chance to get anything done, any viable result at all, is to negotiate a deal with all the parties that matter: the various Afghan factions, of course, but also with the Taliban, Pakistan, Iran and even Russia. ..."
"... Pakistan and Iran have a de-facto veto power over any outcome for Afghanistan. This may not be what the US would want, but this is the reality. Denying reality is just not a smart approach to these issues, especially if "victory" is the goal ..."
Last month I announced a new strategy for victory in the fight against this evil in
Afghanistan. From now on, our security interests will dictate the length and scope of military
operation, not arbitrary benchmarks and timetables set up by politicians. I have also totally
changed the rules of engagement in our fight against the Taliban and other terrorist
groups.
What we see here is undeniable evidence that far from being "real warriors" or "strategists"
the military gang around Trump (Mattis, McMaster, Kelly, etc.) are either primitive grunts or
folks who owe their rank to political protection. Why do I say that?
Because none of what Trump
describes as a "strategy for victory" is, in fact, a strategy. In fact, the US has not had
anything remotely resembling a strategy in Afghanistan for years already. If it wasn't so sad, it
would be laughable, really. What he really see here is the total absence of any strategy and,
again, a total reliance on magical thinking.
Ask yourself a basic question: have you ever heard from any Trump administration or any US
General anything which would suggest to you that these guys have i) a clear goal in mind ii) an
understanding of what it would take to achieve this goal and iii) a timeframe to achieve this
goal and iv) an exit strategy once this goal is achieved? No? Well, that is not your fault, you
did not miss anything. They really don't have it.
The amazing reality is that they don't have a goal even defined. How one achieves
"victory" when no goal is even defined is anybody's guess.
[Sidebar: without going into a lengthy discussion of Afghanistan, I would say that the only
chance to get anything done, any viable result at all, is to negotiate a deal with all the
parties that matter: the various Afghan factions, of course, but also with the Taliban, Pakistan,
Iran and even Russia.
Pakistan and Iran have a de-facto veto power over any outcome for
Afghanistan. This may not be what the US would want, but this is the reality. Denying reality is
just not a smart approach to these issues, especially if "victory" is the goal]
Sovereignty is oppose of neoliberal globalization, so in a way this is an some kind of
affirmation of Trump election position. How serious it is is not clear. Probably not much as
Imperial faction now controls Trump, making him more of a marionette that a political leader of
the USA.
Notable quotes:
"... Trump labeled the Syrian government "the criminal regime of Bashar al Assad." The "problem in Venezuela", he said, is "that socialism has been faithfully implemented." He called Iran "an economically depleted rogue state whose chief exports are violent, bloodshed and chaos." He forgot to mention pistachios . The aim of such language and threats is usually to goad the other party into some overt act that can than be used as justification for "retaliation". But none of the countries Trump mentioned is prone to such behavior. They will react calmly - if at all. ..."
"... The stressing of sovereignty and the nation state in part one was the point where Trump indeed differed from his interventionist predecessors. But its still difficult to judge if that it is something he genuinely believes in. ..."
"... There is no emphasis on sovereignty b. Trump says that Russia's and China' threat to the sovereignty of countries is bad but the sovereignty of small countries the US does not like is somehow threatened by these countries themselves. Which I interpret as a threat - "you endanger yourself if you don't do as told". ..."
"... "The stressing of sovereignty and the nation state in part one was the point where Trump indeed differed from his interventionist predecessors. But its still difficult to judge if that it is something he genuinely believes in" ..."
"... The word sovereignty has taken on different and sinister implications with the UN Responsibility to Protect Act in 2005. The US pushed for this and it squeaked by and they used it to justify the invasion of Libya in 2011. I think Libya was a major turning point. I don't think Russia and Iran are going to back off easily. (I originally posted this in 2015 at another site) The US also seems to have pretty much lost what humanitarian clout they may have had. ..."
"... He talks about the period from 1989 when we had the Panama invasion and collapse of the Soviet Union as leading to an unleashing of US military power leading to the Iraq War in 2003. This war serious dented the image of the US as being a humanitarian actor and the US pushed for the UN Responsibility to Protect Act in 2005 which was used to justify the Libya invasion. ..."
"... Prashad sees the results of that invasion and what is going on now in Syria as reflecting that the period 2011-2015 is seeing the end of this US unipolarism that lasted from 1989 to 2011. ..."
"... How can Trump believe in defending Westphalia Treaty principles, sovereignty and the nation state, when US policy in the Arab world consists in destroying all these? This is rather like Warren Buffett lamenting that American billionaires are so rich, and pay less taxes than their secretaries. They are just laughing at us in our faces. ..."
"... Sound more or less like Hussein Obomo address at the United Nations General Assembly in New York on Sept. 24, 2013 - America is exceptional ? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HT5BjNDg5W0 No wonder Putin and Xi did not care to attend. Anyway Putin winning in Syria and Xi gaining in economic, science and technology ..."
"... I agree with other commenters about the Orwellian nature of the speech. Sovereignty is an interesting word to abuse and I expect we will see more abuse of it. How can the US ever be a sovereign nation when it does not own its own financial system? But in the interim all other aspects of sovereignty will be examined but not global private finance.....unless the China/Russia axis hand is forced into the open. ..."
"... Trump - the Republican Obama ..."
"... "The sanction game is over. It's only the dying empire of the Federal Reserve, ECB, Wall Street, City of London and their military strong arm operating in the Pentagon that have yet to accept this new reality. ..."
"... The days of bullying nations and simply bombing them into submission is over as well. Russia and China have made it very clear this is no longer acceptable and Russia has all but shut down the operations in Syria. The "ISIS" boogeyman is surrounded and fleeing into Asia and recently showed up in the Philippines. The fact that a group of desert dwellers acquired an ocean going vessel should be enough evidence to even the most brain-dead these desert dwellers are supported by outside forces – like the CIA Otherwise, from where did the ship(s) materialize?" ..."
"... it seems to me with Trump an era of so-called globalization has come to its end. ..."
"... Of course countries subjected to senseless US sanctions, like Russia, are concerned with sovereignty. They are ..."
"... baseless economic attacks by the country that controls world banking. ..."
"... In conclusion, what I take away from this speech is a sense of relief for the rest of the planet and a sense of real worry for the USA. Ever since the Neocons overthrew Trump and made him what is colloquially referred to as their "bitch" the US foreign policy has come to a virtual standstill. ..."
Today the President of the United States Donald Trump
spoke (rush transcript) to the United Nations General Assembly. The speech's main the me was sovereignty. The word occurs 18(!) times. It emphasized
Westphalian
principles .
[W]e do expect all nations to uphold these two core sovereign duties, to respect the
interests of their own people and the rights of every other sovereign nation
All leaders of countries should always put their countries first, he said, and "the nation
state remains the best vehicle for elevating the human condition ."
The Ratification of the Treaty of Münster, 15 May 1648 - bigger
Sovereignty was the core message of his speech. It rhymed well with his somewhat
isolationist emphasis of "America first" during his campaign. The second part of the speech the first by threatened the sovereignty of several countries
the U.S. ruling class traditionally dislikes. This year's "axis of evil"
included North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, Syria and Cuba:
The United States has great strength and patience, but if it is forced to defend itself or
its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea. Rocket man is on a
suicide mission for himself and for his regime. The United States is ready, willing and able,
but hopefully this will not be necessary."
Many people will criticize that as an outrageous and irresponsible use of words. It is. But there is nothing new to it. In fact the U.S., acting on behalf of the UN, totally
destroyed Korea in the 1950s. The last U.S. president
made the same threat Trump made today:
President Barack Obama delivered a stern warning to North Korea on Tuesday, reminding its
"erratic" and "irresponsible" leader that America's nuclear arsenal could "destroy" his
country.
The South Korean military sounds equally belligerent :
A military source told the Yonhap news agency every part of Pyongyang "will be completely
destroyed by ballistic missiles and high-explosives shells". ... The city, the source said,
"will be reduced to ashes and removed from the map".
Trump labeled the Syrian government "the criminal regime of Bashar al Assad." The "problem
in Venezuela", he said, is "that socialism has been faithfully implemented." He called Iran "an
economically depleted rogue state whose chief exports are violent, bloodshed and chaos." He
forgot to mention
pistachios . The aim of such language and threats is usually to goad the other party into some overt act
that can than be used as justification for "retaliation". But none of the countries Trump
mentioned is prone to such behavior. They will react calmly - if at all. There was essentially nothing in Trump's threats than the claptrap the last two U.S.
presidents also delivered. Trump
may be crazy, but the speech today is not a sign of that.
The stressing of sovereignty and the nation state in part one was the point where Trump
indeed differed from his interventionist predecessors. But its still difficult to judge if that it is something he genuinely believes in.
Posted by b on September 19, 2017 at 01:05 PM | Permalink
There is no emphasis on sovereignty b. Trump says that Russia's and China' threat to the
sovereignty of countries is bad but the sovereignty of small countries the US does not like
is somehow threatened by these countries themselves. Which I interpret as a threat - "you
endanger yourself if you don't do as told".
If we desire to lift up our citizens, if we aspire to the approval of history, then we must
fulfill our sovereign duties to the people we faithfully represent. We must protect our
nations, their interests and their futures. We must reject threats to sovereignty from the
Ukraine to the South China Sea. We must uphold respect for law, respect for borders, and
respect for culture, and the peaceful engagement these allow.
And just as the founders of this body intended, we must work together and confront
together those who threatens us with chaos, turmoil, and terror. The score of our planet
today is small regimes that violate every principle that the United Nations is based. They
respect neither their own citizens nor the sovereign rights of their countries. If the
righteous many do not confront the wicked few, then evil will triumph. When decent people
and nations become bystanders to history, the forces of destruction only gather power and
strength.
@2 somebody - yes, unaimed hostile prose from the speechwriter. Such is in the speech of
every U.S. president. But it is not the general theme of the Trump speech when one reads it
as one piece. The weight is put in the other direction (though the media will likely point to
the threats instead of reading the more extraordinary parts where Trump pushes national
sovereignty.)
"The stressing of sovereignty and the nation state in part one was the point where Trump
indeed differed from his interventionist predecessors. But its still difficult to judge if
that it is something he genuinely believes in"
It appears that his generals are instructing him what to "believe in". At least, he
certainly doesn't seem to "believe in" most of his campaign promises, not unlike his recent
predecessors. The whole "democracy and freedom" thing in the US is just a charade, as far as
I am concerned.
The word sovereignty has taken on different and sinister implications with the UN
Responsibility to Protect Act in 2005.
The US pushed for this and it squeaked by and they used it to justify the invasion of
Libya in 2011. I think Libya was a major turning point. I don't think Russia and Iran are going to back
off easily. (I originally posted this in 2015 at another site) The US also seems to have pretty much lost what humanitarian clout they may have had.
I think this was a very good interview of Vijay Prashadby
by Chris Hedges
He talks about the period from 1989 when we had the Panama invasion and collapse of
the Soviet Union as leading to an unleashing of US military power leading to the Iraq War
in 2003. This war serious dented the image of the US as being a humanitarian actor and the
US pushed for the UN Responsibility to Protect Act in 2005 which was used to justify the
Libya invasion.
Prashad sees the results of that invasion and what is going on now in Syria as reflecting
that the period 2011-2015 is seeing the end of this US unipolarism that lasted from 1989 to
2011.
--------
The good news is that Syria is turning out much different than Libya. Would be great to see the US cooperate with the China/Russia etc economic goals rather
than stirring up trouble in the Phillippines, Myanmar etc. The first test will be to see if Trump can deliver single payer health care to the US. :)
ie start to back off on the anti socialism rhetoric
The "nation state" brought us the millions slaughtered in World War 1. The nation states
threatened by the internationalist communist ideology of the USSR (in its early days)
ultimately brought us World War 2. The hypertrophied nation state that is the United States
of America will bring us World War 3 in its drive to secure its total supremacy. Luckily for
us, there will be no World War 4.
How can a country A be "forced to defend itself" by a country B so weak comparatively to
country A it can actually be "totally destroyed" by country A?
How can Trump believe in defending Westphalia Treaty principles, sovereignty and the
nation state, when US policy in the Arab world consists in destroying all these? This is
rather like Warren Buffett lamenting that American billionaires are so rich, and pay less
taxes than their secretaries. They are just laughing at us in our faces.
Sound more or less like Hussein Obomo address at the United Nations General Assembly in New
York on Sept. 24, 2013 - America is exceptional ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HT5BjNDg5W0 No wonder Putin and Xi did not care to attend. Anyway Putin winning in Syria and Xi
gaining in economic, science and technology
The United Nations is based upon the equal sovereignty of nations.
--from the UN Charter --
Article 2
The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act
in accordance with the following Principles.
1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its
Members.
2. All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from
membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with
the present Charter.
3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner
that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of
force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any
other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations
Trump's speech seemed to represent an ignorant mouthy bully with a big stick who is
threatening any nation he is told to hate. I have to agree with Paveway IV that Trump is just
the announcer. The "national sovereignty" comments were just for internal consumption for his
base of supporters.
To a major extent Trump's focus on the "great leader" of countries opposed to the US helps
simplify the hate for the "little people" in the US. They have not noticed that the US (as in
most other Western countries) has many mini "great leaders" who work toward the same goals
while distracting the "little people" with political theatre.
I really don't know what the purpose of this rambling threat to the rest of the world was
supposed to accomplish.
Yes, it really was nothing new. The fundamental material of the speech was the very same
garbage written by the same Washington establishment of previous administrations -
essentially the nuclear armed US regime is 'special' and reserves the right to attack and
destroy any country it chooses to.
While the Trump speech is rightly being both ridiculed around the world, what is very
scary is the humiliated Trump base is seizing on it.
The Trump base is begging for their failed 'God Emperor' to attack someone to feel better
about their own humiliation.
Sovereignty is also an excuse for US intervention, get it? . . .Trump does....
America stands with every person living under a brutal regime. Our respect for sovereignty
is also a call for action. All people deserve a government that cares for their safety,
their interests, and their well-being, including their prosperity.
His speechwriters deserve to be fired and the text size on both teleprompters should have
been increased. Alternatively, he should wear glasses (along with a more suitably fitted
toupee). Sarah Palin would seem like Einstein at the side of this clown.
Trump's speech is Orwellian!
Not just generally-- it is arguably an elaboration of a close paraphase of an Orwell
quote, to wit: "All nations are sovereign, but some nations are more sovereign than others."
I have a strongly ambivalent reaction to Trump's UN appearance-- although I confess that I
can only stand to watch and listen to him for brief time periods. It's appalling and embarrassing to watch any of the US's seemingly inexhaustible supply of
lizard-brained degenerates at the UN. But part of me thinks it's better to have the quintessential Ugly Amerikan beating his
chest and engaging in rhetorical feces-flinging. At least the rest of the world won't be bamboozled, the way they might be by a smooth,
silver-tongued liar.
This is on the heels of Trump's threatening to exclude China from use of SWIFT (the USD)
and China's gold yuan oil futures contract coming mid October as opposed to USD. The
petro-yuan is a game changer; hitting the petro-dollar hegemony that keeps the dollar in
worldwide demand.
The toothless dog has only his bark. Are Americans prepared for hyper-inflation?
I agree with other commenters about the Orwellian nature of the speech. Sovereignty is an interesting word to abuse and I expect we will see more abuse of it. How can the US ever be a sovereign nation when it does not own its own financial
system? But in the interim all other aspects of sovereignty will be examined but not global
private finance.....unless the China/Russia axis hand is forced into the open.
The abuse of the term sovereignty by Trump is part of a crafted Big Lie message. Just like
Trump linking to the poster of him, with a rope over his shoulder, dragging a barge of
companies back to America......the internationalism genie will never go completely back into
the bottle and is counterproductive to all.
John Bolton and the moron, Sean Hannity, love the speech. That should be all anyone needs to
know. It was Orwellian, super-villain, double-speak.
If the righteous many do not confront the wicked few, then evil will triumph.
Madman. How has Iran violated the U.N. charter? They were invited into Iraq and Syria by the UN
recognized govts. Okay, they make veiled threats against Israel, they get a demerit for that. Even if you
argue that they are 'predicting' rather can 'threatening to cause' Israel's demise, I'd take
that as a veiled threat. But Israel makes equally hostile comments towards Iran albeit, in a
passive / aggressive manner. Netanyahu, 'We recognize Iran's right to exist but truth be told
the planet, no wait, the entire universe itself would be better off if they disappeared'.
Well, it has finally arrived at the U.N. speech. Trump is showing his real colors, whether
they are forced or were originally his own. It doesn't matter. He is spouting the same
nonsenze as the neocons and the rest of them. He has crossed over - he maybe never knew the
way through, but was only parroting other's views. He is clearly a chameleon, willing to
change his stripes on a dime. The man is darkly lost in the woods, or is it the swamp?
While there have been hints that the Rohingya "rebels" are receiving funds from
expatriates in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, is there anything concrete that connects the CIA to
the rebels?
Frankly Trump is a big mouth, but there's no evidence that he's more than that. If he wanted
war, we'd already be there. It's different from Saddam in the old days, who went to war
within a year of becoming leader, or the Saudi crown prince, Muhammad bin Salman, who
launched the war against Yemen.
59 Tomahawks, that's the style. I haven't seen different from then.
The advantage of having Trump around is that he seems to diffuse energy. He is not building a
case against N. Korea like Bush did with Iraq, but instead he is big on bluster. There is no
appeal to the emotions of people and their fears and as such he is not marketing it,
something he knows a lot about. In his own way I believe he is defusing the situation by
talking big but remebering Bannon's comments when he left. And as a consummate player at the
table of power (unlike the novice Obama) he has his status.
What interests me is Tillerson and the State Department and its attitude to Israel. Syria
is where Israel met its match and was soundly thrashed. The world will never be the same
again, And the State Department is recognizing this reality. I think there is a recognition
in certain powerful quarters that whole neocon-Zionist shit has got America nowhere. As
Talking Heads said, "We're on the road to nowhere."
The speech (it reminds me on movie The Kings Speech https://youtu.be/PPLIw64rLJc TERRIBLE MOVIE) is for
internal the US purpose, for Amerikkaans. Majority of them, according to the Gov. media
outlets, support military action against DPRK and mostly likely against Iran (the most hatred
nation by far) as well. Amerikkaans will support any crime anywhere and probably destruction
of whole planet Earth.
In the same time his words and deeds are the most irrelevant of any US presidents. I bet
he never heard of that word "sovereignty" before nor for "nation state". This morning when
Trump woke up some member of National Security Council put sheet of paper with the speech on
his desk and tell him "Read this!". Just as they did to Obama in many occasions, one of
example is this: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2016/may/04/obama-drinks-flint-water-video
There some people in the US who knows what is going on:
For all the very considerable expense, however, the American military does not have a very
impressive record of achieving victory. It has won no wars since 1945!especially if victory
is defined as achieving an objective at acceptable cost!except against enemy forces that
essentially didn't exist.
@7 financial matters.. good comment and relevant.. i agree with you.. unipolar no more..
however, not quite multipolar yet either... we are still in a transitional place.. syria is
no libya fortunately.. but causing this kind of shit around the globe is what the usa is
known for.. they will continue to make war projects, especially if you believe as b notes a
couple of threads ago - trump is no longer calling the shots.. it is military guys full on..
I rather liked the film "The King's Speech because it was about speech. Your English is
fucking awful Chancey, not good enough for this forum. Get some lessons and come back.
"The sanction game is over. It's only the dying empire of the Federal Reserve, ECB, Wall
Street, City of London and their military strong arm operating in the Pentagon that have yet
to accept this new reality.
The days of bullying nations and simply bombing them into submission is over as well.
Russia and China have made it very clear this is no longer acceptable and Russia has all but
shut down the operations in Syria. The "ISIS" boogeyman is surrounded and fleeing into Asia
and recently showed up in the Philippines. The fact that a group of desert dwellers acquired
an ocean going vessel should be enough evidence to even the most brain-dead these desert
dwellers are supported by outside forces – like the CIA Otherwise, from where did the
ship(s) materialize?"
For a Nazi.
A question, do you believe in science? Here is one. But does one need to be scientist to
figure this out?"The Rise of Incivility and Bullying in America"
Violating the sovereign sanctity of nations is what the Outlaw US Empire has done without
parallel since the United Nation's formation. One of those nations was Vietnam, and a
somewhat respected documentary film maker looks like he's going to try--again--to pull wool
over the eyes of his intended audience by trying to legitimate the Big Lie that provided the
rationale for the Outlaw US Empire's illegal war against Vietnam. The detailed argument
regarding Ken Burns's effort to "correct" the actual historical record can be read here,
https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/09/19/getting-the-gulf-of-tonkin-wrong-are-ken-burns-and-lynn-novick-telling-stories-about-the-central-events-used-to-legitimize-the-us-attack-against-vietnam/
and it is probably the sort of history Trump would enjoy since he doesn't seem to know any
better.
How many nick/names do you have? You may hide under this and that stupid but your
associations are still here. You stay stupid. I know, I know the truth hurts. You Amerikkaans are not used to it. Go and watch a porn,
before de-dollarization is in full swing. Than you are going to stave to death, no more
credit cards and quantitative easing. That's is Trump's speech for.
Posted by: financial matters | Sep 19, 2017 2:22:58 PM | 7
Nice interview from a couple of years back. Prashad's worldview is worthy of reposting.
Enjoyable. Cheers.
US Americans might have proved themselves very adept at destroying both nation states and
the English language, though it will be Syria who restores true meaning to the word
'sovereign' - with some collective help of course.
The almost failed state will emerge from this steeled with a sense of identity, pride and
purpose. The minnow that refused to buckle.
The Don putting together some performances that finally warrant the unified, rabid
reaction from the press....
"But its still difficult to judge if that it is something he genuinely believes in."
Are you serious? Everything coming out of DC is still the same - sanctions against other
sovereign countries who do not tow the line the US demands, cruise missiles for the little
guys, disavowing and de-legitimizing the JCPOA, unrelenting 'freedom of navigation' patrols,
threats to cut nations off from the SWIFT system, every word out of Nikki Haleys' mouth...
It's really easy to go on and on, and his first year isn't even done.
The amount of disrespect for other sovereign nations by the USA is mind boggling, and that
is only the official stuff. Throw in CIA ops and NGO ops and there you have an entire other
level of the failure to recognize sovereignty.
Can you send me some of what you are smoking? Because it obviously makes you oblivious to
the obvious, and that may help my mood...
Obviously, the UN has became an arena of the one country show and that country puppets.
Zionist PM, the West most "faithful ally" on Middle East, and his speech. Mix of infantilism,
rhetoric and implicit racism of "God Chosen People". And sea of self-congratulating lies.
Great comment re: Vietnam. The Ken Burns documentary is just one more fairy tale of the
U.S. involvement/war in Vietnam.
Among the many myths, foremost is that Ho Chi Minh was a communist; he most assuredly was
not. Yes, he was a member of the party in France, but it is irrelevent to history (Ho was a
nationalist).
Did you know he tried to engage FDR?
Below is a remarkable interview with John Pilger on the real history of the U.S. and Vietnam;
it ain't pretty. Even Mao tried to engage the U.S., which the U.S. duly ignored.
Why is everyone hating on Trump? Be realistic: sometimes you have to genocide 25 million
people to save them. We're the God damn hero here - you bastards should be thanking
the USA.
Well, I guess we're really not trying to save the North Koreans at all. But they refuse to
leave the buffer zone (all of North Korea) that is protecting the world from red Chinese
expansion south. Worse than that, the North Koreans insist on protecting themselves BY FORCE
from the US. How evil is that?
Reminds me of those evil Syrians and Iraqis who refuse to vacate the buffer zone
protecting Israel from Iran. The nerve!
Only US lapdog nations have the right to defend themselves - as long as its with US-made
weapons and they're protecting themselves from anybody except the US. And we get to
build US bases on their soil. Who wouldn't want that? Because the US is... what did Trump
say... RIGHTEOUS. You know:
Tell me which one of those synonyms DOES NOT apply to the US? I prefer 'angelic'.
The first thing psychopaths do when they attain any measure of power and control is to
redefine evil as anything that threatens their power and control. Then constantly
hammer that threat into the minds of the little people so the little people don't think too
hard about stringing them up from the lamp posts.
Everything the US has done in my lifetime has been about preserving and protecting the
US government no matter how corrupt, evil or immoral it acts. Protecting the people is
only given lip service when it can be used to justify further protections for the state.
Creation of the Department of Homeland Security Stazi is probably the end stage for
full-spectrum dominance over the little people - it is slowly morphing (as planned) into a
federal armed force to protect the US government FROM the little people. I guess the
FBI wasn't up to the task.
"The government you elect is the government you deserve" Thomas Jefferson, Founding
Terrorist.
Do you agree that to point of National Interest article seem to be that the US is not
capable of invading and controlling non-European countries?
I did find the Cato Institute author to be very poorly informed about the US invasions of
Granada and Panama, the Balkan wars, the Kosovo invasion and the Syrian war.
As for ISIS, the author does not know anything about the incubation of ISIS by the US
administrations and the Libyan war (Hillary/Obama/Sarkozy) connection . He also does not
discuss the billions in military hardware that the US allowed ISIS to capture in Iraq.
As for the US efforts they are more about preventing the formation of an integrated
economic sphere between Iran, Iraq, Syria and Lebanese Republic. The war efforts by the US in
fighting ISIS are minimal compared to the Syrian and Russian efforts, yet he lies by omission
to pump up the US efforts. At least he didn't attempt to praise Turkey (sic) for their
efforts in cutting off aid to ISIS and Al Qaeda (under all its names).
Remember that the Cato Institute is another flavor of the NGO spider supporting the deep
state!
Please understand that this is not a personal attack as I am here to learn and share.
Canada's Trudeau will follow Trump at the UN on Thursday. Today he received an award from the
Atlantic Council: 'Worldwide the long established international order is being tested..' And
obviously the sexy northern selfie-king knows his place in it... https://youtube.com/watch?v=Kp49TFRMR8g
@ 49
Yes, to save the 25 million North Koreans the US must destroy them!
"No one has shown more contempt for other nations and for the wellbeing of their own people
than the depraved regime in North Korea. It is responsible for the starvation deaths of
millions of North Koreans, and for the imprisonment, torture, killing, and oppression of
countless more."
. ..but there are limits. . .
"The United States has great strength and patience, but if it is forced to defend itself or
its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea."
So give me that "no more contempt" line again, Donald?
(Personally, I can't imagine Hillary doing any less. So much for elections.)
"Why is everyone hating on Trump?"
Preposterous. You give him too much importance. He is rather the object of ridicule.
"The word occurs 18(!) times."
While the word Sovereignty
Sovereignty is actually main subject of the Russian president Putin and he never miss
opportunity to emphasize that. He put it so forcefully in this speech. https://youtu.be/Yumaa4pkxMU
Maybe by accident maybe not just conspicuous coincidence. But it seems to me with Trump an
era of so-called globalization has come to its end. With self-inflicted wounds ($20T Gov.
debt) and new president who is (initially) inward looking, it is time to talk about old
stuff. As if the US statehood has been in question for a moment. Old trick of capitalist
class.
Targeting Iran was never about nuclear weapons (the U.S. let Pakistan expand its nuclear
weapons program without interfering, despite knowing all about the AQ Khan network, because
Pakistan was cooperating with the U.S. agenda in Afghanistan and elsewhere), it was about the
Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline (during the GW Bush era) and the expansion of economic ties with
Syria (during the Obama era).
Now, with the easing of sanctions, Iran's pipeline deals have been revived, such as
Iran-Pakistan,
or Iran-India (undersea) , Iran-Europe, with China and Russia and Turkey as potential
partners. Meanwhile, the proposed TAPI pipeline backed by the Clinton, Bush & Obama State
Departments, as well as Chevron and Exxon, from Turkmenistan to the Indian Ocean, is still
held up due to instability in Afghanistan (i.e. the Taliban would immediately blow it up).
Obama's 30,000 troop surge to 100,000 couldn't solve that, and the recent Trump troop surge
(much smaller) will have little effect on that either. TAPI pipe dreams
continue, Sep 17 2017
There's no way Trump or Tillerson would ever be honest about this in an international
forum, any more than Obama and Clinton would, or Bush and Condi Rice, but it's the same old
"great game" for Central Asian oil and gas that's dominated U.S. regional foreign policy
since the end of the Cold War.
@ 54/55 Of course countries subjected to senseless US sanctions, like Russia, are concerned with
sovereignty. They are subject to baseless economic attacks by the country that controls world banking.
It is foolish to consider the trumpet's lunatic ravings in isolation, according to that organ
of empire
foreign policy dot com , the amerikan airforce is ready and rearing to go and blast the
bejeezuz outta North Korea.
Sure it may be bluster when they come out with seeming tosh like:
""We're ready to fight tonight," Gen. Robin Rand, commander of the Air Force's Global
Strike Command, told reporters at an Air Force conference in Washington on Monday. "We
don't have to spin up, we're ready.""
Because everyone knows that a manned tactical airforce is on the way out, that bombing a
population has only ever served to strengthen resolve within that population, but the first
point that the airforce of jocks n fighters is verging on obsolescence, might just drive the
generals of middle management, concerned that their career is about to hit a brick wall, to
go for one last roll of the dice. Blow some shit up, create a few heroes and maybe the
inevitable can be staved off for long enough for their scum to rise to the surface, jag a
great gig with a contractor, then retire in luxury. I mean to say it's gotta be worth a shot
right? The alternative of layoffs and all the sexy fighting stuff being done by unsexy
drones, is just too awful to consider.
So what if Guam gets wasted, a good memorial at Arlington will balance that shit and when
it is all said and done, most of the people who will get nuked by DPRK aren't amerikans - but
here's the best bit, we can sell them to the idjits just like they were, while we build the
anger and bloodlust, then backpedal on that when it comes down to lawsuits, compensation or
whatever it is those whale-fuckers whine about - right?
A pre-emptive attack based on the possibility that DPRK hasn't yet developed nuke tech
sufficiently, but will do so "if we continue to sit on our asses" would be an easy sell to an
orange derp whose access to alternative points of view has been cut off.
The only real question is whether the rest of the military (the non-airforce parts) go for
it.
The navy likely will because they are in the same boat (pun intended) as the airforce when it
comes down to usefulness as a front line conflict agent and they too will
likely get a role to play in the destruction of North Korea - at the very least as a weapons
platform (just like with the mindless Syria aggression) and may even get to be the forward
C&C base since South Korea isn't mobile and may cop a fair amount of DPRK reaction.
Only the army for whom a pre emptive attack on the people of North Korea has little
upside, but lots of downside, may oppose this insane butchery. The army will be tasked with
neutralising a population whose innate loathing of all things amerikan has just been raised
by about ten notches. So soon after the Iraq debacle, they may see an attack as all negative
in that once again they will cop the blame and even worse the old enemies - the airforce and
navy - will come out smelling like roses. It is true that the bulk of the yellow monkey's
'advisors' are army types, so under normal circumstances they would obstruct any such
bullshit grabs for the brass ring by the navy & airforce upstarts - but there is a high
probability that the army leadership will do no such thing.
The reason for that is as old as humanity itself and I was sad to see that it copped little
mention in the last thread about the 'soft' coup at the whitehouse.
Many people were cheering the takeover by the military doubtless the same people who
imagine that "amerika could be great again - if only we go back to the way it was in the
1950's and 60's". What they miss is that everything is fluid; nothing is held in stasis as a
proof that perfection has been reached. The 'eisenhower/johnson years were merely steps on
the path, the world was never gonna stay in white bourgeois contentment no matter whether
unwhites kicked up or not. There are diverse reasons for that from ambitious careerism
forcing change so a lucky few can ascend one more rung on the ladder, to the reality that it
is impossible for all humans to be content all the time -some groups will be disadvantaged,
advertise that then be 'adopted' by careerists as an excuse for forcing change. That is
inevitable - as inevitable as the reality that once the military gained power, their next
move would be to consolidate it and to try ensure that they kept it for ever.
In other words the initial coup may have been largely bloodless (altho several million
dead mid easterners would strongly disagree if they could) but any study of human behavior
reveals that it is the need to hold on to power which is what really incites oppression
violence and mass murder.
The Pennsylvania Avenue generals understand that the simplest way of retaining control is
gonna be if the orange 'whipped* gains re-election. If the orange chunder is gonna win the
next one he needs to hit some home runs and have a lot less ties or outright defeats.
At this stage it doesn't matter what turkey kicked up the Korea bizzo, or even it it has
any moral dimension at all, what matters is that the trumpet has made it a major issue and if
he doesn't 'prevail' in the short-term, the odds of him retaining support much less gaining
more support, are gone - very likely for the duration of the tangerine prezdency. It's not as
if the ME situation offers the slightest chink of light at the end of the tunnel. Syria is
history now and that Iran thing has a good chance of dividing europe from amerika, just as
climate change has. I reckon that the junta who, individually & institutionally have a
big investment in Nato, will be looking to steer the orange nit away from inciting a
confrontation over the nuke deal. Korea could be the alternate shiny thing the junta draws
trumpet's attention to in order to distract the dingbat.
So even though it is a total cleft stick that the junta is in, I reckon it is extremely
probable that the army branch of the amerikan government will allow the airforce and possibly
the navy as well, their moment in the sun.
The way this fuckwittery is shaping up, people of Korea are more likely to be enduring
Predators up their jacksies than not, before the end of "the
summer of '18'
*anyone who doesn't see that the trumpet displays all the signs (boasting of alleged
performance, number of 'conquests' size of penis etc) of a man who is unable to have his
voice heard above the demands of the women around him, doesn't comprehend the nature of
inter-gender relationships (doncha love 'inter-gender' it sounds exactly like the type of
pallid word the identity-ists would use heheh).
The main problem I have with your post is China. You do not say anything about China.
The Chinese made it clear that if the U.S. pre-emptively attacks the DPRK; China will get
involved; and I should think Russia will be somehow involved as well.
Moon Jae-In has told the U.S. it (SK) will be the one to decide on an attack, as it
should.
But, I do get your drift; I just hope the U.S. will not act...for once.
That said; I do think the U.S. lost its tether decades ago...
There's one little factor about getting it on with DPRK, besides the ones mentioned, and that
is that SecDef Gates several years ago declared that Korea was safe enough to allow it to be
an accompanied tour, i.e. soldiers could have their families join them in the Land of the
Morning Calm. This coincided with the consolidation of US bases, with a ten billion dollar
expansion of Camp Humphreys about seventy miles south of the DMZ. So now we have high-rise
apartments with wives, kids, pets, etc. in this "safe" place, now 35,000 strong including
all. They practice evacuation. From a recent report --
The noncombatant evacuation operations, or NEO, are aimed at making sure everybody knows
their roles in the event of a noncombatant evacuation, which may be ordered in the event of
war, political or civil unrest, or a natural or man-made disaster. "I liken the NEO operation
to being a scaffolding. It's not a fully fleshed out plan because it's preparing for a
million different worst-case scenarios," 1st Lt. Katelyn Radack, a spokeswoman for the 2nd
Combat Aviation Brigade, told Stars and Stripes. ... Brandy Madrigal, 32, was participating
in her third NEO -- so she knew exactly what to pack when she got the call to report to the
Assembly Point at the main gym at Camp Humphreys on June 5. She ticked off the list -- clothes, food for the kids, documents, phone, toiletries
-- before driving with her two
children from their first-floor apartment to the base to be processed.
Imagine that -- all those people assembling in one place for "processing." They'd get
processed, all right. So the US Army won't be red-hot for the mighty US Air Force to (again)
conduct its aerial murder in North Korea, with their loved ones being in rocket range of a
counter-attack. That's in addition to any feelings people have for the ten million plus South
Koreans in Seoul, close to the border.
re: Ken Burns Viet Nam -- one only has to look at the sponsors. Burns will cleave to the
line only more so. Darling of the aristocratic charities. Somehow reaching the glory 50 years
later. Now that Agent Orange has nearly completed the harvest.
Action against Iran and NK, could it really be termed "war", anymore?
I deliberately left China outta the equation because the conflict with DPRK will be
engineered to be kicked off with a provocation allegedly committed by DRPK, amerika will
'respond' andthe war will quickly escalate. Yes PRC may become involved, but getting into a
war with amerika right now is not great for the PRC either, if the most vital concern is the
proximity of amerikan troops to the China border, amerika can give an agreement signed in
blood that amerikan military will pull back behind the 38th parallel once the 'regime has
been changed' and that only Korean men and equipment will remain.
Of course China would be smart to distrust that but sold correctly with incentives and maybe
even the use of some mutually trusted referee, China might decide that is a superior option
to kicking off ww3.
As for the enlisted mens families somehow I doubt that the military cares any more about them
than it does the men and women they have in their forces - so not very much - smart officer
class types will be considering the need to 'further their children's education back home'
right now, whether or not the trump decides to go for broke. As I pointed out before, the
plan will require that DRPK feels trapped into committing some type of really egregious
provocation, or false flagging such a provocation.
Imagine Guam got nuked and all initial evidence pointed to DRPK, China is in a tough spot
plus most amerikans will be of the opinion that protecting the families in South Korean
barracks comes second to vengeance. That would be an easy sell on fox and msnbc.
Amerika seemingly being attacked is also gonna end msnbc & the rest's potshots at the
orange derp, just as 911 halted just about all reference to the view shrub stole the election
from Gore in the MSM.
What scares me the most about the US regime's threats to attack and destroy North Korea is
I had naively assumed that all the talk was just the standard game theory back and forth.
There never was any real threat beyond the occasional minor incident like there have been in
the past few decades.
And I didn't understand why China would so openly and absolutely support North Korea with
any sort of attack by the US regime.
But then I read some of the neocon online postings or writings about North Korea and it
was a sickening shock to realize that I had been so foolish to believe the Korean crisis was
not about Korea, but China.
Getting the US regime's military directly on the Chinese border is something the
neocons are perfectly willing, and most likely gleefully happy, to trade millions to tens of
millions of North and South Korean lives for.
I can't imagine the revulsion and horror the rest of the world must be feeling towards the
United States right now.
The German philosopher and sociologist Ferdinand Tönnies (1855 – 1936)
distinguished between two types of social groupings. Gemeinschaft (often translated as
community or left untranslated) and Gesellschaft (often translated as society). Gemeinschaft
and Gesellschaft describe the crucial distinction between community and "Civil Society";
community being characterized by a dispensationalist consensus or a sacred communal consensus
on a dispensation sent down from on high, and the latter being characterized as a consensus
to "agree to disagree" and to agree that a consensus in any meaningful form can no longer be
reached, paving the way to a "conventional" polity (agreed to by secular-humanist
convention). This "agreement to disagree" which crystalized between the Peace of Augsburg
(1555) and the Peace of Westphalia (1644 – 1648) was, in effect, the West's long and
excruciating decision to throw out the baby of Community with the bathwater of the Church's
malfeasance in the revolutionary fervor of the Reformation and the "Enlightenment" that
followed in its wake. But whereas the integrality of church and state was lost with the Peace
of Westphalia circa 1648 whereat pre-Westphalian communities gave way to the Westphalian
order of "Civil Societies", the Islamic Revolution of 1979 restored community to the Moslem
nation of Iran.
I posted this comment over in the latest Syria summary thread but then thought that it
belongs here as an example of the craven duplicity of empire about Syria sovereignty.
The following is a link and article quote from China news that says Russia is accusing the
US of chickenshit (my term) tactics in Syria
"He said the advancing Syrian government troops supported by the Russian Air Force managed to
break the fierce resistance and liberate more than 60 square km of territory on the left bank of the Euphrates River in the last 24
hours.
But their advance was hampered by a sudden rise of the water level in the Euphrates and a
two-fold increase of the speed of its current after the government troops started crossing the river, Konashenkov said.
In the absence of precipitation, the only source of such changes in the water level could be
a man-made discharge of water at the dams north of the Euphrates, which are held by the opposition formations controlled by the
international coalition led by the United States, he said. "
What's worries me the most in Trumps speech, sounds actually ominously, is the phrases
"dead Poles, fighting [???!!!] French, strong[!] English" ... Is this what's planned
for the near future? I'm not liking it a bit.
Situation in the US is getting worse, seems that this Fall big changes are coming, and no
lies can hide the truth: LIES, LIES & OMG
MORE LIES Who is the enemy? Some names can be found here (and in a recent Eric Zuesse piece):
The Borg, the AngloZio pedo-satanic cabal of the City of London Crown Corporation, the web
of merchants of death and corporate oligarchy have been doing whatever possible to help her
stay relevant and expand information war, blame Russia:
Nice summary but I disagree with the dedollarization part. To me, ending the US dollar as
reserve Currency is just a part of the issue. If that occurs American paper money becomes
worthless as the article states. While this bankrupts the US, what will it do to the global
world of private finance, BIS, SWIFT, IMF, etc.? Does private finance, private property and
inheritance all get dealt with in this adjustment? How long will the adjustment period
take?
What is clear though now is that there are two factions that are moving in "opposite"
directions and the implications will lock up global commerce at some point....fairly soon
(weeks/months)......and hopefully adults from all sides will work things out peacefully.
these 16 years of bin laden wars constitute the most concerted assault on sovereignty
since time out of mind. conspicuously in the cradle of civilization...cultural harmonies
undermined and religious sects set at each others throats, tribes ripped from their roots,
their facilities and systems desecrated, their families ravaged by rack and ruin and
displacement, an alien scourge unleashed on their landscape.
but as someone upstream suggested, the window on these destructive incursions might be
closing, what with Russia and China being unconquerable and all.
of course there are other dark forces gnawing at sovereignty , possibly even more
stealthily treacherous ones...
On the one hand, Trump defended sovereignty as a universal ideal. On the other, he demanded
that America's enemies stop mistreating their people. The result was gobbledygook.
...
to make his incoherence even more explicit, Trump declared that "our respect for
sovereignty is also a call for action. All people deserve a government that cares for their
safety, their interests and their well-being." That's like saying that my respect for your
right to do whatever you want in your garden should be a call to action for you to stop
growing weed.
...
For Trump, by contrast, sovereignty means both that no one can tell the United States what
to do inside its borders and that the United States can do exactly that to the countries it
doesn't like. That's not the liberal internationalism that Obama espoused. Nor is it the
realism of some of Obama's most trenchant critics. It is imperialism. General Pershing, in
the Philippines, would have approved.
In conclusion, what I take away from this speech is a sense of relief for the rest of the
planet and a sense of real worry for the USA. Ever since the Neocons overthrew Trump and
made him what is colloquially referred to as their "bitch" the US foreign policy has come
to a virtual standstill. Sure, the Americans talk a lot, but at least they are doing
nothing. That paralysis, which is a direct consequence of the internal infighting, is a
blessing for the rest of the planet because it allows everybody else to get things done.
Pressure will be intense on U S business in east coast China to refrain from converting their
'yuan' profits into gold .
What a contradictory set of pressures much
"... "We will be spending almost $700 billion on our military and defense. Our military will soon be the strongest it has ever been" ..."
"... while the US military is extremely good at killing people in large numbers, it is also extremely bad at winning wars ..."
"... Trump is under the illusion that spending a lot of money "buys" you a better military. This is completely false ..."
"... If spending money was the key to a competent military force, the US armed forces would have already conquered the entire planet many times over. In reality, they have not won anything meaningful since the war in the Pacific. ..."
"... just like all this predecessors, Trump conflates handing out money to the Military Industrial Complex with preparing for war. ..."
"... Frankly, this is good news: let the Americans spend themselves into bankruptcy, let them further neglect their military and let them continue to believe that this kind of magical thinking will bring them to victory. ..."
"... Sidebar: for the record, I have met and studied with plenty of excellent, well-educated, honorable, courageous and patriotic American officers and the kind of money-centered hubris I describe above is in no way directed at them, if only because they know even much better than I how bad the situation really is. There are plenty of highly-educated officers in the US armed forces who understand history and who know that money bring corruption, not victory. But they are mostly kept at ranks no higher than Colonel and you will often find them in military teaching institutions and academies. ..."
You can read the full (rush,not official) text
here or watch the video here .
Most of it is so vapid that I won't even bother posting the full thing. But there are a few
interesting moments including those:
"We will be spending almost $700 billion on our military and defense. Our military will
soon be the strongest it has ever been"
This short sentence contains the key to unlock the reason behind the fact that while the US
military is extremely good at killing people in large numbers, it is also extremely bad at
winning wars. Like most Americans, Trump is under the illusion that spending a lot of money
"buys" you a better military. This is completely false, of course. If spending money was the
key to a competent military force, the US armed forces would have already conquered the entire
planet many times over. In reality, they have not won anything meaningful since the war in the
Pacific.
Having surrounded himself with "Mad Dog" kind of "experts" on warfare, Trump is now reusing
that old mantra about how money buys you victory and this is something extremely important.
This kind of magical thinking signals to the countries most threatened by the US that the
Americans are unable to engage in a basic "lessons learned" kind of exercise, that history
teaches them nothing and that, just like all this predecessors, Trump conflates handing out
money to the Military Industrial Complex with preparing for war.
Frankly, this is good news: let the Americans spend themselves into bankruptcy, let them
further neglect their military and let them continue to believe that this kind of magical
thinking will bring them to victory.
[ Sidebar: for the record, I have met and studied with plenty of excellent,
well-educated, honorable, courageous and patriotic American officers and the kind of
money-centered hubris I describe above is in no way directed at them, if only because they know
even much better than I how bad the situation really is. There are plenty of highly-educated
officers in the US armed forces who understand history and who know that money bring
corruption, not victory. But they are mostly kept at ranks no higher than Colonel and you will
often find them in military teaching institutions and academies. Having studied with them
and become good friends with many of them, I feel sorry for them and I know that if they had
the means to stop this insanity they would]
Trump's address to the United Nations on Tuesday should erase any doubts that he is
threatening a completely unprecedented military strike against North Korea. This seems to be
Trump even more fully embracing
the so-called Madman Theory, in which he makes himself so unpredictable that other world
leaders fear setting him off.
"There is some merit to this. You can argue perhaps there is some merit to it in
international relations, although it obviously can go too far. My concern there with the
so-called 'madman theory -- that actually (Richard) Nixon put forward through Kissinger where
he had Kissinger tell the Soviets, 'You know, Nixon's under a lot of pressure right now and,
you know, he drinks at night sometimes, so you guys ought to be real careful. Don't push this
into a crisis.' There may, again, be some merit into the madman theory until you get in a
crisis. But you do not want the other side thinking you are irrational in a crisis. You do
not want the other side thinking that you might be sufficiently irrational to conduct a first
strike or to do something, you know, so-called 'unthinkable.'"
Polls show the American people are not confident in Trump's ability to handle the North
Korea situation, with
61 percent saying they are "uneasy" Trump's words Tuesday likely won't calm many fears, but
he's clearly gambling on North Korea backing down in the face of big talk.
The bill is more than the Pentagon requested, and more than the large spending increase
the White House requested. At present both the House and Senate seem to be competing to see
who can outspend the other with their version of the bill, while rejecting all cuts proposed
by the Pentagon to keep the budget in line.
It was this massive increase that had the normally hawkish Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) as a
surprise no vote on the bill. Corker said the bill blows through budget caps, and he also
objected continuing to put money into "Overseas Contingency Operations" budget, where it can
be shifted around at will, saying that fund has been repeatedly abused.
Though President Trump has publicly objected to several aspects of the NDAA, including the
"premature" increase in spending on missile defense, there are no signs a veto is being
considered, and he is expected to sign whatever Congress ultimately puts in front of him.
Amazon, Facebook and Google: The new robber barons?
Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos in 2010. Credit:
/CreativeCommons/SteveJurvetson
Earlier this month Amazon,
announced its
plans to establish a second headquarters in North America. Rather than simply reveal which city would
become its second home, the Seattle-based tech company opted instead to open a bidding war. In an
eight page
document published on its website, Amazon outlined the criteria for prospective suitors, and
invited economic developers to submit proposals advocating for why their city or region should be
the host of the new location.
Its potential arrival comes with the claim that the company will invest more than $5 billion in
construction and generate up to 50,000 "high paying jobs." Mayors and governors, hard at work crafting
their bids, are no doubt salivating at the mere thought of such economic activity. Journalists and
editorial teams in eligible metropolises are also playing their parts, as newspapers have
published a series of articles and editorials
making the case for why
their city should be declared the winner.
Last Tuesday Bloomberg
reported that Boston was the early frontrunner, sending a wave of panic across the continent.
Much to the relief of the other contenders, Amazon quickly discredited the report as misinformation,
announcing in a series of
tweets on
Wednesday that it is "energized by the response from cities across [North America]" and that, contrary
to the rumors, there are currently no front-runners on their "equal playing field."
That Amazon is "energized" should come as no surprise. Most companies would also be energized
by the taxpayer-funded windfall that is likely coming its way. Reporters speculate that the winner
of the sweepstakes!in no small part to the bidding war format!could be forced to cough up hundreds
of millions of dollars in state and local subsidies for the privilege of hosting Amazon's expansion.
Amazon has long been the beneficiary of such subsidies, emerging in recent years as a
formidable opponent
to Walmart as the top recipient of corporate welfare. According to Good Jobs First, a Washington,
D.C. organization dedicated to corporate and government accountability, Amazon has received
more than $1 billion in
local and state subsidies since 2000. With a business plan dedicated to amassing long-term market
share in lieu of short-term profits, Amazon, under the leadership of its founder and chief executive,
Jeff Bezos, operates on razor-thin profit margins in most industries, while actually operating at
a loss in others. As such, these state and local subsidies have played an instrumental role in Amazon's
growth
Advocates of free market enterprise should be irate over the company's crony capitalist practices
and the cities and states that enable it. But more so than simply ruffling the feathers of the libertarian-minded,
Amazon's shameless solicitation for subsidies capped off a series of summer skirmishes in the Democratic
left's emerging war against monopolies.
Earlier this summer when Amazon announced its $13.7 billion purchase of Whole Foods, antitrust
advocates
called upon the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission's Antitrust Division to
block the sale and
update the United States government's legal definition of monopoly. Although the acquisition!which
was
approved in August!only gives Amazon a 1.5 percent market share in the grocery industry, it more
importantly provides the tech giant with access to more than 450 brick-and-mortar Whole Foods locations.
Critics say that these physical locations will
prove invaluable to its long term plan of economic dominance, and that it is but the latest advance
in the company's unprecedented control of the economy's
underlying infrastructure.
Google also found itself in the crosshairs of the left's anti-monopoly faction when, in late June,
the European Union imposed a $2.7 billion
fine against the tech company for anti-competitive search engine manipulation in violation of
its antitrust laws. The Open Markets Program of the New America Foundation subsequently published
a press release applauding the EU's decision. Two months later, the Open Markets Program was
axed . The former program director Barry Lynn
claims that his employers caved to pressure from a corporation that has donated more than $21
million to the New America Foundation. The fallout emboldened
journalists to share their experiences of being silenced by the tech giant, and underscores the
influence Google exerts over
think tanks and
academics
Most recently, Facebook faced criticism after it was
discovered that a Russian company with ties to the Kremlin purchased $100,000 in ads from the
social media company in an effort to influence the 2016 presidential election. Facebook, as a result,
has become the latest subject of interest in Robert Mueller's special investigation into Russian
interference in last fall's election. But regardless of whether the ads influenced the outcome, the
report elicited demands for transparency and oversight in a digital ad marketplace that Facebook,
along with Google,
dominates . By using highly sophisticated algorithms, Facebook and Google receive more than
60 percent of all digital ad revenue, threatening the financial solvency of publishers and creating
a host of economic incentives that
pollute editorial autonomy.
While the Democratic left!in an effort to rejuvenate its
populist soul !has been at the front lines in the war against these
modern-day robber barons, Stacy Mitchell, co-director of the Institute of Local Self-Reliance,
suggests that opposition to corporate consolidation need not be a partisan issue. In a piece published
in The Atlantic , Mitchell traces the bipartisan history of anti-monopoly sentiment in American
politics. She
writes :
If "monopoly" sounds like a word from another era, that's because, until recently, it was.
Throughout the middle of the 20th century, the term was frequently used in newspaper headlines,
campaign speeches, and State of the Union addresses delivered by Republican and Democratic presidents
alike. Breaking up too-powerful companies was a bipartisan goal and on the minds of many voters.
But, starting in the 1970s, the word retreated from the public consciousness. Not coincidentally,
at the same time, the enforcement of anti-monopoly policy grew increasingly toothless.
Although the modern Republican Party stands accused of cozying up with corporate interests, the
history of conservative thought has a rich intellectual tradition of being skeptical!if not hostile!towards
economic consolidation. For conservatives and libertarians wedded to the tenets of free market orthodoxy!or
for Democrats
dependent on campaign contributions from a donor class of Silicon Valley tycoons!redefining the
legal definition of monopoly and rekindling a bipartisan interest in antitrust enforcement are likely
non-starters.
But for conservatives willing to break from the principles of free market fundamentalism, the
papal
encyclicals of the Roman Catholic Church, the
distributist thought of Hilaire Belloc and G.K. Chesterton, the
social
criticism of Christopher Lasch, and the
observations of agrarian
essayist Wendell Berry provide an intellectual framework from which conservatives can critique and
combat concentrated economic power. With a respect for robust and resilient localities and a keen
understanding of the moral dangers posed by an economy perpetuated by consumerism and convenience,
these writers appeal to the moral imaginations of the reader, issuing warnings about the detrimental
effects that economic consolidation has on the person, the family, the community, and society at
large.
The events of this summer underscore the immense political power wielded by our economy's corporate
giants. To those who recognize the dangers posed by our age of consolidation, the skirmishes from
this summer could serve as a rallying cry in a bipartisan war for independence from our corporate
crown.
Daniel Kishi is an editorial assistant at The American Conservative . Follow him on
Twitter at @DanielMKishi
The bill is more than the Pentagon requested, and more than the large spending increase
the White House requested. At present both the House and Senate seem to be competing to see
who can outspend the other with their version of the bill, while rejecting all cuts proposed
by the Pentagon to keep the budget in line.
It was this massive increase that had the normally hawkish Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) as a
surprise no vote on the bill. Corker said the bill blows through budget caps, and he also
objected continuing to put money into "Overseas Contingency Operations" budget, where it can
be shifted around at will, saying that fund has been repeatedly abused.
Though President Trump has publicly objected to several aspects of the NDAA, including the
"premature" increase in spending on missile defense, there are no signs a veto is being
considered, and he is expected to sign whatever Congress ultimately puts in front of him.
Amazon, Facebook and Google: The new robber barons?
Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos in 2010. Credit:
/CreativeCommons/SteveJurvetson
Earlier this month Amazon,
announced its
plans to establish a second headquarters in North America. Rather than simply reveal which city would
become its second home, the Seattle-based tech company opted instead to open a bidding war. In an
eight page
document published on its website, Amazon outlined the criteria for prospective suitors, and
invited economic developers to submit proposals advocating for why their city or region should be
the host of the new location.
Its potential arrival comes with the claim that the company will invest more than $5 billion in
construction and generate up to 50,000 "high paying jobs." Mayors and governors, hard at work crafting
their bids, are no doubt salivating at the mere thought of such economic activity. Journalists and
editorial teams in eligible metropolises are also playing their parts, as newspapers have
published a series of articles and editorials
making the case for why
their city should be declared the winner.
Last Tuesday Bloomberg
reported that Boston was the early frontrunner, sending a wave of panic across the continent.
Much to the relief of the other contenders, Amazon quickly discredited the report as misinformation,
announcing in a series of
tweets on
Wednesday that it is "energized by the response from cities across [North America]" and that, contrary
to the rumors, there are currently no front-runners on their "equal playing field."
That Amazon is "energized" should come as no surprise. Most companies would also be energized
by the taxpayer-funded windfall that is likely coming its way. Reporters speculate that the winner
of the sweepstakes!in no small part to the bidding war format!could be forced to cough up hundreds
of millions of dollars in state and local subsidies for the privilege of hosting Amazon's expansion.
Amazon has long been the beneficiary of such subsidies, emerging in recent years as a
formidable opponent
to Walmart as the top recipient of corporate welfare. According to Good Jobs First, a Washington,
D.C. organization dedicated to corporate and government accountability, Amazon has received
more than $1 billion in
local and state subsidies since 2000. With a business plan dedicated to amassing long-term market
share in lieu of short-term profits, Amazon, under the leadership of its founder and chief executive,
Jeff Bezos, operates on razor-thin profit margins in most industries, while actually operating at
a loss in others. As such, these state and local subsidies have played an instrumental role in Amazon's
growth
Advocates of free market enterprise should be irate over the company's crony capitalist practices
and the cities and states that enable it. But more so than simply ruffling the feathers of the libertarian-minded,
Amazon's shameless solicitation for subsidies capped off a series of summer skirmishes in the Democratic
left's emerging war against monopolies.
Earlier this summer when Amazon announced its $13.7 billion purchase of Whole Foods, antitrust
advocates
called upon the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission's Antitrust Division to
block the sale and
update the United States government's legal definition of monopoly. Although the acquisition!which
was
approved in August!only gives Amazon a 1.5 percent market share in the grocery industry, it more
importantly provides the tech giant with access to more than 450 brick-and-mortar Whole Foods locations.
Critics say that these physical locations will
prove invaluable to its long term plan of economic dominance, and that it is but the latest advance
in the company's unprecedented control of the economy's
underlying infrastructure.
Google also found itself in the crosshairs of the left's anti-monopoly faction when, in late June,
the European Union imposed a $2.7 billion
fine against the tech company for anti-competitive search engine manipulation in violation of
its antitrust laws. The Open Markets Program of the New America Foundation subsequently published
a press release applauding the EU's decision. Two months later, the Open Markets Program was
axed . The former program director Barry Lynn
claims that his employers caved to pressure from a corporation that has donated more than $21
million to the New America Foundation. The fallout emboldened
journalists to share their experiences of being silenced by the tech giant, and underscores the
influence Google exerts over
think tanks and
academics
Most recently, Facebook faced criticism after it was
discovered that a Russian company with ties to the Kremlin purchased $100,000 in ads from the
social media company in an effort to influence the 2016 presidential election. Facebook, as a result,
has become the latest subject of interest in Robert Mueller's special investigation into Russian
interference in last fall's election. But regardless of whether the ads influenced the outcome, the
report elicited demands for transparency and oversight in a digital ad marketplace that Facebook,
along with Google,
dominates . By using highly sophisticated algorithms, Facebook and Google receive more than
60 percent of all digital ad revenue, threatening the financial solvency of publishers and creating
a host of economic incentives that
pollute editorial autonomy.
While the Democratic left!in an effort to rejuvenate its
populist soul !has been at the front lines in the war against these
modern-day robber barons, Stacy Mitchell, co-director of the Institute of Local Self-Reliance,
suggests that opposition to corporate consolidation need not be a partisan issue. In a piece published
in The Atlantic , Mitchell traces the bipartisan history of anti-monopoly sentiment in American
politics. She
writes :
If "monopoly" sounds like a word from another era, that's because, until recently, it was.
Throughout the middle of the 20th century, the term was frequently used in newspaper headlines,
campaign speeches, and State of the Union addresses delivered by Republican and Democratic presidents
alike. Breaking up too-powerful companies was a bipartisan goal and on the minds of many voters.
But, starting in the 1970s, the word retreated from the public consciousness. Not coincidentally,
at the same time, the enforcement of anti-monopoly policy grew increasingly toothless.
Although the modern Republican Party stands accused of cozying up with corporate interests, the
history of conservative thought has a rich intellectual tradition of being skeptical!if not hostile!towards
economic consolidation. For conservatives and libertarians wedded to the tenets of free market orthodoxy!or
for Democrats
dependent on campaign contributions from a donor class of Silicon Valley tycoons!redefining the
legal definition of monopoly and rekindling a bipartisan interest in antitrust enforcement are likely
non-starters.
But for conservatives willing to break from the principles of free market fundamentalism, the
papal
encyclicals of the Roman Catholic Church, the
distributist thought of Hilaire Belloc and G.K. Chesterton, the
social
criticism of Christopher Lasch, and the
observations of agrarian
essayist Wendell Berry provide an intellectual framework from which conservatives can critique and
combat concentrated economic power. With a respect for robust and resilient localities and a keen
understanding of the moral dangers posed by an economy perpetuated by consumerism and convenience,
these writers appeal to the moral imaginations of the reader, issuing warnings about the detrimental
effects that economic consolidation has on the person, the family, the community, and society at
large.
The events of this summer underscore the immense political power wielded by our economy's corporate
giants. To those who recognize the dangers posed by our age of consolidation, the skirmishes from
this summer could serve as a rallying cry in a bipartisan war for independence from our corporate
crown.
Daniel Kishi is an editorial assistant at The American Conservative . Follow him on
Twitter at @DanielMKishi
Iraq war shaken potion of Us neocon, but they managed to recover. And the main beneficiaries
of the war with Iraq were Israel, Iran, and the US oil companies. Now they are again the
force that pushed the USA for the war with Iran.
Trump was very jingoistic toward Iran from the very beginning. That was a really strange
position taken into account his more or less isolationist approach to foreign policy during
elections. The same was true for Bannon and Flint.
Notable quotes:
"... Those American Jews who are strongly attached to Israel and somehow find themselves in senior policy making positions involving the Middle East and who actually possess any integrity on the issue should recuse themselves, just as any judge would do if he were presiding over a case in which he had a personal interest. ..."
"... If you supported Trump because you thought he might be some sort of isolationist dove, you have only yourself to blame. Evil Jewish neocons didn't force you to ignore the massive evidence that was always right in front of your face. ..."
"... The 2007 book, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy argued that a loose coalition of interests, which supports Israel, lobbies the U.S. government to skew U.S. foreign policy to Israel's favor. The authors also assert this reality damages, both America's and Israel's, long-term interests. ..."
One might also add that neocons as a group were founded by Jews and are largely Jewish, hence
their universal attachment to the state of Israel. They first rose into prominence when they
obtained a number of national security positions during the Reagan Administration and their
ascendancy was completed when they staffed senior positions in the Pentagon and White House
under George W. Bush. Recall for a moment Paul Wolfowitz, Doug Feith, and Scooter Libby. Yes,
all Jewish and all conduits for the false information that led to a war that has spread and
effectively destroyed much of the Middle East. Except for Israel, of course. Philip Zelikow,
also Jewish, in a moment of candor, admitted that the Iraq War, in his opinion, was fought for
Israel.
... ... ...
There are a couple of simple fixes for the dominant involvement of American Jews in foreign
policy issues where they have a personal interest due to their ethnicity or family ties. First
of all, don't put them into national security positions involving the Middle East, where they
will potentially be conflicted. Let them worry instead about North Korea, which does not have a
Jewish minority and which was not involved in the holocaust. This type of solution was, in fact,
somewhat of a policy regarding the U.S. Ambassador position in Israel. No Jew was appointed to
avoid any conflict of interest prior to 1995, an understanding that was violated by Bill Clinton
(wouldn't you know it!) who named Martin Indyk to the post. Indyk was not even an American
citizen at the time and had to be naturalized quickly prior to being approved by congress.
Those American Jews who are strongly attached to Israel and somehow find themselves in senior
policy making positions involving the Middle East and who actually possess any integrity on the
issue should recuse themselves, just as any judge would do if he were presiding over a case in
which he had a personal interest. Any American should be free to exercise first amendment rights
to debate possible options regarding policy, up to and including embracing positions that damage
the United States and benefit a foreign nation. But if he or she is in a position to actually
create those policies, he or she should butt out and leave the policy generation to those who
have no personal baggage.
I'm strongly against any war with Iran, but this comes of as an unhinged and bigoted rant.
Not nearly everyone who is pushing for war with Iran is Jewish, and this narrative
perpetuates the myth, beloved by alt-right types and paleocons, of a well-intentioned but
naive Trump administration that was hijacked by Jewish neocons.
In reality, despite differences within the administration, Iran was always something they
could all agree on. H.R. McMaster and James Mattis are well known Iran hawks, and neither are
Jewish. Nikki Haley isn't Jewish, nor is Rex Tillerson. Steve Bannon and Michael Flynn
wouldn't have stopped Trump from going to war if they hadn't been forced out of the
administration, as both, especially the latter, were absolute lunatics when it came to
Iran.
On that subject, they were worse than neocons. And of course there's Trump himself, whose
bloodlust regarding Iran has always been on full display from the beginning, if you were
paying attention. Hostility toward Iran might in fact be the most consistent theme of the
Trump administration and of Trump himself, who has been known to vacillate on virtually every
issue, except this one.
If you supported Trump because you thought he might be some sort of isolationist dove,
you have only yourself to blame. Evil Jewish neocons didn't force you to ignore the massive
evidence that was always right in front of your face.
"The 2007 book, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy argued that a loose coalition of
interests, which supports Israel, lobbies the U.S. government to skew U.S. foreign policy to
Israel's favor. The authors also assert this reality damages, both America's and Israel's,
long-term interests." The Israel Lobby" ignited a firestorm of debate. Critics accused the
authors of giving voice to historic anti-Semitic slurs. Supporters hailed the book as opening
a door to needed dialogue on a taboo subject.
Ten years later, the book's co-authors, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, join Worldview
to discuss the changes in Middle East dialogue in the decade since they wrote the book.
Mearsheimer is professor of political science at the University of Chicago and authored
numerous books including, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. Walt is a professor of
International Affairs at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government. He also authored the book,
Taming American Power: The Global Response to U.S. Primacy."
The war in Iraq was conceived by 25 neoconservative intellectuals, most of them
Jewish, who are pushing President Bush to change the course of history. Two of them,
journalists William Kristol and Charles Krauthammer, say it's possible.
This is a war of an elite. [Tom] Friedman laughs: I could give you the names of 25 people
(all of whom are at this moment within a five-block radius of this office) who, if you had
exiled them to a desert island a year and a half ago, the Iraq war would not have
happened.
If we're not careful, these same treacherous back-stabbing thugs will get the USA
involved in a hot war with Iran, while Israel sets on the sideline, laughing about how
gullible and stupid those Americans are.
Though it goes against political correctness (itself a term invented in the DDR (East
Germany) to describe those not on board with the regime, what is stated is obvious to those
looking at it dispassionately. If, as a result things go wrong, provided we survive the
failure, scapegoats will be sought after for the debacle.
"... The New York Times is prepping the American people for what could become World War III. The daily message is that you must learn to hate Russia and its President Vladimir Putin so much that, first, you should support vast new spending on America's Military-Industrial Complex and, second, you'll be ginned up for nuclear war if it comes to that. ..."
"... At this stage, the Times doesn't even try for a cosmetic appearance of objective journalism. Look at how the Times has twisted the history of the Ukraine crisis, treating it simply as a case of "Russian aggression" or a "Russian invasion." The Times routinely ignores what actually happened in Ukraine in late 2013 and early 2014 when the U.S. government aided and abetted a violent coup that overthrew Ukraine's elected President Viktor Yanukovych after he had been demonized in the Western media. ..."
"... The Times and much of the U.S. mainstream media refuses even to acknowledge that there is another side to the Ukraine story. Anyone who mentions this reality is deemed a "Kremlin stooge" in much the same way that people who questioned the mainstream certainty about Iraq's WMD in 2002-03 were called "Saddam apologists." ..."
"... Many liberals came to view the dubious claims of Russian "meddling" in the 2016 election as the golden ticket to remove Trump from the White House. So, amid that frenzy, all standards of proof were jettisoned to make Russia-gate the new Watergate. ..."
"... For one, even if the U.S. government were to succeed in destabilizing nuclear-armed Russia sufficiently to force out President Putin, the neocon dream of another malleable Boris Yeltsin in the Kremlin is far less likely than the emergence of an extreme Russian nationalist who might be ready to push the nuclear button rather than accept further humiliation of Mother Russia. ..."
"... The truth is that the world has much less to fear from the calculating Vladimir Putin than from the guy who might follow a deposed Vladimir Putin amid economic desperation and political chaos in Russia. But the possibility of nuclear Armageddon doesn't seem to bother the neocon/liberal-interventionist New York Times. Nor apparently does the principle of fair and honest journalism. ..."
"... America's Stolen Narrative, ..."
"... The Trans-Atlantic Empire of banking cartels rest upon enmity with the only other Great Powers in the World: Russia and China, while keeping USA thoroughly within their orbit, relying on our Great Power as the engine that powers this Western Bankers' Empire (the steering room lies in City-of-London, who has LONG maneuvered, via their Wall Street assets, to bring us into Empire). Should peaceful, cooperative and productive relations break out between USA, Russia, and China, this would undermine everything the Western Empire has worked to build. ..."
"... THIS is why the phony Russiagate issue is flogged to get rid of Trump (who seeks cooperation with Russia and China), AND keeping Russia as "The Enemy", keeping the MIC, Intel community, various police-state ops, in high demand for "National Security" reasons (also positioned to foil any democratic uprisings, should they see past the progs daily curtain and see their plight). ..."
"... The funny thing about living through the 'fake news' era, is that now everyone thinks that their news source is the correct news source. Many believe that outside of the individual everyone else reads or listens too 'fake news'. It's like all of a sudden no one has credibility, yet everyone may have it, depending on what news source you subscribe to. I mean there's almost no way of knowing what the truth is, because everyone is claiming that they are getting their news from reputable news outlets, but some or many aren't, and who are the reputable news sources, if you don't mind my asking you this just for the record? ..."
"... To learn how to deal with this 'fake news', I would suggest you start studying the JFK assassination, or any other ill defined tragic event, and then you might learn how to decipher the 'fake news' matrix of confusion to learn what you so desire to learn. I chose this route, because when was the last time the Establishment brokered the truth in regard to a happening such as the JFK assassination? Upon learning of what a few well written books has to say, you will then need to rely on your own brain to at least give you enough satisfaction to allow you to believe that you pretty well got it right, and there go you. In other words, the truth is out there, hiding in plain sight, and if you are persistent enough you just might find it. Good luck. ..."
The NYT's Yellow Journalism on Russia September 15, 2017
Exclusive: The New York Times' descent into yellow journalism over Russia recalls the
sensationalism of Hearst and Pulitzer leading to the Spanish-American War, but the risks to
humanity are much greater now, writes Robert Parry.
By Robert Parry
Reading The New York Times these days is like getting a daily dose of the "Two Minutes Hate"
as envisioned in George Orwell's 1984, except applied to America's new/old enemy
Russia. Even routine international behavior, such as Russia using fictitious names for
potential adversaries during a military drill, is transformed into something weird and
evil.
In the snide and alarmist style that the Times now always applies to Russia, reporter Andrew
Higgins wrote
– referring to a fictitious war-game "enemy" – "The country does not exist, so it
has neither an army nor any real citizens, though it has acquired a feisty following of
would-be patriots online. Starting on Thursday, however, the fictional state, Veishnoriya, a
distillation of the Kremlin's darkest fears about the West, becomes the target of the combined
military might of Russia and its ally Belarus."
This snarky front-page story in Thursday's print editions also played into the Times' larger
narrative about Russia as a disseminator of "fake news." You see the Russkies are even
inventing "fictional" enemies to bully. Hah-hah-hah -- The article was entitled, "Russia's War
Games With Fake Enemies Cause Real Alarm."
Of course, the U.S. and its allies also conduct war games against fictitious enemies, but
you wouldn't know that from reading the Times. For instance,
U.S. war games in 2015 substituted five made-up states – Ariana, Atropia, Donovia,
Gorgas and Limaria – for nations near the Caucasus mountains along the borders of Russia
and Iran.
In earlier war games, the U.S. used both fictitious names and colors in place of actual
countries. For instance, in 1981, the Reagan administration conducted "Ocean Venture" with that
war-game scenario focused on a group of islands called "Amber and the Amberdines," obvious
stand-ins for Grenada and the Grenadines, with "Orange" used to represent Cuba.
In those cases, the maneuvers by the powerful U.S. military were clearly intended to
intimidate far weaker countries. Yet, the U.S. mainstream media did not treat those war
rehearsals for what they were, implicit aggression, but rather mocked protests from the obvious
targets as paranoia since we all know the U.S. would never violate international law and invade
some weak country -- (As it turned out, Ocean Venture '81 was a dress rehearsal for the actual
U.S. invasion of Grenada in 1983.)
Yet, as far as the Times and its many imitators in the major media are concerned, there's
one standard for "us" and another for Russia and other countries that "we" don't like.
Yellow Journalism
But the Times' behavior over the past several years suggests something even more sinister
than biased reporting. The "newspaper of record" has slid into yellow journalism, the practice
of two earlier New York newspapers – William Randolph Hearst's New York Journal and
Joseph Pulitzer's New York World – that in the 1890s manipulated facts about the crisis
in Cuba to push the United States into war with Spain, a conflict that many historians say
marked the beginning of America's global empire.
Except in today's instance, The New York Times is prepping the American people for what
could become World War III. The daily message is that you must learn to hate Russia and its
President Vladimir Putin so much that, first, you should support vast new spending on America's
Military-Industrial Complex and, second, you'll be ginned up for nuclear war if it comes to
that.
At this stage, the Times doesn't even try for a cosmetic appearance of objective journalism.
Look at how the Times has twisted the history of the Ukraine crisis, treating it simply as a
case of "Russian aggression" or a "Russian invasion." The Times routinely ignores what actually
happened in Ukraine in late 2013 and early 2014 when the U.S. government aided and abetted a
violent coup that overthrew Ukraine's elected President Viktor Yanukovych after he had been
demonized in the Western media.
Even as neo-Nazi and ultranationalist protesters hurled Molotov cocktails at police,
Yanukovych signaled a willingness to compromise and ordered his police to avoid worsening
violence. But compromise wasn't good enough for U.S. neocons – such as Assistant
Secretary of State Victoria Nuland; Sen. John McCain; and National Endowment for Democracy
President Carl Gershman. They had invested too much in moving Ukraine away from Russia.
Nuland put the U.S. spending at $5 billion and was caught discussing with
U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt who should be in the new government and how to "glue" or
"midwife this thing"; McCain appeared on stage urging on far-right militants; and Gershman
was
overseeing scores of NED projects inside Ukraine, which he had deemed the "biggest prize"
and an important step in achieving an even bigger regime change in Russia, or as he put it:
"Ukraine's choice to join Europe will accelerate the demise of the ideology of Russian
imperialism that Putin represents. Putin may find himself on the losing end not just in the
near abroad but within Russia itself."
The Putsch
So, on Feb. 20, 2014, instead of
seeking peace , a sniper firing from a building controlled by anti-Yanukovych forces killed
both police and protesters, touching off a day of carnage. Immediately, the Western media
blamed Yanukovych. Sen. John McCain appearing with Ukrainian rightists of the Svoboda party at a pre-coup rally
in Kiev.
Shaken by the violence, Yanukovych again tried to pacify matters by reaching a compromise
--
guaranteed by France, Germany and Poland -- to relinquish some of his powers and move up an
election so he could be voted out of office peacefully. He also pulled back the police.
At that juncture, the neo-Nazis and ultra-nationalists spearheaded a violent putsch on Feb.
22, 2014, forcing Yanukovych and other officials to flee for their lives. Ignoring the
agreement guaranteed by the three European nations, Nuland and the U.S. State Department
quickly deemed the coup regime "legitimate."
However, ethnic Russians in Crimea and eastern Ukraine, which represented Yanukovych's
electoral base, resisted the coup and turned to Russia for protection. Contrary to the Times'
narrative, there was no "Russian invasion" of Crimea because Russian troops were already there
as part of an agreement for its Sevastopol naval base. That's why you've never seen photos of
Russian troops crashing across Ukraine's borders in tanks or splashing ashore in Crimea with an
amphibious landing or descending by parachute. They were already inside Crimea.
The Crimean autonomous government also voted to undertake a referendum on whether to leave
the failed Ukrainian state and to rejoin Russia, which had governed Crimea since the Eighteenth
Century. In that referendum, Crimean citizens voted by some 96 percent to exit Ukraine and seek
reunion with Russia, a democratic and voluntary process that the Times always calls
"annexation."
The Times and much of the U.S. mainstream media refuses even to acknowledge that there
is another side to the Ukraine story. Anyone who mentions this reality is deemed a "Kremlin
stooge" in much the same way that people who questioned the mainstream certainty about Iraq's
WMD in 2002-03 were called "Saddam apologists."
But what is particularly remarkable about the endless Russia-bashing is that – because
it started under President Obama – it sucked in many American liberals and even some
progressives. That process grew even worse when the contempt for Russia merged with the Left's
revulsion over Donald Trump's election.
Many liberals came to view the dubious claims of Russian "meddling" in the 2016 election
as the golden ticket to remove Trump from the White House. So, amid that frenzy, all standards
of proof were jettisoned to make Russia-gate the new Watergate.
The Times, The Washington Post and pretty much the entire U.S. news media joined the
"resistance" to Trump's presidency and embraced the neocon "regime change" goal for Putin's
Russia. Very few people care about the enormous risks that this "strategy" entails.
For one, even if the U.S. government were to succeed in destabilizing nuclear-armed
Russia sufficiently to force out President Putin, the neocon dream of another malleable Boris
Yeltsin in the Kremlin is far less likely than the emergence of an extreme Russian nationalist
who might be ready to push the nuclear button rather than accept further humiliation of Mother
Russia.
The truth is that the world has much less to fear from the calculating Vladimir Putin
than from the guy who might follow a deposed Vladimir Putin amid economic desperation and
political chaos in Russia. But the possibility of nuclear Armageddon doesn't seem to bother the
neocon/liberal-interventionist New York Times. Nor apparently does the principle of fair and
honest journalism.
The Times and rest of the mainstream media are just having too much fun hating Russia and
Putin to worry about the possible extermination of life on planet Earth.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated
Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen
Narrative, either in print here or
as an e-book (from
Amazon and
barnesandnoble.com ).
jo6pac , September 15, 2017 at 4:51 pm
Amerikas way of bring the big D to your nation. Death
Bingo -- In a surely related story, the mainstream press is equally relentless in AVOIDING
telling Americans the facts about Israel, and especially about its control over the American
press. "Israel lobby is never a story (for media that is in bed with the lobby)" http://mondoweiss.net/2017/09/israel-lobby-never/
Virtually everything average Americans have been told about Israel has been, amazingly, an
absolute lie. Israel was NOT victimized by powerful Arab armies. Israel
overpowered and victimized a defenseless, civilian Arab population. Military analysts knew
the Arab armies were in poor shape and would be unable to resist the zionist army. Muslim
"citizens" of Israel do NOT have all the same rights as Jews. Israelis are
NOT under threat from the indigineous Palestinians, but Palestinians are under
constant threats of theft and death from the Israelis. Israel does NOT share
America's most fundamental values, which rest on the principle of equal human rights for
all.
How has this gigantic package of outright lies has been foisted upon the American public
for so long? And how long can it continue? It turns out they did not foresee the internet,
and the facts are leaking out everywhere. So it appears they're desperately coercing facebook
and google to rig their rankings, trying to hide the facts. But one day soon there will be a
'snap' in the collective mind, and everybody will know that everybody knows.
JWalters
I can tell you are angry. I too was angry when I figured it out.
Long before I figured it out, I was a soldier. Our unit was prepared for an exercise and we
were all sleeping at the regiment compound, the buses would arrive at zero-dark thirty. I was
reading a book about the ME(this was shortly after 9-11). A friend, came up and asked what I
was reading. I told him I was reading about the Balfour paper and how that had a significant
effect on the ME. He began explaining to me how the zionist movement had used the idea that
no one lived on that land, to force the people from that land, out of that land.
I quickly responded that Israel had defended that land against 5 Arab armies and managed to
hold on to that land. I informed him he was mistaken.
He agreed to disagree, and walked away.
This happened way back in 2002 if only I could pick his mind now. How did he know about this,
way back before the internet was in any shape to wake people up?
There is hope still that guys who are young as i was, will say "Fuck You I defend this line
and no further."
Without their compliance, there can be no wars.
CommonTater your story parallels mine -- I was in the military, went to Vietnam to 'defend
our nation against communism', felt horror at the Zionist stories of how Palestinians
rocketed them, was told by senior officer about what Zionism is really about and I, like you,
disbelieved him. That was in 1974 -- -- Now, with all the troubles in the world I won't read the
MSP but look towards the alternative news sources. They make more sense. But as I try to
educate others on what I have learned I am as disappointed as my senior officer must have
been back them. Articles such as this one reproduced by ICH are gems: I save and print them
in a compendium detailing ongoing war crimes.
Thanks Mr. Parry,
You are a voice in the hurricane of hatred and lies propagated by the richest people on the
planet.
Eventually some moron who believes this new York Times garbage will actually unleash the bomb
and we will all be smoke.
That has always been the result of such successful propaganda. And it is very successful. It
has almost occluded any truth for the vast majority of westerners .
Michael Fish
Agreed. I wish this clear and comprehensive article could be stapled on every American
voter's door (wanted to say forehead but violence is bad). Many would toss it in the trash.
Many would not agree even with full comprehension because of their own horrid beliefs. But
maybe a few would read it and have an epiphany. It's very hard work to find an avenue to
change the minds of millions of people who've been inculcated by nationalist propaganda since
birth. Since 4 years old seeing the wonderful National Anthem and jets fly over the stadium
of their favorite sports team. Since required to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in
school.
I refused to stand for or recite the Pledge when I was seven or eight years old. I was
sent to detention. My awesome mom though intervened and afterwards I could remain seated
while most or all other kids stood up to do the ritual. I refuse to stand up and place
hand-on-heart and remove cap during any sporting contests when the Anthem is played. I've
been threatened with physical violence by many strangers around me.
Thanks Mr. Parry, your voice is appreciated, your articles and logic are top-notch. Very
valuable stuff, available for the curious, the skeptical. Well, until Google monopolizes
search algorithms and calls this a Russian fake news site, perhaps or Congress the same
My hat is off to you sir, I have not been to any sporting events since I woke up, but I
imagine it would be very difficult to remain seated and hatted during the opening affirmation
of nationalism. My waking up coincides with a drastic drop in sports viewing. I used to be an
NFL fan, rooted for the Niners (started watching NFL in the late eighties), the last full
season I followed was the 2013-14 season.
It was the Ukraine coup that woke me up. It started when watching videos on youtube of guys
stomping on riot cops, using a fire hose on them like a reverse water cannon. Then I realized
these guys were the peaceful protesters being talked about on t.v. It was like a thread
hanging in front of me, I began pulling and pulling until the veil in front of my eyes came
apart. It was during this time I discovered consortiumnews.com.
Mr Common Tater–just appreciating reading that someone else "woke up". That is the
way it has felt to me. For me it was Oct 2002 and Bush's speech that was clearly heading us
to war in Iraq. The "election" (appointment) of Bush in 2000 though was the first alarm clock
that I started to hear. Most recent wake up is connected to Mr Parry's relentless (I hope)
and necessary debunking of the myth of Russian nastiness and corresponding myth of US
rectitude. Been watching The Untold History of the United States and have been dealing with
the real bedrock truth that my government invented and invents enemies as a tactic in a
game–ie. it's a bunch of boys thinking foreign relationship building is first and
foremost a game. It has been hard to wash away all this greasy insidious smut from my
life.
It sucks to wake up, in a way. Once one gets past the denial, Tom Clancy novel type movies
lose some of it's fun, although still entertaining. One secretly knows the audience in the
cinema is just eating it all up and loving it. The American hero yells "yippie kayay mother
f -- -r" as he defeats the post-Soviet Russian villain in Russia blowing up buildings, and
destroying s–t as he saves the world for democracy. The Russian authorities amount to
some guy in Soviet peaked hat, and long coat, begging for a bribe.
Oliver Stone's series is really good, it turns history on his head and shakes all the pennies
out his pockets. Another good reporter is John Pilger, he has a long list of docs he has done
over several decades.
I have been watching that same series, about 3 episodes in. The most mind blowing part to
think about is how the establishment consipired to block the nomination of the progressive
Henry Wallace as a repeat VP for Roosevelt, leading instead to Harry Truman's nomination as
VP, and then you know the rest of the story.
Funny how history repeated itself with the nomination of Clinton instead of Sanders. Btw,
after Sanders mistakenly jumped on the Russia bashing bandwagon he was one of the few who
voted against the recent sanctions being imposed against Russia, Iran, and North Korea. So
yeah, I'd feel alot better with a Sanders president at this point.
Mulga Mumblebrain , September 16, 2017 at 5:21 pm
Apart from the obvious Exceptionalist and Zionazi imperative to destroy Russia and China
in order that God's Kingdom of 'Full Spectrum Dominance' be established across His world by
his various 'Chosen People', the USA always needs an enemy. Now, more than ever, as the
country crumbles into disrepair and unprecedented inequality, poverty and elite arrogance,
the proles must be led to blame their plight on some Evil foreign daemon.
Only this time its
no Saddam or Gaddaffi or Assad that can be easily bombed back to that Stone Age that all the
non-Chosen must inhabit. This time the bullying thugs will get a, thermo-nuclear, bloody nose
if they do not back off. Regretably, their egos refuse to withdraw, even in the interest of
self-survival.
Paranam Kid , September 16, 2017 at 6:13 am
" It has almost occluded any truth for the vast majority of westerners."
You are so right about that, I notice it every day on other forums on which I discuss current
affairs with others: the US views are the accepted ones, and I get a lot of stick for stating
different views. It is actually frightening to see how few people can think for
themselves.
mike k , September 15, 2017 at 5:47 pm
The American people are being systematically lied to, and they don't have a clue that it
is happening. There is no awake and intelligent public to prevent what is unfolding. The
worst kind of criminals are in charge of our government, media, and military. The sleeping
masses are making their way down the dark mountain to the hellish outcome that awaits
them.
"These grand and fatal movements toward death: the grandeur
of the mass
Makes pity a fool, the tearing pity
For the atoms of the mass, the persons, the victims, makes it
seem monstrous
To admire the tragic beauty they build.
It is beautiful as a river flowing or a slowly gathering
Glacier on a high mountain rock-face,
Bound to plow down a forest, or as frost in November,
The gold and flaming death-dance for leaves,
Or a girl in the night of her spent maidenhood, bleeding and
kissing.
I would burn my right hand in a slow fire
To change the future I should do foolishly. The beauty
of modern
Man is not in the persons but in the
Disastrous rhythm, the heavy and mobile masses, the dance of the
Dream-led masses down the dark mountain."
Robinson Jeffers
HopeLB , September 15, 2017 at 10:36 pm
Great, Dark and Accurate poem -- Thank You -- Think I'll send it to Rachel Maddow, Wapo and
the NYTimes.Might do them some good. Wouldn't that be lovely.
Patrick Lucius , September 16, 2017 at 12:42 am
Which poem is that? Not Shine, perishing Republic, is it?
Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,
Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,
Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs,
And towards our distant rest began to trudge.
Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots,
But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind;
Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots
Of gas-shells dropping softly behind.
Gas -- GAS -- Quick, boys -- -- An ecstasy of fumbling
Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time,
But someone still was yelling out and stumbling
And flound'ring like a man in fire or lime. --
Dim through the misty panes and thick green light,
As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.
In all my dreams before my helpless sight,
He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.
If in some smothering dreams, you too could pace
Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
His hanging face, like a devil's sick of sin;
If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues, --
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est
Pro patria mori.
******************************
And this, from Bob Dylan's "Jokerman" .
Freedom just around the corner for you
But with the truth so far off, what good will it do?
******************************
I love life and am by nature a cockeyed optimist, but I find myself intermittently gloomy,
my optimism overwhelmed by cynicism, when I see the abundance of moronic belligerence so
passionately snarled out in the comments sections across the internet. Clearly, humans are
cursed with an addiction to violence For my part, I am old and will die soon and have no
children, plus I live in a quiet backwater far away from the nuclear blast zone. Humanity
seems on course for a major "culling". Insane and sad.
I'd like to see more investigative reporting on the NYT's and other major media outlets'
links to the CIA and other Deep State info-war bureaus. What the Times is doing now is
reminiscent of the Michael Gordon-Judith Miller propaganda in the run up to the invasion of
Iraq. Operation Mockingbird, uncovered during the mid-70s Church Hearings, is an ongoing
effort, it would seem. Revealing hard links to CIA information ops would be a great service
to humanity.
SteveK9 , September 15, 2017 at 7:22 pm
After 'Michael Gordon-Judith Miller' I stopped reading the Times.
Beard681 , September 18, 2017 at 11:52 am
I am amazed at how many conspiracy types there are who want to see some sort of oligarch,
capitalist, zionist or deep state cabal behind it all. (That is a REALLY optimistic view of
the human propensity for violent conflict.) It is just a bunch of corporate shills pushing
for war (hopefully cold) because war sells newspapers.
Robert Parry has gotten this exactly right -- I'm a regular NYTimes subscriber /-have been
for years -- and I have NEVER read anything about Russia that has not been written by
professional Russia-haters like Higgins. Frankly, I don't get it. What accounts for this
weird and dangerous bias?
mike k , September 15, 2017 at 6:03 pm
Have you looked into who owns the NYT?
Paranam Kid , September 16, 2017 at 6:32 am
Why do you keep reading the NYT? Not only the Russia stories are heavily biased, but all
their stories are. Most op-ed's about Israel/Palestine are written by zealous
pro-Israel/pro-Zionists, against very few pro-Palestine people.
Brad Owen , September 16, 2017 at 8:07 am
The Trans-Atlantic Empire of banking cartels rest upon enmity with the only other Great
Powers in the World: Russia and China, while keeping USA thoroughly within their orbit,
relying on our Great Power as the engine that powers this Western Bankers' Empire (the
steering room lies in City-of-London, who has LONG maneuvered, via their Wall Street assets,
to bring us into Empire). Should peaceful, cooperative and productive relations break out
between USA, Russia, and China, this would undermine everything the Western Empire has worked
to build.
THIS is why the phony Russiagate issue is flogged to get rid of Trump (who seeks
cooperation with Russia and China), AND keeping Russia as "The Enemy", keeping the MIC, Intel
community, various police-state ops, in high demand for "National Security" reasons (also
positioned to foil any democratic uprisings, should they see past the progs daily curtain and
see their plight).
Brad Owen , September 16, 2017 at 8:08 am
Progs=propaganda stupid iPad.
Mulga Mumblebrain , September 16, 2017 at 5:30 pm
Here in Aust-failure I read the papers for many years until they became TOO repulsive,
particularly the Murdoch hate and fear-mongering rags. I also, and still do, masochistically
listen to the Government ABC and SBS. In all those years I really cannot recall any articles
or programs that reported on Russia or China in a positive manner, save when Yeltsin, a true
hero to all our fakestream media, was in charge. That sort of uniformity of opinion, over
generations, is almost admirable. And the necessity to ALWAYS follow the Imperial US ('Our
great and powerful friend') line leads to some deficiencies in the quality of the personnel
employed, as I one again reflected upon the other day when one hackette referred to (The
Evil, of course)Kim Jong-un as 'President Un', several times.
Jeff Davis , September 18, 2017 at 12:31 pm
"What accounts for this weird and dangerous bias?"
Several points:
The Russian -- formerly Commie -- -- boogieman is a profit center for the military, their
industrial suppliers, and the political class. That's the major factor. But also, the Zionist
project requires a bulked up US military "tasked" with "full spectrum" military dominance
--
the Wolfowitz Doctrine, the American jackboot on the world's throat forever -- to insure the
eternal protection of Israel. Largely unseen in this Israeli/Zionist factor is the
thousand-year-old blood feud between the Jews and Russians. They are ancient enemies since
the founding of Czarist Russia. No amount of time or modernity can diminish the passion of
that animus. (I suspect that the Zionist aim to "destroy" Russia will eventually backfire and
lead instead to the destruction of Israel, but really, we shouldn't talk about that.)
mike k , September 15, 2017 at 6:26 pm
The richest man in the world has the controlling interest in the NYT. Draw your own
conclusions.
Mexico, ground zero for the world fascist movement in the 20s and 30s (going by name
Synarchy Internationale still does) throuout Ibero-America, centered in PAN. The
Spanish-speaking World had to contend with Franco, and Salazar being in power so long in the
respective "Mother Countries" of the Iberian Peninsula. This was the main trail for the
ratlines to travel.
I saw a dead coyote on the side of the road the other day. I know you know what that means
to me, Mike. Omens are a lost art in these modern times, and I have no expertise in these
matters, but it struck my attention hard. It was on the right side of the road: trouble for
Trump coming from The Right? They are more potent than the ineffective Left, so this might be
the way Trump is pulled down.
Sfomarco , September 16, 2017 at 3:37 pm
Carlos Slim (f/k/a Salim)
Mulga Mumblebrain , September 16, 2017 at 5:31 pm
Yes, but who bankrolls Slim?
Stiv , September 15, 2017 at 6:51 pm
I wouldn't even need to read this to know what's going to be said. After the last article
from Parry, which was very good and interesting .plowing new ground for him he's back to
rehashing the same old shit. Not that it's necessarily wrong, only been said about a hundred
times. Yawn
D.H. Fabian , September 16, 2017 at 2:46 am
After months of so many people pointing out how and why the "Russia stole the election"
claim is false, it came roaring back (in liberal media) in recent days. It demands a
response.
mike k , September 16, 2017 at 7:26 am
No one is required to read anything on CN.
Virginia , September 16, 2017 at 1:58 pm
RP brought lots of new things into play in his article and showed how they mesh together
and support one another "against Trump." I almost skipped it because so familiar with the
topic, but RP brought new light to the subject, in my humble opinion.
I do not need to read or watch established "news" media to know what's going to be said.
After the last b.s. story from the usual talking heads which was low brow and insulting to
the intelligence of the audience, they are back at it again same ol'shit by the same talking
heads. It is most definitely wrong, and it needs to be countered as much as possible not
yawning.
Gregory Herr , September 16, 2017 at 8:18 pm
That's what struck me just how absurdly insulting will the Times get?
And I think the point that trying to destabilize the Russian Federation may very well
bring about a more militant hardline Russia is important to stress.
anon , September 17, 2017 at 9:02 am
"Stiv" is a troll who makes this junk comment every time. Better to ignore him.
Colin , September 18, 2017 at 11:54 am
Were you planning to contribute anything useful to the discussion?
SteveK9 , September 15, 2017 at 7:19 pm
I always wonder what motivation the accusers believe you have when they call you a 'Putin
stooge'. Why would you be one? Are you getting paid? Of course not, so this is just a
judgment on your part. They could call you a fool, but accuse you of 'carrying water for the
Kremlin' as I heard that execrable creature, Adam Schiff say to Tucker Carlson? That just
makes no sense. Of course, none of it is rational.
Mulga Mumblebrain , September 16, 2017 at 5:38 pm
They're insane. A crumbling Empire which was supposed to rule the world forever, 'Under
God' through Full Spectrum Dominance, but which, in fact, is disintegrating under its own
moral, intellectual and spiritual rottenness, is bound to produce hate-crazed zealots looking
for foreign scape-goats. Add the rage of the Clintonbots whose propaganda had told then for
months that the She-Devil would crush the carnival-huckster, and her vicious post-defeat
campaign to drive for war with Russia (what a truly Evil creature she is)and you get this
hysteria. Interestingly, 'hysteria' is the word used to describe Bibi Nutty-yahoo, the USA's
de facto 'capo di tutti capi', in Sochi recently when Putin refused to follow orders.
David Grace , September 15, 2017 at 7:30 pm
I have another theory I'd like to get reviewed. These are corporate wars, and not aimed at the stability of nations. It is claimed that in 1991, at the fall of the Soviet Union, the oligarchs were created by
the massive purchasing of the assets of the collapsing nation. The CIA was said to have put
together a 'bond issue' worth some $480 Billion, and it was used to buy farms, factories,
mineral rights and other formerly common holdings of the USSR. This 'bond issue' was never
repaid to the US taxpayers, and the deeds are in the hands of various oligarchs. Not all of
the oligarchs are tied to the CIA, as there were other wells of purchasers of the country,
but the ties to Trump are actually ties to dirty CIA or other organized crime entities.
The NY Times may be trying to capture certain assets for certain clients, and their
editorial policy reflects this.
David Grace . what have we here, a thinking man? I like your premise, and I haven't even
watched the link you supplied. That being said, I'll sign off and investigate that link.
D.H. Fabian , September 16, 2017 at 2:39 am
Conspiracy theories upon conspiracy theories, ensuring that the public will never be able
to root out the facts. People still argue about the Kennedy assassination 54 years later.
Mulga Mumblebrain , September 16, 2017 at 5:39 pm
There is no rational 'argument' about what really happened to JFK.
Zhu Bajie , September 17, 2017 at 7:12 pm
Most conspiracy theories are fantasy fiction. If you have real evidence, based on
verifiable facts, then it's not a theory any more. But most of the conspiracy theories
popular in the USA just serve popular vanity. We never have to accept our mistakes, our
crimes against humanity, etc. It's always THEIR fault.
We Americans over all are like small children, always making excuses.
mark , September 16, 2017 at 5:23 pm
Some of the material on the Black Eagle Trust are suspect. It gives figures for stolen
Japanese war loot, for example, that are simply ludicrous. Figures of so many thousand tons
of gold, for example, when the references should probably be to OUNCES of gold.
One sniper in Ukraine overthrew the democratic government. Previously one sniper in Dallas
overthrew another democratic government. Are there any other examples?
Is our infatuation with democracy just a propaganda thing – to fool citizens into
supposing they have value beyond their labour?
AshenLight , September 15, 2017 at 10:13 pm
> Is our infatuation with democracy just a propaganda thing – to fool citizens
into supposing they have value beyond their labour?
It's about control -- those who know they are slaves will resist and fight, but those who
mistakenly believe they are free will not (and if you give them even just a little comfort,
they'll tenaciously defend their own enslavement). It turns out this "inverted
totalitarianism" thing works a lot better than the old-fashioned kind.
mike k , September 16, 2017 at 7:19 am
Indeed. Gurdjieff told the tale of a farmer whose sheep were always wandering off due to
his being unable to afford fences to keep them in. Then he had an idea, and called them all
together. He told some of them they were eagles, and others lions etc. They were now so proud
of their new identities that it never occurred to them anymore to escape from their master's
small domain.
mike k , September 16, 2017 at 7:23 am
MLK is another example, as is Robert Kennedy.
Anna , September 16, 2017 at 12:53 pm
The American patriots are coming out: "CIA Agent Whistleblower Risks All To Expose The
Shadow Government" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHbrOg092G
That would be the end of the Lobby, mega oilmen and the FedReserve criminals
mark , September 16, 2017 at 5:30 pm
Yes, snipers on rooftops in Deraa, southern Syria, in 2011. These mysterious figures fired
into crowds, deliberately targeting women and young children to inflame the crowd. At the
same time the same snipers killed 7 police officers. Unarmed police had been sent in to deal
with unrest without bloodshed. These police officers were armed only with batons.
This is a standard page from the CIA playbook. The mysterious snipers in Maidan Square in
2014 are believed to have been Yugoslavian mercenaries hired by the CIA
We all have some kind of a bias but fortunately most of us here know the difference
between bias and propaganda. Bias based on facts and our own values is often constructive but
the N.Y. Times(like most msm) has descended into disseminating insidious propaganda.
Unfortunately the search for truth requires a bit more research and time than most people are
willing to invest. Thankfully, Robert Parry continues his quest but the dragons are not easy
to slay. My own quest for truth once led to a philosophical essay. The cartoon at the
bottom(SH Chambers) sums it up. https://crivellistreetchronicle.blogspot.com/2016/07/truth-elusive-concept.html
Mike, thanks so much, I'll look forward to reading it(so far, I don't see it
Moderation?)
Virginia , September 16, 2017 at 2:20 pm
If we have a bias towards honesty, that helps. It keeps one's mind more open and provides
a willingness to entertain various points of view. It's not naivete, however, but thoughtful
consideration coupled with awareness and that protects one from being easily manipulated. But
then, oppositely, there's a human tendency to want to be popular which inclines one towards
groupthink. But why that so entrenches itself, making people impervious to truth, is a
conundrum -- Maybe if the "why" can be answered, the "how" will become apparent -- how to reach
individuals with the truth as so oft told, though hard on the ears, at CN.
Jacob Leyva , September 15, 2017 at 10:12 pm
So what do you think of the Russia-Facebook dealings? When will we get an article on
that?
The Russian /Iranian vs the Ashkenazi has been going on for many, many years ..The USA is
to a large extent controlled by the Ashkenazi / Zionist agenda which literally owns most of
the MSM outlets .Agendas must be announced through propaganda to sway the sleeping public
toward conformity .The only baffling question that remains is why do Americans allow Zionist
to control such a large part of their great republic ?
Art , September 16, 2017 at 1:43 am
Robert, you come from intelligence. Why don't you look at Russia-gate from all possible
angles?
I suggest the following. Putin is an American spy. Russia-gate is created to make him a
winner, a hero.
And the specious confrontation is a good cover for Putin.
This is in a nutshell.
I can obviously say mu-uch more.
D.H. Fabian , September 16, 2017 at 2:33 am
Throughout 2017, we've seen a surge of efforts by both parties -- via the media that serve
them -- to build support for a final nuclear war. The focus jumps from rattling war sabers at
China (via Korea, at the moment) to rattling them at Russia, two nuclear-armed world powers.
This has been working to bring Russia and China together, resolving their years of conflict
in view of a potential world threat -- the US. Whatever their delusions, and regardless of
their ideology, our political leaders are setting the stage for the deaths of millions of us,
and the utter destruction of the US.
mike k , September 16, 2017 at 6:59 am
Our political leaders have betrayed us.
Mulga Mumblebrain , September 16, 2017 at 5:42 pm
Thermo-nuclear war would cause human extinction, not just billions of casualties.
Jim Glover , September 16, 2017 at 3:15 am
It is the same now with North Korea and China. So what would happen if those nations were
destabilized by Sanctions or worse Russia, China Iran and more would support Kim. How to make
peace?
Dennis Rodman has the guts to suggest call and talk with Kim or "Try it you might like it
better than total mutual destruction". Think Love and Peace it can't hurt like all the war,
hate and fear the media keeps pushing for advertising profits. War and Fear is the biggest
racket on the planet. What can I do? Fighting a losing battle but it is fun tryin' to
win.
mike k , September 16, 2017 at 6:57 am
We may be losing now, but who knows? It ain't over till it's over. Hang in there.
Great article- again . I used to live in the US, I used to live in Alaska, I used to live
in Crimea, Ukraine but now I live in Crimea, Russia and Smolensk, Ru. I watched this all go
down but it took awhile to see the entire picture. I seldom get any more emails from the
states – even my brother doesn't get it. They think I'm now a " commie" , I guess. I
see it as the last big gasp of hot, dangerous air from an Empire -- Exposed. Unfortunately,
its not over yet and maybe we/you will have more bad times ahead. Crimea this summer is doing
well with much work going on – from the badly needed new infrastructure to the new
bridge, the people are much better off than in Ukraine. They made the right choice in
returning to Mother Russia even though it was a no-brainer for them. The world is lucky to
have free writers like, Parry, Roberts, Vltchek, Pepe', the Saker and the intelligent
commenters are as important as the writers in spreading the Pravda. Spacibo Mr. Parry
mike k , September 16, 2017 at 6:54 am
Thanks for sharing with us GMC. And good luck to you.
ranney , September 16, 2017 at 4:22 am
YES -- -- -- -- -- Yes to all that you wrote Robert -- Thank you again for writing clearly and saying
what obviously needs to be said, but no one else will. We've been down this road before -i.e.
the media pulling us into wars of Empire – first the Spanish- American one, then a
bunch of others working up to Viet Nam, and then Iraq. Each one gets worse and now we're
reaching for a nuclear one. Keep writing; your voice gives some of us hope that just maybe
others will join in and stop the media from their constant "messages of hate" and the urging
of the public to a suicidal conflagration.
Joe Tedesky , September 16, 2017 at 8:55 am
The funny thing about living through the 'fake news' era, is that now everyone thinks that
their news source is the correct news source. Many believe that outside of the individual
everyone else reads or listens too 'fake news'. It's like all of a sudden no one has
credibility, yet everyone may have it, depending on what news source you subscribe to. I mean
there's almost no way of knowing what the truth is, because everyone is claiming that they
are getting their news from reputable news outlets, but some or many aren't, and who are the
reputable news sources, if you don't mind my asking you this just for the record?
Come to think of it, the 'fake news' theme is brilliant considering that now we have no
bench mark for what the truth is, and by not having that bench mark for the truth we all go
our separate ways believing what we believe, because certainly my news source is the only
truthful one, and your news source is beyond questionable of how the news should be
reported.
People read headlines, but hardly do they ever read the article. Many hear news sound
bites, but never do they do the research required, in order to verify the stories accuracy.
Hear say works even more to rain in the clouds of mass deception. Then there are those who
sort of buy whatever it is the established news outlets are selling based on their belief
that it doesn't much matter anyway, because 'the establishment' lies to us all the time as a
rule, so what's the big deal to keep up on the news, because it's all obviously one big lie
isn't it? So not only do we have irresponsible news journalist, we also have a very large
number of a monopolized unqualified news gatherers who must accept what the various news
agencies report, regardless of what the truth may be. It's better the Establishment keep it
this way, because then the Establishment has better control over the 'mob grabbing the
pitchforks and sickles' and crying out justice for somebody's head. It's kind of like job
security for the Establishment, but in their case it's more like a 'keeping your elitist
head' security, if you know what I mean.
To learn how to deal with this 'fake news', I would suggest you start studying the JFK
assassination, or any other ill defined tragic event, and then you might learn how to
decipher the 'fake news' matrix of confusion to learn what you so desire to learn. I chose
this route, because when was the last time the Establishment brokered the truth in regard to
a happening such as the JFK assassination? Upon learning of what a few well written books has
to say, you will then need to rely on your own brain to at least give you enough satisfaction
to allow you to believe that you pretty well got it right, and there go you. In other words,
the truth is out there, hiding in plain sight, and if you are persistent enough you just
might find it. Good luck.
mike k , September 16, 2017 at 11:29 am
The truth has never been that easy to find Joe. Actually all the beyond obvious propaganda
on the MSM might wake some people up to do the searching necessary to get closer to what is
really happening in their world. Maybe the liars have finally overplayed their hand? Or are
we the people really that dumb? (I am scared to hear the answer to that one -- )
Joe Tedesky , September 16, 2017 at 12:04 pm
I could be a wise guy, and say to you 'or so you say' in reply to your kind comment, but
then that would make me a troll.
All I'm saying mike is that in this era of 'fake news' we are all running about on
different levels, and never shall the two of us meet. That is unless you and I get our news
from the same source, but what are the odds of all of us getting the same news? It's
impossible, and I'm not quite that sure that that would be what we want either. Still without
an objective, and honest large media to set the correct narrative we end up in this place,
where you might find yourself doing a spread sheet study to come to some conclusion of what
is true, and what isn't.
Case in point, read about Russia-Gate here on consortiumnews, and then go listen to Rachel
Maddow report on the same thing. Two different sets of stories. Just try and reconcile what
you read on sites like this one concerning Ukraine, then go watch MSNBC or CNN. Never a
match. So you mike read consortiumnews, and your in laws read the NYT and watch CNN, and
there you go, a controversy arises between you and the in laws and with that life goes on,
but where is the correct news to be found to settle the score?
Once upon a time the established news agencies such as CNN, and the NYT, were the hallmark
of the news, and sites such as this one were the ones on the edge, now I'm convinced this
conviction has reversed itself.
Thanks mike for the reply. Joe
Joe Tedesky , September 17, 2017 at 9:07 am
Wouldn't it be hilarious mike, if the dumbed down people attacked the Bastille under false
pretense? Especially if the lie had been concocted by the blinded by their own hubris sitting
powers to be. Talk about poetic justice, and well placed irony. Priceless --
Virginia , September 16, 2017 at 2:38 pm
Joe, Apparently people take the easy way out. And that's just it -- "the way out."
Extinction -- Maybe they haven't learned there's something worth learning about and living for.
I'm gonna concentrate on that. Open eyes that they might see
Joe Tedesky , September 17, 2017 at 8:08 am
You are right Virginia, it is probably 'a way out', and God bless them for it. My late
Mother was like that, but I'll tell you why. When my Mother was growing up in a family of
eleven children, her father would rent out their street level basement to the voting polls. A
block away my uncle who was quite older than my Mother owned a corner saloon. Now on Election
Day my Mother said how the men in suits would pull up in their big expensive cars, and they
would descend upon my uncles corner bar. Soon after one by one drunks would come out of the
tavern wearing Republican buttons then they would go into grandpap's basement voting booth,
and vote. Not long after my Mom said, the same drunks would come pouring out of my uncles
tavern and this time they were wearing Democratic buttons, and they would go vote once or as
many times as it would take to thank the big guys in the suits for the free drinks. My Mom
said this went on all day. She said a lot dead people voted whether they knew it or not, and
that's the truth. She would follow up by saying, 'yeah a lot of politicians won on the drunk
vote'.
So Virginia some can't take the decept and lying, and with that they give up. I myself
don't feel this way, but then there are the times I can't help but think of how my dear sweet
Mother probably did have it right for the sake of living your life in the most upright and
honest way. Sadly, there is no virtue in politics, or so it seems.
Oh yeah, that uncle who owned the corner saloon, he did go into politics holding nominee
appointed positions, until he got wise and got a honest job, as he would jokingly say.
For the record my Mother did vote, but she was the lady standing in line who looked
reluctant and pissed off to be there, but never the less my Mum was a voter. Oh, the
candidate my Mother loved the most was JFK. John F Kennedy's was the only presidential
picture my Mother ever hung in our humble home.
My message here, was only meant to give some cover, and an explanation for those who shy
away from politics, and not an excuse to stay uninvolved. For even my non political Mum did
at least in the end break down, and do the right thing. We should all at least try, and keep
up on the events of our time, and vote with the best intentions we can muster up.
Okay, I'm sorry for the length of my reply, but you are always worth taking time for me to
give a reasonable answer to. I also hope I'm entertaining with these stories I seem to tell
from time to time. Take care Virginia. Joe
Tannenhouser , September 17, 2017 at 7:28 pm
Humans are approximately 90% water, give or take depending on evaporation (Age). Water
always takes the path of least resistance. Oh I wish and hope for the day when most realize
they are much more than 'just' water:)
Mulga Mumblebrain , September 16, 2017 at 5:47 pm
The fakestream media lies incessantly, and has for generations. Chomsky and Herman's
'Manufacturing Consent' outlines the propaganda role of the 'mass media', and is twenty-five
years old, in which period things have gotten MUCH worse (just look at the fate of the UK
'Guardian' for an example). Yet the fakestream presstitutes STILL have the unmitigated gall
to call others 'fake' and demand that we believe their unbelievable narratives. That's real
chutzpah.
Joe Tedesky , September 17, 2017 at 8:26 am
You know Mulga you are correct, many generations have listened to many, many, lies upon
their way to the voting booths. It goes without saying, how the aristocrats when they find it
necessary, as they often do find it necessary, they lie to their flock for a whole host of
reasons. Why we could pick anytime in history, and find out where lies have paved the way to
a leaders greater conquest, or a leaders said greater conquest if not met with defeat, but
never the less the public was used to propel some leaders wishes onward and upward whether
for the good or the bad.
But here we are Mulga, you and the rest of us here, straddling on the fence over what
might be right to what possibly could be wrong. Without a responsible press you and us Mulga
need to learn from each other. Like when comment posters leave links, that's always been
something good for me to follow through on.
We live in a unique time, but a time not that unique, as much as it is our time. Our
great, great, grandparents were straddling the same fence, and I'm guessing they too relied
on each other to navigate there way through the twisting maze of politics, and basically what
they all wanted, was a little peace on earth. So Mulga I also guess that you and we the
people are just carrying on a tradition that us common folk have been assigned too
continue.
Like reading your comments Mulga, good to see you here. Joe
Zhu Bajie , September 17, 2017 at 7:44 pm
Fake news has always been common. Critical thinking has never been popular because Occam's
Razor might slice your favorite story to shreds. Personally, I give full credence to few
things in life, but suspect many more, to some degree. I trust my own experiences more than
what I read in the media and try to reject conventional wisdom as much as possible.
Herman , September 16, 2017 at 9:39 am
Observing Putin's behavior, you have to be impressed with his continue willingness to
extend the olive branch and to seek a reasonable settlement of differences. His language
always leaves open the possibility of détente with the understanding that Russia is
not going to lay down to be run over. On the contrary, the language of Obama and Trump, and
their representatives is consistently take it or leave and engaging in school yard insults of
Russia, Putin, Lavrov and others. We have consistently played the bully in the school yard
encouraging others to join in the bullying. We talk about the corrosive discourse at home,
but observe the discourse in foreign affairs. Trump and his associates are guilty, but slick
talking Obama and his subordinates was often worse. .As has so often been said, we have only
two arrows in our foreign affairs quiver, war and sanctions. We lack the imagination and will
to actually engage in civil discussions with those on our enemies' list.
Parry is of course correct in his opinion of the New York Times but it doesn't stop there,
only that the New York Times undeservedly is the "newspaper of record." His citing of Orwell
is on the mark. Just turn your TV on for the news and see for yourself.
Dave P. , September 16, 2017 at 8:27 pm
Very well said, Herman. Very true.
Patricia Victour , September 16, 2017 at 9:54 am
I don't subscribe to the NYT for this reason, and it is galling to me that our local rag,
"The Santa Fe New Mexican," while featuring excellent local coverage for the most part, gets
all it's "national" news from the likes of the NYT, WaPo, and AP. These stories, much of it
"fake news" in my opinion, are offered as gospel by the "New Mexican", with no journalistic
effort to print opposing views. People I know seem so proud of themselves that they subscribe
to "The Times," and I don't even dare try to point out to them that they are being duped and
propagandized into believing the most outrageous (and dangerous) crap.
To add another dimension, these sources are so jealous of their position as the ultimate
word on what Americans are to believe, and also so worried about their waning influence, that
now RT and Sputnik, both Russia-sponsored news outlets, may be forced to register as "foreign
agents" in the U.S. I am not familiar with Sputnik, but I have been watching RT on TV for
several years and find it to be an excellent source of national and foreign news. Stories I
see first on RT are usually confirmed soon after by other reliable sources, such as this
excellent site – Consortiumnews. At no point did I feel I was being coerced by Russia
during the 2016 election – I needed no confirmation that both Trump and Clinton were
probably the worst candidates ever to run for President.
Joe Tedesky , September 17, 2017 at 9:31 am
You know what I find interesting is how a reporter such as Robert Parry will pinpoint his
details to a critique of say the NYT, but when or if a NYTer is to write a likewise article
of the Alternative Internet Press the NYTer will just simply critique their internet rival as
a 'conspiracy theorist' or as now as in 2017 they refer to them as 'fake news artist'. I mean
no rebuttal back referencing certain details such as what Parry mentioned, but just
rhetorical words written over tabloid written headlines finalized under the heading of 'fake
news'. This must be being taught in journalism school these days, because it's popular in the
MSM.
Just like you have never heard or read from the MSM a detailed answered rebuttal to the
pointed questions of say the '911 Truthers' or a 'JFK Assassination Researcher' a valid bona
fide answer. No, but you do hear the masters and mistresses of the corporate media world call
writers such as Parry, Roberts, and St Clair, 'fake newscasters', 'Putin Puppets', and or a
whole host of other nasty names, as they feel fit to write, but never a honest too goodness
rebuttal. Then they talk about Trump not sounding or acting presidential hmm the nerve of
these wordsmiths.
BTW, I don't care much for Trump, and I even care less for our MSM. Just wanted to get
that straight.
Nice comment Patricia. Joe
hatedbyu , September 16, 2017 at 10:57 am
let's not forget about the nytimes grossly negligent reporting on syria and libya. judith
miller? russian doping scandal. lying about the holdomor . man i could do this all day ..
Joe Tedesky , September 17, 2017 at 10:12 am
You mean the on air hours of punditry explaining away their professions mistakes, or the
honest rebuttal? It's at those particular times and occurrences of ignored self reflection
our honorable (not) MSM falls back on Orwell's 1984. Like it never happened. The dog didn't
eat no home work, because there never was a dog, nor was there any homework .stupid us. Life
goes on uninterrupted and non commercial time can be filled with an update on Bill Cosby's
past alleged sexual predator attacks, and this is our professional news casting doing its
best to entertain us, not inform us god forbid, but entertain us the ignorant masses of their
workless society.
One day hatedbyu the ignorant masses may just show the corporate infotainment duchess and
dudes that they 'the people' ain't so ignorant, and things must change. Well at least that's
the dream, but it's still a work in progress, and then there's the historical seesaw.
I think it's the power of empire to expand, just like a balloon, until it reaches it's
bursting point. But just what that bursting point is, is without a doubt the most disputable
of arguments to be made. I am coming to the belief we are, as always, continually getting to
that point, and we may of course be very close to igniting that spark in the not so far off
future. I would prefer the spark to be completely financial, and dealt with accordingly, but
I'm a dreamer purest and a conspiracy theorist, so that means when the crap starts going
down, I'll be the old man on the hill lighting up a big fat doobie cue soundtrack 'Fool On
the Hill'.
Sorry just had to get carried away, but it's Sunday morning hatedbyu and I'm home alone
and nobody's trying to break in .. Good comment hatedbyu. Joe
A Compilation Not seen in Corporate Media: See Link Below:
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
US Wars and Hostile Actions: A List
By David Swanson
Stephen J. Thank you for introducing me to David Swanson. Great link.
Joe Tedesky , September 17, 2017 at 11:29 am
Im with you on that Bob, Stephen J providing the Swanson link should be a must read, to
keep things fair and balanced. I also do wonder if Swanson's message isn't getting out there,
and we all don't already know it? I'm a glass half full kind of guy, but what do we really
know about each other, other than what the corporate media instills on us? I wish cable news
would air a program made up of Swanson, Pilger, and Parry, for that at least could put some
well needed balance finality back, if it ever was there in the first place, back into the
public narrative .but there go I.
Good to see you Bob. Joe
Hank , September 16, 2017 at 11:32 am
The deep state sticks with what works: controlling the media keeps the masses ignorant and
malleable. "Remember the Maine"
Germans are bayoneting Belgium babies and "remember the Lusitania" , some evidence shows
higher ups knew the Japanese fleet was 400 miles from Hawaii, recall "Tonkin Gulf" episode,
Iran Contra , invasion of Granada, Panama, and of course 911 and war on terror, patriot act,
weapons of mass destruction, and Russia hacking the election. The masses "believe" these to
be true and react and respond accordingly.
"
"Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that
matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, IT IS THE LEADERS of the country who
determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is
a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice
or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy.
All you have to do is TELL THEM THEY ARE BEING ATTACKED, and denounce the peacemakers for
lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. IT WORKS THE SAME IN ANY COUNTRY."
–Goering at the Nuremberg Trials
mike k , September 16, 2017 at 12:53 pm
Thanks Hank. Same ole same ole, eh? When will we ever learn?
mike k , September 16, 2017 at 11:32 am
"Trump might well go down in history of the President who screwed-up a historical
opportunity to really change our entire planet for the better and who, instead, by his abject
lack of courage and honor, his total lack of political and diplomatic education and by his
groveling subservience to the "swamp" he had promised to drain ended up being as pathetically
clueless as Obama was." (The Saker)
My sentiments exactly.
Voytenko , September 16, 2017 at 11:49 am
What a glaring lie this article is, its' author being either "useful idiot" played by
Kremlin, or maybe not so much of an idiot. What are you talking about here in comments, those
who applaud this article, this bunch of lies? You live in Ukraine, you know anything about
that so-called "putch"? How dare you to insult the whole nation – Ukrainian nation?
Shame on you, people. You don't know (author of the article including) anything about Russia,
Ukraine and that bloody Putin, but you have problems with the US and its' politics. US are
your business, Ukraine definitely not. Find some other examples of NYT and USA malfeasance,
some you know something about. Stop insulting other nations.
anon , September 17, 2017 at 9:53 am
You are not from Ukraine, and you care not for Ukraine, or you would seek unity not
dominance of East over West Ukraine. Tell us about your life in Ukraine, and show us the
evidence of "that bloody Putin."
Abe , September 16, 2017 at 1:31 pm
Yellow journalism now employs "open source and social media investigation" scams foisted
by Eliot Higgins and the Bellingcat disinformation site.
Bellingcat is allied with the New York Times and the Washington Post, the two principal
mainstream media organs for "regime change" propaganda, via the First Draft Coalition
"partner network".
In a triumph of Orwellian Newspeak, this Google-sponsored "post-Truth" Propaganda 3.0
coalition declares that member organizations will "work together to tackle common issues,
including ways to streamline the verification process".
The New York Times routinely hacks up Bellingcat "reports" and pretends they're
"verification"
Malachy Browne, "Senior Story Producer" at the New York Times, cited Bellingcat to
embellish the media "story" about the Khan Shaykhun chemical incident in Idlib Syria.
Before joining the Times, Browne was an editor at "social news and marketing agency"
Storyful and at Reported. ly, the "social reporting" arm of Pierre Omidyar's First Look
Media.
Browne generously "supplemented" his "reporting" on the Khan Shaykun incident with "videos
gathered by the journalist Eliot Higgins and the social media news agency Storyful".
Browne encouraged Times readers to participate in the Bellingcat-style "verification"
charade: "Find a computer, get on Google Earth and match what you see in the video to the
streets and buildings"
Browne of Storyful and Higgins of Bellingcat are founding members of the Google-funded
"First Draft" coalition.
Browne demonstrates how the NYT and other "First Draft" coalition media outlets use video
to "strengthen" their "storytelling".
In 2016, the NYT video department hired Browne and Andrew Glazer. a senior producer on the
team that launched VICE News, to help "enhance" the "reporting" at the Times.
Browne represents the Times' effort to package its dubious "reporting" using the Storyful
marketing strategy of "building trust, loyalty, and revenue with insight and emotionally
driven content" wedded with Bellingcat style "digital forensics" scams.
In other words, we should expect the New York Times, Washington Post, BBC, UK Guardian,
and all the other "First Draft" coalition media "partners" to barrage us more Bellingcat /
Atlantic Council-style Facebook and YouTube video mashups, crazy fun with Google Earth, and
Twitter campaigns.
mike k , September 16, 2017 at 1:47 pm
Thanks Abe. Sounds like these guys all read 1984, and decided it was just the thing for
2017 Amerika.
Obviously Browne is proud of the "investigation" even though merely shared a "story" fed
to him by Higgins' Bellingcat and the Atlantic Council .
Abe , September 16, 2017 at 1:58 pm
Higgins and Bellingcat receives direct funding from the Open Society Foundations (OSF)
founded by business magnate George Soros, and from Google's Digital News Initiatives
(DNI).
Google's 2017 DNI Fund Annual Report describes Higgins as "a world–leading expert in
news verification".
In their zeal to propagate the story of Higgins as a courageous former "unemployed man"
now busy independently "Codifying social conflict data", Google neglects to mention Higgins'
role as a "research fellow" for the NATO-funded Atlantic Council "regime change" think
tank.
Despite their claims of "independent journalism", Eliot Higgins and the team of
disinformation operatives at Bellingcat depend on the Atlantic Council to promote their
"online investigations".
The Atlantic Council donors list includes:
– US government and military entities: US State Department, US Air Force, US Army,
US Marines.
– The NATO military alliance
– Large corporations and major military contractors: Chevron, Google, Lockheed
Martin, Raytheon, BP, ExxonMobil, General Electric, Northrup Grumman, SAIC, ConocoPhillips,
and Dow Chemical
– Foreign governments: United Arab Emirates (UAE; which gives the think tank at
least $1 million), Kingdom of Bahrain, City of London, Ministry of Defense of Finland,
Embassy of Latvia, Estonian Ministry of Defense, Ministry of Defense of Georgia
– Other think tanks and think tankers: Center for Strategic and International
Studies (CSIS), Nicolas Veron of Bruegel (formerly at PIIE), Anne-Marie Slaughter (head of
New America Foundation), Michele Flournoy (head of Center for a New American Security),
Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings Institution.
Higgins is a Research Associate of the Department of War Studies at King's College, and
was principal co-author of the Atlantic Council "reports" on Ukraine and Syria.
Damon Wilson, Executive Vice President of Programs and Strategy at the Atlantic Council, a
co-author with Higgins of the report, effusively praised Higgins' effort to bolster
anti-Russian propaganda:
Wilson stated, "We make this case using only open source, all unclassified material. And
none of it provided by government sources. And it's thanks to works, the work that's been
pioneered by human rights defenders and our partner Eliot Higgins, uh, we've been able to use
social media forensics and geolocation to back this up." (see Atlantic Council video
presentation minutes 35:10-36:30)
However, the Atlantic Council claim that "none" of Higgins' material was provided by
government sources is an obvious lie.
Higgins' primary "pieces of evidence" are a video depicting a Buk missile launcher and a
set of geolocation coordinates that were supplied by the SBU (Security Service of Ukraine)
and the Ukrainian Ministry of Interior via the Facebook page of senior-level Ukrainian
government official Arsen Avakov, the Minister of Internal Affairs.
Higgins and the Atlantic Council are working in support of the Pentagon and Western
intelligence's "hybrid war" against Russia.
The laudatory bio of Higgins on the Kings College website specifically acknowledges his
service to the Atlantic Council:
"an award winning investigative journalist and publishes the work of an international
alliance of fellow investigators using freely available online information. He has helped
inaugurate open-source and social media investigations by trawling through vast amounts of
data uploaded constantly on to the web and social media sites. His inquiries have revealed
extraordinary findings, including linking the Buk used to down flight MH17 to Russia,
uncovering details about the August 21st 2013 Sarin attacks in Damascus, and evidencing the
involvement of the Russian military in the Ukrainian conflict. Recently he has worked with
the Atlantic Council on the report "Hiding in Plain Sight", which used open source
information to detail Russia's military involvement in the crisis in Ukraine."
While it honors Higgins' enthusiastic "trawling", King's College curiously neglects to
mention that Higgins' "findings" on the Syian sarin attacks were thoroughly debunked.
King's College also curiously neglects to mention the fact that Higgins, now listed as a
Senior Fellow at the Atlantic Council's "Future Europe Initiative", was principal co-author
of the April 2016 Atlantic Council "report" on Syria.
The report's other key author was John E. Herbst, United States Ambassador to Ukraine from
September 2003 to May 2006 (the period that became known as the Orange Revolution) and
Director of the Atlantic Council's Eurasia Center.
Other report authors include Frederic C. Hof, who served as Special Adviser on Syrian
political transition to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in 2012. Hof was previously the
Special Coordinator for Regional Affairs in the US Department of State's Office of the
Special Envoy for Middle East Peace, where he advised Special Envoy George Mitchel. Hof had
been a Resident Senior Fellow in the Atlantic Council's Rafik Hariri Center for the Middle
East since November 2012, and assumed the position as Director in May 2016.
There is no daylight between the "online investigations" of Higgins and Bellingcat and the
"regime change" efforts of the NATO-backed Atlantic Council.
Thanks to the Atlantic Council, Soros, and Google, it's a pretty well-funded gig for fake
"citizen investigative journalist" Higgins.
Dave P. , September 17, 2017 at 12:26 am
Abe – Thanks for all the invaluable information you have been providing.
jaycee , September 16, 2017 at 1:52 pm
The meme of an aggressive assertive Russia, based on what happened in Crimea, is a
deliberate lie expressed with the utmost contempt towards principled diplomacy. The average
consumer of mainstream news is also being shamelessly and contemptuously manipulated.
First, the people of Crimea did not want to be part of Ukraine after the USSR dissolved,
and had previously expressed their opinion through referenda. The events of 2014 were part of
an obvious pattern of previously expressed opinion.
Second, around the time of the so-called Orange Revolution, NATO analysts forecast what
would probably happen should Ukraine embrace European "security architecture" (i.e. NATO),
and concluded that Russia would take steps to protect their naval facilities in Crimea. Yet,
in 2014, NATO officials would disingenuously express their utmost shock and surprise at the
event.
Third, Viktor Yushchenko, who came to power in Ukraine in 2005 through the NED-financed
Orange Revolution, consistently described his intention to join Ukraine with European
institutions, including its "security architecture" (NATO), although acknowledging that the
Ukrainian citizenry would have to be manipulated into accepting such a controversial and
adversarial position. He would downplay presumed Russian reaction to potential removal from
Crimea despite the obviousness and predictability of a serious crisis (see Sept 23, 2008
"Conversation with Viktor Yushchenko" Council On Foreign Relations). Yushchenko polled at
5.45% when he lost the Presidency in 2010, running on a platform of European integration.
Fourth, Russian officials at the highest level told their American counterparts in 2009
that any attempt to integrate Ukraine into NATO, and a corresponding threat to the Crimean
naval facilities, would result in moves similar to what would later happen in 2014. Yet the
United States, after instigating and legitimizing the Ukraine coup, would react to the
Crimean referendum as an aggressive act which represented an unexpected security crisis
requiring a reluctant but firm response of militarizing the entire region, and portraying the
Russian state to the public as a dangerous and aggressive rogue power.
The deliberate omission of relevant contextual background by politicians, military
officials, and the mainstream media demonstrates that none of these institutions can be
trusted, and it is they who represent the greatest threat to international security. Putin
has been relentlessly demonized, but it can be argued that his swift and essentially
bloodless moves in Crimea in 2014 avoided what could have been a major international crisis
on the level of the Berlin blockade in 1961. It appears, in hindsight, that such a crisis is
exactly what the NATO alliance desired all along.
Sam F , September 17, 2017 at 9:58 am
Well said.
Joe Tedesky , September 17, 2017 at 12:02 pm
Nicely put jaycee. What you wrote took me back to a time of some eight months before
Maiden Square, when my niece decided to live in Kiev. A bit of a ways away from Pittsburgh,
so I started researching Ukraine. I also discovered RT & Moonofalabama, and sites like
that.
What you wrote jaycee, in my humble opinion should be said in our MSM news. If for no
other reason but to give an alternative fair and balance to say the likes of Rachel Maddow,
or Joy Ann Reed. The way the MSM picks and chooses, and skims across important events in
Ukraine, like Odessa, are criminal if ever the Press is to be judged for crimes of war. To
the crys of a destroyed empire's vanquished population would then your small essay be heard
jaycee, and yet that's the world we live in, but at least you said it.
Thanks jaycee (that's the first time I wrote your name and the j didn't go capital what
does that mean? Who cares.)
Joe
rosemerry , September 16, 2017 at 2:04 pm
Of course the NYT liars would not bother to watch Oliver Stone's interviews with Pres.
Putin, but during them he explained at length about his cooperation during the years after
Ukraine elected a pro-Western president, managing to carry out mutual agreements and
policies, but after the new pro- Russian president was elected, the USA did not accept him
and overthrew him, which preceded the antics of Nuland et al in 2014 and the rest which
followed.
MaDarby , September 16, 2017 at 2:05 pm
It appears to me that the elites decided long ago that the best solution to overpopulation
is just to let climate change take care of three or four billion people while the Saud family
and the Cargill family live on in their sheltered paradises with every convenience AI can
provide.
It is clear these mega-rich families DO NOT CARE about society, about mass human extension
or even about nature itself. They are the pinnacle of human evolution. Psycho-pathological
loss of empathy might have been a bad evolutionary experiment.
This is derangement on a human specie scale, no leader no one in power has been willing to
do anything but exploit every opportunity to make money and increase global domination, the
great powers knew this day was coming when they made their decisions to hide it 50 years ago.
The consequences are acceptable to the decision makers.
A mass extension of organic life is taking place before our eyes, nothing can stop it,
THEY DO NOT CARE.
They sure as hell don't care if millions don't believe the Russia crap they just move
ahead as the Imperial power, might makes right. In the end it is a religious project, the
biblical slaughter of the innocents to appease a vengeful god and rid the world of evil.
Joe Tedesky , September 17, 2017 at 12:19 pm
What you bring up MaDarby takes me towards the direction of wondering what all those other
Departments, other than State & Defense, of the Presidential Cabinet are up too? If our
news were done and somehow properly organized, in such away as to educate us peons, then
whatever the time allowed would be to broadcast and print out what each Federal Agency is up
to. Now I know a citizen can seek out this information, but why can't there be a suitable
mass media representation to reach us clunkheads like me, not you?
What should be exposed is the corporate ownership of the very agencies that were put in
place to protect the 'Commons' has been corrupted to the point of no return. This dilemma
will take a huge public referendum short of a mob revolution to change this atmosphere of
complacency. The public will get blamed, but the real blame should be put on the massive
leadership programs which were bolted down on to their citizens masses knowledge of said
events, and there in lies the total crime of deception.
MaDarby your concern for nature is where a smart person should put their number one
priority concern, no arguing there, but just a lifting word of approval of how you put it.
Joe
Donald Patterson , September 16, 2017 at 2:45 pm
Consortium has been a clear voice on the lunacy of the Russia-Gate scandal. But to paint
Yanukovych former President of the Ukraine as an injured party considering his history in
government with what appears to be large scale corruption is part of the story as well. A
treason trial started in May. More info needed on what looks like a complicated story. This
would be a good piece of investigative journalism as well.
mike k , September 16, 2017 at 9:03 pm
Can you imagine what a huge can of worms would be revealed if there was a thorough
investigation on every congressperson and public official in Washington DC? It would make
Yanukovych look like a saint. And in addition, let's investigate the 10,000 richest people in
the US, including all their offshore fortunes gained by illegal means. Wouldn't it make sense
to do that? Isn't there enough evidence of probable criminal activity to open these
investigations? Where is our ethical sense when it comes to our own dirty laundry? I guess
it's easier to speculate about other's crimes than look into our own, eh?
Joe Tedesky , September 17, 2017 at 12:40 pm
The focus I get isn't so much focused on Yanukovych, even Putin wasn't all that crazy
about his style of leadership, but my focus on a viable democratically created government
doesn't necessarily start with an armed public coup. Yes, leading up to the violence,
peaceful protesters took to the streets, but as we both know this is always the case until
the baton twirling thugs come to finally ramp up the protest to a marathon of violent clashes
and whatever else gets heads busted, until we have a full fledged revolution on our hands
pass out the cookies. I mean by by-passing the voting polls, even to somehow ad hoc a
temporary government in some manner of government overthrow were done peacefully, well then
maybe I could get on board with this new Ukrainian government, but even the NYT finds it
impossible to cover up everything.
And what about the people of Donbass? Shouldn't they have a say in this new government
realignment? Ukraine has, and has always had a East meets West kind of problem. That area has
been ruled over for centuries by each other, and one another, to a point of who's who and
what's what is hard to figure out. Donbass, should in my regard be separate from the Now Kiev
government. (Be kind with your critique of me for I am just an average American telling you
what I see from here)
It's like everything else, where we should let the people of the region sit down with each
other and work it out, we instead blame it on Putin, or whoever else Putin appears to be, and
there you have it MIC spending up the ying-yang, for the lack of a better portrayal, but
still a portrayal of what ills our modern geopolitical society.
mike k , September 16, 2017 at 2:49 pm
"The best thing which could happen to this country and its people would be the collapse of
this Empire. The support, even tacit and passive, of this Empire by people like yourself only
delays this outcome and allows this abomination to to bring even more misery and pain upon
millions of innocent people, including millions of your fellow Americans. This Empire now
also threatens my country, Russia, with war and possibly nuclear war and that, in turn, means
that this Empire threatens the survival of the human species. Whether the US Empire is the
most evil one in history is debatable, but the fact that it is by far the most dangerous one
is not. Is that not a good enough reason for you to say "enough is enough"? What would it
take for you to switch sides and join the rest of mankind in what is a struggle for the
survival of our species? Or will it take a nuclear winter to open your eyes to the true
nature of the Empire you apparently are still supporting against all evidence?" (the
Saker)
Please go to the entire article on today's Saker Blog.
Voytenko , September 16, 2017 at 3:48 pm
Sick edition consortiumnews, sick readers. Elites, Deep State, Evil Empire USA Dove Putin
with olive branch Guys, why don't you watch, say for a week, Russian TV, if you have somebody
around who can translate from Russian. If you want to hear real nazi racist alt-whatever
crap, Russian TV is the place. But you'll enjoy it, most probably. Thankfully, you guys, are
obviously, minority, with all your pseudo intellectual delusions, discussions and ideas.
"Useful idiots" – that's what Lenin said about the likes of you.
Abe , September 16, 2017 at 7:00 pm
There is no reason to assume that the trollish rants of "Voytenko" are from some outraged
flag-waving "patriot" in Kiev. There are plenty of other "useful idiots" ready, willing and
able to make mischief.
For example, about a million Jews emigrated to Israel ("made Aliyah") from the post-Soviet
states during the 1990s. Some 266,300 were Ukrainian Jews. A large number of Ukrainian Jews
also emigrated to the United States during this period. For example, out of an estimated 400
thousand Russian-speaking Jews in Metro New York, the largest number (thirty-six percent)
hail from Ukraine. Needless to say, many among them are not so well disposed toward the
nations of Russia or Ukraine, and quite capable of all manner of mischief.
A particularly "useful idiot" making mischief the days is Sergey Brin of Google. Brin's
parents were graduates of Moscow State University who emigrated from the Soviet Union in 1979
when their son was five years old.
Google, the company that runs the most visited website in the world, the company that owns
YouTube, is very snugly in bed with the US military-industrial-surveillance complex.
In fact, Google was seed funded by the US National Security Agency (NSA) and Central
Intelligence Agency (CIA). The company now enjoys lavish "partnerships" with military
contractors like SAIC, Northrop Grumman and Blackbird.
Google's mission statement from the outset was "to organize the world's information and
make it universally accessible and useful".
In a 2004 letter prior to their initial public offering, Google founders Larry Page and
Sergey Brin explained their "Don't be evil" culture required objectivity and an absence of
bias: "We believe it is important for everyone to have access to the best information and
research, not only to the information people pay for you to see."
The corporate giant appears to have replaced the original motto altogether. A carefully
reworded version appears in the Google Code of Conduct: "You can make money without doing
evil".
This new gospel allows Google and its "partners" to make money promoting propaganda and
engaging in surveillance, and somehow manage to not "be evil". That's "post-truth" logic for
you.
Indeed, a very cozy cross-promotion is happening between Google and Bellingcat.
In November 2014, Google Ideas and Google For Media, partnered the George Soros-funded
Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) to host an "Investigathon" in New
York City. Google Ideas promoted Higgins' "War and Pieces: Social Media Investigations" song
and dance via their YouTube page.
Higgins constantly insists that Bellingcat "findings" are "reaffirmed" by accessing
imagery in Google Earth.
Google Earth, originally called EarthViewer 3D, was created by Keyhole, Inc, a Central
Intelligence Agency (CIA) funded company acquired by Google in 2004. Google Earth uses
satellite images provided by the company Digital Globe, a supplier of the US Department of
Defense (DoD) with deep connections to both the military and intelligence communities.
The National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) is both a combat support agency under
the United States Department of Defense, and an intelligence agency of the United States
Intelligence Community. Robert T. Cardillo, director of the NGA, lavishly praised Digital
Globe as "a true mission partner in every sense of the word". Examination of the Board of
Directors of Digital Globe reveals intimate connections to DoD and CIA
Google has quite the history of malicious behavior. In what became known as the "Wi-Spy"
scandal, it was revealed that Google had been collecting hundreds of gigabytes of payload
data, including personal and sensitive information. First names, email addresses, physical
addresses, and a conversation between two married individuals planning an extra-marital
affair were all cited by the FCC. In a 2012 settlement, the Federal Trade Commission
announced that Google will pay $22.5 million for overriding privacy settings in Apple's
Safari browser. Though it was the largest civil penalty the Federal Trade Commission had ever
imposed for violating one of its orders, the penalty as little more than symbolic for a
company that had $2.8 billion in earnings the previous quarter.
Google is a joint venture partner with the CIA In 2009, Google Ventures and In-Q-Tel
invested "under $10 million each" into Recorded Future shortly after the company was founded.
The company developed technology that strips information from web pages, blogs, and Twitter
accounts.
In addition to funding Bellingcat and joint ventures with the CIA, Brin's Google is
heavily invested in Crowdstrike, an American cybersecurity technology firm based in Irvine,
California.
Crowdstrike is the main "source" of the "Russians hacked the DNC" story.
Dmitri Alperovitch, co-founder and chief technology officer of CrowdStrike, is a Senior
Fellow at the Atlantic Council "regime change" think tank.
Alperovitz said that Crowdstrike has "high confidence" it was "Russian hackers".
"But we don't have hard evidence," Alperovitch admitted in a June 16, 2016 Washington Post
interview.
Allegations of Russian perfidy are routinely issued by private companies with lucrative US
Department of Defense (DoD) contracts. The companies claiming to protect the nation against
"threats" have the ability to manufacture "threats".
The US and UK possess elite cyber capabilities for both cyberspace espionage and offensive
operations.
Both the US National Security Agency (NSA) and the British Government Communications
Headquarters (GCHQ) are intelligence agencies with a long history of supporting military
operations. US military cyber operations are the responsibility of US Cyber Command, whose
commander is also the head of the NSA.
US offensive cyber operations have emphasized political coercion and opinion shaping,
shifting public perception in NATO countries as well as globally in ways favorable to the US,
and to create a sense of unease and distrust among perceived adversaries such as Russia and
China.
The Snowden revelations made it clear that US offensive cyber capabilities can and have
been directed both domestically and internationally. The notion that US and NATO cyber
operations are purely defensive is a myth.
Recent US domestic cyber operations have been used for coercive effect, creating
uncertainty and concern within the American government and population.
The perception that a foreign attacker may have infiltrated US networks, is monitoring
communications, and perhaps considering even more damaging actions, can have a disorienting
effect.
In the world of US "hybrid warfare" against Russia, offensive cyber operations work in
tandem with NATO propaganda efforts, perhaps best exemplified by the "online investigation"
antics of the Atlantic Council's Eliot Higgins and his Bellingcat disinformation site.
I live in Russia and see those shows that you speak of. The Nazi rants are from the
Ukraine folks invited on the show – you want to see Ukraine shows like the ones in RU.
– well, you won't see any Russians invited to talk -- -- NONE --
Gregory Herr , September 17, 2017 at 10:33 am
Your posts are so blatantly contrived it's almost funny. Do you write for sitcoms as
well?
mrtmbrnmn , September 16, 2017 at 4:48 pm
Is this a great country, or wot???
Stupid starts at the very top and there is no bottom to it .
The Washington Post has its own ironically self-describing slogan. Perhaps that of the NYT
these days should be, in the same vein, "The Sleep of Reason begets monsters". And who will
soon then be able to whistle in the darkness full of these things?
mike k , September 17, 2017 at 8:03 am
When looking for monsters, the WaPo should start by looking at themselves.
The chaos in Ukraine was engineered by Victoria Nuland at Hillary's request. Good that she
is not president. The Ukrainians and Russians are one and the same people, same DNA, same
religion Orthodoxy., Slavic, languages very close to each other, Cyrillic alphabet and a long
common history .
Russian_angel , September 17, 2017 at 9:43 pm
Thank you for the truth about Russia, it hurts the Russians to read about themselves in
the American newspapers a lie.
Florin , September 18, 2017 at 2:15 am
Gershman, Nuland, Pyland, Feltman . essentially ths four biggest US (quasi) diplomats,
like Volodymyr Groysman, Petro Poroshenko and perhaps 'our guy' Yats – are Jewish.
Add to this the role of Israeli 'ex' military, some hundreds, which means Mossad, and of
Jewish oligarchs in Ukraine – and consider that Jews are less than 1% of the
population.
The point is if we were free to speak plainly, the Ukraine coup looks to be one in which
American and Ukrainian Jews acted in concert to benefit Jewish power. There is more to be said on this, but this glimpse will suffice because, of course, one is
not free to speak plainly even where plain speaking is, on the face of it, encouraged.
Jamie , September 18, 2017 at 12:03 pm
Where was fake Antifa when Obama armed Nazi's in the Ukraine?
By ignoring the fascism of one political party, Antifa is actually pro-fascist. This fits
in well with their Hitler-like disdain for freedom of press, speech and assembly. And their
absolute love of violence, we also saw in the 1930s among Nazi groups
"... In addition to funding Bellingcat and joint ventures with the CIA, Brin's Google is heavily invested in Crowdstrike, an American cybersecurity technology firm based in Irvine, California. ..."
"... Crowdstrike is the main "source" of the "Russians hacked the DNC" story. ..."
"... Allegations of Russian perfidy are routinely issued by private companies with lucrative US Department of Defense (DoD) contracts. The companies claiming to protect the nation against "threats" have the ability to manufacture "threats". ..."
"... US offensive cyber operations have emphasized political coercion and opinion shaping, shifting public perception in NATO countries as well as globally in ways favorable to the US, and to create a sense of unease and distrust among perceived adversaries such as Russia and China. ..."
"... The Snowden revelations made it clear that US offensive cyber capabilities can and have been directed both domestically and internationally. The notion that US and NATO cyber operations are purely defensive is a myth. ..."
"... The perception that a foreign attacker may have infiltrated US networks, is monitoring communications, and perhaps considering even more damaging actions, can have a disorienting effect. ..."
"... In the world of US "hybrid warfare" against Russia, offensive cyber operations work in tandem with NATO propaganda efforts, perhaps best exemplified by the "online investigation" antics of the Atlantic Council's Eliot Higgins and his Bellingcat disinformation site. ..."
Yellow journalism now employs "open source and social media investigation" scams foisted by
Eliot Higgins and the Bellingcat disinformation site.
Bellingcat is allied with the New York Times and the Washington Post, the two principal mainstream
media organs for "regime change" propaganda, via the First Draft Coalition "partner network".
In a triumph of Orwellian Newspeak, this Google-sponsored "post-Truth" Propaganda 3.0 coalition
declares that member organizations will "work together to tackle common issues, including ways
to streamline the verification process".
The New York Times routinely hacks up Bellingcat "reports" and pretends they're "verification"
Malachy Browne, "Senior Story Producer" at the New York Times, cited Bellingcat to embellish
the media "story" about the Khan Shaykhun chemical incident in Idlib Syria.
Before joining the Times, Browne was an editor at "social news and marketing agency" Storyful
and at Reported. ly, the "social reporting" arm of Pierre Omidyar's First Look Media.
Browne generously "supplemented" his "reporting" on the Khan Shaykun incident with "videos
gathered by the journalist Eliot Higgins and the social media news agency Storyful".
Browne encouraged Times readers to participate in the Bellingcat-style "verification" charade:
"Find a computer, get on Google Earth and match what you see in the video to the streets and buildings"
Browne of Storyful and Higgins of Bellingcat are founding members of the Google-funded "First
Draft" coalition.
Browne demonstrates how the NYT and other "First Draft" coalition media outlets use video to
"strengthen" their "storytelling".
In 2016, the NYT video department hired Browne and Andrew Glazer. a senior producer on the
team that launched VICE News, to help "enhance" the "reporting" at the Times.
Browne represents the Times' effort to package its dubious "reporting" using the Storyful marketing
strategy of "building trust, loyalty, and revenue with insight and emotionally driven content"
wedded with Bellingcat style "digital forensics" scams.
In other words, we should expect the New York Times, Washington Post, BBC, UK Guardian, and
all the other "First Draft" coalition media "partners" to barrage us more Bellingcat / Atlantic
Council-style Facebook and YouTube video mashups, crazy fun with Google Earth, and Twitter campaigns.
Abe , September 16, 2017 at 7:00 pm
There is no reason to assume that the trollish rants of "Voytenko" are from some outraged flag-waving
"patriot" in Kiev. There are plenty of other "useful idiots" ready, willing and able to make mischief.
For example, about a million Jews emigrated to Israel ("made Aliyah") from the post-Soviet
states during the 1990s. Some 266,300 were Ukrainian Jews. A large number of Ukrainian Jews also
emigrated to the United States during this period. For example, out of an estimated 400 thousand
Russian-speaking Jews in Metro New York, the largest number (thirty-six percent) hail from Ukraine.
Needless to say, many among them are not so well disposed toward the nations of Russia or Ukraine,
and quite capable of all manner of mischief.
A particularly "useful idiot" making mischief the days is Sergey Brin of Google. Brin's parents
were graduates of Moscow State University who emigrated from the Soviet Union in 1979 when their
son was five years old.
Google, the company that runs the most visited website in the world, the company that owns
YouTube, is very snugly in bed with the US military-industrial-surveillance complex.
In fact, Google was seed funded by the US National Security Agency (NSA) and Central Intelligence
Agency (CIA). The company now enjoys lavish "partnerships" with military contractors like SAIC,
Northrop Grumman and Blackbird.
Google's mission statement from the outset was "to organize the world's information and make
it universally accessible and useful".
In a 2004 letter prior to their initial public offering, Google founders Larry Page and Sergey
Brin explained their "Don't be evil" culture required objectivity and an absence of bias: "We
believe it is important for everyone to have access to the best information and research, not
only to the information people pay for you to see."
The corporate giant appears to have replaced the original motto altogether. A carefully reworded
version appears in the Google Code of Conduct: "You can make money without doing evil".
This new gospel allows Google and its "partners" to make money promoting propaganda and engaging
in surveillance, and somehow manage to not "be evil". That's "post-truth" logic for you.
Indeed, a very cozy cross-promotion is happening between Google and Bellingcat.
In November 2014, Google Ideas and Google For Media, partnered the George Soros-funded Organised
Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) to host an "Investigathon" in New York City. Google
Ideas promoted Higgins' "War and Pieces: Social Media Investigations" song and dance via their
YouTube page.
Higgins constantly insists that Bellingcat "findings" are "reaffirmed" by accessing imagery
in Google Earth.
Google Earth, originally called EarthViewer 3D, was created by Keyhole, Inc, a Central Intelligence
Agency (CIA) funded company acquired by Google in 2004. Google Earth uses satellite images provided
by the company Digital Globe, a supplier of the US Department of Defense (DoD) with deep connections
to both the military and intelligence communities.
The National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) is both a combat support agency under the
United States Department of Defense, and an intelligence agency of the United States Intelligence
Community. Robert T. Cardillo, director of the NGA, lavishly praised Digital Globe as "a true
mission partner in every sense of the word". Examination of the Board of Directors of Digital
Globe reveals intimate connections to DoD and CIA
Google has quite the history of malicious behavior. In what became known as the "Wi-Spy" scandal,
it was revealed that Google had been collecting hundreds of gigabytes of payload data, including
personal and sensitive information. First names, email addresses, physical addresses, and a conversation
between two married individuals planning an extra-marital affair were all cited by the FCC. In
a 2012 settlement, the Federal Trade Commission announced that Google will pay $22.5 million for
overriding privacy settings in Apple's Safari browser. Though it was the largest civil penalty
the Federal Trade Commission had ever imposed for violating one of its orders, the penalty as
little more than symbolic for a company that had $2.8 billion in earnings the previous quarter.
Google is a joint venture partner with the CIA In 2009, Google Ventures and In-Q-Tel invested
"under $10 million each" into Recorded Future shortly after the company was founded. The company
developed technology that strips information from web pages, blogs, and Twitter accounts.
In addition to funding Bellingcat and joint ventures with the CIA, Brin's Google is heavily
invested in Crowdstrike, an American cybersecurity technology firm based in Irvine, California.
Crowdstrike is the main "source" of the "Russians hacked the DNC" story.
Dmitri Alperovitch, co-founder and chief technology officer of CrowdStrike, is a Senior Fellow
at the Atlantic Council "regime change" think tank. Alperovitz said that Crowdstrike has "high
confidence" it was "Russian hackers". "But we don't have hard evidence," Alperovitch admitted
in a June 16, 2016 Washington Post interview.
Allegations of Russian perfidy are routinely issued by private companies with lucrative
US Department of Defense (DoD) contracts. The companies claiming to protect the nation against
"threats" have the ability to manufacture "threats".
The US and UK possess elite cyber capabilities for both cyberspace espionage and offensive
operations.
Both the US National Security Agency (NSA) and the British Government Communications Headquarters
(GCHQ) are intelligence agencies with a long history of supporting military operations. US military
cyber operations are the responsibility of US Cyber Command, whose commander is also the head
of the NSA.
US offensive cyber operations have emphasized political coercion and opinion shaping, shifting
public perception in NATO countries as well as globally in ways favorable to the US, and to create
a sense of unease and distrust among perceived adversaries such as Russia and China.
The Snowden revelations made it clear that US offensive cyber capabilities can and have
been directed both domestically and internationally. The notion that US and NATO cyber operations
are purely defensive is a myth.
Recent US domestic cyber operations have been used for coercive effect, creating uncertainty
and concern within the American government and population.
The perception that a foreign attacker may have infiltrated US networks, is monitoring
communications, and perhaps considering even more damaging actions, can have a disorienting effect.
In the world of US "hybrid warfare" against Russia, offensive cyber operations work in
tandem with NATO propaganda efforts, perhaps best exemplified by the "online investigation" antics
of the Atlantic Council's Eliot Higgins and his Bellingcat disinformation site.
Abe , September 16, 2017 at 1:58 pm
Higgins and Bellingcat receives direct funding from the Open Society Foundations (OSF) founded
by business magnate George Soros, and from Google's Digital News Initiatives (DNI).
Google's 2017 DNI Fund Annual Report describes Higgins as "a world–leading expert in news verification".
In their zeal to propagate the story of Higgins as a courageous former "unemployed man" now
busy independently "Codifying social conflict data", Google neglects to mention Higgins' role
as a "research fellow" for the NATO-funded Atlantic Council "regime change" think tank.
Despite their claims of "independent journalism", Eliot Higgins and the team of disinformation
operatives at Bellingcat depend on the Atlantic Council to promote their "online investigations".
The Atlantic Council donors list includes:
– US government and military entities: US State Department, US Air Force, US Army, US Marines.
– The NATO military alliance
– Large corporations and major military contractors: Chevron, Google, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon,
BP, ExxonMobil, General Electric, Northrup Grumman, SAIC, ConocoPhillips, and Dow Chemical
– Foreign governments: United Arab Emirates (UAE; which gives the think tank at least $1 million),
Kingdom of Bahrain, City of London, Ministry of Defense of Finland, Embassy of Latvia, Estonian
Ministry of Defense, Ministry of Defense of Georgia
– Other think tanks and think tankers: Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS),
Nicolas Veron of Bruegel (formerly at PIIE), Anne-Marie Slaughter (head of New America Foundation),
Michele Flournoy (head of Center for a New American Security), Center for Middle East Policy at
Brookings Institution.
Higgins is a Research Associate of the Department of War Studies at King's College, and was
principal co-author of the Atlantic Council "reports" on Ukraine and Syria.
Damon Wilson, Executive Vice President of Programs and Strategy at the Atlantic Council, a
co-author with Higgins of the report, effusively praised Higgins' effort to bolster anti-Russian
propaganda:
Wilson stated, "We make this case using only open source, all unclassified material. And none
of it provided by government sources. And it's thanks to works, the work that's been pioneered
by human rights defenders and our partner Eliot Higgins, uh, we've been able to use social media
forensics and geolocation to back this up." (see Atlantic Council video presentation minutes 35:10-36:30)
However, the Atlantic Council claim that "none" of Higgins' material was provided by government
sources is an obvious lie.
Higgins' primary "pieces of evidence" are a video depicting a Buk missile launcher and a set
of geolocation coordinates that were supplied by the SBU (Security Service of Ukraine) and the
Ukrainian Ministry of Interior via the Facebook page of senior-level Ukrainian government official
Arsen Avakov, the Minister of Internal Affairs.
Higgins and the Atlantic Council are working in support of the Pentagon and Western intelligence's
"hybrid war" against Russia.
The laudatory bio of Higgins on the Kings College website specifically acknowledges his service
to the Atlantic Council:
"an award winning investigative journalist and publishes the work of an international alliance
of fellow investigators using freely available online information. He has helped inaugurate open-source
and social media investigations by trawling through vast amounts of data uploaded constantly on
to the web and social media sites. His inquiries have revealed extraordinary findings, including
linking the Buk used to down flight MH17 to Russia, uncovering details about the August 21st 2013
Sarin attacks in Damascus, and evidencing the involvement of the Russian military in the Ukrainian
conflict. Recently he has worked with the Atlantic Council on the report "Hiding in Plain Sight",
which used open source information to detail Russia's military involvement in the crisis in Ukraine."
While it honors Higgins' enthusiastic "trawling", King's College curiously neglects to mention
that Higgins' "findings" on the Syian sarin attacks were thoroughly debunked.
King's College also curiously neglects to mention the fact that Higgins, now listed as a Senior
Fellow at the Atlantic Council's "Future Europe Initiative", was principal co-author of the April
2016 Atlantic Council "report" on Syria.
The report's other key author was John E. Herbst, United States Ambassador to Ukraine from
September 2003 to May 2006 (the period that became known as the Orange Revolution) and Director
of the Atlantic Council's Eurasia Center.
Other report authors include Frederic C. Hof, who served as Special Adviser on Syrian political
transition to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in 2012. Hof was previously the Special Coordinator
for Regional Affairs in the US Department of State's Office of the Special Envoy for Middle East
Peace, where he advised Special Envoy George Mitchel. Hof had been a Resident Senior Fellow in
the Atlantic Council's Rafik Hariri Center for the Middle East since November 2012, and assumed
the position as Director in May 2016.
There is no daylight between the "online investigations" of Higgins and Bellingcat and the
"regime change" efforts of the NATO-backed Atlantic Council.
Thanks to the Atlantic Council, Soros, and Google, it's a pretty well-funded gig for fake "citizen
investigative journalist" Higgins.
"... In addition to funding Bellingcat and joint ventures with the CIA, Brin's Google is heavily invested in Crowdstrike, an American cybersecurity technology firm based in Irvine, California. ..."
"... Crowdstrike is the main "source" of the "Russians hacked the DNC" story. ..."
"... Allegations of Russian perfidy are routinely issued by private companies with lucrative US Department of Defense (DoD) contracts. The companies claiming to protect the nation against "threats" have the ability to manufacture "threats". ..."
"... US offensive cyber operations have emphasized political coercion and opinion shaping, shifting public perception in NATO countries as well as globally in ways favorable to the US, and to create a sense of unease and distrust among perceived adversaries such as Russia and China. ..."
"... The Snowden revelations made it clear that US offensive cyber capabilities can and have been directed both domestically and internationally. The notion that US and NATO cyber operations are purely defensive is a myth. ..."
"... The perception that a foreign attacker may have infiltrated US networks, is monitoring communications, and perhaps considering even more damaging actions, can have a disorienting effect. ..."
"... In the world of US "hybrid warfare" against Russia, offensive cyber operations work in tandem with NATO propaganda efforts, perhaps best exemplified by the "online investigation" antics of the Atlantic Council's Eliot Higgins and his Bellingcat disinformation site. ..."
Yellow journalism now employs "open source and social media investigation" scams foisted by
Eliot Higgins and the Bellingcat disinformation site.
Bellingcat is allied with the New York Times and the Washington Post, the two principal mainstream
media organs for "regime change" propaganda, via the First Draft Coalition "partner network".
In a triumph of Orwellian Newspeak, this Google-sponsored "post-Truth" Propaganda 3.0 coalition
declares that member organizations will "work together to tackle common issues, including ways
to streamline the verification process".
The New York Times routinely hacks up Bellingcat "reports" and pretends they're "verification"
Malachy Browne, "Senior Story Producer" at the New York Times, cited Bellingcat to embellish
the media "story" about the Khan Shaykhun chemical incident in Idlib Syria.
Before joining the Times, Browne was an editor at "social news and marketing agency" Storyful
and at Reported. ly, the "social reporting" arm of Pierre Omidyar's First Look Media.
Browne generously "supplemented" his "reporting" on the Khan Shaykun incident with "videos
gathered by the journalist Eliot Higgins and the social media news agency Storyful".
Browne encouraged Times readers to participate in the Bellingcat-style "verification" charade:
"Find a computer, get on Google Earth and match what you see in the video to the streets and buildings"
Browne of Storyful and Higgins of Bellingcat are founding members of the Google-funded "First
Draft" coalition.
Browne demonstrates how the NYT and other "First Draft" coalition media outlets use video to
"strengthen" their "storytelling".
In 2016, the NYT video department hired Browne and Andrew Glazer. a senior producer on the
team that launched VICE News, to help "enhance" the "reporting" at the Times.
Browne represents the Times' effort to package its dubious "reporting" using the Storyful marketing
strategy of "building trust, loyalty, and revenue with insight and emotionally driven content"
wedded with Bellingcat style "digital forensics" scams.
In other words, we should expect the New York Times, Washington Post, BBC, UK Guardian, and
all the other "First Draft" coalition media "partners" to barrage us more Bellingcat / Atlantic
Council-style Facebook and YouTube video mashups, crazy fun with Google Earth, and Twitter campaigns.
Abe , September 16, 2017 at 7:00 pm
There is no reason to assume that the trollish rants of "Voytenko" are from some outraged flag-waving
"patriot" in Kiev. There are plenty of other "useful idiots" ready, willing and able to make mischief.
For example, about a million Jews emigrated to Israel ("made Aliyah") from the post-Soviet
states during the 1990s. Some 266,300 were Ukrainian Jews. A large number of Ukrainian Jews also
emigrated to the United States during this period. For example, out of an estimated 400 thousand
Russian-speaking Jews in Metro New York, the largest number (thirty-six percent) hail from Ukraine.
Needless to say, many among them are not so well disposed toward the nations of Russia or Ukraine,
and quite capable of all manner of mischief.
A particularly "useful idiot" making mischief the days is Sergey Brin of Google. Brin's parents
were graduates of Moscow State University who emigrated from the Soviet Union in 1979 when their
son was five years old.
Google, the company that runs the most visited website in the world, the company that owns
YouTube, is very snugly in bed with the US military-industrial-surveillance complex.
In fact, Google was seed funded by the US National Security Agency (NSA) and Central Intelligence
Agency (CIA). The company now enjoys lavish "partnerships" with military contractors like SAIC,
Northrop Grumman and Blackbird.
Google's mission statement from the outset was "to organize the world's information and make
it universally accessible and useful".
In a 2004 letter prior to their initial public offering, Google founders Larry Page and Sergey
Brin explained their "Don't be evil" culture required objectivity and an absence of bias: "We
believe it is important for everyone to have access to the best information and research, not
only to the information people pay for you to see."
The corporate giant appears to have replaced the original motto altogether. A carefully reworded
version appears in the Google Code of Conduct: "You can make money without doing evil".
This new gospel allows Google and its "partners" to make money promoting propaganda and engaging
in surveillance, and somehow manage to not "be evil". That's "post-truth" logic for you.
Indeed, a very cozy cross-promotion is happening between Google and Bellingcat.
In November 2014, Google Ideas and Google For Media, partnered the George Soros-funded Organised
Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) to host an "Investigathon" in New York City. Google
Ideas promoted Higgins' "War and Pieces: Social Media Investigations" song and dance via their
YouTube page.
Higgins constantly insists that Bellingcat "findings" are "reaffirmed" by accessing imagery
in Google Earth.
Google Earth, originally called EarthViewer 3D, was created by Keyhole, Inc, a Central Intelligence
Agency (CIA) funded company acquired by Google in 2004. Google Earth uses satellite images provided
by the company Digital Globe, a supplier of the US Department of Defense (DoD) with deep connections
to both the military and intelligence communities.
The National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) is both a combat support agency under the
United States Department of Defense, and an intelligence agency of the United States Intelligence
Community. Robert T. Cardillo, director of the NGA, lavishly praised Digital Globe as "a true
mission partner in every sense of the word". Examination of the Board of Directors of Digital
Globe reveals intimate connections to DoD and CIA
Google has quite the history of malicious behavior. In what became known as the "Wi-Spy" scandal,
it was revealed that Google had been collecting hundreds of gigabytes of payload data, including
personal and sensitive information. First names, email addresses, physical addresses, and a conversation
between two married individuals planning an extra-marital affair were all cited by the FCC. In
a 2012 settlement, the Federal Trade Commission announced that Google will pay $22.5 million for
overriding privacy settings in Apple's Safari browser. Though it was the largest civil penalty
the Federal Trade Commission had ever imposed for violating one of its orders, the penalty as
little more than symbolic for a company that had $2.8 billion in earnings the previous quarter.
Google is a joint venture partner with the CIA In 2009, Google Ventures and In-Q-Tel invested
"under $10 million each" into Recorded Future shortly after the company was founded. The company
developed technology that strips information from web pages, blogs, and Twitter accounts.
In addition to funding Bellingcat and joint ventures with the CIA, Brin's Google is heavily
invested in Crowdstrike, an American cybersecurity technology firm based in Irvine, California.
Crowdstrike is the main "source" of the "Russians hacked the DNC" story.
Dmitri Alperovitch, co-founder and chief technology officer of CrowdStrike, is a Senior Fellow
at the Atlantic Council "regime change" think tank. Alperovitz said that Crowdstrike has "high
confidence" it was "Russian hackers". "But we don't have hard evidence," Alperovitch admitted
in a June 16, 2016 Washington Post interview.
Allegations of Russian perfidy are routinely issued by private companies with lucrative
US Department of Defense (DoD) contracts. The companies claiming to protect the nation against
"threats" have the ability to manufacture "threats".
The US and UK possess elite cyber capabilities for both cyberspace espionage and offensive
operations.
Both the US National Security Agency (NSA) and the British Government Communications Headquarters
(GCHQ) are intelligence agencies with a long history of supporting military operations. US military
cyber operations are the responsibility of US Cyber Command, whose commander is also the head
of the NSA.
US offensive cyber operations have emphasized political coercion and opinion shaping, shifting
public perception in NATO countries as well as globally in ways favorable to the US, and to create
a sense of unease and distrust among perceived adversaries such as Russia and China.
The Snowden revelations made it clear that US offensive cyber capabilities can and have
been directed both domestically and internationally. The notion that US and NATO cyber operations
are purely defensive is a myth.
Recent US domestic cyber operations have been used for coercive effect, creating uncertainty
and concern within the American government and population.
The perception that a foreign attacker may have infiltrated US networks, is monitoring
communications, and perhaps considering even more damaging actions, can have a disorienting effect.
In the world of US "hybrid warfare" against Russia, offensive cyber operations work in
tandem with NATO propaganda efforts, perhaps best exemplified by the "online investigation" antics
of the Atlantic Council's Eliot Higgins and his Bellingcat disinformation site.
Abe , September 16, 2017 at 1:58 pm
Higgins and Bellingcat receives direct funding from the Open Society Foundations (OSF) founded
by business magnate George Soros, and from Google's Digital News Initiatives (DNI).
Google's 2017 DNI Fund Annual Report describes Higgins as "a world–leading expert in news verification".
In their zeal to propagate the story of Higgins as a courageous former "unemployed man" now
busy independently "Codifying social conflict data", Google neglects to mention Higgins' role
as a "research fellow" for the NATO-funded Atlantic Council "regime change" think tank.
Despite their claims of "independent journalism", Eliot Higgins and the team of disinformation
operatives at Bellingcat depend on the Atlantic Council to promote their "online investigations".
The Atlantic Council donors list includes:
– US government and military entities: US State Department, US Air Force, US Army, US Marines.
– The NATO military alliance
– Large corporations and major military contractors: Chevron, Google, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon,
BP, ExxonMobil, General Electric, Northrup Grumman, SAIC, ConocoPhillips, and Dow Chemical
– Foreign governments: United Arab Emirates (UAE; which gives the think tank at least $1 million),
Kingdom of Bahrain, City of London, Ministry of Defense of Finland, Embassy of Latvia, Estonian
Ministry of Defense, Ministry of Defense of Georgia
– Other think tanks and think tankers: Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS),
Nicolas Veron of Bruegel (formerly at PIIE), Anne-Marie Slaughter (head of New America Foundation),
Michele Flournoy (head of Center for a New American Security), Center for Middle East Policy at
Brookings Institution.
Higgins is a Research Associate of the Department of War Studies at King's College, and was
principal co-author of the Atlantic Council "reports" on Ukraine and Syria.
Damon Wilson, Executive Vice President of Programs and Strategy at the Atlantic Council, a
co-author with Higgins of the report, effusively praised Higgins' effort to bolster anti-Russian
propaganda:
Wilson stated, "We make this case using only open source, all unclassified material. And none
of it provided by government sources. And it's thanks to works, the work that's been pioneered
by human rights defenders and our partner Eliot Higgins, uh, we've been able to use social media
forensics and geolocation to back this up." (see Atlantic Council video presentation minutes 35:10-36:30)
However, the Atlantic Council claim that "none" of Higgins' material was provided by government
sources is an obvious lie.
Higgins' primary "pieces of evidence" are a video depicting a Buk missile launcher and a set
of geolocation coordinates that were supplied by the SBU (Security Service of Ukraine) and the
Ukrainian Ministry of Interior via the Facebook page of senior-level Ukrainian government official
Arsen Avakov, the Minister of Internal Affairs.
Higgins and the Atlantic Council are working in support of the Pentagon and Western intelligence's
"hybrid war" against Russia.
The laudatory bio of Higgins on the Kings College website specifically acknowledges his service
to the Atlantic Council:
"an award winning investigative journalist and publishes the work of an international alliance
of fellow investigators using freely available online information. He has helped inaugurate open-source
and social media investigations by trawling through vast amounts of data uploaded constantly on
to the web and social media sites. His inquiries have revealed extraordinary findings, including
linking the Buk used to down flight MH17 to Russia, uncovering details about the August 21st 2013
Sarin attacks in Damascus, and evidencing the involvement of the Russian military in the Ukrainian
conflict. Recently he has worked with the Atlantic Council on the report "Hiding in Plain Sight",
which used open source information to detail Russia's military involvement in the crisis in Ukraine."
While it honors Higgins' enthusiastic "trawling", King's College curiously neglects to mention
that Higgins' "findings" on the Syian sarin attacks were thoroughly debunked.
King's College also curiously neglects to mention the fact that Higgins, now listed as a Senior
Fellow at the Atlantic Council's "Future Europe Initiative", was principal co-author of the April
2016 Atlantic Council "report" on Syria.
The report's other key author was John E. Herbst, United States Ambassador to Ukraine from
September 2003 to May 2006 (the period that became known as the Orange Revolution) and Director
of the Atlantic Council's Eurasia Center.
Other report authors include Frederic C. Hof, who served as Special Adviser on Syrian political
transition to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in 2012. Hof was previously the Special Coordinator
for Regional Affairs in the US Department of State's Office of the Special Envoy for Middle East
Peace, where he advised Special Envoy George Mitchel. Hof had been a Resident Senior Fellow in
the Atlantic Council's Rafik Hariri Center for the Middle East since November 2012, and assumed
the position as Director in May 2016.
There is no daylight between the "online investigations" of Higgins and Bellingcat and the
"regime change" efforts of the NATO-backed Atlantic Council.
Thanks to the Atlantic Council, Soros, and Google, it's a pretty well-funded gig for fake "citizen
investigative journalist" Higgins.
"... The New York Times is prepping the American people for what could become World War III. The daily message is that you must learn to hate Russia and its President Vladimir Putin so much that, first, you should support vast new spending on America's Military-Industrial Complex and, second, you'll be ginned up for nuclear war if it comes to that. ..."
"... At this stage, the Times doesn't even try for a cosmetic appearance of objective journalism. Look at how the Times has twisted the history of the Ukraine crisis, treating it simply as a case of "Russian aggression" or a "Russian invasion." The Times routinely ignores what actually happened in Ukraine in late 2013 and early 2014 when the U.S. government aided and abetted a violent coup that overthrew Ukraine's elected President Viktor Yanukovych after he had been demonized in the Western media. ..."
"... The Times and much of the U.S. mainstream media refuses even to acknowledge that there is another side to the Ukraine story. Anyone who mentions this reality is deemed a "Kremlin stooge" in much the same way that people who questioned the mainstream certainty about Iraq's WMD in 2002-03 were called "Saddam apologists." ..."
"... Many liberals came to view the dubious claims of Russian "meddling" in the 2016 election as the golden ticket to remove Trump from the White House. So, amid that frenzy, all standards of proof were jettisoned to make Russia-gate the new Watergate. ..."
"... For one, even if the U.S. government were to succeed in destabilizing nuclear-armed Russia sufficiently to force out President Putin, the neocon dream of another malleable Boris Yeltsin in the Kremlin is far less likely than the emergence of an extreme Russian nationalist who might be ready to push the nuclear button rather than accept further humiliation of Mother Russia. ..."
"... The truth is that the world has much less to fear from the calculating Vladimir Putin than from the guy who might follow a deposed Vladimir Putin amid economic desperation and political chaos in Russia. But the possibility of nuclear Armageddon doesn't seem to bother the neocon/liberal-interventionist New York Times. Nor apparently does the principle of fair and honest journalism. ..."
"... America's Stolen Narrative, ..."
"... The Trans-Atlantic Empire of banking cartels rest upon enmity with the only other Great Powers in the World: Russia and China, while keeping USA thoroughly within their orbit, relying on our Great Power as the engine that powers this Western Bankers' Empire (the steering room lies in City-of-London, who has LONG maneuvered, via their Wall Street assets, to bring us into Empire). Should peaceful, cooperative and productive relations break out between USA, Russia, and China, this would undermine everything the Western Empire has worked to build. ..."
"... THIS is why the phony Russiagate issue is flogged to get rid of Trump (who seeks cooperation with Russia and China), AND keeping Russia as "The Enemy", keeping the MIC, Intel community, various police-state ops, in high demand for "National Security" reasons (also positioned to foil any democratic uprisings, should they see past the progs daily curtain and see their plight). ..."
"... The funny thing about living through the 'fake news' era, is that now everyone thinks that their news source is the correct news source. Many believe that outside of the individual everyone else reads or listens too 'fake news'. It's like all of a sudden no one has credibility, yet everyone may have it, depending on what news source you subscribe to. I mean there's almost no way of knowing what the truth is, because everyone is claiming that they are getting their news from reputable news outlets, but some or many aren't, and who are the reputable news sources, if you don't mind my asking you this just for the record? ..."
"... To learn how to deal with this 'fake news', I would suggest you start studying the JFK assassination, or any other ill defined tragic event, and then you might learn how to decipher the 'fake news' matrix of confusion to learn what you so desire to learn. I chose this route, because when was the last time the Establishment brokered the truth in regard to a happening such as the JFK assassination? Upon learning of what a few well written books has to say, you will then need to rely on your own brain to at least give you enough satisfaction to allow you to believe that you pretty well got it right, and there go you. In other words, the truth is out there, hiding in plain sight, and if you are persistent enough you just might find it. Good luck. ..."
The NYT's Yellow Journalism on Russia September 15, 2017
Exclusive: The New York Times' descent into yellow journalism over Russia recalls the
sensationalism of Hearst and Pulitzer leading to the Spanish-American War, but the risks to
humanity are much greater now, writes Robert Parry.
By Robert Parry
Reading The New York Times these days is like getting a daily dose of the "Two Minutes Hate"
as envisioned in George Orwell's 1984, except applied to America's new/old enemy
Russia. Even routine international behavior, such as Russia using fictitious names for
potential adversaries during a military drill, is transformed into something weird and
evil.
In the snide and alarmist style that the Times now always applies to Russia, reporter Andrew
Higgins wrote
– referring to a fictitious war-game "enemy" – "The country does not exist, so it
has neither an army nor any real citizens, though it has acquired a feisty following of
would-be patriots online. Starting on Thursday, however, the fictional state, Veishnoriya, a
distillation of the Kremlin's darkest fears about the West, becomes the target of the combined
military might of Russia and its ally Belarus."
This snarky front-page story in Thursday's print editions also played into the Times' larger
narrative about Russia as a disseminator of "fake news." You see the Russkies are even
inventing "fictional" enemies to bully. Hah-hah-hah -- The article was entitled, "Russia's War
Games With Fake Enemies Cause Real Alarm."
Of course, the U.S. and its allies also conduct war games against fictitious enemies, but
you wouldn't know that from reading the Times. For instance,
U.S. war games in 2015 substituted five made-up states – Ariana, Atropia, Donovia,
Gorgas and Limaria – for nations near the Caucasus mountains along the borders of Russia
and Iran.
In earlier war games, the U.S. used both fictitious names and colors in place of actual
countries. For instance, in 1981, the Reagan administration conducted "Ocean Venture" with that
war-game scenario focused on a group of islands called "Amber and the Amberdines," obvious
stand-ins for Grenada and the Grenadines, with "Orange" used to represent Cuba.
In those cases, the maneuvers by the powerful U.S. military were clearly intended to
intimidate far weaker countries. Yet, the U.S. mainstream media did not treat those war
rehearsals for what they were, implicit aggression, but rather mocked protests from the obvious
targets as paranoia since we all know the U.S. would never violate international law and invade
some weak country -- (As it turned out, Ocean Venture '81 was a dress rehearsal for the actual
U.S. invasion of Grenada in 1983.)
Yet, as far as the Times and its many imitators in the major media are concerned, there's
one standard for "us" and another for Russia and other countries that "we" don't like.
Yellow Journalism
But the Times' behavior over the past several years suggests something even more sinister
than biased reporting. The "newspaper of record" has slid into yellow journalism, the practice
of two earlier New York newspapers – William Randolph Hearst's New York Journal and
Joseph Pulitzer's New York World – that in the 1890s manipulated facts about the crisis
in Cuba to push the United States into war with Spain, a conflict that many historians say
marked the beginning of America's global empire.
Except in today's instance, The New York Times is prepping the American people for what
could become World War III. The daily message is that you must learn to hate Russia and its
President Vladimir Putin so much that, first, you should support vast new spending on America's
Military-Industrial Complex and, second, you'll be ginned up for nuclear war if it comes to
that.
At this stage, the Times doesn't even try for a cosmetic appearance of objective journalism.
Look at how the Times has twisted the history of the Ukraine crisis, treating it simply as a
case of "Russian aggression" or a "Russian invasion." The Times routinely ignores what actually
happened in Ukraine in late 2013 and early 2014 when the U.S. government aided and abetted a
violent coup that overthrew Ukraine's elected President Viktor Yanukovych after he had been
demonized in the Western media.
Even as neo-Nazi and ultranationalist protesters hurled Molotov cocktails at police,
Yanukovych signaled a willingness to compromise and ordered his police to avoid worsening
violence. But compromise wasn't good enough for U.S. neocons – such as Assistant
Secretary of State Victoria Nuland; Sen. John McCain; and National Endowment for Democracy
President Carl Gershman. They had invested too much in moving Ukraine away from Russia.
Nuland put the U.S. spending at $5 billion and was caught discussing with
U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt who should be in the new government and how to "glue" or
"midwife this thing"; McCain appeared on stage urging on far-right militants; and Gershman
was
overseeing scores of NED projects inside Ukraine, which he had deemed the "biggest prize"
and an important step in achieving an even bigger regime change in Russia, or as he put it:
"Ukraine's choice to join Europe will accelerate the demise of the ideology of Russian
imperialism that Putin represents. Putin may find himself on the losing end not just in the
near abroad but within Russia itself."
The Putsch
So, on Feb. 20, 2014, instead of
seeking peace , a sniper firing from a building controlled by anti-Yanukovych forces killed
both police and protesters, touching off a day of carnage. Immediately, the Western media
blamed Yanukovych. Sen. John McCain appearing with Ukrainian rightists of the Svoboda party at a pre-coup rally
in Kiev.
Shaken by the violence, Yanukovych again tried to pacify matters by reaching a compromise
--
guaranteed by France, Germany and Poland -- to relinquish some of his powers and move up an
election so he could be voted out of office peacefully. He also pulled back the police.
At that juncture, the neo-Nazis and ultra-nationalists spearheaded a violent putsch on Feb.
22, 2014, forcing Yanukovych and other officials to flee for their lives. Ignoring the
agreement guaranteed by the three European nations, Nuland and the U.S. State Department
quickly deemed the coup regime "legitimate."
However, ethnic Russians in Crimea and eastern Ukraine, which represented Yanukovych's
electoral base, resisted the coup and turned to Russia for protection. Contrary to the Times'
narrative, there was no "Russian invasion" of Crimea because Russian troops were already there
as part of an agreement for its Sevastopol naval base. That's why you've never seen photos of
Russian troops crashing across Ukraine's borders in tanks or splashing ashore in Crimea with an
amphibious landing or descending by parachute. They were already inside Crimea.
The Crimean autonomous government also voted to undertake a referendum on whether to leave
the failed Ukrainian state and to rejoin Russia, which had governed Crimea since the Eighteenth
Century. In that referendum, Crimean citizens voted by some 96 percent to exit Ukraine and seek
reunion with Russia, a democratic and voluntary process that the Times always calls
"annexation."
The Times and much of the U.S. mainstream media refuses even to acknowledge that there
is another side to the Ukraine story. Anyone who mentions this reality is deemed a "Kremlin
stooge" in much the same way that people who questioned the mainstream certainty about Iraq's
WMD in 2002-03 were called "Saddam apologists."
But what is particularly remarkable about the endless Russia-bashing is that – because
it started under President Obama – it sucked in many American liberals and even some
progressives. That process grew even worse when the contempt for Russia merged with the Left's
revulsion over Donald Trump's election.
Many liberals came to view the dubious claims of Russian "meddling" in the 2016 election
as the golden ticket to remove Trump from the White House. So, amid that frenzy, all standards
of proof were jettisoned to make Russia-gate the new Watergate.
The Times, The Washington Post and pretty much the entire U.S. news media joined the
"resistance" to Trump's presidency and embraced the neocon "regime change" goal for Putin's
Russia. Very few people care about the enormous risks that this "strategy" entails.
For one, even if the U.S. government were to succeed in destabilizing nuclear-armed
Russia sufficiently to force out President Putin, the neocon dream of another malleable Boris
Yeltsin in the Kremlin is far less likely than the emergence of an extreme Russian nationalist
who might be ready to push the nuclear button rather than accept further humiliation of Mother
Russia.
The truth is that the world has much less to fear from the calculating Vladimir Putin
than from the guy who might follow a deposed Vladimir Putin amid economic desperation and
political chaos in Russia. But the possibility of nuclear Armageddon doesn't seem to bother the
neocon/liberal-interventionist New York Times. Nor apparently does the principle of fair and
honest journalism.
The Times and rest of the mainstream media are just having too much fun hating Russia and
Putin to worry about the possible extermination of life on planet Earth.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated
Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen
Narrative, either in print here or
as an e-book (from
Amazon and
barnesandnoble.com ).
jo6pac , September 15, 2017 at 4:51 pm
Amerikas way of bring the big D to your nation. Death
Bingo -- In a surely related story, the mainstream press is equally relentless in AVOIDING
telling Americans the facts about Israel, and especially about its control over the American
press. "Israel lobby is never a story (for media that is in bed with the lobby)" http://mondoweiss.net/2017/09/israel-lobby-never/
Virtually everything average Americans have been told about Israel has been, amazingly, an
absolute lie. Israel was NOT victimized by powerful Arab armies. Israel
overpowered and victimized a defenseless, civilian Arab population. Military analysts knew
the Arab armies were in poor shape and would be unable to resist the zionist army. Muslim
"citizens" of Israel do NOT have all the same rights as Jews. Israelis are
NOT under threat from the indigineous Palestinians, but Palestinians are under
constant threats of theft and death from the Israelis. Israel does NOT share
America's most fundamental values, which rest on the principle of equal human rights for
all.
How has this gigantic package of outright lies has been foisted upon the American public
for so long? And how long can it continue? It turns out they did not foresee the internet,
and the facts are leaking out everywhere. So it appears they're desperately coercing facebook
and google to rig their rankings, trying to hide the facts. But one day soon there will be a
'snap' in the collective mind, and everybody will know that everybody knows.
JWalters
I can tell you are angry. I too was angry when I figured it out.
Long before I figured it out, I was a soldier. Our unit was prepared for an exercise and we
were all sleeping at the regiment compound, the buses would arrive at zero-dark thirty. I was
reading a book about the ME(this was shortly after 9-11). A friend, came up and asked what I
was reading. I told him I was reading about the Balfour paper and how that had a significant
effect on the ME. He began explaining to me how the zionist movement had used the idea that
no one lived on that land, to force the people from that land, out of that land.
I quickly responded that Israel had defended that land against 5 Arab armies and managed to
hold on to that land. I informed him he was mistaken.
He agreed to disagree, and walked away.
This happened way back in 2002 if only I could pick his mind now. How did he know about this,
way back before the internet was in any shape to wake people up?
There is hope still that guys who are young as i was, will say "Fuck You I defend this line
and no further."
Without their compliance, there can be no wars.
CommonTater your story parallels mine -- I was in the military, went to Vietnam to 'defend
our nation against communism', felt horror at the Zionist stories of how Palestinians
rocketed them, was told by senior officer about what Zionism is really about and I, like you,
disbelieved him. That was in 1974 -- -- Now, with all the troubles in the world I won't read the
MSP but look towards the alternative news sources. They make more sense. But as I try to
educate others on what I have learned I am as disappointed as my senior officer must have
been back them. Articles such as this one reproduced by ICH are gems: I save and print them
in a compendium detailing ongoing war crimes.
Thanks Mr. Parry,
You are a voice in the hurricane of hatred and lies propagated by the richest people on the
planet.
Eventually some moron who believes this new York Times garbage will actually unleash the bomb
and we will all be smoke.
That has always been the result of such successful propaganda. And it is very successful. It
has almost occluded any truth for the vast majority of westerners .
Michael Fish
Agreed. I wish this clear and comprehensive article could be stapled on every American
voter's door (wanted to say forehead but violence is bad). Many would toss it in the trash.
Many would not agree even with full comprehension because of their own horrid beliefs. But
maybe a few would read it and have an epiphany. It's very hard work to find an avenue to
change the minds of millions of people who've been inculcated by nationalist propaganda since
birth. Since 4 years old seeing the wonderful National Anthem and jets fly over the stadium
of their favorite sports team. Since required to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in
school.
I refused to stand for or recite the Pledge when I was seven or eight years old. I was
sent to detention. My awesome mom though intervened and afterwards I could remain seated
while most or all other kids stood up to do the ritual. I refuse to stand up and place
hand-on-heart and remove cap during any sporting contests when the Anthem is played. I've
been threatened with physical violence by many strangers around me.
Thanks Mr. Parry, your voice is appreciated, your articles and logic are top-notch. Very
valuable stuff, available for the curious, the skeptical. Well, until Google monopolizes
search algorithms and calls this a Russian fake news site, perhaps or Congress the same
My hat is off to you sir, I have not been to any sporting events since I woke up, but I
imagine it would be very difficult to remain seated and hatted during the opening affirmation
of nationalism. My waking up coincides with a drastic drop in sports viewing. I used to be an
NFL fan, rooted for the Niners (started watching NFL in the late eighties), the last full
season I followed was the 2013-14 season.
It was the Ukraine coup that woke me up. It started when watching videos on youtube of guys
stomping on riot cops, using a fire hose on them like a reverse water cannon. Then I realized
these guys were the peaceful protesters being talked about on t.v. It was like a thread
hanging in front of me, I began pulling and pulling until the veil in front of my eyes came
apart. It was during this time I discovered consortiumnews.com.
Mr Common Tater–just appreciating reading that someone else "woke up". That is the
way it has felt to me. For me it was Oct 2002 and Bush's speech that was clearly heading us
to war in Iraq. The "election" (appointment) of Bush in 2000 though was the first alarm clock
that I started to hear. Most recent wake up is connected to Mr Parry's relentless (I hope)
and necessary debunking of the myth of Russian nastiness and corresponding myth of US
rectitude. Been watching The Untold History of the United States and have been dealing with
the real bedrock truth that my government invented and invents enemies as a tactic in a
game–ie. it's a bunch of boys thinking foreign relationship building is first and
foremost a game. It has been hard to wash away all this greasy insidious smut from my
life.
It sucks to wake up, in a way. Once one gets past the denial, Tom Clancy novel type movies
lose some of it's fun, although still entertaining. One secretly knows the audience in the
cinema is just eating it all up and loving it. The American hero yells "yippie kayay mother
f -- -r" as he defeats the post-Soviet Russian villain in Russia blowing up buildings, and
destroying s–t as he saves the world for democracy. The Russian authorities amount to
some guy in Soviet peaked hat, and long coat, begging for a bribe.
Oliver Stone's series is really good, it turns history on his head and shakes all the pennies
out his pockets. Another good reporter is John Pilger, he has a long list of docs he has done
over several decades.
I have been watching that same series, about 3 episodes in. The most mind blowing part to
think about is how the establishment consipired to block the nomination of the progressive
Henry Wallace as a repeat VP for Roosevelt, leading instead to Harry Truman's nomination as
VP, and then you know the rest of the story.
Funny how history repeated itself with the nomination of Clinton instead of Sanders. Btw,
after Sanders mistakenly jumped on the Russia bashing bandwagon he was one of the few who
voted against the recent sanctions being imposed against Russia, Iran, and North Korea. So
yeah, I'd feel alot better with a Sanders president at this point.
Mulga Mumblebrain , September 16, 2017 at 5:21 pm
Apart from the obvious Exceptionalist and Zionazi imperative to destroy Russia and China
in order that God's Kingdom of 'Full Spectrum Dominance' be established across His world by
his various 'Chosen People', the USA always needs an enemy. Now, more than ever, as the
country crumbles into disrepair and unprecedented inequality, poverty and elite arrogance,
the proles must be led to blame their plight on some Evil foreign daemon.
Only this time its
no Saddam or Gaddaffi or Assad that can be easily bombed back to that Stone Age that all the
non-Chosen must inhabit. This time the bullying thugs will get a, thermo-nuclear, bloody nose
if they do not back off. Regretably, their egos refuse to withdraw, even in the interest of
self-survival.
Paranam Kid , September 16, 2017 at 6:13 am
" It has almost occluded any truth for the vast majority of westerners."
You are so right about that, I notice it every day on other forums on which I discuss current
affairs with others: the US views are the accepted ones, and I get a lot of stick for stating
different views. It is actually frightening to see how few people can think for
themselves.
mike k , September 15, 2017 at 5:47 pm
The American people are being systematically lied to, and they don't have a clue that it
is happening. There is no awake and intelligent public to prevent what is unfolding. The
worst kind of criminals are in charge of our government, media, and military. The sleeping
masses are making their way down the dark mountain to the hellish outcome that awaits
them.
"These grand and fatal movements toward death: the grandeur
of the mass
Makes pity a fool, the tearing pity
For the atoms of the mass, the persons, the victims, makes it
seem monstrous
To admire the tragic beauty they build.
It is beautiful as a river flowing or a slowly gathering
Glacier on a high mountain rock-face,
Bound to plow down a forest, or as frost in November,
The gold and flaming death-dance for leaves,
Or a girl in the night of her spent maidenhood, bleeding and
kissing.
I would burn my right hand in a slow fire
To change the future I should do foolishly. The beauty
of modern
Man is not in the persons but in the
Disastrous rhythm, the heavy and mobile masses, the dance of the
Dream-led masses down the dark mountain."
Robinson Jeffers
HopeLB , September 15, 2017 at 10:36 pm
Great, Dark and Accurate poem -- Thank You -- Think I'll send it to Rachel Maddow, Wapo and
the NYTimes.Might do them some good. Wouldn't that be lovely.
Patrick Lucius , September 16, 2017 at 12:42 am
Which poem is that? Not Shine, perishing Republic, is it?
Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,
Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,
Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs,
And towards our distant rest began to trudge.
Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots,
But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind;
Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots
Of gas-shells dropping softly behind.
Gas -- GAS -- Quick, boys -- -- An ecstasy of fumbling
Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time,
But someone still was yelling out and stumbling
And flound'ring like a man in fire or lime. --
Dim through the misty panes and thick green light,
As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.
In all my dreams before my helpless sight,
He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.
If in some smothering dreams, you too could pace
Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
His hanging face, like a devil's sick of sin;
If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues, --
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est
Pro patria mori.
******************************
And this, from Bob Dylan's "Jokerman" .
Freedom just around the corner for you
But with the truth so far off, what good will it do?
******************************
I love life and am by nature a cockeyed optimist, but I find myself intermittently gloomy,
my optimism overwhelmed by cynicism, when I see the abundance of moronic belligerence so
passionately snarled out in the comments sections across the internet. Clearly, humans are
cursed with an addiction to violence For my part, I am old and will die soon and have no
children, plus I live in a quiet backwater far away from the nuclear blast zone. Humanity
seems on course for a major "culling". Insane and sad.
I'd like to see more investigative reporting on the NYT's and other major media outlets'
links to the CIA and other Deep State info-war bureaus. What the Times is doing now is
reminiscent of the Michael Gordon-Judith Miller propaganda in the run up to the invasion of
Iraq. Operation Mockingbird, uncovered during the mid-70s Church Hearings, is an ongoing
effort, it would seem. Revealing hard links to CIA information ops would be a great service
to humanity.
SteveK9 , September 15, 2017 at 7:22 pm
After 'Michael Gordon-Judith Miller' I stopped reading the Times.
Beard681 , September 18, 2017 at 11:52 am
I am amazed at how many conspiracy types there are who want to see some sort of oligarch,
capitalist, zionist or deep state cabal behind it all. (That is a REALLY optimistic view of
the human propensity for violent conflict.) It is just a bunch of corporate shills pushing
for war (hopefully cold) because war sells newspapers.
Robert Parry has gotten this exactly right -- I'm a regular NYTimes subscriber /-have been
for years -- and I have NEVER read anything about Russia that has not been written by
professional Russia-haters like Higgins. Frankly, I don't get it. What accounts for this
weird and dangerous bias?
mike k , September 15, 2017 at 6:03 pm
Have you looked into who owns the NYT?
Paranam Kid , September 16, 2017 at 6:32 am
Why do you keep reading the NYT? Not only the Russia stories are heavily biased, but all
their stories are. Most op-ed's about Israel/Palestine are written by zealous
pro-Israel/pro-Zionists, against very few pro-Palestine people.
Brad Owen , September 16, 2017 at 8:07 am
The Trans-Atlantic Empire of banking cartels rest upon enmity with the only other Great
Powers in the World: Russia and China, while keeping USA thoroughly within their orbit,
relying on our Great Power as the engine that powers this Western Bankers' Empire (the
steering room lies in City-of-London, who has LONG maneuvered, via their Wall Street assets,
to bring us into Empire). Should peaceful, cooperative and productive relations break out
between USA, Russia, and China, this would undermine everything the Western Empire has worked
to build.
THIS is why the phony Russiagate issue is flogged to get rid of Trump (who seeks
cooperation with Russia and China), AND keeping Russia as "The Enemy", keeping the MIC, Intel
community, various police-state ops, in high demand for "National Security" reasons (also
positioned to foil any democratic uprisings, should they see past the progs daily curtain and
see their plight).
Brad Owen , September 16, 2017 at 8:08 am
Progs=propaganda stupid iPad.
Mulga Mumblebrain , September 16, 2017 at 5:30 pm
Here in Aust-failure I read the papers for many years until they became TOO repulsive,
particularly the Murdoch hate and fear-mongering rags. I also, and still do, masochistically
listen to the Government ABC and SBS. In all those years I really cannot recall any articles
or programs that reported on Russia or China in a positive manner, save when Yeltsin, a true
hero to all our fakestream media, was in charge. That sort of uniformity of opinion, over
generations, is almost admirable. And the necessity to ALWAYS follow the Imperial US ('Our
great and powerful friend') line leads to some deficiencies in the quality of the personnel
employed, as I one again reflected upon the other day when one hackette referred to (The
Evil, of course)Kim Jong-un as 'President Un', several times.
Jeff Davis , September 18, 2017 at 12:31 pm
"What accounts for this weird and dangerous bias?"
Several points:
The Russian -- formerly Commie -- -- boogieman is a profit center for the military, their
industrial suppliers, and the political class. That's the major factor. But also, the Zionist
project requires a bulked up US military "tasked" with "full spectrum" military dominance
--
the Wolfowitz Doctrine, the American jackboot on the world's throat forever -- to insure the
eternal protection of Israel. Largely unseen in this Israeli/Zionist factor is the
thousand-year-old blood feud between the Jews and Russians. They are ancient enemies since
the founding of Czarist Russia. No amount of time or modernity can diminish the passion of
that animus. (I suspect that the Zionist aim to "destroy" Russia will eventually backfire and
lead instead to the destruction of Israel, but really, we shouldn't talk about that.)
mike k , September 15, 2017 at 6:26 pm
The richest man in the world has the controlling interest in the NYT. Draw your own
conclusions.
Mexico, ground zero for the world fascist movement in the 20s and 30s (going by name
Synarchy Internationale still does) throuout Ibero-America, centered in PAN. The
Spanish-speaking World had to contend with Franco, and Salazar being in power so long in the
respective "Mother Countries" of the Iberian Peninsula. This was the main trail for the
ratlines to travel.
I saw a dead coyote on the side of the road the other day. I know you know what that means
to me, Mike. Omens are a lost art in these modern times, and I have no expertise in these
matters, but it struck my attention hard. It was on the right side of the road: trouble for
Trump coming from The Right? They are more potent than the ineffective Left, so this might be
the way Trump is pulled down.
Sfomarco , September 16, 2017 at 3:37 pm
Carlos Slim (f/k/a Salim)
Mulga Mumblebrain , September 16, 2017 at 5:31 pm
Yes, but who bankrolls Slim?
Stiv , September 15, 2017 at 6:51 pm
I wouldn't even need to read this to know what's going to be said. After the last article
from Parry, which was very good and interesting .plowing new ground for him he's back to
rehashing the same old shit. Not that it's necessarily wrong, only been said about a hundred
times. Yawn
D.H. Fabian , September 16, 2017 at 2:46 am
After months of so many people pointing out how and why the "Russia stole the election"
claim is false, it came roaring back (in liberal media) in recent days. It demands a
response.
mike k , September 16, 2017 at 7:26 am
No one is required to read anything on CN.
Virginia , September 16, 2017 at 1:58 pm
RP brought lots of new things into play in his article and showed how they mesh together
and support one another "against Trump." I almost skipped it because so familiar with the
topic, but RP brought new light to the subject, in my humble opinion.
I do not need to read or watch established "news" media to know what's going to be said.
After the last b.s. story from the usual talking heads which was low brow and insulting to
the intelligence of the audience, they are back at it again same ol'shit by the same talking
heads. It is most definitely wrong, and it needs to be countered as much as possible not
yawning.
Gregory Herr , September 16, 2017 at 8:18 pm
That's what struck me just how absurdly insulting will the Times get?
And I think the point that trying to destabilize the Russian Federation may very well
bring about a more militant hardline Russia is important to stress.
anon , September 17, 2017 at 9:02 am
"Stiv" is a troll who makes this junk comment every time. Better to ignore him.
Colin , September 18, 2017 at 11:54 am
Were you planning to contribute anything useful to the discussion?
SteveK9 , September 15, 2017 at 7:19 pm
I always wonder what motivation the accusers believe you have when they call you a 'Putin
stooge'. Why would you be one? Are you getting paid? Of course not, so this is just a
judgment on your part. They could call you a fool, but accuse you of 'carrying water for the
Kremlin' as I heard that execrable creature, Adam Schiff say to Tucker Carlson? That just
makes no sense. Of course, none of it is rational.
Mulga Mumblebrain , September 16, 2017 at 5:38 pm
They're insane. A crumbling Empire which was supposed to rule the world forever, 'Under
God' through Full Spectrum Dominance, but which, in fact, is disintegrating under its own
moral, intellectual and spiritual rottenness, is bound to produce hate-crazed zealots looking
for foreign scape-goats. Add the rage of the Clintonbots whose propaganda had told then for
months that the She-Devil would crush the carnival-huckster, and her vicious post-defeat
campaign to drive for war with Russia (what a truly Evil creature she is)and you get this
hysteria. Interestingly, 'hysteria' is the word used to describe Bibi Nutty-yahoo, the USA's
de facto 'capo di tutti capi', in Sochi recently when Putin refused to follow orders.
David Grace , September 15, 2017 at 7:30 pm
I have another theory I'd like to get reviewed. These are corporate wars, and not aimed at the stability of nations. It is claimed that in 1991, at the fall of the Soviet Union, the oligarchs were created by
the massive purchasing of the assets of the collapsing nation. The CIA was said to have put
together a 'bond issue' worth some $480 Billion, and it was used to buy farms, factories,
mineral rights and other formerly common holdings of the USSR. This 'bond issue' was never
repaid to the US taxpayers, and the deeds are in the hands of various oligarchs. Not all of
the oligarchs are tied to the CIA, as there were other wells of purchasers of the country,
but the ties to Trump are actually ties to dirty CIA or other organized crime entities.
The NY Times may be trying to capture certain assets for certain clients, and their
editorial policy reflects this.
David Grace . what have we here, a thinking man? I like your premise, and I haven't even
watched the link you supplied. That being said, I'll sign off and investigate that link.
D.H. Fabian , September 16, 2017 at 2:39 am
Conspiracy theories upon conspiracy theories, ensuring that the public will never be able
to root out the facts. People still argue about the Kennedy assassination 54 years later.
Mulga Mumblebrain , September 16, 2017 at 5:39 pm
There is no rational 'argument' about what really happened to JFK.
Zhu Bajie , September 17, 2017 at 7:12 pm
Most conspiracy theories are fantasy fiction. If you have real evidence, based on
verifiable facts, then it's not a theory any more. But most of the conspiracy theories
popular in the USA just serve popular vanity. We never have to accept our mistakes, our
crimes against humanity, etc. It's always THEIR fault.
We Americans over all are like small children, always making excuses.
mark , September 16, 2017 at 5:23 pm
Some of the material on the Black Eagle Trust are suspect. It gives figures for stolen
Japanese war loot, for example, that are simply ludicrous. Figures of so many thousand tons
of gold, for example, when the references should probably be to OUNCES of gold.
One sniper in Ukraine overthrew the democratic government. Previously one sniper in Dallas
overthrew another democratic government. Are there any other examples?
Is our infatuation with democracy just a propaganda thing – to fool citizens into
supposing they have value beyond their labour?
AshenLight , September 15, 2017 at 10:13 pm
> Is our infatuation with democracy just a propaganda thing – to fool citizens
into supposing they have value beyond their labour?
It's about control -- those who know they are slaves will resist and fight, but those who
mistakenly believe they are free will not (and if you give them even just a little comfort,
they'll tenaciously defend their own enslavement). It turns out this "inverted
totalitarianism" thing works a lot better than the old-fashioned kind.
mike k , September 16, 2017 at 7:19 am
Indeed. Gurdjieff told the tale of a farmer whose sheep were always wandering off due to
his being unable to afford fences to keep them in. Then he had an idea, and called them all
together. He told some of them they were eagles, and others lions etc. They were now so proud
of their new identities that it never occurred to them anymore to escape from their master's
small domain.
mike k , September 16, 2017 at 7:23 am
MLK is another example, as is Robert Kennedy.
Anna , September 16, 2017 at 12:53 pm
The American patriots are coming out: "CIA Agent Whistleblower Risks All To Expose The
Shadow Government" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHbrOg092G
That would be the end of the Lobby, mega oilmen and the FedReserve criminals
mark , September 16, 2017 at 5:30 pm
Yes, snipers on rooftops in Deraa, southern Syria, in 2011. These mysterious figures fired
into crowds, deliberately targeting women and young children to inflame the crowd. At the
same time the same snipers killed 7 police officers. Unarmed police had been sent in to deal
with unrest without bloodshed. These police officers were armed only with batons.
This is a standard page from the CIA playbook. The mysterious snipers in Maidan Square in
2014 are believed to have been Yugoslavian mercenaries hired by the CIA
We all have some kind of a bias but fortunately most of us here know the difference
between bias and propaganda. Bias based on facts and our own values is often constructive but
the N.Y. Times(like most msm) has descended into disseminating insidious propaganda.
Unfortunately the search for truth requires a bit more research and time than most people are
willing to invest. Thankfully, Robert Parry continues his quest but the dragons are not easy
to slay. My own quest for truth once led to a philosophical essay. The cartoon at the
bottom(SH Chambers) sums it up. https://crivellistreetchronicle.blogspot.com/2016/07/truth-elusive-concept.html
Mike, thanks so much, I'll look forward to reading it(so far, I don't see it
Moderation?)
Virginia , September 16, 2017 at 2:20 pm
If we have a bias towards honesty, that helps. It keeps one's mind more open and provides
a willingness to entertain various points of view. It's not naivete, however, but thoughtful
consideration coupled with awareness and that protects one from being easily manipulated. But
then, oppositely, there's a human tendency to want to be popular which inclines one towards
groupthink. But why that so entrenches itself, making people impervious to truth, is a
conundrum -- Maybe if the "why" can be answered, the "how" will become apparent -- how to reach
individuals with the truth as so oft told, though hard on the ears, at CN.
Jacob Leyva , September 15, 2017 at 10:12 pm
So what do you think of the Russia-Facebook dealings? When will we get an article on
that?
The Russian /Iranian vs the Ashkenazi has been going on for many, many years ..The USA is
to a large extent controlled by the Ashkenazi / Zionist agenda which literally owns most of
the MSM outlets .Agendas must be announced through propaganda to sway the sleeping public
toward conformity .The only baffling question that remains is why do Americans allow Zionist
to control such a large part of their great republic ?
Art , September 16, 2017 at 1:43 am
Robert, you come from intelligence. Why don't you look at Russia-gate from all possible
angles?
I suggest the following. Putin is an American spy. Russia-gate is created to make him a
winner, a hero.
And the specious confrontation is a good cover for Putin.
This is in a nutshell.
I can obviously say mu-uch more.
D.H. Fabian , September 16, 2017 at 2:33 am
Throughout 2017, we've seen a surge of efforts by both parties -- via the media that serve
them -- to build support for a final nuclear war. The focus jumps from rattling war sabers at
China (via Korea, at the moment) to rattling them at Russia, two nuclear-armed world powers.
This has been working to bring Russia and China together, resolving their years of conflict
in view of a potential world threat -- the US. Whatever their delusions, and regardless of
their ideology, our political leaders are setting the stage for the deaths of millions of us,
and the utter destruction of the US.
mike k , September 16, 2017 at 6:59 am
Our political leaders have betrayed us.
Mulga Mumblebrain , September 16, 2017 at 5:42 pm
Thermo-nuclear war would cause human extinction, not just billions of casualties.
Jim Glover , September 16, 2017 at 3:15 am
It is the same now with North Korea and China. So what would happen if those nations were
destabilized by Sanctions or worse Russia, China Iran and more would support Kim. How to make
peace?
Dennis Rodman has the guts to suggest call and talk with Kim or "Try it you might like it
better than total mutual destruction". Think Love and Peace it can't hurt like all the war,
hate and fear the media keeps pushing for advertising profits. War and Fear is the biggest
racket on the planet. What can I do? Fighting a losing battle but it is fun tryin' to
win.
mike k , September 16, 2017 at 6:57 am
We may be losing now, but who knows? It ain't over till it's over. Hang in there.
Great article- again . I used to live in the US, I used to live in Alaska, I used to live
in Crimea, Ukraine but now I live in Crimea, Russia and Smolensk, Ru. I watched this all go
down but it took awhile to see the entire picture. I seldom get any more emails from the
states – even my brother doesn't get it. They think I'm now a " commie" , I guess. I
see it as the last big gasp of hot, dangerous air from an Empire -- Exposed. Unfortunately,
its not over yet and maybe we/you will have more bad times ahead. Crimea this summer is doing
well with much work going on – from the badly needed new infrastructure to the new
bridge, the people are much better off than in Ukraine. They made the right choice in
returning to Mother Russia even though it was a no-brainer for them. The world is lucky to
have free writers like, Parry, Roberts, Vltchek, Pepe', the Saker and the intelligent
commenters are as important as the writers in spreading the Pravda. Spacibo Mr. Parry
mike k , September 16, 2017 at 6:54 am
Thanks for sharing with us GMC. And good luck to you.
ranney , September 16, 2017 at 4:22 am
YES -- -- -- -- -- Yes to all that you wrote Robert -- Thank you again for writing clearly and saying
what obviously needs to be said, but no one else will. We've been down this road before -i.e.
the media pulling us into wars of Empire – first the Spanish- American one, then a
bunch of others working up to Viet Nam, and then Iraq. Each one gets worse and now we're
reaching for a nuclear one. Keep writing; your voice gives some of us hope that just maybe
others will join in and stop the media from their constant "messages of hate" and the urging
of the public to a suicidal conflagration.
Joe Tedesky , September 16, 2017 at 8:55 am
The funny thing about living through the 'fake news' era, is that now everyone thinks that
their news source is the correct news source. Many believe that outside of the individual
everyone else reads or listens too 'fake news'. It's like all of a sudden no one has
credibility, yet everyone may have it, depending on what news source you subscribe to. I mean
there's almost no way of knowing what the truth is, because everyone is claiming that they
are getting their news from reputable news outlets, but some or many aren't, and who are the
reputable news sources, if you don't mind my asking you this just for the record?
Come to think of it, the 'fake news' theme is brilliant considering that now we have no
bench mark for what the truth is, and by not having that bench mark for the truth we all go
our separate ways believing what we believe, because certainly my news source is the only
truthful one, and your news source is beyond questionable of how the news should be
reported.
People read headlines, but hardly do they ever read the article. Many hear news sound
bites, but never do they do the research required, in order to verify the stories accuracy.
Hear say works even more to rain in the clouds of mass deception. Then there are those who
sort of buy whatever it is the established news outlets are selling based on their belief
that it doesn't much matter anyway, because 'the establishment' lies to us all the time as a
rule, so what's the big deal to keep up on the news, because it's all obviously one big lie
isn't it? So not only do we have irresponsible news journalist, we also have a very large
number of a monopolized unqualified news gatherers who must accept what the various news
agencies report, regardless of what the truth may be. It's better the Establishment keep it
this way, because then the Establishment has better control over the 'mob grabbing the
pitchforks and sickles' and crying out justice for somebody's head. It's kind of like job
security for the Establishment, but in their case it's more like a 'keeping your elitist
head' security, if you know what I mean.
To learn how to deal with this 'fake news', I would suggest you start studying the JFK
assassination, or any other ill defined tragic event, and then you might learn how to
decipher the 'fake news' matrix of confusion to learn what you so desire to learn. I chose
this route, because when was the last time the Establishment brokered the truth in regard to
a happening such as the JFK assassination? Upon learning of what a few well written books has
to say, you will then need to rely on your own brain to at least give you enough satisfaction
to allow you to believe that you pretty well got it right, and there go you. In other words,
the truth is out there, hiding in plain sight, and if you are persistent enough you just
might find it. Good luck.
mike k , September 16, 2017 at 11:29 am
The truth has never been that easy to find Joe. Actually all the beyond obvious propaganda
on the MSM might wake some people up to do the searching necessary to get closer to what is
really happening in their world. Maybe the liars have finally overplayed their hand? Or are
we the people really that dumb? (I am scared to hear the answer to that one -- )
Joe Tedesky , September 16, 2017 at 12:04 pm
I could be a wise guy, and say to you 'or so you say' in reply to your kind comment, but
then that would make me a troll.
All I'm saying mike is that in this era of 'fake news' we are all running about on
different levels, and never shall the two of us meet. That is unless you and I get our news
from the same source, but what are the odds of all of us getting the same news? It's
impossible, and I'm not quite that sure that that would be what we want either. Still without
an objective, and honest large media to set the correct narrative we end up in this place,
where you might find yourself doing a spread sheet study to come to some conclusion of what
is true, and what isn't.
Case in point, read about Russia-Gate here on consortiumnews, and then go listen to Rachel
Maddow report on the same thing. Two different sets of stories. Just try and reconcile what
you read on sites like this one concerning Ukraine, then go watch MSNBC or CNN. Never a
match. So you mike read consortiumnews, and your in laws read the NYT and watch CNN, and
there you go, a controversy arises between you and the in laws and with that life goes on,
but where is the correct news to be found to settle the score?
Once upon a time the established news agencies such as CNN, and the NYT, were the hallmark
of the news, and sites such as this one were the ones on the edge, now I'm convinced this
conviction has reversed itself.
Thanks mike for the reply. Joe
Joe Tedesky , September 17, 2017 at 9:07 am
Wouldn't it be hilarious mike, if the dumbed down people attacked the Bastille under false
pretense? Especially if the lie had been concocted by the blinded by their own hubris sitting
powers to be. Talk about poetic justice, and well placed irony. Priceless --
Virginia , September 16, 2017 at 2:38 pm
Joe, Apparently people take the easy way out. And that's just it -- "the way out."
Extinction -- Maybe they haven't learned there's something worth learning about and living for.
I'm gonna concentrate on that. Open eyes that they might see
Joe Tedesky , September 17, 2017 at 8:08 am
You are right Virginia, it is probably 'a way out', and God bless them for it. My late
Mother was like that, but I'll tell you why. When my Mother was growing up in a family of
eleven children, her father would rent out their street level basement to the voting polls. A
block away my uncle who was quite older than my Mother owned a corner saloon. Now on Election
Day my Mother said how the men in suits would pull up in their big expensive cars, and they
would descend upon my uncles corner bar. Soon after one by one drunks would come out of the
tavern wearing Republican buttons then they would go into grandpap's basement voting booth,
and vote. Not long after my Mom said, the same drunks would come pouring out of my uncles
tavern and this time they were wearing Democratic buttons, and they would go vote once or as
many times as it would take to thank the big guys in the suits for the free drinks. My Mom
said this went on all day. She said a lot dead people voted whether they knew it or not, and
that's the truth. She would follow up by saying, 'yeah a lot of politicians won on the drunk
vote'.
So Virginia some can't take the decept and lying, and with that they give up. I myself
don't feel this way, but then there are the times I can't help but think of how my dear sweet
Mother probably did have it right for the sake of living your life in the most upright and
honest way. Sadly, there is no virtue in politics, or so it seems.
Oh yeah, that uncle who owned the corner saloon, he did go into politics holding nominee
appointed positions, until he got wise and got a honest job, as he would jokingly say.
For the record my Mother did vote, but she was the lady standing in line who looked
reluctant and pissed off to be there, but never the less my Mum was a voter. Oh, the
candidate my Mother loved the most was JFK. John F Kennedy's was the only presidential
picture my Mother ever hung in our humble home.
My message here, was only meant to give some cover, and an explanation for those who shy
away from politics, and not an excuse to stay uninvolved. For even my non political Mum did
at least in the end break down, and do the right thing. We should all at least try, and keep
up on the events of our time, and vote with the best intentions we can muster up.
Okay, I'm sorry for the length of my reply, but you are always worth taking time for me to
give a reasonable answer to. I also hope I'm entertaining with these stories I seem to tell
from time to time. Take care Virginia. Joe
Tannenhouser , September 17, 2017 at 7:28 pm
Humans are approximately 90% water, give or take depending on evaporation (Age). Water
always takes the path of least resistance. Oh I wish and hope for the day when most realize
they are much more than 'just' water:)
Mulga Mumblebrain , September 16, 2017 at 5:47 pm
The fakestream media lies incessantly, and has for generations. Chomsky and Herman's
'Manufacturing Consent' outlines the propaganda role of the 'mass media', and is twenty-five
years old, in which period things have gotten MUCH worse (just look at the fate of the UK
'Guardian' for an example). Yet the fakestream presstitutes STILL have the unmitigated gall
to call others 'fake' and demand that we believe their unbelievable narratives. That's real
chutzpah.
Joe Tedesky , September 17, 2017 at 8:26 am
You know Mulga you are correct, many generations have listened to many, many, lies upon
their way to the voting booths. It goes without saying, how the aristocrats when they find it
necessary, as they often do find it necessary, they lie to their flock for a whole host of
reasons. Why we could pick anytime in history, and find out where lies have paved the way to
a leaders greater conquest, or a leaders said greater conquest if not met with defeat, but
never the less the public was used to propel some leaders wishes onward and upward whether
for the good or the bad.
But here we are Mulga, you and the rest of us here, straddling on the fence over what
might be right to what possibly could be wrong. Without a responsible press you and us Mulga
need to learn from each other. Like when comment posters leave links, that's always been
something good for me to follow through on.
We live in a unique time, but a time not that unique, as much as it is our time. Our
great, great, grandparents were straddling the same fence, and I'm guessing they too relied
on each other to navigate there way through the twisting maze of politics, and basically what
they all wanted, was a little peace on earth. So Mulga I also guess that you and we the
people are just carrying on a tradition that us common folk have been assigned too
continue.
Like reading your comments Mulga, good to see you here. Joe
Zhu Bajie , September 17, 2017 at 7:44 pm
Fake news has always been common. Critical thinking has never been popular because Occam's
Razor might slice your favorite story to shreds. Personally, I give full credence to few
things in life, but suspect many more, to some degree. I trust my own experiences more than
what I read in the media and try to reject conventional wisdom as much as possible.
Herman , September 16, 2017 at 9:39 am
Observing Putin's behavior, you have to be impressed with his continue willingness to
extend the olive branch and to seek a reasonable settlement of differences. His language
always leaves open the possibility of détente with the understanding that Russia is
not going to lay down to be run over. On the contrary, the language of Obama and Trump, and
their representatives is consistently take it or leave and engaging in school yard insults of
Russia, Putin, Lavrov and others. We have consistently played the bully in the school yard
encouraging others to join in the bullying. We talk about the corrosive discourse at home,
but observe the discourse in foreign affairs. Trump and his associates are guilty, but slick
talking Obama and his subordinates was often worse. .As has so often been said, we have only
two arrows in our foreign affairs quiver, war and sanctions. We lack the imagination and will
to actually engage in civil discussions with those on our enemies' list.
Parry is of course correct in his opinion of the New York Times but it doesn't stop there,
only that the New York Times undeservedly is the "newspaper of record." His citing of Orwell
is on the mark. Just turn your TV on for the news and see for yourself.
Dave P. , September 16, 2017 at 8:27 pm
Very well said, Herman. Very true.
Patricia Victour , September 16, 2017 at 9:54 am
I don't subscribe to the NYT for this reason, and it is galling to me that our local rag,
"The Santa Fe New Mexican," while featuring excellent local coverage for the most part, gets
all it's "national" news from the likes of the NYT, WaPo, and AP. These stories, much of it
"fake news" in my opinion, are offered as gospel by the "New Mexican", with no journalistic
effort to print opposing views. People I know seem so proud of themselves that they subscribe
to "The Times," and I don't even dare try to point out to them that they are being duped and
propagandized into believing the most outrageous (and dangerous) crap.
To add another dimension, these sources are so jealous of their position as the ultimate
word on what Americans are to believe, and also so worried about their waning influence, that
now RT and Sputnik, both Russia-sponsored news outlets, may be forced to register as "foreign
agents" in the U.S. I am not familiar with Sputnik, but I have been watching RT on TV for
several years and find it to be an excellent source of national and foreign news. Stories I
see first on RT are usually confirmed soon after by other reliable sources, such as this
excellent site – Consortiumnews. At no point did I feel I was being coerced by Russia
during the 2016 election – I needed no confirmation that both Trump and Clinton were
probably the worst candidates ever to run for President.
Joe Tedesky , September 17, 2017 at 9:31 am
You know what I find interesting is how a reporter such as Robert Parry will pinpoint his
details to a critique of say the NYT, but when or if a NYTer is to write a likewise article
of the Alternative Internet Press the NYTer will just simply critique their internet rival as
a 'conspiracy theorist' or as now as in 2017 they refer to them as 'fake news artist'. I mean
no rebuttal back referencing certain details such as what Parry mentioned, but just
rhetorical words written over tabloid written headlines finalized under the heading of 'fake
news'. This must be being taught in journalism school these days, because it's popular in the
MSM.
Just like you have never heard or read from the MSM a detailed answered rebuttal to the
pointed questions of say the '911 Truthers' or a 'JFK Assassination Researcher' a valid bona
fide answer. No, but you do hear the masters and mistresses of the corporate media world call
writers such as Parry, Roberts, and St Clair, 'fake newscasters', 'Putin Puppets', and or a
whole host of other nasty names, as they feel fit to write, but never a honest too goodness
rebuttal. Then they talk about Trump not sounding or acting presidential hmm the nerve of
these wordsmiths.
BTW, I don't care much for Trump, and I even care less for our MSM. Just wanted to get
that straight.
Nice comment Patricia. Joe
hatedbyu , September 16, 2017 at 10:57 am
let's not forget about the nytimes grossly negligent reporting on syria and libya. judith
miller? russian doping scandal. lying about the holdomor . man i could do this all day ..
Joe Tedesky , September 17, 2017 at 10:12 am
You mean the on air hours of punditry explaining away their professions mistakes, or the
honest rebuttal? It's at those particular times and occurrences of ignored self reflection
our honorable (not) MSM falls back on Orwell's 1984. Like it never happened. The dog didn't
eat no home work, because there never was a dog, nor was there any homework .stupid us. Life
goes on uninterrupted and non commercial time can be filled with an update on Bill Cosby's
past alleged sexual predator attacks, and this is our professional news casting doing its
best to entertain us, not inform us god forbid, but entertain us the ignorant masses of their
workless society.
One day hatedbyu the ignorant masses may just show the corporate infotainment duchess and
dudes that they 'the people' ain't so ignorant, and things must change. Well at least that's
the dream, but it's still a work in progress, and then there's the historical seesaw.
I think it's the power of empire to expand, just like a balloon, until it reaches it's
bursting point. But just what that bursting point is, is without a doubt the most disputable
of arguments to be made. I am coming to the belief we are, as always, continually getting to
that point, and we may of course be very close to igniting that spark in the not so far off
future. I would prefer the spark to be completely financial, and dealt with accordingly, but
I'm a dreamer purest and a conspiracy theorist, so that means when the crap starts going
down, I'll be the old man on the hill lighting up a big fat doobie cue soundtrack 'Fool On
the Hill'.
Sorry just had to get carried away, but it's Sunday morning hatedbyu and I'm home alone
and nobody's trying to break in .. Good comment hatedbyu. Joe
A Compilation Not seen in Corporate Media: See Link Below:
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
US Wars and Hostile Actions: A List
By David Swanson
Stephen J. Thank you for introducing me to David Swanson. Great link.
Joe Tedesky , September 17, 2017 at 11:29 am
Im with you on that Bob, Stephen J providing the Swanson link should be a must read, to
keep things fair and balanced. I also do wonder if Swanson's message isn't getting out there,
and we all don't already know it? I'm a glass half full kind of guy, but what do we really
know about each other, other than what the corporate media instills on us? I wish cable news
would air a program made up of Swanson, Pilger, and Parry, for that at least could put some
well needed balance finality back, if it ever was there in the first place, back into the
public narrative .but there go I.
Good to see you Bob. Joe
Hank , September 16, 2017 at 11:32 am
The deep state sticks with what works: controlling the media keeps the masses ignorant and
malleable. "Remember the Maine"
Germans are bayoneting Belgium babies and "remember the Lusitania" , some evidence shows
higher ups knew the Japanese fleet was 400 miles from Hawaii, recall "Tonkin Gulf" episode,
Iran Contra , invasion of Granada, Panama, and of course 911 and war on terror, patriot act,
weapons of mass destruction, and Russia hacking the election. The masses "believe" these to
be true and react and respond accordingly.
"
"Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that
matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, IT IS THE LEADERS of the country who
determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is
a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice
or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy.
All you have to do is TELL THEM THEY ARE BEING ATTACKED, and denounce the peacemakers for
lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. IT WORKS THE SAME IN ANY COUNTRY."
–Goering at the Nuremberg Trials
mike k , September 16, 2017 at 12:53 pm
Thanks Hank. Same ole same ole, eh? When will we ever learn?
mike k , September 16, 2017 at 11:32 am
"Trump might well go down in history of the President who screwed-up a historical
opportunity to really change our entire planet for the better and who, instead, by his abject
lack of courage and honor, his total lack of political and diplomatic education and by his
groveling subservience to the "swamp" he had promised to drain ended up being as pathetically
clueless as Obama was." (The Saker)
My sentiments exactly.
Voytenko , September 16, 2017 at 11:49 am
What a glaring lie this article is, its' author being either "useful idiot" played by
Kremlin, or maybe not so much of an idiot. What are you talking about here in comments, those
who applaud this article, this bunch of lies? You live in Ukraine, you know anything about
that so-called "putch"? How dare you to insult the whole nation – Ukrainian nation?
Shame on you, people. You don't know (author of the article including) anything about Russia,
Ukraine and that bloody Putin, but you have problems with the US and its' politics. US are
your business, Ukraine definitely not. Find some other examples of NYT and USA malfeasance,
some you know something about. Stop insulting other nations.
anon , September 17, 2017 at 9:53 am
You are not from Ukraine, and you care not for Ukraine, or you would seek unity not
dominance of East over West Ukraine. Tell us about your life in Ukraine, and show us the
evidence of "that bloody Putin."
Abe , September 16, 2017 at 1:31 pm
Yellow journalism now employs "open source and social media investigation" scams foisted
by Eliot Higgins and the Bellingcat disinformation site.
Bellingcat is allied with the New York Times and the Washington Post, the two principal
mainstream media organs for "regime change" propaganda, via the First Draft Coalition
"partner network".
In a triumph of Orwellian Newspeak, this Google-sponsored "post-Truth" Propaganda 3.0
coalition declares that member organizations will "work together to tackle common issues,
including ways to streamline the verification process".
The New York Times routinely hacks up Bellingcat "reports" and pretends they're
"verification"
Malachy Browne, "Senior Story Producer" at the New York Times, cited Bellingcat to
embellish the media "story" about the Khan Shaykhun chemical incident in Idlib Syria.
Before joining the Times, Browne was an editor at "social news and marketing agency"
Storyful and at Reported. ly, the "social reporting" arm of Pierre Omidyar's First Look
Media.
Browne generously "supplemented" his "reporting" on the Khan Shaykun incident with "videos
gathered by the journalist Eliot Higgins and the social media news agency Storyful".
Browne encouraged Times readers to participate in the Bellingcat-style "verification"
charade: "Find a computer, get on Google Earth and match what you see in the video to the
streets and buildings"
Browne of Storyful and Higgins of Bellingcat are founding members of the Google-funded
"First Draft" coalition.
Browne demonstrates how the NYT and other "First Draft" coalition media outlets use video
to "strengthen" their "storytelling".
In 2016, the NYT video department hired Browne and Andrew Glazer. a senior producer on the
team that launched VICE News, to help "enhance" the "reporting" at the Times.
Browne represents the Times' effort to package its dubious "reporting" using the Storyful
marketing strategy of "building trust, loyalty, and revenue with insight and emotionally
driven content" wedded with Bellingcat style "digital forensics" scams.
In other words, we should expect the New York Times, Washington Post, BBC, UK Guardian,
and all the other "First Draft" coalition media "partners" to barrage us more Bellingcat /
Atlantic Council-style Facebook and YouTube video mashups, crazy fun with Google Earth, and
Twitter campaigns.
mike k , September 16, 2017 at 1:47 pm
Thanks Abe. Sounds like these guys all read 1984, and decided it was just the thing for
2017 Amerika.
Obviously Browne is proud of the "investigation" even though merely shared a "story" fed
to him by Higgins' Bellingcat and the Atlantic Council .
Abe , September 16, 2017 at 1:58 pm
Higgins and Bellingcat receives direct funding from the Open Society Foundations (OSF)
founded by business magnate George Soros, and from Google's Digital News Initiatives
(DNI).
Google's 2017 DNI Fund Annual Report describes Higgins as "a world–leading expert in
news verification".
In their zeal to propagate the story of Higgins as a courageous former "unemployed man"
now busy independently "Codifying social conflict data", Google neglects to mention Higgins'
role as a "research fellow" for the NATO-funded Atlantic Council "regime change" think
tank.
Despite their claims of "independent journalism", Eliot Higgins and the team of
disinformation operatives at Bellingcat depend on the Atlantic Council to promote their
"online investigations".
The Atlantic Council donors list includes:
– US government and military entities: US State Department, US Air Force, US Army,
US Marines.
– The NATO military alliance
– Large corporations and major military contractors: Chevron, Google, Lockheed
Martin, Raytheon, BP, ExxonMobil, General Electric, Northrup Grumman, SAIC, ConocoPhillips,
and Dow Chemical
– Foreign governments: United Arab Emirates (UAE; which gives the think tank at
least $1 million), Kingdom of Bahrain, City of London, Ministry of Defense of Finland,
Embassy of Latvia, Estonian Ministry of Defense, Ministry of Defense of Georgia
– Other think tanks and think tankers: Center for Strategic and International
Studies (CSIS), Nicolas Veron of Bruegel (formerly at PIIE), Anne-Marie Slaughter (head of
New America Foundation), Michele Flournoy (head of Center for a New American Security),
Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings Institution.
Higgins is a Research Associate of the Department of War Studies at King's College, and
was principal co-author of the Atlantic Council "reports" on Ukraine and Syria.
Damon Wilson, Executive Vice President of Programs and Strategy at the Atlantic Council, a
co-author with Higgins of the report, effusively praised Higgins' effort to bolster
anti-Russian propaganda:
Wilson stated, "We make this case using only open source, all unclassified material. And
none of it provided by government sources. And it's thanks to works, the work that's been
pioneered by human rights defenders and our partner Eliot Higgins, uh, we've been able to use
social media forensics and geolocation to back this up." (see Atlantic Council video
presentation minutes 35:10-36:30)
However, the Atlantic Council claim that "none" of Higgins' material was provided by
government sources is an obvious lie.
Higgins' primary "pieces of evidence" are a video depicting a Buk missile launcher and a
set of geolocation coordinates that were supplied by the SBU (Security Service of Ukraine)
and the Ukrainian Ministry of Interior via the Facebook page of senior-level Ukrainian
government official Arsen Avakov, the Minister of Internal Affairs.
Higgins and the Atlantic Council are working in support of the Pentagon and Western
intelligence's "hybrid war" against Russia.
The laudatory bio of Higgins on the Kings College website specifically acknowledges his
service to the Atlantic Council:
"an award winning investigative journalist and publishes the work of an international
alliance of fellow investigators using freely available online information. He has helped
inaugurate open-source and social media investigations by trawling through vast amounts of
data uploaded constantly on to the web and social media sites. His inquiries have revealed
extraordinary findings, including linking the Buk used to down flight MH17 to Russia,
uncovering details about the August 21st 2013 Sarin attacks in Damascus, and evidencing the
involvement of the Russian military in the Ukrainian conflict. Recently he has worked with
the Atlantic Council on the report "Hiding in Plain Sight", which used open source
information to detail Russia's military involvement in the crisis in Ukraine."
While it honors Higgins' enthusiastic "trawling", King's College curiously neglects to
mention that Higgins' "findings" on the Syian sarin attacks were thoroughly debunked.
King's College also curiously neglects to mention the fact that Higgins, now listed as a
Senior Fellow at the Atlantic Council's "Future Europe Initiative", was principal co-author
of the April 2016 Atlantic Council "report" on Syria.
The report's other key author was John E. Herbst, United States Ambassador to Ukraine from
September 2003 to May 2006 (the period that became known as the Orange Revolution) and
Director of the Atlantic Council's Eurasia Center.
Other report authors include Frederic C. Hof, who served as Special Adviser on Syrian
political transition to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in 2012. Hof was previously the
Special Coordinator for Regional Affairs in the US Department of State's Office of the
Special Envoy for Middle East Peace, where he advised Special Envoy George Mitchel. Hof had
been a Resident Senior Fellow in the Atlantic Council's Rafik Hariri Center for the Middle
East since November 2012, and assumed the position as Director in May 2016.
There is no daylight between the "online investigations" of Higgins and Bellingcat and the
"regime change" efforts of the NATO-backed Atlantic Council.
Thanks to the Atlantic Council, Soros, and Google, it's a pretty well-funded gig for fake
"citizen investigative journalist" Higgins.
Dave P. , September 17, 2017 at 12:26 am
Abe – Thanks for all the invaluable information you have been providing.
jaycee , September 16, 2017 at 1:52 pm
The meme of an aggressive assertive Russia, based on what happened in Crimea, is a
deliberate lie expressed with the utmost contempt towards principled diplomacy. The average
consumer of mainstream news is also being shamelessly and contemptuously manipulated.
First, the people of Crimea did not want to be part of Ukraine after the USSR dissolved,
and had previously expressed their opinion through referenda. The events of 2014 were part of
an obvious pattern of previously expressed opinion.
Second, around the time of the so-called Orange Revolution, NATO analysts forecast what
would probably happen should Ukraine embrace European "security architecture" (i.e. NATO),
and concluded that Russia would take steps to protect their naval facilities in Crimea. Yet,
in 2014, NATO officials would disingenuously express their utmost shock and surprise at the
event.
Third, Viktor Yushchenko, who came to power in Ukraine in 2005 through the NED-financed
Orange Revolution, consistently described his intention to join Ukraine with European
institutions, including its "security architecture" (NATO), although acknowledging that the
Ukrainian citizenry would have to be manipulated into accepting such a controversial and
adversarial position. He would downplay presumed Russian reaction to potential removal from
Crimea despite the obviousness and predictability of a serious crisis (see Sept 23, 2008
"Conversation with Viktor Yushchenko" Council On Foreign Relations). Yushchenko polled at
5.45% when he lost the Presidency in 2010, running on a platform of European integration.
Fourth, Russian officials at the highest level told their American counterparts in 2009
that any attempt to integrate Ukraine into NATO, and a corresponding threat to the Crimean
naval facilities, would result in moves similar to what would later happen in 2014. Yet the
United States, after instigating and legitimizing the Ukraine coup, would react to the
Crimean referendum as an aggressive act which represented an unexpected security crisis
requiring a reluctant but firm response of militarizing the entire region, and portraying the
Russian state to the public as a dangerous and aggressive rogue power.
The deliberate omission of relevant contextual background by politicians, military
officials, and the mainstream media demonstrates that none of these institutions can be
trusted, and it is they who represent the greatest threat to international security. Putin
has been relentlessly demonized, but it can be argued that his swift and essentially
bloodless moves in Crimea in 2014 avoided what could have been a major international crisis
on the level of the Berlin blockade in 1961. It appears, in hindsight, that such a crisis is
exactly what the NATO alliance desired all along.
Sam F , September 17, 2017 at 9:58 am
Well said.
Joe Tedesky , September 17, 2017 at 12:02 pm
Nicely put jaycee. What you wrote took me back to a time of some eight months before
Maiden Square, when my niece decided to live in Kiev. A bit of a ways away from Pittsburgh,
so I started researching Ukraine. I also discovered RT & Moonofalabama, and sites like
that.
What you wrote jaycee, in my humble opinion should be said in our MSM news. If for no
other reason but to give an alternative fair and balance to say the likes of Rachel Maddow,
or Joy Ann Reed. The way the MSM picks and chooses, and skims across important events in
Ukraine, like Odessa, are criminal if ever the Press is to be judged for crimes of war. To
the crys of a destroyed empire's vanquished population would then your small essay be heard
jaycee, and yet that's the world we live in, but at least you said it.
Thanks jaycee (that's the first time I wrote your name and the j didn't go capital what
does that mean? Who cares.)
Joe
rosemerry , September 16, 2017 at 2:04 pm
Of course the NYT liars would not bother to watch Oliver Stone's interviews with Pres.
Putin, but during them he explained at length about his cooperation during the years after
Ukraine elected a pro-Western president, managing to carry out mutual agreements and
policies, but after the new pro- Russian president was elected, the USA did not accept him
and overthrew him, which preceded the antics of Nuland et al in 2014 and the rest which
followed.
MaDarby , September 16, 2017 at 2:05 pm
It appears to me that the elites decided long ago that the best solution to overpopulation
is just to let climate change take care of three or four billion people while the Saud family
and the Cargill family live on in their sheltered paradises with every convenience AI can
provide.
It is clear these mega-rich families DO NOT CARE about society, about mass human extension
or even about nature itself. They are the pinnacle of human evolution. Psycho-pathological
loss of empathy might have been a bad evolutionary experiment.
This is derangement on a human specie scale, no leader no one in power has been willing to
do anything but exploit every opportunity to make money and increase global domination, the
great powers knew this day was coming when they made their decisions to hide it 50 years ago.
The consequences are acceptable to the decision makers.
A mass extension of organic life is taking place before our eyes, nothing can stop it,
THEY DO NOT CARE.
They sure as hell don't care if millions don't believe the Russia crap they just move
ahead as the Imperial power, might makes right. In the end it is a religious project, the
biblical slaughter of the innocents to appease a vengeful god and rid the world of evil.
Joe Tedesky , September 17, 2017 at 12:19 pm
What you bring up MaDarby takes me towards the direction of wondering what all those other
Departments, other than State & Defense, of the Presidential Cabinet are up too? If our
news were done and somehow properly organized, in such away as to educate us peons, then
whatever the time allowed would be to broadcast and print out what each Federal Agency is up
to. Now I know a citizen can seek out this information, but why can't there be a suitable
mass media representation to reach us clunkheads like me, not you?
What should be exposed is the corporate ownership of the very agencies that were put in
place to protect the 'Commons' has been corrupted to the point of no return. This dilemma
will take a huge public referendum short of a mob revolution to change this atmosphere of
complacency. The public will get blamed, but the real blame should be put on the massive
leadership programs which were bolted down on to their citizens masses knowledge of said
events, and there in lies the total crime of deception.
MaDarby your concern for nature is where a smart person should put their number one
priority concern, no arguing there, but just a lifting word of approval of how you put it.
Joe
Donald Patterson , September 16, 2017 at 2:45 pm
Consortium has been a clear voice on the lunacy of the Russia-Gate scandal. But to paint
Yanukovych former President of the Ukraine as an injured party considering his history in
government with what appears to be large scale corruption is part of the story as well. A
treason trial started in May. More info needed on what looks like a complicated story. This
would be a good piece of investigative journalism as well.
mike k , September 16, 2017 at 9:03 pm
Can you imagine what a huge can of worms would be revealed if there was a thorough
investigation on every congressperson and public official in Washington DC? It would make
Yanukovych look like a saint. And in addition, let's investigate the 10,000 richest people in
the US, including all their offshore fortunes gained by illegal means. Wouldn't it make sense
to do that? Isn't there enough evidence of probable criminal activity to open these
investigations? Where is our ethical sense when it comes to our own dirty laundry? I guess
it's easier to speculate about other's crimes than look into our own, eh?
Joe Tedesky , September 17, 2017 at 12:40 pm
The focus I get isn't so much focused on Yanukovych, even Putin wasn't all that crazy
about his style of leadership, but my focus on a viable democratically created government
doesn't necessarily start with an armed public coup. Yes, leading up to the violence,
peaceful protesters took to the streets, but as we both know this is always the case until
the baton twirling thugs come to finally ramp up the protest to a marathon of violent clashes
and whatever else gets heads busted, until we have a full fledged revolution on our hands
pass out the cookies. I mean by by-passing the voting polls, even to somehow ad hoc a
temporary government in some manner of government overthrow were done peacefully, well then
maybe I could get on board with this new Ukrainian government, but even the NYT finds it
impossible to cover up everything.
And what about the people of Donbass? Shouldn't they have a say in this new government
realignment? Ukraine has, and has always had a East meets West kind of problem. That area has
been ruled over for centuries by each other, and one another, to a point of who's who and
what's what is hard to figure out. Donbass, should in my regard be separate from the Now Kiev
government. (Be kind with your critique of me for I am just an average American telling you
what I see from here)
It's like everything else, where we should let the people of the region sit down with each
other and work it out, we instead blame it on Putin, or whoever else Putin appears to be, and
there you have it MIC spending up the ying-yang, for the lack of a better portrayal, but
still a portrayal of what ills our modern geopolitical society.
mike k , September 16, 2017 at 2:49 pm
"The best thing which could happen to this country and its people would be the collapse of
this Empire. The support, even tacit and passive, of this Empire by people like yourself only
delays this outcome and allows this abomination to to bring even more misery and pain upon
millions of innocent people, including millions of your fellow Americans. This Empire now
also threatens my country, Russia, with war and possibly nuclear war and that, in turn, means
that this Empire threatens the survival of the human species. Whether the US Empire is the
most evil one in history is debatable, but the fact that it is by far the most dangerous one
is not. Is that not a good enough reason for you to say "enough is enough"? What would it
take for you to switch sides and join the rest of mankind in what is a struggle for the
survival of our species? Or will it take a nuclear winter to open your eyes to the true
nature of the Empire you apparently are still supporting against all evidence?" (the
Saker)
Please go to the entire article on today's Saker Blog.
Voytenko , September 16, 2017 at 3:48 pm
Sick edition consortiumnews, sick readers. Elites, Deep State, Evil Empire USA Dove Putin
with olive branch Guys, why don't you watch, say for a week, Russian TV, if you have somebody
around who can translate from Russian. If you want to hear real nazi racist alt-whatever
crap, Russian TV is the place. But you'll enjoy it, most probably. Thankfully, you guys, are
obviously, minority, with all your pseudo intellectual delusions, discussions and ideas.
"Useful idiots" – that's what Lenin said about the likes of you.
Abe , September 16, 2017 at 7:00 pm
There is no reason to assume that the trollish rants of "Voytenko" are from some outraged
flag-waving "patriot" in Kiev. There are plenty of other "useful idiots" ready, willing and
able to make mischief.
For example, about a million Jews emigrated to Israel ("made Aliyah") from the post-Soviet
states during the 1990s. Some 266,300 were Ukrainian Jews. A large number of Ukrainian Jews
also emigrated to the United States during this period. For example, out of an estimated 400
thousand Russian-speaking Jews in Metro New York, the largest number (thirty-six percent)
hail from Ukraine. Needless to say, many among them are not so well disposed toward the
nations of Russia or Ukraine, and quite capable of all manner of mischief.
A particularly "useful idiot" making mischief the days is Sergey Brin of Google. Brin's
parents were graduates of Moscow State University who emigrated from the Soviet Union in 1979
when their son was five years old.
Google, the company that runs the most visited website in the world, the company that owns
YouTube, is very snugly in bed with the US military-industrial-surveillance complex.
In fact, Google was seed funded by the US National Security Agency (NSA) and Central
Intelligence Agency (CIA). The company now enjoys lavish "partnerships" with military
contractors like SAIC, Northrop Grumman and Blackbird.
Google's mission statement from the outset was "to organize the world's information and
make it universally accessible and useful".
In a 2004 letter prior to their initial public offering, Google founders Larry Page and
Sergey Brin explained their "Don't be evil" culture required objectivity and an absence of
bias: "We believe it is important for everyone to have access to the best information and
research, not only to the information people pay for you to see."
The corporate giant appears to have replaced the original motto altogether. A carefully
reworded version appears in the Google Code of Conduct: "You can make money without doing
evil".
This new gospel allows Google and its "partners" to make money promoting propaganda and
engaging in surveillance, and somehow manage to not "be evil". That's "post-truth" logic for
you.
Indeed, a very cozy cross-promotion is happening between Google and Bellingcat.
In November 2014, Google Ideas and Google For Media, partnered the George Soros-funded
Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) to host an "Investigathon" in New
York City. Google Ideas promoted Higgins' "War and Pieces: Social Media Investigations" song
and dance via their YouTube page.
Higgins constantly insists that Bellingcat "findings" are "reaffirmed" by accessing
imagery in Google Earth.
Google Earth, originally called EarthViewer 3D, was created by Keyhole, Inc, a Central
Intelligence Agency (CIA) funded company acquired by Google in 2004. Google Earth uses
satellite images provided by the company Digital Globe, a supplier of the US Department of
Defense (DoD) with deep connections to both the military and intelligence communities.
The National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) is both a combat support agency under
the United States Department of Defense, and an intelligence agency of the United States
Intelligence Community. Robert T. Cardillo, director of the NGA, lavishly praised Digital
Globe as "a true mission partner in every sense of the word". Examination of the Board of
Directors of Digital Globe reveals intimate connections to DoD and CIA
Google has quite the history of malicious behavior. In what became known as the "Wi-Spy"
scandal, it was revealed that Google had been collecting hundreds of gigabytes of payload
data, including personal and sensitive information. First names, email addresses, physical
addresses, and a conversation between two married individuals planning an extra-marital
affair were all cited by the FCC. In a 2012 settlement, the Federal Trade Commission
announced that Google will pay $22.5 million for overriding privacy settings in Apple's
Safari browser. Though it was the largest civil penalty the Federal Trade Commission had ever
imposed for violating one of its orders, the penalty as little more than symbolic for a
company that had $2.8 billion in earnings the previous quarter.
Google is a joint venture partner with the CIA In 2009, Google Ventures and In-Q-Tel
invested "under $10 million each" into Recorded Future shortly after the company was founded.
The company developed technology that strips information from web pages, blogs, and Twitter
accounts.
In addition to funding Bellingcat and joint ventures with the CIA, Brin's Google is
heavily invested in Crowdstrike, an American cybersecurity technology firm based in Irvine,
California.
Crowdstrike is the main "source" of the "Russians hacked the DNC" story.
Dmitri Alperovitch, co-founder and chief technology officer of CrowdStrike, is a Senior
Fellow at the Atlantic Council "regime change" think tank.
Alperovitz said that Crowdstrike has "high confidence" it was "Russian hackers".
"But we don't have hard evidence," Alperovitch admitted in a June 16, 2016 Washington Post
interview.
Allegations of Russian perfidy are routinely issued by private companies with lucrative US
Department of Defense (DoD) contracts. The companies claiming to protect the nation against
"threats" have the ability to manufacture "threats".
The US and UK possess elite cyber capabilities for both cyberspace espionage and offensive
operations.
Both the US National Security Agency (NSA) and the British Government Communications
Headquarters (GCHQ) are intelligence agencies with a long history of supporting military
operations. US military cyber operations are the responsibility of US Cyber Command, whose
commander is also the head of the NSA.
US offensive cyber operations have emphasized political coercion and opinion shaping,
shifting public perception in NATO countries as well as globally in ways favorable to the US,
and to create a sense of unease and distrust among perceived adversaries such as Russia and
China.
The Snowden revelations made it clear that US offensive cyber capabilities can and have
been directed both domestically and internationally. The notion that US and NATO cyber
operations are purely defensive is a myth.
Recent US domestic cyber operations have been used for coercive effect, creating
uncertainty and concern within the American government and population.
The perception that a foreign attacker may have infiltrated US networks, is monitoring
communications, and perhaps considering even more damaging actions, can have a disorienting
effect.
In the world of US "hybrid warfare" against Russia, offensive cyber operations work in
tandem with NATO propaganda efforts, perhaps best exemplified by the "online investigation"
antics of the Atlantic Council's Eliot Higgins and his Bellingcat disinformation site.
I live in Russia and see those shows that you speak of. The Nazi rants are from the
Ukraine folks invited on the show – you want to see Ukraine shows like the ones in RU.
– well, you won't see any Russians invited to talk -- -- NONE --
Gregory Herr , September 17, 2017 at 10:33 am
Your posts are so blatantly contrived it's almost funny. Do you write for sitcoms as
well?
mrtmbrnmn , September 16, 2017 at 4:48 pm
Is this a great country, or wot???
Stupid starts at the very top and there is no bottom to it .
The Washington Post has its own ironically self-describing slogan. Perhaps that of the NYT
these days should be, in the same vein, "The Sleep of Reason begets monsters". And who will
soon then be able to whistle in the darkness full of these things?
mike k , September 17, 2017 at 8:03 am
When looking for monsters, the WaPo should start by looking at themselves.
The chaos in Ukraine was engineered by Victoria Nuland at Hillary's request. Good that she
is not president. The Ukrainians and Russians are one and the same people, same DNA, same
religion Orthodoxy., Slavic, languages very close to each other, Cyrillic alphabet and a long
common history .
Russian_angel , September 17, 2017 at 9:43 pm
Thank you for the truth about Russia, it hurts the Russians to read about themselves in
the American newspapers a lie.
Florin , September 18, 2017 at 2:15 am
Gershman, Nuland, Pyland, Feltman . essentially ths four biggest US (quasi) diplomats,
like Volodymyr Groysman, Petro Poroshenko and perhaps 'our guy' Yats – are Jewish.
Add to this the role of Israeli 'ex' military, some hundreds, which means Mossad, and of
Jewish oligarchs in Ukraine – and consider that Jews are less than 1% of the
population.
The point is if we were free to speak plainly, the Ukraine coup looks to be one in which
American and Ukrainian Jews acted in concert to benefit Jewish power. There is more to be said on this, but this glimpse will suffice because, of course, one is
not free to speak plainly even where plain speaking is, on the face of it, encouraged.
Jamie , September 18, 2017 at 12:03 pm
Where was fake Antifa when Obama armed Nazi's in the Ukraine?
By ignoring the fascism of one political party, Antifa is actually pro-fascist. This fits
in well with their Hitler-like disdain for freedom of press, speech and assembly. And their
absolute love of violence, we also saw in the 1930s among Nazi groups
"... add Bush. Glenn Greenwald on John Brennan . It is interesting that the empire sues the little people. ..."
"... "It is a perfect illustration of the Obama legacy that a person who was untouchable as CIA chief in 2008 because of his support for Bush's most radical policies is not only Obama's choice for the same position now, but will encounter very little resistance. Within this change one finds one of the most significant aspects of the Obama presidency: his conversion of what were once highly contentious right-wing policies into harmonious dogma of the DC bipartisan consensus. Then again, given how the CIA operates, one could fairly argue that Brennan's eagerness to deceive and his long record of supporting radical and unaccountable powers make him the perfect person to run that agency. It seems clear that this is Obama's calculus." ..."
"... one more quote from your newest link to the NYT: "The job Mr. Brennan once held in Riyadh is, more than the ambassador's, the true locus of American power in the kingdom. Former diplomats recall that the most important discussions always flowed through the CIA station chief." The Saudis bought the CIA From station chief in Riyadh to Director Tenet's chief of staff to Deputy Executive Director of the CIA and finally, under Obama, to Director of the CIA ..."
"... Best background article I've come across on how the Arab Spring pro-democracy uprisings were either suppressed (in the U.S. client oil monarchies like Bahrain) or hijacked for regime change purposes (as in Libya and Syria): http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion... how-the-arab-spring-was-hijacked/ (Feb 2012) ..."
"... The best explanation is that despite the effort to "woo" Assad into the Saudi-Israeli axis (c.2008-2010), Assad refused to cut economic ties with Iran, which was setting up rail lines, air traffic and oil pipeline deals with Assad on very good terms. This led Hillary Clinton, Leon Panetta, etc. to lobby Obama to support a regime change program: ..."
"... Replace "plan" with "ongoing project". The main point would be that Panetta and Clinton also belong on that "illegal arms transfer" charge sheet. Civil damages for the costs Europe, Turkey, Lebanon etc. bore due to millions of fleeing refugees should also be assessed (let alone damage in Syria, often to priceless historical treasures destroyed by ISIS). ..."
"... Then there's the previous regime and its deliberate lies about non-existent WMDs in Iraq, claims used to start a war of aggression that killed thousand of U.S. soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians - Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Woolsey, Tenet, Powell - they should have their own separate charge sheet. ..."
"... But it wasn't just anti-arms trafficking laws that were broken, was it? Wouldn't a conspiracy to use extremists as a weapon of state amount to a crime against humanity? David Stockman thinks so, but he pins the 'crime' on old, sick McCain. (see: 'Moderate Rebels' Cheerleader McCain is Fall Guy But Neocon Cancer Lives ..."
"... I classify attempts at regime change as terrorism, too, since it's essentially the waging of aggressive war via different means, which is the #1 War Crime also violating domestic law as well ..."
"... What of the US bases being established in N. Syria that were helpfully marked by the Turks? Within the context that the SF force multiplier model has varied success but hasn't worked AFAIK since the Resistance in WW2. What, short of an explicit invasion, is an option for the US+? US-hired mercenaries failed to do the job, and the US as mercenaries for the Arabs are not willing to commit. Maybe if the USIC offered up more "wives" they'd acquire more psychopathic murderers to spread the joy. ..."
"... Trump may have put Pompeo in to present the facade of housecleaning, but who here believes that there is any serious move to curtail the Syrian misadventure? Just a change in the marketing plan. ..."
"... As the Brits came out with blocking the release of 30-yr-old official records on the basis that "personal information" and "national security" would be compromised? More like the criminal activity at 10 Downing St. and the misappropriation of public money for international crime would be brought to light. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4159032/whitehall-refuses-documents-release/ ..."
"... While I do agree with some of the things Trump has done so far, I cannot agree that he makes for a good "leader" of our rapidly devolving nation. As much "good" that Trump has done, he's probably done much worse on other issues and levels. It's really pretty awful all around. ..."
"... That said, when some people say how much they "miss Obama," I want to either pound my head into a brick wall and/or throw up. The damage that Obama and his hench men/women did is incalculable. ..."
"... Not so much with "No drama Obama" the smooth talking viper that we - either unwittingly or wittingly - clutche to our collective bosom. Obama's many many many lies - all told with smooth suave assurance - along with his many sins of omission served as cover for what he was doing. Trump's buffoonery and incessant Twitting at least put his idiocies out on the stage for all to see (of course, the Republicans do use that as cover for their nefarious deeds behind Trump's doofus back). ..."
"... I likened a Trump presidency to sticking the landing of a crashing US empire. ..."
"... Remember this, The prosecution of a Swedish national accused of terrorist activities in Syria has collapsed at the Old Bailey after it became clear Britain's security and intelligence agencies would have been deeply embarrassed had a trial gone ahead, the Guardian can reveal. ..."
"... His lawyers argued that British intelligence agencies were supporting the same Syrian opposition groups as he was, and were party to a secret operation providing weapons and non-lethal help to the groups, including the Free Syrian Army. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jun/01/trial-swedish-man-accused-terrorism-offences-collapse-bherlin-gildo ..."
"... John McCain was neck deep in supporting Terrorists in Syria he wanted to give them manpads. ..."
"... WASHINGTON (Sputnik) -- Media reported earlier in October that Syrian rebels asked Washington for Stinger missiles to use them against Russia's military jets. "Absolutely Absolutely I would," McCain said when asked whether he would support the delivery of Stinger missiles to the opposition in Syria. ..."
"... The US were into regime change in Syria a long time ago..... Robert Ford was US Ambassador to Syria when the revolt against Syrian president Assad was launched. He not only was a chief architect of regime change in Syria, but actively worked with rebels to aid their overthrow of the Syrian government. ..."
"... Ambassador Ford talked himself blue in the face reassuring us that he was only supporting moderates in Syria. As evidence mounted that the recipients of the largesse doled out by Washington was going to jihadist groups, Ford finally admitted early last year that most of the moderates he backed were fighting alongside ISIS and al-Qaeda. ..."
"... b asked : "When will the FBI investigate Messrs Petraeus, Obama and Brennan? Duh, like never... Most here understand this, I'm sure. The wealthy and the connected puppets never face justice, for their crimes, committed in the service of their owners. ..."
"... NYT never saw a war (rather an attack by the US, NATO, Israel, UK, on any defenseless nation) that it did not support. Wiki uses the word "allegedly" in explaining the CIA and Operation Mockingbird. It just isn't feasible that a secret government agency - gone rogue - with unlimited funding and manpower could write/edit the news for six media owners with similar war-profiteering motives. ..."
"... Seymour Hersh, in his 'Victoria NULAND moment' audio, states categorically BRENNAN conceived and ran the 'Russian Hack' psyop after Seth RICH DNC leaks. ..."
Rasheed Al Jijakli,[the CEO of a check-cashing business who lives in Walnut,] along with three
co-conspirators, allegedly transported day and night vision rifle scopes, laser boresighters used
to adjust sights on firearms for accuracy when firing, flashlights, radios, a bulletproof vest,
and other tactical equipment to Syrian fighters.
...
If Jijakli is found guilty, he could face 50 years in prison . Jijakli's case is being prosecuted
by counterintelligence and Terrorism and Export Crimes Section attorneys. An FBI investigation,
in coordination with other agencies, is ongoing.
CIA director, Mike Pompeo, recommended to President Trump that he shut down a four-year-old
effort to arm and train Syrian rebels
...
Critics in Congress had complained for years about the costs [...] and reports that some of the
CIA-supplied weapons had ended up in the hands of a rebel group tied to Al Qaeda
...
In the summer of 2012, David H. Petraeus , who was then CIA director, first proposed a covert
program of arming and training rebels
...
[ Mr. Obama signed] a presidential finding authorizing the CIA to covertly arm and train small
groups of rebels
-...
John O. Brennan , Mr. Obama's last CIA director, remained a vigorous defender of the program
...
When will the FBI investigate Messrs Petraeus, Obama and Brennan? Where are the counterintelligence
and Terrorism and Export Crimes Section attorneys prosecuting them? Those three men engaged in the
exactly same trade as Mr. Jijakil did, but on a much larger scale. They should be punished on an
equally larger scale.
*Note:
The NYT story is largely a whitewash. It claims that the CIA paid "moderate" FSA rebels stormed
Idleb governate in 2015. In fact al-Qaeda and Ahrar al Sham were leading the assault. It says
that costs of the CIA program was "more than $1 billion over the life of the program" when CIA
documents show that it was over $1 billion
per year and likely much more than $5 billion in total. The story says that the program started
in 2013 while the CIA has been providing arms to the Wahhabi rebels since at least fall 2011.
Posted by b on August 3, 2017 at 05:15 AM |
Permalink
India and Pakistan spends insane amounts of money because Pakistan arms "rebels" both countries
could use that money for many other things. Especially Pakistan which has a tenth the economy
of India. BUT Pakistan is controlled by the military or MIC so arming terrorists is more important
than such things as schools and power supplies etc. Their excuse is India is spending so much
on arms. Which India says is because in large part due to Pakistan. US says well move those 2
million troops to attack China instead. Everyone is happy except the population in those 3 countries
which lack most things except iphones. Which makes US extremely happy.
It would interesting to get to the truth about Brennan. Is he an islamist himself? Did he actually
convert to islam in Saudi Arabia? Lots of stories out there.
Has he been acting as a covert agent against his own country for years?Selling out the entire
west and every christian on the planet. Time to find this out, methinks.
Is treason in the USA
a death penalty issue?. Its certainly what he deserves.
"a four-year-old effort to arm and train Syrian rebels."
A four year effort to arm the f**kers? Doubtful it was an effort to arm them, but training
them to act in the hegemon's interests... like upholders of democracy and humanitarian... headchopping
is just too much of an attraction
"7,000 Syrian refugees and fighters return home from Lebanon"
The 'al-Qaeda linked' fighters are mostly foreigners, paid mercenaries. They have been dumped
in Idlib along with the other terrorists. In the standard reconciliation process, real Syrians
are given the option of returning home if they renounce violence and agree to a political solution.
Fake Syrians are dumped in with the foreigners. The real Syrian fighters who reconcile have to
join the SAA units to fight against ISIS etc.
ISIS fighters were encouraged to bring their families with them (for use as human shields and
to provide settlers for the captured territory). ISIS documents recovered from Mosul indicate
that unmarried foreign mercenaries fighting with them were provided with a wife (how does that
work? do the women volunteer or are they 'volunteered'?), a car and other benefits. These families
and hangers-on would probably be the 'Syrian refugees'.
On a side note, the Kurds have released a video showing the training of special forces belonging
to their allies, the 'Syrian Defense Force' (composed largely of foreigners again). The SDF fighters
fly the FSA flag, ie they are the carefully vetted moderate head chopping rebels beloved of the
likes of McCain.
"It is a perfect illustration of the Obama legacy that a person who was untouchable
as CIA chief in 2008 because of his support for Bush's most radical policies is not only Obama's
choice for the same position now, but will encounter very little resistance. Within this change
one finds one of the most significant aspects of the Obama presidency: his conversion of what
were once highly contentious right-wing policies into harmonious dogma of the DC bipartisan
consensus. Then again, given how the CIA operates, one could fairly argue that Brennan's eagerness
to deceive and his long record of supporting radical and unaccountable powers make him the
perfect person to run that agency. It seems clear that this is Obama's calculus."
My own addition to the Brennan record:
Brennan was station chief for the CIA in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia during the planning period for
9/11. The Saudi rulers do not use the US embassy as their first point of contact with Washington,
they use the CIA Brennan moved back to the US some time in (late?) 1999. The first 9/11 Saudi
hijackers arrived on US shores in January 2000. Brennan was made CIA chief of staff to Director
Tenet in 1999 and Deputy Executive Director of the CIA in March 2001.
The support for the Syrian rebels is only the latest chapter in the decades long relationship
between the spy services of Saudi Arabia and the United States, an alliance that has endured
through the Iran-contra scandal, support for the mujahedeen against the Soviets in Afghanistan
and proxy fights in Africa. Sometimes, as in Syria, the two countries have worked in concert.
In others, Saudi Arabia has simply written checks underwriting American covert activities.
... Although the Saudis have been public about their help arming rebel groups in Syria, the
extent of their partnership with the CIA's covert action campaign and their direct financial
support had not been disclosed. Details were pieced together in interviews with a half-dozen
current and former American officials and sources from several Persian Gulf countries. Most
spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the program.
From the moment the CIA operation was started, Saudi money supported it.
...
The roots of the relationship run deep. In the late 1970s, the Saudis organized what was
known as the "Safari Club" -- a coalition of nations including Morocco, Egypt and France -- that
ran covert operations around Africa at a time when Congress had clipped the CIA's wings
over years of abuses.
...
Prince Bandar pledged $1 million per month to help fund the contras, in recognition of the
administration's past support to the Saudis. The contributions continued after Congress cut
off funding to the contras. By the end, the Saudis had contributed $32 million, paid through
a Cayman Islands bank account.
When the Iran-contra scandal broke, and questions arose about the Saudi role, the kingdom
kept its secrets. Prince Bandar refused to cooperate with the investigation led by Lawrence
E. Walsh, the independent counsel.
In a letter, the prince declined to testify, explaining that his country's "confidences
and commitments, like our friendship, are given not just for the moment but the long run."
one more quote from your newest link to the NYT: "The job Mr. Brennan once held in Riyadh
is, more than the ambassador's, the true locus of American power in the kingdom. Former diplomats
recall that the most important discussions always flowed through the CIA station chief." The
Saudis bought the CIA From station chief in Riyadh to Director Tenet's chief of staff to Deputy
Executive Director of the CIA and finally, under Obama, to Director of the CIA
Best background article I've come across on how the Arab Spring pro-democracy uprisings were
either suppressed (in the U.S. client oil monarchies like Bahrain) or hijacked for regime change
purposes (as in Libya and Syria):
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion... how-the-arab-spring-was-hijacked/ (Feb 2012)
In particular:
A fourth trend is that the Arab Spring has become a springboard for playing great-power geopolitics.
Syria, at the center of the region's sectarian fault lines, has emerged as the principal
battleground for such Cold War-style geopolitics. Whereas Russia is intent on keeping its only
military base outside the old Soviet Union in Syria's Mediterranean port of Tartus, the U.S.
seems equally determined to install a pro-Western regime in Damascus.
This goal prompted Washington to set up a London-based television station that began broadcasting
to Syria a year before major protests began there. The U.S. campaign, which includes
assembling a coalition of the willing, has been boosted by major Turkish, Saudi, Qatari and
UAE help, including cross-border flow of arms into Syria and the establishment of two new petrodollar-financed,
jihad-extolling television channels directed at Syria's majority Sunni Arabs.
The best explanation is that despite the effort to "woo" Assad into the Saudi-Israeli axis
(c.2008-2010), Assad refused to cut economic ties with Iran, which was setting up rail lines,
air traffic and oil pipeline deals with Assad on very good terms. This led Hillary Clinton, Leon
Panetta, etc. to lobby Obama to support a regime change program:
Replace "plan" with "ongoing project". The main point would be that Panetta and Clinton
also belong on that "illegal arms transfer" charge sheet. Civil damages for the costs Europe,
Turkey, Lebanon etc. bore due to millions of fleeing refugees should also be assessed (let alone
damage in Syria, often to priceless historical treasures destroyed by ISIS).
Then there's the previous regime and its deliberate lies about non-existent WMDs in Iraq,
claims used to start a war of aggression that killed thousand of U.S. soldiers and hundreds of
thousands of Iraqi civilians - Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Woolsey, Tenet, Powell - they should have
their own separate charge sheet.
Send the lot to Scheveningen
Prison - for the most notorious war criminals. Pretty luxurious as prisons go, by all accounts.
But it wasn't just anti-arms trafficking laws that were broken, was it? Wouldn't a conspiracy
to use extremists as a weapon of state amount to a crime against humanity? David Stockman thinks
so, but he pins the 'crime' on old, sick McCain. (see:
'Moderate Rebels' Cheerleader McCain is Fall Guy But Neocon Cancer Lives
Within the Outlaw US Empire alone, there're several thousand people deserving of those 5,000 year
sentences, not just the three b singled out. But b does provide a great service for those of us
who refuse to support terrorists and terrorism by not paying federal taxes by providing proof
of that occurring. I classify attempts at regime change as terrorism, too, since it's essentially
the waging of aggressive war via different means, which is the #1 War Crime also violating domestic
law as well. Thanks b!
it's the usa!!!! no one in gov't is held accountable.. obama wants to move on, lol... look forward,
not backward... creating a heaping pile of murder, mayhem and more in other parts of the world,
but never examine any of it, or hold anyone accountable.. it is the amerikkkan way...
What of the US bases being established in N. Syria that were helpfully marked by the Turks?
Within the context that the SF force multiplier model has varied success but hasn't worked AFAIK
since the Resistance in WW2. What, short of an explicit invasion, is an option for the US+? US-hired
mercenaries failed to do the job, and the US as mercenaries for the Arabs are not willing to commit.
Maybe if the USIC offered up more "wives" they'd acquire more psychopathic murderers to spread
the joy.
Trump may have put Pompeo in to present the facade of housecleaning, but who here believes
that there is any serious move to curtail the Syrian misadventure? Just a change in the marketing
plan.
As the Brits came out with blocking the release of 30-yr-old official records on the basis
that "personal information" and "national security" would be compromised? More like the criminal
activity at 10 Downing St. and the misappropriation of public money for international crime would
be brought to light.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4159032/whitehall-refuses-documents-release/
While I do agree with some of the things Trump has done so far, I cannot agree that he makes
for a good "leader" of our rapidly devolving nation. As much "good" that Trump has done, he's
probably done much worse on other issues and levels. It's really pretty awful all around.
That said, when some people say how much they "miss Obama," I want to either pound my head
into a brick wall and/or throw up. The damage that Obama and his hench men/women did is incalculable.
At least with Trump, we can clearly witness his idiocy and grasp the level of at least some
of his damage.
Not so much with "No drama Obama" the smooth talking viper that we - either unwittingly
or wittingly - clutche to our collective bosom. Obama's many many many lies - all told with smooth
suave assurance - along with his many sins of omission served as cover for what he was doing.
Trump's buffoonery and incessant Twitting at least put his idiocies out on the stage for all to
see (of course, the Republicans do use that as cover for their nefarious deeds behind Trump's
doofus back).
Agree with b. NYT is worthless. Limited hangout for sure.
I likened a Trump presidency to sticking the landing of a crashing US empire. He'll
bring it down without going true believer on us, a la Clinton and ilk who were busy scheduling
the apocalypse.
Trump has not been tested yet with a rapidly deteriorating economy which as we all know is
coming. Something is in the air and Trump will have to face it sooner or later. The weight of
the anger of millions will be behind it...will it be too late? Will Trump finally go MAGA in what
he promised: Glas-Steagall, making trade fair for US interests, dialing back NATO...etc. etc.
I fear he can not articulate the issues at hand, like Roosevelt or Hitler. He is too bumbling.
I guess really we can only hope for an avoidance of WW. Will the world even weep for a third world
USA?
Remember this, The prosecution of a Swedish national accused of terrorist activities in Syria
has collapsed at the Old Bailey after it became clear Britain's security and intelligence agencies
would have been deeply embarrassed had a trial gone ahead, the Guardian can reveal.
John McCain was neck deep in supporting Terrorists in Syria he wanted to give them manpads.
WASHINGTON (Sputnik) -- Media reported earlier in October that Syrian rebels asked Washington
for Stinger missiles to use them against Russia's military jets. "Absolutely Absolutely I would,"
McCain said when asked whether he would support the delivery of Stinger missiles to the opposition
in Syria.
"We certainly did that in Afghanistan. After the Russians invaded Afghanistan, we provided
them with surface-to-air capability. It'd be nice to give people that we train and equip and send
them to fight the ability to defend themselves. That's one of the fundamental principles of warfare
as I understand it," McCain said.
https://sputniknews.com/us/201510201028835944-us-stingers-missiles-syrian-rebels-mccain/
They will pay sooner or later for their crimes against the Syrians. Add Sarkozy, Cameron and Holland
to the list of criminals hiding under their position.
The US were into regime change in Syria a long time ago..... Robert Ford was US Ambassador
to Syria when the revolt against Syrian president Assad was launched. He not only was a chief
architect of regime change in Syria, but actively worked with rebels to aid their overthrow of
the Syrian government.
Ford assured us that those taking up arms to overthrow the Syrian government were simply moderates
and democrats seeking to change Syria's autocratic system. Anyone pointing out the obviously Islamist
extremist nature of the rebellion and the foreign funding and backing for the jihadists was written
off as an Assad apologist or worse.
Ambassador Ford talked himself blue in the face reassuring us that he was only supporting
moderates in Syria. As evidence mounted that the recipients of the largesse doled out by Washington
was going to jihadist groups, Ford finally admitted early last year that most of the moderates
he backed were fighting alongside ISIS and al-Qaeda. Witness this incredible Twitter exchange
with then-ex Ambassador Ford:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/you-wont-believe-what-former-us-ambassador-robert-s-ford-said-about-al-qaedas-syrian-allies/5504906
Specially Petraeus. A US Army General, and director of the CIA You don't get more 'pillar'
of the State than that! And off he goes doing illegal arms trades, in the billions, see for ex.
Meyssan, as an ex.:
In other countries / times, he'd be shot at dawn as a traitor. But all it shows really is that
the USA does not really have a Gvmt. in the sense of a 'political structure of strong regulatory
importance with 'democratic' participation..' to keep it vague.. It has an elaborate public charade,
a kind of clumsy theatre play, that relies very heavily on the scripted MSM, on ritual, and various
distractions. Plus natch' very vicious control mechanisms at home.. another story.
Meanwhile, off stage, the actors participate and fight and ally in a whole other scene where
'disaster capitalism', 'rapine', 'mafia moves' and the worst impulses in human nature not only
bloom but are institutionalised and deployed world-wide! Covering all this up is getting increasingly
difficult -Trump presidency - one would hope US citizens no not for now.
The other two of course as well, I just find Petraeus emblematic, probably because of all the
BS about his mistress + he once mis-treated classified info or something like that, total irrelevance
spun by the media, which works.
"They will pay sooner or later for their crimes against the Syrians. Add Sarkozy, Cameron
and Holland to the list of criminals hiding under their position."
I humbly disagree, and they sincerely believe they are helping the Syrians (plus other states)
- freedom and democracy against the brutality of Dr. Assad. I believe all these murderers are
sincere doing god works and will all go to heaven. That is one of the reasons why I refuse to
go to heaven even if gods beg me. Fuck it!
My apologies if I offend you or anyone. It's about time we look carefully beside politic and
wealth, what religion does to a human?
b asked : "When will the FBI investigate Messrs Petraeus, Obama and Brennan? Duh, like never...
Most here understand this, I'm sure. The wealthy and the connected puppets never face justice,
for their crimes, committed in the service of their owners.
You can include ALL the POTUS's
and their minions, since the turn of the century. " It's just business, get over it."
6 Look for signs of instigating violent behavior. As children some sociopaths torture defenseless
people and animals. This violence is always instigating, and not defensive violence. They will
create drama out of thin air, or twist what others say. They will often overreact strongly
to minor offenses. If they are challenged or confronted about it, they will point the finger
the other way, counting on the empathic person's empathy and consideration of people to protect
them, as long as they can remain undetected. Their attempt to point the finger the other way,
is both a smokescreen to being detected, and an attempt to confuse the situation.
The link is a pretty good summary. It is easy to find more respectable psychological sources
for the disorder on the internet.
NYT never saw a war (rather an attack by the US, NATO, Israel, UK, on any defenseless nation)
that it did not support. Wiki uses the word "allegedly" in explaining the CIA and Operation Mockingbird.
It just isn't feasible that a secret government agency - gone rogue - with unlimited funding and
manpower could write/edit the news for six media owners with similar war-profiteering motives.
/s
" Here, evolution had hit on the sweetest of solutions. Such perceptions were guaranteed
to produce a faith-dependent species that believed itself to be thoroughly separate from the rest
of the animal kingdom, ...."
Interesting article, but stop reading years ago when struggled to raise a family, make a living
to survive. Debatable Is "sociopath" (Antisocial Personality Disorder) or the genes make humanly
so brutally? Very often hard to fathom the depth of human suffering be it USA, Syria or elsewhere.
Thanks sharing you thought.
What most of the msm and the echo chamber seem to be deliberately missing is all intentional.
The whole Assad must go meme is dead and buried. The western cabal has not acheived their regime
change in Syria. The Russian economy has not sunk to the bottom of the Black sea, the Russians
hacked into my fridge meme has all been debunked and is falling apart. The collusion of all anglo
antlantacist secret agency and governments to destabalize the ME has all come out with an ever
turbulant flow. Iran being the threat of the world ,debunked. Russia invading and hacking the
free world ,debunked.
Hence I expect that the western oligarchs along with their pressitute
and compromised politicians will be bying up alot of bleach. They will be whitewashing for the
next three months all semblance of anything related to their fraudulent existence.
Nurenberg 2, the Hague would be to soft for these vile criminals of humanity. Look how they
had to back track on the Milosevic conviction mind u post death.
Just another day in the office for these criminals of humanity. Gee can't wait until this petro-dollar
ponzi scheme crashes hopefully we can get back o being human again. The emperor has no clothes.
43 The whole Assad must go meme is dead and buried. The western cabal has not acheived their
regime change in Syria. The Russian economy has not sunk to the bottom of the Black sea, the
Russians hacked into my fridge meme has all been debunked and is falling apart. The collusion
of all anglo antlantacist secret agency and governments to destabalize the ME has all come
out with an ever turbulant flow. Iran being the threat of the world ,debunked. Russia invading
and hacking the free world,debunked.
Optimistic. Has Trump been instrumental in these? Perhaps. This would be a good reason for
Zionists to hate him. But how is it that Trump is such a bumbling idiot? Now the Senate has ratfcked
him with recess appointments. And he signed that stupid Russia Sanctions bill.
Seymour Hersh, in his 'Victoria NULAND moment' audio, states categorically BRENNAN conceived
and ran the 'Russian Hack' psyop after Seth RICH DNC leaks.
"... add Bush. Glenn Greenwald on John Brennan . It is interesting that the empire sues the little people. ..."
"... "It is a perfect illustration of the Obama legacy that a person who was untouchable as CIA chief in 2008 because of his support for Bush's most radical policies is not only Obama's choice for the same position now, but will encounter very little resistance. Within this change one finds one of the most significant aspects of the Obama presidency: his conversion of what were once highly contentious right-wing policies into harmonious dogma of the DC bipartisan consensus. Then again, given how the CIA operates, one could fairly argue that Brennan's eagerness to deceive and his long record of supporting radical and unaccountable powers make him the perfect person to run that agency. It seems clear that this is Obama's calculus." ..."
"... one more quote from your newest link to the NYT: "The job Mr. Brennan once held in Riyadh is, more than the ambassador's, the true locus of American power in the kingdom. Former diplomats recall that the most important discussions always flowed through the CIA station chief." The Saudis bought the CIA From station chief in Riyadh to Director Tenet's chief of staff to Deputy Executive Director of the CIA and finally, under Obama, to Director of the CIA ..."
"... Best background article I've come across on how the Arab Spring pro-democracy uprisings were either suppressed (in the U.S. client oil monarchies like Bahrain) or hijacked for regime change purposes (as in Libya and Syria): http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion... how-the-arab-spring-was-hijacked/ (Feb 2012) ..."
"... The best explanation is that despite the effort to "woo" Assad into the Saudi-Israeli axis (c.2008-2010), Assad refused to cut economic ties with Iran, which was setting up rail lines, air traffic and oil pipeline deals with Assad on very good terms. This led Hillary Clinton, Leon Panetta, etc. to lobby Obama to support a regime change program: ..."
"... Replace "plan" with "ongoing project". The main point would be that Panetta and Clinton also belong on that "illegal arms transfer" charge sheet. Civil damages for the costs Europe, Turkey, Lebanon etc. bore due to millions of fleeing refugees should also be assessed (let alone damage in Syria, often to priceless historical treasures destroyed by ISIS). ..."
"... Then there's the previous regime and its deliberate lies about non-existent WMDs in Iraq, claims used to start a war of aggression that killed thousand of U.S. soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians - Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Woolsey, Tenet, Powell - they should have their own separate charge sheet. ..."
"... But it wasn't just anti-arms trafficking laws that were broken, was it? Wouldn't a conspiracy to use extremists as a weapon of state amount to a crime against humanity? David Stockman thinks so, but he pins the 'crime' on old, sick McCain. (see: 'Moderate Rebels' Cheerleader McCain is Fall Guy But Neocon Cancer Lives ..."
"... I classify attempts at regime change as terrorism, too, since it's essentially the waging of aggressive war via different means, which is the #1 War Crime also violating domestic law as well ..."
"... What of the US bases being established in N. Syria that were helpfully marked by the Turks? Within the context that the SF force multiplier model has varied success but hasn't worked AFAIK since the Resistance in WW2. What, short of an explicit invasion, is an option for the US+? US-hired mercenaries failed to do the job, and the US as mercenaries for the Arabs are not willing to commit. Maybe if the USIC offered up more "wives" they'd acquire more psychopathic murderers to spread the joy. ..."
"... Trump may have put Pompeo in to present the facade of housecleaning, but who here believes that there is any serious move to curtail the Syrian misadventure? Just a change in the marketing plan. ..."
"... As the Brits came out with blocking the release of 30-yr-old official records on the basis that "personal information" and "national security" would be compromised? More like the criminal activity at 10 Downing St. and the misappropriation of public money for international crime would be brought to light. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4159032/whitehall-refuses-documents-release/ ..."
"... While I do agree with some of the things Trump has done so far, I cannot agree that he makes for a good "leader" of our rapidly devolving nation. As much "good" that Trump has done, he's probably done much worse on other issues and levels. It's really pretty awful all around. ..."
"... That said, when some people say how much they "miss Obama," I want to either pound my head into a brick wall and/or throw up. The damage that Obama and his hench men/women did is incalculable. ..."
"... Not so much with "No drama Obama" the smooth talking viper that we - either unwittingly or wittingly - clutche to our collective bosom. Obama's many many many lies - all told with smooth suave assurance - along with his many sins of omission served as cover for what he was doing. Trump's buffoonery and incessant Twitting at least put his idiocies out on the stage for all to see (of course, the Republicans do use that as cover for their nefarious deeds behind Trump's doofus back). ..."
"... I likened a Trump presidency to sticking the landing of a crashing US empire. ..."
"... Remember this, The prosecution of a Swedish national accused of terrorist activities in Syria has collapsed at the Old Bailey after it became clear Britain's security and intelligence agencies would have been deeply embarrassed had a trial gone ahead, the Guardian can reveal. ..."
"... His lawyers argued that British intelligence agencies were supporting the same Syrian opposition groups as he was, and were party to a secret operation providing weapons and non-lethal help to the groups, including the Free Syrian Army. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jun/01/trial-swedish-man-accused-terrorism-offences-collapse-bherlin-gildo ..."
"... John McCain was neck deep in supporting Terrorists in Syria he wanted to give them manpads. ..."
"... WASHINGTON (Sputnik) -- Media reported earlier in October that Syrian rebels asked Washington for Stinger missiles to use them against Russia's military jets. "Absolutely Absolutely I would," McCain said when asked whether he would support the delivery of Stinger missiles to the opposition in Syria. ..."
"... The US were into regime change in Syria a long time ago..... Robert Ford was US Ambassador to Syria when the revolt against Syrian president Assad was launched. He not only was a chief architect of regime change in Syria, but actively worked with rebels to aid their overthrow of the Syrian government. ..."
"... Ambassador Ford talked himself blue in the face reassuring us that he was only supporting moderates in Syria. As evidence mounted that the recipients of the largesse doled out by Washington was going to jihadist groups, Ford finally admitted early last year that most of the moderates he backed were fighting alongside ISIS and al-Qaeda. ..."
"... b asked : "When will the FBI investigate Messrs Petraeus, Obama and Brennan? Duh, like never... Most here understand this, I'm sure. The wealthy and the connected puppets never face justice, for their crimes, committed in the service of their owners. ..."
"... NYT never saw a war (rather an attack by the US, NATO, Israel, UK, on any defenseless nation) that it did not support. Wiki uses the word "allegedly" in explaining the CIA and Operation Mockingbird. It just isn't feasible that a secret government agency - gone rogue - with unlimited funding and manpower could write/edit the news for six media owners with similar war-profiteering motives. ..."
"... Seymour Hersh, in his 'Victoria NULAND moment' audio, states categorically BRENNAN conceived and ran the 'Russian Hack' psyop after Seth RICH DNC leaks. ..."
Rasheed Al Jijakli,[the CEO of a check-cashing business who lives in Walnut,] along with three
co-conspirators, allegedly transported day and night vision rifle scopes, laser boresighters used
to adjust sights on firearms for accuracy when firing, flashlights, radios, a bulletproof vest,
and other tactical equipment to Syrian fighters.
...
If Jijakli is found guilty, he could face 50 years in prison . Jijakli's case is being prosecuted
by counterintelligence and Terrorism and Export Crimes Section attorneys. An FBI investigation,
in coordination with other agencies, is ongoing.
CIA director, Mike Pompeo, recommended to President Trump that he shut down a four-year-old
effort to arm and train Syrian rebels
...
Critics in Congress had complained for years about the costs [...] and reports that some of the
CIA-supplied weapons had ended up in the hands of a rebel group tied to Al Qaeda
...
In the summer of 2012, David H. Petraeus , who was then CIA director, first proposed a covert
program of arming and training rebels
...
[ Mr. Obama signed] a presidential finding authorizing the CIA to covertly arm and train small
groups of rebels
-...
John O. Brennan , Mr. Obama's last CIA director, remained a vigorous defender of the program
...
When will the FBI investigate Messrs Petraeus, Obama and Brennan? Where are the counterintelligence
and Terrorism and Export Crimes Section attorneys prosecuting them? Those three men engaged in the
exactly same trade as Mr. Jijakil did, but on a much larger scale. They should be punished on an
equally larger scale.
*Note:
The NYT story is largely a whitewash. It claims that the CIA paid "moderate" FSA rebels stormed
Idleb governate in 2015. In fact al-Qaeda and Ahrar al Sham were leading the assault. It says
that costs of the CIA program was "more than $1 billion over the life of the program" when CIA
documents show that it was over $1 billion
per year and likely much more than $5 billion in total. The story says that the program started
in 2013 while the CIA has been providing arms to the Wahhabi rebels since at least fall 2011.
Posted by b on August 3, 2017 at 05:15 AM |
Permalink
India and Pakistan spends insane amounts of money because Pakistan arms "rebels" both countries
could use that money for many other things. Especially Pakistan which has a tenth the economy
of India. BUT Pakistan is controlled by the military or MIC so arming terrorists is more important
than such things as schools and power supplies etc. Their excuse is India is spending so much
on arms. Which India says is because in large part due to Pakistan. US says well move those 2
million troops to attack China instead. Everyone is happy except the population in those 3 countries
which lack most things except iphones. Which makes US extremely happy.
It would interesting to get to the truth about Brennan. Is he an islamist himself? Did he actually
convert to islam in Saudi Arabia? Lots of stories out there.
Has he been acting as a covert agent against his own country for years?Selling out the entire
west and every christian on the planet. Time to find this out, methinks.
Is treason in the USA
a death penalty issue?. Its certainly what he deserves.
"a four-year-old effort to arm and train Syrian rebels."
A four year effort to arm the f**kers? Doubtful it was an effort to arm them, but training
them to act in the hegemon's interests... like upholders of democracy and humanitarian... headchopping
is just too much of an attraction
"7,000 Syrian refugees and fighters return home from Lebanon"
The 'al-Qaeda linked' fighters are mostly foreigners, paid mercenaries. They have been dumped
in Idlib along with the other terrorists. In the standard reconciliation process, real Syrians
are given the option of returning home if they renounce violence and agree to a political solution.
Fake Syrians are dumped in with the foreigners. The real Syrian fighters who reconcile have to
join the SAA units to fight against ISIS etc.
ISIS fighters were encouraged to bring their families with them (for use as human shields and
to provide settlers for the captured territory). ISIS documents recovered from Mosul indicate
that unmarried foreign mercenaries fighting with them were provided with a wife (how does that
work? do the women volunteer or are they 'volunteered'?), a car and other benefits. These families
and hangers-on would probably be the 'Syrian refugees'.
On a side note, the Kurds have released a video showing the training of special forces belonging
to their allies, the 'Syrian Defense Force' (composed largely of foreigners again). The SDF fighters
fly the FSA flag, ie they are the carefully vetted moderate head chopping rebels beloved of the
likes of McCain.
"It is a perfect illustration of the Obama legacy that a person who was untouchable
as CIA chief in 2008 because of his support for Bush's most radical policies is not only Obama's
choice for the same position now, but will encounter very little resistance. Within this change
one finds one of the most significant aspects of the Obama presidency: his conversion of what
were once highly contentious right-wing policies into harmonious dogma of the DC bipartisan
consensus. Then again, given how the CIA operates, one could fairly argue that Brennan's eagerness
to deceive and his long record of supporting radical and unaccountable powers make him the
perfect person to run that agency. It seems clear that this is Obama's calculus."
My own addition to the Brennan record:
Brennan was station chief for the CIA in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia during the planning period for
9/11. The Saudi rulers do not use the US embassy as their first point of contact with Washington,
they use the CIA Brennan moved back to the US some time in (late?) 1999. The first 9/11 Saudi
hijackers arrived on US shores in January 2000. Brennan was made CIA chief of staff to Director
Tenet in 1999 and Deputy Executive Director of the CIA in March 2001.
The support for the Syrian rebels is only the latest chapter in the decades long relationship
between the spy services of Saudi Arabia and the United States, an alliance that has endured
through the Iran-contra scandal, support for the mujahedeen against the Soviets in Afghanistan
and proxy fights in Africa. Sometimes, as in Syria, the two countries have worked in concert.
In others, Saudi Arabia has simply written checks underwriting American covert activities.
... Although the Saudis have been public about their help arming rebel groups in Syria, the
extent of their partnership with the CIA's covert action campaign and their direct financial
support had not been disclosed. Details were pieced together in interviews with a half-dozen
current and former American officials and sources from several Persian Gulf countries. Most
spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the program.
From the moment the CIA operation was started, Saudi money supported it.
...
The roots of the relationship run deep. In the late 1970s, the Saudis organized what was
known as the "Safari Club" -- a coalition of nations including Morocco, Egypt and France -- that
ran covert operations around Africa at a time when Congress had clipped the CIA's wings
over years of abuses.
...
Prince Bandar pledged $1 million per month to help fund the contras, in recognition of the
administration's past support to the Saudis. The contributions continued after Congress cut
off funding to the contras. By the end, the Saudis had contributed $32 million, paid through
a Cayman Islands bank account.
When the Iran-contra scandal broke, and questions arose about the Saudi role, the kingdom
kept its secrets. Prince Bandar refused to cooperate with the investigation led by Lawrence
E. Walsh, the independent counsel.
In a letter, the prince declined to testify, explaining that his country's "confidences
and commitments, like our friendship, are given not just for the moment but the long run."
one more quote from your newest link to the NYT: "The job Mr. Brennan once held in Riyadh
is, more than the ambassador's, the true locus of American power in the kingdom. Former diplomats
recall that the most important discussions always flowed through the CIA station chief." The
Saudis bought the CIA From station chief in Riyadh to Director Tenet's chief of staff to Deputy
Executive Director of the CIA and finally, under Obama, to Director of the CIA
Best background article I've come across on how the Arab Spring pro-democracy uprisings were
either suppressed (in the U.S. client oil monarchies like Bahrain) or hijacked for regime change
purposes (as in Libya and Syria):
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion... how-the-arab-spring-was-hijacked/ (Feb 2012)
In particular:
A fourth trend is that the Arab Spring has become a springboard for playing great-power geopolitics.
Syria, at the center of the region's sectarian fault lines, has emerged as the principal
battleground for such Cold War-style geopolitics. Whereas Russia is intent on keeping its only
military base outside the old Soviet Union in Syria's Mediterranean port of Tartus, the U.S.
seems equally determined to install a pro-Western regime in Damascus.
This goal prompted Washington to set up a London-based television station that began broadcasting
to Syria a year before major protests began there. The U.S. campaign, which includes
assembling a coalition of the willing, has been boosted by major Turkish, Saudi, Qatari and
UAE help, including cross-border flow of arms into Syria and the establishment of two new petrodollar-financed,
jihad-extolling television channels directed at Syria's majority Sunni Arabs.
The best explanation is that despite the effort to "woo" Assad into the Saudi-Israeli axis
(c.2008-2010), Assad refused to cut economic ties with Iran, which was setting up rail lines,
air traffic and oil pipeline deals with Assad on very good terms. This led Hillary Clinton, Leon
Panetta, etc. to lobby Obama to support a regime change program:
Replace "plan" with "ongoing project". The main point would be that Panetta and Clinton
also belong on that "illegal arms transfer" charge sheet. Civil damages for the costs Europe,
Turkey, Lebanon etc. bore due to millions of fleeing refugees should also be assessed (let alone
damage in Syria, often to priceless historical treasures destroyed by ISIS).
Then there's the previous regime and its deliberate lies about non-existent WMDs in Iraq,
claims used to start a war of aggression that killed thousand of U.S. soldiers and hundreds of
thousands of Iraqi civilians - Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Woolsey, Tenet, Powell - they should have
their own separate charge sheet.
Send the lot to Scheveningen
Prison - for the most notorious war criminals. Pretty luxurious as prisons go, by all accounts.
But it wasn't just anti-arms trafficking laws that were broken, was it? Wouldn't a conspiracy
to use extremists as a weapon of state amount to a crime against humanity? David Stockman thinks
so, but he pins the 'crime' on old, sick McCain. (see:
'Moderate Rebels' Cheerleader McCain is Fall Guy But Neocon Cancer Lives
Within the Outlaw US Empire alone, there're several thousand people deserving of those 5,000 year
sentences, not just the three b singled out. But b does provide a great service for those of us
who refuse to support terrorists and terrorism by not paying federal taxes by providing proof
of that occurring. I classify attempts at regime change as terrorism, too, since it's essentially
the waging of aggressive war via different means, which is the #1 War Crime also violating domestic
law as well. Thanks b!
it's the usa!!!! no one in gov't is held accountable.. obama wants to move on, lol... look forward,
not backward... creating a heaping pile of murder, mayhem and more in other parts of the world,
but never examine any of it, or hold anyone accountable.. it is the amerikkkan way...
What of the US bases being established in N. Syria that were helpfully marked by the Turks?
Within the context that the SF force multiplier model has varied success but hasn't worked AFAIK
since the Resistance in WW2. What, short of an explicit invasion, is an option for the US+? US-hired
mercenaries failed to do the job, and the US as mercenaries for the Arabs are not willing to commit.
Maybe if the USIC offered up more "wives" they'd acquire more psychopathic murderers to spread
the joy.
Trump may have put Pompeo in to present the facade of housecleaning, but who here believes
that there is any serious move to curtail the Syrian misadventure? Just a change in the marketing
plan.
As the Brits came out with blocking the release of 30-yr-old official records on the basis
that "personal information" and "national security" would be compromised? More like the criminal
activity at 10 Downing St. and the misappropriation of public money for international crime would
be brought to light.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4159032/whitehall-refuses-documents-release/
While I do agree with some of the things Trump has done so far, I cannot agree that he makes
for a good "leader" of our rapidly devolving nation. As much "good" that Trump has done, he's
probably done much worse on other issues and levels. It's really pretty awful all around.
That said, when some people say how much they "miss Obama," I want to either pound my head
into a brick wall and/or throw up. The damage that Obama and his hench men/women did is incalculable.
At least with Trump, we can clearly witness his idiocy and grasp the level of at least some
of his damage.
Not so much with "No drama Obama" the smooth talking viper that we - either unwittingly
or wittingly - clutche to our collective bosom. Obama's many many many lies - all told with smooth
suave assurance - along with his many sins of omission served as cover for what he was doing.
Trump's buffoonery and incessant Twitting at least put his idiocies out on the stage for all to
see (of course, the Republicans do use that as cover for their nefarious deeds behind Trump's
doofus back).
Agree with b. NYT is worthless. Limited hangout for sure.
I likened a Trump presidency to sticking the landing of a crashing US empire. He'll
bring it down without going true believer on us, a la Clinton and ilk who were busy scheduling
the apocalypse.
Trump has not been tested yet with a rapidly deteriorating economy which as we all know is
coming. Something is in the air and Trump will have to face it sooner or later. The weight of
the anger of millions will be behind it...will it be too late? Will Trump finally go MAGA in what
he promised: Glas-Steagall, making trade fair for US interests, dialing back NATO...etc. etc.
I fear he can not articulate the issues at hand, like Roosevelt or Hitler. He is too bumbling.
I guess really we can only hope for an avoidance of WW. Will the world even weep for a third world
USA?
Remember this, The prosecution of a Swedish national accused of terrorist activities in Syria
has collapsed at the Old Bailey after it became clear Britain's security and intelligence agencies
would have been deeply embarrassed had a trial gone ahead, the Guardian can reveal.
John McCain was neck deep in supporting Terrorists in Syria he wanted to give them manpads.
WASHINGTON (Sputnik) -- Media reported earlier in October that Syrian rebels asked Washington
for Stinger missiles to use them against Russia's military jets. "Absolutely Absolutely I would,"
McCain said when asked whether he would support the delivery of Stinger missiles to the opposition
in Syria.
"We certainly did that in Afghanistan. After the Russians invaded Afghanistan, we provided
them with surface-to-air capability. It'd be nice to give people that we train and equip and send
them to fight the ability to defend themselves. That's one of the fundamental principles of warfare
as I understand it," McCain said.
https://sputniknews.com/us/201510201028835944-us-stingers-missiles-syrian-rebels-mccain/
They will pay sooner or later for their crimes against the Syrians. Add Sarkozy, Cameron and Holland
to the list of criminals hiding under their position.
The US were into regime change in Syria a long time ago..... Robert Ford was US Ambassador
to Syria when the revolt against Syrian president Assad was launched. He not only was a chief
architect of regime change in Syria, but actively worked with rebels to aid their overthrow of
the Syrian government.
Ford assured us that those taking up arms to overthrow the Syrian government were simply moderates
and democrats seeking to change Syria's autocratic system. Anyone pointing out the obviously Islamist
extremist nature of the rebellion and the foreign funding and backing for the jihadists was written
off as an Assad apologist or worse.
Ambassador Ford talked himself blue in the face reassuring us that he was only supporting
moderates in Syria. As evidence mounted that the recipients of the largesse doled out by Washington
was going to jihadist groups, Ford finally admitted early last year that most of the moderates
he backed were fighting alongside ISIS and al-Qaeda. Witness this incredible Twitter exchange
with then-ex Ambassador Ford:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/you-wont-believe-what-former-us-ambassador-robert-s-ford-said-about-al-qaedas-syrian-allies/5504906
Specially Petraeus. A US Army General, and director of the CIA You don't get more 'pillar'
of the State than that! And off he goes doing illegal arms trades, in the billions, see for ex.
Meyssan, as an ex.:
In other countries / times, he'd be shot at dawn as a traitor. But all it shows really is that
the USA does not really have a Gvmt. in the sense of a 'political structure of strong regulatory
importance with 'democratic' participation..' to keep it vague.. It has an elaborate public charade,
a kind of clumsy theatre play, that relies very heavily on the scripted MSM, on ritual, and various
distractions. Plus natch' very vicious control mechanisms at home.. another story.
Meanwhile, off stage, the actors participate and fight and ally in a whole other scene where
'disaster capitalism', 'rapine', 'mafia moves' and the worst impulses in human nature not only
bloom but are institutionalised and deployed world-wide! Covering all this up is getting increasingly
difficult -Trump presidency - one would hope US citizens no not for now.
The other two of course as well, I just find Petraeus emblematic, probably because of all the
BS about his mistress + he once mis-treated classified info or something like that, total irrelevance
spun by the media, which works.
"They will pay sooner or later for their crimes against the Syrians. Add Sarkozy, Cameron
and Holland to the list of criminals hiding under their position."
I humbly disagree, and they sincerely believe they are helping the Syrians (plus other states)
- freedom and democracy against the brutality of Dr. Assad. I believe all these murderers are
sincere doing god works and will all go to heaven. That is one of the reasons why I refuse to
go to heaven even if gods beg me. Fuck it!
My apologies if I offend you or anyone. It's about time we look carefully beside politic and
wealth, what religion does to a human?
b asked : "When will the FBI investigate Messrs Petraeus, Obama and Brennan? Duh, like never...
Most here understand this, I'm sure. The wealthy and the connected puppets never face justice,
for their crimes, committed in the service of their owners.
You can include ALL the POTUS's
and their minions, since the turn of the century. " It's just business, get over it."
6 Look for signs of instigating violent behavior. As children some sociopaths torture defenseless
people and animals. This violence is always instigating, and not defensive violence. They will
create drama out of thin air, or twist what others say. They will often overreact strongly
to minor offenses. If they are challenged or confronted about it, they will point the finger
the other way, counting on the empathic person's empathy and consideration of people to protect
them, as long as they can remain undetected. Their attempt to point the finger the other way,
is both a smokescreen to being detected, and an attempt to confuse the situation.
The link is a pretty good summary. It is easy to find more respectable psychological sources
for the disorder on the internet.
NYT never saw a war (rather an attack by the US, NATO, Israel, UK, on any defenseless nation)
that it did not support. Wiki uses the word "allegedly" in explaining the CIA and Operation Mockingbird.
It just isn't feasible that a secret government agency - gone rogue - with unlimited funding and
manpower could write/edit the news for six media owners with similar war-profiteering motives.
/s
" Here, evolution had hit on the sweetest of solutions. Such perceptions were guaranteed
to produce a faith-dependent species that believed itself to be thoroughly separate from the rest
of the animal kingdom, ...."
Interesting article, but stop reading years ago when struggled to raise a family, make a living
to survive. Debatable Is "sociopath" (Antisocial Personality Disorder) or the genes make humanly
so brutally? Very often hard to fathom the depth of human suffering be it USA, Syria or elsewhere.
Thanks sharing you thought.
What most of the msm and the echo chamber seem to be deliberately missing is all intentional.
The whole Assad must go meme is dead and buried. The western cabal has not acheived their regime
change in Syria. The Russian economy has not sunk to the bottom of the Black sea, the Russians
hacked into my fridge meme has all been debunked and is falling apart. The collusion of all anglo
antlantacist secret agency and governments to destabalize the ME has all come out with an ever
turbulant flow. Iran being the threat of the world ,debunked. Russia invading and hacking the
free world ,debunked.
Hence I expect that the western oligarchs along with their pressitute
and compromised politicians will be bying up alot of bleach. They will be whitewashing for the
next three months all semblance of anything related to their fraudulent existence.
Nurenberg 2, the Hague would be to soft for these vile criminals of humanity. Look how they
had to back track on the Milosevic conviction mind u post death.
Just another day in the office for these criminals of humanity. Gee can't wait until this petro-dollar
ponzi scheme crashes hopefully we can get back o being human again. The emperor has no clothes.
43 The whole Assad must go meme is dead and buried. The western cabal has not acheived their
regime change in Syria. The Russian economy has not sunk to the bottom of the Black sea, the
Russians hacked into my fridge meme has all been debunked and is falling apart. The collusion
of all anglo antlantacist secret agency and governments to destabalize the ME has all come
out with an ever turbulant flow. Iran being the threat of the world ,debunked. Russia invading
and hacking the free world,debunked.
Optimistic. Has Trump been instrumental in these? Perhaps. This would be a good reason for
Zionists to hate him. But how is it that Trump is such a bumbling idiot? Now the Senate has ratfcked
him with recess appointments. And he signed that stupid Russia Sanctions bill.
Seymour Hersh, in his 'Victoria NULAND moment' audio, states categorically BRENNAN conceived
and ran the 'Russian Hack' psyop after Seth RICH DNC leaks.
The false Kuwait baby incubator story that helped sell the US war against Iraq shows that even today
we are not as clever or discerning as we imagine. And this in an age when we actually have alternative avenues
of information to fact check the media.
Notable quotes:
"... Introduction by the Saker: During my recent hurricane-induced evacuation from Florida, I had the pleasure to see some good friends of mine (White Russian emigrés and American Jews who now consider themselves American and who fully buy into the official propaganda about the US) who sincerely think of themselves as liberals, progressives and anti-imperialists. These are kind, decent and sincere people, but during our meeting they made a number of statements which completely contradicted their professed views. After writing this letter to them I realized that there might be many more people out there who, like myself, are desperately trying to open the eye of good but completely misled people about the reality of Empire. I am sharing this letter in the hope that it might maybe offer a few useful talking points to others in their efforts to open the eyes of their friends and relatives. ..."
"... [Have you ever heard of Operation Gladio or the August 1980 "Bologna massacre", the bombing of the Bologna train station by NATO secret terrorist forces, a false-flag terrorist attack (85 dead, over 200 wounded) designed to discredit the Communist Party of Italy? If not – do you now wonder why you never heard of this?] ..."
"... I asked you to name me a single successful US military intervention since WWII and you could name none. Good! I agree with you. The reality is that every single US military operation since WWII has resulted in a disaster either on the humanitarian, political and military level (often on all of them combined). Even Grenada was a total (military) failure! Also, do you see who sits in the White House today? Do you really want The Donald in charge of protecting "our friends and allies" and are you confident that he has the skillset needed to do this competently? Or Hillary for that matter? Even Sanders has a record of defending catastrophic military operations, such as the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 2006 which, you guessed it (or not), ended in abject defeat for the Israelis and untold civilians horrors in Lebanon. But forget the President, take a look at US generals – do they inspire in you the belief that they are the kind of people who can be trusted to skillfully execute a military intervention inspired by moral and ethical reasons?! What about US "Congresspersons"? Would you trust them? So where do you see honest and competent "saviors of others" in the US polity? ..."
"... Did you notice that there was no Islamic State in Iraq before the US invasion? Or did you notice that ever since the US declared a war on ISIS the latter has been getting stronger and stronger and taking over more countries. Yes, of course, once the Russians got involved ISIS began suffering defeat after defeat, but all the Americans had to say about the Russian intervention was to denounce it and predict it would fail. So why is it that the Russians are so good at fighting ISIS and the Americans, and they allies, so bad? Do you really want the Americans in charge of world security with such a record?! ..."
"... I don't think that millions of murdered people, including hundreds of thousands of children, are "mistakes" (how would you react it somebody conceded to you that Hitler and Stalin made "mistakes"?). But there is something even more insidious in this notion of "mistake". ..."
"... How would you define "success"? ..."
"... You clearly don't mean the success as defined by your rulers (they would enthusiastically support such an outcome; in fact – they even promise it every time over and over again!). But if their idea of "success" is not yours, and if you would never want any other nation, people or ethnicity to ever become to victim of such as "successful" military intervention, why do you still want your rulers with their satanic notion of "success" to have the means to be "successful" in the future? And that in spite of the fact that the historical record shows that they can't even achieve any type of "success" even by their own definition, nevermind yours?! ..."
"... Are there people out there, anybody, who really favor US military interventions? Yes, I suppose that there are. Like the Kosovo Albanians. I suspect that the Afghan Tajiks and Hazara were pretty happy to see the US bomb the crap of the Taliban. So there might be a few cases. Oh, and I forgot our Balt and Ukrainian friends (but then, they were also happy when the Nazis came, hardly much of an example). But it is pretty safe to say that in reality nobody wants to be liberated by Uncle Sam, hence the wordwide use of the "Yankee go home" slogan. ..."
"... Right now the US is desperately trying to save al-Qaeda (aka IS, ISIS, Daesh, al-Nusra, etc.) from defeat in Syria. ..."
"... You mentioned that every time you see a veteran you thanked him for his service. Why? Do you really think that he fought in a just war, that his service is something he can be proud of? Did he fight for his people? Did he defend the innocent? Or was he an occupier in a foreign land and, if he saw combat, did he not kill people who defended their own land, their families and their way of life? What exactly do you thank that veteran for? For following orders? But is that not something the Nuremberg trials specifically condemned as immoral and illegal? ..."
"... And should you think that I am exaggerating, please read the famous essay " War is a Racket " by Marine Brigadier General Smedley Butler, who had the highest rank a Marine could achieve in this time and who was the most decorated Marine in history. If war is a racket, does that not make Marines professional racketeers, hired thugs who act as enforcers for the mobsters in power? Ask yourself this: what would be the roughly equivalent counterparts of the US Marines in Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia? To help you answer this question, let me offer a short quote from the Wikipedia entry about the Marine Corps : (emphasis added) ..."
"... Do you know what crimes is considered the ultimate, supreme, most evil crime under international law? It is not genocide, or crimes against humanity. Nope, the ultimate crime is the crime of aggression (that, by the way, makes every single US President a war criminal under international law , think of it!). In the the words of the chief American prosecutor at Nuremberg, Robert H. Jackson , the crime of aggression is the ultimate crime because "it contains within itself the accumulated evil" of all the other war crimes. Well, to paraphrase Jackson, imperialism contains within itself all the accumulated evil of all empires. Guantanamo, Hiroshima, Fallujah, Abu Ghraib, Gladio and all the rest, they "come with the territory", they are not the exception, they are the norm. ..."
"... As many, even in the US, realize the "Empire's" days are numbered, the best thing would be to abandon the Empire, rather than waiting for it to collapse. Conscious abandonment frees resources for rebuilding the country, and suggests it could be managed for minimum impact. A belly landing at best, but eminently survivable with luck and skill at the controls. Collapse, if delayed much longer, is shaping up to be catastrophic for the US, and highly disruptive for the rest of the world, and that's assuming we avoid anybody going nuclear. ..."
"... Active, managed abandonment of the Empire is what the people voted for. Collapse is what it looks like they'll get. Not "best" at all, and maybe very, very bad. ..."
"... The German elite in this era believed they were practicing 'good science' by these actions. In fact they were by the standards of the pseudo science of Eugenics which was supported universally by leading figures in the West. The Nazis began this purge with German citizens deemed faulty and a threat to humanity long before attention was focused on Jews, gypsies, Slavs etc etc. The shock of the camps and the actions at Nuremberg put an end to Eugenics except in the US where it continued. Actually Eugenics was the horror child birthed in the US and UK. ..."
"... If the American empire is collapsed as you wish it would be, then what? What magical solution do you have? Because rest assured there will be someone else taking the reins but I guess you feel that the next power will do it the 'right way'. Laughable ..."
"... I agree with most of this article. Al Qaeda had help inside the US for sure and there was a cover up at the highest levels, but the debris that could be used to test the demolition theory was removed quickly without analysis to China. ..."
"... The lowest order of social organization is the band society. Historically they would war against each other. Chimpanzees war against each other. This a hominidae problem at least. Also human society favors narcissist and psychopaths for leaders. The psychopaths lie the US into war for their objective. Narcissist do it because they want to feel good about murdering people so they lie to themselves. This won't stop unless these groups of people are screened and prevented from reaching positions of power. ..."
"... [Choose a single Handle and use it, or Anonymous/Anon. Using multiple Handles to conceal your identity will get all your comments trashed.] ..."
"... Capitalism and the systematic capture of the political system by big money has made it an empire. This will end badly, not just for the US but the whole world. I give it a year or twenty. ..."
"... The closing paragraph shows this writer's confusion. The best thing would be collapse of American Empire? But just a few sentences later he notes correctly that America is the most dangerous entity in history? How does collapse equal security of our mountains of weapons? How many nukes must escape our collapsing empire before it becomes an even bigger danger than before? ..."
"... On a different thread here the Russian view of WW2 was characterized as a victory cult, and that's entirely accurate. ..."
Introduction by the Saker: During my recent hurricane-induced evacuation from Florida, I had
the pleasure to see some good friends of mine (White Russian emigrés and American Jews who now consider
themselves American and who fully buy into the official propaganda about the US) who sincerely think
of themselves as liberals, progressives and anti-imperialists. These are kind, decent and sincere
people, but during our meeting they made a number of statements which completely contradicted their
professed views. After writing this letter to them I realized that there might be many more people
out there who, like myself, are desperately trying to open the eye of good but completely misled
people about the reality of Empire. I am sharing this letter in the hope that it might maybe offer
a few useful talking points to others in their efforts to open the eyes of their friends and relatives.
Dear friends:
During our conversation you stated the following:
The US needs a military One of the reasons why the US needs a military are regimes like the North
Korean one The US has a right to intervene outside its borders on a) pragmatic and b) moral grounds
During WWII the US "saved Europe" and acquired a moral right to "protect" other friends and allies
The Allies (USSR-US-UK) were morally superior to the Nazis The Americans brought peace, prosperity
and freedom to Europe. Yes, mistakes were made, but this is hardly a reason to forsake the right
to intervene
I believe that all seven of these theses are demonstratively false, fallacies based on profoundly
mistaken assumptions and that they all can be debunked by common sense and indisputable facts.
But first, let me tackle the Delphic maxim "know thyself" as it is, I believe, central to our
discussion. For all our differences I think that there are a number of things which you would agree
to consider as axiomatically true, including that Germans, Russians, Americans and others are roughly
of equal intelligence. They also are roughly equally capable of critical thinking, personal investigation
and education. Right? Yet, you will also agree that during the Nazi regime in Germany Germans were
very effectively propagandized and that Russians in Soviet Russia were also effectively propagandized
by their own propaganda machine. Right? Do you have any reason to suppose that we are somehow smarter
or better than those propagandized Germans and Russians and had we been in their place we would have
immediately seen through the lies? Could it be that we today are maybe also not seeing through the
lies we are being told?
It is also undeniable that the history of WWII was written by the victors of WWII. This is true
of all wars – defeated regimes don't get to freely present their version of history. Had the Nazis
won WWII, we would all have been treated to a dramatically different narrative of what took place.
Crucially, had the Nazis won WWII, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe that the German
people would have shown much skepticism about the version of history presented in their schools.
Not only that, but I would submit that most Germans would also believe that they were free people
and that the regime they live under was a benevolent one.
You doubt that?
Just think of the number of Germans who declared that they had no idea how bad the Nazi regime
really was. Even Hitler's personal secretary, Traudl Junge, used that excuse to explain how she could
have worked for so many years with Hitler and even like him so much. There is an American expression
which says "where I sit is where I stand". Well, may I ask – where are we sittting and are we so
sure that we have an independent opinion which is not defined by where we sit (geographically, politically,
socially and even professionally)?
You might ask about all the victims of the Nazi regime, would they not be able to present their
witness to the German people and the likes of Traudl Junge? Of course not: the dead don't speak very
much, and their murderers rarely do (lest they themselves end up dead). Oh sure, there would be all
sorts of dissidents and political activists who would know the truth, but the "mainstream" consensus
under a victorious Nazi Germany would be that Hitler and the Nazis liberated Europe from the Judeo-Bolshevik
hordes and the Anglo-Masonic capitalists.
This is not something unique to Germany, by the way. If you take the Russian population today,
it has many more descendants of executioners than descendants of executed people and this is hardly
a surprise since dead people don't reproduce. As a result, the modern Russian historiography is heavily
skewed towards whitewashing the Soviet crimes and atrocities. To some degree this is a good thing,
because it counteracts decades of US anti-Soviet propaganda, but it often goes too far and ends up
minimizing the actual human cost of the Bolshevik experiment in Russia.
So how do the US compare to Germany and Russia in this context?
Most Americans trust the version of history presented to them by their own "mainstream". Why?
How is their situation objectively different from the situation of Germans in a victorious Third
Reich? Our modern narrative of WWII was also written by victors, victors who had a vested reason
in demonizing all the other sides (Nazis and Soviets) while presenting us with a heroic tale of liberation.
And here is the question which ought to really haunt us at night: what if we had been born not Russians
and Jews after a Nazi defeat but if we had been born Germans after an Allied defeat in WWII? Would
we have been able to show enough skepticism and courage to doubt the myths we were raised with? Or
would we also be doubleplusgoodthinking little Nazis, all happy and proud to have defeated
the evil Judeo-Bolshevik hordes and the Anglo-Masonic capitalists?
Oh sure, Hitler considered Jews as parasites which had to be exiled and, later, exterminated and
he saw Russians as subhumans which needed to be put to work for the Germanic Master Race and whose
intelligentsia also needed to be exterminated. No wonder that we, Jews and Russians, don't particularly
care for that kind of genocidal racist views. But surely we can be humans before being Jews and Russians,
and we can accept that what is bad for us is not necessarily bad for others. Sure, Hitler was bad
news for Jews and Russians, but was he really so bad news for "pure" (Aryan Germanic) Germans? More
importantly, if we had been born "pure" Germans, would have have cared a whole lot about Jews and
Russians? I sure hope so, but I have my doubts. I don't recall any of us shedding many tears about
the poly-genocided (a word a coined for a unique phenomenon in history: the genocide of all the ethnicities
of an entire continent!) Native Americans! I dare say that we are a lot more prone to whining about
the "Holocaust" or "Stalinism", even though neither of them ever affected us personally, (only our
families and ethnicity) than about the poly-genocide of Native Americans. I very much doubt that
our whining priorities would have been the same if our ethnicity had been Lakota or Comanche. Again,
I hope that I am wrong. But I am not sure sure.
Either way, my point is this:
We are hard-coded to be credulous and uncritically accept all the demonization of Nazis and Soviets
because we are Jews and White Russians. Careful here, I am NOT saying that the Nazis and Soviets
were not evil – they definitely were – but what I am saying is that we, Jews and Russians, are far
more willing to accept and endorse any version of history which makes the Nazis and Soviets some
kind of exceptionally evil people and that, in contrast, we almost instinctively reject any notion
that "our" side (in this case I mean *your* side, the American one since you, unlike me, consider
yourselves American) was just as bad (if only because your side never murdered Jews and Russians).
So let's look at this "our/your side" for a few minutes.
By the time the US entered WWII it had already committed the worse crime in human history, the
poly-genocide of an entire continent, followed by the completely illegal and brutal annexation of
the lands stolen from the Native Americans. Truly, Hitler would have been proud. But that is hardly
all, the Anglo invaders then proceeded to wage another illegal and brutal war of annexation against
Mexico from which is stole a huge chunk of land which includes modern Texas, California, Nevada,
Utah, Arizona and New Mexico! Yes, all this land was illegally occupied and stolen by your side not
once, but TWICE! And do I even need to mention the horrors of slavery to add to the "moral tally"
of your side by the time the US entered the war? Right there I think that there is more than enough
evidence that your side was morally worse than either the Nazis or the Soviets. The entire history
of the US is one of endless violence, plunder, hypocrisy, exploitation, imperialism, oppression and
wars. Endless wars of aggression. None of them defensive by any stretch of the imagination. That
is quite unique in human history. Can you think of a nastier, more bloodthirsty regime? I can't.
Should I even mention the British "atrocities tally", ranging from opium wars, to the invention
of concentration camps, to the creation of Apartheid, the horrors of the occupation of Ireland, etc.
etc. etc.?
I can just hear you say that yes, this was horrible, but that does not change the fact that in
WWII the US "saved Europe". But is that really so?
To substantiate my position, I have put together a separate PDF file which lists 5 sources, 3
in English, 2 in Russian. You can download it here:
I have translated the key excerpts of the Russian sources and I am presenting them along with
the key excerpts of the English sources. Please take a look at this PDF and, if you can, please read
the full original articles I quote. I have stressed in bold red the key conclusions of these
sources. You will notice that there are some variations in the figures, but the conclusions are,
I think, undeniable. The historical record show that:
The Soviet Union can be credited with the destruction of roughly 80% of the Nazi military machine.
The US-UK correspondingly can be credited with no more than 20% of the Allied war effort. The scale
and scope of the battles on the Eastern Front completely dwarf the biggest battles on the Western
Front. Battles in the West involved Divisions and Brigades, in the East they involved Armies and
Groups of Armies. That is at least one order of magnitude of difference. The US only entered the
war a year after Stalingrad and the Kursk battle when it was absolutely clear that the Nazis would
lose the war.
The truth is that the Americans only entered the war when it was clear that the Nazis would be
defeated and that their real motive was not the "liberation of oppressed Europe" but to prevent the
Soviets from occupying all of Europe. The Americans never gave a damn about the mass murder of Jews
or Russians, all they cared about was a massive land-grab (yet again).
[Sidebar: By the way, and lest you think that I claim that only Americans act this way, here is
another set of interesting dates:
Nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki: August 6 and 9, 1945
Soviet Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation: August 9–20, 1945
We can clearly see the same pattern here: the Soviets waited until it was absolutely certain that
the US had defeated the Japanese empire before striking it themselves. It is also worth noting that
it took the Soviets only 10 days to defeat the entire Kwantung Army, the most prestigious Army of
the Japanese Empire with over one million well-trained and well-equipped soldiers! That should tell
you a little something about the kind of military machine the Soviet Union had developed in the course
of the war against Nazi Germany (see
here for a superb US study of this military operation)]
Did the Americans bring peace and prosperity to western Europe?
To western Europe, to some degree yes, and that is because was easy for them: they ended the war
almost "fresh", their (stolen) homeland did not suffer the horrors of war and so, yes, they could
bring in peanut butter, cigarettes and other material goods. They also made sure that Western Europe
would become an immense market for US goods and services and that European resources would be made
available to the US Empire, especially against the Soviet Union. And how did they finance this "generosity"?
By robbing the so-called Third World blind, that's all. Is that something to be proud of? Did Lenin
not warn as early as 1917 that "imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism"? The wealth of Western
Europe was built by the abject poverty of the millions of Africans, Asians and Latin Americas.
But what about the future of Europe and the European people?
There a number of things upon which the Anglos and Stalin did agree to at the end of WWII: The
four Ds: denazification, disarmament, demilitarisation, and democratisation of a united Germany and
reparations to rebuilt the USSR. Yes, Stalin wanted a united, neutral Germany. As soon as the war
ended, however, the Anglos reneged on all of these promises: they created a heavily militarized West
Germany, they immediately recruited thousands of top Nazi officials for their intelligence services,
their rocket program and to subvert the Soviet Union. Worse, they immediately developed plans to
attack the Soviet Union. Right at the end of the WWII, Anglo powers had at least THREE plans to wage
war on the USSR: Operation
Dropshot , Plan Totality
and Operation Unthinkable
. Here are some basic reminders from Wikipedia about what these operations were about:
Operation Dropshot : included mission profiles that would have used 300 nuclear bombs
and 29,000 high-explosive bombs on 200 targets in 100 cities and towns to wipe out 85% of the Soviet
Union's industrial potential at a single stroke. Between 75 and 100 of the 300 nuclear weapons were
targeted to destroy Soviet combat aircraft on the ground.
Plan Totality : earmarked 20 Soviet cities for obliteration in a first strike :
Moscow, Gorki, Kuybyshev, Sverdlovsk, Novosibirsk, Omsk, Saratov, Kazan, Leningrad, Baku, Tashkent,
Chelyabinsk, Nizhny Tagil, Magnitogorsk, Molotov, Tbilisi, Stalinsk, Grozny, Irkutsk, and Yaroslavl.
Operation Unthinkable : assumed a surprise attack by up to 47 British and American divisions
in the area of Dresden, in the middle of Soviet lines. This represented almost a half of roughly
100 divisions (ca. 2.5 million men) available to the British, American and Canadian headquarters
at that time. ( ) The majority of any offensive operation would have been undertaken by American
and British forces, as well as Polish forces and up to 100,000 German Wehrmacht soldiers .
[Were you aware of these? If not, do you now wonder why?]
I am not making these things up, you can look it up for yourself on Wikipedia and elsewhere. This
is the Anglo idea of how you deal with Russian "allies": you stab them in the back with a surprise
nuclear attack, you obliterate most of their cities and you launch the Nazi Wehrmacht against them.
I won't even go into the creation of NATO (before the WTO was created in response) or such petty
crimes as false flag terrorist attack (
Operation Gladio ).
[Have you ever heard of Operation Gladio or the August 1980 "Bologna massacre", the bombing of
the Bologna train station by NATO secret terrorist forces, a false-flag terrorist attack (85 dead,
over 200 wounded) designed to discredit the Communist Party of Italy? If not – do you now wonder
why you never heard of this?]
The sad reality is that the US intervention in Europe was a simple land-grab, that the Cold War
was an Anglo creation, as was the partition of Europe, and that since WWII the US always treated
Europe as a colony form which to fight the "Communist" threat (i.e. Russia).
But, let's say that I am all wrong. For argument's sake. Let's pretend that the kind-hearted Americans
came to Europe to free the European people. They heroically defeated Hitler and brought (Western)
Europe peace, prosperity, freedom, happiness, etc. etc. etc.
Does this good deed give the US a license for future interventions? You both mentioned WWII as
an example and a justification for the need for the US to maintain a military large enough to counter
regimes such as the North Korean one, right? So, let me ask again,
Does the fact that the US altruistically, kindly and heroically liberated Europe from both the
Nazis and the Soviets now grant the moral legitimacy to other, subsequent, US military interventions
against other abhorrent, aggressive or evil regimes/countries out there?
If you reply "no" – then why did you mention it as a justification?
If you reply "yes" – then please forgive me for being so obtuse and ask you for how long this
"license to militarily intervene" remains valid? One year? Five years? Maybe ten or even seventy
years? Or maybe this license grants such a moral right to the US ad aeternam , forever? Seriously,
if the US did liberate Europe and bring it peace and happiness, are we to assume that this will remain
true forever and everywhere?
I also want to ask you this: let's say, for the argument's sake, that the moral license given
by the US participation in the war in Europe is, truly, forever. Let's just assume that, okay? But
let me ask you this: could it be revoked (morally, conceptually)? Say the US did something absolutely
wonderful in Europe. What about the subsequent horrors in southeast Asia, Latin America or the Middle-East.
How many murdered, maimed, occupied, terrorized, bombed and otherwise genocided "non-West Europeans"
would it take to outweigh the putatively "happily liberated" Europeans which, according to you, grant
the US the license to intervene? Even if the US in Europe was all noble and pure, do the following
seventy years of evil mass murder worldwide really count for nothing or does there come a point were
"enough is enough" and the license cam be revoked, morally speaking, by people like us, like you?
May I point out to you that your words spoken in defense of a supposed need for the US to maintain
a military capable of overseas operations strongly suggest that you believe that the US has a moral
right (if not a duty!) to conduct such operations, which means that the post WWII atrocity-tally
of the US is not, in your opinion, sufficient to elicit a "enough is enough" reaction in you. Are
you sure that you are comfortable with this stance?
In theory, there could be another reason to revoke such a moral license. After all, one can have
the moral right to do something, but not necessarily the capability to do so. If I see somebody drowning
in a flood, I most certainly have the moral right to jump in the water and try to save this person,
do I not? But that does not mean that I have the strength or skills to do so. Right? So when you
say that the US needs to maintain a military capable of protecting friends and allies from rogue
and dangerous regimes like the one in North Korea, you do imply that besides having the right to
extend such a protection the US also has the capabilities and the expertise to do so?
Really?
And what is the evidence for that, may I ask?!
I asked you to name me a single successful US military intervention since WWII and you could name
none. Good! I agree with you. The reality is that every single US military operation since WWII has
resulted in a disaster either on the humanitarian, political and military level (often on all of
them combined). Even Grenada was a total (military) failure! Also, do you see who sits in the White
House today? Do you really want The Donald in charge of protecting "our friends and allies" and are
you confident that he has the skillset needed to do this competently? Or Hillary for that matter?
Even Sanders has a record of defending catastrophic military operations, such as the Israeli invasion
of Lebanon in 2006 which, you guessed it (or not), ended in abject defeat for the Israelis and untold
civilians horrors in Lebanon. But forget the President, take a look at US generals – do they inspire
in you the belief that they are the kind of people who can be trusted to skillfully execute a military
intervention inspired by moral and ethical reasons?! What about US "Congresspersons"? Would you trust
them? So where do you see honest and competent "saviors of others" in the US polity?
Did you notice that there was no Islamic State in Iraq before the US invasion? Or did you notice
that ever since the US declared a war on ISIS the latter has been getting stronger and stronger and
taking over more countries. Yes, of course, once the Russians got involved ISIS began suffering defeat
after defeat, but all the Americans had to say about the Russian intervention was to denounce it
and predict it would fail. So why is it that the Russians are so good at fighting ISIS and the Americans,
and they allies, so bad? Do you really want the Americans in charge of world security with such a
record?!
Is insanity not repeating the same thing over and over again expecting different results?
Now I hear the reply you gave me to this point. You said "yes, mistakes were made".
Mistakes ?!
I don't think that millions of murdered people, including hundreds of thousands of children, are
"mistakes" (how would you react it somebody conceded to you that Hitler and Stalin made "mistakes"?).
But there is something even more insidious in this notion of "mistake".
How would you define "success"?
Say the US armed forces were not only good at killing people (which they are), but also good at
winning wars (which they ain't). Say the US had been successful in not only invading Iraq and Afghanistan,
but also in fully pacifying these countries. Say the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan would have
been successfully defeated, their economy had bounced back, and democratic regimes put in power:
capitalism everywhere, 100 channels on each TV, McDonalds in every Afghan villages, gay pride parades
in downtown Kabul, gender-neutral toilets in every mosque, elections every 4 years or so and not
a single shot fired, not a single bomb going off? Would that be a "success"?
I pray to God and hope with all my heart that your reply to this question is a resounding "no!!".
Because if you answered "yes" then you are truly messianic genocidal imperialists. Yup, I mean that.
Why? Because your notion of "success" is the spiritual, psychological and cultural death of an ancient
civilization and that makes you, quite literally, an mortal enemy of mankind as a whole. I can't
even imagine such a horror. So I am sure that you answered "no!!" as every decent human being would,
right?
But then what is a "success"? You clearly don't mean the success as defined by your rulers
(they would enthusiastically support such an outcome; in fact – they even promise it every time
over and over again!). But if their idea of "success" is not yours, and if you would never want
any other nation, people or ethnicity to ever become to victim of such as "successful" military
intervention, why do you still want your rulers with their satanic notion of "success" to have
the means to be "successful" in the future? And that in spite of the fact that the historical
record shows that they can't even achieve any type of "success" even by their own definition, nevermind yours?!
Did you notice that nowhere in my arguments above did I mention the fact that the US has never
asked people (as opposed to local Comprador elites) whether they wanted to be saved by Uncle
Sam or not? Neither did they ask the American people if they wanted to go to war, hence all the well-known
false flags from the "remember the Maine", to the sinking of the RMS Lusitania, to Pearl Harbor,
to the "Gulf of Tonkin incident", to September 11 th : every time a lie had to be concocted
to convince the American people that they had to go to war. Is that really people power? Is this
democracy?!
Are there people out there, anybody, who really favor US military interventions? Yes, I
suppose that there are. Like the Kosovo Albanians. I suspect that the Afghan Tajiks and Hazara were
pretty happy to see the US bomb the crap of the Taliban. So there might be a few cases. Oh, and I
forgot our Balt and Ukrainian friends (but then, they were also happy when the Nazis came, hardly
much of an example). But it is pretty safe to say that in reality nobody wants to be liberated by
Uncle Sam, hence the wordwide use of the "Yankee go home" slogan.
This letter is already way too long, and I will forgo the listing of all the reasons why the US
are pretty much hated all over the planet, not by the ruling elites, of course, but by the regular
people. And when I say "the US" I don't mean Paul Newman, Mark Twain, Miles Davis, Quentin Tarantino,
James Taylor or the Bill of Rights or the beautiful country called "the US". But the regime, as opposed
to any one specific government or administration in Washington, the regime is what truly universally
hated. I have never seen any anti-Americanism directed at the American people anywhere, not even
in France, Greece or Latin America. But the hate for the Empire is quasi universal by now. Only the
political elites whose status, power and well-being is dependent on the Empire do, in fact, support
the Empire and what it stands for. Everybody else despises what the US stands for today. And every
military intervention only makes this worse.
And you want to make sure this continues? Really?
Right now the US is desperately trying to save al-Qaeda (aka IS, ISIS, Daesh, al-Nusra, etc.)
from defeat in Syria. How is that for a moral stance after 9/11 (that is, if you accept the official
narrative about 9/11; if you understand that 9/11 was a controlled demolition in which al-Qaeda patsies
were used as a smokescreen, then this makes sense, by the way).
By the way – who are the current allies the US are so busy helping now? The Wahabi regime in Saudi Arabia. The Nazi regime in the Ukraine and... The last officially racist regime on the planet in Israel. Do these really strike you as allies worth supporting?! And what are the American people getting form all that? Nothing but poverty, oppression, shame,
hatred, fear and untold physical, psychological and moral suffering.
These are the fruits of Empire. Every Empire. Always.
You mentioned that every time you see a veteran you thanked him for his service. Why? Do you really
think that he fought in a just war, that his service is something he can be proud of? Did he fight
for his people? Did he defend the innocent? Or was he an occupier in a foreign land and, if he saw
combat, did he not kill people who defended their own land, their families and their way of life?
What exactly do you thank that veteran for? For following orders? But is that not something the Nuremberg
trials specifically condemned as immoral and illegal?
Do you remember how you told me that xxxxx's Marine husband lived in a nice house with all their
material needs taken care of? You added "compare that to Russian servicemen". Well, you clearly are
not aware of how Russian soldiers live nowadays, under your hated Putin, but that is besides the
point. The question which I wanted to ask you then and which I will ask you now is this: is the comfortable
lifestyle granted to US Marines good enough a reason to be a Marine – that is being part of the very
first force called in to murder innocent people and invade countries? Do you even know what Marines
did to Fallujah recently? How much is a human soul worth? And it is really your belief that being
being a hired killer for the Empire is an honorable way of life? And should you think that I am exaggerating,
please read the famous essay "
War is a Racket " by Marine Brigadier General Smedley Butler, who had the highest rank a Marine
could achieve in this time and who was the most decorated Marine in history. If war is a racket,
does that not make Marines professional racketeers, hired thugs who act as enforcers for the mobsters
in power? Ask yourself this: what would be the roughly equivalent counterparts of the US Marines
in Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia? To help you answer this question, let me offer a short quote from
the Wikipedia
entry about the Marine Corps : (emphasis added)
The Marine Corps was founded to serve as an infantry unit aboard naval vessels and was responsible for the security of the ship and its crew by conducting offensive and defensive
combat during boarding actions and defending the ship's officers from mutiny ; to
the latter end, their quarters on ship were often strategically positioned between the officers'
quarters and the rest of the vessel.
Does that help you identify their Nazi or Soviet counterparts? Of all people, is it not we, Jews and Russians, who ought to recognize and categorically reject
the trappings of Empire and all the rationalizations used to justify the subservient service to Empires?
I believe that history shows beyond any doubt that all Empires are evil, inherently and essentially,
evil. They are also therefore equally evil. Shall I explain why?
Do you know what crimes is considered the ultimate, supreme, most evil crime under international
law? It is not genocide, or crimes against humanity. Nope, the ultimate crime is the crime of aggression
(that, by the way, makes every single US President a war criminal under international law
, think of it!). In the
the words of the chief American prosecutor at Nuremberg, Robert H. Jackson , the crime of aggression
is the ultimate crime because "it contains within itself the accumulated evil" of all the other war
crimes. Well, to paraphrase Jackson, imperialism contains within itself all the accumulated evil
of all empires. Guantanamo, Hiroshima, Fallujah, Abu Ghraib, Gladio and all the rest, they "come
with the territory", they are not the exception, they are the norm.
The best thing which could happen to this country and its people would be the collapse of this
Empire. The support, even tacit and passive, of this Empire by people like yourself only delays this
outcome and allows this abomination to to bring even more misery and pain upon millions of innocent
people, including millions of your fellow Americans. This Empire now also threatens my country, Russia,
with war and possibly nuclear war and that, in turn, means that this Empire threatens the survival
of the human species. Whether the US Empire is the most evil one in history is debatable, but the
fact that it is by far the most dangerous one is not. Is that not a good enough reason for you to
say "enough is enough"? What would it take for you to switch sides and join the rest of mankind in
what is a struggle for the survival of our species? Or will it take a nuclear winter to open your
eyes to the true nature of the Empire you apparently are still supporting against all evidence?
Apologize for being the first and with "wrong" attitude. Time zones I guess.
What would it take for you to switch sides and join the rest of mankind in what is a struggle
for the survival of our species?
A conviction that Russia or/and China would not fill the empty space after US pulling out/weakening.
Disclaimer:
Thinking as one of those, quote: " Balt and Ukrainian", "Kosovo Albanians" and, my addition:
Finns
Polish
Czechs
Slovaks
Hungarians
Slovenians
Croats
Albanians (proper)
Romanians
Bulgarians.
Georgians
will stop here there are more there but, no need .
And, yes:
Taiwanese
South Korean
..probably more but let's not get carried away.
So, probably the best for this "debate" would be if people from that list just don't get involved.
Looks like you had a really rough time with your friends. Think how far out you are from the
reality of average Americans.
I liked the 1st half about all the bandits participating in the WWII. And the history written
by the winner.
I like you assessment of Russia and the unfortunate situation that the perpetrators of Soviet
crimes outlived and outbred their victims and nobody is remorseful. If God is just Russia will
pay for the omission of atonement for its sins. That Russian pride themselves for defeating the
III Reich it is just like bragging among the murders who is the baddest.
"And when I say "the US" I don't mean Paul Newman, Mark Twain, Miles Davis, Quentin Tarantino,
James Taylor " How many just and righteous men were needed to save Sodom and Gomorrah. Does
the US have enough of them? Are you sure Tarantino belongs to the list? Americans are more responsible
for the deeds of their Empire than Germans or Russians for III Reich or USSR or at least the ones
who insist that they live in true democracy.
The support, even tacit and passive, of this Empire by people like yourself only delays
– Perhaps God should smite only those.
I have never seen any anti-Americanism directed at the American people anywhere – Perhaps
because many perceive Americans as children who one day will grow up. This might be a benevolent
mistake.
I liked what you insinuated about the US Marines. I would say give them an opportunity an they
will demonstrate they are worse than SS and NKVD combined. The training and brainwashing in the
ability to kill w/o thinking far exceeds what ever was done in Germany and USSR. On top of it
there is complete absence of warrior chivalry, that one could still spot even among some SS but
not in NKVD, that was completely replaced with that American pragmatism that knows no mercy and
no true honor.
and I forgot our Balt and Ukrainian friends (but then, they were also happy when the Nazis
came, hardly much of an example) – No, that is very good example on the awfulness of Soviet
regime and its crimes that many were willing rather to go with the Nazis. In 1945 everybody in
Eastern Europe was dreaming to be liberated by Americans instead of by the Red Army.
Because if you answered "yes" then you are truly messianic genocidal imperialists. –
Excellent point!
"The best thing which could happen to this country and its people would be the collapse
of this Empire."
and replace it with what, another empire? Isn't that what the empire did in Iraq and Afghanistan?
What were the results in those places?
"Is that not a good enough reason for you to say "enough is enough"?"
Many people do exactly this. I'm one of them.
"What would it take for you to switch sides and join the rest of mankind in what is a struggle
for the survival of our species?"
Which side am I supposed to join exactly? Didn't you just get done telling us that all empires
are equally evil? Tell you what, until something better comes along, I'll just be on my side.
The US didn't have 20 nuclear weapons in 1945, and didn't have 300 in 1949. So neither of those
was a practical plan, and nor was the third, even according to its own authors.
In 1941, during WWII, Harry Truman wanted a brutal and prolonged conflict in order to inflict
as much death and destruction in Europe as possible, declaring:
"If we see Germany winning, we ought to help Russia, and if Russia is winning we ought to help
Germany, and in that way let them kill as many as possible."
The US (as expressed by one of its key leaders) wanted the brutal war to continue for as long
as possible, so that as many Russians and Germans as possible would be killed, (with other Europeans,
including Jews, as inevitable collateral casualties in that process,) so that the US could then
step in at the end to dominate war-destroyed Europe.
And that was exactly what happened: Some 27 million Soviet people were killed, about 16% of
their population, while the Americans and British delayed starting a western front until after
the outcome was largely decided, then raced to seize control of as much of Europe and of the credit
as possible at the end:
"It was not until well after the Nazis' fortunes had been decisively reversed at Stalingrad
that the long-promised 'second front' [by the US and Britain] actually materialized. Indeed, by
this point the outcome of the war had effectively already been determined. D-Day, then, was waged
not to defeat the Nazis but to ensure the Soviet Union, who had borne almost all of the sacrifice,
would not reap the fruits of their victory."
British Troops Enter Syria and Libya to Ensure That War Outlives ISIS
It seems like the US is following this same pattern again in Syria: prolong the brutal war
and suffering for as long as possible, and now race at the end to be able to falsely claim credit
(for the defeat of ISIS) and seize control (via a Kurdistan proxy).
Saker, from deep within his Russo-Soviet, Intelligence Community, and now apparently Judaic
bubble as well, chastises Americans for being in their own Yankee-doodle propaganda bubble. A
pox on all of them.
The Jewish-Bolsheviks won the cold war. The USA, Germany, the EU and Russia are all basically
judeo-communist now. Each with a different flavored frosting of democracy.
Saker manages to dance around Nuremburg and the "Holocaust". He never mentions lend lease and
all the other illegal activities led by the cabal without which Stalin, Moscow and the USSR would
not have survived the winter of 1941/2 let alone achieved victory.
Unfortunately for Saker, you cannot have an honest discussion of the last 100 years of history
without bringing up Freemasonry, Judaism and other sinister forces and the effects they had on
WWI, Versailles, Poland 1939, the "Holocaust", Nuremburg and most of all Nagasaki, the catholic
capitol of Japan.
Otherwise Saker is merely spewing narrative at one propaganda bubble from within another one.
"the Anglos reneged on all of these promises: they created a heavily militarized West Germany,
they immediately recruited thousands of top Nazi officials for their intelligence services, "
-This is not really true, they waited until 1947, after starving and tortured the German civilian
population for 2 years under the Morgenthau Plan, which actually was quite a nice treatment, compared
to the initial Morgenthau Plan that wanted to exterminate 20 million German civilians.(Morgenthau
was a jew btw, another genocidal one, go figure)
The reason the allies stopped starving the German civilians was not due to their high moral
standards however, they were just worried the German civilians would rather live under soviet
where they were allowed to eaten then live under USA and starve to death.
Crimes committed at one point in history cannot, in general, by compared to crimes committed
at another point in history.
Europeans 2,000 years ago were an entirely different people than Europeans 1,200 or 500 years
ago. Same geographical location but completely distinct populations. To the point, these populations
would have not recognized each other. Indeed, even a gap of a few generations is enough to produce
folks with different lore, priorities, and taboos.
So, no, you cannot compare 19th century USA with 20th Germany. In fact, you cannot even compare
early 20th Russia with mid 20th century Germany. The moral standards by which you judge them are
the same. The moral standards by which each lived are unalike.
Ukraine. Across its eastern border is Russia and to its west-Europe. For centuries, it has
been at the center of a tug-of-war between powers seeking to control its rich lands and access
to the Black Sea. 2014′s Maidan Massacre triggered a bloody uprising that ousted president
Viktor Yanukovych and painted Russia as the perpetrator by Western media. But was it?
"Ukraine on Fire" by Igor Lopatonok provides a historical perspective for the deep divisions
in the region which led to the 2004 Orange Revolution, 2014 uprisings, and the violent overthrow
of democratically elected Yanukovych. Covered by Western media as a people's revolution, it
was in fact a coup d'état scripted and staged by nationalist groups and the U.S. State Department.
Investigative journalist Robert Parry reveals how U.S.-funded political NGOs and media companies
have emerged since the 80s replacing the CIA in promoting America's geopolitical agenda abroad.
Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton backed the Nazis. Oddly enough, the same 'blood and soil'
imagery and chants were used in Charlottesville and the Unite the Right 'rally'. Add in the
fact the organizer, Kessler, was an Obama voter and Occupy supporter. It appears Charlotttesville
was scripted as well.
As good a rant as ever I've read.
Picking a nit here.
The best thing which could happen to this country and its people would be the collapse of
this Empire.
As many, even in the US, realize the "Empire's" days are numbered, the best thing would be
to abandon the Empire, rather than waiting for it to collapse. Conscious abandonment frees resources for rebuilding the country, and suggests it could be
managed for minimum impact. A belly landing at best, but eminently survivable with luck and skill
at the controls. Collapse, if delayed much longer, is shaping up to be catastrophic for the US,
and highly disruptive for the rest of the world, and that's assuming we avoid anybody going nuclear.
Active, managed abandonment of the Empire is what the people voted for. Collapse is what it
looks like they'll get. Not "best" at all, and maybe very, very bad.
"Your country" is Russia, but you didn't bother to live in it last I checked. Has it changed?
If not, care to explain why "your country" isn't the one you live in?
If you take the Russian population today, it has many more descendants of executioners than
descendants of executed people and this is hardly a surprise since dead people don't reproduce.
Unlikely, considering there were far fewer executioners than executed, and a good percentage
of them belonged to a specific ethnocultural group that gradually turned against the USSR once
they were driven out of power around 1938, after which most of them eventually emigrated.
In my experience letters to friends (or at least speeches of this kind – I haven't done any
letters) don't go down too well and produce a high level of boredom.
Political action is rather uncomfortable, and it seems to be restricted to defined places,
where it can be read and heard or ignored, like the editorial columns of main stream newspapers
or explicitly political forums like Congress or Think Tanks.
The problem of course, is that in the US and Western Europe these "respectable" forums have
been hijacked by the centre and force fed with propaganda while preserving the veneer of impartiality.
So, that seems to leave places like Unz Review , in the role of the pre-WW1 Viennese coffee
house (e.g. Café Central 1913 with Papadopoulos/Dzhugashvili (Stalin) and Bronstein (Trotsky)
playing chess at one table and Hitler and friends with cakes and coffee at another).
Or will it take a nuclear winter to open your eyes to the true nature of the Empire you
apparently are still supporting against all evidence?
Public political talk probably only becomes general and continuous (unless it is obligatory
as in Switzerland) through direct threatening experiences, involving everyone, such as a total
war, mass unemployment or hyperinflation and the US hasn't arrived there yet.
Not only that, but I would submit that most Germans would also believe that they were free
people and that the regime they live under was a benevolent one.
The reality is that freedom is not the simple yes/no issue that it is presented as by American-style
simplist propagandists. It is a complex matter of degrees, and of more freedom in some areas versus
less in others, of more freedom for some in a particular society versus less for others.
One of the best easily readable anecdotal sources imo on the way government supporting Germans
viewed their pre-WW2 government, is the following:
Oh sure, Hitler considered Jews as parasites which had to be exiled and, later, exterminated
and he saw Russians as subhumans which needed to be put to work for the Germanic Master Race
and whose intelligentsia also needed to be exterminated.
The German elite in this era believed they were practicing 'good science' by these actions.
In fact they were by the standards of the pseudo science of Eugenics which was supported universally
by leading figures in the West. The Nazis began this purge with German citizens deemed faulty
and a threat to humanity long before attention was focused on Jews, gypsies, Slavs etc etc. The
shock of the camps and the actions at Nuremberg put an end to Eugenics except in the US where
it continued. Actually Eugenics was the horror child birthed in the US and UK.
Having spent years in the Federal Republic of Germany as a member of the USA's military occupation
force, I cannot agree with you more.
Re: Winning the war in Europe. The source I read YEARS ago stated that 84.9% of all WW2 German
casualties (KIA, WIA, MIA) occurred on the Eastern Front at the hands of the Soviets. The American
military did not defeat the NAZI war machine. They only conducted mop-up ops after the Soviets
had disembowled the Wehrmacht.
Believe me. Not all Americans are asleep to the lies and imperialism of the scoundrels who
comprise the U.S. government. Thank you for your accurate synopsis.
Very well written and emotionally charged piece by Sacker. Despite disagreeing with him mostly
on Soviet past and whitewashing of Islam I see good in him. Now, I will try to be brief but making
Soviet regime equal in evilness to the mentioned Nazi and US regimes is completely false and mostly
comes form Sacker's background.
First thing that should never be missed is that unlike Nazi and US regimes Soviet regime never
committed genocides. All those fair tales about tens of millions killed in Gulag and elsewhere
with opened archives are pure bogus, nor did Russians and Soviets committed genocides against
populations under their control in new acquired lands. Central Asia had extremely low population
when taken over by Russia. Under Soviet rule that population ballooned out of all proportions
due to extremely favorable conditions created. I know, I lived there for 20 years.
It should never be forgotten that Sacker comes from the line or class that had been sadistically
exploiting and draining Russian peasant population for at least 200 years leading to their mental
and physical degeneration and huge deformities of Russian character which are still there even
after decades of Soviet power to tackle it. By every definition Russian peasants were not serfs
but slaves who could be sold, families broken and gambled away of exchanged for dogs.
Lenin and Stalin had to do with extremely low level of human material available to them , which
was uplifted basically from the dirt, educated and provided with things necessary for decent life
which they never experienced before. This regime cannot be called evil. USSR did not commit evil
against other countries and actually propped and helped other third world nations to build their
own countries unfortunately at the expense of our own people.
The last but not the least, were there not Bolsheviks, Russia would seize to exist as thanks to
pre Bolsheviks regime, old regime led Russia to certain death by 1917.
Knowing what we know about
Nazis, it would be the end of Russia without Lenin and Bolsheviks coming along and the death of
millions of European people and Jews. How this regime can be called evil. I have no clue.
Otherwise, I often agree with Sacker and consider him a good man.
Whilst I have followed you constantly over the years and respect your views immensely and have
studied your works for several years, my one and only response (as a follow-up) to your 'letter'
is this:
What is your solution? What system or which empire shall we replace the American one with?
Someone with your intelligence should know that things don't exist in a vaccum.
If the American empire is collapsed as you wish it would be, then what? What magical solution
do you have? Because rest assured there will be someone else taking the reins but I guess you
feel that the next power will do it the 'right way'. Laughable
You do a great job pointing out the faults of the American Empire but I feel you fall into
the same 'hole' that so many do while riding their high horse, and that is: complain, complain,
point out faults, compare the USA to Nazi Germany, and to the more evil Soviet Union (which by
the way – according to many sources was extraordinarily worse; by a order of magnitude worse then
the Nazis).
Anyway, to get to my point about your rant. Your main point is what?
'the British "atrocities tally", ranging from opium wars, to the invention of concentration
camps, to the creation of Apartheid, the horrors of the occupation of Ireland, etc. etc. etc.?' Christ, you might at least be accurate. In three hundred years of exploring, colonising, trading,
and conquering there must be some genuine atrocities you could discuss. Why discuss fake ones? Apartheid was nothing to do with Britain, it was introduced in independent South Africa by
an Afrikaner party that won power after WWII.
The Opium Wars don't seem to me to be an atrocity: opium was legal in Britain and throughout
the Empire. I agree that the wars might be classed as wicked – aggressive war usually is – but
they were no atrocity.
Britain didn't invent Concentration Camps – in the sense of the expression used by the Nazis,
the Nazis invented Concentration Camps. In the sense of the expression used by Britain in the
South African war, the camps were simply a copy of the earlier concentration camps used by the
US in the Philippines and by Spain in Cuba. etc, etc.
"The truth is that the Americans only entered the war when it was clear that the Nazis would
be defeated": your implication of cause-and-effect seems to me to be bogus. The US 'entered' the
war against Hitler because Hitler declared war on the US.
But Saker you and your White Russian emigre friends don't seem to have any problems taking
advantage of the European conquest of North America. If you are going to play the "Evil Whitey" game then please just leave, and go back to Russia.
Perhaps you and your fellow Russians can welcome the millions of Blacks Mexicans . Muslims and
Hindus into Mother Russia so that you can be blessed by our diversity.
This is an ugly and evil country. I am stuck here cause I'm a Murican. If I was of another
nationality or citizenship, I would leave this evil and ugly place just for the salving of my
soul.
1) At Tehran and again at Potsdam, the US and GB gave the Russians an ultimatum. "Join the
war against Japan within 90 days of the end of the war in Europe or have no voice in the partition
of Asia." The Russians attacked on the 89th day.
2) The Russians were preparing to land on Hokkaido as they had already done on Sakhalin and the
Kuril Islands when the Japanese capitulated.
For the record, I agree with the anti-war theme of your post, but unfortunately your veer off
into the "EVIL WHITEY' realm. Working Class Native Born White American Teenagers join the US Military
"voluntarily" because they have been made economically redundant by post-1965 Immigration Policy.
The scale of the nonwhite imported scab labor=Nonwhite Immigrants+the US born geneline of nonwhite
legal immigrants.
The Alt Right Rally in Charlottesville was a protest against post-1965 imported nonwhite scab
labor and The Democratic Party which has made an open declaration of war against Christian Russian.
The Democratic Party is the post-1965 nonwhite Party in 2017 ..
What a confused mixture of good insight and tiresome parroting of threadbare, hackneyed, Allied
propaganda. While the intent is clearly good, the overall analysis is so lacking in logic and avoidance
of basic facts that it's impossible to even begin a reasonable criticism. The anti-Hitler shtick is particularly appallingly elementary as are the concepts of "victors"
history and Nazi propaganda.
Letter to Saker:
If you really want people to read your stuff, you should consider employing an editor. Check
your facts and assumptions, and most of all tighten it up , especially when repeating
ancient propaganda.
Also, it would help you to educate yourself. Here's a good start.:
" this entire myth, so prevalent then and even now about Hitler, and about the Japanese,
is a tissue of fallacies from beginning to end. Every plank in this nightmare evidence is
either completely untrue or not entirely the truth.
If people should learn this intellectual fraud about Hitler's Germany, then they will begin
to ask questions, and searching questions "
- Murray Rothbard, Review of The Origins of the Second World War, 1966
I agree with most of this article. Al Qaeda had help inside the US for sure and there was a
cover up at the highest levels, but the debris that could be used to test the demolition theory
was removed quickly without analysis to China.
The lowest order of social organization is the band society. Historically they would war against
each other. Chimpanzees war against each other. This a hominidae problem at least. Also human
society favors narcissist and psychopaths for leaders. The psychopaths lie the US into war for
their objective. Narcissist do it because they want to feel good about murdering people so they
lie to themselves. This won't stop unless these groups of people are screened and prevented from
reaching positions of power.
Afghanistan is a disgusting society run by pedophiles. I'm not sympathetic to their way of
life. The Taliban at least tried to stop the practice. I would be disappointed if the Iraqis didn't
miss secularism. The Syrians are fighting for their very lives to live in a secular society.
Modern US is an Empire that is ruled by finance, corporations, and foreign governments such
as Israel. The description of the whore of Babylon in the book of Revelations fits Washington
D.C. to a T. The internet has documented its crimes and corruption for all to see. The US Empire
is not completely incoherent because there are servants in it that are rational and pushing back.
It is why the war with Iran has been delayed. The US under Obama sought to use Al Qaeda in Libya
and Syria. President Trump stopped the support of Al Qaeda in Syria, and challenged the Muslim
world to stop using terrorism to solve its problems. Afghanistan war is prolonged but negotiating
with the Taliban is an option which is something George W. Bush rejected.
The American Empire is a hit-man for the well connected, including governments. President Trump
has shown interest in having them fund the American Empire since its broke, they do receive some
protection from it, but they themselves do not seem to want to fund it. Europe cries about Russia,
Gulf States cry about Iran, and Asia cries about China. They are militarily occupied but the American
people suffer the expense.
American Imperium has and does great evil but its a pagan society which is pretty tolerant
if you are within its domain with a favorable status. I think those that adopted a pagan capitalist
society are at least living comfortably for the most part. I do think a free pagan society is
the highest form of human civilization. It is true the US has allied with some nasty belief systems
like Nazis, Wahhabist, etc. It will be interesting to see how things pan out once China takes
America's place since it is hostile to religion. Americans have been brainwashed into thinking
that the US must be a global policeman and that its poop doesn't stink. There are those that think
other nations poop doesn't stink. All of the poop stinks.
The US will decline and will have to give up the Empire unless it figures out a sustainable
course, rejects perpetual war in favor of being a counterbalance just from its presence. It also
would have to reorient the military industrial complex towards something profitable outside of
war profiteering. The US Empire may be replaced with the Chinese one road, one belt project. The
US is at a crossroads. We got an Iran deal which is in jeopardy but its amazing that it was made
in the first place. In Syria the US hasn't started World War 3 on behalf of Al Qaeda. The internet
is clearly having an affect on the American Empire. It is why there is a rush to censor it. No
longer can evil human beings misuse power without everyone else finding out about it. They can't
control the information from reaching the rest of the world now. They will try and people will
get around it. The American Empire has a huge bureaucracy and there are a lot of moral human beings
in it. The US political class has other problems: it hasn't won a war since World War II, and
economic inequality is having its negative effect on the American people. We got Trump instead
of Hillary because half the nation realized the US is in bad shape.
lol jews doesn't care for genocidal views? Ever hear of the Palestinians? Heck, ever heard
Jews speak about Germans or White people in general? I'd say the mainstream view for Jews is pro-genocide.
In Israel is pro-Palestinians genocide, and in the Europe Jews are pro-white genocide.
In pretty much every country stretching from UK to Russia. I doubt many needs to be reminded
that 6 out of the 7 oligarch that seized 50% of the Russian economy in the 1990s and inflicted
genocidal conditions on Russian of poverty, alcholism, abortion, were jews And I am not even going
to go into the jewish influence in mass-extermination of ethnic Russians and other white slavic
groups during the bolshevik rule. For that just read some works of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn to understand
the jewish view of ethnic christian Russians.
"Mr. Ignatiev pledges in the essay that his journal, Race Traitor, intends to "keep bashing
the dead white males, and the live ones, and the females, too, until the social construct known
as 'the white race' is destroyed not 'deconstructed' but destroyed.""
Well reasoned, well thought-out, thought-provoking piece. Shame it will be dismissed by many
as merely pro-Russian propaganda.
Just a couple comments:
"If I see somebody drowning in a flood, I most certainly have the moral right to
jump in the water and try to save this person, do I not? But that does not mean that I have
the strength or skills to do so."
I think in this particular context you are mixing right up with obligation .
Many Americans see it as the US having both the right and the obligation to intervene. The two
together compose the license.
"I have never seen any anti-Americanism directed at the American people anywhere, not even
in France, Greece or Latin America."
I have, but only when the objects of scorn were behaving like Amerotrash. In the 30+ years
living abroad, I have never personally experienced it, but I try to be on my best behaviour, and
sometimes actually succeed.
"Do you remember how you told me that xxxxx's Marine husband lived in a nice house with
all their material needs taken care of? You added "compare that to Russian servicemen"."
The comparison to military housing when I served nearly 40 years ago is telling. We should
have had it so nice. It's expensive to keep enough people interested with today's ops tempo if
they have to deal with a screaming family back home, especially now that cheap global telecom
has replaced monthly AUTOVON morale calls home.
"The best thing which could happen to this country and its people would be the collapse
of this Empire."
Can't agree with that, because if America as we know it today collapses, they're taking the
whole world down with them. I would be happy if they simply accepted that this is a multi-polar
world with nations that have simetimes competing goals, but full of people who pretty much want
the same things in life: Health, happiness, love, entertainment, good food, etc. These things
are pretty common across the globe, even in North Korea.
@CK One has to admit that mobilising forces, many of which were war-weary from the European
front, to engage in Asia in 89 days is remarkable. To point out that they took 89 of the 90 days
to do it is a rather cheap shot.
Of course, it is true that the USA never chose to enter the war at all, but was forced to when
the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor and then Hitler personally declared war on the USA four days
later – incidentally, showing a degree of loyalty to his allies that puts the USA to shame.
The battle of Stalingrad lasted from August 23rd, 1942 to January 31st, 1943. The battle of
Kursk lasted from July 5th, 1943 to July 17th, 1943. They began eight months and 19 months respectively
after the USA entered WW2.
It is true that the Western Allies did not invade France until June 1944, but that was a tactical
decision whose timing was dictated by military necessities.
Thought the 'SAKER' was in control of his faculties but after reading this rant, implying that
there is no difference between WW II Nazis and Americans, think the Saker has been too long out
in the Sun. That's the same toxic BS the violent Judaic-led Antifa Thugs are pushing, that white Americans
males are actually secret Nazis and must be exterminated. Yet the Saker nor Antifa mention the fact that the Bolshevik Jews, from 1917-1957 murdered around
66 million Russians, mostly Christians who refused to bow down to Godless Communism. Add in the
other Commie slaughters and the figure is easily over 100 million.
This toxic ideology is what the SAKER wants us to follow after his/her Antifa buds tear apart
the USA?
@5371 Yes. As per the linked source (Wiki), Plan Totality was a disinformation campaign, a
bluff, it was not a concrete military plan. (You could probably say the same about the others
as well.) I like Saker's stuff, but he's being over-eager here.
Yup, great propaganda for your side, your skewed version of reality, your heart's desire to
believe about yourself and your people not QUITE as well-honed as the propaganda used by the both
sides in WWII , and everything before and after, but good try! (not.)
There is an American expression which says "where I sit is where I stand".
Saker, I'm almost 61 years old, born and raised in middle America, have lived and worked in
the Northeast, the South, the Southwest – I have never heard that expression. Where did you learn that expression?
@utuIn 1945 everybody in Eastern Europe was dreaming to be liberated by Americans instead
of by the Red Army.
You hardly now anything about so called Eastern Europe during and shortly 2. ww. Eastern Europe
is propagandistic term of cold war, probably referring to nazi propaganda and has nothing to do
with geographical realities.
Several of my friends including myself often make a point out to our colleagues in Vienna that
they are Eastern of Prague, Yet – that consider themselves proudly Western city.
Speaking of Eastern of Vienna there was Hungary south Romania, hardly waiting for liberation
of U.S. army as proud members of AXIS.
Speaking of Yugoslavia resistance and partizan movement was hardly waiting for US liberation.
Speaking Czechoslovakia – major uprising of Slovak army in Slovakia was coordinating and waiting
for Red Army to get trough Dukla pass.
I will not be speaking on behalf of Poland where it was more difficult for various reasons. So, my grand parents were waiting for Red Army and not dreaming about US I can assure you
OMG! Please contribute more! You said more in 200 words than the columnist did in 5300, and I'm generally in sympathy with
the author's apparent motives. For instance, how many people know this:
most of all Nagasaki, the catholic capitol of Japan.
For those new to the idea, here's a quote from a very well written article that is highly worth
anyone's time in my ever so humble opinion.
70 years ago (August 9, 1945) an all-Christian bomber crew [blessed prior to takeoff by
Christian clergy] dropped a plutonium bomb over Nagasaki City, Japan, instantly vaporizing,
incinerating or otherwise annihilating tens of thousands of innocent civilians, a disproportionately
large number of them Japanese Christians. Ironically, prior to the bomb exploding nearly directly over the Urakami Cathedral at 11:02
AM, Nagasaki was the most Christian city in Japan, and the massive cathedral was the largest
Christian church in the Orient.
-Gary G. Kohls, The 70th Anniversary of the Bombing of Nagasaki, Unwelcome Truths for Church
and State, Aug 2015.
Why replace it at all? Why not just be rid of it? If you just got rid of a bad case of hemorrhoids, why would you want to replace them with anything?
Wouldn't you be happy just to be rid of 'em? Explain?
The best thing which could happen to this country and its people would be the collapse of
this Empire.
Beg to differ. The best thing that could happen to this country would be to end immigration. See VDARE dot com for all the reasons why and supporting data.
@Robert Magill[Choose a single Handle and use it, or Anonymous/Anon. Using multiple Handles
to conceal your identity will get all your comments trashed.]
" pseudo science of Eugenics"
-There is no psuedo-science, it is well established since before recorded history that if you
breed individual with desirable traits these traits will likely be passed on and increase in the
population. Eugenics is just this basic knowledge applied to humans, which of course are animals
and subject to the hereditary.
The US 'entered' the war against Hitler because Hitler declared war on the US.
That was merely the technical excuse. The US was at economic and propaganda war against Germany long before that declaration.
For instance, the US broke international laws, treaties and circumvented its own Neutrality Act
well prior to Hitler's declaration of war. The concept applies not only for the Atlantic areas,
but the Pacific ones as well, where FDR and his crew of ghouls worked overtime to provoke the
Japanese militarists to fire the first shot.
The sad reality is that the US intervention in Europe was a simple land-grab,
That's pretty much all of it. The Germans and Soviets grabbed as much as they could so it's
just a matter of who is more successful at grabbing the most. Being under the Americans pays the
best unlike the other two who work you to death or kill you outright. The moral angle is just
a way of fancying things up and only deluded low-level munchkins believe any of that rot. That's
the way it's always been with most empires. Which ruler gives you the higher standard of living?
The USA, Germany, the EU and Russia are all basically judeo-communist now.
Hmm.
Look at who are the prime-movers behind dangerous, nation-wrecking mass-immigration.
This is one place where Catholics and Evangelicals are buying into the same line of propaganda.
The RCC is now a force pushing a mindless, dangerous mass-migration.
Look at what "Francis" says, approving violent Moslems and Africans flooding the EU.
Evangelicals and "Main Line" Protestants are just as bad, profiteering from US-taxpayer-funded
"refugee resettlement."
We all need to understand the global plague of mass immigration is the number one world problem.
I am ashamed of my fellow Christians who are suckered into open borders propaganda.
Nature abhors a vacuum. If the American Empire collapsed today, it would be
absorbed by competing empires with the probably outcome that nothing good would result. You can't
just "get rid of it". It has to be replaced with something more robust than the last model which
is what mutated into this present form. I think the problem is not solvable because ultimately,
it has it's roots in human nature.
I think George Carlin is probably right. This is as good as
it gets and it's our own fault as a species.
Early in his career David Irving believed that six million Jews were "systematically"
killed by the Nazis. But later he reversed himself upon more research into the matter and has
held firm even after withering assaults on his reputation and character.
@ondrejSo, my grand parents were waiting for Red Army and not dreaming about US I can
assure you
That's okay, nothing wrong with that, everybody needs to dream. However, some did not dream of being liberated by the Red Army, and some that were dreaming
that dream found it to be a nightmare instead of a dream. I am old enough to remember when Germans shot other Germans for trying to escape "the dream."
It hasn't even been thirty years yet. No "history" books or "propaganda" needed.
I took this article seriously until I got down to the "Nazi regime in the Ukraine". At that
point, I realised that it was just pro-Putin propaganda. I don't see how any of this, even if
it were true, affects the right of the Ukrainian people to have their own sovereign nation-state.
The sovereign nation-state, or the aspiration to it, has been the fundamental building block of
the European political order since the French Revolution. The problem with Putin is that he rejects
that concept and is seeking to resurrect the pre-1789 concept of "spheres of influence".
{ ..and he saw Russians as subhumans which needed to be put to work for the Germanic Master
Race and whose intelligentsia also needed to be exterminated .}
Saker, why are you whitewashing what the Nazis planned to do?
The plan was to exterminate nearly all Slavic peoples in East Europe and SU East of the Urals
to make room for Lebensraum for the alleged* Master Race. ALL Slavic peoples, not just the intelligentsia. Didn't Nazi invaders murder and kill ~15 million Soviet _civilians_, or is that a myth.
______
*
You know, like Goebbels, a club-footed scrawny runt, who murdered his 5 children, before offing
himself.
Or Goering, a drug-addict overweight swine, who also offed himself.
Or Himmler, a myopic weakling, with a malformed skull, who couldn't stand the sight of bloodshed.
Instead of going down fighting, he was caught trying to flee like a rat. Also offed himself. And Hitler himself: 6'3″ tall, perfect physic, blond hair, deep blue eyes ..such an 'Aryan'.
He also committed suicide, instead of going down fighting.
@CensoredByTheSaker "If we see that Germany is winning we ought to help Russia and if Russia
is winning we ought to help Germany, and that way let them kill as many as possible, although
I don't want to see Hitler victorious under any circumstances." .
McCullough, David (15 June 1992). Truman. New York, New York: Simon & Schuster. p. 262.
Truman made this remark after hearing that Hitler had invaded Soviet Russia.
@nickels{(2) if Germany had not torn into Russia, considering the massive buildup of arms
(Hitler's big mistake was underestimating this), it is likely that Bolshevism would have enslaved
Europe and, perhaps, in time, the world.}
Like all neo-Hitlerite apologists and revisionists you too are suffering from an overactive
imagination. There was no so-called massive buildup of arms by SU.
Nazi German juggernaut reached deep into SU – Volga river, Stalingrad.
Red Army was in no position in 1941 to mount in invasion of Nazi Germany, even if they wanted
to. Red Army got badly beaten by tiny Finland a couple of years earlier.
Nazi Germany was thoroughly defeated and vanquished by the Red Army, after years of
tough fighting and great sacrifices.
Bolshevism* did not enslave Europe.
Communism did not, quote, 'enslave' East Europe.
East Europeans, who fell under Communist rule, had a hard life no doubt, but they are having the
last laugh now. Despite the hardships of Communist rule, they are still Polish, Hungarians, Czechs,
Bulgarians.
They are still Christians.
Western Europe, 'liberated' by US, is being slowly but methodically de-Christianized, de-nationalized,
and Islamized.
Guess by who ( it sure isn't Russia).
Despite the hysteria of supposed world domination, Soviet Union collapsed of its own weight
and inherent contradictions within.
People of Russia are slowly but inexorably reverting to their Russian nationalist and Orthodox
Christian roots. While 'enlightened', 'liberated' Western Europe is slowly sinking into a witches brew concocted
by the 'Free World'.
!!–
* Stalin wiped out pretty much all Jewish Bolsheviks.
The genocide of the Indians by the Americans was inevitable. An immigrant who makes a dangerous
crossing into new country with few comforts just for food security (land for growing food) and
right to practice a religion with no spiritual component, but conformity with neighbors – will
always find reasons for genocide.
All this happened at the time of the industrial revolution and with inputs from the old world
along with their own ingenuity, it made America a power to reckon with, more so with its sparsely
populated northern neighbor and a backward Latin Mexico. Two huge oceans made it an impregnable
fortress.
Capitalism and the systematic capture of the political system by big money has made it an empire.
This will end badly, not just for the US but the whole world.
I give it a year or twenty.
Nature probably also abhors human institutions and would probably prefer a vacuum if one would
ensue after the collapse of the (particularly disgusting) 'Merkin empire. Humans and their societies
existed before empires and the threat of a vacuum probably didn't exist then, and shouldn't now.
If the American Empire collapsed today, it would be absorbed by competing empires with the
probably outcome that nothing good would result. You can't just "get rid of it". It has to
be replaced with something more robust than the last model which is what mutated into this
present form.
True, but I'd like to emphasize that's the type of reasoning that leads to arms races and wars,
but your next comments are right on target, and I agree completely.
I think the problem is not solvable because ultimately, it has it's roots in human nature.
I think George Carlin is probably right. This is as good as it gets and it's our own fault
as a species.
What really torques me is that all are to blame to some degree, yet most persist in
thinking their behavior is immaculate and justified. The rank hypocrisy and distorted finger pointing
stinks as well, along with the idea that politicians and governments exist to make things better.
Where do folks get their faith?
@Jason------- Switzerland? Uruguay? Mostly small nations without any pretensions to supremacy.
The trouble nowadays is that there are far too many people, far too much wealth, far too many
weapons, and far far far too much propaganda – most of it exceptionally successful. Not because
the propaganda is believable, but because the sheeple just don't care.
Wealth and power attract the filthiest fractions of humanity like flies to honey. The bigger
the concentration of wealth and power, the more and the more degraded the human filth that congregates.
Key difference between the American, Nazi, and Soviet empires: in the Nazi and Soviet empires,
one would not be permitted to write articles against them.
What aggravates the problem is the fact that US is not just an Empire – it's a highjacked Empire,
with all its major institutes of power and about 10% of population actively helping the highjackers,
while out of remaining roughly 90% only a tiny fraction understands what's going on, and the number
of those daring to speak out against the army of super-powerful and well-organized criminals is
even less.
And wars, aggressions, revolutions, etc. in the last 200 years often (if not always) were initiated
not by the nominal governments (or by their opponents) but by the hidden global forces, whose
presence nowadays, thanks to the Internet, is impossible to deny.
These forces influence all governments across the globe, at least to some degree (even the North
Korean), and their methods of control vary from exclusively financial to pure criminal.
The very special role of US in that scheme of things stems from the fact that after a certain
point in 20-th century, willingly or unwillingly, it has become the most powerful and the most
controllable military and financial tool in the hands of global criminals.
So, the best thing that can happen to US (and every other country in this world) would be the
deliverance from these nasty and sticky "puppet-masters".
Unfortunately, there's a tiny chance that it may happen by itself or without grave complications.
Primarily because these "puppet-masters", in addition to all other negative features, are truly
sick maniacs.
But, but, but what about da roads, man!?? I believe that recently you tried to convince me of the need for government on the basis of
all the nice goodies they provided, especially roads, now here you are criticizing the Nazis,
when in point of fact, the Nazis were far ahead of most, in caring for their own people and providing
for them the nice things in life.
In fact, the Nazis comparatively speedily built an autobahn system that was copied by the Americans
only decades later. The Nazis were very far ahead in the area of taking care of their workers as well, which was
an embarrassment to the socially backward American and Soviet systems, both of which were much
closer to slave labor camps than Nazi Germany was at least until Churchill provoked the war which
even he admitted was unnecessary.
So, back to the road argument, (not that it's a valid one),you may want to change your view
of Nazis. Regarding Nazi vs "Allied" civil rights, here's how Mencken put it. :
The [single] bloody Hitler purge that made such a sensation in the summer of 1934 is, [and
has been], [ often ] duplicated in Russia at close intervals, and if it were not for
the army there would undoubtedly be rebellions on a large scale, and in all parts of [our ally,
Russia]. To prevent such works of Satan the Moscow Mussolinis keep 9oo,ooo yokels under arms,
with an enormous outfit of tanks, airplanes, and artillery, and missionaries in every squad
to preach the Only True Faith. The American pacifists, always easily gulled, compare this formidable
host to the band of Boy Scouts that Richard the Lion-Hearted led up the walls of Acre. It is
actually much more like the corps of mine guards in the Pennsylvania coal fields.
-H.L. Mencken, The Reds and Civil Rights, The American Mercury, July 1936, pp. 284-289
@Johnny Rico "The British were also fighting the Nazis BEFORE June 1941 for more than a year
when the Russians were ALLIED with the Nazis!!!"
I'm aware of that, since my father was one of the British soldiers. However, it is slightly
inaccurate to say that "the Russians were allied with the Nazis". The Russians – or rather the
Soviet leadership, at whose head was the Georgian Stalin – agreed a non-aggression pact with Germany.
But only after years of begging the British and French to join with the USSR in order to contain
Germany.
The British and French, and of course the Americans, loathed the Soviets even more than the
Nazis (indeed many of them admired the Nazis until finding themselves at war with them).
Nature probably also abhors human institutions and would probably prefer a vacuum if one would
ensue after the collapse of the (particularly disgusting) 'Merkin empire. Humans and their societies
existed before empires and the threat of a vacuum probably didn't exist then, and shouldn't now.
If the American Empire collapsed today, it would be absorbed by competing empires with the
probably outcome that nothing good would result. You can't just "get rid of it". It has to
be replaced with something more robust than the last model which is what mutated into this
present form.
True, but I'd like to emphasize that's the type of reasoning that leads to arms races and wars,
but your next comments are right on target, and I agree completely.
I think the problem is not solvable because ultimately, it has it's roots in human nature.
I think George Carlin is probably right. This is as good as it gets and it's our own fault
as a species.
What really torques me is that all are to blame to some degree, yet most persist in thinking
their behavior is immaculate and justified. The rank hypocrisy and distorted finger pointing stinks
as well, along with the idea that politicians and governments exist to make things better. Where
do folks get their faith?
Anyway, I'd prefer nothing over emerods! ;) You are and American and trying to opt out. The
Saker did not point at ordinary Americans but I guess reading about American interventions around
the world makes you uneasy and you don't want to face the facts.
@peterAUS I can assure you that neither Czechs nor Slovaks in general favour 'foreign military
interventions'. That also holds true for almost all of the elite, comprador or not. I am not sure
about the others you have listed, but I have my doubts about some.
The fear of 'empty space' that you use is silly. There is no space to fill. People have always
lived together and fought together, there is no 'space manager' on this planet. You just become
part of the fight with all the consequences. You cannot even theoretically fill the 'space', that's
a crazy abstraction. Remember, a map is not the territory.
@Avery{(2) if Germany had not torn into Russia, considering the massive buildup of arms
(Hitler's big mistake was underestimating this), it is likely that Bolshevism would have enslaved
Europe and, perhaps, in time, the world.}
Like all neo-Hitlerite apologists and revisionists you too are suffering from an overactive
imagination.
There was no so-called massive buildup of arms by SU.
Nazi German juggernaut reached deep into SU - Volga river, Stalingrad.
Red Army was in no position in 1941 to mount in invasion of Nazi Germany, even if they wanted
to. Red Army got badly beaten by tiny Finland a couple of years earlier.
Nazi Germany was thoroughly defeated and vanquished by the Red Army, after years of
tough fighting and great sacrifices.
Bolshevism* did not enslave Europe.
Communism did not, quote, 'enslave' East Europe.
East Europeans, who fell under Communist rule, had a hard life no doubt, but they are having the
last laugh now. Despite the hardships of Communist rule, they are still Polish, Hungarians, Czechs,
Bulgarians,....
They are still Christians.
Western Europe, 'liberated' by US, is being slowly but methodically de-Christianized, de-nationalized,
and Islamized.
Guess by who (...it sure isn't Russia).
Despite the hysteria of supposed world domination, Soviet Union collapsed of its own weight
and inherent contradictions within.
People of Russia are slowly but inexorably reverting to their Russian nationalist and Orthodox
Christian roots.
While 'enlightened', 'liberated' Western Europe is slowly sinking into a witches brew concocted
by the 'Free World'.
--------
* Stalin wiped out pretty much all Jewish Bolsheviks. Spoken like another amateur Stalinist /
communist / Zionist apologist.
You talk because you have a mouth. You are laughable
The Allies did succeed in turning over 1/2 of Europe to the communists, see map.
Some 'victory' that was.
The USSR underwent a massive arms build up in it's plan to invade Germany.
Debate here and get smacked own:
Operation Barbarossa Was A Preventive Attack
"Revisionism has the general function of bringing historical truth to a public that had
been drugged by wartime lies and propaganda.
Now revisionism teaches us that this entire myth, so prevalent then and even now about Hitler,
and about the Japanese, is a tissue of fallacies from beginning to end. Every plank in this
nightmare evidence is either completely untrue or not entirely the truth. If people should
learn this intellectual fraud about Hitler's Germany, then they will begin to ask questions,
and searching questions, about the current World War III version of the same myth. Nothing
would stop the current headlong flight to war faster, or more surely cause people to begin
to reason about foreign affairs once again, after a long orgy of emotion and cliché."
- Righteous Jew, Murray Rothbard, Review of The Origins of the Second World War, 1966
@Sarah Toga Hmm.
The RCC is now a force pushing a mindless, dangerous mass-migration.
Look at what "Francis" says about violent Moslems and Africans flooding the EU.
If Japan had a big RCC presence now, they might be flooded by 3rd world mass immigration.
Just speculation, I know.
And not the way to stop the global plague of mass immigration.
But understand the global plague of mass immigration is the number one world problem, causing
more long-term harm than the two atom bombs dropped on Japan.
I am ashamed of my fellow Christians who are suckered into open borders propaganda.
But understand the global plague of mass immigration is the number one world problem,
Many Palestinians would probably agree. I think the number one world problem is the clique of bored, depraved bankers with too much
time on their bloody paws
@iffen Yes, it seems that the 6 million figure is a lie. It was actually 5, 999, 999. The
original four million death toll at Auschwitz was Soviet propaganda. Numbers have been drastically
revised downward with the death toll ranging from as low as 630K to 1.1 million. If we use the
latter figure it means your vaunted six million gets reduced to three million which is still too
high.
The dubious claims of six million dead means that holocaust museums should be closed and demolished
much like the Jewish funded and led left is finding pretexts to destroy monuments and icon to
confederate history. Besides, Jewish holocaust memorials and museums have no place on U.S. soil
since this nation had nothing to do with hardships experienced by Jews in WWII.
My main objective in the immediate future is to (finally) write my thesis for the graduate
degree in patristic theology I am working on now, and to set some money aside to visit Russia
again
Stick to that. If you must take shots at empire – you need a friend. One that can help you dial these down
several notches. A body of knowledge isn't sufficient, and in the absence of critical thinking,
can lead to hubris, which is worse.
@Fred V. Reed If this is Fred Reed, the contributor to this site, the comments should be highlighted
in yellow like those of other contributors. If this is an imposter, the alias should be changed
to prevent confusion.
@AB_Anonymous What aggravates the problem is the fact that US is not just an Empire - it's
a highjacked Empire, with all its major institutes of power and about 10% of population actively
helping the highjackers, while out of remaining roughly 90% only a tiny fraction understands what's
going on, and the number of those daring to speak out against the army of super-powerful and well-organized
criminals is even less.
And wars, aggressions, revolutions, etc. in the last 200 years often (if not always) were initiated
not by the nominal governments (or by their opponents) but by the hidden global forces, whose
presence nowadays, thanks to the Internet, is impossible to deny.
These forces influence all governments across the globe, at least to some degree (even the North
Korean), and their methods of control vary from exclusively financial to pure criminal.
The very special role of US in that scheme of things stems from the fact that after a certain
point in 20-th century, willingly or unwillingly, it has become the most powerful and the most
controllable military and financial tool in the hands of global criminals.
So, the best thing that can happen to US (and every other country in this world) would be the
deliverance from these nasty and sticky "puppet-masters".
Unfortunately, there's a tiny chance that it may happen by itself or without grave complications.
Primarily because these "puppet-masters", in addition to all other negative features, are truly
sick maniacs. AB Anonymous, your post is spot on.
I totally agree with your statement when you say 'US is not just an Empire – it's a hijacked Empire,
with all its major institutes of power and about 10% of population actively helping the hijackers,
while out of remaining roughly 90% only a tiny fraction understands what's going on. "
And thank you for the new label 'Global Criminals'.
Thankfully the petrodollar is being abandoned and the days of the Saudi, Israeli, UK, Aussie American
hegemony will end.
Saker keeps banging this drum over and over, but if you look at the facts, the allegation doesn't
hold up. What the Anglo invaders were involved in was a war . The Lakota Sioux and Iroquois
and Cheyenne had weapons and fought back, often brutally. Moreover, they're still here, which
kinda demolishes the point about a genocide, since the point of a successful genocide is to wipe
out every single vestige of an ethnic or racial group. Kinda like what the Spanish did so successfully
all across Central and South America. Why nothing on them? Or is he just using this imagined polygenocide
as a brickbat to condemn a country he hates yet oddly resides in? It surely has nothing to do
with today's neocon wars, and I agree that we should pull out of NATO and let Europe fend for
itself. Of course, as soon as a U.S. politician questions NATO, he's immediately attacked --
by Europe .
Likewise, bleating about the Mexican War doesn't help his case either. The Mexicans were invaders
and conquistadors just like the Anglos were. The 1848 war was like one drug dealer robbing another.
No victims, really. And note that the Mexicans signed a treaty ratifying the lands lost and didn't
complain about it until the "Indian problem" they couldn't deal with had been dealt with, and
the territories had been developed along First World standards. Then all of a sudden, they had
an urge to "reconquer." I say sure, let them -- as long as we re-arm the Apaches and Navajos with
automatic weapons and blow up all the roads/bridges/sewers/dams/electrical grids first. In other
words, return the lands to their condition in 1848. I'm sure Mexico will jump on that opportunity.
The closing paragraph shows this writer's confusion. The best thing would be collapse of American
Empire? But just a few sentences later he notes correctly that America is the most dangerous entity
in history? How does collapse equal security of our mountains of weapons? How many nukes must
escape our collapsing empire before it becomes an even bigger danger than before?
This failure in critical thinking is also evident in his genocidal Americans commentary. We
are so inept that our genocide of Amerinds left us facing societal collapse under a tidal wave
of North American Amerinds from south of our border. We are so incompetent that our unprecedented
cruelty towards Africans led to the 400K we imported becoming 45M of them today and an epidemic
of obesity. So cruel are we that Africans' greatest social problems are dependence on all the
free shit we give them and abject stupidity as we have exempted them from being forced to acquire
the bare minimum of education. Extending our racist hatred even back to their homelands in Africa
we have forced upon them such horrors as clean water, food, and medicine such that they will soon
be the most populous race on the planet.
Interspersed with the obvious fallacies he sprinkles truth tidbits, but by that time it's too
late for him to be taken for anything other than a communist tool.
I like to say "allied" because they were working together in many respects and had been throughout
the 1930s.
Not to mention the awkward issue of Poland. And also, there is the "alliance" between the The US and Stalin after June 1941 – which wasn't
always a perfect partnership. And dissolved into the Cold War as soon as there was no common enemy
in 1945.
All the more so as he's too stupid to look at a map or know what "continent" means. He claims
we genocided a "continent" – which one? North America includes Mexico and Canada. South America
maybe? Is it particularly hard to find an Amerind in Canada, America, or Mexico today? Or in South
America? Amerinds hard to locate in say Peru or Colombia or Brazil? In fact, of those who survived
the new germs unknowingly brought with explorers, pioneers, and settlers (and conquistadors in
the south), their population has exploded just like the African population. There are FAR FAR
more (apparently imaginary) Amerinds and Africans today than at ANY point in history and solely
due to our (reverse) genocide.
Some of your details are accurate as much as Soviet and Red Chinese propaganda is or was by
insertion of mini truths to make it believeable. It does bring back memories of Pravda tho.. too
much of your anti American speil sounds like you were schooled by the Brezhnev Regime with some
outside assistance.
Some points to ponder. Israel is racist but the Islamists that want them exterminated ? Neither of them is a "race"
like Spanish is not a race. No mention of the millions Stalin startved to death or sent off to Gulags not to mention those
they executed by the thousands in eastern Europe and Ukraine before attacking the beastly nazis.. Ukranians just want their country back the Soviets stole from them after starving millions
for not producing food fast enough.
No Mention of the millions executed, starved, forced abortions and Red Chinese butchery that
continues today.. but thats not important either..
I really get the "Ugly American" concept but its tired and to paint Americans as colluding
with the criminal element currently running this govt as a third hidden entity is unacceptable..
we were trusting once but those days are over. We also reject nonsense, disinformation and misinformation
perpetrated whatever the reason.. Not all of us are ignorant of history just because most today
are. If you want the right to claim your information is factual that you need to clean up your
"facts" first.
You sound really angry and hateful of this country and its stupid people yet you wear Marine
camo with a 40 year old helmet nd salute like a Brit Who or what are you really ?
@Serge Krieger For those who still don't know the difference between German Nazism, Jewish
liberalism, US imperialism and Russian communism – the Russians never treated anyone worse than
they treated themselves, which can't be said about the other 3, whose starting position has always
been – we are better than you.
@Reverend Spooner How does your fact negate what I have referred to. Empire is a complex business
with many layers of disconnected realities. Its the motive or fealty to the motives that binds
them together. Individual success of failure or change of track doesn't disprove the overarching
philosophy . It is easier to put sanction .Nobody notices excepting the suffering peasants . It
is much difficult to declare war . Back then it was more difficult .
This deplorable article by The Saker contains many questionable assertions. I will focus here
only on The Saker's claim that the U.S. Government is directly responsible for a uniquely evil
event in world history: a "poly-genocide" – defined by The Saker as "the genocide of all the ethnicities
of a single continent." The Saker seems proud of this term as he has been injecting this concept
into most of his recent articles. But it is a sham concept, which reveals more about The Saker's
ever increasing anti-American bias then it reveals about the true history of the U.S. Government
and its relations with the Native Americans.
The fact is, if you added up all of the death totals from all of the wars, skirmishes, battles,
or forced removals involving the U.S. and Native Americans, the total numbers would still be well
short of the total deaths of many single battles in European or Russian history or either of the
two World Wars. For example, George Washington's troops in the Revolutionary War killed maybe
two hundred Iroquois out of a population of about 9000. Same for the Sand Creek massacre in 1864
or the tragedy at Little Big Horn or any of the other famous massacres or wars (e.g. the Seminole
Wars) or forced removals – in each case, we're talking possibly several thousand deaths, at most.
You only get massive numbers comparable to other well-known genocides and ethnic cleansings
if you instead do one or more of the following: (1) start counting from the late 1400s – almost
three hundred years before the United States came into existence (thereby falsely attributing
to the U.S. Government deaths which occurred well before the U.S. came into existence); (2) including
the entire Western Hemisphere (including Mexico, where according to anthropologist Henry Dobyns
and other scholars a much larger number of indigenous peoples have suffered and died), rather
than just the land that currently belongs to the U.S.; (3) by including deaths that occurred due
to intertribal warfare. The Cherokee, for example, were probably not "indigenous" to the Southern
Appalachian region, but were in fact a conquering people, who swept down from the north and killed
or displaced the tribes that had previously lived there. Should the U.S. Government be held responsible
for those deaths? A similar story can be told re the Comanche, who became the dominant tribe on
the Southern Plains only because of their brutal and unceasing warfare against the weaker tribes
that previously lived there. Again, do these deaths carried out by the Comanche and other conquering
Native American tribes count towards The Saker's "poly-genocide" totals?
Scholarly consensus is the intentional infliction of smallpox-infected blankets (e.g., by British
general Amherst in 1763, or by American fur traders in the 1830s) did not happen that often. Exactly
how diseases such as smallpox and malaria were first introduced is a matter of ongoing controversy
and debate. Moreover, if Europeans (and their American descendants) are to be held responsible
for introducing smallpox and malaria, should Native Americans be held responsible for introducing
syphilis to Europeans?
Since The Saker is so obviously uninformed about and poorly read in U.S. history, he would
be well advised to focus instead on Russia's history, of which he is much more knowledgeable.
There he would find numerous recent examples of large scale ethnic cleansings and genocidal conquests
carried out by Russia's government against its native peoples. As author Oliver Bullough recounts
in his devastating book "Let Our Fame Be Great," the Russian Government's genocidal colonial war
against the Circassians in the late 1800s resulted in the displacement or death of over one million
people. Now THAT is a true example of a genocide! A similar sad story can be told about the Russian
Government's actions against other native peoples such as the Nogais, Chechens, Mountain Turks
and Ingush. The combined death total attributable to the Russian Government's actions against
these peoples easily exceeds two million. On no reasonable and informed account could the U.S.
Government be said to be directly responsible for the deaths of anywhere near as many Native Americans.
@Reverend Spooner You are and American and trying to opt out. The Saker did not point at ordinary
Americans but I guess reading about American interventions around the world makes you uneasy and
you don't want to face the facts. Bless you Padre, but you have sinned. You better get your stinky
little tushy to confession, ASAP.
PS: You evidently don't know what you're talking about either, so kindly drop the free online
psychoanalysis. As for your nitwit charge of my pusillanimity regarding facing facts, you seem
to be yet another fool with projection problems.
And don't forget to luv thy neighbor. (If any can stand to associate with you.)
@Tom WelshHowever, it is slightly inaccurate to say that "the Russians were allied with
the Nazis".
Must be very slightly.
1. Invaded Poland together. Had victory parade together. Had Gestapo-NKVD conferences in occupied
Poland.
2. Traded
3. Stalin ordered all communist parties in the world to cease all ant-NAZI propaganda. Some communist
outfits cooperated with Gestapo in occupied France denouncing anti-German resistance. In the US
till June 22, 1941 communists were siding with the America First isolationist and were acting
against pro war British propaganda.
4. When Germany was invading countries in the West USSR was invading countries in the East.
5. When USSR attacked Finland UK was considering sending help to Finland and Germany did not
do it. UK was considering bombing of Baku so Germany would not get oil.
@KenH Don't forget the fantastical 1.4M the Soviets claimed were killed at Majdanek (the accepted
number now is 75,000). These propaganda fables form much backbone of the WW2 myth, both in America
and Russia.
@utu Good points; 2) does not count though, neutrals have trade rights. 5) should be clarified
as Germans actually prevented aid from German-aligned nations (certainly Italy) from reaching
Finland.
"The best thing which could happen to this country and its people would be the collapse of
this Empire."
This point of Saker's seems to have rankled many. A controlled "withering away" has been argued
for by many, including the likes of Pat Buchanan. Not for reasons to do with any anti-Americanism,
but precisely out of love for the American Republic and the people. "Empire or Republic" is a
well argued thesis.
But what looks like is that the Empire is growing and growing. Many argue that the Empire is
on its last legs, that it will collapse when the dollar collapses, or when the left loonies and
other half-crazed groups create sufficient inner discord. I don't see it happening in the next
twenty years. The US State is strong, very strong, far stronger than any other that history has
seen; and it plans to hold on to its empire and strengthen it by any and all means. It is not
going to wither away, fade away, or be planned down. Nor is its unwinding going to be supported
by many Americans, and that is the tragic part, the real tragic part, as Saker has passionately
tried to address. He thinks evil and ignorance can be talked down; I doubt it. That is the tragedy
and danger of our times.
So keep your popcorn and chilled beer ready, and wait for the next of round of boom, kabbatz,
and other spectacular sounds and images to keep you entertained. Likely, it all will happen "over
there", so no danger to you or the homeland.
@The Alarmist No, it is pointing out that they did it early. Not a cheap shot but a praise
for a job well done.
Or,
If you prefer to admit a bit of soviet control over the ailing Roosevelt; Hiss and White helped
con the US president into believing that the USSR was a spent force and could not possibly mobilize
and cross from Berlin to Manchuria in 90 days with the millions of men, tanks, artillery, POL,
food, meds etc. over the single double tracked railroad in existence in that part of the world.
The Russians did that with time to spare.
I submit to you for your approval that the single most important battle in WWII was the battle
of Khalkhin Ghol in September of 1939. The Japanese army in Manchuria had its ass handed to it
by Zhukov and the Russians. The Japanese and the Russians signed a peace treaty that was renewed
yearly until the evening before the Russian attack in 1945. As a result, the USSR was the only
nation that did not have to engage in a multiple front war. Russia's enemy came from her west
and was sent back the same way. The US's enemies came from her west and her east ditto the British
empire, and Japan. China's enemies were from her east and internal. France was an irrelevancy
but her empire did have to face internal enemies as well as the Japanese.
@Reverend Spooner In 1904 the Japanese did a preview of Pearl Harbor on the Russians at the
urging of GB.
In 1905 at Portsmouth Teddy Roosevelt screwed the Russians as a favour to the House of Warburg,
with the Treaty of Portsmouth.
In 1918 the US, France, GB, Japan, and others invaded Russia to attempt to control the outcome
of the Russian Civil War. The Americans left when it became obvious that Wilson was stroked out
and Harding would become the next president. The Japanese stayed until 1925 trying to sever Siberia
from Russia. The Japanese left in 25 and attempted to re-insert themselves in 37. The revamped
Russian military handed them their asses at Khalkhin Ghol.
A blockade is an act of war.
You only have to read the Old Testament to see that even God was a war criminal, particularly
if seen from the point of view of Baal or the Philistines. And the Romans, although known for
propagating aspects of civilization like public baths, clean water, sewerage, and the rule of
law, were not averse to X-rated entertainment like watching enemies of the state eaten by lions.
A lot of crimes of Manifest Destiny were committed under the somewhat mistaken belief that
Christianity was officially sanctioned by The Creator, and that lesser breeds needed to knuckle
down and accept their place in the world or they would get their just desserts.
Since God's retirement there has been a lot less of the Spanish Inquisition and that kind of
thing, though admittedly there is a kind of residual effect in the consideration of human history
that prevents us from being too hard on our forefathers. The case for the defense may be summed
up as forgive them for they knew not what they did .
However, to be fair, a lot of the Native Americans were already regularly killing each other
before they came under the British Crown and it was time for the business of culling excess human
beings to be brought under central control. Native Americans are now running casinos, which is
a step up from ripping off scalps.
Although George W. Bush reintroduced torture which had generally fallen out of favor, his heart
was in the right place, and who is to say that a few Christian lives were not saved by selective
torturing of infidels?
The concentration camps in Nazi Germany were certainly not Western Civilization's finest moment,
but how many times do the Germans have to say sorry? They know they screwed up, and they have
promised not to do it again. Now they are making Volkswagens, not waging war.
The false Kuwait baby incubator story that helped sell the US war against Iraq shows that even today
we are not as clever or discerning as we imagine. And this in an age when we actually have alternative avenues
of information to fact check the media.
Notable quotes:
"... Introduction by the Saker: During my recent hurricane-induced evacuation from Florida, I had the pleasure to see some good friends of mine (White Russian emigrés and American Jews who now consider themselves American and who fully buy into the official propaganda about the US) who sincerely think of themselves as liberals, progressives and anti-imperialists. These are kind, decent and sincere people, but during our meeting they made a number of statements which completely contradicted their professed views. After writing this letter to them I realized that there might be many more people out there who, like myself, are desperately trying to open the eye of good but completely misled people about the reality of Empire. I am sharing this letter in the hope that it might maybe offer a few useful talking points to others in their efforts to open the eyes of their friends and relatives. ..."
"... [Have you ever heard of Operation Gladio or the August 1980 "Bologna massacre", the bombing of the Bologna train station by NATO secret terrorist forces, a false-flag terrorist attack (85 dead, over 200 wounded) designed to discredit the Communist Party of Italy? If not – do you now wonder why you never heard of this?] ..."
"... I asked you to name me a single successful US military intervention since WWII and you could name none. Good! I agree with you. The reality is that every single US military operation since WWII has resulted in a disaster either on the humanitarian, political and military level (often on all of them combined). Even Grenada was a total (military) failure! Also, do you see who sits in the White House today? Do you really want The Donald in charge of protecting "our friends and allies" and are you confident that he has the skillset needed to do this competently? Or Hillary for that matter? Even Sanders has a record of defending catastrophic military operations, such as the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 2006 which, you guessed it (or not), ended in abject defeat for the Israelis and untold civilians horrors in Lebanon. But forget the President, take a look at US generals – do they inspire in you the belief that they are the kind of people who can be trusted to skillfully execute a military intervention inspired by moral and ethical reasons?! What about US "Congresspersons"? Would you trust them? So where do you see honest and competent "saviors of others" in the US polity? ..."
"... Did you notice that there was no Islamic State in Iraq before the US invasion? Or did you notice that ever since the US declared a war on ISIS the latter has been getting stronger and stronger and taking over more countries. Yes, of course, once the Russians got involved ISIS began suffering defeat after defeat, but all the Americans had to say about the Russian intervention was to denounce it and predict it would fail. So why is it that the Russians are so good at fighting ISIS and the Americans, and they allies, so bad? Do you really want the Americans in charge of world security with such a record?! ..."
"... I don't think that millions of murdered people, including hundreds of thousands of children, are "mistakes" (how would you react it somebody conceded to you that Hitler and Stalin made "mistakes"?). But there is something even more insidious in this notion of "mistake". ..."
"... How would you define "success"? ..."
"... You clearly don't mean the success as defined by your rulers (they would enthusiastically support such an outcome; in fact – they even promise it every time over and over again!). But if their idea of "success" is not yours, and if you would never want any other nation, people or ethnicity to ever become to victim of such as "successful" military intervention, why do you still want your rulers with their satanic notion of "success" to have the means to be "successful" in the future? And that in spite of the fact that the historical record shows that they can't even achieve any type of "success" even by their own definition, nevermind yours?! ..."
"... Are there people out there, anybody, who really favor US military interventions? Yes, I suppose that there are. Like the Kosovo Albanians. I suspect that the Afghan Tajiks and Hazara were pretty happy to see the US bomb the crap of the Taliban. So there might be a few cases. Oh, and I forgot our Balt and Ukrainian friends (but then, they were also happy when the Nazis came, hardly much of an example). But it is pretty safe to say that in reality nobody wants to be liberated by Uncle Sam, hence the wordwide use of the "Yankee go home" slogan. ..."
"... Right now the US is desperately trying to save al-Qaeda (aka IS, ISIS, Daesh, al-Nusra, etc.) from defeat in Syria. ..."
"... You mentioned that every time you see a veteran you thanked him for his service. Why? Do you really think that he fought in a just war, that his service is something he can be proud of? Did he fight for his people? Did he defend the innocent? Or was he an occupier in a foreign land and, if he saw combat, did he not kill people who defended their own land, their families and their way of life? What exactly do you thank that veteran for? For following orders? But is that not something the Nuremberg trials specifically condemned as immoral and illegal? ..."
"... And should you think that I am exaggerating, please read the famous essay " War is a Racket " by Marine Brigadier General Smedley Butler, who had the highest rank a Marine could achieve in this time and who was the most decorated Marine in history. If war is a racket, does that not make Marines professional racketeers, hired thugs who act as enforcers for the mobsters in power? Ask yourself this: what would be the roughly equivalent counterparts of the US Marines in Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia? To help you answer this question, let me offer a short quote from the Wikipedia entry about the Marine Corps : (emphasis added) ..."
"... Do you know what crimes is considered the ultimate, supreme, most evil crime under international law? It is not genocide, or crimes against humanity. Nope, the ultimate crime is the crime of aggression (that, by the way, makes every single US President a war criminal under international law , think of it!). In the the words of the chief American prosecutor at Nuremberg, Robert H. Jackson , the crime of aggression is the ultimate crime because "it contains within itself the accumulated evil" of all the other war crimes. Well, to paraphrase Jackson, imperialism contains within itself all the accumulated evil of all empires. Guantanamo, Hiroshima, Fallujah, Abu Ghraib, Gladio and all the rest, they "come with the territory", they are not the exception, they are the norm. ..."
"... As many, even in the US, realize the "Empire's" days are numbered, the best thing would be to abandon the Empire, rather than waiting for it to collapse. Conscious abandonment frees resources for rebuilding the country, and suggests it could be managed for minimum impact. A belly landing at best, but eminently survivable with luck and skill at the controls. Collapse, if delayed much longer, is shaping up to be catastrophic for the US, and highly disruptive for the rest of the world, and that's assuming we avoid anybody going nuclear. ..."
"... Active, managed abandonment of the Empire is what the people voted for. Collapse is what it looks like they'll get. Not "best" at all, and maybe very, very bad. ..."
"... The German elite in this era believed they were practicing 'good science' by these actions. In fact they were by the standards of the pseudo science of Eugenics which was supported universally by leading figures in the West. The Nazis began this purge with German citizens deemed faulty and a threat to humanity long before attention was focused on Jews, gypsies, Slavs etc etc. The shock of the camps and the actions at Nuremberg put an end to Eugenics except in the US where it continued. Actually Eugenics was the horror child birthed in the US and UK. ..."
"... If the American empire is collapsed as you wish it would be, then what? What magical solution do you have? Because rest assured there will be someone else taking the reins but I guess you feel that the next power will do it the 'right way'. Laughable ..."
"... I agree with most of this article. Al Qaeda had help inside the US for sure and there was a cover up at the highest levels, but the debris that could be used to test the demolition theory was removed quickly without analysis to China. ..."
"... The lowest order of social organization is the band society. Historically they would war against each other. Chimpanzees war against each other. This a hominidae problem at least. Also human society favors narcissist and psychopaths for leaders. The psychopaths lie the US into war for their objective. Narcissist do it because they want to feel good about murdering people so they lie to themselves. This won't stop unless these groups of people are screened and prevented from reaching positions of power. ..."
"... [Choose a single Handle and use it, or Anonymous/Anon. Using multiple Handles to conceal your identity will get all your comments trashed.] ..."
"... Capitalism and the systematic capture of the political system by big money has made it an empire. This will end badly, not just for the US but the whole world. I give it a year or twenty. ..."
"... The closing paragraph shows this writer's confusion. The best thing would be collapse of American Empire? But just a few sentences later he notes correctly that America is the most dangerous entity in history? How does collapse equal security of our mountains of weapons? How many nukes must escape our collapsing empire before it becomes an even bigger danger than before? ..."
"... On a different thread here the Russian view of WW2 was characterized as a victory cult, and that's entirely accurate. ..."
Introduction by the Saker: During my recent hurricane-induced evacuation from Florida, I had
the pleasure to see some good friends of mine (White Russian emigrés and American Jews who now consider
themselves American and who fully buy into the official propaganda about the US) who sincerely think
of themselves as liberals, progressives and anti-imperialists. These are kind, decent and sincere
people, but during our meeting they made a number of statements which completely contradicted their
professed views. After writing this letter to them I realized that there might be many more people
out there who, like myself, are desperately trying to open the eye of good but completely misled
people about the reality of Empire. I am sharing this letter in the hope that it might maybe offer
a few useful talking points to others in their efforts to open the eyes of their friends and relatives.
Dear friends:
During our conversation you stated the following:
The US needs a military One of the reasons why the US needs a military are regimes like the North
Korean one The US has a right to intervene outside its borders on a) pragmatic and b) moral grounds
During WWII the US "saved Europe" and acquired a moral right to "protect" other friends and allies
The Allies (USSR-US-UK) were morally superior to the Nazis The Americans brought peace, prosperity
and freedom to Europe. Yes, mistakes were made, but this is hardly a reason to forsake the right
to intervene
I believe that all seven of these theses are demonstratively false, fallacies based on profoundly
mistaken assumptions and that they all can be debunked by common sense and indisputable facts.
But first, let me tackle the Delphic maxim "know thyself" as it is, I believe, central to our
discussion. For all our differences I think that there are a number of things which you would agree
to consider as axiomatically true, including that Germans, Russians, Americans and others are roughly
of equal intelligence. They also are roughly equally capable of critical thinking, personal investigation
and education. Right? Yet, you will also agree that during the Nazi regime in Germany Germans were
very effectively propagandized and that Russians in Soviet Russia were also effectively propagandized
by their own propaganda machine. Right? Do you have any reason to suppose that we are somehow smarter
or better than those propagandized Germans and Russians and had we been in their place we would have
immediately seen through the lies? Could it be that we today are maybe also not seeing through the
lies we are being told?
It is also undeniable that the history of WWII was written by the victors of WWII. This is true
of all wars – defeated regimes don't get to freely present their version of history. Had the Nazis
won WWII, we would all have been treated to a dramatically different narrative of what took place.
Crucially, had the Nazis won WWII, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe that the German
people would have shown much skepticism about the version of history presented in their schools.
Not only that, but I would submit that most Germans would also believe that they were free people
and that the regime they live under was a benevolent one.
You doubt that?
Just think of the number of Germans who declared that they had no idea how bad the Nazi regime
really was. Even Hitler's personal secretary, Traudl Junge, used that excuse to explain how she could
have worked for so many years with Hitler and even like him so much. There is an American expression
which says "where I sit is where I stand". Well, may I ask – where are we sittting and are we so
sure that we have an independent opinion which is not defined by where we sit (geographically, politically,
socially and even professionally)?
You might ask about all the victims of the Nazi regime, would they not be able to present their
witness to the German people and the likes of Traudl Junge? Of course not: the dead don't speak very
much, and their murderers rarely do (lest they themselves end up dead). Oh sure, there would be all
sorts of dissidents and political activists who would know the truth, but the "mainstream" consensus
under a victorious Nazi Germany would be that Hitler and the Nazis liberated Europe from the Judeo-Bolshevik
hordes and the Anglo-Masonic capitalists.
This is not something unique to Germany, by the way. If you take the Russian population today,
it has many more descendants of executioners than descendants of executed people and this is hardly
a surprise since dead people don't reproduce. As a result, the modern Russian historiography is heavily
skewed towards whitewashing the Soviet crimes and atrocities. To some degree this is a good thing,
because it counteracts decades of US anti-Soviet propaganda, but it often goes too far and ends up
minimizing the actual human cost of the Bolshevik experiment in Russia.
So how do the US compare to Germany and Russia in this context?
Most Americans trust the version of history presented to them by their own "mainstream". Why?
How is their situation objectively different from the situation of Germans in a victorious Third
Reich? Our modern narrative of WWII was also written by victors, victors who had a vested reason
in demonizing all the other sides (Nazis and Soviets) while presenting us with a heroic tale of liberation.
And here is the question which ought to really haunt us at night: what if we had been born not Russians
and Jews after a Nazi defeat but if we had been born Germans after an Allied defeat in WWII? Would
we have been able to show enough skepticism and courage to doubt the myths we were raised with? Or
would we also be doubleplusgoodthinking little Nazis, all happy and proud to have defeated
the evil Judeo-Bolshevik hordes and the Anglo-Masonic capitalists?
Oh sure, Hitler considered Jews as parasites which had to be exiled and, later, exterminated and
he saw Russians as subhumans which needed to be put to work for the Germanic Master Race and whose
intelligentsia also needed to be exterminated. No wonder that we, Jews and Russians, don't particularly
care for that kind of genocidal racist views. But surely we can be humans before being Jews and Russians,
and we can accept that what is bad for us is not necessarily bad for others. Sure, Hitler was bad
news for Jews and Russians, but was he really so bad news for "pure" (Aryan Germanic) Germans? More
importantly, if we had been born "pure" Germans, would have have cared a whole lot about Jews and
Russians? I sure hope so, but I have my doubts. I don't recall any of us shedding many tears about
the poly-genocided (a word a coined for a unique phenomenon in history: the genocide of all the ethnicities
of an entire continent!) Native Americans! I dare say that we are a lot more prone to whining about
the "Holocaust" or "Stalinism", even though neither of them ever affected us personally, (only our
families and ethnicity) than about the poly-genocide of Native Americans. I very much doubt that
our whining priorities would have been the same if our ethnicity had been Lakota or Comanche. Again,
I hope that I am wrong. But I am not sure sure.
Either way, my point is this:
We are hard-coded to be credulous and uncritically accept all the demonization of Nazis and Soviets
because we are Jews and White Russians. Careful here, I am NOT saying that the Nazis and Soviets
were not evil – they definitely were – but what I am saying is that we, Jews and Russians, are far
more willing to accept and endorse any version of history which makes the Nazis and Soviets some
kind of exceptionally evil people and that, in contrast, we almost instinctively reject any notion
that "our" side (in this case I mean *your* side, the American one since you, unlike me, consider
yourselves American) was just as bad (if only because your side never murdered Jews and Russians).
So let's look at this "our/your side" for a few minutes.
By the time the US entered WWII it had already committed the worse crime in human history, the
poly-genocide of an entire continent, followed by the completely illegal and brutal annexation of
the lands stolen from the Native Americans. Truly, Hitler would have been proud. But that is hardly
all, the Anglo invaders then proceeded to wage another illegal and brutal war of annexation against
Mexico from which is stole a huge chunk of land which includes modern Texas, California, Nevada,
Utah, Arizona and New Mexico! Yes, all this land was illegally occupied and stolen by your side not
once, but TWICE! And do I even need to mention the horrors of slavery to add to the "moral tally"
of your side by the time the US entered the war? Right there I think that there is more than enough
evidence that your side was morally worse than either the Nazis or the Soviets. The entire history
of the US is one of endless violence, plunder, hypocrisy, exploitation, imperialism, oppression and
wars. Endless wars of aggression. None of them defensive by any stretch of the imagination. That
is quite unique in human history. Can you think of a nastier, more bloodthirsty regime? I can't.
Should I even mention the British "atrocities tally", ranging from opium wars, to the invention
of concentration camps, to the creation of Apartheid, the horrors of the occupation of Ireland, etc.
etc. etc.?
I can just hear you say that yes, this was horrible, but that does not change the fact that in
WWII the US "saved Europe". But is that really so?
To substantiate my position, I have put together a separate PDF file which lists 5 sources, 3
in English, 2 in Russian. You can download it here:
I have translated the key excerpts of the Russian sources and I am presenting them along with
the key excerpts of the English sources. Please take a look at this PDF and, if you can, please read
the full original articles I quote. I have stressed in bold red the key conclusions of these
sources. You will notice that there are some variations in the figures, but the conclusions are,
I think, undeniable. The historical record show that:
The Soviet Union can be credited with the destruction of roughly 80% of the Nazi military machine.
The US-UK correspondingly can be credited with no more than 20% of the Allied war effort. The scale
and scope of the battles on the Eastern Front completely dwarf the biggest battles on the Western
Front. Battles in the West involved Divisions and Brigades, in the East they involved Armies and
Groups of Armies. That is at least one order of magnitude of difference. The US only entered the
war a year after Stalingrad and the Kursk battle when it was absolutely clear that the Nazis would
lose the war.
The truth is that the Americans only entered the war when it was clear that the Nazis would be
defeated and that their real motive was not the "liberation of oppressed Europe" but to prevent the
Soviets from occupying all of Europe. The Americans never gave a damn about the mass murder of Jews
or Russians, all they cared about was a massive land-grab (yet again).
[Sidebar: By the way, and lest you think that I claim that only Americans act this way, here is
another set of interesting dates:
Nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki: August 6 and 9, 1945
Soviet Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation: August 9–20, 1945
We can clearly see the same pattern here: the Soviets waited until it was absolutely certain that
the US had defeated the Japanese empire before striking it themselves. It is also worth noting that
it took the Soviets only 10 days to defeat the entire Kwantung Army, the most prestigious Army of
the Japanese Empire with over one million well-trained and well-equipped soldiers! That should tell
you a little something about the kind of military machine the Soviet Union had developed in the course
of the war against Nazi Germany (see
here for a superb US study of this military operation)]
Did the Americans bring peace and prosperity to western Europe?
To western Europe, to some degree yes, and that is because was easy for them: they ended the war
almost "fresh", their (stolen) homeland did not suffer the horrors of war and so, yes, they could
bring in peanut butter, cigarettes and other material goods. They also made sure that Western Europe
would become an immense market for US goods and services and that European resources would be made
available to the US Empire, especially against the Soviet Union. And how did they finance this "generosity"?
By robbing the so-called Third World blind, that's all. Is that something to be proud of? Did Lenin
not warn as early as 1917 that "imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism"? The wealth of Western
Europe was built by the abject poverty of the millions of Africans, Asians and Latin Americas.
But what about the future of Europe and the European people?
There a number of things upon which the Anglos and Stalin did agree to at the end of WWII: The
four Ds: denazification, disarmament, demilitarisation, and democratisation of a united Germany and
reparations to rebuilt the USSR. Yes, Stalin wanted a united, neutral Germany. As soon as the war
ended, however, the Anglos reneged on all of these promises: they created a heavily militarized West
Germany, they immediately recruited thousands of top Nazi officials for their intelligence services,
their rocket program and to subvert the Soviet Union. Worse, they immediately developed plans to
attack the Soviet Union. Right at the end of the WWII, Anglo powers had at least THREE plans to wage
war on the USSR: Operation
Dropshot , Plan Totality
and Operation Unthinkable
. Here are some basic reminders from Wikipedia about what these operations were about:
Operation Dropshot : included mission profiles that would have used 300 nuclear bombs
and 29,000 high-explosive bombs on 200 targets in 100 cities and towns to wipe out 85% of the Soviet
Union's industrial potential at a single stroke. Between 75 and 100 of the 300 nuclear weapons were
targeted to destroy Soviet combat aircraft on the ground.
Plan Totality : earmarked 20 Soviet cities for obliteration in a first strike :
Moscow, Gorki, Kuybyshev, Sverdlovsk, Novosibirsk, Omsk, Saratov, Kazan, Leningrad, Baku, Tashkent,
Chelyabinsk, Nizhny Tagil, Magnitogorsk, Molotov, Tbilisi, Stalinsk, Grozny, Irkutsk, and Yaroslavl.
Operation Unthinkable : assumed a surprise attack by up to 47 British and American divisions
in the area of Dresden, in the middle of Soviet lines. This represented almost a half of roughly
100 divisions (ca. 2.5 million men) available to the British, American and Canadian headquarters
at that time. ( ) The majority of any offensive operation would have been undertaken by American
and British forces, as well as Polish forces and up to 100,000 German Wehrmacht soldiers .
[Were you aware of these? If not, do you now wonder why?]
I am not making these things up, you can look it up for yourself on Wikipedia and elsewhere. This
is the Anglo idea of how you deal with Russian "allies": you stab them in the back with a surprise
nuclear attack, you obliterate most of their cities and you launch the Nazi Wehrmacht against them.
I won't even go into the creation of NATO (before the WTO was created in response) or such petty
crimes as false flag terrorist attack (
Operation Gladio ).
[Have you ever heard of Operation Gladio or the August 1980 "Bologna massacre", the bombing of
the Bologna train station by NATO secret terrorist forces, a false-flag terrorist attack (85 dead,
over 200 wounded) designed to discredit the Communist Party of Italy? If not – do you now wonder
why you never heard of this?]
The sad reality is that the US intervention in Europe was a simple land-grab, that the Cold War
was an Anglo creation, as was the partition of Europe, and that since WWII the US always treated
Europe as a colony form which to fight the "Communist" threat (i.e. Russia).
But, let's say that I am all wrong. For argument's sake. Let's pretend that the kind-hearted Americans
came to Europe to free the European people. They heroically defeated Hitler and brought (Western)
Europe peace, prosperity, freedom, happiness, etc. etc. etc.
Does this good deed give the US a license for future interventions? You both mentioned WWII as
an example and a justification for the need for the US to maintain a military large enough to counter
regimes such as the North Korean one, right? So, let me ask again,
Does the fact that the US altruistically, kindly and heroically liberated Europe from both the
Nazis and the Soviets now grant the moral legitimacy to other, subsequent, US military interventions
against other abhorrent, aggressive or evil regimes/countries out there?
If you reply "no" – then why did you mention it as a justification?
If you reply "yes" – then please forgive me for being so obtuse and ask you for how long this
"license to militarily intervene" remains valid? One year? Five years? Maybe ten or even seventy
years? Or maybe this license grants such a moral right to the US ad aeternam , forever? Seriously,
if the US did liberate Europe and bring it peace and happiness, are we to assume that this will remain
true forever and everywhere?
I also want to ask you this: let's say, for the argument's sake, that the moral license given
by the US participation in the war in Europe is, truly, forever. Let's just assume that, okay? But
let me ask you this: could it be revoked (morally, conceptually)? Say the US did something absolutely
wonderful in Europe. What about the subsequent horrors in southeast Asia, Latin America or the Middle-East.
How many murdered, maimed, occupied, terrorized, bombed and otherwise genocided "non-West Europeans"
would it take to outweigh the putatively "happily liberated" Europeans which, according to you, grant
the US the license to intervene? Even if the US in Europe was all noble and pure, do the following
seventy years of evil mass murder worldwide really count for nothing or does there come a point were
"enough is enough" and the license cam be revoked, morally speaking, by people like us, like you?
May I point out to you that your words spoken in defense of a supposed need for the US to maintain
a military capable of overseas operations strongly suggest that you believe that the US has a moral
right (if not a duty!) to conduct such operations, which means that the post WWII atrocity-tally
of the US is not, in your opinion, sufficient to elicit a "enough is enough" reaction in you. Are
you sure that you are comfortable with this stance?
In theory, there could be another reason to revoke such a moral license. After all, one can have
the moral right to do something, but not necessarily the capability to do so. If I see somebody drowning
in a flood, I most certainly have the moral right to jump in the water and try to save this person,
do I not? But that does not mean that I have the strength or skills to do so. Right? So when you
say that the US needs to maintain a military capable of protecting friends and allies from rogue
and dangerous regimes like the one in North Korea, you do imply that besides having the right to
extend such a protection the US also has the capabilities and the expertise to do so?
Really?
And what is the evidence for that, may I ask?!
I asked you to name me a single successful US military intervention since WWII and you could name
none. Good! I agree with you. The reality is that every single US military operation since WWII has
resulted in a disaster either on the humanitarian, political and military level (often on all of
them combined). Even Grenada was a total (military) failure! Also, do you see who sits in the White
House today? Do you really want The Donald in charge of protecting "our friends and allies" and are
you confident that he has the skillset needed to do this competently? Or Hillary for that matter?
Even Sanders has a record of defending catastrophic military operations, such as the Israeli invasion
of Lebanon in 2006 which, you guessed it (or not), ended in abject defeat for the Israelis and untold
civilians horrors in Lebanon. But forget the President, take a look at US generals – do they inspire
in you the belief that they are the kind of people who can be trusted to skillfully execute a military
intervention inspired by moral and ethical reasons?! What about US "Congresspersons"? Would you trust
them? So where do you see honest and competent "saviors of others" in the US polity?
Did you notice that there was no Islamic State in Iraq before the US invasion? Or did you notice
that ever since the US declared a war on ISIS the latter has been getting stronger and stronger and
taking over more countries. Yes, of course, once the Russians got involved ISIS began suffering defeat
after defeat, but all the Americans had to say about the Russian intervention was to denounce it
and predict it would fail. So why is it that the Russians are so good at fighting ISIS and the Americans,
and they allies, so bad? Do you really want the Americans in charge of world security with such a
record?!
Is insanity not repeating the same thing over and over again expecting different results?
Now I hear the reply you gave me to this point. You said "yes, mistakes were made".
Mistakes ?!
I don't think that millions of murdered people, including hundreds of thousands of children, are
"mistakes" (how would you react it somebody conceded to you that Hitler and Stalin made "mistakes"?).
But there is something even more insidious in this notion of "mistake".
How would you define "success"?
Say the US armed forces were not only good at killing people (which they are), but also good at
winning wars (which they ain't). Say the US had been successful in not only invading Iraq and Afghanistan,
but also in fully pacifying these countries. Say the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan would have
been successfully defeated, their economy had bounced back, and democratic regimes put in power:
capitalism everywhere, 100 channels on each TV, McDonalds in every Afghan villages, gay pride parades
in downtown Kabul, gender-neutral toilets in every mosque, elections every 4 years or so and not
a single shot fired, not a single bomb going off? Would that be a "success"?
I pray to God and hope with all my heart that your reply to this question is a resounding "no!!".
Because if you answered "yes" then you are truly messianic genocidal imperialists. Yup, I mean that.
Why? Because your notion of "success" is the spiritual, psychological and cultural death of an ancient
civilization and that makes you, quite literally, an mortal enemy of mankind as a whole. I can't
even imagine such a horror. So I am sure that you answered "no!!" as every decent human being would,
right?
But then what is a "success"? You clearly don't mean the success as defined by your rulers
(they would enthusiastically support such an outcome; in fact – they even promise it every time
over and over again!). But if their idea of "success" is not yours, and if you would never want
any other nation, people or ethnicity to ever become to victim of such as "successful" military
intervention, why do you still want your rulers with their satanic notion of "success" to have
the means to be "successful" in the future? And that in spite of the fact that the historical
record shows that they can't even achieve any type of "success" even by their own definition, nevermind yours?!
Did you notice that nowhere in my arguments above did I mention the fact that the US has never
asked people (as opposed to local Comprador elites) whether they wanted to be saved by Uncle
Sam or not? Neither did they ask the American people if they wanted to go to war, hence all the well-known
false flags from the "remember the Maine", to the sinking of the RMS Lusitania, to Pearl Harbor,
to the "Gulf of Tonkin incident", to September 11 th : every time a lie had to be concocted
to convince the American people that they had to go to war. Is that really people power? Is this
democracy?!
Are there people out there, anybody, who really favor US military interventions? Yes, I
suppose that there are. Like the Kosovo Albanians. I suspect that the Afghan Tajiks and Hazara were
pretty happy to see the US bomb the crap of the Taliban. So there might be a few cases. Oh, and I
forgot our Balt and Ukrainian friends (but then, they were also happy when the Nazis came, hardly
much of an example). But it is pretty safe to say that in reality nobody wants to be liberated by
Uncle Sam, hence the wordwide use of the "Yankee go home" slogan.
This letter is already way too long, and I will forgo the listing of all the reasons why the US
are pretty much hated all over the planet, not by the ruling elites, of course, but by the regular
people. And when I say "the US" I don't mean Paul Newman, Mark Twain, Miles Davis, Quentin Tarantino,
James Taylor or the Bill of Rights or the beautiful country called "the US". But the regime, as opposed
to any one specific government or administration in Washington, the regime is what truly universally
hated. I have never seen any anti-Americanism directed at the American people anywhere, not even
in France, Greece or Latin America. But the hate for the Empire is quasi universal by now. Only the
political elites whose status, power and well-being is dependent on the Empire do, in fact, support
the Empire and what it stands for. Everybody else despises what the US stands for today. And every
military intervention only makes this worse.
And you want to make sure this continues? Really?
Right now the US is desperately trying to save al-Qaeda (aka IS, ISIS, Daesh, al-Nusra, etc.)
from defeat in Syria. How is that for a moral stance after 9/11 (that is, if you accept the official
narrative about 9/11; if you understand that 9/11 was a controlled demolition in which al-Qaeda patsies
were used as a smokescreen, then this makes sense, by the way).
By the way – who are the current allies the US are so busy helping now? The Wahabi regime in Saudi Arabia. The Nazi regime in the Ukraine and... The last officially racist regime on the planet in Israel. Do these really strike you as allies worth supporting?! And what are the American people getting form all that? Nothing but poverty, oppression, shame,
hatred, fear and untold physical, psychological and moral suffering.
These are the fruits of Empire. Every Empire. Always.
You mentioned that every time you see a veteran you thanked him for his service. Why? Do you really
think that he fought in a just war, that his service is something he can be proud of? Did he fight
for his people? Did he defend the innocent? Or was he an occupier in a foreign land and, if he saw
combat, did he not kill people who defended their own land, their families and their way of life?
What exactly do you thank that veteran for? For following orders? But is that not something the Nuremberg
trials specifically condemned as immoral and illegal?
Do you remember how you told me that xxxxx's Marine husband lived in a nice house with all their
material needs taken care of? You added "compare that to Russian servicemen". Well, you clearly are
not aware of how Russian soldiers live nowadays, under your hated Putin, but that is besides the
point. The question which I wanted to ask you then and which I will ask you now is this: is the comfortable
lifestyle granted to US Marines good enough a reason to be a Marine – that is being part of the very
first force called in to murder innocent people and invade countries? Do you even know what Marines
did to Fallujah recently? How much is a human soul worth? And it is really your belief that being
being a hired killer for the Empire is an honorable way of life? And should you think that I am exaggerating,
please read the famous essay "
War is a Racket " by Marine Brigadier General Smedley Butler, who had the highest rank a Marine
could achieve in this time and who was the most decorated Marine in history. If war is a racket,
does that not make Marines professional racketeers, hired thugs who act as enforcers for the mobsters
in power? Ask yourself this: what would be the roughly equivalent counterparts of the US Marines
in Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia? To help you answer this question, let me offer a short quote from
the Wikipedia
entry about the Marine Corps : (emphasis added)
The Marine Corps was founded to serve as an infantry unit aboard naval vessels and was responsible for the security of the ship and its crew by conducting offensive and defensive
combat during boarding actions and defending the ship's officers from mutiny ; to
the latter end, their quarters on ship were often strategically positioned between the officers'
quarters and the rest of the vessel.
Does that help you identify their Nazi or Soviet counterparts? Of all people, is it not we, Jews and Russians, who ought to recognize and categorically reject
the trappings of Empire and all the rationalizations used to justify the subservient service to Empires?
I believe that history shows beyond any doubt that all Empires are evil, inherently and essentially,
evil. They are also therefore equally evil. Shall I explain why?
Do you know what crimes is considered the ultimate, supreme, most evil crime under international
law? It is not genocide, or crimes against humanity. Nope, the ultimate crime is the crime of aggression
(that, by the way, makes every single US President a war criminal under international law
, think of it!). In the
the words of the chief American prosecutor at Nuremberg, Robert H. Jackson , the crime of aggression
is the ultimate crime because "it contains within itself the accumulated evil" of all the other war
crimes. Well, to paraphrase Jackson, imperialism contains within itself all the accumulated evil
of all empires. Guantanamo, Hiroshima, Fallujah, Abu Ghraib, Gladio and all the rest, they "come
with the territory", they are not the exception, they are the norm.
The best thing which could happen to this country and its people would be the collapse of this
Empire. The support, even tacit and passive, of this Empire by people like yourself only delays this
outcome and allows this abomination to to bring even more misery and pain upon millions of innocent
people, including millions of your fellow Americans. This Empire now also threatens my country, Russia,
with war and possibly nuclear war and that, in turn, means that this Empire threatens the survival
of the human species. Whether the US Empire is the most evil one in history is debatable, but the
fact that it is by far the most dangerous one is not. Is that not a good enough reason for you to
say "enough is enough"? What would it take for you to switch sides and join the rest of mankind in
what is a struggle for the survival of our species? Or will it take a nuclear winter to open your
eyes to the true nature of the Empire you apparently are still supporting against all evidence?
Apologize for being the first and with "wrong" attitude. Time zones I guess.
What would it take for you to switch sides and join the rest of mankind in what is a struggle
for the survival of our species?
A conviction that Russia or/and China would not fill the empty space after US pulling out/weakening.
Disclaimer:
Thinking as one of those, quote: " Balt and Ukrainian", "Kosovo Albanians" and, my addition:
Finns
Polish
Czechs
Slovaks
Hungarians
Slovenians
Croats
Albanians (proper)
Romanians
Bulgarians.
Georgians
will stop here there are more there but, no need .
And, yes:
Taiwanese
South Korean
..probably more but let's not get carried away.
So, probably the best for this "debate" would be if people from that list just don't get involved.
Looks like you had a really rough time with your friends. Think how far out you are from the
reality of average Americans.
I liked the 1st half about all the bandits participating in the WWII. And the history written
by the winner.
I like you assessment of Russia and the unfortunate situation that the perpetrators of Soviet
crimes outlived and outbred their victims and nobody is remorseful. If God is just Russia will
pay for the omission of atonement for its sins. That Russian pride themselves for defeating the
III Reich it is just like bragging among the murders who is the baddest.
"And when I say "the US" I don't mean Paul Newman, Mark Twain, Miles Davis, Quentin Tarantino,
James Taylor " How many just and righteous men were needed to save Sodom and Gomorrah. Does
the US have enough of them? Are you sure Tarantino belongs to the list? Americans are more responsible
for the deeds of their Empire than Germans or Russians for III Reich or USSR or at least the ones
who insist that they live in true democracy.
The support, even tacit and passive, of this Empire by people like yourself only delays
– Perhaps God should smite only those.
I have never seen any anti-Americanism directed at the American people anywhere – Perhaps
because many perceive Americans as children who one day will grow up. This might be a benevolent
mistake.
I liked what you insinuated about the US Marines. I would say give them an opportunity an they
will demonstrate they are worse than SS and NKVD combined. The training and brainwashing in the
ability to kill w/o thinking far exceeds what ever was done in Germany and USSR. On top of it
there is complete absence of warrior chivalry, that one could still spot even among some SS but
not in NKVD, that was completely replaced with that American pragmatism that knows no mercy and
no true honor.
and I forgot our Balt and Ukrainian friends (but then, they were also happy when the Nazis
came, hardly much of an example) – No, that is very good example on the awfulness of Soviet
regime and its crimes that many were willing rather to go with the Nazis. In 1945 everybody in
Eastern Europe was dreaming to be liberated by Americans instead of by the Red Army.
Because if you answered "yes" then you are truly messianic genocidal imperialists. –
Excellent point!
"The best thing which could happen to this country and its people would be the collapse
of this Empire."
and replace it with what, another empire? Isn't that what the empire did in Iraq and Afghanistan?
What were the results in those places?
"Is that not a good enough reason for you to say "enough is enough"?"
Many people do exactly this. I'm one of them.
"What would it take for you to switch sides and join the rest of mankind in what is a struggle
for the survival of our species?"
Which side am I supposed to join exactly? Didn't you just get done telling us that all empires
are equally evil? Tell you what, until something better comes along, I'll just be on my side.
The US didn't have 20 nuclear weapons in 1945, and didn't have 300 in 1949. So neither of those
was a practical plan, and nor was the third, even according to its own authors.
In 1941, during WWII, Harry Truman wanted a brutal and prolonged conflict in order to inflict
as much death and destruction in Europe as possible, declaring:
"If we see Germany winning, we ought to help Russia, and if Russia is winning we ought to help
Germany, and in that way let them kill as many as possible."
The US (as expressed by one of its key leaders) wanted the brutal war to continue for as long
as possible, so that as many Russians and Germans as possible would be killed, (with other Europeans,
including Jews, as inevitable collateral casualties in that process,) so that the US could then
step in at the end to dominate war-destroyed Europe.
And that was exactly what happened: Some 27 million Soviet people were killed, about 16% of
their population, while the Americans and British delayed starting a western front until after
the outcome was largely decided, then raced to seize control of as much of Europe and of the credit
as possible at the end:
"It was not until well after the Nazis' fortunes had been decisively reversed at Stalingrad
that the long-promised 'second front' [by the US and Britain] actually materialized. Indeed, by
this point the outcome of the war had effectively already been determined. D-Day, then, was waged
not to defeat the Nazis but to ensure the Soviet Union, who had borne almost all of the sacrifice,
would not reap the fruits of their victory."
British Troops Enter Syria and Libya to Ensure That War Outlives ISIS
It seems like the US is following this same pattern again in Syria: prolong the brutal war
and suffering for as long as possible, and now race at the end to be able to falsely claim credit
(for the defeat of ISIS) and seize control (via a Kurdistan proxy).
Saker, from deep within his Russo-Soviet, Intelligence Community, and now apparently Judaic
bubble as well, chastises Americans for being in their own Yankee-doodle propaganda bubble. A
pox on all of them.
The Jewish-Bolsheviks won the cold war. The USA, Germany, the EU and Russia are all basically
judeo-communist now. Each with a different flavored frosting of democracy.
Saker manages to dance around Nuremburg and the "Holocaust". He never mentions lend lease and
all the other illegal activities led by the cabal without which Stalin, Moscow and the USSR would
not have survived the winter of 1941/2 let alone achieved victory.
Unfortunately for Saker, you cannot have an honest discussion of the last 100 years of history
without bringing up Freemasonry, Judaism and other sinister forces and the effects they had on
WWI, Versailles, Poland 1939, the "Holocaust", Nuremburg and most of all Nagasaki, the catholic
capitol of Japan.
Otherwise Saker is merely spewing narrative at one propaganda bubble from within another one.
"the Anglos reneged on all of these promises: they created a heavily militarized West Germany,
they immediately recruited thousands of top Nazi officials for their intelligence services, "
-This is not really true, they waited until 1947, after starving and tortured the German civilian
population for 2 years under the Morgenthau Plan, which actually was quite a nice treatment, compared
to the initial Morgenthau Plan that wanted to exterminate 20 million German civilians.(Morgenthau
was a jew btw, another genocidal one, go figure)
The reason the allies stopped starving the German civilians was not due to their high moral
standards however, they were just worried the German civilians would rather live under soviet
where they were allowed to eaten then live under USA and starve to death.
Crimes committed at one point in history cannot, in general, by compared to crimes committed
at another point in history.
Europeans 2,000 years ago were an entirely different people than Europeans 1,200 or 500 years
ago. Same geographical location but completely distinct populations. To the point, these populations
would have not recognized each other. Indeed, even a gap of a few generations is enough to produce
folks with different lore, priorities, and taboos.
So, no, you cannot compare 19th century USA with 20th Germany. In fact, you cannot even compare
early 20th Russia with mid 20th century Germany. The moral standards by which you judge them are
the same. The moral standards by which each lived are unalike.
Ukraine. Across its eastern border is Russia and to its west-Europe. For centuries, it has
been at the center of a tug-of-war between powers seeking to control its rich lands and access
to the Black Sea. 2014′s Maidan Massacre triggered a bloody uprising that ousted president
Viktor Yanukovych and painted Russia as the perpetrator by Western media. But was it?
"Ukraine on Fire" by Igor Lopatonok provides a historical perspective for the deep divisions
in the region which led to the 2004 Orange Revolution, 2014 uprisings, and the violent overthrow
of democratically elected Yanukovych. Covered by Western media as a people's revolution, it
was in fact a coup d'état scripted and staged by nationalist groups and the U.S. State Department.
Investigative journalist Robert Parry reveals how U.S.-funded political NGOs and media companies
have emerged since the 80s replacing the CIA in promoting America's geopolitical agenda abroad.
Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton backed the Nazis. Oddly enough, the same 'blood and soil'
imagery and chants were used in Charlottesville and the Unite the Right 'rally'. Add in the
fact the organizer, Kessler, was an Obama voter and Occupy supporter. It appears Charlotttesville
was scripted as well.
As good a rant as ever I've read.
Picking a nit here.
The best thing which could happen to this country and its people would be the collapse of
this Empire.
As many, even in the US, realize the "Empire's" days are numbered, the best thing would be
to abandon the Empire, rather than waiting for it to collapse. Conscious abandonment frees resources for rebuilding the country, and suggests it could be
managed for minimum impact. A belly landing at best, but eminently survivable with luck and skill
at the controls. Collapse, if delayed much longer, is shaping up to be catastrophic for the US,
and highly disruptive for the rest of the world, and that's assuming we avoid anybody going nuclear.
Active, managed abandonment of the Empire is what the people voted for. Collapse is what it
looks like they'll get. Not "best" at all, and maybe very, very bad.
"Your country" is Russia, but you didn't bother to live in it last I checked. Has it changed?
If not, care to explain why "your country" isn't the one you live in?
If you take the Russian population today, it has many more descendants of executioners than
descendants of executed people and this is hardly a surprise since dead people don't reproduce.
Unlikely, considering there were far fewer executioners than executed, and a good percentage
of them belonged to a specific ethnocultural group that gradually turned against the USSR once
they were driven out of power around 1938, after which most of them eventually emigrated.
In my experience letters to friends (or at least speeches of this kind – I haven't done any
letters) don't go down too well and produce a high level of boredom.
Political action is rather uncomfortable, and it seems to be restricted to defined places,
where it can be read and heard or ignored, like the editorial columns of main stream newspapers
or explicitly political forums like Congress or Think Tanks.
The problem of course, is that in the US and Western Europe these "respectable" forums have
been hijacked by the centre and force fed with propaganda while preserving the veneer of impartiality.
So, that seems to leave places like Unz Review , in the role of the pre-WW1 Viennese coffee
house (e.g. Café Central 1913 with Papadopoulos/Dzhugashvili (Stalin) and Bronstein (Trotsky)
playing chess at one table and Hitler and friends with cakes and coffee at another).
Or will it take a nuclear winter to open your eyes to the true nature of the Empire you
apparently are still supporting against all evidence?
Public political talk probably only becomes general and continuous (unless it is obligatory
as in Switzerland) through direct threatening experiences, involving everyone, such as a total
war, mass unemployment or hyperinflation and the US hasn't arrived there yet.
Not only that, but I would submit that most Germans would also believe that they were free
people and that the regime they live under was a benevolent one.
The reality is that freedom is not the simple yes/no issue that it is presented as by American-style
simplist propagandists. It is a complex matter of degrees, and of more freedom in some areas versus
less in others, of more freedom for some in a particular society versus less for others.
One of the best easily readable anecdotal sources imo on the way government supporting Germans
viewed their pre-WW2 government, is the following:
Oh sure, Hitler considered Jews as parasites which had to be exiled and, later, exterminated
and he saw Russians as subhumans which needed to be put to work for the Germanic Master Race
and whose intelligentsia also needed to be exterminated.
The German elite in this era believed they were practicing 'good science' by these actions.
In fact they were by the standards of the pseudo science of Eugenics which was supported universally
by leading figures in the West. The Nazis began this purge with German citizens deemed faulty
and a threat to humanity long before attention was focused on Jews, gypsies, Slavs etc etc. The
shock of the camps and the actions at Nuremberg put an end to Eugenics except in the US where
it continued. Actually Eugenics was the horror child birthed in the US and UK.
Having spent years in the Federal Republic of Germany as a member of the USA's military occupation
force, I cannot agree with you more.
Re: Winning the war in Europe. The source I read YEARS ago stated that 84.9% of all WW2 German
casualties (KIA, WIA, MIA) occurred on the Eastern Front at the hands of the Soviets. The American
military did not defeat the NAZI war machine. They only conducted mop-up ops after the Soviets
had disembowled the Wehrmacht.
Believe me. Not all Americans are asleep to the lies and imperialism of the scoundrels who
comprise the U.S. government. Thank you for your accurate synopsis.
Very well written and emotionally charged piece by Sacker. Despite disagreeing with him mostly
on Soviet past and whitewashing of Islam I see good in him. Now, I will try to be brief but making
Soviet regime equal in evilness to the mentioned Nazi and US regimes is completely false and mostly
comes form Sacker's background.
First thing that should never be missed is that unlike Nazi and US regimes Soviet regime never
committed genocides. All those fair tales about tens of millions killed in Gulag and elsewhere
with opened archives are pure bogus, nor did Russians and Soviets committed genocides against
populations under their control in new acquired lands. Central Asia had extremely low population
when taken over by Russia. Under Soviet rule that population ballooned out of all proportions
due to extremely favorable conditions created. I know, I lived there for 20 years.
It should never be forgotten that Sacker comes from the line or class that had been sadistically
exploiting and draining Russian peasant population for at least 200 years leading to their mental
and physical degeneration and huge deformities of Russian character which are still there even
after decades of Soviet power to tackle it. By every definition Russian peasants were not serfs
but slaves who could be sold, families broken and gambled away of exchanged for dogs.
Lenin and Stalin had to do with extremely low level of human material available to them , which
was uplifted basically from the dirt, educated and provided with things necessary for decent life
which they never experienced before. This regime cannot be called evil. USSR did not commit evil
against other countries and actually propped and helped other third world nations to build their
own countries unfortunately at the expense of our own people.
The last but not the least, were there not Bolsheviks, Russia would seize to exist as thanks to
pre Bolsheviks regime, old regime led Russia to certain death by 1917.
Knowing what we know about
Nazis, it would be the end of Russia without Lenin and Bolsheviks coming along and the death of
millions of European people and Jews. How this regime can be called evil. I have no clue.
Otherwise, I often agree with Sacker and consider him a good man.
Whilst I have followed you constantly over the years and respect your views immensely and have
studied your works for several years, my one and only response (as a follow-up) to your 'letter'
is this:
What is your solution? What system or which empire shall we replace the American one with?
Someone with your intelligence should know that things don't exist in a vaccum.
If the American empire is collapsed as you wish it would be, then what? What magical solution
do you have? Because rest assured there will be someone else taking the reins but I guess you
feel that the next power will do it the 'right way'. Laughable
You do a great job pointing out the faults of the American Empire but I feel you fall into
the same 'hole' that so many do while riding their high horse, and that is: complain, complain,
point out faults, compare the USA to Nazi Germany, and to the more evil Soviet Union (which by
the way – according to many sources was extraordinarily worse; by a order of magnitude worse then
the Nazis).
Anyway, to get to my point about your rant. Your main point is what?
'the British "atrocities tally", ranging from opium wars, to the invention of concentration
camps, to the creation of Apartheid, the horrors of the occupation of Ireland, etc. etc. etc.?' Christ, you might at least be accurate. In three hundred years of exploring, colonising, trading,
and conquering there must be some genuine atrocities you could discuss. Why discuss fake ones? Apartheid was nothing to do with Britain, it was introduced in independent South Africa by
an Afrikaner party that won power after WWII.
The Opium Wars don't seem to me to be an atrocity: opium was legal in Britain and throughout
the Empire. I agree that the wars might be classed as wicked – aggressive war usually is – but
they were no atrocity.
Britain didn't invent Concentration Camps – in the sense of the expression used by the Nazis,
the Nazis invented Concentration Camps. In the sense of the expression used by Britain in the
South African war, the camps were simply a copy of the earlier concentration camps used by the
US in the Philippines and by Spain in Cuba. etc, etc.
"The truth is that the Americans only entered the war when it was clear that the Nazis would
be defeated": your implication of cause-and-effect seems to me to be bogus. The US 'entered' the
war against Hitler because Hitler declared war on the US.
But Saker you and your White Russian emigre friends don't seem to have any problems taking
advantage of the European conquest of North America. If you are going to play the "Evil Whitey" game then please just leave, and go back to Russia.
Perhaps you and your fellow Russians can welcome the millions of Blacks Mexicans . Muslims and
Hindus into Mother Russia so that you can be blessed by our diversity.
This is an ugly and evil country. I am stuck here cause I'm a Murican. If I was of another
nationality or citizenship, I would leave this evil and ugly place just for the salving of my
soul.
1) At Tehran and again at Potsdam, the US and GB gave the Russians an ultimatum. "Join the
war against Japan within 90 days of the end of the war in Europe or have no voice in the partition
of Asia." The Russians attacked on the 89th day.
2) The Russians were preparing to land on Hokkaido as they had already done on Sakhalin and the
Kuril Islands when the Japanese capitulated.
For the record, I agree with the anti-war theme of your post, but unfortunately your veer off
into the "EVIL WHITEY' realm. Working Class Native Born White American Teenagers join the US Military
"voluntarily" because they have been made economically redundant by post-1965 Immigration Policy.
The scale of the nonwhite imported scab labor=Nonwhite Immigrants+the US born geneline of nonwhite
legal immigrants.
The Alt Right Rally in Charlottesville was a protest against post-1965 imported nonwhite scab
labor and The Democratic Party which has made an open declaration of war against Christian Russian.
The Democratic Party is the post-1965 nonwhite Party in 2017 ..
What a confused mixture of good insight and tiresome parroting of threadbare, hackneyed, Allied
propaganda. While the intent is clearly good, the overall analysis is so lacking in logic and avoidance
of basic facts that it's impossible to even begin a reasonable criticism. The anti-Hitler shtick is particularly appallingly elementary as are the concepts of "victors"
history and Nazi propaganda.
Letter to Saker:
If you really want people to read your stuff, you should consider employing an editor. Check
your facts and assumptions, and most of all tighten it up , especially when repeating
ancient propaganda.
Also, it would help you to educate yourself. Here's a good start.:
" this entire myth, so prevalent then and even now about Hitler, and about the Japanese,
is a tissue of fallacies from beginning to end. Every plank in this nightmare evidence is
either completely untrue or not entirely the truth.
If people should learn this intellectual fraud about Hitler's Germany, then they will begin
to ask questions, and searching questions "
- Murray Rothbard, Review of The Origins of the Second World War, 1966
I agree with most of this article. Al Qaeda had help inside the US for sure and there was a
cover up at the highest levels, but the debris that could be used to test the demolition theory
was removed quickly without analysis to China.
The lowest order of social organization is the band society. Historically they would war against
each other. Chimpanzees war against each other. This a hominidae problem at least. Also human
society favors narcissist and psychopaths for leaders. The psychopaths lie the US into war for
their objective. Narcissist do it because they want to feel good about murdering people so they
lie to themselves. This won't stop unless these groups of people are screened and prevented from
reaching positions of power.
Afghanistan is a disgusting society run by pedophiles. I'm not sympathetic to their way of
life. The Taliban at least tried to stop the practice. I would be disappointed if the Iraqis didn't
miss secularism. The Syrians are fighting for their very lives to live in a secular society.
Modern US is an Empire that is ruled by finance, corporations, and foreign governments such
as Israel. The description of the whore of Babylon in the book of Revelations fits Washington
D.C. to a T. The internet has documented its crimes and corruption for all to see. The US Empire
is not completely incoherent because there are servants in it that are rational and pushing back.
It is why the war with Iran has been delayed. The US under Obama sought to use Al Qaeda in Libya
and Syria. President Trump stopped the support of Al Qaeda in Syria, and challenged the Muslim
world to stop using terrorism to solve its problems. Afghanistan war is prolonged but negotiating
with the Taliban is an option which is something George W. Bush rejected.
The American Empire is a hit-man for the well connected, including governments. President Trump
has shown interest in having them fund the American Empire since its broke, they do receive some
protection from it, but they themselves do not seem to want to fund it. Europe cries about Russia,
Gulf States cry about Iran, and Asia cries about China. They are militarily occupied but the American
people suffer the expense.
American Imperium has and does great evil but its a pagan society which is pretty tolerant
if you are within its domain with a favorable status. I think those that adopted a pagan capitalist
society are at least living comfortably for the most part. I do think a free pagan society is
the highest form of human civilization. It is true the US has allied with some nasty belief systems
like Nazis, Wahhabist, etc. It will be interesting to see how things pan out once China takes
America's place since it is hostile to religion. Americans have been brainwashed into thinking
that the US must be a global policeman and that its poop doesn't stink. There are those that think
other nations poop doesn't stink. All of the poop stinks.
The US will decline and will have to give up the Empire unless it figures out a sustainable
course, rejects perpetual war in favor of being a counterbalance just from its presence. It also
would have to reorient the military industrial complex towards something profitable outside of
war profiteering. The US Empire may be replaced with the Chinese one road, one belt project. The
US is at a crossroads. We got an Iran deal which is in jeopardy but its amazing that it was made
in the first place. In Syria the US hasn't started World War 3 on behalf of Al Qaeda. The internet
is clearly having an affect on the American Empire. It is why there is a rush to censor it. No
longer can evil human beings misuse power without everyone else finding out about it. They can't
control the information from reaching the rest of the world now. They will try and people will
get around it. The American Empire has a huge bureaucracy and there are a lot of moral human beings
in it. The US political class has other problems: it hasn't won a war since World War II, and
economic inequality is having its negative effect on the American people. We got Trump instead
of Hillary because half the nation realized the US is in bad shape.
lol jews doesn't care for genocidal views? Ever hear of the Palestinians? Heck, ever heard
Jews speak about Germans or White people in general? I'd say the mainstream view for Jews is pro-genocide.
In Israel is pro-Palestinians genocide, and in the Europe Jews are pro-white genocide.
In pretty much every country stretching from UK to Russia. I doubt many needs to be reminded
that 6 out of the 7 oligarch that seized 50% of the Russian economy in the 1990s and inflicted
genocidal conditions on Russian of poverty, alcholism, abortion, were jews And I am not even going
to go into the jewish influence in mass-extermination of ethnic Russians and other white slavic
groups during the bolshevik rule. For that just read some works of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn to understand
the jewish view of ethnic christian Russians.
"Mr. Ignatiev pledges in the essay that his journal, Race Traitor, intends to "keep bashing
the dead white males, and the live ones, and the females, too, until the social construct known
as 'the white race' is destroyed not 'deconstructed' but destroyed.""
Well reasoned, well thought-out, thought-provoking piece. Shame it will be dismissed by many
as merely pro-Russian propaganda.
Just a couple comments:
"If I see somebody drowning in a flood, I most certainly have the moral right to
jump in the water and try to save this person, do I not? But that does not mean that I have
the strength or skills to do so."
I think in this particular context you are mixing right up with obligation .
Many Americans see it as the US having both the right and the obligation to intervene. The two
together compose the license.
"I have never seen any anti-Americanism directed at the American people anywhere, not even
in France, Greece or Latin America."
I have, but only when the objects of scorn were behaving like Amerotrash. In the 30+ years
living abroad, I have never personally experienced it, but I try to be on my best behaviour, and
sometimes actually succeed.
"Do you remember how you told me that xxxxx's Marine husband lived in a nice house with
all their material needs taken care of? You added "compare that to Russian servicemen"."
The comparison to military housing when I served nearly 40 years ago is telling. We should
have had it so nice. It's expensive to keep enough people interested with today's ops tempo if
they have to deal with a screaming family back home, especially now that cheap global telecom
has replaced monthly AUTOVON morale calls home.
"The best thing which could happen to this country and its people would be the collapse
of this Empire."
Can't agree with that, because if America as we know it today collapses, they're taking the
whole world down with them. I would be happy if they simply accepted that this is a multi-polar
world with nations that have simetimes competing goals, but full of people who pretty much want
the same things in life: Health, happiness, love, entertainment, good food, etc. These things
are pretty common across the globe, even in North Korea.
@CK One has to admit that mobilising forces, many of which were war-weary from the European
front, to engage in Asia in 89 days is remarkable. To point out that they took 89 of the 90 days
to do it is a rather cheap shot.
Of course, it is true that the USA never chose to enter the war at all, but was forced to when
the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor and then Hitler personally declared war on the USA four days
later – incidentally, showing a degree of loyalty to his allies that puts the USA to shame.
The battle of Stalingrad lasted from August 23rd, 1942 to January 31st, 1943. The battle of
Kursk lasted from July 5th, 1943 to July 17th, 1943. They began eight months and 19 months respectively
after the USA entered WW2.
It is true that the Western Allies did not invade France until June 1944, but that was a tactical
decision whose timing was dictated by military necessities.
Thought the 'SAKER' was in control of his faculties but after reading this rant, implying that
there is no difference between WW II Nazis and Americans, think the Saker has been too long out
in the Sun. That's the same toxic BS the violent Judaic-led Antifa Thugs are pushing, that white Americans
males are actually secret Nazis and must be exterminated. Yet the Saker nor Antifa mention the fact that the Bolshevik Jews, from 1917-1957 murdered around
66 million Russians, mostly Christians who refused to bow down to Godless Communism. Add in the
other Commie slaughters and the figure is easily over 100 million.
This toxic ideology is what the SAKER wants us to follow after his/her Antifa buds tear apart
the USA?
@5371 Yes. As per the linked source (Wiki), Plan Totality was a disinformation campaign, a
bluff, it was not a concrete military plan. (You could probably say the same about the others
as well.) I like Saker's stuff, but he's being over-eager here.
Yup, great propaganda for your side, your skewed version of reality, your heart's desire to
believe about yourself and your people not QUITE as well-honed as the propaganda used by the both
sides in WWII , and everything before and after, but good try! (not.)
There is an American expression which says "where I sit is where I stand".
Saker, I'm almost 61 years old, born and raised in middle America, have lived and worked in
the Northeast, the South, the Southwest – I have never heard that expression. Where did you learn that expression?
@utuIn 1945 everybody in Eastern Europe was dreaming to be liberated by Americans instead
of by the Red Army.
You hardly now anything about so called Eastern Europe during and shortly 2. ww. Eastern Europe
is propagandistic term of cold war, probably referring to nazi propaganda and has nothing to do
with geographical realities.
Several of my friends including myself often make a point out to our colleagues in Vienna that
they are Eastern of Prague, Yet – that consider themselves proudly Western city.
Speaking of Eastern of Vienna there was Hungary south Romania, hardly waiting for liberation
of U.S. army as proud members of AXIS.
Speaking of Yugoslavia resistance and partizan movement was hardly waiting for US liberation.
Speaking Czechoslovakia – major uprising of Slovak army in Slovakia was coordinating and waiting
for Red Army to get trough Dukla pass.
I will not be speaking on behalf of Poland where it was more difficult for various reasons. So, my grand parents were waiting for Red Army and not dreaming about US I can assure you
OMG! Please contribute more! You said more in 200 words than the columnist did in 5300, and I'm generally in sympathy with
the author's apparent motives. For instance, how many people know this:
most of all Nagasaki, the catholic capitol of Japan.
For those new to the idea, here's a quote from a very well written article that is highly worth
anyone's time in my ever so humble opinion.
70 years ago (August 9, 1945) an all-Christian bomber crew [blessed prior to takeoff by
Christian clergy] dropped a plutonium bomb over Nagasaki City, Japan, instantly vaporizing,
incinerating or otherwise annihilating tens of thousands of innocent civilians, a disproportionately
large number of them Japanese Christians. Ironically, prior to the bomb exploding nearly directly over the Urakami Cathedral at 11:02
AM, Nagasaki was the most Christian city in Japan, and the massive cathedral was the largest
Christian church in the Orient.
-Gary G. Kohls, The 70th Anniversary of the Bombing of Nagasaki, Unwelcome Truths for Church
and State, Aug 2015.
Why replace it at all? Why not just be rid of it? If you just got rid of a bad case of hemorrhoids, why would you want to replace them with anything?
Wouldn't you be happy just to be rid of 'em? Explain?
The best thing which could happen to this country and its people would be the collapse of
this Empire.
Beg to differ. The best thing that could happen to this country would be to end immigration. See VDARE dot com for all the reasons why and supporting data.
@Robert Magill[Choose a single Handle and use it, or Anonymous/Anon. Using multiple Handles
to conceal your identity will get all your comments trashed.]
" pseudo science of Eugenics"
-There is no psuedo-science, it is well established since before recorded history that if you
breed individual with desirable traits these traits will likely be passed on and increase in the
population. Eugenics is just this basic knowledge applied to humans, which of course are animals
and subject to the hereditary.
The US 'entered' the war against Hitler because Hitler declared war on the US.
That was merely the technical excuse. The US was at economic and propaganda war against Germany long before that declaration.
For instance, the US broke international laws, treaties and circumvented its own Neutrality Act
well prior to Hitler's declaration of war. The concept applies not only for the Atlantic areas,
but the Pacific ones as well, where FDR and his crew of ghouls worked overtime to provoke the
Japanese militarists to fire the first shot.
The sad reality is that the US intervention in Europe was a simple land-grab,
That's pretty much all of it. The Germans and Soviets grabbed as much as they could so it's
just a matter of who is more successful at grabbing the most. Being under the Americans pays the
best unlike the other two who work you to death or kill you outright. The moral angle is just
a way of fancying things up and only deluded low-level munchkins believe any of that rot. That's
the way it's always been with most empires. Which ruler gives you the higher standard of living?
The USA, Germany, the EU and Russia are all basically judeo-communist now.
Hmm.
Look at who are the prime-movers behind dangerous, nation-wrecking mass-immigration.
This is one place where Catholics and Evangelicals are buying into the same line of propaganda.
The RCC is now a force pushing a mindless, dangerous mass-migration.
Look at what "Francis" says, approving violent Moslems and Africans flooding the EU.
Evangelicals and "Main Line" Protestants are just as bad, profiteering from US-taxpayer-funded
"refugee resettlement."
We all need to understand the global plague of mass immigration is the number one world problem.
I am ashamed of my fellow Christians who are suckered into open borders propaganda.
Nature abhors a vacuum. If the American Empire collapsed today, it would be
absorbed by competing empires with the probably outcome that nothing good would result. You can't
just "get rid of it". It has to be replaced with something more robust than the last model which
is what mutated into this present form. I think the problem is not solvable because ultimately,
it has it's roots in human nature.
I think George Carlin is probably right. This is as good as
it gets and it's our own fault as a species.
Early in his career David Irving believed that six million Jews were "systematically"
killed by the Nazis. But later he reversed himself upon more research into the matter and has
held firm even after withering assaults on his reputation and character.
@ondrejSo, my grand parents were waiting for Red Army and not dreaming about US I can
assure you
That's okay, nothing wrong with that, everybody needs to dream. However, some did not dream of being liberated by the Red Army, and some that were dreaming
that dream found it to be a nightmare instead of a dream. I am old enough to remember when Germans shot other Germans for trying to escape "the dream."
It hasn't even been thirty years yet. No "history" books or "propaganda" needed.
I took this article seriously until I got down to the "Nazi regime in the Ukraine". At that
point, I realised that it was just pro-Putin propaganda. I don't see how any of this, even if
it were true, affects the right of the Ukrainian people to have their own sovereign nation-state.
The sovereign nation-state, or the aspiration to it, has been the fundamental building block of
the European political order since the French Revolution. The problem with Putin is that he rejects
that concept and is seeking to resurrect the pre-1789 concept of "spheres of influence".
{ ..and he saw Russians as subhumans which needed to be put to work for the Germanic Master
Race and whose intelligentsia also needed to be exterminated .}
Saker, why are you whitewashing what the Nazis planned to do?
The plan was to exterminate nearly all Slavic peoples in East Europe and SU East of the Urals
to make room for Lebensraum for the alleged* Master Race. ALL Slavic peoples, not just the intelligentsia. Didn't Nazi invaders murder and kill ~15 million Soviet _civilians_, or is that a myth.
______
*
You know, like Goebbels, a club-footed scrawny runt, who murdered his 5 children, before offing
himself.
Or Goering, a drug-addict overweight swine, who also offed himself.
Or Himmler, a myopic weakling, with a malformed skull, who couldn't stand the sight of bloodshed.
Instead of going down fighting, he was caught trying to flee like a rat. Also offed himself. And Hitler himself: 6'3″ tall, perfect physic, blond hair, deep blue eyes ..such an 'Aryan'.
He also committed suicide, instead of going down fighting.
@CensoredByTheSaker "If we see that Germany is winning we ought to help Russia and if Russia
is winning we ought to help Germany, and that way let them kill as many as possible, although
I don't want to see Hitler victorious under any circumstances." .
McCullough, David (15 June 1992). Truman. New York, New York: Simon & Schuster. p. 262.
Truman made this remark after hearing that Hitler had invaded Soviet Russia.
@nickels{(2) if Germany had not torn into Russia, considering the massive buildup of arms
(Hitler's big mistake was underestimating this), it is likely that Bolshevism would have enslaved
Europe and, perhaps, in time, the world.}
Like all neo-Hitlerite apologists and revisionists you too are suffering from an overactive
imagination. There was no so-called massive buildup of arms by SU.
Nazi German juggernaut reached deep into SU – Volga river, Stalingrad.
Red Army was in no position in 1941 to mount in invasion of Nazi Germany, even if they wanted
to. Red Army got badly beaten by tiny Finland a couple of years earlier.
Nazi Germany was thoroughly defeated and vanquished by the Red Army, after years of
tough fighting and great sacrifices.
Bolshevism* did not enslave Europe.
Communism did not, quote, 'enslave' East Europe.
East Europeans, who fell under Communist rule, had a hard life no doubt, but they are having the
last laugh now. Despite the hardships of Communist rule, they are still Polish, Hungarians, Czechs,
Bulgarians.
They are still Christians.
Western Europe, 'liberated' by US, is being slowly but methodically de-Christianized, de-nationalized,
and Islamized.
Guess by who ( it sure isn't Russia).
Despite the hysteria of supposed world domination, Soviet Union collapsed of its own weight
and inherent contradictions within.
People of Russia are slowly but inexorably reverting to their Russian nationalist and Orthodox
Christian roots. While 'enlightened', 'liberated' Western Europe is slowly sinking into a witches brew concocted
by the 'Free World'.
!!–
* Stalin wiped out pretty much all Jewish Bolsheviks.
The genocide of the Indians by the Americans was inevitable. An immigrant who makes a dangerous
crossing into new country with few comforts just for food security (land for growing food) and
right to practice a religion with no spiritual component, but conformity with neighbors – will
always find reasons for genocide.
All this happened at the time of the industrial revolution and with inputs from the old world
along with their own ingenuity, it made America a power to reckon with, more so with its sparsely
populated northern neighbor and a backward Latin Mexico. Two huge oceans made it an impregnable
fortress.
Capitalism and the systematic capture of the political system by big money has made it an empire.
This will end badly, not just for the US but the whole world.
I give it a year or twenty.
Nature probably also abhors human institutions and would probably prefer a vacuum if one would
ensue after the collapse of the (particularly disgusting) 'Merkin empire. Humans and their societies
existed before empires and the threat of a vacuum probably didn't exist then, and shouldn't now.
If the American Empire collapsed today, it would be absorbed by competing empires with the
probably outcome that nothing good would result. You can't just "get rid of it". It has to
be replaced with something more robust than the last model which is what mutated into this
present form.
True, but I'd like to emphasize that's the type of reasoning that leads to arms races and wars,
but your next comments are right on target, and I agree completely.
I think the problem is not solvable because ultimately, it has it's roots in human nature.
I think George Carlin is probably right. This is as good as it gets and it's our own fault
as a species.
What really torques me is that all are to blame to some degree, yet most persist in
thinking their behavior is immaculate and justified. The rank hypocrisy and distorted finger pointing
stinks as well, along with the idea that politicians and governments exist to make things better.
Where do folks get their faith?
@Jason------- Switzerland? Uruguay? Mostly small nations without any pretensions to supremacy.
The trouble nowadays is that there are far too many people, far too much wealth, far too many
weapons, and far far far too much propaganda – most of it exceptionally successful. Not because
the propaganda is believable, but because the sheeple just don't care.
Wealth and power attract the filthiest fractions of humanity like flies to honey. The bigger
the concentration of wealth and power, the more and the more degraded the human filth that congregates.
Key difference between the American, Nazi, and Soviet empires: in the Nazi and Soviet empires,
one would not be permitted to write articles against them.
What aggravates the problem is the fact that US is not just an Empire – it's a highjacked Empire,
with all its major institutes of power and about 10% of population actively helping the highjackers,
while out of remaining roughly 90% only a tiny fraction understands what's going on, and the number
of those daring to speak out against the army of super-powerful and well-organized criminals is
even less.
And wars, aggressions, revolutions, etc. in the last 200 years often (if not always) were initiated
not by the nominal governments (or by their opponents) but by the hidden global forces, whose
presence nowadays, thanks to the Internet, is impossible to deny.
These forces influence all governments across the globe, at least to some degree (even the North
Korean), and their methods of control vary from exclusively financial to pure criminal.
The very special role of US in that scheme of things stems from the fact that after a certain
point in 20-th century, willingly or unwillingly, it has become the most powerful and the most
controllable military and financial tool in the hands of global criminals.
So, the best thing that can happen to US (and every other country in this world) would be the
deliverance from these nasty and sticky "puppet-masters".
Unfortunately, there's a tiny chance that it may happen by itself or without grave complications.
Primarily because these "puppet-masters", in addition to all other negative features, are truly
sick maniacs.
But, but, but what about da roads, man!?? I believe that recently you tried to convince me of the need for government on the basis of
all the nice goodies they provided, especially roads, now here you are criticizing the Nazis,
when in point of fact, the Nazis were far ahead of most, in caring for their own people and providing
for them the nice things in life.
In fact, the Nazis comparatively speedily built an autobahn system that was copied by the Americans
only decades later. The Nazis were very far ahead in the area of taking care of their workers as well, which was
an embarrassment to the socially backward American and Soviet systems, both of which were much
closer to slave labor camps than Nazi Germany was at least until Churchill provoked the war which
even he admitted was unnecessary.
So, back to the road argument, (not that it's a valid one),you may want to change your view
of Nazis. Regarding Nazi vs "Allied" civil rights, here's how Mencken put it. :
The [single] bloody Hitler purge that made such a sensation in the summer of 1934 is, [and
has been], [ often ] duplicated in Russia at close intervals, and if it were not for
the army there would undoubtedly be rebellions on a large scale, and in all parts of [our ally,
Russia]. To prevent such works of Satan the Moscow Mussolinis keep 9oo,ooo yokels under arms,
with an enormous outfit of tanks, airplanes, and artillery, and missionaries in every squad
to preach the Only True Faith. The American pacifists, always easily gulled, compare this formidable
host to the band of Boy Scouts that Richard the Lion-Hearted led up the walls of Acre. It is
actually much more like the corps of mine guards in the Pennsylvania coal fields.
-H.L. Mencken, The Reds and Civil Rights, The American Mercury, July 1936, pp. 284-289
@Johnny Rico "The British were also fighting the Nazis BEFORE June 1941 for more than a year
when the Russians were ALLIED with the Nazis!!!"
I'm aware of that, since my father was one of the British soldiers. However, it is slightly
inaccurate to say that "the Russians were allied with the Nazis". The Russians – or rather the
Soviet leadership, at whose head was the Georgian Stalin – agreed a non-aggression pact with Germany.
But only after years of begging the British and French to join with the USSR in order to contain
Germany.
The British and French, and of course the Americans, loathed the Soviets even more than the
Nazis (indeed many of them admired the Nazis until finding themselves at war with them).
Nature probably also abhors human institutions and would probably prefer a vacuum if one would
ensue after the collapse of the (particularly disgusting) 'Merkin empire. Humans and their societies
existed before empires and the threat of a vacuum probably didn't exist then, and shouldn't now.
If the American Empire collapsed today, it would be absorbed by competing empires with the
probably outcome that nothing good would result. You can't just "get rid of it". It has to
be replaced with something more robust than the last model which is what mutated into this
present form.
True, but I'd like to emphasize that's the type of reasoning that leads to arms races and wars,
but your next comments are right on target, and I agree completely.
I think the problem is not solvable because ultimately, it has it's roots in human nature.
I think George Carlin is probably right. This is as good as it gets and it's our own fault
as a species.
What really torques me is that all are to blame to some degree, yet most persist in thinking
their behavior is immaculate and justified. The rank hypocrisy and distorted finger pointing stinks
as well, along with the idea that politicians and governments exist to make things better. Where
do folks get their faith?
Anyway, I'd prefer nothing over emerods! ;) You are and American and trying to opt out. The
Saker did not point at ordinary Americans but I guess reading about American interventions around
the world makes you uneasy and you don't want to face the facts.
@peterAUS I can assure you that neither Czechs nor Slovaks in general favour 'foreign military
interventions'. That also holds true for almost all of the elite, comprador or not. I am not sure
about the others you have listed, but I have my doubts about some.
The fear of 'empty space' that you use is silly. There is no space to fill. People have always
lived together and fought together, there is no 'space manager' on this planet. You just become
part of the fight with all the consequences. You cannot even theoretically fill the 'space', that's
a crazy abstraction. Remember, a map is not the territory.
@Avery{(2) if Germany had not torn into Russia, considering the massive buildup of arms
(Hitler's big mistake was underestimating this), it is likely that Bolshevism would have enslaved
Europe and, perhaps, in time, the world.}
Like all neo-Hitlerite apologists and revisionists you too are suffering from an overactive
imagination.
There was no so-called massive buildup of arms by SU.
Nazi German juggernaut reached deep into SU - Volga river, Stalingrad.
Red Army was in no position in 1941 to mount in invasion of Nazi Germany, even if they wanted
to. Red Army got badly beaten by tiny Finland a couple of years earlier.
Nazi Germany was thoroughly defeated and vanquished by the Red Army, after years of
tough fighting and great sacrifices.
Bolshevism* did not enslave Europe.
Communism did not, quote, 'enslave' East Europe.
East Europeans, who fell under Communist rule, had a hard life no doubt, but they are having the
last laugh now. Despite the hardships of Communist rule, they are still Polish, Hungarians, Czechs,
Bulgarians,....
They are still Christians.
Western Europe, 'liberated' by US, is being slowly but methodically de-Christianized, de-nationalized,
and Islamized.
Guess by who (...it sure isn't Russia).
Despite the hysteria of supposed world domination, Soviet Union collapsed of its own weight
and inherent contradictions within.
People of Russia are slowly but inexorably reverting to their Russian nationalist and Orthodox
Christian roots.
While 'enlightened', 'liberated' Western Europe is slowly sinking into a witches brew concocted
by the 'Free World'.
--------
* Stalin wiped out pretty much all Jewish Bolsheviks. Spoken like another amateur Stalinist /
communist / Zionist apologist.
You talk because you have a mouth. You are laughable
The Allies did succeed in turning over 1/2 of Europe to the communists, see map.
Some 'victory' that was.
The USSR underwent a massive arms build up in it's plan to invade Germany.
Debate here and get smacked own:
Operation Barbarossa Was A Preventive Attack
"Revisionism has the general function of bringing historical truth to a public that had
been drugged by wartime lies and propaganda.
Now revisionism teaches us that this entire myth, so prevalent then and even now about Hitler,
and about the Japanese, is a tissue of fallacies from beginning to end. Every plank in this
nightmare evidence is either completely untrue or not entirely the truth. If people should
learn this intellectual fraud about Hitler's Germany, then they will begin to ask questions,
and searching questions, about the current World War III version of the same myth. Nothing
would stop the current headlong flight to war faster, or more surely cause people to begin
to reason about foreign affairs once again, after a long orgy of emotion and cliché."
- Righteous Jew, Murray Rothbard, Review of The Origins of the Second World War, 1966
@Sarah Toga Hmm.
The RCC is now a force pushing a mindless, dangerous mass-migration.
Look at what "Francis" says about violent Moslems and Africans flooding the EU.
If Japan had a big RCC presence now, they might be flooded by 3rd world mass immigration.
Just speculation, I know.
And not the way to stop the global plague of mass immigration.
But understand the global plague of mass immigration is the number one world problem, causing
more long-term harm than the two atom bombs dropped on Japan.
I am ashamed of my fellow Christians who are suckered into open borders propaganda.
But understand the global plague of mass immigration is the number one world problem,
Many Palestinians would probably agree. I think the number one world problem is the clique of bored, depraved bankers with too much
time on their bloody paws
@iffen Yes, it seems that the 6 million figure is a lie. It was actually 5, 999, 999. The
original four million death toll at Auschwitz was Soviet propaganda. Numbers have been drastically
revised downward with the death toll ranging from as low as 630K to 1.1 million. If we use the
latter figure it means your vaunted six million gets reduced to three million which is still too
high.
The dubious claims of six million dead means that holocaust museums should be closed and demolished
much like the Jewish funded and led left is finding pretexts to destroy monuments and icon to
confederate history. Besides, Jewish holocaust memorials and museums have no place on U.S. soil
since this nation had nothing to do with hardships experienced by Jews in WWII.
My main objective in the immediate future is to (finally) write my thesis for the graduate
degree in patristic theology I am working on now, and to set some money aside to visit Russia
again
Stick to that. If you must take shots at empire – you need a friend. One that can help you dial these down
several notches. A body of knowledge isn't sufficient, and in the absence of critical thinking,
can lead to hubris, which is worse.
@Fred V. Reed If this is Fred Reed, the contributor to this site, the comments should be highlighted
in yellow like those of other contributors. If this is an imposter, the alias should be changed
to prevent confusion.
@AB_Anonymous What aggravates the problem is the fact that US is not just an Empire - it's
a highjacked Empire, with all its major institutes of power and about 10% of population actively
helping the highjackers, while out of remaining roughly 90% only a tiny fraction understands what's
going on, and the number of those daring to speak out against the army of super-powerful and well-organized
criminals is even less.
And wars, aggressions, revolutions, etc. in the last 200 years often (if not always) were initiated
not by the nominal governments (or by their opponents) but by the hidden global forces, whose
presence nowadays, thanks to the Internet, is impossible to deny.
These forces influence all governments across the globe, at least to some degree (even the North
Korean), and their methods of control vary from exclusively financial to pure criminal.
The very special role of US in that scheme of things stems from the fact that after a certain
point in 20-th century, willingly or unwillingly, it has become the most powerful and the most
controllable military and financial tool in the hands of global criminals.
So, the best thing that can happen to US (and every other country in this world) would be the
deliverance from these nasty and sticky "puppet-masters".
Unfortunately, there's a tiny chance that it may happen by itself or without grave complications.
Primarily because these "puppet-masters", in addition to all other negative features, are truly
sick maniacs. AB Anonymous, your post is spot on.
I totally agree with your statement when you say 'US is not just an Empire – it's a hijacked Empire,
with all its major institutes of power and about 10% of population actively helping the hijackers,
while out of remaining roughly 90% only a tiny fraction understands what's going on. "
And thank you for the new label 'Global Criminals'.
Thankfully the petrodollar is being abandoned and the days of the Saudi, Israeli, UK, Aussie American
hegemony will end.
Saker keeps banging this drum over and over, but if you look at the facts, the allegation doesn't
hold up. What the Anglo invaders were involved in was a war . The Lakota Sioux and Iroquois
and Cheyenne had weapons and fought back, often brutally. Moreover, they're still here, which
kinda demolishes the point about a genocide, since the point of a successful genocide is to wipe
out every single vestige of an ethnic or racial group. Kinda like what the Spanish did so successfully
all across Central and South America. Why nothing on them? Or is he just using this imagined polygenocide
as a brickbat to condemn a country he hates yet oddly resides in? It surely has nothing to do
with today's neocon wars, and I agree that we should pull out of NATO and let Europe fend for
itself. Of course, as soon as a U.S. politician questions NATO, he's immediately attacked --
by Europe .
Likewise, bleating about the Mexican War doesn't help his case either. The Mexicans were invaders
and conquistadors just like the Anglos were. The 1848 war was like one drug dealer robbing another.
No victims, really. And note that the Mexicans signed a treaty ratifying the lands lost and didn't
complain about it until the "Indian problem" they couldn't deal with had been dealt with, and
the territories had been developed along First World standards. Then all of a sudden, they had
an urge to "reconquer." I say sure, let them -- as long as we re-arm the Apaches and Navajos with
automatic weapons and blow up all the roads/bridges/sewers/dams/electrical grids first. In other
words, return the lands to their condition in 1848. I'm sure Mexico will jump on that opportunity.
The closing paragraph shows this writer's confusion. The best thing would be collapse of American
Empire? But just a few sentences later he notes correctly that America is the most dangerous entity
in history? How does collapse equal security of our mountains of weapons? How many nukes must
escape our collapsing empire before it becomes an even bigger danger than before?
This failure in critical thinking is also evident in his genocidal Americans commentary. We
are so inept that our genocide of Amerinds left us facing societal collapse under a tidal wave
of North American Amerinds from south of our border. We are so incompetent that our unprecedented
cruelty towards Africans led to the 400K we imported becoming 45M of them today and an epidemic
of obesity. So cruel are we that Africans' greatest social problems are dependence on all the
free shit we give them and abject stupidity as we have exempted them from being forced to acquire
the bare minimum of education. Extending our racist hatred even back to their homelands in Africa
we have forced upon them such horrors as clean water, food, and medicine such that they will soon
be the most populous race on the planet.
Interspersed with the obvious fallacies he sprinkles truth tidbits, but by that time it's too
late for him to be taken for anything other than a communist tool.
I like to say "allied" because they were working together in many respects and had been throughout
the 1930s.
Not to mention the awkward issue of Poland. And also, there is the "alliance" between the The US and Stalin after June 1941 – which wasn't
always a perfect partnership. And dissolved into the Cold War as soon as there was no common enemy
in 1945.
All the more so as he's too stupid to look at a map or know what "continent" means. He claims
we genocided a "continent" – which one? North America includes Mexico and Canada. South America
maybe? Is it particularly hard to find an Amerind in Canada, America, or Mexico today? Or in South
America? Amerinds hard to locate in say Peru or Colombia or Brazil? In fact, of those who survived
the new germs unknowingly brought with explorers, pioneers, and settlers (and conquistadors in
the south), their population has exploded just like the African population. There are FAR FAR
more (apparently imaginary) Amerinds and Africans today than at ANY point in history and solely
due to our (reverse) genocide.
Some of your details are accurate as much as Soviet and Red Chinese propaganda is or was by
insertion of mini truths to make it believeable. It does bring back memories of Pravda tho.. too
much of your anti American speil sounds like you were schooled by the Brezhnev Regime with some
outside assistance.
Some points to ponder. Israel is racist but the Islamists that want them exterminated ? Neither of them is a "race"
like Spanish is not a race. No mention of the millions Stalin startved to death or sent off to Gulags not to mention those
they executed by the thousands in eastern Europe and Ukraine before attacking the beastly nazis.. Ukranians just want their country back the Soviets stole from them after starving millions
for not producing food fast enough.
No Mention of the millions executed, starved, forced abortions and Red Chinese butchery that
continues today.. but thats not important either..
I really get the "Ugly American" concept but its tired and to paint Americans as colluding
with the criminal element currently running this govt as a third hidden entity is unacceptable..
we were trusting once but those days are over. We also reject nonsense, disinformation and misinformation
perpetrated whatever the reason.. Not all of us are ignorant of history just because most today
are. If you want the right to claim your information is factual that you need to clean up your
"facts" first.
You sound really angry and hateful of this country and its stupid people yet you wear Marine
camo with a 40 year old helmet nd salute like a Brit Who or what are you really ?
@Serge Krieger For those who still don't know the difference between German Nazism, Jewish
liberalism, US imperialism and Russian communism – the Russians never treated anyone worse than
they treated themselves, which can't be said about the other 3, whose starting position has always
been – we are better than you.
@Reverend Spooner How does your fact negate what I have referred to. Empire is a complex business
with many layers of disconnected realities. Its the motive or fealty to the motives that binds
them together. Individual success of failure or change of track doesn't disprove the overarching
philosophy . It is easier to put sanction .Nobody notices excepting the suffering peasants . It
is much difficult to declare war . Back then it was more difficult .
This deplorable article by The Saker contains many questionable assertions. I will focus here
only on The Saker's claim that the U.S. Government is directly responsible for a uniquely evil
event in world history: a "poly-genocide" – defined by The Saker as "the genocide of all the ethnicities
of a single continent." The Saker seems proud of this term as he has been injecting this concept
into most of his recent articles. But it is a sham concept, which reveals more about The Saker's
ever increasing anti-American bias then it reveals about the true history of the U.S. Government
and its relations with the Native Americans.
The fact is, if you added up all of the death totals from all of the wars, skirmishes, battles,
or forced removals involving the U.S. and Native Americans, the total numbers would still be well
short of the total deaths of many single battles in European or Russian history or either of the
two World Wars. For example, George Washington's troops in the Revolutionary War killed maybe
two hundred Iroquois out of a population of about 9000. Same for the Sand Creek massacre in 1864
or the tragedy at Little Big Horn or any of the other famous massacres or wars (e.g. the Seminole
Wars) or forced removals – in each case, we're talking possibly several thousand deaths, at most.
You only get massive numbers comparable to other well-known genocides and ethnic cleansings
if you instead do one or more of the following: (1) start counting from the late 1400s – almost
three hundred years before the United States came into existence (thereby falsely attributing
to the U.S. Government deaths which occurred well before the U.S. came into existence); (2) including
the entire Western Hemisphere (including Mexico, where according to anthropologist Henry Dobyns
and other scholars a much larger number of indigenous peoples have suffered and died), rather
than just the land that currently belongs to the U.S.; (3) by including deaths that occurred due
to intertribal warfare. The Cherokee, for example, were probably not "indigenous" to the Southern
Appalachian region, but were in fact a conquering people, who swept down from the north and killed
or displaced the tribes that had previously lived there. Should the U.S. Government be held responsible
for those deaths? A similar story can be told re the Comanche, who became the dominant tribe on
the Southern Plains only because of their brutal and unceasing warfare against the weaker tribes
that previously lived there. Again, do these deaths carried out by the Comanche and other conquering
Native American tribes count towards The Saker's "poly-genocide" totals?
Scholarly consensus is the intentional infliction of smallpox-infected blankets (e.g., by British
general Amherst in 1763, or by American fur traders in the 1830s) did not happen that often. Exactly
how diseases such as smallpox and malaria were first introduced is a matter of ongoing controversy
and debate. Moreover, if Europeans (and their American descendants) are to be held responsible
for introducing smallpox and malaria, should Native Americans be held responsible for introducing
syphilis to Europeans?
Since The Saker is so obviously uninformed about and poorly read in U.S. history, he would
be well advised to focus instead on Russia's history, of which he is much more knowledgeable.
There he would find numerous recent examples of large scale ethnic cleansings and genocidal conquests
carried out by Russia's government against its native peoples. As author Oliver Bullough recounts
in his devastating book "Let Our Fame Be Great," the Russian Government's genocidal colonial war
against the Circassians in the late 1800s resulted in the displacement or death of over one million
people. Now THAT is a true example of a genocide! A similar sad story can be told about the Russian
Government's actions against other native peoples such as the Nogais, Chechens, Mountain Turks
and Ingush. The combined death total attributable to the Russian Government's actions against
these peoples easily exceeds two million. On no reasonable and informed account could the U.S.
Government be said to be directly responsible for the deaths of anywhere near as many Native Americans.
@Reverend Spooner You are and American and trying to opt out. The Saker did not point at ordinary
Americans but I guess reading about American interventions around the world makes you uneasy and
you don't want to face the facts. Bless you Padre, but you have sinned. You better get your stinky
little tushy to confession, ASAP.
PS: You evidently don't know what you're talking about either, so kindly drop the free online
psychoanalysis. As for your nitwit charge of my pusillanimity regarding facing facts, you seem
to be yet another fool with projection problems.
And don't forget to luv thy neighbor. (If any can stand to associate with you.)
@Tom WelshHowever, it is slightly inaccurate to say that "the Russians were allied with
the Nazis".
Must be very slightly.
1. Invaded Poland together. Had victory parade together. Had Gestapo-NKVD conferences in occupied
Poland.
2. Traded
3. Stalin ordered all communist parties in the world to cease all ant-NAZI propaganda. Some communist
outfits cooperated with Gestapo in occupied France denouncing anti-German resistance. In the US
till June 22, 1941 communists were siding with the America First isolationist and were acting
against pro war British propaganda.
4. When Germany was invading countries in the West USSR was invading countries in the East.
5. When USSR attacked Finland UK was considering sending help to Finland and Germany did not
do it. UK was considering bombing of Baku so Germany would not get oil.
@KenH Don't forget the fantastical 1.4M the Soviets claimed were killed at Majdanek (the accepted
number now is 75,000). These propaganda fables form much backbone of the WW2 myth, both in America
and Russia.
@utu Good points; 2) does not count though, neutrals have trade rights. 5) should be clarified
as Germans actually prevented aid from German-aligned nations (certainly Italy) from reaching
Finland.
"The best thing which could happen to this country and its people would be the collapse of
this Empire."
This point of Saker's seems to have rankled many. A controlled "withering away" has been argued
for by many, including the likes of Pat Buchanan. Not for reasons to do with any anti-Americanism,
but precisely out of love for the American Republic and the people. "Empire or Republic" is a
well argued thesis.
But what looks like is that the Empire is growing and growing. Many argue that the Empire is
on its last legs, that it will collapse when the dollar collapses, or when the left loonies and
other half-crazed groups create sufficient inner discord. I don't see it happening in the next
twenty years. The US State is strong, very strong, far stronger than any other that history has
seen; and it plans to hold on to its empire and strengthen it by any and all means. It is not
going to wither away, fade away, or be planned down. Nor is its unwinding going to be supported
by many Americans, and that is the tragic part, the real tragic part, as Saker has passionately
tried to address. He thinks evil and ignorance can be talked down; I doubt it. That is the tragedy
and danger of our times.
So keep your popcorn and chilled beer ready, and wait for the next of round of boom, kabbatz,
and other spectacular sounds and images to keep you entertained. Likely, it all will happen "over
there", so no danger to you or the homeland.
@The Alarmist No, it is pointing out that they did it early. Not a cheap shot but a praise
for a job well done.
Or,
If you prefer to admit a bit of soviet control over the ailing Roosevelt; Hiss and White helped
con the US president into believing that the USSR was a spent force and could not possibly mobilize
and cross from Berlin to Manchuria in 90 days with the millions of men, tanks, artillery, POL,
food, meds etc. over the single double tracked railroad in existence in that part of the world.
The Russians did that with time to spare.
I submit to you for your approval that the single most important battle in WWII was the battle
of Khalkhin Ghol in September of 1939. The Japanese army in Manchuria had its ass handed to it
by Zhukov and the Russians. The Japanese and the Russians signed a peace treaty that was renewed
yearly until the evening before the Russian attack in 1945. As a result, the USSR was the only
nation that did not have to engage in a multiple front war. Russia's enemy came from her west
and was sent back the same way. The US's enemies came from her west and her east ditto the British
empire, and Japan. China's enemies were from her east and internal. France was an irrelevancy
but her empire did have to face internal enemies as well as the Japanese.
@Reverend Spooner In 1904 the Japanese did a preview of Pearl Harbor on the Russians at the
urging of GB.
In 1905 at Portsmouth Teddy Roosevelt screwed the Russians as a favour to the House of Warburg,
with the Treaty of Portsmouth.
In 1918 the US, France, GB, Japan, and others invaded Russia to attempt to control the outcome
of the Russian Civil War. The Americans left when it became obvious that Wilson was stroked out
and Harding would become the next president. The Japanese stayed until 1925 trying to sever Siberia
from Russia. The Japanese left in 25 and attempted to re-insert themselves in 37. The revamped
Russian military handed them their asses at Khalkhin Ghol.
A blockade is an act of war.
You only have to read the Old Testament to see that even God was a war criminal, particularly
if seen from the point of view of Baal or the Philistines. And the Romans, although known for
propagating aspects of civilization like public baths, clean water, sewerage, and the rule of
law, were not averse to X-rated entertainment like watching enemies of the state eaten by lions.
A lot of crimes of Manifest Destiny were committed under the somewhat mistaken belief that
Christianity was officially sanctioned by The Creator, and that lesser breeds needed to knuckle
down and accept their place in the world or they would get their just desserts.
Since God's retirement there has been a lot less of the Spanish Inquisition and that kind of
thing, though admittedly there is a kind of residual effect in the consideration of human history
that prevents us from being too hard on our forefathers. The case for the defense may be summed
up as forgive them for they knew not what they did .
However, to be fair, a lot of the Native Americans were already regularly killing each other
before they came under the British Crown and it was time for the business of culling excess human
beings to be brought under central control. Native Americans are now running casinos, which is
a step up from ripping off scalps.
Although George W. Bush reintroduced torture which had generally fallen out of favor, his heart
was in the right place, and who is to say that a few Christian lives were not saved by selective
torturing of infidels?
The concentration camps in Nazi Germany were certainly not Western Civilization's finest moment,
but how many times do the Germans have to say sorry? They know they screwed up, and they have
promised not to do it again. Now they are making Volkswagens, not waging war.
Colonialism never ended, it continues by different means.
By George Monbiot, published in the Guardian 1st May 2012
The conviction of Charles Taylor, the former president of Liberia, is said to have sent an unequivocal
message to current leaders: that great office confers no immunity. In fact it sent two messages:
if you run a small, weak nation, you may be subject to the full force of international law. If you
run a powerful nation, you have nothing to fear.
While anyone with an interest in human rights should welcome the verdict, it reminds us that no
one has faced legal consequences for launching the illegal war against Iraq. This fits the Nuremberg
Tribunal's definition of a "crime of aggression", which it called "the supreme international crime"(
1 ). The charges
on which, in an impartial system, George Bush, Tony Blair and their associates should have been investigated
are far graver than those for which Taylor was found guilty.
The foreign secretary, William Hague, claims that Taylor's conviction "demonstrates that those
who have committed the most serious of crimes can and will be held to account for their actions."(
2
) But the International Criminal Court, though it was established ten years ago, and though the crime
of aggression has been recognised in international law since 1945, still has no jurisdiction over
"the most serious of crimes"( 3
). This is because the powerful nations, for obvious reasons, are procrastinating. Nor have the
United Kingdom, the United States and other western nations incorporated the crime of aggression
into their own legislation. International law remains an imperial project, in which only the crimes
committed by vassal states are punished.
In this respect it corresponds to other global powers. Despite its trumpeted reforms, the International
Monetary Fund remains under the control of the United States and the former colonial powers. All
constitutional matters still require an 85% share of the vote(
4 ). By an inexplicable
oversight, the United States retains 16.7%, ensuring that it possesses a veto over subsequent reforms(
5 ). Belgium still
has eight times the votes of Bangladesh(
6 ), Italy a
bigger share than India and the United Kingdom and France between them more voting power than the
49 African members(7). The managing director remains, as imperial tradition insists, a European,
her deputy an American.
The IMF, as a result, is still the means by which western financial markets project their power
into the rest of the world. At the end of last year, for example, it published a paper pressing emerging
economies to increase their "financial depth", which it defines as "the total financial claims and
counterclaims of an economy"(
8 ). This,
it claimed, would insulate them from crisis.
As the Bretton Woods Project points out, emerging nations with large real economies and small
financial sectors were the countries which best weathered the economic crisis, which was caused by
advanced economies with large financial sectors(9). Like the modern opium war it waged in the 1980s
and 1990s – when it forced Asian countries to liberalise their currencies, permitting western financial
speculators to attack them(10) – the IMF's prescriptions are incomprehensible until they are understood
as instruments of financial power.
Decolonisation did not take place until the former colonial powers and the empires of capital
on whose behalf they operated had established other means of retaining control. Some, like the IMF
and World Bank, have remained almost unchanged. Others, like the programme of extraordinary rendition,
evolved in response to new challenges to global hegemony.
As the kidnapping of Abdul Hakim Belhaj and his wife suggests, the UK's foreign and intelligence
services see themselves as a global police force, minding the affairs of other nations. In 2004,
after Tony Blair, with one eye on possible contracts for British oil companies, decided that Gaddafi
was a useful asset, the alliance was sealed with the capture, packaging and delivery of the regime's
dissenters(
11 ).
Like the colonial crimes the British government committed in Kenya and elsewhere(
12 ), whose concealment
was sustained by the Foreign Office until its secret archives were revealed last month(
13 ), the rendition programme was hidden from public view. Just as the colonial secretary, Alan
Lennox-Boyd, repeatedly lied to parliament about the detention and torture of the Kikuyu(14), in
2005 Jack Straw, then foreign secretary, told parliament that "there simply is no truth in the claims
that the United Kingdom has been involved in rendition."(
15 )
Reading the emails passed between the offices of James Murdoch and Jeremy Hunt, it struck me that
here too is a government which sees itself as an agent of empire – Murdoch's in this case – and which
sees the electorate as ornamental. Working, against the public interest, for News Corporation, the
financial sector and the billionaire donors to the Conservative party, its ministers act as capital's
district commissioners, governing Britain as their forebears governed the colonies.
The bid for power, oil and spheres of influence that Bush and Blair launched in Mesopotamia, using
the traditional camouflage of the civilising mission; the colonial war still being fought in Afghanistan,
199 years after the Great Game began; the global policing functions the great powers have arrogated
to themselves; the one-sided justice dispensed by international law: all these suggest that imperialism
never ended, but merely mutated into new forms. The virtual empire knows no boundaries. Until we
begin to recognise and confront it, all of us, black and white, will remain its subjects.
Colonialism never ended, it continues by different means.
By George Monbiot, published in the Guardian 1st May 2012
The conviction of Charles Taylor, the former president of Liberia, is said to have sent an unequivocal
message to current leaders: that great office confers no immunity. In fact it sent two messages:
if you run a small, weak nation, you may be subject to the full force of international law. If you
run a powerful nation, you have nothing to fear.
While anyone with an interest in human rights should welcome the verdict, it reminds us that no
one has faced legal consequences for launching the illegal war against Iraq. This fits the Nuremberg
Tribunal's definition of a "crime of aggression", which it called "the supreme international crime"(
1 ). The charges
on which, in an impartial system, George Bush, Tony Blair and their associates should have been investigated
are far graver than those for which Taylor was found guilty.
The foreign secretary, William Hague, claims that Taylor's conviction "demonstrates that those
who have committed the most serious of crimes can and will be held to account for their actions."(
2
) But the International Criminal Court, though it was established ten years ago, and though the crime
of aggression has been recognised in international law since 1945, still has no jurisdiction over
"the most serious of crimes"( 3
). This is because the powerful nations, for obvious reasons, are procrastinating. Nor have the
United Kingdom, the United States and other western nations incorporated the crime of aggression
into their own legislation. International law remains an imperial project, in which only the crimes
committed by vassal states are punished.
In this respect it corresponds to other global powers. Despite its trumpeted reforms, the International
Monetary Fund remains under the control of the United States and the former colonial powers. All
constitutional matters still require an 85% share of the vote(
4 ). By an inexplicable
oversight, the United States retains 16.7%, ensuring that it possesses a veto over subsequent reforms(
5 ). Belgium still
has eight times the votes of Bangladesh(
6 ), Italy a
bigger share than India and the United Kingdom and France between them more voting power than the
49 African members(7). The managing director remains, as imperial tradition insists, a European,
her deputy an American.
The IMF, as a result, is still the means by which western financial markets project their power
into the rest of the world. At the end of last year, for example, it published a paper pressing emerging
economies to increase their "financial depth", which it defines as "the total financial claims and
counterclaims of an economy"(
8 ). This,
it claimed, would insulate them from crisis.
As the Bretton Woods Project points out, emerging nations with large real economies and small
financial sectors were the countries which best weathered the economic crisis, which was caused by
advanced economies with large financial sectors(9). Like the modern opium war it waged in the 1980s
and 1990s – when it forced Asian countries to liberalise their currencies, permitting western financial
speculators to attack them(10) – the IMF's prescriptions are incomprehensible until they are understood
as instruments of financial power.
Decolonisation did not take place until the former colonial powers and the empires of capital
on whose behalf they operated had established other means of retaining control. Some, like the IMF
and World Bank, have remained almost unchanged. Others, like the programme of extraordinary rendition,
evolved in response to new challenges to global hegemony.
As the kidnapping of Abdul Hakim Belhaj and his wife suggests, the UK's foreign and intelligence
services see themselves as a global police force, minding the affairs of other nations. In 2004,
after Tony Blair, with one eye on possible contracts for British oil companies, decided that Gaddafi
was a useful asset, the alliance was sealed with the capture, packaging and delivery of the regime's
dissenters(
11 ).
Like the colonial crimes the British government committed in Kenya and elsewhere(
12 ), whose concealment
was sustained by the Foreign Office until its secret archives were revealed last month(
13 ), the rendition programme was hidden from public view. Just as the colonial secretary, Alan
Lennox-Boyd, repeatedly lied to parliament about the detention and torture of the Kikuyu(14), in
2005 Jack Straw, then foreign secretary, told parliament that "there simply is no truth in the claims
that the United Kingdom has been involved in rendition."(
15 )
Reading the emails passed between the offices of James Murdoch and Jeremy Hunt, it struck me that
here too is a government which sees itself as an agent of empire – Murdoch's in this case – and which
sees the electorate as ornamental. Working, against the public interest, for News Corporation, the
financial sector and the billionaire donors to the Conservative party, its ministers act as capital's
district commissioners, governing Britain as their forebears governed the colonies.
The bid for power, oil and spheres of influence that Bush and Blair launched in Mesopotamia, using
the traditional camouflage of the civilising mission; the colonial war still being fought in Afghanistan,
199 years after the Great Game began; the global policing functions the great powers have arrogated
to themselves; the one-sided justice dispensed by international law: all these suggest that imperialism
never ended, but merely mutated into new forms. The virtual empire knows no boundaries. Until we
begin to recognise and confront it, all of us, black and white, will remain its subjects.
Strawman, that many here, including Mark and PO, have tried using against me. First, I have
criticisms of U.S. foreign policy, like the 2003 Iraq war, intervention in Libya, and the war
in Afghanistan. This debunks the first part of your post.
As for the second: anyone who blames the U.S. for something it is not responsible for, in
an attempt to distract from the country's economic issues for example, is an anti-American.
Ditto for anyone who wants the U.S. to collapse, be destroyed, or makes fun of its people
with stereotypes.
The above paragraph can be applied to any country in the world and is standard fare for
defining phobia against a country. You and your ilk are quick to whine about "Russophobia",
but when similar tactics are used against the U.S., you start calling anyone who calls them
out an "imperialist".
Such extreme over-simplifications do nothing except twist my words and make it easier for
you to avoid critically self-assessing your views on U.S. foreign policy. An easy way to
avoid debate.
"Ditto for anyone who wants the U.S. to collapse, be destroyed, or makes fun of its people
with stereotypes."
That's too simplistic. The USA simultaneously represents a country and a global neoliberal
empire led from Washington. The latter gave us all those wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya,
Yemen and Syria (KSA is a part of the empire).
You may want prosperity for the USA proper, and the collapse of this neoliberal empire at
the same time. This is essentially Bannon's position and the position of other "economic
nationalists" in the USA, who are now tarred and feathered as "Putin friends" (Putin's
position is also somewhat closer to economic nationalism then to neoliberalism, although in
certain areas he sits between two chairs).
The USA is a great country which among other things gave the world Internet, as we know
it. As well as modern CPUs and computers ( although here British scientists and Germans made
important contributions too, often as staff of foreign subsidiaries of the US companies such
as Intel, and IBM) . Due to which such forums are possible.
Neoliberalism and US governed global neoliberal empire will most probably shrink or even
collapse after the end of cheap oil and due to the rise of nationalist movements in almost
all EU countries and elsewhere, which partially reverses the trend toward neoliberal
globalization that existed before. That's uneven process. In the USA neoliberalism
demonstrated amazing staying power after financial crisis of 2008, which buried neoliberal
ideology.
Recently in some countries (not without some help from the USA) neoliberalism staged
revenge (Argentina, Brazil), but the general trend now does not favor neoliberal
globalization and, by extension, kicking the can down the road via color revolutions and
such.
The typical forecast for end of cheap oil is a decade or two. KSA is the canary in the
mine here. It should collapse first.
The USA as a country probably will be OK because it is rich in hydrocarbons, but the
neoliberal empire will collapse as the USA probably it will not be able or willing to serve
as armed enforcer of multinationals around the globe any longer. The set of ideas known as
neoliberalism are already on life support. See https://www.amazon.com/dp/0199283273 A Brief
History of Neoliberalism by David Harvey. Also see http://softpanorama.org/Skeptics/Political_skeptic/Neoliberalism/index.shtml
Neoliberals who control the US state after Reagan coup (or even starting with Carter)
still push down the throats of Americans those dead ideas due to power of propaganda machine,
but they are less and less effective. Trump election means that allergic reaction to
neoliberal propaganda already is a factor in the US political life. Hillary positioned
herself as quintessential globalist and warmonger for the USA led neoliberal empire and lost.
Trump proved to be no better then the king of "bait and switch" Barak Obama and shed all his
election promises with ease. But the fact remains. .
For the same reason we also need to distinguish between neocons, who currently determine
the US foreign policy (and dominate the State Department) and the rank-and-file Americans who
suffer from this imperial overreach, from outsourcing, with some of them returning home dead
or maimed. There nothing bad in denigrating neocons.
I would view the current round of hostilities between Russia and the USA through the prism
of the fight for the preservation of the US neoliberal empire. They need an external enemy to
squash mounting resistance to neoliberalism with the USA. And Ukraine gambit was designed
explicitly for that. If they can take out Russia (by installing Yeltsin-style regime, which
is the goal) the life of empire might be prolonged (they tried and failed in 2012). The
second round of looting also might help with paying external debt. The shot in the arm which
the USA got from the collapse of the USSR led to [fake] prosperity in 1994-2000.
Strawman, that many here, including Mark and PO, have tried using against me. First, I have
criticisms of U.S. foreign policy, like the 2003 Iraq war, intervention in Libya, and the war
in Afghanistan. This debunks the first part of your post.
As for the second: anyone who blames the U.S. for something it is not responsible for, in
an attempt to distract from the country's economic issues for example, is an anti-American.
Ditto for anyone who wants the U.S. to collapse, be destroyed, or makes fun of its people
with stereotypes.
The above paragraph can be applied to any country in the world and is standard fare for
defining phobia against a country. You and your ilk are quick to whine about "Russophobia",
but when similar tactics are used against the U.S., you start calling anyone who calls them
out an "imperialist".
Such extreme over-simplifications do nothing except twist my words and make it easier for
you to avoid critically self-assessing your views on U.S. foreign policy. An easy way to
avoid debate.
"Ditto for anyone who wants the U.S. to collapse, be destroyed, or makes fun of its people
with stereotypes."
That's too simplistic. The USA simultaneously represents a country and a global neoliberal
empire led from Washington. The latter gave us all those wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya,
Yemen and Syria (KSA is a part of the empire).
You may want prosperity for the USA proper, and the collapse of this neoliberal empire at
the same time. This is essentially Bannon's position and the position of other "economic
nationalists" in the USA, who are now tarred and feathered as "Putin friends" (Putin's
position is also somewhat closer to economic nationalism then to neoliberalism, although in
certain areas he sits between two chairs).
The USA is a great country which among other things gave the world Internet, as we know
it. As well as modern CPUs and computers ( although here British scientists and Germans made
important contributions too, often as staff of foreign subsidiaries of the US companies such
as Intel, and IBM) . Due to which such forums are possible.
Neoliberalism and US governed global neoliberal empire will most probably shrink or even
collapse after the end of cheap oil and due to the rise of nationalist movements in almost
all EU countries and elsewhere, which partially reverses the trend toward neoliberal
globalization that existed before. That's uneven process. In the USA neoliberalism
demonstrated amazing staying power after financial crisis of 2008, which buried neoliberal
ideology.
Recently in some countries (not without some help from the USA) neoliberalism staged
revenge (Argentina, Brazil), but the general trend now does not favor neoliberal
globalization and, by extension, kicking the can down the road via color revolutions and
such.
The typical forecast for end of cheap oil is a decade or two. KSA is the canary in the
mine here. It should collapse first.
The USA as a country probably will be OK because it is rich in hydrocarbons, but the
neoliberal empire will collapse as the USA probably it will not be able or willing to serve
as armed enforcer of multinationals around the globe any longer. The set of ideas known as
neoliberalism are already on life support. See https://www.amazon.com/dp/0199283273 A Brief
History of Neoliberalism by David Harvey. Also see http://softpanorama.org/Skeptics/Political_skeptic/Neoliberalism/index.shtml
Neoliberals who control the US state after Reagan coup (or even starting with Carter)
still push down the throats of Americans those dead ideas due to power of propaganda machine,
but they are less and less effective. Trump election means that allergic reaction to
neoliberal propaganda already is a factor in the US political life. Hillary positioned
herself as quintessential globalist and warmonger for the USA led neoliberal empire and lost.
Trump proved to be no better then the king of "bait and switch" Barak Obama and shed all his
election promises with ease. But the fact remains. .
For the same reason we also need to distinguish between neocons, who currently determine
the US foreign policy (and dominate the State Department) and the rank-and-file Americans who
suffer from this imperial overreach, from outsourcing, with some of them returning home dead
or maimed. There nothing bad in denigrating neocons.
I would view the current round of hostilities between Russia and the USA through the prism
of the fight for the preservation of the US neoliberal empire. They need an external enemy to
squash mounting resistance to neoliberalism with the USA. And Ukraine gambit was designed
explicitly for that. If they can take out Russia (by installing Yeltsin-style regime, which
is the goal) the life of empire might be prolonged (they tried and failed in 2012). The
second round of looting also might help with paying external debt. The shot in the arm which
the USA got from the collapse of the USSR led to [fake] prosperity in 1994-2000.
What Katrina van den Heuvel does not understand is that American imperialism in not compatible with
independent, sovereign Russia, only with vassal Yeltsin Russia. that why Russian believe that the
USA is trying "regime change" via color revolution in Russia. Obama administration tried this and
spend a lot of cash delivered by diplomatic mail on this exercise in 2012. They failed. So the
U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency" is right in reporting that "the Kremlin apparently believes the
United States seeks regime change in Russia."
So as long as the USA continues building global neoliberal empire led from Washington, tensions
are hostilities are inevitable
Notable quotes:
"... In Russia, the United States is seen as the aggressor, asserting itself as the global unipower. ..."
"... NATO expansion helped convince Russians that the West regards it as a permanent enemy. The U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency recently reported that the Kremlin apparently believes the United States seeks regime change in Russia. ..."
"... In fact, each perspective holds more than a grain of truth. ..."
"... The United States has seen itself as the global arbiter, the "indispensable nation," dismissing the legitimacy of any other nation's sphere of influence. ..."
"... Despite all this, two countries possessing over 90 percent of the world's nuclear weapons urgently need a working relationship. A working détente requires persistent efforts to find areas of agreement and to settle disputes, rather than a willingness to freeze relations, deepen sanctions and escalate military posturing. ..."
"... At the end of the Cold War, the United States and Russia could have joined in building and strengthening a zone of peace in Europe. Instead, the United States expanded NATO right up to Russia's border. ..."
"... An agreement guaranteeing Georgia and Ukraine's independence, committing them to remain nonaligned, outside of NATO and free to join both the EU and the Russian economic bloc, would greatly reduce tensions. Russia and the United States might join in pushing for the full implementation of the Minsk II Accords, providing for an end to violence and greater autonomy for eastern Ukraine. Sanctions relief might be combined with an agreement for an internationally monitored referendum on Crimea's status, under the UN's auspices. ..."
On January 26 of this year, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists reset the Doomsday Clock
from 11:57 to 11:58:30 (midnight represents nuclear apocalypse). The Bulletin considers these
days more dangerous than the Cuban Missile Crisis, and for good reason. The new cold war between
Russia and the United States is punctuated by perilous military face-offs in three arenas: in Syria;
in the skies over the Baltic Sea, on Russia's western border with three hundred thousand NATO troops
on high alert and both Russia and NATO ramping up deployments and exercises; and in Ukraine.
The rising tensions express totally contradictory perspectives. In the United States, across the
political spectrum, Putin is seen as a merciless autocrat with expansionist designs. He's denounced
for aggression in Georgia and Ukraine, and for propping up a brutal dictator in Syria. Investigations
on Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election -- and possible collusion
with the Trump campaign -- have generated a continuing media frenzy that poisons any
discussion.
In Russia, the United States is seen as the aggressor, asserting itself as the global unipower.
When Bill Clinton trampled upon repeated promises and began expanding NATO towards the Russian border,
George F. Kennan, the architect of containment, warned of a "tragic mistake." NATO expansion helped
convince Russians that the West regards it as a permanent enemy. The U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency
recently reported that the Kremlin apparently believes the United States seeks regime change in Russia.
In fact, each perspective holds more than a grain of truth. Putin does want to reassert Russia's
influence on the international stage, and challenge what he sees as America's unipolar delusion.
The United States has seen itself as the global arbiter, the "indispensable nation," dismissing the
legitimacy of any other nation's sphere of influence. The Pentagon does designate Russia as its leading
adversary. The United States has encouraged the "color revolutions" in Georgia and the coup in Ukraine.
Both countries have mucked about in the others' internal and electoral politics.
Despite all this, two countries possessing over 90 percent of the world's nuclear weapons urgently
need a working relationship. A working détente requires persistent efforts to find areas of agreement
and to settle disputes, rather than a willingness to freeze relations, deepen sanctions and escalate
military posturing.
The first priority for the United States should be reengaging Russia in efforts to reduce nuclear
arsenals, and to deny terrorists access to nuclear materials. They should be working together
-- as they did in the P5+1 negotiations over Iranian nuclear-weapons capacity --
to stop the spread of nuclear weapons.
The United States and Russia also have a shared concern about the terrorist threat posed by ISIS,
Al Qaeda and their offshoots. In Syria, cooperation with Russia may be the only way to stabilize
the nation so it can eventually recover from its horrific war. The United States has no intention
of committing the troops and resources needed to overthrow Syria's president, Bashar al-Assad. Washington
would do well to increase cooperation with Russia in the war against ISIS, and seek joint guarantees
of a cease-fire that gives the Syrian people a respite from six years of brutal warfare, and begins
to slow the refugee flows destabilizing Europe.
At the end of the Cold War, the United States and Russia could have joined in building and strengthening
a zone of peace in Europe. Instead, the United States expanded NATO right up to Russia's border.
That expansion will be virtually impossible to undo, but the United States and Russia could reverse
the buildup of troops and stand down the military exercises on both sides of the Russian border without
any formal agreement.
An agreement guaranteeing Georgia and Ukraine's independence, committing them
to remain nonaligned, outside of NATO and free to join both the EU and the Russian economic bloc,
would greatly reduce tensions. Russia and the United States might join in pushing for the full implementation
of the Minsk II Accords, providing for an end to violence and greater autonomy for eastern Ukraine.
Sanctions relief might be combined with an agreement for an internationally monitored referendum
on Crimea's status, under the UN's auspices.
... ... ...
Katrina vanden Heuvel is editor and publisher of the Nation.
Looks like the USA now playing into Chinese hands...
Notable quotes:
"... The USA is accustomed to ignoring the law and pressing ahead when it suits it to do that, but the deciding factor was that sanctions and cutting Iran out of SWIFT were ineffective at achieving US aims. Iran suffered, but it was not stopped, and the whole exercise mobilized feeling against the USA. ..."
They can create alternative for payments with each other but it not alternative because they need
swift for interbank exchange with banks in swift system anyway.
Domestically it can be replaced with whatever homebrew solution and not issue, but it needed
for interneational tranasactions, this is the point.
And If you declared to be "cut" out of swift, it will not stop you for using it domestically
but swift system international banks will just stop any transactions with you by whatewer means.
All this talk is overhyped, will Germany pay for gas by trucks with cash or what. When we at
this point – cards is last of your problem. So swift will stay in any case. mir is old news
The idea was floated to cut Russia out of SWIFT, but it was quickly stepped on by the Americans
themselves. Cutting Iran out of SWIFT was a transparently self-interested move by the United States
to discourage an oil brokerage which avoided use of the US dollar as a benchmark – don't want
people getting ideas. Western states which got on board were sharply rebuked when the EU's General
Court ruled that
sanctioning two Iranian banks was illegal and that they must be compensated for their losses,
as no proof was offered that they were doing business on behalf of 'the regime'.
The USA is accustomed to ignoring the law and pressing ahead when it suits it to do that,
but the deciding factor was that sanctions and cutting Iran out of SWIFT were ineffective at achieving
US aims. Iran suffered, but it was not stopped, and the whole exercise mobilized feeling against
the USA.
You could times that by ten in Russia's case. So they won't do it. But Russia becoming fiscally
more self-reliant and the international business community becoming more suspicious of American
manipulating are overall good things.
And two large countries agreeing to remove the US dollar from their bi-national trades is a
blow to dollar dominance.
Presumably a BRICS SWIFT could be developed to facilitate transactions among the members. It could
be part of the effort to reduce the dominance of the US dollar in international trade. Presumably,
other countries can be added resulting in more of a global payment system.
As a total novice in
such matters, I can state with complete confidence it will be a likely next step in the growing
financial power of Russia, China and like-mined nations.
I'll ask an even more politically-incorrect question: To what extent is the United States
Navy still
our
navy? What does the U.S. Navy's presence in the South China Sea, or
near Singapore, or anywhere west of Hawaii, have to do with the security of the people of the
United States? If the combined naval forces of China and Japan and the other nations of the
region can't protect merchantmen from pirates, well, re-route ships away and out of
range.
Almost nothing the United States military does today provides any meaningful defense for
the American nation. The fact that we have a Department of "Defense" and a separate
Department of Homeland Security really ought to be a clue to the
genuine
mission of
the U.S. military: maintenance of the AngloZionist Empire.
I know that John has a son in the U.S. Army. I hope that he leaves when his enlistment is
up. If he still aspires to a military career I suggest the French Foreign Legion or some
country that accepts foreign volunteers. The Army training he got will improve his situation
and he might be working for an organization that actually defends its own people, or at least
its own organization (in the case of the Legion). I applied to West Point years
ago–today I would counsel a son to take all steps necessary to avoid conscription. It's
no longer
our
military.
Jim Christian sometimes coments on Navy issues here at Unz. I wonder what his take on the
situation is?
I have a job connected with military recruiting. Most Americans wouldn't believe who's
joining the U.S. military these days. It's largely a jobs program for third-world immigrants
or the white underclass. It's common to see 18/19-year old recent immigrants from Africa who
were living in villages without street names just 3 years prior. Or young Latinas with a
child (who's being taken care of by her parents) who are working security or MP with goal of
becoming a civilian cop.
But hey, the young people who join will be fairly well-compensated (compared to the
private-employer world) and will receive life-long benefits, including preference in all
government employment hiring.
@Diversity Heretic
I'll ask an even more politically-incorrect question: To what extent
is the United States Navy still
our
navy? What does the U.S. Navy's presence in the
South China Sea, or near Singapore, or anywhere west of Hawaii, have to do with the security
of the people of the United States? If the combined naval forces of China and Japan and the
other nations of the region can't protect merchantmen from pirates, well, re-route ships away
and out of range.
Almost nothing the United States military does today provides any meaningful defense for
the American nation. The fact that we have a Department of "Defense" and a separate
Department of Homeland Security really ought to be a clue to the
genuine
mission of
the U.S. military: maintenance of the AngloZionist Empire.
I know that John has a son in the U.S. Army. I hope that he leaves when his enlistment is
up. If he still aspires to a military career I suggest the French Foreign Legion or some
country that accepts foreign volunteers. The Army training he got will improve his situation
and he might be working for an organization that actually defends its own people, or at least
its own organization (in the case of the Legion). I applied to West Point years ago--today I
would counsel a son to take all steps necessary to avoid conscription. It's no longer
our
military.
Jim Christian sometimes coments on Navy issues here at Unz. I wonder what his take on the
situation is?
To what extent is the United States Navy still our navy?
That's a good question, and it could be asked of the whole military. Historically, the
military defends the nation in its geographic redoubt. Our military's mission, much less
Europe's, seems to be the defense of a global ideological order. Hence, I wonder if the
partial intent is to keep the nation's elite fighters tied up overseas rather than garrisoned
on home soil lest they get any ideas about defense of the Nation as opposed to the NWO.
Apparently there was serious talk within the British military when the Labour government
decided to experiment with nationalization after World War II.
On the other hand, I think pensions, medical care and housing are keeping the US military
quiescent, and this gets back to Derb's point. A lot of people join the military out of
economic necessity; they are there for the paycheck, and when the mission becomes Diversity
they are happy to follow orders. Soldiers with poor prospects in the private sector will do
awful things to their own countrymen to keep the benefits flowing. Venezuela frankly needs a
military coup, but they're apparently well-fed and their generals don't know economics.
Lived it, have the T-shirt. Retired from the Navy 11 years ago. You put young men and
women of breeding age on a vessel and you have fraternization and pregnancies. Duh. Walking
by the mess (dining) decks on an aircraft carrier was sometimes like walking by a high school
cafeteria with the guys checking out the chicks and vice versa. Pregnancies of course rose
mysteriously just before deployment. I lost the same female twice to pregnancy, both times
before a six month deployment and finally, remember you have the same male/female dynamic at
watch stations in the middle of the night
I guess you can an add a much larger homosexual element to the issue since I retired as
well. Who knows what's going on in the fan rooms of some of those ships these days.
@El Dato
In truth, engagements are supposed to be over fast.
If you have a few missiles coming at you from the horizon and you miss less than 100% of
them with your Phalanx or whatever else you have (a functional
Aster
system? An non-experimental
Laser gun?), it's Game Over Man, whether you are in a thin-shelled floating server room or a
thick-shelled floating server room.
Shell, bomb, and kamikaze damage just ain't gonna happen anymore.
OUCH TIME
Missiles are just another way of delivering warheads that used to be called "shells". Navy
ships used to be armored to take shell fire and survive. Today, they are thin-skinned
electronic "gaming" machines that cannot survive a "pin prick".
The Navy was shocked in the first Gulf War when an Iraqi Exocet missile (one hit) totally
disabled the missile frigate, USS Stark. However, nothing changed with respect to
thin-skinned naval ship design.
What this means is that swarming Iranian speed boats probably
do
have the
capability of disabling and/or destroying US Navy ships in the Persian Gulf in time of war.
Missiles are cheap. Thin-skinned $1.5 billion electronic missile frigates are not.
The Russians and Chinese are also following this strategy cheap missiles to disable and/or
destroy US Navy capital (including aircraft carriers) and support ships with hypersonic
missiles that cannot be defended against.
Physical damage aside, there is also a growing capability on the part of the Russians and
Chinese to turn off a ship's electronics via electronic warfare. In 2014, a Sukhoi Su-24
overflying the USS Donald Cook in the Black Sea was able to electronically disable the ship
using the "Khibiny" electronic warfare suite.
The point is that thin-skinned navy ships packed with electronics are no match for today's
offensive missiles or electronic warfare suites. As a cost comparison, it is ridiculous to
procure fleets of billion dollar ships that can be disabled or destroyed by relatively
low-cost missiles and electronic warfare suites.
@TheJester
Missiles are just another way of delivering warheads that used to be called
"shells". Navy ships used to be armored to take shell fire and survive. Today, they are
thin-skinned electronic "gaming" machines that cannot survive a "pin prick".
The Navy was shocked in the first Gulf War when an Iraqi Exocet missile (one hit) totally
disabled the missile frigate, USS Stark. However, nothing changed with respect to
thin-skinned naval ship design.
What this means is that swarming Iranian speed boats probably
do
have the
capability of disabling and/or destroying US Navy ships in the Persian Gulf in time of war.
Missiles are cheap. Thin-skinned $1.5 billion electronic missile frigates are not.
The Russians and Chinese are also following this strategy ... cheap missiles to disable
and/or destroy US Navy capital (including aircraft carriers) and support ships with
hypersonic missiles that cannot be defended against.
Physical damage aside, there is also a growing capability on the part of the Russians and
Chinese to turn off a ship's electronics via electronic warfare. In 2014, a Sukhoi Su-24
overflying the USS Donald Cook in the Black Sea was able to electronically disable the ship
using the "Khibiny" electronic warfare suite.
The point is that thin-skinned navy ships packed with electronics are no match for today's
offensive missiles or electronic warfare suites. As a cost comparison, it is ridiculous to
procure fleets of billion dollar ships that can be disabled or destroyed by relatively
low-cost missiles and electronic warfare suites.
it is ridiculous to procure fleets of billion dollar ships that can be disabled or
destroyed by relatively low-cost missiles and electronic warfare suites.
"Only two kinds of ships in the Navy: submarines and targets"
@Chris Mallory
What fever dreams do you have that entail American troops fighting
Hezbollah? Keep our troops out of Lebanon and Hezbollah is not an issue.
Only an idiot would invade North Korea. Sign your kids up for that, leave mine out of it.
I didn't say I wanted war and don't see how you could conclude that I did. But Trump is
daring N. Korea to knock the chip off his shoulder and looking for reasons to marginalize
Iran further, so I'd be surprised if we don't find ourselves in a shooting war with one of
them, most likely Iran since they're atop Israel's shit list.
@QuestionMan
What does affirmative action have to do with the Commanding Officer,
Executive Officer and Command Master Chief of the USS Fitzgerald? I'll take a stab at
explaining it to you. Because of affirmative action, competent folks are passed over in favor
of less competent, or incompetent folks, because some of the incompetent folks ancestors may,
or may not have, suffered under a various set of circumstances in the past. Believe it or
not, there may even be incompetent White folks, but in a more merit based time, these
incompetent Whites were kept to a minimum. Having promoted every minority above his skill
level, you still have a certain percentage of incompetent Whites in the field, and because
there are a limited number of positions, you now have more incompetents in charge. Picture a
pool of 100 commander positions, you have a 10% to 20% incompetency level of Whites, in a
merit based organization, they would take up 10% to 20% of command positions. Now we know
that in all probability, every minority commander was promoted based not on his skill, bit
his minority status, you add all those incompetents to the command structure, increasing it
from 10%, to up to 50% of incompetent commanders depending on how many minorities were
promoted unjustly.
As a USCG seaman who once experienced the brutal 18-hour work days underway on 30-day
patrols conducting search-and-rescue or law enforcement operations, it's almost impossible to
articulate the intellectual stamina required of the officer-class as-well-as the
physical/psychological stamina required of the enlisted-class.
@SteveRogers42
Lighter side: Most minorities eschew the combat arms MOS's. The closer you
get to the tip of the spear in the U.S. military, the paler and maler the picture becomes.
Special operations units and the pilot/aviator jobs are overwhelmingly white.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/08/05/diversity-seals-green-berets/31122851/
"White Privilege," Was a Non-Existent Fact During the Vietnam War.
Of the 58,220 Americans Killed, 49,830 (86%) Were White.
"Statistical Information About Casualties of the Vietnam War"
What Katrina van den Heuvel does not understand is that American imperialism in not compatible with
independent, sovereign Russia, only with vassal Yeltsin Russia. that why Russian believe that the
USA is trying "regime change" via color revolution in Russia. Obama administration tried this and
spend a lot of cash delivered by diplomatic mail on this exercise in 2012. They failed. So the
U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency" is right in reporting that "the Kremlin apparently believes the
United States seeks regime change in Russia."
So as long as the USA continues building global neoliberal empire led from Washington, tensions
are hostilities are inevitable
Notable quotes:
"... In Russia, the United States is seen as the aggressor, asserting itself as the global unipower. ..."
"... NATO expansion helped convince Russians that the West regards it as a permanent enemy. The U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency recently reported that the Kremlin apparently believes the United States seeks regime change in Russia. ..."
"... In fact, each perspective holds more than a grain of truth. ..."
"... The United States has seen itself as the global arbiter, the "indispensable nation," dismissing the legitimacy of any other nation's sphere of influence. ..."
"... Despite all this, two countries possessing over 90 percent of the world's nuclear weapons urgently need a working relationship. A working détente requires persistent efforts to find areas of agreement and to settle disputes, rather than a willingness to freeze relations, deepen sanctions and escalate military posturing. ..."
"... At the end of the Cold War, the United States and Russia could have joined in building and strengthening a zone of peace in Europe. Instead, the United States expanded NATO right up to Russia's border. ..."
"... An agreement guaranteeing Georgia and Ukraine's independence, committing them to remain nonaligned, outside of NATO and free to join both the EU and the Russian economic bloc, would greatly reduce tensions. Russia and the United States might join in pushing for the full implementation of the Minsk II Accords, providing for an end to violence and greater autonomy for eastern Ukraine. Sanctions relief might be combined with an agreement for an internationally monitored referendum on Crimea's status, under the UN's auspices. ..."
On January 26 of this year, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists reset the Doomsday Clock
from 11:57 to 11:58:30 (midnight represents nuclear apocalypse). The Bulletin considers these
days more dangerous than the Cuban Missile Crisis, and for good reason. The new cold war between
Russia and the United States is punctuated by perilous military face-offs in three arenas: in Syria;
in the skies over the Baltic Sea, on Russia's western border with three hundred thousand NATO troops
on high alert and both Russia and NATO ramping up deployments and exercises; and in Ukraine.
The rising tensions express totally contradictory perspectives. In the United States, across the
political spectrum, Putin is seen as a merciless autocrat with expansionist designs. He's denounced
for aggression in Georgia and Ukraine, and for propping up a brutal dictator in Syria. Investigations
on Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election -- and possible collusion
with the Trump campaign -- have generated a continuing media frenzy that poisons any
discussion.
In Russia, the United States is seen as the aggressor, asserting itself as the global unipower.
When Bill Clinton trampled upon repeated promises and began expanding NATO towards the Russian border,
George F. Kennan, the architect of containment, warned of a "tragic mistake." NATO expansion helped
convince Russians that the West regards it as a permanent enemy. The U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency
recently reported that the Kremlin apparently believes the United States seeks regime change in Russia.
In fact, each perspective holds more than a grain of truth. Putin does want to reassert Russia's
influence on the international stage, and challenge what he sees as America's unipolar delusion.
The United States has seen itself as the global arbiter, the "indispensable nation," dismissing the
legitimacy of any other nation's sphere of influence. The Pentagon does designate Russia as its leading
adversary. The United States has encouraged the "color revolutions" in Georgia and the coup in Ukraine.
Both countries have mucked about in the others' internal and electoral politics.
Despite all this, two countries possessing over 90 percent of the world's nuclear weapons urgently
need a working relationship. A working détente requires persistent efforts to find areas of agreement
and to settle disputes, rather than a willingness to freeze relations, deepen sanctions and escalate
military posturing.
The first priority for the United States should be reengaging Russia in efforts to reduce nuclear
arsenals, and to deny terrorists access to nuclear materials. They should be working together
-- as they did in the P5+1 negotiations over Iranian nuclear-weapons capacity --
to stop the spread of nuclear weapons.
The United States and Russia also have a shared concern about the terrorist threat posed by ISIS,
Al Qaeda and their offshoots. In Syria, cooperation with Russia may be the only way to stabilize
the nation so it can eventually recover from its horrific war. The United States has no intention
of committing the troops and resources needed to overthrow Syria's president, Bashar al-Assad. Washington
would do well to increase cooperation with Russia in the war against ISIS, and seek joint guarantees
of a cease-fire that gives the Syrian people a respite from six years of brutal warfare, and begins
to slow the refugee flows destabilizing Europe.
At the end of the Cold War, the United States and Russia could have joined in building and strengthening
a zone of peace in Europe. Instead, the United States expanded NATO right up to Russia's border.
That expansion will be virtually impossible to undo, but the United States and Russia could reverse
the buildup of troops and stand down the military exercises on both sides of the Russian border without
any formal agreement.
An agreement guaranteeing Georgia and Ukraine's independence, committing them
to remain nonaligned, outside of NATO and free to join both the EU and the Russian economic bloc,
would greatly reduce tensions. Russia and the United States might join in pushing for the full implementation
of the Minsk II Accords, providing for an end to violence and greater autonomy for eastern Ukraine.
Sanctions relief might be combined with an agreement for an internationally monitored referendum
on Crimea's status, under the UN's auspices.
... ... ...
Katrina vanden Heuvel is editor and publisher of the Nation.
Looks like the USA now playing into Chinese hands...
Notable quotes:
"... The USA is accustomed to ignoring the law and pressing ahead when it suits it to do that, but the deciding factor was that sanctions and cutting Iran out of SWIFT were ineffective at achieving US aims. Iran suffered, but it was not stopped, and the whole exercise mobilized feeling against the USA. ..."
They can create alternative for payments with each other but it not alternative because they need
swift for interbank exchange with banks in swift system anyway.
Domestically it can be replaced with whatever homebrew solution and not issue, but it needed
for interneational tranasactions, this is the point.
And If you declared to be "cut" out of swift, it will not stop you for using it domestically
but swift system international banks will just stop any transactions with you by whatewer means.
All this talk is overhyped, will Germany pay for gas by trucks with cash or what. When we at
this point – cards is last of your problem. So swift will stay in any case. mir is old news
The idea was floated to cut Russia out of SWIFT, but it was quickly stepped on by the Americans
themselves. Cutting Iran out of SWIFT was a transparently self-interested move by the United States
to discourage an oil brokerage which avoided use of the US dollar as a benchmark – don't want
people getting ideas. Western states which got on board were sharply rebuked when the EU's General
Court ruled that
sanctioning two Iranian banks was illegal and that they must be compensated for their losses,
as no proof was offered that they were doing business on behalf of 'the regime'.
The USA is accustomed to ignoring the law and pressing ahead when it suits it to do that,
but the deciding factor was that sanctions and cutting Iran out of SWIFT were ineffective at achieving
US aims. Iran suffered, but it was not stopped, and the whole exercise mobilized feeling against
the USA.
You could times that by ten in Russia's case. So they won't do it. But Russia becoming fiscally
more self-reliant and the international business community becoming more suspicious of American
manipulating are overall good things.
And two large countries agreeing to remove the US dollar from their bi-national trades is a
blow to dollar dominance.
Presumably a BRICS SWIFT could be developed to facilitate transactions among the members. It could
be part of the effort to reduce the dominance of the US dollar in international trade. Presumably,
other countries can be added resulting in more of a global payment system.
As a total novice in
such matters, I can state with complete confidence it will be a likely next step in the growing
financial power of Russia, China and like-mined nations.
I'll ask an even more politically-incorrect question: To what extent is the United States
Navy still
our
navy? What does the U.S. Navy's presence in the South China Sea, or
near Singapore, or anywhere west of Hawaii, have to do with the security of the people of the
United States? If the combined naval forces of China and Japan and the other nations of the
region can't protect merchantmen from pirates, well, re-route ships away and out of
range.
Almost nothing the United States military does today provides any meaningful defense for
the American nation. The fact that we have a Department of "Defense" and a separate
Department of Homeland Security really ought to be a clue to the
genuine
mission of
the U.S. military: maintenance of the AngloZionist Empire.
I know that John has a son in the U.S. Army. I hope that he leaves when his enlistment is
up. If he still aspires to a military career I suggest the French Foreign Legion or some
country that accepts foreign volunteers. The Army training he got will improve his situation
and he might be working for an organization that actually defends its own people, or at least
its own organization (in the case of the Legion). I applied to West Point years
ago–today I would counsel a son to take all steps necessary to avoid conscription. It's
no longer
our
military.
Jim Christian sometimes coments on Navy issues here at Unz. I wonder what his take on the
situation is?
I have a job connected with military recruiting. Most Americans wouldn't believe who's
joining the U.S. military these days. It's largely a jobs program for third-world immigrants
or the white underclass. It's common to see 18/19-year old recent immigrants from Africa who
were living in villages without street names just 3 years prior. Or young Latinas with a
child (who's being taken care of by her parents) who are working security or MP with goal of
becoming a civilian cop.
But hey, the young people who join will be fairly well-compensated (compared to the
private-employer world) and will receive life-long benefits, including preference in all
government employment hiring.
@Diversity Heretic
I'll ask an even more politically-incorrect question: To what extent
is the United States Navy still
our
navy? What does the U.S. Navy's presence in the
South China Sea, or near Singapore, or anywhere west of Hawaii, have to do with the security
of the people of the United States? If the combined naval forces of China and Japan and the
other nations of the region can't protect merchantmen from pirates, well, re-route ships away
and out of range.
Almost nothing the United States military does today provides any meaningful defense for
the American nation. The fact that we have a Department of "Defense" and a separate
Department of Homeland Security really ought to be a clue to the
genuine
mission of
the U.S. military: maintenance of the AngloZionist Empire.
I know that John has a son in the U.S. Army. I hope that he leaves when his enlistment is
up. If he still aspires to a military career I suggest the French Foreign Legion or some
country that accepts foreign volunteers. The Army training he got will improve his situation
and he might be working for an organization that actually defends its own people, or at least
its own organization (in the case of the Legion). I applied to West Point years ago--today I
would counsel a son to take all steps necessary to avoid conscription. It's no longer
our
military.
Jim Christian sometimes coments on Navy issues here at Unz. I wonder what his take on the
situation is?
To what extent is the United States Navy still our navy?
That's a good question, and it could be asked of the whole military. Historically, the
military defends the nation in its geographic redoubt. Our military's mission, much less
Europe's, seems to be the defense of a global ideological order. Hence, I wonder if the
partial intent is to keep the nation's elite fighters tied up overseas rather than garrisoned
on home soil lest they get any ideas about defense of the Nation as opposed to the NWO.
Apparently there was serious talk within the British military when the Labour government
decided to experiment with nationalization after World War II.
On the other hand, I think pensions, medical care and housing are keeping the US military
quiescent, and this gets back to Derb's point. A lot of people join the military out of
economic necessity; they are there for the paycheck, and when the mission becomes Diversity
they are happy to follow orders. Soldiers with poor prospects in the private sector will do
awful things to their own countrymen to keep the benefits flowing. Venezuela frankly needs a
military coup, but they're apparently well-fed and their generals don't know economics.
Lived it, have the T-shirt. Retired from the Navy 11 years ago. You put young men and
women of breeding age on a vessel and you have fraternization and pregnancies. Duh. Walking
by the mess (dining) decks on an aircraft carrier was sometimes like walking by a high school
cafeteria with the guys checking out the chicks and vice versa. Pregnancies of course rose
mysteriously just before deployment. I lost the same female twice to pregnancy, both times
before a six month deployment and finally, remember you have the same male/female dynamic at
watch stations in the middle of the night
I guess you can an add a much larger homosexual element to the issue since I retired as
well. Who knows what's going on in the fan rooms of some of those ships these days.
@El Dato
In truth, engagements are supposed to be over fast.
If you have a few missiles coming at you from the horizon and you miss less than 100% of
them with your Phalanx or whatever else you have (a functional
Aster
system? An non-experimental
Laser gun?), it's Game Over Man, whether you are in a thin-shelled floating server room or a
thick-shelled floating server room.
Shell, bomb, and kamikaze damage just ain't gonna happen anymore.
OUCH TIME
Missiles are just another way of delivering warheads that used to be called "shells". Navy
ships used to be armored to take shell fire and survive. Today, they are thin-skinned
electronic "gaming" machines that cannot survive a "pin prick".
The Navy was shocked in the first Gulf War when an Iraqi Exocet missile (one hit) totally
disabled the missile frigate, USS Stark. However, nothing changed with respect to
thin-skinned naval ship design.
What this means is that swarming Iranian speed boats probably
do
have the
capability of disabling and/or destroying US Navy ships in the Persian Gulf in time of war.
Missiles are cheap. Thin-skinned $1.5 billion electronic missile frigates are not.
The Russians and Chinese are also following this strategy cheap missiles to disable and/or
destroy US Navy capital (including aircraft carriers) and support ships with hypersonic
missiles that cannot be defended against.
Physical damage aside, there is also a growing capability on the part of the Russians and
Chinese to turn off a ship's electronics via electronic warfare. In 2014, a Sukhoi Su-24
overflying the USS Donald Cook in the Black Sea was able to electronically disable the ship
using the "Khibiny" electronic warfare suite.
The point is that thin-skinned navy ships packed with electronics are no match for today's
offensive missiles or electronic warfare suites. As a cost comparison, it is ridiculous to
procure fleets of billion dollar ships that can be disabled or destroyed by relatively
low-cost missiles and electronic warfare suites.
@TheJester
Missiles are just another way of delivering warheads that used to be called
"shells". Navy ships used to be armored to take shell fire and survive. Today, they are
thin-skinned electronic "gaming" machines that cannot survive a "pin prick".
The Navy was shocked in the first Gulf War when an Iraqi Exocet missile (one hit) totally
disabled the missile frigate, USS Stark. However, nothing changed with respect to
thin-skinned naval ship design.
What this means is that swarming Iranian speed boats probably
do
have the
capability of disabling and/or destroying US Navy ships in the Persian Gulf in time of war.
Missiles are cheap. Thin-skinned $1.5 billion electronic missile frigates are not.
The Russians and Chinese are also following this strategy ... cheap missiles to disable
and/or destroy US Navy capital (including aircraft carriers) and support ships with
hypersonic missiles that cannot be defended against.
Physical damage aside, there is also a growing capability on the part of the Russians and
Chinese to turn off a ship's electronics via electronic warfare. In 2014, a Sukhoi Su-24
overflying the USS Donald Cook in the Black Sea was able to electronically disable the ship
using the "Khibiny" electronic warfare suite.
The point is that thin-skinned navy ships packed with electronics are no match for today's
offensive missiles or electronic warfare suites. As a cost comparison, it is ridiculous to
procure fleets of billion dollar ships that can be disabled or destroyed by relatively
low-cost missiles and electronic warfare suites.
it is ridiculous to procure fleets of billion dollar ships that can be disabled or
destroyed by relatively low-cost missiles and electronic warfare suites.
"Only two kinds of ships in the Navy: submarines and targets"
@Chris Mallory
What fever dreams do you have that entail American troops fighting
Hezbollah? Keep our troops out of Lebanon and Hezbollah is not an issue.
Only an idiot would invade North Korea. Sign your kids up for that, leave mine out of it.
I didn't say I wanted war and don't see how you could conclude that I did. But Trump is
daring N. Korea to knock the chip off his shoulder and looking for reasons to marginalize
Iran further, so I'd be surprised if we don't find ourselves in a shooting war with one of
them, most likely Iran since they're atop Israel's shit list.
@QuestionMan
What does affirmative action have to do with the Commanding Officer,
Executive Officer and Command Master Chief of the USS Fitzgerald? I'll take a stab at
explaining it to you. Because of affirmative action, competent folks are passed over in favor
of less competent, or incompetent folks, because some of the incompetent folks ancestors may,
or may not have, suffered under a various set of circumstances in the past. Believe it or
not, there may even be incompetent White folks, but in a more merit based time, these
incompetent Whites were kept to a minimum. Having promoted every minority above his skill
level, you still have a certain percentage of incompetent Whites in the field, and because
there are a limited number of positions, you now have more incompetents in charge. Picture a
pool of 100 commander positions, you have a 10% to 20% incompetency level of Whites, in a
merit based organization, they would take up 10% to 20% of command positions. Now we know
that in all probability, every minority commander was promoted based not on his skill, bit
his minority status, you add all those incompetents to the command structure, increasing it
from 10%, to up to 50% of incompetent commanders depending on how many minorities were
promoted unjustly.
As a USCG seaman who once experienced the brutal 18-hour work days underway on 30-day
patrols conducting search-and-rescue or law enforcement operations, it's almost impossible to
articulate the intellectual stamina required of the officer-class as-well-as the
physical/psychological stamina required of the enlisted-class.
@SteveRogers42
Lighter side: Most minorities eschew the combat arms MOS's. The closer you
get to the tip of the spear in the U.S. military, the paler and maler the picture becomes.
Special operations units and the pilot/aviator jobs are overwhelmingly white.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/08/05/diversity-seals-green-berets/31122851/
"White Privilege," Was a Non-Existent Fact During the Vietnam War.
Of the 58,220 Americans Killed, 49,830 (86%) Were White.
"Statistical Information About Casualties of the Vietnam War"
For many years, John McCain has been one of the major war hawks in the Senate, but he was
not that way for more than a decade after he was first elected to Congress. When he entered the
House of Representatives in 1983, he was a cautious realist, holding the position that U.S.
military power should only be used to protect vital national interests. He developed this view
as a result of his experience in the Vietnam War and his post-Vietnam studying of the origins
of that war at the National War College.
[1] John B. Judis, "Neo-McCain," New Republic, October 16, 2006,
https://newrepublic.com/article/60839/neo-mccain
That view loomed large among military
leaders at this time and was exemplified by General Colin Powell.
In his first year in Congress, McCain, although a strong supporter of then President Reagan,
voted against the latter's decision to continue the deployment of troops in Lebanon during that
country's civil war. The measure would pass in both Houses of Congress, with substantial
support from Democrats, and with only a small minority of Republicans daring to oppose Reagan.
In his floor speech on this issue, McCain stated:
"The fundamental question is: What is the United States' interest in Lebanon? It is said we
are there to keep the peace. I ask, what peace? It is said we are there to aid the government.
I ask, what government? It is said we are there to stabilize the region. I ask, how can the
U.S. presence stabilize the region? . . . . The longer we stay in Lebanon, the harder it will
be for us to leave. We will be trapped by the case we make for having our troops there in the
first place.
[3} Quoted in Norman Kempster, "Vietnam War Leaves Legacy of Anguish," Los Angeles Times,
April 28, 1985, http://articles.latimes.com/1985-04-28/news/mn-2129...-war/2
After a truck filled with explosives rammed into the Marine compound in Beirut, killing 241
service members, Reagan opted to remove the remaining troops a few months later. McCain was
vindicated and he gained considerable attention from the mainstream media for his prescience
and courage to take such a stand against a popular President from his party. This helped to
develop his reputation as a "maverick."
"The American people and Congress now appreciate that we are neither omniscient nor
omnipotent," McCain would later tell the
Los Angeles Times
, "and they are not prepared
to commit U.S. troops to combat unless there is a clear U.S. national security interest
involved. If we do become involved in combat, that involvement must be of relatively short
duration and must be readily explained to the man in the street in one or two
sentences."[3]
In 1987, during the Iran-Iraq War, in which the United States was supporting Iraq, McCain,
now a Senator, opposed President Reagan's move to put American flags on Kuwaiti oil tankers and
have the U.S. Navy protect them against possible Iranian attacks. In the
Arizona
Republican
, he described Reagan's action as a "dangerous overreaction in perhaps the most
violent and unpredictable region in the world." He continued: "American citizens are again
being asked to place themselves between warring Middle East factions, with no tangible allied
support and no real plan on how to respond if the situation escalates."
[4] Quoted in Matt Welch, McCain, The Myth of a Maverick (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007),
p. 157.
McCain did support the Gulf War in 1991, but even here he was something of a moderate.
McCain biographer Matt Welch writes: "When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in the summer of 1990,
McCain oscillated between hawkishness and reluctance, denouncing the Iraqi dictator and then
the U.S. government for having cozied up too closely to Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war, but
at the same time warning against a protracted land battle."
[5] Welch, p. 158.
McCain stated: "If you get involved in a major ground war in the Saudi
desert, I think support will erode significantly. Nor should it be supported. We cannot even
contemplate, in my view, trading American blood for Iraqi blood."
[6] Quoted in Michael Wines, "Confrontation in the Gulf," New York Times, August 19, 1990,
http://www.nytimes.com/1990/08/19/world/confrontati...cubz=0
Under Republican Presidents Reagan and the elder Bush, it must be acknowledged that McCain
was not an actual non-interventionist since he supported the American opposition to the Soviet
Union, and what he considered to be pro-Soviet forces in Central America. Moreover, he
supported the removal of Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega by the U.S. military in 1989. But
this was still a far cry from the global interventionist that McCain would become.
Moreover, during Bill Clinton's presidency, McCain would be even more non-interventionist
until his radical change during the last years of Clinton's term. In a commencement address he
made to the Marine Corps Command and Staff College in Quantico, Virginia in June 1994, McCain
emphasized that his cautious approach to war resulted from his Vietnam experience. He solemnly
orated that he had not forgotten "the friends who did not return with me to the country we
loved so dearly. The memory of them, of what they bore for honor and country, causes me to look
in every prospective conflict for the shadow of Vietnam."
[7] Address by Senator John McCain National Defense University Graduation, June 16, 1999,
https://www.mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/1999/...ea4e56
In December 1992, after losing the November election to Bill Clinton, the elder George Bush
dispatched American troops to Somalia, then embroiled in a many-sided civil war, to facilitate
the provision of food to the starving civilian population. This was part of a United Nations
effort. By the fall of 1993, this military mission morphed into one of arresting war lords and
nation-building. In October 1993, a 15-hour battle took place in Mogadishu that left 18
Americans dead and 73 injured, with many of these casualties the result of two Black Hawk
helicopters being shot down.
[8] NPR Staff, "What A Downed Black Hawk In Somalia Taught America," NPR, October 5, 2013,
http://www.npr.org/2013/10/05/229561805/what-a-down...merica
Because of this loss of American lives, there was a Senate bill supported by President
Clinton which planned to remove American troops from Somalia. Demanding a quicker troop exit,
McCain stated: "Mr. President, can anyone seriously argue that another six months of United
States forces in harm's way means the difference between peace and prosperity in Somalia and
war and starvation there? Is that very dim prospect worth one more American life? No, it is
not."
Drawing an analogy to what happened in Lebanon in 1983, McCain contended: "240 young Marines
lost their lives, but we got out. Now is the time for us to get out of Somalia, as rapidly, and
as promptly, and as safely as possible."
McCain also opposed Clinton's intervention in Haiti to bring back President Jean-Bertrand
Aristide, who had been elected in 1990 and then overthrown in a coup in 1991. After a UN
resolution authorized the use of military force to return Aristide to power, the United States
would ultimately do so on October 15, 1994. In late August 1994, McCain declared: "It is the
post-invasion circumstances that I fear will bog down U.S. forces in a low-level, open-ended,
ill-defined conflict which will require U.S. servicemen and women to serve as a virtual palace
guard for President Aristide once he is returned to power."
[10] "McCain Firm in Opposition to Invasion of Haiti," August 31, 1994,
https://www.mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press...c9b56d
The major international concern in the 1990s was the conflict in Yugoslavia!with the focus
first on Bosnia and then Kosovo. After the downfall of Communism, Yugoslavia dissolved, with
the secession, in 1992, of Croatia, Macedonia and Slovenia. Bosnia also declared its
independence despite the staunch opposition of Bosnian Serbs, who wanted to remain united with
Serbia. Civil war broke out between the Bosnian Serbs, supported by Serbia, and the
Muslim-dominated Bosnian government. Thousands of people were killed, raped, and expelled from
their homes. The West generally looked upon the atrocities, real and imagined, as being
primarily perpetrated by the Serbs. In the United States, this was especially the case among
American liberals who would advocate "humanitarian" military intervention to protect the
Muslims.
In 1992, the UN peacekeeping forces intervened for humanitarian reasons and set up several
so-called safe areas for refugees, which often turned out to be not very safe. The UN forces
were composed of non-American troops, while American ships and airplanes enforced an arms
embargo.
The wars in Yugoslavia would ultimately lead to a sea change in McCain's position on
American military intervention, but this did not occur all at once. Initially, McCain was, like
many Republicans, opposed to American involvement in the conflict. In fact, biographer Matt
Welch describes McCain as having been "one of the Senate's most stubborn opponents to US
military intervention against Serbs."
[11] Welch, p. 162.
McCain contended that any American military "peace-keeping" effort in
Bosnia would likely lead to a quagmire. "I think you can draw a parallel to the military
challenge in Bosnia with what the Russians faced in Afghanistan," McCain opined in May 1993.
"Even with ground forces and with overwhelming air superiority, they were unable to defeat a
motivated, very capable enemy."
[12] Quoted in Michael Wines, "Conflict in the Balkans; Senator Who Saw War Up Close Doesn't
Want to See Another," New York Times, May 5, 1993,
http://www.nytimes.com/1993/05/05/world/conflict-in...r.html
Prospects for peace, however, improved in the summer of 1995 when NATO, led by the United
States, launched airstrikes against Bosnian Serb targets, which combined with better-equipped
Muslim and Croatian forces pressured the Bosnian Serbs into participating in peace
negotiations. This led to the Dayton Accords in November 1995, which ended the war in Bosnia.
NATO would provide peace-keeping troops, including 20,000 from the U.S.
Showing that he had not completely dropped his previous cautious approach to intervention,
McCain emphasized that the Dole-McCain resolution was not seeking support for President
Clinton's decision to deploy the troops. "It asks that you support the deployment after the
decision has been made," he said. "The decision has been made by the only American elected to
make such decisions [i.e., the President]." However, McCain also expressed a firm
interventionist conviction: "When we arrive at the moment when less is expected from our
leadership by the rest of the world, then we will have arrived at the moment of our decline."
And he said, "We cannot withdraw from the world into our prosperity and comfort and hope to
keep those blessings."
[18] Quoted in Katherine Q. Seeleye, "Anguished, Senators Vote to Support Bosnia Mission," New
York Times, December 14, 1995,
http://www.nytimes.com/1995/12/14/world/balkan-acco...ed=all
While a change from his previous strong opposition to American intervention abroad,
supporting this peace effort in Bosnia did not portend McCain's radical transmutation to the
global super-hawk that he would become. That final step would require the involvement of the
neoconservatives. This connection began when, in 1997, McCain and his advisers read an article
in the
Wall Street Journal
editorial page by neoconservatives Bill Kristol and David
Brooks who were promoting the idea of "national greatness" conservatism, which consisted of a
more activist domestic agenda and a more interventionist global role.
[19] Kirkpatrick.
While this article may have fit in with the direction that McCain's thinking was moving, it
had political implications as well: McCain had been eyeing the presidency for a number of
years. According to John Weaver, a major political adviser to McCain at this time: "I wouldn't
call it a 'eureka' moment, but there was a sense that this is where we are headed and this is
what we are trying to articulate and they [Kristol and Brooks] have already done a lot of the
work. . . . And, quite frankly, from a crass political point of view, we were in the
making-friends business. The
Weekly Standard
represented a part of the primary
electorate that we could get."
[20] Quoted in Kirkpatrick.
And it should be emphasized that McCain's change was not a
gradual one but rather one that was quite radical and took place in a very short period of
time.
McCain would begin to support neocon positions. On January 26, 1998, the neocon-dominated
Project for a New American Century (PNAC), created in 1997 and headed by Bill Kristol, sent a
letter to President Clinton urging him to take unilateral military action against Iraq to
overthrow Saddam and offered a plan to achieve that objective. After the Clinton administration
failed to take action, another neocon-front group, the resurrected Committee for Peace and
Security in the Gulf, which had promoted the 1991 Gulf War, sent another letter urging war.
And, because of Clinton's continued inaction, PNAC would send another such letter in May.
While President Clinton failed to take action, McCain pushed for military action against
Saddam in 1998. McCain co-sponsored the Iraq Liberation Act, committing the United States to
support the overthrow of Saddam and funding opposition groups, most importantly the Iraqi
National Congress. Headed by the notorious neocon-favorite Ahmed Chalabi, the Iraqi National
Congress would provide much of the spurious information that generated support for the war on
Iraq in 2003. The bill passed in both houses of Congress and on October 31, 1998, President
Clinton signed it into law. Clinton, however, did not intend to implement this measure and
George Bush made no mention of it during the 2000 campaign.
[23] Justin Vaisse, Neoconservatism: The Biography of a Movement (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
University Press, 2010), p. 248.
McCain, however, remained in lock-step with the neocons on
Iraq and would be made Honorary Co-chair of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq when it
was created in 2002.
McCain had been in line with the neocons as a strong supporter of Israel even during the
time he adhered to a cautious realist position regarding U.S. military interventionism. He was
the 1999 recipient of the Defender of Jerusalem award, given by the National Council of Young
Israel. In his acceptance speech, McCain in effect told his pro-Zionist audience that the
United States should be prepared to make war for Israel's sake. "Certainly, no one would argue
with the proposition that our armed forces exist first and foremost for the defense of the
United States and its vital interests abroad," McCain intoned. "We choose, as a nation,
however, to intervene militarily abroad in defense of the moral values that are at the center
of our national conscientiousness even when vital national interests are not necessarily at
stake. I raise this point because it lies at the heart of this nation's approach to Israel. The
survival of Israel is one of this country's most important moral commitments. . . . Like the
United States, Israel is more than a nation; it is an ideal."
[24] "Remarks of Senator John McCain to the National Council of Young Israel in New York City,"
John McCain Press Release, March 14, 1999, quoted in Joseph Sobran, "The Patriot Game,"
Wanderer, February 24, 2000, p. 6.
Note that this was diametrically opposed to his former
view that American intervention abroad should only take place to protect vital American
interests.
McCain's hawkish position reflected the views of the neoconservatives. And obviously, his
pro-intervention stance represented a sea change from his previous emphasis on caution and
support of war only if it involved a vital American interest.
. Members of the interventionist Balkan Action Committee, which advocated NATO ground troops
for Kosovo, included such prominent neoconservative mainstays as Richard Perle, Max M.
Kampelman, Morton Abramowitz, and Paul Wolfowitz. Other neoconservative proponents of a tougher
war included Eliot Cohen, Elliott Abrams, John Bolton, Bill Kristol, Robert Kagan, and Norman
Podhoretz.
[30] Balkan Action Council, Press Release, "Balkan Action Council Urges NATO Intervention,
Ground Forces in Kosovo," January 25, 1999, Bosnian Institute,
http://www.bosnia.org.uk/news/news/260199_6.cfm
Largely because of his bellicose position on Kosovo, McCain was the favorite presidential
candidate for many leading neoconservatives in 2000. As Franklin Foer, editor of the liberal
New Republic,
put it: "Jewish neoconservatives have fallen hard for John McCain. It's
not just unabashed swooner William Kristol, editor of
The Weekly Standard
. McCain has
also won over such leading neocon lights as David Brooks, the entire Podhoretz family,
The
Wall Street Journal
's Dorothy Rabinowitz, and columnist Charles Krauthammer, who declared,
in a most un-Semitic flourish, 'He suffered for our sins.'"
[31] Francis Foer, "The neocons wake up: Arguing the GOP," New Republic, March 20, 2000, p.
13.
McCain was especially championed by Bill Kristol, editor of the
Weekly Standard
, and
his associate David Brooks. They held that McCain would promote their idea of "national
greatness," as opposed to what they regarded as the standpatness of the conservative
Republicans. The "national greatness" program would entail a greater role for the federal
government and more extensive intervention throughout the world to promote American values.
Neoconservatives admired McCain for his support of the American war on Serbia, toward which
many mainstream conservatives were decidedly cool. The attack on Serbia, ostensibly for
humanitarian reasons, provided the intellectual groundwork for the attack on Iraq, the neocons'
fundamental target, since it set the precedent of violating international law's prohibition
against initiating offensive wars. No longer would the United States have to be attacked, or
even threatened, to engage in war. As Kristol and Brooks put it: "For all his conventional
political views, McCain embodies a set of virtues that today are unconventional. The issue that
gave the McCain campaign its initial boost was Kosovo. He argued that America as a great
champion of democracy and decency could not fail to act. And he supported his commander in
chief despite grave doubts about the conduct of the war–while George W. Bush sat out the
debate and Republicans on the Hill flailed at Clinton."
[32] William Kristol and David Brooks, "The McCain Insurrection," Weekly Standard, February 14,
2000, http://www.weeklystandard.com/the-mccain-insurrecti.../11707
But the neocons did not support McCain simply because of his defense of the Kosovars, but
rather because of his broader interventionist position of "rogue state rollback," which pointed
directly at the enemies of Israel. While participating in a Republican debate moderated by
CNN's Larry King on February. 15, 2000, the candidates were asked: "What area of American
international policy would you change immediately as president?" McCain replied: "I'd institute
a policy that I call 'rogue state rollback.' I would arm, train, equip, both from without and
from within, forces that would eventually overthrow the governments and install free and
democratically-elected governments." And he added: "As long as Saddam Hussein is in power, I am
convinced that he will pose a threat to our security."
[33] Talal Al-Khatib, "McCain Rewrites History on 'Rogue-State Rollback'," ABC News, April 17,
2008, http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/04/mcc...s.html
What caused McCain's radical shift from cautious realist to super hawk? Biographer Matt
Welch sees it as essentially a return to his basic world view, largely derived from the
family's military background, after the non-interventionist effect of the Vietnam Syndrome.
Welch writes: "But much less understood is the extent to which interventionist hegemony has
been literally seared into McCain's skull and then reignited late in life after the long
intellectual detour of Vietnam."
[34] Welch, p. xxv.
Justin Raimondo sees it otherwise: "It is impossible to know what is in McCain's heart.
There may be a purely ideological explanation for his changing viewpoint. But what seems to
account for his evolution from realism to hopped-up interventionism is nothing more than sheer
ambition." He goes on: "He was positioning himself against his own party, while staking out a
distinctive stance independent of the Democrats. It was, in short, an instance of a
presidential candidate maneuvering himself to increase his appeal to the electorate!and, most
importantly, the media."
[35] Raimondo, "Madness of John McCain."
McCain has flip-flopped on domestic issues, sometimes supporting a conservative position and
at other times a more liberal one which wins him the plaudits of the mainstream media!but once
he moved into the neocon orbit regarding U.S. foreign policy, he has stayed there. It is
obviously beneficial for a politician to have the broad neocon network of organizations on
one's side. And more than a few of these neocons!such as Bill Kristol, Robert Kagan, David
Brooks, are featured regularly in the mainstream media. Moreover, the mainstream liberal media
itself has adopted many neocon interventionist positions in foreign policy in regard to Russia
and the Middle East, so McCain's positions are held in esteem there, too.
Justin Raimondo sees it otherwise: "It is impossible to know what is in McCain's heart.
There may be a purely ideological explanation for his changing viewpoint. But what seems to
account for his evolution from realism to hopped-up interventionism is nothing more than
sheer ambition."
It's more Hambition than ambition.
If McCain were really about ambition, he would have been more flexible and savvy like
Clinton the chameleon. Or Trump who took up different positions to play to populist
passions.
But in his foreign policy, McCain went from cautious and moderate to hardline, even to his
political detriment. If he was really a political animal driven by ambition, he would have
moderated his position on the Iraq War once things went badly. By 2008, even majority of
conservatives had turned against the war that became associated with Bush II, a truly reviled
and despised political figure(and rightly so).
So, why did McCain stick to his guns on foreign policy?
McCain is a mental midget. He wasn't much of a student. He wasn't much of a soldier. So,
he was always hungry for recognition from the Power. This is why he was so partial to sucking
up to the NYT crowd. The idea that intelligent and educated Liberal establishment praised him
as a 'moderate and sane' Republican was very flattering to him. But because he was a Gopper,
he couldn't lean too much to the Libby side.
Now, what became the intellectual and moral cornerstone of the GOP? Neocons. Why? Neocons
gained control of the thinktanks and Big Ideas. They were supposed to be the Mind of the GOP
in contrast to Evanjelly dummies, staid Paleocons, soulless libertarians, and beer-guzzling
NASCAR types. Also, Neocons are Jews, and Holocaust became the neo-religion of America. So,
the idea that Jewish Neocons, the mind and soul of the GOP, warmed up to him made him wet his
pants with joy. Oh gosh, these Jews, yes, these intelligent and soulful Jews(the Holocaust
folks) were praising him as a man of integrity, vision, ethics, and courage.
So, it wasn't just political ambition. It was psychological and emotional, especially as
Wasps and White Conservatives had lost so much intellectual and moral capital since the 60s.
Wasp mind culture came to be associated with Dan Quayle, and Bush II presidency nailed the
final coffins in Wasp intellectualism. Now, surely there are many very smart Wasps, but they
were no longer joining the ranks of GOP elites. Most smart Wasps elites either became
apolitical or libby-dib and into 'white guilt' crap. Also, among the boomers, most brainy and
talented Wasps became more like Clintons than the Bushes. Democrats. So, to be a conservative
Wasp in the 90s and 2000s was to be an intellectual zero. Also, with Holocaust and MLK cult
as new religions of America, soon to be followed by worship of rainbow-colored homo anus,
Wasp conservatives had no moral capital either.
So, just think how McCain felt when the brainy & soulful Holocaust people put their arms
around him. He wet his pants. It's like in THE GODFATHER the novel. Luca Brasi thinks himself
irredeemable and cursed. But Vito Corleone, an intelligent and wise man, reached out to him.
Brasi was so stunned that the great Vito would befriend someone so gross and vile that he
became the most loyal henchman of Vito.
McCain felt saved! He'd been confused and messed up all his life. He was shot down in
Vietnam. He became crippled for life. He'd collaborated with the enemy but a myth was created
around him that was mostly phony. The war was lost. He tried to make peace and seek
reconciliation with Vietnam. But he was never sure of anything. He was a broken man whose
politics was about compromise and moderation. No passion. But when he joined in backing the
Serbian War, the praise from Neocons made him finally feel saved and armed with purpose in
life. He finally had the intellectual and moral blessing he'd craved all his life. He was
befriended also by Joe Lieberman, a wise-sounding Jew. Of course, these neocons and Zionists
were cunning and shrewd and hardly wise, but Jews gained this aura of sanctimony as the holy
Holocaust people with lots of money and brains.
Another reason why McCain became increasingly vocal and aggressive in foreign policy was
because it's the only arena in which a white gentile leader can be manly and tough, at least
against enemies chosen by Jews. It's like a dog better listen to the master in the house, but
it can bark loudly at other dogs and creatures outside. Because of the cult of 'white guilt'
and Moral Hegemony of Jews(Holocaust), Blacks(Selma), homos(whoopity poo), and even
illegals(as 'undocumented immigrants' in a 'nation of immigrants'), the white gentile man has
NO moral authority in the US. So, he can only act tough in foreign policy. And by denouncing
other nations without 'human rights', even a white male as a proud American can act morally
holier-than-thou.
Of course, white males can't choose whom to hate, berate, and bark at. Jews get to choose.
And Jews chose Russia, Syria, and Iran. And North Korea to a lesser extent. And McCain barks
at them. But his toughness is bogus since he has no autonomy in choosing the enemy. If
neocons were to decide that Putin is alright, McCain would stop barking at Russia. If Neocons
said Saudis must be taken down, McCain would bark in that direction.
Also, foreign policy is the ONLY card McCain has left. He lost EVERYTHING. He lost to Bush
in 2000. He supported the Iraq War and got burned as a result. He got burned in 2008 to
Obama. His amnesty was angrily opposed by GOP voters. The financial and housing policies that
he endorsed went to hell. And Trump insulted him and did everything opposite what McCain did
and won. And Putin is a respected leader around the world. McCain is a nothing. Maybe a
secret part of him resents the bargain he made with Neocons in 2000. But that is the only
card he has left: the impression of him as a tough warrior standing up for American values
and denouncing tyrants like Putin and etc. Of course, many people see how bogus this is.
McCain met with Alqaeda scum in Syria and with Neo-Nazis in Ukraine. No one respects him.
Conservative voters hate him. He won over and over in Arizona only because Democrats are
allowed to vote in GOP primaries. Liberals had pretended to respect him but burned his ass so
bad in 2008 in their support of Obama that the charade of non-partisan amicability is over.
McCain is totally irrelevant. So, the only card he has left is accusing Trump of being a
Russian agent and subverting his presidency out of sheer resentment and envy.
I saw how McCain reacted in the Senate when his effort to smuggle Montenegro into NATO
failed, a child not getting his icecream.
Tiny Montenegro of course is just a pain in the ass for peace.
Who in his right mind wants the government of this tiny state to be able to provoke the last
world war ?
People who have seen Russia as the USA arch enemy in fact are religious, religion defined as
'deep seated irrational conviction'.
That Russia just wants to sell oil and gas, and wants to remain independent, impossible.
So McCains invented Russian militarism, as bible belters invented creationism.
McCain was braindead during Comey's testimony in the Senate, even Comey had to screw up
his face in painful confusion as McCain rambled. McCain is no longer fit to water the garden
lawn let alone vote on key bills in congress. He needs to be forcefully removed from the
Senate and replaced by a pro-Trump candidate from Arizona. I like my war heroes uncaptured by
the way.
He's a traitor like his father, the captain of the USS Liberty attacked by Israel in 1967
with the loss of 34 American lives the man who betrayed his men by falling in line with the
cover-up to keep the truth of this war crime from the American people. One degenerate shitbag
begot another. Maybe Junior just can't help it.
Another excellent piece of work on a very putrid subject.
McCain intoned. "We choose, as a nation, however, to intervene militarily abroad in
defense of the moral values
Whenever anyone, especially a politician, starts yapping about defending or promoting
moral values, it's time to grab both your wallet and to head to the toilet.
Alas, I miss Realism. I hoped Trump was a Realist. I despise Idealists. Neocons are
Idealists. Communists are Idealists. They are all monsters. So much blood has been shed in
the name of Idealism. Idealists don't care about inconvenient things like body counts, so
long as their Ideals are being pursued.
I want America to be friends with Russia, and fight radical Islam. This is the only course
that makes sense, but the Idealists aren't having any. It appears that the Neocons still have
their claws around our country's throat. I had hoped Trump could resist this, but apparently
he cannot.
@Priss Factor
Justin Raimondo sees it otherwise: "It is impossible to know what is in
McCain's heart. There may be a purely ideological explanation for his changing viewpoint. But
what seems to account for his evolution from realism to hopped-up interventionism is nothing
more than sheer ambition."
It's more Hambition than ambition.
If McCain were really about ambition, he would have been more flexible and savvy like
Clinton the chameleon. Or Trump who took up different positions to play to populist
passions.
But in his foreign policy, McCain went from cautious and moderate to hardline, even to his
political detriment. If he was really a political animal driven by ambition, he would have
moderated his position on the Iraq War once things went badly. By 2008, even majority of
conservatives had turned against the war that became associated with Bush II, a truly reviled
and despised political figure(and rightly so).
So, why did McCain stick to his guns on foreign policy?
McCain is a mental midget. He wasn't much of a student. He wasn't much of a soldier. So,
he was always hungry for recognition from the Power. This is why he was so partial to sucking
up to the NYT crowd. The idea that intelligent and educated Liberal establishment praised him
as a 'moderate and sane' Republican was very flattering to him. But because he was a Gopper,
he couldn't lean too much to the Libby side.
Now, what became the intellectual and moral cornerstone of the GOP? Neocons. Why? Neocons
gained control of the thinktanks and Big Ideas. They were supposed to be the Mind of the GOP
in contrast to Evanjelly dummies, staid Paleocons, soulless libertarians, and beer-guzzling
NASCAR types. Also, Neocons are Jews, and Holocaust became the neo-religion of America. So,
the idea that Jewish Neocons, the mind and soul of the GOP, warmed up to him made him wet his
pants with joy. Oh gosh, these Jews, yes, these intelligent and soulful Jews(the Holocaust
folks) were praising him as a man of integrity, vision, ethics, and courage.
So, it wasn't just political ambition. It was psychological and emotional, especially as
Wasps and White Conservatives had lost so much intellectual and moral capital since the 60s.
Wasp mind culture came to be associated with Dan Quayle, and Bush II presidency nailed the
final coffins in Wasp intellectualism. Now, surely there are many very smart Wasps, but they
were no longer joining the ranks of GOP elites. Most smart Wasps elites either became
apolitical or libby-dib and into 'white guilt' crap. Also, among the boomers, most brainy and
talented Wasps became more like Clintons than the Bushes. Democrats. So, to be a conservative
Wasp in the 90s and 2000s was to be an intellectual zero. Also, with Holocaust and MLK cult
as new religions of America, soon to be followed by worship of rainbow-colored homo anus,
Wasp conservatives had no moral capital either.
So, just think how McCain felt when the brainy & soulful Holocaust people put their arms
around him. He wet his pants. It's like in THE GODFATHER the novel. Luca Brasi thinks himself
irredeemable and cursed. But Vito Corleone, an intelligent and wise man, reached out to him.
Brasi was so stunned that the great Vito would befriend someone so gross and vile that he
became the most loyal henchman of Vito.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Za3vgqxQDHE
McCain felt saved! He'd been confused and messed up all his life. He was shot down in
Vietnam. He became crippled for life. He'd collaborated with the enemy but a myth was created
around him that was mostly phony. The war was lost. He tried to make peace and seek
reconciliation with Vietnam. But he was never sure of anything. He was a broken man whose
politics was about compromise and moderation. No passion. But when he joined in backing the
Serbian War, the praise from Neocons made him finally feel saved and armed with purpose in
life. He finally had the intellectual and moral blessing he'd craved all his life. He was
befriended also by Joe Lieberman, a wise-sounding Jew. Of course, these neocons and Zionists
were cunning and shrewd and hardly wise, but Jews gained this aura of sanctimony as the holy
Holocaust people... with lots of money and brains.
Another reason why McCain became increasingly vocal and aggressive in foreign policy was
because it's the only arena in which a white gentile leader can be manly and tough, at least
against enemies chosen by Jews. It's like a dog better listen to the master in the house, but
it can bark loudly at other dogs and creatures outside. Because of the cult of 'white guilt'
and Moral Hegemony of Jews(Holocaust), Blacks(Selma), homos(whoopity poo), and even
illegals(as 'undocumented immigrants' in a 'nation of immigrants'), the white gentile man has
NO moral authority in the US. So, he can only act tough in foreign policy. And by denouncing
other nations without 'human rights', even a white male as a proud American can act morally
holier-than-thou.
Of course, white males can't choose whom to hate, berate, and bark at. Jews get to choose.
And Jews chose Russia, Syria, and Iran. And North Korea to a lesser extent. And McCain barks
at them. But his toughness is bogus since he has no autonomy in choosing the enemy. If
neocons were to decide that Putin is alright, McCain would stop barking at Russia. If Neocons
said Saudis must be taken down, McCain would bark in that direction.
Also, foreign policy is the ONLY card McCain has left. He lost EVERYTHING. He lost to Bush
in 2000. He supported the Iraq War and got burned as a result. He got burned in 2008 to
Obama. His amnesty was angrily opposed by GOP voters. The financial and housing policies that
he endorsed went to hell. And Trump insulted him and did everything opposite what McCain did
and won. And Putin is a respected leader around the world. McCain is a nothing. Maybe a
secret part of him resents the bargain he made with Neocons in 2000. But that is the only
card he has left: the impression of him as a tough warrior standing up for American values
and denouncing tyrants like Putin and etc. Of course, many people see how bogus this is.
McCain met with Alqaeda scum in Syria and with Neo-Nazis in Ukraine. No one respects him.
Conservative voters hate him. He won over and over in Arizona only because Democrats are
allowed to vote in GOP primaries. Liberals had pretended to respect him but burned his ass so
bad in 2008 in their support of Obama that the charade of non-partisan amicability is over.
McCain is totally irrelevant. So, the only card he has left is accusing Trump of being a
Russian agent and subverting his presidency out of sheer resentment and envy.
So, he was always hungry for recognition from the Power.
I've noticed that in a lot of the sappy, worthless goons in positions of power, even minor
positions.
BTW, your comment is far beyond even some of the best columnists here. Bravo!
@lucidian
Alas, I miss Realism. I hoped Trump was a Realist. I despise Idealists. Neocons
are Idealists. Communists are Idealists. They are all monsters. So much blood has been shed
in the name of Idealism. Idealists don't care about inconvenient things like body counts, so
long as their Ideals are being pursued.
I want America to be friends with Russia, and fight radical Islam. This is the only course
that makes sense, but the Idealists aren't having any. It appears that the Neocons still have
their claws around our country's throat. I had hoped Trump could resist this, but apparently
he cannot.
I want America to be friends with Russia, and fight radical Islam. This is the only
course that makes sense, but the Idealists aren't having any. It appears that the Neocons
still have their claws around our country's throat.
Neocons are the ones promoting and braying about radical Islam as a threat.
The biggest threat we face is the moneyed neocon crowd, and their water carriers and boot
lickers like Little Johnny Boy. Forget Islam as an enemy, radical or otherwise. It's
obviously nothing more than a threat hatched by the usual reptiles to distract our attention
from themselves.
If we can manage to get rid of neocon influence, we'll see radical Islam and many other
"threats" disappear like magic. Unfortunately that's not likely to happen any time soon.
McCain wet started his plane on the deck of the USS FORRESTAL which caused a rocket to
cook off and fire causing a chain reaction which caused and explosion and fire that killed
134 men and wounded 161 McCain was the only one removed from the ship to keep him away from
the crew of the Forrestal. This happened on July 29, 1967.
When McCain was in prison in North Vietnam he was given the name SONG BIRD by the North
Vietnese because he made some 40 tapes condeming the U.S. and this was not because of torture
as he was not tortured and the injuries he sustained were from ejecting from the plane.
McCain has done every thing in his power to cover up the fact that America POWS were left
behind in North Vietnam and there is a youtube video showing McCain at a Senate hearing
cursing a woman who was investigating the issue of POWS left behind in Vietnam and that is
not the only video of McCain cursing out people who asked him questions on this issue.
McCain is one of the supporters of ISIS and he is pictured with members of ISIS numerous
times and as such is of course a TRAITOR just as he was in prison in North Vietnam.
McCain is a TRAITOR and a disgrace to the United States.
"McCain is a mental midget. He wasn't much of a student. He wasn't much of a soldier.
So, he was always hungry for recognition from the Power."
Great summary. There is a yearning for acceptance and 'being something more' among the
semi-retarded an completely uneducated in US. They know very little and have minimal
experience. They are completely lost in culture, history, geography, languages, economics,
etc But they are living in a wealthy, resources-rich environment. That leads to a disconnect
from the real world, they mix up myths and reality, there is chaos reigning in their minds.
They suffer from a sense of inferiority, so they overcompensate and latch on a few ideas. It
is a result of lack of selectivity and diligence in US education. That permissiveness allows
for creativity and openness, but it also allows total simpletons to rise up because of
connections (McCain) or industriousness. Lately this model has been spreading around the
world. McCain is simply too stupid to be where he is.
A lot of today's problems can be traced to the NATO bombing of Serbia. That's when all
rules, common sense and minimal fairness were tossed out. That's when the western media lost
any sense of standards or basic decency. That's when 'international' law and agreed on rules
was abandoned. Kosovo established a precedence – from changing existing borders by
force and 'we bomb because nobody can really stop us', from media reporting what governments
tell them and unhinged 'journalists with a cause' – it all started with bombing Serbia
to force Kosovo separation. It has been downhill since then with ever-escalating use of force
and lying by the media. McCain was prominent in that fiasco, but so were Blair and Clintons,
European 'leftists' and Islamic expansionists. Kosovo created a template: it combined
Neo-cons with unhinged liberal bombers, and added Islamic fanatics dreaming about taking over
Europe. We are simply living with the consequences. McCain was there from the beginning.
So what happened? Has there been a gradual onset of dementia that's gone undiagnosed? Or
was he "eying the presidency" and needed the sponsors that would carry him there? Either way
the man has been mentally and morally unfit all along for his entire life. He's a spoiled
brat who graduated at the bottom of his class yet was allowed to hold positions he should
never have had due to family clout. He has an irrational animus towards the Russians which
has led him to try to drag the US into unnecessary confrontations with them and which has had
the effect of spurring them into building up their military even quicker as they realize that
it may not be possible to make any worthwhile peace agreements from a position of weakness.
Of course we haven't gone into his immigration stance which has harmed this country
immeasurably. He's been bad, always, from childhood on. It's strange to see that the voters
of Arizona kept returning this cretin to the Senate over and over. He's been there far too
long for anything worthwhile he may have done. Go away, just go.
McCain is owned by the MIC. He came home drunk with a job in politics waiting for him.
McCain's role is to collude with his defense contractors for costly welfare that undermines
US security. He's just like any other scumbag Senator, a puppet for the mafia.
Haven't we learned that what a politician says is at any given time to be typically worth
less than worn out tires? Not the twiddling author of this drawn out character assessment.
Conservatives are hopelessly delusional.
There's no better example of standard issue duplicitu than the Orange Realtor who claimed
he was going to cut defense spending, the F-35 and John McCain's legacy all at once. All
horseshit – all of it.
Incompetent officers running the obsolete USS John McCain into a cargo ship. That about
sums it up.
Members of the interventionist
Balkan Action Committee
, which advocated NATO
ground troops for Kosovo, included such prominent neoconservative mainstays as Richard
Perle, Max M. Kampelman, Morton Abramowitz, and Paul Wolfowitz. Other neoconservative
proponents of a tougher war included Eliot Cohen, Elliott Abrams, John Bolton, Bill
Kristol, Robert Kagan, and Norman Podhoretz.
Well, what do ya know? Look who was behind the push for war against Serbia. And the author
of this fine article clearly articulates the motivation for this supposed R2P intervention
against Serbia:
The attack on Serbia, ostensibly for humanitarian reasons, provided the intellectual
groundwork for the attack on Iraq, the neocons' fundamental target,
since it set the
precedent of violating international law's prohibition against initiating offensive
wars
.
And we have these hasbarists (both xian and Jewish) trying to convince us that all these
wars are truly for humanitarian reasons. What chutzpah!
So, he was always hungry for recognition from the Power.
another word for 'the Power', is The Fiend
which I consider somewhat more accurate in its description
in a word, McCain is a traitor
a man willing to betray his office, his constituents, the men and women in uniform, his
sacred vows, and all notions of honor or decency in service to our nations most determined
enemies. If he thinks doing so will advance his personal ambitions.
a crack whore has a thousand times more integrity
dog vomit in the grass is heroic by comparison
I'm reminded of that Detroit physician who diagnosed healthy patients as having cancer and
requiring expensive chemo treatments, so that the physician could get richer and also bask in
the grandeur of being a 'great healer', once his patients were declared 'healed'. At least
the ones who didn't die from the chemo (many). A man who is trusted with the health and
welfare of others, and then betrays that trust and sees those people die for his personal
gain.
and then any article on John McBloodstain that leaves out his wanton corruption vis-a-vis
the Savings and Loan mass looting, the 2008 mass looting, his treason in Vietnam, his treason
vis-a-vis the USS Liberty and all the other remarkable acts of betrayal and craven venality
that this singularly loathsome man has wrought upon the people of this planet is wholly
inadequate for a person to get a grasp on just what a spectacularly vile little man the
Bloodstain really is.
It says something about the Jews that own and control our fecal government and media when
their favorites to play POTUS are the very worst human beings in the nation. Hillary Clinton
and John McBloodstain are arguably the most repulsive people in human memory.
the lying, vicious cackling gorgon and that murderous little Igor to the Fiend
@Priss Factor
Justin Raimondo sees it otherwise: "It is impossible to know what is in
McCain's heart. There may be a purely ideological explanation for his changing viewpoint. But
what seems to account for his evolution from realism to hopped-up interventionism is nothing
more than sheer ambition."
It's more Hambition than ambition.
If McCain were really about ambition, he would have been more flexible and savvy like
Clinton the chameleon. Or Trump who took up different positions to play to populist
passions.
But in his foreign policy, McCain went from cautious and moderate to hardline, even to his
political detriment. If he was really a political animal driven by ambition, he would have
moderated his position on the Iraq War once things went badly. By 2008, even majority of
conservatives had turned against the war that became associated with Bush II, a truly reviled
and despised political figure(and rightly so).
So, why did McCain stick to his guns on foreign policy?
McCain is a mental midget. He wasn't much of a student. He wasn't much of a soldier. So,
he was always hungry for recognition from the Power. This is why he was so partial to sucking
up to the NYT crowd. The idea that intelligent and educated Liberal establishment praised him
as a 'moderate and sane' Republican was very flattering to him. But because he was a Gopper,
he couldn't lean too much to the Libby side.
Now, what became the intellectual and moral cornerstone of the GOP? Neocons. Why? Neocons
gained control of the thinktanks and Big Ideas. They were supposed to be the Mind of the GOP
in contrast to Evanjelly dummies, staid Paleocons, soulless libertarians, and beer-guzzling
NASCAR types. Also, Neocons are Jews, and Holocaust became the neo-religion of America. So,
the idea that Jewish Neocons, the mind and soul of the GOP, warmed up to him made him wet his
pants with joy. Oh gosh, these Jews, yes, these intelligent and soulful Jews(the Holocaust
folks) were praising him as a man of integrity, vision, ethics, and courage.
So, it wasn't just political ambition. It was psychological and emotional, especially as
Wasps and White Conservatives had lost so much intellectual and moral capital since the 60s.
Wasp mind culture came to be associated with Dan Quayle, and Bush II presidency nailed the
final coffins in Wasp intellectualism. Now, surely there are many very smart Wasps, but they
were no longer joining the ranks of GOP elites. Most smart Wasps elites either became
apolitical or libby-dib and into 'white guilt' crap. Also, among the boomers, most brainy and
talented Wasps became more like Clintons than the Bushes. Democrats. So, to be a conservative
Wasp in the 90s and 2000s was to be an intellectual zero. Also, with Holocaust and MLK cult
as new religions of America, soon to be followed by worship of rainbow-colored homo anus,
Wasp conservatives had no moral capital either.
So, just think how McCain felt when the brainy & soulful Holocaust people put their arms
around him. He wet his pants. It's like in THE GODFATHER the novel. Luca Brasi thinks himself
irredeemable and cursed. But Vito Corleone, an intelligent and wise man, reached out to him.
Brasi was so stunned that the great Vito would befriend someone so gross and vile that he
became the most loyal henchman of Vito.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Za3vgqxQDHE
McCain felt saved! He'd been confused and messed up all his life. He was shot down in
Vietnam. He became crippled for life. He'd collaborated with the enemy but a myth was created
around him that was mostly phony. The war was lost. He tried to make peace and seek
reconciliation with Vietnam. But he was never sure of anything. He was a broken man whose
politics was about compromise and moderation. No passion. But when he joined in backing the
Serbian War, the praise from Neocons made him finally feel saved and armed with purpose in
life. He finally had the intellectual and moral blessing he'd craved all his life. He was
befriended also by Joe Lieberman, a wise-sounding Jew. Of course, these neocons and Zionists
were cunning and shrewd and hardly wise, but Jews gained this aura of sanctimony as the holy
Holocaust people... with lots of money and brains.
Another reason why McCain became increasingly vocal and aggressive in foreign policy was
because it's the only arena in which a white gentile leader can be manly and tough, at least
against enemies chosen by Jews. It's like a dog better listen to the master in the house, but
it can bark loudly at other dogs and creatures outside. Because of the cult of 'white guilt'
and Moral Hegemony of Jews(Holocaust), Blacks(Selma), homos(whoopity poo), and even
illegals(as 'undocumented immigrants' in a 'nation of immigrants'), the white gentile man has
NO moral authority in the US. So, he can only act tough in foreign policy. And by denouncing
other nations without 'human rights', even a white male as a proud American can act morally
holier-than-thou.
Of course, white males can't choose whom to hate, berate, and bark at. Jews get to choose.
And Jews chose Russia, Syria, and Iran. And North Korea to a lesser extent. And McCain barks
at them. But his toughness is bogus since he has no autonomy in choosing the enemy. If
neocons were to decide that Putin is alright, McCain would stop barking at Russia. If Neocons
said Saudis must be taken down, McCain would bark in that direction.
Also, foreign policy is the ONLY card McCain has left. He lost EVERYTHING. He lost to Bush
in 2000. He supported the Iraq War and got burned as a result. He got burned in 2008 to
Obama. His amnesty was angrily opposed by GOP voters. The financial and housing policies that
he endorsed went to hell. And Trump insulted him and did everything opposite what McCain did
and won. And Putin is a respected leader around the world. McCain is a nothing. Maybe a
secret part of him resents the bargain he made with Neocons in 2000. But that is the only
card he has left: the impression of him as a tough warrior standing up for American values
and denouncing tyrants like Putin and etc. Of course, many people see how bogus this is.
McCain met with Alqaeda scum in Syria and with Neo-Nazis in Ukraine. No one respects him.
Conservative voters hate him. He won over and over in Arizona only because Democrats are
allowed to vote in GOP primaries. Liberals had pretended to respect him but burned his ass so
bad in 2008 in their support of Obama that the charade of non-partisan amicability is over.
McCain is totally irrelevant. So, the only card he has left is accusing Trump of being a
Russian agent and subverting his presidency out of sheer resentment and envy. Excellent
synopsis. Sounds about right.
Keeping Obamacare was McCain's final act to really stick it to the people who doubted he
has the power. See! Look what I can do! The liberals swooned. John received congratulatory
calls and emails from Dems all week, in the end they reiterated how they always know they can
depend on John. Pitiful.
the planet will be a noticeably better place. The air will taste less of sulfur and
children and dogs will smile more. There'll be a frolic in the mood of people everywhere,
and a new light of hope and beauty will dance in people's eyes.
Unfortunately, Rurik, for every Killary and McBloodstain that pass away, there are dozens
more to take their place. I need not run down the list of the candidates from both major
parties that ran in the presidential primaries.
@Priss Factor
Justin Raimondo sees it otherwise: "It is impossible to know what is in
McCain's heart. There may be a purely ideological explanation for his changing viewpoint. But
what seems to account for his evolution from realism to hopped-up interventionism is nothing
more than sheer ambition."
It's more Hambition than ambition.
If McCain were really about ambition, he would have been more flexible and savvy like
Clinton the chameleon. Or Trump who took up different positions to play to populist
passions.
But in his foreign policy, McCain went from cautious and moderate to hardline, even to his
political detriment. If he was really a political animal driven by ambition, he would have
moderated his position on the Iraq War once things went badly. By 2008, even majority of
conservatives had turned against the war that became associated with Bush II, a truly reviled
and despised political figure(and rightly so).
So, why did McCain stick to his guns on foreign policy?
McCain is a mental midget. He wasn't much of a student. He wasn't much of a soldier. So,
he was always hungry for recognition from the Power. This is why he was so partial to sucking
up to the NYT crowd. The idea that intelligent and educated Liberal establishment praised him
as a 'moderate and sane' Republican was very flattering to him. But because he was a Gopper,
he couldn't lean too much to the Libby side.
Now, what became the intellectual and moral cornerstone of the GOP? Neocons. Why? Neocons
gained control of the thinktanks and Big Ideas. They were supposed to be the Mind of the GOP
in contrast to Evanjelly dummies, staid Paleocons, soulless libertarians, and beer-guzzling
NASCAR types. Also, Neocons are Jews, and Holocaust became the neo-religion of America. So,
the idea that Jewish Neocons, the mind and soul of the GOP, warmed up to him made him wet his
pants with joy. Oh gosh, these Jews, yes, these intelligent and soulful Jews(the Holocaust
folks) were praising him as a man of integrity, vision, ethics, and courage.
So, it wasn't just political ambition. It was psychological and emotional, especially as
Wasps and White Conservatives had lost so much intellectual and moral capital since the 60s.
Wasp mind culture came to be associated with Dan Quayle, and Bush II presidency nailed the
final coffins in Wasp intellectualism. Now, surely there are many very smart Wasps, but they
were no longer joining the ranks of GOP elites. Most smart Wasps elites either became
apolitical or libby-dib and into 'white guilt' crap. Also, among the boomers, most brainy and
talented Wasps became more like Clintons than the Bushes. Democrats. So, to be a conservative
Wasp in the 90s and 2000s was to be an intellectual zero. Also, with Holocaust and MLK cult
as new religions of America, soon to be followed by worship of rainbow-colored homo anus,
Wasp conservatives had no moral capital either.
So, just think how McCain felt when the brainy & soulful Holocaust people put their arms
around him. He wet his pants. It's like in THE GODFATHER the novel. Luca Brasi thinks himself
irredeemable and cursed. But Vito Corleone, an intelligent and wise man, reached out to him.
Brasi was so stunned that the great Vito would befriend someone so gross and vile that he
became the most loyal henchman of Vito.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Za3vgqxQDHE
McCain felt saved! He'd been confused and messed up all his life. He was shot down in
Vietnam. He became crippled for life. He'd collaborated with the enemy but a myth was created
around him that was mostly phony. The war was lost. He tried to make peace and seek
reconciliation with Vietnam. But he was never sure of anything. He was a broken man whose
politics was about compromise and moderation. No passion. But when he joined in backing the
Serbian War, the praise from Neocons made him finally feel saved and armed with purpose in
life. He finally had the intellectual and moral blessing he'd craved all his life. He was
befriended also by Joe Lieberman, a wise-sounding Jew. Of course, these neocons and Zionists
were cunning and shrewd and hardly wise, but Jews gained this aura of sanctimony as the holy
Holocaust people... with lots of money and brains.
Another reason why McCain became increasingly vocal and aggressive in foreign policy was
because it's the only arena in which a white gentile leader can be manly and tough, at least
against enemies chosen by Jews. It's like a dog better listen to the master in the house, but
it can bark loudly at other dogs and creatures outside. Because of the cult of 'white guilt'
and Moral Hegemony of Jews(Holocaust), Blacks(Selma), homos(whoopity poo), and even
illegals(as 'undocumented immigrants' in a 'nation of immigrants'), the white gentile man has
NO moral authority in the US. So, he can only act tough in foreign policy. And by denouncing
other nations without 'human rights', even a white male as a proud American can act morally
holier-than-thou.
Of course, white males can't choose whom to hate, berate, and bark at. Jews get to choose.
And Jews chose Russia, Syria, and Iran. And North Korea to a lesser extent. And McCain barks
at them. But his toughness is bogus since he has no autonomy in choosing the enemy. If
neocons were to decide that Putin is alright, McCain would stop barking at Russia. If Neocons
said Saudis must be taken down, McCain would bark in that direction.
Also, foreign policy is the ONLY card McCain has left. He lost EVERYTHING. He lost to Bush
in 2000. He supported the Iraq War and got burned as a result. He got burned in 2008 to
Obama. His amnesty was angrily opposed by GOP voters. The financial and housing policies that
he endorsed went to hell. And Trump insulted him and did everything opposite what McCain did
and won. And Putin is a respected leader around the world. McCain is a nothing. Maybe a
secret part of him resents the bargain he made with Neocons in 2000. But that is the only
card he has left: the impression of him as a tough warrior standing up for American values
and denouncing tyrants like Putin and etc. Of course, many people see how bogus this is.
McCain met with Alqaeda scum in Syria and with Neo-Nazis in Ukraine. No one respects him.
Conservative voters hate him. He won over and over in Arizona only because Democrats are
allowed to vote in GOP primaries. Liberals had pretended to respect him but burned his ass so
bad in 2008 in their support of Obama that the charade of non-partisan amicability is over.
McCain is totally irrelevant. So, the only card he has left is accusing Trump of being a
Russian agent and subverting his presidency out of sheer resentment and envy. Yes. Basically,
McCain is mentally unstable. He may have been able to keep it under control for a while, but
whatever caused him to snap in the late 90′s (and doubtless raw ambition played a
role), he has long passed the point of no return (as has America, sadly).
the planet will be a noticeably better place. The air will taste less of sulfur and
children and dogs will smile more. There'll be a frolic in the mood of people everywhere,
and a new light of hope and beauty will dance in people's eyes.
Unfortunately, Rurik, for every Killary and McBloodstain that pass away, there
are dozens more to take their place. I need not run down the list of the candidates from both
major parties that ran in the presidential primaries.
there are dozens more to take their place.
true Geo, but at least the world can be rid of a spectacularly execrable pestilence that
has plagued it for so terribly long. Even if Tom Cotton is waiting in the wings to take its
place.
just think of all the millions of people who suffer the Bloodstain's every feculent
breath.
the POWs in Vietnam and their families
the survivors of the Liberty and their families
the murdered souls throughout the world, from Ukraine to Syria whose unimaginable
suffering can be laid directly at the feet of the Stain
all the people who have been tortured or crucified by ISIS
those people in Odessa, Ukraine who were burned alive, or the villagers in Donbas, and so
many other places who have lost loved ones or been maimed by the Bloodstain's relentless,
relentless, relentless war mongering.
all these people will be able to wake to a new day knowing that John McCain is no longer
befouling the air we all breath with his rotten lungs.
sure, Tom Cotton is being groomed, and there's no doubt a bevy of would-be traitors and
assholes waiting to take McCain's place, but at least
he
will be dead and burning in
hell.
Simple explanation: becoming an agent of influence for Israel is the sure route to the
sort of $$ you need to run a presidential campaign (unless you are already loaded like
DT).
@Priss Factor
I agree with Justin Raimondo that McCain's evolution from realism to
hopped-up interventionism is nothing more than sheer ambition. People may argue that many of
his policies are not populist, but that is precisely the point. His strategy is to strike out
a different stance in order to differentiate himself from the many other politicians who have
the same ambitions. Hillary Clinton's strategy is to be a populist, McCain's strategy is to
be an anti-populist.
@WorkingClass
McStain is what he is. The real problem is the people who vote for him.
The real problem is the people who vote for him.
What are the people to do when the senate passes 98-2 a resolution to impose sanctions on
Iran, Russia, NK?
The real problem is the swamp and how to drain it.
It was encouraging to see that the most popular candidates from the two major parties
during the previous presidential primaries were both putting forward policies that were
against the status quo. And more and more people are beginning to realize the Luggenpresse of
Weimerica is pumping out fake news. My prediction is the establishment will manage to remove
trump either by impeachment or at the ballot box in 2020 and install one of their puppets who
will resume their program of globalism (mass immigration, international trade agreements, and
more regime change wars) to the point where things will become intolerably unbearable for the
average American. Once that happens, the conditions will have been satisfied for the swamp
draining to begin in earnest.
Bottom line: things are going to have to get a lot worse before they get any better.
For many years, John McCain has been one of the major war hawks in the Senate, but he was
not that way for more than a decade after he was first elected to Congress. When he entered the
House of Representatives in 1983, he was a cautious realist, holding the position that U.S.
military power should only be used to protect vital national interests. He developed this view
as a result of his experience in the Vietnam War and his post-Vietnam studying of the origins
of that war at the National War College.
[1] John B. Judis, "Neo-McCain," New Republic, October 16, 2006,
https://newrepublic.com/article/60839/neo-mccain
That view loomed large among military
leaders at this time and was exemplified by General Colin Powell.
In his first year in Congress, McCain, although a strong supporter of then President Reagan,
voted against the latter's decision to continue the deployment of troops in Lebanon during that
country's civil war. The measure would pass in both Houses of Congress, with substantial
support from Democrats, and with only a small minority of Republicans daring to oppose Reagan.
In his floor speech on this issue, McCain stated:
"The fundamental question is: What is the United States' interest in Lebanon? It is said we
are there to keep the peace. I ask, what peace? It is said we are there to aid the government.
I ask, what government? It is said we are there to stabilize the region. I ask, how can the
U.S. presence stabilize the region? . . . . The longer we stay in Lebanon, the harder it will
be for us to leave. We will be trapped by the case we make for having our troops there in the
first place.
[3} Quoted in Norman Kempster, "Vietnam War Leaves Legacy of Anguish," Los Angeles Times,
April 28, 1985, http://articles.latimes.com/1985-04-28/news/mn-2129...-war/2
After a truck filled with explosives rammed into the Marine compound in Beirut, killing 241
service members, Reagan opted to remove the remaining troops a few months later. McCain was
vindicated and he gained considerable attention from the mainstream media for his prescience
and courage to take such a stand against a popular President from his party. This helped to
develop his reputation as a "maverick."
"The American people and Congress now appreciate that we are neither omniscient nor
omnipotent," McCain would later tell the
Los Angeles Times
, "and they are not prepared
to commit U.S. troops to combat unless there is a clear U.S. national security interest
involved. If we do become involved in combat, that involvement must be of relatively short
duration and must be readily explained to the man in the street in one or two
sentences."[3]
In 1987, during the Iran-Iraq War, in which the United States was supporting Iraq, McCain,
now a Senator, opposed President Reagan's move to put American flags on Kuwaiti oil tankers and
have the U.S. Navy protect them against possible Iranian attacks. In the
Arizona
Republican
, he described Reagan's action as a "dangerous overreaction in perhaps the most
violent and unpredictable region in the world." He continued: "American citizens are again
being asked to place themselves between warring Middle East factions, with no tangible allied
support and no real plan on how to respond if the situation escalates."
[4] Quoted in Matt Welch, McCain, The Myth of a Maverick (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007),
p. 157.
McCain did support the Gulf War in 1991, but even here he was something of a moderate.
McCain biographer Matt Welch writes: "When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in the summer of 1990,
McCain oscillated between hawkishness and reluctance, denouncing the Iraqi dictator and then
the U.S. government for having cozied up too closely to Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war, but
at the same time warning against a protracted land battle."
[5] Welch, p. 158.
McCain stated: "If you get involved in a major ground war in the Saudi
desert, I think support will erode significantly. Nor should it be supported. We cannot even
contemplate, in my view, trading American blood for Iraqi blood."
[6] Quoted in Michael Wines, "Confrontation in the Gulf," New York Times, August 19, 1990,
http://www.nytimes.com/1990/08/19/world/confrontati...cubz=0
Under Republican Presidents Reagan and the elder Bush, it must be acknowledged that McCain
was not an actual non-interventionist since he supported the American opposition to the Soviet
Union, and what he considered to be pro-Soviet forces in Central America. Moreover, he
supported the removal of Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega by the U.S. military in 1989. But
this was still a far cry from the global interventionist that McCain would become.
Moreover, during Bill Clinton's presidency, McCain would be even more non-interventionist
until his radical change during the last years of Clinton's term. In a commencement address he
made to the Marine Corps Command and Staff College in Quantico, Virginia in June 1994, McCain
emphasized that his cautious approach to war resulted from his Vietnam experience. He solemnly
orated that he had not forgotten "the friends who did not return with me to the country we
loved so dearly. The memory of them, of what they bore for honor and country, causes me to look
in every prospective conflict for the shadow of Vietnam."
[7] Address by Senator John McCain National Defense University Graduation, June 16, 1999,
https://www.mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/1999/...ea4e56
In December 1992, after losing the November election to Bill Clinton, the elder George Bush
dispatched American troops to Somalia, then embroiled in a many-sided civil war, to facilitate
the provision of food to the starving civilian population. This was part of a United Nations
effort. By the fall of 1993, this military mission morphed into one of arresting war lords and
nation-building. In October 1993, a 15-hour battle took place in Mogadishu that left 18
Americans dead and 73 injured, with many of these casualties the result of two Black Hawk
helicopters being shot down.
[8] NPR Staff, "What A Downed Black Hawk In Somalia Taught America," NPR, October 5, 2013,
http://www.npr.org/2013/10/05/229561805/what-a-down...merica
Because of this loss of American lives, there was a Senate bill supported by President
Clinton which planned to remove American troops from Somalia. Demanding a quicker troop exit,
McCain stated: "Mr. President, can anyone seriously argue that another six months of United
States forces in harm's way means the difference between peace and prosperity in Somalia and
war and starvation there? Is that very dim prospect worth one more American life? No, it is
not."
Drawing an analogy to what happened in Lebanon in 1983, McCain contended: "240 young Marines
lost their lives, but we got out. Now is the time for us to get out of Somalia, as rapidly, and
as promptly, and as safely as possible."
McCain also opposed Clinton's intervention in Haiti to bring back President Jean-Bertrand
Aristide, who had been elected in 1990 and then overthrown in a coup in 1991. After a UN
resolution authorized the use of military force to return Aristide to power, the United States
would ultimately do so on October 15, 1994. In late August 1994, McCain declared: "It is the
post-invasion circumstances that I fear will bog down U.S. forces in a low-level, open-ended,
ill-defined conflict which will require U.S. servicemen and women to serve as a virtual palace
guard for President Aristide once he is returned to power."
[10] "McCain Firm in Opposition to Invasion of Haiti," August 31, 1994,
https://www.mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press...c9b56d
The major international concern in the 1990s was the conflict in Yugoslavia!with the focus
first on Bosnia and then Kosovo. After the downfall of Communism, Yugoslavia dissolved, with
the secession, in 1992, of Croatia, Macedonia and Slovenia. Bosnia also declared its
independence despite the staunch opposition of Bosnian Serbs, who wanted to remain united with
Serbia. Civil war broke out between the Bosnian Serbs, supported by Serbia, and the
Muslim-dominated Bosnian government. Thousands of people were killed, raped, and expelled from
their homes. The West generally looked upon the atrocities, real and imagined, as being
primarily perpetrated by the Serbs. In the United States, this was especially the case among
American liberals who would advocate "humanitarian" military intervention to protect the
Muslims.
In 1992, the UN peacekeeping forces intervened for humanitarian reasons and set up several
so-called safe areas for refugees, which often turned out to be not very safe. The UN forces
were composed of non-American troops, while American ships and airplanes enforced an arms
embargo.
The wars in Yugoslavia would ultimately lead to a sea change in McCain's position on
American military intervention, but this did not occur all at once. Initially, McCain was, like
many Republicans, opposed to American involvement in the conflict. In fact, biographer Matt
Welch describes McCain as having been "one of the Senate's most stubborn opponents to US
military intervention against Serbs."
[11] Welch, p. 162.
McCain contended that any American military "peace-keeping" effort in
Bosnia would likely lead to a quagmire. "I think you can draw a parallel to the military
challenge in Bosnia with what the Russians faced in Afghanistan," McCain opined in May 1993.
"Even with ground forces and with overwhelming air superiority, they were unable to defeat a
motivated, very capable enemy."
[12] Quoted in Michael Wines, "Conflict in the Balkans; Senator Who Saw War Up Close Doesn't
Want to See Another," New York Times, May 5, 1993,
http://www.nytimes.com/1993/05/05/world/conflict-in...r.html
Prospects for peace, however, improved in the summer of 1995 when NATO, led by the United
States, launched airstrikes against Bosnian Serb targets, which combined with better-equipped
Muslim and Croatian forces pressured the Bosnian Serbs into participating in peace
negotiations. This led to the Dayton Accords in November 1995, which ended the war in Bosnia.
NATO would provide peace-keeping troops, including 20,000 from the U.S.
Showing that he had not completely dropped his previous cautious approach to intervention,
McCain emphasized that the Dole-McCain resolution was not seeking support for President
Clinton's decision to deploy the troops. "It asks that you support the deployment after the
decision has been made," he said. "The decision has been made by the only American elected to
make such decisions [i.e., the President]." However, McCain also expressed a firm
interventionist conviction: "When we arrive at the moment when less is expected from our
leadership by the rest of the world, then we will have arrived at the moment of our decline."
And he said, "We cannot withdraw from the world into our prosperity and comfort and hope to
keep those blessings."
[18] Quoted in Katherine Q. Seeleye, "Anguished, Senators Vote to Support Bosnia Mission," New
York Times, December 14, 1995,
http://www.nytimes.com/1995/12/14/world/balkan-acco...ed=all
While a change from his previous strong opposition to American intervention abroad,
supporting this peace effort in Bosnia did not portend McCain's radical transmutation to the
global super-hawk that he would become. That final step would require the involvement of the
neoconservatives. This connection began when, in 1997, McCain and his advisers read an article
in the
Wall Street Journal
editorial page by neoconservatives Bill Kristol and David
Brooks who were promoting the idea of "national greatness" conservatism, which consisted of a
more activist domestic agenda and a more interventionist global role.
[19] Kirkpatrick.
While this article may have fit in with the direction that McCain's thinking was moving, it
had political implications as well: McCain had been eyeing the presidency for a number of
years. According to John Weaver, a major political adviser to McCain at this time: "I wouldn't
call it a 'eureka' moment, but there was a sense that this is where we are headed and this is
what we are trying to articulate and they [Kristol and Brooks] have already done a lot of the
work. . . . And, quite frankly, from a crass political point of view, we were in the
making-friends business. The
Weekly Standard
represented a part of the primary
electorate that we could get."
[20] Quoted in Kirkpatrick.
And it should be emphasized that McCain's change was not a
gradual one but rather one that was quite radical and took place in a very short period of
time.
McCain would begin to support neocon positions. On January 26, 1998, the neocon-dominated
Project for a New American Century (PNAC), created in 1997 and headed by Bill Kristol, sent a
letter to President Clinton urging him to take unilateral military action against Iraq to
overthrow Saddam and offered a plan to achieve that objective. After the Clinton administration
failed to take action, another neocon-front group, the resurrected Committee for Peace and
Security in the Gulf, which had promoted the 1991 Gulf War, sent another letter urging war.
And, because of Clinton's continued inaction, PNAC would send another such letter in May.
While President Clinton failed to take action, McCain pushed for military action against
Saddam in 1998. McCain co-sponsored the Iraq Liberation Act, committing the United States to
support the overthrow of Saddam and funding opposition groups, most importantly the Iraqi
National Congress. Headed by the notorious neocon-favorite Ahmed Chalabi, the Iraqi National
Congress would provide much of the spurious information that generated support for the war on
Iraq in 2003. The bill passed in both houses of Congress and on October 31, 1998, President
Clinton signed it into law. Clinton, however, did not intend to implement this measure and
George Bush made no mention of it during the 2000 campaign.
[23] Justin Vaisse, Neoconservatism: The Biography of a Movement (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
University Press, 2010), p. 248.
McCain, however, remained in lock-step with the neocons on
Iraq and would be made Honorary Co-chair of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq when it
was created in 2002.
McCain had been in line with the neocons as a strong supporter of Israel even during the
time he adhered to a cautious realist position regarding U.S. military interventionism. He was
the 1999 recipient of the Defender of Jerusalem award, given by the National Council of Young
Israel. In his acceptance speech, McCain in effect told his pro-Zionist audience that the
United States should be prepared to make war for Israel's sake. "Certainly, no one would argue
with the proposition that our armed forces exist first and foremost for the defense of the
United States and its vital interests abroad," McCain intoned. "We choose, as a nation,
however, to intervene militarily abroad in defense of the moral values that are at the center
of our national conscientiousness even when vital national interests are not necessarily at
stake. I raise this point because it lies at the heart of this nation's approach to Israel. The
survival of Israel is one of this country's most important moral commitments. . . . Like the
United States, Israel is more than a nation; it is an ideal."
[24] "Remarks of Senator John McCain to the National Council of Young Israel in New York City,"
John McCain Press Release, March 14, 1999, quoted in Joseph Sobran, "The Patriot Game,"
Wanderer, February 24, 2000, p. 6.
Note that this was diametrically opposed to his former
view that American intervention abroad should only take place to protect vital American
interests.
McCain's hawkish position reflected the views of the neoconservatives. And obviously, his
pro-intervention stance represented a sea change from his previous emphasis on caution and
support of war only if it involved a vital American interest.
. Members of the interventionist Balkan Action Committee, which advocated NATO ground troops
for Kosovo, included such prominent neoconservative mainstays as Richard Perle, Max M.
Kampelman, Morton Abramowitz, and Paul Wolfowitz. Other neoconservative proponents of a tougher
war included Eliot Cohen, Elliott Abrams, John Bolton, Bill Kristol, Robert Kagan, and Norman
Podhoretz.
[30] Balkan Action Council, Press Release, "Balkan Action Council Urges NATO Intervention,
Ground Forces in Kosovo," January 25, 1999, Bosnian Institute,
http://www.bosnia.org.uk/news/news/260199_6.cfm
Largely because of his bellicose position on Kosovo, McCain was the favorite presidential
candidate for many leading neoconservatives in 2000. As Franklin Foer, editor of the liberal
New Republic,
put it: "Jewish neoconservatives have fallen hard for John McCain. It's
not just unabashed swooner William Kristol, editor of
The Weekly Standard
. McCain has
also won over such leading neocon lights as David Brooks, the entire Podhoretz family,
The
Wall Street Journal
's Dorothy Rabinowitz, and columnist Charles Krauthammer, who declared,
in a most un-Semitic flourish, 'He suffered for our sins.'"
[31] Francis Foer, "The neocons wake up: Arguing the GOP," New Republic, March 20, 2000, p.
13.
McCain was especially championed by Bill Kristol, editor of the
Weekly Standard
, and
his associate David Brooks. They held that McCain would promote their idea of "national
greatness," as opposed to what they regarded as the standpatness of the conservative
Republicans. The "national greatness" program would entail a greater role for the federal
government and more extensive intervention throughout the world to promote American values.
Neoconservatives admired McCain for his support of the American war on Serbia, toward which
many mainstream conservatives were decidedly cool. The attack on Serbia, ostensibly for
humanitarian reasons, provided the intellectual groundwork for the attack on Iraq, the neocons'
fundamental target, since it set the precedent of violating international law's prohibition
against initiating offensive wars. No longer would the United States have to be attacked, or
even threatened, to engage in war. As Kristol and Brooks put it: "For all his conventional
political views, McCain embodies a set of virtues that today are unconventional. The issue that
gave the McCain campaign its initial boost was Kosovo. He argued that America as a great
champion of democracy and decency could not fail to act. And he supported his commander in
chief despite grave doubts about the conduct of the war–while George W. Bush sat out the
debate and Republicans on the Hill flailed at Clinton."
[32] William Kristol and David Brooks, "The McCain Insurrection," Weekly Standard, February 14,
2000, http://www.weeklystandard.com/the-mccain-insurrecti.../11707
But the neocons did not support McCain simply because of his defense of the Kosovars, but
rather because of his broader interventionist position of "rogue state rollback," which pointed
directly at the enemies of Israel. While participating in a Republican debate moderated by
CNN's Larry King on February. 15, 2000, the candidates were asked: "What area of American
international policy would you change immediately as president?" McCain replied: "I'd institute
a policy that I call 'rogue state rollback.' I would arm, train, equip, both from without and
from within, forces that would eventually overthrow the governments and install free and
democratically-elected governments." And he added: "As long as Saddam Hussein is in power, I am
convinced that he will pose a threat to our security."
[33] Talal Al-Khatib, "McCain Rewrites History on 'Rogue-State Rollback'," ABC News, April 17,
2008, http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/04/mcc...s.html
What caused McCain's radical shift from cautious realist to super hawk? Biographer Matt
Welch sees it as essentially a return to his basic world view, largely derived from the
family's military background, after the non-interventionist effect of the Vietnam Syndrome.
Welch writes: "But much less understood is the extent to which interventionist hegemony has
been literally seared into McCain's skull and then reignited late in life after the long
intellectual detour of Vietnam."
[34] Welch, p. xxv.
Justin Raimondo sees it otherwise: "It is impossible to know what is in McCain's heart.
There may be a purely ideological explanation for his changing viewpoint. But what seems to
account for his evolution from realism to hopped-up interventionism is nothing more than sheer
ambition." He goes on: "He was positioning himself against his own party, while staking out a
distinctive stance independent of the Democrats. It was, in short, an instance of a
presidential candidate maneuvering himself to increase his appeal to the electorate!and, most
importantly, the media."
[35] Raimondo, "Madness of John McCain."
McCain has flip-flopped on domestic issues, sometimes supporting a conservative position and
at other times a more liberal one which wins him the plaudits of the mainstream media!but once
he moved into the neocon orbit regarding U.S. foreign policy, he has stayed there. It is
obviously beneficial for a politician to have the broad neocon network of organizations on
one's side. And more than a few of these neocons!such as Bill Kristol, Robert Kagan, David
Brooks, are featured regularly in the mainstream media. Moreover, the mainstream liberal media
itself has adopted many neocon interventionist positions in foreign policy in regard to Russia
and the Middle East, so McCain's positions are held in esteem there, too.
Justin Raimondo sees it otherwise: "It is impossible to know what is in McCain's heart.
There may be a purely ideological explanation for his changing viewpoint. But what seems to
account for his evolution from realism to hopped-up interventionism is nothing more than
sheer ambition."
It's more Hambition than ambition.
If McCain were really about ambition, he would have been more flexible and savvy like
Clinton the chameleon. Or Trump who took up different positions to play to populist
passions.
But in his foreign policy, McCain went from cautious and moderate to hardline, even to his
political detriment. If he was really a political animal driven by ambition, he would have
moderated his position on the Iraq War once things went badly. By 2008, even majority of
conservatives had turned against the war that became associated with Bush II, a truly reviled
and despised political figure(and rightly so).
So, why did McCain stick to his guns on foreign policy?
McCain is a mental midget. He wasn't much of a student. He wasn't much of a soldier. So,
he was always hungry for recognition from the Power. This is why he was so partial to sucking
up to the NYT crowd. The idea that intelligent and educated Liberal establishment praised him
as a 'moderate and sane' Republican was very flattering to him. But because he was a Gopper,
he couldn't lean too much to the Libby side.
Now, what became the intellectual and moral cornerstone of the GOP? Neocons. Why? Neocons
gained control of the thinktanks and Big Ideas. They were supposed to be the Mind of the GOP
in contrast to Evanjelly dummies, staid Paleocons, soulless libertarians, and beer-guzzling
NASCAR types. Also, Neocons are Jews, and Holocaust became the neo-religion of America. So,
the idea that Jewish Neocons, the mind and soul of the GOP, warmed up to him made him wet his
pants with joy. Oh gosh, these Jews, yes, these intelligent and soulful Jews(the Holocaust
folks) were praising him as a man of integrity, vision, ethics, and courage.
So, it wasn't just political ambition. It was psychological and emotional, especially as
Wasps and White Conservatives had lost so much intellectual and moral capital since the 60s.
Wasp mind culture came to be associated with Dan Quayle, and Bush II presidency nailed the
final coffins in Wasp intellectualism. Now, surely there are many very smart Wasps, but they
were no longer joining the ranks of GOP elites. Most smart Wasps elites either became
apolitical or libby-dib and into 'white guilt' crap. Also, among the boomers, most brainy and
talented Wasps became more like Clintons than the Bushes. Democrats. So, to be a conservative
Wasp in the 90s and 2000s was to be an intellectual zero. Also, with Holocaust and MLK cult
as new religions of America, soon to be followed by worship of rainbow-colored homo anus,
Wasp conservatives had no moral capital either.
So, just think how McCain felt when the brainy & soulful Holocaust people put their arms
around him. He wet his pants. It's like in THE GODFATHER the novel. Luca Brasi thinks himself
irredeemable and cursed. But Vito Corleone, an intelligent and wise man, reached out to him.
Brasi was so stunned that the great Vito would befriend someone so gross and vile that he
became the most loyal henchman of Vito.
McCain felt saved! He'd been confused and messed up all his life. He was shot down in
Vietnam. He became crippled for life. He'd collaborated with the enemy but a myth was created
around him that was mostly phony. The war was lost. He tried to make peace and seek
reconciliation with Vietnam. But he was never sure of anything. He was a broken man whose
politics was about compromise and moderation. No passion. But when he joined in backing the
Serbian War, the praise from Neocons made him finally feel saved and armed with purpose in
life. He finally had the intellectual and moral blessing he'd craved all his life. He was
befriended also by Joe Lieberman, a wise-sounding Jew. Of course, these neocons and Zionists
were cunning and shrewd and hardly wise, but Jews gained this aura of sanctimony as the holy
Holocaust people with lots of money and brains.
Another reason why McCain became increasingly vocal and aggressive in foreign policy was
because it's the only arena in which a white gentile leader can be manly and tough, at least
against enemies chosen by Jews. It's like a dog better listen to the master in the house, but
it can bark loudly at other dogs and creatures outside. Because of the cult of 'white guilt'
and Moral Hegemony of Jews(Holocaust), Blacks(Selma), homos(whoopity poo), and even
illegals(as 'undocumented immigrants' in a 'nation of immigrants'), the white gentile man has
NO moral authority in the US. So, he can only act tough in foreign policy. And by denouncing
other nations without 'human rights', even a white male as a proud American can act morally
holier-than-thou.
Of course, white males can't choose whom to hate, berate, and bark at. Jews get to choose.
And Jews chose Russia, Syria, and Iran. And North Korea to a lesser extent. And McCain barks
at them. But his toughness is bogus since he has no autonomy in choosing the enemy. If
neocons were to decide that Putin is alright, McCain would stop barking at Russia. If Neocons
said Saudis must be taken down, McCain would bark in that direction.
Also, foreign policy is the ONLY card McCain has left. He lost EVERYTHING. He lost to Bush
in 2000. He supported the Iraq War and got burned as a result. He got burned in 2008 to
Obama. His amnesty was angrily opposed by GOP voters. The financial and housing policies that
he endorsed went to hell. And Trump insulted him and did everything opposite what McCain did
and won. And Putin is a respected leader around the world. McCain is a nothing. Maybe a
secret part of him resents the bargain he made with Neocons in 2000. But that is the only
card he has left: the impression of him as a tough warrior standing up for American values
and denouncing tyrants like Putin and etc. Of course, many people see how bogus this is.
McCain met with Alqaeda scum in Syria and with Neo-Nazis in Ukraine. No one respects him.
Conservative voters hate him. He won over and over in Arizona only because Democrats are
allowed to vote in GOP primaries. Liberals had pretended to respect him but burned his ass so
bad in 2008 in their support of Obama that the charade of non-partisan amicability is over.
McCain is totally irrelevant. So, the only card he has left is accusing Trump of being a
Russian agent and subverting his presidency out of sheer resentment and envy.
I saw how McCain reacted in the Senate when his effort to smuggle Montenegro into NATO
failed, a child not getting his icecream.
Tiny Montenegro of course is just a pain in the ass for peace.
Who in his right mind wants the government of this tiny state to be able to provoke the last
world war ?
People who have seen Russia as the USA arch enemy in fact are religious, religion defined as
'deep seated irrational conviction'.
That Russia just wants to sell oil and gas, and wants to remain independent, impossible.
So McCains invented Russian militarism, as bible belters invented creationism.
McCain was braindead during Comey's testimony in the Senate, even Comey had to screw up
his face in painful confusion as McCain rambled. McCain is no longer fit to water the garden
lawn let alone vote on key bills in congress. He needs to be forcefully removed from the
Senate and replaced by a pro-Trump candidate from Arizona. I like my war heroes uncaptured by
the way.
He's a traitor like his father, the captain of the USS Liberty attacked by Israel in 1967
with the loss of 34 American lives the man who betrayed his men by falling in line with the
cover-up to keep the truth of this war crime from the American people. One degenerate shitbag
begot another. Maybe Junior just can't help it.
Another excellent piece of work on a very putrid subject.
McCain intoned. "We choose, as a nation, however, to intervene militarily abroad in
defense of the moral values
Whenever anyone, especially a politician, starts yapping about defending or promoting
moral values, it's time to grab both your wallet and to head to the toilet.
Alas, I miss Realism. I hoped Trump was a Realist. I despise Idealists. Neocons are
Idealists. Communists are Idealists. They are all monsters. So much blood has been shed in
the name of Idealism. Idealists don't care about inconvenient things like body counts, so
long as their Ideals are being pursued.
I want America to be friends with Russia, and fight radical Islam. This is the only course
that makes sense, but the Idealists aren't having any. It appears that the Neocons still have
their claws around our country's throat. I had hoped Trump could resist this, but apparently
he cannot.
@Priss Factor
Justin Raimondo sees it otherwise: "It is impossible to know what is in
McCain's heart. There may be a purely ideological explanation for his changing viewpoint. But
what seems to account for his evolution from realism to hopped-up interventionism is nothing
more than sheer ambition."
It's more Hambition than ambition.
If McCain were really about ambition, he would have been more flexible and savvy like
Clinton the chameleon. Or Trump who took up different positions to play to populist
passions.
But in his foreign policy, McCain went from cautious and moderate to hardline, even to his
political detriment. If he was really a political animal driven by ambition, he would have
moderated his position on the Iraq War once things went badly. By 2008, even majority of
conservatives had turned against the war that became associated with Bush II, a truly reviled
and despised political figure(and rightly so).
So, why did McCain stick to his guns on foreign policy?
McCain is a mental midget. He wasn't much of a student. He wasn't much of a soldier. So,
he was always hungry for recognition from the Power. This is why he was so partial to sucking
up to the NYT crowd. The idea that intelligent and educated Liberal establishment praised him
as a 'moderate and sane' Republican was very flattering to him. But because he was a Gopper,
he couldn't lean too much to the Libby side.
Now, what became the intellectual and moral cornerstone of the GOP? Neocons. Why? Neocons
gained control of the thinktanks and Big Ideas. They were supposed to be the Mind of the GOP
in contrast to Evanjelly dummies, staid Paleocons, soulless libertarians, and beer-guzzling
NASCAR types. Also, Neocons are Jews, and Holocaust became the neo-religion of America. So,
the idea that Jewish Neocons, the mind and soul of the GOP, warmed up to him made him wet his
pants with joy. Oh gosh, these Jews, yes, these intelligent and soulful Jews(the Holocaust
folks) were praising him as a man of integrity, vision, ethics, and courage.
So, it wasn't just political ambition. It was psychological and emotional, especially as
Wasps and White Conservatives had lost so much intellectual and moral capital since the 60s.
Wasp mind culture came to be associated with Dan Quayle, and Bush II presidency nailed the
final coffins in Wasp intellectualism. Now, surely there are many very smart Wasps, but they
were no longer joining the ranks of GOP elites. Most smart Wasps elites either became
apolitical or libby-dib and into 'white guilt' crap. Also, among the boomers, most brainy and
talented Wasps became more like Clintons than the Bushes. Democrats. So, to be a conservative
Wasp in the 90s and 2000s was to be an intellectual zero. Also, with Holocaust and MLK cult
as new religions of America, soon to be followed by worship of rainbow-colored homo anus,
Wasp conservatives had no moral capital either.
So, just think how McCain felt when the brainy & soulful Holocaust people put their arms
around him. He wet his pants. It's like in THE GODFATHER the novel. Luca Brasi thinks himself
irredeemable and cursed. But Vito Corleone, an intelligent and wise man, reached out to him.
Brasi was so stunned that the great Vito would befriend someone so gross and vile that he
became the most loyal henchman of Vito.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Za3vgqxQDHE
McCain felt saved! He'd been confused and messed up all his life. He was shot down in
Vietnam. He became crippled for life. He'd collaborated with the enemy but a myth was created
around him that was mostly phony. The war was lost. He tried to make peace and seek
reconciliation with Vietnam. But he was never sure of anything. He was a broken man whose
politics was about compromise and moderation. No passion. But when he joined in backing the
Serbian War, the praise from Neocons made him finally feel saved and armed with purpose in
life. He finally had the intellectual and moral blessing he'd craved all his life. He was
befriended also by Joe Lieberman, a wise-sounding Jew. Of course, these neocons and Zionists
were cunning and shrewd and hardly wise, but Jews gained this aura of sanctimony as the holy
Holocaust people... with lots of money and brains.
Another reason why McCain became increasingly vocal and aggressive in foreign policy was
because it's the only arena in which a white gentile leader can be manly and tough, at least
against enemies chosen by Jews. It's like a dog better listen to the master in the house, but
it can bark loudly at other dogs and creatures outside. Because of the cult of 'white guilt'
and Moral Hegemony of Jews(Holocaust), Blacks(Selma), homos(whoopity poo), and even
illegals(as 'undocumented immigrants' in a 'nation of immigrants'), the white gentile man has
NO moral authority in the US. So, he can only act tough in foreign policy. And by denouncing
other nations without 'human rights', even a white male as a proud American can act morally
holier-than-thou.
Of course, white males can't choose whom to hate, berate, and bark at. Jews get to choose.
And Jews chose Russia, Syria, and Iran. And North Korea to a lesser extent. And McCain barks
at them. But his toughness is bogus since he has no autonomy in choosing the enemy. If
neocons were to decide that Putin is alright, McCain would stop barking at Russia. If Neocons
said Saudis must be taken down, McCain would bark in that direction.
Also, foreign policy is the ONLY card McCain has left. He lost EVERYTHING. He lost to Bush
in 2000. He supported the Iraq War and got burned as a result. He got burned in 2008 to
Obama. His amnesty was angrily opposed by GOP voters. The financial and housing policies that
he endorsed went to hell. And Trump insulted him and did everything opposite what McCain did
and won. And Putin is a respected leader around the world. McCain is a nothing. Maybe a
secret part of him resents the bargain he made with Neocons in 2000. But that is the only
card he has left: the impression of him as a tough warrior standing up for American values
and denouncing tyrants like Putin and etc. Of course, many people see how bogus this is.
McCain met with Alqaeda scum in Syria and with Neo-Nazis in Ukraine. No one respects him.
Conservative voters hate him. He won over and over in Arizona only because Democrats are
allowed to vote in GOP primaries. Liberals had pretended to respect him but burned his ass so
bad in 2008 in their support of Obama that the charade of non-partisan amicability is over.
McCain is totally irrelevant. So, the only card he has left is accusing Trump of being a
Russian agent and subverting his presidency out of sheer resentment and envy.
So, he was always hungry for recognition from the Power.
I've noticed that in a lot of the sappy, worthless goons in positions of power, even minor
positions.
BTW, your comment is far beyond even some of the best columnists here. Bravo!
@lucidian
Alas, I miss Realism. I hoped Trump was a Realist. I despise Idealists. Neocons
are Idealists. Communists are Idealists. They are all monsters. So much blood has been shed
in the name of Idealism. Idealists don't care about inconvenient things like body counts, so
long as their Ideals are being pursued.
I want America to be friends with Russia, and fight radical Islam. This is the only course
that makes sense, but the Idealists aren't having any. It appears that the Neocons still have
their claws around our country's throat. I had hoped Trump could resist this, but apparently
he cannot.
I want America to be friends with Russia, and fight radical Islam. This is the only
course that makes sense, but the Idealists aren't having any. It appears that the Neocons
still have their claws around our country's throat.
Neocons are the ones promoting and braying about radical Islam as a threat.
The biggest threat we face is the moneyed neocon crowd, and their water carriers and boot
lickers like Little Johnny Boy. Forget Islam as an enemy, radical or otherwise. It's
obviously nothing more than a threat hatched by the usual reptiles to distract our attention
from themselves.
If we can manage to get rid of neocon influence, we'll see radical Islam and many other
"threats" disappear like magic. Unfortunately that's not likely to happen any time soon.
McCain wet started his plane on the deck of the USS FORRESTAL which caused a rocket to
cook off and fire causing a chain reaction which caused and explosion and fire that killed
134 men and wounded 161 McCain was the only one removed from the ship to keep him away from
the crew of the Forrestal. This happened on July 29, 1967.
When McCain was in prison in North Vietnam he was given the name SONG BIRD by the North
Vietnese because he made some 40 tapes condeming the U.S. and this was not because of torture
as he was not tortured and the injuries he sustained were from ejecting from the plane.
McCain has done every thing in his power to cover up the fact that America POWS were left
behind in North Vietnam and there is a youtube video showing McCain at a Senate hearing
cursing a woman who was investigating the issue of POWS left behind in Vietnam and that is
not the only video of McCain cursing out people who asked him questions on this issue.
McCain is one of the supporters of ISIS and he is pictured with members of ISIS numerous
times and as such is of course a TRAITOR just as he was in prison in North Vietnam.
McCain is a TRAITOR and a disgrace to the United States.
"McCain is a mental midget. He wasn't much of a student. He wasn't much of a soldier.
So, he was always hungry for recognition from the Power."
Great summary. There is a yearning for acceptance and 'being something more' among the
semi-retarded an completely uneducated in US. They know very little and have minimal
experience. They are completely lost in culture, history, geography, languages, economics,
etc But they are living in a wealthy, resources-rich environment. That leads to a disconnect
from the real world, they mix up myths and reality, there is chaos reigning in their minds.
They suffer from a sense of inferiority, so they overcompensate and latch on a few ideas. It
is a result of lack of selectivity and diligence in US education. That permissiveness allows
for creativity and openness, but it also allows total simpletons to rise up because of
connections (McCain) or industriousness. Lately this model has been spreading around the
world. McCain is simply too stupid to be where he is.
A lot of today's problems can be traced to the NATO bombing of Serbia. That's when all
rules, common sense and minimal fairness were tossed out. That's when the western media lost
any sense of standards or basic decency. That's when 'international' law and agreed on rules
was abandoned. Kosovo established a precedence – from changing existing borders by
force and 'we bomb because nobody can really stop us', from media reporting what governments
tell them and unhinged 'journalists with a cause' – it all started with bombing Serbia
to force Kosovo separation. It has been downhill since then with ever-escalating use of force
and lying by the media. McCain was prominent in that fiasco, but so were Blair and Clintons,
European 'leftists' and Islamic expansionists. Kosovo created a template: it combined
Neo-cons with unhinged liberal bombers, and added Islamic fanatics dreaming about taking over
Europe. We are simply living with the consequences. McCain was there from the beginning.
So what happened? Has there been a gradual onset of dementia that's gone undiagnosed? Or
was he "eying the presidency" and needed the sponsors that would carry him there? Either way
the man has been mentally and morally unfit all along for his entire life. He's a spoiled
brat who graduated at the bottom of his class yet was allowed to hold positions he should
never have had due to family clout. He has an irrational animus towards the Russians which
has led him to try to drag the US into unnecessary confrontations with them and which has had
the effect of spurring them into building up their military even quicker as they realize that
it may not be possible to make any worthwhile peace agreements from a position of weakness.
Of course we haven't gone into his immigration stance which has harmed this country
immeasurably. He's been bad, always, from childhood on. It's strange to see that the voters
of Arizona kept returning this cretin to the Senate over and over. He's been there far too
long for anything worthwhile he may have done. Go away, just go.
McCain is owned by the MIC. He came home drunk with a job in politics waiting for him.
McCain's role is to collude with his defense contractors for costly welfare that undermines
US security. He's just like any other scumbag Senator, a puppet for the mafia.
Haven't we learned that what a politician says is at any given time to be typically worth
less than worn out tires? Not the twiddling author of this drawn out character assessment.
Conservatives are hopelessly delusional.
There's no better example of standard issue duplicitu than the Orange Realtor who claimed
he was going to cut defense spending, the F-35 and John McCain's legacy all at once. All
horseshit – all of it.
Incompetent officers running the obsolete USS John McCain into a cargo ship. That about
sums it up.
Members of the interventionist
Balkan Action Committee
, which advocated NATO
ground troops for Kosovo, included such prominent neoconservative mainstays as Richard
Perle, Max M. Kampelman, Morton Abramowitz, and Paul Wolfowitz. Other neoconservative
proponents of a tougher war included Eliot Cohen, Elliott Abrams, John Bolton, Bill
Kristol, Robert Kagan, and Norman Podhoretz.
Well, what do ya know? Look who was behind the push for war against Serbia. And the author
of this fine article clearly articulates the motivation for this supposed R2P intervention
against Serbia:
The attack on Serbia, ostensibly for humanitarian reasons, provided the intellectual
groundwork for the attack on Iraq, the neocons' fundamental target,
since it set the
precedent of violating international law's prohibition against initiating offensive
wars
.
And we have these hasbarists (both xian and Jewish) trying to convince us that all these
wars are truly for humanitarian reasons. What chutzpah!
So, he was always hungry for recognition from the Power.
another word for 'the Power', is The Fiend
which I consider somewhat more accurate in its description
in a word, McCain is a traitor
a man willing to betray his office, his constituents, the men and women in uniform, his
sacred vows, and all notions of honor or decency in service to our nations most determined
enemies. If he thinks doing so will advance his personal ambitions.
a crack whore has a thousand times more integrity
dog vomit in the grass is heroic by comparison
I'm reminded of that Detroit physician who diagnosed healthy patients as having cancer and
requiring expensive chemo treatments, so that the physician could get richer and also bask in
the grandeur of being a 'great healer', once his patients were declared 'healed'. At least
the ones who didn't die from the chemo (many). A man who is trusted with the health and
welfare of others, and then betrays that trust and sees those people die for his personal
gain.
and then any article on John McBloodstain that leaves out his wanton corruption vis-a-vis
the Savings and Loan mass looting, the 2008 mass looting, his treason in Vietnam, his treason
vis-a-vis the USS Liberty and all the other remarkable acts of betrayal and craven venality
that this singularly loathsome man has wrought upon the people of this planet is wholly
inadequate for a person to get a grasp on just what a spectacularly vile little man the
Bloodstain really is.
It says something about the Jews that own and control our fecal government and media when
their favorites to play POTUS are the very worst human beings in the nation. Hillary Clinton
and John McBloodstain are arguably the most repulsive people in human memory.
the lying, vicious cackling gorgon and that murderous little Igor to the Fiend
@Priss Factor
Justin Raimondo sees it otherwise: "It is impossible to know what is in
McCain's heart. There may be a purely ideological explanation for his changing viewpoint. But
what seems to account for his evolution from realism to hopped-up interventionism is nothing
more than sheer ambition."
It's more Hambition than ambition.
If McCain were really about ambition, he would have been more flexible and savvy like
Clinton the chameleon. Or Trump who took up different positions to play to populist
passions.
But in his foreign policy, McCain went from cautious and moderate to hardline, even to his
political detriment. If he was really a political animal driven by ambition, he would have
moderated his position on the Iraq War once things went badly. By 2008, even majority of
conservatives had turned against the war that became associated with Bush II, a truly reviled
and despised political figure(and rightly so).
So, why did McCain stick to his guns on foreign policy?
McCain is a mental midget. He wasn't much of a student. He wasn't much of a soldier. So,
he was always hungry for recognition from the Power. This is why he was so partial to sucking
up to the NYT crowd. The idea that intelligent and educated Liberal establishment praised him
as a 'moderate and sane' Republican was very flattering to him. But because he was a Gopper,
he couldn't lean too much to the Libby side.
Now, what became the intellectual and moral cornerstone of the GOP? Neocons. Why? Neocons
gained control of the thinktanks and Big Ideas. They were supposed to be the Mind of the GOP
in contrast to Evanjelly dummies, staid Paleocons, soulless libertarians, and beer-guzzling
NASCAR types. Also, Neocons are Jews, and Holocaust became the neo-religion of America. So,
the idea that Jewish Neocons, the mind and soul of the GOP, warmed up to him made him wet his
pants with joy. Oh gosh, these Jews, yes, these intelligent and soulful Jews(the Holocaust
folks) were praising him as a man of integrity, vision, ethics, and courage.
So, it wasn't just political ambition. It was psychological and emotional, especially as
Wasps and White Conservatives had lost so much intellectual and moral capital since the 60s.
Wasp mind culture came to be associated with Dan Quayle, and Bush II presidency nailed the
final coffins in Wasp intellectualism. Now, surely there are many very smart Wasps, but they
were no longer joining the ranks of GOP elites. Most smart Wasps elites either became
apolitical or libby-dib and into 'white guilt' crap. Also, among the boomers, most brainy and
talented Wasps became more like Clintons than the Bushes. Democrats. So, to be a conservative
Wasp in the 90s and 2000s was to be an intellectual zero. Also, with Holocaust and MLK cult
as new religions of America, soon to be followed by worship of rainbow-colored homo anus,
Wasp conservatives had no moral capital either.
So, just think how McCain felt when the brainy & soulful Holocaust people put their arms
around him. He wet his pants. It's like in THE GODFATHER the novel. Luca Brasi thinks himself
irredeemable and cursed. But Vito Corleone, an intelligent and wise man, reached out to him.
Brasi was so stunned that the great Vito would befriend someone so gross and vile that he
became the most loyal henchman of Vito.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Za3vgqxQDHE
McCain felt saved! He'd been confused and messed up all his life. He was shot down in
Vietnam. He became crippled for life. He'd collaborated with the enemy but a myth was created
around him that was mostly phony. The war was lost. He tried to make peace and seek
reconciliation with Vietnam. But he was never sure of anything. He was a broken man whose
politics was about compromise and moderation. No passion. But when he joined in backing the
Serbian War, the praise from Neocons made him finally feel saved and armed with purpose in
life. He finally had the intellectual and moral blessing he'd craved all his life. He was
befriended also by Joe Lieberman, a wise-sounding Jew. Of course, these neocons and Zionists
were cunning and shrewd and hardly wise, but Jews gained this aura of sanctimony as the holy
Holocaust people... with lots of money and brains.
Another reason why McCain became increasingly vocal and aggressive in foreign policy was
because it's the only arena in which a white gentile leader can be manly and tough, at least
against enemies chosen by Jews. It's like a dog better listen to the master in the house, but
it can bark loudly at other dogs and creatures outside. Because of the cult of 'white guilt'
and Moral Hegemony of Jews(Holocaust), Blacks(Selma), homos(whoopity poo), and even
illegals(as 'undocumented immigrants' in a 'nation of immigrants'), the white gentile man has
NO moral authority in the US. So, he can only act tough in foreign policy. And by denouncing
other nations without 'human rights', even a white male as a proud American can act morally
holier-than-thou.
Of course, white males can't choose whom to hate, berate, and bark at. Jews get to choose.
And Jews chose Russia, Syria, and Iran. And North Korea to a lesser extent. And McCain barks
at them. But his toughness is bogus since he has no autonomy in choosing the enemy. If
neocons were to decide that Putin is alright, McCain would stop barking at Russia. If Neocons
said Saudis must be taken down, McCain would bark in that direction.
Also, foreign policy is the ONLY card McCain has left. He lost EVERYTHING. He lost to Bush
in 2000. He supported the Iraq War and got burned as a result. He got burned in 2008 to
Obama. His amnesty was angrily opposed by GOP voters. The financial and housing policies that
he endorsed went to hell. And Trump insulted him and did everything opposite what McCain did
and won. And Putin is a respected leader around the world. McCain is a nothing. Maybe a
secret part of him resents the bargain he made with Neocons in 2000. But that is the only
card he has left: the impression of him as a tough warrior standing up for American values
and denouncing tyrants like Putin and etc. Of course, many people see how bogus this is.
McCain met with Alqaeda scum in Syria and with Neo-Nazis in Ukraine. No one respects him.
Conservative voters hate him. He won over and over in Arizona only because Democrats are
allowed to vote in GOP primaries. Liberals had pretended to respect him but burned his ass so
bad in 2008 in their support of Obama that the charade of non-partisan amicability is over.
McCain is totally irrelevant. So, the only card he has left is accusing Trump of being a
Russian agent and subverting his presidency out of sheer resentment and envy. Excellent
synopsis. Sounds about right.
Keeping Obamacare was McCain's final act to really stick it to the people who doubted he
has the power. See! Look what I can do! The liberals swooned. John received congratulatory
calls and emails from Dems all week, in the end they reiterated how they always know they can
depend on John. Pitiful.
the planet will be a noticeably better place. The air will taste less of sulfur and
children and dogs will smile more. There'll be a frolic in the mood of people everywhere,
and a new light of hope and beauty will dance in people's eyes.
Unfortunately, Rurik, for every Killary and McBloodstain that pass away, there are dozens
more to take their place. I need not run down the list of the candidates from both major
parties that ran in the presidential primaries.
@Priss Factor
Justin Raimondo sees it otherwise: "It is impossible to know what is in
McCain's heart. There may be a purely ideological explanation for his changing viewpoint. But
what seems to account for his evolution from realism to hopped-up interventionism is nothing
more than sheer ambition."
It's more Hambition than ambition.
If McCain were really about ambition, he would have been more flexible and savvy like
Clinton the chameleon. Or Trump who took up different positions to play to populist
passions.
But in his foreign policy, McCain went from cautious and moderate to hardline, even to his
political detriment. If he was really a political animal driven by ambition, he would have
moderated his position on the Iraq War once things went badly. By 2008, even majority of
conservatives had turned against the war that became associated with Bush II, a truly reviled
and despised political figure(and rightly so).
So, why did McCain stick to his guns on foreign policy?
McCain is a mental midget. He wasn't much of a student. He wasn't much of a soldier. So,
he was always hungry for recognition from the Power. This is why he was so partial to sucking
up to the NYT crowd. The idea that intelligent and educated Liberal establishment praised him
as a 'moderate and sane' Republican was very flattering to him. But because he was a Gopper,
he couldn't lean too much to the Libby side.
Now, what became the intellectual and moral cornerstone of the GOP? Neocons. Why? Neocons
gained control of the thinktanks and Big Ideas. They were supposed to be the Mind of the GOP
in contrast to Evanjelly dummies, staid Paleocons, soulless libertarians, and beer-guzzling
NASCAR types. Also, Neocons are Jews, and Holocaust became the neo-religion of America. So,
the idea that Jewish Neocons, the mind and soul of the GOP, warmed up to him made him wet his
pants with joy. Oh gosh, these Jews, yes, these intelligent and soulful Jews(the Holocaust
folks) were praising him as a man of integrity, vision, ethics, and courage.
So, it wasn't just political ambition. It was psychological and emotional, especially as
Wasps and White Conservatives had lost so much intellectual and moral capital since the 60s.
Wasp mind culture came to be associated with Dan Quayle, and Bush II presidency nailed the
final coffins in Wasp intellectualism. Now, surely there are many very smart Wasps, but they
were no longer joining the ranks of GOP elites. Most smart Wasps elites either became
apolitical or libby-dib and into 'white guilt' crap. Also, among the boomers, most brainy and
talented Wasps became more like Clintons than the Bushes. Democrats. So, to be a conservative
Wasp in the 90s and 2000s was to be an intellectual zero. Also, with Holocaust and MLK cult
as new religions of America, soon to be followed by worship of rainbow-colored homo anus,
Wasp conservatives had no moral capital either.
So, just think how McCain felt when the brainy & soulful Holocaust people put their arms
around him. He wet his pants. It's like in THE GODFATHER the novel. Luca Brasi thinks himself
irredeemable and cursed. But Vito Corleone, an intelligent and wise man, reached out to him.
Brasi was so stunned that the great Vito would befriend someone so gross and vile that he
became the most loyal henchman of Vito.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Za3vgqxQDHE
McCain felt saved! He'd been confused and messed up all his life. He was shot down in
Vietnam. He became crippled for life. He'd collaborated with the enemy but a myth was created
around him that was mostly phony. The war was lost. He tried to make peace and seek
reconciliation with Vietnam. But he was never sure of anything. He was a broken man whose
politics was about compromise and moderation. No passion. But when he joined in backing the
Serbian War, the praise from Neocons made him finally feel saved and armed with purpose in
life. He finally had the intellectual and moral blessing he'd craved all his life. He was
befriended also by Joe Lieberman, a wise-sounding Jew. Of course, these neocons and Zionists
were cunning and shrewd and hardly wise, but Jews gained this aura of sanctimony as the holy
Holocaust people... with lots of money and brains.
Another reason why McCain became increasingly vocal and aggressive in foreign policy was
because it's the only arena in which a white gentile leader can be manly and tough, at least
against enemies chosen by Jews. It's like a dog better listen to the master in the house, but
it can bark loudly at other dogs and creatures outside. Because of the cult of 'white guilt'
and Moral Hegemony of Jews(Holocaust), Blacks(Selma), homos(whoopity poo), and even
illegals(as 'undocumented immigrants' in a 'nation of immigrants'), the white gentile man has
NO moral authority in the US. So, he can only act tough in foreign policy. And by denouncing
other nations without 'human rights', even a white male as a proud American can act morally
holier-than-thou.
Of course, white males can't choose whom to hate, berate, and bark at. Jews get to choose.
And Jews chose Russia, Syria, and Iran. And North Korea to a lesser extent. And McCain barks
at them. But his toughness is bogus since he has no autonomy in choosing the enemy. If
neocons were to decide that Putin is alright, McCain would stop barking at Russia. If Neocons
said Saudis must be taken down, McCain would bark in that direction.
Also, foreign policy is the ONLY card McCain has left. He lost EVERYTHING. He lost to Bush
in 2000. He supported the Iraq War and got burned as a result. He got burned in 2008 to
Obama. His amnesty was angrily opposed by GOP voters. The financial and housing policies that
he endorsed went to hell. And Trump insulted him and did everything opposite what McCain did
and won. And Putin is a respected leader around the world. McCain is a nothing. Maybe a
secret part of him resents the bargain he made with Neocons in 2000. But that is the only
card he has left: the impression of him as a tough warrior standing up for American values
and denouncing tyrants like Putin and etc. Of course, many people see how bogus this is.
McCain met with Alqaeda scum in Syria and with Neo-Nazis in Ukraine. No one respects him.
Conservative voters hate him. He won over and over in Arizona only because Democrats are
allowed to vote in GOP primaries. Liberals had pretended to respect him but burned his ass so
bad in 2008 in their support of Obama that the charade of non-partisan amicability is over.
McCain is totally irrelevant. So, the only card he has left is accusing Trump of being a
Russian agent and subverting his presidency out of sheer resentment and envy. Yes. Basically,
McCain is mentally unstable. He may have been able to keep it under control for a while, but
whatever caused him to snap in the late 90′s (and doubtless raw ambition played a
role), he has long passed the point of no return (as has America, sadly).
the planet will be a noticeably better place. The air will taste less of sulfur and
children and dogs will smile more. There'll be a frolic in the mood of people everywhere,
and a new light of hope and beauty will dance in people's eyes.
Unfortunately, Rurik, for every Killary and McBloodstain that pass away, there
are dozens more to take their place. I need not run down the list of the candidates from both
major parties that ran in the presidential primaries.
there are dozens more to take their place.
true Geo, but at least the world can be rid of a spectacularly execrable pestilence that
has plagued it for so terribly long. Even if Tom Cotton is waiting in the wings to take its
place.
just think of all the millions of people who suffer the Bloodstain's every feculent
breath.
the POWs in Vietnam and their families
the survivors of the Liberty and their families
the murdered souls throughout the world, from Ukraine to Syria whose unimaginable
suffering can be laid directly at the feet of the Stain
all the people who have been tortured or crucified by ISIS
those people in Odessa, Ukraine who were burned alive, or the villagers in Donbas, and so
many other places who have lost loved ones or been maimed by the Bloodstain's relentless,
relentless, relentless war mongering.
all these people will be able to wake to a new day knowing that John McCain is no longer
befouling the air we all breath with his rotten lungs.
sure, Tom Cotton is being groomed, and there's no doubt a bevy of would-be traitors and
assholes waiting to take McCain's place, but at least
he
will be dead and burning in
hell.
Simple explanation: becoming an agent of influence for Israel is the sure route to the
sort of $$ you need to run a presidential campaign (unless you are already loaded like
DT).
@Priss Factor
I agree with Justin Raimondo that McCain's evolution from realism to
hopped-up interventionism is nothing more than sheer ambition. People may argue that many of
his policies are not populist, but that is precisely the point. His strategy is to strike out
a different stance in order to differentiate himself from the many other politicians who have
the same ambitions. Hillary Clinton's strategy is to be a populist, McCain's strategy is to
be an anti-populist.
@WorkingClass
McStain is what he is. The real problem is the people who vote for him.
The real problem is the people who vote for him.
What are the people to do when the senate passes 98-2 a resolution to impose sanctions on
Iran, Russia, NK?
The real problem is the swamp and how to drain it.
It was encouraging to see that the most popular candidates from the two major parties
during the previous presidential primaries were both putting forward policies that were
against the status quo. And more and more people are beginning to realize the Luggenpresse of
Weimerica is pumping out fake news. My prediction is the establishment will manage to remove
trump either by impeachment or at the ballot box in 2020 and install one of their puppets who
will resume their program of globalism (mass immigration, international trade agreements, and
more regime change wars) to the point where things will become intolerably unbearable for the
average American. Once that happens, the conditions will have been satisfied for the swamp
draining to begin in earnest.
Bottom line: things are going to have to get a lot worse before they get any better.
"... By Manuela Cadelli, President of the Magistrates' Union of Belgium ..."
"... Every totalitarianism starts as distortion of language, as in the novel by George Orwell. Neoliberalism has its Newspeak and strategies of communication that enable it to deform reality. In this spirit, every budgetary cut is represented as an instance of modernization of the sectors concerned. If some of the most deprived are no longer reimbursed for medical expenses and so stop visiting the dentist, this is modernization of social security in action! ..."
By Manuela Cadelli, President of the Magistrates' Union of Belgium
The time for rhetorical reservations is over. Things have to be called by their name to make it
possible for a co-ordinated democratic reaction to be initiated, above all in the public services.
Liberalism was a doctrine derived from the philosophy of Enlightenment, at once political and
economic, which aimed at imposing on the state the necessary distance for ensuring respect for liberties
and the coming of democratic emancipation. It was the motor for the arrival, and the continuing progress,
of Western democracies.
Neoliberalism is a form of economism in our day that strikes at every moment at every sector of
our community. It is a form of extremism.
Fascism may be defined as the subordination of every part of the State to a totalitarian and nihilistic
ideology.
I argue that neoliberalism is a species of fascism because the economy has brought under subjection
not only the government of democratic countries but also every aspect of our thought.
The state is now at the disposal of the economy and of finance, which treat it as a subordinate
and lord over it to an extent that puts the common good in jeopardy.
The austerity that is demanded by the financial milieu has become a supreme value, replacing politics.
Saving money precludes pursuing any other public objective. It is reaching the point where claims
are being made that the principle of budgetary orthodoxy should be included in state constitutions.
A mockery is being made of the notion of public service.
The nihilism that results from this makes possible the dismissal of universalism and the most
evident humanistic values: solidarity, fraternity, integration and respect for all and for differences.
There is no place any more even for classical economic theory: work was formerly an element in
demand, and to that extent there was respect for workers; international finance has made of it a
mere adjustment variable.
Every totalitarianism starts as distortion of language, as in the novel by George Orwell. Neoliberalism
has its Newspeak and strategies of communication that enable it to deform reality. In this spirit,
every budgetary cut is represented as an instance of modernization of the sectors concerned. If some
of the most deprived are no longer reimbursed for medical expenses and so stop visiting the dentist,
this is modernization of social security in action!
Abstraction predominates in public discussion so as to occlude the implications for human beings.
Thus, in relation to migrants, it is imperative that the need for hosting them does not lead to
public appeals that our finances could not accommodate. Is it In the same way that other individuals
qualify for assistance out of considerations of national solidarity?
The cult of evaluation
Social Darwinism predominates, assigning the most stringent performance requirements to everyone
and everything: to be weak is to fail. The foundations of our culture are overturned: every humanist
premise is disqualified or demonetized because neoliberalism has the monopoly of rationality and
realism. Margaret Thatcher said it in 1985: "There is no alternative." Everything else is utopianism,
unreason and regression. The virtue of debate and conflicting perspectives are discredited because
history is ruled by necessity.
This subculture harbours an existential threat of its own: shortcomings of performance condemn
one to disappearance while at the same time everyone is charged with inefficiency and obliged to
justify everything. Trust is broken. Evaluation reigns, and with it the bureaucracy which imposes
definition and research of a plethora of targets, and indicators with which one must comply. Creativity
and the critical spirit are stifled by management. And everyone is beating his breast about the wastage
and inertia of which he is guilty.
The neglect of justice
The neoliberal ideology generates a normativity that competes with the laws of parliament. The
democratic power of law is compromised. Given that they represent a concrete embodiment of liberty
and emancipation, and given the potential to prevent abuse that they impose, laws and procedures
have begun to look like obstacles.
The power of the judiciary, which has the ability to oppose the will of the ruling circles, must
also be checkmated. The Belgian judicial system is in any case underfunded. In 2015 it came last
in a European ranking that included all states located between the Atlantic and the Urals. In two
years the government has managed to take away the independence given to it under the Constitution
so that it can play the counterbalancing role citizens expect of it. The aim of this undertaking
is clearly that there should no longer be justice in Belgium.
A caste above the Many
But the dominant class doesn't prescribe for itself the same medicine it wants to see ordinary
citizens taking: well-ordered austerity begins with others. The economist Thomas Piketty has perfectly
described this in his study of inequality and capitalism in the twenty-first century (French edition,
Seuil, 2013).
In spite of the crisis of 2008 and the hand-wringing that followed, nothing was done to police
the financial community and submit them to the requirements of the common good. Who paid? Ordinary
people, you and me.
And while the Belgian State consented to 7 billion-euro ten-year tax breaks for multinationals,
ordinary litigants have seen surcharges imposed on access to justice (increased court fees, 21% taxation
on legal fees). From now on, to obtain redress the victims of injustice are going to have to be rich.
All this in a state where the number of public representatives breaks all international records.
In this particular area, no evaluation and no costs studies are reporting profit. One example: thirty
years after the introduction of the federal system, the provincial institutions survive. Nobody can
say what purpose they serve. Streamlining and the managerial ideology have conveniently stopped at
the gates of the political world.
Terrorism, this other nihilism that exposes our weakness in affirming our values, is likely to
aggravate the process by soon making it possible for all violations of our liberties, all violations
of our rights, to circumvent the powerless qualified judges, further reducing social protection for
the poor, who will be sacrificed to "the security ideal".
Salvation in commitment
These developments certainly threaten the foundations of our democracy, but do they condemn us
to discouragement and despair?
Certainly not. 500 years ago, at the height of the defeats that brought down most Italian states
with the imposition of foreign occupation for more than three centuries, Niccolo Machiavelli urged
virtuous men to defy fate and stand up against the adversity of the times, to prefer action and daring
to caution. The more tragic the situation, the more it necessitates action and the refusal to "give
up" (The Prince, Chapters XXV and XXVI).
This is a teaching that is clearly required today. The determination of citizens attached to the
radical of democratic values is an invaluable resource which has not yet revealed, at least in Belgium,
its driving potential and power to change what is presented as inevitable. Through social networking
and the power of the written word, everyone can now become involved, particularly when it comes to
public services, universities, the student world, the judiciary and the Bar, in bringing the common
good and social justice into the heart of public debate and the administration of the state and the
community.
Neoliberalism is a species of fascism. It must be fought and humanism fully restored.
@Corvinus
"The plantation owners had them and in spite of Northern propaganda, these people (slaves)
were usually treated very humanely."
Ripping them from their homeland, putting them on boats and dying by the dozens, being
sold on a stage and branded, and then being forced to work against their will...and you claim
they were treated "humanely" because Boss Hogg gave them enough food to eat, clothes on their
backs, and tin roof over their head.
"Moving our flags and our statues for spite only angers us and hastens our will to become
independent again. Keep it up and see."
Most normies (north and south, east and west) abhor the Confederacy. It represented
slavery and secession. The Confederacy sought to DESTROY our nation. The norms are about what
those monuments represent FROM THE PAST. They do not care that monuments serve as a
historical record, nor do they care about the history of such individuals the monuments pay
tribute to. Yes, Robert E. Lee opposed slavery. Yes, he had significant reservations about
personally abandoning the Union. But what matters most is that he supported the
Confederacy.
What about Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln? Should not their monuments be ripped down?
According to most normies, no. While these individuals supported slavery, their
accomplishments are generally viewed as BUILDING or PRESERVING our nation. That is the nuance
here. The Confederacy monuments and the Washington/Jefferson/Lincoln monuments are on a
separate moral plane as viewed by normies. In the end, the monuments are used as political
pawns by the right and the left, not as historical pieces. I say move the monuments to
private property. But in the meantime, anyone who rips them down now and in the future is
defacing public property and ought to be arrested. Yo, Corvie the normie,
What's your view -- you and your fellow normies -- on Sherman's Scorched earth march to the
sea?
Good idea to kill civilians and destroy property with reckless abandon because the only
thing that matters is WINNING!
Or is the notion of killing civilians -- women and children -- abhorrent to self-respecting
military men who view a war as something engaged in between martial forces who observe codes
of military honor?
Just War theory is a legacy from millennia a ago -- waaaay before you normies developed
your keen sense of moral clarity -- (don't you just love that term? moral clarity -- Israelis
love that term, moral clarity: IDF drops phosphorus on children in Gaza with
moral
clarity
. . .)
Just War Theory states that war, once engaged, must act to protect civilians to the
fullest extent possible, and should should meet force with
proportionate
force and not
more.
What's your view -- you and your fellow normies -- on Sherman's Scorched earth march to
the sea?
Good idea to kill civilians and destroy property with reckless abandon because the only
thing that matters is WINNING!
Or is the notion of killing civilians -- women and children -- abhorrent to self-respecting
military men who view a war as something engaged in between martial forces who observe codes
of military honor?
Just War theory is a legacy from millennia a ago -- waaaay before you normies developed
your keen sense of moral clarity -- (don't you just love that term? moral clarity -- Israelis
love that term, moral clarity: IDF drops phosphorus on children in Gaza with
moral
clarity
. . .)
Just War Theory states that war, once engaged, must act to protect civilians to the
fullest extent possible, and should should meet force with
proportionate
force and not
more.
Did Sherman abide by those age-old norms, normie? "What's your view -- you and your fellow
normies -- on Sherman's Scorched earth march to the sea?"
There are myths in Sherman's March that need to be explored.
We know that to the victors go the spoils. Winners write the history, and losers claim
that the history is other than accurate. Did Sherman commit war crimes? In my opinion, yes.
But in war, does winning ultimately matter? Yes. There is no "honor" in war itself, just
bloodshed by men who honorable in their willingness to die for their cause. There is no doubt
that if the tables were turned, and Lee was rampaging through Philadelphia and New York to
finally put an end to "northern aggression", southern apologists would say the exact
thing.
So, I take it that you oppose a similar Shermanesque policy if proposed by your allies or
those on the Alt Right, correct? Make it official.
Furthermore, you do realize that the slave owners themselves had committed crimes against
humanity, right? Are you ready to condemn them? Make it official.
"Or is the notion of killing civilians -- women and children -- abhorrent to self-respecting
military men who view a war as something engaged in between martial forces who observe codes
of military honor?"
Kurgen, a commenter at the Men Of The West blog, said, "Unfortunately, violence is
inevitable. In fact, from a practical and logical point of view, violence is required to
expel all the SJWs and their allies from polite civilization, and will further be required to
man the walls of the forts that hold the line against them, as well as to expel any
dissidents within them."
Do you share his sentiments? Would not those allies include women and children? I mean, if
the overall goal is for Western Civilization to emerge on top, would it not be in the best
interest to cull the herd? In this next "civil war", will YOU abide by those age-old
norms?
"Just War Theory states that war, once engaged, must act to protect civilians to the
fullest extent possible, and should should meet force with proportionate force and not
more."
Great theory, just impractical when one desires to obliterate your enemy. Besides, is it
not best to salt the earth to ensure that the offspring of your enemy will NOT "come
back"?
@Corvinus
"The plantation owners had them and in spite of Northern propaganda, these people (slaves)
were usually treated very humanely."
Ripping them from their homeland, putting them on boats and dying by the dozens, being
sold on a stage and branded, and then being forced to work against their will...and you claim
they were treated "humanely" because Boss Hogg gave them enough food to eat, clothes on their
backs, and tin roof over their head.
"Moving our flags and our statues for spite only angers us and hastens our will to become
independent again. Keep it up and see."
Most normies (north and south, east and west) abhor the Confederacy. It represented
slavery and secession. The Confederacy sought to DESTROY our nation. The norms are about what
those monuments represent FROM THE PAST. They do not care that monuments serve as a
historical record, nor do they care about the history of such individuals the monuments pay
tribute to. Yes, Robert E. Lee opposed slavery. Yes, he had significant reservations about
personally abandoning the Union. But what matters most is that he supported the
Confederacy.
What about Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln? Should not their monuments be ripped down?
According to most normies, no. While these individuals supported slavery, their
accomplishments are generally viewed as BUILDING or PRESERVING our nation. That is the nuance
here. The Confederacy monuments and the Washington/Jefferson/Lincoln monuments are on a
separate moral plane as viewed by normies. In the end, the monuments are used as political
pawns by the right and the left, not as historical pieces. I say move the monuments to
private property. But in the meantime, anyone who rips them down now and in the future is
defacing public property and ought to be arrested. Yo, Corvie the normie,
What's your view -- you and your fellow normies -- on Sherman's Scorched earth march to the
sea?
Good idea to kill civilians and destroy property with reckless abandon because the only
thing that matters is WINNING!
Or is the notion of killing civilians -- women and children -- abhorrent to self-respecting
military men who view a war as something engaged in between martial forces who observe codes
of military honor?
Just War theory is a legacy from millennia a ago -- waaaay before you normies developed
your keen sense of moral clarity -- (don't you just love that term? moral clarity -- Israelis
love that term, moral clarity: IDF drops phosphorus on children in Gaza with
moral
clarity
. . .)
Just War Theory states that war, once engaged, must act to protect civilians to the
fullest extent possible, and should should meet force with
proportionate
force and not
more.
What's your view -- you and your fellow normies -- on Sherman's Scorched earth march to
the sea?
Good idea to kill civilians and destroy property with reckless abandon because the only
thing that matters is WINNING!
Or is the notion of killing civilians -- women and children -- abhorrent to self-respecting
military men who view a war as something engaged in between martial forces who observe codes
of military honor?
Just War theory is a legacy from millennia a ago -- waaaay before you normies developed
your keen sense of moral clarity -- (don't you just love that term? moral clarity -- Israelis
love that term, moral clarity: IDF drops phosphorus on children in Gaza with
moral
clarity
. . .)
Just War Theory states that war, once engaged, must act to protect civilians to the
fullest extent possible, and should should meet force with
proportionate
force and not
more.
Did Sherman abide by those age-old norms, normie? "What's your view -- you and your fellow
normies -- on Sherman's Scorched earth march to the sea?"
There are myths in Sherman's March that need to be explored.
We know that to the victors go the spoils. Winners write the history, and losers claim
that the history is other than accurate. Did Sherman commit war crimes? In my opinion, yes.
But in war, does winning ultimately matter? Yes. There is no "honor" in war itself, just
bloodshed by men who honorable in their willingness to die for their cause. There is no doubt
that if the tables were turned, and Lee was rampaging through Philadelphia and New York to
finally put an end to "northern aggression", southern apologists would say the exact
thing.
So, I take it that you oppose a similar Shermanesque policy if proposed by your allies or
those on the Alt Right, correct? Make it official.
Furthermore, you do realize that the slave owners themselves had committed crimes against
humanity, right? Are you ready to condemn them? Make it official.
"Or is the notion of killing civilians -- women and children -- abhorrent to self-respecting
military men who view a war as something engaged in between martial forces who observe codes
of military honor?"
Kurgen, a commenter at the Men Of The West blog, said, "Unfortunately, violence is
inevitable. In fact, from a practical and logical point of view, violence is required to
expel all the SJWs and their allies from polite civilization, and will further be required to
man the walls of the forts that hold the line against them, as well as to expel any
dissidents within them."
Do you share his sentiments? Would not those allies include women and children? I mean, if
the overall goal is for Western Civilization to emerge on top, would it not be in the best
interest to cull the herd? In this next "civil war", will YOU abide by those age-old
norms?
"Just War Theory states that war, once engaged, must act to protect civilians to the
fullest extent possible, and should should meet force with proportionate force and not
more."
Great theory, just impractical when one desires to obliterate your enemy. Besides, is it
not best to salt the earth to ensure that the offspring of your enemy will NOT "come
back"?
"... From the press room at NATO command, McCain announced that "none of us could say we are on a course to success here in Afghanistan." The senator should have paused for a reflective moment and then called for an end to the war. Instead, McCain demanded that Trump send more US troops, more bombers and more drones to terrorize a population that has been riven by near constant war since the late 1970s. ..."
"... Most Americans have no idea why we are in Afghanistan; it's the longest running Fake War in American history. Some, as many as 20 percent according to a Gallup Poll, have no idea that we are ..."
"... Nothing better illustrates the eclipse of US global power than the fact that Afghanistan refuses to be subjugated or even managed, despite 16 years of hard-core carnage. ..."
"... Even after Obama's shameful troop surge in 2010, an escalation that went almost unopposed by the US antiwar movement, the Taliban now retains almost as much control of the country as it did in 2001. And for that Afghanistan must be punished. Eternally, it seems. ..."
"... Give Trump some credit. His war plan is refreshingly vacant of moral posturing. Instead he views the war through a greedily focused economic lens: Afghanistan as commodity. Over the course of 16 years, the cratering American operation in Afghanistan has consumed more than $1 trillion, a huge and nearly unchallenged benefaction to military contractors. In 2016, the Pentagon spent $3.6 million for each US soldier stationed in Afghanistan. A surge of 4,000 to 10,000 additional troops, either as "private military units" or GIs, will come as a welcome new infusion of cash to the dozens of defense corporations that invested so heavily in his administration. ..."
"... If that living monument to the Confederacy Jefferson B. Sessions was serious about confronting the rising scourge of opiate addiction in the US, he would start by calling for an immediate end to US military operations in Afghanistan. ..."
"... Forget marijuana, the real gateway to heroin abuse is war. Since the start of Operation Enduring Freedom, opium production has swelled, now accounting for more than one-third of the wrecked Afghan economy. In the last two years alone, opium poppy yields have doubled, a narcotic blowback now hitting the streets of American cities from Amarillo to Pensacola. With every drone strike in the Helmond Province, a thousand more poppies bloom. ..."
If it's Independence Day, then you can count on John McCain to be bunkered down in a remote
outpost of the Empire growling for the Pentagon to unleash airstrikes on some unruly nation,
tribe or gang. This July the Fourth found McCain making a return engagement to Kabul, an
arrival that must have prompted many Afghans to scramble for the nearest air raid shelter.
From the press room at NATO command, McCain announced that "none of us could say we are on a
course to success here in Afghanistan." The senator should have paused for a reflective moment
and then called for an end to the war. Instead, McCain demanded that Trump send more US troops,
more bombers and more drones to terrorize a population that has been riven by near constant war
since the late 1970s.
McCain's martial drool is now as familiar as the opening notes to the "Law & Order"
theme song. What may surprise some, however, is the composition of the delegation that signed
up to travel on his frequent flier program, notably the presence of two Democratic Senators
with soaring profiles: Sheldon Whitehouse and Elizabeth Warren. Whitehouse, the former
prosecutor (aren't they all?) from Rhode Island, has lately taken a star turn in the role of
chief inquisitor of suspected Russian witches in the Senate intelligence committee hearings.
Perhaps he finally located one selling AK-47s to the Taliban to replace the guns they'd gotten
from the CIA (We now know that it's the
Saudis –not the Russians–who have been covertly funneling money to the Taliban,
though don't expect the Trump to impose any sanctions on the Kingdom of the Head-choppers.)
For her part, Warren largely echoed McCain's bellicose banter that Trump needs to double
down militarily to finish off the Taliban, the impossible dream. No real surprise here. To the
extent that she's advanced any foreign policy positions during her stint in the senate, Warren
has been a dutiful supplicant to the demands of AIPAC and the Council on Foreign Relations,
rarely diverging from the neocon playbook for the global war on Islam. Warren's Afghan junket
is a sure sign of her swelling presidential ambitions. These days "national security"
experience is measured almost exclusively by how much blood you are willing to spill in
countries you know almost nothing about. It didn't take long for Warren to matriculate to the
company position.
Most Americans have no idea why we are in Afghanistan; it's the longest running Fake War in
American history. Some, as many as 20 percent according to a Gallup Poll, have no idea that we
are still in Afghanistan. Osama Bin Laden and Mullah Omar are both long dead. The
shattered remnants of Al Qaeda have fled to Pakistan and parts unknown. Hamid Karzai has come
and gone. For the last six months, the US hasn't even troubled itself to send an ambassador to
Kabul.
A kind of convenient cultural amnesia has set in, abetted by a compliant press corps that
has largely decamped from the Hindu Kush and now treats Afghanistan as if it is some kind of
interstellar region, where photographers are occasionally dispatched to snap eerie debris
clouds from the detonation of MOAB bombs. It's no wonder that the few Americans who continue to
support the war cling to the delusion that Afghanistan orchestrated the 9/11 attacks. It is the
War that Time Forgot.
Nothing better illustrates the eclipse of US global power than the fact that Afghanistan
refuses to be subjugated or even managed, despite 16 years of hard-core carnage. Since the
first US airstrikes hit Kandahar in October 2001, more than 150,000 Afghan civilians have been
killed. Still Afghanistan resists imperial dictates. Even after Obama's shameful troop surge in
2010, an escalation that went almost unopposed by the US antiwar movement, the Taliban now
retains almost as much control of the country as it did in 2001. And for that Afghanistan must
be punished. Eternally, it seems.
As for Trump, in his quest to privatize as much of the federal government as possible the
president is still apparently entranced with the idea of turning over much of the Afghan
operation to military contractors. As McCain and Warren were issuing their war cries from
Kabul, Trump and Company huddled with Erik Prince, founder of Blackwater Security, and
billionaire financier Stephen Feinberg, owner of DynCorp, on how to replace US troops with
mercenaries from their training camps.
Give Trump some credit. His war plan is refreshingly vacant of moral posturing. Instead he
views the war through a greedily focused economic lens: Afghanistan as commodity. Over the
course of 16 years, the cratering American operation in Afghanistan has consumed more than $1
trillion, a huge and nearly unchallenged benefaction to military contractors. In 2016, the
Pentagon spent $3.6 million for each US soldier stationed in Afghanistan. A surge of 4,000 to
10,000 additional troops, either as "private military units" or GIs, will come as a welcome new
infusion of cash to the dozens of defense corporations that invested so heavily in his
administration.
The New York Time's Maggie Haberman was thrilled by some most blood-curdling lines
in Trump's big speech on the war, Tweeting: "We are not nation-building again. We are killing
terrorists," says POTUS, in one of his more forceful/best lines of address." All you need to do
to earn the love of the "failing New York Times, " Donald, is to kill-kill-kill and
not re-build what you destroy. Trump's new Afghanistan plan replicates worst aspects of Obama's
awful Af-Pak strategy, with India thrown into the mix just to increase risk of nuclear war. If
Trump continues with this neocon drift, HRC may get a 3 AM call from "the creep" asking her to
replace Rexxon as Secretary of State .
If that living monument to the Confederacy Jefferson B. Sessions was serious about
confronting the rising scourge of opiate addiction in the US, he would start by calling for an
immediate end to US military operations in Afghanistan.
Forget marijuana, the real gateway to
heroin abuse is war. Since the start of Operation Enduring Freedom, opium production has
swelled, now accounting for more than one-third of the wrecked Afghan economy. In the last two
years alone, opium poppy yields have doubled, a narcotic blowback now hitting the streets of
American cities from Amarillo to Pensacola. With every drone strike in the Helmond Province, a
thousand more poppies bloom.
"... From the press room at NATO command, McCain announced that "none of us could say we are on a course to success here in Afghanistan." The senator should have paused for a reflective moment and then called for an end to the war. Instead, McCain demanded that Trump send more US troops, more bombers and more drones to terrorize a population that has been riven by near constant war since the late 1970s. ..."
"... Most Americans have no idea why we are in Afghanistan; it's the longest running Fake War in American history. Some, as many as 20 percent according to a Gallup Poll, have no idea that we are ..."
"... Nothing better illustrates the eclipse of US global power than the fact that Afghanistan refuses to be subjugated or even managed, despite 16 years of hard-core carnage. ..."
"... Even after Obama's shameful troop surge in 2010, an escalation that went almost unopposed by the US antiwar movement, the Taliban now retains almost as much control of the country as it did in 2001. And for that Afghanistan must be punished. Eternally, it seems. ..."
"... Give Trump some credit. His war plan is refreshingly vacant of moral posturing. Instead he views the war through a greedily focused economic lens: Afghanistan as commodity. Over the course of 16 years, the cratering American operation in Afghanistan has consumed more than $1 trillion, a huge and nearly unchallenged benefaction to military contractors. In 2016, the Pentagon spent $3.6 million for each US soldier stationed in Afghanistan. A surge of 4,000 to 10,000 additional troops, either as "private military units" or GIs, will come as a welcome new infusion of cash to the dozens of defense corporations that invested so heavily in his administration. ..."
"... If that living monument to the Confederacy Jefferson B. Sessions was serious about confronting the rising scourge of opiate addiction in the US, he would start by calling for an immediate end to US military operations in Afghanistan. ..."
"... Forget marijuana, the real gateway to heroin abuse is war. Since the start of Operation Enduring Freedom, opium production has swelled, now accounting for more than one-third of the wrecked Afghan economy. In the last two years alone, opium poppy yields have doubled, a narcotic blowback now hitting the streets of American cities from Amarillo to Pensacola. With every drone strike in the Helmond Province, a thousand more poppies bloom. ..."
If it's Independence Day, then you can count on John McCain to be bunkered down in a remote
outpost of the Empire growling for the Pentagon to unleash airstrikes on some unruly nation,
tribe or gang. This July the Fourth found McCain making a return engagement to Kabul, an
arrival that must have prompted many Afghans to scramble for the nearest air raid shelter.
From the press room at NATO command, McCain announced that "none of us could say we are on a
course to success here in Afghanistan." The senator should have paused for a reflective moment
and then called for an end to the war. Instead, McCain demanded that Trump send more US troops,
more bombers and more drones to terrorize a population that has been riven by near constant war
since the late 1970s.
McCain's martial drool is now as familiar as the opening notes to the "Law & Order"
theme song. What may surprise some, however, is the composition of the delegation that signed
up to travel on his frequent flier program, notably the presence of two Democratic Senators
with soaring profiles: Sheldon Whitehouse and Elizabeth Warren. Whitehouse, the former
prosecutor (aren't they all?) from Rhode Island, has lately taken a star turn in the role of
chief inquisitor of suspected Russian witches in the Senate intelligence committee hearings.
Perhaps he finally located one selling AK-47s to the Taliban to replace the guns they'd gotten
from the CIA (We now know that it's the
Saudis –not the Russians–who have been covertly funneling money to the Taliban,
though don't expect the Trump to impose any sanctions on the Kingdom of the Head-choppers.)
For her part, Warren largely echoed McCain's bellicose banter that Trump needs to double
down militarily to finish off the Taliban, the impossible dream. No real surprise here. To the
extent that she's advanced any foreign policy positions during her stint in the senate, Warren
has been a dutiful supplicant to the demands of AIPAC and the Council on Foreign Relations,
rarely diverging from the neocon playbook for the global war on Islam. Warren's Afghan junket
is a sure sign of her swelling presidential ambitions. These days "national security"
experience is measured almost exclusively by how much blood you are willing to spill in
countries you know almost nothing about. It didn't take long for Warren to matriculate to the
company position.
Most Americans have no idea why we are in Afghanistan; it's the longest running Fake War in
American history. Some, as many as 20 percent according to a Gallup Poll, have no idea that we
are still in Afghanistan. Osama Bin Laden and Mullah Omar are both long dead. The
shattered remnants of Al Qaeda have fled to Pakistan and parts unknown. Hamid Karzai has come
and gone. For the last six months, the US hasn't even troubled itself to send an ambassador to
Kabul.
A kind of convenient cultural amnesia has set in, abetted by a compliant press corps that
has largely decamped from the Hindu Kush and now treats Afghanistan as if it is some kind of
interstellar region, where photographers are occasionally dispatched to snap eerie debris
clouds from the detonation of MOAB bombs. It's no wonder that the few Americans who continue to
support the war cling to the delusion that Afghanistan orchestrated the 9/11 attacks. It is the
War that Time Forgot.
Nothing better illustrates the eclipse of US global power than the fact that Afghanistan
refuses to be subjugated or even managed, despite 16 years of hard-core carnage. Since the
first US airstrikes hit Kandahar in October 2001, more than 150,000 Afghan civilians have been
killed. Still Afghanistan resists imperial dictates. Even after Obama's shameful troop surge in
2010, an escalation that went almost unopposed by the US antiwar movement, the Taliban now
retains almost as much control of the country as it did in 2001. And for that Afghanistan must
be punished. Eternally, it seems.
As for Trump, in his quest to privatize as much of the federal government as possible the
president is still apparently entranced with the idea of turning over much of the Afghan
operation to military contractors. As McCain and Warren were issuing their war cries from
Kabul, Trump and Company huddled with Erik Prince, founder of Blackwater Security, and
billionaire financier Stephen Feinberg, owner of DynCorp, on how to replace US troops with
mercenaries from their training camps.
Give Trump some credit. His war plan is refreshingly vacant of moral posturing. Instead he
views the war through a greedily focused economic lens: Afghanistan as commodity. Over the
course of 16 years, the cratering American operation in Afghanistan has consumed more than $1
trillion, a huge and nearly unchallenged benefaction to military contractors. In 2016, the
Pentagon spent $3.6 million for each US soldier stationed in Afghanistan. A surge of 4,000 to
10,000 additional troops, either as "private military units" or GIs, will come as a welcome new
infusion of cash to the dozens of defense corporations that invested so heavily in his
administration.
The New York Time's Maggie Haberman was thrilled by some most blood-curdling lines
in Trump's big speech on the war, Tweeting: "We are not nation-building again. We are killing
terrorists," says POTUS, in one of his more forceful/best lines of address." All you need to do
to earn the love of the "failing New York Times, " Donald, is to kill-kill-kill and
not re-build what you destroy. Trump's new Afghanistan plan replicates worst aspects of Obama's
awful Af-Pak strategy, with India thrown into the mix just to increase risk of nuclear war. If
Trump continues with this neocon drift, HRC may get a 3 AM call from "the creep" asking her to
replace Rexxon as Secretary of State .
If that living monument to the Confederacy Jefferson B. Sessions was serious about
confronting the rising scourge of opiate addiction in the US, he would start by calling for an
immediate end to US military operations in Afghanistan.
Forget marijuana, the real gateway to
heroin abuse is war. Since the start of Operation Enduring Freedom, opium production has
swelled, now accounting for more than one-third of the wrecked Afghan economy. In the last two
years alone, opium poppy yields have doubled, a narcotic blowback now hitting the streets of
American cities from Amarillo to Pensacola. With every drone strike in the Helmond Province, a
thousand more poppies bloom.
@Corvinus
"The plantation owners had them and in spite of Northern propaganda, these people (slaves)
were usually treated very humanely."
Ripping them from their homeland, putting them on boats and dying by the dozens, being
sold on a stage and branded, and then being forced to work against their will...and you claim
they were treated "humanely" because Boss Hogg gave them enough food to eat, clothes on their
backs, and tin roof over their head.
"Moving our flags and our statues for spite only angers us and hastens our will to become
independent again. Keep it up and see."
Most normies (north and south, east and west) abhor the Confederacy. It represented
slavery and secession. The Confederacy sought to DESTROY our nation. The norms are about what
those monuments represent FROM THE PAST. They do not care that monuments serve as a
historical record, nor do they care about the history of such individuals the monuments pay
tribute to. Yes, Robert E. Lee opposed slavery. Yes, he had significant reservations about
personally abandoning the Union. But what matters most is that he supported the
Confederacy.
What about Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln? Should not their monuments be ripped down?
According to most normies, no. While these individuals supported slavery, their
accomplishments are generally viewed as BUILDING or PRESERVING our nation. That is the nuance
here. The Confederacy monuments and the Washington/Jefferson/Lincoln monuments are on a
separate moral plane as viewed by normies. In the end, the monuments are used as political
pawns by the right and the left, not as historical pieces. I say move the monuments to
private property. But in the meantime, anyone who rips them down now and in the future is
defacing public property and ought to be arrested. Yo, Corvie the normie,
What's your view -- you and your fellow normies -- on Sherman's Scorched earth march to the
sea?
Good idea to kill civilians and destroy property with reckless abandon because the only
thing that matters is WINNING!
Or is the notion of killing civilians -- women and children -- abhorrent to self-respecting
military men who view a war as something engaged in between martial forces who observe codes
of military honor?
Just War theory is a legacy from millennia a ago -- waaaay before you normies developed
your keen sense of moral clarity -- (don't you just love that term? moral clarity -- Israelis
love that term, moral clarity: IDF drops phosphorus on children in Gaza with
moral
clarity
. . .)
Just War Theory states that war, once engaged, must act to protect civilians to the
fullest extent possible, and should should meet force with
proportionate
force and not
more.
What's your view -- you and your fellow normies -- on Sherman's Scorched earth march to
the sea?
Good idea to kill civilians and destroy property with reckless abandon because the only
thing that matters is WINNING!
Or is the notion of killing civilians -- women and children -- abhorrent to self-respecting
military men who view a war as something engaged in between martial forces who observe codes
of military honor?
Just War theory is a legacy from millennia a ago -- waaaay before you normies developed
your keen sense of moral clarity -- (don't you just love that term? moral clarity -- Israelis
love that term, moral clarity: IDF drops phosphorus on children in Gaza with
moral
clarity
. . .)
Just War Theory states that war, once engaged, must act to protect civilians to the
fullest extent possible, and should should meet force with
proportionate
force and not
more.
Did Sherman abide by those age-old norms, normie? "What's your view -- you and your fellow
normies -- on Sherman's Scorched earth march to the sea?"
There are myths in Sherman's March that need to be explored.
We know that to the victors go the spoils. Winners write the history, and losers claim
that the history is other than accurate. Did Sherman commit war crimes? In my opinion, yes.
But in war, does winning ultimately matter? Yes. There is no "honor" in war itself, just
bloodshed by men who honorable in their willingness to die for their cause. There is no doubt
that if the tables were turned, and Lee was rampaging through Philadelphia and New York to
finally put an end to "northern aggression", southern apologists would say the exact
thing.
So, I take it that you oppose a similar Shermanesque policy if proposed by your allies or
those on the Alt Right, correct? Make it official.
Furthermore, you do realize that the slave owners themselves had committed crimes against
humanity, right? Are you ready to condemn them? Make it official.
"Or is the notion of killing civilians -- women and children -- abhorrent to self-respecting
military men who view a war as something engaged in between martial forces who observe codes
of military honor?"
Kurgen, a commenter at the Men Of The West blog, said, "Unfortunately, violence is
inevitable. In fact, from a practical and logical point of view, violence is required to
expel all the SJWs and their allies from polite civilization, and will further be required to
man the walls of the forts that hold the line against them, as well as to expel any
dissidents within them."
Do you share his sentiments? Would not those allies include women and children? I mean, if
the overall goal is for Western Civilization to emerge on top, would it not be in the best
interest to cull the herd? In this next "civil war", will YOU abide by those age-old
norms?
"Just War Theory states that war, once engaged, must act to protect civilians to the
fullest extent possible, and should should meet force with proportionate force and not
more."
Great theory, just impractical when one desires to obliterate your enemy. Besides, is it
not best to salt the earth to ensure that the offspring of your enemy will NOT "come
back"?
"... Barnett's vision is neoconservative to the root. He sees the world as divided into essentially two realms : The Core, which consists of advanced countries playing by the rules of economic globalization (the US, Canada, UK, Europe and Japan) along with developing countries committed to getting there (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and some others); and the rest of the world, which is The Gap, a disparate wilderness of dangerous and lawless countries defined fundamentally by being "disconnected" from the wonders of globalization. This includes most of the Middle East and Africa, large swathes of South America, as well as much of Central Asia and Eastern Europe. It is the task of the United States to "shrink The Gap," by spreading the cultural and economic "rule-set" of globalization that characterizes The Core, and by enforcing security worldwide to enable that "rule-set" to spread. ..."
"... In the near future, Barnett had predicted, US military forces will be dispatched beyond Iraq and Afghanistan to places like Uzbekistan, Djibouti, Azerbaijan, Northwest Africa, Southern Africa and South America. ..."
"... Barnett's Pentagon briefing was greeted with near universal enthusiasm. The Forum had even purchased copies of his book and had them distributed to all Forum delegates, ..."
"... "I'm not convinced that Barnett's cure would be any better than the disease," wrote Dr. Karen Kwiatowski, a former senior Pentagon analyst in the Near East and South Asia section, who blew the whistle on how her department deliberately manufactured false information in the run-up to the Iraq War. "It would surely cost far more in American liberty, constitutional democracy and blood than it would be worth." ..."
No better illustration of the truly chauvinistic, narcissistic, and self-congratulatory ideology of power at the heart of the
military-industrial complex is a book by long-time Highlands Forum delegate, Dr. Thomas Barnett, The Pentagon's New Map.
Barnett was assistant for strategic futures in the Pentagon's Office of Force Transformation from 2001 to 2003, and had been recommended
to Richard O'Neill by his boss Vice Admiral Arthur Cebrowski. Apart from becoming a New York Times bestseller, Barnett's
book had been read far and wide in the US military, by senior defense officials in Washington and combatant commanders operating
on the ground in the Middle East.
Barnett first attended the Pentagon Highlands Forum in 1998, then was invited to deliver a briefing about his work at the Forum
on December 7th 2004, which was attended by senior Pentagon officials, energy experts, internet entrepreneurs, and journalists. Barnett
received a glowing review in the
Washington Post from his Highlands Forum buddy David Ignatius a week later, and an endorsement from another Forum friend,
Thomas Friedman, both of which helped massively boost his credibility and readership.
Barnett's vision is neoconservative to the root. He sees the world as divided into essentially
two realms : The Core, which
consists of advanced countries playing by the rules of economic globalization (the US, Canada, UK, Europe and Japan) along with developing
countries committed to getting there (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and some others); and the rest of the world, which is The Gap,
a disparate wilderness of dangerous and lawless countries defined fundamentally by being "disconnected" from the wonders of globalization.
This includes most of the Middle East and Africa, large swathes of South America, as well as much of Central Asia and Eastern Europe.
It is the task of the United States to "shrink The Gap," by spreading the cultural and economic "rule-set" of globalization that
characterizes The Core, and by enforcing security worldwide to enable that "rule-set" to spread.
These two functions of US power are captured by Barnett's concepts of "Leviathan" and "System Administrator." The former is about
rule-setting to facilitate the spread of capitalist markets, regulated via military and civilian law. The latter is about projecting
military force into The Gap in an open-ended global mission to enforce security and engage in nation-building. Not "rebuilding,"
he is keen to emphasize, but building "new nations."
For Barnett, the Bush administration's 2002 introduction of the Patriot Act at home, with its crushing of habeas corpus, and the
National Security Strategy abroad, with its opening up of unilateral, pre-emptive war, represented the beginning of the necessary
re-writing of rule-sets in The Core to embark on this noble mission. This is the only way for the US to achieve security,
writes Barnett, because as long as The Gap exists, it will always be a source of lawless violence and disorder. One paragraph in
particular sums up his vision:
"America as global cop creates security. Security creates common rules. Rules attract foreign investment. Investment creates infrastructure.
Infrastructure creates access to natural resources. Resources create economic growth. Growth creates stability. Stability creates
markets. And once you're a growing, stable part of the global market, you're part of the Core. Mission accomplished."
Much of what Barnett predicted would need to happen to fulfill this vision, despite its neoconservative bent, is still being pursued
under Obama. In the near future, Barnett had predicted, US military forces will be dispatched beyond Iraq and Afghanistan to
places like Uzbekistan, Djibouti, Azerbaijan, Northwest Africa, Southern Africa and South America.
Barnett's Pentagon briefing was greeted with near universal enthusiasm. The Forum had even purchased copies of his book and
had them distributed to all Forum delegates, and in May 2005, Barnett was invited back to participate in an entire Forum themed
around his "SysAdmin" concept.
The Highlands Forum has thus played a leading role in defining the Pentagon's entire conceptualization of the 'war on terror.'
Irving Wladawsky-Berger, a retired IMB vice president who co-chaired the President's Information Technology Advisory Committee from
1997 to 2001, described his experience of
one 2007 Forum meeting in telling terms:
"Then there is the War on Terror, which DoD has started to refer to as the Long War, a term that I first heard at the Forum. It
seems very appropriate to describe the overall conflict in which we now find ourselves. This is a truly global conflict the conflicts
we are now in have much more of the feel of a battle of civilizations or cultures trying to destroy our very way of life and impose
their own."
The problem is that outside this powerful Pentagon-hosted clique, not everyone else agrees. "I'm not convinced that Barnett's
cure would be any better than the disease," wrote
Dr. Karen Kwiatowski, a former senior Pentagon analyst in the Near East and South Asia section, who blew the whistle on how her
department deliberately manufactured false information in the run-up to the Iraq War. "It would surely cost far more in American
liberty, constitutional democracy and blood than it would be worth."
Yet the equation of "shrinking The Gap" with sustaining the national security of The Core leads to a slippery slope. It means
that if the US is prevented from playing this leadership role as "global cop," The Gap will widen, The Core will shrink, and the
entire global order could unravel. By this logic, the US simply cannot afford government or public opinion to reject the legitimacy
of its mission. If it did so, it would allow The Gap to grow out of control, undermining The Core, and potentially destroying it,
along with The Core's protector, America. Therefore, "shrinking The Gap" is not just a security imperative: it is such an existential
priority, that it must be backed up with information war to demonstrate to the world the legitimacy of the entire project.
Based on O'Neill's principles of information warfare as articulated in his 1989 US Navy brief, the targets of information war
are not just populations in The Gap, but domestic populations in The Core, and their governments: including the US government. That
secret brief, which according to former senior US intelligence official John Alexander was read by the Pentagon's top leadership,
argued that information war must be targeted at: adversaries to convince them of their vulnerability; potential partners around the
world so they accept "the cause as just"; and finally, civilian populations and the political leadership so they believe that "the
cost" in blood and treasure is worth it.
Barnett's work was plugged by the Pentagon's Highlands Forum because it fit the bill, in providing a compelling 'feel good' ideology
for the US military-industrial complex.
But neoconservative ideology, of course, hardly originated with Barnett, himself a relatively small player, even though his work
was extremely influential throughout the Pentagon. The regressive thinking of senior officials involved in the Highlands Forum is
visible from long before 9/11, which was ceased upon by actors linked to the Forum as a powerful enabling force that legitimized
the increasingly aggressive direction of US foreign and intelligence policies.
@Corvinus
"The plantation owners had them and in spite of Northern propaganda, these people (slaves)
were usually treated very humanely."
Ripping them from their homeland, putting them on boats and dying by the dozens, being
sold on a stage and branded, and then being forced to work against their will...and you claim
they were treated "humanely" because Boss Hogg gave them enough food to eat, clothes on their
backs, and tin roof over their head.
"Moving our flags and our statues for spite only angers us and hastens our will to become
independent again. Keep it up and see."
Most normies (north and south, east and west) abhor the Confederacy. It represented
slavery and secession. The Confederacy sought to DESTROY our nation. The norms are about what
those monuments represent FROM THE PAST. They do not care that monuments serve as a
historical record, nor do they care about the history of such individuals the monuments pay
tribute to. Yes, Robert E. Lee opposed slavery. Yes, he had significant reservations about
personally abandoning the Union. But what matters most is that he supported the
Confederacy.
What about Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln? Should not their monuments be ripped down?
According to most normies, no. While these individuals supported slavery, their
accomplishments are generally viewed as BUILDING or PRESERVING our nation. That is the nuance
here. The Confederacy monuments and the Washington/Jefferson/Lincoln monuments are on a
separate moral plane as viewed by normies. In the end, the monuments are used as political
pawns by the right and the left, not as historical pieces. I say move the monuments to
private property. But in the meantime, anyone who rips them down now and in the future is
defacing public property and ought to be arrested. Yo, Corvie the normie,
What's your view -- you and your fellow normies -- on Sherman's Scorched earth march to the
sea?
Good idea to kill civilians and destroy property with reckless abandon because the only
thing that matters is WINNING!
Or is the notion of killing civilians -- women and children -- abhorrent to self-respecting
military men who view a war as something engaged in between martial forces who observe codes
of military honor?
Just War theory is a legacy from millennia a ago -- waaaay before you normies developed
your keen sense of moral clarity -- (don't you just love that term? moral clarity -- Israelis
love that term, moral clarity: IDF drops phosphorus on children in Gaza with
moral
clarity
. . .)
Just War Theory states that war, once engaged, must act to protect civilians to the
fullest extent possible, and should should meet force with
proportionate
force and not
more.
What's your view -- you and your fellow normies -- on Sherman's Scorched earth march to
the sea?
Good idea to kill civilians and destroy property with reckless abandon because the only
thing that matters is WINNING!
Or is the notion of killing civilians -- women and children -- abhorrent to self-respecting
military men who view a war as something engaged in between martial forces who observe codes
of military honor?
Just War theory is a legacy from millennia a ago -- waaaay before you normies developed
your keen sense of moral clarity -- (don't you just love that term? moral clarity -- Israelis
love that term, moral clarity: IDF drops phosphorus on children in Gaza with
moral
clarity
. . .)
Just War Theory states that war, once engaged, must act to protect civilians to the
fullest extent possible, and should should meet force with
proportionate
force and not
more.
Did Sherman abide by those age-old norms, normie? "What's your view -- you and your fellow
normies -- on Sherman's Scorched earth march to the sea?"
There are myths in Sherman's March that need to be explored.
We know that to the victors go the spoils. Winners write the history, and losers claim
that the history is other than accurate. Did Sherman commit war crimes? In my opinion, yes.
But in war, does winning ultimately matter? Yes. There is no "honor" in war itself, just
bloodshed by men who honorable in their willingness to die for their cause. There is no doubt
that if the tables were turned, and Lee was rampaging through Philadelphia and New York to
finally put an end to "northern aggression", southern apologists would say the exact
thing.
So, I take it that you oppose a similar Shermanesque policy if proposed by your allies or
those on the Alt Right, correct? Make it official.
Furthermore, you do realize that the slave owners themselves had committed crimes against
humanity, right? Are you ready to condemn them? Make it official.
"Or is the notion of killing civilians -- women and children -- abhorrent to self-respecting
military men who view a war as something engaged in between martial forces who observe codes
of military honor?"
Kurgen, a commenter at the Men Of The West blog, said, "Unfortunately, violence is
inevitable. In fact, from a practical and logical point of view, violence is required to
expel all the SJWs and their allies from polite civilization, and will further be required to
man the walls of the forts that hold the line against them, as well as to expel any
dissidents within them."
Do you share his sentiments? Would not those allies include women and children? I mean, if
the overall goal is for Western Civilization to emerge on top, would it not be in the best
interest to cull the herd? In this next "civil war", will YOU abide by those age-old
norms?
"Just War Theory states that war, once engaged, must act to protect civilians to the
fullest extent possible, and should should meet force with proportionate force and not
more."
Great theory, just impractical when one desires to obliterate your enemy. Besides, is it
not best to salt the earth to ensure that the offspring of your enemy will NOT "come
back"?
Poroshenko has asked the UN to send peacekeepers to the Donbass
During the session of the General Assembly of the United Nations, the Ukraine is to
present to the UN an initiative that it enter the Donbass. This was stated by the Ukrainian
President Petro Poroshenko during a visit to the Lugansk region, reports the Ukraine leader's
website.
He noted that the issue of launching a UN peacekeeping mission and an OSCE armed
mission into the zone of armed conflict in the southeast of the Ukraine "is making rather
difficult progress". Poroshenko observed that this was due to the fact that Russia
"categorically" does not want to "establish peace in the Donbass" and does not want to "leave
the Ukraine alone".
"But I'm sure that water wears away a stone", said Poroshenko. He announced that he
will present the idea of the introduction of peacekeepers in the Donbass at the session of
the UN General Assembly that is to be held in New York in September.
You never know – one source at least believes the USA
wants to substitute Ukraine for Syria
in its determination to fight proxy wars with
Russia until one ignites outright international conflict between the two powers.
They are running out of locations to stage these false flags. But it sure is incredible what
a load of credulous saps constitute most of NATO's population and even the rest of the world.
This transparent chemical weapons "Assad attack" BS does not stand up to even the most
superficial scrutiny. For example, if you take any of the alleged events and add them up,
then they have contributed exactly zero to the Syrian government's military operations. But
these events sure have been useful of Syria's enemies. So why would Assad keep doing them?
Because he is like Putin who shoots down civilian airliners for sport?
One more time – chemical weapons are what you have recourse to as a last resort when
you are losing and about to be overrun. Or, I suppose, if you want to clean out an area which
might prove very costly to you in terms of manpower, and you don't want to pay too dearly to
take it. But neither is the scenario for the government in Syria at present, and it would be
abysmally stupid, not to mention completely unnecessary, for them to use chemical weapons. It
was the last two times the west tried to pull the same stunt, as well.
Coal from the USA will cost more than twice as much – inconsequential, as we have
discussed, when western taxpayers are giving Ukraine the money to buy it – and
take several weeks to arrive
. Don't wait – hire Ukraine now to plan your country's
foreign policy, and avoid the rush to its door.
America can wish, but that does not mean it will get. Ukraine is in the process of collapsing
and unlike Syria, the jihadis are not the horde taking over. In fact, it will be the quiet
majority that will be pushing the US stooges out. So I doubt Uncle Scumbag is all too keen on
undermining its puppet regime in Kiev.
But that's something that really pisses me off. Washington gets its meddling fingers into the
pie, and in short order everything is wrecked and it takes a decade or so for the country to
recover its balance, accompanied by some serious sacrifices by its leadership and its people.
And the first envoy to call when things recover their balance is Uncle Sam, and before you
know it, trade ties are re-established and the process starts all over again.
Besides that, Ukraine is of no concern to the USA whatsoever, except as a Trojan horse
against Russia. Russia is the target, and if Ukraine is ruined in the process Washington will
shed no tears.
"... Barnett's vision is neoconservative to the root. He sees the world as divided into essentially two realms : The Core, which consists of advanced countries playing by the rules of economic globalization (the US, Canada, UK, Europe and Japan) along with developing countries committed to getting there (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and some others); and the rest of the world, which is The Gap, a disparate wilderness of dangerous and lawless countries defined fundamentally by being "disconnected" from the wonders of globalization. This includes most of the Middle East and Africa, large swathes of South America, as well as much of Central Asia and Eastern Europe. It is the task of the United States to "shrink The Gap," by spreading the cultural and economic "rule-set" of globalization that characterizes The Core, and by enforcing security worldwide to enable that "rule-set" to spread. ..."
"... In the near future, Barnett had predicted, US military forces will be dispatched beyond Iraq and Afghanistan to places like Uzbekistan, Djibouti, Azerbaijan, Northwest Africa, Southern Africa and South America. ..."
"... Barnett's Pentagon briefing was greeted with near universal enthusiasm. The Forum had even purchased copies of his book and had them distributed to all Forum delegates, ..."
"... "I'm not convinced that Barnett's cure would be any better than the disease," wrote Dr. Karen Kwiatowski, a former senior Pentagon analyst in the Near East and South Asia section, who blew the whistle on how her department deliberately manufactured false information in the run-up to the Iraq War. "It would surely cost far more in American liberty, constitutional democracy and blood than it would be worth." ..."
No better illustration of the truly chauvinistic, narcissistic, and self-congratulatory ideology of power at the heart of the
military-industrial complex is a book by long-time Highlands Forum delegate, Dr. Thomas Barnett, The Pentagon's New Map.
Barnett was assistant for strategic futures in the Pentagon's Office of Force Transformation from 2001 to 2003, and had been recommended
to Richard O'Neill by his boss Vice Admiral Arthur Cebrowski. Apart from becoming a New York Times bestseller, Barnett's
book had been read far and wide in the US military, by senior defense officials in Washington and combatant commanders operating
on the ground in the Middle East.
Barnett first attended the Pentagon Highlands Forum in 1998, then was invited to deliver a briefing about his work at the Forum
on December 7th 2004, which was attended by senior Pentagon officials, energy experts, internet entrepreneurs, and journalists. Barnett
received a glowing review in the
Washington Post from his Highlands Forum buddy David Ignatius a week later, and an endorsement from another Forum friend,
Thomas Friedman, both of which helped massively boost his credibility and readership.
Barnett's vision is neoconservative to the root. He sees the world as divided into essentially
two realms : The Core, which
consists of advanced countries playing by the rules of economic globalization (the US, Canada, UK, Europe and Japan) along with developing
countries committed to getting there (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and some others); and the rest of the world, which is The Gap,
a disparate wilderness of dangerous and lawless countries defined fundamentally by being "disconnected" from the wonders of globalization.
This includes most of the Middle East and Africa, large swathes of South America, as well as much of Central Asia and Eastern Europe.
It is the task of the United States to "shrink The Gap," by spreading the cultural and economic "rule-set" of globalization that
characterizes The Core, and by enforcing security worldwide to enable that "rule-set" to spread.
These two functions of US power are captured by Barnett's concepts of "Leviathan" and "System Administrator." The former is about
rule-setting to facilitate the spread of capitalist markets, regulated via military and civilian law. The latter is about projecting
military force into The Gap in an open-ended global mission to enforce security and engage in nation-building. Not "rebuilding,"
he is keen to emphasize, but building "new nations."
For Barnett, the Bush administration's 2002 introduction of the Patriot Act at home, with its crushing of habeas corpus, and the
National Security Strategy abroad, with its opening up of unilateral, pre-emptive war, represented the beginning of the necessary
re-writing of rule-sets in The Core to embark on this noble mission. This is the only way for the US to achieve security,
writes Barnett, because as long as The Gap exists, it will always be a source of lawless violence and disorder. One paragraph in
particular sums up his vision:
"America as global cop creates security. Security creates common rules. Rules attract foreign investment. Investment creates infrastructure.
Infrastructure creates access to natural resources. Resources create economic growth. Growth creates stability. Stability creates
markets. And once you're a growing, stable part of the global market, you're part of the Core. Mission accomplished."
Much of what Barnett predicted would need to happen to fulfill this vision, despite its neoconservative bent, is still being pursued
under Obama. In the near future, Barnett had predicted, US military forces will be dispatched beyond Iraq and Afghanistan to
places like Uzbekistan, Djibouti, Azerbaijan, Northwest Africa, Southern Africa and South America.
Barnett's Pentagon briefing was greeted with near universal enthusiasm. The Forum had even purchased copies of his book and
had them distributed to all Forum delegates, and in May 2005, Barnett was invited back to participate in an entire Forum themed
around his "SysAdmin" concept.
The Highlands Forum has thus played a leading role in defining the Pentagon's entire conceptualization of the 'war on terror.'
Irving Wladawsky-Berger, a retired IMB vice president who co-chaired the President's Information Technology Advisory Committee from
1997 to 2001, described his experience of
one 2007 Forum meeting in telling terms:
"Then there is the War on Terror, which DoD has started to refer to as the Long War, a term that I first heard at the Forum. It
seems very appropriate to describe the overall conflict in which we now find ourselves. This is a truly global conflict the conflicts
we are now in have much more of the feel of a battle of civilizations or cultures trying to destroy our very way of life and impose
their own."
The problem is that outside this powerful Pentagon-hosted clique, not everyone else agrees. "I'm not convinced that Barnett's
cure would be any better than the disease," wrote
Dr. Karen Kwiatowski, a former senior Pentagon analyst in the Near East and South Asia section, who blew the whistle on how her
department deliberately manufactured false information in the run-up to the Iraq War. "It would surely cost far more in American
liberty, constitutional democracy and blood than it would be worth."
Yet the equation of "shrinking The Gap" with sustaining the national security of The Core leads to a slippery slope. It means
that if the US is prevented from playing this leadership role as "global cop," The Gap will widen, The Core will shrink, and the
entire global order could unravel. By this logic, the US simply cannot afford government or public opinion to reject the legitimacy
of its mission. If it did so, it would allow The Gap to grow out of control, undermining The Core, and potentially destroying it,
along with The Core's protector, America. Therefore, "shrinking The Gap" is not just a security imperative: it is such an existential
priority, that it must be backed up with information war to demonstrate to the world the legitimacy of the entire project.
Based on O'Neill's principles of information warfare as articulated in his 1989 US Navy brief, the targets of information war
are not just populations in The Gap, but domestic populations in The Core, and their governments: including the US government. That
secret brief, which according to former senior US intelligence official John Alexander was read by the Pentagon's top leadership,
argued that information war must be targeted at: adversaries to convince them of their vulnerability; potential partners around the
world so they accept "the cause as just"; and finally, civilian populations and the political leadership so they believe that "the
cost" in blood and treasure is worth it.
Barnett's work was plugged by the Pentagon's Highlands Forum because it fit the bill, in providing a compelling 'feel good' ideology
for the US military-industrial complex.
But neoconservative ideology, of course, hardly originated with Barnett, himself a relatively small player, even though his work
was extremely influential throughout the Pentagon. The regressive thinking of senior officials involved in the Highlands Forum is
visible from long before 9/11, which was ceased upon by actors linked to the Forum as a powerful enabling force that legitimized
the increasingly aggressive direction of US foreign and intelligence policies.
"... Much more sinister than that, American Imperial Strategy has chaos at its core, and it's deadly serious about it. ..."
"... This strategy, radically new, was taught by Thomas P. M. Barnett following 11-September 2001. It was publicly revealed and exposed in March 2003 – that is, just before the war against Iraq -- in an article in Esquire, then in the eponym book, The Pentagon's New Map. However, such a strategy appears so cruel in design, that no one imagined it could be implemented. ..."
"... He goes on to maintain that Assad was the first leader to understand this strategy, and his development of a counter strategy is the principle reason for his continued, indeed enhanced reign. If they didn't then, I have a feeling that Putin & Xi now also understand, and that some of their counter-strategies are becoming visible. ..."
Thierry Meyssan thinks the world doesn't yet understand the US' Imperial Strategy
following 9/11. It is jauntily summarized by Pepe as "Empire of Chaos", as if it was trying
to be an Empire, but somehow prevented from properly becoming one because of the bumbling
fools that are running it.
Much more sinister than that, American Imperial Strategy has chaos at its core, and
it's deadly serious about it.
This strategy, radically new, was taught by Thomas P. M. Barnett following
11-September 2001. It was publicly revealed and exposed in March 2003 – that is, just
before the war against Iraq -- in an article in Esquire, then in the eponym book, The
Pentagon's New Map. However, such a strategy appears so cruel in design, that no one
imagined it could be implemented.
Imperialism seeks to divide the world in two. One part will be a stable area which
profits from the system while in the other part a terrifying chaos will reign. This other
will be a zone, where all thought of resisting has been wiped it; where every thought is
fixated on surviving; an area where the multinationals can extract raw materials which they
need without any duty to account to anyone.
He goes on to maintain that Assad was the first leader to understand this strategy,
and his development of a counter strategy is the principle reason for his continued, indeed
enhanced reign. If they didn't then, I have a feeling that Putin & Xi now also
understand, and that some of their counter-strategies are becoming visible.
"As for Washington and the proverbially bombastic, failed futurists across the Beltway,
do they even know what is the end game of "investing" in two never-ending wars with no
visible benefits?"
That's the beauty: There is no end game. it's a never-ending gravy-train of
policy studies, think-tank research, strategy-consulting, and weapons R&D and
procurement,with a smattering of foreign aid and economic development money thrown in.
Everybody wins ... well, everybody who matters.
Its all about "closing the gap".
"Barnett's vision is neoconservative to the root. He sees the world as divided into
essentially two realms: The Core, which consists of advanced countries playing by the rules
of economic globalization (the US, Canada, UK, Europe and Japan) along with developing
countries committed to getting there (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and some others); and the
rest of the world, which is The Gap, a disparate wilderness of dangerous and lawless
countries defined fundamentally by being "disconnected" from the wonders of globalization.
This includes most of the Middle East and Africa, large swathes of South America, as well as
much of Central Asia and Eastern Europe. It is the task of the United States to "shrink The
Gap," by spreading the cultural and economic "rule-set" of globalization that characterizes
The Core, and by enforcing security worldwide to enable that "rule-set" to spread."
"America as global cop creates security. Security creates common rules. Rules attract
foreign investment. Investment creates infrastructure. Infrastructure creates access to
natural resources. Resources create economic growth. Growth creates stability. Stability
creates markets. And once you're a growing, stable part of the global market, you're part of
the Core. Mission accomplished"
The Pentagon's "highlands forum" is the "deepstate", or the closest thing to it that I've
found. Its members are ranking military officers, high level government officials, "captains
of industry". They have been directing America since the 90s. Several members are now part of
Google, Facebook, Goldman Sachs, the list goes on and on.
@DESERT FOX
The Zionist neocon agenda is to keep us in a state of perpetual fear and in
perpetual wars for as George Orwell said , wars are not meant to be won they are meant to
keep the state in control and keep the proles in a state of continual poverty and fear.
There will be wars forever until and unless the Zionist neocon control over America is
ended and as of now it appears there is no end in sight. England invaded Afghanistan in 1838
and did not leave until 1919 so as a template the Zionist neocons have another 64 years to go
defending their CIA and MOSSAD drug running and spilling American blood in Afghanistan.
Published on 21 Aug 2017
A Navy guided-missile destroyer, the USS John S. McCain, collided with a commercial vessel
east of Singapore early Monday, 10 sailors are missing and five were injured, the Navy
said.
This is the second incident in which a USS Arleigh Burke destroyer collides with a tanker
or container. In June the USS Fitzgerald collided with a Philippine flagged container ship
off the coast of Japan near Tokyo. How can such a sophisticated and state of the art vessel
(Arleigh Burke class destroyer) collide with tankers and container ships? One is small and
fast, the other is big and slow. Standards in the US navy have fallen it would seem. Perhaps
the US navy is a giant with feet of clay?
And there's that
navy-wide
review
I mentioned a day or two ago. Although it was an easy guess, as it is common
American military practice.
Once again I am surprised, because I made the error of not considering the area where
these crashes took place. This was an easy public-relations victory for the Chinese, because
American military operations are clearly increasing the risk to merchant traffic in the
vicinity. And once again, as was the case in Syria, you have to ask yourself, what business
is it of Uncle Sam? Does he have to intervene for a compelling reason – can anyone show
that Chinese claims in the South China Sea are oppressing someone or taking away their
rights? Or is it just that nothing can be done around the world without first clearing it
with Washington, to see if there might be American objections from half a world away to
whatever one might be doing in one's own region?
America likes to say that it conducts these operations to reassure its allies in the
region that it will not abandon them, and will stand up for their rights. But who is that, in
this instance? The Philippines? I would have to say the national tone there from the
democratically-elected leadership was decidedly negative toward the United States and
decidedly positive toward China and reaching a mutually-beneficial agreement with the latter;
so much so that the USA must stir up a rebellion there, invoke the ever-lurking spectre of
ISIS as it now routinely does to justify its military presence.
It seems more the case that America sees its regional influence diminishing to a pinpoint,
just before the screen goes black, and is – dare I say it? desperately – trying
to reassert it while everyone still fears Uncle Sam's big stick.
When I made that suggestion I was half-joking; it would indeed be a clever false-flag, but on
reflection it would only work if the merchant ship rolled the destroyer under her bow and
there were no survivors. Somebody would inevitably survive who was on the bridge or in the
operations room (except the Americans call it by a different name, 'CIC', if I recall
correctly, for 'Combat Information Center') who would say "He said on the common channel that
he would do a straight green-to-green (his starboard side to your starboard side) passage,
and at the last second he turned right into us!!" Both captains survived, and were – or
will be – relieved of their commands, and they would never humbly accept that in the
case of a deliberate act of aggression for which they were unprepared. The damage is also too
slight (although it was fatal for some in both cases) to have been a deliberate attempt to
sink the other ship, although it demonstrably is more than enough for a major incident.
At its narrowest point – Phillips Channel, south of Singapore – the Strait of
Malacca is only 1.5 nautical miles from one side to the other. 2,500 yards, for two ships to
pass, one of which is 100 feet wide and the other 60 feet wide. Most of it is not that
narrow, but it must be hair-raising given the amount of traffic that passes through it all
day and all night long. Those who run it regularly and know it, even in the dark, like the
back of their own hand are sometimes a little casual about navigation lights. Radars perform
poorly in areas where the land is close on both sides because of bounce and echo, and even
those designed for anti-collision are susceptible to land shadow and clutter. It's likely
just too many ships in too little water.
Something that has always seemed to me like a tremendous vulnerability for terrorism,
though, is US airports that were either built right in the middle of a city, or the city grew
up around them so that you have a parade of airliners passing all day long right over the
rooftops of residential buildings. San Diego International is a classic example, only 3 miles
from downtown San Diego.
In a landing pattern an airliner cannot easily maneuver, and its glide path to the runway
is as predictable as sunset.
And it's flying right over your head, as you are crouched on the rooftop with your
shoulder-launched Stinger or whatever. You could almost throw a potato and hit it. If I were
in charge of airport security, that'd make me nervous.
The US Navy has relieved the commander of US 7th fleet after a destroyer collided with
a merchant vessel east of the Malacca Strait. It was the fourth time a US warship has been
involved in a collision in the Pacific theater this year.
Seems to be more of a PR move to me as there appears to be a huge bureaucratic distance
from those more directly responsible for inadequate training, improper staff assignments,
etc. that may have led to the accidents.
Very true and the command crew has been relieved of duties but this guy is the admiral of the
7th fleet. I understand that it is a 2-year "billet" so he could have hardly been on the job
long enough to have a positive or negative impact on the skill level and readiness of the
crew in question.
One possible explanation is that his earlier assignments were in the areas that appear to
be deficient. Or, they just needed to make a high level example to satisfy the public that
something is being done. Not an expert here at all, just trying to understand the motivations
of the action.
There are also ten families who lost loved ones in the collision with the oil tanker Alnic
plus another five sailors who will probably sue for compensation for injuries they suffered
during the crash. Ten deaths are likely to concentrate the mind on finding ways to head off
possible criminal or civil lawsuits brought by the families.
Well, it's hard to see what CO 7th Fleet could have done differently – sail with every
ship and stand the bridge watch for the whole trip? Nobody knows yet what caused these
crashes, and it has much of the smell of action taken to reassure the public that something
is being done, although that something might be neither useful or productive.
I suppose he might have simply imposed a unilateral moratorium on US naval operations in
the Pacific. Nobody would have gotten hurt or killed, and those ships would be undamaged. But
I suspect he might have incurred the wrath of the upper echelon in that case, too.
Neither do I, but may I posit a theory? In short, the USN is not up to the task. In long,
the
Pivot to China
aka the
Containment of China and protecting the USA's global
hegemony
requires extensive logistical, human etc.changes that the USN is struggling to
manage, and that is even before you take note of the geography and risks associated with
gigantic choke points such as the Malacca Straits through which a huge number of ships pass,
depth of water etc.
It's one thing to say your are going to do something, it is an entirely different thing to
actually do it. Not to mention that China has been pushing back (EP-3 Ares II shoot down for
starters).
It also seems to me rather a sign of arrogance and hubris. After all, when you are the
world's greatest power it clearly shouldn't be difficult to move your military around
easily.
No one is fooled by cheap words and open chest beating.
I hope it does not occur to them that what they need, at least according to the visionary
Mahan, is local bases to support their logistics and operations. Because that is going to be
a non-starter from the Chinese point of view. A sign that this weakness is understood would
be a significant buildup of naval forces at Yokosuka, Sasebo and Okinawa.
Poroshenko has asked the UN to send peacekeepers to the Donbass
During the session of the General Assembly of the United Nations, the Ukraine is to
present to the UN an initiative that it enter the Donbass. This was stated by the Ukrainian
President Petro Poroshenko during a visit to the Lugansk region, reports the Ukraine leader's
website.
He noted that the issue of launching a UN peacekeeping mission and an OSCE armed
mission into the zone of armed conflict in the southeast of the Ukraine "is making rather
difficult progress". Poroshenko observed that this was due to the fact that Russia
"categorically" does not want to "establish peace in the Donbass" and does not want to "leave
the Ukraine alone".
"But I'm sure that water wears away a stone", said Poroshenko. He announced that he
will present the idea of the introduction of peacekeepers in the Donbass at the session of
the UN General Assembly that is to be held in New York in September.
You never know – one source at least believes the USA
wants to substitute Ukraine for Syria
in its determination to fight proxy wars with
Russia until one ignites outright international conflict between the two powers.
They are running out of locations to stage these false flags. But it sure is incredible what
a load of credulous saps constitute most of NATO's population and even the rest of the world.
This transparent chemical weapons "Assad attack" BS does not stand up to even the most
superficial scrutiny. For example, if you take any of the alleged events and add them up,
then they have contributed exactly zero to the Syrian government's military operations. But
these events sure have been useful of Syria's enemies. So why would Assad keep doing them?
Because he is like Putin who shoots down civilian airliners for sport?
One more time – chemical weapons are what you have recourse to as a last resort when
you are losing and about to be overrun. Or, I suppose, if you want to clean out an area which
might prove very costly to you in terms of manpower, and you don't want to pay too dearly to
take it. But neither is the scenario for the government in Syria at present, and it would be
abysmally stupid, not to mention completely unnecessary, for them to use chemical weapons. It
was the last two times the west tried to pull the same stunt, as well.
Coal from the USA will cost more than twice as much – inconsequential, as we have
discussed, when western taxpayers are giving Ukraine the money to buy it – and
take several weeks to arrive
. Don't wait – hire Ukraine now to plan your country's
foreign policy, and avoid the rush to its door.
America can wish, but that does not mean it will get. Ukraine is in the process of collapsing
and unlike Syria, the jihadis are not the horde taking over. In fact, it will be the quiet
majority that will be pushing the US stooges out. So I doubt Uncle Scumbag is all too keen on
undermining its puppet regime in Kiev.
But that's something that really pisses me off. Washington gets its meddling fingers into the
pie, and in short order everything is wrecked and it takes a decade or so for the country to
recover its balance, accompanied by some serious sacrifices by its leadership and its people.
And the first envoy to call when things recover their balance is Uncle Sam, and before you
know it, trade ties are re-established and the process starts all over again.
Besides that, Ukraine is of no concern to the USA whatsoever, except as a Trojan horse
against Russia. Russia is the target, and if Ukraine is ruined in the process Washington will
shed no tears.
"... Barnett's vision is neoconservative to the root. He sees the world as divided into essentially two realms : The Core, which consists of advanced countries playing by the rules of economic globalization (the US, Canada, UK, Europe and Japan) along with developing countries committed to getting there (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and some others); and the rest of the world, which is The Gap, a disparate wilderness of dangerous and lawless countries defined fundamentally by being "disconnected" from the wonders of globalization. This includes most of the Middle East and Africa, large swathes of South America, as well as much of Central Asia and Eastern Europe. It is the task of the United States to "shrink The Gap," by spreading the cultural and economic "rule-set" of globalization that characterizes The Core, and by enforcing security worldwide to enable that "rule-set" to spread. ..."
"... In the near future, Barnett had predicted, US military forces will be dispatched beyond Iraq and Afghanistan to places like Uzbekistan, Djibouti, Azerbaijan, Northwest Africa, Southern Africa and South America. ..."
"... Barnett's Pentagon briefing was greeted with near universal enthusiasm. The Forum had even purchased copies of his book and had them distributed to all Forum delegates, ..."
"... "I'm not convinced that Barnett's cure would be any better than the disease," wrote Dr. Karen Kwiatowski, a former senior Pentagon analyst in the Near East and South Asia section, who blew the whistle on how her department deliberately manufactured false information in the run-up to the Iraq War. "It would surely cost far more in American liberty, constitutional democracy and blood than it would be worth." ..."
No better illustration of the truly chauvinistic, narcissistic, and self-congratulatory ideology of power at the heart of the
military-industrial complex is a book by long-time Highlands Forum delegate, Dr. Thomas Barnett, The Pentagon's New Map.
Barnett was assistant for strategic futures in the Pentagon's Office of Force Transformation from 2001 to 2003, and had been recommended
to Richard O'Neill by his boss Vice Admiral Arthur Cebrowski. Apart from becoming a New York Times bestseller, Barnett's
book had been read far and wide in the US military, by senior defense officials in Washington and combatant commanders operating
on the ground in the Middle East.
Barnett first attended the Pentagon Highlands Forum in 1998, then was invited to deliver a briefing about his work at the Forum
on December 7th 2004, which was attended by senior Pentagon officials, energy experts, internet entrepreneurs, and journalists. Barnett
received a glowing review in the
Washington Post from his Highlands Forum buddy David Ignatius a week later, and an endorsement from another Forum friend,
Thomas Friedman, both of which helped massively boost his credibility and readership.
Barnett's vision is neoconservative to the root. He sees the world as divided into essentially
two realms : The Core, which
consists of advanced countries playing by the rules of economic globalization (the US, Canada, UK, Europe and Japan) along with developing
countries committed to getting there (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and some others); and the rest of the world, which is The Gap,
a disparate wilderness of dangerous and lawless countries defined fundamentally by being "disconnected" from the wonders of globalization.
This includes most of the Middle East and Africa, large swathes of South America, as well as much of Central Asia and Eastern Europe.
It is the task of the United States to "shrink The Gap," by spreading the cultural and economic "rule-set" of globalization that
characterizes The Core, and by enforcing security worldwide to enable that "rule-set" to spread.
These two functions of US power are captured by Barnett's concepts of "Leviathan" and "System Administrator." The former is about
rule-setting to facilitate the spread of capitalist markets, regulated via military and civilian law. The latter is about projecting
military force into The Gap in an open-ended global mission to enforce security and engage in nation-building. Not "rebuilding,"
he is keen to emphasize, but building "new nations."
For Barnett, the Bush administration's 2002 introduction of the Patriot Act at home, with its crushing of habeas corpus, and the
National Security Strategy abroad, with its opening up of unilateral, pre-emptive war, represented the beginning of the necessary
re-writing of rule-sets in The Core to embark on this noble mission. This is the only way for the US to achieve security,
writes Barnett, because as long as The Gap exists, it will always be a source of lawless violence and disorder. One paragraph in
particular sums up his vision:
"America as global cop creates security. Security creates common rules. Rules attract foreign investment. Investment creates infrastructure.
Infrastructure creates access to natural resources. Resources create economic growth. Growth creates stability. Stability creates
markets. And once you're a growing, stable part of the global market, you're part of the Core. Mission accomplished."
Much of what Barnett predicted would need to happen to fulfill this vision, despite its neoconservative bent, is still being pursued
under Obama. In the near future, Barnett had predicted, US military forces will be dispatched beyond Iraq and Afghanistan to
places like Uzbekistan, Djibouti, Azerbaijan, Northwest Africa, Southern Africa and South America.
Barnett's Pentagon briefing was greeted with near universal enthusiasm. The Forum had even purchased copies of his book and
had them distributed to all Forum delegates, and in May 2005, Barnett was invited back to participate in an entire Forum themed
around his "SysAdmin" concept.
The Highlands Forum has thus played a leading role in defining the Pentagon's entire conceptualization of the 'war on terror.'
Irving Wladawsky-Berger, a retired IMB vice president who co-chaired the President's Information Technology Advisory Committee from
1997 to 2001, described his experience of
one 2007 Forum meeting in telling terms:
"Then there is the War on Terror, which DoD has started to refer to as the Long War, a term that I first heard at the Forum. It
seems very appropriate to describe the overall conflict in which we now find ourselves. This is a truly global conflict the conflicts
we are now in have much more of the feel of a battle of civilizations or cultures trying to destroy our very way of life and impose
their own."
The problem is that outside this powerful Pentagon-hosted clique, not everyone else agrees. "I'm not convinced that Barnett's
cure would be any better than the disease," wrote
Dr. Karen Kwiatowski, a former senior Pentagon analyst in the Near East and South Asia section, who blew the whistle on how her
department deliberately manufactured false information in the run-up to the Iraq War. "It would surely cost far more in American
liberty, constitutional democracy and blood than it would be worth."
Yet the equation of "shrinking The Gap" with sustaining the national security of The Core leads to a slippery slope. It means
that if the US is prevented from playing this leadership role as "global cop," The Gap will widen, The Core will shrink, and the
entire global order could unravel. By this logic, the US simply cannot afford government or public opinion to reject the legitimacy
of its mission. If it did so, it would allow The Gap to grow out of control, undermining The Core, and potentially destroying it,
along with The Core's protector, America. Therefore, "shrinking The Gap" is not just a security imperative: it is such an existential
priority, that it must be backed up with information war to demonstrate to the world the legitimacy of the entire project.
Based on O'Neill's principles of information warfare as articulated in his 1989 US Navy brief, the targets of information war
are not just populations in The Gap, but domestic populations in The Core, and their governments: including the US government. That
secret brief, which according to former senior US intelligence official John Alexander was read by the Pentagon's top leadership,
argued that information war must be targeted at: adversaries to convince them of their vulnerability; potential partners around the
world so they accept "the cause as just"; and finally, civilian populations and the political leadership so they believe that "the
cost" in blood and treasure is worth it.
Barnett's work was plugged by the Pentagon's Highlands Forum because it fit the bill, in providing a compelling 'feel good' ideology
for the US military-industrial complex.
But neoconservative ideology, of course, hardly originated with Barnett, himself a relatively small player, even though his work
was extremely influential throughout the Pentagon. The regressive thinking of senior officials involved in the Highlands Forum is
visible from long before 9/11, which was ceased upon by actors linked to the Forum as a powerful enabling force that legitimized
the increasingly aggressive direction of US foreign and intelligence policies.
"... Much more sinister than that, American Imperial Strategy has chaos at its core, and it's deadly serious about it. ..."
"... This strategy, radically new, was taught by Thomas P. M. Barnett following 11-September 2001. It was publicly revealed and exposed in March 2003 – that is, just before the war against Iraq -- in an article in Esquire, then in the eponym book, The Pentagon's New Map. However, such a strategy appears so cruel in design, that no one imagined it could be implemented. ..."
"... He goes on to maintain that Assad was the first leader to understand this strategy, and his development of a counter strategy is the principle reason for his continued, indeed enhanced reign. If they didn't then, I have a feeling that Putin & Xi now also understand, and that some of their counter-strategies are becoming visible. ..."
Thierry Meyssan thinks the world doesn't yet understand the US' Imperial Strategy
following 9/11. It is jauntily summarized by Pepe as "Empire of Chaos", as if it was trying
to be an Empire, but somehow prevented from properly becoming one because of the bumbling
fools that are running it.
Much more sinister than that, American Imperial Strategy has chaos at its core, and
it's deadly serious about it.
This strategy, radically new, was taught by Thomas P. M. Barnett following
11-September 2001. It was publicly revealed and exposed in March 2003 – that is, just
before the war against Iraq -- in an article in Esquire, then in the eponym book, The
Pentagon's New Map. However, such a strategy appears so cruel in design, that no one
imagined it could be implemented.
Imperialism seeks to divide the world in two. One part will be a stable area which
profits from the system while in the other part a terrifying chaos will reign. This other
will be a zone, where all thought of resisting has been wiped it; where every thought is
fixated on surviving; an area where the multinationals can extract raw materials which they
need without any duty to account to anyone.
He goes on to maintain that Assad was the first leader to understand this strategy,
and his development of a counter strategy is the principle reason for his continued, indeed
enhanced reign. If they didn't then, I have a feeling that Putin & Xi now also
understand, and that some of their counter-strategies are becoming visible.
"As for Washington and the proverbially bombastic, failed futurists across the Beltway,
do they even know what is the end game of "investing" in two never-ending wars with no
visible benefits?"
That's the beauty: There is no end game. it's a never-ending gravy-train of
policy studies, think-tank research, strategy-consulting, and weapons R&D and
procurement,with a smattering of foreign aid and economic development money thrown in.
Everybody wins ... well, everybody who matters.
Its all about "closing the gap".
"Barnett's vision is neoconservative to the root. He sees the world as divided into
essentially two realms: The Core, which consists of advanced countries playing by the rules
of economic globalization (the US, Canada, UK, Europe and Japan) along with developing
countries committed to getting there (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and some others); and the
rest of the world, which is The Gap, a disparate wilderness of dangerous and lawless
countries defined fundamentally by being "disconnected" from the wonders of globalization.
This includes most of the Middle East and Africa, large swathes of South America, as well as
much of Central Asia and Eastern Europe. It is the task of the United States to "shrink The
Gap," by spreading the cultural and economic "rule-set" of globalization that characterizes
The Core, and by enforcing security worldwide to enable that "rule-set" to spread."
"America as global cop creates security. Security creates common rules. Rules attract
foreign investment. Investment creates infrastructure. Infrastructure creates access to
natural resources. Resources create economic growth. Growth creates stability. Stability
creates markets. And once you're a growing, stable part of the global market, you're part of
the Core. Mission accomplished"
The Pentagon's "highlands forum" is the "deepstate", or the closest thing to it that I've
found. Its members are ranking military officers, high level government officials, "captains
of industry". They have been directing America since the 90s. Several members are now part of
Google, Facebook, Goldman Sachs, the list goes on and on.
@DESERT FOX
The Zionist neocon agenda is to keep us in a state of perpetual fear and in
perpetual wars for as George Orwell said , wars are not meant to be won they are meant to
keep the state in control and keep the proles in a state of continual poverty and fear.
There will be wars forever until and unless the Zionist neocon control over America is
ended and as of now it appears there is no end in sight. England invaded Afghanistan in 1838
and did not leave until 1919 so as a template the Zionist neocons have another 64 years to go
defending their CIA and MOSSAD drug running and spilling American blood in Afghanistan.
Published on 21 Aug 2017
A Navy guided-missile destroyer, the USS John S. McCain, collided with a commercial vessel
east of Singapore early Monday, 10 sailors are missing and five were injured, the Navy
said.
This is the second incident in which a USS Arleigh Burke destroyer collides with a tanker
or container. In June the USS Fitzgerald collided with a Philippine flagged container ship
off the coast of Japan near Tokyo. How can such a sophisticated and state of the art vessel
(Arleigh Burke class destroyer) collide with tankers and container ships? One is small and
fast, the other is big and slow. Standards in the US navy have fallen it would seem. Perhaps
the US navy is a giant with feet of clay?
And there's that
navy-wide
review
I mentioned a day or two ago. Although it was an easy guess, as it is common
American military practice.
Once again I am surprised, because I made the error of not considering the area where
these crashes took place. This was an easy public-relations victory for the Chinese, because
American military operations are clearly increasing the risk to merchant traffic in the
vicinity. And once again, as was the case in Syria, you have to ask yourself, what business
is it of Uncle Sam? Does he have to intervene for a compelling reason – can anyone show
that Chinese claims in the South China Sea are oppressing someone or taking away their
rights? Or is it just that nothing can be done around the world without first clearing it
with Washington, to see if there might be American objections from half a world away to
whatever one might be doing in one's own region?
America likes to say that it conducts these operations to reassure its allies in the
region that it will not abandon them, and will stand up for their rights. But who is that, in
this instance? The Philippines? I would have to say the national tone there from the
democratically-elected leadership was decidedly negative toward the United States and
decidedly positive toward China and reaching a mutually-beneficial agreement with the latter;
so much so that the USA must stir up a rebellion there, invoke the ever-lurking spectre of
ISIS as it now routinely does to justify its military presence.
It seems more the case that America sees its regional influence diminishing to a pinpoint,
just before the screen goes black, and is – dare I say it? desperately – trying
to reassert it while everyone still fears Uncle Sam's big stick.
When I made that suggestion I was half-joking; it would indeed be a clever false-flag, but on
reflection it would only work if the merchant ship rolled the destroyer under her bow and
there were no survivors. Somebody would inevitably survive who was on the bridge or in the
operations room (except the Americans call it by a different name, 'CIC', if I recall
correctly, for 'Combat Information Center') who would say "He said on the common channel that
he would do a straight green-to-green (his starboard side to your starboard side) passage,
and at the last second he turned right into us!!" Both captains survived, and were – or
will be – relieved of their commands, and they would never humbly accept that in the
case of a deliberate act of aggression for which they were unprepared. The damage is also too
slight (although it was fatal for some in both cases) to have been a deliberate attempt to
sink the other ship, although it demonstrably is more than enough for a major incident.
At its narrowest point – Phillips Channel, south of Singapore – the Strait of
Malacca is only 1.5 nautical miles from one side to the other. 2,500 yards, for two ships to
pass, one of which is 100 feet wide and the other 60 feet wide. Most of it is not that
narrow, but it must be hair-raising given the amount of traffic that passes through it all
day and all night long. Those who run it regularly and know it, even in the dark, like the
back of their own hand are sometimes a little casual about navigation lights. Radars perform
poorly in areas where the land is close on both sides because of bounce and echo, and even
those designed for anti-collision are susceptible to land shadow and clutter. It's likely
just too many ships in too little water.
Something that has always seemed to me like a tremendous vulnerability for terrorism,
though, is US airports that were either built right in the middle of a city, or the city grew
up around them so that you have a parade of airliners passing all day long right over the
rooftops of residential buildings. San Diego International is a classic example, only 3 miles
from downtown San Diego.
In a landing pattern an airliner cannot easily maneuver, and its glide path to the runway
is as predictable as sunset.
And it's flying right over your head, as you are crouched on the rooftop with your
shoulder-launched Stinger or whatever. You could almost throw a potato and hit it. If I were
in charge of airport security, that'd make me nervous.
The US Navy has relieved the commander of US 7th fleet after a destroyer collided with
a merchant vessel east of the Malacca Strait. It was the fourth time a US warship has been
involved in a collision in the Pacific theater this year.
Seems to be more of a PR move to me as there appears to be a huge bureaucratic distance
from those more directly responsible for inadequate training, improper staff assignments,
etc. that may have led to the accidents.
Very true and the command crew has been relieved of duties but this guy is the admiral of the
7th fleet. I understand that it is a 2-year "billet" so he could have hardly been on the job
long enough to have a positive or negative impact on the skill level and readiness of the
crew in question.
One possible explanation is that his earlier assignments were in the areas that appear to
be deficient. Or, they just needed to make a high level example to satisfy the public that
something is being done. Not an expert here at all, just trying to understand the motivations
of the action.
There are also ten families who lost loved ones in the collision with the oil tanker Alnic
plus another five sailors who will probably sue for compensation for injuries they suffered
during the crash. Ten deaths are likely to concentrate the mind on finding ways to head off
possible criminal or civil lawsuits brought by the families.
Well, it's hard to see what CO 7th Fleet could have done differently – sail with every
ship and stand the bridge watch for the whole trip? Nobody knows yet what caused these
crashes, and it has much of the smell of action taken to reassure the public that something
is being done, although that something might be neither useful or productive.
I suppose he might have simply imposed a unilateral moratorium on US naval operations in
the Pacific. Nobody would have gotten hurt or killed, and those ships would be undamaged. But
I suspect he might have incurred the wrath of the upper echelon in that case, too.
Neither do I, but may I posit a theory? In short, the USN is not up to the task. In long,
the
Pivot to China
aka the
Containment of China and protecting the USA's global
hegemony
requires extensive logistical, human etc.changes that the USN is struggling to
manage, and that is even before you take note of the geography and risks associated with
gigantic choke points such as the Malacca Straits through which a huge number of ships pass,
depth of water etc.
It's one thing to say your are going to do something, it is an entirely different thing to
actually do it. Not to mention that China has been pushing back (EP-3 Ares II shoot down for
starters).
It also seems to me rather a sign of arrogance and hubris. After all, when you are the
world's greatest power it clearly shouldn't be difficult to move your military around
easily.
No one is fooled by cheap words and open chest beating.
I hope it does not occur to them that what they need, at least according to the visionary
Mahan, is local bases to support their logistics and operations. Because that is going to be
a non-starter from the Chinese point of view. A sign that this weakness is understood would
be a significant buildup of naval forces at Yokosuka, Sasebo and Okinawa.
Opium production in Afghanistan has been on the rise since U.S. occupation started in 2001.[3]
Based on UNODC data, opium poppy cultivation was more in each of the growing seasons in the periods
between 2004 and 2007 than in any one year during Taliban rule. More land is now used for opium
in Afghanistan than is used for coca cultivation in Latin America. In 2007, 93% of the non-pharmaceutical-grade
opiates on the world market originated in Afghanistan.[4] This amounts to an export value of about
$4 billion, with a quarter being earned by opium farmers and the rest going to district officials,
insurgents, warlords, and drug traffickers.[5] In the seven years (1994–2000) prior to a Taliban
opium ban, the Afghan farmers' share of gross income from opium was divided among 200,000 families.[6]
It was alleged by the Soviets on multiple occasions that American CIA agents were helping
smuggle opium out of Afghanistan, either into the West, in order to raise money for the Afghan
resistance, or into the Soviet Union, in order to weaken it through drug addiction. According
to Alfred McCoy, the CIA supported various Afghan drug lords, for instance Gulbuddin Hekmatyar[12]
and others such as Haji Ayub Afridi.
n July 2000, Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar, collaborating with the United Nations
to eradicate heroin production in Afghanistan, declared that growing poppies was un-Islamic, resulting
in one of the world's most successful anti-drug campaigns. The Taliban enforced a ban on poppy
farming via threats, forced eradication, and public punishment of transgressors. The result was
a 99% reduction in the area of opium poppy farming in Taliban-controlled areas, roughly three
quarters of the world's supply of heroin at the time.[16] The ban was effective only briefly due
to the deposition of the Taliban in 2002.
Apparently, growing poppies for opium is unIslamic but not unAmerican. Which group is backwards
and criminal? Its all so confusing .
@Greg Bacon
Isn't it amazing that as soon as Trump announced four more years of war
against Afghanistan, the European terror attacks/False Flags stopped?
You'd think that by Trump announcing more war against Afghans, that would enrage the
'jihadists'
to pull off more terror attacks, but they faded into nothing.
Amazing, simply amazing!
"We can see attempts to stir up ethnic conflict in the country Cases of unidentified
helicopter flights to territory controlled by extremists in other northern provinces of
Afghanistan are also recorded. For example, there is evidence that on August 8, four
helicopters made flights from the airbase of the Afghan National Army's 209th corps in
Mazar-i-Sharif to the area captured by the militants in the Aqcha district of the Jowzjan
province. It is noteworthy that witnesses of these flights began to fall off the radar of law
enforcement agencies. It seems that the command of the NATO forces controlling the Afghan sky
stubbornly refuses to notice these incidents."
http://blogs.rediff.com/mkbhadrakumar/2017/08/20/afghanistan-is-ripe-for-proxy-war/
Ambassador Zamir Kabulov, Russian presidential envoy to Afghanistan, said recently that if
the Afghan government and the US are unable to counter the IS threat, Russia will resort to
military force. Kabulov disclosed that Russia has raised in the UN Security Council the air
dropping of supplies for the IS fighters in at least three provinces in northern Afghanistan
by unidentified aircraft
http://blogs.rediff.com/mkbhadrakumar/2017/08/20/afghanistan-is-ripe-for-proxy-war/
"On Thursday, Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson raised the bar by alleging that
"foreign fighters" who were transferred by "unknown helicopters" have perpetrated a massacre
of Hazara Shias in the Sar-e-Pol province in northern Afghanistan. The spokesperson said:
We can see attempts to stir up ethnic conflict in the country Cases of unidentified
helicopter flights to territory controlled by extremists in other northern provinces of
Afghanistan are also recorded. For example, there is evidence that on August 8, "
The rare occasion the media swoons over Trump: when he embraces war
a president delivering a major address on troop deployments for the longest war in
American history and reporters can only think about optics, not policy. The Twitter
commentary treats Trump's address as something like a beauty pageant.
War, though, triggers something else in the reporter class. As the disgraced Brian
Williams, swooning over cruise missiles laying waste to a Syrian airfield, showed us a few
months back,
There is nothing quite as presidential, in Washington's eyes, as a war. A war allows the
most shallow, flailing and destructive presidencies to be redeemed in the eyes of the media,
at least for a
day://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/22/positive-trump-media-coverage-when-he-embraces-war
From the point of view of the DPRK a 'double freeze' would be a trap. It would stymie it's
development of a nuclear deterrent even though the US could renege at any time. It wants that
deterrent to settle the issue of it's vulnerability once and for all after living under the
threat of nuclear attack since the end of the war. It's going to go ahead and develop it and
there's nothing anyone else can do about it. Any attempt to attack it is now recognized as
being probably catastrophic and a loser for the US.
Insofar as the Pashtun being 40% of the population of Afghanistan there's many more on the
other side of the Durand line which they don't recognize and who add to their weight. Unlike
AQ and IS the Taliban are a local product and doesn't export well. May as well recognize
reality, the Taliban are on their second-third generation and aren't going anywhere. Trying
to oust them with some new tricks is futile.
Thierry Meyssan thinks the world doesn't yet understand the US' Imperial Strategy
following 9/11. It is jauntily summarized by Pepe as "Empire of Chaos", as if it was trying
to be an Empire, but somehow prevented from properly becoming one because of the bumbling
fools that are running it. Much more sinister than that, American Imperial Strategy has chaos
at its core, and it's deadly serious about it.
This strategy, radically new, was taught by Thomas P. M. Barnett following 11-September
2001. It was publicly revealed and exposed in March 2003 – that is, just before the
war against Iraq! in an article in Esquire, then in the eponym book, The Pentagon's New
Map. However, such a strategy appears so cruel in design, that no one imagined it could be
implemented.
Imperialism seeks to divide the world in two. One part will be a stable area which profits
from the system while in the other part a terrifying chaos will reign. This other will be a
zone, where all thought of resisting has been wiped it; where every thought is fixated on
surviving; an area where the multinationals can extract raw materials which they need
without any duty to account to anyone.
He goes on to maintain that Assad was the first leader to understand this strategy, and
his development of a counter strategy is the principle reason for his continued, indeed
enhanced reign. If they didn't then, I have a feeling that Putin & Xi now also
understand, and that some of their counter-strategies are becoming visible.
Clearly against his inclinations, Trump has succumbed to the Deep State on the Afghanistan
war – the Jews and the generals have overcome America's best interests. Generals always
want war – it is the Jews who are the 800-pound gorilla in America's foreign
policy.
Leaving Afghanistan is not a viable alternative because there is no organized American
peace movement. Trump just cannot make the move by himself – he has ZERO organized
political backing to do so.
We can thank the Jews for this – they are 100% guilty and responsible for the US
government's endless war footing. The Jews enforce their war agenda in a thousand diverse
ways.
The Jew media will not give a peace movement the interest that it needs to get started.
The Jew control of higher education will not give their students the freedom and
encouragement that it takes to make peace. Jew divide and conquer feminization, demands women
be part of war – not to be their natural selves and opposed war.
The Jew is the enemy of peace in our times – period.
"... Trump needs a war that will benefit him. He tried to pick a fight with China over some islands. Didn't work. He tried to pick a fight with North Korea. Didn't work. Now, he's trying his hand in Afghanistan. That won't work either. State parties always lose guerrilla wars. Trump is slowly "slouching" towards the one and only war that he can win and that will benefit him: the "war on Putin". ..."
"... If he can get Putin out of Ukraine, one way or the other, (Syria is just a means to that end), he will kill Russiagate stone dead before it widens into a general investigation of his business links to Russia, his taxes and the amount of taxpayers' money he is, in effect, pouring into his own pocket by staying weekend after weekend in resorts he himself owns. ..."
On the GWOT (Global War on Terror) front, al-Qaeda would not even exist if the late Dr Zbig "Grand
Chessboard" Brzezinski had not come up with the idea of a sprawling, well-weaponized private army
of demented jihadis-cum-tribal Afghans fighting the communist government in Kabul during the 1980s.
Add to this the myth that the Pentagon needs to be on the ground in Afghanistan to prevent jihadis
from attacking America. Al-Qaeda is extinct in Afghanistan. And Daesh does not need territory to
concoct/project its DIY jihad.
When the myth of the US in Afghanistan as a categorical imperative is exposed, that may unveil
what this is all about: business.
And we're not even talking about who really profits from large-scale opium/heroin trade.
Two months ago the Afghan ambassador to Washington, Hamdullah Mohib, was breathlessly spinning
how "President Trump is keenly interested in Afghanistan's economic potential", as in "our estimated
$1 trillion in copper, iron ore, rare-earth elements, aluminum, gold, silver, zinc, mercury and lithium".
This led to the proverbial unnamed "US officials" telling Reuters last month that what Trump wants
is for the US to demand some of that mineral wealth in exchange for "assisting" Kabul.
A US Geological Survey study a decade ago did identify potential Afghan mineral wealth – gold,
silver, platinum, iron ore, uranium, zinc, tantalum, bauxite, coal, natural gas and copper – worth
as much as US$1 trillion, with much spin dedicated to Afghanistan as "the Saudi Arabia of lithium".
And the competition – once again, China – is already there, facing myriad infrastructure and red-tape
problems, but concentrated on incorporating Afghanistan, long-term, into the New Silk Roads, aka
Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), along with its security cooperation arm, the Shanghai Cooperation
Organization.
It's no secret the Russia-China strategic partnership wants an Afghan solution hatched by Afghans
and supervised by the SCO (of which Afghanistan is an observer and future full member). So from the
point of view of neocon/neoliberalcon elements of the War Party in Washington, Afghanistan only makes
sense as a forward base to harass/stall/thwart BRI.
What Russia and China want for Afghanistan – yet another node in the process of Eurasia integration
– is not much different from what Russia, China and South Korea want for North Korea: increased connectivity
as in a future Trans-Korean Railway linked to the Trans-Siberian.
As for Washington and the proverbially bombastic, failed futurists across the Beltway, do they
even know what is the end game of "investing" in two never-ending wars with no visible benefits?
@Greg BaconIsn't it amazing that as soon as Trump announced four more years of war against
Afghanistan, the European terror attacks/False Flags stopped?
You'd think that by Trump announcing more war against Afghans, that would enrage the 'jihadists' to pull off more terror attacks, but they faded into nothing.
Amazing, simply amazing! Russia is accusing US and NATO of bringing ISIS fighters to Afghanistan
-according to Indian ex diplomat
"We can see attempts to stir up ethnic conflict in the country Cases of unidentified helicopter
flights to territory controlled by extremists in other northern provinces of Afghanistan are also
recorded. For example, there is evidence that on August 8, four helicopters made flights from
the airbase of the Afghan National Army's 209th corps in Mazar-i-Sharif to the area captured by
the militants in the Aqcha district of the Jowzjan province. It is noteworthy that witnesses of
these flights began to fall off the radar of law enforcement agencies. It seems that the command
of the NATO forces controlling the Afghan sky stubbornly refuses to notice these incidents."
http://blogs.rediff.com/mkbhadrakumar/2017/08/20/afghanistan-is-ripe-for-proxy-war/
Ambassador Zamir Kabulov, Russian presidential envoy to Afghanistan, said recently that if
the Afghan government and the US are unable to counter the IS threat, Russia will resort to military
force. Kabulov disclosed that Russia has raised in the UN Security Council the air dropping of
supplies for the IS fighters in at least three provinces in northern Afghanistan by unidentified
aircraft
http://blogs.rediff.com/mkbhadrakumar/2017/08/20/afghanistan-is-ripe-for-proxy-war/
"On Thursday, Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson raised the bar by alleging that "foreign
fighters" who were transferred by "unknown helicopters" have perpetrated a massacre of Hazara
Shias in the Sar-e-Pol province in northern Afghanistan. The spokesperson said:
We can see attempts to stir up ethnic conflict in the country Cases of unidentified helicopter
flights to territory controlled by extremists in other northern provinces of Afghanistan are also
recorded. For example, there is evidence that on August 8, "
The rare occasion the media swoons over Trump: when he embraces war
a president delivering a major address on troop deployments for the longest war in American
history and reporters can only think about optics, not policy. The Twitter commentary treats Trump's
address as something like a beauty pageant.
War, though, triggers something else in the reporter class. As the disgraced Brian Williams,
swooning over cruise missiles laying waste to a Syrian airfield, showed us a few months back,
There is nothing quite as presidential, in Washington's eyes, as a war. A war allows the most
shallow, flailing and destructive presidencies to be redeemed in the eyes of the media, at least
for a day://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/22/positive-trump-media-coverage-when-he-embraces-war
Scraping the bottom of the pan. All for each, all for own. The smallest of resources should
be scooped up. It turns into pathetic survivalism. There is a 'commoner' version, a survival rifle,
a bunker, and half a ton of dried beans and cans.
The world population must be let go, the concept of growth must be let go, No longer can the
dress be fitted to the obese lady. The lady has to shrink.
"As for Washington and the proverbially bombastic, failed futurists across the Beltway,
do they even know what is the end game of "investing" in two never-ending wars with no visible
benefits?"
That's the beauty: There is no end game. it's a never-ending gravy-train of policy studies,
think-tank research, strategy-consulting, and weapons R&D and procurement,with a smattering of
foreign aid and economic development money thrown in. Everybody wins well, everybody who matters.
What's new ?
Harry Elmer Barnes, ed., 'Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace, A critical examination of the foreign
policy of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and its aftermath', Caldwell, Idaho, 1953
Isn't it amazing that as soon as Trump announced four more years of war against Afghanistan,
the European terror attacks/False Flags stopped?
You'd think that by Trump announcing more war against Afghans, that would enrage the 'jihadists' to pull off more terror attacks, but they faded into nothing.
The Zionist neocon agenda is to keep us in a state of perpetual fear and in perpetual wars
for as George Orwell said , wars are not meant to be won they are meant to keep the state in control
and keep the proles in a state of continual poverty and fear.
There will be wars forever until and unless the Zionist neocon control over America is ended
and as of now it appears there is no end in sight. England invaded Afghanistan in 1838 and did
not leave until 1919 so as a template the Zionist neocons have another 64 years to go defending
their CIA and MOSSAD drug running and spilling American blood in Afghanistan.
The "US" didn't even win that one. The main winners were the banksters and corporatists along
with a few politicians and the big Reds of the time. The real winners were those who supported
huge centralized bureaucracies while the big losers were those who valued political and economic
freedom, and those who desired national sovereignty in something more than name only.
If, by "US" one includes the middle class including small businessmen yer talking a net loss
in what Churchill called the unnecessary war. Unnecessary implies that few of the "deplorables"
"won."
As always, Mr Escobar makes too much of a play of "the Russia-China strategic partnership".
If anything, shouldn't it be "China-Russia"? China has ten times Russia's population and is the
rising power of this century. Russia is a declining cold war dinosaur, the largest remnant of
the old Soviet Union. Logically, China should be the dominant party in whatever "strategic partnership"
may exist between them. As always, he makes a series of unsubstantiated claims, all of which lead
to the conclusion that Putin is bound to "win" because he has China in his pocket.
Trump needs a war that will benefit him. He tried to pick a fight with China over some
islands. Didn't work. He tried to pick a fight with North Korea. Didn't work. Now, he's trying
his hand in Afghanistan. That won't work either. State parties always lose guerrilla wars. Trump
is slowly "slouching" towards the one and only war that he can win and that will benefit him:
the "war on Putin".
If he can get Putin out of Ukraine, one way or the other, (Syria is just a means to that
end), he will kill Russiagate stone dead before it widens into a general investigation of his
business links to Russia, his taxes and the amount of taxpayers' money he is, in effect, pouring
into his own pocket by staying weekend after weekend in resorts he himself owns.
Opium production in Afghanistan has been on the rise since U.S. occupation started in 2001.[3]
Based on UNODC data, opium poppy cultivation was more in each of the growing seasons in the periods
between 2004 and 2007 than in any one year during Taliban rule. More land is now used for opium
in Afghanistan than is used for coca cultivation in Latin America. In 2007, 93% of the non-pharmaceutical-grade
opiates on the world market originated in Afghanistan.[4] This amounts to an export value of about
$4 billion, with a quarter being earned by opium farmers and the rest going to district officials,
insurgents, warlords, and drug traffickers.[5] In the seven years (1994–2000) prior to a Taliban
opium ban, the Afghan farmers' share of gross income from opium was divided among 200,000 families.[6]
It was alleged by the Soviets on multiple occasions that American CIA agents were helping
smuggle opium out of Afghanistan, either into the West, in order to raise money for the Afghan
resistance, or into the Soviet Union, in order to weaken it through drug addiction. According
to Alfred McCoy, the CIA supported various Afghan drug lords, for instance Gulbuddin Hekmatyar[12]
and others such as Haji Ayub Afridi.
n July 2000, Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar, collaborating with the United Nations
to eradicate heroin production in Afghanistan, declared that growing poppies was un-Islamic, resulting
in one of the world's most successful anti-drug campaigns. The Taliban enforced a ban on poppy
farming via threats, forced eradication, and public punishment of transgressors. The result was
a 99% reduction in the area of opium poppy farming in Taliban-controlled areas, roughly three
quarters of the world's supply of heroin at the time.[16] The ban was effective only briefly due
to the deposition of the Taliban in 2002.
Apparently, growing poppies for opium is unIslamic but not unAmerican. Which group is backwards
and criminal? Its all so confusing .
@Greg Bacon
Isn't it amazing that as soon as Trump announced four more years of war
against Afghanistan, the European terror attacks/False Flags stopped?
You'd think that by Trump announcing more war against Afghans, that would enrage the
'jihadists'
to pull off more terror attacks, but they faded into nothing.
Amazing, simply amazing!
"We can see attempts to stir up ethnic conflict in the country Cases of unidentified
helicopter flights to territory controlled by extremists in other northern provinces of
Afghanistan are also recorded. For example, there is evidence that on August 8, four
helicopters made flights from the airbase of the Afghan National Army's 209th corps in
Mazar-i-Sharif to the area captured by the militants in the Aqcha district of the Jowzjan
province. It is noteworthy that witnesses of these flights began to fall off the radar of law
enforcement agencies. It seems that the command of the NATO forces controlling the Afghan sky
stubbornly refuses to notice these incidents."
http://blogs.rediff.com/mkbhadrakumar/2017/08/20/afghanistan-is-ripe-for-proxy-war/
Ambassador Zamir Kabulov, Russian presidential envoy to Afghanistan, said recently that if
the Afghan government and the US are unable to counter the IS threat, Russia will resort to
military force. Kabulov disclosed that Russia has raised in the UN Security Council the air
dropping of supplies for the IS fighters in at least three provinces in northern Afghanistan
by unidentified aircraft
http://blogs.rediff.com/mkbhadrakumar/2017/08/20/afghanistan-is-ripe-for-proxy-war/
"On Thursday, Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson raised the bar by alleging that
"foreign fighters" who were transferred by "unknown helicopters" have perpetrated a massacre
of Hazara Shias in the Sar-e-Pol province in northern Afghanistan. The spokesperson said:
We can see attempts to stir up ethnic conflict in the country Cases of unidentified
helicopter flights to territory controlled by extremists in other northern provinces of
Afghanistan are also recorded. For example, there is evidence that on August 8, "
The rare occasion the media swoons over Trump: when he embraces war
a president delivering a major address on troop deployments for the longest war in
American history and reporters can only think about optics, not policy. The Twitter
commentary treats Trump's address as something like a beauty pageant.
War, though, triggers something else in the reporter class. As the disgraced Brian
Williams, swooning over cruise missiles laying waste to a Syrian airfield, showed us a few
months back,
There is nothing quite as presidential, in Washington's eyes, as a war. A war allows the
most shallow, flailing and destructive presidencies to be redeemed in the eyes of the media,
at least for a
day://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/22/positive-trump-media-coverage-when-he-embraces-war
From the point of view of the DPRK a 'double freeze' would be a trap. It would stymie it's
development of a nuclear deterrent even though the US could renege at any time. It wants that
deterrent to settle the issue of it's vulnerability once and for all after living under the
threat of nuclear attack since the end of the war. It's going to go ahead and develop it and
there's nothing anyone else can do about it. Any attempt to attack it is now recognized as
being probably catastrophic and a loser for the US.
Insofar as the Pashtun being 40% of the population of Afghanistan there's many more on the
other side of the Durand line which they don't recognize and who add to their weight. Unlike
AQ and IS the Taliban are a local product and doesn't export well. May as well recognize
reality, the Taliban are on their second-third generation and aren't going anywhere. Trying
to oust them with some new tricks is futile.
Thierry Meyssan thinks the world doesn't yet understand the US' Imperial Strategy
following 9/11. It is jauntily summarized by Pepe as "Empire of Chaos", as if it was trying
to be an Empire, but somehow prevented from properly becoming one because of the bumbling
fools that are running it. Much more sinister than that, American Imperial Strategy has chaos
at its core, and it's deadly serious about it.
This strategy, radically new, was taught by Thomas P. M. Barnett following 11-September
2001. It was publicly revealed and exposed in March 2003 – that is, just before the
war against Iraq! in an article in Esquire, then in the eponym book, The Pentagon's New
Map. However, such a strategy appears so cruel in design, that no one imagined it could be
implemented.
Imperialism seeks to divide the world in two. One part will be a stable area which profits
from the system while in the other part a terrifying chaos will reign. This other will be a
zone, where all thought of resisting has been wiped it; where every thought is fixated on
surviving; an area where the multinationals can extract raw materials which they need
without any duty to account to anyone.
He goes on to maintain that Assad was the first leader to understand this strategy, and
his development of a counter strategy is the principle reason for his continued, indeed
enhanced reign. If they didn't then, I have a feeling that Putin & Xi now also
understand, and that some of their counter-strategies are becoming visible.
Clearly against his inclinations, Trump has succumbed to the Deep State on the Afghanistan
war – the Jews and the generals have overcome America's best interests. Generals always
want war – it is the Jews who are the 800-pound gorilla in America's foreign
policy.
Leaving Afghanistan is not a viable alternative because there is no organized American
peace movement. Trump just cannot make the move by himself – he has ZERO organized
political backing to do so.
We can thank the Jews for this – they are 100% guilty and responsible for the US
government's endless war footing. The Jews enforce their war agenda in a thousand diverse
ways.
The Jew media will not give a peace movement the interest that it needs to get started.
The Jew control of higher education will not give their students the freedom and
encouragement that it takes to make peace. Jew divide and conquer feminization, demands women
be part of war – not to be their natural selves and opposed war.
The Jew is the enemy of peace in our times – period.
"... Trump needs a war that will benefit him. He tried to pick a fight with China over some islands. Didn't work. He tried to pick a fight with North Korea. Didn't work. Now, he's trying his hand in Afghanistan. That won't work either. State parties always lose guerrilla wars. Trump is slowly "slouching" towards the one and only war that he can win and that will benefit him: the "war on Putin". ..."
"... If he can get Putin out of Ukraine, one way or the other, (Syria is just a means to that end), he will kill Russiagate stone dead before it widens into a general investigation of his business links to Russia, his taxes and the amount of taxpayers' money he is, in effect, pouring into his own pocket by staying weekend after weekend in resorts he himself owns. ..."
On the GWOT (Global War on Terror) front, al-Qaeda would not even exist if the late Dr Zbig "Grand
Chessboard" Brzezinski had not come up with the idea of a sprawling, well-weaponized private army
of demented jihadis-cum-tribal Afghans fighting the communist government in Kabul during the 1980s.
Add to this the myth that the Pentagon needs to be on the ground in Afghanistan to prevent jihadis
from attacking America. Al-Qaeda is extinct in Afghanistan. And Daesh does not need territory to
concoct/project its DIY jihad.
When the myth of the US in Afghanistan as a categorical imperative is exposed, that may unveil
what this is all about: business.
And we're not even talking about who really profits from large-scale opium/heroin trade.
Two months ago the Afghan ambassador to Washington, Hamdullah Mohib, was breathlessly spinning
how "President Trump is keenly interested in Afghanistan's economic potential", as in "our estimated
$1 trillion in copper, iron ore, rare-earth elements, aluminum, gold, silver, zinc, mercury and lithium".
This led to the proverbial unnamed "US officials" telling Reuters last month that what Trump wants
is for the US to demand some of that mineral wealth in exchange for "assisting" Kabul.
A US Geological Survey study a decade ago did identify potential Afghan mineral wealth – gold,
silver, platinum, iron ore, uranium, zinc, tantalum, bauxite, coal, natural gas and copper – worth
as much as US$1 trillion, with much spin dedicated to Afghanistan as "the Saudi Arabia of lithium".
And the competition – once again, China – is already there, facing myriad infrastructure and red-tape
problems, but concentrated on incorporating Afghanistan, long-term, into the New Silk Roads, aka
Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), along with its security cooperation arm, the Shanghai Cooperation
Organization.
It's no secret the Russia-China strategic partnership wants an Afghan solution hatched by Afghans
and supervised by the SCO (of which Afghanistan is an observer and future full member). So from the
point of view of neocon/neoliberalcon elements of the War Party in Washington, Afghanistan only makes
sense as a forward base to harass/stall/thwart BRI.
What Russia and China want for Afghanistan – yet another node in the process of Eurasia integration
– is not much different from what Russia, China and South Korea want for North Korea: increased connectivity
as in a future Trans-Korean Railway linked to the Trans-Siberian.
As for Washington and the proverbially bombastic, failed futurists across the Beltway, do they
even know what is the end game of "investing" in two never-ending wars with no visible benefits?
@Greg BaconIsn't it amazing that as soon as Trump announced four more years of war against
Afghanistan, the European terror attacks/False Flags stopped?
You'd think that by Trump announcing more war against Afghans, that would enrage the 'jihadists' to pull off more terror attacks, but they faded into nothing.
Amazing, simply amazing! Russia is accusing US and NATO of bringing ISIS fighters to Afghanistan
-according to Indian ex diplomat
"We can see attempts to stir up ethnic conflict in the country Cases of unidentified helicopter
flights to territory controlled by extremists in other northern provinces of Afghanistan are also
recorded. For example, there is evidence that on August 8, four helicopters made flights from
the airbase of the Afghan National Army's 209th corps in Mazar-i-Sharif to the area captured by
the militants in the Aqcha district of the Jowzjan province. It is noteworthy that witnesses of
these flights began to fall off the radar of law enforcement agencies. It seems that the command
of the NATO forces controlling the Afghan sky stubbornly refuses to notice these incidents."
http://blogs.rediff.com/mkbhadrakumar/2017/08/20/afghanistan-is-ripe-for-proxy-war/
Ambassador Zamir Kabulov, Russian presidential envoy to Afghanistan, said recently that if
the Afghan government and the US are unable to counter the IS threat, Russia will resort to military
force. Kabulov disclosed that Russia has raised in the UN Security Council the air dropping of
supplies for the IS fighters in at least three provinces in northern Afghanistan by unidentified
aircraft
http://blogs.rediff.com/mkbhadrakumar/2017/08/20/afghanistan-is-ripe-for-proxy-war/
"On Thursday, Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson raised the bar by alleging that "foreign
fighters" who were transferred by "unknown helicopters" have perpetrated a massacre of Hazara
Shias in the Sar-e-Pol province in northern Afghanistan. The spokesperson said:
We can see attempts to stir up ethnic conflict in the country Cases of unidentified helicopter
flights to territory controlled by extremists in other northern provinces of Afghanistan are also
recorded. For example, there is evidence that on August 8, "
The rare occasion the media swoons over Trump: when he embraces war
a president delivering a major address on troop deployments for the longest war in American
history and reporters can only think about optics, not policy. The Twitter commentary treats Trump's
address as something like a beauty pageant.
War, though, triggers something else in the reporter class. As the disgraced Brian Williams,
swooning over cruise missiles laying waste to a Syrian airfield, showed us a few months back,
There is nothing quite as presidential, in Washington's eyes, as a war. A war allows the most
shallow, flailing and destructive presidencies to be redeemed in the eyes of the media, at least
for a day://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/22/positive-trump-media-coverage-when-he-embraces-war
Scraping the bottom of the pan. All for each, all for own. The smallest of resources should
be scooped up. It turns into pathetic survivalism. There is a 'commoner' version, a survival rifle,
a bunker, and half a ton of dried beans and cans.
The world population must be let go, the concept of growth must be let go, No longer can the
dress be fitted to the obese lady. The lady has to shrink.
"As for Washington and the proverbially bombastic, failed futurists across the Beltway,
do they even know what is the end game of "investing" in two never-ending wars with no visible
benefits?"
That's the beauty: There is no end game. it's a never-ending gravy-train of policy studies,
think-tank research, strategy-consulting, and weapons R&D and procurement,with a smattering of
foreign aid and economic development money thrown in. Everybody wins well, everybody who matters.
What's new ?
Harry Elmer Barnes, ed., 'Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace, A critical examination of the foreign
policy of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and its aftermath', Caldwell, Idaho, 1953
Isn't it amazing that as soon as Trump announced four more years of war against Afghanistan,
the European terror attacks/False Flags stopped?
You'd think that by Trump announcing more war against Afghans, that would enrage the 'jihadists' to pull off more terror attacks, but they faded into nothing.
The Zionist neocon agenda is to keep us in a state of perpetual fear and in perpetual wars
for as George Orwell said , wars are not meant to be won they are meant to keep the state in control
and keep the proles in a state of continual poverty and fear.
There will be wars forever until and unless the Zionist neocon control over America is ended
and as of now it appears there is no end in sight. England invaded Afghanistan in 1838 and did
not leave until 1919 so as a template the Zionist neocons have another 64 years to go defending
their CIA and MOSSAD drug running and spilling American blood in Afghanistan.
The "US" didn't even win that one. The main winners were the banksters and corporatists along
with a few politicians and the big Reds of the time. The real winners were those who supported
huge centralized bureaucracies while the big losers were those who valued political and economic
freedom, and those who desired national sovereignty in something more than name only.
If, by "US" one includes the middle class including small businessmen yer talking a net loss
in what Churchill called the unnecessary war. Unnecessary implies that few of the "deplorables"
"won."
As always, Mr Escobar makes too much of a play of "the Russia-China strategic partnership".
If anything, shouldn't it be "China-Russia"? China has ten times Russia's population and is the
rising power of this century. Russia is a declining cold war dinosaur, the largest remnant of
the old Soviet Union. Logically, China should be the dominant party in whatever "strategic partnership"
may exist between them. As always, he makes a series of unsubstantiated claims, all of which lead
to the conclusion that Putin is bound to "win" because he has China in his pocket.
Trump needs a war that will benefit him. He tried to pick a fight with China over some
islands. Didn't work. He tried to pick a fight with North Korea. Didn't work. Now, he's trying
his hand in Afghanistan. That won't work either. State parties always lose guerrilla wars. Trump
is slowly "slouching" towards the one and only war that he can win and that will benefit him:
the "war on Putin".
If he can get Putin out of Ukraine, one way or the other, (Syria is just a means to that
end), he will kill Russiagate stone dead before it widens into a general investigation of his
business links to Russia, his taxes and the amount of taxpayers' money he is, in effect, pouring
into his own pocket by staying weekend after weekend in resorts he himself owns.
The Head of the Pentagon, James Mattis is on currently a visit to Kiev.
"If we talk about defensive lethal weapons, we are considering this issue," he said.
According to the US Secretary of Defense, recommendations on this issue will be presented
following the visit.
"I will now return to my place of work, and based on what I saw and what I learned, I will, of
course, inform the country's leadership about very specific things that I will recommend to
implement," he said.
He also said that the US has already approved the supply of military equipment to the Ukraine
for $ 175 million.
Earlier, US Senator John McCain said that Mattis's visit to Ukraine opens up the possibility
for Washington to begin deliveries of lethal weapons to Kiev. According to McCain, the
Ukrainian authorities need such assistance to "protect the sovereignty and territorial
integrity of the country."
The senator also said that US President Donald Trump took the first "significant step" to
contain Russia by imposing new sanctions against it.
"... During his visit to Kiev, Mattis is expected to reassure the country's leaders that the U.S. remains opposed to Russia's 2014 annexation of Crimea, according to The Associated Press . ..."
John McCain (R-Ariz.) is again
urging President Trump to provide lethal aid to Ukraine as Defense Secretary
James Mattis arrives in the
country for a meeting with its president and top defense official.
"It is long past time for the United States to provide Ukraine the defensive lethal assistance
it needs to deter and defend against further Russian aggression," McCain, the chairman of the powerful
Senate Armed Services Committee, said in a statement Wednesday.
The senator's renewed calls for the U.S. to provide lethal weaponry to Ukraine as it battles pro-Russia
separatists in the eastern Donbas region comes two days after Trump announced
a new broad strategy for Afghanistan.
With the change of course in Afghanistan, McCain said, Trump "now has the same opportunity with
regard to Ukraine."
The senior Arizona Republican argued that providing weapons to Ukraine "is not opposed to a peaceful
resolution of this conflict -- it is essential to achieving it."
"As long as the status quo remains, Russia has no reason to change its behavior, and we should
only expect more violence and more death," he said.
Russia has denied providing support to the separatists, but U.S. officials have claimed otherwise.
The president already has the authority to send lethal assistance to Ukraine under the annual
defense policy bill. But former President
Barack Obama chose instead
to send only nonlethal assistance to the country.
During his visit to Kiev, Mattis is expected to reassure the country's leaders that the U.S.
remains opposed to Russia's 2014 annexation of Crimea, according to
The Associated
Press .
Trump entered office in January with hopes of improving the relationship between the U.S. and
Russia. But ties have grown tense amid ongoing investigations into Russia's role in the 2016 election
and possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Moscow.
Also fueling tensions between the two countries is a sanctions package signed into law earlier
this month that penalizes Russia for its efforts to meddle in the election. Trump reluctantly signed
the measures after they were overwhelmingly passed by Congress.
While in some cases, like Colombia, the US imperialists still
search vainly for something to justify endless intervention through paramilitaries,
civil wars, orchestrated coups, etc., they have completely retired from this business concerning,
for example, Afghanistan.
The following cynical, warmongering hawk, completely demolished every pretext and ethics, concerning
Afghanistan, through mainstream media. Speaking on MSNBC and Rachel Maddow, retired Colonel Jack
Jacobs said: I'm gonna be facetious(!), but the first conclusion that came to my mind, is that we're going
now harvest poppies and we're going to sell them(!), and that's how we're going to fund it(!), which
is exactly what the Taliban is doing. But no, it sounds like we are going to be involved in extricating, releasing(!!!) mineral wealth,
and there is substantial mineral wealth, and we are going to take that out of Afghanistan .
And the routine (lately) cheap justification follows: The Chinese are already there, doing that, and I think the United States is concerned that
we are not getting our share(!!!)
Then Maddow asks: Under US military ethics(!?), can the US government go in with the protection of US soldiers and
extract the wealth of another country?
The response: Well, we can, we've done it before, there is no reason why we can't do it again (!!!!!!)
Watch the video and very spot-on commending by the hosts of the Jimmy Dore show:
Earlier , Donald Trump not only admitted cynically the real reason behind the US
invasion in Afghanistan, but proved that he is willing to expand the establishment agenda, through
the mainstream media.
Now, there is no doubt that the US army is the military branch of the US corporate neocolonialism.
By the way, China didn't invade or bombed any country ... dear bloody US hawks
Americans no longer fight to keep their shores safe,
Just to keep the jobs going in the arms making workplace.
Then they pretend to be gripped by some sort of political reflex,
But all they're doing is paying dues to the Military Industrial Complex.
The Military and
the Monetary, The Military and the Monetary, The Military and the Monetary. The Military and
the Monetary,
get together whenever they think its necessary,
They turn our brothers and sisters into mercenaries,
they are turning the planet into a cemetery.
The Military and the Monetary, use the media as intermediaries,
they are determined to keep the citizens secondary, they make so many decisions that are
arbitrary.
We're marching behind a commander in chief,
who is standing under a spotlight shaking like a leaf.
The Head of the Pentagon, James Mattis is on currently a visit to Kiev.
"If we talk about defensive lethal weapons, we are considering this issue," he said.
According to the US Secretary of Defense, recommendations on this issue will be presented
following the visit.
"I will now return to my place of work, and based on what I saw and what I learned, I will, of
course, inform the country's leadership about very specific things that I will recommend to
implement," he said.
He also said that the US has already approved the supply of military equipment to the Ukraine
for $ 175 million.
Earlier, US Senator John McCain said that Mattis's visit to Ukraine opens up the possibility
for Washington to begin deliveries of lethal weapons to Kiev. According to McCain, the
Ukrainian authorities need such assistance to "protect the sovereignty and territorial
integrity of the country."
The senator also said that US President Donald Trump took the first "significant step" to
contain Russia by imposing new sanctions against it.
"... During his visit to Kiev, Mattis is expected to reassure the country's leaders that the U.S. remains opposed to Russia's 2014 annexation of Crimea, according to The Associated Press . ..."
John McCain (R-Ariz.) is again
urging President Trump to provide lethal aid to Ukraine as Defense Secretary
James Mattis arrives in the
country for a meeting with its president and top defense official.
"It is long past time for the United States to provide Ukraine the defensive lethal assistance
it needs to deter and defend against further Russian aggression," McCain, the chairman of the powerful
Senate Armed Services Committee, said in a statement Wednesday.
The senator's renewed calls for the U.S. to provide lethal weaponry to Ukraine as it battles pro-Russia
separatists in the eastern Donbas region comes two days after Trump announced
a new broad strategy for Afghanistan.
With the change of course in Afghanistan, McCain said, Trump "now has the same opportunity with
regard to Ukraine."
The senior Arizona Republican argued that providing weapons to Ukraine "is not opposed to a peaceful
resolution of this conflict -- it is essential to achieving it."
"As long as the status quo remains, Russia has no reason to change its behavior, and we should
only expect more violence and more death," he said.
Russia has denied providing support to the separatists, but U.S. officials have claimed otherwise.
The president already has the authority to send lethal assistance to Ukraine under the annual
defense policy bill. But former President
Barack Obama chose instead
to send only nonlethal assistance to the country.
During his visit to Kiev, Mattis is expected to reassure the country's leaders that the U.S.
remains opposed to Russia's 2014 annexation of Crimea, according to
The Associated
Press .
Trump entered office in January with hopes of improving the relationship between the U.S. and
Russia. But ties have grown tense amid ongoing investigations into Russia's role in the 2016 election
and possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Moscow.
Also fueling tensions between the two countries is a sanctions package signed into law earlier
this month that penalizes Russia for its efforts to meddle in the election. Trump reluctantly signed
the measures after they were overwhelmingly passed by Congress.
While in some cases, like Colombia, the US imperialists still
search vainly for something to justify endless intervention through paramilitaries,
civil wars, orchestrated coups, etc., they have completely retired from this business concerning,
for example, Afghanistan.
The following cynical, warmongering hawk, completely demolished every pretext and ethics, concerning
Afghanistan, through mainstream media. Speaking on MSNBC and Rachel Maddow, retired Colonel Jack
Jacobs said: I'm gonna be facetious(!), but the first conclusion that came to my mind, is that we're going
now harvest poppies and we're going to sell them(!), and that's how we're going to fund it(!), which
is exactly what the Taliban is doing. But no, it sounds like we are going to be involved in extricating, releasing(!!!) mineral wealth,
and there is substantial mineral wealth, and we are going to take that out of Afghanistan .
And the routine (lately) cheap justification follows: The Chinese are already there, doing that, and I think the United States is concerned that
we are not getting our share(!!!)
Then Maddow asks: Under US military ethics(!?), can the US government go in with the protection of US soldiers and
extract the wealth of another country?
The response: Well, we can, we've done it before, there is no reason why we can't do it again (!!!!!!)
Watch the video and very spot-on commending by the hosts of the Jimmy Dore show:
Earlier , Donald Trump not only admitted cynically the real reason behind the US
invasion in Afghanistan, but proved that he is willing to expand the establishment agenda, through
the mainstream media.
Now, there is no doubt that the US army is the military branch of the US corporate neocolonialism.
By the way, China didn't invade or bombed any country ... dear bloody US hawks
Americans no longer fight to keep their shores safe,
Just to keep the jobs going in the arms making workplace.
Then they pretend to be gripped by some sort of political reflex,
But all they're doing is paying dues to the Military Industrial Complex.
The Military and
the Monetary, The Military and the Monetary, The Military and the Monetary. The Military and
the Monetary,
get together whenever they think its necessary,
They turn our brothers and sisters into mercenaries,
they are turning the planet into a cemetery.
The Military and the Monetary, use the media as intermediaries,
they are determined to keep the citizens secondary, they make so many decisions that are
arbitrary.
We're marching behind a commander in chief,
who is standing under a spotlight shaking like a leaf.
There has never been progress by the U.S. military in Afghanistan, unless you are asking the
U.S. military contractors or the Afghan drug barons, of whom an extremely large share are our
allies in the Afghan government, militias and security forces, there has only been suffering
and destruction. American politicians, pundits and generals will speak about "progress" made by
the 70,000 American troops put into Afghanistan by President Obama beginning in 2009, along
with an additional 30,000 European troops and 100,000 private contractors, however the hard and
awful true reality is that the war in Afghanistan has only escalated since 2009, never
stabilizing or deescalating; the Taliban has increased in strength by tens of thousands,
despite tens of thousands of casualties and prisoners; and American and Afghan casualties have
continued to grow every year of the conflict, with U.S. casualties declining only when U.S.
forces began to withdraw in mass numbers from parts of Afghanistan in 2011, while Afghan
security forces and civilians have experienced record casualties every year since those numbers
began to be kept by the UN.
Similarly, any progress in reconstructing or developing Afghanistan has been found to be non
existent despite the more than $100 billion spent by the United States on such efforts by the
Special Inspector General for Afghan Reconstruction (SIGAR). $100 billion, by the way, is more
money than was spent on the Marshall Plan when that post-WWII reconstruction plan is put into
inflation adjusted dollars. Oft repeated claims, such as millions of Afghan school girls going
to school, millions of Afghans having access to improved health care and Afghan life expectancy
dramatically increasing, and the construction of an Afghan job building economy have been
exposed as nothing more than public relations lies. Often displayed as modern Potemkin Villages
to visiting journalists and congressional delegations and utilized to justify continued budgets
for the Pentagon and USAID, and, so, to allow for more killing, like America's reconstruction
program in Iraq, the reconstruction program in Afghanistan has proven to be a failure and its
supposed achievements shown to be virtually non-existent, as documented by multiple
investigations by SIGAR, as well as by investigators and researchers from organizations such as
the UN, EU, IMF, World Bank, etc.
Tonight, the American people will hear again the great lie about the progress the American
military once made in Afghanistan after "the Afghan Surge", just as we often hear the lie about
how the American military had "won" in Iraq. In Iraq it was a political compromise that brought
about a cessation of hostilities for a few short years and it was the collapse of the political
balance that had been struck that led to the return to the violence of the last several years.
In Afghanistan there has never even been an attempt at such a political solution and all the
Afghan people have seen in the last eight years, every year, has been a worsening of the
violence.
Americans will also hear tonight how the U.S. military has done great things for the Afghan
people. You would be hard pressed to find many Afghans outside of the incredibly corrupt and
illegitimate government, a better definition of a kleptocracy you will not find, that the U.S.
keeps in power with its soldiers and $35 billion a year, who would agree with the statements of
the American politicians, the American generals and the pundits, the latter of which are mostly
funded, directly or indirectly, by the military companies. It is important to remember that for
three straight elections in Afghanistan the United States government has supported shockingly
fraudulent elections, allowing American soldiers to kill and die while presidential and
parliamentary elections were brazenly stolen. It is also important to remember that many
members of the Afghan government are themselves warlords and drug barons, many of them guilty
of some of the worst human rights abuses and war crimes, the same abuses of which the Taliban
are guilty, while the current Ghani government, and the previous Karzai government, have
allowed egregious crimes to continue against women, including laws that allow men to legally
rape their wives.
Whatever President Trump announces tonight about Afghanistan, a decision he teased on
Twitter, as if the announcement were a new retail product launch or television show episode, as
opposed to the somber and painful reality of war, we can be assured the lies about American
progress in Afghanistan will continue, the lies about America's commitment to human rights and
democratic values will continue, the profits of the military companies and drug barons will
also continue, and of course the suffering of the Afghan people will surely continue.
Matthew Hoh is a member of the advisory boards of Expose Facts, Veterans For Peace and
World Beyond War. In 2009 he resigned his position with the State Department in Afghanistan in
protest of the escalation of the Afghan War by the Obama Administration. He previously had been
in Iraq with a State Department team and with the U.S. Marines. He is a Senior Fellow with the
Center for International Policy.
"... What is clear is that the US lacks any confidence in the Afghanistan military to defend whatever quasi-democracy we have established and we are not going to set about chasing terrorists, around the country. I would note that the Taliban are not terrorists. Though I suspect that is about to change. ..."
"... More likely is that this crazy contractor idea takes over and we turn Afghanistan into a lackluster version of the East India Company. Where is our Edmund Burke? ..."
"... I teach community college freshman who do not even know who was responsible for the 9/11 attacks, nor do they know why we are in Afghanistan. Their top three guesses for who was behind 9/11 were 1. Russia, 2. China, 3. North Korea. ..."
"... Former mining guy checking in here. This mineral resources argument is a fantasy, pure and simple. Mineral resources, with the possible exception of gold, require modern transportation. Get this through your heads, guys, rocks are heavy. Afghanistan is landlocked, extremely mountainous, with horrible roads, no railroads, and limited water resources. ..."
"... This is an unquestionable defeat for Trump's voters ..."
"... The problem with having an empire is that eventually the empire owns you. It must be preserved and defended at any cost. A few thousand troops will not make a difference. Thus the classic dilemma: we can't win and we can't leave. ..."
"... Two things 1st) Trump needs the military's support if he wants to stay in power. He will obey the military. 2nd) You give these deadlines they can't keep so you get rid of the deadline. Typical mismanagement. ..."
"... My guess is that despite what Trump says career US military and diplomatic leaders were more interested in sending a signal to not just Pakistan but also China, Iran and to a lesser extent Russia and other Middle East countries that the US was not going to allow itself to be pushed out of South Asia. ..."
"... One can blame Trump for caving. But the real engine behind this is the sheer inertia of money and career. It turns out to be an unstoppable force: unthinking, blind, and stupid. Welcome to Idiocracy. ..."
Conflict Deaths and the song goes on
Span
Casualties
American Revolutionary War 1775-1783 25,000
Northwest Indian War 1785-1795 ~1,056
Quasi-War 1798-1800 514
War of 1812 1812-1815 ~20,000
1st Seminole War 1817-1818 36
Black Hawk War 1832 305
2nd Seminole War 1835-1842 1,535
Mexican-American War 1846-1848 13,283
3rd Seminole War 1855-1858 26 American Civil War 1861-1865 ~625,000
Indian Wars 1865-1898 919
Great Sioux War 1875-1877 314
Spanish-American War 1898 2,446
Philippine-American War 1898-1913 4,196
Boxer Rebellion 1900-1901 131
Mexican Revolution 1914-1919 ~35
Haiti Occupation 1915-1934 148
World War 1 1917-1918 116,516
North Russia Campaign 1918-1920 424
American Expeditionary Force Siberia 1918-1920 328
Nicaragua Occupation 1927-1933 48 World War 2 1941-1945 405,399
Korean War 1950-1953 36,516 Vietnam War 1955-1975 58,209
El Salvador Civil War 1980-1992 37
Beirut 1982-1984 266
Grenada 1983 19
Panama 1989 40
Persian Gulf War 1990-1991 258
Operation Provide Comfort 1991-1996 19
Somalia Intervention 1992-1995 43
Bosnia 1995-2004 12
NATO Air Campaign Yugoslavia 1999 20
Operation Enduring Freedom (Afghanistan) 2001-2014 2,356
Operation Iraqi Freedom (Iraq) 2003-2012 4,489
What if Trump's character and his supporters' character (lack thereof) made
it easy for this to come about? I know here at TAC there was an effort to
make Trump_vs_deep_state appear to be non-confrontational but Trump's a good con-man
and those of us who were/are #neverTrump saw that years ago and now that
he's in numerous bad spots, he'll do what humans like him (of such low character)
have always done distract and posture and pick fights that kill other people
in a quest to feel like a winner again God help us through this and maybe
this time we'll learn our lesson.
" . . . accepted a stalemate and armistice with the Chinese-backed North
Koreans, and it was true again in 1975, when the U.S. suffered an ignominious
defeat and 58,000 dead at the hands of pajama-clad guerrillas and the North
Vietnamese army."
Since the US military was not in Vietnam in 1975, I it's going to be
very tough to read through the rest of this. One of these days the self
flagellation about Vietnam will eventually cease. Our departure was premature,
but a defeat it was not.
Good grief. Aside from the US Embassy, the military presence in Vietnam
was minimal. We all but departed in 1973. Had we remained, it most likely
would have modeled the situation between North and South Korea.
What is clear is that the US lacks any confidence in the Afghanistan
military to defend whatever quasi-democracy we have established and we are
not going to set about chasing terrorists, around the country. I would note
that the Taliban are not terrorists. Though I suspect that is about to change.
@George_Patton : "he [Trump] will let those Arabs in Afghanistan know whose
boss. I thought this was the american CONSERVATIVE, not the American Pansy."
You borrowed the honorable name of Patton. But the real George Patton
wouldn't fight a stupid, unnecessary war. The real George Patton was a military
scholar who closely studied his enemy; you can bet your a** he would know
that Afghans aren't Arabs.
Ignorance like this gives American conservatism a bad name. TAC's writers
are trying to fix that. Get out of their way.
Donnie was not ENTIRELY silent on Afghanistan's natural resources. Kevin
Drum heard this tidbit, and confirmed it from the transcript:
"In this struggle, the heaviest burden will continue to be borne by the
good people of Afghanistan and their courageous armed forces. As the prime
minister of Afghanistan has promised, we are going to participate in economic
development to help defray the cost of this war to us."
"'Three yards and a cloud of dusty'" is a reference to a classic of American
football, Woody Hayes. But any true college football enthusiast knows
the sordid way in which Coach Hayes saw his great career end:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEVJyf0ft3I
He was too stubborn for his own good. Americans of the post-Vietnam breed,
like football fans, no longer take to three yards and a cloud of dust. Even
if it was worth trying in Afghanistan, this country couldn't do it for long.
More likely is that this crazy contractor idea takes over and we turn
Afghanistan into a lackluster version of the East India Company. Where is
our Edmund Burke?
"how the US can get supplies to Afghanistan without Pakistan?"
This has always been a Pakistan demand: in the main, not so much for
Afghanistan but to retain so-called defenses against India. Pakistan has
steadfastly subsidized interlopers in Afghanistan w/ the dear hope that
they'll aid in any skirmish in the Hindu Kush.
Three yards and a cloud of dust worked well for Ohio State in the 1970s.
They don't play football like that anymore.
We have strategies for containment or for mitigating greater damage not
for winning. Like Donald Rumsfeld, we as a country mostly go about our business
not caring and not even thinking about it because the toll is "an acceptable
death rate."
I teach community college freshman who do not even know who was responsible
for the 9/11 attacks, nor do they know why we are in Afghanistan. Their
top three guesses for who was behind 9/11 were 1. Russia, 2. China, 3. North
Korea.
I think you are in the minority both here and in the country. We who
want to make America Great Again, can only do so if we show how strong we
are. And I admire Patton, he studied the enemy to kill them, thats what
military people do. Not Pansies. At least, EliteCommInc understands this.
We think we lost Vietnam because it was pounded into us by the liberal media.
We won that war, and left because it was time for us to leave.
Former mining guy checking in here. This mineral resources argument
is a fantasy, pure and simple. Mineral resources, with the possible
exception of gold, require modern transportation. Get this through your
heads, guys, rocks are heavy. Afghanistan is landlocked, extremely mountainous,
with horrible roads, no railroads, and limited water resources.
In
the case of gold, artisanal mining (Joe and Bubba with a couple bulldozers
and a heap leach pad) might be able to make a few bucks. Everything else
requires either cheap bulk transportation (trains or ships) or requires
the construction of concentrators and smelters nearby. Those facilities
need water, and a local workforce.
None of that infrastructure exists now, and none will be constructed
realistically within the next 16 years. And if it were, where would all
the goodies go? West through Iran, northeast through to China, so who would
be benefitting from all that expense?
A few more stars for the brass, many more $ for the defense industry. At
the cost of more dead and maimed – ours and theirs. Their dead and maimed
will increase the number of those who "love" us. And we will foot the bill.
I was hoping for something else.
No surprises here. Trump is surrounded by military. When one thinks about
it, we are typically a waring nation always involved in a war or some conflict
we choose to stick our nose in. Obama had zero use for the military brass
and therefore the brass had zero influence for 8 long years.
The problem with having an empire is that eventually the empire owns
you. It must be preserved and defended at any cost. A few thousand troops
will not make a difference. Thus the classic dilemma: we can't win and we
can't leave.
This is the definition of a defeat. We can send as many troops as we
want, we can keep them there as long as we want, we can drop as many bombs
as we want, we can kill as many people as we want, but we can't control
the country.
Two things 1st) Trump needs the military's support if he wants to stay
in power. He will obey the military. 2nd) You give these deadlines they
can't keep so you get rid of the deadline. Typical mismanagement.
@George_Patton – "We who want to make America Great Again, can only do so
if we show how strong we are. "
But Trump's not strong. He's weak! He can't even show his generals who's
boss, like Truman did, or Lincoln. He can't even show Bibi Netanyahu who's
boss! He lets Israel rip us off while we do all the fighting. Hell, Trump
can't even show MITCH MCCONNELL who's boss! We need a strong, conservative
American president, not a weak punk like Trump.
Interesting that this article or any others on the same topic make any mention
of the concerns the US government and/or military have regarding the warming
relationship between Pakistan and China and the recent agreement between
these countries to develop a road/rail link between China and the development
of a new deep sea port on the coast of the Arabian Sea in Pakistan.
My guess is that despite what Trump says career US military and diplomatic
leaders were more interested in sending a signal to not just Pakistan but
also China, Iran and to a lesser extent Russia and other Middle East countries
that the US was not going to allow itself to be pushed out of South Asia.
This is a huge victory for everyone who wants to see the U.S. continue bleeding
itself to death while feeding a bloated 'defense' and imperial bureaucracy.
One can blame Trump for caving. But the real engine behind this is
the sheer inertia of money and career. It turns out to be an unstoppable
force: unthinking, blind, and stupid. Welcome to Idiocracy.
March Hare. When I consider the emergence of China since the death of Mao
I would not rule out the possibility that its engineers and Afghan work
force could create the infrastructure needed to make Afghanistan's mining
profitable in less than 16 years.
"My guess is that despite what Trump says career US military and diplomatic
leaders were more interested in sending a signal to not just Pakistan but
also China, Iran and to a lesser extent Russia and other Middle East countries
that the US was not going to allow itself to be pushed out of South Asia."
Trump is the President. Its his job and duty and responsibility to push
back against those "leaders." Same as it was Obama's. Both failed.
Also, you have hit on the very reason why the US, even if one concedes
that it must play the Great Game, can certainly afford to be "pushed out
of South Asia." Russia and China and Pakistan and India and Iran and Turkey
and the Arabs, and others, all have interests there. There is a natural
balance of power in Mainland Asia. The US simply does not need to be a player
there. Central Asia is far from any vital US interest, any US treaty ally,
any important shipping lane, any important anything. If there is one place
on Earth that the US can reasonably concede to others the task of policing
and controlling it has got to be Central Asia.
I do object to the title of the article, this isn't a losing strategy, this
is a not-winning strategy. You might ask yourself what you are doing playing
a game where winning is impossible?
This has always been a Pakistan demand: in the main, not so much for
Afghanistan but to retain so-called defenses against India. Pakistan has
steadfastly subsidized interlopers in Afghanistan w/ the dear hope that
they'll aid in any skirmish in the Hindu Kush.
To understand Pakistan's role in Afghanistan, you need to look at their
border, which is called the Durand Line, after some Brit who drew it on
the map.
The Durand Line cuts right through the Pashtun homelands, so you have
Pashtuns on both sides. Afghanistan is dominated by Pashtuns, and they have
never recognized the Durand Line – in fact, Afghanistan was the only country
in the world that voted against admitting Pakistan to the UN in 1948 for
this reason, and even the Taliban refused to recognize the Durand Line.
Pakistan is dominated by Punjabis, and their nightmare is that if a strong
Afghan government were to emerge, their Pashtun province of Khyber-Pakhtunkwa
might want to secede and join their fellow Pashtuns in Afghanistan. To prevent
this, they have undermined every government in Afghanistan and kept it weak
by funding rival tribes.
Since it is politically incorrect to say that they are undermining a
fellow Muslim state, the Pakistani government puts out some BS about the
need for "strategic depth" against India. India has fought numerous wars
against Pakistan but they were border skirmishes – neither side advanced
more than 20-30 km inside the other's territory (1971 is another story).
We are already blessed with 200 million Muslims in India – no one in his
right mind wants to occupy Pakistan and take in another 200 million, a lot
of whom are fanatics and jihadis. If there was some way to saw Pakistan
off and float it out into the Indian Ocean, we would do it in a heartbeat.
By the way, the Hindu Kush is part of the border between Afghanistan
and Pakistan, not with India. No Hindus left alive there by the Religion
of Peace for anyone to worry about.
"... With many of the asset purchases by China based corporations there is absolutely no intention of selling them or otherwise letting go of them ever again. As I learned this is per se no bad thing, but it could be if say, too much of a nation was owned by foreigners who will never relinquish those properties. ..."
"... Most Chinese certainly China's leaders have no intention of changing their outlook one iota, but that doesn't mean they want non-Chinese to alter and adopt their values. If Xi Jinping bothered to consider that he would most likely decide he preferred Trump and the rest of the Americans to remain exactly as they are because the adulation of material gain, arrogance and inability to lie straight in bed makes people's behaviour very predictable. ..."
"... I disagree with those who think that China has been duped - there's simply no evidence that China is that gullible. One century of humiliation was enough to learn how the western world works. ..."
"... As Debsisdead points out, "Whatever China eventually does to counter these deceits may not be actioned for decades, but when it is implemented it will be apposite, well considered and impregnable." ..."
"... We keep talking about hybrid warfare, and noting the west with its color revolutions and its increasingly visible lies, but have we learned yet how to detect asymmetrical responses from the multi-polar world? Especially since it's at least possible that they will occur almost invisibly? ..."
"... No. China does not believe anything the US says in public or even in private to them. 80% of Earth ppl know the US can't be trusted, it does not do deals, even private individuals who shake hands and the like, ever (they back out, my country orders..) ..."
"... All is calculation on where it might be advantageous to seem to 'submit' or 'shut up' or conversely 'complain' and make a fuss (to the UN, WTO, the US itself ) China and Russia don't want to take on the US militarily for now (except in low level proxy wars with a positive calculated outcome, see Syria), so all this stuff is just par for the course, it is expected, it is tit for tat shadow play that on the part of the weaker groups is thought out cynically. ..."
"... Trump maybe doesn't quite know what he is doing, in the sense of measuring, anticipating the results, as he is being manipulated. That is one view. Others can be put forward. ..."
"... Backdoors created for NSA/CIA can be exploited by others too, which makes all Outlaw US military electronic systems vulnerable. I recall a video presentation by Nasrallah showing the video Hezbollah intercepted from Zionist drones scouting the ground for its assassination of Hariri--evidence for Hezbollah's defense in the affair that nobody thought they'd be capable of obtaining that demolished the Zionist/Outlaw US Empire framing of Hezbollah for that murder. ..."
"... My bet is that the Generals have taken complete charge. ..."
"... An Asymmetric war will not do for the overlords (or generals?). The "Cyber" and other parts are to control dissidents in the EU and US. Both Russai and China will be aware of this as it is not the first time that either of them has been targeted by the US-UK. ..."
"... Adopting the NATO sanctions against NK must have fit the Chinese game plan. Chinese are not that stupid. ..."
"... There is no naive China, Russia or whatever, all Nations understand that the US regime is not reliable nor trustworthy, the game most of the Nations continue to play is the game to buy time, any war with the US regime can be hard at the moment, but not in few years time. China knows is and will play the patience game til the end, Russia does the same, expect for few "no go" like Syria and the south China sea islands. ..."
"... After Iran's experience with US "lifting of sanctions", should anyone ever trust USA at all? ..."
I'm with everyone who has already noted that amerika got where it is today by being a fork
tongued double dealer whose words aren't worth the paper I wipe my arse with.
There isn't a single agreement reached between US authorities and any other entity since the
days of treaties with the indigenous owners of the land amerika continues to purloin that
amerika hasn't breached in either the letter or the spirit, usually both.
On the other hand China isn't Iran, not only are they well aware of amerikan perfidy they
are in a position to counter it.
The fact they haven't done so yet merely indicates their preference for a square up which
doesn't cost China or any of its citizens. This is a culture which always plays the long game
no matter how long - witness their bemusement at amerikan commercial interests bitching about
listed Chinese corporations not meeting Wall St imposed quarterly 'targets'.
When I lived in Northern Australia I had a landlord for several years who never increased my
rent - this in a market where property prices were shooting up thanks to the usual worthless
asset appreciation that too many consider a wealth generator. When I asked my landlord who
was a third generation Australian the great grandson of gold miners who arrived from Shanghai
towards the end of the 19th century he said "You are paying me $25 a week correct?" I replied
yes, to which he responded "Well your week's rent is considerably more than my grandfather
paid for it, $25 was a fair price when we shook hands and so that is what the rent will
remain at unless you move out - a deal is a deal. I'm happy if you are"
That is what happened after I did move out the building which was little more than a big
corrugated iron shed was pushed over and my former landlord put an office block in its stead.
On the fringes of Darwin's CBD when I moved in by the time I left the property was most def
'down town'. The family will never sell it because for them it will always be a part of the
family morphology. The original settler would never have been able much less permitted to buy
land in 1880's China but he innately knew exactly how it related to his family once he bought
land somewhere else.
This is something that few if any of the media or business outside China fully comprehend,
an assumption has been made that Chinese, just as likely they imagine of all non-western
peoples, are morphing into western commercial mindsets.
We see this all the time when those nations who have a bureaucratic mechanism for
scrutinizing foreign asset purchases decide at least in part on the basis that the property
will eventually change hands again.
With many of the asset purchases by China based corporations there is absolutely no
intention of selling them or otherwise letting go of them ever again. As I learned this is
per se
no bad thing, but it could be if say, too much of a nation was owned by
foreigners who will never relinquish those properties.
I was initially positive about Chinese investors outbidding engander, Oz, amerikan and
european buyers for big chunks of Aotearoa but now I am less positive because denying locals
the opportunity to buy in their own country seems to me to be a recipe for eventual
conflict.
Trump may 'get away' with his deceit, but America will not. Whatever China eventually does
to counter these deceits may not be auctioned for decades, but when it is implemented it will
be apposite, well considered and impregnable.
Most Chinese certainly China's leaders have no intention of changing their outlook one
iota, but that doesn't mean they want non-Chinese to alter and adopt their values. If Xi
Jinping bothered to consider that he would most likely decide he preferred Trump and the rest
of the Americans to remain exactly as they are because the adulation of material gain,
arrogance and inability to lie straight in bed makes people's behaviour very
predictable.
DoubleThink concept was coined by UK BBC propagandist.
I had a dispute with allegedly UK citizen, who at THE SAME time demanded me to agree
that
1) there was no NATO promise to avoid expanding East, as there is no signed paper document
today on it, and personal speaks are merely speaks.
2) there is no threat to Russia from, and hence Russia acts unreasonably demanding
legally-binding documents to, those "anti-Iranian" missile stations in Europe, because
"everyone told you so".
And he did pursue both lanes in the SAME argument.
-----------
Now, while i admit that US and UK are different states for long, some habits seem to die
hard
-----------
They also say, Iran was promised US do not care about their invasion in Kuwait, and they
also say in 19114 German kanzler was promised UK King would not do a thing about
European(read: Continental) war.
Gorbachev did not care about any written statement as he assumed the cold war to be over
and envisioned a common European-Russian zone from "Wladivostock to Lisbon".
"The West" assumed the same but interpreted it as taking over Russia (integrating it in
the Western system) as Russia "had lost the cold war".
The West then lost the peace by their best and brightest causing a severe economic and
humanitarian crisis in Russia which led to the rise of Putin and Russia realizing that they
had to defend themselves.
Steinmeier just held a speech in Estonia accusing Russia of "thinking in terms of zones of
influence" and geopolitics whilst disrespecting the free will of people. The speech was very
coded but ended with Germany never again fighting against Russia in "blind enemity" whilst
saying before that Germany would never again do something like the Hitler-Stalin Pact.
Usually what you say in the end sticks in people's mind.
The way Victoria Nuland operated (and the EU/Steinmeier followed) showed Russia is not
alone in geopolitical thinking never mind the free will of people and their elected
representatives.
Same party as Steinmeier, Martin Schulz now campaigns with the withdrawal of US nuclear
weapons from Germany.
I agree with the voices here saying that China understands exactly what is going on.
Especially thanks to Debsisdead @ 38 for the wonderful cultural insights.
I disagree with those who think that China has been duped - there's simply no evidence
that China is that gullible. One century of humiliation was enough to learn how the western
world works.
@41 lysias -
"The McCain apparently experienced a mysterious steering failure before
the collision."
I too wonder if the US Navy is experiencing asymmetrical responses from either Russia or
China or both. I greatly want to know more about all this. Joaquin Flores had a speculative
piece at Fort Russ the other day, making the point that the Navy's call to halt all
operations worldwide seems completely disproportionate to the apparent causes. Pun intended,
what's really going on below the waterline?
As Debsisdead points out, "Whatever China eventually does to counter these deceits may
not be actioned for decades, but when it is implemented it will be apposite, well considered
and impregnable."
We keep talking about hybrid warfare, and noting the west with its color revolutions
and its increasingly visible lies, but have we learned yet how to detect asymmetrical
responses from the multi-polar world? Especially since it's at least possible that they will
occur almost invisibly?
China deserved what they got since they were dumb enough to believe ANYHING the US. ..
New Yorker at 10.
1)
No. China does not believe anything the US says in public or even in private to
them. 80% of Earth ppl know the US can't be trusted, it does not do deals, even private
individuals who shake hands and the like, ever (they back out, my country orders..)
Are the Chinese, Gvmt., industry, military, to be considered out of that loop?
2)
All is calculation on where it might be advantageous to seem to 'submit' or 'shut
up' or conversely 'complain' and make a fuss (to the UN, WTO, the US itself ) China and
Russia don't want to take on the US militarily for now (except in low level proxy wars with a
positive calculated outcome, see Syria), so all this stuff is just par for the course, it is
expected, it is tit for tat shadow play that on the part of the weaker groups is thought out
cynically.
3)
Trump maybe doesn't quite know what he is doing, in the sense of measuring,
anticipating the results, as he is being manipulated. That is one view. Others can be put
forward.
If fly-by-wire control systems can be hacked and captured on airplanes, then the same can
happen to any such system regardless of what it's guiding; and there've been hints at this
being done by the Multipolar Alliance. Recall Iran's capturing one of the Outlaw US Empires
most sophisticated drones several years ago then reverse engineering its own version.
Lots of evidence cruise missiles went awry thanks to EW. Then there were several reports
of Outlaw US Navy vessels having their systems completely shutdown via Russian EW. I imagine
PavewayIV has a good recap of these incidents.
Backdoors created for NSA/CIA can be exploited by others too, which makes all Outlaw
US military electronic systems vulnerable. I recall a video presentation by Nasrallah showing
the video Hezbollah intercepted from Zionist drones scouting the ground for its assassination
of Hariri--evidence for Hezbollah's defense in the affair that nobody thought they'd be
capable of obtaining that demolished the Zionist/Outlaw US Empire framing of Hezbollah for
that murder.
Detecting asymmetrical responses will be difficult since the Multipolar Alliance will be
reluctant to announce such an action, while the Unipolar Hegemon will also be reluctant since
it won't want the other side to learn how effective its actions are. Imagine if North Korea
has the capability to redirect B-1 and B-2 bombers by taking control of their fly-by-wire
systems; would you expect North Korea to announce such capability or reserve it for use?
US want China to exit production economy and become Debt consumer Economy. US can play
that stock market/futures with print money out of thin air. If Rothschilds want China to
become US debt model,...it probably happens,
Or....Chinese get RIP of Rothschilds
thanks for your personal insights debs.. it is interesting to me as i have lived in the
vancouver area for most of my life.. the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th generation chinese seem so
different then the new arrivals from hong kong..
I would like to agree with your view, but this new generation primarily from hong kong,
seem to have a very different mind set.. either way - thanks for sharing..
If you're ever confronted by any more British apologists on the issue of NATO missile
systems in Poland and Romania, mention the United States could only have set up the systems
by unilaterally withdrawing American signatures from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in
2002, a decade BEFORE the European Union and Ukraine 'started talks' on framing, signing, and
ratifying the EU Association Agreement (violating Article Six of the Russian-Ukrainian
Friendship Treaty of 1997, which required Russian foreknowledge and participation in any
frameworks or any agreements Ukraine had with 'a third party') that partitioned public
opinion in Ukraine and precipitated the civil war.
@44
While transcripts of the NATO-Soviet peace talks throughout 1990 haven't been released,
the U.S. Secretary of State and the West German Foreign Minister literally layed out a
post-war framework (the Nine Assurances in May; the London Declaration in July) publicly (it
was reported in mainstream German and American media) at the end of these respective
conferences BEFORE the Two Plus Four Agreement was reached.
It envisioned the 'reform' of NATO in the framework of the CSCE (now OSCE) or the
replacement of NATO by the CSCE, the ratifying of the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty
(building on other 'arms reduction measures by treaty' needed to permanently demilitarize
Europe), and the invitation of the original nine Soviet Republics to NATO Summits to accept
NATO Membership BEFORE post-Soviet Central Europe, Eastern Europe, and the Caucasus were
invited to accept membership.
The framework ('collective security') was explicitly what the Soviet Politburo had been
trying to achieve since the Soviet Foreign Ministry requested the British Foreign Ministry
(through public conferences) and the Polish Foreign Ministry (through secret telegrams) to
sign mutual security treaties in early and mid August of 1939 (which was rejected
consistently by Britain and Poland).
The Soviet Politburo was quick to end the war because it seemed the 'long strategy' had
worked, not because of Soviet indifference to formality. I think it was widely understood by
any European (worker or statesmen) the United States would never substantially compromise to
the discipline of formality, however, the Soviet Union preferred the risk and not diplomatic
stagnation.
Side note:
While I personally dislike involving a notorious personality in a social or political
history, I think it's interesting to speculate what would've happened if it was Chernenko who
lived and Gorbachev who died in 1985. He was a militarist, but never seemed committed to
decentralizing the Soviet economy and compromising so easily to the United States.
Part of b's headline; "Trump cheats...." may be wrong. Does Trump control anything at all any
more?
Not only the NK sanctions, but a corresponding increase in troop levels in Afghanistan,
(including "unknown helicopters" ferrying militants in Mazar-i-Sharif, from the Afghan base
of the 209 Afgh Nat Army corps in NATO controlled airspace, for a massacre of Hazara Shias in
Sar-e-Pol province), the increase of US servicemen training Ukrainian snipers on the Donbass
frontline and a reported blocking of a (small) Russian Bank from the SWIFT network, - all
suggest that the military have totally taken over command in the US.
That they have decided to push everyone around as far as possible. This change in policy
is since Trump "lost" his powers to Congress by massive one sided voting, and the
introduction of the "new" all encompassing anti-Russian and Chinese sanctions.
I may be wrong about WHO is in control (add your own here...), but it seems fairly clear
that the "Americans" (people) have been reduced to potential cannon-fodder.
My bet is that the Generals have taken complete charge.
-----
Unfortunately this is not a uniquely US phenomena. Examples in France go back to 1875 with
the "Anarchists" (actually FOR worker's rights at the beginning), The "commune de Paris, (US
CHicago riots) where other normal people didn't want the "status-quo" of overlord-underling
to continue. Usually the movement was treated as a proto-terrorist threat, all the MSM of the
time condemning the leaders - and the whole thing finishing in a blood-bath with troops
firing on dissenters -- WWI was another "overlord organised restucturation" by the
military).
Not really OT - but I am just trying to show that the new situation has antecedents
throughout history, and if I am correct the next stage will be to cross several frontiers (by
NATO or US) "accidentally" to provoke a reaction. ie NK is another.
An Asymmetric war will not do for the overlords (or generals?). The "Cyber" and other
parts are to control dissidents in the EU and US. Both Russai and China will be aware of this
as it is not the first time that either of them has been targeted by the US-UK.
Adopting the NATO sanctions against NK must have fit the Chinese game plan. Chinese are
not that stupid.
It should be considered that official sanctions naturally encourage, promote and serve the
black markets - the Mafia, Cartels, etc. The underground economy will surely not obey
sanctions. It should also be noted that certain official bodies will turn a blind eye and
allow certain other bodies to engage in trade, etc.
Note how the CyA brings in drugs to Mena Arkansas, for one example. And the cya plane
crash in Central America - loaded to the gills.
There is no naive China, Russia or whatever, all Nations understand that the US regime is
not reliable nor trustworthy, the game most of the Nations continue to play is the game to
buy time, any war with the US regime can be hard at the moment, but not in few years time.
China knows is and will play the patience game til the end, Russia does the same, expect for
few "no go" like Syria and the south China sea islands.
Nice to see you commenting here! Agreed that China and Russia understand but still seek
dialog since that's the essence of "the patience game." But I wonder about those running
Brazil; we don't discuss that much at SyrPers. Then there's India's Modi and the cadre of
Hindu Neoliberals who seem to want to have their own game instead of teaming with China and
Russia for a Win/Win partnership rather than the dying Zero-Sumism of the Neoliberalcons. And
thanks again for all the effort you devote to SyrPers; it's quite remarkable!
There has never been progress by the U.S. military in Afghanistan, unless you are asking the
U.S. military contractors or the Afghan drug barons, of whom an extremely large share are our
allies in the Afghan government, militias and security forces, there has only been suffering
and destruction. American politicians, pundits and generals will speak about "progress" made by
the 70,000 American troops put into Afghanistan by President Obama beginning in 2009, along
with an additional 30,000 European troops and 100,000 private contractors, however the hard and
awful true reality is that the war in Afghanistan has only escalated since 2009, never
stabilizing or deescalating; the Taliban has increased in strength by tens of thousands,
despite tens of thousands of casualties and prisoners; and American and Afghan casualties have
continued to grow every year of the conflict, with U.S. casualties declining only when U.S.
forces began to withdraw in mass numbers from parts of Afghanistan in 2011, while Afghan
security forces and civilians have experienced record casualties every year since those numbers
began to be kept by the UN.
Similarly, any progress in reconstructing or developing Afghanistan has been found to be non
existent despite the more than $100 billion spent by the United States on such efforts by the
Special Inspector General for Afghan Reconstruction (SIGAR). $100 billion, by the way, is more
money than was spent on the Marshall Plan when that post-WWII reconstruction plan is put into
inflation adjusted dollars. Oft repeated claims, such as millions of Afghan school girls going
to school, millions of Afghans having access to improved health care and Afghan life expectancy
dramatically increasing, and the construction of an Afghan job building economy have been
exposed as nothing more than public relations lies. Often displayed as modern Potemkin Villages
to visiting journalists and congressional delegations and utilized to justify continued budgets
for the Pentagon and USAID, and, so, to allow for more killing, like America's reconstruction
program in Iraq, the reconstruction program in Afghanistan has proven to be a failure and its
supposed achievements shown to be virtually non-existent, as documented by multiple
investigations by SIGAR, as well as by investigators and researchers from organizations such as
the UN, EU, IMF, World Bank, etc.
Tonight, the American people will hear again the great lie about the progress the American
military once made in Afghanistan after "the Afghan Surge", just as we often hear the lie about
how the American military had "won" in Iraq. In Iraq it was a political compromise that brought
about a cessation of hostilities for a few short years and it was the collapse of the political
balance that had been struck that led to the return to the violence of the last several years.
In Afghanistan there has never even been an attempt at such a political solution and all the
Afghan people have seen in the last eight years, every year, has been a worsening of the
violence.
Americans will also hear tonight how the U.S. military has done great things for the Afghan
people. You would be hard pressed to find many Afghans outside of the incredibly corrupt and
illegitimate government, a better definition of a kleptocracy you will not find, that the U.S.
keeps in power with its soldiers and $35 billion a year, who would agree with the statements of
the American politicians, the American generals and the pundits, the latter of which are mostly
funded, directly or indirectly, by the military companies. It is important to remember that for
three straight elections in Afghanistan the United States government has supported shockingly
fraudulent elections, allowing American soldiers to kill and die while presidential and
parliamentary elections were brazenly stolen. It is also important to remember that many
members of the Afghan government are themselves warlords and drug barons, many of them guilty
of some of the worst human rights abuses and war crimes, the same abuses of which the Taliban
are guilty, while the current Ghani government, and the previous Karzai government, have
allowed egregious crimes to continue against women, including laws that allow men to legally
rape their wives.
Whatever President Trump announces tonight about Afghanistan, a decision he teased on
Twitter, as if the announcement were a new retail product launch or television show episode, as
opposed to the somber and painful reality of war, we can be assured the lies about American
progress in Afghanistan will continue, the lies about America's commitment to human rights and
democratic values will continue, the profits of the military companies and drug barons will
also continue, and of course the suffering of the Afghan people will surely continue.
Matthew Hoh is a member of the advisory boards of Expose Facts, Veterans For Peace and
World Beyond War. In 2009 he resigned his position with the State Department in Afghanistan in
protest of the escalation of the Afghan War by the Obama Administration. He previously had been
in Iraq with a State Department team and with the U.S. Marines. He is a Senior Fellow with the
Center for International Policy.
"... What is clear is that the US lacks any confidence in the Afghanistan military to defend whatever quasi-democracy we have established and we are not going to set about chasing terrorists, around the country. I would note that the Taliban are not terrorists. Though I suspect that is about to change. ..."
"... More likely is that this crazy contractor idea takes over and we turn Afghanistan into a lackluster version of the East India Company. Where is our Edmund Burke? ..."
"... I teach community college freshman who do not even know who was responsible for the 9/11 attacks, nor do they know why we are in Afghanistan. Their top three guesses for who was behind 9/11 were 1. Russia, 2. China, 3. North Korea. ..."
"... Former mining guy checking in here. This mineral resources argument is a fantasy, pure and simple. Mineral resources, with the possible exception of gold, require modern transportation. Get this through your heads, guys, rocks are heavy. Afghanistan is landlocked, extremely mountainous, with horrible roads, no railroads, and limited water resources. ..."
"... This is an unquestionable defeat for Trump's voters ..."
"... The problem with having an empire is that eventually the empire owns you. It must be preserved and defended at any cost. A few thousand troops will not make a difference. Thus the classic dilemma: we can't win and we can't leave. ..."
"... Two things 1st) Trump needs the military's support if he wants to stay in power. He will obey the military. 2nd) You give these deadlines they can't keep so you get rid of the deadline. Typical mismanagement. ..."
"... My guess is that despite what Trump says career US military and diplomatic leaders were more interested in sending a signal to not just Pakistan but also China, Iran and to a lesser extent Russia and other Middle East countries that the US was not going to allow itself to be pushed out of South Asia. ..."
"... One can blame Trump for caving. But the real engine behind this is the sheer inertia of money and career. It turns out to be an unstoppable force: unthinking, blind, and stupid. Welcome to Idiocracy. ..."
Conflict Deaths and the song goes on
Span
Casualties
American Revolutionary War 1775-1783 25,000
Northwest Indian War 1785-1795 ~1,056
Quasi-War 1798-1800 514
War of 1812 1812-1815 ~20,000
1st Seminole War 1817-1818 36
Black Hawk War 1832 305
2nd Seminole War 1835-1842 1,535
Mexican-American War 1846-1848 13,283
3rd Seminole War 1855-1858 26 American Civil War 1861-1865 ~625,000
Indian Wars 1865-1898 919
Great Sioux War 1875-1877 314
Spanish-American War 1898 2,446
Philippine-American War 1898-1913 4,196
Boxer Rebellion 1900-1901 131
Mexican Revolution 1914-1919 ~35
Haiti Occupation 1915-1934 148
World War 1 1917-1918 116,516
North Russia Campaign 1918-1920 424
American Expeditionary Force Siberia 1918-1920 328
Nicaragua Occupation 1927-1933 48 World War 2 1941-1945 405,399
Korean War 1950-1953 36,516 Vietnam War 1955-1975 58,209
El Salvador Civil War 1980-1992 37
Beirut 1982-1984 266
Grenada 1983 19
Panama 1989 40
Persian Gulf War 1990-1991 258
Operation Provide Comfort 1991-1996 19
Somalia Intervention 1992-1995 43
Bosnia 1995-2004 12
NATO Air Campaign Yugoslavia 1999 20
Operation Enduring Freedom (Afghanistan) 2001-2014 2,356
Operation Iraqi Freedom (Iraq) 2003-2012 4,489
What if Trump's character and his supporters' character (lack thereof) made
it easy for this to come about? I know here at TAC there was an effort to
make Trump_vs_deep_state appear to be non-confrontational but Trump's a good con-man
and those of us who were/are #neverTrump saw that years ago and now that
he's in numerous bad spots, he'll do what humans like him (of such low character)
have always done distract and posture and pick fights that kill other people
in a quest to feel like a winner again God help us through this and maybe
this time we'll learn our lesson.
" . . . accepted a stalemate and armistice with the Chinese-backed North
Koreans, and it was true again in 1975, when the U.S. suffered an ignominious
defeat and 58,000 dead at the hands of pajama-clad guerrillas and the North
Vietnamese army."
Since the US military was not in Vietnam in 1975, I it's going to be
very tough to read through the rest of this. One of these days the self
flagellation about Vietnam will eventually cease. Our departure was premature,
but a defeat it was not.
Good grief. Aside from the US Embassy, the military presence in Vietnam
was minimal. We all but departed in 1973. Had we remained, it most likely
would have modeled the situation between North and South Korea.
What is clear is that the US lacks any confidence in the Afghanistan
military to defend whatever quasi-democracy we have established and we are
not going to set about chasing terrorists, around the country. I would note
that the Taliban are not terrorists. Though I suspect that is about to change.
@George_Patton : "he [Trump] will let those Arabs in Afghanistan know whose
boss. I thought this was the american CONSERVATIVE, not the American Pansy."
You borrowed the honorable name of Patton. But the real George Patton
wouldn't fight a stupid, unnecessary war. The real George Patton was a military
scholar who closely studied his enemy; you can bet your a** he would know
that Afghans aren't Arabs.
Ignorance like this gives American conservatism a bad name. TAC's writers
are trying to fix that. Get out of their way.
Donnie was not ENTIRELY silent on Afghanistan's natural resources. Kevin
Drum heard this tidbit, and confirmed it from the transcript:
"In this struggle, the heaviest burden will continue to be borne by the
good people of Afghanistan and their courageous armed forces. As the prime
minister of Afghanistan has promised, we are going to participate in economic
development to help defray the cost of this war to us."
"'Three yards and a cloud of dusty'" is a reference to a classic of American
football, Woody Hayes. But any true college football enthusiast knows
the sordid way in which Coach Hayes saw his great career end:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEVJyf0ft3I
He was too stubborn for his own good. Americans of the post-Vietnam breed,
like football fans, no longer take to three yards and a cloud of dust. Even
if it was worth trying in Afghanistan, this country couldn't do it for long.
More likely is that this crazy contractor idea takes over and we turn
Afghanistan into a lackluster version of the East India Company. Where is
our Edmund Burke?
"how the US can get supplies to Afghanistan without Pakistan?"
This has always been a Pakistan demand: in the main, not so much for
Afghanistan but to retain so-called defenses against India. Pakistan has
steadfastly subsidized interlopers in Afghanistan w/ the dear hope that
they'll aid in any skirmish in the Hindu Kush.
Three yards and a cloud of dust worked well for Ohio State in the 1970s.
They don't play football like that anymore.
We have strategies for containment or for mitigating greater damage not
for winning. Like Donald Rumsfeld, we as a country mostly go about our business
not caring and not even thinking about it because the toll is "an acceptable
death rate."
I teach community college freshman who do not even know who was responsible
for the 9/11 attacks, nor do they know why we are in Afghanistan. Their
top three guesses for who was behind 9/11 were 1. Russia, 2. China, 3. North
Korea.
I think you are in the minority both here and in the country. We who
want to make America Great Again, can only do so if we show how strong we
are. And I admire Patton, he studied the enemy to kill them, thats what
military people do. Not Pansies. At least, EliteCommInc understands this.
We think we lost Vietnam because it was pounded into us by the liberal media.
We won that war, and left because it was time for us to leave.
Former mining guy checking in here. This mineral resources argument
is a fantasy, pure and simple. Mineral resources, with the possible
exception of gold, require modern transportation. Get this through your
heads, guys, rocks are heavy. Afghanistan is landlocked, extremely mountainous,
with horrible roads, no railroads, and limited water resources.
In
the case of gold, artisanal mining (Joe and Bubba with a couple bulldozers
and a heap leach pad) might be able to make a few bucks. Everything else
requires either cheap bulk transportation (trains or ships) or requires
the construction of concentrators and smelters nearby. Those facilities
need water, and a local workforce.
None of that infrastructure exists now, and none will be constructed
realistically within the next 16 years. And if it were, where would all
the goodies go? West through Iran, northeast through to China, so who would
be benefitting from all that expense?
A few more stars for the brass, many more $ for the defense industry. At
the cost of more dead and maimed – ours and theirs. Their dead and maimed
will increase the number of those who "love" us. And we will foot the bill.
I was hoping for something else.
No surprises here. Trump is surrounded by military. When one thinks about
it, we are typically a waring nation always involved in a war or some conflict
we choose to stick our nose in. Obama had zero use for the military brass
and therefore the brass had zero influence for 8 long years.
The problem with having an empire is that eventually the empire owns
you. It must be preserved and defended at any cost. A few thousand troops
will not make a difference. Thus the classic dilemma: we can't win and we
can't leave.
This is the definition of a defeat. We can send as many troops as we
want, we can keep them there as long as we want, we can drop as many bombs
as we want, we can kill as many people as we want, but we can't control
the country.
Two things 1st) Trump needs the military's support if he wants to stay
in power. He will obey the military. 2nd) You give these deadlines they
can't keep so you get rid of the deadline. Typical mismanagement.
@George_Patton – "We who want to make America Great Again, can only do so
if we show how strong we are. "
But Trump's not strong. He's weak! He can't even show his generals who's
boss, like Truman did, or Lincoln. He can't even show Bibi Netanyahu who's
boss! He lets Israel rip us off while we do all the fighting. Hell, Trump
can't even show MITCH MCCONNELL who's boss! We need a strong, conservative
American president, not a weak punk like Trump.
Interesting that this article or any others on the same topic make any mention
of the concerns the US government and/or military have regarding the warming
relationship between Pakistan and China and the recent agreement between
these countries to develop a road/rail link between China and the development
of a new deep sea port on the coast of the Arabian Sea in Pakistan.
My guess is that despite what Trump says career US military and diplomatic
leaders were more interested in sending a signal to not just Pakistan but
also China, Iran and to a lesser extent Russia and other Middle East countries
that the US was not going to allow itself to be pushed out of South Asia.
This is a huge victory for everyone who wants to see the U.S. continue bleeding
itself to death while feeding a bloated 'defense' and imperial bureaucracy.
One can blame Trump for caving. But the real engine behind this is
the sheer inertia of money and career. It turns out to be an unstoppable
force: unthinking, blind, and stupid. Welcome to Idiocracy.
March Hare. When I consider the emergence of China since the death of Mao
I would not rule out the possibility that its engineers and Afghan work
force could create the infrastructure needed to make Afghanistan's mining
profitable in less than 16 years.
"My guess is that despite what Trump says career US military and diplomatic
leaders were more interested in sending a signal to not just Pakistan but
also China, Iran and to a lesser extent Russia and other Middle East countries
that the US was not going to allow itself to be pushed out of South Asia."
Trump is the President. Its his job and duty and responsibility to push
back against those "leaders." Same as it was Obama's. Both failed.
Also, you have hit on the very reason why the US, even if one concedes
that it must play the Great Game, can certainly afford to be "pushed out
of South Asia." Russia and China and Pakistan and India and Iran and Turkey
and the Arabs, and others, all have interests there. There is a natural
balance of power in Mainland Asia. The US simply does not need to be a player
there. Central Asia is far from any vital US interest, any US treaty ally,
any important shipping lane, any important anything. If there is one place
on Earth that the US can reasonably concede to others the task of policing
and controlling it has got to be Central Asia.
I do object to the title of the article, this isn't a losing strategy, this
is a not-winning strategy. You might ask yourself what you are doing playing
a game where winning is impossible?
This has always been a Pakistan demand: in the main, not so much for
Afghanistan but to retain so-called defenses against India. Pakistan has
steadfastly subsidized interlopers in Afghanistan w/ the dear hope that
they'll aid in any skirmish in the Hindu Kush.
To understand Pakistan's role in Afghanistan, you need to look at their
border, which is called the Durand Line, after some Brit who drew it on
the map.
The Durand Line cuts right through the Pashtun homelands, so you have
Pashtuns on both sides. Afghanistan is dominated by Pashtuns, and they have
never recognized the Durand Line – in fact, Afghanistan was the only country
in the world that voted against admitting Pakistan to the UN in 1948 for
this reason, and even the Taliban refused to recognize the Durand Line.
Pakistan is dominated by Punjabis, and their nightmare is that if a strong
Afghan government were to emerge, their Pashtun province of Khyber-Pakhtunkwa
might want to secede and join their fellow Pashtuns in Afghanistan. To prevent
this, they have undermined every government in Afghanistan and kept it weak
by funding rival tribes.
Since it is politically incorrect to say that they are undermining a
fellow Muslim state, the Pakistani government puts out some BS about the
need for "strategic depth" against India. India has fought numerous wars
against Pakistan but they were border skirmishes – neither side advanced
more than 20-30 km inside the other's territory (1971 is another story).
We are already blessed with 200 million Muslims in India – no one in his
right mind wants to occupy Pakistan and take in another 200 million, a lot
of whom are fanatics and jihadis. If there was some way to saw Pakistan
off and float it out into the Indian Ocean, we would do it in a heartbeat.
By the way, the Hindu Kush is part of the border between Afghanistan
and Pakistan, not with India. No Hindus left alive there by the Religion
of Peace for anyone to worry about.
"... With many of the asset purchases by China based corporations there is absolutely no intention of selling them or otherwise letting go of them ever again. As I learned this is per se no bad thing, but it could be if say, too much of a nation was owned by foreigners who will never relinquish those properties. ..."
"... Most Chinese certainly China's leaders have no intention of changing their outlook one iota, but that doesn't mean they want non-Chinese to alter and adopt their values. If Xi Jinping bothered to consider that he would most likely decide he preferred Trump and the rest of the Americans to remain exactly as they are because the adulation of material gain, arrogance and inability to lie straight in bed makes people's behaviour very predictable. ..."
"... I disagree with those who think that China has been duped - there's simply no evidence that China is that gullible. One century of humiliation was enough to learn how the western world works. ..."
"... As Debsisdead points out, "Whatever China eventually does to counter these deceits may not be actioned for decades, but when it is implemented it will be apposite, well considered and impregnable." ..."
"... We keep talking about hybrid warfare, and noting the west with its color revolutions and its increasingly visible lies, but have we learned yet how to detect asymmetrical responses from the multi-polar world? Especially since it's at least possible that they will occur almost invisibly? ..."
"... No. China does not believe anything the US says in public or even in private to them. 80% of Earth ppl know the US can't be trusted, it does not do deals, even private individuals who shake hands and the like, ever (they back out, my country orders..) ..."
"... All is calculation on where it might be advantageous to seem to 'submit' or 'shut up' or conversely 'complain' and make a fuss (to the UN, WTO, the US itself ) China and Russia don't want to take on the US militarily for now (except in low level proxy wars with a positive calculated outcome, see Syria), so all this stuff is just par for the course, it is expected, it is tit for tat shadow play that on the part of the weaker groups is thought out cynically. ..."
"... Trump maybe doesn't quite know what he is doing, in the sense of measuring, anticipating the results, as he is being manipulated. That is one view. Others can be put forward. ..."
"... Backdoors created for NSA/CIA can be exploited by others too, which makes all Outlaw US military electronic systems vulnerable. I recall a video presentation by Nasrallah showing the video Hezbollah intercepted from Zionist drones scouting the ground for its assassination of Hariri--evidence for Hezbollah's defense in the affair that nobody thought they'd be capable of obtaining that demolished the Zionist/Outlaw US Empire framing of Hezbollah for that murder. ..."
"... My bet is that the Generals have taken complete charge. ..."
"... An Asymmetric war will not do for the overlords (or generals?). The "Cyber" and other parts are to control dissidents in the EU and US. Both Russai and China will be aware of this as it is not the first time that either of them has been targeted by the US-UK. ..."
"... Adopting the NATO sanctions against NK must have fit the Chinese game plan. Chinese are not that stupid. ..."
"... There is no naive China, Russia or whatever, all Nations understand that the US regime is not reliable nor trustworthy, the game most of the Nations continue to play is the game to buy time, any war with the US regime can be hard at the moment, but not in few years time. China knows is and will play the patience game til the end, Russia does the same, expect for few "no go" like Syria and the south China sea islands. ..."
"... After Iran's experience with US "lifting of sanctions", should anyone ever trust USA at all? ..."
I'm with everyone who has already noted that amerika got where it is today by being a fork
tongued double dealer whose words aren't worth the paper I wipe my arse with.
There isn't a single agreement reached between US authorities and any other entity since the
days of treaties with the indigenous owners of the land amerika continues to purloin that
amerika hasn't breached in either the letter or the spirit, usually both.
On the other hand China isn't Iran, not only are they well aware of amerikan perfidy they
are in a position to counter it.
The fact they haven't done so yet merely indicates their preference for a square up which
doesn't cost China or any of its citizens. This is a culture which always plays the long game
no matter how long - witness their bemusement at amerikan commercial interests bitching about
listed Chinese corporations not meeting Wall St imposed quarterly 'targets'.
When I lived in Northern Australia I had a landlord for several years who never increased my
rent - this in a market where property prices were shooting up thanks to the usual worthless
asset appreciation that too many consider a wealth generator. When I asked my landlord who
was a third generation Australian the great grandson of gold miners who arrived from Shanghai
towards the end of the 19th century he said "You are paying me $25 a week correct?" I replied
yes, to which he responded "Well your week's rent is considerably more than my grandfather
paid for it, $25 was a fair price when we shook hands and so that is what the rent will
remain at unless you move out - a deal is a deal. I'm happy if you are"
That is what happened after I did move out the building which was little more than a big
corrugated iron shed was pushed over and my former landlord put an office block in its stead.
On the fringes of Darwin's CBD when I moved in by the time I left the property was most def
'down town'. The family will never sell it because for them it will always be a part of the
family morphology. The original settler would never have been able much less permitted to buy
land in 1880's China but he innately knew exactly how it related to his family once he bought
land somewhere else.
This is something that few if any of the media or business outside China fully comprehend,
an assumption has been made that Chinese, just as likely they imagine of all non-western
peoples, are morphing into western commercial mindsets.
We see this all the time when those nations who have a bureaucratic mechanism for
scrutinizing foreign asset purchases decide at least in part on the basis that the property
will eventually change hands again.
With many of the asset purchases by China based corporations there is absolutely no
intention of selling them or otherwise letting go of them ever again. As I learned this is
per se
no bad thing, but it could be if say, too much of a nation was owned by
foreigners who will never relinquish those properties.
I was initially positive about Chinese investors outbidding engander, Oz, amerikan and
european buyers for big chunks of Aotearoa but now I am less positive because denying locals
the opportunity to buy in their own country seems to me to be a recipe for eventual
conflict.
Trump may 'get away' with his deceit, but America will not. Whatever China eventually does
to counter these deceits may not be auctioned for decades, but when it is implemented it will
be apposite, well considered and impregnable.
Most Chinese certainly China's leaders have no intention of changing their outlook one
iota, but that doesn't mean they want non-Chinese to alter and adopt their values. If Xi
Jinping bothered to consider that he would most likely decide he preferred Trump and the rest
of the Americans to remain exactly as they are because the adulation of material gain,
arrogance and inability to lie straight in bed makes people's behaviour very
predictable.
DoubleThink concept was coined by UK BBC propagandist.
I had a dispute with allegedly UK citizen, who at THE SAME time demanded me to agree
that
1) there was no NATO promise to avoid expanding East, as there is no signed paper document
today on it, and personal speaks are merely speaks.
2) there is no threat to Russia from, and hence Russia acts unreasonably demanding
legally-binding documents to, those "anti-Iranian" missile stations in Europe, because
"everyone told you so".
And he did pursue both lanes in the SAME argument.
-----------
Now, while i admit that US and UK are different states for long, some habits seem to die
hard
-----------
They also say, Iran was promised US do not care about their invasion in Kuwait, and they
also say in 19114 German kanzler was promised UK King would not do a thing about
European(read: Continental) war.
Gorbachev did not care about any written statement as he assumed the cold war to be over
and envisioned a common European-Russian zone from "Wladivostock to Lisbon".
"The West" assumed the same but interpreted it as taking over Russia (integrating it in
the Western system) as Russia "had lost the cold war".
The West then lost the peace by their best and brightest causing a severe economic and
humanitarian crisis in Russia which led to the rise of Putin and Russia realizing that they
had to defend themselves.
Steinmeier just held a speech in Estonia accusing Russia of "thinking in terms of zones of
influence" and geopolitics whilst disrespecting the free will of people. The speech was very
coded but ended with Germany never again fighting against Russia in "blind enemity" whilst
saying before that Germany would never again do something like the Hitler-Stalin Pact.
Usually what you say in the end sticks in people's mind.
The way Victoria Nuland operated (and the EU/Steinmeier followed) showed Russia is not
alone in geopolitical thinking never mind the free will of people and their elected
representatives.
Same party as Steinmeier, Martin Schulz now campaigns with the withdrawal of US nuclear
weapons from Germany.
I agree with the voices here saying that China understands exactly what is going on.
Especially thanks to Debsisdead @ 38 for the wonderful cultural insights.
I disagree with those who think that China has been duped - there's simply no evidence
that China is that gullible. One century of humiliation was enough to learn how the western
world works.
@41 lysias -
"The McCain apparently experienced a mysterious steering failure before
the collision."
I too wonder if the US Navy is experiencing asymmetrical responses from either Russia or
China or both. I greatly want to know more about all this. Joaquin Flores had a speculative
piece at Fort Russ the other day, making the point that the Navy's call to halt all
operations worldwide seems completely disproportionate to the apparent causes. Pun intended,
what's really going on below the waterline?
As Debsisdead points out, "Whatever China eventually does to counter these deceits may
not be actioned for decades, but when it is implemented it will be apposite, well considered
and impregnable."
We keep talking about hybrid warfare, and noting the west with its color revolutions
and its increasingly visible lies, but have we learned yet how to detect asymmetrical
responses from the multi-polar world? Especially since it's at least possible that they will
occur almost invisibly?
China deserved what they got since they were dumb enough to believe ANYHING the US. ..
New Yorker at 10.
1)
No. China does not believe anything the US says in public or even in private to
them. 80% of Earth ppl know the US can't be trusted, it does not do deals, even private
individuals who shake hands and the like, ever (they back out, my country orders..)
Are the Chinese, Gvmt., industry, military, to be considered out of that loop?
2)
All is calculation on where it might be advantageous to seem to 'submit' or 'shut
up' or conversely 'complain' and make a fuss (to the UN, WTO, the US itself ) China and
Russia don't want to take on the US militarily for now (except in low level proxy wars with a
positive calculated outcome, see Syria), so all this stuff is just par for the course, it is
expected, it is tit for tat shadow play that on the part of the weaker groups is thought out
cynically.
3)
Trump maybe doesn't quite know what he is doing, in the sense of measuring,
anticipating the results, as he is being manipulated. That is one view. Others can be put
forward.
If fly-by-wire control systems can be hacked and captured on airplanes, then the same can
happen to any such system regardless of what it's guiding; and there've been hints at this
being done by the Multipolar Alliance. Recall Iran's capturing one of the Outlaw US Empires
most sophisticated drones several years ago then reverse engineering its own version.
Lots of evidence cruise missiles went awry thanks to EW. Then there were several reports
of Outlaw US Navy vessels having their systems completely shutdown via Russian EW. I imagine
PavewayIV has a good recap of these incidents.
Backdoors created for NSA/CIA can be exploited by others too, which makes all Outlaw
US military electronic systems vulnerable. I recall a video presentation by Nasrallah showing
the video Hezbollah intercepted from Zionist drones scouting the ground for its assassination
of Hariri--evidence for Hezbollah's defense in the affair that nobody thought they'd be
capable of obtaining that demolished the Zionist/Outlaw US Empire framing of Hezbollah for
that murder.
Detecting asymmetrical responses will be difficult since the Multipolar Alliance will be
reluctant to announce such an action, while the Unipolar Hegemon will also be reluctant since
it won't want the other side to learn how effective its actions are. Imagine if North Korea
has the capability to redirect B-1 and B-2 bombers by taking control of their fly-by-wire
systems; would you expect North Korea to announce such capability or reserve it for use?
US want China to exit production economy and become Debt consumer Economy. US can play
that stock market/futures with print money out of thin air. If Rothschilds want China to
become US debt model,...it probably happens,
Or....Chinese get RIP of Rothschilds
thanks for your personal insights debs.. it is interesting to me as i have lived in the
vancouver area for most of my life.. the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th generation chinese seem so
different then the new arrivals from hong kong..
I would like to agree with your view, but this new generation primarily from hong kong,
seem to have a very different mind set.. either way - thanks for sharing..
If you're ever confronted by any more British apologists on the issue of NATO missile
systems in Poland and Romania, mention the United States could only have set up the systems
by unilaterally withdrawing American signatures from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in
2002, a decade BEFORE the European Union and Ukraine 'started talks' on framing, signing, and
ratifying the EU Association Agreement (violating Article Six of the Russian-Ukrainian
Friendship Treaty of 1997, which required Russian foreknowledge and participation in any
frameworks or any agreements Ukraine had with 'a third party') that partitioned public
opinion in Ukraine and precipitated the civil war.
@44
While transcripts of the NATO-Soviet peace talks throughout 1990 haven't been released,
the U.S. Secretary of State and the West German Foreign Minister literally layed out a
post-war framework (the Nine Assurances in May; the London Declaration in July) publicly (it
was reported in mainstream German and American media) at the end of these respective
conferences BEFORE the Two Plus Four Agreement was reached.
It envisioned the 'reform' of NATO in the framework of the CSCE (now OSCE) or the
replacement of NATO by the CSCE, the ratifying of the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty
(building on other 'arms reduction measures by treaty' needed to permanently demilitarize
Europe), and the invitation of the original nine Soviet Republics to NATO Summits to accept
NATO Membership BEFORE post-Soviet Central Europe, Eastern Europe, and the Caucasus were
invited to accept membership.
The framework ('collective security') was explicitly what the Soviet Politburo had been
trying to achieve since the Soviet Foreign Ministry requested the British Foreign Ministry
(through public conferences) and the Polish Foreign Ministry (through secret telegrams) to
sign mutual security treaties in early and mid August of 1939 (which was rejected
consistently by Britain and Poland).
The Soviet Politburo was quick to end the war because it seemed the 'long strategy' had
worked, not because of Soviet indifference to formality. I think it was widely understood by
any European (worker or statesmen) the United States would never substantially compromise to
the discipline of formality, however, the Soviet Union preferred the risk and not diplomatic
stagnation.
Side note:
While I personally dislike involving a notorious personality in a social or political
history, I think it's interesting to speculate what would've happened if it was Chernenko who
lived and Gorbachev who died in 1985. He was a militarist, but never seemed committed to
decentralizing the Soviet economy and compromising so easily to the United States.
Part of b's headline; "Trump cheats...." may be wrong. Does Trump control anything at all any
more?
Not only the NK sanctions, but a corresponding increase in troop levels in Afghanistan,
(including "unknown helicopters" ferrying militants in Mazar-i-Sharif, from the Afghan base
of the 209 Afgh Nat Army corps in NATO controlled airspace, for a massacre of Hazara Shias in
Sar-e-Pol province), the increase of US servicemen training Ukrainian snipers on the Donbass
frontline and a reported blocking of a (small) Russian Bank from the SWIFT network, - all
suggest that the military have totally taken over command in the US.
That they have decided to push everyone around as far as possible. This change in policy
is since Trump "lost" his powers to Congress by massive one sided voting, and the
introduction of the "new" all encompassing anti-Russian and Chinese sanctions.
I may be wrong about WHO is in control (add your own here...), but it seems fairly clear
that the "Americans" (people) have been reduced to potential cannon-fodder.
My bet is that the Generals have taken complete charge.
-----
Unfortunately this is not a uniquely US phenomena. Examples in France go back to 1875 with
the "Anarchists" (actually FOR worker's rights at the beginning), The "commune de Paris, (US
CHicago riots) where other normal people didn't want the "status-quo" of overlord-underling
to continue. Usually the movement was treated as a proto-terrorist threat, all the MSM of the
time condemning the leaders - and the whole thing finishing in a blood-bath with troops
firing on dissenters -- WWI was another "overlord organised restucturation" by the
military).
Not really OT - but I am just trying to show that the new situation has antecedents
throughout history, and if I am correct the next stage will be to cross several frontiers (by
NATO or US) "accidentally" to provoke a reaction. ie NK is another.
An Asymmetric war will not do for the overlords (or generals?). The "Cyber" and other
parts are to control dissidents in the EU and US. Both Russai and China will be aware of this
as it is not the first time that either of them has been targeted by the US-UK.
Adopting the NATO sanctions against NK must have fit the Chinese game plan. Chinese are
not that stupid.
It should be considered that official sanctions naturally encourage, promote and serve the
black markets - the Mafia, Cartels, etc. The underground economy will surely not obey
sanctions. It should also be noted that certain official bodies will turn a blind eye and
allow certain other bodies to engage in trade, etc.
Note how the CyA brings in drugs to Mena Arkansas, for one example. And the cya plane
crash in Central America - loaded to the gills.
There is no naive China, Russia or whatever, all Nations understand that the US regime is
not reliable nor trustworthy, the game most of the Nations continue to play is the game to
buy time, any war with the US regime can be hard at the moment, but not in few years time.
China knows is and will play the patience game til the end, Russia does the same, expect for
few "no go" like Syria and the south China sea islands.
Nice to see you commenting here! Agreed that China and Russia understand but still seek
dialog since that's the essence of "the patience game." But I wonder about those running
Brazil; we don't discuss that much at SyrPers. Then there's India's Modi and the cadre of
Hindu Neoliberals who seem to want to have their own game instead of teaming with China and
Russia for a Win/Win partnership rather than the dying Zero-Sumism of the Neoliberalcons. And
thanks again for all the effort you devote to SyrPers; it's quite remarkable!
"... Before his death in May, Roger Ailes had sent word to Bannon that he wanted to start a channel together. Bannon loved the idea: He believes Fox is heading in a squishy, globalist direction as the Murdoch sons assume more power. ..."
"... "That's a fight I fight every day here," he said. "We're still fighting. There's Treasury and [National Economic Council chair] Gary Cohn and Goldman Sachs lobbying." ..."
"... The Trump presidency that we fought for, and won, is over I feel jacked up Now I'm free. I've got my hands back on my weapons ..."
Axios:
that part of that war effort might include a brand new cable news network to the right of Fox
News.
Axios' Jonathan Swan hears Bannon has told friends he sees a massive opening to the right of
Fox News , raising the possibility that he's going to start a network. Bannon's friends are speculating about whether it will be a standalone TV network, or online
streaming only.
Before his death in May, Roger Ailes had sent word to Bannon that he wanted to start a
channel together. Bannon loved the idea: He believes Fox is heading in a squishy, globalist
direction as the Murdoch sons assume more power.
Now he has the means, motive and opportunity: His chief financial backer, Long Island hedge
fund billionaire Bob Mercer, is ready to invest big in what's coming next, including a huge
overseas expansion of Breitbart News. Of course, this new speculation comes after Bannon declared last Friday that he was "
going to war" for
Trump ...
" If there's any confusion out there, let me clear it up. I'm leaving the White House and going to war for Trump against his opponents... on Capitol
Hill, in the media, and in corporate America,
Meanwhile, with regard his internal adversaries , at the departments of State and Defense,
who think the United States can enlist Beijing's aid on the North Korean standoff, and at
Treasury and the National Economic Council who don't want to mess with the trading system,
Bannon was ever harsher...
"Oh, they're wetting themselves," he said, explaining that the Section 301 complaint, which
was put on hold when the war of threats with North Korea broke out, was shelved only
temporarily, and will be revived in three weeks. As for other cabinet departments, Bannon has
big plans to marginalize their influence.
"That's a fight I fight every day here," he said. "We're still fighting. There's Treasury
and [National Economic Council chair] Gary Cohn and Goldman Sachs lobbying."
Finally, perhaps no one can summarize what Bannon has planned for the future than Bannon
himself:
"The Trump presidency that we fought for, and won, is over I feel jacked up Now I'm free.
I've got my hands back on my weapons.
I am definitely going to crush the opposition. There's no
doubt. I built a f***ing machine at Breitbart. And now we're about to rev that machine up."
Trump Declares Open-Ended War in Afghanistan Trump Abandons 'Instinct to
Withdraw'
Jason Ditz Posted on
August 21,
2017 Categories News
Tags Afghanistan ,
Trump In his Monday night
speech on the Afghan War, President Trump committed the US to an essentially open-ended
escalation of the conflict without any specific limitations, while granting commanders
broader authority to unilaterally target "the enemy."
What that outcome looks like, or how specifically he plans to get there are anyone's
guess. Fox News reported that White House sources told them before the speech that Trump was
going to announce 4,000 more troops for Afghanistan.
But President Trump said that the US strategy would be secret, saying the US is removing
any timetables for ending the war in Afghanistan. He said that he will not talk publicly
about troop numbers in Afghanistan or plans for ongoing military activity there. While
arguing that "America's enemies must never know our plans."
Trump's secrecy also means the American public will have no idea how the Afghan War is
being prosecuted.
This mirrors the decision to make troop levels in Iraq and Syria officially secret, but is
also a much broader commitment. He set the stage for general escalation of an Afghan war
that, over the past 16 years, has shown itself to endure through more or less any escalation
conceivable. In committing to continue that war until victory, Trump effectively made the war
permanent.
Trump presented continuation as both about 9/11, and about how opposed he is to the 2011
US withdrawal from Iraq, each presented as a reason not to withdraw, but seemingly each an
excuse that's never going to not stand in the way of ending the war.
The broad message of Trump's speech seemed to be that the US wasn't aggressive enough in
Afghanistan so far, criticizing President Obama for "micromanaging" the conflict. Trump said
he believes that US military victories come from "judgement and expertise of wartime
commanders."
Trump gave some lip-service to economic aid for Afghanistan, particularly pushing India to
"do more." But he insisted that the US had abandoned nation-building, declaring "we are not
nation-building again, we're killing terrorists."
This declaration also gives the impression of a permanent war, claiming 20 distinct
terrorist organizations between Afghanistan and Pakistan, and vowing to lift restrictions on
"our warfighters." He vowed that "no place is out of the reach of American might."
Ultimately, an escalation of 4,000 troops and a re-commitment to the status quo likely
would've been much milder than what Trump appears to be proposing. Trump's determination to
keep troop levels secret leaves the door open to a series of endless escalations down the
road, which the American public are liable to never hear about.
Afghanistan
- Trump To Announce Four More One-Year Wars
This evening Trump will announce a new "
path forward " in the occupation of Afghanistan. According to the usual leaks it will be
very same path the U.S. has taken for 16 years.
Several thousands soldiers from the U.S. and various NATO countries will (in vane) train the
Afghan army. Special Forces and CIA goons will raid this or that family compound on someone's
say-so. Bombs will be dropped on whatever is considered a target.
Trump will announce that 1,000 or so troops will be added to the current contingent. About
15,000 foreign troops will be in Afghanistan. About three contractors per each soldier will be
additionally deployed.
Trump knows that this "path forward" is nonsense that leads nowhere, that the best option
for all foreign troops in Afghanistan is to simply leave:
We have wasted an enormous amount of blood and treasure in Afghanistan. Their government
has zero appreciation. Let's get out!
But neither the military nor the CIA nor the local Afghan government will let the U.S.
leave. Fear mongering is abound: "What happens if Afghanistan becomes a hotbed for
international terrorists?" But few if any international terrorist incident in the "west" were
ever organized in Afghanistan. In all recent incidents the culprits were locals.
For the military it is all about optics. The generals do not want to concede that they lost
another war. The CIA wants to keep is militarized forces and drones which it justifies through
its engagement in Afghanistan. The drug production in Afghanistan, which the U.S. never really
tried to suppress, is rumored to finance "black" CIA operations just like it did during the
Vietnam war and throughout various South American conflicts. The members of the Afghan
government all live off U.S. largess. The war in
Afghanistan is a racket paid for with the lives of countless Afghans and U.S. taxpayer
money.
Now tightly under control of neo-conservative leaning generals Trump had little chance to
make a different decision. He had asked his team for alternatives but
none were given to him:
The president told McMaster "to go back to the drawing board," the official said. "But he
just kept coming back with the same thing."
Trump's former strategic advisor Steve Bannon promoted an idea of Eric Prince, a shady
provider of international mercenaries. Afghanistan would be given to a private for-profit
entity comparable to the Brutish East-India Company. That company, with its own large army,
robbed India of all possible valuables and nearly became a state of its own. But Prince and
Bannon forgot to tell the
end of that company's story. It came down after a large mutiny in India defeated its armed
forces and had to be bailed out by the government. The end state of an East India Company like
entity in Afghanistan would the same as it is now.
Then there is the fairy tale of the mineral rich Afghanistan. $1 trillion of iron, copper,
rare-metals and other nice stuff could be picked out of the ground. But in reality the costs of
picking minerals in Afghanistan is, for various reasons, prohibitive.
The Bannon/Prince plan was lunatic but it was at least somewhat different than the
never
changing ideas of the military:
The Defense Secretary [Mattis] has been using this line in meetings: "Mr. President, we
haven't fought a 16-year war so much as we have fought a one-year war, 16 times."
That line has already been used
five years ago to describe the war on Afghanistan. (It originally describes the 10 year war
in Vietnam.) Mattis did not explain why or how that repetitive one year rhythm would now
change.
A "new" part of the plan is to put pressure on Pakistan to stop the financing and supplying
of Taliban groups. That is not in Pakistan's interest and is not going to happen. The Trump
administration wants to hold back the yearly cash payment to the Pakistani military. This has
been tried before and the Pakistani response was to close down the U.S. supply route to
Afghanistan. An alternative supply route through Russia had been developed but has now been
shut down over U.S. hostilities towards that country. The U.S. can not sustain a deployment in
Afghanistan without a sea-land route into the country.
The Afghan army is, like the government, utterly corrupt and filled with people who do not
want to engage in fighting. More "training" will not change that. The U.S. proxy government is
limited to a few larger cities. It claims to control many districts but its forces are often
constricted to central compounds while the Taliban rule the countryside. In total the Taliban
and associated local war lords hold
more than half of the country and continue to gain support. The alleged ISIS derivative in
Afghanistan was originally formed out of Pakistani Taliban
by the Afghan National Directorate of Security which is under the control of the CIA:
In Nangarhar, over a year ago, the vanguard of the movement was a group of Pakistani
militants who had lived there for years as 'guests' of the Afghan government and local
people. While initially avoiding attacks on Afghan forces, they made their new allegiances
known by attacking the Taleban and taking their territory.
ISIS in Afghanistan, founded as an anti-Taliban force, is just another form of the usual
Afghan warlordism.
During 16 years the U.S. failed to set a realistic strategic aim for the occupation of
Afghanistan. It still has none. Without political aim the military is deployed in tactical
engagements that make no long lasting differences. Any attempts to negotiate some peace in
Afghanistan requires extensive engagement with the Taliban, Pakistan, China, Russia and Iran.
No one in Washington is willing to commit to that.
Trump's likely decision means that the story of the U.S. occupation of Afghanistan will
continue throughout the next years exactly as it happened during the last 16 years. The
decision, once made, is unlikely to change until the next presidential election. The 16
one-year-wars in Afghanistan will become 20 one-year-wars for no perceivable gain.
The only conceivable event that could change the situation is an incident with a large
number of U.S. military casualties. That could lead to a groundswell of anti-war sentiment
which could press Congress into legislating an end of the war. But are the Taliban interested
in achieving that?
Posted by b on August 21, 2017 at 01:54 PM | Permalink
Left unvoiced is the actual strategic reason for the Outlaw US Empire's occupation of
Afghanistan: It puts Imperial Stormtroopers smack-dab in the middle of China and Russia's
plans for Eurasian economic and eventual political integration while allowing the CIA to reap
the benefits of its opium/heroin export program which is used to destabilize nations
globally--including the homeland--which fits in quite well with the sole Neolibralcon policy
goal of Full Spectrum Domination. As b mentioned, only dialog between regional actors--all of
which now have some form of SCO membership--will finally solve the Afghan Problem. Of course,
it would be of immense benefit if the pretext for the Outlaw US Empire presence there was
proven to be the massive Big Lie that it is, but I don't expect the Truth to become known
about until ??? G
Given the strategic reason above, I don't expect the Outlaw US Empire to retreat from
Afghanistan until the Neoliberalcons are defeated domestically, which will require a massive
Movement within the nation to regain control of the federal government and monetary
policy--gaining just the Executive isn't nearly enough as Trump's proven.
OT: For those wondering what happened with Syrian Perspectives, it changed platforms and has
a new URL, https://www.syrianperspective.com/
On Topic: It appears Mercouris at the Duran decided to write something similar to
b, but that site's new format is still plagued by very long running ad scripts making the
content very difficult to read. Can't even copy/paste the URL. What a shame!
make work project........... it never ends.................
"But neither the military nor the CIA nor the local Afghan government will let the U.S.
leave. Fear mongering is abound: "What happens if Afghanistan becomes a hotbed for
international terrorists?"
of course this is the rationale for it all - terrorism....
war on communism, war on drugs, war on terrorism....
not sure what they replace terrorism with, so for the time being it will have to be the
rationale de jour........
@2 kalen.. propping up the us$, ensuring the continuation of the us$ is indeed
paramount..
Defund the war machine and piss off the war party. Stop the printing press of paper "money."
Repeal the 16th amendment.
The US Fed thinks that it can manage the healthcare of 320 million Americans while
simultaneously, it cannot manage the healthcare of 9 million Veterans.
I'm not a great fan of the Duran new design, but I can read its stories okay. I think you
may need to use Firefox browser and install the AdBlock Plus add-on. It's free and easy. The
wonderful thing about Firefox is its built-in Reader View button, which strips all the excess
media out of a page and formats just the story itself in a perfectly readable column width,
with a nice size font. You can actually lean back and read. It's amazing how this helps
comprehension. I often read b's articles and even a lot of the comments this way.
The alternative would be to find people in the U.S. govt who actually understand the Taliban.
You would think that after 16yrs, that we would have developed some expertise on the true
structure of Afghanistan.
The only beef we had with the Taliban was that they harbored Al Qaeda. Couldn't we bribe
them and let them keep their own country as long as they don't host international terrorists?
I don't know the answer to this question but that is the 'new' approach that I'd explore. I
recall that the Taliban seemed a bit put off when Al Qaeda destroyed the WTC and asked to
review the evidence. They made some reference to not wanting to violate some guest code.
Perhaps we were too heavy handed with them.
Doubling down on failure (or insanity by doing the same thing but expecting a different
result).
For some reason, our troop training skills are not working. The ones we trained in Iraq gave
up Mosul. The ones we trained in Jordan joined al Nusra and ISIS in Syria. And the ones we've
trained in Afghanistan still cannot secure the country.
The following members of the United Nations have made statements about their recognition
of the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol as federal subjects of Russia[35][36][37][38]:
'We haven't fought a 16 yr. war we have fought the same 1yr war 16 times'.
It is distressing that our core competence is selling each other BS. It reminds me of all
of the slick arguments I hear about how woefully underfunded the U.S. military is.
We must have hired Consultants because I've read over a dozen articles with the same
format ...
1. As a percent of GDP our military budget is at historic lows (creative accounting, it's
closer to 5% of GDP, not the advertised 3%).
2. 50% of our aircraft are not operational, along with other readiness scare stories (so
we should reward incompetence?)
3. The military is only 15% of the budget (flat out lie, it's 40% of discretionary
spending and owns about that much of the annual debt service that they also don't count. If
you eliminated Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, our payroll taxes would disappear, not
our deficit)
But the argument sounds good and never gets challenged on FOX/CNN.
Thanks for your help hints. I was finally able to read the entire article with almost no
interruptions. As the title suggests, it's a compare/contrast essay detailing the two
different experiences, goals and costs incurred. Mercouris points out that the USSR didn't
lose in Afghanistan--it fulfilled its policy goal and left--which is contrary to the West's
propaganda on the subject. It's a decent read, but Mercouris, like b, neglects to mention the
actual strategic goal of the Outlaw US Empire's invasion and occupation.
Also Grieved, thanks for your thoughtful comments in your reply to me on a previous
thread. Liked your comment at The Saker's latest Neocon thread.
" former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice said that it "made no sense" to expand the
military's presence without a new strategy, while Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin put it this
way:
"We've tried this before, we've tried to fortify our effort in Afghanistan under
Republican and Democratic presidents, and the fact is we're still in a situation where the
Taliban controls a massive part of the territory," Durbin told MSNBC in May. "We need to have
an honest answer to the question: Will the Afghans ever be in a position where there is less
corruption and there is less incompetence and they're able to stand up and defend their own
nation? It's time for some honest answers." "
And Donald Trump has the answer tonight? When Durbin says "their own nation", I believe he
is referring to the geographic boundaries assigned by Western commerce. That is the failure
of understanding, that a central government imposed on the warlord/tribal mosaic that is the
Afghan territories is doomed. Rather than troops, as Christian C. suggests @12, sending tons
of cash might be more persuasive than arming one band against another. A complete waste of
spec ops troops absent a true civil war against a hated tyrant.
The US project in Afghanistan started before the Eurasian project got going. Afghanistan
is is peripheral to the Eurasian project for the time being; it is currently economically
unimportant and will remain so until considerable development of infrastructure in the region
takes place. Having the resources is one thing. Having the infrastructure to develop those
resources is quite another.
"In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I suspected I was just a part of
a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all members of the military profession I
never had an original thought until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in
suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of the higher ups. This is typical with
everyone in the military service."*
~ Major General Smedley Butler, USMC, 1935 https://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html
Total Vision 2010--the policy paper that announced the #1 policy goal of the Outlaw US
Empire, nee New World Order--was published in 1996, and the plan to invade Afghanistan was
put into motion about 5 months prior to the "justification event" on 911. Total Vision 2020
is the latest update to the initial policy goal and was published during Bu$hCo.
The Eurasian vision was begun during Deng's years as China's leader and has accelerated
ever since.
@21 Think of the vast amounts of equipment, weapons, fuel, food, bottled water etc. consumed
daily. It all has to be flown in or moved across Russia by rail (do they still do that?) and
the troops and contractors have to be rotated in and out. Afghanistan has considerable
economic importance.
I'll attempt to read between the lines for those outside the US trying to understand all
this:
DynCorp's annual military contractor revenue from the US Government is reportedly more
than Germany's entire defense budget of around $42 billion (€36 billion). Only a few
billion from Afghanistan, but business there could use a shot in the arm.
Billionaire psychopath Stephen Feinberg controls DynCorp, bathed in the river of
blood/profits from Afghanistan (among others). He doesn't like the US military's performance
there - it's hurting business. Feinberg wants to fire US Afghanistan commander Gen. John
Nicholson (via his lapdog Trump, of course) but that alone will not help DynCorp much.
DynCorp is missing out on the lucrative combat merc market in Afghanistan. Most of the
military contractors it supplies are support, and only a few 'security' types are armed.
Feinberg knows supplying actual combat mercs is where DynCorpo will reap the real
profits.
Problem for Feinberg is the US military hates mercs and won't use them much (mostly
because mercs are homicidal psychopaths). Solution? Why stop at firing Nicholson? Fire ALL
the US military commanders in Afghanistan and replace them with obedient, profitable
dual-citizen DynCorp commanders. The Mini-Me US President Jared Kushner just loves this plan.
Maybe he gets a few DynCorp stock options out of the deal.
Some other issues:
Outsourcing the US Military might wake up a few of the intellectual lepar military
commanders to their duty to defend the US Constitution. US Military coup?
Solution: Mad Dog Mattis, of course: "Obey your Commander in Chief's unconstitutional
orders, you insolent bastards! Constitutional law and critical thinking is way above a
general's pay grade - leave that to CNN. Train your merc replacements in Afghanistan and shut
the hell UP!
Title 10 of the US Legal Code on the military prohibits using mercs in combat
Solution: Screw the law - that's why DynCorp bribes Congress. Rather than using illegal Title
10 military contractors in Afghanistan, Congress and Trump will classify their activities
from now on under Title 50: intelligence activities. See? Nothing at all to do with military
operations.
The US military doesn't control the current CIA spooks and won't be able to control the
new DynCorp mercs
Solution: If all Afghanistan mercs are reclassified as Title 50 spooks, then they report to
the CIA and its chain of command. The US military in Afghanistan will not and doesn't need to
control them - that's the point.
Who will command US troops if the military commanders are sent packing?
Solution: The Afghani slaughter will become a CIA operation, not a US military one. It will
complement the CIA's booming opium 'fund-raising' business there. US combat troops will just
be assigned to the CIA operation (combat, not poppy farming). Give all the US soldiers sent
there some kind of special berets (anything but green) and call them Special Forces. Shhh!
They're now involved in secret spook operations. Don't ask any questions.
How can the CIA possibly command so many mercs and US soldiers in Afghanistan?
Solution: That's where ex-Blackwater war criminal Eric Prince and his private UAE-based army
and air force come in. The CIA will simply hire contractor commanders for 'their' command
structure that will replace the current US military one. Whether Prince rebrands his current
commanders as DynCorp or uses some other ruse, he can flesh out the line staff from his
current merc army. The CIA will chose all the senior contractor commanders who will then be
hired by whatever DynCorp names that business.
Who will be the overall commander of military ops in Afghanistan going forward if Gen.
Nicholson is canned?
Soluton: Trump will choose an overall commander, reportedly with the title of viceroy
. My jaw hit the floor at that one. Here's Wikipedia:
"...A viceroy is a regal official who runs a country, colony, city, province, or
sub-national state, in the name of and as the representative of the monarch of the
territory. The term derives from the Latin prefix vice-, meaning "in the place of" and the
French word roi, meaning "king"..."
Chief DynCorp psychopath and dual-US/Israeli citizen Stephen Feinberg himself is
interested in the job according to Prince. An investment banker commanding psychopath mercs
slaughtering Afghanis in the name of the US - imagine that. Plus, Afghanistan is right next
door to Iran - convenient for US invasions and such. Oh, that's right. DynCorp is a business.
They'll gladly invade Iran for anyone with a big enough bag of shekels.
"On your knees and bow your heads, Afghani peons! All hail the supreme commander of all
Afghanistan, Viceroy Stephen Feinberg."
Surely Trump can't sell this plan to the US public. They're pretty dim, but this scheme
is just over the top!
Solution: Think again. This will be spun as a mere 1000 US combat troop surge... oh, and a
few contractors. Intelligence contractors, not mercs. The details of who they are and what
they will be doing is classified. Just never mind them. And as soon as US military commanders
and troops have their replacements trained up, they'll get to come home. Yay! Imagine the CNN
video at the airport of a weary US soldier returning from Afghanistan to his loving family.
JOY!
But what about the utter debasement of the US Constitution and myriad of war crimes the
US government will commit by doing something so insane?
Solution: Buy DynCorp stock and shut the hell up about the American's dumb-assed
Constitution. Besides, who are you to question the Viceroy?
For some reason, our troop training skills are not working. The ones we trained in Iraq gave
up Mosul. The ones we trained in Jordan joined al Nusra and ISIS in Syria. And the ones we've
trained in Afghanistan still cannot secure the country.
Posted by: Curtis | Aug 21, 2017 4:07:36 PM | 13
There are also success stories. The training program in Mali had good students and bad
students. Good students joined the rebellion of the Tuareg and clobbered the bad ones. Bad
ones were pissed to be sent by civilian government to the scorching sands of Sahara and made
a coup. The Tuareg had enough weapons from the fallen Libya to engage in infighting,
temporarily won by the group that claimed ISIS affiliation. Each group had some degree of
success.
Common theme is that USA offers no idea that would fire up troops under training. Did they
try "Truth, Justice, and the American Way" (the catch-phrase of the comic-book character
Superman). Or Here I
come to save the day! I think that the crux is economic development and decrease in
abject poverty, but does anyone in Administration have an idea how that could be done?
@26 "Imagine the CNN video at the airport of a weary US soldier returning from Afghanistan to
his loving family. JOY!"
I can see it already. He will have his faithful dog with him that he rescued from a ruined
Afghan village. His faithful translator unfortunately wasn't so lucky.
- The warlords are NOT "on the same page" as the Taliban !!!! The afghan people are/were
abused by the warlords, were suffering under the warlords. The warlords performed henous
crimse against the afghan population.
- The afghan people were treated better by the Taliban than by the warlords. That allowed the
Taliban to make a comeback in the 1990s. But it also meant that the afghans suffered under
the religious islamic fanaticism of that same Taliban.
- With the US invasion the Taliban was defeated and allowed the warlords to make a comeback
and now the afghan people were suffereing from/under the warlords again. The warlords were
needed by the US military to protect the transports that bring in all the goods that the US
military, other foreign troops and all mercenaries need to continue their "occupation" of
Afghanistan. Without those supplies those military forces will be "left hanging out to
dry".
- Generals like David Petraeus and Stanley McChrystal were both in command in Afghanistan and
recognized this hopeless situation and left their afghan post early. McChrystal retired and
Petraeus became director of the CIA
The British Empire was the largest in history. At the end of World War II Britain had to start pulling out from its colonies.
A major part of the reason was, ironically, the economic prosperity that had come through industrialization, massive improvements
in transportation, and the advent of telecommunications, ethnic and religious respect, freedom of speech, and other liberties offered
by the empire.
The colors represent the colonies of various nations in 1945, and the colonial borders of that time – click to enlarge.
After the departure of the British -- as well as the French, German, Belgians, and other European colonizers -- most of the newly
"independent" countries suffered rapid decay in their institutions, stagnant economies, massive social strife, and a fall in standards
of living. An age of anti-liberalism and tyranny descended on these former colonies. They rightly became known as third-world countries.
An armchair economist would have assumed that the economies of these former colonies, still very backward and at a very low base
compared to Europe, would grow at a faster rate. Quite to the contrary, as time went on, their growth rates stayed lower than those
of the West.
Socialism and the rise of dictators were typically blamed for this -- at least among those on the political Right. This is not
incorrect, but it is a merely proximate cause. Clarity might have been reached if people had contemplated the reason why Marxism
and socialism grew like weeds in the newly independent countries.
Was There a Paradigm Shift in the 1980s?
According to conventional wisdom, the situation changed after the fall of the socialist ringleader, the USSR, in the late 1980s.
Ex-colonized countries started to liberalize their economies and widely accepted democracy, leading to peace, the spread of education
and equality, the establishment of liberal, independent institutions. Massive economic growth ensued and was sustained over the past
three decades. The "third world" was soon renamed "emerging markets."
Alas, this is a faulty narrative. Economic growth did pick up in these poor countries, and the rate of growth did markedly exceed
that of the West, but the conventional narrative confuses correlation with causality. It tries to fit events to ideological preferences,
which assume that we are all the same, that if Europeans could progress, so should everyone else, and that all that matters are correct
incentives and appropriate institutions.
The beginning and end of the Soviet communist era in newspaper headlines. The overthrow of Kerensky's interim government was the
start of Bolshevik rule. To be precise, the Bolsheviks took over shortly thereafter, when they disbanded the constituent assembly
in in early 1918 and subsequently gradually did the same to all non-Bolshevik Soviets that had been elected. A little more than seven
decades later, the last Soviet Bolshevik leader resigned. It is worth noting that by splitting the Russian Federation from the Ukraine
and Belorussia, Yeltsin effectively removed Gorbachev from power – the latter was suddenly president of a country that no longer
existed and chairman of a party that was declared illegal in Russia. [PT] – click to enlarge.
The claimed liberalization in the "emerging markets" after the collapse of the USSR did not really happen. Progress was always
one step forward and two steps back. In some ways, government regulations and repression of businesses in the "emerging markets"
have actually gotten much worse. Financed by increased taxes, governments have grown by leaps and bounds -- not for the benefit of
society but for that of the ruling class -- and are now addicted to their own growth.
The ultimate underpinnings of the so-called emerging markets haven't changed. Their rapid economic progress during the past three
decades -- a one-off event -- happened for reasons completely different from those assumed by most economists. The question is: once
the effect of the one-off event has worn off, will emerging markets revert to the stagnation, institutional degradation, and tyranny
that they had leaped into soon after the European colonizers left?
The One-Off Event: What Actually Changed in the 1980s
In the "emerging markets" (except for China) synchronized favorable economic changes were an anomaly. They resulted in large part
from the new, extremely cheap telephony that came into existence (a result of massive cabling of the planet implemented in the 1980s)
and the subsequent advent of the new technology of the internet. The internet enabled instantaneous transfer of technology from the
West and as a consequence, unprecedented economic growth in "emerging markets."
Meanwhile, a real cultural, political, and economic renaissance started in China. It was an event so momentous that it changed
the economic structure not just of China, but of the whole world. Because China is seen as a communist dictatorship, it fails to
be fully appreciated and respected by intellectuals who are obsessed with the institution of democracy.
But now that the low-hanging fruit from the emergence of the internet and of China (which continues to progress) have been plucked,
the "emerging markets" (except, again, for China) are regressing to their normal state: decay in their institutions, stagnant economies,
and social strife. They should still be called the "third world."
There are those who hold China in contempt for copying Western technology, but they don't understand that if copying were so easy,
Africa, the Middle East, Latin America, and South Asia would have done the same. They were, after all, prepared for progress by their
colonial history.
European colonizers brought in the rule of law and significantly reduced the tribal warfare that was a matter of daily routine
in many of the colonies -- in the Americas, Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. Britain and other European nations set up institutional
structures that allowed for the accumulation of intellectual and financial capital. Western-style education and democracy were initiated.
But this was helpful in a very marginal way.
What is Wrong with the Third World
For those who have not traveled and immersed themselves in formerly colonized countries, it is hard to understand that although
there was piping for water and sewage in Roman days, it still isn't available for a very large segment of the world's population.
The wheel has existed for more than 5,000 years, but a very large number of people continue to carry water in pots on their heads.
Lead piping supplying water to homes already existed in Roman days, 2000 years ago.
The Ljubljana Marshes Wheel, which is more than 5,000 years old
There are easily a billion or more people today, who have no concept of either the pipe or the wheel, even if they went to school.
It is not the absence of technology or money that is stopping these people from starting to use some basic forms of technology. It
is something else.
Sir Winston Churchill, the war-time Prime Minister of Britain, talking about the future of Palestine said:
"I do not admit that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit
that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race has come
in and taken their place."
Cigar-puffing British war-time PM Winston Churchill was as politically incorrect as they come. If he were alive today, he would
probably be labeled the newest Hitler by the press and spend 90% of his time apologizing. Perhaps we shouldn't mention this, but
there are
many Churchill monuments dotted across Europe and one can be found
in Washington DC as well (alert readers will notice that a decidedly non-triggered Washington Post fondly remembered Churchill
as an "elder statesman" a mere 10 months ago; rest assured that won't stop the social justice warrior brigade if they decide to airbrush
him out of history). Just to make this clear, your editor is not exactly the biggest fan of the man who traded away half of Europe
to Stalin because he felt he could "trust the Soviet communist government" and who was clearly a tad too enamored of war, a characteristic
Robert Kaplan described in his strident, amoral pro-war
screed Warrior Politics: Why Leadership Demands a Pagan Ethos as follows: "Churchill's unapologetic warmongering arose not from a
preference for war, but from a breast-beating Victorian sense of imperial destiny " Neither the breast-beating nor the sense of imperial
destiny are really our thing, but we tip our hat to the man's utter lack of political correctness and his associated willingness
to offend all and sundry with a nigh Trumpian alacrity and determination. [PT]
On Islam, he said:
"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in
a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits,
slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist "
Talking about India he famously said:
"I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion."
A remark often attributed to Churchill, although this remains unverified, has certainly stood the test of time so far:
"If independence is granted to India, power will go to the hands of rascals, rogues, freebooters; all Indian leaders will be of
low caliber and men of straw. They will have sweet tongues and silly hearts. They will fight amongst themselves for power and India
will be lost in political squabbles. A day will come when even air and water will be taxed in India."
Europeans of that time clearly knew that there was something fundamentally different between the West and the rest, and that the
colonies would not survive without the pillars and the cement European management provided.
With the rise of political correctness this wisdom was erased from our common understanding – but it is something that may well
return to haunt us in the near future, as the third world fails to fulfill expectations, while people who immigrate to Europe, Canada,
Australia and the US from there fail to assimilate.
The Missing Underpinnings: Reason And All That Depends On It
Until now, the hope among people in the World Bank, the IMF, and other armchair intellectuals was that once the correct incentives
were in place and institutions were organized, these structures imposed from on high would put the third world on a path to perpetual
growth. They couldn't have been more wrong.
The cart has been put in front of the horse. It is institutions that emerge from the underlying culture, not the other way around.
And cultural change is a process taking millennia, perhaps even longer. As soon as Europeans quit their colonies, the institutional
structures they left started to crumble.
Alas, it takes a Ph.D. from an Ivy League college and a quarter of a million dollar salary at the World Bank or the IMF to not
understand what the key issue with development economics and institutional failures is: the missing ingredient in the third world
was and is the concept of objective, impartial reason – the basis of laws and institutions that protect individual rights.
This concept of reason took 2,500 years to develop and get infused into the culture, memes, and genes of Europeans -- a difficult
process that, even in Europe, was never fully completed. European institutions were at their root products of this concept.
A justly famous quote by Thomas Paine (a prolific writer with a side job as a founding father and revolutionary). Paine was deeply
suspicious of self-anointed authorities, both of the secular and clerical variety, who in turn regarded him as dangerous. His writings
inter alia provoked a so-called "pamphlet war" in Britain (it would be best if all wars were conducted via pamphlets). [PT]
Despite massive efforts by missionaries, religious and secular, and of institutions imposed on poor countries, reason failed to
get transmitted. Whatever marginal improvement was achieved over 200 to 300 years of colonization is therefore slowly but surely
undone.
Without reason, subsidiary concepts such as equality before the law, compassion and empathy won't operate. Irrational societies
simply cannot maintain institutions representing the rule of law and fairness. The consequence is that they cannot evolve or even
maintain institutions the European colonizers left behind.
Any institutions imposed on them -- schools, armies, elections, national executives, banking and taxation systems -- must mutate
to cater to the underlying irrationality and tribalism of the third world.
Western Institutions Have Mutated
Education has become a dogma in "emerging markets", not a tool; it floats non-assimilated in the minds of people lacking objective
reason. Instead of leading to creativity and critical thinking, it is used for propaganda by demagogues.
Without impartial reason, democracy is a mere tribal, geographical concept, steeped in arrogance. All popular and "educated" rhetoric
to the contrary, I can think of no country in the non-western world that did well after it adopted "democracy."
The spread of nationalism (which to a rational mind is about the commonality of values) has created crises by unifying people
along tribal lines. The most visible example is provided by events in the Middle East, but the basic problem is the same in every
South Asian and African country and in most of South America.
India, the geographical entity I grew up in, was rapidly collectivized under the flag and the national anthem. It has the potential
to become the Middle East on steroids, once Hindutava (Hindu nationalism) has become deeply rooted in society.
Assessing the Current Predicament
In Burma, a whiff of democracy does not seem to have inhibited a genocide perpetrated by Buddhists against the Muslim Rohingya.
Thailand (which was not colonized in a strictly political sense) has gone silent, but its crisis continues.
Turkey and Malaysia, among the better of these backward societies, have embarked on a path of rapid regression to their medieval
pasts. South Africa, which not too long ago was considered a first-world country, got rid of apartheid only to end up with something
even worse.
The same happened with Venezuela, which was among the richer countries of the world in the not-too-distant past. It is ready to
implode, a fate that may befall Brazil as well one day. Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, and East Timor are widely acknowledged to be
in a mess, and are getting worse by the day.
Indonesia took a breather for a few years and is now once again in the thrall of fanaticism. India is the biggest democracy, so
its problems are actively ignored by the Western press, but they won't be for long, as India continues to evolve toward a police
state.
Botswana was seen as one of the countries with the fastest and longest-lasting economic growth. What was ignored was the fact
that this rather large country has a very small population, which benefited hugely from diamonds and other natural resources. The
top political layer of Botswana is still a leftover from the British. The local culture continues to corrode what was left by them,
and there are clear signs that Botswana is past its peak.
Part of the central business district in Gaborone, Botswana. Long time readers may recall an article we posted about 2.5 years
ago: " Botswana – Getting it Right in Africa ". We are not sure
if much has changed since then, but it is worth recalling that Botswana started out as the third-poorest country in Africa when it
became independent in 1966 and is today one the richest. The very small population (by African standards) combined with the large
income the country obtains from diamond mining no doubt played a role in this, but being rich in natural resources means very little
per se . Botswana never fell for Marxism. When the country gained independence, its political leadership adopted democracy and free
markets and never looked back. Botswana is a very homogenous society in terms of religious and tribal affiliations, which differentiates
the country from most other former colonial territories in Africa. From our personal – admittedly by now a bit dated – experience,
we can state that Botswana is the only African country in which one is unlikely to encounter any corruption – not even the lowliest
government minion will ask for bribes as far as we could tell (in many African countries, officials begin demanding bribes the moment
one wants to cross the border). Considering all that, we are slightly more hopeful about Botswana, but it is not an island. Deteriorating
conditions in neighboring countries may well prove contagious at some point. [PT]
Papua New Guinea was another country that was doing reasonably well before the Australians left. It is now rapidly regressing
to its tribal, irrational, and extremely violent norms, where for all practical purposes rape is not even considered a crime.
Conclusion: A Vain Hope
The world may recognize most of the above, but it sees these countries' problems as isolated events that can be corrected by further
impositions of Western institutions, under the guidance of the UN or some such international (and therefore "non-colonialist") organization.
Amusingly, our intellectual climate -- a product of political correctness -- is such that the third world is nowadays seen as
the backbone of humanity's future economic growth. Unfortunately, so-called emerging markets are probably headed for a chaotic future.
The likeliest prospect is that these countries will continue to cater to irrational forces, particularly tribalism, and that they
will consequently cease to exist, disintegrating into much smaller entities.
As the tide of economic growth goes out with the final phase of plucking the free gift of internet technology nearing its end,
their problems will resurface rapidly – precisely when the last of those who were trained under the colonial system are sent to the
"dustbin of history".
Some people are more culturally predisposed to exploring and trying new things.
If you believe the future will be better than the past then you will be prepared to work to improve things, if you believe
the world is in terminal decline and that the glory days were some time ago, either when gods or prophets did all the important
stuff or when your locale was more prosperous then you will not be as encouraged to work on improvements and you will thend to
hoarde meagre resources and live by thrift with minimal expenditure.
I think that colonialism is in play again as the advance societies are starving for resources and will invest in these countries
in exchange. This will change the trend into better education, better jobs and everything that comes with it for the middle classes
but perpetuate slave wages for the uneducated masses.
The world is not changing but morphing. It's the nomenclature that changes for the sake of political correcteness and feel
good predisposition.
The history of western investment in third world resources does not make for a pretty read. Look now at what has happened just
in the last months of a major silver mine being closed in a small Central American country, where the local manager has been accused
of murdering protestors and objectors to the mines presence in their midst, destroying the countryside.
The CIA seems to have had, as it's primary objective, the job of clearing the way for US and British, and Canadian industrial,
infrastructure and mining interests to come in and take the resources. A good payoff to the man in power greases the wheels, and
the people get nothing but a degraded environment and mammoth debt.
The next step is to restructure the debt, in the process privatizing state infrastructure at cut rate prices. This is nothing
but mass rape and pillage.
"American exceptionalism" is just a small-time ugly consequence of the actual phenomenon: good old imperialism, taught by the
British. And there's nothing wrong with it. All European countries have accepted NATO and american influence on them willingly.
They have all recognized and validated American exceptionalism themselves. As subjects of an empire they now complain that the
Emperor is quickly losing its clothes,
True you have to have "Ambition & Will" for change to stomach the difficult period of creating that change. (eg Gandhi, US
independence etc).
...A major part of the reason was, ironically, the economic prosperity that had come through industrialization, massive improvements
in transportation, and the advent of telecommunications, ethnic and religious respect, freedom of speech...
This however while a factor is also bias. Post WWII no weapons (other than US) were permitted in Pacific war region and a decisive
factor in limiting the influence of the Brits in their pre war colonies. Post colonials also saw war as a way out of colonial
rule, using US leverage to oust Brit influence.
edit - probably BritBob will go apoplectic with this? Cue "Rule Britania"
That zionist bastard churchill was not prognosticating about india, he was merely telling the world what they were going to
do, ie., leave the country in the hands of rouges and rascals.... who have ruled and looted and destroyed India for their city
of london masters ever since.
It's the joos who hate indians and of course churchill wasa closet joo...
...all ZHers owe themselves trek to Mother India, quite a head turning experience. One comes to appreciate the West's "can-do
philosophy."
This approach to problem solving is in small measure in India. India's fine burgeoning medical capital in Chennai (old Madraas)
is a testament to talented Indians being schooled in Occidental universities and then returned to Mother India to set up shop.
In many ways, India will lead the West OUT of their self-imposed medical nemesis. There is much progress in India. All Indians
love to ORATE. You betcha, they stand on the corner and begin lecturing. A much better approach than USA's 535 idiots and grifters
that make up the US Congress.
My own hunch is that India will eclipse the remarkable progress of China. Stay tuned as the world squirms.....
Hunches are like hunchbacks: I don't want either one of them to ring my bells. After over fifty years of visiting and doing
business in India, I go no more. While I love the people there, the country has become an abyss I no longer wish to stare into.
Unfortunately, it has become quite the living hell....
Western model of development + rampant corruption + poor engineering standards have made this a hotch-potch of a rending screech
of a marriage between east and west....
Perhaps it's time to admit Indians got a chance to take their country back and move their society forward, seen through nationalist
Gandhi, but Indians neither want nor understand the concept of moving forward.
Without the "western model of development" there would be no development in India for millennia.
Without the Aryan colonization/admixture of many millennia ago, there would never have been any civilization on the Indian
Subcontinent.
The Second Aryan invasion (ie British colonialism) left barely enough behind to last more than the coming century.
The differing subspecies of hominids are neither fungible nor equal . But there is huge amount of paper profits to be derived
from pretending otherwise. There is a lot of ruin to be extracted from the Commons. At home, The African Equality Racket has garnered
trillions so far, with no sign of stopping. Abroad, The Afghan Equality Racket has garnered trillions so far, with no sign of
stopping. No signs of progress with either hominid population. And yet, we still have people arguing that culture is somehow separate
from biology.
But back to the topic at hand..
Prediction: India returns to barbarism and warring superstitions.
Yes, Sanskrit is an Aryan language. There are a whole host of others, owing to The White Man's far-ranging conquest of primitive
hominids. Or homos, in your case, cocksucker. Maybe your great great 15 grandmother appeared human enough to serve
as a concubine.
Sanskrit is an aryan language? Then explain to me one thing. The rig veda (the oldest agreed upon text written in sanskrit)
is centered around worshipping the river saraswati. And the river saraswati dried upon before/around 1900 B.C and aryans 'came'
to india in 1700 B.C. Second....if sanskrit was foreign in origin, why havent we found anything equivalent to sanskrit in the
'aryan' nazi homelands? Indus valley civilisation had indoor plumbing, flush toilets, planned streets, sewage systems that took
sewage away from individual homes out of the city. No civilisation that i am aware of had that at that time. Dont believe me?
Read up about indus valley civilisation. They had it right until 'aryans' came. And then india went back to mud huts and shitting
on streets.
As for buddha having blue eyes. turquoise was used to represent ancient famous people as it could be used to represent 'eyes'
as it looked like 'eyes'. Thats why torqouise was used. And torqoise only comes in blue and white not in black and white even
if it does its very rare. Blue and white is more easily available. That is why it was used. So it doesnt necessairly mean buddha
or other famouse people's pictures or statues who had blue torqoise representing their eyers.....had blue eyes in real life.
The western way of moving forward is about consuming, using up resources. Once the resources are gone, they have to find a
new place to plunder, in order to again move forward.
The eastern culture is in general about living in a sustainable manner, in harmony with nature. Their way is more about trade
and not war. This is why they got conquered so easily.
Now I can't say which is better. Plundering and moving forward or staying put and living in peace with nature. My only hope
is that the easterners have enough of the western values already in them to not repeat the old mistakes again.
"...the hope among people in the World Bank, the IMF, and other armchair intellectuals was that once the correct incentives
were in place and institutions were organized, these structures imposed from on high would put the third world on a path to perpetual
growth. They couldn't have been more wrong..."
Anyone who tracked the likes of Hans Adler a German/Brazilian Jew who worked for the World Bank in the 60s and 70s and who
I studied under at George Mason University in the 80s knows that the "Latifundio/Minifundio" land tenure structure was the mechanism
and means to exploit the gold fillings "literally" out of the mouths of the natives that owned and tended their lands throughout
Latin America from the 40s through the 80s doing what the World Bank and IMF always has done it's best to get the multinationals
in to take over the most important arable land for exploitation through "incentivized" loan deals that ended up robbing them of
all their ownership for worthless "shit paper"!... Rinse and repeat for the "model" used everywhere else especially Middle Eastern
oil.
John Perkins solidified it in his work "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" 25 years later...
Too little too late I'm afraid. Only wish there were many more like him!
I only wish Perkins had explained the role of the dollar. This book,
'The Hidden Hand of American Hegemony' 'Petrodollar Recycling and International Markets' explains that better. He does explain
how The IMF and World Bank keep them in line with debt, though.
It looks like someone put the teachers in charge of Wikipedia! It used to be a very accurate source of information! I have
recently been finding extreme errors on it and never have until about a month ago! I believe that universities feel threatened
by It! This info please chart is correct and the Wikipedia chart is incorrect!
It is and always has been a front. But like many other things, it contains the lie and the truth together. The lie at the top
of the page and the truth at the bottom. See if you can take it from there. That's the only clue I will offer today. Best of luck!
Well, it wasn't that way previously, however, the lie on top and truth on the bottom would be congruent with the way that the
establishment and media operate, without question!
I agree, except for the part about the internet being responsible for wealth. That part is garbage. Internet wealth is non
productive and eventually a drain on any economy.
How can you say that. Some toad earlier in the comments said he is making 7k a month from the internet. Doubting him is like
doubting a Wikipedia article.
Patronizing views on these "3rd world" areas or whatever you may call them...Whatever you say and no matter if you are 100%
right about the differences in culture, there is no escaping the fact that these people were "fine" before europeans came along
and fucked them up. Cultural relativism is 100% true in this case. Doesn't matter if they were raping babies or whatever, that
is their culture and has nothing to do with ours. It was our bullshit christianity and culture that gave us the bullshit rationale
to destroy whatever existing cultures we found. So what if they wouldn't have come up with the wheel, plumbing, or the internet
- that gave europeans no right to do whatever they wanted wherever they wanted. Hard truth for you pos ZHers to swallow, but no
way around it. And the funny thing is now you have the gall to say that these other cultures are destroying ours! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Payback is a Bitch!
How do you figure that conclusion ? In THEIR cultures 'might makes right' so by invading and subjugating "we" were playing
by their rules. It is hypocritical on our part but only because we deny our history and the reality of superiority (in terms of
industrialisation and military strength etc) in preference for politically correct feel-good lies.
Read "The Confessions of an Economic Hit Man". IMF, USAID and BIS have worked in unison to rape and pillage the "Third World"
This is not a problem of the colonies falling apart, it is a problem of deliberate overselling of debt with a side of mandated
privatisation, followed by ruin and sale of government assets, followed by grinding povery and tax to pay the interest on the
ever climbing debt.
This is a system of overt debt slavery disguised as aid.
I think this piece is white wash propaganda. Tylers??
Well said, Cat! The occupying nations left a cadre of native criminals behind to enslave their countrymen. The cadre of native
criminals take their cut and pass the rest uphill to London, Paris or New York. They call it "Independence"! Sort of like what
happened in the new United States of America where farmers and artisans fought for freedom from Great Britain and New York, Massachusetts
and Virginia aristocrats took over the country.
Of course he omits the most important reason. It doesn't need to be this complicated.
They are simply dumber than whites and E. Asians. Inbreeding is common in ME countries and Pakistan for example has an average
IQ of around 70. In Sub Saharan Africa it is only 65 which means they are effectively retarded.
I read a story recently that a tanker overturned on the road in Pakistan and several hundred people were blown up while trying
to siphon the gas.
Now that's fucking stupid. Something like that would never happen in a Western country.
Every presumption of SJW's is based on insane lie that all groups and races are intrinsicly equal intellectually. This is clearly
not the case though of course there are some exceptions.
The left wanted to crucify the geneticist James Watson merely for suggesting this was the case.
You need to read up on a litle history my friend..... your post is ignorant at so many levels, it's laughable. The number of
highly advanced concepts that were stolen from the east over the centuries is legion. India and the ME were the root of all great
kowledge, astrology, astronomy, metallurgy (Damascus steel came from India), mathematics (ZEro came from India)......
Whites were shitting on the streets and eating their dead not 300 years ago.
Jhonny come lately with a gun, get it? And all your scientific wonders are toxic to the world and humans. All of them, including
your "medicine"....
We don't need any tips from people who are still figuring out how to poo in the loo dindu. Come back and complain about western
medicine when you have a real problem and you'll be begging for it. The third world is lucky we humor them. The insane population
growth is because of bleeding hearts supplying food and medicine to places like Africa. The west has been dominating the world
and international trade since the late 1400's. Most technology is spread through diffusion and the west proved to be the best
and most open society to synthesize new ideas. That being said western culture is based in the Greco Roman intellectual tradition
and Christianity. It has nothing to do with the your barbaric country which the British defeated and colonized easily.
IQ differences by race and region are a scientific fact and that data is easily available. Even India which is considered "smart"
by most laymen is around 80 where as the average on Western countries is around 100.
Race based supremacy was an element of German fascism. Italian fascism was based more on
national supremacy. If fascism were to arise in America it would most likely have a strong
religious element.
A lot more effort has probably gone into the cunning and manipulative parts than the system
itself. They picked a pretty dire 1920s economics, neoclassical economics, that still has all
its old problems.
1) The effect of debt on the economy. Leading to Japan 1989, US 2008, Irish and Spanish
real estate collapses, Greece's collapse with austerity and the new normal of secular
stagnation.
Today's neo-classical economics was around in the 1920s and it had exactly the same
problem. Debt based consumption and speculation led to the roaring 20s and the debt deflation
of the Great Depression.
2) The difference between "earned" and "unearned" income. Leading to parasitical rentier
economies, now spotted by one of today's Nobel Prize winning economists "Income inequality is
not killing capitalism in the United States, but rent-seekers like the banking and the
health-care sectors just might" Angus Deaton.
A flawed model of global, free trade that doesn't consider the minimum wage is set by the
cost of living. Western labour is priced out of global labour markets by the high cost of
living in the West exacerbated by rentier activity.
3) Bank credit should be directed into productive investment in business and industry, not
blowing asset bubbles (e.g. real estate) and other financial speculation.
In Fascism the party is the state. It is collectivist hence the socialist in the title with
added national exceptionalism. While racism was always there Nazism was more focused on race
than most. I'm not sure that I could identify anything like a Fascist party in the UK or US
outside a very few, small fringe groups.
Totalitarianism is a method of government that controls (or tries to) every aspect of its
citizens lives. Fascism is an ultra-nationalist ideology that uses totalitarianism to achieve
its aims.
The Soviet Union (under Stalin at least) was also totalitarian but obviously was communist
rather than fascist.
"Fascism is a fundamentally patriarchal ideology. It envisions the creation of a new man
conquering all before him, whilst the women stay home producing good fascist babies."
And yet, if the same ideology drapes itself in cloth and dogma, the left celebrate it.
Not really. He adapted the constitution and manipulated the "Reichstag" from 1933. Not to
mention the physical (and murder) of opponents and one time allies.
The Constitution was blatantly ignored and set aside by the NSDAP and the conservative
politicians. The Social Democrats and Communists were "done away with.
Meanwhile Henry Ford built vehicles in Germany for the German Army the Duponts supplied
chemicals, the bankers funded the Nazi enterprise and IBM supplied the devices to track
Hitlers deplorables so they could be rounded up for the work and death camps. These same
captains of industry were quite happy to see American boys die for their self serving
interests.
The march went ahead though, didn't it? No one was prevented from saying anything. We heard
it loud and clear. That Pie quote comes from Feb and relates to Berkeley cancelling Milo
Yiannopoulos from speaking, which is a different situation.
He has a pop at Antifa violence handing Trump etc the moral high ground, which I get. The
problem is that by equating Antifa with fascists, you are undermining the argument against
actual fascists. The internet is awash with "Antifa just as bad" - which pulls the right wing
into the centre ground and makes the Alt-right seem more reasonable. I know where he's coming
from, but the emphasis is off. It's a nice soundbite - but I don't know how helpful it
is.
Now I in no way condone violence and least of all from people who are into any kind of racial
supremacy, however, I cannot help feeling that the MSM are making a mountain out of a mole
hill here. The Charlottesville "unite the right" rally was only attended by some 500
participants, I am not aware of the figures for the counter protest but they were probably
more numerous. The violence was shocking but probably could have been avoided had the police
not disbanded the "unite the right" rally and then stood down leaving both groups to duke it
out in the streets of Charlottesville.
The point I'm making is that 500 far right nutters don't mark a new rise of Nazism, but
the current climate of calling anybody with slightly right leanings Nazis could push things
that way.
Was it thousands who drove the car into that lady too? No. It was one.
Sod the far right - they'd see me strung up for my skin colour.
But equally sod the left - they are the ones who would encourage and 'empathise' with my
differences - thus driving me into the clubs and bats of the far right. EG at the last
election, I only received racist literature from one party - Labour - celebrating the issues
that my race celebrates - because to my local Labour MP, I am a group identity, not an
individual.
The Republican Party embraced racism via Nixon's Southern Strategy in 1968, getting their
inspiration from George Wallace's independent run for President. This brought great benefit
to the GOP, allowing them to take over the South from 1968 through 1980. They doubled down on
this strategy during the Obama presidency, with dog-whistle racist politics that brought them
back to power after being decimated in the 2008 elections.
Citing racist Democrats of the past is about as meaningful as saying that Lincoln was a
Republican and emancipated the slaves, so the Republican Party isn't racist. It doesn't pass
the laugh test.
America is similar to the UK in many ways when I visit but there are also big
differences.
The class system is less subtle, people are literally divided by walls, and even transport
e.g. all the middle classes drive in big cars, whereas the bus is full of working class
people. And people openly exclude lower classes in their language (rednecks, white trash and
so on).
And in addition to the palpable class difference, they then have a whole race based division
as well, the bus is almost all not white, the maids are almost all not white, the posh
establishments are white majority etc. And people of all races talk about it all the time.
You meet them and in the first few sentences they inform you of their ethnic or cultural
background and ask yours. This is something in the UK that I am not used to.
My point is that it is all very well blaming a minority of nutters, or extremists, but
actually, the whole of society in the USA is race and class obsessed and it will take all of
you to sort this out.
This is the most idiotic comment I've ever read. There have been a range of white supremacist
states in the 20th century that absolutely demonstrate that is it perfectly possible for this
ideology to control a country. South Africa was a white supremacist state for over 40 years
until 1991 - were they all sad sacks? What about the Germans and Italians in the early 20th
century? Whole countries of sad sack losers?
It is amazing to see history repeating itself, including the anti-communist rhetoric of
the right. The Nazis effectively created a strawman out of the communist party in Berlin
through effective use of propaganda and targeted violence erroneously blamed on the
communists (such as the Reichstag Fire). Communists don't make people hate others because of
their race.
The fact that you assume that anyone who disagrees with fascism and is concerned about the
parallels with the current resurgence in nationalist rhetoric now and in the interwar period
is a on the 'far left' says a lot more about your politics than mine.
Fascism happened in Italy in the 20s. Nazism occurred in German in the 30s. Modern groups may
imitate those movements but they should be labelled as far-right extremist and racists .
"It's like the left want there to be powerful and dangerous fascists. Why?"
This is true in the UK too. The left would rather paint people as racists and fascists,
because then they feel that they can attack them.
The problem is, that often the left work towards the goals of the fascists. Take identity
politics for example - great for those that want to be defined by their 'identity grouping',
foul racism for the rest of us who want to be judged by the same standards as everyone else -
for our choices as adults, not our genes at birth.
Out of 325 million people they managed to scare up 250 oddballs to a heavily publicized event
in Virginia? Check the coverage, and they are outnumbered by the reporters and camera crews,
which greatly magnified the impact of the rally. They are not the face or forefront of any
mass movement, though they are being portrayed as such by opponents desperate for the support
(and donations) that political conflicts bring.
People are not dismissing the possibility of extremists finding success in American politics.
They are, however, dismissing efforts to dismiss any and all political opposition to people
like you as extremists, and the efforts to tie every lunatic fringe anywhere to our elected
government that you oppose.
This is a really big country. Your textbook has damned few students. Have you noticed?
There seems to be quite a lot of evidence that many Americans do subscribe to contempt for
"the Other". "God Bless America" at the end of every political speech gives a clear
indication they consider themselves special under God. The obsession with their flag,
treating it with almost religious reverence, is odd.
In nazi Germany it grew from the ground up and their certainly wasnt a coherent plan from the
ruling Junkers class to introduce fascism .Like with Drumpf the racist dregs were the core
around which the nazis built and the wealthy backed them once they were in power.
Missing from this is the fact that the most powerful elites like Henry Ford, J.P Morgan the
Dupont Family and many other bankers and industrialists openly supported fascism. No question
these folks were behind the plot to overthrow the Roosevelt government.
Are politicians to be judged by the worst that support them as the least worst option?
Trump has the support of some nasty individuals. Likewise here in the UK, Labour seems to
have the support of some extremely socially regressive groups. Do we judge Labour by the
worst of their voters then?
But none of them enjoy any popular support, and they never will
I suppose this is one of the few good things about Republican/Democrat dominance in the US,
either fall flat on your face by striking out on your own or be forced to comprimise by
signing up with one of the big 2
I can't help thinking all this talk of fascism is disingenuous, because America has always
been an apartheid state, and up until quite recently there were even tensions and prejudices
between different white groups. Nevertheless the idea that America is fundamentally a white
supremacist nation is generally unspoken until it is challenged. It was last challenged in
the sixties by the civil rights movement, and the response was violent. Most recently it was
challenged by the election of Barack Obama, and predictably the reaction was violent. That
isn't to say that there aren't millions of decent Americans who are not racist, or that
people of colour cannot overcome these barriers, or that the nation doesn't have a fine
tradition of social justice movements, or that racism is the only injustice a human beng can
suffer. But, for all the mythmaking about liberty and justice for all, there is no getting
away from the fact that the nation's origins lie in genocide, people trafficking, forced
labour, caste-based inequality, environmental despoliation and exclusivist religious cultism.
These demons have never gone away.
Hitler was not let in by PR as is sometimes claimed, but after getting 30 odd percent
repeatedly, he used political maneuvering and street intimidation to force his opponents out
of the way and sieze power, immediately ending democracy. Instead, if Germany had elections
under First Past the Post at the time, Hitler's 30 odd percent might have produced a
Parliamentary majority.
Post WW2 one of the first if not the first show to confront American fascism was "The
Twilight Zone ".Great man that he was Rod Serling confrontrd racism and fascism head on
having an abiding hatred of both ,he was a WW2 veteran so he knew what nazis looked like in
the flesh.
Extremism is growing in every little ugly dark corner of our world. It's the real enemy.
Left, right, religious or agnostic, even sports fans. We must be ever vigilant and not
mistake extremist anger for passion. We must shine a light on those within us who are losing
control and we must not excuse those who are lost just because they are on the same side.
Someone agreeing with you is great, but if the manner on which they agree is distasteful
or vile, they aren't with you at all if you are a decent person, because the real fight is
between the good moderates and the vile extremists. And this notion that there are no bad
tactics only bad targets? Bull. Let's make the twenties the decade we get back on track.
UKIP 'openly fascist ideology'? Dearie me.
Fascism: 'Totalitarian ideology associated with Benito Mussolini that elevates the nation
over all other loyalties. It calls for the creation of a 'new man' purged of individualism
and materialism. It celebrates masculinity, youth and the regenerative power of violence. It
seeks to unify the nation under the leadership of a supreme leader in struggle against
internal and external enemies.'
This column is perfect for The Graun: making a careful list of gaudy outbreaks of fascism
while shorting the scaffolding on which it hangs. Instead of exposition on the heavy-handed
corporate takeovers that lead to fascism there's a one-liner, "the crisis years of the 1920's
and 1930's."
Fascism is not the outgrowth of some nebulous 'crisis' but a coherent economic and
political program that must begin at the highest levels of society. So it is in the US today,
a result of decades of growing inequality and resulting desperation. Chris Hedges' comment on
sick societies: "And if we do not overthrow the neoliberal, corporate forces that have
destroyed our democracy we will continue to vomit up more monstrosities as dangerous as
Donald Trump." Ladies and gents, I give you Charlottesville.
Alot of people become more radicalized through youtube. If you watch a few 'alt-right' videos
on you tube soon your feed will become full of them. People then get drawn in by the
unbalanced media and a hate filled echo chamber. Videos heavily edited and narrated to suite
a certain agenda.
The hate in some of the comments is atrocious.
I took a look at a video on youtube which suggested that someone should run over fractions
of the left wing protestors with a tank. 100 likes. So soon after the terror attack. Youtube
needs to do more to censor threats of violence.
Lastly I am sure infowars never used to be so 'far / alt-right... it seems like it has
become far more extreme in the last few years.
"Today, neo-fascism has many faces, with movements ranging from neo-Nazis to neo-Confederates
to segments of the alt-right."
This is the point at which an interesting piece about the history of fascism in the United
States seemed to let itself down.
Neo-Nazis and neo-Confederates tend to self-identify. They're the idiots with the dumb
costumes and badges who can't seem to tell whether they're playing at being boy scouts or
wizards. But where the piece lost an opportunity to provide additional insight was in the
matter of the alt-right. 'Alt-right' has become something of a catch-all term that all kinds
of people use for all kinds of reasons.
"[S]egments of the alt-right" is overly vague, and may seem to be something of an evasion.
If there are segments of the alt-right that are fascists without falling into the two
categories already mentioned (neo-nazis and neo-Confederates) then identify them - just as
you identified the individuals and groups earlier in the piece.
Scholarship is great when it is specific and detailed. The alt-right part of the piece was
too vague and therefore missed an opportunity to provide much-needed insight about a label
that is in danger of becoming overused to the point of meaninglessness
"... Before his death in May, Roger Ailes had sent word to Bannon that he wanted to start a channel together. Bannon loved the idea: He believes Fox is heading in a squishy, globalist direction as the Murdoch sons assume more power. ..."
"... "That's a fight I fight every day here," he said. "We're still fighting. There's Treasury and [National Economic Council chair] Gary Cohn and Goldman Sachs lobbying." ..."
"... The Trump presidency that we fought for, and won, is over I feel jacked up Now I'm free. I've got my hands back on my weapons ..."
Axios:
that part of that war effort might include a brand new cable news network to the right of Fox
News.
Axios' Jonathan Swan hears Bannon has told friends he sees a massive opening to the right of
Fox News , raising the possibility that he's going to start a network. Bannon's friends are speculating about whether it will be a standalone TV network, or online
streaming only.
Before his death in May, Roger Ailes had sent word to Bannon that he wanted to start a
channel together. Bannon loved the idea: He believes Fox is heading in a squishy, globalist
direction as the Murdoch sons assume more power.
Now he has the means, motive and opportunity: His chief financial backer, Long Island hedge
fund billionaire Bob Mercer, is ready to invest big in what's coming next, including a huge
overseas expansion of Breitbart News. Of course, this new speculation comes after Bannon declared last Friday that he was "
going to war" for
Trump ...
" If there's any confusion out there, let me clear it up. I'm leaving the White House and going to war for Trump against his opponents... on Capitol
Hill, in the media, and in corporate America,
Meanwhile, with regard his internal adversaries , at the departments of State and Defense,
who think the United States can enlist Beijing's aid on the North Korean standoff, and at
Treasury and the National Economic Council who don't want to mess with the trading system,
Bannon was ever harsher...
"Oh, they're wetting themselves," he said, explaining that the Section 301 complaint, which
was put on hold when the war of threats with North Korea broke out, was shelved only
temporarily, and will be revived in three weeks. As for other cabinet departments, Bannon has
big plans to marginalize their influence.
"That's a fight I fight every day here," he said. "We're still fighting. There's Treasury
and [National Economic Council chair] Gary Cohn and Goldman Sachs lobbying."
Finally, perhaps no one can summarize what Bannon has planned for the future than Bannon
himself:
"The Trump presidency that we fought for, and won, is over I feel jacked up Now I'm free.
I've got my hands back on my weapons.
I am definitely going to crush the opposition. There's no
doubt. I built a f***ing machine at Breitbart. And now we're about to rev that machine up."
Trump Declares Open-Ended War in Afghanistan Trump Abandons 'Instinct to
Withdraw'
Jason Ditz Posted on
August 21,
2017 Categories News
Tags Afghanistan ,
Trump In his Monday night
speech on the Afghan War, President Trump committed the US to an essentially open-ended
escalation of the conflict without any specific limitations, while granting commanders
broader authority to unilaterally target "the enemy."
What that outcome looks like, or how specifically he plans to get there are anyone's
guess. Fox News reported that White House sources told them before the speech that Trump was
going to announce 4,000 more troops for Afghanistan.
But President Trump said that the US strategy would be secret, saying the US is removing
any timetables for ending the war in Afghanistan. He said that he will not talk publicly
about troop numbers in Afghanistan or plans for ongoing military activity there. While
arguing that "America's enemies must never know our plans."
Trump's secrecy also means the American public will have no idea how the Afghan War is
being prosecuted.
This mirrors the decision to make troop levels in Iraq and Syria officially secret, but is
also a much broader commitment. He set the stage for general escalation of an Afghan war
that, over the past 16 years, has shown itself to endure through more or less any escalation
conceivable. In committing to continue that war until victory, Trump effectively made the war
permanent.
Trump presented continuation as both about 9/11, and about how opposed he is to the 2011
US withdrawal from Iraq, each presented as a reason not to withdraw, but seemingly each an
excuse that's never going to not stand in the way of ending the war.
The broad message of Trump's speech seemed to be that the US wasn't aggressive enough in
Afghanistan so far, criticizing President Obama for "micromanaging" the conflict. Trump said
he believes that US military victories come from "judgement and expertise of wartime
commanders."
Trump gave some lip-service to economic aid for Afghanistan, particularly pushing India to
"do more." But he insisted that the US had abandoned nation-building, declaring "we are not
nation-building again, we're killing terrorists."
This declaration also gives the impression of a permanent war, claiming 20 distinct
terrorist organizations between Afghanistan and Pakistan, and vowing to lift restrictions on
"our warfighters." He vowed that "no place is out of the reach of American might."
Ultimately, an escalation of 4,000 troops and a re-commitment to the status quo likely
would've been much milder than what Trump appears to be proposing. Trump's determination to
keep troop levels secret leaves the door open to a series of endless escalations down the
road, which the American public are liable to never hear about.
Afghanistan
- Trump To Announce Four More One-Year Wars
This evening Trump will announce a new "
path forward " in the occupation of Afghanistan. According to the usual leaks it will be
very same path the U.S. has taken for 16 years.
Several thousands soldiers from the U.S. and various NATO countries will (in vane) train the
Afghan army. Special Forces and CIA goons will raid this or that family compound on someone's
say-so. Bombs will be dropped on whatever is considered a target.
Trump will announce that 1,000 or so troops will be added to the current contingent. About
15,000 foreign troops will be in Afghanistan. About three contractors per each soldier will be
additionally deployed.
Trump knows that this "path forward" is nonsense that leads nowhere, that the best option
for all foreign troops in Afghanistan is to simply leave:
We have wasted an enormous amount of blood and treasure in Afghanistan. Their government
has zero appreciation. Let's get out!
But neither the military nor the CIA nor the local Afghan government will let the U.S.
leave. Fear mongering is abound: "What happens if Afghanistan becomes a hotbed for
international terrorists?" But few if any international terrorist incident in the "west" were
ever organized in Afghanistan. In all recent incidents the culprits were locals.
For the military it is all about optics. The generals do not want to concede that they lost
another war. The CIA wants to keep is militarized forces and drones which it justifies through
its engagement in Afghanistan. The drug production in Afghanistan, which the U.S. never really
tried to suppress, is rumored to finance "black" CIA operations just like it did during the
Vietnam war and throughout various South American conflicts. The members of the Afghan
government all live off U.S. largess. The war in
Afghanistan is a racket paid for with the lives of countless Afghans and U.S. taxpayer
money.
Now tightly under control of neo-conservative leaning generals Trump had little chance to
make a different decision. He had asked his team for alternatives but
none were given to him:
The president told McMaster "to go back to the drawing board," the official said. "But he
just kept coming back with the same thing."
Trump's former strategic advisor Steve Bannon promoted an idea of Eric Prince, a shady
provider of international mercenaries. Afghanistan would be given to a private for-profit
entity comparable to the Brutish East-India Company. That company, with its own large army,
robbed India of all possible valuables and nearly became a state of its own. But Prince and
Bannon forgot to tell the
end of that company's story. It came down after a large mutiny in India defeated its armed
forces and had to be bailed out by the government. The end state of an East India Company like
entity in Afghanistan would the same as it is now.
Then there is the fairy tale of the mineral rich Afghanistan. $1 trillion of iron, copper,
rare-metals and other nice stuff could be picked out of the ground. But in reality the costs of
picking minerals in Afghanistan is, for various reasons, prohibitive.
The Bannon/Prince plan was lunatic but it was at least somewhat different than the
never
changing ideas of the military:
The Defense Secretary [Mattis] has been using this line in meetings: "Mr. President, we
haven't fought a 16-year war so much as we have fought a one-year war, 16 times."
That line has already been used
five years ago to describe the war on Afghanistan. (It originally describes the 10 year war
in Vietnam.) Mattis did not explain why or how that repetitive one year rhythm would now
change.
A "new" part of the plan is to put pressure on Pakistan to stop the financing and supplying
of Taliban groups. That is not in Pakistan's interest and is not going to happen. The Trump
administration wants to hold back the yearly cash payment to the Pakistani military. This has
been tried before and the Pakistani response was to close down the U.S. supply route to
Afghanistan. An alternative supply route through Russia had been developed but has now been
shut down over U.S. hostilities towards that country. The U.S. can not sustain a deployment in
Afghanistan without a sea-land route into the country.
The Afghan army is, like the government, utterly corrupt and filled with people who do not
want to engage in fighting. More "training" will not change that. The U.S. proxy government is
limited to a few larger cities. It claims to control many districts but its forces are often
constricted to central compounds while the Taliban rule the countryside. In total the Taliban
and associated local war lords hold
more than half of the country and continue to gain support. The alleged ISIS derivative in
Afghanistan was originally formed out of Pakistani Taliban
by the Afghan National Directorate of Security which is under the control of the CIA:
In Nangarhar, over a year ago, the vanguard of the movement was a group of Pakistani
militants who had lived there for years as 'guests' of the Afghan government and local
people. While initially avoiding attacks on Afghan forces, they made their new allegiances
known by attacking the Taleban and taking their territory.
ISIS in Afghanistan, founded as an anti-Taliban force, is just another form of the usual
Afghan warlordism.
During 16 years the U.S. failed to set a realistic strategic aim for the occupation of
Afghanistan. It still has none. Without political aim the military is deployed in tactical
engagements that make no long lasting differences. Any attempts to negotiate some peace in
Afghanistan requires extensive engagement with the Taliban, Pakistan, China, Russia and Iran.
No one in Washington is willing to commit to that.
Trump's likely decision means that the story of the U.S. occupation of Afghanistan will
continue throughout the next years exactly as it happened during the last 16 years. The
decision, once made, is unlikely to change until the next presidential election. The 16
one-year-wars in Afghanistan will become 20 one-year-wars for no perceivable gain.
The only conceivable event that could change the situation is an incident with a large
number of U.S. military casualties. That could lead to a groundswell of anti-war sentiment
which could press Congress into legislating an end of the war. But are the Taliban interested
in achieving that?
Posted by b on August 21, 2017 at 01:54 PM | Permalink
Left unvoiced is the actual strategic reason for the Outlaw US Empire's occupation of
Afghanistan: It puts Imperial Stormtroopers smack-dab in the middle of China and Russia's
plans for Eurasian economic and eventual political integration while allowing the CIA to reap
the benefits of its opium/heroin export program which is used to destabilize nations
globally--including the homeland--which fits in quite well with the sole Neolibralcon policy
goal of Full Spectrum Domination. As b mentioned, only dialog between regional actors--all of
which now have some form of SCO membership--will finally solve the Afghan Problem. Of course,
it would be of immense benefit if the pretext for the Outlaw US Empire presence there was
proven to be the massive Big Lie that it is, but I don't expect the Truth to become known
about until ??? G
Given the strategic reason above, I don't expect the Outlaw US Empire to retreat from
Afghanistan until the Neoliberalcons are defeated domestically, which will require a massive
Movement within the nation to regain control of the federal government and monetary
policy--gaining just the Executive isn't nearly enough as Trump's proven.
OT: For those wondering what happened with Syrian Perspectives, it changed platforms and has
a new URL, https://www.syrianperspective.com/
On Topic: It appears Mercouris at the Duran decided to write something similar to
b, but that site's new format is still plagued by very long running ad scripts making the
content very difficult to read. Can't even copy/paste the URL. What a shame!
make work project........... it never ends.................
"But neither the military nor the CIA nor the local Afghan government will let the U.S.
leave. Fear mongering is abound: "What happens if Afghanistan becomes a hotbed for
international terrorists?"
of course this is the rationale for it all - terrorism....
war on communism, war on drugs, war on terrorism....
not sure what they replace terrorism with, so for the time being it will have to be the
rationale de jour........
@2 kalen.. propping up the us$, ensuring the continuation of the us$ is indeed
paramount..
Defund the war machine and piss off the war party. Stop the printing press of paper "money."
Repeal the 16th amendment.
The US Fed thinks that it can manage the healthcare of 320 million Americans while
simultaneously, it cannot manage the healthcare of 9 million Veterans.
I'm not a great fan of the Duran new design, but I can read its stories okay. I think you
may need to use Firefox browser and install the AdBlock Plus add-on. It's free and easy. The
wonderful thing about Firefox is its built-in Reader View button, which strips all the excess
media out of a page and formats just the story itself in a perfectly readable column width,
with a nice size font. You can actually lean back and read. It's amazing how this helps
comprehension. I often read b's articles and even a lot of the comments this way.
The alternative would be to find people in the U.S. govt who actually understand the Taliban.
You would think that after 16yrs, that we would have developed some expertise on the true
structure of Afghanistan.
The only beef we had with the Taliban was that they harbored Al Qaeda. Couldn't we bribe
them and let them keep their own country as long as they don't host international terrorists?
I don't know the answer to this question but that is the 'new' approach that I'd explore. I
recall that the Taliban seemed a bit put off when Al Qaeda destroyed the WTC and asked to
review the evidence. They made some reference to not wanting to violate some guest code.
Perhaps we were too heavy handed with them.
Doubling down on failure (or insanity by doing the same thing but expecting a different
result).
For some reason, our troop training skills are not working. The ones we trained in Iraq gave
up Mosul. The ones we trained in Jordan joined al Nusra and ISIS in Syria. And the ones we've
trained in Afghanistan still cannot secure the country.
The following members of the United Nations have made statements about their recognition
of the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol as federal subjects of Russia[35][36][37][38]:
'We haven't fought a 16 yr. war we have fought the same 1yr war 16 times'.
It is distressing that our core competence is selling each other BS. It reminds me of all
of the slick arguments I hear about how woefully underfunded the U.S. military is.
We must have hired Consultants because I've read over a dozen articles with the same
format ...
1. As a percent of GDP our military budget is at historic lows (creative accounting, it's
closer to 5% of GDP, not the advertised 3%).
2. 50% of our aircraft are not operational, along with other readiness scare stories (so
we should reward incompetence?)
3. The military is only 15% of the budget (flat out lie, it's 40% of discretionary
spending and owns about that much of the annual debt service that they also don't count. If
you eliminated Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, our payroll taxes would disappear, not
our deficit)
But the argument sounds good and never gets challenged on FOX/CNN.
Thanks for your help hints. I was finally able to read the entire article with almost no
interruptions. As the title suggests, it's a compare/contrast essay detailing the two
different experiences, goals and costs incurred. Mercouris points out that the USSR didn't
lose in Afghanistan--it fulfilled its policy goal and left--which is contrary to the West's
propaganda on the subject. It's a decent read, but Mercouris, like b, neglects to mention the
actual strategic goal of the Outlaw US Empire's invasion and occupation.
Also Grieved, thanks for your thoughtful comments in your reply to me on a previous
thread. Liked your comment at The Saker's latest Neocon thread.
" former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice said that it "made no sense" to expand the
military's presence without a new strategy, while Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin put it this
way:
"We've tried this before, we've tried to fortify our effort in Afghanistan under
Republican and Democratic presidents, and the fact is we're still in a situation where the
Taliban controls a massive part of the territory," Durbin told MSNBC in May. "We need to have
an honest answer to the question: Will the Afghans ever be in a position where there is less
corruption and there is less incompetence and they're able to stand up and defend their own
nation? It's time for some honest answers." "
And Donald Trump has the answer tonight? When Durbin says "their own nation", I believe he
is referring to the geographic boundaries assigned by Western commerce. That is the failure
of understanding, that a central government imposed on the warlord/tribal mosaic that is the
Afghan territories is doomed. Rather than troops, as Christian C. suggests @12, sending tons
of cash might be more persuasive than arming one band against another. A complete waste of
spec ops troops absent a true civil war against a hated tyrant.
The US project in Afghanistan started before the Eurasian project got going. Afghanistan
is is peripheral to the Eurasian project for the time being; it is currently economically
unimportant and will remain so until considerable development of infrastructure in the region
takes place. Having the resources is one thing. Having the infrastructure to develop those
resources is quite another.
"In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I suspected I was just a part of
a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all members of the military profession I
never had an original thought until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in
suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of the higher ups. This is typical with
everyone in the military service."*
~ Major General Smedley Butler, USMC, 1935 https://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html
Total Vision 2010--the policy paper that announced the #1 policy goal of the Outlaw US
Empire, nee New World Order--was published in 1996, and the plan to invade Afghanistan was
put into motion about 5 months prior to the "justification event" on 911. Total Vision 2020
is the latest update to the initial policy goal and was published during Bu$hCo.
The Eurasian vision was begun during Deng's years as China's leader and has accelerated
ever since.
@21 Think of the vast amounts of equipment, weapons, fuel, food, bottled water etc. consumed
daily. It all has to be flown in or moved across Russia by rail (do they still do that?) and
the troops and contractors have to be rotated in and out. Afghanistan has considerable
economic importance.
I'll attempt to read between the lines for those outside the US trying to understand all
this:
DynCorp's annual military contractor revenue from the US Government is reportedly more
than Germany's entire defense budget of around $42 billion (€36 billion). Only a few
billion from Afghanistan, but business there could use a shot in the arm.
Billionaire psychopath Stephen Feinberg controls DynCorp, bathed in the river of
blood/profits from Afghanistan (among others). He doesn't like the US military's performance
there - it's hurting business. Feinberg wants to fire US Afghanistan commander Gen. John
Nicholson (via his lapdog Trump, of course) but that alone will not help DynCorp much.
DynCorp is missing out on the lucrative combat merc market in Afghanistan. Most of the
military contractors it supplies are support, and only a few 'security' types are armed.
Feinberg knows supplying actual combat mercs is where DynCorpo will reap the real
profits.
Problem for Feinberg is the US military hates mercs and won't use them much (mostly
because mercs are homicidal psychopaths). Solution? Why stop at firing Nicholson? Fire ALL
the US military commanders in Afghanistan and replace them with obedient, profitable
dual-citizen DynCorp commanders. The Mini-Me US President Jared Kushner just loves this plan.
Maybe he gets a few DynCorp stock options out of the deal.
Some other issues:
Outsourcing the US Military might wake up a few of the intellectual lepar military
commanders to their duty to defend the US Constitution. US Military coup?
Solution: Mad Dog Mattis, of course: "Obey your Commander in Chief's unconstitutional
orders, you insolent bastards! Constitutional law and critical thinking is way above a
general's pay grade - leave that to CNN. Train your merc replacements in Afghanistan and shut
the hell UP!
Title 10 of the US Legal Code on the military prohibits using mercs in combat
Solution: Screw the law - that's why DynCorp bribes Congress. Rather than using illegal Title
10 military contractors in Afghanistan, Congress and Trump will classify their activities
from now on under Title 50: intelligence activities. See? Nothing at all to do with military
operations.
The US military doesn't control the current CIA spooks and won't be able to control the
new DynCorp mercs
Solution: If all Afghanistan mercs are reclassified as Title 50 spooks, then they report to
the CIA and its chain of command. The US military in Afghanistan will not and doesn't need to
control them - that's the point.
Who will command US troops if the military commanders are sent packing?
Solution: The Afghani slaughter will become a CIA operation, not a US military one. It will
complement the CIA's booming opium 'fund-raising' business there. US combat troops will just
be assigned to the CIA operation (combat, not poppy farming). Give all the US soldiers sent
there some kind of special berets (anything but green) and call them Special Forces. Shhh!
They're now involved in secret spook operations. Don't ask any questions.
How can the CIA possibly command so many mercs and US soldiers in Afghanistan?
Solution: That's where ex-Blackwater war criminal Eric Prince and his private UAE-based army
and air force come in. The CIA will simply hire contractor commanders for 'their' command
structure that will replace the current US military one. Whether Prince rebrands his current
commanders as DynCorp or uses some other ruse, he can flesh out the line staff from his
current merc army. The CIA will chose all the senior contractor commanders who will then be
hired by whatever DynCorp names that business.
Who will be the overall commander of military ops in Afghanistan going forward if Gen.
Nicholson is canned?
Soluton: Trump will choose an overall commander, reportedly with the title of viceroy
. My jaw hit the floor at that one. Here's Wikipedia:
"...A viceroy is a regal official who runs a country, colony, city, province, or
sub-national state, in the name of and as the representative of the monarch of the
territory. The term derives from the Latin prefix vice-, meaning "in the place of" and the
French word roi, meaning "king"..."
Chief DynCorp psychopath and dual-US/Israeli citizen Stephen Feinberg himself is
interested in the job according to Prince. An investment banker commanding psychopath mercs
slaughtering Afghanis in the name of the US - imagine that. Plus, Afghanistan is right next
door to Iran - convenient for US invasions and such. Oh, that's right. DynCorp is a business.
They'll gladly invade Iran for anyone with a big enough bag of shekels.
"On your knees and bow your heads, Afghani peons! All hail the supreme commander of all
Afghanistan, Viceroy Stephen Feinberg."
Surely Trump can't sell this plan to the US public. They're pretty dim, but this scheme
is just over the top!
Solution: Think again. This will be spun as a mere 1000 US combat troop surge... oh, and a
few contractors. Intelligence contractors, not mercs. The details of who they are and what
they will be doing is classified. Just never mind them. And as soon as US military commanders
and troops have their replacements trained up, they'll get to come home. Yay! Imagine the CNN
video at the airport of a weary US soldier returning from Afghanistan to his loving family.
JOY!
But what about the utter debasement of the US Constitution and myriad of war crimes the
US government will commit by doing something so insane?
Solution: Buy DynCorp stock and shut the hell up about the American's dumb-assed
Constitution. Besides, who are you to question the Viceroy?
For some reason, our troop training skills are not working. The ones we trained in Iraq gave
up Mosul. The ones we trained in Jordan joined al Nusra and ISIS in Syria. And the ones we've
trained in Afghanistan still cannot secure the country.
Posted by: Curtis | Aug 21, 2017 4:07:36 PM | 13
There are also success stories. The training program in Mali had good students and bad
students. Good students joined the rebellion of the Tuareg and clobbered the bad ones. Bad
ones were pissed to be sent by civilian government to the scorching sands of Sahara and made
a coup. The Tuareg had enough weapons from the fallen Libya to engage in infighting,
temporarily won by the group that claimed ISIS affiliation. Each group had some degree of
success.
Common theme is that USA offers no idea that would fire up troops under training. Did they
try "Truth, Justice, and the American Way" (the catch-phrase of the comic-book character
Superman). Or Here I
come to save the day! I think that the crux is economic development and decrease in
abject poverty, but does anyone in Administration have an idea how that could be done?
@26 "Imagine the CNN video at the airport of a weary US soldier returning from Afghanistan to
his loving family. JOY!"
I can see it already. He will have his faithful dog with him that he rescued from a ruined
Afghan village. His faithful translator unfortunately wasn't so lucky.
- The warlords are NOT "on the same page" as the Taliban !!!! The afghan people are/were
abused by the warlords, were suffering under the warlords. The warlords performed henous
crimse against the afghan population.
- The afghan people were treated better by the Taliban than by the warlords. That allowed the
Taliban to make a comeback in the 1990s. But it also meant that the afghans suffered under
the religious islamic fanaticism of that same Taliban.
- With the US invasion the Taliban was defeated and allowed the warlords to make a comeback
and now the afghan people were suffereing from/under the warlords again. The warlords were
needed by the US military to protect the transports that bring in all the goods that the US
military, other foreign troops and all mercenaries need to continue their "occupation" of
Afghanistan. Without those supplies those military forces will be "left hanging out to
dry".
- Generals like David Petraeus and Stanley McChrystal were both in command in Afghanistan and
recognized this hopeless situation and left their afghan post early. McChrystal retired and
Petraeus became director of the CIA
The British Empire was the largest in history. At the end of World War II Britain had to start pulling out from its colonies.
A major part of the reason was, ironically, the economic prosperity that had come through industrialization, massive improvements
in transportation, and the advent of telecommunications, ethnic and religious respect, freedom of speech, and other liberties offered
by the empire.
The colors represent the colonies of various nations in 1945, and the colonial borders of that time – click to enlarge.
After the departure of the British -- as well as the French, German, Belgians, and other European colonizers -- most of the newly
"independent" countries suffered rapid decay in their institutions, stagnant economies, massive social strife, and a fall in standards
of living. An age of anti-liberalism and tyranny descended on these former colonies. They rightly became known as third-world countries.
An armchair economist would have assumed that the economies of these former colonies, still very backward and at a very low base
compared to Europe, would grow at a faster rate. Quite to the contrary, as time went on, their growth rates stayed lower than those
of the West.
Socialism and the rise of dictators were typically blamed for this -- at least among those on the political Right. This is not
incorrect, but it is a merely proximate cause. Clarity might have been reached if people had contemplated the reason why Marxism
and socialism grew like weeds in the newly independent countries.
Was There a Paradigm Shift in the 1980s?
According to conventional wisdom, the situation changed after the fall of the socialist ringleader, the USSR, in the late 1980s.
Ex-colonized countries started to liberalize their economies and widely accepted democracy, leading to peace, the spread of education
and equality, the establishment of liberal, independent institutions. Massive economic growth ensued and was sustained over the past
three decades. The "third world" was soon renamed "emerging markets."
Alas, this is a faulty narrative. Economic growth did pick up in these poor countries, and the rate of growth did markedly exceed
that of the West, but the conventional narrative confuses correlation with causality. It tries to fit events to ideological preferences,
which assume that we are all the same, that if Europeans could progress, so should everyone else, and that all that matters are correct
incentives and appropriate institutions.
The beginning and end of the Soviet communist era in newspaper headlines. The overthrow of Kerensky's interim government was the
start of Bolshevik rule. To be precise, the Bolsheviks took over shortly thereafter, when they disbanded the constituent assembly
in in early 1918 and subsequently gradually did the same to all non-Bolshevik Soviets that had been elected. A little more than seven
decades later, the last Soviet Bolshevik leader resigned. It is worth noting that by splitting the Russian Federation from the Ukraine
and Belorussia, Yeltsin effectively removed Gorbachev from power – the latter was suddenly president of a country that no longer
existed and chairman of a party that was declared illegal in Russia. [PT] – click to enlarge.
The claimed liberalization in the "emerging markets" after the collapse of the USSR did not really happen. Progress was always
one step forward and two steps back. In some ways, government regulations and repression of businesses in the "emerging markets"
have actually gotten much worse. Financed by increased taxes, governments have grown by leaps and bounds -- not for the benefit of
society but for that of the ruling class -- and are now addicted to their own growth.
The ultimate underpinnings of the so-called emerging markets haven't changed. Their rapid economic progress during the past three
decades -- a one-off event -- happened for reasons completely different from those assumed by most economists. The question is: once
the effect of the one-off event has worn off, will emerging markets revert to the stagnation, institutional degradation, and tyranny
that they had leaped into soon after the European colonizers left?
The One-Off Event: What Actually Changed in the 1980s
In the "emerging markets" (except for China) synchronized favorable economic changes were an anomaly. They resulted in large part
from the new, extremely cheap telephony that came into existence (a result of massive cabling of the planet implemented in the 1980s)
and the subsequent advent of the new technology of the internet. The internet enabled instantaneous transfer of technology from the
West and as a consequence, unprecedented economic growth in "emerging markets."
Meanwhile, a real cultural, political, and economic renaissance started in China. It was an event so momentous that it changed
the economic structure not just of China, but of the whole world. Because China is seen as a communist dictatorship, it fails to
be fully appreciated and respected by intellectuals who are obsessed with the institution of democracy.
But now that the low-hanging fruit from the emergence of the internet and of China (which continues to progress) have been plucked,
the "emerging markets" (except, again, for China) are regressing to their normal state: decay in their institutions, stagnant economies,
and social strife. They should still be called the "third world."
There are those who hold China in contempt for copying Western technology, but they don't understand that if copying were so easy,
Africa, the Middle East, Latin America, and South Asia would have done the same. They were, after all, prepared for progress by their
colonial history.
European colonizers brought in the rule of law and significantly reduced the tribal warfare that was a matter of daily routine
in many of the colonies -- in the Americas, Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. Britain and other European nations set up institutional
structures that allowed for the accumulation of intellectual and financial capital. Western-style education and democracy were initiated.
But this was helpful in a very marginal way.
What is Wrong with the Third World
For those who have not traveled and immersed themselves in formerly colonized countries, it is hard to understand that although
there was piping for water and sewage in Roman days, it still isn't available for a very large segment of the world's population.
The wheel has existed for more than 5,000 years, but a very large number of people continue to carry water in pots on their heads.
Lead piping supplying water to homes already existed in Roman days, 2000 years ago.
The Ljubljana Marshes Wheel, which is more than 5,000 years old
There are easily a billion or more people today, who have no concept of either the pipe or the wheel, even if they went to school.
It is not the absence of technology or money that is stopping these people from starting to use some basic forms of technology. It
is something else.
Sir Winston Churchill, the war-time Prime Minister of Britain, talking about the future of Palestine said:
"I do not admit that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit
that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race has come
in and taken their place."
Cigar-puffing British war-time PM Winston Churchill was as politically incorrect as they come. If he were alive today, he would
probably be labeled the newest Hitler by the press and spend 90% of his time apologizing. Perhaps we shouldn't mention this, but
there are
many Churchill monuments dotted across Europe and one can be found
in Washington DC as well (alert readers will notice that a decidedly non-triggered Washington Post fondly remembered Churchill
as an "elder statesman" a mere 10 months ago; rest assured that won't stop the social justice warrior brigade if they decide to airbrush
him out of history). Just to make this clear, your editor is not exactly the biggest fan of the man who traded away half of Europe
to Stalin because he felt he could "trust the Soviet communist government" and who was clearly a tad too enamored of war, a characteristic
Robert Kaplan described in his strident, amoral pro-war
screed Warrior Politics: Why Leadership Demands a Pagan Ethos as follows: "Churchill's unapologetic warmongering arose not from a
preference for war, but from a breast-beating Victorian sense of imperial destiny " Neither the breast-beating nor the sense of imperial
destiny are really our thing, but we tip our hat to the man's utter lack of political correctness and his associated willingness
to offend all and sundry with a nigh Trumpian alacrity and determination. [PT]
On Islam, he said:
"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in
a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits,
slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist "
Talking about India he famously said:
"I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion."
A remark often attributed to Churchill, although this remains unverified, has certainly stood the test of time so far:
"If independence is granted to India, power will go to the hands of rascals, rogues, freebooters; all Indian leaders will be of
low caliber and men of straw. They will have sweet tongues and silly hearts. They will fight amongst themselves for power and India
will be lost in political squabbles. A day will come when even air and water will be taxed in India."
Europeans of that time clearly knew that there was something fundamentally different between the West and the rest, and that the
colonies would not survive without the pillars and the cement European management provided.
With the rise of political correctness this wisdom was erased from our common understanding – but it is something that may well
return to haunt us in the near future, as the third world fails to fulfill expectations, while people who immigrate to Europe, Canada,
Australia and the US from there fail to assimilate.
The Missing Underpinnings: Reason And All That Depends On It
Until now, the hope among people in the World Bank, the IMF, and other armchair intellectuals was that once the correct incentives
were in place and institutions were organized, these structures imposed from on high would put the third world on a path to perpetual
growth. They couldn't have been more wrong.
The cart has been put in front of the horse. It is institutions that emerge from the underlying culture, not the other way around.
And cultural change is a process taking millennia, perhaps even longer. As soon as Europeans quit their colonies, the institutional
structures they left started to crumble.
Alas, it takes a Ph.D. from an Ivy League college and a quarter of a million dollar salary at the World Bank or the IMF to not
understand what the key issue with development economics and institutional failures is: the missing ingredient in the third world
was and is the concept of objective, impartial reason – the basis of laws and institutions that protect individual rights.
This concept of reason took 2,500 years to develop and get infused into the culture, memes, and genes of Europeans -- a difficult
process that, even in Europe, was never fully completed. European institutions were at their root products of this concept.
A justly famous quote by Thomas Paine (a prolific writer with a side job as a founding father and revolutionary). Paine was deeply
suspicious of self-anointed authorities, both of the secular and clerical variety, who in turn regarded him as dangerous. His writings
inter alia provoked a so-called "pamphlet war" in Britain (it would be best if all wars were conducted via pamphlets). [PT]
Despite massive efforts by missionaries, religious and secular, and of institutions imposed on poor countries, reason failed to
get transmitted. Whatever marginal improvement was achieved over 200 to 300 years of colonization is therefore slowly but surely
undone.
Without reason, subsidiary concepts such as equality before the law, compassion and empathy won't operate. Irrational societies
simply cannot maintain institutions representing the rule of law and fairness. The consequence is that they cannot evolve or even
maintain institutions the European colonizers left behind.
Any institutions imposed on them -- schools, armies, elections, national executives, banking and taxation systems -- must mutate
to cater to the underlying irrationality and tribalism of the third world.
Western Institutions Have Mutated
Education has become a dogma in "emerging markets", not a tool; it floats non-assimilated in the minds of people lacking objective
reason. Instead of leading to creativity and critical thinking, it is used for propaganda by demagogues.
Without impartial reason, democracy is a mere tribal, geographical concept, steeped in arrogance. All popular and "educated" rhetoric
to the contrary, I can think of no country in the non-western world that did well after it adopted "democracy."
The spread of nationalism (which to a rational mind is about the commonality of values) has created crises by unifying people
along tribal lines. The most visible example is provided by events in the Middle East, but the basic problem is the same in every
South Asian and African country and in most of South America.
India, the geographical entity I grew up in, was rapidly collectivized under the flag and the national anthem. It has the potential
to become the Middle East on steroids, once Hindutava (Hindu nationalism) has become deeply rooted in society.
Assessing the Current Predicament
In Burma, a whiff of democracy does not seem to have inhibited a genocide perpetrated by Buddhists against the Muslim Rohingya.
Thailand (which was not colonized in a strictly political sense) has gone silent, but its crisis continues.
Turkey and Malaysia, among the better of these backward societies, have embarked on a path of rapid regression to their medieval
pasts. South Africa, which not too long ago was considered a first-world country, got rid of apartheid only to end up with something
even worse.
The same happened with Venezuela, which was among the richer countries of the world in the not-too-distant past. It is ready to
implode, a fate that may befall Brazil as well one day. Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, and East Timor are widely acknowledged to be
in a mess, and are getting worse by the day.
Indonesia took a breather for a few years and is now once again in the thrall of fanaticism. India is the biggest democracy, so
its problems are actively ignored by the Western press, but they won't be for long, as India continues to evolve toward a police
state.
Botswana was seen as one of the countries with the fastest and longest-lasting economic growth. What was ignored was the fact
that this rather large country has a very small population, which benefited hugely from diamonds and other natural resources. The
top political layer of Botswana is still a leftover from the British. The local culture continues to corrode what was left by them,
and there are clear signs that Botswana is past its peak.
Part of the central business district in Gaborone, Botswana. Long time readers may recall an article we posted about 2.5 years
ago: " Botswana – Getting it Right in Africa ". We are not sure
if much has changed since then, but it is worth recalling that Botswana started out as the third-poorest country in Africa when it
became independent in 1966 and is today one the richest. The very small population (by African standards) combined with the large
income the country obtains from diamond mining no doubt played a role in this, but being rich in natural resources means very little
per se . Botswana never fell for Marxism. When the country gained independence, its political leadership adopted democracy and free
markets and never looked back. Botswana is a very homogenous society in terms of religious and tribal affiliations, which differentiates
the country from most other former colonial territories in Africa. From our personal – admittedly by now a bit dated – experience,
we can state that Botswana is the only African country in which one is unlikely to encounter any corruption – not even the lowliest
government minion will ask for bribes as far as we could tell (in many African countries, officials begin demanding bribes the moment
one wants to cross the border). Considering all that, we are slightly more hopeful about Botswana, but it is not an island. Deteriorating
conditions in neighboring countries may well prove contagious at some point. [PT]
Papua New Guinea was another country that was doing reasonably well before the Australians left. It is now rapidly regressing
to its tribal, irrational, and extremely violent norms, where for all practical purposes rape is not even considered a crime.
Conclusion: A Vain Hope
The world may recognize most of the above, but it sees these countries' problems as isolated events that can be corrected by further
impositions of Western institutions, under the guidance of the UN or some such international (and therefore "non-colonialist") organization.
Amusingly, our intellectual climate -- a product of political correctness -- is such that the third world is nowadays seen as
the backbone of humanity's future economic growth. Unfortunately, so-called emerging markets are probably headed for a chaotic future.
The likeliest prospect is that these countries will continue to cater to irrational forces, particularly tribalism, and that they
will consequently cease to exist, disintegrating into much smaller entities.
As the tide of economic growth goes out with the final phase of plucking the free gift of internet technology nearing its end,
their problems will resurface rapidly – precisely when the last of those who were trained under the colonial system are sent to the
"dustbin of history".
Some people are more culturally predisposed to exploring and trying new things.
If you believe the future will be better than the past then you will be prepared to work to improve things, if you believe
the world is in terminal decline and that the glory days were some time ago, either when gods or prophets did all the important
stuff or when your locale was more prosperous then you will not be as encouraged to work on improvements and you will thend to
hoarde meagre resources and live by thrift with minimal expenditure.
I think that colonialism is in play again as the advance societies are starving for resources and will invest in these countries
in exchange. This will change the trend into better education, better jobs and everything that comes with it for the middle classes
but perpetuate slave wages for the uneducated masses.
The world is not changing but morphing. It's the nomenclature that changes for the sake of political correcteness and feel
good predisposition.
The history of western investment in third world resources does not make for a pretty read. Look now at what has happened just
in the last months of a major silver mine being closed in a small Central American country, where the local manager has been accused
of murdering protestors and objectors to the mines presence in their midst, destroying the countryside.
The CIA seems to have had, as it's primary objective, the job of clearing the way for US and British, and Canadian industrial,
infrastructure and mining interests to come in and take the resources. A good payoff to the man in power greases the wheels, and
the people get nothing but a degraded environment and mammoth debt.
The next step is to restructure the debt, in the process privatizing state infrastructure at cut rate prices. This is nothing
but mass rape and pillage.
"American exceptionalism" is just a small-time ugly consequence of the actual phenomenon: good old imperialism, taught by the
British. And there's nothing wrong with it. All European countries have accepted NATO and american influence on them willingly.
They have all recognized and validated American exceptionalism themselves. As subjects of an empire they now complain that the
Emperor is quickly losing its clothes,
True you have to have "Ambition & Will" for change to stomach the difficult period of creating that change. (eg Gandhi, US
independence etc).
...A major part of the reason was, ironically, the economic prosperity that had come through industrialization, massive improvements
in transportation, and the advent of telecommunications, ethnic and religious respect, freedom of speech...
This however while a factor is also bias. Post WWII no weapons (other than US) were permitted in Pacific war region and a decisive
factor in limiting the influence of the Brits in their pre war colonies. Post colonials also saw war as a way out of colonial
rule, using US leverage to oust Brit influence.
edit - probably BritBob will go apoplectic with this? Cue "Rule Britania"
That zionist bastard churchill was not prognosticating about india, he was merely telling the world what they were going to
do, ie., leave the country in the hands of rouges and rascals.... who have ruled and looted and destroyed India for their city
of london masters ever since.
It's the joos who hate indians and of course churchill wasa closet joo...
...all ZHers owe themselves trek to Mother India, quite a head turning experience. One comes to appreciate the West's "can-do
philosophy."
This approach to problem solving is in small measure in India. India's fine burgeoning medical capital in Chennai (old Madraas)
is a testament to talented Indians being schooled in Occidental universities and then returned to Mother India to set up shop.
In many ways, India will lead the West OUT of their self-imposed medical nemesis. There is much progress in India. All Indians
love to ORATE. You betcha, they stand on the corner and begin lecturing. A much better approach than USA's 535 idiots and grifters
that make up the US Congress.
My own hunch is that India will eclipse the remarkable progress of China. Stay tuned as the world squirms.....
Hunches are like hunchbacks: I don't want either one of them to ring my bells. After over fifty years of visiting and doing
business in India, I go no more. While I love the people there, the country has become an abyss I no longer wish to stare into.
Unfortunately, it has become quite the living hell....
Western model of development + rampant corruption + poor engineering standards have made this a hotch-potch of a rending screech
of a marriage between east and west....
Perhaps it's time to admit Indians got a chance to take their country back and move their society forward, seen through nationalist
Gandhi, but Indians neither want nor understand the concept of moving forward.
Without the "western model of development" there would be no development in India for millennia.
Without the Aryan colonization/admixture of many millennia ago, there would never have been any civilization on the Indian
Subcontinent.
The Second Aryan invasion (ie British colonialism) left barely enough behind to last more than the coming century.
The differing subspecies of hominids are neither fungible nor equal . But there is huge amount of paper profits to be derived
from pretending otherwise. There is a lot of ruin to be extracted from the Commons. At home, The African Equality Racket has garnered
trillions so far, with no sign of stopping. Abroad, The Afghan Equality Racket has garnered trillions so far, with no sign of
stopping. No signs of progress with either hominid population. And yet, we still have people arguing that culture is somehow separate
from biology.
But back to the topic at hand..
Prediction: India returns to barbarism and warring superstitions.
Yes, Sanskrit is an Aryan language. There are a whole host of others, owing to The White Man's far-ranging conquest of primitive
hominids. Or homos, in your case, cocksucker. Maybe your great great 15 grandmother appeared human enough to serve
as a concubine.
Sanskrit is an aryan language? Then explain to me one thing. The rig veda (the oldest agreed upon text written in sanskrit)
is centered around worshipping the river saraswati. And the river saraswati dried upon before/around 1900 B.C and aryans 'came'
to india in 1700 B.C. Second....if sanskrit was foreign in origin, why havent we found anything equivalent to sanskrit in the
'aryan' nazi homelands? Indus valley civilisation had indoor plumbing, flush toilets, planned streets, sewage systems that took
sewage away from individual homes out of the city. No civilisation that i am aware of had that at that time. Dont believe me?
Read up about indus valley civilisation. They had it right until 'aryans' came. And then india went back to mud huts and shitting
on streets.
As for buddha having blue eyes. turquoise was used to represent ancient famous people as it could be used to represent 'eyes'
as it looked like 'eyes'. Thats why torqouise was used. And torqoise only comes in blue and white not in black and white even
if it does its very rare. Blue and white is more easily available. That is why it was used. So it doesnt necessairly mean buddha
or other famouse people's pictures or statues who had blue torqoise representing their eyers.....had blue eyes in real life.
The western way of moving forward is about consuming, using up resources. Once the resources are gone, they have to find a
new place to plunder, in order to again move forward.
The eastern culture is in general about living in a sustainable manner, in harmony with nature. Their way is more about trade
and not war. This is why they got conquered so easily.
Now I can't say which is better. Plundering and moving forward or staying put and living in peace with nature. My only hope
is that the easterners have enough of the western values already in them to not repeat the old mistakes again.
"...the hope among people in the World Bank, the IMF, and other armchair intellectuals was that once the correct incentives
were in place and institutions were organized, these structures imposed from on high would put the third world on a path to perpetual
growth. They couldn't have been more wrong..."
Anyone who tracked the likes of Hans Adler a German/Brazilian Jew who worked for the World Bank in the 60s and 70s and who
I studied under at George Mason University in the 80s knows that the "Latifundio/Minifundio" land tenure structure was the mechanism
and means to exploit the gold fillings "literally" out of the mouths of the natives that owned and tended their lands throughout
Latin America from the 40s through the 80s doing what the World Bank and IMF always has done it's best to get the multinationals
in to take over the most important arable land for exploitation through "incentivized" loan deals that ended up robbing them of
all their ownership for worthless "shit paper"!... Rinse and repeat for the "model" used everywhere else especially Middle Eastern
oil.
John Perkins solidified it in his work "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" 25 years later...
Too little too late I'm afraid. Only wish there were many more like him!
I only wish Perkins had explained the role of the dollar. This book,
'The Hidden Hand of American Hegemony' 'Petrodollar Recycling and International Markets' explains that better. He does explain
how The IMF and World Bank keep them in line with debt, though.
It looks like someone put the teachers in charge of Wikipedia! It used to be a very accurate source of information! I have
recently been finding extreme errors on it and never have until about a month ago! I believe that universities feel threatened
by It! This info please chart is correct and the Wikipedia chart is incorrect!
It is and always has been a front. But like many other things, it contains the lie and the truth together. The lie at the top
of the page and the truth at the bottom. See if you can take it from there. That's the only clue I will offer today. Best of luck!
Well, it wasn't that way previously, however, the lie on top and truth on the bottom would be congruent with the way that the
establishment and media operate, without question!
I agree, except for the part about the internet being responsible for wealth. That part is garbage. Internet wealth is non
productive and eventually a drain on any economy.
How can you say that. Some toad earlier in the comments said he is making 7k a month from the internet. Doubting him is like
doubting a Wikipedia article.
Patronizing views on these "3rd world" areas or whatever you may call them...Whatever you say and no matter if you are 100%
right about the differences in culture, there is no escaping the fact that these people were "fine" before europeans came along
and fucked them up. Cultural relativism is 100% true in this case. Doesn't matter if they were raping babies or whatever, that
is their culture and has nothing to do with ours. It was our bullshit christianity and culture that gave us the bullshit rationale
to destroy whatever existing cultures we found. So what if they wouldn't have come up with the wheel, plumbing, or the internet
- that gave europeans no right to do whatever they wanted wherever they wanted. Hard truth for you pos ZHers to swallow, but no
way around it. And the funny thing is now you have the gall to say that these other cultures are destroying ours! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Payback is a Bitch!
How do you figure that conclusion ? In THEIR cultures 'might makes right' so by invading and subjugating "we" were playing
by their rules. It is hypocritical on our part but only because we deny our history and the reality of superiority (in terms of
industrialisation and military strength etc) in preference for politically correct feel-good lies.
Read "The Confessions of an Economic Hit Man". IMF, USAID and BIS have worked in unison to rape and pillage the "Third World"
This is not a problem of the colonies falling apart, it is a problem of deliberate overselling of debt with a side of mandated
privatisation, followed by ruin and sale of government assets, followed by grinding povery and tax to pay the interest on the
ever climbing debt.
This is a system of overt debt slavery disguised as aid.
I think this piece is white wash propaganda. Tylers??
Well said, Cat! The occupying nations left a cadre of native criminals behind to enslave their countrymen. The cadre of native
criminals take their cut and pass the rest uphill to London, Paris or New York. They call it "Independence"! Sort of like what
happened in the new United States of America where farmers and artisans fought for freedom from Great Britain and New York, Massachusetts
and Virginia aristocrats took over the country.
Of course he omits the most important reason. It doesn't need to be this complicated.
They are simply dumber than whites and E. Asians. Inbreeding is common in ME countries and Pakistan for example has an average
IQ of around 70. In Sub Saharan Africa it is only 65 which means they are effectively retarded.
I read a story recently that a tanker overturned on the road in Pakistan and several hundred people were blown up while trying
to siphon the gas.
Now that's fucking stupid. Something like that would never happen in a Western country.
Every presumption of SJW's is based on insane lie that all groups and races are intrinsicly equal intellectually. This is clearly
not the case though of course there are some exceptions.
The left wanted to crucify the geneticist James Watson merely for suggesting this was the case.
You need to read up on a litle history my friend..... your post is ignorant at so many levels, it's laughable. The number of
highly advanced concepts that were stolen from the east over the centuries is legion. India and the ME were the root of all great
kowledge, astrology, astronomy, metallurgy (Damascus steel came from India), mathematics (ZEro came from India)......
Whites were shitting on the streets and eating their dead not 300 years ago.
Jhonny come lately with a gun, get it? And all your scientific wonders are toxic to the world and humans. All of them, including
your "medicine"....
We don't need any tips from people who are still figuring out how to poo in the loo dindu. Come back and complain about western
medicine when you have a real problem and you'll be begging for it. The third world is lucky we humor them. The insane population
growth is because of bleeding hearts supplying food and medicine to places like Africa. The west has been dominating the world
and international trade since the late 1400's. Most technology is spread through diffusion and the west proved to be the best
and most open society to synthesize new ideas. That being said western culture is based in the Greco Roman intellectual tradition
and Christianity. It has nothing to do with the your barbaric country which the British defeated and colonized easily.
IQ differences by race and region are a scientific fact and that data is easily available. Even India which is considered "smart"
by most laymen is around 80 where as the average on Western countries is around 100.
Race based supremacy was an element of German fascism. Italian fascism was based more on
national supremacy. If fascism were to arise in America it would most likely have a strong
religious element.
A lot more effort has probably gone into the cunning and manipulative parts than the system
itself. They picked a pretty dire 1920s economics, neoclassical economics, that still has all
its old problems.
1) The effect of debt on the economy. Leading to Japan 1989, US 2008, Irish and Spanish
real estate collapses, Greece's collapse with austerity and the new normal of secular
stagnation.
Today's neo-classical economics was around in the 1920s and it had exactly the same
problem. Debt based consumption and speculation led to the roaring 20s and the debt deflation
of the Great Depression.
2) The difference between "earned" and "unearned" income. Leading to parasitical rentier
economies, now spotted by one of today's Nobel Prize winning economists "Income inequality is
not killing capitalism in the United States, but rent-seekers like the banking and the
health-care sectors just might" Angus Deaton.
A flawed model of global, free trade that doesn't consider the minimum wage is set by the
cost of living. Western labour is priced out of global labour markets by the high cost of
living in the West exacerbated by rentier activity.
3) Bank credit should be directed into productive investment in business and industry, not
blowing asset bubbles (e.g. real estate) and other financial speculation.
In Fascism the party is the state. It is collectivist hence the socialist in the title with
added national exceptionalism. While racism was always there Nazism was more focused on race
than most. I'm not sure that I could identify anything like a Fascist party in the UK or US
outside a very few, small fringe groups.
Totalitarianism is a method of government that controls (or tries to) every aspect of its
citizens lives. Fascism is an ultra-nationalist ideology that uses totalitarianism to achieve
its aims.
The Soviet Union (under Stalin at least) was also totalitarian but obviously was communist
rather than fascist.
"Fascism is a fundamentally patriarchal ideology. It envisions the creation of a new man
conquering all before him, whilst the women stay home producing good fascist babies."
And yet, if the same ideology drapes itself in cloth and dogma, the left celebrate it.
Not really. He adapted the constitution and manipulated the "Reichstag" from 1933. Not to
mention the physical (and murder) of opponents and one time allies.
The Constitution was blatantly ignored and set aside by the NSDAP and the conservative
politicians. The Social Democrats and Communists were "done away with.
Meanwhile Henry Ford built vehicles in Germany for the German Army the Duponts supplied
chemicals, the bankers funded the Nazi enterprise and IBM supplied the devices to track
Hitlers deplorables so they could be rounded up for the work and death camps. These same
captains of industry were quite happy to see American boys die for their self serving
interests.
The march went ahead though, didn't it? No one was prevented from saying anything. We heard
it loud and clear. That Pie quote comes from Feb and relates to Berkeley cancelling Milo
Yiannopoulos from speaking, which is a different situation.
He has a pop at Antifa violence handing Trump etc the moral high ground, which I get. The
problem is that by equating Antifa with fascists, you are undermining the argument against
actual fascists. The internet is awash with "Antifa just as bad" - which pulls the right wing
into the centre ground and makes the Alt-right seem more reasonable. I know where he's coming
from, but the emphasis is off. It's a nice soundbite - but I don't know how helpful it
is.
Now I in no way condone violence and least of all from people who are into any kind of racial
supremacy, however, I cannot help feeling that the MSM are making a mountain out of a mole
hill here. The Charlottesville "unite the right" rally was only attended by some 500
participants, I am not aware of the figures for the counter protest but they were probably
more numerous. The violence was shocking but probably could have been avoided had the police
not disbanded the "unite the right" rally and then stood down leaving both groups to duke it
out in the streets of Charlottesville.
The point I'm making is that 500 far right nutters don't mark a new rise of Nazism, but
the current climate of calling anybody with slightly right leanings Nazis could push things
that way.
Was it thousands who drove the car into that lady too? No. It was one.
Sod the far right - they'd see me strung up for my skin colour.
But equally sod the left - they are the ones who would encourage and 'empathise' with my
differences - thus driving me into the clubs and bats of the far right. EG at the last
election, I only received racist literature from one party - Labour - celebrating the issues
that my race celebrates - because to my local Labour MP, I am a group identity, not an
individual.
The Republican Party embraced racism via Nixon's Southern Strategy in 1968, getting their
inspiration from George Wallace's independent run for President. This brought great benefit
to the GOP, allowing them to take over the South from 1968 through 1980. They doubled down on
this strategy during the Obama presidency, with dog-whistle racist politics that brought them
back to power after being decimated in the 2008 elections.
Citing racist Democrats of the past is about as meaningful as saying that Lincoln was a
Republican and emancipated the slaves, so the Republican Party isn't racist. It doesn't pass
the laugh test.
America is similar to the UK in many ways when I visit but there are also big
differences.
The class system is less subtle, people are literally divided by walls, and even transport
e.g. all the middle classes drive in big cars, whereas the bus is full of working class
people. And people openly exclude lower classes in their language (rednecks, white trash and
so on).
And in addition to the palpable class difference, they then have a whole race based division
as well, the bus is almost all not white, the maids are almost all not white, the posh
establishments are white majority etc. And people of all races talk about it all the time.
You meet them and in the first few sentences they inform you of their ethnic or cultural
background and ask yours. This is something in the UK that I am not used to.
My point is that it is all very well blaming a minority of nutters, or extremists, but
actually, the whole of society in the USA is race and class obsessed and it will take all of
you to sort this out.
This is the most idiotic comment I've ever read. There have been a range of white supremacist
states in the 20th century that absolutely demonstrate that is it perfectly possible for this
ideology to control a country. South Africa was a white supremacist state for over 40 years
until 1991 - were they all sad sacks? What about the Germans and Italians in the early 20th
century? Whole countries of sad sack losers?
It is amazing to see history repeating itself, including the anti-communist rhetoric of
the right. The Nazis effectively created a strawman out of the communist party in Berlin
through effective use of propaganda and targeted violence erroneously blamed on the
communists (such as the Reichstag Fire). Communists don't make people hate others because of
their race.
The fact that you assume that anyone who disagrees with fascism and is concerned about the
parallels with the current resurgence in nationalist rhetoric now and in the interwar period
is a on the 'far left' says a lot more about your politics than mine.
Fascism happened in Italy in the 20s. Nazism occurred in German in the 30s. Modern groups may
imitate those movements but they should be labelled as far-right extremist and racists .
"It's like the left want there to be powerful and dangerous fascists. Why?"
This is true in the UK too. The left would rather paint people as racists and fascists,
because then they feel that they can attack them.
The problem is, that often the left work towards the goals of the fascists. Take identity
politics for example - great for those that want to be defined by their 'identity grouping',
foul racism for the rest of us who want to be judged by the same standards as everyone else -
for our choices as adults, not our genes at birth.
Out of 325 million people they managed to scare up 250 oddballs to a heavily publicized event
in Virginia? Check the coverage, and they are outnumbered by the reporters and camera crews,
which greatly magnified the impact of the rally. They are not the face or forefront of any
mass movement, though they are being portrayed as such by opponents desperate for the support
(and donations) that political conflicts bring.
People are not dismissing the possibility of extremists finding success in American politics.
They are, however, dismissing efforts to dismiss any and all political opposition to people
like you as extremists, and the efforts to tie every lunatic fringe anywhere to our elected
government that you oppose.
This is a really big country. Your textbook has damned few students. Have you noticed?
There seems to be quite a lot of evidence that many Americans do subscribe to contempt for
"the Other". "God Bless America" at the end of every political speech gives a clear
indication they consider themselves special under God. The obsession with their flag,
treating it with almost religious reverence, is odd.
In nazi Germany it grew from the ground up and their certainly wasnt a coherent plan from the
ruling Junkers class to introduce fascism .Like with Drumpf the racist dregs were the core
around which the nazis built and the wealthy backed them once they were in power.
Missing from this is the fact that the most powerful elites like Henry Ford, J.P Morgan the
Dupont Family and many other bankers and industrialists openly supported fascism. No question
these folks were behind the plot to overthrow the Roosevelt government.
Are politicians to be judged by the worst that support them as the least worst option?
Trump has the support of some nasty individuals. Likewise here in the UK, Labour seems to
have the support of some extremely socially regressive groups. Do we judge Labour by the
worst of their voters then?
But none of them enjoy any popular support, and they never will
I suppose this is one of the few good things about Republican/Democrat dominance in the US,
either fall flat on your face by striking out on your own or be forced to comprimise by
signing up with one of the big 2
I can't help thinking all this talk of fascism is disingenuous, because America has always
been an apartheid state, and up until quite recently there were even tensions and prejudices
between different white groups. Nevertheless the idea that America is fundamentally a white
supremacist nation is generally unspoken until it is challenged. It was last challenged in
the sixties by the civil rights movement, and the response was violent. Most recently it was
challenged by the election of Barack Obama, and predictably the reaction was violent. That
isn't to say that there aren't millions of decent Americans who are not racist, or that
people of colour cannot overcome these barriers, or that the nation doesn't have a fine
tradition of social justice movements, or that racism is the only injustice a human beng can
suffer. But, for all the mythmaking about liberty and justice for all, there is no getting
away from the fact that the nation's origins lie in genocide, people trafficking, forced
labour, caste-based inequality, environmental despoliation and exclusivist religious cultism.
These demons have never gone away.
Hitler was not let in by PR as is sometimes claimed, but after getting 30 odd percent
repeatedly, he used political maneuvering and street intimidation to force his opponents out
of the way and sieze power, immediately ending democracy. Instead, if Germany had elections
under First Past the Post at the time, Hitler's 30 odd percent might have produced a
Parliamentary majority.
Post WW2 one of the first if not the first show to confront American fascism was "The
Twilight Zone ".Great man that he was Rod Serling confrontrd racism and fascism head on
having an abiding hatred of both ,he was a WW2 veteran so he knew what nazis looked like in
the flesh.
Extremism is growing in every little ugly dark corner of our world. It's the real enemy.
Left, right, religious or agnostic, even sports fans. We must be ever vigilant and not
mistake extremist anger for passion. We must shine a light on those within us who are losing
control and we must not excuse those who are lost just because they are on the same side.
Someone agreeing with you is great, but if the manner on which they agree is distasteful
or vile, they aren't with you at all if you are a decent person, because the real fight is
between the good moderates and the vile extremists. And this notion that there are no bad
tactics only bad targets? Bull. Let's make the twenties the decade we get back on track.
UKIP 'openly fascist ideology'? Dearie me.
Fascism: 'Totalitarian ideology associated with Benito Mussolini that elevates the nation
over all other loyalties. It calls for the creation of a 'new man' purged of individualism
and materialism. It celebrates masculinity, youth and the regenerative power of violence. It
seeks to unify the nation under the leadership of a supreme leader in struggle against
internal and external enemies.'
This column is perfect for The Graun: making a careful list of gaudy outbreaks of fascism
while shorting the scaffolding on which it hangs. Instead of exposition on the heavy-handed
corporate takeovers that lead to fascism there's a one-liner, "the crisis years of the 1920's
and 1930's."
Fascism is not the outgrowth of some nebulous 'crisis' but a coherent economic and
political program that must begin at the highest levels of society. So it is in the US today,
a result of decades of growing inequality and resulting desperation. Chris Hedges' comment on
sick societies: "And if we do not overthrow the neoliberal, corporate forces that have
destroyed our democracy we will continue to vomit up more monstrosities as dangerous as
Donald Trump." Ladies and gents, I give you Charlottesville.
Alot of people become more radicalized through youtube. If you watch a few 'alt-right' videos
on you tube soon your feed will become full of them. People then get drawn in by the
unbalanced media and a hate filled echo chamber. Videos heavily edited and narrated to suite
a certain agenda.
The hate in some of the comments is atrocious.
I took a look at a video on youtube which suggested that someone should run over fractions
of the left wing protestors with a tank. 100 likes. So soon after the terror attack. Youtube
needs to do more to censor threats of violence.
Lastly I am sure infowars never used to be so 'far / alt-right... it seems like it has
become far more extreme in the last few years.
"Today, neo-fascism has many faces, with movements ranging from neo-Nazis to neo-Confederates
to segments of the alt-right."
This is the point at which an interesting piece about the history of fascism in the United
States seemed to let itself down.
Neo-Nazis and neo-Confederates tend to self-identify. They're the idiots with the dumb
costumes and badges who can't seem to tell whether they're playing at being boy scouts or
wizards. But where the piece lost an opportunity to provide additional insight was in the
matter of the alt-right. 'Alt-right' has become something of a catch-all term that all kinds
of people use for all kinds of reasons.
"[S]egments of the alt-right" is overly vague, and may seem to be something of an evasion.
If there are segments of the alt-right that are fascists without falling into the two
categories already mentioned (neo-nazis and neo-Confederates) then identify them - just as
you identified the individuals and groups earlier in the piece.
Scholarship is great when it is specific and detailed. The alt-right part of the piece was
too vague and therefore missed an opportunity to provide much-needed insight about a label
that is in danger of becoming overused to the point of meaninglessness
"... The US doesn't like Russia. So it doesn't like the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO). India and Pakistan joined SCO as full members on 9 June 2017 in Astana, Kazakhstan. ..."
Posted by: From The Hague | Aug 20, 2017 3:55:12 AM |
96
What's the purpose of the "escalation"? Why escalate in Afghanistan?
What has happened recently to require such an escaltion?
The US doesn't like Russia. So it doesn't like the Shanghai Cooperation
Organisation (SCO). India and Pakistan joined SCO as full members on 9 June
2017 in Astana, Kazakhstan.
Pretty much sterilized article that avoid really important issues.
The period of McCarthyism probably can be viewed as the the most close to openly
neo-fascism regime in the USA... You was prosecuted for your political views, not
actions. It is not mentioned in this article at all.
another important omission is that neo-fascism always rely on support of iether
part of high command of the army, or state or both. Recent Ukrainian events when
Yanukovich essentially promoted the the force (and the party) that deposed him is
a nice illustration here.
Also omitted is connection of neoliberalism and the rise of far right movements.
Neoliberalism is a breading ground for far right movement as globalization really
destroys communities (and jobs) and people try to organize for a fight against this
new menace.
Notable quotes:
"... The McCarthy era proved to everyone that things got a lot easier if communists (or believed communists or people where the dude down in Giuliani's bar said he might be a communist) were accused. ..."
"... The USA are a particularly violent society that has also always exported its violence and killed scores of people around the world, mainly under the labels freedom and democracy. ..."
"... The federal government also used bombers against the miners defending their families against the mine owners henchmen. Local sheriff's trying to uphold the law were murdered by the mine owners. Have a look at the "coal wars" ..."
"... The muddle - for all sensible people - does not arise because of a confusion about whether it is good to be against or for Nazis. The issue in Charlottesville was that morally right was actually legally wrong. Making Nazi salutes is vile; it is not, however, illegal (in the United States). Right up until threats were made and punches were thrown, the law was on the side of the demonstrators. The presence of Antifa (which has a history of committing acts of violence), therefore, presented a legal problem regardless of ANTIFA's standing as 'moral agents': if the police had been ordered to move in earlier in the day, which direction did the law require them to move? ..."
"... Financial liberalisation without the knowledge of productive and unproductive lending. Productive lending goes into business and industry; it generates the money to make the repayments and gives a good return in GDP. Unproductive lending goes into real estate and financial speculation; it doesn't generate the money to make the repayments and gives a poor return in GDP. ..."
Consider the interwar period. The crisis years of the 1920s and 1930s not
only gave rise to fascist movements across Europe – a moment captured in Ernst
Nolte's classic The Three Faces of Fascism – but around the globe. The United
States was no exception.
Charlottesville reveals an emboldened far right that can no longer be
ignored Read more
Across the country, fascist and proto-fascist groups sprang up. The most
prominent among them was the paramilitary Silver Shirts movement, founded by
William Dudley Pelley, a radical journalist from Massachusetts, in 1933.
Obsessed with fantasies about a Jewish-Communist world conspiracy and fears
about an African American corruption of American culture, its followers promoted
racism, extreme nationalism, violence and the ideal of an aggressive masculinity.
They competed against various other militant fringe groups, from the Khaki Shirt
movement, which aimed to build a paramilitary force of army veterans to stage
a coup, to the paramilitary Black Legion, feared for its assassinations, bombings
and acts of arson.
An important role in this history was played by radicalized parts of the
Italian and German American community. Inspired by the ascent of Mussolini,
some Italian Americans founded numerous fascist groups, which were eventually
united under the Fascist League of North America.
Many commentators still feel uneasy speaking about fascism in America.
They consider fascism to be foreign to US society
Even bigger was Fritz Julius Kuhn's German-American Bund, founded in 1936.
Its members considered themselves patriotic Americans. At their meetings the
American flag stood beside the Swastika banner. At a rally at Madison Square
Garden in New York on 20 February 1939, a crowd of 20,000 listened to Kuhn attacking
President Franklin D Roosevelt, referring to him as "Frank D Rosenfeld" and
calling his New Deal a "Jew Deal".
The gathering ended in violent clashes between protesters and participants.
Similar riots took place on the west coast. The New York Times reported: "Disorders
attendant upon Nazi rallies in New York and Los Angeles this week again focused
attention upon the Nazi movement in the United States and inspired conjectures
as to its strength and influence."
To be sure, most of these groups were peripheral. And yet historians have
shown that the appeal of fascism among many Americans in the interwar years
should not be underestimated. The ideology found prominent supporters, from
the writer Ezra Pound, who from Italy called Americans for an alliance with
Mussolini, to the aviator Charles Lindbergh, who in the 1940s campaigned against
Washington's entry into the war.
When and if fascism comes to America it will not be labelled 'made in
Germany'
Fascist agitators published widely circulated newspapers and aired radio
shows, which reached millions, preaching virulent antisemitism, nativism and
anti-Communism. Many of them had no obvious links to their fascist counterparts
in Europe and cushioned their message with American nativism and Christian piety.
"When and if fascism comes to America it will not be labelled 'made in Germany';
it will not be marked with a swastika," a US reporter warned urgently in 1938.
"It will not even be called fascism; it will be called, of course, 'Americanism'."
Sinclair Lewis's novel It Can't Happen Here, published a few years earlier,
had made a similar point.
During the second world war, American fascists suffered a serious blow. At
the great sedition trial of 1944, some of the movement's key proponents were
charged with treason. In the postwar years, however, scores of new groups emerged.
Some saw themselves in the tradition of the interwar period, such as the American
Nazi party, founded in 1959 by the flamboyant war veteran George Lincoln Rockwell,
which copied its ideology and iconography from Germany's Nazi party.
White nationalist and neo-fascist movements in the US have grown by 600%
on social media, outperforming Isis
Yet many of these groups transformed and began to look very different from
their predecessors of the 1930s. Not all wore jackboots, armbands and uniforms
any more. Not all assembled at torch rallies. They embraced new discourses of
globalization, migration and multiculturalism. Today, neo-fascism has many faces,
with movements ranging from neo-Nazis to neo-Confederates to segments of the
alt-right.
The United States has never been immune to fascism. But many commentators
still feel uneasy speaking about fascism in America. They still consider fascism
to be foreign to American society. They often assume that American exceptionalism
makes the country immune to any fascist threat. Fascism has no place in our
master narrative of American history. Conversely, in most global histories of
fascism, America is no more than a footnote.
And yet it has never been more important to acknowledge the history of fascism
and neo-fascism in America than it is today. Over the last five years, according
to a recent study by George Washington University, white nationalist and neo-fascist
movements in the US have
grown by 600% on Twitter , outperforming Isis in nearly every category,
from follower numbers to numbers of tweets.
Although they remain fringe groups, Trump's victory has given them new confidence.
Never in history have they felt more empowered. Many of them saw his election
as their victory. The chorus of support ranges from the American Nazi party
supremo, Rocky Suhayda, who
sees Trump as a "real opportunity", to the white supremacist leader David
Duke, who
said he was "100% behind" Trump.
How a 1947 US government anti-Nazi film went viral after Charlottesville
Read more
... ... ...
David Motadel is an assistant professor of international history at the
London School of Economics and Political Science
This movement of fascism and nationalism has been in the works for 40 years.
We have a radical insurgency party that wanted absolute control to carry
out the policies of the old John Birch Society: end graduated income tax,
repeal Social Security, repeal Medicare and Medicaid, discredit opposing
political party, end school integration and busing and eliminate healthcare.
These are the goals of the radical insurgency called for by the Republican
Party.
This agenda has been pushed by big money. The Koch Brothers and the Mercer
family, big money. Now it is with us and they have their "horse": a man
called Trump. It is shameful to watch. The racism and the bigotry has been
seething in the ranks of this radical insurgency for 8 yrs under Obama (the
very ides of electing a black man as POTUS!). Then the possibility of a
woman as POTUS was more than the radical insurgency could stand...they needed
a white man for president.
The crazier the better. It is in the open now....no hiding anymore.
Funny, Most other states who modeled their iconography after ancient Rome
where openly fascist right from the start. Mussolini's Italy, the Third
Reich.
The world is facing extreme challenges - a faltering economic system;
climate change and ecological collapse; rogue states with nuclear weapons
In fairness, the world has been that way for as long as I remember. You
get immune to it after a while. Probably since biblical times, if not before
then, people have been telling us we are on the brink of apocalypse.
Exactly. Macron defeating le Pen only makes Fascism more likely in the future,
because he'll be a bloody disaster. Thankfully the FN seems to be pulling
itself apart, which is a bullet dodged by our beret wearing chums.
he proceedings had merely served to demonstrate that a Soviet political
trial could not be brought to a successful conclusion if conducted in
accordance with existing American law as long as it was agianst rightwing
nutters
The McCarthy era proved to everyone that things got a lot easier if
communists (or believed communists or people where the dude down in Giuliani's
bar said he might be a communist) were accused.
The USA are a particularly violent society that has also always exported
its violence and killed scores of people around the world, mainly under
the labels freedom and democracy.
An article which fails to provide any evidence that fascism was ever
widespread in the United States.
Maybe you misread the headline: it said that "the US was never immune
to fascism", not that fascism was widespread. So you're complaining that
it didn't prove a point that it never sought to make.
The federal government also used bombers against the miners defending
their families against the mine owners henchmen. Local sheriff's trying
to uphold the law were murdered by the mine owners. Have a look at the "coal
wars"
An article which fails to provide any evidence that fascism was ever widespread
in the United States. Even where it's forced to admit that it was mostly
peripheral, it tries to gloss over that with the somewhat flaccid assertion
that historians say that the appeal of fascism shouldn't be underestimated
and by pointing out that people as prominent as Ezra Pound and Charles Lindbergh
were involved.
A far more interesting article might have been an examination as to why
homegrown fascism never took off in the UK or the USA as opposed to elsewhere
in Europe.
Yes it was violent. But violence is not allowed in the ordinary course
of life in a democratic society. There are even laws against it (the fact
that the laws are not always fairly enforced is another matter, but one
no less worthy of discussion). The point here is that a person is not
entitled to hit his neighbor on the head and destroy his possessions.
In war, that kind of behavior is not only allowed, it is generally encouraged.
The muddle - for all sensible people - does not arise because of
a confusion about whether it is good to be against or for Nazis. The issue
in Charlottesville was that morally right was actually legally wrong. Making
Nazi salutes is vile; it is not, however, illegal (in the United States).
Right up until threats were made and punches were thrown, the law was on
the side of the demonstrators. The presence of Antifa (which has a history
of committing acts of violence), therefore, presented a legal problem
regardless of ANTIFA's standing as 'moral agents': if the police had been
ordered to move in earlier in the day, which direction did the law require
them to move?
Once we can get that clear, we can begin to understand the problem. And
when we understand it, we can do our best to see to it that it never happens
again. So let's not make this just about Trump. Serious questions should
also be asked about the actions and inaction of local officials on the day.
But 'We fought a war to defeat fascism' really doesn't get us very far toward
achieving our goals
soundofthesuburbs -> soundofthesuburbs 17 Aug 2017 07:46
Financial liberalisation without the knowledge of productive and
unproductive lending. Productive lending goes into business and industry;
it generates the money to make the repayments and gives a good return in
GDP. Unproductive lending goes into real estate and financial speculation;
it doesn't generate the money to make the repayments and gives a poor return
in GDP.
They didn't know:
"What is wrong with lending more money into real estate?" Australian,
Canadian, Swedish and Norwegian bankers now
"What is wrong with lending more money into the Chinese stock market?"
Chinese banker pre-2015
"What is wrong with lending more money into real estate?" Chinese
banker pre-2104
"What is wrong with lending more money into real estate?" Spanish
banker pre-2012
"What is wrong with lending more money into real estate?" Irish
banker pre-2010
"What is wrong with a NINA (no income, no asset) mortgage?" US banker
pre-2008
"What is wrong with lending more money into real estate?" US banker
pre-2008
"What is wrong with lending more money into real estate?" Japanese
banker pre-1989
"What is wrong with lending more money into real estate?" UK banker
pre-1989
"What is wrong with lending more money into real estate?" Australian
banker pre-1989
"What is wrong with lending more money into real estate?" Canadian
banker pre-1989
"What is wrong with lending more money into real estate?" Scandinavian
banker pre-1989
"... Dropping the pilot is indeed apt as Bismarck seems to have been interested in Germany developing Russia in some way or another, possibly German capital and German technicians exploiting the vast wealth and massive resources of the Russian Empire instead of the Kaiser's blundering Ostpolitik or Hitler's abattoir plans for the Russian Empire and its successor states. ..."
"... I am no fan of Trump or Bannon, but like most followers of this site I see that there is much more to be gained from cooperation of the new powers in the emerging multipolar world than there is to be gained or taken from a disastrous war between those powers and yet nevertheless the NeoCons, irrationally still intoxicated on dreams of Shumpeter, Leo Strauss and Paul Wolfowitz would risk the gamble of a third world war rather than allow cooperation and coordinated development between the leaders of a multipolar world. ..."
"... Indeed, Trump's promise of cooperation with Russia (despite his banter about getting tough on Iran or China) was about the only redeeming quality the man possessed in the year when Hitlery was promising to "get tough with Russia over Syria." ..."
Dropping the pilot is indeed apt as Bismarck seems to have been interested in Germany
developing Russia in some way or another, possibly German capital and German technicians
exploiting the vast wealth and massive resources of the Russian Empire instead of the
Kaiser's blundering Ostpolitik or Hitler's abattoir plans for the Russian Empire and its
successor states.
I am no fan of Trump or Bannon, but like most followers of this site I see that there is
much more to be gained from cooperation of the new powers in the emerging multipolar world
than there is to be gained or taken from a disastrous war between those powers and yet
nevertheless the NeoCons, irrationally still intoxicated on dreams of Shumpeter, Leo Strauss
and Paul Wolfowitz would risk the gamble of a third world war rather than allow cooperation
and coordinated development between the leaders of a multipolar world.
Indeed, Trump's promise of cooperation with Russia (despite his banter about getting tough
on Iran or China) was about the only redeeming quality the man possessed in the year when
Hitlery was promising to "get tough with Russia over Syria."
"... The US alternative to fascism and national socialism can be visualized by the movie "Rollerball" where the "corporations rule the world" and government is subservant to them (see David Korden's book by the same name. The circus' for the proles merely serve to distract them by providing a false identity politic associated with a particular "team". The history the Hanseatic-League also provides some inspiration for this system: http://www.bergen.hanseatic-league.com/history.html ..."
Fascism is a term that was originally referred to the fascists of Italy under Mussolini.
Nazism on the other hand, referred as National Socialism, is in an ideological concept of the
Nazi Party.
For Fascists, the state was the most important element. But Nazism emphasized on racism.
While fascism considered state as important, Nazism considered 'Aryanism' as more important."
The US alternative to fascism and national socialism can be visualized by the movie "Rollerball"
where the "corporations rule the world" and government is subservant to them (see David Korden's
book by the same name. The circus' for the proles merely serve to distract them by providing a
false identity politic associated with a particular "team". The history the Hanseatic-League also
provides some inspiration for this system: http://www.bergen.hanseatic-league.com/history.html
Cannot wait for football season to arrive so we can go back to the regularly scheduled sports
"programming"(go seahawks. sic).
Posted by: somebody | Aug 19, 2017 9:53:06 AM | 22
Whatever you are smoking certainly looks like great stuff.
Posted by: Temporarily Sane | Aug 20, 2017 3:20:34 AM | 94
Bravo.
Let's add the US is certainly a fascist country, but that is nothing new. Fascism, as
defined by its inventor Benito Mussolini, is characterized by the protection of private
assets/corporations by the power apparatus of the state, in particular the military and
police.
If there is a better definition of the United States, I'd love to hear it. And it's been
like that from day one.
War alone brings up to its highest tension all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility
upon the peoples who have courage to meet it. All other trials are substitutes, which never
really put men into the position where they have to make the great decision -- the
alternative of life or death ... Fascism, now and always, believes in holiness and in
heroism; that is to say, in actions influenced by no economic motive, direct or indirect.
And if the economic conception of history be denied, according to which theory men are no
more than puppets, carried to and fro by the waves of chance, while the real directing
forces are quite out of their control, it follows that the existence of an unchangeable and
unchanging class-war is also denied - the natural progeny of the economic conception of
history. And above all Fascism denies that class-war can be the preponderant force in the
transformation of society... ... After Socialism, Fascism combats the whole complex system
of democratic ideology, and repudiates it, whether in its theoretical premises or in its
practical application. Fascism denies that the majority, by the simple fact that it is a
majority, can direct human society; it denies that numbers alone can govern by means of a
periodical consultation, and it affirms the immutable, beneficial, and fruitful inequality
of mankind, which can never be permanently leveled through the mere operation of a
mechanical process such as universal suffrage....
...Fascism denies, in democracy, the absur[d] conventional untruth of political equality
dressed out in the garb of collective irresponsibility, and the myth of "happiness" and
indefinite progress...
Fascism is collusion between government and big business. Pay to play.
Get elected, get paid. Accept the payola and serve big business at the expense of your
constituents. IF you don't play, you won't get re-elected.
If you intend, with pure motives like Mr. Smith, to go in and clean it up, you will be out
on your ass after one miserable term. And nobody will sit with you in the lunch room.
Fascism is the American Way.
fast freddy | Aug 20, 2017 10:01:39 AM |
107
somebody | Aug 20, 2017 10:35:48 AM |
108
107
Of course you can make up your own definition of fascism but don't expect fascists to
agree.
Fascists don't worry about reelection. They only have to come to power once.
While the state must carry huge incidental expenses, the big capitalists themselves have to
stand a certain number: "voluntary contributions" extorted by the party and its "welfare"
undertakings; various subscriptions; "graft" and seats on the boards of directors of big
companies for the "upper crust" of the fascist leaders, etc. But these incidental expenses,
the importance of which must not be exaggerated, are less annoying to big business than the
demagogic agitation indulged in by the fascist plebeians – agitation which, despite
purges and repressions, periodically reappears, though within constantly narrower limits.
Again, while big business approves of an aggressive policy that brings it new armament
orders, it is afraid lest the fascist leaders, in seeking a diversion from the wretchedness
of the people, provoke a premature war which will result in the isolation of the country and
its defeat. It is especially significant that in the autumn of 1935 it was the fascist
leaders, Farinacci, Rossoni, and others, who urged Mussolini into conflict with England.
1
often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the
Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a
centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and
social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2
: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control
"Fascism is collusion between government and big business. Pay to play."
Given that power allows to control resources, it allows to get money or whatever resource
control exists (e.g. land estates in feudalism), so political systems have components of
"power gives money" and "money gives power" in varying proportions. Fascism has some
equilibrium of the two, but to define it as a special variety of government you need to list
more features.
I guess that in the context like USA you can point to vilification used as a tool of
public manipulation as a "fascist feature". True, IMHO, but that feature is invented by
"fascism proper", it is fascistic in terms of being a malicious power technique. However, it
lacks a catchy name. Should it be called "fascism"? That would be ironic, because that would
be using vilification to eliminate vilification. It also leads to the type of discourse in
which mere volume wins, and this is one of mechanisms of converting money to power.
Realizing changes everything - in the longer run at least.
Democracy gave us World Wars? lol, you serious?
@somebody 103
Which comes down to the same imo, since regulation reduces volatility and other ways of
making illicit profits.
@Lea, fast freddy
That's not 'fascism', it's rather capitalism controlling the state, or trying to.
There are several valid ways to define 'fascism' afaict.
One calls it 'the rule of the most reactionary, most chauvinist parts of financial capital',
another says it's 'an ideology which defines certain groups of people as 'inferior' and
denies them the most basic rights, even the right to exist' (from memory, not exact
wording).
I would argue that both are complementary rather than contradictory.
@Piotr Berman 109
How about we replace it with a (mostly decentralized) democratic organization of the
economy, with 'money'/ investment capital as a public good that does not require any
yield?
:-)
How about we replace it with a (mostly decentralized) democratic organization of the
economy, with 'money'/ investment capital as a public good that does not require any yield?
Political language -- and with variations this is true of all political parties, from
Conservatives to Anarchists -- is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable,
and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.
@ From The Hague who wrote: "But China is a working model for a more complex economy."
Exactly! China has planned and executed 12-13 5-year plans, reduced poverty immensely and
yet all we hear in the West besides crickets about the situation is TINA!!!!!!!!!
I read all this commenting about fascism but no link to a compelling definition
But Fascism is also a political and economic system. Why, then, cannot we have a clear and
generally accepted definition of it? Alas! we shall not get one -- not yet, anyway. To say
why would take too long, but basically it is because it is impossible to define Fascism
satisfactorily without making admissions which neither the Fascists themselves, nor the
Conservatives, nor Socialists of any colour, are willing to make. All one can do for the
moment is to use the word with a certain amount of circumspection and not, as is usually
done, degrade it to the level of a swearword.
Orwell's problem is that thinking one race superior to the other would have applied to the
colonialist British conservatives of his time (and the United States) and authoritarian rule
and anti-individualism to Stalin.
In 2017 Merriam Websters definition is valid
a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts
nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic
government headed by a dictatorial leader.
British and US political systems were about the individual and never autocratic, whilst
the Soviet Union emphasized class, not nation or race.
i thought corporatism was good... it seems to capture a lot of what is going on in the
west today where corporations control politicians, especially the big ones i have mentioned
previously - exxon, goldman sachs, and the military builders/contractors... aren't those the
ones inside of every friggin' ''''new'''' usa gov't that comes along?
"1.Fascism is a term that was originally referred to the fascists of Italy under
Mussolini. Nazism on the other hand, referred as National Socialism, is in an ideological
concept of the Nazi Party.
2.For Fascists, the state was the most important element. But Nazism emphasized on
racism.
3.While fascism considered state as important, Nazism considered 'Aryanism' as more
important."
The US alternative to fascism and national socialism can be visualized by the movie
"Rollerball" where the "corporations rule the world" and government is subservant to them
(see David Korden's book by the same name. The circus' for the proles merely serve to
distract them by providing a false identity politic associated with a particular "team". The
history the Hanseatic-League also provides some inspiration for this system:
http://www.bergen.hanseatic-league.com/history.html
Cannot wait for football season to arrive so we can go back to the regularly scheduled
sports "programming"(go seahawks. sic).
"... The US doesn't like Russia. So it doesn't like the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO). India and Pakistan joined SCO as full members on 9 June 2017 in Astana, Kazakhstan. ..."
Posted by: From The Hague | Aug 20, 2017 3:55:12 AM |
96
What's the purpose of the "escalation"? Why escalate in Afghanistan?
What has happened recently to require such an escaltion?
The US doesn't like Russia. So it doesn't like the Shanghai Cooperation
Organisation (SCO). India and Pakistan joined SCO as full members on 9 June
2017 in Astana, Kazakhstan.
Pretty much sterilized article that avoid really important issues.
The period of McCarthyism probably can be viewed as the the most close to openly
neo-fascism regime in the USA... You was prosecuted for your political views, not
actions. It is not mentioned in this article at all.
another important omission is that neo-fascism always rely on support of iether
part of high command of the army, or state or both. Recent Ukrainian events when
Yanukovich essentially promoted the the force (and the party) that deposed him is
a nice illustration here.
Also omitted is connection of neoliberalism and the rise of far right movements.
Neoliberalism is a breading ground for far right movement as globalization really
destroys communities (and jobs) and people try to organize for a fight against this
new menace.
Notable quotes:
"... The McCarthy era proved to everyone that things got a lot easier if communists (or believed communists or people where the dude down in Giuliani's bar said he might be a communist) were accused. ..."
"... The USA are a particularly violent society that has also always exported its violence and killed scores of people around the world, mainly under the labels freedom and democracy. ..."
"... The federal government also used bombers against the miners defending their families against the mine owners henchmen. Local sheriff's trying to uphold the law were murdered by the mine owners. Have a look at the "coal wars" ..."
"... The muddle - for all sensible people - does not arise because of a confusion about whether it is good to be against or for Nazis. The issue in Charlottesville was that morally right was actually legally wrong. Making Nazi salutes is vile; it is not, however, illegal (in the United States). Right up until threats were made and punches were thrown, the law was on the side of the demonstrators. The presence of Antifa (which has a history of committing acts of violence), therefore, presented a legal problem regardless of ANTIFA's standing as 'moral agents': if the police had been ordered to move in earlier in the day, which direction did the law require them to move? ..."
"... Financial liberalisation without the knowledge of productive and unproductive lending. Productive lending goes into business and industry; it generates the money to make the repayments and gives a good return in GDP. Unproductive lending goes into real estate and financial speculation; it doesn't generate the money to make the repayments and gives a poor return in GDP. ..."
Consider the interwar period. The crisis years of the 1920s and 1930s not
only gave rise to fascist movements across Europe – a moment captured in Ernst
Nolte's classic The Three Faces of Fascism – but around the globe. The United
States was no exception.
Charlottesville reveals an emboldened far right that can no longer be
ignored Read more
Across the country, fascist and proto-fascist groups sprang up. The most
prominent among them was the paramilitary Silver Shirts movement, founded by
William Dudley Pelley, a radical journalist from Massachusetts, in 1933.
Obsessed with fantasies about a Jewish-Communist world conspiracy and fears
about an African American corruption of American culture, its followers promoted
racism, extreme nationalism, violence and the ideal of an aggressive masculinity.
They competed against various other militant fringe groups, from the Khaki Shirt
movement, which aimed to build a paramilitary force of army veterans to stage
a coup, to the paramilitary Black Legion, feared for its assassinations, bombings
and acts of arson.
An important role in this history was played by radicalized parts of the
Italian and German American community. Inspired by the ascent of Mussolini,
some Italian Americans founded numerous fascist groups, which were eventually
united under the Fascist League of North America.
Many commentators still feel uneasy speaking about fascism in America.
They consider fascism to be foreign to US society
Even bigger was Fritz Julius Kuhn's German-American Bund, founded in 1936.
Its members considered themselves patriotic Americans. At their meetings the
American flag stood beside the Swastika banner. At a rally at Madison Square
Garden in New York on 20 February 1939, a crowd of 20,000 listened to Kuhn attacking
President Franklin D Roosevelt, referring to him as "Frank D Rosenfeld" and
calling his New Deal a "Jew Deal".
The gathering ended in violent clashes between protesters and participants.
Similar riots took place on the west coast. The New York Times reported: "Disorders
attendant upon Nazi rallies in New York and Los Angeles this week again focused
attention upon the Nazi movement in the United States and inspired conjectures
as to its strength and influence."
To be sure, most of these groups were peripheral. And yet historians have
shown that the appeal of fascism among many Americans in the interwar years
should not be underestimated. The ideology found prominent supporters, from
the writer Ezra Pound, who from Italy called Americans for an alliance with
Mussolini, to the aviator Charles Lindbergh, who in the 1940s campaigned against
Washington's entry into the war.
When and if fascism comes to America it will not be labelled 'made in
Germany'
Fascist agitators published widely circulated newspapers and aired radio
shows, which reached millions, preaching virulent antisemitism, nativism and
anti-Communism. Many of them had no obvious links to their fascist counterparts
in Europe and cushioned their message with American nativism and Christian piety.
"When and if fascism comes to America it will not be labelled 'made in Germany';
it will not be marked with a swastika," a US reporter warned urgently in 1938.
"It will not even be called fascism; it will be called, of course, 'Americanism'."
Sinclair Lewis's novel It Can't Happen Here, published a few years earlier,
had made a similar point.
During the second world war, American fascists suffered a serious blow. At
the great sedition trial of 1944, some of the movement's key proponents were
charged with treason. In the postwar years, however, scores of new groups emerged.
Some saw themselves in the tradition of the interwar period, such as the American
Nazi party, founded in 1959 by the flamboyant war veteran George Lincoln Rockwell,
which copied its ideology and iconography from Germany's Nazi party.
White nationalist and neo-fascist movements in the US have grown by 600%
on social media, outperforming Isis
Yet many of these groups transformed and began to look very different from
their predecessors of the 1930s. Not all wore jackboots, armbands and uniforms
any more. Not all assembled at torch rallies. They embraced new discourses of
globalization, migration and multiculturalism. Today, neo-fascism has many faces,
with movements ranging from neo-Nazis to neo-Confederates to segments of the
alt-right.
The United States has never been immune to fascism. But many commentators
still feel uneasy speaking about fascism in America. They still consider fascism
to be foreign to American society. They often assume that American exceptionalism
makes the country immune to any fascist threat. Fascism has no place in our
master narrative of American history. Conversely, in most global histories of
fascism, America is no more than a footnote.
And yet it has never been more important to acknowledge the history of fascism
and neo-fascism in America than it is today. Over the last five years, according
to a recent study by George Washington University, white nationalist and neo-fascist
movements in the US have
grown by 600% on Twitter , outperforming Isis in nearly every category,
from follower numbers to numbers of tweets.
Although they remain fringe groups, Trump's victory has given them new confidence.
Never in history have they felt more empowered. Many of them saw his election
as their victory. The chorus of support ranges from the American Nazi party
supremo, Rocky Suhayda, who
sees Trump as a "real opportunity", to the white supremacist leader David
Duke, who
said he was "100% behind" Trump.
How a 1947 US government anti-Nazi film went viral after Charlottesville
Read more
... ... ...
David Motadel is an assistant professor of international history at the
London School of Economics and Political Science
This movement of fascism and nationalism has been in the works for 40 years.
We have a radical insurgency party that wanted absolute control to carry
out the policies of the old John Birch Society: end graduated income tax,
repeal Social Security, repeal Medicare and Medicaid, discredit opposing
political party, end school integration and busing and eliminate healthcare.
These are the goals of the radical insurgency called for by the Republican
Party.
This agenda has been pushed by big money. The Koch Brothers and the Mercer
family, big money. Now it is with us and they have their "horse": a man
called Trump. It is shameful to watch. The racism and the bigotry has been
seething in the ranks of this radical insurgency for 8 yrs under Obama (the
very ides of electing a black man as POTUS!). Then the possibility of a
woman as POTUS was more than the radical insurgency could stand...they needed
a white man for president.
The crazier the better. It is in the open now....no hiding anymore.
Funny, Most other states who modeled their iconography after ancient Rome
where openly fascist right from the start. Mussolini's Italy, the Third
Reich.
The world is facing extreme challenges - a faltering economic system;
climate change and ecological collapse; rogue states with nuclear weapons
In fairness, the world has been that way for as long as I remember. You
get immune to it after a while. Probably since biblical times, if not before
then, people have been telling us we are on the brink of apocalypse.
Exactly. Macron defeating le Pen only makes Fascism more likely in the future,
because he'll be a bloody disaster. Thankfully the FN seems to be pulling
itself apart, which is a bullet dodged by our beret wearing chums.
he proceedings had merely served to demonstrate that a Soviet political
trial could not be brought to a successful conclusion if conducted in
accordance with existing American law as long as it was agianst rightwing
nutters
The McCarthy era proved to everyone that things got a lot easier if
communists (or believed communists or people where the dude down in Giuliani's
bar said he might be a communist) were accused.
The USA are a particularly violent society that has also always exported
its violence and killed scores of people around the world, mainly under
the labels freedom and democracy.
An article which fails to provide any evidence that fascism was ever
widespread in the United States.
Maybe you misread the headline: it said that "the US was never immune
to fascism", not that fascism was widespread. So you're complaining that
it didn't prove a point that it never sought to make.
The federal government also used bombers against the miners defending
their families against the mine owners henchmen. Local sheriff's trying
to uphold the law were murdered by the mine owners. Have a look at the "coal
wars"
An article which fails to provide any evidence that fascism was ever widespread
in the United States. Even where it's forced to admit that it was mostly
peripheral, it tries to gloss over that with the somewhat flaccid assertion
that historians say that the appeal of fascism shouldn't be underestimated
and by pointing out that people as prominent as Ezra Pound and Charles Lindbergh
were involved.
A far more interesting article might have been an examination as to why
homegrown fascism never took off in the UK or the USA as opposed to elsewhere
in Europe.
Yes it was violent. But violence is not allowed in the ordinary course
of life in a democratic society. There are even laws against it (the fact
that the laws are not always fairly enforced is another matter, but one
no less worthy of discussion). The point here is that a person is not
entitled to hit his neighbor on the head and destroy his possessions.
In war, that kind of behavior is not only allowed, it is generally encouraged.
The muddle - for all sensible people - does not arise because of
a confusion about whether it is good to be against or for Nazis. The issue
in Charlottesville was that morally right was actually legally wrong. Making
Nazi salutes is vile; it is not, however, illegal (in the United States).
Right up until threats were made and punches were thrown, the law was on
the side of the demonstrators. The presence of Antifa (which has a history
of committing acts of violence), therefore, presented a legal problem
regardless of ANTIFA's standing as 'moral agents': if the police had been
ordered to move in earlier in the day, which direction did the law require
them to move?
Once we can get that clear, we can begin to understand the problem. And
when we understand it, we can do our best to see to it that it never happens
again. So let's not make this just about Trump. Serious questions should
also be asked about the actions and inaction of local officials on the day.
But 'We fought a war to defeat fascism' really doesn't get us very far toward
achieving our goals
soundofthesuburbs -> soundofthesuburbs 17 Aug 2017 07:46
Financial liberalisation without the knowledge of productive and
unproductive lending. Productive lending goes into business and industry;
it generates the money to make the repayments and gives a good return in
GDP. Unproductive lending goes into real estate and financial speculation;
it doesn't generate the money to make the repayments and gives a poor return
in GDP.
They didn't know:
"What is wrong with lending more money into real estate?" Australian,
Canadian, Swedish and Norwegian bankers now
"What is wrong with lending more money into the Chinese stock market?"
Chinese banker pre-2015
"What is wrong with lending more money into real estate?" Chinese
banker pre-2104
"What is wrong with lending more money into real estate?" Spanish
banker pre-2012
"What is wrong with lending more money into real estate?" Irish
banker pre-2010
"What is wrong with a NINA (no income, no asset) mortgage?" US banker
pre-2008
"What is wrong with lending more money into real estate?" US banker
pre-2008
"What is wrong with lending more money into real estate?" Japanese
banker pre-1989
"What is wrong with lending more money into real estate?" UK banker
pre-1989
"What is wrong with lending more money into real estate?" Australian
banker pre-1989
"What is wrong with lending more money into real estate?" Canadian
banker pre-1989
"What is wrong with lending more money into real estate?" Scandinavian
banker pre-1989
"... Dropping the pilot is indeed apt as Bismarck seems to have been interested in Germany developing Russia in some way or another, possibly German capital and German technicians exploiting the vast wealth and massive resources of the Russian Empire instead of the Kaiser's blundering Ostpolitik or Hitler's abattoir plans for the Russian Empire and its successor states. ..."
"... I am no fan of Trump or Bannon, but like most followers of this site I see that there is much more to be gained from cooperation of the new powers in the emerging multipolar world than there is to be gained or taken from a disastrous war between those powers and yet nevertheless the NeoCons, irrationally still intoxicated on dreams of Shumpeter, Leo Strauss and Paul Wolfowitz would risk the gamble of a third world war rather than allow cooperation and coordinated development between the leaders of a multipolar world. ..."
"... Indeed, Trump's promise of cooperation with Russia (despite his banter about getting tough on Iran or China) was about the only redeeming quality the man possessed in the year when Hitlery was promising to "get tough with Russia over Syria." ..."
Dropping the pilot is indeed apt as Bismarck seems to have been interested in Germany
developing Russia in some way or another, possibly German capital and German technicians
exploiting the vast wealth and massive resources of the Russian Empire instead of the
Kaiser's blundering Ostpolitik or Hitler's abattoir plans for the Russian Empire and its
successor states.
I am no fan of Trump or Bannon, but like most followers of this site I see that there is
much more to be gained from cooperation of the new powers in the emerging multipolar world
than there is to be gained or taken from a disastrous war between those powers and yet
nevertheless the NeoCons, irrationally still intoxicated on dreams of Shumpeter, Leo Strauss
and Paul Wolfowitz would risk the gamble of a third world war rather than allow cooperation
and coordinated development between the leaders of a multipolar world.
Indeed, Trump's promise of cooperation with Russia (despite his banter about getting tough
on Iran or China) was about the only redeeming quality the man possessed in the year when
Hitlery was promising to "get tough with Russia over Syria."
"... The US alternative to fascism and national socialism can be visualized by the movie "Rollerball" where the "corporations rule the world" and government is subservant to them (see David Korden's book by the same name. The circus' for the proles merely serve to distract them by providing a false identity politic associated with a particular "team". The history the Hanseatic-League also provides some inspiration for this system: http://www.bergen.hanseatic-league.com/history.html ..."
Fascism is a term that was originally referred to the fascists of Italy under Mussolini.
Nazism on the other hand, referred as National Socialism, is in an ideological concept of the
Nazi Party.
For Fascists, the state was the most important element. But Nazism emphasized on racism.
While fascism considered state as important, Nazism considered 'Aryanism' as more important."
The US alternative to fascism and national socialism can be visualized by the movie "Rollerball"
where the "corporations rule the world" and government is subservant to them (see David Korden's
book by the same name. The circus' for the proles merely serve to distract them by providing a
false identity politic associated with a particular "team". The history the Hanseatic-League also
provides some inspiration for this system: http://www.bergen.hanseatic-league.com/history.html
Cannot wait for football season to arrive so we can go back to the regularly scheduled sports
"programming"(go seahawks. sic).
Posted by: somebody | Aug 19, 2017 9:53:06 AM | 22
Whatever you are smoking certainly looks like great stuff.
Posted by: Temporarily Sane | Aug 20, 2017 3:20:34 AM | 94
Bravo.
Let's add the US is certainly a fascist country, but that is nothing new. Fascism, as
defined by its inventor Benito Mussolini, is characterized by the protection of private
assets/corporations by the power apparatus of the state, in particular the military and
police.
If there is a better definition of the United States, I'd love to hear it. And it's been
like that from day one.
War alone brings up to its highest tension all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility
upon the peoples who have courage to meet it. All other trials are substitutes, which never
really put men into the position where they have to make the great decision -- the
alternative of life or death ... Fascism, now and always, believes in holiness and in
heroism; that is to say, in actions influenced by no economic motive, direct or indirect.
And if the economic conception of history be denied, according to which theory men are no
more than puppets, carried to and fro by the waves of chance, while the real directing
forces are quite out of their control, it follows that the existence of an unchangeable and
unchanging class-war is also denied - the natural progeny of the economic conception of
history. And above all Fascism denies that class-war can be the preponderant force in the
transformation of society... ... After Socialism, Fascism combats the whole complex system
of democratic ideology, and repudiates it, whether in its theoretical premises or in its
practical application. Fascism denies that the majority, by the simple fact that it is a
majority, can direct human society; it denies that numbers alone can govern by means of a
periodical consultation, and it affirms the immutable, beneficial, and fruitful inequality
of mankind, which can never be permanently leveled through the mere operation of a
mechanical process such as universal suffrage....
...Fascism denies, in democracy, the absur[d] conventional untruth of political equality
dressed out in the garb of collective irresponsibility, and the myth of "happiness" and
indefinite progress...
Fascism is collusion between government and big business. Pay to play.
Get elected, get paid. Accept the payola and serve big business at the expense of your
constituents. IF you don't play, you won't get re-elected.
If you intend, with pure motives like Mr. Smith, to go in and clean it up, you will be out
on your ass after one miserable term. And nobody will sit with you in the lunch room.
Fascism is the American Way.
fast freddy | Aug 20, 2017 10:01:39 AM |
107
somebody | Aug 20, 2017 10:35:48 AM |
108
107
Of course you can make up your own definition of fascism but don't expect fascists to
agree.
Fascists don't worry about reelection. They only have to come to power once.
While the state must carry huge incidental expenses, the big capitalists themselves have to
stand a certain number: "voluntary contributions" extorted by the party and its "welfare"
undertakings; various subscriptions; "graft" and seats on the boards of directors of big
companies for the "upper crust" of the fascist leaders, etc. But these incidental expenses,
the importance of which must not be exaggerated, are less annoying to big business than the
demagogic agitation indulged in by the fascist plebeians – agitation which, despite
purges and repressions, periodically reappears, though within constantly narrower limits.
Again, while big business approves of an aggressive policy that brings it new armament
orders, it is afraid lest the fascist leaders, in seeking a diversion from the wretchedness
of the people, provoke a premature war which will result in the isolation of the country and
its defeat. It is especially significant that in the autumn of 1935 it was the fascist
leaders, Farinacci, Rossoni, and others, who urged Mussolini into conflict with England.
1
often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the
Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a
centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and
social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2
: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control
"Fascism is collusion between government and big business. Pay to play."
Given that power allows to control resources, it allows to get money or whatever resource
control exists (e.g. land estates in feudalism), so political systems have components of
"power gives money" and "money gives power" in varying proportions. Fascism has some
equilibrium of the two, but to define it as a special variety of government you need to list
more features.
I guess that in the context like USA you can point to vilification used as a tool of
public manipulation as a "fascist feature". True, IMHO, but that feature is invented by
"fascism proper", it is fascistic in terms of being a malicious power technique. However, it
lacks a catchy name. Should it be called "fascism"? That would be ironic, because that would
be using vilification to eliminate vilification. It also leads to the type of discourse in
which mere volume wins, and this is one of mechanisms of converting money to power.
Realizing changes everything - in the longer run at least.
Democracy gave us World Wars? lol, you serious?
@somebody 103
Which comes down to the same imo, since regulation reduces volatility and other ways of
making illicit profits.
@Lea, fast freddy
That's not 'fascism', it's rather capitalism controlling the state, or trying to.
There are several valid ways to define 'fascism' afaict.
One calls it 'the rule of the most reactionary, most chauvinist parts of financial capital',
another says it's 'an ideology which defines certain groups of people as 'inferior' and
denies them the most basic rights, even the right to exist' (from memory, not exact
wording).
I would argue that both are complementary rather than contradictory.
@Piotr Berman 109
How about we replace it with a (mostly decentralized) democratic organization of the
economy, with 'money'/ investment capital as a public good that does not require any
yield?
:-)
How about we replace it with a (mostly decentralized) democratic organization of the
economy, with 'money'/ investment capital as a public good that does not require any yield?
Political language -- and with variations this is true of all political parties, from
Conservatives to Anarchists -- is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable,
and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.
@ From The Hague who wrote: "But China is a working model for a more complex economy."
Exactly! China has planned and executed 12-13 5-year plans, reduced poverty immensely and
yet all we hear in the West besides crickets about the situation is TINA!!!!!!!!!
I read all this commenting about fascism but no link to a compelling definition
But Fascism is also a political and economic system. Why, then, cannot we have a clear and
generally accepted definition of it? Alas! we shall not get one -- not yet, anyway. To say
why would take too long, but basically it is because it is impossible to define Fascism
satisfactorily without making admissions which neither the Fascists themselves, nor the
Conservatives, nor Socialists of any colour, are willing to make. All one can do for the
moment is to use the word with a certain amount of circumspection and not, as is usually
done, degrade it to the level of a swearword.
Orwell's problem is that thinking one race superior to the other would have applied to the
colonialist British conservatives of his time (and the United States) and authoritarian rule
and anti-individualism to Stalin.
In 2017 Merriam Websters definition is valid
a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts
nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic
government headed by a dictatorial leader.
British and US political systems were about the individual and never autocratic, whilst
the Soviet Union emphasized class, not nation or race.
i thought corporatism was good... it seems to capture a lot of what is going on in the
west today where corporations control politicians, especially the big ones i have mentioned
previously - exxon, goldman sachs, and the military builders/contractors... aren't those the
ones inside of every friggin' ''''new'''' usa gov't that comes along?
"1.Fascism is a term that was originally referred to the fascists of Italy under
Mussolini. Nazism on the other hand, referred as National Socialism, is in an ideological
concept of the Nazi Party.
2.For Fascists, the state was the most important element. But Nazism emphasized on
racism.
3.While fascism considered state as important, Nazism considered 'Aryanism' as more
important."
The US alternative to fascism and national socialism can be visualized by the movie
"Rollerball" where the "corporations rule the world" and government is subservant to them
(see David Korden's book by the same name. The circus' for the proles merely serve to
distract them by providing a false identity politic associated with a particular "team". The
history the Hanseatic-League also provides some inspiration for this system:
http://www.bergen.hanseatic-league.com/history.html
Cannot wait for football season to arrive so we can go back to the regularly scheduled
sports "programming"(go seahawks. sic).
"... the ultimate driving force behind today's international news is the aristocracy that the MIC represents, the billionaires behind the MIC, because theirs is the collective will that drives the MIC ..."
"... The MIC is their collective arm, and their collective fist. It is not the American public's global enforcer; it is the American aristocracy's fist, around the world. ..."
"... The MIC (via its military contractors such as Lockheed Martin) also constitutes a core part of the U.S. aristocracy's wealth (the part that's extracted from the U.S. taxpaying public via the U.S. government), and also (by means of those privately-owned contractors, plus the taxpayer-funded U.S. armed forces) it protects these aristocrats' wealth in foreign countries. Though paid by the U.S. government, the MIC does the protection-and-enforcement jobs for the nation's super-rich. ..."
"... So, the MIC is the global bully's fist, and the global bully is the U.S. aristocracy -- America's billionaires, most especially the controlling stockholders in the U.S.-based international corporations. These are the people the U.S. government actually represents . The links document this, and it's essential to know, if one is to understand current events. ..."
"... This massacre didn't play well on local Crimean television. Immediately, a movement to secede and to again become a part of Russia started, and spread like wildfire in Crimea. (Crimea had been only involuntarily transferred from Russia to Ukraine by the Soviet dictator Khrushchev in 1954; it had been part of Russia for the hundreds of years prior to 1954. It was culturally Russian.) Russia's President, Vladimir Putin, said that if they'd vote for it in a referendum, then Russia would accept them back into the Russian Federation and provide them protection as Russian citizens. ..."
"... The latest round of these sanctions was imposed not by Executive Order from a U.S. President, but instead by a new U.S. law, "H.R.3364 -- Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act" , which in July 2017 was passed by 98-2 in the Senate and 419-3 in the House , and which not only stated outright lies (endorsed there by virtually everyone in Congress), but which was backed up by lies from the U.S. Intelligence Community that were accepted and endorsed totally uncritically by 98 Senators and 419 Representatives . (One might simply assume that all of those Senators and Representatives were ignorant of the way things work and were not intentionally lying in order to vote for these lies from the Intelligence Community, but these people actually wouldn't have wrangled their ways into Congress and gotten this far at the game if they hadn't already known that the U.S. Intelligence Community is designed not only to inform the President but to help him to deceive the public and therefore can't be trusted by anyone but the President . ..."
"... Good summary of where we're at, but please don't call the ruling goons aristocrats. The word, "aristocrat," is derived from the Ancient Greek ἄριστος (áristos, "best"), and the ruling thugs in this country have never been the best at anything except lies, murder and theft ..."
"... I realize that calling them violent bloodthirsty sociopathic parasites is a mouthful, and that "plutacrats" doesn't have quite the appropriate sting, but perhaps it's more accurate. ..."
"... They also -- through the joint action of Rating Agencies, the Anglosaxon media, the vassal vassal states' media, make national debt's yield spreads skyrocket. It's been the way to make entire governments tumble in Europe, as well as force ministers for economics to resign. After obeisance has been restored -- and an "ex Goldman Sachs man" put on the presidential/ministerial chair, usually -- investors magically find back their trust in the nation's economic stability, and yield spreads return to their usual level. ..."
"... First, he delineates the American Elites well. The USA forged by Abe Lincoln is not a real democracy, not a real republic. It is the worst kind of oligarchy: one based on love of money almost exclusively (because if a man does not love money well enough to be bribed, then he cannot be trusted by plutocrats) while proclaiming itself focused on helping all the little guys of the world overcome the power of the rich oppressors. ..."
The tumultuous events that dominate international news today cannot be accurately
understood outside of their underlying context, which connects them together,
into a broader narrative -- the actual history of our time . History
makes sense, even if news-reports about these events don't. Propagandistic motivations
cause such essential facts to be reported little (if at all) in the news, so
that the most important matters for the public to know, get left out of news-accounts
about those international events.
The purpose here will be to provide that context, for our time.
First, this essential background will be summarized; then, it will be documented
(via the links that will be provided here), up till the present moment -- the
current news: America's aristocracy
controls both the U.S.
federal government and
press , but (as will be documented later here) is facing increasing resistance
from its many vassal (subordinate) aristocracies around the world (popularly
called "America's allied nations"); and this growing international resistance
presents a new challenge to the U.S. military-industrial complex (MIC), which
is controlled by that same aristocracy and enforces their will worldwide. The
MIC is responding to the demands of its aristocratic master. This response largely
drives international events today (which countries get invaded, which ones get
overthrown by coups, etc.), but the ultimate driving force behind today's
international news is the aristocracy that the MIC represents, the billionaires
behind the MIC, because theirs is the collective will that drives the MIC.
The MIC is their collective arm, and their collective fist. It is not the
American public's global enforcer; it is the American aristocracy's fist, around
the world.
The MIC (via its military contractors such as Lockheed Martin) also constitutes
a core part of the U.S. aristocracy's wealth (the part that's extracted from
the U.S. taxpaying public via the U.S. government), and also (by means of those
privately-owned contractors, plus the taxpayer-funded U.S. armed forces) it
protects these aristocrats' wealth in foreign countries. Though paid by the
U.S. government, the MIC does the protection-and-enforcement jobs for the nation's
super-rich.
Furthermore, the MIC is crucial to them in other ways, serving not only directly
as their "policeman to the world," but also indirectly (by that means)
as a global protection-racket that keeps their many subordinate aristocracies
in line, under their control -- and that threatens those foreign aristocrats
with encroachments against their own territory, whenever a vassal aristocracy
resists the master-aristocracy's will. (International law is never enforced
against the U.S., not even after it invaded Iraq in 2003.) So, the MIC is
the global bully's fist, and the global bully is the U.S. aristocracy -- America's
billionaires, most especially the controlling stockholders in the U.S.-based
international corporations. These are the people the U.S. government
actually represents .
The links document this, and it's essential to know, if one is to understand
current events.
For the first time ever, a global trend is emerging toward declining control
of the world by America's billionaire-class -- into the direction of ultimately
replacing the U.S. Empire, by increasingly independent trading-blocs: alliances
between aristocracies, replacing this hierarchical control of one aristocracy
over another. Ours is becoming a multi-polar world, and America's aristocracy
is struggling mightily against this trend, desperate to continue remaining
the one global imperial power -- or, as U.S. President Barack Obama often
referred to the U.S. government,
"The United States is and remains the one indispensable nation. That has
been true for the century passed and it will be true for the century to come."
To America's aristocrats, all other nations than the U.S. are "dispensable."
All American allies have to accept it. This is the imperial mindset, both for
the master, and for the vassal. The uni-polar world can't function otherwise.
Vassals must pay (extract from their nation's public, and then transfer) protection-money,
to the master, in order to be safe -- to retain their existing power, to exploit
their given nation's public.
The recently growing role of economic sanctions (more accurately called
"Weaponization of finance" ) by the United States and its vassals, has been
central to the operation of this hierarchical imperial system, but is now being
increasingly challenged from below, by some of the vassals. Alliances are breaking
up over America's mounting use of sanctions, and new alliances are being formed
and cemented to replace the imperial system -- replace it by a system without
any clear center of global power, in the world that we're moving into.
Economic sanctions have been the U.S. empire's chief weapon to impose its will
against any challengers to U.S. global control, and are thus becoming the chief
locus of the old order's fractures .
This global order cannot be maintained by the MIC alone; the more that the
MIC fails (such as in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, ), the more that economic
sanctions rise to become the essential tool of the imperial masters. We are
increasingly in the era of economic sanctions. And, now, we're entering the
backlash-phase of it.
This massacre didn't play well on local Crimean television. Immediately,
a movement to secede and to again become a part of Russia started, and spread
like wildfire in Crimea. (Crimea had been only involuntarily transferred from
Russia to Ukraine by the Soviet dictator Khrushchev in 1954; it had been part
of Russia for the hundreds of years prior to 1954. It was culturally Russian.)
Russia's President, Vladimir Putin, said that if they'd vote for it in a referendum,
then Russia would accept them back into the Russian Federation and provide them
protection as Russian citizens.
On 6 March 2014, U.S. President Obama issued
"Executive Order -- Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the
Situation in Ukraine" , and ignored the internationally recognized-in-law
right of self-determination of peoples (though he recognized that right in Catalonia
and in Scotland), and he instead simply declared that Ukraine's "sovereignty"
over Crimea was sacrosanct (even though it had been imposed upon Crimeans
by the Soviet dictator -- America's enemy -- in 1954, during the Soviet
era, when America opposed, instead of favored and imposed, dictatorship around
the world, except in Iran and Guatemala, where America imposed dictatorships
even that early). Obama's Executive Order was against unnamed "persons who have
asserted governmental authority in the Crimean region without the authorization
of the Government of Ukraine." He insisted that the people who had just grabbed
control of Ukraine and massacred Crimeans (his own Administration's paid far-right
Ukrainian thugs, who were
racist anti-Russians ), must be allowed to rule Crimea, regardless of what
Crimeans (traditionally a part of Russia) might -- and did -- want. America's
vassal aristocracies then
imposed their own sanctions against Russia when on 16 March 2014 Crimeans voted
overwhelmingly to rejoin the Russian Federation . Thus started the successive
rounds of economic sanctions against Russia, by the U.S. government
and its vassal-nations . (As is shown by that link, they knew that this
had been a coup and no authentic 'democratic revolution' such as the Western
press was portraying it to have been, and yet they kept quiet about it -- a
secret their public would not be allowed to know.)
It's basic knowledge about the U.S. government, and they know it, though
the public don't.) The great independent columnist Paul Craig Roberts headlined
on August 1st,
"Trump's Choices" and argued that President Donald Trump should veto the
bill despite its overwhelming support in Washington, but instead Trump signed
it into law on August 2nd and thus joined participation in the overt stage --
the Obama stage -- of the U.S. government's continuation of the Cold War that
U.S. President George Herbert Walker Bush had
secretly instituted against Russia on 24 February 1990 , and that, under
Obama, finally escalated into a hot war against Russia. The first phase of this
hot war against Russia is via the
"Weaponization of finance" (those sanctions). However, as usual, it's also
backed up by
major increases in physical weaponry , and by
the cooperation of America's vassals in order to surround Russia with nuclear
weapons near and on Russia's borders , in preparation for a possible
blitz first-strike nuclear attack upon Russia -- preparations that the Russian
people know about and greatly fear, but which are largely hidden by the Western
press, and therefore only very few Westerners are aware that their own governments
have become lying aggressors.
Some excellent news-commentaries have been published about this matter, online,
by a few 'alternative news' sites (and that 'alt-news' group includes all of
the reliably honest news-sites, but also includes unfortunately many sites that
are as dishonest as the mainstream ones are -- and that latter type aren't being
referred to here), such as (and only the best sites and articles will be linked-to
on this):
All three of those articles discuss how these new sanctions are driving other
nations to separate themselves, more and more, away from the economic grip of
the U.S. aristocracy, and to form instead their own alliances with one-another,
so as to defend themselves, collectively, from U.S. economic (if not also military)
aggression. Major recent news-developments on this, have included (all here
from rt dot com):
"'US, EU meddle in other countries & kill people under guise of human rights
concerns' – Duterte", and presented Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte explaining
why he rejects the U.S. aristocracy's hypocritical pronouncements and condemnations
regarding its vassals among the world's poorer and struggling nations, such
as his. Of course, none of this information is publishable in the West -- in
the Western 'democracies'. It's 'fake news', as far as The Empire is concerned.
So, if you're in The (now declining) Empire, you're not supposed to be reading
this. That's why the mainstream 'news'media (to all of which this article is
being submitted for publication, without fee, for any of them that want to break
their existing corrupt mold) don't publish
this sort of news -- 'fake news' (that's of the solidly documented type,
such as this). You'll see such news reported only in the few honest newsmedia.
The rule for the aristocracy's 'news'media is: report what happened, only on
the basis of the government's lies as to why it happened -- never
expose such lies (the official lies). What's official is
'true' . That, too, is an essential part of the imperial system.
The front cover of the American aristocracy's TIME magazine's Asian
edition, dated September 25, 2016, had been headlined
"Night Falls on the Philippines: The tragic cost of President Duterte's war
on drugs" . The 'news'-story, which was featured inside not just the Asian
but all editions, was
"Inside Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte's War On Drugs" , and it portrayed
Duterte as a far-right demagogue who was giving his nation's police free reign
to murder anyone they wished to, especially the poor. On 17 July 2017, China's
Xinhua News Agency bannered
"Philippines' Duterte enjoys high approval rating at 82 percent: poll" ,
and reported: "A survey by Pulse Asia Inc. conducted from June 24 to June 29
showed that 82 percent of the 1,200 people surveyed nationwide approved the
way Duterte runs the country. Out of all the respondents, the poll said 13 percent
were undecided about Duterte's performance, while 5 percent disapproved Duterte's
performance. Duterte, who assumed the presidency in June last year, ends his
single, six-year term in 2022." Obviously, it's not likely that the TIME
cover story had actually been honest. But, of course, America's billionaires
are even more eager to overthrow Russia's President, Putin.
Western polling firms can freely poll Russians, and
do poll them on lots but not on approval or disapproval of President Putin
, because he always scores above 80%, and America's aristocrats also don't like
finding that confirmed, and certainly don't want to report it. Polling is routinely
done in Russia, by Russian pollsters, on voters' ratings of approval/disapproval
of Putin's performance. Because America's aristocrats don't like the findings,
they say that Russians are in such fear of Putin they don't tell the truth about
this, or else that Russia's newsmedia constantly lie about him to cover up the
ugly reality about him.
However, the Western academic journal Post-Soviet Affairs (which is
a mainstream Western publication) included in their January/February 2017 issue
a study,
"Is Putin's Popularity Real?" and the investigators reported the results
of their own poll of Russians, which was designed to tap into whether such fear
exists and serves as a distorting factor in those Russian polls, but concluded
that the findings in Russia's polls could not be explained by any such factor;
and that, yes, Putin's popularity among Russians is real. The article's closing
words were: "Our results suggest that the main obstacle at present to the emergence
of a widespread opposition movement to Putin is not that Russians are afraid
to voice their disapproval of Putin, but that Putin is in fact quite popular."
The U.S. aristocracy's efforts to get resistant heads-of-state overthrown
by 'democratic revolutions' (which usually is done by the U.S. government to
overthrow democratically elected Presidents -- such as Mossadegh, Arbenz, Allende,
Zelaya, Yanukovych, and attempted against Assad, and wished against Putin, and
against Duterte -- not overthrowing dictators such as the U.S. government always
claims) have almost consistently failed, and therefore coups and invasions have
been used instead, but those techniques demand that certain realities be suppressed
by their 'news'media in order to get the U.S. public to support what the government
has done -- the U.S. government's international crime, which is never prosecuted.
Lying 'news' media in order to 'earn' the American public's support, does not
produce enthusiastic support, but, at best, over the long term, it produces
only tepid support (support that's usually below the level of that of the governments
the U.S. overthrows). U.S. Presidents never score above 80% except when they
order an invasion in response to a violent attack by foreigners, such as happened
when George W. Bush attacked Afghanistan and Iraq in the wake of 9/11, but those
80%+ approval ratings fade quickly; and,
after the 1960s, U.S. Presidential job-approvals have generally been below 60%
.
President Trump's ratings are currently around 40%. Although Trump is not
as conservative -- not as far-right -- as the U.S. aristocracy wants him to
be, he is fascist ; just
not enough to satisfy them (and their oppostion isn't because he's unpopular
among the public; it's more the case that he's unpopular largely because their
'news'media concentrate on his bads, and distort his goods to appear bad --
e.g., suggesting that he's not sufficiently aggressive against Russia). His
fascism on domestic affairs is honestly reported in the aristocracy's 'news'media,
which appear to be doing all they can to get him replaced by his Vice President,
Mike Pence. What's not reported by their media is the fascism of the U.S. aristocracy
itself, and of their international agenda (global conquest). That's their secret,
of which their public must be (and is) constantly kept ignorant. America's aristocracy
has almost as much trouble contolling its domestic public as it has controlling
its foreign vassals. Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most
recently, of
They're Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of
CHRIST'S VENTRILOQUISTS:
The Event that Created Christianity .
Fascism is defined as a system that combines private monopolies and despotic
government power. It is sometimes racist but not necessarily so. By the
correct definition, every President since at least Herbert Hoover has been
fascist to some degree.
One bit of silver lining in the deep-state propaganda effort to destabilise
the Trump regime is the damage to the legitimacy of the yankee imperium
it confers, making it easier for vassal states to begin to jump ship. The
claims of extraterritorial power used for economic warfare might confer
a similar benefit, since the erstwhile allies will want to escape the dominance
of the yankee dollar to be able to escape the economic extortion practised
by the yankee regime to achieve its control abroad.
" America's aristocracy has almost as much trouble controlling its domestic
public as it has controlling its foreign vassals. "
These foreign vassals had a cozy existence as long as the USA made it
clear it wanted to control the world. Dutch minister of Foreign Affairs
Ben Bot made this quite clear whan the Netherlands did not have a USA ambassador
for three months or so, Ben Bot complained to the USA that there should
be a USA ambassador.
He was not used to take decisions all by himself.
Right now Europe's queen Merkel has the same problem, unlike Obama Trump
does not hold her hand.
Yes, of course. I don't know about before Herbert Hoover, but certainly
during the 50s, business -- monopolistic or oligopolistic (like the old
Detroit auto industry) -- and government (including the MIC) were closely
integrated. Such was, indeed, as aspect of progressivism. It was considered
by most to be a good thing, or at least to be the natural and normal state
of affairs. Certainly, the system back then included what amounted to price-fixing
as a normal business practice.
On the other hand, the "despotic" thing is less clear. Some assert that
since FDR was effectively a dictator during World War II, that therefore
the Democratic Party represented despotism ever since FDR (or maybe ever
since Wilson).
Having lived through that period of time, I have to say that I am not
so sure about that: if it was despotism, it was a heavily democratic and
beneficent despotism. However, it is evident that there was a fascist skein
running through the entirety of USA's political history throughout the 20th
Century.
Fascism originates from Mussolini's Italy. It was anti socialist and
anti communist, it of course was pro Italian, Italy's great deeds in antiquity,
the Roman empire, were celebrated.
One can see this as racist, but as Italy consisted of mostly Italians,
it was not racist in the present meaning of the word at all. Italy was very
hesitant in persecuting jews, for example. Hitler depised Mussolini, Mussolini
was an ally that weakened Germany. Hitler and Mussolini agreed in their
hatred of communism.
Calling Hitler a fascist just creates confusion. All discussions of what
nowadays fascism is, our could mean, end like rivers in the desert.
'Aristocracy' and 'fascist' are all weasel words. (I'm the only true
fascist btw, and it's National Humanism, National Left, or Left-Right.)
US is an ethnogarchy, and that really matters. The Power rules, but the
nature of the Power is shaped by the biases of the ruling ethnic group.
It is essentially ruled by Jewish Supremacists.
Now, if not for Jews, another group might have supreme power, and it
might be problematic in its own way. BUT, the agenda would be different.
Suppose Chinese-Americans controlled much of media, finance, academia,
deep state, and etc. They might be just as corrupt or more so than Jews,
BUT their agenda would be different. They would not be hateful to Iran,
Russia, Syria, or to Palestinians. And they won't care about Israel.
They would have their own biases and agendas, but they would still be
different from Jewish obsessions.
Or suppose the top elites of the US were Poles. Now, US policy may be
very anti-Russian BUT for reasons different from those of Jews.
So, we won't learn much by just throwing words like 'fascist' or 'aristocrat'
around.
We have to be more specific. Hitler was 'fascist' and so was Rohm. But
Hitler had Rohm wiped out.
Surely, a Zionist 'fascist' had different goals than an Iranian 'fascist'.
One might say the Old South African regime was 'fascist'. Well, today's
piggish ANC is also 'fascist', if by 'fascist' we mean power-hungry tyrants.
But black 'fascists' want something different from what white 'fascists'
wanted.
It's like all football players are in football. But to understand what
is going on, we have to know WHICH team they play for.
Jewish Elites don't just play for power. They play for Jewish power.
Good summary of where we're at, but please don't call the ruling
goons aristocrats. The word, "aristocrat," is derived from the Ancient Greek
ἄριστος (áristos, "best"), and the ruling thugs in this country have never
been the best at anything except lies, murder and theft.
I realize that calling them violent bloodthirsty sociopathic parasites
is a mouthful, and that "plutacrats" doesn't have quite the appropriate
sting, but perhaps it's more accurate.
Or maybe we should get into the habit of calling them the "ruling mafiosi."
I'm open to suggestions.
and that threatens those foreign aristocrats with encroachments
against their own territory, whenever a vassal aristocracy resists the
master-aristocracy's will.
They also -- through the joint action of Rating Agencies, the Anglosaxon
media, the vassal vassal states' media, make national debt's yield spreads
skyrocket. It's been the way to make entire governments tumble in Europe,
as well as force ministers for economics to resign. After obeisance has
been restored -- and an "ex Goldman Sachs man" put on the presidential/ministerial
chair, usually -- investors magically find back their trust in the nation's
economic stability, and yield spreads return to their usual level.
No doubt about it. That's how thugs rule; there are plenty of quivering
sell outs to do the rulers' bidding. Look at the sickening standing ovations
given to Netanyahoo by supposed "US" congresscreeps.
@Fidelios Automata Abraham Lincoln's economic policy was to combine
private monopolies with the Federal Government under a President like him:
one who ordered the arrests of newspaper editors/publishers who opposed
his policies and more 'despotic' goodies.
While the article favorably informs, and was written so as to engage
the reader, it lacks reasonable solutions to its problems presented. One
solution which I never read or hear about, is mandated MRI's, advanced technology,
and evidence supported psychological testing of sitting and potential political
candidates. The goal would be to publicly reveal traits of psychopathy,
narcissism, insanity, etc. Of course, the most vocal opposition would come
from those who intend to hide these traits. The greatest evidence for the
likelyhood of this process working, is the immense effort those who would
be revealed have historically put into hiding what they are.
Eric Zuesse is a nasty, hardcore leftist in the senses that matter most.
Often, he reveals his Leftism to be based on his hatred of Christianity
and his utter contempt for white Christians. But there is that dead clock
being correct twice per day matter. In this article, Zuesse gets a good
deal right.
First, he delineates the American Elites well. The USA forged by
Abe Lincoln is not a real democracy, not a real republic. It is the worst
kind of oligarchy: one based on love of money almost exclusively (because
if a man does not love money well enough to be bribed, then he cannot be
trusted by plutocrats) while proclaiming itself focused on helping all the
little guys of the world overcome the power of the rich oppressors.
It is the Devil's game nearly perfected by the grand alliance of
WASPs and Jews, with their Saudi hangers-on.
Second, it is fair to label America's Deep State fascist , Elite
Fascist. And we should never forget that while Jews are no more than 3%
of the American population, they now are at least 30% (my guess would be
closer to 59%) of the most powerful Deep Staters. That means that per capita
Jews easily are the fascist-inclined people in America.
The most guilty often bray the loudest at others in hope of getting them
blamed and escaping punishment. And this most guilty group – Deep State
Elites evolved from the original WASP-Jewish alliance against Catholics
– is dead-set on making the majority of whites in the world serfs.
Third, the US 'weaponization of finance' seems to have been used against
the Vatican to force Benedict XVI to resign so that Liberal Jesuit (sorry
for the redundancy) Jorge Bergolgio could be made Pope. The Jesuits are
far and away the most Leftist and gay part of the Catholic Church, and the
American Deep State wanted a gay-loving, strongly pro-Jewish, strongly pro-Moslem
'immigrant' as Pope.
Fourth, that America's Leftists of every stripe, America's Neocons, and
America's 'compassionate conservatives' all hate Putin is all you should
need to know that Putin is far, far better for Russia's working class, Russia's
non-Elites, than our Elites are for us.
Charlottesville, Occupy Wall St And The Neoliberal Police State. Charlottesville
was a Neoliberal ambush designed to crush the Alt Right once and for all.
This story must be told.
No way. How about Jewish terrorists ? Very few Italians in the ruling
"aristocracy." Lots of Jews.
Very few Italians in the ruling "aristocracy."
Another common misconception is to associate the mafia with Italians
mostly. The Italian mafiosi are pikers compared to the American ones of
Eastern European descent. The real bosses are not the Italians.
Bugsy Siegel, Louis "Lepke" Buchalter, Longy Zwillman, Moe Dalitz, Meyer
Lansky and many many others.
Even the Jewish Virtual Library admits to some of it.
"... the ultimate driving force behind today's international news is the aristocracy that the MIC represents, the billionaires behind the MIC, because theirs is the collective will that drives the MIC ..."
"... The MIC is their collective arm, and their collective fist. It is not the American public's global enforcer; it is the American aristocracy's fist, around the world. ..."
"... The MIC (via its military contractors such as Lockheed Martin) also constitutes a core part of the U.S. aristocracy's wealth (the part that's extracted from the U.S. taxpaying public via the U.S. government), and also (by means of those privately-owned contractors, plus the taxpayer-funded U.S. armed forces) it protects these aristocrats' wealth in foreign countries. Though paid by the U.S. government, the MIC does the protection-and-enforcement jobs for the nation's super-rich. ..."
"... So, the MIC is the global bully's fist, and the global bully is the U.S. aristocracy -- America's billionaires, most especially the controlling stockholders in the U.S.-based international corporations. These are the people the U.S. government actually represents . The links document this, and it's essential to know, if one is to understand current events. ..."
"... This massacre didn't play well on local Crimean television. Immediately, a movement to secede and to again become a part of Russia started, and spread like wildfire in Crimea. (Crimea had been only involuntarily transferred from Russia to Ukraine by the Soviet dictator Khrushchev in 1954; it had been part of Russia for the hundreds of years prior to 1954. It was culturally Russian.) Russia's President, Vladimir Putin, said that if they'd vote for it in a referendum, then Russia would accept them back into the Russian Federation and provide them protection as Russian citizens. ..."
"... The latest round of these sanctions was imposed not by Executive Order from a U.S. President, but instead by a new U.S. law, "H.R.3364 -- Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act" , which in July 2017 was passed by 98-2 in the Senate and 419-3 in the House , and which not only stated outright lies (endorsed there by virtually everyone in Congress), but which was backed up by lies from the U.S. Intelligence Community that were accepted and endorsed totally uncritically by 98 Senators and 419 Representatives . (One might simply assume that all of those Senators and Representatives were ignorant of the way things work and were not intentionally lying in order to vote for these lies from the Intelligence Community, but these people actually wouldn't have wrangled their ways into Congress and gotten this far at the game if they hadn't already known that the U.S. Intelligence Community is designed not only to inform the President but to help him to deceive the public and therefore can't be trusted by anyone but the President . ..."
"... Good summary of where we're at, but please don't call the ruling goons aristocrats. The word, "aristocrat," is derived from the Ancient Greek ἄριστος (áristos, "best"), and the ruling thugs in this country have never been the best at anything except lies, murder and theft ..."
"... I realize that calling them violent bloodthirsty sociopathic parasites is a mouthful, and that "plutacrats" doesn't have quite the appropriate sting, but perhaps it's more accurate. ..."
"... They also -- through the joint action of Rating Agencies, the Anglosaxon media, the vassal vassal states' media, make national debt's yield spreads skyrocket. It's been the way to make entire governments tumble in Europe, as well as force ministers for economics to resign. After obeisance has been restored -- and an "ex Goldman Sachs man" put on the presidential/ministerial chair, usually -- investors magically find back their trust in the nation's economic stability, and yield spreads return to their usual level. ..."
"... First, he delineates the American Elites well. The USA forged by Abe Lincoln is not a real democracy, not a real republic. It is the worst kind of oligarchy: one based on love of money almost exclusively (because if a man does not love money well enough to be bribed, then he cannot be trusted by plutocrats) while proclaiming itself focused on helping all the little guys of the world overcome the power of the rich oppressors. ..."
The tumultuous events that dominate international news today cannot be accurately
understood outside of their underlying context, which connects them together,
into a broader narrative -- the actual history of our time . History
makes sense, even if news-reports about these events don't. Propagandistic motivations
cause such essential facts to be reported little (if at all) in the news, so
that the most important matters for the public to know, get left out of news-accounts
about those international events.
The purpose here will be to provide that context, for our time.
First, this essential background will be summarized; then, it will be documented
(via the links that will be provided here), up till the present moment -- the
current news: America's aristocracy
controls both the U.S.
federal government and
press , but (as will be documented later here) is facing increasing resistance
from its many vassal (subordinate) aristocracies around the world (popularly
called "America's allied nations"); and this growing international resistance
presents a new challenge to the U.S. military-industrial complex (MIC), which
is controlled by that same aristocracy and enforces their will worldwide. The
MIC is responding to the demands of its aristocratic master. This response largely
drives international events today (which countries get invaded, which ones get
overthrown by coups, etc.), but the ultimate driving force behind today's
international news is the aristocracy that the MIC represents, the billionaires
behind the MIC, because theirs is the collective will that drives the MIC.
The MIC is their collective arm, and their collective fist. It is not the
American public's global enforcer; it is the American aristocracy's fist, around
the world.
The MIC (via its military contractors such as Lockheed Martin) also constitutes
a core part of the U.S. aristocracy's wealth (the part that's extracted from
the U.S. taxpaying public via the U.S. government), and also (by means of those
privately-owned contractors, plus the taxpayer-funded U.S. armed forces) it
protects these aristocrats' wealth in foreign countries. Though paid by the
U.S. government, the MIC does the protection-and-enforcement jobs for the nation's
super-rich.
Furthermore, the MIC is crucial to them in other ways, serving not only directly
as their "policeman to the world," but also indirectly (by that means)
as a global protection-racket that keeps their many subordinate aristocracies
in line, under their control -- and that threatens those foreign aristocrats
with encroachments against their own territory, whenever a vassal aristocracy
resists the master-aristocracy's will. (International law is never enforced
against the U.S., not even after it invaded Iraq in 2003.) So, the MIC is
the global bully's fist, and the global bully is the U.S. aristocracy -- America's
billionaires, most especially the controlling stockholders in the U.S.-based
international corporations. These are the people the U.S. government
actually represents .
The links document this, and it's essential to know, if one is to understand
current events.
For the first time ever, a global trend is emerging toward declining control
of the world by America's billionaire-class -- into the direction of ultimately
replacing the U.S. Empire, by increasingly independent trading-blocs: alliances
between aristocracies, replacing this hierarchical control of one aristocracy
over another. Ours is becoming a multi-polar world, and America's aristocracy
is struggling mightily against this trend, desperate to continue remaining
the one global imperial power -- or, as U.S. President Barack Obama often
referred to the U.S. government,
"The United States is and remains the one indispensable nation. That has
been true for the century passed and it will be true for the century to come."
To America's aristocrats, all other nations than the U.S. are "dispensable."
All American allies have to accept it. This is the imperial mindset, both for
the master, and for the vassal. The uni-polar world can't function otherwise.
Vassals must pay (extract from their nation's public, and then transfer) protection-money,
to the master, in order to be safe -- to retain their existing power, to exploit
their given nation's public.
The recently growing role of economic sanctions (more accurately called
"Weaponization of finance" ) by the United States and its vassals, has been
central to the operation of this hierarchical imperial system, but is now being
increasingly challenged from below, by some of the vassals. Alliances are breaking
up over America's mounting use of sanctions, and new alliances are being formed
and cemented to replace the imperial system -- replace it by a system without
any clear center of global power, in the world that we're moving into.
Economic sanctions have been the U.S. empire's chief weapon to impose its will
against any challengers to U.S. global control, and are thus becoming the chief
locus of the old order's fractures .
This global order cannot be maintained by the MIC alone; the more that the
MIC fails (such as in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, ), the more that economic
sanctions rise to become the essential tool of the imperial masters. We are
increasingly in the era of economic sanctions. And, now, we're entering the
backlash-phase of it.
This massacre didn't play well on local Crimean television. Immediately,
a movement to secede and to again become a part of Russia started, and spread
like wildfire in Crimea. (Crimea had been only involuntarily transferred from
Russia to Ukraine by the Soviet dictator Khrushchev in 1954; it had been part
of Russia for the hundreds of years prior to 1954. It was culturally Russian.)
Russia's President, Vladimir Putin, said that if they'd vote for it in a referendum,
then Russia would accept them back into the Russian Federation and provide them
protection as Russian citizens.
On 6 March 2014, U.S. President Obama issued
"Executive Order -- Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the
Situation in Ukraine" , and ignored the internationally recognized-in-law
right of self-determination of peoples (though he recognized that right in Catalonia
and in Scotland), and he instead simply declared that Ukraine's "sovereignty"
over Crimea was sacrosanct (even though it had been imposed upon Crimeans
by the Soviet dictator -- America's enemy -- in 1954, during the Soviet
era, when America opposed, instead of favored and imposed, dictatorship around
the world, except in Iran and Guatemala, where America imposed dictatorships
even that early). Obama's Executive Order was against unnamed "persons who have
asserted governmental authority in the Crimean region without the authorization
of the Government of Ukraine." He insisted that the people who had just grabbed
control of Ukraine and massacred Crimeans (his own Administration's paid far-right
Ukrainian thugs, who were
racist anti-Russians ), must be allowed to rule Crimea, regardless of what
Crimeans (traditionally a part of Russia) might -- and did -- want. America's
vassal aristocracies then
imposed their own sanctions against Russia when on 16 March 2014 Crimeans voted
overwhelmingly to rejoin the Russian Federation . Thus started the successive
rounds of economic sanctions against Russia, by the U.S. government
and its vassal-nations . (As is shown by that link, they knew that this
had been a coup and no authentic 'democratic revolution' such as the Western
press was portraying it to have been, and yet they kept quiet about it -- a
secret their public would not be allowed to know.)
It's basic knowledge about the U.S. government, and they know it, though
the public don't.) The great independent columnist Paul Craig Roberts headlined
on August 1st,
"Trump's Choices" and argued that President Donald Trump should veto the
bill despite its overwhelming support in Washington, but instead Trump signed
it into law on August 2nd and thus joined participation in the overt stage --
the Obama stage -- of the U.S. government's continuation of the Cold War that
U.S. President George Herbert Walker Bush had
secretly instituted against Russia on 24 February 1990 , and that, under
Obama, finally escalated into a hot war against Russia. The first phase of this
hot war against Russia is via the
"Weaponization of finance" (those sanctions). However, as usual, it's also
backed up by
major increases in physical weaponry , and by
the cooperation of America's vassals in order to surround Russia with nuclear
weapons near and on Russia's borders , in preparation for a possible
blitz first-strike nuclear attack upon Russia -- preparations that the Russian
people know about and greatly fear, but which are largely hidden by the Western
press, and therefore only very few Westerners are aware that their own governments
have become lying aggressors.
Some excellent news-commentaries have been published about this matter, online,
by a few 'alternative news' sites (and that 'alt-news' group includes all of
the reliably honest news-sites, but also includes unfortunately many sites that
are as dishonest as the mainstream ones are -- and that latter type aren't being
referred to here), such as (and only the best sites and articles will be linked-to
on this):
All three of those articles discuss how these new sanctions are driving other
nations to separate themselves, more and more, away from the economic grip of
the U.S. aristocracy, and to form instead their own alliances with one-another,
so as to defend themselves, collectively, from U.S. economic (if not also military)
aggression. Major recent news-developments on this, have included (all here
from rt dot com):
"'US, EU meddle in other countries & kill people under guise of human rights
concerns' – Duterte", and presented Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte explaining
why he rejects the U.S. aristocracy's hypocritical pronouncements and condemnations
regarding its vassals among the world's poorer and struggling nations, such
as his. Of course, none of this information is publishable in the West -- in
the Western 'democracies'. It's 'fake news', as far as The Empire is concerned.
So, if you're in The (now declining) Empire, you're not supposed to be reading
this. That's why the mainstream 'news'media (to all of which this article is
being submitted for publication, without fee, for any of them that want to break
their existing corrupt mold) don't publish
this sort of news -- 'fake news' (that's of the solidly documented type,
such as this). You'll see such news reported only in the few honest newsmedia.
The rule for the aristocracy's 'news'media is: report what happened, only on
the basis of the government's lies as to why it happened -- never
expose such lies (the official lies). What's official is
'true' . That, too, is an essential part of the imperial system.
The front cover of the American aristocracy's TIME magazine's Asian
edition, dated September 25, 2016, had been headlined
"Night Falls on the Philippines: The tragic cost of President Duterte's war
on drugs" . The 'news'-story, which was featured inside not just the Asian
but all editions, was
"Inside Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte's War On Drugs" , and it portrayed
Duterte as a far-right demagogue who was giving his nation's police free reign
to murder anyone they wished to, especially the poor. On 17 July 2017, China's
Xinhua News Agency bannered
"Philippines' Duterte enjoys high approval rating at 82 percent: poll" ,
and reported: "A survey by Pulse Asia Inc. conducted from June 24 to June 29
showed that 82 percent of the 1,200 people surveyed nationwide approved the
way Duterte runs the country. Out of all the respondents, the poll said 13 percent
were undecided about Duterte's performance, while 5 percent disapproved Duterte's
performance. Duterte, who assumed the presidency in June last year, ends his
single, six-year term in 2022." Obviously, it's not likely that the TIME
cover story had actually been honest. But, of course, America's billionaires
are even more eager to overthrow Russia's President, Putin.
Western polling firms can freely poll Russians, and
do poll them on lots but not on approval or disapproval of President Putin
, because he always scores above 80%, and America's aristocrats also don't like
finding that confirmed, and certainly don't want to report it. Polling is routinely
done in Russia, by Russian pollsters, on voters' ratings of approval/disapproval
of Putin's performance. Because America's aristocrats don't like the findings,
they say that Russians are in such fear of Putin they don't tell the truth about
this, or else that Russia's newsmedia constantly lie about him to cover up the
ugly reality about him.
However, the Western academic journal Post-Soviet Affairs (which is
a mainstream Western publication) included in their January/February 2017 issue
a study,
"Is Putin's Popularity Real?" and the investigators reported the results
of their own poll of Russians, which was designed to tap into whether such fear
exists and serves as a distorting factor in those Russian polls, but concluded
that the findings in Russia's polls could not be explained by any such factor;
and that, yes, Putin's popularity among Russians is real. The article's closing
words were: "Our results suggest that the main obstacle at present to the emergence
of a widespread opposition movement to Putin is not that Russians are afraid
to voice their disapproval of Putin, but that Putin is in fact quite popular."
The U.S. aristocracy's efforts to get resistant heads-of-state overthrown
by 'democratic revolutions' (which usually is done by the U.S. government to
overthrow democratically elected Presidents -- such as Mossadegh, Arbenz, Allende,
Zelaya, Yanukovych, and attempted against Assad, and wished against Putin, and
against Duterte -- not overthrowing dictators such as the U.S. government always
claims) have almost consistently failed, and therefore coups and invasions have
been used instead, but those techniques demand that certain realities be suppressed
by their 'news'media in order to get the U.S. public to support what the government
has done -- the U.S. government's international crime, which is never prosecuted.
Lying 'news' media in order to 'earn' the American public's support, does not
produce enthusiastic support, but, at best, over the long term, it produces
only tepid support (support that's usually below the level of that of the governments
the U.S. overthrows). U.S. Presidents never score above 80% except when they
order an invasion in response to a violent attack by foreigners, such as happened
when George W. Bush attacked Afghanistan and Iraq in the wake of 9/11, but those
80%+ approval ratings fade quickly; and,
after the 1960s, U.S. Presidential job-approvals have generally been below 60%
.
President Trump's ratings are currently around 40%. Although Trump is not
as conservative -- not as far-right -- as the U.S. aristocracy wants him to
be, he is fascist ; just
not enough to satisfy them (and their oppostion isn't because he's unpopular
among the public; it's more the case that he's unpopular largely because their
'news'media concentrate on his bads, and distort his goods to appear bad --
e.g., suggesting that he's not sufficiently aggressive against Russia). His
fascism on domestic affairs is honestly reported in the aristocracy's 'news'media,
which appear to be doing all they can to get him replaced by his Vice President,
Mike Pence. What's not reported by their media is the fascism of the U.S. aristocracy
itself, and of their international agenda (global conquest). That's their secret,
of which their public must be (and is) constantly kept ignorant. America's aristocracy
has almost as much trouble contolling its domestic public as it has controlling
its foreign vassals. Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most
recently, of
They're Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of
CHRIST'S VENTRILOQUISTS:
The Event that Created Christianity .
Fascism is defined as a system that combines private monopolies and despotic
government power. It is sometimes racist but not necessarily so. By the
correct definition, every President since at least Herbert Hoover has been
fascist to some degree.
One bit of silver lining in the deep-state propaganda effort to destabilise
the Trump regime is the damage to the legitimacy of the yankee imperium
it confers, making it easier for vassal states to begin to jump ship. The
claims of extraterritorial power used for economic warfare might confer
a similar benefit, since the erstwhile allies will want to escape the dominance
of the yankee dollar to be able to escape the economic extortion practised
by the yankee regime to achieve its control abroad.
" America's aristocracy has almost as much trouble controlling its domestic
public as it has controlling its foreign vassals. "
These foreign vassals had a cozy existence as long as the USA made it
clear it wanted to control the world. Dutch minister of Foreign Affairs
Ben Bot made this quite clear whan the Netherlands did not have a USA ambassador
for three months or so, Ben Bot complained to the USA that there should
be a USA ambassador.
He was not used to take decisions all by himself.
Right now Europe's queen Merkel has the same problem, unlike Obama Trump
does not hold her hand.
Yes, of course. I don't know about before Herbert Hoover, but certainly
during the 50s, business -- monopolistic or oligopolistic (like the old
Detroit auto industry) -- and government (including the MIC) were closely
integrated. Such was, indeed, as aspect of progressivism. It was considered
by most to be a good thing, or at least to be the natural and normal state
of affairs. Certainly, the system back then included what amounted to price-fixing
as a normal business practice.
On the other hand, the "despotic" thing is less clear. Some assert that
since FDR was effectively a dictator during World War II, that therefore
the Democratic Party represented despotism ever since FDR (or maybe ever
since Wilson).
Having lived through that period of time, I have to say that I am not
so sure about that: if it was despotism, it was a heavily democratic and
beneficent despotism. However, it is evident that there was a fascist skein
running through the entirety of USA's political history throughout the 20th
Century.
Fascism originates from Mussolini's Italy. It was anti socialist and
anti communist, it of course was pro Italian, Italy's great deeds in antiquity,
the Roman empire, were celebrated.
One can see this as racist, but as Italy consisted of mostly Italians,
it was not racist in the present meaning of the word at all. Italy was very
hesitant in persecuting jews, for example. Hitler depised Mussolini, Mussolini
was an ally that weakened Germany. Hitler and Mussolini agreed in their
hatred of communism.
Calling Hitler a fascist just creates confusion. All discussions of what
nowadays fascism is, our could mean, end like rivers in the desert.
'Aristocracy' and 'fascist' are all weasel words. (I'm the only true
fascist btw, and it's National Humanism, National Left, or Left-Right.)
US is an ethnogarchy, and that really matters. The Power rules, but the
nature of the Power is shaped by the biases of the ruling ethnic group.
It is essentially ruled by Jewish Supremacists.
Now, if not for Jews, another group might have supreme power, and it
might be problematic in its own way. BUT, the agenda would be different.
Suppose Chinese-Americans controlled much of media, finance, academia,
deep state, and etc. They might be just as corrupt or more so than Jews,
BUT their agenda would be different. They would not be hateful to Iran,
Russia, Syria, or to Palestinians. And they won't care about Israel.
They would have their own biases and agendas, but they would still be
different from Jewish obsessions.
Or suppose the top elites of the US were Poles. Now, US policy may be
very anti-Russian BUT for reasons different from those of Jews.
So, we won't learn much by just throwing words like 'fascist' or 'aristocrat'
around.
We have to be more specific. Hitler was 'fascist' and so was Rohm. But
Hitler had Rohm wiped out.
Surely, a Zionist 'fascist' had different goals than an Iranian 'fascist'.
One might say the Old South African regime was 'fascist'. Well, today's
piggish ANC is also 'fascist', if by 'fascist' we mean power-hungry tyrants.
But black 'fascists' want something different from what white 'fascists'
wanted.
It's like all football players are in football. But to understand what
is going on, we have to know WHICH team they play for.
Jewish Elites don't just play for power. They play for Jewish power.
Good summary of where we're at, but please don't call the ruling
goons aristocrats. The word, "aristocrat," is derived from the Ancient Greek
ἄριστος (áristos, "best"), and the ruling thugs in this country have never
been the best at anything except lies, murder and theft.
I realize that calling them violent bloodthirsty sociopathic parasites
is a mouthful, and that "plutacrats" doesn't have quite the appropriate
sting, but perhaps it's more accurate.
Or maybe we should get into the habit of calling them the "ruling mafiosi."
I'm open to suggestions.
and that threatens those foreign aristocrats with encroachments
against their own territory, whenever a vassal aristocracy resists the
master-aristocracy's will.
They also -- through the joint action of Rating Agencies, the Anglosaxon
media, the vassal vassal states' media, make national debt's yield spreads
skyrocket. It's been the way to make entire governments tumble in Europe,
as well as force ministers for economics to resign. After obeisance has
been restored -- and an "ex Goldman Sachs man" put on the presidential/ministerial
chair, usually -- investors magically find back their trust in the nation's
economic stability, and yield spreads return to their usual level.
No doubt about it. That's how thugs rule; there are plenty of quivering
sell outs to do the rulers' bidding. Look at the sickening standing ovations
given to Netanyahoo by supposed "US" congresscreeps.
@Fidelios Automata Abraham Lincoln's economic policy was to combine
private monopolies with the Federal Government under a President like him:
one who ordered the arrests of newspaper editors/publishers who opposed
his policies and more 'despotic' goodies.
While the article favorably informs, and was written so as to engage
the reader, it lacks reasonable solutions to its problems presented. One
solution which I never read or hear about, is mandated MRI's, advanced technology,
and evidence supported psychological testing of sitting and potential political
candidates. The goal would be to publicly reveal traits of psychopathy,
narcissism, insanity, etc. Of course, the most vocal opposition would come
from those who intend to hide these traits. The greatest evidence for the
likelyhood of this process working, is the immense effort those who would
be revealed have historically put into hiding what they are.
Eric Zuesse is a nasty, hardcore leftist in the senses that matter most.
Often, he reveals his Leftism to be based on his hatred of Christianity
and his utter contempt for white Christians. But there is that dead clock
being correct twice per day matter. In this article, Zuesse gets a good
deal right.
First, he delineates the American Elites well. The USA forged by
Abe Lincoln is not a real democracy, not a real republic. It is the worst
kind of oligarchy: one based on love of money almost exclusively (because
if a man does not love money well enough to be bribed, then he cannot be
trusted by plutocrats) while proclaiming itself focused on helping all the
little guys of the world overcome the power of the rich oppressors.
It is the Devil's game nearly perfected by the grand alliance of
WASPs and Jews, with their Saudi hangers-on.
Second, it is fair to label America's Deep State fascist , Elite
Fascist. And we should never forget that while Jews are no more than 3%
of the American population, they now are at least 30% (my guess would be
closer to 59%) of the most powerful Deep Staters. That means that per capita
Jews easily are the fascist-inclined people in America.
The most guilty often bray the loudest at others in hope of getting them
blamed and escaping punishment. And this most guilty group – Deep State
Elites evolved from the original WASP-Jewish alliance against Catholics
– is dead-set on making the majority of whites in the world serfs.
Third, the US 'weaponization of finance' seems to have been used against
the Vatican to force Benedict XVI to resign so that Liberal Jesuit (sorry
for the redundancy) Jorge Bergolgio could be made Pope. The Jesuits are
far and away the most Leftist and gay part of the Catholic Church, and the
American Deep State wanted a gay-loving, strongly pro-Jewish, strongly pro-Moslem
'immigrant' as Pope.
Fourth, that America's Leftists of every stripe, America's Neocons, and
America's 'compassionate conservatives' all hate Putin is all you should
need to know that Putin is far, far better for Russia's working class, Russia's
non-Elites, than our Elites are for us.
Charlottesville, Occupy Wall St And The Neoliberal Police State. Charlottesville
was a Neoliberal ambush designed to crush the Alt Right once and for all.
This story must be told.
No way. How about Jewish terrorists ? Very few Italians in the ruling
"aristocracy." Lots of Jews.
Very few Italians in the ruling "aristocracy."
Another common misconception is to associate the mafia with Italians
mostly. The Italian mafiosi are pikers compared to the American ones of
Eastern European descent. The real bosses are not the Italians.
Bugsy Siegel, Louis "Lepke" Buchalter, Longy Zwillman, Moe Dalitz, Meyer
Lansky and many many others.
Even the Jewish Virtual Library admits to some of it.
Bannon does not have a well defined economic policy. And he was a suspected leaker.
For a former military officer he also have pretty lose lips (which tend to sink ships) and penchant for self-promotion as we later
discovered from Wolff's book
Notable quotes:
"... Presumably, Bannon's mouth ( American Prospect interview) got him fired -- requested to resign -- at the instigation of Chief of Staff Gen. Kelly, with it being spun nicely: "Kelly and Bannon "have mutually agreed today would be Steve's last day," White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said in a statement. 'We are grateful for his service and wish him the best.'" https://www.rt.com/usa/400175-trump-fires-bannon-strategist/ ..."
"... US Defense Secretary James Mattis will visit Ukraine next week and reassure the government in Kiev that the US still considers Crimea a part of the country's territory, the Pentagon said. Mattis will tell Kiev the US is "firmly committed to the goal of restoring Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity." ..."
"... We were the sole superpower, Earth's hyperpower, its designated global sheriff, the architect of our planetary future. After five centuries of great power rivalries, in the wake of a two-superpower world that, amid the threat of nuclear annihilation, seemed to last forever and a day (even if it didn't quite make it 50 years), the United States was the ultimate survivor, the victor of victors, the last of the last. It stood triumphantly at the end of history. In a lottery that had lasted since Europe's wooden ships first broke out of a periphery of Eurasia and began to colonize much of the planet, the United States was the chosen one, the country that would leave every imperial world-maker from the Romans to the British in its shadow. ..."
"... Bannon, Flynn etcetera was actually quite sane compared to the other neocon, deep state figures coming in, go figure why these people had to go - think also why someone like Mattis DONT have to go and is loved by the media, deep state etcetera. ..."
"... Engelhardt still doesn't understand that 911 was supposed to (and did) solidify the justification for the expansion of The American Century since we now made our own rules and reality. ..."
"... The Bannon interview is fascinating, but don't forget that he's a strategist: He says what he thinks will serve his purpose, not necessarily what he believes. ..."
"... Now he's gone, whether for good time will tell. And Trump is looking rather isolated. If he feels his position becomes too complicated or even untenable, he might do 'stupid stuff' - and as I mentioned earlier, this may be just what the Neocons want: With the US decline accelerating both internally and globally, 'war' may seem the last option to them. But of course, they don't want the blame - they want to be able to say 'see, we told you he's crazy, but you didn't listen.' Difficult times. ..."
Well, with Bannon gone who will have most influence over Trump now? Will the rest of the
Alt-Righters stay at the White House? Hhhmmm...
Meanwhile, while the MCM (mainstream corporate media) is unable to focus on more that one
or two things, Trump has signed an executive order which will have real work consequences as
sea levels rise. Under Obama, a rule was developed to require infrastructure projects to
consider the effects of global warming on flooding, effects of storms, etc. Now, developers
are free to build what and where they want, with no consideration for the possible damage
which might destroy those projects in the future.
Throw-away society on a grand --and expensive-- scale.
Presumably, Bannon's mouth (
American Prospect
interview) got him fired -- requested to
resign -- at the instigation of Chief of Staff Gen. Kelly, with it being spun nicely: "Kelly
and Bannon "have mutually agreed today would be Steve's last day," White House press
secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said in a statement. 'We are grateful for his service and
wish him the best.'"
https://www.rt.com/usa/400175-trump-fires-bannon-strategist/
When Trump got elected, I thought the best outcome would be total gridlock in DC; and
in some ways, that's what's occurred. Yet, as The Saker points out, something's afoot if the
propaganda published by Newsweek--which is owned by Bezos--is any indication.
It's Friday. The Syrian Army is making huge gains. Congress is in recess. And the
weather forecast for Monday's eclipse here on the Oregon coast is looking positive--no
fog!
Yeah jawbone, it's a good tool. I should've used it prior to my comment being grabbed by
the spambot. Al Gore's opined Trump should resign, indicating he favors Pence, which send s
what sort of message given the context Gore opined?
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2017/08/18/al-gore-has-just-one-small-bit-advice-trump-resign
As most barflys know, Pence is far worse on most things than Trump. Did Gore just out himself
as a previously closeted Neocon?
Mattis to back Kiev's claim to Crimea during Ukraine visit
US Defense Secretary James Mattis will visit Ukraine next week and reassure the government
in Kiev that the US still considers Crimea a part of the country's territory, the Pentagon
said. Mattis will tell Kiev the US is "firmly committed to the goal of restoring Ukraine's
sovereignty and territorial integrity."
@96, I view this as part of an effort to push back against anti Iran pro Israel hard liners.
First with Flynn, then McMaster forcing out Flynn allies, and now Bannon. Not that McMaster
and his people are not pro Israel or possess any redeeming qualities, but it is important to
understand that Bannon and those in his circle are NOT anti interventionists.
Thirdeye "The third eye is a mystical and esoteric concept of a speculative invisible eye
which provides perception beyond ordinary sight." Wikipedia ;)
This is a good read. Especially for Thirdeye blind.
Pardon Me!
High Crimes and Demeanors in the Age of Trump
By Tom Engelhardt
Let me try to get this straight: from the moment the Soviet Union imploded in 1991 until
recently just about every politician and mainstream pundit in America assured us that we were
the planet's indispensable nation, the only truly exceptional one on this small orb of
ours.
We were the sole superpower, Earth's hyperpower, its designated global sheriff, the
architect of our planetary future. After five centuries of great power rivalries, in the wake
of a two-superpower world that, amid the threat of nuclear annihilation, seemed to last
forever and a day (even if it didn't quite make it 50 years), the United States was the
ultimate survivor, the victor of victors, the last of the last. It stood triumphantly at the
end of history. In a lottery that had lasted since Europe's wooden ships first broke out of a
periphery of Eurasia and began to colonize much of the planet, the United States was the
chosen one, the country that would leave every imperial world-maker from the Romans to the
British in its shadow.
Who could doubt that this was now our world in a coming American century beyond
compare?
And then, of course, came the attacks of 9/11................ The rest below.
You couldnt be more wrong: Bannon, Flynn etcetera was actually quite sane compared to the
other neocon, deep state figures coming in, go figure why these people had to go - think also
why someone like Mattis DONT have to go and is loved by the media, deep state etcetera.
Engelhardt still doesn't understand that 911 was supposed to (and did) solidify the
justification for the expansion of The American Century since we now made our own rules and
reality.
Nah...don't quite agree on this one.
The Bannon interview is fascinating, but don't
forget that he's a strategist: He says what he thinks will serve his purpose, not necessarily
what he believes.
Now he's gone, whether for good time will tell. And Trump is looking rather isolated.
If he feels his position becomes too complicated or even untenable, he might do 'stupid
stuff' - and as I mentioned earlier, this may be just what the Neocons want: With the US
decline accelerating both internally and globally, 'war' may seem the last option to them.
But of course, they don't want the blame - they want to be able to say 'see, we told you he's
crazy, but you didn't listen.' Difficult times.
Bannon does not have a well defined economic policy. And he was a suspected leaker.
For a former military officer he also have pretty lose lips (which tend to sink ships) and penchant for self-promotion as we later
discovered from Wolff's book
Notable quotes:
"... Presumably, Bannon's mouth ( American Prospect interview) got him fired -- requested to resign -- at the instigation of Chief of Staff Gen. Kelly, with it being spun nicely: "Kelly and Bannon "have mutually agreed today would be Steve's last day," White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said in a statement. 'We are grateful for his service and wish him the best.'" https://www.rt.com/usa/400175-trump-fires-bannon-strategist/ ..."
"... US Defense Secretary James Mattis will visit Ukraine next week and reassure the government in Kiev that the US still considers Crimea a part of the country's territory, the Pentagon said. Mattis will tell Kiev the US is "firmly committed to the goal of restoring Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity." ..."
"... We were the sole superpower, Earth's hyperpower, its designated global sheriff, the architect of our planetary future. After five centuries of great power rivalries, in the wake of a two-superpower world that, amid the threat of nuclear annihilation, seemed to last forever and a day (even if it didn't quite make it 50 years), the United States was the ultimate survivor, the victor of victors, the last of the last. It stood triumphantly at the end of history. In a lottery that had lasted since Europe's wooden ships first broke out of a periphery of Eurasia and began to colonize much of the planet, the United States was the chosen one, the country that would leave every imperial world-maker from the Romans to the British in its shadow. ..."
"... Bannon, Flynn etcetera was actually quite sane compared to the other neocon, deep state figures coming in, go figure why these people had to go - think also why someone like Mattis DONT have to go and is loved by the media, deep state etcetera. ..."
"... Engelhardt still doesn't understand that 911 was supposed to (and did) solidify the justification for the expansion of The American Century since we now made our own rules and reality. ..."
"... The Bannon interview is fascinating, but don't forget that he's a strategist: He says what he thinks will serve his purpose, not necessarily what he believes. ..."
"... Now he's gone, whether for good time will tell. And Trump is looking rather isolated. If he feels his position becomes too complicated or even untenable, he might do 'stupid stuff' - and as I mentioned earlier, this may be just what the Neocons want: With the US decline accelerating both internally and globally, 'war' may seem the last option to them. But of course, they don't want the blame - they want to be able to say 'see, we told you he's crazy, but you didn't listen.' Difficult times. ..."
Well, with Bannon gone who will have most influence over Trump now? Will the rest of the
Alt-Righters stay at the White House? Hhhmmm...
Meanwhile, while the MCM (mainstream corporate media) is unable to focus on more that one
or two things, Trump has signed an executive order which will have real work consequences as
sea levels rise. Under Obama, a rule was developed to require infrastructure projects to
consider the effects of global warming on flooding, effects of storms, etc. Now, developers
are free to build what and where they want, with no consideration for the possible damage
which might destroy those projects in the future.
Throw-away society on a grand --and expensive-- scale.
Presumably, Bannon's mouth (
American Prospect
interview) got him fired -- requested to
resign -- at the instigation of Chief of Staff Gen. Kelly, with it being spun nicely: "Kelly
and Bannon "have mutually agreed today would be Steve's last day," White House press
secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said in a statement. 'We are grateful for his service and
wish him the best.'"
https://www.rt.com/usa/400175-trump-fires-bannon-strategist/
When Trump got elected, I thought the best outcome would be total gridlock in DC; and
in some ways, that's what's occurred. Yet, as The Saker points out, something's afoot if the
propaganda published by Newsweek--which is owned by Bezos--is any indication.
It's Friday. The Syrian Army is making huge gains. Congress is in recess. And the
weather forecast for Monday's eclipse here on the Oregon coast is looking positive--no
fog!
Yeah jawbone, it's a good tool. I should've used it prior to my comment being grabbed by
the spambot. Al Gore's opined Trump should resign, indicating he favors Pence, which send s
what sort of message given the context Gore opined?
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2017/08/18/al-gore-has-just-one-small-bit-advice-trump-resign
As most barflys know, Pence is far worse on most things than Trump. Did Gore just out himself
as a previously closeted Neocon?
Mattis to back Kiev's claim to Crimea during Ukraine visit
US Defense Secretary James Mattis will visit Ukraine next week and reassure the government
in Kiev that the US still considers Crimea a part of the country's territory, the Pentagon
said. Mattis will tell Kiev the US is "firmly committed to the goal of restoring Ukraine's
sovereignty and territorial integrity."
@96, I view this as part of an effort to push back against anti Iran pro Israel hard liners.
First with Flynn, then McMaster forcing out Flynn allies, and now Bannon. Not that McMaster
and his people are not pro Israel or possess any redeeming qualities, but it is important to
understand that Bannon and those in his circle are NOT anti interventionists.
Thirdeye "The third eye is a mystical and esoteric concept of a speculative invisible eye
which provides perception beyond ordinary sight." Wikipedia ;)
This is a good read. Especially for Thirdeye blind.
Pardon Me!
High Crimes and Demeanors in the Age of Trump
By Tom Engelhardt
Let me try to get this straight: from the moment the Soviet Union imploded in 1991 until
recently just about every politician and mainstream pundit in America assured us that we were
the planet's indispensable nation, the only truly exceptional one on this small orb of
ours.
We were the sole superpower, Earth's hyperpower, its designated global sheriff, the
architect of our planetary future. After five centuries of great power rivalries, in the wake
of a two-superpower world that, amid the threat of nuclear annihilation, seemed to last
forever and a day (even if it didn't quite make it 50 years), the United States was the
ultimate survivor, the victor of victors, the last of the last. It stood triumphantly at the
end of history. In a lottery that had lasted since Europe's wooden ships first broke out of a
periphery of Eurasia and began to colonize much of the planet, the United States was the
chosen one, the country that would leave every imperial world-maker from the Romans to the
British in its shadow.
Who could doubt that this was now our world in a coming American century beyond
compare?
And then, of course, came the attacks of 9/11................ The rest below.
You couldnt be more wrong: Bannon, Flynn etcetera was actually quite sane compared to the
other neocon, deep state figures coming in, go figure why these people had to go - think also
why someone like Mattis DONT have to go and is loved by the media, deep state etcetera.
Engelhardt still doesn't understand that 911 was supposed to (and did) solidify the
justification for the expansion of The American Century since we now made our own rules and
reality.
Nah...don't quite agree on this one.
The Bannon interview is fascinating, but don't
forget that he's a strategist: He says what he thinks will serve his purpose, not necessarily
what he believes.
Now he's gone, whether for good time will tell. And Trump is looking rather isolated.
If he feels his position becomes too complicated or even untenable, he might do 'stupid
stuff' - and as I mentioned earlier, this may be just what the Neocons want: With the US
decline accelerating both internally and globally, 'war' may seem the last option to them.
But of course, they don't want the blame - they want to be able to say 'see, we told you he's
crazy, but you didn't listen.' Difficult times.
"... For his part, Putin compounded his offense to the neocons by facilitating Obama's negotiations with Iran that imposed strict constraints on Iran's actions toward development of a nuclear bomb and took U.S. war against Iran off the table. The neocons, Israel and Saudi Arabia wanted the U.S. military to lead a bombing campaign against Iran with the hope of crippling their regional adversary and possibly even achieving "regime change" in Tehran. ..."
"... Many U.S. pundits and journalists – in the conservative, centrist and liberal media – were swept up by the various hysterias over Syria, Iran and Russia – much as they had been a decade earlier around the Iraq-WMD frenzy and the "responsibility to protect" (or R2P) argument for the violent "regime change" in Libya in 2011. In all these cases, the public debate was saturated with U.S. government and neocon propaganda, much of it false. ..."
"... But it worked. For instance, the neocons and their liberal-interventionist sidekicks achieved extraordinary success in seducing many American "peace activists" to support the "regime change" war in Syria by sending sympathetic victims of the Syrian government on speaking tours. ..."
"... Still, whenever the White Helmets or other "activists" accused the Syrian government of some unlikely chemical attack, the information was treated as gospel . When United Nations investigators, who were under enormous pressure to confirm the propaganda tales beloved in the West, uncovered evidence that one of the alleged chlorine attacks was staged by the jihadists, the mainstream U.S. media politely looked the other way and continued to treat the chemical-weapons stories as credible. ..."
"... "Coverage of the Syrian war will be remembered as one of the most shameful episodes in the history of the American press." ..."
"... The evidence that Russia had "hacked our democracy" was very thin – some private outfit called Crowdstrike found Cyrillic lettering and a reference to the founder of the Soviet KGB in some of the metadata – but that "incriminating evidence" contradicted Crowdstrike's own notion of a crack Russian hacking operation that was almost impossible to trace. ..."
"... According to Clapper's later congressional testimony, the analysts for this job were "hand-picked" from the CIA, FBI and National Security Agency and assigned to produce an "assessment" before Obama left office. Their Jan. 6 report was remarkable in its lack of evidence and the analysts themselves admitted that it fell far short of establishing anything as fact. It amounted to a continuation of the "trust us" approach that had dominated the anti-Russia themes for years. ..."
"... "When all right-thinking people in the nation's capital seem to agree on something – as has been the case recently with legislation imposing new sanctions on Russia – that may be a warning that the debate has veered into an unthinking herd mentality," Ignatius wrote as he questioned the wisdom of overusing sanctions and tying the President's hands on when to remove sanctions. ..."
"... But Ignatius failed to follow his own logic when it came to the core groupthink about Russia "meddling" in the U.S. election. Despite the thinness of the evidence, the certainty about Russia's guilt is now shared by "all right-thinking people" in Washington, who agree that this point is beyond dispute despite the denials from both WikiLeaks, which published the purloined Democratic emails, and the Russian government. ..."
"... Yet, the neocons have achieved perhaps their greatest success by merging Cold War Russo-phobia with the Trump Derangement Syndrome to enlist liberals and even progressives into the neocon drive for more "regime change" wars. ..."
"... Even relative Kremlin moderates such as Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev , are citing Trump's tail-between-his-legs signing of the sanctions bill as proof that the U.S. establishment has blocked any hope for a détente between Washington and Moscow. ..."
"... In other words, the prospects for advancing the neocon agenda of more "regime change" wars and coups have grown – and the neocons can claim as their allies virtually the entire Democratic Party hierarchy which is so eager to appease its angry #Resistance base that even the heightened risk of nuclear war is being ignored. ..."
A savvy Washington observer once told me that the political reality about the neoconservatives
is that they alone couldn't win you a single precinct in the United States. But both Republicans
and Democrats still line up to gain neocon support or at least neocon acceptance. Part of the reason
for this paradox is the degree of dominance that the neoconservatives have established in the national
news media – as op-ed writers and TV commentators – and the neocon ties to the Israel Lobby that
is famous for showering contributions on favored politicians and on the opponents of those not favored.
But neocons' most astonishing success over the past year may have been how they have pulled liberals
and even some progressives into the neocon strategies for war and more war, largely by exploiting
the Left's disgust with President Trump
People who would normally favor international cooperation toward peaceful resolution of conflicts
have joined the neocons in ratcheting up global tensions and making progress toward peace far more
difficult.
The provocative "Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act," which imposes sanctions
on Russia, Iran and North Korea while tying President Trump's hands in removing those penalties,
passed the Congress without a single Democrat voting no.
The only dissenting votes came from three Republican House members – Justin Amash of Michigan,
Jimmy Duncan of Tennessee, and Thomas Massie of Kentucky – and from Republican Rand Paul of Kentucky
and Independent Bernie Sanders of Vermont in the Senate.
In other words, every Democrat present for the vote adopted the neocon position of escalating
tensions with Russia and Iran. The new sanctions appear to close off hopes for a détente with Russia
and may torpedo the nuclear agreement with Iran, which would put the bomb-bomb-bomb option back on
the table just where the neocons want it.
The Putin Obstacle
As for Russia, the
neocons have viewed President Vladimir Putin as a major obstacle to their plans at least since
2013 when he helped President Obama come up with a compromise with Syria that averted a U.S. military
strike over
dubious claims that the Syrian military was responsible for a sarin gas attack outside Damascus
on Aug. 21, 2013.
Subsequent
evidence indicated that the sarin attack most likely was a provocation by Al Qaeda's Syrian affiliate
to trick the U.S. military into entering the war on Al Qaeda's side.
While you might wonder why the U.S. government would even think about taking actions that would
benefit Al Qaeda, which lured the U.S. into this Mideast quagmire in the first place by attacking
on 9/11, the answer is that Israel and the neocons – along with Saudi Arabia and other Sunni-governed
states – favored an Al Qaeda victory if that was what was needed to
shatter
the so-called "Shiite crescent," anchored in Iran and reaching through Syria to Lebanon.
Many neocons are, in effect, America's Israeli agents and – since Israel is now allied with Saudi
Arabia and the Sunni Gulf states versus Iran – the neocons exercise their media/political influence
to rationalize U.S. military strikes against Iran's regional allies, i.e., Syria's secular government
of Bashar al-Assad
For his part, Putin compounded his offense to the neocons by facilitating Obama's negotiations
with Iran that imposed strict constraints on Iran's actions toward development of a nuclear bomb
and took U.S. war against Iran off the table. The neocons, Israel and Saudi Arabia wanted the U.S.
military to lead a bombing campaign against Iran with the hope of crippling their regional adversary
and possibly even achieving "regime change" in Tehran.
Punishing Russia
It was in that time frame that NED's neocon President Carl Gershman
identified Ukraine as the "biggest prize" and an important step toward the even bigger prize
of removing Putin in Russia.
Other U.S. government neocons, including Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs
Victoria
Nuland and Sen. John McCain , delivered the Ukraine "prize" by supporting the Feb. 22, 2014 coup
that overthrew the elected government of Ukraine and unleashed anti-Russian nationalists (including
neo-Nazis) who began killing ethnic Russians in the south and east near Russia's border.
When Putin responded by allowing Crimeans to vote on secession from Ukraine and reunification
with Russia, the West – and especially the neocon-dominated mainstream media – denounced the move
as a "Russian invasion." Covertly, the Russians also helped ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine who
defied the coup regime in Kiev and faced annihilation from Ukrainian military forces, including the
neo-Nazi Azov Battalion, which literally displayed Swastikas and SS symbols. Putin's assistance to
these embattled ethnic Russian Ukrainians became "Russian aggression."
Many U.S. pundits and journalists – in the conservative, centrist and liberal media – were
swept up by the various hysterias over Syria, Iran and Russia – much as they had been a decade
earlier around the Iraq-WMD frenzy and the "responsibility to protect" (or R2P) argument for the
violent "regime change" in Libya in 2011. In all these cases, the public debate was saturated with
U.S. government and neocon propaganda, much of it false.
But it worked. For instance, the neocons and their liberal-interventionist sidekicks achieved
extraordinary success in seducing many American "peace activists" to support the "regime change"
war in Syria by sending sympathetic victims of the Syrian government on speaking tours.
Meanwhile, the major U.S. media essentially
flacked for "moderate" Syrian rebels who just happened to be fighting alongside Al Qaeda's Syrian
affiliate and sharing their powerful U.S.-supplied weapons with the jihadists, all the better to
kill Syrian soldiers trying to protect the secular government in Damascus.
Successful Propaganda
As part of this propaganda process, the
jihadists' P.R. adjunct, known as the White Helmets , phoned in anti-government atrocity stories
to eager and credulous Western journalists who didn't dare visit the Al Qaeda-controlled zones for
fear of being beheaded.
Still, whenever the White Helmets or other "activists" accused the Syrian government of some unlikely
chemical attack,
the information was treated as gospel . When United Nations investigators, who were under enormous
pressure to confirm the propaganda tales beloved in the West, uncovered evidence that one of the
alleged chlorine attacks was staged by the jihadists, the mainstream U.S. media politely looked the
other way and continued to treat the chemical-weapons stories as credible.
Historian and journalist Stephen Kinzer has
said ,
"Coverage of the Syrian war will be remembered as one of the most shameful episodes in the history
of the American press."
But all these successes in the neocons'
"perception management" operations pale when compared to what the neocons have accomplished since
Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton last November.
Fueled by the shock and disgust over the egotistical self-proclaimed pussy-grabber ascending to
the highest office in the land, many Americans looked for both an excuse for explaining the outcome
and a strategy for removing Trump as quickly as possible. The answer to both concerns became: blame
Russia.
The evidence that Russia had "hacked our democracy" was very thin – some private outfit called
Crowdstrike found Cyrillic lettering and a reference to the founder of the Soviet KGB in some of
the metadata – but that "incriminating evidence"
contradicted Crowdstrike's own notion of a crack Russian hacking operation that was almost impossible
to trace.
So, even though the FBI failed to secure the Democratic National Committee's computers so the
government could do its own forensic analysis, President Obama assigned his intelligence chiefs,
CIA Director John Brennan and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper , to come up with an
assessment that could be used to blame Trump's victory on "Russian meddling." Obama, of course, shared
the revulsion over Trump's victory, since the real-estate mogul/reality-TV star had famously launched
his own political career by spreading the lie that Obama was born in Kenya.
'Hand-Picked' Analysts
According to Clapper's later congressional testimony, the analysts for this job were "hand-picked"
from the CIA, FBI and National Security Agency and assigned to produce an "assessment" before Obama
left office. Their
Jan. 6 report was remarkable in its lack of evidence and the analysts themselves admitted that
it fell far short of establishing anything as fact. It amounted to a continuation of the "trust us"
approach that had dominated the anti-Russia themes for years.
Much of the thin report focused on complaints about Russia's RT network for covering the Occupy
Wall Street protests and sponsoring a 2012 debate for third-party presidential candidates who had
been excluded from the Democratic-Republican debates between President Obama and former Gov. Mitt
Romney
The absurdity of citing such examples in which RT contributed to the public debate in America
as proof of Russia attacking American democracy should have been apparent to everyone, but the Russia-gate
stampede had begun and so instead of ridiculing the Jan. 6 report as an insult to reason, its shaky
Russia-did-it conclusions were embraced as unassailable Truth, buttressed by
the false claim that the assessment represented the consensus view of all 17 U.S. intelligence
agencies.
So, for instance, we get the internal contradictions of a Friday
column by Washington Post columnist David Ignatius who starts off by making a legitimate point
about Washington groupthink.
"When all right-thinking people in the nation's capital seem to agree on something – as has been
the case recently with legislation imposing new sanctions on Russia – that may be a warning that
the debate has veered into an unthinking herd mentality," Ignatius wrote as he questioned the wisdom
of overusing sanctions and tying the President's hands on when to remove sanctions.
Lost Logic
But Ignatius failed to follow his own logic when it came to the core groupthink about Russia "meddling"
in the U.S. election. Despite the thinness of the evidence, the certainty about Russia's guilt is
now shared by "all right-thinking people" in Washington, who agree that this point is beyond dispute
despite the denials from both WikiLeaks, which published the purloined Democratic emails, and the
Russian government.
Ignatius seemed nervous that his mild deviation from the conventional wisdom about the sanctions
bill might risk his standing with the Establishment, so he added:
"Don't misunderstand me. In questioning congressional review of sanctions, I'm not excusing
Trump's behavior. His non-response to Russia's well-documented meddling in the 2016 presidential
election has been outrageous."
However, as usual for the U.S. mainstream media, Ignatius doesn't cite any of those documents.
Presumably, he's referring to the Jan. 6 assessment, which itself contained no real evidence to support
its opinion that Russia hacked into Democratic emails and gave them to WikiLeaks for distribution.
Just because a lot of Important People keep repeating the same allegation doesn't make the allegation
true or "well-documented." And skepticism should be raised even higher when there is a clear political
motive for pushing a falsehood as truth, as we should have learned from President George W. Bush
's Iraq-WMD fallacies and from President Barack Obama's wild exaggerations about the need to intervene
in Libya to prevent a massacre of civilians.
But Washington neocons always start with a leg up because of their easy access to the editorial
pages of The New York Times and Washington Post as well as their speed-dial relationships with producers
at CNN and other cable outlets.
Yet, the neocons have achieved perhaps their greatest success by merging Cold War Russo-phobia
with the Trump Derangement Syndrome to enlist liberals and even progressives into the neocon drive
for more "regime change" wars.
There can be no doubt that the escalation of sanctions against Russia and Iran will have the effect
of escalating geopolitical tensions with those two important countries and making war, even nuclear
war, more likely.
In Iran, hardliners are already telling President Hassan Rouhani , "We told you so" that the U.S.
government can't be trusted in its promise to remove – not increase – sanctions in compliance with
the nuclear agreement.
And, Putin, who is actually one of the more pro-Western leaders in Russia, faces attacks from
his own hardliners who view him as naďve in thinking that Russia would ever be accepted by the West.
Even relative Kremlin moderates such as Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev , are citing Trump's tail-between-his-legs
signing of the sanctions bill as proof that the U.S. establishment has blocked any hope for a détente
between Washington and Moscow.
In other words, the prospects for advancing the neocon agenda of more "regime change" wars and
coups have grown – and the neocons can claim as their allies virtually the entire Democratic Party
hierarchy which is so eager to appease its angry #Resistance base that even the heightened risk of
nuclear war is being ignored.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated
Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either
in
print here or as an e-book (from
Amazon and
barnesandnoble.com ).
"... For his part, Putin compounded his offense to the neocons by facilitating Obama's negotiations with Iran that imposed strict constraints on Iran's actions toward development of a nuclear bomb and took U.S. war against Iran off the table. The neocons, Israel and Saudi Arabia wanted the U.S. military to lead a bombing campaign against Iran with the hope of crippling their regional adversary and possibly even achieving "regime change" in Tehran. ..."
"... Many U.S. pundits and journalists – in the conservative, centrist and liberal media – were swept up by the various hysterias over Syria, Iran and Russia – much as they had been a decade earlier around the Iraq-WMD frenzy and the "responsibility to protect" (or R2P) argument for the violent "regime change" in Libya in 2011. In all these cases, the public debate was saturated with U.S. government and neocon propaganda, much of it false. ..."
"... But it worked. For instance, the neocons and their liberal-interventionist sidekicks achieved extraordinary success in seducing many American "peace activists" to support the "regime change" war in Syria by sending sympathetic victims of the Syrian government on speaking tours. ..."
"... Still, whenever the White Helmets or other "activists" accused the Syrian government of some unlikely chemical attack, the information was treated as gospel . When United Nations investigators, who were under enormous pressure to confirm the propaganda tales beloved in the West, uncovered evidence that one of the alleged chlorine attacks was staged by the jihadists, the mainstream U.S. media politely looked the other way and continued to treat the chemical-weapons stories as credible. ..."
"... "Coverage of the Syrian war will be remembered as one of the most shameful episodes in the history of the American press." ..."
"... The evidence that Russia had "hacked our democracy" was very thin – some private outfit called Crowdstrike found Cyrillic lettering and a reference to the founder of the Soviet KGB in some of the metadata – but that "incriminating evidence" contradicted Crowdstrike's own notion of a crack Russian hacking operation that was almost impossible to trace. ..."
"... According to Clapper's later congressional testimony, the analysts for this job were "hand-picked" from the CIA, FBI and National Security Agency and assigned to produce an "assessment" before Obama left office. Their Jan. 6 report was remarkable in its lack of evidence and the analysts themselves admitted that it fell far short of establishing anything as fact. It amounted to a continuation of the "trust us" approach that had dominated the anti-Russia themes for years. ..."
"... "When all right-thinking people in the nation's capital seem to agree on something – as has been the case recently with legislation imposing new sanctions on Russia – that may be a warning that the debate has veered into an unthinking herd mentality," Ignatius wrote as he questioned the wisdom of overusing sanctions and tying the President's hands on when to remove sanctions. ..."
"... But Ignatius failed to follow his own logic when it came to the core groupthink about Russia "meddling" in the U.S. election. Despite the thinness of the evidence, the certainty about Russia's guilt is now shared by "all right-thinking people" in Washington, who agree that this point is beyond dispute despite the denials from both WikiLeaks, which published the purloined Democratic emails, and the Russian government. ..."
"... Yet, the neocons have achieved perhaps their greatest success by merging Cold War Russo-phobia with the Trump Derangement Syndrome to enlist liberals and even progressives into the neocon drive for more "regime change" wars. ..."
"... Even relative Kremlin moderates such as Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev , are citing Trump's tail-between-his-legs signing of the sanctions bill as proof that the U.S. establishment has blocked any hope for a détente between Washington and Moscow. ..."
"... In other words, the prospects for advancing the neocon agenda of more "regime change" wars and coups have grown – and the neocons can claim as their allies virtually the entire Democratic Party hierarchy which is so eager to appease its angry #Resistance base that even the heightened risk of nuclear war is being ignored. ..."
A savvy Washington observer once told me that the political reality about the neoconservatives
is that they alone couldn't win you a single precinct in the United States. But both Republicans
and Democrats still line up to gain neocon support or at least neocon acceptance. Part of the reason
for this paradox is the degree of dominance that the neoconservatives have established in the national
news media – as op-ed writers and TV commentators – and the neocon ties to the Israel Lobby that
is famous for showering contributions on favored politicians and on the opponents of those not favored.
But neocons' most astonishing success over the past year may have been how they have pulled liberals
and even some progressives into the neocon strategies for war and more war, largely by exploiting
the Left's disgust with President Trump
People who would normally favor international cooperation toward peaceful resolution of conflicts
have joined the neocons in ratcheting up global tensions and making progress toward peace far more
difficult.
The provocative "Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act," which imposes sanctions
on Russia, Iran and North Korea while tying President Trump's hands in removing those penalties,
passed the Congress without a single Democrat voting no.
The only dissenting votes came from three Republican House members – Justin Amash of Michigan,
Jimmy Duncan of Tennessee, and Thomas Massie of Kentucky – and from Republican Rand Paul of Kentucky
and Independent Bernie Sanders of Vermont in the Senate.
In other words, every Democrat present for the vote adopted the neocon position of escalating
tensions with Russia and Iran. The new sanctions appear to close off hopes for a détente with Russia
and may torpedo the nuclear agreement with Iran, which would put the bomb-bomb-bomb option back on
the table just where the neocons want it.
The Putin Obstacle
As for Russia, the
neocons have viewed President Vladimir Putin as a major obstacle to their plans at least since
2013 when he helped President Obama come up with a compromise with Syria that averted a U.S. military
strike over
dubious claims that the Syrian military was responsible for a sarin gas attack outside Damascus
on Aug. 21, 2013.
Subsequent
evidence indicated that the sarin attack most likely was a provocation by Al Qaeda's Syrian affiliate
to trick the U.S. military into entering the war on Al Qaeda's side.
While you might wonder why the U.S. government would even think about taking actions that would
benefit Al Qaeda, which lured the U.S. into this Mideast quagmire in the first place by attacking
on 9/11, the answer is that Israel and the neocons – along with Saudi Arabia and other Sunni-governed
states – favored an Al Qaeda victory if that was what was needed to
shatter
the so-called "Shiite crescent," anchored in Iran and reaching through Syria to Lebanon.
Many neocons are, in effect, America's Israeli agents and – since Israel is now allied with Saudi
Arabia and the Sunni Gulf states versus Iran – the neocons exercise their media/political influence
to rationalize U.S. military strikes against Iran's regional allies, i.e., Syria's secular government
of Bashar al-Assad
For his part, Putin compounded his offense to the neocons by facilitating Obama's negotiations
with Iran that imposed strict constraints on Iran's actions toward development of a nuclear bomb
and took U.S. war against Iran off the table. The neocons, Israel and Saudi Arabia wanted the U.S.
military to lead a bombing campaign against Iran with the hope of crippling their regional adversary
and possibly even achieving "regime change" in Tehran.
Punishing Russia
It was in that time frame that NED's neocon President Carl Gershman
identified Ukraine as the "biggest prize" and an important step toward the even bigger prize
of removing Putin in Russia.
Other U.S. government neocons, including Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs
Victoria
Nuland and Sen. John McCain , delivered the Ukraine "prize" by supporting the Feb. 22, 2014 coup
that overthrew the elected government of Ukraine and unleashed anti-Russian nationalists (including
neo-Nazis) who began killing ethnic Russians in the south and east near Russia's border.
When Putin responded by allowing Crimeans to vote on secession from Ukraine and reunification
with Russia, the West – and especially the neocon-dominated mainstream media – denounced the move
as a "Russian invasion." Covertly, the Russians also helped ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine who
defied the coup regime in Kiev and faced annihilation from Ukrainian military forces, including the
neo-Nazi Azov Battalion, which literally displayed Swastikas and SS symbols. Putin's assistance to
these embattled ethnic Russian Ukrainians became "Russian aggression."
Many U.S. pundits and journalists – in the conservative, centrist and liberal media – were
swept up by the various hysterias over Syria, Iran and Russia – much as they had been a decade
earlier around the Iraq-WMD frenzy and the "responsibility to protect" (or R2P) argument for the
violent "regime change" in Libya in 2011. In all these cases, the public debate was saturated with
U.S. government and neocon propaganda, much of it false.
But it worked. For instance, the neocons and their liberal-interventionist sidekicks achieved
extraordinary success in seducing many American "peace activists" to support the "regime change"
war in Syria by sending sympathetic victims of the Syrian government on speaking tours.
Meanwhile, the major U.S. media essentially
flacked for "moderate" Syrian rebels who just happened to be fighting alongside Al Qaeda's Syrian
affiliate and sharing their powerful U.S.-supplied weapons with the jihadists, all the better to
kill Syrian soldiers trying to protect the secular government in Damascus.
Successful Propaganda
As part of this propaganda process, the
jihadists' P.R. adjunct, known as the White Helmets , phoned in anti-government atrocity stories
to eager and credulous Western journalists who didn't dare visit the Al Qaeda-controlled zones for
fear of being beheaded.
Still, whenever the White Helmets or other "activists" accused the Syrian government of some unlikely
chemical attack,
the information was treated as gospel . When United Nations investigators, who were under enormous
pressure to confirm the propaganda tales beloved in the West, uncovered evidence that one of the
alleged chlorine attacks was staged by the jihadists, the mainstream U.S. media politely looked the
other way and continued to treat the chemical-weapons stories as credible.
Historian and journalist Stephen Kinzer has
said ,
"Coverage of the Syrian war will be remembered as one of the most shameful episodes in the history
of the American press."
But all these successes in the neocons'
"perception management" operations pale when compared to what the neocons have accomplished since
Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton last November.
Fueled by the shock and disgust over the egotistical self-proclaimed pussy-grabber ascending to
the highest office in the land, many Americans looked for both an excuse for explaining the outcome
and a strategy for removing Trump as quickly as possible. The answer to both concerns became: blame
Russia.
The evidence that Russia had "hacked our democracy" was very thin – some private outfit called
Crowdstrike found Cyrillic lettering and a reference to the founder of the Soviet KGB in some of
the metadata – but that "incriminating evidence"
contradicted Crowdstrike's own notion of a crack Russian hacking operation that was almost impossible
to trace.
So, even though the FBI failed to secure the Democratic National Committee's computers so the
government could do its own forensic analysis, President Obama assigned his intelligence chiefs,
CIA Director John Brennan and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper , to come up with an
assessment that could be used to blame Trump's victory on "Russian meddling." Obama, of course, shared
the revulsion over Trump's victory, since the real-estate mogul/reality-TV star had famously launched
his own political career by spreading the lie that Obama was born in Kenya.
'Hand-Picked' Analysts
According to Clapper's later congressional testimony, the analysts for this job were "hand-picked"
from the CIA, FBI and National Security Agency and assigned to produce an "assessment" before Obama
left office. Their
Jan. 6 report was remarkable in its lack of evidence and the analysts themselves admitted that
it fell far short of establishing anything as fact. It amounted to a continuation of the "trust us"
approach that had dominated the anti-Russia themes for years.
Much of the thin report focused on complaints about Russia's RT network for covering the Occupy
Wall Street protests and sponsoring a 2012 debate for third-party presidential candidates who had
been excluded from the Democratic-Republican debates between President Obama and former Gov. Mitt
Romney
The absurdity of citing such examples in which RT contributed to the public debate in America
as proof of Russia attacking American democracy should have been apparent to everyone, but the Russia-gate
stampede had begun and so instead of ridiculing the Jan. 6 report as an insult to reason, its shaky
Russia-did-it conclusions were embraced as unassailable Truth, buttressed by
the false claim that the assessment represented the consensus view of all 17 U.S. intelligence
agencies.
So, for instance, we get the internal contradictions of a Friday
column by Washington Post columnist David Ignatius who starts off by making a legitimate point
about Washington groupthink.
"When all right-thinking people in the nation's capital seem to agree on something – as has been
the case recently with legislation imposing new sanctions on Russia – that may be a warning that
the debate has veered into an unthinking herd mentality," Ignatius wrote as he questioned the wisdom
of overusing sanctions and tying the President's hands on when to remove sanctions.
Lost Logic
But Ignatius failed to follow his own logic when it came to the core groupthink about Russia "meddling"
in the U.S. election. Despite the thinness of the evidence, the certainty about Russia's guilt is
now shared by "all right-thinking people" in Washington, who agree that this point is beyond dispute
despite the denials from both WikiLeaks, which published the purloined Democratic emails, and the
Russian government.
Ignatius seemed nervous that his mild deviation from the conventional wisdom about the sanctions
bill might risk his standing with the Establishment, so he added:
"Don't misunderstand me. In questioning congressional review of sanctions, I'm not excusing
Trump's behavior. His non-response to Russia's well-documented meddling in the 2016 presidential
election has been outrageous."
However, as usual for the U.S. mainstream media, Ignatius doesn't cite any of those documents.
Presumably, he's referring to the Jan. 6 assessment, which itself contained no real evidence to support
its opinion that Russia hacked into Democratic emails and gave them to WikiLeaks for distribution.
Just because a lot of Important People keep repeating the same allegation doesn't make the allegation
true or "well-documented." And skepticism should be raised even higher when there is a clear political
motive for pushing a falsehood as truth, as we should have learned from President George W. Bush
's Iraq-WMD fallacies and from President Barack Obama's wild exaggerations about the need to intervene
in Libya to prevent a massacre of civilians.
But Washington neocons always start with a leg up because of their easy access to the editorial
pages of The New York Times and Washington Post as well as their speed-dial relationships with producers
at CNN and other cable outlets.
Yet, the neocons have achieved perhaps their greatest success by merging Cold War Russo-phobia
with the Trump Derangement Syndrome to enlist liberals and even progressives into the neocon drive
for more "regime change" wars.
There can be no doubt that the escalation of sanctions against Russia and Iran will have the effect
of escalating geopolitical tensions with those two important countries and making war, even nuclear
war, more likely.
In Iran, hardliners are already telling President Hassan Rouhani , "We told you so" that the U.S.
government can't be trusted in its promise to remove – not increase – sanctions in compliance with
the nuclear agreement.
And, Putin, who is actually one of the more pro-Western leaders in Russia, faces attacks from
his own hardliners who view him as naďve in thinking that Russia would ever be accepted by the West.
Even relative Kremlin moderates such as Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev , are citing Trump's tail-between-his-legs
signing of the sanctions bill as proof that the U.S. establishment has blocked any hope for a détente
between Washington and Moscow.
In other words, the prospects for advancing the neocon agenda of more "regime change" wars and
coups have grown – and the neocons can claim as their allies virtually the entire Democratic Party
hierarchy which is so eager to appease its angry #Resistance base that even the heightened risk of
nuclear war is being ignored.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated
Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either
in
print here or as an e-book (from
Amazon and
barnesandnoble.com ).
"... The Trump administration, the Pentagon and weapon salesmen will of course use the occasion to further their aims. ..."
"... implicating Russia, however farfetched, is always good if one wants to sell more weapons. ..."
"... One Pentagon hobby horse is the THAAD medium range missile defense systems that will now be stationed in South Korea. This even as it is incapable to defend South Korea from short range North Korean missiles. It is obviously targeted at China. ..."
"... The Reagan wannabe currently ruling in the White House may soon revive Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative , aka "Star Wars", which was first launched in 1984. SDI was the expensive but unrealistic dream of lasers in space and other such gimmicks. Within the SDI the U.S. military threw out hundreds of billions for a Global Ballistic Missile Defense which supposedly would defend the continental U.S. from any incoming intercontinental missile. The program was buried in the early 1990s. One son of Star Wars survived. It is the National Missile Defense with 40 interceptors in Alaska and California. It has never worked well and likely never will. If NMD would function as promised there would be no reason to fear any North Korean ICBMs. Missile defense is largely a fraud to transfers billions of dollars from U.S. taxpayers to various weapon producing conglomerates. ..."
"... Something is wrong with the North Korea story. According to the NY Times (Zerohedge Aug 14) the rocket engines the DPRK is using on their ICBMs come from a factory in the Ukraine. The Ukraine is a U.S. client state. It seems inconceivable that the CIA would not know to whom this factory sells its engines. ..."
The claim that the U.S. intelligence agencies are exaggeration North Korean capabilities is
likely false. But it is also reasonable.
The Trump administration, the Pentagon and weapon
salesmen will of course use the occasion to further their aims.
One missile defense marketing pundit
claimed
today that the North Korean missile engines used in the recent tests were bought
from factories in Ukraine or Russia. The usual propagandist at the New York Times
picked
up
on that to further their anti-Russian theme:
Mr. Elleman was unable to rule out the possibility that a large Russian missile enterprise,
Energomash, which has strong ties to the Ukrainian complex, had a role in the transfer of the
RD-250 engine technology to North Korea. He said leftover RD-250 engines might also be stored
in Russian warehouses.
But the engines in question are of different size and thrust than the alleged R-250 engines
and the claimed time-frame does not fit at all. The Ukrainian government
denied
any transfer of missiles or designs.
The story was debunked with in hours by two
prominent
experts
. But
implicating Russia, however farfetched, is always good if one wants to sell more
weapons.
One Pentagon hobby horse is the THAAD medium range missile defense systems that will now
be stationed in South Korea. This even as it is incapable to defend South Korea from short
range North Korean missiles. It is obviously targeted at China.
The Reagan wannabe currently ruling in the White House may soon revive Reagan's
Strategic
Defense Initiative
, aka "Star Wars", which was first launched in 1984. SDI was the
expensive but unrealistic dream of lasers in space and other such gimmicks. Within the SDI the
U.S. military threw out hundreds of billions for a Global Ballistic Missile Defense which
supposedly would defend the continental U.S. from any incoming intercontinental missile. The
program was buried in the early 1990s. One son of Star Wars survived. It is the National
Missile Defense with 40 interceptors in Alaska and California. It has never worked well and
likely never will. If NMD would function as promised there would be no reason to fear any North
Korean ICBMs. Missile defense is largely
a fraud
to transfers billions of
dollars from U.S. taxpayers to various weapon producing conglomerates.
I expect that the North Korean "threat" will soon be used to launch "SDI - The Sequel",
another attempt to militarize space with billions thrown into futuristic but useless "defense"
projects. It will soothe the Pentagon's grief over the success North Korea had despite decades
of U.S. attempts to subjugate that state.
Posted by b on August 14, 2017 at 01:51 PM |
Permalink
thanks b... regarding mcmasters words - "A regime that engages in unspeakable brutality
against its own people?" how does this get supported? what is the evidence for it? it is the
same mantra dished up regularly where ever the usa is - which is just about everywhere
militarily..
Now if this were to go viral. . . . . . which of course, it wont be allowed, because of the
implications that the worlds only superpower is what some say, or shades of the "U.S. is a
paper tiger"?
The Pentagon hasn't been able to get it right since W W 2, but it has spent $$$$ like a
drunken sailor.
The truly sad fact, is that arms merchants have only one loyalty, that's to its own bottom
line. Watching the actions since Trump got elected, reminds one of watching the scrum
alongside a fishing boat when they throw buckets of chopped fish in the water, to attract
sharks to the surface. It seems his administration may end up being named Murphy instead, as
in Murphy's law fame.
Something is wrong with the North Korea story. According to the NY Times (Zerohedge Aug
14) the rocket engines the DPRK is using on their ICBMs come from a factory in the Ukraine.
The Ukraine is a U.S. client state. It seems inconceivable that the CIA would not know to
whom this factory sells its engines.
Is the U.S. trying to use the DPRK like it has tried to use ISIS in Syria - to create an
existential threat to justify a military intervention, and in the end to create another
client state to use as a base to project power, only this time in East Asia?
Maybe this is why China warned the U.S. against regime change with respect to the DPRK
(Zerohedge August 11).
@4 Upper case DH asks....."Is the U.S. trying to use the DPRK like it has tried to use ISIS
in Syria..."
I think you give the US too much credit. They have been outsmarted in Syria and they are
being outsmarted in East Asia. It's that lateral thinking thing again.
McMaster is pure bluster. Soon he will receive some high priority emails from Wal-Mart,
Dollar Tree, Apple, Samsung, Canon and other masters et al.
You know those daily essentials and critical components that are made in China, South
Korea, Japan, Vietnam, Cambodia. Empty shelves and assembly lines.
Global supply chain disrupted as the entire region is declared a War Zone with maritime
insurance suspended. Who will insure the cargo vessels transporting
daily essentials
to the ROTW?
Sick of the USA war mongering.
Kim is having a good laugh watching Act 1 of The civil war in America, 2017.
Kim is most directly threatened by the annual spring and fall joint US-South Korean military
exercises held annually (and have been for decades). The largest by far is the fall exercise,
this year's is starting next Monday: Ulchi-Freedom Guardian 2017. Several other NATO
countries and pals are involved as well. It usually runs for just under two weeks.
The exercise is a simulation of a US-ROK war with the DPRK. It's more of a command and
control exercise rather than mass troop/armor movements. Various details have been pieced
together over the years or described by various military sources. In recent years, the goal
is not to simply repel a North Korean attack, but respond by invading North Korea,
overthrowing Kim and the DPRK government and securing the country as part of South Korea.
THAT's the part that set Kim off a few years ago, and he's been pissed about it more and
more every year. The US is delighted with that fact and is unlikely to just stop holding the
exercise because it's provocative. McMaster's recent comments about a 'preventative war'
didn't do much to calm Kim down.
Both North and South go on heightened military alert - I image about now - just in case
the other one flinches. But the US military has gone overboard the last few days to assure
the world that it is not gearing up for a war in North Korea. The White House a one point
suggested the USS Carl Vinson aircraft carrier was heading to Korea, but that wasn't the
case. The USS Ronald Reagan aircraft carrier is sitting in its home port in Yokosuka, Japan.
Strategic bombers, currently B-1Bs, have been stationed on Guam for years as a show of
support for regional allies.
In any kind of US war with North Korea, they have to have started it (Pearl Harbor) or
appear to have started it (Gulf of Tonkin). OPLAN 5027 takes care of it after that.
Any unprovoked war against North Korea would thereby escalate into a war with China and no
one is seriously interested in that adventure.
Well, John Bolton certainly would advocate for it. I don't know about McMaster.
He is a known Zionist (as is Mattis), so his judgement may not be too good. He is quite
alarming on the subject of Iran. I'm old enough to remember both Douglas MacArthur and Curtis
LeMay. People like them but dumber seem to be in decision-making positions in this
administration (and earlier).
US politicians seem to like phrases like "unspeakable brutality" when talking about a
targeted leader or country, yet the US has committed much brutality against the citizens of
target countries that it does not speak about.
"... Catherine Austin Fitts just published documentation of Department of Defense (DOD) official audit reports from 1998 that acknowledge "losing track" of $6.5 trillion, along with Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) admission of "losing" over $100 billion. This is euphemistically termed "unaccounted," and literally means that DOD agrees they received these funds, agrees the funds are gone, and then claims to not have records of where the money went. ..."
Catherine Austin Fitts just
published documentation of Department of Defense (DOD) official audit reports from 1998 that
acknowledge "losing track" of $6.5 trillion, along with Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) admission of "losing" over $100 billion. This is euphemistically termed "unaccounted," and
literally means that DOD agrees they received these funds, agrees the funds are gone, and then claims
to not have records of where the money went.
This is the work of Dr. Mark Skidmore and graduate students; Dr. Skidmore is the Director of the
North Central Regional Center for Rural Development
at Michigan State University and Professor and Morris Chair in State and Local Gov't Finance and
Policy. Catherine was managing
director and member of the board of directors of the Wall Street investment bank Dillon, Read & Co.
Inc., Assistant Secretary of Housing and Federal Housing Commissioner for HUD in the first Bush Administration,
and president of Hamilton Securities Group, Inc. She has designed and closed over $25 billion of
transactions and investments to-date, and has led investment strategy for $300 billion of financial
assets and liabilities.
I wrote last year upon publication of DOD's report. Of course, such "official" looting never
happens with lawful accounting because records always show where the money goes. This would be like
your bank agreeing they received a $65,000 deposit from you, agreeing the money was gone, and not
refunding your account while claiming no further information of this "unaccountable," "lost," and
"missing" money.
The most common historical explanation of governments "losing" money is, of course, embezzlement
to enrich an oligarchy.
$6.5 trillion means how much now?
~$65,000 per US average household, based upon ~$50,000 annual income. This means if your household's
annual income is ~$100,000, your family was looted ~$130,000.
Embezzling a billion dollars from a US military project 6,500 times.
Embezzling a billion dollars of our tax money every day for 18 years (that's $10 from every
US household everyday).
"... The Trump administration, the Pentagon and weapon salesmen will of course use the occasion to further their aims. ..."
"... implicating Russia, however farfetched, is always good if one wants to sell more weapons. ..."
"... One Pentagon hobby horse is the THAAD medium range missile defense systems that will now be stationed in South Korea. This even as it is incapable to defend South Korea from short range North Korean missiles. It is obviously targeted at China. ..."
"... The Reagan wannabe currently ruling in the White House may soon revive Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative , aka "Star Wars", which was first launched in 1984. SDI was the expensive but unrealistic dream of lasers in space and other such gimmicks. Within the SDI the U.S. military threw out hundreds of billions for a Global Ballistic Missile Defense which supposedly would defend the continental U.S. from any incoming intercontinental missile. The program was buried in the early 1990s. One son of Star Wars survived. It is the National Missile Defense with 40 interceptors in Alaska and California. It has never worked well and likely never will. If NMD would function as promised there would be no reason to fear any North Korean ICBMs. Missile defense is largely a fraud to transfers billions of dollars from U.S. taxpayers to various weapon producing conglomerates. ..."
"... Something is wrong with the North Korea story. According to the NY Times (Zerohedge Aug 14) the rocket engines the DPRK is using on their ICBMs come from a factory in the Ukraine. The Ukraine is a U.S. client state. It seems inconceivable that the CIA would not know to whom this factory sells its engines. ..."
The claim that the U.S. intelligence agencies are exaggeration North Korean capabilities is
likely false. But it is also reasonable.
The Trump administration, the Pentagon and weapon
salesmen will of course use the occasion to further their aims.
One missile defense marketing pundit
claimed
today that the North Korean missile engines used in the recent tests were bought
from factories in Ukraine or Russia. The usual propagandist at the New York Times
picked
up
on that to further their anti-Russian theme:
Mr. Elleman was unable to rule out the possibility that a large Russian missile enterprise,
Energomash, which has strong ties to the Ukrainian complex, had a role in the transfer of the
RD-250 engine technology to North Korea. He said leftover RD-250 engines might also be stored
in Russian warehouses.
But the engines in question are of different size and thrust than the alleged R-250 engines
and the claimed time-frame does not fit at all. The Ukrainian government
denied
any transfer of missiles or designs.
The story was debunked with in hours by two
prominent
experts
. But
implicating Russia, however farfetched, is always good if one wants to sell more
weapons.
One Pentagon hobby horse is the THAAD medium range missile defense systems that will now
be stationed in South Korea. This even as it is incapable to defend South Korea from short
range North Korean missiles. It is obviously targeted at China.
The Reagan wannabe currently ruling in the White House may soon revive Reagan's
Strategic
Defense Initiative
, aka "Star Wars", which was first launched in 1984. SDI was the
expensive but unrealistic dream of lasers in space and other such gimmicks. Within the SDI the
U.S. military threw out hundreds of billions for a Global Ballistic Missile Defense which
supposedly would defend the continental U.S. from any incoming intercontinental missile. The
program was buried in the early 1990s. One son of Star Wars survived. It is the National
Missile Defense with 40 interceptors in Alaska and California. It has never worked well and
likely never will. If NMD would function as promised there would be no reason to fear any North
Korean ICBMs. Missile defense is largely
a fraud
to transfers billions of
dollars from U.S. taxpayers to various weapon producing conglomerates.
I expect that the North Korean "threat" will soon be used to launch "SDI - The Sequel",
another attempt to militarize space with billions thrown into futuristic but useless "defense"
projects. It will soothe the Pentagon's grief over the success North Korea had despite decades
of U.S. attempts to subjugate that state.
Posted by b on August 14, 2017 at 01:51 PM |
Permalink
thanks b... regarding mcmasters words - "A regime that engages in unspeakable brutality
against its own people?" how does this get supported? what is the evidence for it? it is the
same mantra dished up regularly where ever the usa is - which is just about everywhere
militarily..
Now if this were to go viral. . . . . . which of course, it wont be allowed, because of the
implications that the worlds only superpower is what some say, or shades of the "U.S. is a
paper tiger"?
The Pentagon hasn't been able to get it right since W W 2, but it has spent $$$$ like a
drunken sailor.
The truly sad fact, is that arms merchants have only one loyalty, that's to its own bottom
line. Watching the actions since Trump got elected, reminds one of watching the scrum
alongside a fishing boat when they throw buckets of chopped fish in the water, to attract
sharks to the surface. It seems his administration may end up being named Murphy instead, as
in Murphy's law fame.
Something is wrong with the North Korea story. According to the NY Times (Zerohedge Aug
14) the rocket engines the DPRK is using on their ICBMs come from a factory in the Ukraine.
The Ukraine is a U.S. client state. It seems inconceivable that the CIA would not know to
whom this factory sells its engines.
Is the U.S. trying to use the DPRK like it has tried to use ISIS in Syria - to create an
existential threat to justify a military intervention, and in the end to create another
client state to use as a base to project power, only this time in East Asia?
Maybe this is why China warned the U.S. against regime change with respect to the DPRK
(Zerohedge August 11).
@4 Upper case DH asks....."Is the U.S. trying to use the DPRK like it has tried to use ISIS
in Syria..."
I think you give the US too much credit. They have been outsmarted in Syria and they are
being outsmarted in East Asia. It's that lateral thinking thing again.
McMaster is pure bluster. Soon he will receive some high priority emails from Wal-Mart,
Dollar Tree, Apple, Samsung, Canon and other masters et al.
You know those daily essentials and critical components that are made in China, South
Korea, Japan, Vietnam, Cambodia. Empty shelves and assembly lines.
Global supply chain disrupted as the entire region is declared a War Zone with maritime
insurance suspended. Who will insure the cargo vessels transporting
daily essentials
to the ROTW?
Sick of the USA war mongering.
Kim is having a good laugh watching Act 1 of The civil war in America, 2017.
Kim is most directly threatened by the annual spring and fall joint US-South Korean military
exercises held annually (and have been for decades). The largest by far is the fall exercise,
this year's is starting next Monday: Ulchi-Freedom Guardian 2017. Several other NATO
countries and pals are involved as well. It usually runs for just under two weeks.
The exercise is a simulation of a US-ROK war with the DPRK. It's more of a command and
control exercise rather than mass troop/armor movements. Various details have been pieced
together over the years or described by various military sources. In recent years, the goal
is not to simply repel a North Korean attack, but respond by invading North Korea,
overthrowing Kim and the DPRK government and securing the country as part of South Korea.
THAT's the part that set Kim off a few years ago, and he's been pissed about it more and
more every year. The US is delighted with that fact and is unlikely to just stop holding the
exercise because it's provocative. McMaster's recent comments about a 'preventative war'
didn't do much to calm Kim down.
Both North and South go on heightened military alert - I image about now - just in case
the other one flinches. But the US military has gone overboard the last few days to assure
the world that it is not gearing up for a war in North Korea. The White House a one point
suggested the USS Carl Vinson aircraft carrier was heading to Korea, but that wasn't the
case. The USS Ronald Reagan aircraft carrier is sitting in its home port in Yokosuka, Japan.
Strategic bombers, currently B-1Bs, have been stationed on Guam for years as a show of
support for regional allies.
In any kind of US war with North Korea, they have to have started it (Pearl Harbor) or
appear to have started it (Gulf of Tonkin). OPLAN 5027 takes care of it after that.
Any unprovoked war against North Korea would thereby escalate into a war with China and no
one is seriously interested in that adventure.
Well, John Bolton certainly would advocate for it. I don't know about McMaster.
He is a known Zionist (as is Mattis), so his judgement may not be too good. He is quite
alarming on the subject of Iran. I'm old enough to remember both Douglas MacArthur and Curtis
LeMay. People like them but dumber seem to be in decision-making positions in this
administration (and earlier).
US politicians seem to like phrases like "unspeakable brutality" when talking about a
targeted leader or country, yet the US has committed much brutality against the citizens of
target countries that it does not speak about.
"... Catherine Austin Fitts just published documentation of Department of Defense (DOD) official audit reports from 1998 that acknowledge "losing track" of $6.5 trillion, along with Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) admission of "losing" over $100 billion. This is euphemistically termed "unaccounted," and literally means that DOD agrees they received these funds, agrees the funds are gone, and then claims to not have records of where the money went. ..."
Catherine Austin Fitts just
published documentation of Department of Defense (DOD) official audit reports from 1998 that
acknowledge "losing track" of $6.5 trillion, along with Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) admission of "losing" over $100 billion. This is euphemistically termed "unaccounted," and
literally means that DOD agrees they received these funds, agrees the funds are gone, and then claims
to not have records of where the money went.
This is the work of Dr. Mark Skidmore and graduate students; Dr. Skidmore is the Director of the
North Central Regional Center for Rural Development
at Michigan State University and Professor and Morris Chair in State and Local Gov't Finance and
Policy. Catherine was managing
director and member of the board of directors of the Wall Street investment bank Dillon, Read & Co.
Inc., Assistant Secretary of Housing and Federal Housing Commissioner for HUD in the first Bush Administration,
and president of Hamilton Securities Group, Inc. She has designed and closed over $25 billion of
transactions and investments to-date, and has led investment strategy for $300 billion of financial
assets and liabilities.
I wrote last year upon publication of DOD's report. Of course, such "official" looting never
happens with lawful accounting because records always show where the money goes. This would be like
your bank agreeing they received a $65,000 deposit from you, agreeing the money was gone, and not
refunding your account while claiming no further information of this "unaccountable," "lost," and
"missing" money.
The most common historical explanation of governments "losing" money is, of course, embezzlement
to enrich an oligarchy.
$6.5 trillion means how much now?
~$65,000 per US average household, based upon ~$50,000 annual income. This means if your household's
annual income is ~$100,000, your family was looted ~$130,000.
Embezzling a billion dollars from a US military project 6,500 times.
Embezzling a billion dollars of our tax money every day for 18 years (that's $10 from every
US household everyday).
There's nothing wrong with a policy which says sovereign decisions are a matter for the country's
people to decide but to offer a helping hand to encourage 'good behaviours' which are likely to
result in a minimum of disruption and possibly danger to a nation's neighbours. And here is where
the slippery slope comes in. Devotees of American exceptionalism argue – often with good conscience
– that this is all Washington is doing; trying to help ease the transition to a market economy,
or whatever, pick your meme. It is difficult to prove that the aim is really to make a transition
to corporate governance and enable exploitation for wealthy American conglomerates, and a lot
of people on both sides get to throw the 'conspiracy theorist' term around.
"... Writing in the Financial Times , former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers said that London's AIIB decision and its aftermath "may be remembered as the moment the United States lost its role as the underwriter of the global economic system." ..."
"... Summers was both right and wrong. The U.S. role as the hegemonic power in international politics and economics indeed is being challenged. But this did not start when Britain and the others decided to sign-up with the AIIB. America has been slowly, almost imperceptibly, losing its grip on global leadership for some time, and the Great Recession merely accelerated that process. China's successful launch of the AIIB and its OBOR offspring merely accentuates that process. ..."
"... While President Trump lacks any serious, coherent worldview, there are more than enough Republican members of the foreign policy establishment to ensure that he doesn't break with America's post-1945, bipartisan policy of primacy. And Trump's slogan "Make America Great Again'' certainly puts him in the camp of U.S. global dominance. ..."
"... But Paul Kennedy was correct when he noted in The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers that in the history of the modern international system (since around 1500) no state has managed to remain permanently atop the great power pyramid. "American exceptionalism" notwithstanding, the United States will not be an exception. ..."
"... Pax Americana was the product of a unique post-World War II constellation of power. As scholars such as Kennedy and Gilpin have pointed out, when World War II ended the United States accounted for half of the world's manufacturing output and controlled some two-thirds of the world's gold and foreign exchange. Only America could project air and naval power globally. ..."
"... the United States kept the Soviet Union at bay until that artificial regime collapsed of its own weight. ..."
"... today China's AIIB presents a double-barreled challenge to U.S. leadership of the global economy as well as to Pax Americana's institutional (and ideational) foundations. The AIIB aims at enhancing China's role both in managing the international economy and in international development. With AIIB China means to demonstrate its seriousness in demanding a share of decision-making power in the Bretton Woods legacy institutions, the IMF and World Bank, reflecting its current economic and financial clout. The AIIB's impact, however, transcends international economic affairs and reflects the shifting Sino-American balance of power. ..."
"... because of the AIIB, America's "international credibility and influence are being threatened." ..."
"... For their part, the Chinese regarded the U.S. stance as an attempt to counter China's rise and its ambition to become the dominant power in East Asia. As China's former Vice Minister of Finance, Wei Jianguo, put it, "You could think of this as a basketball game in which the U.S. wants to set the duration of the game, size of the court, the height of the basket and everything else to suit itself. In fact, the U.S. just wants to exclude China from the game." ..."
"... China's rise within the post-1945 international order doesn't mean it has any interest in preserving Pax Americana's core. On the contrary, the evidence suggests China wants to reshape the international order to reflect its own interests, norms, and values. As Martin Jacques puts it: ..."
"... The main plan of American soft power is democracy within nation-states; China by way of contrast emphasizes democracy between nation-states!most notably in respect for sovereignty!and democracy in the world system. China's criticism of the Western-dominated international system and its governing institutions strikes a strong chord with the developing world at a time when these institutions are widely recognized to be unrepresentative and seriously flawed. ..."
"... Rules and institutions do not exist in a vacuum. Rather, they reflect the distribution of power in the international system. In global politics, the rules are made by those who rule. ..."
"... As E. H. Carr, the renowned English historian of international politics, once observed, a rules-based international order "cannot be understood independently of the political foundation on which it rests and the political interests which it serves." The post-World War II international order is an American order that, while preserving world stability for a long time, primarily privileged U.S. and Western interests. ..."
"... But Beijing, by all the evidence, does not see it that way. And OBOR and the AIIB prove the point. Instead of living within the geopolitical, economic, and institutional confines imposed by Pax Americana, an increasingly powerful China will seek to revise the international order so that it reflects its own political and economic interests. Thus are OBOR and the AIIB straws in the wind. And, as the great Bob Dylan said, you don't need to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing. ..."
"... Paradoxically the acceleration in the decline began with the disintegration of the Soviet Union. Incredible hubris followed, and we are reaping the usual results. ..."
No state stays on top of the great power pyramid forever.
August 8, 2017 In mid-May, leaders of 29 nations, and representatives from some 80 others, descended
on Beijing to discuss China's ambitious "One Belt One Road" (OBOR) development initiative!also known
to some as the "New Silk Road." This plan is the follow-on to China's creation several years ago
of the Asia Infrastructure Development Bank (AIIB), a major new international financial institution
to foster economic development in "emerging market" nations.
OBOR, a signature policy of Chinese president Xi Jinping, calls for investing massive amounts
of money ($1 trillion, according to some reports) to promote trade and economic development by constructing
transportation links that will tie together East Asian manufacturing hubs with Southeast Asia, Central
Asia, Africa, and Southwest Asia. These new transportation routes also will connect China with the
participating nations and Europe. China's aim is twofold: to create new markets for the goods and
services it produces, and to extend its geopolitical influence. Some analysts see OBOR as a Chinese
version of the Marshall Plan, the important post-World War II American initiative that helped rebuild
Western Europe and laid the foundation for European economic unity that ultimately culminated in
the European Union.
With OBOR, China is following the example of Great Britain and the United States (as well as pre-World
War I European great powers such as Germany). In the 19th century, the expansion of the British empire,
including what scholars Ronald Robinson and John Gallagher describe as its "informal empire," was
driven by the perceived need to find outlets for the United Kingdom's "surplus" goods and capital!that
is, goods and capital that could not be profitably absorbed by the domestic economy. When the United
States burst onto the world stage as a great power in the late 19th century, acquiring Puerto Rico,
Hawaii, Guam, and the Philippines, it imitated Britain's pursuit of both informal and formal empire
for the same reason: the belief that America's continuing economic growth depended on exporting American
capital and goods. China today faces the problem of insufficient demand for its products and limited
prospects for profitable domestic investment. Beijing is responding to these problems pretty much
as Britain and the United States did in the latter part of the 19th century: by seeking new markets
and attractive investment opportunities abroad.
As both Britain and the United States demonstrated, economic expansion begets geopolitical expansion.
Economic clout can buy a lot of political influence. But the lines of communication linking the home
country to its overseas markets must be protected. And political stability must be maintained where
the home country is investing. For Britain and the United States, economic expansion resulted in
the inexorable expansion of their military power and diplomatic sway. We can expect OBOR to have
a similar effect on China. It is a powerful incentive for China to expand its military projection
capabilities. Beijing will be compelled to assume an increasingly active role in managing regional
security in places affected by OBOR!especially in Central Asia and Pakistan, which are plagued by
political instability and terrorism.
OBOR is a milestone on China's path to great power status and is one of several indicators of
receding American power!not just geopolitically, but also in matters involving the international
economy and international institutions. When discussing the Sino-American rivalry, attention is focused
on the military balance between the United States and China and to flashpoints between the two countries
that could spark a conflict!the South China Sea, the East China Sea, Taiwan, the Korean Peninsula.
But these more intangible economic and diplomatic developments will be no less important in shaping
relations between Washington and Beijing as in determining the fate of the world order built by the
United States following World War II!that is, Pax Americana, or what is sometimes referred to as
"the liberal rules-based international order."
Since the early 2000s there has been an ongoing conversation among scholars, policymakers, and
members of the broader American foreign policy establishment about whether U.S. power is in decline.
The question actually extends back to the 1980s, with the publication of Yale historian Paul Kennedy's
The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers and other important books on the subject by scholars
David Calleo and Robert Gilpin. The controversy surrounding decline dissipated, however, when the
Soviet Union imploded and Japan's economic bubble burst. In one fell swoop, America's primary military
and economic competitors fell off the geopolitical chessboard.
The decline issue remained dormant through the "the unipolar moment" of the 1990s but was rekindled
with China's rapid great-power emergence in the early 2000s. China's rise is the flip side of American
decline. The central geopolitical question of the early 21st century is whether Pax Americana can
survive China's rise and the resulting shift of world geopolitical and economic power from west to
east. The U.S. foreign policy establishment is allergic to the word "decline." After all, as Jon
Huntsman declared during his brief presidential run in 2012: "Decline is un-American." Perhaps so,
but that doesn't mean that it's not happening.
Though Huntsman has plenty of company on this issue in the foreign policy establishment, we would
do better to heed the advice of the great Hall of Fame pitcher Satchel Paige. "Don't look back,"
he said, "because something may be gaining on you." A glance at the rear-view mirror shows China
rapidly closing the gaps with the United States in all the dimensions of power upon which the Pax
Americana was built: military, economic, and institutional.
In the last decade, China has displaced the United States as the world's leading manufacturing
power. In 2014, according to the World Bank, China passed America as the world's largest economy
(measured by purchasing power parity). In 1980, the United States accounted for about 25 percent
of gross world product. Today it accounts for around 18 percent. Some analysts have come up with
clever arguments to discount the importance of these economic trends. They are unconvincing. But
the reality of U.S. decline is more than just a matter of numbers; it is also evident in Washington's
diminishing ability to manage the international economy and in the growing challenges to many legacy
institutions of Pax Americana.
A strain of thinking called hegemonic stability theory holds that a liberal, open international
economy requires an overarching power to manage and stabilize the system by creating a political
and security order that permits economic openness. The United States filled this role for half a
century, from 1945 until the Great Recession. The world's economic hegemon must provide public goods
that benefit the international system as a whole, including: making the rules for the international
economic order; opening its domestic market to other states' exports; supplying liquidity to the
global economy; and providing a reserve currency. Having declined to grasp the mantle of leadership
during the 1930s, Washington seized it decisively after World War II. Johns Hopkins professor Michael
Mandelbaum has argued that, following the Cold War, the United States essentially acted as a de facto
government for the international system by providing security and managing the global economy.
The Great Recession impaired the United States' ability to provide leadership for the international
economy. After all, an economic hegemon is supposed to solve global economic crises, not cause them.
But America plunged the world into economic crisis when its financial system seized up with the sub-prime
mortgage crisis. A hegemon is supposed to be the lender of last resort in the international economy,
but the United States became the borrower of first resort!the world's largest debtor. When the global
economy falters, the economic hegemon must assume responsibility for kick-starting recovery by purchasing
other nations' goods. From 1945 to the Great Recession, America's willingness to consume foreign
goods constituted the primary firewall against global economic downturns. During the Great Recession,
however, the U.S. economy proved too infirm to lead the global economy back to health.
At the April 2009 G20 meeting in London, President Barack Obama conceded that, in key respects,
the United States' days as economic hegemon were numbered because America is too deeply in debt to
continue as the world's consumer of last resort. Instead, he said, the world would have to look to
China (and other emerging market states plus Germany) to be the motors of global recovery.
Another example of how the U.S. has lost its grip on global economic leadership is its failure
to prevail over the Europeans (read: Germany) in the transatlantic "austerity versus stimulus" debate
that commenced in late 2009. Reflecting their different historical experiences, the United States
and Europe (more specifically, Germany and the European Central Bank, or ECB) adopted divergent fiscal
policies during the Great Recession. Obama administration economic policymakers were guided by the
Keynesian lessons learned from the 1930s Great Depression: to dig out of a deep economic slump, the
federal government should boost demand by pump-priming the economy through deficit spending, and
the Federal Reserve should add further stimulus through low interest rates and easy money. Obama
administration policymakers and leading American economists were haunted by the "1937 analogy"!FDR's
"recession within the Depression''!demonstrating that if stimulus is withdrawn prematurely, a nascent
recovery may be aborted.
On the other hand, Germany!the EU's economic engine!has long been haunted by the "1923 analogy":
the fear that inflation can become uncontrollable, with disastrous economic, social, and political
consequences. From the founding of post-World War II West Germany until the advent of the European
Monetary Union and eventually the Euro, Germany's central Bundesbank maintained a primary mission
of combatting inflation and preserving the Deutschmark's value. For the German government, assurance
that the new ECB would follow the Bundesbank's sound money policy was a sine qua non for Berlin's
decision to give up the Deutschmark in favor of the Euro.
This U.S.-European divide on austerity versus stimulus was apparent as early as the April 2009
London G20 summit, where the United States wanted to rebalance the international economy by inducing
the Europeans (most particularly, Germany, which, with China, was one of the two large surplus economies)
to lift the Continent out of the Great Recession by emulating Washington's use of deficit spending
to galvanize economic revival. Washington wanted Germany to export less and import more. Berlin flatly
refused. German Chancellor Angela Merkel argued that for states!especially ones already deeply in
debt!to accumulate more debt in an effort to spend themselves out of the Great Recession would only
set the stage for an even greater crisis down the road.
Washington's inability to prevail over Berlin in the stimulus vs. austerity debate highlighted
waning U.S. power in the international economy. Jack Lew, then Treasury secretary, implicitly said
as much at the October 2015 IMF-World Bank annual meeting when he stated that the United States could
not be the "sole engine" of global growth.
But America's inability to get Germany to give up austerity was not the only indicator of America's
decreasing ability to shape the international economic agenda. During the Obama administration's
first term, the United States was unable to persuade China to allow the renminbi to appreciate to
Washington's preferred level (which the United States hoped would reduce China's export surplus to
the United States while simultaneously boosting American exports to China).
U.S. economic and fiscal troubles have contributed significantly to the fraying of Pax Americana's
institutional global framework. The Great Recession spurred calls for a major overhaul of the international
institutional order as evidenced by the emergence of the G20, demands for IMF and World Bank reform,
and a push for expanded membership of the UN Security Council. The past decade or so also has seen
the creation of new international organizations and groupings such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization,
the Collective Security Treaty Organization, and BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa).
As American power wanes, a parallel or "shadow" international order is being constructed as an alternative
to Pax Americana. Perhaps the most dramatic example of his is Beijing's Asian Infrastructure Investment
Bank.
As Beijing rolled out its AIIB plans, the Obama administration kicked into high gear diplomatically
in an attempt to squelch it. As the New York Times reported, Washington "lobbied against the
[AIIB] with unexpected determination and engaged in a vigorous campaign to persuade important allies
to shun the project." Washington's attempt to dissuade its allies from joining the AIIB failed. The
dam burst when, in an Ides of March 2015 decision, Britain announced it was going to become a member
of the AIIB ("Et Tu Britain?"). London's decision to join the AIIB set off a stampede as other states
on the fence rushed to sign up for membership. Those joining included U.S. allies such as France,
Germany, Italy, Australia, South Korea, even Israel and Taiwan. Beijing's diplomatic coup in attracting
widespread support for its AIIB initiative from long-standing U.S. allies was viewed as a direct
challenge to America's global geopolitical and economic leadership.
Writing in the Financial Times , former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers said that
London's AIIB decision and its aftermath "may be remembered as the moment the United States lost
its role as the underwriter of the global economic system."
Summers was both right and wrong. The U.S. role as the hegemonic power in international politics
and economics indeed is being challenged. But this did not start when Britain and the others decided
to sign-up with the AIIB. America has been slowly, almost imperceptibly, losing its grip on global
leadership for some time, and the Great Recession merely accelerated that process. China's successful
launch of the AIIB and its OBOR offspring merely accentuates that process.
Not surprisingly, U.S. policymakers and the wider foreign policy establishment brush off any possibility
of diminishing U.S. power. Recent books by leading foreign policy analysts (including Josef Joffe,
Robert Lieber, and Joseph S. Nye Jr.) assert that U.S. power is robust, and that the 21st century,
like the 20th, will be an "American century." Meanwhile, during the Obama administration U.S. foreign
policy officials never missed a chance to assert America's continuing role as a global hegemon (though
President Obama's own views on U.S. primacy seemed more nuanced). For example, the Obama administration's
2015 National Security Strategy, a twenty-nine page document, invoked the term "American leadership"
more than 100 times.
While President Trump lacks any serious, coherent worldview, there are more than enough Republican
members of the foreign policy establishment to ensure that he doesn't break with America's post-1945,
bipartisan policy of primacy. And Trump's slogan "Make America Great Again'' certainly puts him in
the camp of U.S. global dominance.
But Paul Kennedy was correct when he noted in The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers
that in the history of the modern international system (since around 1500) no state has managed to
remain permanently atop the great power pyramid. "American exceptionalism" notwithstanding, the United
States will not be an exception.
Pax Americana was the product of a unique post-World War II constellation of power. As scholars
such as Kennedy and Gilpin have pointed out, when World War II ended the United States accounted
for half of the world's manufacturing output and controlled some two-thirds of the world's gold and
foreign exchange. Only America could project air and naval power globally.
And, of course, the United States alone had atomic weapons. America used its commanding economic,
military, and political supremacy to lay the foundations of the post-World War II international order,
reflected in such institutions as the United Nations, NATO, the International Monetary Fund, the
World Bank, and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (which has morphed into the World Trade
Organization). Additionally, the United States kept the Soviet Union at bay until that artificial
regime collapsed of its own weight.
All this represented a remarkable achievement, ensuring relative peace and prosperity for more
than half a century. But today China's AIIB presents a double-barreled challenge to U.S. leadership
of the global economy as well as to Pax Americana's institutional (and ideational) foundations. The
AIIB aims at enhancing China's role both in managing the international economy and in international
development. With AIIB China means to demonstrate its seriousness in demanding a share of decision-making
power in the Bretton Woods legacy institutions, the IMF and World Bank, reflecting its current economic
and financial clout. The AIIB's impact, however, transcends international economic affairs and reflects
the shifting Sino-American balance of power.
Washington said it opposed AIIB because of doubts that it would adhere to the same environmental,
governance, lending, transparency, labor, and human rights standards practiced by the IMF, World
Bank, and Asian Development Bank. But Treasury's Lew was more candid when he said that, because
of the AIIB, America's "international credibility and influence are being threatened."
For their part, the Chinese regarded the U.S. stance as an attempt to counter China's rise
and its ambition to become the dominant power in East Asia. As China's former Vice Minister of Finance,
Wei Jianguo, put it, "You could think of this as a basketball game in which the U.S. wants to set
the duration of the game, size of the court, the height of the basket and everything else to suit
itself. In fact, the U.S. just wants to exclude China from the game."
The Obama administration's ballyhooed Asian pivot was based on the assumption that, although the
ASEAN nations of Asia, along with Australia and South Korea, are being pulled into China's economic
orbit, they will turn to the United States as a geopolitical counterweight. However, Beijing's ability
to get ASEAN, South Korea, and other neighboring states to jump on the AIIB bandwagon suggests this
assumption may be erroneous. The pull of Beijing's economic power may override security concerns
and draw these states into China's geopolitical orbit. The trajectory of ASEAN's trade flows is revealing.
In 1993, the United States accounted for 18 percent of ASEAN's total trade (imports and exports combined),
and China for only 2 percent. By 2013 the United States' share of ASEAN's total trade had shrunk
to 8.2 percent while China's had jumped to 14 percent. The trend lines indicate that in coming years
China's share of regional trade will continue to rise while that of the U.S. will decline.
Thus while OBOR and the AIIB don't get the same attention from U.S. grand strategists as does
China's military buildup, they are equally important in signaling the ongoing power transition between
the United States and China in East Asia. Among American security studies scholars, even those who
once firmly believed that unipolarity would last far into the future now grudgingly concede that
the era of American hegemony may be drawing to a close. They console themselves, however, with the
thought that the United States can cushion itself against future power declines and the loss of hegemony
by taking advantage of what they see as a still-open window to "lock in" Pax Americana's essential
features!its institutions, rules, and norms!so that they outlive unipolarity. As Princeton's G. John
Ikenberry puts it, the United States should act today to put in place an institutional framework
"that will safeguard our interests in future decades when we will not be a unipolar power."
Ikenberry argues that China, having risen within the post-1945 international system, has no incentive
to overturn it. His argument is superficially attractive because it posits that, even if the material
foundations of U.S. dominance wither, its institutional and ideational essence will live on. This
almost certainly is incorrect. China's rise within the post-1945 international order doesn't
mean it has any interest in preserving Pax Americana's core. On the contrary, the evidence suggests
China wants to reshape the international order to reflect its own interests, norms, and values. As
Martin Jacques puts it:
The main plan of American soft power is democracy within nation-states; China by way of
contrast emphasizes democracy between nation-states!most notably in respect for sovereignty!and
democracy in the world system. China's criticism of the Western-dominated international system
and its governing institutions strikes a strong chord with the developing world at a time when
these institutions are widely recognized to be unrepresentative and seriously flawed.
Thus the "lock-in" concept isn't likely to work because China, along with much of the developing
world, does not accept the foundations upon which the post-World War II liberal international order
rests.
For many American scholars and policy makers the notion of a "liberal, rules-based, international
order" has a talismanic quality. They believe that rules and institutions are politically neutral
and thus ipso facto beneficial for all. Many proponents of "lock-in" have constructed a geopolitically
antiseptic world, one uncontaminated by clashing national interests. In this world, great power competition
and conflict are transcended by rules, norms, and international institutions. The problem is that
this misconstrues how the world works. Great power politics is about power. Rules and institutions
do not exist in a vacuum. Rather, they reflect the distribution of power in the international system.
In global politics, the rules are made by those who rule.
As E. H. Carr, the renowned English historian of international politics, once observed, a
rules-based international order "cannot be understood independently of the political foundation on
which it rests and the political interests which it serves." The post-World War II international
order is an American order that, while preserving world stability for a long time, primarily privileged
U.S. and Western interests.
Proponents of "lock-in" are saying that China will!indeed, must!agree to be a "responsible stakeholder"
(with Washington defining the meaning of "responsibility") in an international order that it did
not construct and that exists primarily to advance the interests of the United States. In plain English,
what those who believe in "lock-in" expect is that an increasingly powerful China will continue to
accept playing second fiddle to the United States.
But Beijing, by all the evidence, does not see it that way. And OBOR and the AIIB prove the
point. Instead of living within the geopolitical, economic, and institutional confines imposed by
Pax Americana, an increasingly powerful China will seek to revise the international order so that
it reflects its own political and economic interests. Thus are OBOR and the AIIB straws in the wind.
And, as the great Bob Dylan said, you don't need to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is
blowing.
Christopher Layne is University Distinguished Professor of International Affairs, and Robert
M. Gates Chair in National Security, at Texas A&M University.
Thank you for a very interesting article. Still, I think there is a large issue not addressed:
Isn't China on the verge of a now unstoppable demographic catastrophe? How do you see that affecting
China's "rise" long term?
Professor Layne: You left out something very significantly causal re: decline of American power.
It is not mysterious or a deeply historic twist of inevitable fate.
Rather, we have spent TRILLIONS in vain military blood and treasure over the past 17 years,
with NOTHING to show for it – besides a destabilized region raining the most refugees since WW2
onto our allies, the Europeans (destabilizing THEM as well.)
This failure is not even being addressed, let alone changed. Policymakers responsible apparently
have clearance to continue this uselessness indefinitely.
A Chinese sage named Sun Tzu said it best, some 2500 years ago, in The Art of War:
" When you engage in actual fighting, if victory is long in coming, then men's weapons will
grow dull and their ardor will be damped. If you lay siege to a town, you will exhaust your strength.
3. Again, if the campaign is protracted, the resources of the State will not be equal to the
strain.
4. Now, when your weapons are dulled, your ardor damped, your strength exhausted and your treasure
spent, other chieftains will spring up to take advantage of your extremity. Then no man, however
wise, will be able to avert the consequences that must ensue.
5. Thus, though we have heard of stupid haste in war, cleverness has never been seen associated
with long delays.
6. There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare. "
No mystery here. America is proving not to be Exceptional enough to survive elite mismanagement.
No. The rest of the world is merely catching up. The wealth that the US enjoyed relative to the
rest of the world in the decades following WWII was unprecedented, and is probably not a repeatable
phenomenon. If we are declining, it is only because we fail to appreciate the multi-latereral
nature of our world, and stick our nose where it doesn't belong.
We're in decline not because of China but because of the decisions we make (or fail to make).
We devote too many resources towards wars and asset appreciation (financial bubbles) and not enough
into investing in ourselves (education and infrastructure). In the short run, the strong military
made us look strong to the world snd ourselves but we never examined whether that was the most
judicious use of our resources for the long run.
This is not anything new. Eisenhower spoke of this 50 some odd years ago.
If we are in decline and there are signs that is the case. It is by our doing. Over expanded strategic
goals and dismantling the very social structure(s) that maintains, sustains and protects longevity.
The abandonment of national identity by our leadership class. They claim in the national interests,
but upon examining their policy agendas, immigration, bailout, lobbying rules, domestic agendas
and management, there's plenty to be concerned about.
" For Britain and the United States, economic expansion resulted in the inexorable expansion of
their military power and diplomatic sway. We can expect OBOR to have a similar effect on China.
It is a powerful incentive for China to expand its military projection capabilities."
The trick here is managing the relational dynamics so that whatever mechanisms one uses in
maintaining that power don't backlash to the point of disruptive violence or using sufficient
force that such backlash doesn't occur.
The British/European model model of colonial rule was unsustainable. It might be wise to examine
Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark, maybe Germany but comparing these socialist smaller states would
be a tricky comparison.
The idea that the US would maintain its world standing has been laughable for decades. A nation
cannot excel when you have a population as narcissistic and willfully ignorant like we have now.
The economic downfall is only a symptom of the ever deepening moral failures we find ourselves
fighting over and even clinging to. I am no fan of socialism or communism, but what we have created
here in America is an out of control monster set to destroy all in its path.
"The Obama administration's ballyhooed Asian pivot was based on the assumption that, although
the ASEAN nations of Asia, along with Australia and South Korea, are being pulled into China's
economic orbit, they will turn to the United States as a geopolitical counterweight. However,
Beijing's ability to get ASEAN, South Korea, and other neighboring states to jump on the AIIB
bandwagon suggests this assumption may be erroneous. The pull of Beijing's economic power may
override security concerns and draw these states into China's geopolitical orbit."
It is in this context -- South Korea, Japan, and other south Asian nations being drawn inexorably
into China's geopolitical orbit, thus overturning US post-WW2 hegemony in the region – that current,
much-exaggerated US concerns about North Korean nuclear weapons can best be understood.
The US is using North Korea's nuclear development – undertaken by North Korea as a defensive
measure against regime change by the US – as one of a series of pretexts aimed at preserving its
ever-diminishing post-WW2 hegemony in Asia.
At some point the US will begin to withdraw the 30,000 US troops stationed in South Korea and
the 30,000 US troops stationed in Japan – and will stop conducting military exercises and shows
of force near the Chinese border – and will sit down with China, North Korea, South Korea, and
Japan and begin the long process of negotiating the gradual, peaceful US acceptance of the new
geopolitical reality in east Asia.
The lesson I took from reading Paul Kennedy was, decline is a choice.
China, India and the Middle East could have competed with early modern Europe if centralized
multi-ethnic empires (Manchu, Mughal and Ottoman Empires) hadn't stifled the energy of those civilizations.
The Spanish could have stayed on top if, beginning in 1559, Philip II, III, and IV hadn't stubbornly
clung to ethnically dissimilar European territories such as the Netherlands, and if they hadn't
wasted their nation's strength in the wars of the Counter Reformation.
Beginning with the 1670 Treaty of Dover, the French under Louis XIV and XV fell into the same
trap, wasting their strength in the service of the Counter Reformation and territorial ambitions
in the Netherlands.
The British could have stayed on top if they hadn't alienated the Americans, wasted their strength
on tropical imperialism and balance of power wars, and then surrendered their industrial lead
to Germany and America via the dogmatic embrace of free trade.
Germany might have replaced Britain as the new leading power if they had maintained the peace
with a simply foreign policy based on a strong alliance with Russia, instead of the Byzantine
complexity of Bismark's diplomacy followed by the belligerent buffoonery of Kaiser Wilhelm.
Prior to the Cold War, Americans did everything right. We grew from a tiny settlement in 1607
to a colossas possessing half (!) the world's GDP in 1947. We maintained the homogeneity, without
stifling the energy, of our people. Most of our wars were fought to obtain sparsely populated
temperate zone land for the colonization of our people – not for tropical imperialism, balance
of power, or international ideological crusades. Pragmatism, not ideology, guided our economic
policy. During the Cold War, we began sacrificing the interests of the American nation to the
newfangled ideology of "Americanism". Tentatively under Truman, and definitively beginning with
Kennedy, we undermined the homogeneity of our people with mass immigration from the whole world,
undermined our traditional morality with liberal social engineering, became the policeman of the
world intent on exporting "Americanism", and assumed an attitude of lofty contempt for our own
trade interests.
The Chinese, on the other hand, chose ascent when they purged The Gang of Four and substituted
Chinese ethno-nationalism for feverish Maoism as their guiding principle.
It is obvious that we are now in the decline phase of the life cycle of empires. See the British
general Sir John Bagot Glubb's book "The Course of Empire" and other writings.
Blue chip stocks yield to blue chopsticks! Human civilisation is a forward-moving perpetual motion
machine. It never stops and it never goes back. There is no "end of history". There is no point
at which human civilisation just stops dead in its tracks and never moves again until the sun
implodes in 10 million years and roasts us all. The world has always had its revisionists and
reactionaries who want to take their countries back to some real or imagined golden age. If we're
lucky, such people eventually disappear into Trotsky's famous "dustbin of history". If we're not
lucky, they start a war, lose it and then disappear into said dustbin, destroying their country
in the process and opening up the way for a new dominant power to emerge. Just as Britain dominated
the world by 1850 and the US by 1950, China will dominate the world by 2050. I don't really see
what disadvantage there is in that for Americans and for us in Europe, it looks very positive.
Machiavelli said that as between two tyrants, always choose the most distant. China is Europe's
distant tyrant. OBOR seems to be very much to Europe's advantage, displacing American hegemony
and undermining US hegemonists' attempts to use Putin's Russia as an instrument to keep Europe
under their control.
Being a confirmed Realist and having researched Realism what is going on today between ourselves,
the Chinese Reds, and Russia is quite understandably. Few share our Democracy model, it is too
messy.
Let's not be obtuse. This order was put in place by individuals in the USA because it was to
their economic benefit to do so. That in no way means that this order benefits all Americans or
even a majority. And to the tens of thousands of American soldiers who have died maintaining this
order it was to their great detriment.
I personally have no allegiance to "the liberal rules-based international order". If the Chinese
can do better, let them have at it.
The important question is not whether America is in decline. It is whether the American people's
living standards are in decline.
Empire is not cost effective or beneficial to the general welfare of a country. It only serves
to enrich a few, while creating domestic corruption and inequality.
The post-WW2 American empire, allegedly to contain Communism, really didn't benefit America.
And the costs have been enormous.
It did benefit bankers, defense contractors, scoundrels, and the Wall Street Washington cabal
centered on the CFR.
We wasted the post Cold War era believing there was an "End to History". Anyone with decent
understanding would have considered that trying for a unipolar moment was a huge mistake and a
world with various Great Powers was a more likely outcome.
Unipolar attempts don't work. Acknowledging the US as the greatest Great Power, among many,
is a much better idea than trying to keep the US as the sole Superpower. That isn't decline but
breaking through illusion.
The Soviet Union sustained 20 Million causalities in the Second World War while it moved its factories
east to keep them out of German hands. Contrast this with the US imperial elite who simply handed
over our industrial base to China. The result is that China's economy is growing a rate three
times that of the United States.
What goes up must come down
Spinnin' wheel got to go 'round
Talkin' 'bout your troubles it's a cryin' sin
Ride a painted pony let the spinnin' wheel spin
This thoughtful article is followed by thoughtful comments. One commenter already mentioned demographics.
Due to immigration, America is the only advanced country not facing a population implosion.
Another ace-in-the-whole is geography. We are protected by two oceans with weak friendly neighbors
on our land borders.We are blessed with rich resources. This includes rich agricultural land reachable
by navigable rivers and mineral wealth.
We have rich political and social institutions that hopefully can survive Trump.
While we are doing our best to squander these they give us a cushion.
The U.S. is in an inevitable decline. The only question is the extent of the economic sabotage
and outright wars that the Deep State will instigate to try to forestall the collapse.
Washington will not tolerate a second axis of power arising even if it is strictly economic.
Consider how American Elites used subversion to catalyze the coup in Ukraine. They will stop at
nothing to sustain U.S. hegemony in the larger global sphere.
Should China, Russia and Europe seek to integrate into a huge, contiguous Eurasian economic
marketplace independent of United States hegemonic interference, the Deep State will use all of
its military power to prevent it. (Especially ironic since death and destruction are becoming
America's primary exports.)
The current rumblings of American power projection in the South China Sea and Russian borders
are a set up for future conflicts. The United States regime deluded by arrogance and stupidity
and saturated by the cult of military exceptionalism can't say no to military coercion and war
as its primary foreign policy instrument.
With the Neocon/Neoliberal militarists now running the show, it's only going to get worse
We are in decline because the decisions we made during and after the cold war.
– we tried to buy goodwill ("allies") by using the "most favored nation" clause – outsourcing
manufacturing jobs, starting at the bottom of the sophistication scale (apparel, appliances ).
And all we have left is defense manufacturing jobs. We have no more jobs to give away to buy goodwill.
– while reducing taxes, we kept increasing defense related spending by borrowing money.
With all the senseless wars, we have a huge debt, not exactly something which gives you clout.
– we wasted brainpower on financial gimmicks which have zero contribution to economic strength.
Such gimmicks might mess up the economy – and we did this, too – for the whole world.
China took the market driven part of communist economy which was viciously stamped out by Stalin
– the New Economic Policy (NEP) – and built an economic powerhouse, with money to spend.
The decline of the United States can be directly correlated to the decline in our spiritual fervor
and the absence of the fear of God. Falling morals precipitate the fall of the nation. It's not
a question of if at this point, but when. You can argue whatever other factors you wish, but there
is a direct correlation between strength of a nation and God throughout human civilization.
Lots to chew on as they say, but a couple key points from the article. A US President represents
how the world view's we Americans. From all the so called turmoil, with both political parties
sent packing, Trump may in fact represent real America. The fantasy the left markets, of a social
democratic welfare state is a myth. Next, we have grown up on a diet of our President elect, being
Commander in Chief, of the worlds most powerful military. So I ask, did Bill Clinton or Barack
Obama seem to Americans, like a commander in chief. Bush wasn't capable of responding to 9-11,
he tried and failed. Last Commander in Chief we had in our image was Ronald Reagan. Any wonder
our enemies are making hay while the sunshines. So now we have two very very admirable foes. China
and Russia neither with western values. How we now fit is up in the air. Getting Trump impeached
or forced to resign replaced with whoever won't change millions of Americans.
I would take exception to some of these comments about inevitable decline. The word decline suggests
to some end. That is very different than retraction or change.
When one examines China, Russia, Europe, these nations have been in play as states for 1500
years. And despite periods of retraction have maintained some semblance of their origins, more
than some. Their cores remain intact as to culture and practice despite differing polities What
is key for the US is her youth. We are unable to match the strategic long term strategies as the
states mentions because we have not been around long enough to seal our core existence as a nation.
Mistaking youthful exuberance for wisdom of age is where we are. There is no mistaking that
the US can remain a major player in world events and we should. But that process need not be at
the expense of who we are are becoming or in lieu of it.
I will have to dig out my Zsun Tsu. It is easy to apply those admonitions out of their intended
context. Because so many different environmental war scenarios are addressed. For example, Asia
plays the long game. They are not thinking merely about this century, this decade, this year,
month . . . but the next century. Hence the idea of long war. Consider how long they have been
on the Continent of Africa.
They are in a sense just waiting everyone else out. Iraq, blood in the water. Afghanistan,
blood in the water. They are not the least troubled that we are embroiled in the ME.
The size of our debt is troubling and the size of how much of that debt is owned by other states
is disturbing. China, some ten years ago, indicated that they are seeking a way around the power
of the dollar.
I am fully confident that we can survive the rise of any nation on earth. I believe we are
special unique, and endowed with an energy, ingenuity, vibrancy and psyche today's world. But
we are so inundated with a kind of can't do -- must accept attitude in social polity that undermines
sense of self. and that is where I think the force of a Pres Trump is helpful, reinvigorating.
Conserving a sense of self, identity is mandatory for survival.
And while I have opposed out latest military interventions as unnecessary, if we decide to
make war -- we had better do it to the full and be done with. This is more in line with what I
think Tzun Tzu -- destabilize the opponents psychology.
Here the importation of Doaist, Hindu, and other existentialist philosophies are upending western
thought. The humanities are tearing asunder our social and psychological meaning of self. Whether
it is soulmates, no anchored truth or reality or the notion of that human sexuality is malleable
and no right no wrong save as to individual minding and social circumstance . . . the system of
concreteness is being chiseled to nothingness.
"Such gimmicks might mess up the economy – and we did this, too – for the whole world."
Actually we did something else, we embraced the world's standards – Basel I and Basel II. Which
are major contributors to our economic system. When Pres Nixon pressed to go off the gold standard
. . . huge error.
Last week one of the toughest hurdles was to avoid getting into that ambulance I knew the minute
I did, I would be entering a system bent on bending me to its will.
Before we go about making the world -- we need a clear and clean sense of self and resist change,
regardless of the pressure by friend or foe.
" The United States filled this role for half a century, from 1945 until the Great Recession.
The world's economic hegemon must provide public goods that benefit the international system as
a whole, including: making the rules for the international economic order; opening its domestic
market to other states' exports; supplying liquidity to the global economy; and providing a reserve
currency."
Uhh you are playing fast and loose here with one overarching reality -- there really was no
one else left who could do so. And that lasted a good while. As those regions recovered, we continued
to provide without ever adjusting to the their own ability to provide. Prime example, our presence
in Europe, I would be interested in the ROI of defending the Europeans even as they make war on
others or encourage conflicts they themselves ave no intention of supporting, but are more than
happy that the US do so.
Paradoxically the acceleration in the decline began with the disintegration of the Soviet
Union. Incredible hubris followed, and we are reaping the usual results.
I think just the opposite. OBOR, AIIB and the Shanghai Group show China playing precisely by the
rules of the international, rules-based liberal order set up by the Western powers generally over
the last few centuries and particularly by the USA after WWII. China actually follows the international
rules. It hasn't invaded anyone since 1979. How many wars not authorized by the UNSC, and generally
either dubious or flat out in violation of international law, has the US engaged in since that
date? China does not interfere in the internal affairs of other nations. As the article states,
China follows the rules of Westphalian sovereignty. But it also follows the rules of international
law. China does not abuse its veto power in the UNSC, the way the Western powers, particularly
the USA, does. China is not looking to impose its way of life on other countries. And its international
initiatives, including the international organizations it has created and sponsored, are all about
trade, tourism, and co operation and development, as opposed to the USA's, which are all about
domination, ever expanding "defensive" military alliances, military bases everywhere, demeaning
and degrading, not to mention hypocritical, "human rights report cards," endless "sanctions" and
"embargoes" on everyone who does not do its bidding, covering up for the sins of its aggressive,
horrible client states, particularly Israel and the KSA, handing out cookies to coupsters in the
process of overthrowing legitimate, and even democratically elected, governments, and generally
sticking its nose into the elections of other countries, and now, with Trump, threatening to upset
the apple cart when it comes to international trade and tourism and cultural exchange.
The USA is the rogue state, in regard to the very international order that it played a huge
role in establishing. The USA can't even seem to go through an Olympic Games without making a
fuss about something or another.
"Rules and institutions do not exist in a vacuum. Rather, they reflect the distribution of
power in the international system. In global politics, the rules are made by those who rule international
politics 'cannot be understood independently of the political foundation on which it rests and
the political interests which it serves.' The post-World War II international order is an American
order that, while preserving world stability for a long time, primarily privileged U.S. and Western
interests. Proponents of 'lock-in' are saying that China will!indeed, must!agree to be a 'responsible
stakeholder' (with Washington defining the meaning of 'responsibility') in an international order
that it did not construct and that exists primarily to advance the interests of the United States.
In plain English, what those who believe in 'lock-in' expect is that an increasingly powerful
China will continue to accept playing second fiddle to the United States. But Beijing, by all
the evidence, does not see it that way. And OBOR and the AIIB prove the point. Instead of living
within the geopolitical, economic, and institutional confines imposed by Pax Americana, an increasingly
powerful China will seek to revise the international order so that it reflects its own political
and economic interests. Thus are OBOR and the AIIB straws in the wind. And, as the great Bob Dylan
said, you don't need to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing."
Of course the distribution of power matters. But China is using its power within the liberal,
rules-based framework established by the West. It actually already behaves in a "responsible"
manner. It didn't invade Hong Kong or Macao, rather it made deals with the declining colonial
powers which controlled them. It doesn't invade Taiwan. Rather it uses diplomacy to slowly advance
its cause with respect to "One China." It uses its economic clout to develop trading partners,
not to try to bully them into political submission, a la the USA. It is patient with regard to
North Korea. It is patient with regard to US sabre rattling and blustering right at its borders.
It is patient and rule-abiding in just about everything. Its organization are bypassing the USA.
Not confronting it. If China eventually eclipses the USA, it will be because China has beaten
it at its own game.
Our moral decline leads to the other decline mentioned in the article. There's a statement
that says :"America is great because she is good But, she will cease to be great because she ceased
to be good" We've been in decline since the '60's and are coming to our "bottom" ( and end ) ever
more quickly
One thing not mentioned in the article is how we lost our technological lead. This in large part
due to our H1B program, which is a conveyor belt to transfer tech and organizational knowhow abroad.
Most R&D operations seem to be staffed largely by guest workers from China and India. Yes, there
is a saving on salaries, leading to profits. But in addition to the knowledge transfer, there
is the discouragement to US natives from entering tech fields.
"... As Secretary of Defense James Mattis said Sunday, such a war would be "catastrophic. A conflict in North Korea would be probably the worst kind of fighting in most people's lifetimes." ..."
"... Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, ..."
As Secretary of Defense James Mattis said Sunday, such a war would be "catastrophic. A
conflict in North Korea would be probably the worst kind of fighting in most people's
lifetimes."
When the lesson sinks in that a war on the peninsula would be a catastrophe, and a growing
arsenal of North Korean ICBMs targeted on America is intolerable, the question must arise: Why not move U.S. forces off the peninsula, let South Korean troops replace them, sell Seoul
all the modern weapons it needs, and let Seoul build its own nuclear arsenal to deter the
North?
... ... ...
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book,
Nixon's White House Wars: The
Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.
There
is an abundance of outrage in the United States about Russia's
alleged
meddling
in the 2016 presidential election. Multiple investigations are taking place, and
Moscow's conduct was a major justification for the sanctions legislation that Congress just
passed. Some furious
political
figures
and members of the media insist that the Putin government's interference constitutes an act of
war. One especially agitated House member even compared it explicitly to the
Pearl Harbor and 9/11 attacks
.
Such umbrage might be more credible if the United States refrained from engaging in similar
conduct. But the historical record shows that Washington has meddled in the political affairs
of
dozens
of countries
!including many democracies. An egregious example occurred in
Ukraine
during the Euromaidan Revolution of 2014.
Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych was not an admirable character. After his election in
2010, he used patronage and other instruments of state power in a flagrant fashion to the
advantage of his political party. That high-handed behavior and legendary corruption alienated
large portions of Ukraine's population. As the Ukrainian economy languished and fell farther
and farther behind those of Poland and other East European neighbors that had implemented
significant market-oriented reforms, public anger at Yanukovych mounted. When he rejected the
European Union's terms for an association agreement in late 2013, in favor of a Russian offer,
angry demonstrators filled Kiev's Independence Square, known as the Maidan, as well as sites in
other cities.
Despite his leadership defects and character flaws, Yanukovych had been duly elected in
balloting that international observers considered
reasonably free and fair
!about the best standard one can hope for outside the mature
Western democracies. A decent respect for democratic institutions and procedures meant that he
ought to be able to serve out his lawful term as president, which would end in 2016.
Neither the domestic opposition nor Washington and its European Union allies behaved in that
fashion. Instead, Western leaders made it clear that they supported the efforts of
demonstrators to force Yanukovych to reverse course and approve the EU agreement or, if he
would not do so, to remove the president before his term expired. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), the
ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, went to Kiev to
show solidarity
with the Euromaidan activists. McCain dined with opposition leaders,
including members of the ultra right-wing
Svoboda
Party
, and later appeared on stage in Maidan Square during a mass rally. He stood shoulder
to shoulder with Svoboda leader Oleg Tyagnibok.
But McCain's actions were a model of diplomatic restraint compared to the conduct of
Victoria Nuland, the assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian Affairs. As
Ukraine's political crisis deepened, Nuland and her subordinates became more brazen in favoring
the anti-Yanukovych demonstrators. Nuland noted in a speech to the U.S.-Ukraine Foundation on
December 13, 2013, that she had traveled to Ukraine three times in the weeks following the
start of the demonstrations. Visiting the Maidan on December 5,
she handed out cookies
to demonstrators and expressed support for their cause.
The extent of the Obama administration's meddling in Ukraine's politics was breathtaking.
Russian intelligence intercepted and leaked to the international media a Nuland
telephone call
in which she
and U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Geoffey Pyatt discussed in detail their preferences for specific
personnel in a post-Yanukovych government. The U.S-favored candidates included Arseniy
Yatsenyuk, the man who became prime minister once Yanukovych was ousted from power. During the
telephone call, Nuland stated enthusiastically that "Yats is the guy" who would do the best
job.
Nuland and Pyatt were engaged in such planning at a time when Yanukovych was still Ukraine's
lawful president. It was startling to have diplomatic representatives of a foreign country!and
a country that routinely touts the need to respect democratic processes and the sovereignty of
other nations!to be scheming about removing an elected government and replacing it with
officials meriting U.S. approval.
Washington's conduct not only constituted meddling, it
bordered on micromanagement. At one point, Pyatt mentioned the complex dynamic among the three
principal opposition leaders, Yatsenyuk, Oleh Tyahnybok, and Vitali Klitschko. Both Pyatt and
Nuland wanted to keep Tyahnybok and Klitschko out of an interim government. In the former case,
they worried about his extremist ties; in the latter, they seemed to want him to wait and make
a bid for office on a longer-term basis. Nuland stated that "I don't think Klitsch should go
into the government. I don't think it's necessary." She added that what Yatseniuk needed "is
Klitsch and Tyanhybok on the outside."
The two diplomats also were prepared to escalate the already extensive U.S. involvement in
Ukraine's
political
turbulence
. Pyatt stated bluntly that "we want to try to get somebody with an
international personality to come out here and help to midwife this thing [the political
transition]." Nuland clearly had Vice President Joe Biden in mind for that role. Noting that
the vice president's national security adviser was in direct contact with her, Nuland related
that she told him "probably tomorrow for an atta-boy and to get the details to stick. So
Biden's willing." Both the Obama administration and most of the American news media portrayed
the Euromaidan Revolution as a spontaneous, popular uprising against a corrupt and brutal
government.
A February 24, 2014,
Washington Post
editorial
celebrated the Maidan demonstrators and their successful campaign to overthrow
Yanukovych. The "moves were democratic," the
Washington Post
concluded, and "Kiev is
now controlled by pro-Western parties."
It was a grotesque distortion to portray the events in Ukraine as a purely indigenous,
popular uprising. The Nuland-Pyatt telephone conversation and other actions confirm that the
United States was considerably more than a passive observer to the turbulence. Instead, U.S.
officials were blatantly meddling in Ukraine. Such conduct was utterly improper. The United
States had no right to try to orchestrate political outcomes in another country!especially one
on the border of another great power. It is no wonder that Russia reacted badly to the
unconstitutional ouster of an elected, pro-Russian government!an ouster that occurred not only
with Washington's blessing, but apparently with its assistance.
That episode, as well as earlier ones involving Italy, France and other democratic
countries, should be kept in mind the next time U.S. political leaders or the media publicly
fume about Russia's apparent interference in America's 2016 elections. One can legitimately
condemn some aspects of Moscow's behavior, but the force of America's moral outrage is vitiated
by the stench of U.S. hypocrisy.
Ted Galen Carpenter, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and a contributing editor
at the National Interest, is the author of ten books, the contributing editor of ten books, and
the author of more than 650 articles on international affairs.
yeah, when americans do it (not JUST it but organizing an outright coup) - it's for
democracy...
but when the losing party in american elections had to explain why it had failed
used a ghost of russian hackers (instead of recognizing that their identity politics
completely alienated the majority of real good americans - white people) - it's an attack on
democracy
hey, democratic party! how 'bout letting your servers to be finally examined by fbi?
American's are GOD's chosen people...!!! it's all right there in the Bible...!!! When
America does it - it is all with HIS blessing... when others do it (particularly Russia) they
are acting in concert with Satan...!
In all seriousness... every empire acts in it's own interests. What makes America so God
awful insufferable is it's self righteousness... Surely Washington doesn't believe it's own
bulls---... or does it...??? That truly is a scary thought.
The British never tried convince anyone they were doing the Lord's work. They spared their
subjects self righteous lectures (for the most part)
A Saudi prince said it best: America is arrogance unbounded
The author fails to mention that Yanukovich even agreed to early elections in exchange for
calling off security forces in order to defuse tensions. In return, armed gangs occupied
Parliament buildings, forced him to flee the country, and organized a hasty vote to remove
him from office. Is it any wonder that the ethnic Russians got the message that their vote
didn't count anymore? We immediately recognized the new govt by denying that this was a
coup.
Ukraine would have been much more stable had their been elections instead of a coup
d'etat.
There's nothing wrong with a policy which says sovereign decisions are a matter for the country's
people to decide but to offer a helping hand to encourage 'good behaviours' which are likely to
result in a minimum of disruption and possibly danger to a nation's neighbours. And here is where
the slippery slope comes in. Devotees of American exceptionalism argue – often with good conscience
– that this is all Washington is doing; trying to help ease the transition to a market economy,
or whatever, pick your meme. It is difficult to prove that the aim is really to make a transition
to corporate governance and enable exploitation for wealthy American conglomerates, and a lot
of people on both sides get to throw the 'conspiracy theorist' term around.
"... Writing in the Financial Times , former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers said that London's AIIB decision and its aftermath "may be remembered as the moment the United States lost its role as the underwriter of the global economic system." ..."
"... Summers was both right and wrong. The U.S. role as the hegemonic power in international politics and economics indeed is being challenged. But this did not start when Britain and the others decided to sign-up with the AIIB. America has been slowly, almost imperceptibly, losing its grip on global leadership for some time, and the Great Recession merely accelerated that process. China's successful launch of the AIIB and its OBOR offspring merely accentuates that process. ..."
"... While President Trump lacks any serious, coherent worldview, there are more than enough Republican members of the foreign policy establishment to ensure that he doesn't break with America's post-1945, bipartisan policy of primacy. And Trump's slogan "Make America Great Again'' certainly puts him in the camp of U.S. global dominance. ..."
"... But Paul Kennedy was correct when he noted in The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers that in the history of the modern international system (since around 1500) no state has managed to remain permanently atop the great power pyramid. "American exceptionalism" notwithstanding, the United States will not be an exception. ..."
"... Pax Americana was the product of a unique post-World War II constellation of power. As scholars such as Kennedy and Gilpin have pointed out, when World War II ended the United States accounted for half of the world's manufacturing output and controlled some two-thirds of the world's gold and foreign exchange. Only America could project air and naval power globally. ..."
"... the United States kept the Soviet Union at bay until that artificial regime collapsed of its own weight. ..."
"... today China's AIIB presents a double-barreled challenge to U.S. leadership of the global economy as well as to Pax Americana's institutional (and ideational) foundations. The AIIB aims at enhancing China's role both in managing the international economy and in international development. With AIIB China means to demonstrate its seriousness in demanding a share of decision-making power in the Bretton Woods legacy institutions, the IMF and World Bank, reflecting its current economic and financial clout. The AIIB's impact, however, transcends international economic affairs and reflects the shifting Sino-American balance of power. ..."
"... because of the AIIB, America's "international credibility and influence are being threatened." ..."
"... For their part, the Chinese regarded the U.S. stance as an attempt to counter China's rise and its ambition to become the dominant power in East Asia. As China's former Vice Minister of Finance, Wei Jianguo, put it, "You could think of this as a basketball game in which the U.S. wants to set the duration of the game, size of the court, the height of the basket and everything else to suit itself. In fact, the U.S. just wants to exclude China from the game." ..."
"... China's rise within the post-1945 international order doesn't mean it has any interest in preserving Pax Americana's core. On the contrary, the evidence suggests China wants to reshape the international order to reflect its own interests, norms, and values. As Martin Jacques puts it: ..."
"... The main plan of American soft power is democracy within nation-states; China by way of contrast emphasizes democracy between nation-states!most notably in respect for sovereignty!and democracy in the world system. China's criticism of the Western-dominated international system and its governing institutions strikes a strong chord with the developing world at a time when these institutions are widely recognized to be unrepresentative and seriously flawed. ..."
"... Rules and institutions do not exist in a vacuum. Rather, they reflect the distribution of power in the international system. In global politics, the rules are made by those who rule. ..."
"... As E. H. Carr, the renowned English historian of international politics, once observed, a rules-based international order "cannot be understood independently of the political foundation on which it rests and the political interests which it serves." The post-World War II international order is an American order that, while preserving world stability for a long time, primarily privileged U.S. and Western interests. ..."
"... But Beijing, by all the evidence, does not see it that way. And OBOR and the AIIB prove the point. Instead of living within the geopolitical, economic, and institutional confines imposed by Pax Americana, an increasingly powerful China will seek to revise the international order so that it reflects its own political and economic interests. Thus are OBOR and the AIIB straws in the wind. And, as the great Bob Dylan said, you don't need to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing. ..."
"... Paradoxically the acceleration in the decline began with the disintegration of the Soviet Union. Incredible hubris followed, and we are reaping the usual results. ..."
No state stays on top of the great power pyramid forever.
August 8, 2017 In mid-May, leaders of 29 nations, and representatives from some 80 others, descended
on Beijing to discuss China's ambitious "One Belt One Road" (OBOR) development initiative!also known
to some as the "New Silk Road." This plan is the follow-on to China's creation several years ago
of the Asia Infrastructure Development Bank (AIIB), a major new international financial institution
to foster economic development in "emerging market" nations.
OBOR, a signature policy of Chinese president Xi Jinping, calls for investing massive amounts
of money ($1 trillion, according to some reports) to promote trade and economic development by constructing
transportation links that will tie together East Asian manufacturing hubs with Southeast Asia, Central
Asia, Africa, and Southwest Asia. These new transportation routes also will connect China with the
participating nations and Europe. China's aim is twofold: to create new markets for the goods and
services it produces, and to extend its geopolitical influence. Some analysts see OBOR as a Chinese
version of the Marshall Plan, the important post-World War II American initiative that helped rebuild
Western Europe and laid the foundation for European economic unity that ultimately culminated in
the European Union.
With OBOR, China is following the example of Great Britain and the United States (as well as pre-World
War I European great powers such as Germany). In the 19th century, the expansion of the British empire,
including what scholars Ronald Robinson and John Gallagher describe as its "informal empire," was
driven by the perceived need to find outlets for the United Kingdom's "surplus" goods and capital!that
is, goods and capital that could not be profitably absorbed by the domestic economy. When the United
States burst onto the world stage as a great power in the late 19th century, acquiring Puerto Rico,
Hawaii, Guam, and the Philippines, it imitated Britain's pursuit of both informal and formal empire
for the same reason: the belief that America's continuing economic growth depended on exporting American
capital and goods. China today faces the problem of insufficient demand for its products and limited
prospects for profitable domestic investment. Beijing is responding to these problems pretty much
as Britain and the United States did in the latter part of the 19th century: by seeking new markets
and attractive investment opportunities abroad.
As both Britain and the United States demonstrated, economic expansion begets geopolitical expansion.
Economic clout can buy a lot of political influence. But the lines of communication linking the home
country to its overseas markets must be protected. And political stability must be maintained where
the home country is investing. For Britain and the United States, economic expansion resulted in
the inexorable expansion of their military power and diplomatic sway. We can expect OBOR to have
a similar effect on China. It is a powerful incentive for China to expand its military projection
capabilities. Beijing will be compelled to assume an increasingly active role in managing regional
security in places affected by OBOR!especially in Central Asia and Pakistan, which are plagued by
political instability and terrorism.
OBOR is a milestone on China's path to great power status and is one of several indicators of
receding American power!not just geopolitically, but also in matters involving the international
economy and international institutions. When discussing the Sino-American rivalry, attention is focused
on the military balance between the United States and China and to flashpoints between the two countries
that could spark a conflict!the South China Sea, the East China Sea, Taiwan, the Korean Peninsula.
But these more intangible economic and diplomatic developments will be no less important in shaping
relations between Washington and Beijing as in determining the fate of the world order built by the
United States following World War II!that is, Pax Americana, or what is sometimes referred to as
"the liberal rules-based international order."
Since the early 2000s there has been an ongoing conversation among scholars, policymakers, and
members of the broader American foreign policy establishment about whether U.S. power is in decline.
The question actually extends back to the 1980s, with the publication of Yale historian Paul Kennedy's
The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers and other important books on the subject by scholars
David Calleo and Robert Gilpin. The controversy surrounding decline dissipated, however, when the
Soviet Union imploded and Japan's economic bubble burst. In one fell swoop, America's primary military
and economic competitors fell off the geopolitical chessboard.
The decline issue remained dormant through the "the unipolar moment" of the 1990s but was rekindled
with China's rapid great-power emergence in the early 2000s. China's rise is the flip side of American
decline. The central geopolitical question of the early 21st century is whether Pax Americana can
survive China's rise and the resulting shift of world geopolitical and economic power from west to
east. The U.S. foreign policy establishment is allergic to the word "decline." After all, as Jon
Huntsman declared during his brief presidential run in 2012: "Decline is un-American." Perhaps so,
but that doesn't mean that it's not happening.
Though Huntsman has plenty of company on this issue in the foreign policy establishment, we would
do better to heed the advice of the great Hall of Fame pitcher Satchel Paige. "Don't look back,"
he said, "because something may be gaining on you." A glance at the rear-view mirror shows China
rapidly closing the gaps with the United States in all the dimensions of power upon which the Pax
Americana was built: military, economic, and institutional.
In the last decade, China has displaced the United States as the world's leading manufacturing
power. In 2014, according to the World Bank, China passed America as the world's largest economy
(measured by purchasing power parity). In 1980, the United States accounted for about 25 percent
of gross world product. Today it accounts for around 18 percent. Some analysts have come up with
clever arguments to discount the importance of these economic trends. They are unconvincing. But
the reality of U.S. decline is more than just a matter of numbers; it is also evident in Washington's
diminishing ability to manage the international economy and in the growing challenges to many legacy
institutions of Pax Americana.
A strain of thinking called hegemonic stability theory holds that a liberal, open international
economy requires an overarching power to manage and stabilize the system by creating a political
and security order that permits economic openness. The United States filled this role for half a
century, from 1945 until the Great Recession. The world's economic hegemon must provide public goods
that benefit the international system as a whole, including: making the rules for the international
economic order; opening its domestic market to other states' exports; supplying liquidity to the
global economy; and providing a reserve currency. Having declined to grasp the mantle of leadership
during the 1930s, Washington seized it decisively after World War II. Johns Hopkins professor Michael
Mandelbaum has argued that, following the Cold War, the United States essentially acted as a de facto
government for the international system by providing security and managing the global economy.
The Great Recession impaired the United States' ability to provide leadership for the international
economy. After all, an economic hegemon is supposed to solve global economic crises, not cause them.
But America plunged the world into economic crisis when its financial system seized up with the sub-prime
mortgage crisis. A hegemon is supposed to be the lender of last resort in the international economy,
but the United States became the borrower of first resort!the world's largest debtor. When the global
economy falters, the economic hegemon must assume responsibility for kick-starting recovery by purchasing
other nations' goods. From 1945 to the Great Recession, America's willingness to consume foreign
goods constituted the primary firewall against global economic downturns. During the Great Recession,
however, the U.S. economy proved too infirm to lead the global economy back to health.
At the April 2009 G20 meeting in London, President Barack Obama conceded that, in key respects,
the United States' days as economic hegemon were numbered because America is too deeply in debt to
continue as the world's consumer of last resort. Instead, he said, the world would have to look to
China (and other emerging market states plus Germany) to be the motors of global recovery.
Another example of how the U.S. has lost its grip on global economic leadership is its failure
to prevail over the Europeans (read: Germany) in the transatlantic "austerity versus stimulus" debate
that commenced in late 2009. Reflecting their different historical experiences, the United States
and Europe (more specifically, Germany and the European Central Bank, or ECB) adopted divergent fiscal
policies during the Great Recession. Obama administration economic policymakers were guided by the
Keynesian lessons learned from the 1930s Great Depression: to dig out of a deep economic slump, the
federal government should boost demand by pump-priming the economy through deficit spending, and
the Federal Reserve should add further stimulus through low interest rates and easy money. Obama
administration policymakers and leading American economists were haunted by the "1937 analogy"!FDR's
"recession within the Depression''!demonstrating that if stimulus is withdrawn prematurely, a nascent
recovery may be aborted.
On the other hand, Germany!the EU's economic engine!has long been haunted by the "1923 analogy":
the fear that inflation can become uncontrollable, with disastrous economic, social, and political
consequences. From the founding of post-World War II West Germany until the advent of the European
Monetary Union and eventually the Euro, Germany's central Bundesbank maintained a primary mission
of combatting inflation and preserving the Deutschmark's value. For the German government, assurance
that the new ECB would follow the Bundesbank's sound money policy was a sine qua non for Berlin's
decision to give up the Deutschmark in favor of the Euro.
This U.S.-European divide on austerity versus stimulus was apparent as early as the April 2009
London G20 summit, where the United States wanted to rebalance the international economy by inducing
the Europeans (most particularly, Germany, which, with China, was one of the two large surplus economies)
to lift the Continent out of the Great Recession by emulating Washington's use of deficit spending
to galvanize economic revival. Washington wanted Germany to export less and import more. Berlin flatly
refused. German Chancellor Angela Merkel argued that for states!especially ones already deeply in
debt!to accumulate more debt in an effort to spend themselves out of the Great Recession would only
set the stage for an even greater crisis down the road.
Washington's inability to prevail over Berlin in the stimulus vs. austerity debate highlighted
waning U.S. power in the international economy. Jack Lew, then Treasury secretary, implicitly said
as much at the October 2015 IMF-World Bank annual meeting when he stated that the United States could
not be the "sole engine" of global growth.
But America's inability to get Germany to give up austerity was not the only indicator of America's
decreasing ability to shape the international economic agenda. During the Obama administration's
first term, the United States was unable to persuade China to allow the renminbi to appreciate to
Washington's preferred level (which the United States hoped would reduce China's export surplus to
the United States while simultaneously boosting American exports to China).
U.S. economic and fiscal troubles have contributed significantly to the fraying of Pax Americana's
institutional global framework. The Great Recession spurred calls for a major overhaul of the international
institutional order as evidenced by the emergence of the G20, demands for IMF and World Bank reform,
and a push for expanded membership of the UN Security Council. The past decade or so also has seen
the creation of new international organizations and groupings such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization,
the Collective Security Treaty Organization, and BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa).
As American power wanes, a parallel or "shadow" international order is being constructed as an alternative
to Pax Americana. Perhaps the most dramatic example of his is Beijing's Asian Infrastructure Investment
Bank.
As Beijing rolled out its AIIB plans, the Obama administration kicked into high gear diplomatically
in an attempt to squelch it. As the New York Times reported, Washington "lobbied against the
[AIIB] with unexpected determination and engaged in a vigorous campaign to persuade important allies
to shun the project." Washington's attempt to dissuade its allies from joining the AIIB failed. The
dam burst when, in an Ides of March 2015 decision, Britain announced it was going to become a member
of the AIIB ("Et Tu Britain?"). London's decision to join the AIIB set off a stampede as other states
on the fence rushed to sign up for membership. Those joining included U.S. allies such as France,
Germany, Italy, Australia, South Korea, even Israel and Taiwan. Beijing's diplomatic coup in attracting
widespread support for its AIIB initiative from long-standing U.S. allies was viewed as a direct
challenge to America's global geopolitical and economic leadership.
Writing in the Financial Times , former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers said that
London's AIIB decision and its aftermath "may be remembered as the moment the United States lost
its role as the underwriter of the global economic system."
Summers was both right and wrong. The U.S. role as the hegemonic power in international politics
and economics indeed is being challenged. But this did not start when Britain and the others decided
to sign-up with the AIIB. America has been slowly, almost imperceptibly, losing its grip on global
leadership for some time, and the Great Recession merely accelerated that process. China's successful
launch of the AIIB and its OBOR offspring merely accentuates that process.
Not surprisingly, U.S. policymakers and the wider foreign policy establishment brush off any possibility
of diminishing U.S. power. Recent books by leading foreign policy analysts (including Josef Joffe,
Robert Lieber, and Joseph S. Nye Jr.) assert that U.S. power is robust, and that the 21st century,
like the 20th, will be an "American century." Meanwhile, during the Obama administration U.S. foreign
policy officials never missed a chance to assert America's continuing role as a global hegemon (though
President Obama's own views on U.S. primacy seemed more nuanced). For example, the Obama administration's
2015 National Security Strategy, a twenty-nine page document, invoked the term "American leadership"
more than 100 times.
While President Trump lacks any serious, coherent worldview, there are more than enough Republican
members of the foreign policy establishment to ensure that he doesn't break with America's post-1945,
bipartisan policy of primacy. And Trump's slogan "Make America Great Again'' certainly puts him in
the camp of U.S. global dominance.
But Paul Kennedy was correct when he noted in The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers
that in the history of the modern international system (since around 1500) no state has managed to
remain permanently atop the great power pyramid. "American exceptionalism" notwithstanding, the United
States will not be an exception.
Pax Americana was the product of a unique post-World War II constellation of power. As scholars
such as Kennedy and Gilpin have pointed out, when World War II ended the United States accounted
for half of the world's manufacturing output and controlled some two-thirds of the world's gold and
foreign exchange. Only America could project air and naval power globally.
And, of course, the United States alone had atomic weapons. America used its commanding economic,
military, and political supremacy to lay the foundations of the post-World War II international order,
reflected in such institutions as the United Nations, NATO, the International Monetary Fund, the
World Bank, and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (which has morphed into the World Trade
Organization). Additionally, the United States kept the Soviet Union at bay until that artificial
regime collapsed of its own weight.
All this represented a remarkable achievement, ensuring relative peace and prosperity for more
than half a century. But today China's AIIB presents a double-barreled challenge to U.S. leadership
of the global economy as well as to Pax Americana's institutional (and ideational) foundations. The
AIIB aims at enhancing China's role both in managing the international economy and in international
development. With AIIB China means to demonstrate its seriousness in demanding a share of decision-making
power in the Bretton Woods legacy institutions, the IMF and World Bank, reflecting its current economic
and financial clout. The AIIB's impact, however, transcends international economic affairs and reflects
the shifting Sino-American balance of power.
Washington said it opposed AIIB because of doubts that it would adhere to the same environmental,
governance, lending, transparency, labor, and human rights standards practiced by the IMF, World
Bank, and Asian Development Bank. But Treasury's Lew was more candid when he said that, because
of the AIIB, America's "international credibility and influence are being threatened."
For their part, the Chinese regarded the U.S. stance as an attempt to counter China's rise
and its ambition to become the dominant power in East Asia. As China's former Vice Minister of Finance,
Wei Jianguo, put it, "You could think of this as a basketball game in which the U.S. wants to set
the duration of the game, size of the court, the height of the basket and everything else to suit
itself. In fact, the U.S. just wants to exclude China from the game."
The Obama administration's ballyhooed Asian pivot was based on the assumption that, although the
ASEAN nations of Asia, along with Australia and South Korea, are being pulled into China's economic
orbit, they will turn to the United States as a geopolitical counterweight. However, Beijing's ability
to get ASEAN, South Korea, and other neighboring states to jump on the AIIB bandwagon suggests this
assumption may be erroneous. The pull of Beijing's economic power may override security concerns
and draw these states into China's geopolitical orbit. The trajectory of ASEAN's trade flows is revealing.
In 1993, the United States accounted for 18 percent of ASEAN's total trade (imports and exports combined),
and China for only 2 percent. By 2013 the United States' share of ASEAN's total trade had shrunk
to 8.2 percent while China's had jumped to 14 percent. The trend lines indicate that in coming years
China's share of regional trade will continue to rise while that of the U.S. will decline.
Thus while OBOR and the AIIB don't get the same attention from U.S. grand strategists as does
China's military buildup, they are equally important in signaling the ongoing power transition between
the United States and China in East Asia. Among American security studies scholars, even those who
once firmly believed that unipolarity would last far into the future now grudgingly concede that
the era of American hegemony may be drawing to a close. They console themselves, however, with the
thought that the United States can cushion itself against future power declines and the loss of hegemony
by taking advantage of what they see as a still-open window to "lock in" Pax Americana's essential
features!its institutions, rules, and norms!so that they outlive unipolarity. As Princeton's G. John
Ikenberry puts it, the United States should act today to put in place an institutional framework
"that will safeguard our interests in future decades when we will not be a unipolar power."
Ikenberry argues that China, having risen within the post-1945 international system, has no incentive
to overturn it. His argument is superficially attractive because it posits that, even if the material
foundations of U.S. dominance wither, its institutional and ideational essence will live on. This
almost certainly is incorrect. China's rise within the post-1945 international order doesn't
mean it has any interest in preserving Pax Americana's core. On the contrary, the evidence suggests
China wants to reshape the international order to reflect its own interests, norms, and values. As
Martin Jacques puts it:
The main plan of American soft power is democracy within nation-states; China by way of
contrast emphasizes democracy between nation-states!most notably in respect for sovereignty!and
democracy in the world system. China's criticism of the Western-dominated international system
and its governing institutions strikes a strong chord with the developing world at a time when
these institutions are widely recognized to be unrepresentative and seriously flawed.
Thus the "lock-in" concept isn't likely to work because China, along with much of the developing
world, does not accept the foundations upon which the post-World War II liberal international order
rests.
For many American scholars and policy makers the notion of a "liberal, rules-based, international
order" has a talismanic quality. They believe that rules and institutions are politically neutral
and thus ipso facto beneficial for all. Many proponents of "lock-in" have constructed a geopolitically
antiseptic world, one uncontaminated by clashing national interests. In this world, great power competition
and conflict are transcended by rules, norms, and international institutions. The problem is that
this misconstrues how the world works. Great power politics is about power. Rules and institutions
do not exist in a vacuum. Rather, they reflect the distribution of power in the international system.
In global politics, the rules are made by those who rule.
As E. H. Carr, the renowned English historian of international politics, once observed, a
rules-based international order "cannot be understood independently of the political foundation on
which it rests and the political interests which it serves." The post-World War II international
order is an American order that, while preserving world stability for a long time, primarily privileged
U.S. and Western interests.
Proponents of "lock-in" are saying that China will!indeed, must!agree to be a "responsible stakeholder"
(with Washington defining the meaning of "responsibility") in an international order that it did
not construct and that exists primarily to advance the interests of the United States. In plain English,
what those who believe in "lock-in" expect is that an increasingly powerful China will continue to
accept playing second fiddle to the United States.
But Beijing, by all the evidence, does not see it that way. And OBOR and the AIIB prove the
point. Instead of living within the geopolitical, economic, and institutional confines imposed by
Pax Americana, an increasingly powerful China will seek to revise the international order so that
it reflects its own political and economic interests. Thus are OBOR and the AIIB straws in the wind.
And, as the great Bob Dylan said, you don't need to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is
blowing.
Christopher Layne is University Distinguished Professor of International Affairs, and Robert
M. Gates Chair in National Security, at Texas A&M University.
Thank you for a very interesting article. Still, I think there is a large issue not addressed:
Isn't China on the verge of a now unstoppable demographic catastrophe? How do you see that affecting
China's "rise" long term?
Professor Layne: You left out something very significantly causal re: decline of American power.
It is not mysterious or a deeply historic twist of inevitable fate.
Rather, we have spent TRILLIONS in vain military blood and treasure over the past 17 years,
with NOTHING to show for it – besides a destabilized region raining the most refugees since WW2
onto our allies, the Europeans (destabilizing THEM as well.)
This failure is not even being addressed, let alone changed. Policymakers responsible apparently
have clearance to continue this uselessness indefinitely.
A Chinese sage named Sun Tzu said it best, some 2500 years ago, in The Art of War:
" When you engage in actual fighting, if victory is long in coming, then men's weapons will
grow dull and their ardor will be damped. If you lay siege to a town, you will exhaust your strength.
3. Again, if the campaign is protracted, the resources of the State will not be equal to the
strain.
4. Now, when your weapons are dulled, your ardor damped, your strength exhausted and your treasure
spent, other chieftains will spring up to take advantage of your extremity. Then no man, however
wise, will be able to avert the consequences that must ensue.
5. Thus, though we have heard of stupid haste in war, cleverness has never been seen associated
with long delays.
6. There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare. "
No mystery here. America is proving not to be Exceptional enough to survive elite mismanagement.
No. The rest of the world is merely catching up. The wealth that the US enjoyed relative to the
rest of the world in the decades following WWII was unprecedented, and is probably not a repeatable
phenomenon. If we are declining, it is only because we fail to appreciate the multi-latereral
nature of our world, and stick our nose where it doesn't belong.
We're in decline not because of China but because of the decisions we make (or fail to make).
We devote too many resources towards wars and asset appreciation (financial bubbles) and not enough
into investing in ourselves (education and infrastructure). In the short run, the strong military
made us look strong to the world snd ourselves but we never examined whether that was the most
judicious use of our resources for the long run.
This is not anything new. Eisenhower spoke of this 50 some odd years ago.
If we are in decline and there are signs that is the case. It is by our doing. Over expanded strategic
goals and dismantling the very social structure(s) that maintains, sustains and protects longevity.
The abandonment of national identity by our leadership class. They claim in the national interests,
but upon examining their policy agendas, immigration, bailout, lobbying rules, domestic agendas
and management, there's plenty to be concerned about.
" For Britain and the United States, economic expansion resulted in the inexorable expansion of
their military power and diplomatic sway. We can expect OBOR to have a similar effect on China.
It is a powerful incentive for China to expand its military projection capabilities."
The trick here is managing the relational dynamics so that whatever mechanisms one uses in
maintaining that power don't backlash to the point of disruptive violence or using sufficient
force that such backlash doesn't occur.
The British/European model model of colonial rule was unsustainable. It might be wise to examine
Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark, maybe Germany but comparing these socialist smaller states would
be a tricky comparison.
The idea that the US would maintain its world standing has been laughable for decades. A nation
cannot excel when you have a population as narcissistic and willfully ignorant like we have now.
The economic downfall is only a symptom of the ever deepening moral failures we find ourselves
fighting over and even clinging to. I am no fan of socialism or communism, but what we have created
here in America is an out of control monster set to destroy all in its path.
"The Obama administration's ballyhooed Asian pivot was based on the assumption that, although
the ASEAN nations of Asia, along with Australia and South Korea, are being pulled into China's
economic orbit, they will turn to the United States as a geopolitical counterweight. However,
Beijing's ability to get ASEAN, South Korea, and other neighboring states to jump on the AIIB
bandwagon suggests this assumption may be erroneous. The pull of Beijing's economic power may
override security concerns and draw these states into China's geopolitical orbit."
It is in this context -- South Korea, Japan, and other south Asian nations being drawn inexorably
into China's geopolitical orbit, thus overturning US post-WW2 hegemony in the region – that current,
much-exaggerated US concerns about North Korean nuclear weapons can best be understood.
The US is using North Korea's nuclear development – undertaken by North Korea as a defensive
measure against regime change by the US – as one of a series of pretexts aimed at preserving its
ever-diminishing post-WW2 hegemony in Asia.
At some point the US will begin to withdraw the 30,000 US troops stationed in South Korea and
the 30,000 US troops stationed in Japan – and will stop conducting military exercises and shows
of force near the Chinese border – and will sit down with China, North Korea, South Korea, and
Japan and begin the long process of negotiating the gradual, peaceful US acceptance of the new
geopolitical reality in east Asia.
The lesson I took from reading Paul Kennedy was, decline is a choice.
China, India and the Middle East could have competed with early modern Europe if centralized
multi-ethnic empires (Manchu, Mughal and Ottoman Empires) hadn't stifled the energy of those civilizations.
The Spanish could have stayed on top if, beginning in 1559, Philip II, III, and IV hadn't stubbornly
clung to ethnically dissimilar European territories such as the Netherlands, and if they hadn't
wasted their nation's strength in the wars of the Counter Reformation.
Beginning with the 1670 Treaty of Dover, the French under Louis XIV and XV fell into the same
trap, wasting their strength in the service of the Counter Reformation and territorial ambitions
in the Netherlands.
The British could have stayed on top if they hadn't alienated the Americans, wasted their strength
on tropical imperialism and balance of power wars, and then surrendered their industrial lead
to Germany and America via the dogmatic embrace of free trade.
Germany might have replaced Britain as the new leading power if they had maintained the peace
with a simply foreign policy based on a strong alliance with Russia, instead of the Byzantine
complexity of Bismark's diplomacy followed by the belligerent buffoonery of Kaiser Wilhelm.
Prior to the Cold War, Americans did everything right. We grew from a tiny settlement in 1607
to a colossas possessing half (!) the world's GDP in 1947. We maintained the homogeneity, without
stifling the energy, of our people. Most of our wars were fought to obtain sparsely populated
temperate zone land for the colonization of our people – not for tropical imperialism, balance
of power, or international ideological crusades. Pragmatism, not ideology, guided our economic
policy. During the Cold War, we began sacrificing the interests of the American nation to the
newfangled ideology of "Americanism". Tentatively under Truman, and definitively beginning with
Kennedy, we undermined the homogeneity of our people with mass immigration from the whole world,
undermined our traditional morality with liberal social engineering, became the policeman of the
world intent on exporting "Americanism", and assumed an attitude of lofty contempt for our own
trade interests.
The Chinese, on the other hand, chose ascent when they purged The Gang of Four and substituted
Chinese ethno-nationalism for feverish Maoism as their guiding principle.
It is obvious that we are now in the decline phase of the life cycle of empires. See the British
general Sir John Bagot Glubb's book "The Course of Empire" and other writings.
Blue chip stocks yield to blue chopsticks! Human civilisation is a forward-moving perpetual motion
machine. It never stops and it never goes back. There is no "end of history". There is no point
at which human civilisation just stops dead in its tracks and never moves again until the sun
implodes in 10 million years and roasts us all. The world has always had its revisionists and
reactionaries who want to take their countries back to some real or imagined golden age. If we're
lucky, such people eventually disappear into Trotsky's famous "dustbin of history". If we're not
lucky, they start a war, lose it and then disappear into said dustbin, destroying their country
in the process and opening up the way for a new dominant power to emerge. Just as Britain dominated
the world by 1850 and the US by 1950, China will dominate the world by 2050. I don't really see
what disadvantage there is in that for Americans and for us in Europe, it looks very positive.
Machiavelli said that as between two tyrants, always choose the most distant. China is Europe's
distant tyrant. OBOR seems to be very much to Europe's advantage, displacing American hegemony
and undermining US hegemonists' attempts to use Putin's Russia as an instrument to keep Europe
under their control.
Being a confirmed Realist and having researched Realism what is going on today between ourselves,
the Chinese Reds, and Russia is quite understandably. Few share our Democracy model, it is too
messy.
Let's not be obtuse. This order was put in place by individuals in the USA because it was to
their economic benefit to do so. That in no way means that this order benefits all Americans or
even a majority. And to the tens of thousands of American soldiers who have died maintaining this
order it was to their great detriment.
I personally have no allegiance to "the liberal rules-based international order". If the Chinese
can do better, let them have at it.
The important question is not whether America is in decline. It is whether the American people's
living standards are in decline.
Empire is not cost effective or beneficial to the general welfare of a country. It only serves
to enrich a few, while creating domestic corruption and inequality.
The post-WW2 American empire, allegedly to contain Communism, really didn't benefit America.
And the costs have been enormous.
It did benefit bankers, defense contractors, scoundrels, and the Wall Street Washington cabal
centered on the CFR.
We wasted the post Cold War era believing there was an "End to History". Anyone with decent
understanding would have considered that trying for a unipolar moment was a huge mistake and a
world with various Great Powers was a more likely outcome.
Unipolar attempts don't work. Acknowledging the US as the greatest Great Power, among many,
is a much better idea than trying to keep the US as the sole Superpower. That isn't decline but
breaking through illusion.
The Soviet Union sustained 20 Million causalities in the Second World War while it moved its factories
east to keep them out of German hands. Contrast this with the US imperial elite who simply handed
over our industrial base to China. The result is that China's economy is growing a rate three
times that of the United States.
What goes up must come down
Spinnin' wheel got to go 'round
Talkin' 'bout your troubles it's a cryin' sin
Ride a painted pony let the spinnin' wheel spin
This thoughtful article is followed by thoughtful comments. One commenter already mentioned demographics.
Due to immigration, America is the only advanced country not facing a population implosion.
Another ace-in-the-whole is geography. We are protected by two oceans with weak friendly neighbors
on our land borders.We are blessed with rich resources. This includes rich agricultural land reachable
by navigable rivers and mineral wealth.
We have rich political and social institutions that hopefully can survive Trump.
While we are doing our best to squander these they give us a cushion.
The U.S. is in an inevitable decline. The only question is the extent of the economic sabotage
and outright wars that the Deep State will instigate to try to forestall the collapse.
Washington will not tolerate a second axis of power arising even if it is strictly economic.
Consider how American Elites used subversion to catalyze the coup in Ukraine. They will stop at
nothing to sustain U.S. hegemony in the larger global sphere.
Should China, Russia and Europe seek to integrate into a huge, contiguous Eurasian economic
marketplace independent of United States hegemonic interference, the Deep State will use all of
its military power to prevent it. (Especially ironic since death and destruction are becoming
America's primary exports.)
The current rumblings of American power projection in the South China Sea and Russian borders
are a set up for future conflicts. The United States regime deluded by arrogance and stupidity
and saturated by the cult of military exceptionalism can't say no to military coercion and war
as its primary foreign policy instrument.
With the Neocon/Neoliberal militarists now running the show, it's only going to get worse
We are in decline because the decisions we made during and after the cold war.
– we tried to buy goodwill ("allies") by using the "most favored nation" clause – outsourcing
manufacturing jobs, starting at the bottom of the sophistication scale (apparel, appliances ).
And all we have left is defense manufacturing jobs. We have no more jobs to give away to buy goodwill.
– while reducing taxes, we kept increasing defense related spending by borrowing money.
With all the senseless wars, we have a huge debt, not exactly something which gives you clout.
– we wasted brainpower on financial gimmicks which have zero contribution to economic strength.
Such gimmicks might mess up the economy – and we did this, too – for the whole world.
China took the market driven part of communist economy which was viciously stamped out by Stalin
– the New Economic Policy (NEP) – and built an economic powerhouse, with money to spend.
The decline of the United States can be directly correlated to the decline in our spiritual fervor
and the absence of the fear of God. Falling morals precipitate the fall of the nation. It's not
a question of if at this point, but when. You can argue whatever other factors you wish, but there
is a direct correlation between strength of a nation and God throughout human civilization.
Lots to chew on as they say, but a couple key points from the article. A US President represents
how the world view's we Americans. From all the so called turmoil, with both political parties
sent packing, Trump may in fact represent real America. The fantasy the left markets, of a social
democratic welfare state is a myth. Next, we have grown up on a diet of our President elect, being
Commander in Chief, of the worlds most powerful military. So I ask, did Bill Clinton or Barack
Obama seem to Americans, like a commander in chief. Bush wasn't capable of responding to 9-11,
he tried and failed. Last Commander in Chief we had in our image was Ronald Reagan. Any wonder
our enemies are making hay while the sunshines. So now we have two very very admirable foes. China
and Russia neither with western values. How we now fit is up in the air. Getting Trump impeached
or forced to resign replaced with whoever won't change millions of Americans.
I would take exception to some of these comments about inevitable decline. The word decline suggests
to some end. That is very different than retraction or change.
When one examines China, Russia, Europe, these nations have been in play as states for 1500
years. And despite periods of retraction have maintained some semblance of their origins, more
than some. Their cores remain intact as to culture and practice despite differing polities What
is key for the US is her youth. We are unable to match the strategic long term strategies as the
states mentions because we have not been around long enough to seal our core existence as a nation.
Mistaking youthful exuberance for wisdom of age is where we are. There is no mistaking that
the US can remain a major player in world events and we should. But that process need not be at
the expense of who we are are becoming or in lieu of it.
I will have to dig out my Zsun Tsu. It is easy to apply those admonitions out of their intended
context. Because so many different environmental war scenarios are addressed. For example, Asia
plays the long game. They are not thinking merely about this century, this decade, this year,
month . . . but the next century. Hence the idea of long war. Consider how long they have been
on the Continent of Africa.
They are in a sense just waiting everyone else out. Iraq, blood in the water. Afghanistan,
blood in the water. They are not the least troubled that we are embroiled in the ME.
The size of our debt is troubling and the size of how much of that debt is owned by other states
is disturbing. China, some ten years ago, indicated that they are seeking a way around the power
of the dollar.
I am fully confident that we can survive the rise of any nation on earth. I believe we are
special unique, and endowed with an energy, ingenuity, vibrancy and psyche today's world. But
we are so inundated with a kind of can't do -- must accept attitude in social polity that undermines
sense of self. and that is where I think the force of a Pres Trump is helpful, reinvigorating.
Conserving a sense of self, identity is mandatory for survival.
And while I have opposed out latest military interventions as unnecessary, if we decide to
make war -- we had better do it to the full and be done with. This is more in line with what I
think Tzun Tzu -- destabilize the opponents psychology.
Here the importation of Doaist, Hindu, and other existentialist philosophies are upending western
thought. The humanities are tearing asunder our social and psychological meaning of self. Whether
it is soulmates, no anchored truth or reality or the notion of that human sexuality is malleable
and no right no wrong save as to individual minding and social circumstance . . . the system of
concreteness is being chiseled to nothingness.
"Such gimmicks might mess up the economy – and we did this, too – for the whole world."
Actually we did something else, we embraced the world's standards – Basel I and Basel II. Which
are major contributors to our economic system. When Pres Nixon pressed to go off the gold standard
. . . huge error.
Last week one of the toughest hurdles was to avoid getting into that ambulance I knew the minute
I did, I would be entering a system bent on bending me to its will.
Before we go about making the world -- we need a clear and clean sense of self and resist change,
regardless of the pressure by friend or foe.
" The United States filled this role for half a century, from 1945 until the Great Recession.
The world's economic hegemon must provide public goods that benefit the international system as
a whole, including: making the rules for the international economic order; opening its domestic
market to other states' exports; supplying liquidity to the global economy; and providing a reserve
currency."
Uhh you are playing fast and loose here with one overarching reality -- there really was no
one else left who could do so. And that lasted a good while. As those regions recovered, we continued
to provide without ever adjusting to the their own ability to provide. Prime example, our presence
in Europe, I would be interested in the ROI of defending the Europeans even as they make war on
others or encourage conflicts they themselves ave no intention of supporting, but are more than
happy that the US do so.
Paradoxically the acceleration in the decline began with the disintegration of the Soviet
Union. Incredible hubris followed, and we are reaping the usual results.
I think just the opposite. OBOR, AIIB and the Shanghai Group show China playing precisely by the
rules of the international, rules-based liberal order set up by the Western powers generally over
the last few centuries and particularly by the USA after WWII. China actually follows the international
rules. It hasn't invaded anyone since 1979. How many wars not authorized by the UNSC, and generally
either dubious or flat out in violation of international law, has the US engaged in since that
date? China does not interfere in the internal affairs of other nations. As the article states,
China follows the rules of Westphalian sovereignty. But it also follows the rules of international
law. China does not abuse its veto power in the UNSC, the way the Western powers, particularly
the USA, does. China is not looking to impose its way of life on other countries. And its international
initiatives, including the international organizations it has created and sponsored, are all about
trade, tourism, and co operation and development, as opposed to the USA's, which are all about
domination, ever expanding "defensive" military alliances, military bases everywhere, demeaning
and degrading, not to mention hypocritical, "human rights report cards," endless "sanctions" and
"embargoes" on everyone who does not do its bidding, covering up for the sins of its aggressive,
horrible client states, particularly Israel and the KSA, handing out cookies to coupsters in the
process of overthrowing legitimate, and even democratically elected, governments, and generally
sticking its nose into the elections of other countries, and now, with Trump, threatening to upset
the apple cart when it comes to international trade and tourism and cultural exchange.
The USA is the rogue state, in regard to the very international order that it played a huge
role in establishing. The USA can't even seem to go through an Olympic Games without making a
fuss about something or another.
"Rules and institutions do not exist in a vacuum. Rather, they reflect the distribution of
power in the international system. In global politics, the rules are made by those who rule international
politics 'cannot be understood independently of the political foundation on which it rests and
the political interests which it serves.' The post-World War II international order is an American
order that, while preserving world stability for a long time, primarily privileged U.S. and Western
interests. Proponents of 'lock-in' are saying that China will!indeed, must!agree to be a 'responsible
stakeholder' (with Washington defining the meaning of 'responsibility') in an international order
that it did not construct and that exists primarily to advance the interests of the United States.
In plain English, what those who believe in 'lock-in' expect is that an increasingly powerful
China will continue to accept playing second fiddle to the United States. But Beijing, by all
the evidence, does not see it that way. And OBOR and the AIIB prove the point. Instead of living
within the geopolitical, economic, and institutional confines imposed by Pax Americana, an increasingly
powerful China will seek to revise the international order so that it reflects its own political
and economic interests. Thus are OBOR and the AIIB straws in the wind. And, as the great Bob Dylan
said, you don't need to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing."
Of course the distribution of power matters. But China is using its power within the liberal,
rules-based framework established by the West. It actually already behaves in a "responsible"
manner. It didn't invade Hong Kong or Macao, rather it made deals with the declining colonial
powers which controlled them. It doesn't invade Taiwan. Rather it uses diplomacy to slowly advance
its cause with respect to "One China." It uses its economic clout to develop trading partners,
not to try to bully them into political submission, a la the USA. It is patient with regard to
North Korea. It is patient with regard to US sabre rattling and blustering right at its borders.
It is patient and rule-abiding in just about everything. Its organization are bypassing the USA.
Not confronting it. If China eventually eclipses the USA, it will be because China has beaten
it at its own game.
Our moral decline leads to the other decline mentioned in the article. There's a statement
that says :"America is great because she is good But, she will cease to be great because she ceased
to be good" We've been in decline since the '60's and are coming to our "bottom" ( and end ) ever
more quickly
One thing not mentioned in the article is how we lost our technological lead. This in large part
due to our H1B program, which is a conveyor belt to transfer tech and organizational knowhow abroad.
Most R&D operations seem to be staffed largely by guest workers from China and India. Yes, there
is a saving on salaries, leading to profits. But in addition to the knowledge transfer, there
is the discouragement to US natives from entering tech fields.
"... As Secretary of Defense James Mattis said Sunday, such a war would be "catastrophic. A conflict in North Korea would be probably the worst kind of fighting in most people's lifetimes." ..."
"... Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, ..."
As Secretary of Defense James Mattis said Sunday, such a war would be "catastrophic. A
conflict in North Korea would be probably the worst kind of fighting in most people's
lifetimes."
When the lesson sinks in that a war on the peninsula would be a catastrophe, and a growing
arsenal of North Korean ICBMs targeted on America is intolerable, the question must arise: Why not move U.S. forces off the peninsula, let South Korean troops replace them, sell Seoul
all the modern weapons it needs, and let Seoul build its own nuclear arsenal to deter the
North?
... ... ...
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book,
Nixon's White House Wars: The
Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.
There
is an abundance of outrage in the United States about Russia's
alleged
meddling
in the 2016 presidential election. Multiple investigations are taking place, and
Moscow's conduct was a major justification for the sanctions legislation that Congress just
passed. Some furious
political
figures
and members of the media insist that the Putin government's interference constitutes an act of
war. One especially agitated House member even compared it explicitly to the
Pearl Harbor and 9/11 attacks
.
Such umbrage might be more credible if the United States refrained from engaging in similar
conduct. But the historical record shows that Washington has meddled in the political affairs
of
dozens
of countries
!including many democracies. An egregious example occurred in
Ukraine
during the Euromaidan Revolution of 2014.
Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych was not an admirable character. After his election in
2010, he used patronage and other instruments of state power in a flagrant fashion to the
advantage of his political party. That high-handed behavior and legendary corruption alienated
large portions of Ukraine's population. As the Ukrainian economy languished and fell farther
and farther behind those of Poland and other East European neighbors that had implemented
significant market-oriented reforms, public anger at Yanukovych mounted. When he rejected the
European Union's terms for an association agreement in late 2013, in favor of a Russian offer,
angry demonstrators filled Kiev's Independence Square, known as the Maidan, as well as sites in
other cities.
Despite his leadership defects and character flaws, Yanukovych had been duly elected in
balloting that international observers considered
reasonably free and fair
!about the best standard one can hope for outside the mature
Western democracies. A decent respect for democratic institutions and procedures meant that he
ought to be able to serve out his lawful term as president, which would end in 2016.
Neither the domestic opposition nor Washington and its European Union allies behaved in that
fashion. Instead, Western leaders made it clear that they supported the efforts of
demonstrators to force Yanukovych to reverse course and approve the EU agreement or, if he
would not do so, to remove the president before his term expired. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), the
ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, went to Kiev to
show solidarity
with the Euromaidan activists. McCain dined with opposition leaders,
including members of the ultra right-wing
Svoboda
Party
, and later appeared on stage in Maidan Square during a mass rally. He stood shoulder
to shoulder with Svoboda leader Oleg Tyagnibok.
But McCain's actions were a model of diplomatic restraint compared to the conduct of
Victoria Nuland, the assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian Affairs. As
Ukraine's political crisis deepened, Nuland and her subordinates became more brazen in favoring
the anti-Yanukovych demonstrators. Nuland noted in a speech to the U.S.-Ukraine Foundation on
December 13, 2013, that she had traveled to Ukraine three times in the weeks following the
start of the demonstrations. Visiting the Maidan on December 5,
she handed out cookies
to demonstrators and expressed support for their cause.
The extent of the Obama administration's meddling in Ukraine's politics was breathtaking.
Russian intelligence intercepted and leaked to the international media a Nuland
telephone call
in which she
and U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Geoffey Pyatt discussed in detail their preferences for specific
personnel in a post-Yanukovych government. The U.S-favored candidates included Arseniy
Yatsenyuk, the man who became prime minister once Yanukovych was ousted from power. During the
telephone call, Nuland stated enthusiastically that "Yats is the guy" who would do the best
job.
Nuland and Pyatt were engaged in such planning at a time when Yanukovych was still Ukraine's
lawful president. It was startling to have diplomatic representatives of a foreign country!and
a country that routinely touts the need to respect democratic processes and the sovereignty of
other nations!to be scheming about removing an elected government and replacing it with
officials meriting U.S. approval.
Washington's conduct not only constituted meddling, it
bordered on micromanagement. At one point, Pyatt mentioned the complex dynamic among the three
principal opposition leaders, Yatsenyuk, Oleh Tyahnybok, and Vitali Klitschko. Both Pyatt and
Nuland wanted to keep Tyahnybok and Klitschko out of an interim government. In the former case,
they worried about his extremist ties; in the latter, they seemed to want him to wait and make
a bid for office on a longer-term basis. Nuland stated that "I don't think Klitsch should go
into the government. I don't think it's necessary." She added that what Yatseniuk needed "is
Klitsch and Tyanhybok on the outside."
The two diplomats also were prepared to escalate the already extensive U.S. involvement in
Ukraine's
political
turbulence
. Pyatt stated bluntly that "we want to try to get somebody with an
international personality to come out here and help to midwife this thing [the political
transition]." Nuland clearly had Vice President Joe Biden in mind for that role. Noting that
the vice president's national security adviser was in direct contact with her, Nuland related
that she told him "probably tomorrow for an atta-boy and to get the details to stick. So
Biden's willing." Both the Obama administration and most of the American news media portrayed
the Euromaidan Revolution as a spontaneous, popular uprising against a corrupt and brutal
government.
A February 24, 2014,
Washington Post
editorial
celebrated the Maidan demonstrators and their successful campaign to overthrow
Yanukovych. The "moves were democratic," the
Washington Post
concluded, and "Kiev is
now controlled by pro-Western parties."
It was a grotesque distortion to portray the events in Ukraine as a purely indigenous,
popular uprising. The Nuland-Pyatt telephone conversation and other actions confirm that the
United States was considerably more than a passive observer to the turbulence. Instead, U.S.
officials were blatantly meddling in Ukraine. Such conduct was utterly improper. The United
States had no right to try to orchestrate political outcomes in another country!especially one
on the border of another great power. It is no wonder that Russia reacted badly to the
unconstitutional ouster of an elected, pro-Russian government!an ouster that occurred not only
with Washington's blessing, but apparently with its assistance.
That episode, as well as earlier ones involving Italy, France and other democratic
countries, should be kept in mind the next time U.S. political leaders or the media publicly
fume about Russia's apparent interference in America's 2016 elections. One can legitimately
condemn some aspects of Moscow's behavior, but the force of America's moral outrage is vitiated
by the stench of U.S. hypocrisy.
Ted Galen Carpenter, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and a contributing editor
at the National Interest, is the author of ten books, the contributing editor of ten books, and
the author of more than 650 articles on international affairs.
yeah, when americans do it (not JUST it but organizing an outright coup) - it's for
democracy...
but when the losing party in american elections had to explain why it had failed
used a ghost of russian hackers (instead of recognizing that their identity politics
completely alienated the majority of real good americans - white people) - it's an attack on
democracy
hey, democratic party! how 'bout letting your servers to be finally examined by fbi?
American's are GOD's chosen people...!!! it's all right there in the Bible...!!! When
America does it - it is all with HIS blessing... when others do it (particularly Russia) they
are acting in concert with Satan...!
In all seriousness... every empire acts in it's own interests. What makes America so God
awful insufferable is it's self righteousness... Surely Washington doesn't believe it's own
bulls---... or does it...??? That truly is a scary thought.
The British never tried convince anyone they were doing the Lord's work. They spared their
subjects self righteous lectures (for the most part)
A Saudi prince said it best: America is arrogance unbounded
The author fails to mention that Yanukovich even agreed to early elections in exchange for
calling off security forces in order to defuse tensions. In return, armed gangs occupied
Parliament buildings, forced him to flee the country, and organized a hasty vote to remove
him from office. Is it any wonder that the ethnic Russians got the message that their vote
didn't count anymore? We immediately recognized the new govt by denying that this was a
coup.
Ukraine would have been much more stable had their been elections instead of a coup
d'etat.
Justin Glyn@20
"but the Neocons seem to suffer from something almost worse - a misguided
belief in their own propaganda."
The propaganda part is inventing, manufacturing and embellishing some embodiment of evil
that must be defeated to liberate their victims and save humanity. That's the cover story,
not the underlying purpose of U.S. aggression.
Neocons do not believe that exclusively as a goal in itself - it merely dovetails rather
nicely with their ultimate obsession with control, and it's and easy sell against any
less-than-perfect targeted foreign leader or government. Irrational demonization is the
embodiment of that propaganda.
The methods of ultimately controlling the liberated people and their nation's resources
are cloaked in the guise of 'bringing Western democracy'. Methods for corrupting the
resulting government and usurping their laws and voting are hidden or ignored. The propaganda
then turns to either praising the resulting utopia or identifying/creating a new evil that
now must also be eliminated. The utopia thing hasn't worked out so well in Libya, Iraq or
Ukraine, so they stuck with the 'defeat evil' story.
I'm dumber for having read this. As #8 stated, the assumption that we know the objective in
these interventions and wars is false, and is straight from the propaganda machine. It is ,
simply put, an example of linear thinking.
We are meant to believe that constant screw ups over the last 50 -70 years by very bright
people with enormous resources are due to coincidence, incompetence or accidents (CIA) , or
just downright stupidity by people with IQ's 4-6 SD's above average . Lol. But then people
believe in many foolish things, which include the official or popular narrative of pretty
much everything, especially post 911. Never has the planet populated more gullible
people.
Simply put, we are right where they want to be. Controlled chaos. Populations living in
fear surrendering their wealth and freedom to controlling elites gladly and totally believing
the propaganda and lies of their reality . A reality which have them squabbling amongst
themselves over petty issues and party politics (each party nothing more than secular
religion in which the party faithful blindly follow their leader). When they are not too busy
fearing the various enemies which are manufactured to terrorize us they are entertaining
themseves with propaganda films and TV series , sports events or the latest best selling
novel (those who can still read more than senseless tweets))
I suppose its best this way though. Delusion is far better than the reality. What would
people really do if they knew the truth? As one lady said when told the truth of a certain
even that shocked the world "i wouldnt want to believe it even if it were true".
Lies are Truth. Truth is Fake News. Conspiracies are impossible except by stupid powerless
pwople with no money who are always caught.
Justin Glyn@20
"but the Neocons seem to suffer from something almost worse - a misguided
belief in their own propaganda."
The propaganda part is inventing, manufacturing and embellishing some embodiment of evil
that must be defeated to liberate their victims and save humanity. That's the cover story,
not the underlying purpose of U.S. aggression.
Neocons do not believe that exclusively as a goal in itself - it merely dovetails rather
nicely with their ultimate obsession with control, and it's and easy sell against any
less-than-perfect targeted foreign leader or government. Irrational demonization is the
embodiment of that propaganda.
The methods of ultimately controlling the liberated people and their nation's resources
are cloaked in the guise of 'bringing Western democracy'. Methods for corrupting the
resulting government and usurping their laws and voting are hidden or ignored. The propaganda
then turns to either praising the resulting utopia or identifying/creating a new evil that
now must also be eliminated. The utopia thing hasn't worked out so well in Libya, Iraq or
Ukraine, so they stuck with the 'defeat evil' story.
I'm dumber for having read this. As #8 stated, the assumption that we know the objective in
these interventions and wars is false, and is straight from the propaganda machine. It is ,
simply put, an example of linear thinking.
We are meant to believe that constant screw ups over the last 50 -70 years by very bright
people with enormous resources are due to coincidence, incompetence or accidents (CIA) , or
just downright stupidity by people with IQ's 4-6 SD's above average . Lol. But then people
believe in many foolish things, which include the official or popular narrative of pretty
much everything, especially post 911. Never has the planet populated more gullible
people.
Simply put, we are right where they want to be. Controlled chaos. Populations living in
fear surrendering their wealth and freedom to controlling elites gladly and totally believing
the propaganda and lies of their reality . A reality which have them squabbling amongst
themselves over petty issues and party politics (each party nothing more than secular
religion in which the party faithful blindly follow their leader). When they are not too busy
fearing the various enemies which are manufactured to terrorize us they are entertaining
themseves with propaganda films and TV series , sports events or the latest best selling
novel (those who can still read more than senseless tweets))
I suppose its best this way though. Delusion is far better than the reality. What would
people really do if they knew the truth? As one lady said when told the truth of a certain
even that shocked the world "i wouldnt want to believe it even if it were true".
Lies are Truth. Truth is Fake News. Conspiracies are impossible except by stupid powerless
pwople with no money who are always caught.
Don't know whether you've have seen this article and the navettes of various
Iraqi Shi'a authorities to Riyadh, in particular Muqtada's visit this week:
When Sadr arrived in Jeddah, an anonymous Twitter user known as Mujtahid -- noted for his regular leaking of alleged developments within the secretive
House of Saud -- tweeted that the warm welcoming of Sadr "and prior to him al-Araji,
offering thousands of [hajj] visas to PMU [Popular Mobilization Units], celebrating
the [liberation] of Mosul, are all attempts to get closer to Iran so that they
can convince the Houthis to have mercy on bin Salman." Thamer al-Sabhan in a
July 31 tweet attacked "[Ayatollah Ruhollah] Khomeini's version of Shiism" and
praised what Sabhan called "genuine Shiism." Less than 24 hours later, however,
that tweet was removed. It is still unclear whether Sadr is really attempting
to mediate between Tehran and Riyadh. However, a senior Iranian official who
spoke to Al-Monitor on condition of anonymity expressed doubt that such an endeavor
would succeed in ending the rivalry between the two regional powers.
Don't know whether you've have seen this article and the navettes of
various Iraqi Shi'a authorities to Riyadh, in particular Muqtada's visit
this week:
When Sadr arrived in Jeddah, an anonymous Twitter user known as Mujtahid -- noted for his regular leaking of alleged developments within the secretive
House of Saud -- tweeted that the warm welcoming of Sadr "and prior to him
al-Araji, offering thousands of [hajj] visas to PMU [Popular Mobilization
Units], celebrating the [liberation] of Mosul, are all attempts to get closer
to Iran so that they can convince the Houthis to have mercy on bin Salman."
Thamer al-Sabhan in a July 31 tweet attacked "[Ayatollah Ruhollah] Khomeini's
version of Shiism" and praised what Sabhan called "genuine Shiism." Less
than 24 hours later, however, that tweet was removed. It is still unclear
whether Sadr is really attempting to mediate between Tehran and Riyadh.
However, a senior Iranian official who spoke to Al-Monitor on condition
of anonymity expressed doubt that such an endeavor would succeed in ending
the rivalry between the two regional powers.
"... " Hey, I'm a nationalist and a globalist ," Donald Trump recently declared, "I'm both". The only way in which the two (seemingly contradictory) positions can be reconciled is by introducing a third term, one that is absent from Trump's vocabulary: imperialism ..."
"... Trump defaults to what is common, established, and respected in the history of Washington politics. In other words, he turns to the only dominant understanding of American international politics that anyone socialized in the US would possess: "American leadership," that is, US global dominance. ..."
"... My thesis revolves around facts such as senior Goldman Sachs executives readily jumping aboard the engine of the "Trump train," after being denounced in Trump campaign advertising, which suggests that they do not see Trump's much touted nationalism as anything that needs to cause them any concern. There are now more Goldman Sachs figures in the Trump administration than in any previous administration. 1 This is perhaps the most fundamental "reversal" of Trump's course, that I argue points to the proper framework for assessing all of the other reversals that pile up with each passing day. That Trump plays to the media is a superficial sign of the deeper currents outlined below. ..."
"... A nationalism that extends itself globally, that projects its "interests" into other nations and then proclaims the right to defend those interests, is best understood as imperialism. ..."
"... As many others have argued, anthropologist Bruce Kapferer made the point that "the concept of globalization disguises the emergence to unchallenged (if momentary) global imperial dominance of the USA, whose own claim to international sovereignty reduces the sovereignty of many nation-states" (Kapferer, 2005, p. 286). ..."
"... Trump is now committed to a nationalist globalism ..."
"... That the US and Western mass media continue to lampoon Trump may thus unintentionally serve to undermine US foreign policy, since it is led by Trump. ..."
"... With his statement that he is both a nationalist and a globalist, Trump is making a major concession that contradicts a position he announced a year ago to the day: "We will no longer surrender our country or its people to the false song of globalism ". ..."
"... One of the more difficult questions involves explaining what moved Trump to abandon his promised foreign policy goals and his repeatedly stated anti-interventionist and anti-globalist principles that attracted significant support. ..."
"... state-subsidized ..."
"... shut up and keep working ..."
"... Trump may have reversed himself in terms of the opportunistic targeting of Goldman Sachs, as a symbol, but there is little point in evading the fact that he entered the electoral campaign as the owner of a large family corporation. What is more difficult to explain is why Trump, as a national capitalist, lent himself so quickly to supporting a transnational capitalist class with economic and financial interests different from his own, which was also ideologically opposed to his campaign. ..."
"... Ivanka's husband, Jared Kushner, may also be a key to the globalist push in the White House, with his reputed financial ties to George Soros . A strategist for a financial services firm recently exalted that what " stopped nationalism in the White House " was an assemblage of super-wealthy members of the transnational elite (globalists) within the administration. ..."
"
Hey, I'm a nationalist and a globalist ," Donald Trump recently declared, "I'm both". The only
way in which the two (seemingly contradictory) positions can be reconciled is by introducing a third
term, one that is absent from Trump's vocabulary: imperialism .
Trump might not be conscious of the implication of his statement (nor would he be the only one
sleepwalking toward regime change ), but that makes the explanation all the more powerful. In
the absence of both conviction that matches his campaign platform, and a well developed program for
an alternative US foreign policy that transforms the international "order" which the US underpins
-- a very tall order --
Trump defaults to what is common, established, and respected in the history of Washington
politics. In other words, he turns to the only dominant understanding of American international politics
that anyone socialized in the US would possess: "American leadership," that is, US global dominance.
The equipment to fulfill that vision is already in place and ready to produce instant results that
can then be cast as "winning," "standing strong," or as Fox News' Sean Hannity likes to inexplicably
exclaim, "America is back" (from what?). So why did Donald Trump, the so-called outsider, default
to the established course in US politics?
One question is whether Trump drifted into this position out of disorder, confusion, lack of conviction,
and a government undermined by factions. Another is whether he was "placed" in this position (by
others and/or himself), in what would then effectively amount to the corporate oligarchy's biggest
ever electoral heist. Others will instead point to Trump craving respect and adulation, and thus
playing to the media to improve his image. Some have made what I think are misleading and self-serving
arguments: that Trump's changes reflect an encounter with "reality," or represent "learning on the
job". The assumption here is that reality is somehow hard-coded with neoliberal principles. If learning
on the job meant learning to continue the imperial presidency, then they might have a point, even
if it's not the one they wanted to make.
Other questions to ask include (in no particular order of importance):
In which ways does nationalist globalism relate to imperialism?
How does Trump's newfound globalism connect to issues of conflict of interest and nepotism?
What role does class play in charting Trump's actual domestic and foreign policy directions?
Are the ostensible changes traceable to Trump's preexisting and underlying ambitions and interests,
or were the changes forced on him by circumstance?
Is this a story about the workings of the "deep state"?
Is Trump's presidency good news, after all, for extending the life of global liberal capitalism?
How might Trump's presidency end up strengthening the hands of anti-imperialists?
This article (long as it is, it has been significantly abridged), begins by examining "nationalist
globalism". I then focus on changes to Trump's stated positions seen from a domestic angle, and in
particular on his stances regarding Obama and the Clintons, his declared interest in turning the
Republican party into a "workers' party" while in fact returning it to the hold of Wall Street, and
thus I look at the ties between his cabinet, Goldman Sachs, and Wall Street broadly --
this is also where we discuss the nature of the "oligarchic corporate imperial state". After that,
we see how this mutated policy extends internationally, from Cuba to Russia, Syria, North Korea,
NAFTA, NATO, and WikiLeaks. I end the essay by discussing whether we can still proclaim the "end
of liberalism" (short answer: yes), and consider how Trump's presidency could aid the cause of anti-imperialism.
I considered some of the prospects of a Trump presidency with respect to US imperialism in an
equally lengthy article last October. In "
Donald Trump and Empire: An Assessment " I got some things right, and some things wrong, as is
true of everyone else. I asked: "how can Donald Trump make the decline in US global power 'beautiful,'
and how can he turn withdrawal into 'greatness'?". This question is now null and void. I also wrote
that, "on foreign policy, globalization, and military intervention, Donald Trump is a transitional
figure" -- that might hold some validity, but not in any straightforward sense: he may be inadvertently
setting the conditions for a truly transitional figure yet to come (but that could be true of any
representative of the power elite).
I was mistaken however in suggesting that, "Trump would be leading the equivalent of a perestroika
for US empire". I also argued that what Trump was offering was, "not so much radical change as an
intermediate passage, and a way of managing imperial decline" -- from where we now stand, the
last thing that seems to be on Trump's mind is anything remotely to do with "managing decline". Where
the analysis was on slightly less thin ice was when I said that Trump appeared to be, "not much of
one thing, not much of another, and somewhere in between . neither an anti-imperialist nor pro-imperialist,
nor even an absolute non-imperialist" -- but that is perhaps because, inside ambiguity, one
can hide anything. I also pointed out that,
"Nowhere, as far as I have seen, does Donald Trump ever proclaim himself an 'anti-imperialist'.
Apart from using the word 'Empire' for one of his fragrances, there is little evidence of the
word in his writings and speeches. Likewise, he never identifies himself as 'pro-imperialist'
either. Donald Trump certainly does advocate for American power, and 'American strength,' and
even calls himself a militarist on some occasions -- but with more caveats than his political
adversaries".
The above still largely holds, I think. It is also still truer than ever that "there are multiple
competing editions of Donald Trump" -- and one can find support for almost any argument about
Trump's stated intentions, by using Trump's own past words. Where I did point out that Trump had
taken decisively pro-imperialist positions in the past (regardless of his choice of words) was on
Iraq and its oil, on Libya, and on Cuba, Mexico, and Venezuela.
Matters have now become considerably simplified. We no longer need to debate where Trump stands
and what he might do once he became president. Now we know what , even if we still debate
why . However, understanding why might tell us something about what comes
next.
My thesis revolves around facts such as senior Goldman Sachs executives readily jumping aboard
the engine of the "Trump train," after being denounced in Trump campaign advertising, which suggests
that they do not see Trump's much touted nationalism as anything that needs to cause them any concern.
There are now more Goldman Sachs figures in the Trump administration than in any previous administration.
1 This is perhaps the most fundamental "reversal" of Trump's course, that I argue points
to the proper framework for assessing all of the other reversals that pile up with each passing day.
That Trump plays to the media is a superficial sign of the deeper currents outlined below.
What is Nationalist Globalism?
A nationalism that extends itself globally, that projects its "interests" into other nations
and then proclaims the right to defend those interests, is best understood as imperialism. Nationalism
and globalization are not striking contradictions, when referring to the ideology of an imperial
state that maximizes its power over globalization processes in order to gain at the expense of other
states. Besides the observation that what we know of as globalization was largely the product of
state action (legislation, economic incentives, building the infrastructures of global commerce and
communications, the creation of multilateral organizations, and so on), one state in particular can
claim a leading role in globalization. Barack Obama could thus declare in 2010, "no nation should
be better positioned to lead in an era of globalization than America -- the Nation that helped
bring globalization about" (quoted in Forte, 2015, p. 10). As many others have argued, anthropologist
Bruce Kapferer made the point that "the concept of globalization disguises the emergence to unchallenged
(if momentary) global imperial dominance of the USA, whose own claim to international sovereignty
reduces the sovereignty of many nation-states" (Kapferer, 2005, p. 286).
... ... ...
Trump is now committed to a nationalist globalism -- or imperialism --
one that is all too familiar and has been described by anthropologist Neil Smith (2005) as "Americanism".
We will need to keep analyzing Trump's policies as the months and years pass, but right now
we have an outline of the kinds of imperialism that Trump upholds. One is an economic imperialism
that goes back to the first premises of the US
"new empire" of the late 1800s: belligerently opening up foreign markets in order to absorb US
overproduction. So far, Trump is using political and economic means to achieve that goal --
as in trying to intimidate Canada into opening up its dairy market to an even greater number of US
imports, while punishing it for exporting cheap softwood lumber to the US. However, he is apparently
willing to trade economic goals for military ones, as in the case of dropping any antagonism toward
China about trade issues, in return for China's promise to somehow alter North Korea's foreign policy,
just as the US escalates military maneuvers with a possible military strike actively being considered.
(Confusingly, he reverses this pattern with South Korea, where military measures were then
clouded
by talk of
revising a trade agreement and extracting payment for US missile defense.)
Added to the corporate capitalist imperialism, and military imperialism , Trump is also toying
with liberal-humanitarian imperialism in the case of Syria. However -- and this is very important
-- what he lacks here is a "soft power" platform of any size or credibility. The ability of
Trump to preside over an effective program of cultural imperialism is diminished to the point of
zero, and is likely far less than even zero. That the US and Western mass media continue to lampoon
Trump may thus unintentionally serve to undermine US foreign policy, since it is led by Trump.
With his statement that he is both a nationalist and a globalist, Trump is making a major
concession that contradicts a position he announced a year ago to the day: "We will no longer surrender
our country or its people to
the false song of globalism ". A year later he effectively declared himself an adherent
to nationalism, plus something false. His statement also marks the new release of yet another edition
of Trump, such that we can set up extensive debates between various versions of Trump as published
in past books, speeches, and interviews. Just on the question of Syria alone, one could produce a
loud debate between
anti-interventionist
Trump of years past and pro-interventionist Trump of today. Explaining this apparent bifurcation,
and attempting to read it into his past statements on US regime change, is a complicated matter,
and those who make light of it with statements of having known with certainty that what we have today
would be the inevitable result, are being disingenuous. 2
The only promise made by Trump that still rings true is that of his "unpredictability". Being
unpredictable and flexible might be virtues in some situations, but when it comes to charting a course,
standing by a campaign platform, and committing oneself to a
contract with voters, such qualities are synonymous with being capricious, unreliable, unsteady,
opportunistic, and even treacherous. That would also hold true in business, and especially when living
up to commitments one makes in deals. That Trump tries to lighten the nature of his apparent deficit
of principles and conviction -- that he essentially admits he will not permit himself to be
fooled by his own words -- only aggravates the problem. A man with such little political accountability
to himself, can hardly be expected to be accountable to everyone else. For his independent-minded
supporters, this will not look like a problem of having a two-sided coin; rather, it's a problem
of having no coin at all if there is no value.
Renewing the Corporate Oligarchic State after November 8, 2016
Among those few who
predicted Trump's victory , few or none predicted that Trump would then move on to defeating
Trump. Some partisans have come up with slogans like "Love Trumps Hate," but no one to my knowledge
has ever exclaimed, "Trump Trumps Trump" -- thankfully. A recent list of the
monumental
ruin to which standard, corporate-fueled and media-driven machine politics fell thanks to the
Trump campaign, provides only an incomplete story of 2016. Now we have to rewrite even the story
of 2016. While a candidate could win a presidential campaign, as an "outsider," even as he was reviled
by his own party elite, demonized by the mass media, shunned by the mass of corporate donors, and
so forth, it also means that the status quo can win on the cheap. The establishment won, and all
without the usual investments, and not so much as a single compliment to the winning candidate who
would uphold their order -- at little or no cost to them. The next US political candidate to
campaign on being an "outsider" will face a greater challenge in being taken seriously; by the same
token, the dominant elites may disarm themselves, thinking the next outsider will be easy to co-opt
or browbeat into submission.
One of the more difficult questions involves explaining what moved Trump to abandon his promised
foreign policy goals and his repeatedly stated anti-interventionist and anti-globalist principles
that attracted significant support. For example, where trade is concerned, Trump has consistently
opposed free trade deals for nearly three decades. He would say that he believed in free trade, but
only if it was fair, and he did not believe any of the existing free trade deals were fair. Yet here
too he would alter course -- what was unfair was something he could generally tolerate for
now. That was not to be predicted, because there was no evidentiary basis for predicting it.
... ... ...
The Workers' Party (brought to you by Carl's Jr.)
Turning to the working class, and Trump's talk of transforming the Republican party into "
the party of the American worker " -- a claim he made both
before
and
after the election -- here two significant acts stand out, and they deserve a longer essay
in their own right. Trump's first choice for Secretary of Labor was none other than
Andrew Puzder , who at
the time was the chief executive officer of CKE Restaurants, which owns Hardee's and Carl's Jr. Puzder
was notoriously anti-union, and his opposition to raising the minimum wage, his
cheating CKE employees of their wages, support for automation, and employment of an undocumented
domestic servant while not paying taxes for her services, hardly represented the qualities of a leader
of some new workers' movement. This is the person Trump chose to supposedly enforce labour regulations.
Later, after Puzder withdrew himself from the nomination, Trump replaced him with
Alex Acosta , dean of the Florida International Law School, who also served on the National Labor
Relations Board and received the support of AFL-CIO leader Richard Trumka. This belated correction
-- imposed by circumstances beyond Trump's control -- was among the reasons some still
claim that
Trump should be taken seriously on wanting to make the GOP into the workers' party. I would prefer
to remind the reader about Trump's actual priorities, and consider the person he chose as his
number one preference.
That there is no accident in Trump's choices has a lot to do with his class prejudices and his
class ambitions. His choice of cabinet members, with a preference for billionaires (or generals),
shows who he tends to trust and respect. Some historians have said that Trump's cabinet is
the richest in US history , with a combined worth estimated as ranging from
$11 billion to
$14 billion
. One can attempt to remodel Trump as a "blue collar billionaire," but it seems futile. He would
tell his supporters on the campaign trail that "we need the rich" (a statement which can be ambiguous
in its implications) and "no poor man ever gave you a job" (which is unambiguous). The way his decision-making
apparatus has been structured also reveals Trump's interests: billionaires in actual positions of
power in his cabinet, but only
consultations with union officials .
When it comes to trade unions, Trump's first weeks since the election reinforce this tendency
toward a top-down, patronizing approach. On the one hand, he in fact won the
support of many key unions , primarily private-sector unions in construction and trades, and
secondarily among autoworkers, machinists, and steelworkers. On the other hand, one of Trump's earliest
skirmishes since he was elected was with
Chuck Jones , president of the United Steelworkers local 1999, over Trump's inflated claims about
saving jobs at the Carrier plant in Indiana that was to shut down as the company relocated to Mexico.
That planned move and the layoffs it entailed played an important part in the 2016 election, underscoring
both Trump's and Sanders' arguments against NAFTA. It seems that Trump, at most, scored half
of a victory in persuading Carrier to retain some jobs in Indiana, while still moving a substantial
portion to Mexico, only now with the blessing of millions of dollars in tax credits. The irony is
that Carrier is now performing a state-subsidized transfer of jobs to Mexico. Trump claimed
Carrier would keep 1,100 jobs in place -- but Jones argued that the number included 350 jobs
that were never scheduled to leave (yet 550 other union members would still lose their jobs), adding
that Trump completely ignored the fact that Carrier's parent company, United Technologies, still
planned to completely shut down and transfer 700 factory jobs from Huntington, Indiana, to Monterrey,
Mexico. Some of
Jones' statements to the press were very sharp. In response, Trump proceeded to lambast Jones
in Twitter, with a couple of apparently
vindictive and inflamed smears .
First, Trump appears to blame workers themselves for the loss of their own jobs, as if they were
the owners of capital, or had a direct role in corporate decision-making, or were to blame for NAFTA's
existence. It's the kind of spontaneous anti-worker outburst that demonstrates where Trump's allegiance
ultimately rests. The second message repeats the claim that workers are the ones responsible for
keeping their jobs in place, thus more victim blaming, while adding a chilling new twist: shut
up and keep working , plus unions should have less money (and thus less power). Jones is likely
right in thinking that if Trump had
blamed the loss of the jobs on the union and its workers during the campaign, he would have lost
some votes. Jones is likely also correct when he stated about Trump that, "I'm not naive enough to
think he's going to be a friend to
the working class people". 3
None of this can take away the fact that Trump's victory was thanks primarily to working-class
voters, especially women and members of ethnic minorities among them. Though the numbers are not
definitive, the best knowledge we have is that
54.4% of Trump's voters were women and minorities , and 66% of whites without a college degree,
who are typically working class, also supported Trump.
The Wall Street Party (brought to you by Goldman Sachs)
As widely recognized by many others, one of the most glaring shifts in Trump's positioning concerns
Goldman Sachs. In his last, and very memorable television advertisement ending his electoral campaign,
Trump took direct aim at Goldman Sachs (featuring its president and corporate logo), the New
York Stock Exchange, and George Soros, all as representatives of a corrupt global power structure
that has robbed millions of Americans of their livelihoods. After the election, Trump nominated at
least five former Goldman Sachs executives to high-level positions in his cabinet -- though
not necessarily because of their varied associations with Goldman Sachs.
Steve Bannon , Trump's Chief Strategist, is a millionaire and was a former vice president of
Goldman Sachs until he left in 1990, and is perhaps the one pick that was not aligned with Goldman
Sachs' support for globalization.
Steven Mnuchin , a former senior partner at Goldman Sachs, and a hedge fund manager, was selected
by Trump to be the Secretary of the Treasury.
Gary Cohn , former president of Goldman Sachs, was chosen by Trump to head the National Economic
Council.
Dina Habib Powell , President Trump's senior counselor for economic initiatives, was recently
appointed as a deputy national security adviser for strategy -- Powell works closely with Jared
Kushner, and was recently the president of the Goldman Sachs Foundation.
Jay Clayton , who did not work at Goldman Sachs, was a partner at the Manhattan law firm of Sullivan
& Cromwell, 4 which represents Goldman Sachs, and his wife Gretchen works for Goldman
Sachs. Others have also reported that Trump's reversals are due to the sway of the
"Wall Street wing" of the White House.
As another writer noted, "
not since the Eisenhower administration have so many business executives landed top government jobs
, making Trump's Cabinet the wealthiest in American history". (Also, as mentioned in Note #1 below,
this chart shows some of the key ties that dominated the Eisenhower administration .) The list
of corporate executives in Trump's cabinet exceeds those mentioned above. Rex Tillerson, now Secretary
of State, was the CEO of Exxon. Ross Wilbur, a billionaire investor, is the Commerce Secretary. Of
course, we must also include the presence of the Trump corporation itself at the apex of the administration.
As some observed, Trump's choices send "the most powerful signal yet that Mr. Trump plans to emphasize
policies friendly to Wall Street, like tax cuts and a relaxation of regulation .that approach has
been
cheered by investors ". For weeks on end the stock market boomed, reaching new records, as if
celebrating a major victory. The fact that stock markets reacted so positively, and so quickly, to
Trump assuming the presidency almost suggests something akin to a coup, with some having had the
benefit of advance, inside knowledge. These features bring to mind Kapferer's discussion of the "
corporate oligarchic imperial state ":
"Current configurations of global, imperial and state power relate to formations of oligarchic
control. A major feature of this is the command of political organizations and institutions by
close-knit social groups (families or familial dynasties, groups of kin, closed associations or
tightly controlled interlinked networks of persons) for the purpose of the relatively exclusive
control of economic resources and their distribution". (Kapferer, 2005, p. 285)
Trump may have reversed himself in terms of the opportunistic targeting of Goldman Sachs,
as a symbol, but there is little point in evading the fact that he entered the electoral campaign
as the owner of a large family corporation. What is more difficult to explain is why Trump, as a
national capitalist, lent himself so quickly to supporting a transnational capitalist class with
economic and financial interests different from his own, which was also ideologically opposed to
his campaign. I see many taking matters for granted, by resorting to easy assertions that "they
are all the one percent," or "they are all oligarchs". That is broadly accurate, but also facile,
because such commentary focuses (knowingly or not) on capital, in broad terms, and not on the capitalist
class which is divided into competing factions. The elite political class of experts, managers, technocrats
and legislators, certainly remains more united than ever against Trump since his victory --
but the capitalist class is seeing some remarkable reconciliation thanks to Trump (at least for now).
So why did Trump choose to perform this service?
One hypothesis we should consider is that Trump, ever so concerned about his brand, preoccupied
with the futures of his children and grandchildren, and the future of his family's corporate empire
-- matters that are first and foremost for Trump -- wants to make a transition away from
a position as a national capitalist in order to enter the transnational capitalist
class, where the real global power lies. 5 It was a gamble, but we can surmise that Trump
(consciously or not) sees the presidency of the most powerful state of the world -- power that
was conceivably (and now actually) within his reach -- as being also the most powerful way
to boost the fortunes of the Trump brand. (Remember, this is a man who took the time to hold a press
conference during the campaign just to defend Trump-branded products in what resembled an
infomercial , and as president took to Twitter to shame chain stores for blocking sales of Ivanka
Trump's branded product lines.)
With the inevitable global networking that a presidency affords, conducted within the surroundings
of the Trump resort at
Mar-a-Lago
, Trump seems to be looking at the global expansion of his corporate interests. He had already started
to dip his toe in the pool of transnational capitalism by building hotels in a dozen different countries
(Canada, the UK, the UAE, Turkey, India, Indonesia, Philippines, Panama, the Dominican Republic,
Brazil, Uruguay, Argentina). Arguably the Miss Universe pageant also fits within the circuit of transnational
capitalism. The neo-regal style of Trump's lifestyle and his hotels, aided like a royal patriarch
by the ambassadorial service of his daughter Ivanka, may all be part of an expansionist, globalist
sales pitch of the Trump empire and the family that leads it.
Ivanka's husband, Jared Kushner, may also be a key to the globalist push in the White
House, with his
reputed financial ties to George Soros . A strategist for a financial services firm recently
exalted that what "
stopped nationalism in the White House " was an assemblage of super-wealthy members of the transnational
elite (globalists) within the administration.
Trump's pleasure at the remarkable absence of legal constraints on the presidency regarding nepotism
and conflict of interest, does not mean that conflict of interest and nepotism do not mark his presidency,
according to the commonly understood meanings of these terms. Germany's foreign minister, Sigmar
Gabriel, thus really could not be countered when he recently exclaimed, "it always bothers me when
members of a family, who have never been elected, show up suddenly as official state representatives
and are treated almost as if they were members of
a royal family ". Trump will now essentially rent out the US military in order to extract tribute
to advance his quasi-monarchic ambitions.
"... The US never seems to consider what the other side will do in response to its actions, assuming the other side will be overwhelmed or forced to submit. ..."
The term 'linear thinking' might better be described as 'mechanistic thinking' or the 'playbook
approach'.
The US never seems to consider what the other side will do in response to its actions,
assuming the other side will be overwhelmed or forced to submit. For example, the Gulenist-faction
shootdown of the Su-24 led to Russia using that as an excuse to bring in heavy air-defense for
for its forces. The bombing of the airliner in Egypt was used by Russia to invoke the UN article
of self defense against Daesh/ISIS, which no other actor has done.
The US bombing of SAA ground forces led to Russia inserting its own ground forces tempering
further air attacks. The Trump cruise missile strike against the SAA base holding Russian personnel
led to a mysterious S-300 launch from Tartus into the eastern Med. Subsequently US aircraft carrying
out attacks in SYria/Iraq appear to be flying from carriers in the Persian Gulf.
The creation of reconciliation zones has led to the presence of Russian forces close to the
Golan which seems to have dampened the IDF's enthusiasm for bombing Hezbollah which in turn helped
them clear out ISIS/whatever from the Syria/Lebanon border.
The current CIA-led regime change operation in Venezuela seems to be following the same script
as used in Ukraine and Syria with armed oppostion attacks on state forces, ignored by the western
media who focus solely on presenting what appears to be unprovoked attacks against hapless 'protestors'.
If the CIA has their way, the next stage should be mysterious snipers shooting both sides.
"... The sanctions bill has been promoted as one that appropriately penalizes Russia for its international misbehavior. The always-cited examples being the invasion of Georgia in 2008 and the (alleged) invasion of Ukraine in 2014. (As though these in any way rival in their impact and ramifications of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, based on lies, in 2003, or the U.S./NATO-led assault on Libya sold in the UN Security Council as a "humanitarian" intervention supported by Russia, that turned out to be a grotesque regime change operation culminating with Hillary Clinton's public orgasm following Muammar Gadaffi's sodomy-murder. "We came, we saw, he died!") ..."
"... Russia is always depicted in the corporate media as an "adversary." It acts, we are told ad nauseam, against U.S. "interests" around the world. Its involvement in Syria is (to support the survival of the secular modern Syrian state against the most savage opponents imaginable) is somehow objectionable (whereas U.S. bombing of Syria, condemned by Damascus as a violation of Syrian sovereignty and clearly in violation of international law, is treated as a matter of course). Its role in the bombing of Aleppo, resulting in the reconquest of the city from al-Nusra and its allies, was depicted by the U.S. media as a bad thing. Meanwhile U.S. bombing of Mosul, to retake that city from ISIL, is treated as heroic, however many thousands perish in "collateral damage." Anyway CNN won't cover it and has fewer reporters on the ground there than RT does. ..."
"... Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev matter-of-factly tweeted: "The Trump administration has shown its total weakness by handing over executive power to Congress in the most humiliating way." But where will this power lead? ..."
But U.S. policy now, under the Trump administration, is to promote U.S. energy exports to Europe
to replace Russian ones. It is both old-fashioned Cold War Russophobia and old-fashioned inter-capitalist,
inter-imperialist contention.
The sanctions bill has been promoted as one that appropriately penalizes Russia for its international
misbehavior. The always-cited examples being the invasion of Georgia in 2008 and the (alleged) invasion
of Ukraine in 2014. (As though these in any way rival in their impact and ramifications of the U.S.
invasion of Iraq, based on lies, in 2003, or the U.S./NATO-led assault on Libya sold in the UN Security
Council as a "humanitarian" intervention supported by Russia, that turned out to be a grotesque regime
change operation culminating with Hillary Clinton's public orgasm following Muammar Gadaffi's sodomy-murder.
"We came, we saw, he died!")
Hillary Clinton on Gaddafi: We came, we saw, he died
Russia is always depicted in the corporate media as an "adversary." It acts, we are told ad nauseam,
against U.S. "interests" around the world. Its involvement in Syria is (to support the survival of
the secular modern Syrian state against the most savage opponents imaginable) is somehow objectionable
(whereas U.S. bombing of Syria, condemned by Damascus as a violation of Syrian sovereignty and clearly
in violation of international law, is treated as a matter of course). Its role in the bombing of
Aleppo, resulting in the reconquest of the city from al-Nusra and its allies, was depicted by the
U.S. media as a bad thing. Meanwhile U.S. bombing of Mosul, to retake that city from ISIL, is treated
as heroic, however many thousands perish in "collateral damage." Anyway CNN won't cover it and has
fewer reporters on the ground there than RT does.
Russia is depicted as "provocative" when it mobilizes military forces within its own territory
(and Belarus), in response to massive NATO exercises involving 31,000 troops in Poland last June
that the German foreign minister criticized as "warmongering."
Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev matter-of-factly tweeted: "The Trump administration has
shown its total weakness by handing over executive power to Congress in the most humiliating way."
But where will this power lead?
The concept, as articulated by Sen. John McCain and Sen. John Hoeven in a 2014 Wall Street Journal
op-ed, is to "liberate our allies from Russia's stranglehold on the European natural-gas market."
But as the Washington Post has observed, "The problem is that Europeans don't necessarily want to
be liberated. Russian gas is much cheaper than American LNG, and could become even cheaper to undercut
the United States if it entered the European market. American LNG suppliers prioritize their own
profits over America's strategic advantage anyway, and are likely to want to target more lucrative
markets than Europe, such as Japan. Finally, the Russian gas supply is likely to be more reliable
than the United States', since it involves predictable long-term contracts, whereas U.S. production
capacity rises and falls, as it becomes cheaper and more expensive to extract American unconventional
hydrocarbons."
The McCain-Hoeven piece was of course written before there was any talk about Russian "election
meddling." But that issue was used to justify the sanctions bill. That, plus miscellaneous Russian
actions, basically in response to U.S. actions (as in Ukraine, where!as everyone should know!Hillary
Clinton's crony Victoria Newland helped organize a putsch in February 2014, designed to pull Ukraine
into NATO, although that effort has failed and anyway lacks German support).
The U.S. at this point (under Trump) is taking actions towards Russia that recall those of the
Truman administration. The warm, fuzzy (and miserable, abjectly weak) Russia of the 1990s under Yeltsin
is now a reviving world power within an emerging Eurasian trade system. The relationship between
Russia and China will stay strong even if the U.S. takes measures to sabotage trade relations between
Russia and Europe.
Meanwhile, the sanctions law has produced general European outrage. This is not the anti-Trump
outrage that accompanied his withdrawal from the Paris Agreement. It is outrage at the U.S. legislature
for its arrogance in demanding Europe shoot itself in the foot, to show Washington deference. In
other words, the entirety of the divided, troubled U.S. polity is seen as a problem. This is as a
new Pew Research Center report showing that only 49% of the world's people now hold a positive view
of the U.S.
German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel and Austrian Chancellor Christian Kern have publicly condemned
the law, which could prevent them from benefiting from the planned Nord Stream 2 pipeline, declaring:
"we cannot agree with threats of illegal extraterritorial sanctions against European companies which
take part in the development of European energy supply." Brigitte Zypries, head of Germany's Ministry
for Economic Affairs and Energy, says the new sanctions are "against international law, plain and
simple Americans cannot punish German companies because they [do business] in another country." The
foreign ministers of Germany, France, Austria, Italy and Spain have protested. Jean-Claude Juncker,
president of the European Commission, said the bill could have "unintended unilateral effects" on
the EU's energy security, adding, "America first cannot mean that Europe's interests come last."
This is not just a provocation of Russia, but of the whole world. It's leveled by a bipartisan
effort, and general (although insane) consensus that Russia is trying to revive the Soviet empire,
is constantly interfering in foreign countries' elections, and represents an "existential" threat
to the U.S. and its freedoms, etc. (Because!reputable media talking heads opine routinely!Putin hates
freedom and wants to oppose it, by electoral interference in Germany, France, Italy, etc.)
U.S. politicians!many of whom who do not believe in global warming or evolution, and cannot find
Syria or Ukraine on the map!have boldly gone where no one has gone before: to risk a trade war with
traditional allies, to force them to more firmly embrace the principle of U.S. hegemony. This when
the U.S. GDP has dropped below that of the EU, and U.S. clout and credibility in the world!in large
part due to global revulsion at the results of U.S. regime-change wars!is at low ebb.
Medvedev predicts that "relations between Russia and the United States are going to be extremely
tense regardless of Congress' makeup and regardless of who is president. Lengthy arguments in international
bodies and courts are ahead, as well as rising international tensions and refusal to settle major
international issues." No bromance here.
Meanwhile Sen. Lindsey Graham!an extreme reactionary and warmonger now lionized my the mainstream
media as some sort of "moderate" and adult in the room!informs NBC's Today Show that reports that
"there is no military option" on North Korea are "just false."
"There is a military option: to destroy North Korea's nuclear program and North Korea itself.
He's not going to allow -- President Trump -- the ability of this madman [Kim Jong Un] to have a missile
that could hit America. If there's going to be a war to stop him, it will be over there. If thousands
die, they're going to die over there. They're not going to die over here -- and he's told me that
to my face."
"... Do you remember the destruction of Libya based entirely on Washington's lies and the criminal misuse of the UN no-fly resolution by turning it into a NATO bombing of Libya's military so that the CIA-armed jihadists could overthrow and murder Muammar Gaddafi? Do you remember the killer bitch Hillary gloating, "we came, we saw, he died!" ..."
"... Do you remember the US coup in Ukraine against the democratically elected government and its replacement with a neo-nazi regime? Do you remember that Washington's crime against Ukrainian democracy was quickly hidden behind false charges of "Russian invasion"? ..."
August 07, 2017 " Information
Clearing House " - The American media specializes in fake news. Indeed, since the Clinton regime
the American media has produced nothing but fake news. Do you remember the illegal US bombing and
destruction of Yugoslavia? Do you remember "war criminal" Slobodan Milosevic, the Serbian president
branded "the butcher of the Balkans," who was compared to Hitler until Hillary passed the title on
to the President of Russia? Milosevic, not Bill Clinton, was arrested and placed on trial at the
International Criminal Tribunal. He died in prison, some say murdered, before he was cleared of charges
by the International Criminal Tribunal.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/milosevic-and-the-destruction-of-yugoslavia-unpleasant-truths-no-one-wants-to-know/5540873
Do you remember the destruction of Iraq justified by the orchestrated propaganda, known by the
criminal George W. Bush regime to be an outright lie, about Saddam Hussein's "weapons of mass destruction,"
weapons that the UN arms inspectors verified did not exist? Iraq was destroyed. Millions of Iraqis
were killed, orphaned, widowed, and displaced. Saddam Hussein was subjected to a show trial more
transparent than Stalin's trial of Bukharin and then murdered under the pretext of judicial execution.
Do you remember the destruction of Libya based entirely on Washington's lies and the criminal
misuse of the UN no-fly resolution by turning it into a NATO bombing of Libya's military so that
the CIA-armed jihadists could overthrow and murder Muammar Gaddafi? Do you remember the killer bitch
Hillary gloating, "we came, we saw, he died!"
Do you remember the lies that the criminal Obama regime told about Assad of Syria and the planned
US invasion of Syria that was blocked by the UK Parliament and the Russian government? Do you remember
that Obama and the killer bitch sent ISIS to do the job that US troops were prevented from doing?
Do you remember General Flynn revealing on TV that it was a "willful decision" of the criminal Obama
regime to send ISIS to Syria over his objection as Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency? This
bit of told truth is why Gen. Flynn is hated by the Washington criminals who forced him out as Trump's
National Security Adviser.
Do you remember the US coup in Ukraine against the democratically elected government and its
replacement with a neo-nazi regime? Do you remember that Washington's crime against Ukrainian democracy
was quickly hidden behind false charges of "Russian invasion"?
Can you think of any truthful report in the American news in the past two decades?
All of the lies leading to the death of millions told by the criminal Clinton, George W. Bush,
and Obama regimes were transparent. The US media could easily have exposed them and saved the lives
of millions of peoples and saved seven countries from destruction in whole or part. But the presstitutes
cheered on the gratuitous and criminal destruction of countries and peoples. Every one of the presstitutes
is a war criminal under the standards set by US Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson at the Nuremberg
trials.
We cannot even get a truthful jobs report. Yesterday (Aug. 4) the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)
reported 205,000 new private sector jobs in July and a drop in the unemployment rate to 4.3%. This
is fake news.
The Associated Press's Christopher Rugaber rah-rahs the fake news, adding that many economists
think "robust hiring could continue for many more months, or even years." Let's think about that
for a moment. Generally speaking economists regard full employment to be a 5% rate of unemployment.
There can never be a zero rate of unemployment because of frictions in the job market. For example,
there are people between jobs who have lost or quit a job and are looking for a new one, and there
are people who have dropped out of the work force, perhaps to spend more time parenting or to care
for an aged and ill parent, and have reentered the work force. Economists also believe that employment
cannot go too low without pushing up inflation.
Assuming economists have not suddenly changed their minds about what rate of unemployment is full
employment, if the unemployment rate is currently 4.3%, it is already below the full employment rate.
How can the rate continue to fall for years when the economy is already at full employment? Apparently,
this question did not occur to the AP reporter or to the "many economists."
Don't know whether you've have seen this article and the navettes of various
Iraqi Shi'a authorities to Riyadh, in particular Muqtada's visit this week:
When Sadr arrived in Jeddah, an anonymous Twitter user known as Mujtahid -- noted for his regular leaking of alleged developments within the secretive
House of Saud -- tweeted that the warm welcoming of Sadr "and prior to him al-Araji,
offering thousands of [hajj] visas to PMU [Popular Mobilization Units], celebrating
the [liberation] of Mosul, are all attempts to get closer to Iran so that they
can convince the Houthis to have mercy on bin Salman." Thamer al-Sabhan in a
July 31 tweet attacked "[Ayatollah Ruhollah] Khomeini's version of Shiism" and
praised what Sabhan called "genuine Shiism." Less than 24 hours later, however,
that tweet was removed. It is still unclear whether Sadr is really attempting
to mediate between Tehran and Riyadh. However, a senior Iranian official who
spoke to Al-Monitor on condition of anonymity expressed doubt that such an endeavor
would succeed in ending the rivalry between the two regional powers.
Don't know whether you've have seen this article and the navettes of
various Iraqi Shi'a authorities to Riyadh, in particular Muqtada's visit
this week:
When Sadr arrived in Jeddah, an anonymous Twitter user known as Mujtahid -- noted for his regular leaking of alleged developments within the secretive
House of Saud -- tweeted that the warm welcoming of Sadr "and prior to him
al-Araji, offering thousands of [hajj] visas to PMU [Popular Mobilization
Units], celebrating the [liberation] of Mosul, are all attempts to get closer
to Iran so that they can convince the Houthis to have mercy on bin Salman."
Thamer al-Sabhan in a July 31 tweet attacked "[Ayatollah Ruhollah] Khomeini's
version of Shiism" and praised what Sabhan called "genuine Shiism." Less
than 24 hours later, however, that tweet was removed. It is still unclear
whether Sadr is really attempting to mediate between Tehran and Riyadh.
However, a senior Iranian official who spoke to Al-Monitor on condition
of anonymity expressed doubt that such an endeavor would succeed in ending
the rivalry between the two regional powers.
"... " Hey, I'm a nationalist and a globalist ," Donald Trump recently declared, "I'm both". The only way in which the two (seemingly contradictory) positions can be reconciled is by introducing a third term, one that is absent from Trump's vocabulary: imperialism ..."
"... Trump defaults to what is common, established, and respected in the history of Washington politics. In other words, he turns to the only dominant understanding of American international politics that anyone socialized in the US would possess: "American leadership," that is, US global dominance. ..."
"... My thesis revolves around facts such as senior Goldman Sachs executives readily jumping aboard the engine of the "Trump train," after being denounced in Trump campaign advertising, which suggests that they do not see Trump's much touted nationalism as anything that needs to cause them any concern. There are now more Goldman Sachs figures in the Trump administration than in any previous administration. 1 This is perhaps the most fundamental "reversal" of Trump's course, that I argue points to the proper framework for assessing all of the other reversals that pile up with each passing day. That Trump plays to the media is a superficial sign of the deeper currents outlined below. ..."
"... A nationalism that extends itself globally, that projects its "interests" into other nations and then proclaims the right to defend those interests, is best understood as imperialism. ..."
"... As many others have argued, anthropologist Bruce Kapferer made the point that "the concept of globalization disguises the emergence to unchallenged (if momentary) global imperial dominance of the USA, whose own claim to international sovereignty reduces the sovereignty of many nation-states" (Kapferer, 2005, p. 286). ..."
"... Trump is now committed to a nationalist globalism ..."
"... That the US and Western mass media continue to lampoon Trump may thus unintentionally serve to undermine US foreign policy, since it is led by Trump. ..."
"... With his statement that he is both a nationalist and a globalist, Trump is making a major concession that contradicts a position he announced a year ago to the day: "We will no longer surrender our country or its people to the false song of globalism ". ..."
"... One of the more difficult questions involves explaining what moved Trump to abandon his promised foreign policy goals and his repeatedly stated anti-interventionist and anti-globalist principles that attracted significant support. ..."
"... state-subsidized ..."
"... shut up and keep working ..."
"... Trump may have reversed himself in terms of the opportunistic targeting of Goldman Sachs, as a symbol, but there is little point in evading the fact that he entered the electoral campaign as the owner of a large family corporation. What is more difficult to explain is why Trump, as a national capitalist, lent himself so quickly to supporting a transnational capitalist class with economic and financial interests different from his own, which was also ideologically opposed to his campaign. ..."
"... Ivanka's husband, Jared Kushner, may also be a key to the globalist push in the White House, with his reputed financial ties to George Soros . A strategist for a financial services firm recently exalted that what " stopped nationalism in the White House " was an assemblage of super-wealthy members of the transnational elite (globalists) within the administration. ..."
"
Hey, I'm a nationalist and a globalist ," Donald Trump recently declared, "I'm both". The only
way in which the two (seemingly contradictory) positions can be reconciled is by introducing a third
term, one that is absent from Trump's vocabulary: imperialism .
Trump might not be conscious of the implication of his statement (nor would he be the only one
sleepwalking toward regime change ), but that makes the explanation all the more powerful. In
the absence of both conviction that matches his campaign platform, and a well developed program for
an alternative US foreign policy that transforms the international "order" which the US underpins
-- a very tall order --
Trump defaults to what is common, established, and respected in the history of Washington
politics. In other words, he turns to the only dominant understanding of American international politics
that anyone socialized in the US would possess: "American leadership," that is, US global dominance.
The equipment to fulfill that vision is already in place and ready to produce instant results that
can then be cast as "winning," "standing strong," or as Fox News' Sean Hannity likes to inexplicably
exclaim, "America is back" (from what?). So why did Donald Trump, the so-called outsider, default
to the established course in US politics?
One question is whether Trump drifted into this position out of disorder, confusion, lack of conviction,
and a government undermined by factions. Another is whether he was "placed" in this position (by
others and/or himself), in what would then effectively amount to the corporate oligarchy's biggest
ever electoral heist. Others will instead point to Trump craving respect and adulation, and thus
playing to the media to improve his image. Some have made what I think are misleading and self-serving
arguments: that Trump's changes reflect an encounter with "reality," or represent "learning on the
job". The assumption here is that reality is somehow hard-coded with neoliberal principles. If learning
on the job meant learning to continue the imperial presidency, then they might have a point, even
if it's not the one they wanted to make.
Other questions to ask include (in no particular order of importance):
In which ways does nationalist globalism relate to imperialism?
How does Trump's newfound globalism connect to issues of conflict of interest and nepotism?
What role does class play in charting Trump's actual domestic and foreign policy directions?
Are the ostensible changes traceable to Trump's preexisting and underlying ambitions and interests,
or were the changes forced on him by circumstance?
Is this a story about the workings of the "deep state"?
Is Trump's presidency good news, after all, for extending the life of global liberal capitalism?
How might Trump's presidency end up strengthening the hands of anti-imperialists?
This article (long as it is, it has been significantly abridged), begins by examining "nationalist
globalism". I then focus on changes to Trump's stated positions seen from a domestic angle, and in
particular on his stances regarding Obama and the Clintons, his declared interest in turning the
Republican party into a "workers' party" while in fact returning it to the hold of Wall Street, and
thus I look at the ties between his cabinet, Goldman Sachs, and Wall Street broadly --
this is also where we discuss the nature of the "oligarchic corporate imperial state". After that,
we see how this mutated policy extends internationally, from Cuba to Russia, Syria, North Korea,
NAFTA, NATO, and WikiLeaks. I end the essay by discussing whether we can still proclaim the "end
of liberalism" (short answer: yes), and consider how Trump's presidency could aid the cause of anti-imperialism.
I considered some of the prospects of a Trump presidency with respect to US imperialism in an
equally lengthy article last October. In "
Donald Trump and Empire: An Assessment " I got some things right, and some things wrong, as is
true of everyone else. I asked: "how can Donald Trump make the decline in US global power 'beautiful,'
and how can he turn withdrawal into 'greatness'?". This question is now null and void. I also wrote
that, "on foreign policy, globalization, and military intervention, Donald Trump is a transitional
figure" -- that might hold some validity, but not in any straightforward sense: he may be inadvertently
setting the conditions for a truly transitional figure yet to come (but that could be true of any
representative of the power elite).
I was mistaken however in suggesting that, "Trump would be leading the equivalent of a perestroika
for US empire". I also argued that what Trump was offering was, "not so much radical change as an
intermediate passage, and a way of managing imperial decline" -- from where we now stand, the
last thing that seems to be on Trump's mind is anything remotely to do with "managing decline". Where
the analysis was on slightly less thin ice was when I said that Trump appeared to be, "not much of
one thing, not much of another, and somewhere in between . neither an anti-imperialist nor pro-imperialist,
nor even an absolute non-imperialist" -- but that is perhaps because, inside ambiguity, one
can hide anything. I also pointed out that,
"Nowhere, as far as I have seen, does Donald Trump ever proclaim himself an 'anti-imperialist'.
Apart from using the word 'Empire' for one of his fragrances, there is little evidence of the
word in his writings and speeches. Likewise, he never identifies himself as 'pro-imperialist'
either. Donald Trump certainly does advocate for American power, and 'American strength,' and
even calls himself a militarist on some occasions -- but with more caveats than his political
adversaries".
The above still largely holds, I think. It is also still truer than ever that "there are multiple
competing editions of Donald Trump" -- and one can find support for almost any argument about
Trump's stated intentions, by using Trump's own past words. Where I did point out that Trump had
taken decisively pro-imperialist positions in the past (regardless of his choice of words) was on
Iraq and its oil, on Libya, and on Cuba, Mexico, and Venezuela.
Matters have now become considerably simplified. We no longer need to debate where Trump stands
and what he might do once he became president. Now we know what , even if we still debate
why . However, understanding why might tell us something about what comes
next.
My thesis revolves around facts such as senior Goldman Sachs executives readily jumping aboard
the engine of the "Trump train," after being denounced in Trump campaign advertising, which suggests
that they do not see Trump's much touted nationalism as anything that needs to cause them any concern.
There are now more Goldman Sachs figures in the Trump administration than in any previous administration.
1 This is perhaps the most fundamental "reversal" of Trump's course, that I argue points
to the proper framework for assessing all of the other reversals that pile up with each passing day.
That Trump plays to the media is a superficial sign of the deeper currents outlined below.
What is Nationalist Globalism?
A nationalism that extends itself globally, that projects its "interests" into other nations
and then proclaims the right to defend those interests, is best understood as imperialism. Nationalism
and globalization are not striking contradictions, when referring to the ideology of an imperial
state that maximizes its power over globalization processes in order to gain at the expense of other
states. Besides the observation that what we know of as globalization was largely the product of
state action (legislation, economic incentives, building the infrastructures of global commerce and
communications, the creation of multilateral organizations, and so on), one state in particular can
claim a leading role in globalization. Barack Obama could thus declare in 2010, "no nation should
be better positioned to lead in an era of globalization than America -- the Nation that helped
bring globalization about" (quoted in Forte, 2015, p. 10). As many others have argued, anthropologist
Bruce Kapferer made the point that "the concept of globalization disguises the emergence to unchallenged
(if momentary) global imperial dominance of the USA, whose own claim to international sovereignty
reduces the sovereignty of many nation-states" (Kapferer, 2005, p. 286).
... ... ...
Trump is now committed to a nationalist globalism -- or imperialism --
one that is all too familiar and has been described by anthropologist Neil Smith (2005) as "Americanism".
We will need to keep analyzing Trump's policies as the months and years pass, but right now
we have an outline of the kinds of imperialism that Trump upholds. One is an economic imperialism
that goes back to the first premises of the US
"new empire" of the late 1800s: belligerently opening up foreign markets in order to absorb US
overproduction. So far, Trump is using political and economic means to achieve that goal --
as in trying to intimidate Canada into opening up its dairy market to an even greater number of US
imports, while punishing it for exporting cheap softwood lumber to the US. However, he is apparently
willing to trade economic goals for military ones, as in the case of dropping any antagonism toward
China about trade issues, in return for China's promise to somehow alter North Korea's foreign policy,
just as the US escalates military maneuvers with a possible military strike actively being considered.
(Confusingly, he reverses this pattern with South Korea, where military measures were then
clouded
by talk of
revising a trade agreement and extracting payment for US missile defense.)
Added to the corporate capitalist imperialism, and military imperialism , Trump is also toying
with liberal-humanitarian imperialism in the case of Syria. However -- and this is very important
-- what he lacks here is a "soft power" platform of any size or credibility. The ability of
Trump to preside over an effective program of cultural imperialism is diminished to the point of
zero, and is likely far less than even zero. That the US and Western mass media continue to lampoon
Trump may thus unintentionally serve to undermine US foreign policy, since it is led by Trump.
With his statement that he is both a nationalist and a globalist, Trump is making a major
concession that contradicts a position he announced a year ago to the day: "We will no longer surrender
our country or its people to
the false song of globalism ". A year later he effectively declared himself an adherent
to nationalism, plus something false. His statement also marks the new release of yet another edition
of Trump, such that we can set up extensive debates between various versions of Trump as published
in past books, speeches, and interviews. Just on the question of Syria alone, one could produce a
loud debate between
anti-interventionist
Trump of years past and pro-interventionist Trump of today. Explaining this apparent bifurcation,
and attempting to read it into his past statements on US regime change, is a complicated matter,
and those who make light of it with statements of having known with certainty that what we have today
would be the inevitable result, are being disingenuous. 2
The only promise made by Trump that still rings true is that of his "unpredictability". Being
unpredictable and flexible might be virtues in some situations, but when it comes to charting a course,
standing by a campaign platform, and committing oneself to a
contract with voters, such qualities are synonymous with being capricious, unreliable, unsteady,
opportunistic, and even treacherous. That would also hold true in business, and especially when living
up to commitments one makes in deals. That Trump tries to lighten the nature of his apparent deficit
of principles and conviction -- that he essentially admits he will not permit himself to be
fooled by his own words -- only aggravates the problem. A man with such little political accountability
to himself, can hardly be expected to be accountable to everyone else. For his independent-minded
supporters, this will not look like a problem of having a two-sided coin; rather, it's a problem
of having no coin at all if there is no value.
Renewing the Corporate Oligarchic State after November 8, 2016
Among those few who
predicted Trump's victory , few or none predicted that Trump would then move on to defeating
Trump. Some partisans have come up with slogans like "Love Trumps Hate," but no one to my knowledge
has ever exclaimed, "Trump Trumps Trump" -- thankfully. A recent list of the
monumental
ruin to which standard, corporate-fueled and media-driven machine politics fell thanks to the
Trump campaign, provides only an incomplete story of 2016. Now we have to rewrite even the story
of 2016. While a candidate could win a presidential campaign, as an "outsider," even as he was reviled
by his own party elite, demonized by the mass media, shunned by the mass of corporate donors, and
so forth, it also means that the status quo can win on the cheap. The establishment won, and all
without the usual investments, and not so much as a single compliment to the winning candidate who
would uphold their order -- at little or no cost to them. The next US political candidate to
campaign on being an "outsider" will face a greater challenge in being taken seriously; by the same
token, the dominant elites may disarm themselves, thinking the next outsider will be easy to co-opt
or browbeat into submission.
One of the more difficult questions involves explaining what moved Trump to abandon his promised
foreign policy goals and his repeatedly stated anti-interventionist and anti-globalist principles
that attracted significant support. For example, where trade is concerned, Trump has consistently
opposed free trade deals for nearly three decades. He would say that he believed in free trade, but
only if it was fair, and he did not believe any of the existing free trade deals were fair. Yet here
too he would alter course -- what was unfair was something he could generally tolerate for
now. That was not to be predicted, because there was no evidentiary basis for predicting it.
... ... ...
The Workers' Party (brought to you by Carl's Jr.)
Turning to the working class, and Trump's talk of transforming the Republican party into "
the party of the American worker " -- a claim he made both
before
and
after the election -- here two significant acts stand out, and they deserve a longer essay
in their own right. Trump's first choice for Secretary of Labor was none other than
Andrew Puzder , who at
the time was the chief executive officer of CKE Restaurants, which owns Hardee's and Carl's Jr. Puzder
was notoriously anti-union, and his opposition to raising the minimum wage, his
cheating CKE employees of their wages, support for automation, and employment of an undocumented
domestic servant while not paying taxes for her services, hardly represented the qualities of a leader
of some new workers' movement. This is the person Trump chose to supposedly enforce labour regulations.
Later, after Puzder withdrew himself from the nomination, Trump replaced him with
Alex Acosta , dean of the Florida International Law School, who also served on the National Labor
Relations Board and received the support of AFL-CIO leader Richard Trumka. This belated correction
-- imposed by circumstances beyond Trump's control -- was among the reasons some still
claim that
Trump should be taken seriously on wanting to make the GOP into the workers' party. I would prefer
to remind the reader about Trump's actual priorities, and consider the person he chose as his
number one preference.
That there is no accident in Trump's choices has a lot to do with his class prejudices and his
class ambitions. His choice of cabinet members, with a preference for billionaires (or generals),
shows who he tends to trust and respect. Some historians have said that Trump's cabinet is
the richest in US history , with a combined worth estimated as ranging from
$11 billion to
$14 billion
. One can attempt to remodel Trump as a "blue collar billionaire," but it seems futile. He would
tell his supporters on the campaign trail that "we need the rich" (a statement which can be ambiguous
in its implications) and "no poor man ever gave you a job" (which is unambiguous). The way his decision-making
apparatus has been structured also reveals Trump's interests: billionaires in actual positions of
power in his cabinet, but only
consultations with union officials .
When it comes to trade unions, Trump's first weeks since the election reinforce this tendency
toward a top-down, patronizing approach. On the one hand, he in fact won the
support of many key unions , primarily private-sector unions in construction and trades, and
secondarily among autoworkers, machinists, and steelworkers. On the other hand, one of Trump's earliest
skirmishes since he was elected was with
Chuck Jones , president of the United Steelworkers local 1999, over Trump's inflated claims about
saving jobs at the Carrier plant in Indiana that was to shut down as the company relocated to Mexico.
That planned move and the layoffs it entailed played an important part in the 2016 election, underscoring
both Trump's and Sanders' arguments against NAFTA. It seems that Trump, at most, scored half
of a victory in persuading Carrier to retain some jobs in Indiana, while still moving a substantial
portion to Mexico, only now with the blessing of millions of dollars in tax credits. The irony is
that Carrier is now performing a state-subsidized transfer of jobs to Mexico. Trump claimed
Carrier would keep 1,100 jobs in place -- but Jones argued that the number included 350 jobs
that were never scheduled to leave (yet 550 other union members would still lose their jobs), adding
that Trump completely ignored the fact that Carrier's parent company, United Technologies, still
planned to completely shut down and transfer 700 factory jobs from Huntington, Indiana, to Monterrey,
Mexico. Some of
Jones' statements to the press were very sharp. In response, Trump proceeded to lambast Jones
in Twitter, with a couple of apparently
vindictive and inflamed smears .
First, Trump appears to blame workers themselves for the loss of their own jobs, as if they were
the owners of capital, or had a direct role in corporate decision-making, or were to blame for NAFTA's
existence. It's the kind of spontaneous anti-worker outburst that demonstrates where Trump's allegiance
ultimately rests. The second message repeats the claim that workers are the ones responsible for
keeping their jobs in place, thus more victim blaming, while adding a chilling new twist: shut
up and keep working , plus unions should have less money (and thus less power). Jones is likely
right in thinking that if Trump had
blamed the loss of the jobs on the union and its workers during the campaign, he would have lost
some votes. Jones is likely also correct when he stated about Trump that, "I'm not naive enough to
think he's going to be a friend to
the working class people". 3
None of this can take away the fact that Trump's victory was thanks primarily to working-class
voters, especially women and members of ethnic minorities among them. Though the numbers are not
definitive, the best knowledge we have is that
54.4% of Trump's voters were women and minorities , and 66% of whites without a college degree,
who are typically working class, also supported Trump.
The Wall Street Party (brought to you by Goldman Sachs)
As widely recognized by many others, one of the most glaring shifts in Trump's positioning concerns
Goldman Sachs. In his last, and very memorable television advertisement ending his electoral campaign,
Trump took direct aim at Goldman Sachs (featuring its president and corporate logo), the New
York Stock Exchange, and George Soros, all as representatives of a corrupt global power structure
that has robbed millions of Americans of their livelihoods. After the election, Trump nominated at
least five former Goldman Sachs executives to high-level positions in his cabinet -- though
not necessarily because of their varied associations with Goldman Sachs.
Steve Bannon , Trump's Chief Strategist, is a millionaire and was a former vice president of
Goldman Sachs until he left in 1990, and is perhaps the one pick that was not aligned with Goldman
Sachs' support for globalization.
Steven Mnuchin , a former senior partner at Goldman Sachs, and a hedge fund manager, was selected
by Trump to be the Secretary of the Treasury.
Gary Cohn , former president of Goldman Sachs, was chosen by Trump to head the National Economic
Council.
Dina Habib Powell , President Trump's senior counselor for economic initiatives, was recently
appointed as a deputy national security adviser for strategy -- Powell works closely with Jared
Kushner, and was recently the president of the Goldman Sachs Foundation.
Jay Clayton , who did not work at Goldman Sachs, was a partner at the Manhattan law firm of Sullivan
& Cromwell, 4 which represents Goldman Sachs, and his wife Gretchen works for Goldman
Sachs. Others have also reported that Trump's reversals are due to the sway of the
"Wall Street wing" of the White House.
As another writer noted, "
not since the Eisenhower administration have so many business executives landed top government jobs
, making Trump's Cabinet the wealthiest in American history". (Also, as mentioned in Note #1 below,
this chart shows some of the key ties that dominated the Eisenhower administration .) The list
of corporate executives in Trump's cabinet exceeds those mentioned above. Rex Tillerson, now Secretary
of State, was the CEO of Exxon. Ross Wilbur, a billionaire investor, is the Commerce Secretary. Of
course, we must also include the presence of the Trump corporation itself at the apex of the administration.
As some observed, Trump's choices send "the most powerful signal yet that Mr. Trump plans to emphasize
policies friendly to Wall Street, like tax cuts and a relaxation of regulation .that approach has
been
cheered by investors ". For weeks on end the stock market boomed, reaching new records, as if
celebrating a major victory. The fact that stock markets reacted so positively, and so quickly, to
Trump assuming the presidency almost suggests something akin to a coup, with some having had the
benefit of advance, inside knowledge. These features bring to mind Kapferer's discussion of the "
corporate oligarchic imperial state ":
"Current configurations of global, imperial and state power relate to formations of oligarchic
control. A major feature of this is the command of political organizations and institutions by
close-knit social groups (families or familial dynasties, groups of kin, closed associations or
tightly controlled interlinked networks of persons) for the purpose of the relatively exclusive
control of economic resources and their distribution". (Kapferer, 2005, p. 285)
Trump may have reversed himself in terms of the opportunistic targeting of Goldman Sachs,
as a symbol, but there is little point in evading the fact that he entered the electoral campaign
as the owner of a large family corporation. What is more difficult to explain is why Trump, as a
national capitalist, lent himself so quickly to supporting a transnational capitalist class with
economic and financial interests different from his own, which was also ideologically opposed to
his campaign. I see many taking matters for granted, by resorting to easy assertions that "they
are all the one percent," or "they are all oligarchs". That is broadly accurate, but also facile,
because such commentary focuses (knowingly or not) on capital, in broad terms, and not on the capitalist
class which is divided into competing factions. The elite political class of experts, managers, technocrats
and legislators, certainly remains more united than ever against Trump since his victory --
but the capitalist class is seeing some remarkable reconciliation thanks to Trump (at least for now).
So why did Trump choose to perform this service?
One hypothesis we should consider is that Trump, ever so concerned about his brand, preoccupied
with the futures of his children and grandchildren, and the future of his family's corporate empire
-- matters that are first and foremost for Trump -- wants to make a transition away from
a position as a national capitalist in order to enter the transnational capitalist
class, where the real global power lies. 5 It was a gamble, but we can surmise that Trump
(consciously or not) sees the presidency of the most powerful state of the world -- power that
was conceivably (and now actually) within his reach -- as being also the most powerful way
to boost the fortunes of the Trump brand. (Remember, this is a man who took the time to hold a press
conference during the campaign just to defend Trump-branded products in what resembled an
infomercial , and as president took to Twitter to shame chain stores for blocking sales of Ivanka
Trump's branded product lines.)
With the inevitable global networking that a presidency affords, conducted within the surroundings
of the Trump resort at
Mar-a-Lago
, Trump seems to be looking at the global expansion of his corporate interests. He had already started
to dip his toe in the pool of transnational capitalism by building hotels in a dozen different countries
(Canada, the UK, the UAE, Turkey, India, Indonesia, Philippines, Panama, the Dominican Republic,
Brazil, Uruguay, Argentina). Arguably the Miss Universe pageant also fits within the circuit of transnational
capitalism. The neo-regal style of Trump's lifestyle and his hotels, aided like a royal patriarch
by the ambassadorial service of his daughter Ivanka, may all be part of an expansionist, globalist
sales pitch of the Trump empire and the family that leads it.
Ivanka's husband, Jared Kushner, may also be a key to the globalist push in the White
House, with his
reputed financial ties to George Soros . A strategist for a financial services firm recently
exalted that what "
stopped nationalism in the White House " was an assemblage of super-wealthy members of the transnational
elite (globalists) within the administration.
Trump's pleasure at the remarkable absence of legal constraints on the presidency regarding nepotism
and conflict of interest, does not mean that conflict of interest and nepotism do not mark his presidency,
according to the commonly understood meanings of these terms. Germany's foreign minister, Sigmar
Gabriel, thus really could not be countered when he recently exclaimed, "it always bothers me when
members of a family, who have never been elected, show up suddenly as official state representatives
and are treated almost as if they were members of
a royal family ". Trump will now essentially rent out the US military in order to extract tribute
to advance his quasi-monarchic ambitions.
"... The US never seems to consider what the other side will do in response to its actions, assuming the other side will be overwhelmed or forced to submit. ..."
The term 'linear thinking' might better be described as 'mechanistic thinking' or the 'playbook
approach'.
The US never seems to consider what the other side will do in response to its actions,
assuming the other side will be overwhelmed or forced to submit. For example, the Gulenist-faction
shootdown of the Su-24 led to Russia using that as an excuse to bring in heavy air-defense for
for its forces. The bombing of the airliner in Egypt was used by Russia to invoke the UN article
of self defense against Daesh/ISIS, which no other actor has done.
The US bombing of SAA ground forces led to Russia inserting its own ground forces tempering
further air attacks. The Trump cruise missile strike against the SAA base holding Russian personnel
led to a mysterious S-300 launch from Tartus into the eastern Med. Subsequently US aircraft carrying
out attacks in SYria/Iraq appear to be flying from carriers in the Persian Gulf.
The creation of reconciliation zones has led to the presence of Russian forces close to the
Golan which seems to have dampened the IDF's enthusiasm for bombing Hezbollah which in turn helped
them clear out ISIS/whatever from the Syria/Lebanon border.
The current CIA-led regime change operation in Venezuela seems to be following the same script
as used in Ukraine and Syria with armed oppostion attacks on state forces, ignored by the western
media who focus solely on presenting what appears to be unprovoked attacks against hapless 'protestors'.
If the CIA has their way, the next stage should be mysterious snipers shooting both sides.
"... The sanctions bill has been promoted as one that appropriately penalizes Russia for its international misbehavior. The always-cited examples being the invasion of Georgia in 2008 and the (alleged) invasion of Ukraine in 2014. (As though these in any way rival in their impact and ramifications of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, based on lies, in 2003, or the U.S./NATO-led assault on Libya sold in the UN Security Council as a "humanitarian" intervention supported by Russia, that turned out to be a grotesque regime change operation culminating with Hillary Clinton's public orgasm following Muammar Gadaffi's sodomy-murder. "We came, we saw, he died!") ..."
"... Russia is always depicted in the corporate media as an "adversary." It acts, we are told ad nauseam, against U.S. "interests" around the world. Its involvement in Syria is (to support the survival of the secular modern Syrian state against the most savage opponents imaginable) is somehow objectionable (whereas U.S. bombing of Syria, condemned by Damascus as a violation of Syrian sovereignty and clearly in violation of international law, is treated as a matter of course). Its role in the bombing of Aleppo, resulting in the reconquest of the city from al-Nusra and its allies, was depicted by the U.S. media as a bad thing. Meanwhile U.S. bombing of Mosul, to retake that city from ISIL, is treated as heroic, however many thousands perish in "collateral damage." Anyway CNN won't cover it and has fewer reporters on the ground there than RT does. ..."
"... Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev matter-of-factly tweeted: "The Trump administration has shown its total weakness by handing over executive power to Congress in the most humiliating way." But where will this power lead? ..."
But U.S. policy now, under the Trump administration, is to promote U.S. energy exports to Europe
to replace Russian ones. It is both old-fashioned Cold War Russophobia and old-fashioned inter-capitalist,
inter-imperialist contention.
The sanctions bill has been promoted as one that appropriately penalizes Russia for its international
misbehavior. The always-cited examples being the invasion of Georgia in 2008 and the (alleged) invasion
of Ukraine in 2014. (As though these in any way rival in their impact and ramifications of the U.S.
invasion of Iraq, based on lies, in 2003, or the U.S./NATO-led assault on Libya sold in the UN Security
Council as a "humanitarian" intervention supported by Russia, that turned out to be a grotesque regime
change operation culminating with Hillary Clinton's public orgasm following Muammar Gadaffi's sodomy-murder.
"We came, we saw, he died!")
Hillary Clinton on Gaddafi: We came, we saw, he died
Russia is always depicted in the corporate media as an "adversary." It acts, we are told ad nauseam,
against U.S. "interests" around the world. Its involvement in Syria is (to support the survival of
the secular modern Syrian state against the most savage opponents imaginable) is somehow objectionable
(whereas U.S. bombing of Syria, condemned by Damascus as a violation of Syrian sovereignty and clearly
in violation of international law, is treated as a matter of course). Its role in the bombing of
Aleppo, resulting in the reconquest of the city from al-Nusra and its allies, was depicted by the
U.S. media as a bad thing. Meanwhile U.S. bombing of Mosul, to retake that city from ISIL, is treated
as heroic, however many thousands perish in "collateral damage." Anyway CNN won't cover it and has
fewer reporters on the ground there than RT does.
Russia is depicted as "provocative" when it mobilizes military forces within its own territory
(and Belarus), in response to massive NATO exercises involving 31,000 troops in Poland last June
that the German foreign minister criticized as "warmongering."
Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev matter-of-factly tweeted: "The Trump administration has
shown its total weakness by handing over executive power to Congress in the most humiliating way."
But where will this power lead?
The concept, as articulated by Sen. John McCain and Sen. John Hoeven in a 2014 Wall Street Journal
op-ed, is to "liberate our allies from Russia's stranglehold on the European natural-gas market."
But as the Washington Post has observed, "The problem is that Europeans don't necessarily want to
be liberated. Russian gas is much cheaper than American LNG, and could become even cheaper to undercut
the United States if it entered the European market. American LNG suppliers prioritize their own
profits over America's strategic advantage anyway, and are likely to want to target more lucrative
markets than Europe, such as Japan. Finally, the Russian gas supply is likely to be more reliable
than the United States', since it involves predictable long-term contracts, whereas U.S. production
capacity rises and falls, as it becomes cheaper and more expensive to extract American unconventional
hydrocarbons."
The McCain-Hoeven piece was of course written before there was any talk about Russian "election
meddling." But that issue was used to justify the sanctions bill. That, plus miscellaneous Russian
actions, basically in response to U.S. actions (as in Ukraine, where!as everyone should know!Hillary
Clinton's crony Victoria Newland helped organize a putsch in February 2014, designed to pull Ukraine
into NATO, although that effort has failed and anyway lacks German support).
The U.S. at this point (under Trump) is taking actions towards Russia that recall those of the
Truman administration. The warm, fuzzy (and miserable, abjectly weak) Russia of the 1990s under Yeltsin
is now a reviving world power within an emerging Eurasian trade system. The relationship between
Russia and China will stay strong even if the U.S. takes measures to sabotage trade relations between
Russia and Europe.
Meanwhile, the sanctions law has produced general European outrage. This is not the anti-Trump
outrage that accompanied his withdrawal from the Paris Agreement. It is outrage at the U.S. legislature
for its arrogance in demanding Europe shoot itself in the foot, to show Washington deference. In
other words, the entirety of the divided, troubled U.S. polity is seen as a problem. This is as a
new Pew Research Center report showing that only 49% of the world's people now hold a positive view
of the U.S.
German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel and Austrian Chancellor Christian Kern have publicly condemned
the law, which could prevent them from benefiting from the planned Nord Stream 2 pipeline, declaring:
"we cannot agree with threats of illegal extraterritorial sanctions against European companies which
take part in the development of European energy supply." Brigitte Zypries, head of Germany's Ministry
for Economic Affairs and Energy, says the new sanctions are "against international law, plain and
simple Americans cannot punish German companies because they [do business] in another country." The
foreign ministers of Germany, France, Austria, Italy and Spain have protested. Jean-Claude Juncker,
president of the European Commission, said the bill could have "unintended unilateral effects" on
the EU's energy security, adding, "America first cannot mean that Europe's interests come last."
This is not just a provocation of Russia, but of the whole world. It's leveled by a bipartisan
effort, and general (although insane) consensus that Russia is trying to revive the Soviet empire,
is constantly interfering in foreign countries' elections, and represents an "existential" threat
to the U.S. and its freedoms, etc. (Because!reputable media talking heads opine routinely!Putin hates
freedom and wants to oppose it, by electoral interference in Germany, France, Italy, etc.)
U.S. politicians!many of whom who do not believe in global warming or evolution, and cannot find
Syria or Ukraine on the map!have boldly gone where no one has gone before: to risk a trade war with
traditional allies, to force them to more firmly embrace the principle of U.S. hegemony. This when
the U.S. GDP has dropped below that of the EU, and U.S. clout and credibility in the world!in large
part due to global revulsion at the results of U.S. regime-change wars!is at low ebb.
Medvedev predicts that "relations between Russia and the United States are going to be extremely
tense regardless of Congress' makeup and regardless of who is president. Lengthy arguments in international
bodies and courts are ahead, as well as rising international tensions and refusal to settle major
international issues." No bromance here.
Meanwhile Sen. Lindsey Graham!an extreme reactionary and warmonger now lionized my the mainstream
media as some sort of "moderate" and adult in the room!informs NBC's Today Show that reports that
"there is no military option" on North Korea are "just false."
"There is a military option: to destroy North Korea's nuclear program and North Korea itself.
He's not going to allow -- President Trump -- the ability of this madman [Kim Jong Un] to have a missile
that could hit America. If there's going to be a war to stop him, it will be over there. If thousands
die, they're going to die over there. They're not going to die over here -- and he's told me that
to my face."
"... Do you remember the destruction of Libya based entirely on Washington's lies and the criminal misuse of the UN no-fly resolution by turning it into a NATO bombing of Libya's military so that the CIA-armed jihadists could overthrow and murder Muammar Gaddafi? Do you remember the killer bitch Hillary gloating, "we came, we saw, he died!" ..."
"... Do you remember the US coup in Ukraine against the democratically elected government and its replacement with a neo-nazi regime? Do you remember that Washington's crime against Ukrainian democracy was quickly hidden behind false charges of "Russian invasion"? ..."
August 07, 2017 " Information
Clearing House " - The American media specializes in fake news. Indeed, since the Clinton regime
the American media has produced nothing but fake news. Do you remember the illegal US bombing and
destruction of Yugoslavia? Do you remember "war criminal" Slobodan Milosevic, the Serbian president
branded "the butcher of the Balkans," who was compared to Hitler until Hillary passed the title on
to the President of Russia? Milosevic, not Bill Clinton, was arrested and placed on trial at the
International Criminal Tribunal. He died in prison, some say murdered, before he was cleared of charges
by the International Criminal Tribunal.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/milosevic-and-the-destruction-of-yugoslavia-unpleasant-truths-no-one-wants-to-know/5540873
Do you remember the destruction of Iraq justified by the orchestrated propaganda, known by the
criminal George W. Bush regime to be an outright lie, about Saddam Hussein's "weapons of mass destruction,"
weapons that the UN arms inspectors verified did not exist? Iraq was destroyed. Millions of Iraqis
were killed, orphaned, widowed, and displaced. Saddam Hussein was subjected to a show trial more
transparent than Stalin's trial of Bukharin and then murdered under the pretext of judicial execution.
Do you remember the destruction of Libya based entirely on Washington's lies and the criminal
misuse of the UN no-fly resolution by turning it into a NATO bombing of Libya's military so that
the CIA-armed jihadists could overthrow and murder Muammar Gaddafi? Do you remember the killer bitch
Hillary gloating, "we came, we saw, he died!"
Do you remember the lies that the criminal Obama regime told about Assad of Syria and the planned
US invasion of Syria that was blocked by the UK Parliament and the Russian government? Do you remember
that Obama and the killer bitch sent ISIS to do the job that US troops were prevented from doing?
Do you remember General Flynn revealing on TV that it was a "willful decision" of the criminal Obama
regime to send ISIS to Syria over his objection as Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency? This
bit of told truth is why Gen. Flynn is hated by the Washington criminals who forced him out as Trump's
National Security Adviser.
Do you remember the US coup in Ukraine against the democratically elected government and its
replacement with a neo-nazi regime? Do you remember that Washington's crime against Ukrainian democracy
was quickly hidden behind false charges of "Russian invasion"?
Can you think of any truthful report in the American news in the past two decades?
All of the lies leading to the death of millions told by the criminal Clinton, George W. Bush,
and Obama regimes were transparent. The US media could easily have exposed them and saved the lives
of millions of peoples and saved seven countries from destruction in whole or part. But the presstitutes
cheered on the gratuitous and criminal destruction of countries and peoples. Every one of the presstitutes
is a war criminal under the standards set by US Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson at the Nuremberg
trials.
We cannot even get a truthful jobs report. Yesterday (Aug. 4) the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)
reported 205,000 new private sector jobs in July and a drop in the unemployment rate to 4.3%. This
is fake news.
The Associated Press's Christopher Rugaber rah-rahs the fake news, adding that many economists
think "robust hiring could continue for many more months, or even years." Let's think about that
for a moment. Generally speaking economists regard full employment to be a 5% rate of unemployment.
There can never be a zero rate of unemployment because of frictions in the job market. For example,
there are people between jobs who have lost or quit a job and are looking for a new one, and there
are people who have dropped out of the work force, perhaps to spend more time parenting or to care
for an aged and ill parent, and have reentered the work force. Economists also believe that employment
cannot go too low without pushing up inflation.
Assuming economists have not suddenly changed their minds about what rate of unemployment is full
employment, if the unemployment rate is currently 4.3%, it is already below the full employment rate.
How can the rate continue to fall for years when the economy is already at full employment? Apparently,
this question did not occur to the AP reporter or to the "many economists."
"... Very true. In fact, US military (in its conventional iteration) is one of the main (if not the main) pillar of the US Dollar as a main reserve currency, hence of US economy. It is, in effect, a business enterprise -- that is why US strategic (and military-doctrinal) though becomes increasingly incoherent -- one can formulate "global power" memes only for so long, at some point the sheer idiocy and futility of such "thinking" becomes evident even to those who believe in it. ..."
Us$ is being main focal point. While wrong perception maintained about usa military conventional superiority over anyone was critical
to mantain us$ status, us$ status as major reserve currency is the only thing that allowing united States to mantain her military
at current levels and basically USA status as major global power. Take us$ status away and the king is naked USA would become
very local power with vastly reduced if not ruined military and great issues at home. Everything that undermines us$ status is
well come including showing USA military impotence vs major nations that are challenging the status quo.
Take us$ status away and the king is naked USA would become very local power with vastly reduced if not ruined military and
great issues at home.
Very true. In fact, US military (in its conventional iteration) is one of the main (if not the main) pillar of the US Dollar
as a main reserve currency, hence of US economy. It is, in effect, a business enterprise -- that is why US strategic (and military-doctrinal)
though becomes increasingly incoherent -- one can formulate "global power" memes only for so long, at some point the sheer idiocy
and futility of such "thinking" becomes evident even to those who believe in it.
Only complete crazies remain. Plus, inability to realize itself as a real continental power is akin to acute sexual frustration.
"... Very true. In fact, US military (in its conventional iteration) is one of the main (if not the main) pillar of the US Dollar as a main reserve currency, hence of US economy. It is, in effect, a business enterprise -- that is why US strategic (and military-doctrinal) though becomes increasingly incoherent -- one can formulate "global power" memes only for so long, at some point the sheer idiocy and futility of such "thinking" becomes evident even to those who believe in it. ..."
Us$ is being main focal point. While wrong perception maintained about usa military conventional superiority over anyone was critical
to mantain us$ status, us$ status as major reserve currency is the only thing that allowing united States to mantain her military
at current levels and basically USA status as major global power. Take us$ status away and the king is naked USA would become
very local power with vastly reduced if not ruined military and great issues at home. Everything that undermines us$ status is
well come including showing USA military impotence vs major nations that are challenging the status quo.
Take us$ status away and the king is naked USA would become very local power with vastly reduced if not ruined military and
great issues at home.
Very true. In fact, US military (in its conventional iteration) is one of the main (if not the main) pillar of the US Dollar
as a main reserve currency, hence of US economy. It is, in effect, a business enterprise -- that is why US strategic (and military-doctrinal)
though becomes increasingly incoherent -- one can formulate "global power" memes only for so long, at some point the sheer idiocy
and futility of such "thinking" becomes evident even to those who believe in it.
Only complete crazies remain. Plus, inability to realize itself as a real continental power is akin to acute sexual frustration.
"... Very true. In fact, US military (in its conventional iteration) is one of the main (if not the main) pillar of the US Dollar as a main reserve currency, hence of US economy. It is, in effect, a business enterprise -- that is why US strategic (and military-doctrinal) though becomes increasingly incoherent -- one can formulate "global power" memes only for so long, at some point the sheer idiocy and futility of such "thinking" becomes evident even to those who believe in it. ..."
Us$ is being main focal point. While wrong perception maintained about usa military conventional superiority over anyone was critical
to mantain us$ status, us$ status as major reserve currency is the only thing that allowing united States to mantain her military
at current levels and basically USA status as major global power. Take us$ status away and the king is naked USA would become
very local power with vastly reduced if not ruined military and great issues at home. Everything that undermines us$ status is
well come including showing USA military impotence vs major nations that are challenging the status quo.
Take us$ status away and the king is naked USA would become very local power with vastly reduced if not ruined military and
great issues at home.
Very true. In fact, US military (in its conventional iteration) is one of the main (if not the main) pillar of the US Dollar
as a main reserve currency, hence of US economy. It is, in effect, a business enterprise -- that is why US strategic (and military-doctrinal)
though becomes increasingly incoherent -- one can formulate "global power" memes only for so long, at some point the sheer idiocy
and futility of such "thinking" becomes evident even to those who believe in it.
Only complete crazies remain. Plus, inability to realize itself as a real continental power is akin to acute sexual frustration.
While the US is clearly not omnipotent, Ukraine was sliding into Baltic model for a long time,
probably since independence. So while the Maydan coup was organized and implemented by the USA,
the coming to power of right wing Western Ukrainian nationalists was probably given. The USA
actually only speeded the events by a year or two. During the next Presidential election far
right Ukrainian nationalist my impression is that they would depose Yanukovich anyway. so
the coup was probably more the result of incompetence and hubris of staunch neocon (and former
Cheney associate) Nuland then a real necessity. If we consider neocons to be a
flavor of political psychopaths such a result is not surprising.
Putin has a chance to prevent Maydan by using the same dirty methods as the USA, but iether
had chosen not to do this, or was slightly distracted by Olympics (please not that Georgian
invasion of South Ossetia also happened during Olympic events). After the coup he has one or two
days -- a small window of opportunity for deposing right wing nationalist by recognizing
Yanukovich government and sending groups to restore "the legitimate government", which was
actually corrupt (although probably to lesser level the subsequent government of Poroshenko, where
each minister became a millionaire) and hated by a lot of Ukrainians. So the population
reaction to restoration of Yanukovich regime by force might be quite hostile. Putin and his
government had chosen not to do it and gave the victory to the USA: Russia completely
lost the geopolitical game for Ukraine to the USA and now need to suffer the new cold war2 (which
also was given, the the global hegemon which accepts only vassals, the USA needed only the pretext
to squash attempts of Russia to conduct independent foreign policy). But in a decade from now the
USA probably will pay the price for this as the alliance of Russia and China is now more of a
reality then even before. Also the end of "cheap oil" automatically will drive the US
economy into perma stagnation. The current artificial low price can't last forever.
Destruction on Ukraine and its economic potential started at this point in full force and in
addition to the necessity of handing huge refugees flow to Russia, Russian economic suffered
huge losses from braking cooperation with Ukraine (which was part of the USSR economics and were
closely connected to Russian).
So Barack Obama got a huge geopolitical victory, the main victory of his presidency (along
with his Libyan adventure). But Ukrainians now need to suffer and there is no light at the
end of the tunnel. they are now just pawns in Washington geopolitical game against Russia and have
no choice but fight.
Notable quotes:
"... In crafting the platform in Cleveland on which Donald Trump would run, America Firsters inflicted a major defeat on the War Party. The platform committee rejected a plank to pull us deeper into Ukraine, by successfully opposing new U.S. arms transfers to Kiev. ..."
"... As pro-Russia rebels in East Ukraine have armored vehicles, Kiev wants U.S. tank-killing Javelin missiles, as well as antiaircraft weapons. State and Defense want Trump to send the lethal weapons. This is a formula for a renewed war, with far higher casualties in Ukraine than the 10,000 dead already suffered on both sides. And it is a war Vladimir Putin will not likely allow Kiev to win. ..."
"... If Ukraine's army, bolstered by U.S. weaponry, re-engages in the east, it could face a Moscow-backed counterattack and be routed, and the Russian army could take permanent control of the Donbass. ..."
"... Is President Trump losing control of Russia policy? Has he capitulated to the neocons? These are not academic questions. For consider the architect of the new arms package, Kurt Volker, the new U.S. Special Representative for Ukraine Negotiations. ..."
"... If the following is true it is worth reading: https://www.rt.com/news/398490-us-main-global-threat-survey/ ..."
"... Dear Mr. Buchanan, Had the Journal one small moment of "truth telling" then its goal would be crystal clear not to bleed Russia but to bleed the United States to utter insolvency through their endless stupid wars.. Just look at our nation's balance sheet to see the truth. Nearly FIFTEEN TRILLION DOLLARS of debt generated in a mere seventeen years. ..."
"... Volker envisions a deepening U.S. involvement in a Ukrainian civil war that can bleed and break Russia's Ukrainian allies and convince Putin to back down and accept what we regard as a just settlement ..."
"... On the contrary, I think that Volker and others driving US policy are very well aware that Putin won't back down, and this is indeed what they want. A direct, permanent conflict with Russia which will leave it isolated from the "Western" world. A bit like track and field, where it increasingly looks like Russia will be permanently excluded from international competitions, and where Russian athletes will only be allowed to compete as "neutrals", under pain of exclusion if they as so much as sing the Russian national anthem in their hotel. And once the conflict heats up in Ukraine, look for a call to boycott the 2018 World Cup in Russia (as per the 1980 Olympics). The recent Confederations Cup in Russia was widely viewed as a considerable success, and received favorable reporting in much of the Western press, and this clearly can't be allowed to happen with the World Cup, the World's premier sporting event. ..."
"... And of course conflict with Russia has nothing to do with the proclaimed goal of containing an "agressive" Putin and Russia, which is a fallacious representation of Russia's actions and motives, and everything to do with maintaining the seemingly absolute World hegemony the USA gained after the collapse of the USSR. This fantasy of absolute hegemony is hard to let go for Neocons and Deep state, and they will cling to it with all their claws, even risking nuclear war for it ..."
"... The latest sanctions on Russia are an attempt to bleed Russia in another way, by pushing it out of the World economy, with the naive conviction that it would all end well if that plan succeeded ..."
"... It's a confusion of the Soviet experience in Afghanistan with the defense of ethnic Russians standing up to a Yankee Puppet Regime trying to subjugate them. The coffins might well secure a landslide election for Putin in such a cause. The US may have seriously misunderestimated the situation there. ..."
"... I'd say the neocons have Trump on the ropes. Perhaps he figures if he buys enough of their guns he can pacify them long enough to get some control back, I doubt he has any intention of firing those guns but hey, shit happens! ..."
"... a previous puppet of US, Yushchenko, was installed in Kiev with the help of the State Dept. and the CIA-supported and educated organizations like The National Endowment for Democracy (NED). http://www.fort-russ.com/2017/08/killing-europe-us-launches-sanctions.html ..."
"... Monsanto is already in charge of the Ukraine' agricultural lands. Splendid. http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2526593/ukraine_opens_up_for_monsanto_land_grabs_and_gmos.html ..."
In crafting the platform in Cleveland on which Donald Trump would run, America Firsters
inflicted a major defeat on the War Party. The platform committee rejected a plank to pull us deeper into Ukraine, by successfully
opposing new U.S. arms transfers to Kiev.
Improved relations with Russia were what candidate Trump had promised, and what Americans
would vote for in November.
Yet, this week, The Wall Street Journal reports:
"The U.S. Pentagon and State Department have devised plans to supply Ukraine with antitank
missiles and other weaponry and are seeking White House approval as Kiev battles Russia-backed
separatists Defense Secretary Mattis has endorsed the plan."
As pro-Russia rebels in East Ukraine have armored vehicles, Kiev wants U.S. tank-killing
Javelin missiles, as well as antiaircraft weapons. State and Defense want Trump to send the lethal weapons. This is a formula for a renewed war, with far higher casualties in Ukraine than the 10,000
dead already suffered on both sides. And it is a war Vladimir Putin will not likely allow Kiev to win.
If Ukraine's army, bolstered by U.S. weaponry, re-engages in the east, it could face a
Moscow-backed counterattack and be routed, and the Russian army could take permanent control of
the Donbass.
Indeed, if Trump approves this State-Defense escalation plan, we could be looking at a rerun
of the Russia-Georgia war of August 2008.
Then, to recapture its lost province of South Ossetia, which had seceded in 1992, after
Georgia seceded from Russia, Georgia invaded.
Putin sent his army in, threw the Georgians out, and recognized South Ossetia, as John
McCain impotently declaimed, "We are all Georgians now!"
Wisely, George W. Bush ignored McCain and did nothing.
But about this new arms deal questions arise.
As the rebels have no aircraft, whose planes are the U.S. antiaircraft missiles to shoot
down? And if the Russian army just over the border can enter and crush the Ukrainian army, why
would we want to restart a civil war, the only certain result of which is more dead Ukrainians
on both sides?
The Journal's answer: Our goal is to bleed Russia.
"The point of lethal aid is to raise the price Mr. Putin pays for his imperialism until he
withdraws or agrees to peace. The Russians don't want dead soldiers arriving home before next
year's presidential election."
Also going neocon is Mike Pence. In Georgia this week, noting that Russian tanks are still
in South Ossetia, the vice president not only declared, "We stand with you," he told Georgians
the U.S. stands by its 2008 commitment to bring them into NATO.
This would mean, under Article 5 of the NATO treaty, that in a future Russia-Georgia clash
the U.S. could find itself in a shooting war with Russia in the South Caucasus.
Russia's security interests there seem clear. What are ours?
Along with Trump's signing of the new sanctions bill imposed by Congress, which strips him
of his authority to lift those sanctions without Hill approval, these developments raise larger
questions.
Is President Trump losing control of Russia policy? Has he capitulated to the neocons? These
are not academic questions. For consider the architect of the new arms package, Kurt Volker,
the new U.S. Special Representative for Ukraine Negotiations.
A former CIA agent, member of the National Security Counsel, and envoy to NATO, Volker
believes Russian troops in Transnistria, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk
are all there illegally -- and U.S. policy should be to push them out.
A former staffer of Sen. McCain, Volker was, until July, executive director of the neocon
McCain Institute. He has called for the imposition of personal sanctions on Putin and his
family and European travel restrictions on the Russian president. In the Journal this week, "officials" described his strategy:
"Volker believes that a change in Ukraine can be brought only by raising the costs for
Moscow for continued intervention in Ukraine. In public comments, he has played down the notion
that supplying weapons to Ukraine would escalate the conflict with Russia."
In short, Volker believes giving antitank and antiaircraft missiles to Ukraine will bring
Putin to the negotiating table, as he fears the prospect of dead Russian soldiers coming home
in caskets before his 2018 election. As for concerns that Putin might send his army into Ukraine, such worries are
unwarranted. Volker envisions a deepening U.S. involvement in a Ukrainian civil war that can bleed and
break Russia's Ukrainian allies and convince Putin to back down and accept what we regard as a
just settlement.
Does Trump believe this? Does Trump believe that confronting Putin with rising casualties
among his army and allies in Ukraine is the way to force the Russian president to back down and
withdraw from Crimea, Luhansk and Donetsk, as Nikita Khrushchev did from Cuba in 1962?
What if Putin refuses to back down, and chooses to confront?
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, "Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles
That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever."
E. Ukraine and Crimea would be part controlled by Ukraine and there would be no fighting
in E. Ukraine today if Obama and Nuland had not interfered in Ukraine. Period.
The upheaval and deaths there are entirely our responsibility.
@reiner
Tor
"Interestingly, it's never explained why Putin would fear his soldiers being killed
before the election if he really was a dictator. Either he doesn't care much for the election
or he's not really a dictator." Well said.
Dear Mr. Buchanan, Had the Journal one small moment of "truth telling" then its goal would be crystal clear
not to bleed Russia but to bleed the United States to utter insolvency through their endless
stupid wars.. Just look at our nation's balance sheet to see the truth. Nearly FIFTEEN TRILLION DOLLARS of debt generated in a mere seventeen years.
What an utter disaster and total disgrace to our nation.
Volker envisions a deepening U.S. involvement in a Ukrainian civil war that can
bleed and break Russia's Ukrainian allies and convince Putin to back down and accept what
we regard as a just settlement
.
On the contrary, I think that Volker and others driving US policy are very well aware that
Putin won't back down, and this is indeed what they want. A direct, permanent conflict with
Russia which will leave it isolated from the "Western" world. A bit like track and field,
where it increasingly looks like Russia will be permanently excluded from international
competitions, and where Russian athletes will only be allowed to compete as "neutrals", under
pain of exclusion if they as so much as sing the Russian national anthem in their hotel. And
once the conflict heats up in Ukraine, look for a call to boycott the 2018 World Cup in
Russia (as per the 1980 Olympics). The recent Confederations Cup in Russia was widely viewed
as a considerable success, and received favorable reporting in much of the Western press, and
this clearly can't be allowed to happen with the World Cup, the World's premier sporting
event.
And of course conflict with Russia has nothing to do with the proclaimed goal of
containing an "agressive" Putin and Russia, which is a fallacious representation of Russia's
actions and motives, and everything to do with maintaining the seemingly absolute World
hegemony the USA gained after the collapse of the USSR.
This fantasy of absolute hegemony is hard to let go for Neocons and Deep state, and they will
cling to it with all their claws, even risking nuclear war for it
.
The latest sanctions on Russia are an attempt to bleed Russia in another way, by pushing
it out of the World economy, with the naive conviction that it would all end well if that
plan succeeded
Anyone with an ounce of common sense realises that it would end terribly bad for all the
parties involved.
@reiner
Tor
It's a confusion of the Soviet experience in Afghanistan with the defense of ethnic
Russians standing up to a Yankee Puppet Regime trying to subjugate them. The coffins might
well secure a landslide election for Putin in such a cause. The US may have seriously
misunderestimated the situation there.
I'd say the neocons have Trump on the ropes. Perhaps he figures if he buys enough of their
guns he can pacify them long enough to get some control back, I doubt he has any intention of
firing those guns but hey, shit happens!
Expecting Russia to back down fearing causalities? It would be wise to check who has been
backing down due to causalities first before making such conclusions. Here Russia security is
concerned and causalities are acceptable. USA should be very worried not to take too much
responsibilities along Russian borders because things can get hot and this is not the war USA
can win. Lose it even small way and USA days as great power are over.
Both this article, and the problems it proposes to address, are based on deep and
fundamental misunderstandings of Russia and its domestic politics. Russia has escalation
dominance in the Ukrainian theater and will not only match, but exceed, any American
provocation there, including the delivery of arms to the UAF. I believe Russia would have no
problem with this development, as it would give them cover to increase, and perhaps make
official, its support for the NDF.
As an aside, before their civil war, the Ukraine was perennially among the top five of the
world's largest arms exporters. So lack of arms is not clearly not the problem. No, the
problem is that those who are trained to use them are not particularly enthusiastic about
fighting, and those that are enthusiastic about fighting are not particularly well trained.
Not to mention that a lot of them are dead already.
As for Putin and the elections, the real risk for him is not soldiers coming home in
bodybags. Russian mentality, and their general attitudes towards war, allow them to take
losses perhaps like no one else in the world. No, the real political risk to Putin is not
appearing to react strongly enough.
As it is, Russian public opinion would like him to take a tougher stance in facing down
the Empire. The world should really be glad that Russia has such a patient and tolerant
leader. Russia's next leader will lack the political capital that Putin has developed over
the years, and will likely be much more aggressive in the defense of Russia's national
interests. Those dreaming of Putin's exit should really be careful of what they wish for.
If Putin backs down to the neocons .he will very likely be overthrown by the Russian
Military .I would like to know Comrade Saker's and Comrade SmothieX1′s view on this
matter since they are both by many orders of magnitude more qualified to comment on this
point that I have raised
look for a call to boycott the 2018 World Cup in Russia
That would never work, the USA could prevent their team from going and nobody would care,
but there is no way they could make the rest of the world do this, to deprive people of such
a big event would create an epic backfire for the neocons, even vassal states such as Germany
or UK being told by the USA not to go with get the middle finger.
Well, at least we're spared in his latest Mr. Buchanan's witlessly carrying around a
bucket of "Russian hacking" BS.
But he still serves the Establishment. Note his habitual use of "we" in reference to the
USG. People who self-identify with their rulers are essential for the warmongers. Isn't that
why Americans are subjected to camouflage uniforms and "thank you for your service"
spectacles at athletic events?
I can appreciate the author's desire to see himself and to be lauded as a "true
conservative." But the fact is that he was part of the regime that was more successful only
because it picked on Grenada and other relative weaklings. 99% of the people who live in this
country shouldn't care less about who governs Ukraine, Korea, or any other place outside the
lawful territory of the United States
More of us every day realize that the beat has been rolling on, no matter who is in
nominal power in Washington, for a long, long time. Mr. Buchanan should take a couple more
steps back. Maybe he will see that, too.
In short, Volker believes giving antitank and antiaircraft missiles to Ukraine will
bring Putin to the negotiating table, as he fears the prospect of dead Russian soldiers
coming home in caskets before his 2018 election.
1.There are NO cohesive Russian Armed Forces units (formations) in Donbass. Volunteers
(aka "vacationers") from regular Russian Army? Sure, they are being paid well, plus Northern
Wind. But it seems even Ukrainian Army's top brass admission that there are no Russian troops
in Ukraine falls on a deaf ear. Evidently those in the "West" who continue to repeat this
baloney have very little understanding of how real wars are fought and how real formations
from company up to battalion and regiment level, not to speak of brigades or divisions, are
deployed. Per personnel–neither DNR nor LNR have issues with mobilizing numbers.
2. Volker continues, if that are his real intentions, to demonstrate a complete lack of
any strategic vision and following dead beat cliches–which are defining characteristics
of D.C. "elites" who are completely removed from everyday realities, which actually matter,
of the world. Nor are they competent in their assessments of the scale of the resources
required for "bringing Putin to negotiating table". Even giving some Javelins (not to speak
of TOWs) and Stinger-type weapons will only accelerate a demise of the Ukrainian Army and
with it, of the current Kiev regime. But then again, considering level of US "diplomacy" in
general, and Volker's in particular one can reasonably expect another FUBAR with dire
consequences for both US and its clients.
putin will 100% not back down. this is not 1962. same reason why china would never allow
NK to be taken over.
It has nothing, zilch, to do with Putin. It has everything to do with overwhelming
majority of Russian people, whose blood was spilled on US and EU (NATO) money. The combined
West and especially its pathetic Russian "academe" have no clue about cultural suicide West
(US especially) has committed in Russia. It is my academic contention that US Russia's
"scholarship" (with some few exceptions) knows next to zero about Russia and especially her
20th and 21st century history. It is an established scientific fact now. Overwhelming
empirical evidence to support my claim is in place and easily accessible. It is also a major
reason why US "power elites" are so dangerous–they miscalculate constantly, because
they are incompetent.
If I have understood Mr Buchanan's writings correctly, his primary goal is the destruction
of the EU, which he sees as a threat to US global hegemony. Putin is merely an American
stooge to be used to promote that end in return for which he is to get such reward as the
hegemonic US vouchsafes to grant him. The conundrum for the US hegemonists is that if Putin
wins in Ukraine, then US global hegemony is irreversibly destroyed but if he loses, the hated
EU is enormously strengthened, which in its turn destroys US global hegemony! Heads, the EU
wins, tails, the US loses! The argument Mr Buchanan is challenging seems to be that taking
Putin out will do less damage to US hegemony than allowing him to win. As for Putin, he has
two choices. He can capitulate in return for some face-saving fudge that will fool nobody.
That will probably destroy him politically with his elderly Soviet-generation supporters at
home. Or he can start WWIII and lose or start WWIII, go nuclear and then lose. That too will
destroy him at home. Thus, for US hegemonists who haven't yet accepted that Putin has "blown
it" and can no longer serve as a battering ram to destroy the EU (and has, indeed, become a
liability to the very US groups that initially backed him), the logical thing is to try to
get the US to capitulate to Putin in the mistaken belief the the European members of NATO are
incapable of fending off Putin's rickety military machine by themselves. That wholly
misunderstands the strength of nationalism in Europe, the very same nationalism that the US
hegemonists have been trying to whip up as (yet another!) battering ram to destroy the
EU!
"Is President Trump losing control of Russia policy? Has he capitulated to the neocons?
[OR ARE WE NOW FORCED TO CONCLUDE THAT TRUMP'S PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN WAS A CALCULATED FRAUD
FROM THE BEGINNING]?"
Political morons are running the US. Trump is not in control of any of his agencies or
departments. All of them are hostile to him not to speak to Congress. which blocks any of his
initiatives. What Vice President Mike Pence is talking about his trip in the Baltics or the
other US satellite states, is irresponsible. It shows that Trump has lost control that is
what the war party and the Republicans want. They will push Trump out of office and if it
doesn't work some hired crazy will kill him like JFK. The real political gangsters are the
members of the Deep State such as the CIA, NSA, the wider intelligence community, and the
Clinton and Obama political mafia.
The suggestions made by Kurt Volker, the new U.S. Special Representative for Ukraine
Negotiations, are just beyond the pale for the Russians. For what Volker suggested, Trump
should replace him. President Putin should not accept being fooled by the US any longer and
just take the Donbas, period as he did with South Ossetia. If the US war-mongers in
Washington want to go to war over Ukraine, they should try it. Putin should not allow the US
to blackmail him further on.
Putin is not an imperialist or an aggressor, but the US Empire and its NATO satellites
are.
Having conquered 75 per cent of the world's territories through over 700 US military
bases, the real perpetrator is obvious. Putin should not back down against US aggression and
provocation. Why should the US risk its destruction for a corrupt and criminal political
leadership in Ukraine? Perhaps there are still some sane people within the Belt Way, although
they are thin on the ground.
@JL
As I've proposed in other fora, a simple, effective Russian response would be to proclaim a
temporary protectorate over the Donbas republics of the Ukraine until such time as the Minsk
II agreement is fulfilled, or renegotiated to the agreement to the concerned parties. (I.E.,
temporarily permanent.) A precedent would be the French protectorates Tunisia and Morocco,
and the various analogous protectorates still exercised around the world (see Wikipedia). The
proclamation should proclaim that Russia will retaliate against any artillery, missile, air,
or naval attacks on the Donbas using forces located in Russian; and also against any ground
attack across the cease-fire line using ground forces presently deployed in Russia, at the
request of either Donbas republic. The U.S. and Nato would scream bloody murder of course,
Congress would vote more meaningless sanctions, but the situation would stabilize permanently
IMHO, perhaps after a few retaliatory barrages. It would be like the Crimea, a frozen
conflict the Ukraine and the West know they cannot win short of WW3.
@Wally
You are deluded. It's almost hopeless – but one last try- the policy of US global
hegemony has nothing to do with Israel. It's been the goal of almost the entire foreign
policy elite- including the WASP elite- since 1945. If you mistakenly insist on blaming
Israel or its supporters for everything that is happening, you can't identify the real ideas
and forces that are propelling us to disaster. That's why anti- Semitisn is such a disabling
disease- it mentally cripples those who go down that path. But you won't listen or try to get
out, so I'm wasting my breath.
This is a formula for a renewed war, with far higher casualties in Ukraine than the
10,000 dead already suffered on both sides.
last I looked there is already a war. Nothing would be "renewed," as it is ongoing.
Volker envisions a deepening U.S. involvement in a Ukrainian civil war that can bleed
and break Russia's Ukrainian allies and convince Putin to back down and accept what we
regard as a just settlement.
It is not a civil war. That is a Putinist lie. Russian units are already on the ground in
the Donbas and their casualties have been quite heavy. Russian troops have been captured, and
they were in possession of their military ID and internal passports. "Cargo 200″
shipments have been rather heavy over the last 3 years, and parents of the troops killed have
been asking about their kids.
The Ukrainians are willing to fight for themselves. They simply need the tools. Putin may
not like the fact that the Ukrainians don't want any part of his renewed Russian Empire, but
it need not involve our troops when the people are their are willing to fight.
@Taras77
"The stupidity of Volker is astonishing but he is in keeping with his neo con associates
"
This is not stupidity. This is the zioncon-inspired treason against US citizenry at large.
McCain father, an admiral, got his fame for whitewashing the USSLiberty "accident," thus
insulting the memory of American sailors who were wounded and died during the despicable
Israeli attack. John McCain moniker, "Tokyo Rose," is not for nothing. Similarly, his open
fraternization with Ukrainian neo-Nazis (on a cue from ziocons) is just a family tradition of
profitable betrayal. McCain has been loyal to ziocons because the Lobby has become
all-powerful in the US.
https://www.dailystormer.com/senile-traitor-john-mccain-claims-america-was-stronger-under-obama/
"McCain's entire political career has been based off of doing what's best for Israel and not
America."
'Antisemitism' is simply a logical reaction to the lies, thievery, violence, destruction,
and hate that is perpetrated and advocated by Jewish supremacists.
The '6M Jews' crap is falling part, BDS is breathing down their neck, & "that shitty
little country" is doomed. Excellent.
"Alone the fact that one may not question the Jewish "holocaust" and that Jewish
pressure has inflicted laws on democratic societies to prevent questions!while incessant
promotion and indoctrination of the same averredly incontestable 'holocaust' occur!gives
the game away. It proves that it must be a lie. Why else would one not be allowed to
question it? Because it might offend the "survivors"? Because it "dishonors the dead"?
Hardly sufficient reason to outlaw discussion. No, because the exposure of this leading lie
might precipitate questions about so many other lies and cause the whole ramshackle
fabrication to crumble."
- Gerard Menuhin / righteous Revisionist Jew, son of famous violinist
proclaim a temporary protectorate over the Donbas republics of the Ukraine until such
time as the Minsk II agreement is fulfilled, or renegotiated to the agreement to the
concerned parties
but that all presumes the existence of some adherence to some principle of International
Law or respect for such notions. When from the West, there are none anymore. The zio-West now
destroys entire nations based on what everyone knows and accepts are blatant lies. The
charade is over. Even the trappings of the illusion have been tossed aside, and the snarling
zio-face of 'might = right' is now menacing the world.
A precedent would be the French protectorates
you're using the language of codified law, when there isn't any anymore
Russia will retaliate against any artillery, missile, air, or naval attacks on the
Donbas using forces located in Russian;
the zio-fiend is salivating for any pretext it can use to act outraged and shocked,
shocked! that today it has been proven true! Putin is Adolf Hitler and threatens the world
with military tyranny! He must be stopped at all costs! John McCain and Lindsey Graham were
right all along!! This man is a menace! and France and Germany and England are joining the
ZUSA with immediate calls for Russia to desist and respect International Law and sovereign
borders!!
'THIS WILL NOT STAND!'
blah, blah, blah
What Putin should do is tell the West/NATO to stop fomenting war on his borders, and if
they really are going to keep pushing until Russia accepts its status as vassal state to Tel
Aviv, (like the ZUSA and England and France and Germany obviously are), that before that
happens, everyone should know that there's a certain 'shitty little state' in the middle east
that can expect to be visited by a couple of Satan II ambassadors before Russia bows down
like a mangy dog to the Jewish supremacist$ in Israel.
@neutral
That would never work, the USA could prevent their team from going and nobody would care,
but there is no way they could make the rest of the world do this, to deprive people of such
a big event would create an epic backfire for the neocons, even vassal states such as Germany
or UK being told by the USA not to go with get the middle finger.
My point was that there will be a call to boycott the World Cup, hopefully you are right
as to the outcome. After decades of being subservient vassals, it would be truly ironic if
the ultimate wedge between the US and the "coalition of the willing" were to be sports,
showing what is truly important in life
@Andrei
Martyanov
Nor are they competent in their assessments of the scale of the resources
required for "bringing Putin to negotiating table".
Following up on an earlier post, I think you are misinterpreting Volker's objective (and
those of his "fellow travelers"). They know very well that Putin won't "come to the table",
in fact they don't want him to. What they want is to force him to intervene directly and
openly, as in Syria, and then use this "invasion" to justify permanent pariah status for
Russia. They don't care at all what happens to Ukraine, only that Russia is forced to act in
a manner that will allow them to demonize it.
As Volker so trenchantly illustrates, corruption, stupidity, recklessness and ignorance
are indispensable prerequisites for the wielding of influence in the Washington D.C.
"national security" establishment. It is not so much a swamp as an open sewer.
Trump should have let the Russian sanctions bill become law without his signature. One of
his major weaknesses is his being bedazzled by flag officers and brass. His chief national
security adviser is a dead ringer for Aleister Crowley.
What they want is to force him to intervene directly and openly, as in Syria, and then
use this "invasion" to justify permanent pariah status for Russia. They don't care at all
what happens to Ukraine, only that Russia is forced to act in a manner that will allow them
to demonize it.
It would have been a valid point should what you propose as a rationale hasn't been tried
before–to no avail. Russia DOES have a proxy force in LDNR and, if and when necessary,
may drastically "improve" its fighting capabilities. Considering the (what's known) present
state of the Ukrainian Army (obviously a "strongest one in Europe(c)", wink, wink) I think
the forces LDNR field currently are enough to prevent Kiev from attempting any large scale
offensive. Having said all that, Poroshenko is desperate and he may try anything but
political fallout for Russia, if to consider Russia's direct involvement, which will be very
short and very bad for Ukraine, is being increasingly mitigated by Russia's Asian dynamics.
Once Power of Siberia is operational (among other serious infrastructure projects at the Far
East)–Europe can go to hell. But I am sure there are more aces and trump cards (no pun
intended) up Russia's "sleeve". As per demonization: is it possible to demonize even more? I
think Clapper has already established the fact that Russians are genetically inferior. So,
concentration camps for Russians are in order at some point of time.
@Ludwig
Watzal
"Political morons are running the US. Trump is not in control of any of his
agencies or departments. All of them are hostile to him not to speak to Congress."
Would you agree with me that this pathetic situation obviously didn't happen by
"accident"? It must be concluded that the Trump "presidency" is a Trojan horse. Trump's whole
campaign was a calculated fraud from the beginning. That is, presidential poseur Trump ran
with the intention of turning most general policy decisions, especially foreign policy, over
to his Jewish-supremacist handlers, and letting them pick most if not all of his subordinates
(or at least letting them have veto power over his choices).
What is the USA's Achilleus heel where Russia, Iran or North Korea can inflict it the
maximum pain?
Iraq? Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia? the Gulf countries? Japan? Israel?
It seems that North Korea already won as Tillerson now strongly denies that the USA is
seeking a regime change there. It seems that the threat of nuclear is very effective in
making the USA back down. Iran has proven on the ground in Syria that its missiles can easily
reach Israel, that is why the USA rushed to inflict new sanctions. The USA seems to be
building up a pretext ( or a false flag) to destroy Iran's missile development capabilities
to protect Israel. Is Iran staying idle, or covertly threaten USA's local allies, the Gulf
countries of possible retaliation? The Gulf countries are probably trying to prevent any
attack on Iran. Japan did the same about North Korea, resulting in offers of negotiations.
Will the Gulf countries have the same weight or the USA will take the chance of an all out
war where it would have to intervene militarily again?
Now Russia will be watching Trump weakening and the neocons taking over. Is it a done game?
who will rescue Trump? The American people who voted for him? will the USA fall into a civil
war if Trump is threatened of impeachment?
I trust Trump will reach to the American people and win back his power.
@Michael
Kenny
The EU are doing a good job of destroying themselves. If the Central and Eastern
countries continue to be bullied over migrants and bad economic deals, then maybe they'll
rightly cut and run.
USA's soft-war against Europe was evident right after the 2008 economic bust, with Greece
CDS's being targeted until capitulation. Then Hillary or whomever conned Europe into wrecking
Libya, then Ukraine, then Syria, then the wave of migrants began..
It might sound ridiculous, but I am starting to think Erdogan has been a far better leader
than Merkel or the clown car carousel of France. He's totally ruthless, and has been a
supporter of terrorists, but his moves have been somewhat logical in the face of extreme
crisis. Now he seems to have oriented Turkey to a relatively solid footing as far as I can
see.
@Rurik
The destruction and rape of Ukraine had been planned already by the ZUSA when
a previous
puppet of US, Yushchenko, was installed in Kiev with the help of the State Dept. and the
CIA-supported and educated organizations like The National Endowment for Democracy (NED).
http://www.fort-russ.com/2017/08/killing-europe-us-launches-sanctions.html
"Back in 2010, Russia proposed creating a joint venture with Ukraine and unifying Gazprom's
fields and Ukraine's gas pipelines. However, the pro-American leadership of Ukraine at the
time (when Viktor Yushchenko, who led the country as a result of a color revolution, was
president) rejected the project, seeing such as a "threat" to "national dignity", i.e.,
Ukraine's GTS [gas transport system]. The plan for "increasing Ukraine's energy security"
contained in HR 3364 [concocted in the US] means turning Ukraine into a transit monopolist
under the control of American companies. Accepting the Americans' conditions is economically
disadvantageous to Russia and renders it politically dependent on the unpredictable transit
that is Ukraine. If this act is implemented, American energy companies will be able to
participate in the privatization of Ukraine's GTS (as provided by the Third Energy Package)
and profit off of the transport of gas across Ukrainian territory. Thus, the main revenue
from transiting Russian gas would not go to the Ukrainians, but to their overseas
overlord."
Very clear. The natives can go die out peacefully without making any unnecessary noise re
"sovereignty," "national interests" and other trifles that are of no interests for the US
corporations.
Hasn't every president since Johnson been an Israeli/APAIC front man?
technicalities.
Woodrow Wilson was under control of zionists, most notably, in the person of Louis
Brandeis & his claque.
Franklin D Roosevelt was most certainly under the control of zionists/Jews -- Felix
Frankfurter, Bernard Baruch, and the Morgenthaus,
pater et fil
plus their acolytes and
syanim, exerted enormous power over FDR. Eisenhower owed most of his power/authority to doing things that pleased zionist/Jewish
string-pullers who maneuvered FDR
as you say, LBJ for sure was more committed to keeping the gawd's chozen happy than to
protecting the interests of the American people.
Based on a review on "The American Empire Project" of a book by Nathan Thrall, titled "The
Only Language they Understand,"
http://americanempireproject.com/blog/the-only-language-they-understand-by-nathan-thrall/
, Jimmy Carter probably did more to turn USA over to the zionists than even LBJ: this is
surprising because, as the review notes, Carter initially took a hard line on Israel,
demanding early on that Israel halt settlement-building, and arguing forcefully that
Palestinians deserved protection of their territorial and all other rights.
When Carter's other activities vis a vis Jews are correlated with the actions Thrall
describes, I think -- should say speculate -- that Carter was out-maneuvered by the zionists:
it was Carter who gave Jews the opening to create the holocaust museum in Washington, DC -- in
other words, it may be that Carter allowed the Trojan Horse to be rolled through the gates of
the USA and to stand at USA's front door.
The Jews got what they wanted, but Carter's demands were not only ignored, they -- and he -- were cast aside.
@Alden
"Hasn't every president since Johnson been an Israeli/APAIC front man?"
Obviously. But the tenor of Ludwig Watzal's post seems to be that Trump, other than
perhaps being "weak" or "incompetent" is not at fault.
I agree with him that technically, Trump probably isn't "in control", but that's
apparently what Trump agreed to when he and his handlers set out to defraud all of us.
"Long before he became FBI Director, serious questions existed about Mueller's role as
Acting U.S. Attorney in Boston in effectively enabling decades of corruption and covering up
of the FBI's illicit deals with mobster Whitey Bulger and other "top echelon" informants who
committed numerous murders and crimes. When the truth was finally uncovered through intrepid
investigative reporting and persistent, honest judges, U.S. taxpayers footed a $100 million
court award to the four men framed for murders committed by (the FBI-operated) Bulger gang .
Mueller's FBI was also severely criticized by Department of Justice Inspector Generals
finding the FBI overstepped the law improperly serving hundreds of thousands of "national
security letters" to obtain private (and irrelevant) metadata on citizens, and for
infiltrating nonviolent anti-war groups under the guise of investigating "terrorism."
Mueller knew that Vice President Dick Cheney's claims connecting 9/11 to Iraq were bogus yet
he remained quiet. Mueller didn't speak the truth about a war he knew to be unjustified. He
didn't speak out against torture. He didn't speak out against unconstitutional surveillance.
And he didn't tell the truth about 9/11.
He is just "their man."
@Quartermaster
You sound like you copied this statement from a Ukrainian propaganda site.
Sure thing, thousands of Donbass people fighting in the militia do not exists but Russia
troops nobody has been able to see or photograph do. I have the utmost respect for the
Russian military capabilities but I do not think they've developed a clocking device as
yet.
And, of course, going to a secret military mission, you should never forget to bring along
you internal passport and military ID. Heavy losses, really? We know people who died in
Donbass by name – and they aren't Russia soldiers. Oh, you forgot about buryats –
no picture of the Russia invasion could be complete without byuryat motorized divisions
invading Donbass.
You may not like it but this is a civil war brought about by the idiotic policies of the
scumbags the West put in charge of Ukraine. As to the tools, bring them over – they'll
end up in the hands of the Donbass militia in no time. You see, "Ukrainians are willing to
fight for themselves" mostly on the pages of Facebook. Those that do go to the Army, mostly
do it for money. The situation in today's Ukraine is so desperate, killing one's former
compatriots is about the only way for a man to make a living.
they've had their devil's tentacles in Ukraine for quite some time. When you mentioned the word 'trifles', I was reminded of what the Israeli/"Ukrainian"
oligarch said about the people on MH17. He called their deaths a 'trifle', as he mentions that the wrong plane was shot down.
Presumably his merc was sent up to shoot Putin's plane down and he shot the wrong one down
(which would explain the machine gun holes).
this video has been scrubbed from most of the internet, and most of the ones you click on
will say 'this video has been removed'
@reiner
Tor
Interestingly, it's never explained why Putin would fear his soldiers being killed
before the election if he really was a dictator. Either he doesn't care much for the election
or he's not really a dictator. Good catch! The pity is that people who have made up their
minds (or have had theirs made up for them) about Putin being a dictator will not see the wit
and logical beauty of your argument. They are quite likely to write you off as another
Russian-stooge and dig in their heels even further. Here is a short farcical satire about our
times.
Good, obedient citizen: Please Guvm'nt, help me. I can't sleep at night 'cause I fear there
may be a red under my bed waiting to choke me to death.
Guvm'nt: Don't worry lad. We watch your house, we monitor your mail. We watch you and yours.
We know when you pee and we watch who comes in and out of your house. No one can even breathe
without our being in the know.
Good citizen: Ah thank God! Thanks for preventing a red under my bed. I can now sleep in
peace.
While the US is clearly not omnipotent, Ukraine was sliding into Baltic model for a long time,
probably since independence. So while the Maydan coup was organized and implemented by the USA,
the coming to power of right wing Western Ukrainian nationalists was probably given. The USA
actually only speeded the events by a year or two. During the next Presidential election far
right Ukrainian nationalist my impression is that they would depose Yanukovich anyway. so
the coup was probably more the result of incompetence and hubris of staunch neocon (and former
Cheney associate) Nuland then a real necessity. If we consider neocons to be a
flavor of political psychopaths such a result is not surprising.
Putin has a chance to prevent Maydan by using the same dirty methods as the USA, but iether
had chosen not to do this, or was slightly distracted by Olympics (please not that Georgian
invasion of South Ossetia also happened during Olympic events). After the coup he has one or two
days -- a small window of opportunity for deposing right wing nationalist by recognizing
Yanukovich government and sending groups to restore "the legitimate government", which was
actually corrupt (although probably to lesser level the subsequent government of Poroshenko, where
each minister became a millionaire) and hated by a lot of Ukrainians. So the population
reaction to restoration of Yanukovich regime by force might be quite hostile. Putin and his
government had chosen not to do it and gave the victory to the USA: Russia completely
lost the geopolitical game for Ukraine to the USA and now need to suffer the new cold war2 (which
also was given, the the global hegemon which accepts only vassals, the USA needed only the pretext
to squash attempts of Russia to conduct independent foreign policy). But in a decade from now the
USA probably will pay the price for this as the alliance of Russia and China is now more of a
reality then even before. Also the end of "cheap oil" automatically will drive the US
economy into perma stagnation. The current artificial low price can't last forever.
Destruction on Ukraine and its economic potential started at this point in full force and in
addition to the necessity of handing huge refugees flow to Russia, Russian economic suffered
huge losses from braking cooperation with Ukraine (which was part of the USSR economics and were
closely connected to Russian).
So Barack Obama got a huge geopolitical victory, the main victory of his presidency (along
with his Libyan adventure). But Ukrainians now need to suffer and there is no light at the
end of the tunnel. they are now just pawns in Washington geopolitical game against Russia and have
no choice but fight.
Notable quotes:
"... In crafting the platform in Cleveland on which Donald Trump would run, America Firsters inflicted a major defeat on the War Party. The platform committee rejected a plank to pull us deeper into Ukraine, by successfully opposing new U.S. arms transfers to Kiev. ..."
"... As pro-Russia rebels in East Ukraine have armored vehicles, Kiev wants U.S. tank-killing Javelin missiles, as well as antiaircraft weapons. State and Defense want Trump to send the lethal weapons. This is a formula for a renewed war, with far higher casualties in Ukraine than the 10,000 dead already suffered on both sides. And it is a war Vladimir Putin will not likely allow Kiev to win. ..."
"... If Ukraine's army, bolstered by U.S. weaponry, re-engages in the east, it could face a Moscow-backed counterattack and be routed, and the Russian army could take permanent control of the Donbass. ..."
"... Is President Trump losing control of Russia policy? Has he capitulated to the neocons? These are not academic questions. For consider the architect of the new arms package, Kurt Volker, the new U.S. Special Representative for Ukraine Negotiations. ..."
"... If the following is true it is worth reading: https://www.rt.com/news/398490-us-main-global-threat-survey/ ..."
"... Dear Mr. Buchanan, Had the Journal one small moment of "truth telling" then its goal would be crystal clear not to bleed Russia but to bleed the United States to utter insolvency through their endless stupid wars.. Just look at our nation's balance sheet to see the truth. Nearly FIFTEEN TRILLION DOLLARS of debt generated in a mere seventeen years. ..."
"... Volker envisions a deepening U.S. involvement in a Ukrainian civil war that can bleed and break Russia's Ukrainian allies and convince Putin to back down and accept what we regard as a just settlement ..."
"... On the contrary, I think that Volker and others driving US policy are very well aware that Putin won't back down, and this is indeed what they want. A direct, permanent conflict with Russia which will leave it isolated from the "Western" world. A bit like track and field, where it increasingly looks like Russia will be permanently excluded from international competitions, and where Russian athletes will only be allowed to compete as "neutrals", under pain of exclusion if they as so much as sing the Russian national anthem in their hotel. And once the conflict heats up in Ukraine, look for a call to boycott the 2018 World Cup in Russia (as per the 1980 Olympics). The recent Confederations Cup in Russia was widely viewed as a considerable success, and received favorable reporting in much of the Western press, and this clearly can't be allowed to happen with the World Cup, the World's premier sporting event. ..."
"... And of course conflict with Russia has nothing to do with the proclaimed goal of containing an "agressive" Putin and Russia, which is a fallacious representation of Russia's actions and motives, and everything to do with maintaining the seemingly absolute World hegemony the USA gained after the collapse of the USSR. This fantasy of absolute hegemony is hard to let go for Neocons and Deep state, and they will cling to it with all their claws, even risking nuclear war for it ..."
"... The latest sanctions on Russia are an attempt to bleed Russia in another way, by pushing it out of the World economy, with the naive conviction that it would all end well if that plan succeeded ..."
"... It's a confusion of the Soviet experience in Afghanistan with the defense of ethnic Russians standing up to a Yankee Puppet Regime trying to subjugate them. The coffins might well secure a landslide election for Putin in such a cause. The US may have seriously misunderestimated the situation there. ..."
"... I'd say the neocons have Trump on the ropes. Perhaps he figures if he buys enough of their guns he can pacify them long enough to get some control back, I doubt he has any intention of firing those guns but hey, shit happens! ..."
"... a previous puppet of US, Yushchenko, was installed in Kiev with the help of the State Dept. and the CIA-supported and educated organizations like The National Endowment for Democracy (NED). http://www.fort-russ.com/2017/08/killing-europe-us-launches-sanctions.html ..."
"... Monsanto is already in charge of the Ukraine' agricultural lands. Splendid. http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2526593/ukraine_opens_up_for_monsanto_land_grabs_and_gmos.html ..."
In crafting the platform in Cleveland on which Donald Trump would run, America Firsters
inflicted a major defeat on the War Party. The platform committee rejected a plank to pull us deeper into Ukraine, by successfully
opposing new U.S. arms transfers to Kiev.
Improved relations with Russia were what candidate Trump had promised, and what Americans
would vote for in November.
Yet, this week, The Wall Street Journal reports:
"The U.S. Pentagon and State Department have devised plans to supply Ukraine with antitank
missiles and other weaponry and are seeking White House approval as Kiev battles Russia-backed
separatists Defense Secretary Mattis has endorsed the plan."
As pro-Russia rebels in East Ukraine have armored vehicles, Kiev wants U.S. tank-killing
Javelin missiles, as well as antiaircraft weapons. State and Defense want Trump to send the lethal weapons. This is a formula for a renewed war, with far higher casualties in Ukraine than the 10,000
dead already suffered on both sides. And it is a war Vladimir Putin will not likely allow Kiev to win.
If Ukraine's army, bolstered by U.S. weaponry, re-engages in the east, it could face a
Moscow-backed counterattack and be routed, and the Russian army could take permanent control of
the Donbass.
Indeed, if Trump approves this State-Defense escalation plan, we could be looking at a rerun
of the Russia-Georgia war of August 2008.
Then, to recapture its lost province of South Ossetia, which had seceded in 1992, after
Georgia seceded from Russia, Georgia invaded.
Putin sent his army in, threw the Georgians out, and recognized South Ossetia, as John
McCain impotently declaimed, "We are all Georgians now!"
Wisely, George W. Bush ignored McCain and did nothing.
But about this new arms deal questions arise.
As the rebels have no aircraft, whose planes are the U.S. antiaircraft missiles to shoot
down? And if the Russian army just over the border can enter and crush the Ukrainian army, why
would we want to restart a civil war, the only certain result of which is more dead Ukrainians
on both sides?
The Journal's answer: Our goal is to bleed Russia.
"The point of lethal aid is to raise the price Mr. Putin pays for his imperialism until he
withdraws or agrees to peace. The Russians don't want dead soldiers arriving home before next
year's presidential election."
Also going neocon is Mike Pence. In Georgia this week, noting that Russian tanks are still
in South Ossetia, the vice president not only declared, "We stand with you," he told Georgians
the U.S. stands by its 2008 commitment to bring them into NATO.
This would mean, under Article 5 of the NATO treaty, that in a future Russia-Georgia clash
the U.S. could find itself in a shooting war with Russia in the South Caucasus.
Russia's security interests there seem clear. What are ours?
Along with Trump's signing of the new sanctions bill imposed by Congress, which strips him
of his authority to lift those sanctions without Hill approval, these developments raise larger
questions.
Is President Trump losing control of Russia policy? Has he capitulated to the neocons? These
are not academic questions. For consider the architect of the new arms package, Kurt Volker,
the new U.S. Special Representative for Ukraine Negotiations.
A former CIA agent, member of the National Security Counsel, and envoy to NATO, Volker
believes Russian troops in Transnistria, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk
are all there illegally -- and U.S. policy should be to push them out.
A former staffer of Sen. McCain, Volker was, until July, executive director of the neocon
McCain Institute. He has called for the imposition of personal sanctions on Putin and his
family and European travel restrictions on the Russian president. In the Journal this week, "officials" described his strategy:
"Volker believes that a change in Ukraine can be brought only by raising the costs for
Moscow for continued intervention in Ukraine. In public comments, he has played down the notion
that supplying weapons to Ukraine would escalate the conflict with Russia."
In short, Volker believes giving antitank and antiaircraft missiles to Ukraine will bring
Putin to the negotiating table, as he fears the prospect of dead Russian soldiers coming home
in caskets before his 2018 election. As for concerns that Putin might send his army into Ukraine, such worries are
unwarranted. Volker envisions a deepening U.S. involvement in a Ukrainian civil war that can bleed and
break Russia's Ukrainian allies and convince Putin to back down and accept what we regard as a
just settlement.
Does Trump believe this? Does Trump believe that confronting Putin with rising casualties
among his army and allies in Ukraine is the way to force the Russian president to back down and
withdraw from Crimea, Luhansk and Donetsk, as Nikita Khrushchev did from Cuba in 1962?
What if Putin refuses to back down, and chooses to confront?
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, "Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles
That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever."
E. Ukraine and Crimea would be part controlled by Ukraine and there would be no fighting
in E. Ukraine today if Obama and Nuland had not interfered in Ukraine. Period.
The upheaval and deaths there are entirely our responsibility.
@reiner
Tor
"Interestingly, it's never explained why Putin would fear his soldiers being killed
before the election if he really was a dictator. Either he doesn't care much for the election
or he's not really a dictator." Well said.
Dear Mr. Buchanan, Had the Journal one small moment of "truth telling" then its goal would be crystal clear
not to bleed Russia but to bleed the United States to utter insolvency through their endless
stupid wars.. Just look at our nation's balance sheet to see the truth. Nearly FIFTEEN TRILLION DOLLARS of debt generated in a mere seventeen years.
What an utter disaster and total disgrace to our nation.
Volker envisions a deepening U.S. involvement in a Ukrainian civil war that can
bleed and break Russia's Ukrainian allies and convince Putin to back down and accept what
we regard as a just settlement
.
On the contrary, I think that Volker and others driving US policy are very well aware that
Putin won't back down, and this is indeed what they want. A direct, permanent conflict with
Russia which will leave it isolated from the "Western" world. A bit like track and field,
where it increasingly looks like Russia will be permanently excluded from international
competitions, and where Russian athletes will only be allowed to compete as "neutrals", under
pain of exclusion if they as so much as sing the Russian national anthem in their hotel. And
once the conflict heats up in Ukraine, look for a call to boycott the 2018 World Cup in
Russia (as per the 1980 Olympics). The recent Confederations Cup in Russia was widely viewed
as a considerable success, and received favorable reporting in much of the Western press, and
this clearly can't be allowed to happen with the World Cup, the World's premier sporting
event.
And of course conflict with Russia has nothing to do with the proclaimed goal of
containing an "agressive" Putin and Russia, which is a fallacious representation of Russia's
actions and motives, and everything to do with maintaining the seemingly absolute World
hegemony the USA gained after the collapse of the USSR.
This fantasy of absolute hegemony is hard to let go for Neocons and Deep state, and they will
cling to it with all their claws, even risking nuclear war for it
.
The latest sanctions on Russia are an attempt to bleed Russia in another way, by pushing
it out of the World economy, with the naive conviction that it would all end well if that
plan succeeded
Anyone with an ounce of common sense realises that it would end terribly bad for all the
parties involved.
@reiner
Tor
It's a confusion of the Soviet experience in Afghanistan with the defense of ethnic
Russians standing up to a Yankee Puppet Regime trying to subjugate them. The coffins might
well secure a landslide election for Putin in such a cause. The US may have seriously
misunderestimated the situation there.
I'd say the neocons have Trump on the ropes. Perhaps he figures if he buys enough of their
guns he can pacify them long enough to get some control back, I doubt he has any intention of
firing those guns but hey, shit happens!
Expecting Russia to back down fearing causalities? It would be wise to check who has been
backing down due to causalities first before making such conclusions. Here Russia security is
concerned and causalities are acceptable. USA should be very worried not to take too much
responsibilities along Russian borders because things can get hot and this is not the war USA
can win. Lose it even small way and USA days as great power are over.
Both this article, and the problems it proposes to address, are based on deep and
fundamental misunderstandings of Russia and its domestic politics. Russia has escalation
dominance in the Ukrainian theater and will not only match, but exceed, any American
provocation there, including the delivery of arms to the UAF. I believe Russia would have no
problem with this development, as it would give them cover to increase, and perhaps make
official, its support for the NDF.
As an aside, before their civil war, the Ukraine was perennially among the top five of the
world's largest arms exporters. So lack of arms is not clearly not the problem. No, the
problem is that those who are trained to use them are not particularly enthusiastic about
fighting, and those that are enthusiastic about fighting are not particularly well trained.
Not to mention that a lot of them are dead already.
As for Putin and the elections, the real risk for him is not soldiers coming home in
bodybags. Russian mentality, and their general attitudes towards war, allow them to take
losses perhaps like no one else in the world. No, the real political risk to Putin is not
appearing to react strongly enough.
As it is, Russian public opinion would like him to take a tougher stance in facing down
the Empire. The world should really be glad that Russia has such a patient and tolerant
leader. Russia's next leader will lack the political capital that Putin has developed over
the years, and will likely be much more aggressive in the defense of Russia's national
interests. Those dreaming of Putin's exit should really be careful of what they wish for.
If Putin backs down to the neocons .he will very likely be overthrown by the Russian
Military .I would like to know Comrade Saker's and Comrade SmothieX1′s view on this
matter since they are both by many orders of magnitude more qualified to comment on this
point that I have raised
look for a call to boycott the 2018 World Cup in Russia
That would never work, the USA could prevent their team from going and nobody would care,
but there is no way they could make the rest of the world do this, to deprive people of such
a big event would create an epic backfire for the neocons, even vassal states such as Germany
or UK being told by the USA not to go with get the middle finger.
Well, at least we're spared in his latest Mr. Buchanan's witlessly carrying around a
bucket of "Russian hacking" BS.
But he still serves the Establishment. Note his habitual use of "we" in reference to the
USG. People who self-identify with their rulers are essential for the warmongers. Isn't that
why Americans are subjected to camouflage uniforms and "thank you for your service"
spectacles at athletic events?
I can appreciate the author's desire to see himself and to be lauded as a "true
conservative." But the fact is that he was part of the regime that was more successful only
because it picked on Grenada and other relative weaklings. 99% of the people who live in this
country shouldn't care less about who governs Ukraine, Korea, or any other place outside the
lawful territory of the United States
More of us every day realize that the beat has been rolling on, no matter who is in
nominal power in Washington, for a long, long time. Mr. Buchanan should take a couple more
steps back. Maybe he will see that, too.
In short, Volker believes giving antitank and antiaircraft missiles to Ukraine will
bring Putin to the negotiating table, as he fears the prospect of dead Russian soldiers
coming home in caskets before his 2018 election.
1.There are NO cohesive Russian Armed Forces units (formations) in Donbass. Volunteers
(aka "vacationers") from regular Russian Army? Sure, they are being paid well, plus Northern
Wind. But it seems even Ukrainian Army's top brass admission that there are no Russian troops
in Ukraine falls on a deaf ear. Evidently those in the "West" who continue to repeat this
baloney have very little understanding of how real wars are fought and how real formations
from company up to battalion and regiment level, not to speak of brigades or divisions, are
deployed. Per personnel–neither DNR nor LNR have issues with mobilizing numbers.
2. Volker continues, if that are his real intentions, to demonstrate a complete lack of
any strategic vision and following dead beat cliches–which are defining characteristics
of D.C. "elites" who are completely removed from everyday realities, which actually matter,
of the world. Nor are they competent in their assessments of the scale of the resources
required for "bringing Putin to negotiating table". Even giving some Javelins (not to speak
of TOWs) and Stinger-type weapons will only accelerate a demise of the Ukrainian Army and
with it, of the current Kiev regime. But then again, considering level of US "diplomacy" in
general, and Volker's in particular one can reasonably expect another FUBAR with dire
consequences for both US and its clients.
putin will 100% not back down. this is not 1962. same reason why china would never allow
NK to be taken over.
It has nothing, zilch, to do with Putin. It has everything to do with overwhelming
majority of Russian people, whose blood was spilled on US and EU (NATO) money. The combined
West and especially its pathetic Russian "academe" have no clue about cultural suicide West
(US especially) has committed in Russia. It is my academic contention that US Russia's
"scholarship" (with some few exceptions) knows next to zero about Russia and especially her
20th and 21st century history. It is an established scientific fact now. Overwhelming
empirical evidence to support my claim is in place and easily accessible. It is also a major
reason why US "power elites" are so dangerous–they miscalculate constantly, because
they are incompetent.
If I have understood Mr Buchanan's writings correctly, his primary goal is the destruction
of the EU, which he sees as a threat to US global hegemony. Putin is merely an American
stooge to be used to promote that end in return for which he is to get such reward as the
hegemonic US vouchsafes to grant him. The conundrum for the US hegemonists is that if Putin
wins in Ukraine, then US global hegemony is irreversibly destroyed but if he loses, the hated
EU is enormously strengthened, which in its turn destroys US global hegemony! Heads, the EU
wins, tails, the US loses! The argument Mr Buchanan is challenging seems to be that taking
Putin out will do less damage to US hegemony than allowing him to win. As for Putin, he has
two choices. He can capitulate in return for some face-saving fudge that will fool nobody.
That will probably destroy him politically with his elderly Soviet-generation supporters at
home. Or he can start WWIII and lose or start WWIII, go nuclear and then lose. That too will
destroy him at home. Thus, for US hegemonists who haven't yet accepted that Putin has "blown
it" and can no longer serve as a battering ram to destroy the EU (and has, indeed, become a
liability to the very US groups that initially backed him), the logical thing is to try to
get the US to capitulate to Putin in the mistaken belief the the European members of NATO are
incapable of fending off Putin's rickety military machine by themselves. That wholly
misunderstands the strength of nationalism in Europe, the very same nationalism that the US
hegemonists have been trying to whip up as (yet another!) battering ram to destroy the
EU!
"Is President Trump losing control of Russia policy? Has he capitulated to the neocons?
[OR ARE WE NOW FORCED TO CONCLUDE THAT TRUMP'S PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN WAS A CALCULATED FRAUD
FROM THE BEGINNING]?"
Political morons are running the US. Trump is not in control of any of his agencies or
departments. All of them are hostile to him not to speak to Congress. which blocks any of his
initiatives. What Vice President Mike Pence is talking about his trip in the Baltics or the
other US satellite states, is irresponsible. It shows that Trump has lost control that is
what the war party and the Republicans want. They will push Trump out of office and if it
doesn't work some hired crazy will kill him like JFK. The real political gangsters are the
members of the Deep State such as the CIA, NSA, the wider intelligence community, and the
Clinton and Obama political mafia.
The suggestions made by Kurt Volker, the new U.S. Special Representative for Ukraine
Negotiations, are just beyond the pale for the Russians. For what Volker suggested, Trump
should replace him. President Putin should not accept being fooled by the US any longer and
just take the Donbas, period as he did with South Ossetia. If the US war-mongers in
Washington want to go to war over Ukraine, they should try it. Putin should not allow the US
to blackmail him further on.
Putin is not an imperialist or an aggressor, but the US Empire and its NATO satellites
are.
Having conquered 75 per cent of the world's territories through over 700 US military
bases, the real perpetrator is obvious. Putin should not back down against US aggression and
provocation. Why should the US risk its destruction for a corrupt and criminal political
leadership in Ukraine? Perhaps there are still some sane people within the Belt Way, although
they are thin on the ground.
@JL
As I've proposed in other fora, a simple, effective Russian response would be to proclaim a
temporary protectorate over the Donbas republics of the Ukraine until such time as the Minsk
II agreement is fulfilled, or renegotiated to the agreement to the concerned parties. (I.E.,
temporarily permanent.) A precedent would be the French protectorates Tunisia and Morocco,
and the various analogous protectorates still exercised around the world (see Wikipedia). The
proclamation should proclaim that Russia will retaliate against any artillery, missile, air,
or naval attacks on the Donbas using forces located in Russian; and also against any ground
attack across the cease-fire line using ground forces presently deployed in Russia, at the
request of either Donbas republic. The U.S. and Nato would scream bloody murder of course,
Congress would vote more meaningless sanctions, but the situation would stabilize permanently
IMHO, perhaps after a few retaliatory barrages. It would be like the Crimea, a frozen
conflict the Ukraine and the West know they cannot win short of WW3.
@Wally
You are deluded. It's almost hopeless – but one last try- the policy of US global
hegemony has nothing to do with Israel. It's been the goal of almost the entire foreign
policy elite- including the WASP elite- since 1945. If you mistakenly insist on blaming
Israel or its supporters for everything that is happening, you can't identify the real ideas
and forces that are propelling us to disaster. That's why anti- Semitisn is such a disabling
disease- it mentally cripples those who go down that path. But you won't listen or try to get
out, so I'm wasting my breath.
This is a formula for a renewed war, with far higher casualties in Ukraine than the
10,000 dead already suffered on both sides.
last I looked there is already a war. Nothing would be "renewed," as it is ongoing.
Volker envisions a deepening U.S. involvement in a Ukrainian civil war that can bleed
and break Russia's Ukrainian allies and convince Putin to back down and accept what we
regard as a just settlement.
It is not a civil war. That is a Putinist lie. Russian units are already on the ground in
the Donbas and their casualties have been quite heavy. Russian troops have been captured, and
they were in possession of their military ID and internal passports. "Cargo 200″
shipments have been rather heavy over the last 3 years, and parents of the troops killed have
been asking about their kids.
The Ukrainians are willing to fight for themselves. They simply need the tools. Putin may
not like the fact that the Ukrainians don't want any part of his renewed Russian Empire, but
it need not involve our troops when the people are their are willing to fight.
@Taras77
"The stupidity of Volker is astonishing but he is in keeping with his neo con associates
"
This is not stupidity. This is the zioncon-inspired treason against US citizenry at large.
McCain father, an admiral, got his fame for whitewashing the USSLiberty "accident," thus
insulting the memory of American sailors who were wounded and died during the despicable
Israeli attack. John McCain moniker, "Tokyo Rose," is not for nothing. Similarly, his open
fraternization with Ukrainian neo-Nazis (on a cue from ziocons) is just a family tradition of
profitable betrayal. McCain has been loyal to ziocons because the Lobby has become
all-powerful in the US.
https://www.dailystormer.com/senile-traitor-john-mccain-claims-america-was-stronger-under-obama/
"McCain's entire political career has been based off of doing what's best for Israel and not
America."
'Antisemitism' is simply a logical reaction to the lies, thievery, violence, destruction,
and hate that is perpetrated and advocated by Jewish supremacists.
The '6M Jews' crap is falling part, BDS is breathing down their neck, & "that shitty
little country" is doomed. Excellent.
"Alone the fact that one may not question the Jewish "holocaust" and that Jewish
pressure has inflicted laws on democratic societies to prevent questions!while incessant
promotion and indoctrination of the same averredly incontestable 'holocaust' occur!gives
the game away. It proves that it must be a lie. Why else would one not be allowed to
question it? Because it might offend the "survivors"? Because it "dishonors the dead"?
Hardly sufficient reason to outlaw discussion. No, because the exposure of this leading lie
might precipitate questions about so many other lies and cause the whole ramshackle
fabrication to crumble."
- Gerard Menuhin / righteous Revisionist Jew, son of famous violinist
proclaim a temporary protectorate over the Donbas republics of the Ukraine until such
time as the Minsk II agreement is fulfilled, or renegotiated to the agreement to the
concerned parties
but that all presumes the existence of some adherence to some principle of International
Law or respect for such notions. When from the West, there are none anymore. The zio-West now
destroys entire nations based on what everyone knows and accepts are blatant lies. The
charade is over. Even the trappings of the illusion have been tossed aside, and the snarling
zio-face of 'might = right' is now menacing the world.
A precedent would be the French protectorates
you're using the language of codified law, when there isn't any anymore
Russia will retaliate against any artillery, missile, air, or naval attacks on the
Donbas using forces located in Russian;
the zio-fiend is salivating for any pretext it can use to act outraged and shocked,
shocked! that today it has been proven true! Putin is Adolf Hitler and threatens the world
with military tyranny! He must be stopped at all costs! John McCain and Lindsey Graham were
right all along!! This man is a menace! and France and Germany and England are joining the
ZUSA with immediate calls for Russia to desist and respect International Law and sovereign
borders!!
'THIS WILL NOT STAND!'
blah, blah, blah
What Putin should do is tell the West/NATO to stop fomenting war on his borders, and if
they really are going to keep pushing until Russia accepts its status as vassal state to Tel
Aviv, (like the ZUSA and England and France and Germany obviously are), that before that
happens, everyone should know that there's a certain 'shitty little state' in the middle east
that can expect to be visited by a couple of Satan II ambassadors before Russia bows down
like a mangy dog to the Jewish supremacist$ in Israel.
@neutral
That would never work, the USA could prevent their team from going and nobody would care,
but there is no way they could make the rest of the world do this, to deprive people of such
a big event would create an epic backfire for the neocons, even vassal states such as Germany
or UK being told by the USA not to go with get the middle finger.
My point was that there will be a call to boycott the World Cup, hopefully you are right
as to the outcome. After decades of being subservient vassals, it would be truly ironic if
the ultimate wedge between the US and the "coalition of the willing" were to be sports,
showing what is truly important in life
@Andrei
Martyanov
Nor are they competent in their assessments of the scale of the resources
required for "bringing Putin to negotiating table".
Following up on an earlier post, I think you are misinterpreting Volker's objective (and
those of his "fellow travelers"). They know very well that Putin won't "come to the table",
in fact they don't want him to. What they want is to force him to intervene directly and
openly, as in Syria, and then use this "invasion" to justify permanent pariah status for
Russia. They don't care at all what happens to Ukraine, only that Russia is forced to act in
a manner that will allow them to demonize it.
As Volker so trenchantly illustrates, corruption, stupidity, recklessness and ignorance
are indispensable prerequisites for the wielding of influence in the Washington D.C.
"national security" establishment. It is not so much a swamp as an open sewer.
Trump should have let the Russian sanctions bill become law without his signature. One of
his major weaknesses is his being bedazzled by flag officers and brass. His chief national
security adviser is a dead ringer for Aleister Crowley.
What they want is to force him to intervene directly and openly, as in Syria, and then
use this "invasion" to justify permanent pariah status for Russia. They don't care at all
what happens to Ukraine, only that Russia is forced to act in a manner that will allow them
to demonize it.
It would have been a valid point should what you propose as a rationale hasn't been tried
before–to no avail. Russia DOES have a proxy force in LDNR and, if and when necessary,
may drastically "improve" its fighting capabilities. Considering the (what's known) present
state of the Ukrainian Army (obviously a "strongest one in Europe(c)", wink, wink) I think
the forces LDNR field currently are enough to prevent Kiev from attempting any large scale
offensive. Having said all that, Poroshenko is desperate and he may try anything but
political fallout for Russia, if to consider Russia's direct involvement, which will be very
short and very bad for Ukraine, is being increasingly mitigated by Russia's Asian dynamics.
Once Power of Siberia is operational (among other serious infrastructure projects at the Far
East)–Europe can go to hell. But I am sure there are more aces and trump cards (no pun
intended) up Russia's "sleeve". As per demonization: is it possible to demonize even more? I
think Clapper has already established the fact that Russians are genetically inferior. So,
concentration camps for Russians are in order at some point of time.
@Ludwig
Watzal
"Political morons are running the US. Trump is not in control of any of his
agencies or departments. All of them are hostile to him not to speak to Congress."
Would you agree with me that this pathetic situation obviously didn't happen by
"accident"? It must be concluded that the Trump "presidency" is a Trojan horse. Trump's whole
campaign was a calculated fraud from the beginning. That is, presidential poseur Trump ran
with the intention of turning most general policy decisions, especially foreign policy, over
to his Jewish-supremacist handlers, and letting them pick most if not all of his subordinates
(or at least letting them have veto power over his choices).
What is the USA's Achilleus heel where Russia, Iran or North Korea can inflict it the
maximum pain?
Iraq? Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia? the Gulf countries? Japan? Israel?
It seems that North Korea already won as Tillerson now strongly denies that the USA is
seeking a regime change there. It seems that the threat of nuclear is very effective in
making the USA back down. Iran has proven on the ground in Syria that its missiles can easily
reach Israel, that is why the USA rushed to inflict new sanctions. The USA seems to be
building up a pretext ( or a false flag) to destroy Iran's missile development capabilities
to protect Israel. Is Iran staying idle, or covertly threaten USA's local allies, the Gulf
countries of possible retaliation? The Gulf countries are probably trying to prevent any
attack on Iran. Japan did the same about North Korea, resulting in offers of negotiations.
Will the Gulf countries have the same weight or the USA will take the chance of an all out
war where it would have to intervene militarily again?
Now Russia will be watching Trump weakening and the neocons taking over. Is it a done game?
who will rescue Trump? The American people who voted for him? will the USA fall into a civil
war if Trump is threatened of impeachment?
I trust Trump will reach to the American people and win back his power.
@Michael
Kenny
The EU are doing a good job of destroying themselves. If the Central and Eastern
countries continue to be bullied over migrants and bad economic deals, then maybe they'll
rightly cut and run.
USA's soft-war against Europe was evident right after the 2008 economic bust, with Greece
CDS's being targeted until capitulation. Then Hillary or whomever conned Europe into wrecking
Libya, then Ukraine, then Syria, then the wave of migrants began..
It might sound ridiculous, but I am starting to think Erdogan has been a far better leader
than Merkel or the clown car carousel of France. He's totally ruthless, and has been a
supporter of terrorists, but his moves have been somewhat logical in the face of extreme
crisis. Now he seems to have oriented Turkey to a relatively solid footing as far as I can
see.
@Rurik
The destruction and rape of Ukraine had been planned already by the ZUSA when
a previous
puppet of US, Yushchenko, was installed in Kiev with the help of the State Dept. and the
CIA-supported and educated organizations like The National Endowment for Democracy (NED).
http://www.fort-russ.com/2017/08/killing-europe-us-launches-sanctions.html
"Back in 2010, Russia proposed creating a joint venture with Ukraine and unifying Gazprom's
fields and Ukraine's gas pipelines. However, the pro-American leadership of Ukraine at the
time (when Viktor Yushchenko, who led the country as a result of a color revolution, was
president) rejected the project, seeing such as a "threat" to "national dignity", i.e.,
Ukraine's GTS [gas transport system]. The plan for "increasing Ukraine's energy security"
contained in HR 3364 [concocted in the US] means turning Ukraine into a transit monopolist
under the control of American companies. Accepting the Americans' conditions is economically
disadvantageous to Russia and renders it politically dependent on the unpredictable transit
that is Ukraine. If this act is implemented, American energy companies will be able to
participate in the privatization of Ukraine's GTS (as provided by the Third Energy Package)
and profit off of the transport of gas across Ukrainian territory. Thus, the main revenue
from transiting Russian gas would not go to the Ukrainians, but to their overseas
overlord."
Very clear. The natives can go die out peacefully without making any unnecessary noise re
"sovereignty," "national interests" and other trifles that are of no interests for the US
corporations.
Hasn't every president since Johnson been an Israeli/APAIC front man?
technicalities.
Woodrow Wilson was under control of zionists, most notably, in the person of Louis
Brandeis & his claque.
Franklin D Roosevelt was most certainly under the control of zionists/Jews -- Felix
Frankfurter, Bernard Baruch, and the Morgenthaus,
pater et fil
plus their acolytes and
syanim, exerted enormous power over FDR. Eisenhower owed most of his power/authority to doing things that pleased zionist/Jewish
string-pullers who maneuvered FDR
as you say, LBJ for sure was more committed to keeping the gawd's chozen happy than to
protecting the interests of the American people.
Based on a review on "The American Empire Project" of a book by Nathan Thrall, titled "The
Only Language they Understand,"
http://americanempireproject.com/blog/the-only-language-they-understand-by-nathan-thrall/
, Jimmy Carter probably did more to turn USA over to the zionists than even LBJ: this is
surprising because, as the review notes, Carter initially took a hard line on Israel,
demanding early on that Israel halt settlement-building, and arguing forcefully that
Palestinians deserved protection of their territorial and all other rights.
When Carter's other activities vis a vis Jews are correlated with the actions Thrall
describes, I think -- should say speculate -- that Carter was out-maneuvered by the zionists:
it was Carter who gave Jews the opening to create the holocaust museum in Washington, DC -- in
other words, it may be that Carter allowed the Trojan Horse to be rolled through the gates of
the USA and to stand at USA's front door.
The Jews got what they wanted, but Carter's demands were not only ignored, they -- and he -- were cast aside.
@Alden
"Hasn't every president since Johnson been an Israeli/APAIC front man?"
Obviously. But the tenor of Ludwig Watzal's post seems to be that Trump, other than
perhaps being "weak" or "incompetent" is not at fault.
I agree with him that technically, Trump probably isn't "in control", but that's
apparently what Trump agreed to when he and his handlers set out to defraud all of us.
"Long before he became FBI Director, serious questions existed about Mueller's role as
Acting U.S. Attorney in Boston in effectively enabling decades of corruption and covering up
of the FBI's illicit deals with mobster Whitey Bulger and other "top echelon" informants who
committed numerous murders and crimes. When the truth was finally uncovered through intrepid
investigative reporting and persistent, honest judges, U.S. taxpayers footed a $100 million
court award to the four men framed for murders committed by (the FBI-operated) Bulger gang .
Mueller's FBI was also severely criticized by Department of Justice Inspector Generals
finding the FBI overstepped the law improperly serving hundreds of thousands of "national
security letters" to obtain private (and irrelevant) metadata on citizens, and for
infiltrating nonviolent anti-war groups under the guise of investigating "terrorism."
Mueller knew that Vice President Dick Cheney's claims connecting 9/11 to Iraq were bogus yet
he remained quiet. Mueller didn't speak the truth about a war he knew to be unjustified. He
didn't speak out against torture. He didn't speak out against unconstitutional surveillance.
And he didn't tell the truth about 9/11.
He is just "their man."
@Quartermaster
You sound like you copied this statement from a Ukrainian propaganda site.
Sure thing, thousands of Donbass people fighting in the militia do not exists but Russia
troops nobody has been able to see or photograph do. I have the utmost respect for the
Russian military capabilities but I do not think they've developed a clocking device as
yet.
And, of course, going to a secret military mission, you should never forget to bring along
you internal passport and military ID. Heavy losses, really? We know people who died in
Donbass by name – and they aren't Russia soldiers. Oh, you forgot about buryats –
no picture of the Russia invasion could be complete without byuryat motorized divisions
invading Donbass.
You may not like it but this is a civil war brought about by the idiotic policies of the
scumbags the West put in charge of Ukraine. As to the tools, bring them over – they'll
end up in the hands of the Donbass militia in no time. You see, "Ukrainians are willing to
fight for themselves" mostly on the pages of Facebook. Those that do go to the Army, mostly
do it for money. The situation in today's Ukraine is so desperate, killing one's former
compatriots is about the only way for a man to make a living.
they've had their devil's tentacles in Ukraine for quite some time. When you mentioned the word 'trifles', I was reminded of what the Israeli/"Ukrainian"
oligarch said about the people on MH17. He called their deaths a 'trifle', as he mentions that the wrong plane was shot down.
Presumably his merc was sent up to shoot Putin's plane down and he shot the wrong one down
(which would explain the machine gun holes).
this video has been scrubbed from most of the internet, and most of the ones you click on
will say 'this video has been removed'
@reiner
Tor
Interestingly, it's never explained why Putin would fear his soldiers being killed
before the election if he really was a dictator. Either he doesn't care much for the election
or he's not really a dictator. Good catch! The pity is that people who have made up their
minds (or have had theirs made up for them) about Putin being a dictator will not see the wit
and logical beauty of your argument. They are quite likely to write you off as another
Russian-stooge and dig in their heels even further. Here is a short farcical satire about our
times.
Good, obedient citizen: Please Guvm'nt, help me. I can't sleep at night 'cause I fear there
may be a red under my bed waiting to choke me to death.
Guvm'nt: Don't worry lad. We watch your house, we monitor your mail. We watch you and yours.
We know when you pee and we watch who comes in and out of your house. No one can even breathe
without our being in the know.
Good citizen: Ah thank God! Thanks for preventing a red under my bed. I can now sleep in
peace.
"... "Israel Lobby" is, of course, a misnomer. The Israel Lobby has very little interest in Israel as a country or, for that matter, for the Israeli people. If anything, the Israel Lobby ought to be called the "Neocon Lobby". ..."
"... For one thing, it does not represent US interests. Neither does it represent the interests of Israel. Rather, it represents the interests of a specific subset of the US ruling elites, in reality much smaller than 1% of the population, which all share in the one common ideology of worldwide domination typical of the Neocons. ..."
"... Keep in mind that the historical record shows that while the Neocons are fantastically driven, they are not particularly smart. Yes, they do have the kind of rabid ideological determination which allows them to achieve a totally disproportionate influence over US policies, but when you actually read what they write and listen to what they say you immediately realize that these are rather mediocre individuals with a rather parochial mindset which makes them both very predictable and very irritating to the people around them. ..."
"... urbi et orbi ..."
"... Zero effects? Speaking of changing policy is true but not that it won't create troubles for Russia. Anyway, any aggression requires swift and ruthless response otherwise it invites more of aggression. Putin is wrong to behave the way he behaves. There must be zero patience and head for an eye response. Than aggression stops. ..."
"... someone should explain to "The Saker" that the neocons were well in control before Obama. How do you think we got into Iraq? And what is the "semblance of sanity" he thinks we should return to? "rights on climate change and refugee admissions" Seriously? Oh please. ..."
"... The Syrian Government did not ask Washington to intervene, so under international law American intervention and bombings there are as legitimate as "Saving Vietnam from the commies", "Bringing democracy to Iraq", or . the list is long. No adventure on that list turned out well for America or anyone else, with the exception of the merchants of death. ..."
"... This could no doubt be more accurately stated as, the Israel Lobby has nothing to do with the interests of the Israeli people. It seems to exist for the benefit of the ultra moneybag crowd and its deranged puppets such as Netanyahooooo! ..."
"... anything is possible with this gang of criminal sociopaths. Their poster boy is now an insatiable warmonger who is suffering from brain cancer! How could things get any worse? ..."
"... After the impressive military victories the US has achieved against such formidable foes as Panama, Iraq, Afghanistan, Haiti, mighty Grenada, Serbia and Libya, taking on Russia should be a "cakewalk", right? And to think there is a sizable demographic in this country which still believes this! Unbelievable. The last time that the US took on a military opponent at rough conventional parity with it (the Chinese in Korea) the result was a stalemate. To paraphrase Cardinal Newman, "To be deep in history is to cease to be a neocon." ..."
"... I'm afraid you're right. But I remain puzzled at how 98 Senators could have been lined up for that stupidity. ..."
"... The current crisis between the largely special interest owned American executive branch and the largely failing reformer Donald Trump can be a historic opportunity for Europe to mend the artificial divide between the European Union and Russia. The crisis can also be a golden opportunity to shake the corrupt system of government in the USA. These opportunities are subject to having strong and free leaders who can capitalize on the hubris of the ignorant senators and representatives on Capitol Hill. ..."
"... This sanctions bill is a domestic US matter. The Republicans are trying to pacify the Democrats' rage and bitterness over losing the election. It is most convenient for them to adopt the canard blaming Russia for the result of the election. The voters knew exactly where Trump stands on Russia, so even if Russia leaked the DNC and Podesta emails, there was no theft of the election. Voters were not mislead about positions, and knew very well the Democrats accuse the Russian of the leaks. ..."
"... We have an old saying: when you're enemy's committing suicide, stand back and let him. That's what Washington is doing now: committing suicide. ..."
"... I don't believe the "with every fiber of their being" part. This is just wishful thinking on the part of Saker. If this were so, they wouldn't just be grumbling or trusting their corrupt representatives. Average Americans still elect people like McCain, Graham and Schumer and I haven't seen any mass anti-war demonstrations in Washington or New York or anywhere else. ..."
"... Oil is the only reason the global population has quadrupled in only the last 100 years. The Industrial Revolution was not enough. Oil is necessary to maintain this population and keep it fed. ..."
"... Much is made of this so-called "neocon" business. They appear to be a current highly aggressive strain of American expansionism. However, there were no "neocons" in 1898 when the US saw it's opportunity to attack Spain and grab away it's holdings. The US has been aggressively expanding ever since, inserting itself into both world wars at the very last minute in order to gain as much for itself as possible. ..."
"... And, yes, that another THING; this time the opponent can retaliate hard. Nukes do make all that difficult to execute. ..."
The latest US sanctions and the Russian retaliatory response have resulted in a torrent of speculations
in the official media and the blogosphere – everybody is trying to make sense of a situation which
appears to make no sense at all. Why in the world would the US Senate adopt new sanctions against
Russia when Russia has done absolutely nothing to provoke such a vote? Except for Rand Paul and Bernie
Sanders, every single US Senator voted in favor of these sanctions. Why?! This is even more baffling
when you consider that the single biggest effect of these sanctions will be to trigger a rift, and
possibly even counter-sanctions , between the US and the EU. What is absolutely clear is that
these sanctions will have exactly zero effect on Russia and I don't think anybody is seriously expecting
the Russians to change anything at all in their policies. And yet, every Senator except Paul and
Sanders voted for this. Does that make any sense to you?
Let's try to figure out what is going on here.
First, a simple reminder: like all US politicians, from the county level to the US Congress, Senators
have only one consideration when then vote – "what's in it for me?". The very last thing which any
US Senator really cares about are the real life consequences of his/her vote. This means that to
achieve the kind of quasi unanimity (98%) for a totally stupid vote there was some kind of very influential
lobby which used some very forceful "arguments" to achieve such a vote. Keep in mind that the Republicans
in the Senate knew that they were voting against the wishes of their President. And yet every single
one except for Rand Paul voted for these sanctions, that should tell you something about the power
of the lobby which pushed for them. So who would have such power?
Okay, why not? We could probably rearrange them, give them different labels, add a couple (like the
"Prison Industrial Complex" or the "Intelligence Community") but all in all this is an okay list.
Any name on it jump at you yet?
One could make the case that most of these lobbies need an enemy to prosper, this is certainly
true of the Military-Industrial Complex and the associated high tech industry, and one could also
reasonably claim that Big Oil, Mining and Agribusiness see Russia has a potential competitor. But
a closer look at the interests these lobbies represent will tell you that they are mostly involved
in domestic politics and that faraway Russia, with her relatively small economy, is just not that
important to them. This is also clearly true for Big Pharma, the AARP and the NRA. Which leaves the
Israel Lobby as the only potential candidate.
"Israel Lobby" is, of course, a misnomer. The Israel Lobby has very little interest in Israel
as a country or, for that matter, for the Israeli people. If anything, the Israel Lobby ought to
be called the "Neocon Lobby". Furthermore, we also have to keep in mind that the Neocon Lobby
is unlike any other lobby in the list above. For one thing, it does not represent US interests.
Neither does it represent the interests of Israel. Rather, it represents the interests of a specific
subset of the US ruling elites, in reality much smaller than 1% of the population, which all share
in the one common ideology of worldwide domination typical of the Neocons.
These are the folks who in spite of their 100% ironclad control of the media and Congress lost
the Presidential election to Donald Trump and who are now dead set to impeach him. These are the
folks who simply use "Russia" as a propagandistic fulcrum to peddle the notion that Trump and his
entourage are basically Russian agents and Trump himself as a kind of "Presidential Manchurian Candidate".
Keep in mind that the historical record shows that while the Neocons are fantastically driven,
they are not particularly smart. Yes, they do have the kind of rabid ideological determination which
allows them to achieve a totally disproportionate influence over US policies, but when you actually
read what they write and listen to what they say you immediately realize that these are rather mediocre
individuals with a rather parochial mindset which makes them both very predictable and very irritating
to the people around them. They always overplay their hand and then end up stunned and horrified
when all their conspiracies and plans come tumbling down on them.
I submit that this is exactly what is happening right now.
First, the Neocons lost the elections. For them, it was a shock and a nightmare. The "deplorables"
voted against the unambiguously clear "propaganda instructions" given to them by the media. Next,
the Neocons turned their rabid hatred against Trump and they succeeded at basically neutering him,
but only at the cost of terribly weakening the USA themselves! Think of it: 6 months plus into the
Trump administration the USA has already managed to directly threaten Iran, Syria, the DPRK and in
all cases with exactly zero results. Worse, Trump's behavior towards Europe and the anti-Trump propaganda
inside Europe has now put the EU and the US on a collision course. This is absolutely amazing: for
the Russians the current tensions between the EU and the USA are a dream come true and yet they had
absolutely nothing to do with it – it was all done by the self-defeating stupidity of the Americans
who created this situation completely ex nihilo --
So while Kim Jong-un fires missiles on the 4th of July, the Syrian Army is closing in on Deir
ez-Zor, the Ukraine is turning into Somalia, the Russian economy is back to growth and Putin's popularity
is as high as ever, the Neocons are totally freaking out and, as is typical of a person losing control,
they don't do things which would make sense but do what they are used to doing: slapping sanctions
(even if they are totally ineffective) and sending messages (even if they are totally ignored). In
other words, the Neocons are now engaging in magical thinking, the deliberately chose to delude themselves
about their power and influence and they are coping with their full-spectrum failure at everything
by pretending that their votes in Congress matter. They truth is – they don't.
Here is where we need to turn to the other misconception in this matter, that the Russian reaction
to these latest sanctions is really about these sanctions. It is not.
First, let's tackle the myth that these sanctions are hurting Russia. They really don't. Even
the 100% russophobic Bloomberg is beginning to realize that, if anything, all
these sanctions have made both Putin and Russia stronger . Second, there is the issue of timing:
instead of slapping on some counter-sanctions the Russians suddenly decided to dramatically reduce
the US diplomatic personnel in Russia and confiscate a two US diplomatic facilities in a clear retaliation
for the expulsion of Russian diplomats and seizure of Russian diplomatic facilities by Obama last
year. Why now?
Many observers say that the Russians are "naive" about the West and the USA, that Putin was "hoping"
for better relations and that this hope was paralyzing him. Others say that Putin is "weak" or even
"in cahoots" with the West. This is all total nonsense.
People tend to forget that Putin was an officer in the foreign intelligence branch of the KGB,
the so-called "First Main Directorate" (PGU). Furthermore, Putin has recently revealed that he worked
in the highly secretive "Directorate S" of the PGU and he was in charge of contacts with a network
of illegal Soviet spies in East-Germany (were Putin was under the official cover of Director of the
USSR-GDR Friendship House). If the PGU was the "elite of the elite" of the KGB, and its most secretive
part, then the "Directorate S" was the "elite of the elite" of the PGU and its most secretive part.
This is most definitely not a career for "naive" or "weak" people, to put it mildly! First and foremost,
PGU officers were "specialists of the West" in general, and of the United States especially because
the USA was always officially considered as the "main enemy" (even if most PGU officers personally
considered the British as their most capable, dangerous and devious adversary). Considering the superb
level of education and training given to these officers, I would argue that the PGU officers were
amongst the best experts of the West anywhere in the world. Their survival and the survival of their
colleagues depended on their correct understanding of the western world. As for Putin personally,
he has always taken action in a very deliberate and measured way and there is no reason to assume
that this time around the latest US sanctions have suddenly resulted in some kind of emotional outburst
in the Kremlin. You can be darn sure that this latest Russian reaction is the result of very carefully
arrived to conclusion and the formulation of a very precise and long-term objective.
I submit that the key to the correct understanding of the Russian response is in the fact that
the latest US sanctions contain an absolutely unprecedented and, frankly, shocking feature: the new
measures strip the President from the authority to revoke the sanctions. In practical terms, if Trump
wanted to lift any of these sanctions, he would have to send an official letter to Congress which
would then have 30 days to approve or reject the proposed action. In other words, the Congress has
now hijacked the power of the Presidency to conduct foreign policy and taken upon itself to micromanage
the US foreign policy.
That, my friends, is clearly a constitutional coup d'état and a gross violation of the principles
of separation of powers which is at the very core of the US political system.
It also is a telling testimony to the utter depravity of the US Congress which took no such measures
when Presidents bypass Congress and started wars without the needed congressional authority, but
which is now overtly taking over the US foreign policy to prevent the risk of "peace breaking out"
between Russia and the USA.
And Trump's reaction?
He declared that he would sign the bill.
Yes, the main is willing to put his signature on the text which represents an illegal coup d'état
against this own authority and against the Constitution which he swore to uphold.
With this in mind, the Russian reaction is quite simple and understandable: they have given up
on Trump.
Not that they ever had much hope in him, but they always strongly felt that the election of Trump
might maybe provide the world with a truly historical opportunity to change the disastrous dynamic
initiated by the Neocons under Obama and maybe return the international relations to a semblance
of sanity. Alas, this did not happen, Trump turned out to be an overcooked noodle whose only real
achievement was to express his thoughts in 140 characters or less. But the one crucial, vital, thing
which Trump absolutely needed to succeed in – mercilessly crushing the Neocons – he totally failed
to achieve. Worse, his only reaction to their multi-dimensional attempts at overthrowing him were
each time met with clumsy attempts at appeasing them.
For Russia is means that President Trump has now been replaced by "President Congress".
Since it is absolutely impossible to get anything done with this Congress anyway, the Russians
will now engage in unilaterally beneficial measures such as dramatically reducing the number of US
diplomats in Russia. For the Kremlin, these sanctions are no so much an unacceptable provocation
has an ideal pretext to move on a number of Russian internal policies. Getting rid of US employees
in Russia is just a first step.
Next, Russia will use the frankly erratic behavior of the Americans to proclaim urbi et orbi
that the Americans are irresponsible, incapable of adult decision-making and basically "gone
fishing". The Russians already did that much when they declared that the Obama-Kerry team was недоговороспособны
(nedogovorosposobny: "non agreement capable", more about this concept
here ). Now with Trump signing his own constitutional demise, Tillerson unable to get UN Nikki
to shut the hell up and Mattis and McMaster fighting over delusional plans to stop "not winning"
in Afghanistan, the Obama-Kerry teams starts to look almost adult.
Frankly, for the Russians now is the time to move on.
I predict that the Neocon-crazies will not stop until they impeach Trump. I furthermore predict
that the USA will not launch any major military interventions (if only because the USA has run out
of countries it can safely and easily attack). Some "pretend interventions" (like the ill-fated missile
strike on Syria) remain, of course, quite possible and even likely. This internal slow-mo coup against
Trump will absorb the vast majority of the energy to get anything done, and leave foreign policy
as simply another byproduct of internal US politics.
The East-Europeans are now totally stuck. They will continue to haplessly observe the unfolding
Ukrainian disaster while playing at silly games pretending to be tough on Russia (the latest example
of that kind of "barking from behind a fence" can be seen in the rather pathetic
closure of the Romanian air space to a civilian aircraft with Russian Vice-Premier Dmitri Rogozin
amongst the passengers). The real (West) Europeans will gradually come back to their senses and begin
making deals with Russia. Even France's Emmanuel Macron de Rothschild will probably prove a more
adult partner than The Donald.
But the real action will be elsewhere – in the South, the East and the Far-East. The simple truth
is that the world cannot simply wait for the Americans to come back to their senses. There are a
lot of crucial issues which need to be urgently tackled, a lot of immense projects which need to
be worked on, and a fundamentally new and profoundly different multi-polar world which needs to be
strengthened. If the Americans want to basically recuse themselves from it all, if they want to bring
down the constitutional order which their Founding Fathers created and if they want to solely operate
in the delusional realm which has no bearing on reality – that is both their right and their problem.
Washington DC is starting to look like a kindergarten on LSD – something both funny and disgusting.
Predictably, the kids don't look too bright: a mix of bullies and spineless idiots. Some of them
have their fingers on a nuclear button, and that is outright scary. What the adults need to do now
is to figure out a way of keeping the kids busy and distracted so they don't press the damn button
by mistake. And wait. Wait for the inevitable reaction of a country which is so much more and better
than its rulers and which now desperately needs a real patriot to stop
Witches' Sabbath in
Washington DC.
I will end this column on a personal note. I just crossed the USA, literally, from the Rogue River
in Oregon to East Central Florida. During that long trip I did not only see breathtakingly beautiful
sights, but also plenty of beautiful people who oppose the satanic ball in DC with every fiber of
their being and who want their country to be free from the degenerate demonic powers which have taken
over the federal government. I have now lived a total of 20 years in the USA and I have learned to
love and deeply appreciate the many kind, decent, honorable and simply beautiful people who live
here. Far from seeing the American people as enemies of Russia, I see them has natural allies, if
only because we have the same enemy (the Neocons in DC) and absolutely no objective reasons for conflict,
none whatsoever. Moreover, in many ways Americans and Russians are very much alike, sometimes in
comical ways. Just as during the Cold War I never lost hope in the Russian people, I now refuse to
lose hope in the American people. Yes, the US federal government is disgusting, evil, ugly, stupid,
degenerate and outright satanic, but the people of the USA are not. Far from it. I don't know if
this country can survive the current regime as one unitary USA or whether it will break up in several
quite different entities (something I see as very possible), but I do believe that the people of
the USA will survive and overcome just as the Russian people survived the horrors of the 1980s and
1990s.
[Sidebar: after being accused of being a "paid Putin agent" (Vladimir, please send me money!!),
a "Jew-lover" or even a "crypto-Jew" myself, a Nazi and Anti-Semite (which decent and good person
has not been called an Anti-Semite" at least once in his/her life), a Communist and a Muslim (or,
at least, a "Muslim propagandist"), I will now be called an "USA lover". Fine. Guilty as charged!
I do love this country very much, as I do love its people. In fact, my heart often breaks for them
and for the immense sufferings the Anglo-Zionist Empire also inflicts upon them. In the fight between
the people of the USA and the Empire I unapologetically side with the people whom I see as friends,
allies and even brothers.]
Right now the USA appears to be plunging into a precipice very similar to the one the Ukraine
has plunged into (which is unsurprising, really, the same people inflicting the same disasters on
whatever country they infect with their presence). The big difference is that immense and untapped
potential of the USA to bounce back. There might not even be a Ukraine in 10 years, but there will
most definitely be a USA, albeit maybe a very different one or even maybe several successor states.
But for the time being, I can only repeat what Floridians say when a hurricane comes barreling
down on them: "hunker down" and brace for some very difficult and dangerous times to come. (Republished
from
The Vineyard of the Saker by permission of author or representative)
Worse, Trump's behavior towards Europe and the anti-Trump propaganda inside Europe has now
put the EU and the US on a collision course. This is absolutely amazing: for the Russians the
current tensions between the EU and the USA are a dream come true and yet they had absolutely
nothing to do with it – it was all done by the self-defeating stupidity of the Americans who created
this situation completely ex nihilo
So I guess the Americans are stupid for antagonizing Russia, they're stupid for antagonizing Russia's
enemies in the EU–they're just plain stupid, according to this Dutch-Russian emigre. I don't know
why America's stupid for standing up for its rights on climate change and refugee admissions and
calling out NATO freeloaders, I really don't. And if this upsets Western Europe, so much the better.
Also, someone should explain to "The Saker" that the neocons were well in control before Obama.
How do you think we got into Iraq? And what is the "semblance of sanity" he thinks we should return
to?
@Bragadocious Worse, Trump's behavior towards Europe and the anti-Trump propaganda inside
Europe has now put the EU and the US on a collision course. This is absolutely amazing: for the
Russians the current tensions between the EU and the USA are a dream come true and yet they had
absolutely nothing to do with it – it was all done by the self-defeating stupidity of the Americans
who created this situation completely ex nihilo
So I guess the Americans are stupid for antagonizing Russia, they're stupid for antagonizing Russia's
enemies in the EU--they're just plain stupid, according to this Dutch-Russian emigre. I don't
know why America's stupid for standing up for its rights on climate change and refugee admissions
and calling out NATO freeloaders, I really don't. And if this upsets Western Europe, so much the
better. Also, someone should explain to "The Saker" that the neocons were well in control before
Obama. How do you think we got into Iraq? And what is the "semblance of sanity" he thinks we should
return to? Americans and the US government are two different things.
That is no small part of why Trump got elected.
Antagonize Russia to what purpose?
Now we have Haley at the UN, Tillerton, and McMaster making statements at odds with Trumps
and they still have a job. Can Trump even remove them?
Who is actually in charge of the American government? Is it Trump or the Neocons?
The entire Russia hacking story is a joke and probably a setup by the Democrats if their links
to Fusion GPS is true.
Regardless, foreign nations have to deal with the world outside of Washington DC and its looks
like the lunatics have taken control of the DC asylum which may well be the case.
The problem is the lack of coherence from Washington.
We may be looking at a slow motion coup, or simple incompetence, but Trump never struck me
as incompetent in his other business dealings.
@Bragadocious Worse, Trump's behavior towards Europe and the anti-Trump propaganda inside
Europe has now put the EU and the US on a collision course. This is absolutely amazing: for the
Russians the current tensions between the EU and the USA are a dream come true and yet they had
absolutely nothing to do with it – it was all done by the self-defeating stupidity of the Americans
who created this situation completely ex nihilo
So I guess the Americans are stupid for antagonizing Russia, they're stupid for antagonizing Russia's
enemies in the EU--they're just plain stupid, according to this Dutch-Russian emigre. I don't
know why America's stupid for standing up for its rights on climate change and refugee admissions
and calling out NATO freeloaders, I really don't. And if this upsets Western Europe, so much the
better. Also, someone should explain to "The Saker" that the neocons were well in control before
Obama. How do you think we got into Iraq? And what is the "semblance of sanity" he thinks we should
return to? Your trolling comment is offensive
"During that long trip I did not only see breathtakingly beautiful sights, but also plenty
of beautiful people who oppose the satanic ball in DC with every fiber of their being and who
want their country to be free from the degenerate demonic powers which have taken over the federal
government."
I am anything but beautiful, but everything else about that sentence describes me.
I have never been to Russia, but I have known many Russians, and I am a bit of a Russophile.
I voted for Trump partly because I was certain that Clinton would immediately plunge us into war
with Russia. It sickens me that the senate are now rattling sabres against them. I am praying
for them, and that this country is stopped from doing any real damage to them.
I can't help but wonder whether the all-but-signed alliance with the Saudis has something to
do with this. There must be something diabolical there too.
@Bragadocious You returned from a 3-year posting absence to write that? So Ned took a break
for whatever reason, what of it? He wrote that your comment was offensive, I would have called
it simply stupid. It smacks of knee-jerk chest-thumping of the sort that the US has already had
more than enough of.
Yes, the neocons took over before Trump. Good observation, Sherlock. Trump was elected because
he promised to do something about it but so far he's been a wimp. Many people still hope that
Trump is merely playing rope-a-dope but Saker makes it clear in the article that this time is
different in that it undermines the president's authority and it neuters his ability to effect
change. Chew on that please, or better still, re-read the article.
Saker was hoping for peace just like so many Americans were when they voted for DT but it is
increasingly looking like it's not going to happen.
I see USA as analogous to the Chinese Empire during its "decline and fall" 1850-1950 (very
last part of the Manchu dynasty). Of course, it's a rough analogy, but it's there all the same.
Like China back then, the "Court" of the USA like the imperial court of China was willing to sell
off anything and everything. It's all been for sale for at least the last 50 years. (If you want
an example, take the Panama Canal.)
In that milieu, consider the neocons. What are they unless (like the DNC and the GOP's National
Central Committee) but a money-laundering and influence-peddling center. So apply that to the
"known known" that the main 'position' of the neocons (their excuse for some kind of principle)
is "Russia is dangerous and must be destroyed." As seen in the Saker's article, that is a destructive
proposition – destructive of the interests of the USA and its people. So then WHY – why do the
neocons pursue that agenda? Well, if you think about the nature of the neocons, of Congress, etc.,
you realize that the neocons must be making money off of this. They are pushing the anti-Russia
agenda because they are paid to do so. Then, ask yourself, as with any money-following effort,
CUI BONO? Well. what is accomplished by keeping the heat turned up on Russia? Isn't it that the
anti-Russia agenda provides a distraction from what China is doing? And who, almost certainly,
has been paying off the neocons for almost 50 years now – ever since Kissinger (godfather of the
neocons) took his secret trip to Beijing in 1973. Put it this way: the old China lobby had been
providing huge amounts of $US to the entire USA establishment – in particular to political parties
and to the media – since way back in WW II. Now there would be a huge hole where the old China
lobby had been. Who would fill that? Kissinger, for all his many faults, was smart enough to know,
and Chou En-Lai was smart enough to know, what had to be done. And the old China Lobby had long
seen the writing on the wall. So the old China Lobby was taken over by the New China Lobby. Lo-and-behold,
Kissinger created the neocons where the paleocons had been. (If you want, you can also find evidence
of an effective conspiracy extending back into WW II and the 1930′s, but that might mean identifying
with the old JBS, and I want to stay focused on issues more current.)
That's the basic reality about the neocons. The PRC (or its rulers in the Standing Committee)
are the neocons' bread-and-butter. Oh, sure they appreciate the Israel lobby and they need it
to keep Congress dumb and afraid but their bread-and-butter is the PRC. Or more precisely, the
Standing Committee. Americans like to think that we have all the billionaires (or the billionaires
have us), but the reality is that USA's politicians, bureaucrats and bankers deal with many billionaires,
including the billionaires (active and retired) of the Standing Committee of the Communist Party
of China and the billionaires of the Kim dynasty of the DPRK. These billionaires use their money
much more in concert with one another than do most billionaires. So they get what they want. And
what they want includes the ability not to be bothered by, e.g., the US Navy when they decide
to extend their empire over the SCS and do not want USA's people even to know that Hanoi asks
pleadingly to become a port and outpost of the US Navy. Etc. etc.
If you find this hard to believe, google on "Clinton china bribery." Or, here at the Unz Review,
check out Peter Lee's 'China Matters' blog story "Four Corners/Fairfax". Just think it over. If
your mind has been closed, let it open.
The neocons and their media in the U.S. and the rest of the West simply HAVE to be taken out,
one way or another. This is the only acceptable route – a knot tying the whole world up in insanity,
which must be broken.
@Bragadocious Worse, Trump's behavior towards Europe and the anti-Trump propaganda inside
Europe has now put the EU and the US on a collision course. This is absolutely amazing: for the
Russians the current tensions between the EU and the USA are a dream come true and yet they had
absolutely nothing to do with it – it was all done by the self-defeating stupidity of the Americans
who created this situation completely ex nihilo
So I guess the Americans are stupid for antagonizing Russia, they're stupid for antagonizing Russia's
enemies in the EU--they're just plain stupid, according to this Dutch-Russian emigre. I don't
know why America's stupid for standing up for its rights on climate change and refugee admissions
and calling out NATO freeloaders, I really don't. And if this upsets Western Europe, so much the
better. Also, someone should explain to "The Saker" that the neocons were well in control before
Obama. How do you think we got into Iraq? And what is the "semblance of sanity" he thinks we should
return to? Did I miss it or Saker does not even explain what kind of sanctions were imposed but
nevertheless he assures his readers that they won't hurt Russia and possibly make it even stronger
and basically everything will be hunky-dory because PGU has extremely well qualified individuals
on its staff: "superb level of education and training." And obviously Putin is a superman who
was in charge of spies in East Germany which required as much sophistication and risk taking as
spying in Wales for James Bond.
But the one crucial, vital, thing which Trump absolutely needed to succeed in – mercilessly
crushing the Neocons – he totally failed to achieve.
Indeed. The next step, as with Buchanan's piece today which is similarly discouraged as far
as US foreign policy under Trump is concerned, is to name the neocons. Identify the people burrowing
into the institutions of the US administration and subverting any hope of any substantive change
in foreign policy from the Clinton/Bush/Obama years. Name the people who act as the tools of the
Neocon Lobby within the administration, because those Trump can at least deal with, if he ever
comes to understand what is going on (which admittedly seems unlikely so long as he tolerates
Nikki Haley's open warmongering).
The subservience of Congress can only be dealt with by the American people defeating these
sitting members and replacing them with ones who fear, and are loyal to, their constituents more
than the lobbyists – which of course requires Americans to recognise when they are being manipulated
by lobbyists via the media.
See the piece yesterday by Ron Maxwell, naming some of the neocons:
@Bragadocious Worse, Trump's behavior towards Europe and the anti-Trump propaganda inside
Europe has now put the EU and the US on a collision course. This is absolutely amazing: for the
Russians the current tensions between the EU and the USA are a dream come true and yet they had
absolutely nothing to do with it – it was all done by the self-defeating stupidity of the Americans
who created this situation completely ex nihilo
So I guess the Americans are stupid for antagonizing Russia, they're stupid for antagonizing Russia's
enemies in the EU--they're just plain stupid, according to this Dutch-Russian emigre. I don't
know why America's stupid for standing up for its rights on climate change and refugee admissions
and calling out NATO freeloaders, I really don't. And if this upsets Western Europe, so much the
better. Also, someone should explain to "The Saker" that the neocons were well in control before
Obama. How do you think we got into Iraq? And what is the "semblance of sanity" he thinks we should
return to?
I don't know why America's stupid for standing up for its rights on climate change and refugee
admissions and calling out NATO freeloaders, I really don't.
Saker didn't refer to any of those things in his criticism of the Trump regime's foreign policy
stupidity. The only aspect of "Trump's behaviour towards Europe" that he (absolutely correctly)
singles out for criticism is the literally stupid sanctions resolution. Though he could equally
well have criticised the delusional stupidity of Trump's seeming wholesale swallowing of neocon
propaganda about Iran and the nuclear agreement.
Also, someone should explain to "The Saker" that the neocons were well in control before
Obama. How do you think we got into Iraq?
He's clearly well aware of that. As he has rightly pointed out previously (and Buchanan also
points out again today), Trump was elected in part precisely because he seemed to offer an escape
from the neocon-driven invade the world/invite the world lunacy. But his actual foreign policy
seems to have been little more than continuity with minor trimming only when forced by reality,
especially with the likes of Nikki Haley in such a prominent position.
And what is the "semblance of sanity" he thinks we should return to?
Not trying to right all the world's suppose wrongs by force (military or economic) would be
a good start. That and ceasing to regard the interests of Israel and of Saudi Arabia as of primary
importance for US foreign and military policy.
This article is something of a mixed bag. The idea that there is going to be some rift between
the EU and US is, at best, wishful thinking, but probably closer to downright delusion. No, European
countries ceased to be subjects of history, and became objects, when they ceded their sovereignty
to the implicitly Atlanticist and supranational structure that is the EU. So they may growl and
gnash their teeth a bit, but will eventually roll over and hope that their bellies are scratched
and not slashed.
As for Trump signing the sanctions legislation as it is written, Saker's point is valid. No
president should abrogate power without a fight. He should, at the very least, insist that the
restrictions on his ability to unilaterally cancel sanctions be removed from the legislation or
he will veto the bill and fight it all the way to the Supreme Court. And, he should make clear
that this isn't about sanctioning or not sanctioning Russia, but the fact that the law is unconstitutional.
Saker is also correct that the US is simply too dysfunctional now to pursue any kind of coherent
foreign policy. If I were Putin, I would ask Trump who in Congress he should be negotiating with,
since neither Trump himself, nor anyone in his cabinet, possesses the authority to follow through
with any possible agreements. The smarter commentators are actually all coming around to the same
view. Dmitry Trenin:
"I think the Kremlin views the U.S. as a dysfunctional polity, with its political class
at war with itself and its society deeply divided along cultural fault lines. Under these circumstances
one hardly expects a consistent policy Bad as they are now, U.S.-Russian relations continue
to get worse, edging ever closer to a kinetic collision between their armed forces somewhere:
in Syria, over the Baltic and Black Seas, or Ukraine."
It does indeed seem like something dramatic needs to happen, at which point the US will either
come to its senses or it's mushroom cloud time for all of us.
Although I think there is some hypobole involved, I would like to thank the Saker for raising
this very interesting and very pregnant issue:
"In other words, the Congress has now hijacked the power of the Presidency to conduct foreign
policy and taken upon itself to micromanage the US foreign policy.
That, my friends, is clearly a constitutional coup d'état and a gross violation of the principles
of separation of powers which is at the very core of the US political system."
This is a very disturbing development, to say the least.
However, I do disagree with the Saker on this point:
"If the Americans want to basically recuse themselves from it all, if they want to bring down
the constitutional order which their Founding Fathers created and if they want to solely operate
in the delusional realm which has no bearing on reality – that is both their right and their problem."
The "Americans" -- that is US citizens -- do NOT want to bring down the constitution, nor have
a government operate in a delusional realm. Nor does the US "government have the "right" to operate
in the way they do: that amounts to saying they have the right to commit treason ( a meaningless
concept for the Elites). Finally, it is NOT just an American "problem": unfortunately, it's a
world problem. We are all liable to suffer for the insane shenanigans of the US Ruling
class.
I predict that the Neocon-crazies will not stop until they impeach Trump.
And that's probably behind this clusterfuck. The globalist cabal is working hard to make Trump
look bad and he's falling for it (him asking Comey – a certified swamp creature – to be loyal
is proof of his naivete). This same cabal is running Western Europe so any "positive" developments
between Macron de Rothchild and Putin will be temporary and designed to further ostracise Trump.
With Jews you loose and Russia will forever be their ultimate target. Russian nukes are the only
thing standing in the way of One World Government.
I furthermore predict that the USA will not launch any major military interventions
Don't be so sure. They want him to make mistakes . A new war would disappoint a lot
of Trump's core supporters and destroy his capability to expand the base.
@NoseytheDuke So Ned took a break for whatever reason, what of it? He wrote that your comment
was offensive, I would have called it simply stupid. It smacks of knee-jerk chest-thumping of
the sort that the US has already had more than enough of.
Yes, the neocons took over before Trump. Good observation, Sherlock. Trump was elected because
he promised to do something about it but so far he's been a wimp. Many people still hope that
Trump is merely playing rope-a-dope but Saker makes it clear in the article that this time is
different in that it undermines the president's authority and it neuters his ability to effect
change. Chew on that please, or better still, re-read the article.
Saker was hoping for peace just like so many Americans were when they voted for DT but it is
increasingly looking like it's not going to happen. Yes, the neocons took over before Trump.
Good observation, Sherlock
Thanks. The reason I wrote that was because Saker wrote this:
Not that they ever had much hope in him, but they always strongly felt that the election
of Trump might maybe provide the world with a truly historical opportunity to change the disastrous
dynamic initiated by the Neocons under Obama
See, the key word there Sherlock, is initiated . That means to start, in case you didn't
know. I know, I'm Captain Obvious again. Maybe Saker should write more carefully, and not sound
like a kindergartner on LSD.
"I would have called it stupid"
Yes, that's the operative word for Saker and his minions. Everyone's stupid. Except you. You're
smart. Especially when you're peddling 9/11 truther stuff. Then you're a special kind of smart.
I don't know why America's stupid for standing up for its rights on climate change and refugee
admissions and calling out NATO freeloaders, I really don't.
Saker didn't refer to any of those things in his criticism of the Trump regime's foreign policy
stupidity. The only aspect of "Trump's behaviour towards Europe" that he (absolutely correctly)
singles out for criticism is the literally stupid sanctions resolution. Though he could equally
well have criticised the delusional stupidity of Trump's seeming wholesale swallowing of neocon
propaganda about Iran and the nuclear agreement.
Also, someone should explain to "The Saker" that the neocons were well in control before Obama.
How do you think we got into Iraq?
He's clearly well aware of that. As he has rightly pointed out previously (and Buchanan also points
out again today), Trump was elected in part precisely because he seemed to offer an escape from
the neocon-driven invade the world/invite the world lunacy. But his actual foreign policy seems
to have been little more than continuity with minor trimming only when forced by reality, especially
with the likes of Nikki Haley in such a prominent position.
And what is the "semblance of sanity" he thinks we should return to?
Not trying to right all the world's suppose wrongs by force (military or economic) would be a
good start. That and ceasing to regard the interests of Israel and of Saudi Arabia as of primary
importance for US foreign and military policy. Saker didn't refer to any of those things
I agree, he didn't, but then again, it seems Saker doesn't do nuance very well. He specializes
in grandiose insults (stupid, LSD, kindergartners, overcooked noodle, gone fishing) without mentioning
some pretty important stuff, like Trump cutting off funding to the Syrian rebels. That move
infuriated the neocons. Why doesn't Saker mention that? I guess it doesn't jibe with his overall
"incompetence" theme and anti-Trump snark.
As for the sanctions, they seem to upset Saker. But then he says it's water off a duck's back
for Putin. Hey, they probably even strengthen his hand -- So really, who gives a shit? He
contradicts himself.
Finally, he says Trump has turned over foreign policy responsibility to Congress. I'm no constitutional
expert, but Congress is in charge of declaring war. Sanctions can be interpreted as an act of
war. In any case, forcing the congresscritters to go on record for something like this can be
seen as very useful, just as the Iraq war vote was in blocking Hillary from higher office.
Thanks for the compliments regarding the American people. They all want peace just like all
others and have always voted for what they thought was the peace candidate only to be betrayed
later. I've lived here longer than just twenty years, however, but my whole life and am not so
sanguine about the nature of most Americans. I'd say the vast majority, perhaps 70%, are ignorant
dolts and easily bamboozled. Elections are just festivals of lies and deceit with few being able
to learn from the previous experience. The population is composed mostly of dodo birds. The ruling
class are predators looking for the next dollar to be extorted or stolen. This is a bad formula
and can only go so far. The fault is not in our stars but in us.
" The ruling class are predators looking for the next dollar to be extorted or stolen."
And who exactly is this "ruling class" if not the neocons? Are they not exactly like Milovan
Djilas' "new class" – a class of apparatchiks in positions to profit enormously (while living
very comfortably) from the decline and fall of an empire. How could this be, if their treasonous
profiteering could only leave them as having no place to turn but the China-dominated new world
order? Well, perhaps they actually know that the very millionaires who controlled key industries
in China prior to 1950, were also millionaires who lived, have lived even during the Cultural
Revolution, and for their families, continue to live, very comfortably and securely in Shanghai
from 1950 onward – assuming that they were astute enough to have been doing business with the
Communists all along. Perhaps they realize that the Communists are about as communistic as the
National Socialists were socialistic so that course which is most profitable in the short-run
is also most profitable in the long run.
I submit that the key to the correct understanding of the Russian response is in the fact
that the latest US sanctions contain an absolutely unprecedented and, frankly, shocking feature:
the new measures strip the President from the authority to revoke the sanctions.
This is part of the plan to sideline Russia, render it untouchable on the Executive's part
and move on to China. The plan is to stun everyone with the announcement (probably on Labor Day)
of 50k new, well paying, mostly private sector jobs, with benefits. China will feature prominently.
Chinese built factories in Wisconsin, Chicago etc. just teasers. Bigly deal to follow: much, much
bigly. All will be well --
Largely due to Obama's timidity in Syria on top of his denial of defensive weapons to Kiev,
Russia humiliated America in Syria. Putin will rue the day, because America is going to hit back
at Russia (it has to). Trump is going to take asymmetric vengeance and bleed Russia white.
A fraction of what has been spent in Syria will go a very long way in you-know-where.
I submit that the key to the correct understanding of the Russian response is in the fact that
the latest US sanctions contain an absolutely unprecedented and, frankly, shocking feature:
the new measures strip the President from the authority to revoke the sanctions.
This is part of the plan to sideline Russia, render it untouchable on the Executive's part and
move on to China. The plan is to stun everyone with the announcement (probably on Labor Day) of
50k new, well paying, mostly private sector jobs, with benefits. China will feature prominently.
Chinese built factories in Wisconsin, Chicago etc. just teasers. Bigly deal to follow: much, much
bigly. All will be well --
http://robertmagill.wordpress.com The production facilities of the future will be automated
and the elimination of workers will mean there is no particular reason to continue offshoring
production. The factories will come back to the West, but the jobs won't exist .
@exiled off mainstreet Great picture and great description. Hopefully, things will degenerate
to the point where they can't gin up a nuclear war. Great picture -- just not congruent with the
title of the post. With a moniker like that, EoM, one might think you'd notice the size of that
girl's pupils. Not on LSD. Ill bet she had already graduated from kindergarten, too. But then,
why be critical of what one sees and reads. I take SAKER's input with a salt shaker on hand.
@Grandpa Charlie I see USA as analogous to the Chinese Empire during its "decline and fall"
1850-1950 (very last part of the Manchu dynasty). Of course, it's a rough analogy, but it's there
all the same. Like China back then, the "Court" of the USA like the imperial court of China was
willing to sell off anything and everything. It's all been for sale for at least the last 50 years.
(If you want an example, take the Panama Canal.)
In that milieu, consider the neocons. What are they unless (like the DNC and the GOP's National
Central Committee) but a money-laundering and influence-peddling center. So apply that to the
"known known" that the main 'position' of the neocons (their excuse for some kind of principle)
is "Russia is dangerous and must be destroyed." As seen in the Saker's article, that is a destructive
proposition - destructive of the interests of the USA and its people. So then WHY - why do the
neocons pursue that agenda? Well, if you think about the nature of the neocons, of Congress, etc.,
you realize that the neocons must be making money off of this. They are pushing the anti-Russia
agenda because they are paid to do so. Then, ask yourself, as with any money-following effort,
CUI BONO? Well. what is accomplished by keeping the heat turned up on Russia? Isn't it that the
anti-Russia agenda provides a distraction from what China is doing? And who, almost certainly,
has been paying off the neocons for almost 50 years now - ever since Kissinger (godfather of the
neocons) took his secret trip to Beijing in 1973. Put it this way: the old China lobby had been
providing huge amounts of $US to the entire USA establishment - in particular to political parties
and to the media - since way back in WW II. Now there would be a huge hole where the old China
lobby had been. Who would fill that? Kissinger, for all his many faults, was smart enough to know,
and Chou En-Lai was smart enough to know, what had to be done. And the old China Lobby had long
seen the writing on the wall. So the old China Lobby was taken over by the New China Lobby. Lo-and-behold,
Kissinger created the neocons where the paleocons had been. (If you want, you can also find evidence
of an effective conspiracy extending back into WW II and the 1930's, but that might mean identifying
with the old JBS, and I want to stay focused on issues more current.)
That's the basic reality about the neocons. The PRC (or its rulers in the Standing Committee)
are the neocons' bread-and-butter. Oh, sure they appreciate the Israel lobby and they need it
to keep Congress dumb and afraid ... but their bread-and-butter is the PRC. Or more precisely,
the Standing Committee. Americans like to think that we have all the billionaires (or the billionaires
have us), but the reality is that USA's politicians, bureaucrats and bankers deal with many billionaires,
including the billionaires (active and retired) of the Standing Committee of the Communist Party
of China and the billionaires of the Kim dynasty of the DPRK. These billionaires use their money
much more in concert with one another than do most billionaires. So they get what they want. And
what they want includes the ability not to be bothered by, e.g., the US Navy when they decide
to extend their empire over the SCS and do not want USA's people even to know that Hanoi asks
pleadingly to become a port and outpost of the US Navy. Etc. etc.
If you find this hard to believe, google on "Clinton china bribery." Or, here at the Unz Review,
check out Peter Lee's 'China Matters' blog story "Four Corners/Fairfax". Just think it over. If
your mind has been closed, let it open.
"Yet none dare call it treason." Kingmaker Sheldon Adelson also has a China connection.
@utu Did I miss it or Saker does not even explain what kind of sanctions were imposed but
nevertheless he assures his readers that they won't hurt Russia and possibly make it even stronger
and basically everything will be hunky-dory because PGU has extremely well qualified individuals
on its staff: "superb level of education and training." And obviously Putin is a superman who
was in charge of spies in East Germany which required as much sophistication and risk taking as
spying in Wales for James Bond.
And obviously Putin is a superman
Have you notice that the same folks you say Trump is a superman say the same of Putin? Everything
is a stroke of genius.
These folks might study up a bit on the nature of intelligence. It would help them recognize
these mediocrities for what they are.
@Bragadocious Yes, the neocons took over before Trump. Good observation, Sherlock
Thanks. The reason I wrote that was because Saker wrote this:
Not that they ever had much hope in him, but they always strongly felt that the election
of Trump might maybe provide the world with a truly historical opportunity to change the disastrous
dynamic initiated by the Neocons under Obama
See, the key word there Sherlock, is initiated . That means to start, in case you didn't
know. I know, I'm Captain Obvious again. Maybe Saker should write more carefully, and not sound
like a kindergartner on LSD.
"I would have called it stupid"
Yes, that's the operative word for Saker and his minions. Everyone's stupid. Except you. You're
smart. Especially when you're peddling 9/11 truther stuff. Then you're a special kind of smart.
I see that you've outed yourself as a Coincidence Theorist there so you may console yourself as
at least being "useful", even if it is only as being a useful idiot.
Start with ae911truth.org, grap a book on high-school physics and go on from there. There's
plenty of reading and learning ahead for you, but you'll be much better for it. Oh, and stop the
chest-thumping, it only results in bruises.
@Chuck Kingmaker Sheldon Adelson also has a China connection.
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/homeland-security/259853-training-tactical-officers-critical-for-national
"Kingmaker Sheldon Adelson also has a China connection." – Chuck, citing to The Hill
As always, a good read from the Saker.
I think his assessment is spot on; Trump and his movement have been disabled. Now Congress members
seem to be jockeying for future power-gains, while Trump might be starting to check out.
He'll keep tweeting or whatever, but Nikki Haley, Pence and the generals might end up grabbing
more decision-making power or perhaps not.. who knows.
There's always the 25th amendment scenario, the Russian collusion angle, or maybe some other
damning revelation to pop up in the future to sink Trump, but I think many in Washington may be
under warning that his removal could have a devastating impact.
I am not as optimistic about a lack of militarism in response to the crisis. That has been
the go-to option for all modern American presidents in times of crisis.
The worms in the House and Senate have been totally terrorized by the vile jooies. Give the
loathsome jooies whatever they want, no matter how foul, and keep their jobs or cross the abominable
jooies and lose their jobs when a well funded opponent supported by the repulsive KM (kosher media)
just happens to appear in the next primary. The Jooie Lobby runs the Knesset on the Potomac, not
the US citizenry who are held in the utmost contempt by the bloodthirsty jooie elites. Government
of the jooies, by the jooies, for the jooies .
Many events are sprouting up all over the map
India China, Taliban in Afghanistan ,Venezuela , Iran Syria Lebanon , Israel Palestine -- all are
moving rapidly into unknown territory . America is no longer is in a position to influence these
events. . despite not wanting American policy makers will be forced to look inwards . Those counytriesmay
nt bother to inform America .
Health Care, Student loans, next inevitable housing bubble, millennial not saving and being
forced to spend the income on health care and rents along , nation as a whole see increasing social
fragmentation on ethnic lines -- these forces will make America much weaker economically and socially
. Foreign countries like China and Gulf monarchies will influence American foreign and domestic
policies .
America democracy itself may not survive the changes . Neocons with eager media may settle
down on dictatorship.
"The latest US sanctions and the Russian retaliatory response"
There has not been any response so far. Response was to US expelling 35 Russian diplomats 6+
months ago. This is why I am not a fan of delayed responses. As saying goes, spoon is for dinner,
not afterwards. Russia so far failed to respond to USA aggression which is what sanctions are.
Putin has been doing this whole patience expectations of US coming to her senses for some 10 years
with poor results as US belligerence seems to grow in lack of appropriate responses from Russia.
Putin being liberal he is, seems cannot abandon hope to be part of the club so far hence this
treatment in white gloves when it is stick across US face and kick into US groin what's necessary.
USA is like a dog that understands only stick. And stick has been missing despite Russia having
enough options to start really hurting USA where it hurts and stop cooperation everywhere even
in Syria.
I am not holding my breath with Putin though. He still insists on not letting up and talking to
madman despite that doing everything to hurt him.
Slow learner he is both in regards to USA and Russian economy.
"What is absolutely clear is that these sanctions will have exactly zero effect on Russia and
I don't think anybody is seriously expecting the Russians to change anything at all in their policies."
Zero effects? Speaking of changing policy is true but not that it won't create troubles for
Russia. Anyway, any aggression requires swift and ruthless repsonse otherwise it invites more
of agression. Putin is wrong to behave the way he behaves. There must be zero patience and head
for an eye response. Than aggression stops.
But the one crucial, vital, thing which Trump absolutely needed to succeed in – mercilessly
crushing the Neocons – he totally failed to achieve.
Indeed. The next step, as with Buchanan's piece today which is similarly discouraged as far as
US foreign policy under Trump is concerned, is to name the neocons. Identify the people burrowing
into the institutions of the US administration and subverting any hope of any substantive change
in foreign policy from the Clinton/Bush/Obama years. Name the people who act as the tools of the
Neocon Lobby within the administration, because those Trump can at least deal with, if he ever
comes to understand what is going on (which admittedly seems unlikely so long as he tolerates
Nikki Haley's open warmongering).
The subservience of Congress can only be dealt with by the American people defeating these
sitting members and replacing them with ones who fear, and are loyal to, their constituents more
than the lobbyists - which of course requires Americans to recognise when they are being manipulated
by lobbyists via the media.
See the piece yesterday by Ron Maxwell, naming some of the neocons:
The subservience of Congress can only be dealt with by the American people defeating these
sitting members and replacing them with ones who fear, and are loyal to, their constituents
more than the lobbyists – which of course requires Americans to recognise when they are being
manipulated by lobbyists via the media.
Yet, that has never happened, and will never happen. People elect leaders quite like themselves.
It is the people, stupid (I don't necessarily mean you).
The neoconservative are like junkies. Does a junkie ever really appreciate the risk whilst
in the middle of pursuing his next fix? Each successive fix is never quite enough, so they go
on to bigger fixes at the risk of overdose. Neocons seem to think kicking Russia's ass will be
a manageable high, a cakewalk nonetheless, same for China thereafter, because the wars and dying
will be done over there in their estimation.
Furthermore, we also have to keep in mind that the Neocon Lobby is unlike any other lobby
in the list above. For one thing, it does not represent US interests. Neither does it represent
the interests of Israel. Rather, it represents the interests of a specific subset of the US
ruling elites, in reality much smaller than 1% of the population, which all share in the one
common ideology of worldwide domination typical of the Neocons.
These are the folks who in spite of their 100% ironclad control of the media and Congress
lost the Presidential election to Donald Trump and who are now dead set to impeach him.
Many people who notice believe that "Neocon" is a euphemism for "Jew". Yes, there are non-Jewish
outliers among the Neocons like John McCain and Lindsey Graham but this need be no more complex
than assuming that they, like so many others in government such as Bill and Hillary Clinton, have
cut their deals with the Jewish lobby. Indeed, when I read an article on Neocons, the list of
culprits does read like a list of Ashkenazi Jews.
The import is that if the Neocons are religiously committed to world domination and "Neocon"
is a euphemism for "Jew", then it follows that the age-old stereotype that there are cabals of
Jews seeking world domination at the expense of the goyim they live among is true.
And one of the things I've learned is to NOT seek a reasonable answer to situations provoked
by utter crackpots.
It's simple; many of those in positions of power and responsibility are not only nuts in the
head, but no human is built to shoulder much power at all.
Of the lobby groups listed, probably only Big Oil and Big Jew (and not in that order) have
much of an interest in going to war with Russia. The Military-Industrials are happy just to get
contracts to build stuff. They don't really care, or particularly want, their stuff to be used.
Most of it is too expensive to use, and probably doesn't work as advertised, anyhow.
But I remain puzzled at how 98 Senators could have been lined up for that stupidity.
Can you enlarge on the details of neo-con ideas, personnel and means of influence to explain
the neo-con part? I mean 98 out of 100 Senators!!!
And, given especially your assertion that Israeli lobbyists aren't acting in Israel's real
interests, can you give a fuller explanation of what they are up to and why, with particular reference
to that Senate vote?
Following on from that, or, if you insist, as an aside would you care to give your view of
what rational Israeli lobbying might seek Americann help for. Here's my attempt at starting your
explanation .. Israel knows it can no longer defeat the battle hardened Hezbollah forces, from
which they have already received a bloidy nose, without using nuclear weapons or losing a high
proportion of young Israelis. So it fears that Hezbollah, still connected to Iran and protected
in that by Syria, will launch intolerable rocket attacks to provoke Israeli attack against its
dug in positions.
The need to remove Assad's regime has to be seen in that light??? Could it be as simple as
that?
I predict that the Neocon-crazies will not stop until they impeach Trump.
And that's probably behind this clusterfuck. The globalist cabal is working hard to make Trump
look bad and he's falling for it (him asking Comey - a certified swamp creature - to be loyal
is proof of his naivete). This same cabal is running Western Europe so any "positive" developments
between Macron de Rothchild and Putin will be temporary and designed to further ostracise Trump.
With Jews you loose and Russia will forever be their ultimate target. Russian nukes are the only
thing standing in the way of One World Government.
I furthermore predict that the USA will not launch any major military interventions
Don't be so sure. They want him to make mistakes . A new war would disappoint a lot of
Trump's core supporters and destroy his capability to expand the base. "Russian nukes are the
only thing standing in the way of One World Government."
Indeed. Vladimir Putin has big balls, and the elites hate him. But he's not afraid of a murder
attempt. The elites know that if something happens to him, Europe, Israel and North America would
be reduced to radioactive debris in about one hour
A new alignment is likely to emerge .t will be much less adversarial and much less enthused
with polemic. America China Israel Saudi Arab – pitted against – India Russia Iran Japan, . China
will embrace US because of Neocon and myriad financial connections with US .India will be forced
to return to Russia . China joining America or America deciding to join China is the game changer
and disrupt very other relationship. China will try to occupy American position after WW2 while
US will find itself occupying post WW2 British position. Neoconservatives and financial system
of the world will force this merger .
Pakistan Germany Turkey will try to juggle and hedge theirs bets . Central Asian Stan will
be politically connected to Russia but economically to China .China and Russia will quarrel here
and these countries will face a period of turmoil. Balkans will move back to Russia . NATO will
be largely irrelevant with no ability to have consensus and a mission .
The world will become more rambunctious and hyper verbal but it won't fight .
Polyglot countries like India and America will try to talk along ethnic lines more but the fundamental
underlying realities will not change . Despite the divisiveness promoted by parties, the citizen
will move to closer relationship and understanding and common ground partly because the divisiveness
will fail to accrue any benefit to the groups most interested in harvesting it .But the divisiveness
will not disappear from daily discourse .
Have you notice that the same folks you say Trump is a superman say the same of Putin? Everything
is a stroke of genius.
These folks might study up a bit on the nature of intelligence. It would help them recognize
these mediocrities for what they are. ;) Everything is a stroke of genius.
Like playing 3D or nD (n–>inf) chess, right?
I think it come from desperation and hope, I think. And as they say, hope does not want to
die in spite of the evidence that it should long time ago.
@The Alarmist The neoconservative are like junkies. Does a junkie ever really appreciate the
risk whilst in the middle of pursuing his next fix? Each successive fix is never quite enough,
so they go on to bigger fixes at the risk of overdose. Neocons seem to think kicking Russia's
ass will be a manageable high, a cakewalk nonetheless, same for China thereafter, because the
wars and dying will be done over there ... in their estimation. " Neocons seem to think kicking
Russia's ass will be a manageable high"
That's what they think. Given that Russia currently has more nuclear power than USA and Israel
combined, to think that they can handle Russia is sheer stupidity.
Much is made of this so-called "neocon" business. They appear to be a current highly aggressive
strain of American expansionism. However, there were no "neocons" in 1898 when the US saw it's
opportunity to attack Spain and grab away it's holdings. The US has been aggressively expanding
ever since, inserting itself into both world wars at the very last minute in order to gain as
much for itself as possible. It got a couple bloody rebuffs in Korea and Vietnam but learned how
to refine it's technique from those experiences. The US has been on the march ever since 1898,
sometimes slowly sometimes quickly. It's not something new but is an inherent dynamic. Like a
balloon things expand until they reach some sort of internal or external limiting factor. For
the US one can imagine what those might be.
We need a better term than "neo-con." People like Brennan, Clapper and McMaster were never
Trotskyites and they never wrote for Commentary. Their view is really a liberal internationalism
update for the post-Cold War, post-9/11 situation. And this view is ubiquitous inside the Beltway.
Saker,
I especially liked your use of the term "demonic" which is an appropriate term both figuratively
and possibly literally to describe many neocon adherents.
The internet is providing "Light coming into the world", that is, Truth or information coming
into mass consciousness. Mass consciousness must shape which possible futures become reality,
or the controlled media wouldn't be spending billions to try to influence it. Some would say that
this is solely because of the physical changes that people then force to happen, but evidence
also supports consciousness simply altering possible outcomes "The prayers of a righteous man
availeth much".
Saker, thanks much for Your articles!
Abstinence from all injustice to other first-rate powers is a greater tower of strength
than anything that can be gained by the sacrifice of permanent tranquillity for an apparent
temporary advantage.
Thucydides, The Peloponnesian War, Book I, 1.42-[3]
@Sergey Krieger "What is absolutely clear is that these sanctions will have exactly zero effect
on Russia and I don't think anybody is seriously expecting the Russians to change anything at
all in their policies."
Zero effects? Speaking of changing policy is true but not that it won't create troubles for
Russia. Anyway, any aggression requires swift and ruthless response otherwise it invites more
of aggression. Putin is wrong to behave the way he behaves. There must be zero patience and head
for an eye response. Than aggression stops.
Anyway, any aggression requires swift and ruthless repsonse
Not always, and not necessarily now. Sometimes no response is the most powerful. Aggressive and ruthless responses are often best
reserved for the times they're likely to succeed decisively. Responding to petulant pissants is more often than not a waste of time, energy and concentration. Putin appears to know all that, and good for him. I 'd love to see him knock the bastards on
their collective asses permanently. Sometime.
Did I miss it or Saker does not even explain what kind of sanctions were imposed but
nevertheless he assures his readers that they won't hurt Russia and possibly make it even stronger
and basically everything will be hunky-dory because PGU has extremely well qualified individuals
on its staff: "superb level of education and training." And obviously Putin is a superman who
was in charge of spies in East Germany which required as much sophistication and risk taking as
spying in Wales for James Bond. Russia had quite satisfactorily surfed sanctions.
@Bragadocious Worse, Trump's behavior towards Europe and the anti-Trump propaganda inside
Europe has now put the EU and the US on a collision course. This is absolutely amazing: for the
Russians the current tensions between the EU and the USA are a dream come true and yet they had
absolutely nothing to do with it – it was all done by the self-defeating stupidity of the Americans
who created this situation completely ex nihilo
So I guess the Americans are stupid for antagonizing Russia, they're stupid for antagonizing Russia's
enemies in the EU--they're just plain stupid, according to this Dutch-Russian emigre. I don't
know why America's stupid for standing up for its rights on climate change and refugee admissions
and calling out NATO freeloaders, I really don't. And if this upsets Western Europe, so much the
better. Also, someone should explain to "The Saker" that the neocons were well in control before
Obama. How do you think we got into Iraq? And what is the "semblance of sanity" he thinks we should
return to? "rights on climate change and refugee admissions" Seriously? Oh please.
@Sean Largely due to Obama's timidity in Syria on top of his denial of defensive weapons to
Kiev, Russia humiliated America in Syria. Putin will rue the day, because America is going to
hit back at Russia (it has to). Trump is going to take asymmetric vengeance and bleed Russia
white. A fraction of what has been spent in Syria will go a very long way in you-know-where.
Regarding Syria and your comments thereon: Excuse me, but is it all about Russia versus America
or can the Syrian people and their Government have any say? The world has people and Governments
other than American ones, you know, and they don't like freedom, democracy, or whatever delivered
by bombs, not even by smart bombs. The Syrian Government did not ask Washington to intervene,
so under international law American intervention and bombings there are as legitimate as "Saving
Vietnam from the commies", "Bringing democracy to Iraq", or . the list is long. No adventure on
that list turned out well for America or anyone else, with the exception of the merchants of death.
Now your fond hope is "Trump is going to bleed Russia white" and no doubt you would welcome
"Getting tough on Russia". Maybe you prefer your news to be exciting – with trade wars, sanctions-wars,
hot wars, cold wars, shooting wars, full blown mushroom-cloud-wars – but you will have to spare
us such merry excitement.
You are making too big a deal about the 30 day repeal. I bet you Trump will include a signing
statement that he reserves the right to ignore the parts of the law that are unconstitutional.
I'm afraid I had to stop reading when our beloved Saker stated that the Israel Lobby has nothing
to do with Israel. I'm really not sure what planet Saker lives on but he might ask the destroyed
nations around Israel if they think the Lobby has nothing to do with Israel.
@schmenz I'm afraid I had to stop reading when our beloved Saker stated that the Israel Lobby
has nothing to do with Israel. I'm really not sure what planet Saker lives on but he might ask
the destroyed nations around Israel if they think the Lobby has nothing to do with Israel.
I'm afraid I had to stop reading when our beloved Saker stated that the Israel Lobby has
nothing to do with Israel.
This could no doubt be more accurately stated as, the Israel Lobby has nothing to do with the
interests of the Israeli people. It seems to exist for the benefit of the ultra moneybag crowd
and its deranged puppets such as Netanyahooooo!
Those whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad. Thus, the "American" (please note the
quotation marks) oligarchy is imploding. Hopefully, they will not exercise a Samson Option of
their own, but anything is possible with this gang of criminal sociopaths. Their poster boy
is now an insatiable warmonger who is suffering from brain cancer! How could things get any worse?
After the impressive military victories the US has achieved against such formidable foes
as Panama, Iraq, Afghanistan, Haiti, mighty Grenada, Serbia and Libya, taking on Russia should
be a "cakewalk", right? And to think there is a sizable demographic in this country which still
believes this! Unbelievable. The last time that the US took on a military opponent at rough conventional
parity with it (the Chinese in Korea) the result was a stalemate. To paraphrase Cardinal Newman,
"To be deep in history is to cease to be a neocon."
Trump should have just let the veto proof sanctions become law without his signature.
Furthermore, we also have to keep in mind that the Neocon Lobby is unlike any other lobby in
the list above. For one thing, it does not represent US interests. Neither does it represent
the interests of Israel. Rather, it represents the interests of a specific subset of the US
ruling elites, in reality much smaller than 1% of the population, which all share in the one
common ideology of worldwide domination typical of the Neocons.
These are the folks who in spite of their 100% ironclad control of the media and Congress
lost the Presidential election to Donald Trump and who are now dead set to impeach him.
Many people who notice believe that "Neocon" is a euphemism for "Jew". Yes, there are non-Jewish
outliers among the Neocons like John McCain and Lindsey Graham ... but this need be no more complex
than assuming that they, like so many others in government such as Bill and Hillary Clinton, have
cut their deals with the Jewish lobby. Indeed, when I read an article on Neocons, the list of
culprits does read like a list of Ashkenazi Jews.
The import is that if the Neocons are religiously committed to world domination and "Neocon"
is a euphemism for "Jew", then it follows that the age-old stereotype that there are cabals of
Jews seeking world domination at the expense of the goyim they live among is true. Agree!
@Sean Largely due to Obama's timidity in Syria on top of his denial of defensive weapons to
Kiev, Russia humiliated America in Syria. Putin will rue the day, because America is going to
hit back at Russia (it has to). Trump is going to take asymmetric vengeance and bleed Russia
white. A fraction of what has been spent in Syria will go a very long way in you-know-where.
I'm afraid you're right. But I remain puzzled at how 98 Senators could have been lined
up for that stupidity. Can you enlarge on the details of neo-con ideas, personnel and means
of influence to explain the neo-con part? I mean 98 out of 100 Senators!!!
And, given especially your assertion that Israeli lobbyists aren't acting in Israel's real
interests, can you give a fuller explanation of what they are up to and why, with particular reference
to that Senate vote?
Following on from that, or, if you insist, as an aside would you care to give your view of
what rational Israeli lobbying might seek Americann help for. Here's my attempt at starting your
explanation..... Israel knows it can no longer defeat the battle hardened Hezbollah forces, from
which they have already received a bloidy nose, without using nuclear weapons or losing a high
proportion of young Israelis. So it fears that Hezbollah, still connected to Iran and protected
in that by Syria, will launch intolerable rocket attacks to provoke Israeli attack against its
dug in positions.
The need to remove Assad's regime has to be seen in that light??? Could it be as simple as
that? That kind of overwhelming support in the Senate is usually reserved for Israel.
The current crisis between the largely special interest owned American executive branch and
the largely failing reformer Donald Trump can be a historic opportunity for Europe to mend the
artificial divide between the European Union and Russia. The crisis can also be a golden opportunity
to shake the corrupt system of government in the USA. These opportunities are subject to having
strong and free leaders who can capitalize on the hubris of the ignorant senators and representatives
on Capitol Hill.
Germany, absent Merkel, can resurrect the reinsurance treaty with Russia which Kaiser Wilhelm
II abrogated much to the frustration and disapproval of Bismarck, the pilot of German unification.
What followed was a precarious geopolitical divide in Europe which led to the WWI with its disastrous
consequences for Germany, followed by the ordeal of the Versailles Treaty and ultimately the breakout
of WWII.
By putting the energy gun to the head of the Europeans, the American legislature will force
the Europeans to rethink and revamp their self defeating policies towards Russia that are done
at the behest of the USA. Any rapprochement with Russia will seal the fate of Eurasia as an integrated
economic bloc with the New Silk Road at its backbone.
As for the United States internal politics, it is obvious that the neocons are pushing matters
to a head with Trump whose only resort is to knit a special relationship with those leaders of
the military establishment who do not fancy the dominance of the deep state under the leadership
of the CIA The neocons move to impeach the president should create the kind of unrest that should
spur the military to take action against the corruption of the legislative branch and its extension
in the neocons media complex.
Yet this very much desired scenario that could a boon for world peace hinges on the emergence
of a new leadership in the western world that is willing to defy the powers that be. Currently
Europe is woefully lacking in the quality of leadership that can seize the moment to break free
from the dominance of the neocons.
This sanctions bill is a domestic US matter. The Republicans are trying to pacify the Democrats'
rage and bitterness over losing the election. It is most convenient for them to adopt the canard
blaming Russia for the result of the election. The voters knew exactly where Trump stands on Russia,
so even if Russia leaked the DNC and Podesta emails, there was no theft of the election. Voters
were not mislead about positions, and knew very well the Democrats accuse the Russian of the leaks.
Trump did not veto the the bill because of the veto proof majority, but will effectively veto
the bill by ignoring it. I don't see any Federal Court issuing orders to enforce this bill, and
can ignore that too. It's like Congress declaring a war the President doesn't want to fight. Who
is gonna make him?
"Why in the world would the US Senate adopt new sanctions against Russia when Russia has done
absolutely nothing to provoke such a vote? Except for Rand Paul and Bernie Sanders, every single
US Senator voted in favor of these sanctions. Why?!"
There is no satisfactory "worldly" explanation for what's happening here, but there is an explanation.
The Jew-controlled "U.S. government" apparently hates Russia for the same reason that Cain
hated (and eventually murdered) Abel. To put it another way, "bad" (evil) hates "good" because if there were no such thing as "good",
then there would be no such thing as "bad" by comparison. The Russian government demonstrates respect for international law, mutual cooperation, diplomacy,
stability, restraint, etc., while the U.S. government simply trashes everything, including America.
The Jews HATE a good example, and Russian re-emergence onto the world scene as an example of
relative goodness, in stark contrast to U.S. evil, is simply too much for them to bear.
"An unjust man is an abomination to the just: and he that is upright in the way is abomination
to the wicked" (Proverbs 29:27).
@Sergey Krieger "What is absolutely clear is that these sanctions will have exactly zero effect
on Russia and I don't think anybody is seriously expecting the Russians to change anything at
all in their policies."
Zero effects? Speaking of changing policy is true but not that it won't create troubles for
Russia. Anyway, any aggression requires swift and ruthless repsonse otherwise it invites more
of agression. Putin is wrong to behave the way he behaves. There must be zero patience and head
for an eye response. Than aggression stops.
Putin is wrong to behave the way he behaves. There must be zero patience and head for
an eye response. Than aggression stops.
I second what 'jaques sheete' said. I just want to add that we could be on the verge of a major
break between Washington and the EU -- something Putin has been working towards for years. We have
an old saying: when you're enemy's committing suicide, stand back and let him. That's what Washington
is doing now: committing suicide.
During that long trip I did not only see breathtakingly beautiful sights, but also plenty
of beautiful people who oppose the satanic ball in DC with every fiber of their being
and who want their country to be free from the degenerate demonic powers which have taken
over the federal government.
I don't believe the "with every fiber of their being" part. This is just wishful thinking
on the part of Saker. If this were so, they wouldn't just be grumbling or trusting their corrupt
representatives. Average Americans still elect people like McCain, Graham and Schumer and I haven't
seen any mass anti-war demonstrations in Washington or New York or anywhere else.
Even more depressing than the bill is Trump's craven capitulation:
In a signing statement released by the White House, Trump said the legislation "included
a number of clearly unconstitutional provisions" in lawmakers' "haste" to pass it.
"While I favor tough measures to punish and deter aggressive and destabilizing behavior
by Iran, North Korea and Russia, this legislation is significantly flawed," he said
Trump, however, said in another statement accompanying the bill that he would not allow
the U.S. to "tolerate interference in our democratic process and that we will side with our
allies and friends against Russian subversion and destabilization."
So Trump now officially regards his own election as illegitimate? As the result of Russian
"subversion and destabilization"? Incredible! I realize he can't stop the bill; but that doesn't mean he has to officially sign it.
@yeah Regarding Syria and your comments thereon: Excuse me, but is it all about Russia versus
America or can the Syrian people and their Government have any say? The world has people and Governments
other than American ones, you know, and they don't like freedom, democracy, or whatever delivered
by bombs, not even by smart bombs. The Syrian Government did not ask Washington to intervene,
so under international law American intervention and bombings there are as legitimate as "Saving
Vietnam from the commies", "Bringing democracy to Iraq", or .... the list is long. No adventure
on that list turned out well for America or anyone else, with the exception of the merchants of
death.
Now your fond hope is "Trump is going to bleed Russia white" and no doubt you would welcome
"Getting tough on Russia". Maybe you prefer your news to be exciting - with trade wars, sanctions-wars,
hot wars, cold wars, shooting wars, full blown mushroom-cloud-wars - but you will have to spare
us such merry excitement.
Russian military thinking seems to have reached the point now where the idea of using force
intentionally in conflicts with peer-state adversaries has been almost completely ruled out.
This seems a radical move. But there has been a clear recognition within this military that
better strategic outcomes for Russia will result from the use of non-violent 'asymmetric warfare'
activities rather than those which will or can involve the use of force – such as conventional
war or hybrid warfare. [...] The principal aim of Russian asymmetric warfare is to create degrees
of destabilisation (destabilizatsiya) within targeted states and within collectives of targeted
states (e.g. NATO, EU). [...] And all this plays to the Russian military's own strengths –
its 'own relative advantages'. While it might lack 'quantitative indicators' – the tanks, aircraft
and ships – it does have a massive capacity to gather information, to disseminate (mis)information
and to employ considerable cyber abilities
Too backward to frack, Russia tried to bribe the tech from Exxon with massive access to
Russia untapped resources to show them how. I would really like someone to tell me why Russia
should be rewarded by transfer of crucial US technology for what it did in Ukraine. Were they
expecting a pat on the back? Russia will it not start a conventional or nuclear war unless it
thinks there is a chance of it winning, and there isn't.
They humiliated Tel Aviv. American people never wanted to spill their blood and treasure on the
other side of the Globe for the Grater Israel project. No because Jordan not Syria is just across
the river from the occupied territories' Palestinian population. Syria has little or no bearing
on the West Bank Arab problem, which is the main one for Israel
Oil is the only reason the global population has quadrupled in only the last 100 years. The
Industrial Revolution was not enough. Oil is necessary to maintain this population and keep it
fed.
The remaining relatively-cheap oil is all in Russia, Saudia Arabia, Iraq, Iran, and The UAE.
Everybody understands this. The Russians, the Chinese, the Neocons, Donald Trump. They all get
this.
The United States is for all intents-and-purposes energy independent when you include supplies
from Canada and rapidly-dwindling supplies from Mexico. But the United States relies on "control"
of the oil coming from the Persian Gulf to maintain control of its Empire and as tenuous control
over its real one and only rival – China.
South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan are completely dependent for survival economically on energy
that comes from the Middle-East and is protected by the U.S. Navy.
The constant tension between Israel and Saudi Arabia (The two worst regimes in the world) on
the one side and Iran on the other is necessary to give the American Deep State and Empire purpose.
While it 'appears' that all the American military equipment and bases and meddling in the Middle
East are aimed at surrounding and blunting Iran's power – it should be obvious from 75-plus years
of history that the real purpose is to surround Saudi Arabia.
Whether it is Roosevelt meeting with the King in 1945 on the way back from Yalta or Trump meeting
with the King a month ago – the message is clear – The heads belonging to the House of Sand are
only attached to their necks at the discretion of the United States.
Much is made of this so-called "neocon" business. They appear to be a current highly aggressive
strain of American expansionism. However, there were no "neocons" in 1898 when the US saw it's
opportunity to attack Spain and grab away it's holdings. The US has been aggressively expanding
ever since, inserting itself into both world wars at the very last minute in order to gain as
much for itself as possible. It got a couple bloody rebuffs in Korea and Vietnam but learned how
to refine it's technique from those experiences. The US has been on the march ever since 1898,
sometimes slowly sometimes quickly. It's not something new but is an inherent dynamic. Like a
balloon things expand until they reach some sort of internal or external limiting factor. For
the US one can imagine what those might be. Agree.
The only difference, at this stage of expansion, is that the lower classes do not get the spoils
of the expansion.
If they did .well .it would be interesting to see how much they'd be against The Empire.
And, yes, that another THING; this time the opponent can retaliate hard.
Nukes do make all that difficult to execute. What a conundrum ..
"... "the terms put to Milosevic (which included NATO forces having freedom of movement throughout his country) were absolutely intolerable it was quite deliberate." ..."
"... "the proposition that Muammar Gaddafi would have ordered the massacre of civilians in Benghazi was not supported by the available evidence." ..."
"... "Despite having achieved or being well under way to achieving major Millennium Development Goals targets (poverty reduction, primary education, and gender parity in secondary education, decrease in infant mortality rates and increasing access to improved sanitation) as of 2011, it is estimated that after the first four years of crisis Syria has dropped from 113th to 174th out of 187 countries ranked in the Human Development Index." ..."
"... For more info about that see: The Times, RT and Oliver Kamm, an Obsessed Neocon Stalker and Creepy London Times Moron Cyber-Stalks Leading UK Russia Expert (Video) ..."
A resource-rich, socialist-led, multi-ethnic secular state, with an economic system
characterized by a high level of public/social ownership and generous provision of welfare,
education and social services.
An independent foreign policy with friendship and good commercial ties with Russia, support
for Palestine and African and Arab unity – and historical backing for anti-imperialist
movements.
Social progress in a number of areas, including women's emancipation.
The above accurately describes the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya
and the Syrian Arab Republic. Three countries in three different continents, which had so much in
common.
All three had governments which described themselves as socialist. All three pursued a foreign
policy independent of Washington and NATO. And all three were targeted for regime
change/destruction by the US and its allies using remarkably similar methods.
The first step of the imperial predators was the imposition of draconian economic sanctions
used to cripple their economies, weaken their governments (always referred to as 'a/the regime')
and create political unrest. From 1992-95, and again in 1998, Yugoslavia was hit by the harshest
sanctions ever imposed on a European state. The sanctions even involved an EU ban on the
state-owned passenger airliner JAT
Libya was under US sanctions from the 1980s until 2004, and then again in 2011, the year the
country with the highest Human Development Index in Africa was bombed back to the Stone Age.
Syria has been sanctioned by the US since 2004 with a significant increase in the severity of
the measures in 2011 when the regime change op moved into top gear.
The second step was the backing of armed militias/terrorist proxies to destabilise the
countries and help overthrow these "regimes". The strategy was relatively simple.
Terrorist attacks and the killing of state officials and soldiers would provoke a military
response from 'the regime, whose leader would then be condemned for 'killing his own people' (or
in the case of Milosevic, other ethnic groups), and used to ramp up the case for a 'humanitarian
intervention' by the US and its allies.
In Yugoslavia, the US-proxy force was the Kosovan Liberation Army, who were given training and
logistical support by the West.
In Libya, groups linked to al-Qaeda, like the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, were provided
assistance, with NATO effectively acting as al-Qaeda's air force
In Syria, there was massive support for anti-government Islamist fighters, euphemistically
labelled 'moderate rebels.' It didn't matter to the 'regime changers' that weapons supplied to
'moderate rebels' ended up in the hands of groups like ISIS. On the contrary, a declassified
secret US intelligence
report from 2012 showed that the Western powers welcomed the possible establishment of a
Salafist principality in eastern Syria, seeing it as a means of isolating 'the Syrian
regime'.
The third step carried out at the same time as one and two involved the relentless
demonisation of the leadership of the target states. This involved the leaders being regularly
compared to Hitler, and accused of carrying out or planning genocide and multiple war crimes.
Milosevic – President of Yugoslavia – was labelled a 'dictator' even though he was
the democratically-elected leader of a country in which over 20 political parties freely
operated.
Libya's Muammar Gaddafi was portrayed as an unstable foaming at the mouth lunatic, about to
launch a massacre in Benghazi, even though he had governed his country since the end of the
Swinging Sixties.
Syria's Assad did take over in an authoritarian one-party system, but was given zero credit
for introducing a new constitution which ended the Ba'ath Party's monopoly of political power.
Instead all the deaths in the Syrian conflict were blamed on him, even those of the thousands of
Syrian soldiers killed by Western/GCC-armed and funded 'rebels'.
The fourth step in the imperial strategy was the deployment of gatekeepers – or
'Imperial Truth Enforcers' – to smear or defame anyone who dared to come to the defence of
the target states, or who said that they should be left alone.
The pro-war, finance-capital-friendly, faux-left was at the forefront of the media campaigns
against the countries concerned. This was to give the regime change/destruction project a
'progressive' veneer, and to persuade or intimidate genuine 'old school' leftists not to
challenge the dominant narrative.
To place them beyond the pale, Yugoslavia, Libya and Syria were all labelled 'fascist,' even
though their leadership was socialist and their economies were run on socialistic lines.
Meanwhile, genuine fascists, like anti-government factions in Ukraine (2013-14), received
enthusiastic support from NATO.
The fifth step was direct US/NATO-led military intervention against 'the regime' triggered by
alleged atrocities/planned atrocities of the target state. At this stage, the US works
particularly hard to sabotage any peaceful solution to the conflicts they and their regional
allies have ignited. At the Rambouillet conference in March 1999, for example, the Yugoslav
authorities, who had agreed to an international peace-keeping force in Kosovo, were presented
with an ultimatum that they could not possibly accept. Lord Gilbert, a UK defence minister at the
time, later admitted "the terms put to Milosevic (which included NATO forces having freedom
of movement throughout his country) were absolutely intolerable it was quite
deliberate."
In 2011, the casus belli was that 'the mad dog' Gaddafi was about to massacre civilians in
Benghazi. We needed a 'humanitarian intervention' to stop this, we were repeatedly told. Five
years later, a House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee
report held
that "the proposition that Muammar Gaddafi would have ordered the massacre of civilians in
Benghazi was not supported by the available evidence."
In 2013, the reason given for direct military intervention in Syria was an alleged chemical
weapons attack by 'Assad's forces' in Ghouta. But this time, the UK Parliament voted against
military action and the planned 'intervention' was thwarted, much to the great frustration of the
war-hungry neocons. They still keep trying though.
The recent claims of The White House, that they had evidence that the Syrian government was
planning a chemical weapons attack, and that if such an attack took place it would be blamed on
Assad, shows that the Empire hasn't given up on Stage Five for Syria just yet.
Stage Six of the project involves the US continuing to sabotage moves towards a negotiated
peace once the bombing started. This happened during the bombing of Yugoslavia and the NATO
assault on Libya. A favoured tactic used to prevent a peaceful resolution is to get the leader of
the target state indicted for war crimes. Milosevic was indicted at the height of the bombing in
1999, Gaddafi in 2011.
Stage Seven is 'Mission Accomplished'. It's when the target country has been 'regime-changed'
and either broken up or transformed into a failed state with strategically important
areas/resources under US/Western control. Yugoslavia was dismantled and its socially-owned
economy privatised. Montenegro, the great prize on the Adriatic, recently
joined NATO.
Libya, hailed in the Daily Telegraph as a top
cruise
ship destination in 2010, is now a lawless playground for jihadists and a place where cruise
ships dare not dock. This country, which provided free education and health care for all its
citizens under Gaddafi, has recently seen the return of
slave
markets.
Syria, though thankfully not at Stage Seven, has still been knocked back almost forty years.
The UNDP reported: "Despite having achieved or being well under way to achieving major
Millennium Development Goals targets (poverty reduction, primary education, and gender parity in
secondary education, decrease in infant mortality rates and increasing access to improved
sanitation) as of 2011, it is estimated that after the first four years of crisis Syria has
dropped from 113th to 174th
out of 187 countries ranked in the Human Development Index."
Of course, it's not just three countries which have been wrecked by the Empire of Chaos. There
are similarities too with what's happened to Afghanistan and Iraq. In the late 1970s, the US
started to back Islamist rebels to destabilise and topple the left-wing, pro-Moscow government in
Kabul.
Afghanistan has been in turmoil ever since, with the US and its allies launching an invasion
of the country in 2001 to topple a Taliban 'regime' which grew out of the 'rebel' movement which
the US had backed.
Iraq was hit with devastating, genocidal sanctions, which were maintained under US/UK pressure
even after it had disarmed. Then it was invaded on the deceitful pretext that its leader, Saddam
Hussein, still possessed WMDs.
The truth of what has been happening is too shocking and too terrible ever to be admitted in
the Western mainstream media. Namely, that since the demise of the Soviet Union, the US and its
allies have been picking off independent, resource-rich, strategically important countries one by
one.
The point is not that these countries were perfect and that there wasn't political repression
taking place in some of them at various times, but that they were earmarked for destruction
solely for standing in the way of the imperialists. The propagandists for the US-led wars of
recent years want us to regard the conflicts as 'stand alones' and to regard the 'problem' as
being the 'mad dog' leadership of the countries which were attacked.
But in fact, the aggressions against Yugoslavia, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq, and the
threatening of Iran, North Korea, Russia and Venezuela are all parts of the same war. Anyone who
hasn't been locked in a wardrobe these past twenty years, or whose salary is not paid directly,
or indirectly, by the Empire of Chaos, can surely see now where the 'problem' really lies.
The 'New Hitlers' – Milosevic, Hussein and Gaddafi – who we were told were the
'biggest threats' to world peace, are dead and buried. But guess what? The killing goes
on.
"It's barbarism. I see it coming masqueraded under lawless alliances and predetermined
enslavements. It may not be about Hitler's furnaces, but about the methodical and
quasi-scientific subjugation of Man. His absolute humiliation. His disgrace"
Odysseas Elytis, Greek poet, in a press conference on the occasion of receiving the Nobel
Prize (1979)
"... "Israel Lobby" is, of course, a misnomer. The Israel Lobby has very little interest in Israel as a country or, for that matter, for the Israeli people. If anything, the Israel Lobby ought to be called the "Neocon Lobby". ..."
"... For one thing, it does not represent US interests. Neither does it represent the interests of Israel. Rather, it represents the interests of a specific subset of the US ruling elites, in reality much smaller than 1% of the population, which all share in the one common ideology of worldwide domination typical of the Neocons. ..."
"... Keep in mind that the historical record shows that while the Neocons are fantastically driven, they are not particularly smart. Yes, they do have the kind of rabid ideological determination which allows them to achieve a totally disproportionate influence over US policies, but when you actually read what they write and listen to what they say you immediately realize that these are rather mediocre individuals with a rather parochial mindset which makes them both very predictable and very irritating to the people around them. ..."
"... urbi et orbi ..."
"... Zero effects? Speaking of changing policy is true but not that it won't create troubles for Russia. Anyway, any aggression requires swift and ruthless response otherwise it invites more of aggression. Putin is wrong to behave the way he behaves. There must be zero patience and head for an eye response. Than aggression stops. ..."
"... someone should explain to "The Saker" that the neocons were well in control before Obama. How do you think we got into Iraq? And what is the "semblance of sanity" he thinks we should return to? "rights on climate change and refugee admissions" Seriously? Oh please. ..."
"... The Syrian Government did not ask Washington to intervene, so under international law American intervention and bombings there are as legitimate as "Saving Vietnam from the commies", "Bringing democracy to Iraq", or . the list is long. No adventure on that list turned out well for America or anyone else, with the exception of the merchants of death. ..."
"... This could no doubt be more accurately stated as, the Israel Lobby has nothing to do with the interests of the Israeli people. It seems to exist for the benefit of the ultra moneybag crowd and its deranged puppets such as Netanyahooooo! ..."
"... anything is possible with this gang of criminal sociopaths. Their poster boy is now an insatiable warmonger who is suffering from brain cancer! How could things get any worse? ..."
"... After the impressive military victories the US has achieved against such formidable foes as Panama, Iraq, Afghanistan, Haiti, mighty Grenada, Serbia and Libya, taking on Russia should be a "cakewalk", right? And to think there is a sizable demographic in this country which still believes this! Unbelievable. The last time that the US took on a military opponent at rough conventional parity with it (the Chinese in Korea) the result was a stalemate. To paraphrase Cardinal Newman, "To be deep in history is to cease to be a neocon." ..."
"... I'm afraid you're right. But I remain puzzled at how 98 Senators could have been lined up for that stupidity. ..."
"... The current crisis between the largely special interest owned American executive branch and the largely failing reformer Donald Trump can be a historic opportunity for Europe to mend the artificial divide between the European Union and Russia. The crisis can also be a golden opportunity to shake the corrupt system of government in the USA. These opportunities are subject to having strong and free leaders who can capitalize on the hubris of the ignorant senators and representatives on Capitol Hill. ..."
"... This sanctions bill is a domestic US matter. The Republicans are trying to pacify the Democrats' rage and bitterness over losing the election. It is most convenient for them to adopt the canard blaming Russia for the result of the election. The voters knew exactly where Trump stands on Russia, so even if Russia leaked the DNC and Podesta emails, there was no theft of the election. Voters were not mislead about positions, and knew very well the Democrats accuse the Russian of the leaks. ..."
"... We have an old saying: when you're enemy's committing suicide, stand back and let him. That's what Washington is doing now: committing suicide. ..."
"... I don't believe the "with every fiber of their being" part. This is just wishful thinking on the part of Saker. If this were so, they wouldn't just be grumbling or trusting their corrupt representatives. Average Americans still elect people like McCain, Graham and Schumer and I haven't seen any mass anti-war demonstrations in Washington or New York or anywhere else. ..."
"... Oil is the only reason the global population has quadrupled in only the last 100 years. The Industrial Revolution was not enough. Oil is necessary to maintain this population and keep it fed. ..."
"... Much is made of this so-called "neocon" business. They appear to be a current highly aggressive strain of American expansionism. However, there were no "neocons" in 1898 when the US saw it's opportunity to attack Spain and grab away it's holdings. The US has been aggressively expanding ever since, inserting itself into both world wars at the very last minute in order to gain as much for itself as possible. ..."
"... And, yes, that another THING; this time the opponent can retaliate hard. Nukes do make all that difficult to execute. ..."
The latest US sanctions and the Russian retaliatory response have resulted in a torrent of speculations
in the official media and the blogosphere – everybody is trying to make sense of a situation which
appears to make no sense at all. Why in the world would the US Senate adopt new sanctions against
Russia when Russia has done absolutely nothing to provoke such a vote? Except for Rand Paul and Bernie
Sanders, every single US Senator voted in favor of these sanctions. Why?! This is even more baffling
when you consider that the single biggest effect of these sanctions will be to trigger a rift, and
possibly even counter-sanctions , between the US and the EU. What is absolutely clear is that
these sanctions will have exactly zero effect on Russia and I don't think anybody is seriously expecting
the Russians to change anything at all in their policies. And yet, every Senator except Paul and
Sanders voted for this. Does that make any sense to you?
Let's try to figure out what is going on here.
First, a simple reminder: like all US politicians, from the county level to the US Congress, Senators
have only one consideration when then vote – "what's in it for me?". The very last thing which any
US Senator really cares about are the real life consequences of his/her vote. This means that to
achieve the kind of quasi unanimity (98%) for a totally stupid vote there was some kind of very influential
lobby which used some very forceful "arguments" to achieve such a vote. Keep in mind that the Republicans
in the Senate knew that they were voting against the wishes of their President. And yet every single
one except for Rand Paul voted for these sanctions, that should tell you something about the power
of the lobby which pushed for them. So who would have such power?
Okay, why not? We could probably rearrange them, give them different labels, add a couple (like the
"Prison Industrial Complex" or the "Intelligence Community") but all in all this is an okay list.
Any name on it jump at you yet?
One could make the case that most of these lobbies need an enemy to prosper, this is certainly
true of the Military-Industrial Complex and the associated high tech industry, and one could also
reasonably claim that Big Oil, Mining and Agribusiness see Russia has a potential competitor. But
a closer look at the interests these lobbies represent will tell you that they are mostly involved
in domestic politics and that faraway Russia, with her relatively small economy, is just not that
important to them. This is also clearly true for Big Pharma, the AARP and the NRA. Which leaves the
Israel Lobby as the only potential candidate.
"Israel Lobby" is, of course, a misnomer. The Israel Lobby has very little interest in Israel
as a country or, for that matter, for the Israeli people. If anything, the Israel Lobby ought to
be called the "Neocon Lobby". Furthermore, we also have to keep in mind that the Neocon Lobby
is unlike any other lobby in the list above. For one thing, it does not represent US interests.
Neither does it represent the interests of Israel. Rather, it represents the interests of a specific
subset of the US ruling elites, in reality much smaller than 1% of the population, which all share
in the one common ideology of worldwide domination typical of the Neocons.
These are the folks who in spite of their 100% ironclad control of the media and Congress lost
the Presidential election to Donald Trump and who are now dead set to impeach him. These are the
folks who simply use "Russia" as a propagandistic fulcrum to peddle the notion that Trump and his
entourage are basically Russian agents and Trump himself as a kind of "Presidential Manchurian Candidate".
Keep in mind that the historical record shows that while the Neocons are fantastically driven,
they are not particularly smart. Yes, they do have the kind of rabid ideological determination which
allows them to achieve a totally disproportionate influence over US policies, but when you actually
read what they write and listen to what they say you immediately realize that these are rather mediocre
individuals with a rather parochial mindset which makes them both very predictable and very irritating
to the people around them. They always overplay their hand and then end up stunned and horrified
when all their conspiracies and plans come tumbling down on them.
I submit that this is exactly what is happening right now.
First, the Neocons lost the elections. For them, it was a shock and a nightmare. The "deplorables"
voted against the unambiguously clear "propaganda instructions" given to them by the media. Next,
the Neocons turned their rabid hatred against Trump and they succeeded at basically neutering him,
but only at the cost of terribly weakening the USA themselves! Think of it: 6 months plus into the
Trump administration the USA has already managed to directly threaten Iran, Syria, the DPRK and in
all cases with exactly zero results. Worse, Trump's behavior towards Europe and the anti-Trump propaganda
inside Europe has now put the EU and the US on a collision course. This is absolutely amazing: for
the Russians the current tensions between the EU and the USA are a dream come true and yet they had
absolutely nothing to do with it – it was all done by the self-defeating stupidity of the Americans
who created this situation completely ex nihilo --
So while Kim Jong-un fires missiles on the 4th of July, the Syrian Army is closing in on Deir
ez-Zor, the Ukraine is turning into Somalia, the Russian economy is back to growth and Putin's popularity
is as high as ever, the Neocons are totally freaking out and, as is typical of a person losing control,
they don't do things which would make sense but do what they are used to doing: slapping sanctions
(even if they are totally ineffective) and sending messages (even if they are totally ignored). In
other words, the Neocons are now engaging in magical thinking, the deliberately chose to delude themselves
about their power and influence and they are coping with their full-spectrum failure at everything
by pretending that their votes in Congress matter. They truth is – they don't.
Here is where we need to turn to the other misconception in this matter, that the Russian reaction
to these latest sanctions is really about these sanctions. It is not.
First, let's tackle the myth that these sanctions are hurting Russia. They really don't. Even
the 100% russophobic Bloomberg is beginning to realize that, if anything, all
these sanctions have made both Putin and Russia stronger . Second, there is the issue of timing:
instead of slapping on some counter-sanctions the Russians suddenly decided to dramatically reduce
the US diplomatic personnel in Russia and confiscate a two US diplomatic facilities in a clear retaliation
for the expulsion of Russian diplomats and seizure of Russian diplomatic facilities by Obama last
year. Why now?
Many observers say that the Russians are "naive" about the West and the USA, that Putin was "hoping"
for better relations and that this hope was paralyzing him. Others say that Putin is "weak" or even
"in cahoots" with the West. This is all total nonsense.
People tend to forget that Putin was an officer in the foreign intelligence branch of the KGB,
the so-called "First Main Directorate" (PGU). Furthermore, Putin has recently revealed that he worked
in the highly secretive "Directorate S" of the PGU and he was in charge of contacts with a network
of illegal Soviet spies in East-Germany (were Putin was under the official cover of Director of the
USSR-GDR Friendship House). If the PGU was the "elite of the elite" of the KGB, and its most secretive
part, then the "Directorate S" was the "elite of the elite" of the PGU and its most secretive part.
This is most definitely not a career for "naive" or "weak" people, to put it mildly! First and foremost,
PGU officers were "specialists of the West" in general, and of the United States especially because
the USA was always officially considered as the "main enemy" (even if most PGU officers personally
considered the British as their most capable, dangerous and devious adversary). Considering the superb
level of education and training given to these officers, I would argue that the PGU officers were
amongst the best experts of the West anywhere in the world. Their survival and the survival of their
colleagues depended on their correct understanding of the western world. As for Putin personally,
he has always taken action in a very deliberate and measured way and there is no reason to assume
that this time around the latest US sanctions have suddenly resulted in some kind of emotional outburst
in the Kremlin. You can be darn sure that this latest Russian reaction is the result of very carefully
arrived to conclusion and the formulation of a very precise and long-term objective.
I submit that the key to the correct understanding of the Russian response is in the fact that
the latest US sanctions contain an absolutely unprecedented and, frankly, shocking feature: the new
measures strip the President from the authority to revoke the sanctions. In practical terms, if Trump
wanted to lift any of these sanctions, he would have to send an official letter to Congress which
would then have 30 days to approve or reject the proposed action. In other words, the Congress has
now hijacked the power of the Presidency to conduct foreign policy and taken upon itself to micromanage
the US foreign policy.
That, my friends, is clearly a constitutional coup d'état and a gross violation of the principles
of separation of powers which is at the very core of the US political system.
It also is a telling testimony to the utter depravity of the US Congress which took no such measures
when Presidents bypass Congress and started wars without the needed congressional authority, but
which is now overtly taking over the US foreign policy to prevent the risk of "peace breaking out"
between Russia and the USA.
And Trump's reaction?
He declared that he would sign the bill.
Yes, the main is willing to put his signature on the text which represents an illegal coup d'état
against this own authority and against the Constitution which he swore to uphold.
With this in mind, the Russian reaction is quite simple and understandable: they have given up
on Trump.
Not that they ever had much hope in him, but they always strongly felt that the election of Trump
might maybe provide the world with a truly historical opportunity to change the disastrous dynamic
initiated by the Neocons under Obama and maybe return the international relations to a semblance
of sanity. Alas, this did not happen, Trump turned out to be an overcooked noodle whose only real
achievement was to express his thoughts in 140 characters or less. But the one crucial, vital, thing
which Trump absolutely needed to succeed in – mercilessly crushing the Neocons – he totally failed
to achieve. Worse, his only reaction to their multi-dimensional attempts at overthrowing him were
each time met with clumsy attempts at appeasing them.
For Russia is means that President Trump has now been replaced by "President Congress".
Since it is absolutely impossible to get anything done with this Congress anyway, the Russians
will now engage in unilaterally beneficial measures such as dramatically reducing the number of US
diplomats in Russia. For the Kremlin, these sanctions are no so much an unacceptable provocation
has an ideal pretext to move on a number of Russian internal policies. Getting rid of US employees
in Russia is just a first step.
Next, Russia will use the frankly erratic behavior of the Americans to proclaim urbi et orbi
that the Americans are irresponsible, incapable of adult decision-making and basically "gone
fishing". The Russians already did that much when they declared that the Obama-Kerry team was недоговороспособны
(nedogovorosposobny: "non agreement capable", more about this concept
here ). Now with Trump signing his own constitutional demise, Tillerson unable to get UN Nikki
to shut the hell up and Mattis and McMaster fighting over delusional plans to stop "not winning"
in Afghanistan, the Obama-Kerry teams starts to look almost adult.
Frankly, for the Russians now is the time to move on.
I predict that the Neocon-crazies will not stop until they impeach Trump. I furthermore predict
that the USA will not launch any major military interventions (if only because the USA has run out
of countries it can safely and easily attack). Some "pretend interventions" (like the ill-fated missile
strike on Syria) remain, of course, quite possible and even likely. This internal slow-mo coup against
Trump will absorb the vast majority of the energy to get anything done, and leave foreign policy
as simply another byproduct of internal US politics.
The East-Europeans are now totally stuck. They will continue to haplessly observe the unfolding
Ukrainian disaster while playing at silly games pretending to be tough on Russia (the latest example
of that kind of "barking from behind a fence" can be seen in the rather pathetic
closure of the Romanian air space to a civilian aircraft with Russian Vice-Premier Dmitri Rogozin
amongst the passengers). The real (West) Europeans will gradually come back to their senses and begin
making deals with Russia. Even France's Emmanuel Macron de Rothschild will probably prove a more
adult partner than The Donald.
But the real action will be elsewhere – in the South, the East and the Far-East. The simple truth
is that the world cannot simply wait for the Americans to come back to their senses. There are a
lot of crucial issues which need to be urgently tackled, a lot of immense projects which need to
be worked on, and a fundamentally new and profoundly different multi-polar world which needs to be
strengthened. If the Americans want to basically recuse themselves from it all, if they want to bring
down the constitutional order which their Founding Fathers created and if they want to solely operate
in the delusional realm which has no bearing on reality – that is both their right and their problem.
Washington DC is starting to look like a kindergarten on LSD – something both funny and disgusting.
Predictably, the kids don't look too bright: a mix of bullies and spineless idiots. Some of them
have their fingers on a nuclear button, and that is outright scary. What the adults need to do now
is to figure out a way of keeping the kids busy and distracted so they don't press the damn button
by mistake. And wait. Wait for the inevitable reaction of a country which is so much more and better
than its rulers and which now desperately needs a real patriot to stop
Witches' Sabbath in
Washington DC.
I will end this column on a personal note. I just crossed the USA, literally, from the Rogue River
in Oregon to East Central Florida. During that long trip I did not only see breathtakingly beautiful
sights, but also plenty of beautiful people who oppose the satanic ball in DC with every fiber of
their being and who want their country to be free from the degenerate demonic powers which have taken
over the federal government. I have now lived a total of 20 years in the USA and I have learned to
love and deeply appreciate the many kind, decent, honorable and simply beautiful people who live
here. Far from seeing the American people as enemies of Russia, I see them has natural allies, if
only because we have the same enemy (the Neocons in DC) and absolutely no objective reasons for conflict,
none whatsoever. Moreover, in many ways Americans and Russians are very much alike, sometimes in
comical ways. Just as during the Cold War I never lost hope in the Russian people, I now refuse to
lose hope in the American people. Yes, the US federal government is disgusting, evil, ugly, stupid,
degenerate and outright satanic, but the people of the USA are not. Far from it. I don't know if
this country can survive the current regime as one unitary USA or whether it will break up in several
quite different entities (something I see as very possible), but I do believe that the people of
the USA will survive and overcome just as the Russian people survived the horrors of the 1980s and
1990s.
[Sidebar: after being accused of being a "paid Putin agent" (Vladimir, please send me money!!),
a "Jew-lover" or even a "crypto-Jew" myself, a Nazi and Anti-Semite (which decent and good person
has not been called an Anti-Semite" at least once in his/her life), a Communist and a Muslim (or,
at least, a "Muslim propagandist"), I will now be called an "USA lover". Fine. Guilty as charged!
I do love this country very much, as I do love its people. In fact, my heart often breaks for them
and for the immense sufferings the Anglo-Zionist Empire also inflicts upon them. In the fight between
the people of the USA and the Empire I unapologetically side with the people whom I see as friends,
allies and even brothers.]
Right now the USA appears to be plunging into a precipice very similar to the one the Ukraine
has plunged into (which is unsurprising, really, the same people inflicting the same disasters on
whatever country they infect with their presence). The big difference is that immense and untapped
potential of the USA to bounce back. There might not even be a Ukraine in 10 years, but there will
most definitely be a USA, albeit maybe a very different one or even maybe several successor states.
But for the time being, I can only repeat what Floridians say when a hurricane comes barreling
down on them: "hunker down" and brace for some very difficult and dangerous times to come. (Republished
from
The Vineyard of the Saker by permission of author or representative)
Worse, Trump's behavior towards Europe and the anti-Trump propaganda inside Europe has now
put the EU and the US on a collision course. This is absolutely amazing: for the Russians the
current tensions between the EU and the USA are a dream come true and yet they had absolutely
nothing to do with it – it was all done by the self-defeating stupidity of the Americans who created
this situation completely ex nihilo
So I guess the Americans are stupid for antagonizing Russia, they're stupid for antagonizing Russia's
enemies in the EU–they're just plain stupid, according to this Dutch-Russian emigre. I don't know
why America's stupid for standing up for its rights on climate change and refugee admissions and
calling out NATO freeloaders, I really don't. And if this upsets Western Europe, so much the better.
Also, someone should explain to "The Saker" that the neocons were well in control before Obama.
How do you think we got into Iraq? And what is the "semblance of sanity" he thinks we should return
to?
@Bragadocious Worse, Trump's behavior towards Europe and the anti-Trump propaganda inside
Europe has now put the EU and the US on a collision course. This is absolutely amazing: for the
Russians the current tensions between the EU and the USA are a dream come true and yet they had
absolutely nothing to do with it – it was all done by the self-defeating stupidity of the Americans
who created this situation completely ex nihilo
So I guess the Americans are stupid for antagonizing Russia, they're stupid for antagonizing Russia's
enemies in the EU--they're just plain stupid, according to this Dutch-Russian emigre. I don't
know why America's stupid for standing up for its rights on climate change and refugee admissions
and calling out NATO freeloaders, I really don't. And if this upsets Western Europe, so much the
better. Also, someone should explain to "The Saker" that the neocons were well in control before
Obama. How do you think we got into Iraq? And what is the "semblance of sanity" he thinks we should
return to? Americans and the US government are two different things.
That is no small part of why Trump got elected.
Antagonize Russia to what purpose?
Now we have Haley at the UN, Tillerton, and McMaster making statements at odds with Trumps
and they still have a job. Can Trump even remove them?
Who is actually in charge of the American government? Is it Trump or the Neocons?
The entire Russia hacking story is a joke and probably a setup by the Democrats if their links
to Fusion GPS is true.
Regardless, foreign nations have to deal with the world outside of Washington DC and its looks
like the lunatics have taken control of the DC asylum which may well be the case.
The problem is the lack of coherence from Washington.
We may be looking at a slow motion coup, or simple incompetence, but Trump never struck me
as incompetent in his other business dealings.
@Bragadocious Worse, Trump's behavior towards Europe and the anti-Trump propaganda inside
Europe has now put the EU and the US on a collision course. This is absolutely amazing: for the
Russians the current tensions between the EU and the USA are a dream come true and yet they had
absolutely nothing to do with it – it was all done by the self-defeating stupidity of the Americans
who created this situation completely ex nihilo
So I guess the Americans are stupid for antagonizing Russia, they're stupid for antagonizing Russia's
enemies in the EU--they're just plain stupid, according to this Dutch-Russian emigre. I don't
know why America's stupid for standing up for its rights on climate change and refugee admissions
and calling out NATO freeloaders, I really don't. And if this upsets Western Europe, so much the
better. Also, someone should explain to "The Saker" that the neocons were well in control before
Obama. How do you think we got into Iraq? And what is the "semblance of sanity" he thinks we should
return to? Your trolling comment is offensive
"During that long trip I did not only see breathtakingly beautiful sights, but also plenty
of beautiful people who oppose the satanic ball in DC with every fiber of their being and who
want their country to be free from the degenerate demonic powers which have taken over the federal
government."
I am anything but beautiful, but everything else about that sentence describes me.
I have never been to Russia, but I have known many Russians, and I am a bit of a Russophile.
I voted for Trump partly because I was certain that Clinton would immediately plunge us into war
with Russia. It sickens me that the senate are now rattling sabres against them. I am praying
for them, and that this country is stopped from doing any real damage to them.
I can't help but wonder whether the all-but-signed alliance with the Saudis has something to
do with this. There must be something diabolical there too.
@Bragadocious You returned from a 3-year posting absence to write that? So Ned took a break
for whatever reason, what of it? He wrote that your comment was offensive, I would have called
it simply stupid. It smacks of knee-jerk chest-thumping of the sort that the US has already had
more than enough of.
Yes, the neocons took over before Trump. Good observation, Sherlock. Trump was elected because
he promised to do something about it but so far he's been a wimp. Many people still hope that
Trump is merely playing rope-a-dope but Saker makes it clear in the article that this time is
different in that it undermines the president's authority and it neuters his ability to effect
change. Chew on that please, or better still, re-read the article.
Saker was hoping for peace just like so many Americans were when they voted for DT but it is
increasingly looking like it's not going to happen.
I see USA as analogous to the Chinese Empire during its "decline and fall" 1850-1950 (very
last part of the Manchu dynasty). Of course, it's a rough analogy, but it's there all the same.
Like China back then, the "Court" of the USA like the imperial court of China was willing to sell
off anything and everything. It's all been for sale for at least the last 50 years. (If you want
an example, take the Panama Canal.)
In that milieu, consider the neocons. What are they unless (like the DNC and the GOP's National
Central Committee) but a money-laundering and influence-peddling center. So apply that to the
"known known" that the main 'position' of the neocons (their excuse for some kind of principle)
is "Russia is dangerous and must be destroyed." As seen in the Saker's article, that is a destructive
proposition – destructive of the interests of the USA and its people. So then WHY – why do the
neocons pursue that agenda? Well, if you think about the nature of the neocons, of Congress, etc.,
you realize that the neocons must be making money off of this. They are pushing the anti-Russia
agenda because they are paid to do so. Then, ask yourself, as with any money-following effort,
CUI BONO? Well. what is accomplished by keeping the heat turned up on Russia? Isn't it that the
anti-Russia agenda provides a distraction from what China is doing? And who, almost certainly,
has been paying off the neocons for almost 50 years now – ever since Kissinger (godfather of the
neocons) took his secret trip to Beijing in 1973. Put it this way: the old China lobby had been
providing huge amounts of $US to the entire USA establishment – in particular to political parties
and to the media – since way back in WW II. Now there would be a huge hole where the old China
lobby had been. Who would fill that? Kissinger, for all his many faults, was smart enough to know,
and Chou En-Lai was smart enough to know, what had to be done. And the old China Lobby had long
seen the writing on the wall. So the old China Lobby was taken over by the New China Lobby. Lo-and-behold,
Kissinger created the neocons where the paleocons had been. (If you want, you can also find evidence
of an effective conspiracy extending back into WW II and the 1930′s, but that might mean identifying
with the old JBS, and I want to stay focused on issues more current.)
That's the basic reality about the neocons. The PRC (or its rulers in the Standing Committee)
are the neocons' bread-and-butter. Oh, sure they appreciate the Israel lobby and they need it
to keep Congress dumb and afraid but their bread-and-butter is the PRC. Or more precisely, the
Standing Committee. Americans like to think that we have all the billionaires (or the billionaires
have us), but the reality is that USA's politicians, bureaucrats and bankers deal with many billionaires,
including the billionaires (active and retired) of the Standing Committee of the Communist Party
of China and the billionaires of the Kim dynasty of the DPRK. These billionaires use their money
much more in concert with one another than do most billionaires. So they get what they want. And
what they want includes the ability not to be bothered by, e.g., the US Navy when they decide
to extend their empire over the SCS and do not want USA's people even to know that Hanoi asks
pleadingly to become a port and outpost of the US Navy. Etc. etc.
If you find this hard to believe, google on "Clinton china bribery." Or, here at the Unz Review,
check out Peter Lee's 'China Matters' blog story "Four Corners/Fairfax". Just think it over. If
your mind has been closed, let it open.
The neocons and their media in the U.S. and the rest of the West simply HAVE to be taken out,
one way or another. This is the only acceptable route – a knot tying the whole world up in insanity,
which must be broken.
@Bragadocious Worse, Trump's behavior towards Europe and the anti-Trump propaganda inside
Europe has now put the EU and the US on a collision course. This is absolutely amazing: for the
Russians the current tensions between the EU and the USA are a dream come true and yet they had
absolutely nothing to do with it – it was all done by the self-defeating stupidity of the Americans
who created this situation completely ex nihilo
So I guess the Americans are stupid for antagonizing Russia, they're stupid for antagonizing Russia's
enemies in the EU--they're just plain stupid, according to this Dutch-Russian emigre. I don't
know why America's stupid for standing up for its rights on climate change and refugee admissions
and calling out NATO freeloaders, I really don't. And if this upsets Western Europe, so much the
better. Also, someone should explain to "The Saker" that the neocons were well in control before
Obama. How do you think we got into Iraq? And what is the "semblance of sanity" he thinks we should
return to? Did I miss it or Saker does not even explain what kind of sanctions were imposed but
nevertheless he assures his readers that they won't hurt Russia and possibly make it even stronger
and basically everything will be hunky-dory because PGU has extremely well qualified individuals
on its staff: "superb level of education and training." And obviously Putin is a superman who
was in charge of spies in East Germany which required as much sophistication and risk taking as
spying in Wales for James Bond.
But the one crucial, vital, thing which Trump absolutely needed to succeed in – mercilessly
crushing the Neocons – he totally failed to achieve.
Indeed. The next step, as with Buchanan's piece today which is similarly discouraged as far
as US foreign policy under Trump is concerned, is to name the neocons. Identify the people burrowing
into the institutions of the US administration and subverting any hope of any substantive change
in foreign policy from the Clinton/Bush/Obama years. Name the people who act as the tools of the
Neocon Lobby within the administration, because those Trump can at least deal with, if he ever
comes to understand what is going on (which admittedly seems unlikely so long as he tolerates
Nikki Haley's open warmongering).
The subservience of Congress can only be dealt with by the American people defeating these
sitting members and replacing them with ones who fear, and are loyal to, their constituents more
than the lobbyists – which of course requires Americans to recognise when they are being manipulated
by lobbyists via the media.
See the piece yesterday by Ron Maxwell, naming some of the neocons:
@Bragadocious Worse, Trump's behavior towards Europe and the anti-Trump propaganda inside
Europe has now put the EU and the US on a collision course. This is absolutely amazing: for the
Russians the current tensions between the EU and the USA are a dream come true and yet they had
absolutely nothing to do with it – it was all done by the self-defeating stupidity of the Americans
who created this situation completely ex nihilo
So I guess the Americans are stupid for antagonizing Russia, they're stupid for antagonizing Russia's
enemies in the EU--they're just plain stupid, according to this Dutch-Russian emigre. I don't
know why America's stupid for standing up for its rights on climate change and refugee admissions
and calling out NATO freeloaders, I really don't. And if this upsets Western Europe, so much the
better. Also, someone should explain to "The Saker" that the neocons were well in control before
Obama. How do you think we got into Iraq? And what is the "semblance of sanity" he thinks we should
return to?
I don't know why America's stupid for standing up for its rights on climate change and refugee
admissions and calling out NATO freeloaders, I really don't.
Saker didn't refer to any of those things in his criticism of the Trump regime's foreign policy
stupidity. The only aspect of "Trump's behaviour towards Europe" that he (absolutely correctly)
singles out for criticism is the literally stupid sanctions resolution. Though he could equally
well have criticised the delusional stupidity of Trump's seeming wholesale swallowing of neocon
propaganda about Iran and the nuclear agreement.
Also, someone should explain to "The Saker" that the neocons were well in control before
Obama. How do you think we got into Iraq?
He's clearly well aware of that. As he has rightly pointed out previously (and Buchanan also
points out again today), Trump was elected in part precisely because he seemed to offer an escape
from the neocon-driven invade the world/invite the world lunacy. But his actual foreign policy
seems to have been little more than continuity with minor trimming only when forced by reality,
especially with the likes of Nikki Haley in such a prominent position.
And what is the "semblance of sanity" he thinks we should return to?
Not trying to right all the world's suppose wrongs by force (military or economic) would be
a good start. That and ceasing to regard the interests of Israel and of Saudi Arabia as of primary
importance for US foreign and military policy.
This article is something of a mixed bag. The idea that there is going to be some rift between
the EU and US is, at best, wishful thinking, but probably closer to downright delusion. No, European
countries ceased to be subjects of history, and became objects, when they ceded their sovereignty
to the implicitly Atlanticist and supranational structure that is the EU. So they may growl and
gnash their teeth a bit, but will eventually roll over and hope that their bellies are scratched
and not slashed.
As for Trump signing the sanctions legislation as it is written, Saker's point is valid. No
president should abrogate power without a fight. He should, at the very least, insist that the
restrictions on his ability to unilaterally cancel sanctions be removed from the legislation or
he will veto the bill and fight it all the way to the Supreme Court. And, he should make clear
that this isn't about sanctioning or not sanctioning Russia, but the fact that the law is unconstitutional.
Saker is also correct that the US is simply too dysfunctional now to pursue any kind of coherent
foreign policy. If I were Putin, I would ask Trump who in Congress he should be negotiating with,
since neither Trump himself, nor anyone in his cabinet, possesses the authority to follow through
with any possible agreements. The smarter commentators are actually all coming around to the same
view. Dmitry Trenin:
"I think the Kremlin views the U.S. as a dysfunctional polity, with its political class
at war with itself and its society deeply divided along cultural fault lines. Under these circumstances
one hardly expects a consistent policy Bad as they are now, U.S.-Russian relations continue
to get worse, edging ever closer to a kinetic collision between their armed forces somewhere:
in Syria, over the Baltic and Black Seas, or Ukraine."
It does indeed seem like something dramatic needs to happen, at which point the US will either
come to its senses or it's mushroom cloud time for all of us.
Although I think there is some hypobole involved, I would like to thank the Saker for raising
this very interesting and very pregnant issue:
"In other words, the Congress has now hijacked the power of the Presidency to conduct foreign
policy and taken upon itself to micromanage the US foreign policy.
That, my friends, is clearly a constitutional coup d'état and a gross violation of the principles
of separation of powers which is at the very core of the US political system."
This is a very disturbing development, to say the least.
However, I do disagree with the Saker on this point:
"If the Americans want to basically recuse themselves from it all, if they want to bring down
the constitutional order which their Founding Fathers created and if they want to solely operate
in the delusional realm which has no bearing on reality – that is both their right and their problem."
The "Americans" -- that is US citizens -- do NOT want to bring down the constitution, nor have
a government operate in a delusional realm. Nor does the US "government have the "right" to operate
in the way they do: that amounts to saying they have the right to commit treason ( a meaningless
concept for the Elites). Finally, it is NOT just an American "problem": unfortunately, it's a
world problem. We are all liable to suffer for the insane shenanigans of the US Ruling
class.
I predict that the Neocon-crazies will not stop until they impeach Trump.
And that's probably behind this clusterfuck. The globalist cabal is working hard to make Trump
look bad and he's falling for it (him asking Comey – a certified swamp creature – to be loyal
is proof of his naivete). This same cabal is running Western Europe so any "positive" developments
between Macron de Rothchild and Putin will be temporary and designed to further ostracise Trump.
With Jews you loose and Russia will forever be their ultimate target. Russian nukes are the only
thing standing in the way of One World Government.
I furthermore predict that the USA will not launch any major military interventions
Don't be so sure. They want him to make mistakes . A new war would disappoint a lot
of Trump's core supporters and destroy his capability to expand the base.
@NoseytheDuke So Ned took a break for whatever reason, what of it? He wrote that your comment
was offensive, I would have called it simply stupid. It smacks of knee-jerk chest-thumping of
the sort that the US has already had more than enough of.
Yes, the neocons took over before Trump. Good observation, Sherlock. Trump was elected because
he promised to do something about it but so far he's been a wimp. Many people still hope that
Trump is merely playing rope-a-dope but Saker makes it clear in the article that this time is
different in that it undermines the president's authority and it neuters his ability to effect
change. Chew on that please, or better still, re-read the article.
Saker was hoping for peace just like so many Americans were when they voted for DT but it is
increasingly looking like it's not going to happen. Yes, the neocons took over before Trump.
Good observation, Sherlock
Thanks. The reason I wrote that was because Saker wrote this:
Not that they ever had much hope in him, but they always strongly felt that the election
of Trump might maybe provide the world with a truly historical opportunity to change the disastrous
dynamic initiated by the Neocons under Obama
See, the key word there Sherlock, is initiated . That means to start, in case you didn't
know. I know, I'm Captain Obvious again. Maybe Saker should write more carefully, and not sound
like a kindergartner on LSD.
"I would have called it stupid"
Yes, that's the operative word for Saker and his minions. Everyone's stupid. Except you. You're
smart. Especially when you're peddling 9/11 truther stuff. Then you're a special kind of smart.
I don't know why America's stupid for standing up for its rights on climate change and refugee
admissions and calling out NATO freeloaders, I really don't.
Saker didn't refer to any of those things in his criticism of the Trump regime's foreign policy
stupidity. The only aspect of "Trump's behaviour towards Europe" that he (absolutely correctly)
singles out for criticism is the literally stupid sanctions resolution. Though he could equally
well have criticised the delusional stupidity of Trump's seeming wholesale swallowing of neocon
propaganda about Iran and the nuclear agreement.
Also, someone should explain to "The Saker" that the neocons were well in control before Obama.
How do you think we got into Iraq?
He's clearly well aware of that. As he has rightly pointed out previously (and Buchanan also points
out again today), Trump was elected in part precisely because he seemed to offer an escape from
the neocon-driven invade the world/invite the world lunacy. But his actual foreign policy seems
to have been little more than continuity with minor trimming only when forced by reality, especially
with the likes of Nikki Haley in such a prominent position.
And what is the "semblance of sanity" he thinks we should return to?
Not trying to right all the world's suppose wrongs by force (military or economic) would be a
good start. That and ceasing to regard the interests of Israel and of Saudi Arabia as of primary
importance for US foreign and military policy. Saker didn't refer to any of those things
I agree, he didn't, but then again, it seems Saker doesn't do nuance very well. He specializes
in grandiose insults (stupid, LSD, kindergartners, overcooked noodle, gone fishing) without mentioning
some pretty important stuff, like Trump cutting off funding to the Syrian rebels. That move
infuriated the neocons. Why doesn't Saker mention that? I guess it doesn't jibe with his overall
"incompetence" theme and anti-Trump snark.
As for the sanctions, they seem to upset Saker. But then he says it's water off a duck's back
for Putin. Hey, they probably even strengthen his hand -- So really, who gives a shit? He
contradicts himself.
Finally, he says Trump has turned over foreign policy responsibility to Congress. I'm no constitutional
expert, but Congress is in charge of declaring war. Sanctions can be interpreted as an act of
war. In any case, forcing the congresscritters to go on record for something like this can be
seen as very useful, just as the Iraq war vote was in blocking Hillary from higher office.
Thanks for the compliments regarding the American people. They all want peace just like all
others and have always voted for what they thought was the peace candidate only to be betrayed
later. I've lived here longer than just twenty years, however, but my whole life and am not so
sanguine about the nature of most Americans. I'd say the vast majority, perhaps 70%, are ignorant
dolts and easily bamboozled. Elections are just festivals of lies and deceit with few being able
to learn from the previous experience. The population is composed mostly of dodo birds. The ruling
class are predators looking for the next dollar to be extorted or stolen. This is a bad formula
and can only go so far. The fault is not in our stars but in us.
" The ruling class are predators looking for the next dollar to be extorted or stolen."
And who exactly is this "ruling class" if not the neocons? Are they not exactly like Milovan
Djilas' "new class" – a class of apparatchiks in positions to profit enormously (while living
very comfortably) from the decline and fall of an empire. How could this be, if their treasonous
profiteering could only leave them as having no place to turn but the China-dominated new world
order? Well, perhaps they actually know that the very millionaires who controlled key industries
in China prior to 1950, were also millionaires who lived, have lived even during the Cultural
Revolution, and for their families, continue to live, very comfortably and securely in Shanghai
from 1950 onward – assuming that they were astute enough to have been doing business with the
Communists all along. Perhaps they realize that the Communists are about as communistic as the
National Socialists were socialistic so that course which is most profitable in the short-run
is also most profitable in the long run.
I submit that the key to the correct understanding of the Russian response is in the fact
that the latest US sanctions contain an absolutely unprecedented and, frankly, shocking feature:
the new measures strip the President from the authority to revoke the sanctions.
This is part of the plan to sideline Russia, render it untouchable on the Executive's part
and move on to China. The plan is to stun everyone with the announcement (probably on Labor Day)
of 50k new, well paying, mostly private sector jobs, with benefits. China will feature prominently.
Chinese built factories in Wisconsin, Chicago etc. just teasers. Bigly deal to follow: much, much
bigly. All will be well --
Largely due to Obama's timidity in Syria on top of his denial of defensive weapons to Kiev,
Russia humiliated America in Syria. Putin will rue the day, because America is going to hit back
at Russia (it has to). Trump is going to take asymmetric vengeance and bleed Russia white.
A fraction of what has been spent in Syria will go a very long way in you-know-where.
I submit that the key to the correct understanding of the Russian response is in the fact that
the latest US sanctions contain an absolutely unprecedented and, frankly, shocking feature:
the new measures strip the President from the authority to revoke the sanctions.
This is part of the plan to sideline Russia, render it untouchable on the Executive's part and
move on to China. The plan is to stun everyone with the announcement (probably on Labor Day) of
50k new, well paying, mostly private sector jobs, with benefits. China will feature prominently.
Chinese built factories in Wisconsin, Chicago etc. just teasers. Bigly deal to follow: much, much
bigly. All will be well --
http://robertmagill.wordpress.com The production facilities of the future will be automated
and the elimination of workers will mean there is no particular reason to continue offshoring
production. The factories will come back to the West, but the jobs won't exist .
@exiled off mainstreet Great picture and great description. Hopefully, things will degenerate
to the point where they can't gin up a nuclear war. Great picture -- just not congruent with the
title of the post. With a moniker like that, EoM, one might think you'd notice the size of that
girl's pupils. Not on LSD. Ill bet she had already graduated from kindergarten, too. But then,
why be critical of what one sees and reads. I take SAKER's input with a salt shaker on hand.
@Grandpa Charlie I see USA as analogous to the Chinese Empire during its "decline and fall"
1850-1950 (very last part of the Manchu dynasty). Of course, it's a rough analogy, but it's there
all the same. Like China back then, the "Court" of the USA like the imperial court of China was
willing to sell off anything and everything. It's all been for sale for at least the last 50 years.
(If you want an example, take the Panama Canal.)
In that milieu, consider the neocons. What are they unless (like the DNC and the GOP's National
Central Committee) but a money-laundering and influence-peddling center. So apply that to the
"known known" that the main 'position' of the neocons (their excuse for some kind of principle)
is "Russia is dangerous and must be destroyed." As seen in the Saker's article, that is a destructive
proposition - destructive of the interests of the USA and its people. So then WHY - why do the
neocons pursue that agenda? Well, if you think about the nature of the neocons, of Congress, etc.,
you realize that the neocons must be making money off of this. They are pushing the anti-Russia
agenda because they are paid to do so. Then, ask yourself, as with any money-following effort,
CUI BONO? Well. what is accomplished by keeping the heat turned up on Russia? Isn't it that the
anti-Russia agenda provides a distraction from what China is doing? And who, almost certainly,
has been paying off the neocons for almost 50 years now - ever since Kissinger (godfather of the
neocons) took his secret trip to Beijing in 1973. Put it this way: the old China lobby had been
providing huge amounts of $US to the entire USA establishment - in particular to political parties
and to the media - since way back in WW II. Now there would be a huge hole where the old China
lobby had been. Who would fill that? Kissinger, for all his many faults, was smart enough to know,
and Chou En-Lai was smart enough to know, what had to be done. And the old China Lobby had long
seen the writing on the wall. So the old China Lobby was taken over by the New China Lobby. Lo-and-behold,
Kissinger created the neocons where the paleocons had been. (If you want, you can also find evidence
of an effective conspiracy extending back into WW II and the 1930's, but that might mean identifying
with the old JBS, and I want to stay focused on issues more current.)
That's the basic reality about the neocons. The PRC (or its rulers in the Standing Committee)
are the neocons' bread-and-butter. Oh, sure they appreciate the Israel lobby and they need it
to keep Congress dumb and afraid ... but their bread-and-butter is the PRC. Or more precisely,
the Standing Committee. Americans like to think that we have all the billionaires (or the billionaires
have us), but the reality is that USA's politicians, bureaucrats and bankers deal with many billionaires,
including the billionaires (active and retired) of the Standing Committee of the Communist Party
of China and the billionaires of the Kim dynasty of the DPRK. These billionaires use their money
much more in concert with one another than do most billionaires. So they get what they want. And
what they want includes the ability not to be bothered by, e.g., the US Navy when they decide
to extend their empire over the SCS and do not want USA's people even to know that Hanoi asks
pleadingly to become a port and outpost of the US Navy. Etc. etc.
If you find this hard to believe, google on "Clinton china bribery." Or, here at the Unz Review,
check out Peter Lee's 'China Matters' blog story "Four Corners/Fairfax". Just think it over. If
your mind has been closed, let it open.
"Yet none dare call it treason." Kingmaker Sheldon Adelson also has a China connection.
@utu Did I miss it or Saker does not even explain what kind of sanctions were imposed but
nevertheless he assures his readers that they won't hurt Russia and possibly make it even stronger
and basically everything will be hunky-dory because PGU has extremely well qualified individuals
on its staff: "superb level of education and training." And obviously Putin is a superman who
was in charge of spies in East Germany which required as much sophistication and risk taking as
spying in Wales for James Bond.
And obviously Putin is a superman
Have you notice that the same folks you say Trump is a superman say the same of Putin? Everything
is a stroke of genius.
These folks might study up a bit on the nature of intelligence. It would help them recognize
these mediocrities for what they are.
@Bragadocious Yes, the neocons took over before Trump. Good observation, Sherlock
Thanks. The reason I wrote that was because Saker wrote this:
Not that they ever had much hope in him, but they always strongly felt that the election
of Trump might maybe provide the world with a truly historical opportunity to change the disastrous
dynamic initiated by the Neocons under Obama
See, the key word there Sherlock, is initiated . That means to start, in case you didn't
know. I know, I'm Captain Obvious again. Maybe Saker should write more carefully, and not sound
like a kindergartner on LSD.
"I would have called it stupid"
Yes, that's the operative word for Saker and his minions. Everyone's stupid. Except you. You're
smart. Especially when you're peddling 9/11 truther stuff. Then you're a special kind of smart.
I see that you've outed yourself as a Coincidence Theorist there so you may console yourself as
at least being "useful", even if it is only as being a useful idiot.
Start with ae911truth.org, grap a book on high-school physics and go on from there. There's
plenty of reading and learning ahead for you, but you'll be much better for it. Oh, and stop the
chest-thumping, it only results in bruises.
@Chuck Kingmaker Sheldon Adelson also has a China connection.
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/homeland-security/259853-training-tactical-officers-critical-for-national
"Kingmaker Sheldon Adelson also has a China connection." – Chuck, citing to The Hill
As always, a good read from the Saker.
I think his assessment is spot on; Trump and his movement have been disabled. Now Congress members
seem to be jockeying for future power-gains, while Trump might be starting to check out.
He'll keep tweeting or whatever, but Nikki Haley, Pence and the generals might end up grabbing
more decision-making power or perhaps not.. who knows.
There's always the 25th amendment scenario, the Russian collusion angle, or maybe some other
damning revelation to pop up in the future to sink Trump, but I think many in Washington may be
under warning that his removal could have a devastating impact.
I am not as optimistic about a lack of militarism in response to the crisis. That has been
the go-to option for all modern American presidents in times of crisis.
The worms in the House and Senate have been totally terrorized by the vile jooies. Give the
loathsome jooies whatever they want, no matter how foul, and keep their jobs or cross the abominable
jooies and lose their jobs when a well funded opponent supported by the repulsive KM (kosher media)
just happens to appear in the next primary. The Jooie Lobby runs the Knesset on the Potomac, not
the US citizenry who are held in the utmost contempt by the bloodthirsty jooie elites. Government
of the jooies, by the jooies, for the jooies .
Many events are sprouting up all over the map
India China, Taliban in Afghanistan ,Venezuela , Iran Syria Lebanon , Israel Palestine -- all are
moving rapidly into unknown territory . America is no longer is in a position to influence these
events. . despite not wanting American policy makers will be forced to look inwards . Those counytriesmay
nt bother to inform America .
Health Care, Student loans, next inevitable housing bubble, millennial not saving and being
forced to spend the income on health care and rents along , nation as a whole see increasing social
fragmentation on ethnic lines -- these forces will make America much weaker economically and socially
. Foreign countries like China and Gulf monarchies will influence American foreign and domestic
policies .
America democracy itself may not survive the changes . Neocons with eager media may settle
down on dictatorship.
"The latest US sanctions and the Russian retaliatory response"
There has not been any response so far. Response was to US expelling 35 Russian diplomats 6+
months ago. This is why I am not a fan of delayed responses. As saying goes, spoon is for dinner,
not afterwards. Russia so far failed to respond to USA aggression which is what sanctions are.
Putin has been doing this whole patience expectations of US coming to her senses for some 10 years
with poor results as US belligerence seems to grow in lack of appropriate responses from Russia.
Putin being liberal he is, seems cannot abandon hope to be part of the club so far hence this
treatment in white gloves when it is stick across US face and kick into US groin what's necessary.
USA is like a dog that understands only stick. And stick has been missing despite Russia having
enough options to start really hurting USA where it hurts and stop cooperation everywhere even
in Syria.
I am not holding my breath with Putin though. He still insists on not letting up and talking to
madman despite that doing everything to hurt him.
Slow learner he is both in regards to USA and Russian economy.
"What is absolutely clear is that these sanctions will have exactly zero effect on Russia and
I don't think anybody is seriously expecting the Russians to change anything at all in their policies."
Zero effects? Speaking of changing policy is true but not that it won't create troubles for
Russia. Anyway, any aggression requires swift and ruthless repsonse otherwise it invites more
of agression. Putin is wrong to behave the way he behaves. There must be zero patience and head
for an eye response. Than aggression stops.
But the one crucial, vital, thing which Trump absolutely needed to succeed in – mercilessly
crushing the Neocons – he totally failed to achieve.
Indeed. The next step, as with Buchanan's piece today which is similarly discouraged as far as
US foreign policy under Trump is concerned, is to name the neocons. Identify the people burrowing
into the institutions of the US administration and subverting any hope of any substantive change
in foreign policy from the Clinton/Bush/Obama years. Name the people who act as the tools of the
Neocon Lobby within the administration, because those Trump can at least deal with, if he ever
comes to understand what is going on (which admittedly seems unlikely so long as he tolerates
Nikki Haley's open warmongering).
The subservience of Congress can only be dealt with by the American people defeating these
sitting members and replacing them with ones who fear, and are loyal to, their constituents more
than the lobbyists - which of course requires Americans to recognise when they are being manipulated
by lobbyists via the media.
See the piece yesterday by Ron Maxwell, naming some of the neocons:
The subservience of Congress can only be dealt with by the American people defeating these
sitting members and replacing them with ones who fear, and are loyal to, their constituents
more than the lobbyists – which of course requires Americans to recognise when they are being
manipulated by lobbyists via the media.
Yet, that has never happened, and will never happen. People elect leaders quite like themselves.
It is the people, stupid (I don't necessarily mean you).
The neoconservative are like junkies. Does a junkie ever really appreciate the risk whilst
in the middle of pursuing his next fix? Each successive fix is never quite enough, so they go
on to bigger fixes at the risk of overdose. Neocons seem to think kicking Russia's ass will be
a manageable high, a cakewalk nonetheless, same for China thereafter, because the wars and dying
will be done over there in their estimation.
Furthermore, we also have to keep in mind that the Neocon Lobby is unlike any other lobby
in the list above. For one thing, it does not represent US interests. Neither does it represent
the interests of Israel. Rather, it represents the interests of a specific subset of the US
ruling elites, in reality much smaller than 1% of the population, which all share in the one
common ideology of worldwide domination typical of the Neocons.
These are the folks who in spite of their 100% ironclad control of the media and Congress
lost the Presidential election to Donald Trump and who are now dead set to impeach him.
Many people who notice believe that "Neocon" is a euphemism for "Jew". Yes, there are non-Jewish
outliers among the Neocons like John McCain and Lindsey Graham but this need be no more complex
than assuming that they, like so many others in government such as Bill and Hillary Clinton, have
cut their deals with the Jewish lobby. Indeed, when I read an article on Neocons, the list of
culprits does read like a list of Ashkenazi Jews.
The import is that if the Neocons are religiously committed to world domination and "Neocon"
is a euphemism for "Jew", then it follows that the age-old stereotype that there are cabals of
Jews seeking world domination at the expense of the goyim they live among is true.
And one of the things I've learned is to NOT seek a reasonable answer to situations provoked
by utter crackpots.
It's simple; many of those in positions of power and responsibility are not only nuts in the
head, but no human is built to shoulder much power at all.
Of the lobby groups listed, probably only Big Oil and Big Jew (and not in that order) have
much of an interest in going to war with Russia. The Military-Industrials are happy just to get
contracts to build stuff. They don't really care, or particularly want, their stuff to be used.
Most of it is too expensive to use, and probably doesn't work as advertised, anyhow.
But I remain puzzled at how 98 Senators could have been lined up for that stupidity.
Can you enlarge on the details of neo-con ideas, personnel and means of influence to explain
the neo-con part? I mean 98 out of 100 Senators!!!
And, given especially your assertion that Israeli lobbyists aren't acting in Israel's real
interests, can you give a fuller explanation of what they are up to and why, with particular reference
to that Senate vote?
Following on from that, or, if you insist, as an aside would you care to give your view of
what rational Israeli lobbying might seek Americann help for. Here's my attempt at starting your
explanation .. Israel knows it can no longer defeat the battle hardened Hezbollah forces, from
which they have already received a bloidy nose, without using nuclear weapons or losing a high
proportion of young Israelis. So it fears that Hezbollah, still connected to Iran and protected
in that by Syria, will launch intolerable rocket attacks to provoke Israeli attack against its
dug in positions.
The need to remove Assad's regime has to be seen in that light??? Could it be as simple as
that?
I predict that the Neocon-crazies will not stop until they impeach Trump.
And that's probably behind this clusterfuck. The globalist cabal is working hard to make Trump
look bad and he's falling for it (him asking Comey - a certified swamp creature - to be loyal
is proof of his naivete). This same cabal is running Western Europe so any "positive" developments
between Macron de Rothchild and Putin will be temporary and designed to further ostracise Trump.
With Jews you loose and Russia will forever be their ultimate target. Russian nukes are the only
thing standing in the way of One World Government.
I furthermore predict that the USA will not launch any major military interventions
Don't be so sure. They want him to make mistakes . A new war would disappoint a lot of
Trump's core supporters and destroy his capability to expand the base. "Russian nukes are the
only thing standing in the way of One World Government."
Indeed. Vladimir Putin has big balls, and the elites hate him. But he's not afraid of a murder
attempt. The elites know that if something happens to him, Europe, Israel and North America would
be reduced to radioactive debris in about one hour
A new alignment is likely to emerge .t will be much less adversarial and much less enthused
with polemic. America China Israel Saudi Arab – pitted against – India Russia Iran Japan, . China
will embrace US because of Neocon and myriad financial connections with US .India will be forced
to return to Russia . China joining America or America deciding to join China is the game changer
and disrupt very other relationship. China will try to occupy American position after WW2 while
US will find itself occupying post WW2 British position. Neoconservatives and financial system
of the world will force this merger .
Pakistan Germany Turkey will try to juggle and hedge theirs bets . Central Asian Stan will
be politically connected to Russia but economically to China .China and Russia will quarrel here
and these countries will face a period of turmoil. Balkans will move back to Russia . NATO will
be largely irrelevant with no ability to have consensus and a mission .
The world will become more rambunctious and hyper verbal but it won't fight .
Polyglot countries like India and America will try to talk along ethnic lines more but the fundamental
underlying realities will not change . Despite the divisiveness promoted by parties, the citizen
will move to closer relationship and understanding and common ground partly because the divisiveness
will fail to accrue any benefit to the groups most interested in harvesting it .But the divisiveness
will not disappear from daily discourse .
Have you notice that the same folks you say Trump is a superman say the same of Putin? Everything
is a stroke of genius.
These folks might study up a bit on the nature of intelligence. It would help them recognize
these mediocrities for what they are. ;) Everything is a stroke of genius.
Like playing 3D or nD (n–>inf) chess, right?
I think it come from desperation and hope, I think. And as they say, hope does not want to
die in spite of the evidence that it should long time ago.
@The Alarmist The neoconservative are like junkies. Does a junkie ever really appreciate the
risk whilst in the middle of pursuing his next fix? Each successive fix is never quite enough,
so they go on to bigger fixes at the risk of overdose. Neocons seem to think kicking Russia's
ass will be a manageable high, a cakewalk nonetheless, same for China thereafter, because the
wars and dying will be done over there ... in their estimation. " Neocons seem to think kicking
Russia's ass will be a manageable high"
That's what they think. Given that Russia currently has more nuclear power than USA and Israel
combined, to think that they can handle Russia is sheer stupidity.
Much is made of this so-called "neocon" business. They appear to be a current highly aggressive
strain of American expansionism. However, there were no "neocons" in 1898 when the US saw it's
opportunity to attack Spain and grab away it's holdings. The US has been aggressively expanding
ever since, inserting itself into both world wars at the very last minute in order to gain as
much for itself as possible. It got a couple bloody rebuffs in Korea and Vietnam but learned how
to refine it's technique from those experiences. The US has been on the march ever since 1898,
sometimes slowly sometimes quickly. It's not something new but is an inherent dynamic. Like a
balloon things expand until they reach some sort of internal or external limiting factor. For
the US one can imagine what those might be.
We need a better term than "neo-con." People like Brennan, Clapper and McMaster were never
Trotskyites and they never wrote for Commentary. Their view is really a liberal internationalism
update for the post-Cold War, post-9/11 situation. And this view is ubiquitous inside the Beltway.
Saker,
I especially liked your use of the term "demonic" which is an appropriate term both figuratively
and possibly literally to describe many neocon adherents.
The internet is providing "Light coming into the world", that is, Truth or information coming
into mass consciousness. Mass consciousness must shape which possible futures become reality,
or the controlled media wouldn't be spending billions to try to influence it. Some would say that
this is solely because of the physical changes that people then force to happen, but evidence
also supports consciousness simply altering possible outcomes "The prayers of a righteous man
availeth much".
Saker, thanks much for Your articles!
Abstinence from all injustice to other first-rate powers is a greater tower of strength
than anything that can be gained by the sacrifice of permanent tranquillity for an apparent
temporary advantage.
Thucydides, The Peloponnesian War, Book I, 1.42-[3]
@Sergey Krieger "What is absolutely clear is that these sanctions will have exactly zero effect
on Russia and I don't think anybody is seriously expecting the Russians to change anything at
all in their policies."
Zero effects? Speaking of changing policy is true but not that it won't create troubles for
Russia. Anyway, any aggression requires swift and ruthless response otherwise it invites more
of aggression. Putin is wrong to behave the way he behaves. There must be zero patience and head
for an eye response. Than aggression stops.
Anyway, any aggression requires swift and ruthless repsonse
Not always, and not necessarily now. Sometimes no response is the most powerful. Aggressive and ruthless responses are often best
reserved for the times they're likely to succeed decisively. Responding to petulant pissants is more often than not a waste of time, energy and concentration. Putin appears to know all that, and good for him. I 'd love to see him knock the bastards on
their collective asses permanently. Sometime.
Did I miss it or Saker does not even explain what kind of sanctions were imposed but
nevertheless he assures his readers that they won't hurt Russia and possibly make it even stronger
and basically everything will be hunky-dory because PGU has extremely well qualified individuals
on its staff: "superb level of education and training." And obviously Putin is a superman who
was in charge of spies in East Germany which required as much sophistication and risk taking as
spying in Wales for James Bond. Russia had quite satisfactorily surfed sanctions.
@Bragadocious Worse, Trump's behavior towards Europe and the anti-Trump propaganda inside
Europe has now put the EU and the US on a collision course. This is absolutely amazing: for the
Russians the current tensions between the EU and the USA are a dream come true and yet they had
absolutely nothing to do with it – it was all done by the self-defeating stupidity of the Americans
who created this situation completely ex nihilo
So I guess the Americans are stupid for antagonizing Russia, they're stupid for antagonizing Russia's
enemies in the EU--they're just plain stupid, according to this Dutch-Russian emigre. I don't
know why America's stupid for standing up for its rights on climate change and refugee admissions
and calling out NATO freeloaders, I really don't. And if this upsets Western Europe, so much the
better. Also, someone should explain to "The Saker" that the neocons were well in control before
Obama. How do you think we got into Iraq? And what is the "semblance of sanity" he thinks we should
return to? "rights on climate change and refugee admissions" Seriously? Oh please.
@Sean Largely due to Obama's timidity in Syria on top of his denial of defensive weapons to
Kiev, Russia humiliated America in Syria. Putin will rue the day, because America is going to
hit back at Russia (it has to). Trump is going to take asymmetric vengeance and bleed Russia
white. A fraction of what has been spent in Syria will go a very long way in you-know-where.
Regarding Syria and your comments thereon: Excuse me, but is it all about Russia versus America
or can the Syrian people and their Government have any say? The world has people and Governments
other than American ones, you know, and they don't like freedom, democracy, or whatever delivered
by bombs, not even by smart bombs. The Syrian Government did not ask Washington to intervene,
so under international law American intervention and bombings there are as legitimate as "Saving
Vietnam from the commies", "Bringing democracy to Iraq", or . the list is long. No adventure on
that list turned out well for America or anyone else, with the exception of the merchants of death.
Now your fond hope is "Trump is going to bleed Russia white" and no doubt you would welcome
"Getting tough on Russia". Maybe you prefer your news to be exciting – with trade wars, sanctions-wars,
hot wars, cold wars, shooting wars, full blown mushroom-cloud-wars – but you will have to spare
us such merry excitement.
You are making too big a deal about the 30 day repeal. I bet you Trump will include a signing
statement that he reserves the right to ignore the parts of the law that are unconstitutional.
I'm afraid I had to stop reading when our beloved Saker stated that the Israel Lobby has nothing
to do with Israel. I'm really not sure what planet Saker lives on but he might ask the destroyed
nations around Israel if they think the Lobby has nothing to do with Israel.
@schmenz I'm afraid I had to stop reading when our beloved Saker stated that the Israel Lobby
has nothing to do with Israel. I'm really not sure what planet Saker lives on but he might ask
the destroyed nations around Israel if they think the Lobby has nothing to do with Israel.
I'm afraid I had to stop reading when our beloved Saker stated that the Israel Lobby has
nothing to do with Israel.
This could no doubt be more accurately stated as, the Israel Lobby has nothing to do with the
interests of the Israeli people. It seems to exist for the benefit of the ultra moneybag crowd
and its deranged puppets such as Netanyahooooo!
Those whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad. Thus, the "American" (please note the
quotation marks) oligarchy is imploding. Hopefully, they will not exercise a Samson Option of
their own, but anything is possible with this gang of criminal sociopaths. Their poster boy
is now an insatiable warmonger who is suffering from brain cancer! How could things get any worse?
After the impressive military victories the US has achieved against such formidable foes
as Panama, Iraq, Afghanistan, Haiti, mighty Grenada, Serbia and Libya, taking on Russia should
be a "cakewalk", right? And to think there is a sizable demographic in this country which still
believes this! Unbelievable. The last time that the US took on a military opponent at rough conventional
parity with it (the Chinese in Korea) the result was a stalemate. To paraphrase Cardinal Newman,
"To be deep in history is to cease to be a neocon."
Trump should have just let the veto proof sanctions become law without his signature.
Furthermore, we also have to keep in mind that the Neocon Lobby is unlike any other lobby in
the list above. For one thing, it does not represent US interests. Neither does it represent
the interests of Israel. Rather, it represents the interests of a specific subset of the US
ruling elites, in reality much smaller than 1% of the population, which all share in the one
common ideology of worldwide domination typical of the Neocons.
These are the folks who in spite of their 100% ironclad control of the media and Congress
lost the Presidential election to Donald Trump and who are now dead set to impeach him.
Many people who notice believe that "Neocon" is a euphemism for "Jew". Yes, there are non-Jewish
outliers among the Neocons like John McCain and Lindsey Graham ... but this need be no more complex
than assuming that they, like so many others in government such as Bill and Hillary Clinton, have
cut their deals with the Jewish lobby. Indeed, when I read an article on Neocons, the list of
culprits does read like a list of Ashkenazi Jews.
The import is that if the Neocons are religiously committed to world domination and "Neocon"
is a euphemism for "Jew", then it follows that the age-old stereotype that there are cabals of
Jews seeking world domination at the expense of the goyim they live among is true. Agree!
@Sean Largely due to Obama's timidity in Syria on top of his denial of defensive weapons to
Kiev, Russia humiliated America in Syria. Putin will rue the day, because America is going to
hit back at Russia (it has to). Trump is going to take asymmetric vengeance and bleed Russia
white. A fraction of what has been spent in Syria will go a very long way in you-know-where.
I'm afraid you're right. But I remain puzzled at how 98 Senators could have been lined
up for that stupidity. Can you enlarge on the details of neo-con ideas, personnel and means
of influence to explain the neo-con part? I mean 98 out of 100 Senators!!!
And, given especially your assertion that Israeli lobbyists aren't acting in Israel's real
interests, can you give a fuller explanation of what they are up to and why, with particular reference
to that Senate vote?
Following on from that, or, if you insist, as an aside would you care to give your view of
what rational Israeli lobbying might seek Americann help for. Here's my attempt at starting your
explanation..... Israel knows it can no longer defeat the battle hardened Hezbollah forces, from
which they have already received a bloidy nose, without using nuclear weapons or losing a high
proportion of young Israelis. So it fears that Hezbollah, still connected to Iran and protected
in that by Syria, will launch intolerable rocket attacks to provoke Israeli attack against its
dug in positions.
The need to remove Assad's regime has to be seen in that light??? Could it be as simple as
that? That kind of overwhelming support in the Senate is usually reserved for Israel.
The current crisis between the largely special interest owned American executive branch and
the largely failing reformer Donald Trump can be a historic opportunity for Europe to mend the
artificial divide between the European Union and Russia. The crisis can also be a golden opportunity
to shake the corrupt system of government in the USA. These opportunities are subject to having
strong and free leaders who can capitalize on the hubris of the ignorant senators and representatives
on Capitol Hill.
Germany, absent Merkel, can resurrect the reinsurance treaty with Russia which Kaiser Wilhelm
II abrogated much to the frustration and disapproval of Bismarck, the pilot of German unification.
What followed was a precarious geopolitical divide in Europe which led to the WWI with its disastrous
consequences for Germany, followed by the ordeal of the Versailles Treaty and ultimately the breakout
of WWII.
By putting the energy gun to the head of the Europeans, the American legislature will force
the Europeans to rethink and revamp their self defeating policies towards Russia that are done
at the behest of the USA. Any rapprochement with Russia will seal the fate of Eurasia as an integrated
economic bloc with the New Silk Road at its backbone.
As for the United States internal politics, it is obvious that the neocons are pushing matters
to a head with Trump whose only resort is to knit a special relationship with those leaders of
the military establishment who do not fancy the dominance of the deep state under the leadership
of the CIA The neocons move to impeach the president should create the kind of unrest that should
spur the military to take action against the corruption of the legislative branch and its extension
in the neocons media complex.
Yet this very much desired scenario that could a boon for world peace hinges on the emergence
of a new leadership in the western world that is willing to defy the powers that be. Currently
Europe is woefully lacking in the quality of leadership that can seize the moment to break free
from the dominance of the neocons.
This sanctions bill is a domestic US matter. The Republicans are trying to pacify the Democrats'
rage and bitterness over losing the election. It is most convenient for them to adopt the canard
blaming Russia for the result of the election. The voters knew exactly where Trump stands on Russia,
so even if Russia leaked the DNC and Podesta emails, there was no theft of the election. Voters
were not mislead about positions, and knew very well the Democrats accuse the Russian of the leaks.
Trump did not veto the the bill because of the veto proof majority, but will effectively veto
the bill by ignoring it. I don't see any Federal Court issuing orders to enforce this bill, and
can ignore that too. It's like Congress declaring a war the President doesn't want to fight. Who
is gonna make him?
"Why in the world would the US Senate adopt new sanctions against Russia when Russia has done
absolutely nothing to provoke such a vote? Except for Rand Paul and Bernie Sanders, every single
US Senator voted in favor of these sanctions. Why?!"
There is no satisfactory "worldly" explanation for what's happening here, but there is an explanation.
The Jew-controlled "U.S. government" apparently hates Russia for the same reason that Cain
hated (and eventually murdered) Abel. To put it another way, "bad" (evil) hates "good" because if there were no such thing as "good",
then there would be no such thing as "bad" by comparison. The Russian government demonstrates respect for international law, mutual cooperation, diplomacy,
stability, restraint, etc., while the U.S. government simply trashes everything, including America.
The Jews HATE a good example, and Russian re-emergence onto the world scene as an example of
relative goodness, in stark contrast to U.S. evil, is simply too much for them to bear.
"An unjust man is an abomination to the just: and he that is upright in the way is abomination
to the wicked" (Proverbs 29:27).
@Sergey Krieger "What is absolutely clear is that these sanctions will have exactly zero effect
on Russia and I don't think anybody is seriously expecting the Russians to change anything at
all in their policies."
Zero effects? Speaking of changing policy is true but not that it won't create troubles for
Russia. Anyway, any aggression requires swift and ruthless repsonse otherwise it invites more
of agression. Putin is wrong to behave the way he behaves. There must be zero patience and head
for an eye response. Than aggression stops.
Putin is wrong to behave the way he behaves. There must be zero patience and head for
an eye response. Than aggression stops.
I second what 'jaques sheete' said. I just want to add that we could be on the verge of a major
break between Washington and the EU -- something Putin has been working towards for years. We have
an old saying: when you're enemy's committing suicide, stand back and let him. That's what Washington
is doing now: committing suicide.
During that long trip I did not only see breathtakingly beautiful sights, but also plenty
of beautiful people who oppose the satanic ball in DC with every fiber of their being
and who want their country to be free from the degenerate demonic powers which have taken
over the federal government.
I don't believe the "with every fiber of their being" part. This is just wishful thinking
on the part of Saker. If this were so, they wouldn't just be grumbling or trusting their corrupt
representatives. Average Americans still elect people like McCain, Graham and Schumer and I haven't
seen any mass anti-war demonstrations in Washington or New York or anywhere else.
Even more depressing than the bill is Trump's craven capitulation:
In a signing statement released by the White House, Trump said the legislation "included
a number of clearly unconstitutional provisions" in lawmakers' "haste" to pass it.
"While I favor tough measures to punish and deter aggressive and destabilizing behavior
by Iran, North Korea and Russia, this legislation is significantly flawed," he said
Trump, however, said in another statement accompanying the bill that he would not allow
the U.S. to "tolerate interference in our democratic process and that we will side with our
allies and friends against Russian subversion and destabilization."
So Trump now officially regards his own election as illegitimate? As the result of Russian
"subversion and destabilization"? Incredible! I realize he can't stop the bill; but that doesn't mean he has to officially sign it.
@yeah Regarding Syria and your comments thereon: Excuse me, but is it all about Russia versus
America or can the Syrian people and their Government have any say? The world has people and Governments
other than American ones, you know, and they don't like freedom, democracy, or whatever delivered
by bombs, not even by smart bombs. The Syrian Government did not ask Washington to intervene,
so under international law American intervention and bombings there are as legitimate as "Saving
Vietnam from the commies", "Bringing democracy to Iraq", or .... the list is long. No adventure
on that list turned out well for America or anyone else, with the exception of the merchants of
death.
Now your fond hope is "Trump is going to bleed Russia white" and no doubt you would welcome
"Getting tough on Russia". Maybe you prefer your news to be exciting - with trade wars, sanctions-wars,
hot wars, cold wars, shooting wars, full blown mushroom-cloud-wars - but you will have to spare
us such merry excitement.
Russian military thinking seems to have reached the point now where the idea of using force
intentionally in conflicts with peer-state adversaries has been almost completely ruled out.
This seems a radical move. But there has been a clear recognition within this military that
better strategic outcomes for Russia will result from the use of non-violent 'asymmetric warfare'
activities rather than those which will or can involve the use of force – such as conventional
war or hybrid warfare. [...] The principal aim of Russian asymmetric warfare is to create degrees
of destabilisation (destabilizatsiya) within targeted states and within collectives of targeted
states (e.g. NATO, EU). [...] And all this plays to the Russian military's own strengths –
its 'own relative advantages'. While it might lack 'quantitative indicators' – the tanks, aircraft
and ships – it does have a massive capacity to gather information, to disseminate (mis)information
and to employ considerable cyber abilities
Too backward to frack, Russia tried to bribe the tech from Exxon with massive access to
Russia untapped resources to show them how. I would really like someone to tell me why Russia
should be rewarded by transfer of crucial US technology for what it did in Ukraine. Were they
expecting a pat on the back? Russia will it not start a conventional or nuclear war unless it
thinks there is a chance of it winning, and there isn't.
They humiliated Tel Aviv. American people never wanted to spill their blood and treasure on the
other side of the Globe for the Grater Israel project. No because Jordan not Syria is just across
the river from the occupied territories' Palestinian population. Syria has little or no bearing
on the West Bank Arab problem, which is the main one for Israel
Oil is the only reason the global population has quadrupled in only the last 100 years. The
Industrial Revolution was not enough. Oil is necessary to maintain this population and keep it
fed.
The remaining relatively-cheap oil is all in Russia, Saudia Arabia, Iraq, Iran, and The UAE.
Everybody understands this. The Russians, the Chinese, the Neocons, Donald Trump. They all get
this.
The United States is for all intents-and-purposes energy independent when you include supplies
from Canada and rapidly-dwindling supplies from Mexico. But the United States relies on "control"
of the oil coming from the Persian Gulf to maintain control of its Empire and as tenuous control
over its real one and only rival – China.
South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan are completely dependent for survival economically on energy
that comes from the Middle-East and is protected by the U.S. Navy.
The constant tension between Israel and Saudi Arabia (The two worst regimes in the world) on
the one side and Iran on the other is necessary to give the American Deep State and Empire purpose.
While it 'appears' that all the American military equipment and bases and meddling in the Middle
East are aimed at surrounding and blunting Iran's power – it should be obvious from 75-plus years
of history that the real purpose is to surround Saudi Arabia.
Whether it is Roosevelt meeting with the King in 1945 on the way back from Yalta or Trump meeting
with the King a month ago – the message is clear – The heads belonging to the House of Sand are
only attached to their necks at the discretion of the United States.
Much is made of this so-called "neocon" business. They appear to be a current highly aggressive
strain of American expansionism. However, there were no "neocons" in 1898 when the US saw it's
opportunity to attack Spain and grab away it's holdings. The US has been aggressively expanding
ever since, inserting itself into both world wars at the very last minute in order to gain as
much for itself as possible. It got a couple bloody rebuffs in Korea and Vietnam but learned how
to refine it's technique from those experiences. The US has been on the march ever since 1898,
sometimes slowly sometimes quickly. It's not something new but is an inherent dynamic. Like a
balloon things expand until they reach some sort of internal or external limiting factor. For
the US one can imagine what those might be. Agree.
The only difference, at this stage of expansion, is that the lower classes do not get the spoils
of the expansion.
If they did .well .it would be interesting to see how much they'd be against The Empire.
And, yes, that another THING; this time the opponent can retaliate hard.
Nukes do make all that difficult to execute. What a conundrum ..
"... "the terms put to Milosevic (which included NATO forces having freedom of movement throughout his country) were absolutely intolerable it was quite deliberate." ..."
"... "the proposition that Muammar Gaddafi would have ordered the massacre of civilians in Benghazi was not supported by the available evidence." ..."
"... "Despite having achieved or being well under way to achieving major Millennium Development Goals targets (poverty reduction, primary education, and gender parity in secondary education, decrease in infant mortality rates and increasing access to improved sanitation) as of 2011, it is estimated that after the first four years of crisis Syria has dropped from 113th to 174th out of 187 countries ranked in the Human Development Index." ..."
"... For more info about that see: The Times, RT and Oliver Kamm, an Obsessed Neocon Stalker and Creepy London Times Moron Cyber-Stalks Leading UK Russia Expert (Video) ..."
A resource-rich, socialist-led, multi-ethnic secular state, with an economic system
characterized by a high level of public/social ownership and generous provision of welfare,
education and social services.
An independent foreign policy with friendship and good commercial ties with Russia, support
for Palestine and African and Arab unity – and historical backing for anti-imperialist
movements.
Social progress in a number of areas, including women's emancipation.
The above accurately describes the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya
and the Syrian Arab Republic. Three countries in three different continents, which had so much in
common.
All three had governments which described themselves as socialist. All three pursued a foreign
policy independent of Washington and NATO. And all three were targeted for regime
change/destruction by the US and its allies using remarkably similar methods.
The first step of the imperial predators was the imposition of draconian economic sanctions
used to cripple their economies, weaken their governments (always referred to as 'a/the regime')
and create political unrest. From 1992-95, and again in 1998, Yugoslavia was hit by the harshest
sanctions ever imposed on a European state. The sanctions even involved an EU ban on the
state-owned passenger airliner JAT
Libya was under US sanctions from the 1980s until 2004, and then again in 2011, the year the
country with the highest Human Development Index in Africa was bombed back to the Stone Age.
Syria has been sanctioned by the US since 2004 with a significant increase in the severity of
the measures in 2011 when the regime change op moved into top gear.
The second step was the backing of armed militias/terrorist proxies to destabilise the
countries and help overthrow these "regimes". The strategy was relatively simple.
Terrorist attacks and the killing of state officials and soldiers would provoke a military
response from 'the regime, whose leader would then be condemned for 'killing his own people' (or
in the case of Milosevic, other ethnic groups), and used to ramp up the case for a 'humanitarian
intervention' by the US and its allies.
In Yugoslavia, the US-proxy force was the Kosovan Liberation Army, who were given training and
logistical support by the West.
In Libya, groups linked to al-Qaeda, like the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, were provided
assistance, with NATO effectively acting as al-Qaeda's air force
In Syria, there was massive support for anti-government Islamist fighters, euphemistically
labelled 'moderate rebels.' It didn't matter to the 'regime changers' that weapons supplied to
'moderate rebels' ended up in the hands of groups like ISIS. On the contrary, a declassified
secret US intelligence
report from 2012 showed that the Western powers welcomed the possible establishment of a
Salafist principality in eastern Syria, seeing it as a means of isolating 'the Syrian
regime'.
The third step carried out at the same time as one and two involved the relentless
demonisation of the leadership of the target states. This involved the leaders being regularly
compared to Hitler, and accused of carrying out or planning genocide and multiple war crimes.
Milosevic – President of Yugoslavia – was labelled a 'dictator' even though he was
the democratically-elected leader of a country in which over 20 political parties freely
operated.
Libya's Muammar Gaddafi was portrayed as an unstable foaming at the mouth lunatic, about to
launch a massacre in Benghazi, even though he had governed his country since the end of the
Swinging Sixties.
Syria's Assad did take over in an authoritarian one-party system, but was given zero credit
for introducing a new constitution which ended the Ba'ath Party's monopoly of political power.
Instead all the deaths in the Syrian conflict were blamed on him, even those of the thousands of
Syrian soldiers killed by Western/GCC-armed and funded 'rebels'.
The fourth step in the imperial strategy was the deployment of gatekeepers – or
'Imperial Truth Enforcers' – to smear or defame anyone who dared to come to the defence of
the target states, or who said that they should be left alone.
The pro-war, finance-capital-friendly, faux-left was at the forefront of the media campaigns
against the countries concerned. This was to give the regime change/destruction project a
'progressive' veneer, and to persuade or intimidate genuine 'old school' leftists not to
challenge the dominant narrative.
To place them beyond the pale, Yugoslavia, Libya and Syria were all labelled 'fascist,' even
though their leadership was socialist and their economies were run on socialistic lines.
Meanwhile, genuine fascists, like anti-government factions in Ukraine (2013-14), received
enthusiastic support from NATO.
The fifth step was direct US/NATO-led military intervention against 'the regime' triggered by
alleged atrocities/planned atrocities of the target state. At this stage, the US works
particularly hard to sabotage any peaceful solution to the conflicts they and their regional
allies have ignited. At the Rambouillet conference in March 1999, for example, the Yugoslav
authorities, who had agreed to an international peace-keeping force in Kosovo, were presented
with an ultimatum that they could not possibly accept. Lord Gilbert, a UK defence minister at the
time, later admitted "the terms put to Milosevic (which included NATO forces having freedom
of movement throughout his country) were absolutely intolerable it was quite
deliberate."
In 2011, the casus belli was that 'the mad dog' Gaddafi was about to massacre civilians in
Benghazi. We needed a 'humanitarian intervention' to stop this, we were repeatedly told. Five
years later, a House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee
report held
that "the proposition that Muammar Gaddafi would have ordered the massacre of civilians in
Benghazi was not supported by the available evidence."
In 2013, the reason given for direct military intervention in Syria was an alleged chemical
weapons attack by 'Assad's forces' in Ghouta. But this time, the UK Parliament voted against
military action and the planned 'intervention' was thwarted, much to the great frustration of the
war-hungry neocons. They still keep trying though.
The recent claims of The White House, that they had evidence that the Syrian government was
planning a chemical weapons attack, and that if such an attack took place it would be blamed on
Assad, shows that the Empire hasn't given up on Stage Five for Syria just yet.
Stage Six of the project involves the US continuing to sabotage moves towards a negotiated
peace once the bombing started. This happened during the bombing of Yugoslavia and the NATO
assault on Libya. A favoured tactic used to prevent a peaceful resolution is to get the leader of
the target state indicted for war crimes. Milosevic was indicted at the height of the bombing in
1999, Gaddafi in 2011.
Stage Seven is 'Mission Accomplished'. It's when the target country has been 'regime-changed'
and either broken up or transformed into a failed state with strategically important
areas/resources under US/Western control. Yugoslavia was dismantled and its socially-owned
economy privatised. Montenegro, the great prize on the Adriatic, recently
joined NATO.
Libya, hailed in the Daily Telegraph as a top
cruise
ship destination in 2010, is now a lawless playground for jihadists and a place where cruise
ships dare not dock. This country, which provided free education and health care for all its
citizens under Gaddafi, has recently seen the return of
slave
markets.
Syria, though thankfully not at Stage Seven, has still been knocked back almost forty years.
The UNDP reported: "Despite having achieved or being well under way to achieving major
Millennium Development Goals targets (poverty reduction, primary education, and gender parity in
secondary education, decrease in infant mortality rates and increasing access to improved
sanitation) as of 2011, it is estimated that after the first four years of crisis Syria has
dropped from 113th to 174th
out of 187 countries ranked in the Human Development Index."
Of course, it's not just three countries which have been wrecked by the Empire of Chaos. There
are similarities too with what's happened to Afghanistan and Iraq. In the late 1970s, the US
started to back Islamist rebels to destabilise and topple the left-wing, pro-Moscow government in
Kabul.
Afghanistan has been in turmoil ever since, with the US and its allies launching an invasion
of the country in 2001 to topple a Taliban 'regime' which grew out of the 'rebel' movement which
the US had backed.
Iraq was hit with devastating, genocidal sanctions, which were maintained under US/UK pressure
even after it had disarmed. Then it was invaded on the deceitful pretext that its leader, Saddam
Hussein, still possessed WMDs.
The truth of what has been happening is too shocking and too terrible ever to be admitted in
the Western mainstream media. Namely, that since the demise of the Soviet Union, the US and its
allies have been picking off independent, resource-rich, strategically important countries one by
one.
The point is not that these countries were perfect and that there wasn't political repression
taking place in some of them at various times, but that they were earmarked for destruction
solely for standing in the way of the imperialists. The propagandists for the US-led wars of
recent years want us to regard the conflicts as 'stand alones' and to regard the 'problem' as
being the 'mad dog' leadership of the countries which were attacked.
But in fact, the aggressions against Yugoslavia, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq, and the
threatening of Iran, North Korea, Russia and Venezuela are all parts of the same war. Anyone who
hasn't been locked in a wardrobe these past twenty years, or whose salary is not paid directly,
or indirectly, by the Empire of Chaos, can surely see now where the 'problem' really lies.
The 'New Hitlers' – Milosevic, Hussein and Gaddafi – who we were told were the
'biggest threats' to world peace, are dead and buried. But guess what? The killing goes
on.
"It's barbarism. I see it coming masqueraded under lawless alliances and predetermined
enslavements. It may not be about Hitler's furnaces, but about the methodical and
quasi-scientific subjugation of Man. His absolute humiliation. His disgrace"
Odysseas Elytis, Greek poet, in a press conference on the occasion of receiving the Nobel
Prize (1979)
"... For a young Mussolini, working-class power seemed to be the way forward. But after beginning his political career in the Italian Socialist Party, the failure of the socialist movement to prevent World War I, as well as the outpouring of patriotic feeling released by the war, catalyzed Mussolini's conversion from class politics to a new brand of nationalism. ..."
"... The conditions of crisis that had led to Italian fascism soon gave rise to parallel movements in other countries. Perhaps because of the visibility of Nazism, in particular in US popular culture, the fascism of the 1930 serves as the primary reference point for analysis of the right-wing authoritarianism we face today. The fascists of Italy, Falangists of Spain, Nazis of Germany and their less well-known counterparts across the Western world believed their elite were destined to rule as autocrats because they had won out in the war of all against all -- or must do so. The new elite would lead the nation in an imperialist project of gaining more spazio vitale (living space, or as the Nazis would call it, Lebensraum), seeking to displace British or American hegemony over the capitalist world-system and gain their people's place under the sun. ..."
"... Fascists paid lip service to "socialism" for the Volksgemeinschaft (the Nazi concept of a racially pure "people's community"), but they found their most willing partners in the project of rationalizing social, political and economic life in the bourgeoisie. ..."
"... Fascists in league with big capital subjected the working class to a redoubled divide-and-conquer strategy. Some sections of workers were included in the Volkgemeinschaft, bound up in corporatist schemes of labor-management compromise in exchange for loyalty necessary for war-making. ..."
"... For the working class, fascism is the bloody assertion of heteronormative, patriarchal capitalism without democracy. The mythologization of hierarchy and the nation, intensified oppression based on ethnic and gender identities, glorification of war, and violent repression of worker and social movement organizations were hallmarks of all the historical regimes we call fascism -- Hitler's National Socialists, Franco's Falangists and others. Today, most of these characteristics are also present in the new wave of right-wing regimes taking power in the West, as well as in India, Russia, Turkey and other authoritarian capitalist states of the periphery. ..."
"... The capital-F Fascism of authoritarian government is possible because of the lower case-f fascism that thrives in everyday life under capitalism. ..."
"... The fascist discourse of national greatness is nothing more than a continuation of the nationalism of the imagined community constructed by the bourgeoisie. ..."
"... Fascism is not only a grotesque exaggeration of the worst elements of bourgeois society. As a popular tendency, it is a response to the same contradictions that generate left radicalism: poverty, powerlessness and alienation. It is the manufactured scarcity of capitalism that opens the door to a fascist solution. ..."
"... In the United States, some -- mostly white, mostly male -- workers were granted some rights under the National Labor Relations Act. Domestic workers and farm laborers were excluded, a concession to white supremacist political factions. This was a far more soft-serve version of the inclusion/exclusion from representation that also characterized the fascist system of labor control of the same era. It was also premised on loyalty to the capitalist state. The leaders of the major union federations were granted seats at the table, in exchange for expelling Communists from their ranks and adopting a depoliticized approach to labor relations ..."
"... The triumph of liberalism in the 1990s belied its own decay. Since the 1970s, global capital has sought to dismantle the liberal welfare state and put more and more social goods (such as education, healthcare and what remains of public housing) on the market through "structural adjustment" and austerity. ..."
"... Today, the body politic is afflicted with a dysphoria -- a disconnect between the lived experiences of the working class, and the political and cultural representations with which hegemonic liberalism seeks to interpellate them. The Clintonite slogan "America Is Already Great" does not resonate with workers who see themselves making less money than their parents' generation. The cultural disjuncture leads to a political rejection of corporate liberals. A new political subject is waiting to be called into existence. The depoliticization of life that accompanied the postwar liberal settlement is over. The center cannot hold. Everyone is picking a side. ..."
"... Neoliberalism promises more of the same, fascism promises "economic nationalism" and a return to a mythologized past, a democratic socialist revival bids for a return to some form of social democracy. But once again, the discontinuities of these ideologies with liberalism are not as strong as their continuities. Both the fascist ideology of Trump and Brexit, and the social-democratic revivalism of Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn are post-liberal, in that they are symptomatic of the breakdown of the liberal order. But they are also post-liberal, in that they fail to break with the fundamentals of liberal capitalism: private ownership of the means of production, wage labor and markets as a means of distribution. It is these fundamentals of capitalism which brought us to the crisis of neoliberalism, and any movement that is unwilling to challenge these fundamentals will ultimately bring us more of the same. ..."
"... Obama followed in the footsteps of every American regime since the end of WWII. Reagan visited an SS graveyard and memorial and the Truman and Eisenhower regimes made extensive use of not-so-ex Nazis in their spy rings. Trump will continue Obamas policies. ..."
"... Excellent article. Of course the situation here in the U.S. is complicated by the fact that this society, that benefited in general though very unevenly from its status as Global Hegemon for a number of years, is now suffering again very unevenly from the ongoing demise of that position in the Global Capitalist Hierarchy. ..."
"... We do have a ruling class that is exceptionally violent and brutal, the majority of whose outrages were committed overseas over the last 70 years. ..."
The question of the labor movement under fascism is the question of what to do when it is already too late. Racist
vigilante attacks are intensifying, comrades are being indicted, workers are being deported, bosses are breaking labor
law with even greater impunity, the press is under threat, civil liberties are disappearing, politicians are attempting
to rule by diktat, police are even more out of control, war is on the horizon. Everywhere, the threadbare niceties of the
state under liberalism have vanished.
We are not ready for this. The general strike seems like the only reasonable response, but the existing left and labor
organizations are hard-pressed to mobilize for one. The working class is self-organizing, but success remains far from
certain. What is this hell we are entering? How did we get here, and what role can the working class play in helping us
find a way out?
Origins of Fascism
Fascism did not start out as a pejorative term. The word originates from the Latin fasces, a term for a bundle of sticks
bound together around an axe so that they could not be broken, a symbol of unity and power. In ancient Rome, the fasces
were carried by lictors, the bodyguards of magistrates and other state officials. The sticks could be unbundled to mete
out beatings as prescribed by magistrates. The axe was used for the death penalty.
Fascism first appeared in social movement usage not on the right, but on the Italian left in the late-nineteenth century
as a symbol or term for "league" or "group" for various socialist and syndicalist organizations. It was in fact a former
socialist who indelibly stamped fascist as an adjective for the far right: Benito Mussolini. His politics were shaped by
the conflicts of modernity: violent class struggle, a bourgeoisie attempting to build a nation and a national market, and
war. For a young Mussolini, working-class power seemed to be the way forward. But after beginning his political career
in the Italian Socialist Party, the failure of the socialist movement to prevent World War I, as well as the outpouring
of patriotic feeling released by the war, catalyzed Mussolini's conversion from class politics to a new brand of nationalism.
Mussolini promised to make Italy great again, to return to the golden age of the Roman Empire. In his view, this could
only happen through a new cross-class national unity, a powerful state under the tutelage of a new elite of Übermenschen,
and a march toward war. The first task of Mussolini's fascism was the violent repression of workers' and peasants' movements
in the wave of strikes and occupations after World War I, followed by the destruction of independent labor organizations
once state power was attained.
The conditions of crisis that had led to Italian fascism soon gave rise to parallel movements in other countries.
Perhaps because of the visibility of Nazism, in particular in US popular culture, the fascism of the 1930 serves as the
primary reference point for analysis of the right-wing authoritarianism we face today. The fascists of Italy, Falangists
of Spain, Nazis of Germany and their less well-known counterparts across the Western world believed their elite were destined
to rule as autocrats because they had won out in the war of all against all -- or must do so. The new elite would lead
the nation in an imperialist project of gaining more spazio vitale (living space, or as the Nazis would call it, Lebensraum),
seeking to displace British or American hegemony over the capitalist world-system and gain their people's place under the
sun.
Fascism cast culture as nature. It enforced and strengthened hierarchies based on ethnic or gender identities, claiming
that some are meant to be masters and others to be slaves. Fascist governments replaced liberal guarantees of civil liberties
and independent civil society organizations with a reimagining of the nation as a patriarchal family based on a racist
conception of self and other, and corporatist organizations subordinated to the state. Corporatism here does not refer
to corporations in the sense of a private company -- it actually referred to the incorporation of bosses, workers and state
bureaucrats in a single overarching organization that would supposedly reflect their common nationalist interests.
Fascists paid lip service to "socialism" for the Volksgemeinschaft (the Nazi concept of a racially pure "people's
community"), but they found their most willing partners in the project of rationalizing social, political and economic
life in the bourgeoisie.
Fascists in league with big capital subjected the working class to a redoubled divide-and-conquer strategy. Some
sections of workers were included in the Volkgemeinschaft, bound up in corporatist schemes of labor-management compromise
in exchange for loyalty necessary for war-making. But those who were not thought to belong to the "master race" were
excluded from any form of representation or organization, and subjected to hyper-exploitation. Millions of Jews, Roma,
eastern Europeans and others deemed Untermenschen were subjected to persecution, forced labor and genocide.
For the working class, fascism is the bloody assertion of heteronormative, patriarchal capitalism without democracy.
The mythologization of hierarchy and the nation, intensified oppression based on ethnic and gender identities, glorification
of war, and violent repression of worker and social movement organizations were hallmarks of all the historical regimes
we call fascism -- Hitler's National Socialists, Franco's Falangists and others. Today, most of these characteristics are
also present in the new wave of right-wing regimes taking power in the West, as well as in India, Russia, Turkey and other
authoritarian capitalist states of the periphery.
Continuities With Liberalism
As participants in this unfolding catastrophe, we tend to emphasize its discontinuities with the postwar liberal order
that preceded the current unraveling. But the continuities are in fact more alarming, and more important to understand
if we want to eradicate fascism root and branch, once and for all. Fascism is possible not in spite of liberal capitalism,
but because of it. Both historically and philosophically, fascism is rooted in the same Western tradition as liberalism.
Fascism continually reemerges because its seeds are incubated in the contradictions of capitalism.
The capital-F Fascism of authoritarian government is possible because of the lower case-f fascism that thrives in
everyday life under capitalism. The centralized state was an invention of the bourgeoisie, a business innovation necessary
to manage its affairs. Its bureaucracy stands ready-made for takeover by fascist thugs. Eichmann-like obedience necessary
for the Fascist political project is inculcated by the state and corporate bureaucracy built by the bourgeoisie. Fascists
march to war down roads that were paved by centuries of European colonialism and imperialism. The fascist discourse
of national greatness is nothing more than a continuation of the nationalism of the imagined community constructed by the
bourgeoisie.
The fascist enforcement of gender norms is a grotesque exaggeration of the patriarchal division of labor engendered
by one form of capitalism. Fascism's celebration of hierarchy and legitimation of class society is an extreme form of the
twin lies of liberalism: "meritocracy" (barely distinguishable as a concept from Social Darwinism) and racist essentialism.
Racism itself was born of the Western project of colonialism, and given a stamp of legitimacy by Enlightenment science
that sought to taxonomize all things, plants, animals and people.
Liberalism promises to keep its Id in check with guarantees of the rights of man, but this was always a promise more
often broken than kept. The majority of our planet's inhabitants have already been living under a permanent state of exception.
The test runs for the Nazi Holocaust were the late-Victorian holocausts of mass murder in Africa, and the genocidal colonization
of the Americas and uncounted colonial massacres.
In the capitalist core, millions have long lived their lives as what Giorgio Agamben termed homo sacer -- a term from
ancient Rome signifying those who are deprived of rights by the state, and subject to extra-judicial violence by the George
Zimmermans of the world. Across the capitalist core, immigrants and refugees live without the promise of any kind of liberal
human rights, facing possible deportation in any interaction with the authorities.
Clintonite cosmopolitan liberalism claims that these oppressions are atavisms of the past, even though they are renewed
every day. It promises to unite the world Benetton-like in a multicultural global market, where everyone is equally free
to exploit and be exploited. Liberalism will occasionally apologize for its racism, sexism and colonial massacres, and
may make affirmative action reforms to stabilize its rule and rationalize production, or in the case of the US government's
eventual concessions to the civil rights movement, to compete ideologically with the Soviet Union. But there is one place
where it can never acknowledge illegitimate hierarchy: the workplace. And it is precisely here that the contradictions
that propel the world toward fascism are rooted.
The Liberal Compromise
Fascism is not only a grotesque exaggeration of the worst elements of bourgeois society. As a popular tendency,
it is a response to the same contradictions that generate left radicalism: poverty, powerlessness and alienation. It is
the manufactured scarcity of capitalism that opens the door to a fascist solution.
As a form of government, fascism is not the bourgeoisie's first choice, of course. It is an unstable system prone to
cronyism that places certain limits on the market. So, like the boss who wants you to try for a promotion rather than organizing
a union, liberalism first tries to resolve its contradictions through expansion. This could mean economic growth through
technological upgrading, or stimulation of new needs and desires to create new consumer markets, or it could mean capturing
new markets through war and trade agreements. As long as the pie is getting bigger, tensions over who gets the biggest
piece are diffused.
The contradiction of liberal capitalism played out in real historical time. To stabilize its own rule in the wake of
the Great Depression and World War II, liberal capitalism accepted a degree of regulation, establishing norms necessary
for more-or-less long-term operation of a market, and setting up a system that could compete economically and ideologically
with international socialism. This took the form of the New Deal and the Keynesian welfare state, a compromise that institutionalized
class struggle to boost consumption.
In the United States, some -- mostly white, mostly male -- workers were granted some rights under the National Labor
Relations Act. Domestic workers and farm laborers were excluded, a concession to white supremacist political factions.
This was a far more soft-serve version of the inclusion/exclusion from representation that also characterized the fascist
system of labor control of the same era. It was also premised on loyalty to the capitalist state. The leaders of the major
union federations were granted seats at the table, in exchange for expelling Communists from their ranks and adopting a
depoliticized approach to labor relations.
After World War II, the US exported this New Deal model of labor relations through its reconstruction efforts in Western
Europe and East Asia. For around thirty years, workers were rewarded for their loyalty with wage increases that matched
growth in productivity. For the most part, this resulted in an apolitical acquiescence to life under capitalism. By the
end of the twentieth century, liberalism seemed to reign triumphant. Some claimed that liberal capitalism was the End of
History, that the age of extremes had definitively passed. Both socialism and fascism were consigned to the dustbin. Under
the leadership of the WTO and the largest of the Western corporations, humanity was to march onward into a glorious consumerist
future with McDonald's, Starbucks and Apple products for all.
How wrong they were.
Post-Liberalism
Everywhere, authoritarian regimes are winning out over centrist liberalism. The Chinese model of development -- an authoritarian
state with just enough market relations to fill the pockets of a kleptocratic elite -- has become the dominant development
paradigm for much of Asia and Africa. Western corporate elites have watched jealously as mega-projects and mega-profits
that would take years of political wrangling in the capitalist core get the green light in China. Nevertheless, most sectors
of capital still seem to prefer Clintonite liberalism to Trumpian fascism, or certainly to Bernie Sanders' social democracy.
But increasingly, the centrist option is off the table, for reasons of the bourgeoisie's own doing.
The triumph of liberalism in the 1990s belied its own decay. Since the 1970s, global capital has sought to dismantle
the liberal welfare state and put more and more social goods (such as education, healthcare and what remains of public
housing) on the market through "structural adjustment" and austerity.
The decay of the liberal system is nowhere more evident than in labor relations. The stable system of collective bargaining
put in place by the National Labor Relations Act was under attack from the far right since its inception -- but has been
most effectively undermined by the liberal center since 1981. In that year, Reagan fired striking air traffic controllers
in the PATCO union, signaling open season on the labor movement. Workplace-level union-busting, the use of scabs to break
strikes, automation and outsourcing all drove unionization rates in the United States down from around 30 percent in the
1950s, to barely 10 percent in 2017. Behind this evisceration is a shift in ruling-class strategy from grudging acceptance
of unions in the system of labor control, to direct domination of each individual worker through "Human Resources Management."
As a result, the standard of living in the capitalist core has undergone almost half a century of decline. This has
paralleled the decline of the United States as the hegemonic power in the global political economy. As this decline continues,
workers in the capitalist core of all income levels have begun looking for alternatives to neoliberal politics. The mythology
of the American Dream no longer works its magic of erasing class antagonisms.
Today, the body politic is afflicted with a dysphoria -- a disconnect between the lived experiences of the working
class, and the political and cultural representations with which hegemonic liberalism seeks to interpellate them. The Clintonite
slogan "America Is Already Great" does not resonate with workers who see themselves making less money than their parents'
generation. The cultural disjuncture leads to a political rejection of corporate liberals. A new political subject is waiting
to be called into existence. The depoliticization of life that accompanied the postwar liberal settlement is over. The
center cannot hold. Everyone is picking a side.
Neoliberalism promises more of the same, fascism promises "economic nationalism" and a return to a mythologized
past, a democratic socialist revival bids for a return to some form of social democracy. But once again, the discontinuities
of these ideologies with liberalism are not as strong as their continuities. Both the fascist ideology of Trump and Brexit,
and the social-democratic revivalism of Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn are post-liberal, in that they are symptomatic
of the breakdown of the liberal order. But they are also post-liberal, in that they fail to break with the fundamentals
of liberal capitalism: private ownership of the means of production, wage labor and markets as a means of distribution.
It is these fundamentals of capitalism which brought us to the crisis of neoliberalism, and any movement that is unwilling
to challenge these fundamentals will ultimately bring us more of the same.
In some cases, the post-liberal left wins or makes important gains in elections -- Syriza and Podemos serving as the
most prominent examples. But their victories tend to be short-lived. Without willingness to fundamentally break with neoliberal
capitalism, it is not long before voters realize that they have elected a non-solution, and turn once again to the right.
The failure of the left to offer an anti-systemic alternative is what brought the fascist right to power in the United
States and threatens to do the same in other places across the world. Now we need to figure out what exactly to expect,
and how to fight to win.
The Other Workers' Movement
True to form as fascists, the Trump regime has set to work recasting the boundaries between self and other in the United
States. It is a project of scapegoating, and of legitimizing the repression of labor and social movements. Unlike its 1930s
antecedents in Germany, Italy or Spain, Trump's cartoonish fascism has not had to ban the unions and set up new ones under
direct control of the state. There is no need for a new fascist system of labor control, because under neoliberalism the
United States already has one.
Since the 1980s, most workers' organizations have already been liquidated. Most workers are subjects of a capitalist
dictatorship in the workplace, and millions have long been excluded from even the most basic guarantees of liberalism:
to be paid for your labor, to not be summarily executed by police, to be accorded due process rights. There is a new intensity
and scale to these attacks, but the line of attack itself is not actually new.
The "official" workers' movement has largely failed to resist attacks old and new. Under Trump, the labor movement has
gladly divided and conquered itself, with the heads of building trade unions meeting with Trump and sycophantically glowing
over the "respect" he showed them, while he prepares orders to deport millions of immigrant workers and deprive millions
more citizens of their rights. Many unions simply seem to be hoping for the best, while failing to prepare for the worst.
Others refuse to publicly attack Trump in the hopes of cutting some sort of deal. But no matter how close some unions get
to the boss, they cannot escape the fact that their organizations are in the crosshairs more than ever. Trump's fascism
seeks to finish off the legal framework of labor relations under postwar liberalism, dealing the coup de grâce to an institutional
labor movement that has long been hemorrhaging members.
The resistance is therefore in the "other" workers' movement -- among those who never were included in the legal mechanisms
of the compact of postwar liberalism in the first place, such as immigrant workers, the unwaged labor of women, and students.
They are joined by a new "other" workers' movement: the rebel rank-and-file of the institutional unions, such as teachers
and public sector workers, and increasingly, self-organized groups of workers who have never belonged to a union. As the
state falls under the sway of fascist control, the weapons of this resistance are increasingly extralegal: from protests
to strikes, highway blockades and physical confrontations.
While increasingly bold in tactics, resistance to fascism is so far largely conservative, in the true sense of the word:
it seeks to conserve the liberal order. Until now, its battles have been mostly defensive, and if they are won, will merely
put liberals back in power. The real destruction of fascism can only be accomplished by a new workers' movement, unencumbered
by the sacred cows of the bureaucracies that grew up under corporate liberalism. It is in the "other" workers' movement
that a radicalism beyond liberal capitalism can be imagined, and it is with the forces that we build with our own hands
that it can be won.
How do we win this fight? The tasks are largely the same as before, but with a new sense of urgency, and in conditions
of heavier repression. As before, we must engage millions in the fight for a different future. No true revolution is possible
without mass participation. We must build a vast network of workplace and community-based organizing committees that make
a general strike possible. We must also be prepared to go beyond a general strike, to build dual power through worker and
community assemblies that will replace or transform the state with a true democracy. This is a struggle not just to restore
the old world-system, but to build a new one. This is the time to be revolutionaries, to fight to win the world we actually
want.
Calamity of epic proportions awaits millions in the working class. Deportations, intensified exploitation at work, the
destruction of our life-giving planet, vigilante attacks, refugee crisis, resurgent misogyny, transphobia and racism, and
the threat of inter-state war. It is already too late to prevent much of this. But it has always already been too late.
Untold tragedy is the legacy of liberalism, and of every return of fascism. That is why we fight for the future. That is
why we fight to win. This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form
without permission or license from the source. Erik Forman Erik Forman has been
active in the Industrial Workers of the World since 2005, working and organizing at Starbucks and Jimmy John's. He is currently
compiling a report on union strategies for organizing the food service and retail sectors as a Practitioner Fellow at the
Kalmanovitz Initiative for Labor and the Working Poor at Georgetown University. Related Stories
Fascist America: Have We Finally Turned The Corner? By Sara Robinson,
AlterNet | Op-Ed
Fascism
101: The Police and Media Control By William Rivers Pitt, Truthout
| Op-Ed
Hitler at Home: How the Nazi PR Machine Duped the World By Despina Stratigakos,
The Conversation | Op-Ed
Recommend RecommendedDiscussion Recommended!
Mussolini was for a time an avowed Marxist, socialist and atheist. He was never an original liberal. He did support
modern Keynesian liberalism, saying that "Fascism entirely agrees with Mr. Maynard Keynes." But Mussolini hated the liberalism
that spelled individualism. In his 1935 version of the "Doctrine of Fascism," he proclaimed: "Against individualism,
the Fascist conception is for the State; and it is for the individual in so far as he coincides with the State . . .
. It is opposed to classical Liberalism . . . . Liberalism denied the State in the interests of the particular individual;
Fascism reaffirms
the State as the true reality of the individual." Fascism, actually came out of Marxism. Zeev Sternhell says that Fascist
ideology... was a revision of Marxism." Fascism also came out of revolutionary syndicalism (unions).
Your analysis is spot on, BUT "we must engage millions in the fight for a different future" Are you serious? We can't
even get half the people off their butts to vote. If we could, this discussion would be moot.
With the advent of nearly complete automation of every production process, and increasing automation of services (think
Uber, with the coming Google cars), the employed pool of workers is steadily decreasing as a proportion of the able workforce.
We can choose to believe the lies that there will be at least 1 for 1 replacement of these jobs with new, higher-paying
technological jobs if we want to I guess. But I don't buy it.
Why would companies like to invest in machinery if it does not help to eliminate manual, human labor? After all, human
work is error prone and slow, and in many cases, certain advanced manufacturing processes can not even be performed manually.
Corporations invest in automation, recession or otherwise, so the old trope coming from the Right that workers demand
too much pay, etc., appears to be convenient but nonsense "reasoning."
So, with labor steadily disappearing from the workplaces of the world, exactly who does Mr. Forman (and others) expect
to sign up with their unions? The remaining workers, who earn more than their former counterparts consigned to laborious
and dangerous work for poor pay, are probably far more tantalized by technological challenges that make their work pleasant
and enjoyable.
It is difficult -- no, actually impossible -- for me to imagine legions of computer programmers and other high-tech
workers organizing and hankering for a labor union that would have only marginal advantage for them. And they know better
than most that they, too, can be displaced from their jobs by the next iteration of technological advances or better
wage prospects for their corporate overlords. So we can probably put this thesis to bed also, no?
There are still millions of workers at fast food restaurants who certainly need solid and reliable labor representation,
and the IWW is probably the single best union to do this (I'm a bit of a wob myself, ok?). That said, we are still only
looking at a sliver of the population, albeit an increasingly larger portion of the remaining employed workforce.
It occurs to me that what we really need is to organize the consumers to effect the sorts of changes we want.
Its first demand should probably be a guaranteed Basic Income (BI), which would put those last workers still languishing
in fast food and other poor-paying retail jobs in demand , rather than jobs being in demand. And we could stop
wasting resources and destroying the environment so that one more poor person can afford to eat today. (Think commuters
driving 30 miles to a minimum wage job and you will understand what I am driving at.)
This would be a complete paradigm shift, one like no other in human history. For the first time, workers and consumers
would be united in accomplishing their common purposes, namely a peaceful world that respects human nature and the environment.
Please consider BI as a basis for a more fair and equitable society. See
basicincome.org and
bein.org
for more information.
Thanks for the historical perspective. But there is another metric which is rarely, if ever, used to define the spectrum
of socioeconomic systems, one of power concentration.
democracy = power is determined by voters
capitalism = power concentrates in owners; owners game the system to determine who has the opportunity to own
slave capitalism = power of owner extends to owning workers/laborers
feudal capitalism = power concentrates in owners to extent they control many work/labor conditions including wages and
residency
communism = power concentrates in members of single state party committee
oligarchic capitalism = power concentrates in small number of owners
monopoly = power concentrates in one corporation and their owners
fascism = power concentrates in one political party
The point is that the concentration of economic power has parallels in the concentration of political power. The terms/names
used to describe each system often overlap in meaning and thus, can be confusing. It would be better to use a sliding
scale to represent power concentration; something along the lines of the Kinsey sexuality scale. On a scale of 0-10 (low
to high) how is political power distributed? How is economic power distributed? Based on Gillens and Page, political
power score is roughly 7.6 in favor of the economic elites <http:
www.vox.com
="" 2014="" 4="" 18="" 5624310="" martin-gilens-testing-theories-of-american-politics-explained="">. Based on stock ownership,
the economic power scale is about 6.6 - top 5% owns about 2/3 of stocks <https:
www.salon.com ="" 2013="" 09="" 19="" stock_ownership_who_benefits_partner=""/>. The latter is not the best metric
of economic power; actual score is likely significantly higher. This type of granular information is more useful in accurately
describing power relationships than misleading names/titles/terms.
Thank you for clearly defining YOUR definition of communism. As I replied to another poster here, the term "communism"
is often conflated with its original meaning, and only helps the arguments of the RW.
From the article: "There is no need for a new fascist system of labor control, because under neoliberalism the United
States already has one." This is another reason why liberalism whether bourgeois liberal idealism or liberal pragmatism
or neoliberalism is not sufficiently anti-fascist. Additionally, liberalism in all its forms will never be anti-capitalist
and pro-community socialist.
I wonder what percentage of the earth's inhabitants, who have the power to promote socialism in lieu of various "Third
Ways" or imperial anarcho-capitalism, have recognized the truth of the article's graphic "Capitalism Has Outlived Its
Usefulness"?
"You're not paranoid if you think the world feels more unstable -- it is. There's a dangerous confluence of political,
economic, and military phenomena that is producing a very hazardous international situation. At the center of each
maelstrom is the U.S. Government, and instead of acting as a promoter of peace and stability the Obama administration
has been a catalyst of confrontation and war. An especially combustible zone is the Ukraine, where the U.S. is engaged
in what is becoming a full-fledged proxy war with Russia. " The Obama administration's decisive role in the Ukrainian
conflict has received only a sliver of space from the U.S. media, even after an audio of Obama's Under Secretary of
State was leaked, exposing the U.S.' direct leadership role in a coup that overthrew Ukraine's democratically elected
government."
http://www.counterpunch.org...
Obama followed in the footsteps of every American regime since the end of WWII. Reagan visited an SS graveyard
and memorial and the Truman and Eisenhower regimes made extensive use of not-so-ex Nazis in their spy rings. Trump will
continue Obamas policies.
Fascist movements are growing in the NATO region of Western and Central Europe. Large ultraright and neo-Nazi Islamophobic
parties are a real threat in France, Germany, Austria, Hungary and Greece. Nowhere are they effectively challenged by
fake leftists in social democrat parties like the Sozialistische Partei Österreichs, the Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands,
the Partido Socialista Obrero Espańol, the Greek Coalition of the Radical Left (Syriza) or the Parti Socialiste because
they're pro-capitalist parties. Neither they or the old line capitalist parties like the Democrats or Republicans in
the US have anything real to offer in the fight against fascism.
There is no imminent danger of fascism coming to power in the US or the EU because although it's advanced, the death
agony of capitalism is not such that it would lead the bankster class to create an extremely violent and well armed mass
fascist street army to defeat unions and other mass movements of workers. The preconditions for fascism are the collapse
and failure of capitalist 'democratic' government, the collapse or total defeat of unions and the left and growth of
a mass fascist movement based on the middle, not the working class.
Excellent article. Although I have more questions than answers, Foreman goes a long way in supplying some of the history
and analysis necessary for a new dialogue and the urgency of the same. As part of the same endeavor, educational articles
about post-growth and de-growth economics would also be welcome, not only for what they may offer in the way of sustainability,
but also in the sense of replacing consumerism, materialism and 'meritocracy' with other -higher - values.
The penultimate paragraph begins by asking, "How do we win this fight?" It then offers some advice of a general nature,
which only hints at what's necessary. Let's first assume that the will for a prolonged general strike exists; how then
to subsist without wages until victory is won?
The author suggests "...a vast network of workplace and community-based organizing committees..." and lets it go at
that; I would add that those committees must take responsibility for ensuring that all are fed and sheltered, and that
those in the community who can't care for themselves are looked after. So: communal gardens providing the food for communal
meals, communal daycare for elders and communal schooling and recreation for kids, communal housing, and communal healthcare
and transportation as needed---in short, an explicitly and comprehensively anticapitalist modus vivendi.
"The flow of energy through a system tends to organize that system." --R. Buckminster Fuller
"Be the kind of change you wish to see in the world." --Mohandas K. Gandhi
We can do this---in fact, we must do this, as the only alternative is extinction.
Excellent article. Of course the situation here in the U.S. is complicated by the fact that this society, that
benefited in general though very unevenly from its status as Global Hegemon for a number of years, is now suffering again
very unevenly from the ongoing demise of that position in the Global Capitalist Hierarchy.
We do have a ruling class that is exceptionally violent and brutal, the majority of whose outrages were committed
overseas over the last 70 years. However, the police state and terror operations, first used against the Huk rebellion
in the post WW 2 Philippines and later honed and further developed in Vietnam, Indonesia, Angola, Congo, Chile, El Salvador,
Guatemala, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, among other places, will increasingly be inward directed as the crisis of American
Empire and the decay of Capitalism continues.
"... I don't care about Russians or Ukrainians, but this is a strange law without any value however "no part of the country can decide it's parting without the voting of the whole country". So if I command an independence movement and we gain freedom by armed fighting, under Ukranien law we will still not be free even if there is no chance for state to recover what he lost. So I need to wait until Ukrainian Parliament vote. Is like saying US is not free from UK despite beating the British, because UK Parliament never voted to give independence to US. ..."
"... According to Soviet laws any republic that is leaving USSR must hold referendum in its autonomous regions if they quit USSR or quit this republic. Not only Ukraine failed to hold it, when Crimeans started preparation Ukraine violently squashed them. That started illegal Ukrainian occupation of Crimea 1992-2014. ..."
"... If you research the US/UK techniques used during the 1953 Iranian coup, you'll see that the 2013-14 Ukrainian coup was very close to being an exact duplicate. ..."
Willem Post:: "Crimea already was an independent state within Ukraine"
haha! One more moron arrived! What a crap!
Crimea wasn't independent, it was an autonomy within Ukraine. Crimea's annexation was prepared by Putin since 2004, i.e. 10 years earlier before it happened in real! And this is told to the world not by
Ukrainians, but the Putin's former adviser Andrey Illarionov.
The day the coup took over Kiev and abolished the Ukrainian Constitution, Crimea became
independent. And voted for independence. Crimea wanting to be part of Russia since 1991.
Crimea was giving to Ukraine under the USSR illegally, there is no VOTE under the DUMA that
voted Crimea to be part of Ukraine. The fall of the USSR, Crimea people wanted to be Russian.
And they voted this in 1991 and again in 1994. V. Putin wasnt in office until 1999. Crimea
today is far better under Russia, because nearly 25 years under Ukraine it was neglected.
Crimea is Russia...move. Ukraine ought to stop bombing Donbass or they'll be independent from
Ukraine as well.
I don't care about Russians or Ukrainians, but this is a strange law without any value
however "no part of the country can decide it's parting without the voting of the whole
country". So if I command an independence movement and we gain freedom by armed fighting,
under Ukranien law we will still not be free even if there is no chance for state to recover
what he lost. So I need to wait until Ukrainian Parliament vote. Is like saying US is not free
from UK despite beating the British, because UK Parliament never voted to give independence
to US.
"no part of the country can decide it's parting without the voting of the whole
country"
When Yugoslavia was dismantled under US encouragement and with little consequence, if any,
to the civil wars that would follow, such laws as the above ceased to exist.
It did the same in Ukraine. A coup d'etat using banderite thugs for the final coup de
grace. Did Nuland or McCain or anyone else in Washington care if it led to a bloody aftermath
that frankly, any schoolboy could have predicted? They cared about their agenda, period and
d@mn the consequences.
According to Soviet laws any republic that is leaving USSR must hold referendum in its
autonomous regions if they quit USSR or quit this republic. Not only Ukraine failed to hold
it, when Crimeans started preparation Ukraine violently squashed them. That started illegal
Ukrainian occupation of Crimea 1992-2014.
The Khasavyurt Accord granted vast amount of independence to Chechen Republic back in
1996. But infact Chenchnya broke apart into regions held by local clan warlords, who were
making money on contraband, crudely refining petroleum into gasoline, kidnapping people for
ransom from neighboring Russian regions. The republic has also become a hotbed of religious
extremism that culmitated in Shamil Basaev's invasion into Dagestan region.
Do some research before mentioning things, because these two cases are hardly
compatible.
Yep, the Saudis enthusiastically sought to turn Chechnya into what they've managed to turn
Syria into today, with more than a little help from its 'friends'.
Tell me what happened to the Ukrainian referendum that decided to oust the old president
by force instead of waiting a few months to vote him out or at the least, impeach him
constitutionally. Hmmm? Cat got your tongue now? Thought so.
Chechen had a referendum, and it was successful. Not only Chechnya has more autonomy
power, but they have a elected office to represent Chechnya in Moscow. Today, Chechnya has
been peaceful with Gronzy growing. Not to mention, many Chechen soldiers are fighting side by
side with the Russian government in Syria.
I've always wondered why the US seems always to rush to uphold the edicts of previous
Soviet rulers as sacrosanct. Stalin with S. Ossetia and Krushchev with Crimea.
I've also always wondered why all of the nations of Eastern Europe, sans Poland, that the
US seems to favor are those who were enthusiastic collaborators and co-combatants with
Hitler's troops in WWII. Croatia, Bosnia, Albania, the Baltic States and now Ukraine.
The Arioch: "According to Soviet laws..."
What a crap!
Ukraine as well as Russia and Belarus founded the USSR!
And all the three listed above discontinued it.
As for soviet laws...Just well known thing: Hitler came to power absolutely legally and
what he ended up with?
Once more: USSR was founded under machine guns (the same with Crimea so-called
referendum)
"USSR was founded under machine guns (the same with Crimea so-called referendum)"
This is refreshing. The USSR was indeed founded by un-godly terrorists ..... I mean what
country can claim legitimacy unless founded peacefully on rule of law.
Now that this is clear I expect the USA to return the thirteen colonies to Britain as at
the earliest possible convenience and we can begin discussion reparations.
They could be among ones who founded it. But they were not only members of it. There was
legal and illegal way to exit USSR. Ukraine, Russia and Belarus chosen illegal way. For Kiev
it was a tool to press illegal occupation over Sevastopole and Crimea. Which lasted more long
that it was needed, but ended in 2014.
And you are correct about Hitler. When finally breaking out of that Lenin built jail of
nations called Ukraine, Crimeans were to give Poroshenko's laws about as much respect as
Hitler's laws were worth.
The Arioch: "Lenin built jail of nations called Ukraine" What a crap again! Lenin built jail of nations called USSR, that's right! "Crimeans were to give Poroshenko's laws about as much respect as Hitler's laws were
worth."
You're just a moron!
Poroshenko became an Ukrainian president after Russia annexed Crimea
By stating this you're implying Soviets usurped the power. This is not true. To begin
with, Soviets, or Councils were trade unions and they formed themselves as an alternative to
czarist ruling institutions during WW1 and February and October Revolutions. They were
grassroots all right. Both Soviets and Bolsheviks enjoyed high appeal among regular people
because they offered solutions to very tough questions regarding land ownership (taking it
from aristocrats) and large business (taking it from oligarchs into collective
ownership).
Eventually the Red Army managed to defeat 17 armies during the Civil War. That wouldn't
have been possible without wide support among the people. Sure there was the Red Terror
unleashed after several assasination attempts on Soviet leadership. But frankly, as tragic as
it is, tough times demand tough measures.
So, if you don't recognize Soviet laws, then you don't recognize Soviet edicts and you
cannot legitimately recognize Krushchev's edict handing Crimea to Ukraine's jurisdiction,
which btw..his son has explained that it was just a simple transfer to Ukraine of full
management of construction of the water canal to Crimea. A water canal which, along with
electricity, has now been dammed by Ukraine, so apparently, the job is finished.
ATO,
Russia and Ukraine have an agreement that allows Russia to have 22,000 armed services members
in Crimea. The Russia presence before the annexing was LEGAL by treaty.
Under Ukrainian law Viktor Yanukovych was never legally removed from office. His removal
and replacement was a violation of the Ukrainian Constitution.
If you research the US/UK techniques used during the 1953 Iranian coup, you'll see that
the 2013-14 Ukrainian coup was very close to being an exact duplicate.
Indeed, Prime Minister Winston Churchill, who had led his nation into an impressive military
victory in World War II, confident that the defeat of Nazi Germany would help save the British
Empire, failed to recognize that the enormous military and economic costs of the war had
actually created the conditions for the liquidation of the empire, starting with the withdrawal
from Palestine and the "loss" of India after the war.
First of all there is still a long way for this demolition. Empires are slowly built and
slowly dissipate. Sometime the process takes several centuries. The US still maintain the
technological edge over the rest of the worlds and has a tremendous cultural influence with
Hollywood dominating world cinema. And there is alternative to neoliberalism yet. Although the end
of cheap oil might speed up the process to finding alternative.
But the key problem is that the triumph of the US empire was simultaneously the triumph of
neoliberalism (which is adopted as the official US ideology in late 70th under Carter , not
unlike communist ideology in the USSR) and it occurred in 1991 during the collapse of the USSR.
So the destiny of the US empire now is irrevokably linked to the destiny of neoliberalism.
the US elite was able to mobilize intellectual and financial resources and build an ideological
alternative to communist ideology which along with unrealistic promises of paradise on Earth send
communist ideology to the dustbin of history. But this victory has tremendous cost as
neoliberalism proved to be destructive to the US society . The author does not understand this
close linkage. With the collapse of neoliberal ideology in 2008 the USA found itself in the role
of the USSR. Analogy extents to incompetent geriocratic leadership (with the exception of "dark
horse" Obama, who seems to be more of a puppet of deep state that a real independent politician).
When Gods want to punish somebody them deprive them of intellect.
Trump can be viewed as an attempt of a part of the US elite to organize "orderly withdrawal;"
and salvage some remnants of the US neoliberal empire, at the cost of rejecting neoliberal
globalization. In a way Trump can be viewed as an attempt of a part of the US elite to
extract the USA from the role of enforcer of neoliberalism around the world, the role three
previous presidents cherished.
But neocons proved to be way too strong and successfully resist any changes in the US foreign
policy. As the result Trump administration was paralyzed by
elements of Deep State which do not agree with this vision. Essentially a color revolution was
launched by deep state after his election and secured the appointment of the Special Prosecutor
(the person who was instrumental in 9/11 cover-up).
Yet just 60 years ago, a crisis in the ever-volatile Middle East overseen by a bumbling,
mistake-prone British leader helped create a great power debacle that offers insight into the
Trumpian moment, a glimpse into possible futures, and a sense of the kind of decline that
could lie in the imperial future of the United States.
In the early 1950s, Britain's international position had many parallels with America's
today. After a difficult postwar recovery from the devastation of World War II, that country
was enjoying robust employment, lucrative international investments, and the prestige of the
pound sterling's stature as the world's reserve currency. Thanks to a careful withdrawal from
its far-flung, global empire and its close alliance with Washington, London still enjoyed a
sense of international influence exceptional for a small island nation of just 50 million
people. On balance, Britain seemed poised for many more years of world leadership with all
the accompanying economic rewards and perks.
Then came the Suez crisis. After a decade of giving up one colony after another, the
accumulated stress of imperial retreat pushed British conservatives into a disastrous
military intervention to reclaim Egypt's Suez Canal. This, in turn,
caused a "deep moral crisis in London" and what one British diplomat
would term the "dying convulsion of British imperialism." In a clear instance of what
historians call
"micro-militarism" -- that is, a bold military strike designed to recover fading imperial
influence -- Britain joined France and Israel in a misbegotten military invasion of Egypt that
transformed slow imperial retreat into a precipitous collapse.
Just as the Panama Canal had once been a shining example for Americans of their nation's
global prowess, so British conservatives treasured the Suez Canal as a vital lifeline that
tied their small island to its sprawling empire in Asia and Africa. A few years after the
canal's grand opening in 1869, London did the deal of the century, scooping up Egypt's shares in
it for a bargain basement price of £4 million. Then, in 1882, Britain consolidated its
control over the canal through a military occupation of Egypt, reducing that ancient land to
little more than an informal colony.
As late as 1950, in fact, Britain still maintained 80,000 soldiers and a string of
military bases astride the canal. The bulk of its oil and gasoline, produced at the enormous
Abadan refinery in the Persian Gulf, transited through Suez, fueling its navy, its domestic
transportation system, and much of its industry.
After British troops completed a negotiated withdrawal from Suez in 1955, the charismatic
nationalist leader Gamal Abdel Nasser asserted Egypt's neutrality in the Cold War by
purchasing Soviet bloc arms, raising eyebrows in Washington. In July 1956, after the
administration of President Dwight Eisenhower had in response reneged on its promise to
finance construction of the Aswan High Dam on the Upper Nile, Nasser sought alternative
financing for this critical infrastructure by nationalizing the Suez Canal. In doing so, he
electrified
the Arab world and elevated himself to the
top rank of world leaders.
Although British ships still passed freely through the canal and Washington insisted on a
diplomatic resolution of the conflict, Britain's conservative leadership reacted with
irrational outrage.
Behind a smokescreen of
sham diplomacy designed to deceive Washington, their closest ally, the British foreign
secretary met
secretly with the prime ministers of France and Israel near Paris to work out an
elaborately deceptive two-stage invasion of Egypt by 250,000 allied troops, backed by 500
aircraft and 130 warships. Its aim, of course, was to secure the canal.
On October 29, 1956, the Israeli army led by the dashing General Moshe Dayan swept across
the Sinai Peninsula, destroying Egyptian tanks and bringing his troops to within 10 miles of
the canal. Using this fighting as a pretext for an intervention to restore peace,
Anglo-French amphibious and airborne forces quickly joined the attack, backed by a
devastating bombardment from six aircraft carriers that destroyed the Egyptian air force
including
over a hundred of its new MiG jet fighters. As Egypt's military collapsed with some 3,000
of its troops killed and 30,000 captured, Nasser deployed a defense brilliant in its
simplicity by scuttling dozens of rusting cargo ships filled with rocks and concrete at the
entrance to the Suez Canal. In this way, he closed Europe's oil lifeline to the Persian
Gulf.
Simultaneously, U.N. Secretary General Dag Hammarskjöld, backed by Washington,
imposed a cease-fire after just nine days of war, stopping the Anglo-French attack far short
of capturing the entire canal. President Eisenhower's blunt refusal to back his allies with
either oil or money and the threat of condemnation before the U.N. soon forced Britain into a
humiliating withdrawal. With its finances collapsing from the invasion's soaring costs, the
British government could not maintain the pound's official exchange rate, degrading its
stature as a global reserve currency.
The author of this extraordinary debacle was Sir Anthony Eden, a problematic prime
minister whose career offers some striking parallels with Donald Trump's. Born into privilege
as the son of a landholder, Eden enjoyed a good education at a private school and an elite
university. After inheriting a substantial fortune from his father, he entered politics as a
conservative, using his political connections to dabble in finance. Chafing under Winston
Churchill's postwar leadership of the Conservative Party, Eden, who styled himself a rebel
against hidebound institutions, used
incessant infighting and his handsome
head of hair to push the great man aside and become prime minister in 1955.
When Nasser nationalized the canal, Eden erupted with egotism, bluster, and outrage.
"What's all this nonsense about isolating Nasser," Eden
berated his foreign affairs minister. "I want him destroyed, can't you understand? I want
him murdered, and if you and the Foreign Office don't agree, then you'd better come to the
cabinet and explain why." Convinced that Britain was still the globe's great power, Eden
rejected sound advice that he consult fully with Washington, the country's closest ally. As
his bold intervention plunged toward diplomatic disaster, the prime minister became focused
on manipulating the British media, in the process confusing favorable domestic coverage with
international support.
When Washington demanded a ceasefire
as the price of a billion-dollar bailout for a British economy unable to sustain such a
costly war, Eden's bluster quickly crumbled and he denied his troops a certain victory,
arousing a storm of protest in Parliament. Humiliated by the forced withdrawal, Eden
compensated psychologically by ordering MI-6 , Britain's equivalent of the
CIA, to launch its second ill-fated assassination attempt on Nasser. Since its chief local
agent was actually a double-agent
loyal to Nasser, Egyptian security had, however, already rounded up the British operatives
and the weapons delivered for the contract killers proved duds .
Confronted with a barrage of angry questions in Parliament about his collusion with the
Israelis, Eden lied repeatedly , swearing
that there was no "foreknowledge that Israel would attack Egypt." Protesters denounced him as "too stupid
to be a prime minister," opposition members of parliament laughed openly when he appeared before
Parliament, and his own foreign affairs minister damned him as "an enraged elephant charging
senselessly at imaginary enemies."
Just weeks after the last British soldier left Egypt, Eden, discredited and disgraced, was
forced to resign after only 21 months
in office. Led into this unimaginably misbegotten operation by his delusions of omnipotence,
he left the once-mighty British lion a toothless circus animal that would henceforth roll
over whenever Washington cracked the whip.
... ... ...
During the 1950s, Republican President Dwight Eisenhower deployed this national security
apparatus to secure Washington's global dominion with a nuclear triad (bombers, ballistic
missiles, and submarines), a chain of
military bases that ringed Eurasia, and a staggering number of
highly militarized covert operations to assure the ascent of loyal allies worldwide. Above
all, he oversaw the integration of the latest in scientific and technological research into
the Pentagon's weapons procurement system through the forging of the famed
"military-industrial complex" (against which he would end up warning Americans as he left
office in 1961). All this, in turn, fostered an aura of American power so formidable that
Washington could re-order significant parts of the world almost at will, enforcing peace,
setting the international agenda, and toppling
governments on four continents.
While it's reasonable to argue that Washington had by then become history's greatest
global power, its hegemony, like that of all the world empires that preceded it, remained
surprisingly fragile. Skilled leadership was required to maintain the system's balance of
diplomacy, military power, economic strength, and technological innovation.
By the time President Trump took his oath of office, negative, long-term trends had
already started to limit the influence of any American leader on the world stage. These
included a declining share of the global economy, an erosion of U.S. technological primacy,
an inability
to apply its overwhelming military power in a way that achieved expected policy goals on an
ever more recalcitrant planet, and a generation of increasingly independent national leaders,
whether in Europe, Asia, or Latin America.
Apart from such adverse trends, Washington's global power rested on such strategic
fundamentals that its leaders might still have managed carefully enough to maintain a
reasonable semblance of American hegemony: notably, the NATO alliance and Asian
mutual-security treaties at the strategic antipodes of Eurasia, trade treaties that
reinforced such alliances, scientific research to sustain its military's technological edge,
and leadership on international issues like climate change.
In just five short months, however, the Trump White House has done a remarkable job of
demolishing these very pillars of U.S. global power. During his first overseas trip in May
2017, President Trump chastised
stone-faced NATO leaders for failure to pay their "fair share" into the military part of the
alliance and refused to affirm its core principle of collective defense. Ignoring the pleas
of these close allies, he then
forfeited America's historic diplomatic leadership by announcing Washington's withdrawal
from the Paris Climate Accord with all the drama of a reality television show. After watching
his striking repudiation of Washington's role as world leader, German Chancellor Angela
Merkel
told voters in her country that "we must fight for our future on our own, for our destiny
as Europeans."
Along the strategic Pacific littoral, Trump cancelled the
Trans-Pacific Partnership trade pact on taking office and gratuitously alienated allies by
cutting short a courtesy
phone call to Australia's prime minister and insulting South Korea to the point where its
new president won office, in part, on a
platform of "say no" to America. When President Moon Jae-in visited Washington in June,
determined to heal the breach between the two countries, he was, as the New York
Times reported, blindsided
by "the harshness of Mr. Trump's critique of South Korea on trade."
Just days after Trump dismissed Moon's suggestion that the two countries engage in actual
diplomatic negotiations with Pyongyang, North Korea successfully
test-fired a ballistic missile potentially capable of reaching Alaska or possibly Hawaii
with a nuclear warhead (though experts believe Pyongyang may still be years away from
effectively fitting such a warhead to the missile). It was an act that made those same
negotiations Washington's only
viable option -- apart from a second Korean War, which would potentially
devastate both the region and the US position as the preeminent international leader.
In other words, after 70 years of global dominion, America's geopolitical command of the
axial ends of Eurasia -- the central pillars of its world power seems to be crumbling in a
matter of months.
Instead of the diplomacy of presidents past, Trump and his advisers, especially his
military men, have reacted to his first modest foreign crises as well as the everyday power
questions of empire with outbursts akin to Anthony Eden's. Since January, the White House has
erupted in sudden displays of raw military power that included a
drone blitz of unprecedented intensity in Yemen to destroy what the president
called a "network of lawless savages," the
bombardment of a Syrian air base with 59 Tomahawk missiles, and the
detonation of the world's largest non-nuclear bomb on a terrorist refuge in eastern
Afghanistan.
While reveling in the use of such weaponry, Trump, by slashing federal funding for
critical scientific research, is already demolishing the foundations for the
military-industrial complex that Eisenhower's successors, Republican and Democratic alike, so
sedulously maintained for the last half-century. While China is ramping up its scientific
research across the board, Trump has proposed
what the American Association for Advancement of Science called "deep cuts to numerous
research agencies" that will mean the eventual loss of the country's technological edge. In
the emerging field of artificial intelligence that will soon drive space warfare and
cyber-warfare, the White House wants to reduce
the 2018 budget for this critical research at the National Science Foundation to a paltry
$175 million, even as Beijing is launching "a new multi-billion-dollar initiative" linked to
building "military robots."
.... ... ...
A Future Debacle in the Greater Middle East
With a president who shares Sir Anthony Eden's penchant for bravura, self-delusion, and
impulsiveness, the U.S. seems primed for a twenty-first-century Suez of its own, a debacle in
the Greater Middle East (or possibly elsewhere). From the disastrous expedition that ancient
Athens sent to Sicily in 413 BCE to Britain's invasion of Suez in 1956, embattled empires
throughout the ages have often suffered an arrogance that drives them to plunge ever deeper
into military misadventures until defeat becomes debacle, a misuse of armed force known
technically among historians as micro-militarism. With the hubris that has marked empires
over the millennia, the Trump administration is, for instance, now committed to extending indefinitely
Washington's failing war of pacification in Afghanistan with a new mini-surge of U.S. troops
(and air power) in that classic "
graveyard of empires. "
So irrational, so unpredictable is such micro-militarism that even the most fanciful of
scenarios can be outpaced by actual events, as was true at Suez. With the U.S. military
stretched thin from North Africa to South Korea, with no lasting successes in its post-9/11
wars, and with
tensions rising from the Persian Gulf and Syria to the South China Sea and the Koreas,
the possibilities for a disastrous military crisis abroad seem almost unending.
This lunatic's rant becomes literally impossible to read after less than 5
paragraphs.
It is astounding that liberals are now pushing for corporate-state anti-worker trade
agreements, this time in the name of American "leadership."
Leadership to what?
This idiot claims that the world is "reeling" from some decision that Trump made.
Really. Reeling.
When I read that word, I only lasted 4 or so words more.
Then I realized that the article was nothing more than a propagandist's screed, a
neo-liberal who cares nothing for the non-elite. A warmonger who dresses in liberal
clothing.
In my opinion Trump signals a return to Eisenhower's concern with the cost to US
taxpayers of a global military that defends other countries, who consequently get a lunch
someone else pays for. Those who voted for Trump want others to shoulder their own
burden. [MORE]
The consequences of a U.S. military withdrawal from Europe and Asia would be dramatic.
The United States would lose most of its military bases, American firms would find it
much harder to gain market access, the American defense industry would lose billions of
dollars, and European allies would stop supporting the United States militarily in
faraway conflicts. The United States would be reduced to a regional power with little say
in the management of Asian and European affairs. This is why it will not happen. This
outcome is not only at odds with America's economic interests, it is also completely at
odds with the widespread belief in American exceptionalism and greatness that Trump and
his supporters also embrace.
But if the costs of abandoning allies are prohibitive, why is Trump threatening to do
so? Schelling's classic work on game theory suggests an answer: it shows that you can
obtain greater concessions in negotiations by appearing mad or unpredictable. In this
perspective, Trump's statements and seemingly erratic behavior make a lot of sense as a
negotiation tactic aimed at pressuring U.S. allies to increase their defense spending.
His perceived unpredictability is adding credibility to the threat that he might actually
withdraw U.S. forces even if it is not in the United States best interest to do so. There
is genuine concern among U.S. allies about what Trump might do if they do not take
immediate steps to increase their defense spending. The South Korean government reacted
to Trump's election by vowing to increase defense spending significantly if he insists on
it. Likewise, the Danish Prime Minister promised to increase defense spending after his
first phone conversation with Trump. In Germany Trump's election triggered a hitherto
unthinkable public debate on whether Germany should develop nuclear weapons.
President Trump's unpredictability will also put America's opponents on the defensive.
President Obama's reluctance to threaten and use force likely emboldened China and Russia
to take greater military risks in Eastern Ukraine, Syria, and in the East and South China
Seas. While Beijing and Moscow could be fairly confident that Obama would not take
military counter-measures, they have no way of calculating what President Trump might do.
It is easy to imagine him giving the order to down a Chinese or Russian plane to
demonstrate that "America is great again."
Paradoxically, Trump's tweets and theatrics are good news for world peace. They create
unpredictability and anxiety that the United States can use to obtain greater concessions
from friends and foes. The likely result is strengthened U.S. alliances and U.S.
opponents that will favor negotiation over provocation in their efforts to settle
differences with the United States and its allies.
The author gives no consideration whatsoever to the option of withdrawing from "world
leadership" before such fanciful catastrophic scenarios unfold. Nor does the author
acknowledge that, should the OPEC nations impose an oil embargo, the US response could just
as easily be to ramp up its own extraction and production of amply available, in-ground
reserves.
Might we not simply reduce our sprawling, global military footprint, using our Defense
Department for, uh, defense instead of global imperial adventurism, expel illegal
immigrants, bar the entry of so-called refugees, eliminate corporate tax to woo industry
back to our shores, eliminate the Federal Reserve, and implement any number of reforms
consistent with the Constitution, in order to abandon the Empire from a position of
strength before we are seen as retreating with our tails between our legs?
Since when is going out on top not seen as a wise course of action?
@Sean
Please explain why American military presence is necessary for American firms to
obtain/maintain market access. Isn't this neo-mercantilism nothing more than another brand
of economic fascism?
Is the bottom line of the American defense really a reason for the United States to
aggressively intervene around the world? Isn't that something of the tail wagging the
dog?
What's wrong with the US as a regional power? Why do we need a say in Asian and European
affairs?
Why, other than our Founding principles is the United States exceptional? Does it make
sense to abandon said principles in the defense of this exceptionalism?
Do you really believe that Trump is acting independently and has not come under the sway
of those who benefit from our reckless imperial behavior?
Why does the US government need to extract concessions from other nations? Why is it not
enough to simply defend our country from attack, provide for the rule of law and stand
aside to allow our commerce and industry to flourish?
@restless94110
This lunatic's rant becomes literally impossible to read after less than 5 paragraphs.
It is astounding that liberals are now pushing for corporate-state anti-worker trade
agreements, this time in the name of American "leadership."
Leadership to what?
This idiot claims that the world is "reeling" from some decision that Trump made.
Really. Reeling.
When I read that word, I only lasted 4 or so words more.
Then I realized that the article was nothing more than a propagandist's screed, a
neo-liberal who cares nothing for the non-elite. A warmonger who dresses in liberal
clothing.
A waste of time. I agree with most of your take.
Still, McCoy's "The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade" is an
excellent history of the genesis of the heroin trade in SE Asia and the CIA takeover of
same. It also covers important aspects of the shift of heroin production to
Afghanistan.
Having read that book, the views he expressed in this article shocked me.
Still, McCoy's "The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade" is an
excellent history of the genesis of the heroin trade in SE Asia and the CIA takeover of
same. It also covers important aspects of the shift of heroin production to
Afghanistan.
Having read that book, the views he expressed in this article shocked me. Well, as I
said, I could not read past the 5th paragraph.
So, I just tried to scan the article again, without getting infected by it's poison, and
I didn't see anything that would relate to what you are saying.
I don't need to read McCoy's book: it's been amply documented that the CIA has
complicity in it and in it in Afghanistan.
So, I don't know what views he expressed that shocked you in light of your reading about
CIA complicity in the heroin trade.
By the way, this is a prime reason–another one–for legalizing all drugs
immediately in the United States. Heroin was legal until 1914 I believe, but tacitly legal
for at least 10 years more after that, maybe longer.
The way to mitigate damage and take away illegally gotten gains by the CIA and other
criminals is to legalize it.
@restless94110
This lunatic's rant becomes literally impossible to read after less than 5 paragraphs.
It is astounding that liberals are now pushing for corporate-state anti-worker trade
agreements, this time in the name of American "leadership."
Leadership to what?
This idiot claims that the world is "reeling" from some decision that Trump made.
Really. Reeling.
When I read that word, I only lasted 4 or so words more.
Then I realized that the article was nothing more than a propagandist's screed, a
neo-liberal who cares nothing for the non-elite. A warmonger who dresses in liberal
clothing.
A waste of time. {This lunatic's rant becomes literally impossible to read after less
than 5 paragraphs. }
Haha! You should listen to Poo teen (aka Putin) speach when he rcognized that "green
humans" in Crimea were Russian armed forces soldiers. And that so-called voting was a farce
under the Russians machine guns.
And don't forget: according to Ukrainian laws
no part of the country can decide its parting without a vouting of the whole country
The Parliament, egged on by the US and EU, declared the Kosovo area independent. And much
later that was ratified by popular vote to "make it look legal".
Kosovo's population were ethnic Albanians, who are Muslim. The EU foolishly applauded
creating a Muslim State in the Middle of East Europe.
The Kosovo area had been part of Serbia for over 1000 years. Serbia did not agree to its
dismemberment, but was bombed into submission with B-52s by NATO under Bill Clinton.
Crimea already was an independent state within Ukraine with its own parliament. The
popular vote to be annexed by Russia took place in peace because Russia had adequate Green
men to keep the peace and keep Ukraine armed forces on their bases, so they could not
interfere.
Russia can have 22,000 armed services troops in Crimea, per Russia-Ukraine agreement.
Russia never exceeded that number, as it was not necessary, i.e., there was no military
invasion and voters were not herded to the polls to vote by guns.
Oligarch mercenaries would have entered Crimea, and it would have been just as bad as
Donetsk, etc., with thousands killed.
"... Wallace also claimed that fascists "always and everywhere can be identified by their appeal to prejudice and by the desire to play upon the fears and vanities of different groups in order to gain power." ..."
"... Fascists are "easily recognized by their deliberate perversion ..."
"... Wallace identified that fascists' primary objective was to "capture political power so that, using the power of the state and the power of the market simultaneously, they keep the common man in eternal subjection." ..."
"... British historian Karl Polanyi has written in his seminal book, The Great Transformation, that fascism can emerge in a society in reaction to "unsolved national issues." Party polarization and gridlock in the US have created unsolved issues concerning health care, immigration reform and the "war on terror." These volatile issues, in turn, have created the perfect political context for a demagogue to emerge in the United States. ..."
By Thomas J. Scott, Truthout | Op-Ed Henry A. Wallace's 1944 essay, "The Danger of American
Fascism," offers relevant insights into the rise of autocracy in the US and how Trump
perpetuates one of fascism's greatest mechanisms for acquiring absolute power: the force of
emotion over the force of reason based on truth. Citizens need to become aware that democracy
can disappear and mobilize to stop such a disastrous turn of events.
In response, Wallace wrote
"The Danger of American Fascism,"
an essay in
which he suggested that the number of American fascists and the threat they posed were directly
connected to how fascism was defined. Wallace pointed out that several personality traits
characterized fascist belief, arguing that a fascist is "one whose lust for money and power is
combined with such an intensity of intolerance toward those of other races, parties, classes,
religions, cultures, regions or nations as to make him ruthless in his use of deceit or
violence to attain his ends."
Wallace also claimed that fascists "always and everywhere can be identified by their
appeal to prejudice and by the desire to play upon the fears and vanities of different groups
in order to gain power."
Fascists are "easily recognized by their
deliberate perversion
of truth and
fact" (my italics), he contended.
Moreover, Wallace noted that fascists "pay lip service to democracy and the common welfare"
and they "surreptitiously evade the laws designed to safeguard the public from monopolistic
extortion." Finally,
Wallace identified that fascists' primary objective was to "capture
political power so that, using the power of the state and the power of the market
simultaneously, they keep the common man in eternal subjection."
... ... ...
British historian Karl Polanyi has written in his seminal book, The Great
Transformation, that fascism can emerge in a society in reaction to "unsolved national issues."
Party polarization and gridlock in the US have created unsolved issues concerning health care,
immigration reform and the "war on terror." These volatile issues, in turn, have created the
perfect political context for a demagogue to emerge in the United States.
"... I don't care about Russians or Ukrainians, but this is a strange law without any value however "no part of the country can decide it's parting without the voting of the whole country". So if I command an independence movement and we gain freedom by armed fighting, under Ukranien law we will still not be free even if there is no chance for state to recover what he lost. So I need to wait until Ukrainian Parliament vote. Is like saying US is not free from UK despite beating the British, because UK Parliament never voted to give independence to US. ..."
"... According to Soviet laws any republic that is leaving USSR must hold referendum in its autonomous regions if they quit USSR or quit this republic. Not only Ukraine failed to hold it, when Crimeans started preparation Ukraine violently squashed them. That started illegal Ukrainian occupation of Crimea 1992-2014. ..."
"... If you research the US/UK techniques used during the 1953 Iranian coup, you'll see that the 2013-14 Ukrainian coup was very close to being an exact duplicate. ..."
Willem Post:: "Crimea already was an independent state within Ukraine"
haha! One more moron arrived! What a crap!
Crimea wasn't independent, it was an autonomy within Ukraine. Crimea's annexation was prepared by Putin since 2004, i.e. 10 years earlier before it happened in real! And this is told to the world not by
Ukrainians, but the Putin's former adviser Andrey Illarionov.
The day the coup took over Kiev and abolished the Ukrainian Constitution, Crimea became
independent. And voted for independence. Crimea wanting to be part of Russia since 1991.
Crimea was giving to Ukraine under the USSR illegally, there is no VOTE under the DUMA that
voted Crimea to be part of Ukraine. The fall of the USSR, Crimea people wanted to be Russian.
And they voted this in 1991 and again in 1994. V. Putin wasnt in office until 1999. Crimea
today is far better under Russia, because nearly 25 years under Ukraine it was neglected.
Crimea is Russia...move. Ukraine ought to stop bombing Donbass or they'll be independent from
Ukraine as well.
I don't care about Russians or Ukrainians, but this is a strange law without any value
however "no part of the country can decide it's parting without the voting of the whole
country". So if I command an independence movement and we gain freedom by armed fighting,
under Ukranien law we will still not be free even if there is no chance for state to recover
what he lost. So I need to wait until Ukrainian Parliament vote. Is like saying US is not free
from UK despite beating the British, because UK Parliament never voted to give independence
to US.
"no part of the country can decide it's parting without the voting of the whole
country"
When Yugoslavia was dismantled under US encouragement and with little consequence, if any,
to the civil wars that would follow, such laws as the above ceased to exist.
It did the same in Ukraine. A coup d'etat using banderite thugs for the final coup de
grace. Did Nuland or McCain or anyone else in Washington care if it led to a bloody aftermath
that frankly, any schoolboy could have predicted? They cared about their agenda, period and
d@mn the consequences.
According to Soviet laws any republic that is leaving USSR must hold referendum in its
autonomous regions if they quit USSR or quit this republic. Not only Ukraine failed to hold
it, when Crimeans started preparation Ukraine violently squashed them. That started illegal
Ukrainian occupation of Crimea 1992-2014.
The Khasavyurt Accord granted vast amount of independence to Chechen Republic back in
1996. But infact Chenchnya broke apart into regions held by local clan warlords, who were
making money on contraband, crudely refining petroleum into gasoline, kidnapping people for
ransom from neighboring Russian regions. The republic has also become a hotbed of religious
extremism that culmitated in Shamil Basaev's invasion into Dagestan region.
Do some research before mentioning things, because these two cases are hardly
compatible.
Yep, the Saudis enthusiastically sought to turn Chechnya into what they've managed to turn
Syria into today, with more than a little help from its 'friends'.
Tell me what happened to the Ukrainian referendum that decided to oust the old president
by force instead of waiting a few months to vote him out or at the least, impeach him
constitutionally. Hmmm? Cat got your tongue now? Thought so.
Chechen had a referendum, and it was successful. Not only Chechnya has more autonomy
power, but they have a elected office to represent Chechnya in Moscow. Today, Chechnya has
been peaceful with Gronzy growing. Not to mention, many Chechen soldiers are fighting side by
side with the Russian government in Syria.
I've always wondered why the US seems always to rush to uphold the edicts of previous
Soviet rulers as sacrosanct. Stalin with S. Ossetia and Krushchev with Crimea.
I've also always wondered why all of the nations of Eastern Europe, sans Poland, that the
US seems to favor are those who were enthusiastic collaborators and co-combatants with
Hitler's troops in WWII. Croatia, Bosnia, Albania, the Baltic States and now Ukraine.
The Arioch: "According to Soviet laws..."
What a crap!
Ukraine as well as Russia and Belarus founded the USSR!
And all the three listed above discontinued it.
As for soviet laws...Just well known thing: Hitler came to power absolutely legally and
what he ended up with?
Once more: USSR was founded under machine guns (the same with Crimea so-called
referendum)
"USSR was founded under machine guns (the same with Crimea so-called referendum)"
This is refreshing. The USSR was indeed founded by un-godly terrorists ..... I mean what
country can claim legitimacy unless founded peacefully on rule of law.
Now that this is clear I expect the USA to return the thirteen colonies to Britain as at
the earliest possible convenience and we can begin discussion reparations.
They could be among ones who founded it. But they were not only members of it. There was
legal and illegal way to exit USSR. Ukraine, Russia and Belarus chosen illegal way. For Kiev
it was a tool to press illegal occupation over Sevastopole and Crimea. Which lasted more long
that it was needed, but ended in 2014.
And you are correct about Hitler. When finally breaking out of that Lenin built jail of
nations called Ukraine, Crimeans were to give Poroshenko's laws about as much respect as
Hitler's laws were worth.
The Arioch: "Lenin built jail of nations called Ukraine" What a crap again! Lenin built jail of nations called USSR, that's right! "Crimeans were to give Poroshenko's laws about as much respect as Hitler's laws were
worth."
You're just a moron!
Poroshenko became an Ukrainian president after Russia annexed Crimea
By stating this you're implying Soviets usurped the power. This is not true. To begin
with, Soviets, or Councils were trade unions and they formed themselves as an alternative to
czarist ruling institutions during WW1 and February and October Revolutions. They were
grassroots all right. Both Soviets and Bolsheviks enjoyed high appeal among regular people
because they offered solutions to very tough questions regarding land ownership (taking it
from aristocrats) and large business (taking it from oligarchs into collective
ownership).
Eventually the Red Army managed to defeat 17 armies during the Civil War. That wouldn't
have been possible without wide support among the people. Sure there was the Red Terror
unleashed after several assasination attempts on Soviet leadership. But frankly, as tragic as
it is, tough times demand tough measures.
So, if you don't recognize Soviet laws, then you don't recognize Soviet edicts and you
cannot legitimately recognize Krushchev's edict handing Crimea to Ukraine's jurisdiction,
which btw..his son has explained that it was just a simple transfer to Ukraine of full
management of construction of the water canal to Crimea. A water canal which, along with
electricity, has now been dammed by Ukraine, so apparently, the job is finished.
ATO,
Russia and Ukraine have an agreement that allows Russia to have 22,000 armed services members
in Crimea. The Russia presence before the annexing was LEGAL by treaty.
Under Ukrainian law Viktor Yanukovych was never legally removed from office. His removal
and replacement was a violation of the Ukrainian Constitution.
If you research the US/UK techniques used during the 1953 Iranian coup, you'll see that
the 2013-14 Ukrainian coup was very close to being an exact duplicate.
"... For a young Mussolini, working-class power seemed to be the way forward. But after beginning his political career in the Italian Socialist Party, the failure of the socialist movement to prevent World War I, as well as the outpouring of patriotic feeling released by the war, catalyzed Mussolini's conversion from class politics to a new brand of nationalism. ..."
"... The conditions of crisis that had led to Italian fascism soon gave rise to parallel movements in other countries. Perhaps because of the visibility of Nazism, in particular in US popular culture, the fascism of the 1930 serves as the primary reference point for analysis of the right-wing authoritarianism we face today. The fascists of Italy, Falangists of Spain, Nazis of Germany and their less well-known counterparts across the Western world believed their elite were destined to rule as autocrats because they had won out in the war of all against all -- or must do so. The new elite would lead the nation in an imperialist project of gaining more spazio vitale (living space, or as the Nazis would call it, Lebensraum), seeking to displace British or American hegemony over the capitalist world-system and gain their people's place under the sun. ..."
"... Fascists paid lip service to "socialism" for the Volksgemeinschaft (the Nazi concept of a racially pure "people's community"), but they found their most willing partners in the project of rationalizing social, political and economic life in the bourgeoisie. ..."
"... Fascists in league with big capital subjected the working class to a redoubled divide-and-conquer strategy. Some sections of workers were included in the Volkgemeinschaft, bound up in corporatist schemes of labor-management compromise in exchange for loyalty necessary for war-making. ..."
"... For the working class, fascism is the bloody assertion of heteronormative, patriarchal capitalism without democracy. The mythologization of hierarchy and the nation, intensified oppression based on ethnic and gender identities, glorification of war, and violent repression of worker and social movement organizations were hallmarks of all the historical regimes we call fascism -- Hitler's National Socialists, Franco's Falangists and others. Today, most of these characteristics are also present in the new wave of right-wing regimes taking power in the West, as well as in India, Russia, Turkey and other authoritarian capitalist states of the periphery. ..."
"... The capital-F Fascism of authoritarian government is possible because of the lower case-f fascism that thrives in everyday life under capitalism. ..."
"... The fascist discourse of national greatness is nothing more than a continuation of the nationalism of the imagined community constructed by the bourgeoisie. ..."
"... Fascism is not only a grotesque exaggeration of the worst elements of bourgeois society. As a popular tendency, it is a response to the same contradictions that generate left radicalism: poverty, powerlessness and alienation. It is the manufactured scarcity of capitalism that opens the door to a fascist solution. ..."
"... In the United States, some -- mostly white, mostly male -- workers were granted some rights under the National Labor Relations Act. Domestic workers and farm laborers were excluded, a concession to white supremacist political factions. This was a far more soft-serve version of the inclusion/exclusion from representation that also characterized the fascist system of labor control of the same era. It was also premised on loyalty to the capitalist state. The leaders of the major union federations were granted seats at the table, in exchange for expelling Communists from their ranks and adopting a depoliticized approach to labor relations ..."
"... The triumph of liberalism in the 1990s belied its own decay. Since the 1970s, global capital has sought to dismantle the liberal welfare state and put more and more social goods (such as education, healthcare and what remains of public housing) on the market through "structural adjustment" and austerity. ..."
"... Today, the body politic is afflicted with a dysphoria -- a disconnect between the lived experiences of the working class, and the political and cultural representations with which hegemonic liberalism seeks to interpellate them. The Clintonite slogan "America Is Already Great" does not resonate with workers who see themselves making less money than their parents' generation. The cultural disjuncture leads to a political rejection of corporate liberals. A new political subject is waiting to be called into existence. The depoliticization of life that accompanied the postwar liberal settlement is over. The center cannot hold. Everyone is picking a side. ..."
"... Neoliberalism promises more of the same, fascism promises "economic nationalism" and a return to a mythologized past, a democratic socialist revival bids for a return to some form of social democracy. But once again, the discontinuities of these ideologies with liberalism are not as strong as their continuities. Both the fascist ideology of Trump and Brexit, and the social-democratic revivalism of Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn are post-liberal, in that they are symptomatic of the breakdown of the liberal order. But they are also post-liberal, in that they fail to break with the fundamentals of liberal capitalism: private ownership of the means of production, wage labor and markets as a means of distribution. It is these fundamentals of capitalism which brought us to the crisis of neoliberalism, and any movement that is unwilling to challenge these fundamentals will ultimately bring us more of the same. ..."
"... Obama followed in the footsteps of every American regime since the end of WWII. Reagan visited an SS graveyard and memorial and the Truman and Eisenhower regimes made extensive use of not-so-ex Nazis in their spy rings. Trump will continue Obamas policies. ..."
"... Excellent article. Of course the situation here in the U.S. is complicated by the fact that this society, that benefited in general though very unevenly from its status as Global Hegemon for a number of years, is now suffering again very unevenly from the ongoing demise of that position in the Global Capitalist Hierarchy. ..."
"... We do have a ruling class that is exceptionally violent and brutal, the majority of whose outrages were committed overseas over the last 70 years. ..."
The question of the labor movement under fascism is the question of what to do when it is already too late. Racist
vigilante attacks are intensifying, comrades are being indicted, workers are being deported, bosses are breaking labor
law with even greater impunity, the press is under threat, civil liberties are disappearing, politicians are attempting
to rule by diktat, police are even more out of control, war is on the horizon. Everywhere, the threadbare niceties of the
state under liberalism have vanished.
We are not ready for this. The general strike seems like the only reasonable response, but the existing left and labor
organizations are hard-pressed to mobilize for one. The working class is self-organizing, but success remains far from
certain. What is this hell we are entering? How did we get here, and what role can the working class play in helping us
find a way out?
Origins of Fascism
Fascism did not start out as a pejorative term. The word originates from the Latin fasces, a term for a bundle of sticks
bound together around an axe so that they could not be broken, a symbol of unity and power. In ancient Rome, the fasces
were carried by lictors, the bodyguards of magistrates and other state officials. The sticks could be unbundled to mete
out beatings as prescribed by magistrates. The axe was used for the death penalty.
Fascism first appeared in social movement usage not on the right, but on the Italian left in the late-nineteenth century
as a symbol or term for "league" or "group" for various socialist and syndicalist organizations. It was in fact a former
socialist who indelibly stamped fascist as an adjective for the far right: Benito Mussolini. His politics were shaped by
the conflicts of modernity: violent class struggle, a bourgeoisie attempting to build a nation and a national market, and
war. For a young Mussolini, working-class power seemed to be the way forward. But after beginning his political career
in the Italian Socialist Party, the failure of the socialist movement to prevent World War I, as well as the outpouring
of patriotic feeling released by the war, catalyzed Mussolini's conversion from class politics to a new brand of nationalism.
Mussolini promised to make Italy great again, to return to the golden age of the Roman Empire. In his view, this could
only happen through a new cross-class national unity, a powerful state under the tutelage of a new elite of Übermenschen,
and a march toward war. The first task of Mussolini's fascism was the violent repression of workers' and peasants' movements
in the wave of strikes and occupations after World War I, followed by the destruction of independent labor organizations
once state power was attained.
The conditions of crisis that had led to Italian fascism soon gave rise to parallel movements in other countries.
Perhaps because of the visibility of Nazism, in particular in US popular culture, the fascism of the 1930 serves as the
primary reference point for analysis of the right-wing authoritarianism we face today. The fascists of Italy, Falangists
of Spain, Nazis of Germany and their less well-known counterparts across the Western world believed their elite were destined
to rule as autocrats because they had won out in the war of all against all -- or must do so. The new elite would lead
the nation in an imperialist project of gaining more spazio vitale (living space, or as the Nazis would call it, Lebensraum),
seeking to displace British or American hegemony over the capitalist world-system and gain their people's place under the
sun.
Fascism cast culture as nature. It enforced and strengthened hierarchies based on ethnic or gender identities, claiming
that some are meant to be masters and others to be slaves. Fascist governments replaced liberal guarantees of civil liberties
and independent civil society organizations with a reimagining of the nation as a patriarchal family based on a racist
conception of self and other, and corporatist organizations subordinated to the state. Corporatism here does not refer
to corporations in the sense of a private company -- it actually referred to the incorporation of bosses, workers and state
bureaucrats in a single overarching organization that would supposedly reflect their common nationalist interests.
Fascists paid lip service to "socialism" for the Volksgemeinschaft (the Nazi concept of a racially pure "people's
community"), but they found their most willing partners in the project of rationalizing social, political and economic
life in the bourgeoisie.
Fascists in league with big capital subjected the working class to a redoubled divide-and-conquer strategy. Some
sections of workers were included in the Volkgemeinschaft, bound up in corporatist schemes of labor-management compromise
in exchange for loyalty necessary for war-making. But those who were not thought to belong to the "master race" were
excluded from any form of representation or organization, and subjected to hyper-exploitation. Millions of Jews, Roma,
eastern Europeans and others deemed Untermenschen were subjected to persecution, forced labor and genocide.
For the working class, fascism is the bloody assertion of heteronormative, patriarchal capitalism without democracy.
The mythologization of hierarchy and the nation, intensified oppression based on ethnic and gender identities, glorification
of war, and violent repression of worker and social movement organizations were hallmarks of all the historical regimes
we call fascism -- Hitler's National Socialists, Franco's Falangists and others. Today, most of these characteristics are
also present in the new wave of right-wing regimes taking power in the West, as well as in India, Russia, Turkey and other
authoritarian capitalist states of the periphery.
Continuities With Liberalism
As participants in this unfolding catastrophe, we tend to emphasize its discontinuities with the postwar liberal order
that preceded the current unraveling. But the continuities are in fact more alarming, and more important to understand
if we want to eradicate fascism root and branch, once and for all. Fascism is possible not in spite of liberal capitalism,
but because of it. Both historically and philosophically, fascism is rooted in the same Western tradition as liberalism.
Fascism continually reemerges because its seeds are incubated in the contradictions of capitalism.
The capital-F Fascism of authoritarian government is possible because of the lower case-f fascism that thrives in
everyday life under capitalism. The centralized state was an invention of the bourgeoisie, a business innovation necessary
to manage its affairs. Its bureaucracy stands ready-made for takeover by fascist thugs. Eichmann-like obedience necessary
for the Fascist political project is inculcated by the state and corporate bureaucracy built by the bourgeoisie. Fascists
march to war down roads that were paved by centuries of European colonialism and imperialism. The fascist discourse
of national greatness is nothing more than a continuation of the nationalism of the imagined community constructed by the
bourgeoisie.
The fascist enforcement of gender norms is a grotesque exaggeration of the patriarchal division of labor engendered
by one form of capitalism. Fascism's celebration of hierarchy and legitimation of class society is an extreme form of the
twin lies of liberalism: "meritocracy" (barely distinguishable as a concept from Social Darwinism) and racist essentialism.
Racism itself was born of the Western project of colonialism, and given a stamp of legitimacy by Enlightenment science
that sought to taxonomize all things, plants, animals and people.
Liberalism promises to keep its Id in check with guarantees of the rights of man, but this was always a promise more
often broken than kept. The majority of our planet's inhabitants have already been living under a permanent state of exception.
The test runs for the Nazi Holocaust were the late-Victorian holocausts of mass murder in Africa, and the genocidal colonization
of the Americas and uncounted colonial massacres.
In the capitalist core, millions have long lived their lives as what Giorgio Agamben termed homo sacer -- a term from
ancient Rome signifying those who are deprived of rights by the state, and subject to extra-judicial violence by the George
Zimmermans of the world. Across the capitalist core, immigrants and refugees live without the promise of any kind of liberal
human rights, facing possible deportation in any interaction with the authorities.
Clintonite cosmopolitan liberalism claims that these oppressions are atavisms of the past, even though they are renewed
every day. It promises to unite the world Benetton-like in a multicultural global market, where everyone is equally free
to exploit and be exploited. Liberalism will occasionally apologize for its racism, sexism and colonial massacres, and
may make affirmative action reforms to stabilize its rule and rationalize production, or in the case of the US government's
eventual concessions to the civil rights movement, to compete ideologically with the Soviet Union. But there is one place
where it can never acknowledge illegitimate hierarchy: the workplace. And it is precisely here that the contradictions
that propel the world toward fascism are rooted.
The Liberal Compromise
Fascism is not only a grotesque exaggeration of the worst elements of bourgeois society. As a popular tendency,
it is a response to the same contradictions that generate left radicalism: poverty, powerlessness and alienation. It is
the manufactured scarcity of capitalism that opens the door to a fascist solution.
As a form of government, fascism is not the bourgeoisie's first choice, of course. It is an unstable system prone to
cronyism that places certain limits on the market. So, like the boss who wants you to try for a promotion rather than organizing
a union, liberalism first tries to resolve its contradictions through expansion. This could mean economic growth through
technological upgrading, or stimulation of new needs and desires to create new consumer markets, or it could mean capturing
new markets through war and trade agreements. As long as the pie is getting bigger, tensions over who gets the biggest
piece are diffused.
The contradiction of liberal capitalism played out in real historical time. To stabilize its own rule in the wake of
the Great Depression and World War II, liberal capitalism accepted a degree of regulation, establishing norms necessary
for more-or-less long-term operation of a market, and setting up a system that could compete economically and ideologically
with international socialism. This took the form of the New Deal and the Keynesian welfare state, a compromise that institutionalized
class struggle to boost consumption.
In the United States, some -- mostly white, mostly male -- workers were granted some rights under the National Labor
Relations Act. Domestic workers and farm laborers were excluded, a concession to white supremacist political factions.
This was a far more soft-serve version of the inclusion/exclusion from representation that also characterized the fascist
system of labor control of the same era. It was also premised on loyalty to the capitalist state. The leaders of the major
union federations were granted seats at the table, in exchange for expelling Communists from their ranks and adopting a
depoliticized approach to labor relations.
After World War II, the US exported this New Deal model of labor relations through its reconstruction efforts in Western
Europe and East Asia. For around thirty years, workers were rewarded for their loyalty with wage increases that matched
growth in productivity. For the most part, this resulted in an apolitical acquiescence to life under capitalism. By the
end of the twentieth century, liberalism seemed to reign triumphant. Some claimed that liberal capitalism was the End of
History, that the age of extremes had definitively passed. Both socialism and fascism were consigned to the dustbin. Under
the leadership of the WTO and the largest of the Western corporations, humanity was to march onward into a glorious consumerist
future with McDonald's, Starbucks and Apple products for all.
How wrong they were.
Post-Liberalism
Everywhere, authoritarian regimes are winning out over centrist liberalism. The Chinese model of development -- an authoritarian
state with just enough market relations to fill the pockets of a kleptocratic elite -- has become the dominant development
paradigm for much of Asia and Africa. Western corporate elites have watched jealously as mega-projects and mega-profits
that would take years of political wrangling in the capitalist core get the green light in China. Nevertheless, most sectors
of capital still seem to prefer Clintonite liberalism to Trumpian fascism, or certainly to Bernie Sanders' social democracy.
But increasingly, the centrist option is off the table, for reasons of the bourgeoisie's own doing.
The triumph of liberalism in the 1990s belied its own decay. Since the 1970s, global capital has sought to dismantle
the liberal welfare state and put more and more social goods (such as education, healthcare and what remains of public
housing) on the market through "structural adjustment" and austerity.
The decay of the liberal system is nowhere more evident than in labor relations. The stable system of collective bargaining
put in place by the National Labor Relations Act was under attack from the far right since its inception -- but has been
most effectively undermined by the liberal center since 1981. In that year, Reagan fired striking air traffic controllers
in the PATCO union, signaling open season on the labor movement. Workplace-level union-busting, the use of scabs to break
strikes, automation and outsourcing all drove unionization rates in the United States down from around 30 percent in the
1950s, to barely 10 percent in 2017. Behind this evisceration is a shift in ruling-class strategy from grudging acceptance
of unions in the system of labor control, to direct domination of each individual worker through "Human Resources Management."
As a result, the standard of living in the capitalist core has undergone almost half a century of decline. This has
paralleled the decline of the United States as the hegemonic power in the global political economy. As this decline continues,
workers in the capitalist core of all income levels have begun looking for alternatives to neoliberal politics. The mythology
of the American Dream no longer works its magic of erasing class antagonisms.
Today, the body politic is afflicted with a dysphoria -- a disconnect between the lived experiences of the working
class, and the political and cultural representations with which hegemonic liberalism seeks to interpellate them. The Clintonite
slogan "America Is Already Great" does not resonate with workers who see themselves making less money than their parents'
generation. The cultural disjuncture leads to a political rejection of corporate liberals. A new political subject is waiting
to be called into existence. The depoliticization of life that accompanied the postwar liberal settlement is over. The
center cannot hold. Everyone is picking a side.
Neoliberalism promises more of the same, fascism promises "economic nationalism" and a return to a mythologized
past, a democratic socialist revival bids for a return to some form of social democracy. But once again, the discontinuities
of these ideologies with liberalism are not as strong as their continuities. Both the fascist ideology of Trump and Brexit,
and the social-democratic revivalism of Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn are post-liberal, in that they are symptomatic
of the breakdown of the liberal order. But they are also post-liberal, in that they fail to break with the fundamentals
of liberal capitalism: private ownership of the means of production, wage labor and markets as a means of distribution.
It is these fundamentals of capitalism which brought us to the crisis of neoliberalism, and any movement that is unwilling
to challenge these fundamentals will ultimately bring us more of the same.
In some cases, the post-liberal left wins or makes important gains in elections -- Syriza and Podemos serving as the
most prominent examples. But their victories tend to be short-lived. Without willingness to fundamentally break with neoliberal
capitalism, it is not long before voters realize that they have elected a non-solution, and turn once again to the right.
The failure of the left to offer an anti-systemic alternative is what brought the fascist right to power in the United
States and threatens to do the same in other places across the world. Now we need to figure out what exactly to expect,
and how to fight to win.
The Other Workers' Movement
True to form as fascists, the Trump regime has set to work recasting the boundaries between self and other in the United
States. It is a project of scapegoating, and of legitimizing the repression of labor and social movements. Unlike its 1930s
antecedents in Germany, Italy or Spain, Trump's cartoonish fascism has not had to ban the unions and set up new ones under
direct control of the state. There is no need for a new fascist system of labor control, because under neoliberalism the
United States already has one.
Since the 1980s, most workers' organizations have already been liquidated. Most workers are subjects of a capitalist
dictatorship in the workplace, and millions have long been excluded from even the most basic guarantees of liberalism:
to be paid for your labor, to not be summarily executed by police, to be accorded due process rights. There is a new intensity
and scale to these attacks, but the line of attack itself is not actually new.
The "official" workers' movement has largely failed to resist attacks old and new. Under Trump, the labor movement has
gladly divided and conquered itself, with the heads of building trade unions meeting with Trump and sycophantically glowing
over the "respect" he showed them, while he prepares orders to deport millions of immigrant workers and deprive millions
more citizens of their rights. Many unions simply seem to be hoping for the best, while failing to prepare for the worst.
Others refuse to publicly attack Trump in the hopes of cutting some sort of deal. But no matter how close some unions get
to the boss, they cannot escape the fact that their organizations are in the crosshairs more than ever. Trump's fascism
seeks to finish off the legal framework of labor relations under postwar liberalism, dealing the coup de grâce to an institutional
labor movement that has long been hemorrhaging members.
The resistance is therefore in the "other" workers' movement -- among those who never were included in the legal mechanisms
of the compact of postwar liberalism in the first place, such as immigrant workers, the unwaged labor of women, and students.
They are joined by a new "other" workers' movement: the rebel rank-and-file of the institutional unions, such as teachers
and public sector workers, and increasingly, self-organized groups of workers who have never belonged to a union. As the
state falls under the sway of fascist control, the weapons of this resistance are increasingly extralegal: from protests
to strikes, highway blockades and physical confrontations.
While increasingly bold in tactics, resistance to fascism is so far largely conservative, in the true sense of the word:
it seeks to conserve the liberal order. Until now, its battles have been mostly defensive, and if they are won, will merely
put liberals back in power. The real destruction of fascism can only be accomplished by a new workers' movement, unencumbered
by the sacred cows of the bureaucracies that grew up under corporate liberalism. It is in the "other" workers' movement
that a radicalism beyond liberal capitalism can be imagined, and it is with the forces that we build with our own hands
that it can be won.
How do we win this fight? The tasks are largely the same as before, but with a new sense of urgency, and in conditions
of heavier repression. As before, we must engage millions in the fight for a different future. No true revolution is possible
without mass participation. We must build a vast network of workplace and community-based organizing committees that make
a general strike possible. We must also be prepared to go beyond a general strike, to build dual power through worker and
community assemblies that will replace or transform the state with a true democracy. This is a struggle not just to restore
the old world-system, but to build a new one. This is the time to be revolutionaries, to fight to win the world we actually
want.
Calamity of epic proportions awaits millions in the working class. Deportations, intensified exploitation at work, the
destruction of our life-giving planet, vigilante attacks, refugee crisis, resurgent misogyny, transphobia and racism, and
the threat of inter-state war. It is already too late to prevent much of this. But it has always already been too late.
Untold tragedy is the legacy of liberalism, and of every return of fascism. That is why we fight for the future. That is
why we fight to win. This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form
without permission or license from the source. Erik Forman Erik Forman has been
active in the Industrial Workers of the World since 2005, working and organizing at Starbucks and Jimmy John's. He is currently
compiling a report on union strategies for organizing the food service and retail sectors as a Practitioner Fellow at the
Kalmanovitz Initiative for Labor and the Working Poor at Georgetown University. Related Stories
Fascist America: Have We Finally Turned The Corner? By Sara Robinson,
AlterNet | Op-Ed
Fascism
101: The Police and Media Control By William Rivers Pitt, Truthout
| Op-Ed
Hitler at Home: How the Nazi PR Machine Duped the World By Despina Stratigakos,
The Conversation | Op-Ed
Recommend RecommendedDiscussion Recommended!
Mussolini was for a time an avowed Marxist, socialist and atheist. He was never an original liberal. He did support
modern Keynesian liberalism, saying that "Fascism entirely agrees with Mr. Maynard Keynes." But Mussolini hated the liberalism
that spelled individualism. In his 1935 version of the "Doctrine of Fascism," he proclaimed: "Against individualism,
the Fascist conception is for the State; and it is for the individual in so far as he coincides with the State . . .
. It is opposed to classical Liberalism . . . . Liberalism denied the State in the interests of the particular individual;
Fascism reaffirms
the State as the true reality of the individual." Fascism, actually came out of Marxism. Zeev Sternhell says that Fascist
ideology... was a revision of Marxism." Fascism also came out of revolutionary syndicalism (unions).
Your analysis is spot on, BUT "we must engage millions in the fight for a different future" Are you serious? We can't
even get half the people off their butts to vote. If we could, this discussion would be moot.
With the advent of nearly complete automation of every production process, and increasing automation of services (think
Uber, with the coming Google cars), the employed pool of workers is steadily decreasing as a proportion of the able workforce.
We can choose to believe the lies that there will be at least 1 for 1 replacement of these jobs with new, higher-paying
technological jobs if we want to I guess. But I don't buy it.
Why would companies like to invest in machinery if it does not help to eliminate manual, human labor? After all, human
work is error prone and slow, and in many cases, certain advanced manufacturing processes can not even be performed manually.
Corporations invest in automation, recession or otherwise, so the old trope coming from the Right that workers demand
too much pay, etc., appears to be convenient but nonsense "reasoning."
So, with labor steadily disappearing from the workplaces of the world, exactly who does Mr. Forman (and others) expect
to sign up with their unions? The remaining workers, who earn more than their former counterparts consigned to laborious
and dangerous work for poor pay, are probably far more tantalized by technological challenges that make their work pleasant
and enjoyable.
It is difficult -- no, actually impossible -- for me to imagine legions of computer programmers and other high-tech
workers organizing and hankering for a labor union that would have only marginal advantage for them. And they know better
than most that they, too, can be displaced from their jobs by the next iteration of technological advances or better
wage prospects for their corporate overlords. So we can probably put this thesis to bed also, no?
There are still millions of workers at fast food restaurants who certainly need solid and reliable labor representation,
and the IWW is probably the single best union to do this (I'm a bit of a wob myself, ok?). That said, we are still only
looking at a sliver of the population, albeit an increasingly larger portion of the remaining employed workforce.
It occurs to me that what we really need is to organize the consumers to effect the sorts of changes we want.
Its first demand should probably be a guaranteed Basic Income (BI), which would put those last workers still languishing
in fast food and other poor-paying retail jobs in demand , rather than jobs being in demand. And we could stop
wasting resources and destroying the environment so that one more poor person can afford to eat today. (Think commuters
driving 30 miles to a minimum wage job and you will understand what I am driving at.)
This would be a complete paradigm shift, one like no other in human history. For the first time, workers and consumers
would be united in accomplishing their common purposes, namely a peaceful world that respects human nature and the environment.
Please consider BI as a basis for a more fair and equitable society. See
basicincome.org and
bein.org
for more information.
Thanks for the historical perspective. But there is another metric which is rarely, if ever, used to define the spectrum
of socioeconomic systems, one of power concentration.
democracy = power is determined by voters
capitalism = power concentrates in owners; owners game the system to determine who has the opportunity to own
slave capitalism = power of owner extends to owning workers/laborers
feudal capitalism = power concentrates in owners to extent they control many work/labor conditions including wages and
residency
communism = power concentrates in members of single state party committee
oligarchic capitalism = power concentrates in small number of owners
monopoly = power concentrates in one corporation and their owners
fascism = power concentrates in one political party
The point is that the concentration of economic power has parallels in the concentration of political power. The terms/names
used to describe each system often overlap in meaning and thus, can be confusing. It would be better to use a sliding
scale to represent power concentration; something along the lines of the Kinsey sexuality scale. On a scale of 0-10 (low
to high) how is political power distributed? How is economic power distributed? Based on Gillens and Page, political
power score is roughly 7.6 in favor of the economic elites <http:
www.vox.com
="" 2014="" 4="" 18="" 5624310="" martin-gilens-testing-theories-of-american-politics-explained="">. Based on stock ownership,
the economic power scale is about 6.6 - top 5% owns about 2/3 of stocks <https:
www.salon.com ="" 2013="" 09="" 19="" stock_ownership_who_benefits_partner=""/>. The latter is not the best metric
of economic power; actual score is likely significantly higher. This type of granular information is more useful in accurately
describing power relationships than misleading names/titles/terms.
Thank you for clearly defining YOUR definition of communism. As I replied to another poster here, the term "communism"
is often conflated with its original meaning, and only helps the arguments of the RW.
From the article: "There is no need for a new fascist system of labor control, because under neoliberalism the United
States already has one." This is another reason why liberalism whether bourgeois liberal idealism or liberal pragmatism
or neoliberalism is not sufficiently anti-fascist. Additionally, liberalism in all its forms will never be anti-capitalist
and pro-community socialist.
I wonder what percentage of the earth's inhabitants, who have the power to promote socialism in lieu of various "Third
Ways" or imperial anarcho-capitalism, have recognized the truth of the article's graphic "Capitalism Has Outlived Its
Usefulness"?
"You're not paranoid if you think the world feels more unstable -- it is. There's a dangerous confluence of political,
economic, and military phenomena that is producing a very hazardous international situation. At the center of each
maelstrom is the U.S. Government, and instead of acting as a promoter of peace and stability the Obama administration
has been a catalyst of confrontation and war. An especially combustible zone is the Ukraine, where the U.S. is engaged
in what is becoming a full-fledged proxy war with Russia. " The Obama administration's decisive role in the Ukrainian
conflict has received only a sliver of space from the U.S. media, even after an audio of Obama's Under Secretary of
State was leaked, exposing the U.S.' direct leadership role in a coup that overthrew Ukraine's democratically elected
government."
http://www.counterpunch.org...
Obama followed in the footsteps of every American regime since the end of WWII. Reagan visited an SS graveyard
and memorial and the Truman and Eisenhower regimes made extensive use of not-so-ex Nazis in their spy rings. Trump will
continue Obamas policies.
Fascist movements are growing in the NATO region of Western and Central Europe. Large ultraright and neo-Nazi Islamophobic
parties are a real threat in France, Germany, Austria, Hungary and Greece. Nowhere are they effectively challenged by
fake leftists in social democrat parties like the Sozialistische Partei Österreichs, the Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands,
the Partido Socialista Obrero Espańol, the Greek Coalition of the Radical Left (Syriza) or the Parti Socialiste because
they're pro-capitalist parties. Neither they or the old line capitalist parties like the Democrats or Republicans in
the US have anything real to offer in the fight against fascism.
There is no imminent danger of fascism coming to power in the US or the EU because although it's advanced, the death
agony of capitalism is not such that it would lead the bankster class to create an extremely violent and well armed mass
fascist street army to defeat unions and other mass movements of workers. The preconditions for fascism are the collapse
and failure of capitalist 'democratic' government, the collapse or total defeat of unions and the left and growth of
a mass fascist movement based on the middle, not the working class.
Excellent article. Although I have more questions than answers, Foreman goes a long way in supplying some of the history
and analysis necessary for a new dialogue and the urgency of the same. As part of the same endeavor, educational articles
about post-growth and de-growth economics would also be welcome, not only for what they may offer in the way of sustainability,
but also in the sense of replacing consumerism, materialism and 'meritocracy' with other -higher - values.
The penultimate paragraph begins by asking, "How do we win this fight?" It then offers some advice of a general nature,
which only hints at what's necessary. Let's first assume that the will for a prolonged general strike exists; how then
to subsist without wages until victory is won?
The author suggests "...a vast network of workplace and community-based organizing committees..." and lets it go at
that; I would add that those committees must take responsibility for ensuring that all are fed and sheltered, and that
those in the community who can't care for themselves are looked after. So: communal gardens providing the food for communal
meals, communal daycare for elders and communal schooling and recreation for kids, communal housing, and communal healthcare
and transportation as needed---in short, an explicitly and comprehensively anticapitalist modus vivendi.
"The flow of energy through a system tends to organize that system." --R. Buckminster Fuller
"Be the kind of change you wish to see in the world." --Mohandas K. Gandhi
We can do this---in fact, we must do this, as the only alternative is extinction.
Excellent article. Of course the situation here in the U.S. is complicated by the fact that this society, that
benefited in general though very unevenly from its status as Global Hegemon for a number of years, is now suffering again
very unevenly from the ongoing demise of that position in the Global Capitalist Hierarchy.
We do have a ruling class that is exceptionally violent and brutal, the majority of whose outrages were committed
overseas over the last 70 years. However, the police state and terror operations, first used against the Huk rebellion
in the post WW 2 Philippines and later honed and further developed in Vietnam, Indonesia, Angola, Congo, Chile, El Salvador,
Guatemala, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, among other places, will increasingly be inward directed as the crisis of American
Empire and the decay of Capitalism continues.
Indeed, Prime Minister Winston Churchill, who had led his nation into an impressive military
victory in World War II, confident that the defeat of Nazi Germany would help save the British
Empire, failed to recognize that the enormous military and economic costs of the war had
actually created the conditions for the liquidation of the empire, starting with the withdrawal
from Palestine and the "loss" of India after the war.
First of all there is still a long way for this demolition. Empires are slowly built and
slowly dissipate. Sometime the process takes several centuries. The US still maintain the
technological edge over the rest of the worlds and has a tremendous cultural influence with
Hollywood dominating world cinema. And there is alternative to neoliberalism yet. Although the end
of cheap oil might speed up the process to finding alternative.
But the key problem is that the triumph of the US empire was simultaneously the triumph of
neoliberalism (which is adopted as the official US ideology in late 70th under Carter , not
unlike communist ideology in the USSR) and it occurred in 1991 during the collapse of the USSR.
So the destiny of the US empire now is irrevokably linked to the destiny of neoliberalism.
the US elite was able to mobilize intellectual and financial resources and build an ideological
alternative to communist ideology which along with unrealistic promises of paradise on Earth send
communist ideology to the dustbin of history. But this victory has tremendous cost as
neoliberalism proved to be destructive to the US society . The author does not understand this
close linkage. With the collapse of neoliberal ideology in 2008 the USA found itself in the role
of the USSR. Analogy extents to incompetent geriocratic leadership (with the exception of "dark
horse" Obama, who seems to be more of a puppet of deep state that a real independent politician).
When Gods want to punish somebody them deprive them of intellect.
Trump can be viewed as an attempt of a part of the US elite to organize "orderly withdrawal;"
and salvage some remnants of the US neoliberal empire, at the cost of rejecting neoliberal
globalization. In a way Trump can be viewed as an attempt of a part of the US elite to
extract the USA from the role of enforcer of neoliberalism around the world, the role three
previous presidents cherished.
But neocons proved to be way too strong and successfully resist any changes in the US foreign
policy. As the result Trump administration was paralyzed by
elements of Deep State which do not agree with this vision. Essentially a color revolution was
launched by deep state after his election and secured the appointment of the Special Prosecutor
(the person who was instrumental in 9/11 cover-up).
Yet just 60 years ago, a crisis in the ever-volatile Middle East overseen by a bumbling,
mistake-prone British leader helped create a great power debacle that offers insight into the
Trumpian moment, a glimpse into possible futures, and a sense of the kind of decline that
could lie in the imperial future of the United States.
In the early 1950s, Britain's international position had many parallels with America's
today. After a difficult postwar recovery from the devastation of World War II, that country
was enjoying robust employment, lucrative international investments, and the prestige of the
pound sterling's stature as the world's reserve currency. Thanks to a careful withdrawal from
its far-flung, global empire and its close alliance with Washington, London still enjoyed a
sense of international influence exceptional for a small island nation of just 50 million
people. On balance, Britain seemed poised for many more years of world leadership with all
the accompanying economic rewards and perks.
Then came the Suez crisis. After a decade of giving up one colony after another, the
accumulated stress of imperial retreat pushed British conservatives into a disastrous
military intervention to reclaim Egypt's Suez Canal. This, in turn,
caused a "deep moral crisis in London" and what one British diplomat
would term the "dying convulsion of British imperialism." In a clear instance of what
historians call
"micro-militarism" -- that is, a bold military strike designed to recover fading imperial
influence -- Britain joined France and Israel in a misbegotten military invasion of Egypt that
transformed slow imperial retreat into a precipitous collapse.
Just as the Panama Canal had once been a shining example for Americans of their nation's
global prowess, so British conservatives treasured the Suez Canal as a vital lifeline that
tied their small island to its sprawling empire in Asia and Africa. A few years after the
canal's grand opening in 1869, London did the deal of the century, scooping up Egypt's shares in
it for a bargain basement price of £4 million. Then, in 1882, Britain consolidated its
control over the canal through a military occupation of Egypt, reducing that ancient land to
little more than an informal colony.
As late as 1950, in fact, Britain still maintained 80,000 soldiers and a string of
military bases astride the canal. The bulk of its oil and gasoline, produced at the enormous
Abadan refinery in the Persian Gulf, transited through Suez, fueling its navy, its domestic
transportation system, and much of its industry.
After British troops completed a negotiated withdrawal from Suez in 1955, the charismatic
nationalist leader Gamal Abdel Nasser asserted Egypt's neutrality in the Cold War by
purchasing Soviet bloc arms, raising eyebrows in Washington. In July 1956, after the
administration of President Dwight Eisenhower had in response reneged on its promise to
finance construction of the Aswan High Dam on the Upper Nile, Nasser sought alternative
financing for this critical infrastructure by nationalizing the Suez Canal. In doing so, he
electrified
the Arab world and elevated himself to the
top rank of world leaders.
Although British ships still passed freely through the canal and Washington insisted on a
diplomatic resolution of the conflict, Britain's conservative leadership reacted with
irrational outrage.
Behind a smokescreen of
sham diplomacy designed to deceive Washington, their closest ally, the British foreign
secretary met
secretly with the prime ministers of France and Israel near Paris to work out an
elaborately deceptive two-stage invasion of Egypt by 250,000 allied troops, backed by 500
aircraft and 130 warships. Its aim, of course, was to secure the canal.
On October 29, 1956, the Israeli army led by the dashing General Moshe Dayan swept across
the Sinai Peninsula, destroying Egyptian tanks and bringing his troops to within 10 miles of
the canal. Using this fighting as a pretext for an intervention to restore peace,
Anglo-French amphibious and airborne forces quickly joined the attack, backed by a
devastating bombardment from six aircraft carriers that destroyed the Egyptian air force
including
over a hundred of its new MiG jet fighters. As Egypt's military collapsed with some 3,000
of its troops killed and 30,000 captured, Nasser deployed a defense brilliant in its
simplicity by scuttling dozens of rusting cargo ships filled with rocks and concrete at the
entrance to the Suez Canal. In this way, he closed Europe's oil lifeline to the Persian
Gulf.
Simultaneously, U.N. Secretary General Dag Hammarskjöld, backed by Washington,
imposed a cease-fire after just nine days of war, stopping the Anglo-French attack far short
of capturing the entire canal. President Eisenhower's blunt refusal to back his allies with
either oil or money and the threat of condemnation before the U.N. soon forced Britain into a
humiliating withdrawal. With its finances collapsing from the invasion's soaring costs, the
British government could not maintain the pound's official exchange rate, degrading its
stature as a global reserve currency.
The author of this extraordinary debacle was Sir Anthony Eden, a problematic prime
minister whose career offers some striking parallels with Donald Trump's. Born into privilege
as the son of a landholder, Eden enjoyed a good education at a private school and an elite
university. After inheriting a substantial fortune from his father, he entered politics as a
conservative, using his political connections to dabble in finance. Chafing under Winston
Churchill's postwar leadership of the Conservative Party, Eden, who styled himself a rebel
against hidebound institutions, used
incessant infighting and his handsome
head of hair to push the great man aside and become prime minister in 1955.
When Nasser nationalized the canal, Eden erupted with egotism, bluster, and outrage.
"What's all this nonsense about isolating Nasser," Eden
berated his foreign affairs minister. "I want him destroyed, can't you understand? I want
him murdered, and if you and the Foreign Office don't agree, then you'd better come to the
cabinet and explain why." Convinced that Britain was still the globe's great power, Eden
rejected sound advice that he consult fully with Washington, the country's closest ally. As
his bold intervention plunged toward diplomatic disaster, the prime minister became focused
on manipulating the British media, in the process confusing favorable domestic coverage with
international support.
When Washington demanded a ceasefire
as the price of a billion-dollar bailout for a British economy unable to sustain such a
costly war, Eden's bluster quickly crumbled and he denied his troops a certain victory,
arousing a storm of protest in Parliament. Humiliated by the forced withdrawal, Eden
compensated psychologically by ordering MI-6 , Britain's equivalent of the
CIA, to launch its second ill-fated assassination attempt on Nasser. Since its chief local
agent was actually a double-agent
loyal to Nasser, Egyptian security had, however, already rounded up the British operatives
and the weapons delivered for the contract killers proved duds .
Confronted with a barrage of angry questions in Parliament about his collusion with the
Israelis, Eden lied repeatedly , swearing
that there was no "foreknowledge that Israel would attack Egypt." Protesters denounced him as "too stupid
to be a prime minister," opposition members of parliament laughed openly when he appeared before
Parliament, and his own foreign affairs minister damned him as "an enraged elephant charging
senselessly at imaginary enemies."
Just weeks after the last British soldier left Egypt, Eden, discredited and disgraced, was
forced to resign after only 21 months
in office. Led into this unimaginably misbegotten operation by his delusions of omnipotence,
he left the once-mighty British lion a toothless circus animal that would henceforth roll
over whenever Washington cracked the whip.
... ... ...
During the 1950s, Republican President Dwight Eisenhower deployed this national security
apparatus to secure Washington's global dominion with a nuclear triad (bombers, ballistic
missiles, and submarines), a chain of
military bases that ringed Eurasia, and a staggering number of
highly militarized covert operations to assure the ascent of loyal allies worldwide. Above
all, he oversaw the integration of the latest in scientific and technological research into
the Pentagon's weapons procurement system through the forging of the famed
"military-industrial complex" (against which he would end up warning Americans as he left
office in 1961). All this, in turn, fostered an aura of American power so formidable that
Washington could re-order significant parts of the world almost at will, enforcing peace,
setting the international agenda, and toppling
governments on four continents.
While it's reasonable to argue that Washington had by then become history's greatest
global power, its hegemony, like that of all the world empires that preceded it, remained
surprisingly fragile. Skilled leadership was required to maintain the system's balance of
diplomacy, military power, economic strength, and technological innovation.
By the time President Trump took his oath of office, negative, long-term trends had
already started to limit the influence of any American leader on the world stage. These
included a declining share of the global economy, an erosion of U.S. technological primacy,
an inability
to apply its overwhelming military power in a way that achieved expected policy goals on an
ever more recalcitrant planet, and a generation of increasingly independent national leaders,
whether in Europe, Asia, or Latin America.
Apart from such adverse trends, Washington's global power rested on such strategic
fundamentals that its leaders might still have managed carefully enough to maintain a
reasonable semblance of American hegemony: notably, the NATO alliance and Asian
mutual-security treaties at the strategic antipodes of Eurasia, trade treaties that
reinforced such alliances, scientific research to sustain its military's technological edge,
and leadership on international issues like climate change.
In just five short months, however, the Trump White House has done a remarkable job of
demolishing these very pillars of U.S. global power. During his first overseas trip in May
2017, President Trump chastised
stone-faced NATO leaders for failure to pay their "fair share" into the military part of the
alliance and refused to affirm its core principle of collective defense. Ignoring the pleas
of these close allies, he then
forfeited America's historic diplomatic leadership by announcing Washington's withdrawal
from the Paris Climate Accord with all the drama of a reality television show. After watching
his striking repudiation of Washington's role as world leader, German Chancellor Angela
Merkel
told voters in her country that "we must fight for our future on our own, for our destiny
as Europeans."
Along the strategic Pacific littoral, Trump cancelled the
Trans-Pacific Partnership trade pact on taking office and gratuitously alienated allies by
cutting short a courtesy
phone call to Australia's prime minister and insulting South Korea to the point where its
new president won office, in part, on a
platform of "say no" to America. When President Moon Jae-in visited Washington in June,
determined to heal the breach between the two countries, he was, as the New York
Times reported, blindsided
by "the harshness of Mr. Trump's critique of South Korea on trade."
Just days after Trump dismissed Moon's suggestion that the two countries engage in actual
diplomatic negotiations with Pyongyang, North Korea successfully
test-fired a ballistic missile potentially capable of reaching Alaska or possibly Hawaii
with a nuclear warhead (though experts believe Pyongyang may still be years away from
effectively fitting such a warhead to the missile). It was an act that made those same
negotiations Washington's only
viable option -- apart from a second Korean War, which would potentially
devastate both the region and the US position as the preeminent international leader.
In other words, after 70 years of global dominion, America's geopolitical command of the
axial ends of Eurasia -- the central pillars of its world power seems to be crumbling in a
matter of months.
Instead of the diplomacy of presidents past, Trump and his advisers, especially his
military men, have reacted to his first modest foreign crises as well as the everyday power
questions of empire with outbursts akin to Anthony Eden's. Since January, the White House has
erupted in sudden displays of raw military power that included a
drone blitz of unprecedented intensity in Yemen to destroy what the president
called a "network of lawless savages," the
bombardment of a Syrian air base with 59 Tomahawk missiles, and the
detonation of the world's largest non-nuclear bomb on a terrorist refuge in eastern
Afghanistan.
While reveling in the use of such weaponry, Trump, by slashing federal funding for
critical scientific research, is already demolishing the foundations for the
military-industrial complex that Eisenhower's successors, Republican and Democratic alike, so
sedulously maintained for the last half-century. While China is ramping up its scientific
research across the board, Trump has proposed
what the American Association for Advancement of Science called "deep cuts to numerous
research agencies" that will mean the eventual loss of the country's technological edge. In
the emerging field of artificial intelligence that will soon drive space warfare and
cyber-warfare, the White House wants to reduce
the 2018 budget for this critical research at the National Science Foundation to a paltry
$175 million, even as Beijing is launching "a new multi-billion-dollar initiative" linked to
building "military robots."
.... ... ...
A Future Debacle in the Greater Middle East
With a president who shares Sir Anthony Eden's penchant for bravura, self-delusion, and
impulsiveness, the U.S. seems primed for a twenty-first-century Suez of its own, a debacle in
the Greater Middle East (or possibly elsewhere). From the disastrous expedition that ancient
Athens sent to Sicily in 413 BCE to Britain's invasion of Suez in 1956, embattled empires
throughout the ages have often suffered an arrogance that drives them to plunge ever deeper
into military misadventures until defeat becomes debacle, a misuse of armed force known
technically among historians as micro-militarism. With the hubris that has marked empires
over the millennia, the Trump administration is, for instance, now committed to extending indefinitely
Washington's failing war of pacification in Afghanistan with a new mini-surge of U.S. troops
(and air power) in that classic "
graveyard of empires. "
So irrational, so unpredictable is such micro-militarism that even the most fanciful of
scenarios can be outpaced by actual events, as was true at Suez. With the U.S. military
stretched thin from North Africa to South Korea, with no lasting successes in its post-9/11
wars, and with
tensions rising from the Persian Gulf and Syria to the South China Sea and the Koreas,
the possibilities for a disastrous military crisis abroad seem almost unending.
This lunatic's rant becomes literally impossible to read after less than 5
paragraphs.
It is astounding that liberals are now pushing for corporate-state anti-worker trade
agreements, this time in the name of American "leadership."
Leadership to what?
This idiot claims that the world is "reeling" from some decision that Trump made.
Really. Reeling.
When I read that word, I only lasted 4 or so words more.
Then I realized that the article was nothing more than a propagandist's screed, a
neo-liberal who cares nothing for the non-elite. A warmonger who dresses in liberal
clothing.
In my opinion Trump signals a return to Eisenhower's concern with the cost to US
taxpayers of a global military that defends other countries, who consequently get a lunch
someone else pays for. Those who voted for Trump want others to shoulder their own
burden. [MORE]
The consequences of a U.S. military withdrawal from Europe and Asia would be dramatic.
The United States would lose most of its military bases, American firms would find it
much harder to gain market access, the American defense industry would lose billions of
dollars, and European allies would stop supporting the United States militarily in
faraway conflicts. The United States would be reduced to a regional power with little say
in the management of Asian and European affairs. This is why it will not happen. This
outcome is not only at odds with America's economic interests, it is also completely at
odds with the widespread belief in American exceptionalism and greatness that Trump and
his supporters also embrace.
But if the costs of abandoning allies are prohibitive, why is Trump threatening to do
so? Schelling's classic work on game theory suggests an answer: it shows that you can
obtain greater concessions in negotiations by appearing mad or unpredictable. In this
perspective, Trump's statements and seemingly erratic behavior make a lot of sense as a
negotiation tactic aimed at pressuring U.S. allies to increase their defense spending.
His perceived unpredictability is adding credibility to the threat that he might actually
withdraw U.S. forces even if it is not in the United States best interest to do so. There
is genuine concern among U.S. allies about what Trump might do if they do not take
immediate steps to increase their defense spending. The South Korean government reacted
to Trump's election by vowing to increase defense spending significantly if he insists on
it. Likewise, the Danish Prime Minister promised to increase defense spending after his
first phone conversation with Trump. In Germany Trump's election triggered a hitherto
unthinkable public debate on whether Germany should develop nuclear weapons.
President Trump's unpredictability will also put America's opponents on the defensive.
President Obama's reluctance to threaten and use force likely emboldened China and Russia
to take greater military risks in Eastern Ukraine, Syria, and in the East and South China
Seas. While Beijing and Moscow could be fairly confident that Obama would not take
military counter-measures, they have no way of calculating what President Trump might do.
It is easy to imagine him giving the order to down a Chinese or Russian plane to
demonstrate that "America is great again."
Paradoxically, Trump's tweets and theatrics are good news for world peace. They create
unpredictability and anxiety that the United States can use to obtain greater concessions
from friends and foes. The likely result is strengthened U.S. alliances and U.S.
opponents that will favor negotiation over provocation in their efforts to settle
differences with the United States and its allies.
The author gives no consideration whatsoever to the option of withdrawing from "world
leadership" before such fanciful catastrophic scenarios unfold. Nor does the author
acknowledge that, should the OPEC nations impose an oil embargo, the US response could just
as easily be to ramp up its own extraction and production of amply available, in-ground
reserves.
Might we not simply reduce our sprawling, global military footprint, using our Defense
Department for, uh, defense instead of global imperial adventurism, expel illegal
immigrants, bar the entry of so-called refugees, eliminate corporate tax to woo industry
back to our shores, eliminate the Federal Reserve, and implement any number of reforms
consistent with the Constitution, in order to abandon the Empire from a position of
strength before we are seen as retreating with our tails between our legs?
Since when is going out on top not seen as a wise course of action?
@Sean
Please explain why American military presence is necessary for American firms to
obtain/maintain market access. Isn't this neo-mercantilism nothing more than another brand
of economic fascism?
Is the bottom line of the American defense really a reason for the United States to
aggressively intervene around the world? Isn't that something of the tail wagging the
dog?
What's wrong with the US as a regional power? Why do we need a say in Asian and European
affairs?
Why, other than our Founding principles is the United States exceptional? Does it make
sense to abandon said principles in the defense of this exceptionalism?
Do you really believe that Trump is acting independently and has not come under the sway
of those who benefit from our reckless imperial behavior?
Why does the US government need to extract concessions from other nations? Why is it not
enough to simply defend our country from attack, provide for the rule of law and stand
aside to allow our commerce and industry to flourish?
@restless94110
This lunatic's rant becomes literally impossible to read after less than 5 paragraphs.
It is astounding that liberals are now pushing for corporate-state anti-worker trade
agreements, this time in the name of American "leadership."
Leadership to what?
This idiot claims that the world is "reeling" from some decision that Trump made.
Really. Reeling.
When I read that word, I only lasted 4 or so words more.
Then I realized that the article was nothing more than a propagandist's screed, a
neo-liberal who cares nothing for the non-elite. A warmonger who dresses in liberal
clothing.
A waste of time. I agree with most of your take.
Still, McCoy's "The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade" is an
excellent history of the genesis of the heroin trade in SE Asia and the CIA takeover of
same. It also covers important aspects of the shift of heroin production to
Afghanistan.
Having read that book, the views he expressed in this article shocked me.
Still, McCoy's "The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade" is an
excellent history of the genesis of the heroin trade in SE Asia and the CIA takeover of
same. It also covers important aspects of the shift of heroin production to
Afghanistan.
Having read that book, the views he expressed in this article shocked me. Well, as I
said, I could not read past the 5th paragraph.
So, I just tried to scan the article again, without getting infected by it's poison, and
I didn't see anything that would relate to what you are saying.
I don't need to read McCoy's book: it's been amply documented that the CIA has
complicity in it and in it in Afghanistan.
So, I don't know what views he expressed that shocked you in light of your reading about
CIA complicity in the heroin trade.
By the way, this is a prime reason–another one–for legalizing all drugs
immediately in the United States. Heroin was legal until 1914 I believe, but tacitly legal
for at least 10 years more after that, maybe longer.
The way to mitigate damage and take away illegally gotten gains by the CIA and other
criminals is to legalize it.
@restless94110
This lunatic's rant becomes literally impossible to read after less than 5 paragraphs.
It is astounding that liberals are now pushing for corporate-state anti-worker trade
agreements, this time in the name of American "leadership."
Leadership to what?
This idiot claims that the world is "reeling" from some decision that Trump made.
Really. Reeling.
When I read that word, I only lasted 4 or so words more.
Then I realized that the article was nothing more than a propagandist's screed, a
neo-liberal who cares nothing for the non-elite. A warmonger who dresses in liberal
clothing.
A waste of time. {This lunatic's rant becomes literally impossible to read after less
than 5 paragraphs. }
Haha! You should listen to Poo teen (aka Putin) speach when he rcognized that "green
humans" in Crimea were Russian armed forces soldiers. And that so-called voting was a farce
under the Russians machine guns.
And don't forget: according to Ukrainian laws
no part of the country can decide its parting without a vouting of the whole country
The Parliament, egged on by the US and EU, declared the Kosovo area independent. And much
later that was ratified by popular vote to "make it look legal".
Kosovo's population were ethnic Albanians, who are Muslim. The EU foolishly applauded
creating a Muslim State in the Middle of East Europe.
The Kosovo area had been part of Serbia for over 1000 years. Serbia did not agree to its
dismemberment, but was bombed into submission with B-52s by NATO under Bill Clinton.
Crimea already was an independent state within Ukraine with its own parliament. The
popular vote to be annexed by Russia took place in peace because Russia had adequate Green
men to keep the peace and keep Ukraine armed forces on their bases, so they could not
interfere.
Russia can have 22,000 armed services troops in Crimea, per Russia-Ukraine agreement.
Russia never exceeded that number, as it was not necessary, i.e., there was no military
invasion and voters were not herded to the polls to vote by guns.
Oligarch mercenaries would have entered Crimea, and it would have been just as bad as
Donetsk, etc., with thousands killed.
"... Wallace also claimed that fascists "always and everywhere can be identified by their appeal to prejudice and by the desire to play upon the fears and vanities of different groups in order to gain power." ..."
"... Fascists are "easily recognized by their deliberate perversion ..."
"... Wallace identified that fascists' primary objective was to "capture political power so that, using the power of the state and the power of the market simultaneously, they keep the common man in eternal subjection." ..."
"... British historian Karl Polanyi has written in his seminal book, The Great Transformation, that fascism can emerge in a society in reaction to "unsolved national issues." Party polarization and gridlock in the US have created unsolved issues concerning health care, immigration reform and the "war on terror." These volatile issues, in turn, have created the perfect political context for a demagogue to emerge in the United States. ..."
By Thomas J. Scott, Truthout | Op-Ed Henry A. Wallace's 1944 essay, "The Danger of American
Fascism," offers relevant insights into the rise of autocracy in the US and how Trump
perpetuates one of fascism's greatest mechanisms for acquiring absolute power: the force of
emotion over the force of reason based on truth. Citizens need to become aware that democracy
can disappear and mobilize to stop such a disastrous turn of events.
In response, Wallace wrote
"The Danger of American Fascism,"
an essay in
which he suggested that the number of American fascists and the threat they posed were directly
connected to how fascism was defined. Wallace pointed out that several personality traits
characterized fascist belief, arguing that a fascist is "one whose lust for money and power is
combined with such an intensity of intolerance toward those of other races, parties, classes,
religions, cultures, regions or nations as to make him ruthless in his use of deceit or
violence to attain his ends."
Wallace also claimed that fascists "always and everywhere can be identified by their
appeal to prejudice and by the desire to play upon the fears and vanities of different groups
in order to gain power."
Fascists are "easily recognized by their
deliberate perversion
of truth and
fact" (my italics), he contended.
Moreover, Wallace noted that fascists "pay lip service to democracy and the common welfare"
and they "surreptitiously evade the laws designed to safeguard the public from monopolistic
extortion." Finally,
Wallace identified that fascists' primary objective was to "capture
political power so that, using the power of the state and the power of the market
simultaneously, they keep the common man in eternal subjection."
... ... ...
British historian Karl Polanyi has written in his seminal book, The Great
Transformation, that fascism can emerge in a society in reaction to "unsolved national issues."
Party polarization and gridlock in the US have created unsolved issues concerning health care,
immigration reform and the "war on terror." These volatile issues, in turn, have created the
perfect political context for a demagogue to emerge in the United States.
the key players in the coup against Trump are neocons, which have foreign support. Leaks and based
on them "investigations" along with Russiagate witch hunt proved to be very powerful instruments of
the neocons in the deep state, who seeks to regain the lost power. In other words this is a coup for
absolute power of militarists over the USA.
Notable quotes:
"... The commonplace reference to 'the empire' fails to specify the interface and conflict among institutions engaged in projecting different aspects of US political power. In this essay, we will outline the current divisions of power, interests and direction of the competing configurations of influence. ..."
"... In the present conjuncture, the countervailing forces have taken a radical turn: One configuration is attempting to usurp power and overthrow another. Up to this point, the usurping power configuration has resorted to judicial, media and procedural-legislative mechanism to modify policies. However, below the surface, the goal is to oust an incumbent enemy and impose a rival power. ..."
"... With the ascent of Donald Trump to the US Presidency, imperial rulership has become openly contested terrain, fought over amid unyielding aspirants seeking to overthrow the democratically elected regime. While Presidents rule, today the entire state structure is driven by rival power centers. ..."
"... Sectors of the state apparatus and bureaucracy investigate the executive, freely leaking damaging reports to the media, distorting fabricating and/or magnifying incidents. They publicly pursue a course with the goal of regime change. ..."
"... The FBI, Homeland Security, the CIA and other power configurations are acting as crucial allies to the coup-makers seeking to undermine Presidential control over the empire. No doubt, many factions within the regional offices nervously look on, waiting to see if the President will be defeated by these opposing power configurations or will survive and purge their current directors. ..."
"... The Pentagon contains both elements that are pro as well as anti-Presidential power: Some active generals are aligned with the prime movers pushing for regime change, while others oppose this movement. Both contending forces influence and dictate imperial military policies. ..."
"... The most visible and aggressive advocates of regime change are found in the militarist wing of the Democratic Party. They are embedded in the Congress and allied with police state militarists in and out of Washington ..."
"... From their institutional vantage points, the coup-makers have initiated a series of 'investigations' to generate propaganda fodder for the mass media and prepare mass public opinion to favor or at least accept extraordinary 'regime change'. ..."
"... The Democratic Party congressional – mass media complex draws on the circulation of selective security agency revelations of dubious national security value, including smutty gossip, which is highly relevant for overthrowing the current regime. ..."
"... The principal allies supporting the President should be found among the Republican Party, which forms the majority in both the Congress and Senate. These legislators do not act as a uniform bloc – with ultra-militarists joining the Democrats in seeking his ouster. ..."
"... From a strategic perspective, all the signs point to the weakening of Presidential authority, even as his bulldog tenacity allows him to retain formal control over foreign policy. But his foreign policy pronouncements are filtered through a uniformly hostile media, which has succeeded in defining allies and adversaries, as well as the failures of some of his ongoing decisions. ..."
"... The pro- 'regime-change' forces (coup makers) have decided to go for broke in order to secure the programatic capitulation of the Trump regime or its ouster. ..."
"... The Presidential power elite may choose the option of ruling by decree – based on the ensuing economic crisis. They may capitalize on a hue and cry from a Wall Street collapse and claim an imminent threat to national security on our national borders and overseas bases to declare a military emergency. Without support from the intelligence services, their success is doubtful. ..."
"... On the positive side, internal chaos and institutional divisions will relieve the mounting threat of more overseas wars for the moment . The world will breathe a sigh of relief. Not so the world of stock markets: The dollar and the speculators will plunge. ..."
One of the most important outcomes of the Trump Presidency are the revelations describing the
complex competing forces and relations engaged in retaining and expanding US global power ( 'the
empire' ).
The commonplace reference to 'the empire' fails to specify the interface and conflict
among institutions engaged in projecting different aspects of US political power. In this essay,
we will outline the current divisions of power, interests and direction of the competing configurations
of influence.
The Making of Empire: Countervailing Forces
While 'the empire' may describe the general notion that all pursue a common general goal of dominating
and exploiting targeted countries, regions, markets, resources and labor, the dynamics (the timing
and focus of action) are determined by countervailing forces.
In the present conjuncture, the countervailing forces have taken a radical turn: One configuration
is attempting to usurp power and overthrow another. Up to this point, the usurping power configuration
has resorted to judicial, media and procedural-legislative mechanism to modify policies. However,
below the surface, the goal is to oust an incumbent enemy and impose a rival power.
Who Rules 'the Empire'
The executive power is exercised via specialized departments or secretariats – Treasury, Foreign
Affairs (Secretary of State), Interior, and the various security services. In most instances there
is greater or lesser inter-agency competition over budgets, policy and access to the chief executive
and leading decision makers.
In times of crises, when the ruling executive leadership is called into question, this vertical
hierarchy crumbles. The question arises of who will rule and dictate imperial policy?
With the ascent of Donald Trump to the US Presidency, imperial rulership has become openly
contested terrain, fought over amid unyielding aspirants seeking to overthrow the democratically
elected regime. While Presidents rule, today the entire state structure is driven by rival power
centers. At the moment, all of the power seekers are at war to impose their rule over the empire.
Sectors of the state apparatus and bureaucracy investigate the executive, freely leaking damaging
reports to the media, distorting fabricating and/or magnifying incidents. They publicly pursue a
course with the goal of regime change.
The FBI, Homeland Security, the CIA and other power configurations are acting as crucial allies
to the coup-makers seeking to undermine Presidential control over the empire. No doubt, many factions
within the regional offices nervously look on, waiting to see if the President will be defeated by
these opposing power configurations or will survive and purge their current directors.
The Pentagon contains both elements that are pro as well as anti-Presidential power: Some
active generals are aligned with the prime movers pushing for regime change, while others oppose
this movement. Both contending forces influence and dictate imperial military policies.
The most visible and aggressive advocates of regime change are found in the militarist wing
of the Democratic Party. They are embedded in the Congress and allied with police state militarists
in and out of Washington
From their institutional vantage points, the coup-makers have initiated a series of 'investigations'
to generate propaganda fodder for the mass media and prepare mass public opinion to favor or
at least accept extraordinary 'regime change'.
The Democratic Party congressional – mass media complex draws on the circulation of selective
security agency revelations of dubious national security value, including smutty gossip, which is
highly relevant for overthrowing the current regime.
Presidential imperial authority has split into fragments of influence, among the legislative,
Pentagon and security apparatus.
Presidential power depends on the Cabinet and its apparatus in a ruthless fight over imperial
power, polarizing the entire political system.
The President Counter-Attacks
The Trump regime has many strategic enemies and few powerful supporters. His advisers are under
attack: Some have been ousted, others are under investigation and face subpoenas for hysterical
McCarthyite hearings and still others may be loyal but are incompetent and outclassed. His
Cabinet appointees have attempted to follow the President's stated agenda, including the repeal of
Obama's disastrous 'Affordable Care Act' and the rollback of federal regulatory systems, with little
success, despite the fact that this agenda has strong backing from the Wall Street bankers and 'Big
Pharma'.
The President's Napoleonic pretensions have been systematically undermined by continuous disparagement
from the mass media and the absence of plebian support after the election.
The President lacks a mass media base of support and has to resort to the Internet and personal
messages to the public, which are immediately savaged by the mass media.
The principal allies supporting the President should be found among the Republican Party,
which forms the majority in both the Congress and Senate. These legislators do not act as a uniform
bloc – with ultra-militarists joining the Democrats in seeking his ouster.
From a strategic perspective, all the signs point to the weakening of Presidential authority,
even as his bulldog tenacity allows him to retain formal control over foreign policy. But his foreign
policy pronouncements are filtered through a uniformly hostile media, which has succeeded in defining
allies and adversaries, as well as the failures of some of his ongoing decisions.
The September Showdown
The big test of power will be focused on the raising of the public debt ceiling and the continued
funding of the entire federal government. Without agreement there will be a massive governmental
shutdown – a kind of 'general strike' paralyzing essential domestic and foreign programs – including
the funding of Medicare, the payment of Social Security pensions and the salaries of millions of
government and Armed Forces employees.
The pro- 'regime-change' forces (coup makers) have decided to go for broke in order
to secure the programatic capitulation of the Trump regime or its ouster.
The Presidential power elite may choose the option of ruling by decree – based on the ensuing
economic crisis. They may capitalize on a hue and cry from a Wall Street collapse and claim an imminent
threat to national security on our national borders and overseas bases to declare a military emergency.
Without support from the intelligence services, their success is doubtful.
Both sides will blame each other for the mounting breakdown. Temporary Treasury expedients will
not save the situation. The mass media will go into a hysterical mode, from political criticism to
demanding open regime change. The Presidential regime may assume dictatorial powers in order 'to
save the country'.
Congressional moderates will demand a temporary solution: A week-to-week trickle of federal spending.
However, the coup-makers and the 'Bonapartists' will block any 'rotten compromise'. The military
will be mobilized along with the entire security and judicial apparatus to dictate the outcome.
Civil society organization will appeal to the emerging power configurations to defend their special
interests. Discharged public and private employees will march as pensioners and schoolteachers go
without funding. Lobbyists, ranging from oil and gas interests to defenders of Israel, will each
demand their priority treatment.
The power configuration will flex their muscles, while the foundations of Congressional, Judicial
and Presidential institutions will shake and shutter.
On the positive side, internal chaos and institutional divisions will relieve the mounting
threat of more overseas wars for the moment . The world will breathe a sigh of relief. Not so the
world of stock markets: The dollar and the speculators will plunge.
The dispute and indecisions over who rules the empire will allow for regional powers to lay claims
on contested regions. The EU, Japan, Saudi Arabia and Israel will face off with Russia, Iran and
China. No one will wait for the US to decide which power center will rule.
In short, some sort of battle in the Krasnogorovka sector, which the Ukrainian forces
lost:
"Here is a chronicle of events:
On the night from Thursday to Friday, from 13 to 14 July, the APU opened a mortar shell at
Staromikhaylovka. I emphasize, not our positions, namely residential buildings. Two houses
were damaged. One civilian was wounded. In the morning there was a report of the
correspondent of VGTRK Alexander Sladkov.
– On the night from Friday to Saturday from 14 to 15 July, the shelling was repeated,
but already more powerful, artillery worked.
– On Saturday evening, July 15, again, there was artillery shelling.
– On Sunday evening, July 16, again shelling and again destroyed houses in
Staromikhaylovki.
– In the morning there was a report about the press service of the NM DNR.
– In the night from Monday to Tuesday 17 on 18 July, a civilian died in
Staromikhaylovka, one more civilian was killed and another two were injured, another civilian
was injured in Kuibyshev district.
– On Tuesday, July 18th, that part of the front was quiet.
– But on Wednesday July 19, Thursday July 20 and until Friday July 21, every evening
and night Petrovsky district, Staromikhailovka Kirov district and the Kuibyshev district was
subjected to strong mortar and artillery strikes. Every day there were wounded civilians, as
well as destroyed houses and infrastructure.
Most likely, from 19 to 20 July, an order was given to suppress the mortar and artillery
batteries of the APU with available means, which have been killing civilians and military
republics for a week already. The next day, Ukrainian media filled the news with the fact
that Novorussians attacked their positions and even beaten something there. Reported about
the many dead servicemen of the Armed Forces and so on. Although according to the information
provided by the Ukrainian media, 9 soldiers were quoted, and only 4 were killed in the
Krasnogorovka district.
Notice in the Svetlodarsk arc area in December 2016, they had killed 80 soldiers and
injured more than 200, but there was a silence in the Ukrainian media. The same situation
occurred with the exacerbation of the YaBP in January 2017, there were also many deaths of
about 60 servicemen and about 120 were wounded and were also quiet.
And here 9 was lost on all 450 km to the front and such attention."
As always, not the least indication that the Ukrainian forces have upped their game since
February 2015...
OJS@81 - Re: India/China - Interesting in its own right. But ever since the U.S. MSM started weighing in with their spin, I
had to tune out. I'm under constant assault by full-spectrum MSM insanity in the Middle East at the moment, and nobody cares about
what the U.S. thinks about a Indian-Chinese border dispute.
Peter AU 1@92 Re: Iran short-range point defense - They have a couple of dozen old TOR-M1s and BUK clones, but nothing like
Pantsirs. Since their overall network is not terribly integrated (as far as anyone knows), the older short-range equipment is
of limited value. Iran relies on a kind of long-range point defense strategy along with a long-range border ring.
somebody@93 - Re Mattis "...His optimism that the American Way is the solution is quite funny." His heart is in the
right place. I would simply prefer him in his old job as Commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps, rather than U.S. Secretary of Defense.
Quadriad@96 - "...I can't believe that someone as astute as you are is now spilling this defeatist garbage..." The war
with Iran will not be decided by simple weapon superiority (or lack thereof). Iran will lose its entire air defenses in the first
two weeks of an all-our war, and the U.S. will bail out before either side 'wins'.
Nuff Sed@98 - The U.S. spends $600 billion a year on the military and imports less than 12% of our oil from the Persian Gulf.
Since when has the U.S. ever cared about the sacrifices of the 'little people' when pursuing its imperialistic goals? Do you think
big oil interests in Washington would cry much about $200/bbl oil?
"...During Bush the Younger's tenure, Cheney, Rummy and Wolfowitz were dying to attack Iran, but cooler minds among the
military brass prevailed and didn't let the children play at their war games..."
Well, we'll have to disagree on that on. The U.S. war on Iran started a couple of decades ago - we just haven't made it to
Iran itself yet. I think the 'loose ends' are just about all tied up by now.
V. Arnold@100 - Our vast technical superiority in weapons has proved worthless in the longest war in U.S. history: Afghanistan.
We're very good at blowing things up, that's it. If the war is about anything else, then we're usually in trouble.
Incredible, but the "Foreign Policy" magazine made me laugh! While trying access their
article, I was "greeted" by this ad:
"Today, truth comes at a cost"
"In the war on truth, honest reporting matters. Sign up for an FP Premium subscription
today for the best fact-based source for breaking news, analysis, and insights into the most
pressing stories of the day, all for about a quarter a day!"
>source for breaking news
> fact-based
[Looks at the titles of the articles in the site]
Pick up one, FP! Actually, this just proves the point, that, no, we do not live in the
"post-truth reality" now. We were living there since time immemorial, just now some people
learned how to monetize their pretentiousness they call "reporting of the truth", which, of
course, isn't one.
New documents reveal how the CIA attempted to call off the failing coup -- only to be
salvaged at the last minute by an insubordinate spy.
"Declassified documents
released
last week shed light on the Central Intelligence Agency's central role in the 1953 coup that
brought down Iranian Prime Minister Muhammad Mossadegh, fueling a surge of nationalism which
culminated in the 1979 Iranian Revolution and poisoning U.S.-Iran relations into the 21st
century.
The approximately 1,000 pages of documents also reveal for the first time the details
of how the CIA attempted to call off the failing coup -- only to be salvaged at the last
minute by an insubordinate spy on the ground.
Known as Operation Ajax, the CIA plot was ultimately about oil . Western firms had for
decades controlled the region's oil wealth, whether Arabian-American Oil Company in Saudi
Arabia, or the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company in Iran. When the U.S. firm in Saudi Arabia bowed to
pressure in late 1950 and agreed to share oil revenues evenly with Riyadh, the British
concession in Iran came under intense pressure to follow suit. But London adamantly
refused.
So in early 1951, amid great popular acclaim, Mossadegh nationalized Iran's oil
industry. A fuming United Kingdom began conspiring with U.S. intelligence services to
overthrow Mossadegh and restore the monarchy under the shah . (Though some in the U.S. State
Department, the newly released cables show, blamed British intransigence for the tensions and
sought to work with Mossadegh.)
The coup attempt began on August 15 but was swiftly thwarted. Mossadegh made dozens of
arrests. Gen. Fazlollah Zahedi, a top conspirator, went into hiding, and the shah fled the
country.
The CIA, believing the coup to have failed, called it off.
"Operation has been tried and failed and we should not participate in any operation
against Mossadegh which could be traced back to US ," CIA headquarters wrote to its station
chief in Iran in a newly declassified cable sent on Aug. 18, 1953. "Operations against
Mossadegh should be discontinued.
That is the cable which Kermit Roosevelt, top CIA officer in Iran, purportedly and
famously ignored, according to Malcolm Byrne, who directs the U.S.-Iran Relations Project at
the National Security Archive at George Washington University.
At least "one guy was in the room with Kermit Roosevelt when he got this cable," Byrne
told Foreign Policy. "[Roosevelt] said no -- we're not done here." It was already known that
Roosevelt had not carried out an order from Langley to cease and desist. But the cable itself
and its contents were not previously published.
The consequences of his decision were momentous. The next day, on August 19, 1953, with
the aid of "rented" crowds widely believed to have been arranged with CIA assistance , the
coup succeeded. Iran's nationalist hero was jailed, the monarchy restored under the
Western-friendly shah, and Anglo-Iranian oil -- renamed British Petroleum -- tried to get its
fields back. (But didn't really: Despite the coup, nationalist pushback against a return to
foreign control of oil was too much, leaving BP and other majors to share Iran's oil wealth
with Tehran.)
Operation Ajax has long been a bogeyman for conservatives in Iran – but also for
liberals. The coup fanned the flames of anti-Western sentiment, which reached a crescendo in
1979 with the U.S. hostage crisis, the final overthrow of the shah, and the creation of the
Islamic Republic to counter the "Great Satan."
The coup alienated liberals in Iran as well. Mossadegh is widely considered to be the
closest thing Iran has ever had to a democratic leader. He openly championed democratic
values and hoped to establish a democracy in Iran. The elected parliament selected him as
prime minister, a position he used to reduce the power of the shah, thus bringing Iran closer
in line with the political traditions that had developed in Europe. But any further
democratic development was stymied on Aug. 19.
The U.S government long denied involvement in the coup. The State Department first
released coup-related documents in 1989, but edited out any reference to CIA involvement.
Public outrage coaxed a government promise to release a more complete edition, and some
material came out in 2013. Two years later, the full installment of declassified material was
scheduled -- but might have interfered with Iran nuclear talks and were delayed again, Byrne
said. They were finally released last week, though numerous original CIA telegrams from that
period are known to have disappeared or been destroyed long ago
Byrne said that the long delay is due to several factors. Intelligence services are
always concerned about protecting "sources and methods," said Byrne, meaning the secret
spycraft that enables them to operate on the ground. The CIA also needed to protect its
relationship with British intelligence, which may have wished some of the material remain
safeguarded.
Beyond final proof of CIA involvement, there's another very interesting takeaway in the
documents, said Abbas Milani, a professor of Iranian studies at Stanford University: New
details on the true political leanings of Ayatollah Abol-Ghasem Kashani, a cleric and leading
political figure in the 1950s.
In the Islamic Republic, clerics are always the good guys. Kashani has long been seen
as one of the heroes of nationalism during that period. As recently as January of this year,
Iran's supreme leader praised Kashani's role in the nationalization of oil.
Kashani's eventual split from Mossadegh is widely known. Religious leaders in the
country feared the growing power of the communist Tudeh Party, and believed that Mossadegh
was too weak to save the country from the socialist threat.
But the newly released documents show that Kashani wasn't just opposed to Mossadegh -- he was also in close communication with the Americans throughout the period leading up to the
coup, and he actually appears to have requested financial assistance from the United States,
though there is no record of him receiving any money. His request was not previously
known.
On the make-or-break day of Aug. 19, "Kashani was critical," said Milani. "On that day
Kashani's forces were out in full force to defeat Mossadegh.""
The USA was operating not on ideological grounds but based on greed and self interest.
Also – Pope is (still) a Catholic and bear poops in the woods. Those who keep claiming
that the Cold War was based primarily on ideology (a popular trope for palecons and
liberasts) are idiots. News at 11.
In short, some sort of battle in the Krasnogorovka sector, which the Ukrainian forces
lost:
"Here is a chronicle of events:
On the night from Thursday to Friday, from 13 to 14 July, the APU opened a mortar shell at
Staromikhaylovka. I emphasize, not our positions, namely residential buildings. Two houses
were damaged. One civilian was wounded. In the morning there was a report of the
correspondent of VGTRK Alexander Sladkov.
– On the night from Friday to Saturday from 14 to 15 July, the shelling was repeated,
but already more powerful, artillery worked.
– On Saturday evening, July 15, again, there was artillery shelling.
– On Sunday evening, July 16, again shelling and again destroyed houses in
Staromikhaylovki.
– In the morning there was a report about the press service of the NM DNR.
– In the night from Monday to Tuesday 17 on 18 July, a civilian died in
Staromikhaylovka, one more civilian was killed and another two were injured, another civilian
was injured in Kuibyshev district.
– On Tuesday, July 18th, that part of the front was quiet.
– But on Wednesday July 19, Thursday July 20 and until Friday July 21, every evening
and night Petrovsky district, Staromikhailovka Kirov district and the Kuibyshev district was
subjected to strong mortar and artillery strikes. Every day there were wounded civilians, as
well as destroyed houses and infrastructure.
Most likely, from 19 to 20 July, an order was given to suppress the mortar and artillery
batteries of the APU with available means, which have been killing civilians and military
republics for a week already. The next day, Ukrainian media filled the news with the fact
that Novorussians attacked their positions and even beaten something there. Reported about
the many dead servicemen of the Armed Forces and so on. Although according to the information
provided by the Ukrainian media, 9 soldiers were quoted, and only 4 were killed in the
Krasnogorovka district.
Notice in the Svetlodarsk arc area in December 2016, they had killed 80 soldiers and
injured more than 200, but there was a silence in the Ukrainian media. The same situation
occurred with the exacerbation of the YaBP in January 2017, there were also many deaths of
about 60 servicemen and about 120 were wounded and were also quiet.
And here 9 was lost on all 450 km to the front and such attention."
As always, not the least indication that the Ukrainian forces have upped their game since
February 2015...
the key players in the coup against Trump are neocons, which have foreign support. Leaks and based
on them "investigations" along with Russiagate witch hunt proved to be very powerful instruments of
the neocons in the deep state, who seeks to regain the lost power. In other words this is a coup for
absolute power of militarists over the USA.
Notable quotes:
"... The commonplace reference to 'the empire' fails to specify the interface and conflict among institutions engaged in projecting different aspects of US political power. In this essay, we will outline the current divisions of power, interests and direction of the competing configurations of influence. ..."
"... In the present conjuncture, the countervailing forces have taken a radical turn: One configuration is attempting to usurp power and overthrow another. Up to this point, the usurping power configuration has resorted to judicial, media and procedural-legislative mechanism to modify policies. However, below the surface, the goal is to oust an incumbent enemy and impose a rival power. ..."
"... With the ascent of Donald Trump to the US Presidency, imperial rulership has become openly contested terrain, fought over amid unyielding aspirants seeking to overthrow the democratically elected regime. While Presidents rule, today the entire state structure is driven by rival power centers. ..."
"... Sectors of the state apparatus and bureaucracy investigate the executive, freely leaking damaging reports to the media, distorting fabricating and/or magnifying incidents. They publicly pursue a course with the goal of regime change. ..."
"... The FBI, Homeland Security, the CIA and other power configurations are acting as crucial allies to the coup-makers seeking to undermine Presidential control over the empire. No doubt, many factions within the regional offices nervously look on, waiting to see if the President will be defeated by these opposing power configurations or will survive and purge their current directors. ..."
"... The Pentagon contains both elements that are pro as well as anti-Presidential power: Some active generals are aligned with the prime movers pushing for regime change, while others oppose this movement. Both contending forces influence and dictate imperial military policies. ..."
"... The most visible and aggressive advocates of regime change are found in the militarist wing of the Democratic Party. They are embedded in the Congress and allied with police state militarists in and out of Washington ..."
"... From their institutional vantage points, the coup-makers have initiated a series of 'investigations' to generate propaganda fodder for the mass media and prepare mass public opinion to favor or at least accept extraordinary 'regime change'. ..."
"... The Democratic Party congressional – mass media complex draws on the circulation of selective security agency revelations of dubious national security value, including smutty gossip, which is highly relevant for overthrowing the current regime. ..."
"... The principal allies supporting the President should be found among the Republican Party, which forms the majority in both the Congress and Senate. These legislators do not act as a uniform bloc – with ultra-militarists joining the Democrats in seeking his ouster. ..."
"... From a strategic perspective, all the signs point to the weakening of Presidential authority, even as his bulldog tenacity allows him to retain formal control over foreign policy. But his foreign policy pronouncements are filtered through a uniformly hostile media, which has succeeded in defining allies and adversaries, as well as the failures of some of his ongoing decisions. ..."
"... The pro- 'regime-change' forces (coup makers) have decided to go for broke in order to secure the programatic capitulation of the Trump regime or its ouster. ..."
"... The Presidential power elite may choose the option of ruling by decree – based on the ensuing economic crisis. They may capitalize on a hue and cry from a Wall Street collapse and claim an imminent threat to national security on our national borders and overseas bases to declare a military emergency. Without support from the intelligence services, their success is doubtful. ..."
"... On the positive side, internal chaos and institutional divisions will relieve the mounting threat of more overseas wars for the moment . The world will breathe a sigh of relief. Not so the world of stock markets: The dollar and the speculators will plunge. ..."
One of the most important outcomes of the Trump Presidency are the revelations describing the
complex competing forces and relations engaged in retaining and expanding US global power ( 'the
empire' ).
The commonplace reference to 'the empire' fails to specify the interface and conflict
among institutions engaged in projecting different aspects of US political power. In this essay,
we will outline the current divisions of power, interests and direction of the competing configurations
of influence.
The Making of Empire: Countervailing Forces
While 'the empire' may describe the general notion that all pursue a common general goal of dominating
and exploiting targeted countries, regions, markets, resources and labor, the dynamics (the timing
and focus of action) are determined by countervailing forces.
In the present conjuncture, the countervailing forces have taken a radical turn: One configuration
is attempting to usurp power and overthrow another. Up to this point, the usurping power configuration
has resorted to judicial, media and procedural-legislative mechanism to modify policies. However,
below the surface, the goal is to oust an incumbent enemy and impose a rival power.
Who Rules 'the Empire'
The executive power is exercised via specialized departments or secretariats – Treasury, Foreign
Affairs (Secretary of State), Interior, and the various security services. In most instances there
is greater or lesser inter-agency competition over budgets, policy and access to the chief executive
and leading decision makers.
In times of crises, when the ruling executive leadership is called into question, this vertical
hierarchy crumbles. The question arises of who will rule and dictate imperial policy?
With the ascent of Donald Trump to the US Presidency, imperial rulership has become openly
contested terrain, fought over amid unyielding aspirants seeking to overthrow the democratically
elected regime. While Presidents rule, today the entire state structure is driven by rival power
centers. At the moment, all of the power seekers are at war to impose their rule over the empire.
Sectors of the state apparatus and bureaucracy investigate the executive, freely leaking damaging
reports to the media, distorting fabricating and/or magnifying incidents. They publicly pursue a
course with the goal of regime change.
The FBI, Homeland Security, the CIA and other power configurations are acting as crucial allies
to the coup-makers seeking to undermine Presidential control over the empire. No doubt, many factions
within the regional offices nervously look on, waiting to see if the President will be defeated by
these opposing power configurations or will survive and purge their current directors.
The Pentagon contains both elements that are pro as well as anti-Presidential power: Some
active generals are aligned with the prime movers pushing for regime change, while others oppose
this movement. Both contending forces influence and dictate imperial military policies.
The most visible and aggressive advocates of regime change are found in the militarist wing
of the Democratic Party. They are embedded in the Congress and allied with police state militarists
in and out of Washington
From their institutional vantage points, the coup-makers have initiated a series of 'investigations'
to generate propaganda fodder for the mass media and prepare mass public opinion to favor or
at least accept extraordinary 'regime change'.
The Democratic Party congressional – mass media complex draws on the circulation of selective
security agency revelations of dubious national security value, including smutty gossip, which is
highly relevant for overthrowing the current regime.
Presidential imperial authority has split into fragments of influence, among the legislative,
Pentagon and security apparatus.
Presidential power depends on the Cabinet and its apparatus in a ruthless fight over imperial
power, polarizing the entire political system.
The President Counter-Attacks
The Trump regime has many strategic enemies and few powerful supporters. His advisers are under
attack: Some have been ousted, others are under investigation and face subpoenas for hysterical
McCarthyite hearings and still others may be loyal but are incompetent and outclassed. His
Cabinet appointees have attempted to follow the President's stated agenda, including the repeal of
Obama's disastrous 'Affordable Care Act' and the rollback of federal regulatory systems, with little
success, despite the fact that this agenda has strong backing from the Wall Street bankers and 'Big
Pharma'.
The President's Napoleonic pretensions have been systematically undermined by continuous disparagement
from the mass media and the absence of plebian support after the election.
The President lacks a mass media base of support and has to resort to the Internet and personal
messages to the public, which are immediately savaged by the mass media.
The principal allies supporting the President should be found among the Republican Party,
which forms the majority in both the Congress and Senate. These legislators do not act as a uniform
bloc – with ultra-militarists joining the Democrats in seeking his ouster.
From a strategic perspective, all the signs point to the weakening of Presidential authority,
even as his bulldog tenacity allows him to retain formal control over foreign policy. But his foreign
policy pronouncements are filtered through a uniformly hostile media, which has succeeded in defining
allies and adversaries, as well as the failures of some of his ongoing decisions.
The September Showdown
The big test of power will be focused on the raising of the public debt ceiling and the continued
funding of the entire federal government. Without agreement there will be a massive governmental
shutdown – a kind of 'general strike' paralyzing essential domestic and foreign programs – including
the funding of Medicare, the payment of Social Security pensions and the salaries of millions of
government and Armed Forces employees.
The pro- 'regime-change' forces (coup makers) have decided to go for broke in order
to secure the programatic capitulation of the Trump regime or its ouster.
The Presidential power elite may choose the option of ruling by decree – based on the ensuing
economic crisis. They may capitalize on a hue and cry from a Wall Street collapse and claim an imminent
threat to national security on our national borders and overseas bases to declare a military emergency.
Without support from the intelligence services, their success is doubtful.
Both sides will blame each other for the mounting breakdown. Temporary Treasury expedients will
not save the situation. The mass media will go into a hysterical mode, from political criticism to
demanding open regime change. The Presidential regime may assume dictatorial powers in order 'to
save the country'.
Congressional moderates will demand a temporary solution: A week-to-week trickle of federal spending.
However, the coup-makers and the 'Bonapartists' will block any 'rotten compromise'. The military
will be mobilized along with the entire security and judicial apparatus to dictate the outcome.
Civil society organization will appeal to the emerging power configurations to defend their special
interests. Discharged public and private employees will march as pensioners and schoolteachers go
without funding. Lobbyists, ranging from oil and gas interests to defenders of Israel, will each
demand their priority treatment.
The power configuration will flex their muscles, while the foundations of Congressional, Judicial
and Presidential institutions will shake and shutter.
On the positive side, internal chaos and institutional divisions will relieve the mounting
threat of more overseas wars for the moment . The world will breathe a sigh of relief. Not so the
world of stock markets: The dollar and the speculators will plunge.
The dispute and indecisions over who rules the empire will allow for regional powers to lay claims
on contested regions. The EU, Japan, Saudi Arabia and Israel will face off with Russia, Iran and
China. No one will wait for the US to decide which power center will rule.
OJS@81 - Re: India/China - Interesting in its own right. But ever since the U.S. MSM started weighing in with their spin, I
had to tune out. I'm under constant assault by full-spectrum MSM insanity in the Middle East at the moment, and nobody cares about
what the U.S. thinks about a Indian-Chinese border dispute.
Peter AU 1@92 Re: Iran short-range point defense - They have a couple of dozen old TOR-M1s and BUK clones, but nothing like
Pantsirs. Since their overall network is not terribly integrated (as far as anyone knows), the older short-range equipment is
of limited value. Iran relies on a kind of long-range point defense strategy along with a long-range border ring.
somebody@93 - Re Mattis "...His optimism that the American Way is the solution is quite funny." His heart is in the
right place. I would simply prefer him in his old job as Commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps, rather than U.S. Secretary of Defense.
Quadriad@96 - "...I can't believe that someone as astute as you are is now spilling this defeatist garbage..." The war
with Iran will not be decided by simple weapon superiority (or lack thereof). Iran will lose its entire air defenses in the first
two weeks of an all-our war, and the U.S. will bail out before either side 'wins'.
Nuff Sed@98 - The U.S. spends $600 billion a year on the military and imports less than 12% of our oil from the Persian Gulf.
Since when has the U.S. ever cared about the sacrifices of the 'little people' when pursuing its imperialistic goals? Do you think
big oil interests in Washington would cry much about $200/bbl oil?
"...During Bush the Younger's tenure, Cheney, Rummy and Wolfowitz were dying to attack Iran, but cooler minds among the
military brass prevailed and didn't let the children play at their war games..."
Well, we'll have to disagree on that on. The U.S. war on Iran started a couple of decades ago - we just haven't made it to
Iran itself yet. I think the 'loose ends' are just about all tied up by now.
V. Arnold@100 - Our vast technical superiority in weapons has proved worthless in the longest war in U.S. history: Afghanistan.
We're very good at blowing things up, that's it. If the war is about anything else, then we're usually in trouble.
Incredible, but the "Foreign Policy" magazine made me laugh! While trying access their
article, I was "greeted" by this ad:
"Today, truth comes at a cost"
"In the war on truth, honest reporting matters. Sign up for an FP Premium subscription
today for the best fact-based source for breaking news, analysis, and insights into the most
pressing stories of the day, all for about a quarter a day!"
>source for breaking news
> fact-based
[Looks at the titles of the articles in the site]
Pick up one, FP! Actually, this just proves the point, that, no, we do not live in the
"post-truth reality" now. We were living there since time immemorial, just now some people
learned how to monetize their pretentiousness they call "reporting of the truth", which, of
course, isn't one.
New documents reveal how the CIA attempted to call off the failing coup -- only to be
salvaged at the last minute by an insubordinate spy.
"Declassified documents
released
last week shed light on the Central Intelligence Agency's central role in the 1953 coup that
brought down Iranian Prime Minister Muhammad Mossadegh, fueling a surge of nationalism which
culminated in the 1979 Iranian Revolution and poisoning U.S.-Iran relations into the 21st
century.
The approximately 1,000 pages of documents also reveal for the first time the details
of how the CIA attempted to call off the failing coup -- only to be salvaged at the last
minute by an insubordinate spy on the ground.
Known as Operation Ajax, the CIA plot was ultimately about oil . Western firms had for
decades controlled the region's oil wealth, whether Arabian-American Oil Company in Saudi
Arabia, or the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company in Iran. When the U.S. firm in Saudi Arabia bowed to
pressure in late 1950 and agreed to share oil revenues evenly with Riyadh, the British
concession in Iran came under intense pressure to follow suit. But London adamantly
refused.
So in early 1951, amid great popular acclaim, Mossadegh nationalized Iran's oil
industry. A fuming United Kingdom began conspiring with U.S. intelligence services to
overthrow Mossadegh and restore the monarchy under the shah . (Though some in the U.S. State
Department, the newly released cables show, blamed British intransigence for the tensions and
sought to work with Mossadegh.)
The coup attempt began on August 15 but was swiftly thwarted. Mossadegh made dozens of
arrests. Gen. Fazlollah Zahedi, a top conspirator, went into hiding, and the shah fled the
country.
The CIA, believing the coup to have failed, called it off.
"Operation has been tried and failed and we should not participate in any operation
against Mossadegh which could be traced back to US ," CIA headquarters wrote to its station
chief in Iran in a newly declassified cable sent on Aug. 18, 1953. "Operations against
Mossadegh should be discontinued.
That is the cable which Kermit Roosevelt, top CIA officer in Iran, purportedly and
famously ignored, according to Malcolm Byrne, who directs the U.S.-Iran Relations Project at
the National Security Archive at George Washington University.
At least "one guy was in the room with Kermit Roosevelt when he got this cable," Byrne
told Foreign Policy. "[Roosevelt] said no -- we're not done here." It was already known that
Roosevelt had not carried out an order from Langley to cease and desist. But the cable itself
and its contents were not previously published.
The consequences of his decision were momentous. The next day, on August 19, 1953, with
the aid of "rented" crowds widely believed to have been arranged with CIA assistance , the
coup succeeded. Iran's nationalist hero was jailed, the monarchy restored under the
Western-friendly shah, and Anglo-Iranian oil -- renamed British Petroleum -- tried to get its
fields back. (But didn't really: Despite the coup, nationalist pushback against a return to
foreign control of oil was too much, leaving BP and other majors to share Iran's oil wealth
with Tehran.)
Operation Ajax has long been a bogeyman for conservatives in Iran – but also for
liberals. The coup fanned the flames of anti-Western sentiment, which reached a crescendo in
1979 with the U.S. hostage crisis, the final overthrow of the shah, and the creation of the
Islamic Republic to counter the "Great Satan."
The coup alienated liberals in Iran as well. Mossadegh is widely considered to be the
closest thing Iran has ever had to a democratic leader. He openly championed democratic
values and hoped to establish a democracy in Iran. The elected parliament selected him as
prime minister, a position he used to reduce the power of the shah, thus bringing Iran closer
in line with the political traditions that had developed in Europe. But any further
democratic development was stymied on Aug. 19.
The U.S government long denied involvement in the coup. The State Department first
released coup-related documents in 1989, but edited out any reference to CIA involvement.
Public outrage coaxed a government promise to release a more complete edition, and some
material came out in 2013. Two years later, the full installment of declassified material was
scheduled -- but might have interfered with Iran nuclear talks and were delayed again, Byrne
said. They were finally released last week, though numerous original CIA telegrams from that
period are known to have disappeared or been destroyed long ago
Byrne said that the long delay is due to several factors. Intelligence services are
always concerned about protecting "sources and methods," said Byrne, meaning the secret
spycraft that enables them to operate on the ground. The CIA also needed to protect its
relationship with British intelligence, which may have wished some of the material remain
safeguarded.
Beyond final proof of CIA involvement, there's another very interesting takeaway in the
documents, said Abbas Milani, a professor of Iranian studies at Stanford University: New
details on the true political leanings of Ayatollah Abol-Ghasem Kashani, a cleric and leading
political figure in the 1950s.
In the Islamic Republic, clerics are always the good guys. Kashani has long been seen
as one of the heroes of nationalism during that period. As recently as January of this year,
Iran's supreme leader praised Kashani's role in the nationalization of oil.
Kashani's eventual split from Mossadegh is widely known. Religious leaders in the
country feared the growing power of the communist Tudeh Party, and believed that Mossadegh
was too weak to save the country from the socialist threat.
But the newly released documents show that Kashani wasn't just opposed to Mossadegh -- he was also in close communication with the Americans throughout the period leading up to the
coup, and he actually appears to have requested financial assistance from the United States,
though there is no record of him receiving any money. His request was not previously
known.
On the make-or-break day of Aug. 19, "Kashani was critical," said Milani. "On that day
Kashani's forces were out in full force to defeat Mossadegh.""
The USA was operating not on ideological grounds but based on greed and self interest.
Also – Pope is (still) a Catholic and bear poops in the woods. Those who keep claiming
that the Cold War was based primarily on ideology (a popular trope for palecons and
liberasts) are idiots. News at 11.
a series of titanic explosions at Balakliya, a military base in Eastern Ukraine.
Amateur video of the incident posted on YouTube shows a raging fire spewing out of control
artillery rockets, and an explosion and shockwave that sent civilians nearby reeling.
"... A common technique, practiced by the imperial publicists, is to accuse the victims of the same crimes, which had been committed against them. The well documented, deliberate and sustained US-EU aerial bombardment of Syrian government soldiers, engaged in operations against ISIS-terrorist, resulted in the deaths and maiming of almost 200 Syrian troops and allowed ISIS-mercenaries to overrun their camp. In an attempt to deflect the Pentagon's role in providing air cover for the very terrorists it claims to oppose, the propaganda organs cranked out lurid, but unsubstantiated, stories of an aerial attack on a UN humanitarian aid convoy, first blamed on the Syrian government and then on the Russians. ..."
Washington's quest for perpetual world power is underwritten by systematic and perpetual
propaganda wars. Every major and minor war has been preceded, accompanied and followed by unremitting
government propaganda designed to secure public approval, exploit victims, slander critics, dehumanize
targeted adversaries and justify its allies' collaboration.
In this paper we will discuss the most common recent techniques used to support ongoing
imperial wars.
Role Reversal
A common technique, practiced by the imperial publicists, is to accuse the victims of the
same crimes, which had been committed against them. The well documented, deliberate and sustained
US-EU aerial bombardment of Syrian government soldiers, engaged in operations against ISIS-terrorist,
resulted in the deaths and maiming of almost 200 Syrian troops and allowed ISIS-mercenaries to overrun
their camp. In an attempt to deflect the Pentagon's role in providing air cover for the very terrorists
it claims to oppose, the propaganda organs cranked out lurid, but unsubstantiated, stories of an
aerial attack on a UN humanitarian aid convoy, first blamed on the Syrian government and then on
the Russians. The evidence that the attack was most likely a ground-based rocket attack by ISIS
terrorists did not deter the propaganda mills. This technique would turn US and European attention
away from the documented criminal attack by the imperial bombers and present the victimized Syrian
troops and pilots as international human rights criminals.
Hysterical Rants
Faced with world opprobrium for its wanton violation of an international ceasefire agreement in
Syria, the imperial public spokespeople frequently resort to irrational outbursts at international
meetings in order to intimidate wavering allies into silence and shut down any chance for reasonable
debate resolving concrete issues among adversaries.
The current 'US Ranter-in-Chief' in the United Nations, is Ambassador Samantha Power, who launched
a vitriolic diatribe against the Russians in order to sabotage a proposed General Assembly debate
on the US deliberate violation (its criminal attack on Syrian troops) of the recent Syrian ceasefire.
Instead of a reasonable debate among serious diplomats, the rant served to derail the proceedings.
Identity Politics to Neutralize Anti-Imperialist Movements
Empire is commonly identified with the race, gender, religion and ethnicity of its practioners.
Imperial propagandists have frequently resorted to disarming and weakening anti-imperialist movements
by co-opting and corrupting black, ethnic minority and women leaders and spokespeople. The use of
such 'symbolic' tokens is based on the assumption that these are 'representatives' reflecting the
true interests of so-called 'marginalized minorities' and can therefore presume to 'speak for the
oppressed peoples of the world'. The promotion of such compliant and respectable 'minority members'
to the elite is then propagandized as a 'revolutionary', world liberating historical event – witness
the 'election' of US President Barack Obama.
The rise of Obama to the presidency in 2008 illustrates how the imperial propagandists have used
identity politics to undermine class and anti-imperialist struggles.
Under Obama's historical black presidency, the US pursued seven wars against 'people of color'
in South Asia, the Middle East and North Africa. Over a million men and women of sub-Saharan black
origin, whether Libyan citizens or contract workers for neighboring countries, were killed, dispossessed
and driven into exile by US allies after the US-EU destroyed the Libyan state – in the name of humanitarian
intervention. Hundreds of thousands of Arabs have been bombed in Yemen, Syria and Iraq under President
Obama, the so-called 'historic black' president. Obama's 'predator drones' have killed hundreds of
Afghan and Pakistani villagers. Such is the power of 'identity politics' that ignominious Obama was
awarded the 'Nobel Peace Prize'.
Meanwhile, in the United States under Obama, racial inequalities between black and white workers
(wages, unemployment, access to housing, health and educational services) have widened. Police violence
against blacks intensified with total impunity for 'killer cops'. Over two million immigrant Latino
workers have been expelled – breaking up hundreds of thousands of families– and accompanied by a
marked increase of repression compared to earlier administrations. Millions of black and white workers'
home mortgages were foreclosed while all of the corrupt banks were bailed out – at a greater rate
than had occurred under white presidents.
This blatant, cynical manipulation of identity politics facilitated the continuation and deepening
of imperial wars, class exploitation and racial exclusion. Symbolic representation undermined class
struggles for genuine changes.
Past Suffering to Justify Contemporary Exploitation
Imperial propagandists repeatedly evoke the victims and abuses of the past in order to justify
their own aggressive imperial interventions and support for the 'land grabs' and ethnic cleansing
committed by their colonial allies – like Israel, among others. The victims and crimes of the past
are presented as a perpetual presence to justify ongoing brutalities against contemporary subject
people.
The case of US-Israeli colonization of Palestine clearly illustrates how rabid criminality, pillage,
ethnic cleansing and self-enrichment can be justified and glorified through the language of past
victimization. Propagandists in the US and Israel have created 'the cult of the Holocaust', worshiping
a near century-old Nazi crime against Jews (as well as captive Slavs, Gypsies and other minorities)
in Europe, to justify the bloody conquest and theft of Arab lands and sovereignty and engage in systematic
military assaults against Lebanon and Syria. Millions of Muslim and Christian Palestinians have been
driven into perpetual exile. Elite, wealthy, well-organized and influential zionist Jews, with primary
fealty to Israel, have successfully sabotaged every contemporary struggle for peace in the Middle
East and have created real barriers for social democracy in the US through their promotion of militarism
and empire building. Those claiming to represent victims of the past have become among the most oppressive
of contemporary elites. Using the language of 'defense', they promote aggressive forms of expansion
and pillage. They claim their monopoly on historic 'suffering' has given them a 'special dispensation'
from the rules of civilized conduct: their cult of the Holocaust allows them to inflict immense pain
on others while silencing any criticism with the accusation of 'anti-Semitism' and relentlessly punishing
critics. Their key role in imperial propaganda warfare is based on their claims of an exclusive franchise
on suffering and immunity from the norms of justice.
Entertainment Spectacles on Military Platforms
Entertainment spectacles glorify militarism. Imperial propagandists link the public to unpopular
wars promoted by otherwise discredited leaders. Sports events present soldiers dressed up as war
heroes with deafening, emotional displays of 'flag worship' to celebrate the ongoing overseas wars
of aggression. These mind-numbing extravaganzas with crude elements of religiosity demand choreographed
expressions of national allegiance from the spectators as a cover for continued war crimes abroad
and the destruction of citizens' economic rights at home.
Much admired, multi-millionaire musicians and entertainers of all races and orientations, present
war to the masses with a humanitarian facade. The entertainers smiling faces serve genocide just
as powerfully as the President's benign and friendly face accompanies his embrace of militarism.
The propagandist message for the spectator is that 'your favorite team or singer is there just for
you because our noble wars and valiant warriors have made you free and now they want you to be entertained.'
The old style of blatant bellicose appeals to the public is obsolete: the new propaganda conflates
entertainment with militarism, allowing the ruling elite to secure tacit support for its wars without
disturbing the spectators' experience.
Conclusion
Do the Imperial Techniques of Propaganda Work?
How effective are the modern imperial propaganda techniques? The results seem to be mixed. In
recent months, elite black athletes have begun protesting white racism by challenging the requirement
for choreographed displays of flag worship. . . opening public controversy into the larger issues
of police brutality and sustained marginalization. Identity politics, which led to the election of
Obama, may be giving way to issues of class struggle, racial justice, anti-militarism and the impact
of continued imperial wars. Hysterical rants may still secure international attention, but repeated
performances begin to lose their impact and subject the 'ranter' to ridicule.
The cult of victimology has become less a rationale for the multi-billion dollar US-tribute to
Israel, than the overwhelming political and economic influence and thuggery of billionaire Zionist
fundraisers who demand US politicians' support for the state of Israel.
Brandishing identify politics may have worked the first few times, but inevitably black, Latino,
immigrant and all exploited workers, all underpaid and overworked women and mothers reject the empty
symbolic gestures and demand substantive socio-economic changes – and here they find common links
with the majority of exploited white workers.
In other words, the existing propaganda techniques are losing their edge – the corporate media
news is seen as a sham. Who follows the actor-soldiers and flag-worshipers once the game has begun?
The propagandists of empire are desperate for a new line to grab public attention and obedience.
Could the recent domestic terror bombings in New York and New Jersey provoke mass hysteria and more
militarization? Could they serve as cover for more wars abroad . . .?
A recent survey, published in Military Times, reported that the vast majority of active US soldiers
oppose more imperial wars. They are calling for defense at home and social justice. Soldiers and
veterans have even formed groups to support the protesting black athletes who have refused to participate
in flag worship while unarmed black men are being killed by police in the streets. Despite the multi-billion
dollar electoral propaganda, over sixty percent of the electorate reject both major party candidates.
The reality principle has finally started to undermine State propaganda! (Republished from
The James Petras Website by permission
of author or representative)
a series of titanic explosions at Balakliya, a military base in Eastern Ukraine.
Amateur video of the incident posted on YouTube shows a raging fire spewing out of control
artillery rockets, and an explosion and shockwave that sent civilians nearby reeling.
"... A common technique, practiced by the imperial publicists, is to accuse the victims of the same crimes, which had been committed against them. The well documented, deliberate and sustained US-EU aerial bombardment of Syrian government soldiers, engaged in operations against ISIS-terrorist, resulted in the deaths and maiming of almost 200 Syrian troops and allowed ISIS-mercenaries to overrun their camp. In an attempt to deflect the Pentagon's role in providing air cover for the very terrorists it claims to oppose, the propaganda organs cranked out lurid, but unsubstantiated, stories of an aerial attack on a UN humanitarian aid convoy, first blamed on the Syrian government and then on the Russians. ..."
Washington's quest for perpetual world power is underwritten by systematic and perpetual
propaganda wars. Every major and minor war has been preceded, accompanied and followed by unremitting
government propaganda designed to secure public approval, exploit victims, slander critics, dehumanize
targeted adversaries and justify its allies' collaboration.
In this paper we will discuss the most common recent techniques used to support ongoing
imperial wars.
Role Reversal
A common technique, practiced by the imperial publicists, is to accuse the victims of the
same crimes, which had been committed against them. The well documented, deliberate and sustained
US-EU aerial bombardment of Syrian government soldiers, engaged in operations against ISIS-terrorist,
resulted in the deaths and maiming of almost 200 Syrian troops and allowed ISIS-mercenaries to overrun
their camp. In an attempt to deflect the Pentagon's role in providing air cover for the very terrorists
it claims to oppose, the propaganda organs cranked out lurid, but unsubstantiated, stories of an
aerial attack on a UN humanitarian aid convoy, first blamed on the Syrian government and then on
the Russians. The evidence that the attack was most likely a ground-based rocket attack by ISIS
terrorists did not deter the propaganda mills. This technique would turn US and European attention
away from the documented criminal attack by the imperial bombers and present the victimized Syrian
troops and pilots as international human rights criminals.
Hysterical Rants
Faced with world opprobrium for its wanton violation of an international ceasefire agreement in
Syria, the imperial public spokespeople frequently resort to irrational outbursts at international
meetings in order to intimidate wavering allies into silence and shut down any chance for reasonable
debate resolving concrete issues among adversaries.
The current 'US Ranter-in-Chief' in the United Nations, is Ambassador Samantha Power, who launched
a vitriolic diatribe against the Russians in order to sabotage a proposed General Assembly debate
on the US deliberate violation (its criminal attack on Syrian troops) of the recent Syrian ceasefire.
Instead of a reasonable debate among serious diplomats, the rant served to derail the proceedings.
Identity Politics to Neutralize Anti-Imperialist Movements
Empire is commonly identified with the race, gender, religion and ethnicity of its practioners.
Imperial propagandists have frequently resorted to disarming and weakening anti-imperialist movements
by co-opting and corrupting black, ethnic minority and women leaders and spokespeople. The use of
such 'symbolic' tokens is based on the assumption that these are 'representatives' reflecting the
true interests of so-called 'marginalized minorities' and can therefore presume to 'speak for the
oppressed peoples of the world'. The promotion of such compliant and respectable 'minority members'
to the elite is then propagandized as a 'revolutionary', world liberating historical event – witness
the 'election' of US President Barack Obama.
The rise of Obama to the presidency in 2008 illustrates how the imperial propagandists have used
identity politics to undermine class and anti-imperialist struggles.
Under Obama's historical black presidency, the US pursued seven wars against 'people of color'
in South Asia, the Middle East and North Africa. Over a million men and women of sub-Saharan black
origin, whether Libyan citizens or contract workers for neighboring countries, were killed, dispossessed
and driven into exile by US allies after the US-EU destroyed the Libyan state – in the name of humanitarian
intervention. Hundreds of thousands of Arabs have been bombed in Yemen, Syria and Iraq under President
Obama, the so-called 'historic black' president. Obama's 'predator drones' have killed hundreds of
Afghan and Pakistani villagers. Such is the power of 'identity politics' that ignominious Obama was
awarded the 'Nobel Peace Prize'.
Meanwhile, in the United States under Obama, racial inequalities between black and white workers
(wages, unemployment, access to housing, health and educational services) have widened. Police violence
against blacks intensified with total impunity for 'killer cops'. Over two million immigrant Latino
workers have been expelled – breaking up hundreds of thousands of families– and accompanied by a
marked increase of repression compared to earlier administrations. Millions of black and white workers'
home mortgages were foreclosed while all of the corrupt banks were bailed out – at a greater rate
than had occurred under white presidents.
This blatant, cynical manipulation of identity politics facilitated the continuation and deepening
of imperial wars, class exploitation and racial exclusion. Symbolic representation undermined class
struggles for genuine changes.
Past Suffering to Justify Contemporary Exploitation
Imperial propagandists repeatedly evoke the victims and abuses of the past in order to justify
their own aggressive imperial interventions and support for the 'land grabs' and ethnic cleansing
committed by their colonial allies – like Israel, among others. The victims and crimes of the past
are presented as a perpetual presence to justify ongoing brutalities against contemporary subject
people.
The case of US-Israeli colonization of Palestine clearly illustrates how rabid criminality, pillage,
ethnic cleansing and self-enrichment can be justified and glorified through the language of past
victimization. Propagandists in the US and Israel have created 'the cult of the Holocaust', worshiping
a near century-old Nazi crime against Jews (as well as captive Slavs, Gypsies and other minorities)
in Europe, to justify the bloody conquest and theft of Arab lands and sovereignty and engage in systematic
military assaults against Lebanon and Syria. Millions of Muslim and Christian Palestinians have been
driven into perpetual exile. Elite, wealthy, well-organized and influential zionist Jews, with primary
fealty to Israel, have successfully sabotaged every contemporary struggle for peace in the Middle
East and have created real barriers for social democracy in the US through their promotion of militarism
and empire building. Those claiming to represent victims of the past have become among the most oppressive
of contemporary elites. Using the language of 'defense', they promote aggressive forms of expansion
and pillage. They claim their monopoly on historic 'suffering' has given them a 'special dispensation'
from the rules of civilized conduct: their cult of the Holocaust allows them to inflict immense pain
on others while silencing any criticism with the accusation of 'anti-Semitism' and relentlessly punishing
critics. Their key role in imperial propaganda warfare is based on their claims of an exclusive franchise
on suffering and immunity from the norms of justice.
Entertainment Spectacles on Military Platforms
Entertainment spectacles glorify militarism. Imperial propagandists link the public to unpopular
wars promoted by otherwise discredited leaders. Sports events present soldiers dressed up as war
heroes with deafening, emotional displays of 'flag worship' to celebrate the ongoing overseas wars
of aggression. These mind-numbing extravaganzas with crude elements of religiosity demand choreographed
expressions of national allegiance from the spectators as a cover for continued war crimes abroad
and the destruction of citizens' economic rights at home.
Much admired, multi-millionaire musicians and entertainers of all races and orientations, present
war to the masses with a humanitarian facade. The entertainers smiling faces serve genocide just
as powerfully as the President's benign and friendly face accompanies his embrace of militarism.
The propagandist message for the spectator is that 'your favorite team or singer is there just for
you because our noble wars and valiant warriors have made you free and now they want you to be entertained.'
The old style of blatant bellicose appeals to the public is obsolete: the new propaganda conflates
entertainment with militarism, allowing the ruling elite to secure tacit support for its wars without
disturbing the spectators' experience.
Conclusion
Do the Imperial Techniques of Propaganda Work?
How effective are the modern imperial propaganda techniques? The results seem to be mixed. In
recent months, elite black athletes have begun protesting white racism by challenging the requirement
for choreographed displays of flag worship. . . opening public controversy into the larger issues
of police brutality and sustained marginalization. Identity politics, which led to the election of
Obama, may be giving way to issues of class struggle, racial justice, anti-militarism and the impact
of continued imperial wars. Hysterical rants may still secure international attention, but repeated
performances begin to lose their impact and subject the 'ranter' to ridicule.
The cult of victimology has become less a rationale for the multi-billion dollar US-tribute to
Israel, than the overwhelming political and economic influence and thuggery of billionaire Zionist
fundraisers who demand US politicians' support for the state of Israel.
Brandishing identify politics may have worked the first few times, but inevitably black, Latino,
immigrant and all exploited workers, all underpaid and overworked women and mothers reject the empty
symbolic gestures and demand substantive socio-economic changes – and here they find common links
with the majority of exploited white workers.
In other words, the existing propaganda techniques are losing their edge – the corporate media
news is seen as a sham. Who follows the actor-soldiers and flag-worshipers once the game has begun?
The propagandists of empire are desperate for a new line to grab public attention and obedience.
Could the recent domestic terror bombings in New York and New Jersey provoke mass hysteria and more
militarization? Could they serve as cover for more wars abroad . . .?
A recent survey, published in Military Times, reported that the vast majority of active US soldiers
oppose more imperial wars. They are calling for defense at home and social justice. Soldiers and
veterans have even formed groups to support the protesting black athletes who have refused to participate
in flag worship while unarmed black men are being killed by police in the streets. Despite the multi-billion
dollar electoral propaganda, over sixty percent of the electorate reject both major party candidates.
The reality principle has finally started to undermine State propaganda! (Republished from
The James Petras Website by permission
of author or representative)
"... Unlike the Roman Empire, the 1990's were not to be the prelude to an unchallenged US empire of long duration. Since the 'unipolarists' were pursuing multiple costly and destructive wars of conquest and they were unable to rely on the growth of satellites with emerging industrial economies for its profits. US global power eroded. ..."
"... The domestic disasters of the US vassal regime in Russia, under Boris Yeltsin during the 1990″s, pushed the voters to elect a nationalist, Vladimir Putin. President Vladimir Putin's government embarked on a program to regain Russian sovereignty and its position as a global power, countering US internal intervention and pushing back against external encirclement by NATO. ..."
"... The mostly likely site for starting World War III is the Korean peninsula. The unipolarists and their allies in the state apparatus have systematically built-up the conditions to trigger a war with China using the pretext of the North Korean defensive weapons program. ..."
"... The unipolarists' state apparatus has gathered its allies in Congress and the mass media to create public hysteria. Congress and the administration of President Trump have fabricated the North Korean missile program as a 'threat to the United States'. This has allowed the unipolarist state to implement an offensive military strategy to counter this phony 'threat'. ..."
"... The elite have discarded all previous diplomatic negotiations and agreements with North Korea in order to prepare for war – ultimately directed at China. This is because China is the most dynamic and successful global economic challenger to US world domination. ..."
"... South Korea's deeply corrupt and blindly submissive regime immediately accepted the US/THADD system on their territory. Washington found the compliant South Korean 'deep state' willing to sacrifice its crucial economic links with Beijing: China is South Korea's biggest trading partner. In exchange for serving as a platform for future US aggression against China, South Korea has suffered losses in trade, investments and employment. Even if a new South Korea government were to reverse this policy, the US will not move its THAAD installation. China, for its part, has largely cut its economic and investment ties with some of South Korea's biggest conglomerates. Tourism, cultural and academic exchanges, commercial agreements and, most important, most of South Korean industrial exports face shut down. ..."
"... The rise and fall of unipolar America has not displaced the permanent state apparatus as it continues to pursue its deluded strategies ..."
"... On the contrary, the unipolarists are accelerating their drive for global military conquest by targeting Russia and China, which they insist are the cause of their losing wars and global economic decline. They live on their delusions of a 'Golden Age' of the 1990's when George Bush, Sr. could devastate Iraq and Bill Clinton could bomb Yugoslavia's cities with impunity. ..."
"... You don't seem to understand the definitions of legal and illegal in the current context: Anything the US declares legal and subject to its jurisdiction anywhere in the world is legal, otherwise it is still subject to US interpretation on its legality or not. In other words, US troops always operate legally, international law notwithstanding, and US laws have effect everywhere and at all times. What an idiotic statement. ..."
Introduction: US Empire building on a world-scale began during and shortly after WWII. Washington
intervened directly in the Chinese civil war (providing arms to Chiang Kai Shek's army while the
Red Army battled the Japanese), backed France's re-colonization war against the Viet Minh in Indo-China
and installed Japanese imperial collaborator-puppet regimes in South Korea, Taiwan and Japan.
While empire building took place with starts and stops, advances and defeats, the strategic goal
remained the same: to prevent the establishment of independent communist or secular-nationalist governments
and to impose vassal regimes compliant to US interests.
Bloody wars and coups ('regime changes') were the weapons of choice. Defeated European colonial
regimes were replaced and incorporated as subordinate US allies.
Where possible, Washington relied on armies of mercenaries trained, equipped and directed by US
'advisors' to advance imperial conquests. Where necessary, usually if the client regime and vassal
troops were unable to defeat an armed people's army, the US armed forces intervened directly.
Imperial strategists sought to intervene and brutally conquer the target nation. When they failed
to achieve their 'maximum' goal, they dug in with a policy of encirclement to cut the links between
revolutionary centers with adjoining movements. Where countries successfully resisted armed conquests,
empire builders imposed economic sanctions and blockades to erode the economic basis of popular governments.
Empires, as the Roman sages long recognized, are not built in a day, or weeks and months. Temporary
agreements and accords are signed and conveniently broken because imperial designs remain paramount.
Empires would foment internal cleavages among adversaries and coups in neighboring countries.
Above all, they construct a worldwide network of military outposts, clandestine operatives and regional
alliances on the borders of independent governments to curtail emerging military powers.
Following successful wars, imperial centers dominate production and markets, resources and labor.
However, over time challenges would inevitably emerge from dependent and independent regimes. Rivals
and competitors gained markets and increased military competence. While some vassal states sacrificed
political-military sovereignty for independent economic development, others moved toward political
independence.
Early and Late Contradictions of Expanding Imperialism
The dynamics of imperial states and systems contain contradictions that constantly challenge and
change the contours of empire.
The US devoted immense resources to retain its military supremacy among vassals, but experienced
a sharp decline in its share of world markets, especially with the rapid rise of new economic producers.
Economic competition forced the imperial centers to realign the focus of their economies – 'rent'
(finance and speculation) displaced profits from trade and production. Imperial industries relocated
abroad in search of cheap labor. Finance, insurance, real estate, communications, military and security
industries came to dominate the domestic economy. A vicious cycle was created: with the erosion of
its productive base, the Empire further increased its reliance on the military, finance capital and
the import of cheap consumer goods.
Just after World War II, Washington tested its military prowess through intervention . Because
of the immense popular resistance and the proximity of the USSR, and later PRC, empire building in
post-colonial Asia was contained or militarily defeated. US forces temporarily recognized a stalemate
in Korea after killing millions. Its defeat in China led to the flight of the 'Nationalists' to the
provincial island of Taiwan. The sustained popular resistance and material support from socialist
superpowers led to its retreat from Indo-China. In response, it resorted to economic sanctions to
strangle the revolutionary governments.
The Growth of the Unipolar Ideology
With the growing power of overseas economic competitors and its increasing reliance on direct
military intervention, the US Empire took advantage of the internal disintegration of the USSR and
China's embrace of 'state capitalism' in the early 1990's and 1980s..The US expanded throughout the
Baltic region, Eastern and Central Europe and the Balkans – with the forced breakup of Yugoslavia.
Imperial strategists envisioned 'a unipolar empire' – an imperial state without rivals. The Empire
builders were free to invade, occupy and pillage independent states on any continent – even bombing
a European capital, Belgrade, with total impunity. Multiple wars were launched against designated
'adversaries', who lacked strong global allies.
Countries in South Asia, the Middle East and North Africa were targeted for destruction. South
America was under the control of neo-liberal regimes. The former USSR was pillaged and disarmed by
imperial vassals. Russia was ruled by gangster-kleptocrats allied to US stooges. China was envisioned
as nothing more than a slave workshop producing cheap mass consumer goods for Americans and generating
high profits for US multinational corporations and retailers like Walmart.
Unlike the Roman Empire, the 1990's were not to be the prelude to an unchallenged US empire
of long duration. Since the 'unipolarists' were pursuing multiple costly and destructive wars of
conquest and they were unable to rely on the growth of satellites with emerging industrial economies
for its profits. US global power eroded.
The Demise of Unipolarity: The 21st Century
Ten years into the 21st century, the imperial vision of an unchallenged unipolar empire was crumbling.
China's 'primitive' accumulation led to advanced domestic accumulation for the Chinese people and
state. China's power expanded overseas through investments, trade and acquisitions. China displaced
the US as the leading trading partner in Asia and the largest importer of primary commodities from
Latin America and Africa. China became the world's leading manufacturer and exporter of consumer
goods to North America and the EU.
The first decade of the 21st century witnessed the overthrow or defeat of US vassal states throughout
Latin America (Argentina, Bolivia, Venezuela, Ecuador and Brazil) and the emergence of independent
agro-mineral regimes poised to form regional trade pacts. This was a period of growing global demand
for their natural resources and commodities- precisely when the US was de-industrializing and in
the throes of costly disastrous wars in the Middle East.
In contrast to the growing independence of Latin America, the EU deepened its military participation
in the brutal US-led overseas wars by expanding the 'mandate' of NATO. Brussels followed the unipolarist
policy of systematically encircling Russia and weakening its independence via harsh sanctions. The
EU's outward expansion (financed with increasing domestic austerity) heightened internal cleavages,
leading to popular discontent .The UK voted in favor of a referendum to secede from the EU.
The domestic disasters of the US vassal regime in Russia, under Boris Yeltsin during the 1990″s,
pushed the voters to elect a nationalist, Vladimir Putin. President Vladimir Putin's government embarked
on a program to regain Russian sovereignty and its position as a global power, countering US internal
intervention and pushing back against external encirclement by NATO.
Unipolarists continued to launch multiple wars of conquest in the Middle East, North Africa and
South Asia, costing trillions of dollars and leading to the loss of global markets and competitiveness.
As the armies of the Empire expanded globally, the domestic economy (the 'Republic') contracted .The
US became mired in recession and growing poverty. Unipolar politics created a growing multi-polar
global economy, while rigidly imposing military priorities.
The Empire Strikes Back: The Nuclear Option
The second decade of the 21st century ushered in the demise of unipolarity to the dismay of many
'experts' and the blind denial by its political architects. The rise of a multi-polar world economy
intensified the desperate imperial drive to restore unipolarity by military means, led by militarists
incapable of adjusting or assessing their own policies.
Under the regime of the 'first black' US President Obama, elected on promises to 'rein in' the
military, imperial policymakers intensified their pursuit of seven, new and continuing wars. To the
policymakers and the propagandists in the US-EU corporate media, these were successful imperial wars,
accompanied by premature declarations of victories in Somalia, Iraq and Afghanistan. This triumphal
delusion of success led the new Administration to launch new wars in Ukraine, Libya, Syria and Yemen.
As the new wave of wars and coups ('regime change') to re-impose unipolarity failed, even greater
militarist policies displaced economic strategies for global dominance. The unipolarists-militarists,
who direct the permanent state apparatus, continued to sacrifice markets and investments with total
immunity from the disastrous consequences of their failures on the domestic economy.
A Brief Revival of Unipolarity in Latin America
Coups and power grabs have overturned independent governments in Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay,
Honduras and threatened progressive governments in Bolivia, Venezuela and Ecuador. However, the pro-imperial
'roll-back' in Latin America was neither politically nor economically sustainable and threatens to
undermine any restoration of US unipolar dominance of the region.
The US has provided no economic aid or expanded access to markets to reward and support their
newly acquired client regimes. Argentina's new vassal, Mauricio Macri, transferred billions of dollars
to predatory Wall Street bankers and handed over access to military bases and lucrative resources
without receiving any reciprocal inflows of investment capital. Indeed the servile policies of President
Macri created greater unemployment and depressed living standards, leading to mass popular discontent.
The unipolar empire's 'new boy' in its Buenos Aires fiefdom faces an early demise.
Likewise, widespread corruption, a deep economic depression and unprecedented double digit levels
of unemployment in Brazil threaten the illicit vassal regime of Michel Temer with permanent crisis
and rising class conflict.
Short-Lived Success in the Middle East
The revanchist unipolarist launch of a new wave of wars in the Middle East and North Africa seemed
to succeed briefly with the devastating power of US-NATO aerial and naval bombardment .Then collapsed
amidst grotesque destruction and chaos, flooding Europe with millions of refugees.
Powerful surges of resistance to the US invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan hastened the retreat
toward a multi-polar world. Islamist insurgents drove the US into fortress garrisons and took control
of the countryside and encircled cities in Afghanistan; Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Somalia and Libya drove
US backed regimes and mercenaries into flight.
Unipolarists and the Permanent State: Re-Group and Attack
Faced with its failures, unipolarists regrouped and implemented the most dangerous military strategy
yet: the build-up of nuclear 'First-Strike' capability targeting China and Russia.
Orchestrated by US State Department political appointees, Ukraine's government was taken over
by US vassals leading to the ongoing break-up of that country. Fearful of neo-fascists and Russophobes,
the citizens of Crimea voted to rejoin Russia. Ethnic Russian majorities in Ukraine's Donbass region
have been at war with Kiev with thousands killed and millions fleeing their homes to take refuge
in Russia. The unipolarists in Washington financed and directed the Kiev coup led by kleptocrats,
fascists and street mobs, immune as always from the consequences.
Meanwhile the US is increasing its number of combat troops in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria to buttress
its unreliable allies and mercenaries.
What is crucial to understanding the rise and demise of imperial power and the euphoric unipolar
declarations of the 1990's (especially during the heyday of President Clinton's bloody reign), is
that at no point have military and political advances been sustained by foundational economic building
blocks.
The US defeated and subsequently occupied Iraq, but it also systematically destroyed Iraq's civil
society and its economy, creating fertile ground for massive ethnic cleansing, waves of refugees
and the subsequent Islamist uprising that over ran vast territories. Indeed, deliberate US policies
in Iraq and elsewhere created the refugee crisis that is overwhelming Europe.
A similar situation is occurring during the first two decades of this century: Military victories
have installed ineffective imperial-backed unpopular leaders. Unipolarists increasingly rely on the
most retrograde tribal rabble, Islamist extremists, overseas clients and paid mercenaries. The deliberate
US-led assault on the very people capable of leading modern multicultural nations like Iraq, Libya,
Syria and Ukraine, is a caricature of the notorious Pol Pot assaults on Cambodia's educated classes.
Of course, the US honed its special skills in 'killing the school teachers' when it trained and financed
the mujahedin in Afghanistan in the 1980's.
The second weakness, which led to the collapse of the unipolar illusion, has been their inability
to rethink their assumptions and re-orient and rebalance their strategic militarist paradigm from
the incredible global mess they created
They steadfastly refused to work with and promote the educated economic elites in the conquered
countries. To do so would have required maintaining an intact social-economic-security system in
the countries they had systematically shredded. It would mean rejecting their paradigm of total war,
unconditional surrender and naked, brutal military occupation in order to allow the development of
viable economic allies, instead of imposing pliable but grotesquely corrupt vassal regimes.
The deeply entrenched, heavily financed and vast military-intelligence-police apparatus, numbering
many millions, has formed a parallel imperial state ruling over the elected and civilian regime within
the US.
The so-called 'deep state', in reality, is a ruling state run by unipolarists. It is not some
'faceless entity': It has a class, ideological and economic identity.
Despite the severe cost of losing a series of catastrophic wars and the multi-billion-dollar thefts
by kleptocratic vassal regimes, the unipolarists have remained intact, even increasing their efforts
to score a conquest or temporary military victory.
Let us say it, openly and clearly: The unipolarists are now engaged in blaming their terrible
military and political failures on Russia and China. This is why they seek, directly and indirectly,
to weaken Russia and China's 'allies abroad' and at home. Indeed their savage campaign to 'blame
the Russians' for President Trump's election reflects their deep hostility to Russia and contempt
for the working and lower middle class voters (the 'basket of deplorables') who voted for Trump.
This elite's inability to examine its own failures and the political system's inability to remove
these disastrous policymakers is a serious threat to the future of the world.
Unipolarists: Fabricating Pretexts for World War
While the unipolarist state suffered predictable military defeats and prolonged wars and reliance
on unstable civilian regimes, the ideologues continue to deflect blame onto 'Russia and China as
the source of all their military defeats'. The unipolarists' monomania has been transformed into
a provocative large-scale offensive nuclear missile build-up in Europe and Asia, increasing the risk
of a nuclear war by engaging in a deadly 'game of chicken'.
The veteran nuclear physicists in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists published an important
description of the unipolarists' war plans. They revealed that the 'current and ongoing US nuclear
program has implemented revolutionary new technologies that will vastly increase the targeting capability
of the US ballistic missile arsenal. These new technologies increase the overall US killing power
of existing US ballistic missile forces threefold'. This is exactly what an objective observer would
expect of a nuclear-armed US unipolar state planning to launch a war by disarming China and Russia
with a 'surprise' first strike.
The unipolar state has targeted several countries as pretexts for launching a war. The US government
installed provocative missile bases in the Baltic countries and Poland. These are regimes chosen
for their eagerness to violate Russia's borders or airspace and insanely willing to invite the inevitable
military response and chain reaction onto their own populations. Other sites for huge US military
bases and NATO expansion include the Balkans, especially the former Yugoslav provinces of Kosovo
and Montenegro. These are bankrupt ethno-fascist mafia states and potential tinderboxes for NATO-provoked
conflicts leading to a US first strike. This explains why the most rabid US Senate militarists have
been pushing for Kosovo and Montenegro's integration into NATO.
Syria is where the unipolarists are creating a pretext for nuclear war. The US state has been
sending more 'Special Forces' into highly conflictive areas to support their mercenery allies. This
means US troops will operate (illegally) face-to-face with the advancing Syrian army, who are backed
by Russian military air support (legally). The US plans to seize ISIS-controlled Raqqa in Northern
Syria as its own base of operation with the intention of denying the Syrian government its victory
over the jihadi-terrorists. The likelihood of armed 'incidents' between the US and Russia in Syria
is growing to the rapturous applause of US unipolarists.
The US has financed and promoted Kurdish fighters as they seize Syrian territory from the jihadi-terrorists,
especially in territories along the Turkish border. This is leading to an inevitable conflict between
Turkey and the US-backed Kurds.
Another likely site for expanded war is Ukraine. After seizing power in Kiev, the klepto-fascists
launched a shooting war and economic blockade against the bilingual ethnic Russian-Ukrainians of
the Donbass region. Attacks by the Kiev junta, countless massacres of civilians (including the burning
of scores of unarmed Russian-speaking protesters in Odessa) and the sabotage of Russian humanitarian
aid shipments could provoke retaliation from Russia and invite a US military intervention via the
Black Sea against Crimea.
The mostly likely site for starting World War III is the Korean peninsula. The unipolarists
and their allies in the state apparatus have systematically built-up the conditions to trigger a
war with China using the pretext of the North Korean defensive weapons program.
The unipolarists' state apparatus has gathered its allies in Congress and the mass media to
create public hysteria. Congress and the administration of President Trump have fabricated the North
Korean missile program as a 'threat to the United States'. This has allowed the unipolarist state
to implement an offensive military strategy to counter this phony 'threat'.
The elite have discarded all previous diplomatic negotiations and agreements with North Korea
in order to prepare for war – ultimately directed at China. This is because China is the most dynamic
and successful global economic challenger to US world domination. The US has 'suffered' peaceful,
but humiliating, economic defeat at the hands of an emerging Asian power. China's economy has grown
more than three times faster than the US for the last two decades. And China's infrastructure development
bank has attracted scores of regional and European participants after a much promoted US trade agreement
in Asia, developed by the Obama Administration, collapsed. Over the past decade, while salaries and
wages have stagnated or regressed in the US and EU, they have tripled in China.
China's economic growth is set to surpass the US into the near and distant future if trends continue.
This will inevitably lead to China replacing the US s as the world's most dynamic economic power
. barring a nuclear attack by the US. It is no wonder China is embarked on a program to modernize
its defensive missile systems and border and maritime security.
As the unipolarists prepare for the 'final decision' to attack China, they are systematically
installing their most advanced nuclear missile strike capacity in South Korea under the preposterous
pretext of countering the regime in Pyongyang. To exacerbate tensions, the US High Command has embarked
on cyber-attacks against North Korea's missile program. It has been staging massive military exercises
with Seoul, which provoked the North Korean military to 'test' four of its medium range ballistic
missiles in the Sea of Japan. Washington has ignored the Chinese government's efforts to calm the
situation and persuade the North Koreans to resist US provocations on its borders and even scale
down their nuclear weapons program.
The US war propaganda machine claims that Pyongyang's nervous response to Washington's provocative
military exercises (dubbed "Foal Eagle') on North Korea's border are both a 'threat' to South Korea
and 'evidence of its leaders' insanity.' Ultimately, Washington intends to target China. It installed
its (misnamed) Terminal High Altitude Area Defense System (THAAD) in South Korea .An offensive surveillance
and attack system designed to target China's major cities and complement the US maritime encirclement
of China and Russia. Using North Korea as a pretext, THAAD was installed in South Korea, with the
capacity to reach the Chinese heartland in minutes. Its range covers over 3,000 kilometers of China's
land mass. THAAD directed missiles are specifically designed to identify and destroy China's defensive
missile capacity.
With the THADD installation in South Korea, Russia's Far East is now encircled by the US offensive
missiles to complement the build-up in the West.
The unipolar strategists are joined by the increasingly militaristic Japanese government – a most
alarming development for the Koreans and Chinese given the history of Japanese brutality in the region.
The Japanese Defense Minister has proposed acquiring the capacity for a 'pre-emptive strike', an
imperial replay of its invasion and enslavement of Korea and Manchuria. Japan 'points to' North Korea
but really aims at China.
South Korea's deeply corrupt and blindly submissive regime immediately accepted the US/THADD
system on their territory. Washington found the compliant South Korean 'deep state' willing to sacrifice
its crucial economic links with Beijing: China is South Korea's biggest trading partner. In exchange
for serving as a platform for future US aggression against China, South Korea has suffered losses
in trade, investments and employment. Even if a new South Korea government were to reverse this policy,
the US will not move its THAAD installation. China, for its part, has largely cut its economic and
investment ties with some of South Korea's biggest conglomerates. Tourism, cultural and academic
exchanges, commercial agreements and, most important, most of South Korean industrial exports face
shut down.
In the midst of a major political scandal involving the Korean President (who faces impeachment
and imprisonment), the US-Japanese military alliance has brutally sucked the hapless South Korean
people into an offensive military build-up against China. In the process Seoul threatens its peaceful
economic relations with China. The South Koreans are overwhelmingly 'pro-peace', but find themselves
on the frontlines of a potential nuclear war.
China's response to Washington's threat is a massive buildup of its own defensive missile capacity.
The Chinese now claim to have the capacity to rapidly demolish THAAD bases in South Korea if pushed
by the US. China is retooling its factories to compensate for the loss of South Korean industrial
imports.
Conclusion
The rise and fall of unipolar America has not displaced the permanent state apparatus as it
continues to pursue its deluded strategies.
On the contrary, the unipolarists are accelerating their drive for global military conquest
by targeting Russia and China, which they insist are the cause of their losing wars and global economic
decline. They live on their delusions of a 'Golden Age' of the 1990's when George Bush, Sr. could
devastate Iraq and Bill Clinton could bomb Yugoslavia's cities with impunity.
Gone are the days when the unipolarists could break up the USSR, finance violent breakaway former
Soviet regimes in Asia and the Caucuses and run fraudulent elections for its drunken clients in Russia.
The disasters of US policies and its domestic economic decline has given way to rapid and profound
changes in power relations over the last two decades, shattering any illusion of a unipolar 'American
Century'.
Unipolarity remains the ideology of the permanent state security apparatus and its elites in Washington.
They believe that the marriage of militarism abroad and financial control at home will allow them
to regain their lost unipolar 'Garden of Eden'. China and Russia are the essential new protagonists
of a multipolar world. The dynamics of necessity and their own economic growth has pushed them to
successfully nurture alternative, independent states and markets.
This obvious, irreversible reality has driven the unipolarists to the mania of preparing for a
global nuclear war! The pretexts are infinite and absurd; the targets are clear and global; the destructive
offensive military means are available; but so are the formidable defensive and retaliatory capacities
of China and Russia.
The unipolarist state's delusion of 'winning a global nuclear war' presents Americans with the
critical challenge to resist or give in to an insanely dangerous empire in decline, which is willing
to launch a globally destructive war.
"This means US troops will operate (illegally) face-to-face with the advancing Syrian
army, who are backed by Russian military air support (legally)."
You don't seem to understand the definitions of legal and illegal in the current context: Anything
the US declares legal and subject to its jurisdiction anywhere in the world is legal, otherwise
it is still subject to US interpretation on its legality or not. In other words, US troops always
operate legally, international law notwithstanding, and US laws have effect everywhere and at
all times. Read More
What's this "unipolarist" stuff ..some kind of trendy academic euphemism? A land war in Asia?
Even the American public isn't that stupid.
There is zero chance of an attack on Korea .for a couple of reasons:
1) nothing in it for the jooies who need to conserve their satrap's military for an attack
on Iran,
2) if feasible, would have already happened, and lastly
3) the paper tiger would lose another one.
Think about it .goodbye Seoul, goodbye 30,000 US troops, goodbye all those lucrative samsung-kia-hyundai
franchises, kiss off a couple carriers from torpedos, goodbye lots of attack aircraft ..and that's
all before the Chinese enter the fray. Right now the biggest problem is how to let jooie butt
boy Trumpstein and his ridiculous VFW geezer generals back down without losing face. Face is everything
to westerners, you know . Read More
No doubt the Zionists want to focus on Syria and Iran because there is a direct benefit to
them there, but don't forget their goal. Their goal is total control of the world, and China and
Russia stand in their way.
Using N Korea to threaten China and Russia is probably high on their to do list too.
But I do agree with you. There is no way a N Korea war would be easy or fast for America. We
would probably lose 30k soldiers and many ships at least. Wr would burn through a ton of money
when we are flat broke. And I doubt we can be in a 2 front war right now anyway. So probably Middle
East will take the priority.
So the most plausible explanation to me is that Trump re-read one of the chapters he wrote
on negotiation and tried to convince China to go to war for us. But the Chinese aren't stupid
and they didn't take the bait.
China talked tough to N Korea and suspended their coal exports to make it look like they would
play game, and America sent ships to threaten N Korea. But that was all Trump negotiation tactics.
And Trump would be stupid to go to war and have this define his presidency.
China is not happy with North Korea either. Speculation is that China is planning an invasion
with a secret green light from Washington. Even if the US went in, it may be that if China were
granted basing rights in the North, or if there was an agreement for a multinational peacekeeping
force, with equal US/Chinese troops, there may be a way of providing assurance to China on the
national security front while getting rid of a gangster regime that threatens the security of
everyone.
Robert
Magill ,
April 26, 2017 at 5:30 pm GMT \n
China was envisioned as nothing more than a slave workshop producing cheap mass consumer
goods for Americans and generating high profits for US multinational corporations and retailers
like Walmart.
Walmart announced this week the planned opening of 40 new stores in China by 2020. This adds
to the nearly 500 Walmart stores already operating. Very cleaver of them to sell cheap mass consumer
goods made in China to Chinese customers and still generate profit. Where is the disconnect here?
The mostly likely site for starting World War III is the Korean peninsula. The unipolarists
and their allies in the state apparatus have systematically built-up the conditions to trigger
a war with China using the pretext of the North Korean defensive weapons program.
What happened in New York on 9/11 totally unhinged America for a generation. One small nuke
landing anywhere in the US would totally do us in. Russia and China could probably survive a dozen
each and soldier on.
One small nuke landing anywhere in the US would totally do us in.
What do you mean by this ? Are you talking about most Americans leaving their cities and thus
collapsing the entire economic system. Or are you saying that people will get so unhinged that
it will launch all its missiles (without knowing who is responsible) and thus have more nuclear
strikes hitting it ? Read More
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This
Commenter Display
All Comments
Washington intervened directly in the Chinese civil war providing arms to Chiang Kai
Shek's army while the Red Army battled the Japanese
This is COMPLETELY ass-backwards and there is not enough facepalm for such a statement. The
Red Army kept itself well ensconced and recruited desperate peasants while Chiang Kai Check fought
against the Japanese with not a lot of support from the US, then got the cold shoulder from Churchill.
After that, the Nationalist Chinese were such an utter wreck that Mao could easily clean the floor.
Any student of the Sino-Japanese war should have the basics right.
The per cent of Americans killed on 9/11 was less than 0.000097. The per cent of Japanese killed
in the 2011 Tsunami was 0.0144 with nary a whimper. The Japanese total was 148 times the US total!
from what I have read. the first half of that statement is true, while the 2nd half is wrong.
45-49, ccp got the left overs of manchuria, while the kmt got hardware and training directly from
the usa.
Didn't we fight China for many years in a place called Vietnam? How did that war work for
us? Of course we are stupid and our conscious memory is hardly good for 4 years. Our distant memory
is as good as every election cycle and the Vietnam war happened centuries ago on the US memory
calendar! Read More
The White Muslim Traditionalist ,
April 29, 2017 at 11:30 am GMT \n
"This means US troops will operate (illegally) face-to-face with the advancing Syrian army,
who are backed by Russian military air support (legally)."
You don't seem to understand the definitions of legal and illegal in the current context:
Anything the US declares legal and subject to its jurisdiction anywhere in the world is legal,
otherwise it is still subject to US interpretation on its legality or not. In other words, US
troops always operate legally, international law notwithstanding, and US laws have effect everywhere
and at all times. What an idiotic statement.
The United States doesn't decide what is right and what is wrong.
200 Words
@Monty Ahwazi Didn't we fight China for many years in a place called Vietnam? How did that
war work for us? Of course we are stupid and our conscious memory is hardly good for 4 years.
Our distant memory is as good as every election cycle and the Vietnam war happened centuries ago
on the US memory calendar! Didn't we fight China for many years in a place called Vietnam?
It was a mixed bag. Primarily Vietnam was more a Soviet ally than Chinese. You must remember
that during the '60s the Chinese and Soviets were at odds, and Chinese-Vietnamese relations were
not good, either. After the Americans retreated (Nixon-Kissinger's "Peace with Honor"), China
and Vietnam fought some skirmishes over Vietnam's Cambodian intrigue.
Amazing, when you think about it, how Vietnamese, Japanese, Chinese, and Korean brothers and
cousins can't get along. If they could, it would be very difficult for the Anglo-American-Jewish
alliance in the region. Think about it. Chinese are as crafty as Jews, they are patient as hell
(they think in long terms), they are every bit as tribal as Jews. Plus, unlike Jews, they have
demonstrated an ability to create an indigenous (i.e., non parasitic) culture. Finally, Chinese
don't feel any guilt over the Jew's Holocaust Six Million shekel religion, so they can't be whipped
into a subservient paroxysm over it. Maybe that makes war with them inevitable.
Read More
Walmarts in China are not like the one's in America. I'm convinced the US stores are supported
by welfare checks and food stamps. Without those, my guess is that the stores would have closed
a long time ago. Also, in China you don't see half the store filled up with overweight diabetics
on disability, riding around on motorized scooters, looking like land-locked Barron Harkonnens,
etc.
Exactly. The doomsday prognosticators keep up with the Fake News about the
impending end of the world scenarios and they fail to materialize repeatedly.
Just my little thought : in fact China is not going to intervene in a conflict between US-SK-Japan
versus NK. It will sit back and just wait until they all are exhausted and then collect .
Agent76
,
April 29, 2017 at 3:35 pm GMT \n
Mar 25, 2016 Is China Ready to Challenge the Dollar?
Introduction to the report: Is China Ready to Challenge the Dollar? Internationalization of
the Renminbi and Its Implications for the United States.
Apr 12, 2017 China Russia Move For Gold Against Dollar Makes Them A Target By Trump
In this video we talk about all the latest breaking news regarding the financial quite feud
between Russia, China and U.S. Its important to note that this move against Donald Trump and the
U.S petro dollar being the world reserve currency was made before Trumps aggressive actions against
a mutual ally to Russia and China.
@mp Didn't we fight China for many years in a place called Vietnam?
It was a mixed bag. Primarily Vietnam was more a Soviet ally than Chinese. You must remember
that during the '60s the Chinese and Soviets were at odds, and Chinese-Vietnamese relations were
not good, either. After the Americans retreated (Nixon-Kissinger's "Peace with Honor"), China
and Vietnam fought some skirmishes over Vietnam's Cambodian intrigue.
Amazing, when you think about it, how Vietnamese, Japanese, Chinese, and Korean brothers and
cousins can't get along. If they could, it would be very difficult for the Anglo-American-Jewish
alliance in the region. Think about it. Chinese are as crafty as Jews, they are patient as hell
(they think in long terms), they are every bit as tribal as Jews. Plus, unlike Jews, they have
demonstrated an ability to create an indigenous (i.e., non parasitic) culture. Finally, Chinese
don't feel any guilt over the Jew's Holocaust Six Million shekel religion, so they can't be whipped
into a subservient paroxysm over it. Maybe that makes war with them inevitable. OK until you come
to "the Chinese are every bit as tribal as Jews," Whatever you might say about some 12 million
Jews who; if in Israel, learn to speak a version of their old tribal language makes little sense
when applied to 1.3 billion people speaking many mutually incomprehensible languages (or dialects
as some prefer if you think Russian and Polish are two dialects) and with a long history of warlordism
and the barbarism of the Cultural Revolution less than two generations behind them. Still I guess
that it is wise to protect your IP from a Mandarin speaking Chinese employee who only became an
Amrrican citizen yesterday .
"... Unlike the Roman Empire, the 1990's were not to be the prelude to an unchallenged US empire of long duration. Since the 'unipolarists' were pursuing multiple costly and destructive wars of conquest and they were unable to rely on the growth of satellites with emerging industrial economies for its profits. US global power eroded. ..."
"... The domestic disasters of the US vassal regime in Russia, under Boris Yeltsin during the 1990″s, pushed the voters to elect a nationalist, Vladimir Putin. President Vladimir Putin's government embarked on a program to regain Russian sovereignty and its position as a global power, countering US internal intervention and pushing back against external encirclement by NATO. ..."
"... The mostly likely site for starting World War III is the Korean peninsula. The unipolarists and their allies in the state apparatus have systematically built-up the conditions to trigger a war with China using the pretext of the North Korean defensive weapons program. ..."
"... The unipolarists' state apparatus has gathered its allies in Congress and the mass media to create public hysteria. Congress and the administration of President Trump have fabricated the North Korean missile program as a 'threat to the United States'. This has allowed the unipolarist state to implement an offensive military strategy to counter this phony 'threat'. ..."
"... The elite have discarded all previous diplomatic negotiations and agreements with North Korea in order to prepare for war – ultimately directed at China. This is because China is the most dynamic and successful global economic challenger to US world domination. ..."
"... South Korea's deeply corrupt and blindly submissive regime immediately accepted the US/THADD system on their territory. Washington found the compliant South Korean 'deep state' willing to sacrifice its crucial economic links with Beijing: China is South Korea's biggest trading partner. In exchange for serving as a platform for future US aggression against China, South Korea has suffered losses in trade, investments and employment. Even if a new South Korea government were to reverse this policy, the US will not move its THAAD installation. China, for its part, has largely cut its economic and investment ties with some of South Korea's biggest conglomerates. Tourism, cultural and academic exchanges, commercial agreements and, most important, most of South Korean industrial exports face shut down. ..."
"... The rise and fall of unipolar America has not displaced the permanent state apparatus as it continues to pursue its deluded strategies ..."
"... On the contrary, the unipolarists are accelerating their drive for global military conquest by targeting Russia and China, which they insist are the cause of their losing wars and global economic decline. They live on their delusions of a 'Golden Age' of the 1990's when George Bush, Sr. could devastate Iraq and Bill Clinton could bomb Yugoslavia's cities with impunity. ..."
"... You don't seem to understand the definitions of legal and illegal in the current context: Anything the US declares legal and subject to its jurisdiction anywhere in the world is legal, otherwise it is still subject to US interpretation on its legality or not. In other words, US troops always operate legally, international law notwithstanding, and US laws have effect everywhere and at all times. What an idiotic statement. ..."
Introduction: US Empire building on a world-scale began during and shortly after WWII. Washington
intervened directly in the Chinese civil war (providing arms to Chiang Kai Shek's army while the
Red Army battled the Japanese), backed France's re-colonization war against the Viet Minh in Indo-China
and installed Japanese imperial collaborator-puppet regimes in South Korea, Taiwan and Japan.
While empire building took place with starts and stops, advances and defeats, the strategic goal
remained the same: to prevent the establishment of independent communist or secular-nationalist governments
and to impose vassal regimes compliant to US interests.
Bloody wars and coups ('regime changes') were the weapons of choice. Defeated European colonial
regimes were replaced and incorporated as subordinate US allies.
Where possible, Washington relied on armies of mercenaries trained, equipped and directed by US
'advisors' to advance imperial conquests. Where necessary, usually if the client regime and vassal
troops were unable to defeat an armed people's army, the US armed forces intervened directly.
Imperial strategists sought to intervene and brutally conquer the target nation. When they failed
to achieve their 'maximum' goal, they dug in with a policy of encirclement to cut the links between
revolutionary centers with adjoining movements. Where countries successfully resisted armed conquests,
empire builders imposed economic sanctions and blockades to erode the economic basis of popular governments.
Empires, as the Roman sages long recognized, are not built in a day, or weeks and months. Temporary
agreements and accords are signed and conveniently broken because imperial designs remain paramount.
Empires would foment internal cleavages among adversaries and coups in neighboring countries.
Above all, they construct a worldwide network of military outposts, clandestine operatives and regional
alliances on the borders of independent governments to curtail emerging military powers.
Following successful wars, imperial centers dominate production and markets, resources and labor.
However, over time challenges would inevitably emerge from dependent and independent regimes. Rivals
and competitors gained markets and increased military competence. While some vassal states sacrificed
political-military sovereignty for independent economic development, others moved toward political
independence.
Early and Late Contradictions of Expanding Imperialism
The dynamics of imperial states and systems contain contradictions that constantly challenge and
change the contours of empire.
The US devoted immense resources to retain its military supremacy among vassals, but experienced
a sharp decline in its share of world markets, especially with the rapid rise of new economic producers.
Economic competition forced the imperial centers to realign the focus of their economies – 'rent'
(finance and speculation) displaced profits from trade and production. Imperial industries relocated
abroad in search of cheap labor. Finance, insurance, real estate, communications, military and security
industries came to dominate the domestic economy. A vicious cycle was created: with the erosion of
its productive base, the Empire further increased its reliance on the military, finance capital and
the import of cheap consumer goods.
Just after World War II, Washington tested its military prowess through intervention . Because
of the immense popular resistance and the proximity of the USSR, and later PRC, empire building in
post-colonial Asia was contained or militarily defeated. US forces temporarily recognized a stalemate
in Korea after killing millions. Its defeat in China led to the flight of the 'Nationalists' to the
provincial island of Taiwan. The sustained popular resistance and material support from socialist
superpowers led to its retreat from Indo-China. In response, it resorted to economic sanctions to
strangle the revolutionary governments.
The Growth of the Unipolar Ideology
With the growing power of overseas economic competitors and its increasing reliance on direct
military intervention, the US Empire took advantage of the internal disintegration of the USSR and
China's embrace of 'state capitalism' in the early 1990's and 1980s..The US expanded throughout the
Baltic region, Eastern and Central Europe and the Balkans – with the forced breakup of Yugoslavia.
Imperial strategists envisioned 'a unipolar empire' – an imperial state without rivals. The Empire
builders were free to invade, occupy and pillage independent states on any continent – even bombing
a European capital, Belgrade, with total impunity. Multiple wars were launched against designated
'adversaries', who lacked strong global allies.
Countries in South Asia, the Middle East and North Africa were targeted for destruction. South
America was under the control of neo-liberal regimes. The former USSR was pillaged and disarmed by
imperial vassals. Russia was ruled by gangster-kleptocrats allied to US stooges. China was envisioned
as nothing more than a slave workshop producing cheap mass consumer goods for Americans and generating
high profits for US multinational corporations and retailers like Walmart.
Unlike the Roman Empire, the 1990's were not to be the prelude to an unchallenged US empire
of long duration. Since the 'unipolarists' were pursuing multiple costly and destructive wars of
conquest and they were unable to rely on the growth of satellites with emerging industrial economies
for its profits. US global power eroded.
The Demise of Unipolarity: The 21st Century
Ten years into the 21st century, the imperial vision of an unchallenged unipolar empire was crumbling.
China's 'primitive' accumulation led to advanced domestic accumulation for the Chinese people and
state. China's power expanded overseas through investments, trade and acquisitions. China displaced
the US as the leading trading partner in Asia and the largest importer of primary commodities from
Latin America and Africa. China became the world's leading manufacturer and exporter of consumer
goods to North America and the EU.
The first decade of the 21st century witnessed the overthrow or defeat of US vassal states throughout
Latin America (Argentina, Bolivia, Venezuela, Ecuador and Brazil) and the emergence of independent
agro-mineral regimes poised to form regional trade pacts. This was a period of growing global demand
for their natural resources and commodities- precisely when the US was de-industrializing and in
the throes of costly disastrous wars in the Middle East.
In contrast to the growing independence of Latin America, the EU deepened its military participation
in the brutal US-led overseas wars by expanding the 'mandate' of NATO. Brussels followed the unipolarist
policy of systematically encircling Russia and weakening its independence via harsh sanctions. The
EU's outward expansion (financed with increasing domestic austerity) heightened internal cleavages,
leading to popular discontent .The UK voted in favor of a referendum to secede from the EU.
The domestic disasters of the US vassal regime in Russia, under Boris Yeltsin during the 1990″s,
pushed the voters to elect a nationalist, Vladimir Putin. President Vladimir Putin's government embarked
on a program to regain Russian sovereignty and its position as a global power, countering US internal
intervention and pushing back against external encirclement by NATO.
Unipolarists continued to launch multiple wars of conquest in the Middle East, North Africa and
South Asia, costing trillions of dollars and leading to the loss of global markets and competitiveness.
As the armies of the Empire expanded globally, the domestic economy (the 'Republic') contracted .The
US became mired in recession and growing poverty. Unipolar politics created a growing multi-polar
global economy, while rigidly imposing military priorities.
The Empire Strikes Back: The Nuclear Option
The second decade of the 21st century ushered in the demise of unipolarity to the dismay of many
'experts' and the blind denial by its political architects. The rise of a multi-polar world economy
intensified the desperate imperial drive to restore unipolarity by military means, led by militarists
incapable of adjusting or assessing their own policies.
Under the regime of the 'first black' US President Obama, elected on promises to 'rein in' the
military, imperial policymakers intensified their pursuit of seven, new and continuing wars. To the
policymakers and the propagandists in the US-EU corporate media, these were successful imperial wars,
accompanied by premature declarations of victories in Somalia, Iraq and Afghanistan. This triumphal
delusion of success led the new Administration to launch new wars in Ukraine, Libya, Syria and Yemen.
As the new wave of wars and coups ('regime change') to re-impose unipolarity failed, even greater
militarist policies displaced economic strategies for global dominance. The unipolarists-militarists,
who direct the permanent state apparatus, continued to sacrifice markets and investments with total
immunity from the disastrous consequences of their failures on the domestic economy.
A Brief Revival of Unipolarity in Latin America
Coups and power grabs have overturned independent governments in Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay,
Honduras and threatened progressive governments in Bolivia, Venezuela and Ecuador. However, the pro-imperial
'roll-back' in Latin America was neither politically nor economically sustainable and threatens to
undermine any restoration of US unipolar dominance of the region.
The US has provided no economic aid or expanded access to markets to reward and support their
newly acquired client regimes. Argentina's new vassal, Mauricio Macri, transferred billions of dollars
to predatory Wall Street bankers and handed over access to military bases and lucrative resources
without receiving any reciprocal inflows of investment capital. Indeed the servile policies of President
Macri created greater unemployment and depressed living standards, leading to mass popular discontent.
The unipolar empire's 'new boy' in its Buenos Aires fiefdom faces an early demise.
Likewise, widespread corruption, a deep economic depression and unprecedented double digit levels
of unemployment in Brazil threaten the illicit vassal regime of Michel Temer with permanent crisis
and rising class conflict.
Short-Lived Success in the Middle East
The revanchist unipolarist launch of a new wave of wars in the Middle East and North Africa seemed
to succeed briefly with the devastating power of US-NATO aerial and naval bombardment .Then collapsed
amidst grotesque destruction and chaos, flooding Europe with millions of refugees.
Powerful surges of resistance to the US invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan hastened the retreat
toward a multi-polar world. Islamist insurgents drove the US into fortress garrisons and took control
of the countryside and encircled cities in Afghanistan; Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Somalia and Libya drove
US backed regimes and mercenaries into flight.
Unipolarists and the Permanent State: Re-Group and Attack
Faced with its failures, unipolarists regrouped and implemented the most dangerous military strategy
yet: the build-up of nuclear 'First-Strike' capability targeting China and Russia.
Orchestrated by US State Department political appointees, Ukraine's government was taken over
by US vassals leading to the ongoing break-up of that country. Fearful of neo-fascists and Russophobes,
the citizens of Crimea voted to rejoin Russia. Ethnic Russian majorities in Ukraine's Donbass region
have been at war with Kiev with thousands killed and millions fleeing their homes to take refuge
in Russia. The unipolarists in Washington financed and directed the Kiev coup led by kleptocrats,
fascists and street mobs, immune as always from the consequences.
Meanwhile the US is increasing its number of combat troops in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria to buttress
its unreliable allies and mercenaries.
What is crucial to understanding the rise and demise of imperial power and the euphoric unipolar
declarations of the 1990's (especially during the heyday of President Clinton's bloody reign), is
that at no point have military and political advances been sustained by foundational economic building
blocks.
The US defeated and subsequently occupied Iraq, but it also systematically destroyed Iraq's civil
society and its economy, creating fertile ground for massive ethnic cleansing, waves of refugees
and the subsequent Islamist uprising that over ran vast territories. Indeed, deliberate US policies
in Iraq and elsewhere created the refugee crisis that is overwhelming Europe.
A similar situation is occurring during the first two decades of this century: Military victories
have installed ineffective imperial-backed unpopular leaders. Unipolarists increasingly rely on the
most retrograde tribal rabble, Islamist extremists, overseas clients and paid mercenaries. The deliberate
US-led assault on the very people capable of leading modern multicultural nations like Iraq, Libya,
Syria and Ukraine, is a caricature of the notorious Pol Pot assaults on Cambodia's educated classes.
Of course, the US honed its special skills in 'killing the school teachers' when it trained and financed
the mujahedin in Afghanistan in the 1980's.
The second weakness, which led to the collapse of the unipolar illusion, has been their inability
to rethink their assumptions and re-orient and rebalance their strategic militarist paradigm from
the incredible global mess they created
They steadfastly refused to work with and promote the educated economic elites in the conquered
countries. To do so would have required maintaining an intact social-economic-security system in
the countries they had systematically shredded. It would mean rejecting their paradigm of total war,
unconditional surrender and naked, brutal military occupation in order to allow the development of
viable economic allies, instead of imposing pliable but grotesquely corrupt vassal regimes.
The deeply entrenched, heavily financed and vast military-intelligence-police apparatus, numbering
many millions, has formed a parallel imperial state ruling over the elected and civilian regime within
the US.
The so-called 'deep state', in reality, is a ruling state run by unipolarists. It is not some
'faceless entity': It has a class, ideological and economic identity.
Despite the severe cost of losing a series of catastrophic wars and the multi-billion-dollar thefts
by kleptocratic vassal regimes, the unipolarists have remained intact, even increasing their efforts
to score a conquest or temporary military victory.
Let us say it, openly and clearly: The unipolarists are now engaged in blaming their terrible
military and political failures on Russia and China. This is why they seek, directly and indirectly,
to weaken Russia and China's 'allies abroad' and at home. Indeed their savage campaign to 'blame
the Russians' for President Trump's election reflects their deep hostility to Russia and contempt
for the working and lower middle class voters (the 'basket of deplorables') who voted for Trump.
This elite's inability to examine its own failures and the political system's inability to remove
these disastrous policymakers is a serious threat to the future of the world.
Unipolarists: Fabricating Pretexts for World War
While the unipolarist state suffered predictable military defeats and prolonged wars and reliance
on unstable civilian regimes, the ideologues continue to deflect blame onto 'Russia and China as
the source of all their military defeats'. The unipolarists' monomania has been transformed into
a provocative large-scale offensive nuclear missile build-up in Europe and Asia, increasing the risk
of a nuclear war by engaging in a deadly 'game of chicken'.
The veteran nuclear physicists in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists published an important
description of the unipolarists' war plans. They revealed that the 'current and ongoing US nuclear
program has implemented revolutionary new technologies that will vastly increase the targeting capability
of the US ballistic missile arsenal. These new technologies increase the overall US killing power
of existing US ballistic missile forces threefold'. This is exactly what an objective observer would
expect of a nuclear-armed US unipolar state planning to launch a war by disarming China and Russia
with a 'surprise' first strike.
The unipolar state has targeted several countries as pretexts for launching a war. The US government
installed provocative missile bases in the Baltic countries and Poland. These are regimes chosen
for their eagerness to violate Russia's borders or airspace and insanely willing to invite the inevitable
military response and chain reaction onto their own populations. Other sites for huge US military
bases and NATO expansion include the Balkans, especially the former Yugoslav provinces of Kosovo
and Montenegro. These are bankrupt ethno-fascist mafia states and potential tinderboxes for NATO-provoked
conflicts leading to a US first strike. This explains why the most rabid US Senate militarists have
been pushing for Kosovo and Montenegro's integration into NATO.
Syria is where the unipolarists are creating a pretext for nuclear war. The US state has been
sending more 'Special Forces' into highly conflictive areas to support their mercenery allies. This
means US troops will operate (illegally) face-to-face with the advancing Syrian army, who are backed
by Russian military air support (legally). The US plans to seize ISIS-controlled Raqqa in Northern
Syria as its own base of operation with the intention of denying the Syrian government its victory
over the jihadi-terrorists. The likelihood of armed 'incidents' between the US and Russia in Syria
is growing to the rapturous applause of US unipolarists.
The US has financed and promoted Kurdish fighters as they seize Syrian territory from the jihadi-terrorists,
especially in territories along the Turkish border. This is leading to an inevitable conflict between
Turkey and the US-backed Kurds.
Another likely site for expanded war is Ukraine. After seizing power in Kiev, the klepto-fascists
launched a shooting war and economic blockade against the bilingual ethnic Russian-Ukrainians of
the Donbass region. Attacks by the Kiev junta, countless massacres of civilians (including the burning
of scores of unarmed Russian-speaking protesters in Odessa) and the sabotage of Russian humanitarian
aid shipments could provoke retaliation from Russia and invite a US military intervention via the
Black Sea against Crimea.
The mostly likely site for starting World War III is the Korean peninsula. The unipolarists
and their allies in the state apparatus have systematically built-up the conditions to trigger a
war with China using the pretext of the North Korean defensive weapons program.
The unipolarists' state apparatus has gathered its allies in Congress and the mass media to
create public hysteria. Congress and the administration of President Trump have fabricated the North
Korean missile program as a 'threat to the United States'. This has allowed the unipolarist state
to implement an offensive military strategy to counter this phony 'threat'.
The elite have discarded all previous diplomatic negotiations and agreements with North Korea
in order to prepare for war – ultimately directed at China. This is because China is the most dynamic
and successful global economic challenger to US world domination. The US has 'suffered' peaceful,
but humiliating, economic defeat at the hands of an emerging Asian power. China's economy has grown
more than three times faster than the US for the last two decades. And China's infrastructure development
bank has attracted scores of regional and European participants after a much promoted US trade agreement
in Asia, developed by the Obama Administration, collapsed. Over the past decade, while salaries and
wages have stagnated or regressed in the US and EU, they have tripled in China.
China's economic growth is set to surpass the US into the near and distant future if trends continue.
This will inevitably lead to China replacing the US s as the world's most dynamic economic power
. barring a nuclear attack by the US. It is no wonder China is embarked on a program to modernize
its defensive missile systems and border and maritime security.
As the unipolarists prepare for the 'final decision' to attack China, they are systematically
installing their most advanced nuclear missile strike capacity in South Korea under the preposterous
pretext of countering the regime in Pyongyang. To exacerbate tensions, the US High Command has embarked
on cyber-attacks against North Korea's missile program. It has been staging massive military exercises
with Seoul, which provoked the North Korean military to 'test' four of its medium range ballistic
missiles in the Sea of Japan. Washington has ignored the Chinese government's efforts to calm the
situation and persuade the North Koreans to resist US provocations on its borders and even scale
down their nuclear weapons program.
The US war propaganda machine claims that Pyongyang's nervous response to Washington's provocative
military exercises (dubbed "Foal Eagle') on North Korea's border are both a 'threat' to South Korea
and 'evidence of its leaders' insanity.' Ultimately, Washington intends to target China. It installed
its (misnamed) Terminal High Altitude Area Defense System (THAAD) in South Korea .An offensive surveillance
and attack system designed to target China's major cities and complement the US maritime encirclement
of China and Russia. Using North Korea as a pretext, THAAD was installed in South Korea, with the
capacity to reach the Chinese heartland in minutes. Its range covers over 3,000 kilometers of China's
land mass. THAAD directed missiles are specifically designed to identify and destroy China's defensive
missile capacity.
With the THADD installation in South Korea, Russia's Far East is now encircled by the US offensive
missiles to complement the build-up in the West.
The unipolar strategists are joined by the increasingly militaristic Japanese government – a most
alarming development for the Koreans and Chinese given the history of Japanese brutality in the region.
The Japanese Defense Minister has proposed acquiring the capacity for a 'pre-emptive strike', an
imperial replay of its invasion and enslavement of Korea and Manchuria. Japan 'points to' North Korea
but really aims at China.
South Korea's deeply corrupt and blindly submissive regime immediately accepted the US/THADD
system on their territory. Washington found the compliant South Korean 'deep state' willing to sacrifice
its crucial economic links with Beijing: China is South Korea's biggest trading partner. In exchange
for serving as a platform for future US aggression against China, South Korea has suffered losses
in trade, investments and employment. Even if a new South Korea government were to reverse this policy,
the US will not move its THAAD installation. China, for its part, has largely cut its economic and
investment ties with some of South Korea's biggest conglomerates. Tourism, cultural and academic
exchanges, commercial agreements and, most important, most of South Korean industrial exports face
shut down.
In the midst of a major political scandal involving the Korean President (who faces impeachment
and imprisonment), the US-Japanese military alliance has brutally sucked the hapless South Korean
people into an offensive military build-up against China. In the process Seoul threatens its peaceful
economic relations with China. The South Koreans are overwhelmingly 'pro-peace', but find themselves
on the frontlines of a potential nuclear war.
China's response to Washington's threat is a massive buildup of its own defensive missile capacity.
The Chinese now claim to have the capacity to rapidly demolish THAAD bases in South Korea if pushed
by the US. China is retooling its factories to compensate for the loss of South Korean industrial
imports.
Conclusion
The rise and fall of unipolar America has not displaced the permanent state apparatus as it
continues to pursue its deluded strategies.
On the contrary, the unipolarists are accelerating their drive for global military conquest
by targeting Russia and China, which they insist are the cause of their losing wars and global economic
decline. They live on their delusions of a 'Golden Age' of the 1990's when George Bush, Sr. could
devastate Iraq and Bill Clinton could bomb Yugoslavia's cities with impunity.
Gone are the days when the unipolarists could break up the USSR, finance violent breakaway former
Soviet regimes in Asia and the Caucuses and run fraudulent elections for its drunken clients in Russia.
The disasters of US policies and its domestic economic decline has given way to rapid and profound
changes in power relations over the last two decades, shattering any illusion of a unipolar 'American
Century'.
Unipolarity remains the ideology of the permanent state security apparatus and its elites in Washington.
They believe that the marriage of militarism abroad and financial control at home will allow them
to regain their lost unipolar 'Garden of Eden'. China and Russia are the essential new protagonists
of a multipolar world. The dynamics of necessity and their own economic growth has pushed them to
successfully nurture alternative, independent states and markets.
This obvious, irreversible reality has driven the unipolarists to the mania of preparing for a
global nuclear war! The pretexts are infinite and absurd; the targets are clear and global; the destructive
offensive military means are available; but so are the formidable defensive and retaliatory capacities
of China and Russia.
The unipolarist state's delusion of 'winning a global nuclear war' presents Americans with the
critical challenge to resist or give in to an insanely dangerous empire in decline, which is willing
to launch a globally destructive war.
"This means US troops will operate (illegally) face-to-face with the advancing Syrian
army, who are backed by Russian military air support (legally)."
You don't seem to understand the definitions of legal and illegal in the current context: Anything
the US declares legal and subject to its jurisdiction anywhere in the world is legal, otherwise
it is still subject to US interpretation on its legality or not. In other words, US troops always
operate legally, international law notwithstanding, and US laws have effect everywhere and at
all times. Read More
What's this "unipolarist" stuff ..some kind of trendy academic euphemism? A land war in Asia?
Even the American public isn't that stupid.
There is zero chance of an attack on Korea .for a couple of reasons:
1) nothing in it for the jooies who need to conserve their satrap's military for an attack
on Iran,
2) if feasible, would have already happened, and lastly
3) the paper tiger would lose another one.
Think about it .goodbye Seoul, goodbye 30,000 US troops, goodbye all those lucrative samsung-kia-hyundai
franchises, kiss off a couple carriers from torpedos, goodbye lots of attack aircraft ..and that's
all before the Chinese enter the fray. Right now the biggest problem is how to let jooie butt
boy Trumpstein and his ridiculous VFW geezer generals back down without losing face. Face is everything
to westerners, you know . Read More
No doubt the Zionists want to focus on Syria and Iran because there is a direct benefit to
them there, but don't forget their goal. Their goal is total control of the world, and China and
Russia stand in their way.
Using N Korea to threaten China and Russia is probably high on their to do list too.
But I do agree with you. There is no way a N Korea war would be easy or fast for America. We
would probably lose 30k soldiers and many ships at least. Wr would burn through a ton of money
when we are flat broke. And I doubt we can be in a 2 front war right now anyway. So probably Middle
East will take the priority.
So the most plausible explanation to me is that Trump re-read one of the chapters he wrote
on negotiation and tried to convince China to go to war for us. But the Chinese aren't stupid
and they didn't take the bait.
China talked tough to N Korea and suspended their coal exports to make it look like they would
play game, and America sent ships to threaten N Korea. But that was all Trump negotiation tactics.
And Trump would be stupid to go to war and have this define his presidency.
China is not happy with North Korea either. Speculation is that China is planning an invasion
with a secret green light from Washington. Even if the US went in, it may be that if China were
granted basing rights in the North, or if there was an agreement for a multinational peacekeeping
force, with equal US/Chinese troops, there may be a way of providing assurance to China on the
national security front while getting rid of a gangster regime that threatens the security of
everyone.
Robert
Magill ,
April 26, 2017 at 5:30 pm GMT \n
China was envisioned as nothing more than a slave workshop producing cheap mass consumer
goods for Americans and generating high profits for US multinational corporations and retailers
like Walmart.
Walmart announced this week the planned opening of 40 new stores in China by 2020. This adds
to the nearly 500 Walmart stores already operating. Very cleaver of them to sell cheap mass consumer
goods made in China to Chinese customers and still generate profit. Where is the disconnect here?
The mostly likely site for starting World War III is the Korean peninsula. The unipolarists
and their allies in the state apparatus have systematically built-up the conditions to trigger
a war with China using the pretext of the North Korean defensive weapons program.
What happened in New York on 9/11 totally unhinged America for a generation. One small nuke
landing anywhere in the US would totally do us in. Russia and China could probably survive a dozen
each and soldier on.
One small nuke landing anywhere in the US would totally do us in.
What do you mean by this ? Are you talking about most Americans leaving their cities and thus
collapsing the entire economic system. Or are you saying that people will get so unhinged that
it will launch all its missiles (without knowing who is responsible) and thus have more nuclear
strikes hitting it ? Read More
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This
Commenter Display
All Comments
Washington intervened directly in the Chinese civil war providing arms to Chiang Kai
Shek's army while the Red Army battled the Japanese
This is COMPLETELY ass-backwards and there is not enough facepalm for such a statement. The
Red Army kept itself well ensconced and recruited desperate peasants while Chiang Kai Check fought
against the Japanese with not a lot of support from the US, then got the cold shoulder from Churchill.
After that, the Nationalist Chinese were such an utter wreck that Mao could easily clean the floor.
Any student of the Sino-Japanese war should have the basics right.
The per cent of Americans killed on 9/11 was less than 0.000097. The per cent of Japanese killed
in the 2011 Tsunami was 0.0144 with nary a whimper. The Japanese total was 148 times the US total!
from what I have read. the first half of that statement is true, while the 2nd half is wrong.
45-49, ccp got the left overs of manchuria, while the kmt got hardware and training directly from
the usa.
Didn't we fight China for many years in a place called Vietnam? How did that war work for
us? Of course we are stupid and our conscious memory is hardly good for 4 years. Our distant memory
is as good as every election cycle and the Vietnam war happened centuries ago on the US memory
calendar! Read More
The White Muslim Traditionalist ,
April 29, 2017 at 11:30 am GMT \n
"This means US troops will operate (illegally) face-to-face with the advancing Syrian army,
who are backed by Russian military air support (legally)."
You don't seem to understand the definitions of legal and illegal in the current context:
Anything the US declares legal and subject to its jurisdiction anywhere in the world is legal,
otherwise it is still subject to US interpretation on its legality or not. In other words, US
troops always operate legally, international law notwithstanding, and US laws have effect everywhere
and at all times. What an idiotic statement.
The United States doesn't decide what is right and what is wrong.
200 Words
@Monty Ahwazi Didn't we fight China for many years in a place called Vietnam? How did that
war work for us? Of course we are stupid and our conscious memory is hardly good for 4 years.
Our distant memory is as good as every election cycle and the Vietnam war happened centuries ago
on the US memory calendar! Didn't we fight China for many years in a place called Vietnam?
It was a mixed bag. Primarily Vietnam was more a Soviet ally than Chinese. You must remember
that during the '60s the Chinese and Soviets were at odds, and Chinese-Vietnamese relations were
not good, either. After the Americans retreated (Nixon-Kissinger's "Peace with Honor"), China
and Vietnam fought some skirmishes over Vietnam's Cambodian intrigue.
Amazing, when you think about it, how Vietnamese, Japanese, Chinese, and Korean brothers and
cousins can't get along. If they could, it would be very difficult for the Anglo-American-Jewish
alliance in the region. Think about it. Chinese are as crafty as Jews, they are patient as hell
(they think in long terms), they are every bit as tribal as Jews. Plus, unlike Jews, they have
demonstrated an ability to create an indigenous (i.e., non parasitic) culture. Finally, Chinese
don't feel any guilt over the Jew's Holocaust Six Million shekel religion, so they can't be whipped
into a subservient paroxysm over it. Maybe that makes war with them inevitable.
Read More
Walmarts in China are not like the one's in America. I'm convinced the US stores are supported
by welfare checks and food stamps. Without those, my guess is that the stores would have closed
a long time ago. Also, in China you don't see half the store filled up with overweight diabetics
on disability, riding around on motorized scooters, looking like land-locked Barron Harkonnens,
etc.
Exactly. The doomsday prognosticators keep up with the Fake News about the
impending end of the world scenarios and they fail to materialize repeatedly.
Just my little thought : in fact China is not going to intervene in a conflict between US-SK-Japan
versus NK. It will sit back and just wait until they all are exhausted and then collect .
Agent76
,
April 29, 2017 at 3:35 pm GMT \n
Mar 25, 2016 Is China Ready to Challenge the Dollar?
Introduction to the report: Is China Ready to Challenge the Dollar? Internationalization of
the Renminbi and Its Implications for the United States.
Apr 12, 2017 China Russia Move For Gold Against Dollar Makes Them A Target By Trump
In this video we talk about all the latest breaking news regarding the financial quite feud
between Russia, China and U.S. Its important to note that this move against Donald Trump and the
U.S petro dollar being the world reserve currency was made before Trumps aggressive actions against
a mutual ally to Russia and China.
@mp Didn't we fight China for many years in a place called Vietnam?
It was a mixed bag. Primarily Vietnam was more a Soviet ally than Chinese. You must remember
that during the '60s the Chinese and Soviets were at odds, and Chinese-Vietnamese relations were
not good, either. After the Americans retreated (Nixon-Kissinger's "Peace with Honor"), China
and Vietnam fought some skirmishes over Vietnam's Cambodian intrigue.
Amazing, when you think about it, how Vietnamese, Japanese, Chinese, and Korean brothers and
cousins can't get along. If they could, it would be very difficult for the Anglo-American-Jewish
alliance in the region. Think about it. Chinese are as crafty as Jews, they are patient as hell
(they think in long terms), they are every bit as tribal as Jews. Plus, unlike Jews, they have
demonstrated an ability to create an indigenous (i.e., non parasitic) culture. Finally, Chinese
don't feel any guilt over the Jew's Holocaust Six Million shekel religion, so they can't be whipped
into a subservient paroxysm over it. Maybe that makes war with them inevitable. OK until you come
to "the Chinese are every bit as tribal as Jews," Whatever you might say about some 12 million
Jews who; if in Israel, learn to speak a version of their old tribal language makes little sense
when applied to 1.3 billion people speaking many mutually incomprehensible languages (or dialects
as some prefer if you think Russian and Polish are two dialects) and with a long history of warlordism
and the barbarism of the Cultural Revolution less than two generations behind them. Still I guess
that it is wise to protect your IP from a Mandarin speaking Chinese employee who only became an
Amrrican citizen yesterday .
President Trump, searching for a reason to keep the United States in Afghanistan
after 16 years of war, has latched on to a prospect that tantalized previous administrations: Afghanistan's
vast mineral wealth, which his advisers and Afghan officials have told him could be profitably extracted
by Western companies.
Mr. Trump has discussed the country's mineral deposits with President Ashraf Ghani, who promoted
mining as an economic opportunity in one of their first conversations. Mr. Trump, who is deeply skeptical
about sending more American troops to Afghanistan, has suggested that this could be one justification
for the United States to stay engaged in the country.
To explore the possibilities, the White House is considering sending an envoy to Afghanistan to
meet with mining officials. Last week, as the White House fell into an increasingly fractious debate
over Afghanistan policy, three of Mr. Trump's senior aides met with a chemical executive, Michael
N. Silver, to discuss the potential for extracting rare-earth minerals. Mr. Silver's firm, American
Elements, specializes in these minerals, which are used in a range of high-tech products.
Sign Up For the Morning Briefing Newsletter
Stephen A. Feinberg, a billionaire financier who is informally advising Mr. Trump on Afghanistan,
is also looking into ways to exploit the country's minerals, according to a person who has briefed
him. Mr. Feinberg owns a large military contracting firm, DynCorp International, which could play
a role in guarding mines , a major concern, given that some of Afghanistan's richest deposits are
in areas controlled by the Taliban.
In 2010, American officials estimated that Afghanistan had untapped mineral deposits worth nearly
$1 trillion, an estimate that was widely disputed at the time and has certainly fallen since, given
the eroding price of commodities. But the $1 trillion figure is circulating again inside the White
House, according to officials, who said it had caught the attention of Mr. Trump.
The lure of Afghanistan as a war-torn Klondike is well established: In 2006, the George W. Bush
administration conducted aerial surveys of the country to map its mineral resources. Under President
Barack Obama, the Pentagon set up a task force to try to build a mining industry in Afghanistan ,
a challenge that was stymied by rampant corruption, as well as security problems and the lack of
roads, bridges or railroads.
None of these hurdles has been removed in the last eight years, according to former officials,
and some have worsened. They warn that the Trump administration is fooling itself if it believes
that extracting minerals is a panacea for Afghanistan's myriad ills.
"It would be dangerous to use the potential for resource exploitation as a selling point for military
engagement," said Laurel Miller, a senior analyst at RAND who served until last month as the State
Department's special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan. "The barriers to entry are really
quite considerable, and that kind of argument could fuel suspicion about America's real intentions
in Afghanistan."
But for Mr. Trump, as a businessman, it is arguably the only appealing thing about Afghanistan.
Officials said he viewed mining as a "win-win" that could boost that country's economy, generate
jobs for Americans and give the United States a valuable new beachhead in the market for rare-earth
minerals, which has been all but monopolized by China.
China already has a $3 billion contract to develop a copper mine about 25 miles southeast of the
Afghan capital, Kabul. Officials said Mr. Trump was determined not to spend American lives and treasure
in Afghanistan only to watch China lock up its rare-earth deposits, which are used to make products
from wind turbines to computer chips.
Mr. Silver, the chemical executive, may head an effort to maximize the rights for American companies
to extract these minerals, according to a senior official.
Mr. Trump's interest also reflects how his military advisers have struggled to present him with
other persuasive reasons to send troops to the country, where the United States has been at war since
2001.
Policy meetings have become increasingly heated, officials said, as Mr. Trump and his chief strategist,
Stephen K. Bannon, have squared off against General McMaster. Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson
is also said to be unhappy with the current proposals.
Vice President Mike Pence, not General McMaster, will lead a meeting Wednesday of National Security
Council principals on Afghanistan. Some officials said that reflected General McMaster's deepening
isolation; others said that the general welcomed Mr. Pence's involvement and that the two were closely
aligned on the policy.
But Mr. Trump, it is clear, is not. In June, he grudgingly agreed to give Mr. Mattis the authority
to send additional troops , a number believed to be about 4,000 , as a stopgap measure to stabilize
security in Afghanistan. But Mr. Mattis has not yet used his authority, perhaps reflecting his recognition
that the commander-in-chief is uncomfortable with it.
When reporters last week asked Mr. Trump at a meeting at the Pentagon whether he planned to send
more troops, he answered, "We'll see," and added, "ISIS is falling fast," suggesting he viewed the
counterterrorism threat in Afghanistan as declining.
Worried that Mr. Trump will be locked into policies that did not work for the last two presidents,
Mr. Bannon and the president's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, have brought in outside voices, including
Mr. Feinberg and Erik D. Prince, a founder of the private security firm Blackwater International.
Both have urged using more private contractors and giving the CIA an oversight role in the conflict.
In addition, Mr. Feinberg has reached out to people involved in the Obama administration's effort
to build Afghanistan's mining industry. Some warned him that the prospects for a profitable business
are worse now than in 2009, given the decline in commodities prices and the deteriorating security
in areas where the deposits are believed to lie.
Afghanistan's deposits of copper and iron ore are trading at about a third of their 2010 prices.
Most of the undiscovered deposits of rare-earth minerals are believed to be in Helmand Province,
large parts of which are controlled by the Taliban.
"There are undoubtedly minerals to be exploited in Afghanistan, which could help provide economic
stability to the country in the future," said Daniel F. Feldman, a former special representative
for Afghanistan and Pakistan. "But given all the obstacles, it could be many years before mining
yields dividends for the Afghan people."
One advantage is that the Trump administration would have a willing partner in the Afghan government.
During the Obama administration, President Ghani resisted the rapid development of the mining industry,
largely because he worried about the threat of widespread corruption that would come with it.
But as soon as Mr. Trump was elected, Mr. Ghani reversed his position, contacting the Trump team
and promoting Afghanistan's mineral wealth. He realized that Mr. Trump would be intrigued by the
commercial possibilities, officials said.
Mr. Trump has said little publicly about Afghanistan since being elected. But his thinking about
what the United States should reap for its military efforts was made clear in another context soon
after his inauguration. Speaking to employees of the CIA, the president said the United States
had erred in withdrawing troops from Iraq without holding on to its oil.
"The old expression 'To the victor belong the spoils,'" Mr. Trump declared. "You remember?"
"... The two-faced 'Evangelical Christian' Carter sent confidential letters of US support for the brutal dictator Somoza to prevent the Sandinista victory in Nicaragua, while issuing platitudes about peace in Central America. ..."
"... After Carter, the Republican President Ronald Reagan doubled military spending, brutally broke the strike of the Air Controller's union by jailing its leaders, whipped up the revival of US interventionism by invading Grenada and sending Special Forces to join the death squads murdering tens of thousands of peasant activists in Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras. ..."
"... President Reagan's 'free market' polices encouraged US multinational corporations to relocate their factories overseas to Mexico, the Caribbean and Asia, costing millions of US workers well-paying jobs and reducing the number of unionized jobs. The stock markets and profits rose while the 'American Dream' of lifetime stable employment in industry began to fade. ..."
"... The Reagan-Thatcher (British PM) era marked the demise of social welfare. They imposed the doctrine of 'globalization' – in essence, the bellicose revival of Anglo-American imperialism and the end of domestic industrial prosperity. ..."
"... Subsequent Presidents, faced with the shifts in political, social and economic power, chose to re-direct the nation toward greater militarism and the domination of finance capital. They have systematically attacked and dismantled the social welfare programs, environmental protection, pro-industry legislation, diplomacy and peace pacts initiated by Nixon. ..."
"... Twice in recent years, significant majorities voted for jobs, justice and peace (Obama and Trump) and instead got charlatans bringing greater inequality, injustice and endless wars. ..."
Introduction: For almost 50 years, the US economy and society has taken a great leap
backward – accelerating during the past three Presidencies. Not only have we experienced
the reversal of past socio-economic legislation, but also our presidents and Congress have
dragged us into multiple aggressive wars. Now, the threat of a nuclear attack against our
'declared enemies' is 'on the table'.
Since the end of the Viet Nam war, US military 'interventions' have become wars of long
duration. These have cost millions of lives overseas, tens of millions of refugees and scores
of thousands of American soldier deaths, permanent injury and serious mental and
neuropsychiatric damage. There is no 'light at the end of the tunnel', to quote the US General
William Westmoreland.
In retrospect, and after 50 years of decline, the much-maligned Presidency of Richard
Milhous Nixon now stands out as a golden age of social, environmental and inter-racial
advances, as well as an era of successful peace negotiations and diplomacy. President Nixon,
never an ideologue, accepted the reality of a multi-polar world.
Of course, the Nixon Presidency was characterized by serious crimes against humanity, such
as the CIA-sponsored coup d'état against the democratically elected Chilean President
Allende, the bombing of Cambodia and the genocidal invasion of the newly independent country of
East Timor.
Today, he is best known for the far-less consequential events around the 'Watergate' scandal
and related domestic civil rights abuses and corruption. It was the mass media and Democratic
Party politicos who have grossly inflated the election campaign chicanery, leading up to the
bungled break-in of the Watergate Hotel headquarters of the Democratic Party, which led to
Nixon's impeachment and resignation. To today's media spin-masters, 'Watergate' was the
defining event of President Nixon's Presidency.
Ironically, after Nixon resigned from office even greater disasters occurred. This paper
will enumerate these and compare them with the Nixon presidency.
Far from pursuing diplomacy and peace, subsequent presidents, both 'liberal' Democrats and
'conservative' Republicans, invaded Nicaragua, Afghanistan, Panama, Grenada, and Angola and
initiated a dozen other highly destructive and economically devastating wars. The two
oligarchic parties took turns in shredding Nixon's comparatively peaceful legacy.
President Nixon, under the advice of National Security adviser, Henry Kissinger, supported
Israel's invasion of the Arab countries in 1973 as well as the bloody Chilean military coup in
1973.
President Nixon cynically designed the 'Southern Strategy', which transformed the Democratic
Party-controlled racist fiefdoms of the US South into racist Republican-controlled states.
Progressives, liberals and self-styled democratic-socialists have played a leading role in
ignoring Nixon's 'golden years' in terms of domestic and international policy achievements.
Instead they focused on inane and infantile name-calling, like "Tricky Dick", to describe the
man. By doing so, they have failed miserably to discuss national and international issues of
historic importance. They have deliberately fabricated a distorted picture of the Nixon era to
cover-up for the gross failures of subsequent Democratic Party controlled Congresses and
Democratic Presidents.
In this essay, we will briefly outline Richard Nixon's policies and executive initiatives,
which justify our designation of the Nixon's 'golden years', especially in comparison to what
has followed his era.
President Nixon: The Great Leap Forward
In the sphere of political, economic and social life, President Nixon pursued policies,
which ultimately advanced peace in the world and social welfare in the United States.
In foreign policy and diplomacy, Richard Nixon ended both the draft of young Americans into
the armed forces, as well as the decade-long US military occupation of Indo-China, effectively
ending the war – and acknowledging the hard victory of the Vietnamese National Liberation
Front. The war had cost millions of Southeast Asian lives.
Nixon visited Beijing and recognized the 'existence' of the People's Republic of China,
effectively ending a quarter century of economic blockades and military threats against the
billion-plus population of the PRC under three Democratic (Truman, Kennedy and Johnson) and one
Republican (Eisenhower) Presidential Administrations. He established full diplomatic relations
with China.
Nixon initiated the Security Arms Limitation Talks (SALT) agreements with the USSR and
developed diplomatic policies, which recognized the possibility and necessity of peaceful
co-existence between different social systems.
On the domestic front, President Nixon established the Clean Water Act and established the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), with a Federal Government mandate to fight polluters and
hold them accountable for the 'cleanup' of the environment.
Nixon proposed a National Health Insurance Program – an expansion of Medicare to cover
the health needs of all Americans. This radical proposal (a version of 'single payer') was
attacked and defeated by the Democratic Party, led by Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy who was
backed by 'Big Pharma', the AMA and the growing corporate 'health' industry.
Nixon imposed price and wage controls that constrained inflation and price gouging and
actively punished commodity 'hoarding'. This was a time of rapid inflation and shortages due to
the 'Oil Embargo'. With these measures, he incurred the wrath of Wall Street, big business and
the financial press.
Nixon promoted consumer rights, supplemental legislation to expand Social Security,
especially for the handicapped, while defending the retirement age for pension eligibility.
Under Nixon, union membership rose to 30% of the workforce – its high point before its
precipitous decline to 12% under subsequent US Presidents.
Nixon increased salaries of federal employees and real wages rose. In the following
half-century real wages have declined to only 10% of their Nixon era value!
Nixon indexed Social Security to the real rate of inflation.
The Nixon Presidency initiated the Affirmative Action program and used the Federal
Government to push for the desegregation of schools, leading to the first large-scale
integration of public education in the South. President Nixon created the Office of Minority
Business Enterprises (OMBE); the Occupation Safety and Health Agency (OSHA); and the Legacy of
Parks Programs.
Nixon proposed a guaranteed annual wage for American workers, which both Democrats and
Republicans rejected and defeated! He promoted Keynesian industrial policies against the
financial elites with their mania for speculation.
President Nixon appointed four Supreme Court Justices during his term. Three of his
appointees supported the groundbreaking 'Roe versus Wade' decision protecting women's
reproductive rights.
Under Nixon the voting age was reduced from twenty-one to eighteen years – giving
millions of young Americans a greater political voice.
When Nixon spoke in favor of gun control, both the Republican and Democratic Parties opposed
his proposals.
President Nixon supported the Equal Employment Opportunity Act and the Endangered Species
Act, which have remained critical to social and environmental justice.
Richard Nixon was not a 'single issue' President. The span and depth of his progressive
agenda, included fundamental changes in favor of environmental and racial justice, working
class economic security and broad-ranging health issues, peace and co-operation with China and
the USSR, women's rights through Supreme Court decisions; pensioners' rights, and animal rights
advocacy. He reduced economic inequalities between the richest 1% of capitalists and the
working class. Under President Nixon inequality and the concentration of wealth in the US were
far less than they became with subsequent US Presidents and especially during the Obama
Administration.
No President, with the possible exception of President Franklin Roosevelt's Great Depression
Era legislation, even remotely achieved Nixon's domestic socio-economic successes. President
Roosevelt, one must not forget, operated under the immense pressure of massive working class
strikes and in preparation for World War II, while President Nixon achieved his policy advances
during a time of relative 'peace'.
The Post-Nixon Bi-Partisan Regression
In the 41 years since Nixon's resignation (1976-2017) there has been a systematic rollback
of virtually all of the Nixon agenda. Congress, the liberals, the mass media and Wall Street
immediately switched from denigrating Nixon, to praising Democratic President 'Jimmy' Carter's
reversal of Nixon's foreign policy achievements.
Contrary to his media-polished image as a 'Bible-thumping champion of human rights',
President Carter dismantled Nixon's policies promoting peace with the USSR and China,
especially when he appointed the rabidly anti-Russian, anti-communist Zbigniew Brzezinski for
National Security Adviser. The duet created the public image of Carter mouthing human rights
rhetoric while Brzezinski formulated a policy of backing dictators and funding Islamist
(jihadi) terrorists to undermine Soviet allies.
The two-faced 'Evangelical Christian'
Carter sent confidential letters of US support for the brutal dictator Somoza to prevent the
Sandinista victory in Nicaragua, while issuing platitudes about peace in Central
America.
Carter worked closely with the military dictatorship in Pakistan and the 'head chopping'
monarchs in Saudi Arabia to launch the bloody forty-year war in Afghanistan, a Soviet Ally. The
Carter-Brzezinski-promoted mujahidin war against secularism in Afghanistan led directly to the
rise of Islamist terrorism, the Taliban and al Qaeda. Carter's 'freedom fighters'
systematically massacred secular schoolteachers for 'the crime' of educating Afghan girls in
the countryside.
In order to undermine the USSR and other socialist or independent secular countries with
Muslim populations, the Carter-Brzezinski duet financed and trained the Saudi-indoctrinated
Al-Qaeda terrorists. They were delighted when it spread its poison across the Middle East,
Asia, Africa, the Balkans and the Soviet Union promoting separatism and ethnic cleansing. Their
cheers ceased somewhat on 9/11/2001.
Domestically, Carter's deregulation of price controls led to double-digit inflation and set
in motion the long-term decline in wages and salaries, which still plagues the American lower
middle and working classes.
Carter appointed Chairman of the Federal Reserve Paul Volcker, who implemented draconian
anti-inflationary 'austerity' policies reducing domestic consumption and opening the way for
the de-industrialization of the economy.
The seismic change in the US, the 'financialization' of the domestic economy started under
Jimmy Carter and was deepened and expanded under the subsequent Presidents Ronald Regan, George
H W Bush, Sr., 'Bill' Clinton, George W. Bush (Jr) and Barack Obama. Poverty and permanent
unemployment followed.
With deindustrialization, labor union membership declined from 30% of the private labor
force under Nixon to less than 7% today. Organizing workers was no longer a priority: The
AFL-CIO leaders were too busy chasing after the Democrats for handouts (and get-out-of jail
passes).
After Carter, the Republican President Ronald Reagan doubled military spending, brutally
broke the strike of the Air Controller's union by jailing its leaders, whipped up the revival
of US interventionism by invading Grenada and sending Special Forces to join the death squads
murdering tens of thousands of peasant activists in Guatemala, El Salvador and
Honduras.
President Reagan's 'free market' polices encouraged US multinational corporations to
relocate their factories overseas to Mexico, the Caribbean and Asia, costing millions of US
workers well-paying jobs and reducing the number of unionized jobs. The stock markets and
profits rose while the 'American Dream' of lifetime stable employment in industry began to
fade.
Reagan's threats and his huge military build-up forced the USSR to overspend in arms and
strangle its growing domestic consumer economy.
The Reagan-Thatcher (British PM) era marked the demise of social welfare. They imposed
the doctrine of 'globalization' – in essence, the bellicose revival of Anglo-American
imperialism and the end of domestic industrial prosperity.
George HW Bush 'negotiated' with Russian President Gorbachev the break-up of the USSR.
Despite Bush's promises not to place US-NATO forces in former Soviet-allied countries, the
following period saw the huge US-NATO expansion into Eastern Europe, the Balkans and Baltic
states. President Bush (Sr.) invaded and savaged both Panama and Iraq, restarting the epoch of
permanent US wars.
President George HW Bush promulgated the unipolar doctrine of US world domination, known as
the 'Bush Doctrine'.
The Reagan-Bush regimes emptied the content of the Nixon-era progressive agencies in terms
of civil rights, consumer and environmental protection, and wage protection. Unionization
declined by over a third.
After 'war-monger' President 'Papa' Bush, the Saxophone-playing President 'Bill' Clinton was
elected. While crooning the words, 'I feel your pain' ,to American workers and racial
minorities, Clinton unleashed Wall Street, ending regulation of banks and investment houses. He
re-appointed Alan Greenspan to head the Federal Reserve, a proven master of grotesque financial
speculation and the godfather of economic crisis (2007-2009).
President Clinton, passions aroused by the animal spirits on Wall Street (and inside his
White House office), launched a vicious assault on the social welfare state, and in particular,
low-income working families, single parents and African-Americans. Clinton's promotion of
"Workfare" forced single mothers to accept unsustainable minimum wage jobs under the threat of
ending any welfare support, while not providing any mechanism for child care! This one policy
savaged hundreds of thousands of vulnerable families. Under Clinton, the prison industry
exploded as a multi-billion dollar business.
During the 1990's, Clinton backed the most retrograde pro-business, debt-ridden regimes in
Latin America. Hundreds of billions of dollars of Latin American wealth was transferred to the
US. Clinton's 'Golden Years for Wall Street' were a decade of infamy for Latin Americans and
led directly to major leftist revolts by the end of the Clinton era.
President Clinton deepened and widened the US military drive for domination in Europe and
the Middle East. Clinton bombed and invaded Yugoslavia, especially Serbia – destroying
large parts of its capital Belgrade. He bombed Iraq on a daily basis and increased the
starvation blockade of that nation. He invaded Somalia and backed Israeli land
grabbing-settlement expansion in Palestine. He supported the Israeli savaging of Lebanon. He
committed treason by submitting to Israeli blackmail over his sex-capers with Monica Lewinsky
and trying to release Israeli spy-US Naval analyst Jonathan Pollard. It was only after an open
threat of wholesale resignations by the CIA and other security agencies that Clinton withdrew
his proposal to free the traitor Pollard.
Finance capital flourished as Clinton repealed the venerable Glass-Steagall Act of 1933
against bank speculation. He promoted the hugely unpopular NAFTA, (North American Free Trade
Agreement) leading to the loss of over two million industrial jobs, as US multinationals
absconded to Mexico, where wages were less than one-fifth of the US. NAFTA's savaging of the
Mexican agricultural sector and massive bankruptcies of small producers led directly to the
flood of desperate Mexican migrants looking for work in the US.
The Georgetown-Harvard-Oxford trained 'Bill' Clinton was the grand wizard of talking like a
'black preacher' in southern churches while smoothly pursuing the 'big bucks' on Wall
Street.
After Clinton, regressive policies increased sharply: President George W Bush (Jr), 'First
Black President' Barack Obama and 'First Billionaire President' Donald Trump all supported the
most virulent imperial war policies.
The two terms of President George (Jr) Bush (2001 – 2008) saw unending multi-trillion
dollar-wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, which have destabilized two continents. Junior Bush
presided over the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression. His anti-Muslim 'global
wars on terror (GWOT)' was launched under the influence of 'Israel-First' militarists who had
inundated the Defense Department, National Security staff and Middle East policy and advisory
staff in the State Department. Meanwhile, GW Bush deepened unemployment and allowed the
mortgage foreclosure on millions of homeowners. The domestic economy was in severe crisis.
By the end of the George W. Bush Presidency, reinvigorated anti-war and social justice
movements were gaining strength throughout the country. Arriving on the scene of growing social
unrest and with perfect timing, the 'community organizer' presidential candidate Barack Obama
won the presidency by promising a progressive agenda to undermine the mass popular
radicalization against Bush's unpopular wars, growing inequalities, endless bank swindles,
foreclosures and blatant racist policies against Afro-Americans and Hispanics.
Once elected, the 'First Black' US President Obama immediately increased Bush's militarism
and handed the criminals on Wall Street a record two-trillion-dollar bailout, ripped out of
what remained of public social programs. Elected on a pledge to overhaul the ridiculously
inefficient, pro-profit, private health care system, Obama gave the electorate a program of
greater complexity and rapidly increasing insurance premiums ('Obama Care' or the 'Affordable
Care Act'), which ended with a negative impact on the nation's health.
Under Obama, life expectancy, as well as, the income gaps between the rich and the poor grew
at an alarming rate. Inequalities increased with a historic shift of national wealth to the top
1%. The class and health apartheid sharpened in the US. The transfer of jobs abroad
accelerated. Multinational corporate tax evasion rose by hundreds of billions of dollars. The
gap between African-American wages and white workers increased. Obama deported more immigrants,
especially workers from Mexico and Central America, than all four previous presidents
combined!
Elected on a pledge to 'bring the troops home', President Obama broke the record for waging
simultaneous wars of all previous presidents! Obama launched or backed US wars and coups
('regime changes') in Ukraine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Honduras and Somalia.
After receiving the Nobel 'Peace' Prize, President Obama provided advanced weapons to Israel,
Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan and Egypt. Obama financed and armed tens of
thousands of mercenary terrorists who savaged the secular multiethnic Syrian republic.
Furthermore, his administration cynically backed the separatist Kurds occupying Northern
Iraq.
Hawaii born and bred, Harvard-educated President Obama had mastered the deep-voiced Southern
preacher rhetoric to corrupt the leadership of the social justice and anti-war movements. He
coopted the leaders of the mass popular movements to their eternal shame and the movements
died. Even the short-lived anti-Wall Street 'Occupy Movement' received Obama's expressions of
'sympathy' as he backed the unleashing of police dogs and tear gas on the activists!
Obama's reactionary military encirclement of Russia and China influenced the foreign policy
views of a majority of US liberals as well as the mass media – turning them into
'humanitarian interventionists' and tools for empire.
Ever duplicitous, Obama signed a 'unilateral nuclear disarmament agreement with Iran' and
then immediately broke the agreement by imposing new sanctions on Tehran's banking and oil
transactions.
There was great media fanfare when Obama re-established diplomatic relations with Cuba. This
move facilitated the entry and funding of pro-imperialist NGO's committed to 'regime change'
along the same line as other 'color revolutions'. Despite the photo-ops with the Cuban
leadership, the US trade embargo against the Cuban people remained in place.
Obama's State Department and Treasury were tasked with sabotaging and overthrowing the
elected Chavez-Maduro governments in Venezuela promoting acts of violence, which have thrown
the country into chaos. His Secretary of State Clinton orchestrated the violent removal of the
presidents of Libya and Honduras and the installation of rabidly reactionary governments whose
policies have created hundreds of thousands of refugees and the assassinations of tens of
thousands of citizens, human rights and environmental activists.
Obama's much-promoted corporate for-profit health program brought some degree of insurance
coverage to just half of the uninsured poor within its first year. However, after the first
year health premiums rose by 25% while deductibles increased beyond the capacity of many
working families. Since then, premiums have risen astronomically and coverage is unaffordable
or unavailable in many areas of the country. The debt burden of ill health or a sudden medical
emergency has increased for the middle and working class under Wall Street's 'First Black'
President. No demographic measures of improvement, in terms of life expectancy or life quality,
have been documented since the implementation of 'Obama Care'. Indeed, these public health
measures have deteriorated with an epidemic of suicides, opioid-related deaths and premature
deaths of all types among the working and rural classes.
After 8 years, the core of the nation, the so-called 'Flyover States', where the downwardly
mobile working and lower middle class white majority live, was fed up with Obama's cant and
blatantly elitist policies. In was in this context that the distasteful billionaire buffoon
Donald Trump capitalized on mass popular discontent and rallied a populace in revolt against
the previous 'war and bankers' presidents, by promising to end corporate export of jobs, Wall
Street corruption, 'Obama Care', competition for jobs with undocumented cheap labor and endless
overseas wars. Trump hit a raw nerve among scores of millions of voters when he accused the
earlier Bush Administration of fabricating the pretexts for the invasion of Iraq as well as for
security failures in the 9/11 attacks on New York City and the Pentagon.
Within weeks after taking office President Trump gracefully performed an Obama-style
'about-face' and emerged a re-anointed warmonger of the Hillary Clinton variety: He celebrated
his transformation by bombing Syria, Afghanistan and the defenseless, starving people of Yemen.
He sent warships off the coast of North Korea, placed advanced missile installations in South
Korea and threatened nuclear war in Asia.
Trump miserably failed to 'reform' the corporate health plan concocted by his smirking
predecessor. He shed his promise to seek peaceful relations with Moscow and embraced the
policies of the worst anti-Russian liberal warmongers groomed by Clinton and Obama. Obama's
overt war posturing had so deeply influenced African-American politicians that they loudly
accused Trump of being 'too soft on Russia'! Former civil rights leaders-turned politicians
were calling for greater US military interventions – a spectacle what would have made our
sacred civil rights martyrs rolling in their graves.
Trump, building on the immense power already entrenched in Washington, reinforced and
expanded the role of finance capital and the Pentagon in determining US policy. Trump pledged
to exceed Obama's arrest and expulsion of immigrants – from 2.5 million workers in eight
years to an additional 5 million in his first four-year term.
The US corporate mass media and the liberal left have been pushing the pro-business
President Trump even further to the right – demanding the US escalate its nuclear threat
against North Korea, mount a full invasion of Syria (for its 'crimes against humanity') and,
above all, 'tighten the military noose' around Russia and China.
Conclusion
By any measure, the policies of President Richard Milhous Nixon were more socially
progressive, less militarist and less servile to Wall Street than any and all of the subsequent
US Presidents. This assessment is heresy to the current historical narratives promoted by both
political parties and the corporate media-academic nexus.
But even during the Nixon Presidency there were already signs of an allied liberal-rightist
attack on his progressive 'conservative' agenda. Senator Edward (Ted) Kennedy blocked Nixon's
proposal for a universal national health system built on an expansion of the highly successful
'Medicare Program'. Nixon's proposal (a 'Medicare For All') would have been far more
comprehensive, effective and affordable than the corporate boondoggles cooked up by the Clinton
and Obama Administrations.
What accounts for the dramatic shift from the center left to the far right among US
Presidents after the 1970's? What explains the rise and demise of 'Nixonian' progressivism and
the great leap backward in the subsequent four and half decades?
Personality and personal background are not irrelevant: Nixon's class and work background
and personal experience with the Great Depression framed some of his outlook despite his
'conservative' credentials. However, the social and political balance of forces played the
decisive role. Richard Nixon came to national attention as a rightwing militarist and
aggressive attack dog for Senator Joesph McCarthy during the 1950s and at the beginning of his
Presidential term in the late 1960's. However, the reality of the multi-million-person anti-war
movement challenged American society and influenced the armed forces from within. Even sectors
of the mass media became highly critical of the permanent war state. This movement filled the
streets, divided families and influenced the institutions and communities leading to a dramatic
change in Nixon's politics toward peace and even toward social and racial justice. Nixon truly
became a 'realist'.
In those days, the industrial trade unions were powerful. Manufacturing formed the basis of
the economy and determined the direction of the banking-finance sector. Wall Street played
'second fiddle' to production.
Fed up with the lack of social progress and opportunity in their communities, African
American revolts in the streets were far more effective than the tame black Democratic Party
politicos in Congress.
The decline of the social movements and militant labor unions, as well as the retreat to
electoral politics among the African American and anti-war movements, ended the independent
popular pressure and facilitated the rising power of the pro-war, Wall Street-controlled
parties linked to money and speculation. Labor unions became the fiefdoms of corrupt
millionaire union bosses who bought protection from prosecution with multi-million dollar
campaign donations to both Democrats and Republican politicians. They discarded the Nixon's
social agenda, using the 'Watergate Scandal' as a pretext to dismantle his advanced
programs.
Presidents and Congresses became beholden to the bankers. The rise, dominance and deep
corruption of the Wall Street speculators realigned the economy away from domestic
manufacturing to international finance – leading to the great relocation of US factories
abroad and the permanent marginalization of the once-organized American working class.
Voters were marginalized as active participants in their own public affairs. They alternated
their disaffection between parties and candidates, between big and small spenders, indicted and
unindicted swindlers, and exposed and unpunished perverts.
The domestic changes in the economy and social structure were the direct outcome of these
shifts in the social and political struggles and organizations.
There is a dialectical relationship between socio-economic changes and the rise and fall of
socio-political struggles.
These domestic shifts of power and policy were influenced by the major changes in global
power, namely the demise of the USSR, the decline of secular-nationalist regimes in the Middle
East, the defeat of the left in Latin America and, above all, the rise of the US imperial
doctrines of unipolar power and the globalization. The 'changing times' explains everything and
nothing! While the objective world determines politics, so do the subjective responses of
Presidents.
President Richard Nixon could have escalated the Vietnam War up to a nuclear attack on
Hanoi: This is what the current Obama-Trump militarist advisors now recommend for the North
Koreans. Nixon could have followed the rightwing 'free market' ideology of the
Republican-Goldwater faction. However, Nixon took a pragmatic, peace and social reformist
position – which have brought us some of our most cherished programs – EPA, OSHA,
SALT disarmament, relations with China, even Roe versus Wade, and an end to the military
draft.
Subsequent Presidents, faced with the shifts in political, social and economic power,
chose to re-direct the nation toward greater militarism and the domination of finance capital.
They have systematically attacked and dismantled the social welfare programs, environmental
protection, pro-industry legislation, diplomacy and peace pacts initiated by Nixon.
The aphorism, 'man makes history but not of his own doing', is central to our discussion of
the Nixon legacy. The process of regression is a cumulative process, of leaps and steps. In
recent years, regression has accelerated with devastating results for the domestic and world
populations. Social power, concentrated at the top, weakens but also alienates power at the
bottom and middle. The current configuration of power and policies cannot be permanent, even if
the trajectory so far has favored the elite. Social classes and groups are not fixed in their
orientations.
Twice in recent years, significant majorities voted for jobs, justice and peace (Obama
and Trump) and instead got charlatans bringing greater inequality, injustice and endless
wars.
Deception and deep commitments to reactionary politics have penetrated widely among the
'discontented classes'. African-American political leaders and pundits now demand war against
Russia following the pronouncements of their 'Black President', Barack Obama. Poor marginalized
white workers still support their billionaire leader Donald Trump as he waltzes down Wall
Street and into possible nuclear war.
The dialectic of discontent and resentment can lead to progressive or reactionary political
and social alignments, even, or especially, in the face of history's great leap backwards!
(Republished from
The James Petras
Website
by permission of author or representative)
...Even in low crime parts of the country, the police are able to deploy fully armed and equipped
swat teams that are more military than civilian in their threatening demeanor as well in the body
armor and weapons they carry. Many cities and counties now have surplus military armored vans for
crowd control even if they have no crowds. Armed drones are increasingly becoming part of the law
enforcement arsenal and it sometimes appears as if the police are copying the military as a model
of "how to do it."
The various levels of government that make up the United States seem to be preparing for some
kind of insurrection, which may indeed be the case somewhere down the road if the frustrations of
the public are not somehow dealt with. But there is another factor that has, in my opinion, become
a key element in the militarization of the police in the United States. That would be the role of
the security organs of the state of Israel in training American cops, a lucrative business that has
developed since 9/11 and which inter alia gives the "students" a whole different perspective
on the connection of the police with those who are being policed, making the relationship much more
one of an occupier and the occupied.
The engagement of American police forces with Israeli security services began modestly enough
in the wake of 9/11. The panic response in the United States to a major terrorist act led to a search
for resources to confront what was perceived as a new type of threat that normal law-and-order training
did not address.
Israel, which, in its current occupation of much of Palestine and the Golan Heights as well as
former stints in Gaza, southern Lebanon and Sinai, admittedly has considerable experience in dealing
with the resistance to its expansion manifested as what it describes as terrorism. Jewish organizations
in the United States dedicated to providing cover for Israeli's bad behavior, saw an opportunity
to get their hooks into a sizable and respected community within the U.S. that was ripe for conversion
to the Israeli point of view, so they began funding "exchanges."
Since 2002 there have been hundreds of all-expenses-paid trips including officers from every major
American city as well as state and local police departments. Some have been sponsored by the American
Jewish Committee (AJC) and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA). The Anti-Defamation
League (ADL) has also been
directly funding trips since 2008, explaining that "As a people living under constant threat
of attack, the Israelis are leading experts in security enforcement and response strategies." The
intent? To "learn" and "draw from the latest developments" so the American cops can "bring these
methods back home to implement in their communities."
In 1829, Robert Peel laid down the bedrock philosophy of policing in the Anglo-Saxon world,
now called the Peelian principles. These principles would have seemed unexceptional to us even
five decades ago.
But, I daresay, they would be scoffed at by at least some of the proponents of the new philosophy
of warrior-policing in America. On the other hand, some would argue that America is no longer
an Anglo-Saxon society, at least not in the culture of its criminal population.
1 The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.
2 The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon public approval of police
actions.
3 Police must secure the willing cooperation of the public in voluntary observance of the law
to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.
4 The degree of cooperation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to
the necessity of the use of physical force.
5 Police seek and preserve public favor not by catering to the public opinion but by constantly
demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.
6 Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore
order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient.
7 Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to
the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police
being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are
incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
8 Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions and never appear
to usurp the powers of the judiciary.
9 The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence
of police action in dealing with it.
It is widely believed that arguing with cops or showing even the slightest attitude in contacts
with them is done at one's peril.
This is nothing new.
What is new in America is the collapse of civil behavior on the part of citizens, a lack of
good manners in the general public, and an absence of respect for authority figures. These things
naturally bring on police reactions.
Any time humans have power over others, that power needs to be limited and counterbalanced.
This is always an issue with police forces. Anybody who's lived a little has seen examples, going
way back, of how hard it is to maintain this balance.
Some people are just newly aware of this eternal issue now because cops have more toys and
everything looks like it was built for Darth Vader.
As for the non-sequitur in this case, Israel, it is a good place to learn how to keep unwanted
people out of your country (clue: walls work) and how to profile those among whom criminals operate.
It is where one can unlearn American political correctness with regard to law enforcement. The
key again is balance -- between learning what is useful, and leaving out the abuses which, yes
yes yes, we all know exist.
Americans would have no problem with any of this if they would just go back and start using
the Bill of Rights again. Re-learning good manners would help them grease the wheels with cops
too.
"The engagement of American police forces with Israeli security services began modestly enough
in the wake of 9/11. The panic response in the United States to a major terrorist act "
It was, however, "that shitty little country" that benefited the most from the entire staged
9/11 fraud.
Already when I first visited the USA in 1978 I discovered that USA police expect to be feared,
while we in W Europe are accustomed to see police as our friend, the USA is quite different.
In 2001 in the USA a USA friend called the police 'the internal army'.
Since then the police has been militarised, they got armoured personnel carriers, even tanks and
armour piercing ammunition.
I suppose the cause is USA society, no pity for the poor, more weapons with citizens than the
number of citizens.
And of course the death penalty, criminals know what to expect when they have been arrested.
Good stuff Phil. I would note, however, L Fletcher Prouty pointed to the militarization of
the USA's police forty years ago in his seminal tome on the CIA: The Secret Team.
That Israel has joined the endeavor comes as no surprise, particularly in the post 9/11 era
where the many programs of inter-military/police training have accelerated. Relevant to this,
a veteran's preference law purposely giving Americans with military background an employment advantage
throughout law enforcement agencies at every level, state and federal, combined with unceasing
conflict, creates a law enforcement talent pool heavily slanted to an 'us versus them' mentality.
It's the nature of the beast:
These preceding combine to strengthen a peculiar (and necrotic) mentality per the Likud (Netanyahu's
political alignment) view of the world that I fear has infected the USA rather badly:
"After Menachem Begin's Likud Party came to power in 1977, these economic interests converged
with ideological affinities to make the alliance even stronger. Many members of the Likud Party
shared with South Africa's leaders an ideology of minority survivalism that presented the two
countries as threatened outposts of European civilization defending their existence against barbarians
at the gates"
Obviously as demographics and thus society changes it is inevitable US policing will increasingly
resemble the Latin American style militarised approach. The staggering role of the Israelis in
your policing certainly deserves its own examination though. Of course the ADL has a long history
intertwined with that of the national crime syndicate (and the Mossad), even awarding Moe Dalitz
the Torch of Freedom. The ADL should be regarded in the same light as Joe Colombo's Italian-American
Civil Rights League.
The Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, besides training American cops to be cold-blooded
killers, also have brought several hundred American generals and admirals to Israel to see how
they smash Palestinians asking for justice, which should come in handy when the Deep State removes
Trump from office and Americans riot against tyranny:
Israel is like the volunteer firefighter arsonist that starts a massive fire, then calls it
in to the 911 dispatch so he can be the first on the scene and get 'Atta-Boys"
It's worth pointing out that police violence in America isn't directed exclusively against
blacks, whose rates of violent crime are after all much higher than whites. Even against whites,
whose crime rates are comparable to European rates, American police are far more likely to employ
deadly force than their European counterparts. American police are clearly out of control.
And don't forget the media's role in creating a false narrative in which the only choices are
underclass sociopathy on the one hand, and police state tactics on the other.
The techniques employed to create physical barriers, to develop sources for intelligence
gathering, and to train in tactical responses are quite familiar to anyone who has studied
modern-style terrorism since it emerged in Western Europe in the 1970s.
I would say that modern-style terrorism emerged around 1946 and the terrorist bombing of the
King David Hotel, if not earlier.
Some would no doubt move its emergence back to the birth of the Irgun, a de facto terrorist
organization by any reasonable definition.
The rest formed a new Irgun Zeva'i Le'umi (abbr. Etzel), which was ideologically linked
with the Revisionist Movement and accepted the authority of its leader, Vladimir Jabotinsky.
Etzel rejected the "restraint" policy of the Haganah and carried out armed reprisals
against Arabs Many of its members were arrested by the British authorities; one of them,
Shlomo Ben Yosef, was hanged for shooting an Arab bus. After the publication of the White Paper
in May 1939, Etzel directed its activities against the British Mandatory autorities.
@Buzz Mohawk "What is new in America is the collapse of civil behavior on the part of citizens,
a lack of good manners in the general public, and an absence of respect for authority figures.
These things naturally bring on police reactions."
And likewise, abuse of authority and other misbehavior by police tend to make the citizens
lose respect for authority and bring on what you describe.
Where Israel really excels is in its willingness to kill large numbers of Arabs of all ages
and genders using the excuse that they are terrorists. It does so with impunity because Israeli
courts almost never hold the army and police accountable for whatever they do.
That's a huge flaw in our system as well. Rarely are the bigshots and their protective forces
(such as politicians and cops) held accountable for even the most egregious violations of basic
justice.
Americans would have no problem with any of this if they would just go back and start using
the Bill of Rights again.
When was that ever adhered to?
Especially after the War of the Northern Banksters against the Southern Planters, how could
anyone believe that the BoR retains even a tiny shred of validity or authority?
@Greg Bacon The "most moral" Israeli state and its "most moral" Israeli army have got to a
point of recognizing the institutionalized rot: "Last year, a top Israeli general's comments during
the country's annual Holocaust Remembrance Day address sparked controversy when he likened the
atmosphere in modern day Israel to 1930's Nazi Germany."
http://www.globalresearch.ca/idf-chief-says-israel-is-becoming-like-nazi-germany-refuses-to-back-down/5600782
Similar to the attempts at stopping the Nazi supremacist plans by the sane and moral German officers,
the sane and moral Israelis (a small minority) are trying to highlight the obvious: "If there
is anything that frightens me in the remembrance of the Holocaust, it is discerning nauseating
processes that took place in Europe in general, and in Germany specifically back then, 70, 80
and 90 years ago, and seeing evidence of them here among us in the year 2016," Maj. Gen. Yair
Golan, the Israeli army's deputy chief of staff said."
@Achmed E. Newman Listen Philip, I have no disagreement with, and will take your word for,
all the details in your article here. However you are missing THE major point regarding the basic
reason for the rapidly increasing militarization of police forces in the US. Note first that may
answer can be realized just from my last sentence, as I wrote "police forces", not "US police
force".
Th US Constitution has been virtually shredded and trolled over the last 50 years, but is has
been the total disregard for Amendment X, as the bulk of the shredding along with the addition
of Amendments 16 and 17
, the trolling, that have done the most severe damage. Amendment X being ignored means that nobody
even considers restraint of US Feral Gov't power anymore - the whole concept has been almost forgotten
by the population. The 2 additions, besides other ill effects, affect the flow of the money
, which is the key, and gets me to the topic of police militarization.
The training by Israelis is a symptom, not the cause. Follow the flow of the money and resources!
Let's talk money first: Grants of all sorts can be obtained by city and count police forces. This
money comes fron the American taxpayers, but they have ZERO say in who it goes to and how it's
used. Do you think these cops, especially in this day and age, will turn it down on principles
of federalism? Every small-time, or ANY size, force will always want to enlarge their operations.
That's natural. In addition, there is always the very reasonable point of "it's our tax money-
if we don't take it, someone else will." There are strings attached, whether written or assumed,
once the money is doled out. That's not all- even with a stand-up chief or sheriff with the good
attitude of "we still work for the citizens of _______", there is still relations with the Feds
that should not be.
Now about the other resources: these armored vehicles, half-tracks, SWAT gear (the whole get-up
"hut, hut, hut") are hand-me-downs of US military equipment. It's free, but it costs a bit to
maintain, so they'd be stupid not to use it once in a while, right? I mean otherwise, the county
council may, on the off chance there's a man with integrity in it (hahaaa), question whether all
this stuff should't just be auctioned off ( to another police force probably). This stuff should
be scrapped or auctioned to the public or sold overseas, that's IT,. (Yes, if the army can own
a tank, an American citizen has every right to own one.)
This all adds up to a Standing Army , something the founders of this formerly great
country were pretty damned worried about. Yeah the other army still has a few too many constraints
on it, so a national police force, with the Fusion Centers for "cooperation" will take care of
the US citizens citizens nicely.
The training of parts of our US Standing Army by Israeli experts just will make them
a bit better at keeping the citizens subjects in line when the SHTF, just for
a while though.
The training by Israelis is a symptom, not the cause. Follow the flow of the money and resources!
Indeed.
It's also not primarily a training exercise, or even primarily for profit, but rather its primary
purpose is to promote sympathy for Israel in the US and especially in US law enforcement.
@Greg Bacon The Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, besides training American
cops to be cold-blooded killers, also have brought several hundred American generals and admirals
to Israel to see how they smash Palestinians asking for justice, which should come in handy when
the Deep State removes Trump from office and Americans riot against tyranny:
Israel is like the volunteer firefighter arsonist that starts a massive fire, then calls it
in to the 911 dispatch so he can be the first on the scene and get 'Atta-Boys"
also have brought several hundred American generals and admirals to Israel to see how they
smash Palestinians asking for justice
One other (significant) point is missing–it is how IDF's combat experiences and achievements
were initially blown grossly out of proportions in the US and then colored to a very large degree
American military thinking. The fact that Israel's victories were achieved over supremely incompetent
and, to a very large extent illiterate, Arabs was "somehow" discounted. The incessant (decades
long) campaign of praise for Israel's military in US is nothing short of astonishing.
@animalogic Like a wasp or scorpion that just can't stop stinging, Israel & it's various Dogs,
will not be happy until the entire US Body Politic is poisoned.
until the entire US Body Politic is poisoned.
It already is and while Israel plays a huge role in it, let's not relieve others of the responsibility
for that–behavior of US Congress during Bibi's 2015 speech to a joint session is more than pathetic,
it is treasonous. Not all in US Congress are Jews. This pathetic behavior is also very indicative
of this body politic being poisoned.
It already is and while Israel plays a huge role in it, let's not relieve others of the responsibility
for that--behavior of US Congress during Bibi's 2015 speech to a joint session is more than pathetic,
it is treasonous. Not all in US Congress are Jews. This pathetic behavior is also very indicative
of this body politic being poisoned. You are correct. Not all in the U S Congress are jews. However,
AIPAC, and other jewish organizations have such a stranglehold over the American political and
election process, that it is almost impossible to get elected if AIPAC or other jewish organizations
are against you.
As to "dual citizenship", there are forty or so congressmen who hold dual citizenship with Israel.
Add to that, the thousands of "policy wonks" infecting the U S government who also hold "dual
citizenship" with Israel. THAT, my friends, is a real problem, as they influence the "lawmakers"
as well as having the ability to interact with the "movers and shakers" who see only one thing–the
accumulation of shekels
You wouldn't know it, based on the endless cries for more money coming from the
military
politicians , and
the president , but these are the best of times for the Pentagon. Spending on the Department
of Defense alone is already well in excess of half a trillion dollars a year and counting. Adjusted
for inflation, that means it's
higher
than at the height of President Ronald Reagan's massive buildup of the 1980s and is now nearing
the post-World War II funding peak. And yet that's barely half the story. There are hundreds of billions
of dollars in "defense" spending that aren't even counted in the Pentagon budget.
Under the circumstances, laying all this out in grisly detail!and believe me, when you dive into
the figures, they couldn't be grislier!is the only way to offer a better sense of the true costs
of our wars past, present, and future, and of the funding that is the lifeblood of the national security
state. When you do that, you end up with no less than 10 categories of national security spending
(only one of which is the Pentagon budget). So steel yourself for a tour of our nation's trillion-dollar-plus
"national security" budget. Given the Pentagon's penchant for wasting money and our government's
record of engaging in dangerously misguided wars without end, it's clear that a large portion of
this massive investment of taxpayer dollars isn't making anyone any safer.
1) The Pentagon Budget
The Pentagon's "base" or regular budget contains the costs of the peacetime training, arming,
and operation of the U.S. military and of the massive civilian workforce that supports it!and if
waste is your Eden, then you're in paradise.
The department's budget is awash in waste, as you might expect from the only major federal agency
that has
never passed an audit . For example, last year a
report by the Defense Business Board, a Pentagon advisory panel, found that the Department of
Defense could save $125 billion over five years just by trimming excess bureaucracy. And a new
study by the Pentagon's Inspector General indicates that the department has ignored hundreds
of recommendations that could have saved it more than $33.6 billion.
The Pentagon can't even get an accurate count of the number of private contractors it employs,
but the
figure is certainly in the range of 600,000 or higher, and many of them carry out tasks that
might far better be handled by government employees. Cutting that enormous contractor work force
by just 15 percent, only a start when it comes to eliminating the unnecessary duplication involved
in hiring government employees and private contractors to do the same work, would
save an easy $20 billion annually.
And the items mentioned so far are only the most obvious examples of misguided expenditures at
the Department of Defense. Even larger savings could be realized by scaling back the Pentagon's global
ambitions, which have caused nothing but trouble in the last decade and a half as the U.S. military
has waged devastating and counterproductive wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and elsewhere across
the Greater Middle East and Africa. An analysis by Ben Friedman of the conservative Cato Institute
estimates that the Pentagon could
reduce its projected spending by one trillion dollars over the next decade if Washington
reined in its interventionist instincts and focused only on America's core interests.
Donald Trump, of course, ran for president as a businessman who would clean house and institute
unprecedented efficiencies in government. Instead, on entering the Oval Office, he's done a superb
job of ignoring chronic problems at the Pentagon,
proposing instead to give that department a hefty raise: $575 billion next year. And yet his
expansive military funding plans look relatively mild compared to the desires of the gung-ho members
of the armed services committees in the
House and
Senate . Democrats and Republicans alike want to hike the Pentagon budget to at least $600 billion
or more. The legislative fight over a final number will play out over the rest of this year. For
now, let's just use Trump's number as a placeholder.
Pentagon Budget: $575 billion
2) The War Budget
The wars of this century, from Iraq to Afghanistan and beyond, have largely been paid for through
a special account that lies outside the regular Pentagon budget. This war budget!known in the antiseptic
language of the Pentagon as the "Overseas Contingency Operations" account, or OCO!
peaked at more than $180
billion at the height of the Bush administration's intervention in Iraq.
As troop numbers in that country and Afghanistan have plummeted from
hundreds of thousands to
about 15,000 , the war budget, miraculously enough, hasn't fallen at anywhere near the same pace.
That's because it's not even subject to the modest
caps on the Pentagon's regular
budget imposed by Congress back in 2011, as part of a deal to keep the government open.
In reality, over the past five years, the war budget has become a slush fund that pays for tens
of billions of dollars in Pentagon expenses that have nothing to do with fighting wars. The Trump
administration wants
$64.6 billion for that boondoggle budget in fiscal year 2018. Some in Congress would like to
hike it another
$10 billion . For consistency, we'll again use the Trump number as a baseline.
War Budget: $64.6 Billion
Running Total: $639.6 Billion
3) Nuclear Warheads (and more)
You might think that the most powerful weapons in the U.S. arsenal -- nuclear warheads -- would
be paid for out of the Pentagon budget. And you would, of course, be wrong. The cost of researching,
developing, maintaining, and
"modernizing"
the American arsenal of
6,800 nuclear
warheads falls to an obscure agency located inside the Department of Energy, the National Nuclear
Security Administration, or NNSA. It also works on naval nuclear reactors, pays for the environmental
cleanup of nuclear weapons facilities, and funds the nation's three nuclear weapons laboratories,
at a total annual cost of more than
$20 billion per year.
Department of Energy (nuclear): $20 Billion
Running total: $659.6 billion
4) "Other Defense"
This catchall category encompasses a number of flows of defense-related funding that go to agencies
other than the Pentagon. It totals about
$8 billion per year . In recent years, about
two-thirds of this money has gone to pay for the homeland security activities of the FBI, accounting
for more than half of that agency's annual budget.
"Other Defense": $8 Billion
Running Total: $677.6 billion
The four categories above make up what the White House budget office considers total spending
on "national defense." But I'm sure you won't be shocked to learn that their cumulative $677.6 billion
represents far from the full story. So let's keep right on going.
5) Homeland Security
After the 9/11 attacks, Congress created a mega-agency, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
It absorbed 22 then-existing entities ,
all involved in internal security and border protection, creating the sprawling cabinet department
that now has 240,000 employees . For
those of you keeping score at home, the agencies and other entities currently
under the umbrella
of DHS include the Coast Guard, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Federal Law Enforcement
Training Center, the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, United States Citizenship and Immigration
Services, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Agency, the Transportation Security Agency, the
U.S. Secret Service, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency (ICE), and the Office of Intelligence
Analysis (the only one of America's 17 intelligence agencies to fit under the department's rubric).
How many of these agencies actually make us safer? That would be a debatable topic, if anyone
were actually interested in such a debate. ICE!America's deportation force!has, for instance, done
far more to
cause suffering than to protect us from criminals or terrorists. On the other hand, it's reassuring
to know that there is an office charged with determining whether there is a nuclear weapon or radioactive
"dirty bomb" in our midst.
While it's hard to outdo the Pentagon, DHS has its own record of
dubious expenditures on items large and small. They range from $1,000 fees for employees to attend
conferences at spas to the purchase of bagpipes for border protection personnel to the payment of
scores of remarkably fat salaries to agency bureaucrats. On the occasion of its tenth anniversary
in 2013, Congressman Jeff Duncan (R-SC)
excoriated the department as "rife with waste," among other things, pointing to a report by the
DHS inspector general that it had misspent over $1 billion.
DHS was supposed to provide a better focus for efforts to protect the United States from internal
threats. Its biggest problem, though, may be that it has become a magnet for increased funding for
haphazard, misplaced, and often simply dangerous initiatives. These would, for instance, include
its program
to supply grants to local law enforcement agencies to help them buy military-grade equipment
to be
deployed
not against terrorists, but against citizens protesting the injustices perpetrated by the very
same agencies being armed by DHS.
The Trump administration has
proposed spending
$50 billion on DHS in FY 2018.
Homeland Security: $50 Billion
Running Total: $717.6 Billion
6) Military Aid
U.S. government-run military aid programs have proliferated rapidly in this century. The United
States now has
scores of arms and training programs serving more than
140 countries
. They cost more than
$18 billion per year , with
about 40
percent of that total located in the State Department's budget. While the Pentagon's share has
already been accounted for, the $7 billion at State!which can ill afford to pay for such programs
with the Trump administration seeking to
gut the rest of its budget!has not.
Military Aid at the State Department: $7 Billion
Running Total: $724.6 Billion
7) Intelligence
The United States government has
16 separate intelligence agencies : the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA); the National Security
Agency (NSA); the Defense Intelligence Agency; the FBI; the State Department Bureau of Intelligence
and Research; the Department of Homeland Security Office of Intelligence Analysis; the Drug Enforcement
Administration Office of National Security Intelligence; the Treasury Department Office of Intelligence
and Analysis; the Department of Energy Office of Intelligence and Counterintelligence; the National
Reconnaissance Office; the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency; Air Force Intelligence, Surveillance,
and Reconnaissance; Army Military Intelligence; the Office of Naval Intelligence; Marine Corps Intelligence;
and Coast Guard Intelligence. Add to these the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI),
which is supposed to coordinate this far-flung intelligence network, and you have a grand total of
17 agencies.
The U.S. will spend more than $70 billion
on intelligence this year, spread across all these agencies. The bulk of this funding is contained
in the Pentagon budget!including the budgets of the CIA and the NSA (believed to be hidden under
obscure line items there). At most, a few billion dollars in additional expenditures on intelligence
fall outside the Pentagon budget and since, given the secrecy involved, that figure can't be determined,
let's not add anything further to our running tally.
Intelligence: $70 Billion (mostly contained inside the Pentagon budget)
Running Total: $724.6 Billion
8) Supporting Veterans
A steady uptick of veterans generated by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has dramatically increased
the costs of supporting such vets once they come home, including the war wounded, some of whom will
need medical care for life. For 2018, the Veterans Administration has requested over
$186 billion for its budget, more than
three
times what it was before the 2001 intervention in Afghanistan.
Veterans: $186 billion
Running Total: $910.6 Billion
9) Military Retirement
The trust fund set up to cover pensions for military retirees and their survivors doesn't have
enough money to pay out all the benefits promised to these individuals. As a result, it is supplemented
annually by an appropriation from the general revenues of the government. That supplement has by
now reached roughly
$80 billion per year
Military Retirement: $80 Billion
Running Total: $990.6 Billion
10) Defense Share of Interest on the Debt
It's no secret that the U.S. government regularly runs at a deficit and that the total national
debt is growing. It may be more surprising to learn that the interest on that debt runs at roughly
$500 billion per year . The Project on Government Oversight
calculates the share of the interest on that debt generated by defense-related programs at more
than $100 billion annually.
Defense Share of the Interest on the Debt: $100 billion
Grand Total: $1.09 Trillion
That final annual tally of nearly $1.1 trillion to pay for past wars, fund current wars, and prepare
for possible future conflicts is roughly double the already staggering $575 billion the Trump administration
has proposed as the Pentagon's regular budget for 2018. Most taxpayers have no idea that more than
a trillion dollars a year is going to what's still called "defense," but these days might equally
be called national in security.
So the next time you hear the president, the secretary of defense, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff, or a hawkish lawmaker claim that the U.S. military is practically collapsing from a lack
of funding, don't believe it for a second. Donald Trump may finally have put plutocracy in the Oval
Office, but a militarized version of it has long been ensconced in the Pentagon and the rest of the
national security state. In government terms, make no mistake about it, the Pentagon & Co. are the
one percent.
President Trump, searching for a reason to keep the United States in Afghanistan
after 16 years of war, has latched on to a prospect that tantalized previous administrations: Afghanistan's
vast mineral wealth, which his advisers and Afghan officials have told him could be profitably extracted
by Western companies.
Mr. Trump has discussed the country's mineral deposits with President Ashraf Ghani, who promoted
mining as an economic opportunity in one of their first conversations. Mr. Trump, who is deeply skeptical
about sending more American troops to Afghanistan, has suggested that this could be one justification
for the United States to stay engaged in the country.
To explore the possibilities, the White House is considering sending an envoy to Afghanistan to
meet with mining officials. Last week, as the White House fell into an increasingly fractious debate
over Afghanistan policy, three of Mr. Trump's senior aides met with a chemical executive, Michael
N. Silver, to discuss the potential for extracting rare-earth minerals. Mr. Silver's firm, American
Elements, specializes in these minerals, which are used in a range of high-tech products.
Sign Up For the Morning Briefing Newsletter
Stephen A. Feinberg, a billionaire financier who is informally advising Mr. Trump on Afghanistan,
is also looking into ways to exploit the country's minerals, according to a person who has briefed
him. Mr. Feinberg owns a large military contracting firm, DynCorp International, which could play
a role in guarding mines , a major concern, given that some of Afghanistan's richest deposits are
in areas controlled by the Taliban.
In 2010, American officials estimated that Afghanistan had untapped mineral deposits worth nearly
$1 trillion, an estimate that was widely disputed at the time and has certainly fallen since, given
the eroding price of commodities. But the $1 trillion figure is circulating again inside the White
House, according to officials, who said it had caught the attention of Mr. Trump.
The lure of Afghanistan as a war-torn Klondike is well established: In 2006, the George W. Bush
administration conducted aerial surveys of the country to map its mineral resources. Under President
Barack Obama, the Pentagon set up a task force to try to build a mining industry in Afghanistan ,
a challenge that was stymied by rampant corruption, as well as security problems and the lack of
roads, bridges or railroads.
None of these hurdles has been removed in the last eight years, according to former officials,
and some have worsened. They warn that the Trump administration is fooling itself if it believes
that extracting minerals is a panacea for Afghanistan's myriad ills.
"It would be dangerous to use the potential for resource exploitation as a selling point for military
engagement," said Laurel Miller, a senior analyst at RAND who served until last month as the State
Department's special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan. "The barriers to entry are really
quite considerable, and that kind of argument could fuel suspicion about America's real intentions
in Afghanistan."
But for Mr. Trump, as a businessman, it is arguably the only appealing thing about Afghanistan.
Officials said he viewed mining as a "win-win" that could boost that country's economy, generate
jobs for Americans and give the United States a valuable new beachhead in the market for rare-earth
minerals, which has been all but monopolized by China.
China already has a $3 billion contract to develop a copper mine about 25 miles southeast of the
Afghan capital, Kabul. Officials said Mr. Trump was determined not to spend American lives and treasure
in Afghanistan only to watch China lock up its rare-earth deposits, which are used to make products
from wind turbines to computer chips.
Mr. Silver, the chemical executive, may head an effort to maximize the rights for American companies
to extract these minerals, according to a senior official.
Mr. Trump's interest also reflects how his military advisers have struggled to present him with
other persuasive reasons to send troops to the country, where the United States has been at war since
2001.
Policy meetings have become increasingly heated, officials said, as Mr. Trump and his chief strategist,
Stephen K. Bannon, have squared off against General McMaster. Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson
is also said to be unhappy with the current proposals.
Vice President Mike Pence, not General McMaster, will lead a meeting Wednesday of National Security
Council principals on Afghanistan. Some officials said that reflected General McMaster's deepening
isolation; others said that the general welcomed Mr. Pence's involvement and that the two were closely
aligned on the policy.
But Mr. Trump, it is clear, is not. In June, he grudgingly agreed to give Mr. Mattis the authority
to send additional troops , a number believed to be about 4,000 , as a stopgap measure to stabilize
security in Afghanistan. But Mr. Mattis has not yet used his authority, perhaps reflecting his recognition
that the commander-in-chief is uncomfortable with it.
When reporters last week asked Mr. Trump at a meeting at the Pentagon whether he planned to send
more troops, he answered, "We'll see," and added, "ISIS is falling fast," suggesting he viewed the
counterterrorism threat in Afghanistan as declining.
Worried that Mr. Trump will be locked into policies that did not work for the last two presidents,
Mr. Bannon and the president's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, have brought in outside voices, including
Mr. Feinberg and Erik D. Prince, a founder of the private security firm Blackwater International.
Both have urged using more private contractors and giving the CIA an oversight role in the conflict.
In addition, Mr. Feinberg has reached out to people involved in the Obama administration's effort
to build Afghanistan's mining industry. Some warned him that the prospects for a profitable business
are worse now than in 2009, given the decline in commodities prices and the deteriorating security
in areas where the deposits are believed to lie.
Afghanistan's deposits of copper and iron ore are trading at about a third of their 2010 prices.
Most of the undiscovered deposits of rare-earth minerals are believed to be in Helmand Province,
large parts of which are controlled by the Taliban.
"There are undoubtedly minerals to be exploited in Afghanistan, which could help provide economic
stability to the country in the future," said Daniel F. Feldman, a former special representative
for Afghanistan and Pakistan. "But given all the obstacles, it could be many years before mining
yields dividends for the Afghan people."
One advantage is that the Trump administration would have a willing partner in the Afghan government.
During the Obama administration, President Ghani resisted the rapid development of the mining industry,
largely because he worried about the threat of widespread corruption that would come with it.
But as soon as Mr. Trump was elected, Mr. Ghani reversed his position, contacting the Trump team
and promoting Afghanistan's mineral wealth. He realized that Mr. Trump would be intrigued by the
commercial possibilities, officials said.
Mr. Trump has said little publicly about Afghanistan since being elected. But his thinking about
what the United States should reap for its military efforts was made clear in another context soon
after his inauguration. Speaking to employees of the CIA, the president said the United States
had erred in withdrawing troops from Iraq without holding on to its oil.
"The old expression 'To the victor belong the spoils,'" Mr. Trump declared. "You remember?"
"... The two-faced 'Evangelical Christian' Carter sent confidential letters of US support for the brutal dictator Somoza to prevent the Sandinista victory in Nicaragua, while issuing platitudes about peace in Central America. ..."
"... After Carter, the Republican President Ronald Reagan doubled military spending, brutally broke the strike of the Air Controller's union by jailing its leaders, whipped up the revival of US interventionism by invading Grenada and sending Special Forces to join the death squads murdering tens of thousands of peasant activists in Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras. ..."
"... President Reagan's 'free market' polices encouraged US multinational corporations to relocate their factories overseas to Mexico, the Caribbean and Asia, costing millions of US workers well-paying jobs and reducing the number of unionized jobs. The stock markets and profits rose while the 'American Dream' of lifetime stable employment in industry began to fade. ..."
"... The Reagan-Thatcher (British PM) era marked the demise of social welfare. They imposed the doctrine of 'globalization' – in essence, the bellicose revival of Anglo-American imperialism and the end of domestic industrial prosperity. ..."
"... Subsequent Presidents, faced with the shifts in political, social and economic power, chose to re-direct the nation toward greater militarism and the domination of finance capital. They have systematically attacked and dismantled the social welfare programs, environmental protection, pro-industry legislation, diplomacy and peace pacts initiated by Nixon. ..."
"... Twice in recent years, significant majorities voted for jobs, justice and peace (Obama and Trump) and instead got charlatans bringing greater inequality, injustice and endless wars. ..."
Introduction: For almost 50 years, the US economy and society has taken a great leap
backward – accelerating during the past three Presidencies. Not only have we experienced
the reversal of past socio-economic legislation, but also our presidents and Congress have
dragged us into multiple aggressive wars. Now, the threat of a nuclear attack against our
'declared enemies' is 'on the table'.
Since the end of the Viet Nam war, US military 'interventions' have become wars of long
duration. These have cost millions of lives overseas, tens of millions of refugees and scores
of thousands of American soldier deaths, permanent injury and serious mental and
neuropsychiatric damage. There is no 'light at the end of the tunnel', to quote the US General
William Westmoreland.
In retrospect, and after 50 years of decline, the much-maligned Presidency of Richard
Milhous Nixon now stands out as a golden age of social, environmental and inter-racial
advances, as well as an era of successful peace negotiations and diplomacy. President Nixon,
never an ideologue, accepted the reality of a multi-polar world.
Of course, the Nixon Presidency was characterized by serious crimes against humanity, such
as the CIA-sponsored coup d'état against the democratically elected Chilean President
Allende, the bombing of Cambodia and the genocidal invasion of the newly independent country of
East Timor.
Today, he is best known for the far-less consequential events around the 'Watergate' scandal
and related domestic civil rights abuses and corruption. It was the mass media and Democratic
Party politicos who have grossly inflated the election campaign chicanery, leading up to the
bungled break-in of the Watergate Hotel headquarters of the Democratic Party, which led to
Nixon's impeachment and resignation. To today's media spin-masters, 'Watergate' was the
defining event of President Nixon's Presidency.
Ironically, after Nixon resigned from office even greater disasters occurred. This paper
will enumerate these and compare them with the Nixon presidency.
Far from pursuing diplomacy and peace, subsequent presidents, both 'liberal' Democrats and
'conservative' Republicans, invaded Nicaragua, Afghanistan, Panama, Grenada, and Angola and
initiated a dozen other highly destructive and economically devastating wars. The two
oligarchic parties took turns in shredding Nixon's comparatively peaceful legacy.
President Nixon, under the advice of National Security adviser, Henry Kissinger, supported
Israel's invasion of the Arab countries in 1973 as well as the bloody Chilean military coup in
1973.
President Nixon cynically designed the 'Southern Strategy', which transformed the Democratic
Party-controlled racist fiefdoms of the US South into racist Republican-controlled states.
Progressives, liberals and self-styled democratic-socialists have played a leading role in
ignoring Nixon's 'golden years' in terms of domestic and international policy achievements.
Instead they focused on inane and infantile name-calling, like "Tricky Dick", to describe the
man. By doing so, they have failed miserably to discuss national and international issues of
historic importance. They have deliberately fabricated a distorted picture of the Nixon era to
cover-up for the gross failures of subsequent Democratic Party controlled Congresses and
Democratic Presidents.
In this essay, we will briefly outline Richard Nixon's policies and executive initiatives,
which justify our designation of the Nixon's 'golden years', especially in comparison to what
has followed his era.
President Nixon: The Great Leap Forward
In the sphere of political, economic and social life, President Nixon pursued policies,
which ultimately advanced peace in the world and social welfare in the United States.
In foreign policy and diplomacy, Richard Nixon ended both the draft of young Americans into
the armed forces, as well as the decade-long US military occupation of Indo-China, effectively
ending the war – and acknowledging the hard victory of the Vietnamese National Liberation
Front. The war had cost millions of Southeast Asian lives.
Nixon visited Beijing and recognized the 'existence' of the People's Republic of China,
effectively ending a quarter century of economic blockades and military threats against the
billion-plus population of the PRC under three Democratic (Truman, Kennedy and Johnson) and one
Republican (Eisenhower) Presidential Administrations. He established full diplomatic relations
with China.
Nixon initiated the Security Arms Limitation Talks (SALT) agreements with the USSR and
developed diplomatic policies, which recognized the possibility and necessity of peaceful
co-existence between different social systems.
On the domestic front, President Nixon established the Clean Water Act and established the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), with a Federal Government mandate to fight polluters and
hold them accountable for the 'cleanup' of the environment.
Nixon proposed a National Health Insurance Program – an expansion of Medicare to cover
the health needs of all Americans. This radical proposal (a version of 'single payer') was
attacked and defeated by the Democratic Party, led by Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy who was
backed by 'Big Pharma', the AMA and the growing corporate 'health' industry.
Nixon imposed price and wage controls that constrained inflation and price gouging and
actively punished commodity 'hoarding'. This was a time of rapid inflation and shortages due to
the 'Oil Embargo'. With these measures, he incurred the wrath of Wall Street, big business and
the financial press.
Nixon promoted consumer rights, supplemental legislation to expand Social Security,
especially for the handicapped, while defending the retirement age for pension eligibility.
Under Nixon, union membership rose to 30% of the workforce – its high point before its
precipitous decline to 12% under subsequent US Presidents.
Nixon increased salaries of federal employees and real wages rose. In the following
half-century real wages have declined to only 10% of their Nixon era value!
Nixon indexed Social Security to the real rate of inflation.
The Nixon Presidency initiated the Affirmative Action program and used the Federal
Government to push for the desegregation of schools, leading to the first large-scale
integration of public education in the South. President Nixon created the Office of Minority
Business Enterprises (OMBE); the Occupation Safety and Health Agency (OSHA); and the Legacy of
Parks Programs.
Nixon proposed a guaranteed annual wage for American workers, which both Democrats and
Republicans rejected and defeated! He promoted Keynesian industrial policies against the
financial elites with their mania for speculation.
President Nixon appointed four Supreme Court Justices during his term. Three of his
appointees supported the groundbreaking 'Roe versus Wade' decision protecting women's
reproductive rights.
Under Nixon the voting age was reduced from twenty-one to eighteen years – giving
millions of young Americans a greater political voice.
When Nixon spoke in favor of gun control, both the Republican and Democratic Parties opposed
his proposals.
President Nixon supported the Equal Employment Opportunity Act and the Endangered Species
Act, which have remained critical to social and environmental justice.
Richard Nixon was not a 'single issue' President. The span and depth of his progressive
agenda, included fundamental changes in favor of environmental and racial justice, working
class economic security and broad-ranging health issues, peace and co-operation with China and
the USSR, women's rights through Supreme Court decisions; pensioners' rights, and animal rights
advocacy. He reduced economic inequalities between the richest 1% of capitalists and the
working class. Under President Nixon inequality and the concentration of wealth in the US were
far less than they became with subsequent US Presidents and especially during the Obama
Administration.
No President, with the possible exception of President Franklin Roosevelt's Great Depression
Era legislation, even remotely achieved Nixon's domestic socio-economic successes. President
Roosevelt, one must not forget, operated under the immense pressure of massive working class
strikes and in preparation for World War II, while President Nixon achieved his policy advances
during a time of relative 'peace'.
The Post-Nixon Bi-Partisan Regression
In the 41 years since Nixon's resignation (1976-2017) there has been a systematic rollback
of virtually all of the Nixon agenda. Congress, the liberals, the mass media and Wall Street
immediately switched from denigrating Nixon, to praising Democratic President 'Jimmy' Carter's
reversal of Nixon's foreign policy achievements.
Contrary to his media-polished image as a 'Bible-thumping champion of human rights',
President Carter dismantled Nixon's policies promoting peace with the USSR and China,
especially when he appointed the rabidly anti-Russian, anti-communist Zbigniew Brzezinski for
National Security Adviser. The duet created the public image of Carter mouthing human rights
rhetoric while Brzezinski formulated a policy of backing dictators and funding Islamist
(jihadi) terrorists to undermine Soviet allies.
The two-faced 'Evangelical Christian'
Carter sent confidential letters of US support for the brutal dictator Somoza to prevent the
Sandinista victory in Nicaragua, while issuing platitudes about peace in Central
America.
Carter worked closely with the military dictatorship in Pakistan and the 'head chopping'
monarchs in Saudi Arabia to launch the bloody forty-year war in Afghanistan, a Soviet Ally. The
Carter-Brzezinski-promoted mujahidin war against secularism in Afghanistan led directly to the
rise of Islamist terrorism, the Taliban and al Qaeda. Carter's 'freedom fighters'
systematically massacred secular schoolteachers for 'the crime' of educating Afghan girls in
the countryside.
In order to undermine the USSR and other socialist or independent secular countries with
Muslim populations, the Carter-Brzezinski duet financed and trained the Saudi-indoctrinated
Al-Qaeda terrorists. They were delighted when it spread its poison across the Middle East,
Asia, Africa, the Balkans and the Soviet Union promoting separatism and ethnic cleansing. Their
cheers ceased somewhat on 9/11/2001.
Domestically, Carter's deregulation of price controls led to double-digit inflation and set
in motion the long-term decline in wages and salaries, which still plagues the American lower
middle and working classes.
Carter appointed Chairman of the Federal Reserve Paul Volcker, who implemented draconian
anti-inflationary 'austerity' policies reducing domestic consumption and opening the way for
the de-industrialization of the economy.
The seismic change in the US, the 'financialization' of the domestic economy started under
Jimmy Carter and was deepened and expanded under the subsequent Presidents Ronald Regan, George
H W Bush, Sr., 'Bill' Clinton, George W. Bush (Jr) and Barack Obama. Poverty and permanent
unemployment followed.
With deindustrialization, labor union membership declined from 30% of the private labor
force under Nixon to less than 7% today. Organizing workers was no longer a priority: The
AFL-CIO leaders were too busy chasing after the Democrats for handouts (and get-out-of jail
passes).
After Carter, the Republican President Ronald Reagan doubled military spending, brutally
broke the strike of the Air Controller's union by jailing its leaders, whipped up the revival
of US interventionism by invading Grenada and sending Special Forces to join the death squads
murdering tens of thousands of peasant activists in Guatemala, El Salvador and
Honduras.
President Reagan's 'free market' polices encouraged US multinational corporations to
relocate their factories overseas to Mexico, the Caribbean and Asia, costing millions of US
workers well-paying jobs and reducing the number of unionized jobs. The stock markets and
profits rose while the 'American Dream' of lifetime stable employment in industry began to
fade.
Reagan's threats and his huge military build-up forced the USSR to overspend in arms and
strangle its growing domestic consumer economy.
The Reagan-Thatcher (British PM) era marked the demise of social welfare. They imposed
the doctrine of 'globalization' – in essence, the bellicose revival of Anglo-American
imperialism and the end of domestic industrial prosperity.
George HW Bush 'negotiated' with Russian President Gorbachev the break-up of the USSR.
Despite Bush's promises not to place US-NATO forces in former Soviet-allied countries, the
following period saw the huge US-NATO expansion into Eastern Europe, the Balkans and Baltic
states. President Bush (Sr.) invaded and savaged both Panama and Iraq, restarting the epoch of
permanent US wars.
President George HW Bush promulgated the unipolar doctrine of US world domination, known as
the 'Bush Doctrine'.
The Reagan-Bush regimes emptied the content of the Nixon-era progressive agencies in terms
of civil rights, consumer and environmental protection, and wage protection. Unionization
declined by over a third.
After 'war-monger' President 'Papa' Bush, the Saxophone-playing President 'Bill' Clinton was
elected. While crooning the words, 'I feel your pain' ,to American workers and racial
minorities, Clinton unleashed Wall Street, ending regulation of banks and investment houses. He
re-appointed Alan Greenspan to head the Federal Reserve, a proven master of grotesque financial
speculation and the godfather of economic crisis (2007-2009).
President Clinton, passions aroused by the animal spirits on Wall Street (and inside his
White House office), launched a vicious assault on the social welfare state, and in particular,
low-income working families, single parents and African-Americans. Clinton's promotion of
"Workfare" forced single mothers to accept unsustainable minimum wage jobs under the threat of
ending any welfare support, while not providing any mechanism for child care! This one policy
savaged hundreds of thousands of vulnerable families. Under Clinton, the prison industry
exploded as a multi-billion dollar business.
During the 1990's, Clinton backed the most retrograde pro-business, debt-ridden regimes in
Latin America. Hundreds of billions of dollars of Latin American wealth was transferred to the
US. Clinton's 'Golden Years for Wall Street' were a decade of infamy for Latin Americans and
led directly to major leftist revolts by the end of the Clinton era.
President Clinton deepened and widened the US military drive for domination in Europe and
the Middle East. Clinton bombed and invaded Yugoslavia, especially Serbia – destroying
large parts of its capital Belgrade. He bombed Iraq on a daily basis and increased the
starvation blockade of that nation. He invaded Somalia and backed Israeli land
grabbing-settlement expansion in Palestine. He supported the Israeli savaging of Lebanon. He
committed treason by submitting to Israeli blackmail over his sex-capers with Monica Lewinsky
and trying to release Israeli spy-US Naval analyst Jonathan Pollard. It was only after an open
threat of wholesale resignations by the CIA and other security agencies that Clinton withdrew
his proposal to free the traitor Pollard.
Finance capital flourished as Clinton repealed the venerable Glass-Steagall Act of 1933
against bank speculation. He promoted the hugely unpopular NAFTA, (North American Free Trade
Agreement) leading to the loss of over two million industrial jobs, as US multinationals
absconded to Mexico, where wages were less than one-fifth of the US. NAFTA's savaging of the
Mexican agricultural sector and massive bankruptcies of small producers led directly to the
flood of desperate Mexican migrants looking for work in the US.
The Georgetown-Harvard-Oxford trained 'Bill' Clinton was the grand wizard of talking like a
'black preacher' in southern churches while smoothly pursuing the 'big bucks' on Wall
Street.
After Clinton, regressive policies increased sharply: President George W Bush (Jr), 'First
Black President' Barack Obama and 'First Billionaire President' Donald Trump all supported the
most virulent imperial war policies.
The two terms of President George (Jr) Bush (2001 – 2008) saw unending multi-trillion
dollar-wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, which have destabilized two continents. Junior Bush
presided over the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression. His anti-Muslim 'global
wars on terror (GWOT)' was launched under the influence of 'Israel-First' militarists who had
inundated the Defense Department, National Security staff and Middle East policy and advisory
staff in the State Department. Meanwhile, GW Bush deepened unemployment and allowed the
mortgage foreclosure on millions of homeowners. The domestic economy was in severe crisis.
By the end of the George W. Bush Presidency, reinvigorated anti-war and social justice
movements were gaining strength throughout the country. Arriving on the scene of growing social
unrest and with perfect timing, the 'community organizer' presidential candidate Barack Obama
won the presidency by promising a progressive agenda to undermine the mass popular
radicalization against Bush's unpopular wars, growing inequalities, endless bank swindles,
foreclosures and blatant racist policies against Afro-Americans and Hispanics.
Once elected, the 'First Black' US President Obama immediately increased Bush's militarism
and handed the criminals on Wall Street a record two-trillion-dollar bailout, ripped out of
what remained of public social programs. Elected on a pledge to overhaul the ridiculously
inefficient, pro-profit, private health care system, Obama gave the electorate a program of
greater complexity and rapidly increasing insurance premiums ('Obama Care' or the 'Affordable
Care Act'), which ended with a negative impact on the nation's health.
Under Obama, life expectancy, as well as, the income gaps between the rich and the poor grew
at an alarming rate. Inequalities increased with a historic shift of national wealth to the top
1%. The class and health apartheid sharpened in the US. The transfer of jobs abroad
accelerated. Multinational corporate tax evasion rose by hundreds of billions of dollars. The
gap between African-American wages and white workers increased. Obama deported more immigrants,
especially workers from Mexico and Central America, than all four previous presidents
combined!
Elected on a pledge to 'bring the troops home', President Obama broke the record for waging
simultaneous wars of all previous presidents! Obama launched or backed US wars and coups
('regime changes') in Ukraine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Honduras and Somalia.
After receiving the Nobel 'Peace' Prize, President Obama provided advanced weapons to Israel,
Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan and Egypt. Obama financed and armed tens of
thousands of mercenary terrorists who savaged the secular multiethnic Syrian republic.
Furthermore, his administration cynically backed the separatist Kurds occupying Northern
Iraq.
Hawaii born and bred, Harvard-educated President Obama had mastered the deep-voiced Southern
preacher rhetoric to corrupt the leadership of the social justice and anti-war movements. He
coopted the leaders of the mass popular movements to their eternal shame and the movements
died. Even the short-lived anti-Wall Street 'Occupy Movement' received Obama's expressions of
'sympathy' as he backed the unleashing of police dogs and tear gas on the activists!
Obama's reactionary military encirclement of Russia and China influenced the foreign policy
views of a majority of US liberals as well as the mass media – turning them into
'humanitarian interventionists' and tools for empire.
Ever duplicitous, Obama signed a 'unilateral nuclear disarmament agreement with Iran' and
then immediately broke the agreement by imposing new sanctions on Tehran's banking and oil
transactions.
There was great media fanfare when Obama re-established diplomatic relations with Cuba. This
move facilitated the entry and funding of pro-imperialist NGO's committed to 'regime change'
along the same line as other 'color revolutions'. Despite the photo-ops with the Cuban
leadership, the US trade embargo against the Cuban people remained in place.
Obama's State Department and Treasury were tasked with sabotaging and overthrowing the
elected Chavez-Maduro governments in Venezuela promoting acts of violence, which have thrown
the country into chaos. His Secretary of State Clinton orchestrated the violent removal of the
presidents of Libya and Honduras and the installation of rabidly reactionary governments whose
policies have created hundreds of thousands of refugees and the assassinations of tens of
thousands of citizens, human rights and environmental activists.
Obama's much-promoted corporate for-profit health program brought some degree of insurance
coverage to just half of the uninsured poor within its first year. However, after the first
year health premiums rose by 25% while deductibles increased beyond the capacity of many
working families. Since then, premiums have risen astronomically and coverage is unaffordable
or unavailable in many areas of the country. The debt burden of ill health or a sudden medical
emergency has increased for the middle and working class under Wall Street's 'First Black'
President. No demographic measures of improvement, in terms of life expectancy or life quality,
have been documented since the implementation of 'Obama Care'. Indeed, these public health
measures have deteriorated with an epidemic of suicides, opioid-related deaths and premature
deaths of all types among the working and rural classes.
After 8 years, the core of the nation, the so-called 'Flyover States', where the downwardly
mobile working and lower middle class white majority live, was fed up with Obama's cant and
blatantly elitist policies. In was in this context that the distasteful billionaire buffoon
Donald Trump capitalized on mass popular discontent and rallied a populace in revolt against
the previous 'war and bankers' presidents, by promising to end corporate export of jobs, Wall
Street corruption, 'Obama Care', competition for jobs with undocumented cheap labor and endless
overseas wars. Trump hit a raw nerve among scores of millions of voters when he accused the
earlier Bush Administration of fabricating the pretexts for the invasion of Iraq as well as for
security failures in the 9/11 attacks on New York City and the Pentagon.
Within weeks after taking office President Trump gracefully performed an Obama-style
'about-face' and emerged a re-anointed warmonger of the Hillary Clinton variety: He celebrated
his transformation by bombing Syria, Afghanistan and the defenseless, starving people of Yemen.
He sent warships off the coast of North Korea, placed advanced missile installations in South
Korea and threatened nuclear war in Asia.
Trump miserably failed to 'reform' the corporate health plan concocted by his smirking
predecessor. He shed his promise to seek peaceful relations with Moscow and embraced the
policies of the worst anti-Russian liberal warmongers groomed by Clinton and Obama. Obama's
overt war posturing had so deeply influenced African-American politicians that they loudly
accused Trump of being 'too soft on Russia'! Former civil rights leaders-turned politicians
were calling for greater US military interventions – a spectacle what would have made our
sacred civil rights martyrs rolling in their graves.
Trump, building on the immense power already entrenched in Washington, reinforced and
expanded the role of finance capital and the Pentagon in determining US policy. Trump pledged
to exceed Obama's arrest and expulsion of immigrants – from 2.5 million workers in eight
years to an additional 5 million in his first four-year term.
The US corporate mass media and the liberal left have been pushing the pro-business
President Trump even further to the right – demanding the US escalate its nuclear threat
against North Korea, mount a full invasion of Syria (for its 'crimes against humanity') and,
above all, 'tighten the military noose' around Russia and China.
Conclusion
By any measure, the policies of President Richard Milhous Nixon were more socially
progressive, less militarist and less servile to Wall Street than any and all of the subsequent
US Presidents. This assessment is heresy to the current historical narratives promoted by both
political parties and the corporate media-academic nexus.
But even during the Nixon Presidency there were already signs of an allied liberal-rightist
attack on his progressive 'conservative' agenda. Senator Edward (Ted) Kennedy blocked Nixon's
proposal for a universal national health system built on an expansion of the highly successful
'Medicare Program'. Nixon's proposal (a 'Medicare For All') would have been far more
comprehensive, effective and affordable than the corporate boondoggles cooked up by the Clinton
and Obama Administrations.
What accounts for the dramatic shift from the center left to the far right among US
Presidents after the 1970's? What explains the rise and demise of 'Nixonian' progressivism and
the great leap backward in the subsequent four and half decades?
Personality and personal background are not irrelevant: Nixon's class and work background
and personal experience with the Great Depression framed some of his outlook despite his
'conservative' credentials. However, the social and political balance of forces played the
decisive role. Richard Nixon came to national attention as a rightwing militarist and
aggressive attack dog for Senator Joesph McCarthy during the 1950s and at the beginning of his
Presidential term in the late 1960's. However, the reality of the multi-million-person anti-war
movement challenged American society and influenced the armed forces from within. Even sectors
of the mass media became highly critical of the permanent war state. This movement filled the
streets, divided families and influenced the institutions and communities leading to a dramatic
change in Nixon's politics toward peace and even toward social and racial justice. Nixon truly
became a 'realist'.
In those days, the industrial trade unions were powerful. Manufacturing formed the basis of
the economy and determined the direction of the banking-finance sector. Wall Street played
'second fiddle' to production.
Fed up with the lack of social progress and opportunity in their communities, African
American revolts in the streets were far more effective than the tame black Democratic Party
politicos in Congress.
The decline of the social movements and militant labor unions, as well as the retreat to
electoral politics among the African American and anti-war movements, ended the independent
popular pressure and facilitated the rising power of the pro-war, Wall Street-controlled
parties linked to money and speculation. Labor unions became the fiefdoms of corrupt
millionaire union bosses who bought protection from prosecution with multi-million dollar
campaign donations to both Democrats and Republican politicians. They discarded the Nixon's
social agenda, using the 'Watergate Scandal' as a pretext to dismantle his advanced
programs.
Presidents and Congresses became beholden to the bankers. The rise, dominance and deep
corruption of the Wall Street speculators realigned the economy away from domestic
manufacturing to international finance – leading to the great relocation of US factories
abroad and the permanent marginalization of the once-organized American working class.
Voters were marginalized as active participants in their own public affairs. They alternated
their disaffection between parties and candidates, between big and small spenders, indicted and
unindicted swindlers, and exposed and unpunished perverts.
The domestic changes in the economy and social structure were the direct outcome of these
shifts in the social and political struggles and organizations.
There is a dialectical relationship between socio-economic changes and the rise and fall of
socio-political struggles.
These domestic shifts of power and policy were influenced by the major changes in global
power, namely the demise of the USSR, the decline of secular-nationalist regimes in the Middle
East, the defeat of the left in Latin America and, above all, the rise of the US imperial
doctrines of unipolar power and the globalization. The 'changing times' explains everything and
nothing! While the objective world determines politics, so do the subjective responses of
Presidents.
President Richard Nixon could have escalated the Vietnam War up to a nuclear attack on
Hanoi: This is what the current Obama-Trump militarist advisors now recommend for the North
Koreans. Nixon could have followed the rightwing 'free market' ideology of the
Republican-Goldwater faction. However, Nixon took a pragmatic, peace and social reformist
position – which have brought us some of our most cherished programs – EPA, OSHA,
SALT disarmament, relations with China, even Roe versus Wade, and an end to the military
draft.
Subsequent Presidents, faced with the shifts in political, social and economic power,
chose to re-direct the nation toward greater militarism and the domination of finance capital.
They have systematically attacked and dismantled the social welfare programs, environmental
protection, pro-industry legislation, diplomacy and peace pacts initiated by Nixon.
The aphorism, 'man makes history but not of his own doing', is central to our discussion of
the Nixon legacy. The process of regression is a cumulative process, of leaps and steps. In
recent years, regression has accelerated with devastating results for the domestic and world
populations. Social power, concentrated at the top, weakens but also alienates power at the
bottom and middle. The current configuration of power and policies cannot be permanent, even if
the trajectory so far has favored the elite. Social classes and groups are not fixed in their
orientations.
Twice in recent years, significant majorities voted for jobs, justice and peace (Obama
and Trump) and instead got charlatans bringing greater inequality, injustice and endless
wars.
Deception and deep commitments to reactionary politics have penetrated widely among the
'discontented classes'. African-American political leaders and pundits now demand war against
Russia following the pronouncements of their 'Black President', Barack Obama. Poor marginalized
white workers still support their billionaire leader Donald Trump as he waltzes down Wall
Street and into possible nuclear war.
The dialectic of discontent and resentment can lead to progressive or reactionary political
and social alignments, even, or especially, in the face of history's great leap backwards!
(Republished from
The James Petras
Website
by permission of author or representative)
...Even in low crime parts of the country, the police are able to deploy fully armed and equipped
swat teams that are more military than civilian in their threatening demeanor as well in the body
armor and weapons they carry. Many cities and counties now have surplus military armored vans for
crowd control even if they have no crowds. Armed drones are increasingly becoming part of the law
enforcement arsenal and it sometimes appears as if the police are copying the military as a model
of "how to do it."
The various levels of government that make up the United States seem to be preparing for some
kind of insurrection, which may indeed be the case somewhere down the road if the frustrations of
the public are not somehow dealt with. But there is another factor that has, in my opinion, become
a key element in the militarization of the police in the United States. That would be the role of
the security organs of the state of Israel in training American cops, a lucrative business that has
developed since 9/11 and which inter alia gives the "students" a whole different perspective
on the connection of the police with those who are being policed, making the relationship much more
one of an occupier and the occupied.
The engagement of American police forces with Israeli security services began modestly enough
in the wake of 9/11. The panic response in the United States to a major terrorist act led to a search
for resources to confront what was perceived as a new type of threat that normal law-and-order training
did not address.
Israel, which, in its current occupation of much of Palestine and the Golan Heights as well as
former stints in Gaza, southern Lebanon and Sinai, admittedly has considerable experience in dealing
with the resistance to its expansion manifested as what it describes as terrorism. Jewish organizations
in the United States dedicated to providing cover for Israeli's bad behavior, saw an opportunity
to get their hooks into a sizable and respected community within the U.S. that was ripe for conversion
to the Israeli point of view, so they began funding "exchanges."
Since 2002 there have been hundreds of all-expenses-paid trips including officers from every major
American city as well as state and local police departments. Some have been sponsored by the American
Jewish Committee (AJC) and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA). The Anti-Defamation
League (ADL) has also been
directly funding trips since 2008, explaining that "As a people living under constant threat
of attack, the Israelis are leading experts in security enforcement and response strategies." The
intent? To "learn" and "draw from the latest developments" so the American cops can "bring these
methods back home to implement in their communities."
In 1829, Robert Peel laid down the bedrock philosophy of policing in the Anglo-Saxon world,
now called the Peelian principles. These principles would have seemed unexceptional to us even
five decades ago.
But, I daresay, they would be scoffed at by at least some of the proponents of the new philosophy
of warrior-policing in America. On the other hand, some would argue that America is no longer
an Anglo-Saxon society, at least not in the culture of its criminal population.
1 The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.
2 The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon public approval of police
actions.
3 Police must secure the willing cooperation of the public in voluntary observance of the law
to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.
4 The degree of cooperation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to
the necessity of the use of physical force.
5 Police seek and preserve public favor not by catering to the public opinion but by constantly
demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.
6 Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore
order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient.
7 Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to
the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police
being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are
incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
8 Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions and never appear
to usurp the powers of the judiciary.
9 The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence
of police action in dealing with it.
It is widely believed that arguing with cops or showing even the slightest attitude in contacts
with them is done at one's peril.
This is nothing new.
What is new in America is the collapse of civil behavior on the part of citizens, a lack of
good manners in the general public, and an absence of respect for authority figures. These things
naturally bring on police reactions.
Any time humans have power over others, that power needs to be limited and counterbalanced.
This is always an issue with police forces. Anybody who's lived a little has seen examples, going
way back, of how hard it is to maintain this balance.
Some people are just newly aware of this eternal issue now because cops have more toys and
everything looks like it was built for Darth Vader.
As for the non-sequitur in this case, Israel, it is a good place to learn how to keep unwanted
people out of your country (clue: walls work) and how to profile those among whom criminals operate.
It is where one can unlearn American political correctness with regard to law enforcement. The
key again is balance -- between learning what is useful, and leaving out the abuses which, yes
yes yes, we all know exist.
Americans would have no problem with any of this if they would just go back and start using
the Bill of Rights again. Re-learning good manners would help them grease the wheels with cops
too.
"The engagement of American police forces with Israeli security services began modestly enough
in the wake of 9/11. The panic response in the United States to a major terrorist act "
It was, however, "that shitty little country" that benefited the most from the entire staged
9/11 fraud.
Already when I first visited the USA in 1978 I discovered that USA police expect to be feared,
while we in W Europe are accustomed to see police as our friend, the USA is quite different.
In 2001 in the USA a USA friend called the police 'the internal army'.
Since then the police has been militarised, they got armoured personnel carriers, even tanks and
armour piercing ammunition.
I suppose the cause is USA society, no pity for the poor, more weapons with citizens than the
number of citizens.
And of course the death penalty, criminals know what to expect when they have been arrested.
Good stuff Phil. I would note, however, L Fletcher Prouty pointed to the militarization of
the USA's police forty years ago in his seminal tome on the CIA: The Secret Team.
That Israel has joined the endeavor comes as no surprise, particularly in the post 9/11 era
where the many programs of inter-military/police training have accelerated. Relevant to this,
a veteran's preference law purposely giving Americans with military background an employment advantage
throughout law enforcement agencies at every level, state and federal, combined with unceasing
conflict, creates a law enforcement talent pool heavily slanted to an 'us versus them' mentality.
It's the nature of the beast:
These preceding combine to strengthen a peculiar (and necrotic) mentality per the Likud (Netanyahu's
political alignment) view of the world that I fear has infected the USA rather badly:
"After Menachem Begin's Likud Party came to power in 1977, these economic interests converged
with ideological affinities to make the alliance even stronger. Many members of the Likud Party
shared with South Africa's leaders an ideology of minority survivalism that presented the two
countries as threatened outposts of European civilization defending their existence against barbarians
at the gates"
Obviously as demographics and thus society changes it is inevitable US policing will increasingly
resemble the Latin American style militarised approach. The staggering role of the Israelis in
your policing certainly deserves its own examination though. Of course the ADL has a long history
intertwined with that of the national crime syndicate (and the Mossad), even awarding Moe Dalitz
the Torch of Freedom. The ADL should be regarded in the same light as Joe Colombo's Italian-American
Civil Rights League.
The Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, besides training American cops to be cold-blooded
killers, also have brought several hundred American generals and admirals to Israel to see how
they smash Palestinians asking for justice, which should come in handy when the Deep State removes
Trump from office and Americans riot against tyranny:
Israel is like the volunteer firefighter arsonist that starts a massive fire, then calls it
in to the 911 dispatch so he can be the first on the scene and get 'Atta-Boys"
It's worth pointing out that police violence in America isn't directed exclusively against
blacks, whose rates of violent crime are after all much higher than whites. Even against whites,
whose crime rates are comparable to European rates, American police are far more likely to employ
deadly force than their European counterparts. American police are clearly out of control.
And don't forget the media's role in creating a false narrative in which the only choices are
underclass sociopathy on the one hand, and police state tactics on the other.
The techniques employed to create physical barriers, to develop sources for intelligence
gathering, and to train in tactical responses are quite familiar to anyone who has studied
modern-style terrorism since it emerged in Western Europe in the 1970s.
I would say that modern-style terrorism emerged around 1946 and the terrorist bombing of the
King David Hotel, if not earlier.
Some would no doubt move its emergence back to the birth of the Irgun, a de facto terrorist
organization by any reasonable definition.
The rest formed a new Irgun Zeva'i Le'umi (abbr. Etzel), which was ideologically linked
with the Revisionist Movement and accepted the authority of its leader, Vladimir Jabotinsky.
Etzel rejected the "restraint" policy of the Haganah and carried out armed reprisals
against Arabs Many of its members were arrested by the British authorities; one of them,
Shlomo Ben Yosef, was hanged for shooting an Arab bus. After the publication of the White Paper
in May 1939, Etzel directed its activities against the British Mandatory autorities.
@Buzz Mohawk "What is new in America is the collapse of civil behavior on the part of citizens,
a lack of good manners in the general public, and an absence of respect for authority figures.
These things naturally bring on police reactions."
And likewise, abuse of authority and other misbehavior by police tend to make the citizens
lose respect for authority and bring on what you describe.
Where Israel really excels is in its willingness to kill large numbers of Arabs of all ages
and genders using the excuse that they are terrorists. It does so with impunity because Israeli
courts almost never hold the army and police accountable for whatever they do.
That's a huge flaw in our system as well. Rarely are the bigshots and their protective forces
(such as politicians and cops) held accountable for even the most egregious violations of basic
justice.
Americans would have no problem with any of this if they would just go back and start using
the Bill of Rights again.
When was that ever adhered to?
Especially after the War of the Northern Banksters against the Southern Planters, how could
anyone believe that the BoR retains even a tiny shred of validity or authority?
@Greg Bacon The "most moral" Israeli state and its "most moral" Israeli army have got to a
point of recognizing the institutionalized rot: "Last year, a top Israeli general's comments during
the country's annual Holocaust Remembrance Day address sparked controversy when he likened the
atmosphere in modern day Israel to 1930's Nazi Germany."
http://www.globalresearch.ca/idf-chief-says-israel-is-becoming-like-nazi-germany-refuses-to-back-down/5600782
Similar to the attempts at stopping the Nazi supremacist plans by the sane and moral German officers,
the sane and moral Israelis (a small minority) are trying to highlight the obvious: "If there
is anything that frightens me in the remembrance of the Holocaust, it is discerning nauseating
processes that took place in Europe in general, and in Germany specifically back then, 70, 80
and 90 years ago, and seeing evidence of them here among us in the year 2016," Maj. Gen. Yair
Golan, the Israeli army's deputy chief of staff said."
@Achmed E. Newman Listen Philip, I have no disagreement with, and will take your word for,
all the details in your article here. However you are missing THE major point regarding the basic
reason for the rapidly increasing militarization of police forces in the US. Note first that may
answer can be realized just from my last sentence, as I wrote "police forces", not "US police
force".
Th US Constitution has been virtually shredded and trolled over the last 50 years, but is has
been the total disregard for Amendment X, as the bulk of the shredding along with the addition
of Amendments 16 and 17
, the trolling, that have done the most severe damage. Amendment X being ignored means that nobody
even considers restraint of US Feral Gov't power anymore - the whole concept has been almost forgotten
by the population. The 2 additions, besides other ill effects, affect the flow of the money
, which is the key, and gets me to the topic of police militarization.
The training by Israelis is a symptom, not the cause. Follow the flow of the money and resources!
Let's talk money first: Grants of all sorts can be obtained by city and count police forces. This
money comes fron the American taxpayers, but they have ZERO say in who it goes to and how it's
used. Do you think these cops, especially in this day and age, will turn it down on principles
of federalism? Every small-time, or ANY size, force will always want to enlarge their operations.
That's natural. In addition, there is always the very reasonable point of "it's our tax money-
if we don't take it, someone else will." There are strings attached, whether written or assumed,
once the money is doled out. That's not all- even with a stand-up chief or sheriff with the good
attitude of "we still work for the citizens of _______", there is still relations with the Feds
that should not be.
Now about the other resources: these armored vehicles, half-tracks, SWAT gear (the whole get-up
"hut, hut, hut") are hand-me-downs of US military equipment. It's free, but it costs a bit to
maintain, so they'd be stupid not to use it once in a while, right? I mean otherwise, the county
council may, on the off chance there's a man with integrity in it (hahaaa), question whether all
this stuff should't just be auctioned off ( to another police force probably). This stuff should
be scrapped or auctioned to the public or sold overseas, that's IT,. (Yes, if the army can own
a tank, an American citizen has every right to own one.)
This all adds up to a Standing Army , something the founders of this formerly great
country were pretty damned worried about. Yeah the other army still has a few too many constraints
on it, so a national police force, with the Fusion Centers for "cooperation" will take care of
the US citizens citizens nicely.
The training of parts of our US Standing Army by Israeli experts just will make them
a bit better at keeping the citizens subjects in line when the SHTF, just for
a while though.
The training by Israelis is a symptom, not the cause. Follow the flow of the money and resources!
Indeed.
It's also not primarily a training exercise, or even primarily for profit, but rather its primary
purpose is to promote sympathy for Israel in the US and especially in US law enforcement.
@Greg Bacon The Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, besides training American
cops to be cold-blooded killers, also have brought several hundred American generals and admirals
to Israel to see how they smash Palestinians asking for justice, which should come in handy when
the Deep State removes Trump from office and Americans riot against tyranny:
Israel is like the volunteer firefighter arsonist that starts a massive fire, then calls it
in to the 911 dispatch so he can be the first on the scene and get 'Atta-Boys"
also have brought several hundred American generals and admirals to Israel to see how they
smash Palestinians asking for justice
One other (significant) point is missing–it is how IDF's combat experiences and achievements
were initially blown grossly out of proportions in the US and then colored to a very large degree
American military thinking. The fact that Israel's victories were achieved over supremely incompetent
and, to a very large extent illiterate, Arabs was "somehow" discounted. The incessant (decades
long) campaign of praise for Israel's military in US is nothing short of astonishing.
@animalogic Like a wasp or scorpion that just can't stop stinging, Israel & it's various Dogs,
will not be happy until the entire US Body Politic is poisoned.
until the entire US Body Politic is poisoned.
It already is and while Israel plays a huge role in it, let's not relieve others of the responsibility
for that–behavior of US Congress during Bibi's 2015 speech to a joint session is more than pathetic,
it is treasonous. Not all in US Congress are Jews. This pathetic behavior is also very indicative
of this body politic being poisoned.
It already is and while Israel plays a huge role in it, let's not relieve others of the responsibility
for that--behavior of US Congress during Bibi's 2015 speech to a joint session is more than pathetic,
it is treasonous. Not all in US Congress are Jews. This pathetic behavior is also very indicative
of this body politic being poisoned. You are correct. Not all in the U S Congress are jews. However,
AIPAC, and other jewish organizations have such a stranglehold over the American political and
election process, that it is almost impossible to get elected if AIPAC or other jewish organizations
are against you.
As to "dual citizenship", there are forty or so congressmen who hold dual citizenship with Israel.
Add to that, the thousands of "policy wonks" infecting the U S government who also hold "dual
citizenship" with Israel. THAT, my friends, is a real problem, as they influence the "lawmakers"
as well as having the ability to interact with the "movers and shakers" who see only one thing–the
accumulation of shekels
You wouldn't know it, based on the endless cries for more money coming from the
military
politicians , and
the president , but these are the best of times for the Pentagon. Spending on the Department
of Defense alone is already well in excess of half a trillion dollars a year and counting. Adjusted
for inflation, that means it's
higher
than at the height of President Ronald Reagan's massive buildup of the 1980s and is now nearing
the post-World War II funding peak. And yet that's barely half the story. There are hundreds of billions
of dollars in "defense" spending that aren't even counted in the Pentagon budget.
Under the circumstances, laying all this out in grisly detail!and believe me, when you dive into
the figures, they couldn't be grislier!is the only way to offer a better sense of the true costs
of our wars past, present, and future, and of the funding that is the lifeblood of the national security
state. When you do that, you end up with no less than 10 categories of national security spending
(only one of which is the Pentagon budget). So steel yourself for a tour of our nation's trillion-dollar-plus
"national security" budget. Given the Pentagon's penchant for wasting money and our government's
record of engaging in dangerously misguided wars without end, it's clear that a large portion of
this massive investment of taxpayer dollars isn't making anyone any safer.
1) The Pentagon Budget
The Pentagon's "base" or regular budget contains the costs of the peacetime training, arming,
and operation of the U.S. military and of the massive civilian workforce that supports it!and if
waste is your Eden, then you're in paradise.
The department's budget is awash in waste, as you might expect from the only major federal agency
that has
never passed an audit . For example, last year a
report by the Defense Business Board, a Pentagon advisory panel, found that the Department of
Defense could save $125 billion over five years just by trimming excess bureaucracy. And a new
study by the Pentagon's Inspector General indicates that the department has ignored hundreds
of recommendations that could have saved it more than $33.6 billion.
The Pentagon can't even get an accurate count of the number of private contractors it employs,
but the
figure is certainly in the range of 600,000 or higher, and many of them carry out tasks that
might far better be handled by government employees. Cutting that enormous contractor work force
by just 15 percent, only a start when it comes to eliminating the unnecessary duplication involved
in hiring government employees and private contractors to do the same work, would
save an easy $20 billion annually.
And the items mentioned so far are only the most obvious examples of misguided expenditures at
the Department of Defense. Even larger savings could be realized by scaling back the Pentagon's global
ambitions, which have caused nothing but trouble in the last decade and a half as the U.S. military
has waged devastating and counterproductive wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and elsewhere across
the Greater Middle East and Africa. An analysis by Ben Friedman of the conservative Cato Institute
estimates that the Pentagon could
reduce its projected spending by one trillion dollars over the next decade if Washington
reined in its interventionist instincts and focused only on America's core interests.
Donald Trump, of course, ran for president as a businessman who would clean house and institute
unprecedented efficiencies in government. Instead, on entering the Oval Office, he's done a superb
job of ignoring chronic problems at the Pentagon,
proposing instead to give that department a hefty raise: $575 billion next year. And yet his
expansive military funding plans look relatively mild compared to the desires of the gung-ho members
of the armed services committees in the
House and
Senate . Democrats and Republicans alike want to hike the Pentagon budget to at least $600 billion
or more. The legislative fight over a final number will play out over the rest of this year. For
now, let's just use Trump's number as a placeholder.
Pentagon Budget: $575 billion
2) The War Budget
The wars of this century, from Iraq to Afghanistan and beyond, have largely been paid for through
a special account that lies outside the regular Pentagon budget. This war budget!known in the antiseptic
language of the Pentagon as the "Overseas Contingency Operations" account, or OCO!
peaked at more than $180
billion at the height of the Bush administration's intervention in Iraq.
As troop numbers in that country and Afghanistan have plummeted from
hundreds of thousands to
about 15,000 , the war budget, miraculously enough, hasn't fallen at anywhere near the same pace.
That's because it's not even subject to the modest
caps on the Pentagon's regular
budget imposed by Congress back in 2011, as part of a deal to keep the government open.
In reality, over the past five years, the war budget has become a slush fund that pays for tens
of billions of dollars in Pentagon expenses that have nothing to do with fighting wars. The Trump
administration wants
$64.6 billion for that boondoggle budget in fiscal year 2018. Some in Congress would like to
hike it another
$10 billion . For consistency, we'll again use the Trump number as a baseline.
War Budget: $64.6 Billion
Running Total: $639.6 Billion
3) Nuclear Warheads (and more)
You might think that the most powerful weapons in the U.S. arsenal -- nuclear warheads -- would
be paid for out of the Pentagon budget. And you would, of course, be wrong. The cost of researching,
developing, maintaining, and
"modernizing"
the American arsenal of
6,800 nuclear
warheads falls to an obscure agency located inside the Department of Energy, the National Nuclear
Security Administration, or NNSA. It also works on naval nuclear reactors, pays for the environmental
cleanup of nuclear weapons facilities, and funds the nation's three nuclear weapons laboratories,
at a total annual cost of more than
$20 billion per year.
Department of Energy (nuclear): $20 Billion
Running total: $659.6 billion
4) "Other Defense"
This catchall category encompasses a number of flows of defense-related funding that go to agencies
other than the Pentagon. It totals about
$8 billion per year . In recent years, about
two-thirds of this money has gone to pay for the homeland security activities of the FBI, accounting
for more than half of that agency's annual budget.
"Other Defense": $8 Billion
Running Total: $677.6 billion
The four categories above make up what the White House budget office considers total spending
on "national defense." But I'm sure you won't be shocked to learn that their cumulative $677.6 billion
represents far from the full story. So let's keep right on going.
5) Homeland Security
After the 9/11 attacks, Congress created a mega-agency, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
It absorbed 22 then-existing entities ,
all involved in internal security and border protection, creating the sprawling cabinet department
that now has 240,000 employees . For
those of you keeping score at home, the agencies and other entities currently
under the umbrella
of DHS include the Coast Guard, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Federal Law Enforcement
Training Center, the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, United States Citizenship and Immigration
Services, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Agency, the Transportation Security Agency, the
U.S. Secret Service, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency (ICE), and the Office of Intelligence
Analysis (the only one of America's 17 intelligence agencies to fit under the department's rubric).
How many of these agencies actually make us safer? That would be a debatable topic, if anyone
were actually interested in such a debate. ICE!America's deportation force!has, for instance, done
far more to
cause suffering than to protect us from criminals or terrorists. On the other hand, it's reassuring
to know that there is an office charged with determining whether there is a nuclear weapon or radioactive
"dirty bomb" in our midst.
While it's hard to outdo the Pentagon, DHS has its own record of
dubious expenditures on items large and small. They range from $1,000 fees for employees to attend
conferences at spas to the purchase of bagpipes for border protection personnel to the payment of
scores of remarkably fat salaries to agency bureaucrats. On the occasion of its tenth anniversary
in 2013, Congressman Jeff Duncan (R-SC)
excoriated the department as "rife with waste," among other things, pointing to a report by the
DHS inspector general that it had misspent over $1 billion.
DHS was supposed to provide a better focus for efforts to protect the United States from internal
threats. Its biggest problem, though, may be that it has become a magnet for increased funding for
haphazard, misplaced, and often simply dangerous initiatives. These would, for instance, include
its program
to supply grants to local law enforcement agencies to help them buy military-grade equipment
to be
deployed
not against terrorists, but against citizens protesting the injustices perpetrated by the very
same agencies being armed by DHS.
The Trump administration has
proposed spending
$50 billion on DHS in FY 2018.
Homeland Security: $50 Billion
Running Total: $717.6 Billion
6) Military Aid
U.S. government-run military aid programs have proliferated rapidly in this century. The United
States now has
scores of arms and training programs serving more than
140 countries
. They cost more than
$18 billion per year , with
about 40
percent of that total located in the State Department's budget. While the Pentagon's share has
already been accounted for, the $7 billion at State!which can ill afford to pay for such programs
with the Trump administration seeking to
gut the rest of its budget!has not.
Military Aid at the State Department: $7 Billion
Running Total: $724.6 Billion
7) Intelligence
The United States government has
16 separate intelligence agencies : the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA); the National Security
Agency (NSA); the Defense Intelligence Agency; the FBI; the State Department Bureau of Intelligence
and Research; the Department of Homeland Security Office of Intelligence Analysis; the Drug Enforcement
Administration Office of National Security Intelligence; the Treasury Department Office of Intelligence
and Analysis; the Department of Energy Office of Intelligence and Counterintelligence; the National
Reconnaissance Office; the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency; Air Force Intelligence, Surveillance,
and Reconnaissance; Army Military Intelligence; the Office of Naval Intelligence; Marine Corps Intelligence;
and Coast Guard Intelligence. Add to these the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI),
which is supposed to coordinate this far-flung intelligence network, and you have a grand total of
17 agencies.
The U.S. will spend more than $70 billion
on intelligence this year, spread across all these agencies. The bulk of this funding is contained
in the Pentagon budget!including the budgets of the CIA and the NSA (believed to be hidden under
obscure line items there). At most, a few billion dollars in additional expenditures on intelligence
fall outside the Pentagon budget and since, given the secrecy involved, that figure can't be determined,
let's not add anything further to our running tally.
Intelligence: $70 Billion (mostly contained inside the Pentagon budget)
Running Total: $724.6 Billion
8) Supporting Veterans
A steady uptick of veterans generated by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has dramatically increased
the costs of supporting such vets once they come home, including the war wounded, some of whom will
need medical care for life. For 2018, the Veterans Administration has requested over
$186 billion for its budget, more than
three
times what it was before the 2001 intervention in Afghanistan.
Veterans: $186 billion
Running Total: $910.6 Billion
9) Military Retirement
The trust fund set up to cover pensions for military retirees and their survivors doesn't have
enough money to pay out all the benefits promised to these individuals. As a result, it is supplemented
annually by an appropriation from the general revenues of the government. That supplement has by
now reached roughly
$80 billion per year
Military Retirement: $80 Billion
Running Total: $990.6 Billion
10) Defense Share of Interest on the Debt
It's no secret that the U.S. government regularly runs at a deficit and that the total national
debt is growing. It may be more surprising to learn that the interest on that debt runs at roughly
$500 billion per year . The Project on Government Oversight
calculates the share of the interest on that debt generated by defense-related programs at more
than $100 billion annually.
Defense Share of the Interest on the Debt: $100 billion
Grand Total: $1.09 Trillion
That final annual tally of nearly $1.1 trillion to pay for past wars, fund current wars, and prepare
for possible future conflicts is roughly double the already staggering $575 billion the Trump administration
has proposed as the Pentagon's regular budget for 2018. Most taxpayers have no idea that more than
a trillion dollars a year is going to what's still called "defense," but these days might equally
be called national in security.
So the next time you hear the president, the secretary of defense, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff, or a hawkish lawmaker claim that the U.S. military is practically collapsing from a lack
of funding, don't believe it for a second. Donald Trump may finally have put plutocracy in the Oval
Office, but a militarized version of it has long been ensconced in the Pentagon and the rest of the
national security state. In government terms, make no mistake about it, the Pentagon & Co. are the
one percent.
"... The opposition has a formidable array of forces, including the national intelligence apparatus (NSA, Homeland Security, FBI, CIA, etc.) and a substantial sector of the Pentagon and defense industry. Moreover, the opposition has created new power centers for ousting President Trump, including the judiciary. This is best seen in the appointment of former FBI Chief Robert Mueller as ' Special Investigator' ..."
"... The President has an increasingly fragile base of support in his Cabinet, family and closest advisers. He has a minority of supporters in the legislature and possibly in the Supreme Court, despite nominal majorities for the Republican Party. ..."
"... uncritical' ..."
"... critically' ..."
"... democracy succeeds ..."
"... In fact, it is the absence of real democracy, which permits the oligarchs to engage in serious intra-elite warfare. The marginalized, de-politicized electorate are incapable of taking advantage of the conflict to advance their own interests. ..."
"... Alas not just in the USA, but also in the EU. The recent French election was no more than the ruling elite's concern that Marine le Pen would be elected. In the USA the unimaginable was the case, a political outsider was elected. The same with Brexit, also unimaginable. ..."
"... Democracy is a lie. It has never existed and cannot exist in society where tiny minority owes almost everything. It is illusion to keep masses preoccupied while they are being fleeced. Same everywhere now. ..."
"... It's a modern-day version of Shakespeare's Julius Caesar . Let's hope Trump stays away from the Senate. ..."
"... Following on that same note, someone should tell Hillary Rodham Clinton, "The fault, dear Hillary, is not in our stars, but in ourselves.". I guess the modern day version would be, "The fault, dear Hillary, is not in thousands of Facebook postings by a thousand Russian agents, but in your assumption that the Deep State and the MSM would drag you across the finish line to the victory you felt was rightfully yours." ..."
"... "A reign of witches", Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State under George Washington, aimed this jeremiad at Presidents Washington and Adams. The script is old, only the characters are new. https://robertmagill.wordpress.com/2017/04/18/we-have-always-been-a-right-wing-plutocracy/ ..."
"... This is a great summary of where America is today. What could Trump do? Here is a piece of advice. He should choose one intel agency that he can trust, may be DIA or create a new one, may be even informal one to fight the leaks which are after all felony. He should confront his Republican enemies like McCain openly that it is the President that makes foreign policy not senators, he should confront Russia gate openly, by insisting he had a right to establish whatever channels he wished to, he should reopen investigation of Clinton,s emails, Clinton foundation, investigation of who leaked DNC materials in other words refocus the attention on Clinton and Dems, something he should have done from day one. He should activate the social base of supporters in a variety of ways, he should mobilize those segments of business that support him and stand to benefit from his policies. A war is war, he should stop procrastinating in a kind of dismissive defensive posture, it is time to hit back and hit hard. ..."
"... A very fine, evenly balanced analysis of the current bizarro madness that passes for authentic governance. ..."
"... Very important interview - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtnSVkm7WCg&feature=youtu.be Cynthia McKinney/Sane Progressive Interview: Deep State & Uniting for REAL Alternative Movement ..."
"... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9p8oGQ4RPFQ Vanessa Beely On White Helmets, Syria w Sane Progressive Interview ..."
On a scale not seen since the 'great' world depression of the 1930's, the US political system
is experiencing sharp political attacks, divisions and power grabs. Executive firings, congressional
investigations, demands for impeachment, witch hunts, threats of imprisonment for 'contempt of Congress'
and naked power struggles have shredded the façade of political unity and consensus among competing
powerful US oligarchs.
For the first time in US history, the incumbent elected president struggles on a daily basis to
wield state power. The opposition-controlled state (National Public Radio) and corporate organs of
mass propaganda are pitted against the presidential regime. Factions of the military elite and business
oligarchy face off in the domestic and international arena. The oligarchs debate and insult each
other. They falsify charges, plot and deceive. Their political acolytes, who witness these momentous
conflicts, are mute, dumb and blind to the real interests at stake.
The struggle between the Presidential oligarch and the Opposition oligarchs has profound consequences
for their factions and for the American people. Wars and markets, pursued by sections of the Oligarchs,
have led opposing sections to seek control over the means of political manipulation (media and threats
of judicial action).
Intense political competition and open political debate have nothing to do with 'democracy' as
it now exists in the United States.
In fact, it is the absence of real democracy, which permits the oligarchs to engage in serious
intra-elite warfare. The marginalized, de-politicized electorate are incapable of taking advantage
of the conflict to advance their own interests.
What the 'Conflict' is Not About
The 'life and death' inter-oligarchical fight is not about peace!
None of the factions of the oligarchy, engaged in this struggle, is aligned with democratic or
independent governments.
Neither side seeks to democratize the American electoral process or to dismantle the grotesque
police state apparatus.
Neither side has any commitment to a 'new deal' for American workers and employees.
Neither is interested in policy changes needed to address the steady erosion of living standards
or the unprecedented increase in 'premature' mortality among the working and rural classes.
Despite these similarities in their main focus of maintaining oligarchical power and policies
against the interests of the larger population, there are deep divisions over the content and direction
of the presidential regime and the permanent state apparatus.
What the Oligarchical Struggle is About
There are profound differences between the oligarch factions on the question of overseas wars
and 'interventions'.
The 'opposition' (Democratic Party and some Republican elite) pursues a continuation of their
policy of global wars, especially aimed at confronting Russian and China, as well as regional wars
in Asia and the Middle East. There is a stubborn refusal to modify military policies, despite the
disastrous consequences domestically (economic decline and increased poverty) and internationally
with massive ethnic cleansing, terrorism, forced migrations of war refugees to Europe, and famine
and epidemics (such as cholera and starvation in Yemen).
The Trump Presidency appears to favor increased military confrontation with Iran and North Korea
and intervention in Syria, Venezuela and Yemen.
The 'Opposition' supports multilateral economic and trade agreements, (such as TTP and NAFTA),
while Trump favors lucrative 'bilateral' economic agreements. Trump relies on trade and investment
deals with Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Emirates and the formation of an aggressive military 'axis'
(US-Saudi Arabia-Israel -Gulf Emirates) to eventually overthrow the nationalist regime in Iran and
divide the country.
The 'Opposition' pursues wars and violent 'regime change' to replace disobedient 'tyrants' and
nationalists and set up 'client governments', which will provide bases for the US military empire.
Trump's regime embraces existing dictators, who can invest in his domestic infrastructure agenda.
The 'opposition' seeks to maximize the role of Washington's global military power. President Trump
focuses on expanding the US role in the global market.
While both oligarchical factions support US imperialism, they differ in terms of its nature and
means.
For the 'opposition', every country, large or small, can be a target for military conquest
. Trump tends to favor the expansion of lucrative overseas markets, in addition to projecting US
military dominance.
Oligarchs: Tactical Similarities
The competition among oligarchs does not preclude similarities in means and tactics. Both factions
favor increased military spending, support for the Saudi war on Yemen and intervention in Venezuela.
They support trade with China and international sanctions against Russia and Iran. They both display
slavish deference to the State of Israel and favor the appointment of openly Zionist agents throughout
the political, economic and intelligence apparatus.
These similarities are, however, subject to tactical political propaganda skirmishes. The 'Opposition'
denounces any deviation in policy toward Russia as 'treason', while Trump accuses the 'Opposition'
of having sacrificed American workers through NAFTA.
Whatever the tactical nuances and similarities, the savage inter-oligarchic struggle is far from
a theatrical exercise. Whatever the real and feigned similarities and differences, the oligarchs'
struggle for imperial and domestic power has profound consequence for the political and constitutional
order.
Oligarchical Electoral Representation and the Parallel Police State
The ongoing fight between the Trump Administration and the 'Opposition' is not the typical skirmish
over pieces of legislation or decisions. It is not over control of the nation's public wealth. The
conflict revolves around control of the regime and the exercise of state power.
The opposition has a formidable array of forces, including the national intelligence apparatus
(NSA, Homeland Security, FBI, CIA, etc.) and a substantial sector of the Pentagon and defense industry.
Moreover, the opposition has created new power centers for ousting President Trump, including the
judiciary. This is best seen in the appointment of former FBI Chief Robert Mueller as ' Special
Investigator' and key members of the Attorney General's Office, including Deputy Attorney General
Rob Rosenstein. It was Rosenstein who appointed Mueller, after the Attorney General 'Jeff' Session
(a Trump ally) was 'forced' to recluse himself for having 'met' with Russian diplomats in the course
of fulfilling his former Congressional duties as a senior member of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee. This 'recusal' took significant discretionary power away from Trump's most important ally
within the Judiciary.
The web of opposition power spreads and includes former police state officials including mega-security
impresario, Michael Chertoff (an associate of Robert Mueller), who headed Homeland Security under
GW Bush, John Brennan (CIA), James Comey (FBI) and others.
The opposition dominates the principal organs of propaganda -the press (Washington Post, Financial
Times, New York Times and Wall Street Journal), television and radio (ABC, NBC, CBS and PBS/ NPR),
which breathlessly magnify and prosecute the President and his allies for an ever-expanding web of
unsubstantiated 'crimes and misdemeanors'. Neo-conservative and liberal think tanks and foundations,
academic experts and commentators have all joined the 'hysteria chorus' and feeding frenzy to oust
the President.
The President has an increasingly fragile base of support in his Cabinet, family and closest advisers.
He has a minority of supporters in the legislature and possibly in the Supreme Court, despite nominal
majorities for the Republican Party.
The President has the passive support of his voters, but they have demonstrated little ability
to mobilize in the streets. The electorate has been marginalized.
Outside of politics (the 'Swamp' as Trump termed Washington, DC) the President's trade, investment,
taxation and deregulation policies are backed by the majority of investors, who have benefited from
the rising stock market. However, 'money' does not appear to influence the parallel state.
The divergence between Trumps supporters in the investment community and the political power of
the opposition state is one of the most extraordinary changes of our century.
Given the President's domestic weakness and the imminent threat of a coup d'état, he has turned
to securing 'deals' with overseas allies, including billion-dollar trade and investment agreements.
The multi-billion arms sales to Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Emirates will delight the military-industrial
complex and its hundreds of thousands of workers.
Political and diplomatic 'kowtowing' to Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu should please some American
Zionists.
But the meetings with the EU in Brussels and with the G7 in Siciliy failed to neutralize Trump's
overseas opposition.
NATO's European members did not accept Trump's demands that they increase their contribution to
the alliance and they condemned his reluctance to offer unconditional US military support for new
NATO members. They showed no sympathy for domestic problems.
In brief, the President's overseas supporters, meetings and agreements will have little impact
on the domestic correlation of forces.
Moreover, there are long-standing ties among the various state apparatuses and spy agencies in
the EU and the US, which strengthen the reach of the opposition in their attacks on Trump.
While substantive issues divide the Presidential and Opposition oligarchs, these issues are vertical
, not horizontal , cleavages – a question of 'their' wars or 'ours'.
Trump intensified the ideological war with North Korea and Iran; promised to increase ground troops
in Afghanistan and Syria; boosted military and advisory support for the Saudi invasion of Yemen;
and increased US backing for violent demonstrations and mob attacks in Venezuela.
The opposition demands more provocations against Russia and its allies; and the continuation of
former President Obama's seven wars.
While both sets of oligarchs support the ongoing wars, the major difference is over who is managing
the wars and who can be held responsible for the consequences.
Both conflicting oligarchs are divided over who controls the state apparatus since their power
depends on which side directs the spies and generates the fake news.
Currently, both sets of oligarchs wash each other's 'dirty linen' in public, while covering up
for their collective illicit practices at home and abroad. The Trump oligarchs want to maximize economic deals through ' uncritical' support for
known tyrants; the opposition ' critically' supports tyrants in exchange for access to US
military bases and military support for 'interventions'. President Trump pushes for major tax cuts to benefit his oligarch allies while making massive
cuts in social programs for his hapless supporters. The Opposition supports milder tax cuts and lesser
reductions in social programs.
Conclusion
The battle of the oligarchs has yet to reach a decisive climax. President Trump is still the President
of the United States. The Opposition forges ahead with its investigations and lurid media exposés.
The propaganda war is continuous. One day the opposition media focuses on a deported student immigrant
and the next day the President features new jobs for American military industries.
The emerging left-neo-conservative academic partnership (e.g. Noam Chomsky-William Kristol) has
denounced President Trump's regime as a national 'catastrophe' from the beginning. Meanwhile, Wall
Street investors and libertarians join to denounce the Opposition's resistance to major tax 'reforms'.
Oligarchs of all stripes and colors are grabbing for total state power and wealth while the majority
of citizens are labeled ' losers' by Trump or 'deplorables' by Madame Clinton.
The 'peace' movement, immigrant rights groups and 'black lives matter' activists have become mindless
lackeys pulling the opposition oligarchs' wagon, while rust-belt workers, rural poor and downwardly
mobile middle class employees are powerless serfs hitched to President Trump's cart.
Epilogue
After the blood-letting, when and if President Trump is overthrown, the State Security functionaries
in their tidy dark suits will return to their nice offices to preside over their 'normal' tasks of
spying on the citizens and launching clandestine operations abroad.
The media will blow out some charming tid-bits and 'words of truth' from the new occupant of the
'Oval Office'.
The academic left will churn out some criticism against the newest 'oligarch-in-chief' or crow
about how their heroic 'resistance' averted a national catastrophe.
Trump, the ex-President and his oligarch son-in-law Jared Kushner will sign new real estate deals.
The Saudis will receive the hundreds of billions of dollars of US arms to re-supply ISIS or its successors
and to rust in the 'vast and howling' wilderness of US-Middle East intervention. Israel will demand
even more frequent 'servicing' from the new US President.
The triumphant editorialists will claim that 'our' unique political system, despite the 'recent
turmoil', has proven that democracy succeeds . . . only the people suffer! Long live the Oligarchs!
" In fact, it is the absence of real democracy, which permits the oligarchs to engage in
serious intra-elite warfare. The marginalized, de-politicized electorate are incapable of taking
advantage of the conflict to advance their own interests. "
Alas not just in the USA, but also in the EU. The recent French election was no more than
the ruling elite's concern that Marine le Pen would be elected.
In the USA the unimaginable was the case, a political outsider was elected. The same with Brexit,
also unimaginable.
So now complete confusion with the elites, what with the EU, with NATO, what with globalisation,
is Russia really an enemy, can Israel continue its policies since 1948, what with immigration
into Europe, and so on, and so forth.
Democracy is a lie. It has never existed and cannot exist in society where tiny minority owes
almost everything. It is illusion to keep masses preoccupied while they are being fleeced. Same
everywhere now.
Following on that same note, someone should tell Hillary Rodham Clinton, "The
fault, dear Hillary, is not in our stars, but in ourselves.". I guess the modern day version would be, "The fault, dear Hillary, is not in thousands of Facebook
postings by a thousand Russian agents, but in your assumption that the Deep State and the MSM
would drag you across the finish line to the victory you felt was rightfully yours."
The triumphant editorialists will claim that 'our' unique political system, despite the
'recent turmoil', has proven that democracy succeeds . . . only the people suffer!
This is a great summary of where America is today. What could Trump do? Here is a piece of
advice. He should choose one intel agency that he can trust, may be DIA or create a new one, may
be even informal one to fight the leaks which are after all felony. He should confront his Republican
enemies like McCain openly that it is the President that makes foreign policy not senators, he
should confront Russia gate openly, by insisting he had a right to establish whatever channels
he wished to, he should reopen investigation of Clinton,s emails, Clinton foundation, investigation
of who leaked DNC materials in other words refocus the attention on Clinton and Dems, something
he should have done from day one. He should activate the social base of supporters in a variety
of ways, he should mobilize those segments of business that support him and stand to benefit from
his policies. A war is war, he should stop procrastinating in a kind of dismissive defensive posture,
it is time to hit back and hit hard.
All the yapping and whining about democracy ignores the fact that the U.S. Constitution was
and is an anti-democratic document despite the populist sentiments stated in the Bill of Rights
which was tacked on in as an afterthought in order to help get the constitution ratified.
The USA was never intended to be a democracy, and never was. It never really was a republic,
either but in name only. And it was never really free, either. Wage and tax slaves are not free.
It was designed and has functioned always as a de factoresoligrcharum .
It is good to see, however, that more and more folks seem to be waking up to those facts though
it is an agonizingly slow process
Clearly there is conflict between Oligarchs: much of conflict is tactical – as the author points
out ALL the Oligarchs support US imperialism & (it's major tool) the military. However, Trump
prefers a more nationalist economic approach, & bi-lateral over multi-lateral trade agreements.
He was , to all appearances, more "open" to Russia than most other Elites. To what degree these
are genuinely substantive issues between Oligarchs will, I suspect, be long debated.
What clouds ALL issues is Trump himself. No one can deny that he provokes a visceral, virtually
psychotic hatred in many Elites (& not just Dem's but Republicans also). I also suspect that Trump
could follow almost all Elite policies & he would STILL be hounded. In such a climate "issues"
become mere sticks with which to HIT. (The D's would impeach him for sorcery if they could get
away with it)
A couple of negative points in the article:
Surely this (at this point in time) is exaggeration ?
"Given the President's domestic weakness and the imminent threat of a coup d'état "
Further, the "epilogue" in which the author argues that were Trump "overthrown" thing would return
to normal quite quickly. I do not believe this. Depending on circumstances there are very good
odds that not only a political, but social crisis would occur: Trump supporters are not stupid
– they KNOW their guy has been treated like Shit from day one.
More positively: authorise spot ON here:
"The 'peace' movement, immigrant rights groups and 'black lives matter' activists have become
mindless lackeys pulling the opposition oligarchs' wagon, while rust-belt workers, rural poor
and downwardly mobile middle class employees are powerless serfs hitched to President Trump's
cart."
May 31, 2017 A Groundbreaking Examination of How This Profoundly Altered the Nature of American
Democracy
Garry Wills (born May 22, 1934) is an American author, journalist, and historian, specializing
in American history, politics, and religion, especially the history of the Catholic Church. He
won a Pulitzer Prize for General Non-Fiction in 1993.
Republic is from res publica , "a thing of the public."
Resoligarcharum is my neologism for res oligarcharum, "a thing of the oligarchs."
PS: The antifederalists' suspicions and predictions regarding the constitution were mostly
and significantly correct. They saw the fraud coming and knew how it was likely to play out. Regarding
the issue of freedom, with the institution of the Federal Reserve, it's even worse than they could
have imagined,
@Agent76 Very interesting. I put his book on my 'to read' stack. This seems like a pretty
reasonable narrative on how these institutions gained so much power.
@jacques sheete This quote nails everything in a nutshell, "Private property was the original
source of freedom. It still is its main ballpark." Walter Lippmann
This quote nails everything in a nutshell, "Private property was the original source of
freedom. It still is its main ballpark." Walter Lippmann
Lippman was definitely a mixed bag, but he spoke a lot of truths. His attitude regarding intelligence
testing, to name one subject, were spot on and remain so. Short summary: It's pretty much BS. Another thanks to RU. One can read a lot of Lippman's (and other great observers') stuff on
another fabulous UNZ site.:
Nearly a century ago Walter Lippman warned us of the sappy and dangerous false conclusions
many "high IQ" dingbats would draw. He was correct then and still is.
"One has only to read around in the literature of the subject, but more especially in the work
of popularizers like McDougall and Stoddard, to see how easily the Intelligence test can be
turned into an engine of cruelty, how easily in the hands of blundering or prejudiced men it
could turn into a method of stamping a permanent sense of inferiority upon the soul of a child.
- Walter Lippmann, The Abuse of the Tests, The New Republic, November 15, 1922, p. 297 –
@nickels While I'm not familiar with that author, I am a huge fan of A.J. Nock.
This helps explain why I deny that the USA was never truly intended as a republic.:
The Constitution looked fairly good on paper, but it was not a popular document; people
were suspicious of it, and suspicious of the enabling legislation that was being erected upon
it. There was some ground for this. The Constitution had been laid down under unacceptable
auspices; its history had been that of a coup d'état.
It had been drafted, in the first place, by men representing special economic interests.
Four-fifths of them were public creditors, one-third were land speculators, and one-fifth represented
interests in shipping, manufacturing, and merchandising. Most of them were lawyers. Not one
of them represented the interest of production -- Vilescit origine tali. (the dice were loaded
from the start)
Albert Jay Nock, Liberty vs. the Constitution: The Early Struggle
Appoint a Special Prosecutor to investigate the murder of Seth Rich, the alleged Wikileaks
email leaker.
On July 10, 2016, Seth Rich was shot twice in the early morning as he walked back to his
house in Washington D.C. Immediately after the crime, the death was called an armed robbery
but none of Seth Rich's belongings were taken from him.
Rod Wheeler, a private investigator hired by the family, said that there was evidence Seth
Rich had contacted WikiLeaks and that law enforcement were covering this up. MSM is not covering
this murder, instead pushing it to the side, so it is now up to us.
The facts do not add up, law enforcement stopped covering the crime, and now it is time
for us to fight for justice. Seth Rich deserves this.
A rather bleak outlook all-in-all. The oligarch's don't win nor do the cruise-control mob.
The little guys win now as well as later. Relax and don't stress for no oligarch will escape unscathed.
The BOSS always acts (Psa 73).
Democracy is the gawd that failed. It killed Ancient Athens, Rome and anyone dumb enough to
allow the average person to vote himself other peoples' wages. Trump is about as masterful as
any old man who has left reality behind. He might as well be doing Wrestlemania again. The "oligarchs"
are the dumbest and greediest crooks Satan could dredge from the Global Sewers. Its not a swamp,
its a sewer. Raw sewage is beginning to stink to high heaven. Its not a struggle between these
greedy idiots, its a fractured fairy tale in a hate filled delusional book of mindless drivel
being pushed by the stupidest and most arrogant gaggle of morons ever to make their nightmares
the problem of people who if they wanted to could slaughter them like pork bellies by the end
of business tomorrow.
This siren song of globalism is a bunch of crazy fags and delusional arrogant whores with delusions
of grandeur and the IQ of a head of cabbage trying to get people to work for nothing and thank
them for stealing their future. How does it end? Read the Book of Revelation. The Founding Fathers
fought the forebears of these idiots at The Bank of England. They run America into the ground
at the legalised counterfeiting ring laughably called The Federal Reserve Today. What if this
money was real? What if these Satanists were actually smart? What if voting and caring actually
mattered?
Well, then I wouldn't be here to kill you Enjoy what you laughingly call a life. Its the End of
the World as you know it, but I feel fine.
" it must be considered that there is nothing more difficult to carry out, nor more doubtful
of success, nor more dangerous to handle, than to initiate a new order of things. For the reformer
has enemies in all those who profit by the old order, and only lukewarm defenders in all those
who profit from the new order, this lukewarmness arising partly from fear of their adversaries,
who have the laws in their favor; and partly from the incredulity of mankind, who do not believe
in anything new until they have had actual experience of it. Thus it arises that on every opportunity
for attacking the reformer, his opponents do so with the zeal of partisans, the others defend
him halfheartedly, so that between them he runs great danger. It is necessary, however, in order
to investigate thoroughly this question, to examine whether these innovators are independent,
or wether they depend upon others, that is to say, wether in order to carry out their designs
they have to entreat or are able to compel. In the first case they invariably succeed ill, and
accomplish nothing; but when they can depend on their own strength and are able to use force,
they rarely fail. Thus it comes about that all armed prophets have conquered and unarmed ones
failed
From Machiavelli's The Prince
If we are to apply these wise words to actual examples of history, it is best to compare the performance
of FDR with that of Adolf Hitler. They came to power within a few weeks of each other, they inherited
a chaotic situation with unemployment rates hovering around the 25%. Under Hitler, it took two
years to reduce unemployment to 3% whereas after six years of the New Deal, American depression
was still alive and the population still suffering from a hideous malaise. Had Donald Trump come
to power on the back of a third party, preferably with its own militia, he would sail through
his reform programs without a hitch. But this is the USA, the land where the founding fathers
made sure that no dictator would ever come to power NOT TO PROTECT DEMOCRACY WHICH EXISTED ALL
ALONG IN FORM AND NOT IN SUBSTANCE , BUT TO DEFEND AND PRESERVE THE INTERESTS OF THE PREDATORY
RULING CLASS.
If we need to compare the situation of Trump with that of another democracy, we can look at the
case of France under General De Gaulle. De Gaulle inherited the flawed system of the French Fourth
Republic and decided to act quickly and decisively, but in order a to do so, he chose his security
team from a group of extremely loyal people and never entrusted this task to the running governmental
agencies. His reforms were executed in a firm and coherent way leading to the French Fifth Republic
and to an economic boom coupled with an aggrandizement of French power and prestige on a grand
scale. Needless to remind the reader, that under Anglo-Zionist machination, General De Gaulle
decided to resign before the end of his second mandate.
Trump's success or failure depends on how much he can mobilize the American masses and how much
he can clean his surroundings from the many Judases who are there only to sabotage him. Trump
needs to address and engage the common person into a full galvanization of the masses to take
to the street with the fury of a fanatical partisan. Trump should create his personal security
apparatus and accept that no matter what he does to protect himself, he has to live with the danger
of assassination. To deal with matters of state the way he dealt with his business endeavors will
not lead him anywhere; this means that trying to accommodate the neo-cons and their ilk will put
him in an ever weaker position.
@jacques sheete Yes, E Michael Jones goes as far as to say the constitution was basically
a document intended to cement the rule of the Oligarchy and the creditors and guarantee that the
debtors would never attain even the slightest reprieve from their overlords.
@jacques sheete Then there is also this man who studied human behavior and wrote the book
Propaganda literally titled propaganda.
Aug 23, 2013 Edward Bernays – "Public relations" is a polite term for propaganda
Edward Bernays, "the father of public relations," recounts the origin of the term public relations.
This clip comes from the documentary "Century of the Self," part 2 "The Engineering of Consent."
In fact, it is the absence of real democracy, which permits the oligarchs to engage in serious
intra-elite warfare. The marginalized, de-politicized electorate are incapable of taking advantage
of the conflict to advance their own interests.
This. Prime immediate cause – television and media monopoly. The elite have used the excuse
of race to shut down democracy and democratic debate. This latest, and probably final, war on
democracy started in America because the elites there had the proper tool at hand: blacks. "Anti-racism"
is a contrivance for exploitation, whether it's minorities feeding off the host population or
elites using ethnic tensions to centralize power. It's a type of soft colonialism against those
who are soft enough to accept it. The hard occupation will come later.
- – – –
"If you want government to intervene domestically, you're a liberal. If you want government to
intervene overseas, you're a conservative. If you want government to intervene everywhere, you're
a moderate. If you don't want government to intervene anywhere, you're an extremist." – Joseph
Sobran
That automatically brought to my mind an image of the songbird of the Hanoi Hilton, John McCain,
lurching up from his Senate seat, dagger in hand. McCain is psychologically tortured by having been a traitor to his comrades, all those years
ago. I am glad that America lost in Vietnam, lbut one does not betray one's comrades.
I feel a little sorry for Trump, where he had good intentions, blocked. Installing his daughter
and son-in-law as high officials was in bad taste and bad for policy. Magnanimous behaviour towards
Hillary's clear crimes was a mistake, the only return was nonsensical 'Russki hacked the election'
becoming more intense. Of course, the latter is very convenient for those who want never to see
Russia and the USA, to have a normal and civil connection.
All of that also showed that he can't be serious about his more interesting campaign lines.
@Che Guava"Magnanimous behaviour towards Hillary's clear crimes was a mistake.."
How true! Tomorrow her whining minions will (((March for Truth))) – useful idiots, ever. The
plan is for protesters to spell out INVESTIGATE TRUMP on the Mall. Did they get a permit for a
drone (illegal in DC limits) to shoot a photo?
Someone should photo-bomb with a big LOCK HER UP -- sign. Hillary and her Foundation
are what need investigating.
A very fine, evenly balanced analysis of the current bizarro madness that
passes for authentic governance. More than most even realize with a lack of participation by most
in person except for a few folks. I am not a Democrat or Republican neither party speaks for me
and I also have several examples from both with their vote rigged conventions and town hall meetings.
May 18, 2016 What really happened in the Nevada Democratic Convention
Instead, the media is trying to spin it against Bernie, about the violence and them being upset.
If you were present at this, wouldn't you be upset? I'm not saying threats are warranted, but
at what point do the American People say enough is enough?
@RobinG"Magnanimous behaviour towards Hillary's clear crimes was a mistake.."
How true! Tomorrow her whining minions will (((March for Truth))) - useful idiots, ever. The
plan is for protesters to spell out INVESTIGATE TRUMP on the Mall. Did they get a permit for a
drone (illegal in DC limits) to shoot a photo?
Someone should photo-bomb with a big LOCK HER UP -- sign. Hillary and her Foundation
are what need investigating. Thanks. I still have some hope that Prex. Trump will do some good
for your country. I think that he may have the attention-span of one of the duller varieties of
insect. a bee wil spend many minutes around a flower-bed, i love to watch, and not frightened,
as long as I keep track of where they are..
Trump seems to have a shorter attention span than bumble-bees and similar species have on flowers.
So, his first official overseas trip is to Saudia Arabia. He makes a contract for umpteen million
dollars of advanced weapons to a state that will, as much as is possible, pass the portion that
is portable to IS and other al-Qaeda offshoots.
Madness.
Next stage, Israel, craven cowering acts and promises of fealty.
After that the Pope, Francesco never had any trouble with Operation Condor, never once raised
his voice against it.
@Che Guava There is some hope, IF we get our act – and ourselves – together. A few people
are trying to build something out of the wreckage of the *Trump and Sanders campaigns. (*Trump
was a different guy in the campaign, no?)
@RobinG I watched the vid., McKinney's words make much sense, but the smug idiot in front
of the screen, constantly stroking her own chin, posing for her webcam, ruins it.
How amateurish to have it all on a PC screen under the gaze of Ms. Vain.
@Che Guava LOL. It's true that Debbie has a rather annoying style, but if you can ignore that,
she makes some good points. (Kind of like eating tripe.) She also has quite a loyal following,
and apparently 80,000 viewers, so maybe she's gotten too comfortable in front of the camera. And
actually, she's not posing for the camera. She's reading messages as they come in from viewers.
Here's her interview of Vanessa Beeley. Since we're in the throes of absurdity (yesterday's
"March for Truth" was anything but) it's valuable to have honest journalism, even if it's not
technically slick.
I do know how difficult video conversion and editing are, am trying to organise hours of band
photos and vids onto video CDs and DVDs. If they want to upload them, it is up to them, as long
as I get a credit.
My own, too.
Of course, that is old-fashioned, I know. In most cases, I have permission for uploading, but
I don't want to do it that way.
OTOH, Ms. Vain didn't even switch to a direct view of Cynthia. That would not be so difficult,
same kind of streaming format.
I will also to repeating, the chin stroking seems compulsive.
Have a friend who also does, and his nose, and also is someone who tries to feel very superior,
it is like the symptom of a complex. Really creeps another friend out. Just makes me uneasy.
I do know how difficult video conversion and editing are, am trying to organise hours of band
photos and vids onto video CDs and DVDs. If they want to upload them, it is up to them, as long
as I get a credit.
My own, too.
Of course, that is old-fashioned, I know. In most cases, I have permission for uploading, but
I don't want to do it that way.
OTOH, Ms. Vain didn't even switch to a direct view of Cynthia. That would not be so difficult,
same kind of streaming format.
I will also to repeating, the chin stroking seems compulsive.
Have a friend who also does, and his nose, and also is someone who tries to feel very superior,
it is like the symptom of a complex. Really creeps another friend out. Just makes me uneasy. Che,
I'm not disagreeing with you (her solo rants when she has no guest can be especially annoying)
but she did demonstrate at one point that putting the monitor with Cynthia head-on caused excessive
glare.
What interests me most is the project of Cynthia, Robert Steele, and others to bridge the gap
between different ideological groups, to make common cause to expose, confront, depose the Deep
State. I have yet to meet anyone who shares my viewpoint entirely, but I'm happy to cooperate
with almost anybody on issues I consider essential.
"... The opposition has a formidable array of forces, including the national intelligence apparatus (NSA, Homeland Security, FBI, CIA, etc.) and a substantial sector of the Pentagon and defense industry. Moreover, the opposition has created new power centers for ousting President Trump, including the judiciary. This is best seen in the appointment of former FBI Chief Robert Mueller as ' Special Investigator' ..."
"... The President has an increasingly fragile base of support in his Cabinet, family and closest advisers. He has a minority of supporters in the legislature and possibly in the Supreme Court, despite nominal majorities for the Republican Party. ..."
"... uncritical' ..."
"... critically' ..."
"... democracy succeeds ..."
"... In fact, it is the absence of real democracy, which permits the oligarchs to engage in serious intra-elite warfare. The marginalized, de-politicized electorate are incapable of taking advantage of the conflict to advance their own interests. ..."
"... Alas not just in the USA, but also in the EU. The recent French election was no more than the ruling elite's concern that Marine le Pen would be elected. In the USA the unimaginable was the case, a political outsider was elected. The same with Brexit, also unimaginable. ..."
"... Democracy is a lie. It has never existed and cannot exist in society where tiny minority owes almost everything. It is illusion to keep masses preoccupied while they are being fleeced. Same everywhere now. ..."
"... It's a modern-day version of Shakespeare's Julius Caesar . Let's hope Trump stays away from the Senate. ..."
"... Following on that same note, someone should tell Hillary Rodham Clinton, "The fault, dear Hillary, is not in our stars, but in ourselves.". I guess the modern day version would be, "The fault, dear Hillary, is not in thousands of Facebook postings by a thousand Russian agents, but in your assumption that the Deep State and the MSM would drag you across the finish line to the victory you felt was rightfully yours." ..."
"... "A reign of witches", Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State under George Washington, aimed this jeremiad at Presidents Washington and Adams. The script is old, only the characters are new. https://robertmagill.wordpress.com/2017/04/18/we-have-always-been-a-right-wing-plutocracy/ ..."
"... This is a great summary of where America is today. What could Trump do? Here is a piece of advice. He should choose one intel agency that he can trust, may be DIA or create a new one, may be even informal one to fight the leaks which are after all felony. He should confront his Republican enemies like McCain openly that it is the President that makes foreign policy not senators, he should confront Russia gate openly, by insisting he had a right to establish whatever channels he wished to, he should reopen investigation of Clinton,s emails, Clinton foundation, investigation of who leaked DNC materials in other words refocus the attention on Clinton and Dems, something he should have done from day one. He should activate the social base of supporters in a variety of ways, he should mobilize those segments of business that support him and stand to benefit from his policies. A war is war, he should stop procrastinating in a kind of dismissive defensive posture, it is time to hit back and hit hard. ..."
"... A very fine, evenly balanced analysis of the current bizarro madness that passes for authentic governance. ..."
"... Very important interview - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtnSVkm7WCg&feature=youtu.be Cynthia McKinney/Sane Progressive Interview: Deep State & Uniting for REAL Alternative Movement ..."
"... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9p8oGQ4RPFQ Vanessa Beely On White Helmets, Syria w Sane Progressive Interview ..."
On a scale not seen since the 'great' world depression of the 1930's, the US political system
is experiencing sharp political attacks, divisions and power grabs. Executive firings, congressional
investigations, demands for impeachment, witch hunts, threats of imprisonment for 'contempt of Congress'
and naked power struggles have shredded the façade of political unity and consensus among competing
powerful US oligarchs.
For the first time in US history, the incumbent elected president struggles on a daily basis to
wield state power. The opposition-controlled state (National Public Radio) and corporate organs of
mass propaganda are pitted against the presidential regime. Factions of the military elite and business
oligarchy face off in the domestic and international arena. The oligarchs debate and insult each
other. They falsify charges, plot and deceive. Their political acolytes, who witness these momentous
conflicts, are mute, dumb and blind to the real interests at stake.
The struggle between the Presidential oligarch and the Opposition oligarchs has profound consequences
for their factions and for the American people. Wars and markets, pursued by sections of the Oligarchs,
have led opposing sections to seek control over the means of political manipulation (media and threats
of judicial action).
Intense political competition and open political debate have nothing to do with 'democracy' as
it now exists in the United States.
In fact, it is the absence of real democracy, which permits the oligarchs to engage in serious
intra-elite warfare. The marginalized, de-politicized electorate are incapable of taking advantage
of the conflict to advance their own interests.
What the 'Conflict' is Not About
The 'life and death' inter-oligarchical fight is not about peace!
None of the factions of the oligarchy, engaged in this struggle, is aligned with democratic or
independent governments.
Neither side seeks to democratize the American electoral process or to dismantle the grotesque
police state apparatus.
Neither side has any commitment to a 'new deal' for American workers and employees.
Neither is interested in policy changes needed to address the steady erosion of living standards
or the unprecedented increase in 'premature' mortality among the working and rural classes.
Despite these similarities in their main focus of maintaining oligarchical power and policies
against the interests of the larger population, there are deep divisions over the content and direction
of the presidential regime and the permanent state apparatus.
What the Oligarchical Struggle is About
There are profound differences between the oligarch factions on the question of overseas wars
and 'interventions'.
The 'opposition' (Democratic Party and some Republican elite) pursues a continuation of their
policy of global wars, especially aimed at confronting Russian and China, as well as regional wars
in Asia and the Middle East. There is a stubborn refusal to modify military policies, despite the
disastrous consequences domestically (economic decline and increased poverty) and internationally
with massive ethnic cleansing, terrorism, forced migrations of war refugees to Europe, and famine
and epidemics (such as cholera and starvation in Yemen).
The Trump Presidency appears to favor increased military confrontation with Iran and North Korea
and intervention in Syria, Venezuela and Yemen.
The 'Opposition' supports multilateral economic and trade agreements, (such as TTP and NAFTA),
while Trump favors lucrative 'bilateral' economic agreements. Trump relies on trade and investment
deals with Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Emirates and the formation of an aggressive military 'axis'
(US-Saudi Arabia-Israel -Gulf Emirates) to eventually overthrow the nationalist regime in Iran and
divide the country.
The 'Opposition' pursues wars and violent 'regime change' to replace disobedient 'tyrants' and
nationalists and set up 'client governments', which will provide bases for the US military empire.
Trump's regime embraces existing dictators, who can invest in his domestic infrastructure agenda.
The 'opposition' seeks to maximize the role of Washington's global military power. President Trump
focuses on expanding the US role in the global market.
While both oligarchical factions support US imperialism, they differ in terms of its nature and
means.
For the 'opposition', every country, large or small, can be a target for military conquest
. Trump tends to favor the expansion of lucrative overseas markets, in addition to projecting US
military dominance.
Oligarchs: Tactical Similarities
The competition among oligarchs does not preclude similarities in means and tactics. Both factions
favor increased military spending, support for the Saudi war on Yemen and intervention in Venezuela.
They support trade with China and international sanctions against Russia and Iran. They both display
slavish deference to the State of Israel and favor the appointment of openly Zionist agents throughout
the political, economic and intelligence apparatus.
These similarities are, however, subject to tactical political propaganda skirmishes. The 'Opposition'
denounces any deviation in policy toward Russia as 'treason', while Trump accuses the 'Opposition'
of having sacrificed American workers through NAFTA.
Whatever the tactical nuances and similarities, the savage inter-oligarchic struggle is far from
a theatrical exercise. Whatever the real and feigned similarities and differences, the oligarchs'
struggle for imperial and domestic power has profound consequence for the political and constitutional
order.
Oligarchical Electoral Representation and the Parallel Police State
The ongoing fight between the Trump Administration and the 'Opposition' is not the typical skirmish
over pieces of legislation or decisions. It is not over control of the nation's public wealth. The
conflict revolves around control of the regime and the exercise of state power.
The opposition has a formidable array of forces, including the national intelligence apparatus
(NSA, Homeland Security, FBI, CIA, etc.) and a substantial sector of the Pentagon and defense industry.
Moreover, the opposition has created new power centers for ousting President Trump, including the
judiciary. This is best seen in the appointment of former FBI Chief Robert Mueller as ' Special
Investigator' and key members of the Attorney General's Office, including Deputy Attorney General
Rob Rosenstein. It was Rosenstein who appointed Mueller, after the Attorney General 'Jeff' Session
(a Trump ally) was 'forced' to recluse himself for having 'met' with Russian diplomats in the course
of fulfilling his former Congressional duties as a senior member of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee. This 'recusal' took significant discretionary power away from Trump's most important ally
within the Judiciary.
The web of opposition power spreads and includes former police state officials including mega-security
impresario, Michael Chertoff (an associate of Robert Mueller), who headed Homeland Security under
GW Bush, John Brennan (CIA), James Comey (FBI) and others.
The opposition dominates the principal organs of propaganda -the press (Washington Post, Financial
Times, New York Times and Wall Street Journal), television and radio (ABC, NBC, CBS and PBS/ NPR),
which breathlessly magnify and prosecute the President and his allies for an ever-expanding web of
unsubstantiated 'crimes and misdemeanors'. Neo-conservative and liberal think tanks and foundations,
academic experts and commentators have all joined the 'hysteria chorus' and feeding frenzy to oust
the President.
The President has an increasingly fragile base of support in his Cabinet, family and closest advisers.
He has a minority of supporters in the legislature and possibly in the Supreme Court, despite nominal
majorities for the Republican Party.
The President has the passive support of his voters, but they have demonstrated little ability
to mobilize in the streets. The electorate has been marginalized.
Outside of politics (the 'Swamp' as Trump termed Washington, DC) the President's trade, investment,
taxation and deregulation policies are backed by the majority of investors, who have benefited from
the rising stock market. However, 'money' does not appear to influence the parallel state.
The divergence between Trumps supporters in the investment community and the political power of
the opposition state is one of the most extraordinary changes of our century.
Given the President's domestic weakness and the imminent threat of a coup d'état, he has turned
to securing 'deals' with overseas allies, including billion-dollar trade and investment agreements.
The multi-billion arms sales to Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Emirates will delight the military-industrial
complex and its hundreds of thousands of workers.
Political and diplomatic 'kowtowing' to Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu should please some American
Zionists.
But the meetings with the EU in Brussels and with the G7 in Siciliy failed to neutralize Trump's
overseas opposition.
NATO's European members did not accept Trump's demands that they increase their contribution to
the alliance and they condemned his reluctance to offer unconditional US military support for new
NATO members. They showed no sympathy for domestic problems.
In brief, the President's overseas supporters, meetings and agreements will have little impact
on the domestic correlation of forces.
Moreover, there are long-standing ties among the various state apparatuses and spy agencies in
the EU and the US, which strengthen the reach of the opposition in their attacks on Trump.
While substantive issues divide the Presidential and Opposition oligarchs, these issues are vertical
, not horizontal , cleavages – a question of 'their' wars or 'ours'.
Trump intensified the ideological war with North Korea and Iran; promised to increase ground troops
in Afghanistan and Syria; boosted military and advisory support for the Saudi invasion of Yemen;
and increased US backing for violent demonstrations and mob attacks in Venezuela.
The opposition demands more provocations against Russia and its allies; and the continuation of
former President Obama's seven wars.
While both sets of oligarchs support the ongoing wars, the major difference is over who is managing
the wars and who can be held responsible for the consequences.
Both conflicting oligarchs are divided over who controls the state apparatus since their power
depends on which side directs the spies and generates the fake news.
Currently, both sets of oligarchs wash each other's 'dirty linen' in public, while covering up
for their collective illicit practices at home and abroad. The Trump oligarchs want to maximize economic deals through ' uncritical' support for
known tyrants; the opposition ' critically' supports tyrants in exchange for access to US
military bases and military support for 'interventions'. President Trump pushes for major tax cuts to benefit his oligarch allies while making massive
cuts in social programs for his hapless supporters. The Opposition supports milder tax cuts and lesser
reductions in social programs.
Conclusion
The battle of the oligarchs has yet to reach a decisive climax. President Trump is still the President
of the United States. The Opposition forges ahead with its investigations and lurid media exposés.
The propaganda war is continuous. One day the opposition media focuses on a deported student immigrant
and the next day the President features new jobs for American military industries.
The emerging left-neo-conservative academic partnership (e.g. Noam Chomsky-William Kristol) has
denounced President Trump's regime as a national 'catastrophe' from the beginning. Meanwhile, Wall
Street investors and libertarians join to denounce the Opposition's resistance to major tax 'reforms'.
Oligarchs of all stripes and colors are grabbing for total state power and wealth while the majority
of citizens are labeled ' losers' by Trump or 'deplorables' by Madame Clinton.
The 'peace' movement, immigrant rights groups and 'black lives matter' activists have become mindless
lackeys pulling the opposition oligarchs' wagon, while rust-belt workers, rural poor and downwardly
mobile middle class employees are powerless serfs hitched to President Trump's cart.
Epilogue
After the blood-letting, when and if President Trump is overthrown, the State Security functionaries
in their tidy dark suits will return to their nice offices to preside over their 'normal' tasks of
spying on the citizens and launching clandestine operations abroad.
The media will blow out some charming tid-bits and 'words of truth' from the new occupant of the
'Oval Office'.
The academic left will churn out some criticism against the newest 'oligarch-in-chief' or crow
about how their heroic 'resistance' averted a national catastrophe.
Trump, the ex-President and his oligarch son-in-law Jared Kushner will sign new real estate deals.
The Saudis will receive the hundreds of billions of dollars of US arms to re-supply ISIS or its successors
and to rust in the 'vast and howling' wilderness of US-Middle East intervention. Israel will demand
even more frequent 'servicing' from the new US President.
The triumphant editorialists will claim that 'our' unique political system, despite the 'recent
turmoil', has proven that democracy succeeds . . . only the people suffer! Long live the Oligarchs!
" In fact, it is the absence of real democracy, which permits the oligarchs to engage in
serious intra-elite warfare. The marginalized, de-politicized electorate are incapable of taking
advantage of the conflict to advance their own interests. "
Alas not just in the USA, but also in the EU. The recent French election was no more than
the ruling elite's concern that Marine le Pen would be elected.
In the USA the unimaginable was the case, a political outsider was elected. The same with Brexit,
also unimaginable.
So now complete confusion with the elites, what with the EU, with NATO, what with globalisation,
is Russia really an enemy, can Israel continue its policies since 1948, what with immigration
into Europe, and so on, and so forth.
Democracy is a lie. It has never existed and cannot exist in society where tiny minority owes
almost everything. It is illusion to keep masses preoccupied while they are being fleeced. Same
everywhere now.
Following on that same note, someone should tell Hillary Rodham Clinton, "The
fault, dear Hillary, is not in our stars, but in ourselves.". I guess the modern day version would be, "The fault, dear Hillary, is not in thousands of Facebook
postings by a thousand Russian agents, but in your assumption that the Deep State and the MSM
would drag you across the finish line to the victory you felt was rightfully yours."
The triumphant editorialists will claim that 'our' unique political system, despite the
'recent turmoil', has proven that democracy succeeds . . . only the people suffer!
This is a great summary of where America is today. What could Trump do? Here is a piece of
advice. He should choose one intel agency that he can trust, may be DIA or create a new one, may
be even informal one to fight the leaks which are after all felony. He should confront his Republican
enemies like McCain openly that it is the President that makes foreign policy not senators, he
should confront Russia gate openly, by insisting he had a right to establish whatever channels
he wished to, he should reopen investigation of Clinton,s emails, Clinton foundation, investigation
of who leaked DNC materials in other words refocus the attention on Clinton and Dems, something
he should have done from day one. He should activate the social base of supporters in a variety
of ways, he should mobilize those segments of business that support him and stand to benefit from
his policies. A war is war, he should stop procrastinating in a kind of dismissive defensive posture,
it is time to hit back and hit hard.
All the yapping and whining about democracy ignores the fact that the U.S. Constitution was
and is an anti-democratic document despite the populist sentiments stated in the Bill of Rights
which was tacked on in as an afterthought in order to help get the constitution ratified.
The USA was never intended to be a democracy, and never was. It never really was a republic,
either but in name only. And it was never really free, either. Wage and tax slaves are not free.
It was designed and has functioned always as a de factoresoligrcharum .
It is good to see, however, that more and more folks seem to be waking up to those facts though
it is an agonizingly slow process
Clearly there is conflict between Oligarchs: much of conflict is tactical – as the author points
out ALL the Oligarchs support US imperialism & (it's major tool) the military. However, Trump
prefers a more nationalist economic approach, & bi-lateral over multi-lateral trade agreements.
He was , to all appearances, more "open" to Russia than most other Elites. To what degree these
are genuinely substantive issues between Oligarchs will, I suspect, be long debated.
What clouds ALL issues is Trump himself. No one can deny that he provokes a visceral, virtually
psychotic hatred in many Elites (& not just Dem's but Republicans also). I also suspect that Trump
could follow almost all Elite policies & he would STILL be hounded. In such a climate "issues"
become mere sticks with which to HIT. (The D's would impeach him for sorcery if they could get
away with it)
A couple of negative points in the article:
Surely this (at this point in time) is exaggeration ?
"Given the President's domestic weakness and the imminent threat of a coup d'état "
Further, the "epilogue" in which the author argues that were Trump "overthrown" thing would return
to normal quite quickly. I do not believe this. Depending on circumstances there are very good
odds that not only a political, but social crisis would occur: Trump supporters are not stupid
– they KNOW their guy has been treated like Shit from day one.
More positively: authorise spot ON here:
"The 'peace' movement, immigrant rights groups and 'black lives matter' activists have become
mindless lackeys pulling the opposition oligarchs' wagon, while rust-belt workers, rural poor
and downwardly mobile middle class employees are powerless serfs hitched to President Trump's
cart."
May 31, 2017 A Groundbreaking Examination of How This Profoundly Altered the Nature of American
Democracy
Garry Wills (born May 22, 1934) is an American author, journalist, and historian, specializing
in American history, politics, and religion, especially the history of the Catholic Church. He
won a Pulitzer Prize for General Non-Fiction in 1993.
Republic is from res publica , "a thing of the public."
Resoligarcharum is my neologism for res oligarcharum, "a thing of the oligarchs."
PS: The antifederalists' suspicions and predictions regarding the constitution were mostly
and significantly correct. They saw the fraud coming and knew how it was likely to play out. Regarding
the issue of freedom, with the institution of the Federal Reserve, it's even worse than they could
have imagined,
@Agent76 Very interesting. I put his book on my 'to read' stack. This seems like a pretty
reasonable narrative on how these institutions gained so much power.
@jacques sheete This quote nails everything in a nutshell, "Private property was the original
source of freedom. It still is its main ballpark." Walter Lippmann
This quote nails everything in a nutshell, "Private property was the original source of
freedom. It still is its main ballpark." Walter Lippmann
Lippman was definitely a mixed bag, but he spoke a lot of truths. His attitude regarding intelligence
testing, to name one subject, were spot on and remain so. Short summary: It's pretty much BS. Another thanks to RU. One can read a lot of Lippman's (and other great observers') stuff on
another fabulous UNZ site.:
Nearly a century ago Walter Lippman warned us of the sappy and dangerous false conclusions
many "high IQ" dingbats would draw. He was correct then and still is.
"One has only to read around in the literature of the subject, but more especially in the work
of popularizers like McDougall and Stoddard, to see how easily the Intelligence test can be
turned into an engine of cruelty, how easily in the hands of blundering or prejudiced men it
could turn into a method of stamping a permanent sense of inferiority upon the soul of a child.
- Walter Lippmann, The Abuse of the Tests, The New Republic, November 15, 1922, p. 297 –
@nickels While I'm not familiar with that author, I am a huge fan of A.J. Nock.
This helps explain why I deny that the USA was never truly intended as a republic.:
The Constitution looked fairly good on paper, but it was not a popular document; people
were suspicious of it, and suspicious of the enabling legislation that was being erected upon
it. There was some ground for this. The Constitution had been laid down under unacceptable
auspices; its history had been that of a coup d'état.
It had been drafted, in the first place, by men representing special economic interests.
Four-fifths of them were public creditors, one-third were land speculators, and one-fifth represented
interests in shipping, manufacturing, and merchandising. Most of them were lawyers. Not one
of them represented the interest of production -- Vilescit origine tali. (the dice were loaded
from the start)
Albert Jay Nock, Liberty vs. the Constitution: The Early Struggle
Appoint a Special Prosecutor to investigate the murder of Seth Rich, the alleged Wikileaks
email leaker.
On July 10, 2016, Seth Rich was shot twice in the early morning as he walked back to his
house in Washington D.C. Immediately after the crime, the death was called an armed robbery
but none of Seth Rich's belongings were taken from him.
Rod Wheeler, a private investigator hired by the family, said that there was evidence Seth
Rich had contacted WikiLeaks and that law enforcement were covering this up. MSM is not covering
this murder, instead pushing it to the side, so it is now up to us.
The facts do not add up, law enforcement stopped covering the crime, and now it is time
for us to fight for justice. Seth Rich deserves this.
A rather bleak outlook all-in-all. The oligarch's don't win nor do the cruise-control mob.
The little guys win now as well as later. Relax and don't stress for no oligarch will escape unscathed.
The BOSS always acts (Psa 73).
Democracy is the gawd that failed. It killed Ancient Athens, Rome and anyone dumb enough to
allow the average person to vote himself other peoples' wages. Trump is about as masterful as
any old man who has left reality behind. He might as well be doing Wrestlemania again. The "oligarchs"
are the dumbest and greediest crooks Satan could dredge from the Global Sewers. Its not a swamp,
its a sewer. Raw sewage is beginning to stink to high heaven. Its not a struggle between these
greedy idiots, its a fractured fairy tale in a hate filled delusional book of mindless drivel
being pushed by the stupidest and most arrogant gaggle of morons ever to make their nightmares
the problem of people who if they wanted to could slaughter them like pork bellies by the end
of business tomorrow.
This siren song of globalism is a bunch of crazy fags and delusional arrogant whores with delusions
of grandeur and the IQ of a head of cabbage trying to get people to work for nothing and thank
them for stealing their future. How does it end? Read the Book of Revelation. The Founding Fathers
fought the forebears of these idiots at The Bank of England. They run America into the ground
at the legalised counterfeiting ring laughably called The Federal Reserve Today. What if this
money was real? What if these Satanists were actually smart? What if voting and caring actually
mattered?
Well, then I wouldn't be here to kill you Enjoy what you laughingly call a life. Its the End of
the World as you know it, but I feel fine.
" it must be considered that there is nothing more difficult to carry out, nor more doubtful
of success, nor more dangerous to handle, than to initiate a new order of things. For the reformer
has enemies in all those who profit by the old order, and only lukewarm defenders in all those
who profit from the new order, this lukewarmness arising partly from fear of their adversaries,
who have the laws in their favor; and partly from the incredulity of mankind, who do not believe
in anything new until they have had actual experience of it. Thus it arises that on every opportunity
for attacking the reformer, his opponents do so with the zeal of partisans, the others defend
him halfheartedly, so that between them he runs great danger. It is necessary, however, in order
to investigate thoroughly this question, to examine whether these innovators are independent,
or wether they depend upon others, that is to say, wether in order to carry out their designs
they have to entreat or are able to compel. In the first case they invariably succeed ill, and
accomplish nothing; but when they can depend on their own strength and are able to use force,
they rarely fail. Thus it comes about that all armed prophets have conquered and unarmed ones
failed
From Machiavelli's The Prince
If we are to apply these wise words to actual examples of history, it is best to compare the performance
of FDR with that of Adolf Hitler. They came to power within a few weeks of each other, they inherited
a chaotic situation with unemployment rates hovering around the 25%. Under Hitler, it took two
years to reduce unemployment to 3% whereas after six years of the New Deal, American depression
was still alive and the population still suffering from a hideous malaise. Had Donald Trump come
to power on the back of a third party, preferably with its own militia, he would sail through
his reform programs without a hitch. But this is the USA, the land where the founding fathers
made sure that no dictator would ever come to power NOT TO PROTECT DEMOCRACY WHICH EXISTED ALL
ALONG IN FORM AND NOT IN SUBSTANCE , BUT TO DEFEND AND PRESERVE THE INTERESTS OF THE PREDATORY
RULING CLASS.
If we need to compare the situation of Trump with that of another democracy, we can look at the
case of France under General De Gaulle. De Gaulle inherited the flawed system of the French Fourth
Republic and decided to act quickly and decisively, but in order a to do so, he chose his security
team from a group of extremely loyal people and never entrusted this task to the running governmental
agencies. His reforms were executed in a firm and coherent way leading to the French Fifth Republic
and to an economic boom coupled with an aggrandizement of French power and prestige on a grand
scale. Needless to remind the reader, that under Anglo-Zionist machination, General De Gaulle
decided to resign before the end of his second mandate.
Trump's success or failure depends on how much he can mobilize the American masses and how much
he can clean his surroundings from the many Judases who are there only to sabotage him. Trump
needs to address and engage the common person into a full galvanization of the masses to take
to the street with the fury of a fanatical partisan. Trump should create his personal security
apparatus and accept that no matter what he does to protect himself, he has to live with the danger
of assassination. To deal with matters of state the way he dealt with his business endeavors will
not lead him anywhere; this means that trying to accommodate the neo-cons and their ilk will put
him in an ever weaker position.
@jacques sheete Yes, E Michael Jones goes as far as to say the constitution was basically
a document intended to cement the rule of the Oligarchy and the creditors and guarantee that the
debtors would never attain even the slightest reprieve from their overlords.
@jacques sheete Then there is also this man who studied human behavior and wrote the book
Propaganda literally titled propaganda.
Aug 23, 2013 Edward Bernays – "Public relations" is a polite term for propaganda
Edward Bernays, "the father of public relations," recounts the origin of the term public relations.
This clip comes from the documentary "Century of the Self," part 2 "The Engineering of Consent."
In fact, it is the absence of real democracy, which permits the oligarchs to engage in serious
intra-elite warfare. The marginalized, de-politicized electorate are incapable of taking advantage
of the conflict to advance their own interests.
This. Prime immediate cause – television and media monopoly. The elite have used the excuse
of race to shut down democracy and democratic debate. This latest, and probably final, war on
democracy started in America because the elites there had the proper tool at hand: blacks. "Anti-racism"
is a contrivance for exploitation, whether it's minorities feeding off the host population or
elites using ethnic tensions to centralize power. It's a type of soft colonialism against those
who are soft enough to accept it. The hard occupation will come later.
- – – –
"If you want government to intervene domestically, you're a liberal. If you want government to
intervene overseas, you're a conservative. If you want government to intervene everywhere, you're
a moderate. If you don't want government to intervene anywhere, you're an extremist." – Joseph
Sobran
That automatically brought to my mind an image of the songbird of the Hanoi Hilton, John McCain,
lurching up from his Senate seat, dagger in hand. McCain is psychologically tortured by having been a traitor to his comrades, all those years
ago. I am glad that America lost in Vietnam, lbut one does not betray one's comrades.
I feel a little sorry for Trump, where he had good intentions, blocked. Installing his daughter
and son-in-law as high officials was in bad taste and bad for policy. Magnanimous behaviour towards
Hillary's clear crimes was a mistake, the only return was nonsensical 'Russki hacked the election'
becoming more intense. Of course, the latter is very convenient for those who want never to see
Russia and the USA, to have a normal and civil connection.
All of that also showed that he can't be serious about his more interesting campaign lines.
@Che Guava"Magnanimous behaviour towards Hillary's clear crimes was a mistake.."
How true! Tomorrow her whining minions will (((March for Truth))) – useful idiots, ever. The
plan is for protesters to spell out INVESTIGATE TRUMP on the Mall. Did they get a permit for a
drone (illegal in DC limits) to shoot a photo?
Someone should photo-bomb with a big LOCK HER UP -- sign. Hillary and her Foundation
are what need investigating.
A very fine, evenly balanced analysis of the current bizarro madness that
passes for authentic governance. More than most even realize with a lack of participation by most
in person except for a few folks. I am not a Democrat or Republican neither party speaks for me
and I also have several examples from both with their vote rigged conventions and town hall meetings.
May 18, 2016 What really happened in the Nevada Democratic Convention
Instead, the media is trying to spin it against Bernie, about the violence and them being upset.
If you were present at this, wouldn't you be upset? I'm not saying threats are warranted, but
at what point do the American People say enough is enough?
@RobinG"Magnanimous behaviour towards Hillary's clear crimes was a mistake.."
How true! Tomorrow her whining minions will (((March for Truth))) - useful idiots, ever. The
plan is for protesters to spell out INVESTIGATE TRUMP on the Mall. Did they get a permit for a
drone (illegal in DC limits) to shoot a photo?
Someone should photo-bomb with a big LOCK HER UP -- sign. Hillary and her Foundation
are what need investigating. Thanks. I still have some hope that Prex. Trump will do some good
for your country. I think that he may have the attention-span of one of the duller varieties of
insect. a bee wil spend many minutes around a flower-bed, i love to watch, and not frightened,
as long as I keep track of where they are..
Trump seems to have a shorter attention span than bumble-bees and similar species have on flowers.
So, his first official overseas trip is to Saudia Arabia. He makes a contract for umpteen million
dollars of advanced weapons to a state that will, as much as is possible, pass the portion that
is portable to IS and other al-Qaeda offshoots.
Madness.
Next stage, Israel, craven cowering acts and promises of fealty.
After that the Pope, Francesco never had any trouble with Operation Condor, never once raised
his voice against it.
@Che Guava There is some hope, IF we get our act – and ourselves – together. A few people
are trying to build something out of the wreckage of the *Trump and Sanders campaigns. (*Trump
was a different guy in the campaign, no?)
@RobinG I watched the vid., McKinney's words make much sense, but the smug idiot in front
of the screen, constantly stroking her own chin, posing for her webcam, ruins it.
How amateurish to have it all on a PC screen under the gaze of Ms. Vain.
@Che Guava LOL. It's true that Debbie has a rather annoying style, but if you can ignore that,
she makes some good points. (Kind of like eating tripe.) She also has quite a loyal following,
and apparently 80,000 viewers, so maybe she's gotten too comfortable in front of the camera. And
actually, she's not posing for the camera. She's reading messages as they come in from viewers.
Here's her interview of Vanessa Beeley. Since we're in the throes of absurdity (yesterday's
"March for Truth" was anything but) it's valuable to have honest journalism, even if it's not
technically slick.
I do know how difficult video conversion and editing are, am trying to organise hours of band
photos and vids onto video CDs and DVDs. If they want to upload them, it is up to them, as long
as I get a credit.
My own, too.
Of course, that is old-fashioned, I know. In most cases, I have permission for uploading, but
I don't want to do it that way.
OTOH, Ms. Vain didn't even switch to a direct view of Cynthia. That would not be so difficult,
same kind of streaming format.
I will also to repeating, the chin stroking seems compulsive.
Have a friend who also does, and his nose, and also is someone who tries to feel very superior,
it is like the symptom of a complex. Really creeps another friend out. Just makes me uneasy.
I do know how difficult video conversion and editing are, am trying to organise hours of band
photos and vids onto video CDs and DVDs. If they want to upload them, it is up to them, as long
as I get a credit.
My own, too.
Of course, that is old-fashioned, I know. In most cases, I have permission for uploading, but
I don't want to do it that way.
OTOH, Ms. Vain didn't even switch to a direct view of Cynthia. That would not be so difficult,
same kind of streaming format.
I will also to repeating, the chin stroking seems compulsive.
Have a friend who also does, and his nose, and also is someone who tries to feel very superior,
it is like the symptom of a complex. Really creeps another friend out. Just makes me uneasy. Che,
I'm not disagreeing with you (her solo rants when she has no guest can be especially annoying)
but she did demonstrate at one point that putting the monitor with Cynthia head-on caused excessive
glare.
What interests me most is the project of Cynthia, Robert Steele, and others to bridge the gap
between different ideological groups, to make common cause to expose, confront, depose the Deep
State. I have yet to meet anyone who shares my viewpoint entirely, but I'm happy to cooperate
with almost anybody on issues I consider essential.
"... One of my neighbors has this to say about McCain: "I worked for American Continental. So I know what kind of a crook he is!" Said neighbor is also of the "McCain was a traitor while in North Vietnamese custody!" school. ..."
"... As to your neighbor's opinion of McCain as a collaborator, this post from Ron Unz of the Unz Review is rather eye-opening . ..."
"... McCain comes back from getting health care to help make sure others don't get health care. That's nice. ..."
"... One would have though McCain's incessant pounding on the war drums would have been enough to turn people off. I can't understand how he is so eager to send people off to repeat what happened to him. ..."
"... It probably doesn't matter whether Arizonans notice or not. McCain isn't up for reelection until 2022, so even if he survives longer than the average person with his type of cancer, in 2022 he'll still probably be dead or too weak to campaign for another term. ..."
Don't underestimate how personally piqued McCain is over President Obama, taking McCain's turn,
when it comes time for a vote. McCain is a nasty man. Now that Herr Trump beat Hillary, even McCain
might have done it.
Which only proves that McCain truly is an idiot, or doesn't expect to live for another two
or so years. Having a signature 'achievement' fail outright to be far more embarrassing than repealing
it and having your version of healthcare, whatever it is, fail as badly or worse than ACA would,
Especially since delusional folk will still think we would be in the best shape ever if only the
big bad Republicans hadn't repealed Barack Obama's health reform plan. There is no such glittery
unicorn if ACA continues and dies of its own weight.
(I should note that for those us not under the media induced delusion of McCain as mavericky
upstanding moral leader McCain being a vindicative idiot is very old news.)
One of my neighbors has this to say about McCain: "I worked for American Continental. So
I know what kind of a crook he is!" Said neighbor is also of the "McCain was a traitor while in
North Vietnamese custody!" school.
I noticed that irony too, I don't see how anybody in the public would NOT notice that irony,
since it is a well known fact that congress gets their own health care guaranteed.
Maybe if they have brain cancer they wouldn't notice . oh.
One would have though McCain's incessant pounding on the war drums would have been enough
to turn people off. I can't understand how he is so eager to send people off to repeat what happened
to him.
It probably doesn't matter whether Arizonans notice or not. McCain isn't up for reelection
until 2022, so even if he survives longer than the average person with his type of cancer, in
2022 he'll still probably be dead or too weak to campaign for another term.
And he keeps getting weak opponents on the D side of the ballot. In 2016, it was Ann Kirkpatrick.
To this day, I can't figure out why she was so compelling to the Arizona Democratic Party establishment.
Oh, in 2010, you're gonna love this: Rodney Glassman. Guy didn't even complete a single term on
the Tucson City Council, but he thinks he can go up against one of the best-known names in American
politics. Epic fail.
But but but it makes Trump supporters so very happy, whether they are losing their health
care or not.
McCain very clearly demonstrated who he is and who he actually works for when he chose Tundra
Trash as his running mate.
The end.
Don't underestimate how personally piqued McCain is over President Obama, taking McCain's
turn, when it comes time for a vote. McCain is a nasty man. Now that Herr Trump beat Hillary,
even McCain might have done it.
Which only proves that McCain truly is an idiot, or doesn't expect to live for another two
or so years. Having a signature 'achievement' fail outright to be far more embarrassing than
repealing it and having your version of healthcare, whatever it is, fail as badly or worse
than ACA would, Especially since delusional folk will still think we would be in the best
shape ever if only the big bad Republicans hadn't repealed Barack Obama's health reform plan.
There is no such glittery unicorn if ACA continues and dies of its own weight.
(I should note that for those us not under the media induced delusion of McCain as
mavericky upstanding moral leader McCain being a vindicative idiot is very old news.)
I noticed that irony too, I don't see how anybody in the public would NOT notice that
irony, since it is a well known fact that congress gets their own health care guaranteed.
Maybe if they have brain cancer they wouldn't notice . oh.
One would have though McCain's incessant pounding on the war drums would have been enough
to turn people off. I can't understand how he is so eager to send people off to repeat what
happened to him.
It probably doesn't matter whether Arizonans notice or not. McCain isn't up for reelection
until 2022, so even if he survives longer than the average person with his type of cancer, in
2022 he'll still probably be dead or too weak to campaign for another term.
And he keeps getting weak opponents on the D side of the ballot.
In 2016, it was Ann Kirkpatrick. To this day, I can't figure out why she was so compelling
to the Arizona Democratic Party establishment.
Oh, in 2010, you're gonna love this: Rodney Glassman. Guy didn't even complete a single
term on the Tucson City Council, but he thinks he can go up against one of the best-known
names in American politics. Epic fail.
"... McCain is psychologically tortured by having been a traitor to his comrades, all those years ago. I am glad that America lost in Vietnam, lbut one does not betray one's comrades. ..."
"... I feel a little sorry for Trump, where he had good intentions, blocked. Installing his daughter and son-in-law as high officials was in bad taste and bad for policy. Magnanimous behaviour towards Hillary's clear crimes was a mistake, the only return was nonsensical 'Russki hacked the election' becoming more intense. Of course, the latter is very convenient for those who want never to see Russia and the USA, to have a normal and civil connection. ..."
That automatically brought to my mind an image of the songbird of the Hanoi Hilton, John
McCain, lurching up from his Senate seat, dagger in hand.
McCain is psychologically tortured
by having been a traitor to his comrades, all those years ago. I am glad that America lost in
Vietnam, lbut one does not betray one's comrades.
I feel a little sorry for Trump, where he had good intentions, blocked. Installing his
daughter and son-in-law as high officials was in bad taste and bad for policy. Magnanimous
behaviour towards Hillary's clear crimes was a mistake, the only return was nonsensical
'Russki hacked the election' becoming more intense. Of course, the latter is very convenient
for those who want never to see Russia and the USA, to have a normal and civil
connection.
All of that also showed that he can't be serious about his more interesting campaign
lines.
John McCain waked on Trump ouster more then any other Republican senator. Despite the fact
that Trump campaigned for his reelection. He might be the the one who ordered British dossier on
Trump.
Notable quotes:
"... I don't know why any Arizonian votes for this crazed man, especially since he's a big advocate for open borders. At a union meeting, he told workers illegals are needed because Americans are too lazy to work farm fields, even for $50 an hour. McCain has never labored his entire life, always on the government dole now earning ten times minimum wage worker pay, whose increase he opposes. ..."
"... McCain became a a warmongering neocon, always anxious to bomb everyone and start WW III. ..."
We cannot allow this great website to be stained with a tribute to one of the worst
Americans in our history. Allow me to disparage Mr. McCain (again), with facts. By several
accounts ("The Nightingale's Song", for example) he only got into the Naval Academy for a
free college degree because Dad and GrandDad were Admirals, and should have been kicked out
several times if not for that too. He was a lousy pilot who got into trouble often and
crashed two aircraft because of neglect. He was shot down on his 23rd mission over Vietnam,
and getting captured is not heroic.
What happened over there is difficult to pin down, but upon returning from POW status, he
passed a physical and regained flight status as a pilot. Yet after he finished 20 years of
service that allowed generous retirement pay, he obtained a 100% VA disability rating
allowing him to collect some $36,000 a year, tax free too! The LA Times mentioned this when
McCain was insisting he was fit to serve as commander in Chief. He now hauls in over $240,000
a year from the Feds for military retirement, 100% VA disability, social security retirement,
while all the while working full-time in the US Senate. So is he retired, or disabled, or
gainfully employed? He is all three! This is textbook case of abuse and why or system needs
reform to protect workers against rich welfare kings like McCain.
McCain's loyal wife was disabled in a serious auto accident while he was a POW. Soon after
he returned, McCain dumped her for a wealthy woman 20 years younger. The Reagans were so
angry they never spoke to him again. He then married his new babe before he officially got
divorced, so there's that bigamy thing.
I don't know why any Arizonian votes for this crazed man, especially since he's a big
advocate for open borders. At a union meeting, he told workers illegals are needed because
Americans are too lazy to work farm fields, even for $50 an hour. McCain has never labored
his entire life, always on the government dole now earning ten times minimum wage worker pay,
whose increase he opposes.
McCain grew up wealthy and enjoyed free government health care his entire life, yet thinks
it's nothing commoners deserve. While running for president and attacking the poor, a rare
good reporter asked how many houses he owned. He was unsure, but thought maybe seven.
His Senate career began as he profited off the savings and loan scandal (providing cover
for fraudster Keating).
McCain became a a warmongering neocon, always anxious to bomb
everyone and start WW III.
Despite his recent illness , he was quick to denounce Trump when
he ended American support for mass terrorism in Syria.
John McCain supported the slaughter of millions of people on Earth, with the loss of
thousands of American lives, and a trillion dollars wasted on pointless military adventures.
How can any decent person mourn his demise?
"... One of my neighbors has this to say about McCain: "I worked for American Continental. So I know what kind of a crook he is!" Said neighbor is also of the "McCain was a traitor while in North Vietnamese custody!" school. ..."
"... As to your neighbor's opinion of McCain as a collaborator, this post from Ron Unz of the Unz Review is rather eye-opening . ..."
"... McCain comes back from getting health care to help make sure others don't get health care. That's nice. ..."
"... One would have though McCain's incessant pounding on the war drums would have been enough to turn people off. I can't understand how he is so eager to send people off to repeat what happened to him. ..."
"... It probably doesn't matter whether Arizonans notice or not. McCain isn't up for reelection until 2022, so even if he survives longer than the average person with his type of cancer, in 2022 he'll still probably be dead or too weak to campaign for another term. ..."
Don't underestimate how personally piqued McCain is over President Obama, taking McCain's turn,
when it comes time for a vote. McCain is a nasty man. Now that Herr Trump beat Hillary, even McCain
might have done it.
Which only proves that McCain truly is an idiot, or doesn't expect to live for another two
or so years. Having a signature 'achievement' fail outright to be far more embarrassing than repealing
it and having your version of healthcare, whatever it is, fail as badly or worse than ACA would,
Especially since delusional folk will still think we would be in the best shape ever if only the
big bad Republicans hadn't repealed Barack Obama's health reform plan. There is no such glittery
unicorn if ACA continues and dies of its own weight.
(I should note that for those us not under the media induced delusion of McCain as mavericky
upstanding moral leader McCain being a vindicative idiot is very old news.)
One of my neighbors has this to say about McCain: "I worked for American Continental. So
I know what kind of a crook he is!" Said neighbor is also of the "McCain was a traitor while in
North Vietnamese custody!" school.
I noticed that irony too, I don't see how anybody in the public would NOT notice that irony,
since it is a well known fact that congress gets their own health care guaranteed.
Maybe if they have brain cancer they wouldn't notice . oh.
One would have though McCain's incessant pounding on the war drums would have been enough
to turn people off. I can't understand how he is so eager to send people off to repeat what happened
to him.
It probably doesn't matter whether Arizonans notice or not. McCain isn't up for reelection
until 2022, so even if he survives longer than the average person with his type of cancer, in
2022 he'll still probably be dead or too weak to campaign for another term.
And he keeps getting weak opponents on the D side of the ballot. In 2016, it was Ann Kirkpatrick.
To this day, I can't figure out why she was so compelling to the Arizona Democratic Party establishment.
Oh, in 2010, you're gonna love this: Rodney Glassman. Guy didn't even complete a single term on
the Tucson City Council, but he thinks he can go up against one of the best-known names in American
politics. Epic fail.
But but but it makes Trump supporters so very happy, whether they are losing their health
care or not.
McCain very clearly demonstrated who he is and who he actually works for when he chose Tundra
Trash as his running mate.
The end.
Don't underestimate how personally piqued McCain is over President Obama, taking McCain's
turn, when it comes time for a vote. McCain is a nasty man. Now that Herr Trump beat Hillary,
even McCain might have done it.
Which only proves that McCain truly is an idiot, or doesn't expect to live for another two
or so years. Having a signature 'achievement' fail outright to be far more embarrassing than
repealing it and having your version of healthcare, whatever it is, fail as badly or worse
than ACA would, Especially since delusional folk will still think we would be in the best
shape ever if only the big bad Republicans hadn't repealed Barack Obama's health reform plan.
There is no such glittery unicorn if ACA continues and dies of its own weight.
(I should note that for those us not under the media induced delusion of McCain as
mavericky upstanding moral leader McCain being a vindicative idiot is very old news.)
I noticed that irony too, I don't see how anybody in the public would NOT notice that
irony, since it is a well known fact that congress gets their own health care guaranteed.
Maybe if they have brain cancer they wouldn't notice . oh.
One would have though McCain's incessant pounding on the war drums would have been enough
to turn people off. I can't understand how he is so eager to send people off to repeat what
happened to him.
It probably doesn't matter whether Arizonans notice or not. McCain isn't up for reelection
until 2022, so even if he survives longer than the average person with his type of cancer, in
2022 he'll still probably be dead or too weak to campaign for another term.
And he keeps getting weak opponents on the D side of the ballot.
In 2016, it was Ann Kirkpatrick. To this day, I can't figure out why she was so compelling
to the Arizona Democratic Party establishment.
Oh, in 2010, you're gonna love this: Rodney Glassman. Guy didn't even complete a single
term on the Tucson City Council, but he thinks he can go up against one of the best-known
names in American politics. Epic fail.
"... McCain is psychologically tortured by having been a traitor to his comrades, all those years ago. I am glad that America lost in Vietnam, lbut one does not betray one's comrades. ..."
"... I feel a little sorry for Trump, where he had good intentions, blocked. Installing his daughter and son-in-law as high officials was in bad taste and bad for policy. Magnanimous behaviour towards Hillary's clear crimes was a mistake, the only return was nonsensical 'Russki hacked the election' becoming more intense. Of course, the latter is very convenient for those who want never to see Russia and the USA, to have a normal and civil connection. ..."
That automatically brought to my mind an image of the songbird of the Hanoi Hilton, John
McCain, lurching up from his Senate seat, dagger in hand.
McCain is psychologically tortured
by having been a traitor to his comrades, all those years ago. I am glad that America lost in
Vietnam, lbut one does not betray one's comrades.
I feel a little sorry for Trump, where he had good intentions, blocked. Installing his
daughter and son-in-law as high officials was in bad taste and bad for policy. Magnanimous
behaviour towards Hillary's clear crimes was a mistake, the only return was nonsensical
'Russki hacked the election' becoming more intense. Of course, the latter is very convenient
for those who want never to see Russia and the USA, to have a normal and civil
connection.
All of that also showed that he can't be serious about his more interesting campaign
lines.
John McCain waked on Trump ouster more then any other Republican senator. Despite the fact
that Trump campaigned for his reelection. He might be the the one who ordered British dossier on
Trump.
Notable quotes:
"... I don't know why any Arizonian votes for this crazed man, especially since he's a big advocate for open borders. At a union meeting, he told workers illegals are needed because Americans are too lazy to work farm fields, even for $50 an hour. McCain has never labored his entire life, always on the government dole now earning ten times minimum wage worker pay, whose increase he opposes. ..."
"... McCain became a a warmongering neocon, always anxious to bomb everyone and start WW III. ..."
We cannot allow this great website to be stained with a tribute to one of the worst
Americans in our history. Allow me to disparage Mr. McCain (again), with facts. By several
accounts ("The Nightingale's Song", for example) he only got into the Naval Academy for a
free college degree because Dad and GrandDad were Admirals, and should have been kicked out
several times if not for that too. He was a lousy pilot who got into trouble often and
crashed two aircraft because of neglect. He was shot down on his 23rd mission over Vietnam,
and getting captured is not heroic.
What happened over there is difficult to pin down, but upon returning from POW status, he
passed a physical and regained flight status as a pilot. Yet after he finished 20 years of
service that allowed generous retirement pay, he obtained a 100% VA disability rating
allowing him to collect some $36,000 a year, tax free too! The LA Times mentioned this when
McCain was insisting he was fit to serve as commander in Chief. He now hauls in over $240,000
a year from the Feds for military retirement, 100% VA disability, social security retirement,
while all the while working full-time in the US Senate. So is he retired, or disabled, or
gainfully employed? He is all three! This is textbook case of abuse and why or system needs
reform to protect workers against rich welfare kings like McCain.
McCain's loyal wife was disabled in a serious auto accident while he was a POW. Soon after
he returned, McCain dumped her for a wealthy woman 20 years younger. The Reagans were so
angry they never spoke to him again. He then married his new babe before he officially got
divorced, so there's that bigamy thing.
I don't know why any Arizonian votes for this crazed man, especially since he's a big
advocate for open borders. At a union meeting, he told workers illegals are needed because
Americans are too lazy to work farm fields, even for $50 an hour. McCain has never labored
his entire life, always on the government dole now earning ten times minimum wage worker pay,
whose increase he opposes.
McCain grew up wealthy and enjoyed free government health care his entire life, yet thinks
it's nothing commoners deserve. While running for president and attacking the poor, a rare
good reporter asked how many houses he owned. He was unsure, but thought maybe seven.
His Senate career began as he profited off the savings and loan scandal (providing cover
for fraudster Keating).
McCain became a a warmongering neocon, always anxious to bomb
everyone and start WW III.
Despite his recent illness , he was quick to denounce Trump when
he ended American support for mass terrorism in Syria.
John McCain supported the slaughter of millions of people on Earth, with the loss of
thousands of American lives, and a trillion dollars wasted on pointless military adventures.
How can any decent person mourn his demise?
"... While I respect the author for raising this topic, he seems to fall into "assessment of the Soviet Experiment" mode in a careless way. I realize I tend to repetition about this, but it is terribly misleading -- perhaps "disorienting" would be a better term -- to discuss theses questions without any reference to the tremendous impact external pressures -- call it "intersystemic conflict," "international conflict," whatever -- had on the course of the Soviet Union's development. While it could be argued that capitalist economies also faced external pressures, that would miss the question of how such pressures impact on a society in the process of formation ..."
"... Then, as far as the "collapse of the Soviet Union" goes, there's no mention about the choice ..."
"... What from the standpoint of the Times editorial board looks like a necessary start-over was in fact a sloppily-carried decision, or merely an unintended outcome, of a section of the elite seizing an opportunity to enrich themselves. ..."
"... It's obvious that people can enjoyably engage in cooperative behavior, but if they can do so under a barrage is another matter. The one thing that we can be certain of is that if capitalist elites aren't thoroughly demoralized they will do whatever they can to 'prove' TINA. ..."
"... West had spent several billion dollars in cash to bribe significant portions of the Soviet elite (Soros, via his foundation, was especially active). And large part of the elite war already poisoned by neoliberalism and wanted to become rich. So while pre-conditions for the collapse of the USSR were internal (communist ideology was actually discredited in early 70th; economic stagnation started around the same time, Communist Party leadership completely degraded and became a joke in 80th ), external pressures and subversive activity played the role of catalyst that made the process irreversible. ..."
While I respect the author for raising this topic, he seems to fall into "assessment of
the Soviet Experiment" mode in a careless way. I realize I tend to repetition about this, but
it is terribly misleading -- perhaps "disorienting" would be a better term -- to discuss theses
questions without any reference to the tremendous impact external pressures -- call it "intersystemic
conflict," "international conflict," whatever -- had on the course of the Soviet Union's development.
While it could be argued that capitalist economies also faced external pressures, that would miss
the question of how such pressures impact on a society in the process of formation .
We're talking about questions of constrained path dependence of a fundamental order that the experimentalist
mode of thinking misses. Etc, etc.
Then, as far as the "collapse of the Soviet Union" goes, there's no mention about the
choice by significant sections of the Soviet elite to engage in looting instead of developing
a transitional program that would protect viable sections of the Soviet economy under market socialism.
What from the standpoint of the Times editorial board looks like a necessary start-over
was in fact a sloppily-carried decision, or merely an unintended outcome, of a section of the
elite seizing an opportunity to enrich themselves.
While it is essential to try to determine the viability of alternative economic systems in
comparison what we've got now, doing so without taking into account the tremendously destructive
opposition a transition would face is, in a way, to blithely continue on in a "Soviet Experiment"
mentality.
It's obvious that people can enjoyably engage in cooperative behavior, but if they can
do so under a barrage is another matter. The one thing that we can be certain of is that if capitalist
elites aren't thoroughly demoralized they will do whatever they can to 'prove' TINA.
I was a little confused by this comment. I'm not opposed to looking at the impact
of external pressures, but I am opposed to treating them as monocausal.
Your preferred pattern of historical explanation shifts during the course of your comment.
When discussing the USSR in the process of formation, you concentrate on bringing out external
pressures and therefore considering the choices of the leadership as highly constrained. When
discussing the collapse of the Soviet Union, you instead stress the choices of the leadership
elite to "seize an opportunity to enrich themselves."
I'm not even sure why you would assume that your thesis about the elite choosing to engage
in looting is opposed to anything that I'm saying.
I agree with you on is that it is possible to think both about what a self-sustaining better
society might look like, and also the extent to which it's hard to get there within the constraints
of current power structures. They are not the same question, and I think both are worth pondering.
"Then, as far as the "collapse of the Soviet Union" goes, there's no mention about the choice
by significant sections of the Soviet elite to engage in looting instead of developing a transitional
program that would protect viable sections of the Soviet economy under market socialism.
What from the standpoint of the Times editorial board looks like a necessary start-over
was in fact a sloppily-carried decision, or merely an unintended outcome, of a section of the
elite seizing an opportunity to enrich themselves. "
West had spent several billion dollars in cash to bribe significant portions of the Soviet
elite (Soros, via his foundation, was especially active). And large part of the elite war already
poisoned by neoliberalism and wanted to become rich. So while pre-conditions for the collapse
of the USSR were internal (communist ideology was actually discredited in early 70th; economic
stagnation started around the same time, Communist Party leadership completely degraded and became
a joke in 80th ), external pressures and subversive activity played the role of catalyst that
made the process irreversible.
The fact that neoliberalism was rising at the time means that this was the worst possible time
for the USSR to implement drastic economic reforms and sure mediocre politicians like Gorbachev
quickly lost control of the process. With some important help of the West.
The subsequent economic rape of Russia was incredibly brutal and most probably well coordinated
by the famous three letter agencies: CIA (via USAID and "Harvard mafia") ) and MI6 and their German
and French counterparts. See
Brain drain, especially to the USA and Israel was simply incredible. Which, while good for
professionals leaving (although tales of Russian Ph.D swiping malls are not uncommon, especially
in Israel ) , who can earn much better money abroad, is actually another form of neocolonialism
for the countries affected:
It was a tragically missed opportunity to try genuine socialism. Instead of essentially selling
the state enterprises to the Mafia, they could have been GIVEN, probably broken up, to the workers
in them. It would have been instant worker-owned, market regulated – what? We don't have a familiar
name for it, but it might be what Marx meant by "socialism."
Ironically, the Bolsheviks first set up such co-operatives, called soviets, but soon seized
them in favor of state ownership. End of the socialist experiment. It's quite possible they were
far more Russian than Marxist.
The US economy hit a wall in the 70s. Instead of readjusting internally, it used its reserve
currency and global exploitation to gain an extra few decades of consumerism. If exploitation
is acceptable, then we could say that capitalism wins. However, capitalism will work until there
is nothing left to exploit.
In the meantime, the USSR was set up in a way where it could not follow
IMO, left leaning theoretical communism would have trouble surviving when in competition with
a system based on short-termism such as capitalism. This competition against short-termism would
force the communist country to turn into a form of fascism just to stop the opportunists which
happen to have the skills from defecting.
While in the Peace Corps serving in Africa (after 2010), I had a former military doctor (originally
from Moldavia) who I'd see due to ongoing health issues. He served in Angola as a doctor during
the civil wars and had pictures of the people he helped who were injured in the war. He was hands
down the most competent doctor I saw who was employed by the PC. This was by a wide margin of
competence too. I had not illusions about the Peace Corps and it purpose (to put the kind face
on US empire?). We'd talk quite a bit, and he was still bitter about the collapse of the Soviet
Union, and Gorbachev who he blamed for its demise, due to the lower standards of living and hardships
now faced by many in the Eastern bloc and in Russia itself. In all honesty, though I identify
with the far Left, this was new to me since I never realized that anyone would long for those
days since all I ever heard about as a youth (due to propaganda of course) was about long bread
lines and the gray world of the lives of those in the Soviet Union. Kukezel's comments above,
and other information I have gained over the time had somewhat expanded my ideas and understanding
regarding the system, as have my growing understanding of just how unjust our system in the US
is becoming more unjust year after year.
I am not knowledgeable enough, possibly not smart enough, to understand the finer points of
the discussion here concerning Marx, but I do think it possible for we as a species to create
better systems to organize our world other than one predicated on the profit motive. Besides being
unsustainable in a world of finite resources and the possibility that we humans will destroy the
possibility to exist, we need to creatively try new forms of organization. The problem with the
concentration of power of present day capitalism is that it seems so adaptable to new ways to
effectively change. I know some Marx but am limited, but he was very impressed with capitalism's
way to adapt to preserve itself.
Unfortunately, at times I become too cynical about the ability of the human species intellect
and abitlity to go beyond short-term solutions. We just may not be able to get past our limitations
as a creature. In short, I just don't know if we are smart enough to do what is best for survival.
Like my Peace Corps doctor, I too sometimes wax nostalgic for a past that will never return, back
to the sixties when it seemed the distribution of wealth was more egalitarian, unions brought
about some economic justice, and the concentration of power and wealth was not so dramatic as
it is today. I just never know if I was too blind, or deluded, at the time to see that maybe those
weren't actually better times in that the system itself was built upon the same exploitation has
existed in all of US history. So all this good discussion at times brings me back to the question–is
our historical evolution not far enough along a continuum for us to change before it is too late?
That's a bummer of a thought, I know, but the present political manifestations keep blunting any
optimism I still possess.
I too sometimes wax nostalgic for a past that will never return, back to the sixties when
it seemed the distribution of wealth was more egalitarian, unions brought about some economic
justice, and the concentration of power and wealth was not so dramatic as it is today.
That was "white priveledge" back then. It's passing is what led to Trump and the epidemic of
homelessness.
nobody 28
My image of Master-Blaster from Beyond Thunderdome has Israel in the Master position riding
the US as Blaster. (sometimes he lets others ride, too)
The entity began and remains a Rothschild project. They (R) are still upset about how the
Yank franchise scooped up their assets after WWII. Now that oceans no longer protect America
from adversaries they have their window of opportunity to take back control of the global
olive oil business.
AIPAC's control over US is a fairly recent phenomena and the result, as we can all see, is
the patently self-destructive path that they set the Superpower on in the past 20 years. This
was obvious even in 2002 that the actual goal was to take US off the pedestal and cut it down
to size. When the dust settles, US (well the poor under educated and over medicated and
propagandized Americans) will be holding a 20, 30?, Trillion dollar DEBT to the blood suckers
that run "global finance". And what we see now is that apparently (rather late in the game I
am afraid) some subset of the "elite" elements in Yankistan -- the OIL money families -- have
finally figured out just what sort of a mess they have gotten themselves into, having trusted
their dual-citizen ashke-Nazi "sages". That is why we see all these entirely bizzare
political fights break out between nominal allies, such as EU and US, Qatar and Saudi Arabia,
etc.
This is the reason. The rest is ladida to keep us plebes entertained.
"They (R) are still upset about how the Yank franchise scooped up their assets after
WWII."
Not true. The US was promoted after WW2 to the role of the clout, or the "muscle man" of
the global evil cabal of the Brutish Empire run by City of London Crown Corporation, whereas
the British Empire went off the radars under the guise of the "Commonwealth". It's just a
matter of efficiency of management of occupied territories, does not irritate or provoke the
local tribes in Europe, US, Canada, Australia, NZ... "Happy slaves" believing they are
free...
This is somewhat touched upon in the marvelous Ken Loach movie "The Wind That Shakes the
Barley" I mentioned before - one sober character reminds others that withdrawing British
troops ends official brutal occupation, but negotiated deal puts Ireland into tight
economical and political dependence on the Crown.
Besides how do you fight enemy that "does not exist" ? ;-)
As I said times before:
"The greatest trick The British Empire ever pulled was convincing the world it ceased to
exist. That's been its power"
Promoting the US as the official "global empire" and going underground, in the shadows,
were one of the main goals of the AngloZio cabal in their plans to start WW2. Other being
establishing the state of Israel in Palestine with the help of Nazi terror, and destroying
German ambitions to challenge UK's global hegemony by pushing it into the Nazi crazed
"bubble", aka "pump and dump", or "boom and bust" scheme. Hitler acted in the best interests
of the British imperial elite (fuck the commoners, they never really mattered). He would've
never attacked Poland without being sure that the British would give him free hand to do it.
He sought alliance with the British - Hitler writes about in "Mein Kampf", you can check it
by yourself. After baiting Germans into Hitler's trap, the City of London performed a
"switch", (arrested Rudolf Hess who landed in Britain for further instructions) and
confronted Germany allied with the US and Russia to achieve what one of the first of British
NATO chiefs (Hastings Ismay) admitted:
"To keep the Americans in, the Russians out, and the Germans down."
That plan has been hugely successful until 2012 when Obama showed, by refusing to forfeit
the run for the 2nd term, which camp he's been in. "The pump and dump" scheme allowed amazing
acceleration of the technological progress on the world wide scale, with enormous resources
assigned for some crucial projects, impossible under peaceful circumstances. Of course later
"scooped" by the AngloZios:
Theft of German Scientific Research Fueled Post-War Technology Boom
By Daniel W. Michaels:
"TO THE VICTORS BELONG THE SPOILS" is an American saying (attributed to Andrew Jackson)
and, regrettably, an occasional American practice as it was in the case of "the Great
Patent Heist of 1946." It was made official policy in World War II by President Harry
Truman's Executive Order 9604, also known as the "License to Steal," which permitted agents
of the U.S. government to execute the greatest robbery in world history: the theft of
German intellectual (scientific) property. What technology the Americans and Soviets stole
has, in fact, fueled some of the greatest scientific advances of the modern era.
Not true. The US was promoted after WW2 to the role of the clout, or the "muscle man" of the
global evil cabal of the Brutish Empire run by City of London Crown Corporation, whereas the
British Empire went off the radars under the guise of the "Commonwealth".
"On 15 August 1971, the United States unilaterally terminated convertibility of the US
dollar to gold, effectively bringing the Bretton Woods system to an end and rendering the
dollar a fiat currency.[3] This action, referred to as the Nixon shock, created the situation
in which the US dollar became a reserve currency used by many states. At the same time, many
fixed currencies (such as the pound sterling, for example) also became free-floating."
Richard Nixon's genius (along with his _Rockefeller_ advisor, Henry Kissinger) devisied
the three pronged platform for US supramacy in the early 70s. The termination of Bretton
Woods by United States, in conjunction with the creation of the Petrodollar mechanism, and
the integration of Communist China into the West's establishment, was a master stroke of
genius by Nixon that rendered null and void the historic blunder of that fool Wilson that
made Americans debt slaves to the Barter Town of London.
The result was that United States of America was free to accumulate effectively free debt
instruments backed by US Navy and Oil. And there was nothing the Brits could do about it. Of
course the Brits had already shown themselves ready to help the Soviets in confict with Uncle
Sam, as perfectly illustrated in the episode of England giving Soviet Union a working
RollsRoyce jet engine. A piece of technology the Russians could not master.
So having taken care of the monatary and enegry aspects, Nixon faced the possibility of
future monkey wrenches thrown in America's imperial ambitions by the Brits via the Soviet
Union. So he turned to China, made kissy face with the Chairman, and set into motion the
historic agreement to realign CCP with United States as a bulwark against the Soviets. That
was brilliant.
That is why poor "tricky dick" became a target of a coup by the British aligned fraternal
"agency" of skull and bones and misguided elements of Naval Intelligence.
--
Today, the AIPAC directed United States has systematically pursued a course to dismantle
the historic strategic achievements of Richard Nixon.
Petrodollar is about to become history (and thus the debt becomes a real generational
liability) and CCP has been thoroughly provoked and has been driven into the arms of their
historic adversary Russia.
And in a way that no doubt is very pleasing to the Barter Town monsters, this time it will
be the other players across the pond that will "scoop" and take over the global mechanisms
(IMF, WorldBank, UN) that US had created to manage its empire.
All what you wrote about has been devised for the US by the masters in City of London, who
control e.g. the FED, thus the Petrodollar (Saudi Barbaria was set up with the British
intelligence help).
You can trace all leaders of the world terrorism to London, been there at least for soe
period of their terrorist quest (instructions, training, refuge).
I highly recommend reading Dean Henderson on the topic.
The US is known for supporting the Soviet Union, GE built power plants and lines (Lenin:
"Communism is Soviet power plus the electrification of the whole country"), Ford car
factories. I also recommend reading Anthony Sutton's
WALL
STREET AND THE BOLSHEVIK REVOLUTION
to see how the masters of puppets played both
sides.
Ideologies like Communism, Nazism, Zionism, and also religions as well as world conflicts,
societal rich vs poor, queer vs hetero, conservative vs liberal, traditional vs progressive,
) and political (2 party monopoly basically in all British colonies - US, Eastern Europe,
..., freemasonic black-white checkered motive comes to mind) division lines (implementing old
imperial "divide et impera" stratgy) are devised just as means to achieve far reaching goal
of total global control by the same degenerate "elite".
BTW CIA overthrew Mossadegh in Iran at the British request, and the butcher of Iraq gen.
Schwartzkopf was knighted for a reason... (Interesting to see who else received order of the
British Empire...) Recent news confirm that was actually Tony Bliar pushing Bush for the Iraq
war, not the other way round...
Poor Lawrence got buggered by a Turk in service of King and country to setup the tribal
leaders from Najd as kings in Arabia and then it was FDR who hosted Abdul Aziz ibn Saud on US
Navy ships floating on the "Great Bitter Lake" (get it?):
"You can trace all leaders of the world terrorism to London, been there at least for soe
period of their terrorist quest (instructions, training, refuge)."
That's their specialty. How does that contradict the narrative that Richard Nixon as
servent of Rockefellers engineered the take over of Barter Town from below using energy as
weapon to let the financiers know who is the New Boss?
"BTW CIA overthrew Mossadegh in Iran at the British request"
CIA did not overthrow Dr. Mossadegh. CIA participated in the counter coup against him. Do
you recognize how condescending it is to assert that some wasp flunky with a bag full of
dollars can come and overthrow a leader that according to his own "democratic" referandum had
obtained "99%" of the Iranians' vote?
Dr. Mossadegh himself, due to his erratic behaviour, assumption of dictatorial power,
violation of Iran's constitution, and the growing fear of the clerics of a Tudeh take over,
managed to alienate a large segment of his own constituency, and the Americans decided to
take the British advice and support those factions that were against him. And the result for
Britain was that US managed to peel Iran from the British orbit. And yes, the Shah was
grateful to the Americans. What did you expect the young king to do? Ask Soviets to help?
Until the day that you have actually studied Iran's history during 1945-1952, kindly
resist the urge to throw around the "1953" propaganda.
You got it ProPeace. It actually goes further back to Cecil Rhodes plan to recover America,
the establishment of political Zionism in 1897 and its offspring Bolshevism 20 years later
getting America to develop a taste for imperialism with the Spanish American War that was
promoted by Hearst, then thevassassination of McKinley to get its puppet Teddy in office,
getting the US to adopt the BOE model with the Fed Reserve effectively allowing the money
masters in London to control money creation and finance future wars, and of course the
Balfour Declaration (an agreement reached long before it was declared) which allowed the
pro-German faction on Wall Street to support the war against Germany and get the US in the
war, and of course the income tax to insure the Fed would be able to collect on the debt
interest and then following WWII the CFR which was a creation of Rhodes Round Table to
recruit members to execute the Empire Building.
Today of course there are no borders for the wanna be global ruling masters. London, the
City, Wall Street, DC , Israel are all one and the same as are the BOE/Fed through BIS, the
various intelligence agencies and military through NATO.
The US top Presidents, Generals and Fed Reserve Chairmen get knighted by the Queen. The US
is a defacto commonwealth nation and perhaps Israels colony
One may consider the possibility that this was the plan all along and led the Founding
Fathers, a number of which were Masons and perhaps even Illuminati broke from England without
much resistance from the King. After all, why not allow them to break free to eliminate the
financial burden and recover them when they become profitable. They still needed to trade
with them after all and they had their agents inside the US which they could control. When
the US strayed a bit and refused to extend the ban charters they invaded as in 1812, or
resorted to asassination (Attempt on Jackson) , started a Civil War and then knocked off
Lincoln for printing Greenbacks. But it wasnt until the end of the 19th century with oil
replacing coal that America and the Middle East were deemed essential in order to maintain
and build their Empire because Britain had none of that Black Gold and was running short of
the yellow Gold, and the US had plenty of both and the ME plenty of the former
@ Pft, Propeace and nobody that are off topic but right on target for sharing their scenarios
about how the elite have controlled our world for centuries.
Thanks!
It is good to read others confirmation of my understanding about the sick tenets of our
form of social organization.....private money and ongoing private ownership of property
maintained by unfettered inheritance......It is not people that need to be eliminated but the
tools that they use to exert power and control over the rest of us.
@Pft | Jul 22, 2017 7:12:38 Right on, could not say it better myself.
Promoting the US colony to world imperial status after WW2 was a natural step in
maintaining global hegemony. Also the term "thalassocracy" comes to mind - you can observe
that the Thalassocracy, I still believe with the main HQ in City of London, has been
maintaining control of the global waterway choke points and thus control on global trade,
through supervising "percolating violence" status in those areas.
And as I said before - with exposing the US to blowbacks, anti-imperial activities, rage
of the oppressed peoples, London could stay in the shadows (much more comfortable situation),
working tirelessly behind the curtains to expand its empire. Of course organizing false flags
like in 2007, or recently in the last couple of years, is necessary to keep the British
population in check, scared, easier to control, confused, distracted from the real perps and
to implement gradually totalitarian measures.
Although I see some signals from the UK that some fractures are starting to appear and
some factions of the establishment begin to align themselves with the future winners.
The same with Israel...
I believe there is gonna be some huge global events at the end of Summer that will reshape
the geopolitical scene dramatically. The UK (the Russians have been testing their response
times quite regularly) and Israel seem to be easier to contain (the rest of the ME seems to
be in check now), but with the US and its massive network of sayanim, saboteurs, corrupted
officials, "manchurian candidates", secret societies, lodges, posh ranches (where truly
unspeakable things happen), Israeli trained law enforcement, and with absolutely stupid large
parts of the population, it will require some drastic measures.
Let's hope the "soft landing" of the US from its imperial status in the next couple of
months will be peaceful...
...Prior to WWII British Petroleum dominated the Iranian oil patch. Following the war
Britain dumped its puppet Shah in favor of his yet more pliable son Shah Reza Pahlevi,
whose Nazi sympathies were less overt. By 1943 the US had established a military command in
Iran and signed the Tehran Agreement, cutting the US half of the Four Horsemen a generous
slice of the Iranian oil pie.
Iran was coveted for its expansive reserves of crude and remains the most geopolitically
strategic Middle Eastern nation, bordering both the unprecedented Persian Gulf oilfields to
the south and the vast, largely untapped Caspian Sea crude reserves to the north.
After World War II the Iranian people became increasingly hostile towards Big Oil and
their puppet Shah. Anger was especially prevalent among oilfield workers of the Khuzistan
region who formed the main constituency of the Tudeh (Masses) Party. In 1951 Tudeh formed a
coalition with the National Front Party and elected Mohammed Mossadegh Prime Minister of
Iran. Mossadegh, who first campaigned against Soviet occupation of northern Iran, became a
vocal critic of Four Horsemen control over Iranian oil. He soon announced plans to
nationalize BP interests in Iran. BP responded by organizing an international boycott of
Iranian crude and called on two long-time associates for more drastic measures.
US Secretary of State John Foster Dulles and his brother, CIA Director Allen Dulles,
both worked for the Washington law firm Sullivan & Cromwell before joining the State
Department. The firm represented BP in the US. It had also served as legal counsel to J.
Henry Schroeder Bank, the Warburg family-controlled Hamburg bank that financed Adolph
Hitler's rise to power in Nazi Germany. Allen Dulles had been a lawyer for Nazi combine I.
G. Farben and headed the CIA-predecessor Office of Strategic Services (OSS) during WWII.
The Dulles brothers are cousins of the Rockefellers.
After WWII, Allen Dulles was OSS Station Chief in Berne, Switzerland, where he helped
Swiss Nazi Francois Genoud transfer Hitler and Goebel trusts into Swiss bank accounts. In
1952 Dulles founded Banque Commerciale Arabe in Lausanne, Switzerland. The bank represented
a pact between the CIA and the Muslim Brotherhood-Benoist-Mechin, which is comprised of
Saudi royal family members. Dulles was cutting a deal with Islamic fundamentalists.
Part of this Faustian bargain may have involved the House of Saud chieftains providing
information to US intelligence on how to create mind-controlled assassins. The Muslim
Brotherhood claims to have first perfected this technique during the 11th century Crusades
when it launched a brutal parallel secret society known as the Assassins, who employed
mind-controlled "lone gunmen" to carry out political assassinations of Muslim Saracen
nationalists. The Assassins worked in concert with Knights Templar Christian invaders in
their attacks on progressive Arabs, but were repelled...
After failed negotiation attempts in Tehran with the populist Mossadegh led by Averell
Harriman and Vernon Walters, the Dulles Brothers took charge of a joint CIA/MI6 smear
campaign painting the Iranian leader in the most brilliant colors of Red. When this
anticommunist rhetoric failed to convince the Iranian people to turn on their popular
leader, a military expedition was organized.
Financing for the CIA coup, code named Operation Ajax, came from Deak & Company,
founded by OSS operative Nicholas Deak. The company was the largest currency and gold
bullion trader in the US after WWII and financed CIA adventures in Vietnam and the Belgian
Congo through their Hong Kong gold monopoly.
Operation Ajax was led by H. Norman Schwartzkopf, father of the Gulf War General of same
name, and Kermit Roosevelt, grandson of President Teddy Roosevelt. A palace coup led by
Shah loyalist General Fazlollah Zahedi was organized in 1954. Mossadegh was deposed and the
Shah flew into Tehran from exile in Rome seated next to Allen Dulles. The Four Horsemen had
their puppet back in the National Palace. Kermit Roosevelt stayed in Tehran, his CIA Deputy
Director of Plans income soon augmented by a new job as salesman of military aircraft for
Northrop Corporation...
I also recommend reading John Perkins, aka "Economic Hitman", especially wrt to your
claims
"Do you recognize how condescending it is to assert that some wasp flunky with a bag full
of dollars can come and overthrow a leader..."
The above site will have your browser "warn" your about an insecure cert (since the link
is https). Use the cache version from google if you are concerned.
Full title of the document to read is: "The Imperial Bank of Iran" by Geoffrey Jones,
London School of Economics.
The foundation of the new Pahlavi dynasty by Reza Shah in the mid-1920s was followed by a
campaign to modernize Iran, and to challenge foreign business. A central bank -- Bank Melli
[means: National Bank] -- was founded in 1928. The Imperial Bank lost its role as state
bank, and in 1933 had to relinquish its note-issuing powers. In the 1930s exchange controls
and barter agreements destroyed the Bank's business in financing foreign trade. Foreign
exchange business became increasingly centralized on Tehran, leaving the Bank's extensive
provincial branch network to waste away. Opportunities to participate in Iranian
industrialization were spurned as the Bank went into a corporate sulk. In 1936 the 7 Board
members had an average age of 71, and an 83-year old Chairman who had become a director in
1913 after retiring from the Indian Civil Service.
The directors resembled a collection of Old Testament prophets: they certainly had no
sympathy for the NEW IRAN.
Oy vey.
During the time that the Britain and Russia had divided Iran into two zones of influence,
the only rail line permitted to be constructed in Iran was a short line from Tehran to a
nearby shrine.
As noted earlier, any effort at industrialization by the Pahlavi Kings, was consistently
viewed as a threat by the West. It was Reza Shah the Great that built the first Iranian
Railroad.
Do have a tiny bit of clue what a basket case of a country Iran was after the Qajars were
done with their disasterous rule over Iran?
Here is the April 1921 issue of National Geographic on Iran. Good luck getting either NG
or Google turning up this gem for you! National Geographic has even excised this issue from
their collection of issues on Iran. Thank God for the Internet.
That basket case of a "country" was what Reza Shah the Great inherited. By the time he was
exiled by the INVADERS of Iran, Iran had a functional central government, a National Bank not
run by the Empire, secure borders, a fledgeling Airforce, universities, Women's rights,
hospitals, schools, ..., and it goes on.
Do you now have a tiny clue as to what Reza Shah'e Kabir [means: Great] did for Iran and
why he was promptly exiled by the invaders of Iran?
And they also miscalculated about his son, our beloved Shanshah Aryamehr. But they do love
their Mullahs. Guess why.
So let me repeat:
We will write our history.
Not poorly informed useful idiots of
anti-Iranian Western propagandist.
(We learned that lesson from the Herodotus episode, you see.)
"... Notice how quiet Lindsay Graham has been the last couple of weeks. ..."
"... Don't forget that Diane Feinstein, McCain's Democrat doppleganger is retiring in 2018. Harry
Reid and Barbara Boxer are gone. The generation of U.S. legislators that brought us this madness are
being put out to pasture. Nancy Pelosi is in trouble as House Minority Leader. ..."
"... The fact is, that Senate rules as they stand with McCain, Graham, Corker and Rubio, require
a two-thirds majority (including filibuster-proofing) to get anything fundamentally changed. There's
still a lot of work to do, but the worst of the opposition to Trump and the people's desire to roll
back our insane foreign policy is behind us, not in front of us. ..."
"... Make no mistake, the neocons will attempt to regroup. Arizona Governor Don Ducey is now the
most important person in the U.S. as he will be the one to appoint McCain's replacement when that time
comes. They will drag this out for as long as possible, holding McCain's seat open to continue stalling
Trump's reform agenda. But both of these moves are rearguard actions rather than part of a counter-attack.
..."
"... like Old Shoe in the movie Wag the Dog, for one last kick at the anti-Russia can to enact legislation
there is no coming back from. The hagiography of McCain began the moment the information was released.
Everyone virtue-signaling their tails off to look sympathetic. But, the reality is most are scared of
what happens next. ..."
"... Once McCain is officially done, appointing people just as bad as McCain to his influential
seats on the Armed Forces and Foreign Relations Committee will become the U.S. Deep State's top priority.
The problem is, however, that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is now terminally wounded over
his mishandling of Obamacare. So, McConnell will have little control over the process. He's looking
back at what happened to John Boehner and seeing his future. McConnell tried to salvage his leadership
with an Obamacare full repeal vote that failed. The Blame in Ukraine Falls Mainly on McCain. But, for
right now, Trump has an opportunity to ignore the full-court Russia-gate press being put on by his opposition
to make substantive foreign policy moves that don't involve antagonizing Russia. He can start in Ukraine.
It's time for Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to open up talks with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei
Lavrov over Ukraine. Now that Zakharchenko in Donetsk has given everyone a way to implement a real solution
to McCain's mess without having to look like they backed down over Minsk II and easing Russian sanctions.
..."
"... Merkel can save face by throwing Poroshenko under the bus and admitting Malorussia is a viable
alternative to Minsk. Because with McCain gone, the EU now owns the mess in Ukraine because Trump is
not interested in funding it any further. ..."
With him gone the driving force is gone as well. Many who stood with McCain on these issues did
so because Washington is the ultimate 'go along to get along' kind of place. And few, if any, in
the Senate have his drive to continue the work. Notice how quiet Lindsay Graham has been the
last couple of weeks.
Many will see the writing on the wall and kiss the ring of President Trump to avoid a primary
challenge in the spring.
And some will see this as a great opportunity to retire now that the status quo has shifted.
Don't forget that Diane Feinstein, McCain's Democrat doppleganger is retiring in 2018. Harry
Reid and Barbara Boxer are gone. The generation of U.S. legislators that brought us this madness
are being put out to pasture. Nancy Pelosi is in trouble as House Minority Leader.
Do you really think many Democrats and RINOs have the will to fight now that their GOP Trojan
Horse is on chemo?
The fact is, that Senate rules as they stand with McCain, Graham, Corker and Rubio, require
a two-thirds majority (including filibuster-proofing) to get anything fundamentally changed. There's
still a lot of work to do, but the worst of the opposition to Trump and the people's desire to roll
back our insane foreign policy is behind us, not in front of us.
He's a McCainiac!
Make no mistake, the neocons will attempt to regroup. Arizona Governor Don Ducey is now the
most important person in the U.S. as he will be the one to appoint McCain's replacement when that
time comes. They will drag this out for as long as possible, holding McCain's seat open to continue
stalling Trump's reform agenda. But both of these moves are rearguard actions rather than part of
a counter-attack.
My biggest fear is that they drag him out, wheelchair-bound, like Old Shoe in the movie Wag
the Dog, for one last kick at the anti-Russia can to enact legislation there is no coming back from.
The hagiography of McCain began the moment the information was released. Everyone virtue-signaling
their tails off to look sympathetic. But, the reality is most are scared of what happens next.
Once McCain is officially done, appointing people just as bad as McCain to his influential seats
on the Armed Forces and Foreign Relations Committee will become the U.S. Deep State's top priority.
The problem is, however, that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is now terminally wounded
over his mishandling of Obamacare. So, McConnell will have little control over the process. He's
looking back at what happened to John Boehner and seeing his future. McConnell tried to salvage his
leadership with an Obamacare full repeal vote that failed.
The Blame in Ukraine Falls Mainly on McCain. But, for right now, Trump has an opportunity to ignore
the full-court Russia-gate press being put on by his opposition to make substantive foreign policy
moves that don't involve antagonizing Russia.
He can start in Ukraine. It's time for Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to open up talks with
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov over Ukraine. Now that Zakharchenko in Donetsk has given everyone
a way to implement a real solution to McCain's mess without having to look like they backed down
over Minsk II and easing Russian sanctions.
Merkel can save face by throwing Poroshenko under the bus and admitting Malorussia is a viable
alternative to Minsk. Because with McCain gone, the EU now owns the mess in Ukraine because Trump
is not interested in funding it any further.
And that is John McCain's biggest legacy, one where ideology was more important than discussion.
He stifled U.S. diplomacy to such a degree in recent years that it pushed us to the brink of war
with nuclear-armed superpowers.
"... While I respect the author for raising this topic, he seems to fall into "assessment of the Soviet Experiment" mode in a careless way. I realize I tend to repetition about this, but it is terribly misleading -- perhaps "disorienting" would be a better term -- to discuss theses questions without any reference to the tremendous impact external pressures -- call it "intersystemic conflict," "international conflict," whatever -- had on the course of the Soviet Union's development. While it could be argued that capitalist economies also faced external pressures, that would miss the question of how such pressures impact on a society in the process of formation ..."
"... Then, as far as the "collapse of the Soviet Union" goes, there's no mention about the choice ..."
"... What from the standpoint of the Times editorial board looks like a necessary start-over was in fact a sloppily-carried decision, or merely an unintended outcome, of a section of the elite seizing an opportunity to enrich themselves. ..."
"... It's obvious that people can enjoyably engage in cooperative behavior, but if they can do so under a barrage is another matter. The one thing that we can be certain of is that if capitalist elites aren't thoroughly demoralized they will do whatever they can to 'prove' TINA. ..."
"... West had spent several billion dollars in cash to bribe significant portions of the Soviet elite (Soros, via his foundation, was especially active). And large part of the elite war already poisoned by neoliberalism and wanted to become rich. So while pre-conditions for the collapse of the USSR were internal (communist ideology was actually discredited in early 70th; economic stagnation started around the same time, Communist Party leadership completely degraded and became a joke in 80th ), external pressures and subversive activity played the role of catalyst that made the process irreversible. ..."
While I respect the author for raising this topic, he seems to fall into "assessment of
the Soviet Experiment" mode in a careless way. I realize I tend to repetition about this, but
it is terribly misleading -- perhaps "disorienting" would be a better term -- to discuss theses
questions without any reference to the tremendous impact external pressures -- call it "intersystemic
conflict," "international conflict," whatever -- had on the course of the Soviet Union's development.
While it could be argued that capitalist economies also faced external pressures, that would miss
the question of how such pressures impact on a society in the process of formation .
We're talking about questions of constrained path dependence of a fundamental order that the experimentalist
mode of thinking misses. Etc, etc.
Then, as far as the "collapse of the Soviet Union" goes, there's no mention about the
choice by significant sections of the Soviet elite to engage in looting instead of developing
a transitional program that would protect viable sections of the Soviet economy under market socialism.
What from the standpoint of the Times editorial board looks like a necessary start-over
was in fact a sloppily-carried decision, or merely an unintended outcome, of a section of the
elite seizing an opportunity to enrich themselves.
While it is essential to try to determine the viability of alternative economic systems in
comparison what we've got now, doing so without taking into account the tremendously destructive
opposition a transition would face is, in a way, to blithely continue on in a "Soviet Experiment"
mentality.
It's obvious that people can enjoyably engage in cooperative behavior, but if they can
do so under a barrage is another matter. The one thing that we can be certain of is that if capitalist
elites aren't thoroughly demoralized they will do whatever they can to 'prove' TINA.
I was a little confused by this comment. I'm not opposed to looking at the impact
of external pressures, but I am opposed to treating them as monocausal.
Your preferred pattern of historical explanation shifts during the course of your comment.
When discussing the USSR in the process of formation, you concentrate on bringing out external
pressures and therefore considering the choices of the leadership as highly constrained. When
discussing the collapse of the Soviet Union, you instead stress the choices of the leadership
elite to "seize an opportunity to enrich themselves."
I'm not even sure why you would assume that your thesis about the elite choosing to engage
in looting is opposed to anything that I'm saying.
I agree with you on is that it is possible to think both about what a self-sustaining better
society might look like, and also the extent to which it's hard to get there within the constraints
of current power structures. They are not the same question, and I think both are worth pondering.
"Then, as far as the "collapse of the Soviet Union" goes, there's no mention about the choice
by significant sections of the Soviet elite to engage in looting instead of developing a transitional
program that would protect viable sections of the Soviet economy under market socialism.
What from the standpoint of the Times editorial board looks like a necessary start-over
was in fact a sloppily-carried decision, or merely an unintended outcome, of a section of the
elite seizing an opportunity to enrich themselves. "
West had spent several billion dollars in cash to bribe significant portions of the Soviet
elite (Soros, via his foundation, was especially active). And large part of the elite war already
poisoned by neoliberalism and wanted to become rich. So while pre-conditions for the collapse
of the USSR were internal (communist ideology was actually discredited in early 70th; economic
stagnation started around the same time, Communist Party leadership completely degraded and became
a joke in 80th ), external pressures and subversive activity played the role of catalyst that
made the process irreversible.
The fact that neoliberalism was rising at the time means that this was the worst possible time
for the USSR to implement drastic economic reforms and sure mediocre politicians like Gorbachev
quickly lost control of the process. With some important help of the West.
The subsequent economic rape of Russia was incredibly brutal and most probably well coordinated
by the famous three letter agencies: CIA (via USAID and "Harvard mafia") ) and MI6 and their German
and French counterparts. See
Brain drain, especially to the USA and Israel was simply incredible. Which, while good for
professionals leaving (although tales of Russian Ph.D swiping malls are not uncommon, especially
in Israel ) , who can earn much better money abroad, is actually another form of neocolonialism
for the countries affected:
It was a tragically missed opportunity to try genuine socialism. Instead of essentially selling
the state enterprises to the Mafia, they could have been GIVEN, probably broken up, to the workers
in them. It would have been instant worker-owned, market regulated – what? We don't have a familiar
name for it, but it might be what Marx meant by "socialism."
Ironically, the Bolsheviks first set up such co-operatives, called soviets, but soon seized
them in favor of state ownership. End of the socialist experiment. It's quite possible they were
far more Russian than Marxist.
The US economy hit a wall in the 70s. Instead of readjusting internally, it used its reserve
currency and global exploitation to gain an extra few decades of consumerism. If exploitation
is acceptable, then we could say that capitalism wins. However, capitalism will work until there
is nothing left to exploit.
In the meantime, the USSR was set up in a way where it could not follow
IMO, left leaning theoretical communism would have trouble surviving when in competition with
a system based on short-termism such as capitalism. This competition against short-termism would
force the communist country to turn into a form of fascism just to stop the opportunists which
happen to have the skills from defecting.
While in the Peace Corps serving in Africa (after 2010), I had a former military doctor (originally
from Moldavia) who I'd see due to ongoing health issues. He served in Angola as a doctor during
the civil wars and had pictures of the people he helped who were injured in the war. He was hands
down the most competent doctor I saw who was employed by the PC. This was by a wide margin of
competence too. I had not illusions about the Peace Corps and it purpose (to put the kind face
on US empire?). We'd talk quite a bit, and he was still bitter about the collapse of the Soviet
Union, and Gorbachev who he blamed for its demise, due to the lower standards of living and hardships
now faced by many in the Eastern bloc and in Russia itself. In all honesty, though I identify
with the far Left, this was new to me since I never realized that anyone would long for those
days since all I ever heard about as a youth (due to propaganda of course) was about long bread
lines and the gray world of the lives of those in the Soviet Union. Kukezel's comments above,
and other information I have gained over the time had somewhat expanded my ideas and understanding
regarding the system, as have my growing understanding of just how unjust our system in the US
is becoming more unjust year after year.
I am not knowledgeable enough, possibly not smart enough, to understand the finer points of
the discussion here concerning Marx, but I do think it possible for we as a species to create
better systems to organize our world other than one predicated on the profit motive. Besides being
unsustainable in a world of finite resources and the possibility that we humans will destroy the
possibility to exist, we need to creatively try new forms of organization. The problem with the
concentration of power of present day capitalism is that it seems so adaptable to new ways to
effectively change. I know some Marx but am limited, but he was very impressed with capitalism's
way to adapt to preserve itself.
Unfortunately, at times I become too cynical about the ability of the human species intellect
and abitlity to go beyond short-term solutions. We just may not be able to get past our limitations
as a creature. In short, I just don't know if we are smart enough to do what is best for survival.
Like my Peace Corps doctor, I too sometimes wax nostalgic for a past that will never return, back
to the sixties when it seemed the distribution of wealth was more egalitarian, unions brought
about some economic justice, and the concentration of power and wealth was not so dramatic as
it is today. I just never know if I was too blind, or deluded, at the time to see that maybe those
weren't actually better times in that the system itself was built upon the same exploitation has
existed in all of US history. So all this good discussion at times brings me back to the question–is
our historical evolution not far enough along a continuum for us to change before it is too late?
That's a bummer of a thought, I know, but the present political manifestations keep blunting any
optimism I still possess.
I too sometimes wax nostalgic for a past that will never return, back to the sixties when
it seemed the distribution of wealth was more egalitarian, unions brought about some economic
justice, and the concentration of power and wealth was not so dramatic as it is today.
That was "white priveledge" back then. It's passing is what led to Trump and the epidemic of
homelessness.
nobody 28
My image of Master-Blaster from Beyond Thunderdome has Israel in the Master position riding
the US as Blaster. (sometimes he lets others ride, too)
The entity began and remains a Rothschild project. They (R) are still upset about how the
Yank franchise scooped up their assets after WWII. Now that oceans no longer protect America
from adversaries they have their window of opportunity to take back control of the global
olive oil business.
AIPAC's control over US is a fairly recent phenomena and the result, as we can all see, is
the patently self-destructive path that they set the Superpower on in the past 20 years. This
was obvious even in 2002 that the actual goal was to take US off the pedestal and cut it down
to size. When the dust settles, US (well the poor under educated and over medicated and
propagandized Americans) will be holding a 20, 30?, Trillion dollar DEBT to the blood suckers
that run "global finance". And what we see now is that apparently (rather late in the game I
am afraid) some subset of the "elite" elements in Yankistan -- the OIL money families -- have
finally figured out just what sort of a mess they have gotten themselves into, having trusted
their dual-citizen ashke-Nazi "sages". That is why we see all these entirely bizzare
political fights break out between nominal allies, such as EU and US, Qatar and Saudi Arabia,
etc.
This is the reason. The rest is ladida to keep us plebes entertained.
"They (R) are still upset about how the Yank franchise scooped up their assets after
WWII."
Not true. The US was promoted after WW2 to the role of the clout, or the "muscle man" of
the global evil cabal of the Brutish Empire run by City of London Crown Corporation, whereas
the British Empire went off the radars under the guise of the "Commonwealth". It's just a
matter of efficiency of management of occupied territories, does not irritate or provoke the
local tribes in Europe, US, Canada, Australia, NZ... "Happy slaves" believing they are
free...
This is somewhat touched upon in the marvelous Ken Loach movie "The Wind That Shakes the
Barley" I mentioned before - one sober character reminds others that withdrawing British
troops ends official brutal occupation, but negotiated deal puts Ireland into tight
economical and political dependence on the Crown.
Besides how do you fight enemy that "does not exist" ? ;-)
As I said times before:
"The greatest trick The British Empire ever pulled was convincing the world it ceased to
exist. That's been its power"
Promoting the US as the official "global empire" and going underground, in the shadows,
were one of the main goals of the AngloZio cabal in their plans to start WW2. Other being
establishing the state of Israel in Palestine with the help of Nazi terror, and destroying
German ambitions to challenge UK's global hegemony by pushing it into the Nazi crazed
"bubble", aka "pump and dump", or "boom and bust" scheme. Hitler acted in the best interests
of the British imperial elite (fuck the commoners, they never really mattered). He would've
never attacked Poland without being sure that the British would give him free hand to do it.
He sought alliance with the British - Hitler writes about in "Mein Kampf", you can check it
by yourself. After baiting Germans into Hitler's trap, the City of London performed a
"switch", (arrested Rudolf Hess who landed in Britain for further instructions) and
confronted Germany allied with the US and Russia to achieve what one of the first of British
NATO chiefs (Hastings Ismay) admitted:
"To keep the Americans in, the Russians out, and the Germans down."
That plan has been hugely successful until 2012 when Obama showed, by refusing to forfeit
the run for the 2nd term, which camp he's been in. "The pump and dump" scheme allowed amazing
acceleration of the technological progress on the world wide scale, with enormous resources
assigned for some crucial projects, impossible under peaceful circumstances. Of course later
"scooped" by the AngloZios:
Theft of German Scientific Research Fueled Post-War Technology Boom
By Daniel W. Michaels:
"TO THE VICTORS BELONG THE SPOILS" is an American saying (attributed to Andrew Jackson)
and, regrettably, an occasional American practice as it was in the case of "the Great
Patent Heist of 1946." It was made official policy in World War II by President Harry
Truman's Executive Order 9604, also known as the "License to Steal," which permitted agents
of the U.S. government to execute the greatest robbery in world history: the theft of
German intellectual (scientific) property. What technology the Americans and Soviets stole
has, in fact, fueled some of the greatest scientific advances of the modern era.
Not true. The US was promoted after WW2 to the role of the clout, or the "muscle man" of the
global evil cabal of the Brutish Empire run by City of London Crown Corporation, whereas the
British Empire went off the radars under the guise of the "Commonwealth".
"On 15 August 1971, the United States unilaterally terminated convertibility of the US
dollar to gold, effectively bringing the Bretton Woods system to an end and rendering the
dollar a fiat currency.[3] This action, referred to as the Nixon shock, created the situation
in which the US dollar became a reserve currency used by many states. At the same time, many
fixed currencies (such as the pound sterling, for example) also became free-floating."
Richard Nixon's genius (along with his _Rockefeller_ advisor, Henry Kissinger) devisied
the three pronged platform for US supramacy in the early 70s. The termination of Bretton
Woods by United States, in conjunction with the creation of the Petrodollar mechanism, and
the integration of Communist China into the West's establishment, was a master stroke of
genius by Nixon that rendered null and void the historic blunder of that fool Wilson that
made Americans debt slaves to the Barter Town of London.
The result was that United States of America was free to accumulate effectively free debt
instruments backed by US Navy and Oil. And there was nothing the Brits could do about it. Of
course the Brits had already shown themselves ready to help the Soviets in confict with Uncle
Sam, as perfectly illustrated in the episode of England giving Soviet Union a working
RollsRoyce jet engine. A piece of technology the Russians could not master.
So having taken care of the monatary and enegry aspects, Nixon faced the possibility of
future monkey wrenches thrown in America's imperial ambitions by the Brits via the Soviet
Union. So he turned to China, made kissy face with the Chairman, and set into motion the
historic agreement to realign CCP with United States as a bulwark against the Soviets. That
was brilliant.
That is why poor "tricky dick" became a target of a coup by the British aligned fraternal
"agency" of skull and bones and misguided elements of Naval Intelligence.
--
Today, the AIPAC directed United States has systematically pursued a course to dismantle
the historic strategic achievements of Richard Nixon.
Petrodollar is about to become history (and thus the debt becomes a real generational
liability) and CCP has been thoroughly provoked and has been driven into the arms of their
historic adversary Russia.
And in a way that no doubt is very pleasing to the Barter Town monsters, this time it will
be the other players across the pond that will "scoop" and take over the global mechanisms
(IMF, WorldBank, UN) that US had created to manage its empire.
All what you wrote about has been devised for the US by the masters in City of London, who
control e.g. the FED, thus the Petrodollar (Saudi Barbaria was set up with the British
intelligence help).
You can trace all leaders of the world terrorism to London, been there at least for soe
period of their terrorist quest (instructions, training, refuge).
I highly recommend reading Dean Henderson on the topic.
The US is known for supporting the Soviet Union, GE built power plants and lines (Lenin:
"Communism is Soviet power plus the electrification of the whole country"), Ford car
factories. I also recommend reading Anthony Sutton's
WALL
STREET AND THE BOLSHEVIK REVOLUTION
to see how the masters of puppets played both
sides.
Ideologies like Communism, Nazism, Zionism, and also religions as well as world conflicts,
societal rich vs poor, queer vs hetero, conservative vs liberal, traditional vs progressive,
) and political (2 party monopoly basically in all British colonies - US, Eastern Europe,
..., freemasonic black-white checkered motive comes to mind) division lines (implementing old
imperial "divide et impera" stratgy) are devised just as means to achieve far reaching goal
of total global control by the same degenerate "elite".
BTW CIA overthrew Mossadegh in Iran at the British request, and the butcher of Iraq gen.
Schwartzkopf was knighted for a reason... (Interesting to see who else received order of the
British Empire...) Recent news confirm that was actually Tony Bliar pushing Bush for the Iraq
war, not the other way round...
Poor Lawrence got buggered by a Turk in service of King and country to setup the tribal
leaders from Najd as kings in Arabia and then it was FDR who hosted Abdul Aziz ibn Saud on US
Navy ships floating on the "Great Bitter Lake" (get it?):
"You can trace all leaders of the world terrorism to London, been there at least for soe
period of their terrorist quest (instructions, training, refuge)."
That's their specialty. How does that contradict the narrative that Richard Nixon as
servent of Rockefellers engineered the take over of Barter Town from below using energy as
weapon to let the financiers know who is the New Boss?
"BTW CIA overthrew Mossadegh in Iran at the British request"
CIA did not overthrow Dr. Mossadegh. CIA participated in the counter coup against him. Do
you recognize how condescending it is to assert that some wasp flunky with a bag full of
dollars can come and overthrow a leader that according to his own "democratic" referandum had
obtained "99%" of the Iranians' vote?
Dr. Mossadegh himself, due to his erratic behaviour, assumption of dictatorial power,
violation of Iran's constitution, and the growing fear of the clerics of a Tudeh take over,
managed to alienate a large segment of his own constituency, and the Americans decided to
take the British advice and support those factions that were against him. And the result for
Britain was that US managed to peel Iran from the British orbit. And yes, the Shah was
grateful to the Americans. What did you expect the young king to do? Ask Soviets to help?
Until the day that you have actually studied Iran's history during 1945-1952, kindly
resist the urge to throw around the "1953" propaganda.
You got it ProPeace. It actually goes further back to Cecil Rhodes plan to recover America,
the establishment of political Zionism in 1897 and its offspring Bolshevism 20 years later
getting America to develop a taste for imperialism with the Spanish American War that was
promoted by Hearst, then thevassassination of McKinley to get its puppet Teddy in office,
getting the US to adopt the BOE model with the Fed Reserve effectively allowing the money
masters in London to control money creation and finance future wars, and of course the
Balfour Declaration (an agreement reached long before it was declared) which allowed the
pro-German faction on Wall Street to support the war against Germany and get the US in the
war, and of course the income tax to insure the Fed would be able to collect on the debt
interest and then following WWII the CFR which was a creation of Rhodes Round Table to
recruit members to execute the Empire Building.
Today of course there are no borders for the wanna be global ruling masters. London, the
City, Wall Street, DC , Israel are all one and the same as are the BOE/Fed through BIS, the
various intelligence agencies and military through NATO.
The US top Presidents, Generals and Fed Reserve Chairmen get knighted by the Queen. The US
is a defacto commonwealth nation and perhaps Israels colony
One may consider the possibility that this was the plan all along and led the Founding
Fathers, a number of which were Masons and perhaps even Illuminati broke from England without
much resistance from the King. After all, why not allow them to break free to eliminate the
financial burden and recover them when they become profitable. They still needed to trade
with them after all and they had their agents inside the US which they could control. When
the US strayed a bit and refused to extend the ban charters they invaded as in 1812, or
resorted to asassination (Attempt on Jackson) , started a Civil War and then knocked off
Lincoln for printing Greenbacks. But it wasnt until the end of the 19th century with oil
replacing coal that America and the Middle East were deemed essential in order to maintain
and build their Empire because Britain had none of that Black Gold and was running short of
the yellow Gold, and the US had plenty of both and the ME plenty of the former
@ Pft, Propeace and nobody that are off topic but right on target for sharing their scenarios
about how the elite have controlled our world for centuries.
Thanks!
It is good to read others confirmation of my understanding about the sick tenets of our
form of social organization.....private money and ongoing private ownership of property
maintained by unfettered inheritance......It is not people that need to be eliminated but the
tools that they use to exert power and control over the rest of us.
@Pft | Jul 22, 2017 7:12:38 Right on, could not say it better myself.
Promoting the US colony to world imperial status after WW2 was a natural step in
maintaining global hegemony. Also the term "thalassocracy" comes to mind - you can observe
that the Thalassocracy, I still believe with the main HQ in City of London, has been
maintaining control of the global waterway choke points and thus control on global trade,
through supervising "percolating violence" status in those areas.
And as I said before - with exposing the US to blowbacks, anti-imperial activities, rage
of the oppressed peoples, London could stay in the shadows (much more comfortable situation),
working tirelessly behind the curtains to expand its empire. Of course organizing false flags
like in 2007, or recently in the last couple of years, is necessary to keep the British
population in check, scared, easier to control, confused, distracted from the real perps and
to implement gradually totalitarian measures.
Although I see some signals from the UK that some fractures are starting to appear and
some factions of the establishment begin to align themselves with the future winners.
The same with Israel...
I believe there is gonna be some huge global events at the end of Summer that will reshape
the geopolitical scene dramatically. The UK (the Russians have been testing their response
times quite regularly) and Israel seem to be easier to contain (the rest of the ME seems to
be in check now), but with the US and its massive network of sayanim, saboteurs, corrupted
officials, "manchurian candidates", secret societies, lodges, posh ranches (where truly
unspeakable things happen), Israeli trained law enforcement, and with absolutely stupid large
parts of the population, it will require some drastic measures.
Let's hope the "soft landing" of the US from its imperial status in the next couple of
months will be peaceful...
...Prior to WWII British Petroleum dominated the Iranian oil patch. Following the war
Britain dumped its puppet Shah in favor of his yet more pliable son Shah Reza Pahlevi,
whose Nazi sympathies were less overt. By 1943 the US had established a military command in
Iran and signed the Tehran Agreement, cutting the US half of the Four Horsemen a generous
slice of the Iranian oil pie.
Iran was coveted for its expansive reserves of crude and remains the most geopolitically
strategic Middle Eastern nation, bordering both the unprecedented Persian Gulf oilfields to
the south and the vast, largely untapped Caspian Sea crude reserves to the north.
After World War II the Iranian people became increasingly hostile towards Big Oil and
their puppet Shah. Anger was especially prevalent among oilfield workers of the Khuzistan
region who formed the main constituency of the Tudeh (Masses) Party. In 1951 Tudeh formed a
coalition with the National Front Party and elected Mohammed Mossadegh Prime Minister of
Iran. Mossadegh, who first campaigned against Soviet occupation of northern Iran, became a
vocal critic of Four Horsemen control over Iranian oil. He soon announced plans to
nationalize BP interests in Iran. BP responded by organizing an international boycott of
Iranian crude and called on two long-time associates for more drastic measures.
US Secretary of State John Foster Dulles and his brother, CIA Director Allen Dulles,
both worked for the Washington law firm Sullivan & Cromwell before joining the State
Department. The firm represented BP in the US. It had also served as legal counsel to J.
Henry Schroeder Bank, the Warburg family-controlled Hamburg bank that financed Adolph
Hitler's rise to power in Nazi Germany. Allen Dulles had been a lawyer for Nazi combine I.
G. Farben and headed the CIA-predecessor Office of Strategic Services (OSS) during WWII.
The Dulles brothers are cousins of the Rockefellers.
After WWII, Allen Dulles was OSS Station Chief in Berne, Switzerland, where he helped
Swiss Nazi Francois Genoud transfer Hitler and Goebel trusts into Swiss bank accounts. In
1952 Dulles founded Banque Commerciale Arabe in Lausanne, Switzerland. The bank represented
a pact between the CIA and the Muslim Brotherhood-Benoist-Mechin, which is comprised of
Saudi royal family members. Dulles was cutting a deal with Islamic fundamentalists.
Part of this Faustian bargain may have involved the House of Saud chieftains providing
information to US intelligence on how to create mind-controlled assassins. The Muslim
Brotherhood claims to have first perfected this technique during the 11th century Crusades
when it launched a brutal parallel secret society known as the Assassins, who employed
mind-controlled "lone gunmen" to carry out political assassinations of Muslim Saracen
nationalists. The Assassins worked in concert with Knights Templar Christian invaders in
their attacks on progressive Arabs, but were repelled...
After failed negotiation attempts in Tehran with the populist Mossadegh led by Averell
Harriman and Vernon Walters, the Dulles Brothers took charge of a joint CIA/MI6 smear
campaign painting the Iranian leader in the most brilliant colors of Red. When this
anticommunist rhetoric failed to convince the Iranian people to turn on their popular
leader, a military expedition was organized.
Financing for the CIA coup, code named Operation Ajax, came from Deak & Company,
founded by OSS operative Nicholas Deak. The company was the largest currency and gold
bullion trader in the US after WWII and financed CIA adventures in Vietnam and the Belgian
Congo through their Hong Kong gold monopoly.
Operation Ajax was led by H. Norman Schwartzkopf, father of the Gulf War General of same
name, and Kermit Roosevelt, grandson of President Teddy Roosevelt. A palace coup led by
Shah loyalist General Fazlollah Zahedi was organized in 1954. Mossadegh was deposed and the
Shah flew into Tehran from exile in Rome seated next to Allen Dulles. The Four Horsemen had
their puppet back in the National Palace. Kermit Roosevelt stayed in Tehran, his CIA Deputy
Director of Plans income soon augmented by a new job as salesman of military aircraft for
Northrop Corporation...
I also recommend reading John Perkins, aka "Economic Hitman", especially wrt to your
claims
"Do you recognize how condescending it is to assert that some wasp flunky with a bag full
of dollars can come and overthrow a leader..."
The above site will have your browser "warn" your about an insecure cert (since the link
is https). Use the cache version from google if you are concerned.
Full title of the document to read is: "The Imperial Bank of Iran" by Geoffrey Jones,
London School of Economics.
The foundation of the new Pahlavi dynasty by Reza Shah in the mid-1920s was followed by a
campaign to modernize Iran, and to challenge foreign business. A central bank -- Bank Melli
[means: National Bank] -- was founded in 1928. The Imperial Bank lost its role as state
bank, and in 1933 had to relinquish its note-issuing powers. In the 1930s exchange controls
and barter agreements destroyed the Bank's business in financing foreign trade. Foreign
exchange business became increasingly centralized on Tehran, leaving the Bank's extensive
provincial branch network to waste away. Opportunities to participate in Iranian
industrialization were spurned as the Bank went into a corporate sulk. In 1936 the 7 Board
members had an average age of 71, and an 83-year old Chairman who had become a director in
1913 after retiring from the Indian Civil Service.
The directors resembled a collection of Old Testament prophets: they certainly had no
sympathy for the NEW IRAN.
Oy vey.
During the time that the Britain and Russia had divided Iran into two zones of influence,
the only rail line permitted to be constructed in Iran was a short line from Tehran to a
nearby shrine.
As noted earlier, any effort at industrialization by the Pahlavi Kings, was consistently
viewed as a threat by the West. It was Reza Shah the Great that built the first Iranian
Railroad.
Do have a tiny bit of clue what a basket case of a country Iran was after the Qajars were
done with their disasterous rule over Iran?
Here is the April 1921 issue of National Geographic on Iran. Good luck getting either NG
or Google turning up this gem for you! National Geographic has even excised this issue from
their collection of issues on Iran. Thank God for the Internet.
That basket case of a "country" was what Reza Shah the Great inherited. By the time he was
exiled by the INVADERS of Iran, Iran had a functional central government, a National Bank not
run by the Empire, secure borders, a fledgeling Airforce, universities, Women's rights,
hospitals, schools, ..., and it goes on.
Do you now have a tiny clue as to what Reza Shah'e Kabir [means: Great] did for Iran and
why he was promptly exiled by the invaders of Iran?
And they also miscalculated about his son, our beloved Shanshah Aryamehr. But they do love
their Mullahs. Guess why.
So let me repeat:
We will write our history.
Not poorly informed useful idiots of
anti-Iranian Western propagandist.
(We learned that lesson from the Herodotus episode, you see.)
"... Notice how quiet Lindsay Graham has been the last couple of weeks. ..."
"... Don't forget that Diane Feinstein, McCain's Democrat doppleganger is retiring in 2018. Harry
Reid and Barbara Boxer are gone. The generation of U.S. legislators that brought us this madness are
being put out to pasture. Nancy Pelosi is in trouble as House Minority Leader. ..."
"... The fact is, that Senate rules as they stand with McCain, Graham, Corker and Rubio, require
a two-thirds majority (including filibuster-proofing) to get anything fundamentally changed. There's
still a lot of work to do, but the worst of the opposition to Trump and the people's desire to roll
back our insane foreign policy is behind us, not in front of us. ..."
"... Make no mistake, the neocons will attempt to regroup. Arizona Governor Don Ducey is now the
most important person in the U.S. as he will be the one to appoint McCain's replacement when that time
comes. They will drag this out for as long as possible, holding McCain's seat open to continue stalling
Trump's reform agenda. But both of these moves are rearguard actions rather than part of a counter-attack.
..."
"... like Old Shoe in the movie Wag the Dog, for one last kick at the anti-Russia can to enact legislation
there is no coming back from. The hagiography of McCain began the moment the information was released.
Everyone virtue-signaling their tails off to look sympathetic. But, the reality is most are scared of
what happens next. ..."
"... Once McCain is officially done, appointing people just as bad as McCain to his influential
seats on the Armed Forces and Foreign Relations Committee will become the U.S. Deep State's top priority.
The problem is, however, that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is now terminally wounded over
his mishandling of Obamacare. So, McConnell will have little control over the process. He's looking
back at what happened to John Boehner and seeing his future. McConnell tried to salvage his leadership
with an Obamacare full repeal vote that failed. The Blame in Ukraine Falls Mainly on McCain. But, for
right now, Trump has an opportunity to ignore the full-court Russia-gate press being put on by his opposition
to make substantive foreign policy moves that don't involve antagonizing Russia. He can start in Ukraine.
It's time for Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to open up talks with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei
Lavrov over Ukraine. Now that Zakharchenko in Donetsk has given everyone a way to implement a real solution
to McCain's mess without having to look like they backed down over Minsk II and easing Russian sanctions.
..."
"... Merkel can save face by throwing Poroshenko under the bus and admitting Malorussia is a viable
alternative to Minsk. Because with McCain gone, the EU now owns the mess in Ukraine because Trump is
not interested in funding it any further. ..."
With him gone the driving force is gone as well. Many who stood with McCain on these issues did
so because Washington is the ultimate 'go along to get along' kind of place. And few, if any, in
the Senate have his drive to continue the work. Notice how quiet Lindsay Graham has been the
last couple of weeks.
Many will see the writing on the wall and kiss the ring of President Trump to avoid a primary
challenge in the spring.
And some will see this as a great opportunity to retire now that the status quo has shifted.
Don't forget that Diane Feinstein, McCain's Democrat doppleganger is retiring in 2018. Harry
Reid and Barbara Boxer are gone. The generation of U.S. legislators that brought us this madness
are being put out to pasture. Nancy Pelosi is in trouble as House Minority Leader.
Do you really think many Democrats and RINOs have the will to fight now that their GOP Trojan
Horse is on chemo?
The fact is, that Senate rules as they stand with McCain, Graham, Corker and Rubio, require
a two-thirds majority (including filibuster-proofing) to get anything fundamentally changed. There's
still a lot of work to do, but the worst of the opposition to Trump and the people's desire to roll
back our insane foreign policy is behind us, not in front of us.
He's a McCainiac!
Make no mistake, the neocons will attempt to regroup. Arizona Governor Don Ducey is now the
most important person in the U.S. as he will be the one to appoint McCain's replacement when that
time comes. They will drag this out for as long as possible, holding McCain's seat open to continue
stalling Trump's reform agenda. But both of these moves are rearguard actions rather than part of
a counter-attack.
My biggest fear is that they drag him out, wheelchair-bound, like Old Shoe in the movie Wag
the Dog, for one last kick at the anti-Russia can to enact legislation there is no coming back from.
The hagiography of McCain began the moment the information was released. Everyone virtue-signaling
their tails off to look sympathetic. But, the reality is most are scared of what happens next.
Once McCain is officially done, appointing people just as bad as McCain to his influential seats
on the Armed Forces and Foreign Relations Committee will become the U.S. Deep State's top priority.
The problem is, however, that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is now terminally wounded
over his mishandling of Obamacare. So, McConnell will have little control over the process. He's
looking back at what happened to John Boehner and seeing his future. McConnell tried to salvage his
leadership with an Obamacare full repeal vote that failed.
The Blame in Ukraine Falls Mainly on McCain. But, for right now, Trump has an opportunity to ignore
the full-court Russia-gate press being put on by his opposition to make substantive foreign policy
moves that don't involve antagonizing Russia.
He can start in Ukraine. It's time for Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to open up talks with
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov over Ukraine. Now that Zakharchenko in Donetsk has given everyone
a way to implement a real solution to McCain's mess without having to look like they backed down
over Minsk II and easing Russian sanctions.
Merkel can save face by throwing Poroshenko under the bus and admitting Malorussia is a viable
alternative to Minsk. Because with McCain gone, the EU now owns the mess in Ukraine because Trump
is not interested in funding it any further.
And that is John McCain's biggest legacy, one where ideology was more important than discussion.
He stifled U.S. diplomacy to such a degree in recent years that it pushed us to the brink of war
with nuclear-armed superpowers.
Just released and there is nothing else like it - Truth of Ukraine War Revealed: Watchdog
Media Releases Definitive Chronological Timeline Video of Ukrainian War From Euromaidan to
MH-17
@Mr.
Hack
Why are you going on a childish offensive by defending the US-installed junta in
Kiev and demanding others to provide you with evidence that the neo-nazis and Banderites have
nothing to do with Yatz and Poroshenko and Nuland-Kagan?
Google "neo-Nazi parades in Ukraine" and enjoy the show. If you still have doubts about the
direct responsibility of Poroschenko for the neo-Nazi presence in the government of Ukraine,
read about Pravyj sector and its role in the Maidan revolution. Also, Proschenko had been in
contact with the State Dept for years before the Maidan revolution. Your take on this?
The main point is the US-orchestrated regime change in Kiev. Or you want to convince the UNZ
reader that Nuland was a virtual reality and nothing has changed in Ukraine since Mrs.
Nuland-Kagan' and Mr. Brennan's visit to Kiev?
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-04-14/white-house-admits-cia-director-brennan-was-secretly-kiev?page=7
Do you realize that the US has brought a range of US officials to Kiev – including the
Director of the CIA – to "improve" a democratic process there by removing a lawfully
elected and acting president?
Yes, the US intervention has brought neo-Nazis and Banderites to the positions of influence
in Ukraine. What could be more natural than a combination of the name "Kagan" and the word
"neo-Nazis?"
https://consortiumnews.com/2015/03/20/a-family-business-of-perpetual-war/
" they served up a lot more than just milk and cookies"
It was Nuland-Kagan who brought the treats to Kiev. It was the (former) Director of CIA
Brennan who came to Kiev (supposedly in secret) on the eve of the Kiev' military actions
against the civilian population of the pro-federalist east Ukraine. And you want to convince
the UNZ readers that the Maidan was organized by Russians? What is the name of your new Prime
Minister? – Mr. Groysman? "Groysman was born in Vinnytsia into a Jewish family " How
come that the predominantly anti-semitic Ukraine has elected this nonety with the proper
ethnic background? – Sure you know how to explain that this is also the Russians'
fault. How about the US-enforced appointment of Misha Saakashvilli to the governorship of
Ukraine's Odessa? – Kremlin's affair? Ukraine has lost its independence with the regime
change in 2014.
"From what I've read " – You mean the presstituting MSM? None of the respectable
sources, from consortium.com to Sic Semper Tyrannus (
http://turcopolier.typepad.com
) have ever suggested
that the coup d'etat involved – in any capacity – Russian government. Keep in
mind that the above-mentioned sources present the analyses of the principled and patriotic
Americans who dedicated their lives to the US nationals security. For obvious reasons, they
are hated by ziocons.
An extraordinary new Pentagon study has
concluded that the U.S.-backed international order established after World War 2 is "fraying"
and may even be "collapsing", leading the United States to lose its position of "primacy" in
world affairs.
The solution proposed to protect U.S. power in this new "post-primacy" environment is,
however, more of the same: more surveillance, more propaganda ("strategic manipulation of
perceptions") and more military expansionism.
The document concludes that the world has entered a fundamentally new phase of
transformation in which U.S. power is in decline, international order is unravelling, and the
authority of governments everywhere is crumbling.
Having lost its past status of "pre-eminence", the U.S. now inhabits a dangerous,
unpredictable "post-primacy" world, whose defining feature is "resistance to authority".
Danger comes not just from great power rivals like Russia and China, both portrayed as
rapidly growing threats to American interests, but also from the increasing risk of "Arab
Spring"-style events. These will erupt not just in the Middle East, but all over the world,
potentially undermining trust in incumbent governments for the foreseeable future.
The report, based on a year-long intensive research process involving consultation with key
agencies across the Department of Defense and U.S. Army, calls for the U.S. government to
invest in more surveillance, better propaganda through "strategic manipulation" of public
opinion, and a "wider and more flexible" U.S. military.
The report was published in June by the U.S. Army War College's Strategic Studies Institute
to evaluate the DoD's approach to risk assessment at all levels of Pentagon policy planning.
The study was supported and sponsored by the U.S. Army's Strategic Plans and Policy
Directorate; the Joint Staff, J5 (Strategy and Policy Branch); the Office of the Deputy
Secretary of Defense for Strategy and Force Development; and the Army Study Program
Management Office.
Collapse
"While the United States remains a global political, economic, and military giant, it no
longer enjoys an unassailable position versus state competitors," the report laments.
"In brief, the status quo that was hatched and nurtured by U.S. strategists after World
War II and has for decades been the principal 'beat' for DoD is not merely fraying but may,
in fact, be collapsing."
The study describes the essentially imperial nature of this order as being underpinned by
American dominance, with the U.S. and its allies literally "dictating" its terms to further
their own interests:
"The order and its constituent parts, first emerged from World War II, were transformed to a
unipolar system with the collapse of the Soviet Union, and have by-and-large been
dominated by the United States and its major Western and Asian allies since. Status quo
forces collectively are comfortable with their dominant role in dictating the terms of
international security outcomes and resist the emergence of rival centers of power and
authority."
But this era when the U.S. and its allies could simply get their way is over. Observing that
U.S. officials "naturally feel an obligation to preserve the U.S. global position within a
favorable international order," the report concludes that this "rules-based global order that
the United States built and sustained for 7 decades is under enormous stress."
The report provides a detailed breakdown of how the DoD perceives this order to be rapidly
unravelling, with the Pentagon being increasingly outpaced by world events. Warning that
"global events will happen faster than DoD is currently equipped to handle", the study
concludes that the U.S. "can no longer count on the unassailable position of dominance,
supremacy, or pre-eminence it enjoyed for the 20-plus years after the fall of the Soviet
Union."
So weakened is U.S. power, that it can no longer even "automatically generate consistent and
sustained local military superiority at range."
It's not just U.S. power that is in decline. The U.S. Army War College study concludes
that:
"[A]ll states and traditional political authority structures are under increasing pressure
from endogenous and exogenous forces The fracturing of the post-Cold War global system is
accompanied by the internal fraying in the political, social, and economic fabric of
practically all states."
But, the document says, this should not be seen as defeatism, but rather a "wakeup call". If
nothing is done to adapt to this "post-primacy" environment, the complexity and speed of world
events will "increasingly defy [DoD's] current strategy, planning, and risk assessment
conventions and biases."
Defending the "status quo"
Top on the list of forces that have knocked the U.S. off its position of global
"pre-eminence", says the report, are the role of competing powers -- major rivals
like Russia and China, as well as smaller players like Iran and North Korea.
The document is particularly candid in setting out why the U.S. sees these countries as
threats -- not so much because of tangible military or security issues, but mainly
because their pursuit of their own legitimate national interests is, in itself, seen as
undermining American dominance.
Russia and China are described as "revisionist forces" who benefit from the U.S.-dominated
international order, but who dare to "seek a new distribution of power and authority
commensurate with their emergence as legitimate rivals to U.S. dominance." Russia and China,
the analysts say, "are engaged in a deliberate program to demonstrate the limits of U.S.
authority, will, reach, influence, and impact."
The premise of this conclusion is that the U.S.-backed "status quo" international order is
fundamentally "favorable" for the interests of the U.S. and its allies. Any effort to make
global order also work "favorably" for anyone else is automatically seen as a threat to U.S.
power and interests.
Thus, Russia and China "seek to reorder their position in the existing status quo in ways
that -- at a minimum -- create more favorable circumstances for pursuit
of their core objectives." At first glance there seems nothing particularly wrong about this.
So the analysts emphasize that "a more maximalist perspective sees them pursuing advantage at
the direct expense of the United States and its principal Western and Asian allies."
Most conspicuous of all, there is little substantiation in the document of how Russia and
China pose a meaningful threat to American national security.
The chief challenge is that they "are bent on revising the contemporary status quo" through
the use of "gray zone" techniques, involving "means and methods falling far short of
unambiguous or open provocation and conflict".
Such "murkier, less obvious forms of state-based aggression", despite falling short of
actual violence, are condemned -- but then, losing any sense of moral high-ground,
the Pentagon study advocates that the U.S. itself should "go gray or go home" to ensure U.S.
influence.
The document also sets out the real reasons that the U.S. is hostile to "revolutionary
forces" like Iran and North Korea: they pose fundamental obstacles to U.S. imperial influence
in those regions. They are:
" neither the products of, nor are they satisfied with, the contemporary order At a minimum,
they intend to destroy the reach of the U.S.-led order into what they perceive to be their
legitimate sphere of influence. They are also resolved to replace that order locally with a
new rule set dictated by them."
Far from insisting, as the U.S. government does officially, that Iran and North Korea pose
as nuclear threats, the document instead insists they are considered problematic for the
expansion of the "U.S.-led order."
Losing the propaganda war
Amidst the challenge posed by these competing powers, the Pentagon study emphasizes the
threat from non-state forces undermining the "U.S.-led order" in different ways, primarily
through information.
The "hyper-connectivity and weaponization of information, disinformation, and
disaffection", the study team observes, is leading to the uncontrolled spread of
information. The upshot is that the Pentagon faces the "inevitable elimination of secrecy and
operational security".
"Wide uncontrolled access to technology that most now take for granted is rapidly undermining
prior advantages of discrete, secret, or covert intentions, actions, or operations In the
end, senior defense leaders should assume that all defense-related activity from minor
tactical movements to major military operations would occur completely in the open from this
point forward."
This information revolution, in turn, is leading to the "generalized disintegration of
traditional authority structures fueled, and/or accelerated by hyperconnectivity and the
obvious decay and potential failure of the post-Cold War status quo."
Civil unrest
Highlighting the threat posed by groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda, the study also points to
"leaderless instability (e.g., Arab Spring)" as a major driver of "a generalized erosion or
dissolution of traditional authority structures."
The document hints that such populist civil unrest is likely to become prominent in Western
homelands, including inside the United States.
"To date, U.S. strategists have been fixated on this trend in the greater Middle East.
However, the same forces at work there are similarly eroding the reach and authority of
governments worldwide it would be unwise not to recognize that they will mutate, metastasize,
and manifest differently over time."
The U.S. homeland is flagged-up as being especially vulnerable to the breakdown of
"traditional authority structures":
"The United States and its population are increasingly exposed to substantial harm and an
erosion of security from individuals and small groups of motivated actors, leveraging the
confluence of hyperconnectivity, fear, and increased vulnerability to sow disorder
and uncertainty. This intensely disorienting and dislocating form of resistance to
authority arrives via physical, virtual, and psychological violence and can create
effects that appear substantially out of proportion to the origin and physical size or scale
of the proximate hazard or threat."
There is little reflection, however, on the role of the US government itself in fomenting
such endemic distrust, through its own policies.
Bad facts
Among the most dangerous drivers of this risk of civil unrest and mass destabilization, the
document asserts, are different categories of fact. Apart from the obvious "fact-free", defined
as information that undermines "objective truth", the other categories include actual
truths that, however, are damaging to America's global reputation.
"Fact-inconvenient" information consists of the exposure of "details that, by implication,
undermine legitimate authority and erode the relationships between governments and the
governed" -- facts, for instance, that reveal how government policy is corrupt,
incompetent or undemocratic.
"Fact-perilous" information refers basically to national security leaks from whistleblowers
such as Edward Snowden or Chelsea Manning, "exposing highly classified, sensitive, or
proprietary information that can be used to accelerate a real loss of tactical, operational, or
strategic advantage."
"Fact-toxic" information pertains to actual truths which, the document complains, are
"exposed in the absence of context", and therefore poison "important political discourse." Such
information is seen as being most potent in triggering outbreaks of civil unrest, because
it:
" fatally weakens foundational security at an international, regional, national, or personal
level. Indeed , fact-toxic exposures are those likeliest to trigger viral or contagious
insecurity across or within borders and between or among peoples."
In short, the U.S. Army War College study team believe that the spread of 'facts'
challenging the legitimacy of American empire is a major driver of its decline: not the actual
behavior of the empire which such facts point to.
Mass surveillance and psychological
warfare
The Pentagon study therefore comes up with two solutions to the information threat.
The first is to make better use of U.S. mass surveillance capabilities, which are described
as "the largest and most sophisticated and integrated intelligence complex in world." The
U.S. can "generate insight faster and more reliably than its competitors can, if it chooses to
do so". Combined with its "military forward presence and power projection", the U.S. is in "an
enviable position of strength."
Supposedly, though, the problem is that the U.S. does not make full use of this potential
strength:
"That strength, however, is only as durable as the United States' willingness to see and
employ it to its advantage. To the extent that the United States and its defense enterprise
are seen to lead, others will follow "
The document also criticizes U.S. strategies for focusing too much on trying to defend
against foreign efforts to penetrate or disrupt U.S. intelligence, at the expense of "the
purposeful exploitation of the same architecture for the strategic manipulation of perceptions
and its attendant influence on political and security outcomes."
Pentagon officials need to simply accept, therefore, that:
" the U.S. homeland, individual American citizens, and U.S. public opinion and perceptions
will increasingly become battlefields."
Military supremacy
Having mourned the loss of U.S. primacy, the Pentagon report sees expanding the U.S.
military as the only option.
The bipartisan consensus on military supremacism, however, is not enough. The document
demands a military force so powerful it can preserve "maximum freedom of action", and allow the
U.S. to "dictate or hold significant sway over outcomes in international disputes."
One would be hard-pressed to find a clearer statement of imperial intent in any U.S. Army
document:
"While as a rule, U.S. leaders of both political parties have consistently committed to the
maintenance of U.S. military superiority over all potential state rivals, the post-primacy
reality demands a wider and more flexible military force that can generate advantage and
options across the broadest possible range of military demands. To U.S. political leadership,
maintenance of military advantage preserves maximum freedom of action Finally, it allows U.S.
decision-makers the opportunity to dictate or hold significant sway over outcomes in
international disputes in the shadow of significant U.S. military capability and the implied
promise of unacceptable consequences in the event that capability is unleashed."
Once again, military power is essentially depicted as a tool for the U.S. to force, threaten
and cajole other countries into submission to U.S. demands.
The very concept of 'defence' is thus re-framed as the capacity to use overwhelming military
might to get one's way -- anything which undermines this capacity ends up
automatically appearing as a threat that deserves to be attacked.
Empire of capital
Accordingly, a core goal of this military expansionism is ensuring that the United States
and its international partners have "unimpeded access to air, sea, space, cyberspace, and the
electromagnetic spectrum in order to underwrite their security and prosperity".
This also means that the U.S. must retain the ability to physically access any region it
wants, whenever it wants:
"Failure of or limitations on the ability of the United States to enter and operate within
key regions of the world, for example, undermine both U.S. and partner security."
The U.S. thus must try to minimize any "purposeful, malevolent, or incidental interruption
of access to the commons, as well as critical regions, resources, and markets."
Without ever referring directly to 'capitalism', the document eliminates any ambiguity about
how the Pentagon sees this new era of "Persistent Conflict 2.0":
" some are fighting globalization and globalization is also actively fighting back. Combined,
all of these forces are rending at the fabric of security and stable governance that all
states aspire to and rely on for survival."
This is a war, then, between US-led capitalist globalization, and anyone who resists it.
And to win it, the document puts forward a combination of strategies: consolidating the U.S.
intelligence complex and using it more ruthlessly; intensifying mass surveillance and
propaganda to manipulate popular opinion; expanding U.S. military clout to ensure access to
"strategic regions, markets, and resources".
Even so, the overarching goal is somewhat more modest -- to prevent the U.S.-led
order from collapsing further:
" . while the favorable U.S.-dominated status quo is under significant internal and external
pressure, adapted American power can help to forestall or even reverse outright failure in
the most critical regions".
The hope is that the U.S. will be able to fashion "a remodeled but nonetheless still
favorable post-primacy international order."
Narcissism
Like all U.S. Army War College publications, the document states that it does not
necessarily represent the official position of the U.S. Army or DoD. While this caveat means
that its findings cannot be taken to formally represent the U.S. government, the document does
also admit that it represents "the collective wisdom" of the numerous officials consulted.
In that sense, the document is a uniquely insightful window into the mind of the Pentagon,
and how embarrassingly limited its cognitive scope really is.
And this in turn reveals not only why the Pentagon's approach is bound to make things worse,
but also what an alternative more productive approach might look like.
Launched in June 2016 and completed in April 2017, the U.S. Army War College research
project involved extensive consultation with officials across the Pentagon, including
representatives of the joint and service staffs, the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD),
U.S. Central Command (USCENTCOM), U.S. Pacific Command (USPACOM), U.S. Northern Command
(USNORTHCOM), U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM); U.S. Forces, Japan (USFJ), the Defense
Intelligence Agency (DIA), the National Intelligence Council, U.S. Strategic Command
(USSTRATCOM), and U.S. Army Pacific [USARPAC] and Pacific Fleet [PACFLT]).
The study team also consulted with a handful of American think-tanks of a somewhat
neoconservative persuasion: the American Enterprise Institute, the Center for Strategic and
International Studies (CSIS), the RAND Corporation, and the Institute for the Study of War.
No wonder, then, that its findings are so myopic.
But what else would you expect from a research process so deeply narcissistic, that it
involves little more than talking to yourself? Is it any wonder that the solutions offered
represent an echo chamber calling to amplify precisely the same policies that have contributed
to the destabilization of U.S. power?
A large body of data demonstrates that the escalating risks to U.S. power have come not from
outside U.S. power, but from the very manner in which U.S. power has operated. The breakdown of
the U.S.-led international order, from this perspective, is happening as a direct consequence
of deep-seated flaws in the structure, values and vision of that order.
In this context, the study's conclusions are less a reflection of the actual state of the
world, than of the way the Pentagon sees itself and the world.
Indeed, most telling of all is the document's utter inability to recognize the role of the
Pentagon itself in systematically pursuing a wide range of policies over the last several
decades which have contributed directly to the very instability it now wants to defend
against.
The Pentagon frames itself as existing outside the Hobbesian turmoil that it conveniently
projects onto the world -- the result is a monumental and convenient rejection of
any sense of responsibility for what happens in the world.
In this sense, the document is a powerful illustration of the self-limiting failure of
conventional risk-assessment approaches. What is needed instead is a systems-oriented approach
based on evaluating not just the Pentagon's internal beliefs about the drivers of
risk -- but engaging with independent scientific evidence about those drivers to
test the extent to which those beliefs withstand rigorous scrutiny.
Such an approach could open the door to a very different scenario to the one recommended by
this document -- one based on a willingness to actually look in the mirror. And that
in turn might open up the opportunity for Pentagon officials to imagine alternative policies
with a real chance of actually working, rather than reinforcing the same stale failed
strategies of the past.
It is no surprise then that even the Pentagon's apparent conviction in the inexorable
decline of U.S. power could well be overblown.
According to Dr Sean Starrs of MIT's Center for International Studies, a true picture of
U.S. power cannot be determined solely from national accounts. We have to look at the accounts
of transnational corporations.
Starrs shows that American
transnational corporations are vastly more powerful than their competitors. His data suggests
that American economic supremacism remains at an all-time high, and still unchallenged even by
an economic powerhouse like China.
This does not necessarily discredit the Pentagon's emerging recognition that U.S. imperial
power faces a new era of decline and unprecedented volatility.
But it does suggest that the Pentagon's sense of U.S. global pre-eminence is very much bound
up with its capacity to project American capitalism globally.
As geopolitical rivals agitate against U.S. economic reach, and as new movements emerge
hoping to undermine American "unimpeded access" to global resources and markets, what's clear
is that DoD officials see anything which competes with or undermines American capitalism as a
clear and present danger.
But nothing put forward in this document will actually contribute to slowing the decline of
U.S. power.
On the contrary, the Pentagon study's recommendations call for an intensification of the
very imperial policies that futurist Professor Johan Galtung, who accurately forecasted the
demise of the USSR,
predicts will accelerate the "collapse of the U.S. empire" by around 2020.
As we move deeper into the "post-primacy" era, the more meaningful question for people,
governments, civil society and industry is this: as the empire falls, lashing out in its death
throes, what comes after?
This INSURGE story was enabled by crowdfunding: Please support independent journalism for
the global commons for as little as a $1/month via www.patreon.com/nafeez
Dr. Nafeez Ahmed is an award-winning 16-year investigative journalist and creator of INSURGE
intelligence, a crowdfunded public interest investigative journalism project. He is 'System
Shift' columnist at VICE's Motherboard.
Just released and there is nothing else like it - Truth of Ukraine War Revealed: Watchdog
Media Releases Definitive Chronological Timeline Video of Ukrainian War From Euromaidan to
MH-17
@Mr.
Hack
Why are you going on a childish offensive by defending the US-installed junta in
Kiev and demanding others to provide you with evidence that the neo-nazis and Banderites have
nothing to do with Yatz and Poroshenko and Nuland-Kagan?
Google "neo-Nazi parades in Ukraine" and enjoy the show. If you still have doubts about the
direct responsibility of Poroschenko for the neo-Nazi presence in the government of Ukraine,
read about Pravyj sector and its role in the Maidan revolution. Also, Proschenko had been in
contact with the State Dept for years before the Maidan revolution. Your take on this?
The main point is the US-orchestrated regime change in Kiev. Or you want to convince the UNZ
reader that Nuland was a virtual reality and nothing has changed in Ukraine since Mrs.
Nuland-Kagan' and Mr. Brennan's visit to Kiev?
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-04-14/white-house-admits-cia-director-brennan-was-secretly-kiev?page=7
Do you realize that the US has brought a range of US officials to Kiev – including the
Director of the CIA – to "improve" a democratic process there by removing a lawfully
elected and acting president?
Yes, the US intervention has brought neo-Nazis and Banderites to the positions of influence
in Ukraine. What could be more natural than a combination of the name "Kagan" and the word
"neo-Nazis?"
https://consortiumnews.com/2015/03/20/a-family-business-of-perpetual-war/
" they served up a lot more than just milk and cookies"
It was Nuland-Kagan who brought the treats to Kiev. It was the (former) Director of CIA
Brennan who came to Kiev (supposedly in secret) on the eve of the Kiev' military actions
against the civilian population of the pro-federalist east Ukraine. And you want to convince
the UNZ readers that the Maidan was organized by Russians? What is the name of your new Prime
Minister? – Mr. Groysman? "Groysman was born in Vinnytsia into a Jewish family " How
come that the predominantly anti-semitic Ukraine has elected this nonety with the proper
ethnic background? – Sure you know how to explain that this is also the Russians'
fault. How about the US-enforced appointment of Misha Saakashvilli to the governorship of
Ukraine's Odessa? – Kremlin's affair? Ukraine has lost its independence with the regime
change in 2014.
"From what I've read " – You mean the presstituting MSM? None of the respectable
sources, from consortium.com to Sic Semper Tyrannus (
http://turcopolier.typepad.com
) have ever suggested
that the coup d'etat involved – in any capacity – Russian government. Keep in
mind that the above-mentioned sources present the analyses of the principled and patriotic
Americans who dedicated their lives to the US nationals security. For obvious reasons, they
are hated by ziocons.
An extraordinary new Pentagon study has
concluded that the U.S.-backed international order established after World War 2 is "fraying"
and may even be "collapsing", leading the United States to lose its position of "primacy" in
world affairs.
The solution proposed to protect U.S. power in this new "post-primacy" environment is,
however, more of the same: more surveillance, more propaganda ("strategic manipulation of
perceptions") and more military expansionism.
The document concludes that the world has entered a fundamentally new phase of
transformation in which U.S. power is in decline, international order is unravelling, and the
authority of governments everywhere is crumbling.
Having lost its past status of "pre-eminence", the U.S. now inhabits a dangerous,
unpredictable "post-primacy" world, whose defining feature is "resistance to authority".
Danger comes not just from great power rivals like Russia and China, both portrayed as
rapidly growing threats to American interests, but also from the increasing risk of "Arab
Spring"-style events. These will erupt not just in the Middle East, but all over the world,
potentially undermining trust in incumbent governments for the foreseeable future.
The report, based on a year-long intensive research process involving consultation with key
agencies across the Department of Defense and U.S. Army, calls for the U.S. government to
invest in more surveillance, better propaganda through "strategic manipulation" of public
opinion, and a "wider and more flexible" U.S. military.
The report was published in June by the U.S. Army War College's Strategic Studies Institute
to evaluate the DoD's approach to risk assessment at all levels of Pentagon policy planning.
The study was supported and sponsored by the U.S. Army's Strategic Plans and Policy
Directorate; the Joint Staff, J5 (Strategy and Policy Branch); the Office of the Deputy
Secretary of Defense for Strategy and Force Development; and the Army Study Program
Management Office.
Collapse
"While the United States remains a global political, economic, and military giant, it no
longer enjoys an unassailable position versus state competitors," the report laments.
"In brief, the status quo that was hatched and nurtured by U.S. strategists after World
War II and has for decades been the principal 'beat' for DoD is not merely fraying but may,
in fact, be collapsing."
The study describes the essentially imperial nature of this order as being underpinned by
American dominance, with the U.S. and its allies literally "dictating" its terms to further
their own interests:
"The order and its constituent parts, first emerged from World War II, were transformed to a
unipolar system with the collapse of the Soviet Union, and have by-and-large been
dominated by the United States and its major Western and Asian allies since. Status quo
forces collectively are comfortable with their dominant role in dictating the terms of
international security outcomes and resist the emergence of rival centers of power and
authority."
But this era when the U.S. and its allies could simply get their way is over. Observing that
U.S. officials "naturally feel an obligation to preserve the U.S. global position within a
favorable international order," the report concludes that this "rules-based global order that
the United States built and sustained for 7 decades is under enormous stress."
The report provides a detailed breakdown of how the DoD perceives this order to be rapidly
unravelling, with the Pentagon being increasingly outpaced by world events. Warning that
"global events will happen faster than DoD is currently equipped to handle", the study
concludes that the U.S. "can no longer count on the unassailable position of dominance,
supremacy, or pre-eminence it enjoyed for the 20-plus years after the fall of the Soviet
Union."
So weakened is U.S. power, that it can no longer even "automatically generate consistent and
sustained local military superiority at range."
It's not just U.S. power that is in decline. The U.S. Army War College study concludes
that:
"[A]ll states and traditional political authority structures are under increasing pressure
from endogenous and exogenous forces The fracturing of the post-Cold War global system is
accompanied by the internal fraying in the political, social, and economic fabric of
practically all states."
But, the document says, this should not be seen as defeatism, but rather a "wakeup call". If
nothing is done to adapt to this "post-primacy" environment, the complexity and speed of world
events will "increasingly defy [DoD's] current strategy, planning, and risk assessment
conventions and biases."
Defending the "status quo"
Top on the list of forces that have knocked the U.S. off its position of global
"pre-eminence", says the report, are the role of competing powers -- major rivals
like Russia and China, as well as smaller players like Iran and North Korea.
The document is particularly candid in setting out why the U.S. sees these countries as
threats -- not so much because of tangible military or security issues, but mainly
because their pursuit of their own legitimate national interests is, in itself, seen as
undermining American dominance.
Russia and China are described as "revisionist forces" who benefit from the U.S.-dominated
international order, but who dare to "seek a new distribution of power and authority
commensurate with their emergence as legitimate rivals to U.S. dominance." Russia and China,
the analysts say, "are engaged in a deliberate program to demonstrate the limits of U.S.
authority, will, reach, influence, and impact."
The premise of this conclusion is that the U.S.-backed "status quo" international order is
fundamentally "favorable" for the interests of the U.S. and its allies. Any effort to make
global order also work "favorably" for anyone else is automatically seen as a threat to U.S.
power and interests.
Thus, Russia and China "seek to reorder their position in the existing status quo in ways
that -- at a minimum -- create more favorable circumstances for pursuit
of their core objectives." At first glance there seems nothing particularly wrong about this.
So the analysts emphasize that "a more maximalist perspective sees them pursuing advantage at
the direct expense of the United States and its principal Western and Asian allies."
Most conspicuous of all, there is little substantiation in the document of how Russia and
China pose a meaningful threat to American national security.
The chief challenge is that they "are bent on revising the contemporary status quo" through
the use of "gray zone" techniques, involving "means and methods falling far short of
unambiguous or open provocation and conflict".
Such "murkier, less obvious forms of state-based aggression", despite falling short of
actual violence, are condemned -- but then, losing any sense of moral high-ground,
the Pentagon study advocates that the U.S. itself should "go gray or go home" to ensure U.S.
influence.
The document also sets out the real reasons that the U.S. is hostile to "revolutionary
forces" like Iran and North Korea: they pose fundamental obstacles to U.S. imperial influence
in those regions. They are:
" neither the products of, nor are they satisfied with, the contemporary order At a minimum,
they intend to destroy the reach of the U.S.-led order into what they perceive to be their
legitimate sphere of influence. They are also resolved to replace that order locally with a
new rule set dictated by them."
Far from insisting, as the U.S. government does officially, that Iran and North Korea pose
as nuclear threats, the document instead insists they are considered problematic for the
expansion of the "U.S.-led order."
Losing the propaganda war
Amidst the challenge posed by these competing powers, the Pentagon study emphasizes the
threat from non-state forces undermining the "U.S.-led order" in different ways, primarily
through information.
The "hyper-connectivity and weaponization of information, disinformation, and
disaffection", the study team observes, is leading to the uncontrolled spread of
information. The upshot is that the Pentagon faces the "inevitable elimination of secrecy and
operational security".
"Wide uncontrolled access to technology that most now take for granted is rapidly undermining
prior advantages of discrete, secret, or covert intentions, actions, or operations In the
end, senior defense leaders should assume that all defense-related activity from minor
tactical movements to major military operations would occur completely in the open from this
point forward."
This information revolution, in turn, is leading to the "generalized disintegration of
traditional authority structures fueled, and/or accelerated by hyperconnectivity and the
obvious decay and potential failure of the post-Cold War status quo."
Civil unrest
Highlighting the threat posed by groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda, the study also points to
"leaderless instability (e.g., Arab Spring)" as a major driver of "a generalized erosion or
dissolution of traditional authority structures."
The document hints that such populist civil unrest is likely to become prominent in Western
homelands, including inside the United States.
"To date, U.S. strategists have been fixated on this trend in the greater Middle East.
However, the same forces at work there are similarly eroding the reach and authority of
governments worldwide it would be unwise not to recognize that they will mutate, metastasize,
and manifest differently over time."
The U.S. homeland is flagged-up as being especially vulnerable to the breakdown of
"traditional authority structures":
"The United States and its population are increasingly exposed to substantial harm and an
erosion of security from individuals and small groups of motivated actors, leveraging the
confluence of hyperconnectivity, fear, and increased vulnerability to sow disorder
and uncertainty. This intensely disorienting and dislocating form of resistance to
authority arrives via physical, virtual, and psychological violence and can create
effects that appear substantially out of proportion to the origin and physical size or scale
of the proximate hazard or threat."
There is little reflection, however, on the role of the US government itself in fomenting
such endemic distrust, through its own policies.
Bad facts
Among the most dangerous drivers of this risk of civil unrest and mass destabilization, the
document asserts, are different categories of fact. Apart from the obvious "fact-free", defined
as information that undermines "objective truth", the other categories include actual
truths that, however, are damaging to America's global reputation.
"Fact-inconvenient" information consists of the exposure of "details that, by implication,
undermine legitimate authority and erode the relationships between governments and the
governed" -- facts, for instance, that reveal how government policy is corrupt,
incompetent or undemocratic.
"Fact-perilous" information refers basically to national security leaks from whistleblowers
such as Edward Snowden or Chelsea Manning, "exposing highly classified, sensitive, or
proprietary information that can be used to accelerate a real loss of tactical, operational, or
strategic advantage."
"Fact-toxic" information pertains to actual truths which, the document complains, are
"exposed in the absence of context", and therefore poison "important political discourse." Such
information is seen as being most potent in triggering outbreaks of civil unrest, because
it:
" fatally weakens foundational security at an international, regional, national, or personal
level. Indeed , fact-toxic exposures are those likeliest to trigger viral or contagious
insecurity across or within borders and between or among peoples."
In short, the U.S. Army War College study team believe that the spread of 'facts'
challenging the legitimacy of American empire is a major driver of its decline: not the actual
behavior of the empire which such facts point to.
Mass surveillance and psychological
warfare
The Pentagon study therefore comes up with two solutions to the information threat.
The first is to make better use of U.S. mass surveillance capabilities, which are described
as "the largest and most sophisticated and integrated intelligence complex in world." The
U.S. can "generate insight faster and more reliably than its competitors can, if it chooses to
do so". Combined with its "military forward presence and power projection", the U.S. is in "an
enviable position of strength."
Supposedly, though, the problem is that the U.S. does not make full use of this potential
strength:
"That strength, however, is only as durable as the United States' willingness to see and
employ it to its advantage. To the extent that the United States and its defense enterprise
are seen to lead, others will follow "
The document also criticizes U.S. strategies for focusing too much on trying to defend
against foreign efforts to penetrate or disrupt U.S. intelligence, at the expense of "the
purposeful exploitation of the same architecture for the strategic manipulation of perceptions
and its attendant influence on political and security outcomes."
Pentagon officials need to simply accept, therefore, that:
" the U.S. homeland, individual American citizens, and U.S. public opinion and perceptions
will increasingly become battlefields."
Military supremacy
Having mourned the loss of U.S. primacy, the Pentagon report sees expanding the U.S.
military as the only option.
The bipartisan consensus on military supremacism, however, is not enough. The document
demands a military force so powerful it can preserve "maximum freedom of action", and allow the
U.S. to "dictate or hold significant sway over outcomes in international disputes."
One would be hard-pressed to find a clearer statement of imperial intent in any U.S. Army
document:
"While as a rule, U.S. leaders of both political parties have consistently committed to the
maintenance of U.S. military superiority over all potential state rivals, the post-primacy
reality demands a wider and more flexible military force that can generate advantage and
options across the broadest possible range of military demands. To U.S. political leadership,
maintenance of military advantage preserves maximum freedom of action Finally, it allows U.S.
decision-makers the opportunity to dictate or hold significant sway over outcomes in
international disputes in the shadow of significant U.S. military capability and the implied
promise of unacceptable consequences in the event that capability is unleashed."
Once again, military power is essentially depicted as a tool for the U.S. to force, threaten
and cajole other countries into submission to U.S. demands.
The very concept of 'defence' is thus re-framed as the capacity to use overwhelming military
might to get one's way -- anything which undermines this capacity ends up
automatically appearing as a threat that deserves to be attacked.
Empire of capital
Accordingly, a core goal of this military expansionism is ensuring that the United States
and its international partners have "unimpeded access to air, sea, space, cyberspace, and the
electromagnetic spectrum in order to underwrite their security and prosperity".
This also means that the U.S. must retain the ability to physically access any region it
wants, whenever it wants:
"Failure of or limitations on the ability of the United States to enter and operate within
key regions of the world, for example, undermine both U.S. and partner security."
The U.S. thus must try to minimize any "purposeful, malevolent, or incidental interruption
of access to the commons, as well as critical regions, resources, and markets."
Without ever referring directly to 'capitalism', the document eliminates any ambiguity about
how the Pentagon sees this new era of "Persistent Conflict 2.0":
" some are fighting globalization and globalization is also actively fighting back. Combined,
all of these forces are rending at the fabric of security and stable governance that all
states aspire to and rely on for survival."
This is a war, then, between US-led capitalist globalization, and anyone who resists it.
And to win it, the document puts forward a combination of strategies: consolidating the U.S.
intelligence complex and using it more ruthlessly; intensifying mass surveillance and
propaganda to manipulate popular opinion; expanding U.S. military clout to ensure access to
"strategic regions, markets, and resources".
Even so, the overarching goal is somewhat more modest -- to prevent the U.S.-led
order from collapsing further:
" . while the favorable U.S.-dominated status quo is under significant internal and external
pressure, adapted American power can help to forestall or even reverse outright failure in
the most critical regions".
The hope is that the U.S. will be able to fashion "a remodeled but nonetheless still
favorable post-primacy international order."
Narcissism
Like all U.S. Army War College publications, the document states that it does not
necessarily represent the official position of the U.S. Army or DoD. While this caveat means
that its findings cannot be taken to formally represent the U.S. government, the document does
also admit that it represents "the collective wisdom" of the numerous officials consulted.
In that sense, the document is a uniquely insightful window into the mind of the Pentagon,
and how embarrassingly limited its cognitive scope really is.
And this in turn reveals not only why the Pentagon's approach is bound to make things worse,
but also what an alternative more productive approach might look like.
Launched in June 2016 and completed in April 2017, the U.S. Army War College research
project involved extensive consultation with officials across the Pentagon, including
representatives of the joint and service staffs, the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD),
U.S. Central Command (USCENTCOM), U.S. Pacific Command (USPACOM), U.S. Northern Command
(USNORTHCOM), U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM); U.S. Forces, Japan (USFJ), the Defense
Intelligence Agency (DIA), the National Intelligence Council, U.S. Strategic Command
(USSTRATCOM), and U.S. Army Pacific [USARPAC] and Pacific Fleet [PACFLT]).
The study team also consulted with a handful of American think-tanks of a somewhat
neoconservative persuasion: the American Enterprise Institute, the Center for Strategic and
International Studies (CSIS), the RAND Corporation, and the Institute for the Study of War.
No wonder, then, that its findings are so myopic.
But what else would you expect from a research process so deeply narcissistic, that it
involves little more than talking to yourself? Is it any wonder that the solutions offered
represent an echo chamber calling to amplify precisely the same policies that have contributed
to the destabilization of U.S. power?
A large body of data demonstrates that the escalating risks to U.S. power have come not from
outside U.S. power, but from the very manner in which U.S. power has operated. The breakdown of
the U.S.-led international order, from this perspective, is happening as a direct consequence
of deep-seated flaws in the structure, values and vision of that order.
In this context, the study's conclusions are less a reflection of the actual state of the
world, than of the way the Pentagon sees itself and the world.
Indeed, most telling of all is the document's utter inability to recognize the role of the
Pentagon itself in systematically pursuing a wide range of policies over the last several
decades which have contributed directly to the very instability it now wants to defend
against.
The Pentagon frames itself as existing outside the Hobbesian turmoil that it conveniently
projects onto the world -- the result is a monumental and convenient rejection of
any sense of responsibility for what happens in the world.
In this sense, the document is a powerful illustration of the self-limiting failure of
conventional risk-assessment approaches. What is needed instead is a systems-oriented approach
based on evaluating not just the Pentagon's internal beliefs about the drivers of
risk -- but engaging with independent scientific evidence about those drivers to
test the extent to which those beliefs withstand rigorous scrutiny.
Such an approach could open the door to a very different scenario to the one recommended by
this document -- one based on a willingness to actually look in the mirror. And that
in turn might open up the opportunity for Pentagon officials to imagine alternative policies
with a real chance of actually working, rather than reinforcing the same stale failed
strategies of the past.
It is no surprise then that even the Pentagon's apparent conviction in the inexorable
decline of U.S. power could well be overblown.
According to Dr Sean Starrs of MIT's Center for International Studies, a true picture of
U.S. power cannot be determined solely from national accounts. We have to look at the accounts
of transnational corporations.
Starrs shows that American
transnational corporations are vastly more powerful than their competitors. His data suggests
that American economic supremacism remains at an all-time high, and still unchallenged even by
an economic powerhouse like China.
This does not necessarily discredit the Pentagon's emerging recognition that U.S. imperial
power faces a new era of decline and unprecedented volatility.
But it does suggest that the Pentagon's sense of U.S. global pre-eminence is very much bound
up with its capacity to project American capitalism globally.
As geopolitical rivals agitate against U.S. economic reach, and as new movements emerge
hoping to undermine American "unimpeded access" to global resources and markets, what's clear
is that DoD officials see anything which competes with or undermines American capitalism as a
clear and present danger.
But nothing put forward in this document will actually contribute to slowing the decline of
U.S. power.
On the contrary, the Pentagon study's recommendations call for an intensification of the
very imperial policies that futurist Professor Johan Galtung, who accurately forecasted the
demise of the USSR,
predicts will accelerate the "collapse of the U.S. empire" by around 2020.
As we move deeper into the "post-primacy" era, the more meaningful question for people,
governments, civil society and industry is this: as the empire falls, lashing out in its death
throes, what comes after?
This INSURGE story was enabled by crowdfunding: Please support independent journalism for
the global commons for as little as a $1/month via www.patreon.com/nafeez
Dr. Nafeez Ahmed is an award-winning 16-year investigative journalist and creator of INSURGE
intelligence, a crowdfunded public interest investigative journalism project. He is 'System
Shift' columnist at VICE's Motherboard.
"... Putin's "aggressive behavior" in Syria was to support a secular Arab government against a bunch of Islamic thugs that included Al-Qaeda and ISIS. This may not be clear to people in the US since the US is a client state of Saudi Arabia and Israel, who want Syria to disintegrate, but it is perfectly obvious to the rest of the world. ..."
"... Ukraine is payback for what the Western powers did in Kosovo. To spite Russia, the Western powers supported Kosovo when it broke off from Serbia, claiming they were doing it to support the right of self-determination. At that time, Putin asked whether this right would be granted to the ethnic Russian minorities all over Eastern Europe in countries like Latvia, Estonia, Ukraine and Kazakhstan. Needless to say, the Western powers insisted that their actions in Kosovo did not set a precedent on any kind – in other words, supporting secessionists is OK if the West does it but no one else should try that stunt! Putin decided to draw the line in Ukraine, and I for one don't blame him. ..."
"... The US and Russia have no reason to fight, and Russia can be a valuable ally against growing threats like China and Islam. But generals always fight the last war, and apparently college professors do as well. ..."
"... He has managed to outwit us on several fronts and on occasion he has even bailed us out of some tight spots. Someone will have to explain to me why in the world we were telling the Ukrainians to engage in a violent revolution over some EU Russian oil deal. If the EU wanted to wooo the Ukrainians that should have offered a better price, not one higher than their competitor. ..."
"... Pres. Putin is a shrewd political competitor.. Reason enough to admire him. That however, has nothing to do with whether or not I am a conservative. ..."
"... Everything associated with Soros or preferred by Soros is omnicidally lethal. ..."
"... Any leader who effectively rejects and repels Soros and Sorosian organizations is on the good side. Putin and Erdogan are on the good side. Recently and surprisingly, Netanyahu has joined the good side, which should create problems for neocons. ..."
"... In the grand scheme, Russia is viewed by its major detractors as an impediment to Davos uber alles globalism. Whether Putin views himself in these grand ideological terms or if he is just a Russian looking out for the best interests of Russia, I do not know. But this is the way Russia is perceived by its vocal critics nonetheless. ..."
"... Besides the fact that genuine American conservatives should also oppose Davosian hegemony, it is not in the best interests of authentic conservatives to keep up the narrative that Russia is an inherent enemy. It is one of the main justifications for continuing the Warfare/Security State. This is evident by the fact that it seems to be Trump's suggestion of better relations with Russia more than anything else that sent the Deep State over the edge into now essentially attempting to bring about a coup. It is also not a coincidence that the ruse they are utilizing for their coup attempt furthers the narrative of Russia as the implacable bad guy. ..."
"... Speaking of murder and mayhem, before we criticize others, we should look first at our own sad recent history. We too have plenty of blood on our hands; the list is well known no need to repeat it hear. As a matter of fact the targeted countries have been penciled by neo-cons like this author who knowingly turns a blind eye on our very own problems. ..."
"... However, the facts about Putin are not agreed upon, and the author does not adumbrate any actual evidence for castigating Putin. Ukraine can be credibly read as a case for Victoria Nuland's overreach, and Putin's restraint. Likewise, a treaty between Syria and Russia make the military assistance there wholly legitimate. Putin's reputed intolerance for homosexuality withers when the record is actually examined. Finally, the benefits of rapprochement, something which would improve the lives of the peoples of both America and Russia, irrespective of minor vicissitudes of leadership, is nowhere discussed. ..."
"... There's nothing new in Gottfried's screed, which is all warmed-over Clintonian hysteria and neocon warmongering. What is new is an attempt to split what he considers to be the alt-right into two camps, and in so doing deny any place for Putin and Russia solidarity amongst Americans. Gottfried may have cast his lot with the rump of Mrs. Clinton's coterie, which makes one wonder if his posturing before the election was anything but insincere. ..."
"... Sigh .I stopped reading when I got to ."his aggressive behavior in Ukraine and Syria." What a total farce. But I'm sure Paul that somehow you're totally fine with aggressive behavior on the part of the US. Hypocrite much? So let's see. The CIA leads the coup in Kiev to overthrow the democratically elected Yanukovych, the newly installed US puppet ..errrr ..new President of Ukraine is hostile towards ethnic Russians in Crimea and Donestsk, those folks appeal to Putin for help and he obliges. ..."
"... Yet, of course "Russian aggression." The US sends troops in Eastern Europe on the Russian border and sends the Navy to patrol the Baltic Sea, and yet, you know, "Russian aggression." ..."
"... Russia's behavior under Putin has been restrained. There's nothing immoral about Russia's assistance to Syria especially given the fact that the Russian military is there legally with the invitation of the legitimate government of Syria in it's battle against ISIS and Al Nusra. ..."
"... As for Ukraine I had expected the Western backed coup to provoke a full on Russian invasion taking not only Crimea and Donbass but Kiev and Odessa leaving a rump Nationalist Ukrainian State in the West. ..."
"... And after how we treated Russia after the cold war, some of the actions and anger of the Russians can be understood. ..."
Vladimir
Putin will seem like a great guy to masses of non-establishment Right-wingers. The American
Right is split between an official opposition to the Left, and a much more boisterous and
genuine Right that the establishment keeps out of public view. As George Hawley points out in
his
study
of Rightist critics of the conservative movement, these two Rights have been mortal
enemies for decades; and it wouldn't surprise me if Tucker Carlson, who dwells largely in the
bubble of Washington's elite, blue-blood Republican conservatism, knew nothing about the
attitudes of a Right that he doesn't hang with. The only pro-Putin voices whom he's had on his
program are those of two dissenting Leftists, Stephen Cohen and Oliver Stone.
It would be unfair for me to close without noting a sensible comment about Putin that I
discovered where I least expected to find it, from a senior editor of
Weekly Standard
.
Christopher Caldwell expresses eloquently in
a speech at Hillsdale
College
why non-respectable conservatives admire Putin, warts and all. What Caldwell
observes about Putin as a symbol of resistance to globalism and the cultural Left seems
entirely credible; and Caldwell's remarks conclude with this noteworthy statement:
Putin has become a symbol of national sovereignty in its battle with globalism. That turns
out to be the big battle of our times. As our last election shows, that's true even here.
Paul Gottfried is Raffensperger Professor of Humanities Emeritus at Elizabethtown
College, where he taught for twenty-five years. He is a Guggenheim recipient and a Yale PhD. He
writes for many websites and scholarly journals and is the author of thirteen books, most
recently
Fascism: Career of a Concept and Revisions and Dissents
. His books have been
translated into multiple languages and seem to enjoy special success in Eastern Europe.
Obviously you think you are a shining example that everyone aspires to emulate, but I've got
news for you: Not all conservatives are enamored with Paul Gottfried, either.
How can Putin be described as right-wing? While his administration had been repressive of the
LGBT community and has reached out to the Easter Orthodox Church, but that's like Saudi
Arabia, which while conservative is not the same kind of conservative as American
conservatives.
The guest explained this was natural, since "President Vladimir Putin does not subscribe
to their progressive worldview as Soviet leaders did."
If loving Netanyahu is right? Oh, lets not go there
I know the current c***servatives praise sodomy and abortion, but I don't and for that
reason, have rejected Conservatism, Inc. which apparently has infected TAC, so TAC is
NR-lite.
Also one can praise a specific policy and action without praising someone in general.
His aggressive behavior in Ukraine and Syria suggests the need for us in the West to be
wary of his expansionist ambitions.
This is nonsense on stilts.
Putin's "aggressive behavior" in Syria was to support a secular Arab government against a
bunch of Islamic thugs that included Al-Qaeda and ISIS. This may not be clear to people in
the US since the US is a client state of Saudi Arabia and Israel, who want Syria to
disintegrate, but it is perfectly obvious to the rest of the world.
Ukraine is payback for what the Western powers did in Kosovo. To spite Russia, the Western
powers supported Kosovo when it broke off from Serbia, claiming they were doing it to support
the right of self-determination. At that time, Putin asked whether this right would be
granted to the ethnic Russian minorities all over Eastern Europe in countries like Latvia,
Estonia, Ukraine and Kazakhstan. Needless to say, the Western powers insisted that their
actions in Kosovo did not set a precedent on any kind – in other words, supporting
secessionists is OK if the West does it but no one else should try that stunt! Putin decided
to draw the line in Ukraine, and I for one don't blame him.
The US and Russia have no reason to fight, and Russia can be a valuable ally against
growing threats like China and Islam. But generals always fight the last war, and apparently
college professors do as well.
First, James Kirchik is a joke of a commentator etc, and his writing and punditry only works
if you treat it as satire. This is the guy who advocated that the US military overthrow a
Trump presidency, remember.
Second, Putin is impressive in that he reliably acts in the
Russian national interest (as he and Russians see it, not as told to him by Obama). And he
skillfully advances that interest. He is quite obviously a very capable statesman and
administrator. Russians' quality of life has improved greatly under his tenure, and Russia's
global 'importance' is greater than since the fall of the Soviet Union. I don't think I'd
want to live under his rule, but I'm not Russian.
The West sort of proves what Russians suspect it of – hypocrisy. The West has limited
its vocabulary to strong and vague words like democracy, freedom (of speech, religion etc.),
equality, antidiscrimination. But the real logic behind those words goes against them
In western "democracy", one judge can block a president backed by 60 million people, a
court that consists of 9 people can impose same sex marriage on 300 million people
According to the western "freedom" of speech, websites that discourage abortions are
illegal (in France), the questioning of multiculturalism can be increasingly interpreted as
unacceptable hate speech, even though it's a completely legitimate view to hold
According to western "antidiscrimination" and "equality", when a christian baker or
somebody, refuses to provide service for homosexual wedding, he/she breaks the law and is
being opressed through bureaucratic means
So Russians have increasingly good reasons to conclude that the West is full of hubris,
but in the end will not deliver on what it claims to preach. So this sense of cultural
superiority in the West over Russia, in russian eyes, is more and more hypocritical, which
makes Russia with all its vices, in the end, very similar to the West, which means that
Russia doesn't have to change at all, or at least that there's no country that one should
look up to. Russians at least can openly discourage abortions, unlike the French
His aggressive behavior in Ukraine and Syria suggests the need for us in the West to be wary
of his expansionist ambitions?
Anyone, who knows anything beyond what the Fake News reports about Ukraine and Syria is
perfectly aware of highly pertinent facts, historical context as to Russia acting in it's
National Interest. Something the US Foreign Policy apparatus fails to do on behalf of the
alleged domestic population it PRETENDS to represent.
The population within US territories are strapped with the MOST AGGRESSIVE GOVERNMENT ON
THE PLANET!
I mean seriously, "oops, no WMD, over there!" The hyjackers are from Saudi? Well, let's
invade all those other places on flimsy to nil National Security interest.
Perhaps, the author of this "piece" should stick to Humanities.
I am not particularly invested in being an "admirer" of Vladimir Putin as a political leader,
given his autocratic machinations as ruler of Russia and the likelihood that he has engaged
in political assassination to solidify his hold on power, albeit more circumspectly than
Barack Obama, who spoke openly about his Sunday evenings composing his "kill list".
What I am insistent upon is that Republicans recognize the value Putin has for the United
States as the vehicle by which we can comfortably, perhaps even profitably, give up our role
as the rulers of a global empire. We can cede to Russia our wars in Syria, Iraq and elsewhere
in the Arab East, we can withdraw from being co-belligerent in the military tensions between
Russia and Ukraine, Russia and Georgia, Russia and any country outside our actual commitments
to NATO. Putin allows us the opportunity to do this because he is willing to step in as the
champion of Christians and Christian civilization in these regions, and all we have been
willing to champion is our parochial self-interests – and we haven't done a very good
job of that. Putin, precisely because he is seeking to advance Russia's own interests, not
forfeit them again in a vainglorious attempt to resurrect the Soviet Union, is the man we
want in charge in Russia. It has nothing to do with Putin modelling our preferences for a
President of the United States (we can certainly still find better than Donald Trump). But he
does model a sound foreign policy, even when confronted with the threat of terrorism far
greater than we face.
"With notable exceptions, the further one moves to the Right, the less anti-Putin people
sound."
I have no small admiration for Pres Putin, reasons stated on TAC several times. None of
those reasons have any impact on my conservative orthodoxy, none.
In fact, I have no idea why there would be any measure of impact on my conservatism, because
I think we need to foster as healthy a relationship as possible with as many nations as
possible.
If there comes a time when we have to go to war with Russia, so be it. But I don't see any
evidence that such is the case. It has been utterly foolish to engage in destabilizing Syria.
Our hands are full wit the mistakes in Iraq and I include Afghanistan.
I think anyone who is making contentions that Saudi Arabia is fostering terrorist against
US interests needs to put up so there can be a full and fair gearing on the issue. Not the I
don't Saudi Arabia Royal Family because twenty years ago, the 9/11 hijackers were mostly
Muslim. Where's the case that the Saudi family knew and endorsed the matter – which
would be cause for war. Not terrorist complaints because they have issues with other Middle
East country someone favors. And for the record, I have yet to receive a dime from the Saudis -- so skip the mouth piece mantra.
You don't like ISIS/ISIL fine who does I am unclear. But at least have some idea from when
they sprang and why. Being Sunni is hardly a rationale to advocate some pitch and post war on
them.
But supporting the current exec. does not mean dancing a jig with Pres Putin. And it has
little or nothing to do with being a conservative in my view. I have a healthy respect for
who he and the transformative place he is taking his country.
He has managed to outwit us on several fronts and on occasion he has even bailed us out of
some tight spots. Someone will have to explain to me why in the world we were telling the
Ukrainians to engage in a violent revolution over some EU Russian oil deal. If the EU wanted
to wooo the Ukrainians that should have offered a better price, not one higher than their
competitor.
Pres. Putin is a shrewd political competitor.. Reason enough to admire him. That
however, has nothing to do with whether or not I am a conservative.
>>His aggressive behavior in Ukraine and Syria suggests the need for us in the West to
be wary of his expansionist ambitions.
Whether the West behaviour in the Ukraine and Syria means something? Like Kiev is many
thousand km from Washington, but of course it's not expansionist, sure.
It's not "love", it's just a simple understanding of a simple fact. Soros is the problem.
Everything associated with Soros or preferred by Soros is omnicidally lethal.
Any leader who effectively rejects and repels Soros and Sorosian organizations is on the
good side. Putin and Erdogan are on the good side. Recently and surprisingly, Netanyahu has
joined the good side, which should create problems for neocons.
They just don't like Hillary or Team Hillary or the current Outrage that passes for
politics of those sore losers.
There is no American interest in liking Putin or any other foreign leader. We have
interests, not likes. And there are interests we can advance with Putin, as well as those
that oppose him.
I am not going to ask conservatives here what they think of Kirchik, I want to ask the many
liberals that comment here if they consider Kirchik a conservative. And please, I am fully
aware of how a lot of liberals have this need to lecture on what a conservative should be
(basically a liberal), what I want to know is if you SINCERELY believe that Kirchik is
conservative.
As much as I hate to disagree with Prof. Gottfried, I must. Putin and Russia have to be
looked at in the context of the grand scheme of things.
In the grand scheme, Russia is viewed
by its major detractors as an impediment to Davos uber alles globalism. Whether Putin views
himself in these grand ideological terms or if he is just a Russian looking out for the best
interests of Russia, I do not know. But this is the way Russia is perceived by its vocal
critics nonetheless.
Besides the fact that genuine American conservatives should also oppose Davosian
hegemony, it is not in the best interests of authentic conservatives to keep up the narrative
that Russia is an inherent enemy. It is one of the main justifications for continuing the
Warfare/Security State. This is evident by the fact that it seems to be Trump's suggestion of
better relations with Russia more than anything else that sent the Deep State over the edge
into now essentially attempting to bring about a coup. It is also not a coincidence that the
ruse they are utilizing for their coup attempt furthers the narrative of Russia as the
implacable bad guy.
Mr. Gottfried takes out of context remarks made on the May 17th Tucker Carlson Tonight show.
This is what was said immediately before Carlson's guest, Eric Prince, said, "It's amazing.
When I grew up in the Cold War, the left loved the U.S.S.R."
Tucker Carlson (at 0:50): "How should we see the Russians?"
Eric Prince (founder of Blackwater, a private military contracter): "The Russians suffer
from Islamic terrorism as well. Whether it's attacks on their subways, their schools -- the
Beslan massacre killed over 300 kids -- they suffer from it as badly as we do. So, that is
actually one area of common interest that the United States, western civilization, and Russia
[sic] should have with the Russians."
Carlson: "That seems an obvious point. Trump ran on that point. A lot of people thought it
was common sense. Why the resistance to that among foreign policy professionals in D.C.?"
Prince: "It's amazing. When I grew up in the Cold War, the left loved the U.S.S.R."
Indeed there is a lot East European of blood in Russia's dark past but that was mostly
Stalin's blood. This author is placing an insincere equal sign between Putin and Stalin:
"I am unsettled by my fellow-Rightists who seem to have forgotten the murder and mayhem
unleashed by past Russian governments against Ukrainians, Balts, Hungarians, Poles and other
Central and Eastern Europeans."
Speaking of murder and mayhem, before we criticize others, we should look first at our own
sad recent history. We too have plenty of blood on our hands; the list is well known no need
to repeat it hear. As a matter of fact the targeted countries have been penciled by neo-cons
like this author who knowingly turns a blind eye on our very own problems.
I would suggest two things:
-to the author: to read more history and write less, ideally throw away the pen.
-to TAC: do not pollute this place with such "authors".
Is it really so much Putin is loved by the right because of his social values? The Right in
America likely has very little contact with Russia. Airfare is quite expensive, and there
aren't really strong family ties to the region.
In contrast, the Left it appears has extensive contact with Russia. They are reporting on
persecution of gays and whatnot from there.
The Right I think is more anti-Left than pro-Russia.
This last year has been most revealing. People whom I once thought were principled
Conservatives have turned out, under pressure, to be bully-worshiping snobs.
It is quite devastating to see how many have fallen into the moral black hole that is
Trump_vs_deep_state, and consequently how many are embracing America's historic opponent.
That so many "conservatives" are willing to burn down the United States of America in
pursuit of their stated goal of destroying "libtards" and their leader, Hillary Satan, is
sufficient evidence their "conservatism" has as its sole principle, resentment of those they
think are laughing/sneering at them.
Gottfried assumes that all readers share the same view of Putin, that he is unabashed
authoritarian and that his action in the Ukraine were an invasion, a grab for territory; and
that in Syria, Putin's placement of Russian military force was a violation of Syria's
sovereignty and an attempt to grab power. He then reasons that their support for these
actions and Putin's other assumed comportment (racist, homophobic, etc.) is a misreading of
true conservative principles.
It makes for a nice argument, as there appear to be two ways of viewing Putin's behavior,
the correct one being a conservative rejection of racism, totalitarianism, xenophobia,
etc.
However, the facts about Putin are not agreed upon, and the author does not adumbrate any
actual evidence for castigating Putin. Ukraine can be credibly read as a case for Victoria
Nuland's overreach, and Putin's restraint. Likewise, a treaty between Syria and Russia make
the military assistance there wholly legitimate. Putin's reputed intolerance for
homosexuality withers when the record is actually examined. Finally, the benefits of
rapprochement, something which would improve the lives of the peoples of both America and
Russia, irrespective of minor vicissitudes of leadership, is nowhere discussed.
There's nothing new in Gottfried's screed, which is all warmed-over Clintonian hysteria
and neocon warmongering. What is new is an attempt to split what he considers to be the
alt-right into two camps, and in so doing deny any place for Putin and Russia solidarity
amongst Americans. Gottfried may have cast his lot with the rump of Mrs. Clinton's coterie,
which makes one wonder if his posturing before the election was anything but insincere.
To Paul Gottfried's credit, he ends with the excellent quote from Christopher ("The French,
Coming Apart" -- great, great analysis) Caldwell:
"Putin has become a symbol of national sovereignty in its battle with globalism. That
turns out to be the big battle of our times. As our last election shows, that's true even
here."
In that same vein, commenter Dan Philips is 100% right: "In the grand scheme, Russia is
viewed by its major detractors as an impediment to Davos über alles globalism."
Keep on impeding Davos, Mr. Putin. Don't stop! Keep impeding!
Apparently Prof. Gottfried is unaware of the tapped conversation between Victoria Nuland and
Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt where they are plotting who they will put in power after the U.S.
sponsored coup in the Ukraine. Nuland has admitted that the U.S. spent $5 billion to
destabilize Ukraine. U.S. meddling in on there countries' elections is more the norm for the
U.S. than it is for current day Russia.
For another viewpoint on Putin I suggest that TAC publish Dr. Boyd Cathey's article,
"Examining the Hatred of Putin.
Sigh .I stopped reading when I got to ."his aggressive behavior in Ukraine and Syria."
What a total farce. But I'm sure Paul that somehow you're totally fine with aggressive
behavior on the part of the US. Hypocrite much? So let's see. The CIA leads the coup in Kiev
to overthrow the democratically elected Yanukovych, the newly installed US puppet ..errrr
..new President of Ukraine is hostile towards ethnic Russians in Crimea and Donestsk, those
folks appeal to Putin for help and he obliges.
Yet, of course "Russian aggression." The US sends troops in Eastern Europe on the Russian
border and sends the Navy to patrol the Baltic Sea, and yet, you know, "Russian aggression."
Quick question, how would Americans feel if the Russian navy was on patrol in the Gulf of
Mexico? We'd be livid as heck and rightly so. But it's fine for us to that to them. And, last
time I checked, Russia is any ally of Syria and was invited to be there by the Syrian govt.
The US is there against the wishes of the Syrian govt. But, you know, "Russian aggression."
The fact that the American left / GOP neocons have far more hatred for Putin than they ever
did for the communist Soviet Union speaks volumes. The fact that folks like the author of
this article hate Putin, while having absolutely zero problem with our number one ally, Saudi
Arabia also speaks volumes. This would be the same SA that is the world's number one exporter
of terrorism, that kills homosexuals for simply being homosexual and where women aren't
allowed to drive cars. This is the very definition of hypocrisy.
First off, I don't believe there is "persecution of gays" in Russia. What is there is the
not allowing of kids (kids for goodness sake!) to be taught the LGBT agenda. Those are two
totally different things. But for the sake of argument, let's say that there is some level of
"persecution of gays." Whatever that amounts to, unquestionably it doesn't include being
executed by the govt for being found to be gay. To find where that happens, one need look no
further than the country that all of the Russia haters seem to have no problems with: Saudi
Arabia. I'd love for you to explain to my why the same folks who hate Russia for "persecuting
gays" seem to have no problem with SA. Actually, don't bother. I know full well why this is
the case.
Listen man, don't start with a collection of bad deeds committed by the UDSSR or Putin in the
past because we can easily counter argue with a collection of bad deeds committed by the US
in the present. I don't care what Putin does, he's not my government. But currently he is the
only counter weight to the decay of the Western society. That's unless you turn to the
radical muslims. Hopefully, not our sole alternative in the future.
On a larger scale, keep pushing Russia away and China will welcome them. Then you'll have
the biggest country in the world allied with the most populous and hungry country in the
world; unlimited resources, natural and human. The gravitational force they will produce
will be difficult to resist unless they mess things up like we do in the US. But never bet on
your adversary to be stupider than you are.
Russia's behavior under Putin has been restrained. There's nothing immoral about Russia's
assistance to Syria especially given the fact that the Russian military is there legally with
the invitation of the legitimate government of Syria in it's battle against ISIS and Al
Nusra.
As for Ukraine I had expected the Western backed coup to provoke a full on Russian
invasion taking not only Crimea and Donbass but Kiev and Odessa leaving a rump Nationalist
Ukrainian State in the West.
The Russians would have been well within their right to do as
such given the existential threat that a hostile regime in Kiev poses to Russia itself.
Instead Russia only took the mostly ethnic Russian Crimean peninsula and supported pro
Russian rebels in Donbass. Last but not least lets recall another US backed incursion on
Russia's borders when Georgia decided in 2008 to launch an offensive against its breakaway
provinces of Abkhazia and South Ossetia killing Russian peacekeepers in the process. Had
Russia been expansionist the Russians would've taken Tblisi overthrown Sakashvilli and placed
a pro-Russian government there. They did not. They repelled Georgian forces from South
Ossetia and Abkhazia and went home.
Think about had we been talking about dead American peacekeepers instead of Russian ones
and what Washington's response would be? Or Washington's response to a theoretical Russian
backed coup in Mexico? Russia has shown the utmost caution and restraint.
I can see how it might look like certain folks on the Right are politically "in love" with
Putin, but that's not really the case. In the current polarized socio-political framework,
where Russia has magically become "the enemy" (with no logic or reason behind that
assumption), anyone who does not want to force a showdown with Moscow is somehow "enamored"
with Putin. I consider myself more paleo-libertarian than paleo-conservative, but I will
freely admit that I don't want to live in Russia or have Putin anywhere near the reigns of
American power. But I also don't want nor see the need for any kind of conflict with the
Russians either.
Putin's Russia is a threat not because Putin is smart, clever, a former KGB agent that
learned to be a master chess player of world politics, from that job or because he does loves
his country and is trying to make his country a super power again to aid his people. He us
all of those things for sure.
And after how we treated Russia after the cold war, some of the actions and anger of
the Russians can be understood.
Russia has interests, most of them in her near abroad. Putin has defended them, not always
nicely. Powers aren't always nice. See: US policy in Central America. Russia's regional
concerns aren't very important to the U.S.
Putin doesn't channel John Stuart Mill. Pity, that. But that's no reason to anathematize
him. He does have lots of nukes, and if either side errs, which is unlikely but not
impossible, catastrophe looms.
We have every reason to deal with the man soberly and without alarm or frissons of
"bromance."
"... Putin's "aggressive behavior" in Syria was to support a secular Arab government against a bunch of Islamic thugs that included Al-Qaeda and ISIS. This may not be clear to people in the US since the US is a client state of Saudi Arabia and Israel, who want Syria to disintegrate, but it is perfectly obvious to the rest of the world. ..."
"... Ukraine is payback for what the Western powers did in Kosovo. To spite Russia, the Western powers supported Kosovo when it broke off from Serbia, claiming they were doing it to support the right of self-determination. At that time, Putin asked whether this right would be granted to the ethnic Russian minorities all over Eastern Europe in countries like Latvia, Estonia, Ukraine and Kazakhstan. Needless to say, the Western powers insisted that their actions in Kosovo did not set a precedent on any kind – in other words, supporting secessionists is OK if the West does it but no one else should try that stunt! Putin decided to draw the line in Ukraine, and I for one don't blame him. ..."
"... The US and Russia have no reason to fight, and Russia can be a valuable ally against growing threats like China and Islam. But generals always fight the last war, and apparently college professors do as well. ..."
"... He has managed to outwit us on several fronts and on occasion he has even bailed us out of some tight spots. Someone will have to explain to me why in the world we were telling the Ukrainians to engage in a violent revolution over some EU Russian oil deal. If the EU wanted to wooo the Ukrainians that should have offered a better price, not one higher than their competitor. ..."
"... Pres. Putin is a shrewd political competitor.. Reason enough to admire him. That however, has nothing to do with whether or not I am a conservative. ..."
"... Everything associated with Soros or preferred by Soros is omnicidally lethal. ..."
"... Any leader who effectively rejects and repels Soros and Sorosian organizations is on the good side. Putin and Erdogan are on the good side. Recently and surprisingly, Netanyahu has joined the good side, which should create problems for neocons. ..."
"... In the grand scheme, Russia is viewed by its major detractors as an impediment to Davos uber alles globalism. Whether Putin views himself in these grand ideological terms or if he is just a Russian looking out for the best interests of Russia, I do not know. But this is the way Russia is perceived by its vocal critics nonetheless. ..."
"... Besides the fact that genuine American conservatives should also oppose Davosian hegemony, it is not in the best interests of authentic conservatives to keep up the narrative that Russia is an inherent enemy. It is one of the main justifications for continuing the Warfare/Security State. This is evident by the fact that it seems to be Trump's suggestion of better relations with Russia more than anything else that sent the Deep State over the edge into now essentially attempting to bring about a coup. It is also not a coincidence that the ruse they are utilizing for their coup attempt furthers the narrative of Russia as the implacable bad guy. ..."
"... Speaking of murder and mayhem, before we criticize others, we should look first at our own sad recent history. We too have plenty of blood on our hands; the list is well known no need to repeat it hear. As a matter of fact the targeted countries have been penciled by neo-cons like this author who knowingly turns a blind eye on our very own problems. ..."
"... However, the facts about Putin are not agreed upon, and the author does not adumbrate any actual evidence for castigating Putin. Ukraine can be credibly read as a case for Victoria Nuland's overreach, and Putin's restraint. Likewise, a treaty between Syria and Russia make the military assistance there wholly legitimate. Putin's reputed intolerance for homosexuality withers when the record is actually examined. Finally, the benefits of rapprochement, something which would improve the lives of the peoples of both America and Russia, irrespective of minor vicissitudes of leadership, is nowhere discussed. ..."
"... There's nothing new in Gottfried's screed, which is all warmed-over Clintonian hysteria and neocon warmongering. What is new is an attempt to split what he considers to be the alt-right into two camps, and in so doing deny any place for Putin and Russia solidarity amongst Americans. Gottfried may have cast his lot with the rump of Mrs. Clinton's coterie, which makes one wonder if his posturing before the election was anything but insincere. ..."
"... Sigh .I stopped reading when I got to ."his aggressive behavior in Ukraine and Syria." What a total farce. But I'm sure Paul that somehow you're totally fine with aggressive behavior on the part of the US. Hypocrite much? So let's see. The CIA leads the coup in Kiev to overthrow the democratically elected Yanukovych, the newly installed US puppet ..errrr ..new President of Ukraine is hostile towards ethnic Russians in Crimea and Donestsk, those folks appeal to Putin for help and he obliges. ..."
"... Yet, of course "Russian aggression." The US sends troops in Eastern Europe on the Russian border and sends the Navy to patrol the Baltic Sea, and yet, you know, "Russian aggression." ..."
"... Russia's behavior under Putin has been restrained. There's nothing immoral about Russia's assistance to Syria especially given the fact that the Russian military is there legally with the invitation of the legitimate government of Syria in it's battle against ISIS and Al Nusra. ..."
"... As for Ukraine I had expected the Western backed coup to provoke a full on Russian invasion taking not only Crimea and Donbass but Kiev and Odessa leaving a rump Nationalist Ukrainian State in the West. ..."
"... And after how we treated Russia after the cold war, some of the actions and anger of the Russians can be understood. ..."
Vladimir
Putin will seem like a great guy to masses of non-establishment Right-wingers. The American
Right is split between an official opposition to the Left, and a much more boisterous and
genuine Right that the establishment keeps out of public view. As George Hawley points out in
his
study
of Rightist critics of the conservative movement, these two Rights have been mortal
enemies for decades; and it wouldn't surprise me if Tucker Carlson, who dwells largely in the
bubble of Washington's elite, blue-blood Republican conservatism, knew nothing about the
attitudes of a Right that he doesn't hang with. The only pro-Putin voices whom he's had on his
program are those of two dissenting Leftists, Stephen Cohen and Oliver Stone.
It would be unfair for me to close without noting a sensible comment about Putin that I
discovered where I least expected to find it, from a senior editor of
Weekly Standard
.
Christopher Caldwell expresses eloquently in
a speech at Hillsdale
College
why non-respectable conservatives admire Putin, warts and all. What Caldwell
observes about Putin as a symbol of resistance to globalism and the cultural Left seems
entirely credible; and Caldwell's remarks conclude with this noteworthy statement:
Putin has become a symbol of national sovereignty in its battle with globalism. That turns
out to be the big battle of our times. As our last election shows, that's true even here.
Paul Gottfried is Raffensperger Professor of Humanities Emeritus at Elizabethtown
College, where he taught for twenty-five years. He is a Guggenheim recipient and a Yale PhD. He
writes for many websites and scholarly journals and is the author of thirteen books, most
recently
Fascism: Career of a Concept and Revisions and Dissents
. His books have been
translated into multiple languages and seem to enjoy special success in Eastern Europe.
Obviously you think you are a shining example that everyone aspires to emulate, but I've got
news for you: Not all conservatives are enamored with Paul Gottfried, either.
How can Putin be described as right-wing? While his administration had been repressive of the
LGBT community and has reached out to the Easter Orthodox Church, but that's like Saudi
Arabia, which while conservative is not the same kind of conservative as American
conservatives.
The guest explained this was natural, since "President Vladimir Putin does not subscribe
to their progressive worldview as Soviet leaders did."
If loving Netanyahu is right? Oh, lets not go there
I know the current c***servatives praise sodomy and abortion, but I don't and for that
reason, have rejected Conservatism, Inc. which apparently has infected TAC, so TAC is
NR-lite.
Also one can praise a specific policy and action without praising someone in general.
His aggressive behavior in Ukraine and Syria suggests the need for us in the West to be
wary of his expansionist ambitions.
This is nonsense on stilts.
Putin's "aggressive behavior" in Syria was to support a secular Arab government against a
bunch of Islamic thugs that included Al-Qaeda and ISIS. This may not be clear to people in
the US since the US is a client state of Saudi Arabia and Israel, who want Syria to
disintegrate, but it is perfectly obvious to the rest of the world.
Ukraine is payback for what the Western powers did in Kosovo. To spite Russia, the Western
powers supported Kosovo when it broke off from Serbia, claiming they were doing it to support
the right of self-determination. At that time, Putin asked whether this right would be
granted to the ethnic Russian minorities all over Eastern Europe in countries like Latvia,
Estonia, Ukraine and Kazakhstan. Needless to say, the Western powers insisted that their
actions in Kosovo did not set a precedent on any kind – in other words, supporting
secessionists is OK if the West does it but no one else should try that stunt! Putin decided
to draw the line in Ukraine, and I for one don't blame him.
The US and Russia have no reason to fight, and Russia can be a valuable ally against
growing threats like China and Islam. But generals always fight the last war, and apparently
college professors do as well.
First, James Kirchik is a joke of a commentator etc, and his writing and punditry only works
if you treat it as satire. This is the guy who advocated that the US military overthrow a
Trump presidency, remember.
Second, Putin is impressive in that he reliably acts in the
Russian national interest (as he and Russians see it, not as told to him by Obama). And he
skillfully advances that interest. He is quite obviously a very capable statesman and
administrator. Russians' quality of life has improved greatly under his tenure, and Russia's
global 'importance' is greater than since the fall of the Soviet Union. I don't think I'd
want to live under his rule, but I'm not Russian.
The West sort of proves what Russians suspect it of – hypocrisy. The West has limited
its vocabulary to strong and vague words like democracy, freedom (of speech, religion etc.),
equality, antidiscrimination. But the real logic behind those words goes against them
In western "democracy", one judge can block a president backed by 60 million people, a
court that consists of 9 people can impose same sex marriage on 300 million people
According to the western "freedom" of speech, websites that discourage abortions are
illegal (in France), the questioning of multiculturalism can be increasingly interpreted as
unacceptable hate speech, even though it's a completely legitimate view to hold
According to western "antidiscrimination" and "equality", when a christian baker or
somebody, refuses to provide service for homosexual wedding, he/she breaks the law and is
being opressed through bureaucratic means
So Russians have increasingly good reasons to conclude that the West is full of hubris,
but in the end will not deliver on what it claims to preach. So this sense of cultural
superiority in the West over Russia, in russian eyes, is more and more hypocritical, which
makes Russia with all its vices, in the end, very similar to the West, which means that
Russia doesn't have to change at all, or at least that there's no country that one should
look up to. Russians at least can openly discourage abortions, unlike the French
His aggressive behavior in Ukraine and Syria suggests the need for us in the West to be wary
of his expansionist ambitions?
Anyone, who knows anything beyond what the Fake News reports about Ukraine and Syria is
perfectly aware of highly pertinent facts, historical context as to Russia acting in it's
National Interest. Something the US Foreign Policy apparatus fails to do on behalf of the
alleged domestic population it PRETENDS to represent.
The population within US territories are strapped with the MOST AGGRESSIVE GOVERNMENT ON
THE PLANET!
I mean seriously, "oops, no WMD, over there!" The hyjackers are from Saudi? Well, let's
invade all those other places on flimsy to nil National Security interest.
Perhaps, the author of this "piece" should stick to Humanities.
I am not particularly invested in being an "admirer" of Vladimir Putin as a political leader,
given his autocratic machinations as ruler of Russia and the likelihood that he has engaged
in political assassination to solidify his hold on power, albeit more circumspectly than
Barack Obama, who spoke openly about his Sunday evenings composing his "kill list".
What I am insistent upon is that Republicans recognize the value Putin has for the United
States as the vehicle by which we can comfortably, perhaps even profitably, give up our role
as the rulers of a global empire. We can cede to Russia our wars in Syria, Iraq and elsewhere
in the Arab East, we can withdraw from being co-belligerent in the military tensions between
Russia and Ukraine, Russia and Georgia, Russia and any country outside our actual commitments
to NATO. Putin allows us the opportunity to do this because he is willing to step in as the
champion of Christians and Christian civilization in these regions, and all we have been
willing to champion is our parochial self-interests – and we haven't done a very good
job of that. Putin, precisely because he is seeking to advance Russia's own interests, not
forfeit them again in a vainglorious attempt to resurrect the Soviet Union, is the man we
want in charge in Russia. It has nothing to do with Putin modelling our preferences for a
President of the United States (we can certainly still find better than Donald Trump). But he
does model a sound foreign policy, even when confronted with the threat of terrorism far
greater than we face.
"With notable exceptions, the further one moves to the Right, the less anti-Putin people
sound."
I have no small admiration for Pres Putin, reasons stated on TAC several times. None of
those reasons have any impact on my conservative orthodoxy, none.
In fact, I have no idea why there would be any measure of impact on my conservatism, because
I think we need to foster as healthy a relationship as possible with as many nations as
possible.
If there comes a time when we have to go to war with Russia, so be it. But I don't see any
evidence that such is the case. It has been utterly foolish to engage in destabilizing Syria.
Our hands are full wit the mistakes in Iraq and I include Afghanistan.
I think anyone who is making contentions that Saudi Arabia is fostering terrorist against
US interests needs to put up so there can be a full and fair gearing on the issue. Not the I
don't Saudi Arabia Royal Family because twenty years ago, the 9/11 hijackers were mostly
Muslim. Where's the case that the Saudi family knew and endorsed the matter – which
would be cause for war. Not terrorist complaints because they have issues with other Middle
East country someone favors. And for the record, I have yet to receive a dime from the Saudis -- so skip the mouth piece mantra.
You don't like ISIS/ISIL fine who does I am unclear. But at least have some idea from when
they sprang and why. Being Sunni is hardly a rationale to advocate some pitch and post war on
them.
But supporting the current exec. does not mean dancing a jig with Pres Putin. And it has
little or nothing to do with being a conservative in my view. I have a healthy respect for
who he and the transformative place he is taking his country.
He has managed to outwit us on several fronts and on occasion he has even bailed us out of
some tight spots. Someone will have to explain to me why in the world we were telling the
Ukrainians to engage in a violent revolution over some EU Russian oil deal. If the EU wanted
to wooo the Ukrainians that should have offered a better price, not one higher than their
competitor.
Pres. Putin is a shrewd political competitor.. Reason enough to admire him. That
however, has nothing to do with whether or not I am a conservative.
>>His aggressive behavior in Ukraine and Syria suggests the need for us in the West to
be wary of his expansionist ambitions.
Whether the West behaviour in the Ukraine and Syria means something? Like Kiev is many
thousand km from Washington, but of course it's not expansionist, sure.
It's not "love", it's just a simple understanding of a simple fact. Soros is the problem.
Everything associated with Soros or preferred by Soros is omnicidally lethal.
Any leader who effectively rejects and repels Soros and Sorosian organizations is on the
good side. Putin and Erdogan are on the good side. Recently and surprisingly, Netanyahu has
joined the good side, which should create problems for neocons.
They just don't like Hillary or Team Hillary or the current Outrage that passes for
politics of those sore losers.
There is no American interest in liking Putin or any other foreign leader. We have
interests, not likes. And there are interests we can advance with Putin, as well as those
that oppose him.
I am not going to ask conservatives here what they think of Kirchik, I want to ask the many
liberals that comment here if they consider Kirchik a conservative. And please, I am fully
aware of how a lot of liberals have this need to lecture on what a conservative should be
(basically a liberal), what I want to know is if you SINCERELY believe that Kirchik is
conservative.
As much as I hate to disagree with Prof. Gottfried, I must. Putin and Russia have to be
looked at in the context of the grand scheme of things.
In the grand scheme, Russia is viewed
by its major detractors as an impediment to Davos uber alles globalism. Whether Putin views
himself in these grand ideological terms or if he is just a Russian looking out for the best
interests of Russia, I do not know. But this is the way Russia is perceived by its vocal
critics nonetheless.
Besides the fact that genuine American conservatives should also oppose Davosian
hegemony, it is not in the best interests of authentic conservatives to keep up the narrative
that Russia is an inherent enemy. It is one of the main justifications for continuing the
Warfare/Security State. This is evident by the fact that it seems to be Trump's suggestion of
better relations with Russia more than anything else that sent the Deep State over the edge
into now essentially attempting to bring about a coup. It is also not a coincidence that the
ruse they are utilizing for their coup attempt furthers the narrative of Russia as the
implacable bad guy.
Mr. Gottfried takes out of context remarks made on the May 17th Tucker Carlson Tonight show.
This is what was said immediately before Carlson's guest, Eric Prince, said, "It's amazing.
When I grew up in the Cold War, the left loved the U.S.S.R."
Tucker Carlson (at 0:50): "How should we see the Russians?"
Eric Prince (founder of Blackwater, a private military contracter): "The Russians suffer
from Islamic terrorism as well. Whether it's attacks on their subways, their schools -- the
Beslan massacre killed over 300 kids -- they suffer from it as badly as we do. So, that is
actually one area of common interest that the United States, western civilization, and Russia
[sic] should have with the Russians."
Carlson: "That seems an obvious point. Trump ran on that point. A lot of people thought it
was common sense. Why the resistance to that among foreign policy professionals in D.C.?"
Prince: "It's amazing. When I grew up in the Cold War, the left loved the U.S.S.R."
Indeed there is a lot East European of blood in Russia's dark past but that was mostly
Stalin's blood. This author is placing an insincere equal sign between Putin and Stalin:
"I am unsettled by my fellow-Rightists who seem to have forgotten the murder and mayhem
unleashed by past Russian governments against Ukrainians, Balts, Hungarians, Poles and other
Central and Eastern Europeans."
Speaking of murder and mayhem, before we criticize others, we should look first at our own
sad recent history. We too have plenty of blood on our hands; the list is well known no need
to repeat it hear. As a matter of fact the targeted countries have been penciled by neo-cons
like this author who knowingly turns a blind eye on our very own problems.
I would suggest two things:
-to the author: to read more history and write less, ideally throw away the pen.
-to TAC: do not pollute this place with such "authors".
Is it really so much Putin is loved by the right because of his social values? The Right in
America likely has very little contact with Russia. Airfare is quite expensive, and there
aren't really strong family ties to the region.
In contrast, the Left it appears has extensive contact with Russia. They are reporting on
persecution of gays and whatnot from there.
The Right I think is more anti-Left than pro-Russia.
This last year has been most revealing. People whom I once thought were principled
Conservatives have turned out, under pressure, to be bully-worshiping snobs.
It is quite devastating to see how many have fallen into the moral black hole that is
Trump_vs_deep_state, and consequently how many are embracing America's historic opponent.
That so many "conservatives" are willing to burn down the United States of America in
pursuit of their stated goal of destroying "libtards" and their leader, Hillary Satan, is
sufficient evidence their "conservatism" has as its sole principle, resentment of those they
think are laughing/sneering at them.
Gottfried assumes that all readers share the same view of Putin, that he is unabashed
authoritarian and that his action in the Ukraine were an invasion, a grab for territory; and
that in Syria, Putin's placement of Russian military force was a violation of Syria's
sovereignty and an attempt to grab power. He then reasons that their support for these
actions and Putin's other assumed comportment (racist, homophobic, etc.) is a misreading of
true conservative principles.
It makes for a nice argument, as there appear to be two ways of viewing Putin's behavior,
the correct one being a conservative rejection of racism, totalitarianism, xenophobia,
etc.
However, the facts about Putin are not agreed upon, and the author does not adumbrate any
actual evidence for castigating Putin. Ukraine can be credibly read as a case for Victoria
Nuland's overreach, and Putin's restraint. Likewise, a treaty between Syria and Russia make
the military assistance there wholly legitimate. Putin's reputed intolerance for
homosexuality withers when the record is actually examined. Finally, the benefits of
rapprochement, something which would improve the lives of the peoples of both America and
Russia, irrespective of minor vicissitudes of leadership, is nowhere discussed.
There's nothing new in Gottfried's screed, which is all warmed-over Clintonian hysteria
and neocon warmongering. What is new is an attempt to split what he considers to be the
alt-right into two camps, and in so doing deny any place for Putin and Russia solidarity
amongst Americans. Gottfried may have cast his lot with the rump of Mrs. Clinton's coterie,
which makes one wonder if his posturing before the election was anything but insincere.
To Paul Gottfried's credit, he ends with the excellent quote from Christopher ("The French,
Coming Apart" -- great, great analysis) Caldwell:
"Putin has become a symbol of national sovereignty in its battle with globalism. That
turns out to be the big battle of our times. As our last election shows, that's true even
here."
In that same vein, commenter Dan Philips is 100% right: "In the grand scheme, Russia is
viewed by its major detractors as an impediment to Davos über alles globalism."
Keep on impeding Davos, Mr. Putin. Don't stop! Keep impeding!
Apparently Prof. Gottfried is unaware of the tapped conversation between Victoria Nuland and
Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt where they are plotting who they will put in power after the U.S.
sponsored coup in the Ukraine. Nuland has admitted that the U.S. spent $5 billion to
destabilize Ukraine. U.S. meddling in on there countries' elections is more the norm for the
U.S. than it is for current day Russia.
For another viewpoint on Putin I suggest that TAC publish Dr. Boyd Cathey's article,
"Examining the Hatred of Putin.
Sigh .I stopped reading when I got to ."his aggressive behavior in Ukraine and Syria."
What a total farce. But I'm sure Paul that somehow you're totally fine with aggressive
behavior on the part of the US. Hypocrite much? So let's see. The CIA leads the coup in Kiev
to overthrow the democratically elected Yanukovych, the newly installed US puppet ..errrr
..new President of Ukraine is hostile towards ethnic Russians in Crimea and Donestsk, those
folks appeal to Putin for help and he obliges.
Yet, of course "Russian aggression." The US sends troops in Eastern Europe on the Russian
border and sends the Navy to patrol the Baltic Sea, and yet, you know, "Russian aggression."
Quick question, how would Americans feel if the Russian navy was on patrol in the Gulf of
Mexico? We'd be livid as heck and rightly so. But it's fine for us to that to them. And, last
time I checked, Russia is any ally of Syria and was invited to be there by the Syrian govt.
The US is there against the wishes of the Syrian govt. But, you know, "Russian aggression."
The fact that the American left / GOP neocons have far more hatred for Putin than they ever
did for the communist Soviet Union speaks volumes. The fact that folks like the author of
this article hate Putin, while having absolutely zero problem with our number one ally, Saudi
Arabia also speaks volumes. This would be the same SA that is the world's number one exporter
of terrorism, that kills homosexuals for simply being homosexual and where women aren't
allowed to drive cars. This is the very definition of hypocrisy.
First off, I don't believe there is "persecution of gays" in Russia. What is there is the
not allowing of kids (kids for goodness sake!) to be taught the LGBT agenda. Those are two
totally different things. But for the sake of argument, let's say that there is some level of
"persecution of gays." Whatever that amounts to, unquestionably it doesn't include being
executed by the govt for being found to be gay. To find where that happens, one need look no
further than the country that all of the Russia haters seem to have no problems with: Saudi
Arabia. I'd love for you to explain to my why the same folks who hate Russia for "persecuting
gays" seem to have no problem with SA. Actually, don't bother. I know full well why this is
the case.
Listen man, don't start with a collection of bad deeds committed by the UDSSR or Putin in the
past because we can easily counter argue with a collection of bad deeds committed by the US
in the present. I don't care what Putin does, he's not my government. But currently he is the
only counter weight to the decay of the Western society. That's unless you turn to the
radical muslims. Hopefully, not our sole alternative in the future.
On a larger scale, keep pushing Russia away and China will welcome them. Then you'll have
the biggest country in the world allied with the most populous and hungry country in the
world; unlimited resources, natural and human. The gravitational force they will produce
will be difficult to resist unless they mess things up like we do in the US. But never bet on
your adversary to be stupider than you are.
Russia's behavior under Putin has been restrained. There's nothing immoral about Russia's
assistance to Syria especially given the fact that the Russian military is there legally with
the invitation of the legitimate government of Syria in it's battle against ISIS and Al
Nusra.
As for Ukraine I had expected the Western backed coup to provoke a full on Russian
invasion taking not only Crimea and Donbass but Kiev and Odessa leaving a rump Nationalist
Ukrainian State in the West.
The Russians would have been well within their right to do as
such given the existential threat that a hostile regime in Kiev poses to Russia itself.
Instead Russia only took the mostly ethnic Russian Crimean peninsula and supported pro
Russian rebels in Donbass. Last but not least lets recall another US backed incursion on
Russia's borders when Georgia decided in 2008 to launch an offensive against its breakaway
provinces of Abkhazia and South Ossetia killing Russian peacekeepers in the process. Had
Russia been expansionist the Russians would've taken Tblisi overthrown Sakashvilli and placed
a pro-Russian government there. They did not. They repelled Georgian forces from South
Ossetia and Abkhazia and went home.
Think about had we been talking about dead American peacekeepers instead of Russian ones
and what Washington's response would be? Or Washington's response to a theoretical Russian
backed coup in Mexico? Russia has shown the utmost caution and restraint.
I can see how it might look like certain folks on the Right are politically "in love" with
Putin, but that's not really the case. In the current polarized socio-political framework,
where Russia has magically become "the enemy" (with no logic or reason behind that
assumption), anyone who does not want to force a showdown with Moscow is somehow "enamored"
with Putin. I consider myself more paleo-libertarian than paleo-conservative, but I will
freely admit that I don't want to live in Russia or have Putin anywhere near the reigns of
American power. But I also don't want nor see the need for any kind of conflict with the
Russians either.
Putin's Russia is a threat not because Putin is smart, clever, a former KGB agent that
learned to be a master chess player of world politics, from that job or because he does loves
his country and is trying to make his country a super power again to aid his people. He us
all of those things for sure.
And after how we treated Russia after the cold war, some of the actions and anger of
the Russians can be understood.
Russia has interests, most of them in her near abroad. Putin has defended them, not always
nicely. Powers aren't always nice. See: US policy in Central America. Russia's regional
concerns aren't very important to the U.S.
Putin doesn't channel John Stuart Mill. Pity, that. But that's no reason to anathematize
him. He does have lots of nukes, and if either side errs, which is unlikely but not
impossible, catastrophe looms.
We have every reason to deal with the man soberly and without alarm or frissons of
"bromance."
The Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives of the US Congress has
drafted a bill to cut US military aid to Ukraine to just $150 million, which is less than
half of the $350 million Kiev received from Washington in 2016.
Under the proposed bill, the Pentagon can spend funds "for training, equipment,
weapons of a defensive nature, logistics, and intelligence."
Washington has ignored Kiev's persistent calls for the supply of offensive weapons
for its "counterterrorism operation" in Donbass.
Ukraine periodically tries sweet talk to lure the east back, but the time to do that was immediately
after the Maidan – instead, nationalist fervor gripped the capital and giddy nationalists went
hard the other way with proclamations that they would delegitimize the Russian language. If anything
about those lunatic days can be said to have been the catalyst which set subsequent events in
motion, the fatal mistake, that was it. The mayor of Lvov, no less, made a speech the very next
day – in perfect colloquial Russian – in which he tried to walk back the disaster and reassure
the easterners that there would not be legal action to discriminate against them because of their
habitual language, but the die was cast and it was too late.
Had the nationalists not had their way or had they not given in to the temptation to indulge
their hatred of Russia and everything about it, there is every chance regime change would have
succeeded in gathering Ukraine to the EU's bosom. Russia might still have made a grab for Crimea,
and for me it would still have been legitimate since it was once part of Russia and was never
ceded legally to Ukraine as its other territories were. But the stab in the back over the use
of Russian, which once again was only a treat the nationalists foolishly allowed themselves as
a reward for victory, provided a perfect catalyst for rebellion and the rapid decision-making
it entails. I would be willing to bet Washington and the State Department are still cursing over
that tactical blunder, since they are now lumbered with the great corrupt mass of Ukraine, with
an active rebellion simmering on its eastern edge, but without the sparkling prize of Crimea.
I don't know if Putin actually said he did not want to be welcomed by NATO sailors in Sevastopol,
as he is reputed to have done, but that most certainly was part of the plan.
This is a very good comment. I think you caught the essence of what happened. Nationalists first
destroyed the country territorial integrity, and after that, they destroyed its economics. Essentially
acting as US stooges, helping the USA to achieve its geopolitical goals (and Ukraine remains the
major geopolitical victory of Obama administration).
Now the majority of Ukrainians exist on around $2 a day. So the social explosion is possible.
And they continue digging the hole deeper and deeper. This is a real Ukrainian tragedy: they managed
to replicate all the horrors of 90th again.
Also, idealization of the West promoted by nationalists serves as a trap, consequences of which
are yet to come. Being Germany resource base is not a walk in the park. Ask Bulgarians about this
experience. Or Greece.
At the same time Donbas tragedy was partially the result of Putin's policy (or lack thereof)
because there was a vague promise that if on the referendum they vote for joining Russia they
will be accepted like Crimea. But he decided not do that. Or, most probably, somebody helped Putin
to decide that way. Of course, after Yeltsin drunk orgy Russia remains weak and can't challenge
the USA directly. And that would do just that. But truth be told after Odessa civilians burning
in the building all Eastern Ukraine up to Kiev was probably ready to accept Russians as liberators.
At least nationalists in Kharkov felt that the city has been already lost.
I talked with a couple of Ukrainian refugees from Donbas area and they were not actually too
exited about Putin's policy and think that he shares the blame with nationalists.
This was a trap that helped to provoke the civil war: the USA pushed for the military solution.
May be in order to destabilize the region, and by extension, Russia, which they incorrectly consider
the main geopolitical enemy after China. But as a result, they destroyed remnants of Ukrainian
economics, and now somebody needs to pick the bill. This process of deindustrialization is continuing
as Ukraine lost the major market for its production. 300% devaluation of grivna reflects just
that. Just think about it: 300% in three years: from 8 to a dollar to 26
In essence, the USA position on Donbas conflict was to the right of Ukrainian nationalists.
Especially US neocons like Nuland and McCain. I remember Yatsenyuk speech (in Russian) at this
time in which he backtracked from "Ukrainian language uber alles" position; might be a tactical
maneuver, but still
In any case, Ukraine remains the worst defeat of Putin in foreign policy area for his whole
term in office (Libya was under Medvedev). And the major geopolitical victory for the USA. Nobody
cares if Ukrainians will starve. And if Russia stops transiting of gas as they plan to do, the
economic situation in Ukraine will become much worse. At this point they might arrive as close
to the failed state as one can get.
Thank you, likbez. Yes, Putin several times referred carelessly to 'Novorossiya', which created
the impression that Russia was considering accepting it. Also, he obtained the advance approval
of the Duma to conduct military operations as he saw fit in order to protect eastern-Ukrainian
ethnic Russians. That was perhaps the biggest mistake he ever made, and he withdrew it, but it
was too late and it very much played into western hands. Washington was able to portray Russia
as ready to invade Ukraine, and it was convincing.
I think Putin has known all along that eastern
Ukraine would be an asset as a frozen conflict, like Abkhazia and South Ossetia are in Georgia,
whereas if Russia were to take them in they would be a liability, as Russia would be forced to
defend them. But those former Donbas residents who grumble because Putin did not absorb eastern
Ukraine should ask themselves if they would be better off if Kiev won and subjugated them, and
they joined the people who are living on a couple of bucks a day. Russian commerce still goes
on with the east, but not with the rest of Ukraine.
And it's true Ukraine represents a major defeat for Russia, but there was little Russia could
have done to stop it. Russia was not going to go to war against NATO to prevent it from seizing
Ukraine, but NATO is not likely to go to war to hold on to it, either. Russia played by the rules
and stayed out of what it labeled Ukraine's business, but the west had no such scruples, and it
meddled, meddled, meddled and instigated a coup. Only a coup will take it back.
The Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives of the US Congress has
drafted a bill to cut US military aid to Ukraine to just $150 million, which is less than
half of the $350 million Kiev received from Washington in 2016.
Under the proposed bill, the Pentagon can spend funds "for training, equipment,
weapons of a defensive nature, logistics, and intelligence."
Washington has ignored Kiev's persistent calls for the supply of offensive weapons
for its "counterterrorism operation" in Donbass.
Ukraine periodically tries sweet talk to lure the east back, but the time to do that was immediately
after the Maidan – instead, nationalist fervor gripped the capital and giddy nationalists went
hard the other way with proclamations that they would delegitimize the Russian language. If anything
about those lunatic days can be said to have been the catalyst which set subsequent events in
motion, the fatal mistake, that was it. The mayor of Lvov, no less, made a speech the very next
day – in perfect colloquial Russian – in which he tried to walk back the disaster and reassure
the easterners that there would not be legal action to discriminate against them because of their
habitual language, but the die was cast and it was too late.
Had the nationalists not had their way or had they not given in to the temptation to indulge
their hatred of Russia and everything about it, there is every chance regime change would have
succeeded in gathering Ukraine to the EU's bosom. Russia might still have made a grab for Crimea,
and for me it would still have been legitimate since it was once part of Russia and was never
ceded legally to Ukraine as its other territories were. But the stab in the back over the use
of Russian, which once again was only a treat the nationalists foolishly allowed themselves as
a reward for victory, provided a perfect catalyst for rebellion and the rapid decision-making
it entails. I would be willing to bet Washington and the State Department are still cursing over
that tactical blunder, since they are now lumbered with the great corrupt mass of Ukraine, with
an active rebellion simmering on its eastern edge, but without the sparkling prize of Crimea.
I don't know if Putin actually said he did not want to be welcomed by NATO sailors in Sevastopol,
as he is reputed to have done, but that most certainly was part of the plan.
This is a very good comment. I think you caught the essence of what happened. Nationalists first
destroyed the country territorial integrity, and after that, they destroyed its economics. Essentially
acting as US stooges, helping the USA to achieve its geopolitical goals (and Ukraine remains the
major geopolitical victory of Obama administration).
Now the majority of Ukrainians exist on around $2 a day. So the social explosion is possible.
And they continue digging the hole deeper and deeper. This is a real Ukrainian tragedy: they managed
to replicate all the horrors of 90th again.
Also, idealization of the West promoted by nationalists serves as a trap, consequences of which
are yet to come. Being Germany resource base is not a walk in the park. Ask Bulgarians about this
experience. Or Greece.
At the same time Donbas tragedy was partially the result of Putin's policy (or lack thereof)
because there was a vague promise that if on the referendum they vote for joining Russia they
will be accepted like Crimea. But he decided not do that. Or, most probably, somebody helped Putin
to decide that way. Of course, after Yeltsin drunk orgy Russia remains weak and can't challenge
the USA directly. And that would do just that. But truth be told after Odessa civilians burning
in the building all Eastern Ukraine up to Kiev was probably ready to accept Russians as liberators.
At least nationalists in Kharkov felt that the city has been already lost.
I talked with a couple of Ukrainian refugees from Donbas area and they were not actually too
exited about Putin's policy and think that he shares the blame with nationalists.
This was a trap that helped to provoke the civil war: the USA pushed for the military solution.
May be in order to destabilize the region, and by extension, Russia, which they incorrectly consider
the main geopolitical enemy after China. But as a result, they destroyed remnants of Ukrainian
economics, and now somebody needs to pick the bill. This process of deindustrialization is continuing
as Ukraine lost the major market for its production. 300% devaluation of grivna reflects just
that. Just think about it: 300% in three years: from 8 to a dollar to 26
In essence, the USA position on Donbas conflict was to the right of Ukrainian nationalists.
Especially US neocons like Nuland and McCain. I remember Yatsenyuk speech (in Russian) at this
time in which he backtracked from "Ukrainian language uber alles" position; might be a tactical
maneuver, but still
In any case, Ukraine remains the worst defeat of Putin in foreign policy area for his whole
term in office (Libya was under Medvedev). And the major geopolitical victory for the USA. Nobody
cares if Ukrainians will starve. And if Russia stops transiting of gas as they plan to do, the
economic situation in Ukraine will become much worse. At this point they might arrive as close
to the failed state as one can get.
Thank you, likbez. Yes, Putin several times referred carelessly to 'Novorossiya', which created
the impression that Russia was considering accepting it. Also, he obtained the advance approval
of the Duma to conduct military operations as he saw fit in order to protect eastern-Ukrainian
ethnic Russians. That was perhaps the biggest mistake he ever made, and he withdrew it, but it
was too late and it very much played into western hands. Washington was able to portray Russia
as ready to invade Ukraine, and it was convincing.
I think Putin has known all along that eastern
Ukraine would be an asset as a frozen conflict, like Abkhazia and South Ossetia are in Georgia,
whereas if Russia were to take them in they would be a liability, as Russia would be forced to
defend them. But those former Donbas residents who grumble because Putin did not absorb eastern
Ukraine should ask themselves if they would be better off if Kiev won and subjugated them, and
they joined the people who are living on a couple of bucks a day. Russian commerce still goes
on with the east, but not with the rest of Ukraine.
And it's true Ukraine represents a major defeat for Russia, but there was little Russia could
have done to stop it. Russia was not going to go to war against NATO to prevent it from seizing
Ukraine, but NATO is not likely to go to war to hold on to it, either. Russia played by the rules
and stayed out of what it labeled Ukraine's business, but the west had no such scruples, and it
meddled, meddled, meddled and instigated a coup. Only a coup will take it back.
While published almost 15 years ago, this artile still looks as if written yesterday. Presidents
change but foreign policy does not.
Notable quotes:
"... US military and intelligence operations in the post Cold War era were led in close coordination with the "free market reforms" imposed under IMF guidance in Eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union and the Balkans, which resulted in the destabilization of national economies and the impoverishment of millions of people. ..."
"... The World Bank sponsored privatization programmes in these countries enabled Western capital to acquire ownership and gain control of a large share of the economy of the former Eastern block countries. This process is also at the basis of the strategic mergers and/or takeovers of the former Soviet oil and gas industry by powerful Western conglomerates, through financial manipulation and corrupt political practices. ..."
"... The deployment of America's war machine purports to enlarge America's economic sphere of influence. The U.S. has established a permanent military presence not only in Iraq and Afghanistan, it has military bases in several of the former Soviet republics on China's Western frontier. In turn, since 1999, there has been a military buildup in the South China Sea. ..."
"... The Pentagon views 'territorial control' over Syria, which constitutes a land bridge between Israel and occupied Iraq, as 'strategic' from a military and economic standpoint. It also constitutes a means of controlling the Iraqi border and curbing the flow of volunteer fighters, who are traveling to Baghdad to join the Iraqi resistance movement. ..."
"... Washington has adopted a first strike "pre-emptive" nuclear policy, which has now received congressional approval. Nuclear weapons are no longer a weapon of last resort as during the cold War era. ..."
"... The war on Iraq has been in the planning stages at least since the mid-1990s. A 1995 National Security document of the Clinton administration stated quite clearly that the objective of the war is oil. "to protect the United States' uninterrupted, secure U.S. access to oil. ..."
"... In September 2000, a few months before the accession of George W. Bush to the White House, the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) published its blueprint for global domination under the title: "Rebuilding America's Defenses. ..."
"... The PNAC outlines a roadmap of conquest. It calls for "the direct imposition of U.S. "forward bases" throughout Central Asia and the Middle East "with a view to ensuring economic domination of the world, while strangling any potential "rival" or any viable alternative to America's vision of a 'free market' economy" (See Chris Floyd, Bush's Crusade for empire, Global Outlook, No. 6, 2003) ..."
"... The PNAC's reference to a "catastrophic and catalyzing event" echoes a similar statement by David Rockefeller to the United Nations Business Council in 1994: ..."
"... We are on the verge of global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order." ..."
"... " it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus [in America] on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat." ..."
"... The "catastrophic and catalyzing event" as stated by the PNAC is an integral part of US military-intelligence planning. General Franks, who led the military campaign into Iraq, pointed recently (October 2003) to the role of a "massive casualty-producing event" to muster support for the imposition of military rule in America. (See General Tommy Franks calls for Repeal of US Constitution, November 2003, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/EDW311A.html ). ..."
"... In many regards, the militarisation of civilian State institutions in the US is already functional under the facade of a bogus democracy. ..."
"... In the wake of the September attacks on the World Trade Center, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld created to the Office of Strategic Influence (OSI), or "Office of Disinformation" as it was labeled by its critics ..."
"... Spelled out in the National Security Strategy (NSS), the preemptive "defensive war" doctrine and the "war on terrorism" against Al Qaeda constitute the two essential building blocks of the Pentagon's propaganda campaign. ..."
"... The objective is to present "preemptive military action" --meaning war as an act of "self-defense" against two categories of enemies, "rogue States" and "Islamic terrorists" ..."
"... In other words, the Clinton Administration was "harboring terrorists". Moreover, official statements and intelligence reports confirm links between US military-intelligence units and Al Qaeda operatives, as occurred in Bosnia (mid 1990s), Kosovo (1998-99) and Macedonia (2001) ..."
"... The ties of these terrorist organizations (particularly those in Asia) to Pakistan's military intelligence (ISI) is acknowledged in a few cases by official sources and press dispatches. Confirmed by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), some of these groups are said to have links to Pakistan's ISI, without identifying the nature of these links. ..."
"... both Richard Armitage and Colin Powell played a role in the 9/11 cover-up. ..."
"... The FBI confirmed in a report made public late September 2001 the role of Pakistan's Military Intelligence. According to the report, the alleged 9-11 ring leader, Mohammed Atta, had been financed from sources out of Pakistan. A subsequent intelligence report confirmed that the then head of the ISI General Mahmoud Ahmad had transferred money to Mohammed Atta. (See Michel Chossudovsky, War and Globalization, op.cit.) ..."
"... Increasingly, the military-intelligence establishment (rather than the State Department, the White House and the US Congress) is calling the shots on US foreign policy. Meanwhile, the Texas oil giants, the defense contractors, Wall Street and the powerful media giants, operating discreetly behind the scenes, are pulling the strings. If politicians become a source of major embarrassment, they can themselves be discredited by the media, discarded and a new team of political puppets can be brought to office. ..."
"... The "Criminalization of the State", is when war criminals legitimately occupy positions of authority, which enable them to decide "who are the criminals", when in fact they are criminals. ..."
"... In the US, both Republicans and Democrats share the same war agenda and there are war criminals in both parties. Both parties are complicit in the 9/11 cover-up and the resultant quest for world domination. All the evidence points to what is best described as "the criminalisation of the State", which includes the Judiciary and the bipartisan corridors of the US Congress. ..."
"... Under the war agenda, high ranking officials of the Bush administration, members of the military, the US Congress and the Judiciary have been granted the authority not only to commit criminal acts, but also to designate those in the antiwar movement who are opposed to these criminal acts as "enemies of the State." ..."
"... More generally, the US military and security apparatus endorses and supports dominant economic and financial interests - i.e. the build-up, as well as the exercise, of military might enforces "free trade". The Pentagon is an arm of Wall Street; NATO coordinates its military operations with the World Bank and the IMF's policy interventions, and vice versa. Consistently, the security and defense bodies of the Western military alliance, together with the various civilian governmental and intergovernmental bureaucracies (e.g. IMF, World Bank, WTO) share a common understanding, ideological consensus and commitment to the New World Order. ..."
We are the juncture of the most serious crisis in modern history.
The Bush Administration has embarked upon a military adventure which threatens the future of humanity.
The wars on Afghanistan and Iraq are part of a broader military agenda, which was launched at
the end of the Cold War. The ongoing war agenda is a continuation of the 1991 Gulf War and the NATO
led wars on Yugoslavia (1991-2001).
The post Cold War period has also been marked by numerous US covert intelligence operations within
the former Soviet Union, which were instrumental in triggering civil wars in several of the former
republics including Chechnya (within the Russian Federation), Georgia and Azerbaijan. In the latter,
these covert operations were launched with a view to securing strategic control over oil and gas
pipeline corridors.
US military and intelligence operations in the post Cold War era were led in close coordination
with the "free market reforms" imposed under IMF guidance in Eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union
and the Balkans, which resulted in the destabilization of national economies and the impoverishment
of millions of people.
The World Bank sponsored privatization programmes in these countries enabled Western capital
to acquire ownership and gain control of a large share of the economy of the former Eastern block
countries. This process is also at the basis of the strategic mergers and/or takeovers of the former
Soviet oil and gas industry by powerful Western conglomerates, through financial manipulation and
corrupt political practices.
In other words, what is at stake in the US led war is the recolonization of a vast region
extending from the Balkans into Central Asia.
The deployment of America's war machine purports to enlarge America's economic sphere of influence.
The U.S. has established a permanent military presence not only in Iraq and Afghanistan, it has military
bases in several of the former Soviet republics on China's Western frontier. In turn, since 1999,
there has been a military buildup in the South China Sea.
War and Globalization go hand in hand. Militarization supports the conquest of new economic
frontiers and the worldwide imposition of "free market" system.
The Next Phase of the War
The Bush administration has already identified Syria as the next stage of "the road map to war".
The bombing of presumed 'terrorist bases' in Syria by the Israeli Air Force in October was intended
to provide a justification for subsequent pre-emptive military interventions. Ariel Sharon launched
the attacks with the approval of Donald Rumsfeld. (See Gordon Thomas, Global Outlook, No. 6, Winter
2004)
This planned extension of the war into Syria has serious implications. It means that Israel becomes
a major military actor in the US-led war, as well as an 'official' member of the Anglo-American coalition.
The Pentagon views 'territorial control' over Syria, which constitutes a land bridge between
Israel and occupied Iraq, as 'strategic' from a military and economic standpoint. It also constitutes
a means of controlling the Iraqi border and curbing the flow of volunteer fighters, who are traveling
to Baghdad to join the Iraqi resistance movement.
This enlargement of the theater of war is consistent with Ariel Sharon's plan to build
a 'Greater Israel' "on the ruins of Palestinian nationalism". While Israel seeks to extend its territorial
domain towards the Euphrates River, with designated areas of Jewish settlement in the Syrian heartland,
Palestinians are imprisoned in Gaza and the West Bank behind an 'Apartheid Wall'.
In the meantime, the US Congress has tightened the economic sanctions on Libya and Iran. As well,
Washington is hinting at the need for a 'regime change' in Saudi Arabia. Political pressures are
building up in Turkey.
So, the war could indeed spill over into a much broader region extending from the Eastern Mediterranean
to the Indian sub-continent and China's Western frontier.
The "Pre-emptive" Use of Nuclear Weapons
Washington has adopted a first strike "pre-emptive" nuclear policy, which has now received
congressional approval. Nuclear weapons are no longer a weapon of last resort as during the cold
War era.
The US, Britain and Israel have a coordinated nuclear weapons policy. Israeli nuclear warheads
are pointed at major cities in the Middle East. The governments of all three countries have stated
quite openly, prior to the war on Iraq, that they are prepared to use nuclear weapons "if they are
attacked" with so-called "weapons of mass destruction." Israel is the fifth nuclear power in the
World. Its nuclear arsenal is more advanced than that of Britain.
Barely a few weeks following the entry of the US Marines into Baghdad, the US Senate Armed Services
Committee gave the green light to the Pentagon to develop a new tactical nuclear bomb, to be used
in conventional war theaters, "with a yield [of up to] six times more powerful than the Hiroshima
bomb".
Following the Senate decision, the Pentagon redefined the details of its nuclear agenda in a secret
meeting with senior executives from the nuclear industry and the military industrial complex held
at Central Command Headquarters at the Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska. The meeting was held on
August 6, the day the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, 58 years ago.
The new nuclear policy explicitly involves the large defense contractors in decision-making. It
is tantamount to the "privatization" of nuclear war. Corporations not only reap multibillion dollar
profits from the production of nuclear bombs, they also have a direct voice in setting the agenda
regarding the use and deployment of nuclear weapons.
Meanwhile, the Pentagon has unleashed a major propaganda and public relations campaign with a
view to upholding the use nuclear weapons for the "defense of the American Homeland."
Fully endorsed by the US Congress, the mini-nukes are considered to be "safe for civilians".
This new generation of nuclear weapons is slated to be used in the next phase of this war, in
"conventional war theatres" (e.g. in the Middle East and Central Asia) alongside conventional weapons.
In December 2003, the US Congress allocated $6.3 billion solely for 2004, to develop this new generation
of "defensive" nuclear weapons.
The overall annual defense budget is of the order of 400 billion dollars, roughly of the same
order of magnitude as the entire Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of the Russian Federation.
While there is no firm evidence of the use of mini-nukes in the Iraqi and Afghan war theatres,
tests conducted by Canada's Uranium Medical Research Center (UMRC), in Afghanistan confirm that recorded
toxic radiation was not attributable to 'heavy metal' depleted uranium ammunition (DU), but to another
unidentified form of uranium contamination:
"some form of uranium weapon had been used (...) The results were astounding: the donors presented
concentrations of toxic and radioactive uranium isotopes between 100 and 400 times greater than
in the Gulf War veterans tested in 1999." www.umrc.net
The Planning of War
The war on Iraq has been in the planning stages at least since the mid-1990s. A 1995 National
Security document of the Clinton administration stated quite clearly that the objective of the war
is oil. "to protect the United States' uninterrupted, secure U.S. access to oil.
In September 2000, a few months before the accession of George W. Bush to the White House,
the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) published its blueprint for global domination under
the title: "Rebuilding America's Defenses."
The PNAC is a neo-conservative think tank linked to the Defense-Intelligence establishment, the
Republican Party and the powerful Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) which plays a behind-the-scenes
role in the formulation of US foreign policy.
The PNAC's declared objective is quite simple - to:
"Fight and decisively win in multiple, simultaneous theater wars".
This statement indicates that the US plans to be involved simultaneously in several war theaters
in different regions of the World.
Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President
Dick Cheney had commissioned the PNAC blueprint prior to the presidential elections.
The PNAC outlines a roadmap of conquest. It calls for "the direct imposition of U.S. "forward
bases" throughout Central Asia and the Middle East "with a view to ensuring economic domination of
the world, while strangling any potential "rival" or any viable alternative to America's vision of
a 'free market' economy" (See Chris Floyd, Bush's Crusade for empire, Global Outlook, No. 6, 2003)
The Role of "Massive Casualty Producing Events"
The PNAC blueprint also outlines a consistent framework of war propaganda. One year before 9/11,
the PNAC called for "some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor," which would
serve to galvanize US public opinion in support of a war agenda. (See
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/NAC304A.html
)
The PNAC architects seem to have anticipated with cynical accuracy, the use of the September 11
attacks as "a war pretext incident."
The PNAC's reference to a "catastrophic and catalyzing event" echoes a similar statement by
David Rockefeller to the United Nations Business Council in 1994:
"We are on the verge of global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and
the nations will accept the New World Order."
Similarly, in the words Zbigniew Brzezinski in his book, The Grand Chessboard:.
" it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus [in America] on foreign policy issues,
except in the circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat."
Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was National Security Adviser to President Jimmy Carter was one of the
key architects of the Al Qaeda network, created by the CIA at the onslaught of the Soviet Afghan
war (1979-1989).
The "catastrophic and catalyzing event" as stated by the PNAC is an integral part of US military-intelligence
planning. General Franks, who led the military campaign into Iraq, pointed recently (October 2003)
to the role of a "massive casualty-producing event" to muster support for the imposition of military
rule in America. (See General Tommy Franks calls for Repeal of US Constitution, November 2003,
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/EDW311A.html
).
Franks identifies the precise scenario whereby military rule will be established:
"a terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event [will occur] somewhere in the Western world
- it may be in the United States of America - that causes our population to question our own Constitution
and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing
event." (Ibid)
This statement from an individual, who was actively involved in military and intelligence planning
at the highest levels, suggests that the "militarisation of our country" is an ongoing operational
assumption. It is part of the broader "Washington consensus". It identifies the Bush administration's
"roadmap" of war and "Homeland Defense." Needless to say, it is also an integral part of the neoliberal
agenda.
The "terrorist massive casualty-producing event" is presented by General Franks as a crucial political
turning point. The resulting crisis and social turmoil are intended to facilitate a major shift in
US political, social and institutional structures.
General Franks' statement reflects a consensus within the US Military as to how events ought to
unfold. The "war on terrorism" is to provide a justification for repealing the Rule of Law, ultimately
with a view to "preserving civil liberties."
Franks' interview suggests that an Al Qaeda sponsored terrorist attack will be used as a "trigger
mechanism" for a military coup d'état in America. The PNAC's "Pearl Harbor type event" would be used
as a justification for declaring a State of emergency, leading to the establishment of a military
government.
In many regards, the militarisation of civilian State institutions in the US is already functional
under the facade of a bogus democracy.
War Propaganda
In the wake of the September attacks on the World Trade Center, Secretary of Defense Donald
Rumsfeld created to the Office of Strategic Influence (OSI), or "Office of Disinformation" as it
was labeled by its critics:
"The Department of Defense said they needed to do this, and they were going to actually plant
stories that were false in foreign countries -- as an effort to influence public opinion across
the world. (Interview with Steve Adubato, Fox News, 26 December 2002.)
And, all of a sudden, the OSI was formally disbanded following political pressures and "troublesome"
media stories that "its purpose was to deliberately lie to advance American interests." (Air Force
Magazine, January 2003, italics added) "Rumsfeld backed off and said this is embarrassing." (Adubato,
op. cit. italics added) Yet despite this apparent about-turn, the Pentagon's Orwellian disinformation
campaign remains functionally intact: "[T]he secretary of defense is not being particularly candid
here. Disinformation in military propaganda is part of war."(Ibid)
A number of government agencies and intelligence units --with links to the Pentagon-remain actively
involved in various components of the propaganda campaign. Realities are turned upside down. Acts
of war are heralded as "humanitarian interventions" geared towards "regime change" and "the restoration
of democracy". Military occupation and the killing of civilians are presented as "peace-keeping".
The derogation of civil liberties --in the context of the so-called "anti-terrorist legislation"--
is portrayed as a means to providing "domestic security" and upholding civil liberties.
The Central Role of Al Qaeda in Bush's National Security Doctrine
Spelled out in the National Security Strategy (NSS), the preemptive "defensive war" doctrine
and the "war on terrorism" against Al Qaeda constitute the two essential building blocks of the Pentagon's
propaganda campaign.
The objective is to present "preemptive military action" --meaning war as an act of "self-defense"
against two categories of enemies, "rogue States" and "Islamic terrorists":
"The war against terrorists of global reach is a global enterprise of uncertain duration. America
will act against such emerging threats before they are fully formed.
Rogue states and terrorists do not seek to attack us using conventional means. They know such
attacks would fail. Instead, they rely on acts of terror and, potentially, the use of weapons
of mass destruction ( )
The targets of these attacks are our military forces and our civilian population, in direct
violation of one of the principal norms of the law of warfare. As was demonstrated by the losses
on September 11, 2001, mass civilian casualties is the specific objective of terrorists and these
losses would be exponentially more severe if terrorists acquired and used weapons of mass destruction.
The United States has long maintained the option of preemptive actions to counter a sufficient
threat to our national security. The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction-
and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, ( ). To forestall
or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively."12
(National Security Strategy, White House, 2002,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html
)
To justify pre-emptive military actions, the National Security Doctrine requires the "fabrication"
of a terrorist threat, --ie. "an outside enemy." It also needs to link these terrorist threats to
"State sponsorship" by the so-called "rogue states."
But it also means that the various "massive casualty-producing events" allegedly by Al Qaeda (the
fabricated enemy) are part of the National Security agenda.
In the months building up to the invasion of Iraq, covert 'dirty tricks' operations were launched
to produce misleading intelligence pertaining to both Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) and Al Qaeda,
which was then fed into the news chain.
In the wake of the war, while the WMD threat has been toned down, Al Qaeda threats to 'the Homeland'
continue to be repeated ad nauseam in official statements, commented on network TV and pasted on
a daily basis across the news tabloids.
And underlying these manipulated realties, "Osama bin Laden" terrorist occurrences are being upheld
as a justification for the next phase of this war. The latter hinges in a very direct way:
1) the effectiveness of the Pentagon-CIA propaganda campaign, which is fed into the news chain.
2) The actual occurrence of "massive casualty producing events" as outlined in the PNAC
What this means is that actual ("massive casualty producing") terrorist events are part and parcel
of military planning.
Actual Terrorist Attacks
In other words, to be "effective" the fear and disinformation campaign cannot solely rely on unsubstantiated
"warnings" of future attacks, it also requires "real" terrorist occurrences or "incidents", which
provide credibility to the Washington's war plans. These terrorist events are used to justify the
implementation of "emergency measures" as well as "retaliatory military actions". They are required,
in the present context, to create the illusion of "an outside enemy" that is threatening the American
Homeland.
The triggering of "war pretext incidents" is part of the Pentagon's assumptions. In fact it is
an integral part of US military history.(See Richard Sanders, War Pretext Incidents, How to Start
a War, Global Outlook, published in two parts, Issues 2 and 3, 2002-2003).
In 1962, the Joint Chiefs of Staff had envisaged a secret plan entitled "Operation Northwoods",
to deliberately trigger civilian casualties to justify the invasion of Cuba:
"We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba," "We could develop a Communist
Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington" "casualty
lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation." (See the declassified
Top Secret 1962 document titled "Justification for U.S. Military Intervention in Cuba"16 (See
Operation Northwoods at
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/NOR111A.html
).
There is no evidence that the Pentagon or the CIA played a direct role in recent terrorist attacks,
including those in Indonesia (2002), India (2001), Turkey (2003) and Saudi Arabia (2003).
According to the reports, the attacks were undertaken by organizations (or cells of these organizations),
which operate quite independently, with a certain degree of autonomy. This independence is in the
very nature of a covert intelligence operation. The "intelligence asset" is not in direct contact
with its covert sponsors. It is not necessarily cognizant of the role it plays on behalf of its intelligence
sponsors.
The fundamental question is who is behind them? Through what sources are they being financed?
What is the underlying network of ties?
For instance, in the case of the 2002 Bali bomb attack, the alleged terrorist organization Jemaah
Islamiah had links to Indonesia's military intelligence (BIN), which in turn has links to the CIA
and Australian intelligence.
The December 2001 terrorist attacks on the Indian Parliament --which contributed to pushing India
and Pakistan to the brink of war-- were allegedly conducted by two Pakistan-based rebel groups, Lashkar-e-Taiba
("Army of the Pure") and Jaish-e-Muhammad ("Army of Mohammed"), both of which according to the Council
on Foreign Relations (CFR) are supported by Pakistan's ISI. (Council on Foreign Relations at
http://www.terrorismanswers.com/groups/harakat2.html
, Washington 2002).
What the CFR fails to acknowledge is the crucial relationship between the ISI and the CIA and
the fact that the ISI continues to support Lashkar, Jaish and the militant Jammu and Kashmir Hizbul
Mujahideen (JKHM), while also collaborating with the CIA (For further details see Michel Chossudovsky,
Fabricating an Enemy, March 2003,
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO301B.html
)
A 2002 classified outbrief drafted to guide the Pentagon "calls for the creation of a so-called
'Proactive, Pre-emptive Operations Group' (P2OG), to launch secret operations aimed at "stimulating
reactions" among terrorists and states possessing weapons of mass destruction -- that is, for instance,
prodding terrorist cells into action and exposing themselves to 'quick-response' attacks by U.S.
forces." (William Arkin, The Secret War, The Los Angeles Times, 27 October 2002)
The P2OG initiative is nothing new. It essentially extends an existing apparatus of covert operations.
Amply documented, the CIA has supported terrorist groups since the Cold War era. This "prodding of
terrorist cells" under covert intelligence operations often requires the infiltration and training
of the radical groups linked to Al Qaeda.
In this regard, covert support by the US military and intelligence apparatus has been channeled
to various Islamic terrorist organizations through a complex network of intermediaries and intelligence
proxies. In the course of the 1990s, agencies of the US government have collaborated with Al Qaeda
in a number of covert operations, as confirmed by a 1997 report of the Republican Party Committee
of the US Congress. (See US Congress, 16 January 1997,
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/DCH109A.html
). In fact during the war in Bosnia US weapons inspectors were working with Al Qaeda operatives,
bringing in large amounts of weapons for the Bosnian Muslim Army.
In other words, the Clinton Administration was "harboring terrorists". Moreover, official
statements and intelligence reports confirm links between US military-intelligence units and Al Qaeda
operatives, as occurred in Bosnia (mid 1990s), Kosovo (1998-99) and Macedonia (2001).(See See
Michel Chossudovsky, War and Globalisation, The Truth behind September 11, Global Outlook, 2003,
Chapter 3, http://globalresearch.ca/globaloutlook/truth911.html
)
The Bush Administration and NATO had links to Al Qaeda in Macedonia. And this happened barely
a few weeks before September 11, 2001, Senior U.S. military advisers from a private mercenary outfit
on contract to the Pentagon, were fighting alongside Mujahideen in the terrorist attacks on the Macedonian
Security forces. This is documented by the Macedonian press and statements made by the Macedonian
authorities. (See Michel Chossudovsky, op cit). The U.S. government and the Islamic Militant Network
were working hand in glove in supporting and financing the National Liberation Army (NLA), which
was involved in the terrorist attacks in Macedonia.
In other words, the US military was collaborating directly with Al Qaeda barely a few weeks before
9/11.
Al Qaeda and Pakistan's Military Intelligence (ISI)
It is indeed revealing that in virtually all post 9/11 terrorist occurrences, the terrorist organization
is reported (by the media and in official statements) as having "ties to Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda".
This in itself is a crucial piece of information. Of course, the fact that Al Qaeda is a creation
of the CIA is neither mentioned in the press reports nor is it considered relevant to an understanding
of these terrorist occurrences.
The ties of these terrorist organizations (particularly those in Asia) to Pakistan's military
intelligence (ISI) is acknowledged in a few cases by official sources and press dispatches. Confirmed
by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), some of these groups are said to have links to Pakistan's
ISI, without identifying the nature of these links. Needless to say, this information is crucial
in identifying the sponsors of these terrorist attacks. In other words, the ISI is said to support
these terrorist organizations, while at same time maintaining close ties to the CIA
September 11
While Colin Powell --without supporting evidence-pointed in his February 2003 UN address to "the
sinister nexus between Iraq and the Al Qaeda terrorist network", official documents, press and intelligence
reports confirm that successive US administrations have supported and abetted the Islamic militant
network. This relationship is an established fact, corroborated by numerous studies, acknowledged
by Washington's mainstream think tanks.
Both Colin Powell and his Deputy Richard Armitage, who in the months leading up to the war casually
accused Baghdad and other foreign governments of "harboring" Al Qaeda, played a direct role, at different
points in their careers, in supporting terrorist organizations.
Both men were implicated --operating behind the scenes-- in the Irangate Contra scandal during
the Reagan Administration, which involved the illegal sale of weapons to Iran to finance the Nicaraguan
Contra paramilitary army and the Afghan Mujahideen. (For further details, see Michel Chossudovsky,
Expose the Links between Al Qaeda and the Bush Administration,
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO303D.html
)
Moreover, both Richard Armitage and Colin Powell played a role in the 9/11 cover-up.
The investigations and research conducted in the last two years, including official documents, testimonies
and intelligence reports, indicate that September 11 was an carefully planned intelligence operation,
rather than a act conducted by a terrorist organization. (For further details, see Centre for Research
on Globalization, 24 Key articles, September 2003)
The FBI confirmed in a report made public late September 2001 the role of Pakistan's Military
Intelligence. According to the report, the alleged 9-11 ring leader, Mohammed Atta, had been financed
from sources out of Pakistan. A subsequent intelligence report confirmed that the then head of the
ISI General Mahmoud Ahmad had transferred money to Mohammed Atta. (See Michel Chossudovsky, War and
Globalization, op.cit.)
Moreover, press reports and official statements confirm that the head of the ISI, was an official
visit to the US from the 4th to 13th of September 2001. In other words, the head of Pakistan's ISI,
who allegedly transferred money to the terrorists also had a close personal relationship with a number
of senior Bush Administration officials, including Colin Powell, CIA Director George Tenet and Deputy
Secretary Richard Armitage, whom he met in the course of his visit to Washington. (Ibid)
The Antiwar Movement
A cohesive antiwar movement cannot be based solely on the mobilization of antiwar sentiment. It
must ultimately unseat the war criminals and question their right to rule.
A necessary condition for bringing down the rulers is to weaken and eventually dismantle their
propaganda campaign.
The momentum of the large anti-war rallies in the US, the European Union and around the world,
should lay the foundations of a permanent network composed of tens of thousands of local level anti-war
committees in neighborhoods, work places, parishes, schools, universities, etc. It is ultimately
through this network that the legitimacy of those who "rule in our name" will be challenged.
To shunt the Bush Administration's war plans and disable its propaganda machine, we must reach
out to our fellow citizens across the land, in the US, Europe and around the world, to the millions
of ordinary people who have been misled on the causes and consequences of this war.
This also implies fully uncovering the lies behind the "war on terrorism" and revealing the political
complicity of the Bush administration in the events of 9/11.
September 11 is a hoax. It's the biggest lie in US history.
Needless to say, the use of "massive casualty producing events" as pretext to wage war is a criminal
act. In the words of Andreas van Buelow, former German Minister of Technology and author of The CIA
and September 11:
"If what I say is right, the whole US government should end up behind bars."
Yet it is not sufficient to remove George W. Bush or Tony Blair, who are mere puppets. We must
also address the role of the global banks, corporations and financial institutions, which indelibly
stand behind the military and political actors.
Increasingly, the military-intelligence establishment (rather than the State Department, the
White House and the US Congress) is calling the shots on US foreign policy. Meanwhile, the Texas
oil giants, the defense contractors, Wall Street and the powerful media giants, operating discreetly
behind the scenes, are pulling the strings. If politicians become a source of major embarrassment,
they can themselves be discredited by the media, discarded and a new team of political puppets can
be brought to office.
Criminalization of the State
The "Criminalization of the State", is when war criminals legitimately occupy positions of
authority, which enable them to decide "who are the criminals", when in fact they are criminals.
In the US, both Republicans and Democrats share the same war agenda and there are war criminals
in both parties. Both parties are complicit in the 9/11 cover-up and the resultant quest for world
domination. All the evidence points to what is best described as "the criminalisation of the State",
which includes the Judiciary and the bipartisan corridors of the US Congress.
Under the war agenda, high ranking officials of the Bush administration, members of the military,
the US Congress and the Judiciary have been granted the authority not only to commit criminal acts,
but also to designate those in the antiwar movement who are opposed to these criminal acts as "enemies
of the State."
More generally, the US military and security apparatus endorses and supports dominant economic
and financial interests - i.e. the build-up, as well as the exercise, of military might enforces
"free trade". The Pentagon is an arm of Wall Street; NATO coordinates its military operations with
the World Bank and the IMF's policy interventions, and vice versa. Consistently, the security and
defense bodies of the Western military alliance, together with the various civilian governmental
and intergovernmental bureaucracies (e.g. IMF, World Bank, WTO) share a common understanding, ideological
consensus and commitment to the New World Order.
To reverse the tide of war, military bases must be closed down, the war machine (namely the production
of advanced weapons systems like WMDs) must be stopped and the burgeoning police state must be dismantled.
More generally we must reverse the "free market" reforms, dismantle the institutions of global capitalism
and disarm financial markets.
The struggle must be broad-based and democratic encompassing all sectors of society at all levels,
in all countries, uniting in a major thrust: workers, farmers, independent producers, small businesses,
professionals, artists, civil servants, members of the clergy, students and intellectuals.
The antiwar and anti-globalisation movements must be integrated into a single worldwide movement.
People must be united across sectors, "single issue" groups must join hands in a common and collective
understanding on how the New World Order destroys and impoverishes.
The globalization of this struggle is fundamental, requiring a degree of solidarity and internationalism
unprecedented in world history. This global economic system feeds on social divisiveness between
and within countries. Unity of purpose and worldwide coordination among diverse groups and social
movements is crucial. A major thrust is required which brings together social movements in all major
regions of the world in a common pursuit and commitment to the elimination of poverty and a lasting
world peace.
While published almost 15 years ago, this artile still looks as if written yesterday. Presidents
change but foreign policy does not.
Notable quotes:
"... US military and intelligence operations in the post Cold War era were led in close coordination with the "free market reforms" imposed under IMF guidance in Eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union and the Balkans, which resulted in the destabilization of national economies and the impoverishment of millions of people. ..."
"... The World Bank sponsored privatization programmes in these countries enabled Western capital to acquire ownership and gain control of a large share of the economy of the former Eastern block countries. This process is also at the basis of the strategic mergers and/or takeovers of the former Soviet oil and gas industry by powerful Western conglomerates, through financial manipulation and corrupt political practices. ..."
"... The deployment of America's war machine purports to enlarge America's economic sphere of influence. The U.S. has established a permanent military presence not only in Iraq and Afghanistan, it has military bases in several of the former Soviet republics on China's Western frontier. In turn, since 1999, there has been a military buildup in the South China Sea. ..."
"... The Pentagon views 'territorial control' over Syria, which constitutes a land bridge between Israel and occupied Iraq, as 'strategic' from a military and economic standpoint. It also constitutes a means of controlling the Iraqi border and curbing the flow of volunteer fighters, who are traveling to Baghdad to join the Iraqi resistance movement. ..."
"... Washington has adopted a first strike "pre-emptive" nuclear policy, which has now received congressional approval. Nuclear weapons are no longer a weapon of last resort as during the cold War era. ..."
"... The war on Iraq has been in the planning stages at least since the mid-1990s. A 1995 National Security document of the Clinton administration stated quite clearly that the objective of the war is oil. "to protect the United States' uninterrupted, secure U.S. access to oil. ..."
"... In September 2000, a few months before the accession of George W. Bush to the White House, the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) published its blueprint for global domination under the title: "Rebuilding America's Defenses. ..."
"... The PNAC outlines a roadmap of conquest. It calls for "the direct imposition of U.S. "forward bases" throughout Central Asia and the Middle East "with a view to ensuring economic domination of the world, while strangling any potential "rival" or any viable alternative to America's vision of a 'free market' economy" (See Chris Floyd, Bush's Crusade for empire, Global Outlook, No. 6, 2003) ..."
"... The PNAC's reference to a "catastrophic and catalyzing event" echoes a similar statement by David Rockefeller to the United Nations Business Council in 1994: ..."
"... We are on the verge of global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order." ..."
"... " it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus [in America] on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat." ..."
"... The "catastrophic and catalyzing event" as stated by the PNAC is an integral part of US military-intelligence planning. General Franks, who led the military campaign into Iraq, pointed recently (October 2003) to the role of a "massive casualty-producing event" to muster support for the imposition of military rule in America. (See General Tommy Franks calls for Repeal of US Constitution, November 2003, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/EDW311A.html ). ..."
"... In many regards, the militarisation of civilian State institutions in the US is already functional under the facade of a bogus democracy. ..."
"... In the wake of the September attacks on the World Trade Center, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld created to the Office of Strategic Influence (OSI), or "Office of Disinformation" as it was labeled by its critics ..."
"... Spelled out in the National Security Strategy (NSS), the preemptive "defensive war" doctrine and the "war on terrorism" against Al Qaeda constitute the two essential building blocks of the Pentagon's propaganda campaign. ..."
"... The objective is to present "preemptive military action" --meaning war as an act of "self-defense" against two categories of enemies, "rogue States" and "Islamic terrorists" ..."
"... In other words, the Clinton Administration was "harboring terrorists". Moreover, official statements and intelligence reports confirm links between US military-intelligence units and Al Qaeda operatives, as occurred in Bosnia (mid 1990s), Kosovo (1998-99) and Macedonia (2001) ..."
"... The ties of these terrorist organizations (particularly those in Asia) to Pakistan's military intelligence (ISI) is acknowledged in a few cases by official sources and press dispatches. Confirmed by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), some of these groups are said to have links to Pakistan's ISI, without identifying the nature of these links. ..."
"... both Richard Armitage and Colin Powell played a role in the 9/11 cover-up. ..."
"... The FBI confirmed in a report made public late September 2001 the role of Pakistan's Military Intelligence. According to the report, the alleged 9-11 ring leader, Mohammed Atta, had been financed from sources out of Pakistan. A subsequent intelligence report confirmed that the then head of the ISI General Mahmoud Ahmad had transferred money to Mohammed Atta. (See Michel Chossudovsky, War and Globalization, op.cit.) ..."
"... Increasingly, the military-intelligence establishment (rather than the State Department, the White House and the US Congress) is calling the shots on US foreign policy. Meanwhile, the Texas oil giants, the defense contractors, Wall Street and the powerful media giants, operating discreetly behind the scenes, are pulling the strings. If politicians become a source of major embarrassment, they can themselves be discredited by the media, discarded and a new team of political puppets can be brought to office. ..."
"... The "Criminalization of the State", is when war criminals legitimately occupy positions of authority, which enable them to decide "who are the criminals", when in fact they are criminals. ..."
"... In the US, both Republicans and Democrats share the same war agenda and there are war criminals in both parties. Both parties are complicit in the 9/11 cover-up and the resultant quest for world domination. All the evidence points to what is best described as "the criminalisation of the State", which includes the Judiciary and the bipartisan corridors of the US Congress. ..."
"... Under the war agenda, high ranking officials of the Bush administration, members of the military, the US Congress and the Judiciary have been granted the authority not only to commit criminal acts, but also to designate those in the antiwar movement who are opposed to these criminal acts as "enemies of the State." ..."
"... More generally, the US military and security apparatus endorses and supports dominant economic and financial interests - i.e. the build-up, as well as the exercise, of military might enforces "free trade". The Pentagon is an arm of Wall Street; NATO coordinates its military operations with the World Bank and the IMF's policy interventions, and vice versa. Consistently, the security and defense bodies of the Western military alliance, together with the various civilian governmental and intergovernmental bureaucracies (e.g. IMF, World Bank, WTO) share a common understanding, ideological consensus and commitment to the New World Order. ..."
We are the juncture of the most serious crisis in modern history.
The Bush Administration has embarked upon a military adventure which threatens the future of humanity.
The wars on Afghanistan and Iraq are part of a broader military agenda, which was launched at
the end of the Cold War. The ongoing war agenda is a continuation of the 1991 Gulf War and the NATO
led wars on Yugoslavia (1991-2001).
The post Cold War period has also been marked by numerous US covert intelligence operations within
the former Soviet Union, which were instrumental in triggering civil wars in several of the former
republics including Chechnya (within the Russian Federation), Georgia and Azerbaijan. In the latter,
these covert operations were launched with a view to securing strategic control over oil and gas
pipeline corridors.
US military and intelligence operations in the post Cold War era were led in close coordination
with the "free market reforms" imposed under IMF guidance in Eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union
and the Balkans, which resulted in the destabilization of national economies and the impoverishment
of millions of people.
The World Bank sponsored privatization programmes in these countries enabled Western capital
to acquire ownership and gain control of a large share of the economy of the former Eastern block
countries. This process is also at the basis of the strategic mergers and/or takeovers of the former
Soviet oil and gas industry by powerful Western conglomerates, through financial manipulation and
corrupt political practices.
In other words, what is at stake in the US led war is the recolonization of a vast region
extending from the Balkans into Central Asia.
The deployment of America's war machine purports to enlarge America's economic sphere of influence.
The U.S. has established a permanent military presence not only in Iraq and Afghanistan, it has military
bases in several of the former Soviet republics on China's Western frontier. In turn, since 1999,
there has been a military buildup in the South China Sea.
War and Globalization go hand in hand. Militarization supports the conquest of new economic
frontiers and the worldwide imposition of "free market" system.
The Next Phase of the War
The Bush administration has already identified Syria as the next stage of "the road map to war".
The bombing of presumed 'terrorist bases' in Syria by the Israeli Air Force in October was intended
to provide a justification for subsequent pre-emptive military interventions. Ariel Sharon launched
the attacks with the approval of Donald Rumsfeld. (See Gordon Thomas, Global Outlook, No. 6, Winter
2004)
This planned extension of the war into Syria has serious implications. It means that Israel becomes
a major military actor in the US-led war, as well as an 'official' member of the Anglo-American coalition.
The Pentagon views 'territorial control' over Syria, which constitutes a land bridge between
Israel and occupied Iraq, as 'strategic' from a military and economic standpoint. It also constitutes
a means of controlling the Iraqi border and curbing the flow of volunteer fighters, who are traveling
to Baghdad to join the Iraqi resistance movement.
This enlargement of the theater of war is consistent with Ariel Sharon's plan to build
a 'Greater Israel' "on the ruins of Palestinian nationalism". While Israel seeks to extend its territorial
domain towards the Euphrates River, with designated areas of Jewish settlement in the Syrian heartland,
Palestinians are imprisoned in Gaza and the West Bank behind an 'Apartheid Wall'.
In the meantime, the US Congress has tightened the economic sanctions on Libya and Iran. As well,
Washington is hinting at the need for a 'regime change' in Saudi Arabia. Political pressures are
building up in Turkey.
So, the war could indeed spill over into a much broader region extending from the Eastern Mediterranean
to the Indian sub-continent and China's Western frontier.
The "Pre-emptive" Use of Nuclear Weapons
Washington has adopted a first strike "pre-emptive" nuclear policy, which has now received
congressional approval. Nuclear weapons are no longer a weapon of last resort as during the cold
War era.
The US, Britain and Israel have a coordinated nuclear weapons policy. Israeli nuclear warheads
are pointed at major cities in the Middle East. The governments of all three countries have stated
quite openly, prior to the war on Iraq, that they are prepared to use nuclear weapons "if they are
attacked" with so-called "weapons of mass destruction." Israel is the fifth nuclear power in the
World. Its nuclear arsenal is more advanced than that of Britain.
Barely a few weeks following the entry of the US Marines into Baghdad, the US Senate Armed Services
Committee gave the green light to the Pentagon to develop a new tactical nuclear bomb, to be used
in conventional war theaters, "with a yield [of up to] six times more powerful than the Hiroshima
bomb".
Following the Senate decision, the Pentagon redefined the details of its nuclear agenda in a secret
meeting with senior executives from the nuclear industry and the military industrial complex held
at Central Command Headquarters at the Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska. The meeting was held on
August 6, the day the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, 58 years ago.
The new nuclear policy explicitly involves the large defense contractors in decision-making. It
is tantamount to the "privatization" of nuclear war. Corporations not only reap multibillion dollar
profits from the production of nuclear bombs, they also have a direct voice in setting the agenda
regarding the use and deployment of nuclear weapons.
Meanwhile, the Pentagon has unleashed a major propaganda and public relations campaign with a
view to upholding the use nuclear weapons for the "defense of the American Homeland."
Fully endorsed by the US Congress, the mini-nukes are considered to be "safe for civilians".
This new generation of nuclear weapons is slated to be used in the next phase of this war, in
"conventional war theatres" (e.g. in the Middle East and Central Asia) alongside conventional weapons.
In December 2003, the US Congress allocated $6.3 billion solely for 2004, to develop this new generation
of "defensive" nuclear weapons.
The overall annual defense budget is of the order of 400 billion dollars, roughly of the same
order of magnitude as the entire Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of the Russian Federation.
While there is no firm evidence of the use of mini-nukes in the Iraqi and Afghan war theatres,
tests conducted by Canada's Uranium Medical Research Center (UMRC), in Afghanistan confirm that recorded
toxic radiation was not attributable to 'heavy metal' depleted uranium ammunition (DU), but to another
unidentified form of uranium contamination:
"some form of uranium weapon had been used (...) The results were astounding: the donors presented
concentrations of toxic and radioactive uranium isotopes between 100 and 400 times greater than
in the Gulf War veterans tested in 1999." www.umrc.net
The Planning of War
The war on Iraq has been in the planning stages at least since the mid-1990s. A 1995 National
Security document of the Clinton administration stated quite clearly that the objective of the war
is oil. "to protect the United States' uninterrupted, secure U.S. access to oil.
In September 2000, a few months before the accession of George W. Bush to the White House,
the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) published its blueprint for global domination under
the title: "Rebuilding America's Defenses."
The PNAC is a neo-conservative think tank linked to the Defense-Intelligence establishment, the
Republican Party and the powerful Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) which plays a behind-the-scenes
role in the formulation of US foreign policy.
The PNAC's declared objective is quite simple - to:
"Fight and decisively win in multiple, simultaneous theater wars".
This statement indicates that the US plans to be involved simultaneously in several war theaters
in different regions of the World.
Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President
Dick Cheney had commissioned the PNAC blueprint prior to the presidential elections.
The PNAC outlines a roadmap of conquest. It calls for "the direct imposition of U.S. "forward
bases" throughout Central Asia and the Middle East "with a view to ensuring economic domination of
the world, while strangling any potential "rival" or any viable alternative to America's vision of
a 'free market' economy" (See Chris Floyd, Bush's Crusade for empire, Global Outlook, No. 6, 2003)
The Role of "Massive Casualty Producing Events"
The PNAC blueprint also outlines a consistent framework of war propaganda. One year before 9/11,
the PNAC called for "some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor," which would
serve to galvanize US public opinion in support of a war agenda. (See
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/NAC304A.html
)
The PNAC architects seem to have anticipated with cynical accuracy, the use of the September 11
attacks as "a war pretext incident."
The PNAC's reference to a "catastrophic and catalyzing event" echoes a similar statement by
David Rockefeller to the United Nations Business Council in 1994:
"We are on the verge of global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and
the nations will accept the New World Order."
Similarly, in the words Zbigniew Brzezinski in his book, The Grand Chessboard:.
" it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus [in America] on foreign policy issues,
except in the circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat."
Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was National Security Adviser to President Jimmy Carter was one of the
key architects of the Al Qaeda network, created by the CIA at the onslaught of the Soviet Afghan
war (1979-1989).
The "catastrophic and catalyzing event" as stated by the PNAC is an integral part of US military-intelligence
planning. General Franks, who led the military campaign into Iraq, pointed recently (October 2003)
to the role of a "massive casualty-producing event" to muster support for the imposition of military
rule in America. (See General Tommy Franks calls for Repeal of US Constitution, November 2003,
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/EDW311A.html
).
Franks identifies the precise scenario whereby military rule will be established:
"a terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event [will occur] somewhere in the Western world
- it may be in the United States of America - that causes our population to question our own Constitution
and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing
event." (Ibid)
This statement from an individual, who was actively involved in military and intelligence planning
at the highest levels, suggests that the "militarisation of our country" is an ongoing operational
assumption. It is part of the broader "Washington consensus". It identifies the Bush administration's
"roadmap" of war and "Homeland Defense." Needless to say, it is also an integral part of the neoliberal
agenda.
The "terrorist massive casualty-producing event" is presented by General Franks as a crucial political
turning point. The resulting crisis and social turmoil are intended to facilitate a major shift in
US political, social and institutional structures.
General Franks' statement reflects a consensus within the US Military as to how events ought to
unfold. The "war on terrorism" is to provide a justification for repealing the Rule of Law, ultimately
with a view to "preserving civil liberties."
Franks' interview suggests that an Al Qaeda sponsored terrorist attack will be used as a "trigger
mechanism" for a military coup d'état in America. The PNAC's "Pearl Harbor type event" would be used
as a justification for declaring a State of emergency, leading to the establishment of a military
government.
In many regards, the militarisation of civilian State institutions in the US is already functional
under the facade of a bogus democracy.
War Propaganda
In the wake of the September attacks on the World Trade Center, Secretary of Defense Donald
Rumsfeld created to the Office of Strategic Influence (OSI), or "Office of Disinformation" as it
was labeled by its critics:
"The Department of Defense said they needed to do this, and they were going to actually plant
stories that were false in foreign countries -- as an effort to influence public opinion across
the world. (Interview with Steve Adubato, Fox News, 26 December 2002.)
And, all of a sudden, the OSI was formally disbanded following political pressures and "troublesome"
media stories that "its purpose was to deliberately lie to advance American interests." (Air Force
Magazine, January 2003, italics added) "Rumsfeld backed off and said this is embarrassing." (Adubato,
op. cit. italics added) Yet despite this apparent about-turn, the Pentagon's Orwellian disinformation
campaign remains functionally intact: "[T]he secretary of defense is not being particularly candid
here. Disinformation in military propaganda is part of war."(Ibid)
A number of government agencies and intelligence units --with links to the Pentagon-remain actively
involved in various components of the propaganda campaign. Realities are turned upside down. Acts
of war are heralded as "humanitarian interventions" geared towards "regime change" and "the restoration
of democracy". Military occupation and the killing of civilians are presented as "peace-keeping".
The derogation of civil liberties --in the context of the so-called "anti-terrorist legislation"--
is portrayed as a means to providing "domestic security" and upholding civil liberties.
The Central Role of Al Qaeda in Bush's National Security Doctrine
Spelled out in the National Security Strategy (NSS), the preemptive "defensive war" doctrine
and the "war on terrorism" against Al Qaeda constitute the two essential building blocks of the Pentagon's
propaganda campaign.
The objective is to present "preemptive military action" --meaning war as an act of "self-defense"
against two categories of enemies, "rogue States" and "Islamic terrorists":
"The war against terrorists of global reach is a global enterprise of uncertain duration. America
will act against such emerging threats before they are fully formed.
Rogue states and terrorists do not seek to attack us using conventional means. They know such
attacks would fail. Instead, they rely on acts of terror and, potentially, the use of weapons
of mass destruction ( )
The targets of these attacks are our military forces and our civilian population, in direct
violation of one of the principal norms of the law of warfare. As was demonstrated by the losses
on September 11, 2001, mass civilian casualties is the specific objective of terrorists and these
losses would be exponentially more severe if terrorists acquired and used weapons of mass destruction.
The United States has long maintained the option of preemptive actions to counter a sufficient
threat to our national security. The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction-
and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, ( ). To forestall
or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively."12
(National Security Strategy, White House, 2002,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html
)
To justify pre-emptive military actions, the National Security Doctrine requires the "fabrication"
of a terrorist threat, --ie. "an outside enemy." It also needs to link these terrorist threats to
"State sponsorship" by the so-called "rogue states."
But it also means that the various "massive casualty-producing events" allegedly by Al Qaeda (the
fabricated enemy) are part of the National Security agenda.
In the months building up to the invasion of Iraq, covert 'dirty tricks' operations were launched
to produce misleading intelligence pertaining to both Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) and Al Qaeda,
which was then fed into the news chain.
In the wake of the war, while the WMD threat has been toned down, Al Qaeda threats to 'the Homeland'
continue to be repeated ad nauseam in official statements, commented on network TV and pasted on
a daily basis across the news tabloids.
And underlying these manipulated realties, "Osama bin Laden" terrorist occurrences are being upheld
as a justification for the next phase of this war. The latter hinges in a very direct way:
1) the effectiveness of the Pentagon-CIA propaganda campaign, which is fed into the news chain.
2) The actual occurrence of "massive casualty producing events" as outlined in the PNAC
What this means is that actual ("massive casualty producing") terrorist events are part and parcel
of military planning.
Actual Terrorist Attacks
In other words, to be "effective" the fear and disinformation campaign cannot solely rely on unsubstantiated
"warnings" of future attacks, it also requires "real" terrorist occurrences or "incidents", which
provide credibility to the Washington's war plans. These terrorist events are used to justify the
implementation of "emergency measures" as well as "retaliatory military actions". They are required,
in the present context, to create the illusion of "an outside enemy" that is threatening the American
Homeland.
The triggering of "war pretext incidents" is part of the Pentagon's assumptions. In fact it is
an integral part of US military history.(See Richard Sanders, War Pretext Incidents, How to Start
a War, Global Outlook, published in two parts, Issues 2 and 3, 2002-2003).
In 1962, the Joint Chiefs of Staff had envisaged a secret plan entitled "Operation Northwoods",
to deliberately trigger civilian casualties to justify the invasion of Cuba:
"We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba," "We could develop a Communist
Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington" "casualty
lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation." (See the declassified
Top Secret 1962 document titled "Justification for U.S. Military Intervention in Cuba"16 (See
Operation Northwoods at
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/NOR111A.html
).
There is no evidence that the Pentagon or the CIA played a direct role in recent terrorist attacks,
including those in Indonesia (2002), India (2001), Turkey (2003) and Saudi Arabia (2003).
According to the reports, the attacks were undertaken by organizations (or cells of these organizations),
which operate quite independently, with a certain degree of autonomy. This independence is in the
very nature of a covert intelligence operation. The "intelligence asset" is not in direct contact
with its covert sponsors. It is not necessarily cognizant of the role it plays on behalf of its intelligence
sponsors.
The fundamental question is who is behind them? Through what sources are they being financed?
What is the underlying network of ties?
For instance, in the case of the 2002 Bali bomb attack, the alleged terrorist organization Jemaah
Islamiah had links to Indonesia's military intelligence (BIN), which in turn has links to the CIA
and Australian intelligence.
The December 2001 terrorist attacks on the Indian Parliament --which contributed to pushing India
and Pakistan to the brink of war-- were allegedly conducted by two Pakistan-based rebel groups, Lashkar-e-Taiba
("Army of the Pure") and Jaish-e-Muhammad ("Army of Mohammed"), both of which according to the Council
on Foreign Relations (CFR) are supported by Pakistan's ISI. (Council on Foreign Relations at
http://www.terrorismanswers.com/groups/harakat2.html
, Washington 2002).
What the CFR fails to acknowledge is the crucial relationship between the ISI and the CIA and
the fact that the ISI continues to support Lashkar, Jaish and the militant Jammu and Kashmir Hizbul
Mujahideen (JKHM), while also collaborating with the CIA (For further details see Michel Chossudovsky,
Fabricating an Enemy, March 2003,
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO301B.html
)
A 2002 classified outbrief drafted to guide the Pentagon "calls for the creation of a so-called
'Proactive, Pre-emptive Operations Group' (P2OG), to launch secret operations aimed at "stimulating
reactions" among terrorists and states possessing weapons of mass destruction -- that is, for instance,
prodding terrorist cells into action and exposing themselves to 'quick-response' attacks by U.S.
forces." (William Arkin, The Secret War, The Los Angeles Times, 27 October 2002)
The P2OG initiative is nothing new. It essentially extends an existing apparatus of covert operations.
Amply documented, the CIA has supported terrorist groups since the Cold War era. This "prodding of
terrorist cells" under covert intelligence operations often requires the infiltration and training
of the radical groups linked to Al Qaeda.
In this regard, covert support by the US military and intelligence apparatus has been channeled
to various Islamic terrorist organizations through a complex network of intermediaries and intelligence
proxies. In the course of the 1990s, agencies of the US government have collaborated with Al Qaeda
in a number of covert operations, as confirmed by a 1997 report of the Republican Party Committee
of the US Congress. (See US Congress, 16 January 1997,
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/DCH109A.html
). In fact during the war in Bosnia US weapons inspectors were working with Al Qaeda operatives,
bringing in large amounts of weapons for the Bosnian Muslim Army.
In other words, the Clinton Administration was "harboring terrorists". Moreover, official
statements and intelligence reports confirm links between US military-intelligence units and Al Qaeda
operatives, as occurred in Bosnia (mid 1990s), Kosovo (1998-99) and Macedonia (2001).(See See
Michel Chossudovsky, War and Globalisation, The Truth behind September 11, Global Outlook, 2003,
Chapter 3, http://globalresearch.ca/globaloutlook/truth911.html
)
The Bush Administration and NATO had links to Al Qaeda in Macedonia. And this happened barely
a few weeks before September 11, 2001, Senior U.S. military advisers from a private mercenary outfit
on contract to the Pentagon, were fighting alongside Mujahideen in the terrorist attacks on the Macedonian
Security forces. This is documented by the Macedonian press and statements made by the Macedonian
authorities. (See Michel Chossudovsky, op cit). The U.S. government and the Islamic Militant Network
were working hand in glove in supporting and financing the National Liberation Army (NLA), which
was involved in the terrorist attacks in Macedonia.
In other words, the US military was collaborating directly with Al Qaeda barely a few weeks before
9/11.
Al Qaeda and Pakistan's Military Intelligence (ISI)
It is indeed revealing that in virtually all post 9/11 terrorist occurrences, the terrorist organization
is reported (by the media and in official statements) as having "ties to Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda".
This in itself is a crucial piece of information. Of course, the fact that Al Qaeda is a creation
of the CIA is neither mentioned in the press reports nor is it considered relevant to an understanding
of these terrorist occurrences.
The ties of these terrorist organizations (particularly those in Asia) to Pakistan's military
intelligence (ISI) is acknowledged in a few cases by official sources and press dispatches. Confirmed
by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), some of these groups are said to have links to Pakistan's
ISI, without identifying the nature of these links. Needless to say, this information is crucial
in identifying the sponsors of these terrorist attacks. In other words, the ISI is said to support
these terrorist organizations, while at same time maintaining close ties to the CIA
September 11
While Colin Powell --without supporting evidence-pointed in his February 2003 UN address to "the
sinister nexus between Iraq and the Al Qaeda terrorist network", official documents, press and intelligence
reports confirm that successive US administrations have supported and abetted the Islamic militant
network. This relationship is an established fact, corroborated by numerous studies, acknowledged
by Washington's mainstream think tanks.
Both Colin Powell and his Deputy Richard Armitage, who in the months leading up to the war casually
accused Baghdad and other foreign governments of "harboring" Al Qaeda, played a direct role, at different
points in their careers, in supporting terrorist organizations.
Both men were implicated --operating behind the scenes-- in the Irangate Contra scandal during
the Reagan Administration, which involved the illegal sale of weapons to Iran to finance the Nicaraguan
Contra paramilitary army and the Afghan Mujahideen. (For further details, see Michel Chossudovsky,
Expose the Links between Al Qaeda and the Bush Administration,
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO303D.html
)
Moreover, both Richard Armitage and Colin Powell played a role in the 9/11 cover-up.
The investigations and research conducted in the last two years, including official documents, testimonies
and intelligence reports, indicate that September 11 was an carefully planned intelligence operation,
rather than a act conducted by a terrorist organization. (For further details, see Centre for Research
on Globalization, 24 Key articles, September 2003)
The FBI confirmed in a report made public late September 2001 the role of Pakistan's Military
Intelligence. According to the report, the alleged 9-11 ring leader, Mohammed Atta, had been financed
from sources out of Pakistan. A subsequent intelligence report confirmed that the then head of the
ISI General Mahmoud Ahmad had transferred money to Mohammed Atta. (See Michel Chossudovsky, War and
Globalization, op.cit.)
Moreover, press reports and official statements confirm that the head of the ISI, was an official
visit to the US from the 4th to 13th of September 2001. In other words, the head of Pakistan's ISI,
who allegedly transferred money to the terrorists also had a close personal relationship with a number
of senior Bush Administration officials, including Colin Powell, CIA Director George Tenet and Deputy
Secretary Richard Armitage, whom he met in the course of his visit to Washington. (Ibid)
The Antiwar Movement
A cohesive antiwar movement cannot be based solely on the mobilization of antiwar sentiment. It
must ultimately unseat the war criminals and question their right to rule.
A necessary condition for bringing down the rulers is to weaken and eventually dismantle their
propaganda campaign.
The momentum of the large anti-war rallies in the US, the European Union and around the world,
should lay the foundations of a permanent network composed of tens of thousands of local level anti-war
committees in neighborhoods, work places, parishes, schools, universities, etc. It is ultimately
through this network that the legitimacy of those who "rule in our name" will be challenged.
To shunt the Bush Administration's war plans and disable its propaganda machine, we must reach
out to our fellow citizens across the land, in the US, Europe and around the world, to the millions
of ordinary people who have been misled on the causes and consequences of this war.
This also implies fully uncovering the lies behind the "war on terrorism" and revealing the political
complicity of the Bush administration in the events of 9/11.
September 11 is a hoax. It's the biggest lie in US history.
Needless to say, the use of "massive casualty producing events" as pretext to wage war is a criminal
act. In the words of Andreas van Buelow, former German Minister of Technology and author of The CIA
and September 11:
"If what I say is right, the whole US government should end up behind bars."
Yet it is not sufficient to remove George W. Bush or Tony Blair, who are mere puppets. We must
also address the role of the global banks, corporations and financial institutions, which indelibly
stand behind the military and political actors.
Increasingly, the military-intelligence establishment (rather than the State Department, the
White House and the US Congress) is calling the shots on US foreign policy. Meanwhile, the Texas
oil giants, the defense contractors, Wall Street and the powerful media giants, operating discreetly
behind the scenes, are pulling the strings. If politicians become a source of major embarrassment,
they can themselves be discredited by the media, discarded and a new team of political puppets can
be brought to office.
Criminalization of the State
The "Criminalization of the State", is when war criminals legitimately occupy positions of
authority, which enable them to decide "who are the criminals", when in fact they are criminals.
In the US, both Republicans and Democrats share the same war agenda and there are war criminals
in both parties. Both parties are complicit in the 9/11 cover-up and the resultant quest for world
domination. All the evidence points to what is best described as "the criminalisation of the State",
which includes the Judiciary and the bipartisan corridors of the US Congress.
Under the war agenda, high ranking officials of the Bush administration, members of the military,
the US Congress and the Judiciary have been granted the authority not only to commit criminal acts,
but also to designate those in the antiwar movement who are opposed to these criminal acts as "enemies
of the State."
More generally, the US military and security apparatus endorses and supports dominant economic
and financial interests - i.e. the build-up, as well as the exercise, of military might enforces
"free trade". The Pentagon is an arm of Wall Street; NATO coordinates its military operations with
the World Bank and the IMF's policy interventions, and vice versa. Consistently, the security and
defense bodies of the Western military alliance, together with the various civilian governmental
and intergovernmental bureaucracies (e.g. IMF, World Bank, WTO) share a common understanding, ideological
consensus and commitment to the New World Order.
To reverse the tide of war, military bases must be closed down, the war machine (namely the production
of advanced weapons systems like WMDs) must be stopped and the burgeoning police state must be dismantled.
More generally we must reverse the "free market" reforms, dismantle the institutions of global capitalism
and disarm financial markets.
The struggle must be broad-based and democratic encompassing all sectors of society at all levels,
in all countries, uniting in a major thrust: workers, farmers, independent producers, small businesses,
professionals, artists, civil servants, members of the clergy, students and intellectuals.
The antiwar and anti-globalisation movements must be integrated into a single worldwide movement.
People must be united across sectors, "single issue" groups must join hands in a common and collective
understanding on how the New World Order destroys and impoverishes.
The globalization of this struggle is fundamental, requiring a degree of solidarity and internationalism
unprecedented in world history. This global economic system feeds on social divisiveness between
and within countries. Unity of purpose and worldwide coordination among diverse groups and social
movements is crucial. A major thrust is required which brings together social movements in all major
regions of the world in a common pursuit and commitment to the elimination of poverty and a lasting
world peace.
"Only in the case of Crimea Moscow acted in a more open way. The hostile rejection to this
step by close allies like Belarus and Kazakhstan shows that Putin indeed acted against the
established consensus of the post-Soviet world."
WTF!!!!!! Any rejection-hostile or not-of the formal incorporation of Crimea into the
Russian'state would be a rejection of the overwhelmingly expressed will of the people of
Crimea to join with Russia as was show in the referendum.
"Only in the case of Crimea Moscow acted in a more open way. The hostile rejection to this
step by close allies like Belarus and Kazakhstan shows that Putin indeed acted against the
established consensus of the post-Soviet world."
WTF!!!!!! Any rejection-hostile or not-of the formal incorporation of Crimea into the
Russian'state would be a rejection of the overwhelmingly expressed will of the people of
Crimea to join with Russia as was show in the referendum.
Schizophrenic and very well armed America is a real danger to the world...
The USA is no longer can be considered as a country that can obey agreements and treaties signed.
That means that it is pariah on international stage and only the power of Us military-industrial complex
keeps other countries from spitting in the US representatives face.
Notable quotes:
"... Yet, the key to Putin's assessment of Donald Trump is whether the U.S. President is strong enough to make the mutually agreed-upon ceasefire stick. As Putin is well aware, to do so Trump will have to take on the same "deep-state" forces that cheerily scuttled similar agreements in the past. In other words, the actuarial tables for this cease-fire are not good; long life for the agreement will take something just short of a miracle. ..."
"... Secretary of State Rex Tillerson will have to face down hardliners in both the Pentagon and CIA Tillerson probably expects that Defense Secretary James "Mad-Dog" Mattis and CIA Director Mike Pompeo will cooperate by ordering their troops and operatives inside Syria to restrain the U.S.-backed "moderate rebels." ..."
"... But it remains to be seen if Mattis and Pompeo can control the forces their agencies have unleashed in Syria. If recent history is any guide, it would be folly to rule out another "accidental" U.S. bombing of Syrian government troops or a well-publicized "chemical attack" or some other senseless "war crime" that social media and mainstream media will immediately blame on President Bashar al-Assad. ..."
"... Last fall's limited ceasefire in Syria, painstakingly worked out over 11 months by Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and approved personally by Presidents Obama and Putin, lasted only five days (from Sept. 12-17) before it was scuttled by "coalition" air strikes on well-known, fixed Syrian army positions, which killed between 64 and 84 Syrian troops and wounded about 100 others. ..."
"... In public remarks bordering on the insubordinate, senior Pentagon officials a few days before the air attack on Sept. 17, showed unusually open skepticism regarding key aspects of the Kerry-Lavrov agreement – like sharing intelligence with the Russians (an important provision of the deal approved by both Obama and Putin). ..."
"... The Pentagon's resistance and the "accidental" bombing of Syrian troops brought these uncharacteristically blunt words from Foreign Minister Lavrov on Russian TV on Sept. 26: ..."
"... "My good friend John Kerry is under fierce criticism from the U.S. military machine. Despite the fact that, as always, [they] made assurances that the U.S. Commander in Chief, President Barack Obama, supported him in his contacts with Russia apparently the military does not really listen to the Commander in Chief." ..."
"... Lavrov specifically criticized Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman, Gen. Joseph Dunford for telling Congress that he opposed sharing intelligence with Russia despite the fact, as Lavrov put it, "the agreements concluded on direct orders of Russian President Vladimir Putin and U.S. President Barack Obama [who] stipulated that they would share intelligence." Noting this resistance inside the U.S. military bureaucracy, Lavrov added, "It is difficult to work with such partners." ..."
"... Putin picked up on the theme of insubordination in an Oct. 27 speech at the Valdai International Discussion Club, in which he openly lamented: ..."
"... "My personal agreements with the President of the United States have not produced results. people in Washington are ready to do everything possible to prevent these agreements from being implemented in practice." ..."
"... It took, actually, not even Syria but Ukraine to expose a complete incohesiveness of US power structure–it is literally not treaty-worthy. It can not be since itself is divided into parties with, sometimes, diametrically opposite views (and objectives). It is really sad and embarrassing. ..."
"... Today was yet another corporate America Trump defamation day. Trump's son admitted that last year the Russians gave him evidence that H. Clinton did corrupt deals in Russia. What were these deals? No one cares! It does not matter, we all know she is corrupt. Clinton is not open for attack! The Trumpers committed treason by simply accepting such evidence! Impeach! ..."
"... America wanted regime change from the get-go. Rebels in Syria got huge amounts of weapons courtesy of America and its allies. John McCain pleaded for rebels to get weapons and support. The result was Al Qaida using American TOW missiles. ..."
The immediate prospect for significant improvement in U.S.-Russia relations now depends on something
tangible: Will the forces that sabotaged previous ceasefire agreements in Syria succeed in doing
so again, all the better to keep alive the "regime change" dreams of the neoconservatives and liberal
interventionists?
Or will President Trump succeed where President Obama failed by bringing the U.S. military and
intelligence bureaucracies into line behind a cease-fire rather than allowing insubordination to
win out?
These are truly life-or-death questions for the Syrian people and could have profound repercussions
across Europe, which has been destabilized by the flood of refugees fleeing the horrific violence
in the six-year proxy war that has ripped Syria apart.
But you would have little inkling of this important priority from the large page-one headlines
Saturday morning in the U.S. mainstream media, which continued its long obsession with the more ephemeral
question of whether Russian President Vladimir Putin would confess to the sin of "interference" in
the 2016 U.S. election and promise to repent.
Thus, the headlines: "Trump, Putin talk election interference" ( Washington Post ) and
"Trump asks Putin About Meddling During Election" ( New York Times ). There was also the
expected harrumphing from commentators on CNN and MSNBC when Putin dared to deny that Russia had
interfered.
In both the big newspapers and on cable news shows, the potential for a ceasefire in southern
Syria – set to go into effect on Sunday – got decidedly second billing.
Yet, the key to Putin's assessment of Donald Trump is whether the U.S. President is strong
enough to make the mutually agreed-upon ceasefire stick. As Putin is well aware, to do so Trump will
have to take on the same "deep-state" forces that cheerily scuttled similar agreements in the past.
In other words, the actuarial tables for this cease-fire are not good; long life for the agreement
will take something just short of a miracle.
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson will have to face down hardliners in both the Pentagon and
CIA Tillerson probably expects that Defense Secretary James "Mad-Dog" Mattis and CIA Director Mike
Pompeo will cooperate by ordering their troops and operatives inside Syria to restrain the U.S.-backed
"moderate rebels."
But it remains to be seen if Mattis and Pompeo can control the forces their agencies have
unleashed in Syria. If recent history is any guide, it would be folly to rule out another "accidental"
U.S. bombing of Syrian government troops or a well-publicized "chemical attack" or some other senseless
"war crime" that social media and mainstream media will immediately blame on President Bashar al-Assad.
Bitter Experience
Last fall's limited ceasefire in Syria, painstakingly worked out over 11 months by Secretary
of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and approved personally by Presidents
Obama and Putin, lasted only five days (from Sept. 12-17) before it was scuttled by "coalition" air
strikes on well-known, fixed Syrian army positions, which killed between 64 and 84 Syrian troops
and wounded about 100 others.
In public remarks bordering on the insubordinate, senior Pentagon officials a few days before
the air attack on Sept. 17, showed unusually open skepticism regarding key aspects of the Kerry-Lavrov
agreement – like sharing intelligence with the Russians (an important provision of the deal approved
by both Obama and Putin).
The Pentagon's resistance and the "accidental" bombing of Syrian troops brought these uncharacteristically
blunt words from Foreign Minister Lavrov on Russian TV on Sept. 26:
"My good friend John Kerry is under fierce criticism from the U.S. military machine. Despite
the fact that, as always, [they] made assurances that the U.S. Commander in Chief, President Barack
Obama, supported him in his contacts with Russia apparently the military does not really listen to
the Commander in Chief."
Lavrov specifically criticized Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman, Gen. Joseph Dunford for telling
Congress that he opposed sharing intelligence with Russia despite the fact, as Lavrov put it, "the
agreements concluded on direct orders of Russian President Vladimir Putin and U.S. President Barack
Obama [who] stipulated that they would share intelligence." Noting this resistance inside the U.S.
military bureaucracy, Lavrov added, "It is difficult to work with such partners."
Putin picked up on the theme of insubordination in an Oct. 27 speech at the Valdai International
Discussion Club, in which he openly lamented:
"My personal agreements with the President of the United States have not produced results.
people in Washington are ready to do everything possible to prevent these agreements from being implemented
in practice."
On Syria, Putin decried the lack of a "common front against terrorism after such lengthy negotiations,
enormous effort, and difficult compromises."
Lavrov's Foreign Ministry spokeswoman, meanwhile, even expressed sympathy for Kerry's quixotic
effort, giving him an "A" for effort.after then-Defense Secretary Ashton Carter dispatched U.S. warplanes
to provide an early death to the cease-fire so painstakingly worked out by Kerry and Lavrov for almost
a year.
For his part, Kerry expressed regret – in words reflecting the hapless hubris befitting the chief
envoy of the world's "only indispensible" country – conceding that he had been unable to "align"
all the forces in play.
With the ceasefire in tatters, Kerry publicly complained on Sept. 29, 2016: "Syria is as complicated
as anything I've ever seen in public life, in the sense that there are probably about six wars or
so going on at the same time – Kurd against Kurd, Kurd against Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Sunni,
Shia, everybody against ISIL, people against Assad, Nusra [Al Qaeda's Syrian affiliate]. This is
as mixed-up sectarian and civil war and strategic and proxies, so it's very, very difficult to be
able to align forces."
Admitting Deep-State Pre-eminence
Only in December 2016, in
an interview with Matt Viser of the Boston Globe , did Kerry admit that his efforts
to deal with the Russians had been thwarted by then-Defense Secretary Ashton Carter – as well as
all those forces he found so difficult to align.
"Unfortunately we had divisions within our own ranks that made the implementation [of the ceasefire
agreement] extremely hard to accomplish," Kerry said. "But it could have worked. The fact is we had
an agreement with Russia a joint cooperative effort.
"Now we had people in our government who were bitterly opposed to doing that," he said. "I regret
that. I think that was a mistake. I think you'd have a different situation there conceivably now
if we'd been able to do that."
The Globe's Viser described Kerry as frustrated. Indeed, it was a tough way for Kerry
to end nearly 34 years in public office.
After Friday's
discussions
with President Trump, Kremlin eyes will be focused on Secretary of State Tillerson, watching to see
if he has better luck than Kerry did in getting Ashton Carter's successor, James "Mad Dog" Mattis
and CIA's latest captive-director Pompeo into line behind what President Trump wants to do.
As the new U.S.-Russia agreed-upon ceasefire goes into effect on Sunday, Putin will be eager to
see if this time Trump, unlike Obama, can make a ceasefire in Syria stick; or whether, like Obama,
Trump will be unable to prevent it from being sabotaged by Washington's deep-state actors.
The proof will be in the pudding and, clearly, much depends on what happens in the next few weeks.
At this point, it will take a leap of faith on Putin's part to have much confidence that the ceasefire
will hold.
Ray McGovern was an Army officer and CIA analyst for almost 30 years. He now serves on the
Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. He is a contributor to
Hopeless:
Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). He can be reached at:
[email protected]
. A version of this article first appeared on Consortiumnews.com.
Only in December 2016, in an interview with Matt Viser of the Boston Globe, did Kerry admit
that his efforts to deal with the Russians had been thwarted by then-Defense Secretary Ashton
Carter – as well as all those forces he found so difficult to align.
It took, actually, not even Syria but Ukraine to expose a complete incohesiveness of US
power structure–it is literally not treaty-worthy. It can not be since itself is divided into
parties with, sometimes, diametrically opposite views (and objectives). It is really sad and embarrassing.
Today was yet another corporate America Trump defamation day. Trump's son admitted that
last year the Russians gave him evidence that H. Clinton did corrupt deals in Russia. What were
these deals? No one cares! It does not matter, we all know she is corrupt. Clinton is not open
for attack! The Trumpers committed treason by simply accepting such evidence! Impeach!
I watched part of Oliver Stone's interview. The reason Snowden remains in Russia is because
the USA refuses to sign an extradition treaty with Russia. There are several Russians living in
the USA wanted for looting large sums in Russia, and Putin wants justice, but they are exempt,
like Hillary. Read about her Russian Uranium kickback deal, its on-line, but of no interest to
our corporate media.
Sean, that is pure nonsense. America wanted regime change from the get-go. Rebels in Syria
got huge amounts of weapons courtesy of America and its allies. John McCain pleaded for rebels
to get weapons and support. The result was Al Qaida using American TOW missiles.
"... Contemporary imperialism therefore is the imperialism of international finance capital which is served by nation-states (for any nation-state that defies the will of international finance capital runs the risk of capital flight from, and hence the insolvency of, its economy). The US, being the leading capitalist state, plays the leading role in promoting and protecting the interests of international finance capital. But talking about a specific US imperialism, or a German or British or French imperialism obscures this basic fact. ..."
"... Indeed, a good deal of discussion about whether the world is heading toward multi-polarity or the persistence of US dominance misses the point that the chief actor in today's world is international or globalized finance capital, and not US or German or British finance capital. So, the concept of imperialism that [Utsa Patnaik and I] are talking about belongs to a different terrain of discourse from the concept of US imperialism per se ..."
Not long ago, even liberals like Thomas Friedman of the New York Times were arguing that
"McDonald's cannot flourish without McDonnell Douglas" (that is, the US Air Force). Surely,
this is a crude version of imperialism, but what about today's US imperialism? Isn't it still
alive and kicking?
The world that Lenin had written about consisted of nation-based, nation-state-supported
financial oligarchies engaged in intense inter-imperialist rivalry for repartitioning the world
through wars. When [Marxist theorist] Karl Kautsky had suggested the possibility of a truce
among rival powers for a peaceful division of the world, Lenin had pointed to the fact that the
phenomenon of uneven development under capitalism would necessarily subvert any such specific
truce. The world we have today is characterized by the hegemony of
international
finance capital which is interested in
preventing
any partitioning of the world, so
that it can move around freely across the globe.
Contemporary imperialism therefore is the imperialism of international finance capital
which is served by nation-states (for any nation-state that defies the will of international
finance capital runs the risk of capital flight from, and hence the insolvency of, its
economy). The US, being the leading capitalist state, plays the leading role in promoting and
protecting the interests of international finance capital. But talking about a specific US
imperialism, or a German or British or French imperialism obscures this basic fact.
Indeed, a good deal of discussion about whether the world is heading toward
multi-polarity or the persistence of US dominance misses the point that the chief actor in
today's world is international or globalized finance capital, and not US or German or British
finance capital. So, the concept of imperialism that [Utsa Patnaik and I] are talking about
belongs to a different terrain of discourse from the concept of US imperialism
per se
. The latter, though it is, of course, empirically visible because of US military intervention
all over the world, in order to acquire a proper meaning has to be located within the broader
setting of the imperialism of international finance capital.
Some incidentally have seen the muting of inter-imperialist rivalry in today's world as a
vindication of Kautsky's position over that of Lenin. This, however, is incorrect, since both
of them were talking about a world of national finance capitals which contemporary capitalism
has gone beyond.
... ... ...
C.J. Polychroniou
is a political economist/political scientist who has taught and worked in
universities and research centers in Europe and the United States. His main research interests
are in European economic integration, globalization, the political economy of the United States
and the deconstruction of neoliberalism's politico-economic project. He is a regular
contributor to Truthout as well as a member of Truthout's Public Intellectual Project. He has
published several books and his articles have appeared in a variety of journals, magazines,
newspapers and popular news websites. Many of his publications have been translated into
several foreign languages, including Croatian, French, Greek, Italian, Portuguese, Spanish and
Turkish.
Schizophrenic and very well armed America is a real danger to the world...
The USA is no longer can be considered as a country that can obey agreements and treaties signed.
That means that it is pariah on international stage and only the power of Us military-industrial complex
keeps other countries from spitting in the US representatives face.
Notable quotes:
"... Yet, the key to Putin's assessment of Donald Trump is whether the U.S. President is strong enough to make the mutually agreed-upon ceasefire stick. As Putin is well aware, to do so Trump will have to take on the same "deep-state" forces that cheerily scuttled similar agreements in the past. In other words, the actuarial tables for this cease-fire are not good; long life for the agreement will take something just short of a miracle. ..."
"... Secretary of State Rex Tillerson will have to face down hardliners in both the Pentagon and CIA Tillerson probably expects that Defense Secretary James "Mad-Dog" Mattis and CIA Director Mike Pompeo will cooperate by ordering their troops and operatives inside Syria to restrain the U.S.-backed "moderate rebels." ..."
"... But it remains to be seen if Mattis and Pompeo can control the forces their agencies have unleashed in Syria. If recent history is any guide, it would be folly to rule out another "accidental" U.S. bombing of Syrian government troops or a well-publicized "chemical attack" or some other senseless "war crime" that social media and mainstream media will immediately blame on President Bashar al-Assad. ..."
"... Last fall's limited ceasefire in Syria, painstakingly worked out over 11 months by Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and approved personally by Presidents Obama and Putin, lasted only five days (from Sept. 12-17) before it was scuttled by "coalition" air strikes on well-known, fixed Syrian army positions, which killed between 64 and 84 Syrian troops and wounded about 100 others. ..."
"... In public remarks bordering on the insubordinate, senior Pentagon officials a few days before the air attack on Sept. 17, showed unusually open skepticism regarding key aspects of the Kerry-Lavrov agreement – like sharing intelligence with the Russians (an important provision of the deal approved by both Obama and Putin). ..."
"... The Pentagon's resistance and the "accidental" bombing of Syrian troops brought these uncharacteristically blunt words from Foreign Minister Lavrov on Russian TV on Sept. 26: ..."
"... "My good friend John Kerry is under fierce criticism from the U.S. military machine. Despite the fact that, as always, [they] made assurances that the U.S. Commander in Chief, President Barack Obama, supported him in his contacts with Russia apparently the military does not really listen to the Commander in Chief." ..."
"... Lavrov specifically criticized Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman, Gen. Joseph Dunford for telling Congress that he opposed sharing intelligence with Russia despite the fact, as Lavrov put it, "the agreements concluded on direct orders of Russian President Vladimir Putin and U.S. President Barack Obama [who] stipulated that they would share intelligence." Noting this resistance inside the U.S. military bureaucracy, Lavrov added, "It is difficult to work with such partners." ..."
"... Putin picked up on the theme of insubordination in an Oct. 27 speech at the Valdai International Discussion Club, in which he openly lamented: ..."
"... "My personal agreements with the President of the United States have not produced results. people in Washington are ready to do everything possible to prevent these agreements from being implemented in practice." ..."
"... It took, actually, not even Syria but Ukraine to expose a complete incohesiveness of US power structure–it is literally not treaty-worthy. It can not be since itself is divided into parties with, sometimes, diametrically opposite views (and objectives). It is really sad and embarrassing. ..."
"... Today was yet another corporate America Trump defamation day. Trump's son admitted that last year the Russians gave him evidence that H. Clinton did corrupt deals in Russia. What were these deals? No one cares! It does not matter, we all know she is corrupt. Clinton is not open for attack! The Trumpers committed treason by simply accepting such evidence! Impeach! ..."
"... America wanted regime change from the get-go. Rebels in Syria got huge amounts of weapons courtesy of America and its allies. John McCain pleaded for rebels to get weapons and support. The result was Al Qaida using American TOW missiles. ..."
The immediate prospect for significant improvement in U.S.-Russia relations now depends on something
tangible: Will the forces that sabotaged previous ceasefire agreements in Syria succeed in doing
so again, all the better to keep alive the "regime change" dreams of the neoconservatives and liberal
interventionists?
Or will President Trump succeed where President Obama failed by bringing the U.S. military and
intelligence bureaucracies into line behind a cease-fire rather than allowing insubordination to
win out?
These are truly life-or-death questions for the Syrian people and could have profound repercussions
across Europe, which has been destabilized by the flood of refugees fleeing the horrific violence
in the six-year proxy war that has ripped Syria apart.
But you would have little inkling of this important priority from the large page-one headlines
Saturday morning in the U.S. mainstream media, which continued its long obsession with the more ephemeral
question of whether Russian President Vladimir Putin would confess to the sin of "interference" in
the 2016 U.S. election and promise to repent.
Thus, the headlines: "Trump, Putin talk election interference" ( Washington Post ) and
"Trump asks Putin About Meddling During Election" ( New York Times ). There was also the
expected harrumphing from commentators on CNN and MSNBC when Putin dared to deny that Russia had
interfered.
In both the big newspapers and on cable news shows, the potential for a ceasefire in southern
Syria – set to go into effect on Sunday – got decidedly second billing.
Yet, the key to Putin's assessment of Donald Trump is whether the U.S. President is strong
enough to make the mutually agreed-upon ceasefire stick. As Putin is well aware, to do so Trump will
have to take on the same "deep-state" forces that cheerily scuttled similar agreements in the past.
In other words, the actuarial tables for this cease-fire are not good; long life for the agreement
will take something just short of a miracle.
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson will have to face down hardliners in both the Pentagon and
CIA Tillerson probably expects that Defense Secretary James "Mad-Dog" Mattis and CIA Director Mike
Pompeo will cooperate by ordering their troops and operatives inside Syria to restrain the U.S.-backed
"moderate rebels."
But it remains to be seen if Mattis and Pompeo can control the forces their agencies have
unleashed in Syria. If recent history is any guide, it would be folly to rule out another "accidental"
U.S. bombing of Syrian government troops or a well-publicized "chemical attack" or some other senseless
"war crime" that social media and mainstream media will immediately blame on President Bashar al-Assad.
Bitter Experience
Last fall's limited ceasefire in Syria, painstakingly worked out over 11 months by Secretary
of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and approved personally by Presidents
Obama and Putin, lasted only five days (from Sept. 12-17) before it was scuttled by "coalition" air
strikes on well-known, fixed Syrian army positions, which killed between 64 and 84 Syrian troops
and wounded about 100 others.
In public remarks bordering on the insubordinate, senior Pentagon officials a few days before
the air attack on Sept. 17, showed unusually open skepticism regarding key aspects of the Kerry-Lavrov
agreement – like sharing intelligence with the Russians (an important provision of the deal approved
by both Obama and Putin).
The Pentagon's resistance and the "accidental" bombing of Syrian troops brought these uncharacteristically
blunt words from Foreign Minister Lavrov on Russian TV on Sept. 26:
"My good friend John Kerry is under fierce criticism from the U.S. military machine. Despite
the fact that, as always, [they] made assurances that the U.S. Commander in Chief, President Barack
Obama, supported him in his contacts with Russia apparently the military does not really listen to
the Commander in Chief."
Lavrov specifically criticized Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman, Gen. Joseph Dunford for telling
Congress that he opposed sharing intelligence with Russia despite the fact, as Lavrov put it, "the
agreements concluded on direct orders of Russian President Vladimir Putin and U.S. President Barack
Obama [who] stipulated that they would share intelligence." Noting this resistance inside the U.S.
military bureaucracy, Lavrov added, "It is difficult to work with such partners."
Putin picked up on the theme of insubordination in an Oct. 27 speech at the Valdai International
Discussion Club, in which he openly lamented:
"My personal agreements with the President of the United States have not produced results.
people in Washington are ready to do everything possible to prevent these agreements from being implemented
in practice."
On Syria, Putin decried the lack of a "common front against terrorism after such lengthy negotiations,
enormous effort, and difficult compromises."
Lavrov's Foreign Ministry spokeswoman, meanwhile, even expressed sympathy for Kerry's quixotic
effort, giving him an "A" for effort.after then-Defense Secretary Ashton Carter dispatched U.S. warplanes
to provide an early death to the cease-fire so painstakingly worked out by Kerry and Lavrov for almost
a year.
For his part, Kerry expressed regret – in words reflecting the hapless hubris befitting the chief
envoy of the world's "only indispensible" country – conceding that he had been unable to "align"
all the forces in play.
With the ceasefire in tatters, Kerry publicly complained on Sept. 29, 2016: "Syria is as complicated
as anything I've ever seen in public life, in the sense that there are probably about six wars or
so going on at the same time – Kurd against Kurd, Kurd against Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Sunni,
Shia, everybody against ISIL, people against Assad, Nusra [Al Qaeda's Syrian affiliate]. This is
as mixed-up sectarian and civil war and strategic and proxies, so it's very, very difficult to be
able to align forces."
Admitting Deep-State Pre-eminence
Only in December 2016, in
an interview with Matt Viser of the Boston Globe , did Kerry admit that his efforts
to deal with the Russians had been thwarted by then-Defense Secretary Ashton Carter – as well as
all those forces he found so difficult to align.
"Unfortunately we had divisions within our own ranks that made the implementation [of the ceasefire
agreement] extremely hard to accomplish," Kerry said. "But it could have worked. The fact is we had
an agreement with Russia a joint cooperative effort.
"Now we had people in our government who were bitterly opposed to doing that," he said. "I regret
that. I think that was a mistake. I think you'd have a different situation there conceivably now
if we'd been able to do that."
The Globe's Viser described Kerry as frustrated. Indeed, it was a tough way for Kerry
to end nearly 34 years in public office.
After Friday's
discussions
with President Trump, Kremlin eyes will be focused on Secretary of State Tillerson, watching to see
if he has better luck than Kerry did in getting Ashton Carter's successor, James "Mad Dog" Mattis
and CIA's latest captive-director Pompeo into line behind what President Trump wants to do.
As the new U.S.-Russia agreed-upon ceasefire goes into effect on Sunday, Putin will be eager to
see if this time Trump, unlike Obama, can make a ceasefire in Syria stick; or whether, like Obama,
Trump will be unable to prevent it from being sabotaged by Washington's deep-state actors.
The proof will be in the pudding and, clearly, much depends on what happens in the next few weeks.
At this point, it will take a leap of faith on Putin's part to have much confidence that the ceasefire
will hold.
Ray McGovern was an Army officer and CIA analyst for almost 30 years. He now serves on the
Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. He is a contributor to
Hopeless:
Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). He can be reached at:
[email protected]
. A version of this article first appeared on Consortiumnews.com.
Only in December 2016, in an interview with Matt Viser of the Boston Globe, did Kerry admit
that his efforts to deal with the Russians had been thwarted by then-Defense Secretary Ashton
Carter – as well as all those forces he found so difficult to align.
It took, actually, not even Syria but Ukraine to expose a complete incohesiveness of US
power structure–it is literally not treaty-worthy. It can not be since itself is divided into
parties with, sometimes, diametrically opposite views (and objectives). It is really sad and embarrassing.
Today was yet another corporate America Trump defamation day. Trump's son admitted that
last year the Russians gave him evidence that H. Clinton did corrupt deals in Russia. What were
these deals? No one cares! It does not matter, we all know she is corrupt. Clinton is not open
for attack! The Trumpers committed treason by simply accepting such evidence! Impeach!
I watched part of Oliver Stone's interview. The reason Snowden remains in Russia is because
the USA refuses to sign an extradition treaty with Russia. There are several Russians living in
the USA wanted for looting large sums in Russia, and Putin wants justice, but they are exempt,
like Hillary. Read about her Russian Uranium kickback deal, its on-line, but of no interest to
our corporate media.
Sean, that is pure nonsense. America wanted regime change from the get-go. Rebels in Syria
got huge amounts of weapons courtesy of America and its allies. John McCain pleaded for rebels
to get weapons and support. The result was Al Qaida using American TOW missiles.
"... Contemporary imperialism therefore is the imperialism of international finance capital which is served by nation-states (for any nation-state that defies the will of international finance capital runs the risk of capital flight from, and hence the insolvency of, its economy). The US, being the leading capitalist state, plays the leading role in promoting and protecting the interests of international finance capital. But talking about a specific US imperialism, or a German or British or French imperialism obscures this basic fact. ..."
"... Indeed, a good deal of discussion about whether the world is heading toward multi-polarity or the persistence of US dominance misses the point that the chief actor in today's world is international or globalized finance capital, and not US or German or British finance capital. So, the concept of imperialism that [Utsa Patnaik and I] are talking about belongs to a different terrain of discourse from the concept of US imperialism per se ..."
Not long ago, even liberals like Thomas Friedman of the New York Times were arguing that
"McDonald's cannot flourish without McDonnell Douglas" (that is, the US Air Force). Surely,
this is a crude version of imperialism, but what about today's US imperialism? Isn't it still
alive and kicking?
The world that Lenin had written about consisted of nation-based, nation-state-supported
financial oligarchies engaged in intense inter-imperialist rivalry for repartitioning the world
through wars. When [Marxist theorist] Karl Kautsky had suggested the possibility of a truce
among rival powers for a peaceful division of the world, Lenin had pointed to the fact that the
phenomenon of uneven development under capitalism would necessarily subvert any such specific
truce. The world we have today is characterized by the hegemony of
international
finance capital which is interested in
preventing
any partitioning of the world, so
that it can move around freely across the globe.
Contemporary imperialism therefore is the imperialism of international finance capital
which is served by nation-states (for any nation-state that defies the will of international
finance capital runs the risk of capital flight from, and hence the insolvency of, its
economy). The US, being the leading capitalist state, plays the leading role in promoting and
protecting the interests of international finance capital. But talking about a specific US
imperialism, or a German or British or French imperialism obscures this basic fact.
Indeed, a good deal of discussion about whether the world is heading toward
multi-polarity or the persistence of US dominance misses the point that the chief actor in
today's world is international or globalized finance capital, and not US or German or British
finance capital. So, the concept of imperialism that [Utsa Patnaik and I] are talking about
belongs to a different terrain of discourse from the concept of US imperialism
per se
. The latter, though it is, of course, empirically visible because of US military intervention
all over the world, in order to acquire a proper meaning has to be located within the broader
setting of the imperialism of international finance capital.
Some incidentally have seen the muting of inter-imperialist rivalry in today's world as a
vindication of Kautsky's position over that of Lenin. This, however, is incorrect, since both
of them were talking about a world of national finance capitals which contemporary capitalism
has gone beyond.
... ... ...
C.J. Polychroniou
is a political economist/political scientist who has taught and worked in
universities and research centers in Europe and the United States. His main research interests
are in European economic integration, globalization, the political economy of the United States
and the deconstruction of neoliberalism's politico-economic project. He is a regular
contributor to Truthout as well as a member of Truthout's Public Intellectual Project. He has
published several books and his articles have appeared in a variety of journals, magazines,
newspapers and popular news websites. Many of his publications have been translated into
several foreign languages, including Croatian, French, Greek, Italian, Portuguese, Spanish and
Turkish.
"... Tillerson is basically echoing the Obama Administration's talking points and I think for a lot of foreign policy types who were hopeful that President Trump would take a more realist approach to foreign policy, they're hopes have been disappointed and I think that Tillerson's rhetoric and Tillerson's appointment of former NATO Ambassador, Kurt Volker, the administration's point man on Ukraine, are all very troubling signs. ..."
"... Well, Ukraine is historically. It's one country, but it really is two nations. There's the Russian speaking East, which has traditionally looked towards Moscow and then there are the former Habsburg Provinces in the West, which are traditionally Ukrainian speaking. The country has a history of dual nationalities. The recent history of U.S. involvement in Ukraine, it does not inspire a lot of confidence. ..."
"... When protests broke out in the winter of 2013, 2014, sitting U.S. Senators Chris Murphy and John McCain traveled to the Maidan to egg on the protests. The U.S. Ambassador at the time, Geoffrey Pyatt, and the Assistant Secretary of State, Victoria Nuland, also traveled and to support the protests. Nuland rudely famously handed out cookies to the protestors, the U.S. has been deeply involved in the effort to wrench Ukrainian out of Moscow's orbit. We see what has resolved it. The democratically-elected Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych was overthrown on the night of February 21 ..."
"... The U.S. wasn't a party to the deal. It was a deal between the European Union; the representatives of the European Union and the Ukrainian Government. That deal didn't last 24 hours before the protests really turned violent and Yanukovych had to flee. Soon after that, Russia annexed Crimea and then a full blown civil war started in and around April 6th, in the east. ..."
"... To quote the esteemed University of Chicago Political Scientist John Mearsheimer, "NATO expansion is the Taproot of the Ukrainian crisis." What Mearsheimer means by that is that NATO's expansion beginning in the 1990's under Bill Clinton who saw the borders of the alliance move ever eastward right up to Russia's western border. The Russians find that, I think for fairly understandable reasons, rather alarming. ..."
"... What we need to keep in mind is the Ukraine crisis really was over the EU Association Agreement. The problem from the Russian perspective is that the EU Association Agreement had specific foreign policy and security protocols embedded in it. Basically setting the stage for Ukraine's entry into NATO. I find it deeply troubling that Poroshenko and Tillerson are now broaching the subject of Ukrainian membership into NATO. That really, I think, spark a very serious reaction on the part of the Russians as possibly the worst possible thing that Ukraine could do at the moment. ..."
"... Well, it's a good question. I mean I think there's very little evidence that the alliance would be strengthened by Ukrainian membership. I think that there's really little evidence that the alliance has been strengthened by the addition of Romania and Bulgaria, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania. I find the entire concept of expanding the alliance up to the borders of Russia. It seems to me to be quite a dangerous and destabilizing move, but our foreign policy establishment is very slow to learn lessons from past mistakes. We see that now with discussion regarding Syria, for instance. These people, I don't know, were they asleep in 2003 when we went to war with Iraq? ..."
"... I mean there were people in the think tank world here who continually write [inaudible 00:10:20] saying, for instance, that the Libya intervention in 2011 was a success. It seems to me that ... I think they tend to believe their own myths and propaganda. They're so ideologically tied to this narrative of American Democracy Promotion that it really crowds out any room for rational thinking. ..."
"... The question is why is there this unique obsession with him and demonization to the point where, as Richard Engle does, he's talking about Putin playing chess and checkers and he's talking about Putin's body language and how Putin looks into people's eyes and makes you see what he wants you to see as if he's some super villain. ..."
"... It's basically Russia coverage without facts, evidence or logic. This isn't anything new, of course, but the intense demonization of this Russian leader is something that we didn't even see when Joseph Stalin ruled the USSR. This is something sort of new and really, really pretty dangerous. I think that it has its sources in a certain pent-up frustration on the part of a lot of Democrats that their candidate lost fairly and squarely to this rather bizarre fellow who sits in the Oval Office today. They can't get over it. This was, of course, something that the Clinton campaign actually. It was part of their post-election strategy. There's a new book out called, "Shattered" by Amie Parnes and, I think, Jonathan Martin ..."
"... Of course, I have this very troubling feeling that this is all in order to set the stage for Hillary Clinton to return as the nominee in four years time because then she can say well, I didn't really lose even though I outspent Donald Trump 2 to 1. I didn't really lose because it was stolen from me. The Russians stole it from me. I think there are a lot of Democrats who are willing to believe that and they're willing to absolve her for running a horrible, horrible campaign. ..."
"... Democratic partisans in the media might already be setting the stage for that return by warning of Russia sending over new spies to the U.S. in advance of 2018 and 2020, which if Clinton runs again and loses or if another Democrat runs again and loses, with a similar campaign, they could then go ahead and blame Russia again for that, too. ..."
"... Democratic partisans in the media might already be setting the stage for that return by warning of Russia sending over new spies to the U.S. in advance of 2018 and 2020, which if Clinton runs again and loses or if another Democrat runs again and loses, with a similar campaign, they could then go ahead and blame Russia again for that, too. ..."
AARON MATE: Thanks for joining us. Let's start with Ukraine. Immediately following this
historic meeting between Trump and Putin, Tillerson lays down the line that Russian behavior in
Ukraine has to change. Can you talk about what's at stake here for both sides of this?
JAMES CARDEN: There's quite a bit at stake considering the fact that the war in the
[inaudible 00:01:53] Donbass region continues to this day. It's a war that is taken nearly
10,000 lives. It's displaced over a million people and both parties to the Minsk Accord have a
long way to go in implementing the agreement. Though I fear, that Minsk is probably a
non-starter as far as Kiev goes and here's why. According to the United Nations, the Ukrainian
government has to hold a vote on decentralization for the East. It's yet to do that yet. That
vote was meant to be a pre-cursor to the agreement and I don't think they're going to hold that
vote. Here's why. If they hold that vote, I believe the far right militias will try to come to
power and try to overthrow Petro Poroshenko. Petro Poroshenko doesn't have a death wish. The
country is currently ruled by Ukrainian oligarchs in a tacit alliance with far right figures
like the speaker of Rada, Andriy Parubiy who founded the neo-Nazi party right sector.
Tillerson is basically echoing the Obama Administration's talking points and I think for
a lot of foreign policy types who were hopeful that President Trump would take a more realist
approach to foreign policy, they're hopes have been disappointed and I think that Tillerson's
rhetoric and Tillerson's appointment of former NATO Ambassador, Kurt Volker, the
administration's point man on Ukraine, are all very troubling signs.
AARON MATE: James, for those who aren't familiar with the recent history of Ukraine, can you
talk a bit more about that internal split that you're talking about between the Donbass part of
the country and the western part of Ukraine, where Kiev is and also what the U.S. role has been
going back to the Obama administration as you mentioned.
JAMES CARDEN:
Well, Ukraine is historically. It's one country, but it really is two
nations. There's the Russian speaking East, which has traditionally looked towards Moscow and
then there are the former Habsburg Provinces in the West, which are traditionally Ukrainian
speaking. The country has a history of dual nationalities. The recent history of U.S.
involvement in Ukraine, it does not inspire a lot of confidence.
When protests broke out in the winter of 2013, 2014, sitting U.S. Senators Chris Murphy
and John McCain traveled to the Maidan to egg on the protests. The U.S. Ambassador at the time,
Geoffrey Pyatt, and the Assistant Secretary of State, Victoria Nuland, also traveled and to
support the protests. Nuland rudely famously handed out cookies to the protestors, the U.S. has
been deeply involved in the effort to wrench Ukrainian out of Moscow's orbit. We see what has
resolved it. The democratically-elected Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych was overthrown on
the night of February 21
and soon after, Russia-
AARON MATE: Hey, James, just to cut in. Before he was overthrown, he actually, along with
Russia, had negotiated a deal with the U.S., right? To-
JAMES CARDEN: Deal?
AARON MATE: Yeah.
JAMES CARDEN:
The U.S. wasn't a party to the deal. It was a deal between the European
Union; the representatives of the European Union and the Ukrainian Government. That deal didn't
last 24 hours before the protests really turned violent and Yanukovych had to flee. Soon after
that, Russia annexed Crimea and then a full blown civil war started in and around April 6th, in
the east.
AARON MATE: Just to set some context, some further context here, just right now we're
talking about Ukraine in the context of Russia gate here in the U.S., where the alleged Russian
meddling through fake news and email hacks is deemed by many people a threat to U.S. National
Security so it's interesting to compare that with what happened in Ukraine whereas you talked
about there was a heavy U.S. role in this protest movement against Yanukovych, leading to his
ouster and now you have a country on Russia's borders, which is talking about joining NATO. Can
you talk about how that factors into Putin's thinking here and what he's doing inside
Ukraine?
JAMES CARDEN: Yeah, sure.
To quote the esteemed University of Chicago Political
Scientist John Mearsheimer, "NATO expansion is the Taproot of the Ukrainian crisis." What
Mearsheimer means by that is that NATO's expansion beginning in the 1990's under Bill Clinton
who saw the borders of the alliance move ever eastward right up to Russia's western border. The
Russians find that, I think for fairly understandable reasons, rather alarming.
AARON MATE: In part because they were promised by the first President Bush that would never
happen.
JAMES CARDEN: That's correct.
What we need to keep in mind is the Ukraine crisis really
was over the EU Association Agreement. The problem from the Russian perspective is that the EU
Association Agreement had specific foreign policy and security protocols embedded in it.
Basically setting the stage for Ukraine's entry into NATO. I find it deeply troubling that
Poroshenko and Tillerson are now broaching the subject of Ukrainian membership into NATO. That
really, I think, spark a very serious reaction on the part of the Russians as possibly the
worst possible thing that Ukraine could do at the moment.
AARON MATE: Why do you think it's taken for granted across so much of a foreign policy
establishment here that Ukraine falling into the Western orbit as opposed to being neutral
would be a positive thing?
JAMES CARDEN:
Well, it's a good question. I mean I think there's very little evidence
that the alliance would be strengthened by Ukrainian membership. I think that there's really
little evidence that the alliance has been strengthened by the addition of Romania and
Bulgaria, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania. I find the entire concept of expanding the alliance up to
the borders of Russia. It seems to me to be quite a dangerous and destabilizing move, but our
foreign policy establishment is very slow to learn lessons from past mistakes. We see that now
with discussion regarding Syria, for instance. These people, I don't know, were they asleep in
2003 when we went to war with Iraq?
I mean there were people in the think tank world here who continually write [inaudible
00:10:20] saying, for instance, that the Libya intervention in 2011 was a success. It seems to
me that ... I think they tend to believe their own myths and propaganda. They're so
ideologically tied to this narrative of American Democracy Promotion that it really crowds out
any room for rational thinking.
... ... ...
AARON MATE: Okay. Going back to Russia and its borders. On its Western border, you have
right now thousands of NATO troops. Can you talk about that context as it hangs over the
prospects for improved US-Russia relations?
JAMES CARDEN: Well, again, I mean lets ... take a step further back and look at the context
of this new cold war that were in with Russia. It's essentially, I believe, a forefront war.
You have the Baltic Theater, where, as you say, U.S. and NATO have thousands of troops on
Russia's border. There have been many close calls between Russian and NATO aircraft in the
skies above the Baltic Sea.
The second front is as we spoke about Ukraine, where the Russians are supporting the
Russian-speaking rebels in the east and the U.S. and NATO have a military base in western
Ukraine from which they train Ukrainian soldiers to fight the Russian backed soldiers in the
east. The third front is, as we were just talking about, Syria, and the fourth front, I believe
it's safe to say, is unfolding in cyberspace. We have, at any moment, an accident can happen
and this cold war could turn hot. I think that we're being distracted by the sideshow of Russia
hacking and the left's rather odd obsession with Vladimir Putin.
AARON MATE: On that front, that segways perfectly to a clip I want to play for you. Just
talking about how Putin is discussed in the U.S. media. I want to play for you a clip. This is
Richard Engel, the chief foreign correspondent for NBC News.
Voice of Rich E: American presidents come and go, but Putin has outlasted them all. He's
perfected the art of controlling every detail to achieve his own goals. All you really see when
you look Putin in the eye is exactly what he wants you to see. So far, he's been winning every
round in the long game he's playing against the U.S., but what is that game? Foreign policy
analyst like to say that Trump is playing checkers while Putin is playing chess.
AARON MATE: That's Richard Engle, the chief foreign correspondent for NBC News. This was in
a special he did on Friday night about Putin and Russia. I find that clip so striking because
Engle is talking about Putin winning every round of a long game against the U.S., but then in
the next sentence he asks what is the long game? James, your thoughts.
JAMES CARDEN: I can't put it any better than my Editor-in-Chief put it on Twitter when she
was watching the Engle documentary the other night. I think she said something like it reminded
her of Soviet propaganda. Any of this stuff coming out of. I assume this was on MSNBC?
AARON MATE: Yeah. It took the place of Rachel Maddow Show on Friday night and Maddow whose
been a source of similar kind of stuff.
JAMES CARDEN: Right, as you've covered very well. Yeah, so MSNBC is. I mean, it's not even
worth watching anymore. I mean it's just become an American version of. I would say R.T., but I
think R.T. actually has higher editorial standards than MSNBC. I don't know quite what it is
anymore except ... it gives space for these anti-Russian, anti-Putin hysterics.
This isn't to say by the way that Vladimir Putin is my kind of politician and if he was an
American politician here, I certainly wouldn't vote for him. He's far too nationalistic and he
would probably cozy up to the American image's right. I certainly wouldn't be happy about an
American politician raiding the treasury like he and his associates have done. The problem is
that that's an issue for the Russian people. They seem perfectly happy with Mr. Putin as
president. I think he has something along the lines of 80% approval rating so if they're okay
with it, I'm okay with it. But the idea that he is a puppet master pulling the strings, it is
just beyond ridiculous.
AARON MATE: Yeah, James, I mean the question is not why criticize Putin because as you point
out there's plenty to criticize him for.
The question is why is there this unique obsession
with him and demonization to the point where, as Richard Engle does, he's talking about Putin
playing chess and checkers and he's talking about Putin's body language and how Putin looks
into people's eyes and makes you see what he wants you to see as if he's some super
villain.
JAMES CARDEN: Yes.
AARON MATE: Out of the cartoon.
JAMES CARDEN: He's a Svengali.
It's basically Russia coverage without facts, evidence or
logic. This isn't anything new, of course, but the intense demonization of this Russian leader
is something that we didn't even see when Joseph Stalin ruled the USSR. This is something sort
of new and really, really pretty dangerous. I think that it has its sources in a certain
pent-up frustration on the part of a lot of Democrats that their candidate lost fairly and
squarely to this rather bizarre fellow who sits in the Oval Office today. They can't get over
it. This was, of course, something that the Clinton campaign actually. It was part of their
post-election strategy. There's a new book out called, "Shattered" by Amie Parnes and, I think,
Jonathan Martin
[crosstalk 00:22:08].
AARON MATE: Jonathan Allen. Yeah.
JAMES CARDEN: Jonathan Allen. They report that the morning after the election, the team met
at the headquarters in Brooklyn and they said okay, let's make Russia the cornerstone of our
post-election strategy. That plays a big part of it.
Of course, I have this very troubling
feeling that this is all in order to set the stage for Hillary Clinton to return as the nominee
in four years time because then she can say well, I didn't really lose even though I outspent
Donald Trump 2 to 1. I didn't really lose because it was stolen from me. The Russians stole it
from me. I think there are a lot of Democrats who are willing to believe that and they're
willing to absolve her for running a horrible, horrible campaign.
AARON MATE: Yeah, James, and on that point,
Democratic partisans in the media might
already be setting the stage for that return by warning of Russia sending over new spies to the
U.S. in advance of 2018 and 2020, which if Clinton runs again and loses or if another Democrat
runs again and loses, with a similar campaign, they could then go ahead and blame Russia again
for that, too.
We have to leave it there though 'cause we're way over time. James Carden, contributing
writer at The Nation, Executive Editor for The American Committee for East-West Accord. He has
also served as an advisor on Russia policy at the U.S. State Department. James, thank you.
JAMES CARDEN: Thank you.
AARON MATE: And thanks for joining us on The Real News.
Democratic partisans in the
media might already be setting the stage for that return by warning of Russia sending over new
spies to the U.S. in advance of 2018 and 2020, which if Clinton runs again and loses or if
another Democrat runs again and loses, with a similar campaign, they could then go ahead and
blame Russia again for that, too.
"... He's threatened a preemptive strike against North Korea, considered a major escalation in Yemen, and turned loose his military commanders to bomb wherever, however, and with whatever they choose, weakening even further the already insufficient restrictions Obama had put in place to try to minimize civilian casualties. Deaths of civilians under both U.S. drones and conventional airstrikes have escalated. ..."
"... For those who thought that military restraint was part of Trumpian isolationism, think again. ..."
"... Not one of these actions was necessary. Not one will make people in this country -- let alone the Afghans, Iraqis, Syrians, Yemenis, Somalis, or others -- any safer. Neither was any of these actions sanctioned by Congress: All violated the War Powers Act, and indeed the Constitution itself, which puts the power to declare war in the hands of the people's representatives. ..."
"... Furthermore, not one of them fulfilled the minimal United Nations Charter requirements for the legal use of military force -- either Security Council authorization or immediate self-defense. Thus they all violated international law. ..."
"... What we see in these attacks is not a strategy, but a new way of communicating raw power. ..."
"... Middle East expert Phyllis Bennis directs the New Internationalism project at the Institute for Policy Studies. ..."
These
are awesome days for headline writers. So many global settings, such an abundance of weapons,
such a wealth of choices!
On the morning of April 14, the
New York Times
led with "A Giant U.S. Bomb Strikes
ISIS Caves in Afghanistan," matched by CNN's "US Drops 'Mother of All Bombs.'" The
Washington Post
chose Syria, where "Errant U.S. Strike Kills 18: Victims in Syria Were
Allied Forces." By mid-afternoon that same day, the Associated Press had shifted to the horn of
Africa, where the "U.S. Sends Dozens of Troops to Somalia, 1st Time in Decades."
And as the Friday rush hour began in Washington, Fox News opted to head to the north
Pacific, leading with an aircraft carrier: "The 'Powerful' USS Carl Vinson Steams Towards North
Korea."
A few days earlier the most popular choices were various versions of CNN's "U.S. Launches
Military Strike Against Syria." (That headline described something new only because the strike
officially targeted a Syrian government military site, while ignoring the not-so-new reality
that the U.S. has been attacking alleged ISIS targets in Syria with drones, bombing raids, and
special forces for almost three years.)
A couple of weeks before that, coverage of the Trump wars focused on a devastating U.S.
airstrike on Mosul, which a
Los Angeles Times
headline described as "One of the
Deadliest Attacks on Civilians in Recent Memory." And just before
that
, the Bureau of
Investigative Journalism highlighted "Nine Young Children Killed: The Full Details of Botched
U.S. Raid in Yemen." (No headlines, however, told the full story of the U.S. role in Yemen.
That one might've read "U.S.-Backed Saudi Bombing Has Killed Thousands, Worsened Famine Facing
Millions in Yemen.")
Around the globe, as these headlines testify, Donald Trump has been cavalierly deploying
troops and weapons, claiming such military actions are designed to send political messages.
He's threatened a preemptive strike against North Korea, considered a major escalation
in Yemen, and turned loose his military commanders to bomb wherever, however, and with whatever
they choose, weakening even further the already insufficient restrictions Obama had put in
place to try to minimize civilian casualties. Deaths of civilians under both U.S. drones and
conventional airstrikes have escalated.
For those who thought that military restraint was part of Trumpian isolationism, think
again.
Raw Power
Not one of these actions was necessary. Not one will make people in this country -- let
alone the Afghans, Iraqis, Syrians, Yemenis, Somalis, or others -- any safer. Neither was any of
these actions sanctioned by Congress: All violated the War Powers Act, and indeed the
Constitution itself, which puts the power to declare war in the hands of the people's
representatives.
Furthermore, not one of them fulfilled the minimal United Nations Charter requirements
for the legal use of military force -- either Security Council authorization or immediate
self-defense. Thus they all violated international law.
And even beyond the illegality, not one could claim a strategic, legitimate, or moral
justification.
Of course, the U.S. has been at war in various combinations of Afghanistan and Iraq, Libya
and Syria, Yemen, Somalia, and beyond since George W. Bush declared the global war on terror
just after the 9/11 attacks of 2001. In some of these countries, the U.S. was at war even
before that. But Trump's actions represent major escalations in every one of those devastated
nations. According to the British human rights monitor AirWars, well over 1,000 civilians may
have been killed by U.S.-led forces just in Iraq and Syria in March alone, the highest monthly
total they've ever tracked.
What we see in these attacks is not a strategy, but a new way of communicating raw
power.
How does it work? Instead of sending diplomats to help get all warring parties involved in
negotiations, you drop the largest non-nuclear bomb ever used in combat on one of the world's
poorest countries. Instead of supporting UN efforts to create incremental ceasefires, you send
special forces. Instead of investing money, time, and high-level attention to help shift
regional conflicts from the battlefield to the negotiating table, you send armed drones to drop
more bombs.
And, of course, instead of increasing funding for diplomacy, you strip 29 percent of the
State Department budget, and nearly zero out humanitarian aid, and hand it all over to the
Pentagon as part of a $54 billion increase in military spending.
None of this is in service of any actual policy, just a unifying theme: War trumps
diplomacy. Bullies rule. It's a shock-and-awe attack -- many shock-and-awe attacks, actually -- to drive home a message aimed not only at troops on the ground or militants holed up in a cave,
but also at the populations as a whole, across Afghanistan, Syria, Somalia, Iraq, Yemen, and
beyond. The goal seems to be ensuring that no question remains as to where and with whom the
ultimate power resides.
It's also a message to a domestic audience here in the United States, designed to shock if
not surprise: The bully in the White House is calling the shots.
Invigorating the Peace Movement
The question now isn't what Trump -- or the generals and billionaires filling his cabinet -- will do next. It's what will
we
do next, as opponents of these wars?
In short, we need to integrate opposition to these wars into the very core of the movements
already rising so powerfully against racism, for women's and LGBTQ rights, for climate and
economic justice, for Native rights, for immigrant rights and refugee protections, for
Palestinian rights, and much more.
We know that some approaches from earlier efforts are needed once again. Building ties with
and privileging the voices of people facing the consequences of U.S. actions, dying under the
bombs or reeling under brutal sanctions, remain crucial. Lifting up anti-war veterans provides
entre to important new audiences. Reminding people of how U.S. wars are too often fought for
resources -- as well as for the expansion of power, for military bases, for regional and global
domination, and how racism informs all of Washington's wars -- are all key to popular
education.
What we do know is that
everyone
-- from Syrians, Iraqis, Afghans, Somalis, and
Yemenis to those of us in this country -- needs diplomacy to win out over war. We've faced wars
for decades now, but we've also had some victories where negotiations triumphed over force -- in
Cuba, in Paris at the climate talks, and most especially in the Iran nuclear deal.
We know what diplomacy looks like, and we know how to fight for it.
We'll need new strategies, new tactics -- but we continue to stand on the shoulders of those
who have gone before us. Our country is waging war against peoples across the globe, indeed
waging war against the earth itself. But we are still here, challenging those wars alongside
those who guard the earth, who protect the water, who defend the rights of those most at
risk.
The great historian Howard Zinn reminds us of it all: Our country's history began in the
genocide of indigenous nations and the enslavement of Africans brought here in chains. But from
that beginning it also became a country of people's movements against genocide and slavery,
against racism and misogyny and Islamophobia, of movements for justice, for internationalism,
and yes, for peace.
Middle East expert Phyllis Bennis directs the New Internationalism
project at the Institute for Policy Studies.
John Feffer is a neoliberal, no question about it. As such he can't live without the American
global empire and neoliberal globalism. That's the problem. But some of his article (not this one)
in
fpif.org
are pretty decent.
Notable quotes:
"... These neocon/neoliberal types raise this a lot, they like to mention the birth rates of Japan or China, but then they completely forget to raise the demographic realities of Western Europe or North America. The USA is already close to having the demographics of Brazil and it will get worse than even Brazil. A third world USA will struggle to keep order in its own land let alone being able to run a global empire, to believe that a third world populated USA can muster an army to challenge China (or Japan or Russia) is laughable. ..."
"... Glad to see the neocon perspective represented at Unz! ..."
the 'rules' are very hard to enforce without a dominant power in the background
Well, the empirical evidence shows that the rules are impossible to enforce
with
the single dominant power. The dominant power doesn't want any rules; it prefers 'to create
its own reality'. On the contrary, in a multi-polar world rules are beneficial for
everyone.
Also, you're using the word 'nationalism' a lot, but it's not nationalism that 'takes
root' and 'takes hold'. It's
sovereignism
. Independence.
Lots of good stuff here, mixed in with lots of boilerplate leftism and the usual
Trumpophobic nonsense.
The most egregious misdirection is probably the nonsense about Japan's (and other Asian
countries') shrinking populations as a supposed economic catastrophe.
In an era of ever increasing automation and likely shrinking employment together with ever
present environmental concerns, reducing the high population densities achieved in the C20th
is surely a good thing overall. (As long as policymakers aren't so stupid as to import en
masse troublesome communities of culturally and racially distinct people to try to make up
the numbers – but surely no remotely responsible government would ever authorise such a
suicidally irresponsible policy!)
It's a basic error of course to take a current trend and extrapolate it to some future
zero point, as the author above does with Japan's population, but if there are real concerns
about declining population then the answer is to institute state policies to increase birth
rates, as draconian and/or costly as the a situation requires (and if necessary raise
retirement ages to reflect longer healthy lives). There's no reason to suppose significant
increases in indigenous birth rates couldn't be induced, given the effort. The only thing
stopping it is ideological – that such objectives are invariably hysterically opposed
as "fascist" by people with ulterior ideological motives for wanting to promote mass
immigration instead.
But given a choice Japan's "crisis" is infinitely preferable to our "solution".
John Feffer is the author of the new dystopian novel, Splinterlands (a Dispatch Books
original with Haymarket Books), which Publishers Weekly hails as "a chilling, thoughtful,
and intuitive warning."
Might have to have a look at that one. I like science fiction, and I'm quite partial to a
bit of dystopia.
A bit cautious, though, given the author's clear political prejudices in the piece above
– I'd be risking getting dumped into a grossly partisan lecture about the suppose evils
of nationalism. And there's always the risk with lefty writers that they'll unload some
gratuitous homosexual shit on you in the middle of an otherwise decent read. Still, might be
worth a punt at £6.99 for the Kindle version.
Meanwhile, it's not only Japan that faces a demographic crisis.
These neocon/neoliberal types raise this a lot, they like to mention the birth rates
of Japan or China, but then they completely forget to raise the demographic realities of
Western Europe or North America. The USA is already close to having the demographics of
Brazil and it will get worse than even Brazil. A third world USA will struggle to keep order
in its own land let alone being able to run a global empire, to believe that a third world
populated USA can muster an army to challenge China (or Japan or Russia) is
laughable.
@Randal
One of the major constraints on the reproduction of Europeans and I would guess that of
USAmericans, is the fact that over my lifetime we have gone from a situation where it was
possible for a family to exist and reproduce on the husband's wage alone; to a situation
today where even a family with two relatively well paid adults, cannot see how they can
afford a child, let alone, children!
There is no retreat I can assure you of that fact.
August 20, 2014 "The Pentagon's Strategy for World Domination: Full Spectrum Dominance,
from Asia to Africa,"
Author Noam Chomsky has described US foreign and military policy regarding oil supplies as
a "lever of world domination." Control over natural resources keeps competing markets
dependent on the US as well as in line with its interests.
Sep 11, 2011 General Wesley Clark: Wars Were Planned – Seven Countries In Five
Years
"This is a memo that describes how we're going to take out seven countries in five years,
starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran."
I said, "Is it classified?" He said, "Yes, sir." I said, "Well, don't show it to me." And I
saw him a year or so ago, and I said, "You remember that?" He said, "Sir, I didn't show you
that memo! I didn't show it to you!"
@Diversity
Heretic
"nor of any real benefit to the American people." is a grossly ungrateful
statement. American has made huge amount of money from Asia, about 100 years the American
made money by selling Opium to Chinese like the British and Japanese by pointing the gun at
the Chinese head. Stole, looted and cheated the land and the riches from Chinese, Filipino
and other Asians using extraterritorial judicial Kangaroo court, the United States Court for
China. Extorted war indemnity by waging reckless wars on fabricated allegations, false flag
ops and ruthless suppression. Selling war materials and war technologies to the Japanese in
invading China and murdering and committing atrocities against Chinese.
The American will not be where it is now, still filthy rich (although always complaining)
without the huge amount of wealth they extorted from Asia.
Glad to see the neocon perspective represented at Unz!
There was talk of plans for a permanent built structure atop the concrete, I have not
kept track of the nonsense, so do not know if it was built. Suppose it must have been.
I, for one, advocate for more seasteading constructions out of nationalistic ambitions.
I'm sure that Japan can make a beautiful structure, one that will make even Mr. Trump gasp in
delight of its beauty.
@Agent76
Malaysian has to thank for the never ending threat of blocking Malacca Strait by the American
and their lackeys the Singapore and Australia. Without their thuggish threats China would not
have to find alternate routes to bypass the chocking point, Malacca Strait. In addition to
Malaysia, Thailand and Myanmar are also being developed to sideline the Malacca Strait.
The American definitely can claim credit this time that there are not all negatives with
their military hammers, although they do not build anything constructive for anybody
themselves, but they brought infrastructure building to Malaysia nonetheless.
@Joe
Wong
"nor of any real benefit to the American people." is a grossly ungrateful statement.
American has made huge amount of money from Asia, about 100 years the American made money by
selling Opium to Chinese like the British and Japanese by pointing the gun at the Chinese
head. Stole, looted and cheated the land and the riches from Chinese, Filipino and other
Asians using extraterritorial judicial Kangaroo court, the United States Court for China.
Extorted war indemnity by waging reckless wars on fabricated allegations, false flag ops and
ruthless suppression. Selling war materials and war technologies to the Japanese in invading
China and murdering and committing atrocities against Chinese.
The American will not be where it is now, still filthy rich (although always complaining)
without the huge amount of wealth they extorted from Asia. I do not think that your comment
is sound, individual USA people may have been involved in the opium trade in China, but I
have never read of a systematic involvement.
Britain and then Japan, for sure. I would guess that the sad state of the Qing fleet in
1894 to 1895 (yes, I know that Qing fleet is not entirely accurate) due to theft and sabotage
from opium addiction.
Japan only started to move in, copying the British with opium distribution, at least 15,
probably more years later. Admitedly, there are few records that document the activities of
groups like the Black Ocean group, etc., probably running opium through Manchuria
post-Russo-Japan war, the British had demonstrated the effect, but Japanese secret societies
only had a big effort a little later.
I'm anti-American polity, although I love many US people I meet.
Despite its many crimes in that war, I have never seen a reference to opium trade. AFAIK,
that started only after the OSS/CIA supported remnant and rogue Chiang Kai Shek forces in
Northern Myanmar etc.
This turned around to bite them, US service people in Vietnam became junkies, they spread
the sickness on R&R in other places, then at home.
I hate opiates and opioids, even codeine, makes me feel really bad.
So, it's not surprising that when foreign policy elites think about what will replace a
U.S. superpower in relative decline -- speculation that has grown more feverish in the Trump
era --
Two points:
1. Among who this speculation has grown? Call it a hunch, but I suspect I wouldn't listen
opinions of those "experts" (among whom this speculation has grown) on even the brand of the
toilet paper I use. Any Nobel Prize winners in whatever among those?
2. US foreign policy "elites" specifically (with some few exceptions) are an Exhibit A of
delusion, ignorance and incompetence.
US decline (both relative and absolute) is an objective process now, it didn't have to be
this way but now it is a reality. If anybody can arrest it (even if for a little while) it is
Trump but, I suspect, those very US foreign policy "elites" could be the undoing of his not
perfect as it is economic effort.
Oh my God, what a load of crock. The author has one foot in the intellectual fashions of
30-40 years ago, and the other in the zones of Trumophobia and the Globalist La La land.
Yes, Asia is rising, perhaps will continue to rise, but it has nothing to do with Obama or
Trump or Globalization or the other labels that the talking heads affix onto processes they
have no grasp of. Will Asia ever come to have the quality of life that is possible in North
America or Australia? I don't see that happening. Nor do the Chinese and other Asian
billionaires and millionaires whose favorite investment is investing in real estate in
Australia and North America. Why? Precisely because these locations are not over-populated
and offer quality of life. But the author, clearly a city slick enthralled by mega malls and
other symptoms of urban overcrowding, sees overcrowding as a growth engine. He faults Japan
for being in demographic decline. Would Japan be more peaceful if that miserable overcrowded
island had millions of educated unemployed youth fighting for jobs and survival?
Nationalism is yet another process (yes, it is a process, not a fixed thingee) that this
ignoramus knows nothing about. The Chinese nationalists/communists were that because at a
certain stage of their history the world political and economic processes required that as a
policy to ensure survival. They are capitalists/nationalists now because the world of today
is different from the world of 50 years ago and they had to transition to new processes
operating in the world of today.
The author should go back to Asia with the mindset of a serious student and quit being a
talking head. When he gets back, he should study America with an open and inquiring mind. Who
knows, he may then like to recant the nonsense he has spewed out today.
No, Chinese communism was very nationalist. So was Vietnamese communism.
China and Vietnam fought as communist powers. Also, Khmer Rouge was intensely
nationalist.
I was about to make the same point, but you beat me to it, Priss. Asian
communism–just like Latin American communism–has always been fundamentally
nationalistic, because, for them, the first order of business is anti-imperialism.
The most egregious misdirection is probably the nonsense about Japan's (and other Asian
countries') shrinking populations as a supposed economic catastrophe
But given a choice Japan's "crisis" is infinitely preferable to our "solution".
Could not agree more. I would definitely prefer a smaller population to out-of-control
mass immigration.
"... Tillerson is basically echoing the Obama Administration's talking points and I think for a lot of foreign policy types who were hopeful that President Trump would take a more realist approach to foreign policy, they're hopes have been disappointed and I think that Tillerson's rhetoric and Tillerson's appointment of former NATO Ambassador, Kurt Volker, the administration's point man on Ukraine, are all very troubling signs. ..."
"... Well, Ukraine is historically. It's one country, but it really is two nations. There's the Russian speaking East, which has traditionally looked towards Moscow and then there are the former Habsburg Provinces in the West, which are traditionally Ukrainian speaking. The country has a history of dual nationalities. The recent history of U.S. involvement in Ukraine, it does not inspire a lot of confidence. ..."
"... When protests broke out in the winter of 2013, 2014, sitting U.S. Senators Chris Murphy and John McCain traveled to the Maidan to egg on the protests. The U.S. Ambassador at the time, Geoffrey Pyatt, and the Assistant Secretary of State, Victoria Nuland, also traveled and to support the protests. Nuland rudely famously handed out cookies to the protestors, the U.S. has been deeply involved in the effort to wrench Ukrainian out of Moscow's orbit. We see what has resolved it. The democratically-elected Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych was overthrown on the night of February 21 ..."
"... The U.S. wasn't a party to the deal. It was a deal between the European Union; the representatives of the European Union and the Ukrainian Government. That deal didn't last 24 hours before the protests really turned violent and Yanukovych had to flee. Soon after that, Russia annexed Crimea and then a full blown civil war started in and around April 6th, in the east. ..."
"... To quote the esteemed University of Chicago Political Scientist John Mearsheimer, "NATO expansion is the Taproot of the Ukrainian crisis." What Mearsheimer means by that is that NATO's expansion beginning in the 1990's under Bill Clinton who saw the borders of the alliance move ever eastward right up to Russia's western border. The Russians find that, I think for fairly understandable reasons, rather alarming. ..."
"... What we need to keep in mind is the Ukraine crisis really was over the EU Association Agreement. The problem from the Russian perspective is that the EU Association Agreement had specific foreign policy and security protocols embedded in it. Basically setting the stage for Ukraine's entry into NATO. I find it deeply troubling that Poroshenko and Tillerson are now broaching the subject of Ukrainian membership into NATO. That really, I think, spark a very serious reaction on the part of the Russians as possibly the worst possible thing that Ukraine could do at the moment. ..."
"... Well, it's a good question. I mean I think there's very little evidence that the alliance would be strengthened by Ukrainian membership. I think that there's really little evidence that the alliance has been strengthened by the addition of Romania and Bulgaria, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania. I find the entire concept of expanding the alliance up to the borders of Russia. It seems to me to be quite a dangerous and destabilizing move, but our foreign policy establishment is very slow to learn lessons from past mistakes. We see that now with discussion regarding Syria, for instance. These people, I don't know, were they asleep in 2003 when we went to war with Iraq? ..."
"... I mean there were people in the think tank world here who continually write [inaudible 00:10:20] saying, for instance, that the Libya intervention in 2011 was a success. It seems to me that ... I think they tend to believe their own myths and propaganda. They're so ideologically tied to this narrative of American Democracy Promotion that it really crowds out any room for rational thinking. ..."
"... The question is why is there this unique obsession with him and demonization to the point where, as Richard Engle does, he's talking about Putin playing chess and checkers and he's talking about Putin's body language and how Putin looks into people's eyes and makes you see what he wants you to see as if he's some super villain. ..."
"... It's basically Russia coverage without facts, evidence or logic. This isn't anything new, of course, but the intense demonization of this Russian leader is something that we didn't even see when Joseph Stalin ruled the USSR. This is something sort of new and really, really pretty dangerous. I think that it has its sources in a certain pent-up frustration on the part of a lot of Democrats that their candidate lost fairly and squarely to this rather bizarre fellow who sits in the Oval Office today. They can't get over it. This was, of course, something that the Clinton campaign actually. It was part of their post-election strategy. There's a new book out called, "Shattered" by Amie Parnes and, I think, Jonathan Martin ..."
"... Of course, I have this very troubling feeling that this is all in order to set the stage for Hillary Clinton to return as the nominee in four years time because then she can say well, I didn't really lose even though I outspent Donald Trump 2 to 1. I didn't really lose because it was stolen from me. The Russians stole it from me. I think there are a lot of Democrats who are willing to believe that and they're willing to absolve her for running a horrible, horrible campaign. ..."
"... Democratic partisans in the media might already be setting the stage for that return by warning of Russia sending over new spies to the U.S. in advance of 2018 and 2020, which if Clinton runs again and loses or if another Democrat runs again and loses, with a similar campaign, they could then go ahead and blame Russia again for that, too. ..."
"... Democratic partisans in the media might already be setting the stage for that return by warning of Russia sending over new spies to the U.S. in advance of 2018 and 2020, which if Clinton runs again and loses or if another Democrat runs again and loses, with a similar campaign, they could then go ahead and blame Russia again for that, too. ..."
AARON MATE: Thanks for joining us. Let's start with Ukraine. Immediately following this
historic meeting between Trump and Putin, Tillerson lays down the line that Russian behavior in
Ukraine has to change. Can you talk about what's at stake here for both sides of this?
JAMES CARDEN: There's quite a bit at stake considering the fact that the war in the
[inaudible 00:01:53] Donbass region continues to this day. It's a war that is taken nearly
10,000 lives. It's displaced over a million people and both parties to the Minsk Accord have a
long way to go in implementing the agreement. Though I fear, that Minsk is probably a
non-starter as far as Kiev goes and here's why. According to the United Nations, the Ukrainian
government has to hold a vote on decentralization for the East. It's yet to do that yet. That
vote was meant to be a pre-cursor to the agreement and I don't think they're going to hold that
vote. Here's why. If they hold that vote, I believe the far right militias will try to come to
power and try to overthrow Petro Poroshenko. Petro Poroshenko doesn't have a death wish. The
country is currently ruled by Ukrainian oligarchs in a tacit alliance with far right figures
like the speaker of Rada, Andriy Parubiy who founded the neo-Nazi party right sector.
Tillerson is basically echoing the Obama Administration's talking points and I think for
a lot of foreign policy types who were hopeful that President Trump would take a more realist
approach to foreign policy, they're hopes have been disappointed and I think that Tillerson's
rhetoric and Tillerson's appointment of former NATO Ambassador, Kurt Volker, the
administration's point man on Ukraine, are all very troubling signs.
AARON MATE: James, for those who aren't familiar with the recent history of Ukraine, can you
talk a bit more about that internal split that you're talking about between the Donbass part of
the country and the western part of Ukraine, where Kiev is and also what the U.S. role has been
going back to the Obama administration as you mentioned.
JAMES CARDEN:
Well, Ukraine is historically. It's one country, but it really is two
nations. There's the Russian speaking East, which has traditionally looked towards Moscow and
then there are the former Habsburg Provinces in the West, which are traditionally Ukrainian
speaking. The country has a history of dual nationalities. The recent history of U.S.
involvement in Ukraine, it does not inspire a lot of confidence.
When protests broke out in the winter of 2013, 2014, sitting U.S. Senators Chris Murphy
and John McCain traveled to the Maidan to egg on the protests. The U.S. Ambassador at the time,
Geoffrey Pyatt, and the Assistant Secretary of State, Victoria Nuland, also traveled and to
support the protests. Nuland rudely famously handed out cookies to the protestors, the U.S. has
been deeply involved in the effort to wrench Ukrainian out of Moscow's orbit. We see what has
resolved it. The democratically-elected Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych was overthrown on
the night of February 21
and soon after, Russia-
AARON MATE: Hey, James, just to cut in. Before he was overthrown, he actually, along with
Russia, had negotiated a deal with the U.S., right? To-
JAMES CARDEN: Deal?
AARON MATE: Yeah.
JAMES CARDEN:
The U.S. wasn't a party to the deal. It was a deal between the European
Union; the representatives of the European Union and the Ukrainian Government. That deal didn't
last 24 hours before the protests really turned violent and Yanukovych had to flee. Soon after
that, Russia annexed Crimea and then a full blown civil war started in and around April 6th, in
the east.
AARON MATE: Just to set some context, some further context here, just right now we're
talking about Ukraine in the context of Russia gate here in the U.S., where the alleged Russian
meddling through fake news and email hacks is deemed by many people a threat to U.S. National
Security so it's interesting to compare that with what happened in Ukraine whereas you talked
about there was a heavy U.S. role in this protest movement against Yanukovych, leading to his
ouster and now you have a country on Russia's borders, which is talking about joining NATO. Can
you talk about how that factors into Putin's thinking here and what he's doing inside
Ukraine?
JAMES CARDEN: Yeah, sure.
To quote the esteemed University of Chicago Political
Scientist John Mearsheimer, "NATO expansion is the Taproot of the Ukrainian crisis." What
Mearsheimer means by that is that NATO's expansion beginning in the 1990's under Bill Clinton
who saw the borders of the alliance move ever eastward right up to Russia's western border. The
Russians find that, I think for fairly understandable reasons, rather alarming.
AARON MATE: In part because they were promised by the first President Bush that would never
happen.
JAMES CARDEN: That's correct.
What we need to keep in mind is the Ukraine crisis really
was over the EU Association Agreement. The problem from the Russian perspective is that the EU
Association Agreement had specific foreign policy and security protocols embedded in it.
Basically setting the stage for Ukraine's entry into NATO. I find it deeply troubling that
Poroshenko and Tillerson are now broaching the subject of Ukrainian membership into NATO. That
really, I think, spark a very serious reaction on the part of the Russians as possibly the
worst possible thing that Ukraine could do at the moment.
AARON MATE: Why do you think it's taken for granted across so much of a foreign policy
establishment here that Ukraine falling into the Western orbit as opposed to being neutral
would be a positive thing?
JAMES CARDEN:
Well, it's a good question. I mean I think there's very little evidence
that the alliance would be strengthened by Ukrainian membership. I think that there's really
little evidence that the alliance has been strengthened by the addition of Romania and
Bulgaria, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania. I find the entire concept of expanding the alliance up to
the borders of Russia. It seems to me to be quite a dangerous and destabilizing move, but our
foreign policy establishment is very slow to learn lessons from past mistakes. We see that now
with discussion regarding Syria, for instance. These people, I don't know, were they asleep in
2003 when we went to war with Iraq?
I mean there were people in the think tank world here who continually write [inaudible
00:10:20] saying, for instance, that the Libya intervention in 2011 was a success. It seems to
me that ... I think they tend to believe their own myths and propaganda. They're so
ideologically tied to this narrative of American Democracy Promotion that it really crowds out
any room for rational thinking.
... ... ...
AARON MATE: Okay. Going back to Russia and its borders. On its Western border, you have
right now thousands of NATO troops. Can you talk about that context as it hangs over the
prospects for improved US-Russia relations?
JAMES CARDEN: Well, again, I mean lets ... take a step further back and look at the context
of this new cold war that were in with Russia. It's essentially, I believe, a forefront war.
You have the Baltic Theater, where, as you say, U.S. and NATO have thousands of troops on
Russia's border. There have been many close calls between Russian and NATO aircraft in the
skies above the Baltic Sea.
The second front is as we spoke about Ukraine, where the Russians are supporting the
Russian-speaking rebels in the east and the U.S. and NATO have a military base in western
Ukraine from which they train Ukrainian soldiers to fight the Russian backed soldiers in the
east. The third front is, as we were just talking about, Syria, and the fourth front, I believe
it's safe to say, is unfolding in cyberspace. We have, at any moment, an accident can happen
and this cold war could turn hot. I think that we're being distracted by the sideshow of Russia
hacking and the left's rather odd obsession with Vladimir Putin.
AARON MATE: On that front, that segways perfectly to a clip I want to play for you. Just
talking about how Putin is discussed in the U.S. media. I want to play for you a clip. This is
Richard Engel, the chief foreign correspondent for NBC News.
Voice of Rich E: American presidents come and go, but Putin has outlasted them all. He's
perfected the art of controlling every detail to achieve his own goals. All you really see when
you look Putin in the eye is exactly what he wants you to see. So far, he's been winning every
round in the long game he's playing against the U.S., but what is that game? Foreign policy
analyst like to say that Trump is playing checkers while Putin is playing chess.
AARON MATE: That's Richard Engle, the chief foreign correspondent for NBC News. This was in
a special he did on Friday night about Putin and Russia. I find that clip so striking because
Engle is talking about Putin winning every round of a long game against the U.S., but then in
the next sentence he asks what is the long game? James, your thoughts.
JAMES CARDEN: I can't put it any better than my Editor-in-Chief put it on Twitter when she
was watching the Engle documentary the other night. I think she said something like it reminded
her of Soviet propaganda. Any of this stuff coming out of. I assume this was on MSNBC?
AARON MATE: Yeah. It took the place of Rachel Maddow Show on Friday night and Maddow whose
been a source of similar kind of stuff.
JAMES CARDEN: Right, as you've covered very well. Yeah, so MSNBC is. I mean, it's not even
worth watching anymore. I mean it's just become an American version of. I would say R.T., but I
think R.T. actually has higher editorial standards than MSNBC. I don't know quite what it is
anymore except ... it gives space for these anti-Russian, anti-Putin hysterics.
This isn't to say by the way that Vladimir Putin is my kind of politician and if he was an
American politician here, I certainly wouldn't vote for him. He's far too nationalistic and he
would probably cozy up to the American image's right. I certainly wouldn't be happy about an
American politician raiding the treasury like he and his associates have done. The problem is
that that's an issue for the Russian people. They seem perfectly happy with Mr. Putin as
president. I think he has something along the lines of 80% approval rating so if they're okay
with it, I'm okay with it. But the idea that he is a puppet master pulling the strings, it is
just beyond ridiculous.
AARON MATE: Yeah, James, I mean the question is not why criticize Putin because as you point
out there's plenty to criticize him for.
The question is why is there this unique obsession
with him and demonization to the point where, as Richard Engle does, he's talking about Putin
playing chess and checkers and he's talking about Putin's body language and how Putin looks
into people's eyes and makes you see what he wants you to see as if he's some super
villain.
JAMES CARDEN: Yes.
AARON MATE: Out of the cartoon.
JAMES CARDEN: He's a Svengali.
It's basically Russia coverage without facts, evidence or
logic. This isn't anything new, of course, but the intense demonization of this Russian leader
is something that we didn't even see when Joseph Stalin ruled the USSR. This is something sort
of new and really, really pretty dangerous. I think that it has its sources in a certain
pent-up frustration on the part of a lot of Democrats that their candidate lost fairly and
squarely to this rather bizarre fellow who sits in the Oval Office today. They can't get over
it. This was, of course, something that the Clinton campaign actually. It was part of their
post-election strategy. There's a new book out called, "Shattered" by Amie Parnes and, I think,
Jonathan Martin
[crosstalk 00:22:08].
AARON MATE: Jonathan Allen. Yeah.
JAMES CARDEN: Jonathan Allen. They report that the morning after the election, the team met
at the headquarters in Brooklyn and they said okay, let's make Russia the cornerstone of our
post-election strategy. That plays a big part of it.
Of course, I have this very troubling
feeling that this is all in order to set the stage for Hillary Clinton to return as the nominee
in four years time because then she can say well, I didn't really lose even though I outspent
Donald Trump 2 to 1. I didn't really lose because it was stolen from me. The Russians stole it
from me. I think there are a lot of Democrats who are willing to believe that and they're
willing to absolve her for running a horrible, horrible campaign.
AARON MATE: Yeah, James, and on that point,
Democratic partisans in the media might
already be setting the stage for that return by warning of Russia sending over new spies to the
U.S. in advance of 2018 and 2020, which if Clinton runs again and loses or if another Democrat
runs again and loses, with a similar campaign, they could then go ahead and blame Russia again
for that, too.
We have to leave it there though 'cause we're way over time. James Carden, contributing
writer at The Nation, Executive Editor for The American Committee for East-West Accord. He has
also served as an advisor on Russia policy at the U.S. State Department. James, thank you.
JAMES CARDEN: Thank you.
AARON MATE: And thanks for joining us on The Real News.
Democratic partisans in the
media might already be setting the stage for that return by warning of Russia sending over new
spies to the U.S. in advance of 2018 and 2020, which if Clinton runs again and loses or if
another Democrat runs again and loses, with a similar campaign, they could then go ahead and
blame Russia again for that, too.
"... He's threatened a preemptive strike against North Korea, considered a major escalation in Yemen, and turned loose his military commanders to bomb wherever, however, and with whatever they choose, weakening even further the already insufficient restrictions Obama had put in place to try to minimize civilian casualties. Deaths of civilians under both U.S. drones and conventional airstrikes have escalated. ..."
"... For those who thought that military restraint was part of Trumpian isolationism, think again. ..."
"... Not one of these actions was necessary. Not one will make people in this country -- let alone the Afghans, Iraqis, Syrians, Yemenis, Somalis, or others -- any safer. Neither was any of these actions sanctioned by Congress: All violated the War Powers Act, and indeed the Constitution itself, which puts the power to declare war in the hands of the people's representatives. ..."
"... Furthermore, not one of them fulfilled the minimal United Nations Charter requirements for the legal use of military force -- either Security Council authorization or immediate self-defense. Thus they all violated international law. ..."
"... What we see in these attacks is not a strategy, but a new way of communicating raw power. ..."
"... Middle East expert Phyllis Bennis directs the New Internationalism project at the Institute for Policy Studies. ..."
These
are awesome days for headline writers. So many global settings, such an abundance of weapons,
such a wealth of choices!
On the morning of April 14, the
New York Times
led with "A Giant U.S. Bomb Strikes
ISIS Caves in Afghanistan," matched by CNN's "US Drops 'Mother of All Bombs.'" The
Washington Post
chose Syria, where "Errant U.S. Strike Kills 18: Victims in Syria Were
Allied Forces." By mid-afternoon that same day, the Associated Press had shifted to the horn of
Africa, where the "U.S. Sends Dozens of Troops to Somalia, 1st Time in Decades."
And as the Friday rush hour began in Washington, Fox News opted to head to the north
Pacific, leading with an aircraft carrier: "The 'Powerful' USS Carl Vinson Steams Towards North
Korea."
A few days earlier the most popular choices were various versions of CNN's "U.S. Launches
Military Strike Against Syria." (That headline described something new only because the strike
officially targeted a Syrian government military site, while ignoring the not-so-new reality
that the U.S. has been attacking alleged ISIS targets in Syria with drones, bombing raids, and
special forces for almost three years.)
A couple of weeks before that, coverage of the Trump wars focused on a devastating U.S.
airstrike on Mosul, which a
Los Angeles Times
headline described as "One of the
Deadliest Attacks on Civilians in Recent Memory." And just before
that
, the Bureau of
Investigative Journalism highlighted "Nine Young Children Killed: The Full Details of Botched
U.S. Raid in Yemen." (No headlines, however, told the full story of the U.S. role in Yemen.
That one might've read "U.S.-Backed Saudi Bombing Has Killed Thousands, Worsened Famine Facing
Millions in Yemen.")
Around the globe, as these headlines testify, Donald Trump has been cavalierly deploying
troops and weapons, claiming such military actions are designed to send political messages.
He's threatened a preemptive strike against North Korea, considered a major escalation
in Yemen, and turned loose his military commanders to bomb wherever, however, and with whatever
they choose, weakening even further the already insufficient restrictions Obama had put in
place to try to minimize civilian casualties. Deaths of civilians under both U.S. drones and
conventional airstrikes have escalated.
For those who thought that military restraint was part of Trumpian isolationism, think
again.
Raw Power
Not one of these actions was necessary. Not one will make people in this country -- let
alone the Afghans, Iraqis, Syrians, Yemenis, Somalis, or others -- any safer. Neither was any of
these actions sanctioned by Congress: All violated the War Powers Act, and indeed the
Constitution itself, which puts the power to declare war in the hands of the people's
representatives.
Furthermore, not one of them fulfilled the minimal United Nations Charter requirements
for the legal use of military force -- either Security Council authorization or immediate
self-defense. Thus they all violated international law.
And even beyond the illegality, not one could claim a strategic, legitimate, or moral
justification.
Of course, the U.S. has been at war in various combinations of Afghanistan and Iraq, Libya
and Syria, Yemen, Somalia, and beyond since George W. Bush declared the global war on terror
just after the 9/11 attacks of 2001. In some of these countries, the U.S. was at war even
before that. But Trump's actions represent major escalations in every one of those devastated
nations. According to the British human rights monitor AirWars, well over 1,000 civilians may
have been killed by U.S.-led forces just in Iraq and Syria in March alone, the highest monthly
total they've ever tracked.
What we see in these attacks is not a strategy, but a new way of communicating raw
power.
How does it work? Instead of sending diplomats to help get all warring parties involved in
negotiations, you drop the largest non-nuclear bomb ever used in combat on one of the world's
poorest countries. Instead of supporting UN efforts to create incremental ceasefires, you send
special forces. Instead of investing money, time, and high-level attention to help shift
regional conflicts from the battlefield to the negotiating table, you send armed drones to drop
more bombs.
And, of course, instead of increasing funding for diplomacy, you strip 29 percent of the
State Department budget, and nearly zero out humanitarian aid, and hand it all over to the
Pentagon as part of a $54 billion increase in military spending.
None of this is in service of any actual policy, just a unifying theme: War trumps
diplomacy. Bullies rule. It's a shock-and-awe attack -- many shock-and-awe attacks, actually -- to drive home a message aimed not only at troops on the ground or militants holed up in a cave,
but also at the populations as a whole, across Afghanistan, Syria, Somalia, Iraq, Yemen, and
beyond. The goal seems to be ensuring that no question remains as to where and with whom the
ultimate power resides.
It's also a message to a domestic audience here in the United States, designed to shock if
not surprise: The bully in the White House is calling the shots.
Invigorating the Peace Movement
The question now isn't what Trump -- or the generals and billionaires filling his cabinet -- will do next. It's what will
we
do next, as opponents of these wars?
In short, we need to integrate opposition to these wars into the very core of the movements
already rising so powerfully against racism, for women's and LGBTQ rights, for climate and
economic justice, for Native rights, for immigrant rights and refugee protections, for
Palestinian rights, and much more.
We know that some approaches from earlier efforts are needed once again. Building ties with
and privileging the voices of people facing the consequences of U.S. actions, dying under the
bombs or reeling under brutal sanctions, remain crucial. Lifting up anti-war veterans provides
entre to important new audiences. Reminding people of how U.S. wars are too often fought for
resources -- as well as for the expansion of power, for military bases, for regional and global
domination, and how racism informs all of Washington's wars -- are all key to popular
education.
What we do know is that
everyone
-- from Syrians, Iraqis, Afghans, Somalis, and
Yemenis to those of us in this country -- needs diplomacy to win out over war. We've faced wars
for decades now, but we've also had some victories where negotiations triumphed over force -- in
Cuba, in Paris at the climate talks, and most especially in the Iran nuclear deal.
We know what diplomacy looks like, and we know how to fight for it.
We'll need new strategies, new tactics -- but we continue to stand on the shoulders of those
who have gone before us. Our country is waging war against peoples across the globe, indeed
waging war against the earth itself. But we are still here, challenging those wars alongside
those who guard the earth, who protect the water, who defend the rights of those most at
risk.
The great historian Howard Zinn reminds us of it all: Our country's history began in the
genocide of indigenous nations and the enslavement of Africans brought here in chains. But from
that beginning it also became a country of people's movements against genocide and slavery,
against racism and misogyny and Islamophobia, of movements for justice, for internationalism,
and yes, for peace.
Middle East expert Phyllis Bennis directs the New Internationalism
project at the Institute for Policy Studies.
John Feffer is a neoliberal, no question about it. As such he can't live without the American
global empire and neoliberal globalism. That's the problem. But some of his article (not this one)
in
fpif.org
are pretty decent.
Notable quotes:
"... These neocon/neoliberal types raise this a lot, they like to mention the birth rates of Japan or China, but then they completely forget to raise the demographic realities of Western Europe or North America. The USA is already close to having the demographics of Brazil and it will get worse than even Brazil. A third world USA will struggle to keep order in its own land let alone being able to run a global empire, to believe that a third world populated USA can muster an army to challenge China (or Japan or Russia) is laughable. ..."
"... Glad to see the neocon perspective represented at Unz! ..."
the 'rules' are very hard to enforce without a dominant power in the background
Well, the empirical evidence shows that the rules are impossible to enforce
with
the single dominant power. The dominant power doesn't want any rules; it prefers 'to create
its own reality'. On the contrary, in a multi-polar world rules are beneficial for
everyone.
Also, you're using the word 'nationalism' a lot, but it's not nationalism that 'takes
root' and 'takes hold'. It's
sovereignism
. Independence.
Lots of good stuff here, mixed in with lots of boilerplate leftism and the usual
Trumpophobic nonsense.
The most egregious misdirection is probably the nonsense about Japan's (and other Asian
countries') shrinking populations as a supposed economic catastrophe.
In an era of ever increasing automation and likely shrinking employment together with ever
present environmental concerns, reducing the high population densities achieved in the C20th
is surely a good thing overall. (As long as policymakers aren't so stupid as to import en
masse troublesome communities of culturally and racially distinct people to try to make up
the numbers – but surely no remotely responsible government would ever authorise such a
suicidally irresponsible policy!)
It's a basic error of course to take a current trend and extrapolate it to some future
zero point, as the author above does with Japan's population, but if there are real concerns
about declining population then the answer is to institute state policies to increase birth
rates, as draconian and/or costly as the a situation requires (and if necessary raise
retirement ages to reflect longer healthy lives). There's no reason to suppose significant
increases in indigenous birth rates couldn't be induced, given the effort. The only thing
stopping it is ideological – that such objectives are invariably hysterically opposed
as "fascist" by people with ulterior ideological motives for wanting to promote mass
immigration instead.
But given a choice Japan's "crisis" is infinitely preferable to our "solution".
John Feffer is the author of the new dystopian novel, Splinterlands (a Dispatch Books
original with Haymarket Books), which Publishers Weekly hails as "a chilling, thoughtful,
and intuitive warning."
Might have to have a look at that one. I like science fiction, and I'm quite partial to a
bit of dystopia.
A bit cautious, though, given the author's clear political prejudices in the piece above
– I'd be risking getting dumped into a grossly partisan lecture about the suppose evils
of nationalism. And there's always the risk with lefty writers that they'll unload some
gratuitous homosexual shit on you in the middle of an otherwise decent read. Still, might be
worth a punt at £6.99 for the Kindle version.
Meanwhile, it's not only Japan that faces a demographic crisis.
These neocon/neoliberal types raise this a lot, they like to mention the birth rates
of Japan or China, but then they completely forget to raise the demographic realities of
Western Europe or North America. The USA is already close to having the demographics of
Brazil and it will get worse than even Brazil. A third world USA will struggle to keep order
in its own land let alone being able to run a global empire, to believe that a third world
populated USA can muster an army to challenge China (or Japan or Russia) is
laughable.
@Randal
One of the major constraints on the reproduction of Europeans and I would guess that of
USAmericans, is the fact that over my lifetime we have gone from a situation where it was
possible for a family to exist and reproduce on the husband's wage alone; to a situation
today where even a family with two relatively well paid adults, cannot see how they can
afford a child, let alone, children!
There is no retreat I can assure you of that fact.
August 20, 2014 "The Pentagon's Strategy for World Domination: Full Spectrum Dominance,
from Asia to Africa,"
Author Noam Chomsky has described US foreign and military policy regarding oil supplies as
a "lever of world domination." Control over natural resources keeps competing markets
dependent on the US as well as in line with its interests.
Sep 11, 2011 General Wesley Clark: Wars Were Planned – Seven Countries In Five
Years
"This is a memo that describes how we're going to take out seven countries in five years,
starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran."
I said, "Is it classified?" He said, "Yes, sir." I said, "Well, don't show it to me." And I
saw him a year or so ago, and I said, "You remember that?" He said, "Sir, I didn't show you
that memo! I didn't show it to you!"
@Diversity
Heretic
"nor of any real benefit to the American people." is a grossly ungrateful
statement. American has made huge amount of money from Asia, about 100 years the American
made money by selling Opium to Chinese like the British and Japanese by pointing the gun at
the Chinese head. Stole, looted and cheated the land and the riches from Chinese, Filipino
and other Asians using extraterritorial judicial Kangaroo court, the United States Court for
China. Extorted war indemnity by waging reckless wars on fabricated allegations, false flag
ops and ruthless suppression. Selling war materials and war technologies to the Japanese in
invading China and murdering and committing atrocities against Chinese.
The American will not be where it is now, still filthy rich (although always complaining)
without the huge amount of wealth they extorted from Asia.
Glad to see the neocon perspective represented at Unz!
There was talk of plans for a permanent built structure atop the concrete, I have not
kept track of the nonsense, so do not know if it was built. Suppose it must have been.
I, for one, advocate for more seasteading constructions out of nationalistic ambitions.
I'm sure that Japan can make a beautiful structure, one that will make even Mr. Trump gasp in
delight of its beauty.
@Agent76
Malaysian has to thank for the never ending threat of blocking Malacca Strait by the American
and their lackeys the Singapore and Australia. Without their thuggish threats China would not
have to find alternate routes to bypass the chocking point, Malacca Strait. In addition to
Malaysia, Thailand and Myanmar are also being developed to sideline the Malacca Strait.
The American definitely can claim credit this time that there are not all negatives with
their military hammers, although they do not build anything constructive for anybody
themselves, but they brought infrastructure building to Malaysia nonetheless.
@Joe
Wong
"nor of any real benefit to the American people." is a grossly ungrateful statement.
American has made huge amount of money from Asia, about 100 years the American made money by
selling Opium to Chinese like the British and Japanese by pointing the gun at the Chinese
head. Stole, looted and cheated the land and the riches from Chinese, Filipino and other
Asians using extraterritorial judicial Kangaroo court, the United States Court for China.
Extorted war indemnity by waging reckless wars on fabricated allegations, false flag ops and
ruthless suppression. Selling war materials and war technologies to the Japanese in invading
China and murdering and committing atrocities against Chinese.
The American will not be where it is now, still filthy rich (although always complaining)
without the huge amount of wealth they extorted from Asia. I do not think that your comment
is sound, individual USA people may have been involved in the opium trade in China, but I
have never read of a systematic involvement.
Britain and then Japan, for sure. I would guess that the sad state of the Qing fleet in
1894 to 1895 (yes, I know that Qing fleet is not entirely accurate) due to theft and sabotage
from opium addiction.
Japan only started to move in, copying the British with opium distribution, at least 15,
probably more years later. Admitedly, there are few records that document the activities of
groups like the Black Ocean group, etc., probably running opium through Manchuria
post-Russo-Japan war, the British had demonstrated the effect, but Japanese secret societies
only had a big effort a little later.
I'm anti-American polity, although I love many US people I meet.
Despite its many crimes in that war, I have never seen a reference to opium trade. AFAIK,
that started only after the OSS/CIA supported remnant and rogue Chiang Kai Shek forces in
Northern Myanmar etc.
This turned around to bite them, US service people in Vietnam became junkies, they spread
the sickness on R&R in other places, then at home.
I hate opiates and opioids, even codeine, makes me feel really bad.
So, it's not surprising that when foreign policy elites think about what will replace a
U.S. superpower in relative decline -- speculation that has grown more feverish in the Trump
era --
Two points:
1. Among who this speculation has grown? Call it a hunch, but I suspect I wouldn't listen
opinions of those "experts" (among whom this speculation has grown) on even the brand of the
toilet paper I use. Any Nobel Prize winners in whatever among those?
2. US foreign policy "elites" specifically (with some few exceptions) are an Exhibit A of
delusion, ignorance and incompetence.
US decline (both relative and absolute) is an objective process now, it didn't have to be
this way but now it is a reality. If anybody can arrest it (even if for a little while) it is
Trump but, I suspect, those very US foreign policy "elites" could be the undoing of his not
perfect as it is economic effort.
Oh my God, what a load of crock. The author has one foot in the intellectual fashions of
30-40 years ago, and the other in the zones of Trumophobia and the Globalist La La land.
Yes, Asia is rising, perhaps will continue to rise, but it has nothing to do with Obama or
Trump or Globalization or the other labels that the talking heads affix onto processes they
have no grasp of. Will Asia ever come to have the quality of life that is possible in North
America or Australia? I don't see that happening. Nor do the Chinese and other Asian
billionaires and millionaires whose favorite investment is investing in real estate in
Australia and North America. Why? Precisely because these locations are not over-populated
and offer quality of life. But the author, clearly a city slick enthralled by mega malls and
other symptoms of urban overcrowding, sees overcrowding as a growth engine. He faults Japan
for being in demographic decline. Would Japan be more peaceful if that miserable overcrowded
island had millions of educated unemployed youth fighting for jobs and survival?
Nationalism is yet another process (yes, it is a process, not a fixed thingee) that this
ignoramus knows nothing about. The Chinese nationalists/communists were that because at a
certain stage of their history the world political and economic processes required that as a
policy to ensure survival. They are capitalists/nationalists now because the world of today
is different from the world of 50 years ago and they had to transition to new processes
operating in the world of today.
The author should go back to Asia with the mindset of a serious student and quit being a
talking head. When he gets back, he should study America with an open and inquiring mind. Who
knows, he may then like to recant the nonsense he has spewed out today.
No, Chinese communism was very nationalist. So was Vietnamese communism.
China and Vietnam fought as communist powers. Also, Khmer Rouge was intensely
nationalist.
I was about to make the same point, but you beat me to it, Priss. Asian
communism–just like Latin American communism–has always been fundamentally
nationalistic, because, for them, the first order of business is anti-imperialism.
The most egregious misdirection is probably the nonsense about Japan's (and other Asian
countries') shrinking populations as a supposed economic catastrophe
But given a choice Japan's "crisis" is infinitely preferable to our "solution".
Could not agree more. I would definitely prefer a smaller population to out-of-control
mass immigration.
"... "Libyans enjoyed the highest quality of life in all of Africa. Libyan citizens enjoyed free universal health care from prenatal to geriatric, free education from elementary school to post-graduate studies and free or subsidized housing. We were told that Gaddafi ripped off the nation's oil wealth for himself when in reality Libya's oil wealth was used to improve the quality of life for all Libyans. ..."
"... We were told that Libya had to be rebuilt from scratch because Gaddafi had not allowed the development of national institutions. If we knew that infant mortality had been seriously reduced, life expectancy increased and health care and education made available to everyone, we might have asked, "How could all that be accomplished without the existence of national institutions?" ..."
"Libyans enjoyed the highest quality of life in all of Africa. Libyan citizens enjoyed free
universal health care from prenatal to geriatric, free education from elementary school to post-graduate
studies and free or subsidized housing. We were told that Gaddafi ripped off the nation's oil
wealth for himself when in reality Libya's oil wealth was used to improve the quality of life
for all Libyans.
We were told that Libya had to be rebuilt from scratch because Gaddafi had not allowed the
development of national institutions. If we knew that infant mortality had been seriously reduced,
life expectancy increased and health care and education made available to everyone, we might have
asked, "How could all that be accomplished without the existence of national institutions?"
Knowledge is the antidote to propaganda and brainwashing which is exactly why it is being increasingly
controlled and restricted."
"... "Libyans enjoyed the highest quality of life in all of Africa. Libyan citizens enjoyed free universal health care from prenatal to geriatric, free education from elementary school to post-graduate studies and free or subsidized housing. We were told that Gaddafi ripped off the nation's oil wealth for himself when in reality Libya's oil wealth was used to improve the quality of life for all Libyans. ..."
"... We were told that Libya had to be rebuilt from scratch because Gaddafi had not allowed the development of national institutions. If we knew that infant mortality had been seriously reduced, life expectancy increased and health care and education made available to everyone, we might have asked, "How could all that be accomplished without the existence of national institutions?" ..."
"Libyans enjoyed the highest quality of life in all of Africa. Libyan citizens enjoyed free
universal health care from prenatal to geriatric, free education from elementary school to post-graduate
studies and free or subsidized housing. We were told that Gaddafi ripped off the nation's oil
wealth for himself when in reality Libya's oil wealth was used to improve the quality of life
for all Libyans.
We were told that Libya had to be rebuilt from scratch because Gaddafi had not allowed the
development of national institutions. If we knew that infant mortality had been seriously reduced,
life expectancy increased and health care and education made available to everyone, we might have
asked, "How could all that be accomplished without the existence of national institutions?"
Knowledge is the antidote to propaganda and brainwashing which is exactly why it is being increasingly
controlled and restricted."
Western powers fuel the Ukrainian conflict - and wider tensions with Russia - by treating Ukraine
as a strategic prize, says Nicolai Petro, Silvia-Chandley professor of Peace Studies and Nonviolence
at the University of Rhode Island
Dr Nicolai Petro is very brave to express such opinions considering where he is – Odessa. Anyone
who deviates from the Banderite-Maidan propaganda line in Ukraine is censored and ostracised at
best, at worst – murdered.
Odessa has a noticeable pro-Russian element as is true in some other parts of Kiev regime controlled
Ukraine. Granted, folks with such views need to be careful.
Western powers fuel the Ukrainian conflict - and wider tensions with Russia - by treating Ukraine
as a strategic prize, says Nicolai Petro, Silvia-Chandley professor of Peace Studies and Nonviolence
at the University of Rhode Island
Dr Nicolai Petro is very brave to express such opinions considering where he is – Odessa. Anyone
who deviates from the Banderite-Maidan propaganda line in Ukraine is censored and ostracised at
best, at worst – murdered.
Odessa has a noticeable pro-Russian element as is true in some other parts of Kiev regime controlled
Ukraine. Granted, folks with such views need to be careful.
"... These hacking claims, or any other claims for that matter is spread by deep state in relations with western media that in turn spread this disinformation to western readers = money and support for the military-industrial thugs. ..."
Since the promotion of Big Lies is at the foundation of Fake News, I was just reminded of an
oldie-but-goodie:
"In this spring of 1953 the free world weighs one question above all others: the chance
for a just peace for all peoples.
"The way chosen by the United States was plainly marked by a few clear precepts, which
govern its conduct in world affairs.
"First: No people on earth can be held, as a people, to be enemy, for all humanity shares
the common hunger for peace and fellowship and justice.
"Second: No nation's security and well-being can be lastingly achieved in isolation but
only in effective cooperation with fellow-nations.
"Third: Any nation's right to form of government and an economic system of its own
choosing is inalienable.
"Fourth: Any nation's attempt to dictate to other nations their form of government is
indefensible.
"And fifth: A nation's hope of lasting peace cannot be firmly based upon any race in
armaments but rather upon just relations and honest understanding with all other nations.
Ike's actions at the moment he uttered those words made them a mockery as did his later
behavior. But the Big Lie was aimed at the domestic audience, to cover-up the depravity
already committed and that which would be soon to follow.
1.
These hacking claims, or any other claims for that matter is spread by deep state
in relations with western media that in turn spread this disinformation to western readers =
money and support for the military-industrial thugs.
2.
Racism against Russia
"... These hacking claims, or any other claims for that matter is spread by deep state in relations with western media that in turn spread this disinformation to western readers = money and support for the military-industrial thugs. ..."
Since the promotion of Big Lies is at the foundation of Fake News, I was just reminded of an
oldie-but-goodie:
"In this spring of 1953 the free world weighs one question above all others: the chance
for a just peace for all peoples.
"The way chosen by the United States was plainly marked by a few clear precepts, which
govern its conduct in world affairs.
"First: No people on earth can be held, as a people, to be enemy, for all humanity shares
the common hunger for peace and fellowship and justice.
"Second: No nation's security and well-being can be lastingly achieved in isolation but
only in effective cooperation with fellow-nations.
"Third: Any nation's right to form of government and an economic system of its own
choosing is inalienable.
"Fourth: Any nation's attempt to dictate to other nations their form of government is
indefensible.
"And fifth: A nation's hope of lasting peace cannot be firmly based upon any race in
armaments but rather upon just relations and honest understanding with all other nations.
Ike's actions at the moment he uttered those words made them a mockery as did his later
behavior. But the Big Lie was aimed at the domestic audience, to cover-up the depravity
already committed and that which would be soon to follow.
1.
These hacking claims, or any other claims for that matter is spread by deep state
in relations with western media that in turn spread this disinformation to western readers =
money and support for the military-industrial thugs.
2.
Racism against Russia
"... Capitalism's best solution is the self-perpetuating armaments industry. The weapon makers, think tanks and contractors that service the Pentagon and spy agencies, together with the Wall Street banks who make high-interest loans to fund wars, thrive under a foreign policy of deadly conflict. ..."
"... Martin Luther King, Jr. rightly called this "the madness of militarization." Instead of spending on infrastructure and human services for the populace, our rulers promote war - to sound patriotic as they pocket the profits. ..."
"... The new president's war strikes are no different from those of other presidents since 9/11. But his practice of allowing the Pentagon to decide troop deployments, while keeping the White House, Congress and the public in the dark about military actions and civilian casualty numbers, is an escalation of the unchecked, undemocratic use of executive power. ..."
"... The threat of peace. The presumption of endless war by many is not surprising, because it's what this country has settled into. Trump's so-called foreign policy has no intention of ending conflicts and gaining peace. An end to hostilities would drastically damage U.S. capitalism. ..."
, 2017 " Information Clearing
House " - Trump started his presidency off with an explosion! Several of them in fact - bombing
Syria with 59 Tomahawk missiles costing $93 million taxpayer dollars; using the Mother of all Bombs
in Afghanistan; striking homes with drones in Yemen; bombing civilians and aid workers in Iraq;
sending more troops to Somalia; and threatening to nuke North Korea! Some have actually said it makes
him more "presidential."
Actually, this is not abnormal behavior for the USA. Trump inherited at least seven ongoing conflicts
from Presidents Obama and G.W. Bush. The United States has been fighting in Afghanistan for 15 years,
ever since 9/11, under both Democratic and Republican rule. Over 660,000 Afghans have been displaced.
Nearly 12,000 civilians died in 2016. The U.S. pours close to $611 billion a year into its budget
for weapons, equipment, soldiers and contractors, far more than any other country. It amounts to
36 percent of all global spending on "defense."
Economic distress. The worn-out, 500-year-old system of capitalism is everywhere scrambling
to revive disappearing markets and hang on to threatened wealth of the very few. This creates fierce
competition between major and minor imperialist powers and their pet regimes - competition that means
nothing less than war. For war is the ultimate profit machine, creator of very few winners and masses
of losers.
Capitalism's best solution is the self-perpetuating armaments industry. The weapon makers,
think tanks and contractors that service the Pentagon and spy agencies, together with the Wall Street
banks who make high-interest loans to fund wars, thrive under a foreign policy of deadly conflict.
They produce things that are immediately destroyed when used, and that creates demand for more of
the same.
Martin Luther King, Jr. rightly called this "the madness of militarization." Instead of spending
on infrastructure and human services for the populace, our rulers promote war - to sound patriotic
as they pocket the profits.
The underlying reason for economic and political instability, especially in the Middle East but
also in the U.S. and everywhere else, is that capitalism no longer works and cannot survive on egalitarian
principles. Revolutionary impulses against massive poverty, austerity, and repression are not going
to go away. So it makes sense that militarism is top of the agenda for today's rulers.
Pentagon handed power. Trump has appointed many war generals to top positions in government
and the National Security Council. Gen. James "Mad Dog" Mattis, Marine Gen. John Kelly, and Lt. Gen.
H.R. McMaster have been heavily involved in nonstop, unsuccessful military conflicts for decades.
Yet Trump has authorized them to bomb whomever, wherever, and however they please, no matter the
civilian casualties and chilling nuclear aspects. He has removed executive and legislative branch
constraints on his favorite generals, in violation of a fundamental tenet of the Constitution - civilian
control of the military.
As more and more troops are sent to Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq and other "unnamed" countries, and
Trump threatens North Korea, he is expanding the war machine. North Korea has been asking for a peace
treaty with Washington and Seoul for 64 years but has been flatly refused. Now U.S. bases, ships
and missile sites surround the area and provocative war games take place off the Korean coast every
year. And the North Koreans continue to build weapons to defend themselves.
The new president's war strikes are no different from those of other presidents since 9/11.
But his practice of allowing the Pentagon to decide troop deployments, while keeping the White House,
Congress and the public in the dark about military actions and civilian casualty numbers, is an escalation
of the unchecked, undemocratic use of executive power.
The threat of peace. The presumption of endless war by many is not surprising, because
it's what this country has settled into. Trump's so-called foreign policy has no intention of ending
conflicts and gaining peace. An end to hostilities would drastically damage U.S. capitalism.
Permanent conflict between those who exploit and those who rise up against repression and poverty
will only be solved when the profit system is widely condemned and overturned.
This is the punch line. This is where all the neo-conniving AIPAC slime monkeys have gotten us,
a bankrupt nation! No viability! How would you like to be Netanyahu and start to realize your
big bully boy Goliath just lost his other eye? You would be in a pickle as soon as everyone realizes
your predicament. No subsidies to buy the expensive parts for your air force. AIPAC unable to
sway anyone to do anything on your behalf . Now an experienced seriously battle hardened Hezbollah,
backed by a similarly hardened SAA, on your southern border; all with new armaments. Oh boy the
sleepless nights are just starting.
Without wars, without all these big fake 'existential threats', the U.S. would have collapsed
long ago.
The purpose of these wars are twofold. First and foremost, maintain the paramount prosperity
of the military and the armament industry. Second, create victims for blame of America's troubles.
The more the troubles, the more the enemies.
Today, the U.S. has the most enemy of any country in the world. This is why Trump gave war
powers to his generals. Need more. Is there such a thing as a bubble for enemy?
The problem is too many people are making a good living out of the system to jeopardise their
fat pay cheques. Look at the millions working in academia , the surveillance,cops, prison and
armament industries, the UN and EU apparatchiks and the thousands of secretaries and Armani suit
sellers...all making big bucks. Even the CEO of Exxon ( no dummy obviously) must know what we
know, that he is ruining the world for his grandchildren, says nothing.
Don't rock the boat just spew over the side and keep rowing is the ... I hate this word but it
fits... meme.
A brain rot destroying the social fabric of ameri3Ka. Has to be a pathology that comes with mother's
milk to accept the bombing and death of millions and war, war, war after war. The worst part is
people are helpless to do anything about it. It takes SACRIFICING time and body if necessary.
Shutting the whole place down por days, weeks or months. Whatever it takes. People CAN stop wars,
especially if they are the aggressors.
i'm authorizing all nations to bomb the united states for their war mongering crimes, if the people
of the US wont stop their govt then the rest of the world must do it..
Thanks for the clip on Illinois budget issues. Since Reagan the US has been closely following
the guide book for becoming a failed country. A handful of privileged folks take all the money
and everyone else lives in poverty.
Hmm... actually, from what i recall, Trump didn't want to just keep the wars going, until after
he was blackmailed by the lies which became "Russia-gate".
Upon retrospection, now that the NY times has retracted what they said about Russia-gate, it
would appear that the liars behind it got what they wanted: another president committed to subordinating
himself to the war-profiteering, psychopathic vampires and vultures behind the secret government.
The Trump presidency has made it all very clear who are behind the Federal government: "secret
government" executives (who love to play dictators) and war-profiteers (vampires and vultures).
War making is a big business. Billions upon billions are spent filling weapon manufacturing and
world peace does nothing to promote war apparatus. I*n the hard news section of ICH, notice that
678 people were killed by war machinery yesterday, and that's only the tip of the iceberg as most
war deaths from all the world's military are mostly kept out of the news. But most importantly,
those deaths cannot forever be kept at bay in a world that is always shrinking. One day, it is
my contention, as well as that of other more well-known prognosticators, that those who fight
by their sword will die by their sword. Even though I am personally as agnostic as it gets, some
of hose bible passages sure seem to hi the nails on the head.
See:- '''JFK to 911, Everything Is a Rich Man's Trick''', a Stunning article exposing the anti-communist
motive behind the Banksters' & Billionaires' support for & creation of Hitler, Nazis , & Al CIA
da terrorists & fascists around the world.
See:-'''Fascist Birch Society & Its Billionaire H.L.Hunt's Complicity in Assassination of JFK'''.(Alex
Jones & the infiltrated new host of The Power Hour are mouthpieces of the Birch Society which
plants damage control articles on searches of itself.) See:-'''Fascist Birch Society Ties to Western
Goals-Nazis, CIA, CNP, World Anti-Communist League Death Squads, Hunt, Koch & Pew Billionaires'''
, ,'''Claire Conner, Birch Society Insider Whistleblower'''
"... Capitalism's best solution is the self-perpetuating armaments industry. The weapon makers, think tanks and contractors that service the Pentagon and spy agencies, together with the Wall Street banks who make high-interest loans to fund wars, thrive under a foreign policy of deadly conflict. ..."
"... Martin Luther King, Jr. rightly called this "the madness of militarization." Instead of spending on infrastructure and human services for the populace, our rulers promote war - to sound patriotic as they pocket the profits. ..."
"... The new president's war strikes are no different from those of other presidents since 9/11. But his practice of allowing the Pentagon to decide troop deployments, while keeping the White House, Congress and the public in the dark about military actions and civilian casualty numbers, is an escalation of the unchecked, undemocratic use of executive power. ..."
"... The threat of peace. The presumption of endless war by many is not surprising, because it's what this country has settled into. Trump's so-called foreign policy has no intention of ending conflicts and gaining peace. An end to hostilities would drastically damage U.S. capitalism. ..."
, 2017 " Information Clearing
House " - Trump started his presidency off with an explosion! Several of them in fact - bombing
Syria with 59 Tomahawk missiles costing $93 million taxpayer dollars; using the Mother of all Bombs
in Afghanistan; striking homes with drones in Yemen; bombing civilians and aid workers in Iraq;
sending more troops to Somalia; and threatening to nuke North Korea! Some have actually said it makes
him more "presidential."
Actually, this is not abnormal behavior for the USA. Trump inherited at least seven ongoing conflicts
from Presidents Obama and G.W. Bush. The United States has been fighting in Afghanistan for 15 years,
ever since 9/11, under both Democratic and Republican rule. Over 660,000 Afghans have been displaced.
Nearly 12,000 civilians died in 2016. The U.S. pours close to $611 billion a year into its budget
for weapons, equipment, soldiers and contractors, far more than any other country. It amounts to
36 percent of all global spending on "defense."
Economic distress. The worn-out, 500-year-old system of capitalism is everywhere scrambling
to revive disappearing markets and hang on to threatened wealth of the very few. This creates fierce
competition between major and minor imperialist powers and their pet regimes - competition that means
nothing less than war. For war is the ultimate profit machine, creator of very few winners and masses
of losers.
Capitalism's best solution is the self-perpetuating armaments industry. The weapon makers,
think tanks and contractors that service the Pentagon and spy agencies, together with the Wall Street
banks who make high-interest loans to fund wars, thrive under a foreign policy of deadly conflict.
They produce things that are immediately destroyed when used, and that creates demand for more of
the same.
Martin Luther King, Jr. rightly called this "the madness of militarization." Instead of spending
on infrastructure and human services for the populace, our rulers promote war - to sound patriotic
as they pocket the profits.
The underlying reason for economic and political instability, especially in the Middle East but
also in the U.S. and everywhere else, is that capitalism no longer works and cannot survive on egalitarian
principles. Revolutionary impulses against massive poverty, austerity, and repression are not going
to go away. So it makes sense that militarism is top of the agenda for today's rulers.
Pentagon handed power. Trump has appointed many war generals to top positions in government
and the National Security Council. Gen. James "Mad Dog" Mattis, Marine Gen. John Kelly, and Lt. Gen.
H.R. McMaster have been heavily involved in nonstop, unsuccessful military conflicts for decades.
Yet Trump has authorized them to bomb whomever, wherever, and however they please, no matter the
civilian casualties and chilling nuclear aspects. He has removed executive and legislative branch
constraints on his favorite generals, in violation of a fundamental tenet of the Constitution - civilian
control of the military.
As more and more troops are sent to Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq and other "unnamed" countries, and
Trump threatens North Korea, he is expanding the war machine. North Korea has been asking for a peace
treaty with Washington and Seoul for 64 years but has been flatly refused. Now U.S. bases, ships
and missile sites surround the area and provocative war games take place off the Korean coast every
year. And the North Koreans continue to build weapons to defend themselves.
The new president's war strikes are no different from those of other presidents since 9/11.
But his practice of allowing the Pentagon to decide troop deployments, while keeping the White House,
Congress and the public in the dark about military actions and civilian casualty numbers, is an escalation
of the unchecked, undemocratic use of executive power.
The threat of peace. The presumption of endless war by many is not surprising, because
it's what this country has settled into. Trump's so-called foreign policy has no intention of ending
conflicts and gaining peace. An end to hostilities would drastically damage U.S. capitalism.
Permanent conflict between those who exploit and those who rise up against repression and poverty
will only be solved when the profit system is widely condemned and overturned.
This is the punch line. This is where all the neo-conniving AIPAC slime monkeys have gotten us,
a bankrupt nation! No viability! How would you like to be Netanyahu and start to realize your
big bully boy Goliath just lost his other eye? You would be in a pickle as soon as everyone realizes
your predicament. No subsidies to buy the expensive parts for your air force. AIPAC unable to
sway anyone to do anything on your behalf . Now an experienced seriously battle hardened Hezbollah,
backed by a similarly hardened SAA, on your southern border; all with new armaments. Oh boy the
sleepless nights are just starting.
Without wars, without all these big fake 'existential threats', the U.S. would have collapsed
long ago.
The purpose of these wars are twofold. First and foremost, maintain the paramount prosperity
of the military and the armament industry. Second, create victims for blame of America's troubles.
The more the troubles, the more the enemies.
Today, the U.S. has the most enemy of any country in the world. This is why Trump gave war
powers to his generals. Need more. Is there such a thing as a bubble for enemy?
The problem is too many people are making a good living out of the system to jeopardise their
fat pay cheques. Look at the millions working in academia , the surveillance,cops, prison and
armament industries, the UN and EU apparatchiks and the thousands of secretaries and Armani suit
sellers...all making big bucks. Even the CEO of Exxon ( no dummy obviously) must know what we
know, that he is ruining the world for his grandchildren, says nothing.
Don't rock the boat just spew over the side and keep rowing is the ... I hate this word but it
fits... meme.
A brain rot destroying the social fabric of ameri3Ka. Has to be a pathology that comes with mother's
milk to accept the bombing and death of millions and war, war, war after war. The worst part is
people are helpless to do anything about it. It takes SACRIFICING time and body if necessary.
Shutting the whole place down por days, weeks or months. Whatever it takes. People CAN stop wars,
especially if they are the aggressors.
i'm authorizing all nations to bomb the united states for their war mongering crimes, if the people
of the US wont stop their govt then the rest of the world must do it..
Thanks for the clip on Illinois budget issues. Since Reagan the US has been closely following
the guide book for becoming a failed country. A handful of privileged folks take all the money
and everyone else lives in poverty.
Hmm... actually, from what i recall, Trump didn't want to just keep the wars going, until after
he was blackmailed by the lies which became "Russia-gate".
Upon retrospection, now that the NY times has retracted what they said about Russia-gate, it
would appear that the liars behind it got what they wanted: another president committed to subordinating
himself to the war-profiteering, psychopathic vampires and vultures behind the secret government.
The Trump presidency has made it all very clear who are behind the Federal government: "secret
government" executives (who love to play dictators) and war-profiteers (vampires and vultures).
War making is a big business. Billions upon billions are spent filling weapon manufacturing and
world peace does nothing to promote war apparatus. I*n the hard news section of ICH, notice that
678 people were killed by war machinery yesterday, and that's only the tip of the iceberg as most
war deaths from all the world's military are mostly kept out of the news. But most importantly,
those deaths cannot forever be kept at bay in a world that is always shrinking. One day, it is
my contention, as well as that of other more well-known prognosticators, that those who fight
by their sword will die by their sword. Even though I am personally as agnostic as it gets, some
of hose bible passages sure seem to hi the nails on the head.
See:- '''JFK to 911, Everything Is a Rich Man's Trick''', a Stunning article exposing the anti-communist
motive behind the Banksters' & Billionaires' support for & creation of Hitler, Nazis , & Al CIA
da terrorists & fascists around the world.
See:-'''Fascist Birch Society & Its Billionaire H.L.Hunt's Complicity in Assassination of JFK'''.(Alex
Jones & the infiltrated new host of The Power Hour are mouthpieces of the Birch Society which
plants damage control articles on searches of itself.) See:-'''Fascist Birch Society Ties to Western
Goals-Nazis, CIA, CNP, World Anti-Communist League Death Squads, Hunt, Koch & Pew Billionaires'''
, ,'''Claire Conner, Birch Society Insider Whistleblower'''
"... You can't drive past the White House on Pennsylvania Avenue today. It was "temporarily" closed to motorized traffic after the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995 and that closure was officially made permanent after 9/11. Seldom a week passes without breathless reports of a "security incident." Someone touched the White House fence (everyone panic!) or was shot to death by police after making a wrong turn or panicking at a random roadblock. Air Force One? You can still see it. On TV, anyway. ..."
I visited Washington, DC for the first time in 1980. I was 13. Jimmy Carter was the president.
My family only had one day to see the sights. As I remember it, we went through what seemed a
somewhat sketchy neighborhood (I was a country boy, so it may have just been nerves about The Big
City), turned onto Pennsylvania Avenue, and drove past the White House and Capitol before taking
in selected bits of the Smithsonian and visiting Arlington National Cemetery. Then we proceeded to
Andrews Air Force Base, where my brother was stationed, and just for fun drove past Air Force One.
I saw a lot of really neat stuff that day, but right now I'm thinking about the stuff I didn't
see, or at least didn't notice.
I don't recall seeing a single police officer anywhere, although I'm sure I must have. The only
man with a gun I noticed at Andrews was the gate guard, who checked my brother's ID and waved us
through. Nobody seemed to give us a second glance as we passed within a few hundred feet of the president's
plane. I don't recall any security checkpoints, barricades or traffic barriers along Pennsylvania
Avenue, and I think I would have remembered those.
This was in the middle of the Iran hostage crisis and only a few months after the Unabomber's
attack on American Airlines Flight 444 as it flew into DC from Chicago. Central America was in the
throes of successful and unsuccessful revolutions and the US wasn't terribly popular there. Carter
was preparing to re-institute draft registration in response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
And yet (aside from a surplus of marble monuments), Washington seemed on the whole to be a normal,
American city.
When did the East Germans take over?
You can't drive past the White House on Pennsylvania Avenue today. It was "temporarily" closed
to motorized traffic after the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995 and that closure was officially made
permanent after 9/11. Seldom a week passes without breathless reports of a "security incident." Someone
touched the White House fence (everyone panic!) or was shot to death by police after making a wrong
turn or panicking at a random roadblock. Air Force One? You can still see it. On TV, anyway.
You can still visit Washington, but if you plan to fly in, count on multiple instances of being
required to show your papers and get felt up at the airports. My own kids can't remember a time without
metal detectors, bag searches and dire warnings even at the entrances to such attractions as the
Gateway Arch in St. Louis.
I guess every generation of adults feels like things have gone downhill since they were kids.
But as someone a little too young to have understood Vietnam or Watergate and just exactly old enough
to have exuberantly celebrated the nation's bicentennial, these days I find each 4th of July to surpass
the last as an occasion for mourning an America that no longer exists.
Thomas L. Knapp is director and senior news analyst at the
William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian
Advocacy Journalism . He lives and works in north central Florida. This article is reprinted
with permission from William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism.
"... You can't drive past the White House on Pennsylvania Avenue today. It was "temporarily" closed to motorized traffic after the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995 and that closure was officially made permanent after 9/11. Seldom a week passes without breathless reports of a "security incident." Someone touched the White House fence (everyone panic!) or was shot to death by police after making a wrong turn or panicking at a random roadblock. Air Force One? You can still see it. On TV, anyway. ..."
I visited Washington, DC for the first time in 1980. I was 13. Jimmy Carter was the president.
My family only had one day to see the sights. As I remember it, we went through what seemed a
somewhat sketchy neighborhood (I was a country boy, so it may have just been nerves about The Big
City), turned onto Pennsylvania Avenue, and drove past the White House and Capitol before taking
in selected bits of the Smithsonian and visiting Arlington National Cemetery. Then we proceeded to
Andrews Air Force Base, where my brother was stationed, and just for fun drove past Air Force One.
I saw a lot of really neat stuff that day, but right now I'm thinking about the stuff I didn't
see, or at least didn't notice.
I don't recall seeing a single police officer anywhere, although I'm sure I must have. The only
man with a gun I noticed at Andrews was the gate guard, who checked my brother's ID and waved us
through. Nobody seemed to give us a second glance as we passed within a few hundred feet of the president's
plane. I don't recall any security checkpoints, barricades or traffic barriers along Pennsylvania
Avenue, and I think I would have remembered those.
This was in the middle of the Iran hostage crisis and only a few months after the Unabomber's
attack on American Airlines Flight 444 as it flew into DC from Chicago. Central America was in the
throes of successful and unsuccessful revolutions and the US wasn't terribly popular there. Carter
was preparing to re-institute draft registration in response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
And yet (aside from a surplus of marble monuments), Washington seemed on the whole to be a normal,
American city.
When did the East Germans take over?
You can't drive past the White House on Pennsylvania Avenue today. It was "temporarily" closed
to motorized traffic after the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995 and that closure was officially made
permanent after 9/11. Seldom a week passes without breathless reports of a "security incident." Someone
touched the White House fence (everyone panic!) or was shot to death by police after making a wrong
turn or panicking at a random roadblock. Air Force One? You can still see it. On TV, anyway.
You can still visit Washington, but if you plan to fly in, count on multiple instances of being
required to show your papers and get felt up at the airports. My own kids can't remember a time without
metal detectors, bag searches and dire warnings even at the entrances to such attractions as the
Gateway Arch in St. Louis.
I guess every generation of adults feels like things have gone downhill since they were kids.
But as someone a little too young to have understood Vietnam or Watergate and just exactly old enough
to have exuberantly celebrated the nation's bicentennial, these days I find each 4th of July to surpass
the last as an occasion for mourning an America that no longer exists.
Thomas L. Knapp is director and senior news analyst at the
William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian
Advocacy Journalism . He lives and works in north central Florida. This article is reprinted
with permission from William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism.
Some parts of US political elite is now really afraid of Russian China alliance forged by Clinton,
Bush Ii and Obama adventurism. It might be too late.
Notable quotes:
"... In 1998, as the Clinton administration took steps to enlarge NATO beyond eastern Germany, George Kennan forewarned: "In trying to place NATO ahead of the EU as the focal point of European unity, and at the same time in looking to Germany to be, together with the U.S., the greatest military power on the European continent, the NATO leaders are, as I see it, making a mistake of historical dimensions. They are trying to revive all the disturbing ghosts of the modern European past." 26 . ..."
"... In retrospect, the largely uncoordinated and overextended enlargements of NATO and the EU have both provoked the ghosts of European nationalism and Russian revanchist backlash. 27 ..."
The fighting in the Donbass region of eastern Ukraine has moreover proved very costly for all
sides, and rebuilding the region will prove very difficult. The specter of more intense fighting
in the years ahead has been raised in the aftermath of Kiev's "creeping offensive" into the Donbass
region since mid-December 2016. Kiev's military move was ostensibly intended to check supplies going
to the Russian-backed autonomists (who in turn have begun to expropriate Ukrainian businesses in
the Donetsk and Lugansk regions), but has nonetheless stepped deeper into the gray zone between the
two sides.
6
A collapsed Donbass region that is potentially separated from a partitioned Ukraine could soon
become a much larger and unstable version of Russian-backed Transnistria, South Ossetia, and Abkhazia
combined. Such political and economic instability will continue to pollute the whole area with black
marketeering, weapons smuggling, and other forms of criminality. A failed "state" in eastern Ukraine
would not only prove very troublesome for an essentially bankrupt Kiev and the rest of the region,
but for Moscow as well-as the latter, for example, will need to deal with refugees fleeing to Russia.
Some 1.5 million people have already fled the country, with the vast majority (1.2 million) going
to the Russian Federation-which has not necessarily accepted them with open arms. Roughly 150,000
have gone to Belarus.
7 The cost of reconstruction and development in the aftermath of the conflict will
be considerable. So it should be in the common interest to bring this conflict to a close as soon
as possible.
The Question of Western Europe
A general settlement between the United States, European countries, Ukraine, and Russia is crucial
to prevent the further destabilization of eastern Europe that could, in turn, further antagonize
western Europe. Such a destabilization would deepen the divisions between pro-NATO and pro-EU sociopolitical
movements and anti-NATO and anti-EU movements on both the right and the left. In general, both left-wing
and right-wing political parties in states closest to Russia (Poland, Finland, Sweden, and the Baltic
states) tend to take a strong anti-Russian position, no matter whether they are for or against NATO
or EU membership. But left-wing and right-wing parties in both France and Germany-the two countries
that now form the core of the European Union after the UK's exit from the EU (Brexit)-tend to oppose
both EU and NATO membership.
During the ongoing process of Brexit, which could take several years to complete, it is not at
all clear where the European Union is heading. European financial instability means that a number
of states could, in the not too distant future, opt to drop out of the European Union and even out
of NATO. Here, for example, sanctions placed on Russia in the agricultural sector (coupled with a
Russian ban on European imports) have ironically been hurting the Europeans much more than the Americans.
The impact of EU and Russian sanctions, along with general impact of regional deindustrialization
and delocalization, has been pressing agricultural producers and workers, as well as small business
owners, to turn toward anti-EU anti-NATO parties on both the right and the left, particularly in
France.
9
In Search of a U.S.-Russia Policy
In apparent contrast to Trump's campaign promises to forge a general rapprochement with Moscow,
the United States and NATO are now backing Kiev's claims to eastern Ukraine and to the Crimea-while
still keeping the door open to Kiev's membership in NATO. This policy has reversed Trump's stance
during his presidential campaign, when he warned in August 2016 that U.S. efforts to regain Crimea
on behalf of Ukraine against Russia could result in World War III.
On the one hand, in arguing against Trump's proclaimed efforts to make amends with Moscow, Senator
John McCain and others have feared that U.S. secretary of state Rex Tillerson, the former CEO of
ExxonMobil, could use his connections with Putin for the benefit of ExxonMobil. He might, they suggest,
try to put an end to sanctions that had been placed by Washington on the Russian energy sector since
July 2014. Eliminating sanctions would then safeguard ExxonMobil's considerable joint investment
deals and potential profitability given the size of Russian reserves in the Arctic Kara Sea, western
Siberia, Sakhalin island, and in the Black Sea that had been reached with Rosneft, the Russian government
energy company, in 2012–13.11 The concern of those like McCain who want to sustain maximum political-economic
pressure on Moscow, is that "sectoral sanctions" impacting major energy companies and banks are due
to expire in December 2017-unless extended by Congress.12
On the other hand, Trump's "America First" policies are actually ideologically opposed to ExxonMobil's
investments in Moscow. Trump's "economic nationalists" hope to return U.S. multinational corporate
investments abroad back to the United States itself-while seeking to export U.S. shale oil and gas
to Europe, for example. In effect, U.S. shale oil exporters hope to supply Poland, Ukraine, and other
European countries so that these countries will be less dependent on Russian energy; Russia would
have to lower prices to compete. Kiev, for example, is still dependent upon Moscow for about half
of its natural gas needs.13 As opposed to the argument that the United States needs to sustain positive
political and economic "linkage" with Moscow (as Henry Kissinger would argue), the United States
could soon fully antagonize Moscow by becoming a direct rival for Russia's energy export markets-in
a sector in which Moscow derives significant national revenues.14
The major dilemma lies in the fact that U.S. diplomacy under President Barack Obama did not go
far enough to "reset" the general crisis in U.S.-Russian relations. Prior to Obama's first term,
neither the United States nor the EU picked up and developed two significant proposals that might
have prevented the escalation of tensions since 2014. The first proposal was Russian president Dmitri
Medvedev's June 2008 call in Berlin for a new European security pact and the second was Turkish president
Recep Tayyip Erdogan's call in Moscow for a new Caucasus Stability and Cooperation Pact in the aftermath
of the August 2008 Georgia-Russia War. President Obama did try to reach out to Moscow once he came
to power in January 2009, yet the fact that U.S.-Russia discussions did not address the issue of
the uncoordinated NATO and EU "double enlargement" into the Russian-defined "near abroad" could only
doom reset talks to failure.
Had the United States and EU reached out to address the issues impacting the Black Sea and Caucasus
raised by both Russia and NATO-member Turkey, this crisis might not have escalated. Instead, the
general attitude since the end of the Cold War was that NATO and the EU could somehow manage these
regions without the involvement of Russia-in the false assumption that Russia would do nothing to
defend its interests in its "near abroad." In effect, the general U.S. and EU attitude has been that
there was no need to create a new, jointly managed, regional peace and development community under
OSCE auspices that would incorporate the interests of Russia, Turkey, and other regional states.1
...the 2014 Minsk II accords between Germany, France, Ukraine, and Russia (in which the United
States is not a participant) were not designed to address the two elephants in the room: the questions
concerning NATO membership for Georgia and Ukraine, plus Ukrainian demands for the return of Crimea
from Russia. The focus of the Minsk discussions has been on the conflict in eastern Ukraine only-in
which a total ceasefire, Ukrainian "decentralization," and direct negotiations between Kiev and the
Donbass "autonomists" have been considered essential to success. Yet Kiev's promises of "decentralization"
have not been constitutionally implemented and the March 2017 decision of the Ukrainian Poroshenko
government to support the blockade on the Donbass region basically puts a dagger into the heart of
the Minsk II accords.16 It now appears politically impossible for the government in Kiev to recognize
the autonomist factions in the Donbass region, while Moscow has continued to supply autonomists with
weaponry.
Given the gravity of the situation, the Minsk discussions over eastern Ukraine will soon need
to be widened to include at least the United States and Turkey. This step would broaden the negotiations
to include issues impacting the Black Sea and Caucasus regions, plus the Crimea. NATO-member Turkey-despite
its deep domestic instability and President Erdogan's steps toward implementing an "illiberal democracy"-would
need to play a key role. Given Turkey's central position in the Black Sea region, Ankara could potentially
help to mediate between the United States and NATO, the EU, Ukraine, and Russia. Moscow is not the
only "illiberal democracy" that Washington needs to talk to. Turkey must be included as well.17
...A general settlement with Moscow that results in Ukrainian neutrality, but allows self-defense
forces and permits Moscow to retain sovereignty over Crimea, will not necessarily result in a full
"capitulation"-even if Washington must lower its sights as to what can and cannot be negotiated in
Moscow's view. Despite renewed conflict in eastern Ukraine since mid-December 2016, President Trump
has promised to "work with Ukraine, Russia, and all other parties involved to help them restore peace
along the (Russian-Ukrainian) border."
19 Yet Trump's promise to work for peace has not yet fully addressed the question
of the Crimea. It has, however, been alleged that Trump officials may have been secretly attempting
to make a deal with Moscow over Crimea and eastern Ukraine. That deal, somewhat like the negotiated
settlement that George Kennan had sought in 1949, was leaked to the press, leading to allegations
of Trump administration collusion with Moscow.
...
Even if the Minsk II accords collapse, or if the Donbass region separates from Ukraine in a future
partition, the United States, Europeans, and Russia will need to find ways to limit the damage. The
deployment of international peacekeepers in the Donbass region under a general OSCE mandate (going
beyond OSCE observers) could help ameliorate the situation considerably, once a political settlement
can be reached. At the same time, the United States, EU, Russia, and Ukraine would need to begin
reconstruction efforts through the implementation of a regional peace and development community backed
by U.S./NATO, EU, and Russian security supports under a general OSCE mandate.
Much like Kennan's "Plan A" with respect to Germany in 1949, a new approach to Euro-Atlantic security
through engaged negotiations with Moscow would accordingly seek to establish Ukraine as a formally
neutral state with limited self-defense capabilities. Both Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski
have likewise called for establishing Ukraine as a formally neutral country that is not a member
of NATO or the Russian-led CSTO. For his part, Kissinger has also argued that Ukraine should have
the right to choose freely its economic and political associations, including with the European Union.
Yet full EU membership is not a viable option either, as even the EU association accords require
that Kiev gradually adopt Common Security and Defense policies and European Defense Agency policies.
The problem is that the EU Eastern Partnership program has not yet been able to develop a formula
that can balance Russian security, defense, political-economic, financial, and energy interests with
those of the post-Soviet eastern European countries and of the EU itself. It is therefore essential
that the European Union begin to think more strategically, in cooperation with the United States,
as the two coordinate their rapprochement with Moscow.
21
NATO efforts to deploy rotating forces in the Baltic states and Poland are, as noted earlier,
being met by a buildup of Russian nuclear and conventional forces in northwest Russia and Kaliningrad,
plus major military maneuvers planned for September 2017. Despite the fact that President Putin's
proposal to restart military-to-military relations and to increase intelligence cooperation between
the United States and NATO was rejected in mid-February 2017 by Trump's new defense secretary, James
Mattis, a step-by-step normalization of U.S.-European-Russia relations should be considered.
22 This could be accomplished by means of setting up joint security exercises and
overflights in the Baltic region and Kaliningrad, and in the Black Sea region, and in joint U.S.,
EU, and Russian peacekeeping operations in Donbass and the Caucasus under a general OSCE mandate,
for example. The establishment of NATO-Russian confidence-building measures as soon as possible is
absolutely crucial if peace is to be maintained.
Once there is progress in these areas, the United States and EU could then begin to lift sanctions
on Russia, while also looking for ways to bring the United States, EU, and Russia into greater political-economic,
financial, and energy cooperation. One possibility would be a three-way trade and financial commission
between Ukraine, the European Union, and Russia. Another step would be to bring Moscow back into
the G-8 discussions after Russian membership was suspended in March 2014. Both G-8 and EU-Russian-Ukrainian
discussions could likewise lead the EU to work out a political-economic association accord that better
balances Russian and Ukrainian financial, political-economic, energy, and ecological interests-after
the EU's abysmal failure to do so in 2013–14.
After sanctions on Russia are put to an end, offering Russia American and European investment,
as well as joint military and security cooperation, could help to draw Moscow away from too great
a financial and economic dependence on Beijing. It could likewise prevent the formation of a closer
Sino-Russian military alliance, somewhat reminiscent of the 1950s, but in which Russia plays a role
as a junior partner. Such a strategy must not, however, alienate China, which is the main indirect
beneficiary of U.S.-European-Russian-Ukrainian conflict.
The United States is no longer locked into an existential war with the Soviet Union, and it should
cooperate with the Russian Federation in order to sustain peace in a number of key areas: Ukraine,
Iran's nuclear program, Syria/Iraq, Islamic State, and North Korea. All these areas, among many others,
need to be addressed as soon as possible through multiple forums, including the UN Security Council,
the OSCE, the NATO-Russia Council, the G-8, and Contact Groups, as well as through international
conferences and bilateral U.S.-Russia, U.S.-China meetings. The United States, Europeans, Japan,
and Russia will also need to channel China's rise to major power status in such a way that
it does not harm Russian, Japanese, or American interests.
The dilemma is that it is the rise of China with its burgeoning global political-economic influence
and increasingly powerful military capabilities-combined with a close alignment with Russia as a
junior partner-that now represents the primary concern causing tremors in the United States and throughout
the world. Washington will need to fully engage in both bilateral and multilateral negotiations with
both Beijing and Moscow if the global system is not to soon polarize into two contending alliance
systems: a U.S./NATO-EU-Japanese alliance of essentially democratic states vs. a Russia/CSTO-Chinese-Iranian
alliance of "illiberal democracies"-with democratic India soon forced to choose sides.
23
... ... ...
The danger is that U.S. domestic pressure to prevent the Trump administration from engaging in
more substantial negotiations with Putin could lead to an even deeper crisis. The Russian Federation
sees itself as being walled off in Europe, with its "near abroad" penetrated by the NATO EU "double
enlargement" which, Putin fears, could lead to the breakup of the Russian-led CSTO. The breakup of
the CSTO could, in turn, lead to the disaggregation of the Russian Federation itself. Certain regions
in Russia are nearly bankrupt, a fact which once again caused protests in March 2017 against corruption
and economic stagnation throughout the country. The fears of a potential breakup of the Russian Federation
(as occurred during World War I) have led Putin to seek out strong political-economic and military
ties with China in the effort to form a Eurasian Union, if not a military alliance. But unlike the
relatively peaceful disaggregation of the Soviet Union, the feared disaggregation of the Russian
Federation and concurrent civil war could lead to full scale Russian backlash.
In this regard, the Syrian crisis could provide the spark for an even greater conflagration. This
is because Moscow fears that the potential collapse of the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad will
result in the loss of Russia's position in the Middle East, while permitting pan-Sunni movements
to destabilize the immediate region as well as the northern Caucasus and other predominately Muslim
regions inside the Russian Federation itself. The April 2017 Trump administration decision to engage
in unilateral cruise missile strikes as a means to punish the Assad regime for its use of chemical
weaponry against its own population has been denounced by Moscow as yet another illegal unilateral
U.S. attack against a sovereign state.
In 1998, as the Clinton administration took steps to enlarge NATO beyond eastern Germany,
George Kennan forewarned: "In trying to place NATO ahead of the EU as the focal point of European
unity, and at the same time in looking to Germany to be, together with the U.S., the greatest military
power on the European continent, the NATO leaders are, as I see it, making a mistake of historical
dimensions. They are trying to revive all the disturbing ghosts of the modern European past."
26 .
In retrospect, the largely uncoordinated and overextended enlargements of NATO and the EU
have both provoked the ghosts of European nationalism and Russian revanchist backlash.
27
... ... ...
This article originally appeared in American Affairs Volume I, Number 2 (Summer 2017): 166–83.
Some parts of US political elite is now really afraid of Russian China alliance forged by Clinton,
Bush Ii and Obama adventurism. It might be too late.
Notable quotes:
"... In 1998, as the Clinton administration took steps to enlarge NATO beyond eastern Germany, George Kennan forewarned: "In trying to place NATO ahead of the EU as the focal point of European unity, and at the same time in looking to Germany to be, together with the U.S., the greatest military power on the European continent, the NATO leaders are, as I see it, making a mistake of historical dimensions. They are trying to revive all the disturbing ghosts of the modern European past." 26 . ..."
"... In retrospect, the largely uncoordinated and overextended enlargements of NATO and the EU have both provoked the ghosts of European nationalism and Russian revanchist backlash. 27 ..."
The fighting in the Donbass region of eastern Ukraine has moreover proved very costly for all
sides, and rebuilding the region will prove very difficult. The specter of more intense fighting
in the years ahead has been raised in the aftermath of Kiev's "creeping offensive" into the Donbass
region since mid-December 2016. Kiev's military move was ostensibly intended to check supplies going
to the Russian-backed autonomists (who in turn have begun to expropriate Ukrainian businesses in
the Donetsk and Lugansk regions), but has nonetheless stepped deeper into the gray zone between the
two sides.
6
A collapsed Donbass region that is potentially separated from a partitioned Ukraine could soon
become a much larger and unstable version of Russian-backed Transnistria, South Ossetia, and Abkhazia
combined. Such political and economic instability will continue to pollute the whole area with black
marketeering, weapons smuggling, and other forms of criminality. A failed "state" in eastern Ukraine
would not only prove very troublesome for an essentially bankrupt Kiev and the rest of the region,
but for Moscow as well-as the latter, for example, will need to deal with refugees fleeing to Russia.
Some 1.5 million people have already fled the country, with the vast majority (1.2 million) going
to the Russian Federation-which has not necessarily accepted them with open arms. Roughly 150,000
have gone to Belarus.
7 The cost of reconstruction and development in the aftermath of the conflict will
be considerable. So it should be in the common interest to bring this conflict to a close as soon
as possible.
The Question of Western Europe
A general settlement between the United States, European countries, Ukraine, and Russia is crucial
to prevent the further destabilization of eastern Europe that could, in turn, further antagonize
western Europe. Such a destabilization would deepen the divisions between pro-NATO and pro-EU sociopolitical
movements and anti-NATO and anti-EU movements on both the right and the left. In general, both left-wing
and right-wing political parties in states closest to Russia (Poland, Finland, Sweden, and the Baltic
states) tend to take a strong anti-Russian position, no matter whether they are for or against NATO
or EU membership. But left-wing and right-wing parties in both France and Germany-the two countries
that now form the core of the European Union after the UK's exit from the EU (Brexit)-tend to oppose
both EU and NATO membership.
During the ongoing process of Brexit, which could take several years to complete, it is not at
all clear where the European Union is heading. European financial instability means that a number
of states could, in the not too distant future, opt to drop out of the European Union and even out
of NATO. Here, for example, sanctions placed on Russia in the agricultural sector (coupled with a
Russian ban on European imports) have ironically been hurting the Europeans much more than the Americans.
The impact of EU and Russian sanctions, along with general impact of regional deindustrialization
and delocalization, has been pressing agricultural producers and workers, as well as small business
owners, to turn toward anti-EU anti-NATO parties on both the right and the left, particularly in
France.
9
In Search of a U.S.-Russia Policy
In apparent contrast to Trump's campaign promises to forge a general rapprochement with Moscow,
the United States and NATO are now backing Kiev's claims to eastern Ukraine and to the Crimea-while
still keeping the door open to Kiev's membership in NATO. This policy has reversed Trump's stance
during his presidential campaign, when he warned in August 2016 that U.S. efforts to regain Crimea
on behalf of Ukraine against Russia could result in World War III.
On the one hand, in arguing against Trump's proclaimed efforts to make amends with Moscow, Senator
John McCain and others have feared that U.S. secretary of state Rex Tillerson, the former CEO of
ExxonMobil, could use his connections with Putin for the benefit of ExxonMobil. He might, they suggest,
try to put an end to sanctions that had been placed by Washington on the Russian energy sector since
July 2014. Eliminating sanctions would then safeguard ExxonMobil's considerable joint investment
deals and potential profitability given the size of Russian reserves in the Arctic Kara Sea, western
Siberia, Sakhalin island, and in the Black Sea that had been reached with Rosneft, the Russian government
energy company, in 2012–13.11 The concern of those like McCain who want to sustain maximum political-economic
pressure on Moscow, is that "sectoral sanctions" impacting major energy companies and banks are due
to expire in December 2017-unless extended by Congress.12
On the other hand, Trump's "America First" policies are actually ideologically opposed to ExxonMobil's
investments in Moscow. Trump's "economic nationalists" hope to return U.S. multinational corporate
investments abroad back to the United States itself-while seeking to export U.S. shale oil and gas
to Europe, for example. In effect, U.S. shale oil exporters hope to supply Poland, Ukraine, and other
European countries so that these countries will be less dependent on Russian energy; Russia would
have to lower prices to compete. Kiev, for example, is still dependent upon Moscow for about half
of its natural gas needs.13 As opposed to the argument that the United States needs to sustain positive
political and economic "linkage" with Moscow (as Henry Kissinger would argue), the United States
could soon fully antagonize Moscow by becoming a direct rival for Russia's energy export markets-in
a sector in which Moscow derives significant national revenues.14
The major dilemma lies in the fact that U.S. diplomacy under President Barack Obama did not go
far enough to "reset" the general crisis in U.S.-Russian relations. Prior to Obama's first term,
neither the United States nor the EU picked up and developed two significant proposals that might
have prevented the escalation of tensions since 2014. The first proposal was Russian president Dmitri
Medvedev's June 2008 call in Berlin for a new European security pact and the second was Turkish president
Recep Tayyip Erdogan's call in Moscow for a new Caucasus Stability and Cooperation Pact in the aftermath
of the August 2008 Georgia-Russia War. President Obama did try to reach out to Moscow once he came
to power in January 2009, yet the fact that U.S.-Russia discussions did not address the issue of
the uncoordinated NATO and EU "double enlargement" into the Russian-defined "near abroad" could only
doom reset talks to failure.
Had the United States and EU reached out to address the issues impacting the Black Sea and Caucasus
raised by both Russia and NATO-member Turkey, this crisis might not have escalated. Instead, the
general attitude since the end of the Cold War was that NATO and the EU could somehow manage these
regions without the involvement of Russia-in the false assumption that Russia would do nothing to
defend its interests in its "near abroad." In effect, the general U.S. and EU attitude has been that
there was no need to create a new, jointly managed, regional peace and development community under
OSCE auspices that would incorporate the interests of Russia, Turkey, and other regional states.1
...the 2014 Minsk II accords between Germany, France, Ukraine, and Russia (in which the United
States is not a participant) were not designed to address the two elephants in the room: the questions
concerning NATO membership for Georgia and Ukraine, plus Ukrainian demands for the return of Crimea
from Russia. The focus of the Minsk discussions has been on the conflict in eastern Ukraine only-in
which a total ceasefire, Ukrainian "decentralization," and direct negotiations between Kiev and the
Donbass "autonomists" have been considered essential to success. Yet Kiev's promises of "decentralization"
have not been constitutionally implemented and the March 2017 decision of the Ukrainian Poroshenko
government to support the blockade on the Donbass region basically puts a dagger into the heart of
the Minsk II accords.16 It now appears politically impossible for the government in Kiev to recognize
the autonomist factions in the Donbass region, while Moscow has continued to supply autonomists with
weaponry.
Given the gravity of the situation, the Minsk discussions over eastern Ukraine will soon need
to be widened to include at least the United States and Turkey. This step would broaden the negotiations
to include issues impacting the Black Sea and Caucasus regions, plus the Crimea. NATO-member Turkey-despite
its deep domestic instability and President Erdogan's steps toward implementing an "illiberal democracy"-would
need to play a key role. Given Turkey's central position in the Black Sea region, Ankara could potentially
help to mediate between the United States and NATO, the EU, Ukraine, and Russia. Moscow is not the
only "illiberal democracy" that Washington needs to talk to. Turkey must be included as well.17
...A general settlement with Moscow that results in Ukrainian neutrality, but allows self-defense
forces and permits Moscow to retain sovereignty over Crimea, will not necessarily result in a full
"capitulation"-even if Washington must lower its sights as to what can and cannot be negotiated in
Moscow's view. Despite renewed conflict in eastern Ukraine since mid-December 2016, President Trump
has promised to "work with Ukraine, Russia, and all other parties involved to help them restore peace
along the (Russian-Ukrainian) border."
19 Yet Trump's promise to work for peace has not yet fully addressed the question
of the Crimea. It has, however, been alleged that Trump officials may have been secretly attempting
to make a deal with Moscow over Crimea and eastern Ukraine. That deal, somewhat like the negotiated
settlement that George Kennan had sought in 1949, was leaked to the press, leading to allegations
of Trump administration collusion with Moscow.
...
Even if the Minsk II accords collapse, or if the Donbass region separates from Ukraine in a future
partition, the United States, Europeans, and Russia will need to find ways to limit the damage. The
deployment of international peacekeepers in the Donbass region under a general OSCE mandate (going
beyond OSCE observers) could help ameliorate the situation considerably, once a political settlement
can be reached. At the same time, the United States, EU, Russia, and Ukraine would need to begin
reconstruction efforts through the implementation of a regional peace and development community backed
by U.S./NATO, EU, and Russian security supports under a general OSCE mandate.
Much like Kennan's "Plan A" with respect to Germany in 1949, a new approach to Euro-Atlantic security
through engaged negotiations with Moscow would accordingly seek to establish Ukraine as a formally
neutral state with limited self-defense capabilities. Both Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski
have likewise called for establishing Ukraine as a formally neutral country that is not a member
of NATO or the Russian-led CSTO. For his part, Kissinger has also argued that Ukraine should have
the right to choose freely its economic and political associations, including with the European Union.
Yet full EU membership is not a viable option either, as even the EU association accords require
that Kiev gradually adopt Common Security and Defense policies and European Defense Agency policies.
The problem is that the EU Eastern Partnership program has not yet been able to develop a formula
that can balance Russian security, defense, political-economic, financial, and energy interests with
those of the post-Soviet eastern European countries and of the EU itself. It is therefore essential
that the European Union begin to think more strategically, in cooperation with the United States,
as the two coordinate their rapprochement with Moscow.
21
NATO efforts to deploy rotating forces in the Baltic states and Poland are, as noted earlier,
being met by a buildup of Russian nuclear and conventional forces in northwest Russia and Kaliningrad,
plus major military maneuvers planned for September 2017. Despite the fact that President Putin's
proposal to restart military-to-military relations and to increase intelligence cooperation between
the United States and NATO was rejected in mid-February 2017 by Trump's new defense secretary, James
Mattis, a step-by-step normalization of U.S.-European-Russia relations should be considered.
22 This could be accomplished by means of setting up joint security exercises and
overflights in the Baltic region and Kaliningrad, and in the Black Sea region, and in joint U.S.,
EU, and Russian peacekeeping operations in Donbass and the Caucasus under a general OSCE mandate,
for example. The establishment of NATO-Russian confidence-building measures as soon as possible is
absolutely crucial if peace is to be maintained.
Once there is progress in these areas, the United States and EU could then begin to lift sanctions
on Russia, while also looking for ways to bring the United States, EU, and Russia into greater political-economic,
financial, and energy cooperation. One possibility would be a three-way trade and financial commission
between Ukraine, the European Union, and Russia. Another step would be to bring Moscow back into
the G-8 discussions after Russian membership was suspended in March 2014. Both G-8 and EU-Russian-Ukrainian
discussions could likewise lead the EU to work out a political-economic association accord that better
balances Russian and Ukrainian financial, political-economic, energy, and ecological interests-after
the EU's abysmal failure to do so in 2013–14.
After sanctions on Russia are put to an end, offering Russia American and European investment,
as well as joint military and security cooperation, could help to draw Moscow away from too great
a financial and economic dependence on Beijing. It could likewise prevent the formation of a closer
Sino-Russian military alliance, somewhat reminiscent of the 1950s, but in which Russia plays a role
as a junior partner. Such a strategy must not, however, alienate China, which is the main indirect
beneficiary of U.S.-European-Russian-Ukrainian conflict.
The United States is no longer locked into an existential war with the Soviet Union, and it should
cooperate with the Russian Federation in order to sustain peace in a number of key areas: Ukraine,
Iran's nuclear program, Syria/Iraq, Islamic State, and North Korea. All these areas, among many others,
need to be addressed as soon as possible through multiple forums, including the UN Security Council,
the OSCE, the NATO-Russia Council, the G-8, and Contact Groups, as well as through international
conferences and bilateral U.S.-Russia, U.S.-China meetings. The United States, Europeans, Japan,
and Russia will also need to channel China's rise to major power status in such a way that
it does not harm Russian, Japanese, or American interests.
The dilemma is that it is the rise of China with its burgeoning global political-economic influence
and increasingly powerful military capabilities-combined with a close alignment with Russia as a
junior partner-that now represents the primary concern causing tremors in the United States and throughout
the world. Washington will need to fully engage in both bilateral and multilateral negotiations with
both Beijing and Moscow if the global system is not to soon polarize into two contending alliance
systems: a U.S./NATO-EU-Japanese alliance of essentially democratic states vs. a Russia/CSTO-Chinese-Iranian
alliance of "illiberal democracies"-with democratic India soon forced to choose sides.
23
... ... ...
The danger is that U.S. domestic pressure to prevent the Trump administration from engaging in
more substantial negotiations with Putin could lead to an even deeper crisis. The Russian Federation
sees itself as being walled off in Europe, with its "near abroad" penetrated by the NATO EU "double
enlargement" which, Putin fears, could lead to the breakup of the Russian-led CSTO. The breakup of
the CSTO could, in turn, lead to the disaggregation of the Russian Federation itself. Certain regions
in Russia are nearly bankrupt, a fact which once again caused protests in March 2017 against corruption
and economic stagnation throughout the country. The fears of a potential breakup of the Russian Federation
(as occurred during World War I) have led Putin to seek out strong political-economic and military
ties with China in the effort to form a Eurasian Union, if not a military alliance. But unlike the
relatively peaceful disaggregation of the Soviet Union, the feared disaggregation of the Russian
Federation and concurrent civil war could lead to full scale Russian backlash.
In this regard, the Syrian crisis could provide the spark for an even greater conflagration. This
is because Moscow fears that the potential collapse of the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad will
result in the loss of Russia's position in the Middle East, while permitting pan-Sunni movements
to destabilize the immediate region as well as the northern Caucasus and other predominately Muslim
regions inside the Russian Federation itself. The April 2017 Trump administration decision to engage
in unilateral cruise missile strikes as a means to punish the Assad regime for its use of chemical
weaponry against its own population has been denounced by Moscow as yet another illegal unilateral
U.S. attack against a sovereign state.
In 1998, as the Clinton administration took steps to enlarge NATO beyond eastern Germany,
George Kennan forewarned: "In trying to place NATO ahead of the EU as the focal point of European
unity, and at the same time in looking to Germany to be, together with the U.S., the greatest military
power on the European continent, the NATO leaders are, as I see it, making a mistake of historical
dimensions. They are trying to revive all the disturbing ghosts of the modern European past."
26 .
In retrospect, the largely uncoordinated and overextended enlargements of NATO and the EU
have both provoked the ghosts of European nationalism and Russian revanchist backlash.
27
... ... ...
This article originally appeared in American Affairs Volume I, Number 2 (Summer 2017): 166–83.
"... But, in fact, the western media were supremely uninterested in the story. Hersh, once considered the journalist's journalist, went hawking his investigation around the US and UK media to no avail. In the end, he could find a home for his revelations only in Germany, in the publication Welt am Sonntag. ..."
"... His story has spawned two clear "spoiler" responses from those desperate to uphold the official narrative. Hersh's revelations may have been entirely uninteresting to the western media, but strangely they have sent Washington into crisis mode. Of course, no US official has addressed Hersh's investigation directly, which might have drawn attention to it and forced western media to reference it. Instead Washington has sought to deflect attention from Hersh's alternative narrative and shore up the official one through misdirection. That alone should raise the alarm that we are being manipulated, not informed. ..."
"... The first spoiler, made in the immediate wake of Hersh's story, were statements from the Pentagon and White House warning that the US had evidence Assad was planning yet another chemical attack on his people and that Washington would respond extremely harshly if he did so. ..."
"... And then on Friday, the second spoiler emerged. Two unnamed diplomats " confirmed " that a report by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) had found that some of the victims from Khan Sheikhoun showed signs of poisoning by sarin or sarin-like substances. ..."
"... There are also well-known problems with the findings. There was no "chain of custody" – neutral oversight – of the bodies that were presented to the organisation in Turkey, as Scott Ritter, a former weapons inspector in Iraq, has noted . Any number of interested parties could have contaminated the bodies before they reached the OPCW. For that reason, the OPCW has not concluded that the Assad regime was responsible for the traces of sarin. In the world of real news, only such a finding – that Assad was responsible – should have made the OPCW report interesting again to the media. ..."
"... In fact, the US threats increase, rather than reduce, the chances of a new chemical weapons attack. Other, anti-Assad actors now have a strong incentive to use chemical weapons in false-flag operation to implicate Assad, knowing that the US has committed itself to intervention. On any reading, the US statements were reckless – or malicious – in the extreme and likely to bring about the exact opposite of what they were supposed to achieve. ..."
"... Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His latest books are " Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East" (Pluto Press) and " Disappearing Palestine: Israel's Experiments in Human Despair " (Zed Books). His website is www.jkcook.net . ..."
If you wish to understand the degree to which a supposedly free western media are constructing
a world of half-truths and deceptions to manipulate their audiences, keeping us uninformed and pliant,
then there could hardly be a better case study than their treatment of Pulitzer prize-winning investigative
journalist Seymour Hersh.
All of these highly competitive, for-profit, scoop-seeking media outlets separately took identical
decisions: first to reject Hersh's latest investigative report, and then to studiously ignore it
once it was published in Germany last Sunday. They have continued to maintain an absolute radio silence
on his revelations, even as over the past few days they have given a great deal of attention to two
stories on the very issue Hersh's investigation addresses.
These two stories, given such prominence in the western media, are clearly intended to serve as
"spoilers" to his revelations, even though none of these publications have actually informed their
readers of his original investigation. We are firmly in looking-glass territory.
So what did Hersh's
investigation reveal? His sources in the US intelligence establishment – people who have helped
him break some of the most important stories of the past few decades, from the Mai Lai massacre by
American soldiers during the Vietnam war to US abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib in 2004 – told
him the official narrative that Syria's Bashar Assad had dropped deadly sarin gas on the town of
Khan Sheikhoun on April 4 was incorrect. Instead, they said, a Syrian plane dropped a bomb on a meeting
of jihadi fighters that triggered secondary explosions in a storage depot, releasing a toxic cloud
of chemicals that killed civilians nearby.
It is an alternative narrative of these events that one might have assumed would be of intense
interest to the media, given that Donald Trump approved a military strike on Syria based on the official
narrative. Hersh's version suggests that Trump acted against the intelligence advice he received
from his own officials, in a highly dangerous move that not only grossly violated international law
but might have dragged Assad's main ally, Russia, into the fray. The Syrian arena has the potential
to trigger a serious confrontation between the world's two major nuclear powers.
But, in fact, the western media were supremely uninterested in the story. Hersh, once considered
the journalist's journalist, went hawking his investigation around the US and UK media to no avail.
In the end, he could find a home for his revelations only in Germany, in the publication Welt am
Sonntag.
There are a couple of possible, even if highly improbable, reasons all English-language publications
ignored Hersh's story. Maybe they had evidence that his inside intelligence was wrong. If so, they
have yet to provide it. A rebuttal would require acknowledging Hersh's story, and none seem willing
to do that.
Or maybe the media thought it was old news and would no longer interest their readers. It would
be difficult to sustain such an interpretation, but at least it has an air of plausibility – except
for everything that has happened since Hersh published last Sunday.
His story has spawned two clear "spoiler" responses from those desperate to uphold the official
narrative. Hersh's revelations may have been entirely uninteresting to the western media, but strangely
they have sent Washington into crisis mode. Of course, no US official has addressed Hersh's investigation
directly, which might have drawn attention to it and forced western media to reference it. Instead
Washington has sought to deflect attention from Hersh's alternative narrative and shore up the official
one through misdirection. That alone should raise the alarm that we are being manipulated, not informed.
The first spoiler, made in the immediate wake of Hersh's story, were statements from the Pentagon
and White House warning that the US had evidence Assad was planning yet another chemical attack on
his people and that Washington would respond extremely harshly if he did so.
The US said on Tuesday that it had observed preparations for a possible chemical weapons attack
at a Syrian air base allegedly involved in a sarin attack in April following a warning from the
White House that the Syrian regime would 'pay a heavy price' for further use of the weapons.
And then on Friday, the second spoiler emerged. Two unnamed diplomats "
confirmed " that a report by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW)
had found that some of the victims from Khan Sheikhoun showed signs of poisoning by sarin or sarin-like
substances.
There are obvious reasons to be mightily suspicious of these stories. The findings of the OPCW
were already known and had been discussed for some time – there was absolutely nothing newsworthy
about them.
There are also well-known problems with the findings. There was no "chain of custody" – neutral
oversight – of the bodies that were presented to the organisation in Turkey, as Scott Ritter, a former
weapons inspector in Iraq, has
noted . Any number of interested parties could have contaminated the bodies before they reached
the OPCW. For that reason, the OPCW has not concluded that the Assad regime was responsible for the
traces of sarin. In the world of real news, only such a finding – that Assad was responsible – should
have made the OPCW report interesting again to the media.
Similarly, by going public with their threats against Assad, the Pentagon and White House did
not increase the deterrence on Assad, making it less likely he would use gas in the future. That
could have been achieved much more effectively with private warnings to the Russians, who have massive
leverage over Assad. These new warnings were meant not for Assad but for western publics, to bolster
the official narrative that Hersh's investigation had thrown into doubt.
In fact, the US threats increase, rather than reduce, the chances of a new chemical weapons
attack. Other, anti-Assad actors now have a strong incentive to use chemical weapons in false-flag
operation to implicate Assad, knowing that the US has committed itself to intervention. On any reading,
the US statements were reckless – or malicious – in the extreme and likely to bring about the exact
opposite of what they were supposed to achieve.
But beyond this, there was something even more troubling about these two stories. That these official
claims were published so unthinkingly in major outlets is bad enough. But what is unconscionable
is the media's continuing blackout of Hersh's investigation when it speaks directly to the two latest
news reports.
No serious journalist could write up either story, according to any accepted norms of journalistic
practice, and not make reference to Hersh's claims. They are absolutely relevant to these stories.
In fact, more than that, the intelligence sources he cites are are not only relevant but are the
reason these two stories have been suddenly propelled to the top of the news agenda.
Any publication that has covered either the White House-Pentagon threats or the rehashing of the
OPCW report and has not mentioned Hersh's revelations is writing nothing less than propaganda in
service of a western foreign policy agenda trying to bring about the illegal overthrow the Syrian
government. And so far that appears to include every single US and UK mainstream newspaper and TV
station.
Join the
debate on Facebook More articles by:
Jonathan Cook
"... But, in fact, the western media were supremely uninterested in the story. Hersh, once considered the journalist's journalist, went hawking his investigation around the US and UK media to no avail. In the end, he could find a home for his revelations only in Germany, in the publication Welt am Sonntag. ..."
"... His story has spawned two clear "spoiler" responses from those desperate to uphold the official narrative. Hersh's revelations may have been entirely uninteresting to the western media, but strangely they have sent Washington into crisis mode. Of course, no US official has addressed Hersh's investigation directly, which might have drawn attention to it and forced western media to reference it. Instead Washington has sought to deflect attention from Hersh's alternative narrative and shore up the official one through misdirection. That alone should raise the alarm that we are being manipulated, not informed. ..."
"... The first spoiler, made in the immediate wake of Hersh's story, were statements from the Pentagon and White House warning that the US had evidence Assad was planning yet another chemical attack on his people and that Washington would respond extremely harshly if he did so. ..."
"... And then on Friday, the second spoiler emerged. Two unnamed diplomats " confirmed " that a report by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) had found that some of the victims from Khan Sheikhoun showed signs of poisoning by sarin or sarin-like substances. ..."
"... There are also well-known problems with the findings. There was no "chain of custody" – neutral oversight – of the bodies that were presented to the organisation in Turkey, as Scott Ritter, a former weapons inspector in Iraq, has noted . Any number of interested parties could have contaminated the bodies before they reached the OPCW. For that reason, the OPCW has not concluded that the Assad regime was responsible for the traces of sarin. In the world of real news, only such a finding – that Assad was responsible – should have made the OPCW report interesting again to the media. ..."
"... In fact, the US threats increase, rather than reduce, the chances of a new chemical weapons attack. Other, anti-Assad actors now have a strong incentive to use chemical weapons in false-flag operation to implicate Assad, knowing that the US has committed itself to intervention. On any reading, the US statements were reckless – or malicious – in the extreme and likely to bring about the exact opposite of what they were supposed to achieve. ..."
"... Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His latest books are " Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East" (Pluto Press) and " Disappearing Palestine: Israel's Experiments in Human Despair " (Zed Books). His website is www.jkcook.net . ..."
If you wish to understand the degree to which a supposedly free western media are constructing
a world of half-truths and deceptions to manipulate their audiences, keeping us uninformed and pliant,
then there could hardly be a better case study than their treatment of Pulitzer prize-winning investigative
journalist Seymour Hersh.
All of these highly competitive, for-profit, scoop-seeking media outlets separately took identical
decisions: first to reject Hersh's latest investigative report, and then to studiously ignore it
once it was published in Germany last Sunday. They have continued to maintain an absolute radio silence
on his revelations, even as over the past few days they have given a great deal of attention to two
stories on the very issue Hersh's investigation addresses.
These two stories, given such prominence in the western media, are clearly intended to serve as
"spoilers" to his revelations, even though none of these publications have actually informed their
readers of his original investigation. We are firmly in looking-glass territory.
So what did Hersh's
investigation reveal? His sources in the US intelligence establishment – people who have helped
him break some of the most important stories of the past few decades, from the Mai Lai massacre by
American soldiers during the Vietnam war to US abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib in 2004 – told
him the official narrative that Syria's Bashar Assad had dropped deadly sarin gas on the town of
Khan Sheikhoun on April 4 was incorrect. Instead, they said, a Syrian plane dropped a bomb on a meeting
of jihadi fighters that triggered secondary explosions in a storage depot, releasing a toxic cloud
of chemicals that killed civilians nearby.
It is an alternative narrative of these events that one might have assumed would be of intense
interest to the media, given that Donald Trump approved a military strike on Syria based on the official
narrative. Hersh's version suggests that Trump acted against the intelligence advice he received
from his own officials, in a highly dangerous move that not only grossly violated international law
but might have dragged Assad's main ally, Russia, into the fray. The Syrian arena has the potential
to trigger a serious confrontation between the world's two major nuclear powers.
But, in fact, the western media were supremely uninterested in the story. Hersh, once considered
the journalist's journalist, went hawking his investigation around the US and UK media to no avail.
In the end, he could find a home for his revelations only in Germany, in the publication Welt am
Sonntag.
There are a couple of possible, even if highly improbable, reasons all English-language publications
ignored Hersh's story. Maybe they had evidence that his inside intelligence was wrong. If so, they
have yet to provide it. A rebuttal would require acknowledging Hersh's story, and none seem willing
to do that.
Or maybe the media thought it was old news and would no longer interest their readers. It would
be difficult to sustain such an interpretation, but at least it has an air of plausibility – except
for everything that has happened since Hersh published last Sunday.
His story has spawned two clear "spoiler" responses from those desperate to uphold the official
narrative. Hersh's revelations may have been entirely uninteresting to the western media, but strangely
they have sent Washington into crisis mode. Of course, no US official has addressed Hersh's investigation
directly, which might have drawn attention to it and forced western media to reference it. Instead
Washington has sought to deflect attention from Hersh's alternative narrative and shore up the official
one through misdirection. That alone should raise the alarm that we are being manipulated, not informed.
The first spoiler, made in the immediate wake of Hersh's story, were statements from the Pentagon
and White House warning that the US had evidence Assad was planning yet another chemical attack on
his people and that Washington would respond extremely harshly if he did so.
The US said on Tuesday that it had observed preparations for a possible chemical weapons attack
at a Syrian air base allegedly involved in a sarin attack in April following a warning from the
White House that the Syrian regime would 'pay a heavy price' for further use of the weapons.
And then on Friday, the second spoiler emerged. Two unnamed diplomats "
confirmed " that a report by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW)
had found that some of the victims from Khan Sheikhoun showed signs of poisoning by sarin or sarin-like
substances.
There are obvious reasons to be mightily suspicious of these stories. The findings of the OPCW
were already known and had been discussed for some time – there was absolutely nothing newsworthy
about them.
There are also well-known problems with the findings. There was no "chain of custody" – neutral
oversight – of the bodies that were presented to the organisation in Turkey, as Scott Ritter, a former
weapons inspector in Iraq, has
noted . Any number of interested parties could have contaminated the bodies before they reached
the OPCW. For that reason, the OPCW has not concluded that the Assad regime was responsible for the
traces of sarin. In the world of real news, only such a finding – that Assad was responsible – should
have made the OPCW report interesting again to the media.
Similarly, by going public with their threats against Assad, the Pentagon and White House did
not increase the deterrence on Assad, making it less likely he would use gas in the future. That
could have been achieved much more effectively with private warnings to the Russians, who have massive
leverage over Assad. These new warnings were meant not for Assad but for western publics, to bolster
the official narrative that Hersh's investigation had thrown into doubt.
In fact, the US threats increase, rather than reduce, the chances of a new chemical weapons
attack. Other, anti-Assad actors now have a strong incentive to use chemical weapons in false-flag
operation to implicate Assad, knowing that the US has committed itself to intervention. On any reading,
the US statements were reckless – or malicious – in the extreme and likely to bring about the exact
opposite of what they were supposed to achieve.
But beyond this, there was something even more troubling about these two stories. That these official
claims were published so unthinkingly in major outlets is bad enough. But what is unconscionable
is the media's continuing blackout of Hersh's investigation when it speaks directly to the two latest
news reports.
No serious journalist could write up either story, according to any accepted norms of journalistic
practice, and not make reference to Hersh's claims. They are absolutely relevant to these stories.
In fact, more than that, the intelligence sources he cites are are not only relevant but are the
reason these two stories have been suddenly propelled to the top of the news agenda.
Any publication that has covered either the White House-Pentagon threats or the rehashing of the
OPCW report and has not mentioned Hersh's revelations is writing nothing less than propaganda in
service of a western foreign policy agenda trying to bring about the illegal overthrow the Syrian
government. And so far that appears to include every single US and UK mainstream newspaper and TV
station.
Join the
debate on Facebook More articles by:
Jonathan Cook
"... "The recent brutal stabbing of a left-wing anti-war activist named Stas Serhiyenko illustrates the threat posed by these extremists. Serhiyenko and his fellow activists believe the perpetrators belonged to the neo-Nazi group C14 (whose name comes from a 14-word phrase used by white supremacists). The attack took place on the anniversary of Hitler's birthday, and C14's leader published a statement that celebrated Serhiyenko's stabbing immediately afterward. ..."
"... The attack on Serhiyenko is just the tip of the iceberg. More recently C14 beat up a socialist politician while other ultranationalist thugs stormed the Lviv and Kiev City Councils. Far-right and neo-Nazi groups have also assaulted or disrupted art exhibitions, anti-fascist demonstrations, a "Ukrainians Choose Peace" event, LGBT events, a social center, media organizations, court proceedings and a Victory Day march celebrating the anniversary of the end of World War II. According to a study from activist organization Institute Respublica, the problem is not only the frequency of far-right violence, but the fact that perpetrators enjoy widespread impunity. It's not hard to understand why Kiev seems reluctant to confront these violent groups. For one thing, far-right paramilitary groups played an important role early in the war against Russian-supported separatists. Kiev also fears these violent groups could turn on the government itself - something they've done before and continue to threaten to do. ..."
"... To be clear, Russian propaganda about Ukraine being overrun by Nazis or fascists is false. Far-right parties such as Svoboda or Right Sector draw little support from Ukrainians." ..."
"... "Indeed, the brazen willingness of Vita Zaverukha – a renowned neo-Nazi out on bail and under house arrest after killing two police officers - to post pictures of herself after storming a popular Kiev restaurant with 50 other nationalists demonstrates the far right's confidence in their immunity from government prosecution. ..."
"... [ ] [T]he government must also break any connections between law enforcement agencies and far-right organizations. The clearest example of this problem lies in the Ministry of Internal Affairs, which is headed by Arsen Avakov. Avakov has a long-standing relationship with the Azov Battalion, a paramilitary group that uses the SS symbol as its insignia and which, with several others, was integrated into the army or National Guard at the beginning of the war in the East. Critics have accused Avakov of using members of the group to threaten an opposition media outlet. As at least one commentator has pointed out, using the National Guard to combat ultranationalist violence is likely to prove difficult if far-right groups have become part of the Guard itself. Avakov's Deputy Minister Vadym Troyan was a member of the neo-Nazi Patriot of Ukraine (PU) paramilitary organization, while current Ministry of Interior official Ilya Kiva – a former member of the far-right Right Sector party whose Instagram feed is populated with images of former Italian fascist leader Benito Mussolini – has called for gays "to be put to death." And Avakov himself used the PU to promote his business and political interests while serving as a governor in eastern Ukraine, and as interior minister formed and armed the extremist Azov battalion led by Andriy Biletsky, a man nicknamed the "White Chief" who called for a crusade against "Semite-led sub-humanity." [ ] ..."
"... In one notorious incident, media captured images of swastika-tattooed thugs - who police claimed were only job applicants wanting to have "fun" - giving the Nazi salute in a police building in Kiev. This cannot be allowed to go on, and it's just as important for Ukrainian democracy to cleanse extremists from law enforcement as it is to remove corrupt officials from former president Viktor Yanukovych's regime under Ukraine's "lustration" policy." ..."
Into the breach – once more! Or – once again about honest, balanced and tolerant Western Media
™, SUDDENLY finding out that there are roving bands of neo-nazis in the Ukraine. Why this particular
article is important? First of all – because it's WaPo – a fearless crusader and enabler of leakers
in anything Trump+Russia related. To doubt WaPo for a certain category of the people is sacrilege.
Second – because of WHO wrote this article, namely Joshua Cohen, former (?) USAID chief honcho
in realization of the "economic reforms" on the territory of the former USSR – a thoroughly handshakable
person, judging by his last name.
Thirdly – the amount of evidence provided in one article combined with proof links to serve
as the future reference material. Links are to very-very kosher and Ukrainian sources – so you
can't accuse them in good faith of being Kremlenite propaganda.
Blah-blah-blah – evil Russia, blah-blah, and then:
"The recent brutal stabbing of a left-wing anti-war activist named Stas Serhiyenko illustrates
the threat posed by these extremists. Serhiyenko and his fellow activists believe the perpetrators
belonged to the neo-Nazi group C14 (whose name comes from a 14-word phrase used by white supremacists).
The attack took place on the anniversary of Hitler's birthday, and C14's leader published a
statement
that celebrated Serhiyenko's stabbing immediately afterward.
The attack on Serhiyenko is just the tip of the iceberg. More recently C14
beat up a socialist politician while other ultranationalist thugs stormed the
Lviv and Kiev City Councils. Far-right and neo-Nazi groups have also assaulted or disrupted
art exhibitions, anti-fascist demonstrations, a "Ukrainians Choose Peace" event, LGBT events,
a social center, media organizations,
court proceedings and a Victory Day march celebrating the anniversary of the end of World
War II.
According to a study from activist organization Institute Respublica, the problem is not only
the frequency of far-right violence, but the fact that perpetrators enjoy widespread impunity.
It's not hard to understand why Kiev seems reluctant to confront these violent groups. For one
thing, far-right paramilitary groups played an important role early in the war against Russian-supported
separatists. Kiev also fears these violent groups could turn on the government itself - something
they've
done before and continue to threaten to do.
To be clear, Russian propaganda about Ukraine being overrun by Nazis or fascists is false.
Far-right parties such as Svoboda or Right Sector draw little support from Ukrainians."
Full stop here. First of all – "Russian propaganda" (and the Western propaganda understands
by that all Russian press, except a few "brave ones" that suck foreign grants tit of theirs) claims
no such a thing. Second – it is Poroshenko and his government who renames streets after Bandera
and Shukhevitch. Third – in the second half of the article Mr. Cohen basically proves, that said
roving bands all BUT overrun the Ukraine, while the alleged lack of support does not translate
in the active resistance to them – which is what's enough for them to reign supreme:
"Indeed, the brazen willingness of Vita Zaverukha – a renowned neo-Nazi out on bail and
under house arrest after killing two police officers -
to post pictures of herself after storming a popular Kiev restaurant with 50 other nationalists
demonstrates the far right's confidence in their immunity from government prosecution.
[ ]
[T]he government must also break any connections between law enforcement agencies and far-right
organizations. The clearest example of this problem lies in the Ministry of Internal Affairs,
which is headed by Arsen Avakov. Avakov has a long-standing relationship with the Azov Battalion,
a paramilitary group that uses the SS symbol as its insignia and which, with several others, was
integrated into the army or National Guard at the beginning of the war in the East. Critics have
accused Avakov of using members of the group to threaten an opposition media outlet. As at least
one commentator has pointed out, using the National Guard to combat ultranationalist violence
is likely to prove difficult if far-right groups have become part of the Guard itself.
Avakov's Deputy Minister Vadym Troyan was a member of the neo-Nazi Patriot of Ukraine (PU)
paramilitary organization, while current Ministry of Interior official Ilya Kiva – a former member
of the far-right Right Sector party whose Instagram feed is populated with images of former Italian
fascist leader Benito Mussolini – has called for gays "to be put to death." And Avakov himself
used the PU to promote his business and political interests while serving as a governor in eastern
Ukraine, and as interior minister
formed and armed the extremist Azov battalion led by Andriy Biletsky, a man nicknamed the
"White Chief" who called for a crusade against "Semite-led sub-humanity."
[ ]
In one notorious incident, media captured images of swastika-tattooed thugs - who police
claimed were only job applicants wanting to have "fun" - giving the Nazi salute in a police building
in Kiev. This cannot be allowed to go on, and it's just as important for Ukrainian democracy to
cleanse extremists from law enforcement as it is to remove corrupt officials from former president
Viktor Yanukovych's regime under Ukraine's "lustration" policy."
"To be clear, Russian propaganda about Ukraine being overrun by Nazis or fascists is false.
Far-right parties such as Svoboda or Right Sector draw little support from Ukrainians ."
True (about the level of support), but irrelevant, Mr. Cohen!
It doesn't matter if these fascists enjoy an approval rating of 5% or .005%
You yourself said that these perps enjoy "widespread impunity" --
They can do whatever they want, kill anybody they please, and never get punished --
That's the literal meaning of the word "impunity".
Yarosh is an MP, Parubiy would, if the same set of events occured as in February 2014, become
President, as Turchynov did. Nazi's/far right are in the SBU, Police, parts of their academia,
military
Its an intentionally idiotic statement by Cohen because Ukrainian political parties can come
and go at the drop of the hat. All this just means that the 2 million Nazi voters in 2012 election
have chosen these newly created parties because a new line of what is " mainstream" has been
drawn in Ukraine.
That's why I found it more than a little odd what is happening in France now .a new party
under Macron has been created and occupies that vast majority of seats .this is the type of thing
you would see in a banana republic.
Cohen is no idiot, I think he is just covering his ass and preparing his exit strategy.
In the hopes of keeping his press card after Ukraine goes totally South.
Cohen always knew these guys were Nazis, now he has to pretend to his reading public that he wasn't
quite aware. He was duped!
Or maybe the turning point, which got his Jewish blood boiling was Biletsky calling his ethnic
group a "Semite-led sub-humanity."
Cohen: "Oh, I never realized these people could be so hateful!" – LOL!
They always use that to pooh-pooh the suggestion that Nazism is influential in Ukraine
– but look! They only get tiny levels of support in elections! That matters little when people
are appointed to political positions rather than voted into them. There are so many things – the
dissolving of opposition political parties, the uberpatriotic signage everywhere exhorting citizens
to report their neighbours if they suspect separatist sympathies, the hit list (Mirotvorets) of
those who failed to shout the government line when prompted until told to stop – that simply scream
"FASCISM!!!" But it is inconvenient for the west to see those things, because it could not acknowledge
seeing them and continue to support the country and government which did them. The USA is an old
hand at unseeing things which don't fit the narrative. Unfortunately, it has evolved into a nation
which is good at unseeing obstacles as well; obstacles which are present and prevent it from achieving
its goals. These are expected to disappear before the eraser called 'exceptionalism'.
The canard about levels of public support for Nazism in Ukraine is used to suggest that if
Russia is spouting propaganda about this, then everything it says is propaganda.
Reply
"... The particular system of beliefs and practices defining the roles and powers of managers in our present context is what is referred to as managerialism. This is defined by two basic tenets: (i) that all social organisations must conform to a single structure; and (ii) that the sole regulatory principle is the market. Both ideas have far-reaching implications. The claim that every organisation - whether it is a mining company, a hospital, a school, a professional association or a charity - must be structured according to a single model, conforming to a single set of legislative requirements, not so long ago would have seemed bizarre, but is now largely taken for granted. The principle of the market has become the solitary, or dominant, criterion for decision making, and other criteria, such as loyalty, trust, care and a commitment to critical reflection, have become displaced and devalued. Indeed, the latter are viewed as quaint anachronisms with less importance and meaning than formal procedures or standards that can be readily linked to key performance indicators, budget end points, efficiency markers and externally imposed targets. ..."
"... Originally conceived as a strategy to manage large and increasingly complex organisations, in the contemporary world, no aspect of social life is now considered to be exempt from managerialist principles and practices. Policies and practices have become highly standardised, emphasising market-style incentives, devolved budgets and outsourcing, replacement of centralised budgeting with departmentalised user-pays systems, casualisation of labour, and an increasingly hierarchical approach to every aspect of institutional and social organisation. ..."
"... The managerial class is the universal class Hegel wrote about. It is the enemy of the productive classes, the agricultural and the industrial. Perhaps managers are like the eunuchs in former empires, grabbing power without production, always zealous that no idea will threaten their standing. ..."
"... Pick any empire on the verge of collapse in history and you'll find terrifying parallels to America today. I think all failing empires/societies must follow roughly similar trajectories on their way to oblivion. ..."
"... The creation of "professional managers" was not simply shaped by market fundamentalism but also by the progressive movement itself. Robert H. Wiebe's book "The Search for Order: 1877-1920, does a remarkable job of detailing this process. ..."
"... The trajectory runs from local autonomy once being the heart of American democracy, to the incremental erosion of the autonomy of community, to the supposedly necessary regulatory, managerial needs of urban-industrial life. and finally to the creation of flexible administrative devices that tended to encourage the creation of professional managers(in both the public and private sectors) and the increasing centralization of authority. ..."
Posted on
October 29, 2015 by
Lambert Strether
Lambert here: As we dig deeper into the health care system, concepts like those expressed in
this article will become increasingly useful. The patterns identified by Poses here remind me of
the university, which is also being eaten alive by a bloated and parasitical administrative layer.
By
Roy
Poses , MD, Clinical Associate Professor of Medicine at Brown University, and the President of
FIRM – the Foundation for Integrity and Responsibility in Medicine. Cross posted from the
Health Care Renewal website
I just found an important article that in the June, 2015 issue of the Medical Journal of Australia(1)
that sums up many of ways the leadership of medical (and most other organizations) have gone wrong.
It provides a clear, organized summary of "managerialism" in health care, which roughly rolls up
what we have called
generic management
, the
manager's
coup d'etat , and aspects of
mission-hostile management into a very troubling but coherent package. I will summarize the main
points, giving relevant quotes.
Recent Developments in Business Management Dogma Have Gravely Affected Health Care
Many health practitioners will consider the theory of business management to be of obscure
relevance to clinical practice. They might therefore be surprised to learn that the changes that
have occurred in this discipline over recent years have driven a fundamental revolution that has
already transformed their daily lives, arguably in perverse and harmful ways.
these changes have by and large been introduced insidiously, with little public debate, under
the guise of unquestioned 'best practice'.
See our previous discussions of the
anechoic effect
, how discussion of facts and ideas that threaten what we can now call the managerialist power
structure of health care are not considered appropriate for polite conversation, or public discussion.
Businesses are Now Run by Professional Managers, Not Owners
The traditional control by business owners in Europe and North America gave way during the
19th century to corporate control of companies. This led to the emergence of a new group of professionals
whose job it was to perform the administrative tasks of production. Consequently, management became
identified as both a skill and a profession in its own right, requiring specific training and
based on numerous emergent theories of practice.
Among these many vicissitudes, a decisive new departure occurred with the advent of what became
known as neoliberalism
in the 1980s (sometimes called Thatcherism because of its enthusiastic adoption by the Conservative
government of Margaret Thatcher in the United Kingdom). A reaction against Keynesian economic
policy and the welfare state, this harshly reinstated the regulatory role of the market in all
aspects of economic activity and led directly to the generalisation of the standards and practices
of management from the private to the public sectors. The radical cost cutting and privatisation
of social services that followed the adoption of neoliberal principles became a public policy
strategy rigorously embraced by governments around the world, including successive Liberal and
Labor governments in Australia.
Note that this is a global problem, at least of English speaking developed countries. The article
focuses on Australia, but we have certainly seen parallels in the US and the UK. Further, note that
we have discussed this concept, also termed market fundamentalism or economism.
Managerialism Provides a One-Size Fits All Approach to the Management of All Organizations,
in Which Money Becomes the Central Consideration
The particular system of beliefs and practices defining the roles and powers of managers in
our present context is what is referred to as managerialism. This is defined by two basic tenets:
(i) that all social organisations must conform to a single structure; and (ii) that the sole regulatory
principle is the market. Both ideas have far-reaching implications. The claim that every organisation
- whether it is a mining company, a hospital, a school, a professional association or a charity
- must be structured according to a single model, conforming to a single set of legislative requirements,
not so long ago would have seemed bizarre, but is now largely taken for granted. The principle
of the market has become the solitary, or dominant, criterion for decision making, and other criteria,
such as loyalty, trust, care and a commitment to critical reflection, have become displaced and
devalued. Indeed, the latter are viewed as quaint anachronisms with less importance and meaning
than formal procedures or standards that can be readily linked to key performance indicators,
budget end points, efficiency markers and externally imposed targets.
Originally conceived as a strategy to manage large and increasingly complex organisations,
in the contemporary world, no aspect of social life is now considered to be exempt from managerialist
principles and practices. Policies and practices have become highly standardised, emphasising
market-style incentives, devolved budgets and outsourcing, replacement of centralised budgeting
with departmentalised user-pays systems, casualisation of labour, and an increasingly hierarchical
approach to every aspect of institutional and social organisation.
We have frequently discussed how professional
generic managers
have taken over health care (sometimes referred to as the
manager's
coup d'etat .) We have noted that
generic managers
often seem ill-informed about if not overtly
hostile to the values of health care professionals and the missions of health care organizations.
Very Adverse Effects Result in Health Care and Academics
In the workplace, the authority of management is intensified, and behaviour that previously
might have been regarded as bullying becomes accepted good practice. The autonomous discretion
of the professional is undermined, and cuts in staff and increases in caseload occur without democratic
consultation of staff. Loyal long-term staff are dismissed and often humiliated, and rigorous
monitoring of the performance of the remaining employees focuses on narrowly defined criteria
relating to attainment of financial targets, efficiency and effectiveness.
The principles of managerialist theory have been applied equally to the public and the private
sectors. In the health sector, it has precipitated a shift in power from clinicians to managers
and a change in emphasis from a commitment to patient care to a primary concern with budgetary
efficiency. Increasingly, public hospital funding is tied to reductions in bed stays and other
formal criteria, and all decision making is subject to review relating to time and money. Older
and chronically ill people become seen not as subjects of compassion, care and respect but as
potential financial burdens. This does not mean that the system is not still staffed by skilled
clinicians committed to caring for the sick and needy; it is rather that it has become increasingly
harder for these professionals to do their jobs as they would like.
In the university sector, the story is much the same; all activities are assessed in relation
to the prosperity of the institution as a business enterprise rather than as a social one. Education
is seen as a commodity like any other, with priority given to vocational skills rather than intellectual
values. Teaching and research become subordinated to administration, top-down management and obsessively
applied management procedures. Researchers are required to generate external funding to support
their salaries, to focus on short-term problems, with the principal purpose being to enhance the
university's research ranking. The focus shifts from knowledge to grant income, from ideas to
publications, from speculation to conformity, from collegiality to property, and from academic
freedom to control. Rigid hierarchies are created from heads of school to deans of faculties and
so on. Academic staff - once encouraged to engage in public life - are forbidden to speak publicly
without permission from their managers.
The article provided a case study of the apparent demise of the Royal Australasian College of
Physicians as a physician led organization, leading to alleged emphasis on "extreme secrecy and 'commercial
in confidence," growth of conflicts of interest, risk aversion on controversial issues. When members
of the organization called for a vote to increase transparency and accountability, the hired management
apparently sued their own members.
Authors' Summary
Whether the damage done to the larger institutions - the public hospitals and the universities
- can be reversed, or even stemmed, is a bigger question still. The most that can be said is that
even if the present, damaging phase of managerial theory and practice eventually passes, its destructive
effects will linger on for many years to come.
My Summary
I now believe that the most important cause of US health care dysfunction, and likely of global
health care dysfunction, are the problems in leadership and governance we have often summarized (leadership
that is ill-informed, ignorant or
hostile to the health care mission and professional values, incompetent, self-interested, conflicted
or outright criminal
or
corrupt
, and governance that lacks accountability, transparency, honesty, and ethics.) In turn, it appears
that these problems have been generated by the twin plagues of managerialism (
generic management
, the
manager's
coup d'etat ) and
neoliberalism
(market fundamentalism, economism) as applied to health care. It may be the many of the larger
problems in US and global society also can be traced back to these sources.
We now see our problems in health care as part of a much larger whole, which partly explains why
efforts to address specific health care problems country by country have been near futile. We are
up against something much larger than what we thought when we started
Health Care Renewal in 2005. But at
least we should now be able join our efforts to those in other countries and in other sectors.
Reference
1. Komesaroff PA, Kerridge IH, Isaacs D, Brooks PM. The scourge of managerialism and the Royal
Australasian College of Physicians. Med J Aust 2015; 202: 519- 521. Link
here .
We have to leaven this dismal post with the 1980 live version of "Down Under" by Men at Work
The managerial class is the universal class Hegel wrote about. It is the enemy of the productive
classes, the agricultural and the industrial.
Perhaps managers are like the eunuchs in former empires, grabbing power without production, always
zealous that no idea will threaten their standing.
It is unfair to eunuchs to compare them to managers. The man who led the great Ming dynasty
naval journeys to SE Asia and Africa was a eunuch. The man credited with the invention of paper
was a eunuch attached to the Han Dynasty court.
Narses, one of the emperor Justinian's great generals,
was a eunuch.
He began his military career at the age of sixty and continued until he was murdered
by the then-emperor at the age of ninety-five.
(This post is the result of very quick checking
and memories of Robert Graves' wonderful book Count Belisarius. But I am mostly right.)
This comment completely misses the point of JLGC's excellent comment, and I refer you to the
opening chapters of the Romance of the Three Kingdoms for remedial reading. Its become striking,
at least to me, how much the developed western world is imitating the declines of the Chinese
dynasties.
Pick any empire on the verge of collapse in history and you'll find terrifying parallels to
America today. I think all failing empires/societies must follow roughly similar trajectories
on their way to oblivion.
Back in 1975 at my local technical college, I was fortunate enough to snag a part-time COBOL
programming job at the school. My colleagues and I noticed that several managers above the department
level had little to do but sit around in their offices. Periodically they would emerge to engage
some unlucky soul in dumb conversation. One of my co-workers summed it up admirably: "The more
they make, the less they do."
A couple years later while reading the Sunday paper job ads, I ran across this job title: Manager
of Management Development. A sign of very bad things to come.
I have to wonder if it's a coincidence that both healthcare and education are given as especially
notable victims of inappropriate/ineffective management
Because both healthcare and education are things that can best and primarily be done by and
for oneself. And there is overlap here: organic chemistry is a special case of molecular physics.
Regardless of how well instructors present it, there is a wealth of well understood information
on molecular physics (with a lot of special examination of organic chemistry), and so far the
bulk of that information remains easily available (although it's starting to disappear at an increasing
and alarming rate). I know that many will say, "there's a lot more to it than that!", but this
only indicates that they themselves have made no sustained effort to understand these matters.
It's not rocket science (which is, indeed, quite demanding).
I think the authors may somewhat overlook collateral (and undoubtedly mutually synergistic
with managerial phenomena) issues in the quality of teachers and doctors, which has also degraded
in a similar way, possibly for similar reasons. Rote learning increasingly replaces comprehension
in both fields. Inundated with unproven, and often unsound, commercial and theoretical dogma,
rudimentary performance is still possible, but results are mediocre. Excellence in these fields
requires patience, precision and and familiarity with underlying principles; "caring", bonhomie
and rote knowledge are admirable, but not viable substitutes.
Does it even make sense to pay to undertake courses in order to get a certificate of achievement?
From a commercial career perspective, certainly. But such a certificate is no sure guarantee of
skill. "Qualified" personnel are not necessarily capable. In a time of ever increasingly complex
systems and disciplines, capability is more needed than ever. The management sector is not the
only area where performance, and fulfillment of actual (in contrast to nominal) responsibility,
degrades.
For that matter, does it even make sense to have somebody undertake to diagnose your own health,
without detailed information about your diet, your regular environment, your physical history,
and any exceptions to these; information for which you yourself should be the best source? The
consulting physician enters at an immediate disadvantage, facing a significant information deficit;
it behooves individuals to become more proactive, especially when rudimentary diagnostic equipment
(sphygmomanometers, simple blood test kits, etc) and reference information (anatomical references,
drug chemistries and interactions, etc) are readily available. True, there are some thing's you
can't do yourself, surgery is surely a valuable skill and worthy of respect, but it has significant
limits as well (replacing a bad heart in an unhealthy body won't cure the body, etc).
Managerialism is a scourge, a calamity, a great threat; no argument from me. But it's not the
only problem we face, as a culture, and as an economy, of human beings, in these fields and others.
And the authors acknowledge this tangentially, but perhaps somewhat over-emphasize the impact
if managerialism on the ongoing degradation of these and other fields, at least by omission of
other evident and significant factors.
'Does it even make sense to pay to undertake courses in order to get a certificate of achievement?
From a commercial career perspective, certainly. But such a certificate is no sure guarantee of
skill. "Qualified" personnel are not necessarily capable'
I think in time there will be a move away from official credentialing toward companies and
organisations testing candidates – 'qualified' or not – themselves, with a professional or a dept
(depending on the size of the concern) whose job it is to sort the wheat from the chaff. They
would be in constant liaison with the various sections (and not just the heads) to keep abreast
of what skills and knowledge are required in appointees, and test candidates accordingly. The
net enables enterprising people too poor to afford expensive laurels to become as skilled and
knowledgeable and probably more flexible than those born with 'advantages'. The twin drivers of
this change will be, for the employers, the degradation of quality in 'qualified' applicants that
you refer to, and, for the employees, the debt peonage involved in becoming 'qualified'
'For that matter, does it even make sense to have somebody undertake to diagnose your own health,
without detailed information about your diet, your regular environment, your physical history,
and any exceptions to these; information for which you yourself should be the best source?'
Not to mention your genetic heritage yes, human variation is the big blind spot not just in
medicine but health generally. Almost nothing can be generalised, yet whole industries in health
and wellbeing rely on generalisation.
'The claim that every organisation - whether it is a mining company, a hospital, a school,
a professional association or a charity - must be structured according to a single model, conforming
to a single set of legislative requirements, not so long ago would have seemed bizarre, but is
now largely taken for granted. The principle of the market has become the solitary, or dominant,
criterion for decision making, and other criteria, such as loyalty, trust, care and a commitment
to critical reflection, have become displaced and devalued'
'And, so, finally the floodgates were open. Nowadays, every expected income stream is a fair
candidate for capitalization. And since income streams are generated by social entities, processes,
organizations and institutions, we end up with the 'capitalization of every thing'. Capitalists
routinely discount human life, including its genetic code and social habits; they discount organized
institutions from education and entertainment to religion and the law; they discount voluntary
social networks; they discount urban violence, civil war and international conflict; they even
discount the environmental future of humanity. Nothing seems to escape the piercing eye of capitalization:
if it generates earning expectations it must have a price, and the algorithm that gives future
earnings a price is capitalization'
Does anybody have an idea of what changed in 1990 to lead to such a sudden jump in the management
overhead of health organizations? It must have been something crucial in the legal or economic
environment of the sector.
Start here:
https://kenhoma.wordpress.com/2014/04/30/how-many-mba-degrees-are-awarded-each-year/
It takes time to achieve a critical mass of MBA-wielding managers in order for group-think to
establish itself.
I'm not going to exhaust myself fact-checking this data, so if anyone finds better please correct
me and post it. Based on my own experience in a STEM field, this looks about right.
Sadistic Managerial 'teams' have existed too long in too many areas. my mother recently received
a notice on the door of her apartment, she's occupied for 5yrs. this letter was short and to the
point 'if you do not pay .23 (cents) before the end of the business day, you will vacate your
apartment'. mom, 81yro, called me in hysterics. i got to her apt. and immediately had to attend
to her racing heart and hyperventilating. i read the letter slowly and see where mom missed the
"you will voluntarily vacate your apartment".
after a few deep breaths, i hiked down to the den of smiling sadist offering coffee and cake.
they introduced themselves as the 'new management', when i asked how many of the group of 5 it
took to pull the 3yro .23 Cent delinquency i was assured by the head honcho, she was involved
with the entire process. i explained my CPA sister and myself, Corporate Analyst (stretch), were
off a few zero's and hadn't even bothered to account for the home office reconciliations.
back to 'healthcare/hospitals': "-owned hospitals. How many are there? Two hundred and thirty-eight
of them in the whole country (out of more than five thousand)–somewhere between four and five
percent of the total in the U.S. (numbers courtesy TA Henry from this excellent piece).
What are the issues?
Obamacare effectively bans doctors from owning hospitals in the U.S.
Those already in existence are grandfathered in under the law.
We know that doctor-owned hospitals have higher average costs–hence the rationale for banning
them under a law with the intent of "bending the cost curve."
In the most recent Medicare data (December 2012 report on "value-based purchasing"), doctor-owned
hospitals did well in terms of achieving quality milestones.
How well?
Really well. Physician-owned hospitals took nine out of the top ten spots in the country. And
in spite of their low relative number, forty-eight out of the top one hundred.
What's the secret sauce? Here's a little tidbit on the #1 ranked hospital from another excellent
piece on this issue:
The top one is Treasure Valley Hospital in Boise, Idaho, a 10-bed hospital that boasts a low
patient-to-nurse ratio and extra attention, right down to thank-you notes sent to each discharged
patient.
A 10-bed hospital? Thank you notes for each discharged patient? Sign me up to go there next
time I need hospital services.
Who cares? Well, we all should. Why?
It boils down to incentives.
When doctors own the hospitals, they stand to directly share in profits. If you're a doctor-owner,
and the hospital you both run and own is functioning at a high level, you think, "This is what
America is all about. Free enterprise. Why shouldn't I make more money if my hospital runs well?"
As a taxpayer, do I want government incentives going to hospitals that are privately owned
and known for cherry-picking insured patients?
Moreover, what does it say about public hospitals, or academic centers, that often see the
sickest, poorest, most vulnerable patients? Yes, their quality is measurably lower, according
to this data. But now, in spite of staying true to their core missions (serving the public) they're
being further penalized.
Is this just another case of the rich simply getting richer?
Maybe Obamacare's got it wrong. Maybe we should build upon the model of doctor-ownership and
turn over public hospitals to their workers. All of them. Let the nurses buy in. And the food
handlers. And the "environmental services" folks (i.e. custodial crews). Let's really let the
workers own the means of production. Then we can see where incentives get us."
http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2013/05/doctor-owned-hospitals-rich-richer.html
Sister Act: Gov. Perry's Little-Known Sister is a Lobbyist for Lucrative Doctor-Owned Hospitals;
Milla Perry Jones is vice president of government relations at United Surgical Partners International,
an Addison, Texas company that runs hospitals and surgery centers co-owned by doctors. Sister
Jones works with trade groups to rebut claims that doctor-owned medical facilities inflate American
medical bills. Both Governor Perry and his sister have championed doctor-owned facilities in Texas
and Washington.
2006 federal report found that Medicare costs are 20 percent higher at doctor-owned orthopedic
surgical hospitals than at competing community hospitals. These studies typically do not determine
if the extra procedures are beneficial. The doctor-owned industry says it delivers superior care
and points to contradictory research that does not associate doctor ownership with higher costs.
doctor-owned facilities are money machines. A 2009 study found that Texas' doctor-owned hospitals
pumped $2.3 billion into the economy each year. The industry has had to use some of this money
to fend off political meddling. Heavily favoring Republicans, Perry Jones' United Surgical PAC
spent almost $250,000 on federal politicians from 2005 to 2010, according to the Center for Responsive
Politics. The New York Times reported that Doctors Hospital at Renaissance donors gave congressional
Democrats $1.3 million in that period, with then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi visiting that hospital
in 2007. Surpassing the powerful Texas Medical Association, the Doctors Hospital's Border Health
PAC spent close to $4 million on Texas state elections from 2005 through 2010, becoming Texas'
13th largest PAC. Houston's doctor-owned North Cypress Medical Center pumped another $500,000
into Texas state races, ranking as Governor Perry's No. 5 donor in 2010.
In one of his last presidential ads, Rick Perry skewered Washington as a twisted place where,
"You can't say that Congressmen becoming lobbyists is a form of political corruption." United
Surgical, North Cypress and Doctors Hospital at Renaissance have paid federal lobbyists-including
ex-Congressman Tom Loeffler-almost $3 million since 2005. Joined by two Perry Jones-affiliated
trade groups, these same doctor-owned interests paid 24 Texas lobbyists-including U.S. Senator
John Cornyn's daughter-up to $3.4 million in that period. These lobbyists do not include Milla
Perry Jones, whose advocacy activities may not trigger Texas' registration requirements. (A Texas
lobbyist generally must register if she receives more than $1,000 a quarter for direct communications
with public officials).
http://www.texasobserver.org/obamacare-jags-rick-perrys-lobbyist-sister/
can you imagine the independent sadist managing these hospitals?
It's about confiscating public budgets – and, as such, it fits into the broader pattern of
privatized jail and war. When you have for-profit war, you never get any peace; there's no money
in it. For profit medicine is about sickcare and not healthcare. There's no profit in cure or
prevention, only treatment.
Sickness creates natural captive markets for rent-seeking monopolies and cartels to exploit.
Once you've got a disease there are only so many chemical options to treat it. Corporate America
is often actively blocking cheap treatments to steer patients toward patented medicine. See my
earlier comment about Pharmacy Benefit Managers. The recent epidemics of drug shortages aren't
a coincidence; they are engineered. It's only happening with cheap, effective, often public domain
chemicals (e.g., methotrexate, 2ml vials of MgSO4). This is by design. Rent-seekers confiscate
public goods like public domain chemicals and provide inferior, expensive, patented substitutes.
Some of these are baffling if you don't understand the recent breakthroughs in biochemistry.
When you take gel helminths (worms like whipworms) out of the body you get autoimmune diseases
like m.s. and crohn's. This has been clear for about ten years but have you heard about that research
from drug company-funded "patient" groups? When you feed people antibiotics that kill their gut
flora and sell people food stripped of necessary fiber to nourish said bacteria, you get inflammation
and insulin resistance – contributing to, sometimes outright causing, Alzheimer's, diabetes, autism,
atherosclerosis, cancer and polycystic ovaries, among many diseases. What news company wants to
tell the public the food companies in creating an addictive sugar-laden product by removing fiber
is also creating disease? Big Tobacco wasn't an anomaly. It's a pattern of regular conduct across
industries.
Patients are being tortured to death in this system.
Love the read. The quaint notion that the top employees in healthcare aren't in it for the
money still lingers in some corners of our society.
One quibble with using this quote
A reaction against Keynesian economic policy and the welfare state, this harshly reinstated
the regulatory role of the market in all aspects of economic activity and led directly to the
generalisation of the standards and practices of management from the private to the public
sectors.
It does not apply very well to the American context. Healthcare in the US context is all about
the welfare state. US taxpayers give more money to both medical and non-medical managers/administrators/specialists/etc.
than any other taxpayers in any other country on the planet. Markets play no role in the monstrosities
that have become our hospital franchises, drug dealers, and equipment peddlers. These corporations
(many of them 'nonprofit') are the anti-thesis of price takers in a competitive marketplace.
Health care in the US is a mess in more than one dimension. Many aspects of managerialism are
certainly a major problem contributing to increased costs and reduced quality. But there is an
aspect of "overconsumption" of health services as well. I put it in quotes because the framing
of "overconsumption" puts the blame on patients (as if they are "consumers"), rather than where
I think the blame truly belongs - health care providers and management.
The existing system is largely setup to pay by the number of procedures (easy to measure with
electronic health records) rather than the actual quality of care (not as easy to measure). Specialized
doctors and managers have an incentive to push for unnecessary procedures and clinical visits,
because it means they get paid more.
Perhaps the strongest evidence for doctors responding to these perverse incentives is the specializations
that doctors choose. Primary care specializations like family medicine, general practice, and
pediatrics are being decimated because these specializations are largely focused with preventative
or long-term care. As a result, the pay is substantially lower than other specializations that
perform many procedures. The evidence is that there is a critical shortage of doctors in these
primary care fields, especially in rural areas of the country. Doctors flock to specializations
that offer many procedures and consequently higher pay.
Smaal example of "wallet biopsy" structuring of "health care:" You have a lab test or MRI or
tissue biopsy done, under the "provider's" order. To be "given the results," even if normal or
benign, you have to " be seen in clinic." A nurse or paraprofessional may actually "give you your
results," but that will be billed as an office visit with the doctor. Don't want to pay f9r the
wallet biopsy? Fine, the doc doesn't "give you yor results." And if you find a more compassionate,
maybe even more skilled, provider? If there's a balance due on your account with the first, S/he
effectively has a "chart lien," like a lawyer's "file lien," on your very own personal medical
records.
And maybe that's "against the law," some places, but as always, where there's ńo effective
remedy (sue the doctor or the corporation? No effective remedy), there's no right
My wife went through this with a "Chr8stoan" DO primary-care dude who discovered Mammon was
a more compelling god than YHWH, corporations and privatized his practice and got into peddling
"procedures" like in-office ablation of throat tissue to "cure apnea and snoring," and Trusting
Patient enrollment in drug trials for Bad Meds
Anyone who thinks clinicianscare all Albert Schweitzers needs to read "The House if God," learn
the real rules of practice, understand what a "GOMER" is, and hope you won't get the "buff and
turf" treatment. It's a hilarious book, but a check on the irrational exuberance that endows practitioners
of the calling art business of medicine with universal expectations of virtue
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_House_of_God
And Lambert, don't credit me with invention of that "wallet biopßy" phrase– it's a commonplace
in the business of medicine.
Why the vast majority of us humans will" never have nice things," like comity and empathy and
simple decency, 'cuz more than enough of us are "all too human."
Good read. Self-sustainability in all aspects of our lives is being usurped by un-free markets
created by rent seekers or their lackeys. There is no longer a desire for America to be the best
nation in the world because that would mean it's self-sustaining. And I'm not talking budgets.
I'm talking people running things instead of corporations. No longer does Buy American mean anything
– actually, it's been outlawed by our trade agreements. There is no drive among our leaders anymore
for America to be self-sustaining, which includes taking care of the least of us because we're
all in this together. Capitalism as practiced by corporations is dead, it just refuses to be buried.
Supported by the Fed handouts it's busy handing out crutches for the entities it's crippled –
which it then intends to kick the crutches out from under. Hilarious ehh? Universities, hospitals,
pharma, the post office you name it used to all be self-sustaining entities that people could
afford or that provided needed services at low prices and actually cared about people. Self-sustaining
to me means America having the best food, the best health care, the best education, the happiest
people and on and on – the shining city on the hill so to speak. Instead we get crapification
of everything we need and it's all for sale to the highest bidder who then crapifies everything
even more. It's a race to the bottom and the ultimate goal is a floor full of crutches and no
one left standing.
The medical association I use actually has a C-level job called "Chief Efficiency Officer".
Her latest was raising the bar for hospital referrals thus reducing insurance company costs and
increasing consumer (I have stopped saying patient) risk. The incentive is the insurance companies
are kicking back part of the extra profit. Another case of privatize profit – socialize cost since
the added cost to consumers is impossible to measure. If I can find the letter from the association
announcing (and attempting to rationalize) the change, I will email a copy to Lambert.
Worth a look: Matthew Stewart's The Management Myth . It discloses that the very foundations
of "scientific management" originating with Frederick Winslow Taylor were flawed. Taylor cooked
the results of his "scientific" experiments in getting more productivity from the workforce to
fit his theories. The first MBA - Penn's Wharton School - was founded on this con. Similar cons
were at the inception of the Harvard MBA.
The "MBA Mentality" - embodied by W, among others - says everything can be measured, and measurement
is what makes it real. Hence testing our students until their eyeballs bleed is now an endorsed
strategy to improve educational outcomes. No actual science supports this conclusion, but that
hasn't stopped the people who want to leave No Child Behind(tm).
Turns out, management is a liberal art! Who knew?!
"The particular system of beliefs and practices defining the roles and powers of managers in
our present context is what is referred to as managerialism. This is defined by two basic tenets:
(i) that all social organisations must conform to a single structure; and (ii) that the sole regulatory
principle is the market. Both ideas have far-reaching implications. The claim that every organisation
- whether it is a mining company, a hospital, a school, a professional association or a charity
- must be structured according to a single model, conforming to a single set of legislative requirements, Originally
conceived as a strategy to manage large and increasingly complex organisations, in the contemporary
world, no aspect of social life is now considered to be exempt from managerialist principles and
practices."
This is an apt description of MARKET TOTALITARIANISM.
MBAs and project managers armed with their metric-driven spreadsheets in pursuit of "best practice"
– market lebensraum – speak the same language and spearhead this offensive against the welfare
state. A managerial elite devoted to the belief that the the market will set you free functions
much like the Waffen SS did in another regime with explicit totalitarian aspirations. The need
for concentration camps is not needed in this version of totalitarianism because "no aspect of
social life is exempt from managerialist principles and practices." The institutions of civil
society have been captured by this "weltanshuung/zeitgeist" and dissent is lost in the "nacht
und nebel" of the eternal present.
Herbert Marcuse [One Dimensional Man], Eric Fromm, [Escape From Freedom] and the Frankfurt
School broached the idea of what has evolved into "market totalitarianism" shortly after the Second
World War. Dismissed largely as a Marxist rant it did not garner much traction inside or outside
of academia, especially in this country. I suspect many of you are too young to be familiar with
this body of work – no fault of yours. Nevertheless, LIBERALISM 2.0 [aka neoliberalism] did not
capture the hearts and minds of the political classes until the 1970s signified by Ronald Reagan's
election in 1980. From then on it gathered steam and by the 1990s it was apparent that "market
totalitarianism" was on the rise, if not yet ascendant.
Orwellian concepts like "doublethink/doublespeak" resonated as the language employed in political
discourse became little more than smoke and mirrors. "Reform" signified a revamping of welfare
and criminal justice. It also has come to mean little more than slash-and-burn CUTS to programs
associated with the welfare state or their outright privatization under the rubric of "choice"
. Natural gas and electric rate "choice" programs exemplify this approach. Indeed, the two biggest
prizes – Social Security and Medicare – are subject to calls for "entitlement reform" by Republicans
and Democrats alike. That both programs have been internalized in the minds of many as "entitlements"
destined for "reform" testifies to this. The federal deficit matters now and the hysteria surrounding
it will likely be a primary talking point in the 2016 elections. The question of how will we pay
for the expansion of any program barring tax increases will become the retort by those opposed
to both, MMT notwithstanding.
The Great Recession has been portrayed as an anomaly or as a normal part of the business cycle
and precipitated some rethinking. But make no mistake about it, the market totalitarian impetus
in this country continues unabated. If anything, the monotheism of the market has accelerated
in some respects as "businesspersons" – Donald Trump and Carly Fiorina – from the private sector
now vie for the presidential nomination of the Republican Party. The very idea that business acumen/experience
is now of paramount importance in running this country – as a business – testifies to the pervasiveness
of market totalitarianism. It is now deep rooted in civil society.
Even here in Akron, there are plans to rename the University of Akron: the Ohio Polytechnic
University! Fans of Firesign Theater back in the day will recall the rivalry between "more science
high" and "commie-martyrs' high school! It would be funny in most circumstances. but who's laughing
now? Many a former rubber rat plan to vote for Trump!
I have come to the conclusion that "market totalitarianism" now has to run its course in this
country. The Achilles' heel of market totalitarianism may be how and where it stifles/smothers
innovation, subjugating research and development to market criteria in which the short term trumps
the long term. To the extent that dissent/conflict is fundamental to innovation and cannot be
confined to the laboratory, then resistance is NOT futile. It remains to be seen whether that
dissent can be co-opted or reappropriated indefinitely by market totalitarianism in this country
or not, yet alone outside of its borders.
Ban collective bargaining and the collective will suffer. If a government was allowed to negotiate
for the collective against the suppliers then maybe the outcome would be different. But as we
all know, letting the government co-ordinate and negotiate for the collective will make it worse
for some individuals so ..
The needs of the many do not(?) outweigh the needs of the few. Be it for healthcare, education
or?
"The Scourge of Managerialism" raised some profoundly important issues.
But its fundamental assumption " the traditional control by business owners in Europe and North
American gave way during the 19th century to corporate control of companies. This lead to the
emergence of a new group of professional whose job it was to perform the administrative tasks
of production"–is only half correct.
The creation of "professional managers" was not simply shaped by market fundamentalism but
also by the progressive movement itself. Robert H. Wiebe's book "The Search for Order: 1877-1920,
does a remarkable job of detailing this process.
The trajectory runs from local autonomy once being the heart of American democracy, to the
incremental erosion of the autonomy of community, to the supposedly necessary regulatory, managerial
needs of urban-industrial life. and finally to the creation of flexible administrative devices
that tended to encourage the creation of professional managers(in both the public and private
sectors) and the increasing centralization of authority.
Can any renewal of democracy begin without a dismantling of professional managerial authority
in both the market and the state?
Is a breakdown of centralized bureaucratic power (both public and private) a precondition for
democratic renewal?
U.S. President Donald Trump, who during the election-campaign ferociously condemned Barack Obama's
foreign policies, while asserting nothing concrete of his own, has, as the U.S. President, committed
himself quite clearly to continuing Obama's publicly stated policy on Syria, which policy was to
place, as the first priority, the elimination of ISIS, and as the policy to follow that, the elimination
and replacement of Syria's government. I have previously indicated that on June 19th
"Russia Announces No-Fly Zone in Syria - War Against U.S. There" , and that the early indications
are that Trump has changed his Syria-policy to accommodate Russia's demands there; but, prior to
June 19th, Trump was actually following Obama's publicly stated Syria-policy.
As also will be shown here, Obama's publicly stated policy - to destroy ISIS and then to overthrow
Syria's President Bashar al-Assad - was actually less extreme than his real policy, which was to
overthrow Assad and to use the jihadist forces in Syria (especially Al Qaeda in Syria) to achieve
that objective. Trump, at least until 19 June 2017, has been adhering to Obama's publicly stated
policy. Russia's warning was for him not to adopt and continue Obama's actual policy (to overthrow
Assad).
Here is the part, of the by-now-famous 12 August 2012 Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) analysis
of the intelligence regarding Iraq and in Syria, that the press (despite its extensive reporting
about the document) has not yet reported from the Judicial Watch FOIA disclosures (which had included
that document and many others), but which part of it shows even more than the part that has been
reported from the document, Obama's having made an informed choice actually to protect Al Qaeda in
Syria, so as to bring down and replace the Syrian government - Obama's actual prioritization (contrary
to his publicly stated one) of overthrowing Assad, even above defeating the jihadists in Syria; and
this was clearly also a warning by the DIA to the Commander-in-Chief, that he can have either an
overthrow of Assad, or else a non-jihadist-controlled Syria, but not both, and that any attempt to
bring down Assad by means of using the jihadists as a proxy army against him, would ultimately fail:
D. AQI [Al Qaeda in Iraq], through spokesman of the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI) Abu Muhammed
Al Adnani, declared the Syrian regime as the spearhead of what he is naming Jibha Al Ruwafdh (forefront
of the Shiites) because of its (the Syrian regime) declaration of war on the Sunnis. Additionally,
he is calling on the Sunnis in Iraq, especially the tribes in the border regions (between Iraq and
Syria), to wage war against the Syrian regime, regarding Syria as an infidel regime for its support
to the infidel party Hezbollah, and other regimes he considers dissenters like Iran and Iraq.
E. AQI considers the Sunni issue in Iraq to be fatefully connected to the Sunni Arabs and Muslims.
page 70:
A. The [Syrian] regime will survive and have control over Syrian territory.
page 71:
B. Development of the current events into a proxy war: with support from Russia, China, and
Iran, the regime is controlling the areas of influence along coastal territories (Tartus and Latakia),
and is fiercely defending Homs, which is considered the primary transportation route in Syria. On
the other hand, opposition forces are trying to control the eastern areas (Hasaka and Der Zor), adjacent
to the western Iraqi provinces (Mosul and Anbar), in addition to neighboring Turkish borders. Western
countries, the Gulf states and Turkey are supporting these [jihadist] efforts
And here is from the part that the press did report:
"C: If the situation unravels there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared
Salafist principality in eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting
powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime."
The "supporting powers" are: western countries, the Gulf States and Turkey The DIA warns that
the creation of such an Salafist principality would have "dire consequences" for Iraq and would possibly
lead to the creation of an Islamic State and: create the ideal atmosphere for AQI to return to its
old pockets in Mosul and Ramadi.
These DIA folks really earned their salary.
The Obama administration, together with other supporter of the Syrian "opposition", knew that
AQ was a large part of that "opposition" from the very beginning. The U.S. and others wanted a Salafist
[i.e., fundamentalist Sunni] principality in east Syria to cut Syria and Lebanon off from a land
route to Iran. It was warned that such a principality would create havoc in Iraq and to the return
of AQ in Iraq (today the Islamic State) to Mosul and Ramadi.
I quoted from that part in December 2016 , which was the time when the two Presidents, Obama
and Turkey's Erdogan, began their joint effort to relocate ISIS from Mosul Iraq, into Der Zor Syria,
in order to culminate their (and the Sauds') joint plan to use ISIS so as to bring down Assad. Then,
I headlined, on 30 April 2017, that they had actually completed this task of moving Iraq's ISIS into
Syria, "How Obama & Erdogan
Moved ISIS from Iraq to Syria, to Weaken Assad" . That's why the Syrian government is now fighting
to take Der Zor back from ISIS control.
Other portions of the Judicial Watch FOIA disclosures which received little or no press-coverage
(and that little being only on far-right blogs - not mainstream 'news' sites) add still further to
the evidence that Obama was using Al Qaeda and its friends, as a proxy army of jihadists to overthrow
Syria's President Bashar al-Assad and replace him by a jihadist regime that would be loyal to America's
fundamentalist-Sunni 'allies', the Sauds who own Saudi Arabia, and the Thanis who own Qatar. (Of
course, now, the Sauds are trying to destroy the Thanis, too.)
These unpublished or little-published portions from the Judical Watch disclosures, also add to
the ample published evidence that the Obama regime was transporting (as these documents acknowledged
on page 4) "weapons from the former Libya military stockpiles located in Benghazi, Libya" which "were
shipped from the port of Benghazi, Libya to the ports of Banias and the Port of Borj Islam, Syria,"
for use by Obama's 'moderate rebels' (a.k.a.: jihadists) in Syria. Specifically:
page 4:
18 Sep 2012
2. During the immediate aftermath of, and following the uncertainty caused by, the downfall
of the ((Qaddafi)) regime in October 2011 and up until early September of 2012, weapons from the
former Libya military stockpiles located in Benghazi, Libya were shipped from the port of Benghazi,
Libya to the ports of Banias and the Port of Borj Islam, Syria. The Syrian ports were chosen due
to the small amounts of cargo traffic transiting these two ports. The ships used to transport the
weapons were medium-sized and able to hold 10 or less shipping containers of cargo.
3. The weapons shipped from Libya to Syria during late-August 2012 [i.e., the period immediately
prior to this memo] were sniper rifles, RPGs, and 125mm and 155mm howitzers missiles. The numbers
for each weapon were estimated to be: 500 sniper rifles, 100 RPG launchers with 300 total rounds,
and approximately 400 howitzers missiles.
It's now clear that Trump (at least until June 19th) has been continuing Obama's stated policy
of killing ISIS and then overthrowing Assad. But of course no one can yet know whether or not he
would be continuing it in precisely the way that Hillary Clinton made clear that she would do, which
is to announce a no-fly zone in Syria and thus grab control over some portion of the sovereign nation
of Syria. That way would result, now after 19 June 2017 (
Russia's warning to shoot down U.S. aircraft that attack Syrian government-allied forces ), either
in U.S. retreat or else shooting down Russian planes in Syria, and war between U.S. and Russia, ending
in nuclear war.
When I presented, in my December 2016 report, what I referred to above as "the part of the
12 August 2012 DIA analysis of the intelligence regarding Iraq and in Syria that the press has not
yet reported from the Judicial Watch FOIA disclosures," I didn't mention then that one news-medium
did report a part of that section, and it was a rabidly pro-Republican site, Glenn Beck and his "The
Blaze," which headlined about this matter, very appropriately,
"'It Is Damn Near Criminal': Glenn Beck Says the U.S. Is Using Islamic State as a 'Pawn'," which
point, Beck presented rather well in the video accompanying it. Unfortunately, however, closed-minded
'liberals' and 'progressives' paid no attention to this and to the other evils perpetrated by Obama
(
such as these ). Regardless of how untrustworthy Beck is, his statements about that particular
matter were actually spot-on.
Obama was using ISIS in this way, but after Russia started bombing ISIS in Syria on 30 September
2015, Obama joined in so as not to make obvious to the world that he had been protecting and even
arming ISIS until that date, and that prior to Russia's bombing ISIS, the U.S. had actually ignored
ISIS.
Now that ISIS in Syria seems to be on its last legs there, only Kurds and Al Qaeda in Syria (
and their backers especially the U.S. and Sauds ) remain as big threats to Syria's sovereignty,
and the evidence at least till June 19th, has been that Trump definitely backs the Kurds there, and
might also be backing Al Qaeda there as well. If he continues backing the Kurds and Al Qaeda there,
after Russia's warning on June 19th (which the neoconservative Washington Post called only
"bluffing" and the neoconservative CNBC called
"bluster" ), then the U.S. will be at war not only against Russia, but also against Turkey, and
also against Iran, and it would be World War III because it would be U.S.-v.-Russia. Turkey is already
at war against the Kurds; and, if America is fighting for the Kurds, to break up Syria, then Turkey
- a member of the NATO anti-Russia alliance - will paralyze NATO; and the U.S. will then be waging
its war without NATO's support.
Trump would need to be very stupid to do such a thing. It would be an intelligence test which,
if Trump fails, the world will end, in nuclear winter - with or without support from the rest of
NATO. But, nonetheless, some in the American 'elite' and its employees, say that it would merely
be a recognition of Russia's "bluffing" and "bluster." One wonders what objective this 'elite' believes
to be worthy of taking the risk that they're wrong. What do they actually hope to 'win', fighting
on the side of the Sauds (and their Israeli agents), in order to conquer Syria? Why are they so desperate,
to do that?
Moon of Alabama
commented yesterday on the US and its allies defeat (so far) in S.E. Syria. At an MSM ignored
DoD press conference the US military admitted as much. From MoA's article:
Q: [ ] [W]hat potential threat do you believe these Iranian backed militias and regime forces
continue to pose to your forces and your partner forces in the At Tanf - Abu Kamal area?
COL. DILLON: Well if the Syrian regime - and it looks like they are making a concerted effort
to move into ISIS held areas. And if they show that they can do that, that is not a bad sign.
We are here to fight ISIS as a coalition, but if others want to fight ISIS and defeat them,
then we absolutely have no problem with that. And as they move eastward toward Abu Kamal and
to Deir Ezzour, if we - as long as we can de-conflict and make sure that we can focus on what
it is we're there to do, without having any kind of strategic mishaps with the regime or with
pro-regime forces or with Russians, then that is - we're perfectly happy with that.
In a later part the spokesperson also concedes that the forces in al-Tanf are now very constricted
in their movement:
if the regime is - has moved into an area that is towards Abu Kamal, then we are going
to be limited to how far out we do patrols [from al-Tanf] with our partner forces.
Somewhat later the point is made again and even clearer – al-Tanf is now useless and the
Syrian army is free to do what it does:
COL. DILLON: So what I was saying about that is that, out of the At Tanf area, we have used
that to train our partner forces and to continue to - to fight ISIS, you know, if they are
in and around that area.
You know, now that the regime has moved in, and they have made some significant, you know,
progress, as it looks, towards moving to Abu Kamal and perhaps Deir Ezzour, if they want to
fight ISIS in Abu Kamal and they have the capacity to do so, then, you know, that - that would
be welcome.
We as a coalition are not in the land-grab business. We're in the killing ISIS business,
and that is what we want to do. And if - if the Syrian regime wants to do that, and they are
going to, again, put forth a concerted effort and show that they are - are doing just that
in Abu Kamal or Deir Ezzour or elsewhere, that means that we don't have to do that in those
locations.
So I guess that - what I'm saying is, in the At Tanf area, we will continue to train our
partner forces. We will continue to do patrols in and around At Tanf in the Hamad desert. But
if our access to Abu Kamal is shut off because the regime is there, that's okay.
Hmm the US military standing down? I haven't looked at the entire transcript yet but this seems
almost too good to be true. Of course these press conference proclamations need to be washed down
with a generous helping of delicious salt. Even if the statements are sincere, the interventionists,
their media "partners" and think tank propagandists will keep on pushing for "regime change" (a
coup by any other name ) and the destruction of Syria.
On the bright side US/NATO uncontested domination of the globe was stopped in its tracks by
the Russian military in Syria on 30.09.2015 and there is simply no way Washington can bribe, threaten
or beat every nation in the world into submission.
This is a culture at the end of its tether: it simply cannot put up with dissent or contradiction,
so brittle is it. It is all part of a refusal to face ugly reality, symptomatic of which is the
relegation-to Die Welt's Sunday edition- of Seymour Hersh's latest investigation of US state mendacity
its irresponsibility in the matter if the recent "Sarin" attack blamed on Assad.
Ray McGovern has a piece at Counterpunch today in which he reveals that "Even the London Review
of Books, which published Hersh's earlier debunking of the Aug. 21, 2013 sarin-gas incident, wouldn't
go out onto the limb this time despite having paid for his investigation.
bevin,
The facts Seymour Hersh's article lays out pushes one in the direction that Trump – totally ignoring
his intelligence and military experts telling him their was no certainty Assad was responsible
– had knowledge the event was a false flag. Trump couldn't be so stupid as to not understand what
his experts were telling him. After launching the 50 Tomahawk missiles, he lied through his teeth
to the world, saying "we know we have the evidence..", then UN Ambassador Nikki Haley (like Colin
Powell, before the illegal Iraq War) blasted Assad falsely, held up pictures at the Security Council
of dead children which were quickly plastered on the front pages of newspapers globally,, and
literally warned Syria's Bashar al-Jaafari of impending war.
Hersh's article shows Trump, Haley and the U.S. administration, UK/France and other United
Nations representatives were lying about "we have the evidence", and owe their citizens and the
world an explanation, plus an apology. These psychopath liars are extremely dangerous and must
become held to account for their deceptions.
If the US were to persist in this dangerous dance with the devil, I could imaging NATO being split
by Turkey, refusing to get involved any further and even separately protecting Europe from Russian
retaliation by entering into a defense treaty with Russia. The US then would be shouldering the
whole foolish confrontation by itself and perhaps having to deal with China and North Korea at
the same time. Now that would be an interesting scenario.
I think the worthy Historian, Eric Zuesse has not considered the possibility that a new midlle
East regional grouping, offers the best chance of allowing the USA to gracefully avoid the ultimate
failure of its Middle East policy by conceding to the combined alliance, of the major traditional
Nations and their forces of the Middle East; being Egypt, Iran and Turkey.
Currently divided by a false religious and secular division, posed by primarily Great Britain
and the USA, it was the British who over 100 years ago financed and invented the Sunni Wahhabi
division which sunni division represents the most murderous of the current Islamic terrorist outrages
financed also by the USA and Saudi Arabia throughout the region and globe.
Similarly, the Anglo-Franco financed and hosting of the Muslim Brotherhood to further frustrate
and end Turkey's leadership of the declining Otterman Empire, formally lead by Turkey.
The most important factor against a new alignment of those three aforementioned regional leaders;
is the current illegimate counter-alliance of " the lawless Hebrew State of Israel " and the Teflon-guarded
deep state, which appears to own and really run the also infamous North America State?
"... "The recent brutal stabbing of a left-wing anti-war activist named Stas Serhiyenko illustrates the threat posed by these extremists. Serhiyenko and his fellow activists believe the perpetrators belonged to the neo-Nazi group C14 (whose name comes from a 14-word phrase used by white supremacists). The attack took place on the anniversary of Hitler's birthday, and C14's leader published a statement that celebrated Serhiyenko's stabbing immediately afterward. ..."
"... The attack on Serhiyenko is just the tip of the iceberg. More recently C14 beat up a socialist politician while other ultranationalist thugs stormed the Lviv and Kiev City Councils. Far-right and neo-Nazi groups have also assaulted or disrupted art exhibitions, anti-fascist demonstrations, a "Ukrainians Choose Peace" event, LGBT events, a social center, media organizations, court proceedings and a Victory Day march celebrating the anniversary of the end of World War II. According to a study from activist organization Institute Respublica, the problem is not only the frequency of far-right violence, but the fact that perpetrators enjoy widespread impunity. It's not hard to understand why Kiev seems reluctant to confront these violent groups. For one thing, far-right paramilitary groups played an important role early in the war against Russian-supported separatists. Kiev also fears these violent groups could turn on the government itself - something they've done before and continue to threaten to do. ..."
"... To be clear, Russian propaganda about Ukraine being overrun by Nazis or fascists is false. Far-right parties such as Svoboda or Right Sector draw little support from Ukrainians." ..."
"... "Indeed, the brazen willingness of Vita Zaverukha – a renowned neo-Nazi out on bail and under house arrest after killing two police officers - to post pictures of herself after storming a popular Kiev restaurant with 50 other nationalists demonstrates the far right's confidence in their immunity from government prosecution. ..."
"... [ ] [T]he government must also break any connections between law enforcement agencies and far-right organizations. The clearest example of this problem lies in the Ministry of Internal Affairs, which is headed by Arsen Avakov. Avakov has a long-standing relationship with the Azov Battalion, a paramilitary group that uses the SS symbol as its insignia and which, with several others, was integrated into the army or National Guard at the beginning of the war in the East. Critics have accused Avakov of using members of the group to threaten an opposition media outlet. As at least one commentator has pointed out, using the National Guard to combat ultranationalist violence is likely to prove difficult if far-right groups have become part of the Guard itself. Avakov's Deputy Minister Vadym Troyan was a member of the neo-Nazi Patriot of Ukraine (PU) paramilitary organization, while current Ministry of Interior official Ilya Kiva – a former member of the far-right Right Sector party whose Instagram feed is populated with images of former Italian fascist leader Benito Mussolini – has called for gays "to be put to death." And Avakov himself used the PU to promote his business and political interests while serving as a governor in eastern Ukraine, and as interior minister formed and armed the extremist Azov battalion led by Andriy Biletsky, a man nicknamed the "White Chief" who called for a crusade against "Semite-led sub-humanity." [ ] ..."
"... In one notorious incident, media captured images of swastika-tattooed thugs - who police claimed were only job applicants wanting to have "fun" - giving the Nazi salute in a police building in Kiev. This cannot be allowed to go on, and it's just as important for Ukrainian democracy to cleanse extremists from law enforcement as it is to remove corrupt officials from former president Viktor Yanukovych's regime under Ukraine's "lustration" policy." ..."
Into the breach – once more! Or – once again about honest, balanced and tolerant Western Media
™, SUDDENLY finding out that there are roving bands of neo-nazis in the Ukraine. Why this particular
article is important? First of all – because it's WaPo – a fearless crusader and enabler of leakers
in anything Trump+Russia related. To doubt WaPo for a certain category of the people is sacrilege.
Second – because of WHO wrote this article, namely Joshua Cohen, former (?) USAID chief honcho
in realization of the "economic reforms" on the territory of the former USSR – a thoroughly handshakable
person, judging by his last name.
Thirdly – the amount of evidence provided in one article combined with proof links to serve
as the future reference material. Links are to very-very kosher and Ukrainian sources – so you
can't accuse them in good faith of being Kremlenite propaganda.
Blah-blah-blah – evil Russia, blah-blah, and then:
"The recent brutal stabbing of a left-wing anti-war activist named Stas Serhiyenko illustrates
the threat posed by these extremists. Serhiyenko and his fellow activists believe the perpetrators
belonged to the neo-Nazi group C14 (whose name comes from a 14-word phrase used by white supremacists).
The attack took place on the anniversary of Hitler's birthday, and C14's leader published a
statement
that celebrated Serhiyenko's stabbing immediately afterward.
The attack on Serhiyenko is just the tip of the iceberg. More recently C14
beat up a socialist politician while other ultranationalist thugs stormed the
Lviv and Kiev City Councils. Far-right and neo-Nazi groups have also assaulted or disrupted
art exhibitions, anti-fascist demonstrations, a "Ukrainians Choose Peace" event, LGBT events,
a social center, media organizations,
court proceedings and a Victory Day march celebrating the anniversary of the end of World
War II.
According to a study from activist organization Institute Respublica, the problem is not only
the frequency of far-right violence, but the fact that perpetrators enjoy widespread impunity.
It's not hard to understand why Kiev seems reluctant to confront these violent groups. For one
thing, far-right paramilitary groups played an important role early in the war against Russian-supported
separatists. Kiev also fears these violent groups could turn on the government itself - something
they've
done before and continue to threaten to do.
To be clear, Russian propaganda about Ukraine being overrun by Nazis or fascists is false.
Far-right parties such as Svoboda or Right Sector draw little support from Ukrainians."
Full stop here. First of all – "Russian propaganda" (and the Western propaganda understands
by that all Russian press, except a few "brave ones" that suck foreign grants tit of theirs) claims
no such a thing. Second – it is Poroshenko and his government who renames streets after Bandera
and Shukhevitch. Third – in the second half of the article Mr. Cohen basically proves, that said
roving bands all BUT overrun the Ukraine, while the alleged lack of support does not translate
in the active resistance to them – which is what's enough for them to reign supreme:
"Indeed, the brazen willingness of Vita Zaverukha – a renowned neo-Nazi out on bail and
under house arrest after killing two police officers -
to post pictures of herself after storming a popular Kiev restaurant with 50 other nationalists
demonstrates the far right's confidence in their immunity from government prosecution.
[ ]
[T]he government must also break any connections between law enforcement agencies and far-right
organizations. The clearest example of this problem lies in the Ministry of Internal Affairs,
which is headed by Arsen Avakov. Avakov has a long-standing relationship with the Azov Battalion,
a paramilitary group that uses the SS symbol as its insignia and which, with several others, was
integrated into the army or National Guard at the beginning of the war in the East. Critics have
accused Avakov of using members of the group to threaten an opposition media outlet. As at least
one commentator has pointed out, using the National Guard to combat ultranationalist violence
is likely to prove difficult if far-right groups have become part of the Guard itself.
Avakov's Deputy Minister Vadym Troyan was a member of the neo-Nazi Patriot of Ukraine (PU)
paramilitary organization, while current Ministry of Interior official Ilya Kiva – a former member
of the far-right Right Sector party whose Instagram feed is populated with images of former Italian
fascist leader Benito Mussolini – has called for gays "to be put to death." And Avakov himself
used the PU to promote his business and political interests while serving as a governor in eastern
Ukraine, and as interior minister
formed and armed the extremist Azov battalion led by Andriy Biletsky, a man nicknamed the
"White Chief" who called for a crusade against "Semite-led sub-humanity."
[ ]
In one notorious incident, media captured images of swastika-tattooed thugs - who police
claimed were only job applicants wanting to have "fun" - giving the Nazi salute in a police building
in Kiev. This cannot be allowed to go on, and it's just as important for Ukrainian democracy to
cleanse extremists from law enforcement as it is to remove corrupt officials from former president
Viktor Yanukovych's regime under Ukraine's "lustration" policy."
"To be clear, Russian propaganda about Ukraine being overrun by Nazis or fascists is false.
Far-right parties such as Svoboda or Right Sector draw little support from Ukrainians ."
True (about the level of support), but irrelevant, Mr. Cohen!
It doesn't matter if these fascists enjoy an approval rating of 5% or .005%
You yourself said that these perps enjoy "widespread impunity" --
They can do whatever they want, kill anybody they please, and never get punished --
That's the literal meaning of the word "impunity".
Yarosh is an MP, Parubiy would, if the same set of events occured as in February 2014, become
President, as Turchynov did. Nazi's/far right are in the SBU, Police, parts of their academia,
military
Its an intentionally idiotic statement by Cohen because Ukrainian political parties can come
and go at the drop of the hat. All this just means that the 2 million Nazi voters in 2012 election
have chosen these newly created parties because a new line of what is " mainstream" has been
drawn in Ukraine.
That's why I found it more than a little odd what is happening in France now .a new party
under Macron has been created and occupies that vast majority of seats .this is the type of thing
you would see in a banana republic.
Cohen is no idiot, I think he is just covering his ass and preparing his exit strategy.
In the hopes of keeping his press card after Ukraine goes totally South.
Cohen always knew these guys were Nazis, now he has to pretend to his reading public that he wasn't
quite aware. He was duped!
Or maybe the turning point, which got his Jewish blood boiling was Biletsky calling his ethnic
group a "Semite-led sub-humanity."
Cohen: "Oh, I never realized these people could be so hateful!" – LOL!
They always use that to pooh-pooh the suggestion that Nazism is influential in Ukraine
– but look! They only get tiny levels of support in elections! That matters little when people
are appointed to political positions rather than voted into them. There are so many things – the
dissolving of opposition political parties, the uberpatriotic signage everywhere exhorting citizens
to report their neighbours if they suspect separatist sympathies, the hit list (Mirotvorets) of
those who failed to shout the government line when prompted until told to stop – that simply scream
"FASCISM!!!" But it is inconvenient for the west to see those things, because it could not acknowledge
seeing them and continue to support the country and government which did them. The USA is an old
hand at unseeing things which don't fit the narrative. Unfortunately, it has evolved into a nation
which is good at unseeing obstacles as well; obstacles which are present and prevent it from achieving
its goals. These are expected to disappear before the eraser called 'exceptionalism'.
The canard about levels of public support for Nazism in Ukraine is used to suggest that if
Russia is spouting propaganda about this, then everything it says is propaganda.
Reply
"... The particular system of beliefs and practices defining the roles and powers of managers in our present context is what is referred to as managerialism. This is defined by two basic tenets: (i) that all social organisations must conform to a single structure; and (ii) that the sole regulatory principle is the market. Both ideas have far-reaching implications. The claim that every organisation - whether it is a mining company, a hospital, a school, a professional association or a charity - must be structured according to a single model, conforming to a single set of legislative requirements, not so long ago would have seemed bizarre, but is now largely taken for granted. The principle of the market has become the solitary, or dominant, criterion for decision making, and other criteria, such as loyalty, trust, care and a commitment to critical reflection, have become displaced and devalued. Indeed, the latter are viewed as quaint anachronisms with less importance and meaning than formal procedures or standards that can be readily linked to key performance indicators, budget end points, efficiency markers and externally imposed targets. ..."
"... Originally conceived as a strategy to manage large and increasingly complex organisations, in the contemporary world, no aspect of social life is now considered to be exempt from managerialist principles and practices. Policies and practices have become highly standardised, emphasising market-style incentives, devolved budgets and outsourcing, replacement of centralised budgeting with departmentalised user-pays systems, casualisation of labour, and an increasingly hierarchical approach to every aspect of institutional and social organisation. ..."
"... The managerial class is the universal class Hegel wrote about. It is the enemy of the productive classes, the agricultural and the industrial. Perhaps managers are like the eunuchs in former empires, grabbing power without production, always zealous that no idea will threaten their standing. ..."
"... Pick any empire on the verge of collapse in history and you'll find terrifying parallels to America today. I think all failing empires/societies must follow roughly similar trajectories on their way to oblivion. ..."
"... The creation of "professional managers" was not simply shaped by market fundamentalism but also by the progressive movement itself. Robert H. Wiebe's book "The Search for Order: 1877-1920, does a remarkable job of detailing this process. ..."
"... The trajectory runs from local autonomy once being the heart of American democracy, to the incremental erosion of the autonomy of community, to the supposedly necessary regulatory, managerial needs of urban-industrial life. and finally to the creation of flexible administrative devices that tended to encourage the creation of professional managers(in both the public and private sectors) and the increasing centralization of authority. ..."
Posted on
October 29, 2015 by
Lambert Strether
Lambert here: As we dig deeper into the health care system, concepts like those expressed in
this article will become increasingly useful. The patterns identified by Poses here remind me of
the university, which is also being eaten alive by a bloated and parasitical administrative layer.
By
Roy
Poses , MD, Clinical Associate Professor of Medicine at Brown University, and the President of
FIRM – the Foundation for Integrity and Responsibility in Medicine. Cross posted from the
Health Care Renewal website
I just found an important article that in the June, 2015 issue of the Medical Journal of Australia(1)
that sums up many of ways the leadership of medical (and most other organizations) have gone wrong.
It provides a clear, organized summary of "managerialism" in health care, which roughly rolls up
what we have called
generic management
, the
manager's
coup d'etat , and aspects of
mission-hostile management into a very troubling but coherent package. I will summarize the main
points, giving relevant quotes.
Recent Developments in Business Management Dogma Have Gravely Affected Health Care
Many health practitioners will consider the theory of business management to be of obscure
relevance to clinical practice. They might therefore be surprised to learn that the changes that
have occurred in this discipline over recent years have driven a fundamental revolution that has
already transformed their daily lives, arguably in perverse and harmful ways.
these changes have by and large been introduced insidiously, with little public debate, under
the guise of unquestioned 'best practice'.
See our previous discussions of the
anechoic effect
, how discussion of facts and ideas that threaten what we can now call the managerialist power
structure of health care are not considered appropriate for polite conversation, or public discussion.
Businesses are Now Run by Professional Managers, Not Owners
The traditional control by business owners in Europe and North America gave way during the
19th century to corporate control of companies. This led to the emergence of a new group of professionals
whose job it was to perform the administrative tasks of production. Consequently, management became
identified as both a skill and a profession in its own right, requiring specific training and
based on numerous emergent theories of practice.
Among these many vicissitudes, a decisive new departure occurred with the advent of what became
known as neoliberalism
in the 1980s (sometimes called Thatcherism because of its enthusiastic adoption by the Conservative
government of Margaret Thatcher in the United Kingdom). A reaction against Keynesian economic
policy and the welfare state, this harshly reinstated the regulatory role of the market in all
aspects of economic activity and led directly to the generalisation of the standards and practices
of management from the private to the public sectors. The radical cost cutting and privatisation
of social services that followed the adoption of neoliberal principles became a public policy
strategy rigorously embraced by governments around the world, including successive Liberal and
Labor governments in Australia.
Note that this is a global problem, at least of English speaking developed countries. The article
focuses on Australia, but we have certainly seen parallels in the US and the UK. Further, note that
we have discussed this concept, also termed market fundamentalism or economism.
Managerialism Provides a One-Size Fits All Approach to the Management of All Organizations,
in Which Money Becomes the Central Consideration
The particular system of beliefs and practices defining the roles and powers of managers in
our present context is what is referred to as managerialism. This is defined by two basic tenets:
(i) that all social organisations must conform to a single structure; and (ii) that the sole regulatory
principle is the market. Both ideas have far-reaching implications. The claim that every organisation
- whether it is a mining company, a hospital, a school, a professional association or a charity
- must be structured according to a single model, conforming to a single set of legislative requirements,
not so long ago would have seemed bizarre, but is now largely taken for granted. The principle
of the market has become the solitary, or dominant, criterion for decision making, and other criteria,
such as loyalty, trust, care and a commitment to critical reflection, have become displaced and
devalued. Indeed, the latter are viewed as quaint anachronisms with less importance and meaning
than formal procedures or standards that can be readily linked to key performance indicators,
budget end points, efficiency markers and externally imposed targets.
Originally conceived as a strategy to manage large and increasingly complex organisations,
in the contemporary world, no aspect of social life is now considered to be exempt from managerialist
principles and practices. Policies and practices have become highly standardised, emphasising
market-style incentives, devolved budgets and outsourcing, replacement of centralised budgeting
with departmentalised user-pays systems, casualisation of labour, and an increasingly hierarchical
approach to every aspect of institutional and social organisation.
We have frequently discussed how professional
generic managers
have taken over health care (sometimes referred to as the
manager's
coup d'etat .) We have noted that
generic managers
often seem ill-informed about if not overtly
hostile to the values of health care professionals and the missions of health care organizations.
Very Adverse Effects Result in Health Care and Academics
In the workplace, the authority of management is intensified, and behaviour that previously
might have been regarded as bullying becomes accepted good practice. The autonomous discretion
of the professional is undermined, and cuts in staff and increases in caseload occur without democratic
consultation of staff. Loyal long-term staff are dismissed and often humiliated, and rigorous
monitoring of the performance of the remaining employees focuses on narrowly defined criteria
relating to attainment of financial targets, efficiency and effectiveness.
The principles of managerialist theory have been applied equally to the public and the private
sectors. In the health sector, it has precipitated a shift in power from clinicians to managers
and a change in emphasis from a commitment to patient care to a primary concern with budgetary
efficiency. Increasingly, public hospital funding is tied to reductions in bed stays and other
formal criteria, and all decision making is subject to review relating to time and money. Older
and chronically ill people become seen not as subjects of compassion, care and respect but as
potential financial burdens. This does not mean that the system is not still staffed by skilled
clinicians committed to caring for the sick and needy; it is rather that it has become increasingly
harder for these professionals to do their jobs as they would like.
In the university sector, the story is much the same; all activities are assessed in relation
to the prosperity of the institution as a business enterprise rather than as a social one. Education
is seen as a commodity like any other, with priority given to vocational skills rather than intellectual
values. Teaching and research become subordinated to administration, top-down management and obsessively
applied management procedures. Researchers are required to generate external funding to support
their salaries, to focus on short-term problems, with the principal purpose being to enhance the
university's research ranking. The focus shifts from knowledge to grant income, from ideas to
publications, from speculation to conformity, from collegiality to property, and from academic
freedom to control. Rigid hierarchies are created from heads of school to deans of faculties and
so on. Academic staff - once encouraged to engage in public life - are forbidden to speak publicly
without permission from their managers.
The article provided a case study of the apparent demise of the Royal Australasian College of
Physicians as a physician led organization, leading to alleged emphasis on "extreme secrecy and 'commercial
in confidence," growth of conflicts of interest, risk aversion on controversial issues. When members
of the organization called for a vote to increase transparency and accountability, the hired management
apparently sued their own members.
Authors' Summary
Whether the damage done to the larger institutions - the public hospitals and the universities
- can be reversed, or even stemmed, is a bigger question still. The most that can be said is that
even if the present, damaging phase of managerial theory and practice eventually passes, its destructive
effects will linger on for many years to come.
My Summary
I now believe that the most important cause of US health care dysfunction, and likely of global
health care dysfunction, are the problems in leadership and governance we have often summarized (leadership
that is ill-informed, ignorant or
hostile to the health care mission and professional values, incompetent, self-interested, conflicted
or outright criminal
or
corrupt
, and governance that lacks accountability, transparency, honesty, and ethics.) In turn, it appears
that these problems have been generated by the twin plagues of managerialism (
generic management
, the
manager's
coup d'etat ) and
neoliberalism
(market fundamentalism, economism) as applied to health care. It may be the many of the larger
problems in US and global society also can be traced back to these sources.
We now see our problems in health care as part of a much larger whole, which partly explains why
efforts to address specific health care problems country by country have been near futile. We are
up against something much larger than what we thought when we started
Health Care Renewal in 2005. But at
least we should now be able join our efforts to those in other countries and in other sectors.
Reference
1. Komesaroff PA, Kerridge IH, Isaacs D, Brooks PM. The scourge of managerialism and the Royal
Australasian College of Physicians. Med J Aust 2015; 202: 519- 521. Link
here .
We have to leaven this dismal post with the 1980 live version of "Down Under" by Men at Work
The managerial class is the universal class Hegel wrote about. It is the enemy of the productive
classes, the agricultural and the industrial.
Perhaps managers are like the eunuchs in former empires, grabbing power without production, always
zealous that no idea will threaten their standing.
It is unfair to eunuchs to compare them to managers. The man who led the great Ming dynasty
naval journeys to SE Asia and Africa was a eunuch. The man credited with the invention of paper
was a eunuch attached to the Han Dynasty court.
Narses, one of the emperor Justinian's great generals,
was a eunuch.
He began his military career at the age of sixty and continued until he was murdered
by the then-emperor at the age of ninety-five.
(This post is the result of very quick checking
and memories of Robert Graves' wonderful book Count Belisarius. But I am mostly right.)
This comment completely misses the point of JLGC's excellent comment, and I refer you to the
opening chapters of the Romance of the Three Kingdoms for remedial reading. Its become striking,
at least to me, how much the developed western world is imitating the declines of the Chinese
dynasties.
Pick any empire on the verge of collapse in history and you'll find terrifying parallels to
America today. I think all failing empires/societies must follow roughly similar trajectories
on their way to oblivion.
Back in 1975 at my local technical college, I was fortunate enough to snag a part-time COBOL
programming job at the school. My colleagues and I noticed that several managers above the department
level had little to do but sit around in their offices. Periodically they would emerge to engage
some unlucky soul in dumb conversation. One of my co-workers summed it up admirably: "The more
they make, the less they do."
A couple years later while reading the Sunday paper job ads, I ran across this job title: Manager
of Management Development. A sign of very bad things to come.
I have to wonder if it's a coincidence that both healthcare and education are given as especially
notable victims of inappropriate/ineffective management
Because both healthcare and education are things that can best and primarily be done by and
for oneself. And there is overlap here: organic chemistry is a special case of molecular physics.
Regardless of how well instructors present it, there is a wealth of well understood information
on molecular physics (with a lot of special examination of organic chemistry), and so far the
bulk of that information remains easily available (although it's starting to disappear at an increasing
and alarming rate). I know that many will say, "there's a lot more to it than that!", but this
only indicates that they themselves have made no sustained effort to understand these matters.
It's not rocket science (which is, indeed, quite demanding).
I think the authors may somewhat overlook collateral (and undoubtedly mutually synergistic
with managerial phenomena) issues in the quality of teachers and doctors, which has also degraded
in a similar way, possibly for similar reasons. Rote learning increasingly replaces comprehension
in both fields. Inundated with unproven, and often unsound, commercial and theoretical dogma,
rudimentary performance is still possible, but results are mediocre. Excellence in these fields
requires patience, precision and and familiarity with underlying principles; "caring", bonhomie
and rote knowledge are admirable, but not viable substitutes.
Does it even make sense to pay to undertake courses in order to get a certificate of achievement?
From a commercial career perspective, certainly. But such a certificate is no sure guarantee of
skill. "Qualified" personnel are not necessarily capable. In a time of ever increasingly complex
systems and disciplines, capability is more needed than ever. The management sector is not the
only area where performance, and fulfillment of actual (in contrast to nominal) responsibility,
degrades.
For that matter, does it even make sense to have somebody undertake to diagnose your own health,
without detailed information about your diet, your regular environment, your physical history,
and any exceptions to these; information for which you yourself should be the best source? The
consulting physician enters at an immediate disadvantage, facing a significant information deficit;
it behooves individuals to become more proactive, especially when rudimentary diagnostic equipment
(sphygmomanometers, simple blood test kits, etc) and reference information (anatomical references,
drug chemistries and interactions, etc) are readily available. True, there are some thing's you
can't do yourself, surgery is surely a valuable skill and worthy of respect, but it has significant
limits as well (replacing a bad heart in an unhealthy body won't cure the body, etc).
Managerialism is a scourge, a calamity, a great threat; no argument from me. But it's not the
only problem we face, as a culture, and as an economy, of human beings, in these fields and others.
And the authors acknowledge this tangentially, but perhaps somewhat over-emphasize the impact
if managerialism on the ongoing degradation of these and other fields, at least by omission of
other evident and significant factors.
'Does it even make sense to pay to undertake courses in order to get a certificate of achievement?
From a commercial career perspective, certainly. But such a certificate is no sure guarantee of
skill. "Qualified" personnel are not necessarily capable'
I think in time there will be a move away from official credentialing toward companies and
organisations testing candidates – 'qualified' or not – themselves, with a professional or a dept
(depending on the size of the concern) whose job it is to sort the wheat from the chaff. They
would be in constant liaison with the various sections (and not just the heads) to keep abreast
of what skills and knowledge are required in appointees, and test candidates accordingly. The
net enables enterprising people too poor to afford expensive laurels to become as skilled and
knowledgeable and probably more flexible than those born with 'advantages'. The twin drivers of
this change will be, for the employers, the degradation of quality in 'qualified' applicants that
you refer to, and, for the employees, the debt peonage involved in becoming 'qualified'
'For that matter, does it even make sense to have somebody undertake to diagnose your own health,
without detailed information about your diet, your regular environment, your physical history,
and any exceptions to these; information for which you yourself should be the best source?'
Not to mention your genetic heritage yes, human variation is the big blind spot not just in
medicine but health generally. Almost nothing can be generalised, yet whole industries in health
and wellbeing rely on generalisation.
'The claim that every organisation - whether it is a mining company, a hospital, a school,
a professional association or a charity - must be structured according to a single model, conforming
to a single set of legislative requirements, not so long ago would have seemed bizarre, but is
now largely taken for granted. The principle of the market has become the solitary, or dominant,
criterion for decision making, and other criteria, such as loyalty, trust, care and a commitment
to critical reflection, have become displaced and devalued'
'And, so, finally the floodgates were open. Nowadays, every expected income stream is a fair
candidate for capitalization. And since income streams are generated by social entities, processes,
organizations and institutions, we end up with the 'capitalization of every thing'. Capitalists
routinely discount human life, including its genetic code and social habits; they discount organized
institutions from education and entertainment to religion and the law; they discount voluntary
social networks; they discount urban violence, civil war and international conflict; they even
discount the environmental future of humanity. Nothing seems to escape the piercing eye of capitalization:
if it generates earning expectations it must have a price, and the algorithm that gives future
earnings a price is capitalization'
Does anybody have an idea of what changed in 1990 to lead to such a sudden jump in the management
overhead of health organizations? It must have been something crucial in the legal or economic
environment of the sector.
Start here:
https://kenhoma.wordpress.com/2014/04/30/how-many-mba-degrees-are-awarded-each-year/
It takes time to achieve a critical mass of MBA-wielding managers in order for group-think to
establish itself.
I'm not going to exhaust myself fact-checking this data, so if anyone finds better please correct
me and post it. Based on my own experience in a STEM field, this looks about right.
Sadistic Managerial 'teams' have existed too long in too many areas. my mother recently received
a notice on the door of her apartment, she's occupied for 5yrs. this letter was short and to the
point 'if you do not pay .23 (cents) before the end of the business day, you will vacate your
apartment'. mom, 81yro, called me in hysterics. i got to her apt. and immediately had to attend
to her racing heart and hyperventilating. i read the letter slowly and see where mom missed the
"you will voluntarily vacate your apartment".
after a few deep breaths, i hiked down to the den of smiling sadist offering coffee and cake.
they introduced themselves as the 'new management', when i asked how many of the group of 5 it
took to pull the 3yro .23 Cent delinquency i was assured by the head honcho, she was involved
with the entire process. i explained my CPA sister and myself, Corporate Analyst (stretch), were
off a few zero's and hadn't even bothered to account for the home office reconciliations.
back to 'healthcare/hospitals': "-owned hospitals. How many are there? Two hundred and thirty-eight
of them in the whole country (out of more than five thousand)–somewhere between four and five
percent of the total in the U.S. (numbers courtesy TA Henry from this excellent piece).
What are the issues?
Obamacare effectively bans doctors from owning hospitals in the U.S.
Those already in existence are grandfathered in under the law.
We know that doctor-owned hospitals have higher average costs–hence the rationale for banning
them under a law with the intent of "bending the cost curve."
In the most recent Medicare data (December 2012 report on "value-based purchasing"), doctor-owned
hospitals did well in terms of achieving quality milestones.
How well?
Really well. Physician-owned hospitals took nine out of the top ten spots in the country. And
in spite of their low relative number, forty-eight out of the top one hundred.
What's the secret sauce? Here's a little tidbit on the #1 ranked hospital from another excellent
piece on this issue:
The top one is Treasure Valley Hospital in Boise, Idaho, a 10-bed hospital that boasts a low
patient-to-nurse ratio and extra attention, right down to thank-you notes sent to each discharged
patient.
A 10-bed hospital? Thank you notes for each discharged patient? Sign me up to go there next
time I need hospital services.
Who cares? Well, we all should. Why?
It boils down to incentives.
When doctors own the hospitals, they stand to directly share in profits. If you're a doctor-owner,
and the hospital you both run and own is functioning at a high level, you think, "This is what
America is all about. Free enterprise. Why shouldn't I make more money if my hospital runs well?"
As a taxpayer, do I want government incentives going to hospitals that are privately owned
and known for cherry-picking insured patients?
Moreover, what does it say about public hospitals, or academic centers, that often see the
sickest, poorest, most vulnerable patients? Yes, their quality is measurably lower, according
to this data. But now, in spite of staying true to their core missions (serving the public) they're
being further penalized.
Is this just another case of the rich simply getting richer?
Maybe Obamacare's got it wrong. Maybe we should build upon the model of doctor-ownership and
turn over public hospitals to their workers. All of them. Let the nurses buy in. And the food
handlers. And the "environmental services" folks (i.e. custodial crews). Let's really let the
workers own the means of production. Then we can see where incentives get us."
http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2013/05/doctor-owned-hospitals-rich-richer.html
Sister Act: Gov. Perry's Little-Known Sister is a Lobbyist for Lucrative Doctor-Owned Hospitals;
Milla Perry Jones is vice president of government relations at United Surgical Partners International,
an Addison, Texas company that runs hospitals and surgery centers co-owned by doctors. Sister
Jones works with trade groups to rebut claims that doctor-owned medical facilities inflate American
medical bills. Both Governor Perry and his sister have championed doctor-owned facilities in Texas
and Washington.
2006 federal report found that Medicare costs are 20 percent higher at doctor-owned orthopedic
surgical hospitals than at competing community hospitals. These studies typically do not determine
if the extra procedures are beneficial. The doctor-owned industry says it delivers superior care
and points to contradictory research that does not associate doctor ownership with higher costs.
doctor-owned facilities are money machines. A 2009 study found that Texas' doctor-owned hospitals
pumped $2.3 billion into the economy each year. The industry has had to use some of this money
to fend off political meddling. Heavily favoring Republicans, Perry Jones' United Surgical PAC
spent almost $250,000 on federal politicians from 2005 to 2010, according to the Center for Responsive
Politics. The New York Times reported that Doctors Hospital at Renaissance donors gave congressional
Democrats $1.3 million in that period, with then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi visiting that hospital
in 2007. Surpassing the powerful Texas Medical Association, the Doctors Hospital's Border Health
PAC spent close to $4 million on Texas state elections from 2005 through 2010, becoming Texas'
13th largest PAC. Houston's doctor-owned North Cypress Medical Center pumped another $500,000
into Texas state races, ranking as Governor Perry's No. 5 donor in 2010.
In one of his last presidential ads, Rick Perry skewered Washington as a twisted place where,
"You can't say that Congressmen becoming lobbyists is a form of political corruption." United
Surgical, North Cypress and Doctors Hospital at Renaissance have paid federal lobbyists-including
ex-Congressman Tom Loeffler-almost $3 million since 2005. Joined by two Perry Jones-affiliated
trade groups, these same doctor-owned interests paid 24 Texas lobbyists-including U.S. Senator
John Cornyn's daughter-up to $3.4 million in that period. These lobbyists do not include Milla
Perry Jones, whose advocacy activities may not trigger Texas' registration requirements. (A Texas
lobbyist generally must register if she receives more than $1,000 a quarter for direct communications
with public officials).
http://www.texasobserver.org/obamacare-jags-rick-perrys-lobbyist-sister/
can you imagine the independent sadist managing these hospitals?
It's about confiscating public budgets – and, as such, it fits into the broader pattern of
privatized jail and war. When you have for-profit war, you never get any peace; there's no money
in it. For profit medicine is about sickcare and not healthcare. There's no profit in cure or
prevention, only treatment.
Sickness creates natural captive markets for rent-seeking monopolies and cartels to exploit.
Once you've got a disease there are only so many chemical options to treat it. Corporate America
is often actively blocking cheap treatments to steer patients toward patented medicine. See my
earlier comment about Pharmacy Benefit Managers. The recent epidemics of drug shortages aren't
a coincidence; they are engineered. It's only happening with cheap, effective, often public domain
chemicals (e.g., methotrexate, 2ml vials of MgSO4). This is by design. Rent-seekers confiscate
public goods like public domain chemicals and provide inferior, expensive, patented substitutes.
Some of these are baffling if you don't understand the recent breakthroughs in biochemistry.
When you take gel helminths (worms like whipworms) out of the body you get autoimmune diseases
like m.s. and crohn's. This has been clear for about ten years but have you heard about that research
from drug company-funded "patient" groups? When you feed people antibiotics that kill their gut
flora and sell people food stripped of necessary fiber to nourish said bacteria, you get inflammation
and insulin resistance – contributing to, sometimes outright causing, Alzheimer's, diabetes, autism,
atherosclerosis, cancer and polycystic ovaries, among many diseases. What news company wants to
tell the public the food companies in creating an addictive sugar-laden product by removing fiber
is also creating disease? Big Tobacco wasn't an anomaly. It's a pattern of regular conduct across
industries.
Patients are being tortured to death in this system.
Love the read. The quaint notion that the top employees in healthcare aren't in it for the
money still lingers in some corners of our society.
One quibble with using this quote
A reaction against Keynesian economic policy and the welfare state, this harshly reinstated
the regulatory role of the market in all aspects of economic activity and led directly to the
generalisation of the standards and practices of management from the private to the public
sectors.
It does not apply very well to the American context. Healthcare in the US context is all about
the welfare state. US taxpayers give more money to both medical and non-medical managers/administrators/specialists/etc.
than any other taxpayers in any other country on the planet. Markets play no role in the monstrosities
that have become our hospital franchises, drug dealers, and equipment peddlers. These corporations
(many of them 'nonprofit') are the anti-thesis of price takers in a competitive marketplace.
Health care in the US is a mess in more than one dimension. Many aspects of managerialism are
certainly a major problem contributing to increased costs and reduced quality. But there is an
aspect of "overconsumption" of health services as well. I put it in quotes because the framing
of "overconsumption" puts the blame on patients (as if they are "consumers"), rather than where
I think the blame truly belongs - health care providers and management.
The existing system is largely setup to pay by the number of procedures (easy to measure with
electronic health records) rather than the actual quality of care (not as easy to measure). Specialized
doctors and managers have an incentive to push for unnecessary procedures and clinical visits,
because it means they get paid more.
Perhaps the strongest evidence for doctors responding to these perverse incentives is the specializations
that doctors choose. Primary care specializations like family medicine, general practice, and
pediatrics are being decimated because these specializations are largely focused with preventative
or long-term care. As a result, the pay is substantially lower than other specializations that
perform many procedures. The evidence is that there is a critical shortage of doctors in these
primary care fields, especially in rural areas of the country. Doctors flock to specializations
that offer many procedures and consequently higher pay.
Smaal example of "wallet biopsy" structuring of "health care:" You have a lab test or MRI or
tissue biopsy done, under the "provider's" order. To be "given the results," even if normal or
benign, you have to " be seen in clinic." A nurse or paraprofessional may actually "give you your
results," but that will be billed as an office visit with the doctor. Don't want to pay f9r the
wallet biopsy? Fine, the doc doesn't "give you yor results." And if you find a more compassionate,
maybe even more skilled, provider? If there's a balance due on your account with the first, S/he
effectively has a "chart lien," like a lawyer's "file lien," on your very own personal medical
records.
And maybe that's "against the law," some places, but as always, where there's ńo effective
remedy (sue the doctor or the corporation? No effective remedy), there's no right
My wife went through this with a "Chr8stoan" DO primary-care dude who discovered Mammon was
a more compelling god than YHWH, corporations and privatized his practice and got into peddling
"procedures" like in-office ablation of throat tissue to "cure apnea and snoring," and Trusting
Patient enrollment in drug trials for Bad Meds
Anyone who thinks clinicianscare all Albert Schweitzers needs to read "The House if God," learn
the real rules of practice, understand what a "GOMER" is, and hope you won't get the "buff and
turf" treatment. It's a hilarious book, but a check on the irrational exuberance that endows practitioners
of the calling art business of medicine with universal expectations of virtue
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_House_of_God
And Lambert, don't credit me with invention of that "wallet biopßy" phrase– it's a commonplace
in the business of medicine.
Why the vast majority of us humans will" never have nice things," like comity and empathy and
simple decency, 'cuz more than enough of us are "all too human."
Good read. Self-sustainability in all aspects of our lives is being usurped by un-free markets
created by rent seekers or their lackeys. There is no longer a desire for America to be the best
nation in the world because that would mean it's self-sustaining. And I'm not talking budgets.
I'm talking people running things instead of corporations. No longer does Buy American mean anything
– actually, it's been outlawed by our trade agreements. There is no drive among our leaders anymore
for America to be self-sustaining, which includes taking care of the least of us because we're
all in this together. Capitalism as practiced by corporations is dead, it just refuses to be buried.
Supported by the Fed handouts it's busy handing out crutches for the entities it's crippled –
which it then intends to kick the crutches out from under. Hilarious ehh? Universities, hospitals,
pharma, the post office you name it used to all be self-sustaining entities that people could
afford or that provided needed services at low prices and actually cared about people. Self-sustaining
to me means America having the best food, the best health care, the best education, the happiest
people and on and on – the shining city on the hill so to speak. Instead we get crapification
of everything we need and it's all for sale to the highest bidder who then crapifies everything
even more. It's a race to the bottom and the ultimate goal is a floor full of crutches and no
one left standing.
The medical association I use actually has a C-level job called "Chief Efficiency Officer".
Her latest was raising the bar for hospital referrals thus reducing insurance company costs and
increasing consumer (I have stopped saying patient) risk. The incentive is the insurance companies
are kicking back part of the extra profit. Another case of privatize profit – socialize cost since
the added cost to consumers is impossible to measure. If I can find the letter from the association
announcing (and attempting to rationalize) the change, I will email a copy to Lambert.
Worth a look: Matthew Stewart's The Management Myth . It discloses that the very foundations
of "scientific management" originating with Frederick Winslow Taylor were flawed. Taylor cooked
the results of his "scientific" experiments in getting more productivity from the workforce to
fit his theories. The first MBA - Penn's Wharton School - was founded on this con. Similar cons
were at the inception of the Harvard MBA.
The "MBA Mentality" - embodied by W, among others - says everything can be measured, and measurement
is what makes it real. Hence testing our students until their eyeballs bleed is now an endorsed
strategy to improve educational outcomes. No actual science supports this conclusion, but that
hasn't stopped the people who want to leave No Child Behind(tm).
Turns out, management is a liberal art! Who knew?!
"The particular system of beliefs and practices defining the roles and powers of managers in
our present context is what is referred to as managerialism. This is defined by two basic tenets:
(i) that all social organisations must conform to a single structure; and (ii) that the sole regulatory
principle is the market. Both ideas have far-reaching implications. The claim that every organisation
- whether it is a mining company, a hospital, a school, a professional association or a charity
- must be structured according to a single model, conforming to a single set of legislative requirements, Originally
conceived as a strategy to manage large and increasingly complex organisations, in the contemporary
world, no aspect of social life is now considered to be exempt from managerialist principles and
practices."
This is an apt description of MARKET TOTALITARIANISM.
MBAs and project managers armed with their metric-driven spreadsheets in pursuit of "best practice"
– market lebensraum – speak the same language and spearhead this offensive against the welfare
state. A managerial elite devoted to the belief that the the market will set you free functions
much like the Waffen SS did in another regime with explicit totalitarian aspirations. The need
for concentration camps is not needed in this version of totalitarianism because "no aspect of
social life is exempt from managerialist principles and practices." The institutions of civil
society have been captured by this "weltanshuung/zeitgeist" and dissent is lost in the "nacht
und nebel" of the eternal present.
Herbert Marcuse [One Dimensional Man], Eric Fromm, [Escape From Freedom] and the Frankfurt
School broached the idea of what has evolved into "market totalitarianism" shortly after the Second
World War. Dismissed largely as a Marxist rant it did not garner much traction inside or outside
of academia, especially in this country. I suspect many of you are too young to be familiar with
this body of work – no fault of yours. Nevertheless, LIBERALISM 2.0 [aka neoliberalism] did not
capture the hearts and minds of the political classes until the 1970s signified by Ronald Reagan's
election in 1980. From then on it gathered steam and by the 1990s it was apparent that "market
totalitarianism" was on the rise, if not yet ascendant.
Orwellian concepts like "doublethink/doublespeak" resonated as the language employed in political
discourse became little more than smoke and mirrors. "Reform" signified a revamping of welfare
and criminal justice. It also has come to mean little more than slash-and-burn CUTS to programs
associated with the welfare state or their outright privatization under the rubric of "choice"
. Natural gas and electric rate "choice" programs exemplify this approach. Indeed, the two biggest
prizes – Social Security and Medicare – are subject to calls for "entitlement reform" by Republicans
and Democrats alike. That both programs have been internalized in the minds of many as "entitlements"
destined for "reform" testifies to this. The federal deficit matters now and the hysteria surrounding
it will likely be a primary talking point in the 2016 elections. The question of how will we pay
for the expansion of any program barring tax increases will become the retort by those opposed
to both, MMT notwithstanding.
The Great Recession has been portrayed as an anomaly or as a normal part of the business cycle
and precipitated some rethinking. But make no mistake about it, the market totalitarian impetus
in this country continues unabated. If anything, the monotheism of the market has accelerated
in some respects as "businesspersons" – Donald Trump and Carly Fiorina – from the private sector
now vie for the presidential nomination of the Republican Party. The very idea that business acumen/experience
is now of paramount importance in running this country – as a business – testifies to the pervasiveness
of market totalitarianism. It is now deep rooted in civil society.
Even here in Akron, there are plans to rename the University of Akron: the Ohio Polytechnic
University! Fans of Firesign Theater back in the day will recall the rivalry between "more science
high" and "commie-martyrs' high school! It would be funny in most circumstances. but who's laughing
now? Many a former rubber rat plan to vote for Trump!
I have come to the conclusion that "market totalitarianism" now has to run its course in this
country. The Achilles' heel of market totalitarianism may be how and where it stifles/smothers
innovation, subjugating research and development to market criteria in which the short term trumps
the long term. To the extent that dissent/conflict is fundamental to innovation and cannot be
confined to the laboratory, then resistance is NOT futile. It remains to be seen whether that
dissent can be co-opted or reappropriated indefinitely by market totalitarianism in this country
or not, yet alone outside of its borders.
Ban collective bargaining and the collective will suffer. If a government was allowed to negotiate
for the collective against the suppliers then maybe the outcome would be different. But as we
all know, letting the government co-ordinate and negotiate for the collective will make it worse
for some individuals so ..
The needs of the many do not(?) outweigh the needs of the few. Be it for healthcare, education
or?
"The Scourge of Managerialism" raised some profoundly important issues.
But its fundamental assumption " the traditional control by business owners in Europe and North
American gave way during the 19th century to corporate control of companies. This lead to the
emergence of a new group of professional whose job it was to perform the administrative tasks
of production"–is only half correct.
The creation of "professional managers" was not simply shaped by market fundamentalism but
also by the progressive movement itself. Robert H. Wiebe's book "The Search for Order: 1877-1920,
does a remarkable job of detailing this process.
The trajectory runs from local autonomy once being the heart of American democracy, to the
incremental erosion of the autonomy of community, to the supposedly necessary regulatory, managerial
needs of urban-industrial life. and finally to the creation of flexible administrative devices
that tended to encourage the creation of professional managers(in both the public and private
sectors) and the increasing centralization of authority.
Can any renewal of democracy begin without a dismantling of professional managerial authority
in both the market and the state?
Is a breakdown of centralized bureaucratic power (both public and private) a precondition for
democratic renewal?
U.S. President Donald Trump, who during the election-campaign ferociously condemned Barack Obama's
foreign policies, while asserting nothing concrete of his own, has, as the U.S. President, committed
himself quite clearly to continuing Obama's publicly stated policy on Syria, which policy was to
place, as the first priority, the elimination of ISIS, and as the policy to follow that, the elimination
and replacement of Syria's government. I have previously indicated that on June 19th
"Russia Announces No-Fly Zone in Syria - War Against U.S. There" , and that the early indications
are that Trump has changed his Syria-policy to accommodate Russia's demands there; but, prior to
June 19th, Trump was actually following Obama's publicly stated Syria-policy.
As also will be shown here, Obama's publicly stated policy - to destroy ISIS and then to overthrow
Syria's President Bashar al-Assad - was actually less extreme than his real policy, which was to
overthrow Assad and to use the jihadist forces in Syria (especially Al Qaeda in Syria) to achieve
that objective. Trump, at least until 19 June 2017, has been adhering to Obama's publicly stated
policy. Russia's warning was for him not to adopt and continue Obama's actual policy (to overthrow
Assad).
Here is the part, of the by-now-famous 12 August 2012 Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) analysis
of the intelligence regarding Iraq and in Syria, that the press (despite its extensive reporting
about the document) has not yet reported from the Judicial Watch FOIA disclosures (which had included
that document and many others), but which part of it shows even more than the part that has been
reported from the document, Obama's having made an informed choice actually to protect Al Qaeda in
Syria, so as to bring down and replace the Syrian government - Obama's actual prioritization (contrary
to his publicly stated one) of overthrowing Assad, even above defeating the jihadists in Syria; and
this was clearly also a warning by the DIA to the Commander-in-Chief, that he can have either an
overthrow of Assad, or else a non-jihadist-controlled Syria, but not both, and that any attempt to
bring down Assad by means of using the jihadists as a proxy army against him, would ultimately fail:
D. AQI [Al Qaeda in Iraq], through spokesman of the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI) Abu Muhammed
Al Adnani, declared the Syrian regime as the spearhead of what he is naming Jibha Al Ruwafdh (forefront
of the Shiites) because of its (the Syrian regime) declaration of war on the Sunnis. Additionally,
he is calling on the Sunnis in Iraq, especially the tribes in the border regions (between Iraq and
Syria), to wage war against the Syrian regime, regarding Syria as an infidel regime for its support
to the infidel party Hezbollah, and other regimes he considers dissenters like Iran and Iraq.
E. AQI considers the Sunni issue in Iraq to be fatefully connected to the Sunni Arabs and Muslims.
page 70:
A. The [Syrian] regime will survive and have control over Syrian territory.
page 71:
B. Development of the current events into a proxy war: with support from Russia, China, and
Iran, the regime is controlling the areas of influence along coastal territories (Tartus and Latakia),
and is fiercely defending Homs, which is considered the primary transportation route in Syria. On
the other hand, opposition forces are trying to control the eastern areas (Hasaka and Der Zor), adjacent
to the western Iraqi provinces (Mosul and Anbar), in addition to neighboring Turkish borders. Western
countries, the Gulf states and Turkey are supporting these [jihadist] efforts
And here is from the part that the press did report:
"C: If the situation unravels there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared
Salafist principality in eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting
powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime."
The "supporting powers" are: western countries, the Gulf States and Turkey The DIA warns that
the creation of such an Salafist principality would have "dire consequences" for Iraq and would possibly
lead to the creation of an Islamic State and: create the ideal atmosphere for AQI to return to its
old pockets in Mosul and Ramadi.
These DIA folks really earned their salary.
The Obama administration, together with other supporter of the Syrian "opposition", knew that
AQ was a large part of that "opposition" from the very beginning. The U.S. and others wanted a Salafist
[i.e., fundamentalist Sunni] principality in east Syria to cut Syria and Lebanon off from a land
route to Iran. It was warned that such a principality would create havoc in Iraq and to the return
of AQ in Iraq (today the Islamic State) to Mosul and Ramadi.
I quoted from that part in December 2016 , which was the time when the two Presidents, Obama
and Turkey's Erdogan, began their joint effort to relocate ISIS from Mosul Iraq, into Der Zor Syria,
in order to culminate their (and the Sauds') joint plan to use ISIS so as to bring down Assad. Then,
I headlined, on 30 April 2017, that they had actually completed this task of moving Iraq's ISIS into
Syria, "How Obama & Erdogan
Moved ISIS from Iraq to Syria, to Weaken Assad" . That's why the Syrian government is now fighting
to take Der Zor back from ISIS control.
Other portions of the Judicial Watch FOIA disclosures which received little or no press-coverage
(and that little being only on far-right blogs - not mainstream 'news' sites) add still further to
the evidence that Obama was using Al Qaeda and its friends, as a proxy army of jihadists to overthrow
Syria's President Bashar al-Assad and replace him by a jihadist regime that would be loyal to America's
fundamentalist-Sunni 'allies', the Sauds who own Saudi Arabia, and the Thanis who own Qatar. (Of
course, now, the Sauds are trying to destroy the Thanis, too.)
These unpublished or little-published portions from the Judical Watch disclosures, also add to
the ample published evidence that the Obama regime was transporting (as these documents acknowledged
on page 4) "weapons from the former Libya military stockpiles located in Benghazi, Libya" which "were
shipped from the port of Benghazi, Libya to the ports of Banias and the Port of Borj Islam, Syria,"
for use by Obama's 'moderate rebels' (a.k.a.: jihadists) in Syria. Specifically:
page 4:
18 Sep 2012
2. During the immediate aftermath of, and following the uncertainty caused by, the downfall
of the ((Qaddafi)) regime in October 2011 and up until early September of 2012, weapons from the
former Libya military stockpiles located in Benghazi, Libya were shipped from the port of Benghazi,
Libya to the ports of Banias and the Port of Borj Islam, Syria. The Syrian ports were chosen due
to the small amounts of cargo traffic transiting these two ports. The ships used to transport the
weapons were medium-sized and able to hold 10 or less shipping containers of cargo.
3. The weapons shipped from Libya to Syria during late-August 2012 [i.e., the period immediately
prior to this memo] were sniper rifles, RPGs, and 125mm and 155mm howitzers missiles. The numbers
for each weapon were estimated to be: 500 sniper rifles, 100 RPG launchers with 300 total rounds,
and approximately 400 howitzers missiles.
It's now clear that Trump (at least until June 19th) has been continuing Obama's stated policy
of killing ISIS and then overthrowing Assad. But of course no one can yet know whether or not he
would be continuing it in precisely the way that Hillary Clinton made clear that she would do, which
is to announce a no-fly zone in Syria and thus grab control over some portion of the sovereign nation
of Syria. That way would result, now after 19 June 2017 (
Russia's warning to shoot down U.S. aircraft that attack Syrian government-allied forces ), either
in U.S. retreat or else shooting down Russian planes in Syria, and war between U.S. and Russia, ending
in nuclear war.
When I presented, in my December 2016 report, what I referred to above as "the part of the
12 August 2012 DIA analysis of the intelligence regarding Iraq and in Syria that the press has not
yet reported from the Judicial Watch FOIA disclosures," I didn't mention then that one news-medium
did report a part of that section, and it was a rabidly pro-Republican site, Glenn Beck and his "The
Blaze," which headlined about this matter, very appropriately,
"'It Is Damn Near Criminal': Glenn Beck Says the U.S. Is Using Islamic State as a 'Pawn'," which
point, Beck presented rather well in the video accompanying it. Unfortunately, however, closed-minded
'liberals' and 'progressives' paid no attention to this and to the other evils perpetrated by Obama
(
such as these ). Regardless of how untrustworthy Beck is, his statements about that particular
matter were actually spot-on.
Obama was using ISIS in this way, but after Russia started bombing ISIS in Syria on 30 September
2015, Obama joined in so as not to make obvious to the world that he had been protecting and even
arming ISIS until that date, and that prior to Russia's bombing ISIS, the U.S. had actually ignored
ISIS.
Now that ISIS in Syria seems to be on its last legs there, only Kurds and Al Qaeda in Syria (
and their backers especially the U.S. and Sauds ) remain as big threats to Syria's sovereignty,
and the evidence at least till June 19th, has been that Trump definitely backs the Kurds there, and
might also be backing Al Qaeda there as well. If he continues backing the Kurds and Al Qaeda there,
after Russia's warning on June 19th (which the neoconservative Washington Post called only
"bluffing" and the neoconservative CNBC called
"bluster" ), then the U.S. will be at war not only against Russia, but also against Turkey, and
also against Iran, and it would be World War III because it would be U.S.-v.-Russia. Turkey is already
at war against the Kurds; and, if America is fighting for the Kurds, to break up Syria, then Turkey
- a member of the NATO anti-Russia alliance - will paralyze NATO; and the U.S. will then be waging
its war without NATO's support.
Trump would need to be very stupid to do such a thing. It would be an intelligence test which,
if Trump fails, the world will end, in nuclear winter - with or without support from the rest of
NATO. But, nonetheless, some in the American 'elite' and its employees, say that it would merely
be a recognition of Russia's "bluffing" and "bluster." One wonders what objective this 'elite' believes
to be worthy of taking the risk that they're wrong. What do they actually hope to 'win', fighting
on the side of the Sauds (and their Israeli agents), in order to conquer Syria? Why are they so desperate,
to do that?
Moon of Alabama
commented yesterday on the US and its allies defeat (so far) in S.E. Syria. At an MSM ignored
DoD press conference the US military admitted as much. From MoA's article:
Q: [ ] [W]hat potential threat do you believe these Iranian backed militias and regime forces
continue to pose to your forces and your partner forces in the At Tanf - Abu Kamal area?
COL. DILLON: Well if the Syrian regime - and it looks like they are making a concerted effort
to move into ISIS held areas. And if they show that they can do that, that is not a bad sign.
We are here to fight ISIS as a coalition, but if others want to fight ISIS and defeat them,
then we absolutely have no problem with that. And as they move eastward toward Abu Kamal and
to Deir Ezzour, if we - as long as we can de-conflict and make sure that we can focus on what
it is we're there to do, without having any kind of strategic mishaps with the regime or with
pro-regime forces or with Russians, then that is - we're perfectly happy with that.
In a later part the spokesperson also concedes that the forces in al-Tanf are now very constricted
in their movement:
if the regime is - has moved into an area that is towards Abu Kamal, then we are going
to be limited to how far out we do patrols [from al-Tanf] with our partner forces.
Somewhat later the point is made again and even clearer – al-Tanf is now useless and the
Syrian army is free to do what it does:
COL. DILLON: So what I was saying about that is that, out of the At Tanf area, we have used
that to train our partner forces and to continue to - to fight ISIS, you know, if they are
in and around that area.
You know, now that the regime has moved in, and they have made some significant, you know,
progress, as it looks, towards moving to Abu Kamal and perhaps Deir Ezzour, if they want to
fight ISIS in Abu Kamal and they have the capacity to do so, then, you know, that - that would
be welcome.
We as a coalition are not in the land-grab business. We're in the killing ISIS business,
and that is what we want to do. And if - if the Syrian regime wants to do that, and they are
going to, again, put forth a concerted effort and show that they are - are doing just that
in Abu Kamal or Deir Ezzour or elsewhere, that means that we don't have to do that in those
locations.
So I guess that - what I'm saying is, in the At Tanf area, we will continue to train our
partner forces. We will continue to do patrols in and around At Tanf in the Hamad desert. But
if our access to Abu Kamal is shut off because the regime is there, that's okay.
Hmm the US military standing down? I haven't looked at the entire transcript yet but this seems
almost too good to be true. Of course these press conference proclamations need to be washed down
with a generous helping of delicious salt. Even if the statements are sincere, the interventionists,
their media "partners" and think tank propagandists will keep on pushing for "regime change" (a
coup by any other name ) and the destruction of Syria.
On the bright side US/NATO uncontested domination of the globe was stopped in its tracks by
the Russian military in Syria on 30.09.2015 and there is simply no way Washington can bribe, threaten
or beat every nation in the world into submission.
This is a culture at the end of its tether: it simply cannot put up with dissent or contradiction,
so brittle is it. It is all part of a refusal to face ugly reality, symptomatic of which is the
relegation-to Die Welt's Sunday edition- of Seymour Hersh's latest investigation of US state mendacity
its irresponsibility in the matter if the recent "Sarin" attack blamed on Assad.
Ray McGovern has a piece at Counterpunch today in which he reveals that "Even the London Review
of Books, which published Hersh's earlier debunking of the Aug. 21, 2013 sarin-gas incident, wouldn't
go out onto the limb this time despite having paid for his investigation.
bevin,
The facts Seymour Hersh's article lays out pushes one in the direction that Trump – totally ignoring
his intelligence and military experts telling him their was no certainty Assad was responsible
– had knowledge the event was a false flag. Trump couldn't be so stupid as to not understand what
his experts were telling him. After launching the 50 Tomahawk missiles, he lied through his teeth
to the world, saying "we know we have the evidence..", then UN Ambassador Nikki Haley (like Colin
Powell, before the illegal Iraq War) blasted Assad falsely, held up pictures at the Security Council
of dead children which were quickly plastered on the front pages of newspapers globally,, and
literally warned Syria's Bashar al-Jaafari of impending war.
Hersh's article shows Trump, Haley and the U.S. administration, UK/France and other United
Nations representatives were lying about "we have the evidence", and owe their citizens and the
world an explanation, plus an apology. These psychopath liars are extremely dangerous and must
become held to account for their deceptions.
If the US were to persist in this dangerous dance with the devil, I could imaging NATO being split
by Turkey, refusing to get involved any further and even separately protecting Europe from Russian
retaliation by entering into a defense treaty with Russia. The US then would be shouldering the
whole foolish confrontation by itself and perhaps having to deal with China and North Korea at
the same time. Now that would be an interesting scenario.
I think the worthy Historian, Eric Zuesse has not considered the possibility that a new midlle
East regional grouping, offers the best chance of allowing the USA to gracefully avoid the ultimate
failure of its Middle East policy by conceding to the combined alliance, of the major traditional
Nations and their forces of the Middle East; being Egypt, Iran and Turkey.
Currently divided by a false religious and secular division, posed by primarily Great Britain
and the USA, it was the British who over 100 years ago financed and invented the Sunni Wahhabi
division which sunni division represents the most murderous of the current Islamic terrorist outrages
financed also by the USA and Saudi Arabia throughout the region and globe.
Similarly, the Anglo-Franco financed and hosting of the Muslim Brotherhood to further frustrate
and end Turkey's leadership of the declining Otterman Empire, formally lead by Turkey.
The most important factor against a new alignment of those three aforementioned regional leaders;
is the current illegimate counter-alliance of " the lawless Hebrew State of Israel " and the Teflon-guarded
deep state, which appears to own and really run the also infamous North America State?
Looks like after Hersh story was published trump decided to double down.
Notable quotes:
"... The lunatic US ambassador to the UN jumped in to make it clear that it does not matter who commits whatever crime in Syria, Takfiris, the U.S. or Israel, it will be the Syrian, Russian and Iranian governments who will held guilty of it: ..."
"... Trump has to make a deal (or war) with Russia and the announced fake "chemical attack" will be the pressure point against Putin. The neoconservatives in his administration want to break up Syria and Trump is tasked to get the Russian agreement for that (... or else.) ..."
"... Don't you think that if the Americans really intended to make a false flag, they would never issue this warning? For me, looks like the White House, knowing of the possibility of a Pentagon faction to provoke a false flag, issued this warning as an alert to Russians and Syrians and as a vaccin, to avoid this operation. ..."
"... Right after Khan Sheikhoun preparations were being made in the media for another false flag. Several embarrassingly weak "think" pieces were published in the NYT attempting to rationalize why Syria would use chemical weapons when it weakened the country's defenses. ..."
"... i'd look to the CIA for false flags, not the pentagon. the pentagon sees itself on the receiving end of the cia's 'fun and games'. ..."
"... It is Trump, and his direct handlers, who have the bit in their teeth now. no one else - state, nor defense, nor the 'analysis' false-front at the CIA - wants to go near this. Trump wants to watch himself evolve as something bigger-than-life on TV, and whatever happens in what we quaintly call 'the real world' has no place in his 'thinking'. ..."
"... What is in maddog's peace pipe? i guess he didn't get the memo on the upcoming retaliation for the - so far, virtual - new 'sarin attack' - which is known to be aimed at babies? not entirely clear which comes first, the attack or the 'retaliation' for it. The russians are not interested in 'deconflicting' with a lying/out-of-the-loop bunch such as the american general command. And those same generals are pushing the turks into russia's lap ... i guess when you have a crack outfit - outfit on crack? - like the saudis for allies you don't need anyone else. The kurds have sold ALL their bona fides down the euphrates with their us/saudi no-matter-what alliance. ..."
"... Ah, that old chestnut again...typical Zionist Hollywood formula...the good cop, bad cop routine. Trump is actually perfect for this shit, his background in shithouse primetime T.V. makes for the perfect dummy agent. ..."
"... I guess this is why Sy Hersh's most recent effort didn't get published in the US or UK...it just didn't suit the upcoming singular MSM narrative. ..."
"... Trump is even more of a idiot than I previously thought. Now he plays patsy for the neo con's hegemonic Empire agenda in taking the blame for the Syrian air base strike on information the intelligence community now claims they had that was inconclusive that Assad did it. ..."
"... If the neo cons narrative on their story of the Assad forces having used gas AGAIN hadn't fallen apart so quickly, even after their MSM backed the story to the hilt, they wouldn't be back tracking with this new line of bovine by product that Trump ordered the strike against the spy agencies best advice. ..."
"... The neo cons are getting desperate, like a scene from Hitler's last days in the bunker when the illusion is dissolved that any further military ability is all but crushed. ..."
"... After Seymour Hersh ridiculed the White House for having 'punished' Bashar al Assad, for a crime he has not committed, it was necessary for the White House to show how 'intelligent' they are in preventing 'another' attacks. Fake face saving! ..."
"... This wreaks of propaganda that is designed to counter the Sy Hersh story and leaks that just came out regarding trump ignoring Intel and attacking Syria anyway. The White House changed the narrative from did trump Le to watch out for a cutout chemo attack and its statement about future chemical strikes claims there was a first strike - it seeks to make a fallacy assumed as true. ..."
"... I go along with comments 14 and 15 and see it actually as a response intended to defend against the inference from the Hersh piece that Trump revealed himself to be a moron for succumbing despite the evidence to media propaganda. I think that the problem is that Trump is less than fully in control of elements of his government, possibly even Spicer, as evidenced by the failure to inform the state dept, military and others of the statement, which may not have been fully vetted. I wouldn't be surprised if Spicer's time as press secretary is limited. ..."
"... The fact that the Hersh piece was published in one of Germany's ueber-establishment organs, Die Welt, is significant. It means that Germany is no longer on board, and I don't see Macron, though he is an empty suit, doing a 180 like some fear, since he takes many of his orders from Merkel. ..."
"... Meanwhile, the Russia conspiracy stories in the US seem to be in the early stages of blowing up, with a CNN official being exposed as admitting it was all propaganda, and Loretta Lynch, the ex-Justice Minister, appearing to be becoming a target based on her defence of the Harpy from criminal liability for the email server during the 2016 campaign. ..."
"... It's got to be a bitch for all the former Trumpsters around here who have seen their main man morph from a swamp-draining non-interventionist into a world class warmonger with a cabinet full of world class swamp creatures. ..."
"... Things certainly didn't work out as planned. Assad is in the cross hairs as is Iran and Hezbollah. It's maybe time to hope that Mueller gets enough dirt, and fast, to dethrone this dangerous president even if it leaves some egg on the face of certain Russian officials and businessmen. ..."
"... thanks b.. no proof needed with the west... lies and insinuation of responsibility is all that is needed... ..."
The White House claims that the Syrian government is preparing "chemical weapon attacks". This
is clearly not the case. Syria is winning the war against the country. Any such attack would clearly
be to its disadvantage. The White House announcement must thereby be understood as preparation for
another U.S. attack on Syria in "retaliation" for an upcoming staged "chemical weapon attack" which
will be blamed on the Syrian government.
In August 2013 Syria invited inspectors of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
to investigate chemical weapons attacks on the Syrian army. As soon as the inspectors arrived in
Damascus a "chemical attack" was staged in Ghouta near Damascus. Lots of Jihadist video coverage
of killed children was published and the "western" media blamed the incident on the Syrian government.
It never explained why targeting a militarily irrelevant area with chemical weapons at the same time
as inspectors arrived would have been a rational decision for a Syrian government that was just regaining
control and international standing.
The "attack" was clearly staged by
the opposition of the Syrian government and its foreign supporters. The Obama administration had
planned to use it to launch U.S. attacks on the Syrian government but refrained from this when Russia
arranged to remove Syria's strategic chemical weapons, aimed at Israel, instead.
In early 2017 the new U.S. president Trump made positive comments about the Syrian government.
Assad can stay, he said. The Syrian military and its allies had gained the upper hand and were victorious
on all fronts.
Two days later another "chemical attack" was staged in the al-Qaeda held town of Khan Sheikhun.
Lots of Jihadi video coverage of killed children, likely prepared in advance, was spilled onto the
"western" public. U.S. intelligence
knew that no chemical attack by the Syrian government had taken place. But the Trump administration
used the incident to launch a volley of cruise missiles against a Syrian military airport. The neoconservatives
were delighted. They finally had Trump where they wanted him. The media coverage changed from damming
Trump for his alleged "Russian connections" to lauding his decisiveness in response to the faked
attack.
Late May the new French president Macron ostensibly changed his position towards the Syrian government.
The hostile position of France (and other EU countries) against the Syrian president Assad that had
been eminent throughout the last six years
changed on a dime :
Macron said that on Syria: "My profound conviction is that we need a political and diplomatic
roadmap. We won't solve the question only with military force. That is a collective error we have
made. The real change I've made on this question, is that I haven't said the deposing of Bashar
al-Assad is a prerequisite for everything. Because no one has introduced me to his legitimate
successor!
But Macron also added:
"I have red lines on chemical weapons and humanitarian corridors. I said it very clearly to Vladimir
Putin. I will be uncompromising on that. So the use of chemical weapons will be met with a response,
and even if France acts alone."
This immediately set off my warning lights:
Moon of Alabama @MoonofA -
4:28 PM - 29 May
2017
You like fakes? Tune in to Macron announcing the next False Flag chemical weapon attack in Syria.
Like all "red lines" this one Macron set was an invitation to the Takfiris to launch more fake
incidents. Others had a
similar reaction
to Macron's (fake) turnaround.
The end of the war on Syria is
in sight . One can start to tabulate the
winners and losers . The U.S. military
conceded that it had lost the race to occupy south-east Syria. All these turns in favor of Syria
show that the war is practically won unless some of the outside sponsors of the Takfiri "rebels"
again escalate.
Such an escalation is now happening. The White House
claims to have
information that the Syrian government is preparing
a chemical weapon
attack to kill "innocent children":
In an ominous statement issued with no supporting evidence or further explanation , Press Secretary
Sean Spicer said the U.S. had "identified potential preparations for another chemical weapons
attack by the Assad regime that would likely result in the mass murder of civilians, including
innocent children."
He said the activities were similar to preparations taken before an April 2017 attack that
killed dozens of men, women and children, and warned that if "Mr. Assad conducts another mass
murder attack using chemical weapons, he and his military will pay a heavy price."
Several State Department officials typically involved in coordinating such announcements said
they were caught completely off guard by the warning, which didn't appear to be discussed in advance
with other national security agencies. Typically, the State Department, the Pentagon and U.S.
intelligence agencies would all be consulted before the White House issued a declaration sure
to ricochet across foreign capitals.
The White House claim is of course nonsense and not supported by any evidence or logic at all.
No one
but the White House, not the State Department nor the Defense Department, seems to be informed
about this (though that could be a ruse):
Five US defense officials said they did not know where the potential chemical attack would come
from and were unaware the White House was planning a statement.
The lunatic US ambassador to the UN jumped in to make it clear that it does not matter who
commits whatever crime in Syria, Takfiris, the U.S. or Israel, it will be the Syrian, Russian and
Iranian governments who will held guilty of it:
Nikki Haley @nikkihaley -
2:36 AM - 27
Jun 2017
Any further attacks done to the people of Syria will be blamed on Assad, but also on Russia &
Iran who support him killing his own people.
A U.S. bomb attack on an Islamic State used building in Mayadin, Syria, just
killed 57 prisoners of the Islamic State. Will Nikki Halley hold the Syrian government responsible
for this?
Trump has call with France's Macron first thing this morning, before intel brief. Then meeting
w Nat. Sec. adviser McMaster
Intense U.S. military reconnaissance
takes place
along the Syrian coast. The UK Defense Minister just
announced that his government is "in full agreement" with any U.S. "retaliation" for a chemical
attack in Syria. U.S. Secretary of Defense Mattis announced that the U.S. will
continue to arm its
Kurdish proxies in Syria even after ISIS is defeated.
During the last three days Al-Qaeda attacks on Syrian army position near the Israeli occupied
Golan heights were
supported by Israeli air attacks .
This all is clearly a coordinated operation by the "western" supporters of the Takfiris in Syria.
Their aim is to prevent the victory of Syria and its allies. The U.S. wants to split up the country.
The announced fake "chemical attack" and the "retaliation" it is supposed to justify will likely
happen in the south-west of Syria around Deraa where all recent attempts by Israel and the U.S. supported
Takfiris to dislodge the Syrian government forces have failed. The provocation, now prepared and
announced by Macron and the White House and supported by the UK, is probably planned to happen
shortly before or during the upcoming G-20 meeting in Hamburg:
President Trump and members of his administration are requesting a full bilateral meeting with
Russian President Vladimir Putin at the G-20 summit in Germany next month.
...
While some administration officials have pressed for a quick "pull-aside" meeting at the Group
of 20 summit or lower officials talking privately instead of the heads of state, Trump wants an
event that includes the media and time for work sessions, according to one government official.
Trump has to make a deal (or war) with Russia and the announced fake "chemical attack" will
be the pressure point against Putin. The
neoconservatives in his administration want to
break up
Syria and Trump is tasked to get the Russian agreement for that (... or else.)
Syria insists
that its has no chemical weapons nor any intention to use any indiscriminate weapon. Russia
warns of any further military aggression and calls such U.S. threats
unacceptable .
Posted by b on June 27, 2017 at 07:49 AM |
Permalink
Don't you think that if the Americans really intended to make a false flag, they would never
issue this warning? For me, looks like the White House, knowing of the possibility of a Pentagon
faction to provoke a false flag, issued this warning as an alert to Russians and Syrians and as
a vaccin, to avoid this operation.
Intresting b,- on the France connection, perhaps France are the ones feeding the false info to
bomb Syria, the sleazy Macron needs a war to get some support? Anyway, check EU, Western nations,
Media these days and see the ugly propaganda being played out, once again the west plan, threat
with illegal wars and their media is right there to help them.
Russia is quite uninterested in defending Syria it seems, I think at least they could have
shipped Syria S300 and put them right in Damascus by know.
Because, after Syria, Russia like Iran and North Korea will also sooner or later be bombed.
Be sure about that. These are sick lunatics ruling the American military.
Remember who rule America these days, its not Trump:
Bannon: Trump's strategy is 'let the warfighters fight the war'
The US Regime is obviously in panic mode. The SAA is rapidly advancing on three fronts:
1. Raqqa - The SAA is quickly moving around the hapless Kurds and moving to the area south
of Raqqa. Ensuring IS is unable to execute their agreement with the US Regime to evacuate towards
Deir ez-Zur.
2. Deir ez-Zur - Huge numbers of SAA are quickly approaching the defenders in Deir ez-Zur.
Once Deir ez-Zur is secure, the SAA will move north to link up with the SAA forces in al Hasakah.
3. al Bukamal - The SAA and Iraq PMU are working as a unified force on both sides of the border
and are preparing to surround the border city.
What this means is:
The US Regime partion dreams are dead. There is no viable Kurdish 'state' other than a
bunch of clowns pretending to be a new 'government' in Raqqa.
The Iraq PMU are increasingly working side by side with the SAA. Any attack by the US Regime
puts their bases in Iraq open to attack.
The absurd threats from Saudi Arabia towards Qatar now have the various terror groups still
alive in Syria attacking each other.
Syria is close to a decisive military victory against the foreign terrorists. Once the
SAA secures the bulk of the Eurphrates only Idlib and Daraa remain as security problems.
Every day the SAA advances and IS or terrorist pockets are cleared, more and more troops
are freed up and being moved to the major fronts in either Daraa or the Eurphrates.
Turkey and Russia are in complete agreement on preventing any sort of Kurdish state in
the north of Syria. Any attempts by the US Regime to establish some sort of giant military
base backed by Kurds is going to have to fight Turkey, the SAA, Russia, and quite possibly
Iraq.
The success of the de-escalation zone means that the US Regime is greatly hamstrung in
coming up with further faked chemical attacks. The only real options now are Idlib and Daraa.
IS is being wiped out in the eastern Syrian desert by the SAA and in the western desert of
Iraq by the PMU. Those giant grey IS areas on battle maps are evaporating and at the same time
the entire pretext for the US Regime to be attacking Syria.
Right after Khan Sheikhoun preparations were being made in the media for another false flag.
Several embarrassingly weak "think" pieces were published in the NYT attempting to rationalize
why Syria would use chemical weapons when it weakened the country's defenses.
Now almost three months later the White House is actually staging a roll out of the false flag.
Incredible. Legacy media can't raise a ruckus because their complicit in previous false flags.
Russia on the other hand can't back down this time. To do so would be to invite perpetual rape
and plunder by the U.S. and its various clients. Russia needs to make a very clear statement right
now -- paratroopers dropped around Deraa -- to prevent the false flag from going forward.
The US military generals got caught with their pants down. They are losing the war -- everything
but the wastelands. For the military/intel, losing is FAILURE. They basically get fired. So they
will pull any stunt to not "fail". Of course, the Russians are going to make them fail despite
all their "valiant" efforts. Trump better wake up and smell the coffee, or he will wake up to
a brilliant flash.
@2 a, 'Russia is quite uninterested in defending Syria it seems, I think at least they could
have shipped Syria S300 and put them right in Damascus by know'
i think so too, every time. but I've been wrong everytime so far. it's finally occurred to
me that there's more going on than what i know about, and that the Russians are dealing with a
fuller deck than i am. And that they've spent their lifetimes at this kind of high pressure stuff
and have a far better understanding of it all than i do. but don't take my word for it ... look
at the results they've gotten.
It is Trump, and his direct handlers, who have the bit in their teeth now. no one else
- state, nor defense, nor the 'analysis' false-front at the CIA - wants to go near this. Trump
wants to watch himself evolve as something bigger-than-life on TV, and whatever happens in what
we quaintly call 'the real world' has no place in his 'thinking'.
Massivly won? Sleazy Macron won an election where huge part of France didnt even vote not only
in the prez. election but in the parliamentary election.
Or please tell us why this sleazy Macron threat Syria with war all of a sudden? For what reason?
This guy is globalist 101% this is what people like himself do to get support.
This guy for crying out loud just warned some weeks ago that France will respond to a chemical
attack! What more proof do you need?
U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said Tuesday that America will continue to provide weapons
to Syrian Kurdish fighters after the battle to oust Islamic State militants from Raqqa, Syria,
is over.
Mattis said the de-confliction talks continue and are happening at several military levels,
to insure that aircraft and ground forces are safe.
What is in maddog's peace pipe? i guess he didn't get the memo on the upcoming retaliation
for the - so far, virtual - new 'sarin attack' - which is known to be aimed at babies? not entirely
clear which comes first, the attack or the 'retaliation' for it. The russians are not interested
in 'deconflicting' with a lying/out-of-the-loop bunch such as the american general command. And
those same generals are pushing the turks into russia's lap ... i guess when you have a crack
outfit - outfit on crack? - like the saudis for allies you don't need anyone else. The kurds have
sold ALL their bona fides down the euphrates with their us/saudi no-matter-what alliance.
it's hard to believe the us wehrmacht is in such obvious disarray. if the Russians wait it
out, the Americans will defeat themselves in Syria. Looks like in short order, too.
Ah, that old chestnut again...typical Zionist Hollywood formula...the good cop, bad cop routine.
Trump is actually perfect for this shit, his background in shithouse primetime T.V. makes for
the perfect dummy agent.
Trump does not need a chemical weapons attack to actually take place in Syria. He may be planning
to preempt such an incident. This way there will be no phony White Helmets video footage to dissect.
Listen to what the British Defense Minister has to say:
British Defense Minister Michael Fallon said London would support U.S. action to prevent a
chemical weapons attack but that it had not seen the intelligence on which Washington based
Monday's statement.
Moon is precisely right. The implied assumption of WH/intel Junta is that Ivan is coward and will
not stand. The implied action is that WH/intel intends attack RuF/Sy?Ir/+ forces. Assumes
Iran etc will not stand. Is this an incorrect assumption set? Failure of WH strategy is thus proximate.
Trump is even more of a idiot than I previously thought. Now he plays patsy for the neo con's
hegemonic Empire agenda in taking the blame for the Syrian air base strike on information the
intelligence community now claims they had that was inconclusive that Assad did it.
Hersh is again the go to mouth piece on this one for the neo cons. If the neo cons narrative
on their story of the Assad forces having used gas AGAIN hadn't fallen apart so quickly, even
after their MSM backed the story to the hilt, they wouldn't be back tracking with this new line
of bovine by product that Trump ordered the strike against the spy agencies best advice.
This whole show is a cock and bull offering. The neo cons are getting desperate, like a
scene from Hitler's last days in the bunker when the illusion is dissolved that any further military
ability is all but crushed.
So desperate they US neo con brain trust is willing to go to the poison gas well again and
again with their 'tell the big lie often' meme....after all it is only the Syrian civilian population
and innocent beautiful babies that will have to die this time around again. I'll give the Israelis
some credit for at least having the better excuse for their aggression against the Syrian nation
and people.
After Seymour Hersh ridiculed the White House for having 'punished' Bashar al Assad, for a
crime he has not committed, it was necessary for the White House to show how 'intelligent' they
are in preventing 'another' attacks. Fake face saving!
Mattis is clearly working secretly with the White House on a plan to counter the steady progress
of the SAA. He seems strangely unprepared for recent developments on the ground. There is still
a good possibility he will try something foolhardy like sending his militia at al Tanf north thru
SAA lines to join the fight at Deir Ezzor.
The SAA probably won't take Raqqa, but will focus on Deir Ezzor which is only 75 miles away.
Expect the chemical attack to be in the vicinity of deir ezzor.
The recent series of failures of the US in Syria, together with a shift of Turkey on the side
of Bashar al Assad's army and France's u-turn on Bashar Assad necessitated a big noise: The threat
of a 'new' chemical attack that would united the "friends of Syria" again.
Another infantile drama from desperate Pentagon to show the US relevance in the region! France
will not buy it and Russia will make sure that false flag wont happen again.
yeah, but they have to pose in their photo-ops themselves. no one else wants to be seen in
pictures with them in the imagined future. the rump loves it ... 'larger than life'.
well, if they shut up now and wait a bit, they can announce that they were successful in preventing
the dastardly attack on the babies by 'assad' ...
on the other hand, they may well have to figure out what to do after al-cia-duh 'surprises'
them with some dead babies ... they'll be shocked! never imagined that might happen! wasn't in
their copy of the script ... it's all a sit-com to them ...
Looks like Assad is taking a "tour" of Russia's airbase...
https://twitter.com/AliHa_97/status/879685253878734849
Looks like the time frame has been moved up dramatically since b's report... AP also
running stories about the US military seeing indications of a chemical weapon being prepared.
I've got a quibble with the intro to this post. It should say...
The White House claims that the Syrian government is preparing " another chemical
weapon attack".
"another" is the presumptuous, Hollywood-ish weasel word intended to pre-emptively legitimise
the false and unproven Yankee allegations that the Syrian Govt has conducted ANY chemical attacks.
In fact, one could go farther and point out the measures taken by the Christian Colonial Clowns
to AVOID producing evidence to support their past claims.
G20 G20 G20. If Putin wants to avoid WW3 he must get the leaders of countries like China, Germany,
Turkey, Italy, Indonesia, Korea, who else? to stand up behind him and condemn this rush to war.
The time has come for Merkel to make a decision - and it happens to be at her home G20 Summit.
Does Mutti have the cojones???
This wreaks of propaganda that is designed to counter the Sy Hersh story and leaks that
just came out regarding trump ignoring Intel and attacking Syria anyway. The White House changed
the narrative from did trump Le to watch out for a cutout chemo attack and its statement about
future chemical strikes claims there was a first strike - it seeks to make a fallacy assumed as
true.
It's the same tactc he is using regarding Russian interference. He is redirected there as well
to Obama. "Why didn't Obama do anything about the leaks."
That said you can't put anything beyond the empire. SAA, Russia and friends need to be ready.
exiled off mainstreet | Jun 27, 2017 10:33:18 AM |
25
I go along with comments 14 and 15 and see it actually as a response intended to defend against
the inference from the Hersh piece that Trump revealed himself to be a moron for succumbing despite
the evidence to media propaganda. I think that the problem is that Trump is less than fully in
control of elements of his government, possibly even Spicer, as evidenced by the failure to inform
the state dept, military and others of the statement, which may not have been fully vetted. I
wouldn't be surprised if Spicer's time as press secretary is limited.
The fact that the Hersh piece was published in one of Germany's ueber-establishment organs,
Die Welt, is significant. It means that Germany is no longer on board, and I don't see Macron,
though he is an empty suit, doing a 180 like some fear, since he takes many of his orders from
Merkel.
It is seriously disconcerting that the neocons still seem to be able to rule the roost. If
any "chemical" attack occurs within a few days or longer away, it will be extremely suspect.
Meanwhile, the Russia conspiracy stories in the US seem to be in the early stages of blowing
up, with a CNN official being exposed as admitting it was all propaganda, and Loretta Lynch, the
ex-Justice Minister, appearing to be becoming a target based on her defence of the Harpy from
criminal liability for the email server during the 2016 campaign.
In light of these facts, I think the whole thing more likely shows weakness and disarray, not
a serious conspiratorial threat of armageddon, though it could end up blowing up in that direction.
Hmmm. If the preemptive strike against an alleged chemical attack preparation takes out Assad?
Just serendipity, icing on the cake? Any chance that the message is that these uSA has intelligence
on Assad's movements?
I suppose now that CNN has fired three journalists that Special Council Mueller will give notice
to his investigators to pack it in and go home. Yep, nothing to see here folks. Sorry for wasting
your time. Fat fucking chance. This cat's on a mission and won't be deterred.
It's got to be a bitch for all the former Trumpsters around here who have seen their main
man morph from a swamp-draining non-interventionist into a world class warmonger with a cabinet
full of world class swamp creatures.
Things certainly didn't work out as planned. Assad is in the cross hairs as is Iran and
Hezbollah. It's maybe time to hope that Mueller gets enough dirt, and fast, to dethrone this dangerous
president even if it leaves some egg on the face of certain Russian officials and businessmen.
The U.S. regime has recently seen chemical weapons activity at the Shay'rat Airbase in the
Homs Governorate, the Pentagon claimed, as reported by Matt Lee of the Associated Press.
this seems pretty whack. the syrians will say hey, come have a look? the us will go and say ...
oops, our mistake? what's going on here? i guess it's the pentagon giving the rump a way to climb
down? he can say he 'forced' an inspection? or something?
Since we know that Trump gets his info from his favorite cable TV programs and a select few websites
and doesn't use the vast resources of the U.S. Intel community, has anyone found the original
source for the new Assad allegation? It would be interesting to see what The Donald is reading
nowadays.
thanks b.. no proof needed with the west... lies and insinuation of responsibility is all
that is needed...
ditto many comments here..
@ 22 Hoarsewhisperer.. yeah - 'another' when they haven't verified any previously... more lies
and insinuation of responsibility absent any facts... who needs facts when you want to destroy
another country?
@29 quote "If people in the West don't want WW3 they're going to have to do something about
the people who bribe, and own, their politicians." but hoarsewhisperer - that is what all these
lies and deception are meant to do - keep the people in the west completely ignorant of the facts
and reality.. dontcha know that lying to your people in the msm regularly keeps the sheeple quiet
and passive? us freaks here at moa are in a real minority..
@34 chuba - they just make this shit up man... the first source i saw was from yesterday spicer
idiot..
Looks like after Hersh story was published trump decided to double down.
Notable quotes:
"... The lunatic US ambassador to the UN jumped in to make it clear that it does not matter who commits whatever crime in Syria, Takfiris, the U.S. or Israel, it will be the Syrian, Russian and Iranian governments who will held guilty of it: ..."
"... Trump has to make a deal (or war) with Russia and the announced fake "chemical attack" will be the pressure point against Putin. The neoconservatives in his administration want to break up Syria and Trump is tasked to get the Russian agreement for that (... or else.) ..."
"... Don't you think that if the Americans really intended to make a false flag, they would never issue this warning? For me, looks like the White House, knowing of the possibility of a Pentagon faction to provoke a false flag, issued this warning as an alert to Russians and Syrians and as a vaccin, to avoid this operation. ..."
"... Right after Khan Sheikhoun preparations were being made in the media for another false flag. Several embarrassingly weak "think" pieces were published in the NYT attempting to rationalize why Syria would use chemical weapons when it weakened the country's defenses. ..."
"... i'd look to the CIA for false flags, not the pentagon. the pentagon sees itself on the receiving end of the cia's 'fun and games'. ..."
"... It is Trump, and his direct handlers, who have the bit in their teeth now. no one else - state, nor defense, nor the 'analysis' false-front at the CIA - wants to go near this. Trump wants to watch himself evolve as something bigger-than-life on TV, and whatever happens in what we quaintly call 'the real world' has no place in his 'thinking'. ..."
"... What is in maddog's peace pipe? i guess he didn't get the memo on the upcoming retaliation for the - so far, virtual - new 'sarin attack' - which is known to be aimed at babies? not entirely clear which comes first, the attack or the 'retaliation' for it. The russians are not interested in 'deconflicting' with a lying/out-of-the-loop bunch such as the american general command. And those same generals are pushing the turks into russia's lap ... i guess when you have a crack outfit - outfit on crack? - like the saudis for allies you don't need anyone else. The kurds have sold ALL their bona fides down the euphrates with their us/saudi no-matter-what alliance. ..."
"... Ah, that old chestnut again...typical Zionist Hollywood formula...the good cop, bad cop routine. Trump is actually perfect for this shit, his background in shithouse primetime T.V. makes for the perfect dummy agent. ..."
"... I guess this is why Sy Hersh's most recent effort didn't get published in the US or UK...it just didn't suit the upcoming singular MSM narrative. ..."
"... Trump is even more of a idiot than I previously thought. Now he plays patsy for the neo con's hegemonic Empire agenda in taking the blame for the Syrian air base strike on information the intelligence community now claims they had that was inconclusive that Assad did it. ..."
"... If the neo cons narrative on their story of the Assad forces having used gas AGAIN hadn't fallen apart so quickly, even after their MSM backed the story to the hilt, they wouldn't be back tracking with this new line of bovine by product that Trump ordered the strike against the spy agencies best advice. ..."
"... The neo cons are getting desperate, like a scene from Hitler's last days in the bunker when the illusion is dissolved that any further military ability is all but crushed. ..."
"... After Seymour Hersh ridiculed the White House for having 'punished' Bashar al Assad, for a crime he has not committed, it was necessary for the White House to show how 'intelligent' they are in preventing 'another' attacks. Fake face saving! ..."
"... This wreaks of propaganda that is designed to counter the Sy Hersh story and leaks that just came out regarding trump ignoring Intel and attacking Syria anyway. The White House changed the narrative from did trump Le to watch out for a cutout chemo attack and its statement about future chemical strikes claims there was a first strike - it seeks to make a fallacy assumed as true. ..."
"... I go along with comments 14 and 15 and see it actually as a response intended to defend against the inference from the Hersh piece that Trump revealed himself to be a moron for succumbing despite the evidence to media propaganda. I think that the problem is that Trump is less than fully in control of elements of his government, possibly even Spicer, as evidenced by the failure to inform the state dept, military and others of the statement, which may not have been fully vetted. I wouldn't be surprised if Spicer's time as press secretary is limited. ..."
"... The fact that the Hersh piece was published in one of Germany's ueber-establishment organs, Die Welt, is significant. It means that Germany is no longer on board, and I don't see Macron, though he is an empty suit, doing a 180 like some fear, since he takes many of his orders from Merkel. ..."
"... Meanwhile, the Russia conspiracy stories in the US seem to be in the early stages of blowing up, with a CNN official being exposed as admitting it was all propaganda, and Loretta Lynch, the ex-Justice Minister, appearing to be becoming a target based on her defence of the Harpy from criminal liability for the email server during the 2016 campaign. ..."
"... It's got to be a bitch for all the former Trumpsters around here who have seen their main man morph from a swamp-draining non-interventionist into a world class warmonger with a cabinet full of world class swamp creatures. ..."
"... Things certainly didn't work out as planned. Assad is in the cross hairs as is Iran and Hezbollah. It's maybe time to hope that Mueller gets enough dirt, and fast, to dethrone this dangerous president even if it leaves some egg on the face of certain Russian officials and businessmen. ..."
"... thanks b.. no proof needed with the west... lies and insinuation of responsibility is all that is needed... ..."
The White House claims that the Syrian government is preparing "chemical weapon attacks". This
is clearly not the case. Syria is winning the war against the country. Any such attack would clearly
be to its disadvantage. The White House announcement must thereby be understood as preparation for
another U.S. attack on Syria in "retaliation" for an upcoming staged "chemical weapon attack" which
will be blamed on the Syrian government.
In August 2013 Syria invited inspectors of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
to investigate chemical weapons attacks on the Syrian army. As soon as the inspectors arrived in
Damascus a "chemical attack" was staged in Ghouta near Damascus. Lots of Jihadist video coverage
of killed children was published and the "western" media blamed the incident on the Syrian government.
It never explained why targeting a militarily irrelevant area with chemical weapons at the same time
as inspectors arrived would have been a rational decision for a Syrian government that was just regaining
control and international standing.
The "attack" was clearly staged by
the opposition of the Syrian government and its foreign supporters. The Obama administration had
planned to use it to launch U.S. attacks on the Syrian government but refrained from this when Russia
arranged to remove Syria's strategic chemical weapons, aimed at Israel, instead.
In early 2017 the new U.S. president Trump made positive comments about the Syrian government.
Assad can stay, he said. The Syrian military and its allies had gained the upper hand and were victorious
on all fronts.
Two days later another "chemical attack" was staged in the al-Qaeda held town of Khan Sheikhun.
Lots of Jihadi video coverage of killed children, likely prepared in advance, was spilled onto the
"western" public. U.S. intelligence
knew that no chemical attack by the Syrian government had taken place. But the Trump administration
used the incident to launch a volley of cruise missiles against a Syrian military airport. The neoconservatives
were delighted. They finally had Trump where they wanted him. The media coverage changed from damming
Trump for his alleged "Russian connections" to lauding his decisiveness in response to the faked
attack.
Late May the new French president Macron ostensibly changed his position towards the Syrian government.
The hostile position of France (and other EU countries) against the Syrian president Assad that had
been eminent throughout the last six years
changed on a dime :
Macron said that on Syria: "My profound conviction is that we need a political and diplomatic
roadmap. We won't solve the question only with military force. That is a collective error we have
made. The real change I've made on this question, is that I haven't said the deposing of Bashar
al-Assad is a prerequisite for everything. Because no one has introduced me to his legitimate
successor!
But Macron also added:
"I have red lines on chemical weapons and humanitarian corridors. I said it very clearly to Vladimir
Putin. I will be uncompromising on that. So the use of chemical weapons will be met with a response,
and even if France acts alone."
This immediately set off my warning lights:
Moon of Alabama @MoonofA -
4:28 PM - 29 May
2017
You like fakes? Tune in to Macron announcing the next False Flag chemical weapon attack in Syria.
Like all "red lines" this one Macron set was an invitation to the Takfiris to launch more fake
incidents. Others had a
similar reaction
to Macron's (fake) turnaround.
The end of the war on Syria is
in sight . One can start to tabulate the
winners and losers . The U.S. military
conceded that it had lost the race to occupy south-east Syria. All these turns in favor of Syria
show that the war is practically won unless some of the outside sponsors of the Takfiri "rebels"
again escalate.
Such an escalation is now happening. The White House
claims to have
information that the Syrian government is preparing
a chemical weapon
attack to kill "innocent children":
In an ominous statement issued with no supporting evidence or further explanation , Press Secretary
Sean Spicer said the U.S. had "identified potential preparations for another chemical weapons
attack by the Assad regime that would likely result in the mass murder of civilians, including
innocent children."
He said the activities were similar to preparations taken before an April 2017 attack that
killed dozens of men, women and children, and warned that if "Mr. Assad conducts another mass
murder attack using chemical weapons, he and his military will pay a heavy price."
Several State Department officials typically involved in coordinating such announcements said
they were caught completely off guard by the warning, which didn't appear to be discussed in advance
with other national security agencies. Typically, the State Department, the Pentagon and U.S.
intelligence agencies would all be consulted before the White House issued a declaration sure
to ricochet across foreign capitals.
The White House claim is of course nonsense and not supported by any evidence or logic at all.
No one
but the White House, not the State Department nor the Defense Department, seems to be informed
about this (though that could be a ruse):
Five US defense officials said they did not know where the potential chemical attack would come
from and were unaware the White House was planning a statement.
The lunatic US ambassador to the UN jumped in to make it clear that it does not matter who
commits whatever crime in Syria, Takfiris, the U.S. or Israel, it will be the Syrian, Russian and
Iranian governments who will held guilty of it:
Nikki Haley @nikkihaley -
2:36 AM - 27
Jun 2017
Any further attacks done to the people of Syria will be blamed on Assad, but also on Russia &
Iran who support him killing his own people.
A U.S. bomb attack on an Islamic State used building in Mayadin, Syria, just
killed 57 prisoners of the Islamic State. Will Nikki Halley hold the Syrian government responsible
for this?
Trump has call with France's Macron first thing this morning, before intel brief. Then meeting
w Nat. Sec. adviser McMaster
Intense U.S. military reconnaissance
takes place
along the Syrian coast. The UK Defense Minister just
announced that his government is "in full agreement" with any U.S. "retaliation" for a chemical
attack in Syria. U.S. Secretary of Defense Mattis announced that the U.S. will
continue to arm its
Kurdish proxies in Syria even after ISIS is defeated.
During the last three days Al-Qaeda attacks on Syrian army position near the Israeli occupied
Golan heights were
supported by Israeli air attacks .
This all is clearly a coordinated operation by the "western" supporters of the Takfiris in Syria.
Their aim is to prevent the victory of Syria and its allies. The U.S. wants to split up the country.
The announced fake "chemical attack" and the "retaliation" it is supposed to justify will likely
happen in the south-west of Syria around Deraa where all recent attempts by Israel and the U.S. supported
Takfiris to dislodge the Syrian government forces have failed. The provocation, now prepared and
announced by Macron and the White House and supported by the UK, is probably planned to happen
shortly before or during the upcoming G-20 meeting in Hamburg:
President Trump and members of his administration are requesting a full bilateral meeting with
Russian President Vladimir Putin at the G-20 summit in Germany next month.
...
While some administration officials have pressed for a quick "pull-aside" meeting at the Group
of 20 summit or lower officials talking privately instead of the heads of state, Trump wants an
event that includes the media and time for work sessions, according to one government official.
Trump has to make a deal (or war) with Russia and the announced fake "chemical attack" will
be the pressure point against Putin. The
neoconservatives in his administration want to
break up
Syria and Trump is tasked to get the Russian agreement for that (... or else.)
Syria insists
that its has no chemical weapons nor any intention to use any indiscriminate weapon. Russia
warns of any further military aggression and calls such U.S. threats
unacceptable .
Posted by b on June 27, 2017 at 07:49 AM |
Permalink
Don't you think that if the Americans really intended to make a false flag, they would never
issue this warning? For me, looks like the White House, knowing of the possibility of a Pentagon
faction to provoke a false flag, issued this warning as an alert to Russians and Syrians and as
a vaccin, to avoid this operation.
Intresting b,- on the France connection, perhaps France are the ones feeding the false info to
bomb Syria, the sleazy Macron needs a war to get some support? Anyway, check EU, Western nations,
Media these days and see the ugly propaganda being played out, once again the west plan, threat
with illegal wars and their media is right there to help them.
Russia is quite uninterested in defending Syria it seems, I think at least they could have
shipped Syria S300 and put them right in Damascus by know.
Because, after Syria, Russia like Iran and North Korea will also sooner or later be bombed.
Be sure about that. These are sick lunatics ruling the American military.
Remember who rule America these days, its not Trump:
Bannon: Trump's strategy is 'let the warfighters fight the war'
The US Regime is obviously in panic mode. The SAA is rapidly advancing on three fronts:
1. Raqqa - The SAA is quickly moving around the hapless Kurds and moving to the area south
of Raqqa. Ensuring IS is unable to execute their agreement with the US Regime to evacuate towards
Deir ez-Zur.
2. Deir ez-Zur - Huge numbers of SAA are quickly approaching the defenders in Deir ez-Zur.
Once Deir ez-Zur is secure, the SAA will move north to link up with the SAA forces in al Hasakah.
3. al Bukamal - The SAA and Iraq PMU are working as a unified force on both sides of the border
and are preparing to surround the border city.
What this means is:
The US Regime partion dreams are dead. There is no viable Kurdish 'state' other than a
bunch of clowns pretending to be a new 'government' in Raqqa.
The Iraq PMU are increasingly working side by side with the SAA. Any attack by the US Regime
puts their bases in Iraq open to attack.
The absurd threats from Saudi Arabia towards Qatar now have the various terror groups still
alive in Syria attacking each other.
Syria is close to a decisive military victory against the foreign terrorists. Once the
SAA secures the bulk of the Eurphrates only Idlib and Daraa remain as security problems.
Every day the SAA advances and IS or terrorist pockets are cleared, more and more troops
are freed up and being moved to the major fronts in either Daraa or the Eurphrates.
Turkey and Russia are in complete agreement on preventing any sort of Kurdish state in
the north of Syria. Any attempts by the US Regime to establish some sort of giant military
base backed by Kurds is going to have to fight Turkey, the SAA, Russia, and quite possibly
Iraq.
The success of the de-escalation zone means that the US Regime is greatly hamstrung in
coming up with further faked chemical attacks. The only real options now are Idlib and Daraa.
IS is being wiped out in the eastern Syrian desert by the SAA and in the western desert of
Iraq by the PMU. Those giant grey IS areas on battle maps are evaporating and at the same time
the entire pretext for the US Regime to be attacking Syria.
Right after Khan Sheikhoun preparations were being made in the media for another false flag.
Several embarrassingly weak "think" pieces were published in the NYT attempting to rationalize
why Syria would use chemical weapons when it weakened the country's defenses.
Now almost three months later the White House is actually staging a roll out of the false flag.
Incredible. Legacy media can't raise a ruckus because their complicit in previous false flags.
Russia on the other hand can't back down this time. To do so would be to invite perpetual rape
and plunder by the U.S. and its various clients. Russia needs to make a very clear statement right
now -- paratroopers dropped around Deraa -- to prevent the false flag from going forward.
The US military generals got caught with their pants down. They are losing the war -- everything
but the wastelands. For the military/intel, losing is FAILURE. They basically get fired. So they
will pull any stunt to not "fail". Of course, the Russians are going to make them fail despite
all their "valiant" efforts. Trump better wake up and smell the coffee, or he will wake up to
a brilliant flash.
@2 a, 'Russia is quite uninterested in defending Syria it seems, I think at least they could
have shipped Syria S300 and put them right in Damascus by know'
i think so too, every time. but I've been wrong everytime so far. it's finally occurred to
me that there's more going on than what i know about, and that the Russians are dealing with a
fuller deck than i am. And that they've spent their lifetimes at this kind of high pressure stuff
and have a far better understanding of it all than i do. but don't take my word for it ... look
at the results they've gotten.
It is Trump, and his direct handlers, who have the bit in their teeth now. no one else
- state, nor defense, nor the 'analysis' false-front at the CIA - wants to go near this. Trump
wants to watch himself evolve as something bigger-than-life on TV, and whatever happens in what
we quaintly call 'the real world' has no place in his 'thinking'.
Massivly won? Sleazy Macron won an election where huge part of France didnt even vote not only
in the prez. election but in the parliamentary election.
Or please tell us why this sleazy Macron threat Syria with war all of a sudden? For what reason?
This guy is globalist 101% this is what people like himself do to get support.
This guy for crying out loud just warned some weeks ago that France will respond to a chemical
attack! What more proof do you need?
U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said Tuesday that America will continue to provide weapons
to Syrian Kurdish fighters after the battle to oust Islamic State militants from Raqqa, Syria,
is over.
Mattis said the de-confliction talks continue and are happening at several military levels,
to insure that aircraft and ground forces are safe.
What is in maddog's peace pipe? i guess he didn't get the memo on the upcoming retaliation
for the - so far, virtual - new 'sarin attack' - which is known to be aimed at babies? not entirely
clear which comes first, the attack or the 'retaliation' for it. The russians are not interested
in 'deconflicting' with a lying/out-of-the-loop bunch such as the american general command. And
those same generals are pushing the turks into russia's lap ... i guess when you have a crack
outfit - outfit on crack? - like the saudis for allies you don't need anyone else. The kurds have
sold ALL their bona fides down the euphrates with their us/saudi no-matter-what alliance.
it's hard to believe the us wehrmacht is in such obvious disarray. if the Russians wait it
out, the Americans will defeat themselves in Syria. Looks like in short order, too.
Ah, that old chestnut again...typical Zionist Hollywood formula...the good cop, bad cop routine.
Trump is actually perfect for this shit, his background in shithouse primetime T.V. makes for
the perfect dummy agent.
Trump does not need a chemical weapons attack to actually take place in Syria. He may be planning
to preempt such an incident. This way there will be no phony White Helmets video footage to dissect.
Listen to what the British Defense Minister has to say:
British Defense Minister Michael Fallon said London would support U.S. action to prevent a
chemical weapons attack but that it had not seen the intelligence on which Washington based
Monday's statement.
Moon is precisely right. The implied assumption of WH/intel Junta is that Ivan is coward and will
not stand. The implied action is that WH/intel intends attack RuF/Sy?Ir/+ forces. Assumes
Iran etc will not stand. Is this an incorrect assumption set? Failure of WH strategy is thus proximate.
Trump is even more of a idiot than I previously thought. Now he plays patsy for the neo con's
hegemonic Empire agenda in taking the blame for the Syrian air base strike on information the
intelligence community now claims they had that was inconclusive that Assad did it.
Hersh is again the go to mouth piece on this one for the neo cons. If the neo cons narrative
on their story of the Assad forces having used gas AGAIN hadn't fallen apart so quickly, even
after their MSM backed the story to the hilt, they wouldn't be back tracking with this new line
of bovine by product that Trump ordered the strike against the spy agencies best advice.
This whole show is a cock and bull offering. The neo cons are getting desperate, like a
scene from Hitler's last days in the bunker when the illusion is dissolved that any further military
ability is all but crushed.
So desperate they US neo con brain trust is willing to go to the poison gas well again and
again with their 'tell the big lie often' meme....after all it is only the Syrian civilian population
and innocent beautiful babies that will have to die this time around again. I'll give the Israelis
some credit for at least having the better excuse for their aggression against the Syrian nation
and people.
After Seymour Hersh ridiculed the White House for having 'punished' Bashar al Assad, for a
crime he has not committed, it was necessary for the White House to show how 'intelligent' they
are in preventing 'another' attacks. Fake face saving!
Mattis is clearly working secretly with the White House on a plan to counter the steady progress
of the SAA. He seems strangely unprepared for recent developments on the ground. There is still
a good possibility he will try something foolhardy like sending his militia at al Tanf north thru
SAA lines to join the fight at Deir Ezzor.
The SAA probably won't take Raqqa, but will focus on Deir Ezzor which is only 75 miles away.
Expect the chemical attack to be in the vicinity of deir ezzor.
The recent series of failures of the US in Syria, together with a shift of Turkey on the side
of Bashar al Assad's army and France's u-turn on Bashar Assad necessitated a big noise: The threat
of a 'new' chemical attack that would united the "friends of Syria" again.
Another infantile drama from desperate Pentagon to show the US relevance in the region! France
will not buy it and Russia will make sure that false flag wont happen again.
yeah, but they have to pose in their photo-ops themselves. no one else wants to be seen in
pictures with them in the imagined future. the rump loves it ... 'larger than life'.
well, if they shut up now and wait a bit, they can announce that they were successful in preventing
the dastardly attack on the babies by 'assad' ...
on the other hand, they may well have to figure out what to do after al-cia-duh 'surprises'
them with some dead babies ... they'll be shocked! never imagined that might happen! wasn't in
their copy of the script ... it's all a sit-com to them ...
Looks like Assad is taking a "tour" of Russia's airbase...
https://twitter.com/AliHa_97/status/879685253878734849
Looks like the time frame has been moved up dramatically since b's report... AP also
running stories about the US military seeing indications of a chemical weapon being prepared.
I've got a quibble with the intro to this post. It should say...
The White House claims that the Syrian government is preparing " another chemical
weapon attack".
"another" is the presumptuous, Hollywood-ish weasel word intended to pre-emptively legitimise
the false and unproven Yankee allegations that the Syrian Govt has conducted ANY chemical attacks.
In fact, one could go farther and point out the measures taken by the Christian Colonial Clowns
to AVOID producing evidence to support their past claims.
G20 G20 G20. If Putin wants to avoid WW3 he must get the leaders of countries like China, Germany,
Turkey, Italy, Indonesia, Korea, who else? to stand up behind him and condemn this rush to war.
The time has come for Merkel to make a decision - and it happens to be at her home G20 Summit.
Does Mutti have the cojones???
This wreaks of propaganda that is designed to counter the Sy Hersh story and leaks that
just came out regarding trump ignoring Intel and attacking Syria anyway. The White House changed
the narrative from did trump Le to watch out for a cutout chemo attack and its statement about
future chemical strikes claims there was a first strike - it seeks to make a fallacy assumed as
true.
It's the same tactc he is using regarding Russian interference. He is redirected there as well
to Obama. "Why didn't Obama do anything about the leaks."
That said you can't put anything beyond the empire. SAA, Russia and friends need to be ready.
exiled off mainstreet | Jun 27, 2017 10:33:18 AM |
25
I go along with comments 14 and 15 and see it actually as a response intended to defend against
the inference from the Hersh piece that Trump revealed himself to be a moron for succumbing despite
the evidence to media propaganda. I think that the problem is that Trump is less than fully in
control of elements of his government, possibly even Spicer, as evidenced by the failure to inform
the state dept, military and others of the statement, which may not have been fully vetted. I
wouldn't be surprised if Spicer's time as press secretary is limited.
The fact that the Hersh piece was published in one of Germany's ueber-establishment organs,
Die Welt, is significant. It means that Germany is no longer on board, and I don't see Macron,
though he is an empty suit, doing a 180 like some fear, since he takes many of his orders from
Merkel.
It is seriously disconcerting that the neocons still seem to be able to rule the roost. If
any "chemical" attack occurs within a few days or longer away, it will be extremely suspect.
Meanwhile, the Russia conspiracy stories in the US seem to be in the early stages of blowing
up, with a CNN official being exposed as admitting it was all propaganda, and Loretta Lynch, the
ex-Justice Minister, appearing to be becoming a target based on her defence of the Harpy from
criminal liability for the email server during the 2016 campaign.
In light of these facts, I think the whole thing more likely shows weakness and disarray, not
a serious conspiratorial threat of armageddon, though it could end up blowing up in that direction.
Hmmm. If the preemptive strike against an alleged chemical attack preparation takes out Assad?
Just serendipity, icing on the cake? Any chance that the message is that these uSA has intelligence
on Assad's movements?
I suppose now that CNN has fired three journalists that Special Council Mueller will give notice
to his investigators to pack it in and go home. Yep, nothing to see here folks. Sorry for wasting
your time. Fat fucking chance. This cat's on a mission and won't be deterred.
It's got to be a bitch for all the former Trumpsters around here who have seen their main
man morph from a swamp-draining non-interventionist into a world class warmonger with a cabinet
full of world class swamp creatures.
Things certainly didn't work out as planned. Assad is in the cross hairs as is Iran and
Hezbollah. It's maybe time to hope that Mueller gets enough dirt, and fast, to dethrone this dangerous
president even if it leaves some egg on the face of certain Russian officials and businessmen.
The U.S. regime has recently seen chemical weapons activity at the Shay'rat Airbase in the
Homs Governorate, the Pentagon claimed, as reported by Matt Lee of the Associated Press.
this seems pretty whack. the syrians will say hey, come have a look? the us will go and say ...
oops, our mistake? what's going on here? i guess it's the pentagon giving the rump a way to climb
down? he can say he 'forced' an inspection? or something?
Since we know that Trump gets his info from his favorite cable TV programs and a select few websites
and doesn't use the vast resources of the U.S. Intel community, has anyone found the original
source for the new Assad allegation? It would be interesting to see what The Donald is reading
nowadays.
thanks b.. no proof needed with the west... lies and insinuation of responsibility is all
that is needed...
ditto many comments here..
@ 22 Hoarsewhisperer.. yeah - 'another' when they haven't verified any previously... more lies
and insinuation of responsibility absent any facts... who needs facts when you want to destroy
another country?
@29 quote "If people in the West don't want WW3 they're going to have to do something about
the people who bribe, and own, their politicians." but hoarsewhisperer - that is what all these
lies and deception are meant to do - keep the people in the west completely ignorant of the facts
and reality.. dontcha know that lying to your people in the msm regularly keeps the sheeple quiet
and passive? us freaks here at moa are in a real minority..
@34 chuba - they just make this shit up man... the first source i saw was from yesterday spicer
idiot..
"... He's pursuing the same reckless agenda as Obama, pushing the envelope toward possible direct confrontation. Despite neither country wanting war, unfolding events may cause the unthinkable to happen by accident or design. Among major powers, Russia is the world's leading peace and stability champion – America just the opposite. ..."
"... Madness defines US policy, state terror on a global scale, naked aggression its main expression, controlling planet earth, its resources and people its objective – risking potentially life-destroying nuclear war. ..."
"... On Monday, the US Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) said it "reinforced existing sanctions on Russia by designating or identifying a range of individuals and entities involved in the ongoing conflict under four Executive orders (EOs) related to Russia and Ukraine," adding: ..."
"... Fact: Russia wages peace, not war. Alone it's gone all-out to resolve things in Ukraine diplomatically, its good faith efforts sabotaged by Washington. ..."
"... Russia and America are world's apart on Syria. Moscow seeks diplomatic conflict resolution, the country's sovereignty respected, its territorial integrity preserved. ..."
"... Washington wants endless conflict, puppet governance it controls replacing overwhelmingly popular Assad, reelected president in June 2014 by an 89% majority. ..."
Instead of fulfilling a campaign promise to improve bilateral relations, Trump so far continues
acting provocatively.
He's pursuing the same reckless agenda as Obama, pushing the envelope toward possible direct
confrontation. Despite neither country wanting war, unfolding events may cause the unthinkable to
happen by accident or design. Among major powers, Russia is the world's leading peace and stability
champion – America just the opposite.
It's recklessly waging wars in multiple theaters, threatening conflicts against North Korea, Iran,
and perhaps Russia the way things are going.
Madness defines US policy, state terror on a global scale, naked aggression its main expression,
controlling planet earth, its resources and people its objective – risking potentially life-destroying
nuclear war.
Last week, Senate members near unanimously imposed new illegal sanctions on Russia, including
on its energy sector. House action awaits.
On Monday, the US Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) said it "reinforced existing
sanctions on Russia by designating or identifying a range of individuals and entities involved in
the ongoing conflict under four Executive orders (EOs) related to Russia and Ukraine," adding:
"US sanctions on Russia related to the situation in eastern Ukraine will remain in place until
Russia fully honors its obligations under the Minsk Agreements."
"US sanctions related to Crimea will not be lifted until Russia ends its occupation of the peninsula."
Fact: Russia wages peace, not war. Alone it's gone all-out to resolve things in Ukraine diplomatically,
its good faith efforts sabotaged by Washington.
Fact: Crimea is Russian territory, its newest republic, supporting the will of its people,
correcting a historic error.
Fact: The territory won't be handed back to US-installed putschists running Ukraine. Its people
won't be betrayed for Washington or anyone else.
Russia and America are world's apart on Syria. Moscow seeks diplomatic conflict resolution, the
country's sovereignty respected, its territorial integrity preserved.
Washington wants endless conflict, puppet governance it controls replacing overwhelmingly popular
Assad, reelected president in June 2014 by an 89% majority.
International observers called the process open, free and fair despite ongoing war, creating enormous
hardships for its people. They want no one else leading them.
They want their sovereign independence respected. They reject foreign meddling in their affairs
– especially by America, NATO, Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia and their rogue allies.
... ... ...
Visit Stephens website: www.stephenlendman.org
(Home – Stephen Lendman). Contact at [email protected]. - My newest book as editor and contributor is titled "Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive
for Hegemony Risks WW III."
http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html - Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished
guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.
"Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Lord Acton
December 24, 2013 The Worldwide Network of US Military Bases The Global Deployment of US Military
Personnel
The US Military has bases in *63* countries. Brand new military bases have been built since
September 11, 2001 in seven countries. In total, there are 255,065 US military personnel deployed
Worldwide. The underlying land surface is of the order of *30* million acres. According to Gelman,
who examined 2005 official Pentagon data, the US is thought to own a total of *737* bases in foreign
lands. Adding to the bases inside U.S. territory, the total land area occupied by US military
bases domestically within the US and internationally is of the order of *2,202,735 hectares*,
which makes the *Pentagon* one of the largest landowners worldwide!
September 17, 2014 US Pursues *134** Wars Around the World
The US is now involved in *134* wars or none, depending on your definition of war The White
House spent much of last week trying to figure out if the word "war" was the right one to describe
its military actions against the Islamic State.
The effort to produce the current clusterfuck has had a decades-long gestation. If one accepts
that premise then the argument put forward by The Saker, for example, regarding the short term
focus of western MSM in service of the long term goals of the elite becomes more comprehensible.
No reason to consider thinking people in "the West " as somehow less savvy than the elites of
the RF or the PRC. Short term focus is merely throwing coloured paper into the air for the distraction
of the masses.
The western long term strategy has been sussed, I think.
Actually that's Egyptian President Gamal Nasser. Egypt didn't officially adopt Ba'athism as a
political philosophy though I can imagine Nasser and other Egyptian politicians of his time may
have been sympathetic towards it or parts of it. It was Arab nationalist and secular in character
and preached religious tolerance. Ba'athism was mainly important in Syria and Iraq in the 1950s
and 1960s. Of course what confuses the issue of Ba'athism is that there was a time when Egypt
and Syria agreed to form a short-lived union called the United Arab Republic.
The trend was clear, though. All the big, important Arab nations were evolving towards being modern,
more secular states.
The Soviet Union was also a player at that time, supporting secular, moderate Arab nationalism.
Then the trend turned backwards toward medievalism. I believe the turning point was in the
mid-1970's. A Combination of Israeli triumphalism and the U.S. (under Jimmy Carter and Zbigniew
Brzezinski) placing their stake on Saudi Wahhabism, to counter Soviet influence.
Apparently in 1958 there was a high level of awareness of USA duplicity and deceit wrt the
well being of the mostly impoverished masses of SA as opposed to the USA's hegemonic agenda that
reflected its struggle against the 'evil commie aggressor' .at least in Venezuela
"Nixon and his wife, Patricia, had arrived in Venezuela in the course of their Latin American
"goodwill tour." At the time, relations were strained between the Republican administration in
Washington and Latin Americans on the left side of the political spectrum. They charged that President
Dwight D. Eisenhower, in focusing on cold war rivalries with the Soviet Union, had failed to address
pressing economic needs in the Western Hemisphere while extending his backing to anti-communist
dictatorial regimes."
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/vice-president-nixons-motorcade-attacked-in-venezuela-may-13-1958-106584
"
One other turning point could also have been when Egypt under Nasser nationalised the Suez Canal
after British, French and Israeli attempts to seize it and use the invasion as cover to assassinate
Nasser in 1956. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez_Crisis
Among other things the war that followed and Nasser's crackdown on civil liberties of the Egyptian
Jewish community led to thousands of those people fleeing to Israel (and perhaps giving Israel
fuel for planning future attacks on the Sinai peninsula).
Another turning point was in 1973 when Arab countries imposed an oil embargo and raised oil
prices after the US supported Israel in the Yom Kippur war. This was in the wake of the collapse
of the 1944 Bretton Woods agreement in 1971 when the US went off the gold standard (due in part
to US spending on the Vietnam War). The depreciation of the US dollar (with the price of oil tied
to that) Also meant that for Middle Eastern oil producers, imports (especially food imports) became
more expensive and raising the price of oil was one way of dealing with the increase in the price
of grain and other global food staples. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_oil_crisis
Thanks for the correction. I recall that Iran was also secular and democratic (not Baathist) until
Americans foisted regime change on it in 1953. America has been subverting independent democracies
around the world for decades. They do this while screaming about spreading democracy. The de facto
one-party state USA has a perverted idea of democracy.
Crocodile tears of WaPO staff... Who fully supported implementation of Washington consensus that
robbed the nations in favor of international companies... this was a new mass scale economic rape of
the Western countries and it was especially brutal in xUSSR area.
Nobel-winning economist Angus Deaton argues against giving aid to poor countries
It sounds kind of crazy to say that foreign aid often hurts, rather than helps, poor people
in poor countries. Yet that is what Angus Deaton, the newest
winner of the Nobel Prize in economics , has argued.
Deaton, an economist at Princeton University who studied poverty in India and South Africa
and spent decades working at the World Bank, won his prize for studying how the poor decide to
save or spend money. But his ideas about foreign aid are particularly provocative. Deaton argues
that, by trying to help poor people in developing countries, the rich world may actually be corrupting
those nations' governments and slowing their growth. According to Deaton, and the economists who
agree with him, much of the
$135 billion that the world's most developed countries spent on official aid in 2014 may not
have ended up helping the poor.
Angus Deaton (LARRY LEVANTI/AFP/Getty Images)
The idea of wealthier countries giving away aid blossomed in the late 1960s, as the first humanitarian
crises reached mass audiences on television. Americans watched through their TV sets as
children starved to death in Biafra, an oil-rich area that had seceded from Nigeria and was now
being blockaded by the Nigerian government, as Philip Gourevitch
recalled
in a 2010 story in the New Yorker. Protesters
called on
the Nixon administration for action so loudly that they ended up galvanizing the largest nonmilitary
airlift the world had ever seen. Only a quarter-century after Auschwitz, humanitarian aid seemed
to offer the world a new hope for fighting evil without fighting a war.
There was a strong economic and political argument for helping poor countries, too. In the
mid-20th century, economists widely believed that the key to triggering growth -- whether in an
already well-off country or one hoping to get richer -- was pumping money into a country's factories,
roads and other infrastructure. So in the hopes of spreading the Western model of democracy and
market-based economies, the United States and Western European powers encouraged foreign aid to
smaller and poorer countries that could fall under the influence of the Soviet Union and China.
The level of foreign aid distributed around the world
soared from the 1960s
, peaking at the end of the Cold War, then dipping before rising again.
Live
Aid music concerts raised public awareness about challenges like starvation in Africa, while
the United States launched major,
multibillion-dollar aid initiatives . And the World Bank and advocates of aid aggressively
seized on research that claimed that foreign aid led to economic development.
Deaton wasn't the first economist to challenge these assumptions, but over the past two decades
his arguments began to receive a great deal of attention. And he made them with perhaps a better
understanding of the data than anyone had before. Deaton's skepticism about the benefits of foreign
aid grew out of his research, which involved looking in detail at households in the developing
world, where he could see the effects of foreign aid intervention.
"I think his understanding of how the world worked at the micro level made him extremely suspicious
of these get-rich-quick schemes that some people peddled at the development level," says Daron
Acemoglu, an economist at MIT.
The data suggested that the claims of the aid community were sometimes not borne out. Even
as the level of foreign aid into Africa soared through the 1980s and 1990s, African economies
were doing worse than ever, as the chart below, from
a paper
by economist Bill Easterly of New York University, shows.
William Easterly, "Can Foreign Aid Buy Growth?"
The effect wasn't limited to Africa. Many economists were noticing that an influx of foreign aid
did not seem to produce economic growth in countries around the world. Rather, lots of foreign aid
flowing into a country tended to be correlated with lower economic growth, as this chart from a paper
by Arvind Subramanian and Raghuram
Rajan shows.
The countries that receive less aid, those on the left-hand side of the chart, tend to have higher
growth -- while those that receive more aid, on the right-hand side, have lower growth.
Raghuram G. Rajan and Arvind Subramanian, "Aid and Growth: What Does the Cross-Country Evidence Really
Show?"
Why was this happening? The answer wasn't immediately clear, but Deaton and other economists argued
that it had to do with how foreign money changed the relationship between a government and its people.
Think of it this way: In order to have the funding to run a country, a government needs to collect
taxes from its people. Since the people ultimately hold the purse strings, they have a certain amount
of control over their government. If leaders don't deliver the basic services they promise, the people
have the power to cut them off.
Deaton argued that foreign aid can weaken this relationship, leaving a government less accountable
to its people, the congress or parliament, and the courts.
"My critique of aid has been more to do with countries where they get an enormous amount of aid
relative to everything else that goes on in that country," Deaton said in an interview with Wonkblog.
"For instance, most governments depend on their people for taxes in order to run themselves and provide
services to their people. Governments that get all their money from aid don't have that at all, and
I think of that as very corrosive."
It might seem odd that having more money would not help a poor country. Yet economists have long
observed that countries that have an abundance of wealth from natural resources, like oil or diamonds,
tend to be more unequal, less developed and more impoverished, as the chart below shows. Countries
at the left-hand side of the chart have fewer fuels, ores and metals and higher growth, while those
at the right-hand side have more natural resource wealth, yet slower growth. Economists postulate
that this "natural resource curse" happens for a variety of reasons, but one is that such wealth
can strengthen and corrupt a government.
Like revenue from oil or diamonds, wealth from foreign aid can be a corrupting influence on weak
governments, "turning what should be beneficial political institutions into toxic ones," Deaton writes
in his book "The Great Escape: Health, Wealth, and the Origins of Inequality." This wealth can make
governments more despotic, and it can also increase the risk of civil war, since there is less power
sharing, as well as a lucrative prize worth fighting for.
Deaton and his supporters offer dozens of examples of humanitarian aid being used to support despotic
regimes and compounding misery, including in Zaire, Rwanda, Ethiopia, Somalia, Biafra, and the Khmer
Rouge on the border of Cambodia and Thailand. Citing Africa researcher Alex de Waal, Deaton writes
that "aid can only reach the victims of war by paying off the warlords, and sometimes extending the
war."
He also gives plenty of examples in which the United States gives aid "for 'us,' not for 'them'"
– to support our strategic allies, our commercial interests or our moral or political beliefs, rather
than the interests of the local people.
The United States gave aid to Ethiopia for decades under then-President Meles Zenawi Asres, because
he opposed Islamic fundamentalism and Ethiopia was so poor. Never mind that Asres was "one of the
most repressive and autocratic dictators in Africa," Deaton writes.
According to Deaton, "the award for sheer creativity" goes to Maaouya Ould Sid'Ahmed Taya, president
of Mauritania from 1984 to 2005. Western countries stopped giving aid to Taya after his government
became too politically repressive, but he managed to get the taps turned on again by becoming one
of the few Arab nations to recognize Israel.
Some might argue for bypassing corrupt governments altogether and distributing food or funding
directly among the people. Deaton acknowledges that, in some cases, this might be worth it to save
lives. But one problem with this approach is that it's difficult: To get to the powerless, you often
have to go through the powerful. Another issue, is that it undermines what people in developing countries
need most -- "an effective government that works with them for today and tomorrow,"
he writes .
The old calculus of foreign aid was that poor countries were merely suffering from a lack of money.
But these days, many economists question this assumption, arguing that development has more to do
with the strength of a country's institutions – political and social systems that are developed through
the interplay of a government and its people.
There are lot of places around the world that lack good roads, clean water and good hospitals,
says MIT's Acemoglu: "Why do these places exist? If you look at it, you quickly disabuse yourself
of the notion that they exist because it's impossible for the state to provide services there." What
these countries need even more than money is effective governance, something that foreign aid can
undermine, the thinking goes.
Some people believe that Deaton's critique of foreign aid goes too far. There are better and worse
ways to distribute foreign aid, they say. Some project-based approaches -- such as financing a local
business, building a well, or providing uniforms so that girls can go to school -- have been very
successful in helping local communities. In the last decade, researchers have tried to integrate
these lessons from economists and argue for more effective aid practices.
Many people believe that the aid community needs more scrutiny to determine which practices have
been effective and which have not. Economists such as Abhijit Banerjee and Esther Duflo, for example,
argue for creating
randomized control trials that allow researchers to carefully examine the development effects of
different types of projects -- for example, following microcredit as it is extended to people in
poor countries.
These methods have again led to a swell in optimism in professional circles about foreign aid
efforts. And again, Deaton is playing the skeptic.
While Deaton agrees that many development projects are successful, he's
critical of claims that these projects can be replicated elsewhere or on a larger scale. "The
trouble is that 'what works' is a highly contingent concept," he said in an interview. "If it works
in the highlands of Kenya, there's no reason to believe it will work in India, or that it will work
in Princeton, New Jersey."
The success of a local project, like microfinancing, also depends on numerous other local factors,
which are harder for researchers to isolate. Saying that these randomized control trials prove that
certain projects cause growth or development is like saying that flour causes cake, Deaton writes
in his book. "Flour 'causes' cakes, in the sense that cakes made without flour do worse than cakes
made with flour – and we can do any number of experiments to demonstrate it – but flour will not
work without a rising agent, eggs, and butter – the helping factors that are needed for the flour
to 'cause' the cake."
Deaton's critiques of foreign aid stem from his natural skepticism of how people use -- and abuse
-- economic data to advance their arguments. The science of measuring economic effects is much more
important, much harder and more controversial than we usually think, he told The Post.
Acemoglu said of Deaton: "He's challenging, and he's sharp, and he's extremely critical of things
he thinks are shoddy and things that are over-claiming. And I think the foreign aid area, that policy
arena, really riled him up because it was so lacking in rigor but also so grandiose in its claims."
Deaton doesn't argue against all types of foreign aid. In particular, he believes that certain
types of health aid – offering vaccinations, or developing cheap and effective drugs to treat malaria,
for example -- have been hugely beneficial to developing countries.
But mostly, he said, the rich world needs to think about "what can we do that would make lives
better for millions of poor people around the world without getting into their economies in the way
that we're doing by giving huge sums of money to their governments." Overall, he argues that we should
focus on doing less harm in the developing world, like selling fewer weapons to despots, or ensuring
that developing countries get a fair deal in trade agreements, and aren't harmed by U.S. foreign
policy decisions.
Deaton also believes that our attitude toward foreign aid – that developed countries ought to
swoop in and save everyone else – is condescending and suspiciously similar to the ideas of colonialism.
The rhetoric of colonialism, too, "was all about helping people, albeit about bringing civilization
and enlightenment to people whose humanity was far from fully recognized," he has written.
Instead, many of the positive things that are happening in Africa – the huge adoption in cell
phones over the past decade, for example – are totally homegrown. He points out that, while the world
has made huge strides in reducing poverty in recent decades, almost none of this has been due to
aid. Most has been due to development in countries like China, which have received very little aid
as a proportion of gross domestic product and have "had to work it out for themselves."
Ultimately, Deaton argues that we should stand aside and let poorer countries develop in their
own ways. "Who put us in charge?" he asks.
June 21, 2017 " Information
Clearing House " - One of the most rational bills ever proposed, barring the Feds from giving
money and weapons to child murdering terrorists, has almost ZERO support.
For the last several decades, the US government has openly funded, supported, and armed various
terrorist networks throughout the world to forward an agenda of
destabilization and
proxy war . It is not a secret, nor a conspiracy theory,
America arms bad guys .
Given the insidious history of the American empire and its creation and fostering of terrorist
regimes across the globe, it should come as no surprise that the overwhelming majority of politicians
would refuse to sign on to a law that requires them to '
Stop Arming
Terrorists .' And, that is exactly what's happened.
H.R.608 –
Stop Arming Terrorists Act was introduced by
Rep. Gabbard, Tulsi [D-HI] on January 23 of this year. The bill doesn't have any crazy strings
attached and its original cosponsors are a mix of Republicans and Democrats - highlighting that it
transcends party lines.
"For years, our government has been providing both direct and indirect support to these armed
militant groups, who are working directly with or under the command of terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda
and ISIS , all in their effort and fight to overthrow the Syrian government," Gabbard said
in an interview
earlier this year.
The text of the bill is simple. It merely states that it prohibits the use of federal agency funds
to provide covered assistance to: (1) Al Qaeda, Jabhat Fateh al-Sham, the Islamic State of Iraq and
the Levant (ISIL), or any individual or group that is affiliated with, associated with, cooperating
with, or adherents to such groups; or (2) the government of any country that the Office of the Director
of National Intelligence (ODNI) determines has, within the most recent 12 months, provided covered
assistance to such a group or individual.
The only thing this bill does is prohibit the US government from giving money and weapons to people
who want to murder Americans and who do murder innocent men, women, and children across the globe.
It is quite possibly the simplest and most rational bill ever proposed by Congress. Given its rational
and humanitarian nature, one would think that representatives would be lining up to show their support.
However, one would be wrong.
After nearly 5 months since its introduction, only 13 of the 535 members of Congress have signed
on as co-sponsors. What this lack of support for the bill shows is that the federal government is
addicted to funding terror and has
no intention of ever stopping it .
What's more is the fact that less than one week after publicly reprimanding Qatar for terrorism,
President Trump signed off on the sale of
$12 billion in weapons to the country he referred to as a "funder of terrorism." This move, in
Trump's own stance, makes him a de facto funder of terrorism now.
What this lack of support for the bills and the recent moves to arm the terrorist regimes illustrates
is the fact that the US has no intention of ever stopping terrorism. Trump, just like Obama and Bush
before him, will continue to foster the growth of terrorism to enrich those who profit from war.
Terrorism is necessary for the state. War, is the health of the state.
Without the constant fear mongering about an enemy who 'hates our freedom,' Americans begin questioning
things. They challenge the status quo and inevitably desire more freedom. However, when they are
told that boogeymen want to kill them, they become immediately complacent and blinded by their fear.
It's a vicious cycle of creating terrorists, killing innocence, and stoking war. And, unless something
radical happens, it shows no signs of ever reversing.
The radical change that is necessary to shift this paradigm back to peace is for people to wake
up to the reality that no matter which puppet is in the White House, the status quo remains unchanged.
Trump is proving that he can lie to get into power and his supporters ignore it. If you doubt
this fact, look at what
Trump did by calling out Saudi Arabia for their role in 9/11 and their support for terror worldwide
prior to getting elected. He now supports these terrorists and his constituency couldn't care less.
This madness has to stop. Humanity has to stop being
fooled by rhetoric read from teleprompters by puppets doing the bidding of their masters.
Please share this article with your friends and family to show them how their supposed 'leaders'
- except for a few good ones - are content with funding the enemy, laying waste to rights, and condone
the murder of innocence.
Matt Agorist is an honorably discharged veteran of the USMC and former intelligence operator directly
tasked by the NSA. This prior experience gives him unique insight into the world of government corruption
and the American police state. Agorist has been an independent journalist for over a decade and has
been featured on mainstream networks around the world. Matt is the founder of The Free Thought Project.
"... The reasoning was simple and is not hard to understand: Carthago delenda est. ..."
"... In a way McCain can be viewed now as a caricature of the Roman senator Cato the Elder, who is said to have used it as the conclusion to all his speeches. ..."
Your discussion just again had shown that there is no economics, only a political economy.
And all those neoliberal perversions, which are sold as an economic science is just an apologetics
for the financial oligarchy.
Apologetics of plunder in this particular case.
In a way the USSR with its discredited communist ideology, degenerated Bolshevik leadership
(just look at who was at the Politburo of CPSU at the time; people much lower in abilities then
Trump :-) and inept and politically naďve Mikhail Gorbachev at the helm had chosen the most inopportune
time to collapse :-)
And neoliberal vultures instantly circled the corpse and have had a feast. Geopolitical goals
of the USA also played important role in amplifying the scope of plunder.
No comparison of performance of Russia vs. China makes any sense if it ignores this fact.
While I would argue with the economic advice given the Russian government after 1988, I am simply
trying to understand the reasoning behind the advice, no more than that.
The reasoning was simple and is not hard to understand: Carthago delenda est.
In a way McCain can be viewed now as a caricature of the Roman senator Cato the Elder,
who is said to have used it as the conclusion to all his speeches.
History repeats "History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce."
"... If America were a free and democratic country, with a free press and independent publishing houses (and assuming, of course, that Americans were a literate people), Williamson's book would topple the Clinton regime, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the rest of the criminal cabal that inhabits the world of modern corporate statism faster than you could say "Jonathan Hay." ..."
"... Hay, for those who need an introduction to the international financial buccaneers who control our lives, was the general director of the Harvard Institute of International Development (HIID) in Moscow (1992-1997), who facilitated the crippling of the Russian economy and the plundering of its industrial and manufacturing infrastructure with a strategy concocted by Larry Summers, Andre Schliefer (HIID's Cambridge-based manager), Jeffrey Sachs and his Swedish sidekick Anders Aslund, and a host of private players from banks and investment houses in Boston and New York - a plan approved and assisted by the U.S. Department of the Treasury. ..."
"... These third-generation Bolsheviks - led by former Pravda hack Yegor Gaidar, grandson of a Bolshevik who achieved prominence as the teenage mass murderer of White Army officers, now heads the Moscow-based Institute for Economies in Transition - became instant millionaires (or billionaires) and left the Russian workers virtual slaves of them and their new foreign investors. ..."
"... Ironically, when Harvard's Sachs and Hay started identifying Russians they could work with, they ignored - or shunned - the most capable talent at hand: those numerous Russian economists who for 20 years had been studying the Swiss economist Wilhelm von Roepke and his disciple, Ludwig Erhard, father of Germany's "economic miracle" in anticipation of the day when Communism would collapse. Somewhat sardonically, Williamson notes that one, probably unintended, benefit of Gorbachev's perestroika was the recruitment of these Russian economists by top U.S. universities. ..."
"... On another level, Contagion is about the workings of international finance, the consolidation of capital into fewer and fewer hands, and the ruthless, death-dealing policies it inflicts on its target countries through currency manipulation, inflation, depression, taxation and war - with emphasis on Russia but with attention also given to Mexico, Thailand, Indonesia, the Balkans, and other countries, and how it uses its control over money to produce social chaos. ..."
"... Those who read Williamson's book will find particularly interesting her treatment of the Federal Reserve, and how this "bank" was designed to plunder the wealth of America through war, debt, and taxation, in order to maintain what is nothing more nor less than a giant pyramid scheme that depends on domination of the earth and its resources. ..."
"... The policies inflicted on Russia by the banks were cruel to the Nth degree; but the policy implementers - Williamson employs the derogatory Russian word m yakigolovy ("soft-headed ones") applied to the Americans - were a foppish lot, streaming into Russia by the thousands (the IMF, alone, with 150 staffers) with their outrageous salaries and per diem allowances, renting out the finest dachas, bringing in their exotic consumer goods, driving up prices for goods and rents, spurring a boom in the drug and prostitution businesses, and then watching, cold-heartedly, the declining fortunes of their hosts as they lost everything - including the artistic heritage of the country. ..."
"... Gore, who was raised to be President, has impeccable Russian connections. His father, of course, was Lenin financier Armand Hammer's pocket senator, and it was Hammer who paid for Al Jr.'s expensive St. Alban's Prep schooling; and, as Williamson reports, Al Jr.'s daughter married Andrew Schiff, grandson of Jacob, who, as a member of Kuhn, Loeb & Co., underwrote anti-czarist political agitation for two decades before Lenin's coup, and congratulated Lenin upon his successful revolution. ..."
"... By March 1999, Russia was now a financial basket case, and billions, if not tens of billions of U.S. taxpayer-backed loans had vanished into the secret bank accounts of both Russian and American gangster capitalists, and the news was starting to make little vibrations on Capitol Hill. "The U.S. administration's response to the debacle was repulsively similar to a typical Bill Clinton bimbo-eruption operation: Having ruined Russia by cosseting her in debt, meddling ignorantly in her internal affairs, and funding a drunken usurper, his agents denied all error and slandered ('slimed') her," writes Williamson. ..."
"... The cost to the American taxpayers of Clinton regime bailouts in a three-and-a-half-year period, Williamson notes, is more than $180 billion! The "new financial architecture" Clinton has erected, she writes, "isn't new at all, but rather something the international public lenders have been wanting for decades, i.e., an automatic bailout for their own bad practices." ..."
"... As the extent of the corruption of the Clinton-Yeltsin "reform" plan for Russia unfolded last year, with the attendant Bank of New York scandal, the mysterious death of super banker Edmond Safra in his Monte Carlo penthouse, the collapse of the Russian stock market, and the whiplash effect in Southeast Asia, Congress was pressed to hold hearings. ..."
"... What resulted, as Williamson accurately narrates it, was just a smoke screen, show hearings that barely rose above the seriousness of a Gilbert and Sullivan farce - though they did result in proposed new domestic banking laws that, if passed, will effectively make banks another federal police force responsible for reporting to the U.S. government the most minute financial transactions of U.S. citizens. ..."
"... In this regard, it is instructive to quote Williamson at length: "If the FBI, [Manhattan District Attorney] Robert Morgenthau, or Congress were serious about getting to the bottom of the plundering of Russia's assets and U.S. taxpayers' resources, they would show far more professional interest in exactly what was said and agreed in the private meetings [U.S. Treasury secretary] Larry Summers, Strobe Talbott, and [former Treasury Secretary] Robert Rubin conducted with Anatoly Chubais [former Russian finance minister, who oversaw the distribution and sale of Russian industries], and Sergie Vasiliev [Yeltsin's principal legal adviser, and a member of the Chubais clan], and later Chubais again in June and July of 1998. ..."
"... And why did Michel Camdessus [who left the presidency of the IMF earlier this year] announce his sudden retirement so soon after Moscow newspapers reported that a $200,000 payment was made to him from a secret Kremlin bank account? . . . ..."
"... You see, as this book explains, the Clinton's Russia policy did not just plunder Russians, leaving them destitute while creating a new and ruthless class of international capitalist gangsters at U.S. taxpayer expense; it had the double consequence of bringing all Americans deeper into the bankers' New World Order by increasing their debt load, decreasing their privacy, and restricting their civil rights. If only Americans cared. ..."
After 1991 Eastern Europe and FSU were mercilessly looted. That was tremendous one time transfer
of capital (and scientists and engineers) to Western Europe and the USA. Which helped to secure
"Clinton prosperity period"
China were not plundered by the West. Russia and Eastern Europe were. That's the key difference.
For Russia this period was called by Anne Williamson in her testimony before the Committee
on Banking and Financial Services of the United States House of Representatives "The economic
rape of Russia"
How Clinton & Company & The Bankers Plundered Russia by Paul Likoudis
May 4, 2000
The other day I was surprised to learn that Jeffrey Sachs, the creator of "shock therapy"
capitalism, who participated in the looting of Russia in the 1990s, is now NY Gov. Andrew Cuomo's
top adviser for health care. So we in NY will get shock therapy, much as the Russians did two
decades ago. Here is a story I wrote for The Wanderer in 2000:
===
How Clinton & Company & The Bankers Plundered Russia
by Paul Likoudis
In an ordinary election year, Anne Williamson's Contagion would be political dynamite, a
bombshell, a block-buster, a regime breaker.
If America were a free and democratic country, with a free press and independent publishing
houses (and assuming, of course, that Americans were a literate people), Williamson's book
would topple the Clinton regime, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the rest
of the criminal cabal that inhabits the world of modern corporate statism faster than you could
say "Jonathan Hay."
Hay, for those who need an introduction to the international financial buccaneers who
control our lives, was the general director of the Harvard Institute of International Development
(HIID) in Moscow (1992-1997), who facilitated the crippling of the Russian economy and the
plundering of its industrial and manufacturing infrastructure with a strategy concocted by
Larry Summers, Andre Schliefer (HIID's Cambridge-based manager), Jeffrey Sachs and his Swedish
sidekick Anders Aslund, and a host of private players from banks and investment houses in Boston
and New York - a plan approved and assisted by the U.S. Department of the Treasury.
Contagion can be read on many different levels.
At its simplest, it is a breezy, slightly cynical, highly entertaining narrative of Russian
history from the last months of Gorbachev's rule to April 2000 - a period which saw Russia
transformed from a decaying socialist economy (which despite its shortcomings, provided a modest
standard of living to its citizens) to a "managed economy" where home-grown gangsters and socialist
theoreticians from the West, like Hay and his fellow Harvardian Jeffrey Sachs, delivered 2,500%
inflation and indescribable poverty, and transferred the ownership of Russian industry to Western
financiers.
Williamson was an eyewitness who lived on and off in Russia for more than ten years, where
she reported on all things Russian for The New York Times, Th e Wall Street Journal, and a
host of other equally reputable publications. She knew and interviewed just about everybody
involved in this gargantuan plundering scheme: Russian politicians and businessmen, the new
"gangster" capitalists and their American sponsors from the IMF, the World Bank, USAID, Credit
Suisse First Boston, the CIA, the KGB - all in all, hundreds of sources who spoke candidly,
often ruthlessly, of their parts in this terrible human drama.
Her account is filled with quotations from interviews with top aides of Yeltsin and Clinton,
all down through the ranks of the two hierarchical societies to the proliferating mass of Russian
destitute, pornographers, pimps, drug dealers, and prostitutes. Some of the principal characters,
of course, refused to talk to Williamson, such as Bill Clinton's longtime friend from Oxford,
Strobe Talbott, now a deputy secretary of state and, Williamson suspects, a onetime KGB operative
whose claim to fame is a deceitful translation of the Khrushchev Memoirs. (A KGB colonel refused
to confirm or deny to Williamson that Clinton and Talbott visited North Vietnam together in
1971 - though he did confirm their contacts with the KGB for their protests against the U.S.
war in Vietnam in Moscow. See especially footnote 1, page 210.)
The 546-page book (the best part of which is the footnotes) gives a nearly day-by-day report
on what happened to Russia; left unstated, but implied on every page, is the assumption that
those in the United States who think what happened in Russia "can't happen here" better realize
it can happen here.
Once the Clinton regime and its lapdogs in the media defined Russian thug Boris Yeltsin
as a "democrat," the wholesale looting of Russia began. According to the socialist theoreticians
at Harvard, Russia needed to be brought into the New World Order in a hurry; and what better
way to do it than Sachs' "shock therapy" - a plan that empowered the degenerate, third-generation
descendants of the original Bolsheviks by assigning them the deeds of Russia's mightiest state-owned
industries - including the giant gas, oil, electrical, and telecommunications industries, the
world's largest paper, iron, and steel factories, the world's richest gold, silver, diamond,
and platinum mines, automobile and airplane factories, etc. - who, in turn, sold some of their
shares of the properties to Westerners for a song, and pocketed the cash, while retaining control
of the companies.
These third-generation Bolsheviks - led by former Pravda hack Yegor Gaidar, grandson
of a Bolshevik who achieved prominence as the teenage mass murderer of White Army officers,
now heads the Moscow-based Institute for Economies in Transition - became instant millionaires
(or billionaires) and left the Russian workers virtual slaves of them and their new foreign
investors.
When Russian members of the Supreme Soviet openly criticized the looting of the national
patrimony by these new gangsters early in the U.S.-driven "reform" program, in 1993, before
all Soviet institutions were destroyed, Yeltsin bombed Parliament.
Ironically, when Harvard's Sachs and Hay started identifying Russians they could work
with, they ignored - or shunned - the most capable talent at hand: those numerous Russian economists
who for 20 years had been studying the Swiss economist Wilhelm von Roepke and his disciple,
Ludwig Erhard, father of Germany's "economic miracle" in anticipation of the day when Communism
would collapse. Somewhat sardonically, Williamson notes that one, probably unintended, benefit
of Gorbachev's perestroika was the recruitment of these Russian economists by top U.S. universities.
In the new, emerging global economy, it's clear that Russia is the designated center for
heavy manufacturing - just as Asia is for clothing and computers - with its nearly unlimited
supply of hydroelectric power, iron and steel, timber, gold and other precious metals.
This helps explain why America's political elites don't give a fig about the closing down
of American industries and mines. As Williamson observes, Russia is viewed as some kind of
"closet."
What is important for Western readers to understand - as Williamson reports - is that when
Western banks and corporations bought these companies at bargain basement prices, they bought
more than just industrial equipment. In the Soviet model, every unit of industrial production
included workers' housing, churches, opera houses, schools, hospitals, supermarkets, etc.,
and the whole kit-and-caboodle was included in the selling price. By buying large shares of
these companies, Western corporations became, ipso facto, town managers.
Another Level
On another level, Contagion is about the workings of international finance, the consolidation
of capital into fewer and fewer hands, and the ruthless, death-dealing policies it inflicts
on its target countries through currency manipulation, inflation, depression, taxation and
war - with emphasis on Russia but with attention also given to Mexico, Thailand, Indonesia,
the Balkans, and other countries, and how it uses its control over money to produce social
chaos.
Those who read Williamson's book will find particularly interesting her treatment of
the Federal Reserve, and how this "bank" was designed to plunder the wealth of America through
war, debt, and taxation, in order to maintain what is nothing more nor less than a giant pyramid
scheme that depends on domination of the earth and its resources.
Williamson is of that small but noble school of economics writers who believe that the academic
field of economics is not some esoteric science that can only be comprehended by those with
IQs in four digits, and she - drawing on such writers as Hayek and von Mises, Roepke and the
late American Murray Rothbard - explains in layman's vocabulary the nuts and bolts of sound
economic principles and the real-world effects of the Fed's policies on hapless Americans.
Contagion also serves up a severe indictment of the World Bank, the International Monetary
Fund, and the other international "lending" agencies spawned by the Council on Foreign Relations
and similar "councils" and "commissions" which are fronts for the big banks run by the Houses
of Rockefeller, Morgan, Warburg, et al.
The policies inflicted on Russia by the banks were cruel to the Nth degree; but the
policy implementers - Williamson employs the derogatory Russian word m yakigolovy ("soft-headed
ones") applied to the Americans - were a foppish lot, streaming into Russia by the thousands
(the IMF, alone, with 150 staffers) with their outrageous salaries and per diem allowances,
renting out the finest dachas, bringing in their exotic consumer goods, driving up prices for
goods and rents, spurring a boom in the drug and prostitution businesses, and then watching,
cold-heartedly, the declining fortunes of their hosts as they lost everything - including the
artistic heritage of the country.
Williamson describes brilliantly that heady atmosphere in Moscow in the early days of the
IMF/USAID loan-scamming: a 24-hour party. There were bars like the Canadian-operated Hungry
Duck, which lured Russian teenage girls into its bar with a male striptease and free drinks,
"who, once thoroughly intoxicated, were then exposed to crowds of anxious young men the club
admitted only late in the evening."
The Third Level
At a third and more intriguing level, Contagion is about America's criminal politics in
the Clinton regime, and, inevitably, the reader will put Williamson's book down with the sense
that Al Gore will be the next occupier of the White House.
Gore, who was raised to be President, has impeccable Russian connections. His father,
of course, was Lenin financier Armand Hammer's pocket senator, and it was Hammer who paid for
Al Jr.'s expensive St. Alban's Prep schooling; and, as Williamson reports, Al Jr.'s daughter
married Andrew Schiff, grandson of Jacob, who, as a member of Kuhn, Loeb & Co., underwrote
anti-czarist political agitation for two decades before Lenin's coup, and congratulated Lenin
upon his successful revolution.
Williamson also documents Gore's intimate involvement with powerful Wall Street financial
houses, and his New York breakfast meeting with multibillionaire George Soros (a key Russian
player) just as the Russian collapse was underway.
Williamson tells an interesting story of Gore's response to the IMF/World Bank/USAID plunder
of U.S. taxpayers for the purpose of hobbling Russia.
By March 1999, Russia was now a financial basket case, and billions, if not tens of
billions of U.S. taxpayer-backed loans had vanished into the secret bank accounts of both Russian
and American gangster capitalists, and the news was starting to make little vibrations on Capitol
Hill. "The U.S. administration's response to the debacle was repulsively similar to a typical
Bill Clinton bimbo-eruption operation: Having ruined Russia by cosseting her in debt, meddling
ignorantly in her internal affairs, and funding a drunken usurper, his agents denied all error
and slandered ('slimed') her," writes Williamson.
"Pundits and academics joined government officials in bemoaning Mother Russia's thieving
ways, her bottomless corruption and constant chaos, all the while wringing their soft hands
with a schoolmarm's exasperation. Russia's self-appointed democracy coach Strobe Talbott ('Pro-Consul
Strobe' to the Russians) would get it right. An equally sanctimonious Albert Gore - the same
Al Gore who'd been so quick to return the CIA's 1995 report detailing Viktor Chernomyrdin's
and Anatoly Chubais' personal corruption with the single word 'Bullshit' scrawled across it
- took the low road and sniffed that the Russians would just have to get their own economic
house in order and cut their own deal with the IMF. . . ."
The cost to the American taxpayers of Clinton regime bailouts in a three-and-a-half-year
period, Williamson notes, is more than $180 billion! The "new financial architecture" Clinton
has erected, she writes, "isn't new at all, but rather something the international public lenders
have been wanting for decades, i.e., an automatic bailout for their own bad practices."
As the extent of the corruption of the Clinton-Yeltsin "reform" plan for Russia unfolded
last year, with the attendant Bank of New York scandal, the mysterious death of super banker
Edmond Safra in his Monte Carlo penthouse, the collapse of the Russian stock market, and the
whiplash effect in Southeast Asia, Congress was pressed to hold hearings.
What resulted, as Williamson accurately narrates it, was just a smoke screen, show hearings
that barely rose above the seriousness of a Gilbert and Sullivan farce - though they did result
in proposed new domestic banking laws that, if passed, will effectively make banks another
federal police force responsible for reporting to the U.S. government the most minute financial
transactions of U.S. citizens.
Double Effect
In this regard, it is instructive to quote Williamson at length: "If the FBI, [Manhattan
District Attorney] Robert Morgenthau, or Congress were serious about getting to the bottom
of the plundering of Russia's assets and U.S. taxpayers' resources, they would show far more
professional interest in exactly what was said and agreed in the private meetings [U.S. Treasury
secretary] Larry Summers, Strobe Talbott, and [former Treasury Secretary] Robert Rubin conducted
with Anatoly Chubais [former Russian finance minister, who oversaw the distribution and sale
of Russian industries], and Sergie Vasiliev [Yeltsin's principal legal adviser, and a member
of the Chubais clan], and later Chubais again in June and July of 1998.
"Instead of allowing Larry Summers to ramble casually in response to questions at a banking
committee hearing, the Treasury secretary should be asked exactly who suckered him - his Russian
friends, his own boss [former Harvard associate Robert Rubin, his boss at Treasury who was
once cochairman at Goldman Sachs], or private sector counterparts of the Working Committee
on Financial Markets [a White House group whose membership is drawn from the country's main
financial and market institutions: the Fed, Treasury, SEC, and the Commodities & Trading Commission].
. . . Or did he just bungle the entire matter on account of wishful thinking? Or was it gross
incompetence?
"The FBI and Congress ought to be very interested in establishing for taxpayers the truth
of any alleged 'national security' issues that justified allowing the Harvard Institute of
International Development to privatize U.S. bilateral assistance. It too should be their brief
to discover the relationship between the [Swedish wheeler-dealer and crony of Sachs, Anders]
Aslund/Carnegie crowd and Treasury and exactly what influence that relationship may have had
on the awarding of additional grants to Harvard without competition. On what basis did Team
Clinton direct their financial donor, American International Group's (AIG) Maurice Greenberg
(a man nearly as ubiquitous as any Russian oligarch in sweetheart public-funding deals), to
Brunswick Brokerage when sniffing out a $300 million OPIC guarantee for a Russian investment
fund. . . .
And why did Michel Camdessus [who left the presidency of the IMF earlier this year]
announce his sudden retirement so soon after Moscow newspapers reported that a $200,000 payment
was made to him from a secret Kremlin bank account? . . .
"American and Russian citizens can never be allowed to learn what really happened to the
billions lent to Yeltsin's government; it would expose the unsavory and self-interested side
of our political, financial, and media elites. . . . Instead, the [House] Banking Committee
hearings will use the smoke screen of policing foreign assistance flows to pass legislation
that will effectively end U.S. citizens' financial privacy while making them prisoners of their
citizenship. . . . The Banking Committee will use the opportunity the Russian dirty money scandal
presents to reanimate the domestic 'Know Your Customer' program, which charges domestic banks
with monitoring and reporting on the financial transactions in which middle-class Americans
engage. This data is collected and used by various government agencies, including the IRS;
meaning that if a citizen sells the family's beat-up station wagon or their 'starter' home,
the taxman is alerted immediately that the citizen's filing should reflect the greater tax
obligation in that year of the sale. . . . Other data on citizens for which the government
has long thirsted will also be collected by government's newest police force, the banks. .
. ."
You see, as this book explains, the Clinton's Russia policy did not just plunder Russians,
leaving them destitute while creating a new and ruthless class of international capitalist
gangsters at U.S. taxpayer expense; it had the double consequence of bringing all Americans
deeper into the bankers' New World Order by increasing their debt load, decreasing their privacy,
and restricting their civil rights. If only Americans cared.
"... (By the way, Trump reportedly told Israeli leaders during his trip Israel that he was "just back from the Middle East." What did Netanyahu think about that, but: Oh god this guy's ignorant how do we use this ignorance? ) ..."
"... And on June 21 State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert declared that the more time passes, "the more doubt is raised about the actions taken by Saudi Arabia and the UAE At this point, we are left with one simple question: Were the actions really about their concerns regarding Qatar's alleged support for terrorism or were they about the long-simmering grievances between and among the GCC [Gulf Cooperation Council] countries?" ??? ..."
"... Some people speculate that Trump in his sly wisdom is sending out contrasting messages to obtain his mysterious ends to make America great again. This gives the man too much credit. His problem is that he blabbers whatever-he thinks for the moment-makes him look tough. He projects confidence, without knowing what the hell he's talking about. He's a dangerous buffoon. ..."
"... George W. Bush by his invasion of Iraq (to better his dad) produced a mess that his successor in some respects exacerbated. While Obama withdrew from Iraq in accordance with Bush's agreement, and limited the "mission" in Afghanistan, he (or Hillary) led in the destruction of Libya, and began the grotesque involvement in the Syrian conflict. Trump does not understand the causes and effects. He's just proud that his generals dropped a GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast (MOAB) bomb an ISIL camp in Afghanistan. ..."
"... Or Trump glories (echoed by Brian Williams) in that April 7 missile strike on the Syrian airfield, when supposedly 56 Tomahawk missiles destroyed a material storage depot, a training facility, a canteen, six MiG-23 aircraft in repair hangars and a radar station. "Congratulations," he tweeted, "to our great military men and women for representing the United States, and the world, so well in the Syria attack." Interviewed on TV he intimately associated the order to attack with the quality of this chocolate cake he was sharing with a very appreciative President Xi from China at the time. ..."
"... There have been more Syria attacks since, including one that shot down a Syrian warplane over Syria, and the one that shot down an Iranian-made drone. Trump was likely not informed in advance. Not that it would have made any difference, maybe. ..."
"... Of course the main issue remains U.S. imperialism, rooted in capitalism. The global dynamics of that can be rationally analyzed, and the president's role within the system assessed. Obama was fairly predicable. Hillary Clinton was predictable because she always articulated her hawkishness, like John McCain. Their relationships to capital and their intellectual positions (neoconservatism, "realism") were known. Trump is a new phenomenon, as someone combining Lyndon Johnson's crudity, Nixon's vindictiveness, Reagan's vapid populism, and Dubya's ignorance (but he was surrounded by Cheney's hand-picked neocons, virtually announcing plans for region-wide regime change). I'm not sure what he has in common with Bill Clinton other than promiscuity (but Clinton had no John Miller.) He's new in that he's at odds half the time with his own aides and puzzling world leaders ..."
"... British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher after meeting Ronald Reagan told her foreign secretary, Lord Carrington, as she tapped the side of her skull, "Peter, there's nothing there." ..."
The isolation of Qatar appears to be a major step in the Saudi plan, directed by the newly pronounced crown prince, Mohammed bin
Salman (the 31-year-old in charge of the Saudi war in Yemen), to provoke a general confrontation between the Sunni world (led by
itself) and Shiite world (led by Iran). What has has Qatar done to offend the Saudis, the UAE, Bahrain, Egypt and Yemen? Its state-owned
al-Jazeera network has been critical of their governments, especially during the "Arab Spring." But its real sin is its diplomatic
and considerable trade relationship with Iran, with which it shares an oil field.
After the announcement by the five Arab nations on June 5 that they would break ties with Qatar, Donald Trump praised the move.
"During my recent trip to the Middle East," he tweeted on June 6. "I stated that there can no longer be funding of Radical Ideology.
Leaders pointed to Qatar – look!"
And later that day: "So good to see the Saudi Arabia visit with the King and 50 countries already paying off. They said they would
take a hard line on funding extremism, and all reference was pointing to Qatar. Perhaps this will be the beginning of the end to
the horror of terrorism!"
In other words, his visit to Riyadh (with that sword dance and all) immediately paid off in everyone taking a harder line on terrorist
funding from Qatar.
(By the way, Trump reportedly told Israeli leaders during his trip Israel that he was "just back from the Middle East." What
did Netanyahu think about that, but: Oh god this guy's ignorant how do we use this ignorance? )
"The nation of Qatar unfortunately has historically been a funder of terrorism at a very high level," Trump told reporters at
the White House June 9. "So we had a decision to make, do we take the easy road or do we finally take a hard but necessary action.
We have to stop the funding of terrorism. I decided the time had come to call on Qatar to end its funding. They have to end that
funding. And their terrorist ideology." He appears to allude to conversations during his May 20-21 trip to Riyadh and taking responsibility
for the decision.
But then on June 14 Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Roger Cabiness told CNN: "Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis met today with Qatari
Minister of State for Defense Affairs Dr. Khalid al-Attiyah to discuss concluding steps in finalizing the Foreign Military Sales
purchase of US-manufactured F-15 fighter aircraft by the State of Qatar. The $12 billion sale will give Qatar a state of the art
capability and increase security cooperation and interoperability between the United States and Qatar."
And on June 21 State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert declared that the more time passes, "the more doubt is raised about
the actions taken by Saudi Arabia and the UAE At this point, we are left with one simple question: Were the actions really about
their concerns regarding Qatar's alleged support for terrorism or were they about the long-simmering grievances between and among
the GCC [Gulf Cooperation Council] countries?" ???
* * * *
Some people speculate that Trump in his sly wisdom is sending out contrasting messages to obtain his mysterious ends to make
America great again. This gives the man too much credit. His problem is that he blabbers whatever-he thinks for the moment-makes
him look tough. He projects confidence, without knowing what the hell he's talking about. He's a dangerous buffoon.
But he's not responsible for the fact that George W. Bush's war on Iraq in 2003 provoked a wave of massive catastrophes in the
Middle East, and ignited a period of fierce contention among Iran, Sunni Arab countries in particular Saudi Arabia, and Turkey, while
encouraging Kurdish nationalism from Iraq to Syria and Turkey. And that this conflict has acquired somewhat the character of a religious
struggle of the Sunni world versus Iran-backed Shiites (the Alawite-led regime in Syria, Lebanon's Hizbollah, the Houthis in Yemen,
Shiite human rights activists in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia). Surely the most ardent foes of Iran want to depict all these forces as
pawns of the mullahs in Tehran, and (therefore) "terrorists" as such. And the Saudi king is doing a good job convincing the president
of his view that Iran is the source of all evil in the region.
Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the Saudi ambassador to Washington (1983-2005), once told M16 head Sir Richard Dearlove: "The time is
not far off in the Middle East, Richard, when it will literally be 'God help the Shia.' More than a billion Sunni have simply had
enough of them." This is the kind of specifically religious sectarianism Trump is embracing, no doubt having no idea what the difference
is between Sunnis and Shiites. He just knows that "Radical Ideology" he oddly refers to is funded by Qatar at a very high level and
Qatar also buys billions in arms from the U.S.
Or maybe he didn't know about the arms deal. Maybe he left that to his fine generals, the detail guys.
George W. Bush by his invasion of Iraq (to better his dad) produced a mess that his successor in some respects exacerbated.
While Obama withdrew from Iraq in accordance with Bush's agreement, and limited the "mission" in Afghanistan, he (or Hillary) led
in the destruction of Libya, and began the grotesque involvement in the Syrian conflict. Trump does not understand the causes and
effects. He's just proud that his generals dropped a GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast (MOAB) bomb an ISIL camp in Afghanistan.
(Think of that. The U.S. drops the biggest non-nuclear bomb ever used in the history of the world, on militants who've just recently
established a presence in the country who belong to a movement that started with al-Zarqawi in Afghanistan, relocated to Iraq, spread
to Syria and elsewhere, and is now again in Afghanistan. Maybe 3000 jihadis. The war against the Taliban is not going well; they
gain territory year to year. The Afghan army after 16 years of training remains riddled with high desertion rates, unable to make
headway against the resurgent Taliban. U.S. trains and their charges view one another with mutual contempt. Green on blue explosions
occur so often all U.S. troops are on their guard against their allies. In this hopeless situation-as if to merely express the outrage
of frustration-that bomb was dropped on a remote area with undetermined results, condemned strongly by former president Hamid Karzai:
"I vehemently and in strongest words condemn the dropping of the latest weapon " But Trump is proud of it.)
Or Trump glories (echoed by Brian Williams) in that April 7 missile strike on the Syrian airfield, when supposedly 56 Tomahawk
missiles destroyed a material storage depot, a training facility, a canteen, six MiG-23 aircraft in repair hangars and a radar station.
"Congratulations," he tweeted, "to our great military men and women for representing the United States, and the world, so well in
the Syria attack." Interviewed on TV he intimately associated the order to attack with the quality of this chocolate cake he was
sharing with a very appreciative President Xi from China at the time.
There have been more Syria attacks since, including one that shot down a Syrian warplane over Syria, and the one that shot
down an Iranian-made drone. Trump was likely not informed in advance. Not that it would have made any difference, maybe.
But once upon a time, Trump talked about cooperation with Russia against ISIL, and seemed to strongly oppose regime change as
policy. He is, in the sense of destructive power, the most powerful person on earth. That he is unreadable and unpredictable, predicting
"we'll solve" this or that massively complex problem (North Korea), manifestly ignorant and not interested in history, inheriting
the Bush/Cheney neocon-spawned mess and now taking advice from King Salman on matters like Qatar is frightening.
* * * *
Of course the main issue remains U.S. imperialism, rooted in capitalism. The global dynamics of that can be rationally analyzed,
and the president's role within the system assessed. Obama was fairly predicable. Hillary Clinton was predictable because she always
articulated her hawkishness, like John McCain. Their relationships to capital and their intellectual positions (neoconservatism,
"realism") were known. Trump is a new phenomenon, as someone combining Lyndon Johnson's crudity, Nixon's vindictiveness, Reagan's
vapid populism, and Dubya's ignorance (but he was surrounded by Cheney's hand-picked neocons, virtually announcing plans for region-wide
regime change). I'm not sure what he has in common with Bill Clinton other than promiscuity (but Clinton had no John Miller.) He's
new in that he's at odds half the time with his own aides and puzzling world leaders .
I can just imagine Xi and Putin exchanging their analyses of his mind, perhaps chuckling occasionally as we do in this country
when we analyze his mind. It's necessary, after all.
British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher after meeting Ronald Reagan told her foreign secretary, Lord Carrington, as she tapped
the side of her skull, "Peter, there's nothing there." (She has also been quoted as saying, "Poor dear, there's nothing between
his ears.") Lady Thatcher of course gave a well-received eulogy at Reagan's funeral pretending to believe otherwise. The point being
that world leaders can like other world leaders, as the Saudi king likes Trump, even if they have nothing between their ears, especially
if they think they can exploit the mental vacuum to get them to do something stupid.
Such as, join with people who "have had enough of the Shia" and are showing (in that vicious war in Yemen especially) how they
want to get rid of them. Join the debate
on Facebook More articles by: Gary Leupp
"... He's pursuing the same reckless agenda as Obama, pushing the envelope toward possible direct confrontation. Despite neither country wanting war, unfolding events may cause the unthinkable to happen by accident or design. Among major powers, Russia is the world's leading peace and stability champion – America just the opposite. ..."
"... Madness defines US policy, state terror on a global scale, naked aggression its main expression, controlling planet earth, its resources and people its objective – risking potentially life-destroying nuclear war. ..."
"... On Monday, the US Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) said it "reinforced existing sanctions on Russia by designating or identifying a range of individuals and entities involved in the ongoing conflict under four Executive orders (EOs) related to Russia and Ukraine," adding: ..."
"... Fact: Russia wages peace, not war. Alone it's gone all-out to resolve things in Ukraine diplomatically, its good faith efforts sabotaged by Washington. ..."
"... Russia and America are world's apart on Syria. Moscow seeks diplomatic conflict resolution, the country's sovereignty respected, its territorial integrity preserved. ..."
"... Washington wants endless conflict, puppet governance it controls replacing overwhelmingly popular Assad, reelected president in June 2014 by an 89% majority. ..."
Instead of fulfilling a campaign promise to improve bilateral relations, Trump so far continues
acting provocatively.
He's pursuing the same reckless agenda as Obama, pushing the envelope toward possible direct
confrontation. Despite neither country wanting war, unfolding events may cause the unthinkable to
happen by accident or design. Among major powers, Russia is the world's leading peace and stability
champion – America just the opposite.
It's recklessly waging wars in multiple theaters, threatening conflicts against North Korea, Iran,
and perhaps Russia the way things are going.
Madness defines US policy, state terror on a global scale, naked aggression its main expression,
controlling planet earth, its resources and people its objective – risking potentially life-destroying
nuclear war.
Last week, Senate members near unanimously imposed new illegal sanctions on Russia, including
on its energy sector. House action awaits.
On Monday, the US Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) said it "reinforced existing
sanctions on Russia by designating or identifying a range of individuals and entities involved in
the ongoing conflict under four Executive orders (EOs) related to Russia and Ukraine," adding:
"US sanctions on Russia related to the situation in eastern Ukraine will remain in place until
Russia fully honors its obligations under the Minsk Agreements."
"US sanctions related to Crimea will not be lifted until Russia ends its occupation of the peninsula."
Fact: Russia wages peace, not war. Alone it's gone all-out to resolve things in Ukraine diplomatically,
its good faith efforts sabotaged by Washington.
Fact: Crimea is Russian territory, its newest republic, supporting the will of its people,
correcting a historic error.
Fact: The territory won't be handed back to US-installed putschists running Ukraine. Its people
won't be betrayed for Washington or anyone else.
Russia and America are world's apart on Syria. Moscow seeks diplomatic conflict resolution, the
country's sovereignty respected, its territorial integrity preserved.
Washington wants endless conflict, puppet governance it controls replacing overwhelmingly popular
Assad, reelected president in June 2014 by an 89% majority.
International observers called the process open, free and fair despite ongoing war, creating enormous
hardships for its people. They want no one else leading them.
They want their sovereign independence respected. They reject foreign meddling in their affairs
– especially by America, NATO, Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia and their rogue allies.
... ... ...
Visit Stephens website: www.stephenlendman.org
(Home – Stephen Lendman). Contact at [email protected]. - My newest book as editor and contributor is titled "Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive
for Hegemony Risks WW III."
http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html - Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished
guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.
"Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Lord Acton
December 24, 2013 The Worldwide Network of US Military Bases The Global Deployment of US Military
Personnel
The US Military has bases in *63* countries. Brand new military bases have been built since
September 11, 2001 in seven countries. In total, there are 255,065 US military personnel deployed
Worldwide. The underlying land surface is of the order of *30* million acres. According to Gelman,
who examined 2005 official Pentagon data, the US is thought to own a total of *737* bases in foreign
lands. Adding to the bases inside U.S. territory, the total land area occupied by US military
bases domestically within the US and internationally is of the order of *2,202,735 hectares*,
which makes the *Pentagon* one of the largest landowners worldwide!
September 17, 2014 US Pursues *134** Wars Around the World
The US is now involved in *134* wars or none, depending on your definition of war The White
House spent much of last week trying to figure out if the word "war" was the right one to describe
its military actions against the Islamic State.
The effort to produce the current clusterfuck has had a decades-long gestation. If one accepts
that premise then the argument put forward by The Saker, for example, regarding the short term
focus of western MSM in service of the long term goals of the elite becomes more comprehensible.
No reason to consider thinking people in "the West " as somehow less savvy than the elites of
the RF or the PRC. Short term focus is merely throwing coloured paper into the air for the distraction
of the masses.
The western long term strategy has been sussed, I think.
Actually that's Egyptian President Gamal Nasser. Egypt didn't officially adopt Ba'athism as a
political philosophy though I can imagine Nasser and other Egyptian politicians of his time may
have been sympathetic towards it or parts of it. It was Arab nationalist and secular in character
and preached religious tolerance. Ba'athism was mainly important in Syria and Iraq in the 1950s
and 1960s. Of course what confuses the issue of Ba'athism is that there was a time when Egypt
and Syria agreed to form a short-lived union called the United Arab Republic.
The trend was clear, though. All the big, important Arab nations were evolving towards being modern,
more secular states.
The Soviet Union was also a player at that time, supporting secular, moderate Arab nationalism.
Then the trend turned backwards toward medievalism. I believe the turning point was in the
mid-1970's. A Combination of Israeli triumphalism and the U.S. (under Jimmy Carter and Zbigniew
Brzezinski) placing their stake on Saudi Wahhabism, to counter Soviet influence.
Apparently in 1958 there was a high level of awareness of USA duplicity and deceit wrt the
well being of the mostly impoverished masses of SA as opposed to the USA's hegemonic agenda that
reflected its struggle against the 'evil commie aggressor' .at least in Venezuela
"Nixon and his wife, Patricia, had arrived in Venezuela in the course of their Latin American
"goodwill tour." At the time, relations were strained between the Republican administration in
Washington and Latin Americans on the left side of the political spectrum. They charged that President
Dwight D. Eisenhower, in focusing on cold war rivalries with the Soviet Union, had failed to address
pressing economic needs in the Western Hemisphere while extending his backing to anti-communist
dictatorial regimes."
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/vice-president-nixons-motorcade-attacked-in-venezuela-may-13-1958-106584
"
One other turning point could also have been when Egypt under Nasser nationalised the Suez Canal
after British, French and Israeli attempts to seize it and use the invasion as cover to assassinate
Nasser in 1956. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez_Crisis
Among other things the war that followed and Nasser's crackdown on civil liberties of the Egyptian
Jewish community led to thousands of those people fleeing to Israel (and perhaps giving Israel
fuel for planning future attacks on the Sinai peninsula).
Another turning point was in 1973 when Arab countries imposed an oil embargo and raised oil
prices after the US supported Israel in the Yom Kippur war. This was in the wake of the collapse
of the 1944 Bretton Woods agreement in 1971 when the US went off the gold standard (due in part
to US spending on the Vietnam War). The depreciation of the US dollar (with the price of oil tied
to that) Also meant that for Middle Eastern oil producers, imports (especially food imports) became
more expensive and raising the price of oil was one way of dealing with the increase in the price
of grain and other global food staples. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_oil_crisis
Thanks for the correction. I recall that Iran was also secular and democratic (not Baathist) until
Americans foisted regime change on it in 1953. America has been subverting independent democracies
around the world for decades. They do this while screaming about spreading democracy. The de facto
one-party state USA has a perverted idea of democracy.
Crocodile tears of WaPO staff... Who fully supported implementation of Washington consensus that
robbed the nations in favor of international companies... this was a new mass scale economic rape of
the Western countries and it was especially brutal in xUSSR area.
Nobel-winning economist Angus Deaton argues against giving aid to poor countries
It sounds kind of crazy to say that foreign aid often hurts, rather than helps, poor people
in poor countries. Yet that is what Angus Deaton, the newest
winner of the Nobel Prize in economics , has argued.
Deaton, an economist at Princeton University who studied poverty in India and South Africa
and spent decades working at the World Bank, won his prize for studying how the poor decide to
save or spend money. But his ideas about foreign aid are particularly provocative. Deaton argues
that, by trying to help poor people in developing countries, the rich world may actually be corrupting
those nations' governments and slowing their growth. According to Deaton, and the economists who
agree with him, much of the
$135 billion that the world's most developed countries spent on official aid in 2014 may not
have ended up helping the poor.
Angus Deaton (LARRY LEVANTI/AFP/Getty Images)
The idea of wealthier countries giving away aid blossomed in the late 1960s, as the first humanitarian
crises reached mass audiences on television. Americans watched through their TV sets as
children starved to death in Biafra, an oil-rich area that had seceded from Nigeria and was now
being blockaded by the Nigerian government, as Philip Gourevitch
recalled
in a 2010 story in the New Yorker. Protesters
called on
the Nixon administration for action so loudly that they ended up galvanizing the largest nonmilitary
airlift the world had ever seen. Only a quarter-century after Auschwitz, humanitarian aid seemed
to offer the world a new hope for fighting evil without fighting a war.
There was a strong economic and political argument for helping poor countries, too. In the
mid-20th century, economists widely believed that the key to triggering growth -- whether in an
already well-off country or one hoping to get richer -- was pumping money into a country's factories,
roads and other infrastructure. So in the hopes of spreading the Western model of democracy and
market-based economies, the United States and Western European powers encouraged foreign aid to
smaller and poorer countries that could fall under the influence of the Soviet Union and China.
The level of foreign aid distributed around the world
soared from the 1960s
, peaking at the end of the Cold War, then dipping before rising again.
Live
Aid music concerts raised public awareness about challenges like starvation in Africa, while
the United States launched major,
multibillion-dollar aid initiatives . And the World Bank and advocates of aid aggressively
seized on research that claimed that foreign aid led to economic development.
Deaton wasn't the first economist to challenge these assumptions, but over the past two decades
his arguments began to receive a great deal of attention. And he made them with perhaps a better
understanding of the data than anyone had before. Deaton's skepticism about the benefits of foreign
aid grew out of his research, which involved looking in detail at households in the developing
world, where he could see the effects of foreign aid intervention.
"I think his understanding of how the world worked at the micro level made him extremely suspicious
of these get-rich-quick schemes that some people peddled at the development level," says Daron
Acemoglu, an economist at MIT.
The data suggested that the claims of the aid community were sometimes not borne out. Even
as the level of foreign aid into Africa soared through the 1980s and 1990s, African economies
were doing worse than ever, as the chart below, from
a paper
by economist Bill Easterly of New York University, shows.
William Easterly, "Can Foreign Aid Buy Growth?"
The effect wasn't limited to Africa. Many economists were noticing that an influx of foreign aid
did not seem to produce economic growth in countries around the world. Rather, lots of foreign aid
flowing into a country tended to be correlated with lower economic growth, as this chart from a paper
by Arvind Subramanian and Raghuram
Rajan shows.
The countries that receive less aid, those on the left-hand side of the chart, tend to have higher
growth -- while those that receive more aid, on the right-hand side, have lower growth.
Raghuram G. Rajan and Arvind Subramanian, "Aid and Growth: What Does the Cross-Country Evidence Really
Show?"
Why was this happening? The answer wasn't immediately clear, but Deaton and other economists argued
that it had to do with how foreign money changed the relationship between a government and its people.
Think of it this way: In order to have the funding to run a country, a government needs to collect
taxes from its people. Since the people ultimately hold the purse strings, they have a certain amount
of control over their government. If leaders don't deliver the basic services they promise, the people
have the power to cut them off.
Deaton argued that foreign aid can weaken this relationship, leaving a government less accountable
to its people, the congress or parliament, and the courts.
"My critique of aid has been more to do with countries where they get an enormous amount of aid
relative to everything else that goes on in that country," Deaton said in an interview with Wonkblog.
"For instance, most governments depend on their people for taxes in order to run themselves and provide
services to their people. Governments that get all their money from aid don't have that at all, and
I think of that as very corrosive."
It might seem odd that having more money would not help a poor country. Yet economists have long
observed that countries that have an abundance of wealth from natural resources, like oil or diamonds,
tend to be more unequal, less developed and more impoverished, as the chart below shows. Countries
at the left-hand side of the chart have fewer fuels, ores and metals and higher growth, while those
at the right-hand side have more natural resource wealth, yet slower growth. Economists postulate
that this "natural resource curse" happens for a variety of reasons, but one is that such wealth
can strengthen and corrupt a government.
Like revenue from oil or diamonds, wealth from foreign aid can be a corrupting influence on weak
governments, "turning what should be beneficial political institutions into toxic ones," Deaton writes
in his book "The Great Escape: Health, Wealth, and the Origins of Inequality." This wealth can make
governments more despotic, and it can also increase the risk of civil war, since there is less power
sharing, as well as a lucrative prize worth fighting for.
Deaton and his supporters offer dozens of examples of humanitarian aid being used to support despotic
regimes and compounding misery, including in Zaire, Rwanda, Ethiopia, Somalia, Biafra, and the Khmer
Rouge on the border of Cambodia and Thailand. Citing Africa researcher Alex de Waal, Deaton writes
that "aid can only reach the victims of war by paying off the warlords, and sometimes extending the
war."
He also gives plenty of examples in which the United States gives aid "for 'us,' not for 'them'"
– to support our strategic allies, our commercial interests or our moral or political beliefs, rather
than the interests of the local people.
The United States gave aid to Ethiopia for decades under then-President Meles Zenawi Asres, because
he opposed Islamic fundamentalism and Ethiopia was so poor. Never mind that Asres was "one of the
most repressive and autocratic dictators in Africa," Deaton writes.
According to Deaton, "the award for sheer creativity" goes to Maaouya Ould Sid'Ahmed Taya, president
of Mauritania from 1984 to 2005. Western countries stopped giving aid to Taya after his government
became too politically repressive, but he managed to get the taps turned on again by becoming one
of the few Arab nations to recognize Israel.
Some might argue for bypassing corrupt governments altogether and distributing food or funding
directly among the people. Deaton acknowledges that, in some cases, this might be worth it to save
lives. But one problem with this approach is that it's difficult: To get to the powerless, you often
have to go through the powerful. Another issue, is that it undermines what people in developing countries
need most -- "an effective government that works with them for today and tomorrow,"
he writes .
The old calculus of foreign aid was that poor countries were merely suffering from a lack of money.
But these days, many economists question this assumption, arguing that development has more to do
with the strength of a country's institutions – political and social systems that are developed through
the interplay of a government and its people.
There are lot of places around the world that lack good roads, clean water and good hospitals,
says MIT's Acemoglu: "Why do these places exist? If you look at it, you quickly disabuse yourself
of the notion that they exist because it's impossible for the state to provide services there." What
these countries need even more than money is effective governance, something that foreign aid can
undermine, the thinking goes.
Some people believe that Deaton's critique of foreign aid goes too far. There are better and worse
ways to distribute foreign aid, they say. Some project-based approaches -- such as financing a local
business, building a well, or providing uniforms so that girls can go to school -- have been very
successful in helping local communities. In the last decade, researchers have tried to integrate
these lessons from economists and argue for more effective aid practices.
Many people believe that the aid community needs more scrutiny to determine which practices have
been effective and which have not. Economists such as Abhijit Banerjee and Esther Duflo, for example,
argue for creating
randomized control trials that allow researchers to carefully examine the development effects of
different types of projects -- for example, following microcredit as it is extended to people in
poor countries.
These methods have again led to a swell in optimism in professional circles about foreign aid
efforts. And again, Deaton is playing the skeptic.
While Deaton agrees that many development projects are successful, he's
critical of claims that these projects can be replicated elsewhere or on a larger scale. "The
trouble is that 'what works' is a highly contingent concept," he said in an interview. "If it works
in the highlands of Kenya, there's no reason to believe it will work in India, or that it will work
in Princeton, New Jersey."
The success of a local project, like microfinancing, also depends on numerous other local factors,
which are harder for researchers to isolate. Saying that these randomized control trials prove that
certain projects cause growth or development is like saying that flour causes cake, Deaton writes
in his book. "Flour 'causes' cakes, in the sense that cakes made without flour do worse than cakes
made with flour – and we can do any number of experiments to demonstrate it – but flour will not
work without a rising agent, eggs, and butter – the helping factors that are needed for the flour
to 'cause' the cake."
Deaton's critiques of foreign aid stem from his natural skepticism of how people use -- and abuse
-- economic data to advance their arguments. The science of measuring economic effects is much more
important, much harder and more controversial than we usually think, he told The Post.
Acemoglu said of Deaton: "He's challenging, and he's sharp, and he's extremely critical of things
he thinks are shoddy and things that are over-claiming. And I think the foreign aid area, that policy
arena, really riled him up because it was so lacking in rigor but also so grandiose in its claims."
Deaton doesn't argue against all types of foreign aid. In particular, he believes that certain
types of health aid – offering vaccinations, or developing cheap and effective drugs to treat malaria,
for example -- have been hugely beneficial to developing countries.
But mostly, he said, the rich world needs to think about "what can we do that would make lives
better for millions of poor people around the world without getting into their economies in the way
that we're doing by giving huge sums of money to their governments." Overall, he argues that we should
focus on doing less harm in the developing world, like selling fewer weapons to despots, or ensuring
that developing countries get a fair deal in trade agreements, and aren't harmed by U.S. foreign
policy decisions.
Deaton also believes that our attitude toward foreign aid – that developed countries ought to
swoop in and save everyone else – is condescending and suspiciously similar to the ideas of colonialism.
The rhetoric of colonialism, too, "was all about helping people, albeit about bringing civilization
and enlightenment to people whose humanity was far from fully recognized," he has written.
Instead, many of the positive things that are happening in Africa – the huge adoption in cell
phones over the past decade, for example – are totally homegrown. He points out that, while the world
has made huge strides in reducing poverty in recent decades, almost none of this has been due to
aid. Most has been due to development in countries like China, which have received very little aid
as a proportion of gross domestic product and have "had to work it out for themselves."
Ultimately, Deaton argues that we should stand aside and let poorer countries develop in their
own ways. "Who put us in charge?" he asks.
June 21, 2017 " Information
Clearing House " - One of the most rational bills ever proposed, barring the Feds from giving
money and weapons to child murdering terrorists, has almost ZERO support.
For the last several decades, the US government has openly funded, supported, and armed various
terrorist networks throughout the world to forward an agenda of
destabilization and
proxy war . It is not a secret, nor a conspiracy theory,
America arms bad guys .
Given the insidious history of the American empire and its creation and fostering of terrorist
regimes across the globe, it should come as no surprise that the overwhelming majority of politicians
would refuse to sign on to a law that requires them to '
Stop Arming
Terrorists .' And, that is exactly what's happened.
H.R.608 –
Stop Arming Terrorists Act was introduced by
Rep. Gabbard, Tulsi [D-HI] on January 23 of this year. The bill doesn't have any crazy strings
attached and its original cosponsors are a mix of Republicans and Democrats - highlighting that it
transcends party lines.
"For years, our government has been providing both direct and indirect support to these armed
militant groups, who are working directly with or under the command of terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda
and ISIS , all in their effort and fight to overthrow the Syrian government," Gabbard said
in an interview
earlier this year.
The text of the bill is simple. It merely states that it prohibits the use of federal agency funds
to provide covered assistance to: (1) Al Qaeda, Jabhat Fateh al-Sham, the Islamic State of Iraq and
the Levant (ISIL), or any individual or group that is affiliated with, associated with, cooperating
with, or adherents to such groups; or (2) the government of any country that the Office of the Director
of National Intelligence (ODNI) determines has, within the most recent 12 months, provided covered
assistance to such a group or individual.
The only thing this bill does is prohibit the US government from giving money and weapons to people
who want to murder Americans and who do murder innocent men, women, and children across the globe.
It is quite possibly the simplest and most rational bill ever proposed by Congress. Given its rational
and humanitarian nature, one would think that representatives would be lining up to show their support.
However, one would be wrong.
After nearly 5 months since its introduction, only 13 of the 535 members of Congress have signed
on as co-sponsors. What this lack of support for the bill shows is that the federal government is
addicted to funding terror and has
no intention of ever stopping it .
What's more is the fact that less than one week after publicly reprimanding Qatar for terrorism,
President Trump signed off on the sale of
$12 billion in weapons to the country he referred to as a "funder of terrorism." This move, in
Trump's own stance, makes him a de facto funder of terrorism now.
What this lack of support for the bills and the recent moves to arm the terrorist regimes illustrates
is the fact that the US has no intention of ever stopping terrorism. Trump, just like Obama and Bush
before him, will continue to foster the growth of terrorism to enrich those who profit from war.
Terrorism is necessary for the state. War, is the health of the state.
Without the constant fear mongering about an enemy who 'hates our freedom,' Americans begin questioning
things. They challenge the status quo and inevitably desire more freedom. However, when they are
told that boogeymen want to kill them, they become immediately complacent and blinded by their fear.
It's a vicious cycle of creating terrorists, killing innocence, and stoking war. And, unless something
radical happens, it shows no signs of ever reversing.
The radical change that is necessary to shift this paradigm back to peace is for people to wake
up to the reality that no matter which puppet is in the White House, the status quo remains unchanged.
Trump is proving that he can lie to get into power and his supporters ignore it. If you doubt
this fact, look at what
Trump did by calling out Saudi Arabia for their role in 9/11 and their support for terror worldwide
prior to getting elected. He now supports these terrorists and his constituency couldn't care less.
This madness has to stop. Humanity has to stop being
fooled by rhetoric read from teleprompters by puppets doing the bidding of their masters.
Please share this article with your friends and family to show them how their supposed 'leaders'
- except for a few good ones - are content with funding the enemy, laying waste to rights, and condone
the murder of innocence.
Matt Agorist is an honorably discharged veteran of the USMC and former intelligence operator directly
tasked by the NSA. This prior experience gives him unique insight into the world of government corruption
and the American police state. Agorist has been an independent journalist for over a decade and has
been featured on mainstream networks around the world. Matt is the founder of The Free Thought Project.
"... The reasoning was simple and is not hard to understand: Carthago delenda est. ..."
"... In a way McCain can be viewed now as a caricature of the Roman senator Cato the Elder, who is said to have used it as the conclusion to all his speeches. ..."
Your discussion just again had shown that there is no economics, only a political economy.
And all those neoliberal perversions, which are sold as an economic science is just an apologetics
for the financial oligarchy.
Apologetics of plunder in this particular case.
In a way the USSR with its discredited communist ideology, degenerated Bolshevik leadership
(just look at who was at the Politburo of CPSU at the time; people much lower in abilities then
Trump :-) and inept and politically naďve Mikhail Gorbachev at the helm had chosen the most inopportune
time to collapse :-)
And neoliberal vultures instantly circled the corpse and have had a feast. Geopolitical goals
of the USA also played important role in amplifying the scope of plunder.
No comparison of performance of Russia vs. China makes any sense if it ignores this fact.
While I would argue with the economic advice given the Russian government after 1988, I am simply
trying to understand the reasoning behind the advice, no more than that.
The reasoning was simple and is not hard to understand: Carthago delenda est.
In a way McCain can be viewed now as a caricature of the Roman senator Cato the Elder,
who is said to have used it as the conclusion to all his speeches.
History repeats "History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce."
"... If America were a free and democratic country, with a free press and independent publishing houses (and assuming, of course, that Americans were a literate people), Williamson's book would topple the Clinton regime, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the rest of the criminal cabal that inhabits the world of modern corporate statism faster than you could say "Jonathan Hay." ..."
"... Hay, for those who need an introduction to the international financial buccaneers who control our lives, was the general director of the Harvard Institute of International Development (HIID) in Moscow (1992-1997), who facilitated the crippling of the Russian economy and the plundering of its industrial and manufacturing infrastructure with a strategy concocted by Larry Summers, Andre Schliefer (HIID's Cambridge-based manager), Jeffrey Sachs and his Swedish sidekick Anders Aslund, and a host of private players from banks and investment houses in Boston and New York - a plan approved and assisted by the U.S. Department of the Treasury. ..."
"... These third-generation Bolsheviks - led by former Pravda hack Yegor Gaidar, grandson of a Bolshevik who achieved prominence as the teenage mass murderer of White Army officers, now heads the Moscow-based Institute for Economies in Transition - became instant millionaires (or billionaires) and left the Russian workers virtual slaves of them and their new foreign investors. ..."
"... Ironically, when Harvard's Sachs and Hay started identifying Russians they could work with, they ignored - or shunned - the most capable talent at hand: those numerous Russian economists who for 20 years had been studying the Swiss economist Wilhelm von Roepke and his disciple, Ludwig Erhard, father of Germany's "economic miracle" in anticipation of the day when Communism would collapse. Somewhat sardonically, Williamson notes that one, probably unintended, benefit of Gorbachev's perestroika was the recruitment of these Russian economists by top U.S. universities. ..."
"... On another level, Contagion is about the workings of international finance, the consolidation of capital into fewer and fewer hands, and the ruthless, death-dealing policies it inflicts on its target countries through currency manipulation, inflation, depression, taxation and war - with emphasis on Russia but with attention also given to Mexico, Thailand, Indonesia, the Balkans, and other countries, and how it uses its control over money to produce social chaos. ..."
"... Those who read Williamson's book will find particularly interesting her treatment of the Federal Reserve, and how this "bank" was designed to plunder the wealth of America through war, debt, and taxation, in order to maintain what is nothing more nor less than a giant pyramid scheme that depends on domination of the earth and its resources. ..."
"... The policies inflicted on Russia by the banks were cruel to the Nth degree; but the policy implementers - Williamson employs the derogatory Russian word m yakigolovy ("soft-headed ones") applied to the Americans - were a foppish lot, streaming into Russia by the thousands (the IMF, alone, with 150 staffers) with their outrageous salaries and per diem allowances, renting out the finest dachas, bringing in their exotic consumer goods, driving up prices for goods and rents, spurring a boom in the drug and prostitution businesses, and then watching, cold-heartedly, the declining fortunes of their hosts as they lost everything - including the artistic heritage of the country. ..."
"... Gore, who was raised to be President, has impeccable Russian connections. His father, of course, was Lenin financier Armand Hammer's pocket senator, and it was Hammer who paid for Al Jr.'s expensive St. Alban's Prep schooling; and, as Williamson reports, Al Jr.'s daughter married Andrew Schiff, grandson of Jacob, who, as a member of Kuhn, Loeb & Co., underwrote anti-czarist political agitation for two decades before Lenin's coup, and congratulated Lenin upon his successful revolution. ..."
"... By March 1999, Russia was now a financial basket case, and billions, if not tens of billions of U.S. taxpayer-backed loans had vanished into the secret bank accounts of both Russian and American gangster capitalists, and the news was starting to make little vibrations on Capitol Hill. "The U.S. administration's response to the debacle was repulsively similar to a typical Bill Clinton bimbo-eruption operation: Having ruined Russia by cosseting her in debt, meddling ignorantly in her internal affairs, and funding a drunken usurper, his agents denied all error and slandered ('slimed') her," writes Williamson. ..."
"... The cost to the American taxpayers of Clinton regime bailouts in a three-and-a-half-year period, Williamson notes, is more than $180 billion! The "new financial architecture" Clinton has erected, she writes, "isn't new at all, but rather something the international public lenders have been wanting for decades, i.e., an automatic bailout for their own bad practices." ..."
"... As the extent of the corruption of the Clinton-Yeltsin "reform" plan for Russia unfolded last year, with the attendant Bank of New York scandal, the mysterious death of super banker Edmond Safra in his Monte Carlo penthouse, the collapse of the Russian stock market, and the whiplash effect in Southeast Asia, Congress was pressed to hold hearings. ..."
"... What resulted, as Williamson accurately narrates it, was just a smoke screen, show hearings that barely rose above the seriousness of a Gilbert and Sullivan farce - though they did result in proposed new domestic banking laws that, if passed, will effectively make banks another federal police force responsible for reporting to the U.S. government the most minute financial transactions of U.S. citizens. ..."
"... In this regard, it is instructive to quote Williamson at length: "If the FBI, [Manhattan District Attorney] Robert Morgenthau, or Congress were serious about getting to the bottom of the plundering of Russia's assets and U.S. taxpayers' resources, they would show far more professional interest in exactly what was said and agreed in the private meetings [U.S. Treasury secretary] Larry Summers, Strobe Talbott, and [former Treasury Secretary] Robert Rubin conducted with Anatoly Chubais [former Russian finance minister, who oversaw the distribution and sale of Russian industries], and Sergie Vasiliev [Yeltsin's principal legal adviser, and a member of the Chubais clan], and later Chubais again in June and July of 1998. ..."
"... And why did Michel Camdessus [who left the presidency of the IMF earlier this year] announce his sudden retirement so soon after Moscow newspapers reported that a $200,000 payment was made to him from a secret Kremlin bank account? . . . ..."
"... You see, as this book explains, the Clinton's Russia policy did not just plunder Russians, leaving them destitute while creating a new and ruthless class of international capitalist gangsters at U.S. taxpayer expense; it had the double consequence of bringing all Americans deeper into the bankers' New World Order by increasing their debt load, decreasing their privacy, and restricting their civil rights. If only Americans cared. ..."
After 1991 Eastern Europe and FSU were mercilessly looted. That was tremendous one time transfer
of capital (and scientists and engineers) to Western Europe and the USA. Which helped to secure
"Clinton prosperity period"
China were not plundered by the West. Russia and Eastern Europe were. That's the key difference.
For Russia this period was called by Anne Williamson in her testimony before the Committee
on Banking and Financial Services of the United States House of Representatives "The economic
rape of Russia"
How Clinton & Company & The Bankers Plundered Russia by Paul Likoudis
May 4, 2000
The other day I was surprised to learn that Jeffrey Sachs, the creator of "shock therapy"
capitalism, who participated in the looting of Russia in the 1990s, is now NY Gov. Andrew Cuomo's
top adviser for health care. So we in NY will get shock therapy, much as the Russians did two
decades ago. Here is a story I wrote for The Wanderer in 2000:
===
How Clinton & Company & The Bankers Plundered Russia
by Paul Likoudis
In an ordinary election year, Anne Williamson's Contagion would be political dynamite, a
bombshell, a block-buster, a regime breaker.
If America were a free and democratic country, with a free press and independent publishing
houses (and assuming, of course, that Americans were a literate people), Williamson's book
would topple the Clinton regime, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the rest
of the criminal cabal that inhabits the world of modern corporate statism faster than you could
say "Jonathan Hay."
Hay, for those who need an introduction to the international financial buccaneers who
control our lives, was the general director of the Harvard Institute of International Development
(HIID) in Moscow (1992-1997), who facilitated the crippling of the Russian economy and the
plundering of its industrial and manufacturing infrastructure with a strategy concocted by
Larry Summers, Andre Schliefer (HIID's Cambridge-based manager), Jeffrey Sachs and his Swedish
sidekick Anders Aslund, and a host of private players from banks and investment houses in Boston
and New York - a plan approved and assisted by the U.S. Department of the Treasury.
Contagion can be read on many different levels.
At its simplest, it is a breezy, slightly cynical, highly entertaining narrative of Russian
history from the last months of Gorbachev's rule to April 2000 - a period which saw Russia
transformed from a decaying socialist economy (which despite its shortcomings, provided a modest
standard of living to its citizens) to a "managed economy" where home-grown gangsters and socialist
theoreticians from the West, like Hay and his fellow Harvardian Jeffrey Sachs, delivered 2,500%
inflation and indescribable poverty, and transferred the ownership of Russian industry to Western
financiers.
Williamson was an eyewitness who lived on and off in Russia for more than ten years, where
she reported on all things Russian for The New York Times, Th e Wall Street Journal, and a
host of other equally reputable publications. She knew and interviewed just about everybody
involved in this gargantuan plundering scheme: Russian politicians and businessmen, the new
"gangster" capitalists and their American sponsors from the IMF, the World Bank, USAID, Credit
Suisse First Boston, the CIA, the KGB - all in all, hundreds of sources who spoke candidly,
often ruthlessly, of their parts in this terrible human drama.
Her account is filled with quotations from interviews with top aides of Yeltsin and Clinton,
all down through the ranks of the two hierarchical societies to the proliferating mass of Russian
destitute, pornographers, pimps, drug dealers, and prostitutes. Some of the principal characters,
of course, refused to talk to Williamson, such as Bill Clinton's longtime friend from Oxford,
Strobe Talbott, now a deputy secretary of state and, Williamson suspects, a onetime KGB operative
whose claim to fame is a deceitful translation of the Khrushchev Memoirs. (A KGB colonel refused
to confirm or deny to Williamson that Clinton and Talbott visited North Vietnam together in
1971 - though he did confirm their contacts with the KGB for their protests against the U.S.
war in Vietnam in Moscow. See especially footnote 1, page 210.)
The 546-page book (the best part of which is the footnotes) gives a nearly day-by-day report
on what happened to Russia; left unstated, but implied on every page, is the assumption that
those in the United States who think what happened in Russia "can't happen here" better realize
it can happen here.
Once the Clinton regime and its lapdogs in the media defined Russian thug Boris Yeltsin
as a "democrat," the wholesale looting of Russia began. According to the socialist theoreticians
at Harvard, Russia needed to be brought into the New World Order in a hurry; and what better
way to do it than Sachs' "shock therapy" - a plan that empowered the degenerate, third-generation
descendants of the original Bolsheviks by assigning them the deeds of Russia's mightiest state-owned
industries - including the giant gas, oil, electrical, and telecommunications industries, the
world's largest paper, iron, and steel factories, the world's richest gold, silver, diamond,
and platinum mines, automobile and airplane factories, etc. - who, in turn, sold some of their
shares of the properties to Westerners for a song, and pocketed the cash, while retaining control
of the companies.
These third-generation Bolsheviks - led by former Pravda hack Yegor Gaidar, grandson
of a Bolshevik who achieved prominence as the teenage mass murderer of White Army officers,
now heads the Moscow-based Institute for Economies in Transition - became instant millionaires
(or billionaires) and left the Russian workers virtual slaves of them and their new foreign
investors.
When Russian members of the Supreme Soviet openly criticized the looting of the national
patrimony by these new gangsters early in the U.S.-driven "reform" program, in 1993, before
all Soviet institutions were destroyed, Yeltsin bombed Parliament.
Ironically, when Harvard's Sachs and Hay started identifying Russians they could work
with, they ignored - or shunned - the most capable talent at hand: those numerous Russian economists
who for 20 years had been studying the Swiss economist Wilhelm von Roepke and his disciple,
Ludwig Erhard, father of Germany's "economic miracle" in anticipation of the day when Communism
would collapse. Somewhat sardonically, Williamson notes that one, probably unintended, benefit
of Gorbachev's perestroika was the recruitment of these Russian economists by top U.S. universities.
In the new, emerging global economy, it's clear that Russia is the designated center for
heavy manufacturing - just as Asia is for clothing and computers - with its nearly unlimited
supply of hydroelectric power, iron and steel, timber, gold and other precious metals.
This helps explain why America's political elites don't give a fig about the closing down
of American industries and mines. As Williamson observes, Russia is viewed as some kind of
"closet."
What is important for Western readers to understand - as Williamson reports - is that when
Western banks and corporations bought these companies at bargain basement prices, they bought
more than just industrial equipment. In the Soviet model, every unit of industrial production
included workers' housing, churches, opera houses, schools, hospitals, supermarkets, etc.,
and the whole kit-and-caboodle was included in the selling price. By buying large shares of
these companies, Western corporations became, ipso facto, town managers.
Another Level
On another level, Contagion is about the workings of international finance, the consolidation
of capital into fewer and fewer hands, and the ruthless, death-dealing policies it inflicts
on its target countries through currency manipulation, inflation, depression, taxation and
war - with emphasis on Russia but with attention also given to Mexico, Thailand, Indonesia,
the Balkans, and other countries, and how it uses its control over money to produce social
chaos.
Those who read Williamson's book will find particularly interesting her treatment of
the Federal Reserve, and how this "bank" was designed to plunder the wealth of America through
war, debt, and taxation, in order to maintain what is nothing more nor less than a giant pyramid
scheme that depends on domination of the earth and its resources.
Williamson is of that small but noble school of economics writers who believe that the academic
field of economics is not some esoteric science that can only be comprehended by those with
IQs in four digits, and she - drawing on such writers as Hayek and von Mises, Roepke and the
late American Murray Rothbard - explains in layman's vocabulary the nuts and bolts of sound
economic principles and the real-world effects of the Fed's policies on hapless Americans.
Contagion also serves up a severe indictment of the World Bank, the International Monetary
Fund, and the other international "lending" agencies spawned by the Council on Foreign Relations
and similar "councils" and "commissions" which are fronts for the big banks run by the Houses
of Rockefeller, Morgan, Warburg, et al.
The policies inflicted on Russia by the banks were cruel to the Nth degree; but the
policy implementers - Williamson employs the derogatory Russian word m yakigolovy ("soft-headed
ones") applied to the Americans - were a foppish lot, streaming into Russia by the thousands
(the IMF, alone, with 150 staffers) with their outrageous salaries and per diem allowances,
renting out the finest dachas, bringing in their exotic consumer goods, driving up prices for
goods and rents, spurring a boom in the drug and prostitution businesses, and then watching,
cold-heartedly, the declining fortunes of their hosts as they lost everything - including the
artistic heritage of the country.
Williamson describes brilliantly that heady atmosphere in Moscow in the early days of the
IMF/USAID loan-scamming: a 24-hour party. There were bars like the Canadian-operated Hungry
Duck, which lured Russian teenage girls into its bar with a male striptease and free drinks,
"who, once thoroughly intoxicated, were then exposed to crowds of anxious young men the club
admitted only late in the evening."
The Third Level
At a third and more intriguing level, Contagion is about America's criminal politics in
the Clinton regime, and, inevitably, the reader will put Williamson's book down with the sense
that Al Gore will be the next occupier of the White House.
Gore, who was raised to be President, has impeccable Russian connections. His father,
of course, was Lenin financier Armand Hammer's pocket senator, and it was Hammer who paid for
Al Jr.'s expensive St. Alban's Prep schooling; and, as Williamson reports, Al Jr.'s daughter
married Andrew Schiff, grandson of Jacob, who, as a member of Kuhn, Loeb & Co., underwrote
anti-czarist political agitation for two decades before Lenin's coup, and congratulated Lenin
upon his successful revolution.
Williamson also documents Gore's intimate involvement with powerful Wall Street financial
houses, and his New York breakfast meeting with multibillionaire George Soros (a key Russian
player) just as the Russian collapse was underway.
Williamson tells an interesting story of Gore's response to the IMF/World Bank/USAID plunder
of U.S. taxpayers for the purpose of hobbling Russia.
By March 1999, Russia was now a financial basket case, and billions, if not tens of
billions of U.S. taxpayer-backed loans had vanished into the secret bank accounts of both Russian
and American gangster capitalists, and the news was starting to make little vibrations on Capitol
Hill. "The U.S. administration's response to the debacle was repulsively similar to a typical
Bill Clinton bimbo-eruption operation: Having ruined Russia by cosseting her in debt, meddling
ignorantly in her internal affairs, and funding a drunken usurper, his agents denied all error
and slandered ('slimed') her," writes Williamson.
"Pundits and academics joined government officials in bemoaning Mother Russia's thieving
ways, her bottomless corruption and constant chaos, all the while wringing their soft hands
with a schoolmarm's exasperation. Russia's self-appointed democracy coach Strobe Talbott ('Pro-Consul
Strobe' to the Russians) would get it right. An equally sanctimonious Albert Gore - the same
Al Gore who'd been so quick to return the CIA's 1995 report detailing Viktor Chernomyrdin's
and Anatoly Chubais' personal corruption with the single word 'Bullshit' scrawled across it
- took the low road and sniffed that the Russians would just have to get their own economic
house in order and cut their own deal with the IMF. . . ."
The cost to the American taxpayers of Clinton regime bailouts in a three-and-a-half-year
period, Williamson notes, is more than $180 billion! The "new financial architecture" Clinton
has erected, she writes, "isn't new at all, but rather something the international public lenders
have been wanting for decades, i.e., an automatic bailout for their own bad practices."
As the extent of the corruption of the Clinton-Yeltsin "reform" plan for Russia unfolded
last year, with the attendant Bank of New York scandal, the mysterious death of super banker
Edmond Safra in his Monte Carlo penthouse, the collapse of the Russian stock market, and the
whiplash effect in Southeast Asia, Congress was pressed to hold hearings.
What resulted, as Williamson accurately narrates it, was just a smoke screen, show hearings
that barely rose above the seriousness of a Gilbert and Sullivan farce - though they did result
in proposed new domestic banking laws that, if passed, will effectively make banks another
federal police force responsible for reporting to the U.S. government the most minute financial
transactions of U.S. citizens.
Double Effect
In this regard, it is instructive to quote Williamson at length: "If the FBI, [Manhattan
District Attorney] Robert Morgenthau, or Congress were serious about getting to the bottom
of the plundering of Russia's assets and U.S. taxpayers' resources, they would show far more
professional interest in exactly what was said and agreed in the private meetings [U.S. Treasury
secretary] Larry Summers, Strobe Talbott, and [former Treasury Secretary] Robert Rubin conducted
with Anatoly Chubais [former Russian finance minister, who oversaw the distribution and sale
of Russian industries], and Sergie Vasiliev [Yeltsin's principal legal adviser, and a member
of the Chubais clan], and later Chubais again in June and July of 1998.
"Instead of allowing Larry Summers to ramble casually in response to questions at a banking
committee hearing, the Treasury secretary should be asked exactly who suckered him - his Russian
friends, his own boss [former Harvard associate Robert Rubin, his boss at Treasury who was
once cochairman at Goldman Sachs], or private sector counterparts of the Working Committee
on Financial Markets [a White House group whose membership is drawn from the country's main
financial and market institutions: the Fed, Treasury, SEC, and the Commodities & Trading Commission].
. . . Or did he just bungle the entire matter on account of wishful thinking? Or was it gross
incompetence?
"The FBI and Congress ought to be very interested in establishing for taxpayers the truth
of any alleged 'national security' issues that justified allowing the Harvard Institute of
International Development to privatize U.S. bilateral assistance. It too should be their brief
to discover the relationship between the [Swedish wheeler-dealer and crony of Sachs, Anders]
Aslund/Carnegie crowd and Treasury and exactly what influence that relationship may have had
on the awarding of additional grants to Harvard without competition. On what basis did Team
Clinton direct their financial donor, American International Group's (AIG) Maurice Greenberg
(a man nearly as ubiquitous as any Russian oligarch in sweetheart public-funding deals), to
Brunswick Brokerage when sniffing out a $300 million OPIC guarantee for a Russian investment
fund. . . .
And why did Michel Camdessus [who left the presidency of the IMF earlier this year]
announce his sudden retirement so soon after Moscow newspapers reported that a $200,000 payment
was made to him from a secret Kremlin bank account? . . .
"American and Russian citizens can never be allowed to learn what really happened to the
billions lent to Yeltsin's government; it would expose the unsavory and self-interested side
of our political, financial, and media elites. . . . Instead, the [House] Banking Committee
hearings will use the smoke screen of policing foreign assistance flows to pass legislation
that will effectively end U.S. citizens' financial privacy while making them prisoners of their
citizenship. . . . The Banking Committee will use the opportunity the Russian dirty money scandal
presents to reanimate the domestic 'Know Your Customer' program, which charges domestic banks
with monitoring and reporting on the financial transactions in which middle-class Americans
engage. This data is collected and used by various government agencies, including the IRS;
meaning that if a citizen sells the family's beat-up station wagon or their 'starter' home,
the taxman is alerted immediately that the citizen's filing should reflect the greater tax
obligation in that year of the sale. . . . Other data on citizens for which the government
has long thirsted will also be collected by government's newest police force, the banks. .
. ."
You see, as this book explains, the Clinton's Russia policy did not just plunder Russians,
leaving them destitute while creating a new and ruthless class of international capitalist
gangsters at U.S. taxpayer expense; it had the double consequence of bringing all Americans
deeper into the bankers' New World Order by increasing their debt load, decreasing their privacy,
and restricting their civil rights. If only Americans cared.
"... You see, as this book explains, the Clinton's Russia policy did not just plunder Russians, leaving them destitute while creating
a new and ruthless class of international capitalist gangsters at U.S. taxpayer expense; it had the double consequence of bringing all
Americans deeper into the bankers' New World Order by increasing their debt load, decreasing their privacy, and restricting their civil
rights. If only Americans cared. ..."
The other day I was surprised to learn that Jeffrey Sachs, the creator of "shock therapy" capitalism, who participated in the
looting of Russia in the 1990s, is now NY Gov. Andrew Cuomo's top adviser for health care. So we in NY will get shock therapy, much
as the Russians did two decades ago.
Here is a story I wrote for The Wanderer in 2000:
===
How Clinton & Company & The Bankers Plundered Russia
by Paul Likoudis
In an ordinary election year, Anne Williamson's Contagion would be political dynamite, a bombshell, a block-buster, a regime breaker.
If America were a free and democratic country, with a free press and independent publishing houses (and assuming, of course, that
Americans were a literate people), Williamson's book would topple the Clinton regime, the World Bank, the International Monetary
Fund, and the rest of the criminal cabal that inhabits the world of modern corporate statism faster than you could say "Jonathan
Hay."
Hay, for those who need an introduction to the international financial buccaneers who control our lives, was the general director
of the Harvard Institute of International Development (HIID) in Moscow (1992-1997), who facilitated the crippling of the Russian
economy and the plundering of its industrial and manufacturing infrastructure with a strategy concocted by Larry Summers, Andre Schliefer
(HIID's Cambridge-based manager), Jeffrey Sachs and his Swedish sidekick Anders Aslund, and a host of private players from banks
and investment houses in Boston and New York - a plan approved and assisted by the U.S. Department of the Treasury.
Contagion can be read on many different levels.
At its simplest, it is a breezy, slightly cynical, highly entertaining narrative of Russian history from the last months of Gorbachev's
rule to April 2000 - a period which saw Russia transformed from a decaying socialist economy (which despite its shortcomings, provided
a modest standard of living to its citizens) to a "managed economy" where home-grown gangsters and socialist theoreticians from the
West, like Hay and his fellow Harvardian Jeffrey Sachs, delivered 2,500% inflation and indescribable poverty, and transferred the
ownership of Russian industry to Western financiers.
Williamson was an eyewitness who lived on and off in Russia for more than ten years, where she reported on all things Russian
for The New York Times, Th e Wall Street Journal, and a host of other equally reputable publications. She knew and interviewed just
about everybody involved in this gargantuan plundering scheme: Russian politicians and businessmen, the new "gangster" capitalists
and their American sponsors from the IMF, the World Bank, USAID, Credit Suisse First Boston, the CIA, the KGB - all in all, hundreds
of sources who spoke candidly, often ruthlessly, of their parts in this terrible human drama.
Her account is filled with quotations from interviews with top aides of Yeltsin and Clinton, all down through the ranks of the
two hierarchical societies to the proliferating mass of Russian destitute, pornographers, pimps, drug dealers, and prostitutes. Some
of the principal characters, of course, refused to talk to Williamson, such as Bill Clinton's longtime friend from Oxford, Strobe
Talbott, now a deputy secretary of state and, Williamson suspects, a onetime KGB operative whose claim to fame is a deceitful translation
of the Khrushchev Memoirs. (A KGB colonel refused to confirm or deny to Williamson that Clinton and Talbott visited North Vietnam
together in 1971 - though he did confirm their contacts with the KGB for their protests against the U.S. war in Vietnam in Moscow.
See especially footnote 1, page 210.)
The 546-page book (the best part of which is the footnotes) gives a nearly day-by-day report on what happened to Russia; left
unstated, but implied on every page, is the assumption that those in the United States who think what happened in Russia "can't happen
here" better realize it can happen here.
Once the Clinton regime and its lapdogs in the media defined Russian thug Boris Yeltsin as a "democrat," the wholesale looting
of Russia began. According to the socialist theoreticians at Harvard, Russia needed to be brought into the New World Order in a hurry;
and what better way to do it than Sachs' "shock therapy" - a plan that empowered the degenerate, third-generation descendants of
the original Bolsheviks by assigning them the deeds of Russia's mightiest state-owned industries - including the giant gas, oil,
electrical, and telecommunications industries, the world's largest paper, iron, and steel factories, the world's richest gold, silver,
diamond, and platinum mines, automobile and airplane factories, etc. - who, in turn, sold some of their shares of the properties
to Westerners for a song, and pocketed the cash, while retaining control of the companies.
These third-generation Bolsheviks - led by former Pravda hack Yegor Gaidar, grandson of a Bolshevik who achieved prominence as
the teenage mass murderer of White Army officers, now heads the Moscow-based Institute for Economies in Transition - became instant
millionaires (or billionaires) and left the Russian workers virtual slaves of them and their new foreign investors.
When Russian members of the Supreme Soviet openly criticized the looting of the national patrimony by these new gangsters early
in the U.S.-driven "reform" program, in 1993, before all Soviet institutions were destroyed, Yeltsin bombed Parliament.
Ironically, when Harvard's Sachs and Hay started identifying Russians they could work with, they ignored - or shunned - the most
capable talent at hand: those numerous Russian economists who for 20 years had been studying the Swiss economist Wilhelm von Roepke
and his disciple, Ludwig Erhard, father of Germany's "economic miracle" in anticipation of the day when Communism would collapse.
Somewhat sardonically, Williamson notes that one, probably unintended, benefit of Gorbachev's perestroika was the recruitment
of these Russian economists by top U.S. universities.
In the new, emerging global economy, it's clear that Russia is the designated center for heavy manufacturing - just as Asia is
for clothing and computers - with its nearly unlimited supply of hydroelectric power, iron and steel, timber, gold and other precious
metals.
This helps explain why America's political elites don't give a fig about the closing down of American industries and mines. As
Williamson observes, Russia is viewed as some kind of "closet."
What is important for Western readers to understand - as Williamson reports - is that when Western banks and corporations bought
these companies at bargain basement prices, they bought more than just industrial equipment. In the Soviet model, every unit of industrial
production included workers' housing, churches, opera houses, schools, hospitals, supermarkets, etc., and the whole kit-and-caboodle
was included in the selling price. By buying large shares of these companies, Western corporations became, ipso facto, town managers.
Another Level
On another level, Contagion is about the workings of international finance, the consolidation of capital into fewer and fewer
hands, and the ruthless, death-dealing policies it inflicts on its target countries through currency manipulation, inflation, depression,
taxation and war - with emphasis on Russia but with attention also given to Mexico, Thailand, Indonesia, the Balkans, and other countries,
and how it uses its control over money to produce social chaos.
Those who read Williamson's book will find particularly interesting her treatment of the Federal Reserve, and how this "bank"
was designed to plunder the wealth of America through war, debt, and taxation, in order to maintain what is nothing more nor less
than a giant pyramid scheme that depends on domination of the earth and its resources.
Williamson is of that small but noble school of economics writers who believe that the academic field of economics is not some
esoteric science that can only be comprehended by those with IQs in four digits, and she - drawing on such writers as Hayek and von
Mises, Roepke and the late American Murray Rothbard - explains in layman's vocabulary the nuts and bolts of sound economic principles
and the real-world effects of the Fed's policies on hapless Americans.
Contagion also serves up a severe indictment of the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the other international "lending"
agencies spawned by the Council on Foreign Relations and similar "councils" and "commissions" which are fronts for the big banks
run by the Houses of Rockefeller, Morgan, Warburg, et al.
The policies inflicted on Russia by the banks were cruel to the Nth degree; but the policy implementers - Williamson employs the
derogatory Russian word m yakigolovy ("soft-headed ones") applied to the Americans - were a foppish lot, streaming into Russia by
the thousands (the IMF, alone, with 150 staffers) with their outrageous salaries and per diem allowances, renting out the finest
dachas, bringing in their exotic consumer goods, driving up prices for goods and rents, spurring a boom in the drug and prostitution
businesses, and then watching, cold-heartedly, the declining fortunes of their hosts as they lost everything - including the artistic
heritage of the country.
Williamson describes brilliantly that heady atmosphere in Moscow in the early days of the IMF/USAID loan-scamming: a 24-hour party.
There were bars like the Canadian-operated Hungry Duck, which lured Russian teenage girls into its bar with a male striptease and
free drinks, "who, once thoroughly intoxicated, were then exposed to crowds of anxious young men the club admitted only late in the
evening."
The Third Level
At a third and more intriguing level, Contagion is about America's criminal politics in the Clinton regime, and, inevitably, the
reader will put Williamson's book down with the sense that Al Gore will be the next occupier of the White House.
Gore, who was raised to be President, has impeccable Russian connections. His father, of course, was Lenin financier Armand Hammer's
pocket senator, and it was Hammer who paid for Al Jr.'s expensive St. Alban's Prep schooling; and, as Williamson reports, Al Jr.'s
daughter married Andrew Schiff, grandson of Jacob, who, as a member of Kuhn, Loeb & Co., underwrote anti-czarist political agitation
for two decades before Lenin's coup, and congratulated Lenin upon his successful revolution.
Williamson also documents Gore's intimate involvement with powerful Wall Street financial houses, and his New York breakfast meeting
with multibillionaire George Soros (a key Russian player) just as the Russian collapse was underway.
Williamson tells an interesting story of Gore's response to the IMF/World Bank/USAID plunder of U.S. taxpayers for the purpose
of hobbling Russia.
By March 1999, Russia was now a financial basket case, and billions, if not tens of billions of U.S. taxpayer-backed loans had
vanished into the secret bank accounts of both Russian and American gangster capitalists, and the news was starting to make little
vibrations on Capitol Hill. "The U.S. administration's response to the debacle was repulsively similar to a typical Bill Clinton
bimbo-eruption operation: Having ruined Russia by cosseting her in debt, meddling ignorantly in her internal affairs, and funding
a drunken usurper, his agents denied all error and slandered ('slimed') her," writes Williamson.
"Pundits and academics joined government officials in bemoaning Mother Russia's thieving ways, her bottomless corruption and constant
chaos, all the while wringing their soft hands with a schoolmarm's exasperation. Russia's self-appointed democracy coach Strobe Talbott
('Pro-Consul Strobe' to the Russians) would get it right. An equally sanctimonious Albert Gore - the same Al Gore who'd been so quick
to return the CIA's 1995 report detailing Viktor Chernomyrdin's and Anatoly Chubais' personal corruption with the single word 'Bullshit'
scrawled across it - took the low road and sniffed that the Russians would just have to get their own economic house in order and
cut their own deal with the IMF. . . ."
The cost to the American taxpayers of Clinton regime bailouts in a three-and-a-half-year period, Williamson notes, is more than
$180 billion! The "new financial architecture" Clinton has erected, she writes, "isn't new at all, but rather something the international
public lenders have been wanting for decades, i.e., an automatic bailout for their own bad practices."
As the extent of the corruption of the Clinton-Yeltsin "reform" plan for Russia unfolded last year, with the attendant Bank of
New York scandal, the mysterious death of super banker Edmond Safra in his Monte Carlo penthouse, the collapse of the Russian stock
market, and the whiplash effect in Southeast Asia, Congress was pressed to hold hearings.
What resulted, as Williamson accurately narrates it, was just a smoke screen, show hearings that barely rose above the seriousness
of a Gilbert and Sullivan farce - though they did result in proposed new domestic banking laws that, if passed, will effectively
make banks another federal police force responsible for reporting to the U.S. government the most minute financial transactions of
U.S. citizens.
Double Effect
In this regard, it is instructive to quote Williamson at length: "If the FBI, [Manhattan District Attorney] Robert Morgenthau,
or Congress were serious about getting to the bottom of the plundering of Russia's assets and U.S. taxpayers' resources, they would
show far more professional interest in exactly what was said and agreed in the private meetings [U.S. Treasury secretary] Larry Summers,
Strobe Talbott, and [former Treasury Secretary] Robert Rubin conducted with Anatoly Chubais [former Russian finance minister, who
oversaw the distribution and sale of Russian industries], and Sergie Vasiliev [Yeltsin's principal legal adviser, and a member of
the Chubais clan], and later Chubais again in June and July of 1998.
"Instead of allowing Larry Summers to ramble casually in response to questions at a banking committee hearing, the Treasury secretary
should be asked exactly who suckered him - his Russian friends, his own boss [former Harvard associate Robert Rubin, his boss at
Treasury who was once cochairman at Goldman Sachs], or private sector counterparts of the Working Committee on Financial Markets
[a White House group whose membership is drawn from the country's main financial and market institutions: the Fed, Treasury, SEC,
and the Commodities & Trading Commission]. . . . Or did he just bungle the entire matter on account of wishful thinking? Or was it
gross incompetence?
"The FBI and Congress ought to be very interested in establishing for taxpayers the truth of any alleged 'national security' issues
that justified allowing the Harvard Institute of International Development to privatize U.S. bilateral assistance. It too should
be their brief to discover the relationship between the [Swedish wheeler-dealer and crony of Sachs, Anders] Aslund/Carnegie crowd
and Treasury and exactly what influence that relationship may have had on the awarding of additional grants to Harvard without competition.
On what basis did Team Clinton direct their financial donor, American International Group's (AIG) Maurice Greenberg (a man nearly
as ubiquitous as any Russian oligarch in sweetheart public-funding deals), to Brunswick Brokerage when sniffing out a $300 million
OPIC guarantee for a Russian investment fund. . . . And why did Michel Camdessus [who left the presidency of the IMF earlier this
year] announce his sudden retirement so soon after Moscow newspapers reported that a $200,000 payment was made to him from a secret
Kremlin bank account? . . .
"American and Russian citizens can never be allowed to learn what really happened to the billions lent to Yeltsin's government;
it would expose the unsavory and self-interested side of our political, financial, and media elites. . . . Instead, the [House] Banking
Committee hearings will use the smoke screen of policing foreign assistance flows to pass legislation that will effectively end U.S.
citizens' financial privacy while making them prisoners of their citizenship. . . . The Banking Committee will use the opportunity
the Russian dirty money scandal presents to reanimate the domestic 'Know Your Customer' program, which charges domestic banks with
monitoring and reporting on the financial transactions in which middle-class Americans engage. This data is collected and used by
various government agencies, including the IRS; meaning that if a citizen sells the family's beat-up station wagon or their 'starter'
home, the taxman is alerted immediately that the citizen's filing should reflect the greater tax obligation in that year of the sale.
. . . Other data on citizens for which the government has long thirsted will also be collected by government's newest police force,
the banks. . . ."
You see, as this book explains, the Clinton's Russia policy did not just plunder Russians, leaving them destitute while creating
a new and ruthless class of international capitalist gangsters at U.S. taxpayer expense; it had the double consequence of bringing
all Americans deeper into the bankers' New World Order by increasing their debt load, decreasing their privacy, and restricting their
civil rights. If only Americans cared.
"... You see, as this book explains, the Clinton's Russia policy did not just plunder Russians, leaving them destitute while creating
a new and ruthless class of international capitalist gangsters at U.S. taxpayer expense; it had the double consequence of bringing all
Americans deeper into the bankers' New World Order by increasing their debt load, decreasing their privacy, and restricting their civil
rights. If only Americans cared. ..."
The other day I was surprised to learn that Jeffrey Sachs, the creator of "shock therapy" capitalism, who participated in the
looting of Russia in the 1990s, is now NY Gov. Andrew Cuomo's top adviser for health care. So we in NY will get shock therapy, much
as the Russians did two decades ago.
Here is a story I wrote for The Wanderer in 2000:
===
How Clinton & Company & The Bankers Plundered Russia
by Paul Likoudis
In an ordinary election year, Anne Williamson's Contagion would be political dynamite, a bombshell, a block-buster, a regime breaker.
If America were a free and democratic country, with a free press and independent publishing houses (and assuming, of course, that
Americans were a literate people), Williamson's book would topple the Clinton regime, the World Bank, the International Monetary
Fund, and the rest of the criminal cabal that inhabits the world of modern corporate statism faster than you could say "Jonathan
Hay."
Hay, for those who need an introduction to the international financial buccaneers who control our lives, was the general director
of the Harvard Institute of International Development (HIID) in Moscow (1992-1997), who facilitated the crippling of the Russian
economy and the plundering of its industrial and manufacturing infrastructure with a strategy concocted by Larry Summers, Andre Schliefer
(HIID's Cambridge-based manager), Jeffrey Sachs and his Swedish sidekick Anders Aslund, and a host of private players from banks
and investment houses in Boston and New York - a plan approved and assisted by the U.S. Department of the Treasury.
Contagion can be read on many different levels.
At its simplest, it is a breezy, slightly cynical, highly entertaining narrative of Russian history from the last months of Gorbachev's
rule to April 2000 - a period which saw Russia transformed from a decaying socialist economy (which despite its shortcomings, provided
a modest standard of living to its citizens) to a "managed economy" where home-grown gangsters and socialist theoreticians from the
West, like Hay and his fellow Harvardian Jeffrey Sachs, delivered 2,500% inflation and indescribable poverty, and transferred the
ownership of Russian industry to Western financiers.
Williamson was an eyewitness who lived on and off in Russia for more than ten years, where she reported on all things Russian
for The New York Times, Th e Wall Street Journal, and a host of other equally reputable publications. She knew and interviewed just
about everybody involved in this gargantuan plundering scheme: Russian politicians and businessmen, the new "gangster" capitalists
and their American sponsors from the IMF, the World Bank, USAID, Credit Suisse First Boston, the CIA, the KGB - all in all, hundreds
of sources who spoke candidly, often ruthlessly, of their parts in this terrible human drama.
Her account is filled with quotations from interviews with top aides of Yeltsin and Clinton, all down through the ranks of the
two hierarchical societies to the proliferating mass of Russian destitute, pornographers, pimps, drug dealers, and prostitutes. Some
of the principal characters, of course, refused to talk to Williamson, such as Bill Clinton's longtime friend from Oxford, Strobe
Talbott, now a deputy secretary of state and, Williamson suspects, a onetime KGB operative whose claim to fame is a deceitful translation
of the Khrushchev Memoirs. (A KGB colonel refused to confirm or deny to Williamson that Clinton and Talbott visited North Vietnam
together in 1971 - though he did confirm their contacts with the KGB for their protests against the U.S. war in Vietnam in Moscow.
See especially footnote 1, page 210.)
The 546-page book (the best part of which is the footnotes) gives a nearly day-by-day report on what happened to Russia; left
unstated, but implied on every page, is the assumption that those in the United States who think what happened in Russia "can't happen
here" better realize it can happen here.
Once the Clinton regime and its lapdogs in the media defined Russian thug Boris Yeltsin as a "democrat," the wholesale looting
of Russia began. According to the socialist theoreticians at Harvard, Russia needed to be brought into the New World Order in a hurry;
and what better way to do it than Sachs' "shock therapy" - a plan that empowered the degenerate, third-generation descendants of
the original Bolsheviks by assigning them the deeds of Russia's mightiest state-owned industries - including the giant gas, oil,
electrical, and telecommunications industries, the world's largest paper, iron, and steel factories, the world's richest gold, silver,
diamond, and platinum mines, automobile and airplane factories, etc. - who, in turn, sold some of their shares of the properties
to Westerners for a song, and pocketed the cash, while retaining control of the companies.
These third-generation Bolsheviks - led by former Pravda hack Yegor Gaidar, grandson of a Bolshevik who achieved prominence as
the teenage mass murderer of White Army officers, now heads the Moscow-based Institute for Economies in Transition - became instant
millionaires (or billionaires) and left the Russian workers virtual slaves of them and their new foreign investors.
When Russian members of the Supreme Soviet openly criticized the looting of the national patrimony by these new gangsters early
in the U.S.-driven "reform" program, in 1993, before all Soviet institutions were destroyed, Yeltsin bombed Parliament.
Ironically, when Harvard's Sachs and Hay started identifying Russians they could work with, they ignored - or shunned - the most
capable talent at hand: those numerous Russian economists who for 20 years had been studying the Swiss economist Wilhelm von Roepke
and his disciple, Ludwig Erhard, father of Germany's "economic miracle" in anticipation of the day when Communism would collapse.
Somewhat sardonically, Williamson notes that one, probably unintended, benefit of Gorbachev's perestroika was the recruitment
of these Russian economists by top U.S. universities.
In the new, emerging global economy, it's clear that Russia is the designated center for heavy manufacturing - just as Asia is
for clothing and computers - with its nearly unlimited supply of hydroelectric power, iron and steel, timber, gold and other precious
metals.
This helps explain why America's political elites don't give a fig about the closing down of American industries and mines. As
Williamson observes, Russia is viewed as some kind of "closet."
What is important for Western readers to understand - as Williamson reports - is that when Western banks and corporations bought
these companies at bargain basement prices, they bought more than just industrial equipment. In the Soviet model, every unit of industrial
production included workers' housing, churches, opera houses, schools, hospitals, supermarkets, etc., and the whole kit-and-caboodle
was included in the selling price. By buying large shares of these companies, Western corporations became, ipso facto, town managers.
Another Level
On another level, Contagion is about the workings of international finance, the consolidation of capital into fewer and fewer
hands, and the ruthless, death-dealing policies it inflicts on its target countries through currency manipulation, inflation, depression,
taxation and war - with emphasis on Russia but with attention also given to Mexico, Thailand, Indonesia, the Balkans, and other countries,
and how it uses its control over money to produce social chaos.
Those who read Williamson's book will find particularly interesting her treatment of the Federal Reserve, and how this "bank"
was designed to plunder the wealth of America through war, debt, and taxation, in order to maintain what is nothing more nor less
than a giant pyramid scheme that depends on domination of the earth and its resources.
Williamson is of that small but noble school of economics writers who believe that the academic field of economics is not some
esoteric science that can only be comprehended by those with IQs in four digits, and she - drawing on such writers as Hayek and von
Mises, Roepke and the late American Murray Rothbard - explains in layman's vocabulary the nuts and bolts of sound economic principles
and the real-world effects of the Fed's policies on hapless Americans.
Contagion also serves up a severe indictment of the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the other international "lending"
agencies spawned by the Council on Foreign Relations and similar "councils" and "commissions" which are fronts for the big banks
run by the Houses of Rockefeller, Morgan, Warburg, et al.
The policies inflicted on Russia by the banks were cruel to the Nth degree; but the policy implementers - Williamson employs the
derogatory Russian word m yakigolovy ("soft-headed ones") applied to the Americans - were a foppish lot, streaming into Russia by
the thousands (the IMF, alone, with 150 staffers) with their outrageous salaries and per diem allowances, renting out the finest
dachas, bringing in their exotic consumer goods, driving up prices for goods and rents, spurring a boom in the drug and prostitution
businesses, and then watching, cold-heartedly, the declining fortunes of their hosts as they lost everything - including the artistic
heritage of the country.
Williamson describes brilliantly that heady atmosphere in Moscow in the early days of the IMF/USAID loan-scamming: a 24-hour party.
There were bars like the Canadian-operated Hungry Duck, which lured Russian teenage girls into its bar with a male striptease and
free drinks, "who, once thoroughly intoxicated, were then exposed to crowds of anxious young men the club admitted only late in the
evening."
The Third Level
At a third and more intriguing level, Contagion is about America's criminal politics in the Clinton regime, and, inevitably, the
reader will put Williamson's book down with the sense that Al Gore will be the next occupier of the White House.
Gore, who was raised to be President, has impeccable Russian connections. His father, of course, was Lenin financier Armand Hammer's
pocket senator, and it was Hammer who paid for Al Jr.'s expensive St. Alban's Prep schooling; and, as Williamson reports, Al Jr.'s
daughter married Andrew Schiff, grandson of Jacob, who, as a member of Kuhn, Loeb & Co., underwrote anti-czarist political agitation
for two decades before Lenin's coup, and congratulated Lenin upon his successful revolution.
Williamson also documents Gore's intimate involvement with powerful Wall Street financial houses, and his New York breakfast meeting
with multibillionaire George Soros (a key Russian player) just as the Russian collapse was underway.
Williamson tells an interesting story of Gore's response to the IMF/World Bank/USAID plunder of U.S. taxpayers for the purpose
of hobbling Russia.
By March 1999, Russia was now a financial basket case, and billions, if not tens of billions of U.S. taxpayer-backed loans had
vanished into the secret bank accounts of both Russian and American gangster capitalists, and the news was starting to make little
vibrations on Capitol Hill. "The U.S. administration's response to the debacle was repulsively similar to a typical Bill Clinton
bimbo-eruption operation: Having ruined Russia by cosseting her in debt, meddling ignorantly in her internal affairs, and funding
a drunken usurper, his agents denied all error and slandered ('slimed') her," writes Williamson.
"Pundits and academics joined government officials in bemoaning Mother Russia's thieving ways, her bottomless corruption and constant
chaos, all the while wringing their soft hands with a schoolmarm's exasperation. Russia's self-appointed democracy coach Strobe Talbott
('Pro-Consul Strobe' to the Russians) would get it right. An equally sanctimonious Albert Gore - the same Al Gore who'd been so quick
to return the CIA's 1995 report detailing Viktor Chernomyrdin's and Anatoly Chubais' personal corruption with the single word 'Bullshit'
scrawled across it - took the low road and sniffed that the Russians would just have to get their own economic house in order and
cut their own deal with the IMF. . . ."
The cost to the American taxpayers of Clinton regime bailouts in a three-and-a-half-year period, Williamson notes, is more than
$180 billion! The "new financial architecture" Clinton has erected, she writes, "isn't new at all, but rather something the international
public lenders have been wanting for decades, i.e., an automatic bailout for their own bad practices."
As the extent of the corruption of the Clinton-Yeltsin "reform" plan for Russia unfolded last year, with the attendant Bank of
New York scandal, the mysterious death of super banker Edmond Safra in his Monte Carlo penthouse, the collapse of the Russian stock
market, and the whiplash effect in Southeast Asia, Congress was pressed to hold hearings.
What resulted, as Williamson accurately narrates it, was just a smoke screen, show hearings that barely rose above the seriousness
of a Gilbert and Sullivan farce - though they did result in proposed new domestic banking laws that, if passed, will effectively
make banks another federal police force responsible for reporting to the U.S. government the most minute financial transactions of
U.S. citizens.
Double Effect
In this regard, it is instructive to quote Williamson at length: "If the FBI, [Manhattan District Attorney] Robert Morgenthau,
or Congress were serious about getting to the bottom of the plundering of Russia's assets and U.S. taxpayers' resources, they would
show far more professional interest in exactly what was said and agreed in the private meetings [U.S. Treasury secretary] Larry Summers,
Strobe Talbott, and [former Treasury Secretary] Robert Rubin conducted with Anatoly Chubais [former Russian finance minister, who
oversaw the distribution and sale of Russian industries], and Sergie Vasiliev [Yeltsin's principal legal adviser, and a member of
the Chubais clan], and later Chubais again in June and July of 1998.
"Instead of allowing Larry Summers to ramble casually in response to questions at a banking committee hearing, the Treasury secretary
should be asked exactly who suckered him - his Russian friends, his own boss [former Harvard associate Robert Rubin, his boss at
Treasury who was once cochairman at Goldman Sachs], or private sector counterparts of the Working Committee on Financial Markets
[a White House group whose membership is drawn from the country's main financial and market institutions: the Fed, Treasury, SEC,
and the Commodities & Trading Commission]. . . . Or did he just bungle the entire matter on account of wishful thinking? Or was it
gross incompetence?
"The FBI and Congress ought to be very interested in establishing for taxpayers the truth of any alleged 'national security' issues
that justified allowing the Harvard Institute of International Development to privatize U.S. bilateral assistance. It too should
be their brief to discover the relationship between the [Swedish wheeler-dealer and crony of Sachs, Anders] Aslund/Carnegie crowd
and Treasury and exactly what influence that relationship may have had on the awarding of additional grants to Harvard without competition.
On what basis did Team Clinton direct their financial donor, American International Group's (AIG) Maurice Greenberg (a man nearly
as ubiquitous as any Russian oligarch in sweetheart public-funding deals), to Brunswick Brokerage when sniffing out a $300 million
OPIC guarantee for a Russian investment fund. . . . And why did Michel Camdessus [who left the presidency of the IMF earlier this
year] announce his sudden retirement so soon after Moscow newspapers reported that a $200,000 payment was made to him from a secret
Kremlin bank account? . . .
"American and Russian citizens can never be allowed to learn what really happened to the billions lent to Yeltsin's government;
it would expose the unsavory and self-interested side of our political, financial, and media elites. . . . Instead, the [House] Banking
Committee hearings will use the smoke screen of policing foreign assistance flows to pass legislation that will effectively end U.S.
citizens' financial privacy while making them prisoners of their citizenship. . . . The Banking Committee will use the opportunity
the Russian dirty money scandal presents to reanimate the domestic 'Know Your Customer' program, which charges domestic banks with
monitoring and reporting on the financial transactions in which middle-class Americans engage. This data is collected and used by
various government agencies, including the IRS; meaning that if a citizen sells the family's beat-up station wagon or their 'starter'
home, the taxman is alerted immediately that the citizen's filing should reflect the greater tax obligation in that year of the sale.
. . . Other data on citizens for which the government has long thirsted will also be collected by government's newest police force,
the banks. . . ."
You see, as this book explains, the Clinton's Russia policy did not just plunder Russians, leaving them destitute while creating
a new and ruthless class of international capitalist gangsters at U.S. taxpayer expense; it had the double consequence of bringing
all Americans deeper into the bankers' New World Order by increasing their debt load, decreasing their privacy, and restricting their
civil rights. If only Americans cared.
"... Many "never-Trumpers" of both parties see the deep state's national security bureaucracy as their best hope to destroy Trump and thus defend constitutional government, but those hopes are misguided. ..."
"... As Michael Glennon, author of National Security and Double Government, pointed out in a June 2017 Harper's essay, if "the president maintains his attack, splintered and demoralized factions within the bureaucracy could actually support - not oppose - many potential Trump initiatives, such as stepped-up drone strikes, cyberattacks, covert action, immigration bans, and mass surveillance." ..."
"... Corraborative evidence of Valentine's thesis is, perhaps surprisingly, provided by the CIA's own website where a number of redacted historical documents have been published. Presumably, they are documents first revealed under the Freedom of Information Act. A few however are copies of news articles once available to the public but now archived by the CIA which has blacked-out portions of the articles. ..."
"... This led to an investigation by New Times in a day when there were still "investigative reporters," and not the government sycophants of today. Based on firsthand accounts, their investigation concluded that Operation Phoenix was the "only systematized kidnapping, torture and assassination program ever sponsored by the United States government. . . . Its victims were noncombatants." At least 40,000 were murdered, with "only" about 8,000 supposed Viet Cong political cadres targeted for execution, with the rest civilians (including women and children) killed and "later conveniently labeled VCI. Hundreds of thousands were jailed without trial, often after sadistic abuse." The article notes that Phoenix was conceived, financed, and directed by the Central Intelligence Agency ..."
"... But the article noted that one of the most persistent criticisms of Phoenix was that it resulted "in the arrest and imprisonment of many innocent civilians." These were called "Class C Communist offenders," some of whom may actually have been forced to commit such "belligerent acts" as digging trenches or carrying rice. It was those alleged as the "hard core, full-time cadre" who were deemed to make up the "shadow government" designated as Class A and B Viet Cong. ..."
"... Ironically, by the Bush administration's broad definition of "unlawful combatants," CIA officers and their support structure also would fit the category. But the American public is generally forgiving of its own war criminals though most self-righteous and hypocritical in judging foreign war criminals. But perhaps given sufficient evidence, the American public could begin to see both the immorality of this behavior and its counterproductive consequences. ..."
"... Talleyrand is credited with saying, "They have learned nothing and forgotten nothing." Reportedly, that was borrowed from a 1796 letter by a French naval officer, which stated, in the original language: Personne n'est corrigé; personne n'a su ni rien oublier ni rien appendre. In English: "Nobody has been corrected; no one has known to forget, nor yet to learn anything." That sums up the CIA leadership entirely. ..."
Douglas Valentine has once again added to the store of knowledge necessary for American citizens
to understand how the U.S. government actually works today, in his most recent book entitled
The CIA As Organized Crime . (Valentine previously wrote The Phoenix Program ,
which should be read with the current book.)
The US "deep state" – of which the CIA is an integral part – is an open secret now and the Phoenix
Program (assassinations, death squads, torture, mass detentions, exploitation of information) has
been its means of controlling populations. Consequently, knowing the deep state's methods is the
only hope of building a democratic opposition to the deep state and to restore as much as possible
the Constitutional system we had in previous centuries, as imperfect as it was.
Princeton University political theorist Sheldon Wolin described the US political system in place
by 2003 as "inverted totalitarianism." He reaffirmed that in 2009 after seeing a year of the Obama
administration. Correctly identifying the threat against constitutional governance is the first step
to restore it, and as Wolin understood, substantive constitutional government ended long before Donald
Trump campaigned. He's just taking unconstitutional governance to the next level in following the
same path as his recent predecessors. However, even as some elements of the "deep state" seek to
remove Trump, the President now has many "deep state" instruments in his own hands to be used at
his unreviewable discretion.
Many "never-Trumpers" of both parties see the deep state's national security bureaucracy as
their best hope to destroy Trump and thus defend constitutional government, but those hopes are misguided.
After all, the deep state's bureaucratic leadership has worked arduously for decades to subvert
constitutional order.
As Michael Glennon, author of National Security and Double Government, pointed out in a June
2017 Harper's essay, if "the president maintains his attack, splintered and demoralized factions
within the bureaucracy could actually support - not oppose - many potential Trump initiatives, such
as stepped-up drone strikes, cyberattacks, covert action, immigration bans, and mass surveillance."
Glennon noted that the propensity of "security managers" to back policies which ratchet up levels
of security "will play into Trump's hands, so that if and when he finally does declare victory, a
revamped security directorate could emerge more menacing than ever, with him its devoted new ally."
Before that happens, it is incumbent for Americans to understand what Valentine explains in his book
of CIA methods of "population control" as first fully developed in the Vietnam War's Phoenix Program.
Hating the US
There also must be the realization that our "national security" apparatchiks - principally but
not solely the CIA - have served to exponentially increase the numbers of those people who hate the
US.
Some of these people turn to terrorism as an expression of that hostility. Anyone who is at all
familiar with the CIA and Al Qaeda knows that the CIA has been Al Qaeda's most important "combat
multiplier" since 9/11, and the CIA can be said to have birthed ISIS as well with the mistreatment
of incarcerated Iraqi men in US prisons in Iraq.
Indeed, by following the model of the Phoenix Program, the CIA must be seen in the Twenty-first
Century as a combination of the ultimate "Murder, Inc.," when judged by the CIA's methods such as
drone warfare and its victims; and the Keystone Kops, when the multiple failures of CIA policies
are considered. This is not to make light of what the CIA does, but the CIA's misguided policies
and practices have served to generate wrath, hatred and violence against Americans, which we see
manifested in cities such as San Bernardino, Orlando, New York and Boston.
Pointing out the harm to Americans is not to dismiss the havoc that Americans under the influence
of the CIA have perpetrated on foreign populations. But "morality" seems a lost virtue today in the
US, which is under the influence of so much militaristic war propaganda that morality no longer enters
into the equation in determining foreign policy.
In addition to the harm the CIA has caused to people around the world, the CIA works tirelessly
at subverting its own government at home, as was most visible in the spying on and subversion of
the torture investigation by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. The subversion of democracy
also includes the role the CIA plays in developing and disseminating war propaganda as "information
warfare," upon the American people. This is what the Rand Corporation under the editorship of Zalmay
Khalilzad has described as "conditioning the battlefield," which begins with the minds of the American
population.
Douglas Valentine discusses and documents the role of the CIA in disseminating pro-war propaganda
and disinformation as complementary to the violent tactics of the Phoenix Program in Vietnam. Valentine
explains that "before Phoenix was adopted as the model for policing the American empire, many US
military commanders in Vietnam resisted the Phoenix strategy of targeting civilians with Einsatzgruppen-style
'special forces' and Gestapo-style secret police."
Military Commanders considered that type of program a flagrant violation of the Law of War. "Their
main job is to zap the in-betweeners – you know, the people who aren't all the way with the government
and aren't all the way with the Viet Cong either. They figure if you zap enough in-betweeners, people
will begin to get the idea," according to one quote from The Phoenix Program referring to
the unit tasked with much of the Phoenix operations.
Nazi Influences
Comparing the Phoenix Program and its operatives to "Einsatzgruppen-style 'special forces' and
Gestapo-style secret police" is not a distortion of the strategic understanding of each. Both programs
were extreme forms of repression operating under martial law principles where the slightest form
of dissent was deemed to represent the work of the "enemy." Hitler's Bandit Hunters: The SS and the
Nazi Occupation of Europe by Philip W. Blood describes German "Security Warfare" as practiced in
World War II, which can be seen as identical in form to the Phoenix Program as to how the enemy is
defined as anyone who is "potentially" a threat, deemed either "partizans" or terrorists.
That the Germans included entire racial categories in that does not change the underlying logic,
which was, anyone deemed an internal enemy in a territory in which their military operated had to
be "neutralized" by any means necessary. The US military and the South Vietnamese military governments
operated under the same principles but not based on race, rather the perception that certain areas
and villages were loyal to the Viet Cong.
This repressive doctrine was also not unique to the Nazis in Europe and the US military in Vietnam.
Similar though less sophisticated strategies were used against the American Indians and by the imperial
powers of the late Nineteenth and early Twentieth centuries, including by the US in its newly acquired
territories of the Philippines and in the Caribbean. This "imperial policing," i.e., counterinsurgency,
simply moved to more manipulative and, in ways, more violent levels.
That the US drew upon German counterinsurgency doctrine, as brutal as it was, is well documented.
This is shown explicitly in a 2011 article published in the Journal of Military and Strategic Studies
entitled German Counterinsurgency Revisited by Charles D. Melson. He wrote that in 1942, Nazi commander
Heinrich Himmler named a deputy for "anti-bandit warfare," (Bevollmachtigter fur die Bandenkampfung
im Osten), SS-General von dem Bach, whose responsibilities expanded in 1943 to head all SS and police
anti-bandit units and operations. He was one of the architects of the Einsatzguppen "concept of anti-partisan
warfare," a German predecessor to the "Phoenix Program."
'Anti-Partisan' Lessons
It wasn't a coincidence that this "anti-partisan" warfare concept should be adopted by US forces
in Vietnam and retained to the present day. Melson pointed out that a "post-war German special forces
officer described hunter or ranger units as 'men who knew every possible ruse and tactic of guerrilla
warfare. They had gone through the hell of combat against the crafty partisans in the endless swamps
and forests of Russia.'"
Consequently, "The German special forces and reconnaissance school was a sought after posting
for North Atlantic Treaty Organization special operations personnel," who presumably included members
of the newly created US Army Special Forces soldiers, which was in part headquartered at Bad Tolz
in Germany, as well as CIA paramilitary officers.
Just as with the later Phoenix Program to the present-day US global counterinsurgency, Melson
wrote that the "attitude of the [local] population and the amount of assistance it was willing to
give guerilla units was of great concern to the Germans. Different treatment was supposed to be accorded
to affected populations, bandit supporters, and bandits, while so-called population and resource
control measures for each were noted (but were in practice, treated apparently one and the same).
'Action against enemy agitation' was the psychological or information operations of the
Nazi
period. The Nazis believed that, 'Because of the close relationship of guerilla warfare
and politics, actions against enemy agitation are a task that is just as important as interdiction
and combat actions. All means must be used to ward off enemy influence and waken and maintain a clear
political will.'"
This is typical of any totalitarian system – a movement or a government – whether the process
is characterized as counterinsurgency or internal security. The idea of any civilian collaboration
with the "enemy" is the basis for what the US government charges as "conspiracy" in the Guantanamo
Military Commissions.
Valentine explains the Phoenix program as having been developed by the CIA in 1967 to combine
"existing counterinsurgency programs in a concerted effort to 'neutralize' the Vietcong infrastructure
(VCI)." He explained further that "neutralize" meant "to kill, capture, or make to defect." "Infrastructure"
meant civilians suspected of supporting North Vietnamese and Vietcong soldiers. Central to the Phoenix
program was that its targets were civilians, making the operation a violation of the Geneva Conventions
which guaranteed protection to civilians in time of war.
"The Vietnam's War's Silver Lining: A Bureaucratic Model for Population Control Emerges" is the
title of Chapter 3. Valentine writes that the "CIA's Phoenix program changed how America fights its
wars and how the public views this new type of political and psychological warfare, in which civilian
casualties are an explicit objective." The intent of the Phoenix program evolved from "neutralizing"
enemy leaders into "a program of systematic repression for the political control of the South Vietnamese
people. It sought to accomplish this through a highly bureaucratized system of disposing of people
who could not be ideologically assimilated." The CIA claimed a legal basis for the program in "emergency
decrees" and orders for "administrative detention."
Lauding Petraeus
Valentine refers to a paper by David Kilcullen entitled Countering Global Insurgency. Kilcullen
is one of the so-called "counterinsurgency experts" whom General David Petraeus gathered together
in a cell to promote and refine "counterinsurgency," or COIN, for the modern era. Fred Kaplan, who
is considered a "liberal author and journalist" at Slate, wrote a panegyric to these cultists entitled,
The Insurgents: David Petraeus and the Plot to Change the American Way of War. The purpose of this
cell was to change the practices of the US military into that of "imperial policing," or COIN, as
they preferred to call it.
But Kilcullen argued in his paper that "The 'War on Terrorism'" is actually a campaign to counter
a global insurgency. Therefore, Kilcullen argued, "we need a new paradigm, capable of addressing
globalised insurgency." His "disaggregation strategy" called for "actions to target the insurgent
infrastructure that would resemble the unfairly maligned (but highly effective) Vietnam-era Phoenix
program."
He went on, "Contrary to popular mythology, this was largely a civilian aid and development program,
supported by targeted military pacification operations and intelligence activity to disrupt the Viet
Cong Infrastructure. A global Phoenix program (including the other key elements that formed part
of the successful Vietnam CORDS system) would provide a useful start point to consider how Disaggregation
would develop in practice."
It is readily apparent that, in fact, a Phoenix-type program is now US global policy and - just
like in Vietnam - it is applying "death squad" strategies that eliminate not only active combatants
but also civilians who simply find themselves in the same vicinity, thus creating antagonisms that
expand the number of fighters.
Corraborative evidence of Valentine's thesis is, perhaps surprisingly, provided by the CIA's
own website where a number of redacted historical documents have been published. Presumably, they
are documents first revealed under the Freedom of Information Act. A few however are copies of news
articles once available to the public but now archived by the CIA which has blacked-out portions
of the articles.
The Bloody Reality
One "sanitized" article - approved for release in 2011 - is a partially redacted New Times article
of Aug. 22, 1975, by Michael Drosnin. The article recounts a story of a US Army counterintelligence
officer "who directed a small part of a secret war aimed not at the enemy's soldiers but at its civilian
leaders." He describes how a CIA-directed Phoenix operative dumped a bag of "eleven bloody ears"
as proof of six people killed.
The officer, who recalled this incident in 1971, said, "It made me sick. I couldn't go on with
what I was doing in Vietnam. . . . It was an assassination campaign . . . my job was to identify
and eliminate VCI, the Viet Cong 'infrastructure' – the communist's shadow government. I worked directly
with two Vietnamese units, very tough guys who didn't wear uniforms . . . In the beginning they brought
back about 10 percent alive. By the end they had stopped taking prisoners.
"How many VC they got I don't know. I saw a hell of a lot of dead bodies. We'd put a tag on saying
VCI, but no one really knew – it was just some native in black pajamas with 16 bullet holes."
This led to an investigation by New Times in a day when there were still "investigative reporters,"
and not the government sycophants of today. Based on firsthand accounts, their investigation concluded
that Operation Phoenix was the "only systematized kidnapping, torture and assassination program ever
sponsored by the United States government. . . . Its victims were noncombatants." At least 40,000
were murdered, with "only" about 8,000 supposed Viet Cong political cadres targeted for execution,
with the rest civilians (including women and children) killed and "later conveniently labeled VCI.
Hundreds of thousands were jailed without trial, often after sadistic abuse." The article notes that
Phoenix was conceived, financed, and directed by the Central Intelligence Agency, as Mr. Valentine
writes.
A second article archived by the CIA was by the Christian Science Monitor, dated Jan. 5, 1971,
describing how the Saigon government was "taking steps that could help eliminate one of the most
glaring abuses of its controversial Phoenix program, which is aimed against the Viet Cong political
and administrative apparatus." Note how the Monitor shifted blame away from the CIA and onto the
South Vietnamese government.
But the article noted that one of the most persistent criticisms of Phoenix was that it resulted
"in the arrest and imprisonment of many innocent civilians." These were called "Class C Communist
offenders," some of whom may actually have been forced to commit such "belligerent acts" as digging
trenches or carrying rice. It was those alleged as the "hard core, full-time cadre" who were deemed
to make up the "shadow government" designated as Class A and B Viet Cong.
Yet "security committees" throughout South Vietnam, under the direction of the CIA, sentenced
at least 10,000 "Class C civilians" to prison each year, far more than Class A and B combined. The
article stated, "Thousands of these prisoners are never brought to court trial, and thousands of
other have never been sentenced." The latter statement would mean they were just held in "indefinite
detention," like the prisoners held at Guantanamo and other US detention centers with high levels
of CIA involvement.
Not surprisingly to someone not affiliated with the CIA, the article found as well that "Individual
case histories indicate that many who have gone to prison as active supporters of neither the government
nor the Viet Cong come out as active backers of the Viet Cong and with an implacable hatred of the
government." In other words, the CIA and the COIN enthusiasts are achieving the same results today
with the prisons they set up in Iraq and Afghanistan.
CIA Crimes
Valentine broadly covers the illegalities of the CIA over the years, including its well-documented
role in facilitating the drug trade over the years. But, in this reviewer's opinion, his most valuable
contribution is his description of the CIA's participation going back at least to the Vietnam War
in the treatment of what the US government today calls "unlawful combatants."
"Unlawful combatants" is a descriptive term made up by the Bush administration to remove people
whom US officials alleged were "terrorists" from the legal protections of the Geneva Conventions
and Human Rights Law and thus to justify their capture or killing in the so-called "Global War on
Terror." Since the US government deems them "unlawful" – because they do not belong to an organized
military structure and do not wear insignia – they are denied the "privilege" of belligerency that
applies to traditional soldiers. But – unless they take a "direct part in hostilities" – they would
still maintain their civilian status under the law of war and thus not lose the legal protection
due to civilians even if they exhibit sympathy or support to one side in a conflict.
Ironically, by the Bush administration's broad definition of "unlawful combatants," CIA officers
and their support structure also would fit the category. But the American public is generally forgiving
of its own war criminals though most self-righteous and hypocritical in judging foreign war criminals.
But perhaps given sufficient evidence, the American public could begin to see both the immorality
of this behavior and its counterproductive consequences.
This is not to condemn all CIA officers, some of whom acted in good faith that they were actually
defending the United States by acquiring information on a professed enemy in the tradition of Nathan
Hale. But it is to harshly condemn those CIA officials and officers who betrayed the United States
by subverting its Constitution, including waging secret wars against foreign countries without a
declaration of war by Congress. And it decidedly condemns the CIA war criminals who acted as a law
unto themselves in the torture and murder of foreign nationals, as Valentine's book describes.
Talleyrand is credited with saying, "They have learned nothing and forgotten nothing." Reportedly,
that was borrowed from a 1796 letter by a French naval officer, which stated, in the original language:
Personne n'est corrigé; personne n'a su ni rien oublier ni rien appendre. In English: "Nobody has
been corrected; no one has known to forget, nor yet to learn anything." That sums up the CIA leadership
entirely.
Douglas Valentine's book is a thorough documentation of that fact and it is essential reading
for all Americans if we are to have any hope for salvaging a remnant of representative government.
Todd E. Pierce retired as a Major in the US Army Judge Advocate General (JAG) Corps in November
2012. His most recent assignment was defense counsel in the Office of Chief Defense Counsel, Office
of Military Commissions. This originally appeared at
ConsortiumNews.com .
"... Many "never-Trumpers" of both parties see the deep state's national security bureaucracy as their best hope to destroy Trump and thus defend constitutional government, but those hopes are misguided. ..."
"... As Michael Glennon, author of National Security and Double Government, pointed out in a June 2017 Harper's essay, if "the president maintains his attack, splintered and demoralized factions within the bureaucracy could actually support - not oppose - many potential Trump initiatives, such as stepped-up drone strikes, cyberattacks, covert action, immigration bans, and mass surveillance." ..."
"... Corraborative evidence of Valentine's thesis is, perhaps surprisingly, provided by the CIA's own website where a number of redacted historical documents have been published. Presumably, they are documents first revealed under the Freedom of Information Act. A few however are copies of news articles once available to the public but now archived by the CIA which has blacked-out portions of the articles. ..."
"... This led to an investigation by New Times in a day when there were still "investigative reporters," and not the government sycophants of today. Based on firsthand accounts, their investigation concluded that Operation Phoenix was the "only systematized kidnapping, torture and assassination program ever sponsored by the United States government. . . . Its victims were noncombatants." At least 40,000 were murdered, with "only" about 8,000 supposed Viet Cong political cadres targeted for execution, with the rest civilians (including women and children) killed and "later conveniently labeled VCI. Hundreds of thousands were jailed without trial, often after sadistic abuse." The article notes that Phoenix was conceived, financed, and directed by the Central Intelligence Agency ..."
"... But the article noted that one of the most persistent criticisms of Phoenix was that it resulted "in the arrest and imprisonment of many innocent civilians." These were called "Class C Communist offenders," some of whom may actually have been forced to commit such "belligerent acts" as digging trenches or carrying rice. It was those alleged as the "hard core, full-time cadre" who were deemed to make up the "shadow government" designated as Class A and B Viet Cong. ..."
"... Ironically, by the Bush administration's broad definition of "unlawful combatants," CIA officers and their support structure also would fit the category. But the American public is generally forgiving of its own war criminals though most self-righteous and hypocritical in judging foreign war criminals. But perhaps given sufficient evidence, the American public could begin to see both the immorality of this behavior and its counterproductive consequences. ..."
"... Talleyrand is credited with saying, "They have learned nothing and forgotten nothing." Reportedly, that was borrowed from a 1796 letter by a French naval officer, which stated, in the original language: Personne n'est corrigé; personne n'a su ni rien oublier ni rien appendre. In English: "Nobody has been corrected; no one has known to forget, nor yet to learn anything." That sums up the CIA leadership entirely. ..."
Douglas Valentine has once again added to the store of knowledge necessary for American citizens
to understand how the U.S. government actually works today, in his most recent book entitled
The CIA As Organized Crime . (Valentine previously wrote The Phoenix Program ,
which should be read with the current book.)
The US "deep state" – of which the CIA is an integral part – is an open secret now and the Phoenix
Program (assassinations, death squads, torture, mass detentions, exploitation of information) has
been its means of controlling populations. Consequently, knowing the deep state's methods is the
only hope of building a democratic opposition to the deep state and to restore as much as possible
the Constitutional system we had in previous centuries, as imperfect as it was.
Princeton University political theorist Sheldon Wolin described the US political system in place
by 2003 as "inverted totalitarianism." He reaffirmed that in 2009 after seeing a year of the Obama
administration. Correctly identifying the threat against constitutional governance is the first step
to restore it, and as Wolin understood, substantive constitutional government ended long before Donald
Trump campaigned. He's just taking unconstitutional governance to the next level in following the
same path as his recent predecessors. However, even as some elements of the "deep state" seek to
remove Trump, the President now has many "deep state" instruments in his own hands to be used at
his unreviewable discretion.
Many "never-Trumpers" of both parties see the deep state's national security bureaucracy as
their best hope to destroy Trump and thus defend constitutional government, but those hopes are misguided.
After all, the deep state's bureaucratic leadership has worked arduously for decades to subvert
constitutional order.
As Michael Glennon, author of National Security and Double Government, pointed out in a June
2017 Harper's essay, if "the president maintains his attack, splintered and demoralized factions
within the bureaucracy could actually support - not oppose - many potential Trump initiatives, such
as stepped-up drone strikes, cyberattacks, covert action, immigration bans, and mass surveillance."
Glennon noted that the propensity of "security managers" to back policies which ratchet up levels
of security "will play into Trump's hands, so that if and when he finally does declare victory, a
revamped security directorate could emerge more menacing than ever, with him its devoted new ally."
Before that happens, it is incumbent for Americans to understand what Valentine explains in his book
of CIA methods of "population control" as first fully developed in the Vietnam War's Phoenix Program.
Hating the US
There also must be the realization that our "national security" apparatchiks - principally but
not solely the CIA - have served to exponentially increase the numbers of those people who hate the
US.
Some of these people turn to terrorism as an expression of that hostility. Anyone who is at all
familiar with the CIA and Al Qaeda knows that the CIA has been Al Qaeda's most important "combat
multiplier" since 9/11, and the CIA can be said to have birthed ISIS as well with the mistreatment
of incarcerated Iraqi men in US prisons in Iraq.
Indeed, by following the model of the Phoenix Program, the CIA must be seen in the Twenty-first
Century as a combination of the ultimate "Murder, Inc.," when judged by the CIA's methods such as
drone warfare and its victims; and the Keystone Kops, when the multiple failures of CIA policies
are considered. This is not to make light of what the CIA does, but the CIA's misguided policies
and practices have served to generate wrath, hatred and violence against Americans, which we see
manifested in cities such as San Bernardino, Orlando, New York and Boston.
Pointing out the harm to Americans is not to dismiss the havoc that Americans under the influence
of the CIA have perpetrated on foreign populations. But "morality" seems a lost virtue today in the
US, which is under the influence of so much militaristic war propaganda that morality no longer enters
into the equation in determining foreign policy.
In addition to the harm the CIA has caused to people around the world, the CIA works tirelessly
at subverting its own government at home, as was most visible in the spying on and subversion of
the torture investigation by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. The subversion of democracy
also includes the role the CIA plays in developing and disseminating war propaganda as "information
warfare," upon the American people. This is what the Rand Corporation under the editorship of Zalmay
Khalilzad has described as "conditioning the battlefield," which begins with the minds of the American
population.
Douglas Valentine discusses and documents the role of the CIA in disseminating pro-war propaganda
and disinformation as complementary to the violent tactics of the Phoenix Program in Vietnam. Valentine
explains that "before Phoenix was adopted as the model for policing the American empire, many US
military commanders in Vietnam resisted the Phoenix strategy of targeting civilians with Einsatzgruppen-style
'special forces' and Gestapo-style secret police."
Military Commanders considered that type of program a flagrant violation of the Law of War. "Their
main job is to zap the in-betweeners – you know, the people who aren't all the way with the government
and aren't all the way with the Viet Cong either. They figure if you zap enough in-betweeners, people
will begin to get the idea," according to one quote from The Phoenix Program referring to
the unit tasked with much of the Phoenix operations.
Nazi Influences
Comparing the Phoenix Program and its operatives to "Einsatzgruppen-style 'special forces' and
Gestapo-style secret police" is not a distortion of the strategic understanding of each. Both programs
were extreme forms of repression operating under martial law principles where the slightest form
of dissent was deemed to represent the work of the "enemy." Hitler's Bandit Hunters: The SS and the
Nazi Occupation of Europe by Philip W. Blood describes German "Security Warfare" as practiced in
World War II, which can be seen as identical in form to the Phoenix Program as to how the enemy is
defined as anyone who is "potentially" a threat, deemed either "partizans" or terrorists.
That the Germans included entire racial categories in that does not change the underlying logic,
which was, anyone deemed an internal enemy in a territory in which their military operated had to
be "neutralized" by any means necessary. The US military and the South Vietnamese military governments
operated under the same principles but not based on race, rather the perception that certain areas
and villages were loyal to the Viet Cong.
This repressive doctrine was also not unique to the Nazis in Europe and the US military in Vietnam.
Similar though less sophisticated strategies were used against the American Indians and by the imperial
powers of the late Nineteenth and early Twentieth centuries, including by the US in its newly acquired
territories of the Philippines and in the Caribbean. This "imperial policing," i.e., counterinsurgency,
simply moved to more manipulative and, in ways, more violent levels.
That the US drew upon German counterinsurgency doctrine, as brutal as it was, is well documented.
This is shown explicitly in a 2011 article published in the Journal of Military and Strategic Studies
entitled German Counterinsurgency Revisited by Charles D. Melson. He wrote that in 1942, Nazi commander
Heinrich Himmler named a deputy for "anti-bandit warfare," (Bevollmachtigter fur die Bandenkampfung
im Osten), SS-General von dem Bach, whose responsibilities expanded in 1943 to head all SS and police
anti-bandit units and operations. He was one of the architects of the Einsatzguppen "concept of anti-partisan
warfare," a German predecessor to the "Phoenix Program."
'Anti-Partisan' Lessons
It wasn't a coincidence that this "anti-partisan" warfare concept should be adopted by US forces
in Vietnam and retained to the present day. Melson pointed out that a "post-war German special forces
officer described hunter or ranger units as 'men who knew every possible ruse and tactic of guerrilla
warfare. They had gone through the hell of combat against the crafty partisans in the endless swamps
and forests of Russia.'"
Consequently, "The German special forces and reconnaissance school was a sought after posting
for North Atlantic Treaty Organization special operations personnel," who presumably included members
of the newly created US Army Special Forces soldiers, which was in part headquartered at Bad Tolz
in Germany, as well as CIA paramilitary officers.
Just as with the later Phoenix Program to the present-day US global counterinsurgency, Melson
wrote that the "attitude of the [local] population and the amount of assistance it was willing to
give guerilla units was of great concern to the Germans. Different treatment was supposed to be accorded
to affected populations, bandit supporters, and bandits, while so-called population and resource
control measures for each were noted (but were in practice, treated apparently one and the same).
'Action against enemy agitation' was the psychological or information operations of the
Nazi
period. The Nazis believed that, 'Because of the close relationship of guerilla warfare
and politics, actions against enemy agitation are a task that is just as important as interdiction
and combat actions. All means must be used to ward off enemy influence and waken and maintain a clear
political will.'"
This is typical of any totalitarian system – a movement or a government – whether the process
is characterized as counterinsurgency or internal security. The idea of any civilian collaboration
with the "enemy" is the basis for what the US government charges as "conspiracy" in the Guantanamo
Military Commissions.
Valentine explains the Phoenix program as having been developed by the CIA in 1967 to combine
"existing counterinsurgency programs in a concerted effort to 'neutralize' the Vietcong infrastructure
(VCI)." He explained further that "neutralize" meant "to kill, capture, or make to defect." "Infrastructure"
meant civilians suspected of supporting North Vietnamese and Vietcong soldiers. Central to the Phoenix
program was that its targets were civilians, making the operation a violation of the Geneva Conventions
which guaranteed protection to civilians in time of war.
"The Vietnam's War's Silver Lining: A Bureaucratic Model for Population Control Emerges" is the
title of Chapter 3. Valentine writes that the "CIA's Phoenix program changed how America fights its
wars and how the public views this new type of political and psychological warfare, in which civilian
casualties are an explicit objective." The intent of the Phoenix program evolved from "neutralizing"
enemy leaders into "a program of systematic repression for the political control of the South Vietnamese
people. It sought to accomplish this through a highly bureaucratized system of disposing of people
who could not be ideologically assimilated." The CIA claimed a legal basis for the program in "emergency
decrees" and orders for "administrative detention."
Lauding Petraeus
Valentine refers to a paper by David Kilcullen entitled Countering Global Insurgency. Kilcullen
is one of the so-called "counterinsurgency experts" whom General David Petraeus gathered together
in a cell to promote and refine "counterinsurgency," or COIN, for the modern era. Fred Kaplan, who
is considered a "liberal author and journalist" at Slate, wrote a panegyric to these cultists entitled,
The Insurgents: David Petraeus and the Plot to Change the American Way of War. The purpose of this
cell was to change the practices of the US military into that of "imperial policing," or COIN, as
they preferred to call it.
But Kilcullen argued in his paper that "The 'War on Terrorism'" is actually a campaign to counter
a global insurgency. Therefore, Kilcullen argued, "we need a new paradigm, capable of addressing
globalised insurgency." His "disaggregation strategy" called for "actions to target the insurgent
infrastructure that would resemble the unfairly maligned (but highly effective) Vietnam-era Phoenix
program."
He went on, "Contrary to popular mythology, this was largely a civilian aid and development program,
supported by targeted military pacification operations and intelligence activity to disrupt the Viet
Cong Infrastructure. A global Phoenix program (including the other key elements that formed part
of the successful Vietnam CORDS system) would provide a useful start point to consider how Disaggregation
would develop in practice."
It is readily apparent that, in fact, a Phoenix-type program is now US global policy and - just
like in Vietnam - it is applying "death squad" strategies that eliminate not only active combatants
but also civilians who simply find themselves in the same vicinity, thus creating antagonisms that
expand the number of fighters.
Corraborative evidence of Valentine's thesis is, perhaps surprisingly, provided by the CIA's
own website where a number of redacted historical documents have been published. Presumably, they
are documents first revealed under the Freedom of Information Act. A few however are copies of news
articles once available to the public but now archived by the CIA which has blacked-out portions
of the articles.
The Bloody Reality
One "sanitized" article - approved for release in 2011 - is a partially redacted New Times article
of Aug. 22, 1975, by Michael Drosnin. The article recounts a story of a US Army counterintelligence
officer "who directed a small part of a secret war aimed not at the enemy's soldiers but at its civilian
leaders." He describes how a CIA-directed Phoenix operative dumped a bag of "eleven bloody ears"
as proof of six people killed.
The officer, who recalled this incident in 1971, said, "It made me sick. I couldn't go on with
what I was doing in Vietnam. . . . It was an assassination campaign . . . my job was to identify
and eliminate VCI, the Viet Cong 'infrastructure' – the communist's shadow government. I worked directly
with two Vietnamese units, very tough guys who didn't wear uniforms . . . In the beginning they brought
back about 10 percent alive. By the end they had stopped taking prisoners.
"How many VC they got I don't know. I saw a hell of a lot of dead bodies. We'd put a tag on saying
VCI, but no one really knew – it was just some native in black pajamas with 16 bullet holes."
This led to an investigation by New Times in a day when there were still "investigative reporters,"
and not the government sycophants of today. Based on firsthand accounts, their investigation concluded
that Operation Phoenix was the "only systematized kidnapping, torture and assassination program ever
sponsored by the United States government. . . . Its victims were noncombatants." At least 40,000
were murdered, with "only" about 8,000 supposed Viet Cong political cadres targeted for execution,
with the rest civilians (including women and children) killed and "later conveniently labeled VCI.
Hundreds of thousands were jailed without trial, often after sadistic abuse." The article notes that
Phoenix was conceived, financed, and directed by the Central Intelligence Agency, as Mr. Valentine
writes.
A second article archived by the CIA was by the Christian Science Monitor, dated Jan. 5, 1971,
describing how the Saigon government was "taking steps that could help eliminate one of the most
glaring abuses of its controversial Phoenix program, which is aimed against the Viet Cong political
and administrative apparatus." Note how the Monitor shifted blame away from the CIA and onto the
South Vietnamese government.
But the article noted that one of the most persistent criticisms of Phoenix was that it resulted
"in the arrest and imprisonment of many innocent civilians." These were called "Class C Communist
offenders," some of whom may actually have been forced to commit such "belligerent acts" as digging
trenches or carrying rice. It was those alleged as the "hard core, full-time cadre" who were deemed
to make up the "shadow government" designated as Class A and B Viet Cong.
Yet "security committees" throughout South Vietnam, under the direction of the CIA, sentenced
at least 10,000 "Class C civilians" to prison each year, far more than Class A and B combined. The
article stated, "Thousands of these prisoners are never brought to court trial, and thousands of
other have never been sentenced." The latter statement would mean they were just held in "indefinite
detention," like the prisoners held at Guantanamo and other US detention centers with high levels
of CIA involvement.
Not surprisingly to someone not affiliated with the CIA, the article found as well that "Individual
case histories indicate that many who have gone to prison as active supporters of neither the government
nor the Viet Cong come out as active backers of the Viet Cong and with an implacable hatred of the
government." In other words, the CIA and the COIN enthusiasts are achieving the same results today
with the prisons they set up in Iraq and Afghanistan.
CIA Crimes
Valentine broadly covers the illegalities of the CIA over the years, including its well-documented
role in facilitating the drug trade over the years. But, in this reviewer's opinion, his most valuable
contribution is his description of the CIA's participation going back at least to the Vietnam War
in the treatment of what the US government today calls "unlawful combatants."
"Unlawful combatants" is a descriptive term made up by the Bush administration to remove people
whom US officials alleged were "terrorists" from the legal protections of the Geneva Conventions
and Human Rights Law and thus to justify their capture or killing in the so-called "Global War on
Terror." Since the US government deems them "unlawful" – because they do not belong to an organized
military structure and do not wear insignia – they are denied the "privilege" of belligerency that
applies to traditional soldiers. But – unless they take a "direct part in hostilities" – they would
still maintain their civilian status under the law of war and thus not lose the legal protection
due to civilians even if they exhibit sympathy or support to one side in a conflict.
Ironically, by the Bush administration's broad definition of "unlawful combatants," CIA officers
and their support structure also would fit the category. But the American public is generally forgiving
of its own war criminals though most self-righteous and hypocritical in judging foreign war criminals.
But perhaps given sufficient evidence, the American public could begin to see both the immorality
of this behavior and its counterproductive consequences.
This is not to condemn all CIA officers, some of whom acted in good faith that they were actually
defending the United States by acquiring information on a professed enemy in the tradition of Nathan
Hale. But it is to harshly condemn those CIA officials and officers who betrayed the United States
by subverting its Constitution, including waging secret wars against foreign countries without a
declaration of war by Congress. And it decidedly condemns the CIA war criminals who acted as a law
unto themselves in the torture and murder of foreign nationals, as Valentine's book describes.
Talleyrand is credited with saying, "They have learned nothing and forgotten nothing." Reportedly,
that was borrowed from a 1796 letter by a French naval officer, which stated, in the original language:
Personne n'est corrigé; personne n'a su ni rien oublier ni rien appendre. In English: "Nobody has
been corrected; no one has known to forget, nor yet to learn anything." That sums up the CIA leadership
entirely.
Douglas Valentine's book is a thorough documentation of that fact and it is essential reading
for all Americans if we are to have any hope for salvaging a remnant of representative government.
Todd E. Pierce retired as a Major in the US Army Judge Advocate General (JAG) Corps in November
2012. His most recent assignment was defense counsel in the Office of Chief Defense Counsel, Office
of Military Commissions. This originally appeared at
ConsortiumNews.com .
Ukraine is now debt slave. Debt slave is not an independent country. No way. It is a
neo-colony.
Notable quotes:
"... The scale of de-industrialization and of de-modernization Ukraine achieved in short 26 years since the collapse of the Soviet Union is nothing short of mind-boggling and unprecedented. ..."
Why Ukrainians of course, it's their country after all.
" it's their country after all."
Their country?
Ukraine had ceased to exist as an independent country in 2014, with arrival
of Nuland (ziocon) and Brennan (the CIA). Hence the spectacular appointments of
Misha Saakishvilli (wanted in his native Georgia), Natali Yaresko (an American
felon), Pravyj sector (local neo-nazi), and finally, Groysman, a Jewish
entrepreneur and current prime minister of Ukraine. Jews make 0.4% of Ukrainian
population:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jewish-population-of-the-world
"While Putin was basking in the glory of the 2014 winter Olympics at Sochi,
the entire apparatus of Imperial Washington - the CIA, the National Endowment
for Democracy, the State Department and a long string of Washington funded NGOs
- was on the ground in Kiev assisting the putsch that overthrew Ukraine's
constitutionally elected President and Russian ally.
From there, the Ukrainian civil war and partition of Crimea inexorably
followed, as did the escalating campaign against Russia and its leader.
So as it turned out, the War Party could not have planned a better outcome -
especially after Russia moved to protect its legitimate interests in its own
backyard resulting from the Washington-instigated civil war in Ukraine. That
included protecting its 200-year old naval base at Sevastopol in Crimea."
Moreover, the Ukrainian territory is the result of Soviet annexations of
Rumanian, Polish, and Hungarian territories; without the generous provisions by
the USSR, Ukraine would be a puny patch of land:
http://ukrmap.su/en-uh10/273.html
Get it, boys and girls? Everyone owes it to Ukraine to "put her on her feet".
Russia owes her gas transit, buying everything Ukraine (less and less)
produces. And, of course, Ukraine's main idea about Europe, as even her former
President still thinks so, is to get to EU, get a truck load of free money (aka
investments) and start living as European upper middle class. I am not
exaggerating. Of course, the fact that Ukraine became what it became by 1990
was largely thanks to the Soviet economic system somehow got lost on such
people as Kuchma, not to speak of very many average Ukrainians.
The scale of de-industrialization and of de-modernization Ukraine
achieved in short 26 years since the collapse of the Soviet Union is nothing
short of mind-boggling and unprecedented.
Ukraine is now debt slave. Debt slave is not an independent country. No way. It is a
neo-colony.
Notable quotes:
"... The scale of de-industrialization and of de-modernization Ukraine achieved in short 26 years since the collapse of the Soviet Union is nothing short of mind-boggling and unprecedented. ..."
Why Ukrainians of course, it's their country after all.
" it's their country after all."
Their country?
Ukraine had ceased to exist as an independent country in 2014, with arrival
of Nuland (ziocon) and Brennan (the CIA). Hence the spectacular appointments of
Misha Saakishvilli (wanted in his native Georgia), Natali Yaresko (an American
felon), Pravyj sector (local neo-nazi), and finally, Groysman, a Jewish
entrepreneur and current prime minister of Ukraine. Jews make 0.4% of Ukrainian
population:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jewish-population-of-the-world
"While Putin was basking in the glory of the 2014 winter Olympics at Sochi,
the entire apparatus of Imperial Washington - the CIA, the National Endowment
for Democracy, the State Department and a long string of Washington funded NGOs
- was on the ground in Kiev assisting the putsch that overthrew Ukraine's
constitutionally elected President and Russian ally.
From there, the Ukrainian civil war and partition of Crimea inexorably
followed, as did the escalating campaign against Russia and its leader.
So as it turned out, the War Party could not have planned a better outcome -
especially after Russia moved to protect its legitimate interests in its own
backyard resulting from the Washington-instigated civil war in Ukraine. That
included protecting its 200-year old naval base at Sevastopol in Crimea."
Moreover, the Ukrainian territory is the result of Soviet annexations of
Rumanian, Polish, and Hungarian territories; without the generous provisions by
the USSR, Ukraine would be a puny patch of land:
http://ukrmap.su/en-uh10/273.html
Get it, boys and girls? Everyone owes it to Ukraine to "put her on her feet".
Russia owes her gas transit, buying everything Ukraine (less and less)
produces. And, of course, Ukraine's main idea about Europe, as even her former
President still thinks so, is to get to EU, get a truck load of free money (aka
investments) and start living as European upper middle class. I am not
exaggerating. Of course, the fact that Ukraine became what it became by 1990
was largely thanks to the Soviet economic system somehow got lost on such
people as Kuchma, not to speak of very many average Ukrainians.
The scale of de-industrialization and of de-modernization Ukraine
achieved in short 26 years since the collapse of the Soviet Union is nothing
short of mind-boggling and unprecedented.
"... US imperial policy in the Middle East focuses on encircling, destroying and dismantling Iran's allies (Syria, Lebanon (Hezbollah), Iraq (Shi'a Militia), Qatar and Yemen with the intent of overthrowing the government and installing a client regime in Teheran ..."
"... And yet the US destroyed Iran's most useful enemy, Saddam's Iraq. Sometimes I wonder whether US foreign policy has any guiding intelligence at all. Maybe it consists only of stupid, reckless flailing. ..."
US policy in the Middle East and South Asia is shaped by several basic considerations:
US Imperialism is the force of global domination
US imperial policy in the Middle East focuses on encircling, destroying and dismantling Iran's allies (Syria, Lebanon (Hezbollah),
Iraq (Shi'a Militia), Qatar and Yemen with the intent of overthrowing the government and installing a client regime in Teheran.
The return of Iran to the status of puppet regime will advance Washington's ultimate goal of encircling and isolating Russia
and China.
The US overthrow of the Islamic Republic of Iran will facilitate Israel's final seizure of Palestine, including Jerusalem,
and establish Tel Aviv as the dominant regional power in the Middle East.
Washington's 'Two Track' Policy for Domination
US strategic planners rely on a two-track policy , combining and blending military and ideological weapons.
Its military strategy relies on slicing up the Middle East - 'salami tactics' – invading and conquering of each and every
country and government, which shares the Islamic Republic of Iran's policy of national sovereignty and independence. US military
success or failure depends on its alliances in the Middle East, North Africa and Europe. The US, Saudi Arabia and Israel all sponsor
terrorist groups which have attacked Iran's scientists, its elected representatives and military leaders, as well as its sacred sites
– inside Iran as well as abroad.
The political and ideological strategy involves the penetration and organization of domestic forces to destabilize and weaken
Iran's internal security, defense capability and overseas alliances.
Ideological warfare involves: (1) exploiting regional, ethnic, class and religious differences to undermine stability and fragment
the country; and (2) converting legitimate social critics and political opposition parties into imperial collaborators.
Ideological attacks are designed to attract Iranian writers, academics, intellectuals and artists who choose to ignore the history
of US imperialism in fomenting bloody coups (Mossadegh 1954), launching proxy wars via Saddam Hussain's invasion (1980- 88) and the
terrorist attacks by Israel and Saudi Arabia, as well as the terrorists backed by Iraq's former dictator.
US propaganda intervention in Iran's electoral process has been designed to promote a so-called "color revolution" regime
change favored by neo-liberal, pro-West parties and candidates who seek US sponsorship in their ascent to power. The imperial collaborators
and various Western 'human rights' NGOs hide the sordid history of Washington's overt and proxy wars/coups and occupations in Syria,
Iraq, Ukraine, Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen, Libya and Palestine.
In order to intimidate and weaken overseas and domestic allies; and the (4) financing and arming of terrorists from Europe, the
Middle East and North Africa to attack the Islamic Republic.
Linguistic and Conceptual Perversions
Imperial warfare depends on perverting political language and concepts. The US refers to invasion, which have killed and maimed
millions of Muslims and Christians in Iraq (2003-2017) and Syria (2011-2017) as 'humanitarian interventions'. In reality its policy
described an ongoing 'holocaust' – the massive genocidal violation of the human rights of scores of millions of people to sovereignty,
peace and security of home, life, limb, culture and faith.
The millions of victims of the West's current holocaust in the Middle East reject and scorn Washington's imperialist claim of
defending 'democratic values' and its so called 'responsibility to protect (R2P) ' as pronounced by a series of US Administrations
through their mouthpieces in the United Nations.
In contrast, US support for the Saudi monarch's brutal bombing and blockade of Yemen has led to an entire population facing starvation
and a massive, cholera epidemic, which now threatens over 26 million Yeminis. The campaign against Yemen by the brutal Saudis and
their US-EU allies is the very definition of crimes against humanity and international law.
Sanctions: A Tool of Conquest
US sanctions against Iraq, Syria, Iran and Yemen have been designed to starve working people into submission while capturing the
support of some middle class consumers. US policy of invading Libya and brutally murdering President Gadhafi and his family members
was designed to systematically destroy a prosperous, independent republic and turn it into a backward, impoverished fiefdom of tribal
warlords, exploited by Western oil companies. Saudi Arabia joined the European Union in financing terrorists, many trained in the
destroyed remnants of Libya, who later killed innocent civilians in Paris, Nice, London, Manchester and other parts of Europe.
The strategic goal of the US invasion of Iraq, Syria and Yemen has been to violently divide these independent republics and turn
them into ethnically cleansed, impoverished, mini-states – in the imperial tradition of 'divide and conquer'. Such tribal fiefdoms
are easily dominated by imperial powers.
Regional and Global Strategy
Washington's imperial strategists have arrived at the conclusion that they cannot conquer independent states, like Iran, in a
single attack, given its size, defense capability, internal cohesion and regional alliances.
Their strategy is to surround Iran by destroying its allies, one nation at a time.
The first phase of the US invasion, occupation and systematic destruction of Iraq and its entire governmental infrastructure was
designed to overthrow the Baathist state, then neutralize the Shi'a militia and impose a servile client regime in Baghdad. The second
step was to encourage Sunni tribal warlords to seize control of central Iraq. The third step was to arm the Kurds to form a mini-state
in northern Iraq (so-called "Kurdistan"). This would entail large-scale ethnic cleansing, the total destruction of Iraq's ancient
Christian community, the extermination of its multiethnic modern educated, scientific, cultural and technocratic work force. In other
words, the US strategy was to obliterate any remnant of the Iraqi Republic in its war to 'remake the Middle East'.
After Iraq and Libya, the next target for US-EU aggression has been the government of the Syrian Arab Republic, Iran's ally. The
EU, USA, Saudi Arabia and Turkey sponsored an invasion by mercenary Salafi forces under a network of Daesh-ISIS-al Queda terrorists.
Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the Emirates have provided military, logistical and financial support to the terrorists.
After Syria, the fourth target of Anglo-American-Saudi-Israeli military strategy would be to undermine the national sovereignty
of Lebanon and destroy the armed political Hezbollah Party, the powerful Lebanese resistance organization (allied with Iran). It
was consistent with this strategy for the West to support Israel's brutal air and ground attacks against the civilian population
and infrastructure of Beirut, Lebanese port cities and villages. Tens of thousands of Lebanese Christians were not spared the Israeli
terror bombing campaign.
If a Lebanese campaign were successful and Hezbollah was destroyed, the 'final' Israeli conquest of Palestine, the fifth
objective, could commence: US and world Zionism would unconditionally celebrate Israel's massive ethnic purge of Palestine's native
peoples and finish off the total confiscation of the homes, mosques, churches, land and resources of millions of Muslim and Christian
Palestinians and other peoples. This would create history's first 'pure Jewish' state.
The sixth imperial objective would be to disarm Iran's military and security structure and weaken its economy in order to isolate
the Islamic Republic and undermine its Middle Eastern alliances. This strategic objective explains why Washington promotes its one-sided
nuclear arms agreement with Iran, while the nuclear-armed Israel is excluded! Despite Iran's abiding by the terms of the agreement,
there have been no reciprocal lifting of economic sanctions or the normalization of trade and diplomatic relations.
Iran Counters the US Global Military Threat
Iran responded by developing economic, technical and military agreements with Russia and China in order to counter the US-Israeli-Saudi
threats and sanctions. Russia provides advanced defensive weapons systems. China signs large-scale, long-term trade agreements while
including Iran in its huge Central Asian infrastructure projects. Most importantly, Iran has succeeded in defending the legitimate
government of Syria, while aiding Iraq and Yemen.
Iran undermined official US sanctions by signing multi-billion dollar agreements with the giant Boeing Corporation for the purchase
of passenger airplanes as well as developing further agreements with US banks and agro-business exporters and oil companies. These
profitable agreements with the US agro-business export sector can weaken the Pentagon-Zionist sanctions.
Iran has the diplomatic support of the Non-Aligned Movement opposing Israeli-US Zionist military threats.
Iran's principled opposition to Saudi Arabia's massive arms purchases, as well as the Kingdom's vicious alliance with Israel and
its genocidal assault against the Yemeni people, has gained the support of world public opinion – especially the masses of independent
Muslims throughout the world.
Iran's educational, scientific, military and political-electoral advances provide the basis for national security, economic growth,
cultural enrichment, international alliances and the deepening of social democracy for its people. It provides an alternative independent
vision for many millions of Muslims living under harsh monarchies, military dictators and imperial oppression.
Conclusion
Since the US and its allies launched their 'hot war' by surrounding, threatening and destabilizing Iran, Washington's strategy
has suffered serious military defeats and political retreats.
Iraq is no longer encircled by the US. Shia-based militias have regional control, especially south of Baghdad and beyond. Syria,
Iran's ally, has fought hard to finally liberate many towns, cities and territory taken by the terrorist mercenaries despite the
EU-US-Saudi-Israel's initial advances.
Rival rebel forces and mercenary gangsters besiege the US puppet governments in Libya, Somalia and South Sudan. The classic CIA
term, 'blowback', means these terrorists are now turning their guns on the West.
Washington has lost control of Afghanistan. Over a third of the Afghan military and police recruits defect to the resistance fighters.
The central 'government' in Kabul influences less than a quarter of the country
Despite spending trillions of dollars on wars and propaganda over the past two decades, US military strategy to encircle and conquer
Iran has been a military, diplomatic and economic failure. The American people have suffered thousands of casualties and its domestic
economy is in permanent crisis with massive unemployment, poverty, recession and stagnation.
Despite US congressional, Presidential and Pentagon support for Israel's Jewish colonization of Palestine, more countries, trade
unions and social movements, around the world, support the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israel than ever
before. Manu are speaking up despite government threats to outlaw 'criticism of Israel' as a 'hate crime'.
The turmoil and deep political divisions in the United States between the oligarchs allied to President Trump and the opposition
oligarchs have created a profound institutional crisis, which has undermined domestic governance and disrupted US global alliances,
US-EU relations and US-Asian trade links.
Despite the bizarre and often theatrical presentation by the US mass media, the American Congress and President Trump are fighting
over fundamental issues, including control of the national security agencies (CIA, NSA, FBI, Homeland Security, etc.), foreign and
military policy, the economy and environmental agenda, the federal budget, judiciary and the Presidency.
The political crisis has paralyzed the capacity of the US to start new wars and negotiate international agreements. President
Trump is facing a serious coup d'état involving the political-intelligence elite, with the military looking warily on the chaos.
The masses are increasingly polarized or disgusted.
In an attempt to deflect from his domestic problems, President Trump deepened the US alliance with Saudi Arabia and reiterated
threats against Iran. Nevertheless he declined pressure to move the US embassy to Israel. The inconsistent and ad hoc nature of current
US policy alienates friends and foes – with no redeeming features.
The domestic opposition demands an end of President Trump's diplomatic overtures to Russia. It uses the fake pretext of Russian
interference in the US presidential election to move toward the president's impeachment.
The US faces a CLANDESTINE CIVIL WAR among its elite!
A financial bubble accompanies the American domestic political crisis. The economic elite, the banks and stock market have benefited
through speculation, despite or because of, the paralysis among rival political oligarchs!
The emergence of Trump's so-called 'national-capitalist ideology' means a decline in US multi-lateral agreements, such
as NATO, the EU, NAFTA and the Trans-
Pacific Trade Partnership (TPP). This explains Trump's effort to renegotiate bilateral agreements, which have failed
Trump's stated policy objectives have fallen between two chairs: the multi-lateral agreements have not been replaced by lucrative
bilateral deals. Trump relies on big business offerings and 'nationalist' ideology to minimize his diplomatic failures and ideological
isolation. Trump wants to win contracts for greater US exports and investment. This has been weakened by the previous administration's
pursuit of economic sanctions and expanding wars, as well as his feckless propaganda.
The Trump regime is full of contradictions: It threatens to end the nuclear agreement with Iran but allows Boeing to sell billions
of dollars of civilian aircraft to Teheran. It signs a $300 billion dollar arms sales agreement with Saudi Arabia (business for the
for military industries) while losing political influence in the US, where the Saudis are widely despised.
At least, Trump does not blather on about humanitarian wars; he would prefer signing business deals. He mentions the need for
'regime change' in Syria and sending more troops to Afghanistan but does little to implement these goals.
President Trump is fighting for his own political (and personal) survival and to prevent his impeachment (via a Congressional
coup). His strongest defense would be to strengthen the domestic economy and show some overseas economic successes.
Essentially, Trump's economic agenda depends on his avoiding politically and militarily costly wars. That was one of his campaign
promises that resonated with the nation's core electorate.
Trump would like to balkanize Syria, while avoiding new troop commitments to Afghanistan. He would prefer profitable trade relations
with Russia and China and perhaps, Iran, over war.
The impediments to any Trump policy success are massive: Trump's Administration includes zealous neo-conservative Russophobes
and Zionist-Iranophobes. These are militarists who would provoke eventual armed conflict with Moscow and Teheran. Their current focus
is on expanding the war in Syria, sending more US troops to Afghanistan and forging deeper ties with Israel and Saudi Arabia.
The current internal political contradictions between the Trump regime and the 'Deep' State apparatus, and between the
Trump-allied business elite and the Zionist-neoconservative warmongers, preclude the development of a consequential Trump foreign
policy.
In the meantime, domestic political warfare and the deepening divisions between the US and EU will create opportunities for Russia,
China and Iran to join together in historic economic political and alliances, which might help re-balance a world on the brink of
'world war', economic collapse and environmental disaster.
The divisions among NATO countries undermine the establishment of a united front for greater imperial wars. The fragmentation
of the European Union (Brexit, the collapse of Greece, the EU-sponsored putsch in Ukraine) lessens its global economic influence.
The division between the US Presidential regime and the Opposition Security State apparatus paralyzes the US push for new imperial
wars.
Divisions and conflicts within the imperial camp presents favorable opportunities for anti-imperialist countries in the Middle
East, like Iran, Syria and Lebanon.
The strategic Russo-Chinese economic alliance may create a new global economy based on peaceful co-existence and greater economic
co-operation.
This essay is dedicated to the memory of the innocent martyrs of the recent brutal terrorist attacks against the Iranian Parliament
and the holy shrine and to honor the brave survivors and family members of the victims.
James Petras is a Bartle Professor (Emeritus) of Sociology at Binghamton University, New York. He is the author of 63 books
published in 29 languages, and over 560 articles in professional journals, including the American Sociological Review, British Journal
of Sociology, Social Research, Journal of Contemporary Asia, and Journal of Peasant Studies. He has published over 2000 articles
in nonprofessional journals such as the New York Times, the Guardian, the Nation, Christian Science Monitor, Foreign Policy, New
Left Review, Partisan Review, Temps Moderne, Le Monde Diplomatique, and his commentary is widely carried on the internet. His publishers
have included Random House, John Wiley, Westview, Routledge, Macmillan, Verso, Zed Books and Pluto Books. He is winner of the Life
Time Career Award, Marxist Section, of the American Sociology Association, the Robert Kenny Award for Best Book, 2002, and the Best
Dissertation, Western Political Science Association in 1968. Some recent titles include Unmasking Globalization: Imperialism of the
Twenty-First Century (2001); co-author The Dynamics of Social Change in Latin America (2000), Unmasking Globalisation (2001), System
in Crisis (2003), co-author Social Movements and State Power (2003), co-author Empire With Imperialism (2005), co-author) Multinationals
on Trial (2006). His most recent title, The Power of Israel in the United States (Clarity Press, Inc. 2006), has been acquired for
Japanese, German, Italian, Indonesian and Arabic editions.He received his MA and Ph.D. from the University of California at Berkeley.
Among his books:
A perfect article beyond any possible comments. Mr. Petras hits a perfect score as he often does. A dispassionate, lucid and
thorough analysis of the greater geopolitical world that could teach the half brained and crooked congressional representatives
a great many lessons.
Mr. Petras, my hats off to you. This is the most to-the-point, honest assessment of what's going on I've read in a long time.
My only complaint is the use of the term "Middle East". We should all drop this British colonial era term and just call it
what it is: Southwest Asia. Please don't take that as being nit-picky and looking for fault (not my intention at all) your article
is brilliant. But we have to start somewhere.
@Joe Levantine Is it possible that many representatives know quite well what's going on, but have reasons, their own political
survival, to pretend they do not know ?
Senator Hollings just dared to speak the truth shortly before he resigned, in 2004.
With respect to Israel's supposedly assigned role, I beg to differ. The US, like Russia and Iran, is an assimilative empire,
established on the basis of welcoming and incorporating any group or individual willing to adopt the imperial culture and language.
In other words, these are non-exclusive states. Israel, on the other hand, is built on rigid and comprehensive racial and religious
exclusiveness. Only jews can join. Israel is the quintessential nation state, built on an antiquated, romantic 19th-century idea.
The self-defeating and ultimately untenable model of the nation state was demonstrated unequivocally in 1945, but ignoring historical
proof, Israel resuscitated it in 1948. Therefore, it would seem to me Israel can never become the dominant force in the Middle
East. Even if it somehow succeeds in attaining this position, it will definitely be of a very short duration. It is a bit like
what Guizot once remarked: you can do anything with a bayonet, except sit on it.
1. Could have used a bit of information on the Rothschilds and other dominant Jewish Banking Family Oligarchs, including
their role in the assassination of John F. Kennedy (the last Constitutional President of the United States ), on November
22, 1963, in the Coup D'etat in Dallas, (the first successful Modern Arab Spring ).
2. Could have benefitted by references to the horrors of Vietnam and Indonesia (1965), 9/11, and the attack on the Liberty,
among other dark pages of recent history, which would have taken a sentence.
3. Could have used a bit of a VISION advocacy of how to Cure this Zionist imperialist plague so nicely described
by Petras. The Restoration of the Republic, destroyed on November 22, 1963, is the Revolutionary Cure so ignored by the
earnest and not so earnest critics of the Zionist New World Order.
As USA internal rot accelerates she is becoming increasingly erratic and desperate in her international policy. It increasingly
looks like biten by white shark seal trashing desperately in the water while life along with blood leaving it's body. Others should
keep their cool and patiently wait.
"2) US imperial policy in the Middle East focuses on encircling, destroying and dismantling Iran's allies (Syria, Lebanon
(Hezbollah), Iraq (Shi'a Militia), Qatar and Yemen with the intent of overthrowing the government and installing a client regime
in Teheran."
And yet the US destroyed Iran's most useful enemy, Saddam's Iraq. Sometimes I wonder whether US foreign policy has any
guiding intelligence at all. Maybe it consists only of stupid, reckless flailing.
How many Americans and Europeans realize that all Islamic terrorism in the West is Sunni and none of it is Shia, and that all
the demonization of Iran and Hezbollah is solely for the benefit of Israel?
If I were to offer any suggestion, I'd just prefer that the author amend the abbreviation of the US to the Z US (Zionist
occupied US), as all of the things he mentions that the US is doing, are all in direct contravention of the principles and interests
and people of the actual US, and are, rather, all being done to benefit the most sinister and intractable enemy of the of the
US (and so many others including Iran); the Z US.
The American people have suffered thousands of casualties and its domestic economy is in permanent crisis with massive unemployment,
poverty, recession and stagnation.
Trump's economic agenda depends on his avoiding politically and militarily costly wars. That was one of his campaign promises
that resonated with the nation's core electorate.
I spell out my case for calling it the ZUS here:
(which I invite the moderators to including under a blue 'more' link so as not to clutter up the comment section)
saying US, by which I do not mean ordinary US people then the rotten elite running the show.
I sort of know that, but I hope you (and others) can understand why that distinction is so important to us genuine Americans
who're horrified at the conduct of the US government on the world's stage.
The interests of the US government vs. the people of the US, could not be more diametrically opposed. They're looting our
Treasury and our future to fund eternal wars for Israel- that do nothing but destroy any kind of long-term hope for this country.
They're creating hatred for the American people that will reverberate over generations. They're systematically dismantling
our sacred codified rights (earned in blood) going all the way back to the Magna Carta. They assassinate our citizens if they
prove inconvenient to the regime, when they aren't burning them alive at places like Waco or the World Trade Center. There
seems to be nothing too demonic that this government will do to us American citizens if they suspect that by doing so it will
somehow augment their power to dominate us even more.
Today in America is much like the Russians during the Bolshevik / Soviet regime. Our government is our most intractable
and dangerous enemy on the planet. We Americans have nothing to fear from Russia or Iran. That's laughable. But we have everything
to fear from Washington DC. The drooling fiend that inhabits those think tanks and J-Street and K-Street and CFR and PNAC and
CIA and all the other acronyms of Satan are our worst enemy on this planet, just as they threaten and menace the rest of the
people of the planet, intending to use our children as cannon fodder even as they commit endless atrocities and war crimes
in our name.
So I guess my point is just that the interests of the US [zio-government], vs. the interests of the US people are so wildly
at odds, that it would be nice if others could see this as glaringly as those of us American citizens, watching with horror-
as our government perpetrates monstrous crimes all over the globe, and here at home.
The banking cartels are not run by patriotic American citizens, they're run by our enemies.
The Pentagon is not run by patriotic American citizens, it's run by our enemies.
the FBI and CIA and DEA and NSA are all operated by the enemies of the American people.
the media are the most sinister and committed enemy we have. No one hates our guts more.
the universities are nothing but kosher Marxist indoctrination centers, telling our young people (among other things) that
the "US" liberated the people of Kosovo. (is that what happened?). They tell our students that our participation in the world
wars was honorable and noble. They tell them that what we are doing in the Middle East today is honorable and noble. They even
are attempting to make any criticism of Israel a crime on the universities and campuses. Outlawing any expression of support
for the BDS movement. Does that sound like our universities are run by and for Americans?!
there are two entities here in the good ol' US of A. There is the ZUSA, that is an enemy to all of mankind, including the
people of the US. And then there are the people of the US; represented by those who still cling to quaint notions like the
Rule of Law, and our traditions like freedom of speech and fair play. People like Michael Hastings. People like Seth Rich.
People like Pat Tillman or Ron Paul or all of his supporters. People like the ones that voted for Obama to end the wars, and
who voted for Trump to end the wars. People like Ken O'keefe, who are Americans to the core, and still represent the spirit
of what being an American was all about, until our nation was hijacked in 1913 for the greater glory of $atan.
the US goal in former Yugoslavia was primarily a rejuvenation of NATO which has lost its meaning with the demise of SU.
Also, the Demoncrats have a natural propensity to package their imperialism into "humanitarian" interventions, the Republicans
are much less sleazy – the Republicans just say you are with us or against us, no matter whether what we do is legal or
illegal. Therefore, it was a perfect little war for the Clintons:
1) breath a new life into NATO,
2) clean up the Southern Europe of any residual Russia and/or socialist influence and
3) do a dress rehearsal for attacking Russia (using NATO).
sounds like a perfectly excellent analysis to me.
I remember how we scrambled at the time to make sense of it. WTF were they up to?!
why were they bombing a nation that had been 'our' ally during WWII, and seemingly so that some KLA terrorists could lay
claim to their ancient and sacred lands? Hard won from the same Muslim hoards that had drenched Kosovo in Christian, Serbian
blood for centuries.
Some of us figured it was kind of a payback for Palestine. 'Yes, we zio-scum are ravaging your people in Palestine, but
as payback, we'll give you Kosovo!
We even wondered if there wasn't some secret, high-level negotiations going on between the representatives of Islam and
the Zionists. 'OK, what do you want for Palestine?' / 'We'll take Kosovo'.
Then there was general Clarks quote regarding the necessity of bombing Serbia:
"Let's not forget what the origin of the problem is. There is no place in modern Europe for ethnically pure states. That's
a 19th century idea and we are trying to transition into the 21st century, and we are going to do it with multi-ethnic states."
- General Wesley Clark
so it's been a conundrum, but your analysis sounds like the best so far.
travelling NGO EcoSystem
:-)
Yes we see it all over the place. But also please keep in mind that the original NGO that $ubverted and corrupted is the
one that took control of the US.
The actions of the 'US' (ZUSA) today are no more a representation of the people of the US, than those in Kyiv or Kabul represent
the typical Ukrainian or Afghan.
Washington DC no more represents the 300+ million people here than did the actions of Mubarak represented the Egyptian people,
or Yeltsin represented the Russian people, or Tony Blair represented the people of England.
We have all of us been NGO'd by the Fiend, and none more so than us here in the US, where they declare from their pulpits
that there is 'zero daylight between Israel and the ZUSA!'
So it stings to read about how this or that benefits the US, when all the benefits are going to the very same Beast that
is drooling its putrid saliva all over US too.
"... If the EU had insisted they would take Yugoslavia as a whole and not in parts Yugoslavia very likely would still exist. Ustascha fascists were exiled in Germany and there were a lot of cold war connections with German/US secret services. ..."
"... Yugoslavia was a working country until the CIA started sowing divisions between ethnies and religions. it took a few years of firebombing churches and then mosques, and sending mortar shells into markets and setting snipers to shoot to involve every facet of yugoslavian life. ..."
"... So it is not as some pretend that Yugos were looking for divorce. The CIA as usual looked for the misfits in Yugoslavia and led them towards the destruction of the country. ..."
"... BND is not stupid and weapons were supplied. Genscher claimed in later interviews that they had to protect Croatia and Slovenia from Milosevic "Greater Serbia" aspirations. ..."
"... Mr. Separovic said the West would have a moral and legal obligation to aid Croatia. 'It's Not a Gamble' ..."
"... Same countries now supporting Ukraine to retake Donezk. ..."
Being a witness of the developments in ex-YU, I have to add my opinion regarding OT discussion.
Yugoslavia was just another color revolution, planed and supported by usual suspects (MI6,
CIA, ...). They had found (created) couple of useful idiots, Milošević in Serbia, Tuđman in Croatia,
and Izetbegović in Bosnia, and encouraged them to create nationalist movements in their republics
which eventually teared apart the country. Haven't we seen this tactic ever before, or since?!
Powers to be did not like powerful, independent, socialist, not to much indebted country in the
Europe since it was not good example for the wage slaves around the world, since they could start
thinking that free education, health care, apartments, jobs for life, passport without visa accepted
almost anywhere, ... is the human right! Does Libya ring a bell?
All this happened between 1989 - 1995 when Yugoslavia was dismembered. What was created after
that was rump YU, and should have been actually called Greater Serbia, since it was made up of
only 2 (Serbia & Montenegro), out of 6 ex-YU republics. NATO bombed it in 1999 for the same reason
they bombed Sadam's Iraq - they did not have any more use for their useful idiot Milošević. Both
of them played their roles very good, and at the end they were awarded with a noose around their
necks. And we, citizens of ex-YU, were just collateral damage, neither first nor last time in
our history.
hopehely | Jun 19, 2017 4:20:28 PM | 57
My impression was that the industrial prosperous parts Slovenia, Croatia did not wish to pay
for Albanians and the EU - Germany - Genscher -
tried to cherrypick the desirable parts .
If the EU had insisted they would take Yugoslavia as a whole and not in parts Yugoslavia very
likely would still exist. Ustascha fascists were exiled in Germany and there were a lot of cold war connections with
German/US secret services.
Yugoslavia was a working country until the CIA started sowing divisions between ethnies and
religions. it took a few years of firebombing churches and then mosques, and sending mortar shells
into markets and setting snipers to shoot to involve every facet of yugoslavian life.
The US itself is composed of many faces each with its own aspiration and interpretation of
the pursuit of happiness. Yet it is not breaking up. Belgium is split along linguistic fractures
but is still a country. Very few countries have the uniformity of Japan and yet, they stick together.
So it is not as some pretend that Yugos were looking for divorce. The CIA as usual looked for
the misfits in Yugoslavia and led them towards the destruction of the country.
No country is unsusceptible to fracture. Once it is deeply researched ( as per Mormon missionaries)
the Empire knows exactly whom to call and to what deeds.
One of the greatest illustrations of this is the Libya of Muammar Ghaddafi, a country whose
citizens had everything they could hope for. No state gave so much to its citizens. Yet there
were enough susceptible souls to start demos and marches and enough snipers to sow hatred. The
rest is History. We came, we saw, he died, ha! ha! ha!
Madeline was happy to destroy Yugoslavia and took particular relish in severing Kosovo from
it.
Whereas Crimea used to be attached to Russia since Catherine the Great, and was bestowed to
Ukraine (then a member of the USSR) by Nikita (hisself an Ukrainian). It was just a symbolic gesture
as the Ukraine and Russia were united at the time and most citizens were of russian Stock.
So, the Empire ( the US and its lapdogs) did split Yugoslavia into smaller entities along ethnic
and religious fractures.
It was not a spontaneous divorce as some would like to paint it.
"And you are all wrong. NATO did not break Yugoslav Federation."
West Germany did (secretly) provide large scale military assistance to the Interior Ministry
(secret police) of Croatia as a part of a wider policy of championing and preparing Croatian succession
in early 1990. Germany's mass media made it an essential post-Cold War issue in Europe. The United
States sent officials to Slovenia (I think it was the Vice President or Secretary of State) to
guarantee 'American non-involvement' to Slovenia's parliament if Slovenia (illegally) seceded.
"The member states (republics) did it because no one wanted it any more"
Polls (whatever is the European equivalent to Gallup) in the spring of 1990 found the majority
of every Republic (including Croatia) supported federal elections, which separate polls showed
would have resulted in the electoral victory of a nationally popular, ethnically mixed, and centrist
Yugoslav candidate (I'm forgetting his name)
"(except perhaps Bosnia)."
Serbia and Montenegro as well.
"No one was happy the way the federation worked, and each of the member states had completely
incompatible ideas how to make it work.
Serbia wanted a strong centralized federation with 'one person one vote' principle applied throughout
the country."
Polls in early 1990 showed this was supported by a clear majority of every Republic. When federal
elections were put up for a federal consensus vote between all of the Republics (twice in a month),
Croatia and Slovenia jointly vetoed the resolution twice.
"Croatia wanted a loose confederation, in which Serbia cannot impose its will based of being
the largest and the most populous one."
Croatia was okay, however, with illegally seceding from Yugoslavia (without a federally mandated
consensus vote on the succession) and using its clear majority to 'dominate' the Serbian majority
in Krajina.
"Montenegro was a Serbia lapdog."
Ally is a more objective word.
"Slovenia just wanted to get out, they were fed up with the primitive and backward 'Bosnians',
how they called all the rest of us."
Slovenian and Croatian successionism were rooted in the same historical position (1968-1974,
mass economic protests in their respective capitals and subsequent constitutional reform): the
federal subsidy program assisting the general development of Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia, and Montenegro
were cutting into their own Republic's tax revenue (GDP) and hampering their long-term capital
investments (and regional alliances with Western Europe). This was the material basis for Slovene-Croat
'nationalism.'
"Macedonia, well nobody gave a hoot what they wanted."
Unfortunate.
"Serbian nationalists just wanted to annex her, together with Bosnia and 70% of Croatia to
make Greater Serbia."
This is mixing together drastically differing Serbian opinions to muddy the waters. There were
nationalists in Serbia's parliament who wanted to 'annex' areas outside of Serbian majority areas
in Bosnia and Croatia, but it wasn't a majority opinion, and there isn't any evidence of a plan.
Serbian parliamentary opinion and popular opinion was the same in Serbia and Bosnia: hold popular
referendums and mutually secede. Bosnia would lose Croatian and Serbian majority areas and mixed
areas would be settled with either local agreements or inter-state border concessions. Bosnian
Serbs themselves held a popular referendum in November of 1991 (after Bosnian Muslim-Croat Parties
voted for a secessionist resolution of a Unitarian Bosnia in the Bosnian parliament in October).
There was even a self-recognized border including only Serbian majority areas. If the Bosnian
Muslim President hadn't withdrawn from the Lisbon Accords (which he did because the U.S. Ambassador
to Yugoslavia guaranteed European-American recognition of a Unitarian Bosnia and American 'internationalization'
of the conflict if Lisbon was scuttled, Bosnia unilaterally seceded, and war broke out) or seceded
in April of 1992 without including these areas (and if Europe and the United States recognized
Bosnian Serb succession from Bosnia), there could have been a settlement to discuss.
"Croat Nazis wanted to annex Bosnia too, to make Greater Croatia."
Croatia wanted to 'annex' Croatian majority areas. The majority of Bosnian Croats wanted to
live in Croatia without being forced from their homes. Bosnia wanted a Unitarian State in which
Islamic Government and Virtues would be 'educated to' (imposed on) Croatian and Serbian minorities
(who were majorities in most of their own areas).
"No wonder Bosnia wanted to keep Yugoslavia as it was. With such a fine neighbors, who can blame
them."
People need to stop romanticizing reactionary Islamic Governments like Bosnia.
"The Kosovo War part of the Wars of the Yugoslavian Succession can be more correctly characterised
as a NATO production. The conflation of the Yugoslav wars and the Kosovo war leads to the misunderstanding."
Very well said.
But don't forget that Milosevic wiggled up to the top of the Serbian power pyramid preisely
due to the Kosovo problem in the first place, in 1980s.
Also, lest we forget that all other Republics including the "poor Bosnia" signed off on Milosevic'
usage of Yugoslav troops on the streets of Belgrade to quash the anti-Milosevic riots on the 9th
of March 1991.
So, in effect, all other republics nationalists, including Alija Izetbegovic, directly enabled
Milosevic' reign in Serbia to continue just months prior to the outbreak of open hostility in
Slovenia and then Croatia.
The simple truth is that they were all ex-Communist, neo-Fascist Chetniks, Ustashas and Balijas.
OT but the Bosnian issue seems to suffer the fate of happening in pre-internet-forum times. There
is a substantial, now multi-generational refugee population, because of the US's need to be seen
as a White Knight, and of course the tax breaks and other incentives involved with White-Knighting.
No educated expat Bosnians I know were happy with Madeline Albright's "help". They all know that
NATO is evil. They all know NATO escalated the situation, on purpose. They all know that Milosevic
was indeed a thug, in spite of his "useful idiotness" to whichever opposition story one chooses
to believe. They all know the reality of hiding from death squads, losing their quaint hometowns,
centuries of geneology, infrastructure, for "the greater good".
There has been a rebranding of Bosnians as "militant" useful Muslims, in recent history. It's
all bullshit. The Bosnians can be best described as proud country folk, far from fundamentalist
in the Islamic sense. Useful idiots? Only to the thinktank-minded.
Good point. The breakup of Yugoslavia was orchestrated from West Germany. Genscher was the
man who led that policy. Bush I and SoS Baker were taken off guard when Germany suddenly recognized
the independence of Slovenia. The CIA had little to do with any of that though once the civil
war broke out they became thoroughly involved. It was Bill Clinton who led US policy towards blaming
Serbia for the mess and breaking that state.
Almost universally amongst post-Yugo war diaspora acquaintances of all the ethnic groups is the
narrative that they feel cheated and used by their own 'elites'. That the war was hyped up by
local potentates that saw an opportunity to enrich and empower themselves in a divided Yugoslavia.
Some of these acquaintances are honest enough to admit that they themselves were at times swept
along by this orchestrated hate.
Amongst the pre-Yugo war diaspora (emigres to N.America) I have encountered no such introspection.
They are and were always filled with nationalist and xenophobic hatred of their fellow Yugoslavians.
Posted by: hopehely | Jun 20, 2017 2:41:19 AM | 113
Yugoslavia was not part of the Soviet Block. So 1989 was not the issue. I agree with Křn |
110 - the narrative is greedy local politicians turning people against each other. But these politicians
react the way they think the wind blows. The wind blowing was EU membership for some without the
others.
The most likely scenario is the US pressuring Europe/Germany to extend the EU to South Eastern
Europe and yes, 1989 was the trigger there.
This for Germany is a huge issue - see Greece - as there is a paying and a receiving EU membership
plus free movement means you import cultural and religious diversity. So Germany could see a profit
from Slovenia and Croatia but not from Kosovo.
You get a pretty good overview of external forces tearing Yugoslavia apart
here .
"We discovered later that [German foreign minister] Genscher had been in daily contact with
the Croatian Foreign Minister. He was encouraging the Croats to leave the federation and declare
independence, while we and our allies, including the Germans [sic], were trying to fashion
a joint approach."
@114 @115 etc
I think we can neatly round this Yugo OT back into the main subject here.
The Wars of the Yugoslavian Succession are in many ways recent history. But it is not trivial
history because their significance goes far beyond simply the former Yugoslavia. The modern geopolitical
monster that is NATO was largely born out of the Yugoslavian wars. Pre 1991 NATO was still largely
a military alliance with a main objective of fighting a large land war with the Soviet Union.
It was through the Yugo wars that NATO developed and found itself a new raison d'etre and up through
the Kosovo war honed techniques that it still uses to this day in Syria and many other places.
If we posit the counterfactual that local Yugoslavian politicians and elites combined with
emigre anti-Communist nationalist Yugoslavians and reckless German foreign diplos had not started
a Yugo war. Then NATO would be very different to what it is today. If NATO was very different
then the geopolitical world would be very very very different.
To give a little example. Denmark, though a longstanding member of NATO, was until the mid90's
militarily committed philosophically to peacekeeping usually under the UN. But through an incident
called břllebank in Yugoslavia came to the conclusion that the Danish military should be and could
be acting aggressively all around the world in the name of the 'good guys'. This was extended
to eager and unquestioning participation in Kosovo and subsequently Afghanistan and Iraq. All
that was needed was that Washington pointed out who the 'bad guys' were and NATO would happily
start the bloodletting. And little old Denmark could now be one of the tough guys and could right
the wrongs of the world by shooting and bombing lots of people.
The Yugoslav war provided a process through which Denmark in the context of NATO could be transformed
from an almost pacifist power to an overtly belligerent one. This same process worked on the USA,
the UK, and all of the NATO members. The modern NATO principle of salvation by bombing was born
in Yugoslavia, the same principle the Americans and their NATO allies are trying to apply today
in Syria. Without a Yugoslav war, I don't think there would be Norwegian troops in AlTanf today.
It has recently been revealed that in fact the whole 'břllebank' incident was largely made
up by some overzealous Danish soldiers who wanted some 'action' and some promotions.
BND is not stupid and weapons were supplied. Genscher claimed in later interviews that they had
to protect Croatia and Slovenia from Milosevic "Greater Serbia" aspirations.
ZAGREB, Yugoslavia, Dec. 11- As expectations grow here that Germany will soon recognize Croatia,
leaders of the republic say they assume the step will be followed by arms shipments or even
Western military intervention to help in their uphill battle against the Yugoslav National
Army.
But officers serving with the European Community mission in Croatia said on Tuesday that
German recognition could well prompt the Serb-dominated army to take more territory before
Croatia imports better weapons.
The military observers said German recognition, which is expected to be followed by that
of Austria and perhaps some other European countries, would also ignite open warfare in Bosnia-Hercegovina,
the ethnically divided republic that has until now maintained a fragile peace between its populations
of Serbs, Croats and Muslims.
From the beginning of the Yugoslav conflict, the outgunned Croatians have sought to portray
themselves to the world as victims, a strategy born largely of necessity. Their national guard
has fought a defensive struggle against the combined forces of the Yugoslav National Army and
Serb irregulars, losing about one-third of Croatia's territory.
In recent months, Croatia's pleas for help have found increasing resonance in Europe, particularly
in Germany, where Government leaders have promised to recognize Croatia by Christmas. The European
Community has criticized the Serbs, imposing economic sanctions only against Serbia and its
allied republic of Montenegro.
In an interview, Zvonimir Separovic, Croatia's Foreign Minister, spelled out his government's
hopes for help that he assumes will come after European powers accept the breakaway republics
of the Yugoslav federation as independent countries. "After recognition, Slovenia and Croatia
will be exactly the same as Kuwait in the Persian Gulf crisis," Mr. Separovic insisted. "Aggression
is not supposed to pay."
Mr. Separovic said the West would have a moral and legal obligation to aid Croatia. 'It's
Not a Gamble'
Same countries now supporting Ukraine to retake Donezk.
Der Balkankrieg war noch nicht ausgebrochen, da stellte im Mai 1991 ein Mitarbeiter von Außenminister
Hans-Dietrich Genscher in einer Analyse fest: "Slowenen und Kroaten sind es leid, Zahlmeister
für einen stagnierenden und perspektivlosen Wirtschaftsverbund zu sein. Es geht vor allem um
einen Kampf der Marktwirtschaft gegen zentralistische Kommandowirtschaft, von demokratischem
Pluralismus gegen Einparteienherrschaft, von Rechtsstaatlichkeit gegen militärische Repression."
Der Gegner hieß Belgrad, hieß Präsident Slobodan Milosevic. Das Papier empfahl eine Abkehr
von der Brüsseler Status-quo-Politik: "Wir sollten uns deshalb Veränderungen der heute bestehenden
Grenzen im östlichen Europa nicht kategorisch entgegenstellen."
Brief English summary: The war had not yet begun when a paper of the German exterior ministry
stated that Slovenia and Croatia did not want to be held back from realizing free market reforms
by the rest of the Yugoslav states. The paper recommended to change from EU status quo policies
- "we should not refuse changes in today's Eastern Europe borders."
It's all too well documented, now all that humanity needs is a renewal of the Nurnberg trials
(only this time INCLUDING the real fascist masterminds). Though, in order for that to happen
The Fourth Reich must first be
militarily defeated...
Late last month, the House and Senate passed an amendment to the Foreign Operations Appropriation
law that bars any United States loans or credits for Yugoslavia unless the assistance is directed
to a republic "which has held free and fair elections and which is not engaged in systematic
abuse of human rights."
The legislation was fueled mainly by members of Congress who desire to penalize Serbia for
its repression of the Kosovo Albanians.
I do wonder what the consequences of US Russia and Iran sanctions will be.
Europea business will have to jump the fence?
It the EU had insisted they would take Yugoslavia as a whole and not in parts Yugoslavia very
likely would still exist .somebody at 61 . Yes, have thought that, but who knows.
Toivos @ 101: The breakup of Yugoslavia was orchestrated from West Germany. Genscher was
the man who led that policy. Bush I and SoS Baker were taken off guard when Germany suddenly recognized
the independence of Slovenia.
Yes..... Croatia maybe in 1st place, more important imho? or at least the two (link is just
msm) Here in Switz it was ALL about Croatia, huge deal.
Will not fight. Will not fight. (about the US <-> Syria.) Grieved at 97.
Sounds like Beckett ;) Correct. Because these games of chicken are empty. Provocations that
aren't because the illusory assumption is that the US in any case rules the roost, provocations
are not pointed to a particular effect, riposte, reaction, it is all no matter (or pretty much
so), in any case if locally, mildly vanquised, one retreats while declaring victory or perhaps
even a 'stalemate' or 'negotiations' etc. The US is not fighting any wars to win anything like
bigly territory or ressources or new slaves, women, commercial secrets, control of nodes (air
hubs, water-ways, passage points, etc.) or for that matter territory, it is just keeping the MIC
and home repression, scaremongering, going for now that is interesting, whom / what exactly?
And why, to what purpose? Who benefits? (one pov amongst many.)
"... If the EU had insisted they would take Yugoslavia as a whole and not in parts Yugoslavia very likely would still exist. Ustascha fascists were exiled in Germany and there were a lot of cold war connections with German/US secret services. ..."
"... Yugoslavia was a working country until the CIA started sowing divisions between ethnies and religions. it took a few years of firebombing churches and then mosques, and sending mortar shells into markets and setting snipers to shoot to involve every facet of yugoslavian life. ..."
"... So it is not as some pretend that Yugos were looking for divorce. The CIA as usual looked for the misfits in Yugoslavia and led them towards the destruction of the country. ..."
"... BND is not stupid and weapons were supplied. Genscher claimed in later interviews that they had to protect Croatia and Slovenia from Milosevic "Greater Serbia" aspirations. ..."
"... Mr. Separovic said the West would have a moral and legal obligation to aid Croatia. 'It's Not a Gamble' ..."
"... Same countries now supporting Ukraine to retake Donezk. ..."
Being a witness of the developments in ex-YU, I have to add my opinion regarding OT discussion.
Yugoslavia was just another color revolution, planed and supported by usual suspects (MI6,
CIA, ...). They had found (created) couple of useful idiots, Milošević in Serbia, Tuđman in Croatia,
and Izetbegović in Bosnia, and encouraged them to create nationalist movements in their republics
which eventually teared apart the country. Haven't we seen this tactic ever before, or since?!
Powers to be did not like powerful, independent, socialist, not to much indebted country in the
Europe since it was not good example for the wage slaves around the world, since they could start
thinking that free education, health care, apartments, jobs for life, passport without visa accepted
almost anywhere, ... is the human right! Does Libya ring a bell?
All this happened between 1989 - 1995 when Yugoslavia was dismembered. What was created after
that was rump YU, and should have been actually called Greater Serbia, since it was made up of
only 2 (Serbia & Montenegro), out of 6 ex-YU republics. NATO bombed it in 1999 for the same reason
they bombed Sadam's Iraq - they did not have any more use for their useful idiot Milošević. Both
of them played their roles very good, and at the end they were awarded with a noose around their
necks. And we, citizens of ex-YU, were just collateral damage, neither first nor last time in
our history.
hopehely | Jun 19, 2017 4:20:28 PM | 57
My impression was that the industrial prosperous parts Slovenia, Croatia did not wish to pay
for Albanians and the EU - Germany - Genscher -
tried to cherrypick the desirable parts .
If the EU had insisted they would take Yugoslavia as a whole and not in parts Yugoslavia very
likely would still exist. Ustascha fascists were exiled in Germany and there were a lot of cold war connections with
German/US secret services.
Yugoslavia was a working country until the CIA started sowing divisions between ethnies and
religions. it took a few years of firebombing churches and then mosques, and sending mortar shells
into markets and setting snipers to shoot to involve every facet of yugoslavian life.
The US itself is composed of many faces each with its own aspiration and interpretation of
the pursuit of happiness. Yet it is not breaking up. Belgium is split along linguistic fractures
but is still a country. Very few countries have the uniformity of Japan and yet, they stick together.
So it is not as some pretend that Yugos were looking for divorce. The CIA as usual looked for
the misfits in Yugoslavia and led them towards the destruction of the country.
No country is unsusceptible to fracture. Once it is deeply researched ( as per Mormon missionaries)
the Empire knows exactly whom to call and to what deeds.
One of the greatest illustrations of this is the Libya of Muammar Ghaddafi, a country whose
citizens had everything they could hope for. No state gave so much to its citizens. Yet there
were enough susceptible souls to start demos and marches and enough snipers to sow hatred. The
rest is History. We came, we saw, he died, ha! ha! ha!
Madeline was happy to destroy Yugoslavia and took particular relish in severing Kosovo from
it.
Whereas Crimea used to be attached to Russia since Catherine the Great, and was bestowed to
Ukraine (then a member of the USSR) by Nikita (hisself an Ukrainian). It was just a symbolic gesture
as the Ukraine and Russia were united at the time and most citizens were of russian Stock.
So, the Empire ( the US and its lapdogs) did split Yugoslavia into smaller entities along ethnic
and religious fractures.
It was not a spontaneous divorce as some would like to paint it.
"And you are all wrong. NATO did not break Yugoslav Federation."
West Germany did (secretly) provide large scale military assistance to the Interior Ministry
(secret police) of Croatia as a part of a wider policy of championing and preparing Croatian succession
in early 1990. Germany's mass media made it an essential post-Cold War issue in Europe. The United
States sent officials to Slovenia (I think it was the Vice President or Secretary of State) to
guarantee 'American non-involvement' to Slovenia's parliament if Slovenia (illegally) seceded.
"The member states (republics) did it because no one wanted it any more"
Polls (whatever is the European equivalent to Gallup) in the spring of 1990 found the majority
of every Republic (including Croatia) supported federal elections, which separate polls showed
would have resulted in the electoral victory of a nationally popular, ethnically mixed, and centrist
Yugoslav candidate (I'm forgetting his name)
"(except perhaps Bosnia)."
Serbia and Montenegro as well.
"No one was happy the way the federation worked, and each of the member states had completely
incompatible ideas how to make it work.
Serbia wanted a strong centralized federation with 'one person one vote' principle applied throughout
the country."
Polls in early 1990 showed this was supported by a clear majority of every Republic. When federal
elections were put up for a federal consensus vote between all of the Republics (twice in a month),
Croatia and Slovenia jointly vetoed the resolution twice.
"Croatia wanted a loose confederation, in which Serbia cannot impose its will based of being
the largest and the most populous one."
Croatia was okay, however, with illegally seceding from Yugoslavia (without a federally mandated
consensus vote on the succession) and using its clear majority to 'dominate' the Serbian majority
in Krajina.
"Montenegro was a Serbia lapdog."
Ally is a more objective word.
"Slovenia just wanted to get out, they were fed up with the primitive and backward 'Bosnians',
how they called all the rest of us."
Slovenian and Croatian successionism were rooted in the same historical position (1968-1974,
mass economic protests in their respective capitals and subsequent constitutional reform): the
federal subsidy program assisting the general development of Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia, and Montenegro
were cutting into their own Republic's tax revenue (GDP) and hampering their long-term capital
investments (and regional alliances with Western Europe). This was the material basis for Slovene-Croat
'nationalism.'
"Macedonia, well nobody gave a hoot what they wanted."
Unfortunate.
"Serbian nationalists just wanted to annex her, together with Bosnia and 70% of Croatia to
make Greater Serbia."
This is mixing together drastically differing Serbian opinions to muddy the waters. There were
nationalists in Serbia's parliament who wanted to 'annex' areas outside of Serbian majority areas
in Bosnia and Croatia, but it wasn't a majority opinion, and there isn't any evidence of a plan.
Serbian parliamentary opinion and popular opinion was the same in Serbia and Bosnia: hold popular
referendums and mutually secede. Bosnia would lose Croatian and Serbian majority areas and mixed
areas would be settled with either local agreements or inter-state border concessions. Bosnian
Serbs themselves held a popular referendum in November of 1991 (after Bosnian Muslim-Croat Parties
voted for a secessionist resolution of a Unitarian Bosnia in the Bosnian parliament in October).
There was even a self-recognized border including only Serbian majority areas. If the Bosnian
Muslim President hadn't withdrawn from the Lisbon Accords (which he did because the U.S. Ambassador
to Yugoslavia guaranteed European-American recognition of a Unitarian Bosnia and American 'internationalization'
of the conflict if Lisbon was scuttled, Bosnia unilaterally seceded, and war broke out) or seceded
in April of 1992 without including these areas (and if Europe and the United States recognized
Bosnian Serb succession from Bosnia), there could have been a settlement to discuss.
"Croat Nazis wanted to annex Bosnia too, to make Greater Croatia."
Croatia wanted to 'annex' Croatian majority areas. The majority of Bosnian Croats wanted to
live in Croatia without being forced from their homes. Bosnia wanted a Unitarian State in which
Islamic Government and Virtues would be 'educated to' (imposed on) Croatian and Serbian minorities
(who were majorities in most of their own areas).
"No wonder Bosnia wanted to keep Yugoslavia as it was. With such a fine neighbors, who can blame
them."
People need to stop romanticizing reactionary Islamic Governments like Bosnia.
"The Kosovo War part of the Wars of the Yugoslavian Succession can be more correctly characterised
as a NATO production. The conflation of the Yugoslav wars and the Kosovo war leads to the misunderstanding."
Very well said.
But don't forget that Milosevic wiggled up to the top of the Serbian power pyramid preisely
due to the Kosovo problem in the first place, in 1980s.
Also, lest we forget that all other Republics including the "poor Bosnia" signed off on Milosevic'
usage of Yugoslav troops on the streets of Belgrade to quash the anti-Milosevic riots on the 9th
of March 1991.
So, in effect, all other republics nationalists, including Alija Izetbegovic, directly enabled
Milosevic' reign in Serbia to continue just months prior to the outbreak of open hostility in
Slovenia and then Croatia.
The simple truth is that they were all ex-Communist, neo-Fascist Chetniks, Ustashas and Balijas.
OT but the Bosnian issue seems to suffer the fate of happening in pre-internet-forum times. There
is a substantial, now multi-generational refugee population, because of the US's need to be seen
as a White Knight, and of course the tax breaks and other incentives involved with White-Knighting.
No educated expat Bosnians I know were happy with Madeline Albright's "help". They all know that
NATO is evil. They all know NATO escalated the situation, on purpose. They all know that Milosevic
was indeed a thug, in spite of his "useful idiotness" to whichever opposition story one chooses
to believe. They all know the reality of hiding from death squads, losing their quaint hometowns,
centuries of geneology, infrastructure, for "the greater good".
There has been a rebranding of Bosnians as "militant" useful Muslims, in recent history. It's
all bullshit. The Bosnians can be best described as proud country folk, far from fundamentalist
in the Islamic sense. Useful idiots? Only to the thinktank-minded.
Good point. The breakup of Yugoslavia was orchestrated from West Germany. Genscher was the
man who led that policy. Bush I and SoS Baker were taken off guard when Germany suddenly recognized
the independence of Slovenia. The CIA had little to do with any of that though once the civil
war broke out they became thoroughly involved. It was Bill Clinton who led US policy towards blaming
Serbia for the mess and breaking that state.
Almost universally amongst post-Yugo war diaspora acquaintances of all the ethnic groups is the
narrative that they feel cheated and used by their own 'elites'. That the war was hyped up by
local potentates that saw an opportunity to enrich and empower themselves in a divided Yugoslavia.
Some of these acquaintances are honest enough to admit that they themselves were at times swept
along by this orchestrated hate.
Amongst the pre-Yugo war diaspora (emigres to N.America) I have encountered no such introspection.
They are and were always filled with nationalist and xenophobic hatred of their fellow Yugoslavians.
Posted by: hopehely | Jun 20, 2017 2:41:19 AM | 113
Yugoslavia was not part of the Soviet Block. So 1989 was not the issue. I agree with Křn |
110 - the narrative is greedy local politicians turning people against each other. But these politicians
react the way they think the wind blows. The wind blowing was EU membership for some without the
others.
The most likely scenario is the US pressuring Europe/Germany to extend the EU to South Eastern
Europe and yes, 1989 was the trigger there.
This for Germany is a huge issue - see Greece - as there is a paying and a receiving EU membership
plus free movement means you import cultural and religious diversity. So Germany could see a profit
from Slovenia and Croatia but not from Kosovo.
You get a pretty good overview of external forces tearing Yugoslavia apart
here .
"We discovered later that [German foreign minister] Genscher had been in daily contact with
the Croatian Foreign Minister. He was encouraging the Croats to leave the federation and declare
independence, while we and our allies, including the Germans [sic], were trying to fashion
a joint approach."
@114 @115 etc
I think we can neatly round this Yugo OT back into the main subject here.
The Wars of the Yugoslavian Succession are in many ways recent history. But it is not trivial
history because their significance goes far beyond simply the former Yugoslavia. The modern geopolitical
monster that is NATO was largely born out of the Yugoslavian wars. Pre 1991 NATO was still largely
a military alliance with a main objective of fighting a large land war with the Soviet Union.
It was through the Yugo wars that NATO developed and found itself a new raison d'etre and up through
the Kosovo war honed techniques that it still uses to this day in Syria and many other places.
If we posit the counterfactual that local Yugoslavian politicians and elites combined with
emigre anti-Communist nationalist Yugoslavians and reckless German foreign diplos had not started
a Yugo war. Then NATO would be very different to what it is today. If NATO was very different
then the geopolitical world would be very very very different.
To give a little example. Denmark, though a longstanding member of NATO, was until the mid90's
militarily committed philosophically to peacekeeping usually under the UN. But through an incident
called břllebank in Yugoslavia came to the conclusion that the Danish military should be and could
be acting aggressively all around the world in the name of the 'good guys'. This was extended
to eager and unquestioning participation in Kosovo and subsequently Afghanistan and Iraq. All
that was needed was that Washington pointed out who the 'bad guys' were and NATO would happily
start the bloodletting. And little old Denmark could now be one of the tough guys and could right
the wrongs of the world by shooting and bombing lots of people.
The Yugoslav war provided a process through which Denmark in the context of NATO could be transformed
from an almost pacifist power to an overtly belligerent one. This same process worked on the USA,
the UK, and all of the NATO members. The modern NATO principle of salvation by bombing was born
in Yugoslavia, the same principle the Americans and their NATO allies are trying to apply today
in Syria. Without a Yugoslav war, I don't think there would be Norwegian troops in AlTanf today.
It has recently been revealed that in fact the whole 'břllebank' incident was largely made
up by some overzealous Danish soldiers who wanted some 'action' and some promotions.
BND is not stupid and weapons were supplied. Genscher claimed in later interviews that they had
to protect Croatia and Slovenia from Milosevic "Greater Serbia" aspirations.
ZAGREB, Yugoslavia, Dec. 11- As expectations grow here that Germany will soon recognize Croatia,
leaders of the republic say they assume the step will be followed by arms shipments or even
Western military intervention to help in their uphill battle against the Yugoslav National
Army.
But officers serving with the European Community mission in Croatia said on Tuesday that
German recognition could well prompt the Serb-dominated army to take more territory before
Croatia imports better weapons.
The military observers said German recognition, which is expected to be followed by that
of Austria and perhaps some other European countries, would also ignite open warfare in Bosnia-Hercegovina,
the ethnically divided republic that has until now maintained a fragile peace between its populations
of Serbs, Croats and Muslims.
From the beginning of the Yugoslav conflict, the outgunned Croatians have sought to portray
themselves to the world as victims, a strategy born largely of necessity. Their national guard
has fought a defensive struggle against the combined forces of the Yugoslav National Army and
Serb irregulars, losing about one-third of Croatia's territory.
In recent months, Croatia's pleas for help have found increasing resonance in Europe, particularly
in Germany, where Government leaders have promised to recognize Croatia by Christmas. The European
Community has criticized the Serbs, imposing economic sanctions only against Serbia and its
allied republic of Montenegro.
In an interview, Zvonimir Separovic, Croatia's Foreign Minister, spelled out his government's
hopes for help that he assumes will come after European powers accept the breakaway republics
of the Yugoslav federation as independent countries. "After recognition, Slovenia and Croatia
will be exactly the same as Kuwait in the Persian Gulf crisis," Mr. Separovic insisted. "Aggression
is not supposed to pay."
Mr. Separovic said the West would have a moral and legal obligation to aid Croatia. 'It's
Not a Gamble'
Same countries now supporting Ukraine to retake Donezk.
Der Balkankrieg war noch nicht ausgebrochen, da stellte im Mai 1991 ein Mitarbeiter von Außenminister
Hans-Dietrich Genscher in einer Analyse fest: "Slowenen und Kroaten sind es leid, Zahlmeister
für einen stagnierenden und perspektivlosen Wirtschaftsverbund zu sein. Es geht vor allem um
einen Kampf der Marktwirtschaft gegen zentralistische Kommandowirtschaft, von demokratischem
Pluralismus gegen Einparteienherrschaft, von Rechtsstaatlichkeit gegen militärische Repression."
Der Gegner hieß Belgrad, hieß Präsident Slobodan Milosevic. Das Papier empfahl eine Abkehr
von der Brüsseler Status-quo-Politik: "Wir sollten uns deshalb Veränderungen der heute bestehenden
Grenzen im östlichen Europa nicht kategorisch entgegenstellen."
Brief English summary: The war had not yet begun when a paper of the German exterior ministry
stated that Slovenia and Croatia did not want to be held back from realizing free market reforms
by the rest of the Yugoslav states. The paper recommended to change from EU status quo policies
- "we should not refuse changes in today's Eastern Europe borders."
It's all too well documented, now all that humanity needs is a renewal of the Nurnberg trials
(only this time INCLUDING the real fascist masterminds). Though, in order for that to happen
The Fourth Reich must first be
militarily defeated...
Late last month, the House and Senate passed an amendment to the Foreign Operations Appropriation
law that bars any United States loans or credits for Yugoslavia unless the assistance is directed
to a republic "which has held free and fair elections and which is not engaged in systematic
abuse of human rights."
The legislation was fueled mainly by members of Congress who desire to penalize Serbia for
its repression of the Kosovo Albanians.
I do wonder what the consequences of US Russia and Iran sanctions will be.
Europea business will have to jump the fence?
It the EU had insisted they would take Yugoslavia as a whole and not in parts Yugoslavia very
likely would still exist .somebody at 61 . Yes, have thought that, but who knows.
Toivos @ 101: The breakup of Yugoslavia was orchestrated from West Germany. Genscher was
the man who led that policy. Bush I and SoS Baker were taken off guard when Germany suddenly recognized
the independence of Slovenia.
Yes..... Croatia maybe in 1st place, more important imho? or at least the two (link is just
msm) Here in Switz it was ALL about Croatia, huge deal.
Will not fight. Will not fight. (about the US <-> Syria.) Grieved at 97.
Sounds like Beckett ;) Correct. Because these games of chicken are empty. Provocations that
aren't because the illusory assumption is that the US in any case rules the roost, provocations
are not pointed to a particular effect, riposte, reaction, it is all no matter (or pretty much
so), in any case if locally, mildly vanquised, one retreats while declaring victory or perhaps
even a 'stalemate' or 'negotiations' etc. The US is not fighting any wars to win anything like
bigly territory or ressources or new slaves, women, commercial secrets, control of nodes (air
hubs, water-ways, passage points, etc.) or for that matter territory, it is just keeping the MIC
and home repression, scaremongering, going for now that is interesting, whom / what exactly?
And why, to what purpose? Who benefits? (one pov amongst many.)
Given 37 years of US blundering in the Persian Gulf and
Indian Ocean region, China don't need to worry if the
dominant power [and its pentagon trough filler] were to
decide to get violent.
I read a lot of "Thucydides Trap"
type fiction emanating from novelists purporting to
"analyze" aspects of US foreign policy issues.
Fiction many deliberate obfuscations and cherry picked
evidence.
I now read such tracts to sharpen my skill at observing
and naming types of logical fallacy.
Case studies, the world is not in the image of the HBS
universe.
I read a lot of "Thucydides Trap" type fiction emanating
from novelists purporting to "analyze" aspects of US
foreign policy issues....
[ Purporting, is the proper
expression. China is the geographic size of the United
States with Alaska, Russia is twice the size. The idea of
containing China and Russia is absurd.
Shanghai Cooperation Organisation
China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan, and
Uzbekistan.
India and Pakistan just this month became members. ]
There are problems in the world, and they suggest
Einstein's observation: "you cannot solve problems
with the mind that created them".
The hegemon is
misguided on many levels: errant goals, strategies (cannot
be good if goals wrong), and expensive tactics which
goatherd can defeat. Worse the allies kept.
Hmmm. Better sign up while membership is still voluntary?
(Just joking! Surely China has no similar designs on East
Asia.)
Wikipedia: 'The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation
(SCO) is an international alliance that consists of 8
member states and 3 observers from Eurasia.'
'The Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere was an
imperial concept created and promulgated for occupied
Asian populations during 1930-45 by the Empire of Japan.
It extended greater than East Asia and promoted the
cultural and economic unity of Northeast Asians, Southeast
Asians, and Oceanians. It also declared the intention to
create a self-sufficient "bloc of Asian nations led by the
Japanese and free of Western powers".'
Bacevich is a treasure...he's been inside the belly of the beast, and understands from first hand
knowledge how it produces immense quantities of BS for public consumption and for preserving its
own perks, privileges, and budgets.
He wrote a foreword to reprint of The Irony of American History (Paperback) by Reinhold Niebuhr
which you can read on Amazon for free.
Niebuhr thought deeply about the dilemmas confronting the United States as a consequence
of its emergence after World War I and, even more, after World War II, as a global superpower.
The truths he spoke are uncomfortable ones for us to hear-uncomfortable not only because they
demand a great deal of us as citizens, but also because they outline so starkly some of our
recent failures. Four such truths are especially underlined in The Irony of American History:
the persistent sin of American Exceptionalism; the indecipherability of history; the false
allure of simple solutions; and, finally, the imperative of appreciating the limits of power.
The Anglo-American colonists who settled these shores, writes Niebuhr, saw their purpose
as "to make a new beginning in a corrupt world." They believed "that we had been called out
by God to create a new humanity." They believed further that this covenant with God marked
America as a new Israel.
As a Chosen People with what Niebuhr refers to as a "Messianic consciousness," Americans
came to see them selves as set apart, their motives irreproachable, their actions not to be
judged by standards applied to others.
... ... ...
Niebuhr has little patience for those who portray the United States as acting on God's behalf.
"All men are naturally inclined to obscure the morally ambiguous element in their political
cause by investing it with religious sanctity," he once observed. "This is why religion is
more frequently a source of confusion than of light in the political realm."
In the United States, he continued, "The tendency to equate our political with our Christian
convictions causes politics to generate idolatry."9
Evangelical conservatism and its growing influence on American politics, which Niebuhr did
not live to see, have only reinforced this tendency.
Niebuhr anticipated that the American veneration of liberty could itself degenerate into
a form of idolatry. In the midst of World War II, he went so far as to describe the worship
of democracy as "a less vicious version of the Nazi creed." He cautioned that "no society,
not even a democratic one, is great enough or good enough to make itself the final end of human
existence."
Although he rarely uses the term "American [neoliberal] empire", and I think never terms "Washington
consensus", "debt slavery", or neoliberalism.
Given 37 years of US blundering in the Persian Gulf and
Indian Ocean region, China don't need to worry if the
dominant power [and its pentagon trough filler] were to
decide to get violent.
I read a lot of "Thucydides Trap"
type fiction emanating from novelists purporting to
"analyze" aspects of US foreign policy issues.
Fiction many deliberate obfuscations and cherry picked
evidence.
I now read such tracts to sharpen my skill at observing
and naming types of logical fallacy.
Case studies, the world is not in the image of the HBS
universe.
I read a lot of "Thucydides Trap" type fiction emanating
from novelists purporting to "analyze" aspects of US
foreign policy issues....
[ Purporting, is the proper
expression. China is the geographic size of the United
States with Alaska, Russia is twice the size. The idea of
containing China and Russia is absurd.
Shanghai Cooperation Organisation
China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan, and
Uzbekistan.
India and Pakistan just this month became members. ]
There are problems in the world, and they suggest
Einstein's observation: "you cannot solve problems
with the mind that created them".
The hegemon is
misguided on many levels: errant goals, strategies (cannot
be good if goals wrong), and expensive tactics which
goatherd can defeat. Worse the allies kept.
Hmmm. Better sign up while membership is still voluntary?
(Just joking! Surely China has no similar designs on East
Asia.)
Wikipedia: 'The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation
(SCO) is an international alliance that consists of 8
member states and 3 observers from Eurasia.'
'The Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere was an
imperial concept created and promulgated for occupied
Asian populations during 1930-45 by the Empire of Japan.
It extended greater than East Asia and promoted the
cultural and economic unity of Northeast Asians, Southeast
Asians, and Oceanians. It also declared the intention to
create a self-sufficient "bloc of Asian nations led by the
Japanese and free of Western powers".'
Bacevich is a treasure...he's been inside the belly of the beast, and understands from first hand
knowledge how it produces immense quantities of BS for public consumption and for preserving its
own perks, privileges, and budgets.
He wrote a foreword to reprint of The Irony of American History (Paperback) by Reinhold Niebuhr
which you can read on Amazon for free.
Niebuhr thought deeply about the dilemmas confronting the United States as a consequence
of its emergence after World War I and, even more, after World War II, as a global superpower.
The truths he spoke are uncomfortable ones for us to hear-uncomfortable not only because they
demand a great deal of us as citizens, but also because they outline so starkly some of our
recent failures. Four such truths are especially underlined in The Irony of American History:
the persistent sin of American Exceptionalism; the indecipherability of history; the false
allure of simple solutions; and, finally, the imperative of appreciating the limits of power.
The Anglo-American colonists who settled these shores, writes Niebuhr, saw their purpose
as "to make a new beginning in a corrupt world." They believed "that we had been called out
by God to create a new humanity." They believed further that this covenant with God marked
America as a new Israel.
As a Chosen People with what Niebuhr refers to as a "Messianic consciousness," Americans
came to see them selves as set apart, their motives irreproachable, their actions not to be
judged by standards applied to others.
... ... ...
Niebuhr has little patience for those who portray the United States as acting on God's behalf.
"All men are naturally inclined to obscure the morally ambiguous element in their political
cause by investing it with religious sanctity," he once observed. "This is why religion is
more frequently a source of confusion than of light in the political realm."
In the United States, he continued, "The tendency to equate our political with our Christian
convictions causes politics to generate idolatry."9
Evangelical conservatism and its growing influence on American politics, which Niebuhr did
not live to see, have only reinforced this tendency.
Niebuhr anticipated that the American veneration of liberty could itself degenerate into
a form of idolatry. In the midst of World War II, he went so far as to describe the worship
of democracy as "a less vicious version of the Nazi creed." He cautioned that "no society,
not even a democratic one, is great enough or good enough to make itself the final end of human
existence."
Although he rarely uses the term "American [neoliberal] empire", and I think never terms "Washington
consensus", "debt slavery", or neoliberalism.
Worth reviewing if you haven't seen it . It's dumbfounding how some Ukrainians today lionize
the Nazi vermin who murdered their ancestors The woman. in the cover photo I wonder who she mourns .
Good article, and good to keep the numbers in perspective:
6,000,000 Ukrainians fought in the ranks of the Red Army against Nazi Germany.
A piddly 100,000 Ukrainian UPA fighters fought in the ranks of Nazi Germany against the
Soviet Union.
Everything will come out in the wash. Once Ukraine is reunited with Russia, it will be the
6 million who are honored; and the much smaller number (100K) will be cast aside with scorn as
the vicious traitors that they were.
You know the pressure will be on now, from the State Department and other US sources, for European
leaders to get their populations in line and start singing from the same song sheet again. Gonna
be a tough sell in Germany, though.
So far none of the American promises about laying waste to Russia has come about. Generally
speaking I find that if you announce "THIS is going to happen", and then you have to keep coming
back to it and doing more stuff to shore it up and make it happen, then your initial plan sucked.
"... The consolidation of the states into one vast empire, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of ruin which has overwhelmed all that preceded it." Robert E. Lee ..."
"... Then came the vast empire, the phenomenal increase in the power and reach of the federal government, which really means the Northeast Corridor. The Supreme Court expanded and expanded and expanded the authority of Washington, New York's store-front operation. The federals now decided what could be taught in the schools, what religious practices could be permitted, what standards employers could use in hiring, who they had to hire. The media coalesced into a small number of corporations, controlled from New York but with national reach. More recently we have added surveillance of everything by Washington's intelligence agencies. ..."
"... Tyranny at home, said said General Lee . Just so. This could happen only with the consolidation of the states into one vast empire. ..."
"... Aggressive abroad, said General Lee. Is this not exactly what we see? At this moment Washington has the better part of a thousand military bases around the world, unnecessary except for the maintenance of empire. America exists in a state of constant war, bombing Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Somalia, recently having destroyed Iraq and Libya. Washington threatens Iran, North Korea, Russia, and China. Its military moves deeper into Africa. Washington sanctions Cuba, Russia, North Korea, and Iran, to no effect. It constantly tries to dominate other nations, for example adding to NATO. ..."
"... In a confederacy, states would have to approve a war. Few would unless the United States itself were threatened. ..."
"... But with a central government, those benefiting from war can concentrate money and influence only on that government. For example, military industry, Israel, big oil, Wall Street. Wars might carry the votes of states with arms factories. Other states would decline. ..."
"... In principle, the Constitution should have prevented the hijacking of the military that we now suffer. As we all should know, and some do, America cannot under the Constitution go to war without a declaration by Congress, the last one of which occurred in 1941. ..."
"... And thus, just as Marse Bob expected, the federals are out of control and make war without the least reference to the nation. If America attacks North Korea, or Russia, or China, we will read of it the day after. The central government, and only the central government, decides. ..."
"... A few days ago I read that the Pentagon contemplates sending thousands of additional troops to Afghanistan. This combines tyranny at home and aggression abroad. Who wants to send them? A few neocons in New York, the arms industry, a few generals, and several senators. It could not happen in a confederacy. ..."
"The consolidation of the states into one vast empire, sure to be aggressive abroad and
despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of ruin which has overwhelmed all that preceded
it." Robert E. Lee
The man was perceptive. Amalgamation of the states under a central government has led to exactly
the effects foreseen by General Lee.
In, say, 1950, to an appreciable though imperfect extent America resembled a confederacy. Different
regions of the America had little contact with each other, and almost no influence over one another.
The federal government was small and remote. Interstates did not exist, nor of course the internet,
nor even direct long-distance telephone dialing. West Virginia, Alabama, Massachusetts, New York
City, Texas, and California had little in common, but little conflict arose since for practical purposes
they were almost different countries. They chiefly governed themselves. The proportion of federal
to state law was small.
It is important to note that regional differences were great. In 1964 in rural Virginia, the boys
brought shotguns to school during deer season. Nobody shot anybody because it wasn't in the culture.
The culture was uniform, so no one was upset. It is when cultures are mixed, or one rules another,
that antagonism comes. Such shotgun freedom would not have worked in New York City with its variegated
and often mutually hostile ethnicities.
Regions differed importantly in degree of freedom, not just in the freedom of local populations
to govern themselves but also in individual freedom. It made a large difference in the tenor of life.
If in Texas, rural Virginia, or West Virginia you wanted to build an addition to your house, you
did. You didn't need licenses, permits, inspections, union-certified electricians. Speed limits?
Largely ignored. Federal requirements for Coast Guard approved flotation devices on your canoe? What
the hell kind of crazy idea was that?
Democracy works better the smaller the group practicing it. In a town, people can actually understand
the questions of the day. They know what matters to them. Do we build a new school, or expand the
existing one? Do we want our children to recite the pledge of allegiance, or don't we? Reenact the
Battle of Antietam? Sing Christmas carols in the town square? We can decide these things. Leave us
alone.
States similarly knew what their people wanted and, within the limits of human frailty, governed
accordingly.
Then came the vast empire, the phenomenal increase in the power and reach of the federal government,
which really means the Northeast Corridor. The Supreme Court expanded and expanded and expanded the
authority of Washington, New York's store-front operation. The federals now decided what could be
taught in the schools, what religious practices could be permitted, what standards employers could
use in hiring, who they had to hire. The media coalesced into a small number of corporations, controlled
from New York but with national reach. More recently we have added surveillance of everything by
Washington's intelligence agencies.
Tyranny at home, said said General Lee . Just so. This could happen only with the consolidation
of the states into one vast empire.
Tyranny comes easily when those seeking it need only corrupt a single Congress, appoint a single
Supreme Court, or control the departments of one executive branch. In a confederation of largely
self-governing states, those hungry to domineer would have to suborn fifty congresses. It could not
be done. State governments are accessible to the governed. They can be ejected. They are much more
likely to be sympathetic to the desires of their constituents since they are of the same culture.
Aggressive abroad, said General Lee. Is this not exactly what we see? At this moment Washington
has the better part of a thousand military bases around the world, unnecessary except for the maintenance
of empire. America exists in a state of constant war, bombing Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Somalia,
recently having destroyed Iraq and Libya. Washington threatens Iran, North Korea, Russia, and China.
Its military moves deeper into Africa. Washington sanctions Cuba, Russia, North Korea, and Iran,
to no effect. It constantly tries to dominate other nations, for example adding to NATO.
None of these wars and little if any of the imperial aggression interests more than a tiny fraction
of the country's people. To whom can the war against Afghanistan matter? Libya? Few people have heard
of Montenegro. Does its membership in NATO or lack of it affect Idaho?
In a confederacy, states would have to approve a war. Few would unless the United States itself
were threatened. They might well refuse to pay for wars not in their benefit, or to allow their
sons, daughters, and transgenders to be conscripted.
But with a central government, those benefiting from war can concentrate money and influence
only on that government. For example, military industry, Israel, big oil, Wall Street. Wars might
carry the votes of states with arms factories. Other states would decline.
In principle, the Constitution should have prevented the hijacking of the military that we
now suffer. As we all should know, and some do, America cannot under the Constitution go to war without
a declaration by Congress, the last one of which occurred in 1941. But a single central government
can be corrupted more easily than fifty state governments. A few billionaires, well-funded lobbies,
and the remoteness of Washington from the common consciousness make controlling the legislature as
easy as buying a pair of shoes.
And thus, just as Marse Bob expected, the federals are out of control and make war without
the least reference to the nation. If America attacks North Korea, or Russia, or China, we will read
of it the day after. The central government, and only the central government, decides.
A few days ago I read that the Pentagon contemplates sending thousands of additional troops
to Afghanistan. This combines tyranny at home and aggression abroad. Who wants to send them? A few
neocons in New York, the arms industry, a few generals, and several senators. It could not happen
in a confederacy.
Will this, as General Lee predicted, prove "the certain precursor of ruin which has overwhelmed
all that preceded it. " ? Wait.
"... In the meantime, in foreign-policy circles at least, a second, less explosive term vies with resistance for Trump-era signature status. This development deserves more attention than it has attracted, especially among those who believe that alongside the question that riles up the resistance-namely, what values define us?-sits another question of comparable importance: "What principles define America's role in the world?" ..."
"... So Robert Kagan of the Brookings Institution, describing what he refers to as the "twilight of the liberal world order," worries about the passing of "the open international economic system the United States created and helped sustain." Donald Trump's misguided emphasis on "America First," Kagan writes, suggests that he has no interest in "attempting to uphold liberal norms in the international system" or in "preserving an open economic order." ..."
"... In Foreign Policy, Colin Kahl and Hal Brands embellish the point: Trump's strategic vision "diverges significantly from-and intentionally subverts-the bipartisan consensus underpinning U.S. foreign policy since World War II." Failing to "subscribe to the long-held belief that 'American exceptionalism' and U.S. leadership are intertwined," Trump is hostile to the "open, rule-based international economy" that his predecessors nurtured and sustained. ..."
"... After 9/11, when George W. Bush and his associates authorized the "enhanced interrogation" of those held in secret prisons, panic rather than sadism prompted their actions. Even for the most egregious folly, in other words, there is always some explanation, however inadequate. ..."
"... My point is not to charge ŕ la Noam Chomsky that every action undertaken by the United States government is inherently nefarious. Rather, I am suggesting that to depict postwar U.S. policy in terms employed by the pundits quoted above is to whitewash the past. Whether their motive is to deceive or merely to evade discomfiting facts is beside the point. What they are peddling belongs to the universe of alt facts. To characterize American statecraft as "liberal internationalism" is akin to describing the business of Hollywood as "artistic excellence." ..."
"... More fundamentally, Trump's conception of a usable past differs radically from that favored in establishment quarters. Put simply, the 45th president does not subscribe to the imperative of sustaining American hegemony because he does not subscribe to the establishment's narrative of 20th-century history. According to that canonical narrative, exertions by the United States in a sequence of conflicts dating from 1914 and ending in 1989 enabled good to triumph over evil. Absent these American efforts, evil would have prevailed. Contained within that parable-like story, members of the establishment believe, are the lessons that should guide U.S. policy in the 21st century. ..."
"... However ill-suited by intellect, temperament, and character for the office he holds, Trump has seemingly intuited the need for such change. ..."
During the Age of Trump, Year One, a single word has emerged to capture the essence of the prevailing
cultural mood: resistance . Words matter, and the prominence of this particular term illuminates
the moment in which we find ourselves.
All presidents, regardless of party or program, face criticism and opposition .
Citizens disinclined to support that program protest . Marching, chanting, waving placards,
and generally raising a ruckus in front of any available camera, they express dissent . In
normal times, such activism testifies to the health of democracy.
Yet these are not normal times. In the eyes of Trump's opponents, his elevation to the pinnacle
of American politics constitutes a frontal assault on values that until quite recently appeared fixed
and unassailable. In such distressing circumstances, mere criticism, opposition, protest, and dissent
will not suffice. By their own lights, anti-Trump forces are fending off the apocalypse. As in November
1860 so too in November 2016, the outcome of a presidential election has placed at risk a way of
life.
The very word resistance conjures up memories of the brave souls who during World War II opposed
the Nazi occupation of their homelands, with the French maquis the best known example. It
carries with it an unmistakable whiff of gunpowder. After resistance comes revolution.
Simply put, Trump's most ardent opponents see him as an existential threat, with the clock ticking.
Thus the stakes could hardly be higher. Richard Parker of Harvard has conjured what he calls Resistance
School, which in three months has signed up some 30,000 anti-Trump resistors from 49 states and 33
countries. "It is our attempt to begin the long slow process of recovering and rebuilding our democracy,"
says Parker. Another group styling itself the DJT Resistance declares that Trump represents "Hatred,
Bigotry, Xenophobia, Sexism, Racism, and Greed."
This is not language suggesting the possibility of dialogue or compromise. Indeed, in such quarters
references to incipient fascism have become commonplace. Comparisons between Trump and Hitler abound.
"It takes willful blindness," writes Paul Krugman in the New York Times, "not to see the parallels
between the rise of fascism and our current political nightmare." And time is running short. Journalist
Chris Hedges says "a last chance for resistance" is already at hand.
In the meantime, in foreign-policy circles at least, a second, less explosive term vies with
resistance for Trump-era signature status. This development deserves more attention than it has attracted,
especially among those who believe that alongside the question that riles up the resistance-namely,
what values define us?-sits another question of comparable importance: "What principles define America's
role in the world?"
That second term, now creeping into the vocabulary of foreign-policy specialists, is liberal
, often used interchangeably with the phrase rules-based and accompanied by additional
modifiers such as open , international , and normative. All of these serve as
synonyms for enlightened and good .
So Robert Kagan of the Brookings Institution, describing what he refers to as the "twilight
of the liberal world order," worries about the passing of "the open international economic system
the United States created and helped sustain." Donald Trump's misguided emphasis on "America First,"
Kagan writes, suggests that he has no interest in "attempting to uphold liberal norms in the international
system" or in "preserving an open economic order."
Commenting on Trump's Inaugural Address, Nicole Gaouette, CNN national-security reporter,
expresses her dismay that it contained "no reference to America's traditional role as a global leader
and shaper of international norms." Similarly, a report in the Financial Times bemoans what
it sees as "a clear signal about Mr. Trump's disregard for many of the international norms that have
governed America as the pillar of the liberal economic order." The historian Jeremi Suri, barely
a week into Trump's presidency , charges Trump with "launching a direct attack on the liberal
international order that really made America great after the depths of the Great Depression." At
the Council on Foreign Relations, Stewart Patrick concurs: Trump's election, he writes, "imperils
the liberal international order that America has championed since World War II." Thomas Wright, another
Brookings scholar, piles on: Trump "wants to undo the liberal international order the United States
built and replace it with a 19th-century model of nationalism and mercantilism."
In Foreign Policy, Colin Kahl and Hal Brands embellish the point: Trump's strategic vision
"diverges significantly from-and intentionally subverts-the bipartisan consensus underpinning U.S.
foreign policy since World War II." Failing to "subscribe to the long-held belief that 'American
exceptionalism' and U.S. leadership are intertwined," Trump is hostile to the "open, rule-based international
economy" that his predecessors nurtured and sustained.
Need more? Let Gen. David Petraeus have the last word: "To keep the peace," the soldier-turned-investment-banker
writes in an essay entitled "America Must Stand Tall," the United States has established "a system
of global alliances and security commitments," thereby nurturing "an open, free and rules-based international
economic order." To discard this legacy, he suggests, would be catastrophic.
You get the drift. Liberalism, along with norms, rules, openness, and internationalism: these
ostensibly define the postwar and post-Cold War tradition of American statecraft. Allow Trump to
scrap that tradition and you can say farewell to what Stewart Patrick refers to as "the global community
under the rule of law" that the United States has upheld for decades.
But what does this heartwarming perspective exclude? We can answer that question with a single
word: history.
Or, somewhat more expansively, among the items failing to qualify for mention in the liberal internationalist,
rules-based version of past U.S. policy are the following: meddling in foreign elections; coups and
assassination plots in Iran, Guatemala, the Congo, Cuba, South Vietnam, Chile, Nicaragua, and elsewhere;
indiscriminate aerial bombing campaigns in North Korea and throughout Southeast Asia; a nuclear arms
race bringing the world to the brink of Armageddon; support for corrupt, authoritarian regimes in
Iran, Turkey, Greece, South Korea, South Vietnam, the Philippines, Brazil, Egypt, Nicaragua, El Salvador,
and elsewhere-many of them abandoned when deemed inconvenient; the shielding of illegal activities
through the use of the Security Council veto; unlawful wars launched under false pretenses; "extraordinary
rendition," torture, and the indefinite imprisonment of persons without any semblance of due process.
Granted, for each of these, there was a rationale, rooted in a set of identifiable assumptions,
ambitions, and fears. The CIA did not conspire with Britain's MI6 in 1953 to overthrow Iran's democratically
elected president just for the hell of it. It did so because shelving Mohammad Mosaddegh seemingly
offered the prospect of eliminating an annoying problem. In 1965, Lyndon Johnson did not commit U.S.
combat troops to South Vietnam because he was keen to fight a major ground war in Asia but because
the consequences of simply allowing events to take their course looked to be even worse. After 9/11,
when George W. Bush and his associates authorized the "enhanced interrogation" of those held in secret
prisons, panic rather than sadism prompted their actions. Even for the most egregious folly, in other
words, there is always some explanation, however inadequate.
Yet collectively, the actions and episodes enumerated above do not suggest a nation committed
to liberalism, openness, or the rule of law. What they reveal instead is a pattern of behavior common
to all great powers in just about any era: following the rules when it serves their interest to do
so; disregarding the rules whenever they become an impediment. Some regimes are nastier than others,
but all are law-abiding when the law works to their benefit and not one day longer. Even Hitler's
Third Reich and Stalin's USSR punctiliously observed the terms of their non-aggression pact as long
as it suited both parties to do so.
My point is not to charge ŕ la Noam Chomsky that every action undertaken by the United States
government is inherently nefarious. Rather, I am suggesting that to depict postwar U.S. policy in
terms employed by the pundits quoted above is to whitewash the past. Whether their motive is to deceive
or merely to evade discomfiting facts is beside the point. What they are peddling belongs to the
universe of alt facts. To characterize American statecraft as "liberal internationalism" is akin
to describing the business of Hollywood as "artistic excellence."
"Invocations of the 'rules-based international order,'" Politico's Susan Glasser rightly
observes, "had never before caused such teary-eyed nostalgia." Whence comes this sudden nostalgia
for something that never actually existed? The answer is self-evident: it's a response to Donald
Trump.
Prior to Trump's arrival on the scene, few members of the foreign-policy elite, now apparently
smitten with norms, fancied that the United States was engaged in creating any such order. America's
purpose was not to promulgate rules but to police an informal empire that during the Cold War encompassed
the "Free World" and became more expansive still once the Cold War ended. The pre-Trump Kagan, writing
in 2012, neatly summarizes that view:
The existence of the American hegemon has forced all other powers to exercise unusual restraint,
curb normal ambitions, and avoid actions that might lead to the formation of a U.S.-led coalition
of the kind that defeated Germany twice, Japan once, and the Soviet Union, more peacefully, in
the Cold War.
Leave aside the dubious assertions and half-truths contained within that sentence and focus on
its central claim: the United States as a hegemon that forces other nations to bend to its will.
Strip away the blather about rules and norms and here you come to the essence of what troubles Kagan
and others who purport to worry about the passing of "liberal internationalism." Their concern is
not that Trump won't show adequate respect for rules and norms. What has them all in a lather is
that he appears disinclined to perpetuate American hegemony.
More fundamentally, Trump's conception of a usable past differs radically from that favored in
establishment quarters. Put simply, the 45th president does not subscribe to the imperative of sustaining
American hegemony because he does not subscribe to the establishment's narrative of 20th-century
history. According to that canonical narrative, exertions by the United States in a sequence of conflicts
dating from 1914 and ending in 1989 enabled good to triumph over evil. Absent these American efforts,
evil would have prevailed. Contained within that parable-like story, members of the establishment
believe, are the lessons that should guide U.S. policy in the 21st century.
Trump doesn't see it that way, as his appropriation of the historically loaded phrase "America
First" attests. In his view, what might have occurred had the United States not waged war
against Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan and had it not subsequently confronted the Soviet Union matters
less than what did occur when the assertion of hegemonic prerogatives found the United States
invading Iraq in 2003 with disastrous results.
In effect, Trump dismisses the lessons of the 20th century as irrelevant to the 21st. Crucially,
he goes a step further by questioning the moral basis for past U.S. actions. Thus, his extraordinary
response to a TV host's charge that Russian President Vladimir Putin is a killer. "There are a lot
of killers," Trump retorted. "We've got a lot of killers. What, you think our country is so innocent?"
In offering this one brief remark, Trump thereby committed the ultimate heresy. Of course, no serious
person believes that the United States is literally innocent. What members of the foreign-policy
establishment-including past commanders-in-chief-have insisted is that the United States act
as if it were innocent, with prior sins expunged and America's slate wiped clean. This describes
the ultimate U.S. perquisite and explains why, in the eyes of Robert Kagan et al., Russian actions
in Crimea, Ukraine, or Syria count for so much while American actions in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya
count for so little.
The desperate exercise in historical revisionism that now credits the United States with having
sought all along to create a global community under the rule of law represents that establishment's
response to the heresies Trump has been spouting (and tweeting) since his famous ride down the escalator
at Trump Tower.
Yet in reclassifying yesterday's hegemon as today's promulgator and respecter of norms, members
of that establishment perpetrate a fraud. Whether Americans, notably gullible when it comes to history,
will fall for this charade remains to be seen. Thus far at least, Trump himself, who probably knows
a thing or two about snake-oil salesmen, shows little inclination to take the bait.
Say this for the anti-Trump resistance: while the fascism-just-around-the-corner rhetoric may
be overheated and a touch overwrought, it qualifies as forthright and heartfelt. While not sharing
the view that Trump will rob Americans of their freedoms, I neither question the sincerity nor doubt
the passion of those who believe otherwise. Indeed, I am grateful to them for acting so forcefully
on their convictions. They are inspiring.
Not so with those who now wring their hands about the passing of the fictive liberal international
order credited to enlightened American statecraft. They are engaged in a great scam, working assiduously
to sustain the pretense that the world of 2017 remains essentially what it was in 1937 or 1947 or
1957 when it is not.
Today's Russia is not a reincarnation of the Soviet Union; the People's Republic of China is not
Imperial Japan; and the Islamic State in no way compares to Nazi Germany. Most of all, United States
in the era of Donald Trump is not the nation that elected Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and Dwight
Eisenhower, not least of all in the greatly reduced willingness of Americans to serve as instruments
of state power, as the failed post-9/11 assertions of hegemony have demonstrated.
The world has changed in fundamental ways. So too has the United States. Those changes require
that the principles guiding U.S. policy also change accordingly.
However ill-suited by intellect, temperament, and character for the office he holds, Trump has
seemingly intuited the need for such change. In this regard, if in none other, I'm with the Donald.
But note the irony. Trump may come closer to full-fledged historical illiteracy than any president
since Warren G. Harding. Small wonder then that his rejection of the mythic past long employed to
preempt serious debate regarding U.S. policy gives fits to the perpetrators of those myths.
Worth reviewing if you haven't seen it . It's dumbfounding how some Ukrainians today lionize
the Nazi vermin who murdered their ancestors The woman. in the cover photo I wonder who she mourns .
Good article, and good to keep the numbers in perspective:
6,000,000 Ukrainians fought in the ranks of the Red Army against Nazi Germany.
A piddly 100,000 Ukrainian UPA fighters fought in the ranks of Nazi Germany against the
Soviet Union.
Everything will come out in the wash. Once Ukraine is reunited with Russia, it will be the
6 million who are honored; and the much smaller number (100K) will be cast aside with scorn as
the vicious traitors that they were.
You know the pressure will be on now, from the State Department and other US sources, for European
leaders to get their populations in line and start singing from the same song sheet again. Gonna
be a tough sell in Germany, though.
So far none of the American promises about laying waste to Russia has come about. Generally
speaking I find that if you announce "THIS is going to happen", and then you have to keep coming
back to it and doing more stuff to shore it up and make it happen, then your initial plan sucked.
"... The consolidation of the states into one vast empire, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of ruin which has overwhelmed all that preceded it." Robert E. Lee ..."
"... Then came the vast empire, the phenomenal increase in the power and reach of the federal government, which really means the Northeast Corridor. The Supreme Court expanded and expanded and expanded the authority of Washington, New York's store-front operation. The federals now decided what could be taught in the schools, what religious practices could be permitted, what standards employers could use in hiring, who they had to hire. The media coalesced into a small number of corporations, controlled from New York but with national reach. More recently we have added surveillance of everything by Washington's intelligence agencies. ..."
"... Tyranny at home, said said General Lee . Just so. This could happen only with the consolidation of the states into one vast empire. ..."
"... Aggressive abroad, said General Lee. Is this not exactly what we see? At this moment Washington has the better part of a thousand military bases around the world, unnecessary except for the maintenance of empire. America exists in a state of constant war, bombing Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Somalia, recently having destroyed Iraq and Libya. Washington threatens Iran, North Korea, Russia, and China. Its military moves deeper into Africa. Washington sanctions Cuba, Russia, North Korea, and Iran, to no effect. It constantly tries to dominate other nations, for example adding to NATO. ..."
"... In a confederacy, states would have to approve a war. Few would unless the United States itself were threatened. ..."
"... But with a central government, those benefiting from war can concentrate money and influence only on that government. For example, military industry, Israel, big oil, Wall Street. Wars might carry the votes of states with arms factories. Other states would decline. ..."
"... In principle, the Constitution should have prevented the hijacking of the military that we now suffer. As we all should know, and some do, America cannot under the Constitution go to war without a declaration by Congress, the last one of which occurred in 1941. ..."
"... And thus, just as Marse Bob expected, the federals are out of control and make war without the least reference to the nation. If America attacks North Korea, or Russia, or China, we will read of it the day after. The central government, and only the central government, decides. ..."
"... A few days ago I read that the Pentagon contemplates sending thousands of additional troops to Afghanistan. This combines tyranny at home and aggression abroad. Who wants to send them? A few neocons in New York, the arms industry, a few generals, and several senators. It could not happen in a confederacy. ..."
"The consolidation of the states into one vast empire, sure to be aggressive abroad and
despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of ruin which has overwhelmed all that preceded
it." Robert E. Lee
The man was perceptive. Amalgamation of the states under a central government has led to exactly
the effects foreseen by General Lee.
In, say, 1950, to an appreciable though imperfect extent America resembled a confederacy. Different
regions of the America had little contact with each other, and almost no influence over one another.
The federal government was small and remote. Interstates did not exist, nor of course the internet,
nor even direct long-distance telephone dialing. West Virginia, Alabama, Massachusetts, New York
City, Texas, and California had little in common, but little conflict arose since for practical purposes
they were almost different countries. They chiefly governed themselves. The proportion of federal
to state law was small.
It is important to note that regional differences were great. In 1964 in rural Virginia, the boys
brought shotguns to school during deer season. Nobody shot anybody because it wasn't in the culture.
The culture was uniform, so no one was upset. It is when cultures are mixed, or one rules another,
that antagonism comes. Such shotgun freedom would not have worked in New York City with its variegated
and often mutually hostile ethnicities.
Regions differed importantly in degree of freedom, not just in the freedom of local populations
to govern themselves but also in individual freedom. It made a large difference in the tenor of life.
If in Texas, rural Virginia, or West Virginia you wanted to build an addition to your house, you
did. You didn't need licenses, permits, inspections, union-certified electricians. Speed limits?
Largely ignored. Federal requirements for Coast Guard approved flotation devices on your canoe? What
the hell kind of crazy idea was that?
Democracy works better the smaller the group practicing it. In a town, people can actually understand
the questions of the day. They know what matters to them. Do we build a new school, or expand the
existing one? Do we want our children to recite the pledge of allegiance, or don't we? Reenact the
Battle of Antietam? Sing Christmas carols in the town square? We can decide these things. Leave us
alone.
States similarly knew what their people wanted and, within the limits of human frailty, governed
accordingly.
Then came the vast empire, the phenomenal increase in the power and reach of the federal government,
which really means the Northeast Corridor. The Supreme Court expanded and expanded and expanded the
authority of Washington, New York's store-front operation. The federals now decided what could be
taught in the schools, what religious practices could be permitted, what standards employers could
use in hiring, who they had to hire. The media coalesced into a small number of corporations, controlled
from New York but with national reach. More recently we have added surveillance of everything by
Washington's intelligence agencies.
Tyranny at home, said said General Lee . Just so. This could happen only with the consolidation
of the states into one vast empire.
Tyranny comes easily when those seeking it need only corrupt a single Congress, appoint a single
Supreme Court, or control the departments of one executive branch. In a confederation of largely
self-governing states, those hungry to domineer would have to suborn fifty congresses. It could not
be done. State governments are accessible to the governed. They can be ejected. They are much more
likely to be sympathetic to the desires of their constituents since they are of the same culture.
Aggressive abroad, said General Lee. Is this not exactly what we see? At this moment Washington
has the better part of a thousand military bases around the world, unnecessary except for the maintenance
of empire. America exists in a state of constant war, bombing Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Somalia,
recently having destroyed Iraq and Libya. Washington threatens Iran, North Korea, Russia, and China.
Its military moves deeper into Africa. Washington sanctions Cuba, Russia, North Korea, and Iran,
to no effect. It constantly tries to dominate other nations, for example adding to NATO.
None of these wars and little if any of the imperial aggression interests more than a tiny fraction
of the country's people. To whom can the war against Afghanistan matter? Libya? Few people have heard
of Montenegro. Does its membership in NATO or lack of it affect Idaho?
In a confederacy, states would have to approve a war. Few would unless the United States itself
were threatened. They might well refuse to pay for wars not in their benefit, or to allow their
sons, daughters, and transgenders to be conscripted.
But with a central government, those benefiting from war can concentrate money and influence
only on that government. For example, military industry, Israel, big oil, Wall Street. Wars might
carry the votes of states with arms factories. Other states would decline.
In principle, the Constitution should have prevented the hijacking of the military that we
now suffer. As we all should know, and some do, America cannot under the Constitution go to war without
a declaration by Congress, the last one of which occurred in 1941. But a single central government
can be corrupted more easily than fifty state governments. A few billionaires, well-funded lobbies,
and the remoteness of Washington from the common consciousness make controlling the legislature as
easy as buying a pair of shoes.
And thus, just as Marse Bob expected, the federals are out of control and make war without
the least reference to the nation. If America attacks North Korea, or Russia, or China, we will read
of it the day after. The central government, and only the central government, decides.
A few days ago I read that the Pentagon contemplates sending thousands of additional troops
to Afghanistan. This combines tyranny at home and aggression abroad. Who wants to send them? A few
neocons in New York, the arms industry, a few generals, and several senators. It could not happen
in a confederacy.
Will this, as General Lee predicted, prove "the certain precursor of ruin which has overwhelmed
all that preceded it. " ? Wait.
"... In the meantime, in foreign-policy circles at least, a second, less explosive term vies with resistance for Trump-era signature status. This development deserves more attention than it has attracted, especially among those who believe that alongside the question that riles up the resistance-namely, what values define us?-sits another question of comparable importance: "What principles define America's role in the world?" ..."
"... So Robert Kagan of the Brookings Institution, describing what he refers to as the "twilight of the liberal world order," worries about the passing of "the open international economic system the United States created and helped sustain." Donald Trump's misguided emphasis on "America First," Kagan writes, suggests that he has no interest in "attempting to uphold liberal norms in the international system" or in "preserving an open economic order." ..."
"... In Foreign Policy, Colin Kahl and Hal Brands embellish the point: Trump's strategic vision "diverges significantly from-and intentionally subverts-the bipartisan consensus underpinning U.S. foreign policy since World War II." Failing to "subscribe to the long-held belief that 'American exceptionalism' and U.S. leadership are intertwined," Trump is hostile to the "open, rule-based international economy" that his predecessors nurtured and sustained. ..."
"... After 9/11, when George W. Bush and his associates authorized the "enhanced interrogation" of those held in secret prisons, panic rather than sadism prompted their actions. Even for the most egregious folly, in other words, there is always some explanation, however inadequate. ..."
"... My point is not to charge ŕ la Noam Chomsky that every action undertaken by the United States government is inherently nefarious. Rather, I am suggesting that to depict postwar U.S. policy in terms employed by the pundits quoted above is to whitewash the past. Whether their motive is to deceive or merely to evade discomfiting facts is beside the point. What they are peddling belongs to the universe of alt facts. To characterize American statecraft as "liberal internationalism" is akin to describing the business of Hollywood as "artistic excellence." ..."
"... More fundamentally, Trump's conception of a usable past differs radically from that favored in establishment quarters. Put simply, the 45th president does not subscribe to the imperative of sustaining American hegemony because he does not subscribe to the establishment's narrative of 20th-century history. According to that canonical narrative, exertions by the United States in a sequence of conflicts dating from 1914 and ending in 1989 enabled good to triumph over evil. Absent these American efforts, evil would have prevailed. Contained within that parable-like story, members of the establishment believe, are the lessons that should guide U.S. policy in the 21st century. ..."
"... However ill-suited by intellect, temperament, and character for the office he holds, Trump has seemingly intuited the need for such change. ..."
During the Age of Trump, Year One, a single word has emerged to capture the essence of the prevailing
cultural mood: resistance . Words matter, and the prominence of this particular term illuminates
the moment in which we find ourselves.
All presidents, regardless of party or program, face criticism and opposition .
Citizens disinclined to support that program protest . Marching, chanting, waving placards,
and generally raising a ruckus in front of any available camera, they express dissent . In
normal times, such activism testifies to the health of democracy.
Yet these are not normal times. In the eyes of Trump's opponents, his elevation to the pinnacle
of American politics constitutes a frontal assault on values that until quite recently appeared fixed
and unassailable. In such distressing circumstances, mere criticism, opposition, protest, and dissent
will not suffice. By their own lights, anti-Trump forces are fending off the apocalypse. As in November
1860 so too in November 2016, the outcome of a presidential election has placed at risk a way of
life.
The very word resistance conjures up memories of the brave souls who during World War II opposed
the Nazi occupation of their homelands, with the French maquis the best known example. It
carries with it an unmistakable whiff of gunpowder. After resistance comes revolution.
Simply put, Trump's most ardent opponents see him as an existential threat, with the clock ticking.
Thus the stakes could hardly be higher. Richard Parker of Harvard has conjured what he calls Resistance
School, which in three months has signed up some 30,000 anti-Trump resistors from 49 states and 33
countries. "It is our attempt to begin the long slow process of recovering and rebuilding our democracy,"
says Parker. Another group styling itself the DJT Resistance declares that Trump represents "Hatred,
Bigotry, Xenophobia, Sexism, Racism, and Greed."
This is not language suggesting the possibility of dialogue or compromise. Indeed, in such quarters
references to incipient fascism have become commonplace. Comparisons between Trump and Hitler abound.
"It takes willful blindness," writes Paul Krugman in the New York Times, "not to see the parallels
between the rise of fascism and our current political nightmare." And time is running short. Journalist
Chris Hedges says "a last chance for resistance" is already at hand.
In the meantime, in foreign-policy circles at least, a second, less explosive term vies with
resistance for Trump-era signature status. This development deserves more attention than it has attracted,
especially among those who believe that alongside the question that riles up the resistance-namely,
what values define us?-sits another question of comparable importance: "What principles define America's
role in the world?"
That second term, now creeping into the vocabulary of foreign-policy specialists, is liberal
, often used interchangeably with the phrase rules-based and accompanied by additional
modifiers such as open , international , and normative. All of these serve as
synonyms for enlightened and good .
So Robert Kagan of the Brookings Institution, describing what he refers to as the "twilight
of the liberal world order," worries about the passing of "the open international economic system
the United States created and helped sustain." Donald Trump's misguided emphasis on "America First,"
Kagan writes, suggests that he has no interest in "attempting to uphold liberal norms in the international
system" or in "preserving an open economic order."
Commenting on Trump's Inaugural Address, Nicole Gaouette, CNN national-security reporter,
expresses her dismay that it contained "no reference to America's traditional role as a global leader
and shaper of international norms." Similarly, a report in the Financial Times bemoans what
it sees as "a clear signal about Mr. Trump's disregard for many of the international norms that have
governed America as the pillar of the liberal economic order." The historian Jeremi Suri, barely
a week into Trump's presidency , charges Trump with "launching a direct attack on the liberal
international order that really made America great after the depths of the Great Depression." At
the Council on Foreign Relations, Stewart Patrick concurs: Trump's election, he writes, "imperils
the liberal international order that America has championed since World War II." Thomas Wright, another
Brookings scholar, piles on: Trump "wants to undo the liberal international order the United States
built and replace it with a 19th-century model of nationalism and mercantilism."
In Foreign Policy, Colin Kahl and Hal Brands embellish the point: Trump's strategic vision
"diverges significantly from-and intentionally subverts-the bipartisan consensus underpinning U.S.
foreign policy since World War II." Failing to "subscribe to the long-held belief that 'American
exceptionalism' and U.S. leadership are intertwined," Trump is hostile to the "open, rule-based international
economy" that his predecessors nurtured and sustained.
Need more? Let Gen. David Petraeus have the last word: "To keep the peace," the soldier-turned-investment-banker
writes in an essay entitled "America Must Stand Tall," the United States has established "a system
of global alliances and security commitments," thereby nurturing "an open, free and rules-based international
economic order." To discard this legacy, he suggests, would be catastrophic.
You get the drift. Liberalism, along with norms, rules, openness, and internationalism: these
ostensibly define the postwar and post-Cold War tradition of American statecraft. Allow Trump to
scrap that tradition and you can say farewell to what Stewart Patrick refers to as "the global community
under the rule of law" that the United States has upheld for decades.
But what does this heartwarming perspective exclude? We can answer that question with a single
word: history.
Or, somewhat more expansively, among the items failing to qualify for mention in the liberal internationalist,
rules-based version of past U.S. policy are the following: meddling in foreign elections; coups and
assassination plots in Iran, Guatemala, the Congo, Cuba, South Vietnam, Chile, Nicaragua, and elsewhere;
indiscriminate aerial bombing campaigns in North Korea and throughout Southeast Asia; a nuclear arms
race bringing the world to the brink of Armageddon; support for corrupt, authoritarian regimes in
Iran, Turkey, Greece, South Korea, South Vietnam, the Philippines, Brazil, Egypt, Nicaragua, El Salvador,
and elsewhere-many of them abandoned when deemed inconvenient; the shielding of illegal activities
through the use of the Security Council veto; unlawful wars launched under false pretenses; "extraordinary
rendition," torture, and the indefinite imprisonment of persons without any semblance of due process.
Granted, for each of these, there was a rationale, rooted in a set of identifiable assumptions,
ambitions, and fears. The CIA did not conspire with Britain's MI6 in 1953 to overthrow Iran's democratically
elected president just for the hell of it. It did so because shelving Mohammad Mosaddegh seemingly
offered the prospect of eliminating an annoying problem. In 1965, Lyndon Johnson did not commit U.S.
combat troops to South Vietnam because he was keen to fight a major ground war in Asia but because
the consequences of simply allowing events to take their course looked to be even worse. After 9/11,
when George W. Bush and his associates authorized the "enhanced interrogation" of those held in secret
prisons, panic rather than sadism prompted their actions. Even for the most egregious folly, in other
words, there is always some explanation, however inadequate.
Yet collectively, the actions and episodes enumerated above do not suggest a nation committed
to liberalism, openness, or the rule of law. What they reveal instead is a pattern of behavior common
to all great powers in just about any era: following the rules when it serves their interest to do
so; disregarding the rules whenever they become an impediment. Some regimes are nastier than others,
but all are law-abiding when the law works to their benefit and not one day longer. Even Hitler's
Third Reich and Stalin's USSR punctiliously observed the terms of their non-aggression pact as long
as it suited both parties to do so.
My point is not to charge ŕ la Noam Chomsky that every action undertaken by the United States
government is inherently nefarious. Rather, I am suggesting that to depict postwar U.S. policy in
terms employed by the pundits quoted above is to whitewash the past. Whether their motive is to deceive
or merely to evade discomfiting facts is beside the point. What they are peddling belongs to the
universe of alt facts. To characterize American statecraft as "liberal internationalism" is akin
to describing the business of Hollywood as "artistic excellence."
"Invocations of the 'rules-based international order,'" Politico's Susan Glasser rightly
observes, "had never before caused such teary-eyed nostalgia." Whence comes this sudden nostalgia
for something that never actually existed? The answer is self-evident: it's a response to Donald
Trump.
Prior to Trump's arrival on the scene, few members of the foreign-policy elite, now apparently
smitten with norms, fancied that the United States was engaged in creating any such order. America's
purpose was not to promulgate rules but to police an informal empire that during the Cold War encompassed
the "Free World" and became more expansive still once the Cold War ended. The pre-Trump Kagan, writing
in 2012, neatly summarizes that view:
The existence of the American hegemon has forced all other powers to exercise unusual restraint,
curb normal ambitions, and avoid actions that might lead to the formation of a U.S.-led coalition
of the kind that defeated Germany twice, Japan once, and the Soviet Union, more peacefully, in
the Cold War.
Leave aside the dubious assertions and half-truths contained within that sentence and focus on
its central claim: the United States as a hegemon that forces other nations to bend to its will.
Strip away the blather about rules and norms and here you come to the essence of what troubles Kagan
and others who purport to worry about the passing of "liberal internationalism." Their concern is
not that Trump won't show adequate respect for rules and norms. What has them all in a lather is
that he appears disinclined to perpetuate American hegemony.
More fundamentally, Trump's conception of a usable past differs radically from that favored in
establishment quarters. Put simply, the 45th president does not subscribe to the imperative of sustaining
American hegemony because he does not subscribe to the establishment's narrative of 20th-century
history. According to that canonical narrative, exertions by the United States in a sequence of conflicts
dating from 1914 and ending in 1989 enabled good to triumph over evil. Absent these American efforts,
evil would have prevailed. Contained within that parable-like story, members of the establishment
believe, are the lessons that should guide U.S. policy in the 21st century.
Trump doesn't see it that way, as his appropriation of the historically loaded phrase "America
First" attests. In his view, what might have occurred had the United States not waged war
against Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan and had it not subsequently confronted the Soviet Union matters
less than what did occur when the assertion of hegemonic prerogatives found the United States
invading Iraq in 2003 with disastrous results.
In effect, Trump dismisses the lessons of the 20th century as irrelevant to the 21st. Crucially,
he goes a step further by questioning the moral basis for past U.S. actions. Thus, his extraordinary
response to a TV host's charge that Russian President Vladimir Putin is a killer. "There are a lot
of killers," Trump retorted. "We've got a lot of killers. What, you think our country is so innocent?"
In offering this one brief remark, Trump thereby committed the ultimate heresy. Of course, no serious
person believes that the United States is literally innocent. What members of the foreign-policy
establishment-including past commanders-in-chief-have insisted is that the United States act
as if it were innocent, with prior sins expunged and America's slate wiped clean. This describes
the ultimate U.S. perquisite and explains why, in the eyes of Robert Kagan et al., Russian actions
in Crimea, Ukraine, or Syria count for so much while American actions in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya
count for so little.
The desperate exercise in historical revisionism that now credits the United States with having
sought all along to create a global community under the rule of law represents that establishment's
response to the heresies Trump has been spouting (and tweeting) since his famous ride down the escalator
at Trump Tower.
Yet in reclassifying yesterday's hegemon as today's promulgator and respecter of norms, members
of that establishment perpetrate a fraud. Whether Americans, notably gullible when it comes to history,
will fall for this charade remains to be seen. Thus far at least, Trump himself, who probably knows
a thing or two about snake-oil salesmen, shows little inclination to take the bait.
Say this for the anti-Trump resistance: while the fascism-just-around-the-corner rhetoric may
be overheated and a touch overwrought, it qualifies as forthright and heartfelt. While not sharing
the view that Trump will rob Americans of their freedoms, I neither question the sincerity nor doubt
the passion of those who believe otherwise. Indeed, I am grateful to them for acting so forcefully
on their convictions. They are inspiring.
Not so with those who now wring their hands about the passing of the fictive liberal international
order credited to enlightened American statecraft. They are engaged in a great scam, working assiduously
to sustain the pretense that the world of 2017 remains essentially what it was in 1937 or 1947 or
1957 when it is not.
Today's Russia is not a reincarnation of the Soviet Union; the People's Republic of China is not
Imperial Japan; and the Islamic State in no way compares to Nazi Germany. Most of all, United States
in the era of Donald Trump is not the nation that elected Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and Dwight
Eisenhower, not least of all in the greatly reduced willingness of Americans to serve as instruments
of state power, as the failed post-9/11 assertions of hegemony have demonstrated.
The world has changed in fundamental ways. So too has the United States. Those changes require
that the principles guiding U.S. policy also change accordingly.
However ill-suited by intellect, temperament, and character for the office he holds, Trump has
seemingly intuited the need for such change. In this regard, if in none other, I'm with the Donald.
But note the irony. Trump may come closer to full-fledged historical illiteracy than any president
since Warren G. Harding. Small wonder then that his rejection of the mythic past long employed to
preempt serious debate regarding U.S. policy gives fits to the perpetrators of those myths.
"... Spain in Our Hearts: Americans in the Spanish Civil War, 1936-1939, ..."
"... The Nazis and Franco were enablers of The Muslims. I fully support the complete destruction of the Nazi War Machine by Stalin's Army no f ..g apologies. ..."
"... Moral of the story: if the alt-right ever takes power, they should ditch neoliberalism and embrace national socialism. ..."
"... "Even though the authority of this government steadily declined, it would remain the key actor for the next 5 months, with responsibility for guiding the country and avoiding breakdown or civil war. It failed to meet these responsibilities because its priorities were, first, to maintain an exclusively all leftist government that rejected any compromise with the centre of moderate right and, second, to avoid any break with the revolutionaries because their support was necessary to remain in power. The Republic's first historian, the noted Catalan journalist Josep Pla, termed the strategy Azańa's "ideological Kerenskyism" referring to the Russian prime minister who fell to the Bolsheviks." ..."
"... The main goal of the Republican Party is to promote the vitality of Corporate America. If appealing to political correctness can get corporations good MSM press, to increased profits, they will promote that agenda even more vigorously than the statist in our government (and academia). Thus, the Republican party will treat the rest of us as expendable to that cause, and use war talk to distract us from our domestic problems of bad economics and racial balkanization with the whitey hating Afro Americans. ..."
"... The corporatist Republicans have become just as much the enemy to the people, that they are suppose to serve, as the statist Democrats. And that is why they will standby and give tacit approval to the Democrats that try to eliminate Trump. It is not so much Trump the man they fear as much as the interest of the voters he represents. ..."
"... Pinochet and Franco were just neoliberals given to fits of flag-waving. ..."
"... As the Trump interlude has amply demonstrated, formally occupying public office, in and of itself, does not really correlate with meaningful political control over policy. ..."
"... Bingo!!!! .you sir have nailed it .That's just another way of saying that Franco and Pinochet were anti-Nationalist Traitors yet some of the little twerps on the Alt Right are enamoured of these two filthy cockroaches ..."
"... I wish Allende had been the thug that Gringo makes him out to be for then Allende would have sent in Nationalist Death Squads to exterminate Pinochet and his neo-liberal Chicago Milton Friedman little cockroach economist Pineras in a soccer stadium It was Allende's commitment to the Chilean Constitution that was the very thing that drove him to his Suicide when the Pinochet Fascist Neo-Liberal Death Squads had him surrounded .. ..."
"... Allende was a Nationalist who pursued a independent path of economic development .and this was his great crime in the mind of War Criminal Henry Kissinger .The Coup proceeded forward .and continues this day in Chile .Chile is back on the neoliberal plantation . ..."
What Spain's Civil War Can Teach America's Patriots
This pattern has repeated across centuries. In
200 Years Together
, Alexander Solzhenitsyn described how
Communist revolutionaries
in Tsarist Russia were supported by
intellectual circles. Their young leadership often came from the privileged
classes, including a
significant number
of Jews. (Curiously,
200 Years Together
,
while it is available in French and German, has never been published in
English, although bootleg translations
circulate
on the
internet
.)
Now, however, there seems to be physical resistance
from the American Right. Perhaps the most important case: the "
Battle
of Berkeley
" last month, when a loose alliance of conservatives,
"Alt-Lite" free speech supporters and Alt-Right activists fought and beat an
Antifa attempt to shut down a demonstration. MSM reports suggest Antifa were
generally stunned when patriots fought back.
David Hines urges a "
National
Divorce
" before things get worse. I'd argue a "National Divorce" would
simply allow the Left a beachhead from which eventually to secure the entire
country. And it is unlikely even to work. It seems more likely there will be
a larger-scale conflict and political groups willing to use violence will
grow larger and more organized.
One of the most likely models of how the
polity could collapse into civil strife: the Spanish Civil War. The
September/October 2016 edition of
Foreign Affairs
,
a
publication of the Council on Foreign Relations,
featured a review
by Sebastian Faber of Adam Hochschild's
Spain in
Our Hearts: Americans in the Spanish Civil War, 1936-1939,
profiling
the
Abraham Lincoln Brigade
(or 15
th
International Brigade), a
pro-Communist force which fought for the Republic as "shock troops."
But what of the Right? If the
Spanish Civil War
were to serve as a template for a second American
Civil War, we should examine the two main rightist paramilitary groups in
Spain. They were the Carlists
,
a monarchist group, whose fighters
were known as
requetés
and considered the most fanatical fighters on the
Nationalist side, and the right-wing
Falange
(= Phalanx). They provided an important source of
manpower to the Nationalist Army.
On the eve of the Spanish Civil War, the
Falangists numbered about 40,000 men. The Carlists had at least 6,000 men in
Pamplona, Navarre and are estimated to have had a minimum of 10,000 men. All
day long on the second day of the war, conservative farmers streamed to
Pamplona to volunteer for the Carlist forces.
In the first days of the fighting, the
Nationalists relied heavily
on such militias:
regular soldiers were often outnumbered. At the
outset, the Carlists secured the region of Navarre. One column of 1,400 men,
mostly
requetés
, marched to Saragossa, to reinforce the army
garrison and secure the town.
Falangists contributed to the defense of the town of
Oviedo, in Asturias. The soldiers and Falangists
withstood a siege for months,
until relieved in mid-October, 1936. In
Toledo, Falangists contributed at least 200 men to the 1,300-man force
defending the Alcázar Fortress,
which
held out,
until relieved by Franco in late September, 1936. In August in
the Saragossa region, they had at least 2,000 men. In the
advance on Madrid
, the Falangists contributed a significant portion of
the 20,000 men who attacked the city.
Without these highly-motivated militias,
it would have been impossible for the Nationalists to succeed in the war
against the Leftist government; the rebellion would have collapsed in its
first week.
Similarly, should civil war visit America
again, it may come down to locally-organized groups of both Left and Right,
as the regular U.S. military will be spread thin (and probably divided
Stanley Payne's book,
Spain: a Unique History
, discusses the causes of the Spanish Civil War.
Guess what: the meme that has been pushed for decades, that
"The evil
Fascists wouldn't let the DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED leftist government carry
out its program- a program which was carried out in accordance with the law
and the Constitution"
doesn't quite cut it.
One hypothesis is that the Civil War began in 1934, with the Socialist
insurrection in Asturias, which cost 1,500 lives. The right was in control
of the government at the time. Payne dismisses this, but adds that the
Socialist insurrection and its aftermath increased the polarization of
Spanish society.
There is also the Breakdown hypothesis, which focuses on what occurred after
the election of a left-wing government in 1936. As Payne considers this
important, I will not edit out his points.
The military rebels who began the conflict at first declared almost
unanimously that they were taking violent action not to overthrow the
Republic but to save the Republic, since the constitution had become a
dead letter, and law and order had broken down. Certainly the breakdown
of law and constitutional order that had occurred in Spain was
unprecedented in any modern European country in peacetime.
Unpunished
violation of the law took place in at least fourteen areas.
1. The electoral victory of the Left was later followed by the
greatest strike wave in Spanish history, featuring many labor stoppages,
in some cases without practical economic goals but rather seeking direct
domination of labor relations and of private property, often accompanied
by violence and destruction of property.
2. Illegal seizures of property, especially in the southern provinces,
sometimes legalized ex post facto by the government under the pressure of
the revolutionary movements. Manuel Tuńón de Lara has calculated that,
between illegal seizures and the acceleration of the agrarian reform,
approximately 5 percent of all agrarian property in the country changed
hands within five months - not a revolution, but a precipitous change.3
3. A wave of arson and property destruction, particularly in the
south.
4. In addition to the destruction, numerous seizures of churches and
church properties in the south and east and in some other parts of the
country.
5. Closure of Catholic schools, provoking a crisis in education, and
in a number of localities forcible suppression of Catholic religious
activities as well, accompanied by the expulsion of priests.
6. Broad extension of censorship, with severe limitation of freedom of
expression and of assembly.
7. Major economic deterioration, which has never been studied in
detail, with a severe stock market decline, the flight of capital, and in
some southern provinces abandonment of cultivation, since the costs of
the harvest would be greater than its market value. Hence several
southern Socialist mayors proposed the "penalty of remaining" for
proprietors, rather than the penalty of exile.
8. Many hundreds - indeed several thousand - arbitrary political
arrests of members of rightist parties.
9. Impunity of criminal action for members of Popular Front
organizations, who were rarely arrested. Occasionally anarchosyndicalists
were detained, since they were not members of the Popular Front.
10. The politicization of justice through new legislation and
policies, in order to facilitate arbitrary political arrests and
prosecution, and to place the rightist parties outside the law. In spite
of the four violent insurrections of leftist parties against the Republic
- which had scant counterpart among the rightist parties - none of their
members were charged with illegal action in this regard, since justice
had become completely politicized, in keeping with the Popular Front
program.
11. Forcible dissolution of rightist groups, beginning with the
Falange in March and the Catholic trade unions in May, and moving toward
the CEDA and Renovación Espańola in July. Illegalizing the rightist
organizations was designed to create a virtual political monopoly for the
leftist parties, first achieved in the trade union groups.
12. Falsification of electoral procedures and results, which,
according to Alcalá-Zamora, passed through four phases. The first was
produced by the series of disorders in various provinces on February
16-19, which destroyed a certain number of ballots, produced repeat
voting of dubious legality in several locales, and distorted final
registration of the votes. The second phase occurred during the run-off
elections two weeks later, when, in the face of physical intimidation,
the conservative parties withdrew. The third phase was the arbitrary and
partisan actions of the Electoral Comission of the Cortes in the second
half of March, almost universally condemned by historians, which
arbitrarily reassigned a sizable number of seats from the Right to the
Left. The fourth phase was the extreme coercion exerted in the new Cortes
elections in Cuenca and Granada at the beginning of May, with the
arbitrary detention of rightist candidates and activists and severe
restriction of rightist activity, producing completely unilateral
elections, taken by the opposition to the government as a signal of the
end of democratic voting in Spain.4
13. Subversion of the security forces through reappointment of
revolutionary officers and personnel earlier prosecuted for violent and
subversive actions. One of these commanded the illegal police squad that
kidnapped Calvo Sotelo. Equally notable was the addition of special
"delegados de policía," normally activists of the Socialist and Communist
parties named ad hoc as deputy police, though not regular members of the
security forces. This followed the precedent of the Hitler government in
appointing violent and subversive SA and SS activists as Hilfspolizei in
Germany in 1933, and one of these fired the bullet that killed Calvo
Sotelo. It should be noted, however, that this procedure was not followed
on a massive and systematic scale, as in Germany.
14. The growth of political violence, although its extension was very
unequal in different parts of the country. Some provinces experienced
relative calm, while in others there was widespread violence, especially
in some of the capital cities. Estimates by researchers of those killed
by political violence within five and a half months range from a low of
300 to a high of 444.5
The assassination of Calvo Sotelo merits further comment. Guardia de
Asalto personnel killed and kidnapped him in response to Falangists killing
José Castillo, a Spanish Police Guardia de Asalto (Assault Guard)
lieutenant. As José Calvo Sotelo was a member of Parliament and a leading
spokesman for the right, his killing was considered an escalation. The
government's not arresting Calvo Sotelo's killers- even more damning when it
all knew that government operatives kidnapped and killed him- is considered
the trigger that began the Civil War.
In any event, all the fourteen points are under the heading of
unpunished violations of the law.
A big problem was that the left in power in 1936 was divided in its
agenda- some moderate, some extreme. Which reminds me of the MIR pushing
violent land takeovers in Allende's Chile, while the Communists told the MIR
to cool it. In both countries, extremists on the left, instead of advancing
the revolution they desired, triggered a rightist reaction.
Franco was Death Squad for the Land Owning Class same as Pinchet .if they
both re-appeared on the American scene they would be murdering the Alt Right
to the extent that the Alt Right spoke on behalf of The Historic Native Born
White American Working Class.
At the Battle for Blair Mountain Franco and Pinochet and their
reactionary Death Squadrons would have murdered Bill Blizzard and his Army
of Coal Miners .
"During the Spanish Civil War of 1936–1939, and especially in the early
months of the conflict, individual clergymen were executed while entire
religious communities were persecuted, leading to a death toll of 13
bishops, 4,172 diocesan priests and seminarians, 2,364 monks and friars and
283 nuns, for a total of 6,832 clerical victims, as part of what is referred
to as Spain's Red Terror".
That illustrates the anti-christian animus of
the 'Left' then and what's 'left' of it today. It is defining for the 'Left'
in general.
Civil wars hardly ever are civil.
In two ways, wars between citizens are barbaric, ferocious, and always
foreign countries interfere.
This was also the case in the USA Civil War.
The Spanish Civil War was the
clash between nationalism and communism, the west, including GB and USA, but
mainly Hitler and Mussolini, against Stalin.
GB sent the plane to the Cape Verdian islands to bring Franco to the
Canarian islands, Hitler's Junckers ferried troops from Morocco to Spain.
The Syrian civil war of course is war between the west, including Israel,
and Russia.
I do not see a USA civil war, a revolution is possible, what then army
and police will do, I do not know.
Killing one's own citizens never was easy.
Civil war in Europe seems far more probabable, in France is has already
begun, Muslims against non Muslims.
In NE Germany a western city has been built, on a military excercise base,
to simulate city warfare.
I've mentioned this before, but I think it's very interesting that Hitler's
Brownshirts were recruited to stop communists from breaking up his rallies.
I don't know if Hitler would have become what he did otherwise, but having
to arm oneself to express oneself seems a dangerous way to begin.
I
recommend this six-part BBC documentary on the Spanish Civil War. It's
informative and a beautiful document in its own right.
In addition to saving Spain from the horrors of communism, he also spared
Spain the horrors of World War 2 (although Spanish volunteers served
admirably on the Eastern front). For these reasons he was clearly the
greatest wartime leader.
I can not believe this piece of garbage-grossly inaccurate-"Spain became a
democracy". Have you lost your mind! Franco won and Spain became a
dictatorship idiot. He built a monument to himself where his corpse rots.
Did you ever hear of Guernica??????? Google it–I do not place anymore value
on this site.
Please, either learn to write English or stay off the net. The coal miner
disputes at Blair Mountain had nothing to do with what is happening in
America today and even less with Franco and the Spanish Civil War. Franco
quite properly smashed a leftist conspiracy to destroy Spain. Good God! How
anyone in 2017 can defend any Marxist crackpots, like the traitors who
Franco fought against, is simply incredible. Does the name Stalin ring a
bell? The Communist Bloc? Decades of Communist murder and oppression? Go
back to your Wobbly meeting, you retrograde leftie.
The Spanish Peasants had very good reasons to revolt against the Oligarchs
in Spain. The Battle for Blair Mountain is very relevant to the issue of
Oligarch rule in the US in 2017.
You use the terms like "Marxist" and
"Communist" that renders these terms analytically useless.
Franco was a hit man for the Land Owning Oligarchs in Spain. And he used
a North African Rape-Pillage and Plunder Mohammadan Rape Army to attack The
Spanish Working Class .To quote Franco's recruitment pitch the the North
African Muzzies "WE ARE ALL SPANISH!!!" Diversity is a Blessing 1930′s
Fascist Spain version
The Nazis and Franco were enablers of The Muslims. I fully support the
complete destruction of the Nazi War Machine by Stalin's Army no f ..g
apologies.
No one should have any doubt that Anne Coulter's late father Mining
Company Death Squad Organizer John Coulter would have enthusiastically
employed the likes of Franco and Pinochet to use Death Squadron Violence
against the striking coal miners
There is a lot more I can say but I wait for your Alt Right
twerp-that-you-are response .
I am from the UK, so I do make certain assumptions about Americans which may
not be well-founded. i.e. that a lot of the gun enthusiasts are potential
Charles Whitmans and politically of the right as well.
However, going from
the Internet I don't see Trots in America, not very numerous anyway. walking
around with guns, it tends to be people who think the Democratic National
Convention is the Comintern – ie. very, very right-wing indeed.
Do tell me right-wing people in America think the M-16 is a highway. Allay
my prejudices
this website overlaps with Stormfront in its readership
Well, Mr. Unz also republishes interesting material from Counterpunch, so it
is difficult to see how you get that impression.
I find the reference to US leftists joining the John Brown Gun Club etc.
interesting, since they generally are opposing the Second Amendment to the
US Constitution, and would certainly be repealing it if they had their way
plus the power to do it everywhere in that Union of States.
So, to me, it is an interesting article, and the stated aim of this site is
to present a collection of such.
Well, since I've just been called a "Marxist troll" and someone earlier
suggested I was a Jew, I think you can see why I might have concerns on this
site, and the Stormfront comparisons do not seem an exaggeration.
Franco was an able general and a clever political tactician, but that's
about it. His big mistake was to adopt Chicago-school neoliberalism,
auctioning off his country to (mostly) foreign investors. Sadly, everything
else he claimed to fight for–patriotism and Christianity – is now just as dead
in Spain as it is everywhere else in western Europe. The only part of his
legacy that yet lives is neoliberalism, which is a huge part of the reason
why Franco and the Falangistas have such an image problem in contemporary
Spain: people associated him with low wages and high rents. Moral of the
story: if the alt-right ever takes power, they should ditch neoliberalism
and embrace national socialism.
Antifa is composed of anti-white-Christian victim cult groups who the
federal government labels diversity. Victim cult civil rights are really
illicit federal entitlements that the federal government labels
inclusiveness.
If the US constitution were enforced as it is written, particularly the
9th and 10th amendments, Antifa would be suppressed by law. Antifa are not anarchist, they are totalitarian Bolsheviks trying to
impose victim cult supremacy onto the US. For example, feminist victim cultists who are supposedly oppressed by men
currently receive the following illicit federal entitlements:
I think that this article is
relevant, and like another commenter said, Stanley
Payne is a good source. His book "The Spanish Civil
War" looked at the whole conflict from start to finish
and comes to some interesting conclusions.
His view is that;
"Electoral democracy had obviously come to an end
well before the beginning of the civil war, which
may be seen as a consequence, certainly not the
cause, of this breakdown"
And he expanded on it;
"Conditions in Spain between February and July
1936, which eventually produced the civil war, were
unique in the history of 20th century European
States in peacetime, for nowhere else did a
parliamentary government preside over an equivalent
breakdown of law and order without the stress of
external crisis. The elections had been won, however
dubiously by an alliance of the moderate left and
the revolutionaries. Because the latter refused to
participate in any but a revolutionary regime, the
new government was formed by a minority coalition of
left Republicans, led by Azańa."
And he explains its disfunctionality;
"Even though the authority of this government
steadily declined, it would remain the key actor for
the next 5 months, with responsibility for guiding
the country and avoiding breakdown or civil war. It
failed to meet these responsibilities because its
priorities were, first, to maintain an exclusively
all leftist government that rejected any compromise
with the centre of moderate right and, second, to
avoid any break with the revolutionaries because
their support was necessary to remain in power. The
Republic's first historian, the noted Catalan
journalist Josep Pla, termed the strategy Azańa's
"ideological Kerenskyism" referring to the Russian
prime minister who fell to the Bolsheviks."
It's clear that the traditional right was on the
defensive.
P38. The mass illegal occupation of land in Badajoz
by 60.000 farm workers legalized by the government.
P39. Government inaction while Catholic schools were
closed, taken over or burned down.
All cheered on by the Communist press.
P39. Naming revolutionary militants as auxiliary
police.
P 43. "Azańa acknowledged an increase in violence
and disorder but glossed over it by arguing that
violence was 'deeply rooted in the Spanish character'
. as though the government had little or no
responsibility to enforce the law."
And the editor of Barcelona's "La Vanguardia" wrote
12th June 1936:
@Seamus Padraig
Franco was an able general and a clever political tactician, but that's
about it. His big mistake was to adopt Chicago-school neoliberalism,
auctioning off his country to (mostly) foreign investors. Sadly, everything
else he claimed to fight for--patriotism and Christianity--is now just as
dead in Spain as it is everywhere else in western Europe. The only part of
his legacy that yet lives is neoliberalism, which is a huge part of the
reason why Franco and the Falangistas have such an image problem in
contemporary Spain: people associated him with low wages and high rents.
Moral of the story: if the alt-right ever takes power, they should ditch
neoliberalism and embrace national socialism.
Pinochet did the same thing with the Chicago Boys, the result being that
Chilean society became uber-polarized between the have and have-nots. When
you look at the forerunner of the Reagan Revolution and neoliberalism, it
isn't Thatcher's Britain that was the prototype model-it was Pinochet's
Chile. Meanwhile, the protectionist, "selectively capitalist" economies of
the Asian Tigers, obeying the call of Friedrich List rather than Adam Smith,
boomed.
There's a reason that it is called
*classical liberal
economics*
. Actual conservatives-De Gaulle, Eisenhower, A.
Hamilton, Bismarck, Disraeli, Theodore Roosevelt-would have a hard time
recognizing what the modern GOP calls "conservative", in foreign policy
especially, but also in economics. Unfettered free markets and social
justice warrior types go hand and hand, when you think about it, as do
economic nationalism and protectionism. The Republican Party can't figure
this out: billionaires obey whatever lets them earn more money, thus they
will always be more loyal to their class than their nation, and now more
than ever, given this globalized world. Thus, the newer generation of
rightists would be very wise to develop a populist economic bent and
explicitly split with the free-market fetishizing crony capitalism of the
GOP-this could be the key factor that allows for more appeal among younger
Americans. But this has to be one of the leading features, not a side point.
One aside, not really related since I'm still thinking about Indonesia
from another thread: though Indonesia's Berkeley Mafia, responsible for that
country's economic miracle, is often compared to the Chicago Boys, the two
groups were really quite different. The Indonesians were a lot less
ideological-Ataturk, FDR, Japanese corporatism, Soviet Five Year Plans,
Thatcher, they cheerfully borrowed from them all, never mind consistency-and
Suharto kept them under tight control in a way Pinochet didn't. Then again,
Chile was (and is) a Western nation in every since of the word, with a long
history of democracy and reasonable development before 1973. Whereas 1960s
Indonesia was one of the poorest, most strife ridden societies on Earth,
ridden with any number of social/communal and economic ills, on the verge of
famine-and that was before the '65/'66 killings started.
I find the reference to US leftists joining the John Brown Gun Club
etc. interesting, since they generally are opposing the Second Amendment
to the US Constitution, and would certainly be repealing it if they had
their way plus the power to do it everywhere in that Union of States.
I think the leftists are pretty sure in their minds that the US
Constitution is wrong and only
"the right people"
should own guns.
They are pretty sure that they are
"the right people"
.
Like your namesake (hopefully a satire), they (Commies everywhere) all
have the same need for violence in their hearts for those who don't agree
with their plans to make everything fair.
@rw95
There is no golden rule in immigration policy and you .know that very well.
I reckon that you be a Hindu "American" who will flush the golden rule down
the toilet as soon as your racial kind have managed to vote The Historic
Native Born White American Working Class into a violently persecuted racial
minority in post-white toilet "American"
Why would you even ask me that
question since it's obvious that I am not a White Liberal
@Seraphim
"During the Spanish Civil War of 1936–1939, and especially in the early
months of the conflict, individual clergymen were executed while entire
religious communities were persecuted, leading to a death toll of 13
bishops, 4,172 diocesan priests and seminarians, 2,364 monks and friars and
283 nuns, for a total of 6,832 clerical victims, as part of what is referred
to as Spain's Red Terror".
That illustrates the anti-christian animus of the 'Left' then and what's
'left' of it today. It is defining for the 'Left' in general.
The Spanish Civil War was a savage killing ground. The killings continued
after the Civil War was declared over. Consensus is that the right killed
more civilians than the left. However, the left's killing priests and
Barcelona anarchists (who were on the left) – recall Orwell's Homage to
Catalonia- indicates that both sides had bloody hands. And if the left had
won, considering the way that Stalin's people were already directing
murders, such as the murders of the anarchists in Barcelona, there is no
telling how many the left would have killed had it won. I doubt the number
would have been considered trivial.
I once read that a member of the
losing side said there was so much bitterness over the civil war that the
country needed the decades-long cooling off period that Franco's
dictatorship provided.
When I was in high school in the '60s, my Spanish class had a debate on
what would happen to Spain after Franco. As I did the research for my side-
debating that democracy would return- I learned more about the Spanish Civil
War and its aftermath than the average high schooler in the US. At the time
I had not yet read Orwell's Homage to Catalonia.
@War for Blair Mountain
A pox on both your houses (you and Bridges). Neither of you get what's going
on. The current cold but getting hot war isn't about right or left. That's
just code.
Antifa are not anarchist, they are totalitarian Bolsheviks trying to
impose victim cult supremacy onto the US.
I like everything you say except this. We already have feminist
victim-cult supremacy which you then correctly list all the ways. They've
already won. Antifa is supposed to tamp down heresy. They can't be Bosheviks
because Bolsheviks weren't feminists. Modernists and libertines horrified
communists as bourgeois decadence.
This is an interesting point. The Democrats and feminists are now talking
"toxic masculinity." So, if they start looking like goons and thugs they get
very uncomfortable. Can they take that leap? Richard Spencer is beginning to
gain some sympathy from Washington Post readers after being driven out of a
gym. Feminist selling point from day one is how they are more peaceful than
men. Their preferred method is seduction, persuasion, human rights shaming –
like slandering white men who want to look out for their own interests as
Nazis, and so forth. They rely on a culture of spoiled, pampered babies
terrified of driving without seatbelts.
The 60s radicals actually were more masculine and chance-taking than
today's crop. And the Spanish Civil War was on another order of magnitude
more masculine.
@Gringo
The bitterness predated the war; Gil Robles, who is the person who would
know best, published a book long after titled "
No fue posible la paz
".
The left killed a lot more than just "priests and anarchists" - the
anarchists being (obviously and as you mention) leftists themselves and
among the worst killers, especially early in the war; I quite believe they
killed fewer people overall, but, of course, as you say, this is due to
their acquiring practically no new territory after July '36. And many of the
rightist killings were of course "revenge" (judicial or otherwise) for
leftist killings and other offences in newly reconquered territory. The
"member of the losing side" was probably right.
It should also be
remembered that from the liberation of France to about 1950 there was a
leftist guerilla waged in Spain with France as an external base that cost
another few thousand lives.
Radical Leftist (SJW) have caused much mischief in this nation for the last
fifty years. The major negative results are economic decline (mostly caused
by unserviceable debt in order to pay for the failed concept of having a
free lunch), and racial polarization with African Americans. This racial
balkanization has given cover for a violent crime problem where African
Americans kill more of their fellow national residents than any other group,
including terrorist (we suffer from more homicides every year than from
09/11 itself).
The SJW delights in this because they believe that African Americans (who
were ruined by New Left policies) will be their personal army against "White
America". Of course not being very street smart they naively neglect a few
facts, mainly that most:
- – African American criminals like easy targets that do not fight back;
- – African Americans, who are inclined toward anti white behavior, do not
make distinctions between whites, nor any other racial group (where liberals
mistakenly believe that they will be recognized as the "good white people");
- – African Americans have been so firmly inculcated with the concept of a
free lunch that they no longer know how to be productive, chronically
complaining about not getting enough (no matter how much we give), and as a
result are not generally self sufficient.
SJW themselves only use force when they have an advantage, and then cry
foul when it is used against them (they hate it when their opponents hit
back). Most are not hunters, were never in the military, and never had to
deal with growing up in a rough inner city neighborhood where violence is
almost routine (if somebody did not go to hospital, it wasn't real violence,
thus school yard fights don't count etc).
And finally, most SJW are antigun (or do not know how to handle a gun
effectively). To counteract the armed populace, the SJW believes that they
have the force of government behind them. That is true in regards to
politicians, and deep state bureaucrats; however, they are not exactly
looked upon fondly by most military personnel, urban city ghetto cops,
correction officers, and old school retired police officers. The only thing
that prevents their elimination is that the police (that they hate) are made
to protect them.
The only exception to this is that many
contemporary
federal leo,
suburban police, careerist military officers, and troopers, are true
believers in our current dysfunctional system (and attempt to ostracize the
ones who are not). Their leaders have degraded current policing into
glorified government revenue collectors (traffic ticket quotas and civil
forfeitures against legit working people) as opposed to deterring violent
crime. Unfortunately every time a suburban police dept hands out an
excessive amount of frivolous traffic tickets, it also reflects poorly on
the city cops who primarily deal with extreme urban ghetto violence (and
when city cops finally stand down, it is the city residents, including the
ghetto working poor, who suffer the most).
This economic decline, and social racial balkanization cannot endure
indefinitely without spilling over into some type of major disorder. Even
though the SJW fantasize about a civil war (race war), that will eliminate
their political opposition, it will prove to be their own undoing. The worst
thing that can happen to the SJW is a revolution that leads to a failed
state condition, without the rule of law, where they lose their protection.
Once this happens, the soft SJW will be eliminated by those who had enough
of there destructive social/economic meddling. Maybe then we can return to
normalcy (we did not ask for this; it is the SJW who pushed for this
outcome).
@ia
The IQ psychometric jibber jabber just sidetracks away from a laser beam
focus on the role of Asian "Americans" in the genocidal extermination of
Native Born White American Males in Engineering and Medicine .Trying doing
this to the Hindus in India there would be race riots
You kidding?
Do you really think that is what the conflict is over?
You really think the US is being destroyed by a bunch, unpleasant female
misfits, rather than by the the media, the pornographers, Hollywood, a
bought Congress, and the Council on Foreign Relations, all under the
direction of the Money Power intent on the destruction of the sovereign,
democratic nation state, the genocide of the European peoples, and the
institution of global governance by the Money Power?
@CanSpeccy
I think things got out of hand. It snowballed and got out of control in the
60s. But, yeah, we live in a thoroughly feminized society. Probably, the
ball got rolling in the 18th century with total dominance of other races,
which begat human rights by self-proclaimed "intellectuals" and status
marking aristos like Lord Sandwich, Captain Cook's patron, who "adopted" one
Omai, a south sea islander brought back as a kind of pet.
@War for Blair Mountain
Foreigners can't even own property in India. I will say this though, the
best dentist I've ever had was in New Delhi. He was an artist. Western
dentists rely way too much on machinery and technology.
@jilles dykstra
Jilles:
It is clear from the antics of Reality Winner TS/SCI that we can anticipate
the members of the current Armed Forces either to sit on their hands or
enthusiastically embrace the left multi-cultural establishment concerns.
True the USAF of which Ms Winner is still a member (reserve) is the most
ideologically indoctrinated of the Armed Forces but one can not expect any
help for patriot causes anywhere. During the 60′s the police forces were
disgusted with the left wing outrages. Not true today when the are armed
like Marines taking Faluja but led by politically savy chiefs and higher
level officials. Plus there is profitable loot in civil forfieture from
property owning people who might oppose the anti-fa media favorites. There
was some actual militia sentiment during the early 90′s in Montana and other
rural areas but the killing of Randy Weavers wife by the FBI at Ruby Ridge
and Janet Reno and ATFE incinerating a compound of bizarre religous outcasts
at Waco made it clear that it would result in fatal and sure vengence to
raise the specter of anything other than left-leaning dissent. The recent
trial and amazing acquital of the wild life refugee occupiers in Oregon is
just an fluke; there were two undercover FBI agent-provacatours for each
person arrested and one leader was killed in what if he had been a minority
been a world-class suspicious justified homicide. There is no potential
Francisco Franco in this country but plenty of Beria wannabes.9
@War for Blair Mountain
For some reason, Pinochet disapproved of being ambushed by commie scum armed
by Castro. He went after the commies in a way that they found very
unpleasant. They got a taste of their own medicine.
@nebulafox
"Free-market fetishizing crony capitalism of the GOP" makes no sense. Crony
capitalists do not want free markets. They want insider deals with their
government partners.
@nebulafox
Could not agree more! Protectionism, nationalism and a certain degree of
economic solidarity do indeed go together. Nationalism should be more than
just symbology, more than just a lot of flag-waving.
The Republican Party can't figure this out: billionaires obey whatever
lets them earn more money, thus they will always be more loyal to their
class than their nation, and now more than ever, given this globalized
world.
Well, they're
paid
not to figure it out. As Upton Sinclair once
said, "It is very difficult to get a man to see your point when his salary
depends upon
not
seeing it."
The intentions of the Left in America today are as homicidal as those of
their predecessors in revolutionary France or Russia. As Conrad pointed out
a century ago, all the rest is empty talk masking their lust for homicidal
vengeance against their betters. If this isn't clear from their apoplectic
calls to exterminate white men of European ancestry, nothing is.
@Father O'Hara
The old stock Anglo-Saxon/Scots-Irish (who are not the ethnic Irish)/Dutch
Americans who are actually descended from the founding fathers, and who are
the "posterity" mentioned in the Constitution.
On the bright side, Ireland
has become quite civilized in the last few decades. It shouldn't be too
rough an existence.
You better hope the multinational corporations don't leave, though.
Here's the thing, history shows that currently 99% of 'terrorism'
domestically in the USA as well as abroad is by Right Wingers. And I'm being
generous with the 1%. That glaring inaccuracy, (not to mention the Wingnut
demonification of the 'Other Side') completely invalidates what looks to be
an important observation. I believe that America's so called 'conservatives'
control all the houses of state as well as most of the Governorships, yet
we're on the cusp of a Left Wing Takover? Sheesh – take a tranquilizer.
Here's the thing, history shows that currently 99% of 'terrorism'
domestically in the USA as well as abroad is by Right Wingers.
That is the stupidest thing I've read on unz, yet. I mean, the power
couple Tiny Duck/Truth are just doing parody, but I'm STILL counting them to
give a new commenter a break. Peak Stupidity is not here yet, I guess.
I'm learning a lot from the back-and-forth arguments of some of the
bright people on here about the Spanish Civil War and will get a book out
from the library, as recommended. As far as American goes, I've been keeping
up with the political stuff for 40 years. I don't like this serious
hard-core stupidity displayed by you, RCon – it ruins the unz experience for
me. Stop, before you sprain a brain-muscle.
>"Well, they're paid not to figure it out. As Upton
Sinclair once said, "It is very difficult to get a man to see your point
when his salary depends upon not seeing it."
There certainly is a level of this-what else can explain someone like
Betsy DeVos being confirmed?-but on the other hand, you do see a fair amount
of true belief among the Rubio and Cruz types. Granted, if your formative
experiences were the hothouse years of GDP growth in the Reagan and Clinton
years and you are currently a member of the right-wing of the upper-middle
class (which boomed tremendously during the Obama years), it isn't too much
of a wonder why you'd favor free market ideology. Especially if you came
from a more humble background, if you aren't inquisitive enough (and most
people aren't), you'd think it always works that way. It worked out well for
you, if not necessarily your children.
But all that aside, the basic fact is that even Ronald Reagan wasn't "a
true conservative" in the sense that McConnell defines it, if you look at
his protectionist moves with Japanese auto importers and his refusal to
touch Social Security. (Not to mention that the Gipper would be appalled to
see the trigger-happy interventionism of the GOP being attributed to him,
given his own minimally (pinprick) interventionist policies in the 1980s.)
Unfortunately, because of Obama-era Democratic political ineptitude,
Republicans now dominate the whole government and are one state legislature
away from the 75% majority they need to amend the Constitution, so there is
little chance you'll see an objective evaluation of ideology among the GOP
Bonzen.
>In 200 Years Together, Alexander Solzhenitsyn described how Communist
revolutionaries in Tsarist Russia were supported by intellectual circles.
Their young leadership often came from the privileged classes, including a
significant number of Jews.
I fail to understand the controversy of this statement-Winston Churchill
was willing to state this basic reality as early as the early 1920s. It
isn't anti-Semitic to say so. Many Jews in the Russian Empire (generally
speaking, a highly brainy, intellectual bunch that you don't want to
alienate too much) became Bolsheviks because the Tsars were dumb enough to
oppress their people. In an era of nationalism which Jews were
understandably leery of given their historical experiences, among other
reasons, internationalistic left-wing movements generally appealed. (As did,
for some, Zionism. Less of a contradiction than you might think, even after
it became clear in the early '50s that the USSR had become quite
anti-Semitic and it became clear where Israel would have to go for the Cold
War. Until the demographic fueled Likud victories of 1977, Israel was
dominated by Ashkenazi Labour politics with heavy socialistic overtones.) If
I were your average middle class Jewish intellectual in Russia in 1905, I
probably would have been quite attracted to Bolshevism too.
Unfortunately for them, many of the Jewish Old Bolsheviks, however
intelligent they were, made the fatal mistake of underestimating a certain
Georgian former bandit advancing through the bureaucracy, dismissing him as
an uncultured lout who couldn't possibly fit into Lenin's shoes. They got
subsequently nailed disproportionately during the purges. The second
generation of leaders very seldom come from the revolutionaries, they come
from the practical men who followed. (Many Nazis would make a very similar
mistake in dismissing Martin Bormann-a similar personality type and even
something of an regime analogue ideologically. I suspect the two would have
gotten along smashingly over drinks-as just a crude, plodding backroom man
over a decade later.)
Stalin really changed the USSR into a far more traditionally Muscovite
place in terms of practical thinking -- "socialism in one country", et all. The
USSR under Stalin gave lip service to Leninist ideals and was smart enough
to see the use of having a literate populace, unlike the Tsars, but was
actually a quite socially conservative place in many regards.
At the height
of WWII, Stalin was smart enough to co-opt the Orthodox Church and Slavophilic nationalistic themes (far more emotionally resonant for average
Russians in the fight against the Teutons than Marx and Engels) into the
fight for the Motherland. Most significantly, the Cheka, initially dominated
by Jewish intellectuals focused on world revolution and liberation of the
workers, became the ethnic Russian dominated NKVD, which might have had a
different ideology, but had many (albeit they were
*far*
more vicious) psychological similarities to the Okhrana in practice. It also
became heavily anti-Semitic by the late 1940s, especially (again) within the
secret police.
>The Spanish Civil War was a savage killing ground.
Wasn't it? I know very little about Spain, but my brother spent a
semester there, and he told me that the Spanish Civil War was incredibly
vicious, even on civil war standards. Why was it, beyond the usual nasty
civil war reasons? Did Spain's pre-war social structure-I'd imagine the
heavy influence of the Catholic Church, etc-exacerbate it.
>I once read that a member of the losing side said there was so much
bitterness over the civil war that the country needed the decades-long
cooling off period that Franco's dictatorship provided.
Nasty, vicious civil wars tend to do that. Just look at what happened
after the Russian and Chinese Civil Wars. (Aside: our intervention in Russia
after WWI, which few people remember, might have helped preserve the
Bolshevik regime, far from replacing it as intended. They never learn.)
Speaking from a civil war that had the opposite result, you wear
Communist memorabilia in Little Saigons in the US at your peril. RVN flags
still regularly hang everywhere. In Vietnam itself, for older people, there
are still some tensions and visible differences between Northerners and
Southerners. Strangely enough, however, there is no animosity toward
Americans (or toward South Koreans, Australians, et all), who are viewed as
simply the last in a long line of foreign interventionists who strayed into
Vietnam.
Nowadays, the Vietnamese government is far more interested in
cultivating friendly relations with the US as a counterweight to China (the
age old nemesis) than revisiting the past: they are even discussing opening
up Cam Ranh Bay in the South to the US Navy. That's historical irony for
you. Granted, Vietnam is also extremely lucky in the sense that it is a much
younger country: 2/3s of the populace was born after 1975, and like their
Chinese counterparts, they are far more interested in enjoying an
increasingly prosperous life under a Western economic model than revisiting
the past.
The American military has its own commissars to ensure ideological
purity
That is also true for city police departments, and corporations. The main
goal of the Republican Party is to promote the vitality of Corporate
America. If appealing to political correctness can get corporations good MSM
press, to increased profits, they will promote that agenda even more
vigorously than the statist in our government (and academia). Thus, the Republican party will treat the rest of us as expendable to
that cause, and use war talk to distract us from our domestic problems of
bad economics and racial balkanization with the whitey hating Afro
Americans.
The corporatist Republicans have become just as much the enemy to the
people, that they are suppose to serve, as the statist Democrats. And that
is why they will standby and give tacit approval to the Democrats that try
to eliminate Trump. It is not so much Trump the man they fear as much as the
interest of the voters he represents.
Big govt socialism has joined forces with big business corporatism, and
globalism is their agenda. In return they will make us under employed
consumers buying globalized junk from Walmart, while they call us racist.
Allende won the election fair-and-square Kissinger went into violent temper
tantrum..organized the coup that resulted in the murder of Allende.
Pinochet .very good relations Israel afterwards .
In 2017 Kissinger
advises the filthy cockroach Israeli Firster Donald Trump on how best to
torture Christian Russia over Crimea .
Look all the names on the Vietnam Memorial .Henery Kissinger's gift to
his adopted Nation.
America should have been friends with Castro's Cuba's if we had .Miami
would be 90-80 percent Native Born White American and English speaking in
2017 for Castro would have slaughtered this gangster fifth column in Cuba
which JFK allowed to demographically displace the Native Born White American
Majority in South Florida
The Cold War was the rock bottom ideological foundation for the passage
of the 1965 Nonwhite Legal Immigrant Increase Act = The passage of 1965 Native
Born White American Extermination Act..
If you are an Alt Righter and your view on Franco and Pinchet is the
received "wisdom" the canonical view of the Alt Right on this issue ..then
the Alt Right is a Cabal of little fools and twerps .
@War for Blair Mountain
Allende won the election fair-and-square...Kissinger went into violent
temper tantrum..organized the coup that resulted in the murder of Allende.
Pinochet....very good relations Israel afterwards....
If you are an Alt Righter and your view on Franco and Pinchet is the
received "wisdom"...the canonical view of the Alt Right on this
issue.....then the Alt Right is a Cabal of little fools...and twerps....
Allende won the election fair-and-square Kissinger went into violent
temper tantrum..organized the coup that resulted in the murder of Allende.
Allende won the 1970 Presidential election with a plurality of 36.3% of the
vote. Allende never had the support of a majority of Chileans, which became
problematic for a President who was trying to institute revolutionary
change. Lacking a majority in the legislature, Allende resorted to
revolution by decree for much of his program. Believe it or not, revolution
by decree does not always go over very well in a democracy. It didn't in
Chile.
Your Yanqui-centric view of the world, where nothing occurs but at the
behest of the Yanqui Colossus, assumes that people outside the US are
puppets to be manipulated. On the contrary, they are independent agents.
José Pińera, the brother of a former President of Chile, has written a
good introduction to the Allende years.
How Allende Destroyed Democracy in Chile.
He also provides links to
other relevant documents. For example, consider the Resolution that the
Chamber of Deputies passed by a 63% majority vote three weeks before the
coup. Following is a summary of the Resolution, but there is also a link to
the full text of the Resolution in his article.
The Resolution, approved by almost two-thirds of the members (63.3
percent), accused President Allende's administration of 20 concrete
violations of the Constitution and national laws. These violations
included: support of armed groups, illegal arrests, torture, muzzling the
press, manipulating education, not allowing people to leave the country,
confiscating private property, forming seditious organizations, and
usurping powers belonging to the Judiciary, Congress, and the Treasury.
The Resolution held that such acts were committed in a systematic manner,
with the aim of installing in Chile "a totalitarian system".
Allende considered the Resolution to be an invitation to a coup. From the
following summary of the Resolution, one can see how Allende came to that
conclusion.
d) a Plea to the military ministers (Article 15), who were also the
commanders-in-chief of the Army, Navy and Air Force, to put "an immediate
end" to these serious constitutional violations.
Pinochet didn't need a green light from Kissinger, as Pinochet already
had a green light from the Chamber of Deputies.
Most of the politicians who supported the coup, such as former President
Frei, and future President Aylwin, assumed that after several months in
power, the Armed Forces would call elections. Instead, they had to wait
sixteen years for elections. While Frei and Aylwin initially supported the
coup, the military regime's failure to call elections in a timely manner
caused them and many other politicians to turn against the military regime.
If one wants to condemn Pinochet, do so. But bear in mind that Pinochet
took power with considerable civilian support – as shown by the Resolution
passed with a 63% majority.
And no, Allende wasn't murdered.
Roberto Ampuero
, who fled to East Germany after the coup, married the
daughter of Castro's nomenklatura and moved to Cuba. Real Existing Socialism
showed Ampuero, a former member of Communist Youth, that there were serious
shortcomings in the Cuban model that Allende wanted to follow. Ampuero has
written a number of books chronicling his political change, such as his
memoir
Nuestros ańos verde olivo.
(Our olive green years.) He has
written a number of best-selling mysteries , only one of which has been
translated into English-
The Neruda Case.
"I'd argue a "National Divorce" would simply allow the Left a beachhead from
which eventually to secure the entire country. And it is unlikely even to
work. "
Not trusting the Left is not merely wise; it is necessary for
survival. I think a given that if there were a peaceful separation that the
Blue American Union would plan to attack the Red American States from the
get-go.
Even so, that is the best option. As long as the Red States elect leaders
who know the Left and so are prepared, the peaceful divorce can work.
@War for Blair Mountain
His election as Chile's president was as least as democratic as the
election of Richard Nixon as POTUS
Allende's election was kosher- the
legislature made the decision that the voters could not. In any event, my
reference to his 36.3% vote in the election was to point out that as a
minority president, he was going to have problems passing his agenda.
Allende never had the support of a majority of Chileans, which became
problematic for a President who was trying to institute revolutionary
change. Lacking a majority in the legislature, Allende resorted to
revolution by decree for much of his program.
Which he did -- though the legislature did vote for nationalizations of
copper and the banking system.
Allende played by the rules
What part of
accused President Allende's administration of 20 concrete
violations of the Constitution and national laws.
do you not understand? Anyone who reads that and claims that "Allende
played by the rules" has extreme reading comprehension problems. Sixty three
percent of the Chamber of Deputies, who had a much better grasp of Chile's
law and Constitution than you or I do, stated that Allende did NOT play by
the rules.
If you want more detail, Pińera provides a link to
The Chamber of Deputies Resolution of August 22, 1973.
6. That to achieve this end, the administration has committed not
isolated violations of the Constitution and the laws of the land, rather
it has made such violations a permanent system of conduct, to such an
extreme that it systematically ignores and breaches the proper role of
the other branches of government, habitually violating the Constitutional
guarantees of all citizens of the Republic, and allowing and supporting
the creation of illegitimate parallel powers that constitute an extremely
grave danger to the Nation, by all of which it has destroyed essential
elements of institutional legitimacy and the Rule of Law;
And you tell me that "Allende played by the rules." Not after he became
President, not by a long shot. While "Allende played by the rules" in
becoming President, his conduct as President showed that Allende was quite
willing to bypass the rules of Chilean law and the Constitution if doing so
would advance his revolutionary agenda. So said the Chamber of Deputies.
@Gringo
Your quoting the very coup plotters who were colluding with the
CIA ITT .Henry Kissinger-Nixon to violently to violently overthrow the
democratically elected Allende Goverment as an Oracle on Chilean
Democracy which ushered in decades .to this day of neoliberal economics and
"democracy". Pineras is a well paid member of the Cato Institute where he
writes papers calling for handing over the Native Born White American
Working Class's SS over to Wall Street.
There should have been street
executions of the likes of Pineras in Chile and the rest of the Chicago
School Boys along with Pinochet
There is most definitely a strong similarity between the coup against
Allende in 1973 and the coup against Trump in 2017 .a collusion of a
Treasonous Opposition party treasonous Press .and treasonous Intelligence
Agency and treasonous National Police
Pineras is the face of economic violence against the Chilean Working
Class and the Native Born White American Working Class .
Your quoting the very coup plotters who were colluding with the CIA
(1) If by "coup plotters" you mean the party apparatus that passed the
Resolution: While the Resolution indicated that there was wide support for a
coup, you have given no proof that those who passed the Resolution were
involved in "coup plotting." Support for a prospective coup was not the same
thing as actually engaging in "coup plotting." Rather, the Resolution gave
the military a green light.
If by "coup plotters" you are referring to José Pińera: in 1973 he was a
25-year-old grad student at Harvard, which is far down the totem pole for
"coup plotting." It is absurd to claim that a Harvard grad student, over
5,000 miles away from Chile at the time of the coup, was involved in "coup
plotting." You are telling me Pinochet was that much of a nebbish to see the
need to have the involvement in the coup of a 25-year-old grad student 5,000
miles away from Chile?
Moreover, you have given no proof whatsoever about "colluding with the
CIA" For anybody. Allende fans have a lot of of difficulty dealing with the
fact that a majority was opposed to Allende's agenda, and that there was
widespread support in Chile for the coup. Isabel Allende's paternal
grandfather supported the coup. Salvador Allende was her father's first
cousin- and a relative who interacted a lot with Isabel when she was a
child. That indicates how divided Chile was. Allende fans scream "CIA" in an
attempt to ignore all that.
(2) The Resolution points out Allende's systematic violations of Chilean
law and Constitution. Allende was an out-of-control executive. Being
President does not give one the right to operate carte blanche with regard
to the laws and Constitution of the country. Do you, like the Chavistas,
believe that being President gives one carte blanche with regard to the laws
and Constitution?
(3) While Allende was, as you point out,
democratically elected,
the
also
democratically elected
Chamber of Deputies passed the Resolution
by a strong 63% majority.
which ushered in decades .to this day of neoliberal economics and
"democracy"
From 1973 to 2015,
GDP per capita (constant 2010 US$)
increased 244%
in Chile, compared to an increase of 66% for Latin America. From 1973 to
2015, Chile also out-performed Latin America in improving health care. From
1973 to 2015, Chile's Life Expectancy went from 8th to 1st in Latin America.
From 1973 to 2015, Chile's Infant Mortality rate went from 9th to 2nd in
Latin America.
That indicates to me Chile has benefited from what you call "neoliberal
economics." For the last 27 years, Chile has been a democracy, without your
quotes.
And if you believe that the "democratically elected" Allende had
democracy as a long-term goal, then consider why the plan proposed in 1973
for changing education in Chile was based on East Germany's educational
system. So much democracy in East Germany, right?
For those who consider Allende to have been committed to democracy,
consider these Allende quotes from journalist Georgie Ann Geyer's
autobiography,
Buying the Night Flight.
[ page 97]
"Would a one-party state be good for Chile?" I asked him.
And he answered, thoughtfully but surely, "No no, not right away. It will
take a while." ..
"If you are elected, will there be elections again?" I asked him. He
paused. "You must understand," he said, carefully but revealingly, "that
by the next elections, everything will have changed."
The "democratically elected" Allende thought a one -party state would
eventually be good for Chile. How many people who are committed to democracy
think a one-party state will be good for a country?
You remind me of Democrats screaming Nazi at alt-right.
You'd better believe the alt- rt is part Nazi. [ and growing everyday!] The Jew media are like piranhas, they don't know when to quit.
White people are finished carrying all the dead wood in this nation.
We're not going to pay for our own replacements.
The quislings on Capitol Hill will continue to sow the whirlwind with
their vomitous allegations until this evil witches brew explodes and the
real Heroes emerge on der Tag.
@Stonehands
Blacks and Muslims voted about 94% Hillary. They both hate Jews. I think
about 64% of college-educated white women voted for Hillary. (I may be wrong
here but a lot voted for her and organized the women's looney bin march in
Washinton.) There's a lot of votes out there besides Jews.
Jews have been around for centuries and were kept at bay. Women and blacks
were under control for thousands of years. Do you seriously believe ridding
the West of Jews is going to stop women, queers and blacks from screeching
about their "rights?"
The 60s radicals actually were more masculine and chance-taking than
today's crop.
That is only slightly true they planted bombs while in hiding places,
ambushed from behind, and cried foul when violence was reciprocated against
them, during their demonstrations. This is the typical cowardly behavior
from the New Left SJW types. And one thing that they and radical afro
americans have in common is that they like an unfair advantage before
committing themselves to a fight; otherwise they run and hide behind the
skirts of the MSM and lawyers to protect them. What is true about the above
statement is that the current generation of SJW is even softer.
And the Spanish Civil War was on another order of magnitude more
masculine.
That is a more accurate observation. Unfortunately these hippie
degenerate flower children should have been eliminated back in the 1960s,
before they entered the reigns of management, of this nation, in the 1990s.
Since then they have become so entrenched that its almost impossible to
correct without a civil war, or a great awakening. Since this ilk is so
egocentric, we probably can discount the chance of a great awakening ( which
requires some introspection, and admission of ones own mistakes).
The biggest of this leftist hypocrisy is that if a civil war happens
(besides wanting afro americans to randomly kill whitey) they will want the
police/military to protect them from the rest of us. They do not even
understand that their demand for protection, from organizations that they
hate & tormented, may be withdrawn. And without said protection, their
leftist government will be nothing but a toothless tiger; and then the poor
SJW is going to actually have to fight it out for themselves against those
who will fight back unhindered and then its payback time.
@War for Blair Mountain
The revolt against Democratic Party genocidal race-replacement post-1965
Immigration Policy can not commence unless NBA-NFL Negro ball is turned off
forever.....and ever.......
How bad is the situation?...Google a photo of
any engineering department in India....then google a photo of engineering
departments in the US....you can't yell which country is which by a photo
comparison....But some imbeciles on the Alt Right...Richard Spencer and Paul
Kersey....want to have endless-mind-numbing-the-eyes-glaze-over-discussions
and debates about IQ test score psychometrics....thereby, forever and ever,
never getting around to exposing the role that Hindu "Americans" are playing
in the Democratic Party's open and deliberate policy of cleansing America of
Native Born White American Males in the Engineering fields....and some of
these Hindu "Americans" are members of a well known Hindu Fascist Party and
they are Trump voters and donors to Trump's 2016 POTUS campaign...
There is a difference: It is true that the New Left is using other races to
push their own leftist agenda against Whites. However, Asians and Hispanics
motivation is generally to try to improve their living conditions. In
contrast, many Afro Americans want to live perpetually off welfare, having
firmly inculcated the leftist free lunch agenda. Even if some particular
Asian or Hispanic hates whitey, most of them do not act it out, as opposed
to the fact that the majority of afro americans do hate whitey, and
violently act it out (or want to act it out).
The leftist have corrupted the afro americans mind so much that if there
were ever a civil war in this nation, it would also degenerate into a race
war with afro americans by default (way to go to the leftist who created
this mess the blood is clearly on your hands for this the rest of us are
held hostage to the necessity to protect ourselves, from this leftist social
experiment run wild but it is the leftist who created the conditions for
this to happen).
@Ace
For some reason, Pinochet disapproved of being ambushed by commie scum armed
by Castro. He went after the commies in a way that they found very
unpleasant. They got a taste of their own medicine.
God bless Pinochet.
God bless Pinochet.
Meh Pinochet and Franco were just neoliberals given to fits of
flag-waving.
@RCon
Here's the thing, history shows that currently 99% of 'terrorism'
domestically in the USA as well as abroad is by Right Wingers. And I'm being
generous with the 1%. That glaring inaccuracy, (not to mention the Wingnut
demonification of the 'Other Side') completely invalidates what looks to be
an important observation. I believe that America's so called 'conservatives'
control all the houses of state as well as most of the Governorships, yet
we're on the cusp of a Left Wing Takover? Sheesh - take a tranquilizer.
I believe that America's so called 'conservatives' control all the
houses of state as well as most of the Governorships, yet we're on the
cusp of a Left Wing Takover?
As the Trump interlude has amply demonstrated, formally occupying public
office, in and of itself, does not really correlate with meaningful
political control over policy.
@joef
There is a difference: It is true that the New Left is using other races to
push their own leftist agenda against Whites. However, Asians and Hispanics
motivation is generally to try to improve their living conditions. In
contrast, many Afro Americans want to live perpetually off welfare, having
firmly inculcated the leftist free lunch agenda. Even if some particular
Asian or Hispanic hates whitey, most of them do not act it out, as opposed
to the fact that the majority of afro americans do hate whitey, and
violently act it out (or want to act it out).
The leftist have corrupted the afro americans mind so much that if there
were ever a civil war in this nation, it would also degenerate into a race
war with afro americans by default (way to go to the leftist who created
this mess... the blood is clearly on your hands for this ... the rest of us
are held hostage to the necessity to protect ourselves, from this leftist
social experiment run wild ... but it is the leftist who created the
conditions for this to happen).
Asians "Americans" are actively imvolved in the destruction of thousands of
years of acquired Native Born White American
Tech Scientific Medical experience ..this is very much in the realm of
genocide
Your larger point is that you reduce America to an economic
proposition Nation a framework that justifies Comrade Gringo's Cuban
friends Pinochet enthusiasts .ethnically cleansing the Historic Native Born
White American Majority Working Class out of South Florida ..and it
justifies importing our first Hindu Brahman Princess POTUS Kamala Harris's
highly racialized-Hindu-Sihk Democratic Party Voting Bloc from India .
You know Kamala Harris right? the Senator from Greater
India .California . currently stomping on the balls of Jeff Sessions who is
a stand in for millions of Trump's White Male Trump Bro Voters
Meh ... Pinochet and Franco were just neoliberals given to fits of
flag-waving.
Bingo!!!! .you sir have nailed it .That's just another way of saying that
Franco and Pinochet were anti-Nationalist Traitors yet some of the little
twerps on the Alt Right are enamoured of these two filthy cockroaches
For
Comrade Gringo . such WONDERFULL Socialist Policies as Nationalization of
Industries when the appropriate circumstances arise for doing so . and
Social Security are a violation of the Fascist Rights "DIVINELY" inspired
interpretation of the Chilean and US Constitution therefore collude with
ITT Henry Kissinger and the CIA to destabilize Chilean Society
I wish Allende had been the thug that Gringo makes him out to be for then
Allende would have sent in Nationalist Death Squads to exterminate Pinochet
and his neo-liberal Chicago Milton Friedman little cockroach economist
Pineras in a soccer stadium It was Allende's commitment to the Chilean
Constitution that was the very thing that drove him to his Suicide when the
Pinochet Fascist Neo-Liberal Death Squads had him surrounded ..
Allende was a Nationalist who pursued a independent path of economic
development .and this was his great crime in the mind of War Criminal Henry
Kissinger .The Coup proceeded forward .and continues this day in
Chile .Chile is back on the neoliberal plantation .
@War for Blair Mountain
Asians "Americans" are actively imvolved in the destruction of thousands of
years of acquired Native Born White American
Tech...Scientific...Medical...experience.....this is very much in the realm
of genocide...
Your larger point is that you reduce America to an economic proposition
Nation ......a framework that justifies Comrade Gringo's Cuban
friends...Pinochet enthusiasts....ethnically cleansing the Historic Native
Born White American Majority Working Class out of South Florida.....and it
justifies importing our first Hindu Brahman Princess POTUS Kamala Harris's
highly racialized-Hindu-Sihk Democratic Party Voting Bloc from India....
You know Kamala Harris...right?...the Senator from Greater
India....California.... currently stomping on the balls of Jeff Sessions who
is a stand in for millions of Trump's White Male Trump Bro Voters...
A few differences:
Kamala Harris does not represent all of Greater India,
and to subscribe a collective guilt to Indians because of her is the same
thing that leftist try to do to Whites (eg the leftist collective guilt
nonsense such as white privilege) We hate it when the leftist and afros use
collective guilt against us Whites, so I suggest we don't use the same
techniques against others.
Now the fact of Asians acquiring knowledge is not equivalent to an act of
destruction & genocide. And their actual goal is to gain knowledge, not
destruction. As far as giving away the knowledge and work visas, you can
blame the White corporatist/globalist for that one in their traitorous
pursuit of cheap labor. Asians are not looking to hurt us, but are merely
pursuing economic opportunity in an employment rat race that the
corporatist/globalist created.
The same can be said of Hispanics from Central & South America, and
Mexico. Their main goal is trying to increase their economic prosperity (not
genocide); it is the corporatist/globalist/leftist who are letting them in
at our expense. Even the mainland hispanics who are heavily into the drug
trade are here to sell their product, not genocide (they are smart enough to
not want to commit genocide and decrease their own customer base). Even for
the ones who hate whitey, they love money more. The exception is inner city
Caribbean Hispanics, who over the generations, have incorporated many bad
afro american cultural attributes (and so have many White millennials).
Now living in urban BosWash area most of my life (Boston, Hartford,
Bronx, Brooklyn, Newark, Philly, Baltimore, DC is mostly a variation of the
same theme), I never raised up my guard walking through an Asian, or
Hispanic neighborhood, fearing a random attack involving deadly force, just
for being White. However, afro americans have been thoroughly inculcated
with leftist hating whitey ideology, and would randomly attack Whites just
for being White. And one of the primary afro american cultural traits is
hating whitey (which is why many of them are jonesing for a race war, even
if it means they will starve to death without us).
They are also inculcated with wanting something for nothing (free lunch),
and are more inclined to robbery to get "whats mines (sic)". They even hate
whitey so much, they will even robb their own white drug user customers,
against their own rational self interest (essentially robbing their own
customer base). I would never see that from Hispanic drug dealers, and in
fact afro american robbers were usually beaten to unconsciousness, if they
robbed a Hispanic drug dealers' customer (they wanted their white customers
do be returning customers). Hispanic drug dealers are about making money,
and would hurt/kill those who interfere with their drug trade, afros attack
because of racial animosity.
You make good points, but you also express theoretical ideology, that
somewhat opposes empirical experience (academic arguments vs the real
world).
All I did was document what Allende said and did. You have not refuted any
of the documented points I made about Allende. You used the word "thug" to
describe Allende, not I. Perhaps Allende wasn't the great guy you believed
him to be, after all.
It was Allende's commitment to the Chilean Constitution that was the
very thing that drove him to his Suicide
One minor point. In comment #69, you stated that Allende was murdered.
Now you state that Allende committed suicide. Can't keep your story
straight, can you?
Consider what the
Supreme Court of Chile
said about Allende's alleged "commitment to the
Chilean Constitution."
In 1973 the Supreme Court reproached him for assuming powers
belonging to that body, which resulted in an acrimonious exchange of
letters. Thus, on May 26, 1973, in protesting at the administration's
refusal to comply with a judicial decision, the Supreme Court addressed
the President in a unanimous decision: "This Supreme Court is obliged to
express to Your Excellency, once again, the illicit attitude of the
administrative authority in its illegal interference in judicial matters,
such as putting obstacles in the way of police compliance with court
orders in criminal cases; orders which, under the existing law of the
country, should be carried out by the police without obstacles of any
kind. All of this implies an open and willful disregard for judicial
verdicts, with complete ignorance of the confusion produced in the legal
order by such attitudes and omissions; as the court expressed to Your
Excellency in a previous dispatch, these attitudes also imply not just a
crisis in the rule of law, but also the imminent rupture of legality in
the Nation."
Allende's response indicated that he would follow the law and
Constitution when he damn well pleased.
In a time of revolution, political power has the right to decide,
at the end of the day, whether or not judicial decisions correspond with
the higher goals and historical necessities of social transformation,
which should take absolute precedence over any other consideration;
consequently, the Executive has the right to decide whether or not to
carry out the verdicts of the Judicial Branch."
Both the legislature and the Supreme Court considered Allende to have
violated the laws and Constitution of Chile. In this statement Allende
openly admitted that given the choice between advancing his agenda and
following the laws and Constitution of Chile, he would choose his agenda. So
much for Allende's alleged "commitment to the Chilean Constitution."
At the same time, the issue of the coup and the law was a bit like trying
to square a circle. How do you stop Allende from running roughshod over the
Constitution, but do so in a legal manner? Apparently many in Chile believed
that was not possible- thus the coup. Had Allende followed the laws and
Constitution of Chile- and he admitted would he do so only if doing so would
advance his agenda- the coup would not have occurred.
Part of the problem that Allende faced was that far leftists inside his
coalition and outside his coalition pushed Allende's program faster than was
politically prudent. The MIR- outside the Popular Unity coalition- pushed
illegal, armed takeovers of farm land in southern Chile. The consequence was
a collapse of agricultural production and an increasing use of scarce
foreign exchange on food imports. Not very prudent. While Allende may not
have been behind the land takeovers in the South, he recognized them as
fait accompli.
As things turned out, however, many of the president's difficulties
came as much from his own coalition as from his adversaries. A crucial
factor here was that while Allende and many of his followers sincerely
believed that socialism (albeit in a very comprehensive form) could be
built on the solid foundations of the Chilean democratic tradition, there
were many others among his followers who wished to go outside (or as they
would have said, "beyond") that tradition altogether. They were the heirs
of the heady radicalization of the 1960s. As Hugo Cancino has pointed
out, in a very detailed study of this period, "a wide section of the
Chilean Left . . . , from the mid-1960s, began to experience a process of
estrangement from Chilean reality, assuming the most orthodox, canonized,
formalized versions of Marxism-Leninism."2 As Cancino also wisely says,
the Chile of 1970 was not the Russia of 1917.
This contradiction between Allende's own objectives (the essence of the
"Chilean road to socialism" in its only meaningful sense) and the radical
demands of the militant "ultras" within (and alongside) the coalition,
who could mobilize significant rural and urban constituencies, was to
provoke many of the dilemmas of the UP government. Their revolutionary
aims were utopian and far-reaching.
There were even those among the
most militant who held the apocalyptic belief – such beliefs tend to
become self-fulfilling – that it would be better for the future of the
Left and of socialism if Allende "fell by an act of force," as some of
them told an American observer in 1971 – "we are trying to create a
situation of disorder and chaos to provoke the reactionaries into a coup
d'etat. ´ "3
We all know how that worked out. Interestingly enough, there were some
leftists in Spain in 1936 who had a similar point of view. Similar results,
also.
Ultimately, Syria is a proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Russia
intends to to keep it's port there and the US is simply virtue signalling
and trying to save face for jumping feet first into the Arab Spring without
thoroughly considering the task.
"... One new actor is already there. An Afghan variant of the "Islamic State" just kicked out the Taliban from the Tora Bora cave complex near the Pakistani border. Tora Bora was once though to be the retreat area of Al-Qaeda's Osama Bin-Laden and was attacked during the U.S. invasion in 2001/2. ..."
"... For the warlords in Afghanistan the U.S. occupation has become a huge source of money. The U.S. pays them for protecting the goods shipped in from the states and elsewhere. It is a protection racket. Should the U.S. not pay, its convoys will be attacked by "Taliban". As soon as it pays the local warlords, the "Taliban" will be defeated and the area will be clear again for the trucks to pass. The money the Afghan government receives is likewise dependent on a continuation of the U.S. occupation. No one in the ruling class of Afghanistan has an interest in ending that. The government in Kabul will do nearly anything to keep its money source available. ..."
"... That may well be the reason why ISIS in Afghanistan was created. It was feared in Kabul that sooner or later the U.S. would find a compromise with the Taliban and leave the country. A new reason had to be found to continue the war. ..."
"... It is therefore not astonishing that the Afghan secret services, the National Directorate for Security (NDS), was the first sponsor of "ISIS" in Afghanistan. The first "ISIS" fighters were refugees of the Pakistani Taliban (TTP) who settled in the eastern province of Nangahar and were put on the NDS payroll: ..."
"... It is not clear if or to what extend the "ISIS" group in Afghanistan is still controlled by the Afghan government services. Their weapon and ammunition supply is now allegedly coming from Pakistan. But what is clear is that these new participants in the war were first sponsored by the Afghan government and are now a welcome reasons for an extension of the U.S. occupation and the money flows originating from it. Meanwhile the media can reuse its old scary graphics of the Tora Bora complex and sell more advertisement. ..."
"... The ban on "drugs" was not the real issue. It was a cover story. Why did they gift the Tailiban with $43M? This was a few months before 911. 911 was the day after the 2.3 trillion gone missing. ..."
"... In 2000 the Taliban government had nearly eliminated the production of opium poppies in Afghanistan. Today it is the leading source of opium derivatives in the world. This reminds me of the opium wars against China in the 1820's when the Forbes and Delano family fortunes were first made. Some things do not change. ..."
"... "...our goal has been first to contain and we have contained them..." ~ Irish-American Statesman and failed POTUS Barry O'Bama, Nov 2015, remarking on the current status of the strategy against ISIS™ ..."
"... Contain. And it would be wrong to assume strategy has evolved much past the word contain when it comes to US strategy on and employment of the Afghani based mudjihadeen, and it's various brand names since it's migration back westward since the 80's. ..."
The United States will again
escalate the war in Afghanistan.
Sixteen years ago the U.S, invaded the country and decided to eliminate the ruling Taliban for
something that was planed elsewhere by a different group. Since the invasion the U.S. tried to defeat
the Taliban. It has lost that fight. As soon as it leaves Afghanistan the Taliban will be back in
power. But no one is willing to pull the plug on the nonsensical military approach.
The Taliban are part of Afghanistan and a significant segment of the population supports them.
When the U.S. invaded Afghanistan it put the brutal and utterly corrupt warlords back into power.
These were exactly the people the Taliban were created to hold down and the reason why they could
take power in the first place. While demanding a strict religious life the Taliban successfully took
care of local security and eliminated the lawless and corrupt rule of the warlords.
It is no wonder then that a large part of the population wishes to have them back in power.
The U.S. supported government in Kabul is utterly corrupt. The Afghan military and police the
U.S. pays is likewise only motivated by money. It is not willing to fight. It takes high casualties
during Taliban attacks and therefore avoids contact with them whenever possible. Some 60 % of the
country is now more or less back under Taliban control. The government's say is restricted to the
bigger cities.
It is obvious that this trend will continued and sooner or later the Taliban will be back in power.
The only sensible strategy is to negotiate with them and to find some solution that allows them to
rule while they guaranteeing that no harm will emanate from Afghanistan for the rest of the world.
But no one in the U.S. is willing to take responsibility for that. Who would want to be blamed
for "neglecting" Afghanistan when another 9/11 happens - as unlikely as that might be? Therefore
additional troops need to be send whenever the Taliban seem to gain the advantage over the puppet
government forces.
President Trump has punted on the issue and has given full authority to the Defense Department
to continue the war in Afghanistan with as many troops as it sees fit. It is now the generals, not
Trump, who will be blamed should things in Afghanistan go wrong. But the military has no idea what
to do about Afghanistan.
Yesterday the Secretary of Defense Mattis was
asked during a Congress hearing what "winning" in Afghanistan would mean:
The idea, [Mattis] said, would be to drive down the violence to a level that could be managed
by Afghan government forces with the help of American and allied troops in training their Afghan
counterparts, providing intelligence and delivering what Mr. Mattis called "high-end capability,"
an apparent allusion to air power and possibly Special Operations forces.
The result, he said, would be an "era of frequent skirmishing," but not a situation in which
the Afghan government no longer faced a mortal threat.
Winning in Afghanistan is an "era of frequent skirmishes" in which the proxy government is continuously
endangered? That does, of course, not make any sense. It is a holding strategy that will only work
as long as the general framework stays the same. Should the Taliban change their strategy or a new
actor come in the "holding" strategy will be finished.
One new actor is already there. An Afghan variant of the "Islamic State" just
kicked out the Taliban from the Tora Bora cave complex near the Pakistani border. Tora Bora was
once though to be the retreat area of Al-Qaeda's Osama Bin-Laden and was attacked during the U.S.
invasion in 2001/2.
But who is behind the Islamic State Khorasan Province's (ISKP) in Afghanistan? Most of its fighters
seem to be former Taliban who either defected in Afghanistan or were kicked out of Pakistan when
the Pakistani military put pressure on their home areas. The real question now is who pays them and
what do they want?
Officially no one seems to know.
For the warlords in Afghanistan the U.S. occupation has become a huge source of money. The
U.S. pays them for protecting the goods shipped in from the states and elsewhere. It is a protection
racket. Should the U.S. not pay, its convoys will be attacked by "Taliban". As soon as it pays the
local warlords, the "Taliban" will be defeated and the area will be clear again for the trucks to
pass. The money the Afghan government receives is likewise dependent on a continuation of the U.S.
occupation. No one in the ruling class of Afghanistan has an interest in ending that. The government
in Kabul will do nearly anything to keep its money source available.
That may well be the reason why ISIS in Afghanistan was created. It was feared in Kabul that
sooner or later the U.S. would find a compromise with the Taliban and leave the country. A new reason
had to be found to continue the war.
It is therefore not astonishing that the Afghan secret services, the National Directorate
for Security (NDS),
was the first sponsor of "ISIS" in Afghanistan. The first "ISIS" fighters were refugees of the
Pakistani Taliban (TTP) who settled in the eastern province of Nangahar and were put on the NDS payroll:
The most well-known case of these militants finding a welcoming home in Nangarhar is that of the
Lashkar-e Islam group led by Mangal Bagh.
...
Hoping to use them against Pakistan, the Afghan government started to woo some of these fighters,
according to influential tribal elders involved in helping relation-building from the districts
that sheltered the guest militants.
...
[E]fforts by the Afghan intelligence service, the National Directorate of Security (NDS), to
woo Pakistani militants in Nangarhar have not been confined to Lashkar-e Islam or to militants
from Khyber. Tribal elders and ordinary residents of Achin, Nazian and Kot testify that fighters
from Orakzai and Mohmand agencies belonging to different factions of the TTP have been allowed
free movement across the province, as well as treatment in government hospitals.
...
It was from these 'guests' that the bulk of the Nangarhar-based ISKP foot soldiers emerged,
following the official announcement of IS's expansion to 'Khorasan Province.'
It is not clear if or to what extend the "ISIS" group in Afghanistan is still controlled by
the Afghan government services. Their weapon and ammunition supply is now allegedly coming from Pakistan.
But what is clear is that these new participants in the war were first sponsored by the Afghan government
and are now a welcome reasons for an extension of the U.S. occupation and the money flows originating
from it. Meanwhile the media can reuse its old
scary graphics of the
Tora Bora complex and sell more advertisement.
The war in Afghanistan has no longer a real purposes. This or that radical group will always exist
in Afghanistan. The war helps the U.S. military to claim more budget and to hand out promotions.
It helps the Afghan government officials and the warlords to fill their pockets. What it does not
do is to better the situation of the general population of Afghanistan or of the United States.
The war
has become the proverbial self-licking-ice-cream-cone. It will unfortunately continue to be such
under this and probably also the next U.S. presidents.
Posted by b on June 14, 2017 at 02:07 PM |
Permalink
The USA is now in Afghanistan for the minerals. It started out as a way of letting the CIA haul
in mass amounts of money from drugs. Now it has morphed for the minerals. Afghanistan has the
largest deposits of found lithium on the planet. Afghanistan is to lithium as Saudi Arabia is
to oil. We are not about to abandon Afghanistan to the Chinese.
Also, where there is lithium there is rare earth elements, which are even more valuable than lithium.
thanks b.. war is a racket, and there is no shortage of paper money denominated in us$ to pay
to keep it going.. the justifications for it all, are beside the point..
some afghanis, I know from personal conversation, think part of the agenda in A. is experimentation
with weapons in remote, inaccessible areas. there are multiple issues. have we kicked the Vietnam
syndrome yet?
That the coincidence of the heroin epidemic in the US and our invasion/occupation of Afghanistan
isn't mentioned every time the problem is discussed tells you all you need to know about the veracity
of the US media. We're only told the cover story for every event of consequence, while those who
orchestrate and profit remain safely hidden from public scrutiny.
But how does the war in Afghanistan differ from US war since world war 2.
The US military is a
fundamentally a business enterprise. It's function is not to win wars, but to make money. A standing
army was created after world war 2 to prevent the depression which the war cured, and it has since
created jobs for Americans and money for the plutocracy that has traditionally owned and ruled
America.
The idea is to create endless low intensity wars that validate the need for a enormous military
budget. Afghanistan is perfect for this aim; relatively small numbers of US military that can
endure,the motto being Enduring Freedom. The narcotics industry grows 90+% of the opium for the
world, and fuels the prison industry in the USA, and the prison labor for the Free Market.
Huge amounts of money are stolen from the military budget, 2.3 TRILLIONS dollars unaccountable
on 9/10, 2001, growing to five trillion on Obama's shift. The banks launder hundreds of billions
of drug money every year, a needed resource in financial crisis.
Think of the Afghanistan war as a homicidal business enterprise and it makes perfect sense
from a perspective of the plutocracy. And it will endure most likely until the people take the
money away from the plutes, the guns away from their gunmen, and the truth away from their truthsters.
For imperialist USA, it also helps to have a major military presence west of China, south of Russia
and east of Iran. Those US bases serve all sorts of malicious activities.
If the Taliban has some kind of consulary presence in Doha, then it shouldn't come to anyones
surprise if much of the Afghan Daesh funding comes from Riyadh.
Last but not least, since the US invasion of Afghanistan, the opium production reached sky-high
and hasn't dwindled since so the warlords and the bureaucrats in Kabul get some US funding but
a big part is also coming from opium production.
some afghanis, I know from personal conversation, think part of the agenda in A. is experimentation
with weapons in remote, inaccessible areas.
Any war is always a proving ground for new weapons systems. Look how happy Russia's Oboronexport
is after Syria;) Soviet war in Afghanistan saw a test run of many Soviet PGMs (Precision Guided
Munitions) both on the ground and from the air--e.g. laser and TV guided bombs. It is just the
way it is.
thanks b.. war is a racket, and there is no shortage of paper money denominated in us$ to
pay to keep it going..
Actually there is, and this shortage (or limit on printing) doesn't have to manifest itself
through some catastrophic economic event. Simple diminished returns, or, in layman's lingo, minuscule
bang for a buck will do--such as the case currently. It will not get any better. United States
increasingly can not build affordable and effective weapons systems. Very expensive and, in the
best case scenario, marginally "better"? Sure. Effective? Very often, no.
Somebody (somebody | Jun 13, 2017 6:36:01 AM | 178) posted this link yesterday about Monbiot's
contention that the US will not leave Afghanistan (if then?) until the Western powers have a pipeline
to the West thought Afghanistan.
Note the date -- The war is now 15 years and almost 15 full months old. We are not about to
leave without getting something tangible, if then. Any pipeline to the West will have to be "guarded,"
so...when can the NATO armies leave? Is this still a major US motive?
The war in Afghanistan has no longer a real purposes. (sic)
Before I say anything critical, let me first commend you on your unparallelled body of work. That said, I am always puzzled and quite frankly concerned when the author of a premier Geo-political
blog professes to find no strategic purpose behind a nation or a bloc of nation's actions. Nor is this the first time you have made such remarks. I generally chalk it up to a dry form
of Northern European humor which I don't quite grasp.
One could fairly critique such actions as "immoral," "unlikely to succeed," "distasteful my
sensibilities," "temporizing," etc. But, in my humble opinion, failure to find "a real purpose" behind actions does not rise to
the generally high level of your writing. I will leave it to others to elucidate both the tactics and strategy of the endless presence
in an unstable centrally located territory. The answers are quite obvious.
Not the most carefully phrased article on this site b.
An Army friend clarifies that he "was never told or read in any of our briefings that we had
a stated goal to eliminate the Taliban". He says they fought against the Taliban and warlords
insofar as those aided Al Qaeda.
I think your opening salve "Sixteen years ago the U.S, invaded the country and decided to eliminate
the ruling Taliban for something that was planed elsewhere by a different group", is not false,
but probably a bit myopic. A counterargument is that yes, but the training occurred in Afghanistan.
Maybe it is more important to detail the history of U.S. aid to mujahideen prior to 9/11? Or to
question whether the military approach (and civilian casualties:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_in_the_war_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%932014)#Afghan_protestation_of_civilian_deaths_caused_by_international_forces)
gives more or less rational motive for additional attacks against U.S. targets?
Personally, I wonder if the billions spent between Carter and Reagan aiding mujahideen would
have been better spent on cancer research, but maybe that's just me.
...gift of $43 million to the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan, the most virulent
anti-American violators of human rights in the world today. The gift,
announced last Thursday by Secretary of State Colin Powell,
in addition to other recent aid, makes the United States the main sponsor of
the Taliban and rewards that "rogue regime" for declaring that opium growing
is against the will of God. So, too, by the Taliban's estimation,
are most human activities, but it's the ban on drugs that catches this administration's attention.
The ban on "drugs" was not the real issue. It was a cover story.
Why did they gift the Tailiban with $43M? This was a few months before 911.
911 was the day after the 2.3 trillion gone missing.
In 2001 I was quite naive. I actually supported the US war against Afghanistan then for the simple
reason that the US public was lusting for war. Afghanistan seemed to be one enemy where we could
let off steam without provoking some serious war elsewhere. Sort of like Reagan had to attack
Grenada in order to save some face after the fiasco in Lebanon in 1982.
It was clear that we could
remove the Taliban government in a few months but it was also clear that it would be the height
of stupidity to think we could occupy that country for the next 16 years. Alas, dumbo Bush decided
to do just that. Afghanistan did have a traditional system with a king in Kabul that was tolerated
as long as he didn't try to rule the tribal regions. The US violated that tradition and installed
the puppet Karsi to rule the whole country.
In 2000 the Taliban government had nearly eliminated the production of opium poppies in Afghanistan.
Today it is the leading source of opium derivatives in the world. This reminds me of the opium
wars against China in the 1820's when the Forbes and Delano family fortunes were first made. Some
things do not change.
First and foremost, Afghanistan and its people had absolutely zero to do with 911. Plans
to invade Afghanistan were well developed many months prior to 911--the reason for those
plans is the primary foreign policy directive of the Outlaw US Empire-- Vision 2010 then
reissued as Vision 2020 , which declares Full Spectrum Domination of the planet and its
people to be its #1 goal, with Afghanistan providing the ideal geographical location to pressure
both Russia and China\
That is the fundamental reason for the Outlaw US Empire's Aggressive
War Crime of invasion and unending occupation of that poor country. Nor is it going to end until
the Outlaw US Empire is forced to remove itself.
American involvment in Afghanistan has most likely has had 2 objectives to fulfill:
--- War contractors:
In old days nations went to war to plunder other countries;
but America and Pentagon contractors have gone to war in Afghnistan to plunder the US treasury.
Russia and Iran must rejoice for the renewed US interest in Afghanistan. Both have borders with
Afghanistan and will take pleasure in arming and supporting any forces that would confront and
humiliate the US military.
Mathis, get ready for a bumpy road scattered with body bags...
We expect the US to blame Iran and Russia for the mess it is getting into.
"For the warlords in Afghanistan the U.S. occupation has become a huge source of money. The U.S.
pays them for protecting the goods shipped in from the states and elsewhere"
The goods happen to be $1 trillion worth of annual opium/heroin production (which when from
0 tons per annum in 2000 to 13+tons annual production today). It is shipped out to Serbia, Bulgaria,
Turkey, and then sent all around the planet. Anybody see a problem with heroin in the US lately?
The big banks take a 20% cut to launder the money. Langley uses the rest to pay its mercenary
armies, to buy and control governments, to do any damn thing it wants to.
"... The war in Afghanistan has no longer a real purposes (sic)... The war helps the U.S. military
to claim more budget and to hand out promotions. It helps the Afghan government officials and
the warlords to fill their pockets ..."
I think the answer is staring at both of us in our faces. The war in Afghanistan may no longer
have a real geo-strategic purpose if it ever did 15 years ago but it helps to keep ageing military
generals in jobs, special military projects current (and providing work for technicians and other
specialists) and justify more Congress spending on the military. It also helps circulate money
in Afghanistan and enables Afghan government officials and warlords to fill not just their pockets
but spread largesse to their families and communities when there are no other jobs to be had because
of the chaos and instability. So that's really the purpose of the war: it's an economy in itself.
when americans enter a country, they turn it into an iraq or an afghanistan or a libya
americans not only love corruption, they actively create it:'The U.S. supported government
in Kabul is utterly corrupt. The Afghan military and police the U.S. pays is likewise only motivated
by money'
"...our goal has been first to contain and we have contained them..."
~ Irish-American Statesman and failed POTUS Barry O'Bama, Nov 2015, remarking on the current status
of the strategy against ISIS™
Contain. And it would be wrong to assume strategy has evolved much past the word contain when
it comes to US strategy on and employment of the Afghani based mudjihadeen, and it's various
brand names since it's migration back westward since the 80's.
I'm interested in the electoral fig leaf that justifies the occupation. There should have been
parliamentary elections last October, but they were postponed because the electoral commission
that was created as part of the Kerry-brokered Ghani-Abdullah power-sharing agreement deadlocked.
One of the main issues, and a beef of the Abdullah camp, is that there are millions more voter
registration cards than actual Afghan voters; plus, Afghan voters do not have to vote at a particular
location (giving new meaning to the old crack about "Vote early vote often"). Abdullah argued
that he was robbed of victory in 2014 because of this.
In any event, the current parliament is still serving because of a presidential decree by Ghani.
If electoral reform is ever agreed upon, it's a fair question if a nationwide vote can even be
staged because so much of the country is controlled by the Taliban. So what happens in 2019 when
it's time for the next presidential vote? Will Ghani extend his own term by decree, or will he
leave that to the fraudulent parliament?
I'm rather tempted to comment on what at its base is an attempt to expand the scope of what's
being called "Russiagate," but the comment platform is run by Discus which I will never use again
due to its censorship and deep state connections. That said, reading some of the comments proves
the deluded nature of Politico's readership, and provides evidence for turning the rhetorical
table on it by accusing it of fomenting a Fifth Column of propagandized robots.
Robert Pinckney 2:15:06 PM | 1
"We are not about to abandon Afghanistan to the Chinese."
So, Mr. Wise Man. Who is "we"? Do you identify with the u.s. sucker class's interests?
"... Read Starikov... All these recent weapons deals, and many before is nothing more than what's called Reparations and Contributions. ..."
"... It's an old deal http://defense-update.com/20141222_qatari_patriots.html ..."
"... You know I am not a fan of the military industrial complex but you have to be in awe of these people. Trump sells 350 billion to SA which includes the best automatic self destruct fighter every engineered by the U.S. and then sells F15s to their obvious rivals in Quatar lol. ..."
Pentagon Agrees To Sell $12 Billion In F-15s To Qatar Tyler Durden Jun 14, 2017
4:35 PM 0 SHARES Remember when Trump called on
Qatar to stop funding terrorism, claiming credit for and endorsing the decision of Gulf nations to
isolate their small neighbor (where the most important US airbase in the middle east is located),even
as US Cabinet officials said their blockade is hurting the campaign against ISIS. You should: it
took place just 5 days ago.
"We had a decision to make," Trump said, describing conversations with Saudi Arabia and other
Gulf countries. "Do we take the easy road or do we finally take a hard but necessary action? We have
to stop the funding of terrorism." Also last week, Trump triumphantly announced on twitter that "during
my recent trip to the Middle East I stated that there can no longer be funding of Radical Ideology.
Leaders pointed to Qatar - look!"
Well, Qatar funding terrorism apparently is not a problem when it comes to Qatar funding the US
military industrial complex , because just two weeks after Trump signed a record, $110 billion weapons
deal with Saudi Arabia, moments ago
Bloomberg reported that Qatar will also buy up to 36 F-15 jets from the Pentagon for $12 billion
.... even as a political crisis in the Gulf leaves the Middle East nation isolated by its neighbors
and criticized by President Donald Trump for supporting terrorism, according to three people with
knowledge of the accord.
According to the Pentagon, the sale will give Qatar a "state of the art" capability, not to mention
the illusion that it can defend itself in a war with Saudi Arabia.
If nothing else, Uncle Sam sure is an equal-opportunity arms dealer, and best of all, with the
new fighter planes, Qatar will be able to at least put on a token fight when Saudi Arabia invades
in hopes of sending the price of oil surging now that every other "strategy" has failed.
To be sure, the sale comes at an opportune time: just days after Qatar put its military on the
highest state of alert,
and scrambled its tanks . All 16 of them. Maybe the world's wealthiest nation realized it's time
beef up its defensive capabilities?
Qatar's defense minister will meet with Pentagon chief Jim Mattis on Wednesday to seal the agreement,
Bloomberg reported citing people who spoke on condition of anonymity because the sale hasn't been
announced. Last year, congress approved the sale of up to 72 F-15s in an agreement valued at as much
as $21 billion but that deal took place before the recent political crisis in the region.
Oh c'mon y'all. This is nothing new. These are the same synchophants that (somehow, oops!)
created ISIS and then go in and bomb them. WTF did you expect? That they'd actually do what they
say?
A big shout out to Boeing Military. Hookers and blow tonight in the exec suite. BTW these planes
aren't sitting in inventory ready to be delivered. So any conflict in the next few years won't
have to worry about these planes.
That is unless the US or some other buyer agrees to step aside and allow Qatar to take their
place at the end of the assembly line.
That should about wrap it up on who is in charge of the Deep state. Backing both sides of a
potential conflict and making sure everyone has enough arms to blow each to smitherines. Sounds
like the old Red Shield tricks are still the best ones. Long live central bankers, after they
have been thrown into a burning pit of sulfer.
Absolutely. But, oh, these damned Iranians. They simply resisted the USA's boy Saddam and fought
back.
That failure to comply with OUR orders sealed his faith.
Weapons of mass destruction. Well, we delivered them to him. chemical weapons to kill all the
Iranians. So we KNEW they must have been there. We just didn't expect that he really used them
all up against Iran and later on (the remaining few) against the curds. What a bastard. After
all that WE did for Saddam, he didn't deliver. Fuck him.
Speaking of non-delivery, why has our newest boy, Poroshenko, not yet taken Moscow? So, fuck
him, too! And fuck the EU.
And speaking of that, where is Monica, when one needs her? And let's have some Pizza...
That could happen and did on many F-18 sales where we in the US in effect packed the parts
into glorified Heath kits and sent them to the buying countries who did their own labor. Also
sent them the testing equipment and every other thing they needed so all we got were a few spare
piece parts at a slightly lower price. The labor went to the purchasing country.
That right there is some wizard-level salesmanship. And I can assure you that these weapons
systems have "ALL" of the capabilities of the ones in our US arsenal, hahaha. And furthermore,
they cannot be messed with by remote control by the boys at the Pentagon, just in case things
get a little messy or embarassing. Nosiree. What you see is what you get. Yes, Lord.
Looks like Trump is just selling to whoever want to buy. What the hell, why not, he's shown
himself to be a sell out. Might as well be the best damn arms dealer you can buy.
You know I am not a fan of the military industrial complex but you have to be in awe of
these people. Trump sells 350 billion to SA which includes the best automatic self destruct fighter
every engineered by the U.S. and then sells F15s to their obvious rivals in Quatar lol.
I personally think the F15s will utterly destroy the f35s because all they have to do to down
an f35 is keep it flying, it will eventual blow up on its own.
Well like I said before, let the body count be super high... and let all the fucking crazy
suicide bombers head back home to kill themselves.
As Bernie, the man behind the man that shot up a bunch of congressmen said... Its going to
be HUUUUUGE... the war thats coming that is... I wonder how many oil tankers will be sunk?
Almost all the world's economic and political problems revolve around the hegemony of a global
corporate cartel, which is headquartered in the US because this is where their dominant military
force resides. The US Constitution is therefore the "kingpin" of an all-inclusive global financial
empire. These fictitious entities now own the USA and command its military infrastructure by virtue
of the Federal Reserve Corporation, regulatory capture, MSM propaganda, and congressional lobbying.
The Founders had to fight a bloody Revolutionary War to win our right to incorporate as a nation
– the USA. But then, for whatever reason, our Founders granted the greediest businessmen among
them unrestricted corporate charters with enough potential capital & power to compete with the
individual states, smaller sovereign nations, and eventually to buy out the USA itself. The only
way The People can regain our sovereignty as a constitutional republic now is to severely curtail
the privileges of any corporation doing business here. To remain sovereign we have to stop granting
corporate charters to just any "suit" that comes along without fulfilling a defined social value
in return. The "Divine Right Of Kings" should not apply to fictitious entities just because they
are "Too Big To Fail". We can't afford to privatize our Treasury to transnational banks anymore.
Government must be held responsible only to the electorate, not fictitious entities; and banks
must be held responsible to the government if we are ever to restore sanity, much less prosperity,
to the world.
It was a loophole in our Constitution that allowed corporate charters to be so easily obtained
that a swamp of corruption inevitably flooded our entire economic system. It is a swamp that can't
be drained at this point because the Constitution doesn't provide a drain. This 28 th
amendment is intended to install that drain so Congress can pull the plug ASAP. As a matter
of political practicality we must rely on the Article 5 option to do this, for which the electorate
will need overwhelming consensus beforehand. Seriously; an Article 5 Constitutional Convention
is rapidly becoming our only sensible option.
This is what I think it will take to save the world; and nobody gets hurt: 28 th
Amendment
28 th Amendment:
Corporations are not persons in any sense of the word and shall be granted only those rights
and privileges that Congress deems necessary for the well-being of the People. Congress shall
provide legislation defining the terms and conditions of corporate charters according to their
purpose; which shall include, but are not limited to:
1, prohibitions against any corporation; a, owning another corporation; b, becoming economically
indispensable or monopolistic; or c, otherwise distorting the general economy;
2, prohibitions against any form of interference in the affairs of; a, government, b, education,
c, news media; or d, healthcare, and
3, provisions for; a, the auditing of standardized, current, and transparent account books;
b, the establishment of state and municipal banking; and c, civil and criminal penalties to be
suffered by corporate executives for violation of the terms of a corporate charter.
"... Spain in Our Hearts: Americans in the Spanish Civil War, 1936-1939, ..."
"... The Nazis and Franco were enablers of The Muslims. I fully support the complete destruction of the Nazi War Machine by Stalin's Army no f ..g apologies. ..."
"... Moral of the story: if the alt-right ever takes power, they should ditch neoliberalism and embrace national socialism. ..."
"... "Even though the authority of this government steadily declined, it would remain the key actor for the next 5 months, with responsibility for guiding the country and avoiding breakdown or civil war. It failed to meet these responsibilities because its priorities were, first, to maintain an exclusively all leftist government that rejected any compromise with the centre of moderate right and, second, to avoid any break with the revolutionaries because their support was necessary to remain in power. The Republic's first historian, the noted Catalan journalist Josep Pla, termed the strategy Azańa's "ideological Kerenskyism" referring to the Russian prime minister who fell to the Bolsheviks." ..."
"... The main goal of the Republican Party is to promote the vitality of Corporate America. If appealing to political correctness can get corporations good MSM press, to increased profits, they will promote that agenda even more vigorously than the statist in our government (and academia). Thus, the Republican party will treat the rest of us as expendable to that cause, and use war talk to distract us from our domestic problems of bad economics and racial balkanization with the whitey hating Afro Americans. ..."
"... The corporatist Republicans have become just as much the enemy to the people, that they are suppose to serve, as the statist Democrats. And that is why they will standby and give tacit approval to the Democrats that try to eliminate Trump. It is not so much Trump the man they fear as much as the interest of the voters he represents. ..."
"... Pinochet and Franco were just neoliberals given to fits of flag-waving. ..."
"... As the Trump interlude has amply demonstrated, formally occupying public office, in and of itself, does not really correlate with meaningful political control over policy. ..."
"... Bingo!!!! .you sir have nailed it .That's just another way of saying that Franco and Pinochet were anti-Nationalist Traitors yet some of the little twerps on the Alt Right are enamoured of these two filthy cockroaches ..."
"... I wish Allende had been the thug that Gringo makes him out to be for then Allende would have sent in Nationalist Death Squads to exterminate Pinochet and his neo-liberal Chicago Milton Friedman little cockroach economist Pineras in a soccer stadium It was Allende's commitment to the Chilean Constitution that was the very thing that drove him to his Suicide when the Pinochet Fascist Neo-Liberal Death Squads had him surrounded .. ..."
"... Allende was a Nationalist who pursued a independent path of economic development .and this was his great crime in the mind of War Criminal Henry Kissinger .The Coup proceeded forward .and continues this day in Chile .Chile is back on the neoliberal plantation . ..."
What Spain's Civil War Can Teach America's Patriots
This pattern has repeated across centuries. In
200 Years Together
, Alexander Solzhenitsyn described how
Communist revolutionaries
in Tsarist Russia were supported by
intellectual circles. Their young leadership often came from the privileged
classes, including a
significant number
of Jews. (Curiously,
200 Years Together
,
while it is available in French and German, has never been published in
English, although bootleg translations
circulate
on the
internet
.)
Now, however, there seems to be physical resistance
from the American Right. Perhaps the most important case: the "
Battle
of Berkeley
" last month, when a loose alliance of conservatives,
"Alt-Lite" free speech supporters and Alt-Right activists fought and beat an
Antifa attempt to shut down a demonstration. MSM reports suggest Antifa were
generally stunned when patriots fought back.
David Hines urges a "
National
Divorce
" before things get worse. I'd argue a "National Divorce" would
simply allow the Left a beachhead from which eventually to secure the entire
country. And it is unlikely even to work. It seems more likely there will be
a larger-scale conflict and political groups willing to use violence will
grow larger and more organized.
One of the most likely models of how the
polity could collapse into civil strife: the Spanish Civil War. The
September/October 2016 edition of
Foreign Affairs
,
a
publication of the Council on Foreign Relations,
featured a review
by Sebastian Faber of Adam Hochschild's
Spain in
Our Hearts: Americans in the Spanish Civil War, 1936-1939,
profiling
the
Abraham Lincoln Brigade
(or 15
th
International Brigade), a
pro-Communist force which fought for the Republic as "shock troops."
But what of the Right? If the
Spanish Civil War
were to serve as a template for a second American
Civil War, we should examine the two main rightist paramilitary groups in
Spain. They were the Carlists
,
a monarchist group, whose fighters
were known as
requetés
and considered the most fanatical fighters on the
Nationalist side, and the right-wing
Falange
(= Phalanx). They provided an important source of
manpower to the Nationalist Army.
On the eve of the Spanish Civil War, the
Falangists numbered about 40,000 men. The Carlists had at least 6,000 men in
Pamplona, Navarre and are estimated to have had a minimum of 10,000 men. All
day long on the second day of the war, conservative farmers streamed to
Pamplona to volunteer for the Carlist forces.
In the first days of the fighting, the
Nationalists relied heavily
on such militias:
regular soldiers were often outnumbered. At the
outset, the Carlists secured the region of Navarre. One column of 1,400 men,
mostly
requetés
, marched to Saragossa, to reinforce the army
garrison and secure the town.
Falangists contributed to the defense of the town of
Oviedo, in Asturias. The soldiers and Falangists
withstood a siege for months,
until relieved in mid-October, 1936. In
Toledo, Falangists contributed at least 200 men to the 1,300-man force
defending the Alcázar Fortress,
which
held out,
until relieved by Franco in late September, 1936. In August in
the Saragossa region, they had at least 2,000 men. In the
advance on Madrid
, the Falangists contributed a significant portion of
the 20,000 men who attacked the city.
Without these highly-motivated militias,
it would have been impossible for the Nationalists to succeed in the war
against the Leftist government; the rebellion would have collapsed in its
first week.
Similarly, should civil war visit America
again, it may come down to locally-organized groups of both Left and Right,
as the regular U.S. military will be spread thin (and probably divided
Stanley Payne's book,
Spain: a Unique History
, discusses the causes of the Spanish Civil War.
Guess what: the meme that has been pushed for decades, that
"The evil
Fascists wouldn't let the DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED leftist government carry
out its program- a program which was carried out in accordance with the law
and the Constitution"
doesn't quite cut it.
One hypothesis is that the Civil War began in 1934, with the Socialist
insurrection in Asturias, which cost 1,500 lives. The right was in control
of the government at the time. Payne dismisses this, but adds that the
Socialist insurrection and its aftermath increased the polarization of
Spanish society.
There is also the Breakdown hypothesis, which focuses on what occurred after
the election of a left-wing government in 1936. As Payne considers this
important, I will not edit out his points.
The military rebels who began the conflict at first declared almost
unanimously that they were taking violent action not to overthrow the
Republic but to save the Republic, since the constitution had become a
dead letter, and law and order had broken down. Certainly the breakdown
of law and constitutional order that had occurred in Spain was
unprecedented in any modern European country in peacetime.
Unpunished
violation of the law took place in at least fourteen areas.
1. The electoral victory of the Left was later followed by the
greatest strike wave in Spanish history, featuring many labor stoppages,
in some cases without practical economic goals but rather seeking direct
domination of labor relations and of private property, often accompanied
by violence and destruction of property.
2. Illegal seizures of property, especially in the southern provinces,
sometimes legalized ex post facto by the government under the pressure of
the revolutionary movements. Manuel Tuńón de Lara has calculated that,
between illegal seizures and the acceleration of the agrarian reform,
approximately 5 percent of all agrarian property in the country changed
hands within five months - not a revolution, but a precipitous change.3
3. A wave of arson and property destruction, particularly in the
south.
4. In addition to the destruction, numerous seizures of churches and
church properties in the south and east and in some other parts of the
country.
5. Closure of Catholic schools, provoking a crisis in education, and
in a number of localities forcible suppression of Catholic religious
activities as well, accompanied by the expulsion of priests.
6. Broad extension of censorship, with severe limitation of freedom of
expression and of assembly.
7. Major economic deterioration, which has never been studied in
detail, with a severe stock market decline, the flight of capital, and in
some southern provinces abandonment of cultivation, since the costs of
the harvest would be greater than its market value. Hence several
southern Socialist mayors proposed the "penalty of remaining" for
proprietors, rather than the penalty of exile.
8. Many hundreds - indeed several thousand - arbitrary political
arrests of members of rightist parties.
9. Impunity of criminal action for members of Popular Front
organizations, who were rarely arrested. Occasionally anarchosyndicalists
were detained, since they were not members of the Popular Front.
10. The politicization of justice through new legislation and
policies, in order to facilitate arbitrary political arrests and
prosecution, and to place the rightist parties outside the law. In spite
of the four violent insurrections of leftist parties against the Republic
- which had scant counterpart among the rightist parties - none of their
members were charged with illegal action in this regard, since justice
had become completely politicized, in keeping with the Popular Front
program.
11. Forcible dissolution of rightist groups, beginning with the
Falange in March and the Catholic trade unions in May, and moving toward
the CEDA and Renovación Espańola in July. Illegalizing the rightist
organizations was designed to create a virtual political monopoly for the
leftist parties, first achieved in the trade union groups.
12. Falsification of electoral procedures and results, which,
according to Alcalá-Zamora, passed through four phases. The first was
produced by the series of disorders in various provinces on February
16-19, which destroyed a certain number of ballots, produced repeat
voting of dubious legality in several locales, and distorted final
registration of the votes. The second phase occurred during the run-off
elections two weeks later, when, in the face of physical intimidation,
the conservative parties withdrew. The third phase was the arbitrary and
partisan actions of the Electoral Comission of the Cortes in the second
half of March, almost universally condemned by historians, which
arbitrarily reassigned a sizable number of seats from the Right to the
Left. The fourth phase was the extreme coercion exerted in the new Cortes
elections in Cuenca and Granada at the beginning of May, with the
arbitrary detention of rightist candidates and activists and severe
restriction of rightist activity, producing completely unilateral
elections, taken by the opposition to the government as a signal of the
end of democratic voting in Spain.4
13. Subversion of the security forces through reappointment of
revolutionary officers and personnel earlier prosecuted for violent and
subversive actions. One of these commanded the illegal police squad that
kidnapped Calvo Sotelo. Equally notable was the addition of special
"delegados de policía," normally activists of the Socialist and Communist
parties named ad hoc as deputy police, though not regular members of the
security forces. This followed the precedent of the Hitler government in
appointing violent and subversive SA and SS activists as Hilfspolizei in
Germany in 1933, and one of these fired the bullet that killed Calvo
Sotelo. It should be noted, however, that this procedure was not followed
on a massive and systematic scale, as in Germany.
14. The growth of political violence, although its extension was very
unequal in different parts of the country. Some provinces experienced
relative calm, while in others there was widespread violence, especially
in some of the capital cities. Estimates by researchers of those killed
by political violence within five and a half months range from a low of
300 to a high of 444.5
The assassination of Calvo Sotelo merits further comment. Guardia de
Asalto personnel killed and kidnapped him in response to Falangists killing
José Castillo, a Spanish Police Guardia de Asalto (Assault Guard)
lieutenant. As José Calvo Sotelo was a member of Parliament and a leading
spokesman for the right, his killing was considered an escalation. The
government's not arresting Calvo Sotelo's killers- even more damning when it
all knew that government operatives kidnapped and killed him- is considered
the trigger that began the Civil War.
In any event, all the fourteen points are under the heading of
unpunished violations of the law.
A big problem was that the left in power in 1936 was divided in its
agenda- some moderate, some extreme. Which reminds me of the MIR pushing
violent land takeovers in Allende's Chile, while the Communists told the MIR
to cool it. In both countries, extremists on the left, instead of advancing
the revolution they desired, triggered a rightist reaction.
Franco was Death Squad for the Land Owning Class same as Pinchet .if they
both re-appeared on the American scene they would be murdering the Alt Right
to the extent that the Alt Right spoke on behalf of The Historic Native Born
White American Working Class.
At the Battle for Blair Mountain Franco and Pinochet and their
reactionary Death Squadrons would have murdered Bill Blizzard and his Army
of Coal Miners .
"During the Spanish Civil War of 1936–1939, and especially in the early
months of the conflict, individual clergymen were executed while entire
religious communities were persecuted, leading to a death toll of 13
bishops, 4,172 diocesan priests and seminarians, 2,364 monks and friars and
283 nuns, for a total of 6,832 clerical victims, as part of what is referred
to as Spain's Red Terror".
That illustrates the anti-christian animus of
the 'Left' then and what's 'left' of it today. It is defining for the 'Left'
in general.
Civil wars hardly ever are civil.
In two ways, wars between citizens are barbaric, ferocious, and always
foreign countries interfere.
This was also the case in the USA Civil War.
The Spanish Civil War was the
clash between nationalism and communism, the west, including GB and USA, but
mainly Hitler and Mussolini, against Stalin.
GB sent the plane to the Cape Verdian islands to bring Franco to the
Canarian islands, Hitler's Junckers ferried troops from Morocco to Spain.
The Syrian civil war of course is war between the west, including Israel,
and Russia.
I do not see a USA civil war, a revolution is possible, what then army
and police will do, I do not know.
Killing one's own citizens never was easy.
Civil war in Europe seems far more probabable, in France is has already
begun, Muslims against non Muslims.
In NE Germany a western city has been built, on a military excercise base,
to simulate city warfare.
I've mentioned this before, but I think it's very interesting that Hitler's
Brownshirts were recruited to stop communists from breaking up his rallies.
I don't know if Hitler would have become what he did otherwise, but having
to arm oneself to express oneself seems a dangerous way to begin.
I
recommend this six-part BBC documentary on the Spanish Civil War. It's
informative and a beautiful document in its own right.
In addition to saving Spain from the horrors of communism, he also spared
Spain the horrors of World War 2 (although Spanish volunteers served
admirably on the Eastern front). For these reasons he was clearly the
greatest wartime leader.
I can not believe this piece of garbage-grossly inaccurate-"Spain became a
democracy". Have you lost your mind! Franco won and Spain became a
dictatorship idiot. He built a monument to himself where his corpse rots.
Did you ever hear of Guernica??????? Google it–I do not place anymore value
on this site.
Please, either learn to write English or stay off the net. The coal miner
disputes at Blair Mountain had nothing to do with what is happening in
America today and even less with Franco and the Spanish Civil War. Franco
quite properly smashed a leftist conspiracy to destroy Spain. Good God! How
anyone in 2017 can defend any Marxist crackpots, like the traitors who
Franco fought against, is simply incredible. Does the name Stalin ring a
bell? The Communist Bloc? Decades of Communist murder and oppression? Go
back to your Wobbly meeting, you retrograde leftie.
The Spanish Peasants had very good reasons to revolt against the Oligarchs
in Spain. The Battle for Blair Mountain is very relevant to the issue of
Oligarch rule in the US in 2017.
You use the terms like "Marxist" and
"Communist" that renders these terms analytically useless.
Franco was a hit man for the Land Owning Oligarchs in Spain. And he used
a North African Rape-Pillage and Plunder Mohammadan Rape Army to attack The
Spanish Working Class .To quote Franco's recruitment pitch the the North
African Muzzies "WE ARE ALL SPANISH!!!" Diversity is a Blessing 1930′s
Fascist Spain version
The Nazis and Franco were enablers of The Muslims. I fully support the
complete destruction of the Nazi War Machine by Stalin's Army no f ..g
apologies.
No one should have any doubt that Anne Coulter's late father Mining
Company Death Squad Organizer John Coulter would have enthusiastically
employed the likes of Franco and Pinochet to use Death Squadron Violence
against the striking coal miners
There is a lot more I can say but I wait for your Alt Right
twerp-that-you-are response .
I am from the UK, so I do make certain assumptions about Americans which may
not be well-founded. i.e. that a lot of the gun enthusiasts are potential
Charles Whitmans and politically of the right as well.
However, going from
the Internet I don't see Trots in America, not very numerous anyway. walking
around with guns, it tends to be people who think the Democratic National
Convention is the Comintern – ie. very, very right-wing indeed.
Do tell me right-wing people in America think the M-16 is a highway. Allay
my prejudices
this website overlaps with Stormfront in its readership
Well, Mr. Unz also republishes interesting material from Counterpunch, so it
is difficult to see how you get that impression.
I find the reference to US leftists joining the John Brown Gun Club etc.
interesting, since they generally are opposing the Second Amendment to the
US Constitution, and would certainly be repealing it if they had their way
plus the power to do it everywhere in that Union of States.
So, to me, it is an interesting article, and the stated aim of this site is
to present a collection of such.
Well, since I've just been called a "Marxist troll" and someone earlier
suggested I was a Jew, I think you can see why I might have concerns on this
site, and the Stormfront comparisons do not seem an exaggeration.
Franco was an able general and a clever political tactician, but that's
about it. His big mistake was to adopt Chicago-school neoliberalism,
auctioning off his country to (mostly) foreign investors. Sadly, everything
else he claimed to fight for–patriotism and Christianity – is now just as dead
in Spain as it is everywhere else in western Europe. The only part of his
legacy that yet lives is neoliberalism, which is a huge part of the reason
why Franco and the Falangistas have such an image problem in contemporary
Spain: people associated him with low wages and high rents. Moral of the
story: if the alt-right ever takes power, they should ditch neoliberalism
and embrace national socialism.
Antifa is composed of anti-white-Christian victim cult groups who the
federal government labels diversity. Victim cult civil rights are really
illicit federal entitlements that the federal government labels
inclusiveness.
If the US constitution were enforced as it is written, particularly the
9th and 10th amendments, Antifa would be suppressed by law. Antifa are not anarchist, they are totalitarian Bolsheviks trying to
impose victim cult supremacy onto the US. For example, feminist victim cultists who are supposedly oppressed by men
currently receive the following illicit federal entitlements:
I think that this article is
relevant, and like another commenter said, Stanley
Payne is a good source. His book "The Spanish Civil
War" looked at the whole conflict from start to finish
and comes to some interesting conclusions.
His view is that;
"Electoral democracy had obviously come to an end
well before the beginning of the civil war, which
may be seen as a consequence, certainly not the
cause, of this breakdown"
And he expanded on it;
"Conditions in Spain between February and July
1936, which eventually produced the civil war, were
unique in the history of 20th century European
States in peacetime, for nowhere else did a
parliamentary government preside over an equivalent
breakdown of law and order without the stress of
external crisis. The elections had been won, however
dubiously by an alliance of the moderate left and
the revolutionaries. Because the latter refused to
participate in any but a revolutionary regime, the
new government was formed by a minority coalition of
left Republicans, led by Azańa."
And he explains its disfunctionality;
"Even though the authority of this government
steadily declined, it would remain the key actor for
the next 5 months, with responsibility for guiding
the country and avoiding breakdown or civil war. It
failed to meet these responsibilities because its
priorities were, first, to maintain an exclusively
all leftist government that rejected any compromise
with the centre of moderate right and, second, to
avoid any break with the revolutionaries because
their support was necessary to remain in power. The
Republic's first historian, the noted Catalan
journalist Josep Pla, termed the strategy Azańa's
"ideological Kerenskyism" referring to the Russian
prime minister who fell to the Bolsheviks."
It's clear that the traditional right was on the
defensive.
P38. The mass illegal occupation of land in Badajoz
by 60.000 farm workers legalized by the government.
P39. Government inaction while Catholic schools were
closed, taken over or burned down.
All cheered on by the Communist press.
P39. Naming revolutionary militants as auxiliary
police.
P 43. "Azańa acknowledged an increase in violence
and disorder but glossed over it by arguing that
violence was 'deeply rooted in the Spanish character'
. as though the government had little or no
responsibility to enforce the law."
And the editor of Barcelona's "La Vanguardia" wrote
12th June 1936:
@Seamus Padraig
Franco was an able general and a clever political tactician, but that's
about it. His big mistake was to adopt Chicago-school neoliberalism,
auctioning off his country to (mostly) foreign investors. Sadly, everything
else he claimed to fight for--patriotism and Christianity--is now just as
dead in Spain as it is everywhere else in western Europe. The only part of
his legacy that yet lives is neoliberalism, which is a huge part of the
reason why Franco and the Falangistas have such an image problem in
contemporary Spain: people associated him with low wages and high rents.
Moral of the story: if the alt-right ever takes power, they should ditch
neoliberalism and embrace national socialism.
Pinochet did the same thing with the Chicago Boys, the result being that
Chilean society became uber-polarized between the have and have-nots. When
you look at the forerunner of the Reagan Revolution and neoliberalism, it
isn't Thatcher's Britain that was the prototype model-it was Pinochet's
Chile. Meanwhile, the protectionist, "selectively capitalist" economies of
the Asian Tigers, obeying the call of Friedrich List rather than Adam Smith,
boomed.
There's a reason that it is called
*classical liberal
economics*
. Actual conservatives-De Gaulle, Eisenhower, A.
Hamilton, Bismarck, Disraeli, Theodore Roosevelt-would have a hard time
recognizing what the modern GOP calls "conservative", in foreign policy
especially, but also in economics. Unfettered free markets and social
justice warrior types go hand and hand, when you think about it, as do
economic nationalism and protectionism. The Republican Party can't figure
this out: billionaires obey whatever lets them earn more money, thus they
will always be more loyal to their class than their nation, and now more
than ever, given this globalized world. Thus, the newer generation of
rightists would be very wise to develop a populist economic bent and
explicitly split with the free-market fetishizing crony capitalism of the
GOP-this could be the key factor that allows for more appeal among younger
Americans. But this has to be one of the leading features, not a side point.
One aside, not really related since I'm still thinking about Indonesia
from another thread: though Indonesia's Berkeley Mafia, responsible for that
country's economic miracle, is often compared to the Chicago Boys, the two
groups were really quite different. The Indonesians were a lot less
ideological-Ataturk, FDR, Japanese corporatism, Soviet Five Year Plans,
Thatcher, they cheerfully borrowed from them all, never mind consistency-and
Suharto kept them under tight control in a way Pinochet didn't. Then again,
Chile was (and is) a Western nation in every since of the word, with a long
history of democracy and reasonable development before 1973. Whereas 1960s
Indonesia was one of the poorest, most strife ridden societies on Earth,
ridden with any number of social/communal and economic ills, on the verge of
famine-and that was before the '65/'66 killings started.
I find the reference to US leftists joining the John Brown Gun Club
etc. interesting, since they generally are opposing the Second Amendment
to the US Constitution, and would certainly be repealing it if they had
their way plus the power to do it everywhere in that Union of States.
I think the leftists are pretty sure in their minds that the US
Constitution is wrong and only
"the right people"
should own guns.
They are pretty sure that they are
"the right people"
.
Like your namesake (hopefully a satire), they (Commies everywhere) all
have the same need for violence in their hearts for those who don't agree
with their plans to make everything fair.
@rw95
There is no golden rule in immigration policy and you .know that very well.
I reckon that you be a Hindu "American" who will flush the golden rule down
the toilet as soon as your racial kind have managed to vote The Historic
Native Born White American Working Class into a violently persecuted racial
minority in post-white toilet "American"
Why would you even ask me that
question since it's obvious that I am not a White Liberal
@Seraphim
"During the Spanish Civil War of 1936–1939, and especially in the early
months of the conflict, individual clergymen were executed while entire
religious communities were persecuted, leading to a death toll of 13
bishops, 4,172 diocesan priests and seminarians, 2,364 monks and friars and
283 nuns, for a total of 6,832 clerical victims, as part of what is referred
to as Spain's Red Terror".
That illustrates the anti-christian animus of the 'Left' then and what's
'left' of it today. It is defining for the 'Left' in general.
The Spanish Civil War was a savage killing ground. The killings continued
after the Civil War was declared over. Consensus is that the right killed
more civilians than the left. However, the left's killing priests and
Barcelona anarchists (who were on the left) – recall Orwell's Homage to
Catalonia- indicates that both sides had bloody hands. And if the left had
won, considering the way that Stalin's people were already directing
murders, such as the murders of the anarchists in Barcelona, there is no
telling how many the left would have killed had it won. I doubt the number
would have been considered trivial.
I once read that a member of the
losing side said there was so much bitterness over the civil war that the
country needed the decades-long cooling off period that Franco's
dictatorship provided.
When I was in high school in the '60s, my Spanish class had a debate on
what would happen to Spain after Franco. As I did the research for my side-
debating that democracy would return- I learned more about the Spanish Civil
War and its aftermath than the average high schooler in the US. At the time
I had not yet read Orwell's Homage to Catalonia.
@War for Blair Mountain
A pox on both your houses (you and Bridges). Neither of you get what's going
on. The current cold but getting hot war isn't about right or left. That's
just code.
Antifa are not anarchist, they are totalitarian Bolsheviks trying to
impose victim cult supremacy onto the US.
I like everything you say except this. We already have feminist
victim-cult supremacy which you then correctly list all the ways. They've
already won. Antifa is supposed to tamp down heresy. They can't be Bosheviks
because Bolsheviks weren't feminists. Modernists and libertines horrified
communists as bourgeois decadence.
This is an interesting point. The Democrats and feminists are now talking
"toxic masculinity." So, if they start looking like goons and thugs they get
very uncomfortable. Can they take that leap? Richard Spencer is beginning to
gain some sympathy from Washington Post readers after being driven out of a
gym. Feminist selling point from day one is how they are more peaceful than
men. Their preferred method is seduction, persuasion, human rights shaming –
like slandering white men who want to look out for their own interests as
Nazis, and so forth. They rely on a culture of spoiled, pampered babies
terrified of driving without seatbelts.
The 60s radicals actually were more masculine and chance-taking than
today's crop. And the Spanish Civil War was on another order of magnitude
more masculine.
@Gringo
The bitterness predated the war; Gil Robles, who is the person who would
know best, published a book long after titled "
No fue posible la paz
".
The left killed a lot more than just "priests and anarchists" - the
anarchists being (obviously and as you mention) leftists themselves and
among the worst killers, especially early in the war; I quite believe they
killed fewer people overall, but, of course, as you say, this is due to
their acquiring practically no new territory after July '36. And many of the
rightist killings were of course "revenge" (judicial or otherwise) for
leftist killings and other offences in newly reconquered territory. The
"member of the losing side" was probably right.
It should also be
remembered that from the liberation of France to about 1950 there was a
leftist guerilla waged in Spain with France as an external base that cost
another few thousand lives.
Radical Leftist (SJW) have caused much mischief in this nation for the last
fifty years. The major negative results are economic decline (mostly caused
by unserviceable debt in order to pay for the failed concept of having a
free lunch), and racial polarization with African Americans. This racial
balkanization has given cover for a violent crime problem where African
Americans kill more of their fellow national residents than any other group,
including terrorist (we suffer from more homicides every year than from
09/11 itself).
The SJW delights in this because they believe that African Americans (who
were ruined by New Left policies) will be their personal army against "White
America". Of course not being very street smart they naively neglect a few
facts, mainly that most:
- – African American criminals like easy targets that do not fight back;
- – African Americans, who are inclined toward anti white behavior, do not
make distinctions between whites, nor any other racial group (where liberals
mistakenly believe that they will be recognized as the "good white people");
- – African Americans have been so firmly inculcated with the concept of a
free lunch that they no longer know how to be productive, chronically
complaining about not getting enough (no matter how much we give), and as a
result are not generally self sufficient.
SJW themselves only use force when they have an advantage, and then cry
foul when it is used against them (they hate it when their opponents hit
back). Most are not hunters, were never in the military, and never had to
deal with growing up in a rough inner city neighborhood where violence is
almost routine (if somebody did not go to hospital, it wasn't real violence,
thus school yard fights don't count etc).
And finally, most SJW are antigun (or do not know how to handle a gun
effectively). To counteract the armed populace, the SJW believes that they
have the force of government behind them. That is true in regards to
politicians, and deep state bureaucrats; however, they are not exactly
looked upon fondly by most military personnel, urban city ghetto cops,
correction officers, and old school retired police officers. The only thing
that prevents their elimination is that the police (that they hate) are made
to protect them.
The only exception to this is that many
contemporary
federal leo,
suburban police, careerist military officers, and troopers, are true
believers in our current dysfunctional system (and attempt to ostracize the
ones who are not). Their leaders have degraded current policing into
glorified government revenue collectors (traffic ticket quotas and civil
forfeitures against legit working people) as opposed to deterring violent
crime. Unfortunately every time a suburban police dept hands out an
excessive amount of frivolous traffic tickets, it also reflects poorly on
the city cops who primarily deal with extreme urban ghetto violence (and
when city cops finally stand down, it is the city residents, including the
ghetto working poor, who suffer the most).
This economic decline, and social racial balkanization cannot endure
indefinitely without spilling over into some type of major disorder. Even
though the SJW fantasize about a civil war (race war), that will eliminate
their political opposition, it will prove to be their own undoing. The worst
thing that can happen to the SJW is a revolution that leads to a failed
state condition, without the rule of law, where they lose their protection.
Once this happens, the soft SJW will be eliminated by those who had enough
of there destructive social/economic meddling. Maybe then we can return to
normalcy (we did not ask for this; it is the SJW who pushed for this
outcome).
@ia
The IQ psychometric jibber jabber just sidetracks away from a laser beam
focus on the role of Asian "Americans" in the genocidal extermination of
Native Born White American Males in Engineering and Medicine .Trying doing
this to the Hindus in India there would be race riots
You kidding?
Do you really think that is what the conflict is over?
You really think the US is being destroyed by a bunch, unpleasant female
misfits, rather than by the the media, the pornographers, Hollywood, a
bought Congress, and the Council on Foreign Relations, all under the
direction of the Money Power intent on the destruction of the sovereign,
democratic nation state, the genocide of the European peoples, and the
institution of global governance by the Money Power?
@CanSpeccy
I think things got out of hand. It snowballed and got out of control in the
60s. But, yeah, we live in a thoroughly feminized society. Probably, the
ball got rolling in the 18th century with total dominance of other races,
which begat human rights by self-proclaimed "intellectuals" and status
marking aristos like Lord Sandwich, Captain Cook's patron, who "adopted" one
Omai, a south sea islander brought back as a kind of pet.
@War for Blair Mountain
Foreigners can't even own property in India. I will say this though, the
best dentist I've ever had was in New Delhi. He was an artist. Western
dentists rely way too much on machinery and technology.
@jilles dykstra
Jilles:
It is clear from the antics of Reality Winner TS/SCI that we can anticipate
the members of the current Armed Forces either to sit on their hands or
enthusiastically embrace the left multi-cultural establishment concerns.
True the USAF of which Ms Winner is still a member (reserve) is the most
ideologically indoctrinated of the Armed Forces but one can not expect any
help for patriot causes anywhere. During the 60′s the police forces were
disgusted with the left wing outrages. Not true today when the are armed
like Marines taking Faluja but led by politically savy chiefs and higher
level officials. Plus there is profitable loot in civil forfieture from
property owning people who might oppose the anti-fa media favorites. There
was some actual militia sentiment during the early 90′s in Montana and other
rural areas but the killing of Randy Weavers wife by the FBI at Ruby Ridge
and Janet Reno and ATFE incinerating a compound of bizarre religous outcasts
at Waco made it clear that it would result in fatal and sure vengence to
raise the specter of anything other than left-leaning dissent. The recent
trial and amazing acquital of the wild life refugee occupiers in Oregon is
just an fluke; there were two undercover FBI agent-provacatours for each
person arrested and one leader was killed in what if he had been a minority
been a world-class suspicious justified homicide. There is no potential
Francisco Franco in this country but plenty of Beria wannabes.9
@War for Blair Mountain
For some reason, Pinochet disapproved of being ambushed by commie scum armed
by Castro. He went after the commies in a way that they found very
unpleasant. They got a taste of their own medicine.
@nebulafox
"Free-market fetishizing crony capitalism of the GOP" makes no sense. Crony
capitalists do not want free markets. They want insider deals with their
government partners.
@nebulafox
Could not agree more! Protectionism, nationalism and a certain degree of
economic solidarity do indeed go together. Nationalism should be more than
just symbology, more than just a lot of flag-waving.
The Republican Party can't figure this out: billionaires obey whatever
lets them earn more money, thus they will always be more loyal to their
class than their nation, and now more than ever, given this globalized
world.
Well, they're
paid
not to figure it out. As Upton Sinclair once
said, "It is very difficult to get a man to see your point when his salary
depends upon
not
seeing it."
The intentions of the Left in America today are as homicidal as those of
their predecessors in revolutionary France or Russia. As Conrad pointed out
a century ago, all the rest is empty talk masking their lust for homicidal
vengeance against their betters. If this isn't clear from their apoplectic
calls to exterminate white men of European ancestry, nothing is.
@Father O'Hara
The old stock Anglo-Saxon/Scots-Irish (who are not the ethnic Irish)/Dutch
Americans who are actually descended from the founding fathers, and who are
the "posterity" mentioned in the Constitution.
On the bright side, Ireland
has become quite civilized in the last few decades. It shouldn't be too
rough an existence.
You better hope the multinational corporations don't leave, though.
Here's the thing, history shows that currently 99% of 'terrorism'
domestically in the USA as well as abroad is by Right Wingers. And I'm being
generous with the 1%. That glaring inaccuracy, (not to mention the Wingnut
demonification of the 'Other Side') completely invalidates what looks to be
an important observation. I believe that America's so called 'conservatives'
control all the houses of state as well as most of the Governorships, yet
we're on the cusp of a Left Wing Takover? Sheesh – take a tranquilizer.
Here's the thing, history shows that currently 99% of 'terrorism'
domestically in the USA as well as abroad is by Right Wingers.
That is the stupidest thing I've read on unz, yet. I mean, the power
couple Tiny Duck/Truth are just doing parody, but I'm STILL counting them to
give a new commenter a break. Peak Stupidity is not here yet, I guess.
I'm learning a lot from the back-and-forth arguments of some of the
bright people on here about the Spanish Civil War and will get a book out
from the library, as recommended. As far as American goes, I've been keeping
up with the political stuff for 40 years. I don't like this serious
hard-core stupidity displayed by you, RCon – it ruins the unz experience for
me. Stop, before you sprain a brain-muscle.
>"Well, they're paid not to figure it out. As Upton
Sinclair once said, "It is very difficult to get a man to see your point
when his salary depends upon not seeing it."
There certainly is a level of this-what else can explain someone like
Betsy DeVos being confirmed?-but on the other hand, you do see a fair amount
of true belief among the Rubio and Cruz types. Granted, if your formative
experiences were the hothouse years of GDP growth in the Reagan and Clinton
years and you are currently a member of the right-wing of the upper-middle
class (which boomed tremendously during the Obama years), it isn't too much
of a wonder why you'd favor free market ideology. Especially if you came
from a more humble background, if you aren't inquisitive enough (and most
people aren't), you'd think it always works that way. It worked out well for
you, if not necessarily your children.
But all that aside, the basic fact is that even Ronald Reagan wasn't "a
true conservative" in the sense that McConnell defines it, if you look at
his protectionist moves with Japanese auto importers and his refusal to
touch Social Security. (Not to mention that the Gipper would be appalled to
see the trigger-happy interventionism of the GOP being attributed to him,
given his own minimally (pinprick) interventionist policies in the 1980s.)
Unfortunately, because of Obama-era Democratic political ineptitude,
Republicans now dominate the whole government and are one state legislature
away from the 75% majority they need to amend the Constitution, so there is
little chance you'll see an objective evaluation of ideology among the GOP
Bonzen.
>In 200 Years Together, Alexander Solzhenitsyn described how Communist
revolutionaries in Tsarist Russia were supported by intellectual circles.
Their young leadership often came from the privileged classes, including a
significant number of Jews.
I fail to understand the controversy of this statement-Winston Churchill
was willing to state this basic reality as early as the early 1920s. It
isn't anti-Semitic to say so. Many Jews in the Russian Empire (generally
speaking, a highly brainy, intellectual bunch that you don't want to
alienate too much) became Bolsheviks because the Tsars were dumb enough to
oppress their people. In an era of nationalism which Jews were
understandably leery of given their historical experiences, among other
reasons, internationalistic left-wing movements generally appealed. (As did,
for some, Zionism. Less of a contradiction than you might think, even after
it became clear in the early '50s that the USSR had become quite
anti-Semitic and it became clear where Israel would have to go for the Cold
War. Until the demographic fueled Likud victories of 1977, Israel was
dominated by Ashkenazi Labour politics with heavy socialistic overtones.) If
I were your average middle class Jewish intellectual in Russia in 1905, I
probably would have been quite attracted to Bolshevism too.
Unfortunately for them, many of the Jewish Old Bolsheviks, however
intelligent they were, made the fatal mistake of underestimating a certain
Georgian former bandit advancing through the bureaucracy, dismissing him as
an uncultured lout who couldn't possibly fit into Lenin's shoes. They got
subsequently nailed disproportionately during the purges. The second
generation of leaders very seldom come from the revolutionaries, they come
from the practical men who followed. (Many Nazis would make a very similar
mistake in dismissing Martin Bormann-a similar personality type and even
something of an regime analogue ideologically. I suspect the two would have
gotten along smashingly over drinks-as just a crude, plodding backroom man
over a decade later.)
Stalin really changed the USSR into a far more traditionally Muscovite
place in terms of practical thinking -- "socialism in one country", et all. The
USSR under Stalin gave lip service to Leninist ideals and was smart enough
to see the use of having a literate populace, unlike the Tsars, but was
actually a quite socially conservative place in many regards.
At the height
of WWII, Stalin was smart enough to co-opt the Orthodox Church and Slavophilic nationalistic themes (far more emotionally resonant for average
Russians in the fight against the Teutons than Marx and Engels) into the
fight for the Motherland. Most significantly, the Cheka, initially dominated
by Jewish intellectuals focused on world revolution and liberation of the
workers, became the ethnic Russian dominated NKVD, which might have had a
different ideology, but had many (albeit they were
*far*
more vicious) psychological similarities to the Okhrana in practice. It also
became heavily anti-Semitic by the late 1940s, especially (again) within the
secret police.
>The Spanish Civil War was a savage killing ground.
Wasn't it? I know very little about Spain, but my brother spent a
semester there, and he told me that the Spanish Civil War was incredibly
vicious, even on civil war standards. Why was it, beyond the usual nasty
civil war reasons? Did Spain's pre-war social structure-I'd imagine the
heavy influence of the Catholic Church, etc-exacerbate it.
>I once read that a member of the losing side said there was so much
bitterness over the civil war that the country needed the decades-long
cooling off period that Franco's dictatorship provided.
Nasty, vicious civil wars tend to do that. Just look at what happened
after the Russian and Chinese Civil Wars. (Aside: our intervention in Russia
after WWI, which few people remember, might have helped preserve the
Bolshevik regime, far from replacing it as intended. They never learn.)
Speaking from a civil war that had the opposite result, you wear
Communist memorabilia in Little Saigons in the US at your peril. RVN flags
still regularly hang everywhere. In Vietnam itself, for older people, there
are still some tensions and visible differences between Northerners and
Southerners. Strangely enough, however, there is no animosity toward
Americans (or toward South Koreans, Australians, et all), who are viewed as
simply the last in a long line of foreign interventionists who strayed into
Vietnam.
Nowadays, the Vietnamese government is far more interested in
cultivating friendly relations with the US as a counterweight to China (the
age old nemesis) than revisiting the past: they are even discussing opening
up Cam Ranh Bay in the South to the US Navy. That's historical irony for
you. Granted, Vietnam is also extremely lucky in the sense that it is a much
younger country: 2/3s of the populace was born after 1975, and like their
Chinese counterparts, they are far more interested in enjoying an
increasingly prosperous life under a Western economic model than revisiting
the past.
The American military has its own commissars to ensure ideological
purity
That is also true for city police departments, and corporations. The main
goal of the Republican Party is to promote the vitality of Corporate
America. If appealing to political correctness can get corporations good MSM
press, to increased profits, they will promote that agenda even more
vigorously than the statist in our government (and academia). Thus, the Republican party will treat the rest of us as expendable to
that cause, and use war talk to distract us from our domestic problems of
bad economics and racial balkanization with the whitey hating Afro
Americans.
The corporatist Republicans have become just as much the enemy to the
people, that they are suppose to serve, as the statist Democrats. And that
is why they will standby and give tacit approval to the Democrats that try
to eliminate Trump. It is not so much Trump the man they fear as much as the
interest of the voters he represents.
Big govt socialism has joined forces with big business corporatism, and
globalism is their agenda. In return they will make us under employed
consumers buying globalized junk from Walmart, while they call us racist.
Allende won the election fair-and-square Kissinger went into violent temper
tantrum..organized the coup that resulted in the murder of Allende.
Pinochet .very good relations Israel afterwards .
In 2017 Kissinger
advises the filthy cockroach Israeli Firster Donald Trump on how best to
torture Christian Russia over Crimea .
Look all the names on the Vietnam Memorial .Henery Kissinger's gift to
his adopted Nation.
America should have been friends with Castro's Cuba's if we had .Miami
would be 90-80 percent Native Born White American and English speaking in
2017 for Castro would have slaughtered this gangster fifth column in Cuba
which JFK allowed to demographically displace the Native Born White American
Majority in South Florida
The Cold War was the rock bottom ideological foundation for the passage
of the 1965 Nonwhite Legal Immigrant Increase Act = The passage of 1965 Native
Born White American Extermination Act..
If you are an Alt Righter and your view on Franco and Pinchet is the
received "wisdom" the canonical view of the Alt Right on this issue ..then
the Alt Right is a Cabal of little fools and twerps .
@War for Blair Mountain
Allende won the election fair-and-square...Kissinger went into violent
temper tantrum..organized the coup that resulted in the murder of Allende.
Pinochet....very good relations Israel afterwards....
If you are an Alt Righter and your view on Franco and Pinchet is the
received "wisdom"...the canonical view of the Alt Right on this
issue.....then the Alt Right is a Cabal of little fools...and twerps....
Allende won the election fair-and-square Kissinger went into violent
temper tantrum..organized the coup that resulted in the murder of Allende.
Allende won the 1970 Presidential election with a plurality of 36.3% of the
vote. Allende never had the support of a majority of Chileans, which became
problematic for a President who was trying to institute revolutionary
change. Lacking a majority in the legislature, Allende resorted to
revolution by decree for much of his program. Believe it or not, revolution
by decree does not always go over very well in a democracy. It didn't in
Chile.
Your Yanqui-centric view of the world, where nothing occurs but at the
behest of the Yanqui Colossus, assumes that people outside the US are
puppets to be manipulated. On the contrary, they are independent agents.
José Pińera, the brother of a former President of Chile, has written a
good introduction to the Allende years.
How Allende Destroyed Democracy in Chile.
He also provides links to
other relevant documents. For example, consider the Resolution that the
Chamber of Deputies passed by a 63% majority vote three weeks before the
coup. Following is a summary of the Resolution, but there is also a link to
the full text of the Resolution in his article.
The Resolution, approved by almost two-thirds of the members (63.3
percent), accused President Allende's administration of 20 concrete
violations of the Constitution and national laws. These violations
included: support of armed groups, illegal arrests, torture, muzzling the
press, manipulating education, not allowing people to leave the country,
confiscating private property, forming seditious organizations, and
usurping powers belonging to the Judiciary, Congress, and the Treasury.
The Resolution held that such acts were committed in a systematic manner,
with the aim of installing in Chile "a totalitarian system".
Allende considered the Resolution to be an invitation to a coup. From the
following summary of the Resolution, one can see how Allende came to that
conclusion.
d) a Plea to the military ministers (Article 15), who were also the
commanders-in-chief of the Army, Navy and Air Force, to put "an immediate
end" to these serious constitutional violations.
Pinochet didn't need a green light from Kissinger, as Pinochet already
had a green light from the Chamber of Deputies.
Most of the politicians who supported the coup, such as former President
Frei, and future President Aylwin, assumed that after several months in
power, the Armed Forces would call elections. Instead, they had to wait
sixteen years for elections. While Frei and Aylwin initially supported the
coup, the military regime's failure to call elections in a timely manner
caused them and many other politicians to turn against the military regime.
If one wants to condemn Pinochet, do so. But bear in mind that Pinochet
took power with considerable civilian support – as shown by the Resolution
passed with a 63% majority.
And no, Allende wasn't murdered.
Roberto Ampuero
, who fled to East Germany after the coup, married the
daughter of Castro's nomenklatura and moved to Cuba. Real Existing Socialism
showed Ampuero, a former member of Communist Youth, that there were serious
shortcomings in the Cuban model that Allende wanted to follow. Ampuero has
written a number of books chronicling his political change, such as his
memoir
Nuestros ańos verde olivo.
(Our olive green years.) He has
written a number of best-selling mysteries , only one of which has been
translated into English-
The Neruda Case.
"I'd argue a "National Divorce" would simply allow the Left a beachhead from
which eventually to secure the entire country. And it is unlikely even to
work. "
Not trusting the Left is not merely wise; it is necessary for
survival. I think a given that if there were a peaceful separation that the
Blue American Union would plan to attack the Red American States from the
get-go.
Even so, that is the best option. As long as the Red States elect leaders
who know the Left and so are prepared, the peaceful divorce can work.
@War for Blair Mountain
His election as Chile's president was as least as democratic as the
election of Richard Nixon as POTUS
Allende's election was kosher- the
legislature made the decision that the voters could not. In any event, my
reference to his 36.3% vote in the election was to point out that as a
minority president, he was going to have problems passing his agenda.
Allende never had the support of a majority of Chileans, which became
problematic for a President who was trying to institute revolutionary
change. Lacking a majority in the legislature, Allende resorted to
revolution by decree for much of his program.
Which he did -- though the legislature did vote for nationalizations of
copper and the banking system.
Allende played by the rules
What part of
accused President Allende's administration of 20 concrete
violations of the Constitution and national laws.
do you not understand? Anyone who reads that and claims that "Allende
played by the rules" has extreme reading comprehension problems. Sixty three
percent of the Chamber of Deputies, who had a much better grasp of Chile's
law and Constitution than you or I do, stated that Allende did NOT play by
the rules.
If you want more detail, Pińera provides a link to
The Chamber of Deputies Resolution of August 22, 1973.
6. That to achieve this end, the administration has committed not
isolated violations of the Constitution and the laws of the land, rather
it has made such violations a permanent system of conduct, to such an
extreme that it systematically ignores and breaches the proper role of
the other branches of government, habitually violating the Constitutional
guarantees of all citizens of the Republic, and allowing and supporting
the creation of illegitimate parallel powers that constitute an extremely
grave danger to the Nation, by all of which it has destroyed essential
elements of institutional legitimacy and the Rule of Law;
And you tell me that "Allende played by the rules." Not after he became
President, not by a long shot. While "Allende played by the rules" in
becoming President, his conduct as President showed that Allende was quite
willing to bypass the rules of Chilean law and the Constitution if doing so
would advance his revolutionary agenda. So said the Chamber of Deputies.
@Gringo
Your quoting the very coup plotters who were colluding with the
CIA ITT .Henry Kissinger-Nixon to violently to violently overthrow the
democratically elected Allende Goverment as an Oracle on Chilean
Democracy which ushered in decades .to this day of neoliberal economics and
"democracy". Pineras is a well paid member of the Cato Institute where he
writes papers calling for handing over the Native Born White American
Working Class's SS over to Wall Street.
There should have been street
executions of the likes of Pineras in Chile and the rest of the Chicago
School Boys along with Pinochet
There is most definitely a strong similarity between the coup against
Allende in 1973 and the coup against Trump in 2017 .a collusion of a
Treasonous Opposition party treasonous Press .and treasonous Intelligence
Agency and treasonous National Police
Pineras is the face of economic violence against the Chilean Working
Class and the Native Born White American Working Class .
Your quoting the very coup plotters who were colluding with the CIA
(1) If by "coup plotters" you mean the party apparatus that passed the
Resolution: While the Resolution indicated that there was wide support for a
coup, you have given no proof that those who passed the Resolution were
involved in "coup plotting." Support for a prospective coup was not the same
thing as actually engaging in "coup plotting." Rather, the Resolution gave
the military a green light.
If by "coup plotters" you are referring to José Pińera: in 1973 he was a
25-year-old grad student at Harvard, which is far down the totem pole for
"coup plotting." It is absurd to claim that a Harvard grad student, over
5,000 miles away from Chile at the time of the coup, was involved in "coup
plotting." You are telling me Pinochet was that much of a nebbish to see the
need to have the involvement in the coup of a 25-year-old grad student 5,000
miles away from Chile?
Moreover, you have given no proof whatsoever about "colluding with the
CIA" For anybody. Allende fans have a lot of of difficulty dealing with the
fact that a majority was opposed to Allende's agenda, and that there was
widespread support in Chile for the coup. Isabel Allende's paternal
grandfather supported the coup. Salvador Allende was her father's first
cousin- and a relative who interacted a lot with Isabel when she was a
child. That indicates how divided Chile was. Allende fans scream "CIA" in an
attempt to ignore all that.
(2) The Resolution points out Allende's systematic violations of Chilean
law and Constitution. Allende was an out-of-control executive. Being
President does not give one the right to operate carte blanche with regard
to the laws and Constitution of the country. Do you, like the Chavistas,
believe that being President gives one carte blanche with regard to the laws
and Constitution?
(3) While Allende was, as you point out,
democratically elected,
the
also
democratically elected
Chamber of Deputies passed the Resolution
by a strong 63% majority.
which ushered in decades .to this day of neoliberal economics and
"democracy"
From 1973 to 2015,
GDP per capita (constant 2010 US$)
increased 244%
in Chile, compared to an increase of 66% for Latin America. From 1973 to
2015, Chile also out-performed Latin America in improving health care. From
1973 to 2015, Chile's Life Expectancy went from 8th to 1st in Latin America.
From 1973 to 2015, Chile's Infant Mortality rate went from 9th to 2nd in
Latin America.
That indicates to me Chile has benefited from what you call "neoliberal
economics." For the last 27 years, Chile has been a democracy, without your
quotes.
And if you believe that the "democratically elected" Allende had
democracy as a long-term goal, then consider why the plan proposed in 1973
for changing education in Chile was based on East Germany's educational
system. So much democracy in East Germany, right?
For those who consider Allende to have been committed to democracy,
consider these Allende quotes from journalist Georgie Ann Geyer's
autobiography,
Buying the Night Flight.
[ page 97]
"Would a one-party state be good for Chile?" I asked him.
And he answered, thoughtfully but surely, "No no, not right away. It will
take a while." ..
"If you are elected, will there be elections again?" I asked him. He
paused. "You must understand," he said, carefully but revealingly, "that
by the next elections, everything will have changed."
The "democratically elected" Allende thought a one -party state would
eventually be good for Chile. How many people who are committed to democracy
think a one-party state will be good for a country?
You remind me of Democrats screaming Nazi at alt-right.
You'd better believe the alt- rt is part Nazi. [ and growing everyday!] The Jew media are like piranhas, they don't know when to quit.
White people are finished carrying all the dead wood in this nation.
We're not going to pay for our own replacements.
The quislings on Capitol Hill will continue to sow the whirlwind with
their vomitous allegations until this evil witches brew explodes and the
real Heroes emerge on der Tag.
@Stonehands
Blacks and Muslims voted about 94% Hillary. They both hate Jews. I think
about 64% of college-educated white women voted for Hillary. (I may be wrong
here but a lot voted for her and organized the women's looney bin march in
Washinton.) There's a lot of votes out there besides Jews.
Jews have been around for centuries and were kept at bay. Women and blacks
were under control for thousands of years. Do you seriously believe ridding
the West of Jews is going to stop women, queers and blacks from screeching
about their "rights?"
The 60s radicals actually were more masculine and chance-taking than
today's crop.
That is only slightly true they planted bombs while in hiding places,
ambushed from behind, and cried foul when violence was reciprocated against
them, during their demonstrations. This is the typical cowardly behavior
from the New Left SJW types. And one thing that they and radical afro
americans have in common is that they like an unfair advantage before
committing themselves to a fight; otherwise they run and hide behind the
skirts of the MSM and lawyers to protect them. What is true about the above
statement is that the current generation of SJW is even softer.
And the Spanish Civil War was on another order of magnitude more
masculine.
That is a more accurate observation. Unfortunately these hippie
degenerate flower children should have been eliminated back in the 1960s,
before they entered the reigns of management, of this nation, in the 1990s.
Since then they have become so entrenched that its almost impossible to
correct without a civil war, or a great awakening. Since this ilk is so
egocentric, we probably can discount the chance of a great awakening ( which
requires some introspection, and admission of ones own mistakes).
The biggest of this leftist hypocrisy is that if a civil war happens
(besides wanting afro americans to randomly kill whitey) they will want the
police/military to protect them from the rest of us. They do not even
understand that their demand for protection, from organizations that they
hate & tormented, may be withdrawn. And without said protection, their
leftist government will be nothing but a toothless tiger; and then the poor
SJW is going to actually have to fight it out for themselves against those
who will fight back unhindered and then its payback time.
@War for Blair Mountain
The revolt against Democratic Party genocidal race-replacement post-1965
Immigration Policy can not commence unless NBA-NFL Negro ball is turned off
forever.....and ever.......
How bad is the situation?...Google a photo of
any engineering department in India....then google a photo of engineering
departments in the US....you can't yell which country is which by a photo
comparison....But some imbeciles on the Alt Right...Richard Spencer and Paul
Kersey....want to have endless-mind-numbing-the-eyes-glaze-over-discussions
and debates about IQ test score psychometrics....thereby, forever and ever,
never getting around to exposing the role that Hindu "Americans" are playing
in the Democratic Party's open and deliberate policy of cleansing America of
Native Born White American Males in the Engineering fields....and some of
these Hindu "Americans" are members of a well known Hindu Fascist Party and
they are Trump voters and donors to Trump's 2016 POTUS campaign...
There is a difference: It is true that the New Left is using other races to
push their own leftist agenda against Whites. However, Asians and Hispanics
motivation is generally to try to improve their living conditions. In
contrast, many Afro Americans want to live perpetually off welfare, having
firmly inculcated the leftist free lunch agenda. Even if some particular
Asian or Hispanic hates whitey, most of them do not act it out, as opposed
to the fact that the majority of afro americans do hate whitey, and
violently act it out (or want to act it out).
The leftist have corrupted the afro americans mind so much that if there
were ever a civil war in this nation, it would also degenerate into a race
war with afro americans by default (way to go to the leftist who created
this mess the blood is clearly on your hands for this the rest of us are
held hostage to the necessity to protect ourselves, from this leftist social
experiment run wild but it is the leftist who created the conditions for
this to happen).
@Ace
For some reason, Pinochet disapproved of being ambushed by commie scum armed
by Castro. He went after the commies in a way that they found very
unpleasant. They got a taste of their own medicine.
God bless Pinochet.
God bless Pinochet.
Meh Pinochet and Franco were just neoliberals given to fits of
flag-waving.
@RCon
Here's the thing, history shows that currently 99% of 'terrorism'
domestically in the USA as well as abroad is by Right Wingers. And I'm being
generous with the 1%. That glaring inaccuracy, (not to mention the Wingnut
demonification of the 'Other Side') completely invalidates what looks to be
an important observation. I believe that America's so called 'conservatives'
control all the houses of state as well as most of the Governorships, yet
we're on the cusp of a Left Wing Takover? Sheesh - take a tranquilizer.
I believe that America's so called 'conservatives' control all the
houses of state as well as most of the Governorships, yet we're on the
cusp of a Left Wing Takover?
As the Trump interlude has amply demonstrated, formally occupying public
office, in and of itself, does not really correlate with meaningful
political control over policy.
@joef
There is a difference: It is true that the New Left is using other races to
push their own leftist agenda against Whites. However, Asians and Hispanics
motivation is generally to try to improve their living conditions. In
contrast, many Afro Americans want to live perpetually off welfare, having
firmly inculcated the leftist free lunch agenda. Even if some particular
Asian or Hispanic hates whitey, most of them do not act it out, as opposed
to the fact that the majority of afro americans do hate whitey, and
violently act it out (or want to act it out).
The leftist have corrupted the afro americans mind so much that if there
were ever a civil war in this nation, it would also degenerate into a race
war with afro americans by default (way to go to the leftist who created
this mess... the blood is clearly on your hands for this ... the rest of us
are held hostage to the necessity to protect ourselves, from this leftist
social experiment run wild ... but it is the leftist who created the
conditions for this to happen).
Asians "Americans" are actively imvolved in the destruction of thousands of
years of acquired Native Born White American
Tech Scientific Medical experience ..this is very much in the realm of
genocide
Your larger point is that you reduce America to an economic
proposition Nation a framework that justifies Comrade Gringo's Cuban
friends Pinochet enthusiasts .ethnically cleansing the Historic Native Born
White American Majority Working Class out of South Florida ..and it
justifies importing our first Hindu Brahman Princess POTUS Kamala Harris's
highly racialized-Hindu-Sihk Democratic Party Voting Bloc from India .
You know Kamala Harris right? the Senator from Greater
India .California . currently stomping on the balls of Jeff Sessions who is
a stand in for millions of Trump's White Male Trump Bro Voters
Meh ... Pinochet and Franco were just neoliberals given to fits of
flag-waving.
Bingo!!!! .you sir have nailed it .That's just another way of saying that
Franco and Pinochet were anti-Nationalist Traitors yet some of the little
twerps on the Alt Right are enamoured of these two filthy cockroaches
For
Comrade Gringo . such WONDERFULL Socialist Policies as Nationalization of
Industries when the appropriate circumstances arise for doing so . and
Social Security are a violation of the Fascist Rights "DIVINELY" inspired
interpretation of the Chilean and US Constitution therefore collude with
ITT Henry Kissinger and the CIA to destabilize Chilean Society
I wish Allende had been the thug that Gringo makes him out to be for then
Allende would have sent in Nationalist Death Squads to exterminate Pinochet
and his neo-liberal Chicago Milton Friedman little cockroach economist
Pineras in a soccer stadium It was Allende's commitment to the Chilean
Constitution that was the very thing that drove him to his Suicide when the
Pinochet Fascist Neo-Liberal Death Squads had him surrounded ..
Allende was a Nationalist who pursued a independent path of economic
development .and this was his great crime in the mind of War Criminal Henry
Kissinger .The Coup proceeded forward .and continues this day in
Chile .Chile is back on the neoliberal plantation .
@War for Blair Mountain
Asians "Americans" are actively imvolved in the destruction of thousands of
years of acquired Native Born White American
Tech...Scientific...Medical...experience.....this is very much in the realm
of genocide...
Your larger point is that you reduce America to an economic proposition
Nation ......a framework that justifies Comrade Gringo's Cuban
friends...Pinochet enthusiasts....ethnically cleansing the Historic Native
Born White American Majority Working Class out of South Florida.....and it
justifies importing our first Hindu Brahman Princess POTUS Kamala Harris's
highly racialized-Hindu-Sihk Democratic Party Voting Bloc from India....
You know Kamala Harris...right?...the Senator from Greater
India....California.... currently stomping on the balls of Jeff Sessions who
is a stand in for millions of Trump's White Male Trump Bro Voters...
A few differences:
Kamala Harris does not represent all of Greater India,
and to subscribe a collective guilt to Indians because of her is the same
thing that leftist try to do to Whites (eg the leftist collective guilt
nonsense such as white privilege) We hate it when the leftist and afros use
collective guilt against us Whites, so I suggest we don't use the same
techniques against others.
Now the fact of Asians acquiring knowledge is not equivalent to an act of
destruction & genocide. And their actual goal is to gain knowledge, not
destruction. As far as giving away the knowledge and work visas, you can
blame the White corporatist/globalist for that one in their traitorous
pursuit of cheap labor. Asians are not looking to hurt us, but are merely
pursuing economic opportunity in an employment rat race that the
corporatist/globalist created.
The same can be said of Hispanics from Central & South America, and
Mexico. Their main goal is trying to increase their economic prosperity (not
genocide); it is the corporatist/globalist/leftist who are letting them in
at our expense. Even the mainland hispanics who are heavily into the drug
trade are here to sell their product, not genocide (they are smart enough to
not want to commit genocide and decrease their own customer base). Even for
the ones who hate whitey, they love money more. The exception is inner city
Caribbean Hispanics, who over the generations, have incorporated many bad
afro american cultural attributes (and so have many White millennials).
Now living in urban BosWash area most of my life (Boston, Hartford,
Bronx, Brooklyn, Newark, Philly, Baltimore, DC is mostly a variation of the
same theme), I never raised up my guard walking through an Asian, or
Hispanic neighborhood, fearing a random attack involving deadly force, just
for being White. However, afro americans have been thoroughly inculcated
with leftist hating whitey ideology, and would randomly attack Whites just
for being White. And one of the primary afro american cultural traits is
hating whitey (which is why many of them are jonesing for a race war, even
if it means they will starve to death without us).
They are also inculcated with wanting something for nothing (free lunch),
and are more inclined to robbery to get "whats mines (sic)". They even hate
whitey so much, they will even robb their own white drug user customers,
against their own rational self interest (essentially robbing their own
customer base). I would never see that from Hispanic drug dealers, and in
fact afro american robbers were usually beaten to unconsciousness, if they
robbed a Hispanic drug dealers' customer (they wanted their white customers
do be returning customers). Hispanic drug dealers are about making money,
and would hurt/kill those who interfere with their drug trade, afros attack
because of racial animosity.
You make good points, but you also express theoretical ideology, that
somewhat opposes empirical experience (academic arguments vs the real
world).
All I did was document what Allende said and did. You have not refuted any
of the documented points I made about Allende. You used the word "thug" to
describe Allende, not I. Perhaps Allende wasn't the great guy you believed
him to be, after all.
It was Allende's commitment to the Chilean Constitution that was the
very thing that drove him to his Suicide
One minor point. In comment #69, you stated that Allende was murdered.
Now you state that Allende committed suicide. Can't keep your story
straight, can you?
Consider what the
Supreme Court of Chile
said about Allende's alleged "commitment to the
Chilean Constitution."
In 1973 the Supreme Court reproached him for assuming powers
belonging to that body, which resulted in an acrimonious exchange of
letters. Thus, on May 26, 1973, in protesting at the administration's
refusal to comply with a judicial decision, the Supreme Court addressed
the President in a unanimous decision: "This Supreme Court is obliged to
express to Your Excellency, once again, the illicit attitude of the
administrative authority in its illegal interference in judicial matters,
such as putting obstacles in the way of police compliance with court
orders in criminal cases; orders which, under the existing law of the
country, should be carried out by the police without obstacles of any
kind. All of this implies an open and willful disregard for judicial
verdicts, with complete ignorance of the confusion produced in the legal
order by such attitudes and omissions; as the court expressed to Your
Excellency in a previous dispatch, these attitudes also imply not just a
crisis in the rule of law, but also the imminent rupture of legality in
the Nation."
Allende's response indicated that he would follow the law and
Constitution when he damn well pleased.
In a time of revolution, political power has the right to decide,
at the end of the day, whether or not judicial decisions correspond with
the higher goals and historical necessities of social transformation,
which should take absolute precedence over any other consideration;
consequently, the Executive has the right to decide whether or not to
carry out the verdicts of the Judicial Branch."
Both the legislature and the Supreme Court considered Allende to have
violated the laws and Constitution of Chile. In this statement Allende
openly admitted that given the choice between advancing his agenda and
following the laws and Constitution of Chile, he would choose his agenda. So
much for Allende's alleged "commitment to the Chilean Constitution."
At the same time, the issue of the coup and the law was a bit like trying
to square a circle. How do you stop Allende from running roughshod over the
Constitution, but do so in a legal manner? Apparently many in Chile believed
that was not possible- thus the coup. Had Allende followed the laws and
Constitution of Chile- and he admitted would he do so only if doing so would
advance his agenda- the coup would not have occurred.
Part of the problem that Allende faced was that far leftists inside his
coalition and outside his coalition pushed Allende's program faster than was
politically prudent. The MIR- outside the Popular Unity coalition- pushed
illegal, armed takeovers of farm land in southern Chile. The consequence was
a collapse of agricultural production and an increasing use of scarce
foreign exchange on food imports. Not very prudent. While Allende may not
have been behind the land takeovers in the South, he recognized them as
fait accompli.
As things turned out, however, many of the president's difficulties
came as much from his own coalition as from his adversaries. A crucial
factor here was that while Allende and many of his followers sincerely
believed that socialism (albeit in a very comprehensive form) could be
built on the solid foundations of the Chilean democratic tradition, there
were many others among his followers who wished to go outside (or as they
would have said, "beyond") that tradition altogether. They were the heirs
of the heady radicalization of the 1960s. As Hugo Cancino has pointed
out, in a very detailed study of this period, "a wide section of the
Chilean Left . . . , from the mid-1960s, began to experience a process of
estrangement from Chilean reality, assuming the most orthodox, canonized,
formalized versions of Marxism-Leninism."2 As Cancino also wisely says,
the Chile of 1970 was not the Russia of 1917.
This contradiction between Allende's own objectives (the essence of the
"Chilean road to socialism" in its only meaningful sense) and the radical
demands of the militant "ultras" within (and alongside) the coalition,
who could mobilize significant rural and urban constituencies, was to
provoke many of the dilemmas of the UP government. Their revolutionary
aims were utopian and far-reaching.
There were even those among the
most militant who held the apocalyptic belief – such beliefs tend to
become self-fulfilling – that it would be better for the future of the
Left and of socialism if Allende "fell by an act of force," as some of
them told an American observer in 1971 – "we are trying to create a
situation of disorder and chaos to provoke the reactionaries into a coup
d'etat. ´ "3
We all know how that worked out. Interestingly enough, there were some
leftists in Spain in 1936 who had a similar point of view. Similar results,
also.
Ultimately, Syria is a proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Russia
intends to to keep it's port there and the US is simply virtue signalling
and trying to save face for jumping feet first into the Arab Spring without
thoroughly considering the task.
"... One new actor is already there. An Afghan variant of the "Islamic State" just kicked out the Taliban from the Tora Bora cave complex near the Pakistani border. Tora Bora was once though to be the retreat area of Al-Qaeda's Osama Bin-Laden and was attacked during the U.S. invasion in 2001/2. ..."
"... For the warlords in Afghanistan the U.S. occupation has become a huge source of money. The U.S. pays them for protecting the goods shipped in from the states and elsewhere. It is a protection racket. Should the U.S. not pay, its convoys will be attacked by "Taliban". As soon as it pays the local warlords, the "Taliban" will be defeated and the area will be clear again for the trucks to pass. The money the Afghan government receives is likewise dependent on a continuation of the U.S. occupation. No one in the ruling class of Afghanistan has an interest in ending that. The government in Kabul will do nearly anything to keep its money source available. ..."
"... That may well be the reason why ISIS in Afghanistan was created. It was feared in Kabul that sooner or later the U.S. would find a compromise with the Taliban and leave the country. A new reason had to be found to continue the war. ..."
"... It is therefore not astonishing that the Afghan secret services, the National Directorate for Security (NDS), was the first sponsor of "ISIS" in Afghanistan. The first "ISIS" fighters were refugees of the Pakistani Taliban (TTP) who settled in the eastern province of Nangahar and were put on the NDS payroll: ..."
"... It is not clear if or to what extend the "ISIS" group in Afghanistan is still controlled by the Afghan government services. Their weapon and ammunition supply is now allegedly coming from Pakistan. But what is clear is that these new participants in the war were first sponsored by the Afghan government and are now a welcome reasons for an extension of the U.S. occupation and the money flows originating from it. Meanwhile the media can reuse its old scary graphics of the Tora Bora complex and sell more advertisement. ..."
"... The ban on "drugs" was not the real issue. It was a cover story. Why did they gift the Tailiban with $43M? This was a few months before 911. 911 was the day after the 2.3 trillion gone missing. ..."
"... In 2000 the Taliban government had nearly eliminated the production of opium poppies in Afghanistan. Today it is the leading source of opium derivatives in the world. This reminds me of the opium wars against China in the 1820's when the Forbes and Delano family fortunes were first made. Some things do not change. ..."
"... "...our goal has been first to contain and we have contained them..." ~ Irish-American Statesman and failed POTUS Barry O'Bama, Nov 2015, remarking on the current status of the strategy against ISIS™ ..."
"... Contain. And it would be wrong to assume strategy has evolved much past the word contain when it comes to US strategy on and employment of the Afghani based mudjihadeen, and it's various brand names since it's migration back westward since the 80's. ..."
The United States will again
escalate the war in Afghanistan.
Sixteen years ago the U.S, invaded the country and decided to eliminate the ruling Taliban for
something that was planed elsewhere by a different group. Since the invasion the U.S. tried to defeat
the Taliban. It has lost that fight. As soon as it leaves Afghanistan the Taliban will be back in
power. But no one is willing to pull the plug on the nonsensical military approach.
The Taliban are part of Afghanistan and a significant segment of the population supports them.
When the U.S. invaded Afghanistan it put the brutal and utterly corrupt warlords back into power.
These were exactly the people the Taliban were created to hold down and the reason why they could
take power in the first place. While demanding a strict religious life the Taliban successfully took
care of local security and eliminated the lawless and corrupt rule of the warlords.
It is no wonder then that a large part of the population wishes to have them back in power.
The U.S. supported government in Kabul is utterly corrupt. The Afghan military and police the
U.S. pays is likewise only motivated by money. It is not willing to fight. It takes high casualties
during Taliban attacks and therefore avoids contact with them whenever possible. Some 60 % of the
country is now more or less back under Taliban control. The government's say is restricted to the
bigger cities.
It is obvious that this trend will continued and sooner or later the Taliban will be back in power.
The only sensible strategy is to negotiate with them and to find some solution that allows them to
rule while they guaranteeing that no harm will emanate from Afghanistan for the rest of the world.
But no one in the U.S. is willing to take responsibility for that. Who would want to be blamed
for "neglecting" Afghanistan when another 9/11 happens - as unlikely as that might be? Therefore
additional troops need to be send whenever the Taliban seem to gain the advantage over the puppet
government forces.
President Trump has punted on the issue and has given full authority to the Defense Department
to continue the war in Afghanistan with as many troops as it sees fit. It is now the generals, not
Trump, who will be blamed should things in Afghanistan go wrong. But the military has no idea what
to do about Afghanistan.
Yesterday the Secretary of Defense Mattis was
asked during a Congress hearing what "winning" in Afghanistan would mean:
The idea, [Mattis] said, would be to drive down the violence to a level that could be managed
by Afghan government forces with the help of American and allied troops in training their Afghan
counterparts, providing intelligence and delivering what Mr. Mattis called "high-end capability,"
an apparent allusion to air power and possibly Special Operations forces.
The result, he said, would be an "era of frequent skirmishing," but not a situation in which
the Afghan government no longer faced a mortal threat.
Winning in Afghanistan is an "era of frequent skirmishes" in which the proxy government is continuously
endangered? That does, of course, not make any sense. It is a holding strategy that will only work
as long as the general framework stays the same. Should the Taliban change their strategy or a new
actor come in the "holding" strategy will be finished.
One new actor is already there. An Afghan variant of the "Islamic State" just
kicked out the Taliban from the Tora Bora cave complex near the Pakistani border. Tora Bora was
once though to be the retreat area of Al-Qaeda's Osama Bin-Laden and was attacked during the U.S.
invasion in 2001/2.
But who is behind the Islamic State Khorasan Province's (ISKP) in Afghanistan? Most of its fighters
seem to be former Taliban who either defected in Afghanistan or were kicked out of Pakistan when
the Pakistani military put pressure on their home areas. The real question now is who pays them and
what do they want?
Officially no one seems to know.
For the warlords in Afghanistan the U.S. occupation has become a huge source of money. The
U.S. pays them for protecting the goods shipped in from the states and elsewhere. It is a protection
racket. Should the U.S. not pay, its convoys will be attacked by "Taliban". As soon as it pays the
local warlords, the "Taliban" will be defeated and the area will be clear again for the trucks to
pass. The money the Afghan government receives is likewise dependent on a continuation of the U.S.
occupation. No one in the ruling class of Afghanistan has an interest in ending that. The government
in Kabul will do nearly anything to keep its money source available.
That may well be the reason why ISIS in Afghanistan was created. It was feared in Kabul that
sooner or later the U.S. would find a compromise with the Taliban and leave the country. A new reason
had to be found to continue the war.
It is therefore not astonishing that the Afghan secret services, the National Directorate
for Security (NDS),
was the first sponsor of "ISIS" in Afghanistan. The first "ISIS" fighters were refugees of the
Pakistani Taliban (TTP) who settled in the eastern province of Nangahar and were put on the NDS payroll:
The most well-known case of these militants finding a welcoming home in Nangarhar is that of the
Lashkar-e Islam group led by Mangal Bagh.
...
Hoping to use them against Pakistan, the Afghan government started to woo some of these fighters,
according to influential tribal elders involved in helping relation-building from the districts
that sheltered the guest militants.
...
[E]fforts by the Afghan intelligence service, the National Directorate of Security (NDS), to
woo Pakistani militants in Nangarhar have not been confined to Lashkar-e Islam or to militants
from Khyber. Tribal elders and ordinary residents of Achin, Nazian and Kot testify that fighters
from Orakzai and Mohmand agencies belonging to different factions of the TTP have been allowed
free movement across the province, as well as treatment in government hospitals.
...
It was from these 'guests' that the bulk of the Nangarhar-based ISKP foot soldiers emerged,
following the official announcement of IS's expansion to 'Khorasan Province.'
It is not clear if or to what extend the "ISIS" group in Afghanistan is still controlled by
the Afghan government services. Their weapon and ammunition supply is now allegedly coming from Pakistan.
But what is clear is that these new participants in the war were first sponsored by the Afghan government
and are now a welcome reasons for an extension of the U.S. occupation and the money flows originating
from it. Meanwhile the media can reuse its old
scary graphics of the
Tora Bora complex and sell more advertisement.
The war in Afghanistan has no longer a real purposes. This or that radical group will always exist
in Afghanistan. The war helps the U.S. military to claim more budget and to hand out promotions.
It helps the Afghan government officials and the warlords to fill their pockets. What it does not
do is to better the situation of the general population of Afghanistan or of the United States.
The war
has become the proverbial self-licking-ice-cream-cone. It will unfortunately continue to be such
under this and probably also the next U.S. presidents.
Posted by b on June 14, 2017 at 02:07 PM |
Permalink
The USA is now in Afghanistan for the minerals. It started out as a way of letting the CIA haul
in mass amounts of money from drugs. Now it has morphed for the minerals. Afghanistan has the
largest deposits of found lithium on the planet. Afghanistan is to lithium as Saudi Arabia is
to oil. We are not about to abandon Afghanistan to the Chinese.
Also, where there is lithium there is rare earth elements, which are even more valuable than lithium.
thanks b.. war is a racket, and there is no shortage of paper money denominated in us$ to pay
to keep it going.. the justifications for it all, are beside the point..
some afghanis, I know from personal conversation, think part of the agenda in A. is experimentation
with weapons in remote, inaccessible areas. there are multiple issues. have we kicked the Vietnam
syndrome yet?
That the coincidence of the heroin epidemic in the US and our invasion/occupation of Afghanistan
isn't mentioned every time the problem is discussed tells you all you need to know about the veracity
of the US media. We're only told the cover story for every event of consequence, while those who
orchestrate and profit remain safely hidden from public scrutiny.
But how does the war in Afghanistan differ from US war since world war 2.
The US military is a
fundamentally a business enterprise. It's function is not to win wars, but to make money. A standing
army was created after world war 2 to prevent the depression which the war cured, and it has since
created jobs for Americans and money for the plutocracy that has traditionally owned and ruled
America.
The idea is to create endless low intensity wars that validate the need for a enormous military
budget. Afghanistan is perfect for this aim; relatively small numbers of US military that can
endure,the motto being Enduring Freedom. The narcotics industry grows 90+% of the opium for the
world, and fuels the prison industry in the USA, and the prison labor for the Free Market.
Huge amounts of money are stolen from the military budget, 2.3 TRILLIONS dollars unaccountable
on 9/10, 2001, growing to five trillion on Obama's shift. The banks launder hundreds of billions
of drug money every year, a needed resource in financial crisis.
Think of the Afghanistan war as a homicidal business enterprise and it makes perfect sense
from a perspective of the plutocracy. And it will endure most likely until the people take the
money away from the plutes, the guns away from their gunmen, and the truth away from their truthsters.
For imperialist USA, it also helps to have a major military presence west of China, south of Russia
and east of Iran. Those US bases serve all sorts of malicious activities.
If the Taliban has some kind of consulary presence in Doha, then it shouldn't come to anyones
surprise if much of the Afghan Daesh funding comes from Riyadh.
Last but not least, since the US invasion of Afghanistan, the opium production reached sky-high
and hasn't dwindled since so the warlords and the bureaucrats in Kabul get some US funding but
a big part is also coming from opium production.
some afghanis, I know from personal conversation, think part of the agenda in A. is experimentation
with weapons in remote, inaccessible areas.
Any war is always a proving ground for new weapons systems. Look how happy Russia's Oboronexport
is after Syria;) Soviet war in Afghanistan saw a test run of many Soviet PGMs (Precision Guided
Munitions) both on the ground and from the air--e.g. laser and TV guided bombs. It is just the
way it is.
thanks b.. war is a racket, and there is no shortage of paper money denominated in us$ to
pay to keep it going..
Actually there is, and this shortage (or limit on printing) doesn't have to manifest itself
through some catastrophic economic event. Simple diminished returns, or, in layman's lingo, minuscule
bang for a buck will do--such as the case currently. It will not get any better. United States
increasingly can not build affordable and effective weapons systems. Very expensive and, in the
best case scenario, marginally "better"? Sure. Effective? Very often, no.
Somebody (somebody | Jun 13, 2017 6:36:01 AM | 178) posted this link yesterday about Monbiot's
contention that the US will not leave Afghanistan (if then?) until the Western powers have a pipeline
to the West thought Afghanistan.
Note the date -- The war is now 15 years and almost 15 full months old. We are not about to
leave without getting something tangible, if then. Any pipeline to the West will have to be "guarded,"
so...when can the NATO armies leave? Is this still a major US motive?
The war in Afghanistan has no longer a real purposes. (sic)
Before I say anything critical, let me first commend you on your unparallelled body of work. That said, I am always puzzled and quite frankly concerned when the author of a premier Geo-political
blog professes to find no strategic purpose behind a nation or a bloc of nation's actions. Nor is this the first time you have made such remarks. I generally chalk it up to a dry form
of Northern European humor which I don't quite grasp.
One could fairly critique such actions as "immoral," "unlikely to succeed," "distasteful my
sensibilities," "temporizing," etc. But, in my humble opinion, failure to find "a real purpose" behind actions does not rise to
the generally high level of your writing. I will leave it to others to elucidate both the tactics and strategy of the endless presence
in an unstable centrally located territory. The answers are quite obvious.
Not the most carefully phrased article on this site b.
An Army friend clarifies that he "was never told or read in any of our briefings that we had
a stated goal to eliminate the Taliban". He says they fought against the Taliban and warlords
insofar as those aided Al Qaeda.
I think your opening salve "Sixteen years ago the U.S, invaded the country and decided to eliminate
the ruling Taliban for something that was planed elsewhere by a different group", is not false,
but probably a bit myopic. A counterargument is that yes, but the training occurred in Afghanistan.
Maybe it is more important to detail the history of U.S. aid to mujahideen prior to 9/11? Or to
question whether the military approach (and civilian casualties:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_in_the_war_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%932014)#Afghan_protestation_of_civilian_deaths_caused_by_international_forces)
gives more or less rational motive for additional attacks against U.S. targets?
Personally, I wonder if the billions spent between Carter and Reagan aiding mujahideen would
have been better spent on cancer research, but maybe that's just me.
...gift of $43 million to the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan, the most virulent
anti-American violators of human rights in the world today. The gift,
announced last Thursday by Secretary of State Colin Powell,
in addition to other recent aid, makes the United States the main sponsor of
the Taliban and rewards that "rogue regime" for declaring that opium growing
is against the will of God. So, too, by the Taliban's estimation,
are most human activities, but it's the ban on drugs that catches this administration's attention.
The ban on "drugs" was not the real issue. It was a cover story.
Why did they gift the Tailiban with $43M? This was a few months before 911.
911 was the day after the 2.3 trillion gone missing.
In 2001 I was quite naive. I actually supported the US war against Afghanistan then for the simple
reason that the US public was lusting for war. Afghanistan seemed to be one enemy where we could
let off steam without provoking some serious war elsewhere. Sort of like Reagan had to attack
Grenada in order to save some face after the fiasco in Lebanon in 1982.
It was clear that we could
remove the Taliban government in a few months but it was also clear that it would be the height
of stupidity to think we could occupy that country for the next 16 years. Alas, dumbo Bush decided
to do just that. Afghanistan did have a traditional system with a king in Kabul that was tolerated
as long as he didn't try to rule the tribal regions. The US violated that tradition and installed
the puppet Karsi to rule the whole country.
In 2000 the Taliban government had nearly eliminated the production of opium poppies in Afghanistan.
Today it is the leading source of opium derivatives in the world. This reminds me of the opium
wars against China in the 1820's when the Forbes and Delano family fortunes were first made. Some
things do not change.
First and foremost, Afghanistan and its people had absolutely zero to do with 911. Plans
to invade Afghanistan were well developed many months prior to 911--the reason for those
plans is the primary foreign policy directive of the Outlaw US Empire-- Vision 2010 then
reissued as Vision 2020 , which declares Full Spectrum Domination of the planet and its
people to be its #1 goal, with Afghanistan providing the ideal geographical location to pressure
both Russia and China\
That is the fundamental reason for the Outlaw US Empire's Aggressive
War Crime of invasion and unending occupation of that poor country. Nor is it going to end until
the Outlaw US Empire is forced to remove itself.
American involvment in Afghanistan has most likely has had 2 objectives to fulfill:
--- War contractors:
In old days nations went to war to plunder other countries;
but America and Pentagon contractors have gone to war in Afghnistan to plunder the US treasury.
Russia and Iran must rejoice for the renewed US interest in Afghanistan. Both have borders with
Afghanistan and will take pleasure in arming and supporting any forces that would confront and
humiliate the US military.
Mathis, get ready for a bumpy road scattered with body bags...
We expect the US to blame Iran and Russia for the mess it is getting into.
"For the warlords in Afghanistan the U.S. occupation has become a huge source of money. The U.S.
pays them for protecting the goods shipped in from the states and elsewhere"
The goods happen to be $1 trillion worth of annual opium/heroin production (which when from
0 tons per annum in 2000 to 13+tons annual production today). It is shipped out to Serbia, Bulgaria,
Turkey, and then sent all around the planet. Anybody see a problem with heroin in the US lately?
The big banks take a 20% cut to launder the money. Langley uses the rest to pay its mercenary
armies, to buy and control governments, to do any damn thing it wants to.
"... The war in Afghanistan has no longer a real purposes (sic)... The war helps the U.S. military
to claim more budget and to hand out promotions. It helps the Afghan government officials and
the warlords to fill their pockets ..."
I think the answer is staring at both of us in our faces. The war in Afghanistan may no longer
have a real geo-strategic purpose if it ever did 15 years ago but it helps to keep ageing military
generals in jobs, special military projects current (and providing work for technicians and other
specialists) and justify more Congress spending on the military. It also helps circulate money
in Afghanistan and enables Afghan government officials and warlords to fill not just their pockets
but spread largesse to their families and communities when there are no other jobs to be had because
of the chaos and instability. So that's really the purpose of the war: it's an economy in itself.
when americans enter a country, they turn it into an iraq or an afghanistan or a libya
americans not only love corruption, they actively create it:'The U.S. supported government
in Kabul is utterly corrupt. The Afghan military and police the U.S. pays is likewise only motivated
by money'
"...our goal has been first to contain and we have contained them..."
~ Irish-American Statesman and failed POTUS Barry O'Bama, Nov 2015, remarking on the current status
of the strategy against ISIS™
Contain. And it would be wrong to assume strategy has evolved much past the word contain when
it comes to US strategy on and employment of the Afghani based mudjihadeen, and it's various
brand names since it's migration back westward since the 80's.
I'm interested in the electoral fig leaf that justifies the occupation. There should have been
parliamentary elections last October, but they were postponed because the electoral commission
that was created as part of the Kerry-brokered Ghani-Abdullah power-sharing agreement deadlocked.
One of the main issues, and a beef of the Abdullah camp, is that there are millions more voter
registration cards than actual Afghan voters; plus, Afghan voters do not have to vote at a particular
location (giving new meaning to the old crack about "Vote early vote often"). Abdullah argued
that he was robbed of victory in 2014 because of this.
In any event, the current parliament is still serving because of a presidential decree by Ghani.
If electoral reform is ever agreed upon, it's a fair question if a nationwide vote can even be
staged because so much of the country is controlled by the Taliban. So what happens in 2019 when
it's time for the next presidential vote? Will Ghani extend his own term by decree, or will he
leave that to the fraudulent parliament?
I'm rather tempted to comment on what at its base is an attempt to expand the scope of what's
being called "Russiagate," but the comment platform is run by Discus which I will never use again
due to its censorship and deep state connections. That said, reading some of the comments proves
the deluded nature of Politico's readership, and provides evidence for turning the rhetorical
table on it by accusing it of fomenting a Fifth Column of propagandized robots.
Robert Pinckney 2:15:06 PM | 1
"We are not about to abandon Afghanistan to the Chinese."
So, Mr. Wise Man. Who is "we"? Do you identify with the u.s. sucker class's interests?
"... Read Starikov... All these recent weapons deals, and many before is nothing more than what's called Reparations and Contributions. ..."
"... It's an old deal http://defense-update.com/20141222_qatari_patriots.html ..."
"... You know I am not a fan of the military industrial complex but you have to be in awe of these people. Trump sells 350 billion to SA which includes the best automatic self destruct fighter every engineered by the U.S. and then sells F15s to their obvious rivals in Quatar lol. ..."
Pentagon Agrees To Sell $12 Billion In F-15s To Qatar Tyler Durden Jun 14, 2017
4:35 PM 0 SHARES Remember when Trump called on
Qatar to stop funding terrorism, claiming credit for and endorsing the decision of Gulf nations to
isolate their small neighbor (where the most important US airbase in the middle east is located),even
as US Cabinet officials said their blockade is hurting the campaign against ISIS. You should: it
took place just 5 days ago.
"We had a decision to make," Trump said, describing conversations with Saudi Arabia and other
Gulf countries. "Do we take the easy road or do we finally take a hard but necessary action? We have
to stop the funding of terrorism." Also last week, Trump triumphantly announced on twitter that "during
my recent trip to the Middle East I stated that there can no longer be funding of Radical Ideology.
Leaders pointed to Qatar - look!"
Well, Qatar funding terrorism apparently is not a problem when it comes to Qatar funding the US
military industrial complex , because just two weeks after Trump signed a record, $110 billion weapons
deal with Saudi Arabia, moments ago
Bloomberg reported that Qatar will also buy up to 36 F-15 jets from the Pentagon for $12 billion
.... even as a political crisis in the Gulf leaves the Middle East nation isolated by its neighbors
and criticized by President Donald Trump for supporting terrorism, according to three people with
knowledge of the accord.
According to the Pentagon, the sale will give Qatar a "state of the art" capability, not to mention
the illusion that it can defend itself in a war with Saudi Arabia.
If nothing else, Uncle Sam sure is an equal-opportunity arms dealer, and best of all, with the
new fighter planes, Qatar will be able to at least put on a token fight when Saudi Arabia invades
in hopes of sending the price of oil surging now that every other "strategy" has failed.
To be sure, the sale comes at an opportune time: just days after Qatar put its military on the
highest state of alert,
and scrambled its tanks . All 16 of them. Maybe the world's wealthiest nation realized it's time
beef up its defensive capabilities?
Qatar's defense minister will meet with Pentagon chief Jim Mattis on Wednesday to seal the agreement,
Bloomberg reported citing people who spoke on condition of anonymity because the sale hasn't been
announced. Last year, congress approved the sale of up to 72 F-15s in an agreement valued at as much
as $21 billion but that deal took place before the recent political crisis in the region.
Oh c'mon y'all. This is nothing new. These are the same synchophants that (somehow, oops!)
created ISIS and then go in and bomb them. WTF did you expect? That they'd actually do what they
say?
A big shout out to Boeing Military. Hookers and blow tonight in the exec suite. BTW these planes
aren't sitting in inventory ready to be delivered. So any conflict in the next few years won't
have to worry about these planes.
That is unless the US or some other buyer agrees to step aside and allow Qatar to take their
place at the end of the assembly line.
That should about wrap it up on who is in charge of the Deep state. Backing both sides of a
potential conflict and making sure everyone has enough arms to blow each to smitherines. Sounds
like the old Red Shield tricks are still the best ones. Long live central bankers, after they
have been thrown into a burning pit of sulfer.
Absolutely. But, oh, these damned Iranians. They simply resisted the USA's boy Saddam and fought
back.
That failure to comply with OUR orders sealed his faith.
Weapons of mass destruction. Well, we delivered them to him. chemical weapons to kill all the
Iranians. So we KNEW they must have been there. We just didn't expect that he really used them
all up against Iran and later on (the remaining few) against the curds. What a bastard. After
all that WE did for Saddam, he didn't deliver. Fuck him.
Speaking of non-delivery, why has our newest boy, Poroshenko, not yet taken Moscow? So, fuck
him, too! And fuck the EU.
And speaking of that, where is Monica, when one needs her? And let's have some Pizza...
That could happen and did on many F-18 sales where we in the US in effect packed the parts
into glorified Heath kits and sent them to the buying countries who did their own labor. Also
sent them the testing equipment and every other thing they needed so all we got were a few spare
piece parts at a slightly lower price. The labor went to the purchasing country.
That right there is some wizard-level salesmanship. And I can assure you that these weapons
systems have "ALL" of the capabilities of the ones in our US arsenal, hahaha. And furthermore,
they cannot be messed with by remote control by the boys at the Pentagon, just in case things
get a little messy or embarassing. Nosiree. What you see is what you get. Yes, Lord.
Looks like Trump is just selling to whoever want to buy. What the hell, why not, he's shown
himself to be a sell out. Might as well be the best damn arms dealer you can buy.
You know I am not a fan of the military industrial complex but you have to be in awe of
these people. Trump sells 350 billion to SA which includes the best automatic self destruct fighter
every engineered by the U.S. and then sells F15s to their obvious rivals in Quatar lol.
I personally think the F15s will utterly destroy the f35s because all they have to do to down
an f35 is keep it flying, it will eventual blow up on its own.
Well like I said before, let the body count be super high... and let all the fucking crazy
suicide bombers head back home to kill themselves.
As Bernie, the man behind the man that shot up a bunch of congressmen said... Its going to
be HUUUUUGE... the war thats coming that is... I wonder how many oil tankers will be sunk?
Almost all the world's economic and political problems revolve around the hegemony of a global
corporate cartel, which is headquartered in the US because this is where their dominant military
force resides. The US Constitution is therefore the "kingpin" of an all-inclusive global financial
empire. These fictitious entities now own the USA and command its military infrastructure by virtue
of the Federal Reserve Corporation, regulatory capture, MSM propaganda, and congressional lobbying.
The Founders had to fight a bloody Revolutionary War to win our right to incorporate as a nation
– the USA. But then, for whatever reason, our Founders granted the greediest businessmen among
them unrestricted corporate charters with enough potential capital & power to compete with the
individual states, smaller sovereign nations, and eventually to buy out the USA itself. The only
way The People can regain our sovereignty as a constitutional republic now is to severely curtail
the privileges of any corporation doing business here. To remain sovereign we have to stop granting
corporate charters to just any "suit" that comes along without fulfilling a defined social value
in return. The "Divine Right Of Kings" should not apply to fictitious entities just because they
are "Too Big To Fail". We can't afford to privatize our Treasury to transnational banks anymore.
Government must be held responsible only to the electorate, not fictitious entities; and banks
must be held responsible to the government if we are ever to restore sanity, much less prosperity,
to the world.
It was a loophole in our Constitution that allowed corporate charters to be so easily obtained
that a swamp of corruption inevitably flooded our entire economic system. It is a swamp that can't
be drained at this point because the Constitution doesn't provide a drain. This 28 th
amendment is intended to install that drain so Congress can pull the plug ASAP. As a matter
of political practicality we must rely on the Article 5 option to do this, for which the electorate
will need overwhelming consensus beforehand. Seriously; an Article 5 Constitutional Convention
is rapidly becoming our only sensible option.
This is what I think it will take to save the world; and nobody gets hurt: 28 th
Amendment
28 th Amendment:
Corporations are not persons in any sense of the word and shall be granted only those rights
and privileges that Congress deems necessary for the well-being of the People. Congress shall
provide legislation defining the terms and conditions of corporate charters according to their
purpose; which shall include, but are not limited to:
1, prohibitions against any corporation; a, owning another corporation; b, becoming economically
indispensable or monopolistic; or c, otherwise distorting the general economy;
2, prohibitions against any form of interference in the affairs of; a, government, b, education,
c, news media; or d, healthcare, and
3, provisions for; a, the auditing of standardized, current, and transparent account books;
b, the establishment of state and municipal banking; and c, civil and criminal penalties to be
suffered by corporate executives for violation of the terms of a corporate charter.
The societies try to be "secret," but their lies and crimes are
Emperor's New Clothes obvious for anyone caring to apply a high school level of education
to look:
The US is a
literal rogue state empire led by neocolonial looting liars. The history is uncontested and
taught to anyone taking comprehensive courses. If anyone has any refutations of this professional
academic factual claim for any of this
easy-to-read and documented content , please provide it. Rogue state empire is the
most accurate term to describe the US for the following reasons:
People around the world view the
US as the greatest threat to peace ; voted three times more dangerous than any other country.
The data confirm this conclusion:
The total deaths caused by rogue state empire for resource control (natural and human)
in the last 20 years is ~400 million , more than all total wars and violence in all recorded
Earth history .
There are several problems with Krugman both as an economist and as a political commentator.
First he does not understand that neoliberal system is inherency unstable and prone to periodic
bubbles and crashes.
FED plays destabilizing role by attempting to save large banks. It essentially provided insurance
for reckless behaviour. This is very "Minsky" -- "stability is destabilizing".
If we believe Jim Rogers, FED policies created a situation in which the next crash is a real
possibility and might happen within a year, or two:
Politically Krugman switched to neocon views and sometimes is undistinguishable from Wolfowitz
: " And consider his refusal to endorse the central principle of NATO, the obligation to come
to our allies' defense... What was that about? Nobody knows..."
NATO became obsolete with the dissolution of the USSR and now serves only as an instrument
of the US foreign policy -- a tool for expansion and maintenance of neoliberal empire and keeping
our European vassals in check.
He also got into Russiagate trap, which is a sign of weak intellect (dementia in cases of Hillary
and McCain), or of a neocon political hack. As Krugman does not have dementia, I suspect the latter.
The standards he tries to apply to Trump would put in jail all three previous presidents starting
from "change we can believe in" bait and switch artist.
In other words his column is highly partisan and as such represents interest only for Hillary
Bots and DemoRats (which are still plentiful and control MSM).
For people who try to find a real way out of the current difficult situation (a crisis of confidence
and, possibly, the start of revolt against neoliberal elite due to side effects of globalization)
the USA now have find itself, this is just a noise. Nothing constructive.
Trump position "get what you want with the brute force; f*ck diplomacy, UN and decency" is
actually an attempt to find a solution for the problems we face. Abhorrent as it is. Kind of highway
robbery policy.
The key problem is whether we should start dismantling neoliberalism before it is too late,
and what should be the alternative. Krugman is useless in attempts to answer those two key questions.
And it is unclear whether it is possible by peaceful means. Those neolib/neocon guys like Bolsheviks
in the past want to cling to power at all costs.
Another question is whether the maintenance of global neoliberal empire led by the USA is now
too costly for US taxpayers and need to be reconsidered. This is the same question British empire
faced in the past. Do we really need 500 or so foreign bases? Do we really need to spend half
a trillion dollars annually on military? Do we need all those never ending wars as in Orwellian
"war is the health of the state" quote (actually this quote is not from 1984, this is the subtitle
of the essay by Randolph Bourne (1918))
What is the real risk of WWIII with such policies? Because there is a chance that nor only
the modern civilization, but all higher forms of life of Earth in general seize to exists after
it.
Concentrating of Trump "deficiencies" Krugman does not understand that Trump is just a Republican
Obama -- another "clean plate" offering to the US electorate, another "bait and switch" artist.
With just different fake slogan "Make America great again" instead of "Change we can believe
in".
And as such any critique of Trump is an implicit critique of Obama presidency, which enabled
Trump election.
Teleprompter personally was a dangerous and unqualified political hack, not that different
from Trump (no foreign policy experience whatsoever; almost zero understanding of economics),
who outsourced foreign policy to the despicable neocon warmonger Clinton and got us into Libya,
Ukraine and Syria wars in addition to existing war in Afghanistan.
Continuing occupation of Afghanistan (which incorrectly called war) and illegal actions in
Syria (there was no UN resolution justifying the USA presence in Syria) are now becoming too costly.
Afghan people definitely want the USA out and will fight for their freedom. Taliban has supporters
in Pakistan and possibly in other Islamic countries.
In Syria the USA now clashed with Russian interests which make it a real power keg. And to
this sociopaths in CIA like Mike "Kill-Russians" Morell and the fact that CIA is not under complete
control of federal government and actually represent "state within the state" force in this conflict,
and the situation looks really dangerous.
And please note that Russia protects a secular government, and the USA supports Islamic fundamentalists
in Syria, to make Israel even greater. Instead of "Making America great again". Such a betrayal
of elections promises... The same policy that Hillary would adopt if she sits on the throne.
So to say that Trump is idiot in foreign policy without saying that Obama was the same dangerous
idiot, who pursued the same neocon policies is hypocritical, because they are manipulated by the
same people in dark suits and are just marionettes, or, at best, minor players. Other people decide
for them what is good for America.
The US army is pretty much demoralized and even with advanced weapons and absolute air superiority
can't achieve much because solders understand that they are just cannon fodder and it is unclear
what they fighting for in Afghanistan.
Because in Syria the USA support the same Islamic fundamentalists it is fighting in Afghanistan.
Or even worse then those -- head choppers like guys from Al Nusra.
So we fight secular government in Syria supporting Sunni fundamentalists (often of worst kind
as KSA supported Wahhabi fighters) and simultaneously are trying to protect secular government
in Afghanistan against exactly the same (or even slightly more moderate) Islamic fundamentalist
forces. Is not this a definition of split personality?
"In the case of Hillary Clinton, not only does that mean more wasted money, it means more wars,
wars we will lose.
Hillary is a wild-eyed interventionist. She gave us the Libyan fiasco, and had Obama been fool
enough to listen to her again, we would now be at war on the ground in Syria.
The establishment refuses to see the limits of American power, and it also refuses to compel
our military to focus on war against non-state opponents, or Fourth Generation war. The Pentagon
pretends its future is war against other states.
The political and foreign-policy establishments pretend the Pentagon knows how to win. They
waltz together happily, unaware theirs is a Totentanz."
The societies try to be "secret," but their lies and crimes are
Emperor's New Clothes obvious for anyone caring to apply a high school level of education
to look:
The US is a
literal rogue state empire led by neocolonial looting liars. The history is uncontested and
taught to anyone taking comprehensive courses. If anyone has any refutations of this professional
academic factual claim for any of this
easy-to-read and documented content , please provide it. Rogue state empire is the
most accurate term to describe the US for the following reasons:
People around the world view the
US as the greatest threat to peace ; voted three times more dangerous than any other country.
The data confirm this conclusion:
The total deaths caused by rogue state empire for resource control (natural and human)
in the last 20 years is ~400 million , more than all total wars and violence in all recorded
Earth history .
There are several problems with Krugman both as an economist and as a political commentator.
First he does not understand that neoliberal system is inherency unstable and prone to periodic
bubbles and crashes.
FED plays destabilizing role by attempting to save large banks. It essentially provided insurance
for reckless behaviour. This is very "Minsky" -- "stability is destabilizing".
If we believe Jim Rogers, FED policies created a situation in which the next crash is a real
possibility and might happen within a year, or two:
Politically Krugman switched to neocon views and sometimes is undistinguishable from Wolfowitz
: " And consider his refusal to endorse the central principle of NATO, the obligation to come
to our allies' defense... What was that about? Nobody knows..."
NATO became obsolete with the dissolution of the USSR and now serves only as an instrument
of the US foreign policy -- a tool for expansion and maintenance of neoliberal empire and keeping
our European vassals in check.
He also got into Russiagate trap, which is a sign of weak intellect (dementia in cases of Hillary
and McCain), or of a neocon political hack. As Krugman does not have dementia, I suspect the latter.
The standards he tries to apply to Trump would put in jail all three previous presidents starting
from "change we can believe in" bait and switch artist.
In other words his column is highly partisan and as such represents interest only for Hillary
Bots and DemoRats (which are still plentiful and control MSM).
For people who try to find a real way out of the current difficult situation (a crisis of confidence
and, possibly, the start of revolt against neoliberal elite due to side effects of globalization)
the USA now have find itself, this is just a noise. Nothing constructive.
Trump position "get what you want with the brute force; f*ck diplomacy, UN and decency" is
actually an attempt to find a solution for the problems we face. Abhorrent as it is. Kind of highway
robbery policy.
The key problem is whether we should start dismantling neoliberalism before it is too late,
and what should be the alternative. Krugman is useless in attempts to answer those two key questions.
And it is unclear whether it is possible by peaceful means. Those neolib/neocon guys like Bolsheviks
in the past want to cling to power at all costs.
Another question is whether the maintenance of global neoliberal empire led by the USA is now
too costly for US taxpayers and need to be reconsidered. This is the same question British empire
faced in the past. Do we really need 500 or so foreign bases? Do we really need to spend half
a trillion dollars annually on military? Do we need all those never ending wars as in Orwellian
"war is the health of the state" quote (actually this quote is not from 1984, this is the subtitle
of the essay by Randolph Bourne (1918))
What is the real risk of WWIII with such policies? Because there is a chance that nor only
the modern civilization, but all higher forms of life of Earth in general seize to exists after
it.
Concentrating of Trump "deficiencies" Krugman does not understand that Trump is just a Republican
Obama -- another "clean plate" offering to the US electorate, another "bait and switch" artist.
With just different fake slogan "Make America great again" instead of "Change we can believe
in".
And as such any critique of Trump is an implicit critique of Obama presidency, which enabled
Trump election.
Teleprompter personally was a dangerous and unqualified political hack, not that different
from Trump (no foreign policy experience whatsoever; almost zero understanding of economics),
who outsourced foreign policy to the despicable neocon warmonger Clinton and got us into Libya,
Ukraine and Syria wars in addition to existing war in Afghanistan.
Continuing occupation of Afghanistan (which incorrectly called war) and illegal actions in
Syria (there was no UN resolution justifying the USA presence in Syria) are now becoming too costly.
Afghan people definitely want the USA out and will fight for their freedom. Taliban has supporters
in Pakistan and possibly in other Islamic countries.
In Syria the USA now clashed with Russian interests which make it a real power keg. And to
this sociopaths in CIA like Mike "Kill-Russians" Morell and the fact that CIA is not under complete
control of federal government and actually represent "state within the state" force in this conflict,
and the situation looks really dangerous.
And please note that Russia protects a secular government, and the USA supports Islamic fundamentalists
in Syria, to make Israel even greater. Instead of "Making America great again". Such a betrayal
of elections promises... The same policy that Hillary would adopt if she sits on the throne.
So to say that Trump is idiot in foreign policy without saying that Obama was the same dangerous
idiot, who pursued the same neocon policies is hypocritical, because they are manipulated by the
same people in dark suits and are just marionettes, or, at best, minor players. Other people decide
for them what is good for America.
The US army is pretty much demoralized and even with advanced weapons and absolute air superiority
can't achieve much because solders understand that they are just cannon fodder and it is unclear
what they fighting for in Afghanistan.
Because in Syria the USA support the same Islamic fundamentalists it is fighting in Afghanistan.
Or even worse then those -- head choppers like guys from Al Nusra.
So we fight secular government in Syria supporting Sunni fundamentalists (often of worst kind
as KSA supported Wahhabi fighters) and simultaneously are trying to protect secular government
in Afghanistan against exactly the same (or even slightly more moderate) Islamic fundamentalist
forces. Is not this a definition of split personality?
"In the case of Hillary Clinton, not only does that mean more wasted money, it means more wars,
wars we will lose.
Hillary is a wild-eyed interventionist. She gave us the Libyan fiasco, and had Obama been fool
enough to listen to her again, we would now be at war on the ground in Syria.
The establishment refuses to see the limits of American power, and it also refuses to compel
our military to focus on war against non-state opponents, or Fourth Generation war. The Pentagon
pretends its future is war against other states.
The political and foreign-policy establishments pretend the Pentagon knows how to win. They
waltz together happily, unaware theirs is a Totentanz."
The Senate on Tuesday narrowly rejected an effort to block part of
President Trump's $110 billion arms sale to Saudi Arabia.
Senators voted 47-53 on advancing the resolution, falling short of the
simple majority needed to move forward. GOP Sens. Mike Lee (Utah), Rand Paul
(Ky.) Todd Young (Ind.) and Dean Heller (Nev.) voted with most Democrats to
advance it.
Democratic Sens. Joe Donnelly (Ind.), Claire McCaskill (Mo.), Bill Nelson
(Fla.), Joe Manchin (W.Va.) and Mark Warner (Va.) voted against moving the
measure.
The motion faced an uphill climb in the Senate, despite growing concerns
about Saudi Arabia's involvement in Yemen's civil war.
The Senate on Tuesday narrowly rejected an effort to block part of
President Trump's $110 billion arms sale to Saudi Arabia.
Senators voted 47-53 on advancing the resolution, falling short of the
simple majority needed to move forward. GOP Sens. Mike Lee (Utah), Rand Paul
(Ky.) Todd Young (Ind.) and Dean Heller (Nev.) voted with most Democrats to
advance it.
Democratic Sens. Joe Donnelly (Ind.), Claire McCaskill (Mo.), Bill Nelson
(Fla.), Joe Manchin (W.Va.) and Mark Warner (Va.) voted against moving the
measure.
The motion faced an uphill climb in the Senate, despite growing concerns
about Saudi Arabia's involvement in Yemen's civil war.
SIPRI Military Expenditure Database
2017 Fact Sheet (for 2016) [Wikipedia]
1 US $611.2B annually 3.3% of GDP
2 China $215.7B 1.9%
3 Russia $69.2B 5.3%
4 Saudi Arabia $63.7B 10%
5 India $55.9B 2.5%
6 France $55.7B 2.3%
7 UK $48.3B 1.9%
8 Japan $46.1B 1%
9 Germany $41.1B 1.2%
10 South Korea $36.8B 2.7%
Budget, US figure does not include OCO* which is separate
budget.
*spent on things like training al Qaeda in Syria
then defending US grab in Syria, body bags in Syria air
refueling and naval support for bombing Yemen, etc.
This 2.5% calculated vs GDP which includes oversized FIRE
sector. As such it is somewhat deceptive. Along the lines:
look how little we spend on defense.
The reality is different.
For 2015 total budget was 3.97 trillion. Military budget
was 637 billions. That's 16%. And part of military budget is
hidden (Department Of Energy, three letter agencies, etc.)
So we can assume that 2 out of each ten dollars goes to
defense. That's a serious hit and that might help to explain
crumbling infrastructure in the USA. Might be a symptom of
British-style overextension of the empire.
SIPRI Military Expenditure Database
2017 Fact Sheet (for 2016) [Wikipedia]
1 US $611.2B annually 3.3% of GDP
2 China $215.7B 1.9%
3 Russia $69.2B 5.3%
4 Saudi Arabia $63.7B 10%
5 India $55.9B 2.5%
6 France $55.7B 2.3%
7 UK $48.3B 1.9%
8 Japan $46.1B 1%
9 Germany $41.1B 1.2%
10 South Korea $36.8B 2.7%
Budget, US figure does not include OCO* which is separate
budget.
*spent on things like training al Qaeda in Syria
then defending US grab in Syria, body bags in Syria air
refueling and naval support for bombing Yemen, etc.
This 2.5% calculated vs GDP which includes oversized FIRE
sector. As such it is somewhat deceptive. Along the lines:
look how little we spend on defense.
The reality is different.
For 2015 total budget was 3.97 trillion. Military budget
was 637 billions. That's 16%. And part of military budget is
hidden (Department Of Energy, three letter agencies, etc.)
So we can assume that 2 out of each ten dollars goes to
defense. That's a serious hit and that might help to explain
crumbling infrastructure in the USA. Might be a symptom of
British-style overextension of the empire.
"... "In particular, our results show that mining-induced violence was associated mainly with foreign ownership...." ..."
"... Leaders of African countries indeed can resist multinationals. All they have to do is refuse bribes and survive attempts by
the CIA, the State Department, and thugs hired by the multinationals to have them killed. And after succeeding then can then try and
manage their countries economy while cut off from the world banking system. ..."
Countering the mining curse
By Nicolas Berman, Mathieu Couttenier, Dominic Rohner, and Mathias Thoenig
Countries that are rich in natural resources do not always prosper economically. This column uses data on conflict and mineral
extraction in Africa to argue that recent rises in mineral prices explain up to a quarter of local conflicts between 1997 and
2010. Mining-induced violence is associated with foreign ownership, although corporate social responsibility policies were associated
with less violence. This is relevant to the US debate on whether to scrap the legal requirement to disclose whether products contain
conflict minerals....
In particular, our results show that mining-induced violence was associated mainly with foreign ownership. Nevertheless, among
foreign-owned companies, the ones that operated in the least corrupt countries, and the ones that had corporate social responsibility
policies were associated with less violence....
This Mine Is Mine! How Minerals Fuel Conflicts in Africa
By Nicolas Berman, Mathieu Couttenier, Dominic Rohner, and Mathias Thoenig
Abstract
We combine georeferenced data on mining extraction of 14 minerals with information on conflict events at spatial resolution
of 0.5 degree x 0.5 degree for all of Africa between 1997 and 2010. Exploiting exogenous variations in world prices, we find a
positive impact of mining on conflict at the local level. Quantitatively, our estimates suggest that the historical rise in mineral
prices (commodity super-cycle) might explain up to one-fourth of the average level of violence across African countries over the
period. We then document how a fighting group's control of a mining area contributes to escalation from local to global violence.
Finally, we analyze the impact of corporate practices and transparency initiatives in the mining industry.
However, I have only read the abstract and conclusion so far. I will read the entire paper carefully. An assertion that surprised
me and for which I have no intuitive explanation is made in the summary:
"In particular, our results show that mining-induced violence was associated mainly with foreign ownership...."
Kofi Annan is right - the world's multinationals are abusing transfer pricing to shift the economic rents from these African mines
to tax havens in places like Switzerland....
[ Perfect, describe the process simply and with no judgmental language so that the process is made clear. No jargon. Understanding
before any judgement. ]
Leaders of African countries indeed can resist multinationals. All they have to do is refuse bribes and survive attempts by
the CIA, the State Department, and thugs hired by the multinationals to have them killed. And after succeeding then can then try
and manage their countries economy while cut off from the world banking system.
"... Hillary is a wild-eyed interventionist. She gave us the Libyan fiasco, and had Obama been fool enough to listen to her again, we would now be at war on the ground in Syria. ..."
"... The establishment refuses to see the limits of American power, and it also refuses to compel our military to focus on war against non-state opponents, or Fourth Generation war. The Pentagon pretends its future is war against other states. ..."
"... The political and foreign-policy establishments pretend the Pentagon knows how to win. They waltz together happily, unaware theirs is a Totentanz." ..."
"In the case of Hillary Clinton, not only does that mean more wasted money, it means more
wars, wars we will lose.
Hillary is a wild-eyed interventionist. She gave us the Libyan fiasco, and had Obama been
fool enough to listen to her again, we would now be at war on the ground in Syria.
The establishment refuses to see the limits of American power, and it also refuses to compel
our military to focus on war against non-state opponents, or Fourth Generation war. The Pentagon
pretends its future is war against other states.
The political and foreign-policy establishments pretend the Pentagon knows how to win. They
waltz together happily, unaware theirs is a Totentanz."
"... "In particular, our results show that mining-induced violence was associated mainly with foreign ownership...." ..."
"... Leaders of African countries indeed can resist multinationals. All they have to do is refuse bribes and survive attempts by
the CIA, the State Department, and thugs hired by the multinationals to have them killed. And after succeeding then can then try and
manage their countries economy while cut off from the world banking system. ..."
Countering the mining curse
By Nicolas Berman, Mathieu Couttenier, Dominic Rohner, and Mathias Thoenig
Countries that are rich in natural resources do not always prosper economically. This column uses data on conflict and mineral
extraction in Africa to argue that recent rises in mineral prices explain up to a quarter of local conflicts between 1997 and
2010. Mining-induced violence is associated with foreign ownership, although corporate social responsibility policies were associated
with less violence. This is relevant to the US debate on whether to scrap the legal requirement to disclose whether products contain
conflict minerals....
In particular, our results show that mining-induced violence was associated mainly with foreign ownership. Nevertheless, among
foreign-owned companies, the ones that operated in the least corrupt countries, and the ones that had corporate social responsibility
policies were associated with less violence....
This Mine Is Mine! How Minerals Fuel Conflicts in Africa
By Nicolas Berman, Mathieu Couttenier, Dominic Rohner, and Mathias Thoenig
Abstract
We combine georeferenced data on mining extraction of 14 minerals with information on conflict events at spatial resolution
of 0.5 degree x 0.5 degree for all of Africa between 1997 and 2010. Exploiting exogenous variations in world prices, we find a
positive impact of mining on conflict at the local level. Quantitatively, our estimates suggest that the historical rise in mineral
prices (commodity super-cycle) might explain up to one-fourth of the average level of violence across African countries over the
period. We then document how a fighting group's control of a mining area contributes to escalation from local to global violence.
Finally, we analyze the impact of corporate practices and transparency initiatives in the mining industry.
However, I have only read the abstract and conclusion so far. I will read the entire paper carefully. An assertion that surprised
me and for which I have no intuitive explanation is made in the summary:
"In particular, our results show that mining-induced violence was associated mainly with foreign ownership...."
Kofi Annan is right - the world's multinationals are abusing transfer pricing to shift the economic rents from these African mines
to tax havens in places like Switzerland....
[ Perfect, describe the process simply and with no judgmental language so that the process is made clear. No jargon. Understanding
before any judgement. ]
Leaders of African countries indeed can resist multinationals. All they have to do is refuse bribes and survive attempts by
the CIA, the State Department, and thugs hired by the multinationals to have them killed. And after succeeding then can then try
and manage their countries economy while cut off from the world banking system.
Real GDP -14%
Nominal GDP ($) -200%
Inflation +101%
Index of industrial production -24.5%
1ndex of Agroproduction + 161%
1ndex of production + 124%
Gross external debt to GDP ratio +44%
Export of goods and services -180%
The volume of direct investment -400%
Capital investment (in $) -250%
Total private (in $) -56%
Wholesale volume (in $) -230%
Retail volumes (in $) -230%
Currency transferred from foreign countries -36%
Unemployment + 2%
Number of payers of taxes -10%
Goods transportation : -17.6%
Passenger transportation -27%
Gold and other noble metals reserves -25%
Currency reserves -360%
Devaluation of hryvna 320%
In the latest video clip segment for the Showtime documentary of Vladimir Putin by Oscar ward
winning director Oliver Stone, the Russian President surprisingly speaks with respect for Senator
John McCain, a neocon warmonger, who consistently calls for conflict with Russia and played an
integral role in the US coup in Ukraine in 2014.
Putin told Stone in Moscow
"Well, honestly, I like Senator McCain to a certain extent. And I'm not joking.
I
like him because of his patriotism,
and I can relate to his consistency in fighting
for the interests of his own country."
RT reports
that the Russian President compared US Senator McCain to the Ancient Roman
Senator, Cato the Elder, who routinely signed off his speeches, regardless of the subject, with
the phrase,
"Carthage must be destroyed."
"People with such convictions, like the Senator you mentioned, they still live in the Old
World. And they're reluctant to look into the future, they are unwilling to recognize how fast
the world is changing."
"They do not see the real threat, and they cannot leave behind the past, which is always
dragging them back,"
"Unfortunately there are many senators like this in the United States."
Real GDP -14%
Nominal GDP ($) -200%
Inflation +101%
Index of industrial production -24.5%
1ndex of Agroproduction + 161%
1ndex of production + 124%
Gross external debt to GDP ratio +44%
Export of goods and services -180%
The volume of direct investment -400%
Capital investment (in $) -250%
Total private (in $) -56%
Wholesale volume (in $) -230%
Retail volumes (in $) -230%
Currency transferred from foreign countries -36%
Unemployment + 2%
Number of payers of taxes -10%
Goods transportation : -17.6%
Passenger transportation -27%
Gold and other noble metals reserves -25%
Currency reserves -360%
Devaluation of hryvna 320%
In the latest video clip segment for the Showtime documentary of Vladimir Putin by Oscar ward
winning director Oliver Stone, the Russian President surprisingly speaks with respect for Senator
John McCain, a neocon warmonger, who consistently calls for conflict with Russia and played an
integral role in the US coup in Ukraine in 2014.
Putin told Stone in Moscow
"Well, honestly, I like Senator McCain to a certain extent. And I'm not joking.
I
like him because of his patriotism,
and I can relate to his consistency in fighting
for the interests of his own country."
RT reports
that the Russian President compared US Senator McCain to the Ancient Roman
Senator, Cato the Elder, who routinely signed off his speeches, regardless of the subject, with
the phrase,
"Carthage must be destroyed."
"People with such convictions, like the Senator you mentioned, they still live in the Old
World. And they're reluctant to look into the future, they are unwilling to recognize how fast
the world is changing."
"They do not see the real threat, and they cannot leave behind the past, which is always
dragging them back,"
"Unfortunately there are many senators like this in the United States."
"... Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the other Gulf monarchies, organised in the so called Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) , have a long history of backing the spread of Sunni Islamist ideology outside the region. Not just in Britain, but, for example, even in places such as rural Nigeria, where I've seen Gulf oil money used to incentivise Christians to convert, fuelling the religious conflict there. ..."
"... Saudi Arabia is meanwhile prosecuting a war on Iranian-backed rebels in Yemen, using more than Ł3bn worth of British kit sold to it since the bombing campaign began. In return, it has lavished gifts on Theresa May's ministers: Philip Hammond got a watch worth Ł1,950 when he visited in 2015 . In turn, Tory advisers are picking up lucrative consultancy work with the Saudi government. ..."
"... However, Salman has also escalated the Yemen war and escalated tensions with Iran – most notably by executing a prominent Shia cleric and 46 other opponents last year. ..."
This clash between Britain's allies in the so-called war on terror matters. If Corbyn is prime
minister on Friday, there will be a break with the appeasement of jihadi-funding autocrats
Well, like almost everything in the region, it is about the strategic duplicity of the West, exacerbated
by the childlike idiocy of the US president. Does it matter for Brits – other than those stuck at
airports in the Gulf, or policy wonks obsessed with Middle Eastern conflicts?
It matters on every street in Britain.
Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the other Gulf monarchies, organised in the so called
Gulf Cooperation
Council (GCC) , have a long history of backing the spread of Sunni Islamist ideology outside
the region. Not just in Britain, but, for example, even in places such as rural Nigeria, where I've
seen Gulf oil money used to incentivise Christians to convert, fuelling the religious conflict there.
But the Qataris have always punched above their weight in regional affairs, and displayed a more
intelligent grasp on the strategic, demographic and cultural changes sweeping the Arab world.
It was the Qataris who set up Al Jazeera, as a counterweight to the reactionary state media across
the middle east, and to challenge the US media's right to set the global narrative about the Islamic
world.
The issue torturing the Saudi monarchy is Iran. Obama made peace with Iran in 2015, in the face
of Saudi and Israeli opposition.
Qatar is diplomatically closer
to Iran. It has also supported (outside Qatar) the spread of political Islam – that is, of parties
prepared to operate within nominally democratic institutions.
The Saudis' strategic aim, by contrast, is to end the peace deal with Iran and to stifle the emergence
of political Islam full stop.
Last month, Donald Trump took himself to Riyadh to -
participate in a sword dance and glad hand the Saudi royals. And that is where the trouble escalated.
Qatar's ruler had been reported by his own state media as warning against the escalating confrontation
with Iran: "Iran represents a regional and Islamic power that cannot be ignored and it is unwise
to face up against it," said a TV tickertape quoting the Emir.
But Trump's visit poured ethanol on to the simmering conflict. Few observers see today's move
as anything other than the Saudis acting with state department backing. One Iranian official
tweeted the spat was "the
prelimary result of the sword dance".
The problem remains Saudi culpability – past and present – for funding islamist terrorism. After
September 11, the Saudi monarchy did begin to crack down on islamist terrorism domestically, criminalising
terrorist finance. But, as
a US cable released
by Wikileaks shows , even as late as 2009, that "donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant
source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide".
Since the coronation of King Salman in January 2015, there has been a programme of economic modernisation
and political reforms the monarchy has tried to sell as liberalisation.
However, Salman has also escalated the Yemen war and escalated tensions with Iran – most notably
by
executing a prominent Shia cleric and 46 other opponents last year.
In Britain, when the Lib Dems in the Coalition supported airstrikes against Isis, the price they
extracted was for Cameron to launch an inquiry into foreign funding of terrorism.
Eighteen months on, it remains suppressed . As with the infamous Serious Fraud Office
investigation into corruption at
BAE , it is being buried because it would expose the past misdemeanours of the the Saudis.
We do not know why Britain has suddenly become the target for a jihadi terror surge: five foiled
attempts and three gruesomely successful ones in 70 days.
One possible explanation is that, with the increased tempo of fighting in Mosul and towards Raqqa,
it is becoming clear to the thousands of jihadi fantasists sitting in bedrooms across Europe, that
their "caliphate" will soon be over.
If so, the question arises: a) what will replace it on the ground and b) how to deal with the
survivors as they fan out to do damage here?
In both cases, it is vital that the Gulf monarchies funding the Syrian resistance are on board
with the solution. And, as of today, two of the key players are waging economic war and a bitter
rhetorical fight with each other.
As for the wider world, it is Iran that emerges as the tactical victor in today's spat. Trump
flew to Riyadh and the result was air transport chaos across the Gulf. Iran had an election and the
moderates won.
But there is good news. If Jeremy Corbyn is prime minister on Friday, Britain's game of thrones
in the Gulf will end. The
foreign policy he outlined at Chatham House represents a complete break with the appeasement
of terror-funding Saudi autocrats. The strategic defence review he has promised would unlikely keep
funding the Royal Navy base in Bahrain.
Britain cannot solve the diplomatic crisis in the Gulf. But it can stop making it worse. Last
December, Boris Johnson inadvertently had a go. He named the Yemen conflict as a proxy war; accusing
both the Saudis and Iran of "puppeteering". He was quickly slapped down.
Only a Labour government will stop appeasing the Saudi monarchy and reset the relationship to
match Britain's strategic interest – not the interest of Britain's arms dealers and PR consultants.
At the very time when American legal imperialism is gaining in strength and imposing its rules
and its dues on our companies, this decline in public justice is an aberration.
This is
a very important point and follows the US imposing fines on many foreign (to the US) banks for
infringing boycotts decided purely by the USA. At this moment the full treaty with Iran is not
being applied because firms outside the US are frightened to engage with Iran under a threat of
retribution by the USA. One of the reasons for this state of affairs is the use of the Dollar
as a reserve currency. It is time that the importance of other currencies was recognised in international
trade I am thinking of the Euro and the Chinese Yuan.
NSA Denies Everything About Latest Intercept Leak, Including Denying Something That Was Never
Claimed from the let's-play-word-games-with-the-NSA dept The recent leaks published
at Glenn Greenwald's new home, The Intercept, detailed the NSA's
spread of malware around the world, with a stated goal of sabotaging "millions" of computers.
As was noted then, the NSA hadn't issued a comment. The GCHQ, named as a co-conspirator, had already
commented, delivering the usual spiel about legality, oversight and directives -- a word salad that
has pretty much replaced "no comment" in the intelligence world.
The NSA has now issued a formal statement on the leaks, denying everything -- including something
that wasn't even alleged. In what has become the new "no comment" on the NSA side, the words "appropriate,"
"lawful" and "legitimate" are trotted out, along with the now de rigueur accusations that everything
printed (including, apparently, its own internal documents) is false.
Recent media reports that allege NSA has infected millions of computers around the world with
malware, and that NSA is impersonating U.S. social media or other websites, are inaccurate. NSA
uses its technical capabilities only to support lawful and appropriate foreign intelligence operations,
all of which must be carried out in strict accordance with its authorities. Technical capability
must be understood within the legal, policy, and operational context within which the capability
must be employed.
First off, for the NSA to claim that loading up "millions" of computers with malware is somehow targeted
(and not "indiscriminate") is laughable. As for its "national security directive," it made a mockery
of that when it proudly announced in its documents that "we hunt sys admins." Targeting telco and
ISP systems administrators goes well outside the bounds of "national security." These people aren't
suspected terrorists. They're just people inconveniently placed between the NSA and its goal of "
collecting it all ."
Last, but not least, the NSA plays semantic games to deny an accusation that was never made, calling
to mind Clapper's denial of a
conveniently horrendous translation of a French article on its spying efforts there.
NSA does not use its technical capabilities to impersonate U.S. company websites.
This "denial" refers to this portion of The Intercept's article.
In some cases the NSA has masqueraded as a fake Facebook server, using the social media site
as a launching pad to infect a target's computer and exfiltrate files from a hard drive...
In one man-on-the-side technique, codenamed QUANTUMHAND, the agency disguises itself as a fake
Facebook server. When a target attempts to log in to the social media site, the NSA transmits
malicious data packets that trick the target's computer into thinking they are being sent from
the real Facebook. By concealing its malware within what looks like an ordinary Facebook page,
the NSA is able to hack into the targeted computer and covertly siphon out data from its hard
drive.
The NSA's own documents say that QUANTUMHAND "exploits the computer of a target that uses Facebook."
The man-on-the-side attack impersonates a server , not the site itself. The NSA denies impersonating
, but that's not what The Intercept said or what its own documents state. This animated explanation,
using the NSA's Powerpoint presentation, shows what the attack does -- it tips the TURBINE servers,
which then send the malware payload before the Facebook servers can respond. To the end user, it
looks as though Facebook is just running slowly.
https://player.vimeo.com/video/88822483
When the NSA says it doesn't impersonate sites, it truly doesn't. It injects malware by beating Facebook
server response time. It doesn't serve up faux Facebook pages; it simply grabs the files and data
from compromised computers. The exploit is almost wholly divorced from Facebook itself. The social
media site is an opportunity for malware deployment, and the NSA doesn't need to impersonate a site
to achieve its aims. This is the NSA maintaining deniability in the face of damning allegations --
claiming something was said that actually wasn't and resorting to (ultimately futile) attempts to
portray journalists as somehow less trustworthy than the agency.
NSA does not use its technical capabilities to impersonate U.S. company websites.
At this point, the mere fact that the NSA denies doing something is almost enough to convince me
that they are doing it.
I'm trying not to be paranoid. They just make it so difficult.
Anonymous Coward , 14 Mar 2014 @ 9:48am Re: Denial = Confirmation? considering how much access they seemed to have I think it is entirely
possible for them to do that. And the criminal energy to do it definitely there as well.
By now you have to assume the worst when it comes to them, and once the truth comes out it tends to
paint and even worse picture then what you could imagine.
And there is still the question if facebook and similar sites might be at least funded, if not run by
intelligence agencies alltogether. If that is the case that would put this denial in an entirely different
light. It would read "We don't impersonate companies. We ARE the companies."...
Mark Wing , 14 Mar 2014 @ 10:35am
Max level sophistry. I wonder if anyone at the NSA even remembers what the truth is, it's been coated
in so many layers of bullshit.
art guerrilla ( profile
), 14 Mar 2014 @ 12:06pm Re: NSA Word-Smithing i can not stress this poster's sentiment, as well as voiced in the article
itself, of the CHILDISH semantic games the alphabet spooks will play...
they WILL (metaphorically speaking) look you straight in the eye, piss on your leg, and INSIST it is
raining; THEN fabricate evidence to 'prove' it was rain...
in my readings about the evil done in our name, with our money, *supposedly* to 'protect and serve'
us, by the boys in black, you can NOT UNDERESTIMATE the most simplistic, and -to repeat myself- CHILDISH
ways they will LIE AND DISSEMBLE...
they are scum, they are slime, they are NOT the best and the brightest, they are the worst and most
immoral...
YOU CAN NOT OVERSTATE THEIR MORAL VACUITY...
we do NOT deserve these pieces of shit...
Anonymous Coward , 14 Mar 2014 @ 11:17am
We know that the NSA, with the cooperation of the companies involved, has equipment co-located at major
backbones and POPs to achieve the goals for QUANTUMHAND, QUANTUMINSERT, and etc.
At what point will we start confronting these companies and pressuring them to discontinue such cooperation?
I know it's no easy task, but just as much as the government is reeling from all the public pressure,
so too will these companies if we press their hands. Make it affect their bottom line.
Anonymous Coward , 14 Mar 2014 @ 1:49pm is techdirt an hack target? this page of your site tries to run scripts from
google
amazonaws
twitter
facebook
ajax.googleapis
techdirt
and install cookies from
techdirt
imigur
and request resources from
rp-api
vimeo
and install/use tracking beacons from
facebook connect
google +1
gravitar
nativo
quantcast
redit
repost.us
scorecard research beacon
twitter button.
...and who knows what else would run if all that was allowed to proceed. (I'm not going to run them
to find out the 2nd level stuff)
kudos for keeping the site working without that crap- but ffs, having it on by default makes techdirt
seam hypocritical at best.
Matthew Cline ( profile
), 14 Mar 2014 @ 1:50pm As for its "national security directive," it made a mockery of that when it proudly announced in
its documents that "we hunt sys admins."
Well, heck, that's easy. Since the computers of the sys admins are just means to an ends, simply define
"target" in a way that excludes anyone whose computers are compromised as a means to an end.
Are these possible signs that the NSA and GHCQ planted those stories?
Anonymous Coward , 14 Mar 2014 @ 3:49pm The fun has yet to really begin On April 8th, this year, Microsoft will stop installing new security
patches from Windows XP, leaving computers running it totally vulnerable to such hacks. Anybody want
to place bets on the fact that the alphabet soup agencies of our wonderful gummint are going to be first
in line to exploit them? Just think what NSA could do with 300,000,000+ computers to play with!
David Walters , 15 Mar 2014 @ 3:41am Denials At this point the American people and the rest of the world would probably believe the
NSA was staffed with aliens from Mars if it were published. And, it's not the fault of credulity of
the citizens. It's the fault of the NSA's repeated denials being shown to be lies that's at fault.
"... Targeting telco and ISP systems administrators goes well outside the bounds of "national security."
These people aren't suspected terrorists. They're just people inconveniently placed between the NSA
and its goal of " collecting it all ." ..."
"... The NSA's own documents say that QUANTUMHAND "exploits the computer of a target that uses Facebook."
The man-on-the-side attack impersonates a server , not the site itself. The NSA denies impersonating,
but that's not what The Intercept said or what its own documents state. This animated explanation, using
the NSA's Powerpoint presentation, shows what the attack does -- it tips the TURBINE servers, which
then send the malware payload before the Facebook servers can respond. ..."
"... To the end user, it looks as though Facebook is just running slowly. ..."
"... When the NSA says it doesn't impersonate sites, it truly doesn't. It injects malware by beating
Facebook server response time. It doesn't serve up faux Facebook pages; it simply grabs the files and
data from compromised computers. ..."
"... The exploit is almost wholly divorced from Facebook itself. The social media site is an opportunity
for malware deployment, and the NSA doesn't need to impersonate a site to achieve its aims. This is
the NSA maintaining deniability in the face of damning allegations -- claiming something was said that
actually wasn't and resorting to (ultimately futile) attempts to portray journalists as somehow less
trustworthy than the agency. ..."
"... At this point, the mere fact that the NSA denies doing something is almost enough to convince
me that they are doing it. I'm trying not to be paranoid. They just make it so difficult. ..."
"... considering how much access they seemed to have I think it is entirely possible for them to
do that. And the criminal energy to do it definitely there as well. ..."
"... And there is still the question if Facebook and similar sites might be at least funded, if
not run by intelligence agencies altogether. If that is the case that would put this denial in an entirely
different light. It would read "We don't impersonate companies. We ARE the companies."... ..."
"... Max level sophistry. I wonder if anyone at the NSA even remembers what the truth is, it's been
coated in so many layers of bullshit. ..."
"... As for its "national security directive," it made a mockery of that when it proudly announced
in its documents that "we hunt sys admins." ..."
The recent leaks published at Glenn Greenwald's new home, The Intercept, detailed the NSA's
spread of malware around the world, with a stated goal of sabotaging "millions" of computers.
As was noted then, the NSA hadn't issued a comment. The GCHQ, named as a co-conspirator, had already
commented, delivering the usual spiel about legality, oversight and directives -- a word salad that
has pretty much replaced "no comment" in the intelligence world.
The NSA has now issued a formal statement on the leaks, denying everything -- including something
that wasn't even alleged. In what has become the new "no comment" on the NSA side, the words "appropriate,"
"lawful" and "legitimate" are trotted out, along with the now de rigueur accusations that everything
printed (including, apparently, its own internal documents) is false.
Recent media reports that allege NSA has infected millions of computers around the world with
malware, and that NSA is impersonating U.S. social media or other websites, are inaccurate. NSA
uses its technical capabilities only to support lawful and appropriate foreign intelligence operations,
all of which must be carried out in strict accordance with its authorities. Technical capability
must be understood within the legal, policy, and operational context within which the capability
must be employed.
First off, for the NSA to claim that loading up "millions" of computers with malware is somehow targeted
(and not "indiscriminate") is laughable. As for its "national security directive," it made a mockery
of that when it proudly announced in its documents that "we hunt sys admins."
Targeting telco and ISP systems administrators goes well outside the bounds of "national security."
These people aren't suspected terrorists. They're just people inconveniently placed between the NSA
and its goal of "
collecting it all ."
Last, but not least, the NSA plays semantic games to deny an accusation that was never made, calling
to mind Clapper's denial of a
conveniently horrendous translation of a French article on its spying efforts there.
NSA does not use its technical capabilities to impersonate U.S. company websites.
This "denial" refers to this portion of The Intercept's article.
In some cases the NSA has masqueraded as a fake Facebook server, using the social media site
as a launching pad to infect a target's computer and exfiltrate files from a hard drive... In
one man-on-the-side technique, codenamed QUANTUMHAND, the agency disguises itself as a fake Facebook
server. When a target attempts to log in to the social media site, the NSA transmits malicious
data packets that trick the target's computer into thinking they are being sent from the real
Facebook. By concealing its malware within what looks like an ordinary Facebook page, the NSA
is able to hack into the targeted computer and covertly siphon out data from its hard drive.
The NSA's own documents say that QUANTUMHAND "exploits the computer of a target that uses Facebook."
The man-on-the-side attack impersonates a server , not the site itself.
The NSA denies impersonating, but that's not what The Intercept said or what its own documents
state. This animated explanation, using the NSA's Powerpoint presentation, shows what the attack
does -- it tips the TURBINE servers, which then send the malware payload before the Facebook servers
can respond.
To the end user, it looks as though Facebook is just running slowly.
When the NSA says it doesn't impersonate sites, it truly doesn't. It injects malware by beating
Facebook server response time. It doesn't serve up faux Facebook pages; it simply grabs the files
and data from compromised computers.
The exploit is almost wholly divorced from Facebook itself. The social media site is an opportunity
for malware deployment, and the NSA doesn't need to impersonate a site to achieve its aims. This
is the NSA maintaining deniability in the face of damning allegations -- claiming something was said
that actually wasn't and resorting to (ultimately futile) attempts to portray journalists as somehow
less trustworthy than the agency.
NSA does not use its technical capabilities to impersonate U.S. company websites.
At this point, the mere fact that the NSA denies doing something is almost enough to convince
me that they are doing it. I'm trying not to be paranoid. They just make it so difficult.
Anonymous Coward , 14 Mar 2014 @ 9:48am
Re: Denial = Confirmation?
considering how much access they seemed to have I think it is entirely possible for them
to do that. And the criminal energy to do it definitely there as well.
By now you have to assume the worst when it comes to them, and once the truth comes out it
tends to paint and even worse picture then what you could imagine.
And there is still the question if Facebook and similar sites might be at least funded,
if not run by intelligence agencies altogether. If that is the case that would put this denial
in an entirely different light. It would read "We don't impersonate companies. We ARE the companies."...
I can not stress this poster's sentiment, as well as voiced in the article itself, of the CHILDISH
semantic games the alphabet spooks will play... they WILL (metaphorically speaking) look you straight
in the eye, piss on your leg, and INSIST it is raining; THEN fabricate evidence to 'prove' it
was rain...
In my readings about the evil done in our name, with our money, *supposedly* to 'protect and
serve' us, by the boys in black, you can NOT UNDERESTIMATE the most simplistic, and -to repeat
myself -- CHILDISH ways they will LIE AND DISSEMBLE...
They are scum, they are slime, they are NOT the best and the brightest, they are the worst
and most immoral...
YOU CAN NOT OVERSTATE THEIR MORAL VACUITY...
we do NOT deserve these pieces of shit...
Anonymous Coward , 14 Mar 2014 @ 11:17am
We know that the NSA, with the cooperation of the companies involved, has equipment co-located
at major backbones and POPs to achieve the goals for QUANTUMHAND, QUANTUMINSERT, and etc.
At what point will we start confronting these companies and pressuring them to discontinue
such cooperation? I know it's no easy task, but just as much as the government is reeling from
all the public pressure, so too will these companies if we press their hands. Make it affect their
bottom line.
Anonymous Coward , 14 Mar 2014 @ 1:49pm
is techdirt an hack target?
this page of your site tries to run scripts from
google
amazonaws
twitter
facebook
ajax.googleapis
techdirt
and install cookies from
techdirt
imigur
and request resources from
rp-api
vimeo
and install/use tracking beacons from
facebook connect
google +1
gravitar
nativo
quantcast
redit
repost.us
scorecard research beacon
twitter button.
...and who knows what else would run if all that was allowed to proceed. (I'm not going to
run them to find out the 2nd level stuff)
for all the great reporting techdirt does on spying/tracking/privacy- you need to get you shit
together already with this site; it seams like you're part of the problem. Please explain the
technical facts as to why these same types of hacks couldn't be done to your readers through this
clusterfuck of off site scripts/beacons/cookies/resources your forcing on people to ignorant to
know how to block them.
As for its "national security directive," it made a mockery of that when it proudly
announced in its documents that "we hunt sys admins."
Well, heck, that's easy. Since the computers of the sys admins are just means to an ends, simply
define "target" in a way that excludes anyone whose computers are compromised as a means to an
end.
Anonymous mouse , 14 Mar 2014 @ 1:56pm
I seem to remember some articles about why people who don't use Facebook are suspect. To wit,
Are these possible signs that the NSA and GHCQ planted those stories?
Anonymous Coward , 14 Mar 2014 @ 3:49pm
The fun has yet to really begin
On April 8th, this year, Microsoft will stop installing new security patches from Windows XP,
leaving computers running it totally vulnerable to such hacks. Anybody want to place bets on the
fact that the alphabet soup agencies of our wonderful gummint are going to be first in line to
exploit them? Just think what NSA could do with 300,000,000+ computers to play with!
"... Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the other Gulf monarchies, organised in the so called Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) , have a long history of backing the spread of Sunni Islamist ideology outside the region. Not just in Britain, but, for example, even in places such as rural Nigeria, where I've seen Gulf oil money used to incentivise Christians to convert, fuelling the religious conflict there. ..."
"... Saudi Arabia is meanwhile prosecuting a war on Iranian-backed rebels in Yemen, using more than Ł3bn worth of British kit sold to it since the bombing campaign began. In return, it has lavished gifts on Theresa May's ministers: Philip Hammond got a watch worth Ł1,950 when he visited in 2015 . In turn, Tory advisers are picking up lucrative consultancy work with the Saudi government. ..."
"... However, Salman has also escalated the Yemen war and escalated tensions with Iran – most notably by executing a prominent Shia cleric and 46 other opponents last year. ..."
This clash between Britain's allies in the so-called war on terror matters. If Corbyn is prime
minister on Friday, there will be a break with the appeasement of jihadi-funding autocrats
Well, like almost everything in the region, it is about the strategic duplicity of the West, exacerbated
by the childlike idiocy of the US president. Does it matter for Brits – other than those stuck at
airports in the Gulf, or policy wonks obsessed with Middle Eastern conflicts?
It matters on every street in Britain.
Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the other Gulf monarchies, organised in the so called
Gulf Cooperation
Council (GCC) , have a long history of backing the spread of Sunni Islamist ideology outside
the region. Not just in Britain, but, for example, even in places such as rural Nigeria, where I've
seen Gulf oil money used to incentivise Christians to convert, fuelling the religious conflict there.
But the Qataris have always punched above their weight in regional affairs, and displayed a more
intelligent grasp on the strategic, demographic and cultural changes sweeping the Arab world.
It was the Qataris who set up Al Jazeera, as a counterweight to the reactionary state media across
the middle east, and to challenge the US media's right to set the global narrative about the Islamic
world.
The issue torturing the Saudi monarchy is Iran. Obama made peace with Iran in 2015, in the face
of Saudi and Israeli opposition.
Qatar is diplomatically closer
to Iran. It has also supported (outside Qatar) the spread of political Islam – that is, of parties
prepared to operate within nominally democratic institutions.
The Saudis' strategic aim, by contrast, is to end the peace deal with Iran and to stifle the emergence
of political Islam full stop.
Last month, Donald Trump took himself to Riyadh to -
participate in a sword dance and glad hand the Saudi royals. And that is where the trouble escalated.
Qatar's ruler had been reported by his own state media as warning against the escalating confrontation
with Iran: "Iran represents a regional and Islamic power that cannot be ignored and it is unwise
to face up against it," said a TV tickertape quoting the Emir.
But Trump's visit poured ethanol on to the simmering conflict. Few observers see today's move
as anything other than the Saudis acting with state department backing. One Iranian official
tweeted the spat was "the
prelimary result of the sword dance".
The problem remains Saudi culpability – past and present – for funding islamist terrorism. After
September 11, the Saudi monarchy did begin to crack down on islamist terrorism domestically, criminalising
terrorist finance. But, as
a US cable released
by Wikileaks shows , even as late as 2009, that "donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant
source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide".
Since the coronation of King Salman in January 2015, there has been a programme of economic modernisation
and political reforms the monarchy has tried to sell as liberalisation.
However, Salman has also escalated the Yemen war and escalated tensions with Iran – most notably
by
executing a prominent Shia cleric and 46 other opponents last year.
In Britain, when the Lib Dems in the Coalition supported airstrikes against Isis, the price they
extracted was for Cameron to launch an inquiry into foreign funding of terrorism.
Eighteen months on, it remains suppressed . As with the infamous Serious Fraud Office
investigation into corruption at
BAE , it is being buried because it would expose the past misdemeanours of the the Saudis.
We do not know why Britain has suddenly become the target for a jihadi terror surge: five foiled
attempts and three gruesomely successful ones in 70 days.
One possible explanation is that, with the increased tempo of fighting in Mosul and towards Raqqa,
it is becoming clear to the thousands of jihadi fantasists sitting in bedrooms across Europe, that
their "caliphate" will soon be over.
If so, the question arises: a) what will replace it on the ground and b) how to deal with the
survivors as they fan out to do damage here?
In both cases, it is vital that the Gulf monarchies funding the Syrian resistance are on board
with the solution. And, as of today, two of the key players are waging economic war and a bitter
rhetorical fight with each other.
As for the wider world, it is Iran that emerges as the tactical victor in today's spat. Trump
flew to Riyadh and the result was air transport chaos across the Gulf. Iran had an election and the
moderates won.
But there is good news. If Jeremy Corbyn is prime minister on Friday, Britain's game of thrones
in the Gulf will end. The
foreign policy he outlined at Chatham House represents a complete break with the appeasement
of terror-funding Saudi autocrats. The strategic defence review he has promised would unlikely keep
funding the Royal Navy base in Bahrain.
Britain cannot solve the diplomatic crisis in the Gulf. But it can stop making it worse. Last
December, Boris Johnson inadvertently had a go. He named the Yemen conflict as a proxy war; accusing
both the Saudis and Iran of "puppeteering". He was quickly slapped down.
Only a Labour government will stop appeasing the Saudi monarchy and reset the relationship to
match Britain's strategic interest – not the interest of Britain's arms dealers and PR consultants.
At the very time when American legal imperialism is gaining in strength and imposing its rules
and its dues on our companies, this decline in public justice is an aberration.
This is
a very important point and follows the US imposing fines on many foreign (to the US) banks for
infringing boycotts decided purely by the USA. At this moment the full treaty with Iran is not
being applied because firms outside the US are frightened to engage with Iran under a threat of
retribution by the USA. One of the reasons for this state of affairs is the use of the Dollar
as a reserve currency. It is time that the importance of other currencies was recognised in international
trade I am thinking of the Euro and the Chinese Yuan.
NSA Denies Everything About Latest Intercept Leak, Including Denying Something That Was Never
Claimed from the let's-play-word-games-with-the-NSA dept The recent leaks published
at Glenn Greenwald's new home, The Intercept, detailed the NSA's
spread of malware around the world, with a stated goal of sabotaging "millions" of computers.
As was noted then, the NSA hadn't issued a comment. The GCHQ, named as a co-conspirator, had already
commented, delivering the usual spiel about legality, oversight and directives -- a word salad that
has pretty much replaced "no comment" in the intelligence world.
The NSA has now issued a formal statement on the leaks, denying everything -- including something
that wasn't even alleged. In what has become the new "no comment" on the NSA side, the words "appropriate,"
"lawful" and "legitimate" are trotted out, along with the now de rigueur accusations that everything
printed (including, apparently, its own internal documents) is false.
Recent media reports that allege NSA has infected millions of computers around the world with
malware, and that NSA is impersonating U.S. social media or other websites, are inaccurate. NSA
uses its technical capabilities only to support lawful and appropriate foreign intelligence operations,
all of which must be carried out in strict accordance with its authorities. Technical capability
must be understood within the legal, policy, and operational context within which the capability
must be employed.
First off, for the NSA to claim that loading up "millions" of computers with malware is somehow targeted
(and not "indiscriminate") is laughable. As for its "national security directive," it made a mockery
of that when it proudly announced in its documents that "we hunt sys admins." Targeting telco and
ISP systems administrators goes well outside the bounds of "national security." These people aren't
suspected terrorists. They're just people inconveniently placed between the NSA and its goal of "
collecting it all ."
Last, but not least, the NSA plays semantic games to deny an accusation that was never made, calling
to mind Clapper's denial of a
conveniently horrendous translation of a French article on its spying efforts there.
NSA does not use its technical capabilities to impersonate U.S. company websites.
This "denial" refers to this portion of The Intercept's article.
In some cases the NSA has masqueraded as a fake Facebook server, using the social media site
as a launching pad to infect a target's computer and exfiltrate files from a hard drive...
In one man-on-the-side technique, codenamed QUANTUMHAND, the agency disguises itself as a fake
Facebook server. When a target attempts to log in to the social media site, the NSA transmits
malicious data packets that trick the target's computer into thinking they are being sent from
the real Facebook. By concealing its malware within what looks like an ordinary Facebook page,
the NSA is able to hack into the targeted computer and covertly siphon out data from its hard
drive.
The NSA's own documents say that QUANTUMHAND "exploits the computer of a target that uses Facebook."
The man-on-the-side attack impersonates a server , not the site itself. The NSA denies impersonating
, but that's not what The Intercept said or what its own documents state. This animated explanation,
using the NSA's Powerpoint presentation, shows what the attack does -- it tips the TURBINE servers,
which then send the malware payload before the Facebook servers can respond. To the end user, it
looks as though Facebook is just running slowly.
https://player.vimeo.com/video/88822483
When the NSA says it doesn't impersonate sites, it truly doesn't. It injects malware by beating Facebook
server response time. It doesn't serve up faux Facebook pages; it simply grabs the files and data
from compromised computers. The exploit is almost wholly divorced from Facebook itself. The social
media site is an opportunity for malware deployment, and the NSA doesn't need to impersonate a site
to achieve its aims. This is the NSA maintaining deniability in the face of damning allegations --
claiming something was said that actually wasn't and resorting to (ultimately futile) attempts to
portray journalists as somehow less trustworthy than the agency.
NSA does not use its technical capabilities to impersonate U.S. company websites.
At this point, the mere fact that the NSA denies doing something is almost enough to convince me
that they are doing it.
I'm trying not to be paranoid. They just make it so difficult.
Anonymous Coward , 14 Mar 2014 @ 9:48am Re: Denial = Confirmation? considering how much access they seemed to have I think it is entirely
possible for them to do that. And the criminal energy to do it definitely there as well.
By now you have to assume the worst when it comes to them, and once the truth comes out it tends to
paint and even worse picture then what you could imagine.
And there is still the question if facebook and similar sites might be at least funded, if not run by
intelligence agencies alltogether. If that is the case that would put this denial in an entirely different
light. It would read "We don't impersonate companies. We ARE the companies."...
Mark Wing , 14 Mar 2014 @ 10:35am
Max level sophistry. I wonder if anyone at the NSA even remembers what the truth is, it's been coated
in so many layers of bullshit.
art guerrilla ( profile
), 14 Mar 2014 @ 12:06pm Re: NSA Word-Smithing i can not stress this poster's sentiment, as well as voiced in the article
itself, of the CHILDISH semantic games the alphabet spooks will play...
they WILL (metaphorically speaking) look you straight in the eye, piss on your leg, and INSIST it is
raining; THEN fabricate evidence to 'prove' it was rain...
in my readings about the evil done in our name, with our money, *supposedly* to 'protect and serve'
us, by the boys in black, you can NOT UNDERESTIMATE the most simplistic, and -to repeat myself- CHILDISH
ways they will LIE AND DISSEMBLE...
they are scum, they are slime, they are NOT the best and the brightest, they are the worst and most
immoral...
YOU CAN NOT OVERSTATE THEIR MORAL VACUITY...
we do NOT deserve these pieces of shit...
Anonymous Coward , 14 Mar 2014 @ 11:17am
We know that the NSA, with the cooperation of the companies involved, has equipment co-located at major
backbones and POPs to achieve the goals for QUANTUMHAND, QUANTUMINSERT, and etc.
At what point will we start confronting these companies and pressuring them to discontinue such cooperation?
I know it's no easy task, but just as much as the government is reeling from all the public pressure,
so too will these companies if we press their hands. Make it affect their bottom line.
Anonymous Coward , 14 Mar 2014 @ 1:49pm is techdirt an hack target? this page of your site tries to run scripts from
google
amazonaws
twitter
facebook
ajax.googleapis
techdirt
and install cookies from
techdirt
imigur
and request resources from
rp-api
vimeo
and install/use tracking beacons from
facebook connect
google +1
gravitar
nativo
quantcast
redit
repost.us
scorecard research beacon
twitter button.
...and who knows what else would run if all that was allowed to proceed. (I'm not going to run them
to find out the 2nd level stuff)
kudos for keeping the site working without that crap- but ffs, having it on by default makes techdirt
seam hypocritical at best.
Matthew Cline ( profile
), 14 Mar 2014 @ 1:50pm As for its "national security directive," it made a mockery of that when it proudly announced in
its documents that "we hunt sys admins."
Well, heck, that's easy. Since the computers of the sys admins are just means to an ends, simply define
"target" in a way that excludes anyone whose computers are compromised as a means to an end.
Are these possible signs that the NSA and GHCQ planted those stories?
Anonymous Coward , 14 Mar 2014 @ 3:49pm The fun has yet to really begin On April 8th, this year, Microsoft will stop installing new security
patches from Windows XP, leaving computers running it totally vulnerable to such hacks. Anybody want
to place bets on the fact that the alphabet soup agencies of our wonderful gummint are going to be first
in line to exploit them? Just think what NSA could do with 300,000,000+ computers to play with!
David Walters , 15 Mar 2014 @ 3:41am Denials At this point the American people and the rest of the world would probably believe the
NSA was staffed with aliens from Mars if it were published. And, it's not the fault of credulity of
the citizens. It's the fault of the NSA's repeated denials being shown to be lies that's at fault.
"... Targeting telco and ISP systems administrators goes well outside the bounds of "national security."
These people aren't suspected terrorists. They're just people inconveniently placed between the NSA
and its goal of " collecting it all ." ..."
"... The NSA's own documents say that QUANTUMHAND "exploits the computer of a target that uses Facebook."
The man-on-the-side attack impersonates a server , not the site itself. The NSA denies impersonating,
but that's not what The Intercept said or what its own documents state. This animated explanation, using
the NSA's Powerpoint presentation, shows what the attack does -- it tips the TURBINE servers, which
then send the malware payload before the Facebook servers can respond. ..."
"... To the end user, it looks as though Facebook is just running slowly. ..."
"... When the NSA says it doesn't impersonate sites, it truly doesn't. It injects malware by beating
Facebook server response time. It doesn't serve up faux Facebook pages; it simply grabs the files and
data from compromised computers. ..."
"... The exploit is almost wholly divorced from Facebook itself. The social media site is an opportunity
for malware deployment, and the NSA doesn't need to impersonate a site to achieve its aims. This is
the NSA maintaining deniability in the face of damning allegations -- claiming something was said that
actually wasn't and resorting to (ultimately futile) attempts to portray journalists as somehow less
trustworthy than the agency. ..."
"... At this point, the mere fact that the NSA denies doing something is almost enough to convince
me that they are doing it. I'm trying not to be paranoid. They just make it so difficult. ..."
"... considering how much access they seemed to have I think it is entirely possible for them to
do that. And the criminal energy to do it definitely there as well. ..."
"... And there is still the question if Facebook and similar sites might be at least funded, if
not run by intelligence agencies altogether. If that is the case that would put this denial in an entirely
different light. It would read "We don't impersonate companies. We ARE the companies."... ..."
"... Max level sophistry. I wonder if anyone at the NSA even remembers what the truth is, it's been
coated in so many layers of bullshit. ..."
"... As for its "national security directive," it made a mockery of that when it proudly announced
in its documents that "we hunt sys admins." ..."
The recent leaks published at Glenn Greenwald's new home, The Intercept, detailed the NSA's
spread of malware around the world, with a stated goal of sabotaging "millions" of computers.
As was noted then, the NSA hadn't issued a comment. The GCHQ, named as a co-conspirator, had already
commented, delivering the usual spiel about legality, oversight and directives -- a word salad that
has pretty much replaced "no comment" in the intelligence world.
The NSA has now issued a formal statement on the leaks, denying everything -- including something
that wasn't even alleged. In what has become the new "no comment" on the NSA side, the words "appropriate,"
"lawful" and "legitimate" are trotted out, along with the now de rigueur accusations that everything
printed (including, apparently, its own internal documents) is false.
Recent media reports that allege NSA has infected millions of computers around the world with
malware, and that NSA is impersonating U.S. social media or other websites, are inaccurate. NSA
uses its technical capabilities only to support lawful and appropriate foreign intelligence operations,
all of which must be carried out in strict accordance with its authorities. Technical capability
must be understood within the legal, policy, and operational context within which the capability
must be employed.
First off, for the NSA to claim that loading up "millions" of computers with malware is somehow targeted
(and not "indiscriminate") is laughable. As for its "national security directive," it made a mockery
of that when it proudly announced in its documents that "we hunt sys admins."
Targeting telco and ISP systems administrators goes well outside the bounds of "national security."
These people aren't suspected terrorists. They're just people inconveniently placed between the NSA
and its goal of "
collecting it all ."
Last, but not least, the NSA plays semantic games to deny an accusation that was never made, calling
to mind Clapper's denial of a
conveniently horrendous translation of a French article on its spying efforts there.
NSA does not use its technical capabilities to impersonate U.S. company websites.
This "denial" refers to this portion of The Intercept's article.
In some cases the NSA has masqueraded as a fake Facebook server, using the social media site
as a launching pad to infect a target's computer and exfiltrate files from a hard drive... In
one man-on-the-side technique, codenamed QUANTUMHAND, the agency disguises itself as a fake Facebook
server. When a target attempts to log in to the social media site, the NSA transmits malicious
data packets that trick the target's computer into thinking they are being sent from the real
Facebook. By concealing its malware within what looks like an ordinary Facebook page, the NSA
is able to hack into the targeted computer and covertly siphon out data from its hard drive.
The NSA's own documents say that QUANTUMHAND "exploits the computer of a target that uses Facebook."
The man-on-the-side attack impersonates a server , not the site itself.
The NSA denies impersonating, but that's not what The Intercept said or what its own documents
state. This animated explanation, using the NSA's Powerpoint presentation, shows what the attack
does -- it tips the TURBINE servers, which then send the malware payload before the Facebook servers
can respond.
To the end user, it looks as though Facebook is just running slowly.
When the NSA says it doesn't impersonate sites, it truly doesn't. It injects malware by beating
Facebook server response time. It doesn't serve up faux Facebook pages; it simply grabs the files
and data from compromised computers.
The exploit is almost wholly divorced from Facebook itself. The social media site is an opportunity
for malware deployment, and the NSA doesn't need to impersonate a site to achieve its aims. This
is the NSA maintaining deniability in the face of damning allegations -- claiming something was said
that actually wasn't and resorting to (ultimately futile) attempts to portray journalists as somehow
less trustworthy than the agency.
NSA does not use its technical capabilities to impersonate U.S. company websites.
At this point, the mere fact that the NSA denies doing something is almost enough to convince
me that they are doing it. I'm trying not to be paranoid. They just make it so difficult.
Anonymous Coward , 14 Mar 2014 @ 9:48am
Re: Denial = Confirmation?
considering how much access they seemed to have I think it is entirely possible for them
to do that. And the criminal energy to do it definitely there as well.
By now you have to assume the worst when it comes to them, and once the truth comes out it
tends to paint and even worse picture then what you could imagine.
And there is still the question if Facebook and similar sites might be at least funded,
if not run by intelligence agencies altogether. If that is the case that would put this denial
in an entirely different light. It would read "We don't impersonate companies. We ARE the companies."...
I can not stress this poster's sentiment, as well as voiced in the article itself, of the CHILDISH
semantic games the alphabet spooks will play... they WILL (metaphorically speaking) look you straight
in the eye, piss on your leg, and INSIST it is raining; THEN fabricate evidence to 'prove' it
was rain...
In my readings about the evil done in our name, with our money, *supposedly* to 'protect and
serve' us, by the boys in black, you can NOT UNDERESTIMATE the most simplistic, and -to repeat
myself -- CHILDISH ways they will LIE AND DISSEMBLE...
They are scum, they are slime, they are NOT the best and the brightest, they are the worst
and most immoral...
YOU CAN NOT OVERSTATE THEIR MORAL VACUITY...
we do NOT deserve these pieces of shit...
Anonymous Coward , 14 Mar 2014 @ 11:17am
We know that the NSA, with the cooperation of the companies involved, has equipment co-located
at major backbones and POPs to achieve the goals for QUANTUMHAND, QUANTUMINSERT, and etc.
At what point will we start confronting these companies and pressuring them to discontinue
such cooperation? I know it's no easy task, but just as much as the government is reeling from
all the public pressure, so too will these companies if we press their hands. Make it affect their
bottom line.
Anonymous Coward , 14 Mar 2014 @ 1:49pm
is techdirt an hack target?
this page of your site tries to run scripts from
google
amazonaws
twitter
facebook
ajax.googleapis
techdirt
and install cookies from
techdirt
imigur
and request resources from
rp-api
vimeo
and install/use tracking beacons from
facebook connect
google +1
gravitar
nativo
quantcast
redit
repost.us
scorecard research beacon
twitter button.
...and who knows what else would run if all that was allowed to proceed. (I'm not going to
run them to find out the 2nd level stuff)
for all the great reporting techdirt does on spying/tracking/privacy- you need to get you shit
together already with this site; it seams like you're part of the problem. Please explain the
technical facts as to why these same types of hacks couldn't be done to your readers through this
clusterfuck of off site scripts/beacons/cookies/resources your forcing on people to ignorant to
know how to block them.
As for its "national security directive," it made a mockery of that when it proudly
announced in its documents that "we hunt sys admins."
Well, heck, that's easy. Since the computers of the sys admins are just means to an ends, simply
define "target" in a way that excludes anyone whose computers are compromised as a means to an
end.
Anonymous mouse , 14 Mar 2014 @ 1:56pm
I seem to remember some articles about why people who don't use Facebook are suspect. To wit,
Are these possible signs that the NSA and GHCQ planted those stories?
Anonymous Coward , 14 Mar 2014 @ 3:49pm
The fun has yet to really begin
On April 8th, this year, Microsoft will stop installing new security patches from Windows XP,
leaving computers running it totally vulnerable to such hacks. Anybody want to place bets on the
fact that the alphabet soup agencies of our wonderful gummint are going to be first in line to
exploit them? Just think what NSA could do with 300,000,000+ computers to play with!
"... Yet, while the neocons and their liberal allies had "won" again, what did that winning mean for the people of Ukraine? Their country, already teetering on the status of failed state, slid into deeper economic chaos and civil war. With neo-Nazis and other extremists appointed to key national security positions, the new regime began lashing out at ethnic Russians who were resisting Yanukovych's ouster. ..."
"... Ukraine's eastern provinces also sought secession, prompting military clashes that inflicted some of the worst bloodshed seen on the European continent in decades. Thousands died and millions fled. ..."
"... Of course, the standard line in the U.S. media was that it was all Putin's fault, even as the Kiev regime shelled eastern cities and unleashed brutal neo-Nazi militias to engage in street fighting, the first time storm troopers emblazoned with Nazi insignias had been deployed in Europe since World War II. Yet, buoyed by how easily the anti-Putin propaganda had prevailed, some neocons even began fantasizing about "regime change" in Moscow. ..."
"... Yet, if you were to step back for a minute and look at the history of the past 35 years from the Afghan covert op through the Iraq War and the U.S. interventions in Libya, Syria, Ukraine and elsewhere what you would see is the neocons and their liberal sidekicks behaving like the Sorcerer's Apprentice, stirring up troubles that soon spun out of control. ..."
"... We're supposed to continue the neocon "tough-guy-ism" - by repressing Muslims in the West, by ousting Assad in Syria, by crushing the ethnic Russian resistance in Ukraine, by destabilizing Russia, and by forsaking negotiations with Iran over its nuclear facilities in favor of more sanctions and maybe more bombing. All somehow in the name of "democracy" and "human rights" and "security." ..."
"... no one bothers to study the bitter history of a place like Ukraine, and where no one worries about spreading turmoil to nuclear-armed Russia. ..."
"... Yet, this neocon madness this "anti-realism" has been playing out in the real world on a grand scale, destroying real lives and endangering the real future of the planet. ..."
Alarmed about this "realist" Obama-Putin collaboration, the "anti-realists" turned to
demonizing the Russian president and driving a wedge between him and Obama. The place to splinter
that relationship turned out to be Ukraine, where neocon Assistant Secretary of State Nuland was
perfectly positioned to push for the ouster of elected pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych.
As Nuland noted in one speech, the U.S. government had invested $5 billion in the "European
aspirations" of the western Ukrainians, including funding for political activists, journalists
and various business groups. The time to collect on that investment came in February 2014 when
violent demonstrations in Kiev, with well-organized neo-Nazi militias supplying the muscle, drove
Yanukovych from power.[See Consortiumnews.com's "
Neocons'
Ukraine-Syria-Iran Gambit.
"]
The Ukraine coup played out along another historic fault line, between European-oriented
western Ukraine, where Adolf Hitler's SS had gained significant support during World War II, and
eastern Ukraine with its ethnic Russian population and close business ties to Russia.
After the U.S. State Department rushed to embrace the coup regime as "legitimate" and as the
U.S. media dished out anti-Yanukvych propaganda, such as citing a sauna in his home, Obama tagged
along, falling into the neocon trap, again. U.S.-Russian relations spiraled into a hostility not
seen since the Cold War. [See Consortiumnews.com's "
Obama's
True Foreign Policy Weakness
."]
Yet, while the neocons and their liberal allies
had "won"
again, what did that winning mean for the people of Ukraine? Their country, already
teetering on the status of failed state, slid into deeper economic chaos and civil war. With
neo-Nazis and other extremists appointed to key national security positions, the new regime began
lashing out at ethnic Russians who were resisting Yanukovych's ouster.
Crimea voted overwhelmingly to secede from Ukraine and rejoin Russia, a move that Western
government's denounced as an illegal "annexation" and the major U.S. media termed an "invasion,"
although the Russian troops involved were already stationed in Crimea under an agreement to
maintain the Russian naval base at Sevastopol.
Ukraine's eastern provinces also sought secession, prompting military clashes that
inflicted some of the worst bloodshed seen on the European continent in decades. Thousands died
and millions fled.
Of course, the standard line in the U.S. media was that it was all Putin's fault, even as
the Kiev regime shelled eastern cities and
unleashed brutal neo-Nazi militias
to engage in street fighting, the first time storm
troopers emblazoned with Nazi insignias had been deployed in Europe since World War II. Yet,
buoyed by how easily the anti-Putin propaganda had prevailed, some neocons even began fantasizing
about "regime change" in Moscow.
Yet, if you were to step back for a minute and look at the history of the past 35 years
from the Afghan covert op through the Iraq War and the U.S. interventions in Libya, Syria,
Ukraine and elsewhere what you would see is the neocons and their liberal sidekicks behaving like
the Sorcerer's Apprentice, stirring up troubles that soon spun out of control.
Just look at the chaos that has been unleashed by these reckless neocon and liberal
interventionist policies from encouraging the rise of Islamic fundamentalism and facilitating the
formation of al-Qaeda via the covert war in Afghanistan, from creating a hotbed for attracting
and training jihadists during the Iraq War, from undermining regimes in Libya and Syria that for
all their faults were trying to contain this spread of terrorism, and from provoking a new Cold
War in Ukraine that risks bringing nuclear weapons into play in a showdown with Russia.
The latest outgrowth of all this trouble was the terror attack in Paris this month, with some
European hotheads now calling for another neocon favorite idea, "a war of civilizations," pitting
Christian societies against Islam in some modern version of the actual Crusades.
Yes, I know we're not supposed to talk about root causes of this chaos "at a time like this,"
and we are surely not supposed to blame the neocons and their liberal interventionist chums.
Instead, we're supposed to escalate the conflicts and the chaos.
We're supposed to continue the neocon "tough-guy-ism" - by repressing Muslims in the West,
by ousting Assad in Syria, by crushing the ethnic Russian resistance in Ukraine, by destabilizing
Russia, and by forsaking negotiations with Iran over its nuclear facilities in favor of more
sanctions and maybe more bombing. All somehow in the name of "democracy" and "human rights" and
"security."
As we gaze out upon this mad house built by the neocons, we are witnessing on a grand scale
the old adage about the inmates running the asylum, except that this asylum possesses the world's
most sophisticated weapons including a massive nuclear arsenal.
What the neocons have constructed through their skilled propaganda isa grim wonderland where
no one foresees the dangers of encouraging Islamist fundamentalism as a geopolitical ploy, where
no one takes heed of the historic hatreds of Sunni and Shiite, where no one suspects that the
U.S. military slaughtering thousands upon thousands of Muslims might provoke a backlash, where no
one thinks about the consequences of overthrowing regimes in unstable regions, where
no one
bothers to study the bitter history of a place like Ukraine, and where no one worries about
spreading turmoil to nuclear-armed Russia.
Yet, this neocon madness this "anti-realism" has been playing out in the real world on a
grand scale, destroying real lives and endangering the real future of the planet.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The
Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book,
America's Stolen Narrative,
either in
print
here
or as an e-book (from
Amazon
and
barnesandnoble.com
). You also can order Robert Parry's trilogy on
the Bush Family and its connections to various right-wing operatives for only $34. The trilogy
includes
America's Stolen Narrative
. For details on
this offer,
click here
.
CIA's ISIS [tm] descended on Midanao , joining force with CIA's Abu Sayyaf.
bloodbath in Manila's casino, 34 killed.
Richard Javad Heydarian, [A known Washington mouthpiece] helpfully suggests, ]' Mr. Duterte
was under mounting pressure to address the crisis in his home island, Mindanao, and that he may need
further assistance from Washington.'
Now uncle sham's deputy in Asia, Oz says its 'ready to help' .
Come back to mama now silly boy, Im the only one who can save your sorry ass.
"... He had some influence on Obama and one can legitimately ask whether his silly view about the importance of Ukraine to Russia was a prime mover in the Ukrainian catastrophe. There are some indications that he was beginning to realise how dangerous (and unsuccessful) this policy was becoming. But, probably, the longest-lasting legacy, though neither to his liking nor wishing, is the resistance to US hegemony taking concrete form in many places but most powerfully in Beijing and Moscow. ..."
"... As he said in his key book in which he thought to lay out the game plan to keep the USA on top forever : "the most dangerous scenario would be a grand coalition of China, Russia... Averting this contingency, however remote it may be, will require a display of U.S. geostrategic skill..." Neither remote nor skilful enough I guess. He should have paid more attention to Newton's Third Law of Diplomacy: if you push countries around, they will push back. An exceptional failure all round. ..."
ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI is dead but he lives on in three ways. He didn't invent jihadism or takfirism
but he gave it a key lift by supporting the mujahidin in Afghanistan in order to entice the USSR
to intervene: the disastrous policy of encouraging jihadism in one place arrogantly thinking you
could stop it spreading to another.
As he said in his
key book in which he
thought to lay out the game plan to keep the USA on top forever : "the most dangerous scenario
would be a grand coalition of China, Russia... Averting this contingency, however remote it may be,
will require a display of U.S. geostrategic skill..." Neither remote nor skilful enough I guess.
He should have paid more attention to Newton's Third Law of Diplomacy: if you push countries around,
they will push back. An exceptional failure all round.
NATO. When the chief member tells the others that they're not "paying their fair share" and their
real job is the Daesh threat, you have to wonder what is the longevity of an organisation whose members
have never "paid their fair share" and spend their time obsessing about "Russian threats". Pay for
what, by the way? Defence against the "Russian threat"? Overthrowing governments in the Middle East?
NATO CRUMBLE. We have
here a very interesting poll conducted by an
American
GONGO . Spun as discovering "Vulnerabilities to Russian Influence", it actually shows how tarnished
the Atlanticist idol has become. Majorities in Slovakia (75%), the Czech Republic (62%) and Hungary
(54%) want security cooperation with Russia and over a third of Poles (!) agree. They're worrying
about the erosion of traditional values, they're watching more Russian media and they're feeling
less "European". None of this has anything to do with Russian "disinformation" of course: it's an
entirely homemade failure. More Brzezinski legacy.
EUROPE-US. When the chief member of the EU says that automatic agreement with Washington is no
longer a given and that Europe must "
stand on our own two feet " you have to wonder what will next happen in an organisation that
has been pretty obedient to Washington's diktat in recent years. Think of how much the Ukraine mess
and Russian sanctions have hurt, and will continue to hurt, Europe. Do they still have feet, by the
way? More Brzezinski legacy.
John Helmer has written two great articles this week that round out what you've said here, Patrick.
And you both use the phrase: the evil lives on. Helmer, however, is more trenchant in his disgust
for Brezezinski.
If ever there was a man who displayed on his face the evil on his mind, it was Zbigniew Brzezinski,
(lead image, right) who died last week at a hospital near Washington. [...] Brzezinski was
an obsessive Russia-hater from the beginning to the end. That led to the monumental failures
of Carter's term in office; the hatreds Brzezinski released had an impact which continues to
be catastrophic for the rest of the world.
MRW -
Helmer served in Carter's White House with Brzezinski. He was on the inside charged by Carter
with verifying Brzezinski's analysis, among other things.
The second article I link to above is that account. It is a real eye-opener, and Helmer is
coming forward with this info now only because Brzezinski died. He tried to write about it in
a NYT op-ed a few years ago (2011?) but Brzezinski, who was shown a copy as a courtesy before
publication, ordered the NYT to kill it. I'm still reeling from Helmer's account.
james -
thanks for linking to john helmers articles here mrw.. i had meant to when i posted earlier, but
then forgot...
different clue -
MRW,
And Zbiggie-poo had the power to ORder the NYTimes to kill it? And the power to MAKE the NYTimes
follow his order?
If he had that power, was it his OWN power or was it the threatened power of people backing
him and for whom he fronted? Or was he a self propelled free agent and just giving a high-handed
order in hopes the name Brzezinski would shock and awe the Times into obeying an order which Brzezinski
had no power to enforce?
MRW -
I suspect the latter, DC, but I don't know.
Chris Chuba said...
Brzezinski (labeled a Realist) captures the heart of a Neocon perfectly in this paper authored
by him.
A Geostrategy for Eurasia, Zbigniew brzezinski
"In a volatile Eurasia, the immediate task is to ensure that no state or combination
of states gains the ability to expel the United States or even diminish its decisive role...
A benign American hegemony must still discourage others from posing a challenge, not only by
making its costs too high , but also by respecting the legitimate interests of Eurasia's
regional aspirants
In these circumstances, Russia's first priority should be to modernize itself rather than
to engage in a futile effort to regain its status as a global power. Given the country's size
and diversity, a decentralized political system and free-market economics would be most likely
to unleash the creative potential of the Russian people and Russia's vast natural resources.
A loosely confederated Russia -- composed of a European Russia, a Siberian Republic,
and a Far Eastern Republic -- would also find it easier to cultivate closer economic
relations with its neighbors."
1. Asserting global U.S. supremacy.
2. Imposing a benevolent U.S. solution on an unwilling participant.
3. Assuming that the U.S. knows more about a local situation than the people who actually live
there.
I could have chopped down the quotation but thought it would be good to include the rationalizations
that justify a blatant might makes right approach to world affairs. I could have chosen other
Neocons or other objects of their affection since they believe we rule the entire world.
"... Some of those approaches essentially turned John Quincy Adams's admonition on its head by asserting that it is ..."
"... In recent years, as the ranks of the "realists" the likes of George Kennan, Henry Kissinger and Brent Scowcroft have aged and thinned, the ranks of the neocons and their junior partners, the liberal interventionists, swelled. Indeed, these "anti-realists" have now grown dominant, touting themselves as morally superior because they don't just call for human rights, they take out governments that don't measure up. ..."
"... The primary distinction between the neocons and the liberal interventionists has been the centrality of Israel in the neocons' thinking while their liberal sidekicks put "humanitarianism" at the core of their world view. But these differences are insignificant, in practice, since the liberal hawks are politically savvy enough not to hold Israel accountable for its human rights crimes and clever enough to join with the neocons in easy-to-sell "regime change" strategies toward targeted countries with weak lobbies in Washington. ..."
"... Because Reagan's usurpation of human rights language involved support for brutal right-wing forces, such as the Guatemalan military and the Nicaraguan Contra rebels, the process required an Orwellian change in what words meant. "Pro-democracy" had to become synonymous with the rights and profits of business owners, not its traditional meaning of making government work for the common people. ..."
"... But this perversion of language was not as much meant to fool the average Guatemalan or Nicaraguan, who was more likely to grasp the reality behind the word games since he or she saw the cruel facts up close; it was mostly to control the American people who, in the lexicon of Reagan's propagandists, needed to have their perceptions managed. ..."
"... At the time, with Great Communicator Ronald Reagan leading the way, virtually the entire U.S. mainstream media and nearly every national politician hailed the mujahedeen as noble "freedom fighters" but the reality was always much different ..."
"... By the end of the 1980s, the U.S.-Saudi "covert operation" had "succeeded" in driving the Soviet army out of Afghanistan with Kabul's communist regime ultimately overthrown and replaced by the fundamentalist Taliban, who stripped women of their rights and covered up their bodies. The Taliban also provided safe haven for bin Laden and his al-Qaeda terrorist band, which by the 1990s had shifted its sights from Moscow to Washington and New York. ..."
"... Then, America's fear and fury over 9/11 opened the path for the neocons to activate one of their longstanding plans, to invade and occupy Iraq, though it had nothing to do with 9/11. The propaganda machinery was cranked up and again all the "smart" people fell in line. Dissenters were dismissed as "Saddam apologists" or called "traitors." [See Consortiumnews.com's " The Mysterious Why of the Iraq War. "] ..."
"... By fall 2002, the idea of invading Iraq and removing "monster" Saddam Hussein was not just a neocon goal, it was embraced by nearly ever prominent "liberal interventionist" in the United States, including editors and columnists of the New Yorker, the New York Times and virtually every major news outlet. ..."
"... The illegal U.S.-led invasion of Iraq also brushed aside the "legal internationalists" who believed that global agreements, especially prohibitions on aggressive war, were vital to building a less violent planet. ..."
"... Chaos happens to be a strategic goal of the country to which the neocons pledge allegiance: Israel. Chaos and conflict in the ME helps Israel maintain its military superiority and offers the opportunity to expand their undefined borders to encompass the Zionist dream of Eretz Yisrael. ..."
"... What I find odd and interesting is that the neo-Nazis (who are blatantly anti-Semitic) in the Kiev government have found common cause with Jewish oligarchs, Petro Poroshenko (Valtsman) and Igor Kolomoisky. I guess power and money make strange bedfellows. ..."
"... The US is nailed by two prongs of the same disease; Globalism, and a massively-increased Zionism. ..."
"... The two most dangerous countries in the world today are the U.S. neoconed under the influence of American Zionists and I would put Israel, second to none other than the US. And, I would distinguish and separate them from Syria and Iran who are a threat to no one. ..."
"... you have to stop with this Obama vs his Neocon/Liberal Interventionist White House staff. Why are you trying to protect Obama as if he, as President, was dragged "kicking and screaming" into Lybia, Syria, or Ukraine? He seemly clearly in favor of each of these moved just as he was clearly in favor of his drone war in Pakistan and the killing of American citizens. ..."
Special Report: America's neocons, who wield great power inside the U.S. government and media,
endanger the planet by concoctingstrategies inside their heads that ignorereal-world consequences.
Thus, their"regime changes" have unleashed ancient hatreds and spread chaos across the globe, as
Robert Parry explains.
Historically, one of the main threads of U.S. foreign policy was called "realism," that is the
measured application of American power on behalf of definable national interests, with U.S. principles
preached to others but not imposed.
This approach traced back to the early days of the Republic when the first presidents warned of
foreign "entangling alliances" and President John Quincy Adams, who was with his father at the nation's
dawning, explained
in 1821 that while America speaks on behalf of liberty, "she has abstained from interference
in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to
the last vital drop that visits the heart.
"Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her
heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy."
However, in modern times, foreign policy "realism" slid into an association with a cold calculation
of power, no longer a defense of the Republic and broader national interests but of narrow, well-connected
economic interests. The language of freedom was woven into a banner for greed and plunder. Liberty
justified the imposition of dictatorships on troublesome populations. Instead of searching for monsters
to destroy, U.S. policy often searched for monsters to install.
In the wake of such heartless actions like imposing pliable "pro-business" dictatorships on countries
such as Iran, Guatemala, Congo, Indonesia, Chile and engaging in the bloodbath of Vietnam "realism"
developed a deservedly negative reputation as other supposedly more idealistic foreign policy strategies
gained preeminence.
Some of those approaches essentially turned John Quincy Adams's admonition on its head by asserting
that it is America's duty to search out foreign monsters to destroy. Whether called "neoconservatism"
or "liberal interventionism," this approach openly advocated U.S. interference in the affairs of
other nations and took the sides of people who at least presented themselves as "pro-democracy."
In recent years, as the ranks of the "realists" the likes of George Kennan, Henry Kissinger and
Brent Scowcroft have aged and thinned, the ranks of the neocons and their junior partners, the liberal
interventionists, swelled. Indeed, these "anti-realists" have now grown dominant, touting themselves
as morally superior because they don't just call for human rights, they take out governments that
don't measure up.
The primary distinction between
the neocons and the liberal interventionists has been the centrality of Israel in the neocons'
thinking while their liberal sidekicks put "humanitarianism" at the core of their world view. But
these differences are insignificant, in practice, since the liberal hawks are politically savvy enough
not to hold Israel accountable for its human rights crimes and clever enough to join with the neocons
in easy-to-sell "regime change" strategies toward targeted countries with weak lobbies in Washington.
In those "regime change" cases, there is also a consensus on how to handle the targeted countries:
start with "soft power" from anti-regime propaganda to funding internal opposition groups to economic
sanctions to political destabilization campaigns and, then if operationally necessary and politically
feasible, move to overt military interventions, applying America's extraordinary military clout.
Moral Crusades
These interventions are always dressed up as moral crusades the need to free some population from
the clutches of a U.S.-defined "monster." There usually is some "crisis" in which the "monster" is
threatening "innocent life" and triggering a "responsibility to protect" with the catchy acronym,
"R2P."
But the reality about these "anti-realists" is that their actions, in real life, almost always
inflict severe harm on the country being "rescued." The crusade kills many people innocent and guilty
and the resulting disorder can spread far and wide, like some contagion that cannot be contained.
The neocons and the liberal interventionists have become, in effect, carriers of the deadly disease
called chaos.
And, it has become a very lucrative chaos for the well-connected by advancing the "dark side"
of U.S. foreign policy where lots of money can be made while government secrecy prevents public scrutiny.
As author James Risen describes in his new book, Pay Any Price , a new caste of "oligarchs"
has emerged from the 9/11 "war on terror" - and the various regional wars that it has unpacked -
to amass vast fortunes. He writes:"There is an entire class of wealthy company owners, corporate
executives, and investors who have gotten rich by enabling the American government to turn to the
dark side. The new quiet oligarchs just keep making money. They are the beneficiaries of one of the
largest transfers of wealth from public to private hands in American history." [p. 56]
And the consolidation of this wealth has further cemented the political/media influence of the
"anti-realists," as the new "oligarchs" kick back portions of their taxpayer largesse into think
tanks, political campaigns and media outlets. The neocons and their liberal interventionist pals
now fully dominate the U.S. opinion centers, from the right-wing media to the editorial pages (and
the foreign desks) of many establishment publications, including the Washington Post and the New
York Times.
By contrast, the voices of the remaining "realists" and their current unlikely allies, the anti-war
activists, are rarely heard in the mainstream U.S. media anymore. To the extent that these dissidents
do get to criticize U.S. meddling abroad, they are dismissed as "apologists" for whatever "monster"
is currently in line for the slaughter. And, to the extent they criticize Israel, they are smeared
as "anti-Semitic" and thus banished from respectable society.
Thus, being a "realist" in today's Official Washington requires hiding one's true feelings, much
as was once the case if you were a gay man and you had little choice but to keep your sexual orientation
in the closet by behaving publicly like a heterosexual and surrounding yourself with straight friends.
In many ways, that's what President Barack Obama has done. Though arguably
a "closet realist," Obama staffed his original administration with foreign policy officials acceptable
to the neocons and the liberal interventionists, such as Robert Gates at Defense, Hillary Clinton
at State, Gen. David Petraeus as a top commander in the field.
Even in his second term, the foreign-policy hawks have remained dominant, with people like neocon
Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland enflaming the crisis in Ukraine
and UN Ambassador Samantha Power, an R2Per, pushing U.S. military intervention in Syria.
A Slow-Motion Catastrophe
I have personally watched today's foreign-policy pattern evolve during my 37 years in Washington
- and it began innocently enough. After the Vietnam War and the disclosures about bloody CIA coups
around the globe, President Jimmy Carter called for human rights to be put at the center of U.S.
foreign policy. His successor, Ronald Reagan, then hijacked the human rights rhetoric while adapting
to it to his anticommunist cause.
Because Reagan's usurpation of human rights language involved support for brutal right-wing
forces, such as the Guatemalan military and the Nicaraguan Contra rebels, the process required an
Orwellian change in what words meant. "Pro-democracy" had to become synonymous with the rights and
profits of business owners, not its traditional meaning of making government work for the common
people.
But this perversion of language was not as much meant to fool the average Guatemalan or Nicaraguan,
who was more likely to grasp the reality behind the word games since he or she saw the cruel facts
up close; it was mostly to control the American people who, in the lexicon of Reagan's propagandists,
needed to have their perceptions managed. [See Consortiumnews.com's "
The Victory of Perception Management. "]
The goal of the young neocons inside the Reagan administration the likes of Elliott Abrams and
Robert Kagan (now Victoria Nuland's husband) was to line up the American public behind Reagan's aggressive
foreign policy, or as the phrase of that time went, to "kick the Vietnam Syndrome," meaning to end
the popular post-Vietnam resistance to more foreign wars.
President George H.W. Bush pronounced this mission accomplished in 1991 after the end of the well-sold
Persian Gulf War, declaring "we've kicked the Vietnam Syndrome once and for all."
By then, the propaganda process had fallen into a predictable pattern. You pick out a target country;
you demonize its leadership; you develop some "themes" that are sure to push American hot buttons,
maybe fictional stories about "throwing babies out of incubators" or the terrifying prospect of "a
mushroom cloud"; and it's always smart to highlight a leader's personal corruption, maybe his "designer
glasses" or "a sauna in his palace."
The point is not that the targeted leader may not be an unsavory character. Frankly, most political
leaders are. Many Western leaders and their Third World allies both historically and currently have
much more blood on their hands than some of the designated "monsters" that the U.S. government has
detected around the world. The key is the image-making.
What makes the process work is the application and amplification of double standards through the
propaganda organs available to the U.S. government. The compliant mainstream American media can be
counted on to look harshly at the behavior of some U.S. "enemy" in Venezuela, Iran, Russia or eastern
Ukraine, but to take a much more kindly view of a U.S.-favored leader from Colombia, Saudi Arabia,
Georgia or western Ukraine.
While it's easy and safe career-wise for a mainstream journalist to accuse a Chavez, an Ahmadinejad,
a Putin or a Yanukovych of pretty much anything, the levels of proof get ratcheted up when it's a
Uribe, a Saudi King Abdullah, a Saakashvili or a Yatsenyuk not to mention a Netanyahu.
The True Dark Side
But here is the dark truth about this "humanitarian" interventionism: it is spinning the world
into an endless cycle of violence. Rather than improving the prospects for human rights and democracy,
it is destroying those goals. While the interventionist strategies have made huge fortunes for well-connected
government contractors and well-placed speculators who profit off chaos, the neocons and their "human
rights" buddies are creating a hell on earth for billions of others, spreading death and destitution.
Take, for example, the beginnings of the Afghan War in the 1980s after the Soviet Union invaded
to protect a communist-led regime that had sought to pull Afghanistan out of the middle ages, including
granting equal rights to women. The United States responded by encouraging Islamic fundamentalism
and arming the barbaric mujahedeen.
At the time, that was considered the smart play because Islamic fundamentalism was seen as a force
that could counter atheistic communism. So, starting with the Carter administration but getting dramatically
ramped up by the Reagan administration, the United States threw in its lot with the extremist Wahhabis
of Saudi Arabia to invest billions of dollars in supporting these Islamist militants who included
one wealthy Saudi named Osama bin Laden.
At the time, with Great Communicator Ronald Reagan leading the way, virtually the entire U.S.
mainstream media and nearly every national politician hailed the mujahedeen as noble "freedom fighters"
but the reality was always much different . [See, for instance, Consortiumnews.com's "
How US Hubris Baited Afghan Trap ."]
By the end of the 1980s, the U.S.-Saudi "covert operation" had "succeeded" in driving the
Soviet army out of Afghanistan with Kabul's communist regime ultimately overthrown and replaced by
the fundamentalist Taliban, who stripped women of their rights and covered up their bodies. The Taliban
also provided safe haven for bin Laden and his al-Qaeda terrorist band, which by the 1990s had shifted
its sights from Moscow to Washington and New York.
Even though the Saudis officially broke with bin Laden after he declared his intentions to attack
the United States, some wealthy Saudis and other Persian Gulf multi-millionaires, who shared bin
Laden's violent form of Islamic fundamentalism, continued to fund him and his terrorists right up
to and beyond al-Qaeda's attacks on 9/11.
Then, America's fear and fury over 9/11 opened the path for the neocons to activate one of
their longstanding plans, to invade and occupy Iraq, though it had nothing to do with 9/11. The propaganda
machinery was cranked up and again all the "smart" people fell in line. Dissenters were dismissed
as "Saddam apologists" or called "traitors." [See Consortiumnews.com's "
The Mysterious Why of the Iraq War. "]
By fall 2002, the idea of invading Iraq and removing "monster" Saddam Hussein was not just
a neocon goal, it was embraced by nearly ever prominent "liberal interventionist" in the United States,
including editors and columnists of the New Yorker, the New York Times and virtually every major
news outlet.
At this point, the "realists" were in near total eclipse, left to grumble futilely or grasp onto
some remaining "relevance" by joining the pack, as Henry Kissinger did. The illegal U.S.-led
invasion of Iraq also brushed aside the "legal internationalists" who believed that global agreements,
especially prohibitions on aggressive war, were vital to building a less violent planet.
... ... ...
Pablo Diablo , January 17, 2015 at 7:06 pm
THANK YOU Robert Parry for all you have done. Money! It's always money. Wake up America. They
gave us Clinton to accomplish what mean-spirited Reagan/Bush couldn't accomplish. And then they
gave us Obama to continue what Bush/Cheney started.
Well put Zachary Smith. Shaking these compromised criminals from their lofty posts and kicking
them to the curb may seem like a monumental task, but the sea tide of change is definitely turning
in our favor. There is much talk about the neocons, Israel, Zionism, and the Lobby's influence
in the US government than ever before. They are everywhere!
http://www.veteransnewsnow.com/2015/01/18/514568obama-to-senators-choose-u-s-over-donors/
Steve D , January 17, 2015 at 8:16 pm
When will the neocons be brought up on crimes against humanity ? May all blowback be brought
down upon them.
This is a good summary, necessarily burdened by the lengthy history of "neocon" madness since
WWII. But of course the wrongful and ill-conceived US interventions are far more numerous even
than those mentioned here.
There will be no rational US foreign or domestic policy until democracy is restored, when the
mass media and elections are protected from the control of the oligarch of economic concentrations
that denies democracy to the people of the United States. This was the great oversight of our
Constitution, because no such economic concentrations existed then, and amendments are desperately
needed to correct this. Without them democracy, and sanity in public policy, are lost forever.
The morally corrosive effects of government propaganda are accepted largely because the population
is accustomed to lies in advertising and all business communications. The people are no longer
outraged that the government does nothing to control business lies and cheating, and it is not
surprising that the parties of bold government lies are the advocates of unregulated business.
But the prospects for reform are grim. Only an era of vast suffering in the US will make the
people turn off their TVs and admit the truth. One cannot wish for the suffering, but anything
to hasten the deposing of oligarchy is an act of the highest patriotism.
I concur. The question is why a large majority of the American people go along with this entire
exercise? And when did it all start? I wrote this in 2009 soon after Obama took office, it still
resonates: Can Obama escape the dominating influence of AIPAC and the American Jewish/Zionist
Israeli lobby?
The exercise of control over elections and mass media began quite early, grew as the US middle
class emerged and had to rely on ever-larger newspapers for policy facts, and as political candidates
relied ever more on purchased publicity and contributions from ever growing businesses seeking
federal favors. By 1898 we had our first media-trumped war ("Remember the Maine") over a falsely
attributed coal-gas explosion on a US warship.
Chet Roman , January 18, 2015 at 2:26 am
"The neocons and the liberal interventionists have become, in effect, carriers of the
deadly disease called chaos."
Chaos happens to be a strategic goal of the country to which the neocons pledge allegiance:
Israel. Chaos and conflict in the ME helps Israel maintain its military superiority and offers
the opportunity to expand their undefined borders to encompass the Zionist dream of Eretz Yisrael.
What I find odd and interesting is that the neo-Nazis (who are blatantly anti-Semitic)
in the Kiev government have found common cause with Jewish oligarchs, Petro Poroshenko (Valtsman)
and Igor Kolomoisky. I guess power and money make strange bedfellows.
The US is nailed by two prongs of the same disease; Globalism, and a massively-increased
Zionism.
Real intellectuals know this. It isn't exactly a conspiracy.
The two most dangerous countries in the world today are the U.S. neoconed under the influence
of American Zionists and I would put Israel, second to none other than the US. And, I would distinguish
and separate them from Syria and Iran who are a threat to no one.
So much for humanitarian causes. Palestine, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria. Why didn't they
just keep on bombing them until every single one was killed in the name of humanity?
It would make about as much humanitarian sense.
Now, let;s see¦. Who is next on the list?
“Abe, bring me that book by the old man " who do we go for next?"
The real question is who will we send to do the job? NATO or the UN? UN troops are better at
rape and pillage, but NATO is much more impressive in the straight out killing line! Both are
cheap and ready to go, and we will not have to do it ourselves.
Tsigantes , January 18, 2015 at 4:02 am
Re your penultimate paragraph, and from a European vantage point, far from 'failing to foresee'
the results, it appears that the neocons understand them full well and feel confidant in their
ability to control them. ISIS is understood here as a US funded and propogandised mercenary army,
with non-muslim participants from all over Europe & Asia. As for the true Wahhabi fundamentalists
one assumes that the logic is that they are contained inside ISIS, while carrying out US foreign
policy goals.
As for ultimate carrots, ie rewarding the fundamentalists, the New Middle East plan unveiled
in 2006 by Condaleeza Rice and Olmert as NATO/ISR policy (not contradicted since then, and clearly
underway) projected the division of Iraq into 3 states, one of which is Islamic State [IS} and
the other Kurdistan. It also projected the division of Pakistan with the new state being Baluchistan.
Thus ISIS and Al Qaeda become client states.
Therefore there is reason to this destructive, illegal madness which has served to destroy
the United States' reputation globally; the reconfiguration of the middle east serves US and Israeli
oil and security interests.
Unfortunately no such plan can be referenced concerning Russia. However events of recent years,
especially 2014 and Charlie Hebdo, have served to reveal the degree to which the EU is US/ISR
neocon dominated, and are absolutely NOT free nations.
re: "What the neocons have constructed through their skilled propaganda is a grim wonderland
where no one foresees the dangers of encouraging Islamist fundamentalism as a geopolitical ploy,
where no one takes heed of the historic hatreds of Sunni and Shiite, where no one suspects that
the U.S. military slaughtering thousands upon thousands of Muslims might provoke a backlash, where
no one thinks about the consequences of overthrowing regimes in unstable regions, where no one
bothers to study the bitter history of a place like Ukraine, and where no one worries about spreading
turmoil to nuclear-armed Russia."
Tsigante , January 18, 2015 at 4:16 am
i would add to my comment above that the majority of world muslims, Sunni & Shiite, are NOT
at loggerheads with each other, live next to each other and are often intermarried. This is a
theological split, like Protestants (no priest=Sunni) vs Catholics (priests=Catholic).
The exception is the 18th c local & extreme Wahhabi sect, which the British empowered when
they created Saudi Arabia. Far from being closer to islamic principles, they are closer to (dare
I say it) barbaric desert Arab practise, overlaid into a local form of Islam.
In the case of Iraq the Sunni-Shiite division was political, put in place by the English again,
when they empowered one group over the other as administrators.
Branko R , January 18, 2015 at 6:24 am
Robert's excellent summary overlooks the wars in the former Yugoslavia (Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina,
Kosovo). The same sorts of unsavory characters were backed and whitewashed, and the same sorts
of humanitarian propaganda were used.
Alan Fendrich , January 18, 2015 at 7:23 am
You write "Israeli war crimes." What Israeli war crimes have there been?
Is not the real crime the Arab regimes crime against humanity? Poisoning their children in their
school curriculum that Jews are dogs? And that killing Jews is good?
Truth , January 18, 2015 at 11:20 am
What Israeli War Crimes?
Wow. You outed yourself right there as a Hasbarite liar.
Zachary Smith , January 18, 2015 at 11:38 am
What Israeli war crimes have there been?
The very best 'spin' I can put on this statement is that you were in a coma during the recent
Israeli mass murder spree in Gaza.
The worst is that you're posting from the basement of a West Bank house on land stolen from
Palestinians. If this is the case, may I suggest you read up on efficiently lying for Holy Israel.
They have published several manuals for enthusiastic amateurs, and here is a link to the latest
one.
It never stops boring our ears this Zionist propaganda. Which "Arabs" are you talking about
you Zionist bigot? Which, Arab Jews, Christians or Muslims? Do you mean the Jewish Arabs who have
historically lived in peace and protection for centuries with the Muslim Arabs before Mongoloids
showed up from Eastern Europe? The ones who live now in the foremost democracy in the world Irahell?
Are they the ones that do not have the right to a minimum wage?
The "Arabs" never referred in their children's school books to Jews. They always without exception
refer to them as Zionist knowing full well that the founders of the "Jewish State" were without
exception atheists.
I predict Zionist will succeed in starting a third world war between Islam and Christianity
on one hand and between Eurasia and the West on the other. You have corrupted the democratic process
in the West and the media belongs to you. Additionally, let us not forget that there is too much
money to be made and national debts to be incurred for Zionist to worry about such an unprecedented
degree of human sacrifice in the name of Moloch.
You know what is a Freudian slip? The manifesto of the Zionist state is to extend itself from
the Nile to the Euphrates and to rule the world from Jerusalem just like a Caliphate. It will
be called, The State of Israel for Iraq and the Levant. I.S.I.L for short. It will never happen
for the children of Moloch.
Israeli veterans have spoken out, describing a degrading culture of abuse and harassment of Palestinian
children in the West Bank and Gaza. A report containing 30 veterans' testimonies details numerous
cases of violence.
I agree the President should come out of the closet. An excellent summary of what I have witnessed
this past half century. To the extent I fail to act to halt the mass murder, I am a silent accomplice
and share in the kharma perpetrated in the name of my country. Never, never, never surrender.
I never thought I would say that about the government I was raised to adore, but it appears populated
by petty tyrants and hucksters. But that is the story, our history, until the Millenials rrach
true majority in a generation. Let's see how the pendulum is swinging then.
Barry , January 19, 2015 at 7:45 pm
Come on, Robert. Overall, this was a great article. However, you have to stop with this
Obama vs his Neocon/Liberal Interventionist White House staff. Why are you trying to protect Obama
as if he, as President, was dragged "kicking and screaming" into Lybia, Syria, or Ukraine? He
seemly clearly in favor of each of these moved just as he was clearly in favor of his drone war
in Pakistan and the killing of American citizens.
"... A 1992 Pentagon strategy paper asserted that Washington had to convince "potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture," and to "discourage them from challenging our leadership or seeking to overturn the established political and economic order." ..."
"... A quarter century later, this policy has failed. It led to a series of imperialist wars and interventions by the NATO powers, led by the United States, that shattered Iraq, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Ukraine, and other countries. While costing millions of lives, destroying entire societies, and creating the greatest refugee crisis since World War II, these acts of militarism have produced debacles and failed to reverse US imperialism's fortunes. Now, a new stage of the crisis has been reached: The United States' imperialist rivals are preparing direct, far-reaching challenges to US imperialism's global primacy. ..."
Less than a week after US President Donald Trump returned to the United States from his overseas
tour of the Middle East and Europe, it is clear that a shift in world politics with vast implications
is underway. Global relationships and institutions that for decades set the framework for international
economy and public life are rapidly unraveling.
The rising threat of trade war and the resurgence of the military ambitions of all the imperialist
powers are signs of the advanced state of collapse of the international institutions created
after the United States emerged from World War II as the dominant imperialist power.
A 1992 Pentagon strategy paper asserted that Washington had to convince "potential competitors
that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture," and to "discourage
them from challenging our leadership or seeking to overturn the established political and economic
order."
A quarter century later, this policy has failed. It led to a series of imperialist wars
and interventions by the NATO powers, led by the United States, that shattered Iraq, Yugoslavia,
Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Ukraine, and other countries. While costing millions of lives, destroying
entire societies, and creating the greatest refugee crisis since World War II, these acts of
militarism have produced debacles and failed to reverse US imperialism's fortunes. Now, a new
stage of the crisis has been reached: The United States' imperialist rivals are preparing direct,
far-reaching challenges to US imperialism's global primacy.
These tensions are not simply the product of the extreme nationalist policies of the current
occupant of the White House, however. Indeed, as the Democratic Party relentlessly demonizes
Russia and accuses it of subverting American democracy, it is ever clearer that a victory of
Hillary Clinton in last year's US presidential election would not have resolved the conflicts
with Europe. Rather, the tensions are rooted in deep contradictions between the interests of
the major imperialist powers, which twice in the last century led to world war.
the trots see both the German Chinese and the Japan India blocks in opposition, as militarist
resurgences, this time with Germany and Japan forming competing axes. with the micron riding mutti's
coattails.
But the us block is shrinking to the 'stalwart' five eyes. although it is good to see the decline
of the us accelerating, it is hard to view all this as an improvement.
it does seem the decline of the usofa is accelerating and that it may reach critical mass before
anyone expected just a few weeks ago.
"... Yet, while the neocons and their liberal allies had "won" again, what did that winning mean for the people of Ukraine? Their country, already teetering on the status of failed state, slid into deeper economic chaos and civil war. With neo-Nazis and other extremists appointed to key national security positions, the new regime began lashing out at ethnic Russians who were resisting Yanukovych's ouster. ..."
"... Ukraine's eastern provinces also sought secession, prompting military clashes that inflicted some of the worst bloodshed seen on the European continent in decades. Thousands died and millions fled. ..."
"... Of course, the standard line in the U.S. media was that it was all Putin's fault, even as the Kiev regime shelled eastern cities and unleashed brutal neo-Nazi militias to engage in street fighting, the first time storm troopers emblazoned with Nazi insignias had been deployed in Europe since World War II. Yet, buoyed by how easily the anti-Putin propaganda had prevailed, some neocons even began fantasizing about "regime change" in Moscow. ..."
"... Yet, if you were to step back for a minute and look at the history of the past 35 years from the Afghan covert op through the Iraq War and the U.S. interventions in Libya, Syria, Ukraine and elsewhere what you would see is the neocons and their liberal sidekicks behaving like the Sorcerer's Apprentice, stirring up troubles that soon spun out of control. ..."
"... We're supposed to continue the neocon "tough-guy-ism" - by repressing Muslims in the West, by ousting Assad in Syria, by crushing the ethnic Russian resistance in Ukraine, by destabilizing Russia, and by forsaking negotiations with Iran over its nuclear facilities in favor of more sanctions and maybe more bombing. All somehow in the name of "democracy" and "human rights" and "security." ..."
"... no one bothers to study the bitter history of a place like Ukraine, and where no one worries about spreading turmoil to nuclear-armed Russia. ..."
"... Yet, this neocon madness this "anti-realism" has been playing out in the real world on a grand scale, destroying real lives and endangering the real future of the planet. ..."
Alarmed about this "realist" Obama-Putin collaboration, the "anti-realists" turned to
demonizing the Russian president and driving a wedge between him and Obama. The place to splinter
that relationship turned out to be Ukraine, where neocon Assistant Secretary of State Nuland was
perfectly positioned to push for the ouster of elected pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych.
As Nuland noted in one speech, the U.S. government had invested $5 billion in the "European
aspirations" of the western Ukrainians, including funding for political activists, journalists
and various business groups. The time to collect on that investment came in February 2014 when
violent demonstrations in Kiev, with well-organized neo-Nazi militias supplying the muscle, drove
Yanukovych from power.[See Consortiumnews.com's "
Neocons'
Ukraine-Syria-Iran Gambit.
"]
The Ukraine coup played out along another historic fault line, between European-oriented
western Ukraine, where Adolf Hitler's SS had gained significant support during World War II, and
eastern Ukraine with its ethnic Russian population and close business ties to Russia.
After the U.S. State Department rushed to embrace the coup regime as "legitimate" and as the
U.S. media dished out anti-Yanukvych propaganda, such as citing a sauna in his home, Obama tagged
along, falling into the neocon trap, again. U.S.-Russian relations spiraled into a hostility not
seen since the Cold War. [See Consortiumnews.com's "
Obama's
True Foreign Policy Weakness
."]
Yet, while the neocons and their liberal allies
had "won"
again, what did that winning mean for the people of Ukraine? Their country, already
teetering on the status of failed state, slid into deeper economic chaos and civil war. With
neo-Nazis and other extremists appointed to key national security positions, the new regime began
lashing out at ethnic Russians who were resisting Yanukovych's ouster.
Crimea voted overwhelmingly to secede from Ukraine and rejoin Russia, a move that Western
government's denounced as an illegal "annexation" and the major U.S. media termed an "invasion,"
although the Russian troops involved were already stationed in Crimea under an agreement to
maintain the Russian naval base at Sevastopol.
Ukraine's eastern provinces also sought secession, prompting military clashes that
inflicted some of the worst bloodshed seen on the European continent in decades. Thousands died
and millions fled.
Of course, the standard line in the U.S. media was that it was all Putin's fault, even as
the Kiev regime shelled eastern cities and
unleashed brutal neo-Nazi militias
to engage in street fighting, the first time storm
troopers emblazoned with Nazi insignias had been deployed in Europe since World War II. Yet,
buoyed by how easily the anti-Putin propaganda had prevailed, some neocons even began fantasizing
about "regime change" in Moscow.
Yet, if you were to step back for a minute and look at the history of the past 35 years
from the Afghan covert op through the Iraq War and the U.S. interventions in Libya, Syria,
Ukraine and elsewhere what you would see is the neocons and their liberal sidekicks behaving like
the Sorcerer's Apprentice, stirring up troubles that soon spun out of control.
Just look at the chaos that has been unleashed by these reckless neocon and liberal
interventionist policies from encouraging the rise of Islamic fundamentalism and facilitating the
formation of al-Qaeda via the covert war in Afghanistan, from creating a hotbed for attracting
and training jihadists during the Iraq War, from undermining regimes in Libya and Syria that for
all their faults were trying to contain this spread of terrorism, and from provoking a new Cold
War in Ukraine that risks bringing nuclear weapons into play in a showdown with Russia.
The latest outgrowth of all this trouble was the terror attack in Paris this month, with some
European hotheads now calling for another neocon favorite idea, "a war of civilizations," pitting
Christian societies against Islam in some modern version of the actual Crusades.
Yes, I know we're not supposed to talk about root causes of this chaos "at a time like this,"
and we are surely not supposed to blame the neocons and their liberal interventionist chums.
Instead, we're supposed to escalate the conflicts and the chaos.
We're supposed to continue the neocon "tough-guy-ism" - by repressing Muslims in the West,
by ousting Assad in Syria, by crushing the ethnic Russian resistance in Ukraine, by destabilizing
Russia, and by forsaking negotiations with Iran over its nuclear facilities in favor of more
sanctions and maybe more bombing. All somehow in the name of "democracy" and "human rights" and
"security."
As we gaze out upon this mad house built by the neocons, we are witnessing on a grand scale
the old adage about the inmates running the asylum, except that this asylum possesses the world's
most sophisticated weapons including a massive nuclear arsenal.
What the neocons have constructed through their skilled propaganda isa grim wonderland where
no one foresees the dangers of encouraging Islamist fundamentalism as a geopolitical ploy, where
no one takes heed of the historic hatreds of Sunni and Shiite, where no one suspects that the
U.S. military slaughtering thousands upon thousands of Muslims might provoke a backlash, where no
one thinks about the consequences of overthrowing regimes in unstable regions, where
no one
bothers to study the bitter history of a place like Ukraine, and where no one worries about
spreading turmoil to nuclear-armed Russia.
Yet, this neocon madness this "anti-realism" has been playing out in the real world on a
grand scale, destroying real lives and endangering the real future of the planet.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The
Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book,
America's Stolen Narrative,
either in
print
here
or as an e-book (from
Amazon
and
barnesandnoble.com
). You also can order Robert Parry's trilogy on
the Bush Family and its connections to various right-wing operatives for only $34. The trilogy
includes
America's Stolen Narrative
. For details on
this offer,
click here
.
CIA's ISIS [tm] descended on Midanao , joining force with CIA's Abu Sayyaf.
bloodbath in Manila's casino, 34 killed.
Richard Javad Heydarian, [A known Washington mouthpiece] helpfully suggests, ]' Mr. Duterte
was under mounting pressure to address the crisis in his home island, Mindanao, and that he may need
further assistance from Washington.'
Now uncle sham's deputy in Asia, Oz says its 'ready to help' .
Come back to mama now silly boy, Im the only one who can save your sorry ass.
"... He had some influence on Obama and one can legitimately ask whether his silly view about the importance of Ukraine to Russia was a prime mover in the Ukrainian catastrophe. There are some indications that he was beginning to realise how dangerous (and unsuccessful) this policy was becoming. But, probably, the longest-lasting legacy, though neither to his liking nor wishing, is the resistance to US hegemony taking concrete form in many places but most powerfully in Beijing and Moscow. ..."
"... As he said in his key book in which he thought to lay out the game plan to keep the USA on top forever : "the most dangerous scenario would be a grand coalition of China, Russia... Averting this contingency, however remote it may be, will require a display of U.S. geostrategic skill..." Neither remote nor skilful enough I guess. He should have paid more attention to Newton's Third Law of Diplomacy: if you push countries around, they will push back. An exceptional failure all round. ..."
ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI is dead but he lives on in three ways. He didn't invent jihadism or takfirism
but he gave it a key lift by supporting the mujahidin in Afghanistan in order to entice the USSR
to intervene: the disastrous policy of encouraging jihadism in one place arrogantly thinking you
could stop it spreading to another.
As he said in his
key book in which he
thought to lay out the game plan to keep the USA on top forever : "the most dangerous scenario
would be a grand coalition of China, Russia... Averting this contingency, however remote it may be,
will require a display of U.S. geostrategic skill..." Neither remote nor skilful enough I guess.
He should have paid more attention to Newton's Third Law of Diplomacy: if you push countries around,
they will push back. An exceptional failure all round.
NATO. When the chief member tells the others that they're not "paying their fair share" and their
real job is the Daesh threat, you have to wonder what is the longevity of an organisation whose members
have never "paid their fair share" and spend their time obsessing about "Russian threats". Pay for
what, by the way? Defence against the "Russian threat"? Overthrowing governments in the Middle East?
NATO CRUMBLE. We have
here a very interesting poll conducted by an
American
GONGO . Spun as discovering "Vulnerabilities to Russian Influence", it actually shows how tarnished
the Atlanticist idol has become. Majorities in Slovakia (75%), the Czech Republic (62%) and Hungary
(54%) want security cooperation with Russia and over a third of Poles (!) agree. They're worrying
about the erosion of traditional values, they're watching more Russian media and they're feeling
less "European". None of this has anything to do with Russian "disinformation" of course: it's an
entirely homemade failure. More Brzezinski legacy.
EUROPE-US. When the chief member of the EU says that automatic agreement with Washington is no
longer a given and that Europe must "
stand on our own two feet " you have to wonder what will next happen in an organisation that
has been pretty obedient to Washington's diktat in recent years. Think of how much the Ukraine mess
and Russian sanctions have hurt, and will continue to hurt, Europe. Do they still have feet, by the
way? More Brzezinski legacy.
John Helmer has written two great articles this week that round out what you've said here, Patrick.
And you both use the phrase: the evil lives on. Helmer, however, is more trenchant in his disgust
for Brezezinski.
If ever there was a man who displayed on his face the evil on his mind, it was Zbigniew Brzezinski,
(lead image, right) who died last week at a hospital near Washington. [...] Brzezinski was
an obsessive Russia-hater from the beginning to the end. That led to the monumental failures
of Carter's term in office; the hatreds Brzezinski released had an impact which continues to
be catastrophic for the rest of the world.
MRW -
Helmer served in Carter's White House with Brzezinski. He was on the inside charged by Carter
with verifying Brzezinski's analysis, among other things.
The second article I link to above is that account. It is a real eye-opener, and Helmer is
coming forward with this info now only because Brzezinski died. He tried to write about it in
a NYT op-ed a few years ago (2011?) but Brzezinski, who was shown a copy as a courtesy before
publication, ordered the NYT to kill it. I'm still reeling from Helmer's account.
james -
thanks for linking to john helmers articles here mrw.. i had meant to when i posted earlier, but
then forgot...
different clue -
MRW,
And Zbiggie-poo had the power to ORder the NYTimes to kill it? And the power to MAKE the NYTimes
follow his order?
If he had that power, was it his OWN power or was it the threatened power of people backing
him and for whom he fronted? Or was he a self propelled free agent and just giving a high-handed
order in hopes the name Brzezinski would shock and awe the Times into obeying an order which Brzezinski
had no power to enforce?
MRW -
I suspect the latter, DC, but I don't know.
Chris Chuba said...
Brzezinski (labeled a Realist) captures the heart of a Neocon perfectly in this paper authored
by him.
A Geostrategy for Eurasia, Zbigniew brzezinski
"In a volatile Eurasia, the immediate task is to ensure that no state or combination
of states gains the ability to expel the United States or even diminish its decisive role...
A benign American hegemony must still discourage others from posing a challenge, not only by
making its costs too high , but also by respecting the legitimate interests of Eurasia's
regional aspirants
In these circumstances, Russia's first priority should be to modernize itself rather than
to engage in a futile effort to regain its status as a global power. Given the country's size
and diversity, a decentralized political system and free-market economics would be most likely
to unleash the creative potential of the Russian people and Russia's vast natural resources.
A loosely confederated Russia -- composed of a European Russia, a Siberian Republic,
and a Far Eastern Republic -- would also find it easier to cultivate closer economic
relations with its neighbors."
1. Asserting global U.S. supremacy.
2. Imposing a benevolent U.S. solution on an unwilling participant.
3. Assuming that the U.S. knows more about a local situation than the people who actually live
there.
I could have chopped down the quotation but thought it would be good to include the rationalizations
that justify a blatant might makes right approach to world affairs. I could have chosen other
Neocons or other objects of their affection since they believe we rule the entire world.
"... Some of those approaches essentially turned John Quincy Adams's admonition on its head by asserting that it is ..."
"... In recent years, as the ranks of the "realists" the likes of George Kennan, Henry Kissinger and Brent Scowcroft have aged and thinned, the ranks of the neocons and their junior partners, the liberal interventionists, swelled. Indeed, these "anti-realists" have now grown dominant, touting themselves as morally superior because they don't just call for human rights, they take out governments that don't measure up. ..."
"... The primary distinction between the neocons and the liberal interventionists has been the centrality of Israel in the neocons' thinking while their liberal sidekicks put "humanitarianism" at the core of their world view. But these differences are insignificant, in practice, since the liberal hawks are politically savvy enough not to hold Israel accountable for its human rights crimes and clever enough to join with the neocons in easy-to-sell "regime change" strategies toward targeted countries with weak lobbies in Washington. ..."
"... Because Reagan's usurpation of human rights language involved support for brutal right-wing forces, such as the Guatemalan military and the Nicaraguan Contra rebels, the process required an Orwellian change in what words meant. "Pro-democracy" had to become synonymous with the rights and profits of business owners, not its traditional meaning of making government work for the common people. ..."
"... But this perversion of language was not as much meant to fool the average Guatemalan or Nicaraguan, who was more likely to grasp the reality behind the word games since he or she saw the cruel facts up close; it was mostly to control the American people who, in the lexicon of Reagan's propagandists, needed to have their perceptions managed. ..."
"... At the time, with Great Communicator Ronald Reagan leading the way, virtually the entire U.S. mainstream media and nearly every national politician hailed the mujahedeen as noble "freedom fighters" but the reality was always much different ..."
"... By the end of the 1980s, the U.S.-Saudi "covert operation" had "succeeded" in driving the Soviet army out of Afghanistan with Kabul's communist regime ultimately overthrown and replaced by the fundamentalist Taliban, who stripped women of their rights and covered up their bodies. The Taliban also provided safe haven for bin Laden and his al-Qaeda terrorist band, which by the 1990s had shifted its sights from Moscow to Washington and New York. ..."
"... Then, America's fear and fury over 9/11 opened the path for the neocons to activate one of their longstanding plans, to invade and occupy Iraq, though it had nothing to do with 9/11. The propaganda machinery was cranked up and again all the "smart" people fell in line. Dissenters were dismissed as "Saddam apologists" or called "traitors." [See Consortiumnews.com's " The Mysterious Why of the Iraq War. "] ..."
"... By fall 2002, the idea of invading Iraq and removing "monster" Saddam Hussein was not just a neocon goal, it was embraced by nearly ever prominent "liberal interventionist" in the United States, including editors and columnists of the New Yorker, the New York Times and virtually every major news outlet. ..."
"... The illegal U.S.-led invasion of Iraq also brushed aside the "legal internationalists" who believed that global agreements, especially prohibitions on aggressive war, were vital to building a less violent planet. ..."
"... Chaos happens to be a strategic goal of the country to which the neocons pledge allegiance: Israel. Chaos and conflict in the ME helps Israel maintain its military superiority and offers the opportunity to expand their undefined borders to encompass the Zionist dream of Eretz Yisrael. ..."
"... What I find odd and interesting is that the neo-Nazis (who are blatantly anti-Semitic) in the Kiev government have found common cause with Jewish oligarchs, Petro Poroshenko (Valtsman) and Igor Kolomoisky. I guess power and money make strange bedfellows. ..."
"... The US is nailed by two prongs of the same disease; Globalism, and a massively-increased Zionism. ..."
"... The two most dangerous countries in the world today are the U.S. neoconed under the influence of American Zionists and I would put Israel, second to none other than the US. And, I would distinguish and separate them from Syria and Iran who are a threat to no one. ..."
"... you have to stop with this Obama vs his Neocon/Liberal Interventionist White House staff. Why are you trying to protect Obama as if he, as President, was dragged "kicking and screaming" into Lybia, Syria, or Ukraine? He seemly clearly in favor of each of these moved just as he was clearly in favor of his drone war in Pakistan and the killing of American citizens. ..."
Special Report: America's neocons, who wield great power inside the U.S. government and media,
endanger the planet by concoctingstrategies inside their heads that ignorereal-world consequences.
Thus, their"regime changes" have unleashed ancient hatreds and spread chaos across the globe, as
Robert Parry explains.
Historically, one of the main threads of U.S. foreign policy was called "realism," that is the
measured application of American power on behalf of definable national interests, with U.S. principles
preached to others but not imposed.
This approach traced back to the early days of the Republic when the first presidents warned of
foreign "entangling alliances" and President John Quincy Adams, who was with his father at the nation's
dawning, explained
in 1821 that while America speaks on behalf of liberty, "she has abstained from interference
in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to
the last vital drop that visits the heart.
"Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her
heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy."
However, in modern times, foreign policy "realism" slid into an association with a cold calculation
of power, no longer a defense of the Republic and broader national interests but of narrow, well-connected
economic interests. The language of freedom was woven into a banner for greed and plunder. Liberty
justified the imposition of dictatorships on troublesome populations. Instead of searching for monsters
to destroy, U.S. policy often searched for monsters to install.
In the wake of such heartless actions like imposing pliable "pro-business" dictatorships on countries
such as Iran, Guatemala, Congo, Indonesia, Chile and engaging in the bloodbath of Vietnam "realism"
developed a deservedly negative reputation as other supposedly more idealistic foreign policy strategies
gained preeminence.
Some of those approaches essentially turned John Quincy Adams's admonition on its head by asserting
that it is America's duty to search out foreign monsters to destroy. Whether called "neoconservatism"
or "liberal interventionism," this approach openly advocated U.S. interference in the affairs of
other nations and took the sides of people who at least presented themselves as "pro-democracy."
In recent years, as the ranks of the "realists" the likes of George Kennan, Henry Kissinger and
Brent Scowcroft have aged and thinned, the ranks of the neocons and their junior partners, the liberal
interventionists, swelled. Indeed, these "anti-realists" have now grown dominant, touting themselves
as morally superior because they don't just call for human rights, they take out governments that
don't measure up.
The primary distinction between
the neocons and the liberal interventionists has been the centrality of Israel in the neocons'
thinking while their liberal sidekicks put "humanitarianism" at the core of their world view. But
these differences are insignificant, in practice, since the liberal hawks are politically savvy enough
not to hold Israel accountable for its human rights crimes and clever enough to join with the neocons
in easy-to-sell "regime change" strategies toward targeted countries with weak lobbies in Washington.
In those "regime change" cases, there is also a consensus on how to handle the targeted countries:
start with "soft power" from anti-regime propaganda to funding internal opposition groups to economic
sanctions to political destabilization campaigns and, then if operationally necessary and politically
feasible, move to overt military interventions, applying America's extraordinary military clout.
Moral Crusades
These interventions are always dressed up as moral crusades the need to free some population from
the clutches of a U.S.-defined "monster." There usually is some "crisis" in which the "monster" is
threatening "innocent life" and triggering a "responsibility to protect" with the catchy acronym,
"R2P."
But the reality about these "anti-realists" is that their actions, in real life, almost always
inflict severe harm on the country being "rescued." The crusade kills many people innocent and guilty
and the resulting disorder can spread far and wide, like some contagion that cannot be contained.
The neocons and the liberal interventionists have become, in effect, carriers of the deadly disease
called chaos.
And, it has become a very lucrative chaos for the well-connected by advancing the "dark side"
of U.S. foreign policy where lots of money can be made while government secrecy prevents public scrutiny.
As author James Risen describes in his new book, Pay Any Price , a new caste of "oligarchs"
has emerged from the 9/11 "war on terror" - and the various regional wars that it has unpacked -
to amass vast fortunes. He writes:"There is an entire class of wealthy company owners, corporate
executives, and investors who have gotten rich by enabling the American government to turn to the
dark side. The new quiet oligarchs just keep making money. They are the beneficiaries of one of the
largest transfers of wealth from public to private hands in American history." [p. 56]
And the consolidation of this wealth has further cemented the political/media influence of the
"anti-realists," as the new "oligarchs" kick back portions of their taxpayer largesse into think
tanks, political campaigns and media outlets. The neocons and their liberal interventionist pals
now fully dominate the U.S. opinion centers, from the right-wing media to the editorial pages (and
the foreign desks) of many establishment publications, including the Washington Post and the New
York Times.
By contrast, the voices of the remaining "realists" and their current unlikely allies, the anti-war
activists, are rarely heard in the mainstream U.S. media anymore. To the extent that these dissidents
do get to criticize U.S. meddling abroad, they are dismissed as "apologists" for whatever "monster"
is currently in line for the slaughter. And, to the extent they criticize Israel, they are smeared
as "anti-Semitic" and thus banished from respectable society.
Thus, being a "realist" in today's Official Washington requires hiding one's true feelings, much
as was once the case if you were a gay man and you had little choice but to keep your sexual orientation
in the closet by behaving publicly like a heterosexual and surrounding yourself with straight friends.
In many ways, that's what President Barack Obama has done. Though arguably
a "closet realist," Obama staffed his original administration with foreign policy officials acceptable
to the neocons and the liberal interventionists, such as Robert Gates at Defense, Hillary Clinton
at State, Gen. David Petraeus as a top commander in the field.
Even in his second term, the foreign-policy hawks have remained dominant, with people like neocon
Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland enflaming the crisis in Ukraine
and UN Ambassador Samantha Power, an R2Per, pushing U.S. military intervention in Syria.
A Slow-Motion Catastrophe
I have personally watched today's foreign-policy pattern evolve during my 37 years in Washington
- and it began innocently enough. After the Vietnam War and the disclosures about bloody CIA coups
around the globe, President Jimmy Carter called for human rights to be put at the center of U.S.
foreign policy. His successor, Ronald Reagan, then hijacked the human rights rhetoric while adapting
to it to his anticommunist cause.
Because Reagan's usurpation of human rights language involved support for brutal right-wing
forces, such as the Guatemalan military and the Nicaraguan Contra rebels, the process required an
Orwellian change in what words meant. "Pro-democracy" had to become synonymous with the rights and
profits of business owners, not its traditional meaning of making government work for the common
people.
But this perversion of language was not as much meant to fool the average Guatemalan or Nicaraguan,
who was more likely to grasp the reality behind the word games since he or she saw the cruel facts
up close; it was mostly to control the American people who, in the lexicon of Reagan's propagandists,
needed to have their perceptions managed. [See Consortiumnews.com's "
The Victory of Perception Management. "]
The goal of the young neocons inside the Reagan administration the likes of Elliott Abrams and
Robert Kagan (now Victoria Nuland's husband) was to line up the American public behind Reagan's aggressive
foreign policy, or as the phrase of that time went, to "kick the Vietnam Syndrome," meaning to end
the popular post-Vietnam resistance to more foreign wars.
President George H.W. Bush pronounced this mission accomplished in 1991 after the end of the well-sold
Persian Gulf War, declaring "we've kicked the Vietnam Syndrome once and for all."
By then, the propaganda process had fallen into a predictable pattern. You pick out a target country;
you demonize its leadership; you develop some "themes" that are sure to push American hot buttons,
maybe fictional stories about "throwing babies out of incubators" or the terrifying prospect of "a
mushroom cloud"; and it's always smart to highlight a leader's personal corruption, maybe his "designer
glasses" or "a sauna in his palace."
The point is not that the targeted leader may not be an unsavory character. Frankly, most political
leaders are. Many Western leaders and their Third World allies both historically and currently have
much more blood on their hands than some of the designated "monsters" that the U.S. government has
detected around the world. The key is the image-making.
What makes the process work is the application and amplification of double standards through the
propaganda organs available to the U.S. government. The compliant mainstream American media can be
counted on to look harshly at the behavior of some U.S. "enemy" in Venezuela, Iran, Russia or eastern
Ukraine, but to take a much more kindly view of a U.S.-favored leader from Colombia, Saudi Arabia,
Georgia or western Ukraine.
While it's easy and safe career-wise for a mainstream journalist to accuse a Chavez, an Ahmadinejad,
a Putin or a Yanukovych of pretty much anything, the levels of proof get ratcheted up when it's a
Uribe, a Saudi King Abdullah, a Saakashvili or a Yatsenyuk not to mention a Netanyahu.
The True Dark Side
But here is the dark truth about this "humanitarian" interventionism: it is spinning the world
into an endless cycle of violence. Rather than improving the prospects for human rights and democracy,
it is destroying those goals. While the interventionist strategies have made huge fortunes for well-connected
government contractors and well-placed speculators who profit off chaos, the neocons and their "human
rights" buddies are creating a hell on earth for billions of others, spreading death and destitution.
Take, for example, the beginnings of the Afghan War in the 1980s after the Soviet Union invaded
to protect a communist-led regime that had sought to pull Afghanistan out of the middle ages, including
granting equal rights to women. The United States responded by encouraging Islamic fundamentalism
and arming the barbaric mujahedeen.
At the time, that was considered the smart play because Islamic fundamentalism was seen as a force
that could counter atheistic communism. So, starting with the Carter administration but getting dramatically
ramped up by the Reagan administration, the United States threw in its lot with the extremist Wahhabis
of Saudi Arabia to invest billions of dollars in supporting these Islamist militants who included
one wealthy Saudi named Osama bin Laden.
At the time, with Great Communicator Ronald Reagan leading the way, virtually the entire U.S.
mainstream media and nearly every national politician hailed the mujahedeen as noble "freedom fighters"
but the reality was always much different . [See, for instance, Consortiumnews.com's "
How US Hubris Baited Afghan Trap ."]
By the end of the 1980s, the U.S.-Saudi "covert operation" had "succeeded" in driving the
Soviet army out of Afghanistan with Kabul's communist regime ultimately overthrown and replaced by
the fundamentalist Taliban, who stripped women of their rights and covered up their bodies. The Taliban
also provided safe haven for bin Laden and his al-Qaeda terrorist band, which by the 1990s had shifted
its sights from Moscow to Washington and New York.
Even though the Saudis officially broke with bin Laden after he declared his intentions to attack
the United States, some wealthy Saudis and other Persian Gulf multi-millionaires, who shared bin
Laden's violent form of Islamic fundamentalism, continued to fund him and his terrorists right up
to and beyond al-Qaeda's attacks on 9/11.
Then, America's fear and fury over 9/11 opened the path for the neocons to activate one of
their longstanding plans, to invade and occupy Iraq, though it had nothing to do with 9/11. The propaganda
machinery was cranked up and again all the "smart" people fell in line. Dissenters were dismissed
as "Saddam apologists" or called "traitors." [See Consortiumnews.com's "
The Mysterious Why of the Iraq War. "]
By fall 2002, the idea of invading Iraq and removing "monster" Saddam Hussein was not just
a neocon goal, it was embraced by nearly ever prominent "liberal interventionist" in the United States,
including editors and columnists of the New Yorker, the New York Times and virtually every major
news outlet.
At this point, the "realists" were in near total eclipse, left to grumble futilely or grasp onto
some remaining "relevance" by joining the pack, as Henry Kissinger did. The illegal U.S.-led
invasion of Iraq also brushed aside the "legal internationalists" who believed that global agreements,
especially prohibitions on aggressive war, were vital to building a less violent planet.
... ... ...
Pablo Diablo , January 17, 2015 at 7:06 pm
THANK YOU Robert Parry for all you have done. Money! It's always money. Wake up America. They
gave us Clinton to accomplish what mean-spirited Reagan/Bush couldn't accomplish. And then they
gave us Obama to continue what Bush/Cheney started.
Well put Zachary Smith. Shaking these compromised criminals from their lofty posts and kicking
them to the curb may seem like a monumental task, but the sea tide of change is definitely turning
in our favor. There is much talk about the neocons, Israel, Zionism, and the Lobby's influence
in the US government than ever before. They are everywhere!
http://www.veteransnewsnow.com/2015/01/18/514568obama-to-senators-choose-u-s-over-donors/
Steve D , January 17, 2015 at 8:16 pm
When will the neocons be brought up on crimes against humanity ? May all blowback be brought
down upon them.
This is a good summary, necessarily burdened by the lengthy history of "neocon" madness since
WWII. But of course the wrongful and ill-conceived US interventions are far more numerous even
than those mentioned here.
There will be no rational US foreign or domestic policy until democracy is restored, when the
mass media and elections are protected from the control of the oligarch of economic concentrations
that denies democracy to the people of the United States. This was the great oversight of our
Constitution, because no such economic concentrations existed then, and amendments are desperately
needed to correct this. Without them democracy, and sanity in public policy, are lost forever.
The morally corrosive effects of government propaganda are accepted largely because the population
is accustomed to lies in advertising and all business communications. The people are no longer
outraged that the government does nothing to control business lies and cheating, and it is not
surprising that the parties of bold government lies are the advocates of unregulated business.
But the prospects for reform are grim. Only an era of vast suffering in the US will make the
people turn off their TVs and admit the truth. One cannot wish for the suffering, but anything
to hasten the deposing of oligarchy is an act of the highest patriotism.
I concur. The question is why a large majority of the American people go along with this entire
exercise? And when did it all start? I wrote this in 2009 soon after Obama took office, it still
resonates: Can Obama escape the dominating influence of AIPAC and the American Jewish/Zionist
Israeli lobby?
The exercise of control over elections and mass media began quite early, grew as the US middle
class emerged and had to rely on ever-larger newspapers for policy facts, and as political candidates
relied ever more on purchased publicity and contributions from ever growing businesses seeking
federal favors. By 1898 we had our first media-trumped war ("Remember the Maine") over a falsely
attributed coal-gas explosion on a US warship.
Chet Roman , January 18, 2015 at 2:26 am
"The neocons and the liberal interventionists have become, in effect, carriers of the
deadly disease called chaos."
Chaos happens to be a strategic goal of the country to which the neocons pledge allegiance:
Israel. Chaos and conflict in the ME helps Israel maintain its military superiority and offers
the opportunity to expand their undefined borders to encompass the Zionist dream of Eretz Yisrael.
What I find odd and interesting is that the neo-Nazis (who are blatantly anti-Semitic)
in the Kiev government have found common cause with Jewish oligarchs, Petro Poroshenko (Valtsman)
and Igor Kolomoisky. I guess power and money make strange bedfellows.
The US is nailed by two prongs of the same disease; Globalism, and a massively-increased
Zionism.
Real intellectuals know this. It isn't exactly a conspiracy.
The two most dangerous countries in the world today are the U.S. neoconed under the influence
of American Zionists and I would put Israel, second to none other than the US. And, I would distinguish
and separate them from Syria and Iran who are a threat to no one.
So much for humanitarian causes. Palestine, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria. Why didn't they
just keep on bombing them until every single one was killed in the name of humanity?
It would make about as much humanitarian sense.
Now, let;s see¦. Who is next on the list?
“Abe, bring me that book by the old man " who do we go for next?"
The real question is who will we send to do the job? NATO or the UN? UN troops are better at
rape and pillage, but NATO is much more impressive in the straight out killing line! Both are
cheap and ready to go, and we will not have to do it ourselves.
Tsigantes , January 18, 2015 at 4:02 am
Re your penultimate paragraph, and from a European vantage point, far from 'failing to foresee'
the results, it appears that the neocons understand them full well and feel confidant in their
ability to control them. ISIS is understood here as a US funded and propogandised mercenary army,
with non-muslim participants from all over Europe & Asia. As for the true Wahhabi fundamentalists
one assumes that the logic is that they are contained inside ISIS, while carrying out US foreign
policy goals.
As for ultimate carrots, ie rewarding the fundamentalists, the New Middle East plan unveiled
in 2006 by Condaleeza Rice and Olmert as NATO/ISR policy (not contradicted since then, and clearly
underway) projected the division of Iraq into 3 states, one of which is Islamic State [IS} and
the other Kurdistan. It also projected the division of Pakistan with the new state being Baluchistan.
Thus ISIS and Al Qaeda become client states.
Therefore there is reason to this destructive, illegal madness which has served to destroy
the United States' reputation globally; the reconfiguration of the middle east serves US and Israeli
oil and security interests.
Unfortunately no such plan can be referenced concerning Russia. However events of recent years,
especially 2014 and Charlie Hebdo, have served to reveal the degree to which the EU is US/ISR
neocon dominated, and are absolutely NOT free nations.
re: "What the neocons have constructed through their skilled propaganda is a grim wonderland
where no one foresees the dangers of encouraging Islamist fundamentalism as a geopolitical ploy,
where no one takes heed of the historic hatreds of Sunni and Shiite, where no one suspects that
the U.S. military slaughtering thousands upon thousands of Muslims might provoke a backlash, where
no one thinks about the consequences of overthrowing regimes in unstable regions, where no one
bothers to study the bitter history of a place like Ukraine, and where no one worries about spreading
turmoil to nuclear-armed Russia."
Tsigante , January 18, 2015 at 4:16 am
i would add to my comment above that the majority of world muslims, Sunni & Shiite, are NOT
at loggerheads with each other, live next to each other and are often intermarried. This is a
theological split, like Protestants (no priest=Sunni) vs Catholics (priests=Catholic).
The exception is the 18th c local & extreme Wahhabi sect, which the British empowered when
they created Saudi Arabia. Far from being closer to islamic principles, they are closer to (dare
I say it) barbaric desert Arab practise, overlaid into a local form of Islam.
In the case of Iraq the Sunni-Shiite division was political, put in place by the English again,
when they empowered one group over the other as administrators.
Branko R , January 18, 2015 at 6:24 am
Robert's excellent summary overlooks the wars in the former Yugoslavia (Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina,
Kosovo). The same sorts of unsavory characters were backed and whitewashed, and the same sorts
of humanitarian propaganda were used.
Alan Fendrich , January 18, 2015 at 7:23 am
You write "Israeli war crimes." What Israeli war crimes have there been?
Is not the real crime the Arab regimes crime against humanity? Poisoning their children in their
school curriculum that Jews are dogs? And that killing Jews is good?
Truth , January 18, 2015 at 11:20 am
What Israeli War Crimes?
Wow. You outed yourself right there as a Hasbarite liar.
Zachary Smith , January 18, 2015 at 11:38 am
What Israeli war crimes have there been?
The very best 'spin' I can put on this statement is that you were in a coma during the recent
Israeli mass murder spree in Gaza.
The worst is that you're posting from the basement of a West Bank house on land stolen from
Palestinians. If this is the case, may I suggest you read up on efficiently lying for Holy Israel.
They have published several manuals for enthusiastic amateurs, and here is a link to the latest
one.
It never stops boring our ears this Zionist propaganda. Which "Arabs" are you talking about
you Zionist bigot? Which, Arab Jews, Christians or Muslims? Do you mean the Jewish Arabs who have
historically lived in peace and protection for centuries with the Muslim Arabs before Mongoloids
showed up from Eastern Europe? The ones who live now in the foremost democracy in the world Irahell?
Are they the ones that do not have the right to a minimum wage?
The "Arabs" never referred in their children's school books to Jews. They always without exception
refer to them as Zionist knowing full well that the founders of the "Jewish State" were without
exception atheists.
I predict Zionist will succeed in starting a third world war between Islam and Christianity
on one hand and between Eurasia and the West on the other. You have corrupted the democratic process
in the West and the media belongs to you. Additionally, let us not forget that there is too much
money to be made and national debts to be incurred for Zionist to worry about such an unprecedented
degree of human sacrifice in the name of Moloch.
You know what is a Freudian slip? The manifesto of the Zionist state is to extend itself from
the Nile to the Euphrates and to rule the world from Jerusalem just like a Caliphate. It will
be called, The State of Israel for Iraq and the Levant. I.S.I.L for short. It will never happen
for the children of Moloch.
Israeli veterans have spoken out, describing a degrading culture of abuse and harassment of Palestinian
children in the West Bank and Gaza. A report containing 30 veterans' testimonies details numerous
cases of violence.
I agree the President should come out of the closet. An excellent summary of what I have witnessed
this past half century. To the extent I fail to act to halt the mass murder, I am a silent accomplice
and share in the kharma perpetrated in the name of my country. Never, never, never surrender.
I never thought I would say that about the government I was raised to adore, but it appears populated
by petty tyrants and hucksters. But that is the story, our history, until the Millenials rrach
true majority in a generation. Let's see how the pendulum is swinging then.
Barry , January 19, 2015 at 7:45 pm
Come on, Robert. Overall, this was a great article. However, you have to stop with this
Obama vs his Neocon/Liberal Interventionist White House staff. Why are you trying to protect Obama
as if he, as President, was dragged "kicking and screaming" into Lybia, Syria, or Ukraine? He
seemly clearly in favor of each of these moved just as he was clearly in favor of his drone war
in Pakistan and the killing of American citizens.
"... A 1992 Pentagon strategy paper asserted that Washington had to convince "potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture," and to "discourage them from challenging our leadership or seeking to overturn the established political and economic order." ..."
"... A quarter century later, this policy has failed. It led to a series of imperialist wars and interventions by the NATO powers, led by the United States, that shattered Iraq, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Ukraine, and other countries. While costing millions of lives, destroying entire societies, and creating the greatest refugee crisis since World War II, these acts of militarism have produced debacles and failed to reverse US imperialism's fortunes. Now, a new stage of the crisis has been reached: The United States' imperialist rivals are preparing direct, far-reaching challenges to US imperialism's global primacy. ..."
Less than a week after US President Donald Trump returned to the United States from his overseas
tour of the Middle East and Europe, it is clear that a shift in world politics with vast implications
is underway. Global relationships and institutions that for decades set the framework for international
economy and public life are rapidly unraveling.
The rising threat of trade war and the resurgence of the military ambitions of all the imperialist
powers are signs of the advanced state of collapse of the international institutions created
after the United States emerged from World War II as the dominant imperialist power.
A 1992 Pentagon strategy paper asserted that Washington had to convince "potential competitors
that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture," and to "discourage
them from challenging our leadership or seeking to overturn the established political and economic
order."
A quarter century later, this policy has failed. It led to a series of imperialist wars
and interventions by the NATO powers, led by the United States, that shattered Iraq, Yugoslavia,
Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Ukraine, and other countries. While costing millions of lives, destroying
entire societies, and creating the greatest refugee crisis since World War II, these acts of
militarism have produced debacles and failed to reverse US imperialism's fortunes. Now, a new
stage of the crisis has been reached: The United States' imperialist rivals are preparing direct,
far-reaching challenges to US imperialism's global primacy.
These tensions are not simply the product of the extreme nationalist policies of the current
occupant of the White House, however. Indeed, as the Democratic Party relentlessly demonizes
Russia and accuses it of subverting American democracy, it is ever clearer that a victory of
Hillary Clinton in last year's US presidential election would not have resolved the conflicts
with Europe. Rather, the tensions are rooted in deep contradictions between the interests of
the major imperialist powers, which twice in the last century led to world war.
the trots see both the German Chinese and the Japan India blocks in opposition, as militarist
resurgences, this time with Germany and Japan forming competing axes. with the micron riding mutti's
coattails.
But the us block is shrinking to the 'stalwart' five eyes. although it is good to see the decline
of the us accelerating, it is hard to view all this as an improvement.
it does seem the decline of the usofa is accelerating and that it may reach critical mass before
anyone expected just a few weeks ago.
"... Brzezinski flattered and fawned over Carter; relentlessly conspired to undermine Vance and other rivals for Carter's attention; postured, manipulated, lied to the press, and faked to the president. ..."
"... "it is important to recognize that Jimmy Carter was ultimately responsible for the nature of his policymaking system and for the decisions made about who would frame and articulate U.S. foreign policies." ..."
"... "Sure, Brzezinski was a strategic thinker," one of Sexton's sources told her. "But he was frequently wrong! Vance's strategies have withstood the test of time." According to Sexton, her source was a "public official [with] in-depth familiarity with Vance's and Brzezinski's work. He agreed to be interviewed on the condition he would not be quoted on this subject." ..."
"... Paul Henze came to Brzezinski's staff after serving as the CIA's station chief in Ethiopia in 1969 to 1972, and then in Turkey between 1974 and 1977. Henze had been one of the plotters of the Turkish invasion of Cyprus in July 1974, which continues to this day. ..."
"... The Somali invasion of Ethiopia which began in July 1977, and was known as the Ogaden war until the Somalis were defeated by the Russian and Cuban-backed Ethiopian military in March 1978, was one of the schemes Henze managed, and Brzezinski persuaded Carter to approve. By the time Henze's war was defeated, he rationalized the war-fighting strategy's continuing purpose in a memorandum since declassified and quoted by Sexton ..."
"... Another of the Henze plots – the military putsch in Turkey in September 1980 – was Carter's and Brzezinski's scheme too. ..."
"... Henze had started in the CIA as a specialist managing assassination gangs with pretensions to anti-communist ideology. He began with the Iron Guard of Romania, and was still running the Grey Wolves of Turkey when he moved on to the Brzezinski staff. ..."
"... The KGB assessment was that Henze, Brzezinski and Carter had all been in on the plot, just as they had been in on the scheme to elect Cardinal Karol Wojtyła, Archbishop of Cracow, as the Pope in October 1978. ..."
"... Henze was joined by other CIA men on Brzezinski's staff including Donald Gregg, Fritz Ermarth, Robert Gates and Samuel Hoskinson. They were all plotters of the putsch which overthrew the President of Pakistan, Zulfiqar ali Bhutto, in July 1977. Bhutto was replaced by Army General Zia ul-Haq, and subsequently hanged. Zia was killed in August 1988, along with the US Ambassador to Pakistan, Arnold Raphel, and General Herbert Wassom, the head of US military aid mission to Pakistan. ..."
"... How many of the putsches which CIA operation histories log in as successful, and how many of the unsuccessful attempts – Ghana and El Salvador (1979), Bolivia, Liberia, Guinea-Bissau, Suriname, Upper Volta (Burkina Faso), Iran (1980) – were engagements in acting tough and doing new big things which Brzezinski got the president to approve are questions Carter is shy to answer. ..."
The widow of Cyrus Vance, the only US Secretary of State to resign in protest against his president's
actions in a hundred years, called Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Jimmy Carter's National Security
Advisor and Vance's rival, "that awful man". Not a single official of the State Department under
Vance during the Carter Administration of 1977 to 1981, thought differently. Most of them had monosyllabic
terms for Brzezinski. Since Brzezinski died last Friday, not a single member of his own White House
staff has made a public statement in his honour, memory or defence. The mute ones include Madeleine
Albright, who
owed to Brzezinski her career promotion as an academic, then White House staffer, then Secretary
of State herself.
Despite the disloyalty of those closest to him, and the detestation for Bzezinski of those further
away, he was, and remained, Carter's favourite. Between 1977 and 1981, Brzezinski's time with Carter,
according to the White House logs, amounted to more than 20% of the president's working time. That's
12 minutes of every hour - no other official came close. On Friday, shortly after Brzezinski's death
was announced by his family, Carter
issued a statement extolling him as "a superb public servant inquisitive, innovative, and a natural
choice as my national security advisor brilliant, dedicated, and loyal. I will miss him."
What was this bond between them, and why does it matter now? One reason is that what they did
together were the freshest American operations studied at KGB schools in Moscow by a recruit in training
at the time named Vladimir Putin.
This was the National Security Advisor's
staff during
the four years of Carter's term, 1977-1981.
PRESIDENT CARTER'S RUSSIA-HATING TEAM
A 451-page doctoral
dissertation by Mary Sexton examining the relationship between Carter and Brzezinski identifies
the evidence, including documents, witnesses, and independent reports which should have driven them
apart. She fails to answer why that didn't happen. She concludes Brzezinski flattered and fawned
over Carter; relentlessly conspired to undermine Vance and other rivals for Carter's attention; postured,
manipulated, lied to the press, and faked to the president. Sexton concluded in 2009: "it
is important to recognize that Jimmy Carter was ultimately responsible for the nature of his policymaking
system and for the decisions made about who would frame and articulate U.S. foreign policies."
She quoted Lloyd Butler, Carter's appointee as the White House lawyer so no Brzezinski underling,
as saying he was baffled by Carter's refusal to address the troubles Brzezinski caused. "I will never
understand it", Butler said in 2002. He died in 2005.
Neither Vance in his memoirs (he died in 2002), nor his wife Grace, nor any of Vance's deputies
at State, nor Carter's staff at the White House, provide an answer. In
research by Betty Glad, published in November 2009, she reported "a few close aides met the emotional
needs of the president", but the aides didn't tell Glad what they thought Carter's emotional needs
were. Glad acknowledged that in preparing her book she was "above all indebted to Zbigniew Brzezinski
who expeditiously answered my emails and was very open about his interactions with Carter."
Glad concluded that Carter gave Brzezinski "his complete and absolute support Brzezinski was
one of the few people Carter never reprimanded And Carter dismissed all criticisms of Brzezinski
that might come his way." Why?
"Carter needed and admired the strategic skills and the toughness in dealing with others that
Brzezinski offered," Glad summed up, with the latter's help. The need to be tough was a recurrent
theme in Brzezinski's briefings and memoranda to Carter, she added. Brzezinski made Carter feel he
was "doing big things." Fighting the Russians (Soviets then) was, in the advice Brzezinski presented
to Carter and repeated to Glad, was the biggest of the big things. "Brzezinski", concluded Glad,
"appealed to Carter's desire to do new big things and act quickly".
The bafflement reported by Carter subordinates and State Department officials under Vance is part
truth; part cover-up by the officials; part deceit by Carter. For the answer of what bound Carter
and Brzezinski together Glad doesn't uncover, nor even hint at. This is because it was a conspiracy
of proxy wars, terrorism, assassinations, coups d'etat, and other black operations, still classified
top secret, rationalized by Brzezinski to Carter and approved by the president, as part of a grand
strategy to defeat the Kremlin. These were the acting-tough tactics which convinced Carter in secret,
but which the president never admitted to in public. Not then, because the actions made Carter feel
he was doing "new big things". Not since, because all of them have failed, with bloodshed and monumental
losses for those whom the president and his strategist targeted, and collateral damage for the rest
of the world, not least the US.
"Sure, Brzezinski was a strategic thinker," one of Sexton's sources told her. "But he was
frequently wrong! Vance's strategies have withstood the test of time." According to Sexton, her source
was a "public official [with] in-depth familiarity with Vance's and Brzezinski's work. He agreed
to be interviewed on the condition he would not be quoted on this subject."
Paul Henze came to Brzezinski's staff after serving as the CIA's station chief in Ethiopia
in 1969 to 1972, and then in Turkey between 1974 and 1977. Henze had been one of the plotters of
the Turkish invasion of Cyprus in July 1974, which continues to this day.
The Somali invasion of Ethiopia which began in July 1977, and was known as the Ogaden war
until the Somalis were defeated by the Russian and Cuban-backed Ethiopian military in March 1978,
was one of the schemes Henze managed, and Brzezinski persuaded Carter to approve. By the time Henze's
war was defeated, he rationalized the war-fighting strategy's continuing purpose in a memorandum
since declassified and quoted by Sexton. "Much as we want the Soviets out", Henze briefed Brzezinski
and Carter, "we are not going to get them out soon We should make their stay as costly as possible
and the source of fundamental strain for them. We can do this in many ways, both overtly [and] covertly
The Soviets are the culprits in the Horn and we should never let them or the world forget it."
Another of the Henze plots – the military putsch in Turkey in September 1980 – was Carter's
and Brzezinski's scheme too.
Henze had started in the CIA as a specialist managing assassination gangs with pretensions
to anti-communist ideology. He began with the Iron Guard of Romania, and was still running the Grey
Wolves of Turkey when he moved on to the Brzezinski staff. After Carter's downfall, Henze spent
years trying to cover up the role the Grey Wolves had played in the attempted assassination of Pope
John-Paul II in May 1981. Henze's version of the plot was that the Kremlin and KGB had masterminded
the scheme through the Bulgarian secret service. The KGB assessment was that Henze, Brzezinski
and Carter had all been in on the plot, just as they had been in on the scheme to elect Cardinal
Karol Wojtyła, Archbishop of Cracow, as the Pope in October 1978.
Brzezsinski's
euology at Henze's funeral in Virginia in 2011 provided the cover story that he had engaged Henze
in 1977 "to assume responsibility for oversight of the radios and to coordinate more generally our
efforts to prevail in the Cold War without an actual war. Paul was in his element. He mobilized his
enthusiasm, his commitment, and his boundless energy not only to protect RFE [Radio Free Europe],
but to develop also a broader effort to nourish the hopes of those living in the Soviet bloc, including
even the Soviet Union itself, that someday they, too, would be free."
For their combined record of violent failure, Brzezinski had this to say: "Paul proved himself
to be a ferocious bureaucratic infighter and eventually the winner – though at times he was even
impatient with my efforts to pursue – on the President's behalf - also some accommodation with the
Soviet Union in the area of mutual arms control. But that was Paul, my fellow Cold warrior: enthusiastic,
fearless, committed, principled, and relentless. A great American, an Eastern European by association,
and one of the anonymous architects of the peaceful and victorious end to the Cold War."
Henze was joined by other CIA men on Brzezinski's staff including Donald Gregg, Fritz Ermarth,
Robert Gates and Samuel Hoskinson. They were all plotters of the putsch which overthrew the President
of Pakistan, Zulfiqar ali Bhutto, in July 1977. Bhutto was replaced by Army General Zia ul-Haq, and
subsequently hanged. Zia was killed in August 1988, along with the US Ambassador to Pakistan, Arnold
Raphel, and General Herbert Wassom, the head of US military aid mission to Pakistan.
Gregg was one of the plotters of the December 12, 1979, military putsch in South Korea.
Hoskinson was
engaged
in Middle Eastern attack and overthrow plots, some he endorsed and assisted, and some he would
have done if he judged they had a chance of success.
How many of the putsches which CIA operation histories log in as successful, and how many
of the unsuccessful attempts – Ghana and El Salvador (1979), Bolivia, Liberia, Guinea-Bissau, Suriname,
Upper Volta (Burkina Faso), Iran (1980) – were engagements in acting tough and doing new big things
which Brzezinski got the president to approve are questions Carter is shy to answer.
For them, the war in Afghanistan, which they plotted with alacrity from the start of the Carter
Administration, was the culminating case of what Brzezinski described in his address over Henze's
corpse as the "peaceful and victorious end to the Cold War."
These games of liquidating others in the cause of defeating the Kremlin has invigorated Carter,
even today when Carter himself is on his last legs. Drawing the Russians on to the field of battle
was his and Brzezinski's aim; Afghanistan, after the Soviet military intervention began in December
1979, was their main chance. Their successors in the White House have the same chance against Russian
forces on the battlefields of Syria and Ukraine. Though he has tried, Brzezinski is no longer in
a position to advise them that if they don't dare, they can't win. Carter is still alive to demonstrate
that if they dare, they are likely to lose.
It isn't sure that's what KGB trainee Putin scribbled down during his lectures at the Andropov
Red Banner Institute in 1984. It's certain he has noted it down now.
Another well-placed, well-timed leak from WaPo. Un-named intelligence official in play again. Is
Russian embassy bugged and all diplomatic correspondence intercepted ? Looks like those guys outdid
STASI. the standard question arises: "cuo bono".
If true, that means that the way information was obtained is iether already known by Russian, or
this channel will be closed really soon. Form the text of the article it looks like the USA is able
to read Russian diplomatic communication. Unless this is yet another disinformation, that means that
the USA obtained the keys used by the embassy for incoding dypolicic communication, or have a modle
who provided this communication by downloading already decoded archive or something like that. Which
actually violates Vienna convention and makes the USA rogue nation not that different from GDR ot the
USSR.
While it is unclear " what Kislyak would have had to gain by falsely characterizing his contacts
with Kushner to Moscow" it is clear who benefit from this revelation. But even if true why to reveal
such an important information for such a minor case. Trump folded. What else "deep state" wants from
him ? Are Hillary friends in State Department and a couple of other intelligence agencies really crazy
about the revenge ?
More questions then answers
Notable quotes:
"... But officials said that it's unclear what Kislyak would have had to gain by falsely characterizing
his contacts with Kushner to Moscow, particularly at a time when the Kremlin still saw the prospect
of dramatically improved relations with Trump. ..."
"... The FBI closely monitors the communications of Russian officials in the United States, and
maintains near-constant surveillance of its diplomatic facilities. The National Security Agency monitors
the communications of Russian officials overseas. ..."
"... 'according to U.S. officials briefed on intelligence reports'. This isn't any sort of verification.
Another manufactured news media story. ..."
"... The Washington Post should not even believed with there track record. They should identify
there source that is leaking anything they can get there hands. Never about anything else accept fake
news. The jokers on here keep on drinking the koolaid that the WP prints! ..."
"... Always jump to conclusions as always without the facts. They gave up on Trump now they go after
some one else. You fools talk about Watergate and have no proof about any of this except what the Washington
Trash prints! ..."
Jared Kushner and Russia's ambassador to Washington discussed the possibility of setting up a
secret and secure communications channel between Trump's transition team and the Kremlin, using Russian
diplomatic facilities in an apparent move to shield their pre-inauguration discussions from monitoring,
according to U.S. officials briefed on intelligence reports.
Ambassador Sergei Kislyak reported to his superiors in Moscow that Kushner, then President-elect
Trump's son-in-law and confidant, made the proposal during a meeting on Dec. 1 or 2 at Trump Tower,
according to intercepts of Russian communications that were reviewed by U.S. officials. Kislyak said
Kushner suggested using Russian diplomatic facilities in the United States for the communications.
The meeting also was attended by Michael Flynn, Trump's first national security adviser.
The White House disclosed the fact of the meeting only in March, playing down its significance.
But people familiar with the matter say the FBI now considers the encounter, as well as another meeting
Kushner had with a Russian banker, to be of investigative interest.
Kislyak reportedly was taken aback by the suggestion of allowing an American to use Russian communications
gear at its embassy or consulate - a proposal that would have carried security risks for Moscow as
well as the Trump team.
Neither the meeting nor the communications of Americans involved were under U.S. surveillance,
officials said.
The White House declined to comment. Robert Kelner, a lawyer for Flynn, declined to comment. The
Russian embassy did not respond to requests for comment.
Russia at times feeds false information into communication streams it suspects are monitored as
a way of sowing misinformation and confusion among U.S. analysts. But officials said that it's
unclear what Kislyak would have had to gain by falsely characterizing his contacts with Kushner to
Moscow, particularly at a time when the Kremlin still saw the prospect of dramatically improved relations
with Trump.
Kushner's apparent interest in establishing a secret channel with Moscow, rather than rely on
U.S. government systems, has added to the intrigue surrounding the Trump administration's relationship
with Russia.
To some officials, it also reflects a staggering naivete.
The FBI closely monitors the communications of Russian officials in the United States, and
maintains near-constant surveillance of its diplomatic facilities. The National Security Agency monitors
the communications of Russian officials overseas.
Current and former U.S. intelligence officials said that though Russian diplomats have secure
means of communicating with Moscow, Kushner's apparent request for access to such channels was extraordinary.
"How would he trust that the Russians wouldn't leak it on their side?" said one former senior
intelligence official. The FBI would know that a Trump transition official was going in and out of
the embassy, which would cause "a great deal" of concern, he added. The entire idea, he said, "seems
extremely naďve or absolutely crazy."
The discussion of a secret channel adds to a broader pattern of efforts by Trump's closest advisors
to obscure their contacts with Russian counterparts. Trump's first national security adviser, Flynn,
was forced to resign after a series of false statements about his conversations with Kislyak. Attorney
General Jeff Sessions recused himself from matters related to the Russia investigation after it was
revealed that he had failed to disclose his own meetings with Kislyak when asked during congressional
testimony about any contact with Russians.
Kushner's interactions with Russians - including Kislyak and an executive for a Russian bank under
U.S. sanctions - were not acknowledged by the White House until they were exposed in media reports.
It is common for senior advisers of a newly elected president to be in contact with foreign leaders
and officials. But new administrations are generally cautious in their handling of interactions with
Moscow, which U.S. intelligence
... ... ....
In addition to their discussion about setting up the communications channel, Kushner, Flynn and
Kislyak also talked about arranging a meeting between a representative of Trump and a "Russian contact"
in a third country whose name was not identified, according to the anonymous letter.
The Post reported in April that Erik Prince, the former founder of Blackwater private security
firm and an informal adviser to the Trump transition team, met on Jan. 11 - nine days before Trump's
inauguration - in the Seychelles islands in the Indian Ocean with a representative of Russian President
Vladimir Putin.
Tom Lewis · Longs, South Carolina
"Jared Kushner and Russia's ambassador to Washington discussed the possibility of setting up
a secret and secure communications channel between Trump's transition team and the Kremlin, using
Russian diplomatic facilities in an apparent move to shield their pre-inauguration discussions
from monitoring" .... pretty stiff accusation with this as the news media's source ... 'according
to U.S. officials briefed on intelligence reports'. This isn't any sort of verification. Another
manufactured news media story.
Paul Schofield · San Diego, California
Everyone knew about this, and it happens with every transition team, and it was done AFTER
Trump won the election, but if it gets the Liberals' panties in a bunch, and CNN more viewers,
the angry Clintonites can scream impeachment for a few hours tonight..... suckers!
Jerry Reich · Arnold, Missouri
The Washington Post should not even believed with there track record. They should identify
there source that is leaking anything they can get there hands. Never about anything else accept
fake news. The jokers on here keep on drinking the koolaid that the WP prints!
Always jump to conclusions as always without the facts. They gave up on Trump now they
go after some one else. You fools talk about Watergate and have no proof about any of this except
what the Washington Trash prints!
Exceptionalism: the condition of being different from the norm; also : a theory
expounding the exceptionalism especially of a nation or region.
May 29, 2017 " Information
Clearing House " - There are many theories surrounding the origin of American exceptionalism.
The most popular in US folklore, being that it describes America's unique character as a "free" nation
founded on democratic ideals and civil liberties. The Declaration of Independence from British colonial
rule is the foundation of this theory and has persevered throughout the often violent history of
the US since its birth as a free nation.
Over time, exceptionalism has come to represent superiority in the minds and hearts of Americans.
Belief in their economic, military and ideological supremacy is what has motivated successive US
governments to invest in shaping the world in their superior image with little or no regard for the
destruction left in the wake of their exceptional hegemony.
In considering itself, exceptional, the US has extricated itself from any legal obligation to
adhere to either International law or even the common moral laws that should govern Humanity. The
US has become exceptionally lawless and authoritarian particularly in its intolerant neo-colonialist
foreign policy. The colonized have become the colonialists, concealing their brutal savagery behind
a veneer of missionary zeal that they are converting the world to their form of exceptionalist Utopia.
Such is the media & marketing apparatus that supports this superiority complex, the majority of
US congress exist within its echo chamber and are willing victims of its indoctrination. The power
of the propaganda vortex pulls them in and then radiates outwards, infecting all in its path. Self-extraction
from this oligarchical perspective is perceived as a revolutionary act that challenges the core of
US security so exceptionalism becomes the modus vivendi.
Just as Israel considers itself 'the chosen people' from a religious perspective, the US considers
itself the chosen nation to impose its version of Democratic reform and capitalist hegemony the world
over. One can see why Israel and the US make such symbiotic bedfellows.
"The fatal war for humanity is the war with Russia and China toward which Washington is driving
the US and Washington's NATO and Asian puppet states. The bigotry of the US power elite is rooted
in its self-righteous doctrine that stipulates America as the "indispensable country" ~
Paul Craig Roberts: Washington Drives the World Towards War.
So why do the American people accept US criminal hegemony, domestic and foreign brutal tyranny
& neo-colonialist blood-letting with scant protest? Why do the European vassal states not rise up
against this authoritarian regime that flaunts international law and drags its NATO allies down the
path to complete lawlessness and diplomatic ignominy?
What is Gaslighting?
The psychological term "Gaslighting" comes from a 1944 Hollywood classic movie called Gaslight.
Gaslighting describes the abuse employed by a narcissist to instil in their victim's mind, an extreme
anxiety and confusion to the extent where they no longer have faith in their own powers of logic,
reason and judgement. These gaslighting techniques were adopted by central intelligence agencies
in the US and Europe as part of their psychological warfare methods, used primarily during torture
or interrogation.
Gaslighting as an abuser's modus operandi, involves, specifically, the withholding of factual
information and its replacement with false or fictional information designed to confuse and disorientate.
This subtle and Machiavellian process eventually undermines the mental stability of its victims reducing
them to such a depth of insecurity and identity crisis that they become entirely dependent upon their
abuser for their sense of reality and even identity.
Gaslighting involves a step by step psychological process to manipulate and destabilize its victim.
It is built up over time and consists of repetitive information feeds that enter the victim's subconscious
over a period of time, until it is fully registered on the subconscious "hard disk" and cannot be
overridden by the conscious floppy disk. Put more simply, it is brainwashing.
" Overall, the main reason for gaslighting is to create a dynamic where the abuser has complete
control over their victim so that they are so weak that they are very easy to manipulate." ~
Alex Myles
Three Stages of Gaslighting: Stage One
The first stage depends upon trust in the integrity and unimpeachable intentions of the abuser,
a state of reliance that has been engendered by the abuser's artful self-promotion and ingratiating
propaganda. Once this trust is gained, the abuser will begin to subtly undermine it, creating situations
and environments where the victim will begin to doubt their own judgement. Eventually the victim
will rely entirely upon the abuser to alleviate their uncertainty and to restore their sense of reality
which is in fact that of the abuser.
Stage Two
The second stage, defence, is a process by which the abuser isolates the victim, not only from
their own sense of identity but from the validation of their peers. They are made to feel that their
opinion is worthless, discredited, down-right weird. In political circles they would be labelled
a conspiracy theorist, a dissident, a terror apologist. As a consequence, the victim will withdraw
from society and cease to express themselves for fear of ridicule, judgement or punishment.
This stage can also be compared to Stockholm Syndrome where a hostage or captive is reduced,by
psychological mind games, back to infantile dependency upon their captor. Narcissistic abuse bonds
the victim to the aggressor via trauma. Stockholm Syndrome bonds the victim to the aggressor via
regression to an infantile state where the abuser/aggressor becomes the "parent" who will rescue
the victim from imminent annihilation. Both methods tap into the victim's survival mechanisms to
gain and maintain control.
Stage Three
The final stage is depression. A life under the tyrannical rule of a narcissist drives the victim
into a state of extreme confusion. They are stripped of dignity & self-reliance. They, ultimately
exist in an information vacuum which is only filled by that which the abuser deems suitable or relevant.
This can eventually invoke symptoms of PTSD [Post Traumatic Stress Disorder]. Flashbacks, constant
apprehension, hyper vigilance, mind paralysis, rage and even violence. The process is complete and
the victim has been reduced to a willing accomplice in the abusers creation of a very distorted reality.
Exceptionalism or Narcissism?
We are currently seeing the transformation of US exceptionalism into an abusive Narcissism .
The gargantuan apparatus of mind bending and controlling is being put into hyper drive by the
ruling elite. We are inundated with propaganda that challenges our sense of reality but only after
being "tenderized" by the fear factor. Fear of "terror", fear of war, fear of financial insecurity,
fear of gun violence, fear of our own shadow. Once we are suitably quaking in our boots, in comes
the rendition of reality that relieves our anxiety. If we challenge this version of events we are
labelled a conspiracy theorist, a threat to security. We are hounded, discredited, slandered and
ridiculed. We are isolated and threatened.
Wars are started in the same way. Despite the hindsight that should enable us to see it coming,
the process swings into motion with resounding success. The ubiquitous dictator, the oligarch who
threatens to destroy all that the US and her allies represent which of course is, freedom, equality
& civil liberty all wrapped up in the Democracy shiny paper and tied with the exceptionalist ribbon.
Next the false flag to engender fear, terror and to foment sectarian strife. The support of a
"legitimate" organic, indigenous "revolution" conveniently emerging in tandem with US ambitions for
imposing their model of governance upon a target nation. The arming of "freedom fighters", the securing
of mercenary additions to these manufactured proxy forces. All this is sold in the name of freedom
and democracy to a public that is already in a state of anxiety and insecurity, lacking in judgement
or insight into any other reality but that of their "abuser".
The NGO Complex Deployment
Finally, the Humanitarians are deployed. The forces for "good", the vanguard of integrity and
ethical intervention. The power that offers all lost souls a stake-holding in the salvation of sovereign
nations that have lost their way and need rescuing. A balm for a damaged soul, to know they can leave
their doubts and fears in such trustworthy hands as HRW, Amnesty International, they can assuage
their deep sense of guilt at the suffering being endured by the people of far flung nations because
they can depend upon the NGOs to provide absolution with minimal effort on their part. They don't
realise that NGOs are an integral part of their abuser's apparatus, operating on the leash of neo-colonialist
financing and influence. NGOs provide the optic through which the abuser will allow the victim to
perceive their world and once absorbed into this flawed prism the victim's own cognitive dissonance
will ensure they do not attempt a jail break.
In this state of oppressed consciousness the victim accepts what they are told. They accept that
the US can sell cluster bombs to Saudi Arabia that obliterate human beings and lay waste to essential
civilian infrastructure in Yemen. They accept that the US financially, ideologically & militarily
supports the illegal state of Israel and provides the arsenal of experimental weapons that maim and
mutilate children and civilians on a scale that is unimaginable. They accept that a crippling blockade
of the already impoverished and starving nation of Yemen is "necessary" to resolve the issues of
sectarian divisions that only exist in the minds of their Congressional abusers.
The majority of Americans accept mass murder under the pretext of the right to protect , because
their ability to form rational and reasoned opinions has been engineered out of them. This is now
the definition of US exceptionalism. It is their ability to manipulate the world into accepting their
lawlessness and global hegemony agenda. In seeking to impose its own image upon our world the US
has drifted so far from its founding principles, one wonders how they will ever return to them. They
have employed a recognised form of torture to ensure capitulation to their mission of world domination
which entails the mental, physical and spiritual torture of target civilian populations.
In conclusion, the US has indeed achieved exceptionalism. The US has become an exceptional global
executioner and persecutor of Humanity. Imperialism is a euphemism for the depths of abuse the US
is inflicting upon the people of this world.
Our only hope is to break the cycle of abuse with empathy for the victim and with appreciation
for the years of brainwashing that precedes their agonizing passive-aggressive apathy towards crimes
being committed in "their name".
This was an email I received recently from one courageous young American girl whose epiphany is
testament to the resilience and survival instinct of the human spirit.
" My name is Caroline and I am a 22 year old US citizen. I only fairly recently discovered the
truth about Empire/NATO's activities in Syria and Libya and so many other countries (thanks to writers
like Andre Vltchek, Cory Morningstar, Forrest Palmer). I am sickened when I remember that I signed
some of those Avaaz petitions and I feel horrified at knowing that I have Syrian and Libyan blood
on my hands. I want to believe that I'm not "really" guilty because I really thought (as I had been
told) that I was not doing something bad at the time, but still, what I did contributed to the suffering
of those people and I want to do something to atone in at least some small way, even though I probably
can't "make up" for what I did or erase my crime.
If it's not too much trouble, could you please tell me what you think I should do, if there is
anything?"
She deserves an answer
***
Author Vanessa Beeley is a contributor to 21WIRE, and s ince 2011, she has spent most of
her time in the Middle East reporting on events there – as a independent researcher, writer, photographer
and peace activist. She is also a member of the Steering Committee of the Syria Solidarity Movement,
and a volunteer with the Global Campaign to Return to Palestine. See more of her work at her blog
The Wall Will Fall .
"... Brzezinski flattered and fawned over Carter; relentlessly conspired to undermine Vance and other rivals for Carter's attention; postured, manipulated, lied to the press, and faked to the president. ..."
"... "it is important to recognize that Jimmy Carter was ultimately responsible for the nature of his policymaking system and for the decisions made about who would frame and articulate U.S. foreign policies." ..."
"... "Sure, Brzezinski was a strategic thinker," one of Sexton's sources told her. "But he was frequently wrong! Vance's strategies have withstood the test of time." According to Sexton, her source was a "public official [with] in-depth familiarity with Vance's and Brzezinski's work. He agreed to be interviewed on the condition he would not be quoted on this subject." ..."
"... Paul Henze came to Brzezinski's staff after serving as the CIA's station chief in Ethiopia in 1969 to 1972, and then in Turkey between 1974 and 1977. Henze had been one of the plotters of the Turkish invasion of Cyprus in July 1974, which continues to this day. ..."
"... The Somali invasion of Ethiopia which began in July 1977, and was known as the Ogaden war until the Somalis were defeated by the Russian and Cuban-backed Ethiopian military in March 1978, was one of the schemes Henze managed, and Brzezinski persuaded Carter to approve. By the time Henze's war was defeated, he rationalized the war-fighting strategy's continuing purpose in a memorandum since declassified and quoted by Sexton ..."
"... Another of the Henze plots – the military putsch in Turkey in September 1980 – was Carter's and Brzezinski's scheme too. ..."
"... Henze had started in the CIA as a specialist managing assassination gangs with pretensions to anti-communist ideology. He began with the Iron Guard of Romania, and was still running the Grey Wolves of Turkey when he moved on to the Brzezinski staff. ..."
"... The KGB assessment was that Henze, Brzezinski and Carter had all been in on the plot, just as they had been in on the scheme to elect Cardinal Karol Wojtyła, Archbishop of Cracow, as the Pope in October 1978. ..."
"... Henze was joined by other CIA men on Brzezinski's staff including Donald Gregg, Fritz Ermarth, Robert Gates and Samuel Hoskinson. They were all plotters of the putsch which overthrew the President of Pakistan, Zulfiqar ali Bhutto, in July 1977. Bhutto was replaced by Army General Zia ul-Haq, and subsequently hanged. Zia was killed in August 1988, along with the US Ambassador to Pakistan, Arnold Raphel, and General Herbert Wassom, the head of US military aid mission to Pakistan. ..."
"... How many of the putsches which CIA operation histories log in as successful, and how many of the unsuccessful attempts – Ghana and El Salvador (1979), Bolivia, Liberia, Guinea-Bissau, Suriname, Upper Volta (Burkina Faso), Iran (1980) – were engagements in acting tough and doing new big things which Brzezinski got the president to approve are questions Carter is shy to answer. ..."
The widow of Cyrus Vance, the only US Secretary of State to resign in protest against his president's
actions in a hundred years, called Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Jimmy Carter's National Security
Advisor and Vance's rival, "that awful man". Not a single official of the State Department under
Vance during the Carter Administration of 1977 to 1981, thought differently. Most of them had monosyllabic
terms for Brzezinski. Since Brzezinski died last Friday, not a single member of his own White House
staff has made a public statement in his honour, memory or defence. The mute ones include Madeleine
Albright, who
owed to Brzezinski her career promotion as an academic, then White House staffer, then Secretary
of State herself.
Despite the disloyalty of those closest to him, and the detestation for Bzezinski of those further
away, he was, and remained, Carter's favourite. Between 1977 and 1981, Brzezinski's time with Carter,
according to the White House logs, amounted to more than 20% of the president's working time. That's
12 minutes of every hour - no other official came close. On Friday, shortly after Brzezinski's death
was announced by his family, Carter
issued a statement extolling him as "a superb public servant inquisitive, innovative, and a natural
choice as my national security advisor brilliant, dedicated, and loyal. I will miss him."
What was this bond between them, and why does it matter now? One reason is that what they did
together were the freshest American operations studied at KGB schools in Moscow by a recruit in training
at the time named Vladimir Putin.
This was the National Security Advisor's
staff during
the four years of Carter's term, 1977-1981.
PRESIDENT CARTER'S RUSSIA-HATING TEAM
A 451-page doctoral
dissertation by Mary Sexton examining the relationship between Carter and Brzezinski identifies
the evidence, including documents, witnesses, and independent reports which should have driven them
apart. She fails to answer why that didn't happen. She concludes Brzezinski flattered and fawned
over Carter; relentlessly conspired to undermine Vance and other rivals for Carter's attention; postured,
manipulated, lied to the press, and faked to the president. Sexton concluded in 2009: "it
is important to recognize that Jimmy Carter was ultimately responsible for the nature of his policymaking
system and for the decisions made about who would frame and articulate U.S. foreign policies."
She quoted Lloyd Butler, Carter's appointee as the White House lawyer so no Brzezinski underling,
as saying he was baffled by Carter's refusal to address the troubles Brzezinski caused. "I will never
understand it", Butler said in 2002. He died in 2005.
Neither Vance in his memoirs (he died in 2002), nor his wife Grace, nor any of Vance's deputies
at State, nor Carter's staff at the White House, provide an answer. In
research by Betty Glad, published in November 2009, she reported "a few close aides met the emotional
needs of the president", but the aides didn't tell Glad what they thought Carter's emotional needs
were. Glad acknowledged that in preparing her book she was "above all indebted to Zbigniew Brzezinski
who expeditiously answered my emails and was very open about his interactions with Carter."
Glad concluded that Carter gave Brzezinski "his complete and absolute support Brzezinski was
one of the few people Carter never reprimanded And Carter dismissed all criticisms of Brzezinski
that might come his way." Why?
"Carter needed and admired the strategic skills and the toughness in dealing with others that
Brzezinski offered," Glad summed up, with the latter's help. The need to be tough was a recurrent
theme in Brzezinski's briefings and memoranda to Carter, she added. Brzezinski made Carter feel he
was "doing big things." Fighting the Russians (Soviets then) was, in the advice Brzezinski presented
to Carter and repeated to Glad, was the biggest of the big things. "Brzezinski", concluded Glad,
"appealed to Carter's desire to do new big things and act quickly".
The bafflement reported by Carter subordinates and State Department officials under Vance is part
truth; part cover-up by the officials; part deceit by Carter. For the answer of what bound Carter
and Brzezinski together Glad doesn't uncover, nor even hint at. This is because it was a conspiracy
of proxy wars, terrorism, assassinations, coups d'etat, and other black operations, still classified
top secret, rationalized by Brzezinski to Carter and approved by the president, as part of a grand
strategy to defeat the Kremlin. These were the acting-tough tactics which convinced Carter in secret,
but which the president never admitted to in public. Not then, because the actions made Carter feel
he was doing "new big things". Not since, because all of them have failed, with bloodshed and monumental
losses for those whom the president and his strategist targeted, and collateral damage for the rest
of the world, not least the US.
"Sure, Brzezinski was a strategic thinker," one of Sexton's sources told her. "But he was
frequently wrong! Vance's strategies have withstood the test of time." According to Sexton, her source
was a "public official [with] in-depth familiarity with Vance's and Brzezinski's work. He agreed
to be interviewed on the condition he would not be quoted on this subject."
Paul Henze came to Brzezinski's staff after serving as the CIA's station chief in Ethiopia
in 1969 to 1972, and then in Turkey between 1974 and 1977. Henze had been one of the plotters of
the Turkish invasion of Cyprus in July 1974, which continues to this day.
The Somali invasion of Ethiopia which began in July 1977, and was known as the Ogaden war
until the Somalis were defeated by the Russian and Cuban-backed Ethiopian military in March 1978,
was one of the schemes Henze managed, and Brzezinski persuaded Carter to approve. By the time Henze's
war was defeated, he rationalized the war-fighting strategy's continuing purpose in a memorandum
since declassified and quoted by Sexton. "Much as we want the Soviets out", Henze briefed Brzezinski
and Carter, "we are not going to get them out soon We should make their stay as costly as possible
and the source of fundamental strain for them. We can do this in many ways, both overtly [and] covertly
The Soviets are the culprits in the Horn and we should never let them or the world forget it."
Another of the Henze plots – the military putsch in Turkey in September 1980 – was Carter's
and Brzezinski's scheme too.
Henze had started in the CIA as a specialist managing assassination gangs with pretensions
to anti-communist ideology. He began with the Iron Guard of Romania, and was still running the Grey
Wolves of Turkey when he moved on to the Brzezinski staff. After Carter's downfall, Henze spent
years trying to cover up the role the Grey Wolves had played in the attempted assassination of Pope
John-Paul II in May 1981. Henze's version of the plot was that the Kremlin and KGB had masterminded
the scheme through the Bulgarian secret service. The KGB assessment was that Henze, Brzezinski
and Carter had all been in on the plot, just as they had been in on the scheme to elect Cardinal
Karol Wojtyła, Archbishop of Cracow, as the Pope in October 1978.
Brzezsinski's
euology at Henze's funeral in Virginia in 2011 provided the cover story that he had engaged Henze
in 1977 "to assume responsibility for oversight of the radios and to coordinate more generally our
efforts to prevail in the Cold War without an actual war. Paul was in his element. He mobilized his
enthusiasm, his commitment, and his boundless energy not only to protect RFE [Radio Free Europe],
but to develop also a broader effort to nourish the hopes of those living in the Soviet bloc, including
even the Soviet Union itself, that someday they, too, would be free."
For their combined record of violent failure, Brzezinski had this to say: "Paul proved himself
to be a ferocious bureaucratic infighter and eventually the winner – though at times he was even
impatient with my efforts to pursue – on the President's behalf - also some accommodation with the
Soviet Union in the area of mutual arms control. But that was Paul, my fellow Cold warrior: enthusiastic,
fearless, committed, principled, and relentless. A great American, an Eastern European by association,
and one of the anonymous architects of the peaceful and victorious end to the Cold War."
Henze was joined by other CIA men on Brzezinski's staff including Donald Gregg, Fritz Ermarth,
Robert Gates and Samuel Hoskinson. They were all plotters of the putsch which overthrew the President
of Pakistan, Zulfiqar ali Bhutto, in July 1977. Bhutto was replaced by Army General Zia ul-Haq, and
subsequently hanged. Zia was killed in August 1988, along with the US Ambassador to Pakistan, Arnold
Raphel, and General Herbert Wassom, the head of US military aid mission to Pakistan.
Gregg was one of the plotters of the December 12, 1979, military putsch in South Korea.
Hoskinson was
engaged
in Middle Eastern attack and overthrow plots, some he endorsed and assisted, and some he would
have done if he judged they had a chance of success.
How many of the putsches which CIA operation histories log in as successful, and how many
of the unsuccessful attempts – Ghana and El Salvador (1979), Bolivia, Liberia, Guinea-Bissau, Suriname,
Upper Volta (Burkina Faso), Iran (1980) – were engagements in acting tough and doing new big things
which Brzezinski got the president to approve are questions Carter is shy to answer.
For them, the war in Afghanistan, which they plotted with alacrity from the start of the Carter
Administration, was the culminating case of what Brzezinski described in his address over Henze's
corpse as the "peaceful and victorious end to the Cold War."
These games of liquidating others in the cause of defeating the Kremlin has invigorated Carter,
even today when Carter himself is on his last legs. Drawing the Russians on to the field of battle
was his and Brzezinski's aim; Afghanistan, after the Soviet military intervention began in December
1979, was their main chance. Their successors in the White House have the same chance against Russian
forces on the battlefields of Syria and Ukraine. Though he has tried, Brzezinski is no longer in
a position to advise them that if they don't dare, they can't win. Carter is still alive to demonstrate
that if they dare, they are likely to lose.
It isn't sure that's what KGB trainee Putin scribbled down during his lectures at the Andropov
Red Banner Institute in 1984. It's certain he has noted it down now.
"... The State Department and various other government agencies regularly label Iran the world's leading "state sponsor of terrorism" - and that couldn't sound more menacing or impressively official and authoritative. Yet to tag Iran as #1 on any terror list is misleading indeed. The questions worth asking are: Which terrorists? What constitutes terrorism? Do those "terror" outfits truly threaten the U.S. homeland? ..."
"... Iran does support Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Palestinian territories. However, lumping regionally focused nationalist organizations like Hezbollah with genuine global jihadist groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda (in its proliferating forms) is deceptive, often purposely so. The Lebanon-based Hezbollah, for example, is largely fixated on Israel, but has sometimes even fought ISIS in Lebanon and Syria. In other words, Hezbollah, though it had previously attacked U.S. troops in the region, isn't sending its operatives to crash planes into American buildings. ..."
"... Is there any country in the world that holds favorable view of Amerrican government ? Yes, there are plenty but those countries also happen to have an enemy next door which is despised or treated harshly by America . India has, do has Ukraine. Montenegro, and possibly Vietnam . ..."
"... Libyans and Syrians before the current turmoil had very favorable attitudes to the west and US. Iranian should learn from it . ..."
"... Question is can any country trust America ? Yes they love Hollywood and Microsoft and Facebook . But one way to look at this dichotomy is that American government doesn't live up to the virtues inherent in those innovations ..."
"... It's not hysteria it's 'controlled agitation' by the Neocon Zionist Cabal that runs our foreign policy and not so bright generals like 'slurpy dog' Mattis. ..."
"... Correct : Israel considers Iran to be its #1 enemy. Therefore Iran must be the #1 enemy of the USA as well. ..."
"... The piece correctly identifies a profound, and profoundly damaging, irrationality in US elite (and manufactured popular) opinion about Iran and its place in the ME and in US foreign policy. A lot can be learned from examining the origins of and the reasons for this irrationality, and the identities of those who act to promote and sustain it and how they achieve their propagandist goals. ..."
"... By and large, Iran's enemies in the US are also the enemies of liberty, of sovereignty and of honesty in foreign policy: the likes of John McCain, as noted, and most of the bipartisan advocates of aggressive interventionist war-making, whether the R2P "humanitarian" types of the "left" or the America-uber-alles militarists of the "right", along with the Israeli and Saudi dual loyalty or foreign loyalty types. ..."
"... Iran is just another CIA boogie man, what have they ever done to America – NOTHING! As where America has absolutely fucked the arse off them. It always amazes me that a Country as successful as America can have so many stupid gullible Citizens. ..."
"... It is not like we hadn't been poking the Iranians for decades before the revolutionaries took our Embassy, and we certainly have been poking them ever since, so it is hard to begrudge them for opening a little Reagan-doctrine on our US asses when we stick our noses into their neighbors' businesses while making loud noises about how we might come after them next. ..."
"... BTW, Iran and Syria at least before we stuck our noses into it both had large Jewish and Christian communities living relatively unmolested. Who of our allies in the ME can make the same claim? ..."
"... In sum, U.S. policy in the Middle East is confused, contradictory, counterproductive, and dangerous. ..."
"... And another thing, too, which I don't ever recall hearing back in the Vietnam era is this robotic "muh brothers, muh mission" stuff, where everyone in a uniform is a "hero" who should be "thanked for his service," especially if he was one of the "boots on the ground." I've been there and through it, I've had this one-sided militarism up to my eyeballs at this point, and see this business of glorifying our soldiers and demonizing the countries this country is Balkanizing for Israel as unAmerican brainwashing. ..."
"... Let's not forget that back in the Vietnam era, at a time when our military wasn't serving Israel, the father's of today's neocons were not only not serving up this militaristic jingoism, but calling the fathers of today's soldiers "baby killers." ..."
"... Whether the Iranians have a wonderful democracy or are a horrible dictatorship is beside the point. They're going to defend themselves and will get involved in all parts of the region to prevent becoming vulnerable and thus open to attack. They have the geography, size and human resources to do so and will do so. It's arguable that they're the natural hegemon of the region and that far-away outsiders like the US can only thwart that for a limited period of time. ..."
"... I disagree with Mr Sjursen's premise that anti-Iran hysteria is irrational. It is perfectly rational from the perspective of the political class, particularly our craven Congress long ago called "Israeli-occupied territory" by Pat Buchanan. Moreover, it is perfectly rational for the Israel lobby and the entire Jewish influenced mainstream media and neoconservative infrastructure. And let us not forget that General Butler reminded us that war is a racket and the military-industrial complex benefits greatly. ..."
"... The US Military has bases in *63* countries. Brand new military bases have been built since September 11, 2001 in seven countries. In total, there are 255,065 US military personnel deployed Worldwide. These facilities include a total of 845,441 different buildings and equipments. ..."
"... "This is a memo that describes how we're going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran." I said, "Is it classified?" He said, "Yes, sir." I said, "Well, don't show it to me." And I saw him a year or so ago, and I said, "You remember that?" He said, "Sir, I didn't show you that memo! I didn't show it to you!" ..."
"... However, when discussing the matter in general terms, it is not really credible to deny that many of the shia militias did get very substantial support (including military training and assistance, and most likely manufactured military hardware items such as the EFPs, or the designs and funding to manufacture them locally) from Iran. Iran would have been very foolish not to have done so. It was the clear intention of the US regime, if they had succeeded in imposing a compliant collaboration regime on Iraq, to attack Iran next. ..."
"... Though of course it was the sunni insurgents funded by the US's Gulf "allies" whom the American occupiers were fighting most of the time, and Iran certainly wasn't behind them. ..."
"... But seriously, who profited the most from the 11 trillion (your estimate, not mine) spent in those wars? You have to do forensic analysis of who actually owns the stocks in those companies to find out who has gotten the dough ..."
"... I would argue that "failure" is largely irrelevant to any Establishment policy in the US. Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria - all arguably failures but who cares ? How many have actually suffered career disadvantage from such failures ? (To Elites, the US is SO profoundly rich, that it just doesn't matter: Chuck another pallet load of hundred dollar bills on the fire: it's not like we, the Elites are paying for it) ..."
"... No country snubs the US and gets away with it! Cuba tried and has paid the penalty for 40 years. Iran tried and succeeded and the US has never forgotten. You don't insult the Mafia and get away with it. ..."
"... Iran shows the power of the Jewish control over America Hate of Iran is what the "tribe" has overtly pushed for, but to be sure there is much much more they have slipped into our consciousness we are not so aware of. ..."
"... The claims made about Iran (seeking nuclear weapons with aggressive intent, being likely to "dominate the region", being a threat to the US itself or even to legitimate US interests, etc) are mostly literally irrational in that they are untrue and illogical, relying upon simple falsehoods and distortions of reality. ..."
"... But it is certainly arguably rational for those with personal loyalties to Israel or to Saudi Arabia etc, or to other enemies or rivals of Iran, or for those with personal selfish interests in promoting confrontation and war (military industrial types, bought and paid for politicians, etc) to try to persuade Americans in general, and especially American politicians and media/opinion leaders, that these irrationalities are in fact honest descriptions of reality. ..."
"... "The brilliant George Bernard Shaw once said that one could use three concepts to describe the positions of individuals in Nazi Germany: intelligence, decency, and Nazism. He argued that if a person was intelligent, and a Nazi, he was not decent. If he was decent and a Nazi, he was not intelligent. And if he was decent and intelligent, he was not a Nazi. ..."
It certainly is a land in which hardline fundamentalists chant "Death to America!" It's also a country
with an increasingly
young , educated populace that holds remarkably
positive views
of Americans. In fact, whatever you might imagine, Americans tend to have significantly more
negative views of Iran
than vice versa. Don't be shocked, but Iranians hold more positive views of the U.S. government than
do the citizens of Washington's
allies like Egypt, Jordan, and Turkey. In reality, there's long been a worrying paradox in the
region: an inverse relationship between the amiability of a government's relationship with Washington
and the favorability ratings of this country among its people.
In other words, when it comes to Iran well, it's complicated. The trouble is that Americans generally
don't do nuance. We like our bad guys to be foreign and unmistakably vile, even if such a preference
for digestible simplicity makes for poor policy.
If you want to grasp this point more fully, just think about Secretary of Defense Mattis's recent
statement again. He assures us that Iran's shadow hovers over every regional crisis in the
Middle East, which is empirically false. Here, for instance, are just a few recent conflicts that
Iran is not behind or where its role has been exaggerated:
The Arab Spring and the subsequent chaos in Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt. Iran didn't start or
significantly influence the uprisings in those countries.
Turkey's decades-long
war with separatist
Kurds in its southeast provinces. Again, not Iran.
The ongoing spread of al-Qaeda affiliates in Syria and on the
Arabian Peninsula
. Iran actually abhors such groups, and certainly wasn't behind their rise.
Or, if you want, take Yemen, since supposed Iranian meddling in the Middle East's
poorest
state happens to be one of the favorite drums Washington's Iranophobic hawks like to
beat
. And yet a range of credible
reports suggest that the
much-decried collusion between Iran and the Houthi rebels, who are the focus of the Saudi war
in that country, is highly exaggerated.
Look, Iran is a significant, if often thwarted and embattled, regional power and a player, sometimes
even a destabilizing one, in various regional conflagrations. It supports proxies, funds partner
states, and sometimes intervenes in the region, even sending in its own military units (think Syria).
Then again, so does Saudi Arabia (Yemen and, in funding terms, elsewhere), the United Arab Emirates
(Yemen), Russia (Syria), and the United States (more or less everywhere). So who's destabilizing
whom and why almost invariably turns out to be a matter of perspective.
The State Department and various other government agencies regularly
label Iran the world's leading "state sponsor of terrorism" - and that couldn't sound more menacing
or impressively official and authoritative. Yet to tag Iran as #1 on any terror list is misleading
indeed. The questions worth asking are: Which terrorists? What constitutes terrorism? Do those "terror"
outfits truly threaten the U.S. homeland?
As a start, in 2016, the State Department's annual survey of worldwide terrorism
labeled ISIS - not Iran, Hezbollah, or the Houthis - as "the greatest [terror]
threat globally." How do we square that "greatest sponsor" stamp with an Iran that has proven both
thoroughly hostile to and deeply
invested in the fight against ISIS and various al-Qaeda-linked groups in Iraq and Syria?
Iran does support Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Palestinian territories. However,
lumping regionally focused nationalist organizations like Hezbollah with genuine global jihadist
groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda (in its proliferating forms) is deceptive, often purposely so. The
Lebanon-based Hezbollah, for example, is largely fixated on Israel, but has sometimes even
fought
ISIS in Lebanon and Syria. In other words, Hezbollah, though it had previously
attacked
U.S. troops in the region, isn't sending its operatives to crash planes into American buildings.
To think of it another way, more foreign ISIS volunteers
hail
from Belgium or the Maldives Islands than from Iran. In fact, most of the top
sources
of ISIS's foreign recruits (Tunisia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Jordan) turn out to be "friendly"
American "partners." From 1975 to 2015, Iranian-born terrorists
inflicted zero deaths in attacks on U.S. soil. In contrast, citizens of key U.S. allies - Saudis,
Egyptians, and Lebanese -
killed thousands on 9/11. In fact, since then,
85% of domestic terrorists turned out to be American citizens or permanent residents. Most were
American-born. Of the 13 U.S. citizens involved in such fatal terror attacks, none were Iranian-American.
The inverse relationship that you mention is the kicker here . Once the citizen of a country
comes to see America through the policies of America, hatred doesn't lag far behind to show up
on the dinner table discussion.
Is there any country in the world that holds favorable view of Amerrican government ? Yes,
there are plenty but those countries also happen to have an enemy next door which is despised
or treated harshly by America . India has, do has Ukraine. Montenegro, and possibly Vietnam .
Iran is not saint But so was never any country .
Libyans and Syrians before the current turmoil had very favorable attitudes to the west
and US. Iranian should learn from it .
Question is can any country trust America ? Yes they love Hollywood and Microsoft and Facebook
. But one way to look at this dichotomy is that American government doesn't live up to the virtues
inherent in those innovations .
It's not hysteria it's 'controlled agitation' by the Neocon Zionist Cabal that runs our
foreign policy and not so bright generals like 'slurpy dog' Mattis.
In 1911 GB and Russia destroyed Iran democracy, in 1953 the USA did it again.
In 1979, after the USA Vietnam disaster, Islam succeeded in liberating Iran from the USA puppet
Shah.
Then the USA brought Saddam to power, in order to subjugate Iran.
Three million deaths, but Saddam failed to do what he should have done.
On top of the that, the sorcerer's apprentice had the idea he no longer was an apprentice, in
2000 he had the audacity to ask euro's for Iraq oil.
That, some say, was his death warrant.
The USA engineered the 'new Pearl Harbour' Sept 11, war could begin.
It is still going on.
So when here a USA soldier complains about Iran, I just can laugh.
The Bushmen burned some 2000 tons of uranium over Iraq, that for the next 5000 years will cause
cancers and birth defects.
W. Morgan Shuster, ´The strangling of Persia, Story of the European diplomacy and oriental
intrigue that resulted in the denationalisation of twelve million Mohammedans', New York, 1912
Roy Mottahedeh, 'The Mantle of the Prophet, Religion and Politics in Iran', Oxford, 1985,
2000
Alan Friedman, 'Spider's Web, Bush, Saddam, Thatcher and the Decade of Deceit', London,
1993
@KA
I love neither Hollywood, nor Microsoft or Facebook.
Hollywood is just USA propaganda, Microsoft is the best swindle ever, one can only escape through
Linux, Facebook is a waste of time, and exhibitionism.
I do not think there is anything wrong with USA citizens in general, all is wrong with USA
society, no democracy, a moneycracy wasting USA resources in war without end.
Maybe Trump sees how these wars ruin the USA, how Khazakstan is more and more becoming the
economic centre of the world.
There now operates the enormous train hub, connecting China by rail to Europe.
The Berlin Baghdad railway is seen as the cause of WWI, let us hope that the China Europe railway
will not cause WWIII.
Excellent stuff! A very unusually grownup and rational assessment of the situation, coming
from any American.
The piece correctly identifies a profound, and profoundly damaging, irrationality in US
elite (and manufactured popular) opinion about Iran and its place in the ME and in US foreign
policy. A lot can be learned from examining the origins of and the reasons for this irrationality,
and the identities of those who act to promote and sustain it and how they achieve their propagandist
goals.
By and large, Iran's enemies in the US are also the enemies of liberty, of sovereignty
and of honesty in foreign policy: the likes of John McCain, as noted, and most of the bipartisan
advocates of aggressive interventionist war-making, whether the R2P "humanitarian" types of the
"left" or the America-uber-alles militarists of the "right", along with the Israeli and Saudi
dual loyalty or foreign loyalty types.
However, lumping regionally focused nationalist organizations like Hezbollah [and Hamas]
with genuine global jihadist groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda (in its proliferating forms) is
deceptive, often purposely so.
Gosh, who could it possibly be that has an interest in lying to promote this particular falsehood,
and the media and political "influence" in US society to do so successfully?
The persistent and profound basic irrationality of much US elite and popular opinion on the
topic of Iran has been an aspect of world affairs that I noted and wondered about a couple of
decades ago or so, and I ultimately came to the conclusion that the best explanations for its
existence and persistence were the toxic combination of:
1. Undue political and media influence from Iran's regional rivals, Israel and Saudi Arabia,
whose interests the paranoid US fear and hatred of Iran clearly serve;
2. Lingering soreness about the US getting some much-deserved payback from Iranians at the
time of the hostage crisis, and on several occasions since, for decades of bloody interference
in Iranian affairs;
3. Simple outrage at the sight of a medium sized developing country daring not to breathlessly
ask "how high, sir?", when told to jump by Washington.
2 & 3 mostly serve to provide ammunition for the liars and propagandists of 1 to work with.
Iran is just another CIA boogie man, what have they ever done to America – NOTHING! As
where America has absolutely fucked the arse off them. It always amazes me that a Country as successful
as America can have so many stupid gullible Citizens.
As the recipient of Iranian-sponsored hostility in Beirut in 1983, I was not well disposed
toward its regime for some time thereafter, but I got over it as time went on. I think I was well
over it by the time the USS Vincennes shot down an Iranian airliner while, ostensibly, it may
have been in Iranian waters, killing 290 civilians.
It is not like we hadn't been poking the Iranians for decades before the revolutionaries
took our Embassy, and we certainly have been poking them ever since, so it is hard to begrudge
them for opening a little Reagan-doctrine on our US asses when we stick our noses into their neighbors'
businesses while making loud noises about how we might come after them next.
BTW, Iran and Syria at least before we stuck our noses into it both had large Jewish
and Christian communities living relatively unmolested. Who of our allies in the ME can make the
same claim?
In sum, U.S. policy in the Middle East is confused, contradictory, counterproductive,
and dangerous.
Confused? Not when you understand just who is "managing" US foreign policy, and to what end.
Contradictory? Only when considering some official statements, but those are just throw away words
meant for debate by the talking legs on the news channels, or things you read about in CIA conduits
such as the Washington Post–things just mean to obfuscate. Counterproductive? Depends on one's
long-term goal. Dangerous. Certainly.
I was an f.o. with recon the last six months of my tour in Vietnam (1-6/70) and thankful that,
while we were occasionally inserted into hot LZ's in that time, once we were on the ground we
were on our own and never trapped like sitting ducks for hours in a glorified SUV. My take is
that this fellow ought to be blaming the Army and Pentagon and not Iran for setting him and his
platoon up for the sort of inevitable ambush he describes.
And another thing, too, which I don't ever recall hearing back in the Vietnam era is this
robotic "muh brothers, muh mission" stuff, where everyone in a uniform is a "hero" who should
be "thanked for his service," especially if he was one of the "boots on the ground." I've been
there and through it, I've had this one-sided militarism up to my eyeballs at this point, and
see this business of glorifying our soldiers and demonizing the countries this country is Balkanizing
for Israel as unAmerican brainwashing.
Let's not forget that back in the Vietnam era, at a time when our military wasn't serving
Israel, the father's of today's neocons were not only not serving up this militaristic jingoism,
but calling the fathers of today's soldiers "baby killers."
Those EFPs and the requisite training to use them were provided to Iraqi militias by the
Islamic Republic of Iran. ..
Still, there's one major problem with bold, sweeping pronouncements (laced with one's own
prejudices)
There's also a problem with stating unlikely scenarios (if not patent absurdities) as facts.
What is your evidence that Iran provided EFPs and training to Iraqi militias?
Mattis' statement is easily trashed as simple-minded and delusional. So what's the conclusion?
That there are many who are in a position to influence policy are incompetent and downright stupid?
Apparently that's the case and breathtakingly so. Everyone seems to have this huge blind spot
where they automatically accept that the US has the right to travel thousands of miles around
the world to engage in warfare with whatever country they please yet a country right next door
has no right to get involved. It's strange to hear people whine about the Iranians getting involved
in their own region by training militiamen or showing them how to build better explosive weapons,
all of which is very basic low-tech stuff that could be shown on a DVD, whereas the Americans
are using space-age jet fighters and tanks as well as the much touted SEAL soldiers. Want to trade
weapons?
Whether the Iranians have a wonderful democracy or are a horrible dictatorship is beside
the point. They're going to defend themselves and will get involved in all parts of the region
to prevent becoming vulnerable and thus open to attack. They have the geography, size and human
resources to do so and will do so. It's arguable that they're the natural hegemon of the region
and that far-away outsiders like the US can only thwart that for a limited period of time.
I find it very interesting that one day the Iraqis are on the verge of making a nuclear weapon
and the next day, according to the author, they are unable to make a shaped charge, technology
that has been around at least since the Germans blasted their way into Fort Eben-Emael.
I disagree with Mr Sjursen's premise that anti-Iran hysteria is irrational. It is perfectly
rational from the perspective of the political class, particularly our craven Congress long ago
called "Israeli-occupied territory" by Pat Buchanan. Moreover, it is perfectly rational for the
Israel lobby and the entire Jewish influenced mainstream media and neoconservative infrastructure.
And let us not forget that General Butler reminded us that war is a racket and the military-industrial
complex benefits greatly.
Working Class Native Born White American Teenage Males who sign a US Army Military contract
are signing their lives away to be used as canon fodder for the Jewish State of Israel wars af
aggression in the Middle East You will die a very painful pointless meaningless death in some
Muslim hell-hole in the Middle East It's just not worth it
Something like 11 trillion of our tax dollars have been spent destroying the civilian populations
of several Muslim Nations in the Middle East Nations that pose 0 threat to America .
These trillions could have been spent providing free college education and job training for
all you White Teenage Males thinking of signing the US Army contract .and these trillions could
have spent providing you with free college education and job training many many times over .think
about it
Other young White Men sir in NCAA DIV 1 football stadiums yelling "WHAT A STUD" at the football
players down on the field while you lie dying on the ground in Afghanistan your body cut in half
by a rocket propelled grenade .screaming for your mother minutes later your life slips away into
the coldness of eternal death .for what? Sadly a pointless meaningless death .
Once the Pentagon has the plan's of the Bankster's they never stop or halt with it in the Empire!
December 24, 2013 The Worldwide Network of US Military Bases The Global Deployment of US Military
Personnel
The US Military has bases in *63* countries. Brand new military bases have been built since
September 11, 2001 in seven countries. In total, there are 255,065 US military personnel deployed
Worldwide. These facilities include a total of 845,441 different buildings and equipments.
Sep 11, 2011 General Wesley Clark: Wars Were Planned – Seven Countries In Five Years
"This is a memo that describes how we're going to take out seven countries in five years,
starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran."
I said, "Is it classified?" He said, "Yes, sir." I said, "Well, don't show it to me." And I saw
him a year or so ago, and I said, "You remember that?" He said, "Sir, I didn't show you that memo!
I didn't show it to you!"
stating unlikely scenarios (if not patent absurdities) as facts. What is your evidence that
Iran provided EFPs and training to Iraqi militias?
At the time, when the US occupiers in Iraq were making unproven allegations of Iranian support
of militias (including providing the notorious EFPs) with the likely intent of justifying acts
of aggression against Iran, or other actions aiding their illegal and immoral occupation of Iraq,
it was both legitimate and sensible to require proof of any and all specific allegations. All
the items alleged to have come from Iran (according to the US military and regime) could just
as easily have come from elsewhere or been manufactured locally.
However, when discussing the matter in general terms, it is not really credible to deny
that many of the shia militias did get very substantial support (including military training and
assistance, and most likely manufactured military hardware items such as the EFPs, or the designs
and funding to manufacture them locally) from Iran. Iran would have been very foolish not to have
done so. It was the clear intention of the US regime, if they had succeeded in imposing a compliant
collaboration regime on Iraq, to attack Iran next.
Though of course it was the sunni insurgents funded by the US's Gulf "allies" whom the
American occupiers were fighting most of the time, and Iran certainly wasn't behind them.
@War
for Blair Mountain You forgot to mention the 'Sikh (actually, Sikhni) Whore', Nikki Haley
at the UN doing the bidding for
But seriously, who profited the most from the 11 trillion (your estimate, not mine) spent
in those wars? You have to do forensic analysis of who actually owns the stocks in those companies
to find out who has gotten the dough
@Renoman
Iran liberated itself from the USA puppet shah in 1979, and since then refused to accept the
USA yoke again. This of course for the USA is unforgivable.
For the same reason for decades the USA pretended that Taiwan, Formosa, was China. Nixon accepted
reality.
The problem now is, I hope, that Trump also sees reality, that Roosevelt's plan to rule the
world with Smaller Britain, Stalin and Tsjang Kai Shek, just was megalomania, ruining the USA,
causing great misery in large parts of this earth.
CNN, Washpost and NYT still do not see reality. They did not watch BBCW this morning, Khazakhstan
as railway hub between China, Russia and Europe. The USA, a backwater if it continues as Obama
did.
@Randal
This was a really great article: well argued, nuanced, rational. Unfortunately, none of that
is a factor in US/Iran policy. Let's take this quote:
"until Washington's policymakers change their all-Iran-all-the-time mental model, they are
doomed to failure."
I would argue that "failure" is largely irrelevant to any Establishment policy in the US.
Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria - all arguably failures but who cares ? How many have actually suffered
career disadvantage from such failures ? (To Elites, the US is SO profoundly rich, that it just
doesn't matter: Chuck another pallet load of hundred dollar bills on the fire: it's not like we,
the Elites are paying for it)
So it's crazy, unprofitable to maintain the Iran-universal-bogey-man policy ? Who cares ?
US elites hate Iran: 1979. That's sufficient in itself.
Saudi & Israel hate Iran: "snap !"
Iran is an allied with Russia: case closed --
Oh, & NO ONE in the US Elite thinks about this, but Iran has a bit of oil wealth Too cynical,
I know.
No country snubs the US and gets away with it! Cuba tried and has paid the penalty for 40 years. Iran tried and succeeded and the US has never forgotten. You don't insult the Mafia and get away with it.
Excellent points. For a more detailed analysis, I recommend "Manufactured Crisis – The Untold
Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare," by Gareth Porter.
Interesting factoid: A 2007 National Intelligence Estimate concluded with "high confidence"
that Iran's nuclear weapons program had been halted in the fall of 2003 and with "moderate confidence"
that it had not been restarted as of mid-2007. I am not aware that this estimate has been revised
or updated.
Iran shows the power of the Jewish control over America Hate of Iran is what the "tribe" has overtly pushed for, but to be sure there is much much
more they have slipped into our consciousness we are not so aware of.
Certainly the hate of Muslims in general (while conversely using their media to demonize anyone
who questions Muslims migration, and of course always omitting the reality that Zionist wars in
the Middle East are causing much of that migration of course all part of their plan), hate for
Russia?Putin, American society, Jesus Christ, White Men, White boys
The control of American society began years ago, mid 20th century, and has gotten progressively
worse.
@Randal
The piece correctly identifies a profound, and profoundly damaging, irrationality in US
elite (and manufactured popular) opinion about Iran and its place in the ME and in US foreign
policy.
I would argue, in line with your final sentence, that this irrational "bug" is very much a
rational "feature". Indeed, despite what many critics maintain, US foreign policy has been eminently
successful in achieving its objectives (or at least the objectives of those who effectively set
such policy).
Excuses, excuses, excuses by the author for the poor Iranians. When someone attacks YOUR
family, friends or loved ones, what do you do? "Head in the ground" it sound like. WHO cares why
they do it. Simply make them STOP and punish them for the attacks. After justice is served, only
then do the bleeding hearts get to ask them WHY? "EARTH TO THE AUTHOR", we tried it their way
without result so now the bleeding hearts want to give the Iranians the benefit of doubt using
our children and money all over again! Send your child to fight and should he/she come
back in a body bag, blame yourself. ., because we've hear and tried it your way. (DUH)
@jilles
dykstra What a beautiful prospect: the USA as backwater, still with elements of its natural
beauty, still safe from armed invasion and even exporting half of its least employable 100 million
to jobs on the new silk road
The truth and facts don't matter any more in todays world. What matters is the Zionist stranglehold
over American political life and media.
What Israel wants, Israel gets. Want hundreds of billions
of dollars of hard pressed US taxpayers money? No problem, well close down a few more schools
and welfare programmes. Israels whores in Congress will deliver.
Want a huge illegal nuclear arsenal
with hundreds of nuclear warheads targeted at all your neighbours? No problem, we can organise
that for you. Want all your military equipment provided completely free of charge? No problem,
well even get our German satrap Merkel to send you half a dozen advanced Dolphin nuclear missile
submarines completely free of charge.
Want us to destroy any neighbouring country you dislike?
No problem, well be your dumb muscle whenever you want – just let us know which country you want
destroyed next – Iraq, Libya, Syria, Iran. Want us to change the laws to make any criticism of
Israel a criminal offence? No problem. Just let us know when you want us to lick your boots. After
all, were just goyim put on this earth to serve you like domestic animals. Cant do enough to please
our masters. You can always rely on us to provide you with all the money and cannon fodder you
need. were just here to serve you.
I would argue that "failure" is largely irrelevant to any Establishment policy in the US.
Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria - all arguably failures but who cares ? How many have actually suffered
career disadvantage from such failures ? (To Elites, the US is SO profoundly rich, that it
just doesn't matter: Chuck another pallet load of hundred dollar bills on the fire: it's not
like we, the Elites are paying for it)
Indeed. A result that is a bloody, costly, disastrous failure for one group (such as the American
nation collectively) might well be a "no big deal" for another group (the self-serving US elites
you mention) and even a heart-warming success for another (the Israel/Saudi partisans and suchlike).
All at the same time.
I would argue, in line with your final sentence, that this irrational "bug" is very much
a rational "feature".
Not going to disagree with you on that point, of course.
The claims made about Iran (seeking nuclear weapons with aggressive intent, being likely to
"dominate the region", being a threat to the US itself or even to legitimate US interests, etc)
are mostly literally irrational in that they are untrue and illogical, relying upon simple falsehoods
and distortions of reality.
But it is certainly arguably rational for those with personal loyalties to Israel or to Saudi
Arabia etc, or to other enemies or rivals of Iran, or for those with personal selfish interests
in promoting confrontation and war (military industrial types, bought and paid for politicians,
etc) to try to persuade Americans in general, and especially American politicians and media/opinion
leaders, that these irrationalities are in fact honest descriptions of reality.
That's why I noted that it is very informative, for the many who are not aware of the true
situation, to examine how and by whom this false view of the world is disseminated and imposed
on Americans in particular.
Indeed, despite what many critics maintain, US foreign policy has been eminently successful
in achieving its objectives (or at least the objectives of those who effectively set such policy)
Again, absolutely agree.
As a matter of definitional reality, government policy is not of course set in the interests
of the nation, but in the interests of those with the power to influence government policy. All
the more reason to regard dual and external loyalties as uniquely poisonous in such groups and
individuals.
The truth and facts don't matter any more in todays world. What matters is the Zionist
stranglehold over American political life and media. What Israel wants, Israel gets.
Want hundreds
of billions of dollars of hard pressed US taxpayers money? No problem, well close down a few more
schools and welfare programmes. Israels whores in Congress will deliver. Want a huge illegal nuclear
arsenal with hundreds of nuclear warheads targeted at all your neighbours? No problem, we can
organise that for you. Want all your military equipment provided completely free of charge? No
problem, well even get our German satrap Merkel to send you half a dozen advanced Dolphin nuclear
missile submarines completely free of charge. Want us to destroy any neighbouring country you
dislike? No problem, well be your dumb muscle whenever you want - just let us know which country
you want destroyed next - Iraq, Libya, Syria, Iran. Want us to change the laws to make any criticism
of Israel a criminal offence? No problem. Just let us know when you want us to lick your boots.
After all, were just goyim put on this earth to serve you like domestic animals. Cant do enough
to please our masters. You can always rely on us to provide you with all the money and cannon
fodder you need. were just here to serve you. Cruel but just words (from Comment section on
http://thomas-l-are.blogspot.com/2017/05/what-kind-of-people.html#comment-form ):
"The brilliant George Bernard Shaw once said that one could use three concepts to describe
the positions of individuals in Nazi Germany: intelligence, decency, and Nazism. He argued that
if a person was intelligent, and a Nazi, he was not decent. If he was decent and a Nazi, he was
not intelligent. And if he was decent and intelligent, he was not a Nazi.
I propose we update Shaw's rather astute observations with: There are also three concepts
to describe the positions of individuals in Zionist Israel: intelligence, decency, and Zionism.
We can argue that if a person is intelligent, and a Zionist, he is not decent. If he is decent
and a Zionist, he is not intelligent. And if he is decent and intelligent, he is not a Zionist.
"
Another well-placed, well-timed leak from WaPo. Un-named intelligence official in play again. Is
Russian embassy bugged and all diplomatic correspondence intercepted ? Looks like those guys outdid
STASI. the standard question arises: "cuo bono".
If true, that means that the way information was obtained is iether already known by Russian, or
this channel will be closed really soon. Form the text of the article it looks like the USA is able
to read Russian diplomatic communication. Unless this is yet another disinformation, that means that
the USA obtained the keys used by the embassy for incoding dypolicic communication, or have a modle
who provided this communication by downloading already decoded archive or something like that. Which
actually violates Vienna convention and makes the USA rogue nation not that different from GDR ot the
USSR.
While it is unclear " what Kislyak would have had to gain by falsely characterizing his contacts
with Kushner to Moscow" it is clear who benefit from this revelation. But even if true why to reveal
such an important information for such a minor case. Trump folded. What else "deep state" wants from
him ? Are Hillary friends in State Department and a couple of other intelligence agencies really crazy
about the revenge ?
More questions then answers
Notable quotes:
"... But officials said that it's unclear what Kislyak would have had to gain by falsely characterizing
his contacts with Kushner to Moscow, particularly at a time when the Kremlin still saw the prospect
of dramatically improved relations with Trump. ..."
"... The FBI closely monitors the communications of Russian officials in the United States, and
maintains near-constant surveillance of its diplomatic facilities. The National Security Agency monitors
the communications of Russian officials overseas. ..."
"... 'according to U.S. officials briefed on intelligence reports'. This isn't any sort of verification.
Another manufactured news media story. ..."
"... The Washington Post should not even believed with there track record. They should identify
there source that is leaking anything they can get there hands. Never about anything else accept fake
news. The jokers on here keep on drinking the koolaid that the WP prints! ..."
"... Always jump to conclusions as always without the facts. They gave up on Trump now they go after
some one else. You fools talk about Watergate and have no proof about any of this except what the Washington
Trash prints! ..."
Jared Kushner and Russia's ambassador to Washington discussed the possibility of setting up a
secret and secure communications channel between Trump's transition team and the Kremlin, using Russian
diplomatic facilities in an apparent move to shield their pre-inauguration discussions from monitoring,
according to U.S. officials briefed on intelligence reports.
Ambassador Sergei Kislyak reported to his superiors in Moscow that Kushner, then President-elect
Trump's son-in-law and confidant, made the proposal during a meeting on Dec. 1 or 2 at Trump Tower,
according to intercepts of Russian communications that were reviewed by U.S. officials. Kislyak said
Kushner suggested using Russian diplomatic facilities in the United States for the communications.
The meeting also was attended by Michael Flynn, Trump's first national security adviser.
The White House disclosed the fact of the meeting only in March, playing down its significance.
But people familiar with the matter say the FBI now considers the encounter, as well as another meeting
Kushner had with a Russian banker, to be of investigative interest.
Kislyak reportedly was taken aback by the suggestion of allowing an American to use Russian communications
gear at its embassy or consulate - a proposal that would have carried security risks for Moscow as
well as the Trump team.
Neither the meeting nor the communications of Americans involved were under U.S. surveillance,
officials said.
The White House declined to comment. Robert Kelner, a lawyer for Flynn, declined to comment. The
Russian embassy did not respond to requests for comment.
Russia at times feeds false information into communication streams it suspects are monitored as
a way of sowing misinformation and confusion among U.S. analysts. But officials said that it's
unclear what Kislyak would have had to gain by falsely characterizing his contacts with Kushner to
Moscow, particularly at a time when the Kremlin still saw the prospect of dramatically improved relations
with Trump.
Kushner's apparent interest in establishing a secret channel with Moscow, rather than rely on
U.S. government systems, has added to the intrigue surrounding the Trump administration's relationship
with Russia.
To some officials, it also reflects a staggering naivete.
The FBI closely monitors the communications of Russian officials in the United States, and
maintains near-constant surveillance of its diplomatic facilities. The National Security Agency monitors
the communications of Russian officials overseas.
Current and former U.S. intelligence officials said that though Russian diplomats have secure
means of communicating with Moscow, Kushner's apparent request for access to such channels was extraordinary.
"How would he trust that the Russians wouldn't leak it on their side?" said one former senior
intelligence official. The FBI would know that a Trump transition official was going in and out of
the embassy, which would cause "a great deal" of concern, he added. The entire idea, he said, "seems
extremely naďve or absolutely crazy."
The discussion of a secret channel adds to a broader pattern of efforts by Trump's closest advisors
to obscure their contacts with Russian counterparts. Trump's first national security adviser, Flynn,
was forced to resign after a series of false statements about his conversations with Kislyak. Attorney
General Jeff Sessions recused himself from matters related to the Russia investigation after it was
revealed that he had failed to disclose his own meetings with Kislyak when asked during congressional
testimony about any contact with Russians.
Kushner's interactions with Russians - including Kislyak and an executive for a Russian bank under
U.S. sanctions - were not acknowledged by the White House until they were exposed in media reports.
It is common for senior advisers of a newly elected president to be in contact with foreign leaders
and officials. But new administrations are generally cautious in their handling of interactions with
Moscow, which U.S. intelligence
... ... ....
In addition to their discussion about setting up the communications channel, Kushner, Flynn and
Kislyak also talked about arranging a meeting between a representative of Trump and a "Russian contact"
in a third country whose name was not identified, according to the anonymous letter.
The Post reported in April that Erik Prince, the former founder of Blackwater private security
firm and an informal adviser to the Trump transition team, met on Jan. 11 - nine days before Trump's
inauguration - in the Seychelles islands in the Indian Ocean with a representative of Russian President
Vladimir Putin.
Tom Lewis · Longs, South Carolina
"Jared Kushner and Russia's ambassador to Washington discussed the possibility of setting up
a secret and secure communications channel between Trump's transition team and the Kremlin, using
Russian diplomatic facilities in an apparent move to shield their pre-inauguration discussions
from monitoring" .... pretty stiff accusation with this as the news media's source ... 'according
to U.S. officials briefed on intelligence reports'. This isn't any sort of verification. Another
manufactured news media story.
Paul Schofield · San Diego, California
Everyone knew about this, and it happens with every transition team, and it was done AFTER
Trump won the election, but if it gets the Liberals' panties in a bunch, and CNN more viewers,
the angry Clintonites can scream impeachment for a few hours tonight..... suckers!
Jerry Reich · Arnold, Missouri
The Washington Post should not even believed with there track record. They should identify
there source that is leaking anything they can get there hands. Never about anything else accept
fake news. The jokers on here keep on drinking the koolaid that the WP prints!
Always jump to conclusions as always without the facts. They gave up on Trump now they
go after some one else. You fools talk about Watergate and have no proof about any of this except
what the Washington Trash prints!
Exceptionalism: the condition of being different from the norm; also : a theory
expounding the exceptionalism especially of a nation or region.
May 29, 2017 " Information
Clearing House " - There are many theories surrounding the origin of American exceptionalism.
The most popular in US folklore, being that it describes America's unique character as a "free" nation
founded on democratic ideals and civil liberties. The Declaration of Independence from British colonial
rule is the foundation of this theory and has persevered throughout the often violent history of
the US since its birth as a free nation.
Over time, exceptionalism has come to represent superiority in the minds and hearts of Americans.
Belief in their economic, military and ideological supremacy is what has motivated successive US
governments to invest in shaping the world in their superior image with little or no regard for the
destruction left in the wake of their exceptional hegemony.
In considering itself, exceptional, the US has extricated itself from any legal obligation to
adhere to either International law or even the common moral laws that should govern Humanity. The
US has become exceptionally lawless and authoritarian particularly in its intolerant neo-colonialist
foreign policy. The colonized have become the colonialists, concealing their brutal savagery behind
a veneer of missionary zeal that they are converting the world to their form of exceptionalist Utopia.
Such is the media & marketing apparatus that supports this superiority complex, the majority of
US congress exist within its echo chamber and are willing victims of its indoctrination. The power
of the propaganda vortex pulls them in and then radiates outwards, infecting all in its path. Self-extraction
from this oligarchical perspective is perceived as a revolutionary act that challenges the core of
US security so exceptionalism becomes the modus vivendi.
Just as Israel considers itself 'the chosen people' from a religious perspective, the US considers
itself the chosen nation to impose its version of Democratic reform and capitalist hegemony the world
over. One can see why Israel and the US make such symbiotic bedfellows.
"The fatal war for humanity is the war with Russia and China toward which Washington is driving
the US and Washington's NATO and Asian puppet states. The bigotry of the US power elite is rooted
in its self-righteous doctrine that stipulates America as the "indispensable country" ~
Paul Craig Roberts: Washington Drives the World Towards War.
So why do the American people accept US criminal hegemony, domestic and foreign brutal tyranny
& neo-colonialist blood-letting with scant protest? Why do the European vassal states not rise up
against this authoritarian regime that flaunts international law and drags its NATO allies down the
path to complete lawlessness and diplomatic ignominy?
What is Gaslighting?
The psychological term "Gaslighting" comes from a 1944 Hollywood classic movie called Gaslight.
Gaslighting describes the abuse employed by a narcissist to instil in their victim's mind, an extreme
anxiety and confusion to the extent where they no longer have faith in their own powers of logic,
reason and judgement. These gaslighting techniques were adopted by central intelligence agencies
in the US and Europe as part of their psychological warfare methods, used primarily during torture
or interrogation.
Gaslighting as an abuser's modus operandi, involves, specifically, the withholding of factual
information and its replacement with false or fictional information designed to confuse and disorientate.
This subtle and Machiavellian process eventually undermines the mental stability of its victims reducing
them to such a depth of insecurity and identity crisis that they become entirely dependent upon their
abuser for their sense of reality and even identity.
Gaslighting involves a step by step psychological process to manipulate and destabilize its victim.
It is built up over time and consists of repetitive information feeds that enter the victim's subconscious
over a period of time, until it is fully registered on the subconscious "hard disk" and cannot be
overridden by the conscious floppy disk. Put more simply, it is brainwashing.
" Overall, the main reason for gaslighting is to create a dynamic where the abuser has complete
control over their victim so that they are so weak that they are very easy to manipulate." ~
Alex Myles
Three Stages of Gaslighting: Stage One
The first stage depends upon trust in the integrity and unimpeachable intentions of the abuser,
a state of reliance that has been engendered by the abuser's artful self-promotion and ingratiating
propaganda. Once this trust is gained, the abuser will begin to subtly undermine it, creating situations
and environments where the victim will begin to doubt their own judgement. Eventually the victim
will rely entirely upon the abuser to alleviate their uncertainty and to restore their sense of reality
which is in fact that of the abuser.
Stage Two
The second stage, defence, is a process by which the abuser isolates the victim, not only from
their own sense of identity but from the validation of their peers. They are made to feel that their
opinion is worthless, discredited, down-right weird. In political circles they would be labelled
a conspiracy theorist, a dissident, a terror apologist. As a consequence, the victim will withdraw
from society and cease to express themselves for fear of ridicule, judgement or punishment.
This stage can also be compared to Stockholm Syndrome where a hostage or captive is reduced,by
psychological mind games, back to infantile dependency upon their captor. Narcissistic abuse bonds
the victim to the aggressor via trauma. Stockholm Syndrome bonds the victim to the aggressor via
regression to an infantile state where the abuser/aggressor becomes the "parent" who will rescue
the victim from imminent annihilation. Both methods tap into the victim's survival mechanisms to
gain and maintain control.
Stage Three
The final stage is depression. A life under the tyrannical rule of a narcissist drives the victim
into a state of extreme confusion. They are stripped of dignity & self-reliance. They, ultimately
exist in an information vacuum which is only filled by that which the abuser deems suitable or relevant.
This can eventually invoke symptoms of PTSD [Post Traumatic Stress Disorder]. Flashbacks, constant
apprehension, hyper vigilance, mind paralysis, rage and even violence. The process is complete and
the victim has been reduced to a willing accomplice in the abusers creation of a very distorted reality.
Exceptionalism or Narcissism?
We are currently seeing the transformation of US exceptionalism into an abusive Narcissism .
The gargantuan apparatus of mind bending and controlling is being put into hyper drive by the
ruling elite. We are inundated with propaganda that challenges our sense of reality but only after
being "tenderized" by the fear factor. Fear of "terror", fear of war, fear of financial insecurity,
fear of gun violence, fear of our own shadow. Once we are suitably quaking in our boots, in comes
the rendition of reality that relieves our anxiety. If we challenge this version of events we are
labelled a conspiracy theorist, a threat to security. We are hounded, discredited, slandered and
ridiculed. We are isolated and threatened.
Wars are started in the same way. Despite the hindsight that should enable us to see it coming,
the process swings into motion with resounding success. The ubiquitous dictator, the oligarch who
threatens to destroy all that the US and her allies represent which of course is, freedom, equality
& civil liberty all wrapped up in the Democracy shiny paper and tied with the exceptionalist ribbon.
Next the false flag to engender fear, terror and to foment sectarian strife. The support of a
"legitimate" organic, indigenous "revolution" conveniently emerging in tandem with US ambitions for
imposing their model of governance upon a target nation. The arming of "freedom fighters", the securing
of mercenary additions to these manufactured proxy forces. All this is sold in the name of freedom
and democracy to a public that is already in a state of anxiety and insecurity, lacking in judgement
or insight into any other reality but that of their "abuser".
The NGO Complex Deployment
Finally, the Humanitarians are deployed. The forces for "good", the vanguard of integrity and
ethical intervention. The power that offers all lost souls a stake-holding in the salvation of sovereign
nations that have lost their way and need rescuing. A balm for a damaged soul, to know they can leave
their doubts and fears in such trustworthy hands as HRW, Amnesty International, they can assuage
their deep sense of guilt at the suffering being endured by the people of far flung nations because
they can depend upon the NGOs to provide absolution with minimal effort on their part. They don't
realise that NGOs are an integral part of their abuser's apparatus, operating on the leash of neo-colonialist
financing and influence. NGOs provide the optic through which the abuser will allow the victim to
perceive their world and once absorbed into this flawed prism the victim's own cognitive dissonance
will ensure they do not attempt a jail break.
In this state of oppressed consciousness the victim accepts what they are told. They accept that
the US can sell cluster bombs to Saudi Arabia that obliterate human beings and lay waste to essential
civilian infrastructure in Yemen. They accept that the US financially, ideologically & militarily
supports the illegal state of Israel and provides the arsenal of experimental weapons that maim and
mutilate children and civilians on a scale that is unimaginable. They accept that a crippling blockade
of the already impoverished and starving nation of Yemen is "necessary" to resolve the issues of
sectarian divisions that only exist in the minds of their Congressional abusers.
The majority of Americans accept mass murder under the pretext of the right to protect , because
their ability to form rational and reasoned opinions has been engineered out of them. This is now
the definition of US exceptionalism. It is their ability to manipulate the world into accepting their
lawlessness and global hegemony agenda. In seeking to impose its own image upon our world the US
has drifted so far from its founding principles, one wonders how they will ever return to them. They
have employed a recognised form of torture to ensure capitulation to their mission of world domination
which entails the mental, physical and spiritual torture of target civilian populations.
In conclusion, the US has indeed achieved exceptionalism. The US has become an exceptional global
executioner and persecutor of Humanity. Imperialism is a euphemism for the depths of abuse the US
is inflicting upon the people of this world.
Our only hope is to break the cycle of abuse with empathy for the victim and with appreciation
for the years of brainwashing that precedes their agonizing passive-aggressive apathy towards crimes
being committed in "their name".
This was an email I received recently from one courageous young American girl whose epiphany is
testament to the resilience and survival instinct of the human spirit.
" My name is Caroline and I am a 22 year old US citizen. I only fairly recently discovered the
truth about Empire/NATO's activities in Syria and Libya and so many other countries (thanks to writers
like Andre Vltchek, Cory Morningstar, Forrest Palmer). I am sickened when I remember that I signed
some of those Avaaz petitions and I feel horrified at knowing that I have Syrian and Libyan blood
on my hands. I want to believe that I'm not "really" guilty because I really thought (as I had been
told) that I was not doing something bad at the time, but still, what I did contributed to the suffering
of those people and I want to do something to atone in at least some small way, even though I probably
can't "make up" for what I did or erase my crime.
If it's not too much trouble, could you please tell me what you think I should do, if there is
anything?"
She deserves an answer
***
Author Vanessa Beeley is a contributor to 21WIRE, and s ince 2011, she has spent most of
her time in the Middle East reporting on events there – as a independent researcher, writer, photographer
and peace activist. She is also a member of the Steering Committee of the Syria Solidarity Movement,
and a volunteer with the Global Campaign to Return to Palestine. See more of her work at her blog
The Wall Will Fall .
"... Brzezinski was an obsessive Russia-hater from the beginning to the end. That led to the monumental failures of Carter's term in office; the hatreds Brzezinski released had an impact which continues to be catastrophic for the rest of the world. ..."
"... Carter and Brzezinski in Carter's study, six weeks into the presidential term - April 19, 1977. ..."
"... To Brzezinski also goes the credit for projecting Iran on to its nuclear-armed path against the Great Satan and US allies in the Middle East, making the sunni-shia sectarian division into a cause of international war which it was not, before Brzezinski began ..."
"... Left: Sadat standing up, with Begin and Carter at the signing of the Camp David accords, September 17, 1978. Right, Sadat's downfall in Cairo at the Egyptian Army's annual victory parade, October 6, 1981. ..."
"... Rosalynn and Jimmy Carter, February 1979. ..."
"... If not for Carter, Brzezinski would have remained the marginal voice he was before and after the four-year Carter term. From the start of that term, in the first six months of 1977, Carter was also warned explicitly by his own staff, inside the White House and working on his confidential instruction, not to allow Brzezinski to dominate his policy-making to the exclusion of all other advice, and the erasure of the evidence on which the advice was based. ..."
"... When Vernamonti and I had written up our two reports, we concluded that Brzezinski had been deliberately and systematically misinforming and misleading Carter in his policy memoranda. He withheld evidence; mistook or misrepresented what other officials and their agencies were saying; and manipulated the decision and action tails of his memoranda, so that Carter would think he had little option but to do what Brzezinski told him to choose. Our job, Carter had told us when we commenced work, was to spot the fox in the hen house, and warn him before there were fatal consequences. ..."
"... But dedicated and loyal Brzezinski was solely to himself – not to Carter nor the presidency he had been elected to run. Brzezinski's choices were among the reasons Carter was defeated in the landslide election of November 1980. ..."
"... Brzezinski is not the only Russia-hater of extraction from the minor Polish nobility to make a career of his monomania. For more of what he and Carter failed to achieve in Syria, read this ; and in Ukraine, this . For the other Polish monomaniac of recent times, Radoslaw Sikorski, read more . ..."
"... Brzezinski is the only national security advisor in American history to succeed at mesmerizing his president into singing his songs, as the character of Svengali did to Trilby O'Ferrall, an Irish working girl, in the best-selling novel of 1894 by George du Maurier. ..."
"... Carter gave the power of the White House stage to Brzezinski's voice. The ruin which has followed is Brzezinski's evil, but the evil-doing, that's Carter's fault. ..."
"... Remember, please, the Blackstone Group was founded by Rockefeller protégé, Peter G. Peterson, with Rockefeller seed money. ..."
"... The Carlyle Group was started by David Rubenstein (nephew of a dude named Jacob Rubenstein, before he changed his name to Jack Ruby) and Frank Carlucci, former CIA dude, with seed money from the Mellon family. ..."
"... The Deep State is that part of the organized crime syndicate, that is not only beyond morality, but beyond its own faux law (that it enforces against the uppity ones). ..."
"... Nowhere does Kennan encourage serious consideration of the possibility that the Soviets might have reason to feel threatened, "existentially," when they looked to the west .. ..."
"... The blaming of colonial powers is true in Africa where ocean going vessels altered what the colonial powers could achieve versus local powers, ..."
"... Again, most of this is increasingly well-known, but conventional wisdom seems to think that Saudi extremism and terror ties are contradictory to the United States' interests in supporting the regime. But it's contradictory only if terrorism poses a strategic threat to the West-it does not. ..."
"... Quite simply, terrorism in Europe or the US simply doesn't bother the Blob – its not a strategic issue, and they love to think of themselves as big strategic thinkers, too important to worry about mundane issues like civilian deaths. Terrorism works well for them – its not a real threat and every bomb blowing up tweens going to a concert just results in more money going to the securicracy. ..."
"... "The Simpsons" famously called Carter "History's greatest monster. " The two guys who crafted that scene and joke knew what a crummy President he was. I doubt it's been lost on Carter. ..."
"... That's a tall order for Brzezinski which I'm sure he played a significant role. Stephen Gowans has an interesting new book out 'Washington's Long War on Syria' which is recommended by Eva Bartlett. ..."
"... ""The thesis of this book is that Wall Street's war on Syria was motivated by the same aim: the de-Ba'athification of Syria and the elimination of secular Arab nationalist influence from the Syrian state, as a means of expunging the Arab nationalist threat to U.S. hegemony."" ..."
"... The blackest of humour contest to find Harvard's most evil. (Long intro about Hitler etc, skip to 18:30.) "Brzezinski is the Hydrox to Kissinger's Oreo" https://thetrap.fm/show/episode-100-chapo-goes-to-college-41717/ ..."
"... In Carter's defense, he has gone on the record and stated that the US today is now an oligarchy. Not exactly a "pass the buck" statement by a former president ..."
If ever there was a man who displayed on his face the evil on his mind, it was Zbigniew Brzezinski,
(lead image, right) who died last week at a hospital near Washington.
Former President Jimmy Carter, who employed Brzezinski as his National Security Advisor between
1977 and 1981, the only high official post Brzezinski reached,
said he "helped me set vital foreign policy goals, was a source of stimulation for the departments
of defense and state, and everyone valued his opinion." Of Carter's three claims, only the first
is true; the second is ironic hyperbole; the third is completely false. If Carter cannot tell the
truth now about Brzezinski, after having 36 years to reflect on it, Carter reveals the principal
source of Brzezisnki's power, when he exercised it. For Carter was no innocent ventriloquized by
the evil Svengali (lead image, left), as in the original Svengali tale. Carter was simply more mendacious
than Brzezinski, and is entirely to blame for doing what Brzezinski told him to do.
Brzezinski was an obsessive Russia-hater from the beginning to the end. That led to the monumental
failures of Carter's term in office; the hatreds Brzezinski released had an impact which continues
to be catastrophic for the rest of the world.
Carter and Brzezinski in Carter's study, six weeks into the presidential term - April 19,
1977.
To Brzezinski goes the credit for starting the organization, financing and armament of the mujahideen,
the Islamic fundamentalists who have metastasized - with US money and arms still - into Islamic terrorist
armies operating far from Afghanistan and Pakistan, where Brzezinski started them off. Only today,
Russia – the target of Brzezinski's scheming - is relatively better prepared and safer from the terrorists
than the countries of western Europe and the US itself.
To Brzezinski also goes the credit for projecting Iran on to its nuclear-armed path against the
Great Satan and US allies in the Middle East, making the sunni-shia sectarian division into a cause
of international war which it was not, before Brzezinski began. That it was not is due to the power
of the secular Arab leaders to sustain an alternative to religion for governance. Brzezinski's idea
was to target them as Kremlin stooges and overthrow them. To Brzezinski also goes the credit for
releasing Israeli ambition under Menachem Begin and his successors on the Israeli right; the promotion
of Egyptian corruption and weakness under Anwar Sadat and his successors; and the destruction of
the Palestinians.
Left: Sadat standing up, with Begin and Carter at the signing of the Camp David accords, September
17, 1978. Right, Sadat's downfall in Cairo at the Egyptian Army's annual victory parade, October
6, 1981.
In Carter's obituary, he also gives Brzezinski the credit for "an essential role" in two other
achievements Carter still claims for himself: "normalization of relations with China [and the] signing
of the SALT II treaty." Carter is exaggerating the little he did, after his predecessors Richard
Nixon and Gerald Ford had initiated and negotiated the terms for both. Carter says nothing about
his failure to influence the course of US nuclear weapon designs that continue to evolve unhindered,
and the schemes of first-strike war-fighting against both Russia and China which are virtual, if
not quite stated US policy today.
Apart from the reference Carter makes first to his wife Rosalynn's views, there is no illumination.
In 1977 Rosalynn Carter had different views from her husband's, but regarding Brzezinski and others
in the Carter White House, she never dared to express them in public. On pain of instant dismissal
nor did anyone else in the White House then. And there were no leaks.
Rosalynn and Jimmy Carter, February 1979.
If not for Carter, Brzezinski would have remained the marginal voice he was before and after the
four-year Carter term. From the start of that term, in the first six months of 1977, Carter was also
warned explicitly by his own staff, inside the White House and working on his confidential instruction,
not to allow Brzezinski to dominate his policy-making to the exclusion of all other advice, and the
erasure of the evidence on which the advice was based.
I know this because I was a member of the staff in those days. I know because I drafted the terms
of a series of staff investigations which Carter requested and then authorized of how the advice
he was receiving at his desk was influencing the choices and policy options he had to decide – memoranda
from the cabinet departments, briefs from the intelligence agencies, and commentaries from different
elements of the White House organization itself.
The investigation of two of Brzezinski's policy recommendations to Carter was assigned to a US
Airforce officer on secondment to the White House staff at the time,
Len Vernamonti ;and to
me. We were part of a group of 25 titled the President's Reorganization Project (PRP). Our offices
were in the New Executive Office Building, the red-brick structure across the street from the State,
War and Navy Building, aka the Old Executive Office Building (OEOB); in Mark Twain's epithet, the
ugliest building in America. Twain was referring to what the inhabitants of the building did, not
to the exterior or interior decoration, which was grand. Brzezinski's staff operated in the OEOB.
He himself, like his predecessors, kept his own office in the West Wing of the White House, diagonally
across the lobby from the Oval Office and Carter's personal study.
The PRP, a Carter election campaign invention unprecedented in White House history, had the job
of preparing a study for the president on how his White House operations might be organized to expand
his policy choices, enlarge the evidence available for him to read – Carter was very keen on reading
- anticipate consequences, and curb bureaucratic empire building outside the Oval Office. The staff
had mostly come, as had I, from Carter's campaign advisors. Major Vernamonti, as he was then, had
come to the PRP by secondment and by chance.
The idea of reorganization at the top of the US government bureaucracy wasn't novel; it most often
accompanied incoming presidents whose party had been out of office for a long time and who wanted
to purge non-loyalists and find jobs for their own people. But the idea of opening up the president's
files and reassessing the decisions he had made in his first six months had never been attempted
before.
Military, intelligence and foreign policy topics were off-limits because of the classification
and security clearances required, so the PRP focused on domestic policymaking. In organizational
management terms, they amounted to the same thing. We compiled a list of topics for investigation
from among the public and private priorities of the new administration; Carter was asked to select
which he wanted us to study. About 30 topics were selected; two were assigned to each of a dozen
two-man teams. By Carter's order, we had authority to open all files, including those of the National
Security Council (NSC). Bzezinski didn't like that; he resisted; he lost the first round
The subjects of the Brzezinski investigation remain classified. It's exactly 40 years since I
last saw the papers. They were secret at the time, but there was a deeper, darker secret.
When Vernamonti and I had written up our two reports, we concluded that Brzezinski had been deliberately
and systematically misinforming and misleading Carter in his policy memoranda. He withheld evidence;
mistook or misrepresented what other officials and their agencies were saying; and manipulated the
decision and action tails of his memoranda, so that Carter would think he had little option but to
do what Brzezinski told him to choose. Our job, Carter had told us when we commenced work, was to
spot the fox in the hen house, and warn him before there were fatal consequences. He had been a Navy
officer and a submariner; also the Georgia State governor. So he knew about the pathologies of command
and control; he also knew about fatal consequences. But neither he nor we anticipated that the fox
would turn out to be Brzezinski, nor the chicken turn out to be Carter himself.
No president had ever been presented with such a stark analysis of his own reading of papers and
his own decision-making. I knew that because I had consulted with senior White House staff directors
going back to Franklin Roosevelt's time.
The recommendations Vernamonti and I drew from the decision-making research were revolutionary.
We proposed that Carter retain a personal national security advisor with a staff restricted to sub-advisors
amounting to less than a score. The large NSC bureaucracy, growing across the driveway in the OEOB,
was to be broken up and returned to the mainline departments. Our idea was that the National Security
Advisor would be restricted to being just that – an advisor in a staff function. Line command and
control, which McGeorge Bundy started with President John Kennedy in 1961, and Henry Kissinger perfected
under Richard Nixon between 1969 and 1975, was to be halted because it encouraged a government-wide
war for the president's mind, which usually ended badly – not for the advisor but for the president.
There were more than 300 pages in the final PRP report, including the executive summary and the
recommendations, plus the case studies. Brzezinski got early warning of the studies, and then received
the drafts, plus a copy of the cover memorandum with recommendations. He saw at once the danger,
and went to work on our superiors. The upshot was that on the weekend before our staff was due to
present the report to Carter at a White House meeting, and answer his questions, Vernamonti and I
were called in to an urgent meeting with the PRP leader, and his superior, Harrison Wellford.
Like several of us on the staff, Wellford was a Harvard graduate, with an equable, jocular Massachusetts
manner of dealing in tight spots. He describes his background on the Carter campaign and then on
the presidential transition team of 1976
here . But on the day
Wellford called Vernamonti and me into his office, Wellford was not his usual self. He made clear
that Brzezinski was furious, and would not allow our conclusions to go to Carter. Wellford himself
didn't disagree with the evidence or the findings. He didn't disagree with the recommendations either,
he said. But he lacked the power to fight Brzezinski with Carter, he conceded.
In his encomium on Brzezinski's death, Carter said last Friday: "Having studied Zbig's impressive
background and his scholarly and political writings, I called on him to advise me on foreign policy
issues during my first presidential campaign. I liked him immediately, and we developed an excellent
personal relationship." That much is true. Carter also remembers: "He was brilliant, dedicated, and
loyal." From the Harvard point of view, the first adjective was unexceptional – there are hundreds
and thousands of "brilliant" Harvard graduates; about a dozen of them in the Carter White House.
But dedicated and loyal Brzezinski was solely to himself – not to Carter nor the presidency he had
been elected to run. Brzezinski's choices were among the reasons Carter was defeated in the landslide
election of November 1980.
But that's getting ahead of our little tale. Wellford told Vernamonti and me he had no choice
but to give us strict orders for the meeting scheduled the following week with Carter. Our case studies
might, he said, be included in the tabs to the PRP briefing book we would present to the president.
But the conclusions, and the recommendations for reform of the National Security Council, would be
eliminated. Then Wellford added an ultimatum: Vernamonti and I would be allowed to sit at the meeting
with Carter. But we were to say nothing unless Carter spoke to us. If that happened, we were not
to mention our recommendations on Brzezinski. If we did that, we would both be fired instantly. That
would have meant the end of Vernamonti's airforce career.
Wellford added this was a secret we were not to tell to anyone.
The upshot was this. Wellford, plus the PRP team leader (a Georgian like Carter whose name I've
forgotten), the others on our staff; Vernamonti and I met with Carter to present our report. The
meeting took place in the Cabinet Room. Vernamonti and I sat to the right of our superiors; Carter
was across the table, his back to the windows. Brzezinski was present, along with other senior White
House staff advisors of the day. The big briefing book lay in front of the president. He spoke of
congratulations for the originality and painstaking work we had done, and promised to read every
word. He asked questions, but not of Vernamonti or me. We stayed shtum. We walked out keeping our
jobs, as did everyone else, especially Brzezinski.
Our defeat stayed secret for years. Ours was not the nail for want of which the shoe was lost,
the horse, the knight, the battle, etc. There were many other nails, shoes, horses and knights lost,
starting with Secretary of State Cyrus Vance, but he died in 2002 without telling as much as he could
and should have done. Carter, however, did lose his kingdom, ignominiously. That still stings with
him. Vernamonti (pictured recently, below left) went on to a brilliant USAF career, managing the
purse which paid for US ballistic missile programs. Wellford (right) has managed the legal side of
some of the largest energy businesses in the US.
Many years later, after the New York Times reported how thorough and effective Carter's reorganization
of the White House had been, I responded with a letter detailing part of the Brzezinski record of
1977. I omitted Vernamonti's name, in case he was still in the Air Force; I included Wellford's.
The letter was cued to be published, according to a Times editor who telephoned to check a couple
of name-spellings and dates. But the letter never appeared. I was told by the Times that in advance
of publication, Brzezinski was shown the text, and he commanded that it not appear. The newspaper
did what it was told.
Brzezinski is not the only Russia-hater of extraction from the minor Polish nobility to make a
career of his monomania. For more of what he and Carter failed to achieve in Syria, read
this ; and in Ukraine,
this . For the other Polish monomaniac of recent times, Radoslaw Sikorski, read
more .
Brzezinski is the only national security advisor in American history to succeed at mesmerizing
his president into singing his songs, as the character of
Svengali did to Trilby O'Ferrall,
an Irish working girl, in the best-selling novel of 1894 by George du Maurier.
Carter is mesmerized still. Without Carter, Brzezinski would have remained an inconsequential
academic among many contending to be heard. Carter gave the power of the White House stage to Brzezinski's
voice. The ruin which has followed is Brzezinski's evil, but the evil-doing, that's Carter's fault.
Mika, his daughter, continues the Deep State work, in the MSM. And advisor Brzezinski wasn't
the only cold warrior around in those days. Senator McCain carries that torch still, from the
Hanoi Hilton.
Right you are. This woman is truly dangerous, sporting her famous name and spewing her hateful,
disruptive prattle, esp. due to her pairing with the faux-Republican Scarborough, who himself
is a bizarre combination of neocon and progressive.
Well, around 1963, the Deep State would be the super-rich families who called the shots, notably
through such minions as Allen Dulles, (his cousin) Tracy Barnes, McGeorge Bundy, and a slew of
others. Those richest families at that time were the Rockefeller, DuPont, Morgan, Harriman (Poindexter),
Cabot (and Lodge), Forbes, Mellon and a few others.
Remember, please, the Blackstone Group was founded by Rockefeller protégé, Peter G. Peterson,
with Rockefeller seed money.
The Carlyle Group was started by David Rubenstein (nephew of a dude named Jacob Rubenstein,
before he changed his name to Jack Ruby) and Frank Carlucci, former CIA dude, with seed money
from the Mellon family.
Presently, one of the largest or more powerful of the private intel contractors, Booz Allen
Hamilton is owned by the Carlyle Group, last time I checked. Carlyle also owned ARINC for quite
a few years, yielding incredible corporate intel from such as they!
So Robert Scheer, who wrote this book ("They Know Everything About You") where he remarked
a bit on Palantir (started by Peter Thiel, primarily with CIA contracts, now a private intel company),
and pondered in his book how Thiel came to know Richard Perle, who steered Thiel into Adm. Poindexter
for those CIA (Total Infomration Awareness-like) CIA contracts?
Of course, Scheer is used to robotically repeating CIA disinformation stuff so is unable to
pursue simple investigative reporting techniques which would have yielded that Peter Thiel sat
on the board of "American Friends of Bilderberg, Inc." (according to their 990 tax forms) along
with Richard Perle (from whence he knew him, 'natch!) and David Rockefeller and Henry Kissinger,
etc.
I trust I have added to your worldly sophistication?
You know you are in, when you are in the Carlyle Group. Not just the founders like the Bush
family, but neo-libs like the Clintons. I am sure the Obama crime family will be invited into
that exclusive private country club, if they continue to play ball the CIA way.
When you are the law, like the Nixon presidency, there is no need to file, your taxable income
is whatever you say it is. The Deep State is that part of the organized crime syndicate, that
is not only beyond morality, but beyond its own faux law (that it enforces against the uppity
ones).
Yes, I think thats overstating it. But it was certainly during the Carter era that the notion
of setting the secular (Iraq) and Sunni States against Iran became policy – albeit after the Iranian
Revolution. And of course it was during this period that it became someones bright idea that providing
arms to extreme islamacists was a good strategy. I doubt they consciously decided to set sunni
against shia, but that was one result.
But ultimately of course much of the problems in the middle east can be traced to the failure
of the West to support secular States for Cold War reasons. Brutal and all as Assad (Sr) and Hussein
were, they kept the lid on religious tension and were a vital counterbalance to the Gulf theocracies.
And of course the CIA removed a genuinely popular reformist President in Iran in favour of a dictator.
Helmer is right that the monomaniacal obsession with blocking the USSR caused all sorts of unnecessary
bloodshed and chaos in the Middle East and Asia, although its overstretching it I think to blame
so much on Brzezinski.
And its not all hindsight. I keep going back to Graham Greene's novel 'The Quiet American'
from 1955 as an explanation for why so many supposedly smart foreign policy wonks could cause
such havoc. Read that one book and so much becomes clear.
Yes, ideological hatred of the soviets was clearly present at least as far back as the truman
admin when nsc-68 was published. That was a break from the original, limited idea of george kennan's'
containment' policy.
A 1976 Slavic Review article by Wright, "Mr. X and containment" is useful for pointing out
that Kennan's recommendations were contradictory. While he was nominally arguing for a less alarmed
(aka victimized anticommunist) position, the strategy of containment was still pitched at confrontation,
and was very cut off from the possibilities of cooperation that were in the Yalta air. Kennan's
idea that Russia would, like a wind-up toy, pursue an expansionist policy based on "military industrialization"
was, in my view, an ideological spew by someone already submerged in it. Nowhere does Kennan encourage
serious consideration of the possibility that the Soviets might have reason to feel threatened,
"existentially," when they looked to the west, and for reasons having nothing to do with their
by then desiccated Bolshevism.
Nowhere does Kennan encourage serious consideration of the possibility that the Soviets
might have reason to feel threatened, "existentially," when they looked to the west ..
Everybody has reasons.
Given Allied intervention in Russia during and immediately after WWI against the Soviets, the
Soviets absolutely had reason to feel threatened existentially.
But also given the many millions of deaths under Stalin's regime, the West had reason to feel
threatened existentially after WWII.
And also given the centuries-long histories of Polish-Russian wars, with Poland once occupying
Moscow and later Russia controlling much of Poland in the 19th as well as in the 20th century
- and factoring in Lenin's plan to expand the Soviet regime westwards by occupying Poland which
led to the Polish-Soviet War of 1918-19 and the agreement between Stalin and Hitler that let the
USSR occupy Poland in 1939 (which included the Katyn massacre) - the Poles have reasons to feel
threatened by the Russians.
Brzezinski's strange, maniacal hatred of Russians isn't strange and maniacal given that history.
For that matter, given the Soviet occupation of Hungary, during the Cold War Hungarians like John
von Neumann and Edward Teller had reason for their strange, maniacal hatred of the Russians.
So while it's tiresome for the rest of us to deal with the attitudes of the Poles - including
Brzezinski - and the other peoples who live in the territories adjoining Russia, the historical
truth is that Russia - whether as Muscovy, the Russian empire, or the Soviet Union - has a many
centuries-long history of being heavy-handed with its neighbors.
The hideousness of U.S. behavior in Latin America - and we can all agree it is hideous - is
comparable, but arguably not even in the same league as the way the Russians have historically
- and in the memory of some still living - treated their neighbors.
But did Brzezinski hate Russia because of the history of what it's done to Poland, or because
the Soviets deprived his family of their cushy aristocratic existence? At this point I'm not particularly
inclined to think that toffs as a general rule view their lower-class countrymen as anything other
than tools to serve and enrich themselves.
Excellent points, reminded me of a blog posting I'd read years ago at Economic Populist (not
recommended, but occasionally one or two things would pop through):
Except for Israel (that area was always weird due to distance from major powers*), the maps
of the modern Middle East are strangely reminiscent of the old Ottoman provinces. The blaming
of colonial powers is true in Africa where ocean going vessels altered what the colonial powers
could achieve versus local powers, but the problem in the Middle East is the ability of foreign
powers to influence and prop up poor governments who wouldn't otherwise be able to survive and
weaken more stable governments. The Saudis and Israelis act boorish because they can go hide behind
the U.S. whenever things get too hot.
*Jerusalem is the last place a major player could fortify before being forced to invade another
major player in pre-modern days due to water concerns. This is why Jews exist. Jerusalem is too
important to not fortify but is too distant and rural to bother with too, giving the locals a
culture that appropriated everything but could never truly be overwhelmed. A Jerusalem sized city
closer to the Nile would become Egyptian, and a city closer to Persepolis would become Persian
through natural trade and extension of power. If Jerusalem wasn't a dependable city, no one would
care.
The blaming of colonial powers is true in Africa where ocean going vessels altered what
the colonial powers could achieve versus local powers,
Ocean-going vessels but also the machine gun. As Hilaire Belloc wrote: Whatever happens, we have got.
The Maxim gun, and they have not
When the first machine guns appeared circa 1860 much of Africa's interior remained unmapped
and terra incognito to the Europeans. By 1915, conversely, every territory in Africa - except
for Ethiopia - was not only mapped but a colonial possession of one or another of the European
powers.
Yes, and if one thinks long enough – it seems that many problems we are dealing with today
can be traced directly to the so called British empire (including the divide and conquer strategy
the Brits so skillfully employed). The empire only lasted 200+ yrs, but we'll be cleaning up its
messes for the next 500.
And a bit of mittel Europa humour on ZB's escapades: when you let a goat go free, she'll go ice
skating
Incidentally,
this article by Andrew Hobbs in Warisboring gives on explanation for why the blob doesn't
actually care if its cultivation of Sunni extremists causes terrorism blowback:
Again, most of this is increasingly well-known, but conventional wisdom seems to think that
Saudi extremism and terror ties are contradictory to the United States' interests in supporting
the regime. But it's contradictory only if terrorism poses a strategic threat to the West-it
does not.
Quite simply, terrorism in Europe or the US simply doesn't bother the Blob – its not a strategic
issue, and they love to think of themselves as big strategic thinkers, too important to worry
about mundane issues like civilian deaths. Terrorism works well for them – its not a real threat
and every bomb blowing up tweens going to a concert just results in more money going to the securicracy.
Sunni-Shia divide happened when Mohammed died. As for countries like Iraq, that would be the
Ottomans who exacerbated that particular rift, themselves being Sunni.
What an important piece of history this is. Thank you John Helmer and NC for the post. It's
of critical importance for understanding why the geopolitical chessboard looks the way it does
today, including US-created "Islamic extremism" tool that has since grown and morphed and escaped
into the "wild".
I wonder if Carter will ever learn how the crucial report contents were hijacked by Zbig at
the last moment.
Interesting to learn of Rosalyn Carter's concerns. Is more info available about this?
With regard to Radek Sikorski, there is some dispute as to whether he really is (minor) nobility.
At Oxford, where he became friends with Alex (aka Boris) Johnson and David Cameron, including
being initiated into the Bullingdon Club (or the Buller as members call it), one British journalist,
author (of How To Lose Friends And Alienate People) and free / charter school "entrepreneur" said
there was something improbable and even impostor-ish about Sikorski, including claims of nobility
and being related to the Polish WW2 general of the same name. The hack said that Sikorski would
probably be unmasked as an encyclopaedia salesman from a hick town in the US.
A few years ago, at a City reception, I met a UBS banker who is in the well known picture of
the Bullingdon Club with Johnson and Cameron. Sikorski and his wife, the so-called journalist
Anne Applebaum, were riding high in the UK media /establishment at the time, and still do to a
lesser extent, and have made enough money bashing Russia to be able to send their two sons to
Eton. The banker expressed unease then about Sikorski and his Russia bashing, as if Sikorski and
Applebaum were not quite kosher and trying to ingratiate themselves with the rich and powerful.
Apparently, General Wojciech Jaruzelski was also minor nobility. There's a lot of this pretence
about, including the pair in London and NYC who milk having the same surname as the Rothschilds.
The UK's current Home Secretary (minister for law and order) once ran a firm that supplied upper
class extras to film productions (e.g. Four Weddings And A Funeral) and anyone who wanted to pretend
having upper class connections.
Thanks for that insight, Col. You mention Anne Applebaum – I used to marvel a few years ago
at her writings in Slate magazine and wonder how someone who knew so little about the topics she
wrote about could get such good writing gigs.
Jimmy Carter's mainstream hagiography has been pretty much set in positive stone -- the 'aw shucks'
president who meant well and did what he could, not the naive outsider who let other forces co-opt
his foreign policy.
Like that presidential directive utilizing Saudi "help" in shipping Wahabist Islamic extremists
to the northern border of Afghanistan and the old Soviet Union to raise hell and incite rebellion?
Eventual outcome: 9/11/01!
Or Carter's abolishing federal anti-usury regulations?
Or his deregulation of the natural gas industry (involving firing the head of the National
Geological Survey, if I recall the proper career scientist he fired, because the fellow admitted
to the press when asked that there wasn't any natural gas shortage), airlines industry and trucking?
Or . . .
(In all honesty, though, I did respect his daughter Amy Carter - I thought she was the Real
Deal!)
Alas, we have seen other hen house foxes besides Bzig . Kissinger, Albright, even the adorable
HRC, in administrations wherein the Rooster turned out to be the Hen.
I believe Carter knows. It's part of his post-Presidency motivation. "The Simpsons" famously
called Carter "History's greatest monster. " The two guys who crafted that scene and joke knew
what a crummy President he was. I doubt it's been lost on Carter.
That's a tall order for Brzezinski which I'm sure he played a significant role. Stephen Gowans has an interesting new book out 'Washington's Long War on Syria' which is recommended
by Eva Bartlett.
""If there were any references in Western media to the Assad government's commitment to the
Ba'ath Arab Socialist Party's values of freedom from foreign domination, state direction, planning
and control of the economy, and working toward the unity of the Arab nation, I'm not aware of
them.""
""The thesis of this book is that Wall Street's war on Syria was motivated by the same aim:
the de-Ba'athification of Syria and the elimination of secular Arab nationalist influence from
the Syrian state, as a means of expunging the Arab nationalist threat to U.S. hegemony.""
---–
We support corrupt states like Saudi Arabia that buy our arms and let us exploit their natural
resources and are favorable to our banks and oil companies but don't tolerate states that are
more interested in being free of American imperialism such as Libya, Iran, Iraq and Syria.
This could be said to have been set in motion after World War I when the Arab nation was carved
up into individual countries separated by borders drawn in imperial map rooms.
Military strategy (no matter what country): divide and conquer.
Intelligence agencies help to pave that way.
They Sykes-Picot Treaty was the source of the "creative" map drawing post-WWI.
A couple of the highlights being the creation of "Syria" (resources for France) and "Iraq" (resources
for Britain).
After WWI, it's been written that the "Arabs" really felt the USA would help them get the fairest
deal. They should have taken a real hard look at the Philipines and Cuba, countries the USA helped
against Spain.
France's former president Valery Giscard d'Estaing is related to Picot. One of his grandmothers,
Genevieve, was Picot's sister.
The Giscard family, who adopted the aristocratic d'Estaing name to the disgust of the descendants
of the d'Estaing family, had business interests in Syria. The family had interests in former colonies
by way of their (former) ownership of Club Med. Some of them came to Mauritius when Club Med opened
in Albion, near where I spend the festive season.
Another family that had colonial business interests are the Levy, including Bernard-Henri and
Justine. BHL cashed out to Vincent Bollore before he destroyed the company and used the EUR 200m
pay off to fund his political playboy lifestyle that included, briefly, plans for a philosophy
magazine in Afghanistan.
Re: "a philosophy magazine in Afghanistan"? Seriously? How quintessentially French,
and absolutely the best idea evah. Thanks so much for making my day!
He is one of the very few writing today that can be trusted to give a truthful and thorough
analysis of geopolitical events, and to stick to the known facts.
TheCatSaid
For those not yet following George Webb's YouTube, he's unraveling and exposing a number of
interwoven illegal enterprises ("rat lines"). He's today revealed he's had assistance from insiders
in French, Dutch and Serbian intelligence among others, and insiders in US agencies as well. Names
have been named, lots of specifics coming out each day. What's the connection to Helmer's post
here? Webb today described the foulness of the intelligence agency activities in recent years
as having originated with Brzezinsky, with things becoming steadily more foul since then, but
in a direction, mindset and way of operating that Brzezinsky had created.
Webb also makes a side comment about Brzezinsky's cause of death not being disclosed. He mentions
it was a murder, and wonders aloud if it was because he'd had a recent change of heart and was
about to tell prior secrets.
I've never read the book The Grand Chessboard by Brzezinski, but my understanding is that it
outlines the policy of containment of the Eurasian landmass which seems to be the US position
at this time. Quite foolhardy in my opinion.
In Carter's defense, he has gone on the record and stated that the US today is now an oligarchy.
Not exactly a "pass the buck" statement by a former president. He knows he got played by the Iranian
hostage crisis and the dirty tricks of the Reagan campaign/CIA head William Casey. I think he
believes he took one for the team(America), hence his dedication to charitable causes all these
years as atonement for his mistakes.
Political Ponerology by Lobachewski. Zbig did stymie its publication according to the author.
Zbig, was like many of our powerful, also a war criminal.
Great to have Helmer's insight into the history. Carter needs to address it, and Brzezinski's
recent change of heart as well:
The main architect of Washington's plan to rule the world has abandoned the scheme and called
for the forging of ties with Russia and China. While Zbigniew Brzezinski's article in The American
Interest titled "Towards a Global Realignment" has largely been ignored by the media, it shows
that powerful members of the policymaking establishment no longer believe that Washington will
prevail in its quest to extent US hegemony across the Middle East and Asia.
contrary to what is taught by the traditional left in America, Iranians widely believe that
it was Carter's decision to get rid of the Shah and install the islamic regime which would fit
with the general pattern in the middle east. they also believe that it was british agents who
spurred the unrest. All this "backlash from Mossadeg in the 50's" narrative is not held by actual
iranians at all
"... Brzezinski was an obsessive Russia-hater from the beginning to the end. That led to the monumental failures of Carter's term in office; the hatreds Brzezinski released had an impact which continues to be catastrophic for the rest of the world. ..."
"... Carter and Brzezinski in Carter's study, six weeks into the presidential term - April 19, 1977. ..."
"... To Brzezinski also goes the credit for projecting Iran on to its nuclear-armed path against the Great Satan and US allies in the Middle East, making the sunni-shia sectarian division into a cause of international war which it was not, before Brzezinski began ..."
"... Left: Sadat standing up, with Begin and Carter at the signing of the Camp David accords, September 17, 1978. Right, Sadat's downfall in Cairo at the Egyptian Army's annual victory parade, October 6, 1981. ..."
"... Rosalynn and Jimmy Carter, February 1979. ..."
"... If not for Carter, Brzezinski would have remained the marginal voice he was before and after the four-year Carter term. From the start of that term, in the first six months of 1977, Carter was also warned explicitly by his own staff, inside the White House and working on his confidential instruction, not to allow Brzezinski to dominate his policy-making to the exclusion of all other advice, and the erasure of the evidence on which the advice was based. ..."
"... When Vernamonti and I had written up our two reports, we concluded that Brzezinski had been deliberately and systematically misinforming and misleading Carter in his policy memoranda. He withheld evidence; mistook or misrepresented what other officials and their agencies were saying; and manipulated the decision and action tails of his memoranda, so that Carter would think he had little option but to do what Brzezinski told him to choose. Our job, Carter had told us when we commenced work, was to spot the fox in the hen house, and warn him before there were fatal consequences. ..."
"... But dedicated and loyal Brzezinski was solely to himself – not to Carter nor the presidency he had been elected to run. Brzezinski's choices were among the reasons Carter was defeated in the landslide election of November 1980. ..."
"... Brzezinski is not the only Russia-hater of extraction from the minor Polish nobility to make a career of his monomania. For more of what he and Carter failed to achieve in Syria, read this ; and in Ukraine, this . For the other Polish monomaniac of recent times, Radoslaw Sikorski, read more . ..."
"... Brzezinski is the only national security advisor in American history to succeed at mesmerizing his president into singing his songs, as the character of Svengali did to Trilby O'Ferrall, an Irish working girl, in the best-selling novel of 1894 by George du Maurier. ..."
"... Carter gave the power of the White House stage to Brzezinski's voice. The ruin which has followed is Brzezinski's evil, but the evil-doing, that's Carter's fault. ..."
"... Remember, please, the Blackstone Group was founded by Rockefeller protégé, Peter G. Peterson, with Rockefeller seed money. ..."
"... The Carlyle Group was started by David Rubenstein (nephew of a dude named Jacob Rubenstein, before he changed his name to Jack Ruby) and Frank Carlucci, former CIA dude, with seed money from the Mellon family. ..."
"... The Deep State is that part of the organized crime syndicate, that is not only beyond morality, but beyond its own faux law (that it enforces against the uppity ones). ..."
"... Nowhere does Kennan encourage serious consideration of the possibility that the Soviets might have reason to feel threatened, "existentially," when they looked to the west .. ..."
"... The blaming of colonial powers is true in Africa where ocean going vessels altered what the colonial powers could achieve versus local powers, ..."
"... Again, most of this is increasingly well-known, but conventional wisdom seems to think that Saudi extremism and terror ties are contradictory to the United States' interests in supporting the regime. But it's contradictory only if terrorism poses a strategic threat to the West-it does not. ..."
"... Quite simply, terrorism in Europe or the US simply doesn't bother the Blob – its not a strategic issue, and they love to think of themselves as big strategic thinkers, too important to worry about mundane issues like civilian deaths. Terrorism works well for them – its not a real threat and every bomb blowing up tweens going to a concert just results in more money going to the securicracy. ..."
"... "The Simpsons" famously called Carter "History's greatest monster. " The two guys who crafted that scene and joke knew what a crummy President he was. I doubt it's been lost on Carter. ..."
"... That's a tall order for Brzezinski which I'm sure he played a significant role. Stephen Gowans has an interesting new book out 'Washington's Long War on Syria' which is recommended by Eva Bartlett. ..."
"... ""The thesis of this book is that Wall Street's war on Syria was motivated by the same aim: the de-Ba'athification of Syria and the elimination of secular Arab nationalist influence from the Syrian state, as a means of expunging the Arab nationalist threat to U.S. hegemony."" ..."
"... The blackest of humour contest to find Harvard's most evil. (Long intro about Hitler etc, skip to 18:30.) "Brzezinski is the Hydrox to Kissinger's Oreo" https://thetrap.fm/show/episode-100-chapo-goes-to-college-41717/ ..."
"... In Carter's defense, he has gone on the record and stated that the US today is now an oligarchy. Not exactly a "pass the buck" statement by a former president ..."
If ever there was a man who displayed on his face the evil on his mind, it was Zbigniew Brzezinski,
(lead image, right) who died last week at a hospital near Washington.
Former President Jimmy Carter, who employed Brzezinski as his National Security Advisor between
1977 and 1981, the only high official post Brzezinski reached,
said he "helped me set vital foreign policy goals, was a source of stimulation for the departments
of defense and state, and everyone valued his opinion." Of Carter's three claims, only the first
is true; the second is ironic hyperbole; the third is completely false. If Carter cannot tell the
truth now about Brzezinski, after having 36 years to reflect on it, Carter reveals the principal
source of Brzezisnki's power, when he exercised it. For Carter was no innocent ventriloquized by
the evil Svengali (lead image, left), as in the original Svengali tale. Carter was simply more mendacious
than Brzezinski, and is entirely to blame for doing what Brzezinski told him to do.
Brzezinski was an obsessive Russia-hater from the beginning to the end. That led to the monumental
failures of Carter's term in office; the hatreds Brzezinski released had an impact which continues
to be catastrophic for the rest of the world.
Carter and Brzezinski in Carter's study, six weeks into the presidential term - April 19,
1977.
To Brzezinski goes the credit for starting the organization, financing and armament of the mujahideen,
the Islamic fundamentalists who have metastasized - with US money and arms still - into Islamic terrorist
armies operating far from Afghanistan and Pakistan, where Brzezinski started them off. Only today,
Russia – the target of Brzezinski's scheming - is relatively better prepared and safer from the terrorists
than the countries of western Europe and the US itself.
To Brzezinski also goes the credit for projecting Iran on to its nuclear-armed path against the
Great Satan and US allies in the Middle East, making the sunni-shia sectarian division into a cause
of international war which it was not, before Brzezinski began. That it was not is due to the power
of the secular Arab leaders to sustain an alternative to religion for governance. Brzezinski's idea
was to target them as Kremlin stooges and overthrow them. To Brzezinski also goes the credit for
releasing Israeli ambition under Menachem Begin and his successors on the Israeli right; the promotion
of Egyptian corruption and weakness under Anwar Sadat and his successors; and the destruction of
the Palestinians.
Left: Sadat standing up, with Begin and Carter at the signing of the Camp David accords, September
17, 1978. Right, Sadat's downfall in Cairo at the Egyptian Army's annual victory parade, October
6, 1981.
In Carter's obituary, he also gives Brzezinski the credit for "an essential role" in two other
achievements Carter still claims for himself: "normalization of relations with China [and the] signing
of the SALT II treaty." Carter is exaggerating the little he did, after his predecessors Richard
Nixon and Gerald Ford had initiated and negotiated the terms for both. Carter says nothing about
his failure to influence the course of US nuclear weapon designs that continue to evolve unhindered,
and the schemes of first-strike war-fighting against both Russia and China which are virtual, if
not quite stated US policy today.
Apart from the reference Carter makes first to his wife Rosalynn's views, there is no illumination.
In 1977 Rosalynn Carter had different views from her husband's, but regarding Brzezinski and others
in the Carter White House, she never dared to express them in public. On pain of instant dismissal
nor did anyone else in the White House then. And there were no leaks.
Rosalynn and Jimmy Carter, February 1979.
If not for Carter, Brzezinski would have remained the marginal voice he was before and after the
four-year Carter term. From the start of that term, in the first six months of 1977, Carter was also
warned explicitly by his own staff, inside the White House and working on his confidential instruction,
not to allow Brzezinski to dominate his policy-making to the exclusion of all other advice, and the
erasure of the evidence on which the advice was based.
I know this because I was a member of the staff in those days. I know because I drafted the terms
of a series of staff investigations which Carter requested and then authorized of how the advice
he was receiving at his desk was influencing the choices and policy options he had to decide – memoranda
from the cabinet departments, briefs from the intelligence agencies, and commentaries from different
elements of the White House organization itself.
The investigation of two of Brzezinski's policy recommendations to Carter was assigned to a US
Airforce officer on secondment to the White House staff at the time,
Len Vernamonti ;and to
me. We were part of a group of 25 titled the President's Reorganization Project (PRP). Our offices
were in the New Executive Office Building, the red-brick structure across the street from the State,
War and Navy Building, aka the Old Executive Office Building (OEOB); in Mark Twain's epithet, the
ugliest building in America. Twain was referring to what the inhabitants of the building did, not
to the exterior or interior decoration, which was grand. Brzezinski's staff operated in the OEOB.
He himself, like his predecessors, kept his own office in the West Wing of the White House, diagonally
across the lobby from the Oval Office and Carter's personal study.
The PRP, a Carter election campaign invention unprecedented in White House history, had the job
of preparing a study for the president on how his White House operations might be organized to expand
his policy choices, enlarge the evidence available for him to read – Carter was very keen on reading
- anticipate consequences, and curb bureaucratic empire building outside the Oval Office. The staff
had mostly come, as had I, from Carter's campaign advisors. Major Vernamonti, as he was then, had
come to the PRP by secondment and by chance.
The idea of reorganization at the top of the US government bureaucracy wasn't novel; it most often
accompanied incoming presidents whose party had been out of office for a long time and who wanted
to purge non-loyalists and find jobs for their own people. But the idea of opening up the president's
files and reassessing the decisions he had made in his first six months had never been attempted
before.
Military, intelligence and foreign policy topics were off-limits because of the classification
and security clearances required, so the PRP focused on domestic policymaking. In organizational
management terms, they amounted to the same thing. We compiled a list of topics for investigation
from among the public and private priorities of the new administration; Carter was asked to select
which he wanted us to study. About 30 topics were selected; two were assigned to each of a dozen
two-man teams. By Carter's order, we had authority to open all files, including those of the National
Security Council (NSC). Bzezinski didn't like that; he resisted; he lost the first round
The subjects of the Brzezinski investigation remain classified. It's exactly 40 years since I
last saw the papers. They were secret at the time, but there was a deeper, darker secret.
When Vernamonti and I had written up our two reports, we concluded that Brzezinski had been deliberately
and systematically misinforming and misleading Carter in his policy memoranda. He withheld evidence;
mistook or misrepresented what other officials and their agencies were saying; and manipulated the
decision and action tails of his memoranda, so that Carter would think he had little option but to
do what Brzezinski told him to choose. Our job, Carter had told us when we commenced work, was to
spot the fox in the hen house, and warn him before there were fatal consequences. He had been a Navy
officer and a submariner; also the Georgia State governor. So he knew about the pathologies of command
and control; he also knew about fatal consequences. But neither he nor we anticipated that the fox
would turn out to be Brzezinski, nor the chicken turn out to be Carter himself.
No president had ever been presented with such a stark analysis of his own reading of papers and
his own decision-making. I knew that because I had consulted with senior White House staff directors
going back to Franklin Roosevelt's time.
The recommendations Vernamonti and I drew from the decision-making research were revolutionary.
We proposed that Carter retain a personal national security advisor with a staff restricted to sub-advisors
amounting to less than a score. The large NSC bureaucracy, growing across the driveway in the OEOB,
was to be broken up and returned to the mainline departments. Our idea was that the National Security
Advisor would be restricted to being just that – an advisor in a staff function. Line command and
control, which McGeorge Bundy started with President John Kennedy in 1961, and Henry Kissinger perfected
under Richard Nixon between 1969 and 1975, was to be halted because it encouraged a government-wide
war for the president's mind, which usually ended badly – not for the advisor but for the president.
There were more than 300 pages in the final PRP report, including the executive summary and the
recommendations, plus the case studies. Brzezinski got early warning of the studies, and then received
the drafts, plus a copy of the cover memorandum with recommendations. He saw at once the danger,
and went to work on our superiors. The upshot was that on the weekend before our staff was due to
present the report to Carter at a White House meeting, and answer his questions, Vernamonti and I
were called in to an urgent meeting with the PRP leader, and his superior, Harrison Wellford.
Like several of us on the staff, Wellford was a Harvard graduate, with an equable, jocular Massachusetts
manner of dealing in tight spots. He describes his background on the Carter campaign and then on
the presidential transition team of 1976
here . But on the day
Wellford called Vernamonti and me into his office, Wellford was not his usual self. He made clear
that Brzezinski was furious, and would not allow our conclusions to go to Carter. Wellford himself
didn't disagree with the evidence or the findings. He didn't disagree with the recommendations either,
he said. But he lacked the power to fight Brzezinski with Carter, he conceded.
In his encomium on Brzezinski's death, Carter said last Friday: "Having studied Zbig's impressive
background and his scholarly and political writings, I called on him to advise me on foreign policy
issues during my first presidential campaign. I liked him immediately, and we developed an excellent
personal relationship." That much is true. Carter also remembers: "He was brilliant, dedicated, and
loyal." From the Harvard point of view, the first adjective was unexceptional – there are hundreds
and thousands of "brilliant" Harvard graduates; about a dozen of them in the Carter White House.
But dedicated and loyal Brzezinski was solely to himself – not to Carter nor the presidency he had
been elected to run. Brzezinski's choices were among the reasons Carter was defeated in the landslide
election of November 1980.
But that's getting ahead of our little tale. Wellford told Vernamonti and me he had no choice
but to give us strict orders for the meeting scheduled the following week with Carter. Our case studies
might, he said, be included in the tabs to the PRP briefing book we would present to the president.
But the conclusions, and the recommendations for reform of the National Security Council, would be
eliminated. Then Wellford added an ultimatum: Vernamonti and I would be allowed to sit at the meeting
with Carter. But we were to say nothing unless Carter spoke to us. If that happened, we were not
to mention our recommendations on Brzezinski. If we did that, we would both be fired instantly. That
would have meant the end of Vernamonti's airforce career.
Wellford added this was a secret we were not to tell to anyone.
The upshot was this. Wellford, plus the PRP team leader (a Georgian like Carter whose name I've
forgotten), the others on our staff; Vernamonti and I met with Carter to present our report. The
meeting took place in the Cabinet Room. Vernamonti and I sat to the right of our superiors; Carter
was across the table, his back to the windows. Brzezinski was present, along with other senior White
House staff advisors of the day. The big briefing book lay in front of the president. He spoke of
congratulations for the originality and painstaking work we had done, and promised to read every
word. He asked questions, but not of Vernamonti or me. We stayed shtum. We walked out keeping our
jobs, as did everyone else, especially Brzezinski.
Our defeat stayed secret for years. Ours was not the nail for want of which the shoe was lost,
the horse, the knight, the battle, etc. There were many other nails, shoes, horses and knights lost,
starting with Secretary of State Cyrus Vance, but he died in 2002 without telling as much as he could
and should have done. Carter, however, did lose his kingdom, ignominiously. That still stings with
him. Vernamonti (pictured recently, below left) went on to a brilliant USAF career, managing the
purse which paid for US ballistic missile programs. Wellford (right) has managed the legal side of
some of the largest energy businesses in the US.
Many years later, after the New York Times reported how thorough and effective Carter's reorganization
of the White House had been, I responded with a letter detailing part of the Brzezinski record of
1977. I omitted Vernamonti's name, in case he was still in the Air Force; I included Wellford's.
The letter was cued to be published, according to a Times editor who telephoned to check a couple
of name-spellings and dates. But the letter never appeared. I was told by the Times that in advance
of publication, Brzezinski was shown the text, and he commanded that it not appear. The newspaper
did what it was told.
Brzezinski is not the only Russia-hater of extraction from the minor Polish nobility to make a
career of his monomania. For more of what he and Carter failed to achieve in Syria, read
this ; and in Ukraine,
this . For the other Polish monomaniac of recent times, Radoslaw Sikorski, read
more .
Brzezinski is the only national security advisor in American history to succeed at mesmerizing
his president into singing his songs, as the character of
Svengali did to Trilby O'Ferrall,
an Irish working girl, in the best-selling novel of 1894 by George du Maurier.
Carter is mesmerized still. Without Carter, Brzezinski would have remained an inconsequential
academic among many contending to be heard. Carter gave the power of the White House stage to Brzezinski's
voice. The ruin which has followed is Brzezinski's evil, but the evil-doing, that's Carter's fault.
Mika, his daughter, continues the Deep State work, in the MSM. And advisor Brzezinski wasn't
the only cold warrior around in those days. Senator McCain carries that torch still, from the
Hanoi Hilton.
Right you are. This woman is truly dangerous, sporting her famous name and spewing her hateful,
disruptive prattle, esp. due to her pairing with the faux-Republican Scarborough, who himself
is a bizarre combination of neocon and progressive.
Well, around 1963, the Deep State would be the super-rich families who called the shots, notably
through such minions as Allen Dulles, (his cousin) Tracy Barnes, McGeorge Bundy, and a slew of
others. Those richest families at that time were the Rockefeller, DuPont, Morgan, Harriman (Poindexter),
Cabot (and Lodge), Forbes, Mellon and a few others.
Remember, please, the Blackstone Group was founded by Rockefeller protégé, Peter G. Peterson,
with Rockefeller seed money.
The Carlyle Group was started by David Rubenstein (nephew of a dude named Jacob Rubenstein,
before he changed his name to Jack Ruby) and Frank Carlucci, former CIA dude, with seed money
from the Mellon family.
Presently, one of the largest or more powerful of the private intel contractors, Booz Allen
Hamilton is owned by the Carlyle Group, last time I checked. Carlyle also owned ARINC for quite
a few years, yielding incredible corporate intel from such as they!
So Robert Scheer, who wrote this book ("They Know Everything About You") where he remarked
a bit on Palantir (started by Peter Thiel, primarily with CIA contracts, now a private intel company),
and pondered in his book how Thiel came to know Richard Perle, who steered Thiel into Adm. Poindexter
for those CIA (Total Infomration Awareness-like) CIA contracts?
Of course, Scheer is used to robotically repeating CIA disinformation stuff so is unable to
pursue simple investigative reporting techniques which would have yielded that Peter Thiel sat
on the board of "American Friends of Bilderberg, Inc." (according to their 990 tax forms) along
with Richard Perle (from whence he knew him, 'natch!) and David Rockefeller and Henry Kissinger,
etc.
I trust I have added to your worldly sophistication?
You know you are in, when you are in the Carlyle Group. Not just the founders like the Bush
family, but neo-libs like the Clintons. I am sure the Obama crime family will be invited into
that exclusive private country club, if they continue to play ball the CIA way.
When you are the law, like the Nixon presidency, there is no need to file, your taxable income
is whatever you say it is. The Deep State is that part of the organized crime syndicate, that
is not only beyond morality, but beyond its own faux law (that it enforces against the uppity
ones).
Yes, I think thats overstating it. But it was certainly during the Carter era that the notion
of setting the secular (Iraq) and Sunni States against Iran became policy – albeit after the Iranian
Revolution. And of course it was during this period that it became someones bright idea that providing
arms to extreme islamacists was a good strategy. I doubt they consciously decided to set sunni
against shia, but that was one result.
But ultimately of course much of the problems in the middle east can be traced to the failure
of the West to support secular States for Cold War reasons. Brutal and all as Assad (Sr) and Hussein
were, they kept the lid on religious tension and were a vital counterbalance to the Gulf theocracies.
And of course the CIA removed a genuinely popular reformist President in Iran in favour of a dictator.
Helmer is right that the monomaniacal obsession with blocking the USSR caused all sorts of unnecessary
bloodshed and chaos in the Middle East and Asia, although its overstretching it I think to blame
so much on Brzezinski.
And its not all hindsight. I keep going back to Graham Greene's novel 'The Quiet American'
from 1955 as an explanation for why so many supposedly smart foreign policy wonks could cause
such havoc. Read that one book and so much becomes clear.
Yes, ideological hatred of the soviets was clearly present at least as far back as the truman
admin when nsc-68 was published. That was a break from the original, limited idea of george kennan's'
containment' policy.
A 1976 Slavic Review article by Wright, "Mr. X and containment" is useful for pointing out
that Kennan's recommendations were contradictory. While he was nominally arguing for a less alarmed
(aka victimized anticommunist) position, the strategy of containment was still pitched at confrontation,
and was very cut off from the possibilities of cooperation that were in the Yalta air. Kennan's
idea that Russia would, like a wind-up toy, pursue an expansionist policy based on "military industrialization"
was, in my view, an ideological spew by someone already submerged in it. Nowhere does Kennan encourage
serious consideration of the possibility that the Soviets might have reason to feel threatened,
"existentially," when they looked to the west, and for reasons having nothing to do with their
by then desiccated Bolshevism.
Nowhere does Kennan encourage serious consideration of the possibility that the Soviets
might have reason to feel threatened, "existentially," when they looked to the west ..
Everybody has reasons.
Given Allied intervention in Russia during and immediately after WWI against the Soviets, the
Soviets absolutely had reason to feel threatened existentially.
But also given the many millions of deaths under Stalin's regime, the West had reason to feel
threatened existentially after WWII.
And also given the centuries-long histories of Polish-Russian wars, with Poland once occupying
Moscow and later Russia controlling much of Poland in the 19th as well as in the 20th century
- and factoring in Lenin's plan to expand the Soviet regime westwards by occupying Poland which
led to the Polish-Soviet War of 1918-19 and the agreement between Stalin and Hitler that let the
USSR occupy Poland in 1939 (which included the Katyn massacre) - the Poles have reasons to feel
threatened by the Russians.
Brzezinski's strange, maniacal hatred of Russians isn't strange and maniacal given that history.
For that matter, given the Soviet occupation of Hungary, during the Cold War Hungarians like John
von Neumann and Edward Teller had reason for their strange, maniacal hatred of the Russians.
So while it's tiresome for the rest of us to deal with the attitudes of the Poles - including
Brzezinski - and the other peoples who live in the territories adjoining Russia, the historical
truth is that Russia - whether as Muscovy, the Russian empire, or the Soviet Union - has a many
centuries-long history of being heavy-handed with its neighbors.
The hideousness of U.S. behavior in Latin America - and we can all agree it is hideous - is
comparable, but arguably not even in the same league as the way the Russians have historically
- and in the memory of some still living - treated their neighbors.
But did Brzezinski hate Russia because of the history of what it's done to Poland, or because
the Soviets deprived his family of their cushy aristocratic existence? At this point I'm not particularly
inclined to think that toffs as a general rule view their lower-class countrymen as anything other
than tools to serve and enrich themselves.
Excellent points, reminded me of a blog posting I'd read years ago at Economic Populist (not
recommended, but occasionally one or two things would pop through):
Except for Israel (that area was always weird due to distance from major powers*), the maps
of the modern Middle East are strangely reminiscent of the old Ottoman provinces. The blaming
of colonial powers is true in Africa where ocean going vessels altered what the colonial powers
could achieve versus local powers, but the problem in the Middle East is the ability of foreign
powers to influence and prop up poor governments who wouldn't otherwise be able to survive and
weaken more stable governments. The Saudis and Israelis act boorish because they can go hide behind
the U.S. whenever things get too hot.
*Jerusalem is the last place a major player could fortify before being forced to invade another
major player in pre-modern days due to water concerns. This is why Jews exist. Jerusalem is too
important to not fortify but is too distant and rural to bother with too, giving the locals a
culture that appropriated everything but could never truly be overwhelmed. A Jerusalem sized city
closer to the Nile would become Egyptian, and a city closer to Persepolis would become Persian
through natural trade and extension of power. If Jerusalem wasn't a dependable city, no one would
care.
The blaming of colonial powers is true in Africa where ocean going vessels altered what
the colonial powers could achieve versus local powers,
Ocean-going vessels but also the machine gun. As Hilaire Belloc wrote: Whatever happens, we have got.
The Maxim gun, and they have not
When the first machine guns appeared circa 1860 much of Africa's interior remained unmapped
and terra incognito to the Europeans. By 1915, conversely, every territory in Africa - except
for Ethiopia - was not only mapped but a colonial possession of one or another of the European
powers.
Yes, and if one thinks long enough – it seems that many problems we are dealing with today
can be traced directly to the so called British empire (including the divide and conquer strategy
the Brits so skillfully employed). The empire only lasted 200+ yrs, but we'll be cleaning up its
messes for the next 500.
And a bit of mittel Europa humour on ZB's escapades: when you let a goat go free, she'll go ice
skating
Incidentally,
this article by Andrew Hobbs in Warisboring gives on explanation for why the blob doesn't
actually care if its cultivation of Sunni extremists causes terrorism blowback:
Again, most of this is increasingly well-known, but conventional wisdom seems to think that
Saudi extremism and terror ties are contradictory to the United States' interests in supporting
the regime. But it's contradictory only if terrorism poses a strategic threat to the West-it
does not.
Quite simply, terrorism in Europe or the US simply doesn't bother the Blob – its not a strategic
issue, and they love to think of themselves as big strategic thinkers, too important to worry
about mundane issues like civilian deaths. Terrorism works well for them – its not a real threat
and every bomb blowing up tweens going to a concert just results in more money going to the securicracy.
Sunni-Shia divide happened when Mohammed died. As for countries like Iraq, that would be the
Ottomans who exacerbated that particular rift, themselves being Sunni.
What an important piece of history this is. Thank you John Helmer and NC for the post. It's
of critical importance for understanding why the geopolitical chessboard looks the way it does
today, including US-created "Islamic extremism" tool that has since grown and morphed and escaped
into the "wild".
I wonder if Carter will ever learn how the crucial report contents were hijacked by Zbig at
the last moment.
Interesting to learn of Rosalyn Carter's concerns. Is more info available about this?
With regard to Radek Sikorski, there is some dispute as to whether he really is (minor) nobility.
At Oxford, where he became friends with Alex (aka Boris) Johnson and David Cameron, including
being initiated into the Bullingdon Club (or the Buller as members call it), one British journalist,
author (of How To Lose Friends And Alienate People) and free / charter school "entrepreneur" said
there was something improbable and even impostor-ish about Sikorski, including claims of nobility
and being related to the Polish WW2 general of the same name. The hack said that Sikorski would
probably be unmasked as an encyclopaedia salesman from a hick town in the US.
A few years ago, at a City reception, I met a UBS banker who is in the well known picture of
the Bullingdon Club with Johnson and Cameron. Sikorski and his wife, the so-called journalist
Anne Applebaum, were riding high in the UK media /establishment at the time, and still do to a
lesser extent, and have made enough money bashing Russia to be able to send their two sons to
Eton. The banker expressed unease then about Sikorski and his Russia bashing, as if Sikorski and
Applebaum were not quite kosher and trying to ingratiate themselves with the rich and powerful.
Apparently, General Wojciech Jaruzelski was also minor nobility. There's a lot of this pretence
about, including the pair in London and NYC who milk having the same surname as the Rothschilds.
The UK's current Home Secretary (minister for law and order) once ran a firm that supplied upper
class extras to film productions (e.g. Four Weddings And A Funeral) and anyone who wanted to pretend
having upper class connections.
Thanks for that insight, Col. You mention Anne Applebaum – I used to marvel a few years ago
at her writings in Slate magazine and wonder how someone who knew so little about the topics she
wrote about could get such good writing gigs.
Jimmy Carter's mainstream hagiography has been pretty much set in positive stone -- the 'aw shucks'
president who meant well and did what he could, not the naive outsider who let other forces co-opt
his foreign policy.
Like that presidential directive utilizing Saudi "help" in shipping Wahabist Islamic extremists
to the northern border of Afghanistan and the old Soviet Union to raise hell and incite rebellion?
Eventual outcome: 9/11/01!
Or Carter's abolishing federal anti-usury regulations?
Or his deregulation of the natural gas industry (involving firing the head of the National
Geological Survey, if I recall the proper career scientist he fired, because the fellow admitted
to the press when asked that there wasn't any natural gas shortage), airlines industry and trucking?
Or . . .
(In all honesty, though, I did respect his daughter Amy Carter - I thought she was the Real
Deal!)
Alas, we have seen other hen house foxes besides Bzig . Kissinger, Albright, even the adorable
HRC, in administrations wherein the Rooster turned out to be the Hen.
I believe Carter knows. It's part of his post-Presidency motivation. "The Simpsons" famously
called Carter "History's greatest monster. " The two guys who crafted that scene and joke knew
what a crummy President he was. I doubt it's been lost on Carter.
That's a tall order for Brzezinski which I'm sure he played a significant role. Stephen Gowans has an interesting new book out 'Washington's Long War on Syria' which is recommended
by Eva Bartlett.
""If there were any references in Western media to the Assad government's commitment to the
Ba'ath Arab Socialist Party's values of freedom from foreign domination, state direction, planning
and control of the economy, and working toward the unity of the Arab nation, I'm not aware of
them.""
""The thesis of this book is that Wall Street's war on Syria was motivated by the same aim:
the de-Ba'athification of Syria and the elimination of secular Arab nationalist influence from
the Syrian state, as a means of expunging the Arab nationalist threat to U.S. hegemony.""
---–
We support corrupt states like Saudi Arabia that buy our arms and let us exploit their natural
resources and are favorable to our banks and oil companies but don't tolerate states that are
more interested in being free of American imperialism such as Libya, Iran, Iraq and Syria.
This could be said to have been set in motion after World War I when the Arab nation was carved
up into individual countries separated by borders drawn in imperial map rooms.
Military strategy (no matter what country): divide and conquer.
Intelligence agencies help to pave that way.
They Sykes-Picot Treaty was the source of the "creative" map drawing post-WWI.
A couple of the highlights being the creation of "Syria" (resources for France) and "Iraq" (resources
for Britain).
After WWI, it's been written that the "Arabs" really felt the USA would help them get the fairest
deal. They should have taken a real hard look at the Philipines and Cuba, countries the USA helped
against Spain.
France's former president Valery Giscard d'Estaing is related to Picot. One of his grandmothers,
Genevieve, was Picot's sister.
The Giscard family, who adopted the aristocratic d'Estaing name to the disgust of the descendants
of the d'Estaing family, had business interests in Syria. The family had interests in former colonies
by way of their (former) ownership of Club Med. Some of them came to Mauritius when Club Med opened
in Albion, near where I spend the festive season.
Another family that had colonial business interests are the Levy, including Bernard-Henri and
Justine. BHL cashed out to Vincent Bollore before he destroyed the company and used the EUR 200m
pay off to fund his political playboy lifestyle that included, briefly, plans for a philosophy
magazine in Afghanistan.
Re: "a philosophy magazine in Afghanistan"? Seriously? How quintessentially French,
and absolutely the best idea evah. Thanks so much for making my day!
He is one of the very few writing today that can be trusted to give a truthful and thorough
analysis of geopolitical events, and to stick to the known facts.
TheCatSaid
For those not yet following George Webb's YouTube, he's unraveling and exposing a number of
interwoven illegal enterprises ("rat lines"). He's today revealed he's had assistance from insiders
in French, Dutch and Serbian intelligence among others, and insiders in US agencies as well. Names
have been named, lots of specifics coming out each day. What's the connection to Helmer's post
here? Webb today described the foulness of the intelligence agency activities in recent years
as having originated with Brzezinsky, with things becoming steadily more foul since then, but
in a direction, mindset and way of operating that Brzezinsky had created.
Webb also makes a side comment about Brzezinsky's cause of death not being disclosed. He mentions
it was a murder, and wonders aloud if it was because he'd had a recent change of heart and was
about to tell prior secrets.
I've never read the book The Grand Chessboard by Brzezinski, but my understanding is that it
outlines the policy of containment of the Eurasian landmass which seems to be the US position
at this time. Quite foolhardy in my opinion.
In Carter's defense, he has gone on the record and stated that the US today is now an oligarchy.
Not exactly a "pass the buck" statement by a former president. He knows he got played by the Iranian
hostage crisis and the dirty tricks of the Reagan campaign/CIA head William Casey. I think he
believes he took one for the team(America), hence his dedication to charitable causes all these
years as atonement for his mistakes.
Political Ponerology by Lobachewski. Zbig did stymie its publication according to the author.
Zbig, was like many of our powerful, also a war criminal.
Great to have Helmer's insight into the history. Carter needs to address it, and Brzezinski's
recent change of heart as well:
The main architect of Washington's plan to rule the world has abandoned the scheme and called
for the forging of ties with Russia and China. While Zbigniew Brzezinski's article in The American
Interest titled "Towards a Global Realignment" has largely been ignored by the media, it shows
that powerful members of the policymaking establishment no longer believe that Washington will
prevail in its quest to extent US hegemony across the Middle East and Asia.
contrary to what is taught by the traditional left in America, Iranians widely believe that
it was Carter's decision to get rid of the Shah and install the islamic regime which would fit
with the general pattern in the middle east. they also believe that it was british agents who
spurred the unrest. All this "backlash from Mossadeg in the 50's" narrative is not held by actual
iranians at all
"... Facism predates WWI in Italy; Benito Mussolini brought it to the fore around 1919 and on into WWII ..."
"... The historian Zeev Sternhell has traced the ideological roots of fascism back to the 1880s, and in particular to the fin de sičcle theme of that time. ..."
"... The fin-de-sičcle mindset saw civilization as being in a crisis that required a massive and total solution.[70] The fin-de-sičcle intellectual school considered the individual only one part of the larger collectivity, which should not be viewed as an atomized numerical sum of individuals.[70] They condemned the rationalistic individualism of liberal society and the dissolution of social links in bourgeois society.[70] ..."
Lea, spot on comment; a small quibble though. Facism predates WWI in Italy; Benito Mussolini brought it to the fore around 1919 and on into
WWII. I haven't been able to source its origins yet.
In any event; keep on keeping on...
The historian Zeev Sternhell has traced the ideological roots of fascism back to the 1880s, and
in particular to the fin de sičcle theme of that time.[68][69] The theme was based on a revolt
against materialism, rationalism, positivism, bourgeois society and democracy.[70] The fin-de-sičcle
generation supported emotionalism, irrationalism, subjectivism and vitalism.[71]
The fin-de-sičcle
mindset saw civilization as being in a crisis that required a massive and total solution.[70]
The fin-de-sičcle intellectual school considered the individual only one part of the larger collectivity,
which should not be viewed as an atomized numerical sum of individuals.[70] They condemned the
rationalistic individualism of liberal society and the dissolution of social links in bourgeois
society.[70]
I've learned not to trust Wiki 100%; but I'll cross reference this later.
"... Facism predates WWI in Italy; Benito Mussolini brought it to the fore around 1919 and on into WWII ..."
"... The historian Zeev Sternhell has traced the ideological roots of fascism back to the 1880s, and in particular to the fin de sičcle theme of that time. ..."
"... The fin-de-sičcle mindset saw civilization as being in a crisis that required a massive and total solution.[70] The fin-de-sičcle intellectual school considered the individual only one part of the larger collectivity, which should not be viewed as an atomized numerical sum of individuals.[70] They condemned the rationalistic individualism of liberal society and the dissolution of social links in bourgeois society.[70] ..."
Lea, spot on comment; a small quibble though. Facism predates WWI in Italy; Benito Mussolini brought it to the fore around 1919 and on into
WWII. I haven't been able to source its origins yet.
In any event; keep on keeping on...
The historian Zeev Sternhell has traced the ideological roots of fascism back to the 1880s, and
in particular to the fin de sičcle theme of that time.[68][69] The theme was based on a revolt
against materialism, rationalism, positivism, bourgeois society and democracy.[70] The fin-de-sičcle
generation supported emotionalism, irrationalism, subjectivism and vitalism.[71]
The fin-de-sičcle
mindset saw civilization as being in a crisis that required a massive and total solution.[70]
The fin-de-sičcle intellectual school considered the individual only one part of the larger collectivity,
which should not be viewed as an atomized numerical sum of individuals.[70] They condemned the
rationalistic individualism of liberal society and the dissolution of social links in bourgeois
society.[70]
I've learned not to trust Wiki 100%; but I'll cross reference this later.
"... Brzezinski was the godfather of al-Qaeda and similar groups. ..."
"... As National Security Advisor of U.S. President Jimmy Carter Brzezinski devised the strategy of using religiously motivated radical militants against secular governments and their people. He sent Saudi financed Wahhabi nuts to fight the government of Afghanistan before the USSR intended to send its military in support that government. His policy of rallying Jihadis (vid) caused millions of death. ..."
"... I long recall the Soviet embassy sending an official letter across town - Washington - to point out that one day the U S would bitterly regret having instigated religious fundamentalism as a weapon against Soviet secularism in central asia . Reading of this all those years ago I had a feeling of great foreboding . ..."
"... He just expanded its use outside of the Middle East and made it far more visible and militant. It had already been used against the secular states in the Middle East such as Egypt under Nasser with the assistance of Saudi Arabia. ..."
"... As to Zbigboy, the chessboard was his manifesto on divide-and-conquer and playing groups of peoples against each other. It is also a mate of Kissinger (PNAC, etc) that no state or group should be allowed to rise to dominate or influence a region. ..."
"... The USG has been backing gibbering Wahabi lunatics, easily the source of 90% of "Muslim" terrorism, against secular Arab governments since the Eisenhower Administration. ..."
"... Burying Brzezinski and Kissinger does not end ANYTHING. They (and their ilk) leave behind a thoroughly and profoundly sick U.S. and western states loaded with new generations of psychopaths. In fact, getting rid of every last psychopath in ANY western government (parliament) fixes nothing because the organizations themselves ensure that new psychopaths will quickly bubble to the top. ..."
"... Indeed, beginning in the second half of America's 20th century up until now, one can see Nietzsche's maxim about fighting monsters being played out and revealing the greatness of his thought. This has culminated in such a way that Lavrov even said that America media has become remniscent of the Soviet Pravda. No argument here. ..."
"... He was definitely not an architect of American deep state. That was not his job. He was an architect of American Empire's foreign policy of global hegemony. Like Kissinger and Wolfowitz. ..."
"... Perhaps it worth noting that in Brzez's last year he basically retracted the thesis that he presented in The Great Chessboard . See this counterpunch article by Mike Whitney. Brzez was realistic enough to see that breaking up the China-Russia-Iran alliance was not going to work and maybe we should do deals with them ..."
"... Brzezinski was a diseased, psychopathic human being that - through the mechanisms of the state - caused unimaginable pain and suffering throughout the world (directly or indirectly) because of his psychopathy. Not by himself, of course. The guy should have been contained and treated like the diseased person he was, not elevated to positions as a diplomat or counselor to national leaders. A healthy society should shun psychopaths, not bumble along oblivious to the harm they cause. ..."
"... 'In fact, getting rid of every last psychopath in ANY western government (parliament) fixes nothing because the organizations themselves ensure that new psychopaths will quickly bubble to the top.' ..."
"... There's people with weird, dangerous or maybe 'psychopathic' leanings in every country and every society, they're part of humanity. But when they 'systematically' get to positions of influence and power, there's something wrong with said system: It seems to reward individual psychopathology, rather than humanism and cooperation. ..."
"... Zbig was an intelligent guy for sure, and it's not easy to replace someone like him. But his teachings will cause trouble for another while - afaik, there is no effective counter-strategy yet, or is there? Can a government win against fundamentalist militants with limited violence, e.g. by isolating them and exposing their inhumane regime? ..."
"... His worst crime, with Carter, IMO, was trying successfully to manipulate the U.S.S.R. to invade Afghanistan. All of Carter's outrage over the invasion was a lot of baloney. They were not exactly being the friends of Afghanistan they pretended to be. This was worse then later arming the jihadists. ..."
"... The funny/ interesting thing is how this US/ western control over the rest of the world is habitually described by code expressions such as 'maintaining the international order' or 'stabilize global order'. ..."
"... It's all about bullshit + bullying. Luxuriously-funded think/spin tanks make up the bullshit and feed it to people in the MSM capable of bullying (and diminishing the reputation of) persuasive critics of the bullshit. ..."
"... While I agree with you that he should "burn in hell" he hardly devised anything. With his background and cold war at the time, he was useful idiot for Americans and his masters. And there is plenty of them in each administration. Trump has one, some idiot from Hungary. Brzezinski's "strategy" was simply copied from the others mainly from Nazis, just as was pretty much everything else. If you read a book from Ian Johnson https://www.amazon.com/Mosque-Munich-Nazis-Muslim-Brotherhood/dp/0547423179 that should be clear. ..."
"... Ian Johnson mentioned in one of its clip a guy from Eisenhower's administration, "devoted catholics" (per IJ) who devised this strategy, and yet again that strategy simply was inherited from the Nazi who used it to fight Soviets. ..."
"... On deep state - it first manifested itself in the open when JFK was assassinated - preceding ZB. But he became a visible part of it, no question. There is something wrong with the way humans manage power. ..."
The ruthless U.S. imperialist Zbigniew Brzezinski died last night. Good riddance. Brzezinski
was the godfather of al-Qaeda and similar groups.
As National Security Advisor of U.S. President Jimmy Carter Brzezinski devised the strategy
of using religiously motivated radical militants against secular governments and their people. He
sent Saudi financed Wahhabi nuts to fight the government of Afghanistan
before the USSR intended to send its military in support that government. His policy of
rallying Jihadis
(vid) caused millions of death. Brzezinski did not regret that:
What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet
empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?
Brzezinski hailed from a Polish nobility family in Galicia, now west Ukraine. (Galicia is, not
by chance, also the place of origin of today's Ukrainian neo-nazis.) The family fled Poland after
its German/Soviet partition and and the socialization of the vast nobility properties during and
after the second world war. Zbigniew Brzezinski hate of anything socialist and Russian derived from
that.
The 9/11 attacks, the war on Syria, the recent massacre in Manchester and the murder of 28 Copts
yesterday in Egypt are direct consequences of Brzezinski's "some stirred-up Moslems" strategy of
exporting revolutions . The growth of the fundamentalist Saudi Wahhabi creed,
a danger to all mankind , was prepared and propagated by him.
May he burn in hell - soon to be joined by the other
"total whore" and fellow war criminal Henry Kissinger,
Trouble is, it's not about an individual, it's about a system that relies on weapon sales and
fleecing the populations to survive, i.e, the global swamp. For instance, how on earth can anybody
with half a brain not know that Saudi Arabia is the matrix of Wahhabi-Salafi terror? When you
see Trump ignoring such common knowledge to push his weapons sales (and surrealistically faulting
Iran), you know that Wahhabi cutthroats will carry on being used by the CIA, you know that money
dictates how these swamp creatures see the world, and you know that one Brzezinski less will not
do anything to solve the problem.
It is a sick, psychopathic system. It's full of loonies like Brzezinski and unfit for humans.
BTW, that individual was a really nasty piece of work, but what about those who listened to him
when obviously, he belonged in a straitjacket?
I long recall the Soviet embassy sending an official letter across town - Washington - to
point out that one day the U S would bitterly regret having instigated religious fundamentalism
as a weapon against Soviet secularism in central asia . Reading of this all those years ago I
had a feeling of great foreboding .
As National Security Advisor of U.S. President Jimmy Carter Brzezinski devised the strategy
of using religiously motivated radical militants against secular governments and their people.
He just expanded its use outside of the Middle East and made it far more visible and militant.
It had already been used against the secular states in the Middle East such as Egypt under Nasser
with the assistance of Saudi Arabia.
Well said , concise and to the point. I bought his book The Grand Chessboard just before the Ukraine
coup and it as radical as his musings were, they did make much of the foreign policy of Clinton
& Obama. A prime point in the book other than establishing control of Central Asia was to also
prevent Russia, China and Iran from forming an anti American axis. Also mention of an EU without
Germany or France being obsolete.
Just a bit of biographical correction. Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth did not have formally hereditary
aristocracy, so while Brzezinskis are a "noble family" with a
Horns , this coat
of arms is shared by 332 families, some very powerful, and some, like Brzezinski's family, without
any estates. Grandfather of Brzezinski was a judge in Austrian empire and lived pretty much in
the center of Galicia, now in Poland very close to the boundary with Ukraine. Father of Brzezinski
was an officer during the wars with Galician Ukrainians (Western Ukrainian Republic) and Soviet
Union in 1918-1922, and later had a successful bureaucratic carrier, becoming Polish consul in
Montreal in 1937. There Zbigniew finish high school and studied at McGill University.
The link with pro-Nazi Ukrainian nationalists of western Ukraine is rather ambiguous. He surely
knew about them, why, his father was an officer fighting with these guys, and later they formed
a terrorist movement within Poland (that won the western Ukraine in 1918-22). Bandera made his
name by organizing a slaying of a Polish interior minister. And later "all of them" were anti-Communist
exiles in Canada.
One could credit Brzezinski in creating the policy of "humanitarian intervention". It de-emphasized
and reduced the support for the retrograde dictators in Latin America and focused on the nipping
of the "totalitarian menace" of the Soviet zone of influence. Supporting Islamic radicals in Afghanistan,
Sudan, Pakistan etc. was the best tool at hand (South African regime slugging it out with Marxist
movements in Portuguese Angola and Mozambique were not as good, plus, purely local in its capabilities).
Back in 1970-ties it did not look bad, in the retrospect, it was the most successful lipstick
brand launched in XX century (I live it as an open question who needs lipsticks in this context).
That was funny. I would like to see Team Bush buried under shithouses in Iraq too. At least
one Iraqi got to throw a shoe.
As to Zbigboy, the chessboard was his manifesto on divide-and-conquer and playing groups
of peoples against each other. It is also a mate of Kissinger (PNAC, etc) that no state or group
should be allowed to rise to dominate or influence a region.
Correct. The USG has been backing gibbering Wahabi lunatics, easily the source of 90% of
"Muslim" terrorism, against secular Arab governments since the Eisenhower Administration.
This is a big reason those secular Arab governments became dictatorships, what with the local
US Embassy constantly fomenting & instigating coups by GWL.
I wonder if Brzezinski or Kissinger ever read Lobaczewski et. al regarding psychopathy.
One of Lobaczewski's long-gone collaborators postulated that any organization opposing
a large, organizational pathocracy ('the west' vs. the Soviet state at the time) was itself
subject to becoming a pathocracy.
The idea wasn't one of infection, but more of the almost automatic tendency of an organization
to enable and empower its own psychopaths in an attempt to counter those of the other organization.
Initially, it's fighting fire with fire. But when the 'enemy' ceases to exist or be a threat,
you can't simply turn off your own state's psychopaths because they are most likely running the
place.
Burying Brzezinski and Kissinger does not end ANYTHING. They (and their ilk) leave behind
a thoroughly and profoundly sick U.S. and western states loaded with new generations of psychopaths.
In fact, getting rid of every last psychopath in ANY western government (parliament) fixes nothing
because the organizations themselves ensure that new psychopaths will quickly bubble to the top.
Lobaczewski's group was not JUST trying to explain why otherwise normal 'little people' turned
into psychopaths so readily in the (then) Soviet East. They were trying to understand why otherwise
good nations turned into something sick and evil themselves in the process of 'saving' another
nation from evil. Their magic cure was nothing more than awareness of the risk and basic prevention
- wash your damn hands after leaving the bathroom.
We have rid ourselves of Brzezinski but have done nothing to recognize the disease, much less
attempt any sort of remedy. We go back to our food preparation jobs after leaving the bathroom
hoping evil spirits will not randomly make our customers sick.
Brzezinski's passing has all the significance of driving by a random light post on a cross-country
trip.
I have no love for ZBig, but it is far from clear he is an "architect" of the American Deep State.
ZBig is exactly like the Libyan, Syrian, Afghan expats sheltered and fed by the US; they are just
the latest of a rogue's gallery of foreigners who are useful to American foreign policy.
Need a critical assessment of a government? Here's a "senior former official"
Need contacts into opposition parties? Here's an "oppressed minority".
Communists, Nazis, Jews, Muslims, Caucasian, Asian, African - all are available.
Not to say ZBig had no influence, but there's a big difference between running in front of
the pack and leading it. Freeland and cohorts in Canada are clearly leading. ZBig? Much less clear.
Indeed, beginning in the second half of America's 20th century up until now, one can see
Nietzsche's maxim about fighting monsters being played out and revealing the greatness of his
thought. This has culminated in such a way that Lavrov even said that America media has become
remniscent of the Soviet Pravda. No argument here.
I have no love for ZBig, but it is far from clear he is an "architect" of the American Deep
State.
He was definitely not an architect of American deep state. That was not his job. He was an
architect of American Empire's foreign policy of global hegemony. Like Kissinger and Wolfowitz.
Perhaps it worth noting that in Brzez's last year he basically retracted the thesis that he
presented in The Great Chessboard . See this
counterpunch article by Mike Whitney. Brzez was realistic enough to see that breaking up the
China-Russia-Iran alliance was not going to work and maybe we should do deals with them.
He seemed to realize that US policy to capture the central Asian republics in order to drive
a wedge between those those three civilizations was hopeless. This does not atone for his crimes
but does indicate that he had some grasp of reality. This last article was barely noted our MSM
which seems to be still clamoring for the Great Chessboard strategy.
hopehely@28 - No. Read my post again. His passing is INSIGNIFICANT in the larger scheme of things.
Nothing changes, nothing ends - the U.S. and the west haven't learned a thing. We remain in the
diseased, psychopathic state that he (as well as many others) ushered in. Many more like him will
follow. As always (at least in the U.S.) we will continue - with utter futility - to try to fix
everything with our horribly debased voting process and the thoroughly-rigged, useless 'laws'.
And we will continue to fail.
Brzezinski was a diseased, psychopathic human being that - through the mechanisms of the
state - caused unimaginable pain and suffering throughout the world (directly or indirectly)
because of his psychopathy. Not by himself, of course. The guy should have been contained
and treated like the diseased person he was, not elevated to positions as a diplomat or counselor
to national leaders. A healthy society should shun psychopaths, not bumble along oblivious to
the harm they cause.
The organization of the state should be somewhat self-aware of the effects of diseased people
like Brzezinski and protect and hopefully rid itself from that kind of influence. It can't (in
the U.S., anyway) because 'the state' is diseased itself and that disease is perpetuated through
psychopathic individuals inside that benefit from a diseased state. It's a self-reinforcing, symbiotic
relationship. Brzezinski's disease was a part of that. Once again, his death changed nothing.
"...you are just trying to suppress your schadenfreude..."
As far as his death on a personal level - I simply didn't know the guy. I assume he had family
and friends that will mourn his passing. Their pain makes me neither jolly nor happy. There is
no schadenfreude - I feel sad for them regardless of my thoughts about Brzezinski.
"...because gosh it is so totally inappropriate for a sophisticated and rational intellectual
to fell like that..."
Now you're accusing me of being 'a sophisticated and rational intellectual' ? Well...
there's certainly no reason to get nasty about it and call me names like that, you bastard!
@pw. 'In fact, getting rid of every last psychopath in ANY western government (parliament)
fixes nothing because the organizations themselves ensure that new psychopaths will quickly bubble
to the top.'
now you're talking. my only real quarrel with your 'psychopathic' analysis was its seeming
identification of a cabal of evil, demented individuals as the seat of the problem. i think this
is too 'interior' an analysis. we all have the potential to see ourselves as the driven agents
we are most of the time, but its a full-time job, and by definition 'success' is a statistical
measurement.
there is such a thing as society, regardless maggie thatcher's dictum, and individual humans
are suspended within it ... and often as oblivious to that fact as the proverbial fish are to
the water they swim and breathe in.
to master our societies requires our collective effort. unless and until we organize to do
so we'll continue spinning in our psychopathic gyre(s). what force on earth is weaker than the
feeble strength of one? but in union we might be strong.
i think it's the simple refusal to accept that our 'outside' contingencies are more than a
match for our 'inside' ones that's holding us back. we're all stuck in an imaginary world that
began with our individual births and will expire with our individual deaths. so the race is continually
reborn in 'magnificent' isolation, now fractured into 7 and a half billion pieces.
something has to be done about this for us to continue and collectively, we're the only ones
here to do it.
I think I agree with you, though I find the use of psychological & medicinal terminology in
political contexts rather problematic - it usually doesn't enhance comprehension imo.
There's people with weird, dangerous or maybe 'psychopathic' leanings in every country
and every society, they're part of humanity. But when they 'systematically' get to positions of
influence and power, there's something wrong with said system: It seems to reward individual psychopathology,
rather than humanism and cooperation.
Zbig was an intelligent guy for sure, and it's not easy to replace someone like him. But
his teachings will cause trouble for another while - afaik, there is no effective counter-strategy
yet, or is there? Can a government win against fundamentalist militants with limited violence,
e.g. by isolating them and exposing their inhumane regime?
@jfl
I think you misunderstand something here. It's (afaics) absolutely not about a 'cabal of evil,
demented individuals', almost on the contrary. But I like the picture of society as water surrounding
a fish - or the air around us, which we don't see nor think about and take for granted.
His worst crime, with Carter, IMO, was trying successfully to manipulate the U.S.S.R. to invade
Afghanistan. All of Carter's outrage over the invasion was a lot of baloney. They were not exactly
being the friends of Afghanistan they pretended to be. This was worse then later arming the jihadists.
The funny/ interesting thing is how this US/ western control over the rest of the world
is habitually described by code expressions such as 'maintaining the international order' or 'stabilize
global order'.
The US has been an expansionist country long before Zbig, cf. the Monroe Doctrine.
Just as Britain and other European colonial powers before...
But more specifically, I really found myself wondering if any effective strategy exists to
counter the deployment of jihadist militias against 'uncooperative' states. Other than overwhelming
military force. China has been fairly successful, but at the price of a very virulent anti-Uyghur
racism.
@Paveway
The funny/ interesting thing is how this US/ western control over the rest of the world is habitually
described by code expressions such as 'maintaining the international order' or 'stabilize global
order'.
...
Posted by: smuks | May 27, 2017 8:21:46 PM | 47
It's less complex/mysterious than it seems at first glance.
It's all about bullshit + bullying. Luxuriously-funded think/spin tanks make up the bullshit
and feed it to people in the MSM capable of bullying (and diminishing the reputation of) persuasive
critics of the bullshit.
My preferred classic example was the role of Thomas L Friedman in silencing critics of Bush
II's Iraq War. TLF accused them of Moral Equivalence and the Jew-controlled media made sure that
his bullying received superior publicity throughout the West.
It's easy to dismissively overlook the Jew-controlled media factor but the Jews, more than
any other interest group, needed control over Western Media to suppress the criminality of the
Israel Project and to whitewash it by flogging the Holocaust to death if anyone dared to mention
Jews and Genocide in the same sentence. And the Media Acquisition program was well underway before
WWII broke out.
@ Bob in Portland who suggested Trump release the still classified JFK files to protect himself
against the CIA Have you been smoking some of that early Obama Hopium again?
Trump is a wannnabe to the upper crust of elite in the middle of a dust up between them and
the newbies wanting to act like emperors.....and all is cover for more human suffering and repression
except for the core acolytes of the God of Mammon
And the CIA is a tool of the God of Mammon religion that does what it is told.
"As National Security Advisor of U.S. President Jimmy Carter Brzezinski devised the strategy of
using religiously motivated radical militants against secular governments and their people."
While I agree with you that he should "burn in hell" he hardly devised anything. With his
background and cold war at the time, he was useful idiot for Americans and his masters. And there
is plenty of them in each administration. Trump has one, some idiot from Hungary. Brzezinski's
"strategy" was simply copied from the others mainly from Nazis, just as was pretty much everything
else. If you read a book from Ian Johnson
https://www.amazon.com/Mosque-Munich-Nazis-Muslim-Brotherhood/dp/0547423179 that should be
clear.
Ian Johnson mentioned in one of its clip a guy from Eisenhower's administration, "devoted
catholics" (per IJ) who devised this strategy, and yet again that strategy simply was inherited
from the Nazi who used it to fight Soviets.
By the way a society (if the US is such thing), or the US Gov. generate these murderers and
apparently the new ones are in ample supply. That's the nature of system.
The Poles are real soreheads about Russia and to let one of them be an architect of American foreign
policy was a boneheaded move, the man operated according to a deeply held personal animus towards
Russia and letting him serve in such a pivotal capacity was a big mistake. In general, letting
foreigners fill important policy making roles should be prohibited; they carry too much baggage.
For the record, good riddance to ZB, who was no more than a dark stain on most of the humanity.
Maybe he'll come back as a poisonous snake...
@7
You're right in some ways. Zia-ul-Haq originated the idea of drawing Russians in. Also, the Brits
used Muslim Brotherhood against Egypt's Nasser (except, they then killed the US-preferred Sadat).
So much for blowback...
@12
I'd be curious about Carter, too. Never heard him address it. He signed the directive to entice
Russians into Afg. in July '79 - and then feigned HUGE surprise on TV when they marched in (and
BTW, they were invited by the then-Afg. govt.; it was not really an invasion). (It was stupid
of them, of course.)
On deep state - it first manifested itself in the open when JFK was assassinated - preceding
ZB. But he became a visible part of it, no question.
There is something wrong with the way humans manage power.
There are numerous legal and ethical arguments that can and have been made in opposition to U.S.
foreign policy of raw aggression. For an example of the illegalities of U.S. Empire, examine the
Geneva Conventions, all four of which directly proscribe what they each call "outrages" to human
dignity, "in particular humiliating and degrading treatment" (I, 1, 3). The "outrages" are named
specifically as torture, mutilation, cruel treatment, taking hostages, murder, biological experimentation,
and passing sentences on prisoners without benefit of "a regularly constituted court."
Additionally, the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 both underscore the Geneva Conventions and
expand the traditional ethical concerns to rights and duties of neutral states by banning the use
of poison gases or arms, destroying or seizing enemy private property, attacking towns and cities
that are undefended, pillaging, collective punishment, servility of enemy citizens, and bullets made
to wreak havoc once inside the human body. Prescriptions to limit the conduct of war include the
requirements to warn towns of impending attacks, to protect cultural, religious, and health institutions,
and to insure public order and safety.
For an example of the ethical problems of empire, think about the completely unjustifiable attacks
on civilians done by the U.S. in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and most prominently in Pakistan
and Yemen, especially done by drones. Or consider U.S. use of torture, from Abu Ghraib to Guantanamo
Bay. As everyone knows by now, ethical and humanitarian appeals have been completely and categorically
rejected by U.S. leaders, not beginning with 9-11, certainly rejected with greater vigor since then.
But there is another, often overlooked, analysis of U.S. actions, that is the logical result of
engaging in the actions of Empire, and that concerns the logical consequence of using massive amounts
of resources to attempt to control the resources being used (the second use of the term "resources"
here includes citizens; the people of a city or nation). As the economic, logistic, and humanitarian
costs all rise in direct proportion to Empire's actions, the sustaining of the Empire becomes impossible,
on the basis of its own internal logic.
In whatever historical epoch you choose, if you take your compass and draw a circle around any
given tribe, you can see the desired extent of their territorial claims for resource control. One
thus can see that particular group's 1) resource consumption; and 2) circle of desired resource control.
But when two further historical developments are added, such as 3) technologically-driven consumption
(e.g. fossil-fuel guzzling appliances and cars, etc.); and 4) now necessary desires for global
resources needed to feed that group's consumption habits-then the situation expands sufficiently
to become one of using extensive amounts of the very resources one is attempting to control (in the
U.S. case, oil and money) for the sake of controlling the resources over which one needs to exert
control! This circular logic cannot be maintained when it meets 5) a scarcity of resources; and 6)
the natural-institutional-logical antinomy of using resources in massive amounts to control the resources
you are using for control. In other words, the empire based on this pattern must end when
it runs headlong into resource scarcity, and/or natural-logical contradictions involving its own
internal (economic and resource) limitations. This argument against U.S. Empire is not based on ethical
or legal grounds (although those remain the best arguments in favor of voluntarily ending empire
and regaining our citizenship [civil rights] and humanness)-since those arguments have been put asunder
by the U.S. administrators of empire. Rather, the institutional-logical analysis argues that an empire
such as the U.S. has constructed exhausts itself by being unable to expand fast enough to control
everything it seeks in order to continue its dominance. When the issue of blowback is added-i.e.
that other nations and peoples are unlikely to cooperate willingly in having their resources, humanity,
and very lives removed from them-the end result, Empire's fall, could be hastened, and is certainly
assured. We can now predict not only how it will happen, but also its imminent coming. Here's how.
First, the heaviest resource consumers of fossil fuels, in order, are the U.S. military, U.S.
citizens, China, and India. The Department of Defense per capita energy consumption is 10 times more
than per capita energy consumption in China, or 30 times more than that of Africa. Oil accounts for
more than three-fourths of DoD's total energy consumption. The Post Carbon Institute estimates that
abroad alone, the U.S. military consumes about 150,000 barrels per day. In 2006, for example, the
Air Force consumed 2.6 billion gallons of jet-fuel, which is the same amount of fuel U.S. airplanes
consumed during all of WWII (between December 1941 and August 1945) (from The Resilience Group of
the Post Carbon Institute, www.resilience.org
).
Second, concerning the global dimension of resource control, one needs only to understand the
preferred method that U.S. Empire acolytes use to justify their actions abroad: the "state of emergency"
that was declared after 9/11 has continued unabated since then, due to the "ongoing threat" of "terrorism"
(see Jeremy Scahill, Dirty Wars: The World is a Battlefield , for the latest detailed instances
of this process.). The domestic equivalent to his "war" has been well underway since 9-11. (For detail
on the domestic front, see also Trevor Aaronson, Terror Factory , regarding FBI domestic use
of the "ongoing threat of terrorism" to deny basic civil rights to citizens).
This allows U.S. government administrators to maintain a "state of exception" to the rule of law.
Georgio Agamben, in his book States of Exception , defines this phrase as extraordinary governmental
actions resulting from distinctively political crises. As such, the actions of such administrators
are in-between normal political operations and legal ones. This "no man's land" of government policy
is not only difficult to define, but brings in its wake a "suspension of the entire existing juridical
order." Thus, states of exception are those in which a government in fact suspends the rule of law
for itself, while attempting to maintain some semblance of legal order, for the purpose of consolidating
its power and control (see Georgio Agamben, States of Exception , Chapter Two).
Regarding the scarcity of resources issue, none other than the World Bank produced a detailed
study of demand and supply projections for the immediate future. The study projects that, on the
basis of current consumption and immediately precedent rises in it, the demand for food will rise
by 50% by 2030, for meat by 85%, for oil by 20 million barrels a day, and for water by 32%, all by
the same year. This is met by alarming statistics and predictions from the supply side. In their
report, they state that global food growth rates fell by 1.1% over the past decade, and are
continuing to fall, while global food consumption outstripped production in seven of the eight years
between 2000 and 2008. Further, the Food and Agricultural Organization and the UN Environment Program
estimate that 16% of the arable land used now is degraded. Intensifying competition between
different land uses is likely to emerge in future, including food crops, livestock, etc., and the
world's expanding cities. Current rates of water extraction from rivers, groundwater and other
sources are already unsustainable in many parts of the world. Over one billion people live in water
basins in which the physical scarcity of water is absolute; by 2025, the figure is projected to rise
two billion, with up to two thirds of the world's population living in water-stressed conditions
(mainly in non-OECD countries). On oil , the International Energy Agency has warned consistently
that there is a significant risk of a new "supply crunch" as the global economy "recovers." Additionally,
the IEA's chief economist argues that peak production could take place by 2020 (from the "World Development
Report 2011, Background Paper: Resource Scarcity, Climate Change and the Risk of Violent Conflict,"
www.worldbank.org ).
The conclusion from all of these points is nearly obvious: if resources are even relatively scarce,
and the habits of and desires for consumption continue to rise among nations, and especially among
the citizens of Empire (as has been documented in part above), and if control over those resources
is the goal of Empire, but if the Empire consumes more resources than it can logistically or economically
control due to natural limitations of those resources themselves, and/or to the consumption of more
resources than is either available to it or that it needs to survive, then the power of the Empire
will naturally-logically end in a sharp decline, and soon (For applicable details on this, see Richard
Heinberg, "The Brief, Tragic Reign of Consumerism-and the Birth of a Happy Alternative,"
www.postcarbon.org ).
With all indicators predicting that the contradictions of Empire's resource consumption, circle
of desired resource control, scarcity of resources, and contradiction in resource use and control,
are all about to collide in a few years, not decades, it is time to start planning for a post-Empire
future. To that end, any psychologist reading this analysis will recognize themes of "realistic conflict
theory," which is a theory which explains how intergroup hostility can arise as a result of conflicting
goals and competition over limited resources The key point in bringing this psychological theory
into the discussion is that in this theory, it is concluded that friction between groups can be reduced
only in the presence of superordinate goals that promote united, cooperative action (see Wikipedia
on "Realistic Conflict Theory" for a good overview, summarized here.
https://en.wikipedia.org ). Note the agreement
of the ethical, legal, and psychological analyses of Empire's oppression: the most effective resolution
to oppression, (empire) dominance, and conflict is united, cooperative action, not the attempt to
control or destroy people and nations who stand in the way of our control.
We have seen that progressives have had available to them a standard two-pronged argument against
empire-American or any other. Progressives have for good reason appealed consistently to the ethical
and the legal arguments available to help stem the desires for world and resource domination. This
essays suggests that these two solid arguments should now be combined with an institutional-logical
analysis to demonstrate not only the intrinsic, natural limits to empire, but to show reasons how
and why empire must and will ultimately disintegrate due to the hubris of ignoring natural limitations
of unbridled consumption coupled with attempts at singular control over others' resources and peoples.
Dr. Robert Abele holds a Ph.D. in Philosophy from Marquette University and M.A. degrees in
Theology and Divinity. He is a professor of philosophy at Diablo ValleyCollege, in California in
the San Francisco Bay area. He is the author of four books, including A User's Guide to the USA PATRIOT
Act, and The Anatomy of a Deception: A Logical and Ethical Analysis of the Decision to Invade Iraq,
along with numerous articles. His new book, Neoliberal_rationality/ and Justice, is forthcoming (2016). More
articles by: Robert Abele
"... Brzezinski was the godfather of al-Qaeda and similar groups. ..."
"... As National Security Advisor of U.S. President Jimmy Carter Brzezinski devised the strategy of using religiously motivated radical militants against secular governments and their people. He sent Saudi financed Wahhabi nuts to fight the government of Afghanistan before the USSR intended to send its military in support that government. His policy of rallying Jihadis (vid) caused millions of death. ..."
"... I long recall the Soviet embassy sending an official letter across town - Washington - to point out that one day the U S would bitterly regret having instigated religious fundamentalism as a weapon against Soviet secularism in central asia . Reading of this all those years ago I had a feeling of great foreboding . ..."
"... He just expanded its use outside of the Middle East and made it far more visible and militant. It had already been used against the secular states in the Middle East such as Egypt under Nasser with the assistance of Saudi Arabia. ..."
"... As to Zbigboy, the chessboard was his manifesto on divide-and-conquer and playing groups of peoples against each other. It is also a mate of Kissinger (PNAC, etc) that no state or group should be allowed to rise to dominate or influence a region. ..."
"... The USG has been backing gibbering Wahabi lunatics, easily the source of 90% of "Muslim" terrorism, against secular Arab governments since the Eisenhower Administration. ..."
"... Burying Brzezinski and Kissinger does not end ANYTHING. They (and their ilk) leave behind a thoroughly and profoundly sick U.S. and western states loaded with new generations of psychopaths. In fact, getting rid of every last psychopath in ANY western government (parliament) fixes nothing because the organizations themselves ensure that new psychopaths will quickly bubble to the top. ..."
"... Indeed, beginning in the second half of America's 20th century up until now, one can see Nietzsche's maxim about fighting monsters being played out and revealing the greatness of his thought. This has culminated in such a way that Lavrov even said that America media has become remniscent of the Soviet Pravda. No argument here. ..."
"... He was definitely not an architect of American deep state. That was not his job. He was an architect of American Empire's foreign policy of global hegemony. Like Kissinger and Wolfowitz. ..."
"... Perhaps it worth noting that in Brzez's last year he basically retracted the thesis that he presented in The Great Chessboard . See this counterpunch article by Mike Whitney. Brzez was realistic enough to see that breaking up the China-Russia-Iran alliance was not going to work and maybe we should do deals with them ..."
"... Brzezinski was a diseased, psychopathic human being that - through the mechanisms of the state - caused unimaginable pain and suffering throughout the world (directly or indirectly) because of his psychopathy. Not by himself, of course. The guy should have been contained and treated like the diseased person he was, not elevated to positions as a diplomat or counselor to national leaders. A healthy society should shun psychopaths, not bumble along oblivious to the harm they cause. ..."
"... 'In fact, getting rid of every last psychopath in ANY western government (parliament) fixes nothing because the organizations themselves ensure that new psychopaths will quickly bubble to the top.' ..."
"... There's people with weird, dangerous or maybe 'psychopathic' leanings in every country and every society, they're part of humanity. But when they 'systematically' get to positions of influence and power, there's something wrong with said system: It seems to reward individual psychopathology, rather than humanism and cooperation. ..."
"... Zbig was an intelligent guy for sure, and it's not easy to replace someone like him. But his teachings will cause trouble for another while - afaik, there is no effective counter-strategy yet, or is there? Can a government win against fundamentalist militants with limited violence, e.g. by isolating them and exposing their inhumane regime? ..."
"... His worst crime, with Carter, IMO, was trying successfully to manipulate the U.S.S.R. to invade Afghanistan. All of Carter's outrage over the invasion was a lot of baloney. They were not exactly being the friends of Afghanistan they pretended to be. This was worse then later arming the jihadists. ..."
"... The funny/ interesting thing is how this US/ western control over the rest of the world is habitually described by code expressions such as 'maintaining the international order' or 'stabilize global order'. ..."
"... It's all about bullshit + bullying. Luxuriously-funded think/spin tanks make up the bullshit and feed it to people in the MSM capable of bullying (and diminishing the reputation of) persuasive critics of the bullshit. ..."
"... While I agree with you that he should "burn in hell" he hardly devised anything. With his background and cold war at the time, he was useful idiot for Americans and his masters. And there is plenty of them in each administration. Trump has one, some idiot from Hungary. Brzezinski's "strategy" was simply copied from the others mainly from Nazis, just as was pretty much everything else. If you read a book from Ian Johnson https://www.amazon.com/Mosque-Munich-Nazis-Muslim-Brotherhood/dp/0547423179 that should be clear. ..."
"... Ian Johnson mentioned in one of its clip a guy from Eisenhower's administration, "devoted catholics" (per IJ) who devised this strategy, and yet again that strategy simply was inherited from the Nazi who used it to fight Soviets. ..."
"... On deep state - it first manifested itself in the open when JFK was assassinated - preceding ZB. But he became a visible part of it, no question. There is something wrong with the way humans manage power. ..."
The ruthless U.S. imperialist Zbigniew Brzezinski died last night. Good riddance. Brzezinski
was the godfather of al-Qaeda and similar groups.
As National Security Advisor of U.S. President Jimmy Carter Brzezinski devised the strategy
of using religiously motivated radical militants against secular governments and their people. He
sent Saudi financed Wahhabi nuts to fight the government of Afghanistan
before the USSR intended to send its military in support that government. His policy of
rallying Jihadis
(vid) caused millions of death. Brzezinski did not regret that:
What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet
empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?
Brzezinski hailed from a Polish nobility family in Galicia, now west Ukraine. (Galicia is, not
by chance, also the place of origin of today's Ukrainian neo-nazis.) The family fled Poland after
its German/Soviet partition and and the socialization of the vast nobility properties during and
after the second world war. Zbigniew Brzezinski hate of anything socialist and Russian derived from
that.
The 9/11 attacks, the war on Syria, the recent massacre in Manchester and the murder of 28 Copts
yesterday in Egypt are direct consequences of Brzezinski's "some stirred-up Moslems" strategy of
exporting revolutions . The growth of the fundamentalist Saudi Wahhabi creed,
a danger to all mankind , was prepared and propagated by him.
May he burn in hell - soon to be joined by the other
"total whore" and fellow war criminal Henry Kissinger,
Trouble is, it's not about an individual, it's about a system that relies on weapon sales and
fleecing the populations to survive, i.e, the global swamp. For instance, how on earth can anybody
with half a brain not know that Saudi Arabia is the matrix of Wahhabi-Salafi terror? When you
see Trump ignoring such common knowledge to push his weapons sales (and surrealistically faulting
Iran), you know that Wahhabi cutthroats will carry on being used by the CIA, you know that money
dictates how these swamp creatures see the world, and you know that one Brzezinski less will not
do anything to solve the problem.
It is a sick, psychopathic system. It's full of loonies like Brzezinski and unfit for humans.
BTW, that individual was a really nasty piece of work, but what about those who listened to him
when obviously, he belonged in a straitjacket?
I long recall the Soviet embassy sending an official letter across town - Washington - to
point out that one day the U S would bitterly regret having instigated religious fundamentalism
as a weapon against Soviet secularism in central asia . Reading of this all those years ago I
had a feeling of great foreboding .
As National Security Advisor of U.S. President Jimmy Carter Brzezinski devised the strategy
of using religiously motivated radical militants against secular governments and their people.
He just expanded its use outside of the Middle East and made it far more visible and militant.
It had already been used against the secular states in the Middle East such as Egypt under Nasser
with the assistance of Saudi Arabia.
Well said , concise and to the point. I bought his book The Grand Chessboard just before the Ukraine
coup and it as radical as his musings were, they did make much of the foreign policy of Clinton
& Obama. A prime point in the book other than establishing control of Central Asia was to also
prevent Russia, China and Iran from forming an anti American axis. Also mention of an EU without
Germany or France being obsolete.
Just a bit of biographical correction. Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth did not have formally hereditary
aristocracy, so while Brzezinskis are a "noble family" with a
Horns , this coat
of arms is shared by 332 families, some very powerful, and some, like Brzezinski's family, without
any estates. Grandfather of Brzezinski was a judge in Austrian empire and lived pretty much in
the center of Galicia, now in Poland very close to the boundary with Ukraine. Father of Brzezinski
was an officer during the wars with Galician Ukrainians (Western Ukrainian Republic) and Soviet
Union in 1918-1922, and later had a successful bureaucratic carrier, becoming Polish consul in
Montreal in 1937. There Zbigniew finish high school and studied at McGill University.
The link with pro-Nazi Ukrainian nationalists of western Ukraine is rather ambiguous. He surely
knew about them, why, his father was an officer fighting with these guys, and later they formed
a terrorist movement within Poland (that won the western Ukraine in 1918-22). Bandera made his
name by organizing a slaying of a Polish interior minister. And later "all of them" were anti-Communist
exiles in Canada.
One could credit Brzezinski in creating the policy of "humanitarian intervention". It de-emphasized
and reduced the support for the retrograde dictators in Latin America and focused on the nipping
of the "totalitarian menace" of the Soviet zone of influence. Supporting Islamic radicals in Afghanistan,
Sudan, Pakistan etc. was the best tool at hand (South African regime slugging it out with Marxist
movements in Portuguese Angola and Mozambique were not as good, plus, purely local in its capabilities).
Back in 1970-ties it did not look bad, in the retrospect, it was the most successful lipstick
brand launched in XX century (I live it as an open question who needs lipsticks in this context).
That was funny. I would like to see Team Bush buried under shithouses in Iraq too. At least
one Iraqi got to throw a shoe.
As to Zbigboy, the chessboard was his manifesto on divide-and-conquer and playing groups
of peoples against each other. It is also a mate of Kissinger (PNAC, etc) that no state or group
should be allowed to rise to dominate or influence a region.
Correct. The USG has been backing gibbering Wahabi lunatics, easily the source of 90% of
"Muslim" terrorism, against secular Arab governments since the Eisenhower Administration.
This is a big reason those secular Arab governments became dictatorships, what with the local
US Embassy constantly fomenting & instigating coups by GWL.
I wonder if Brzezinski or Kissinger ever read Lobaczewski et. al regarding psychopathy.
One of Lobaczewski's long-gone collaborators postulated that any organization opposing
a large, organizational pathocracy ('the west' vs. the Soviet state at the time) was itself
subject to becoming a pathocracy.
The idea wasn't one of infection, but more of the almost automatic tendency of an organization
to enable and empower its own psychopaths in an attempt to counter those of the other organization.
Initially, it's fighting fire with fire. But when the 'enemy' ceases to exist or be a threat,
you can't simply turn off your own state's psychopaths because they are most likely running the
place.
Burying Brzezinski and Kissinger does not end ANYTHING. They (and their ilk) leave behind
a thoroughly and profoundly sick U.S. and western states loaded with new generations of psychopaths.
In fact, getting rid of every last psychopath in ANY western government (parliament) fixes nothing
because the organizations themselves ensure that new psychopaths will quickly bubble to the top.
Lobaczewski's group was not JUST trying to explain why otherwise normal 'little people' turned
into psychopaths so readily in the (then) Soviet East. They were trying to understand why otherwise
good nations turned into something sick and evil themselves in the process of 'saving' another
nation from evil. Their magic cure was nothing more than awareness of the risk and basic prevention
- wash your damn hands after leaving the bathroom.
We have rid ourselves of Brzezinski but have done nothing to recognize the disease, much less
attempt any sort of remedy. We go back to our food preparation jobs after leaving the bathroom
hoping evil spirits will not randomly make our customers sick.
Brzezinski's passing has all the significance of driving by a random light post on a cross-country
trip.
I have no love for ZBig, but it is far from clear he is an "architect" of the American Deep State.
ZBig is exactly like the Libyan, Syrian, Afghan expats sheltered and fed by the US; they are just
the latest of a rogue's gallery of foreigners who are useful to American foreign policy.
Need a critical assessment of a government? Here's a "senior former official"
Need contacts into opposition parties? Here's an "oppressed minority".
Communists, Nazis, Jews, Muslims, Caucasian, Asian, African - all are available.
Not to say ZBig had no influence, but there's a big difference between running in front of
the pack and leading it. Freeland and cohorts in Canada are clearly leading. ZBig? Much less clear.
Indeed, beginning in the second half of America's 20th century up until now, one can see
Nietzsche's maxim about fighting monsters being played out and revealing the greatness of his
thought. This has culminated in such a way that Lavrov even said that America media has become
remniscent of the Soviet Pravda. No argument here.
I have no love for ZBig, but it is far from clear he is an "architect" of the American Deep
State.
He was definitely not an architect of American deep state. That was not his job. He was an
architect of American Empire's foreign policy of global hegemony. Like Kissinger and Wolfowitz.
Perhaps it worth noting that in Brzez's last year he basically retracted the thesis that he
presented in The Great Chessboard . See this
counterpunch article by Mike Whitney. Brzez was realistic enough to see that breaking up the
China-Russia-Iran alliance was not going to work and maybe we should do deals with them.
He seemed to realize that US policy to capture the central Asian republics in order to drive
a wedge between those those three civilizations was hopeless. This does not atone for his crimes
but does indicate that he had some grasp of reality. This last article was barely noted our MSM
which seems to be still clamoring for the Great Chessboard strategy.
hopehely@28 - No. Read my post again. His passing is INSIGNIFICANT in the larger scheme of things.
Nothing changes, nothing ends - the U.S. and the west haven't learned a thing. We remain in the
diseased, psychopathic state that he (as well as many others) ushered in. Many more like him will
follow. As always (at least in the U.S.) we will continue - with utter futility - to try to fix
everything with our horribly debased voting process and the thoroughly-rigged, useless 'laws'.
And we will continue to fail.
Brzezinski was a diseased, psychopathic human being that - through the mechanisms of the
state - caused unimaginable pain and suffering throughout the world (directly or indirectly)
because of his psychopathy. Not by himself, of course. The guy should have been contained
and treated like the diseased person he was, not elevated to positions as a diplomat or counselor
to national leaders. A healthy society should shun psychopaths, not bumble along oblivious to
the harm they cause.
The organization of the state should be somewhat self-aware of the effects of diseased people
like Brzezinski and protect and hopefully rid itself from that kind of influence. It can't (in
the U.S., anyway) because 'the state' is diseased itself and that disease is perpetuated through
psychopathic individuals inside that benefit from a diseased state. It's a self-reinforcing, symbiotic
relationship. Brzezinski's disease was a part of that. Once again, his death changed nothing.
"...you are just trying to suppress your schadenfreude..."
As far as his death on a personal level - I simply didn't know the guy. I assume he had family
and friends that will mourn his passing. Their pain makes me neither jolly nor happy. There is
no schadenfreude - I feel sad for them regardless of my thoughts about Brzezinski.
"...because gosh it is so totally inappropriate for a sophisticated and rational intellectual
to fell like that..."
Now you're accusing me of being 'a sophisticated and rational intellectual' ? Well...
there's certainly no reason to get nasty about it and call me names like that, you bastard!
@pw. 'In fact, getting rid of every last psychopath in ANY western government (parliament)
fixes nothing because the organizations themselves ensure that new psychopaths will quickly bubble
to the top.'
now you're talking. my only real quarrel with your 'psychopathic' analysis was its seeming
identification of a cabal of evil, demented individuals as the seat of the problem. i think this
is too 'interior' an analysis. we all have the potential to see ourselves as the driven agents
we are most of the time, but its a full-time job, and by definition 'success' is a statistical
measurement.
there is such a thing as society, regardless maggie thatcher's dictum, and individual humans
are suspended within it ... and often as oblivious to that fact as the proverbial fish are to
the water they swim and breathe in.
to master our societies requires our collective effort. unless and until we organize to do
so we'll continue spinning in our psychopathic gyre(s). what force on earth is weaker than the
feeble strength of one? but in union we might be strong.
i think it's the simple refusal to accept that our 'outside' contingencies are more than a
match for our 'inside' ones that's holding us back. we're all stuck in an imaginary world that
began with our individual births and will expire with our individual deaths. so the race is continually
reborn in 'magnificent' isolation, now fractured into 7 and a half billion pieces.
something has to be done about this for us to continue and collectively, we're the only ones
here to do it.
I think I agree with you, though I find the use of psychological & medicinal terminology in
political contexts rather problematic - it usually doesn't enhance comprehension imo.
There's people with weird, dangerous or maybe 'psychopathic' leanings in every country
and every society, they're part of humanity. But when they 'systematically' get to positions of
influence and power, there's something wrong with said system: It seems to reward individual psychopathology,
rather than humanism and cooperation.
Zbig was an intelligent guy for sure, and it's not easy to replace someone like him. But
his teachings will cause trouble for another while - afaik, there is no effective counter-strategy
yet, or is there? Can a government win against fundamentalist militants with limited violence,
e.g. by isolating them and exposing their inhumane regime?
@jfl
I think you misunderstand something here. It's (afaics) absolutely not about a 'cabal of evil,
demented individuals', almost on the contrary. But I like the picture of society as water surrounding
a fish - or the air around us, which we don't see nor think about and take for granted.
His worst crime, with Carter, IMO, was trying successfully to manipulate the U.S.S.R. to invade
Afghanistan. All of Carter's outrage over the invasion was a lot of baloney. They were not exactly
being the friends of Afghanistan they pretended to be. This was worse then later arming the jihadists.
The funny/ interesting thing is how this US/ western control over the rest of the world
is habitually described by code expressions such as 'maintaining the international order' or 'stabilize
global order'.
The US has been an expansionist country long before Zbig, cf. the Monroe Doctrine.
Just as Britain and other European colonial powers before...
But more specifically, I really found myself wondering if any effective strategy exists to
counter the deployment of jihadist militias against 'uncooperative' states. Other than overwhelming
military force. China has been fairly successful, but at the price of a very virulent anti-Uyghur
racism.
@Paveway
The funny/ interesting thing is how this US/ western control over the rest of the world is habitually
described by code expressions such as 'maintaining the international order' or 'stabilize global
order'.
...
Posted by: smuks | May 27, 2017 8:21:46 PM | 47
It's less complex/mysterious than it seems at first glance.
It's all about bullshit + bullying. Luxuriously-funded think/spin tanks make up the bullshit
and feed it to people in the MSM capable of bullying (and diminishing the reputation of) persuasive
critics of the bullshit.
My preferred classic example was the role of Thomas L Friedman in silencing critics of Bush
II's Iraq War. TLF accused them of Moral Equivalence and the Jew-controlled media made sure that
his bullying received superior publicity throughout the West.
It's easy to dismissively overlook the Jew-controlled media factor but the Jews, more than
any other interest group, needed control over Western Media to suppress the criminality of the
Israel Project and to whitewash it by flogging the Holocaust to death if anyone dared to mention
Jews and Genocide in the same sentence. And the Media Acquisition program was well underway before
WWII broke out.
@ Bob in Portland who suggested Trump release the still classified JFK files to protect himself
against the CIA Have you been smoking some of that early Obama Hopium again?
Trump is a wannnabe to the upper crust of elite in the middle of a dust up between them and
the newbies wanting to act like emperors.....and all is cover for more human suffering and repression
except for the core acolytes of the God of Mammon
And the CIA is a tool of the God of Mammon religion that does what it is told.
"As National Security Advisor of U.S. President Jimmy Carter Brzezinski devised the strategy of
using religiously motivated radical militants against secular governments and their people."
While I agree with you that he should "burn in hell" he hardly devised anything. With his
background and cold war at the time, he was useful idiot for Americans and his masters. And there
is plenty of them in each administration. Trump has one, some idiot from Hungary. Brzezinski's
"strategy" was simply copied from the others mainly from Nazis, just as was pretty much everything
else. If you read a book from Ian Johnson
https://www.amazon.com/Mosque-Munich-Nazis-Muslim-Brotherhood/dp/0547423179 that should be
clear.
Ian Johnson mentioned in one of its clip a guy from Eisenhower's administration, "devoted
catholics" (per IJ) who devised this strategy, and yet again that strategy simply was inherited
from the Nazi who used it to fight Soviets.
By the way a society (if the US is such thing), or the US Gov. generate these murderers and
apparently the new ones are in ample supply. That's the nature of system.
The Poles are real soreheads about Russia and to let one of them be an architect of American foreign
policy was a boneheaded move, the man operated according to a deeply held personal animus towards
Russia and letting him serve in such a pivotal capacity was a big mistake. In general, letting
foreigners fill important policy making roles should be prohibited; they carry too much baggage.
For the record, good riddance to ZB, who was no more than a dark stain on most of the humanity.
Maybe he'll come back as a poisonous snake...
@7
You're right in some ways. Zia-ul-Haq originated the idea of drawing Russians in. Also, the Brits
used Muslim Brotherhood against Egypt's Nasser (except, they then killed the US-preferred Sadat).
So much for blowback...
@12
I'd be curious about Carter, too. Never heard him address it. He signed the directive to entice
Russians into Afg. in July '79 - and then feigned HUGE surprise on TV when they marched in (and
BTW, they were invited by the then-Afg. govt.; it was not really an invasion). (It was stupid
of them, of course.)
On deep state - it first manifested itself in the open when JFK was assassinated - preceding
ZB. But he became a visible part of it, no question.
There is something wrong with the way humans manage power.
There are numerous legal and ethical arguments that can and have been made in opposition to U.S.
foreign policy of raw aggression. For an example of the illegalities of U.S. Empire, examine the
Geneva Conventions, all four of which directly proscribe what they each call "outrages" to human
dignity, "in particular humiliating and degrading treatment" (I, 1, 3). The "outrages" are named
specifically as torture, mutilation, cruel treatment, taking hostages, murder, biological experimentation,
and passing sentences on prisoners without benefit of "a regularly constituted court."
Additionally, the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 both underscore the Geneva Conventions and
expand the traditional ethical concerns to rights and duties of neutral states by banning the use
of poison gases or arms, destroying or seizing enemy private property, attacking towns and cities
that are undefended, pillaging, collective punishment, servility of enemy citizens, and bullets made
to wreak havoc once inside the human body. Prescriptions to limit the conduct of war include the
requirements to warn towns of impending attacks, to protect cultural, religious, and health institutions,
and to insure public order and safety.
For an example of the ethical problems of empire, think about the completely unjustifiable attacks
on civilians done by the U.S. in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and most prominently in Pakistan
and Yemen, especially done by drones. Or consider U.S. use of torture, from Abu Ghraib to Guantanamo
Bay. As everyone knows by now, ethical and humanitarian appeals have been completely and categorically
rejected by U.S. leaders, not beginning with 9-11, certainly rejected with greater vigor since then.
But there is another, often overlooked, analysis of U.S. actions, that is the logical result of
engaging in the actions of Empire, and that concerns the logical consequence of using massive amounts
of resources to attempt to control the resources being used (the second use of the term "resources"
here includes citizens; the people of a city or nation). As the economic, logistic, and humanitarian
costs all rise in direct proportion to Empire's actions, the sustaining of the Empire becomes impossible,
on the basis of its own internal logic.
In whatever historical epoch you choose, if you take your compass and draw a circle around any
given tribe, you can see the desired extent of their territorial claims for resource control. One
thus can see that particular group's 1) resource consumption; and 2) circle of desired resource control.
But when two further historical developments are added, such as 3) technologically-driven consumption
(e.g. fossil-fuel guzzling appliances and cars, etc.); and 4) now necessary desires for global
resources needed to feed that group's consumption habits-then the situation expands sufficiently
to become one of using extensive amounts of the very resources one is attempting to control (in the
U.S. case, oil and money) for the sake of controlling the resources over which one needs to exert
control! This circular logic cannot be maintained when it meets 5) a scarcity of resources; and 6)
the natural-institutional-logical antinomy of using resources in massive amounts to control the resources
you are using for control. In other words, the empire based on this pattern must end when
it runs headlong into resource scarcity, and/or natural-logical contradictions involving its own
internal (economic and resource) limitations. This argument against U.S. Empire is not based on ethical
or legal grounds (although those remain the best arguments in favor of voluntarily ending empire
and regaining our citizenship [civil rights] and humanness)-since those arguments have been put asunder
by the U.S. administrators of empire. Rather, the institutional-logical analysis argues that an empire
such as the U.S. has constructed exhausts itself by being unable to expand fast enough to control
everything it seeks in order to continue its dominance. When the issue of blowback is added-i.e.
that other nations and peoples are unlikely to cooperate willingly in having their resources, humanity,
and very lives removed from them-the end result, Empire's fall, could be hastened, and is certainly
assured. We can now predict not only how it will happen, but also its imminent coming. Here's how.
First, the heaviest resource consumers of fossil fuels, in order, are the U.S. military, U.S.
citizens, China, and India. The Department of Defense per capita energy consumption is 10 times more
than per capita energy consumption in China, or 30 times more than that of Africa. Oil accounts for
more than three-fourths of DoD's total energy consumption. The Post Carbon Institute estimates that
abroad alone, the U.S. military consumes about 150,000 barrels per day. In 2006, for example, the
Air Force consumed 2.6 billion gallons of jet-fuel, which is the same amount of fuel U.S. airplanes
consumed during all of WWII (between December 1941 and August 1945) (from The Resilience Group of
the Post Carbon Institute, www.resilience.org
).
Second, concerning the global dimension of resource control, one needs only to understand the
preferred method that U.S. Empire acolytes use to justify their actions abroad: the "state of emergency"
that was declared after 9/11 has continued unabated since then, due to the "ongoing threat" of "terrorism"
(see Jeremy Scahill, Dirty Wars: The World is a Battlefield , for the latest detailed instances
of this process.). The domestic equivalent to his "war" has been well underway since 9-11. (For detail
on the domestic front, see also Trevor Aaronson, Terror Factory , regarding FBI domestic use
of the "ongoing threat of terrorism" to deny basic civil rights to citizens).
This allows U.S. government administrators to maintain a "state of exception" to the rule of law.
Georgio Agamben, in his book States of Exception , defines this phrase as extraordinary governmental
actions resulting from distinctively political crises. As such, the actions of such administrators
are in-between normal political operations and legal ones. This "no man's land" of government policy
is not only difficult to define, but brings in its wake a "suspension of the entire existing juridical
order." Thus, states of exception are those in which a government in fact suspends the rule of law
for itself, while attempting to maintain some semblance of legal order, for the purpose of consolidating
its power and control (see Georgio Agamben, States of Exception , Chapter Two).
Regarding the scarcity of resources issue, none other than the World Bank produced a detailed
study of demand and supply projections for the immediate future. The study projects that, on the
basis of current consumption and immediately precedent rises in it, the demand for food will rise
by 50% by 2030, for meat by 85%, for oil by 20 million barrels a day, and for water by 32%, all by
the same year. This is met by alarming statistics and predictions from the supply side. In their
report, they state that global food growth rates fell by 1.1% over the past decade, and are
continuing to fall, while global food consumption outstripped production in seven of the eight years
between 2000 and 2008. Further, the Food and Agricultural Organization and the UN Environment Program
estimate that 16% of the arable land used now is degraded. Intensifying competition between
different land uses is likely to emerge in future, including food crops, livestock, etc., and the
world's expanding cities. Current rates of water extraction from rivers, groundwater and other
sources are already unsustainable in many parts of the world. Over one billion people live in water
basins in which the physical scarcity of water is absolute; by 2025, the figure is projected to rise
two billion, with up to two thirds of the world's population living in water-stressed conditions
(mainly in non-OECD countries). On oil , the International Energy Agency has warned consistently
that there is a significant risk of a new "supply crunch" as the global economy "recovers." Additionally,
the IEA's chief economist argues that peak production could take place by 2020 (from the "World Development
Report 2011, Background Paper: Resource Scarcity, Climate Change and the Risk of Violent Conflict,"
www.worldbank.org ).
The conclusion from all of these points is nearly obvious: if resources are even relatively scarce,
and the habits of and desires for consumption continue to rise among nations, and especially among
the citizens of Empire (as has been documented in part above), and if control over those resources
is the goal of Empire, but if the Empire consumes more resources than it can logistically or economically
control due to natural limitations of those resources themselves, and/or to the consumption of more
resources than is either available to it or that it needs to survive, then the power of the Empire
will naturally-logically end in a sharp decline, and soon (For applicable details on this, see Richard
Heinberg, "The Brief, Tragic Reign of Consumerism-and the Birth of a Happy Alternative,"
www.postcarbon.org ).
With all indicators predicting that the contradictions of Empire's resource consumption, circle
of desired resource control, scarcity of resources, and contradiction in resource use and control,
are all about to collide in a few years, not decades, it is time to start planning for a post-Empire
future. To that end, any psychologist reading this analysis will recognize themes of "realistic conflict
theory," which is a theory which explains how intergroup hostility can arise as a result of conflicting
goals and competition over limited resources The key point in bringing this psychological theory
into the discussion is that in this theory, it is concluded that friction between groups can be reduced
only in the presence of superordinate goals that promote united, cooperative action (see Wikipedia
on "Realistic Conflict Theory" for a good overview, summarized here.
https://en.wikipedia.org ). Note the agreement
of the ethical, legal, and psychological analyses of Empire's oppression: the most effective resolution
to oppression, (empire) dominance, and conflict is united, cooperative action, not the attempt to
control or destroy people and nations who stand in the way of our control.
We have seen that progressives have had available to them a standard two-pronged argument against
empire-American or any other. Progressives have for good reason appealed consistently to the ethical
and the legal arguments available to help stem the desires for world and resource domination. This
essays suggests that these two solid arguments should now be combined with an institutional-logical
analysis to demonstrate not only the intrinsic, natural limits to empire, but to show reasons how
and why empire must and will ultimately disintegrate due to the hubris of ignoring natural limitations
of unbridled consumption coupled with attempts at singular control over others' resources and peoples.
Dr. Robert Abele holds a Ph.D. in Philosophy from Marquette University and M.A. degrees in
Theology and Divinity. He is a professor of philosophy at Diablo ValleyCollege, in California in
the San Francisco Bay area. He is the author of four books, including A User's Guide to the USA PATRIOT
Act, and The Anatomy of a Deception: A Logical and Ethical Analysis of the Decision to Invade Iraq,
along with numerous articles. His new book, Neoliberal_rationality/ and Justice, is forthcoming (2016). More
articles by: Robert Abele
Valletti, who is also a Professor of Economics at the Imperial College Business School and the University of Rome Tor Vergata,
discussed the EC's investigation into the Facebook-WhatsApp merger during the panel. Facebook, he said, had "lied" to European regulators
about its ability to absorb WhatsApp's user data, but the larger issue was market definition.
"Would the decision on the merger have changed had the Commission known that information at the time?" asked Valletti, who joined
theEC in 2016. "At the time, the Commission defined the relevant market as non-search advertising. This is a huge market. In that
ocean, even Facebook doesn't have a lot of market power. If instead the market definition had been, for instance, advertising on
social networks, [it's]likely theywould have concluded that Facebook would have been dominant in that particular market, and that
integrating that useful information from [WhatsApp] could have enhanced its market power." Valletti also stressedthe importance of
having individual-level data when discussing issues like competition at the advertising market, and not just looking at market shares.
Pasquale and Taplin, meanwhile, criticized U.S. antitrust authorities, with Taplin saying that digital platforms have "done very
well because they have a certain regulatory capture" and Pasquale remarkingthat "U.S. antitrust policy is rapidly becoming a pro-trust
policy."
As an example of this "pro-trust" policy, Pasquale cited the FTC's lawsuit against online
contact lens retailer 1-800 Contacts
. 1-800 Contacts was sued by the FTC last yearfor having reached agreements with 14 other online contact lens sellers that they
would not advertise to customers who had searched for 1-800 Contacts online."You would imagine that given the power of these [companies],
and given the activity in Europe and many other nations, our enforcers would be extremely concerned about these platforms. They are-they're
concerned about little companies hurting the platforms," he said.
The FTC, added Pasquale, had pursued the 1-800 Contacts case aggressively. "I'm not here to comment on the merits of this case,
but I think that the choice of this enforcement target speaks volumes. What does it say? It says that if small firms arebeing exploited
or hurt by a big digital behemoth, or think [they]are, don't try in any way to coordinate or maintain your independence. What you
should do is all combine and merge and become a giant, say, contacts firm. In the media, they should all combine and merge and maybe
all be bought by Comcast, so that then they can negotiate with Google in a way that they are relatively of the same size and power.
That's the pro-trust message we're getting under current non-enforcement U.S. antitrust policy."
Valletti, who is also a Professor of Economics at the Imperial College Business School and the University of Rome Tor Vergata,
discussed the EC's investigation into the Facebook-WhatsApp merger during the panel. Facebook, he said, had "lied" to European regulators
about its ability to absorb WhatsApp's user data, but the larger issue was market definition.
"Would the decision on the merger have changed had the Commission known that information at the time?" asked Valletti, who joined
theEC in 2016. "At the time, the Commission defined the relevant market as non-search advertising. This is a huge market. In that
ocean, even Facebook doesn't have a lot of market power. If instead the market definition had been, for instance, advertising on
social networks, [it's]likely theywould have concluded that Facebook would have been dominant in that particular market, and that
integrating that useful information from [WhatsApp] could have enhanced its market power." Valletti also stressedthe importance of
having individual-level data when discussing issues like competition at the advertising market, and not just looking at market shares.
Pasquale and Taplin, meanwhile, criticized U.S. antitrust authorities, with Taplin saying that digital platforms have "done very
well because they have a certain regulatory capture" and Pasquale remarkingthat "U.S. antitrust policy is rapidly becoming a pro-trust
policy."
As an example of this "pro-trust" policy, Pasquale cited the FTC's lawsuit against online
contact lens retailer 1-800 Contacts
. 1-800 Contacts was sued by the FTC last yearfor having reached agreements with 14 other online contact lens sellers that they
would not advertise to customers who had searched for 1-800 Contacts online."You would imagine that given the power of these [companies],
and given the activity in Europe and many other nations, our enforcers would be extremely concerned about these platforms. They are-they're
concerned about little companies hurting the platforms," he said.
The FTC, added Pasquale, had pursued the 1-800 Contacts case aggressively. "I'm not here to comment on the merits of this case,
but I think that the choice of this enforcement target speaks volumes. What does it say? It says that if small firms arebeing exploited
or hurt by a big digital behemoth, or think [they]are, don't try in any way to coordinate or maintain your independence. What you
should do is all combine and merge and become a giant, say, contacts firm. In the media, they should all combine and merge and maybe
all be bought by Comcast, so that then they can negotiate with Google in a way that they are relatively of the same size and power.
That's the pro-trust message we're getting under current non-enforcement U.S. antitrust policy."
"... The schools teach a combination of staff process and sophomore-level college courses in government and international relations. No one is taught how to be a commander in combat. One Army lieutenant colonel recently wrote me that he got angry when he figured out that nothing he needs to know to command would be taught to him in any Army school. ..."
"... The promotion system reinforces professional ignorance. ..."
It was tragic that the career of General David Petraeus was brought down by a mere affair. It should
have ended several years earlier as a consequence of his failure as our commander in Afghanistan.
Petraeus, like every other theater commander in that war except Stanley McChrystal, could have been
replaced by a concrete block and nothing would have changed. They all kept doing the same things
while expecting a different result.
Thomas Ricks's recent book The Generals has reintroduced into the defense debate a vital
factor the press and politicians collude in ignoring: military incompetence. It was a major theme
of the Military Reform Movement of the 1970s and '80s. During those years, a friend of mine who was
an aide to a Marine Corps commandant asked his boss how many Marine generals, of whom there were
then 60-some, could competently fight a battle. The commandant came up with six. And the Marine Corps
is the best of our services.
Military incompetence does not begin at the rank of brigadier general. An old French proverb says
that the problem with the generals is that we select them from among the colonels. Nonetheless, military
competence-the ability to see quickly what to do in a military situation and make it happen-is more
rare at the general officer level. A curious aspect of our promotion system is that the higher the
rank, the smaller the percentage of our competent officers.
Why is military incompetence so widespread at the higher levels of America's armed forces? Speaking
from my own observations over almost 40 years, I can identify two factors. First, nowhere does our
vast, multi-billion dollar military-education system teach military judgment. Second, above the rank
of Army, Marine Corps, or Air Force captain, military ability plays essentially no role in determining
who gets promoted. (It has been so long since our Navy fought another navy that, apart from the aviators,
military competence does not seem to be a consideration at any level.)
Almost never do our military schools, academies, and colleges put students in situations where
they have to think through how to fight a battle or a campaign, then get critiqued not on their answer
but the way they think. Nor does American military training offer much free play, where the enemy
can do whatever he wants and critique draws out why one side won and the other lost. Instead, training
exercises are scripted as if we are training an opera company. The schools teach a combination
of staff process and sophomore-level college courses in government and international relations. No
one is taught how to be a commander in combat. One Army lieutenant colonel recently wrote me that
he got angry when he figured out that nothing he needs to know to command would be taught to him
in any Army school.
The promotion system reinforces professional ignorance. Above the company grades, military
ability does not count in determining who gets promoted. At the rank of major, officers are supposed
to accept that the "real world" is the internal world of budget and promotion politics, not war.
Those who "don't get it" have ever smaller chances of making general. This represents corruption
of the worst kind, corruption of institutional purpose. Its result is generals and admirals who are
in effect Soviet industrial managers in ever worse-looking suits. They know little and care less
about their intended product, military victory. Their expertise is in acquiring resources and playing
the military courtier.
This is not a new trick, but still it was impressive. Macron played his hand well and brought
extreme neoliberals to power using threat of fascism, while his neoliberal views might be even closer to neo-fascism then LePen's.
"Divide and conquer" and "bait and
switch" proved again very effective tools. In other words Macron victory is another neoliberal coup after
Argentina and Brazil. Neoliberal zombies do not want to die. The power of neoliberal
propaganda
is still substantial -- the population can be brainwashed despite the fact that must now understand that
neoliberal promised are fake and the redistribution of wealth up destroys middle class and
impoverishes lower
60-80% of population
Notable quotes:
"... Les Républicains (LR), ..."
"... In reality, both have adopted neoliberal economic policies, or more precisely, they have followed European Union directives requiring member states to adopt neoliberal economic policies. Especially since the adoption of the common currency, the euro, a little over fifteen years ago, those economic policies have become tangibly harmful to France, hastening its deindustrialization, the ruin of its farmers and the growing indebtedness of the State to private banks. ..."
"... The most thoughtful reaction has been to start realizing that it is the European Union itself that imposes this unpopular economic conformism. ..."
"... To quell growing criticism of the European Union, the well-oiled Macron machine, labeled "En Marche!" ..."
"... The destruction of the Socialist Party was easy. Since the "Socialist" government was so unpopular that it could not hope to win, it was easy to lure prominent members of that party to jump the sinking ship and rally to Macron, who had been economics minister in that unpopular government, but who was advertised by all the media as "new" and "anti-system". ..."
"... Fillon still cared about preserving France, and favored an independent foreign policy including good Canard Enchainé ..."
"... These "civil society" newcomers tend to be successful individuals, winners in the game of globalized competition, who will have no trouble voting for anti-labor measures. Macron is thus confirming Marine Le Pen's longstanding assertion that the two main parties were really one big single party, whose rhetorical differences masked their political convergence. ..."
"... Macron won in part because older voters in particular were frightened by his opponents' hints at leaving the European Union, which they have been indoctrinated to consider necessary to prevent renewal of Europe's old wars. But only the hysterical anti-fascist scare can explain why self-styled leftist "revolutionaries" such as François Ruffin, known for his successful anti-capitalist movie "Merci Patron", could join the stampede to vote for Macron – promising to "oppose him later". But how? ..."
"... Later, after five years of Macron, opposition may be harder than ever. In recent decades, as manufacturing moves to low wage countries, including EU members such as Poland and Rumania, France has lost 40% of its industry. Loss of industry means loss of jobs and fewer workers. When industry is no longer essential, workers have lost their key power: striking to shut down industry. Currently the desperate workers in a failing auto-works factory in central France are threatening to blow it up unless the government takes measures to save their jobs. But violence is powerless when it has no price tag. ..."
"... The Macron program amounts to a profound ideological transformation of the French ideal of égalité ..."
"... Macron is sufficiently Americanized, or, to be more precise, globalized, to have declared that "there is no such thing as French culture". From this viewpoint, France is just a place open to diverse cultures, as well as to immigrants and of course foreign capital. He has clearly signaled his rejection of French independence in the foreign policy field. ..."
"... Macron echoes the Russophobic line of the neocons. He broke tradition on his inauguration by riding down the Champs-Elysées in a military vehicle. A change of tone is indicated by his cabinet nominations. The title of the new foreign minister, Jean-Yves Le Drian, who served as defense minister in the Hollande government, is "Minister of Europe and of Foreign Affairs", clearly giving Europe preference in the matter. Sylvie Goulard, an ardent Europeist who has remarked that "she does not feel French", has been named Minister of Armies and Minister of Defense. Clearly national defense is an afterthought, when the main idea is to deploy the armed forces in various joint Western interventions. ..."
"... Mélenchon ran a spectacularly popular campaign, leaving the Socialist Party far behind (the party he personally left behind years ago). Initially, as he seemed to be taking votes away from Le Pen as well as from the Socialists, he got friendly media coverage, but as he came closer to making it to the decisive second round, the tone started to change. Just as Le Pen was finally knocked out as a "fascist", there is little doubt that had Mélenchon been Macron's challenger, he would have been increasingly denounced as "communist". ..."
"... La France Insoumise ..."
"... categories populaires ..."
"... Marine Le Pen would have tried to enact measures to save French industry and the jobs it provides, provide various benefits for low-income people, withdraw from NATO, and even promote a peaceful world, starting with friendly relations with Russia. She would even have begun to prepare her compatriots for escape from the euro. ..."
"... A "color revolution" was ready to be stirred up. The deep state is vigilant in NATOland. ..."
A ghost of the past was the real winner of the French presidential election. Emmanuel Macron won
only because a majority felt they had to vote against the ghost of "fascism" allegedly embodied by
his opponent, Marine Le Pen. Whether out of panic or out of the need to feel respectable, the French
voted two to one in favor of a man whose program most of them either ignored or disliked. Now they
are stuck with him for five years.
If people had voted on the issues, the majority would never have elected a man representing the
trans-Atlantic elite totally committed to "globalization", using whatever is left of the power of
national governments to weaken them still further, turning over decision-making to "the markets"
– that is, to international capital, managed by the major banks and financial institutions, notably
those located in the United States, such as Goldman-Sachs.
The significance of this election is so widely misrepresented that clarification requires a fairly
thorough explanation, not only of the Macron project, but also of what the (impossible) election
of Marine Le Pen would have meant.
From a Two Party to a Single Party System
Despite the multiparty nature of French elections, for the past generation France has been essentially
ruled by a two-party system, with government power alternating between the Socialist Party, roughly
the equivalent of the U.S. Democratic Party, and a party inherited from the Gaullist tradition which
has gone through various name changes before recently settling on calling itself Les Républicains
(LR), in obvious imitation of the United States . For decades, there has been nothing
"socialist" about the Socialist Party and nothing Gaullist about The Republicans.
In reality, both have adopted neoliberal economic policies, or more precisely, they have followed
European Union directives requiring member states to adopt neoliberal economic policies. Especially
since the adoption of the common currency, the euro, a little over fifteen years ago, those economic
policies have become tangibly harmful to France, hastening its deindustrialization, the ruin of its
farmers and the growing indebtedness of the State to private banks.
This has had inevitable political repercussions. The simplest reaction has been widespread
reaction against both parties for continuing to pursue the same unpopular policies. The most thoughtful
reaction has been to start realizing that it is the European Union itself that imposes this unpopular
economic conformism.
To quell growing criticism of the European Union, the well-oiled Macron machine, labeled "En
Marche!" has exploited the popular reaction against both governing parties. It has broken and
absorbed large parts of both, in an obvious move to turn En Marche! into a single catch-all
party loyal to Macron.
The destruction of the Socialist Party was easy. Since the "Socialist" government was so unpopular
that it could not hope to win, it was easy to lure prominent members of that party to jump the sinking
ship and rally to Macron, who had been economics minister in that unpopular government, but who was
advertised by all the media as "new" and "anti-system".
Weakening the Republicans was trickier. Thanks to the deep unpopularity of the outgoing Socialist
government, the Republican candidate, François Fillon, looked like a shoo-in. But despite his pro-business
economic policies, Fillon still cared about preserving France, and favored an independent foreign
policy including good Canard Enchainé to be revealed at a critical moment in the campaign.
The uproar drowned out the issues. To an electorate already wary of "establishment politicians",
these revelations were fatal. The impression that "politicians are all corrupt" played into the hands
of Emmanuel Macron, too young to have done anything worse than make a few quick millions during his
passage through the Rothschild Bank, and there's nothing illegal about that.
In France, the presidential election is followed by parliamentary elections, which normally give
a majority to the party of the newly elected president. But Macron had no party, so he is creating
one for the occasion, made up of defectors from the major defeated parties as well as his own innovation,
candidates from "civil society", with no political experience, but loyal to him personally. These
"civil society" newcomers tend to be successful individuals, winners in the game of globalized competition,
who will have no trouble voting for anti-labor measures. Macron is thus confirming Marine Le Pen's
longstanding assertion that the two main parties were really one big single party, whose rhetorical
differences masked their political convergence.
The Macron victory demoralized Republicans. Weakening them further, Macron named a Republican,
Edouard Philippe, as his Prime Minister, in a government with four Socialist and two Republican,
alongside his own selections from "civil society".
Transforming France
Macron won in part because older voters in particular were frightened by his opponents' hints
at leaving the European Union, which they have been indoctrinated to consider necessary to prevent
renewal of Europe's old wars. But only the hysterical anti-fascist scare can explain why self-styled
leftist "revolutionaries" such as François Ruffin, known for his successful anti-capitalist movie
"Merci Patron", could join the stampede to vote for Macron – promising to "oppose him later". But
how?
Later, after five years of Macron, opposition may be harder than ever. In recent decades,
as manufacturing moves to low wage countries, including EU members such as Poland and Rumania, France
has lost 40% of its industry. Loss of industry means loss of jobs and fewer workers. When industry
is no longer essential, workers have lost their key power: striking to shut down industry. Currently
the desperate workers in a failing auto-works factory in central France are threatening to blow it
up unless the government takes measures to save their jobs. But violence is powerless when it has
no price tag.
Emmanuel Macron has said that he wants to spend only a short time in political life, before getting
back to business. He has a mission, and he is in a hurry. If he gains an absolute majority in the
June parliamentary elections, he has a free hand to govern for five years. He means to use this period
not to "reform" the country, as his predecessors put it, but to "transform" France into a different
sort of country. If he has his way, in five years France will no longer be a sovereign nation, but
a reliable region in a federalized European Union, following a rigorous economic policy made in Germany
by bankers and a bellicose foreign policy made in Washington by neocons.
As usual, the newly elected French president's first move was to rush to Berlin to assert loyalty
to the increasingly lopsided "Franco-German partnership". He was most warmly welcomed by Chancellor
Angela Merkel, thanks to his clear determination to force through the austerity measures demanded
by the Frankfurt budget masters. Macron hopes that his fiscal obedience will be rewarded by German
consent to a European investment fund for stimulating economic growth, but this implies a degree
of federalism that the pfennig-pinching Germans show little sign of accepting.
First of all, he has promised to complete the dismantling of the French labor code, which offers
various protections to workers. This should save money for employers and the government. For Macron,
the ruin of French industry and French farming seem to be welcome steps toward an economy of individual
initiative, symbolized by startups.
The Macron program amounts to a profound ideological transformation of the French ideal of
égalité , equality, from a horizontal concept, meaning equal benefits for all, to the vertical
ideal of "equality of opportunity", meaning the theoretical chance of every individual to rise above
the others. This is an ideal easily accepted in the United States with its longstanding myth of the
self-made man. The French have traditionally been logical enough to understand that everyone can't
rise above the others.
Horizontal equality in France has primarily meant institutional redistribution of wealth via universal
access to benefits such as health care, pensions, communications and transportation facilities, allocations
for families raising children, unemployment insurance, free education at all levels. These are the
benefits that are under threat from the European Union in various ways. One way is the imposition
of "competition" rules that impose privatization and favor foreign takeovers that transform public
services into profit-seekers. Another is the imposition of public budget restrictions, along with
the obligation of the State to seek private loans, increasing its debt, and the loss of tax revenue
that all end up up making the State too poor to continue providing such services.
Very few French people would want to give up such horizontal equality for the privilege of hoping
to become a billionaire.
Macron is sufficiently Americanized, or, to be more precise, globalized, to have declared that
"there is no such thing as French culture". From this viewpoint, France is just a place open to diverse
cultures, as well as to immigrants and of course foreign capital. He has clearly signaled his rejection
of French independence in the foreign policy field. Unlike his leading rivals, who all called for
improved relations with Russia, Macron echoes the Russophobic line of the neocons. He broke tradition
on his inauguration by riding down the Champs-Elysées in a military vehicle. A change of tone is
indicated by his cabinet nominations. The title of the new foreign minister, Jean-Yves Le Drian,
who served as defense minister in the Hollande government, is "Minister of Europe and of Foreign
Affairs", clearly giving Europe preference in the matter. Sylvie Goulard, an ardent Europeist who
has remarked that "she does not feel French", has been named Minister of Armies and Minister of Defense.
Clearly national defense is an afterthought, when the main idea is to deploy the armed forces in
various joint Western interventions.
The Divided Opposition
Unless the June parliamentary elections produce stunning surprises, the opposition to Macron's
catch-all governance party appears weak and fatally divided. The Socialist Party is almost wiped
out. The Republicans are profoundly destabilized. Genuine opposition to the Macron regime can only
be based on defense of French interests against EU economic dictates, starting with the euro, which
prevents the country from pursuing an independent economic and foreign policy. In short, the genuine
opposition must be " souverainiste ", concerned with preserving French sovereignty.
Two strong personalities emerged from the presidential election as potential leaders of that opposition:
Jean-Luc Mélenchon and Marine Le Pen. But they are drastically divided.
Mélenchon ran a spectacularly popular campaign, leaving the Socialist Party far behind (the
party he personally left behind years ago). Initially, as he seemed to be taking votes away from
Le Pen as well as from the Socialists, he got friendly media coverage, but as he came closer to making
it to the decisive second round, the tone started to change. Just as Le Pen was finally knocked out
as a "fascist", there is little doubt that had Mélenchon been Macron's challenger, he would have
been increasingly denounced as "communist".
Mélenchon is intelligent enough to have realized that the social policies he advocates cannot
be achieved unless France recovers control of its currency. He therefore took a stand against both
NATO and the euro. So did Marine Le Pen. Mélenchon was embarrassed by the resemblance between their
two programs, and contrary to other eliminated candidates, refrained from endorsing Macron, instead
calling on his movement, La France Insoumise , to choose between Macron and abstention.
Finally, 25% of Mélenchon voters abstained in the second round, but 62% voted for Macron – almost
exclusively motivated by the alleged need to "stop fascism". That compares with the final total results
of 66% for Macron and 34 % for Le Pen.
That vote confirmed the impossibility of forming a unified souverainiste opposition and
allows Marine Le Pen to strengthen her claim to be the leader of a genuine opposition to Macron.
She has admitted her own mistakes in the campaign, particularly in her debate with Macron, who beat
her hands down with his arrogant performance as the economic expert. But despite her mere 34%, she
retains the most loyal base of supporters in a changing scene. The problem for Mélenchon is that
his electorate is more versatile.
Despite his loud appeal to "youth", Macron was elected by France's huge population of old people.
Among voters over 65, he won 80% against 20% for Le Pen. Marine Le Pen did best with the youngest
age group, 18 to 24, winning 44% against Macron's 56%.
[1] According
to poll of 7,752 representative voters by Le Figaro/LCI,
The differences were also significant between socio-professional categories. Macron won a whopping
83% of the votes coming from the "superior socio-professional categories" – categories where the
"winners" in competitive society are largely ensconced. But in what are described as " categories
populaires ", a French term for ordinary folk, with less education, the vote was 53% in favor
of Le Pen. And she confirmed her position as favorite candidate of the working class, winning 63%
of workers' votes.
Note that the "superior socio-professional categories" are where the significance of these results
will be defined. Individuals from that category – journalists, commentators and show business personalities
– are all in a position to spread the word that this vote indicates that the workers must be "racist",
and therefore that we have narrowly escaped being taken over by "fascism".
One of the many odd things about the latest French presidential election is the rejoicing among
foreign "leftists" over the fact that the candidate of the rich roundly defeated the candidate of
the poor. It used to be the other way around, but that was long ago. These days, the winners in the
competitive game comfort themselves that they morally deserve their success, because they are in
favor of diversity and against racism, whereas the less fortunate, the rural people and the working
class, don't deserve much of anything, because they must be "racist" to be wary of globalization.
The fact that Paris voted 90% for Macron is natural, considering that real estate prices have
pushed the working class out of the capital, whose population is now overwhelmingly what is called
"bobo" – the bohemian bourgeoisie, many of whom are employed in various branches of the dominant
human rights ideology fabrication business: journalists, professors, teachers, consultants, the entertainment
industry. In these milieux, hardly anyone would even dare speak a positive word about Marine Le Pen.
What if Marine Le Pen had won?
Since politics is largely fantasy, we may as well try to imagine the unimaginable: what if Marine
Le Pen had won the election? This was never a realistic possibility, but it is worth imagining.
It could have had one, perhaps only one, extremely positive result: it could have freed France
from its paralyzing obsession with the nonexistent "fascist threat". The ghost would be exorcised.
If the word has any meaning, "fascism" implies single party rule, whereas Marine Le Pen made clear
her desire to govern by coalition, and selected the leader of a small Gaullist party, Nicolas Dupont-Aignan,
as her prospective prime minister. Poof! No fascism. That would have been an immeasurable benefit
for political debate in France. At last genuine issues might matter. Real threats could be confronted.
Another advantage would have been the demise of the National Front. Since Marine Le Pen took over
the notorious party founded by her reactionary father, it has kept a precarious balance between two
opposing wings. There is the right wing in the southeast, along the Riviera, the bastion of the party's
founder, Jean-Marie Le Pen, a region represented in the outgoing parliament by his conservative granddaughter
Marion Maréchal Le Pen. In the old industrial northeast region, between Arras and Lille, Marine Le
Pen has built her own bastion, as champion of ordinary working people, where she won a majority of
votes in the presidential election.
This is not the only time in history when an heiress has gone away with the heritage to join someone
of whom her father disapproves. All those who want to cling to their comforting hatred of the left's
official Satan have trouble believing that Marine Le Pen broke with her reactionary father to go
her own way (just as U.S. hawks couldn't believe in Gorbachev). This change owes everything to her
encounter with Florian Philippot, an intellectual who gave up on the ability of the Socialists to
face the real issues. Marine has the personal qualities of a leader, and Philippot provided the intellectual
substance she needed. Marine has decisively chosen Philippot as her advisor and co-leader, despite
grumblings by Jean-Marie that she has been led astray by a gay Marxist. Had Marine won, her left
wing would have been strengthened enough to enable her and Philippot to scrap the National Front
and found a new "Patriot Party". However, by scoring below 40%, she has weakened her authority and
must try to hold the troublesome party together in order to win seats in the new parliament – which
will not be easy.
Marine Le Pen would have tried to enact measures to save French industry and the jobs it provides,
provide various benefits for low-income people, withdraw from NATO, and even promote a peaceful world,
starting with friendly relations with Russia. She would even have begun to prepare her compatriots
for escape from the euro.
But not to worry, none of this "fascist" program would ever have come to pass. If she had won,
bands of protesting "antifascists" would have invaded the streets, smashing windows and attacking
police. The outgoing Socialist government was preparing to use the resulting chaos as a pretext to
stay in power long enough to manage the parliamentary elections,
[2] "Si Le
Pen avait été élue le plan secret pour 'protéger la République'", Le Nouvel Observateur, May 17,
2017 , ensuring that President Marine Le Pen would be held in check. A "color revolution"
was ready to be stirred up. The deep state is vigilant in NATOland.
"... The schools teach a combination of staff process and sophomore-level college courses in government and international relations. No one is taught how to be a commander in combat. One Army lieutenant colonel recently wrote me that he got angry when he figured out that nothing he needs to know to command would be taught to him in any Army school. ..."
"... The promotion system reinforces professional ignorance. ..."
It was tragic that the career of General David Petraeus was brought down by a mere affair. It should
have ended several years earlier as a consequence of his failure as our commander in Afghanistan.
Petraeus, like every other theater commander in that war except Stanley McChrystal, could have been
replaced by a concrete block and nothing would have changed. They all kept doing the same things
while expecting a different result.
Thomas Ricks's recent book The Generals has reintroduced into the defense debate a vital
factor the press and politicians collude in ignoring: military incompetence. It was a major theme
of the Military Reform Movement of the 1970s and '80s. During those years, a friend of mine who was
an aide to a Marine Corps commandant asked his boss how many Marine generals, of whom there were
then 60-some, could competently fight a battle. The commandant came up with six. And the Marine Corps
is the best of our services.
Military incompetence does not begin at the rank of brigadier general. An old French proverb says
that the problem with the generals is that we select them from among the colonels. Nonetheless, military
competence-the ability to see quickly what to do in a military situation and make it happen-is more
rare at the general officer level. A curious aspect of our promotion system is that the higher the
rank, the smaller the percentage of our competent officers.
Why is military incompetence so widespread at the higher levels of America's armed forces? Speaking
from my own observations over almost 40 years, I can identify two factors. First, nowhere does our
vast, multi-billion dollar military-education system teach military judgment. Second, above the rank
of Army, Marine Corps, or Air Force captain, military ability plays essentially no role in determining
who gets promoted. (It has been so long since our Navy fought another navy that, apart from the aviators,
military competence does not seem to be a consideration at any level.)
Almost never do our military schools, academies, and colleges put students in situations where
they have to think through how to fight a battle or a campaign, then get critiqued not on their answer
but the way they think. Nor does American military training offer much free play, where the enemy
can do whatever he wants and critique draws out why one side won and the other lost. Instead, training
exercises are scripted as if we are training an opera company. The schools teach a combination
of staff process and sophomore-level college courses in government and international relations. No
one is taught how to be a commander in combat. One Army lieutenant colonel recently wrote me that
he got angry when he figured out that nothing he needs to know to command would be taught to him
in any Army school.
The promotion system reinforces professional ignorance. Above the company grades, military
ability does not count in determining who gets promoted. At the rank of major, officers are supposed
to accept that the "real world" is the internal world of budget and promotion politics, not war.
Those who "don't get it" have ever smaller chances of making general. This represents corruption
of the worst kind, corruption of institutional purpose. Its result is generals and admirals who are
in effect Soviet industrial managers in ever worse-looking suits. They know little and care less
about their intended product, military victory. Their expertise is in acquiring resources and playing
the military courtier.
This is not a new trick, but still it was impressive. Macron played his hand well and brought
extreme neoliberals to power using threat of fascism, while his neoliberal views might be even closer to neo-fascism then LePen's.
"Divide and conquer" and "bait and
switch" proved again very effective tools. In other words Macron victory is another neoliberal coup after
Argentina and Brazil. Neoliberal zombies do not want to die. The power of neoliberal
propaganda
is still substantial -- the population can be brainwashed despite the fact that must now understand that
neoliberal promised are fake and the redistribution of wealth up destroys middle class and
impoverishes lower
60-80% of population
Notable quotes:
"... Les Républicains (LR), ..."
"... In reality, both have adopted neoliberal economic policies, or more precisely, they have followed European Union directives requiring member states to adopt neoliberal economic policies. Especially since the adoption of the common currency, the euro, a little over fifteen years ago, those economic policies have become tangibly harmful to France, hastening its deindustrialization, the ruin of its farmers and the growing indebtedness of the State to private banks. ..."
"... The most thoughtful reaction has been to start realizing that it is the European Union itself that imposes this unpopular economic conformism. ..."
"... To quell growing criticism of the European Union, the well-oiled Macron machine, labeled "En Marche!" ..."
"... The destruction of the Socialist Party was easy. Since the "Socialist" government was so unpopular that it could not hope to win, it was easy to lure prominent members of that party to jump the sinking ship and rally to Macron, who had been economics minister in that unpopular government, but who was advertised by all the media as "new" and "anti-system". ..."
"... Fillon still cared about preserving France, and favored an independent foreign policy including good Canard Enchainé ..."
"... These "civil society" newcomers tend to be successful individuals, winners in the game of globalized competition, who will have no trouble voting for anti-labor measures. Macron is thus confirming Marine Le Pen's longstanding assertion that the two main parties were really one big single party, whose rhetorical differences masked their political convergence. ..."
"... Macron won in part because older voters in particular were frightened by his opponents' hints at leaving the European Union, which they have been indoctrinated to consider necessary to prevent renewal of Europe's old wars. But only the hysterical anti-fascist scare can explain why self-styled leftist "revolutionaries" such as François Ruffin, known for his successful anti-capitalist movie "Merci Patron", could join the stampede to vote for Macron – promising to "oppose him later". But how? ..."
"... Later, after five years of Macron, opposition may be harder than ever. In recent decades, as manufacturing moves to low wage countries, including EU members such as Poland and Rumania, France has lost 40% of its industry. Loss of industry means loss of jobs and fewer workers. When industry is no longer essential, workers have lost their key power: striking to shut down industry. Currently the desperate workers in a failing auto-works factory in central France are threatening to blow it up unless the government takes measures to save their jobs. But violence is powerless when it has no price tag. ..."
"... The Macron program amounts to a profound ideological transformation of the French ideal of égalité ..."
"... Macron is sufficiently Americanized, or, to be more precise, globalized, to have declared that "there is no such thing as French culture". From this viewpoint, France is just a place open to diverse cultures, as well as to immigrants and of course foreign capital. He has clearly signaled his rejection of French independence in the foreign policy field. ..."
"... Macron echoes the Russophobic line of the neocons. He broke tradition on his inauguration by riding down the Champs-Elysées in a military vehicle. A change of tone is indicated by his cabinet nominations. The title of the new foreign minister, Jean-Yves Le Drian, who served as defense minister in the Hollande government, is "Minister of Europe and of Foreign Affairs", clearly giving Europe preference in the matter. Sylvie Goulard, an ardent Europeist who has remarked that "she does not feel French", has been named Minister of Armies and Minister of Defense. Clearly national defense is an afterthought, when the main idea is to deploy the armed forces in various joint Western interventions. ..."
"... Mélenchon ran a spectacularly popular campaign, leaving the Socialist Party far behind (the party he personally left behind years ago). Initially, as he seemed to be taking votes away from Le Pen as well as from the Socialists, he got friendly media coverage, but as he came closer to making it to the decisive second round, the tone started to change. Just as Le Pen was finally knocked out as a "fascist", there is little doubt that had Mélenchon been Macron's challenger, he would have been increasingly denounced as "communist". ..."
"... La France Insoumise ..."
"... categories populaires ..."
"... Marine Le Pen would have tried to enact measures to save French industry and the jobs it provides, provide various benefits for low-income people, withdraw from NATO, and even promote a peaceful world, starting with friendly relations with Russia. She would even have begun to prepare her compatriots for escape from the euro. ..."
"... A "color revolution" was ready to be stirred up. The deep state is vigilant in NATOland. ..."
A ghost of the past was the real winner of the French presidential election. Emmanuel Macron won
only because a majority felt they had to vote against the ghost of "fascism" allegedly embodied by
his opponent, Marine Le Pen. Whether out of panic or out of the need to feel respectable, the French
voted two to one in favor of a man whose program most of them either ignored or disliked. Now they
are stuck with him for five years.
If people had voted on the issues, the majority would never have elected a man representing the
trans-Atlantic elite totally committed to "globalization", using whatever is left of the power of
national governments to weaken them still further, turning over decision-making to "the markets"
– that is, to international capital, managed by the major banks and financial institutions, notably
those located in the United States, such as Goldman-Sachs.
The significance of this election is so widely misrepresented that clarification requires a fairly
thorough explanation, not only of the Macron project, but also of what the (impossible) election
of Marine Le Pen would have meant.
From a Two Party to a Single Party System
Despite the multiparty nature of French elections, for the past generation France has been essentially
ruled by a two-party system, with government power alternating between the Socialist Party, roughly
the equivalent of the U.S. Democratic Party, and a party inherited from the Gaullist tradition which
has gone through various name changes before recently settling on calling itself Les Républicains
(LR), in obvious imitation of the United States . For decades, there has been nothing
"socialist" about the Socialist Party and nothing Gaullist about The Republicans.
In reality, both have adopted neoliberal economic policies, or more precisely, they have followed
European Union directives requiring member states to adopt neoliberal economic policies. Especially
since the adoption of the common currency, the euro, a little over fifteen years ago, those economic
policies have become tangibly harmful to France, hastening its deindustrialization, the ruin of its
farmers and the growing indebtedness of the State to private banks.
This has had inevitable political repercussions. The simplest reaction has been widespread
reaction against both parties for continuing to pursue the same unpopular policies. The most thoughtful
reaction has been to start realizing that it is the European Union itself that imposes this unpopular
economic conformism.
To quell growing criticism of the European Union, the well-oiled Macron machine, labeled "En
Marche!" has exploited the popular reaction against both governing parties. It has broken and
absorbed large parts of both, in an obvious move to turn En Marche! into a single catch-all
party loyal to Macron.
The destruction of the Socialist Party was easy. Since the "Socialist" government was so unpopular
that it could not hope to win, it was easy to lure prominent members of that party to jump the sinking
ship and rally to Macron, who had been economics minister in that unpopular government, but who was
advertised by all the media as "new" and "anti-system".
Weakening the Republicans was trickier. Thanks to the deep unpopularity of the outgoing Socialist
government, the Republican candidate, François Fillon, looked like a shoo-in. But despite his pro-business
economic policies, Fillon still cared about preserving France, and favored an independent foreign
policy including good Canard Enchainé to be revealed at a critical moment in the campaign.
The uproar drowned out the issues. To an electorate already wary of "establishment politicians",
these revelations were fatal. The impression that "politicians are all corrupt" played into the hands
of Emmanuel Macron, too young to have done anything worse than make a few quick millions during his
passage through the Rothschild Bank, and there's nothing illegal about that.
In France, the presidential election is followed by parliamentary elections, which normally give
a majority to the party of the newly elected president. But Macron had no party, so he is creating
one for the occasion, made up of defectors from the major defeated parties as well as his own innovation,
candidates from "civil society", with no political experience, but loyal to him personally. These
"civil society" newcomers tend to be successful individuals, winners in the game of globalized competition,
who will have no trouble voting for anti-labor measures. Macron is thus confirming Marine Le Pen's
longstanding assertion that the two main parties were really one big single party, whose rhetorical
differences masked their political convergence.
The Macron victory demoralized Republicans. Weakening them further, Macron named a Republican,
Edouard Philippe, as his Prime Minister, in a government with four Socialist and two Republican,
alongside his own selections from "civil society".
Transforming France
Macron won in part because older voters in particular were frightened by his opponents' hints
at leaving the European Union, which they have been indoctrinated to consider necessary to prevent
renewal of Europe's old wars. But only the hysterical anti-fascist scare can explain why self-styled
leftist "revolutionaries" such as François Ruffin, known for his successful anti-capitalist movie
"Merci Patron", could join the stampede to vote for Macron – promising to "oppose him later". But
how?
Later, after five years of Macron, opposition may be harder than ever. In recent decades,
as manufacturing moves to low wage countries, including EU members such as Poland and Rumania, France
has lost 40% of its industry. Loss of industry means loss of jobs and fewer workers. When industry
is no longer essential, workers have lost their key power: striking to shut down industry. Currently
the desperate workers in a failing auto-works factory in central France are threatening to blow it
up unless the government takes measures to save their jobs. But violence is powerless when it has
no price tag.
Emmanuel Macron has said that he wants to spend only a short time in political life, before getting
back to business. He has a mission, and he is in a hurry. If he gains an absolute majority in the
June parliamentary elections, he has a free hand to govern for five years. He means to use this period
not to "reform" the country, as his predecessors put it, but to "transform" France into a different
sort of country. If he has his way, in five years France will no longer be a sovereign nation, but
a reliable region in a federalized European Union, following a rigorous economic policy made in Germany
by bankers and a bellicose foreign policy made in Washington by neocons.
As usual, the newly elected French president's first move was to rush to Berlin to assert loyalty
to the increasingly lopsided "Franco-German partnership". He was most warmly welcomed by Chancellor
Angela Merkel, thanks to his clear determination to force through the austerity measures demanded
by the Frankfurt budget masters. Macron hopes that his fiscal obedience will be rewarded by German
consent to a European investment fund for stimulating economic growth, but this implies a degree
of federalism that the pfennig-pinching Germans show little sign of accepting.
First of all, he has promised to complete the dismantling of the French labor code, which offers
various protections to workers. This should save money for employers and the government. For Macron,
the ruin of French industry and French farming seem to be welcome steps toward an economy of individual
initiative, symbolized by startups.
The Macron program amounts to a profound ideological transformation of the French ideal of
égalité , equality, from a horizontal concept, meaning equal benefits for all, to the vertical
ideal of "equality of opportunity", meaning the theoretical chance of every individual to rise above
the others. This is an ideal easily accepted in the United States with its longstanding myth of the
self-made man. The French have traditionally been logical enough to understand that everyone can't
rise above the others.
Horizontal equality in France has primarily meant institutional redistribution of wealth via universal
access to benefits such as health care, pensions, communications and transportation facilities, allocations
for families raising children, unemployment insurance, free education at all levels. These are the
benefits that are under threat from the European Union in various ways. One way is the imposition
of "competition" rules that impose privatization and favor foreign takeovers that transform public
services into profit-seekers. Another is the imposition of public budget restrictions, along with
the obligation of the State to seek private loans, increasing its debt, and the loss of tax revenue
that all end up up making the State too poor to continue providing such services.
Very few French people would want to give up such horizontal equality for the privilege of hoping
to become a billionaire.
Macron is sufficiently Americanized, or, to be more precise, globalized, to have declared that
"there is no such thing as French culture". From this viewpoint, France is just a place open to diverse
cultures, as well as to immigrants and of course foreign capital. He has clearly signaled his rejection
of French independence in the foreign policy field. Unlike his leading rivals, who all called for
improved relations with Russia, Macron echoes the Russophobic line of the neocons. He broke tradition
on his inauguration by riding down the Champs-Elysées in a military vehicle. A change of tone is
indicated by his cabinet nominations. The title of the new foreign minister, Jean-Yves Le Drian,
who served as defense minister in the Hollande government, is "Minister of Europe and of Foreign
Affairs", clearly giving Europe preference in the matter. Sylvie Goulard, an ardent Europeist who
has remarked that "she does not feel French", has been named Minister of Armies and Minister of Defense.
Clearly national defense is an afterthought, when the main idea is to deploy the armed forces in
various joint Western interventions.
The Divided Opposition
Unless the June parliamentary elections produce stunning surprises, the opposition to Macron's
catch-all governance party appears weak and fatally divided. The Socialist Party is almost wiped
out. The Republicans are profoundly destabilized. Genuine opposition to the Macron regime can only
be based on defense of French interests against EU economic dictates, starting with the euro, which
prevents the country from pursuing an independent economic and foreign policy. In short, the genuine
opposition must be " souverainiste ", concerned with preserving French sovereignty.
Two strong personalities emerged from the presidential election as potential leaders of that opposition:
Jean-Luc Mélenchon and Marine Le Pen. But they are drastically divided.
Mélenchon ran a spectacularly popular campaign, leaving the Socialist Party far behind (the
party he personally left behind years ago). Initially, as he seemed to be taking votes away from
Le Pen as well as from the Socialists, he got friendly media coverage, but as he came closer to making
it to the decisive second round, the tone started to change. Just as Le Pen was finally knocked out
as a "fascist", there is little doubt that had Mélenchon been Macron's challenger, he would have
been increasingly denounced as "communist".
Mélenchon is intelligent enough to have realized that the social policies he advocates cannot
be achieved unless France recovers control of its currency. He therefore took a stand against both
NATO and the euro. So did Marine Le Pen. Mélenchon was embarrassed by the resemblance between their
two programs, and contrary to other eliminated candidates, refrained from endorsing Macron, instead
calling on his movement, La France Insoumise , to choose between Macron and abstention.
Finally, 25% of Mélenchon voters abstained in the second round, but 62% voted for Macron – almost
exclusively motivated by the alleged need to "stop fascism". That compares with the final total results
of 66% for Macron and 34 % for Le Pen.
That vote confirmed the impossibility of forming a unified souverainiste opposition and
allows Marine Le Pen to strengthen her claim to be the leader of a genuine opposition to Macron.
She has admitted her own mistakes in the campaign, particularly in her debate with Macron, who beat
her hands down with his arrogant performance as the economic expert. But despite her mere 34%, she
retains the most loyal base of supporters in a changing scene. The problem for Mélenchon is that
his electorate is more versatile.
Despite his loud appeal to "youth", Macron was elected by France's huge population of old people.
Among voters over 65, he won 80% against 20% for Le Pen. Marine Le Pen did best with the youngest
age group, 18 to 24, winning 44% against Macron's 56%.
[1] According
to poll of 7,752 representative voters by Le Figaro/LCI,
The differences were also significant between socio-professional categories. Macron won a whopping
83% of the votes coming from the "superior socio-professional categories" – categories where the
"winners" in competitive society are largely ensconced. But in what are described as " categories
populaires ", a French term for ordinary folk, with less education, the vote was 53% in favor
of Le Pen. And she confirmed her position as favorite candidate of the working class, winning 63%
of workers' votes.
Note that the "superior socio-professional categories" are where the significance of these results
will be defined. Individuals from that category – journalists, commentators and show business personalities
– are all in a position to spread the word that this vote indicates that the workers must be "racist",
and therefore that we have narrowly escaped being taken over by "fascism".
One of the many odd things about the latest French presidential election is the rejoicing among
foreign "leftists" over the fact that the candidate of the rich roundly defeated the candidate of
the poor. It used to be the other way around, but that was long ago. These days, the winners in the
competitive game comfort themselves that they morally deserve their success, because they are in
favor of diversity and against racism, whereas the less fortunate, the rural people and the working
class, don't deserve much of anything, because they must be "racist" to be wary of globalization.
The fact that Paris voted 90% for Macron is natural, considering that real estate prices have
pushed the working class out of the capital, whose population is now overwhelmingly what is called
"bobo" – the bohemian bourgeoisie, many of whom are employed in various branches of the dominant
human rights ideology fabrication business: journalists, professors, teachers, consultants, the entertainment
industry. In these milieux, hardly anyone would even dare speak a positive word about Marine Le Pen.
What if Marine Le Pen had won?
Since politics is largely fantasy, we may as well try to imagine the unimaginable: what if Marine
Le Pen had won the election? This was never a realistic possibility, but it is worth imagining.
It could have had one, perhaps only one, extremely positive result: it could have freed France
from its paralyzing obsession with the nonexistent "fascist threat". The ghost would be exorcised.
If the word has any meaning, "fascism" implies single party rule, whereas Marine Le Pen made clear
her desire to govern by coalition, and selected the leader of a small Gaullist party, Nicolas Dupont-Aignan,
as her prospective prime minister. Poof! No fascism. That would have been an immeasurable benefit
for political debate in France. At last genuine issues might matter. Real threats could be confronted.
Another advantage would have been the demise of the National Front. Since Marine Le Pen took over
the notorious party founded by her reactionary father, it has kept a precarious balance between two
opposing wings. There is the right wing in the southeast, along the Riviera, the bastion of the party's
founder, Jean-Marie Le Pen, a region represented in the outgoing parliament by his conservative granddaughter
Marion Maréchal Le Pen. In the old industrial northeast region, between Arras and Lille, Marine Le
Pen has built her own bastion, as champion of ordinary working people, where she won a majority of
votes in the presidential election.
This is not the only time in history when an heiress has gone away with the heritage to join someone
of whom her father disapproves. All those who want to cling to their comforting hatred of the left's
official Satan have trouble believing that Marine Le Pen broke with her reactionary father to go
her own way (just as U.S. hawks couldn't believe in Gorbachev). This change owes everything to her
encounter with Florian Philippot, an intellectual who gave up on the ability of the Socialists to
face the real issues. Marine has the personal qualities of a leader, and Philippot provided the intellectual
substance she needed. Marine has decisively chosen Philippot as her advisor and co-leader, despite
grumblings by Jean-Marie that she has been led astray by a gay Marxist. Had Marine won, her left
wing would have been strengthened enough to enable her and Philippot to scrap the National Front
and found a new "Patriot Party". However, by scoring below 40%, she has weakened her authority and
must try to hold the troublesome party together in order to win seats in the new parliament – which
will not be easy.
Marine Le Pen would have tried to enact measures to save French industry and the jobs it provides,
provide various benefits for low-income people, withdraw from NATO, and even promote a peaceful world,
starting with friendly relations with Russia. She would even have begun to prepare her compatriots
for escape from the euro.
But not to worry, none of this "fascist" program would ever have come to pass. If she had won,
bands of protesting "antifascists" would have invaded the streets, smashing windows and attacking
police. The outgoing Socialist government was preparing to use the resulting chaos as a pretext to
stay in power long enough to manage the parliamentary elections,
[2] "Si Le
Pen avait été élue le plan secret pour 'protéger la République'", Le Nouvel Observateur, May 17,
2017 , ensuring that President Marine Le Pen would be held in check. A "color revolution"
was ready to be stirred up. The deep state is vigilant in NATOland.
CIA is actually a state within the state as Church commission revealed and it has an immanent tendency to seek control over "surface
state" and media. In other words large intelligence apparatus might well be incompatible with the democratic governance.
Notable quotes:
"... The CIA has a track record of acting out of self interest since its inception and should not be believed. That being said, the public is almost completely unaware of the agency's misdeeds. ..."
"In the long run, the CIA can't deceive the Chinese government without also deceiving, in some way, the American public. This
leaves us with an obvious problem: Should we believe anything the CIA says?" [RealClearWorld].
"It's a tough question for a democracy to answer. Trust is built on the tacit agreement that the "bad things" an agency does are
good for the country.
If the public believes that that is no longer the case – if it believes the agency is acting out of self-interest and not national
interest – then the agreement is broken. The intelligence agency is seen as an impediment of the right to national self-determination,
a means for the ends of the few."
Huey Long <
RE: Hall of Mirrors/Believing the CIA
The CIA has a track record of acting out of self interest since its inception and should not be believed. That being said,
the public is almost completely unaware of the agency's misdeeds.
I think the reason folks like Manning, Snowden and Assange are so reviled by the agency is because they are a threat to the
CIA's reputation more than anything else.
@Carlton Meyer Private investigator Rod Wheeler made a few bucks doing an investigation, but
soon realized that he stirred up a high-level hornets nest. Whoever killed Rich would not hesitate
to threaten Wheeler or his family or his pension. Suddenly, Wheeler recants everything that he
recently put in writing, with no explanation. Soon he will claim that he never did the investigation
and has never even been to DC.
US
Nuclear Weapon Upgrade Program:
"CBO estimates that nuclear forces will
cost $348 billion
between FY 2015 and FY 2024. Three independent estimates put the expected
total cost over the next 30 years at as much as $1 trillion."
[aircarft carrier] The Gerald R. Ford, $12.8 billion + $4.7 billion R&D (estimated). The Navy
wants ten.
Columbia
, the Navy's upcoming new nukey-boomer, formerly ORP, Ohio Replacement Program. "The
total lifecycle cost of the entire class is estimated at $347 billion.": Wikipedia
..."
Trump's
proposed increase in US military spending is almost as big as Russia's entire defense
budget."
Well, this is very ironic. Back in the 1980′s, the Soviets spent a
massive amount of money on their military to keep up with America, and
this ended up bankrupting them and causing their collapse. Now the US of
A is spending a horrific amount of money on their military, despite the
fact we are 20 trillion dollars in debt. Not to mention that fact that we
need to rebuild our infrastructure and pay off all the people on welfare
and government benefits. 20 trillion will become 30 trillion, which will
be 40 trillion ..whats the end game?
@aceofspades
Well, this is very ironic. Back in the 1980's, the Soviets spent a
massive amount of money on their military to keep up with America, and
this ended up bankrupting them and causing their collapse. Now the US of
A is spending a horrific amount of money on their military, despite the
fact we are 20 trillion dollars in debt. Not to mention that fact that we
need to rebuild our infrastructure and pay off all the people on welfare
and government benefits. 20 trillion will become 30 trillion, which will
be 40 trillion.....whats the end game?
@aceofspades
Well, this is very ironic. Back in the 1980's, the Soviets spent a
massive amount of money on their military to keep up with America, and
this ended up bankrupting them and causing their collapse. Now the US of
A is spending a horrific amount of money on their military, despite the
fact we are 20 trillion dollars in debt. Not to mention that fact that we
need to rebuild our infrastructure and pay off all the people on welfare
and government benefits. 20 trillion will become 30 trillion, which will
be 40 trillion.....whats the end game?
The aircraft relies on the assumption that, in thirteen years when
it enters service, anti-stealth technology will not have reached the
point of making it even more obviously useless.
The purpose of this sort of technology is to make lots and lots of
money for the right people. Whether it works or not is entirely
irrelevant.
@Sunbeam
One thing I'm waiting to see is when non-American culture producers start
to beat Americans.
Bollywood is gigantic. And has a huge presence in parts of Asia.
There used to be Hong Kong Cinema. Not sure what happened to it.
Successful, but not on the scale of Star Wars or The Fast And The Furious
or something.
Brazilian T&A soap operas are spreading around the world.
K-Pop is doing the same.
Japanese Anime and Manga, maybe the odd pop star, is worldwide now as
well.
But one day we are going to see that the past year's biggest movie
worldwide was made in Bollywood or China.
I'm a nationalist, but I will absolutely cheer as the first nail goes in
Hollywood's coffin.
As someone who has travelled to the US and China (Beijing), I was
astounded by how advanced China's infrastructure was to that of the US.
Subways, freight trains, highways, airports, bridges you name it. The
investment is still on going and only really been going on for 25 or so
years. I had the feeling in the US things were being neglected. Also
China is almost unbelievably safe walking the streets. Everybody behaved
like mature adults. No forty year olds who dressed like teenagers, in
fact most of the teenagers dressed like forty year olds should.
Infrastructure is critical to a modern society, the military merely
protects it. Economy is the source of viable military spending, not the
other way around.
This marvelous revelation from Wikipedia: "In July 2016, the U.S.
Air Force stated they would not release the estimated cost for the
B-21 contract with Northrop Grumman. The Air Force argued releasing
the cost would reveal too much information about the classified
project to potential adversaries." As, for example, taxpayers.
"The aircraft relies on the assumption that, in thirteen years when it
enters service, anti-stealth technology will not have reached the
point of making it even more obviously useless."
It will still be good for terrorizing ... sorry ... for policing rogue
states like N. Korea, Serbia, Yemen, and Syria.
@Carlton Meyer Private investigator Rod Wheeler made a few bucks doing an investigation, but
soon realized that he stirred up a high-level hornets nest. Whoever killed Rich would not hesitate
to threaten Wheeler or his family or his pension. Suddenly, Wheeler recants everything that he
recently put in writing, with no explanation. Soon he will claim that he never did the investigation
and has never even been to DC.
US
Nuclear Weapon Upgrade Program:
"CBO estimates that nuclear forces will
cost $348 billion
between FY 2015 and FY 2024. Three independent estimates put the expected
total cost over the next 30 years at as much as $1 trillion."
[aircarft carrier] The Gerald R. Ford, $12.8 billion + $4.7 billion R&D (estimated). The Navy
wants ten.
Columbia
, the Navy's upcoming new nukey-boomer, formerly ORP, Ohio Replacement Program. "The
total lifecycle cost of the entire class is estimated at $347 billion.": Wikipedia
..."
Trump's
proposed increase in US military spending is almost as big as Russia's entire defense
budget."
Well, this is very ironic. Back in the 1980′s, the Soviets spent a
massive amount of money on their military to keep up with America, and
this ended up bankrupting them and causing their collapse. Now the US of
A is spending a horrific amount of money on their military, despite the
fact we are 20 trillion dollars in debt. Not to mention that fact that we
need to rebuild our infrastructure and pay off all the people on welfare
and government benefits. 20 trillion will become 30 trillion, which will
be 40 trillion ..whats the end game?
@aceofspades
Well, this is very ironic. Back in the 1980's, the Soviets spent a
massive amount of money on their military to keep up with America, and
this ended up bankrupting them and causing their collapse. Now the US of
A is spending a horrific amount of money on their military, despite the
fact we are 20 trillion dollars in debt. Not to mention that fact that we
need to rebuild our infrastructure and pay off all the people on welfare
and government benefits. 20 trillion will become 30 trillion, which will
be 40 trillion.....whats the end game?
@aceofspades
Well, this is very ironic. Back in the 1980's, the Soviets spent a
massive amount of money on their military to keep up with America, and
this ended up bankrupting them and causing their collapse. Now the US of
A is spending a horrific amount of money on their military, despite the
fact we are 20 trillion dollars in debt. Not to mention that fact that we
need to rebuild our infrastructure and pay off all the people on welfare
and government benefits. 20 trillion will become 30 trillion, which will
be 40 trillion.....whats the end game?
The aircraft relies on the assumption that, in thirteen years when
it enters service, anti-stealth technology will not have reached the
point of making it even more obviously useless.
The purpose of this sort of technology is to make lots and lots of
money for the right people. Whether it works or not is entirely
irrelevant.
@Sunbeam
One thing I'm waiting to see is when non-American culture producers start
to beat Americans.
Bollywood is gigantic. And has a huge presence in parts of Asia.
There used to be Hong Kong Cinema. Not sure what happened to it.
Successful, but not on the scale of Star Wars or The Fast And The Furious
or something.
Brazilian T&A soap operas are spreading around the world.
K-Pop is doing the same.
Japanese Anime and Manga, maybe the odd pop star, is worldwide now as
well.
But one day we are going to see that the past year's biggest movie
worldwide was made in Bollywood or China.
I'm a nationalist, but I will absolutely cheer as the first nail goes in
Hollywood's coffin.
As someone who has travelled to the US and China (Beijing), I was
astounded by how advanced China's infrastructure was to that of the US.
Subways, freight trains, highways, airports, bridges you name it. The
investment is still on going and only really been going on for 25 or so
years. I had the feeling in the US things were being neglected. Also
China is almost unbelievably safe walking the streets. Everybody behaved
like mature adults. No forty year olds who dressed like teenagers, in
fact most of the teenagers dressed like forty year olds should.
Infrastructure is critical to a modern society, the military merely
protects it. Economy is the source of viable military spending, not the
other way around.
This marvelous revelation from Wikipedia: "In July 2016, the U.S.
Air Force stated they would not release the estimated cost for the
B-21 contract with Northrop Grumman. The Air Force argued releasing
the cost would reveal too much information about the classified
project to potential adversaries." As, for example, taxpayers.
"The aircraft relies on the assumption that, in thirteen years when it
enters service, anti-stealth technology will not have reached the
point of making it even more obviously useless."
It will still be good for terrorizing ... sorry ... for policing rogue
states like N. Korea, Serbia, Yemen, and Syria.
Interesting questions ! But one can sleep soundly tonight safe in the knowledge that not even the pretense of a reply
to Bacevich's questions will be forthcoming for the US MSM.
Notable quotes:
"... Yet the U.S. maintains nuclear strike forces on full alert, has embarked on a costly and comprehensive trillion-dollar modernization of its nuclear arsenal, and even refuses to adopt a no-first-use posture when it comes to nuclear war. The truth is that the United States will consider surrendering its nukes only after every other nation on the planet has done so first. How does American nuclear hypocrisy affect the prospects for global nuclear disarmament or even simply for the non-proliferation of such weaponry? ..."
"... How much damage Donald Trump's presidency wreaks before it ends remains to be seen. Yet he himself is a transient phenomenon. To allow his pratfalls and shenanigans to divert attention from matters sure to persist when he finally departs the stage is to make a grievous error. It may well be that, as the Times insists, the truth is now more important than ever. If so, finding the truth requires looking in the right places and asking the right questions. ..."
"... Declassified CIA leaks from the DNC indicate these trees actively made maple syrup for terrorists. This gives terrorists big muscles, like Popeye, and reduces urges to eat human organs. ..."
"... The conflict commonly referred to as the Afghanistan War is now the longest in U.S. history - having lasted longer than the Civil War, World War I, and World War II combined. What is the Pentagon's plan for concluding that conflict? When might Americans expect it to end? ..."
"... Well, looks like I missed the war ending .but with the war ended, one would think we wouldn't have to be dropping the world's biggest bomb ..."
"... I'm thinking the bigMFing bomb was more a marketing theater driven initative rather than Afgan Strategic Theatre driven. ..."
"... Some great questions here. Recently I was at a Town Hall with my representative to Congress and asked him if our government, or even just the Democrats, had a long term strategy for peace in the Middle East. The answer was basically, No. ..."
"... Bacevitch needs to be a little more critical about all the claims about US energy. The US may be exporting some oil and oil products, but it is importing more. We have no prospect of "energy independence" in the forseeable future, unless there is a drastic cutback in consumption. When it comes to energy forecasting, top governmental agencies have had an abysmal record. Independent experts like David Hughes and Art Berman regularly expose the wishful thinking and poor analysis of the economists at these agencies. ..."
"... Instead he invites us all to assume the Soviets were acting and the West was reacting. In my view this genuinely childish view of international relations is the template for American exceptionalism and, unless we break free of it, a logic of privileged exceptionalism will continually assert itself. The Trump era offers us a chance to raze this mythology and seriously confront how market-oriented imperatives, not devils and angels, drive international conflict. ..."
"... Is it because a self-perpetuating top-heavy military bureaucracy was never properly demobilized after the Second World War, and only promotes the sort of sociopathic, narcissistic, borderline personalities who are relentlessly able to bully the groveling toadies and wussies who make up our perpetually campaigning political-climber class? ..."
"... Andrew Bacevich needs to study more deeply about Syrian history and politics, since his description of Syrian president Bashar Assad as a brutal dictator fits as a description of Bashar's father Hafez Assad but is inaccurate in relation to Bashar Assad, who seems to have a rather gentle personality and is actually one of the more benign leaders in the Middle East. ..."
"... Under that new constitution, in 2014 he ran in a free election observed by international observers against two other politicians and was reelected president. He has promised that if he loses the next election he will step down. ..."
"... Nevertheless Assad has been systematically demonized by the governments and MSM of the US, UK, and France, as well as by Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar. Demonization is a technique that is often used to prepare the way for regime change, and it is not based on objective analysis. ..."
"... Similar tactics were used in Ukraine in February 2014 by ultranationalist Right Sector sharpshooters, who were seen shooting Maidan demonstrators. The deaths of the demonstrators were then blamed on the police. ..."
"... Also see Gowans' well-researched 2016 book 'Washington's Long War on Syria.' The US has been demonizing and trying to overthrow the Syrian government for several decades now, above all because it is the only remaining semi-socialist nation in the Middle East and has single-payer national health insurance, support for the elderly, and free college education for all. Assad is no saint, but he is one of the more democratic and forward-looking leaders in the Middle East today. ..."
If only it were so. How wonderful it would be if President Trump's ascendancy had coincided with
a revival of hard-hitting, deep-dive, no-holds-barred American journalism. Alas, that's hardly the
case. True, the big media outlets are demonstrating both energy and enterprise in exposing the ineptitude,
inconsistency, and dubious ethical standards, as well as outright lies and fake news, that are already
emerging as Trump era signatures. That said, pointing out that the president has (again) uttered
a falsehood, claimed credit for a nonexistent achievement, or abandoned some position to which he
had previously sworn fealty requires something less than the sleuthing talents of a Sherlock Holmes.
As for beating up on poor Sean Spicer for his latest sequence of gaffes - well, that's more akin
to sadism than reporting.
Apart from a commendable determination to discomfit Trump and members of his inner circle (select
military figures excepted, at least for now), journalism remains pretty much what it was prior to
November 8th of last year: personalities built up only to be torn down; fads and novelties discovered,
celebrated, then mocked; "extraordinary" stories of ordinary people granted 15 seconds of fame only
to once again be consigned to oblivion - all served with a side dish of that day's quota of suffering,
devastation, and carnage. These remain journalism's stock-in-trade. As practiced in the United States,
with certain honorable (and hence unprofitable) exceptions, journalism remains superficial, voyeuristic,
and governed by the attention span of a two year old.
As a result, all those editors, reporters, columnists, and talking heads who characterize their
labors as "now more important than ever" ill-serve the public they profess to inform and enlighten.
Rather than clearing the air, they befog it further. If anything, the media's current obsession with
Donald Trump - his every utterance or tweet treated as "breaking news!" - just provides one additional
excuse for highlighting trivia, while slighting issues that deserve far more attention than they
currently receive.
To illustrate the point, let me cite some examples of national security issues that presently
receive short shrift or are ignored altogether by those parts of the Fourth Estate said to help set
the nation's political agenda. To put it another way: Hey, Big Media, here are two dozen matters
to which you're not giving faintly adequate thought and attention.
1. Accomplishing the "mission" : Since the immediate aftermath of World War II, the United
States has been committed to defending key allies in Europe and East Asia. Not long thereafter, U.S.
security guarantees were extended to the Middle East as well. Under what circumstances can Americans
expect nations in these regions to assume responsibility for managing their own affairs? To put it
another way, when (if ever) might U.S. forces actually come home? And if it is incumbent upon the
United States to police vast swaths of the planet in perpetuity, how should momentous changes in
the international order - the rise of China, for example, or accelerating climate change - affect
the U.S. approach to doing so?
2 . American military supremacy : The United States military is undoubtedly the world's
finest. It's also far and away the
most generously funded , with policymakers offering U.S. troops no shortage of opportunities
to practice their craft. So why doesn't this great military ever win anything? Or put another way,
why in recent decades have those forces been unable to accomplish Washington's stated wartime objectives?
Why has the now 15-year-old war on terror failed to result in even a single real success anywhere
in the Greater Middle East? Could it be that we've taken the wrong approach? What should we be doing
differently?
3. America's empire of bases : The U.S. military today
garrisons the planet in a fashion without historical precedent. Successive administrations, regardless
of party, justify and perpetuate this policy by insisting that positioning U.S. forces in distant
lands fosters peace, stability, and security. In the present century, however, perpetuating this
practice has visibly had the opposite effect. In the eyes of many of those called upon to "host"
American bases, the permanent presence of such forces smacks of occupation. They resist. Why should
U.S. policymakers expect otherwise?
4. Supporting the troops : In present-day America, expressing reverence for those who serve
in uniform is something akin to a religious obligation. Everyone professes to
cherish America's "warriors." Yet such bountiful, if superficial, expressions of regard
camouflage a growing
gap between those who serve and those who applaud from the sidelines. Our present-day military system,
based on the misnamed All-Volunteer Force, is neither democratic nor effective. Why has discussion
and debate about its deficiencies not found a place among the nation's political priorities?
5. Prerogatives of the commander-in-chief : Are there any military actions that the president
of the United States may not order on his own authority? If so, what are they? Bit by bit, decade
by decade, Congress has
abdicated
its assigned role in authorizing war. Today, it merely rubberstamps what presidents decide to
do (or simply
stays mum ). Who does this deference to an imperial presidency benefit? Have U.S. policies thereby
become more prudent, enlightened, and successful?
6. Assassin-in-chief : A policy of assassination, secretly implemented under the aegis
of the CIA during the early Cold War, yielded few substantive successes. When the secrets were revealed,
however, the U.S. government suffered
considerable
embarrassment , so much so that presidents
foreswore politically motivated murder. After 9/11, however, Washington returned to the assassination
business in a big way and on a global scale, using drones. Today, the only secret is the sequence
of names on the current presidential
hit list , euphemistically
known as the White House "disposition matrix." But does assassination actually advance U.S. interests
(or does it merely recruit replacements for the terrorists it liquidates)? How can we measure its
costs, whether direct or indirect? What dangers and vulnerabilities does this practice invite?
7. The war formerly known as the "Global War on Terrorism" : What precisely is Washington's
present strategy for defeating violent jihadism? What sequence of planned actions or steps is expected
to yield success? If no such strategy exists, why is that the case? How is it that the absence of
strategy - not to mention an agreed upon definition of "success" - doesn't even qualify for discussion
here?
8. The campaign formerly known as Operation Enduring Freedom : The conflict commonly referred
to as the Afghanistan War is now the
longest in U.S. history - having lasted longer than the Civil War, World War I, and World War
II combined. What is the Pentagon's plan for concluding that conflict? When might Americans expect
it to end? On what terms?
9. The Gulf : Americans once believed that their prosperity and way of life depended on
having assured access to Persian Gulf oil. Today, that is no longer the case. The United States is
once more an
oil exporter . Available and accessible reserves of oil and natural gas in North America are
far greater than was
once believed . Yet the assumption that the Persian Gulf still qualifies as crucial to American
national security persists in Washington. Why?
10. Hyping terrorism : Each year
terrorist attacks kill far fewer Americans than do
auto accidents
, drug overdoses , or even
lightning strikes
. Yet in the allocation of government resources, preventing terrorist attacks takes precedence
over preventing all three of the others combined. Why is that?
11. Deaths that matter and deaths that don't : Why do terrorist attacks that kill a handful
of Europeans command infinitely more American attention than do terrorist attacks that kill far larger
numbers of Arabs? A terrorist attack that kills citizens of France or Belgium elicits from the United
States heartfelt expressions of sympathy and solidarity. A terrorist attack that kills Egyptians
or Iraqis elicits shrugs. Why the difference? To what extent does race provide the answer to that
question?
12. Israeli nukes : What purpose is served by indulging the
pretense that Israel does not have nuclear weapons?
13. Peace in the Holy Land : What purpose is served by
indulging illusions that a "two-state solution" offers a plausible resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict? As remorselessly as white settlers once encroached upon territory inhabited by Native American
tribes, Israeli settlers
expand their presence in the occupied territories year by year. As they do, the likelihood of
creating a viable Palestinian state becomes ever more improbable. To pretend otherwise is the equivalent
of thinking that one day President Trump might prefer the rusticity of Camp David to the glitz of
Mar-a-Lago.
14. Merchandizing death : When it comes to arms sales, there is no need to Make America
Great Again. The U.S. ranks
number one by a comfortable margin, with long-time allies
Saudi Arabia and
Israel leading recipients of those arms. Each year, the Saudis (per capita gross domestic product
$20,000) purchase hundreds of millions of dollars of U.S. weapons. Israel (per capita gross domestic
product $38,000) gets several billion dollars worth of such weaponry annually courtesy of the American
taxpayer. If the Saudis pay for U.S. arms, why shouldn't the Israelis? They can certainly afford
to do so.
15. Our friends the Saudis (I) : Fifteen of the 19 hijackers on September 11, 2001, were
Saudis. What does that fact signify?
16. Our friends the Saudis (II) : If indeed Saudi Arabia and Iran are
competing to determine which nation will enjoy the upper hand in the Persian Gulf, why should
the United States favor Saudi Arabia? In what sense do Saudi values align more closely with American
values than do Iranian ones?
17. Our friends the Pakistanis : Pakistan behaves like a rogue state. It is a
nuclear weapons proliferator . It
supports the Taliban. For years, it provided sanctuary to Osama bin Laden. Yet U.S. policymakers
treat Pakistan as if it were an ally. Why? In what ways do U.S. and Pakistani interests or values
coincide? If there are none, why not say so?
18. Free-loading Europeans : Why can't Europe, "
whole and free ," its
population
and
economy considerably larger than Russia's, defend itself? It's altogether commendable that U.S.
policymakers should express support for Polish independence and root for the Baltic republics. But
how does it make sense for the United States to care more about the wellbeing of people living in
Eastern Europe than do people living in Western Europe?
19. The mother of all "special relationships" : The United States and the United Kingdom
have a "special relationship" dating from the days of Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill. Apart
from keeping the Public Broadcasting Service supplied with costume dramas and stories featuring eccentric
detectives, what is the rationale for that partnership today? Why should U.S. relations with Great
Britain, a fading power, be any more "special" than its relations with a rising power like India?
Why should the bonds connecting Americans and Britons be any more intimate than those connecting
Americans and Mexicans? Why does a republic now approaching the 241st anniversary of its independence
still need a "mother country"?
20. The old nuclear disarmament razzmatazz : American presidents routinely cite their hope
for the worldwide elimination of nuclear weapons. Yet the U.S. maintains nuclear strike forces
on full alert, has embarked on a costly and comprehensive trillion-dollar
modernization
of its nuclear arsenal, and even refuses to adopt a no-first-use posture when it comes to nuclear
war. The truth is that the United States will consider surrendering its nukes only after every other
nation on the planet has done so first. How does American nuclear hypocrisy affect the prospects
for global nuclear disarmament or even simply for the non-proliferation of such weaponry?
21. Double standards (I) : American policymakers take it for granted that their country's
sphere of influence is global, which, in turn, provides the rationale for the deployment of U.S.
military forces to
scores of countries. Yet when it comes to nations like China, Russia, or Iran, Washington takes
the position that spheres of influence are
obsolete
and a concept that should no longer be applicable to the practice of statecraft. So Chinese,
Russian, and Iranian forces should remain where they belong - in China, Russia, and Iran. To stray
beyond that constitutes a provocation, as well as a threat to global peace and order. Why should
these other nations play by American rules? Why shouldn't similar rules apply to the United States?
22. Double standards (II) : Washington claims that it supports and upholds international
law. Yet when international law gets in the way of what American policymakers want to do, they disregard
it. They start wars, violate the sovereignty of other nations, and authorize agents of the United
States to kidnap, imprison, torture, and kill. They do these things with impunity, only forced to
reverse their actions on the
rare occasions when
U.S. courts find them illegal. Why should other powers treat international norms as sacrosanct since
the United States does so only when convenient?
23. Double standards (III) : The United States condemns the indiscriminate killing of civilians
in wartime. Yet over the last three-quarters of a century, it killed civilians regularly and often
on a massive scale. By what logic, since the 1940s, has the
killing of Germans, Japanese,
Koreans, Vietnamese, Laotians, Cambodians, Afghans, and others by U.S. air power been any less reprehensible
than the Syrian government's use of "barrel bombs" to kill Syrians today? On what basis should Americans
accept Pentagon
claims that, when civilians are killed these days by U.S. forces, the acts are invariably accidental,
whereas Syrian forces kill civilians intentionally and out of malice? Why exclude incompetence or
the fog of war as explanations? And why, for instance, does the United States regularly gloss over
or ignore altogether the
noncombatants that Saudi forces (with
U.S. assistance ) are routinely killing in Yemen?
24. Moral obligations : When confronted with some egregious violation of human rights,
members of the chattering classes frequently express an urge for the United States to "do something."
Holocaust analogies sprout like dandelions. Newspaper columnists recycle copy first used when Cambodians
were slaughtering other Cambodians en masse or whenever Hutus and Tutsis went at it. Proponents of
action - typically advocating military intervention - argue that the United States has a moral obligation
to aid those victimized by injustice or cruelty anywhere on Earth. But what determines the pecking
order of such moral obligations? Which comes first, a responsibility to redress the crimes of others
or a responsibility to redress crimes committed by Americans? Who has a greater claim to U.S. assistance,
Syrians suffering today under the boot of Bashar al-Assad or Iraqis, their country shattered by the
U.S. invasion of 2003? Where do the Vietnamese fit into the queue? How about the Filipinos, brutally
denied independence and forcibly incorporated into an American empire as the nineteenth century ended?
Or African-Americans, whose ancestors were imported as slaves? Or, for that matter, dispossessed
and disinherited Native Americans? Is there a statute of limitations that applies to moral obligations?
And if not, shouldn't those who have waited longest for justice or reparations receive priority attention?
Let me suggest that any one of these two dozen issues - none seriously covered, discussed, or
debated in the American media or in the political mainstream - bears more directly on the wellbeing
of the United States and our prospects for avoiding global conflict than anything Donald Trump may
have said or done during his first 100 days as president. Collectively, they define the core of the
national security challenges that presently confront this country, even as they languish on the periphery
of American politics.
How much damage Donald Trump's presidency wreaks before it ends remains to be seen. Yet he himself
is a transient phenomenon. To allow his pratfalls and shenanigans to divert attention from matters
sure to persist when he finally departs the stage is to make a grievous error. It may well be that,
as the Times insists, the truth is now more important than ever. If so, finding the truth
requires looking in the right places and asking the right questions.
Kahneman's "Thinking Fast and Slow" has many of the answers to the questions about why the
MSM is the way it is. People are hard-wired to react to sound bites, especially potential pleasure
or terror. The MSM is very good at that. Populist politicians feed off of the same.
"What would be far more useful than a specialised list of inadequately reported topics would
be to analyze this MSM behaviour, explore how it comes about and how it has evolved, to reveal
some of the darker connections to power, and put up some strategies for slowly reversing it."
Sorry MoiAussie, but the analysis has already been done, unfortunately nobody really cares.
Propaganda and the Public Mind
Necessary Illusions
"What would be far more useful than a specialised list of inadequately reported topics would
be to analyze this MSM behaviour, explore how it comes about and how it has evolved, to reveal
some of the darker connections to power, and put up some strategies for slowly reversing it. In
a nutshell, how to foster thriving independent media with broad reach that expose MSM stenography
and resist censorship?"
Well, yes. Except the behaviour you are analysing is, presumably, among other things, the behaviour
involved in inadequately addressing these topics.
stop fighting about identity politics (i'm not holding my breath for either side)
elements of both sides want to return to a non-interventionist US foreign policy, except there
is always a fight about something else that serves as a distraction.. like cats and shiny toys.
The only thing one can do is persistently bring important issues forward to friends and colleagues.
In other words, become in many respects a social pariah. Challenging the status quo by definition
makes you an outsider.
The strategic effectiveness of this dissent becomes manifest when you actually change how you
live your life. You become an example for others to follow.
Any successful movement building must follow this path. The strategic plan is to live and think
like a socialist in a crumbling capitalist world. The rising levels of inequality must surely
bring this about, one way or another.
Socialism or Barbarism. How many working people could disagree with that? It needs to be repeated
over and over. That spirit needs to be reflected in individual life in order to survive.
" But it raises the question, what can individuals do to change the behavior of the media?"
We can continue to ignore them and opt for the following: Naked Capitalism, CounterPunch, ZeroHedge,
Liberty Blitzkreig, ContraCorner, Truthout, Consortium News, The Unz Review, Tom Dispatch, Democracy
Now, Pando Daily, The Intercept, etc, etc. That is the mainstream media's worst nightmare.
The only reason to check the NYT or Washington Post is to see what meme is being promoted by
the deep state; then you know what not to believe.
I find this whole debate about fake news to be somewhat laughable. Americans have been subject
to fake news for decades, they just didn't know it. Noam Chomsky has been writing about this for
40 years. His books: Propaganda and the Public Mind, Deterring Democracy, Manufacturing Consent
and Necessary Illusions are all excellent and contain extensive research and details to support
his claims. Of course part to the fake news strategy has been to ignore people like Chomsky. Instead
we get intellectual clowns like Tom Friedman telling us how the world works.
Now that we have some real news, the fake news mainstream media has gone into panic mode and
its strategy is to label the real new as fake news. Orwell and Huxley must be rolling in their
graves with laughter.
True, the big media outlets are demonstrating both energy and enterprise in exposing the
ineptitude, inconsistency, and dubious ethical standards, as well as outright lies and fake news,
that are already emerging as Trump era signatures. That said, pointing out that the president
has (again) uttered a falsehood, claimed credit for a nonexistent achievement, or abandoned some
position to which he had previously sworn . "uttered a falsehood, claimed credit for a
nonexistent achievement, or abandoned some position.." a new development in POTUS behavior
ushered in by DTrump??
Ok, so the USG has 24 issues. Let's not be nit-picky.
On this one, we've had a bit of progress.
"8. The campaign formerly known as Operation Enduring Freedom: The conflict commonly referred
to as the Afghanistan War is now the longest in U.S. history - having lasted longer than the Civil
War, World War I, and World War II combined. What is the Pentagon's plan for concluding that conflict?
When might Americans expect it to end? On what terms?"
We dropped a $30 million BMF'ing bomb on an undefensible, open plain. Killed 67 trees and terrified
Afgan flora from border to border. Egyptian cotton kids refuse to migrate there on their little
parachute thingies because they are terrified --
Declassified CIA leaks from the DNC indicate these trees actively made maple syrup for
terrorists. This gives terrorists big muscles, like Popeye, and reduces urges to eat human organs.
This is appreciated by other terrorists in camp and they sleep better , too.
However, the Fava Beans and Olive Oil have been spilled. Unemployed tree hugger reporters report
that the BMF'ing bomb caused the tree sap to instantly turn to maple sugar candies and the candies
are now enclosed in a depleted uranium candy tins. Fake research scientists believe the bomb casing
was made of the depleted uranium. Could happen, opines Krugman, now minority owner of the NYT,
and seconded by Chelsea, whom did the secret HS science project back in the 90s in Yugoslavia.
She drew a cute picture of Daddy on the bomb's belly, but a lot of Very Serious Men In Black Suits
did everything else.
As to when the entire Afgan issue ends, we know the war becomes fiscally irresponsible when
the USG runs out of new trees to bomb and the maple sugar candies no longer can fund the onslaught.
Krugman is working on the macro analysis and will send the Noble Prize people an advanced copy
for editing, puffing up, and general focus grouping. One area of neglect is developing a universal
political correctness language – the semantics are daunting and definitions have to be dynamic,
yet synchronized with meanings according to domestic needs. That's a tough one.
Then people have to learn it, instead of lazily doing what they do now. Which I think may involve
much use of sign language.
An advance against the reward money is expected, and a pic of the statues with Kruggies name
on it would signal good faith and seal the deal. Bully to Trump!
"The conflict commonly referred to as the Afghanistan War is now the longest in U.S. history
- having lasted longer than the Civil War, World War I, and World War II combined. What is the
Pentagon's plan for concluding that conflict? When might Americans expect it to end?"
Apparently, the Afghanistan war has ended. It makes me feel a little less stupid, although
I have a lot of excess stupid in reserve, to know others missed it as well ..
fresno dan
After dropping its largest conventional bomb ever used in combat in Afghanistan on 13 April,
the US military said the massive ordnance air blast, or Moab, was a "very clear message to Isis"
that they would be "annihilated".
Defence secretary Jim Mattis said the bomb was "necessary to break Isis". The Afghan government
claimed the bomb killed 94 Isis militants, while harming no civilians.
the military takes more and more "police actions" while the police use more and more military
equipment and tactics ..
Considering all the "surplus" stuff that goes to the police, how soon before the police drop the
biggest "anti-criminal suppression device" i.e., the mother of all bombs???
how soon before the police drop the biggest "anti-criminal suppression device" i.e., the
mother of all bombs???
low yield Neutron bomb.. don't damage what left of the domestic infrastructure, the REIT managers
would go crazy!
The backhanded criticism that the MFing bomb didn't do enough damage is related to where it
was used.
Try a barometric pressure bomb in a place like Manhattan and it would be a much different outcome
than say on the other end of the spectrum, at a latitude/longitude in Nevada where the before
and after pics would be identical.
A dark side of the media criticism of the MFing Bomb is that it may well goad the MIC/Pentagon
Product Managers into a do-over. Afterall, who likes their handiwork criticized?
DTrump told them I want something big and flashy while Xi is in town and that's what they came
up with..
"The guerrilla must move amongst the people as a fish swims in the sea." Mao Zedong
The cool thing about guerilla warfare is it largely eliminates the concept of civilians since
anybody could be a soldier, even children. That is why civilian casualties are frequently so low,
because pretty much anybody over the age of 6 is a combatant. it also increases the enemy combatant
body count which makes it clear that the government forces are winning, as was so ably shown in
the Vietnam War.
I'm thinking the bigMFing bomb was more a marketing theater driven initative rather
than Afgan Strategic Theatre driven.
It was so DTrump could be at the breakfast table before the President of China and to greet
him with.. Wow, sorry I had to cut out before Dessert last night, had some things to take care
of, how was the Chocolate cake.. the Cake?" ( he like to repeat things)
I view the use of MOAB on ISIS as the equivalent of giving an antibiotic shot so that the in-country
Taliban immune system can wipe out the remaining ISIS bacteria. I don't think the Taliban wants
ISIS there since it focuses too much US attention on the area, so they may be willing to mop up
the remaining ISIS fighters.
Some great questions here. Recently I was at a Town Hall with my representative to Congress
and asked him if our government, or even just the Democrats, had a long term strategy for peace
in the Middle East. The answer was basically, No. A few weeks later I actually got a phone
call from his office on this very question, yet the answer was still basically No. He did say
that Kerry had sought a UN brokered regime change in Syria (opposed by Russia), after I suggested
something like this.
However Bacevitch needs to be a little more critical about all the claims about US energy.
The US may be exporting some oil and oil products, but it is importing more. We have no prospect
of "energy independence" in the forseeable future, unless there is a drastic cutback in consumption.
When it comes to energy forecasting, top governmental agencies have had an abysmal record. Independent
experts like David Hughes and Art Berman regularly expose the wishful thinking and poor analysis
of the economists at these agencies.
"Independent experts like David Hughes and Art Berman regularly expose the wishful thinking
and poor analysis of the economists at these agencies." Thanks for pointing this out.
It's great to see people from across the ideological spectrum who served in the military, intelligence
services and in various administrations, speaking out. Hindsight is 20/20as the cliche goes. Now
if only people who are currently serving in those institutions would step up to the plate
and speak truth to power. At what point does it become unconscionable for good people to do nothing?
Or, rather, when does critical mass kick in and make resisting the insanity that reigns in our
institutions more than just a flash in the pan and career suicide?
The past is not encouraging, war hero Eisenhower could only warn of the MIC as he was exiting.
The economic footprint of the MIC + think tanks + academia + security agencies is huge (maybe
a trillion/year)
A lot of people depend on the defense budget staying large as the MIC is a jobs program throughout
much of the USA,.
I remember CA Senator Boxer, one of the few senators who voted against the AUMF in Iraq, fighting
to keep the local (to me) Mare Island Naval Shipyard from closing in 1996.
The adjacent city, Vallejo, subsequently went through bankruptcy.
One illustrative MIC family is the Kagan-Nuland family,
Victoria Nuland was Hillary Clinton's Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian
Affairs and seemed to be in charge of stirring up trouble in the Ukraine.
Her husband is noted neocon (he prefers "liberal interventionist") Robert Kagan of the Bookings
Institution, and his brother, Frederick, is at the American Enterprise institute.
Frederick's wife, Kimberly, heads up the "Institute for the Study of War" funded by Raytheon,
General Dynamics, DynCorp and others.
One might suggest this family gets meaning, purpose and income through USA military action.
One could posit there many other similar families.
It is difficult to be optimistic that much can be done.
These aren't independent issues (and, ultimately, there's no reason they have to be.)
Like, what's preventing the solution of #1 (expecting nations in these regions to assume responsibility
for managing their own affairs?) #17. When the Pakistanis have to deal with huge problems on the
other side of the invisible line, they aren't so reliable about sticking to the script. Especially
a script that has written out all the huge problems.
I guess that is the point. 45 seconds with this list pastes two items together and makes the
framework for a story. But the run of stories that appear are like Captain America saw a bad guy
and punched him in the face. Makes a good comic panel, and, when the press has been taught the
true meaning of "profitable", it makes a good newspaper page too. Right.
A working State Department could do interesting things with this list too, but - Captain America.
the US hasn't fought a peer nation since 1945-even then the USSR did a lot of the heavy lifting.
the US still hasnt beaten the Taliban.
US full spectrum dominance could be propaganda for all we know--with our vaunted carriers and
fighters sitting ducks to swarms of cheap first-world missiles.
in any fight with China or Russia, theyd only have to play defense. The US would be the ones
without home field advantage, likely in a war with limited domestic support as the fight probablyt
would not be about an existential issue to the US homeland
If a group like the Taliban has indigenous support, then you pretty much are left with destroying
the village in order to save it as the only military option. Putting a corrupt mafia in charge
of the country is not the appropriate alternate civilian political approach to win hearts and
minds.
In the 1990s nobody cared about the Taliban except when they were blowing up big Buddhas. Their
fatal error was allowing bin-Laden to launch major attacks against the US home soil. My guess
at this time is that the Taliban have been inoculated against spreading terror overseas. If the
US left Afghanistan, the Taliban would probably take many of the valleys back and kick ISIS out
so that they don't have to worry about the US coming back in to deal with 9/11 terrorists again.
Afghanistan would probably be fairly "peaceful" at that point in a fundamental Muslim way, kind
of like the fundamental Christian utopia that Mike Pence tried to create in Indiana.
Bacevich's indictment suffers from an inability to explain how this genuflecting celebration
of American intentions degenerated into what he goes on to elaborate.
Accomplishing the "mission": Since the immediate aftermath of World War II, the United States
has been committed to defending key allies in Europe and East Asia. Not long thereafter, U.S.
security guarantees were extended to the Middle East as well.
The beginning of the Cold War continues to be shrouded in assumptions about Soviet aggressiveness
and American and British benevolence. Otherwise critical thinkers become kool aid dispensers when
they are obliged to reference it. Bacevich skates over questions such as the division of Germany
- was it because the US wanted to allow Germany to quickly reindustrialize and the Soviets were
afraid of yet another invasion? - and whether city-destroying nuclear weapons would be internationally
controlled or remain a US monopoly.
Instead he invites us all to assume the Soviets were acting and the West was reacting.
In my view this genuinely childish view of international relations is the template for American
exceptionalism and, unless we break free of it, a logic of privileged exceptionalism will continually
assert itself. The Trump era offers us a chance to raze this mythology and seriously confront
how market-oriented imperatives, not devils and angels, drive international conflict.
I would like to see CNN or any other channel begin a series of TV presentations where each
one of these items is discussed by the relevant people. (When no officials show up for the program,
then the producers will know they are on the right track.) A great idea for a series of investigative
reports by journalists also.
However, would such a program make any difference in how things are done?
It's systemic. Journalism is a business of delivering eyeballs to advertisers. These important
issues don't sell. Get more flashy drama in the framing of the story and you might have a chance
exactly, it is "systemic"! Until one understands that the mainstream media's core business
is not news; it is selling audiences to advertisers, one will never properly understand the problem.
Could it be that our leadership in Washington has no idea why we are still in Afghanistan either?
Could it be that our allies, Israel and Saudi Arabia, like the idea of the US military sitting
at the back door to Iran? Could it be that we are getting the best foreign policy Saudi and Israeli
money can buy? And the MIC is glad to oblige.
Well we can certainly speculate on 1 – 24. In almost every case there is an implied answer:
We aren't quite finished yet establishing and maintaining our control. Over finance and power.
And even though war is too expensive and we have resorted to a kind of high-tech guerrilla
warfare, we still need boots on the ground. That is because we live in a material world and goods
are manufactured, transported and trafficked.
An even more stubborn war is going on in international finance (Hudson) – that's the one I'd
like to see reporters understand. Colonel Wilkerson said it is all about finance and power and
we will be in Afghanistan for 50 years. What's going on right now really seems like never ending
pointlessness. So maybe we should discuss exactly what we want to achieve control for – what's
the plan? In detail. Starting with the health of the planet and sustainable civilization.
Andrew could have headed his piece " Analysis of an Empire ' and then added the sub-heading
' A Tale of Vested Interests ' because that is surely why these atrocities ( yes that's right
) continue ad infintum, ad nauseum . And these same interests are those that sell us soap, automobiles,
liquor etc, etc, maybe not directly, but the interconnections are now so complete as to make distinctions
irrelevant.
Is it because a self-perpetuating top-heavy military bureaucracy was never properly demobilized
after the Second World War, and only promotes the sort of sociopathic, narcissistic, borderline
personalities who are relentlessly able to bully the groveling toadies and wussies who make up
our perpetually campaigning political-climber class?
Andrew Bacevich needs to study more deeply about Syrian history and politics, since his
description of Syrian president Bashar Assad as a brutal dictator fits as a description of Bashar's
father Hafez Assad but is inaccurate in relation to Bashar Assad, who seems to have a rather gentle
personality and is actually one of the more benign leaders in the Middle East.
Bashar Assad had planned to be a doctor, and he studied medicine for two years in the UK before
being ordered to return to Syria by his father after his elder brother died in an accident. Although
there were some excesses by the police in 2011, Bashar Assad quickly relaxed some old security
laws and pushed for a new democratic constitution, which was promulgated in 2012. Under that
new constitution, in 2014 he ran in a free election observed by international observers against
two other politicians and was reelected president. He has promised that if he loses the next election
he will step down.
Nevertheless Assad has been systematically demonized by the governments and MSM of the
US, UK, and France, as well as by Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar. Demonization is a technique
that is often used to prepare the way for regime change, and it is not based on objective analysis.
Although Assad is often called a butcher who gasses his own people, experts such as Theodore
Postol of MIT and others have shown that not a single allegation of gassing by the Syrian government
under Assad has ever been proven. In addition, many of the excesses by the Syrian police against
demonstrators in 2011 seem to have been initiated by armed members of the Muslim Brotherhood and
Al Qaeda in Syria, who quickly infiltrated the demonstrations.
There have even been allegations
that jihadi sharpshooters on rooftops shot demonstrators in false-flag attacks.
Similar tactics
were used in Ukraine in February 2014 by ultranationalist Right Sector sharpshooters, who were
seen shooting Maidan demonstrators. The deaths of the demonstrators were then blamed on the police.
In the case of Syria:
"Syrian-based Father Frans van der Lugt was the Dutch priest murdered by a gunman in Homs .
His involvement in reconciliation and peace activities never stopped him from lobbing criticisms
at both sides in this conflict. But in the first year of the crisis, he penned some remarkable
observations about the violence – this one in January 2012:
"'From the start the protest movements were not purely peaceful. From the start I saw armed
demonstrators marching along in the protests, who began to shoot at the police first. Very often
the violence of the security forces has been a reaction to the brutal violence of the armed rebels.'
"In September 2011 he wrote: 'From the start there has been the problem of the armed groups,
which are also part of the opposition The opposition of the street is much stronger than any other
opposition. And this opposition is armed and frequently employs brutality and violence, only in
order then to blame the government.'"
For an objective overview of the context of the events of 2011 in Syria that led to the international
war against the elected Syrian government, see Stephen Gowans, "The Revolutionary Distemper in
Syria That Wasn't."
Also see Gowans' well-researched 2016 book 'Washington's Long War on Syria.' The US has been demonizing
and trying to overthrow the Syrian government for several decades now, above all because it is
the only remaining semi-socialist nation in the Middle East and has single-payer national health
insurance, support for the elderly, and free college education for all. Assad is no saint, but
he is one of the more democratic and forward-looking leaders in the Middle East today.
Interesting questions ! But one can sleep soundly tonight safe in the knowledge that not even the pretense of a reply
to Bacevich's questions will be forthcoming for the US MSM.
Notable quotes:
"... Yet the U.S. maintains nuclear strike forces on full alert, has embarked on a costly and comprehensive trillion-dollar modernization of its nuclear arsenal, and even refuses to adopt a no-first-use posture when it comes to nuclear war. The truth is that the United States will consider surrendering its nukes only after every other nation on the planet has done so first. How does American nuclear hypocrisy affect the prospects for global nuclear disarmament or even simply for the non-proliferation of such weaponry? ..."
"... How much damage Donald Trump's presidency wreaks before it ends remains to be seen. Yet he himself is a transient phenomenon. To allow his pratfalls and shenanigans to divert attention from matters sure to persist when he finally departs the stage is to make a grievous error. It may well be that, as the Times insists, the truth is now more important than ever. If so, finding the truth requires looking in the right places and asking the right questions. ..."
"... Declassified CIA leaks from the DNC indicate these trees actively made maple syrup for terrorists. This gives terrorists big muscles, like Popeye, and reduces urges to eat human organs. ..."
"... The conflict commonly referred to as the Afghanistan War is now the longest in U.S. history - having lasted longer than the Civil War, World War I, and World War II combined. What is the Pentagon's plan for concluding that conflict? When might Americans expect it to end? ..."
"... Well, looks like I missed the war ending .but with the war ended, one would think we wouldn't have to be dropping the world's biggest bomb ..."
"... I'm thinking the bigMFing bomb was more a marketing theater driven initative rather than Afgan Strategic Theatre driven. ..."
"... Some great questions here. Recently I was at a Town Hall with my representative to Congress and asked him if our government, or even just the Democrats, had a long term strategy for peace in the Middle East. The answer was basically, No. ..."
"... Bacevitch needs to be a little more critical about all the claims about US energy. The US may be exporting some oil and oil products, but it is importing more. We have no prospect of "energy independence" in the forseeable future, unless there is a drastic cutback in consumption. When it comes to energy forecasting, top governmental agencies have had an abysmal record. Independent experts like David Hughes and Art Berman regularly expose the wishful thinking and poor analysis of the economists at these agencies. ..."
"... Instead he invites us all to assume the Soviets were acting and the West was reacting. In my view this genuinely childish view of international relations is the template for American exceptionalism and, unless we break free of it, a logic of privileged exceptionalism will continually assert itself. The Trump era offers us a chance to raze this mythology and seriously confront how market-oriented imperatives, not devils and angels, drive international conflict. ..."
"... Is it because a self-perpetuating top-heavy military bureaucracy was never properly demobilized after the Second World War, and only promotes the sort of sociopathic, narcissistic, borderline personalities who are relentlessly able to bully the groveling toadies and wussies who make up our perpetually campaigning political-climber class? ..."
"... Andrew Bacevich needs to study more deeply about Syrian history and politics, since his description of Syrian president Bashar Assad as a brutal dictator fits as a description of Bashar's father Hafez Assad but is inaccurate in relation to Bashar Assad, who seems to have a rather gentle personality and is actually one of the more benign leaders in the Middle East. ..."
"... Under that new constitution, in 2014 he ran in a free election observed by international observers against two other politicians and was reelected president. He has promised that if he loses the next election he will step down. ..."
"... Nevertheless Assad has been systematically demonized by the governments and MSM of the US, UK, and France, as well as by Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar. Demonization is a technique that is often used to prepare the way for regime change, and it is not based on objective analysis. ..."
"... Similar tactics were used in Ukraine in February 2014 by ultranationalist Right Sector sharpshooters, who were seen shooting Maidan demonstrators. The deaths of the demonstrators were then blamed on the police. ..."
"... Also see Gowans' well-researched 2016 book 'Washington's Long War on Syria.' The US has been demonizing and trying to overthrow the Syrian government for several decades now, above all because it is the only remaining semi-socialist nation in the Middle East and has single-payer national health insurance, support for the elderly, and free college education for all. Assad is no saint, but he is one of the more democratic and forward-looking leaders in the Middle East today. ..."
If only it were so. How wonderful it would be if President Trump's ascendancy had coincided with
a revival of hard-hitting, deep-dive, no-holds-barred American journalism. Alas, that's hardly the
case. True, the big media outlets are demonstrating both energy and enterprise in exposing the ineptitude,
inconsistency, and dubious ethical standards, as well as outright lies and fake news, that are already
emerging as Trump era signatures. That said, pointing out that the president has (again) uttered
a falsehood, claimed credit for a nonexistent achievement, or abandoned some position to which he
had previously sworn fealty requires something less than the sleuthing talents of a Sherlock Holmes.
As for beating up on poor Sean Spicer for his latest sequence of gaffes - well, that's more akin
to sadism than reporting.
Apart from a commendable determination to discomfit Trump and members of his inner circle (select
military figures excepted, at least for now), journalism remains pretty much what it was prior to
November 8th of last year: personalities built up only to be torn down; fads and novelties discovered,
celebrated, then mocked; "extraordinary" stories of ordinary people granted 15 seconds of fame only
to once again be consigned to oblivion - all served with a side dish of that day's quota of suffering,
devastation, and carnage. These remain journalism's stock-in-trade. As practiced in the United States,
with certain honorable (and hence unprofitable) exceptions, journalism remains superficial, voyeuristic,
and governed by the attention span of a two year old.
As a result, all those editors, reporters, columnists, and talking heads who characterize their
labors as "now more important than ever" ill-serve the public they profess to inform and enlighten.
Rather than clearing the air, they befog it further. If anything, the media's current obsession with
Donald Trump - his every utterance or tweet treated as "breaking news!" - just provides one additional
excuse for highlighting trivia, while slighting issues that deserve far more attention than they
currently receive.
To illustrate the point, let me cite some examples of national security issues that presently
receive short shrift or are ignored altogether by those parts of the Fourth Estate said to help set
the nation's political agenda. To put it another way: Hey, Big Media, here are two dozen matters
to which you're not giving faintly adequate thought and attention.
1. Accomplishing the "mission" : Since the immediate aftermath of World War II, the United
States has been committed to defending key allies in Europe and East Asia. Not long thereafter, U.S.
security guarantees were extended to the Middle East as well. Under what circumstances can Americans
expect nations in these regions to assume responsibility for managing their own affairs? To put it
another way, when (if ever) might U.S. forces actually come home? And if it is incumbent upon the
United States to police vast swaths of the planet in perpetuity, how should momentous changes in
the international order - the rise of China, for example, or accelerating climate change - affect
the U.S. approach to doing so?
2 . American military supremacy : The United States military is undoubtedly the world's
finest. It's also far and away the
most generously funded , with policymakers offering U.S. troops no shortage of opportunities
to practice their craft. So why doesn't this great military ever win anything? Or put another way,
why in recent decades have those forces been unable to accomplish Washington's stated wartime objectives?
Why has the now 15-year-old war on terror failed to result in even a single real success anywhere
in the Greater Middle East? Could it be that we've taken the wrong approach? What should we be doing
differently?
3. America's empire of bases : The U.S. military today
garrisons the planet in a fashion without historical precedent. Successive administrations, regardless
of party, justify and perpetuate this policy by insisting that positioning U.S. forces in distant
lands fosters peace, stability, and security. In the present century, however, perpetuating this
practice has visibly had the opposite effect. In the eyes of many of those called upon to "host"
American bases, the permanent presence of such forces smacks of occupation. They resist. Why should
U.S. policymakers expect otherwise?
4. Supporting the troops : In present-day America, expressing reverence for those who serve
in uniform is something akin to a religious obligation. Everyone professes to
cherish America's "warriors." Yet such bountiful, if superficial, expressions of regard
camouflage a growing
gap between those who serve and those who applaud from the sidelines. Our present-day military system,
based on the misnamed All-Volunteer Force, is neither democratic nor effective. Why has discussion
and debate about its deficiencies not found a place among the nation's political priorities?
5. Prerogatives of the commander-in-chief : Are there any military actions that the president
of the United States may not order on his own authority? If so, what are they? Bit by bit, decade
by decade, Congress has
abdicated
its assigned role in authorizing war. Today, it merely rubberstamps what presidents decide to
do (or simply
stays mum ). Who does this deference to an imperial presidency benefit? Have U.S. policies thereby
become more prudent, enlightened, and successful?
6. Assassin-in-chief : A policy of assassination, secretly implemented under the aegis
of the CIA during the early Cold War, yielded few substantive successes. When the secrets were revealed,
however, the U.S. government suffered
considerable
embarrassment , so much so that presidents
foreswore politically motivated murder. After 9/11, however, Washington returned to the assassination
business in a big way and on a global scale, using drones. Today, the only secret is the sequence
of names on the current presidential
hit list , euphemistically
known as the White House "disposition matrix." But does assassination actually advance U.S. interests
(or does it merely recruit replacements for the terrorists it liquidates)? How can we measure its
costs, whether direct or indirect? What dangers and vulnerabilities does this practice invite?
7. The war formerly known as the "Global War on Terrorism" : What precisely is Washington's
present strategy for defeating violent jihadism? What sequence of planned actions or steps is expected
to yield success? If no such strategy exists, why is that the case? How is it that the absence of
strategy - not to mention an agreed upon definition of "success" - doesn't even qualify for discussion
here?
8. The campaign formerly known as Operation Enduring Freedom : The conflict commonly referred
to as the Afghanistan War is now the
longest in U.S. history - having lasted longer than the Civil War, World War I, and World War
II combined. What is the Pentagon's plan for concluding that conflict? When might Americans expect
it to end? On what terms?
9. The Gulf : Americans once believed that their prosperity and way of life depended on
having assured access to Persian Gulf oil. Today, that is no longer the case. The United States is
once more an
oil exporter . Available and accessible reserves of oil and natural gas in North America are
far greater than was
once believed . Yet the assumption that the Persian Gulf still qualifies as crucial to American
national security persists in Washington. Why?
10. Hyping terrorism : Each year
terrorist attacks kill far fewer Americans than do
auto accidents
, drug overdoses , or even
lightning strikes
. Yet in the allocation of government resources, preventing terrorist attacks takes precedence
over preventing all three of the others combined. Why is that?
11. Deaths that matter and deaths that don't : Why do terrorist attacks that kill a handful
of Europeans command infinitely more American attention than do terrorist attacks that kill far larger
numbers of Arabs? A terrorist attack that kills citizens of France or Belgium elicits from the United
States heartfelt expressions of sympathy and solidarity. A terrorist attack that kills Egyptians
or Iraqis elicits shrugs. Why the difference? To what extent does race provide the answer to that
question?
12. Israeli nukes : What purpose is served by indulging the
pretense that Israel does not have nuclear weapons?
13. Peace in the Holy Land : What purpose is served by
indulging illusions that a "two-state solution" offers a plausible resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict? As remorselessly as white settlers once encroached upon territory inhabited by Native American
tribes, Israeli settlers
expand their presence in the occupied territories year by year. As they do, the likelihood of
creating a viable Palestinian state becomes ever more improbable. To pretend otherwise is the equivalent
of thinking that one day President Trump might prefer the rusticity of Camp David to the glitz of
Mar-a-Lago.
14. Merchandizing death : When it comes to arms sales, there is no need to Make America
Great Again. The U.S. ranks
number one by a comfortable margin, with long-time allies
Saudi Arabia and
Israel leading recipients of those arms. Each year, the Saudis (per capita gross domestic product
$20,000) purchase hundreds of millions of dollars of U.S. weapons. Israel (per capita gross domestic
product $38,000) gets several billion dollars worth of such weaponry annually courtesy of the American
taxpayer. If the Saudis pay for U.S. arms, why shouldn't the Israelis? They can certainly afford
to do so.
15. Our friends the Saudis (I) : Fifteen of the 19 hijackers on September 11, 2001, were
Saudis. What does that fact signify?
16. Our friends the Saudis (II) : If indeed Saudi Arabia and Iran are
competing to determine which nation will enjoy the upper hand in the Persian Gulf, why should
the United States favor Saudi Arabia? In what sense do Saudi values align more closely with American
values than do Iranian ones?
17. Our friends the Pakistanis : Pakistan behaves like a rogue state. It is a
nuclear weapons proliferator . It
supports the Taliban. For years, it provided sanctuary to Osama bin Laden. Yet U.S. policymakers
treat Pakistan as if it were an ally. Why? In what ways do U.S. and Pakistani interests or values
coincide? If there are none, why not say so?
18. Free-loading Europeans : Why can't Europe, "
whole and free ," its
population
and
economy considerably larger than Russia's, defend itself? It's altogether commendable that U.S.
policymakers should express support for Polish independence and root for the Baltic republics. But
how does it make sense for the United States to care more about the wellbeing of people living in
Eastern Europe than do people living in Western Europe?
19. The mother of all "special relationships" : The United States and the United Kingdom
have a "special relationship" dating from the days of Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill. Apart
from keeping the Public Broadcasting Service supplied with costume dramas and stories featuring eccentric
detectives, what is the rationale for that partnership today? Why should U.S. relations with Great
Britain, a fading power, be any more "special" than its relations with a rising power like India?
Why should the bonds connecting Americans and Britons be any more intimate than those connecting
Americans and Mexicans? Why does a republic now approaching the 241st anniversary of its independence
still need a "mother country"?
20. The old nuclear disarmament razzmatazz : American presidents routinely cite their hope
for the worldwide elimination of nuclear weapons. Yet the U.S. maintains nuclear strike forces
on full alert, has embarked on a costly and comprehensive trillion-dollar
modernization
of its nuclear arsenal, and even refuses to adopt a no-first-use posture when it comes to nuclear
war. The truth is that the United States will consider surrendering its nukes only after every other
nation on the planet has done so first. How does American nuclear hypocrisy affect the prospects
for global nuclear disarmament or even simply for the non-proliferation of such weaponry?
21. Double standards (I) : American policymakers take it for granted that their country's
sphere of influence is global, which, in turn, provides the rationale for the deployment of U.S.
military forces to
scores of countries. Yet when it comes to nations like China, Russia, or Iran, Washington takes
the position that spheres of influence are
obsolete
and a concept that should no longer be applicable to the practice of statecraft. So Chinese,
Russian, and Iranian forces should remain where they belong - in China, Russia, and Iran. To stray
beyond that constitutes a provocation, as well as a threat to global peace and order. Why should
these other nations play by American rules? Why shouldn't similar rules apply to the United States?
22. Double standards (II) : Washington claims that it supports and upholds international
law. Yet when international law gets in the way of what American policymakers want to do, they disregard
it. They start wars, violate the sovereignty of other nations, and authorize agents of the United
States to kidnap, imprison, torture, and kill. They do these things with impunity, only forced to
reverse their actions on the
rare occasions when
U.S. courts find them illegal. Why should other powers treat international norms as sacrosanct since
the United States does so only when convenient?
23. Double standards (III) : The United States condemns the indiscriminate killing of civilians
in wartime. Yet over the last three-quarters of a century, it killed civilians regularly and often
on a massive scale. By what logic, since the 1940s, has the
killing of Germans, Japanese,
Koreans, Vietnamese, Laotians, Cambodians, Afghans, and others by U.S. air power been any less reprehensible
than the Syrian government's use of "barrel bombs" to kill Syrians today? On what basis should Americans
accept Pentagon
claims that, when civilians are killed these days by U.S. forces, the acts are invariably accidental,
whereas Syrian forces kill civilians intentionally and out of malice? Why exclude incompetence or
the fog of war as explanations? And why, for instance, does the United States regularly gloss over
or ignore altogether the
noncombatants that Saudi forces (with
U.S. assistance ) are routinely killing in Yemen?
24. Moral obligations : When confronted with some egregious violation of human rights,
members of the chattering classes frequently express an urge for the United States to "do something."
Holocaust analogies sprout like dandelions. Newspaper columnists recycle copy first used when Cambodians
were slaughtering other Cambodians en masse or whenever Hutus and Tutsis went at it. Proponents of
action - typically advocating military intervention - argue that the United States has a moral obligation
to aid those victimized by injustice or cruelty anywhere on Earth. But what determines the pecking
order of such moral obligations? Which comes first, a responsibility to redress the crimes of others
or a responsibility to redress crimes committed by Americans? Who has a greater claim to U.S. assistance,
Syrians suffering today under the boot of Bashar al-Assad or Iraqis, their country shattered by the
U.S. invasion of 2003? Where do the Vietnamese fit into the queue? How about the Filipinos, brutally
denied independence and forcibly incorporated into an American empire as the nineteenth century ended?
Or African-Americans, whose ancestors were imported as slaves? Or, for that matter, dispossessed
and disinherited Native Americans? Is there a statute of limitations that applies to moral obligations?
And if not, shouldn't those who have waited longest for justice or reparations receive priority attention?
Let me suggest that any one of these two dozen issues - none seriously covered, discussed, or
debated in the American media or in the political mainstream - bears more directly on the wellbeing
of the United States and our prospects for avoiding global conflict than anything Donald Trump may
have said or done during his first 100 days as president. Collectively, they define the core of the
national security challenges that presently confront this country, even as they languish on the periphery
of American politics.
How much damage Donald Trump's presidency wreaks before it ends remains to be seen. Yet he himself
is a transient phenomenon. To allow his pratfalls and shenanigans to divert attention from matters
sure to persist when he finally departs the stage is to make a grievous error. It may well be that,
as the Times insists, the truth is now more important than ever. If so, finding the truth
requires looking in the right places and asking the right questions.
Kahneman's "Thinking Fast and Slow" has many of the answers to the questions about why the
MSM is the way it is. People are hard-wired to react to sound bites, especially potential pleasure
or terror. The MSM is very good at that. Populist politicians feed off of the same.
"What would be far more useful than a specialised list of inadequately reported topics would
be to analyze this MSM behaviour, explore how it comes about and how it has evolved, to reveal
some of the darker connections to power, and put up some strategies for slowly reversing it."
Sorry MoiAussie, but the analysis has already been done, unfortunately nobody really cares.
Propaganda and the Public Mind
Necessary Illusions
"What would be far more useful than a specialised list of inadequately reported topics would
be to analyze this MSM behaviour, explore how it comes about and how it has evolved, to reveal
some of the darker connections to power, and put up some strategies for slowly reversing it. In
a nutshell, how to foster thriving independent media with broad reach that expose MSM stenography
and resist censorship?"
Well, yes. Except the behaviour you are analysing is, presumably, among other things, the behaviour
involved in inadequately addressing these topics.
stop fighting about identity politics (i'm not holding my breath for either side)
elements of both sides want to return to a non-interventionist US foreign policy, except there
is always a fight about something else that serves as a distraction.. like cats and shiny toys.
The only thing one can do is persistently bring important issues forward to friends and colleagues.
In other words, become in many respects a social pariah. Challenging the status quo by definition
makes you an outsider.
The strategic effectiveness of this dissent becomes manifest when you actually change how you
live your life. You become an example for others to follow.
Any successful movement building must follow this path. The strategic plan is to live and think
like a socialist in a crumbling capitalist world. The rising levels of inequality must surely
bring this about, one way or another.
Socialism or Barbarism. How many working people could disagree with that? It needs to be repeated
over and over. That spirit needs to be reflected in individual life in order to survive.
" But it raises the question, what can individuals do to change the behavior of the media?"
We can continue to ignore them and opt for the following: Naked Capitalism, CounterPunch, ZeroHedge,
Liberty Blitzkreig, ContraCorner, Truthout, Consortium News, The Unz Review, Tom Dispatch, Democracy
Now, Pando Daily, The Intercept, etc, etc. That is the mainstream media's worst nightmare.
The only reason to check the NYT or Washington Post is to see what meme is being promoted by
the deep state; then you know what not to believe.
I find this whole debate about fake news to be somewhat laughable. Americans have been subject
to fake news for decades, they just didn't know it. Noam Chomsky has been writing about this for
40 years. His books: Propaganda and the Public Mind, Deterring Democracy, Manufacturing Consent
and Necessary Illusions are all excellent and contain extensive research and details to support
his claims. Of course part to the fake news strategy has been to ignore people like Chomsky. Instead
we get intellectual clowns like Tom Friedman telling us how the world works.
Now that we have some real news, the fake news mainstream media has gone into panic mode and
its strategy is to label the real new as fake news. Orwell and Huxley must be rolling in their
graves with laughter.
True, the big media outlets are demonstrating both energy and enterprise in exposing the
ineptitude, inconsistency, and dubious ethical standards, as well as outright lies and fake news,
that are already emerging as Trump era signatures. That said, pointing out that the president
has (again) uttered a falsehood, claimed credit for a nonexistent achievement, or abandoned some
position to which he had previously sworn . "uttered a falsehood, claimed credit for a
nonexistent achievement, or abandoned some position.." a new development in POTUS behavior
ushered in by DTrump??
Ok, so the USG has 24 issues. Let's not be nit-picky.
On this one, we've had a bit of progress.
"8. The campaign formerly known as Operation Enduring Freedom: The conflict commonly referred
to as the Afghanistan War is now the longest in U.S. history - having lasted longer than the Civil
War, World War I, and World War II combined. What is the Pentagon's plan for concluding that conflict?
When might Americans expect it to end? On what terms?"
We dropped a $30 million BMF'ing bomb on an undefensible, open plain. Killed 67 trees and terrified
Afgan flora from border to border. Egyptian cotton kids refuse to migrate there on their little
parachute thingies because they are terrified --
Declassified CIA leaks from the DNC indicate these trees actively made maple syrup for
terrorists. This gives terrorists big muscles, like Popeye, and reduces urges to eat human organs.
This is appreciated by other terrorists in camp and they sleep better , too.
However, the Fava Beans and Olive Oil have been spilled. Unemployed tree hugger reporters report
that the BMF'ing bomb caused the tree sap to instantly turn to maple sugar candies and the candies
are now enclosed in a depleted uranium candy tins. Fake research scientists believe the bomb casing
was made of the depleted uranium. Could happen, opines Krugman, now minority owner of the NYT,
and seconded by Chelsea, whom did the secret HS science project back in the 90s in Yugoslavia.
She drew a cute picture of Daddy on the bomb's belly, but a lot of Very Serious Men In Black Suits
did everything else.
As to when the entire Afgan issue ends, we know the war becomes fiscally irresponsible when
the USG runs out of new trees to bomb and the maple sugar candies no longer can fund the onslaught.
Krugman is working on the macro analysis and will send the Noble Prize people an advanced copy
for editing, puffing up, and general focus grouping. One area of neglect is developing a universal
political correctness language – the semantics are daunting and definitions have to be dynamic,
yet synchronized with meanings according to domestic needs. That's a tough one.
Then people have to learn it, instead of lazily doing what they do now. Which I think may involve
much use of sign language.
An advance against the reward money is expected, and a pic of the statues with Kruggies name
on it would signal good faith and seal the deal. Bully to Trump!
"The conflict commonly referred to as the Afghanistan War is now the longest in U.S. history
- having lasted longer than the Civil War, World War I, and World War II combined. What is the
Pentagon's plan for concluding that conflict? When might Americans expect it to end?"
Apparently, the Afghanistan war has ended. It makes me feel a little less stupid, although
I have a lot of excess stupid in reserve, to know others missed it as well ..
fresno dan
After dropping its largest conventional bomb ever used in combat in Afghanistan on 13 April,
the US military said the massive ordnance air blast, or Moab, was a "very clear message to Isis"
that they would be "annihilated".
Defence secretary Jim Mattis said the bomb was "necessary to break Isis". The Afghan government
claimed the bomb killed 94 Isis militants, while harming no civilians.
the military takes more and more "police actions" while the police use more and more military
equipment and tactics ..
Considering all the "surplus" stuff that goes to the police, how soon before the police drop the
biggest "anti-criminal suppression device" i.e., the mother of all bombs???
how soon before the police drop the biggest "anti-criminal suppression device" i.e., the
mother of all bombs???
low yield Neutron bomb.. don't damage what left of the domestic infrastructure, the REIT managers
would go crazy!
The backhanded criticism that the MFing bomb didn't do enough damage is related to where it
was used.
Try a barometric pressure bomb in a place like Manhattan and it would be a much different outcome
than say on the other end of the spectrum, at a latitude/longitude in Nevada where the before
and after pics would be identical.
A dark side of the media criticism of the MFing Bomb is that it may well goad the MIC/Pentagon
Product Managers into a do-over. Afterall, who likes their handiwork criticized?
DTrump told them I want something big and flashy while Xi is in town and that's what they came
up with..
"The guerrilla must move amongst the people as a fish swims in the sea." Mao Zedong
The cool thing about guerilla warfare is it largely eliminates the concept of civilians since
anybody could be a soldier, even children. That is why civilian casualties are frequently so low,
because pretty much anybody over the age of 6 is a combatant. it also increases the enemy combatant
body count which makes it clear that the government forces are winning, as was so ably shown in
the Vietnam War.
I'm thinking the bigMFing bomb was more a marketing theater driven initative rather
than Afgan Strategic Theatre driven.
It was so DTrump could be at the breakfast table before the President of China and to greet
him with.. Wow, sorry I had to cut out before Dessert last night, had some things to take care
of, how was the Chocolate cake.. the Cake?" ( he like to repeat things)
I view the use of MOAB on ISIS as the equivalent of giving an antibiotic shot so that the in-country
Taliban immune system can wipe out the remaining ISIS bacteria. I don't think the Taliban wants
ISIS there since it focuses too much US attention on the area, so they may be willing to mop up
the remaining ISIS fighters.
Some great questions here. Recently I was at a Town Hall with my representative to Congress
and asked him if our government, or even just the Democrats, had a long term strategy for peace
in the Middle East. The answer was basically, No. A few weeks later I actually got a phone
call from his office on this very question, yet the answer was still basically No. He did say
that Kerry had sought a UN brokered regime change in Syria (opposed by Russia), after I suggested
something like this.
However Bacevitch needs to be a little more critical about all the claims about US energy.
The US may be exporting some oil and oil products, but it is importing more. We have no prospect
of "energy independence" in the forseeable future, unless there is a drastic cutback in consumption.
When it comes to energy forecasting, top governmental agencies have had an abysmal record. Independent
experts like David Hughes and Art Berman regularly expose the wishful thinking and poor analysis
of the economists at these agencies.
"Independent experts like David Hughes and Art Berman regularly expose the wishful thinking
and poor analysis of the economists at these agencies." Thanks for pointing this out.
It's great to see people from across the ideological spectrum who served in the military, intelligence
services and in various administrations, speaking out. Hindsight is 20/20as the cliche goes. Now
if only people who are currently serving in those institutions would step up to the plate
and speak truth to power. At what point does it become unconscionable for good people to do nothing?
Or, rather, when does critical mass kick in and make resisting the insanity that reigns in our
institutions more than just a flash in the pan and career suicide?
The past is not encouraging, war hero Eisenhower could only warn of the MIC as he was exiting.
The economic footprint of the MIC + think tanks + academia + security agencies is huge (maybe
a trillion/year)
A lot of people depend on the defense budget staying large as the MIC is a jobs program throughout
much of the USA,.
I remember CA Senator Boxer, one of the few senators who voted against the AUMF in Iraq, fighting
to keep the local (to me) Mare Island Naval Shipyard from closing in 1996.
The adjacent city, Vallejo, subsequently went through bankruptcy.
One illustrative MIC family is the Kagan-Nuland family,
Victoria Nuland was Hillary Clinton's Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian
Affairs and seemed to be in charge of stirring up trouble in the Ukraine.
Her husband is noted neocon (he prefers "liberal interventionist") Robert Kagan of the Bookings
Institution, and his brother, Frederick, is at the American Enterprise institute.
Frederick's wife, Kimberly, heads up the "Institute for the Study of War" funded by Raytheon,
General Dynamics, DynCorp and others.
One might suggest this family gets meaning, purpose and income through USA military action.
One could posit there many other similar families.
It is difficult to be optimistic that much can be done.
These aren't independent issues (and, ultimately, there's no reason they have to be.)
Like, what's preventing the solution of #1 (expecting nations in these regions to assume responsibility
for managing their own affairs?) #17. When the Pakistanis have to deal with huge problems on the
other side of the invisible line, they aren't so reliable about sticking to the script. Especially
a script that has written out all the huge problems.
I guess that is the point. 45 seconds with this list pastes two items together and makes the
framework for a story. But the run of stories that appear are like Captain America saw a bad guy
and punched him in the face. Makes a good comic panel, and, when the press has been taught the
true meaning of "profitable", it makes a good newspaper page too. Right.
A working State Department could do interesting things with this list too, but - Captain America.
the US hasn't fought a peer nation since 1945-even then the USSR did a lot of the heavy lifting.
the US still hasnt beaten the Taliban.
US full spectrum dominance could be propaganda for all we know--with our vaunted carriers and
fighters sitting ducks to swarms of cheap first-world missiles.
in any fight with China or Russia, theyd only have to play defense. The US would be the ones
without home field advantage, likely in a war with limited domestic support as the fight probablyt
would not be about an existential issue to the US homeland
If a group like the Taliban has indigenous support, then you pretty much are left with destroying
the village in order to save it as the only military option. Putting a corrupt mafia in charge
of the country is not the appropriate alternate civilian political approach to win hearts and
minds.
In the 1990s nobody cared about the Taliban except when they were blowing up big Buddhas. Their
fatal error was allowing bin-Laden to launch major attacks against the US home soil. My guess
at this time is that the Taliban have been inoculated against spreading terror overseas. If the
US left Afghanistan, the Taliban would probably take many of the valleys back and kick ISIS out
so that they don't have to worry about the US coming back in to deal with 9/11 terrorists again.
Afghanistan would probably be fairly "peaceful" at that point in a fundamental Muslim way, kind
of like the fundamental Christian utopia that Mike Pence tried to create in Indiana.
Bacevich's indictment suffers from an inability to explain how this genuflecting celebration
of American intentions degenerated into what he goes on to elaborate.
Accomplishing the "mission": Since the immediate aftermath of World War II, the United States
has been committed to defending key allies in Europe and East Asia. Not long thereafter, U.S.
security guarantees were extended to the Middle East as well.
The beginning of the Cold War continues to be shrouded in assumptions about Soviet aggressiveness
and American and British benevolence. Otherwise critical thinkers become kool aid dispensers when
they are obliged to reference it. Bacevich skates over questions such as the division of Germany
- was it because the US wanted to allow Germany to quickly reindustrialize and the Soviets were
afraid of yet another invasion? - and whether city-destroying nuclear weapons would be internationally
controlled or remain a US monopoly.
Instead he invites us all to assume the Soviets were acting and the West was reacting.
In my view this genuinely childish view of international relations is the template for American
exceptionalism and, unless we break free of it, a logic of privileged exceptionalism will continually
assert itself. The Trump era offers us a chance to raze this mythology and seriously confront
how market-oriented imperatives, not devils and angels, drive international conflict.
I would like to see CNN or any other channel begin a series of TV presentations where each
one of these items is discussed by the relevant people. (When no officials show up for the program,
then the producers will know they are on the right track.) A great idea for a series of investigative
reports by journalists also.
However, would such a program make any difference in how things are done?
It's systemic. Journalism is a business of delivering eyeballs to advertisers. These important
issues don't sell. Get more flashy drama in the framing of the story and you might have a chance
exactly, it is "systemic"! Until one understands that the mainstream media's core business
is not news; it is selling audiences to advertisers, one will never properly understand the problem.
Could it be that our leadership in Washington has no idea why we are still in Afghanistan either?
Could it be that our allies, Israel and Saudi Arabia, like the idea of the US military sitting
at the back door to Iran? Could it be that we are getting the best foreign policy Saudi and Israeli
money can buy? And the MIC is glad to oblige.
Well we can certainly speculate on 1 – 24. In almost every case there is an implied answer:
We aren't quite finished yet establishing and maintaining our control. Over finance and power.
And even though war is too expensive and we have resorted to a kind of high-tech guerrilla
warfare, we still need boots on the ground. That is because we live in a material world and goods
are manufactured, transported and trafficked.
An even more stubborn war is going on in international finance (Hudson) – that's the one I'd
like to see reporters understand. Colonel Wilkerson said it is all about finance and power and
we will be in Afghanistan for 50 years. What's going on right now really seems like never ending
pointlessness. So maybe we should discuss exactly what we want to achieve control for – what's
the plan? In detail. Starting with the health of the planet and sustainable civilization.
Andrew could have headed his piece " Analysis of an Empire ' and then added the sub-heading
' A Tale of Vested Interests ' because that is surely why these atrocities ( yes that's right
) continue ad infintum, ad nauseum . And these same interests are those that sell us soap, automobiles,
liquor etc, etc, maybe not directly, but the interconnections are now so complete as to make distinctions
irrelevant.
Is it because a self-perpetuating top-heavy military bureaucracy was never properly demobilized
after the Second World War, and only promotes the sort of sociopathic, narcissistic, borderline
personalities who are relentlessly able to bully the groveling toadies and wussies who make up
our perpetually campaigning political-climber class?
Andrew Bacevich needs to study more deeply about Syrian history and politics, since his
description of Syrian president Bashar Assad as a brutal dictator fits as a description of Bashar's
father Hafez Assad but is inaccurate in relation to Bashar Assad, who seems to have a rather gentle
personality and is actually one of the more benign leaders in the Middle East.
Bashar Assad had planned to be a doctor, and he studied medicine for two years in the UK before
being ordered to return to Syria by his father after his elder brother died in an accident. Although
there were some excesses by the police in 2011, Bashar Assad quickly relaxed some old security
laws and pushed for a new democratic constitution, which was promulgated in 2012. Under that
new constitution, in 2014 he ran in a free election observed by international observers against
two other politicians and was reelected president. He has promised that if he loses the next election
he will step down.
Nevertheless Assad has been systematically demonized by the governments and MSM of the
US, UK, and France, as well as by Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar. Demonization is a technique
that is often used to prepare the way for regime change, and it is not based on objective analysis.
Although Assad is often called a butcher who gasses his own people, experts such as Theodore
Postol of MIT and others have shown that not a single allegation of gassing by the Syrian government
under Assad has ever been proven. In addition, many of the excesses by the Syrian police against
demonstrators in 2011 seem to have been initiated by armed members of the Muslim Brotherhood and
Al Qaeda in Syria, who quickly infiltrated the demonstrations.
There have even been allegations
that jihadi sharpshooters on rooftops shot demonstrators in false-flag attacks.
Similar tactics
were used in Ukraine in February 2014 by ultranationalist Right Sector sharpshooters, who were
seen shooting Maidan demonstrators. The deaths of the demonstrators were then blamed on the police.
In the case of Syria:
"Syrian-based Father Frans van der Lugt was the Dutch priest murdered by a gunman in Homs .
His involvement in reconciliation and peace activities never stopped him from lobbing criticisms
at both sides in this conflict. But in the first year of the crisis, he penned some remarkable
observations about the violence – this one in January 2012:
"'From the start the protest movements were not purely peaceful. From the start I saw armed
demonstrators marching along in the protests, who began to shoot at the police first. Very often
the violence of the security forces has been a reaction to the brutal violence of the armed rebels.'
"In September 2011 he wrote: 'From the start there has been the problem of the armed groups,
which are also part of the opposition The opposition of the street is much stronger than any other
opposition. And this opposition is armed and frequently employs brutality and violence, only in
order then to blame the government.'"
For an objective overview of the context of the events of 2011 in Syria that led to the international
war against the elected Syrian government, see Stephen Gowans, "The Revolutionary Distemper in
Syria That Wasn't."
Also see Gowans' well-researched 2016 book 'Washington's Long War on Syria.' The US has been demonizing
and trying to overthrow the Syrian government for several decades now, above all because it is
the only remaining semi-socialist nation in the Middle East and has single-payer national health
insurance, support for the elderly, and free college education for all. Assad is no saint, but
he is one of the more democratic and forward-looking leaders in the Middle East today.
"... Over the last thirty years the power of the Manufacturing and Infrastructure concerns has fallen
dramatically. So now we have a government dominated by Banking and Distribution, think Goldman Sacks
and Walmart. ..."
"... According to former CIA director Richard Helms, when Allen Dulles was tasked in 1946 to "draft
proposals for the shape and organization of what was to become the Central Intelligence Agency," he
recruited an advisory group of six men made up almost exclusively of Wall Street investment bankers
and lawyers. ..."
"... Dulles himself was an attorney at the prominent Wall Street law firm, Sullivan and Cromwell.
Two years later, Dulles became the chairman of a three-man committee which reviewed the young agency's
performance. ..."
"... So we see that from the beginning the CIA was an exclusive Wall Street club. Allen Dulles himself
became the first civilian Director of Central Intelligence in early 1953. ..."
"... The current Democratic Party was handed two golden opportunities and blew both of them. Obama
blew the 2008 financial crisis. And Hillary Clinton blew the 2016 election. ..."
"... Neoliberal Democrats seek to create the same tribablist/identity voting block on the left that
the republicans have on the right. The is why people like sanjait get totally spastic when progressives
criticize the party. ..."
Among the rich I think there were three groups based on where their wealth and interests laid.
Banking/Insurance industry.
Distribution/logistics.
Manufacturing and Infrastructure.
Over the last thirty years the power of the Manufacturing and Infrastructure concerns has
fallen dramatically. So now we have a government dominated by Banking and Distribution, think
Goldman Sacks and Walmart.
"Over the last thirty years the power of the Manufacturing and Infrastructure concerns has fallen
dramatically. So now we have a government dominated by Banking and Distribution, think Goldman
Sacks and Walmart."
This trend does not apply to Military-industrial complex (MIC). MIC probably should be listed
separately. Formally it is a part of manufacturing and infrastructure, but in reality it is closely
aligned with Banking and insurance.
CIA which is the cornerstone of the military industrial complex to a certain extent is an enforcement
arm for financial corporations.
According to former CIA director Richard Helms, when Allen Dulles was tasked in 1946
to "draft proposals for the shape and organization of what was to become the Central Intelligence
Agency," he recruited an advisory group of six men made up almost exclusively of Wall Street
investment bankers and lawyers.
Dulles himself was an attorney at the prominent Wall Street law firm, Sullivan and Cromwell.
Two years later, Dulles became the chairman of a three-man committee which reviewed the young
agency's performance.
The other two members of the committee were also New York lawyers. For nearly a year, the
committee met in the offices of J.H. Whitney, a Wall Street investment firm.
According to Peter Dale Scott, over the next twenty years, all seven deputy directors of
the agency were drawn from the Wall Street financial aristocracy; and six were listed in the
New York social register.
So we see that from the beginning the CIA was an exclusive Wall Street club. Allen Dulles
himself became the first civilian Director of Central Intelligence in early 1953.
The prevalent myth that the CIA exists to provide intelligence information to the president
was the promotional vehicle used to persuade President Harry Truman to sign the 1947 National
Security Act, the legislation which created the CIA.iv
But the rationale about serving the president was never more than a partial and very imperfect
truth...
The current Democratic Party was handed two golden opportunities and blew both of them. Obama
blew the 2008 financial crisis. And Hillary Clinton blew the 2016 election.
If you have a tool and the tool it broken you try to fix it. One doesn't pretend there is nothing
wrong.
The difference between neoliberal democrats and progressives is they differ on what's wrong.
Neoliberal Democrats seek to create the same tribablist/identity voting block on the left
that the republicans have on the right. The is why people like sanjait get totally spastic when
progressives criticize the party.
Progressives seek to create an aggressive party that represents the interests of working class
and petite bourgeoisie. That is why you see progressives get spastic when the corporate democrats
push appeasement policies.
Among the rich I think there were three groups based on where their wealth and interests laid.
Banking/Insurance industry.
Distribution/logistics.
Manufacturing and Infrastructure.
Over the last thirty years the power of the Manufacturing and Infrastructure concerns has fallen
dramatically. So now we have a government dominated by Banking and Distribution, think Goldman
Sacks and Walmart.
"Over the last thirty years the power of the Manufacturing and Infrastructure concerns has fallen
dramatically. So now we have a government dominated by Banking and Distribution, think Goldman
Sacks and Walmart."
This trend does not apply to Military-industrial complex (MIC). MIC probably should be listed
separately. Formally it is a part of manufacturing and infrastructure, but in reality it is closely
aligned with Banking and insurance.
CIA which is the cornerstone of the military industrial complex to a certain extent is an enforcement
arm for financial corporations.
According to former CIA director Richard Helms, when Allen Dulles was tasked in 1946 to "draft
proposals for the shape and organization of what was to become the Central Intelligence Agency,"
he recruited an advisory group of six men made up almost exclusively of Wall Street investment
bankers and lawyers.
Dulles himself was an attorney at the prominent Wall Street law firm, Sullivan and Cromwell.
Two years later, Dulles became the chairman of a three-man committee which reviewed the young
agency's performance.
The other two members of the committee were also New York lawyers.i For nearly a year, the
committee met in the offices of J.H. Whitney, a Wall Street investment firm.ii
According to Peter Dale Scott, over the next twenty years, all seven deputy directors of the
agency were drawn from the Wall Street financial aristocracy; and six were listed in the New York
social register.iii
So we see that from the beginning the CIA was an exclusive Wall Street club. Allen Dulles himself
became the first civilian Director of Central Intelligence in early 1953.
The prevalent myth that the CIA exists to provide intelligence information to the president
was the promotional vehicle used to persuade President Harry Truman to sign the 1947 National
Security Act, the legislation which created the CIA.iv
But the rationale about serving the president was never more than a partial and very imperfect
truth...
"... Over the last thirty years the power of the Manufacturing and Infrastructure concerns has fallen
dramatically. So now we have a government dominated by Banking and Distribution, think Goldman Sacks
and Walmart. ..."
"... According to former CIA director Richard Helms, when Allen Dulles was tasked in 1946 to "draft
proposals for the shape and organization of what was to become the Central Intelligence Agency," he
recruited an advisory group of six men made up almost exclusively of Wall Street investment bankers
and lawyers. ..."
"... Dulles himself was an attorney at the prominent Wall Street law firm, Sullivan and Cromwell.
Two years later, Dulles became the chairman of a three-man committee which reviewed the young agency's
performance. ..."
"... So we see that from the beginning the CIA was an exclusive Wall Street club. Allen Dulles himself
became the first civilian Director of Central Intelligence in early 1953. ..."
"... The current Democratic Party was handed two golden opportunities and blew both of them. Obama
blew the 2008 financial crisis. And Hillary Clinton blew the 2016 election. ..."
"... Neoliberal Democrats seek to create the same tribablist/identity voting block on the left that
the republicans have on the right. The is why people like sanjait get totally spastic when progressives
criticize the party. ..."
Among the rich I think there were three groups based on where their wealth and interests laid.
Banking/Insurance industry.
Distribution/logistics.
Manufacturing and Infrastructure.
Over the last thirty years the power of the Manufacturing and Infrastructure concerns has
fallen dramatically. So now we have a government dominated by Banking and Distribution, think
Goldman Sacks and Walmart.
"Over the last thirty years the power of the Manufacturing and Infrastructure concerns has fallen
dramatically. So now we have a government dominated by Banking and Distribution, think Goldman
Sacks and Walmart."
This trend does not apply to Military-industrial complex (MIC). MIC probably should be listed
separately. Formally it is a part of manufacturing and infrastructure, but in reality it is closely
aligned with Banking and insurance.
CIA which is the cornerstone of the military industrial complex to a certain extent is an enforcement
arm for financial corporations.
According to former CIA director Richard Helms, when Allen Dulles was tasked in 1946
to "draft proposals for the shape and organization of what was to become the Central Intelligence
Agency," he recruited an advisory group of six men made up almost exclusively of Wall Street
investment bankers and lawyers.
Dulles himself was an attorney at the prominent Wall Street law firm, Sullivan and Cromwell.
Two years later, Dulles became the chairman of a three-man committee which reviewed the young
agency's performance.
The other two members of the committee were also New York lawyers. For nearly a year, the
committee met in the offices of J.H. Whitney, a Wall Street investment firm.
According to Peter Dale Scott, over the next twenty years, all seven deputy directors of
the agency were drawn from the Wall Street financial aristocracy; and six were listed in the
New York social register.
So we see that from the beginning the CIA was an exclusive Wall Street club. Allen Dulles
himself became the first civilian Director of Central Intelligence in early 1953.
The prevalent myth that the CIA exists to provide intelligence information to the president
was the promotional vehicle used to persuade President Harry Truman to sign the 1947 National
Security Act, the legislation which created the CIA.iv
But the rationale about serving the president was never more than a partial and very imperfect
truth...
The current Democratic Party was handed two golden opportunities and blew both of them. Obama
blew the 2008 financial crisis. And Hillary Clinton blew the 2016 election.
If you have a tool and the tool it broken you try to fix it. One doesn't pretend there is nothing
wrong.
The difference between neoliberal democrats and progressives is they differ on what's wrong.
Neoliberal Democrats seek to create the same tribablist/identity voting block on the left
that the republicans have on the right. The is why people like sanjait get totally spastic when
progressives criticize the party.
Progressives seek to create an aggressive party that represents the interests of working class
and petite bourgeoisie. That is why you see progressives get spastic when the corporate democrats
push appeasement policies.
Among the rich I think there were three groups based on where their wealth and interests laid.
Banking/Insurance industry.
Distribution/logistics.
Manufacturing and Infrastructure.
Over the last thirty years the power of the Manufacturing and Infrastructure concerns has fallen
dramatically. So now we have a government dominated by Banking and Distribution, think Goldman
Sacks and Walmart.
"Over the last thirty years the power of the Manufacturing and Infrastructure concerns has fallen
dramatically. So now we have a government dominated by Banking and Distribution, think Goldman
Sacks and Walmart."
This trend does not apply to Military-industrial complex (MIC). MIC probably should be listed
separately. Formally it is a part of manufacturing and infrastructure, but in reality it is closely
aligned with Banking and insurance.
CIA which is the cornerstone of the military industrial complex to a certain extent is an enforcement
arm for financial corporations.
According to former CIA director Richard Helms, when Allen Dulles was tasked in 1946 to "draft
proposals for the shape and organization of what was to become the Central Intelligence Agency,"
he recruited an advisory group of six men made up almost exclusively of Wall Street investment
bankers and lawyers.
Dulles himself was an attorney at the prominent Wall Street law firm, Sullivan and Cromwell.
Two years later, Dulles became the chairman of a three-man committee which reviewed the young
agency's performance.
The other two members of the committee were also New York lawyers.i For nearly a year, the
committee met in the offices of J.H. Whitney, a Wall Street investment firm.ii
According to Peter Dale Scott, over the next twenty years, all seven deputy directors of the
agency were drawn from the Wall Street financial aristocracy; and six were listed in the New York
social register.iii
So we see that from the beginning the CIA was an exclusive Wall Street club. Allen Dulles himself
became the first civilian Director of Central Intelligence in early 1953.
The prevalent myth that the CIA exists to provide intelligence information to the president
was the promotional vehicle used to persuade President Harry Truman to sign the 1947 National
Security Act, the legislation which created the CIA.iv
But the rationale about serving the president was never more than a partial and very imperfect
truth...
"... Today, in the era of Donald Trump, that confusion has returned with a vengeance. Trump for his part vows to "Make America Great Again," with greatness measured in quantitative terms: jobs, income, profits, stock prices, and trade balances. For those ordinary Americans left behind or dispossessed by the economic and social changes that have swept the United States in recent decades, the appeal of Trump's promise of greatness restored is understandable. Their resentment handed him the White House. ..."
"... Yet Trump's first hundred days in residence there offer precious little evidence that he will deliver on that promise. Neither he nor anyone else in the Republican leadership has demonstrated the requisite competence or political savvy. Furthermore, nothing that Trump has said or done since taking office suggests that he possesses the capacity or even the inclination to articulate a unifying conception of a common good . The real, although unarticulated slogan of his presidency, is one that looks to "Deepen American Divisions," with members of the fiercely anti-Trump Left, his ironic collaborators. On all sides, resentment grows. ..."
"... Trump assured his supporters that he was going to break the hold of the foreign-policy establishment. In fact, he has embraced the establishment's penchant for "using our power for whatever we happen at the moment to want, or against whatever at the moment we do not like." ..."
"... To align foreign policy with American values and with "the realities of the world," Williams believed, offered a first step toward something even bigger. Williams understood the intimate linkage between the way the United States acts abroad and what it is at home-each expressing the other. To correct the defects in U.S. foreign policy, especially its misuse of force, could "generate the kind of changes that could transform America into a more humane and creative country." ..."
So the remarks that Williams made some fifty-two years ago included the following reflection, worth
pondering by present-day conservatives. "If we justify our intervention in Vietnam on the grounds
that it is crucial to our national security," he said, "we will soon be able to justify using our
power for whatever we happen at the moment to want, or against whatever at the moment we do not like."
Furthermore, "That kind of moral arrogance-that kind of playing at being God-will destroy any chance
we have to construct a good society." Then Williams added:
Notice that I said good society. We already have a great society, and I think that may
be the source of much of the trouble with our leaders. For greatness has primarily to do with
size, strength, and power. But we citizens who are gathered here are primarily concerned with
quality, equity, and with honoring our potential for becoming more fully and truly human.
In 1965, confusion about the distinction between great and good found American leaders
"following the wrong rainbow." President Johnson was promising Americans a "Great Society." What
he was actually delivering was an unnecessary war destined to cost the country dearly and leave it
bitterly divided.
Today, in the era of Donald Trump, that confusion has returned with a vengeance. Trump for
his part vows to "Make America Great Again," with greatness measured in quantitative terms: jobs,
income, profits, stock prices, and trade balances. For those ordinary Americans left behind or dispossessed
by the economic and social changes that have swept the United States in recent decades, the appeal
of Trump's promise of greatness restored is understandable. Their resentment handed him the White
House.
Yet Trump's first hundred days in residence there offer precious little evidence that he will
deliver on that promise. Neither he nor anyone else in the Republican leadership has demonstrated
the requisite competence or political savvy. Furthermore, nothing that Trump has said or done since
taking office suggests that he possesses the capacity or even the inclination to articulate a unifying
conception of a common good . The real, although unarticulated slogan of his presidency, is
one that looks to "Deepen American Divisions," with members of the fiercely anti-Trump Left, his
ironic collaborators. On all sides, resentment grows.
Meanwhile, to judge by Trump's one-and-done missile attack on Syria and the fatuous deployment
of the "Mother of All Bombs" in Afghanistan, our president's approach to statecraft makes Lyndon
Johnson look circumspect by comparison. Trump assured his supporters that he was going to break
the hold of the foreign-policy establishment. In fact, he has embraced the establishment's penchant
for "using our power for whatever we happen at the moment to want, or against whatever at the moment
we do not like." U.S. national-security policy has become monumentally incoherent, with the
man in charge apparently doing whatever his gut or his latest visitor at Mar-a-Lago tells him to
do.
This defines the nation's current predicament: Whatever agreement once existed on what it means
to be either great or good has pretty much disappeared from American political culture.
Our fragmented society pursues any number of illusory rainbows. Restoring some semblance of a common
culture thereby poses a daunting challenge, even larger today than back in the Sixties when everything
seemed to be coming apart at the seams. I will refrain from offering any glib advice for how to promote
that restoration.
If hardly less challenging, imparting a modicum of coherence to U.S. policy abroad may actually
qualify as more urgent. After all, the impetuous Trump appears more likely than Lyndon Johnson to
blow up the world.
In that regard, the views expressed by Professor Williams back in 1965 in explaining the rationale
for the "teach-ins" offer at least a place to begin. "We are trying to bring our Government back
into a dialogue with its own citizens," he explained.
We are trying to encourage Congress to meet its responsibilities and to function as a full
partner in governing the country. We are trying to change our foreign policy so that it will be
closer to the realities of the world and far more in keeping with our best traditions and highest
ideals-and thereby make it pragmatically more effective.
To align foreign policy with American values and with "the realities of the world," Williams
believed, offered a first step toward something even bigger. Williams understood the intimate linkage
between the way the United States acts abroad and what it is at home-each expressing the other. To
correct the defects in U.S. foreign policy, especially its misuse of force, could "generate the kind
of changes that could transform America into a more humane and creative country."
As a place to begin, it was good advice then. It remains good advice today.
"... Today, in the era of Donald Trump, that confusion has returned with a vengeance. Trump for his part vows to "Make America Great Again," with greatness measured in quantitative terms: jobs, income, profits, stock prices, and trade balances. For those ordinary Americans left behind or dispossessed by the economic and social changes that have swept the United States in recent decades, the appeal of Trump's promise of greatness restored is understandable. Their resentment handed him the White House. ..."
"... Yet Trump's first hundred days in residence there offer precious little evidence that he will deliver on that promise. Neither he nor anyone else in the Republican leadership has demonstrated the requisite competence or political savvy. Furthermore, nothing that Trump has said or done since taking office suggests that he possesses the capacity or even the inclination to articulate a unifying conception of a common good . The real, although unarticulated slogan of his presidency, is one that looks to "Deepen American Divisions," with members of the fiercely anti-Trump Left, his ironic collaborators. On all sides, resentment grows. ..."
"... Trump assured his supporters that he was going to break the hold of the foreign-policy establishment. In fact, he has embraced the establishment's penchant for "using our power for whatever we happen at the moment to want, or against whatever at the moment we do not like." ..."
"... To align foreign policy with American values and with "the realities of the world," Williams believed, offered a first step toward something even bigger. Williams understood the intimate linkage between the way the United States acts abroad and what it is at home-each expressing the other. To correct the defects in U.S. foreign policy, especially its misuse of force, could "generate the kind of changes that could transform America into a more humane and creative country." ..."
So the remarks that Williams made some fifty-two years ago included the following reflection, worth
pondering by present-day conservatives. "If we justify our intervention in Vietnam on the grounds
that it is crucial to our national security," he said, "we will soon be able to justify using our
power for whatever we happen at the moment to want, or against whatever at the moment we do not like."
Furthermore, "That kind of moral arrogance-that kind of playing at being God-will destroy any chance
we have to construct a good society." Then Williams added:
Notice that I said good society. We already have a great society, and I think that may
be the source of much of the trouble with our leaders. For greatness has primarily to do with
size, strength, and power. But we citizens who are gathered here are primarily concerned with
quality, equity, and with honoring our potential for becoming more fully and truly human.
In 1965, confusion about the distinction between great and good found American leaders
"following the wrong rainbow." President Johnson was promising Americans a "Great Society." What
he was actually delivering was an unnecessary war destined to cost the country dearly and leave it
bitterly divided.
Today, in the era of Donald Trump, that confusion has returned with a vengeance. Trump for
his part vows to "Make America Great Again," with greatness measured in quantitative terms: jobs,
income, profits, stock prices, and trade balances. For those ordinary Americans left behind or dispossessed
by the economic and social changes that have swept the United States in recent decades, the appeal
of Trump's promise of greatness restored is understandable. Their resentment handed him the White
House.
Yet Trump's first hundred days in residence there offer precious little evidence that he will
deliver on that promise. Neither he nor anyone else in the Republican leadership has demonstrated
the requisite competence or political savvy. Furthermore, nothing that Trump has said or done since
taking office suggests that he possesses the capacity or even the inclination to articulate a unifying
conception of a common good . The real, although unarticulated slogan of his presidency, is
one that looks to "Deepen American Divisions," with members of the fiercely anti-Trump Left, his
ironic collaborators. On all sides, resentment grows.
Meanwhile, to judge by Trump's one-and-done missile attack on Syria and the fatuous deployment
of the "Mother of All Bombs" in Afghanistan, our president's approach to statecraft makes Lyndon
Johnson look circumspect by comparison. Trump assured his supporters that he was going to break
the hold of the foreign-policy establishment. In fact, he has embraced the establishment's penchant
for "using our power for whatever we happen at the moment to want, or against whatever at the moment
we do not like." U.S. national-security policy has become monumentally incoherent, with the
man in charge apparently doing whatever his gut or his latest visitor at Mar-a-Lago tells him to
do.
This defines the nation's current predicament: Whatever agreement once existed on what it means
to be either great or good has pretty much disappeared from American political culture.
Our fragmented society pursues any number of illusory rainbows. Restoring some semblance of a common
culture thereby poses a daunting challenge, even larger today than back in the Sixties when everything
seemed to be coming apart at the seams. I will refrain from offering any glib advice for how to promote
that restoration.
If hardly less challenging, imparting a modicum of coherence to U.S. policy abroad may actually
qualify as more urgent. After all, the impetuous Trump appears more likely than Lyndon Johnson to
blow up the world.
In that regard, the views expressed by Professor Williams back in 1965 in explaining the rationale
for the "teach-ins" offer at least a place to begin. "We are trying to bring our Government back
into a dialogue with its own citizens," he explained.
We are trying to encourage Congress to meet its responsibilities and to function as a full
partner in governing the country. We are trying to change our foreign policy so that it will be
closer to the realities of the world and far more in keeping with our best traditions and highest
ideals-and thereby make it pragmatically more effective.
To align foreign policy with American values and with "the realities of the world," Williams
believed, offered a first step toward something even bigger. Williams understood the intimate linkage
between the way the United States acts abroad and what it is at home-each expressing the other. To
correct the defects in U.S. foreign policy, especially its misuse of force, could "generate the kind
of changes that could transform America into a more humane and creative country."
As a place to begin, it was good advice then. It remains good advice today.
"... The other story, however, is something our spooks don't want you to even know about. Fox News reported earlier today [Wednesday]
that the private investigator hired by the family of Seth Rich – but paid for by a third party – is now saying there's solid evidence
that Rich – a former DNC employee, embedded in their computer operations – was in contact with WikiLeaks. ..."
"... Rich was murdered in the wee hours of July 10, 2016. His wallet, his watch, and valuables were still on him, despite claims
it was a botched robbery. Days later, WikiLeaks published the DNC emails. WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has offered a $20,000 reward
for information leading to the capture of his murderers. ..."
"... "An FBI forensic report of Rich's computer – generated within 96 hours after Rich's murder – showed he made contact with WikiLeaks
through Gavin MacFadyen, a now-deceased American investigative reporter, documentary filmmaker, and director of WikiLeaks who was living
in London at the time, the federal source told Fox News. "'I have seen and read the emails between Seth Rich and WikiLeaks,' the federal
investigator told Fox News, confirming the MacFadyen connection. He said the emails are in possession of the FBI, while the stalled
case is in the hands of the Washington Police Department." ..."
"... Speaking of WikiLeaks: a largely overlooked email from John Podesta's leaked account has him saying: "I am definitely for making
an example of a suspected leaker." It kind of makes you think, doesn't it? ..."
Two stories are now dominating the headlines: one is something the Establishment wants you to pay attention to, and the other
is something they want to bury. First off, to the former:
The Washington Beltway is in an uproar over the latest Deep State attempt to tar the President of the United States as a Russian
agent: they're
claiming Trump gave super-duper Top Secret information –provided, it turns out,
by the Israelis – to the Russians during a meeting with the Kremlin's Foreign Minister and their ambassador at the White House.
There are two problems with this story: if the anonymous former and currently serving "intelligence officials" cited by the
Washington Post were really concerned about the damage done to our "sources and methods," they would never have leaked this story
in the first place. Secondly, everyone in the room at the time, including National Security Advisor H. R. McMaster, denies it.
Far from proving Trump is either the Manchurian candidate and/or is playing fast and loose with our national security, it merely
shows – once again – that the "intelligence community" is out to depose him by any means necessary. Add to this Israel's amen corner,
which is now screeching that Trump "betrayed" Israel.
The other story, however, is something our spooks don't want you to even know about.
Fox News reported earlier today [Wednesday] that the private investigator hired by the family of Seth Rich – but paid for by
a third party – is now saying there's solid evidence that Rich – a former DNC employee, embedded in their computer operations – was
in contact with WikiLeaks.
Rich was murdered in the wee hours of July 10, 2016. His wallet, his watch, and valuables were still on him, despite claims
it was a botched robbery. Days later, WikiLeaks published the DNC emails. WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has offered a $20,000
reward for information leading to the capture of his murderers.
Fox News is reporting that Rich's computer
shows "44,053 emails and 17,761 attachments between DNC leaders" passed between Rich and WikiLeaks. They cite not only
Rod Wheeler , a former Washington DC homicide
detective hired by the Rich family to solve the case, but also a "federal investigator" who corroborates Wheeler's claims:
"An FBI forensic report of Rich's computer – generated within 96 hours after Rich's murder – showed he made contact with WikiLeaks
through Gavin MacFadyen, a now-deceased American investigative reporter, documentary filmmaker, and director of WikiLeaks who was
living in London at the time, the federal source told Fox News.
"'I have seen and read the emails between Seth Rich and WikiLeaks,' the federal investigator told Fox News, confirming the MacFadyen
connection. He said the emails are in possession of the FBI, while the stalled case is in the hands of the Washington Police Department."
Speaking of WikiLeaks: a largely overlooked
email from John Podesta's leaked account has him saying: "I am definitely for making an example of a suspected leaker." It kind
of makes you think, doesn't it?
I've said from the beginning that 1) There is no convincing evidence that the Russians hacked the DNC, or fooled John Podesta
into giving out his email account password, and 2) It was most likely an inside job. While it may be an overstatement to say that
this latest story confirms it, it certainly calls the Russian conspiracy theory into serious question.
Yet both the House and the Senate have launched investigations designed to prove "collusion" between the Trump campaign and the
Kremlin – to say nothing of the FBI probe. Will the same attention be paid to the Rich-MacFayden correspondence?
Of course not.
The Rich family is denying that there's any evidence their son was in contact with WikiLeaks: but their official spokesman – yes,
they have one – is one Brad Bauman , a self-described
" crisis consultant " for the Democrats. Which
is very appropriate, since these new revelations do indeed constitute a crisis for the Democrats, who have based their entire post-election
strategy on a
flimsy
conspiracy theory that has been
debunked
by cyber-security experts (the ones who
aren't in the pay of the
DNC, that is)..
Wheeler says that a local police officer in Washington "looked me straight in the eye" and told him they had been ordered to "stand
down" on Rich's case. As for the "mainstream" media, they don't have to be told to stand down – they're doing it instinctively.
But no worries! Antiwar.com was founded to blast through the "mainstream" media wall of silence. That's our job, and we've
been doing it for over 20 years. But we can't continue to do it without your help. This Russia conspiracy theory is just plain bonkers,
and is clearly the creation of political opportunists and Deep State spooks who have a vested interest in pushing it.
Well, we have a vested interest in the truth. And so do you. That's why supporting Antiwar.com should be near the top of your
agenda right now: because a site like this has never been more necessary.
But it doesn't come free! We depend on you, our readers, to donate the funds we need to continue. So don't let the "mainstream"
media pull the wool over America's eyes – make your tax-deductible donation
today.
Postscript: By the way, the Fox News story on the Seth Rich-Wikileaks connection, by reporter Malia Zimmerman, went through
several interesting iterations since its original publication. See
here .
"... What the author inadvertently points out is that capitalism, particularly the so called consumer capitalism that we have is like a board game; It has a beginning when anything is possible. A middle when a broad spectrum of players prosper and there is extra money for infrastructure and public amenities. Then an end where wealth is increasingly concentrated in fewer and fewer hands and the waste stream has taken its toll. ..."
"... Tell me, when where these good old days, of "true" capitalism? Back when we were enslaving Africans? ..."
"... workers fail to ..."
"... Yeah, it's really a pity that author of such a well-written piece confuses GDP with living standards. If that was the case people wouldn't vote for nationalist and populists. ..."
"... serving their own interests; ..."
"... In our imperial system, it does not matter to the people whether they vote, or how; it matters, occasionally, to the contestants' position in the power structure, but nothing more than that. ..."
"... there are rumors that the Federal Liberal Party in Canada is exploring this. ..."
"... 8) Nothing in this section shall be construed to impose a duty upon: (a) A provider of an electronic store, gateway, marketplace or other means of purchasing or downloading software or applications to review or enforce compliance with this section by those applications or software; or (b) A provider of an interactive computer service to review or enforce compliance with this section by third-party content providers. As used in this paragraph, "interactive computer service" means any information service, system or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet and such services or systems operated or offered by libraries or educational institutions. (9) This section does not apply to general audience Internet websites, general audience online services, general audience online applications or general audience mobile applications, even if login credentials created for an operator's site, service or application may be used to access those general audience sites, services or applications. ..."
Definitely worth reading and reading again. What popped on first reading is the description
of the rise of income in Poland and the stagnation of income in the U S of A. What pops for me
on seccond reading is these paragraphs about tax evasion and income inequality: >>
One reason nothing happens is a culture of tax evasion. There's a folk belief in American business
that if you pay full taxes, you're not doing your fiduciary duty, and your board will fire you.
Apple now has a quarter trillion dollars offshore that it refuses to put into direct productive
use in the United States. Apple boasts that its products are designed in California-they will
sell you a $300 book called Designed By Apple In California. But they do their damndest to make
sure that California never sees a penny of their overseas profits.
You in the EU are all too familiar with this brand of tax evasion. Google, Amazon, Apple, Microsoft
have all been under investigation or in court on charges of evading European taxes.
Another reason good intentions don't translate is that capitalism, especially venture capital,
doesn't work very well when there is vast wealth inequality.
[Tax evasion isn't just a folk belief: It is taught in U.S. law schools and in business schools,
along with union busting.]
What the author inadvertently points out is that capitalism, particularly the so called
consumer capitalism that we have is like a board game; It has a beginning when anything is possible.
A middle when a broad spectrum of players prosper and there is extra money for infrastructure
and public amenities. Then an end where wealth is increasingly concentrated in fewer and fewer
hands and the waste stream has taken its toll.
Another reason good intentions don't translate is that capitalism, especially venture capital,
doesn't work very well when there is vast wealth inequality.
The author does not understand that capitalism creates vast wealth inequality: that's the whole
point. Inequality is a feature, not a bug, and so trying to save capitalism while eliminating
vast wealth inequalities is working at cross-purposes, and only one of those aims can be successful and
guess which one it always is?
"capitalism creates vast wealth inequality: that's the whole point."
Not in Adam Smith's world, nor Henry Ford's. True capitalists prosper by creating wealth which
improves the lives of everyone around them. Crony capitalists, the ones we have now, strip wealth
from others. Witness today's bubble-and-bust cycles rather than the prior widespread economic
growth.
The capitalism you see today is an abomination of the original concept, just as Mnuchin's claim
to support "Glass Steagall" is an abomination. And don't get me started on the "Affordable" Care
Act, or the "Patriot" act which gutted the Constitution
P.S. The original author's article is riddled with glaring factual errors, but he has the big
picture right: it's time to restore Antitrust Law and apply it to the internet monopolists. And
restore privacy rights and and it's a long list. Start fighting now, if you want anything to
happen in your lifetime!
The author's central thesis strikes me as correct: that Europe provides the only hope for applying
any brakes whatsoever to the American tech sector. I hope someone over there is listening, as
prospects here seem utterly hopeless.
Freedom means people should have reasonable alternatives, choices on any product, service or
ideology. Today's internet experience lacks that freedom aspect quite a bit.
Hokum. The "theory" is that it benefits everyone, but the reality is quite different.
Tell
me, when where these good old days, of "true" capitalism? Back when we were enslaving Africans?
Back when we were hanging Wobblies? Back when we had to put nets around our factories to keep
the workers from committing suicide? Please the dictatorship of the proletariat worked out just
fine in Marx's theory, too.
Another one for the gallery of glaring factual errors: "capitalists prosper by creating wealth".
Unless that was an epic typo for something like: " workers fail to prosper while creating
wealth".
As for "the original concept" of "capitalism", in which district of the astral plane did you
find that? Apart from his anthropological sci-fi about the origins of money in "barter", Adam
Smith generally tried to write about the real world. Just like Marx, except that Smith was speaking
for a different class interest, whose "moral philosopher" imagined himself to be. For that reason,
"capital" and "capitalist"(n.) were important concepts for Smith and Marx alike, but "capitalism"
- a sort of hybrid implying the social reality and the ideology cheerleading for it at once without
ever really distinguishing between the two - is an abstraction that neither had much time for,
and one that only really caught on once both were dead.
Wasteman – for a start, unlike todays Cronyists, Adam Smith understood that capitalism would
not function for the benefit of all unless monopolies were restrained by government:
"The interest of the dealers [referring to stock owners, manufacturers, and merchants], however,
in any particular branch of trade or manufacture, is always in some respects different from, and
even opposite to, that of the public. To widen the market and to narrow the competition, is always
the interest of the dealers. To widen the market may frequently be agreeable enough to the interest
of the public; but to narrow the competition must always be against it, and can serve only to
enable the dealers, by raising their profits above what they naturally would be, to levy, for
their own benefit, and absurd tax upon the rest of their fellow-citizens. (Adam Smith, Wealth
of Nations (Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books, 1991), pages 219-220)"
Another interesting perspective is from J. K. Galbraith (sorry I lost the source) who pointed
out that in an economy with healthy competition, profit margins are lower, but employment and
wage income are necessarily higher.
And pray tell, who is it who will restrain the monopolists? Our elected officials, who just
so happen to be under the control of those same capitalists? Which is possible due to the vast
wealth inequalities that capitalism generates .
Capitalists, almost without exception, do everything in their power to avoid competition. The
idea is to make a profit and competition is antithetical to that.
Lots of things are good in theory, like three-way relationships. Reality, on the other hand,
feels no obligation to correspond with theory.
Not exactly. Capitalism extends or expands existing inequality. It was the development of agriculture
several thousand years ago that broke the approximate egalitarianism of the hunter gatherer lifestyle.
Even that had some inequality, but not much. For more information, see the early chapters of
The Great Leveler ,
by Walter Scheidel.
Hence the "vast" part. I'm not so silly as to think that before capitalism there was not wealth
inequality. But not the type where a few hundred people control more wealth than a few billion.
It would seem to me, on just a gut level based on a little reading, that whereas systems like
feudalism were unequal but relatively stable*, i.e. the level of inequality stayed the same generation
to generation, capitalism's dynamics have caused inequality to skyrocket, both nationally and
globally.
*Or at least cyclically stable, as with regular debt jubilees in Sumer.
"Living standards in Poland in 2010 had more than doubled from 1990." This sentence annoyed me to no end. Yes, the reason that is true is because every capitalist country in the world worked to smash
and destroy communism without pause for its entire life and then internal and external oligarchs
snatched up everything.
Living standards increased over that period in Poland but so did inequality and poverty.
So the country got some shiny new consumer goods (which the author seems enamored by) while
the populations poverty rate continues to climb. Thank god for privatization ("Suddenly people had cars, phones, appliances" and suddenly poverty
surged as well), and the end of those no good dirty commies, right?
Yeah, it's really a pity that author of such a well-written piece confuses GDP with living
standards. If that was the case people wouldn't vote for nationalist and populists.
In any case, despite very good performance of Polish economy, its convergence to West Europe
at least in terms of GDP (PPP) is questionable as the cases of Czech Republic and Slovenia show.
See the article The convergence dream 25 years on in Bruegel
There is a reason why people voted for the populist PiS and ousted the liberals who had made
such a great job at bringing Poland into the EU and its "market society".
A long but brilliant article that everyone should take the time to read! I want all the techies
in my family to read it because it points out some of the uneasiness even techies feel about the
their industry.
My favorite paragraph (although there were many close seconds):
"But real problems are messy. Tech culture prefers to solve harder, more abstract problems
that haven't been sullied by contact with reality. So they worry about how to give Mars an earth-like
climate, rather than how to give Earth an earth-like climate. They debate how to make a morally
benevolent God-like AI, rather than figuring out how to put ethical guard rails around the more
pedestrian AI they are introducing into every area of people's lives."
Yep .
A previous example was given about a hypothetical House vote, where, in yes-districts, voters
are split 51-49 yes (assuming that is so lots of times, congress persons vote 'their conscience')
and voters in no-districts are 90-10 for no. Yes votes win by one.
In that case, the popular vote actually is for No.
And that has nothing to do with slavery.
It's how the math works in a representative voting system.
Before responding to MLTPB, I'd like to voice my opinion that the OP article is thoughtful
and reflects a decent level of awareness of the reality of the world, along with positive solutions
that would be achievable in a polity that had the public good as its aim.
As for MLTPB's opinion on the vote, I beg to differ: it has everything to do with slavery.
That's how the numbers work in our system, which is imperial, not representative. It's a bitch
when instead of Augustus you get Caligula, but it doesn't change the basic reality of how the
system works, and has worked since Ike. In our imperial system, it does not matter to the people
whether they vote, or how; it matters, occasionally, to the contestants' position in the power
structure, but nothing more than that.
Here is the reality: the people in any office in our federal government-basically everyone
who lives in or around Washington DC-have the same relationship to American people as they have
to Russian, Chinese, or Indian people: that of serving their own interests; predation,
if you will; animal husbandry, if you prefer. They will act so as to extract the maximum value
consistent with not-killing-the-goose-that-lays-the-golden-eggs from every person, wherever they
are located, whatever their religion, whatever their nationality, as long as they are powerless,
which means everyone who is a private citizen, however rich, or a small business; everyone who
is not a Forbes 500 corporation.
The notion that the federal government is somehow tied to "Americans," or even to the geographical
entity now known as the USA, much less to the values expressed in the so-called "founding documents,"
is a child's bedtime story.
It's amusing that it took the election of Trump to bring this realization about; but really,
that is why some of us actually voted for Trump: to rub the idiots' noses in the reality of their
political environment. (Not me, mind you; because I do not bother to vote: when I want something
done, I write a check, like any experienced consumer of government services.)
There is a cure, but it is not changing the election mechanism so the choice of president results
from the popular vote totals in a population of 300 million. No, it means changing it so there
are 1000 presidents and 100,000 representatives and 1000 supreme courts, and 1000 republics. Those
are the numbers that would achieve representative government the way it was designed to function
by people who knew. Alternatively, you could reduce federal taxation to 1/10th of its current
level, and assign all other taxation to the township, with a population limit of 20,000. Now you
would have something that is no longer imperial.
But since most people since the dawn of history have lived under organizations that are imperial
with perfect happiness, the appropriate course of action is not to struggle in futility for change,
which would almost certainly do more harm than good, and result in an outcome that would just
use up the world's resources more swiftly in the chaos of consumption and war. The optimum course
is to watch reruns of amusing sitcoms and eat good food; to gratify the animal pleasures and such
pleasures of the mind as remain to aging bodies mistreated by pharmaceuticals; and to die as quickly
and painlessly as the authorities permit.
In our imperial system, it does not matter to the people whether they vote, or how; it matters,
occasionally, to the contestants' position in the power structure, but nothing more than that.
In that case, the popular vote question is not a question anymore (with the current 1 president,
instead of 1,000 setup), as you point out here:
There is a cure, but it is not changing the election mechanism so the choice of president
results from the popular vote totals in a population of 300 million.
I have mentioned before that Rome had, at one time, 2 or 4 co-emperors. You suggest 1,000 presidents,
as a solution. That's nothing to do with slavery, except in the sense that we're all serfs or
slaves. It about making one's voice heard within a smaller group, having someone representing
you along with fewer constituents.
The inherent problem of having representatives vote, versus direct voting, is still here, as
in the example given above. The math scales up and down.
Nice piece: Two things to note
– The Clintons, Bush & Obama presided over this mess and aided in it's creation but the albatross
of abuse is being hung on Trump.
– He shares an enormous egotistical blind spot common to tech workers. He wants unionization and
strength for tech workers but seems to advocate for a globalized work force. More than anything
else, foreign workers are responsible for wage suppression in the US. Is he saying 'Tech workers
are special and should be pampered but others should work for $1.85 per day"?
– The above points are not germaine to his central theme, which is important and well written.
But it does raise questions about his values.
" Boycotts won't work, since opting out of a site like Google means opting out of much of modern
life ."
Good .Opt out of modern life. Now. Get as far away from it as you possibly can. You'll be the
better person for it. There was a time I felt 'modern life' was the place to be .Now the older
me realizes 'modern life' is a sham, an illusion, and a trap.
A very cleverly designed trap, and one in which the cattle to be slaughtered all believe they
are choosing their own destiny even as they are herded inexorably closer to the slaughterhouse.
Amusingly, although my younger naive and idealistic self had a significant part to play in
the great tech revolutions and evolutions through the 90's and early 2000's (for which I will
be eternally regretful and ashamed, given how the creations we labored on have been whored out
by the pimps in the oligarchy and government) I was also incredibly lucky to have grown up on
a farm and learned how to use a hoe, a hand powered washing machine, how to gather eggs and grow
things.
Real things, things that can feed people. But more importantly .how to grow things like spirit
and independence that do not rely on any flow of electrons to come to glorious fruition.
I also so much better understand what that prophet Edward Abbey was trying to warn us about
all those decades ago .
" Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell "
Indeed. The promise of technology has devolved into Clickbait Nation - where millions mindlessly
click on endless deceptive headlines like rats pushing levers in a giant Skinner box.
Is "opting out" really an option? Are we willing to opt out out of modern medicine too?
Whether we like it or not, we aren't opting out of using the internet, so we aren't opting out
of anything this author talked about .
Sooooo ..wouldn't a better idea be to learn as much as we can about this technology and get
involved in its decision making, so that we can control it and make it work for rather than against
us?
I've had that debate before, people typically starting with the 'well, you are posting using
the Internet so you aren't really opting out of anything', but thats a simplistic approach, and
the process of opting out is a matter of degrees – it is never a binary on/off.
One can continue 'opting out' of aspects of society, and technology, to as extreme a position
as you wish .even back to the stone age, should you choose. (sort of the ultimate boycott)
Tradeoffs are inherent to the process, no argument there .just be aware that the experience
of opting out is itself liberating. You realize all these shiny objects, and expensive things,
and
complicated processes that you have been raised to think of as critical necessities that cannot
ever EVER be parted with .may not be so critical as you think.
Sometimes the tradeoffs will be negative, more often – in my experience – (once you have solved
the problems presented by improvising/adapting/overcoming) you will find the 'tradeoffs' are
a net positive.
You are, of course, a creature with free will and free to do what you choose . opt in, opt
out .as you will. :)
Agreed, there are several gradations to this whole opting out thing. I for one am completely
absent from any social media platform and feel no loss whatsoever because of this. It takes a
committed group of independent thinkers to deconstruct and debunk this whole narrative that you're
either "all-in" with these internet platforms or you opt out and life passes you by as you're
consigned to an existence of irrelevance and ignorance about the world around you.
If by social media we are talking facebook, instagram et al, then I have never participated
in any of those. To be sure, this is not meant to sound like I take a dim view on those who do,
the point is the narrative is typically framed, at least in my part of the world, as an all-in/opt-out
binary in which participation in social media platforms is a prime determinant in who "remains
relevant" and who doesn't
I'm not sure what you think you are opting out of. If you are on the internet, then you have
to have a carrier – Verizon, Comcast, etc. Do you think their data collection systems are different
than what Google, Facebook, or any other social media does?
Yea I think the truly open minded probably try many of the internet platforms just to see what
they are like and then delete their accounts (this does not need to entail posting one's entire
private life there needless to say). Not a lot of open mindedness out there really though, it's
all extremes: rigid abstinence from it all, or hopeless addiction to it.
I mean I understand a priori rejection of the majority of what capitalism produces (except
if it's necessary to life then well), but it is a pretty uninformed position from which to criticize
(as is being addicted to it really).
Even if you opt out personally, you're still going to be interacting with a lot of people,
businesses, governments, etc., that are dependent on the Five Horsemen. Pay cash at the local
business, but travel down the supply chain that brought the goods there and you'll run into someone
using cloud storage, social media, consumer surveillance data, etc.
Ordinary folks have really only two ways to do this. One is in their consumer choices. Avoid
or boycott companies that abuse their customers – hit them in their wallets. The other is in their
voting and political participation push privacy rights, antitrust enforcement, etc. higher on
the political agenda.
It's entirely possible to be comfortably social without "social media". Personally, I boycott
Facebook, Twitter, and (as much as possible) Google and Ebay. Google is tough because they have
infiltrated the schools with Google Classroom (which has value, but do we really want an internet
advertising company to be gathering data on our children?). Microsoft is tough because of the
Office monopoly, but just because I have to use it at work doesn't mean I need to pay them any
money anywhere else in my life There are also ways to buy online without using Amazon.
There are other search engines, browsers, email services, etc. besides those operated by the
giants. DuckDuckGo, protonmail, and the Opera browser (with free built-in VPN!) work well for
me.
The problem is, if these other services ever do get popular enough, the tech giants will either
block them by getting their stooges appointed to Federal agencies and regulating them out of existence,
or buy them.
I've been running from ISP acquisitions for years, as the little guys get bought out I have
to find an even littler one. Luckily I've found a local ISP, GWI, that I've used for years now.
They actually came out against the new regulations that would allow them to gather and sell their
customers' data. Such anathema will probably wind up with their CEO publicly flayed for going
against all that is good and holy according to the Five Horsemen.
There are two sides to opting out.
When net neutrality is gone, then capital and market concentration will transform the internet
into what cable TV is now, and nobody will need it much.
Contrariwise the big tech companies are taking over the implementation of major social functions:
– if you can't vote without the internet
– if you can't spend your money without the internet
– if you can't contact your friends without the internet
– if you can't get news without the internet - this has already happened - just look at us all
here.
– if you can't join a political party without liking it on your Facebook page and following it
on Twitter - there are rumors that the Federal Liberal Party in Canada is exploring this.
As I said somewhere else, all this would amount to an uncontracted and unspecified public/private
partnership (various ones, actually) and all entered into unexamined. Time to examine them while
they're still easy to change.
To assume that workers in ANY Industry (including tech where we know the big players have rigged
the labor market against tech workers) have more power than consumers seems pretty unrealistic
to me. Of course consumer power is one dollar one vote and hardly democratic but at least consumers
do have options and some power. The employee role is a powerless one in the U.S..
We can either continue on the knowledge economy road, where our personal data is commodified.
Or we could fight for a knowledge society, where we collectively access knowledge while protecting
our identity and privacy. I vote for the latter.
Google would plant a chip in every child if they could. Short of that, they have insinuated
themselves in public schools, hoping that every kid in America will consummate their relationship
with this giant after they graduate from k-12. See this NY Times article from last weekend:
How Google Took Over the Classroom
It's hard to mitigate their reach. In a landmark student privacy law passed in California (with
an
even weaker version passed in my state of Oregon), they built in what I call a Google exemption
clause.
( 8) Nothing in this section shall be construed to impose a duty upon:
(a) A provider of an electronic store, gateway, marketplace or other means of purchasing or downloading
software or applications to review or enforce compliance with this section by those applications
or software; or
(b) A provider of an interactive computer service to review or enforce compliance with this section
by third-party content providers. As used in this paragraph, "interactive computer service" means
any information service, system or access software provider that provides or enables computer
access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that
provides access to the Internet and such services or systems operated or offered by libraries
or educational institutions.
(9) This section does not apply to general audience Internet websites, general audience online
services, general audience online applications or general audience mobile applications, even if
login credentials created for an operator's site, service or application may be used to access
those general audience sites, services or applications.
The Campaign for a Commercial-Free Child and the Parent Coalition for Student Privacy (a group
with which I have worked) just put out a
Parent Toolkit for Student Privacy .
We can either continue on the knowledge economy road, where our personal data is commodified.
Or we could fight for a knowledge society, where we collectively access knowledge while protecting
our identity and privacy. I vote for the latter.
When I am not accessing knowledge, I would still prefer to remain private.
For example, what videos I access for entertainment should private. It's not knowledge I access,
just something to pass time.
That those activities should b protected as well.
Privacy-protected-society is probably a broader term than knowledge society.
"... I found it an odd mix of straight-talk and naivete. The NSA can't spy on Americans without
a warrant? Go ahead, pull the other one. ..."
"... This caught my eye earlier. Had to come back to it. Especially after reading Mike Whitney's
latest http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/05/19/seth-rich-craig-murray-and-the-sinister-stewards-of-the-national-security-state/
. In it, he details how seriously Clapper, Brennan et al. take those "laws and procedures." ..."
"... Taking a recent and relevant example, remember the ICA, the "Intelligence Community Assessment"?
Whitney quotes a Fox news article detailing the many ways in which it's production varied sharply from
normal procedures. And of course there was all that "stove-piping" of "intel" that helped make the bogus
case for the 2003 war of aggression against Iraq ..."
"... Glad you liked it. Lily Tomlin applies: "No matter how cynical you get, it's impossible to
keep up." ..."
"... Excellent post, except for the bit, as some other readers have commented, about American intelligence
agencies being law abiding. Europe, and much of the world, crumbled without resistance in the face of
the tech juggernauts because of the PR fetishization of anything that came out of silicon valley. ..."
This piece is absolutely fantastic! Not to nit pick, but I do disagree with the author about
the following passage:
Even if you think our intelligence agencies are evil, they're a lawful evil. They have to
follow laws and procedures, and the people in those agencies take them seriously.
But there are no such protections for non-Americans outside the United States. The NSA would
have to go to court to spy on me; they can spy on you anytime they feel like it.
We know from the Church and Pike committees that this is patently false, and I highly doubt
that this has changed much since then, especially in light of Iran-Contra and the made-up intel
used to justify the Iraq invasion.
I know I probably sound like a broken record as I often cite the Church and Pike reports in
my NC comments, but they're just so little known and so important that I feel compelled to do
so.
I encourage the entire commenteriat to at least skim some of these documents to get a better
understanding of the kinds of sickening things perpetrated by the intel community in the past
and then ask yourself if the veil of secrecy that surrounds them is to keep secrets from the enemy
or to keep the American public from vomiting.
I found it an odd mix of straight-talk and naivete. The NSA can't spy on Americans without
a warrant? Go ahead, pull the other one. Talking about the "collapse of representative government"
as if we've ever had one. All very cute, and very silly.
His suggestions for putting the brakes on are good, but insufficient. My ideas as to how to
go about, "connecting the tech industry to reality. Bringing its benefits to more people, and
bringing the power to make decisions to more people," is here:
Imagine a political party with no national platform-a party where local rank-and-file members
select candidates from among themselves, and dictate the policies those candidates will support.
[2] Imagine a political party whose candidates are transparent; one that guarantees every member
an equal voice in shaping the actual policy proposals-and the votes-of their representatives.
Imagine a political party whose focus is on empowering the rank-and-file members, instead of
the charismatic con-artists we call politicians. Imagine a political party that runs on direct
democracy, from bottom to top: open, transparent and accountable . we'll need an app maybe
two
The app already exists, actually, and it's called Loomio. Podemos uses it, along with a lot
of other people:
I had the same reaction to that passage, at least initially. However what I think the author
might mean by this is that to have the means to combat this evil 2 things are necessary:
o Laws and/or procedures that place limitations on the actions of these agencies – NSA, CIA,
DHS etc.
o and, much much more important, the means to ensure those laws/procedures are *enforced* as
to both statute and intent.
USians have at least the first part even if the second, enforcement, has rotted to the extent
of being no more than a cruel joke. non-USian have neither.
Note that the lack of enforcement thing extends far beyond the IC agencies into anti-trust,
environmental regulation, Sarbanes-Oxley, etc. etc.. Even the ludicrous botch called Dodd-Frank
could work marginally better if there was some attempt to actually enforce it.
That bit about tech workers defying management to protest Trump's travel ban seems demonstrably
untrue, as the companies want that human capital pipeline kept open, and they can simultaneously
wrap themselves in muliti-cultural virtue as they defend their employment practices.
Also, and I know people here will disagree or think it irrelevant, but the "They're not bad
people," thing is wrong; I think people such as Thiel, Kalanick, Zuckerberg, Ellison, add-your-own-candidates,
seem like pretty awful people doing a lot of awful things, whatever their brilliance, business
acumen, and relentlessness.
Finally, while as a union guy I was pleased to see the importance he gave it, the idea of tech
workers unionizing in this country seems like social science fiction, whatever their European
counterparts might hopefully do.
I, too, stumbled / choked when I read those paragraphs. They are provably false in so many
dimensions I hardly know where to begin. It made it hard to read past.
I will try again because so many commenters are so positive. But the author's credibility sinks
when a piece starts with such blindness or misinformation or pandering.
On the one hand, it's probably some pandering, because he knows he is being watched. We all
throw that same bone once in a while. From Vergil, it is called "a sop to Cerberus." On the other
hand, he is correct, too: it is a "lawful evil" because it functions using tax money, which is
money extorted by force with the sanction of law, rather than "chaotic evil," which is money extorted
by force or fraud without that sanction. So in that positive-law-philosophy way of thinking, he
has a point, even if it's a pandering point.
Taking a recent and relevant example, remember the ICA, the "Intelligence Community Assessment"?
Whitney quotes a Fox news article detailing the many ways in which it's production varied sharply
from normal procedures. And of course there was all that "stove-piping" of "intel" that helped
make the bogus case for the 2003 war of aggression against Iraq .
I appreciate the author's point: it would be harder to surveil a particular American than a
European. I'm sure rank & file people by & large respect law and procedure. But don't worry, if
there's a political will to get you, there's a way. Ask Chelsea Manning.
Whitney concludes by quoting an especially apt question posed by Michael Glennon in the May
issue of Harper's: "Who would trust the authors of past episodes of repression as a reliable safeguard
against future repression?"
People who think they're immune to said repression, for one. Or who don't know or believe it
happened/is happening at all. IOW political elites and most Americans, that's who. I think there's
a good chance the soft coup will work, and most Americans would even accept a President-General.
So while I see the author's point, I see it this way. They take laws and procedures seriously
like I take traffic laws seriously. Only their solution is to corrupt law enforcement, not follow
the law.
"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face, it's just a goddamned piece of paper!" - President
George W. Bush
Mike Whitney's article you linked to was interesting. George Webb's ongoing YouTube series
is going further still, as he is uncovering numerous anomalies with Seth Rich's death and the
circumstances and "investigation". It turns out that nothing in this story is what it seems (the
"school play" scenario).
Disturbingly, there are similarities and patterns that connect up with numerous other patterns
discussed earlier in this 208-day (so far) odyssey, which started with looking at irregularities
around oil pipelines and drugs shipments, and ended up including numerous additional criminal
enterprises, all with direct links to high-up government staff and political staff from both major
parties, with links among key participants going back over decades in some cases.
To return to your observation–knowing what I know now–personal as well as second-hand, I don't
think it's harder to surveil an american than a european. The compromises of law enforcement,
justice and intelligence and rogue contractors have no international boundaries. The way the compromises
are done vary depending on local methods, and the degree of public awareness may vary, but the
actuality and ease–no different overall.
Eight, nine and ten in this household. I don't use any Google-stuff and have hard-deleted my
Facebook account. At least they told me had, I should ask a friend to check to see if I am still
there ;)
But we all know that a Linux user is worth only 3/5 of a regular user, so we are back to 6.
Writing this from a 2003 vintage Pentium 4 machine running Linux Mint 17.
8. Built this thing myself 5 years ago. It's a quad core on an MSI mobo. Or maybe I only count
as a half, since it's a dual boot with Linux Mint 17.3/Win7 Pro.
A history lesson. The PC brought freedom from the IT department, until networking enslaved
us again. The freedom was temporary, we were originally supposed to be serfs of a timeshare system
connected to a mainframe. France was ahead of the US in that, they had MiniTel. But like everything
French is was efficient but static. In Europe, like in the US, the PC initially liberated, and
then with networking, enslaved. Arpanet was the predecessor of the Internet it was a Cold War
system of survivable networking, for some people. The invention of HTTP and the browser at CERN
democratized the Arpanet. But it also greatly enabled State-sponsored snooping.
We are now moving to cloud storage and Chrome-books which will restore the original vision
of a timeshare system connected to a mainframe, but at a higher technical standard. What was envisioned
in 1968 will be achieved, but later than planned, and in a round about way. We are not the polity
we used to be. In 1968 this would have been viewed by the public with suspicion. But after 50
years later the public will view this as progress.
One thing just as dangerous and limiting as the idealized past of the conservative mindset
is the idealized sense of progress of the the liberal mindset.
SV tech owners (think about) . . . the cool toys they'll spend profits on . . . run by chuckle
heads . . . identify with progressive values . . . they want to help . . . run by a feckless leadership
accountable to no one . . .
Can't send them to Mars quick enough, I say.
." Even if you think our intelligence agencies are evil, they're a lawful evil. They have to
follow laws and procedures, and the people in those agencies take them seriously."
The real kneeslapper was. . . American government (also) run by chuckle heads . . . what happens
when these two groups . . . join forces?
Knock me over with a feather, let us know when that happens. How many Friedman units will we have
to wait?
"And outside of Russia and China, Google is the world's search engine."
How can this be? I don't use it except very rarely; my wife does, but complains about it bitterly,
and so do people here at NC, presumably tech-savvy. My wife is using it out of pure habit; what
about the rest of them?
"Given this scary state of the world, with ecological collapse just over the horizon, and a
population sharpening its pitchforks, "
And unfortunately, that's the likeliest solution. (The family blogging "L" on this keyboard doesn't
work right, so make some allowances.)
Despite my nitpicks above, this is a very important speech and a frightening issue. In particular,
I've long been concerned that so much organizing depends on giant corporations like Faceborg and
Twitter. They have no reason to be our friends, and some important reasons, like this speech,
to be our enemies. Do we have a backup if FB and Google decide to censor the Internet for serious?
Excellent post, except for the bit, as some other readers have commented, about American
intelligence agencies being law abiding. Europe, and much of the world, crumbled without resistance
in the face of the tech juggernauts because of the PR fetishization of anything that came out
of silicon valley.
The laxity of lawmakers and regulators was partly because of their unwillingness to be seen
as standing in the way of "progress". A public drunk on the need to be in with the new, "disruptive"
kids on the block who were "changing the world" would have teamed up with the disruptors to run
rough shod over any oversight mechanisms proposed by regulators. Hence the silicon valley PR machine
always prioritises the general public as the first targets of intellectual capture, because an
intellectually captured public loath to give up the benefits and convenience of "progress and
disruption" is a powerful weapon in the arsenal of tech giants in their global war against regulation.
And the insidious nature of the damage of overreach by these tech giants isn't just limited to
online interactions anymore, but the real world is also now experiencing disruption in the true
sense of the word with gig economy companies reshaping the dynamics of entire markets and squeezing
the most vulnerable members of society to the periphery of said markets, if not pushing them out
entirely. In my own city of cape town south africa, a housing crisis is brewing as locals are
being squeezed out of the housing market because landlords profit more from airbnb listings than
making their properties available for long term rentals. Asset prices are being pushed up as "investors"
compete to snap up available inventory to list on airbnb. And city officials seem more interested
in celebrating cape town's status as "one of the top airbnb destinations" than actually protecting
the interests of their own citizens. Intellectual capture, and the need to be "in with the cool
disruptive kids" is infecting even public sector organizations with severe consequences for the
public at large, but the public is blind to this as they've binged on the "disruption, changing
the world" cool-aid
While individuals might derive value from "this stuff", the tech companies providing the stuff
use said value, allied with massive amounts of PR spin to render regulators impotent in providing
safe guards to stop the techies from morphing from value providers into something akin to encroachers
for profit/power/control (e.g. encroaching upon our right to privacy by selling off our data).
Providing value to the public shouldn't be used as a cloak under which the dagger used to erode
our rights is hidden
In the links today, there is a Guardian story on Tesla workers with the quote: "Everything
feels like the future but us."
I'm reminded of another Guardian article about an ideology underpinning the grievances in Notes
From An Emergency. It's imperative to understand the that the system we find ourselves in is a
belief system – an ideology – and the choices to be made in regards to challenging it.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/11/accelerationism-how-a-fringe-philosophy-predicted-the-future-we-live-in/
An excerpt:
"Accelerationists argue that technology, particularly computer technology, and capitalism, particularly
the most aggressive, global variety, should be massively sped up and intensified – either because
this is the best way forward for humanity, or because there is no alternative. Accelerationists
favour automation. They favour the further merging of the digital and the human. They often favour
the deregulation of business, and drastically scaled-back government. They believe that people
should stop deluding themselves that economic and technological progress can be controlled. They
often believe that social and political upheaval has a value in itself.
Accelerationism, therefore, goes against conservatism, traditional socialism, social democracy,
environmentalism, protectionism, populism, nationalism, localism and all the other ideologies
that have sought to moderate or reverse the already hugely disruptive, seemingly runaway pace
of change in the modern world "
Be sure to catch such quotes as this:
"We all live in an operating system set up by the accelerating triad of war, capitalism and emergent
AI," says Steve Goodman, a British accelerationist
That should remind one of this:
"Musk is persuaded that we're living in a simulation, and he or a fellow true believer has hired
programmers to try to hack it ."
Yes I know, it's ridiculous. And we use them to "protect" us he claims. But about the only
place where "protect" makes any sense in his whole argument is actually Amazon. It is pretty safe
to buy from Amazon (or using Amazon-pay) if you fear a credit card being hacked from on online
purchase. That much has some truth.
But how does using Facebook protect anyone? How does Google protect anyone? Ok Android security
is a different debate, but I really don't understand how issues of "security" etc. applies to
using a Google search as opposed to any other.
The right wing in Britain seems to have come up with an authoritarian solution: "Theresa May
is planning to introduce huge regulations on the way the internet works, allowing the government
to decide what is said online."
Lost me right at the opening by bringing up the popular vote and the bemoaning of a "broken"
system. We are a federal republic of states and I'd prefer to keep it that way. Ensuring that
the executive has the support of the populations of some minimal number of states is a good thing
in my view.
that's when I bailed too. What drek. If a reader has half a mind, they slip and fall on a greasy
doo doo in the first 15 seconds? No way can I stand to wade through the rest of what seems like
a tortured screed (although I did speed read it). Turns out, I may agree in a minor way with some
points, but I'll never know. I have time to waste in the real world, and I can't waste it if I'm
reading somebody's internet screed about Donald Trump. God Good almighty. Enough.
Authors watch your words. They matter! LOL. And always remember - sometimes less is more. Not
NC's finest post evah. And post author's shouldn't refer to people's heads on pikes in their hotel
room as being something they wouldn't object to. I mean really. That's not even junior high school
humor. I give this post a 2.3 on a scale of 1-10. 1 is unbearable. 3 is readable. 10 is genius.
The people who run Silicon Valley identify with progressive values
Nope. There are some true progressives in the industry, yes, but they're few and far between.
Understanding the dominant mindset in Silicon Valley is vital to understanding why there hasn't
been pushback on all this. Sure, they like their neoliberal IdPol as it appeals to their meritocracy
worship (hence the protests against the travel ban), but not with any intersectionality, especially
with regards to women (the red pill/MRA mind virus infects a lot of brains in SV). Socio-economics,
though, it's heavy on the libertarianism, albeit with some support for utopian government concepts
like UBI, plus a futurist outlook out of that Neoliberal_rationality/ cult; Yudkowsky and his LessWrong nonsense
have influence over a lot of players, big and small, in the bay area. So what you get is a bunch
of people deluded into thinking they're hyperlogical while giving themselves a free pass on the
begged question of where their "first principles" emerged out of. It's not just their sci-fi bubble
that needs a poppin', it's their Rothbardian/Randite one as well.
+1,000
"The people who run Silicon Valley identify with progressive values"
True! I've seen some smoking weed while talking machine language and screwing half of humanity
The points you raise are accurate. And even long before those things existed, Silicon Valley
arose as conscious, deliberate high-level government strategy (or beyond-government deep state).
The sources of new technology and funding have been deliberately obscured, at least as far
as the general public debate goes. It has nothing to do with "innovation" and "entrepreneurship".
It is amazing to see all countries around the world hop onto the innovation, let's-imitate-Silicon-Valley
bandwagon, with no awareness that SV was no accident of a few smart/lucky individual entrepreneurs.
NOBODY has to join buttBook, review slimy effing GIGGLE, and especially use MICROSWIFT; ALTERNATIVES
are easy and often more effective and especially annoying to the rich slime.
When Balmer was Billy-Boy's Ceo he actually preached that Linux was a nefarious plot to deprive
clowns like him of their well deserved "emoluments". Fortuneately, all he has to do now is sell
beer and hot dogs, and make sure the cheerleaders keep their clothing on. Good job for him.
Decide NOT to be a lemming; instead be a BOLSHIE and hit 'em hard. YOU and the whole internet
will benefit.
I think some of the naivete of this talk is based on a superficial knowledge of American history.
Things like his remark about the Women's DC March – "America is not used to large demonstrations
" Oh really.
The writer, though intelligent, is apparently unaware of massive demos during the Vietnam War,
the Civil Rights movement, the anti-Iraq war marches, the Bonus March etc etc. Perhaps his ignorance
is a function of age, and perhaps the fact he was not born here, vis a vis his name.
I will reply to an almost tangential little something which Maciej Ceglowski wrote near the
beginning of his piece.
" 65.8 million for Clinton
63.0 million for Trump
This was the second time in sixteen years that the candidate with fewer votes won the American
Presidency. There is a bug in the operating system of our democracy, one of the many ways that
slavery still casts its shadow over American politics."
Really? A bug in the operating system of our democracy? That sounds like something a Clintonite
would say. It sounds like something that many millions of Clintonites DID say, over and over and
over again.
Clinton got more popular votes? She got almost all of them in California. So Mr. Ceglowski
thinks Clinton should be President based on that? That means Mr. Ceglowski wants the entire rest
of America to be California's colonial possession, ruled by a President that California picked.
And don't think we Midwestern Deplorables don't understand exACTly how Ceglowski thinks and what
Ceglowski thinks of us out here in Deploristan.
Some Clinton supporters are smarter than that. Some were not surprised. Michael Moore was not
surprised. He predicted that we Deploristani Midwesterners would make Trump President whether
the digitally beautiful people liked it or not. Did Mr. Ceglowski support Clinton? Did the "tech
workers in short-lived revolt" support Clinton? And did they support NAFTA back in the day? You
thought you would cram Trade Treason Clinton down our throat? Well, we flung Trade Patriot Trump
right back in your face.
"... Unfortunately, while identifying this past week as the proverbial 'beginning of the end' for Herr Donald's presidency isn't all that hard, untangling precisely why the President won't be able to weather this storm and will eventually be abandoned by the Republican Party is a little more difficult; especially in light of the fact that partisan mainstream liberals are still shouting objectively insane conspiracy theories about Russiagate even though Trump's total lack of respect for his job and fat f*cking mouth have all but handed them his political a** on a platter" ..."
"... The headline: "Exclusive: Trump campaign had at least 18 undisclosed contacts with Russians: sources" [ Reuters ]. The body: "The people who described the contacts to Reuters said they had seen no evidence of wrongdoing or collusion between the campaign and Russia in the communications reviewed so far." Ah, the sources are "people." Excellent. We're making real progress, here. I mean, at least they aren't dinosaurs or space aliens. ..."
"... Leakers From the Deep State Need to Face Criminal Charges" ..."
I'm genuinely amazed. The cray cray is an order of magnitude worse than the run-up to the Iraq
War. Go ahead and read the article; the thesis is that Russian bots on the Twitter are a bigger
threat to the United States than the fake stories the Bush White House planted in the press to
start the Iraq War. As always, the scandal is what's normal. Oh, and when did James "
Not Wittingly " Clapper emerge as a Hero of The Republic? Did I not get the memo? Presenting
Clapper as
a defender
of "the very foundation of our democratic political system" (his words) is like presenting
Jerry Sandusky as a defender of the value of cold showers.
"More than 10 centrist Republicans over the past 48 hours have criticized Trump for reportedly
sharing classified information with Russian officials or allegedly trying to quash an FBI investigation"
[
Politico ].
"Two moderate Senate Republicans suggest the need to consider a special prosecutor" [
WaPo ]. Susan Collins (R-Maine), and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska). This happened well before
the Rosenstein announcement; I'm guessing it was the crack in the dam.
"4 Reasons Why Robert Mueller Is an Ideal Special Counsel" [
The Nation ]. "[Mueller] was among the individuals in the Justice Department who assembled
at Attorney General John Ashcroft's hospital bedside in 2004 to block the Bush White House's attempt
to renew a surveillance policy that Mueller and others, including James Comey, deemed to be illegal."
That's good, but 2017 – 2004 = 13 years. That's a long time for a halo to stay buffed (as we saw
with Comey).
"Unfortunately, while identifying this past week as the proverbial 'beginning of the end' for
Herr Donald's presidency isn't all that hard, untangling precisely why the President won't be
able to weather this storm and will eventually be abandoned by the Republican Party is a little
more difficult; especially in light of the fact that partisan mainstream liberals are still shouting
objectively insane conspiracy theories about Russiagate even though Trump's total lack of respect
for his job and fat f*cking mouth have all but handed them his political a** on a platter" [
Nina Illingworth ]. Maybe Nina will "untangle" this in a later post.
The headline: "Exclusive: Trump campaign had at least 18 undisclosed contacts with Russians:
sources" [
Reuters ]. The body: "The people who described the contacts to Reuters said they had seen
no evidence of wrongdoing or collusion between the campaign and Russia in the communications reviewed
so far." Ah, the sources are "people." Excellent. We're making real progress, here. I mean, at
least they aren't dinosaurs or space aliens.
UPDATE "The Media Elite Is Indulging Dangerous Fantasies About Removing Trump From Office"
[
The Federalist ]. I don't often agree with the Federalist, but I think this is a good perspective.
"The country is deeply divided. People have taken to attacking each other in the streets and threatening
congressmen when they venture outside Washington. We're still recovering from a presidential election
that actually ended marriages and tore families apart. Trump's election was, more than anything
else, a giant middle finger to the political establishment, which has lost the confidence of the
American people. If now seems like the right time for that establishment to launch an unconstitutional
coup to remove the president through a specious application of the 25th Amendment, then I respectfully
submit that you're underestimating the precariousness of national life at this moment." Another
way of thinking about this: Who, exactly, makes the case to the American people? That somebody
would have to be an elected official trusted by the great majority of the American people (and
most definitely not a gaggle of long-faced politicians sitting at a big table). Who would that
somebody be? Paul Ryan? Joe Lieberman? Jimmy Carter? Oprah? Walter Cronkite is dead. So is Mr.
Rogers. So who, exactly?
Some general?
Which?
"Leakers From the Deep State Need to Face Criminal Charges" [
FOX News ] and "Kucinich: 'Deep State' Trying to 'Destroy The Trump Presidency'" [
FOX News ]. I juxtapose these to show the vacuity of the term "deep state." Can you imagine
FOX saying "ruling class" or "factional conflicts in the ruling class"? No?
"... An alternative and modern view is that imperialism and colonialism are unreservedly adverse for the "natives' in that it deprives
them of the freedom to shape their own futures. So many of us from the old colonies would not agree that imperialism the best thing
that happened to us. But this debate continues. ..."
"... He who pays the piper calls the tune. ..."
"... What you are saying, sociologically, is that the Roman military conquests spread enabling technology. Well, it certainly is
hard to suggest a counter-intuitive, except Jesus Christ. ..."
The instrumental and transformation view of the benefits of imperialism is reflected in comments I once read by Charles deGaulle
who, as I recall saw the massacre of the Gauls by Julius Caesar, and the integration of the Gauls into the Roman polity as an
essential step towards the emergence of a modern Europe. [I wish I could find the reference].
An alternative and modern view is that imperialism and colonialism are unreservedly adverse for the "natives' in that it
deprives them of the freedom to shape their own futures. So many of us from the old colonies would not agree that imperialism
the best thing that happened to us. But this debate continues.
I suspect that your citation is reasonably accurate, historically.
What you are saying, sociologically, is that the Roman military conquests spread enabling technology. Well, it certainly
is hard to suggest a counter-intuitive, except Jesus Christ.
"... Installing compliant regime using the forces of internal "fifth column" of neoliberalism (which, is some cases, consists predominantly of former communists like happened in the USSR and China ;-). Actually, a step from communism to neoliberalism for Communist elite ("nomenklatura") was easy as neoliberalism is "Trotskyism for the rich." If necessary/possible it removes democratically elected governments from the power by claiming that election are falsified and the government is authoritarian (unlike the puppets they want to install). ..."
"... After puppets came to power they mandate austerity, burden the country with debt most of which is stolen and repatriated to the West. The only new idea that neoliberals introduced in the old scenario of colonization is that the crisis for financial and political takeover can be manufactured and instead of psychical occupation of the colony you can use "comprador" regime and rule the country indirectly via financial mechanisms. This is the essence of Washington consensus. ..."
Yes, in a sense, "the rise of Asia" was a side effect of global neoliberal revolution. So the
key here not imperialism per ce, but neoliberalism. Unfortunately it is missing from "questions
to be asked" list and that diminished the value of the article.
"(whence the origins of this transformation? the role of the nation-state and imperialism?
the role of the bourgeois-led independence movements?)"
Neo-imperialism (or, more correctly, neocolonialism) is intrinsically connected with neoliberalism
and, by extension, with "casino capitalism" -- oversized role of financial sector under neoliberalism
as the rent extraction mechanism (via "debt slavery"). It uses instead of old-fashion occupation
of the country, political and financial takeover the countries in crisis.
Installing compliant regime using the forces of internal "fifth column" of neoliberalism (which,
is some cases, consists predominantly of former communists like happened in the USSR and China
;-). Actually, a step from communism to neoliberalism for Communist elite ("nomenklatura") was
easy as neoliberalism is "Trotskyism for the rich." If necessary/possible it removes democratically
elected governments from the power by claiming that election are falsified and the government
is authoritarian (unlike the puppets they want to install).
After puppets came to power they mandate austerity, burden the country with debt most of which
is stolen and repatriated to the West. The only new idea that neoliberals introduced in the old
scenario of colonization is that the crisis for financial and political takeover can be manufactured
and instead of psychical occupation of the colony you can use "comprador" regime and rule the
country indirectly via financial mechanisms. This is the essence of Washington consensus.
That make neocolonialism more sustainable as the illusion of sovereignty is preserved. For
example for all practical purposes Greece is now a colony. But armed struggle against occupation
forces will not happen as there is no physical occupation forces in the country. They are all
virtual ;-)
"Regime change" favorable to neoliberal globalization is what the idea of "color revolution"
is about. It can occur even in the country that already has a brutal neocolonial neoliberal administration.
Like was the case with Yanukovich regime in Ukraine. That means that we can't separate neocolonialism
and neoliberal globalization. They are two sides of the same coin.
Also the development is not equivalent to the growth of GDP, even if we use purchase parity
method of calculation of GDP. Standard of living of population and the growth of GDP can be detached
under neoliberalism. Thay are not the same thing.
Simultaneously, like under classic imperialism, the population of the "host" county (the imperial
power) suffers too, because it carries the increasing burden of maintaining and expanding of the
empire. The current situation in the USA is clear example of this trend.
We also clearly see the attempts to lower the level of income to subsistence level in the USA
(Wal-Mart), so this part of Marxism still have some validity. It looks like neoliberalism is not
that interested in maintaining "worker aristocracy" in the "host" country. It might be replaced
by upper strata of "guard labor" and "national security parasites".
Industrialization of China was an interesting historical event -- the result to three very
improbable events.
1. Voluntarily conversion of China leadership of Communist Party to neoliberalism ( Deng Xiaoping
theory "It doesn't matter whether a cat is white or black, as long as it catches mice." )
2. The USA successful attempt to play China against the USSR and Warsaw block.
3. The neoliberal revolution in the USA itself, which removed the idea of sharing profits with
working class (New Deal Capitalism), and opened the path to outsourcing first manufacturing and
then services to the low wage countries, making China a very lucrative target for the transfer
of manufacturing and wage arbitrage. Timewise it corresponded with retirement of the managerial
class which fought in WWII and replacement of this generation with more technocratic and more
"neoliberally brainwashed" boomers.
Another interesting nuance is that out of "Asian tigers", only China can be viewed as nominally
sovereign nation.
Other countries are to various degrees vassals of the USA. And that puts strict limits to their
growth. Actually Trump election might be a signal to those nations: "know you place".
The idea that "Thus the seeds of the idea that imperialism may undermine class struggle in
developed countries were sown and that had far reaching consequences." presuppose the working
class, in classic Marxist tradition, has "revolutionary potential", the energy and the desire
to overthrow the existing order.
This part of Marxism proved to be false. It was the social-democratic parties which were key
to mobilizing workers.
This idea of the tremendous importance of the party for the modern society and that one party
rule can stimulate economic development was actually inherited from Marxism by national socialism.
Mussolini was a former prominent Italian social-democrat.
The "iron rule of oligarchy" also severely undermined the Marxist idea of "socialist state"
and the possibility of the rule of working class (and democracy as a political system -- Göring:
Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the
bidding of the leaders. That is easy).
It is rumored that close to his death and seeing the emergence of "nomenklatura" as a new ruling
class in the Soviet Russia Lenin exclaimed "My God, what we have done !".
As is well-known (or should be well-known) Marxism has gradually developed two approaches to imperialism.
Marx's own position was (until the very last years of his life) essentially and unbendingly positive:
imperialism, however brutal and disruptive, was the engine whereby more advanced social formation,
namely capitalism, was introduced in and transformed more backward societies. Marx's own writings
on the British conquest of India are fairly unambiguous in that respect. Engels' writings on the
French conquest of Algeria are (as is usually the case when one compares Engels' and Marx's writing
styles) even more "brutal". In that "classical" view, Western Europe, the United States and the "Third
World" would all develop capitalistically, may relatively quickly come to the approximately same
levels of development, and capitalism will then directly be replaced by socialism in all of them.
This view depended crucially on two assumptions: that (1) the Western working class remain at
the low level of income (subsistence) which would then (2) assure its continued revolutionary fervor.
Assumption (1) was common to all 19 th century economists, was supported until the mid-19
th century by the observed evidence, and Marx was not an exception. But towards the end
of the century, Engels had noticed the emergence of "workers' aristocracy" which blunted the edge
of class conflict in Britain, and possibly other advanced countries. The increase in wages was "fed",
Engels argued, from colonial profits realized by British capitalists. Although the increases were
mere "crumbs from capitalists' table" (Engels) they exploded the theory of the "iron law of wages"
and, collaterally, the revolutionary potential of the working class in the West. Thus the seeds of
the idea that imperialism may undermine class struggle in developed countries were sown and that
had far reaching consequences.
Bill Warren's "Imperialism: Pioneer of Capitalism" (published in 1980; unfinished due to Warren's
death) credits Lenin of the post-1914 vintage for the change (or rather criticizes him for it). In
Lenin's "Imperialism " the monopoly capitalism having lost the vigor of free-market capitalism and
having become "decrepit" was seen in need of foreign expansion (to maintain profits at earlier levels).
This in turn led to imperialist struggle for territories that ended up in World War I. At the same
time, working classes' relative material ease in developed countries made them abandon the revolutionary
path and support "opportunistic" and nationalistic social-democratic parties (and their leaders,
notably the "renegade" Kautsky). The struggle of the "peoples of the East" (as they were called in
the first congress in Baku in 1920) against imperialism become integrated into an overall struggle
against capitalism, and imperialism ceased to be seen as a dynamic precursor of the forthcoming socialism,
but rather the extension of moribund capitalism. In Warren's words, "it is now not the character
of capitalism that determines the progressiveness of imperialism, but the character of imperialism
that determines the reactionary character of capitalism" (p. 47).
This change of position had far-reaching consequences for the thinking of the left that Warren
excoriates. It led to the theories of "core" and "periphery", "structural dependency" etc. (Frank,
Amin, Cardoso, Prebisch). These theories, Warren argues, were wrong because they predicted faster
growth if countries were to disengage from the dominant global system (which all proved to have been
illusions-Warren is less sanguine on that than we can be now), and they had nothing to do with workers'
struggle in the emerging economies because they reflected the interests of nationalist Third World
bourgeoisies.
Now, I wish I could write a very lengthy review of Warren's extremely stimulating book-which also
contains many infuriating sections-but I will have to leave it for another time. (In the "infuriating
area", Warren, for example, celebrates the increase of inequalities in developing countries such
as the concentration of land ownership into the hands of latidundistas because he regards it as an
indicator of adoption of more efficient capitalistic methods of production in agriculture, p. 207).
His celebrations of inequality throughout the second part of the book-dealing with post-1945 developments-would
make Friedman and Hayek blush!) But my point is not Warren's book as such but its very contemporary
implications.
It is directly relevant for the understanding of the rise of new capitalist economies in Asia.
Richard Baldwin's recent book (reviewed here ), even if Baldwin does not make any allusions to
either the classical Marxist position or to the dependency theory, clearly shows that the economic
success of Asia was based on the use of capitalistic relations of production and inclusion in the
global supply chains, that is in active participation in globalization. Not passive-but a participation
that was sought after, desired. It is thus no accident that China has become the main champion of
globalization today. Therefore, Asian success directly disproves the dependency theories and is in
full agreement with the classical Marxist position about the revolutionary impact of capitalism,
and by extension of "neo-imperialism", in less developed societies.
This has enormous implications on how we view and try to explain dramatic shifts in economic power
which have occurred in the past half-century (whence the origins of this transformation? the role
of the nation-state and imperialism? the role of the bourgeois-led independence movements?) and how
we see the developments ahead. I will not develop these issues now because my thinking is still evolving
and I plan to lay it out in a book, but I think that, in trying to understand the changes in the
modern world, the best we can do is to go to the literature and the debates from exactly one hundred
years ago. (And Warren's book although of course much more recent has its roots in what was discussed
then). Short of that I cannot see any broader narrative that makes sense of the epochal changes we
are living through.
Phillip Mirowski challenged the left to directly attack and defeat the neoliberal belief that
markets are information processors that can know more than any person could ever know and solve
problems no computer could ever solve. [Prof. Philip Mirowski keynote for 'Life and Debt' conference
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7ewn29w-9I
]
Sorry for the long quote - I am loathe to attempt to paraphrase Hayek
"This is particularly true of our theories accounting for the determination of the systems
of relative prices and wages that will form themselves on a wellfunctioning market. Into the
determination of these prices and wages there will enter the effects of particular information
possessed by every one of the participants in the market process – a sum of facts which in
their totality cannot be known to the scientific observer, or to any other single brain. It
is indeed the source of the superiority of the market order, and the reason why, when it is
not suppressed by the powers of government, it regularly displaces other types of order, that
in the resulting allocation of resources more of the knowledge of particular facts will be
utilized which exists only dispersed among uncounted persons, than any one person can possess.
But because we, the observing scientists, can thus never know all the determinants of such
an order, and in consequence also cannot know at which particular structure of prices and wages
demand would everywhere equal supply, we also cannot measure the deviations from that order;
nor can we statistically test our theory that it is the deviations from that "equilibrium"
system of prices and wages which make it impossible to sell some of the products and services
at the prices at which they are offered."
[Extract from Hayek's Nobel Lecture]
This just hints at Hayek's market supercomputer idea - I still haven't found a particular writing
which exposits the idea - so this will have to do.
Sorry - another quote from the Hayek Nobel Lecture [I have no idea how to paraphrase stuff
like this!]:
"There may be few instances in which the superstition that only measurable magnitudes can be
important has done positive harm in the economic field: but the present inflation and employment
problems are a very serious one. Its effect has been that what is probably the true cause of
extensive unemployment has been disregarded by the scientistically minded majority of economists,
because its operation could not be confirmed by directly observable relations between measurable
magnitudes, and that an almost exclusive concentration on quantitatively measurable surface
phenomena has produced a policy which has made matters worse."
I can't follow Hayek and I can't follow Jason Smith. The first quote above sounds like a "faith
based" theory of economics as difficult to characterize as it is to refute. The second quote throws
out Jason Smith's argument with a combination of faith based economics and a rejection of the
basis for Smith's argument - as "scientistically minded."
I prefer the much simplier answer implicit in Veblen and plain in "Industrial Prices and their
Relative Inflexibility." US Senate Document no. 13, 74th Congress, 1st Session, Government Printing
Office, Washington DC. Means, G. C. 1935 - Market? What Market? Can you point to one? [refer to
William Waller: Thorstein Veblen, Business Enterprise, and the Financial Crisis (July 06, 2012)
[https://archive.org/details/WilliamWallerThorsteinVeblenBusinessEnterpriseAndTheFinancialCrisis]
It might be interesting if Jason Smith's information theory approach to the market creature
could prove how the assumed properties of that mythical creature could be used to derive a proof
that the mythical Market creature cannot act as an information processor as Mirowski asserts that
Hayek asserts. So far as I can tell from my very little exposure to Hayek's market creature it
is far too fantastical to characterize with axioms or properties amenable to making reasoned arguments
or proofs as Jason Smith attempts. Worse - though I admit being totally confused by his arguments
- Smith's arguments seem to slice at a strawman creature that bears little likeness to Hayek's
market creature.
The conclusion of this post adds a scary thought: "The understanding of prices and supply and
demand provided by information theory and machine learning algorithms is better equipped to explain
markets than arguments reducing complex distributions of possibilities to a single dimension,
and hence, necessarily, requiring assumptions like rational agents and perfect foresight." It
almost sounds as if Jason Smith intends to build a better Market as information processor - maybe
tweak the axioms a little and bring in Shannon. Jason Smith is not our St. George.
But making the observation that there are no markets as defined makes little dint on a faith-based
theory like neoliberalism, especially a theory whose Church encompasses most university economics
departments, most "working" economists, numerous well-funded think tanks, and owns much/most of
our political elite and so effectively promotes the short-term interests of our Power Elite.
"... I found it an odd mix of straight-talk and naivete. The NSA can't spy on Americans without
a warrant? Go ahead, pull the other one. ..."
"... This caught my eye earlier. Had to come back to it. Especially after reading Mike Whitney's
latest http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/05/19/seth-rich-craig-murray-and-the-sinister-stewards-of-the-national-security-state/
. In it, he details how seriously Clapper, Brennan et al. take those "laws and procedures." ..."
"... Taking a recent and relevant example, remember the ICA, the "Intelligence Community Assessment"?
Whitney quotes a Fox news article detailing the many ways in which it's production varied sharply from
normal procedures. And of course there was all that "stove-piping" of "intel" that helped make the bogus
case for the 2003 war of aggression against Iraq ..."
"... Glad you liked it. Lily Tomlin applies: "No matter how cynical you get, it's impossible to
keep up." ..."
"... Excellent post, except for the bit, as some other readers have commented, about American intelligence
agencies being law abiding. Europe, and much of the world, crumbled without resistance in the face of
the tech juggernauts because of the PR fetishization of anything that came out of silicon valley. ..."
This piece is absolutely fantastic! Not to nit pick, but I do disagree with the author about
the following passage:
Even if you think our intelligence agencies are evil, they're a lawful evil. They have to
follow laws and procedures, and the people in those agencies take them seriously.
But there are no such protections for non-Americans outside the United States. The NSA would
have to go to court to spy on me; they can spy on you anytime they feel like it.
We know from the Church and Pike committees that this is patently false, and I highly doubt
that this has changed much since then, especially in light of Iran-Contra and the made-up intel
used to justify the Iraq invasion.
I know I probably sound like a broken record as I often cite the Church and Pike reports in
my NC comments, but they're just so little known and so important that I feel compelled to do
so.
I encourage the entire commenteriat to at least skim some of these documents to get a better
understanding of the kinds of sickening things perpetrated by the intel community in the past
and then ask yourself if the veil of secrecy that surrounds them is to keep secrets from the enemy
or to keep the American public from vomiting.
I found it an odd mix of straight-talk and naivete. The NSA can't spy on Americans without
a warrant? Go ahead, pull the other one. Talking about the "collapse of representative government"
as if we've ever had one. All very cute, and very silly.
His suggestions for putting the brakes on are good, but insufficient. My ideas as to how to
go about, "connecting the tech industry to reality. Bringing its benefits to more people, and
bringing the power to make decisions to more people," is here:
Imagine a political party with no national platform-a party where local rank-and-file members
select candidates from among themselves, and dictate the policies those candidates will support.
[2] Imagine a political party whose candidates are transparent; one that guarantees every member
an equal voice in shaping the actual policy proposals-and the votes-of their representatives.
Imagine a political party whose focus is on empowering the rank-and-file members, instead of
the charismatic con-artists we call politicians. Imagine a political party that runs on direct
democracy, from bottom to top: open, transparent and accountable . we'll need an app maybe
two
The app already exists, actually, and it's called Loomio. Podemos uses it, along with a lot
of other people:
I had the same reaction to that passage, at least initially. However what I think the author
might mean by this is that to have the means to combat this evil 2 things are necessary:
o Laws and/or procedures that place limitations on the actions of these agencies – NSA, CIA,
DHS etc.
o and, much much more important, the means to ensure those laws/procedures are *enforced* as
to both statute and intent.
USians have at least the first part even if the second, enforcement, has rotted to the extent
of being no more than a cruel joke. non-USian have neither.
Note that the lack of enforcement thing extends far beyond the IC agencies into anti-trust,
environmental regulation, Sarbanes-Oxley, etc. etc.. Even the ludicrous botch called Dodd-Frank
could work marginally better if there was some attempt to actually enforce it.
That bit about tech workers defying management to protest Trump's travel ban seems demonstrably
untrue, as the companies want that human capital pipeline kept open, and they can simultaneously
wrap themselves in muliti-cultural virtue as they defend their employment practices.
Also, and I know people here will disagree or think it irrelevant, but the "They're not bad
people," thing is wrong; I think people such as Thiel, Kalanick, Zuckerberg, Ellison, add-your-own-candidates,
seem like pretty awful people doing a lot of awful things, whatever their brilliance, business
acumen, and relentlessness.
Finally, while as a union guy I was pleased to see the importance he gave it, the idea of tech
workers unionizing in this country seems like social science fiction, whatever their European
counterparts might hopefully do.
I, too, stumbled / choked when I read those paragraphs. They are provably false in so many
dimensions I hardly know where to begin. It made it hard to read past.
I will try again because so many commenters are so positive. But the author's credibility sinks
when a piece starts with such blindness or misinformation or pandering.
On the one hand, it's probably some pandering, because he knows he is being watched. We all
throw that same bone once in a while. From Vergil, it is called "a sop to Cerberus." On the other
hand, he is correct, too: it is a "lawful evil" because it functions using tax money, which is
money extorted by force with the sanction of law, rather than "chaotic evil," which is money extorted
by force or fraud without that sanction. So in that positive-law-philosophy way of thinking, he
has a point, even if it's a pandering point.
Taking a recent and relevant example, remember the ICA, the "Intelligence Community Assessment"?
Whitney quotes a Fox news article detailing the many ways in which it's production varied sharply
from normal procedures. And of course there was all that "stove-piping" of "intel" that helped
make the bogus case for the 2003 war of aggression against Iraq .
I appreciate the author's point: it would be harder to surveil a particular American than a
European. I'm sure rank & file people by & large respect law and procedure. But don't worry, if
there's a political will to get you, there's a way. Ask Chelsea Manning.
Whitney concludes by quoting an especially apt question posed by Michael Glennon in the May
issue of Harper's: "Who would trust the authors of past episodes of repression as a reliable safeguard
against future repression?"
People who think they're immune to said repression, for one. Or who don't know or believe it
happened/is happening at all. IOW political elites and most Americans, that's who. I think there's
a good chance the soft coup will work, and most Americans would even accept a President-General.
So while I see the author's point, I see it this way. They take laws and procedures seriously
like I take traffic laws seriously. Only their solution is to corrupt law enforcement, not follow
the law.
"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face, it's just a goddamned piece of paper!" - President
George W. Bush
Mike Whitney's article you linked to was interesting. George Webb's ongoing YouTube series
is going further still, as he is uncovering numerous anomalies with Seth Rich's death and the
circumstances and "investigation". It turns out that nothing in this story is what it seems (the
"school play" scenario).
Disturbingly, there are similarities and patterns that connect up with numerous other patterns
discussed earlier in this 208-day (so far) odyssey, which started with looking at irregularities
around oil pipelines and drugs shipments, and ended up including numerous additional criminal
enterprises, all with direct links to high-up government staff and political staff from both major
parties, with links among key participants going back over decades in some cases.
To return to your observation–knowing what I know now–personal as well as second-hand, I don't
think it's harder to surveil an american than a european. The compromises of law enforcement,
justice and intelligence and rogue contractors have no international boundaries. The way the compromises
are done vary depending on local methods, and the degree of public awareness may vary, but the
actuality and ease–no different overall.
Eight, nine and ten in this household. I don't use any Google-stuff and have hard-deleted my
Facebook account. At least they told me had, I should ask a friend to check to see if I am still
there ;)
But we all know that a Linux user is worth only 3/5 of a regular user, so we are back to 6.
Writing this from a 2003 vintage Pentium 4 machine running Linux Mint 17.
8. Built this thing myself 5 years ago. It's a quad core on an MSI mobo. Or maybe I only count
as a half, since it's a dual boot with Linux Mint 17.3/Win7 Pro.
A history lesson. The PC brought freedom from the IT department, until networking enslaved
us again. The freedom was temporary, we were originally supposed to be serfs of a timeshare system
connected to a mainframe. France was ahead of the US in that, they had MiniTel. But like everything
French is was efficient but static. In Europe, like in the US, the PC initially liberated, and
then with networking, enslaved. Arpanet was the predecessor of the Internet it was a Cold War
system of survivable networking, for some people. The invention of HTTP and the browser at CERN
democratized the Arpanet. But it also greatly enabled State-sponsored snooping.
We are now moving to cloud storage and Chrome-books which will restore the original vision
of a timeshare system connected to a mainframe, but at a higher technical standard. What was envisioned
in 1968 will be achieved, but later than planned, and in a round about way. We are not the polity
we used to be. In 1968 this would have been viewed by the public with suspicion. But after 50
years later the public will view this as progress.
One thing just as dangerous and limiting as the idealized past of the conservative mindset
is the idealized sense of progress of the the liberal mindset.
SV tech owners (think about) . . . the cool toys they'll spend profits on . . . run by chuckle
heads . . . identify with progressive values . . . they want to help . . . run by a feckless leadership
accountable to no one . . .
Can't send them to Mars quick enough, I say.
." Even if you think our intelligence agencies are evil, they're a lawful evil. They have to
follow laws and procedures, and the people in those agencies take them seriously."
The real kneeslapper was. . . American government (also) run by chuckle heads . . . what happens
when these two groups . . . join forces?
Knock me over with a feather, let us know when that happens. How many Friedman units will we have
to wait?
"And outside of Russia and China, Google is the world's search engine."
How can this be? I don't use it except very rarely; my wife does, but complains about it bitterly,
and so do people here at NC, presumably tech-savvy. My wife is using it out of pure habit; what
about the rest of them?
"Given this scary state of the world, with ecological collapse just over the horizon, and a
population sharpening its pitchforks, "
And unfortunately, that's the likeliest solution. (The family blogging "L" on this keyboard doesn't
work right, so make some allowances.)
Despite my nitpicks above, this is a very important speech and a frightening issue. In particular,
I've long been concerned that so much organizing depends on giant corporations like Faceborg and
Twitter. They have no reason to be our friends, and some important reasons, like this speech,
to be our enemies. Do we have a backup if FB and Google decide to censor the Internet for serious?
Excellent post, except for the bit, as some other readers have commented, about American
intelligence agencies being law abiding. Europe, and much of the world, crumbled without resistance
in the face of the tech juggernauts because of the PR fetishization of anything that came out
of silicon valley.
The laxity of lawmakers and regulators was partly because of their unwillingness to be seen
as standing in the way of "progress". A public drunk on the need to be in with the new, "disruptive"
kids on the block who were "changing the world" would have teamed up with the disruptors to run
rough shod over any oversight mechanisms proposed by regulators. Hence the silicon valley PR machine
always prioritises the general public as the first targets of intellectual capture, because an
intellectually captured public loath to give up the benefits and convenience of "progress and
disruption" is a powerful weapon in the arsenal of tech giants in their global war against regulation.
And the insidious nature of the damage of overreach by these tech giants isn't just limited to
online interactions anymore, but the real world is also now experiencing disruption in the true
sense of the word with gig economy companies reshaping the dynamics of entire markets and squeezing
the most vulnerable members of society to the periphery of said markets, if not pushing them out
entirely. In my own city of cape town south africa, a housing crisis is brewing as locals are
being squeezed out of the housing market because landlords profit more from airbnb listings than
making their properties available for long term rentals. Asset prices are being pushed up as "investors"
compete to snap up available inventory to list on airbnb. And city officials seem more interested
in celebrating cape town's status as "one of the top airbnb destinations" than actually protecting
the interests of their own citizens. Intellectual capture, and the need to be "in with the cool
disruptive kids" is infecting even public sector organizations with severe consequences for the
public at large, but the public is blind to this as they've binged on the "disruption, changing
the world" cool-aid
While individuals might derive value from "this stuff", the tech companies providing the stuff
use said value, allied with massive amounts of PR spin to render regulators impotent in providing
safe guards to stop the techies from morphing from value providers into something akin to encroachers
for profit/power/control (e.g. encroaching upon our right to privacy by selling off our data).
Providing value to the public shouldn't be used as a cloak under which the dagger used to erode
our rights is hidden
In the links today, there is a Guardian story on Tesla workers with the quote: "Everything
feels like the future but us."
I'm reminded of another Guardian article about an ideology underpinning the grievances in Notes
From An Emergency. It's imperative to understand the that the system we find ourselves in is a
belief system – an ideology – and the choices to be made in regards to challenging it.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/11/accelerationism-how-a-fringe-philosophy-predicted-the-future-we-live-in/
An excerpt:
"Accelerationists argue that technology, particularly computer technology, and capitalism, particularly
the most aggressive, global variety, should be massively sped up and intensified – either because
this is the best way forward for humanity, or because there is no alternative. Accelerationists
favour automation. They favour the further merging of the digital and the human. They often favour
the deregulation of business, and drastically scaled-back government. They believe that people
should stop deluding themselves that economic and technological progress can be controlled. They
often believe that social and political upheaval has a value in itself.
Accelerationism, therefore, goes against conservatism, traditional socialism, social democracy,
environmentalism, protectionism, populism, nationalism, localism and all the other ideologies
that have sought to moderate or reverse the already hugely disruptive, seemingly runaway pace
of change in the modern world "
Be sure to catch such quotes as this:
"We all live in an operating system set up by the accelerating triad of war, capitalism and emergent
AI," says Steve Goodman, a British accelerationist
That should remind one of this:
"Musk is persuaded that we're living in a simulation, and he or a fellow true believer has hired
programmers to try to hack it ."
Yes I know, it's ridiculous. And we use them to "protect" us he claims. But about the only
place where "protect" makes any sense in his whole argument is actually Amazon. It is pretty safe
to buy from Amazon (or using Amazon-pay) if you fear a credit card being hacked from on online
purchase. That much has some truth.
But how does using Facebook protect anyone? How does Google protect anyone? Ok Android security
is a different debate, but I really don't understand how issues of "security" etc. applies to
using a Google search as opposed to any other.
The right wing in Britain seems to have come up with an authoritarian solution: "Theresa May
is planning to introduce huge regulations on the way the internet works, allowing the government
to decide what is said online."
Lost me right at the opening by bringing up the popular vote and the bemoaning of a "broken"
system. We are a federal republic of states and I'd prefer to keep it that way. Ensuring that
the executive has the support of the populations of some minimal number of states is a good thing
in my view.
that's when I bailed too. What drek. If a reader has half a mind, they slip and fall on a greasy
doo doo in the first 15 seconds? No way can I stand to wade through the rest of what seems like
a tortured screed (although I did speed read it). Turns out, I may agree in a minor way with some
points, but I'll never know. I have time to waste in the real world, and I can't waste it if I'm
reading somebody's internet screed about Donald Trump. God Good almighty. Enough.
Authors watch your words. They matter! LOL. And always remember - sometimes less is more. Not
NC's finest post evah. And post author's shouldn't refer to people's heads on pikes in their hotel
room as being something they wouldn't object to. I mean really. That's not even junior high school
humor. I give this post a 2.3 on a scale of 1-10. 1 is unbearable. 3 is readable. 10 is genius.
The people who run Silicon Valley identify with progressive values
Nope. There are some true progressives in the industry, yes, but they're few and far between.
Understanding the dominant mindset in Silicon Valley is vital to understanding why there hasn't
been pushback on all this. Sure, they like their neoliberal IdPol as it appeals to their meritocracy
worship (hence the protests against the travel ban), but not with any intersectionality, especially
with regards to women (the red pill/MRA mind virus infects a lot of brains in SV). Socio-economics,
though, it's heavy on the libertarianism, albeit with some support for utopian government concepts
like UBI, plus a futurist outlook out of that Neoliberal_rationality/ cult; Yudkowsky and his LessWrong nonsense
have influence over a lot of players, big and small, in the bay area. So what you get is a bunch
of people deluded into thinking they're hyperlogical while giving themselves a free pass on the
begged question of where their "first principles" emerged out of. It's not just their sci-fi bubble
that needs a poppin', it's their Rothbardian/Randite one as well.
+1,000
"The people who run Silicon Valley identify with progressive values"
True! I've seen some smoking weed while talking machine language and screwing half of humanity
The points you raise are accurate. And even long before those things existed, Silicon Valley
arose as conscious, deliberate high-level government strategy (or beyond-government deep state).
The sources of new technology and funding have been deliberately obscured, at least as far
as the general public debate goes. It has nothing to do with "innovation" and "entrepreneurship".
It is amazing to see all countries around the world hop onto the innovation, let's-imitate-Silicon-Valley
bandwagon, with no awareness that SV was no accident of a few smart/lucky individual entrepreneurs.
NOBODY has to join buttBook, review slimy effing GIGGLE, and especially use MICROSWIFT; ALTERNATIVES
are easy and often more effective and especially annoying to the rich slime.
When Balmer was Billy-Boy's Ceo he actually preached that Linux was a nefarious plot to deprive
clowns like him of their well deserved "emoluments". Fortuneately, all he has to do now is sell
beer and hot dogs, and make sure the cheerleaders keep their clothing on. Good job for him.
Decide NOT to be a lemming; instead be a BOLSHIE and hit 'em hard. YOU and the whole internet
will benefit.
I think some of the naivete of this talk is based on a superficial knowledge of American history.
Things like his remark about the Women's DC March – "America is not used to large demonstrations
" Oh really.
The writer, though intelligent, is apparently unaware of massive demos during the Vietnam War,
the Civil Rights movement, the anti-Iraq war marches, the Bonus March etc etc. Perhaps his ignorance
is a function of age, and perhaps the fact he was not born here, vis a vis his name.
I will reply to an almost tangential little something which Maciej Ceglowski wrote near the
beginning of his piece.
" 65.8 million for Clinton
63.0 million for Trump
This was the second time in sixteen years that the candidate with fewer votes won the American
Presidency. There is a bug in the operating system of our democracy, one of the many ways that
slavery still casts its shadow over American politics."
Really? A bug in the operating system of our democracy? That sounds like something a Clintonite
would say. It sounds like something that many millions of Clintonites DID say, over and over and
over again.
Clinton got more popular votes? She got almost all of them in California. So Mr. Ceglowski
thinks Clinton should be President based on that? That means Mr. Ceglowski wants the entire rest
of America to be California's colonial possession, ruled by a President that California picked.
And don't think we Midwestern Deplorables don't understand exACTly how Ceglowski thinks and what
Ceglowski thinks of us out here in Deploristan.
Some Clinton supporters are smarter than that. Some were not surprised. Michael Moore was not
surprised. He predicted that we Deploristani Midwesterners would make Trump President whether
the digitally beautiful people liked it or not. Did Mr. Ceglowski support Clinton? Did the "tech
workers in short-lived revolt" support Clinton? And did they support NAFTA back in the day? You
thought you would cram Trade Treason Clinton down our throat? Well, we flung Trade Patriot Trump
right back in your face.
"... An alternative and modern view is that imperialism and colonialism are unreservedly adverse for the "natives' in that it deprives
them of the freedom to shape their own futures. So many of us from the old colonies would not agree that imperialism the best thing
that happened to us. But this debate continues. ..."
"... He who pays the piper calls the tune. ..."
"... What you are saying, sociologically, is that the Roman military conquests spread enabling technology. Well, it certainly is
hard to suggest a counter-intuitive, except Jesus Christ. ..."
The instrumental and transformation view of the benefits of imperialism is reflected in comments I once read by Charles deGaulle
who, as I recall saw the massacre of the Gauls by Julius Caesar, and the integration of the Gauls into the Roman polity as an
essential step towards the emergence of a modern Europe. [I wish I could find the reference].
An alternative and modern view is that imperialism and colonialism are unreservedly adverse for the "natives' in that it
deprives them of the freedom to shape their own futures. So many of us from the old colonies would not agree that imperialism
the best thing that happened to us. But this debate continues.
I suspect that your citation is reasonably accurate, historically.
What you are saying, sociologically, is that the Roman military conquests spread enabling technology. Well, it certainly
is hard to suggest a counter-intuitive, except Jesus Christ.
I had another
topic lined up today, but this (
hat
tip alert reader ChrisAtRU
) is so remarkable - and so necessary to
frame
contextualize immediately - I thought I should bring it your
attention, dear readers. The headline is
"Toward a Marshall Plan for America
," the authors are a gaggle of CAP
luminaries with Neera Tanden leading and Rey Teixeira trailing, and the
"Marshall Plan" indeed includes something called a "Jobs Guarantee." Of
course, I trust Clinton operatives like Tanden, and Third Way types like
Teixeira, about as far as I can throw a concert grand piano. Nevertheless,
one sign of an idea whose time has come is that sleazy opportunists and
has-beens try to get out in front of it to seize credit[1] and stay
relevant. So, modified rapture.
In this brief post, I'm going to look at the political context that drove
CAP - taking Tanden, Teixeira, and the gaggle as a proxy for CAP - to
consider a Jobs Guarantee (JG), briefly describe the nature and purpose of a
JG, and conclude with some thoughts on how Tanden, Teixeira would screw the
JG up, like the good liberals they are.
Political Context for CAP's JG
Let's begin with the photo of Prairie du Chien, WI at the top of CAP's JG
article. Here it is:
I went to Google Maps Street View, found
Stark's Sports Shop
(and Liquor Store), and took a quick look round
town. Things don't look too bad, which is to say things look pretty much
like they do in my own home town, in the fly-over state of Maine; many local
businesses. The street lamps make my back teeth itch a little, because along
with bike paths to attract professionals, they're one of those panaceas to
"bring back downtown," but as it turns out Prairie du Chien has marketed
itself to summer tourists quite successfully as "
the
oldest Euro-American settlement established on the Upper Mississippi River,"
so those lamps are legit! (Of course, Prairie du Chien, like so much of
flyover country,
is fighting an opioid problem
, but that doesn't show up in Street View,
or affect the tourists in any way.)
In 2012, [Lydia Holt] voted for Barack Obama because he promised her
change, but she feels that change hasn't reached her here. So last year
she chose a presidential candidate unlike any she'd ever seen, the
billionaire businessman who promised to help America, and people like
her, win again. Many of her neighbors did, too .
In this corner of middle America, in this one, small slice of the
nation that sent Trump to Washington, they are watching and they are
waiting, their hopes pinned on his promised economic renaissance. And if
four years from now the change he pledged hasn't found them here, the
people of Crawford County said they might change again to someone else.
"[T]hings aren't going the way we want them here," she said, "so we
needed to go in another direction."
And the issues:
[Holt] tugged 13 envelopes from a cabinet above the stove, each one
labeled with a different debt: the house payment, the student loans, the
vacuum cleaner she bought on credit.
Lydia Holt and her husband tuck money into these envelopes with each
paycheck to whittle away at what they owe. They both earn about $10 an
hour and, with two kids, there are usually some they can't fill. She did
the math; at this rate, they'll be paying these same bills for 87 years.
Kramer said she's glad the Affordable Care Act has helped millions get
insurance, but it hasn't helped her he and her husband were stunned to
find premiums over $1,000 a month. Her daughter recently moved into their
house with her five children, so there's no money to spare. They opted to
pay the penalty of $2,000, and pray they don't get sick until Trump, she
hopes, keeps his promise to replace the law with something better.
Among them is a woman who works for $10.50 an hour in a sewing
factory, who still admires Obama, bristles at Trump's bluster, but can't
afford health insurance. And the dairy farmer who thinks Trump is a jerk
- "somebody needs to get some Gorilla Glue and glue his lips shut" - but
has watched his profits plummet and was willing to take the risk.
So that's Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin. CAP frames the electoral context
this way:
While the election was decided by a small number of votes overall,
there was a significant shift of votes in counties in critical Electoral
College states, including Iowa, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and
Wisconsin.
(I could have told them that.
In fact, I did!
) And the reasons for the shift:
What was going on in these heavily white working-class counties that
might explain support for Trump? Without diminishing the importance of
cultural and racial influences, it is clear to us that lingering [sic]
economic pressures among important voting blocs helped to create a larger
opening for Trump's victory.
We do not yet know the exact reasons for the drop in turnout among
young people and black voters. But with President Obama not on the ticket
to drive voter enthusiasm, it is quite possible that lingering job and
wage pressures in more urban areas with lots of young people, and in
areas with large populations of African-Americans, yielded similar, if
distinct, economic anxiety in ways that may have depressed voter turnout
among base progressives. The combined effect of economic anxiety may have
been to drive white noncollege voters toward Trump and to drive down
voter engagement and participation among base progressives.
Either way, issues related to lost jobs, low wages, high costs, and
diminished mobility played a critical role in setting the stage for a
narrow populist victory for Trump.
(I could have told them that, too.
In fact, I did!
) Note the lingering
"Obama Coalition"
/
identity
politics
brain damage that casually assumes "base progressives" equate
to African-Americans and youth. Nevertheless, mild kudos to CAP for fighting
through to the concept that "economic pressures among important voting blocs
helped to create a larger opening for Trump's victory." The CAP paper then
goes on to recommend a JG as an answer to such "economic pressures."[2]
How would the JG work from the perspective of a working person (not an
owner?) Or from the perspective of the millions of permanently
disemployed?
The MMT Primer
:
If you are involuntarily unemployed today (or are stuck with a
part-time job when you really want to work full time) you only have
three choices:
Employ yourself (create your own business-something that
usually goes up in recessions although most of these businesses
fail)
Convince an employer to hire you, adding to the firm's
workforce
Convince an employer to replace an existing worker, hiring you
The second option requires that the firm's employment is below
optimum-it must not currently have the number of workers desired to
produce the amount of output the firm thinks it can sell. …
If the firm is in equilibrium, then, producing what it believes it
can sell, it will hire you only on the conditions stated in the third
case-to replace an existing worker. Perhaps you promise to work
harder, or better, or at a lower wage. But, obviously, that just
shifts the unemployment to someone else.
It is the "dogs and bones" problem: if you bury 9 bones and send 10
dogs out to go bone-hunting you know at least one dog will come back
"empty mouthed". You can take that dog and teach her lots of new
tricks in bone-finding, but if you bury only 9 bones, again, some
unlucky dog comes back without a bone.
The only solution is to provide a 10
th
bone. That is
what the JG does: it ensures a bone for every dog that wants to hunt.
It expands the options to include:
There is a "residual" employer who will always provide a job to
anyone who shows up ready and willing to work.
It expands choice. If you want to work and exhaust the first 3
alternatives listed above, there is a 4
th
: the JG.
It expands choice without reducing other choices. You can still try
the first 3 alternatives. You can take advantage of all the safety net
alternatives provided. Or you can choose to do nothing. It is up to
you.
If I were one of the millions of people permanently disemployed, I
would welcome that additional choice. It's certainly far more humane than
any policy on offer by either party. And the JG is in the great tradition
of programs the New Deal sponsored, like the CCC, the WPA,
Federal Writers' Project
, and the
Federal Art Project
. So what's not to like? (
Here's
a list
of other JGs). Like the New Deal, but not temporary!
Intuitively: What the JG does is set a baseline[3] for the entire
package offered to workers, and employers have to offer a better package,
or not get the workers they need. When I came up here to Maine I'd quit
my job voluntarily and so wasn't eligible for unemployment. Then the
economy crashed, and I had no work (except for blogging) for two years.
There were no jobs to be had. I would have screamed with joy for a
program even remotely like this, and I don't even have dependents to take
care of. It may be objected that the political process won't deliver an
offer as good as the Primer suggests. Well, don't mourn. Organize. It may
be objected that a reform like the JG merely reinforces the power of the
0.01%. If so, I'm not sure I'm willing to throw the currently disemployed
under the bus because "worse is better," regardless. Anyhow, does
"democratic control over the living wage"
really
sound all that
squillionaire-friendly to you? Aren't they doing everything in their
power to fight anything that sounds like that? The JG sounds like the
slogan Lincoln ran on, to me:
"Vote yourself a farm!"
[3]
So, what does the JG for the economy? MMT was put together by
economists; from an economists perspective, what is it good for? Why did
they do that?
The Primer
once more:
some supporters emphasize that a program with a uniform basic
wage[4] also helps to promote economic and price stability.
The JG/ELR program will act as an automatic stabilizer as
employment in the program grows in recession and shrinks in economic
expansion, counteracting private sector employment fluctuations. The
federal government budget will become more counter-cyclical because
its spending on the ELR program will likewise grow in recession and
fall in expansion.
Furthermore, the uniform basic wage will reduce both inflationary
pressure in a boom and deflationary pressure in a bust. In a boom,
private employers can recruit from the program's pool of workers,
paying a mark-up over the program wage. The pool acts like a "reserve
army" of the employed, dampening wage pressures as private employment
grows. In recession, workers down-sized by private employers can work
at the JG/ELR wage, which puts a floor to how low wages and income can
fall.
Research by Pavlina Tcherneva and Rania Antonopoulos indicates that
when asked, most people want to work. Studying how job guarantees
affect women in poor countries, they find the programs are popular
largely because they recognize-and more fairly distribute and
compensate-all the child- and elder care that is now often performed
by women for free (out of love or duty), off the books, or not at all.
We propose today a new jobs guarantee, and we further expect a
robust[3] agenda to be developed by the commission.
The low wages and low employment rates for those without college
degrees only exist because of a failure of imagination. There is no
shortage of important work that needs to be done in our country. There
are not nearly enough home care workers to aid the aged and disabled.
Many working families with children under the age of 5 need access to
affordable child care. Schools need teachers' aides, and cities need
EMTs. And there is no shortage of people who could do this work. What has
been missing is policy that can mobilize people.
To solve this problem, we propose a large-scale, permanent program of
public employment and infrastructure investment-similar to the Works
Progress Administration (WPA) during the Great Depression but modernized
for the 21st century. It will increase employment and wages for those
without a college degree while providing needed services that are
currently out of reach for lower-income households and cash-strapped
state and local governments. Furthermore, some individuals may be hired
into paying public jobs in which their primary duty will be to complete
intensive, full-time training for high-growth, in-demand occupations.
These "public apprenticeships" could include rotations with public and
private entities to gain on-the-ground experience and lead to guaranteed
private-sector employment upon successful completion of training.
Such an expanded public employment program could, for example, have a
target of maintaining the employment rate for prime-age workers without a
bachelor's degree at the 2000 level of 79 percent. Currently, this would
require the creation of 4.4 million jobs. At a living wage-which we can
approximate as $15 per hour plus the cost of contributions to Social
Security and Medicare via payroll taxes-the direct cost of each job would
be approximately $36,000 annually. Thus, a rough estimate of the costs of
this employment program would be about $158 billion in the current year.
This is approximately one-quarter of Trump's proposed tax cut for the
wealthy on an annual basis.
With tis background, let's look at how liberals would screw the JG up.
How a CAP JG Would Go Wrong
Before getting into a little policy detail, I'll examine a few
cultural/framing issues. After all, CAP
does
want the program's
intended recipients to accept it with good grace, no? Let me introduce the
over-riding concern, from Joan C. Williams in
The Financial Times
:
"They don't want compassion. They want respect"
:
Williams warns that Republican errors alone won't give Democrats back
the WWC.
Or any part of the WC; as even CAP recognizes, although WWC
disproportionately voted Trump, and non-WWC disproportionately stayed home.
While [Williams] agrees that the Democrats have mobilised their base
since Trump's election, she has "one simple message" for the party: it
needs to show the WWC respect, "in a tone suitable for grown-ups".
Democrats must say: "We regret that we have disrespected you, we now hear
you." She asks: "Is this so hard? Although the risk is that the response
will be, 'Oh, those poor little white people with their opioid epidemics,
let's open our hearts in compassion to them.' That's going to infuriate
them. They don't want compassion, they want respect."
To show respect, it would really behoove liberals to deep-six the phrase
"economic anxiety," along with "economic frustrations," "economic concerns,"
"economic grievances," and "lingering economic pressures."[4] All these
phrases make successful class warfare a psychological condition, no doubt to
be treated by a professional (who by definition is not anxious, not
frustrated, has no grievances, and certainly no economic pressures, because
of their hourly rate (or possibly their government contract).
To show respect, it would also behoove liberals to deep-six the concept
that markets come first; people who sell their labor power by the hour tend
to be sensitive about such things. Take, for a tiny example, the caption
beneath the image of Prairie du Chein. Let me quote it:
A customer crosses the street while leaving a shop along the main
business district in Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin, January 2017.
Really? A
customer
? Does the human figure have to be a
customer
? Why?
Along the same lines, drop the "affordable" crap; ObamaCare should have
ruined that branding already; what seems like it's affordable to CAP writers
in the Beltway probably isn't affordable at all to somebody making $10 an
hour. Anyhow, if something like childcare or for that matter #MedicareForAll
ought to be a universal direct material benefit, then deliver it!
To show respect, abandon the "Marshall Plan" framing immediately. Because
it means the "winners" are going to graciously help the "losers," right? And
prudentially, liberals don't really want to get the working class asking
themselves who conducted a war against them, and why, right?
To show respect, make the JG a truly universal benefit, a real guarantee,
and don't turn it into an ObamaCare-like Rube Goldberg device of
means-testing, worthiness detection, gatekeeping, and various complex forms
of insult and degradation, like narrow networks. This passage from CAP has
me concerned:
Such an expanded public employment program could, for example, have
a target
of maintaining the employment rate for prime-age
workers without a bachelor's degree at the 2000 level of 79 percent.
That 'target" language sounds to me very much like the "dogs and bones"
problem. Suppose currently we have 6 bones and 10 dogs. The "target" is 7
bones. Suppose we meet it? There are still 3 dogs without bones! Some
guarantee! The JG should be simple: A job for everyone who wants one. None
of this targeting or slicing and dicing demographics. The JG isn't supposed
to be an employment guarantee for macro-economists (who basically have one
anyone).
To show respect, make the JG set the baseline for wages (and working
conditions). This passage from CAP has me concerned:
Second, because it would employ people to provide services that are
currently needed but unaffordable, it would not compete with existing
private-sector employment.
This language seems a bit slippery to me. If Walmart is paying $10.00 an
hour, is the JG really going to pay $9.50?
Finally, you will notice that the CAP JG is shorn of any macro-economic
implications. Note, for example, that replacing our current cruel system of
regulating the economy by throwing people out of work isn't mentioned. Note
also that CAP also accepts the false notion that Federal taxes pay for
Federal spending. That puts CAP in the austerity box, meaning that the JG
might be cut back just when it is most needed, not least by working people.
Conclusion
I do want to congratulate CAP, and without irony, for this passage:
[The JG] would provide the dignity of work, the value of which is
significant. When useful work is not available, there are large negative
consequences, ranging from depression, to a decline in family stability,
to "deaths of [sic] despair."
It's good to see the Case-Deaton study penetrating the liberal hive mind.
Took long enough. Oh, and this makes the JG a moral issue, too. The pallid
language of "economic anxiety" should be reformulated to reflect this, as
should the program itself.
NOTES
[1] The JG originally comes from the MMT community;
here is a high-level summary
. Oddly, or not, there's no footnote
crediting MMTers. Interestingly, Stephanie Kelton, who hails from the
University of Missouri at Kansas City's MMT-friendly economics department,
before Sanders brought her onto the staff at the Senate Budget committee,
was not able to persuade Sanders of the correctness and/or political utility
of MMT generally or the JG in particular.
[2] I guess
those famous Democrat 2016 post mortems
will
never
be
published, eh? This will have to do for a poor substitute. Or maybe the
Democrats just want us to read
Shattered
.
[3] In my view, "robust" is a bullshit tell. Back when I was a hotshot
consultant, the operational definition of "robust" was "contained in a very
large three-ring binder."
[4] Dear God. Are these people demented? Nobody who is actually under
"economic pressure" would use these words. And so far as I can tell,
"lingering" means permanent.
About Lambert Strether
Readers, I have had a correspondent characterize my views as realistic
cynical. Let me briefly explain them. I believe in universal programs
that provide concrete material benefits, especially to the working class.
Medicare for All is the prime example, but tuition-free college and a
Post Office Bank also fall under this heading. So do a Jobs Guarantee and
a Debt Jubilee. Clearly, neither liberal Democrats nor conservative
Republicans can deliver on such programs, because the two are different
flavors of neoliberalism ("Because markets"). I don't much care about the
"ism" that delivers the benefits, although whichever one does have to put
common humanity first, as opposed to markets. Could be a second FDR
saving capitalism, democratic socialism leashing and collaring it, or
communism razing it. I don't much care, as long as the benefits are
delivered. To me, the key issue - and this is why Medicare for All is
always first with me - is the tens of thousands of excess "deaths from
despair," as described by the Case-Deaton study, and other recent
studies. That enormous body count makes Medicare for All, at the very
least, a moral and strategic imperative. And that level of suffering and
organic damage makes the concerns of identity politics - even the worthy
fight to help the refugees Bush, Obama, and Clinton's wars created -
bright shiny objects by comparison. Hence my frustration with the news
flow - currently in my view the swirling intersection of two, separate
Shock Doctrine campaigns, one by the Administration, and the other by
out-of-power liberals and their allies in the State and in the press - a
news flow that constantly forces me to focus on matters that I regard as
of secondary importance to the excess deaths. What kind of political
economy is it that halts or even reverses the increases in life
expectancy that civilized societies have achieved? I am also very hopeful
that the continuing destruction of both party establishments will open
the space for voices supporting programs similar to those I have listed;
let's call such voices "the left." Volatility creates opportunity,
especially if the Democrat establishment, which puts markets first and
opposes all such programs, isn't allowed to get back into the saddle.
Eyes on the prize! I love the tactical level, and secretly love even the
horse race, since I've been blogging about it daily for fourteen years,
but everything I write has this perspective at the back of it.
Yes, a great essay. And thank you commentariat.
Of course, there is a potential conflict from those who want a basic
income, but don't want to work. Such a position frames such people
badly, but a basic income remains an essential part of a JG world IMO.
The JG would provide incentive if you didn't lose the safety net and
could add to it by working in a JG program.
Most here in this place accept that a sovereign government can pay for
programs which are not funded by taxes (or debt) and the JG and basic
income concepts could be a way to test this in a controlled way.
The main reason I think that politicians continue to have blinkers (LA
LA, CAN'T HEAR YOU) with respect to MMT is that they are scared
witless of a government with unlimited spending powers. That's why we
can't have nice things.
don't want to work, hmm I don't even know if I could work in a
job without a decent amount of slack (A.D.D. mind may not be
capable of it or something and often not for lack of trying, though
I do a decent amount of unpaid work in my precious leisure time).
Or at least not the full 40 hours, so if the job guarantee bosses
are slave drivers, I don't know, I'd probably be fired from my job
guaranteed job period.
But what if a job was aligned with one's interest? Don't know,
never experienced that.
But all that aside and never even mind unemployment, given how
horrible the job circumstances are that I see many people caught in
(and I definitely don't mean having slack – that's a good thing, I
mean verbal ABUSE, I mean working endless hours of unpaid overtime
etc.), any alternative would seem good.
The "target" language also makes me worry that they're defining optimal
employment by the inflation-obsessed standards of Chicago-school economists,
thus coming up short in the name of protecting the investor class.
Minor quibble: Does Maine constitute flyover country? Usually that term
means the parts of the country that the well-to-do "fly over" from east
coast cities to west coast ones, with perhaps an exception for Chicago. You
wouldn't fly over Maine for any of those routes. Not to mention, Maine is a
popular vacationing/summer home state for rich New Englanders, so it doesn't
exactly have an "other" status for them the way rural Wisconsin would.
I think Maine is legit flyover country as flying over Maine was once
mandatory on the transatlantic route in order to Gander Airport in
Newfoundland. I know, I know, it's a bit of a stretch but I'm trying
here!
As for Maine's other status, you're spot on about "down east"
(coastal) Maine and some of the lakes being popular with the landed
gentry, but the interior of the state is sparsely populated, poor, white,
and marginalized. Many of the paper mills have gone belly-up and the
economy in many places consists of picking potatoes or cutting down
trees.
I used to do a lot of business travel to Nova Scotia. Hard to get
there from the US without flying over Maine. But I think Lambert meant
flyover in the pejorative "why would you live here when you could be an
artisanal pickle maker in Brooklyn" sense.
Matt Bruenig had other issues with the article:
More Job Guarantee Muddle
. While he points out that the jobs
suggested in the article should be permanent rather than temporary jobs,
I go on with my own little sense of discomfort that they all involve
putting the otherwise jobless in charge of caring for the helpless. I
don't find that a good idea. I've spent enough time both working with and
volunteering in human service organizations to have observed that it's
not really appropriate work for a lot of people, even for many
good-hearted volunteers. It really dampens my enthusiasm for a JG that I
have yet to see an argument for it that doesn't invoke child and elderly
care as just great jobs that the jobless can be put to doing.
Just another quibble with this post. I first heard of a job guarantee
and heard arguments for it in the U.S. civilian society from Michael
Harrington in the early 1980s (guaranteed jobs have been a feature of the
state capitalist societies that call themselves socialist throughout the
20th c.), so I don't find it particularly odd when the MMT community
isn't mentioned as originating the idea. In fact, I tend to respond with
"Hey, MMTers, learn some history."
Thanks for this article Lambert. Why should we trust CAP to handle this
when they have done nothing toward this end in their entire history. In
fact, in undeniable fact, if we don't do something about demand in this
country we will have no economy left at all. For these guys to even approach
a JG you know they are panicked. Nobody goes over this fact because it turns
them all into instant hypocrites. I spent yesterday listening to some MMTers
on U-Tube, Wray and some others. They all clearly and succinctly explain the
systemic reasons for JG. Not nonsense. In fact, MMT approaches a JG as the
opposite of nonsense on so many levels. As you have pointed out – these CAP
people are a little late to reality. And their dear leader Obama is first in
line for the blame, followed closely by Bill Clinton and his
balance-the-budget cabal of bankster idiots. And etc. And these JG jobs
could be just the jobs we need to turn global warming around. It could be
the best spent money ever. It is a very straight-forward calculation.
I don't know how you even bother. America is so far away from this
intellectually and culturally, there is no chance. Right now the "jobs
guarantee" is get arrested for something bogus and be sentenced to prison to
do forced labor for outsourcing corporations (yes this is real). Look where
the GOP stands on basic issues which were settled long ago in Europe, they
are in the Stone age. The Dems are right wing everywhere else.
With US institutions usually run horribly how do you expect this to be
well run? Is the VA a shining example? I certainly would not have hope for
this at the federal level.
I feel the same way often but I've got to allow myself some hope once
in a while. This development is at least turn in the right direction for
the moment, nothing else. There's nothing wrong with being
(aprehensively) pleased about that.
I'd like to get a basic unemployment welfare scheme going first. We
don't even have that! We have an "insurance" program which requires
you to first have held a job which paid enough for long enough, and
then get fired, not quit. And it only pays for six months. Again, this
was settled in other rich countries a long time ago.
There is a job guarantee in Castro's Cuba. So wonderful, people are
swimming from Miami to Havana ever day.
Though you have it exactly right in the US the job guarantee is to
be a felon on a privatized prison farm usually called a "plantation". I
am looking forward to my neighbors finally being put to work. At least it
is only building a Presidential Library for Obama, not a pyramid for
Pharaoh.
My prediction: by the time this makes it through Congress, it will be a
guarantee for no more than 15 hours per week at slightly below the minimum
wage and you'll only be able to be in the program for nine months,
total during your lifetime. Or am I being overly cynical?
Maybe we need to update that old saw: "First they ignore you, then they
laugh at you, then they co-opt your idea and strip the soul out of it, then
you kinda win but not really, but hey that's progress, right?"
Even though I'm cynical, I'm with Lambert in being for just about
anything that makes us bottom-20%ers lives better, even if it is highly
flawed. Heck, I'd even be for a BIG on that basis, even if Yves is right
about the negative side-effects of that policy.
If I understood correctly, Norway is running such a program since many
years.
Basically, when you are out of a job, you get unemployment benefits (a low
but decent salary, health care and other modern facilities unheard of is the
US) – which last
forever
.
On the other hand, any public institution can call you in to help a hand:
washing dishes at the school kitchen one day, waiting on the elderly the
other day, helping out in the local library wherever hands are needed but
not available.
So it is not really a JG, but you are guaranteed to help out your local
community, and you are guaranteed a minimal income. That seems close enough
to me.
Thanks, Lambert, for a very interesting post. I combed through CAP's
panel of "experts." I was not impressed.
I'm going to start my own think tank. Gonna call it CRAP: Center for Real
American Progress.
Of course in the north in the winter you could go back to shoveling snow
with snow shovels (no machines allowed) and ban use by public employees of
riding lawnmowers in the summer in favor of powered walk behind mowers. From
what I have read this is what china did on the 3 gorges dam, partly making
the project a jobs project by doing things in a human intensive way. (of
course you could go back to the hand push non powered reel mower but then
you have to worry about folks and heart attacks. (Or use those in their 20s
for this. Growing up in MI and In this is how we mowed the yard. (in the
1950s and 1960) and for snow shoveling, my dad got a snow blower when I went
off to college.
Now if you really want a low productivity way of cutting grass get one of
the hand grass trimmers and set to work cutting it by that, it would employ
a lot of folks and not have the exertion problem of a push mower (Again I
used these in the 1960s in MI before we had the string trimmers and edgers
etc. (also recall the old hand powered lawn edgers.)
It sounds like the CAP JG proposal is "top down" in that the "palette" of
jobs to be funded is decided by the same agency (or an agency at the same
level of government) as the fund disbursement authority, or is specified in
the law itself.
IIRC, the JG concept proposed in the MMT primer would devolve the
decision of "how to usefully employ willing underutilized workers" to local
level. Funding would still be Federal. There would be some kind of "request
for proposals/peer review" process to decide which locally-wanted projects
would receive JG dollars (presumably in order to be a guarantee, enough
projects would be approved for every locality to employ the available
under-utilized willing workforce. If a locality only proposed one project,
that would be funded)
It that right, Lambert? Is "top down" another way that centrists could
screw up a JG? And might the "local devolution" aspect of the NEP/MMT Primer
concept appeal to folks on the right?
Great write up. I obviously have a long-running disagreement on the
policy prescription of JG, but I do find it interesting talking about how
groups like CAP present it outside the specific confines of MMT (and,
apparently, without even tipping the hat to them ?).
One concrete bit of info I would love to know is how they estimate 4.4
million workers for take-up. First, it's a hilarious instance of false
precision. Second, it's remarkably low. $15/hr is approximately the median
wage. Tens of millions of workers would sign up, both from the ranks of the
crap jobs and from the ranks of those out of the labor force.
"... By Jason Smith, a physicist who messes around with economic theory. He graduated from the University
of Texas at Austin with a degree in math and a degree in physics, and received his Ph.D. from the University
of Washington in theoretical physics. Follow him on Twitter: @infotranecon. Originally published at
Evonomics ..."
"... The New Industrial State ..."
"... I think the tradition of economic thinking has been really influential. I think it's actually
a thing that people on the left really should do - take the time to understand all of that. There is
a tremendous amount of incredible insight into some of the things we're talking about, like non-zero-sum
settings, and the way in which human exchange can be generative in this sort of amazing way. Understanding
how capitalism works has been really, really important for me, and has been something that I feel like
I'm a better thinker and an analyst because of the time and reading I put into a lot of conservative
authors on that topic. ..."
Posted on
May 17, 2017 by Yves
Smith By Jason Smith, a physicist who messes around with economic theory. He graduated from
the University of Texas at Austin with a degree in math and a degree in physics, and received his
Ph.D. from the University of Washington in theoretical physics. Follow him on Twitter: @infotranecon.
Originally published at
Evonomics
The inspiration for this piece came from a
Vox podcast with Chris Hayes of MSNBC. One of the topics they discussed was which right-of-center
ideas the left ought to engage. Hayes says:
The entirety of the corpus of [Friedrich] Hayek, [Milton] Friedman, and neoclassical economics.
I think it's an incredibly powerful intellectual tradition and a really important one to understand,
these basic frameworks of neoclassical economics, the sort of ideas about market clearing prices,
about the functioning of supply and demand, about thinking in marginal terms.
I think the tradition of economic thinking has been really influential. I think it's actually
a thing that people on the left really should do - take the time to understand all of that. There
is a tremendous amount of incredible insight into some of the things we're talking about, like
non-zero-sum settings, and the way in which human exchange can be generative in this sort of amazing
way. Understanding how capitalism works has been really, really important for me, and has been
something that I feel like I'm a better thinker and an analyst because of the time and reading
I put into a lot of conservative authors on that topic.
Putting aside the fact that the left has fully understood and engaged with these ideas, deeply
and over decades (it may be dense writing, but it's not exactly quantum field theory), I can hear
some of you asking: Do I have to?
The answer is: No.
Why? Because you can get the same understanding while also understanding where these ideas fall
apart ‒ that is to say understanding the limited
scope of market-clearing prices and supply and demand – using information theory.
Prices and Hayek
Friedrich Hayek did have some insight into prices having something to do with information, but
he got the details wrong and vastly understated the complexity of the system. He saw market prices
aggregating information from events: a blueberry crop failure, a population boom, or speculation
on crop yields. Price changes purportedly communicated knowledge about the state of the world.
However, Hayek was writing in a time before information theory. (Hayek's The Use of Knowledge
in Society was written in 1945, a just few years before Claude Shannon's A Mathematical Theory
of Communication in 1948.) Hayek thought a large amount of knowledge about biological or ecological
systems, population, and social systems could be communicated by a single number: a price. Can you
imagine the number of variables you'd need to describe crop failures, population booms, and market
bubbles? Thousands? Millions? How many variables of information do you get from the price of blueberries?
One. Hayek dreams of compressing a complex multidimensional space of possibilities that includes
the state of the world and the states of mind of thousands or millions of agents into a single dimension
(i.e. price), inevitably losing a great deal of information in the process.
... ... ...
The market as an algorithm
The picture above is of a functioning market as an algorithm matching distributions by raising
and lowering a price until it reaches a stable price. In fact, this picture is of a specific machine
learning algorithm called
Generative
Adversarial Networks (GAN, described in this
Medium article or in the original paper
) that has emerged recently. Of course, the idea of the market as an algorithm to solve a problem
is not new. For example
one of the best blog posts of all time (in my opinion) talks about linear programming as an algorithm,
giving an argument for why planned economies will likely fail, but the same argument implies we
cannot check the optimality of the market allocation of resources, therefore claims of markets
as optimal are entirely faith-based. The Medium article uses a good analogy using a painting, a forger,
and a detective, but I will recast it in terms of the information theory description.
Instead of the complex multidimensional distributions, here we have blueberry buyers and blueberry
sellers. The "supply" ( B from above) is the generator G , the demand A is the
"real data" R (the information the deep learning algorithm is trying to learn). Instead of
the random initial input I - coin tosses or dice throws - we have the complex, irrational,
entrepreneurial, animal spirits of people. We also have the random effects of weather on blueberry
production. The detector D (which is coincidentally the terminology Fieltiz and Borchardt
used) is the price p . When the detector can't tell the difference between the distribution
of demand for blueberries and the distribution of the supply of blueberries (i.e. when the price
reaches a relatively stable value because the distributions are the same), we've reached our solution
(a market equilibrium).
Note that the problem the GAN algorithm tackles can be represented by the two-player
minimax game from game theory.
The thing is that with the wrong settings, algorithms fail and you get garbage. I know this from
experience in my regular job researching machine learning, sparse reconstruction, and signal processing
algorithms. Therefore depending on the input data (especially data resulting from human behavior),
we shouldn't expect to get good results all of the time. These failures are exactly the failure of
information to flow from the real data to the generator through the detector – the failure of information
from the demand to reach the supply via the price mechanism.
When asked by Quora what the recent and upcoming breakthroughs in deep learning are, Yann LeCun,
director of AI research at Facebook and a professor at NYU, said:
The most important one, in my opinion, is adversarial training (also called GAN for Generative
Adversarial Networks). This is an idea that was originally proposed by Ian Goodfellow when he
was a student with Yoshua Bengio at the University of Montreal (he since moved to Google Brain
and recently to OpenAI).
This, and the variations that are now being proposed is the most interesting idea in the last
10 years in ML, in my opinion.
Research into these deep learning algorithms and information theory may provide insight into economic
systems.
An Interpretation of Economics for the Left
So again, Hayek had a fine intuition: prices and information have some relationship. But he didn't
have the conceptual or mathematical tools of information theory to understand the mechanisms of that
relationship - tools that emerged with Shannon's key paper in 1948, and that continue to be elaborated
to this day to produce algorithms like generative adversarial networks.
The understanding of prices and supply and demand provided by information theory and machine learning
algorithms is better equipped to explain markets than arguments reducing complex distributions of
possibilities to a single dimension, and hence, necessarily, requiring assumptions like rational
agents and perfect foresight. Ideas that were posited as articles of faith or created through incomplete
arguments by Hayek are not even close to the whole story, and leave you with no knowledge of the
ways the price mechanism, marginalism, or supply and demand can go wrong. Those arguments assume
and (hence) conclude market optimality. Leaving out the failure modes effectively declares many social
concerns of the left moot by fiat. The potential and actual failures of markets are a major concern
of the left, and are frequently part of discussions of inequality and social justice.
The left doesn't need to follow Chris Hayes' advice and engage with Hayek, Friedman, and neoclassical
economics. The left instead needs to engage with a real world vision of economics that recognizes
the limited scope of ideal markets and begins with imperfection as the more useful default scenario.
Understanding economics in terms of information flow is one way of doing that.
Is this just my lack of formal education or is this article very complicated? Honestly I did
not understand it at all. Is there any way to explain this different? ( a link to a different
way of describing informationtheory / free market theory)
Thanks Julia
To put it in more layman-friendly terms: price settings are based on information the suppliers
gather regarding the market, both demand side and supply side (sales forecasts, commodity pricing,
consumer confidence number, focus group information, etc). Demanders do the same. However, they
can never have absolute, complete information for either side. So prices, and idea of what prices
should be, in a free market never represent a true optimal price, but rather a best guess.
This pokes a few holes in neoclassical economic assumptions:
– Most obviously, prices cannot be optimal in a free market.
– Supply and demand changes cannot account entirely for changes in price, as refinements to the
information flow can affect them as well.
– Information asymmetry corrupts prices, and can be used to exploit consumers.
– Information is dependent on a large enough sample size, so neoclassical economics is useless
in markets with limited transactions. An easy example of this are those kind of items on shows
like Antique Roadshow, where there's so few of the items out there that the expert says, "This
is a guess, but really it could go for almost any amount at auction."
So the Left can use this to argue for non-market price controls (to account for the lack of
free market price optimization) and for forcing corporations to have better fiscal transparency
and more strict anti-trust laws (to increase information flow and to prevent information asymmetry).
Local prices for gasoline look a lot more like looting and chaos to me than any kind of correspondence
to "markets." Yesterday at the RaceTrac at the end of my street, "regular" dropped four cents
from morning to evening, reflecting the pricing at the two other "service stations" at the intersection.
A month or so ago (I got tired of keeping a little record of the changes) the price jumped 25
cents overnight. None of these moves seemed to correspond with the stuff I was reading about in
the market conditions around the planet and just in the US - supply and demand? More like the
Useless Looters at BP and Shell and others just spin an arrow on a kid's game board to pick the
day's price point (that sick phrase), or somebody in the C-Suite decided the "Bottom Line" needed
a goose to pump the bonus generator up a bit.
The fraud is everywhere, the looting and scamming too. Seems to me that searching for some
"touchstone" to make sense of It All is an exercise in futility.
Gasoline runs into a different limitation with free market economics, which is that consumers
need to be able to freely enter and leave the market in question in order for the free market
to function (which is why privatized healthcare doesn't work). Outside of a few urban areas with
robust public transportation, most Americans are immediately dependent on gasoline in order to
survive. Even those who do have access to a Metro are still dependent on the shipping that uses
gasoline. So they can raise prices with a greater confidence that the number of consumers will
not drop off as significantly as with other industries.
"This pokes a few holes in neoclassical economic assumptions:"
In neoclassical economics, these "holes" are pretty much understood as the prerequisites for
"perfect competition", as opposed to imperfect competition or monopolies.
When politics is mixed with economics, these are ignored, as they are in the interest of the
ruling class.
PKMKII said it very well, and here's another way to look at it: Centrally-planned economies
(say, some Politburo minister in the former Soviet Union) fail because a central bureaucrat cannot
possibly guess the demand and distribution for all products (say, metal bathtubs) across an economy
in a given year. He guesses, poorly, and either the shortages or the oversupply make our history
books.
Market economics makes a better guess, because pricing gives a dynamic estimate of what the
supply and demand really are. That this estimate is generally *better* has been (mis)represented
as that this estimate is somehow PERFECT - the best estimate that can possibly exist! As the article
describes, this assessment (that only a market economy can generate maximal wealth and optimal
wealth distributions) is FALSE.
The economics underlying communist central planning failed because they couldn't provide the
optimization that comes from valid pricing function. With Shannon's information theory and advanced
analytics, it is possible to create a more optimal economy than our current, simplistic market/pricing
function provides.
Ever since Samuelson's Economics in 1948, we've worshipped a market god based on scanty math.
The first step in moving beyond Samuelson is recognizing that progress is indeed still possible,
and then making the choice and determining the steps to pursue it.
Not just communist central planning. John Kenneth Galbraith's The New Industrial State
makes a special space in society for industries in The Planning Sector. These were the very
large businesses that worked with huge capital bases, long lead times, populations comparable
to small nations. Planning, both input and output, was key to these businesses because there was
too much at stake to risk losing it to the whims of any market. Communist societies were extreme
examples, as they were betting the entire national economy, but the parallels with huge "private"
firms were quite exact.
The Planning Sector businesses failed when they had to slough off all the activities that were
too hard to plan; then they morphed into the Finance/Insurance/Real Estate Sector.
I don't think it is a lack of formal education. It is simply written in a way that is not easy
to understand. I have my master's in engineering, and I'm still not sure exactly what this passage
is trying to say:
"If you randomly generated thousands of messages from the distribution of possible messages, the
distribution of generated messages would be an approximation to the actual distribution of messages.
If you sent these messages over your noisy communication channel that met the requirement for
faithful transmission, it would reproduce an informationally equivalent distribution of messages
on the other end."
From that point on I simply skimmed it and, if I'm not mistaken, the author also assigns positions
to Hayek that seem to be a little more extreme than the positions he actually held.
If you randomly generated thousands of messages from the distribution of possible messages,
the distribution of generated messages would be an approximation to the actual distribution
of messages.
You can only get to the true distribution assuming an infinite number of samples, everything
else is asymptotic approximation to the true posterior distribution. This is true for any mathematical
function approximated numerically were closed solutions are not possible to find (ie. not integrable).
But this is relevant to the second phrase because:
If you sent these messages over your noisy communication channel that met the requirement
for faithful transmission, it would reproduce an informationally equivalent distribution of
messages on the other end.
A noisy communication channel introduces random bits of information which are not part of the
original distribution, but because that noise is random, you would get a message that is an approximation
of the true distribution of the original message being transmitted (is informationally equivalent)
as the noise is distributed 'randomly' .
However, this is only true when the number of information bits approach infinity (for large
numbers), BE WARE! Indeed that randomness can be very skewed for small samples. this is relevant
and interesting because complex systems were you have a large number of variables are not easy
to converge with, even when you are aware of the whole system variables (is a mathematically intractable
problem).
You can think as market pricing (in an ideal world free of politics and power games, which
is not) as a convergence to a complex multidimensional problem, and even though we know that we
are NOT aware of all the variables at play for a given product, hence this supposedly God like
attributes of market price discovery are unwarranted.
"Because the information flow from A can never be greater than A's total information, and
will mostly be less than that total, the observed prices in a real economy will most likely fall
below the ideal market prices."
Surely not. Post-industrial economies feature an asymmetry: individual consumers, catered to
predominantly by large nationwide publicly-traded suppliers.
Because of the superior knowledge possessed by suppliers, further leveraged by advertising
and publicity which exploits human psychological foibles such as peer pressure and herding, prices
in the economy are almost certainly too high versus the ideal of complete information flow (while
the price of labor is almost certainly too low).
Nowhere are prices higher than in the nonnegotiable, monopoly services of government. Not only
does it charge astronomical property taxes which mean that there's really no such thing as secure
property title without income, but also it compels hapless working schmoes to "invest" 15.3% of
their income for their entire working lives at approximately zero return.
With respect, it is not empirically incorrect that immigration lowers wages. The historical
experience is quite clear, that when governments force population growth, whether through increased
immigration or via incentives to increase the local fertility rate, wages for the many fall and
profits for the few increase.
Sure more workers means more competition for jobs, but can also result in an increase in the
number of jobs – BUT ONLY OVER TIME AND ONLY IF NEEDED INVESTMENTS ARE MADE AND THERE IS ENOUGH
MARGINAL CAPACITY TO INVEST AND TECHNOLOGY AND RESOURCES ARE NOT ENTERING THE AREA OF DIMINISHING
RETURNS. Which is not guaranteed, especially if the immigration level is massive and constantly
increasing.
The United States from around 1929 to 1970 had very low immigration, and, starting from a low
level, wages soared. Starting in 1970, the borders to the overpopulated third world have been
progressively opened, and wages have started to diverge from productivity and are now starting
to decline in absolute terms. Other nations that recently increased the rate of immigration and
have seen significant falls in wages are: South Africa, the Ivory Coast, England, Australia, and
Singapore – and even some provinces of India, where immigration from Bangladesh has been used
to make certain that wages stay near subsistence. Yes immigration was not the only thing going
on there, but when rapid forced increases in the supply of labor are always followed by falls
in wages, well, the empirical evidence is hardly to be dismissed out of hand.
Remember, no society in all of history has run out of workers. When the headlines say that
immigrants are needed to end a labor 'shortage' what is really meant is a 'shortage' of workers
who have no option but to accept low wages. However, the only reason that workers can get high
wages is that there is a 'shortage' of workers forced to take low wages. It is thus essentially
tautological that when immigration is said to eliminate a labor shortage, it is lowering wages,
because a labor 'shortage' is in fact what high wages are based on.
They're arguing that you can't empirically say that immigration decreases wages, because
there are simply too many variables in an economy to be able to say definitively if it's a cause
or a correlation, i.e. does the immigration decrease wages, or does another socio-economic factor
simultaneously decrease wages and cause an influx of immigrants? This is why economics is treated
as a soft science, as you can't remove variables in a lab setting the way you can with other sciences.
"BUT ONLY OVER TIME AND ONLY IF NEEDED INVESTMENTS ARE MADE AND THERE IS ENOUGH MARGINAL CAPACITY
TO INVEST AND TECHNOLOGY AND RESOURCES ARE NOT ENTERING THE AREA OF DIMINISHING RETURNS."
Nope. Once immigrants arrive, demand increases instantly, even before they get a job.
Wow. Just wow. A complete, through, and total BS assertion of some kind of economic theory.
I am simply stunned at his verbal density of discourse, blithe refusal to explain, and simply
name dropping facts, ideas, and concepts that are absolutely not related except in being part
of the English language.
I know this is close to an ad hominum attack; I haven't given any specific rebuttal. But I
don't have the tools at my disposal right now to avenge what I see as an assault on my analytic
abilities.
If not a specific rebuttal, what *kinds* of things in the article do you disagree with? Perhaps
this posting is just a step to some greater knowing. Neoclassical Economics has been taught as
"factual and beyond dispute" my whole career - I'm sure that Alchemy and Leechbooks were taught
similarly in earlier ages. How might you suggest that we move forward to something better?
"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that
just ain't so." ~ Mark Twain
"Wow. Just wow. A complete, through, and total BS assertion of some kind of economic theory.
I am simply stunned at his verbal density of discourse, blithe refusal to explain, and simply
name dropping facts, ideas, and concepts that are absolutely not related except in being part
of the English language."
Yeah that is a pretty good summation of my experience wrt Austrians over almost 2 decades in
a nutter shell[ ] kudos.
Now if only the neoclassicals would abandon the individual and consider vectors in distribution
and how groups affect information.
disheveled .. throws toys out of play pen and hurrumphs away . victoriously .
In my limited experience the prices we accept are more to do with contentment than information.
We are aware that we can never have perfect information; bounded rationality being our situation*.
So as buyers, we end up going with contentment or at least convenience; price too high, content
to leave it on the shelf. Price too low and the reaction might be the same because it is too good
to be true, or of suspect quality. You can have a bargain staring you in the face and, but you
are content because of lack of interest or knowledge.
Good luck to those who try to quantify contentment!
.And then there is the tyranny of choice; not content!
Pip Pip!
* When it comes to the prices people are prepared to pay for products such as cosmetics and
super-cars the rule seems to be unbounded irrationality, but hopefully contentment is achieved
anyway.
when it comes to the political application of this 'theoretical' argument I think it will be
easily dismissed as more leftist academic pedantry, 'immanentizing the eschaton'- all the comments
reflecting the advantages of imperfect information evidence.
This is a wonderful, cogent explanation of a very mathematically complex subject, which is
Information Theory, that has been used to make profound contributions well beyond telephonic communication
for which Claude Shannon developed it, when he discovered it trying to code the English language,
and which he failed to do.
R.A. Fisher was also brilliant. His work has had implications in probability, and statistics,
economics, and perhaps most profoundly in genetics.
The neoclassical analysis also doesn't account for single supplier, multiple demand market
situations. If blueberries both have the consumer market, but also an industrial market (dye purpose,
maybe), then the blueberry supplier has to balance both of those demands, which may end up favoring
one or the other, or some state that isn't ideal for either demand market. The universal example
is the private property of the business itself. The owner isn't just in the market of whatever
service or widget they make, but also in the commercial real estate market. This is especially
problematic with housing, as high rents + vacancies create the impression of scarcity and value
to prospective buyers.
Good work. Now add the delays in information transfer, and fear and greed buying motivations
based on multiple information streams, coupled with information conflicts (injected noise), and
you are getting closer to the real world.
Information conflicts are the differing explanations of the Trump/Corey affair. There is much
noise in the information stream.
Stable prices mean a balance of crop failures and crop booms (supply), population declines
and population booms (demand), speculation and risk-aversion (demand)
This is a good example because it's easy to understand appealing, I fear, to our neoclassical
prejudices.
It's a bad example because it doesn't seem very multidimensional; appealing to our neoclassical
prejudices it collapses easily into "How many blueberry buyers?" and "How many blueberries?"
Trying to imagine something more multidimensional there might be a preference for big blueberries
because they're big there might be a preference for small blueberries because people think that
they're wild, so they must be tastier. If the markets were segregated, there could be a market-clearing
price for big blueberries, and another for small blueberries. But the markets probably aren't
segregated, and the prices would play back and forth against each other.
Maybe good too in dealing with prices of different goods, not just The Price. Neoclassical prices
are meant to be the information that tells me whether to buy dish soap or a new overcoat instead.
Stable prices mean a balance of crop failures and crop booms (supply), population declines
and population booms (demand), speculation and risk-aversion (demand)
There are no stable prices. With this analysis, the steps to include feedback is clear, and
if the feedback is non-linear, non-linear feedback is a characteristic of chaotic systems.
Temporary stability only in a non-linear system, with tipping points etc.
Chris Hayes is an idiot. What kind of person can repeatedly visit the post-industrial wasteland
of the rust belt for town halls with Bernie Sanders and then say "what we need more of is the
philosophy of free-markets"?
But even with that being said, Hayes somehow is still by far the most worthwhile personality
on MSNBC.
I think the tradition of economic thinking has been really influential. I think it's actually
a thing that people on the left really should do - take the time to understand all of that. There
is a tremendous amount of incredible insight into some of the things we're talking about, like
non-zero-sum settings, and the way in which human exchange can be generative in this sort of amazing
way. Understanding how capitalism works has been really, really important for me, and has been
something that I feel like I'm a better thinker and an analyst because of the time and reading
I put into a lot of conservative authors on that topic.
While I agree with much of the argument Hayes is making – know thy enemy, etc. – he gets one
huge thing wrong here that is very troubling: equating capitalism with markets. "Understanding
how capitalism works has been really, really important for me " I'm amazed at how often this trips
up otherwise smart people. There is no capitalism in mainstream neoclassical economics (no government
either, and you can't have capitalism without government). And get any business person talking
freely and they will tell you that everyone in business hates super-competitive markets of the
kind fetishized by economists, and that profitability is all about finding niches and other ways
to avoid competition.
I think it's important to recognize where information theory and the principle of maximum entropy
does succeed in economics and that is as a method of doing statistical inference in economics.
For those interested, I would recommend looking at the increasing amount of information theoretic
research coming out of the Economics Department at the New School for Social Research and UMKC.
You can find many good working papers by myself, Duncan Foley, Paulo dos Santos, Gregor Semieniuk,
and others on the NSSR Repec page
https://ideas.repec.org/s/new/wpaper.html
.
At Bell Labs, plaques and a statue of Shannon occupy places of honor, in more prominent places
than the tributes to other prominent people (including 8 Nobel Prize winners in science).
Here's a presentation by Prof. Christopher Sims of Princeton, at Bell Labs. "Information Theory
in Economics" https://youtu.be/a8jt_TmwQ-U
– critique of the optimizing rational behavior models, noting people are bandwidth limited
("Rational Inattention"). Non-gaussian! Brings up example of monopolist of with no high capacity
limit vs. customers.
"... But making the observation that there are no markets as defined makes little dint on a faith-based theory like neoliberalism, especially a theory whose Church encompasses most university economics departments, most "working" economists, numerous well-funded think tanks, and owns much/most of our political elite and so effectively promotes the short-term interests of our Power Elite. ..."
Phillip Mirowski challenged the left to directly attack and defeat the neoliberal belief that
markets are information processors that can know more than any person could ever know and solve
problems no computer could ever solve.
Sorry for the long quote - I am loathe to attempt to paraphrase Hayek
"This is particularly true of our theories accounting for the determination of the systems of
relative prices and wages that will form themselves on a well functioning market. Into the determination
of these prices and wages there will enter the effects of particular information possessed by
every one of the participants in the market process – a sum of facts which in their totality cannot
be known to the scientific observer, or to any other single brain.
It is indeed the source of
the superiority of the market order, and the reason why, when it is not suppressed by the powers
of government, it regularly displaces other types of order, that in the resulting allocation of
resources more of the knowledge of particular facts will be utilized which exists only dispersed
among uncounted persons, than any one person can possess.
But because we, the observing scientists,
can thus never know all the determinants of such an order, and in consequence also cannot know
at which particular structure of prices and wages demand would everywhere equal supply, we also
cannot measure the deviations from that order; nor can we statistically test our theory that it
is the deviations from that "equilibrium" system of prices and wages which make it impossible
to sell some of the products and services at the prices at which they are offered." [Extract from Hayek's Nobel Lecture]
This just hints at Hayek's market supercomputer idea -- I still haven't found a particular writing
which exposits the idea -- so this will have to do.
Sorry - another quote from the Hayek Nobel Lecture [I have no idea how to paraphrase stuff
like this!]:
"There may be few instances in which the superstition that only measurable magnitudes can be important
has done positive harm in the economic field: but the present inflation and employment problems
are a very serious one. Its effect has been that what is probably the true cause of extensive
unemployment has been disregarded by the scientistically minded majority of economists, because
its operation could not be confirmed by directly observable relations between measurable magnitudes,
and that an almost exclusive concentration on quantitatively measurable surface phenomena has
produced a policy which has made matters worse."
I can't follow Hayek and I can't follow Jason Smith. The first quote above sounds like a "faith
based" theory of economics as difficult to characterize as it is to refute. The second quote throws
out Jason Smith's argument with a combination of faith based economics and a rejection of the
basis for Smith's argument - as "scientistically minded."
I prefer the much simpler answer implicit in Veblen and plain in "Industrial Prices and their
Relative Inflexibility." US Senate Document no. 13, 74th Congress, 1st Session, Government Printing
Office, Washington DC. Means, G. C. 1935 - Market? What Market? Can you point to one? [refer to
William Waller: Thorstein Veblen, Business Enterprise, and the Financial Crisis (July 06, 2012)
It might be interesting if Jason Smith's information theory approach to the market creature
could prove how the assumed properties of that mythical creature could be used to derive a proof
that the mythical Market creature cannot act as an information processor as Mirowski asserts that
Hayek asserts.
So far as I can tell from my very little exposure to Hayek's market creature it
is far too fantastical to characterize with axioms or properties amenable to making reasoned arguments
or proofs as Jason Smith attempts. Worse - though I admit being totally confused by his arguments
- Smith's arguments seem to slice at a strawman creature that bears little likeness to Hayek's
market creature.
The conclusion of this post adds a scary thought: "The understanding of prices and supply and
demand provided by information theory and machine learning algorithms is better equipped to explain
markets than arguments reducing complex distributions of possibilities to a single dimension,
and hence, necessarily, requiring assumptions like rational agents and perfect foresight." It
almost sounds as if Jason Smith intends to build a better Market as information processor
religion -- maybe
tweak the axioms a little and bring in Shannon. Jason Smith is not our St. George.
But making the observation that there are no markets as defined makes little dint on a faith-based
theory like neoliberalism, especially a theory whose Church encompasses most university economics
departments, most "working" economists, numerous well-funded think tanks, and owns much/most of
our political elite and so effectively promotes the short-term interests of our Power Elite.
PAUL JAY: Welcome to The Real News Network. I'm Paul Jay. On Tuesday, the
New York Times reported that a memo written by James Comey states that
President Trump asked Comey to drop the investigation into General Flynn.
Now, this was all about Flynn's contacts with the Russians. He had attended
an RT � the Russian television network � dinner in Moscow, he apparently
held some discussions there, he was paid for attending that dinner. He also
did some lobbying on behalf of Turkey and was paid for that, and the
investigation also has to do with whether Flynn has something to do with the
alleged interference of the Russians in the American elections. And this is
a big breach of etiquette for a president to More than etiquette, I
suppose � protocol, even the law � to tell an FBI director not to
investigate something. I guess that's illegal. Trump, of course, and the
White House denies this.
But underlying all of this, and all the furor, is
a fundamental assumption. It's a term that's used constantly in the media
and by the various political pundits on the media, which is "Russia is our
adversary." You have to basically assume that the adversary, Russia, has an
antagonistic relationship with the United States, and then underneath all of
that, then you have Flynn and Comey investigation and so on. Because if
Russia isn't the great adversary, then it's unlikely there'd be such a to-do
about all of this.
Now joining us to talk about the Comey affair, the Trump affair, and just
what is the issues in terms of the US-Russia relationship, is Robert
English. Robert is a professor of international relations at the University
of Southern California. He specializes in Russian and post-Soviet politics,
US-Russian relations, and national security policy. He formerly worked for
the US Department of Defense and the Committee for National Security, and
has published widely in both academic and policy journals. Thanks very much
for joining us, Robert.
ROBERT ENGLISH: Happy to be here.
PAUL JAY: Okay, so every day another storm, another drama. First of all,
what do you make of Maybe the most interesting thing in all of this Comey
thing today isn't Trump asking him to stop the investigation; that's not a
great shocker. The more interesting thing is somebody at the FBI who has
access to the Comey memo reads it to a journalist at the New York Times.
There's a lot of people out to get Trump here.
ROBERT ENGLISH: Yeah, you're pointing to this larger problem, which is
this chaos, this infighting, and not just in a sort of careerist
bureaucratic way, but a kind of serious pitched battle between different
factions � in this case, between those in the Trump administration who seem
to want a fresh start with Russia, to try to begin cooperation on things
like Syria, terrorism, and so forth, and those dead set against it, who are
now using leaks and so forth to In part, to fight their battles. And so
the bureaucratic, the nasty, the backstabbing, the leaking, is one area of
issues, but you're pointing to this larger fundamental. Can we get along
with Russia? Is it worth trying to reset relations? And even if he's not the
best executor so far � and he's not � is Trump's basic idea of "We can get
along with Russia, let's give it a try" a good one? And I happen to think it
is; it's just being carried out awfully clumsily.
PAUL JAY: Yeah, I think one needs to separate the intent of Trump for
wanting better relation with Russia, which one can analyze, and the policy
itself. The policy of having a détente, although why there even needs to be
a détente is kind of a question mark But why is so much of the American
foreign policy establishment, the political class, the military leadership,
the vast majority of that whole stratum wants to maintain a very
antagonistic position towards Russia, and why?
ROBERT ENGLISH: You know, four or five reasons that all come together,
pushing in this Russophobic direction. We've always had sort of
unreconstructed Cold Warriors, people who never were easy with the new
Russia, right? Zbigniew Brzezinski and people of that ilk, who wanted to
just push Russia in a corner, take advantage of its weakness, never give it
a chance. Then you have people in the military-industrial complex, for lack
of a better term, whose vested interests lie in a continued rivalry, and
continued arms-racing, and continued threat inflation. You have other people
who normally would be liberal progressive, but they're so angry at Hillary
Clinton's loss, they're so uncomprehending of how someone they see as vulgar
and unqualified as Trump could get elected, that they're naturally unwilling
to let go of this "the Russians hacked our election, the Russians got Trump
elected" theme, and therefore, Russia is even bigger enemy than they would
be otherwise. These and other strains all come together in a strange way.
Some of this is the hard right, all right? Some of it is from the left, some
is from the center. And across the board, we have ignorance. Ignorance of
Russia.
PAUL JAY: Now, in an article you wrote recently, you went through some of
the history, and we're going to do another segment that digs into this
history more in depth, but when you look at the history of the '90s, and
Yeltsin, and the whole role of the United States in helping bring down the
Soviet Union, the whole point of bringing down the Soviet Union, and
standing Yeltsin up, and interfering in Russian elections to make sure
Yeltsin wins, and so on, was to open Russia for privatization for American
oligarchs. I don't think the idea was to do it for Russian oligarchs, but
that's how it turned out. Is that part of what is making this section of the
American oligarchs so angry about it all?
ROBERT ENGLISH: You know, when people look at Russia today, they try to
explain it in terms of one evil man, Putin, and that sort of conceals an
assumption that if we could just get rid of Putin, everything would be
better, and that Putin is the way he is � anti-American � because he's from
the KGB. You don't need to go back to his youth or his time in intelligence
to understand why he's very skeptical, why we have bad relations with Putin
and all those around him. You don't have to go back to the '50s or '40s. You
can go back just to the '90s, when we interfered in Russia, when we foisted
dysfunctional economic policies on them, when we meddled in their elections
repeatedly, and basically for an entire decade, we were handmaidens to a
catastrophe � economic, political, social � that sowed the seeds of this
resentment that continues to this day. It's a-
PAUL JAY: Yeah, you mention in your article that the consequences of the
'90s depression in Russia far surpassed anything in the '07-'08 recession in
the United States.
ROBERT ENGLISH: They far surpassed that. They even far surpassed anything
in our own Great Depression of the early 1930s, of '29, '30, '31 � you know,
the Great Depression, under Hoover and then Roosevelt. At that time, our
economy contracted by about a quarter, and the slump lasted about three
years before growth resumed. Russia's economy contracted almost by half, and
the slump lasted an entire decade, and it resulted not just in widespread
poverty, but millions of excess deaths, of suicides, of people dying of
despair, of heart disease, of treatable illnesses caused by the strains, the
This deep, unbelievable misery of that decade. It's no wonder that there
is deep resentment towards the US, and this underlies a lot of the Putin
elites' attitudes towards us. It's not something pathological, Putin being a
bad guy. If you got rid of Putin tomorrow, the next guy who came along, the
person most Russians would probably elect in democratic elections, wouldn't
be so different. It wouldn't be another Yeltsin or pro-Western liberal,
believe me.
PAUL JAY: Well, even if everything they say about Putin is true, and I
doubt and Quite sure not everything is true. If he is such a dictator,
United States foreign policy has never had any trouble with dictators, as
long as they're our dictators, so the thing drips with hypocrisy.
ROBERT ENGLISH: Hypocrisy and double standards all around are what
Russians see, okay? I mean, where do you begin? Look at the recent The
vote, the referendum in Crimea to secede from Ukraine, and of course, then
Russia annexed it into Russian territory, and we find that outrageous, a
violation of international law, and the Russians say, "Yeah, and what did
you engineer in Kosovo? You yanked Kosovo out of Serbia, you caused Kosovo
to secede from Serbia with no referendum, no international law. How is that
different? Right? When it's your client state it's okay, but when it's ours,
it's not?" And of course the list is a long one; we could spend all
afternoon going through them. So the first thing we need to do is stop the
sanctimony, and deal with Russia as an equal great power.
But, you know, can I say one more thing about the '90s that connect it
with what's going on today? In 1991, we had George Herbert Walker Bush in
the White House. It was still the Soviet Union, Gorbachev was still in power
for the rest of the year, and a warning came from our ambassador in Moscow,
Jack Matlock, which was passed on to the White House. He had inside
information from sources, from confidential sources, that a coup attempt was
being planned. And, by the way, of course it happened in August of that
year. That information came from our Ambassador Matlock, from his sources in
Moscow, to the White House. George Bush had been instructed that this was
highly sensitive, do not reveal the source of the information, keep it
confidential. Bush fouled up, and within hours, he got on the phone to
Moscow, a line that was open, monitored by the KGB, trying to reach
Gorbachev, and he revealed the information, and he revealed the source,
which went straight to the KGB. This was an unbelievable breach of
confidentiality, dangerous, potentially deadly results, and the greatest
irony is that George Herbert Walker Bush had been Director of the CIA
before.
Now, why am I telling this story? Obviously, my first point is,
presidents have fouled up, and have declassified unwittingly, or sometimes
for political purposes, highly sensitive information all the time. I'm not
excusing what Trump did � it looks like he was very sloppy � but the first
thing to note is it's not unusual, this happens a lot. The second thing, and
let's talk about this, is sharing information intelligence with the
Russians. Guys, we've been doing this for nearly 20 years. After 9/11, the
Russians offered us valuable intelligence on the Taliban, on Afghanistan, to
help us fight back against bin Laden, and we've been exchanging intelligence
on terrorists ever since. A lot of people wish we'd exchange more
information; we might have prevented the Boston bombing. So this hysteria
about sharing intelligence with our adversary, no, we are cooperating with
Russia because we have a common enemy.
PAUL JAY: Now, I said in the beginning that I thought we should separate
Trump's intent from a policy, which seems more rational, not to treat Russia
as such an adversary, and try to work both in Syria and other places,
negotiate more things out. But when you do look at the side of intent, I
don't think you can negate or forget about the kind of historic ties that
Trump has with Russian oligarchs. Some people suggest Russian Mafia.
Tillerson's energy play, they would love sanctions lifted on Russia, and I'm
not suggesting they shouldn't be lifted, but the motive here is they want to
do a massive play in the energy sector. So it's not I don't think we
should forget about what drives Trump and his circle around him, which is
they have a very big fossil fuel agenda and a money-making agenda. On the
other hand, that doesn't mean the policy towards Russia isn't rational. I
mean, what do you I don't know if you agree or not.
ROBERT ENGLISH: You know, yeah, you're right, those are important points,
and whether you agree or not with people ranging from Ron Wyden to Lindsey
Graham, they're all saying "follow the money," and in this case, I think
they're right. All these probes, and all these suspicions that the Trump
team colluded with Russian intelligence to throw the election, that they
were cooperating, even coordinating with the Russians on the hacking, and
then the release, I don't believe it. It could be true � you know, I don't
have access to the evidence � but to me, it seems much more likely that what
will turn up instead are financial crimes or malfeasance. People taking
speaker's fees, people consulting with oligarchs, people aiding You know,
helping with the elections with shady people, and depositing the money in
the Cayman Islands or in Cypriot banks, not declaring income. I think that's
what we're likely to find; I think that's probably what Flynn is guilty of.
But the more serious charge of collusion with an adversary, even of treason
to undermine our election, I doubt it very much. You're right to look at the
energy business money, and sort of big-business oligarchic efforts to just
get rich together.
PAUL JAY: Yeah, because this is so much tied up with partisan politics.
The Democratic Party leadership, you know, Schumer types, they just want to
wound Trump any way they can, and this is a good way to cut some knives
there, to get their knives out. But the real story is the financial
shenanigans, and maybe Flynn was on to that. I'm not Excuse me, not Flynn,
Comey. Maybe Comey was on to that, and maybe that's where this thing will
lead. That's where Trump needs to fear, not the Flynn stuff.
ROBERT ENGLISH: I think you're probably right, and again, I can only
infer what might be going on, what evidence there might be, based on the
subpoenas that are going out, but what we've heard says yeah, financial
records, all these documents, evidence of I mean, let's go back to this
issue that was the scandal of the week about five scandals ago, which means
five days ago, and that was that The reason that Flynn was fired, you'll
recall that after the election but before the inauguration, he met with the
Russian ambassador, and they discussed all kinds of policy issues, including
the possibility of moving towards removing the sanctions. When he got back
to the White House, apparently he told Pence that they talked about other
things, but he didn't admit that the sanctions subject had come up.
Therefore, he lied; therefore, he was fired. And Sally Yates, right, the
From the Attorney General's office, has made an important point that she
briefed the White House on this, she warned that Flynn had been compromised,
because the Russians had something on him now.
Okay, technically they did, but come on, guys, hold on a second. Trump
was about to be inaugurated, right? It wasn't as if he somehow � Flynn �
could undermine a policy of Obama's when there were about five minutes left
in the Obama administration. Secondly, the Russians and the Trump
administration wanted openly � it was no secret � to move towards a removal
of sanctions if they could find cooperation on Ukraine, cooperation on
terror in the Middle East. There's no secret here. Therefore, what did the
Russians have on Flynn that they could have blackmailed him with? How was he
compromised? Yeah, because they'd caught him in a fib, but big deal. You see
how these things are being exaggerated. No doubt Flynn broke the rules, he
told a lie, but it's not a lie It's not the kind of information in the
Russians' possession that's the equivalent of catching him in bed with
another woman, or [inaudible 00:16:53].
PAUL JAY: And you have to even believe that he did tell the lie, because
we're being told he didn't tell Pence. We don't know if he's falling on his
sword to some extent here in order to protect Pence. I mean, who knows the
truth of any of that? And the rest of what he did, as far as we know, with
the Russians is all public. There's a video of him speaking at an RT
interview in Moscow that took place at the same time as this dinner that he
was paid to attend on the 10th anniversary of RT, where he sits near Putin.
There's nothing secret about any of this; this stuff's been out on YouTube
for, like, ages.
ROBERT ENGLISH: So what you have here when you add them up is a sequence
of events or small misdeeds: telling a fib about this here, Trump leaking
classified information there. None of them are of the magnitude that they're
being portrayed with in the media, but when you string them together, it
sounds like a hysterical series of
PAUL JAY: So I can understand the Democratic Party, but in terms of what
people call the permanent state, the deep state, they're very engaged in
this. The leaks from the FBI We still don't, I don't think, unless I
missed something, this thing where he Trump talks to the Russian
ambassador and the Foreign Minister, Lavrov, and gives this Reveals this
intelligence. Well, how do we know that? I mean, who's in that room that
leaked that? Or, apparently, after it took place in Washington, some White
House staffers phone the NSA and the CIA Well, you think they've got to
call the heads of these organizations at this kind of level of information.
So who's leaking that stuff? The state apparatus � CIA, FBI, maybe NSA �
they're really antagonistic to this Trump administration. What is that
about?
ROBERT ENGLISH: Again, that's where we started, with not only the battle
over "Should we try to improve relations with Russia, or are they
incorrigible foes?" That's one thing, but now this sort of bureaucratic
infighting, the use of leaks, of innuendo. And again, Trump gives them the
fuel to do so with these continual misdeeds and misstatements. That's
another whole arena of battle, and it's not healthy, right, to have And
it's his fault too. He went to war with the intelligence community on day
one. But this is so dysfunctional. It's causing us much more harm than the
Russians ever could, and
PAUL JAY: We're going to keep this conversation going in a future
segment. I do want to add Anyone who watches The Real News knows this
already. I mean, I think the Trump/Pence administration is going to prove to
be more dangerous than the Bush/Cheney. I think it's extremely dangerous
what they have in mind in terms of foreign policy. But all that being said,
let's concentrate on the real stuff. Trump's in Saudi Arabia, and they're
planning some bad stuff in the Middle East, and targeting of Iran, and back
here, we're focusing on really what should be a sideline soap opera.
ROBERT ENGLISH: Yeah. The series, the daily scandals that we're talking
about � the Comey letter today, the leak to the Russians yesterday, on and
on � are kind of distracting us from the bigger picture. Not only the
question of, you know, what are our common interests, if any, with Russia,
and can we seriously work towards them, but also, what are we going to do in
the Middle East, and what are we doing in East Asia? These pivotal foreign
policy strategic issues aren't getting much attention because of the daily
soap opera. You're absolutely right.
Let me just add at the end here � I know we're running out of time � I've
noted the accidental clumsy careless leak that could've had tragic
consequences of the first Bush president. We might also note that the second
Bush presidency, that administration leaked like a sieve from, you know,
exaggerated false intelligence on Iraq to the identity of Valerie Plame, a
CIA operative, when it suited their purposes. And the Obama administration
wasn't a lot better. People like McCain and others were furious at some of
the leaks, whether it was the Stuxnet cyber war tactic that was used against
Iran, to a whole series of other military facts that were leaked selectively
by the Obama administration to serve their purposes. Let's just remember
this context. Mistaken leaks, strategic leaks, dishonest leaks go on all the
time in Washington, and against that backdrop, let's not fall off the cliff
here over Trump sharing some intel about terror attacks with the Russians,
about our common enemy, the Islamic State in Syria.
PAUL JAY: All right, thanks very much for joining us, and thank you for
joining us on The Real News Network.
Anonymous
,
May 17, 2017 at 2:09 am
Some issues that are not mentioned. First, the 100 billion dollar a year
cost of sanctions which gives Putin and the oligarchs incentive to do a lot
of things. Second, the track record of journalists, human rights advocates
and attorneys being killed in Russia. Third, the funds paid to Trump from
oligarchs via over priced real estate deals.
Guess they all fall into the "strategic issues aren't getting much
attention".
If the Putin administration or oligarchs are found to have acted illegally
in the US it will be a different discussion.
"... what astonished me was how quickly the media interpreted its use in the hearings to mean that the conversations and emails that apparently were recorded or intercepted involving Trump associates and assorted Russians as "sensitive contacts" meant that they were necessarily inappropriate, dangerous, or even illegal. ..."
"... The Post is unfortunately also providing ISIS with more information than it "needs to know" to make its story more dramatic, further compromising the source. ..."
"... McMaster described the report as "false" and informed the Post that "The president and the foreign minister reviewed common threats from terrorist organizations to include threats to aviation. At no time were any intelligence sources or methods discussed and no military operations were disclosed that were not already known publicly." Tillerson commented that "the nature of specific threats were (sic) discussed, but they did not discuss sources, methods, or military operations." ..."
"... The media will no doubt be seeking to magnify the potential damage done while the White House goes into damage control mode. ..."
"... In this case, the intelligence shared with Lavrov appears to be related to specific ISIS threats, which may include planned operations against civilian aircraft, judging from Trump's characteristically after-hours tweets defending his behavior, as well as other reporting. ..."
"... The New York Times , in its own reporting of the story, initially stated that the information on ISIS did not come from an NSA or CIA operation, and later reported that the source was Israel. ..."
"... And President Trump has one more thing to think about. No matter what damage comes out of the Lavrov discussion, he has a bigger problem. There are apparently multiple leakers on his National Security Council. ..."
"... You have McMaster himself who categorically denies any exposure of sources and methods – he was there in person and witness to the talks – and a cloud of unknown witnesses not present speculating, without reference to McMaster or Tillerson's testimony, about what might have happened. This is the American Media in a nutshell, the Infinite Circle Jerk. ..."
"... I am more disturbed how this story got into the press. While, not an ally, I think we should in cooperation with other states. Because the Pres is not familiar with the protocols and language and I doubt any executive has been upon entering office, I have no doubt he may be reacting or overreacting to the overreaction of others. ..."
"... Here's a word. We have no business engaging n the overthrow of another government that is no threat to the US or her allies, and that includes Israel. Syria is not. And we should cease and desist getting further entangled in the messes of the previous executive, his Sec of State and those organizations who seem to e playing with the life blood of the US by engaging if unnecessary risks. ..."
"... And if I understand the crumbs given the data provided by the Post, the Times and this article, if one had ill will for the source of said information, they have pretty good idea where to start. ..."
"... In general I agree with you, but the media was NEVER concerned about the treatment of sensitive material from HRC! ..."
"... I think he needs to cut back on intelligence sharing with Israel. They do just what the hell they want to do with anything. ..."
Intelligence agencies and senior government officials tend to use a lot of jargon. Laced with acronyms, this language sometimes does
not translate very well into journalese when it hits the media.
For example, I experienced a sense of disorientation two weeks ago over the word "sensitive" as used by several senators, Sally
Yates, and James Clapper during committee testimony into Russiagate. "Sensitive" has, of course, a number of meanings. But what
astonished me was how quickly the media
interpreted its use in the hearings to mean that the conversations and emails that apparently were recorded or intercepted involving
Trump associates and assorted Russians as "sensitive contacts" meant that they were necessarily inappropriate, dangerous, or even
illegal.
When Yates and Clapper were using "sensitive" thirteen times in the
86 page transcript of the Senate hearings, they were referring to the medium rather than the message. They were both acknowledging
that the sources of the information were intelligence related, sometimes referred to as "sensitive" by intelligence professionals
and government insiders as a shorthand way to describe that they are "need to know" material derived from either classified "methods"
or foreign-liaison partners. That does not mean that the information contained is either good or bad or even true or false, but merely
a way of expressing that the information must be protected because of where it came from or how it was developed, hence the "sensitivity."
The word also popped up this week in a Washington Post
exclusive report alleging that the president had, in his recent meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, gone too
far while also suggesting that the source of a highly classified government program might be inferred from the context of what was
actually revealed. The Post describes how
The information Trump relayed had been provided by a U.S. partner through an intelligence-sharing arrangement considered so
sensitive that details have been withheld from allies and tightly restricted even within the U.S. government, officials said.
The partner had not given the United States permission to share the material with Russia, and officials said that Trump's decision
to do so risks cooperation from an ally that has access to the inner workings of the Islamic State.
The Post is unfortunately also providing ISIS with more information than it "needs to know" to make its story more
dramatic, further compromising the source. Furthermore, it should be understood that the paper is extremely hostile to Trump,
the story is as always based on anonymous sources, and the revelation comes on top of another unverifiable Post article claiming
that the Russians might have sought to sneak
a recording device into the White House during the visit.
No one is denying that the president discussed ISIS in some detail with Lavrov, but National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster and
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, both of whom were present at the meeting,
have denied that any sources or methods were revealed while reviewing with the Russians available intelligence. McMaster
described the report as "false" and
informed the Post that "The president and the foreign minister reviewed common threats from terrorist organizations to include threats to aviation.
At no time were any intelligence sources or methods discussed and no military operations were disclosed that were not already known
publicly." Tillerson commented that "the nature of specific threats were (sic) discussed, but they did not discuss sources, methods,
or military operations."
So the question becomes to what extent can an intelligence mechanism be identified from the information that it produces. That
is, to a certain extent, a judgment call. The president is able
on his own authority to declassify anything, so the legality of his sharing information with Russia cannot be challenged. What
is at question is the decision-making by an inexperienced president who may have been showing off to an important foreign visitor
by revealing details of intelligence that should have remained secret. The media will no doubt be seeking to magnify the potential
damage done while the White House goes into damage control mode.
The media is claiming that the specific discussion with Lavrov that is causing particular concern is related to a so-called
Special Access Program
, or SAP, sometimes referred to as "code word information." An SAP is an operation that generates intelligence that requires special
protection because of where or how it is produced. In this case, the intelligence shared with Lavrov appears to be related to
specific ISIS threats, which may include planned operations against civilian aircraft, judging from Trump's characteristically after-hours
tweets defending his behavior, as well as other reporting.
There have also been reports that the White House followed up on its Lavrov meeting with a routine review of what had taken place.
Several National Security Council members observed that some of the information shared with the Russians was far too sensitive to
disseminate within the U.S. intelligence community. This led to the placing of
urgent calls to NSA and CIA to brief them on what had been said.
Based on the recipients of the calls alone, one might surmise that the source of the information would appear to be either a foreign-intelligence
service or a technical collection operation, or even both combined. The Post claims that the originator of the intelligence
did not clear its sharing with the Russians and raises the possibility that no more information of that type will be provided at
all in light of the White House's apparent carelessness in its use. The New York Times , in its own reporting of the story,
initially
stated that the information on ISIS did not come from an NSA or CIA operation, and later reported that the source was Israel.
The Times is also reporting that Trump provided to Lavrov "granular" information on the city in Syria where the information
was collected that will possibly enable the Russians or ISIS to identify the actual source, with devastating consequences. That projection
may be overreach, but the fact is that the latest gaffe from the White House could well damage an important intelligence liaison
relationship in the Middle East while reinforcing the widely held impression that Washington does not know how to keep a secret.
It will also create the impression that Donald Trump, out of ignorance or hubris, exhibits a certain recklessness in his dealing
with classified information, a failing that he once attributed to his presidential opponent Hillary Clinton.
And President Trump has one more thing to think about. No matter what damage comes out of the Lavrov discussion, he has a
bigger problem. There are apparently multiple leakers on his National Security Council.
Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is executive director of the Council for the National Interest.
This article has been updated to reflect news developments.
" The latest gaffe from the White House could well damage an important intelligence liaison relationship in the Middle East
"
On the other hand, it also represents closer collaboration with Russia–even if unintended–which is an improvement on the status
quo ante and, not to mention, key to ending the conflict in Syria.
You have McMaster himself who categorically denies any exposure of sources and methods – he was there in person and witness
to the talks – and a cloud of unknown witnesses not present speculating, without reference to McMaster or Tillerson's testimony,
about what might have happened. This is the American Media in a nutshell, the Infinite Circle Jerk.
Out of my depth, but was Trump working within the framework, maybe a bit outside if the story is true, of the Joint Implementation
Group the Obama administration created last year with Russia?
Also, I recall reading that the prior administration promised Russia ISIS intel. Not sure if that ever happened, but I doubt
they'd have made it public or leak anything to the press.
I think it should go without saying that intelligence is a sensitive business and protecting those who operate in its murky
waters is important to having an effective agency.
Of course the Pres of the US has a duty to do so.
I have not yet read the post article. But I am doubtful that the executive had any intention of putting anyone in harms way.
I am equally doubtful that this incident will. If the executive made an error in judgement, I am sure it will be dealt wit in
an appropriate manner.
I do wish he'd stop tweeting, though I get why its useful to him.
I am more disturbed how this story got into the press. While, not an ally, I think we should in cooperation with other
states. Because the Pres is not familiar with the protocols and language and I doubt any executive has been upon entering office,
I have no doubt he may be reacting or overreacting to the overreaction of others.
Here's a word. We have no business engaging n the overthrow of another government that is no threat to the US or her allies,
and that includes Israel. Syria is not. And we should cease and desist getting further entangled in the messes of the previous
executive, his Sec of State and those organizations who seem to e playing with the life blood of the US by engaging if unnecessary
risks.
Just another brier brushfire of a single tumble weed to add to the others in the hope that setting fires in trashcans will
make the current exec go away or at least engage in a mea culpa and sign more checks in the mess that is the middle east policy
objective that remains a dead end.
__________
And if I understand the crumbs given the data provided by the Post, the Times and this article, if one had ill will for
the source of said information, they have pretty good idea where to start.
Politics is now directly endangering innocent civilians. Because of the leaks and its publication, ISIS for sure now knows that
there is an information leak out of their organization. They will now re-compartmentalize and may be successful in breaking that
information leak. Innocent airline passenger civilians, American, Russian, or whoever may die as a result. Russia and the US are
both fighting ISIS. We are de facto allies in that fight whether some people like it or not. Time to get over it.
Having read the article, uhhh, excuse me, but unlike personal secrets. The purpose of intel is to use to or keep on hand for some-other
date. But of that information is related to the security of our interests and certainly a cooperative relationship with Russia
is in our interest. Because in the convoluted fight with ISIS/ISIL, Russia is an ally.
What this belies is the mess of the intelligence community. If in fact, the Russians intend to take a source who provided information
that was helpful to them, it would be a peculiar twist of strategic action. The response does tell us that we are in some manner
in league with ISIS/ISIL or their supporters so deep that there is a need to protect them, from what is anybody's guess. Because
if the information is accurate, I doubt the Russians are going to about killing the source, but rather improving their airline
security.
But if we are in fact attempting to remove Pres Assad, and are in league with ISIS/ISIL in doing so - I get why the advocates
of such nonsense might be in a huff. So ISIS/ISISL our one time foe and now our sometimes friend . . .
Good greif . . .
Pres Trump is the least of muy concerns when it coes to security.
Philip, back on July 23, 2014, you explained in "How ISIS Evades the CIA" "the inability of the United States government to anticipate
the ISIS offensive that has succeeded in taking control of a large part of Iraq." You explained why the CIA had to date had no
success in infiltrating ISIS.
You continued: "Given U.S. intelligence's probable limited physical access to any actual terrorist groups operating in Syria
or Iraq any direct attempt to penetrate the organization through placing a source inside would be difficult in the extreme. Such
efforts would most likely be dependent on the assistance of friendly intelligence services in Turkey or Jordan. Both Turkey and
Jordan have reported that terrorists have entered their countries by concealing themselves in the large numbers of refugees that
the conflict in Syria has produced, and both are concerned as they understand full well that groups like ISIS will be targeting
them next. Some of the infiltrating adherents to radical groups have certainly been identified and detained by the respective
intelligence services of those two countries, and undoubtedly efforts have been made to 'turn' some of those in custody to send
them back into Syria (and more recently Iraq) to report on what is taking place. Depending on what arrangements might have been
made to coordinate the operations, the 'take' might well be shared with the United States and other friendly governments."
You then describe the difficulties faced by a Turkish or Jordanian agent trying to infiltrate ISIS: "But seeding is very much
hit or miss, as someone who has been out of the loop of his organization might have difficulty working his way back in. He will
almost certainly be regarded with some suspicion by his peers and would be searched and watched after his return, meaning that
he could not take back with him any sophisticated communications devices no matter how cleverly they are concealed. This would
make communicating any information obtained back to one's case officers in Jordan or Turkey difficult or even impossible."
Notwithstanding how "difficult or even impossible" such an operation would be - and using the New York Times as your only source
for a lot of otherwise completely unsubstantiated information – and admitting that "this is sheer speculation on my part" – you
say that "it is logical to assume that the countries that have provided numerous recruits for ISIS [Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia]
would have used that fact as cover to carry out a seeding operation to introduce some of their own agents into the ISIS organization."
Back to the New York Times as your only source, you say that "the Times is also reporting that Trump provided to Lavrov 'granular'
information on the city in Syria where the information was collected that will possibly enable the Russians or ISIS to identify
the actual source, with devastating consequences."
But having ventured into the far reaches of that line of speculation, you do admit that "that projection may be overreach."
Indeed!
You go on to characterize the events of the White House meeting with the Russians as "the latest gaffe from the White House"
– even though there is absolutely no evidence (outside of the unsubstantiated reports of the Washington Post and the New York
Times) that anything to do with the meeting was a "gaffe" – and you further speculate that "it could well damage an important
intelligence liaison relationship in the Middle East."
That is, again, pure speculation on your part.
One valuable lesson that you've taught TAC readers over the years, Philip: That we need to carefully examine the sources of
information – and the sources of dis-information.
Yet again from Giraldi: the problem isn't that the POTUS is ignorant and incompetent; we should all be more concerned that the
Deep State is leaking the proof.
Trump has now essentially confirmed the story from the Post and contradicted the denials from McMaster – he shared specific intelligence
to demonstrate his willingness to work with the Russians. Moreover, it seems that Israel was the ally that provided this intelligence.
The author and others will defend this, but I can only see this as a reckless and impulsive decision that only causes Russia and
our allies to trust the US less.
"... o start with, again, this is from the Washington Post and an unnamed source. So you do have to doubt the accuracy of the information knowing the vendetta the Washington Post and other mainstream media have against the Trump administration and against President Trump personally and how much they want to disrupt any kind of cooperation with Russia against the terrorist threat. ..."
"... There is a whole structure of what people call the 'Deep State' establishment, the oligarchy – whatever you want to call it. Of course, the mainstream media is part of this. It includes all the Democrats, who were very easy on the Soviet Union when it was Communist. But now that it is not Communist under Russia, they have a deep, very deep hatred of Russia, and they don't want any kind of rapprochement with Russia. ..."
"... Let's not play the game of dividing the so-called mainstream media from its owners. The mainstream media of the US is owned lock, stock, and barrel by the military industrial complex. If you want to call it anything, you can call it the 'military media.' The military makes money by making war; they buy the media to promote war. They use the media to promote propaganda in favor of war. And that is where we get into the mess we're in today. Because we have a president who is a businessman and would prefer to make money, and would prefer to put people to work in any industry other than war. The military industrial media in the United States is depending on being able to speak to a captive audience of uninformed viewers The military controls the media because they own them. ..."
There are elements of the 'Deep State' here who are very opposed to the things Donald Trump said
during the campaign. They don't want to cooperate with Russia, Jim Jatras, former US diplomat, told
RT.
Political analyst John Bosnitch joins the discussion. US President Trump said his White House
meeting last week with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov ranged from airline safety to terrorism.
A Washington Post story, however, has accused the American leader of revealing classified information
to Russian officials.
RT: What's your take on it? Is the media on to something big here?
Jim Jatras: To start with, again, this is from the Washington Post and an unnamed source. So you
do have to doubt the accuracy of the information knowing the vendetta the Washington Post and other
mainstream media have against the Trump administration and against President Trump personally and
how much they want to disrupt any kind of cooperation with Russia against the terrorist threat. I
would say that was the first thing.
Second, as Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Deputy of National Security Adviser Dina Powell,
who were both in the meeting, have stated since the Washington Post article appeared – there was
nothing discussed with Mr. [Sergey] Lavrov and Mr. [Sergey] Kislyak that compromised what they call "sources and methods"
that would lead to any kind of intelligence vulnerability on the part
of the US. But rather this was all part of a discussion of common action against ISIS. Those are
the first things to be noted
Let's remember that there are elements of what we call the 'Deep State' here who are
very opposed to the things Donald Trump said during the campaign. They don't want to cooperate with
the Russians; they don't want improved relations with Moscow. And let's be honest, they have a very
strong investment in the various jihadist groups that we have supported for the past six years trying
to overthrow the legitimate government in Damascus. I am sure there are people – maybe in the National
Security Council, maybe in the Staff, maybe in the State Department – who are finding some way to
try and discredit the Trump administration. The question is where is the investigation into these
leaks? Who is going to hold these people accountable?
RT: The mainstream media is going on little more than 'anonymous sources.' Could it have a
hidden agenda here?
JJ: Of course. In fact, I would even go further. I wouldn't be at all surprised if President Trump
timed his firing with the FBI Director James Comey – what some people even pointed out – he himself
in one of his tweets says "drain the swamp." One of the first elements was getting rid of
the principals of the Deep State who have been trying to hijack his policy; that he did this precisely
because he was meeting with Mr. Lavrov and Mr. Kislyak the next day. He's shoving it in their face,
saying: "I am moving forward with my program." And I think that's the reason we're getting
this hysteria building around the Russians, the Russians, the Russians when what we need is to move
forward on an America First national security policy.
'US policy today: Aircraft, where co-pilots try to override pilots' (Op-Edge)
https://t.co/x153yPtqVS
RT: Do you think mainstream media is a part of something big and controlled all over from
the top?
JJ: Absolutely. There is a whole structure of what people call the 'Deep State' establishment,
the oligarchy – whatever you want to call it. Of course, the mainstream media is part of this. It
includes all the Democrats, who were very easy on the Soviet Union when it was Communist. But now
that it is not Communist under Russia, they have a deep, very deep hatred of Russia, and they don't
want any kind of rapprochement with Russia.
And unfortunately, there are Republicans who sympathize
with this agenda, as well. I think we can say at this point that Mr. Trump is only partially in control
of the apparatus of government. He does not yet have complete control and that there is a frantic
effort by these elements to make sure he is not able to get control of the American government
and carry out the policies he talked about.
The mainstream media of the US is owned lock, stock, and barrel by the military industrial complex.
If you want to call it anything, you can call it the 'military media,' John Bosnitch , political
analyst, told RT.
RT: The media has run with this. Are they on to something big here?
John Bosnitch: I wouldn't say so. I've worked in this field for three decades. I don't see a scrap
of evidence here. But I do see like a shark tank of media feeding – no evidence.
RT: Trump attacked Hillary Clinton as being unreliable with state secrets. Can the same now
be said of him?
JB: Trump is the chief executive officer of the United States of America. As the chief executive
officer of the country, he has full legal and constitutional authority to use state secrets in the
conduct of diplomacy. He's also the chief diplomat of the country. So there is a big difference between
the chief executive officer deciding what information he can share in conducting of state policy,
and Hillary Clinton deciding as a cabinet minister which laws she chooses to obey, and which ones
she doesn't.
RT: The mainstream media is going on little more than 'anonymous sources'... could it have
a hidden agenda here?
JB: I don't see any other possibility, whatsoever. Let's not play the game of dividing the so-called
mainstream media from its owners. The mainstream media of the US is owned lock, stock, and barrel
by the military industrial complex. If you want to call it anything, you can call it the 'military
media.' The military makes money by making war; they buy the media to promote war. They use the media
to promote propaganda in favor of war. And that is where we get into the mess we're in today. Because
we have a president who is a businessman and would prefer to make money, and would prefer to put
people to work in any industry other than war. The military industrial media in the United States
is depending on being able to speak to a captive audience of uninformed viewers The military controls
the media because they own them.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and
do not necessarily represent those of RT.
"... what astonished me was how quickly the media interpreted its use in the hearings to mean that the conversations and emails that apparently were recorded or intercepted involving Trump associates and assorted Russians as "sensitive contacts" meant that they were necessarily inappropriate, dangerous, or even illegal. ..."
"... The Post is unfortunately also providing ISIS with more information than it "needs to know" to make its story more dramatic, further compromising the source. ..."
"... McMaster described the report as "false" and informed the Post that "The president and the foreign minister reviewed common threats from terrorist organizations to include threats to aviation. At no time were any intelligence sources or methods discussed and no military operations were disclosed that were not already known publicly." Tillerson commented that "the nature of specific threats were (sic) discussed, but they did not discuss sources, methods, or military operations." ..."
"... The media will no doubt be seeking to magnify the potential damage done while the White House goes into damage control mode. ..."
"... In this case, the intelligence shared with Lavrov appears to be related to specific ISIS threats, which may include planned operations against civilian aircraft, judging from Trump's characteristically after-hours tweets defending his behavior, as well as other reporting. ..."
"... The New York Times , in its own reporting of the story, initially stated that the information on ISIS did not come from an NSA or CIA operation, and later reported that the source was Israel. ..."
"... And President Trump has one more thing to think about. No matter what damage comes out of the Lavrov discussion, he has a bigger problem. There are apparently multiple leakers on his National Security Council. ..."
"... You have McMaster himself who categorically denies any exposure of sources and methods – he was there in person and witness to the talks – and a cloud of unknown witnesses not present speculating, without reference to McMaster or Tillerson's testimony, about what might have happened. This is the American Media in a nutshell, the Infinite Circle Jerk. ..."
"... I am more disturbed how this story got into the press. While, not an ally, I think we should in cooperation with other states. Because the Pres is not familiar with the protocols and language and I doubt any executive has been upon entering office, I have no doubt he may be reacting or overreacting to the overreaction of others. ..."
"... Here's a word. We have no business engaging n the overthrow of another government that is no threat to the US or her allies, and that includes Israel. Syria is not. And we should cease and desist getting further entangled in the messes of the previous executive, his Sec of State and those organizations who seem to e playing with the life blood of the US by engaging if unnecessary risks. ..."
"... And if I understand the crumbs given the data provided by the Post, the Times and this article, if one had ill will for the source of said information, they have pretty good idea where to start. ..."
"... In general I agree with you, but the media was NEVER concerned about the treatment of sensitive material from HRC! ..."
"... I think he needs to cut back on intelligence sharing with Israel. They do just what the hell they want to do with anything. ..."
Intelligence agencies and senior government officials tend to use a lot of jargon. Laced with acronyms, this language sometimes does
not translate very well into journalese when it hits the media.
For example, I experienced a sense of disorientation two weeks ago over the word "sensitive" as used by several senators, Sally
Yates, and James Clapper during committee testimony into Russiagate. "Sensitive" has, of course, a number of meanings. But what
astonished me was how quickly the media
interpreted its use in the hearings to mean that the conversations and emails that apparently were recorded or intercepted involving
Trump associates and assorted Russians as "sensitive contacts" meant that they were necessarily inappropriate, dangerous, or even
illegal.
When Yates and Clapper were using "sensitive" thirteen times in the
86 page transcript of the Senate hearings, they were referring to the medium rather than the message. They were both acknowledging
that the sources of the information were intelligence related, sometimes referred to as "sensitive" by intelligence professionals
and government insiders as a shorthand way to describe that they are "need to know" material derived from either classified "methods"
or foreign-liaison partners. That does not mean that the information contained is either good or bad or even true or false, but merely
a way of expressing that the information must be protected because of where it came from or how it was developed, hence the "sensitivity."
The word also popped up this week in a Washington Post
exclusive report alleging that the president had, in his recent meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, gone too
far while also suggesting that the source of a highly classified government program might be inferred from the context of what was
actually revealed. The Post describes how
The information Trump relayed had been provided by a U.S. partner through an intelligence-sharing arrangement considered so
sensitive that details have been withheld from allies and tightly restricted even within the U.S. government, officials said.
The partner had not given the United States permission to share the material with Russia, and officials said that Trump's decision
to do so risks cooperation from an ally that has access to the inner workings of the Islamic State.
The Post is unfortunately also providing ISIS with more information than it "needs to know" to make its story more
dramatic, further compromising the source. Furthermore, it should be understood that the paper is extremely hostile to Trump,
the story is as always based on anonymous sources, and the revelation comes on top of another unverifiable Post article claiming
that the Russians might have sought to sneak
a recording device into the White House during the visit.
No one is denying that the president discussed ISIS in some detail with Lavrov, but National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster and
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, both of whom were present at the meeting,
have denied that any sources or methods were revealed while reviewing with the Russians available intelligence. McMaster
described the report as "false" and
informed the Post that "The president and the foreign minister reviewed common threats from terrorist organizations to include threats to aviation.
At no time were any intelligence sources or methods discussed and no military operations were disclosed that were not already known
publicly." Tillerson commented that "the nature of specific threats were (sic) discussed, but they did not discuss sources, methods,
or military operations."
So the question becomes to what extent can an intelligence mechanism be identified from the information that it produces. That
is, to a certain extent, a judgment call. The president is able
on his own authority to declassify anything, so the legality of his sharing information with Russia cannot be challenged. What
is at question is the decision-making by an inexperienced president who may have been showing off to an important foreign visitor
by revealing details of intelligence that should have remained secret. The media will no doubt be seeking to magnify the potential
damage done while the White House goes into damage control mode.
The media is claiming that the specific discussion with Lavrov that is causing particular concern is related to a so-called
Special Access Program
, or SAP, sometimes referred to as "code word information." An SAP is an operation that generates intelligence that requires special
protection because of where or how it is produced. In this case, the intelligence shared with Lavrov appears to be related to
specific ISIS threats, which may include planned operations against civilian aircraft, judging from Trump's characteristically after-hours
tweets defending his behavior, as well as other reporting.
There have also been reports that the White House followed up on its Lavrov meeting with a routine review of what had taken place.
Several National Security Council members observed that some of the information shared with the Russians was far too sensitive to
disseminate within the U.S. intelligence community. This led to the placing of
urgent calls to NSA and CIA to brief them on what had been said.
Based on the recipients of the calls alone, one might surmise that the source of the information would appear to be either a foreign-intelligence
service or a technical collection operation, or even both combined. The Post claims that the originator of the intelligence
did not clear its sharing with the Russians and raises the possibility that no more information of that type will be provided at
all in light of the White House's apparent carelessness in its use. The New York Times , in its own reporting of the story,
initially
stated that the information on ISIS did not come from an NSA or CIA operation, and later reported that the source was Israel.
The Times is also reporting that Trump provided to Lavrov "granular" information on the city in Syria where the information
was collected that will possibly enable the Russians or ISIS to identify the actual source, with devastating consequences. That projection
may be overreach, but the fact is that the latest gaffe from the White House could well damage an important intelligence liaison
relationship in the Middle East while reinforcing the widely held impression that Washington does not know how to keep a secret.
It will also create the impression that Donald Trump, out of ignorance or hubris, exhibits a certain recklessness in his dealing
with classified information, a failing that he once attributed to his presidential opponent Hillary Clinton.
And President Trump has one more thing to think about. No matter what damage comes out of the Lavrov discussion, he has a
bigger problem. There are apparently multiple leakers on his National Security Council.
Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is executive director of the Council for the National Interest.
This article has been updated to reflect news developments.
" The latest gaffe from the White House could well damage an important intelligence liaison relationship in the Middle East
"
On the other hand, it also represents closer collaboration with Russia–even if unintended–which is an improvement on the status
quo ante and, not to mention, key to ending the conflict in Syria.
You have McMaster himself who categorically denies any exposure of sources and methods – he was there in person and witness
to the talks – and a cloud of unknown witnesses not present speculating, without reference to McMaster or Tillerson's testimony,
about what might have happened. This is the American Media in a nutshell, the Infinite Circle Jerk.
Out of my depth, but was Trump working within the framework, maybe a bit outside if the story is true, of the Joint Implementation
Group the Obama administration created last year with Russia?
Also, I recall reading that the prior administration promised Russia ISIS intel. Not sure if that ever happened, but I doubt
they'd have made it public or leak anything to the press.
I think it should go without saying that intelligence is a sensitive business and protecting those who operate in its murky
waters is important to having an effective agency.
Of course the Pres of the US has a duty to do so.
I have not yet read the post article. But I am doubtful that the executive had any intention of putting anyone in harms way.
I am equally doubtful that this incident will. If the executive made an error in judgement, I am sure it will be dealt wit in
an appropriate manner.
I do wish he'd stop tweeting, though I get why its useful to him.
I am more disturbed how this story got into the press. While, not an ally, I think we should in cooperation with other
states. Because the Pres is not familiar with the protocols and language and I doubt any executive has been upon entering office,
I have no doubt he may be reacting or overreacting to the overreaction of others.
Here's a word. We have no business engaging n the overthrow of another government that is no threat to the US or her allies,
and that includes Israel. Syria is not. And we should cease and desist getting further entangled in the messes of the previous
executive, his Sec of State and those organizations who seem to e playing with the life blood of the US by engaging if unnecessary
risks.
Just another brier brushfire of a single tumble weed to add to the others in the hope that setting fires in trashcans will
make the current exec go away or at least engage in a mea culpa and sign more checks in the mess that is the middle east policy
objective that remains a dead end.
__________
And if I understand the crumbs given the data provided by the Post, the Times and this article, if one had ill will for
the source of said information, they have pretty good idea where to start.
Politics is now directly endangering innocent civilians. Because of the leaks and its publication, ISIS for sure now knows that
there is an information leak out of their organization. They will now re-compartmentalize and may be successful in breaking that
information leak. Innocent airline passenger civilians, American, Russian, or whoever may die as a result. Russia and the US are
both fighting ISIS. We are de facto allies in that fight whether some people like it or not. Time to get over it.
Having read the article, uhhh, excuse me, but unlike personal secrets. The purpose of intel is to use to or keep on hand for some-other
date. But of that information is related to the security of our interests and certainly a cooperative relationship with Russia
is in our interest. Because in the convoluted fight with ISIS/ISIL, Russia is an ally.
What this belies is the mess of the intelligence community. If in fact, the Russians intend to take a source who provided information
that was helpful to them, it would be a peculiar twist of strategic action. The response does tell us that we are in some manner
in league with ISIS/ISIL or their supporters so deep that there is a need to protect them, from what is anybody's guess. Because
if the information is accurate, I doubt the Russians are going to about killing the source, but rather improving their airline
security.
But if we are in fact attempting to remove Pres Assad, and are in league with ISIS/ISIL in doing so - I get why the advocates
of such nonsense might be in a huff. So ISIS/ISISL our one time foe and now our sometimes friend . . .
Good greif . . .
Pres Trump is the least of muy concerns when it coes to security.
Philip, back on July 23, 2014, you explained in "How ISIS Evades the CIA" "the inability of the United States government to anticipate
the ISIS offensive that has succeeded in taking control of a large part of Iraq." You explained why the CIA had to date had no
success in infiltrating ISIS.
You continued: "Given U.S. intelligence's probable limited physical access to any actual terrorist groups operating in Syria
or Iraq any direct attempt to penetrate the organization through placing a source inside would be difficult in the extreme. Such
efforts would most likely be dependent on the assistance of friendly intelligence services in Turkey or Jordan. Both Turkey and
Jordan have reported that terrorists have entered their countries by concealing themselves in the large numbers of refugees that
the conflict in Syria has produced, and both are concerned as they understand full well that groups like ISIS will be targeting
them next. Some of the infiltrating adherents to radical groups have certainly been identified and detained by the respective
intelligence services of those two countries, and undoubtedly efforts have been made to 'turn' some of those in custody to send
them back into Syria (and more recently Iraq) to report on what is taking place. Depending on what arrangements might have been
made to coordinate the operations, the 'take' might well be shared with the United States and other friendly governments."
You then describe the difficulties faced by a Turkish or Jordanian agent trying to infiltrate ISIS: "But seeding is very much
hit or miss, as someone who has been out of the loop of his organization might have difficulty working his way back in. He will
almost certainly be regarded with some suspicion by his peers and would be searched and watched after his return, meaning that
he could not take back with him any sophisticated communications devices no matter how cleverly they are concealed. This would
make communicating any information obtained back to one's case officers in Jordan or Turkey difficult or even impossible."
Notwithstanding how "difficult or even impossible" such an operation would be - and using the New York Times as your only source
for a lot of otherwise completely unsubstantiated information – and admitting that "this is sheer speculation on my part" – you
say that "it is logical to assume that the countries that have provided numerous recruits for ISIS [Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia]
would have used that fact as cover to carry out a seeding operation to introduce some of their own agents into the ISIS organization."
Back to the New York Times as your only source, you say that "the Times is also reporting that Trump provided to Lavrov 'granular'
information on the city in Syria where the information was collected that will possibly enable the Russians or ISIS to identify
the actual source, with devastating consequences."
But having ventured into the far reaches of that line of speculation, you do admit that "that projection may be overreach."
Indeed!
You go on to characterize the events of the White House meeting with the Russians as "the latest gaffe from the White House"
– even though there is absolutely no evidence (outside of the unsubstantiated reports of the Washington Post and the New York
Times) that anything to do with the meeting was a "gaffe" – and you further speculate that "it could well damage an important
intelligence liaison relationship in the Middle East."
That is, again, pure speculation on your part.
One valuable lesson that you've taught TAC readers over the years, Philip: That we need to carefully examine the sources of
information – and the sources of dis-information.
Yet again from Giraldi: the problem isn't that the POTUS is ignorant and incompetent; we should all be more concerned that the
Deep State is leaking the proof.
Trump has now essentially confirmed the story from the Post and contradicted the denials from McMaster – he shared specific intelligence
to demonstrate his willingness to work with the Russians. Moreover, it seems that Israel was the ally that provided this intelligence.
The author and others will defend this, but I can only see this as a reckless and impulsive decision that only causes Russia and
our allies to trust the US less.
"... what astonished me was how quickly the media interpreted its use in the hearings to mean that the conversations and emails that apparently were recorded or intercepted involving Trump associates and assorted Russians as "sensitive contacts" meant that they were necessarily inappropriate, dangerous, or even illegal. ..."
"... The Post is unfortunately also providing ISIS with more information than it "needs to know" to make its story more dramatic, further compromising the source. ..."
"... McMaster described the report as "false" and informed the Post that "The president and the foreign minister reviewed common threats from terrorist organizations to include threats to aviation. At no time were any intelligence sources or methods discussed and no military operations were disclosed that were not already known publicly." Tillerson commented that "the nature of specific threats were (sic) discussed, but they did not discuss sources, methods, or military operations." ..."
"... The media will no doubt be seeking to magnify the potential damage done while the White House goes into damage control mode. ..."
"... In this case, the intelligence shared with Lavrov appears to be related to specific ISIS threats, which may include planned operations against civilian aircraft, judging from Trump's characteristically after-hours tweets defending his behavior, as well as other reporting. ..."
"... The New York Times , in its own reporting of the story, initially stated that the information on ISIS did not come from an NSA or CIA operation, and later reported that the source was Israel. ..."
"... And President Trump has one more thing to think about. No matter what damage comes out of the Lavrov discussion, he has a bigger problem. There are apparently multiple leakers on his National Security Council. ..."
"... You have McMaster himself who categorically denies any exposure of sources and methods – he was there in person and witness to the talks – and a cloud of unknown witnesses not present speculating, without reference to McMaster or Tillerson's testimony, about what might have happened. This is the American Media in a nutshell, the Infinite Circle Jerk. ..."
"... I am more disturbed how this story got into the press. While, not an ally, I think we should in cooperation with other states. Because the Pres is not familiar with the protocols and language and I doubt any executive has been upon entering office, I have no doubt he may be reacting or overreacting to the overreaction of others. ..."
"... Here's a word. We have no business engaging n the overthrow of another government that is no threat to the US or her allies, and that includes Israel. Syria is not. And we should cease and desist getting further entangled in the messes of the previous executive, his Sec of State and those organizations who seem to e playing with the life blood of the US by engaging if unnecessary risks. ..."
"... And if I understand the crumbs given the data provided by the Post, the Times and this article, if one had ill will for the source of said information, they have pretty good idea where to start. ..."
"... In general I agree with you, but the media was NEVER concerned about the treatment of sensitive material from HRC! ..."
"... I think he needs to cut back on intelligence sharing with Israel. They do just what the hell they want to do with anything. ..."
Intelligence agencies and senior government officials tend to use a lot of jargon. Laced with acronyms, this language sometimes does
not translate very well into journalese when it hits the media.
For example, I experienced a sense of disorientation two weeks ago over the word "sensitive" as used by several senators, Sally
Yates, and James Clapper during committee testimony into Russiagate. "Sensitive" has, of course, a number of meanings. But what
astonished me was how quickly the media
interpreted its use in the hearings to mean that the conversations and emails that apparently were recorded or intercepted involving
Trump associates and assorted Russians as "sensitive contacts" meant that they were necessarily inappropriate, dangerous, or even
illegal.
When Yates and Clapper were using "sensitive" thirteen times in the
86 page transcript of the Senate hearings, they were referring to the medium rather than the message. They were both acknowledging
that the sources of the information were intelligence related, sometimes referred to as "sensitive" by intelligence professionals
and government insiders as a shorthand way to describe that they are "need to know" material derived from either classified "methods"
or foreign-liaison partners. That does not mean that the information contained is either good or bad or even true or false, but merely
a way of expressing that the information must be protected because of where it came from or how it was developed, hence the "sensitivity."
The word also popped up this week in a Washington Post
exclusive report alleging that the president had, in his recent meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, gone too
far while also suggesting that the source of a highly classified government program might be inferred from the context of what was
actually revealed. The Post describes how
The information Trump relayed had been provided by a U.S. partner through an intelligence-sharing arrangement considered so
sensitive that details have been withheld from allies and tightly restricted even within the U.S. government, officials said.
The partner had not given the United States permission to share the material with Russia, and officials said that Trump's decision
to do so risks cooperation from an ally that has access to the inner workings of the Islamic State.
The Post is unfortunately also providing ISIS with more information than it "needs to know" to make its story more
dramatic, further compromising the source. Furthermore, it should be understood that the paper is extremely hostile to Trump,
the story is as always based on anonymous sources, and the revelation comes on top of another unverifiable Post article claiming
that the Russians might have sought to sneak
a recording device into the White House during the visit.
No one is denying that the president discussed ISIS in some detail with Lavrov, but National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster and
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, both of whom were present at the meeting,
have denied that any sources or methods were revealed while reviewing with the Russians available intelligence. McMaster
described the report as "false" and
informed the Post that "The president and the foreign minister reviewed common threats from terrorist organizations to include threats to aviation.
At no time were any intelligence sources or methods discussed and no military operations were disclosed that were not already known
publicly." Tillerson commented that "the nature of specific threats were (sic) discussed, but they did not discuss sources, methods,
or military operations."
So the question becomes to what extent can an intelligence mechanism be identified from the information that it produces. That
is, to a certain extent, a judgment call. The president is able
on his own authority to declassify anything, so the legality of his sharing information with Russia cannot be challenged. What
is at question is the decision-making by an inexperienced president who may have been showing off to an important foreign visitor
by revealing details of intelligence that should have remained secret. The media will no doubt be seeking to magnify the potential
damage done while the White House goes into damage control mode.
The media is claiming that the specific discussion with Lavrov that is causing particular concern is related to a so-called
Special Access Program
, or SAP, sometimes referred to as "code word information." An SAP is an operation that generates intelligence that requires special
protection because of where or how it is produced. In this case, the intelligence shared with Lavrov appears to be related to
specific ISIS threats, which may include planned operations against civilian aircraft, judging from Trump's characteristically after-hours
tweets defending his behavior, as well as other reporting.
There have also been reports that the White House followed up on its Lavrov meeting with a routine review of what had taken place.
Several National Security Council members observed that some of the information shared with the Russians was far too sensitive to
disseminate within the U.S. intelligence community. This led to the placing of
urgent calls to NSA and CIA to brief them on what had been said.
Based on the recipients of the calls alone, one might surmise that the source of the information would appear to be either a foreign-intelligence
service or a technical collection operation, or even both combined. The Post claims that the originator of the intelligence
did not clear its sharing with the Russians and raises the possibility that no more information of that type will be provided at
all in light of the White House's apparent carelessness in its use. The New York Times , in its own reporting of the story,
initially
stated that the information on ISIS did not come from an NSA or CIA operation, and later reported that the source was Israel.
The Times is also reporting that Trump provided to Lavrov "granular" information on the city in Syria where the information
was collected that will possibly enable the Russians or ISIS to identify the actual source, with devastating consequences. That projection
may be overreach, but the fact is that the latest gaffe from the White House could well damage an important intelligence liaison
relationship in the Middle East while reinforcing the widely held impression that Washington does not know how to keep a secret.
It will also create the impression that Donald Trump, out of ignorance or hubris, exhibits a certain recklessness in his dealing
with classified information, a failing that he once attributed to his presidential opponent Hillary Clinton.
And President Trump has one more thing to think about. No matter what damage comes out of the Lavrov discussion, he has a
bigger problem. There are apparently multiple leakers on his National Security Council.
Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is executive director of the Council for the National Interest.
This article has been updated to reflect news developments.
" The latest gaffe from the White House could well damage an important intelligence liaison relationship in the Middle East
"
On the other hand, it also represents closer collaboration with Russia–even if unintended–which is an improvement on the status
quo ante and, not to mention, key to ending the conflict in Syria.
You have McMaster himself who categorically denies any exposure of sources and methods – he was there in person and witness
to the talks – and a cloud of unknown witnesses not present speculating, without reference to McMaster or Tillerson's testimony,
about what might have happened. This is the American Media in a nutshell, the Infinite Circle Jerk.
Out of my depth, but was Trump working within the framework, maybe a bit outside if the story is true, of the Joint Implementation
Group the Obama administration created last year with Russia?
Also, I recall reading that the prior administration promised Russia ISIS intel. Not sure if that ever happened, but I doubt
they'd have made it public or leak anything to the press.
I think it should go without saying that intelligence is a sensitive business and protecting those who operate in its murky
waters is important to having an effective agency.
Of course the Pres of the US has a duty to do so.
I have not yet read the post article. But I am doubtful that the executive had any intention of putting anyone in harms way.
I am equally doubtful that this incident will. If the executive made an error in judgement, I am sure it will be dealt wit in
an appropriate manner.
I do wish he'd stop tweeting, though I get why its useful to him.
I am more disturbed how this story got into the press. While, not an ally, I think we should in cooperation with other
states. Because the Pres is not familiar with the protocols and language and I doubt any executive has been upon entering office,
I have no doubt he may be reacting or overreacting to the overreaction of others.
Here's a word. We have no business engaging n the overthrow of another government that is no threat to the US or her allies,
and that includes Israel. Syria is not. And we should cease and desist getting further entangled in the messes of the previous
executive, his Sec of State and those organizations who seem to e playing with the life blood of the US by engaging if unnecessary
risks.
Just another brier brushfire of a single tumble weed to add to the others in the hope that setting fires in trashcans will
make the current exec go away or at least engage in a mea culpa and sign more checks in the mess that is the middle east policy
objective that remains a dead end.
__________
And if I understand the crumbs given the data provided by the Post, the Times and this article, if one had ill will for
the source of said information, they have pretty good idea where to start.
Politics is now directly endangering innocent civilians. Because of the leaks and its publication, ISIS for sure now knows that
there is an information leak out of their organization. They will now re-compartmentalize and may be successful in breaking that
information leak. Innocent airline passenger civilians, American, Russian, or whoever may die as a result. Russia and the US are
both fighting ISIS. We are de facto allies in that fight whether some people like it or not. Time to get over it.
Having read the article, uhhh, excuse me, but unlike personal secrets. The purpose of intel is to use to or keep on hand for some-other
date. But of that information is related to the security of our interests and certainly a cooperative relationship with Russia
is in our interest. Because in the convoluted fight with ISIS/ISIL, Russia is an ally.
What this belies is the mess of the intelligence community. If in fact, the Russians intend to take a source who provided information
that was helpful to them, it would be a peculiar twist of strategic action. The response does tell us that we are in some manner
in league with ISIS/ISIL or their supporters so deep that there is a need to protect them, from what is anybody's guess. Because
if the information is accurate, I doubt the Russians are going to about killing the source, but rather improving their airline
security.
But if we are in fact attempting to remove Pres Assad, and are in league with ISIS/ISIL in doing so - I get why the advocates
of such nonsense might be in a huff. So ISIS/ISISL our one time foe and now our sometimes friend . . .
Good greif . . .
Pres Trump is the least of muy concerns when it coes to security.
Philip, back on July 23, 2014, you explained in "How ISIS Evades the CIA" "the inability of the United States government to anticipate
the ISIS offensive that has succeeded in taking control of a large part of Iraq." You explained why the CIA had to date had no
success in infiltrating ISIS.
You continued: "Given U.S. intelligence's probable limited physical access to any actual terrorist groups operating in Syria
or Iraq any direct attempt to penetrate the organization through placing a source inside would be difficult in the extreme. Such
efforts would most likely be dependent on the assistance of friendly intelligence services in Turkey or Jordan. Both Turkey and
Jordan have reported that terrorists have entered their countries by concealing themselves in the large numbers of refugees that
the conflict in Syria has produced, and both are concerned as they understand full well that groups like ISIS will be targeting
them next. Some of the infiltrating adherents to radical groups have certainly been identified and detained by the respective
intelligence services of those two countries, and undoubtedly efforts have been made to 'turn' some of those in custody to send
them back into Syria (and more recently Iraq) to report on what is taking place. Depending on what arrangements might have been
made to coordinate the operations, the 'take' might well be shared with the United States and other friendly governments."
You then describe the difficulties faced by a Turkish or Jordanian agent trying to infiltrate ISIS: "But seeding is very much
hit or miss, as someone who has been out of the loop of his organization might have difficulty working his way back in. He will
almost certainly be regarded with some suspicion by his peers and would be searched and watched after his return, meaning that
he could not take back with him any sophisticated communications devices no matter how cleverly they are concealed. This would
make communicating any information obtained back to one's case officers in Jordan or Turkey difficult or even impossible."
Notwithstanding how "difficult or even impossible" such an operation would be - and using the New York Times as your only source
for a lot of otherwise completely unsubstantiated information – and admitting that "this is sheer speculation on my part" – you
say that "it is logical to assume that the countries that have provided numerous recruits for ISIS [Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia]
would have used that fact as cover to carry out a seeding operation to introduce some of their own agents into the ISIS organization."
Back to the New York Times as your only source, you say that "the Times is also reporting that Trump provided to Lavrov 'granular'
information on the city in Syria where the information was collected that will possibly enable the Russians or ISIS to identify
the actual source, with devastating consequences."
But having ventured into the far reaches of that line of speculation, you do admit that "that projection may be overreach."
Indeed!
You go on to characterize the events of the White House meeting with the Russians as "the latest gaffe from the White House"
– even though there is absolutely no evidence (outside of the unsubstantiated reports of the Washington Post and the New York
Times) that anything to do with the meeting was a "gaffe" – and you further speculate that "it could well damage an important
intelligence liaison relationship in the Middle East."
That is, again, pure speculation on your part.
One valuable lesson that you've taught TAC readers over the years, Philip: That we need to carefully examine the sources of
information – and the sources of dis-information.
Yet again from Giraldi: the problem isn't that the POTUS is ignorant and incompetent; we should all be more concerned that the
Deep State is leaking the proof.
Trump has now essentially confirmed the story from the Post and contradicted the denials from McMaster – he shared specific intelligence
to demonstrate his willingness to work with the Russians. Moreover, it seems that Israel was the ally that provided this intelligence.
The author and others will defend this, but I can only see this as a reckless and impulsive decision that only causes Russia and
our allies to trust the US less.
"... o start with, again, this is from the Washington Post and an unnamed source. So you do have to doubt the accuracy of the information knowing the vendetta the Washington Post and other mainstream media have against the Trump administration and against President Trump personally and how much they want to disrupt any kind of cooperation with Russia against the terrorist threat. ..."
"... There is a whole structure of what people call the 'Deep State' establishment, the oligarchy – whatever you want to call it. Of course, the mainstream media is part of this. It includes all the Democrats, who were very easy on the Soviet Union when it was Communist. But now that it is not Communist under Russia, they have a deep, very deep hatred of Russia, and they don't want any kind of rapprochement with Russia. ..."
"... Let's not play the game of dividing the so-called mainstream media from its owners. The mainstream media of the US is owned lock, stock, and barrel by the military industrial complex. If you want to call it anything, you can call it the 'military media.' The military makes money by making war; they buy the media to promote war. They use the media to promote propaganda in favor of war. And that is where we get into the mess we're in today. Because we have a president who is a businessman and would prefer to make money, and would prefer to put people to work in any industry other than war. The military industrial media in the United States is depending on being able to speak to a captive audience of uninformed viewers The military controls the media because they own them. ..."
There are elements of the 'Deep State' here who are very opposed to the things Donald Trump said
during the campaign. They don't want to cooperate with Russia, Jim Jatras, former US diplomat, told
RT.
Political analyst John Bosnitch joins the discussion. US President Trump said his White House
meeting last week with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov ranged from airline safety to terrorism.
A Washington Post story, however, has accused the American leader of revealing classified information
to Russian officials.
RT: What's your take on it? Is the media on to something big here?
Jim Jatras: To start with, again, this is from the Washington Post and an unnamed source. So you
do have to doubt the accuracy of the information knowing the vendetta the Washington Post and other
mainstream media have against the Trump administration and against President Trump personally and
how much they want to disrupt any kind of cooperation with Russia against the terrorist threat. I
would say that was the first thing.
Second, as Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Deputy of National Security Adviser Dina Powell,
who were both in the meeting, have stated since the Washington Post article appeared – there was
nothing discussed with Mr. [Sergey] Lavrov and Mr. [Sergey] Kislyak that compromised what they call "sources and methods"
that would lead to any kind of intelligence vulnerability on the part
of the US. But rather this was all part of a discussion of common action against ISIS. Those are
the first things to be noted
Let's remember that there are elements of what we call the 'Deep State' here who are
very opposed to the things Donald Trump said during the campaign. They don't want to cooperate with
the Russians; they don't want improved relations with Moscow. And let's be honest, they have a very
strong investment in the various jihadist groups that we have supported for the past six years trying
to overthrow the legitimate government in Damascus. I am sure there are people – maybe in the National
Security Council, maybe in the Staff, maybe in the State Department – who are finding some way to
try and discredit the Trump administration. The question is where is the investigation into these
leaks? Who is going to hold these people accountable?
RT: The mainstream media is going on little more than 'anonymous sources.' Could it have a
hidden agenda here?
JJ: Of course. In fact, I would even go further. I wouldn't be at all surprised if President Trump
timed his firing with the FBI Director James Comey – what some people even pointed out – he himself
in one of his tweets says "drain the swamp." One of the first elements was getting rid of
the principals of the Deep State who have been trying to hijack his policy; that he did this precisely
because he was meeting with Mr. Lavrov and Mr. Kislyak the next day. He's shoving it in their face,
saying: "I am moving forward with my program." And I think that's the reason we're getting
this hysteria building around the Russians, the Russians, the Russians when what we need is to move
forward on an America First national security policy.
'US policy today: Aircraft, where co-pilots try to override pilots' (Op-Edge)
https://t.co/x153yPtqVS
RT: Do you think mainstream media is a part of something big and controlled all over from
the top?
JJ: Absolutely. There is a whole structure of what people call the 'Deep State' establishment,
the oligarchy – whatever you want to call it. Of course, the mainstream media is part of this. It
includes all the Democrats, who were very easy on the Soviet Union when it was Communist. But now
that it is not Communist under Russia, they have a deep, very deep hatred of Russia, and they don't
want any kind of rapprochement with Russia.
And unfortunately, there are Republicans who sympathize
with this agenda, as well. I think we can say at this point that Mr. Trump is only partially in control
of the apparatus of government. He does not yet have complete control and that there is a frantic
effort by these elements to make sure he is not able to get control of the American government
and carry out the policies he talked about.
The mainstream media of the US is owned lock, stock, and barrel by the military industrial complex.
If you want to call it anything, you can call it the 'military media,' John Bosnitch , political
analyst, told RT.
RT: The media has run with this. Are they on to something big here?
John Bosnitch: I wouldn't say so. I've worked in this field for three decades. I don't see a scrap
of evidence here. But I do see like a shark tank of media feeding – no evidence.
RT: Trump attacked Hillary Clinton as being unreliable with state secrets. Can the same now
be said of him?
JB: Trump is the chief executive officer of the United States of America. As the chief executive
officer of the country, he has full legal and constitutional authority to use state secrets in the
conduct of diplomacy. He's also the chief diplomat of the country. So there is a big difference between
the chief executive officer deciding what information he can share in conducting of state policy,
and Hillary Clinton deciding as a cabinet minister which laws she chooses to obey, and which ones
she doesn't.
RT: The mainstream media is going on little more than 'anonymous sources'... could it have
a hidden agenda here?
JB: I don't see any other possibility, whatsoever. Let's not play the game of dividing the so-called
mainstream media from its owners. The mainstream media of the US is owned lock, stock, and barrel
by the military industrial complex. If you want to call it anything, you can call it the 'military
media.' The military makes money by making war; they buy the media to promote war. They use the media
to promote propaganda in favor of war. And that is where we get into the mess we're in today. Because
we have a president who is a businessman and would prefer to make money, and would prefer to put
people to work in any industry other than war. The military industrial media in the United States
is depending on being able to speak to a captive audience of uninformed viewers The military controls
the media because they own them.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and
do not necessarily represent those of RT.
Afghan war is actually Afghanistan occupation with some insurgency, not a war...
Notable quotes:
"... civilian control of the military, and of the policymaking process that goes with military action, is not just a constitutional imperative but desirable for thoroughly practical reasons. Which, in turn, is why the makeup of the current administration - with an unprecedented number of generals in key positions - raises some serious questions. ..."
"... And yet the problem is so much bigger than that. Somehow - and this should be truly unnerving - Americans have gotten to a place where, it seems, they trust only ..."
"... Where the nation puts its money both reflects this reality and aggravates it. Consider that in this fiscal year military spending exceeded $600 billion, or 12 times the State Department's budget. Worse still, the new president's proposed budget would cut State by more than one-third - despite former Secretary of Defense Bob Gates's quip that there are already more members of military bands than Foreign Service officers. ..."
"... MacArthur in Korea ..."
"... Ike vs. the Generals ..."
"... Kennedy and the Joint Chiefs Deal With Cuba ..."
"... The Generals Grapple With Southeast Asia ..."
"... our nation turned its lonely eyes to him ..."
"... Before he used his new troops to launch his first major offensive into largely Taliban-controlled, opium-poppy-rich Helmand Province in southern Afghanistan, McChyrstal proudly announced that he not only had a military force ready to go, but "a government in a box, ready to roll in," too. Seven years later, with more American soldiers once again being sent back into Helmand Province and the Taliban ascendant in significant parts of it, can there be any question how badly McChrystal's strategy failed? Today, in fact, more of Afghanistan is under Taliban control than at any time since 2001. As retired army colonel and Professor Gregory Daddis observed , "Looking back, the logic flaws become clear." After all, Daddis continued, "how could counterinsurgents provide security if the population too often saw U.S. soldiers as 'anti-bodies' invading their body politic?" ..."
"... After much positive and often fawning news coverage in the wake of his recent Tomahawk missile strike in Syria, it's hard to imagine that the president won't grant the generals' wishes. In fact, he has already reportedly turned over decision-making on U.S. troop levels in Syria and Iraq to them. And yet it should be obvious enough that more of the same, without even the semblance of credible alternatives or dissenting voices, is an innovation-stifling loser of an option. Fifteen years later, it doesn't take a genius to know that something about U.S. strategy hasn't been and isn't working . ..."
"... Civilian policymakers haven't always been right, but since World War II, the generals have the weaker (and far more hair-raising) record. ..."
"... Republics are imperiled when a military caste diverges from civil society. Despite the glowing (if shallow) praise heaped on America's all-volunteer force, it is increasingly distant from the population in whose name it theoretically fights. ..."
"... What's the purpose of this all-powerful US military? To transform much of the world into a simulacrum of a semi-religious Anglo-Celtic Israel-worshiper? Or turn the people of the world into a mass of secular hedonist consumerist debtors in servitude to the banks? The Soviet Union is long dead and every POTUS since 9/11 has said how much we all have to love Islam except for a tiny band of fanatics. ..."
"... So what is all the fuss about and why are we worshiping the military? ..."
I was guilty of it myself.
Commanding a small cavalry troop of about 85 soldiers in southwest Kandahar Province back in
2011, I certainly wanted and requested more: more troopers, more Special Forces advisers, more Afghan
police, more air support, more supplies, more money, more everything. Like so many others in Afghanistan
back then, I wanted whatever resources would protect the guys in my unit and fend off the insurgent
threat. No one, of course, asked me if the U.S. military should even be there, nor did I presume
to raise the question. I was, after all, just a captain dug into a tough fight in a dangerous district.
It's funny, though, people sometimes ask me now, "What's really going on in Afghanistan?" They
ask the same question about Iraq, where I
led a unit back in 2006-2007.
I mean, the implication is: If you served over there, unlike those (liberal!) pundits and politicians
who regularly mouth off on the subject, who would know better? But I've learned over the years that
what they don't want to hear is my real answer to such questions, so I rarely bother to tell them
that historians, analysts, and thoughtful critics, even ones who haven't been within thousands of
miles of our war zones, probably understand the "big picture" better than most soldiers.
That's the dirty little secret of America's wars: despite the omniscient claims of some veterans,
most soldiers see their version of war as if gazing through a straw at 30,000 feet. Combat and dedication
to your unit and mission naturally steer you toward such tunnel vision. And here's the sad thing
that no one wants to admit: that mantra applies as strongly to generals as to sergeants (and if you
don't believe that, just check out our wars of the last 15 years). So it's worrisome when president
after president defers to and all too often hides behind the supposed wisdom of active and retired
three- and four-star flag officers.
Don't get me wrong, some of these guys can be impressive. No one is perfect, but former Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs General Martin Dempsey was a gem with genuine scholarly and combat
bona fides . But consider him and a few others the exceptions that prove the rule. Which is why
civilian control of the military, and of the policymaking process that goes with military action,
is not just a constitutional imperative but desirable for thoroughly practical reasons. Which, in
turn, is why the makeup of the current administration - with an
unprecedented number of generals in key positions - raises some serious questions.
And yet the problem is so much bigger than that. Somehow - and this should be truly unnerving
- Americans have gotten to a place where, it seems, they trust only soldiers. In June 2016,
for instance, a Gallup
poll found
that 73% of Americans had "quite a lot" of confidence in the military, versus 36% for the presidency
and 6% for Congress. Such disparities ought to inspire distress about the direction of our public
institutions, but rarely do.
Where the nation puts its money both reflects this reality and aggravates it. Consider that in
this fiscal year military spending
exceeded $600 billion, or 12 times the State Department's budget. Worse still, the new president's
proposed budget would cut State by more than one-third - despite former Secretary of Defense
Bob Gates's
quip that there are already more members of military bands than Foreign Service officers.
The Myth of (Infallible) Military Judgment
By now, it's part of American lore that, facing a thorny problem or potential conflict abroad,
a president should throw some stars at it. If only generals were indeed pixie dust. Historically
speaking, though, since World War II, calling on the generals has often resulted in abject failure.
There's plenty of evidence of that in the last 15 years of, at best, inconclusive war in the Greater
Middle East, but first, let's take a brief tour of military advice from the previous century's crises.
MacArthur in Korea
In October 1950, just months after the Korean War began, President Harry Truman met General Douglas
MacArthur, commander of the coalition forces in Korea, on Wake Island. There, MacArthur
assured
the president of two things: that the Chinese would not intervene in the war and that the fighting
would be over by Christmas. A month later, hundreds of thousands of Chinese "volunteers" streamed
across the Yalu River into northern Korea, sending MacArthur's troops into headlong retreat. Wrong
once, the general promptly called for a massive U.S. troop escalation and the bombing of China, perhaps
even nuclear attacks on that country. Truman recoiled, fired the general, and opened negotiations,
all while avoiding nuclear war. And what happened to the twice-wrong MacArthur? In April 1951, with
the war still underway - an armistice wouldn't finally come until July 1953 - he
received a record-breaking 19-mile-long ticker-tape parade through New York City in which
3,249 tons of paper rained down on him.
Ike vs. the Generals
President Dwight Eisenhower so loved the Army that he
asked his successor to return him to his five-star rank. That way he'd be addressed as "General"
rather than "Mr. President" in retirement. Yet no president was more dismissive of the notion that
military men, rather than civilians, know what's best. When a senator contended that the Air Force
was better positioned than politicians to assess its own needs, Ike
snapped back, "Bunk!" (He knew the Pentagon regularly overstated its case.) As for sage military
advice, Eisenhower
dismissed General Mark Clark's plans for an all-out assault in Korea as "madness" and
sacked all his service chiefs after they "revolted" over a truncated defense budget he proposed.
The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Arthur Radford, even
hinted that it might be "high time" to reexamine the taboo against using nuclear weapons in that
war. Despite significant saber-rattling, Ike ultimately chose restraint.
In fact, he was notoriously skeptical of his generals' advice and left office famously
warning Americans about a growing "military-industrial complex." The result of his presidency:
the commanding general and hero of World War II held down defense spending, never used nukes, ended
the bloody stalemate of a war in Korea, and - most importantly - avoided World War III.
Kennedy and the Joint Chiefs Deal With Cuba
The U.S. high command, like much of the American public, was obsessed with newly Communist Cuba.
In April 1961, after the Bay of Pigs, a disastrous CIA-sponsored invasion by Cuban émigrés, the generals
proposed a new plan
, Operation Northwoods. Approved by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, it called for false-flag terrorist
attacks on émigrés in Miami or on U.S. ships off the coast to drum up public support for a war
against Cuba. President John F. Kennedy refused.
Soon after came the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, which brought humanity as close to extinction as
it's ever come. When U.S. intelligence learned that the Soviet Union had stationed nuclear missiles
on that island, just 90 miles from Florida, the government entered full-scale panic mode. During
deliberations on how to proceed, the Joint Chiefs - to a man -
recommended air strikes against Cuba and a possible follow-on invasion. Later, in a memo, they
declared that they were prepared to
use "nuclear weapons for limited war operations in the Cuban area."
Instead, Kennedy chose a blockade and negotiations. The Russians responded by pulling their missiles
out of Cuba and humankind lived to fight another day. After one of those meetings, Kennedy
remarked to an aide, "These brass hats [generals and admirals] have one great advantage. If we
do what they want us to do, none of us will be alive later to tell them that they were wrong." Deeply
disturbed by the advice of the Chiefs during the Cuban Missile Crisis, Kennedy later
confided to some White House guests that "the first thing I'm going to tell my successor is to
watch the generals, and to avoid feeling that just because they were military men, their opinions
on military matters were worth a damn."
The Generals Grapple With Southeast Asia
In April 1961, the Joint Chiefs recommended that President Kennedy intervene to stop a "North
Vietnamese-sponsored" Communist offensive in Laos through the use of air strikes and the introduction
of U.S. ground forces in that country. When Kennedy
asked the military chiefs what to do if the North Vietnamese Communists bombed Laotian airports
as the U.S. flew in troops, one
replied : "You [drop] a bomb on Hanoi, and you start using atomic weapons!" In fact, Army General
Lyman Lemnitzer
assured the president that "if we are given the right to use nuclear weapons, we can guarantee
victory." Kennedy ruled against his generals on both counts.
Nevertheless, Kennedy and then President Lyndon Johnson foolishly agreed to escalate U.S. involvement
in Vietnam. In that war, admittedly, civilian policymakers were often the chief villains. However,
the generals were anything but blameless. In 1967, as U.S. casualties increased and many Americans
began to question the country's involvement in the conflict, the senior commander, General William
Westmoreland,
assured
Congress that there was, in a phrase that became infamous, "light at the end of the tunnel."
When Vietcong guerillas attacked nearly every American base in South Vietnam in the January 1968
Tet Offensive, he had only one answer, a solution once again all-too-familiar to twenty-first-century
Americans: more. He
requested
206,000 additional U.S. troops on top of the half-million-plus already in Vietnam. President
Johnson balked and began negotiations with North Vietnam. It took - tragically - seven more bloody
years, but eventually U.S. troops were extracted from what a near
consensus of credible historians now conclude was an "unwinnable" war.
These examples obviously don't imply that no general ever gave solid advice or that civilians
weren't perfectly capable of concocting their own hare-brained war-making schemes. Rather, the point
is to deflate - just a bit - the present all-too-popular notion of American military infallibility,
or at least superiority.
It's dangerous to deify any public institution, let alone the country's bureau of violence. That's
not, in itself, a knock at the military to which I've dedicated my adult life, but a basic recognition
of the gravity of all martial exertions. No government agency is so holy that it shouldn't be scrutinized,
not in a real democracy. Yet American society is headed in that very direction, along with its new
president. On Inauguration Day, finding himself in a crowded room with all the generals he had appointed
to key positions in his administration around him, he
declared emphatically, "I see my generals, generals that are going to keep us so safe."
We usually imagine the threat of military control over decision-making as an aspect of opaque
autocracies, but it can also stem from the excessive exultation of a "warrior" class in a democracy.
Consider the chilling
comments of White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer after a
controversial raid in Yemen in January left Ryan Owens, a Navy SEAL, several al-Qaeda fighters,
and a number of civilians,
as well as several children,
dead .
Spicer took umbrage after a number of people, including the notoriously hawkish, wildly pro-military,
former POW Senator John McCain,
questioned the operation's value. The press secretary's statement, however, went beyond standard
partisan defensiveness and into genuinely treacherous territory when he asserted that "anyone who
would suggest [the raid] is not a success does disservice to the life of Chief Ryan Owens." That
represents a new standard for public debate on military operations. Think of the implications: if
a single serviceman dies, then all critical scrutiny of such actions is off the table, being by its
very nature disrespectful and unpatriotic. Taken to its logical conclusion, such an approach would
leave no room for public protest or even the vestiges of an antiwar movement in response to future
American war making.
Lest anyone imagine that Spicer simply misspoke, President Trump promptly upped the ante. He
tweeted : "Sen. McCain should not be talking about the success or failure of a mission to the
media. Only emboldens the enemy our hero died on a winning mission." Take a moment to let that sink
in: to question the effectiveness of a raid in a country with which the U.S. is not at war, which
resulted in multiple military and civilian deaths - even when the critic is the Republican chairman
of the Senate Armed Services committee - should now be considered "emboldening" the enemy. Somebody
pinch me.
Generally, however, that raid led mainly to endless praise for both Chief Petty Officer Owens
and the U.S. military. In fact, no matter the situation, the carnage involved, or the decision-making
behind it, the rhetoric of praise for America's "warriors" has
become a commonplace of our national life.
In fact, we military professionals ought to be confident enough to weather genuine scrutiny of
both our decision-making and our acts. The danger is this: while we're caught up in the countless
"
thanks-for-your-service " platitudes, upgraded airline seating, ever larger flags flying o'er
sporting events, and other forms of hollow soldier-worship and militarized "patriotism," the nation
may be losing something precious: the right to dissent.
Bogus "Options"
In nearly every recent instance when military commanders were asked for a strategy review, the
response was the same. What was needed, swore the generals repeatedly, were more troops, more airstrikes,
more bases, more money, and more time. A rare exception to this litany of more came from former Joint
Chiefs Chairman Dempsey who laid out not just the options, but also the potential
costs of a Syrian intervention.
Presidents deserve and require such real options. Too often, however, especially in this country's
15-year "war on terror" across the Greater Middle East and parts of Africa, senior military leaders
have failed to present plausible, achievable choices to the commander-in-chief. Nearly all of them
have proved to be "more" guys.
Consider, for instance, Afghanistan in 2009. Things had been going poorly indeed in what was already
an eight-year-old war. And so our nation turned its lonely eyes to him - General Stanley
McChrystal, a special operator fresh off a tour tracking down and killing al-Qaeda in Iraq's leadership,
including Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
Asked to conduct a "strategic review" and present Barack Obama with military options in Afghanistan,
McChrystal instead
offered
the new president a
Goldilocks dilemma. He submitted what were, in essence, three versions of the same option: surge
big, surge little, or surge just right. Those "options" failed the Army's own doctrinal course of
action test
- solutions must be suitable, feasible, acceptable, and distinguishable. Since all three of McChrystal's
choices involved counterinsurgency and troop escalation, they were hardly distinguishable.
Instead, they did what they were meant to do and boxed the young president into an escalatory
corner, a "more" decision being not just the commander's favored but only course of action. Obama
grumbled and then sent McChrystal his reinforcements. It sounded like
Iraq 2006-2007 all over again.
Only this time - the president and Americans more generally were assured - the ensuing surge would
be even better, involving a supposedly comprehensive, interagency approach to the Afghan War.
Before he used his new troops to
launch his first major offensive into largely Taliban-controlled, opium-poppy-rich Helmand Province
in southern Afghanistan, McChyrstal proudly
announced
that he not only had a military force ready to go, but "a government in a box, ready to roll in,"
too. Seven years later, with more American soldiers once again being
sent back into Helmand Province and the Taliban
ascendant in significant parts of it, can there be any question how badly McChrystal's strategy
failed? Today, in fact, more of Afghanistan is under Taliban
control than at any time since 2001. As retired army colonel and Professor Gregory Daddis
observed , "Looking back, the logic flaws become clear." After all, Daddis continued, "how could
counterinsurgents provide security if the population too often saw U.S. soldiers as 'anti-bodies'
invading their body politic?"
Perhaps at this point it won't surprise you to learn that two civilians on the Obama team - Vice
President Joseph Biden
and U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan (as well as ex-lieutenant general) Karl
Eikenberry - doubted from the start the U.S. military's ability to impose an external solution
on Afghans via such a surge. They were ignored. After all, who knows better than the guys overseeing
the actual fighting?
Which raises the question: How will the Trump administration's generals, now in crucial government
positions, counsel the president regarding Syria, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Yemen, and North Korea? Predictions
are always a dicey matter, but recent history suggests that we can expect military escalation, which
already seems to be
underway in at least three of those countries. More , after all, remains the option
of choice for America's generals almost 70 years after MacArthur went head to head with his president
over Korea.
What then is to be expected when it comes to the conflict with ISIS in Iraq, the complex, multi-faceted
Syrian civil war, and America's longest war of all in Afghanistan? All signs point to more of the
same. Open up a newspaper or check out a relevant website and you'll find, for example, that U.S.
Afghan commander General John Nicholson
wants a new mini-surge of American troops dispatched into that country, while the U.S. commander
in the fight against ISIS, General Stephen Townsend, may
require yet more ground troops to "win" in Iraq and Syria.
After much
positive and often
fawning news coverage in the wake of his recent Tomahawk missile strike in Syria, it's hard to
imagine that the president won't grant the generals' wishes. In fact, he has already reportedly
turned over decision-making on U.S. troop levels in Syria and Iraq to them. And yet it should
be obvious enough that more
of the same, without even the semblance of credible alternatives or dissenting voices, is an innovation-stifling
loser of an option. Fifteen years later, it doesn't take a genius to know that something about U.S.
strategy hasn't been and
isn't working .
The Choice
So, isn't it well past time for the generals and civilian leaders to ask the obvious question:
Does the U.S. even have the ability to improve such societies via military power? These days, unfortunately,
such thinking rings heretical to martial ears. Yet not to raise such questions is to ensure that
Americans will experience a kind of endless déjŕ vu in their wars.
What this country needs right now are civilian leaders who think strategically, exude confidence,
and aren't afraid to challenge military advice. Appropriate respect for senior servicemen shouldn't
mean either impulsive adulation or timid apprehension. Civilian policymakers haven't always been
right, but since World War II, the generals have the weaker (and far more hair-raising) record.
Republics are imperiled when a military caste diverges from civil society. Despite the glowing
(if shallow) praise heaped on America's all-volunteer force, it is increasingly
distant from the population in whose name it theoretically fights.
For those of us still in uniform, thoughtlessly soldiering on may sound both stalwart and romantic,
but it rarely amounts to a sagacious strategy. Don't take my word for it, consider the climactic
scene in Once an Eagle , a legendary novel within the American officer corps and long a
staple on every general's recommended professional reading list. This highly
touted , if
ill-understood
, book ends as its protagonist, an aged, decorated general, slowly dies from wounds inflicted
by a Vietnamese "terrorist" bomber. Gasping his final breath, the old soldier dispenses his last
pearl of wisdom to a junior officer: "Remember, Joey, if it comes to a choice between being a good
soldier and a good human being - try to be a good human being "
In war, as in much else, there's often wisdom in abstention. And when it comes to war, sometimes
less is more.
Major Danny Sjursen, a
TomDispatch regular
, is a U.S. Army strategist and former history instructor at West Point. He served tours
with reconnaissance units in Iraq and Afghanistan. He has written a memoir and critical analysis
of the Iraq War,
Ghost
Riders of Baghdad: Soldiers, Civilians, and the Myth of the Surge . He lives with his wife
and four sons near Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.
[ Note: The views expressed in this article are those of the author, expressed in an unofficial
capacity, and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department
of Defense, or the U.S. government.]
fnn says: May 12, 2017 at 1:24 am GMT • 100 Words
What's the purpose of this all-powerful US military? To transform much of the world
into a simulacrum of a semi-religious Anglo-Celtic Israel-worshiper? Or turn the people of the
world into a mass of secular hedonist consumerist debtors in servitude to the banks? The
Soviet Union is long dead and every POTUS since 9/11 has said how much we all have to love
Islam except for a tiny band of fanatics.
So what is all the fuss about and why are we worshiping the military?
"... Whether Russia was involved in the US elections or not, is a matter of pure speculation. But speculation is not sufficient grounds for appointing a special prosecutor, nor are the lies and misinformation that appear daily in our leading newspapers, like the dissembling New York Times, the dissembling Washington Post and the dissembling Wall Street Journal. The call for a special prosecutor is not based on evidence, it is based on politics, the politics of personal destruction. ..."
"... And that's precisely what the special prosecutor provision is designed to do; it provides the administration's rivals with the weapons they need to conduct a massive fishing expedition aimed at character assassination and, ultimately, impeachment. ..."
"... Donald Trump had the audacity to win an election that was earmarked for establishment favorite and globalist warmonger-in-chief, Hillary Clinton. That's what this witch hunt is all about, sour grapes. ..."
"... But why has Russia been chosen as the target in this deep state-media scam? What has Russia done to deserve all the negative press and unsupported claims of criminal meddling? ..."
"... That's easy. Just look at a map. For the last 16 years, the US has been rampaging across North Africa, the Middle East and Central Asia. Washington intends to control critical oil and natural gas reserves in the ME, establish military bases across Central Asia, and remain the dominant player in an area of that is set to become the most populous and prosperous region of the world. It's the Great Game all over again, only this time-around, Uncle Sam is in the drivers seat not the Queen of England. But one country has upset that plan, blocked that plan, derailed that plan. Russia. ..."
"... For the last quarter of a century– since the fall of the Berlin Wall and the dissolution of the Soviet Union– the world has been Washington's oyster. If the president of the United States wanted to invade a country in the Middle East, kill a million people, and leave the place in a smoldering pile of rubble, then who could stop him? Nobody. But now that's all changed. Now evil Putin has thrown up a roadblock to US hegemony in Syria and Ukraine. Now Washington's landbridge to Central Asia has been split in two, and its plan to control vital pipeline corridors from Qatar to the EU is no longer viable. Russia has stopped Washington dead-in-its tracks and Washington is furious. ..."
"... The anti-Russia hysteria in the western media is equal to the pain the US foreign policy establishment is currently experiencing. And the reason the foreign policy establishment is in so much pain, is because they are not getting their way. It's that simple. Their global strategy is in a shambles because Russia will not let them topple the Syrian government, install their own puppet regime, redraw the map of the Middle East, run roughshod over international law, and tighten their grip on another battered war-torn part of the world. ..."
"... So now Russia must pay. Putin must be demonized and derided. The American people must be taught to hate Russia and all-things Russian. ..."
"... Russia has become the all-purpose punching bag because Washington's plans for global domination have gone up in smoke. ..."
There's no proof that Russia hacked the US elections. There's no proof that Russian officials
or Russian agents colluded with members of the Trump campaign.
There's no proof that Russia provided material support of any kind for the Trump campaign or that
Russian agents hacked Hillary Clinton's emails or that Russian officials provided Wikileaks with
emails that were intended to sabotage Hillary's chances to win the election.
So far, no one in any of the 17 US intelligence agencies has stepped forward and verified the
claims of Russian meddling or produced a scintilla of hard evidence that Russia was in anyway involved
in the 2016 elections.
No proof means no proof. It means that the people and organizations that are making these uncorroborated
claims have no basis for legal action, no presumption of wrongdoing, and no grounds for prosecution.
They have nothing. Zilch. Their claims, charges and accusations are like the soap bubbles we give
to our children and grandchildren. The brightly-colored bubbles wobble across the sky for a minute
or two and then, Poof, they vanish into the ether. The claims of Russia hacking are like these bubbles.
They are empty, unsubstantiated rumors completely devoid of substance. Poof.
It has been eight months since the inception of this unprecedentedly-pathetic and infinitely-irritating
propaganda campaign, and in those eight months neither the media nor the politicos nor the Intel
agents who claim to be certain that Russia meddled in US elections, have produced anything that even
remotely resembles evidence. Instead, they have trotted out the same lie over and over again ad nauseam
from every newspaper, every tabloid and every televised news program in the country. Over and over
and over again. The media's persistence is nearly as impressive as its cynicism, which is the one
quality that they seem to have mastered. The coverage has been relentless, ubiquitous, pernicious
and mendacious. The only problem is that there's not a grain of truth to any of it. It is all 100
percent, unalloyed baloney.
So it doesn't matter how many Democratic senators and congressmen disgrace themselves by lighting
their hair on fire and howling about "evil Putin" or the imaginary "threats to our precious democracy".
Nor does it matter how many hyperbolic articles appear in media alleging sinister activities and
espionage by diabolical Moscow Central. It doesn't matter because there is have absolutely zero solid
evidence to support their ludicrous and entirely politically-motivated claims.
Whether Russia was involved in the US elections or not, is a matter of pure speculation. But
speculation is not sufficient grounds for appointing a special prosecutor, nor are the lies and misinformation
that appear daily in our leading newspapers, like the dissembling New York Times, the dissembling
Washington Post and the dissembling Wall Street Journal. The call for a special prosecutor is not
based on evidence, it is based on politics, the politics of personal destruction. The Democrats
and the media want this tool so they can rummage through whatever private information or paperwork
anyone in the Trump administration might possess. So while they might not dig up anything relevant
to the Russia hacking investigation, they will certainly gather enough sordid or suspicious information
to annihilate the people in their crosshairs. And that's precisely what the special prosecutor
provision is designed to do; it provides the administration's rivals with the weapons they need to
conduct a massive fishing expedition aimed at character assassination and, ultimately, impeachment.
But, why?
Because Donald Trump had the audacity to win an election that was earmarked for establishment
favorite and globalist warmonger-in-chief, Hillary Clinton. That's what this witch hunt is all about,
sour grapes.
But why has Russia been chosen as the target in this deep state-media scam? What has Russia
done to deserve all the negative press and unsupported claims of criminal meddling?
That's easy. Just look at a map. For the last 16 years, the US has been rampaging across North
Africa, the Middle East and Central Asia. Washington intends to control critical oil and natural
gas reserves in the ME, establish military bases across Central Asia, and remain the dominant player
in an area of that is set to become the most populous and prosperous region of the world. It's the
Great Game all over again, only this time-around, Uncle Sam is in the drivers seat not the Queen
of England. But one country has upset that plan, blocked that plan, derailed that plan. Russia.
Russia has stopped Washington's murderous marauding and genocidal depredations in Ukraine and
Syria, which is why the US foreign policy establishment is so pissed-off. US elites aren't used to
obstacles.
For the last quarter of a century– since the fall of the Berlin Wall and the dissolution of
the Soviet Union– the world has been Washington's oyster. If the president of the United States wanted
to invade a country in the Middle East, kill a million people, and leave the place in a smoldering
pile of rubble, then who could stop him? Nobody. But now that's all changed. Now evil Putin has thrown
up a roadblock to US hegemony in Syria and Ukraine. Now Washington's landbridge to Central Asia has
been split in two, and its plan to control vital pipeline corridors from Qatar to the EU is no longer
viable. Russia has stopped Washington dead-in-its tracks and Washington is furious.
The anti-Russia hysteria in the western media is equal to the pain the US foreign policy establishment
is currently experiencing. And the reason the foreign policy establishment is in so much pain, is
because they are not getting their way. It's that simple. Their global strategy is in a shambles
because Russia will not let them topple the Syrian government, install their own puppet regime, redraw
the map of the Middle East, run roughshod over international law, and tighten their grip on another
battered war-torn part of the world.
So now Russia must pay. Putin must be demonized and derided. The American people must be taught
to hate Russia and all-things Russian. And, most of all, Russia must be blamed for anything and everything
under the sun, including the firing of police-state Reichsführer, James Comey, who -- at various times
in his career -- "approved or defended some of the worst abuses of the Bush administration .including
torture , warrantless wiretapping,
and indefinite detention." (ACLU)
This is the ethically-challenged scalawag the Democrats are now defending tooth in nail. It's pathetic.
Russia has become the all-purpose punching bag because Washington's plans for global domination
have gone up in smoke. The truth is, Putin's done us all a big favor.
"... The US reaction is prima facie out of sync with President Donald Trump's world view, which he has articulated repeatedly – namely, that it is not the business of the United States to be prescriptive toward other countries on how they ought to handle their domestic issues. ..."
"... "do not transfer into an obligation to violate its own law." ..."
he Russian-American relationship received a jolt after Washington took exception to the Kremlin's
handling of protesters in many Russian cities, including Moscow, at the weekend.
The US state department's acting spokesman, Mark Toner, told the Russian state news agency TASS
in Washington that the US condemned the arrest of the demonstrators – who were protesting against
endemic corruption in Russian politics – and demanded that they be released. TASS quoted him as follows:
"The United States strongly condemns the detention of hundreds of peaceful protesters throughout
Russia on Sunday. Detaining peaceful protesters, human rights observers, and journalists is an
affront to core democratic values. We were troubled to hear of the arrest of opposition figure
Alexei Navalny upon arrival at the demonstration, as well as the police raids on the anti-corruption
organization he heads. The United States will monitor this situation, and we call on the government
of Russia to immediately release all peaceful protesters."
The US reaction is prima facie out of sync with President Donald Trump's world view, which
he has articulated repeatedly – namely, that it is not the business of the United States to be prescriptive
toward other countries on how they ought to handle their domestic issues.
How far the Trump administration has consciously decided to champion Navalny's political platform,
as Barack Obama's administration did, is unclear. More likely, it is holding a can of worms that
it has yet to figure out what to do with. Besides, Obama-era holdovers are very much still present
in Trump's administration, especially in the foreign policy and intelligence establishment, and they
set the pace of day-to-day work.
Navalny is a prominent Russian opposition figure. He has been lionized in the US, although the
Moscow establishment brands him as an agent of foreign powers. Indeed, Radio Liberty & Free Europe,
which is US government-funded, has disseminated podcasts espousing Navalny's appeal to the Russian
public and highlighting alleged corruption by high state officials. Navalny's main target in recent
times has been Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev, who is a close associate of Putin. What needs to be
factored in here is that Russia is also heading for a presidential election in March next year.
To be sure, there is more to these matters than meets the eye. Such intrusive behaviour by the
US in Russia's domestic politics has been deeply resented by the Kremlin in the past and has represented,
arguably, the biggest bone of contention the Russian-American relationship during the past several
years. However, it is striking that the Kremlin reaction to Toner's statement was rather muted.
The presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov simply shrugged off the American criticism, saying that
Russia's international commitments "do not transfer into an obligation to violate its own law."
Peskov took the line that the protests were in violation of Russian regulations on public gatherings,
which require organizers to receive permission from the authorities "to avoid schedule conflicts
and overcrowding."
Russia has been highly circumspect in its reactions to American provocations in recent months.
When the Obama administration declared 35 Russian diplomats personae non gratae at the end
of December, President Vladimir Putin held back from retaliating, stating: "Further steps towards
the restoration of Russian-American relations will be built on the basis of the policy which the
administration of President D. Trump will carry out."
However, the Trump administration ought to know that Washington has been lionizing a controversial
Russian political personality who was once found guilty of embezzlement.
When the former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton championed anti-establishment protesters
in Moscow during the December 2011 presidential election in Russia, Putin's reaction was sharper.
"I looked at the first reaction of our US partners," he said then. "The first thing that the secretary
of state [Clinton] did was say that they [the elections] were not honest and not fair, but she had
not even yet received the material from the observers. She set the tone for some actors in our country
and gave them a signal. They heard the signal and with the support of the US State Department began
active work."
In comparison, Peskov simply rejected Toner's statement as inconsequential. The Kremlin does not
want to hold the Trump administration as responsible for crossing the "red line" on US-Russia relations.
The door is of course open still for a US-Russian détente. Thus, Moscow will exercise strategic patience
and let the Pentagon take its time to seek the Russian military's help or cooperation in Syria. Equally,
it stands to reason that US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson will go ahead with his planned visit
to Moscow on April 12 .
"... My position is that Russia and Europe share the continent and one can hitchhike from Amsterdam to Moscow. One cannot hitchhike
from New York to Amsterdam, right? I somehow cannot foresee that far-right is in Russian interest at all. ..."
"... A third of French voters voted Le Pen. In a civilized country with a free press you would then expect roughly a third of newspapers
to be in favor of Le Pen, two thirds in favor of Macron. But coverage in favor of Macron was close to 100%. Newspapers, tv, web, the
chancellors of the main universities, the french medical association, you name it: they told you to vote Macron. ..."
"... The US media etc was overwhelmingly anti-Trump and yet he won. I wish he hadn't, but he did. Enough voters chose him regardless
of what they were told. In France, the voters were exposed to a similar barrage and chose to vote against the far-right candidate this
time. Perhaps that's partly because Trump and the Brexiteers gave them a taste of what to expect; an indication of how half-arsed and
hypocritical the far-right populists can turn out to be. ..."
"... Well it looks like to me that France just elected obomber 2.0. Please let me know in a few years how that hope and change thingy
works in France. It didn't work in Amerika for us the 99% but was great for the 1%. ..."
"... Macron is the new and improved Obama marketing product/politician. Find a young person without defined policies, brand them
in opposition to something "bad", throw the full support of media and elites behind them, and install them in office to continue austerity/financialization/war
policy as per usual. ..."
"... "However, even if Marine Le Pen had won in the final round, the establishment would force her to follow the status quo agenda
of the plutocracy, exactly as happened with Donald Trump in the United States." ..."
"... Macron but doesn't seem to be as odious and horrid as Clinton, ..."
"... Macron will continue to convert France into what Charles Hugh Smith calls a plantation economy: http://www.oftwominds.com/blogapr17/corp-plantation4-17.html
This echoes the work of David Korten in his book "When Corporations Rule the World" and Michael Hudson in his book "Killing the Host"
Macron's Tomorrowland world favors only the political class, rentiers of the Financial, Insurance and real estate sector (FIRE), extractive
transnational corporations, and their media propagandists. ..."
"... Relevant to my # 39.... http://www.mediaite.com/tv/trump-gets-three-major-networks-to-broadcast-image-of-empty-podium-for-30-minutes/
No one else got this obscene spectacle. So much for the Kremlin influencing foreign "democracies". ..."
"... Bright? Quiet? Plese, this guy IS the establishment itself, he was pushed forward from nowhere by the media, apparently you
have sucked up all their propaganda for him, similar to dupes that loved Obama when he was elected the first time. ..."
"... As someone who spent ten years on Wall Street, I can tell you with certainty that you don't go from updating excel models at
a junior level to partner overnight. Someone extraordinarily powerful was pulling all sorts of strings for this guy. There seems to
be little doubt about this. ..."
"... I just read Escobar's piece on the election. He makes some good points about today's post-Orwellian meanings of left and right
- vastly different from earlier times. ..."
"... What French voters have – sort of – endorsed is the unity of neoliberal economy and cultural liberalism. Call it, like Michea,
"integrated liberalism." Or, with all the Orwellian overtones, "post-democratic capitalism."A true revolt of the elites. And "peasants"
buy it willingly. Let them eat overpriced croissants. Once again, France is leading the West. ..."
"... That link again: Emmanuel Clinton and the revolt of the elites Let them eat overpriced croissants. Nailed it. ..."
"... France just "elected" Western Europe's version of HRC. The Banksters are dancing in the streets, and France will STILL be the
U$A's bitch. ..."
"... Somehow Macron is the smallest detail of what is going on. The old two major parties have imploded and the survivors are trying
to fight for life by joining the new big centrist Macron-EU lobby movement. Everyday is about a new betrayal, a new U-turn on what has
been signed or promessed by this or that party-member (Valls is the funniest to follow). The French politicians are and have been a
mafia, Corsican type, ever since the 30s (or maybe before already?). Macron won't have much support in the coming parliament. Episode
2 is 18th June, results of the 2nd round of parliamentary election. ..."
"... The reason she is used first is to make her bigger against the other candidates. It worked this time against Mélenchon, who
had initially better chances than her to win, and who might even have won against Macron (25 % abstention + 10 % blank votes is still
a big reserve for anyone). But the Mélenchon was hailed "same as Le Pen", "friend of Putin and Castro", "supporting Syrian regime" etc.
..."
"... He was not elected by the people but through the electoral system. So the people didnt really took the opposite route of the
media. ..."
"... Actually none of the above won 37% of the voters and Macron came in at 24% which is slightly above Le Pen at 21%. The rest
voted against Le Pen by voting for Macron. ..."
"... This is one hell of a way to run an election and a country. The political divisions are terminal as in the US. The difference,
is that the French allow their leaders to run things until they get few up and than throw a tantrum. In this case the cobblestones will
fly and the transportation system will shut down. ..."
"... (Look at Ukraine for a perfect example - they believed the nationalists' lies just like you do.) ... ..."
"... Conflating the violent Putch in Ukraine with the stance of a France-for-the-French Nationalist is inane, to put it mildly.
And as an Aussie, I can assure you that our Neolib, Turnbull, Totalitarian Capitalist, pro-middleman-itis, industry-destroying Govt
could teach the French Swamp a thing or two about 'honeyed lies' and shameless betrayal by politicians - (whilst feathering their own
ne$t$). ..."
"... The photoshopped image is funny. Good one. Hummvee, a.k.a. appeal to the reptilian brain. Does anyone know? I heard that Merkel
has a PhD in physics (PhD in alemania is like a masters degree in amerika). So the imagery is maybe not so far from truth. ..."
"... I most certainly don't support neoliberals like Turnbull, Macron or whoever, but with the nationalists you'd get 'the same
but more so', plus heightened conflicts between various groups in society, a.k.a. divide and rule. Look at history, and don't be fooled
(again). ..."
"... More on the creation of Macron and the puppeteers behind him. It is a tangled web: http://www.voltairenet.org/article196289.html
..."
"... Juxtapose one against the other - and it's pretty clear that German strength is a mirror reflection of French weakness. Because
both countries share the same currency, the only way for France to recover is for Germany to become sick. Therein lie the seeds of conflict.
Far from invigorated partnership, one should expect gradual, yet unrelenting unraveling of Franco-German relations. Frustrated Macron
will prove Germany's worst nightmare. It simply can't be any other way. ..."
"... is micron really petain in drag? ..."
"... Here's another excellent Monthly Review essay, this time by Henry A. Giroux: Trump's America: Rethinking 1984 and Brave New
World , https://monthlyreview.org/2017/05/01/trumps-america/ ..."
What this Macron victory proves is that the French lean more Left to Centre, therefore the key was to support and promote a non-interventionist
candidate on the Left opposed to Neoliberalism, like Melenchon instead of a radically rightist Le Pen who scared off half of France.
Let's just say that a country that has multiple parties on the Left is NEVER going to vote in a radical rightist populist,
never. So the strategy to be free of Neoliberalism in a country that leans Left is to always throw all the support behind a leftist
party that opposes Neoliberalism.
Supporting Le Pen only to get a change in French foreign policy was doomed from the start.
And here's another thing: a party that opposes Neoliberalism and has a non-interventionist foreign policy, should try to be
more flexible on domestic issues not socialist to an extreme to grab the attention of wider public while playing down slightly
their foreign policy UNTIL victory is achieved. This is how you wean the dumb masses. Once in power then it can go all the way
to reverse interventionist foreign policy and weed out Neoliberal/Neocon agendas.
Hollande's repeated invitations of Marine Le Pen to the Elysée presidential palace during his presidency played the same role
as Macron's appeal to the FN in the name of national unity last night: to show that the PS and Macron view the FN as legitimate
political partners.
Like Hollande, Macron appears to be cultivating the FN as a political base for his deeply unpopular program. He has pledged
to use the PS' anti-democratic labor law to tear up contracts and social spending by decree, escalate defense spending, and
reestablish the draft in preparation for an era of major wars.
Mélenchon appealed last night for voters to give UF a strong delegation in the National Assembly in the June legislative
elections, which would strengthen his bid to become Macron's prime minister.
... the trots at wsws.org see a push by unsubmissive france into the vacuum created by micron as 'treasonous' ... of course.
but something might come of it ... Mélenchon hit some of the same points that le pen hit and may garner support from her stalwarts
on those points. he might make something of it. might temper the unmitigated disaster of micron and the franco-american-german
eu-financial axis.
Monday the French will awaken and find they live on an Animal Farm where the local French pigs suppress the people for the benefit
of the wild boars of savage globalism.
In truth the French deserve this fate as they chose the American "dream of comfort and conformity" that Alexis de Tocqueville
described as democratic tyranny that "reduces each nation to nothing more than a herd of timid and industrious animals of which
the government is the shepherd". He attributed the rise of such "democratic despotism, to a benign form of social control by a
centralized bureaucratic state supported by a weakened and isolated citizenry."
A French comedian recently pointed out that washing machines have more programs than Macron! Unfortunately, as Asselineau points
out, Macron was brilliantly marketed to the French public as one would advertise a new detergent designed to clean up a mess!
The Marketing was led by Jacque Attali the Grand Vizier of the French establishment and Macron's mentor. Apparently, Attali's
team published 17,000 articles promoting Macron in the last year. Attali also coordinated the combined assault on the other candidates
by the media, banks and corporations that will now benefit from Macron's election.
Asselineau also suggests that the French read de Gaulle's memoirs, especially chapter 1 and 2. The 2015 book Soumission by
Houellebecq plays off de Gaulle's warning.
The situation is grave and the French have been played by the best propaganda campaign since Hitler. Bernays, the author of
the book "propaganda" and the inspiration for Hitler and modern marketing would be impressed...
I love how people here use the term 'installed' as if Macron wasn't elected. As if the French people desperately wanted a far-right
leader, but somehow never got the chance to vote for one. As if Le Pen would do more for the French working class than Trump has
done for the American working class. As if Le Pen would really pursue the kind of anti-imperialist and anti-oligarchical policies
that Trump pretended to favour. As if putting the boot into muslims wasn't Le Pen's first, second and third priority.
I love how people here use the term 'installed' as if Macron wasn't elected. As if the French people desperately wanted
a far-right leader, but somehow never got the chance to vote for one.
Very good observation.
As if Trump was installed and in general presidents are installed by the virtue of an "invisible hand" that manipulates the
markets and currencies. That may (and did) happen in some small satellite 'allied" NATO countries and with the help of intelligence
community steering the mindset, but not on the level of an obscure conspiracy group sitting in a dark room observing the world
and manipulating it from afar.
People do vote here in Europe and they get what the current state of mind is.
Le Pen is out and for good as her win would be definitely the end of EU and a beginning of a very dark period for France through
which UK is tunneling now.
Sad story is that today's general understanding of politics and a will to take a lead, we all are forced to choose between
two varieties of stupidity and crookedness as the case was in USA. Here were two ideologies confronted and a really bad and evil
one lost for good. Do not mention Russia, please, as we are all tired of hearing how Putin is evil and whatnot.
My position is that Russia and Europe share the continent and one can hitchhike from Amsterdam to Moscow. One cannot hitchhike
from New York to Amsterdam, right? I somehow cannot foresee that far-right is in Russian interest at all.
So, I am actually happy for Trump, as he will put USA in its place by not knowing what is he doing or not doing what he doesn't
know.
Naive and wishful thinking would be - is USA finally leaving the Europe for good, keeping UK under its skirts as a staging
lapdance island outpost?
Born
3 February 1967
Quimper, Finistčre, France
Died
5 May 2017 (aged 50)
Plouisy, Côtes d'Armor, France
Occupation
Politician
Socialist Party
Corinne Erhel (3 February 1967 – 5 May 2017) was a French politician. She served as a member of the National Assembly from 2007
to 2017, representing the Côtes-d'Armor department.
What clarity I see with most of this thread's posters. Its amazing anyone would put their faith in Le Pen - for a thousand different
reasons but especially after Trump's showing. It scares me how some people are so latched onto this very narrow, far right 'critique'
of globalism and see it as the world's salvation. How easily this faith can be manipulated too. Reminds me of those who were so
energetic about (and facilitated) Mussolini's rise to power.
Not to say the EU stooge is much/any better but its nice to see a more nuanced view here for once.
#8 sigil wrote: "I love how people here use the term 'installed' as if Macron wasn't elected."
A third of French voters voted Le Pen. In a civilized country with a free press you would then expect roughly a third of
newspapers to be in favor of Le Pen, two thirds in favor of Macron. But coverage in favor of Macron was close to 100%. Newspapers,
tv, web, the chancellors of the main universities, the french medical association, you name it: they told you to vote Macron.
I'd like to draw an analogy: Imagine that, at the next presidential elections, newspapers attack the Democratic candidate for
hiring his own wife, but stay mum when documents appear on the net which show corruption by Trump. That all newspapers, all tv
stations, all web sites are in favor of Trump, and - apart from some of the seedier blogs on the web - none in favor of the Democratic
candidate. That the Association of American Universities, the American Medical Association, and the National Academy of Sciences
all ask you to vote Trump. That you get a letter jointly signed by the president of the National Council of Churches, the president
of the US Council of Muslim Organizations, and the Chief Rabbi, asking you to vote Trump. Would you call this free and fair elections?
I wouldn't.
So was that picture photoshopped, b? I couldn't be bothered looking up the source.
At any rate, I think you're going to be proved wrong rapidly. Macron's a bright guy, and ran a very good campaign. That is,
he kept quiet, like May did. But he is really pushy, and evidently competent. I don't know whether that means good or bad. But
lapdog he certainly isn't.
Re 17: The US media etc was overwhelmingly anti-Trump and yet he won. I wish he hadn't, but he did. Enough voters chose him regardless
of what they were told. In France, the voters were exposed to a similar barrage and chose to vote against the far-right candidate
this time. Perhaps that's partly because Trump and the Brexiteers gave them a taste of what to expect; an indication of how half-arsed
and hypocritical the far-right populists can turn out to be.
In all these cases, voters exercised their choices. As did the doctor's associations and university administrators, when choosing
who to endorse. No one was 'installed'. Endorsements aren't a violation of democracy, they're an aspect of it - as is the freedom
to take endorsements seriously or not.
Well it looks like to me that France just elected obomber 2.0. Please let me know in a few years how that hope and change
thingy works in France. It didn't work in Amerika for us the 99% but was great for the 1%.
Both Merkel and Marcon are a couple of M&Ms in the hands of the central bankers and their controllers who call all the shots for
both of these puppets. Politics beyond the local level are manufactured to appear democratic in origin while serving a plutocracy
that controls all eventualities by commanding the life blood of human economics, the Ownership over the creation of all money
and credit. So y'all can relax now until the German and British election cycle gets y'all wound up again over this dog and pony
show as an illusion meant as a distracting deception for the rank and file of humanity.
Macron is the new and improved Obama marketing product/politician. Find a young person without defined policies, brand them
in opposition to something "bad", throw the full support of media and elites behind them, and install them in office to continue
austerity/financialization/war policy as per usual.
It's a brilliant scheme when you consider Macron's "platform" is essentially continuing the failed austerity policies of Hollande,
who is currently approved of by 4% of the French electorate.
The key test will be the parliamentary elections coming up. Can Melenchon put together any support? Can there be a left/right
anti-EU, anti-austerity alliance wide enough to keep the Macron globalists and the traditional right of Fillon from continuing
the downward slide of France?
@8 sigil... installed... yeah, i think that's a good word for what it is... groomed by bankers (rothchild and etc) and coddled
24/7 in the msm which acts as the main propaganda lever in these so called democracy shams.. it has everything to do with plutocracy,
kleptocracy and nothing to do with democracy.. democracy is used as the front, and nothing more.. sorry - someone had to say it...
funny thing - i don't recall using the word installed, but i think it is a good word for where we are at presently.. certain 'regimes'
will be supported more then others, lol...
A paragraph from that link, that mirrors my personal thoughts..
"However, even if Marine Le Pen had won in the final round, the establishment would force her to follow the status quo
agenda of the plutocracy, exactly as happened with Donald Trump in the United States."
Although I've followed this recent French election, I confess to being somewhat ignorant of Macron beyond the basics. Le Pen I
do know more about.
My very ignorant guess is that French voters looked across the Channel and the Pond and saw the clusterfecks in the UK and
the USA and figured an Obama 2.0 might be the better "choice" under the circumstances. As I said, don't know much about Macron
but doesn't seem to be as odious and horrid as Clinton, which is why we're stuck with Trump. IMO (and I was very much open-minded
about Trump once he won) Trump is an unmitigated disaster. I believe Le Pen would've been the same or similar for France (and
elsewhere).
Well the Bankers run the world, do they not? Unsure how to unravel that knot.
Macron will continue to convert France into what Charles Hugh Smith calls a plantation economy:
http://www.oftwominds.com/blogapr17/corp-plantation4-17.html
This echoes the work of David Korten in his book "When Corporations Rule the World" and Michael Hudson in his book "Killing
the Host" Macron's Tomorrowland world favors only the political class, rentiers of the Financial, Insurance and real estate sector
(FIRE), extractive transnational corporations, and their media propagandists.
Macron is a cardboard construct created much like Napoléon (Tolstoy wrote in "war and Peace" if Napoléon Bonaparte did not
exist he would have to be created).
Tocqueville provided a strategy for the people to create a civil society that suppresses the psychopaths that wish to contol
all aspects of society. Adam Smith in his "Wealth of Nations" is mostly about the civil contract among workers and the bosses
and he lays out the three rules of contacts between nations which is actually opposite of the globalists.
I do not think you will be happy in the globalist world order that Macron supports.
Here Madonna supporting Macron. May be considered trivial, just one dopey star shootin' off random perso messages.
I don't think so. Look at these kids, asked to perform and complying clumsily ....for one pres. cand. far away, why? Why? This
is not just random flickr. photos looking for +++ points from aunties.
sigil @ 20 said "The US media etc was overwhelmingly anti-Trump and yet he won."
The truth is, the MSM only opposed Mr. Trump mildly, at best. Through most of Mr. Trump's run for the White House, his coverage
was " wall to wall ". Up to, and including, coverage of a empty podium, while one Bernie Sanders was giving a major live speech
at the same time.
ALL MSM is corporate, and they got just who they wanted, a pro-corporate hack that will do their bidding.
Looks like the French don't read MoA. Maybe if they did things would be different. Instead, something like 65% were bamboozled
by the goddam press and the elites. Isn't it awful when people's right to choose is denied them by these behemoths?
Maybe Trump's performance in his early days had some effect. Maybe his anti-globalist rhetoric that turned out to be pro-.01%
in actual fact gave the French pause. Maybe the French like their world beating health system and standard of living. One of the
reasons for the formation of the EU was to keep the French and Germans from going at it hammer and tongs every few years like
they had since forever and so far it's worked. Could it be that they like the option of traveling freely within the union while
enjoying the benefits they as if they were home? Benefits that certainly didn't come from living in an inward looking country
contemplating its navel.
Now the same folks who waxed ecstatic over Trump's unlikely win have to eat some crow. The snowball effect they so confidently
predicted sweeping European elections has failed to materialize. Who knew people could be so stupid to pass up salvation when
proffered on a silver platter. First the Dutch, and now the French. When will people learn?
Maybe the French are better at reading history books than the Americans.
This could explain why they didn't fall for Le Pen's lies - right-wingers like her always pretend to care for the 'common man
(& woman)', but quickly turn out to be even more corporate-friendly/ pro-capital than their predecessors. If people are upset,
well just offer them some patsy to blame, and laugh while the poor fight each other whites vs. blacks, Christians vs. Muslims
or whatever division comes in handy.
T.'s 'about-face' is by no means surprising; it's standard procedure and was expected by many.
I'd still appreciate if someone could explain to me what 'globalism' means.
The term doesn't make any sense to me, since an '-ism' usually denotes discrimination and classification of humans along certain
lines - but everybody's from the same globe, afaik...(except Elvis, of course)
According to Wikipedia the Gauls were worse at making good hard soap than the Celts and all the various Teutonic tribes ...or
so the olive oil-scraping Romans said. I guess that little bit of knowledge explains a lot of "smelly" jokes and jibes against
southern Europe in general; they really were.
Soap won't work on politicians but soap-making lye should. They say it's all very "green" but you need ash for the lye. Burn
half of them? :P (what's a "shop"?).
France could get very interesting at any point in time without warning, probably more so than any other European nation and
it has been that way for at least a year and a half already. Getting this poodle elected could be a big tactical error on the
part of the powers that be.
I don't trust elections any more than I trust polls, there is no reason to, but it gave "us"/humanity Brexit, so there's that.
Can't tell if b's Merkel-Micron pic is PhotoShopped but Pat Lang is on board with the concept (and context?) with this mid-campaign
cite...
Le Pen quipped during the campaign that France would have a woman president no matter who won because the actual president
would either be She or Angela Merkel.
Jim Stone contends that the election in France was stolen: jist = massive numbers of Le Pen's ballots were torn thus rendering
them uncounted; Macron received half a million extra ballots; the media broadcast the scam that Macron was way ahead in all the
polls; all media support was for Macron; reporting on Macron's dirty underwear was banned.
I get it, Sigil the lefty is happy. I'll go home now. Everything is going to be just fine in France. The French screwed themselves
over, that's all their is to it. You guys had great chance to shake society to it's core but you blew it!!
Bright? Quiet? Plese, this guy IS the establishment itself, he was pushed forward from nowhere by the media, apparently
you have sucked up all their propaganda for him, similar to dupes that loved Obama when he was elected the first time.
Any election system that uses anything other than strategic hedge simple score voting is nothing other than a placebo democracy.
Party-free proportional elections can be achieved with simple score used with the parabolic proportional curve method. Without
such simple methods, we only have simulated / fake democracy that just doesn't work.
sigil @ 20 said "The US media etc was overwhelmingly anti-Trump and yet he won."
Sigil, if you hadn't noticed, Trump came out of the media-entertainment complex...pretty much born of it. That's what you are
asking of Le Pen, to replace her 20 odd years of full tilt political life with self promotion for the sake of ratings.
If he wasn't POTUS, a chump like you would be watching Trunp TV™
Smuks @44--"I'd still appreciate if someone could explain to me what 'globalism' means."
The linked article by Joseph Nye is basically correct and provides a basis for discussion. The concept was also known as Internationalism;
its advocates Internationalists; its antagonists Nationalists or Protectionists. After WW1 the debate over joining The League
of Nations sparked a debate between advocates and antagonists within the Outlaw US Empire that affects us today given the smearing
Pacifists got--Isolationists/Isolationism--as if there were no nuances or grey areas.
@40 peter
I'll hazard a guess that you're not Greek then. Point re: a unified Europe via a tight Franco-German bond is well taken, but at
what cost...? When do Eurocrats and ECBankers come up for re-election...? Hmm, we'll just have to settle for watching another
puppet show I guess.
I wouldnt talk of the far right on series of losses in NL or FR either...the right is on an absolute roll, trending in only
one direction. Seems the French jihadist economy is somewhat of a problem, they're importing more than they're exporting these
days...but shhh...we're not allowed to talk about it.
France took the same old bullet to dodge a bullet, and it will be this way until what remains of the twisted left is reformed
into something backable.
@Brooklyn Bridge 27, 29
Your method doesn't work on Google.
Go to https://unshorten.it/ and paste the short URL into the box there.
Tap on 'Unshorten it' at the end of the box.
Scroll down to the blue 'goto' button at the bottom of the page.
Right click on it and copy the link therein, which is the expanded URL.
They receive a large amount of internet traffic and have the potential ability to fingerprint users and subvert privacy protections.
AFAIK they don't do anything malicious, but I don't know they don't.
So was that picture photoshopped, b? I couldn't be bothered looking up the source. At any rate, I think you're going to
be proved wrong rapidly. Macron's a bright guy, and ran a very good campaign. That is, he kept quiet, like May did. But he is
really pushy, and evidently competent. I don't know whether that means good or bad. But lapdog he certainly isn't.
"He is really pushy, and evidently competent."
Guess you missed reading some of his background. Worked as a Rothschild banker. Had no idea what is EBITDA? Oh my. Read the
link and understand the Whys behind the photo image b posted. Macron was groomed
created out of thin air
[Yet] it wasn't just a Rothschild sponsor who took the young Macron under his wing
What Mr Macron lacked in technical knowledge and jargon at first, he made up for with contacts in government, says Sophie
Javary, head of BNP Paribas' corporate finance in Europe, who was asked by Mr Henrot to coach Mr Macron in the first year.
This is straight up bizarre. It appears Macron was so important to banking interests the had to form a consortium of firms
to all pitch in to help him out. Yet it gets stranger still.
On the Atos deal, Mr Macron "had a fairly junior role at the time - he would be asked to redo the financial models on Excel,
the basics," recalled an adviser. But a few days after the deal was announced, Mr Macron was made a partner. A few months later,
he stunned colleagues and rivals by winning a role in Nestlé's purchase of Pfizer's infant food operations.
As someone who spent ten years on Wall Street, I can tell you with certainty that you don't go from updating excel models
at a junior level to partner overnight. Someone extraordinarily powerful was pulling all sorts of strings for this guy. There
seems to be little doubt about this.
Further hints that Macron is a total manufactured elitist creation can be seen with the following.
At the bank, Mr Macron mastered the art of networking and navigated around the numerous conflicts of interest that arise
in close-knit Parisian business circles, making good use of his connections as an Inspecteur des Finances - an elite corps
of the very highest-ranking graduates from ENA.
In 2010, he advised, for free, the staff of Le Monde when the newspaper was put up for sale. Journalists at the daily
started doubting his loyalty when they happened upon him in conversation with Mr Minc, who was representing a bidding consortium
that the staff opposed. They did not know that it was Mr Minc, a fellow Inspecteur des Finances, who had helped the young Mr
Macron secure his interview at Rothschild.
A media executive who was part of the same consortium recalled: "It wasn't clear who Emmanuel worked for. He was around,
trading intelligence, friends with everyone. It was smart, because he got to know everybody in the media world."
Indeed, who does he work for? I'm sure the French people would like to know.[..]
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
sure he ran a very good campaign. It was so arranged for him – all that $$$$loot and more.
I just read Escobar's piece on the election. He makes some good points about today's post-Orwellian meanings of left and
right - vastly different from earlier times. I'm pretty sure he would agree with the word "installed" - in fact he alludes
to much of the process. I love his writing for its sheer élan, but I have to quote the concluding paragraph:
What French voters have – sort of – endorsed is the unity of neoliberal economy and cultural liberalism. Call it, like
Michea, "integrated liberalism." Or, with all the Orwellian overtones, "post-democratic capitalism."A true revolt of the elites.
And "peasants" buy it willingly. Let them eat overpriced croissants. Once again, France is leading the West.
Thanks, though I'm not much enlightened I'm afraid. Where would you place e.g. the Neocons? Nationalists to the bone, with
global aspirations. 'Internationalism' is a very progressive concept, and mostly associated with the UN, e.g. some form of global
democracy...would you say the same for 'globalism'?
I think that globalism has a negative connotations mostly because of jobs outsourcing overseas. All those telemarketing and
customer service call centers moved to India or Philippines, textile and manufacturing jobs to China and Bangladesh etc - OTOH
we do not mind having cheap Chinese stuff to buy in dollar stores, but it is somewhat irritating when a guy from Mumbai is calling
you to switch to another local phone or cable provider.
Re 63
It's a good article, but I can't see any implication that he believes the voters preferred Le Pen. Terms like 'manufactured' and
'installed' when referring to candidates have their role in drawing attention to elite machinations, but they shouldn't overshadow
the banal fact that the voters really aren't ready to hand power to Le Pen. Most voters don't spend their days picking apart the
tangled threads of Rothschild/NATO/AIPAC/CIA conspiracies, after all. Most voters still think that the euroliberal project can
work, or at any rate, they think the right-wing populists have little to offer beyond thinly-disguised racism. Considering Trump
and the Brexiteers, what other conclusion should they draw?
Excerpt: "From de Gaulle in 1958 to Hollande in 2017, and for all members of the French establishment, the operational principle
of the French towards Africa has been: "invade, intimidate, manipulate, install, antagonize, ingratiate, indemnify, expropriate."
Nothing in this election will change that – only Africans can."
Re 63
It's a good article, but I can't see any implication that he believes the voters preferred Le Pen.
...
Posted by: sigil | May 8, 2017 11:38:51 PM | 69
Me either, and he wasn't. He was attempting to hilight the components of the bamboozlement which the United Swamp inflicted
on French voters. Imo, the Swamp's winning hand was pinning the (fearsome) Far Right label to Le Pen's forehead.
It's ludicrous when seen in the light of her policy platform but it seems to have worked. The following is the nuts & bolts
condensed from an article by James Petras to which I posted a link on the last April Open Thread. There's nothing right-wing in
it...
1. Remove France from NATO's integrated command.
2. End NATO's commitment to US directed global wars.
3. Reject the oligarch-dominated European Union and its austerity programs, which have enriched bankers and multi-national corporations.
4. Convoke a national referendum over the EU - to decide French submission.
5. End sanctions against Russia.
6. Increase trade with Rusia.
7. End France's intervention in Syria and establish ties with Iran and Palestine.
8. Adopt Keynesian demand-driven industrial revitalization as opposed to Emmanuel Macron's ultra-neoliberal supply-side agenda.
9. Raise taxes on banks and financial transactions
10. Penalise capital flight in order to continue funding France's retirement age of 62 for women and 65 for men.
11. Keep the 35 hour work-week.
12. Provid tax-free overtime pay.
13. Direct state intervention to prevent factories from relocating to low wage EU economies and firing French workers.
14. Increase public spending for childcare and for the poor and disabled.
15 Protect French farmers against subsidized, cheap imports.
16. Support abortion rights and gay rights.
17. Oppose the death penalty.
18. Cut taxes by 10% for low-wage workers.
19. Fight against sexism.
20. Fight for equal pay for women.
What makes it interesting is that it seems that the deluge of MSM hokum successfully discouraged the ppl who voted for Micron
from examining and/or evaluating it.
Somehow Macron is the smallest detail of what is going on. The old two major parties have imploded and the survivors are trying
to fight for life by joining the new big centrist Macron-EU lobby movement. Everyday is about a new betrayal, a new U-turn on
what has been signed or promessed by this or that party-member (Valls is the funniest to follow). The French politicians are and
have been a mafia, Corsican type, ever since the 30s (or maybe before already?). Macron won't have much support in the coming
parliament. Episode 2 is 18th June, results of the 2nd round of parliamentary election.
If a clarification happens as to who the people should oppose, anti-EU parties will have to unite and take the fight to Brussels
(which as always, includes sorting out the extreme-right xenophobes and anti-women rights), as Varoufakis already understood.
People here really don't understand how Le Pen functions. The way the MSM is dealing with her (differs from how it was played
with the father, this was Mitterrand's business) is that she is everywhere, in a positive light, on a daily basis, and suddenly
when an election happens, after she has been put up as credible etc they turn against her fascism at the last minute.
The reason she is used first is to make her bigger against the other candidates. It worked this time against Mélenchon,
who had initially better chances than her to win, and who might even have won against Macron (25 % abstention + 10 % blank votes
is still a big reserve for anyone). But the Mélenchon was hailed "same as Le Pen", "friend of Putin and Castro", "supporting Syrian
regime" etc.
As to the 'programme' of Le Pen. She changed her tone when Philippot, a former help of Chevčnement (socialist anti-EU, has
quit the party but still very close to Hollande and Royal !) started to write her speeches. Through time, she simply borrowed
stuff from the leftist unions (CGT), from Mélenchon, so far thay everyone notice the "social left" overtones of her platform.
But when asked precisely, there is nothing behind it but catching new voters. The basis of her voters, those of her father,
are just very normal rightist liberal, with an open racist flavour, and the new mottoes are just to catch more people. Asked about
all the 'borrowings' made by the FN to the extreme-left Mélenchon said that reading a FN tract nowadays looked like it was a CGT
one, but that this did not cover that the fact they were just stealing it without any intention behind it.
The FN is ruling is a number of municipalities, they have 2 MP in the French parliament and 22 in the EUropean parliament.
Please let me know of any 'social left' measure they would have suggested or agreed for?
Under Mitterrand, the Socialists used the FN as the perfect tool to reduce the weight of the right party. After him, the MSM
understood it was the perfect tool to kill the marxists. ALL the media have kept saying "Mélenchon = Le Pen" in the latest months,
especially after Mélenchon had a surge in the voting intentions. The guy is not perfect and would probably not do a good president,
but his charism and pedagogical capacity made him get back some of the working class voters that had stopped voting for the Communists
to vote for Le Pen (after the Communists were involved too often in compromising deals with the very corrupt Socialist Party)
and he also managed to get some youth interested in politics again with his web platform and local organisations.
The illuminists are informing their serfs and their enemies that they are in complete control and that this populist revolt
stops now. It is in your face like Kushner's 666 fifth avenue building. The velvet glove is being removed from the steel fist.
Actually none of the above won 37% of the voters and Macron came in at 24% which is slightly above Le Pen at 21%. The rest
voted against Le Pen by voting for Macron.
This is one hell of a way to run an election and a country. The political divisions are terminal as in the US. The difference,
is that the French allow their leaders to run things until they get few up and than throw a tantrum. In this case the cobblestones
will fly and the transportation system will shut down.
Even the National police (CRS) assassins will not be able to hold the line. There must be a better way to elect leaders who
will add to the wealth of nations rather than the "Masters of the Universe".
It's fascinating. Everybody has his or her very personal idea of what 'globalism' means - yours is the third answer I get on
this forum, and the three are completely different!
What you refer to is 'globalization', which is a natural/ logical process in capitalist economy.
I thus get the impression that 'globalism' doesn't mean anything at all - which means it's a very bad idea to use it in any
debate. Or, you have to define very precisely how you use it before doing so.
@Hoarse 72
Maybe you should learn a bit more about European politics rather than believe in fairytales.
It's strange how some people are disappointed by empty talk over and over, yet all it takes is some politician declaring herself
'anti-establishment' and they'll believe every word she says. That way, of course they're f*ckd time and again... Sad! ;-)
(Look at Ukraine for a perfect example - they believed the nationalists' lies just like you do.)
@Julian 66: Yeah, sure. And even better, the spiders from Mars didn't win either. lol
Globalism does have different meanings ... and uses. It can mean globalism by culture as in travel, communications, foods,
celebrations, etc. It can also mean government level actions pushed by TPTBs like trade deals, border arrangements, regional combinations
(EU, NAFTA), economic/currency deals, supranational organizations (WTO, GATT, EU). The fun is when you complain about the latter,
you are smeared as being a xenophobe and against the former. Voluntary organization from below is one thing, forced from above
is a different matter.
Maybe you should learn a bit more about European politics rather than believe in fairytales.
It's strange how some people are disappointed by empty talk over and over, yet all it takes is some politician declaring herself
'anti-establishment' and they'll believe every word she says. That way, of course they're f*ckd time and again... Sad! ;-)
(Look at Ukraine for a perfect example - they believed the nationalists' lies just like you do.) ...
@smuks | May 9, 2017 7:18:36 AM | 78
Can't argue with your first sentence, but you should have quit while you were ahead. Conflating the violent Putch in Ukraine
with the stance of a France-for-the-French Nationalist is inane, to put it mildly. And as an Aussie, I can assure you that our
Neolib, Turnbull, Totalitarian Capitalist, pro-middleman-itis, industry-destroying Govt could teach the French Swamp a thing or
two about 'honeyed lies' and shameless betrayal by politicians - (whilst feathering their own ne$t$).
The selection, crowning of Macron represents the ultimate effort within the 5th Republic to elect a 'prez' who promises, can,
will be, effective. In what direction is not specified .mystery
Sarkozy was elected as a 'Républicain' (UMP then), an outsider nonetheless, a foreignor almost, a hyperactive, charismatic,
posturing dude who agitated ppl from the right, provided a flattering mirror for many, and displayed an aura of determined,
willful, 'renewal' while being 'conservative.' His wife Cecilia played a big part - another story.
Sark subsequently alienated swatches of the F who were becoming more impoverished, he almost destroyed the judiciary/ police/
repressive etc. organs in F (as he despised them personally) except prisons, that didn't go down well. Sure the 'Left' - aka local
plutocrats belonging to the Le Zuper Klub des Zocialistes trying to get a bigger slice of the economic pie.. facing their
now better entrenched competitors, went into valiant, sputtering, oppo.
Sark was the destruction of Lybia. Hollande was elected as a return to a 'normal' presidency, a-hmm reasonable, understanding,
benevolent, a tad leftist stance. Hollande instored by decree the El Khomri law, as an ex., measures that Sark did not dare attempt.
Hollande was militarily all over, not reported - see war in Mali for ex.
Macron embodies the 'not-left-not-right', the death to the creaky 'establishment' parties; a pragmatic 'renewal', a young brilliant
guy, very French, very heart-felt, etc. Leading to a sort of 'technocratic, unity government' hmmm.
The photoshopped image is funny. Good one. Hummvee, a.k.a. appeal to the reptilian brain. Does anyone know? I heard that Merkel
has a PhD in physics (PhD in alemania is like a masters degree in amerika). So the imagery is maybe not so far from truth.
What you describe is usually called 'globalization', which of course has cultural, economic, political etc. facets. Politics
is always 'forced from above' to some degree, whether on a local, national or global level.
@Hoarse 80
While there was no coup in France, the nationalist ideologies are the same: Pretending to further the 'people's interests'
to garner support, but in reality doing the oligarchs' bidding.
I most certainly don't support neoliberals like Turnbull, Macron or whoever, but with the nationalists you'd get 'the same
but more so', plus heightened conflicts between various groups in society, a.k.a. divide and rule. Look at history, and don't
be fooled (again).
Germans will be disappointed by Macron's election. The force that is driving two countries apart are far bigger than thousands
of macrons.
Here are two fascinating very recent headlines:
Juxtapose one against the other - and it's pretty clear that German strength is a mirror reflection of French weakness.
Because both countries share the same currency, the only way for France to recover is for Germany to become sick. Therein lie
the seeds of conflict. Far from invigorated partnership, one should expect gradual, yet unrelenting unraveling of Franco-German
relations. Frustrated Macron will prove Germany's worst nightmare. It simply can't be any other way.
It looks as though the south koreans will be much happier with
their new president
than the french will be with theirs. In france the next dates of note are 11 and 18 june, aren't they? all this talk of germany
... de gaulle's speech was on the 18th of june, wasn't it? is micron really petain in drag?
"... Excellent, concise summary of Cold War and post-Cold War military history. I also thought that during the campaign Trump was broadly outlining a less interventionist approach – with the exception of ISIS. It's clear now his only political philosophy is "flexibility" and he surrounds himself with people of all kinds of persuasions, including neocons. ..."
"... Patrick again draws attention to our over commitment around the world. It is time to implode and focus on issues here at home. ..."
Excellent, concise summary of Cold War and post-Cold War military history. I also thought
that during the campaign Trump was broadly outlining a less interventionist approach – with the
exception of ISIS. It's clear now his only political philosophy is "flexibility" and he surrounds
himself with people of all kinds of persuasions, including neocons. I tend to favor "flexibility"
over a all-neocon administration (Geo. W. Bush) but Trump's "flexibility" is in reality "impulsiveness"
- let's just hope more stable voices prevail inside the White House of the President of the United
States Donald "It's Complicated" Trump, AKA The Apprentice.
Patrick again draws attention to our over commitment around the world. It is time to implode
and focus on issues here at home. We still have an immigration problem. The problem of chronic
unemployment continues to exist. The people that were displaced by the transfer of our industrial
sector overseas continue to haunt us. Student loans are like a millstone around our academic necks.
We bailed out the banksters after giving them an open-door policy to near ad infinitum indebt
our student body. The Fed not only creates money out of thin air, but it is a price setting entity
owned and operated in large foreign bankers; not Federal but Foreign. Does anyone know when setting
wages and prices have been successful? We know the Fed has been a dismal and costly failure. Count
their made in DC disasters since its inception in 1913. The unemployment stabilizer for the young
from the non- elite class is the U.S. military with risk to life and limb. Time to bring back
the military draft without any exceptions then designer wars will be challenged by the vast-unwilling
when war becomes a reality not something to watch on nightly TV. Is there hope? There was absolutely
no hope in the 2016 presidential election. The worst imaginable field of candidates in modern-history
and we are now stuck with Trump and family who seem to enjoy wars, but have not participated in
U.S. wars.
Is Mr. Buchanan aware that these "war guarantees" are a two-way street? Is he aware that Latvians
and Montenegrans have fought for America? And out of proportion to their size?
I believe the question should be more like what is the Pentagons Empire Dreams and Goals?
December 24, 2013 The Worldwide Network of US Military Bases The Global Deployment of US Military
Personnel
The US Military has bases in *63* countries. Brand new military bases have been built since
September 11, 2001 in seven countries. In total, there are 255,065 US military personnel deployed
Worldwide. These facilities include a total of 845,441 different buildings and equipments. The
underlying land surface is of the order of *30* million acres. According to Gelman, who examined
2005 official Pentagon data, the US is thought to own a total of *737* bases in foreign lands.
Adding to the bases inside U.S. territory, the total land area occupied by US military bases domestically
within the US and internationally is of the order of *2,202,735 hectares*, which makes the *Pentagon*
one of the largest landowners worldwide!
"Donald Trump once seemed to understand this. Does he still?"
It appears he never did nor cared to ..
P.T. Barnum was right again .
We who clamored for an alternate path stuck our jaws out in desperation and were sucker-punched
again .
The Donald laughing all the way as he had no intent to know, care, or understand what he was getting
into or what he wanted to do.
He just wanted to be the Boss .
SO he is; and floundering by the hour.
May I suggest taking a different course here? Why are the 'Peace' Presidents winners change when
in they are in the White House? And for all the complaints of the liberal MSM, why is the MSM
so pro-war? Look the peace writers on the Times are the economist, Krugman, and religious one,
Douthat.
Anyway, I don't think Trump ever understood this because he believed the big mistake of the
Iraq was not winning in 12 months and taking their oil.
USA made a strategic mistake in the 1990s, focusing on the destruction and the weakening of Russia
after the collapse of communism and the collapse of the USSR.
If the US instead went the other way and supported Russia and strengthened its position in the
post-Soviet space and in Eastern Europe, now US would have had a good ally in Eurasia, and not
on what the Baltic dregs and torn by civil war fascist Ukraine.
Eurasia under the control of the United States, anyway, will not take place for any scenario,
but especially now – with the loss of the state of world hegemony.
Eurasia under the leadership of Germany, Poland or Ukraine is the same scenario from the category
of unscientific fantasy.
But Eurasia led by Russia – it was a very real and viable project in the 1990s, the word, alive
now only in a different, less responsive to the interests of the United States, form.
By the way, the project more attractive to US than indicated by the perspective of the hegemony
of China in Eurasia.
Only now, the US should try very hard to, despite the flaws in his politics in the 1990s, to strengthen
the position of Russia, and not any other player as Eurasian leader.
Nonsense. It's perfectly well and good to be exceptional and think of oneself as such. The
issue does one's exceptionalism lead to taking unnecessary risks or needlessly throwing one's
weight around.
I think that is the issue. I think we are also being reminded that our exceptionalism does
always make us right or intimidate others to do our bidding. That in the long run, it might have
been a good idea not to disrupt the lives of others merely because they disagree or live a life
different from our own. It fact, needlessly destroying the life of others for the sake of whatever
– in unethical, something we used to press for, despite our own imperfections.
Nothing quite so empty as undermining other people to get one's way and then attempting to
blackmail with the consequence of your underhanded behavior.
"... My position is that Russia and Europe share the continent and one can hitchhike from Amsterdam to Moscow. One cannot hitchhike
from New York to Amsterdam, right? I somehow cannot foresee that far-right is in Russian interest at all. ..."
"... A third of French voters voted Le Pen. In a civilized country with a free press you would then expect roughly a third of newspapers
to be in favor of Le Pen, two thirds in favor of Macron. But coverage in favor of Macron was close to 100%. Newspapers, tv, web, the
chancellors of the main universities, the french medical association, you name it: they told you to vote Macron. ..."
"... The US media etc was overwhelmingly anti-Trump and yet he won. I wish he hadn't, but he did. Enough voters chose him regardless
of what they were told. In France, the voters were exposed to a similar barrage and chose to vote against the far-right candidate this
time. Perhaps that's partly because Trump and the Brexiteers gave them a taste of what to expect; an indication of how half-arsed and
hypocritical the far-right populists can turn out to be. ..."
"... Well it looks like to me that France just elected obomber 2.0. Please let me know in a few years how that hope and change thingy
works in France. It didn't work in Amerika for us the 99% but was great for the 1%. ..."
"... Macron is the new and improved Obama marketing product/politician. Find a young person without defined policies, brand them
in opposition to something "bad", throw the full support of media and elites behind them, and install them in office to continue austerity/financialization/war
policy as per usual. ..."
"... "However, even if Marine Le Pen had won in the final round, the establishment would force her to follow the status quo agenda
of the plutocracy, exactly as happened with Donald Trump in the United States." ..."
"... Macron but doesn't seem to be as odious and horrid as Clinton, ..."
"... Macron will continue to convert France into what Charles Hugh Smith calls a plantation economy: http://www.oftwominds.com/blogapr17/corp-plantation4-17.html
This echoes the work of David Korten in his book "When Corporations Rule the World" and Michael Hudson in his book "Killing the Host"
Macron's Tomorrowland world favors only the political class, rentiers of the Financial, Insurance and real estate sector (FIRE), extractive
transnational corporations, and their media propagandists. ..."
"... Relevant to my # 39.... http://www.mediaite.com/tv/trump-gets-three-major-networks-to-broadcast-image-of-empty-podium-for-30-minutes/
No one else got this obscene spectacle. So much for the Kremlin influencing foreign "democracies". ..."
"... Bright? Quiet? Plese, this guy IS the establishment itself, he was pushed forward from nowhere by the media, apparently you
have sucked up all their propaganda for him, similar to dupes that loved Obama when he was elected the first time. ..."
"... As someone who spent ten years on Wall Street, I can tell you with certainty that you don't go from updating excel models at
a junior level to partner overnight. Someone extraordinarily powerful was pulling all sorts of strings for this guy. There seems to
be little doubt about this. ..."
"... I just read Escobar's piece on the election. He makes some good points about today's post-Orwellian meanings of left and right
- vastly different from earlier times. ..."
"... What French voters have – sort of – endorsed is the unity of neoliberal economy and cultural liberalism. Call it, like Michea,
"integrated liberalism." Or, with all the Orwellian overtones, "post-democratic capitalism."A true revolt of the elites. And "peasants"
buy it willingly. Let them eat overpriced croissants. Once again, France is leading the West. ..."
"... That link again: Emmanuel Clinton and the revolt of the elites Let them eat overpriced croissants. Nailed it. ..."
"... France just "elected" Western Europe's version of HRC. The Banksters are dancing in the streets, and France will STILL be the
U$A's bitch. ..."
"... Somehow Macron is the smallest detail of what is going on. The old two major parties have imploded and the survivors are trying
to fight for life by joining the new big centrist Macron-EU lobby movement. Everyday is about a new betrayal, a new U-turn on what has
been signed or promessed by this or that party-member (Valls is the funniest to follow). The French politicians are and have been a
mafia, Corsican type, ever since the 30s (or maybe before already?). Macron won't have much support in the coming parliament. Episode
2 is 18th June, results of the 2nd round of parliamentary election. ..."
"... The reason she is used first is to make her bigger against the other candidates. It worked this time against Mélenchon, who
had initially better chances than her to win, and who might even have won against Macron (25 % abstention + 10 % blank votes is still
a big reserve for anyone). But the Mélenchon was hailed "same as Le Pen", "friend of Putin and Castro", "supporting Syrian regime" etc.
..."
"... He was not elected by the people but through the electoral system. So the people didnt really took the opposite route of the
media. ..."
"... Actually none of the above won 37% of the voters and Macron came in at 24% which is slightly above Le Pen at 21%. The rest
voted against Le Pen by voting for Macron. ..."
"... This is one hell of a way to run an election and a country. The political divisions are terminal as in the US. The difference,
is that the French allow their leaders to run things until they get few up and than throw a tantrum. In this case the cobblestones will
fly and the transportation system will shut down. ..."
"... (Look at Ukraine for a perfect example - they believed the nationalists' lies just like you do.) ... ..."
"... Conflating the violent Putch in Ukraine with the stance of a France-for-the-French Nationalist is inane, to put it mildly.
And as an Aussie, I can assure you that our Neolib, Turnbull, Totalitarian Capitalist, pro-middleman-itis, industry-destroying Govt
could teach the French Swamp a thing or two about 'honeyed lies' and shameless betrayal by politicians - (whilst feathering their own
ne$t$). ..."
"... The photoshopped image is funny. Good one. Hummvee, a.k.a. appeal to the reptilian brain. Does anyone know? I heard that Merkel
has a PhD in physics (PhD in alemania is like a masters degree in amerika). So the imagery is maybe not so far from truth. ..."
"... I most certainly don't support neoliberals like Turnbull, Macron or whoever, but with the nationalists you'd get 'the same
but more so', plus heightened conflicts between various groups in society, a.k.a. divide and rule. Look at history, and don't be fooled
(again). ..."
"... More on the creation of Macron and the puppeteers behind him. It is a tangled web: http://www.voltairenet.org/article196289.html
..."
"... Juxtapose one against the other - and it's pretty clear that German strength is a mirror reflection of French weakness. Because
both countries share the same currency, the only way for France to recover is for Germany to become sick. Therein lie the seeds of conflict.
Far from invigorated partnership, one should expect gradual, yet unrelenting unraveling of Franco-German relations. Frustrated Macron
will prove Germany's worst nightmare. It simply can't be any other way. ..."
"... is micron really petain in drag? ..."
"... Here's another excellent Monthly Review essay, this time by Henry A. Giroux: Trump's America: Rethinking 1984 and Brave New
World , https://monthlyreview.org/2017/05/01/trumps-america/ ..."
What this Macron victory proves is that the French lean more Left to Centre, therefore the key was to support and promote a non-interventionist
candidate on the Left opposed to Neoliberalism, like Melenchon instead of a radically rightist Le Pen who scared off half of France.
Let's just say that a country that has multiple parties on the Left is NEVER going to vote in a radical rightist populist,
never. So the strategy to be free of Neoliberalism in a country that leans Left is to always throw all the support behind a leftist
party that opposes Neoliberalism.
Supporting Le Pen only to get a change in French foreign policy was doomed from the start.
And here's another thing: a party that opposes Neoliberalism and has a non-interventionist foreign policy, should try to be
more flexible on domestic issues not socialist to an extreme to grab the attention of wider public while playing down slightly
their foreign policy UNTIL victory is achieved. This is how you wean the dumb masses. Once in power then it can go all the way
to reverse interventionist foreign policy and weed out Neoliberal/Neocon agendas.
Hollande's repeated invitations of Marine Le Pen to the Elysée presidential palace during his presidency played the same role
as Macron's appeal to the FN in the name of national unity last night: to show that the PS and Macron view the FN as legitimate
political partners.
Like Hollande, Macron appears to be cultivating the FN as a political base for his deeply unpopular program. He has pledged
to use the PS' anti-democratic labor law to tear up contracts and social spending by decree, escalate defense spending, and
reestablish the draft in preparation for an era of major wars.
Mélenchon appealed last night for voters to give UF a strong delegation in the National Assembly in the June legislative
elections, which would strengthen his bid to become Macron's prime minister.
... the trots at wsws.org see a push by unsubmissive france into the vacuum created by micron as 'treasonous' ... of course.
but something might come of it ... Mélenchon hit some of the same points that le pen hit and may garner support from her stalwarts
on those points. he might make something of it. might temper the unmitigated disaster of micron and the franco-american-german
eu-financial axis.
Monday the French will awaken and find they live on an Animal Farm where the local French pigs suppress the people for the benefit
of the wild boars of savage globalism.
In truth the French deserve this fate as they chose the American "dream of comfort and conformity" that Alexis de Tocqueville
described as democratic tyranny that "reduces each nation to nothing more than a herd of timid and industrious animals of which
the government is the shepherd". He attributed the rise of such "democratic despotism, to a benign form of social control by a
centralized bureaucratic state supported by a weakened and isolated citizenry."
A French comedian recently pointed out that washing machines have more programs than Macron! Unfortunately, as Asselineau points
out, Macron was brilliantly marketed to the French public as one would advertise a new detergent designed to clean up a mess!
The Marketing was led by Jacque Attali the Grand Vizier of the French establishment and Macron's mentor. Apparently, Attali's
team published 17,000 articles promoting Macron in the last year. Attali also coordinated the combined assault on the other candidates
by the media, banks and corporations that will now benefit from Macron's election.
Asselineau also suggests that the French read de Gaulle's memoirs, especially chapter 1 and 2. The 2015 book Soumission by
Houellebecq plays off de Gaulle's warning.
The situation is grave and the French have been played by the best propaganda campaign since Hitler. Bernays, the author of
the book "propaganda" and the inspiration for Hitler and modern marketing would be impressed...
I love how people here use the term 'installed' as if Macron wasn't elected. As if the French people desperately wanted a far-right
leader, but somehow never got the chance to vote for one. As if Le Pen would do more for the French working class than Trump has
done for the American working class. As if Le Pen would really pursue the kind of anti-imperialist and anti-oligarchical policies
that Trump pretended to favour. As if putting the boot into muslims wasn't Le Pen's first, second and third priority.
I love how people here use the term 'installed' as if Macron wasn't elected. As if the French people desperately wanted
a far-right leader, but somehow never got the chance to vote for one.
Very good observation.
As if Trump was installed and in general presidents are installed by the virtue of an "invisible hand" that manipulates the
markets and currencies. That may (and did) happen in some small satellite 'allied" NATO countries and with the help of intelligence
community steering the mindset, but not on the level of an obscure conspiracy group sitting in a dark room observing the world
and manipulating it from afar.
People do vote here in Europe and they get what the current state of mind is.
Le Pen is out and for good as her win would be definitely the end of EU and a beginning of a very dark period for France through
which UK is tunneling now.
Sad story is that today's general understanding of politics and a will to take a lead, we all are forced to choose between
two varieties of stupidity and crookedness as the case was in USA. Here were two ideologies confronted and a really bad and evil
one lost for good. Do not mention Russia, please, as we are all tired of hearing how Putin is evil and whatnot.
My position is that Russia and Europe share the continent and one can hitchhike from Amsterdam to Moscow. One cannot hitchhike
from New York to Amsterdam, right? I somehow cannot foresee that far-right is in Russian interest at all.
So, I am actually happy for Trump, as he will put USA in its place by not knowing what is he doing or not doing what he doesn't
know.
Naive and wishful thinking would be - is USA finally leaving the Europe for good, keeping UK under its skirts as a staging
lapdance island outpost?
Born
3 February 1967
Quimper, Finistčre, France
Died
5 May 2017 (aged 50)
Plouisy, Côtes d'Armor, France
Occupation
Politician
Socialist Party
Corinne Erhel (3 February 1967 – 5 May 2017) was a French politician. She served as a member of the National Assembly from 2007
to 2017, representing the Côtes-d'Armor department.
What clarity I see with most of this thread's posters. Its amazing anyone would put their faith in Le Pen - for a thousand different
reasons but especially after Trump's showing. It scares me how some people are so latched onto this very narrow, far right 'critique'
of globalism and see it as the world's salvation. How easily this faith can be manipulated too. Reminds me of those who were so
energetic about (and facilitated) Mussolini's rise to power.
Not to say the EU stooge is much/any better but its nice to see a more nuanced view here for once.
#8 sigil wrote: "I love how people here use the term 'installed' as if Macron wasn't elected."
A third of French voters voted Le Pen. In a civilized country with a free press you would then expect roughly a third of
newspapers to be in favor of Le Pen, two thirds in favor of Macron. But coverage in favor of Macron was close to 100%. Newspapers,
tv, web, the chancellors of the main universities, the french medical association, you name it: they told you to vote Macron.
I'd like to draw an analogy: Imagine that, at the next presidential elections, newspapers attack the Democratic candidate for
hiring his own wife, but stay mum when documents appear on the net which show corruption by Trump. That all newspapers, all tv
stations, all web sites are in favor of Trump, and - apart from some of the seedier blogs on the web - none in favor of the Democratic
candidate. That the Association of American Universities, the American Medical Association, and the National Academy of Sciences
all ask you to vote Trump. That you get a letter jointly signed by the president of the National Council of Churches, the president
of the US Council of Muslim Organizations, and the Chief Rabbi, asking you to vote Trump. Would you call this free and fair elections?
I wouldn't.
So was that picture photoshopped, b? I couldn't be bothered looking up the source.
At any rate, I think you're going to be proved wrong rapidly. Macron's a bright guy, and ran a very good campaign. That is,
he kept quiet, like May did. But he is really pushy, and evidently competent. I don't know whether that means good or bad. But
lapdog he certainly isn't.
Re 17: The US media etc was overwhelmingly anti-Trump and yet he won. I wish he hadn't, but he did. Enough voters chose him regardless
of what they were told. In France, the voters were exposed to a similar barrage and chose to vote against the far-right candidate
this time. Perhaps that's partly because Trump and the Brexiteers gave them a taste of what to expect; an indication of how half-arsed
and hypocritical the far-right populists can turn out to be.
In all these cases, voters exercised their choices. As did the doctor's associations and university administrators, when choosing
who to endorse. No one was 'installed'. Endorsements aren't a violation of democracy, they're an aspect of it - as is the freedom
to take endorsements seriously or not.
Well it looks like to me that France just elected obomber 2.0. Please let me know in a few years how that hope and change
thingy works in France. It didn't work in Amerika for us the 99% but was great for the 1%.
Both Merkel and Marcon are a couple of M&Ms in the hands of the central bankers and their controllers who call all the shots for
both of these puppets. Politics beyond the local level are manufactured to appear democratic in origin while serving a plutocracy
that controls all eventualities by commanding the life blood of human economics, the Ownership over the creation of all money
and credit. So y'all can relax now until the German and British election cycle gets y'all wound up again over this dog and pony
show as an illusion meant as a distracting deception for the rank and file of humanity.
Macron is the new and improved Obama marketing product/politician. Find a young person without defined policies, brand them
in opposition to something "bad", throw the full support of media and elites behind them, and install them in office to continue
austerity/financialization/war policy as per usual.
It's a brilliant scheme when you consider Macron's "platform" is essentially continuing the failed austerity policies of Hollande,
who is currently approved of by 4% of the French electorate.
The key test will be the parliamentary elections coming up. Can Melenchon put together any support? Can there be a left/right
anti-EU, anti-austerity alliance wide enough to keep the Macron globalists and the traditional right of Fillon from continuing
the downward slide of France?
@8 sigil... installed... yeah, i think that's a good word for what it is... groomed by bankers (rothchild and etc) and coddled
24/7 in the msm which acts as the main propaganda lever in these so called democracy shams.. it has everything to do with plutocracy,
kleptocracy and nothing to do with democracy.. democracy is used as the front, and nothing more.. sorry - someone had to say it...
funny thing - i don't recall using the word installed, but i think it is a good word for where we are at presently.. certain 'regimes'
will be supported more then others, lol...
A paragraph from that link, that mirrors my personal thoughts..
"However, even if Marine Le Pen had won in the final round, the establishment would force her to follow the status quo
agenda of the plutocracy, exactly as happened with Donald Trump in the United States."
Although I've followed this recent French election, I confess to being somewhat ignorant of Macron beyond the basics. Le Pen I
do know more about.
My very ignorant guess is that French voters looked across the Channel and the Pond and saw the clusterfecks in the UK and
the USA and figured an Obama 2.0 might be the better "choice" under the circumstances. As I said, don't know much about Macron
but doesn't seem to be as odious and horrid as Clinton, which is why we're stuck with Trump. IMO (and I was very much open-minded
about Trump once he won) Trump is an unmitigated disaster. I believe Le Pen would've been the same or similar for France (and
elsewhere).
Well the Bankers run the world, do they not? Unsure how to unravel that knot.
Macron will continue to convert France into what Charles Hugh Smith calls a plantation economy:
http://www.oftwominds.com/blogapr17/corp-plantation4-17.html
This echoes the work of David Korten in his book "When Corporations Rule the World" and Michael Hudson in his book "Killing
the Host" Macron's Tomorrowland world favors only the political class, rentiers of the Financial, Insurance and real estate sector
(FIRE), extractive transnational corporations, and their media propagandists.
Macron is a cardboard construct created much like Napoléon (Tolstoy wrote in "war and Peace" if Napoléon Bonaparte did not
exist he would have to be created).
Tocqueville provided a strategy for the people to create a civil society that suppresses the psychopaths that wish to contol
all aspects of society. Adam Smith in his "Wealth of Nations" is mostly about the civil contract among workers and the bosses
and he lays out the three rules of contacts between nations which is actually opposite of the globalists.
I do not think you will be happy in the globalist world order that Macron supports.
Here Madonna supporting Macron. May be considered trivial, just one dopey star shootin' off random perso messages.
I don't think so. Look at these kids, asked to perform and complying clumsily ....for one pres. cand. far away, why? Why? This
is not just random flickr. photos looking for +++ points from aunties.
sigil @ 20 said "The US media etc was overwhelmingly anti-Trump and yet he won."
The truth is, the MSM only opposed Mr. Trump mildly, at best. Through most of Mr. Trump's run for the White House, his coverage
was " wall to wall ". Up to, and including, coverage of a empty podium, while one Bernie Sanders was giving a major live speech
at the same time.
ALL MSM is corporate, and they got just who they wanted, a pro-corporate hack that will do their bidding.
Looks like the French don't read MoA. Maybe if they did things would be different. Instead, something like 65% were bamboozled
by the goddam press and the elites. Isn't it awful when people's right to choose is denied them by these behemoths?
Maybe Trump's performance in his early days had some effect. Maybe his anti-globalist rhetoric that turned out to be pro-.01%
in actual fact gave the French pause. Maybe the French like their world beating health system and standard of living. One of the
reasons for the formation of the EU was to keep the French and Germans from going at it hammer and tongs every few years like
they had since forever and so far it's worked. Could it be that they like the option of traveling freely within the union while
enjoying the benefits they as if they were home? Benefits that certainly didn't come from living in an inward looking country
contemplating its navel.
Now the same folks who waxed ecstatic over Trump's unlikely win have to eat some crow. The snowball effect they so confidently
predicted sweeping European elections has failed to materialize. Who knew people could be so stupid to pass up salvation when
proffered on a silver platter. First the Dutch, and now the French. When will people learn?
Maybe the French are better at reading history books than the Americans.
This could explain why they didn't fall for Le Pen's lies - right-wingers like her always pretend to care for the 'common man
(& woman)', but quickly turn out to be even more corporate-friendly/ pro-capital than their predecessors. If people are upset,
well just offer them some patsy to blame, and laugh while the poor fight each other whites vs. blacks, Christians vs. Muslims
or whatever division comes in handy.
T.'s 'about-face' is by no means surprising; it's standard procedure and was expected by many.
I'd still appreciate if someone could explain to me what 'globalism' means.
The term doesn't make any sense to me, since an '-ism' usually denotes discrimination and classification of humans along certain
lines - but everybody's from the same globe, afaik...(except Elvis, of course)
According to Wikipedia the Gauls were worse at making good hard soap than the Celts and all the various Teutonic tribes ...or
so the olive oil-scraping Romans said. I guess that little bit of knowledge explains a lot of "smelly" jokes and jibes against
southern Europe in general; they really were.
Soap won't work on politicians but soap-making lye should. They say it's all very "green" but you need ash for the lye. Burn
half of them? :P (what's a "shop"?).
France could get very interesting at any point in time without warning, probably more so than any other European nation and
it has been that way for at least a year and a half already. Getting this poodle elected could be a big tactical error on the
part of the powers that be.
I don't trust elections any more than I trust polls, there is no reason to, but it gave "us"/humanity Brexit, so there's that.
Can't tell if b's Merkel-Micron pic is PhotoShopped but Pat Lang is on board with the concept (and context?) with this mid-campaign
cite...
Le Pen quipped during the campaign that France would have a woman president no matter who won because the actual president
would either be She or Angela Merkel.
Jim Stone contends that the election in France was stolen: jist = massive numbers of Le Pen's ballots were torn thus rendering
them uncounted; Macron received half a million extra ballots; the media broadcast the scam that Macron was way ahead in all the
polls; all media support was for Macron; reporting on Macron's dirty underwear was banned.
I get it, Sigil the lefty is happy. I'll go home now. Everything is going to be just fine in France. The French screwed themselves
over, that's all their is to it. You guys had great chance to shake society to it's core but you blew it!!
Bright? Quiet? Plese, this guy IS the establishment itself, he was pushed forward from nowhere by the media, apparently
you have sucked up all their propaganda for him, similar to dupes that loved Obama when he was elected the first time.
Any election system that uses anything other than strategic hedge simple score voting is nothing other than a placebo democracy.
Party-free proportional elections can be achieved with simple score used with the parabolic proportional curve method. Without
such simple methods, we only have simulated / fake democracy that just doesn't work.
sigil @ 20 said "The US media etc was overwhelmingly anti-Trump and yet he won."
Sigil, if you hadn't noticed, Trump came out of the media-entertainment complex...pretty much born of it. That's what you are
asking of Le Pen, to replace her 20 odd years of full tilt political life with self promotion for the sake of ratings.
If he wasn't POTUS, a chump like you would be watching Trunp TV™
Smuks @44--"I'd still appreciate if someone could explain to me what 'globalism' means."
The linked article by Joseph Nye is basically correct and provides a basis for discussion. The concept was also known as Internationalism;
its advocates Internationalists; its antagonists Nationalists or Protectionists. After WW1 the debate over joining The League
of Nations sparked a debate between advocates and antagonists within the Outlaw US Empire that affects us today given the smearing
Pacifists got--Isolationists/Isolationism--as if there were no nuances or grey areas.
@40 peter
I'll hazard a guess that you're not Greek then. Point re: a unified Europe via a tight Franco-German bond is well taken, but at
what cost...? When do Eurocrats and ECBankers come up for re-election...? Hmm, we'll just have to settle for watching another
puppet show I guess.
I wouldnt talk of the far right on series of losses in NL or FR either...the right is on an absolute roll, trending in only
one direction. Seems the French jihadist economy is somewhat of a problem, they're importing more than they're exporting these
days...but shhh...we're not allowed to talk about it.
France took the same old bullet to dodge a bullet, and it will be this way until what remains of the twisted left is reformed
into something backable.
@Brooklyn Bridge 27, 29
Your method doesn't work on Google.
Go to https://unshorten.it/ and paste the short URL into the box there.
Tap on 'Unshorten it' at the end of the box.
Scroll down to the blue 'goto' button at the bottom of the page.
Right click on it and copy the link therein, which is the expanded URL.
They receive a large amount of internet traffic and have the potential ability to fingerprint users and subvert privacy protections.
AFAIK they don't do anything malicious, but I don't know they don't.
So was that picture photoshopped, b? I couldn't be bothered looking up the source. At any rate, I think you're going to
be proved wrong rapidly. Macron's a bright guy, and ran a very good campaign. That is, he kept quiet, like May did. But he is
really pushy, and evidently competent. I don't know whether that means good or bad. But lapdog he certainly isn't.
"He is really pushy, and evidently competent."
Guess you missed reading some of his background. Worked as a Rothschild banker. Had no idea what is EBITDA? Oh my. Read the
link and understand the Whys behind the photo image b posted. Macron was groomed
created out of thin air
[Yet] it wasn't just a Rothschild sponsor who took the young Macron under his wing
What Mr Macron lacked in technical knowledge and jargon at first, he made up for with contacts in government, says Sophie
Javary, head of BNP Paribas' corporate finance in Europe, who was asked by Mr Henrot to coach Mr Macron in the first year.
This is straight up bizarre. It appears Macron was so important to banking interests the had to form a consortium of firms
to all pitch in to help him out. Yet it gets stranger still.
On the Atos deal, Mr Macron "had a fairly junior role at the time - he would be asked to redo the financial models on Excel,
the basics," recalled an adviser. But a few days after the deal was announced, Mr Macron was made a partner. A few months later,
he stunned colleagues and rivals by winning a role in Nestlé's purchase of Pfizer's infant food operations.
As someone who spent ten years on Wall Street, I can tell you with certainty that you don't go from updating excel models
at a junior level to partner overnight. Someone extraordinarily powerful was pulling all sorts of strings for this guy. There
seems to be little doubt about this.
Further hints that Macron is a total manufactured elitist creation can be seen with the following.
At the bank, Mr Macron mastered the art of networking and navigated around the numerous conflicts of interest that arise
in close-knit Parisian business circles, making good use of his connections as an Inspecteur des Finances - an elite corps
of the very highest-ranking graduates from ENA.
In 2010, he advised, for free, the staff of Le Monde when the newspaper was put up for sale. Journalists at the daily
started doubting his loyalty when they happened upon him in conversation with Mr Minc, who was representing a bidding consortium
that the staff opposed. They did not know that it was Mr Minc, a fellow Inspecteur des Finances, who had helped the young Mr
Macron secure his interview at Rothschild.
A media executive who was part of the same consortium recalled: "It wasn't clear who Emmanuel worked for. He was around,
trading intelligence, friends with everyone. It was smart, because he got to know everybody in the media world."
Indeed, who does he work for? I'm sure the French people would like to know.[..]
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
sure he ran a very good campaign. It was so arranged for him – all that $$$$loot and more.
I just read Escobar's piece on the election. He makes some good points about today's post-Orwellian meanings of left and
right - vastly different from earlier times. I'm pretty sure he would agree with the word "installed" - in fact he alludes
to much of the process. I love his writing for its sheer élan, but I have to quote the concluding paragraph:
What French voters have – sort of – endorsed is the unity of neoliberal economy and cultural liberalism. Call it, like
Michea, "integrated liberalism." Or, with all the Orwellian overtones, "post-democratic capitalism."A true revolt of the elites.
And "peasants" buy it willingly. Let them eat overpriced croissants. Once again, France is leading the West.
Thanks, though I'm not much enlightened I'm afraid. Where would you place e.g. the Neocons? Nationalists to the bone, with
global aspirations. 'Internationalism' is a very progressive concept, and mostly associated with the UN, e.g. some form of global
democracy...would you say the same for 'globalism'?
I think that globalism has a negative connotations mostly because of jobs outsourcing overseas. All those telemarketing and
customer service call centers moved to India or Philippines, textile and manufacturing jobs to China and Bangladesh etc - OTOH
we do not mind having cheap Chinese stuff to buy in dollar stores, but it is somewhat irritating when a guy from Mumbai is calling
you to switch to another local phone or cable provider.
Re 63
It's a good article, but I can't see any implication that he believes the voters preferred Le Pen. Terms like 'manufactured' and
'installed' when referring to candidates have their role in drawing attention to elite machinations, but they shouldn't overshadow
the banal fact that the voters really aren't ready to hand power to Le Pen. Most voters don't spend their days picking apart the
tangled threads of Rothschild/NATO/AIPAC/CIA conspiracies, after all. Most voters still think that the euroliberal project can
work, or at any rate, they think the right-wing populists have little to offer beyond thinly-disguised racism. Considering Trump
and the Brexiteers, what other conclusion should they draw?
Excerpt: "From de Gaulle in 1958 to Hollande in 2017, and for all members of the French establishment, the operational principle
of the French towards Africa has been: "invade, intimidate, manipulate, install, antagonize, ingratiate, indemnify, expropriate."
Nothing in this election will change that – only Africans can."
Re 63
It's a good article, but I can't see any implication that he believes the voters preferred Le Pen.
...
Posted by: sigil | May 8, 2017 11:38:51 PM | 69
Me either, and he wasn't. He was attempting to hilight the components of the bamboozlement which the United Swamp inflicted
on French voters. Imo, the Swamp's winning hand was pinning the (fearsome) Far Right label to Le Pen's forehead.
It's ludicrous when seen in the light of her policy platform but it seems to have worked. The following is the nuts & bolts
condensed from an article by James Petras to which I posted a link on the last April Open Thread. There's nothing right-wing in
it...
1. Remove France from NATO's integrated command.
2. End NATO's commitment to US directed global wars.
3. Reject the oligarch-dominated European Union and its austerity programs, which have enriched bankers and multi-national corporations.
4. Convoke a national referendum over the EU - to decide French submission.
5. End sanctions against Russia.
6. Increase trade with Rusia.
7. End France's intervention in Syria and establish ties with Iran and Palestine.
8. Adopt Keynesian demand-driven industrial revitalization as opposed to Emmanuel Macron's ultra-neoliberal supply-side agenda.
9. Raise taxes on banks and financial transactions
10. Penalise capital flight in order to continue funding France's retirement age of 62 for women and 65 for men.
11. Keep the 35 hour work-week.
12. Provid tax-free overtime pay.
13. Direct state intervention to prevent factories from relocating to low wage EU economies and firing French workers.
14. Increase public spending for childcare and for the poor and disabled.
15 Protect French farmers against subsidized, cheap imports.
16. Support abortion rights and gay rights.
17. Oppose the death penalty.
18. Cut taxes by 10% for low-wage workers.
19. Fight against sexism.
20. Fight for equal pay for women.
What makes it interesting is that it seems that the deluge of MSM hokum successfully discouraged the ppl who voted for Micron
from examining and/or evaluating it.
Somehow Macron is the smallest detail of what is going on. The old two major parties have imploded and the survivors are trying
to fight for life by joining the new big centrist Macron-EU lobby movement. Everyday is about a new betrayal, a new U-turn on
what has been signed or promessed by this or that party-member (Valls is the funniest to follow). The French politicians are and
have been a mafia, Corsican type, ever since the 30s (or maybe before already?). Macron won't have much support in the coming
parliament. Episode 2 is 18th June, results of the 2nd round of parliamentary election.
If a clarification happens as to who the people should oppose, anti-EU parties will have to unite and take the fight to Brussels
(which as always, includes sorting out the extreme-right xenophobes and anti-women rights), as Varoufakis already understood.
People here really don't understand how Le Pen functions. The way the MSM is dealing with her (differs from how it was played
with the father, this was Mitterrand's business) is that she is everywhere, in a positive light, on a daily basis, and suddenly
when an election happens, after she has been put up as credible etc they turn against her fascism at the last minute.
The reason she is used first is to make her bigger against the other candidates. It worked this time against Mélenchon,
who had initially better chances than her to win, and who might even have won against Macron (25 % abstention + 10 % blank votes
is still a big reserve for anyone). But the Mélenchon was hailed "same as Le Pen", "friend of Putin and Castro", "supporting Syrian
regime" etc.
As to the 'programme' of Le Pen. She changed her tone when Philippot, a former help of Chevčnement (socialist anti-EU, has
quit the party but still very close to Hollande and Royal !) started to write her speeches. Through time, she simply borrowed
stuff from the leftist unions (CGT), from Mélenchon, so far thay everyone notice the "social left" overtones of her platform.
But when asked precisely, there is nothing behind it but catching new voters. The basis of her voters, those of her father,
are just very normal rightist liberal, with an open racist flavour, and the new mottoes are just to catch more people. Asked about
all the 'borrowings' made by the FN to the extreme-left Mélenchon said that reading a FN tract nowadays looked like it was a CGT
one, but that this did not cover that the fact they were just stealing it without any intention behind it.
The FN is ruling is a number of municipalities, they have 2 MP in the French parliament and 22 in the EUropean parliament.
Please let me know of any 'social left' measure they would have suggested or agreed for?
Under Mitterrand, the Socialists used the FN as the perfect tool to reduce the weight of the right party. After him, the MSM
understood it was the perfect tool to kill the marxists. ALL the media have kept saying "Mélenchon = Le Pen" in the latest months,
especially after Mélenchon had a surge in the voting intentions. The guy is not perfect and would probably not do a good president,
but his charism and pedagogical capacity made him get back some of the working class voters that had stopped voting for the Communists
to vote for Le Pen (after the Communists were involved too often in compromising deals with the very corrupt Socialist Party)
and he also managed to get some youth interested in politics again with his web platform and local organisations.
The illuminists are informing their serfs and their enemies that they are in complete control and that this populist revolt
stops now. It is in your face like Kushner's 666 fifth avenue building. The velvet glove is being removed from the steel fist.
Actually none of the above won 37% of the voters and Macron came in at 24% which is slightly above Le Pen at 21%. The rest
voted against Le Pen by voting for Macron.
This is one hell of a way to run an election and a country. The political divisions are terminal as in the US. The difference,
is that the French allow their leaders to run things until they get few up and than throw a tantrum. In this case the cobblestones
will fly and the transportation system will shut down.
Even the National police (CRS) assassins will not be able to hold the line. There must be a better way to elect leaders who
will add to the wealth of nations rather than the "Masters of the Universe".
It's fascinating. Everybody has his or her very personal idea of what 'globalism' means - yours is the third answer I get on
this forum, and the three are completely different!
What you refer to is 'globalization', which is a natural/ logical process in capitalist economy.
I thus get the impression that 'globalism' doesn't mean anything at all - which means it's a very bad idea to use it in any
debate. Or, you have to define very precisely how you use it before doing so.
@Hoarse 72
Maybe you should learn a bit more about European politics rather than believe in fairytales.
It's strange how some people are disappointed by empty talk over and over, yet all it takes is some politician declaring herself
'anti-establishment' and they'll believe every word she says. That way, of course they're f*ckd time and again... Sad! ;-)
(Look at Ukraine for a perfect example - they believed the nationalists' lies just like you do.)
@Julian 66: Yeah, sure. And even better, the spiders from Mars didn't win either. lol
Globalism does have different meanings ... and uses. It can mean globalism by culture as in travel, communications, foods,
celebrations, etc. It can also mean government level actions pushed by TPTBs like trade deals, border arrangements, regional combinations
(EU, NAFTA), economic/currency deals, supranational organizations (WTO, GATT, EU). The fun is when you complain about the latter,
you are smeared as being a xenophobe and against the former. Voluntary organization from below is one thing, forced from above
is a different matter.
Maybe you should learn a bit more about European politics rather than believe in fairytales.
It's strange how some people are disappointed by empty talk over and over, yet all it takes is some politician declaring herself
'anti-establishment' and they'll believe every word she says. That way, of course they're f*ckd time and again... Sad! ;-)
(Look at Ukraine for a perfect example - they believed the nationalists' lies just like you do.) ...
@smuks | May 9, 2017 7:18:36 AM | 78
Can't argue with your first sentence, but you should have quit while you were ahead. Conflating the violent Putch in Ukraine
with the stance of a France-for-the-French Nationalist is inane, to put it mildly. And as an Aussie, I can assure you that our
Neolib, Turnbull, Totalitarian Capitalist, pro-middleman-itis, industry-destroying Govt could teach the French Swamp a thing or
two about 'honeyed lies' and shameless betrayal by politicians - (whilst feathering their own ne$t$).
The selection, crowning of Macron represents the ultimate effort within the 5th Republic to elect a 'prez' who promises, can,
will be, effective. In what direction is not specified .mystery
Sarkozy was elected as a 'Républicain' (UMP then), an outsider nonetheless, a foreignor almost, a hyperactive, charismatic,
posturing dude who agitated ppl from the right, provided a flattering mirror for many, and displayed an aura of determined,
willful, 'renewal' while being 'conservative.' His wife Cecilia played a big part - another story.
Sark subsequently alienated swatches of the F who were becoming more impoverished, he almost destroyed the judiciary/ police/
repressive etc. organs in F (as he despised them personally) except prisons, that didn't go down well. Sure the 'Left' - aka local
plutocrats belonging to the Le Zuper Klub des Zocialistes trying to get a bigger slice of the economic pie.. facing their
now better entrenched competitors, went into valiant, sputtering, oppo.
Sark was the destruction of Lybia. Hollande was elected as a return to a 'normal' presidency, a-hmm reasonable, understanding,
benevolent, a tad leftist stance. Hollande instored by decree the El Khomri law, as an ex., measures that Sark did not dare attempt.
Hollande was militarily all over, not reported - see war in Mali for ex.
Macron embodies the 'not-left-not-right', the death to the creaky 'establishment' parties; a pragmatic 'renewal', a young brilliant
guy, very French, very heart-felt, etc. Leading to a sort of 'technocratic, unity government' hmmm.
The photoshopped image is funny. Good one. Hummvee, a.k.a. appeal to the reptilian brain. Does anyone know? I heard that Merkel
has a PhD in physics (PhD in alemania is like a masters degree in amerika). So the imagery is maybe not so far from truth.
What you describe is usually called 'globalization', which of course has cultural, economic, political etc. facets. Politics
is always 'forced from above' to some degree, whether on a local, national or global level.
@Hoarse 80
While there was no coup in France, the nationalist ideologies are the same: Pretending to further the 'people's interests'
to garner support, but in reality doing the oligarchs' bidding.
I most certainly don't support neoliberals like Turnbull, Macron or whoever, but with the nationalists you'd get 'the same
but more so', plus heightened conflicts between various groups in society, a.k.a. divide and rule. Look at history, and don't
be fooled (again).
Germans will be disappointed by Macron's election. The force that is driving two countries apart are far bigger than thousands
of macrons.
Here are two fascinating very recent headlines:
Juxtapose one against the other - and it's pretty clear that German strength is a mirror reflection of French weakness.
Because both countries share the same currency, the only way for France to recover is for Germany to become sick. Therein lie
the seeds of conflict. Far from invigorated partnership, one should expect gradual, yet unrelenting unraveling of Franco-German
relations. Frustrated Macron will prove Germany's worst nightmare. It simply can't be any other way.
It looks as though the south koreans will be much happier with
their new president
than the french will be with theirs. In france the next dates of note are 11 and 18 june, aren't they? all this talk of germany
... de gaulle's speech was on the 18th of june, wasn't it? is micron really petain in drag?
"... "What Is America's Goal in the World?" Total domination. ..."
"... You're conflating Russia and the Soviet Union. No country has been more hegemonic that the US ..."
"... Any country, family, tribe, organization etc. on the rise is driven by the shared concern of expanding the pie. But once the pie gets big enough, the major concern of most participants is increasing their own personal share of the pie. Thus whether or not America has a goal in the world, the goal of the deep state participants is to enrich themselves – to keep the gravy train rolling. ..."
"... Kosovo, Iraq and the recent symbolic (but still murderous) attack on Syria were all openly in defiance of the established rules, to which the US had voluntarily signed up. For the globalists, the rules only have any force when they serve the purposes of the globalists. ..."
For the World War II generation there was clarity.
The attack on Pearl Harbor, Dec 7, 1941, united the nation as it had never been before - in the
conviction that Japan must be smashed, no matter how long it took or how many lives it cost.
After the defeat of the Axis powers in 1945, however, Americans divided.
Only with the Berlin Blockade of 1948, the fall of China to Mao and Russia's explosion of an atom
bomb in 1949, and North Korea's invasion of the South in 1950, did we unite around the proposition
that, for our own security, we had to go back to Europe and Asia.
What was called the Cold War consensus - that only America could "contain" Stalin's empire - led
to NATO and new U.S. alliances from the Elbe to the East China Sea.
Vietnam, however, shattered that Cold War consensus.
The far left of the Democratic Party that had taken us into Vietnam had repudiated the war by
1968, and switched sides to sympathize with such Third World communists as Fidel Castro, Che Guevara,
Ho Chi Minh and the Sandinistas.
Center-right presidents - JFK, Nixon, Reagan - accepted the need to cooperate with dictators who
would side with us in fighting Communism.
And we did. Park Chung-Hee in Korea. The Shah in Iran. President Diem in Saigon. Gen. Franco in
Spain. Somoza in Nicaragua. Gen. Mobuto in the Congo. Gen. Pinochet in Chile. Ferdinand Marcos in
Manila. The list goes on.
Under Reagan, the Soviet Empire finally fell apart and the USSR then disintegrated in one of the
epochal events of history.
The American Century had ended in America's triumph.
Yet, after 1989, no new national consensus emerged over what ought to be our role in the World.
What should we stand for? What should we fight for?
What Dean Acheson had said of our cousins in 1962: "Great Britain has lost an empire and has not
yet found a role," was true of us.
What was our role in the world, now that the Cold War was history?
George H.W. Bush took us to war to drive Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. Soaring to 90 percent approval,
he declared America's new role was to construct a New World Order.
Those who opposed him, Bush acidly dismissed in Hawaii on Dec. 7, 1991, the 50th anniversary of
Pearl Harbor:
"We stand here today on the site of a tragedy spawned by isolationism. And it is here we must
learn - and this time avoid - the dangers of today's isolationism and its accomplice, protectionism."
Neither Bush nor his New World Order survived the next November.
Then came payback for our sanctions that had brought death to thousands of Iraqis, and for the
U.S. bases we had foolishly planted on the sacred soil of Saudi Arabia - Sept. 11, 2001.
George W. Bush reacted by launching the two longest wars in our history, in Afghanistan and Iraq,
and announced that our new role was to "end tyranny in our world."
The Bush II crusade for global democracy also fizzled out.
Barack Obama tried to extricate us from Afghanistan and Iraq. But he, too, failed, and got us
into wars in Yemen and Syria, and then started his own war in Libya, producing yet another failed
state.
What does the balance sheet of post-Cold War interventions look like?
Since 1991, we have lost our global preeminence, quadrupled our national debt, and gotten ourselves
mired in five Mideast wars, with the neocons clamoring for a sixth, with Iran.
With the New World Order and global democracy having been abandoned as America's great goals,
what is the new goal of U.S. foreign policy? What is the strategy to achieve it? Does anyone know?
Globalists say we should stand for a "rules-based world order." Not exactly "Remember the Alamo!"
or "Remember Pearl Harbor!" A quarter century after the Cold War, we remain committed to 60-year-old
Cold War alliances to defend scores of nations on the other side of the world. Consider some of the
places where America collides today with nuclear powers: the DMZ, the Senkakus, Scarborough Shoal,
Crimea, the Donbass.
What is vital to us in any of these venues to justify sending an American army to fight, or risking
a nuclear war?
We have lost control of our destiny. We have lost the freedom our Founding Fathers implored us
to maintain - the freedom to stay out of wars of foreign counties on faraway continents.
Like the British and French empires, the American imperium is not sustainable. We have issued
so many war guarantees it is almost assured that we will be dragged into every future great crisis
and conflict on the planet.
If we do not review and discard some of these war guarantees, we shall never know peace. Donald
Trump once seemed to understand this. Does he still?
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, out May 9, "Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles
That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever."
"The far left of the Democratic Party that had taken us into Vietnam "
"During his term, Eisenhower will greatly increase U.S. military aid to the French in Vietnam
to prevent a Communist victory. U.S. military advisors will continue to accompany American supplies
sent to Vietnam. To justify America's commitment, Eisenhower will cite a 'Domino Theory' in which
a Communist victory in Vietnam would result in surrounding countries falling one after another
like a 'falling row of dominoes'. The Domino Theory will be used by a succession of Presidents
and their advisors to justify ever-deepening U.S. involvement in Vietnam."
So, in complete honesty, who "took" us to Vietnam?
Pat Buchanan is not an historian. He is a propagandist with an agenda to persuade.
Anonym, May 12, 2017 at 1:11 pm GMT • 100 Words
Any country, family, tribe, organization etc. on the rise is driven by the shared concern
of expanding the pie. But once the pie gets big enough, the major concern of most participants
is increasing their own personal share of the pie. Thus whether or not America has a goal in the
world, the goal of the deep state participants is to enrich themselves – to keep the gravy train
rolling. If only one does this, it will not harm the overall much but when most are more
problem than solution, the pie starts to shrink.
Corvinus, May 12, 2017 at 3:26 pm GMT • 100 Words
@Realist
"No country has been more hegemonic that the US."
The British up until the 1950′s would have something say about it in light of their vast colonial
empire crumbling. Remember, the United States for most of its history has been an isolationist/neutral
nation. It was post-World War II that has America employed the "invade the world, invite the world"
strategy.
Rurik, May 12, 2017 at 4:09 pm GMT • 200 Words
what is the new goal of U.S. foreign policy? What is the strategy to achieve it? Does anyone
know?
to destroy all resistance to global Zionist domination and the Zio/Anglo boot upon the face
of humanity for all eternity. Duh. (please note that the Zio/Anglo boot in question -- will stamp
on the face of the working class Brits as much as anyone else. The Anglo in the Zio/Anglo boot
represents the aristocrat/Royal/pedophile faction of England, [and their like-minded fellow travelers
in Hollywood and NYC, DC, Paris, Berlin, etc..) and not the average British man and women on the
street, who are slated for hell on earth, just as much as everyone else, perhaps a little more
so than others).
~ all of this was foreseeable as soon as Woodrow Wilson handed the keys to the US Treasury
to the world's greediest, most treacherous, tribal and ethnocentric men (war pigs) on the planet.
In fact it wasn't just foreseeable, but inevitable.
Corvinus, May 12, 2017 at 5:19 pm GMT
"Fair enough. No country is more hegemonic that the US."
No country is more hegemonic than the U.S. post-World War II. Then you could make a legitimate
case.
Randal, May 12, 2017 at 8:35 pm GMT • 100 Words
Globalists say we should stand for a "rules-based world order."
Which of course is every bit as dishonest as you'd expect from globalists. Kosovo, Iraq
and the recent symbolic (but still murderous) attack on Syria were all openly in defiance of the
established rules, to which the US had voluntarily signed up. For the globalists, the rules only
have any force when they serve the purposes of the globalists.
Randal, May 12, 2017 at 8:45 pm GMT • 200 Words
@Corvinus
Remember, the United States for most of its history has been an isolationist/neutral
nation
LOL! Amazing how an "isolationist/neutral" nation managed to expand continuously from a small
collection of remote and backward colonies in 1781 to a globe-bestriding empire with a history
of interfering all around the world from South and Central America to the Mediterranean, Russia,
China and the Pacific, and Africa, all before 1939.
The US might have been "isolationist/neutral" in the sense that it saw it as being in its own
interests to mostly stay out of the wars that were conveniently destroying its British and European
rivals, but it was certainly aggressively expansionist and ruthless from the outset in the use
of both military and economic power to impose its will on other peoples and countries, often on
the other side of the world.
It was hegemonic from the start, albeit starting small. A true heir of the British and European
nations which begat it.
What you describe is America's mendacious self-image, not reality.
"... What is the real relationship between international banking, a private central bank, the lack of sovereign credit, and the need to go to war by the USA? ..."
"... This notion of Afghan War as the 'longest war' in US history. I disagree. I think it's better to see it as an Occupation. The Taliban are mostly sitting pretty and not fighting. They are just waiting for the US to leave. ..."
"... The Afghan War ended long ago. It lasted one or two yrs at most. US pacified the enemy and installed a puppet regime. Since then, US has been occupying the nation. The Taliban and other elements(some criminal) hit and run, but the violence has been on a low scale. ..."
"... Indeed, Afghan War ended so quickly that the US began to plan for Iraq. ..."
"... The kind of low-level conflict in Afghanistan has to be seen as part of an Occupation, like Israel's occupation of West Bank. Once the Afghan Occupation ends, then a real war might break out with the Taliban regaining power. ..."
"... Also, Russian economy depends on energy prices. So, US leverage against Russia depends on control of Middle Eastern oil. ..."
"... A better question would be Why is the US working with its allies like Saudis and Turk to aid terrorists in Syria and elsewhere? Never mind 'caring less'. The fact is US has a hand in the terrorist attacks in Syria and Ukraine. ..."
"... Because all nations have blood on their hands, it's best that US not judge other nations. Like Jesus said when the mob was about to stone Mary Magdalene. ..."
"... Btw, US, as lone superpower, has gotten away with many Pearl Harbors or even worse. The GOOD WAR narrative says Japan deserved what it got for Pearl Harbor. It deserved Tokyo bombing, Okinawa disaster, and nukes too. ..."
"... It seems to me US destruction of Iraq and Libya were built on bigger lies. And the violence and destruction went far beyond Pearl Harbor. After all, Japan was not trying to invade any part of US, not even Hawaii. So, using WWII logic, US deserves 20 nuke hits for its recent sins. But those with Power can do anything. It's good to be the king. ..."
"... 1) The US military is not defending the homeland. (The Invader) 2) In order to win you have to get down and dirty. (Boots on the ground) 3) In war the only winners are the puppet masters. (You fill in the blanks) ..."
"... There is now a single, global economy, unlike the Cold War which (at least in theory), could restrict access to resources. But more realistically, WW 2 was fought in the Pacific because the US could and did embargo oil from Japan. And Germany was able to put up a good fight over half a decade using a quantity of oil that amounted to what we (the US) burn up in a couple of weeks - but unfortunately (for them) needed a couple more weeks worth. ..."
"... Congress has declared war only 5 times. The last time was WW2. Maybe a distinction should be made between formal wars, undeclared wars, police actions and military engagements (under whichever rubric is expedient). ..."
"... " Syrians suffering today under the boot of Bashar al-Assad " Note, too, the references to the Trump administration as something wholly disconnected from and contrary to what preceded it; in fact, there has been little change, especially in the areas Bacevich has addressed. ..."
"... Am I the only reader who senses that this author, even in a critical piece, is carrying some Narrative water for the Establishment? ..."
"... America delenda est. Great article and great truth telling. ..."
"... American law prohibits "foreign aid" to any country which has not signed the "Nuclear Non-proliferation Act" treaty and to any country that will not abide by "International Atomic Energy Agency" guidelines on the inspection of nuclear weapons and facilities. Israel refuses to do either, but is STILL the number one recipient of American largesse (foreign aid), loan forgiveness and weapons acquisition, all paid for by the American taxpayers. ..."
"... In addition, AIPAC, which is the most influential foreign lobbying group in the U S A is not required to register as an "agent of a foreign government" WHY?? It appears that our "foreign policy" is formulated in Tel Aviv, and NOT in Washington D C. Look at the 40 or so "dual-nationality" Israeli Americans who fill the seats in Congress, as well as the thousands of dual-nationality Israeli "policy wonks" who are infesting and infecting the federal government State Department. ..."
"... I used to chuckle when I heard people discuss ZOG (Zionist Occupation Government), but no more. ZOG is real, and is detrimental to the existence of the United States of America. When discussing specific congress critters, I make it a point to put (D) Tel Aviv or (R) Tel Aviv after their names, as Tel Aviv is where they get their "marching orders" from ..."
"... There is hardly anyone intelligent outside US who does not understand that the key problem in the World is that US has never felt the pain that it has been inflicting on others since the American-Spanish war of 1898 (aggressor first). It is as if all the morality free scum of the world has gurgled down just into one country. The Western movies explain it well – it was a plague spreading from the East to the West and then all over the planet. ..."
"... Am I the only reader who senses that this author, even in a critical piece, is carrying some Narrative water for the Establishment? ..."
"... Our federal government employs (the taxpayers I mean) US military personnel in *156* countries! Our US Military has bases in 63 countries! The US government owns a total of *737* bases in foreign lands. Adding to the bases inside U.S. Territory, the total land area occupied by US military bases within the US and internationally is of the order of *2,202,735 hectares*, which makes the Pentagon one of the largest landowners worldwide! http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?5145-Pentagon-One-of-World-s-Largest-Landowners ..."
"... @Kiza You are not the only one - read my comment above please. Prof. Bacevich is official (permitted) opposition critic. Thanks to the regular US MSM diet he reads like a revolutionary to most US zombies. I read him sometimes only to find out what this permitted official criticism in academia looks like - to find out where the minds of US intelligentia (if such thing exists) dwell - how far from the truth even a few intellectual outliers are, those who pride themselves on not being the usual MSM zombies. ..."
"... "12. Israeli nukes: What purpose is served by indulging the pretense that Israel does not have nuclear weapons?" It's funny that I have never heard a single word about this issue from Trump, anyone around Trump, or the hysterical gaggle of anti-Trumpites. A true media blackout in the USA on the matter on all sides. Relegated to the fringe, to conspiracy-theory types. ..."
"... As long as Afghanistan is the or one of the largest producers of opium, US troops will remain there in order to make sure that illicit demand can result in astronomical profits for those involved. ..."
"... The answer to most of these questions is simple. The U.S. is not a country, it is an Empire like Britain and France before it but it is ruled by Jewish people not Christians. Everything should be clear now. ..."
"... It's downright depressing. We have McCain, Clinton and other Blue Ribbon senators, congressmen, and officials that knowingly funded, armed, and trained what is now ISIS. Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen – so much utter destruction, and it just goes on and on. That's just recent memory. The Federal Reserve is pumping out paper like no tomorrow. The government is borrowing it, spending most of it without the constitutional footing to do so. ..."
"... Cultural suicide. The perversion of language, political correctness – you can't trust anything coming from the legacy media. The narratives they are driving are extinguishing Western Civilization. ..."
12. Israeli nukes: What purpose is served by indulging the pretense that Israel does not
have nuclear weapons?
It's funny that I have never heard a single word about this issue from Trump, anyone around
Trump, or the hysterical gaggle of anti-Trumpites. A true media blackout in the USA on the matter
on all sides. Relegated to the fringe, to conspiracy-theory types.
17. Our friends the Pakistanis: Pakistan behaves like a rogue state. It is a nuclear weapons
proliferator. It supports the Taliban.
But because USSR dared help India to establish nuclear energy, the US aided Pakistan to do
the same. Pictures exist of a giant scaffolding of bamboo being used to install a huge vessel
as part of the first Indian nuclear reactor. They lacked a crane so a swarm of guys pulled it
up into place with ropes!
Thank you Andrew Bacevich. As a former military man and present professor, you have elucidated
many issues which as a layperson, I am not fully aware.
However I have a question if you don't mind. What is the real relationship between international
banking, a private central bank, the lack of sovereign credit, and the need to go to war by the
USA?
15. Our friends the Saudis (I) .
16. Our friends the Saudis (II) .
Given that past Presidents have held hands of, kissed the cheeks of, and bowed before a couple
Saudi Kings, maybe we should call a spade a spade and refer to them as our Lords and Masters.
"Why should U.S. relations with Great Britain, a fading power, be any more "special"
than its relations with a rising power like India? "
Why is your own father more important than Narendra Modi? Great Britain gave us our laws, religion,
language, and the Founding Fathers, and more. India gives us H1-B's. One bad apple can spoil the
whole bunch. Trim your list and throw out the stupid items.
This notion of Afghan War as the 'longest war' in US history. I disagree. I think it's
better to see it as an Occupation. The Taliban are mostly sitting pretty and not fighting. They
are just waiting for the US to leave.
There are skirmishes here and there, but nothing that could be called a war.
The Afghan War ended long ago. It lasted one or two yrs at most. US pacified the enemy
and installed a puppet regime. Since then, US has been occupying the nation. The Taliban and other
elements(some criminal) hit and run, but the violence has been on a low scale.
Indeed, Afghan War ended so quickly that the US began to plan for Iraq.
The kind of low-level conflict in Afghanistan has to be seen as part of an Occupation,
like Israel's occupation of West Bank. Once the Afghan Occupation ends, then a real war might
break out with the Taliban regaining power.
9. The Gulf: Americans once believed that their way of life depended on having assured access
to Persian Gulf oil. Today, that is no longer the case. The United States is once more an oil
exporter. Yet the assumption that the Persian Gulf still qualifies as crucial to American national
security persists in Washington. Why?
Why? Because Gulf Oil is still the lifeblood to Asia and Europe. So, if the US is to be the
preeminent superpower, it has to control the energy that its vassals and rivals depend on.
Also, Russian economy depends on energy prices. So, US leverage against Russia depends
on control of Middle Eastern oil.
10. Hyping terrorism: Each year terrorist attacks kill far fewer Americans than do auto accidents,
drug overdoses, or even lightning strikes. Yet in the allocation of government resources, preventing
terrorist attacks takes precedence over preventing all three of the others combined. Why is that?
Because if a real big one hits, like 9/11, it can mean major disruption. Also, it could mean
political death for whoever's in charge.
11. Deaths that matter and deaths that don't: Why do terrorist attacks that kill a handful
of Europeans command infinitely more American attention than do terrorist attacks that kill far
larger numbers of Arabs?
A better question would be Why is the US working with its allies like Saudis and Turk to
aid terrorists in Syria and elsewhere? Never mind 'caring less'. The fact is US has a hand in
the terrorist attacks in Syria and Ukraine.
17. Our friends the Pakistanis: Pakistan behaves like a rogue state. It is a nuclear weapons
proliferator. It supports the Taliban.
But because USSR dared help India to establish nuclear energy, the US aided Pakistan to do the
same. Pictures exist of a giant scaffolding of bamboo being used to install a huge vessel as part
of the first Indian nuclear reactor. They lacked a crane so a swarm of guys pulled it up into
place with ropes!
@The
Alarmist 15. Our friends the Saudis (I) ....
16. Our friends the Saudis (II) ....
Given that past Presidents have held hands of, kissed the cheeks of, and bowed before a couple
Saudi Kings, maybe we should call a spade a spade and refer to them as our Lords and Masters.
24. Moral obligations: When confronted with some egregious violation of human rights, members
of the chattering classes frequently express an urge for the United States to "do something."
But what determines the pecking order of such moral obligations? Who has a greater claim to
U.S. assistance, Syrians suffering today under the boot of Bashar al-Assad or Iraqis, their country
shattered by the U.S. invasion of 2003?
Because all nations have blood on their hands, it's best that US not judge other nations.
Like Jesus said when the mob was about to stone Mary Magdalene.
There are rare cases when genocide is so horrible that action should be taken, like what happened
in Rwanda. On the other hand, the US public and 'progressives' are fickle too.
When Johnson and Nixon said US must stay in Southeast Asia to prevent communism barbarism,
the progressives mocked the rationale. They said US must leave and let the Asians sort it out.
Given that logic, how could US re-enter to save Cambodians from communists?
Btw, US, as lone superpower, has gotten away with many Pearl Harbors or even worse. The
GOOD WAR narrative says Japan deserved what it got for Pearl Harbor. It deserved Tokyo bombing,
Okinawa disaster, and nukes too.
It seems to me US destruction of Iraq and Libya were built on bigger lies. And the violence
and destruction went far beyond Pearl Harbor. After all, Japan was not trying to invade any part
of US, not even Hawaii. So, using WWII logic, US deserves 20 nuke hits for its recent sins. But
those with Power can do anything. It's good to be the king.
"2 . American military supremacy: The United States military is undoubtedly the world's finest.
It's also far and away the most generously funded, with policymakers offering U.S. troops no shortage
of opportunities to practice their craft. So why doesn't this great military ever win anything?"
1) The US military is not defending the homeland. (The Invader) 2) In order to win you
have to get down and dirty. (Boots on the ground) 3) In war the only winners are the puppet masters.
(You fill in the blanks)
The Gulf: Americans once believed that their prosperity and way of life depended on having
assured access to Persian Gulf oil. Today, that is no longer the case. The United States is
once more an oil exporter. Available and accessible reserves of oil and natural gas in North
America are far greater than was once believed. Yet the assumption that the Persian Gulf still
qualifies as crucial to American national security persists in Washington. Why?
It is more than simply this. As if this isn't enough.
There is now a single, global economy, unlike the Cold War which (at least in theory),
could restrict access to resources. But more realistically, WW 2 was fought in the Pacific because
the US could and did embargo oil from Japan. And Germany was able to put up a good fight over
half a decade using a quantity of oil that amounted to what we (the US) burn up in a couple of
weeks - but unfortunately (for them) needed a couple more weeks worth.
The fact that ISIS was anxious to sell oil on world markets is a good indication that there
is only one use for oil and that is to sell in global markets. We are stuck with WW 2 as the bedrock
of strategic thinking. Hell yes, our current carrier task forces would have been decisive in WW
2, but now are just a high value targets with no proven survivability against cruise missile based
attack. If they are simply for show, a WW 2 era battleship is more impressive to sail into port.
Why fight for a commodity that you can simply purchase? And now, it is on sale. This is like
fighting a war for access to strategic coal.
Congress has declared war only 5 times. The last time was WW2. Maybe a distinction should
be made between formal wars, undeclared wars, police actions and military engagements (under whichever
rubric is expedient).
Using the word 'war' itself (as in the Afghanistan War) seems to give it some kind of credibility.
It this case it would be 'the foreign war to re-establish opium production in aid of the domestic
war on drugs".
That truly brings to mind my favorite Bronstein quote " You may not be interested in war but
war is interested in you". The choice for you young man is to put on the camo uniform or the orange
jumpsuit. Some lucky lads get to do both.
" Syrians suffering today under the boot of Bashar al-Assad " Note, too, the references
to the Trump administration as something wholly disconnected from and contrary to what preceded
it; in fact, there has been little change, especially in the areas Bacevich has addressed.
Am I the only reader who senses that this author, even in a critical piece, is carrying
some Narrative water for the Establishment?
"15. Our friends the Saudis (I): Fifteen of the 19 hijackers on September 11, 2001, were Saudis.
What does that fact signify?"
Oh! Please! Does the author really believe this? Has he done any basic research, such as looked
at Architects & Engineers for 9 / 11 truth? What was that about the attention span of a two year
old? Or, is this very slick disinfo?
American law prohibits "foreign aid" to any country which has not signed the "Nuclear Non-proliferation
Act" treaty and to any country that will not abide by "International Atomic Energy Agency" guidelines
on the inspection of nuclear weapons and facilities. Israel refuses to do either, but is STILL
the number one recipient of American largesse (foreign aid), loan forgiveness and weapons acquisition,
all paid for by the American taxpayers.
In addition, AIPAC, which is the most influential foreign lobbying group in the U S A is
not required to register as an "agent of a foreign government" WHY??
It appears that our "foreign policy" is formulated in Tel Aviv, and NOT in Washington D C. Look
at the 40 or so "dual-nationality" Israeli Americans who fill the seats in Congress, as well as
the thousands of dual-nationality Israeli "policy wonks" who are infesting and infecting the federal
government State Department.
I used to chuckle when I heard people discuss ZOG (Zionist Occupation Government), but
no more. ZOG is real, and is detrimental to the existence of the United States of America. When
discussing specific congress critters, I make it a point to put (D) Tel Aviv or (R) Tel Aviv after
their names, as Tel Aviv is where they get their "marching orders" from
The truth is that the United States will consider surrendering its nukes only after every
other nation on the planet has done so first.
I am guessing that in such imaginary situation the US would get rid of its own nuclear weapons
by dropping them all on Russia and China, if those two were as foolish as to get rid of their
own first. Obviously, US was the first country to develop them, US is the only country which has
used the nuclear weapons to kill, and the only country which could use them at almost any moment
again. Obviously, if US, and its owner Israel, got rid of their nuclear weapons, then there would
be a very good chance that everybody else would and in a peaceful way. Therefore, this sentence
pretends irony, but does a deliberate logical obfuscation. In other words, even when a US person
tries to criticise US, he remains a mental slave of his own tribe. This kind of article is good
for academic circles in US – to show the intellectual bravery to criticise whilst staying within
the confines of the permitted narrative.
There is hardly anyone intelligent outside US who does not understand that the key problem
in the World is that US has never felt the pain that it has been inflicting on others since the
American-Spanish war of 1898 (aggressor first). It is as if all the morality free scum of the
world has gurgled down just into one country. The Western movies explain it well – it was a plague
spreading from the East to the West and then all over the planet.
"When the secrets were revealed, however, the U.S. government suffered considerable embarrassment,
so much so that presidents foreswore politically motivated murder. After 9/11, however, Washington
returned to the assassination business in a big way and on a global scale, using drones."
We are pretty clearly at war with Islamic fundamentalism. Or at least they are at war with
us. Attacking the enemy's command and control is a pretty obvious and generally considered entirely
legitimate military tactic in time of war. So is this "assassination" or "murder?" Where is the
line between legitimate killing of enemies and "politically motivated murder" to be drawn? Why?
Generally a good article.
The special relationship with Great Britain needs to be expanded, and not only in the intelligence
sphere – not sneered at so carelessly GB is to formalise a link with the Anglosphere nations
– Oz, Canada, NZ – as part of life after Brexit as an extension of the 5 eyes .
@anonymous
"... Syrians suffering today under the boot of Bashar al-Assad..." Note, too, the references to
the Trump administration as something wholly disconnected from and contrary to what preceded it;
in fact, there has been little change, especially in the areas Bacevich has addressed.
Am I the only reader who senses that this author, even in a critical piece, is carrying
some Narrative water for the Establishment?
Weak. What about The Fed, the bull shit 'Debt crisis', the 1% who should be all taxed to the
hilt, the almost total control by the 2% (that infestation of 'you know who'). The working class
that is being screwed by all of the above. The Republitards defending the minimum wage of $7.25
an hour, LOL! Then there is the mention of The Zionist State in only one or two items. Well it
should be in at least items 1, 3, 5. 10, 11, 12, 13, and 24! Oh, I forgot item 22, lol!!
The thinking people in Europe, a growing number, just want to defend ourselves against NATO,
in order not to become a battle field for a nuclear war between Russia and the USA. These thinking
people are quite happy with Russia as a supplier of natural gas, have no desire to make our houses
some 40.000 euro's more expensive, in order not having to import Russian gas, as former EU chairman
Van Rompuy wants us to do.
These thinking people fear Groenlinks, the green leftists, whose objective seems to be, in
order to save the planet, to destroy our country.
These thinking people want an end to ME and N African wars, to save us from yet more immigration,
that makes our social security systems a financial nightmare, and brings us on the brink of civil
warfare.
We also want sanctions against Russia to end, so that we again can export flowers and vegetables.
And these thinking people do not want an European army, that might be used to suppress insurrections
against Brussels, therefore they disapprove of the Ukraine association treaty.
@NoseytheDuke
"15. Our friends the Saudis (I): Fifteen of the 19 hijackers on September 11, 2001, were Saudis.
What does that fact signify?"
Oh! Please! Does the author really believe this? Has he done any basic research, such as looked
at Architects & Engineers for 9 / 11 truth? What was that about the attention span of a two year
old? Or, is this very slick disinfo?
Our federal government employs (the taxpayers I mean) US military personnel in *156* countries!
Our US Military has bases in 63 countries! The US government owns a total of *737* bases in foreign
lands. Adding to the bases inside U.S. Territory, the total land area occupied by US military
bases within the US and internationally is of the order of *2,202,735 hectares*, which makes the
Pentagon one of the largest landowners worldwide!
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?5145-Pentagon-One-of-World-s-Largest-Landowners
@NoseytheDuke
"15. Our friends the Saudis (I): Fifteen of the 19 hijackers on September 11, 2001, were Saudis.
What does that fact signify?"
Oh! Please! Does the author really believe this? Has he done any basic research, such as looked
at Architects & Engineers for 9 / 11 truth? What was that about the attention span of a two year
old? Or, is this very slick disinfo?
@Kiza
You are not the only one - read my comment above please. Prof. Bacevich is official (permitted)
opposition critic. Thanks to the regular US MSM diet he reads like a revolutionary to most US
zombies. I read him sometimes only to find out what this permitted official criticism in academia
looks like - to find out where the minds of US intelligentia (if such thing exists) dwell - how
far from the truth even a few intellectual outliers are, those who pride themselves on not being
the usual MSM zombies.
@Kiza
Yet, many comments here are by MSM Zombies with slanted foreheads, for who Prof. Bachevic is like
an unreachable height of intellectualism. Where is the old unz team of commenters who understood
what was really going on?
I know that Prof. Bachevic has lost his son in the US war on Iraq, but his criticism of US is
still lukewarm and mild in order to be digestible by his US audience.
@anonymous
"... Syrians suffering today under the boot of Bashar al-Assad..." Note, too, the references to
the Trump administration as something wholly disconnected from and contrary to what preceded it;
in fact, there has been little change, especially in the areas Bacevich has addressed.
Am I the only reader who senses that this author, even in a critical piece, is carrying some
Narrative water for the Establishment?
12. Israeli nukes: What purpose is served by indulging the pretense that Israel does not have
nuclear weapons?
"12. Israeli nukes: What purpose is served by indulging the pretense that Israel does not
have nuclear weapons?" It's funny that I have never heard a single word about this issue from
Trump, anyone around Trump, or the hysterical gaggle of anti-Trumpites. A true media blackout
in the USA on the matter on all sides. Relegated to the fringe, to conspiracy-theory types.
The explosive devices were carefully placed inside the Triple Towers by the Mossad, when security
was down (on purpose). That's why Israeli "art students" were caught red-handed celebrating after
the Towers went down. These shocking facts are available to anyone willing to turn off his TeeVee
(it's tough; I know) and do a little bit of historical research. You can't make a better start
than Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. If anyone is truly interested in knowing the fundamental
political facts of life in the USA today, he should start there. The way the tide of history is
flowing, he may not have the chance in a few years.
Make good use of your mind and your First Amendment freedoms while you still have both.
"The conflict commonly referred to as the Afghanistan War is now the longest in U.S. history
- having lasted longer than the Civil War, World War I, and World War II combined. What is the
Pentagon's plan for concluding that conflict? When might Americans expect it to end? On what terms?"
As long as Afghanistan is the or one of the largest producers of opium, US troops will
remain there in order to make sure that illicit demand can result in astronomical profits for
those involved.
The answer to most of these questions is simple. The U.S. is not a country, it is an Empire
like Britain and France before it but it is ruled by Jewish people not Christians. Everything
should be clear now.
It's downright depressing. We have McCain, Clinton and other Blue Ribbon senators, congressmen,
and officials that knowingly funded, armed, and trained what is now ISIS. Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya,
Syria, Yemen – so much utter destruction, and it just goes on and on. That's just recent memory.
The Federal Reserve is pumping out paper like no tomorrow. The government is borrowing it, spending
most of it without the constitutional footing to do so.
Cultural suicide. The perversion of language, political correctness – you can't trust anything
coming from the legacy media. The narratives they are driving are extinguishing Western Civilization.
@Anonymous
"the least corrupt countries in the world are in the Anglo-sphere what does that mean, lads?"
That simply means that the Anglo-sphere has amassed enough wealth, firstly through looting
via colonial conquests, then subsequently to a more covert system of looting, as we have now.
That ill-gotten wealth has helped immensely in the Anglo-sphere attaining a superior level
of, wealth generating, intellectual momentum. Of course, regular injections of other ill-gotten
wealth, oils the system really well.
Coming back to the topic of corruption, when a nation has enough wealth, the need for monetary
corruption within it diminishes. That doesn't mean that the moral corruption required for looting
other nations diminishes too. That fire is still raging in the heart of Anglo-sphere.
The quest to maintain the evil dollar as the reserve currency of the world, at the expense
of millions of lives, is just one example.
Some will argue that the least corrupt are Scandinavian nations, which don't go around invading
other nations, do they? I see them as simply piggybacking on the evil empire (after all people
tend to help their own kind, right?), and in that manner gain handsomely from the spoils of conflict.
Once a cultural error gets "stuck" in the culture, it is difficult to expunge.
@jilles
dykstra That the towers were demolished with thermite seems pretty sure to me, it explains
why most of the steel melted.
But why Mossad ? The towers security firm was headed by a brother of Bush jr, they had all the
time and opportunity in the world to plant explosives in the service areas.
"Yet the assumption that the Persian Gulf still qualifies as crucial to American national security
persists in Washington. Why?"
A darn good question. My understanding is that the theory is that, while we don't really need
their oil anymore, our allies such as Europe and Japan do.
"How about the Filipinos, brutally denied independence and forcibly incorporated into an American
empire as the nineteenth century ended? "
A reasonable question. However, given the period, the choice was not between independence and
American empire.
It was between incorporation into the American empire or into the British, French or German
versions.
Unless we wanted to assume a protectorate over the islands and protect them from conquest.
Something like we did with the Monroe Doctrine.
It is also reasonable to note that the "American empire" over the Philippines almost immediately
began the process of working towards independence, unlike any of the other empires.
"By what logic, since the 1940s, has the killing of Germans, Japanese, Koreans, Vietnamese,
Laotians, Cambodians, Afghans, and others by U.S. air power been any less reprehensible than the
Syrian government's use of "barrel bombs" to kill Syrians today?"
Barrel bombs were called 'blockbusters' or 'cookies' in WW2.
"The 4,000 lb high capacity design was little more than a cylinder full of explosives-it was
unaerodynamic and did not have fins."
November 21st, 2015 Fascists Running America Endorse Nazism. America didn't eliminate the scourge
of fascism in WW II. It shifted its headquarters from Berlin and Tokyo to Washington.
Seriously? Nice trick considering there is no proof that OBL was actually killed by US forces.
None. http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/bin_laden_death.html
Who cares about Israel's official no-comment policy on its nukes. It has no effect on any nation's
actual policy.
A terrorist attack that kills Egyptians or Iraqis elicits shrugs. Why the difference?
Arabs place a low value on each others' lives, which is why they kill each other so often,
over such petty reasons, and with no remorse. Copts should move to Lebanon in my opinion to create
a safe Christian majority country in the middle east. They are not safe in Muslim countries.
These are all great questions in the realm of foreign policy. Each is not asked because the
Elites want it that way. We have at least that many questions relating to race and ethnicity and
religion and immigration and crime rates that need to be asked but are not because our Elites
do not want them asked.
@SolontoCroesus
The premise of the article is bass ackward: neither Italian Fascism nor German National Socialism
harbored goals of international conquest.
Didn't read past the second paragraph: why bother? It's a prime example of what happens when
propaganda is relied upon as the basis for history.
If Lendman were able to get his head out of the holohoax pit and look at the "war to end all
war" and "good war" square in the face for what they were, his first paragraph would read something
like,
America's mask is increasingly being peeled away: having worn the mask of "saving the world
for democracy" to eliminate Berlin and Tokyo as counterbalances to its global quest, then occupying
them psychologically and economically, it is now openly running its global war on humanity overtly
from Washington.
Today, it has partnered with likeminded allies, destroying fundamental freedoms, risking the
unthinkable, potential life-ending nuclear war.
@jilles
dykstra That the towers were demolished with thermite seems pretty sure to me, it explains
why most of the steel melted.
But why Mossad ?
The towers security firm was headed by a brother of Bush jr, they had all the time and opportunity
in the world to plant explosives in the service areas.
My nephew just signed the ROTC contract I am devastated to the point of not posting on UNZ
Review anymore .inconsolable grief .so many pointless meaningless deaths for Greater Israel
Although there are several good questions in the piece, there are also many problems, as others
have noted.
Perhaps the most bizarre is number 19, The mother of all "special relationships" .
Now, Mr. Bacevich, the current mother of all "special relationships" ain't the one with ZUK,
no, no it's the one with Israel and its zionist 5th column within ZUSA.
"18. Free-loading Europeans";
This one could be extended to the 'free-loading' Koreans, Japanese , etc. But in reality, ZUSA
is not in ANY of these places to "defend" them , rather ZUSA is there for all the bases and hegemony,
which includes these countries as ZUSA's vassal states, greatly enhancing US imperialism trough
an appearance of multilateralism.
Mr. Buchanan is another one who uses this less than honest formulation.
@Eustace
Tilley (not) You're quite right about Bush's security firm having had the time and opportunity.
They may have placed the explosive devices in the towers. Mossad almost surely had the expertise,
and, most important, the access to the technology. Having the devices obtained domestically might
have left an unnecessary "paper trail" in the supply chain that Israel did not have to concern
itself with.
We will know the answers to these questions (and, of course, 9/11 mysteries and anomalies are
legion) when God-Emperor Donald J. Trump appoints a Special Presidential Commission on 9/11 Events,
with the power to issue subpoenas and place witnesses under oath, later in his first term.
Comparing the long ago white settlement of almost uninhabited America (funny how Cortez and
company always get a pass) with the modern settlement of largely already occupied Palestine is
ludicrous. Other points are very good. America should abandon its empire.
@SolontoCroesus
The premise of the article is bass ackward: neither Italian Fascism nor German National Socialism
harbored goals of international conquest.
Didn't read past the second paragraph: why bother? It's a prime example of what happens when
propaganda is relied upon as the basis for history.
If Lendman were able to get his head out of the holohoax pit and look at the "war to end all
war" and "good war" square in the face for what they were, his first paragraph would read something
like,
America's mask is increasingly being peeled away: having worn the mask of "saving the world
for democracy" to eliminate Berlin and Tokyo as counterbalances to its global quest, then occupying
them psychologically and economically, it is now openly running its global war on humanity overtly
from Washington. Today, it has partnered with likeminded allies, destroying fundamental freedoms,
risking the unthinkable, potential life-ending nuclear war.
"... By Jayati Ghosh, Professor of Economics and Chairperson at the Centre for Economic Studies and Planning, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. This is Part 3 of a four-part article, published in the March/April 2017 special "Costs of Empire" issue of Dollars & Sense magazine. Parts 1, 2 and 3 are available here. here , and here , respectively. Cross posted from Triple Crisis ..."
America is getting richer every year. The American worker is not.
Far from it: On average, workers born in 1942 earned as much or more over their careers than
workers born in any year since, according to new research - and workers on the job today shouldn't
expect to catch up with their predecessors in their remaining years of employment .
While economists have been concerned about recent data on earnings, the new paper suggests
that ordinary Americans have been dealing with serious economic problems for much longer than
may be widely recognized.
The new paper includes some "astonishing numbers," said Gary Burtless, an economist at the
nonpartisan Brookings Institution who was not involved in the research. "The stagnation of living
standards began so much earlier than people think," he said
For instance, the typical 27-year-old man's annual earnings in 2013 were 31 percent less than
those of a typical 27-year-old man in 1969. The data suggest that today's young men are unlikely
to make up for that decline by earning more in the future.
By Jayati Ghosh, Professor of Economics and Chairperson at the Centre for Economic Studies
and Planning, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. This is Part 3 of a four-part article, published
in the March/April
2017 special "Costs of Empire" issue of Dollars & Sense magazine. Parts 1, 2 and 3 are available
here.
here , and
here , respectively. Cross posted from
Triple Crisis
A recent report from the McKinsey Global Institute, "Poorer than Their Parents? Flat or falling
incomes in advanced economies" (July 2016) shows how the past decade has brought significantly worse
economic outcomes for many people in the developed world.
Falling Incomes
In 25 advanced economies, 65-70% of households (540-580 million people) "were in segments of the
income distribution whose real incomes were flat or had fallen" between 2005 and 2014. By contrast,
between 1993 and 2005, "less than 2 percent, or fewer than ten million people, experienced this phenomenon."
In Italy, a whopping 97% of the population had stagnant or declining market incomes between 2005
and 2014. The equivalent figures were 81% for the United States and 70% for the United Kingdom.
The worst affected were "young people with low educational attainment and women, single mothers
in particular." Today's younger generation in the advanced countries is "literally at risk of ending
up poorer than their parents," and in any case already faces much more insecure working conditions.
Shifting Income Shares
The McKinsey report noted that "from 1970 to 2014, with the exception of a spike during the 1973–74
oil crisis, the average wage share fell by 5 percentage points in the six countries studied in depth"
(United States, United Kingdom, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Sweden); in the "most extreme
case, the United Kingdom, by 13 percentage points."
These declines occurred "despite rising productivity, suggesting a disconnect between productivity
and incomes." Productivity gains were either grabbed by employers or passed on in the form of lower
prices to maintain competitiveness.
Declining wage shares are widely seen as results of globalization and technological changes, but
state policies and institutional relations in the labor market matter. According to the McKinsey
report. "Swedish labor policies such as contracts that protect both wage rates and hours worked"
resulted in ordinary workers receiving a larger share of income.
Countries that have encouraged the growth of part-time and temporary contracts experienced bigger
declines in wage shares. According to European Union data, more than 40% of EU workers between 15
and 25 years have insecure and low-paying contracts. The proportion is more than half for the 18
countries in the Eurozone, 58% in France, and 65% in Spain.
The other side of the coin is the rising profit shares in many of these rich countries. In the
United States, for example, "after-tax profits of U.S. firms measured as a share of the national
income even exceeded the 10.1 percent level last reached in 1929."
Policy Matters
Government tax and transfer policies can change the final disposable income of households. Across
the 25 countries studied in the McKinsey report, only 20-25% of the population experienced flat or
falling disposable incomes. In the United States, government taxes and transfers turned a "decline
in market incomes for 81 percent of all income segments into an increase in disposable income for
nearly all households."
Government policies to intervene in labor markets also make a difference. In Sweden, the government
"intervened to preserve jobs, market incomes fell or were flat for only 20 percent, while disposable
income advanced for almost everyone."
In most of the countries examined in the study, government policies were not sufficient to prevent
stagnant or declining incomes for a significant proportion of the population.
Effects on Attitudes
The deteriorating material reality is reflected in popular perceptions. A 2015 survey of British,
French, and U.S. citizens confirmed this, as approximately 40% "felt that their economic positions
had deteriorated."
The people who felt worse-off, and those who did not expect the situation to improve for the next
generation, "expressed negative opinions about trade and immigration."
More than half of this group agreed with the statement, "The influx of foreign goods and services
is leading to domestic job losses." They were twice as likely as other respondents to agree with
the statement, "Legal immigrants are ruining the culture and cohesiveness in our society."
The survey also found that "those who were not advancing and not hopeful about the future" were,
in France, more likely to support political parties such as the far-right Front National and, in
Britain, to support Brexit.
Effects on Politics
Decades of neoliberal economic policies have hollowed out communities in depressed areas and eliminated
any attractive employment opportunities for youth. Ironically, in the United States this favored
the political rise of Donald Trump, who is himself emblematic of the plutocracy.
Similar tendencies are also clearly evident in Europe. Rising anti-EU sentiment has been wrongly
attributed only to policies allowing in more migrants. The hostile response to immigration is part
of a broader dissatisfaction related to the design and operation of the EU. For years now, it has
been clear that the EU has failed as an economic project. This stems from the very design of the
economic integration-flawed, for example, in the enforcement of monetary integration without banking
union or a fiscal federation that would have helped deal with imbalances between EU countries-as
well as from the particular neoliberal economic policies that it has forced its members to pursue.
This has been especially evident in the adoption of austerity policies across the member countries,
remarkably even among those that do not have large current-account or fiscal deficits. As a result,
growth in the EU has been sclerotic at best since 2004, and even the so-called "recovery" after 2012
has been barely noticeable. Even this lacklustre performance has been highly differentiated, with
Germany emerging as the clear winner from the formation of the Eurozone. Even large economies like
France, Italy, and Spain experienced deteriorating per capita incomes relative to Germany from 2009
onwards. This, combined with fears of German domination, probably added to the resentment of the
EU that is now being expressed in both right-wing and left-wing movements across Europe.
The union's misguided emphasis on neoliberal policies and fiscal austerity packages has also contributed
to the persistence of high rates of unemployment, which are higher than they were more than a decade
ago. The "new normal" therefore shows little improvement from the period just after the Great Recession-the
capitalist world economy may no longer be teetering on the edge of a cliff, but that is because it
has instead sunk into a mire.
It is sad but not entirely surprising that the globalization of the workforce has not created
a greater sense of international solidarity, but rather undermined it. Quite obviously, progressive
solutions cannot be found within the existing dominant economic paradigm. But reversions to past
ideals of socialism may not be all that effective either. Rather, this new situation requires new
and more relevant economic models of socialism to be developed, if they are to capture the popular
imagination.
Such models must transcend the traditional socialist paradigm's emphasis on centralized government
control over an undifferentiated mass of workers. They must incorporate more explicit emphasis on
the rights and concerns of women, ethnic minorities, tribal communities, and other marginalised groups,
as well as recognition of ecological constraints and the social necessity to respect nature. The
fundamental premises of the socialist project, however, remain as valid as ever: The unequal, exploitative
and oppressive nature of capitalism; the capacity of human beings to change society and thereby alter
their own futures; and the necessity of collective organisation to do so.
NOTE: Parts of this article appeared in "The Creation of the New Imperialism: The Institutional
Architecture," Monthly Review , July 2015.
While incomes in the developed world are flat, the outcomes globalization has imposed
on labour in the developing world are even more dire. Lets face it, the global south is
effectively a labour reserve pool that is used by trans-national corporations as a de facto
income growth suppresant in the global north. This dynamic is particurlarly pernicious for
global south workers because they enter labour markets at or near subsistence level wages,
with upward income mobility nearly impossible as ill informed developing country governments,
in their naive quest to create investor friendly environments, bargain away any protections
that could ensure said upward income mobility. Furthermore, these trans-national corporations
are running a globalized exploitation racket where developing nations are pitted against
one another in a race to see who can enslave their labour force more fervently in service
of global capital. This of course has the effect of, at best, depressing incomes in developed
economies, and at worst, completely eliminating large swathes of jobs in many developed
economy sectors
I'd offer that the corporate entities that pretty much rule us are more completely described
as post- and supra-national than simply transnational. Creatures birthed like Aliens that
ate their way out of the mothers that spawned them. Given life by legalisms born out of
nation-states and other grafters of "franchise" and "legitimacy," now ingesting and digesting
their parents and lesser siblings.
Also, that there's just too many people living off a declining carrying capacity of the
planet. And what is with the notion that we all have some kind or reasonable expectation
to be "richer" than our parents? Is that not part of the algo-rhythms that are killing us
mopes, wracked with dreams of sugarplum carboconsumption and hyped with fevered visions
of "innovation" and "progress" based on "disruption" and monetization? And thus willing
(on the part of those who are aware of the vague shape of the Bezzle and hope to gain from
it, against the well-being of our fellows) or are so oppressed and oblivious and Bernays-ized
not to see it at all.
Immunity, impunity, invulnerability, the hallmarks of the looters. "Upward income mobility"
except for the very few that by birth or other lucky happenstance can manipulate their way
into the self-feeding gyre of wealth accumulation and attendant power, is an awful example
of unobtainium dangled at the end of the carrot-stick
The article points to the elephant in the room when it closes with "as well as recognition
of ecological constraints and the social necessity to respect nature."
One can suggest that TPTB may recognize that climate change/ecological damage is quite
real and continuing apace.
They know they have a "denominator/divisor" problem with respect to a growing world wide
population and resource allocation.
TPTB are hoovering up all they can for their future use.
Austerity policies and encouragement of subsistence level wages delay the ecological
day of reckoning as WW consumption is lower as a consequence.
as Wolfgang Schäuble and many others have said, We can't all trade our way out of this
mess. If we carry that insight one step further it becomes, We can't all manufacture our
way out of this mess. The problem with trying to invent an inclusive economy is that we
don't know how to do so without industry and industry will soon end life on this planet.
If the oceans collapse, it's over. So instead of using a mild form of identity politics
and a new social contract for sharing the gains of capitalism/socialism we will have to
confine ourselves to making and using/recycling what we need and nothing more. No surplus.
No trade. No finance based on debt servicing. And in an overpopulated world that means no
labor policies as we once knew them. For lack of imagination we are looking at a New Communism.
What else?
From Yves: "On average, workers born in 1942 earned as much or more over their careers
than workers born in any year since, according to new research"
1942 makes Schumpeter come to mind. His book Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy is the
most celebrated Marxism's bashing to date. Schumpeter's reading of Marx or Marxism does
not qualify as unfair; his was a non-reading activity. Here is an excerpt from Schumpeter,
the visionary (my emphasis added)
"For the RELATIVE SHARE OF WAGES AND SALARIES IN TOTAL INCOME varies but little from year
to year and is remarkably constant over time-it certainly does not reveal any tendency to
fall"
"creative destruction" has seemed mostly about breaking then remaking a social order
that serves the "masters of mankind" not to mention, spinning the fodder that rationalizes
an endless war racket, by their sycophantic apologists
"David" makes David Harvey come to mind "Neo-liberalism and the restoration of class
power"
The new paper includes some "astonishing numbers," said Gary Burtless, an economist
at the nonpartisan Brookings Institution who was not involved in the research. "The stagnation
of living standards began so much earlier than people think,"
Who are these "people" to whom he refers? Some of us have known that since waaaaay before
these numbers came out.
I wonder whether living standards have suffered much more than is typically documented.
The stuff that we're forced to buy - housing, medical care, education - are all way up and,
I suspect, make up a much larger share of the inflation-measuring typical basket of household
goods.
And other items take a big and probably under-measured chunk of income as well. I've
lost track of how many cellphones I've had to buy over the past 10 years, even though I
hate them and try to keep my consumption of these toxic little marvels to a minimum (unfortunately,
I'm required to have a smartphone for work).
On the flip side, from an owners perspective, I was able to hire 36 people in 1983 on
a given business gross income and today I struggle to employ 2 on that same gross.
"... Worldwide, war memorials and memorial days ensure preservation of such selective remembrance. My home state of Massachusetts also does this to this day by flying the black-and-white "POW-MIA" flag of the Vietnam War at various public places, including Fenway Park, home of the Boston Red Sox - still grieving over those fighting men who were captured or went missing in action and never returned home. ..."
"... Asymmetry in the human costs of conflicts involving U.S. forces has been the pattern ever since the decimation of Amerindians and the American conquest of the Philippines between 1899 and 1902. The State Department's Office of the Historian puts the death toll in the latter war at "over 4,200 American and over 20,000 Filipino combatants," and proceeds to add that "as many as 200,000 Filipino civilians died from violence, famine, and disease." (Among other precipitating causes for those noncombatant deaths, U.S. troops shot most of the water buffalo farmers relied on to produce their crops.) Many scholarly accounts now offer higher estimates for Filipino civilian fatalities. ..."
"... The payload of bombs unloaded on Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos between the mid-1960s and 1973 is commonly reckoned to have been between seven and eight million tons - well over 40 times the tonnage dropped on the Japanese home islands in World War II. Estimates of total deaths vary, but are all exceedingly high. In a Washington Post article in 2012, John Tirman noted that "by several scholarly estimates, Vietnamese military and civilian deaths ranged from 1.5 million to 3.8 million, with the U.S.-led campaign in Cambodia resulting in 600,000 to 800,000 deaths, and Laotian war mortality estimated at about 1 million." ..."
"... On the American side, the Department of Veterans Affairs places battle deaths in the Korean War at 33,739. As of Memorial Day 2015, the long wall of the deeply moving Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington was inscribed with the names of 58,307 American military personnel killed between 1957 and 1975, the great majority of them from 1965 on. This includes approximately 1,200 men listed as missing (MIA, POW, etc.), the lost fighting men whose flag of remembrance still flies over Fenway Park. ..."
Some years ago, a newspaper article credited a European visitor with the wry observation that
Americans are charming because they have such short memories. When it comes to the nation's wars,
however, he was not entirely on target. Americans embrace military histories of the heroic "band
of [American] brothers" sort, especially involving World War II. They possess a seemingly boundless
appetite for retellings of the Civil War, far and away the country's most devastating conflict where
American war deaths are concerned.
Certain traumatic historical moments such as "the Alamo" and "Pearl Harbor" have become code words
- almost mnemonic devices - for reinforcing the remembrance of American victimization at the hands
of nefarious antagonists. Thomas Jefferson and his peers actually established the baseline for this
in the nation's founding document, the Declaration of Independence, which enshrines recollection
of "the merciless Indian Savages" - a self-righteous demonization that turned out to be boilerplate
for a succession of later perceived enemies. "September 11th" has taken its place in this deep-seated
invocation of violated innocence, with an intensity bordering on hysteria.
Such "victim consciousness" is not, of course, peculiar to Americans. In Japan after World War
II, this phrase - higaisha ishiki in Japanese - became central to leftwing criticism of
conservatives who fixated on their country's war dead and seemed incapable of acknowledging how grievously
Imperial Japan had victimized others, millions of Chinese and hundreds of thousands of Koreans foremost
among them. When present-day Japanese cabinet members visit Yasukuni Shrine, where the emperor's
deceased soldiers and sailors are venerated, they are stoking victim consciousness and roundly criticized
for doing so by the outside world, including the U.S. media.
Worldwide, war memorials and memorial days ensure preservation of such selective remembrance.
My home state of Massachusetts also does this to this day by flying the black-and-white "POW-MIA"
flag of the Vietnam War at various public places, including Fenway Park, home of the Boston Red Sox
- still grieving over those fighting men who were captured or went missing in action and never returned
home.
In one form or another, populist nationalisms today are manifestations of acute victim consciousness.
Still, the American way of remembering and forgetting its wars is distinctive for several reasons.
Geographically, the nation is much more secure than other countries. Alone among major powers, it
escaped devastation in World War II, and has been unmatched in wealth and power ever since. Despite
panic about Communist threats in the past and Islamist and North Korean threats in the present, the
United States has never been seriously imperiled by outside forces. Apart from the Civil War, its
war-related
fatalities have been tragic but markedly lower than the military and civilian death tolls of
other nations, invariably including America's adversaries.
Asymmetry in the human costs of conflicts involving U.S. forces has been the pattern ever since
the decimation of Amerindians and the American conquest of the Philippines between 1899 and 1902.
The State Department's Office of the Historian
puts the death toll
in the latter war at "over 4,200 American and over 20,000 Filipino combatants," and proceeds to add
that "as many as 200,000 Filipino civilians died from violence, famine, and disease." (Among other
precipitating causes for those noncombatant deaths, U.S. troops shot most of the water buffalo farmers
relied on to produce their crops.) Many scholarly accounts now offer higher estimates for Filipino
civilian fatalities.
Much the same morbid asymmetry characterizes war-related deaths in World War II, the Korean War,
the Vietnam War, the Gulf War of 1991, and the invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq
following September 11, 2001.
Terror Bombing from World War II to Korea and Vietnam to 9/11
While it is natural for people and nations to focus on their own sacrifice and suffering rather
than the death and destruction they themselves inflict, in the case of the United States such cognitive
astigmatism is backlighted by the country's abiding sense of being exceptional, not just in power
but also in virtue. In paeans to "American exceptionalism," it is an article of faith that the highest
values of Western and Judeo-Christian civilization guide the nation's conduct - to which Americans
add their country's purportedly unique embrace of democracy, respect for each and every individual,
and stalwart defense of a "rules-based" international order.
Such self-congratulation requires and reinforces selective memory. "Terror," for instance, has
become a word applied to others, never to oneself. And yet during World War II, U.S. and British
strategic-bombing planners explicitly regarded their firebombing of enemy cities as terror bombing,
and identified destroying the morale of noncombatants in enemy territory as necessary and morally
acceptable. Shortly after the Allied devastation of the German city of Dresden in February 1945,
Winston Churchill, whose bust circulates in and out of the presidential Oval Office in Washington
(it is
currently in ),
referred to the "bombing of German cities simply for the sake of increasing the terror, though
under other pretexts."
In the war against Japan, U.S. air forces embraced this practice with an almost gleeful vengeance,
pulverizing 64 cities
prior to the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945. When al-Qaeda's 19 hijackers
crash-bombed the World Trade Center and Pentagon in 2001, however, "terror bombing" aimed at destroying
morale was detached from this Anglo-American precedent and relegated to "non-state terrorists." Simultaneously,
targeting innocent civilians was declared to be an atrocity utterly contrary to civilized "Western"
values, and prima facie evidence of Islam's inherent savagery.
The sanctification of the site of the destroyed World Trade Center as "Ground Zero" - a term previously
associated with nuclear explosions in general and Hiroshima in particular - reinforced this deft
legerdemain in the manipulation of memory. Few if any American public figures recognized or cared
that this graphic nomenclature was appropriated from Hiroshima, whose city government puts the number
of fatalities from the atomic bombing "by the end of December 1945, when the acute effects of radiation
poisoning had largely subsided," at
around
140,000 . (The estimated death toll for Nagasaki is 60,000 to 70,000.) The context of those two
attacks - and all the firebombings of German and Japanese cities before them - obviously differs
greatly from the non-state terrorism and suicide bombings inflicted by today's terrorists. Nonetheless,
"Hiroshima" remains the most telling and troubling symbol of terror bombing in modern times - despite
the effectiveness with which, for present and future generations, the post-9/11 "Ground Zero" rhetoric
altered the landscape of memory and now connotes American victimization.
calculated that Anglo-American
air forces in the European theater had dropped 2.7 million tons of bombs, of which 1.36 million tons
targeted Germany. In the Pacific theater, total tonnage dropped by Allied planes was 656,400, of
which 24% (160,800 tons) was dropped on the home islands of Japan. Of the latter, 104,000 tons "were
directed at 66 urban areas." Shocking at the time, in retrospect these Japanese numbers in particular
have come to seem modest when compared to the tonnage of explosives U.S. forces unloaded on Korea
and later Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos.
The official history of the air war in Korea ( The United States Air Force in Korea 1950-1953
)
records that U.S.-led United Nations air forces flew more than one million sorties and, all told,
delivered a total of 698,000 tons of ordnance against the enemy. In his 1965 memoir Mission with
LeMay , General Curtis LeMay, who directed the strategic bombing of both Japan and Korea, offered
this observation: "We burned down just about every city in North and South Korea both
We killed off over a million civilian Koreans and drove several million more from their homes, with
the inevitable additional tragedies bound to ensue."
Other sources place the estimated number of civilian Korean War dead
as high
as three million, or possibly even more. Dean Rusk, a supporter of the war who later served as
secretary of state,
recalled that the United States bombed "everything that moved in North Korea, every brick standing
on top of another." In the midst of this "limited war," U.S. officials also took care to make it
clear on several occasions that they had not ruled out
using nuclear weapons . This even involved simulated nuclear strikes on North Korea by B-29s
operating out of Okinawa in a 1951 operation codenamed Hudson Harbor.
In Indochina, as in the Korean War, targeting "everything that moved" was virtually a mantra among
U.S. fighting forces, a kind of password that legitimized indiscriminate slaughter. Nick Turse's
extensively researched recent history of the Vietnam War, for instance, takes
its
title from a military order to "kill anything that moves." Documents released by the National
Archives in 2004 include a transcript of a 1970 telephone conversation in which Henry Kissinger
relayed President Richard Nixon's orders to launch "a massive bombing campaign in Cambodia. Anything
that flies on anything that moves."
In Laos between 1964 and 1973, the CIA helped direct the
heaviest air
bombardment per capita in history, unleashing over two million tons of ordnance in the course
of 580,000 bombing runs - equivalent to a planeload of bombs every eight minutes for roughly a full
decade. This included around 270 million bomblets from cluster bombs. Roughly 10% of the total Laotian
population was killed. Despite the devastating effects of this assault, some 80 million of the cluster
bomblets dropped failed to detonate, leaving the ravaged country littered with deadly unexploded
ordnance to the present day.
The payload of bombs unloaded on Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos between the mid-1960s and 1973 is
commonly reckoned to have been between seven and eight million tons - well over 40 times the tonnage
dropped on the Japanese home islands in World War II. Estimates of total deaths vary, but are all
exceedingly high. In a Washington Post article in 2012, John Tirman
noted that "by several scholarly estimates, Vietnamese military and civilian deaths ranged from
1.5 million to 3.8 million, with the U.S.-led campaign in Cambodia resulting in 600,000 to 800,000
deaths, and Laotian war mortality estimated at about 1 million."
On the American side, the Department of Veterans Affairs places
battle
deaths in the Korean War at 33,739. As of Memorial Day 2015, the long wall of the deeply moving
Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington was inscribed with the names of
58,307 American military personnel killed
between 1957 and 1975, the great majority of them from 1965 on. This includes approximately
1,200 men listed as missing
(MIA, POW, etc.), the lost fighting men whose flag of remembrance still flies over Fenway Park.
North Korea and the Cracked Mirror of Nuclear War
Today, Americans generally remember Vietnam vaguely, and Cambodia and Laos not at all. (The inaccurate
label "Vietnam War" expedited this latter erasure.) The Korean War, too, has been called "the forgotten
war," although a veterans memorial in Washington, D.C., was finally dedicated to it in 1995, 42 years
after the armistice that suspended the conflict. By contrast, Koreans have not forgotten. This is
especially true in North Korea, where the enormous death and destruction suffered between 1950 and
1953 is kept alive through endless official iterations of remembrance - and this, in turn, is coupled
with a relentless propaganda campaign calling attention to Cold War and post-Cold War U.S. nuclear
intimidation. This intense exercise in remembering rather than forgetting goes far to
explain
the current nuclear saber-rattling of North Korea's leader Kim Jong-un.
With only a slight stretch of the imagination, it is possible to see cracked mirror images in
the nuclear behavior and brinksmanship of American presidents and North Korea's dictatorial dynastic
leadership. What this unnerving looking glass reflects is possible madness, or feigned madness, coupled
with possible nuclear conflict, accidental or otherwise.
To Americans and much of the rest of the world, Kim Jong-un seems irrational, even seriously deranged.
(Just pair his name with "insane" or "crazy" in a Google search.) Yet in rattling his miniscule nuclear
quiver, he is really joining the long-established game of "nuclear deterrence," and practicing what
is known among American strategists as the "madman theory." The latter term is most
famously associated with Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger during the Vietnam War, but in fact
it is more or less imbedded in U.S. nuclear game plans. As rearticulated in "Essentials of Post-Cold
War Deterrence," a secret
policy document drafted by a subcommittee in the U.S. Strategic Command in 1995 (four years after
the demise of the Soviet Union), the madman theory posits that the essence of effective nuclear deterrence
is to induce "fear" and "terror" in the mind of an adversary, to which end "it hurts to portray ourselves
as too fully rational and cool-headed."
When Kim Jong-un plays this game, he is simultaneously ridiculed and feared to be truly demented.
When practiced by their own leaders and nuclear priesthood, Americans have been conditioned to see
rational actors at their cunning best.
Terror, it seems, in the twenty-first century, as in the twentieth, is in the eye of the beholder.
John W. Dower is professor emeritus of history at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
His many books include War Without Mercy: Race and Power in the Pacific War and Embracing
Defeat: Japan in the Wake of World War Two , which have won numerous prizes including the Pulitzer,
the National Book Award, and the National Book Critics Circle award. His latest book,
The
Violent American Century: War and Terror Since World War Two (Dispatch Books), has just been
published.
"... The Trump show is becoming interesting. A short time ago it looked like Trump was about to start wars everywhere. US establishment seemed to all agree that made him very presidential. A distraction for the establishment politicians and media while Tillerson and Trump get a few things done? ..."
i can never understand why politics has to be so complex, but it is.. it could be a lot more
simple.. so for those who want to understand why things happen, they have to go beyond the
surface..
this comey guy was dishonest.. why have someone like that around?
mccain - he has been a warmonger for forever.. why is he and so many others still around?
they sure aren't serving the public's need.. unfortunately trump isn't serving the publics
needs either..
i agree with @4 ftb.. now, just cause someone says trump is done, doesn't mean he stops
doing the crazy shit he is going continue to do.. but so far, none of it amounts to a hill of
beans.. i can't see him doing anything relevant at this point other then bringing more
trouble to the usa.. if he would step down prematurely, it wouldn't surprise me. he is out of
his league and needs to stick to twitter..
The Trump show is becoming interesting. A short time ago it looked like Trump was about
to start wars everywhere. US establishment seemed to all agree that made him very
presidential. A distraction for the establishment politicians and media while Tillerson and
Trump get a few things done?
In the last weeks there has been a meeting between Tillerson and Putin, Lavrov and Trump
will be meeting soon. Comey in charge of the Trump/Russia investigation has now been sacked.
In Syria, US has hardly moved towards Raqqa, agreed to the Russian de-escalation zones which
free up Syrian forces for a drive on Deir Ezzor and possibly Raqqa. The other thing that has
appeared in the news in the last couple of weeks is that the Trump white house has not
approved any pentagon requests to run their so called freedom of navigation exercises against
China.
Nice observation. Personally, I still hold off any judgment on who Trump is - there simply
isn't enough roller-coaster motion yet to judge where the trend lines belong.
A lot of the things I see him get blamed for are actually only theater, including Korea -
or else relatively minor actions that satisfy subordinate departments (such as the US Navy),
and that appear to make waves but that don't actually capsize the big picture. It's an
uncomfortable brinkmanship to watch if you believe it's real, but I'm not sure that Trump
believes it's anything more than pre-negotiation sand in the eyes.
And a lot of other things that actually do happen domestically are part of the Republican
and classical conservative agenda anyway. No organized force in the US exists anymore to
combat these things, certainly not the sold-out Democrats and their long co-opted unions.
Meanwhile, as you note, the realities on the geopolitical ground globally proceed in a
direction favorable to peace.
Tillerson may be the one to watch to see where the Trump roller coaster is heading? Trump
distracts attention allowing Tillerson to get on with what they want to do?
very said day indeed
indeed
for usa usa and when israel is mighty oded yinon.
comey was the last man standing a modern day kevin costner elliot ness in a sea of nazi and
evil doing al capones and ali akhbar oceans 11ish
we champions of anti semitismus and lgbt plus minus barbera lerner spector multiculralism
frankfurt school must fight for are man
and woman and all the gender fluids in between.
so what if comey has a 5 million dollar home in the hamptons.
so what if he has a dossier for safe keeping and insurance .
so what if hsbc invested in him and andrew mcabe making them future proof.
we in the upper golan israeli oil and gas have too support and protect are assets if they be
in the fbi or in the al nusra syriana.
mcabe will do a great job smashing more phones hammer tongs and bleachbit. stabilising this
situation be assured mcabae will not rest until the ratlines drugs,arms slave and live organ
trades are back up to peak bush obarmee levels.
I think Sutton starts with Trotzky. But what he says is that Wall Street is agnostic, all they
care about is making money. I think that there is no doubt about that.
If Marine Le Pen's victory should mean capital leaves France and comes to the US they might
vote Le Pen.
Very grievous consequences, especially with regard to the beginning of the war, followed Stalin's
annihilation of many military commanders and political workers during 1937-1941 because of
his suspiciousness and through slanderous accusations. During these years repressions were
instituted against certain parts of our military cadres beginning literally at the company
- and battalion-commander levels and extending to higher military centers. During this time,
the cadre of leaders who had gained military experience in Spain and in the Far East was almost
completely liquidated.
The policy of large-scale repression against military cadres led also to undermined
military discipline, because for several years officers of all ranks and even soldiers in Party
and Komsomol cells were taught to "unmask" their superiors as hidden enemies.
(Movement in the hall.)
It is natural that this caused a negative influence on the state of military discipline
in the initial stage of the war.
And, as you know, we had before the war excellent military cadres which were unquestionably
loyal to the Party and to the Fatherland.
There is more in his speech on Soviet lack of preparedness.
Khrushchev lied : the evidence that every "revelation" of Stalin's (and Beria's) "crimes"
in Nikita Khrushchev's infamous "secret speech" to the 20th party congress of the Communist Party
of the Soviet Union on February 25, 1956, is provably false
from p85
As Kozhinov points out, Khrushchev's accusations here can be turned
■round on his own thesis. Historians do not blame President Roosevelt
for (ailing to foresee the atlsck on Pearl Harbor. Therefore to blame Sta-
lin for not foreseeing the precise time and place of the Nazi attack is to
Ul prey to the "cult of personality", to believe Stalin was supposed to
bre superhuman abilities and inexplicably failed to use them."<>
The Soviets could not declare a mobilization because that was universally
understood as a declaration of war. It was precisely such a mobilization
that had set off the First World War. It would have given Hitler the op-
poctunity to declare war, leaving the USSR vulnerable to a separate deal
between Hitler and the Allies. And in a plan for "Operation 'Ost'" drawn
up in 1940 German General>Major Marks make the regret^l remark that
The Russians will not do us the favor of attacking us [fixst]."ii7
Ihe Soviets could not rely upon British warnings* for the British clearly
wanted to set Hider against the Soviet Union and weaken both, if not use
die opportunity to make peace with Hitler against the Soviets, as many in
the British establishment wanted.
Marshal K.A. Meretskov, no admirer of Stalin, believed the situation im-
mediately preceding the war was very complex, impossible to predict. His
memoirs were published after Khrushchev's ouster, in 1968. Zhukov,
who had been demoted in disgrace after the war by Stalin and had helped
Khnishchev attack Stalin in 1957, thought the Soviet Union under Stalin
had done everything it could to prepare for the war.
Prior to the health reform law, consumers who have or who previously had medical issues
- even if it were years earlier and completely resolved - could be denied coverage or charged
much more in premiums. Obamacare remedies that by requiring insurers to cover everyone and
charge them the same amount, regardless of their health history. Also, it mandates all policies
cover 10 essential health benefits, including prescription drugs, hospitalization and doctors'
visits , so the sick could be assured their treatments are covered.
"The rules under Obamacare were comprehensive," said Karen Pollitz, senior fellow at
the non-partisan Kaiser Family Foundation.
This expansive coverage, however, comes with a high price tag. It bumps up the cost of
premiums for everyone. That's why the conservative Freedom Caucus set its sights on getting
rid of these popular provisions.
Related: Key GOP lawmakers flip on health care after Trump meeting
Under the most recent version of the GOP repeal bill, states would be allowed to opt out
of requiring insurers to cover everyone at the same price and to offer all 10 essential
health benefits in all policies. This would likely lead insurers to jack up rates for those
with pre-existing conditions who didn't maintain continuous coverage and to offer skimpy
plans that don't pay for the treatments the sick need.
---
1. Is it still a plan if it doesn't offer 'doctors visits?'
That is scary. And I have to ask, is it me not reading it correctly, or is it on the
writer?
2. It bumps up the cost of premiums for everyone those popular provisions.
Probably the situation is more complex. Intuitively, more costly for everyone is not
often associated with being popular.
3. jack up rates for those with pre-existing conditions who didn't maintain continuous
coverage.
Those with pre-existing conditions are today covered for those who are not paying a penalty.
They are in 'continuous' coverage, are they not? And the risk is jacked up rates – that
is, a money issue.
The difference between Medicare for All, and Free Medicare for All is also a money issue.
This is a gift to the corporate democrats as it provides cover for and shifts blame to the
GOP in regards to a system that was well on its way to painfully dying. The people that keep
focus on single payer will be blamed even more as well for worsening the situation. A lot more
revisionism is coming our way as the terrible reality that was Obama will be made out to look
like Trump is the root cause of what is going on. As stated earlier, if Trump wanted to destroy
the Dems all he'd have to do is let ACA be run by the Dems and let that run it's natural course,
now the GOP own it. As shown by the first commenter. Political Kabuki.
I think Sutton starts with Trotzky. But what he says is that Wall Street is agnostic, all they
care about is making money. I think that there is no doubt about that.
If Marine Le Pen's victory should mean capital leaves France and comes to the US they might
vote Le Pen.
Very grievous consequences, especially with regard to the beginning of the war, followed Stalin's
annihilation of many military commanders and political workers during 1937-1941 because of
his suspiciousness and through slanderous accusations. During these years repressions were
instituted against certain parts of our military cadres beginning literally at the company
- and battalion-commander levels and extending to higher military centers. During this time,
the cadre of leaders who had gained military experience in Spain and in the Far East was almost
completely liquidated.
The policy of large-scale repression against military cadres led also to undermined
military discipline, because for several years officers of all ranks and even soldiers in Party
and Komsomol cells were taught to "unmask" their superiors as hidden enemies.
(Movement in the hall.)
It is natural that this caused a negative influence on the state of military discipline
in the initial stage of the war.
And, as you know, we had before the war excellent military cadres which were unquestionably
loyal to the Party and to the Fatherland.
There is more in his speech on Soviet lack of preparedness.
Khrushchev lied : the evidence that every "revelation" of Stalin's (and Beria's) "crimes"
in Nikita Khrushchev's infamous "secret speech" to the 20th party congress of the Communist Party
of the Soviet Union on February 25, 1956, is provably false
from p85
As Kozhinov points out, Khrushchev's accusations here can be turned
■round on his own thesis. Historians do not blame President Roosevelt
for (ailing to foresee the atlsck on Pearl Harbor. Therefore to blame Sta-
lin for not foreseeing the precise time and place of the Nazi attack is to
Ul prey to the "cult of personality", to believe Stalin was supposed to
bre superhuman abilities and inexplicably failed to use them."<>
The Soviets could not declare a mobilization because that was universally
understood as a declaration of war. It was precisely such a mobilization
that had set off the First World War. It would have given Hitler the op-
poctunity to declare war, leaving the USSR vulnerable to a separate deal
between Hitler and the Allies. And in a plan for "Operation 'Ost'" drawn
up in 1940 German General>Major Marks make the regret^l remark that
The Russians will not do us the favor of attacking us [fixst]."ii7
Ihe Soviets could not rely upon British warnings* for the British clearly
wanted to set Hider against the Soviet Union and weaken both, if not use
die opportunity to make peace with Hitler against the Soviets, as many in
the British establishment wanted.
Marshal K.A. Meretskov, no admirer of Stalin, believed the situation im-
mediately preceding the war was very complex, impossible to predict. His
memoirs were published after Khrushchev's ouster, in 1968. Zhukov,
who had been demoted in disgrace after the war by Stalin and had helped
Khnishchev attack Stalin in 1957, thought the Soviet Union under Stalin
had done everything it could to prepare for the war.
"... By Jomo Kwame Sundaram, former UN Assistant Secretary General for Economic Development and Anis Chowdhury, former Professor of Economics, University of Western Sydney, who held various senior United Nations positions in New York and Bangkok. Originally published at Inter Press Service ..."
Yves here. Even though much of the material in this post will be familiar to
regular readers, some points are worth emphasizing. One defense regularly made
of globalization is that even though it has lowered income of less-skilled
workers in advanced economies (and even those of some skilled workers),
laborers in emerging economies have gained. This picture is simplistic. As
Joseph Stiglitz pointed out years ago, and the picture hasn't changed much,
China has captured all of the income gains by emerging economies. Poverty in
developing economies ex China hasn't budged. And the authors stress that
inequality has exploded in China.
By Jomo Kwame Sundaram, former UN Assistant Secretary General
for Economic Development and Anis Chowdhury, former Professor of Economics,
University of Western Sydney, who held various senior United Nations positions
in New York and Bangkok. Originally published at
Inter
Press Service
Income and wealth inequality has increased in recent decades, but
recognition of the role of economic liberalization and globalization in
exacerbating inequality has never been so widespread. The guardians of global
capitalism are nervous, yet little has been done to check, let alone reverse
the underlying forces.
Global Elite Alarmed by Growing Inequality
The World Economic Forum (WEF) has described severe income inequality as the
biggest risk facing the world. WEF founder Klaus Schwab has observed, "We have
too large a disparity in the world; we need more inclusiveness If we continue
to have un-inclusive growth and we continue with the unemployment situation,
particularly youth unemployment, our global society is not sustainable."
Christine Lagarde, IMF Managing Director, told political and business
leaders at the WEF, "in far too many countries the benefits of growth are being
enjoyed by far too few people. This is not a recipe for stability and
sustainability." Similarly, World Bank President Jim Yong Kim has warned that
failure to tackle inequality risked causing social unrest. "It's going to erupt
to a great extent because of these inequalities."
In the same vein, the influential US Council of Foreign Relations' journal,
Foreign Affairs
, carried an article cautioning, "Inequality is indeed
increasing almost everywhere in the post-industrial capitalist world . if left
unaddressed, rising inequality and economic insecurity can erode social order
and generate a populist backlash against the capitalist system at large."
Much Ado About Nothing?
Increasingly, the main benefits of economic growth are being captured by a
tiny elite. Despite global economic stagnation for almost a decade, the number
of billionaires in the world has increased to a record 2,199. The richest one
per cent of the world's population now has as much wealth as the rest of the
world combined. The world's eight richest people have as much wealth as the
poorer half.
In India, the number of billionaires has increased at least tenfold in the
past decade. India now has 111 billionaires, third in the world by country. The
largest number of the world's abject poor also live in the same country - over
425 million, a third of the world's poor, and well over a third of the
country's population.
Africa had a resource boom for a decade until 2014, but most people there
still struggle daily for food, clean water and health care. Meanwhile, the
number of people living in extreme poverty, according to the World Bank, has
grown substantially to at least 330 million from 280 million in 1990!
In Europe, poor people bore the brunt of draconian austerity policies while
bank bailouts mainly benefited the moneyed. 122.3 million people, or 24.4 per
cent of the population in the EU-28, are at risk of poverty. Between 2009 and
2013, the number of Europeans without enough money to heat their homes or cope
with unforeseen expenses, i.e., living with "severe material deprivation," rose
by 7.5 million to 50 million people, while the continent is home to 342
billionaires!
In the United States, the income share of the top one per cent is at its
highest level since the eve of the Great Depression, almost nine decades ago.
The top 0.01 per cent, or 14,000 American families, own 22.2 per cent of its
wealth, while the bottom 90 per cent, over 133 million families, own a meagre
four per cent of the nation's wealth. The top five per cent of households
increased their share of US wealth, especially after the 2008 financial crisis.
Meanwhile, the richest one per cent tripled their share of US income within a
generation.
This unprecedented wealth concentration and the corresponding deprivation of
others have generated backlashes, arguably contributing to the victory of
Donald Trump in the US presidential election, the Brexit referendum, the
strength of Marine Le Pen in France, the Alternative for Germany, and the
ascendance of the Hindutva right in secular India.
"Communist" China and Inequality
Meanwhile, China has increasingly participated in and grown rapidly as
inequality has risen sharply in the ostensibly communist-ruled country. China
has supplied cheaper consumer goods to the world, checking inflation and
improving living standards for many. Part of its huge trade surplus - due to
relatively low, albeit recently rising wages - has been recycled in financial
markets, mainly in the US, which helped expand credit at low interest rates
there.
Thus, cheap consumer products and cheap credit have enabled the slowly
shrinking "middle class" in the West to mitigate the downward pressure on their
living standards despite stagnating or falling real wages and mounting personal
and household debt.
China's export-led development on the basis of low wages has sharply
increased income inequality in the world's largest country for more than three
decades. Beijing is the new "billionaire capital of the world," no longer New
York. China now has 594 billionaires, 33 more than in the US!
Since the 1980s, income inequality in China has risen faster than most!
China now has one of the world's highest levels of income inequality, rising
mainly in the last three decades. The richest one per cent of households own a
third of the country's wealth, while the poorest quarter own only one per cent.
China's Gini coefficient for income rose to 0.49 in 2012 from 0.3 over three
decades before when it was one of the most egalitarian countries in the world.
Another survey put China's income Gini at 0.61 in 2010, greatly exceeding the
US's 0.45!
Global Elite Alarmed by Growing Inequality
is a rather
misleading, or rather, abbreviated, subhead. On suspects it should be
Global Elite Alarmed that Growing Inequality may not be Sustainable
.
Is there any evidence anywhere that Global Elites would want voluntarily to
reduce inequality?
The reality is the global elite are alarmed that inequality isn't high
enough, and fear having to give up a single dollar to the poors. There is no
measuring stick big enough to measure the elite's greed.
Apple workers in China are so abused and underpaid, I am waiting for a
factory rampage. When your sweat is stolen by Tim Cook colluding with the
criminal leaders of China to steal all your effort for themselves, that
would drive anyone nuts. Buying an Apple product means thousands of Chinese
slaves are tortured.
Proof: 1% in US keep on arguing how they only collect 20% of income
but pay 40% of taxes.
They don't seem to realize that if their income had stayed at 30x the
lowest paid instead of 300x, the lower paid would actually be paying more
taxes.
Second, the rich typically have low incomes relative to assets so if
taxes included assets, it would be interesting to see how that proportion
would change.
Furthermore, why should someone get waterfront property just because
of their birthright and have the audacity to tell the younger ones to
pick themselves up by their bootstraps? If society does not fix the
problem, Mother Nature will.
Chinese labor get's shot if they were to try and organize a fight
for better working conditions. The elite here and there conspire with
each other to profit from it.
Here is proof:
Meanwhile, China has increasingly participated in and grown
rapidly as inequality has risen sharply in the ostensibly
communist-ruled country. China has supplied
cheaper consumer
goods to the world, checking inflation and improving living standards
for many
. Part of its huge trade surplus - due to
relatively low
, albeit recently rising wages - has been
recycled in financial markets, mainly in the US, which helped expand
credit at low interest rates there.
Thus,
cheap consumer products and cheap credit
have enabled the slowly shrinking "middle class" in the West to
mitigate the downward pressure on their living standards despite
stagnating or falling real wages and mounting personal and household
debt.
China's export-led development on the basis of low wages has
sharply increased income inequality in the world's largest country for
more than three decades. Beijing is the new "billionaire capital of
the world," no longer New York. China now has 594 billionaires, 33
more than in the US!
There are suicide prevention nets in the stairwells and around the
building where Apple products are made. And they make really shitty
money, compared to what they put out.
Apple has what, a fifth of a trillion stashed "offshore". Where did
it come from? Right out of the sweat of those workers.
There is a fundamental difference between our politicians and
Chinese politicians.
In our system, narcissists are elected and are then surrounded by
psychopaths, in China it's a total brawl all the way to the top, so
they skip the narcissist step.
One way that inequality can be mitigated is by increasing government
spending to create jobs and improve infrastructure but forecasts of the
benefits can be manipulated to defeat such proposals by usually showing that
less than a dollar of GDP growth is returned for each dollar of spending.
Economists at North Carolina Sate U. have recently created an agnostic model
stripped of partisan bias of how government spending benefits GDP and they show
about $1.30 of GDP growth for each dollar spent. Let me quote (the original
paper is paywalled):
" most widely used model for predicting how U.S. government spending affects
gross domestic product (GDP) can be rigged using theoretical assumptions to
control forecasts of how government spending will stimulate the economy Based
on their observations, the researchers then developed an agnostic model, which
was designed to avoid those tweaks that predispose the results to support a
particular argument We found that the agnostic model predicts roughly $1.30 in
near-term GDP growth for each $1 in spending."
I think most of us realize the details of how to decrease inequality -
just as most of us thinking people realize that inequality increases
unemployment which increases inequality - so your comment falls upon those
who are tired with the oblivious who seem ignorant that the problem is not
with the HOW, it is with that bloody revolution which has yet to come!
Yeah, I've always wondered what factors, besides sheer greed, elite
inbreeding and stupidity, are responsible for the wide range of national GINI
rankings.
According to the CIA anyway, among the most equal are affluent Germany
(27.0) France (30.1) and Sweden (24.0), but also not-rich Albania (29.0)
Romania (27.3) and, most equal, Slovenia at 23.7.
The European Union as a whole is rated GINA 30.1. The handful of
non-European countries that crack the more equal list, strangely are, in
ascending order Kazakstan (28.9) Pakistan (29.6) South Korea (30.2) and
Australia (30.3).
Geographically, there is a swath of more-equal economies stretching from
Western Europe to North Africa, South-west Asia (middle east) through India,
Southeast Asia, Indonesia and Japan. This tends towards the idea that
old-world, culturally cohesive societies have an interest in maintaining
economies that promote inclusion and common interest. The Muslim barbarians and
European socialists are less prone to exploiting their neighbors or throwing
them overboard than we are, although Washington is working hard to remedy this
situation.
Canada and Australia have wisely plotted a course closer to their European
forbears than their American cousins.
Southern Africa, Latin America starting at the Rio Grande, China, Russia
(bordering much more equal Kazakhstan?) and of course the USA are the
heartlands of inequality. The common thread here, I presume, is their colonial
heritage.
There may be something to the argument about homogeneous societies having a
cultural advantage and all that, but England (32.4) and France, hardly
exemplars of racial tranquility, or Australia, India and Canada seem to say
otherwise.
The interesting thing seen easily on the map is that low income "developing"
countries, with exceptions like Hong Kong (53.7) have a large preponderance of
high GINI scores.
Middle-income China, Russia and Brazil, are joined by the always exceptional
United States as continental empires with extreme inequality.
I'm not sure Canada can survive without socialism.
If we use current economic productivity and efficiency models, it would
seem that North-South activity would make more sense than East-West. So from
my perspective, if we want Canada to work, we have to share and accept
higher costs and less material wealth to reach that goal.
The other issue we are facing capital from China let's say there are 10
million Chinese (we only have something like 12m households) who want to get
their money out and a few million Canadians who want to get rich selling
their house, you can imagine what kind of havoc the zirp/bailout/EZ money
policies have unleashed on small attractive countries like Canada.
And our leaders are still denying the impact of foreign capital on our
real estate market. Because these are the people who live in the overvalued
urban areas and quite happy to see their home values soar.
IMO, protectionism will need to rear its ugly head.
Remember, please, GINI scores do not accurately represent growing
inequality within countries, they just supposedly represent inequality
BETWEEN countries.
>>>"Meanwhile, China has increasingly participated in and grown rapidly as
inequality has risen sharply in the ostensibly communist-ruled country."
Participated in what?
We're the bottom of the barrel. They're the cream on top. But the vessel is
being overpressurized, accidentally on purpose. How much more can we take
before the Great Blowout?
Surprisingly, but not to me, is that New York State holds the worst GINA
rank at 49.9, a fact due not solely to the density of high income jerk-offs
like Trump who claim residence there, but to the density of truly impoverished
people that still remain in the five boroughs of NYC and the abandoned former
industrial cities of upstate New York.
Although they report a very high 21% "poverty" rate, NYC's Commission on
Equal Opportunity reports in 2012 that 40% of New York City families subsisted
on less than $34,000 annually. Anyone familiar with the absurd official poverty
thresholds, or the punishing cost of living in NYC for working people, well, do
your own math.
Suffice it to say, national GINI rankings tell only part of the story.
There is a whole other realm of study in qualifying GINI effects by state,
county, zip code or tract level.
Bernie did best in the most egalitarian states interesting. Rich people
vote more and if you are rich in an unequal state Bernie must sound like
Satan.
I guess you meant
more rich people vote
, but there're
hidden truths in
rich people vote more
which are worth
unpacking.
– In the US system, money talks. Rich people donate to support their
future benefactors, which buys MSM speech and advertising that sways
gullible votes to their side.
– Elected representatives are often in it to get rich, and are
certainly bought and paid for. So rich people get the votes on the
legislation that matters to them. The rest get representatives who simply
don't deliver on the policies and promises that they ran on. Obama.
I was also thinking that broad data like the above hide the obvious
solution. But I don't know how working from localities upward from towns to
counties to cities to states would technically work to redistribute income.
I know how they redistribute state tax money for the state's dept of
education – they pool the money and distribute it per pupil evenly across
all districts. The poorest districts getting the most help. So
redistribution of income via taxes would have to come from the tax
authority, i.e. the state. But that leaves local resources and solutions
unused. As unused as they are disenfranchised from neoliberal globalization.
It is just those very local communities that could be enlisted and employed
to clean up the environment and do it sustainably. The state could subsidize
cleanup. Organic farming. Artisans of all sorts. The fact that there is such
inequality, and the fact that we are awash in garbage, pollution, and
climate change seem to go hand in glove; and the mess is totally reversible.
But start at the local level.
Fresh water and arable land are becoming scarce and climate change
will only exacerbate the trend. People could be put to useful, gratifying
work using that suburban farmer's idea. Those large subsurban yards
covered in meticulous lawns could be put to use feeding the world.
Thanks for your great remarks and comments - should be highly informative
to many.
Also important to note - given the incredibly shrinking middle class in
America (which might not always appear that way in the purposely faulty
numerical data presented - or misrepresented) - that it is always worse than
it appears since such data derives from the Census Bureau, which tracks ONLY
wages, not income streams from capital gains (such as bonds and stocks,
etc.). This (purposely) skews the size of the middle class much larger than
it actually is - and it has been dramatically shrinking in America - as
those rich and super-rich show up listed as in the middle class,
economically.
Also, important to keep in mind that much supposed "data" comes from the
National Bureau of Economics Research (NBER), which has as an
emeritus
,
one Martin Feldstein from Harvard. Said Feldstein was a director at HCA when
they were hit with the largest out-of-court penalty settlement for their
Medicare/Medicaid fraud back in the 1990s. Said Feldstein was a director at
Eli Lilly when they were hit with the then-largest criminal penalty for
fraudulent marketing of their drugs. Said Feldstein was a director at
AIG/Financial Products when they had to be bailed out by the US government
for partaking in the largest insurance swindle in US history, so EVERYTHING
coming out of the NBER should be considered suspect, given the character of
its crew!
I wonder about Gini scores for the UK. A lot of residential central London
is now owned by extremely rich people like Saudi princes and Russian oligarchs.
My suspicion is that they are excluded from the figures. Their impact on the
local economy by pricing just about everyone else out of this market is,
however, non-trivial.
Yes, this site has carried some excellent articles in the past about this
subject, GINI essentially tracks the supposed inequality among countries,
not WITHIN the individual countries (or at least it fails to do so).
Something with is as appropriate to the UK as it is to America, a quote
from an outstanding book,
Glass House
, by Brian Alexander:
"Corporate elites said they needed free-trade agreements, so they got
them. Manufacturers said they needed tax breaks and public money incentives
in order to keep their plants operating in the USA, so they got them. Banks
and financiers needed looser regulations, so they got them. Employers said
they needed weaker unions – or no unions at all – so they got them. Private
equity firms said they needed carried interest and secrecy, so they got
them. What did Lancaster and a hundred other town like it get? Job losses,
slashed wages, poor civic leadership, social dysfunction, drugs."
To alter James Carville's noted quote, "It's capitalism, stupid." Or at
least the way it is configured so that short term profit for the ownership
class takes precedence over the immoral destruction of societies and mother
earth.
Rampant inequality, joblessness, homelessness is not a shameful aspect of
unfortunate excesses of few or tragic side effect of modern mass capitalism but
in fact it is its best feature, in fact absolutely necessary even critical to
the success of this unbelievable confidence scheme callled capitalist
socioeconomics enhanced by debt based monetary system and fiat currency.
And we all believe in that sham. We all believe in the value system and
valuation of our commodified social life by somehow divine authority of few
puny lowlifes in the ruling elite who are laughing at us all the way to the
empty bank they own and we are indebted to.
As long as we believe that we work for money, a useless symbol of our total
dependence, not for food, sustenance and shelter, as long as we believe we need
money that cannot be eaten or utilized as a material for building shelter but
can best be used as an emergency bathroom tissue substitute, we are lost
begging for mercy enslaving ourselves to strangers for nothing but an illusion
that breaths and promotes rampant inequality.
I know it sounds shocking but give it a thought if you can.
Here I found unique and controversial take on origins of money that touches
upon similar theme of money itself as a propaganda tool of social control.
"Even if everyone worked their butt off or got multiple PhDs, we'd
still need workers to clean radiation messes, toilet bowls or change
diapers."
Is there some law that says that PhD's can't clean radiation messes,
toilet bowls or change diapers? Shouldn't everyone be responsible for
"survival work"? Why should it just be some class of "workers" that need
to do those jobs? Why are some people considered so much better than
others that they are exempt from "survival work"? What if everyone put
some of their work time every day doing this "survival work" before they
did their "careers"?
Unfortunately, this is just another example of how the neoliberal
ideology has infiltrated everyone's thinking, even those who are
diametrically opposed to neoliberalism on some level and why it is going
to be so hard to get rid of ..
My late father, who looked for employment during the Great
Depression, would say "You needed a college degree to pump gas for
Standard Oil".
He had a cynical view of college degrees, asserting that if degrees
were necessary for jobs, the future employers should help with the
training expense.
The "must get an expensive college degree" assertion is losing its
effectiveness on the stressed American population, where we approach
nominal full employment at poor wages.
I suspect the education that is most needed in the USA is critical
thinking that serves to question the wisdom of our government and the
MSM in the propaganda they promote..
My dad did have a college degree, but his experience in his
father's store helped him get a job as a butcher for Safeway
during the Great Depression.
As I remember the story, many were vying for the Safeway
butcher job, but he outlined how his prior experience would
"help them sell more meat".
All one has to do is look at the projections from the labor
department for STEM job growth over the next 10 years (about
100K/year) and compare that to the similarly sized H1-B visa
count that tech firms want per year to see that a STEM college
education is not the safe haven in the job market that the MSM
promotes.
International companies cast a world wide net for educated
talent, and are probably unconcerned how much a prospective
employee's degree cost to acquire.
And these corporations also want to lower their US taxes,
which indirectly cuts public education funding.
We don't actually need PhD outside physical sciences.
It is a qualification ONLY in the Thesis subject matter.
We also don't need so many Lawyers and should turn of the
production line (maybe that is what inflates GDP in UK and
US .lawyers billing rates ?)
Excellent point, but that is the purpose of Identity Politics, to
erase the concept of "the worker" from our minds and thoughts,
practiced by both the r-cons of the bankster party and the faux crats
of the bankster party.
The r-cons' identity politics is that the "media" (still haven't
found them in Amerika) are "liberal" (still have found that, either)
and the r-cons are besieged by these outfits.
The faux crats wish to focus on every possible sub-grouping of
humans, to the exclusion of wage earners.
Worked for decades, but I suspect it may possibly and finally be
beginning to fall apart . . .
"Do we really need the education we are getting for most of the jobs
out there?"
The future belongs to those capable of handling it – the others will
be cast to the wayside. Do you really want to condemn most people to
being part of the wayside? Why do you think education is becoming so
expensive?
We do indeed all need more education, but not of the type that most
people think. The education young people suffer through for years and
then go into debt for more of is designed largely to impoverish,
enslave, and brainwash. It's anti-education, creating false
expectations, instilling poisonous memes, punishing independence and
non-compliance.
There are exceptions of course. Education for the rich is designed
to teach the rules of the game, weed out the unreliable, and establish
lifetime networks.
I am reminded that people with curious minds are always
educating themselves – formal setting or not- wealthy or not.
The social system should provides an outlet for those talents
and effort. The failing of todays ruling ideology is that human
talent is undervalued and underutilized. In effect, built on
waste and inefficiency in a broader sense. Todays economic
system seems most efficient on creating inequality.
A 4 hour work day based on a livable wage could open many
"educational" doors.
I am also old enough to remember that vocational training
was taken seriously in public schools without social stigma.
Labor was not a dirty word. A different form of critical
thinking focused on manufacture.
Are you referring to the "practical" one and two year programs
like the Australian TAFE system ? I got a two year computer degree
from such a program almost twenty
years ago and was fairly impressed with the program. Of the twenty
people in my class, eighteen had at least a masters degree in some
technical
subject though the program was designed for those who did not seek
to
go to university. The ones with the advanced degrees such as myself
were unemployed and so retraining.
Not at all. Practical training like TAFE (or like TAFE used
to be) can be valuable, depending on what course you choose. I'm
referring to primary, secondary and university education as it
is offered to the mainstream today in the western world.
Primary and secondary education is degraded for reasons far
too complex to get into here. Of course there are still tertiary
courses and teachers that educate, but universities are now run
strictly as commercial enterprises, and such teachers find it
harder and harder to prosper.
Before John Major UK had quality courses such as City &
Guilds and Part-Time University Courses – "Sandwich Courses"
where working students had Block or Day Release to study and
could work through their studies with access to industrial
labs and equipment and university facilities. It was very
cost-effective. Major turned everyone into Full-Time Students
so they emerged after 3 years with no relevant industrial
experience and lots of debt
The answer to your question is No. The resistance to single payer
health care in America belies that fact. Many alternative lifestyles
would be possible if one could relieve exorbitant medical care from
household expenses. Private businesses would be indirectly forced to
offer more humane working conditions, regardless of what that work
entailed by the mere fact that labor could easily relocate to a less
exploiting employer. Added to that, the removal of stress accompanied by
needing to deal with medical uncertainties of life. A sane society would
provide care for all its members.
Guaranteed food, shelter, basic education, healthcare, and some form
of work are all that is required from a just society. That should be the
criteria for evaluating the system. This is not utopia, and is within
reach. There is nothing technical holding this realization back. The
elite create conflict to secure their position. They believe in
inequality.
When you look at it, most "jobs" in capitalist society don't satisfy
any legitimate human need for survival. Not to mention the needs of the
remaining life on the planet. Most are satisfying manufactured wants. A
cynical play on human emotion that condemns most to unhappy and stressful
lives.
Change will happen when a critical mass of people can get past the
fear and psychological damage that is caused by manufactured needs,
excessive higher education for all being one them. In and of itself, a
"higher education" is meaningless if you cannot practice the acquired
skill. Are lower work hours on the horizon to accommodate all the excess
degrees? Not in the least.
This is not to say that lifelong education should not be an
aspirational goal. Only to stress that the social organizing structure
must accommodate that goal in a meaningful way. Right now, in America, it
is mostly overt exploitation. A creative way to manufacture debt slaves.
Once upon a time, most of the highly educated took a vow of poverty
with the assurance they would be cared for in a time of need.
Today most jump on the degree bandwagon to get on the road to
material consumption and end up realizing they were sold an expensive
if not worthless bill of goods.
Regarding excessive higher education as a manufactured need, I
think there are at least two other factors at play besides
credentialism and the (futile?) pursuit of good careers.
One is the decline in the literacy, numeracy, general knowledge,
and other educational achievements of your average high school
graduate compared to 30 years ago. It's well recognised in
universities that much of what used to be taken as known by
freshpersons, today needs to be taught or retaught in the early years
of a university/college course.
The second factor is simply the growing complexity and pace of
change of the world we inhabit. I suspect this is a major reason
behind the increase in the number of years of fulltime education the
average person seems to think they require.
+ 100
I think that people are so driven to value themselves in terms of money,
that they won't even allow other ideas like this to enter their
consciousness
Sadly, now is the time when we need to be thinking about other ideas,
because the ones we currently accept as valid just aren't working for most
of the world's people ..
Thank you. You seem to be the only one who got my most important point
namely a subversive function of money as a propaganda of liberalism that
underlie socioeconomic system of capitalism and commodification
(valuation and valorization in terms of money) of environment and social
relations.
What I mean by "propaganda of liberalism" is hijacking of ideas of
individual Freedom to mean abandonment of common interests and separation
from community, also separation from community in a form of alienation of
private property from community commons and hence introduction of money
as a representation of the private property, capital or collateral in a
debt based monetary system.
The money is so much embedded into people's psyche that trying to
explain artificiality of such an arrangement amounts to a sort of
Copernican revolution of explaining reality that completely contradicts
everyday common sense experience.
What's insidious in capitalism is that social relations among masses
of people are forced to be negotiated by money in addition to old ways of
social relations (also labor relations) being negotiated by social
position and political power and/or what we call culture i.e a common set
of attitudes and practices that have been empirically/historically proven
beneficial for community.
People do not realize that even 200 years ago many people were living
who did not use money even once in their lives since they did not need
to, they produced their own food, cloths, tools, they barter other goods
and even taxes they paid via field labor.
Imagine us today paying all our bills directly with our labor, one
thing we have abundant and we control, not scarce money controlled solely
by greedy elite.
Unemployment would be something our children would have learned about
only from history pages.
I guess nobody every read False Dawn: The Delusions of Global Capitalism, by
John Gray then a professor at the London School of Economics. It was published
in 1998 and is to this day the greatest critique of neoliberal economic dogma
ever written. Then again Gray is an intellectual's intellectual so the media
has always ignored him in favor of pop intellectual simpletons like Tom
Friedman.
It is as if Gray had a time machine which allowed him to see the future.
Prior to 1914 Global Capitalism had powered ahead hindered only by US
Tariff Walls such as McKinley Tariff and the upsurge in Tariffs in Germany,
Russia, France and a ludicrous British commitment to Free Trade which
destroyed investment in industry as capital flowed overseas. The result was
1914-18 War and the removal of Russia (the fastest-growing market) from
European trade and destruction of Germany and Central Europe
Social unrest and a populous backlash against global capitalism are always
trotted out as the main effects gross economic inequalities will have. But
given the elites control of the media and our economy they have the tools and
power to limit unrest and any backlash. The more important effect of economic
inequality is that it will destroy capitalism itself.
That is reassuring, I would hate to think "the Global Elite" was out of
touch or playing shepherdess in Hameau de la Reine; it is good to know the
Controllers have their finger on the pulse and are "caring" for us.
Cynicism is well-fed in the current era.
Years ago I read Amy Chua's book "World On Fire" (2002)
None of the workers give a shit about how rich the rich are. All they want
is a living wage. That the rich, who Piketty points out are rich because they
inherited wealth to start with won't pay, is insane on the part of the rich.
Le Pen was similar to Trump in her desire to improve the relations with Russia and generally more
realistic view of recent events. she is not a USA stooge. That probably a partial reason why she lost.
Macron is somewhat like French Obama a shadow figure who is a marionette of forces behind him, not a
actual politician.
Notable quotes:
"... the 'abstain in disgust' demographic has been over-hyped from the day after results were announced. ..."
"... the abstain thing was overhyped for one and only reason, put the "shame" on the the left so that'll cut their chances for the June Legsilatives election (the one that counts contrary to the sunday joke). ..."
"... It's the only reason all major tv/radio/newspapers spent the last 2 weeks vociferating against Melenchon & his voters as "irresponsible" while 90% of those insulted will NOT vote for Le Pen. That would be total nonsense if the thing those media were fighting was Le Pen... ..."
"... Problem is with the media and the establishment EU globalists, all dissenting and opposite views will be quashed even further under the 'fighting terrorism' guise. People will be smeared, fined, arrested, jailed, whatever it takes for them to maintain a grip on power. ..."
"... Yes the russian-hating-blaming-millionare Macron will win no doubt, the election is more or less fixed after the propaganda campaing for him everywhere in the west. The same Macron and MSM are already cooking up disinformation about russian hackers, theese people are insane, and its also a sign of what policy he will carry out. ..."
"... Long term though? Next election Le Pen or whoever rule her party will win. It will also cause more extremism because the elite under Macron wont deal with regular people and their problems but with the elite. ..."
"... to be fair though, those emails leaks seem totally dull. I browsed what I could, it's just generic staff chat, campaign bills to pay, bills to make, yadda yadda Whoever got the mail passwords few months ago must have waited for something juicy to land and since nothing really interesting came up, they're just posting the whole stock as is. Won't make the slightest difference on sunday. ..."
"... Exactly. I wouldnt be surprised if its Macron team itself that leaked this dull, uninportant stuff to show that "russians have interfered". ..."
"... Macron won 1st step with the intense fear campaign spammed on our heads during 6 months. I know plenty reasonable people who voted Macron while they hardly can stand his program, because they were told hundreds times he was the "best choice" to beat Le Pen. ..."
"... That's so absurd Macron got the most votes last sunday AND at the same time got the LOWEST "adhesion" (adherence ? not sure in english) rate of all 11 candidates, basically nearly half of "his" voters put the bulletin with his name for reasons that have nothing to do with him. ..."
"... they're both pro-Zionist. Just another shell game of an election whilst the media does its assigned job of shouting loudly about some supposed vast gulf existing between the 2 candidates. Having said that, if I was French there's just no way I could vote for a slimy Rothschild banking reptile like Macron. At least Le Pen appears to be an actual human. ..."
"... Without Trump's 100 first days, le Pen would probably have done better, possibly even taken it. The French have been given full flood propaganda that Marine le Pen is the equivalent of Donald Trump. She is not. There are some similarities, but le Pen is more nuanced than Trump, far more experienced in politics, and would be at least somewhat more consistent with her campaign promises. ..."
"... That said, she is not the economic "populist" many imagine and many more hope for. Her actual platform would be remarkably like that of Obama or Hillary; neoliberal. ..."
"... she might make improvements in, and the emphasis should be on "might", one of them is avoiding participation in every war that the US starts up in the Middle East as well as all the Putin bashing that is de rigeur for US allies ..."
"... long term outcome of globalists verses nationalists? the globalists are going to win, and full on slavery will continue to ensue.. the younger generations will not see the comforts and lifestyle their parents enjoyed - far from it in fact.. freedoms will be clamped down, alternative views will be made illegal and stuff like that.. after that, there is a small chance people will possibly wake up, but i wouldn't count on it.. ..."
"... " the epic fight of globalists versus nationalists" No. It is the epic fight of corporatists versus nationalists. ..."
"... Corporations are trying to assert themselves as bigger, better and more powerful than states. Time to remind corporatists that they exist only at the will and control of a state. By allowing a corporation to establish themselves, the state should be their front, Potemkin village or not. ..."
"... A strand in F politics / commentators etc. brands him as a candidat fabriqué , a candidat du systčme a sort of cut-out ersatz pol, created and boosted by the financial elites, Mega Corps., banking - as he worked for Rotschild, etc. The MSM, particularly magazines... ensuring his win with 24/24 favorable coverage. Sure, he is young, good-looking, etc. ..."
"... Some gays support Macron as rumors about him being gay with his older wife as a 'mommy type cover' indulging in an affair with some sultry media guy. ..."
"... Macron is an opportunist taking advantage of the break-down of trad. F politics - death of the Socialist party, divisions on the right, oppos parties no clout, Sarkozy despised, Hollande then more so.. to present a quasi 'evangelical' solution as a last ditch effort against decline, sinking GDP per capita, > as 'collaborationist' with the US-EU-NATO - etc. He is most likely quite, or semi-sincere, in his desire to fix it all. A 'maverick' who is yet 'hyper conventional' - a very conventional profile! ..."
"... You're right about Trump I think. Even if the 100 day benchmark is arbitrary it's something that's paid a lot of attention. It's been very unsettling for a lot of Americans. Other countries have been watching closely. They watched as Trump front loaded his cabinet with bankers and generals. They wondered whatever happened to nonintervention and draining the swamp. They wondered if the demonization of certain religious and ethnic groups was the harbinger of a brave new world that wasn't all that brave or all that new. His attack on all things environmental, while weather events become worse year by year, strictly to accommodate big business is another problem. So is the new health bill that gives the coup de grâce to any idea that he's the champion of the common man. ..."
"... In any case the French election will go a long way to determining if the new philosophy of undoing all the constructs since WW11 is what the people want. it's starting to look like it isn't. The losers are sure to cry that big finance and the press skewered the vote but it might just be that the French are happy the way things are. ..."
"... Macron will be to France what Obama has been to the US. Just like Obama's presidency made possible Trump's victory four years later, Macron's presidency will make possible a Front National victory in five years. ..."
"... The Chancellors of the French universities have asked their students to vote Macron. (Link in French) Not a single Chancellor has asked students to vote Le Pen. The same can be said of the French press. The media barrage in favor of Macron has been so one-sided, some Frenchmen call their country jokingly "East Corea" ..."
"... I find it difficult to hear people praising Le Pen who won't have to live under her presidency. Let me remind you that Europe had more than its share of nationalist wars, and the last thing the continent needs are governments adding fuel to the fire of existing tensions. Macron is a puppet, but in the end he'll do what's necessary to stabilize things. Le Pen might well blow things up and lead to civil war. ..."
"... I am not a supporter of Le Pen and hell no, not supporter of a "French Trump" Macron, Yes, it is Macron in my opinion that is French Trump, a Flaccid Clown of Global Oligarchy while Le Pen is slightly reversed Sanders as far as elements of political platform that matter for ordinary people in France and the US. ..."
"... Brilliant move by Marine Le Pen was to campaign on her own more centrist platform and not be obliged to follow strictly FN platform as a FN leader would have to follow. ..."
"... In fact as Macron was first who shed his discrediting Socialist label as hated Hollande minister, now Le Pen shed her FN right-wing and neo-fascist label to commence entirely new campaign as true French populist and nationalist. ..."
"... She already told French that they have a clear choice between neoliberal oligarchic rule of globalists under a thieving investment banker or French people rule under populist leader liken to de Gaulle. ..."
"... Does she have a chance against unified block of French MSM media and Globalist media worldwide, against slander, lies and fake news, against 95% of largest French press being against her? Not likely, especial that as it was documented CIA has capabilities and used them to manipulate french elections already in the past. But it is more complicated than that and Marine Le Pen is not Trump. ..."
"... The Macron campaign identified the first tweet referring to the documents as coming from the Twitter account of Nathan Damigo , a far-right activist and convicted felon based in northern California. Damigo is known on social media for punching a female anti-fascist in the face at a Berkeley protest. ..."
"... Originated online in California, just before the 2.5 hour debate between Le Pen and Macron. ..."
"... Melenchon is the one to listen to to understand the situation in France. While he didn't make it into round two, he has a good chance of a large parliamentary victory in the round of elections after the presidential one. He's been locked out of the English-language press in the U.S. and Britain (he falls outside their narrow spectrum of acceptable political views) so you have to read the French press (I use Google Translate) or watch his youtube (with subcaptions) channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsGkA4TXqyw ..."
"... In order to combat mass immigration, which is mainly internal to developing countries, the causes of migration must be tackled: the impossibility of any development in the countries of departure, due to debts and Structural adjustment policies imposed by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) or the World Bank, the plundering of resources by multinationals and free trade. ..."
"... Outside the fact most media pre-prepare their headlines for such occasions when time does not allow for late information to be disseminated by normal publishing procedures, the Dewey / Truman was marked by the media believing their own propaganda to the extent they became divorced from reality. This recently has shown its tracks in the Clinton / Trump campaign with 'interesting result' - the Russians did it! ..."
"... Macron has no effective political party in the French parliament, the fictional party he was supported by has no parliamentary standing and is unlikely to obtain standing. ..."
"... she has said that she won't allow French citizens to have Israeli passports ..."
"... Those Francophone African countries that are part of the West African and Central African Franc currency zones were among the most enthusiastic backers of Colonel Muammar Gaddhafi's pan-African "gold dinar" economic market. No wonder Nicolas Sarkozy signed onto the US no-fly zone over Libya idiocy tout de suite in 2011. ..."
"... The relative lack of power of France made me wonder the real reason why they led the NATO attack on Libya. Was it the financial dealings between Sarkozy and Gaddhafi like some sites say or were they really prodded by the US to lead the way of the overall game plan? ..."
"... Macron's dirty secrets according to The Duran: http://theduran.com/breaking-macron-emails-lead-to-allegations-of-drug-use-homosexual-adventurism-and-rothschild-money/ ..."
"... Le Pen voters, who decry globalisation, foreignors, terrorists, muslims, etc. / the remnants of the left (socialist - Trotskyist - add anarchist - ..), who voted Mélenchon or not at all / those who are 'foreign' - outcasts in any case - and thus can't rally to Le Pen or to anyone.. and just keep their heads down. ..."
"... The divide-to-rule strategy has worked perfectly on these workers. In two factories I know of, the 3 different groups don't speak to each other, except as routine politeness / ugly jokes small skirmish etc., as they are all in the same boat, subject to the same oppressive rules, etc. though some contacts/friendships cross these lines. ..."
"... Listening to NPR spreading their propaganda about French elections made me want to vomit. Are the majority of western folks really as stupid as they seem to be? Judging by the crap people post on Facebook I'd say yes. The more "educated" a person is the more likely they are to believe the lies. ..."
"... As for the farce in France... I think Brandon Smith at Alt-Market.com has a good grasp of what the elite are trying to do. He has a series of articles postulating what he believes is the long game of the bankers and other wealthy feces, mostly using Trump as the example of how nationalist/conservatives are being set-up for a big fall. Interesting point of view that I find rather rational considering all the craziness taking place. ..."
"... Good short summmary: The Truth About Macron https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6H0cjIN4gw ..."
"... n America, American Voters in the USA elections, are allowed to elect by majority vote, either of two persons(for each position); but the between candidate platforms, boil down to the same side of two identical coins. Those elected are paid a salary to operate the USA for the benefit of, and "according to" the "allowed policy" established by, those in control of the national policy. ..."
"... The French election is not about choice of platforms, but instead, the French election is about choice of persons to be paid to execute the allowed platforms. The range of choices in the French election.. and in republics throughout the world, has been and is, limited to candidates who subscribe to "allowed platforms". It is clear to me, the policies the candidates will be paid, if elected, to execute are, all the same in every Republic, around the globe. ..."
"... That all the evils in western society are the fault of the external bogeyman. Putin, ISIS Refugees, Asian footwear makers, whatever. ..."
"... Is that your services & politicians Would never pull a false leak or a controlled leak or a limited hangout. That they are angels that sit on their hands. ..."
"... These two underpin the absolute lunacy we have seen unfold before our eyes. An extraordinarily dangerous situation to be in which is getting worse fast. ..."
"... Everyone backed the wrong horse. Instead of pushing for JL Melenchon who's also a non-interventionist on foreign policy from the very beginning as opposed to the unpopular candidate of Sarkozy's party, F. Fillon, and then the Islamophobe Le Pen, you'all had to back Le Pen who had no chance in hell of winning because she scared not only Muslims but many on the Left. ..."
"... Obomo praises Emmanuel Macron well run campaign and like Emmanuel Macron's "Liberal value" . Good ridden! ..."
"... Last year, when Joe visited the US, we were discussing the US presidential campaign and Bernie Sanders. Joe and I agreed that the West is experiencing a general political meltdown. Joe then went on to describe the default pattern that EU elections follow: ..."
"... The prospective candidates are inevitably the "Usual Suspects", i.e. centrist/moderate careerist technocrats, the odd "maverick" or two with limited, cultlike support-- and The Extremist ..."
"... The Establishment power elite, institutions, and complicit mass-media begin an orchestrated howling: "Anybody But [insert Extremist du jour here]!" ..."
"... The "Anybody But!" coalition throws massive resources into a public relations campaign to generate mass hysterical fear at the prospect that The Extremist may win and lead the nation straight to Hell. ..."
"... The terrified, confused, hysterical, panic-stricken public accordingly falls in line and elects the favorite centrist/moderate careerist technocrat who will perpetuate the neoliberal status quo. ..."
"... The Establishment power elite and its mass-media megaphone will effusively praise the inconquerable wisdom and good sense of The People in once again Saving the Republic by rejecting a dangerous Extremist. ..."
"... Macron is a shark (report from the family), not a victim of the banksters. He followed May's strategy in UK of staying quiet till elected. Future policy: not merely a bankster, but also the son of a conservative family of doctors from Amiens. So not a pure neo-liberal, as has been suggested, but someone who is forced by his family background to take their point of view into account. ..."
"... The prospect is not too bad. Other than in foreign policy, where he has declared himself against the Asad regime in Syria. I don't take that too seriously. Once in power, he may discover what is implied in attacking Asad, that is war against Russia, and he may hesitate. ..."
"... I am French. Macron won because of an unprecedented media onslaught that led 25% of voters who don't know their heads for their a... to vote for him in the first round, while the media had blocked anyone but Macron and Le Pen from getting to the second round. That's because they know that people would elect a head of lettuce if that head of lettuce was running against Le Pen. ..."
"... You see, the US only stopped major civil war kind of s... because Trump won, which disarmed the anger of the disenfranchised masses. Unfortunately, in France, Emmanuel Clinton won. And the French extreme left wing, who hates Macron's guts, can be dangerous. I mean, physically dangerous. Other clear-headed observers than Gave are already mumbling words like "barricades" and "civil war". ..."
"... What does that say about any French thinking their vote matters? Look at the choices they were "offered". ..."
"... the parallels between obama and micro seem very strong ... someone linked elsewhere - on the open thread - to a biography of obama that had him making decisions with an eye to future "political showbiz" career at an early age. ..."
"... the 'destiny' of the 'political' showbiz - class seems now to be to surf the waves of financial power, all pretense to politics long gone. probably always thus, to a great extent. but with the need for real politics so striking now - the disaster to be had for relying on autopilot more apparent than ever - so too is the self-centeredness of the showbiz personalities. ..."
"... If Macron manages to trick the French fools again and his non-existing party actually gets a majority in parliament, I expect things to go South before his first mandate is over. ..."
"... A total of 4.2 million of French voters cast empty ballots in the presidential run-off on Synday, a survey conducted by Ispos and Sopra Steria said ....8.9 percent of the total of 47.6 million voters cast empty ballots, refusing to give their support to either of the candidates." ..."
The French 2017 election has become the battle of the status quo; one a historical myth (La Pen)
providing some comfort from a perceived tradition, the other of hidden political power looking
to perpetuate itself by stealth and deception (Macron). Should the French electorate decide that
silence can be an effective form of a lie, they can support the candidate which best meets the
voter's best interests. La Pen is a candidate of a legitimate but small political party; Macron
has, like any good magician, produced a facsimile political group, a crypto-political party. Taking
a page from U.S. political history, lies never produce the results they promise. Good luck France,
reach into your conscious and vote your best interests Sunday. The world awaits your collective
decision if politics still operates in France.
"It seems clear so far the the synthetic Rothschild candidate will win this round."
That's the way it's shaping up, despite the weirdness of Obama adding his name to the Kiss
Of Death list of pro-Micron Swamp Dwellers headed by such unpopular has-beens as Hollande, Sarkozy
et al.
There's too much contrived 'flexibility' in this charade. In Round 1 the voter-participation
rate settled at 77.1% after early cites that it was a fraction under 70%. That's a huge jump in
a factor which normally reveals reliable trends. Also the 'abstain in disgust' demographic has
been over-hyped from the day after results were announced.
The final outcome will hinge on how gullible/docile French voters are, historically-speaking.
the abstain thing was overhyped for one and only reason, put the "shame" on the the left so that'll
cut their chances for the June Legsilatives election (the one that counts contrary to the sunday
joke).
It's the only reason all major tv/radio/newspapers spent the last 2 weeks vociferating
against Melenchon & his voters as "irresponsible" while 90% of those insulted will NOT vote for
Le Pen. That would be total nonsense if the thing those media were fighting was Le Pen...
France will be rudderless, adrift, enduring a exponential increase in violence and internal political
and cultural strife. Then, next election Le Pen will nab it. They aren't there yet.
Problem is with the media and the establishment EU globalists, all dissenting and opposite
views will be quashed even further under the 'fighting terrorism' guise. People will be smeared,
fined, arrested, jailed, whatever it takes for them to maintain a grip on power.
I see the UK is now wanting to introduce more investigatory powers on the web essentially eliminating
end to end encryption. The EU countries are going to go full Big Brother before they let the populist
right movement gain any more traction. Again, they may only be delaying the inevitable.
Yes the russian-hating-blaming-millionare Macron will win no doubt, the election is more or
less fixed after the propaganda campaing for him everywhere in the west.
The same Macron and MSM are already cooking up disinformation about russian hackers, theese people
are insane, and its also a sign of what policy he will carry out.
Pro-bankers
Pro-war
Pro-establishment
Anti-Russia
Pro-Nato
Pro EU
Long term though? Next election Le Pen or whoever rule her party will win. It will also cause
more extremism because the elite under Macron wont deal with regular people and their problems
but with the elite.
I cant see why anyone would vote for Macron, even his eyes/looks are slimy.
Another Leaks about emails, this time about Macron. The difference is that nobody is allowed to
publish any part of it by the electoral commission (15,000 euros fine). No doubt there will be
a huge crackdown on alt media once he gets elected.
France is an occupied country, much more than the US
to be fair though, those emails leaks seem totally dull. I browsed what I could, it's just
generic staff chat, campaign bills to pay, bills to make, yadda yadda Whoever got the mail passwords
few months ago must have waited for something juicy to land and since nothing really interesting
came up, they're just posting the whole stock as is. Won't make the slightest difference on sunday.
@jen : what possibility ? none Macron won 1st step with the intense fear campaign spammed on our heads during 6 months. I
know plenty reasonable people who voted Macron while they hardly can stand his program, because
they were told hundreds times he was the "best choice" to beat Le Pen. And that's it. They
probably don't fully believe it, but the doubt was hammered deep in their mind, and they won't
take the (imaginary) risk to appear the on "wrong" side of history and be shamed for years...
And the same thing will obviously happen tomorrow.
That's so absurd Macron got the most votes last sunday AND at the same time got the LOWEST
"adhesion" (adherence ? not sure in english) rate of all 11 candidates, basically nearly half
of "his" voters put the bulletin with his name for reasons that have nothing to do with him.
they're both pro-Zionist. Just another shell game of an election whilst the media does its assigned
job of shouting loudly about some supposed vast gulf existing between the 2 candidates. Having
said that, if I was French there's just no way I could vote for a slimy Rothschild banking reptile
like Macron. At least Le Pen appears to be an actual human.
Without Trump's 100 first days, le Pen would probably have done better, possibly even taken
it. The French have been given full flood propaganda that Marine le Pen is the equivalent of Donald
Trump. She is not. There are some similarities, but le Pen is more nuanced than Trump, far more
experienced in politics, and would be at least somewhat more consistent with her campaign promises.
That said, she is not the economic "populist" many imagine and many more hope for. Her
actual platform would be remarkably like that of Obama or Hillary; neoliberal. Of the two
areas she might make improvements in, and the emphasis should be on "might", one of them is
avoiding participation in every war that the US starts up in the Middle East as well as all the
Putin bashing that is de rigeur for US allies . The other is possibly succeeding in upending
the European Union and the Eurozone - which as it stands, does everything for rapacious banks
and an export at any cost dependent Germany, and nothing for anyone else other than a small group
of plutocrats.
long term outcome of globalists verses nationalists? the globalists are going to win, and full
on slavery will continue to ensue.. the younger generations will not see the comforts and lifestyle
their parents enjoyed - far from it in fact.. freedoms will be clamped down, alternative views
will be made illegal and stuff like that.. after that, there is a small chance people will possibly
wake up, but i wouldn't count on it..
in france, terrorism will continue.. in europe a greater
malaise will prevail.. in the world, things look to be falling apart.. maybe more war for all
the wrong reasons, if nothing else.. macron will be onside with global dominance thru the west
of syria.. the usual lame excuses will be trotted out..
" the epic fight of globalists versus nationalists" No. It is the epic fight of corporatists
versus nationalists.
Corporations are trying to assert themselves as bigger, better and more powerful than states.
Time to remind corporatists that they exist only at the will and control of a state. By allowing
a corporation to establish themselves, the state should be their front, Potemkin village or not.
This US has ceded much of their power to corporations. Past time to take it back.
Macron, next Pres. of France, an exceptional person. (I am not a fan.)
A strand in F politics / commentators etc. brands him as a candidat fabriqué , a
candidat du systčme a sort of cut-out ersatz pol, created and boosted by the financial
elites, Mega Corps., banking - as he worked for Rotschild, etc. The MSM, particularly magazines...
ensuring his win with 24/24 favorable coverage. Sure, he is young, good-looking, etc.
This pov is conveniently conspiratorial, and the media support is real; yet, the MSM merely
follow and go for the winner, in kind of positive feed-back loop, pretty mindless.
"Manu" - pour les intimes - is very clever, tough, and determined to rise / become powerful
since he was a precocious child, attracted to and competing within the world of adults, since
the age of 5? Yes, a psych profile approach is superficial, junky, or only one aspect.
The 'parental' love of his life was his grand-mother. Manu took decisions about his life very
young. At 12 he was baptised Catholic, by his decision. Pic in church first from coll. of pix
young Macron, Gala gossip mag.
At 15 -17 he decided he would marry the teacher B. Trogneux (24 years older than him, with
one child older than him, another the same age and in his class at school), and he managed that.
The 'unconventional' marriage is now 100% accepted, and even a I'd say a 'plus' point, in the
sense that 'different love-lives' tinged with trangression attract support from certain quarters.
Some gays support Macron as rumors about him being gay with his older wife as a 'mommy type
cover' indulging in an affair with some sultry media guy.
Macron is an opportunist taking advantage of the break-down of trad. F politics - death
of the Socialist party, divisions on the right, oppos parties no clout, Sarkozy despised, Hollande
then more so.. to present a quasi 'evangelical' solution as a last ditch effort against decline,
sinking GDP per capita, > as 'collaborationist' with the US-EU-NATO - etc. He is most likely quite,
or semi-sincere, in his desire to fix it all. A 'maverick' who is yet 'hyper conventional' - a
very conventional profile!
@ Gravatomic at 6. Le Pen will never win, the FN will never have a 'prez.' About the social
unrest, yes.
You're right about Trump I think. Even if the 100 day benchmark is arbitrary it's something
that's paid a lot of attention. It's been very unsettling for a lot of Americans. Other countries
have been watching closely. They watched as Trump front loaded his cabinet with bankers and generals.
They wondered whatever happened to nonintervention and draining the swamp. They wondered if the
demonization of certain religious and ethnic groups was the harbinger of a brave new world that
wasn't all that brave or all that new. His attack on all things environmental, while weather events
become worse year by year, strictly to accommodate big business is another problem. So is the
new health bill that gives the coup de grâce to any idea that he's the champion of the common
man.
This whole idea of turning everything upside down to spark some kind of political renewal has
taken a few hits of late. After Trump's election and Brexit the there was a school of thought
that had it that upcoming elections in Europe would fall in line with the new political philosophy.
First would be The Netherlands, that didn't happen. Then it would be France, unless something
very drastic and unexpected happens then that's another bad bet. Nobody's yet surmising that Merkel
is toast. In spite of the unpopularity of her immigration policy at its outset it may be that
Germans are ready to forgive her that and stick with the status quo. I don't know enough about
English politics to guess if any party can unseat May but it's evident that a lot of Brits are
wishing that Brexit had failed.
In any case the French election will go a long way to determining if the new philosophy
of undoing all the constructs since WW11 is what the people want. it's starting to look like it
isn't. The losers are sure to cry that big finance and the press skewered the vote but it might
just be that the French are happy the way things are.
Emmanuel Macron will have to make a decisive move on Europe The most exciting promise of his candidacy is the agenda for eurozone reform
--Wolfgang Münchau Emmanuel Macron has a convincing lead in the polls, but a low turnout among his more reluctant
supporters could still produce a result too close for comfort.
The final round of the French presidential election on May 7 should not really be a contest.
Mr Macron has the backing of more or less the entire political establishment - from the left to
the centre-right. But events can intrude even in such a situation and already have. His decision
to celebrate his first-round victory in a smart brasserie in Paris's sixth arrondissement was
politically illiterate. During a visit to a Whirlpool factory in Amiens, northern France, Mr
Macron was upstaged by his opponent, Marine Le Pen, leader of the far right National Front.
As a political campaigner she is in a different league. If she crushes him in Wednesday's television
debate, she might have a chance.
The problem with Mr Macron's agenda is that nobody really knows how he can make it work. The
role of the French president is powerful, but the fate of François Hollande should serve as a
cautionary tale of the limits of what a president can do. Mr Hollande's Socialists at least had
a majority in the National Assembly, the French parliament. It is not clear whether Mr Macron
will have a single MP after the legislative elections in June. Will he end up as a mere figurehead
- like the German president - whose job is to shake hands and give grand speeches? Or can he find
a way to force change?
Macron will be to France what Obama has been to the US.
Just like Obama's presidency made possible Trump's victory four years later, Macron's presidency
will make possible a Front National victory in five years.
Here's my prediction: five years from now, Marion Maréchal-Le Pen will win the presidential
elections.
sounds like the french will find in micro endless, magnificent diversion from the collapse
of their republic at the hands of his puppet masters the financiers. had he a religion at all
before choosing to become a catholic at 12? or just ambition?
The Chancellors of the French universities have asked their students to vote Macron.
(Link in French) Not a single Chancellor has asked students to vote Le Pen. The same can be
said of the French press. The media barrage in favor of Macron has been so one-sided, some Frenchmen call their country
jokingly "East Corea"
I find it difficult to hear people praising Le Pen who won't have to live under her presidency.
Let me remind you that Europe had more than its share of nationalist wars, and the last thing
the continent needs are governments adding fuel to the fire of existing tensions.
Macron is a puppet, but in the end he'll do what's necessary to stabilize things.
Le Pen might well blow things up and lead to civil war.
Truth be told, even if she hadn't much chance of winning, Le Pen could've hoped to go close to
45% if she had played it right and campaigned well. She totally blew it with an awful performance
in the debate, though, while Macron was probably a bit better than expected.
The most worrying bit is that voters who sided with Macron might feel compelled to give him a
majority in parliament, which is the key. Considering how human psychoology tends to work too
often, there will be a follower/commitment effect with some voters, who have crossed a line by
voting for him and will find it less abhorrent to back him again in the legislative elections.
If that happens, imho, it would mean France had just gone through a coup, and democracy is dead
there. The good news is that it means that sooner or later, bloody revolution will sweep the country
- but it might take time and, as most if not all revolutions, will probably not be thorough enough
in wiping out the ruling elites.
@33 smuks quote "Macron is a puppet, but in the end he'll do what's necessary to stabilize things."
there is stability and then there is stability.. if a house of cards needs to be held up - macron
is the man, lol..
Will people of France show that they are worthy their great sons like Voltaire and vote their
conscience or will they vote out of fear and intimidation?
That is the question.
I admit that French people or EU citizen may have totally different view of the French political
process from perspective of the details and particularities they are acutely aware of, than my
view from The US, by may be this very distance and emotionally cold judgment of outsider is needed
as well to have truly a big picture of what is going on.
I am not a supporter of Le Pen and hell no, not supporter of a "French Trump" Macron, Yes,
it is Macron in my opinion that is French Trump, a Flaccid Clown of Global Oligarchy while Le
Pen is slightly reversed Sanders as far as elements of political platform that matter for ordinary
people in France and the US.
None of them are politically radical in any shape or form, and definitely not Marine Le Pen
who just want to ask French people what to do since they never had really a chance to do so. Either
to support continuing pauperization of society and allowing for further collapse of French sovereignty
and cultural autonomy which is one of the pillars of European culture and western tradition and
hence retain status quo or reject it by demanding EU to return to its EEC roots and give up on
a superstate projects like Euro or banking unity/ECB. And that is the highest crime in Brussels
and hence she was set for at least metaphorical assassination of her character and her populist
appeal.
Brilliant move by Marine Le Pen was to campaign on her own more centrist platform and not be
obliged to follow strictly FN platform as a FN leader would have to follow.
In fact as Macron was first who shed his discrediting Socialist label as hated Hollande minister,
now Le Pen shed her FN right-wing and neo-fascist label to commence entirely new campaign as true
French populist and nationalist.
She already told French that they have a clear choice between neoliberal oligarchic rule of
globalists under a thieving investment banker or French people rule under populist leader liken
to de Gaulle.
Does she have a chance against unified block of French MSM media and Globalist media worldwide,
against slander, lies and fake news, against 95% of largest French press being against her? Not
likely, especial that as it was documented CIA has capabilities and used them to manipulate french
elections already in the past. But it is more complicated than that and Marine Le Pen is not Trump.
The real issue in these elections though will be how strong roots of sociopolitical/economic
dependency on EU imperial clique are in France and believe me they are strong.
Millions of French know or feel there are dependent of Brussels and will vote status-quo regardless
even of their suffering, threatened with supposedly worse alternative under Le Pen.
How strong such a calcifying paralysis may be was shown in Roman empire collapsing over two
centuries only because people supported status-quo in fear of change into unknown, even when the
world around them was collapsing.
But if Le Pen thinks she can do without a sort of "revolution" metaphorically breaking legs
and heads, she is not gonna get anywhere since the autocratic EU system is designed to prevent
popular upheavals and drastic changes to the EU imperial order of bureaucratic rule.
EU has all the money, power, courts and propaganda machine to derail Le Pen presidency without
another French revolution to defend it.
Even case of Brexit showed that EU turned from happy family of loving EU nations to a pool
of viscous brats, little puny weasels, exhibiting embarrassing insecure teenage hysteria, wanting
revenge and nursing their personal hurt feelings, pretending to be conducting supposedly rational
and serious international negotiations among formally at least, sovereign countries.
This Sunday we will know if in France once again fear prevailed over courage.
The Macron campaign identified the first tweet referring to the documents as coming
from the Twitter account of
Nathan Damigo , a far-right activist and convicted felon based in northern California.
Damigo is known on social media for punching a female anti-fascist in the face at a Berkeley
protest.
Melenchon is the one to listen to to understand the situation in France. While he didn't make
it into round two, he has a good chance of a large parliamentary victory in the round of elections
after the presidential one. He's been locked out of the English-language press in the U.S. and
Britain (he falls outside their narrow spectrum of acceptable political views) so you have to
read the French press (I use Google Translate) or watch his youtube (with subcaptions) channel:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsGkA4TXqyw
Melenchon is the only one who points out the realities (translate from Lemonde):
In order to combat mass immigration, which is mainly internal to developing countries, the
causes of migration must be tackled: the impossibility of any development in the countries
of departure, due to debts and Structural adjustment policies imposed by the International
Monetary Fund (IMF) or the World Bank, the plundering of resources by multinationals and free
trade.
Here's Melenchon on Africa, LeMonde Feb 17:
"We are part of the political camp that was against colonialism and for the self-determination
of peoples. We know the misfortunes endured, but we consider that it is up to historians to
write history and not to politicians to instrumentalize it. It seems to us more urgent to fight
the scourge of ultraliberal predation that is falling on Africa."
"The best advantage that France can derive from it is the harmonious and successful development
of African societies. If we consider only the climatic risk, it is 250 million migrants whose
humanity will have to deal with by 2050. It is time to ensure a balanced development that does
not aggravate the state of the planet. But the condition for achieving this is to return Africa
to the Africans, to ensure national and popular sovereignty on the bases advocated by Thomas
Sankara or Patrice Lumumba." [Notably Lumumba was overthrown and killed in a CIA-supported
coup in 1961]
"The defense agreements, and in particular their secret clauses – which have the real objective
of controlling popular movements for the benefit of dictators – must be denounced by democratic
scrutiny by Parliament. In the event that some of these bases are maintained, military cooperation
can only be envisaged with democracies, with priority being given to the formation of an
independent national republican army."
Can you imagine any U.S. politician pledging to end military cooperation with Saudi Arabia
unless it converts to a democratic form of government? Maybe Tulsi Gabbard, I don't know.
Outside the fact most media pre-prepare their headlines for such occasions when time does not
allow for late information to be disseminated by normal publishing procedures, the Dewey / Truman
was marked by the media believing their own propaganda to the extent they became divorced from
reality. This recently has shown its tracks in the Clinton / Trump campaign with 'interesting
result' - the Russians did it! It also had effect in Brexit as well and may be at work in France,
though time will tell the better story there. Propaganda may be omnipotent in many ways, it certainly
isn't omniscient and predicting the future of things that haven't happened is notoriously difficult.
Whoever wins the French presidency can be helped or hobbled by other factors. Macron has no effective
political party in the French parliament, the fictional party he was supported by has no parliamentary
standing and is unlikely to obtain standing. M. Le Pen's party has been on the margins of the
French political spectrum but does have an identifiable political history that is evolving from
its origins. Of the two, the least likely to effect disastrous policy on the French public is
the FN of Le Pen, it is a known and does have knowledgable opposition to waywardness; not so Macron
who hasn't revealed who supports or funds his candidacy for the office. That would be the greatest
danger to the French Republic. About this time tomorrow, the electorate will have spoken.
The French still collect billions of whatever currency you want to use from their ex-African colonies.
An agreement for paying the French for leaving and for the "benefits of colonialism". It's a big
% of the French government budget - straight from the poorest countries on the planet. This is
why I hate France with all my heart.
Macron is an opportunist taking advantage of the break-down of trad. F politics.
With regards to FN's steady rise over decades, this really is well forecasted opportunism at
work here. Spot climate trending too far in one direction, find slogan like 'never le pen', install
manufactured centre left/right cardboard cutout.
And (as far as the west goes with it's super concentrated media power nearly running off one
script) it could nearly be cut and pasted into any race where one side strays too far from centre.
I'm sure there is a couple of seminars at Davos about it.
When far-right National Front leader Marine Le Pen Marine made it through to the run-off
of the French presidential election on Sunday, some powerful people in the United States were
celebrating.
One is hoping to be celebrating in Paris tomorrow.
BTW: The dual nationals : French -Israeli may have to rethink in which country they would want
to live should Marine become Mme La Présidente ( she has said that she won't allow French
citizens to have Israeli passports )
Marion Maréchal-Le Pen is [allegedly] the daughter of
Roger Auque:
Roger Auque died from brain cancer on September 8, 2014, at the age of 58. He revealed
in a book that was published posthumously in 2015 that he had been a Mossad agent.
. . . . .
In 1989, he is said to have fathered a child with Yann, the daughter of Jean-Marie Le Pen.
This daughter, Marion Maréchal-Le Pen, elected deputy in 2012, was born out of wedlock
and subsequently recognized by Yann's husband, Samuel Maréchal, a fact only revealed publicly
in 2013 in a book by Christine Clerc titled "Les Conquérantes."[6]
Mischi @ 48: Those Francophone African countries that are part of the West African and Central
African Franc currency zones were among the most enthusiastic backers of Colonel Muammar Gaddhafi's
pan-African "gold dinar" economic market. No wonder Nicolas Sarkozy signed onto the US no-fly
zone over Libya idiocy tout de suite in 2011.
In these times, it really shows how small influence people have, it is media and their
millionaire
candidate that have already fixed the election with their huge power. Quite sad.
@46 anon.. that macron leak story has legs! i like what some guy on twitter said - "Amazing that
the French government and media now stand as enemies of freedom of speech." who whudda thunk it?
lol... remind anyone of any other countries?
AKSA 8 The relative lack of power of France made me wonder the real reason why they led the NATO attack
on Libya. Was it the financial dealings between Sarkozy and Gaddhafi like some sites say or were
they really prodded by the US to lead the way of the overall game plan?
USA will win anyway. Macron and Dupont-Aignan (prime minister of Le Pen) was both member of the
program of "The Young Leaders : French-American Foundation France":
http://french-american.org/en/initiatives/young-leaders/
Its means neoliberalism, NATO and free finance.
Well well well... you know... its France... le pen's mother made nacked pictures for french playboy
when she divorced the father... another one is on x... just pawns.
The MSM are going to be embarassed with the leaks. On one side they keep referring to the Ruskies
and Trump, and on the other no one among the Western politicians has a B plan in case Trump continues
to wreck havoc (and he will).
Next week, he goes to KSA before Israel and since the Saudi prince said it would be 'historical'
we can bet KSA will announce the recognizance of Israel
Then step 2 will be to say Syria and Iran: you recognize or we turn you to Somalia.
And where will Junker, Hollande, Macron and co go then?
even Wikileaks says the metadata is full of cyrillic. clumsiness or the will to point towards
the usual culprits?
not sure if Hollande has really turned into a Machiavel but that sounds like him
More broadly, the U.S. should reconsider whether blindly supporting the EU is in America's
best interests. The EU is a supranational organization that infringes on national sovereignty.
It prevents the creation of genuine transatlantic free trade areas, harms transatlantic security,
distorts European immigration policies, and wastes taxpayer money.
jfl @ 30. Something like that yes! - no religion afaik before 12 yrs. (Macron.)
jen wrote: "What's the possibility that le Pen will receive a large proportion of her votes
from people who would vote for anyone who looks like a winner, regardless of political and ideological
affiliations, simply to stop Macron from winning?"
MLP will not attract votes as 'the winner' as it is known that she is, and probably always
will be - a loser. Yet, some Mélenchon - Fillon, 'other' voters, who are rabidly against Macron,
will vote Le Pen. The anti-Macron crowd was discussing voting MLP/abstention/nul vote to death
on boards, and some said, heh go for MLP.
My prediction was that the outcome would be closer to 70-30 than 60-40, in favor of Macron;
for sure MLP will pick up some anti-M voters, not enough though imho to change that prediction,
but who knows, trivial details, no matter.
More seriously.. It is generally assumed, or put forward, that Le Pen voters are the poor,
the unemployed, the ugly racists, etc. - see Trump and Brexit. While the correlation with region/unemployment
is high (as in GB and rust-belt US), for the rest it doesn't hold.
The poor - those under the poverty line or severely disadvantaged, vote exactly the same as
the national average, that is, not more for the FN, Le Pen, or FN candidates. (no link..)
Le Pen's *presumed electorate* in the worker category, i.e. low-paid private-sector
employees (factories, supermarkets, services, small biz, agri, etc.; *State* personnel votes socialist)
is imho made up of roughly 3 equal parts.
Le Pen voters, who decry globalisation, foreignors, terrorists, muslims, etc. / the remnants
of the left (socialist - Trotskyist - add anarchist - ..), who voted Mélenchon or not at all /
those who are 'foreign' - outcasts in any case - and thus can't rally to Le Pen or to anyone..
and just keep their heads down.
The divide-to-rule strategy has worked perfectly on these workers. In two factories I know
of, the 3 different groups don't speak to each other, except as routine politeness / ugly jokes
small skirmish etc., as they are all in the same boat, subject to the same oppressive rules, etc.
though some contacts/friendships cross these lines.
Marine is not pro-worker, and 2/3 ppl working one or two jobs of that type or those wanting
to actually GET a job like that are aware. The last third grabs an opportunity to make noise,
be heard, posture, play some kind of role, etc.
Listening to NPR spreading their propaganda about French elections made me want to vomit.
Are the majority of western folks really as stupid as they seem to be? Judging by the crap people
post on Facebook I'd say yes. The more "educated" a person is the more likely they are to believe
the lies.
Started watching 500 Nations
about Europeans 'discovering' the Americas and all the brutality that came from it... had
to turn it off because it isn't the sort of program a person wants to watch right before bed (unless
one likes horror tales before sleep)
All Spanish, English, French, South American, Central American and North American people should
be required to watch it and contemplate our future based on this terrible past. Brutal thugs is
what most of our supposed 'hero/discoverers' were, just like now.
We continue to repeat the past, doing the same stupid crap that brought us to this moment in
time when we have the ability to wipe our species off the face of the planet (as well as most
other too). Will we continue on the road to mutually assured destruction, or will we try something
new?
As for the farce in France... I think Brandon Smith at Alt-Market.com has a good grasp
of what the elite are trying to do. He has a series of articles postulating what he believes is
the long game of the bankers and other wealthy feces, mostly using Trump as the example of how
nationalist/conservatives are being set-up for a big fall. Interesting point of view that I find
rather rational considering all the craziness taking place.
Every nation in Europe and the USA have at least 25-30% nativist, nationalist, (name of country
here)-first voters. Trump managed to take advantage of a nearly dysfunctional electoral system,
a fawning, celebrity-obsessed media and a highly disliked opposition candidate to gain enough
popular votes to win. Other systems are not as dysfunctional, nor are their media as useless,
but they will remain a presence on the political landscape, ready to exploit any weaknesses they
can use to their advantage.
Everybody expected Le Pen to be much stronger than Macron for the debate on Wednesday. Instead,
she made a fool of herself and certainly lost a number of her own voters. check "Macron Le Pen
débat" on google you will probably find videos. the image and sounds should be enough without
need of subtitles.
Really? Asking the question of what will be the long term result of elections within the bailiwick
of the western plutocracy? I believe it is long past the time of crystal ball gazing and time
to grow up and face the reality of the situation. Any political entity that is not issuing from
a grassroots spontaneous popular grievance is completely suspect. When any of these candidates
can have a million or more people accompany them as they march on the plutocracy's seat of power
at the site of government and more importantly the site of their central banks then I will believe
their message that they mean to clean house and usher in the necessary changes needed. Otherwise
we must assume that an illusion is being presented as a deception to bestow legitimacy, via false
democratic institutions, on an illegitimate system of plutocratic rule conducted with a carrot
and stick structure that permeates all levels of civil society.
The EU is drawing up a tax haven blacklist, due to be finalized by the end of 2017, with the
intention of preventing money from being diverted to avoid taxation. It is also compiling a
list sanctions it will take against any country or jurisdiction that ends up on the EU tax
haven blacklist.
I think the between nation comparison of platforms shows, except for the individuals named to
play the role of candidate, in each of the respective countries, the role of the candidates is
the same, to carry out "allowed policy". Further, the "allowed policy" seems nearly always the
same in all of the Republic nations. Some-how the "allowed policies" are being established globally
and mandated locally?
I n America, American Voters in the USA elections, are allowed to elect by majority vote,
either of two persons(for each position); but the between candidate platforms, boil down to the
same side of two identical coins. Those elected are paid a salary to operate the USA for the benefit
of, and "according to" the "allowed policy" established by, those in control of the national policy.
The French election is not about choice of platforms, but instead, the French election is
about choice of persons to be paid to execute the allowed platforms. The range of choices in the
French election.. and in republics throughout the world, has been and is, limited to candidates
who subscribe to "allowed platforms". It is clear to me, the policies the candidates will be paid,
if elected, to execute are, all the same in every Republic, around the globe.
Candidate A or Candidate B may seem to be a choice: but either, if elected, will be obligated
to execute only the "allowed platforms" established by those in control of these Republics. Candidates
seeking to present non-allowed platforms, are nearly always silenced and defeated. Example: the
policy allowed by the hidden powers is that the target nation, is slated to go to war. That "go
to war" policy may or may not be articulated by the viable person candidates, but the election
is not about whether or not "perpetual war should be the policy of the nation" instead the election
is about which candidate should be paid to operate the war time government in accord to "globally
determined, locally allowed policy".
On election day citizens may choose; but if they don't, make a choice on election day, the
choice of elected persons will be made for them; either way the winning candidate is obligated
to execute only the "allowed policy".
Maybe it would be useful to concentrate discussions, not to the person of the candidates, but
to "allowed policy", such person candidates, if elected, will be obligated to accord with, when
talking about national elections.
Politics is always a 'house of cards'. A political/ societal system exists as long as most
everyone believes in its legitimacy; once this is no longer the case, it can rapidly disintegrate.
And don't say 'things can't get worse', they definitely can - would you prefer living in a delicate
'house of cards' or in a civil war?
@somebody 70
Exactly. There is no more profits/ capital yield under stable conditions ('new normal'), so
let's create a huge crisis to reap the benefits. It's strange how many people hate the 'deep state'
in their own country, yet wilfully support its agenda in other parts of the world.
@jfl 72
It's not a question of belief, but of analysing what's actually going on. Don't let prejudice
get in the way of a rational view. It's still a long way to go, but there are important first
and second steps. What do you think why the right-wing (=pro-capital) media is so anti-EU?
The title is misleading (typical with France Culture) what the journalist says is that no actual
figures exist for the expenses of each ministries. She had been trying to find the figures dealing
with the decrease of subsidies for culture in the last 5 years and could not get a single document
from the gov. When you start the famous ENA school, the first thing you are told is that all the
number are fakes. The journalist of this piece i linked to ends up her paper saying that in the
end, discussing the few figures mentioned here and there without any support by the officials
is equivalent to spreading fake news.
None of it makes sense, yet everyone laps it up like mother's milk. This is the 1st of these
leaks to have obvious forgeries in it.
The release date makes no sense, there appears to be nothing damaging in it, the speed at
which the trusties found the Cyrillic metadata says they were looking for it / told where to
look / not looking for damaging material.
The sheer scale of the breach from what must be the closely monitored mail server in political
history.
None of it adds up if you look at it with an open mind. This is dangerous slavish behavior
from infosec, the media and public. If you will swallow this hook, line & sinker then your
parliaments need more fire extinguishers
Everything is based on two enormous falacies.
1. That all the evils in western society are the fault of the external bogeyman. Putin,
ISIS Refugees, Asian footwear makers, whatever. That the Trumps, Le Pens, Farages are
not a native virus.
2. Is that your services & politicians Would never pull a false leak or a controlled
leak or a limited hangout. That they are angels that sit on their hands.
These two underpin the absolute lunacy we have seen unfold before our eyes. An extraordinarily
dangerous situation to be in which is getting worse fast.
"You can flood these [phishing] addresses with multiple passwords and log-ins, true ones, false
ones, so the people behind them use up a lot of time trying to figure them out," Mounir Mahjoubi,
the head of Macron's digital team, told The Daily Beast for its earlier article on this subject.
In the end, whoever made the dump may not have known what is real and what is false, which
would explain in part the odd timing. After the disruptive revelations of the Democratic National
Committee hacks in the United States, the public is conditioned to think that if there's a
document dump like this, it has to be incriminating. By putting it out just before the news
blackout, when Macron cannot respond in detail, the dump becomes both the medium and the message.
...
>> The relative lack of power of France
>> wonder the real reason why they
>> led the NATO attack on Libya.
Because they were the only unit Oceania could field safely at the time without potentially
undermining its political regime.
"War weary" populations oppose overt war. (When populations oppose more overt war, regimes
start or continue wars un-overtly.) Sizable percentages of the populations in the rest of NATO
realized they'd been conned. What would be the domestic reaction if those NATO countries "led"
another effort against an "enemy" generally considered even less dangerous than the prior one
(whom the populations learned wasn't a threat)?
In contrast, because France didn't join in on the most recent invasion of Iraq, their population
was not as "war weary" and thus did not protest/oppose overt war.
>> Was it the financial dealings between
>> Sarkozy and Gaddhafi like some sites say
What do they say? Heard that G gave money to S's campaign. I didn't read anything into that
other than "another example of why never again to trust or give money to a politician".
>> or were they really prodded by the US to
>> lead the way of the overall game plan?
Think about "the dogs that did not bark".
What do EU leaders do in response to allegations of being bugged? They blame Eurasia for interfering
with elections! That tells me Oceania is their master.
Everyone backed the wrong horse. Instead of pushing for JL Melenchon who's also a non-interventionist
on foreign policy from the very beginning as opposed to the unpopular candidate of Sarkozy's party,
F. Fillon, and then the Islamophobe Le Pen, you'all had to back Le Pen who had no chance in hell
of winning because she scared not only Muslims but many on the Left.
So now the result is this - more of the same shit. Ugh.
Emmanuel Macron victory speech praising 5-years François Hollande's regime.
Good luck good ridden!
exiled off mainstreet | May 7, 2017 3:21:46 PM |
106
It is unfortunate that the propaganda globalist state now appears unassailable. How anyone of
intelligence could support such a fascist empty suit carrying his baggage is beyond me, unless
propaganda received wisdom has reached such a level. I agree that it would have been better if
Melenchon or Fillon had been the opponent, since Le Pen carries the baggage of her family inheritance.
It seems to me that an undoubted status of being part of a present day fascist structure is
more relevant than having an inheritance of collaboration with a prior regime a lifetime ago.
It is also obvious that Le Pen's positions were in the interest of the French people rather than
the unelected international power structure. I see little future for anything after this result.
I wonder when Israel will start sweating. The idea is to make the use of lethal force against
Muslims acceptable in the NATO countries with mass influx of them that will not assimilate but
go to war on their host one way or another. Good plan but...
Plans could go awry as there is a real danger of a Sharia Europe if they forgotten how to be
a barbarian.
the media in unison crowing over the result of course. Was at a lunch today and all the obedient
little Europhiles there watching the media talking heads were delighted.
I'm not even a Le Pen supporter in particular but merely by questioning Macron's agenda, where
he came from, etc, I was met with mock Nazi salutes and snide remarks. The ideologues amongst
the middle classes who back the EU/Globalist project are genuine fanatics, I can see it with my
own eyes with every passing week. They won't accept any counter arguments or dissenting voices.
They refuse to think critically but merely rehash whatever the Guardian, New York Times or BBC
say. The level of pro-Brussels tribalism is astonishing, even as someone who has grown up with
and befriended many of these people down the years. One day their bubble will burst though but
unlike them I'll have the good grace to smile inside and whisper "I told you so" under my breath.
Indeed, these people are brainwashed, they have no idea whats going on in the world, just watching
msm and like you say you cant debate with people like these. The worst is that the left is the
most brainwashed by this liberal right-wing propaganda. Thats why leftists parties are so weak
today.
I know that France attempts to rigorously regulate "their" French language, so I presume that
the Académie française prohibits the importation of the US colloquial term "sheeple".
So we won't see any French newspapers or websites proudly proclaiming " La Sheeple Ont Parlé!
"
This is an utterly predictable, even routine tragicomedy. But I must post this to give credit
to an expatriate relative I'll call "Joe"; Joe lives in France, and has proved to be a prophet.
Last year, when Joe visited the US, we were discussing the US presidential campaign and
Bernie Sanders. Joe and I agreed that the West is experiencing a general political meltdown. Joe
then went on to describe the default pattern that EU elections follow:
1) The prospective candidates are inevitably the "Usual Suspects", i.e. centrist/moderate
careerist technocrats, the odd "maverick" or two with limited, cultlike support-- and The Extremist
(s).
2) The Establishment power elite, institutions, and complicit mass-media begin an orchestrated
howling: "Anybody But [insert Extremist du jour here]!"
3) The "Anybody But!" coalition throws massive resources into a public relations campaign
to generate mass hysterical fear at the prospect that The Extremist may win and lead the nation
straight to Hell.
4) The terrified, confused, hysterical, panic-stricken public accordingly falls in line
and elects the favorite centrist/moderate careerist technocrat who will perpetuate the neoliberal
status quo.
5) The Establishment power elite and its mass-media megaphone will effusively praise the
inconquerable wisdom and good sense of The People in once again Saving the Republic by rejecting
a dangerous Extremist.
________________________________________________
At the time, Joe offered this scenario to explain why Bernie Sanders wouldn't be allowed to
succeed. As it turned out, there are many reasons why the US debacle didn't precisely conform
to this pattern.
But Joe's description perfectly fits what's happened in France.
The French elections are also the end of the post-world war 2 world order. Until now, the elections
were left against right, socialists against conservatives.
In these elections both socialists and conservatives lost out. Now it's nationalism against
globalisation.
So Macron 65%, and Le Pen has already conceded. Campaign well run. Macron is a shark (report
from the family), not a victim of the banksters. He followed May's strategy in UK of staying quiet
till elected. Future policy: not merely a bankster, but also the son of a conservative family
of doctors from Amiens. So not a pure neo-liberal, as has been suggested, but someone who is forced
by his family background to take their point of view into account.
The prospect is not too bad. Other than in foreign policy, where he has declared himself
against the Asad regime in Syria. I don't take that too seriously. Once in power, he may discover
what is implied in attacking Asad, that is war against Russia, and he may hesitate.
"The worst is that the left is the most brainwashed by this liberal right-wing propaganda.
Thats why leftists parties are so weak today."
couldn't have put it better. As many have commented on, the notion of left vs right is dying.
In Europe it has morphed into something akin to pro-EU vs pro-nation state. The levels of cognitive
dissonance from people of the traditional left is truly astonishing.
I am French. Macron won because of an unprecedented media onslaught that led 25% of voters
who don't know their heads for their a... to vote for him in the first round, while the media
had blocked anyone but Macron and Le Pen from getting to the second round. That's because they
know that people would elect a head of lettuce if that head of lettuce was running against Le
Pen.
There is a very good interview of a French liberal (as in "proponent of free-market rather
than big State". Americans would call him "a libertarian"), Charles Gave, who gives a clear vision
of the whole shebang, and of why this could be getting out of control in the near future.
You see, the US only stopped major civil war kind of s... because Trump won, which disarmed
the anger of the disenfranchised masses. Unfortunately, in France, Emmanuel Clinton won. And the
French extreme left wing, who hates Macron's guts, can be dangerous. I mean, physically
dangerous. Other clear-headed observers than Gave are already mumbling words like "barricades"
and "civil war".
@90, smuks, 'It's not a question of belief, but of analysing what's actually going on. ...'
righto ... you offer an assertion with zero analysis. meanwhile the rothschilds guy is president
of france. superficial analysis, sure, but hard to walk around. or is big finance our friend?
seems to be yours.
the parallels between obama and micro seem very strong ... someone linked elsewhere - on
the open thread - to a biography of obama that had him making decisions with an eye to future
"political showbiz" career at an early age.
the 'destiny' of the 'political' showbiz - class seems now to be to surf the waves of financial
power, all pretense to politics long gone. probably always thus, to a great extent. but with the
need for real politics so striking now - the disaster to be had for relying on autopilot more
apparent than ever - so too is the self-centeredness of the showbiz personalities.
@119 Psychohistorian: the other way around. High turnout compared to your average election in
Western democracies, moderate turnout for France. Macron still got more than 40% of all possible
voters' approval.
Which leads me to:
@117 Lea: If Macron manages to trick the French fools again and his non-existing party actually gets
a majority in parliament, I expect things to go South before his first mandate is over. As
in major demonstrations. And unlike Nick, I'll make my best to remind to all my acquaintances
who voted Macron by default / because their friends/significant others were brainwashed idiots
who would've killed them otherwise that they did vote for the guy and are to be blamed for that
shit. I want all those who voted for him without considering him worthy of the office and despite
considering his opinions as utter shit to actually hate themselves for what they've just done,
and then to hate him for what they did. And I mean *hate*, not dislike.
I'm also not sure it's hardcore leftists who would go the farthest in violence; antifas and
similar groups mostly seem to focus on soft targets and heavily outnumbered cops. FN guys are
just as tough and desiring violence, they just don't dare to risk it now considering how everyone
else suspects them of being closer fascists; and the longer they're kept out of any significant
power, the closer they'll come to giving in to violence.
" ...PARIS (Sputnik) - A total of 4.2 million of French voters cast empty ballots in
the presidential run-off on Synday, a survey conducted by Ispos and Sopra Steria said ....8.9
percent of the total of 47.6 million voters cast empty ballots, refusing to give their support
to either of the candidates."
This is LF Economics' first review of a book, entitled
Game of Mates:
How Favours Bleed the Nation
by economists Cameron K. Murray and Paul
Frijters. The name is a play upon the wonderful TV series
Game of
Thrones
and rightfully so, given both are about how a small number of
wealthy and highly-connected individuals, often operating within a cluster
of powerful networks, rig rules, policy, laws and ideology for their
personal and class benefit.
Game of Mates
is a gold mine of information on the racket of
rent extraction for a number of reasons. First, it provides background on
how the game slowly evolves (Chapter 1) by contrasting the hard-working
Aussie Bruce with the connected insider and rent extractor known as James.
By using the power of networking and soft corruption, the wealthy James (the
1%) is able to rip-off Bruce (the public) legally without violating the rule
of law.
Second, the book goes on to detail the largest state-backed legal thefts
carried out by the corporate sector for the benefit of rentiers. This term
means those who obtain rents (unearned wealth and income over and above what
is justified by perfectly-competitive markets). Unfortunately, Australia is
a haven for robber barons, siphoning massive and illegitimate mountains of
rents from the property market (Chapter 2), transportation (Chapter 3),
superannuation (Chapter 5), mining (Chapter 7) and banking (Chapter 9) for
the benefit of owners and managers.
... ... ...
Game of Mates
helps to reveal the absurdity of
what is falsely called free-market capitalism, as it is
thoroughly infected by rent extractors. Recent research
has demonstrated that Australia's private sector is
dominated by cartels of monopolists, duopolists and
oligopolists to an even greater extent than the US, the
latter of which is often considered the home of crony
capitalism. This is no mean feat.
Whoever said there is
no such thing as a free lunch (perhaps it was Milton
Friedman or someone he quoted) is speaking an utter
absurdity. The term 'free lunch' doesn't do justice in
describing the epic levels of legal grift in our economy.
Indeed, it should be termed 'free banquets' as we argued
in our article
Australia's Real Lifters and Leaners
.
The process of extracting free banquets has gained pace
since the neo-liberal reformation of the economy by the
Hawke-Keating government, lurching from the centre-left to
the centre-right on economy policy during the 1980s. The
Howard government continued and magnified these rackets
when in power between 1996 and 2007. It should be
important to note that these policies can hardly be termed
'neo-liberal' when they are not new and often have little
to do with economic liberalisation. Perhaps neo-feudal
capitalism is a better term.
...It should be important to note that these policies can hardly be termed 'neo-liberal' when
they are not new and often have little to do with economic liberalisation. Perhaps neo-feudal
capitalism is a better term.
....
The
Game of Mates
is about detailing the methods of redistribution
from the poor, labour, productive competitive business and the environment into
the pockets of those who benefit the most from non-work. There are some data on
how much the wealthy steal from everyone else (Chapter 13). Hint: the
redistributions are massive in scale and yet do not quantify the full extent of
the rent extraction taking place.
In addition, apart from criticising the
upwards redistribution of wealth, they advocate solutions to rectifying these
problems (Chapter 14). This can be done by reclaiming the value of the free
banquets for the public, disrupting the coordination and networks used by
rentiers, and shattering the myths peddled to justify their wholesale theft.
This book is a very timely addition to the emerging research in Australia
and elsewhere which explains the processes and estimates the amount of wealth
and income siphoned off by these schemes of legal theft. At 204 pages, it is
not overly long and is makes for an easy read. Fortunately, the authors avoid
the often opaque writing style and jargon often found in the economics and
financial academic literature.
If one wants to understand how the country is being looted by the minority
of the opulent for their own benefit, look no further.
The interesting thing about exploiting personal connections to extract
rents, build cartels, capture regulators, gain legal protections, or
generally restrict competition is that all these activities are essentially
risk free. Gaining a rent or legal protection from a friend or colleague has
zero risk, and guarantees higher profits. This is in contrast to innovation
or product improvement which requires high risk, time, effort, capital, and
expertise, but can return much higher profits. When opportunities for rent
collection become systemic, I think economic rents can crowd out risky
innovation because returns for economic rents are guaranteed. In this case
the probabilities for (short-term) economic success are higher with economic
rents, and as the saying goes 'firms act to maximize profitability'. That is
a bad outcome for all of society.
In 2014 62 individuals owned one half of the world's wealth, now
that's down to just 8 people (how they sleep at night is utterly beyond
me). When it's down to one guy we can strangle him in the bathtub and
redistribute, and usher in a new Golden Age of prosperity and peace.
"... It's on par with US Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross saying the criminal missile strike against Syria was "after dinner entertainment." Depravity in the nth degree, not insanity. ..."
Welcoming and supporting dictators who act in U.S. interests is the usual behavior of
any U.S. president. U.S. media support such.
Comments
Piotr Berman | May 2, 2017 10:46:14 AM |
1
"Who believes such marketing bullshit?"
What the targets of marketing believe may
be true, false or imponderable (are big chain hamburgers delicious?), but marketing
itself is a science with proven track record: a lot of people believe.
The problem with skepticism is that it is not catchy. There are some tunes of
skeptical songs that are instantly memorized, but the message is absorbed by a few.
The older of us remember how Ronald Reagan quoted a bitter anti-war song, "Born in
the USA" with total cluelessness about the song's intention, and was warmly received
by equally clueless public.
I see it as depravity, pure and
simple; the billboard-sized calling card of the Outlaw US Empire's immorality as it's
existed for decades and is essentially its own autonomic policy.
It's on par with
US Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross saying the criminal missile strike against Syria
was "after dinner entertainment." Depravity in the nth degree, not insanity.
NewsWorld Middle East
UK government refuses to deny voting to put Saudi Arabia on the UN Women's Commission
Belgium's prime minister has apologised for his country's vote in favor
What is wrong with those chocolate makers? It was a secret vote, and the stupid
Belgians did not keep their mouths shut. However, the high humanitarian tone of Her
Majesty Government was disturb only for a moment. I can imagine dignified polished
English toff accent "It is our policy to adhere to the spirit of the rules of the
United Nations and thus we can neither confirm nor deny in which way our delegate
casted her vote."
U.S. police shoot dozens of innocent each year, but when drug dealers get killed
in a Philippine police raid its elected president is called a "strongman".
That is direct consequence of the "legal system" created in England, and these
days practiced in the Five eyes. System without a rules and legislations, ideal for
rich and powerful to abuse the system, and get away with a murder.
The common-law tradition
The common law is law that is not written down as legislation. Common law evolved
into a system of rules based on precedent. This is a rule that guides judges in
making later decisions in similar cases. The common law cannot be found in any code
or body of legislation, but only in past decisions. At the same time, it is flexible.
It adapts to changing circumstances because judges can announce new legal doctrines
or change old ones.
thanks b.. it is worth addressing from time to time and you provide some good
comments/questions for anyone who has been asleep for the past 50 years, lol.. here
are some i like.
"There surely is a certain "uniqueness" in U.S. global political behavior. But its
is certainly not engagement for "human rights". It is exactly the opposite." growing
up in the 70's and seeing the bs from the usa in south and central america opened my
eyes.
"Who believes such marketing bullshit?" unfortunately a lot of americans who
follow these news outlets and lack any critical faculties when it comes to
understanding the usa's foreign policy agenda..
"Thuggish anti-American behavior" is automatically attributed to any head of state
who works foremost in the interests of his own country." it would be hard for the
nyt, wapo and wsj to come out everyday and say "We are the Greatest". this is a round
about way of getting to that same place.. works like pablum with babies, lol..
@ #2.
Harbouring magnanimous beliefs TOWARD humanity and unconscionable beliefs AGAINST
humanity, simultaneously, is insane.
Acting on the unconscionable beliefs, whilst preaching the magnanimous beliefs is
depraved.
Who believes such marketing bullshit?...Is that not just another form of insanity?
unfortunately, b, i think most Americans still believe it, and yes, it does indicate
some kind of deranged mind. the more interesting question would be, how does this
insanity
mostly manifest itself throughout society? and i guess i'd have to say,
to make a big subject small, through fantasy and delusion.
but i think far more psychological damage will ensue when Americans can no longer
deny the bloodcurdling chronicle of their
exceptionalism
.
I was travelling through parts of SE Asia last October and asked various people (in
different countries) what they thought about Duterte. Many were on the fence but
granted that Duterte - in their minds anyway - was actually "taking care of" some
real problems faced in the Philippines. Some had relatives who lived there, and they
claimed that Philippine citizens mostly support Duterte.
Speaking only for myself, I abhor what he's doing. OTOH, the USA has done nothing
be murderous and genocidal (at least in terms of Native Americans, if not others)
since the inception of Europeans here. We've definitely supported numerous muderous
thug dictators around the globe. Some of our support comes under a "veil" so to
speak, in that US citizens may not always be aware of what the thug dictators are
doing, much less how much and what USA support is happening.
On another hand, our own home-grown PDs have taken to routinely murdering citizens
on our streets with almost no provocation or reason. It sounds like - I have not way
to verify and doubt it's true in all instances - Duterte is "at least" going after
known criminals. I still very much disagree, but... Here in the USA, if you're a 12
year old black dude that the cops don't like the look of, well get ready to meet your
maker in a violent way. So, eh? What's the difference, really? We have this thin
veneer of allegedly - cough cough ha ha - being some sort of "democracy" with a
purported (yeah, right) "rule of law," and that somehow makes up better than Duterte.
Again, let me stress that I very very much disagree with Duterte's methods. He's
despicable.
I speculate that Trump, in part, wants to "make nice" with Duterte because of
Obama's opposition to Duterte. I truly think some small part of things motivating
Trump is to be as anti-Obama as possible, even if it means doing horrible or
ridiculous or counterproductive stuff.
But all the hand-wringing and freaking out over Trump wanting to talk to Duterte
is the usual hypocrisy. I mean, the media did the same kind of bs freaking out with
Obama, too. It's just endless. But Duterte makes for a convenient scapegoat - in a
somewhat similar way as Putin - so now it's all about "How could he even THINK of
doing that???!!!???" This from the same media constantly dissing Obama (disclaimer:
I'm not an Obama fan) for various other things.
I dunno. It's all bullshite, propaganda, lies, hype and spin anymore. It's all
meant to distract from what's really going on behind the curtain where the real
damage is done.
Do people "believe" this stuff? Well yeah. When Obama was in office, it was
conservative voters who got their knickers in a knot over every little alleged
"horrible" thing that Obama was supposedly doing (mostly dumb stuff. they never ever
said word one about the important stuff like drone killings, etc). Now with Trump we
get the shrieking about Duterte, which Democratic voters can reliably get their
panties in a bunch over.
Same old, different day. I fail to see how talking to yet another Thuggish World
Leader will make much difference one way or the other. Team USA certainly has no
human rights record to hold up as some sort of shining example. US Prison Industrial
system anyone? Gitmo? Torture? Renditions? Drone Killings all over the place? MOAB?
Tomahawks? Really? We're shrieking about Duterte? Really?
Duerte exhorted his people to kill drug dealers. I have no idea how bad the drug
problem is in the Philippines nor do I give a fuck but declaring open season on any
group of people is not kosher regardless if one is democratically elected or not.
People get to settle old scores that may have nothing to do with the drugs. I know
how I pissed I would be if someone shot my dealer and tried to write it off as a good
thing.
No beef with the somewhat dog-eared premise that the US is an evil
hypocritical empire of chaos, it's all true and I'm not sure we need to be reminded.
But lets not pretend that Duerte was only doing what he thought best for his country.
He essentially took the crime of murder off the books. He brags about the people he
killed personally. Whether or not he should be invited to the White House is a
question I'll leave to posters who are smarter than I am.
I had hope that with a Trump presidency we would start to see an end to the uniparty,
duopoly rhetoric that has infected the public here in the states so that this is the
only reality: rethugz vs. Demoshits. Indeed, I had even taken to listening to Fox
news at time on the radio because I detected that same change in the air as Trump was
gaining ground and anti-establishment sentiments were flourishing over Fox's
airwaves.
Fast forward three months into his presidency and boy do I feel like a
total dipshit. A "turkey-butt" as my Dad used to call me. Now on Fox we are entering
Bush 3.0, head-in-the-sand patriot drivel heard 1000x before. "We'll see which
Democrat can challenge Donald next election." "He has to make consessions to look
Presidential." And on. And on. Ad nauseum. Donald conceded the path way too fast and
now we are back to comfortable tit-for-tat partisan bs everywhere one can view it or
hear it.
At least Mr. Trump mentioned that we ain't so nice, you know. But the media is
already running with it and soon we will be back to that golden vision of the city on
the hill. But for how long can the charade carry-on?
hrw agitating in new york with a new report on asad's supposed systematic use of
sarin, let's wait 8th may and see how they ll pressure macron on that (he already
said he ll send troops if the UN says so)
Since you mention Orwell, may I recommend his essay, 'Freedom of the Press' (
intended as a preface to 'Animal Farm'), which describes the media's toxic
self-censorship. It is, however, pre-Cold War, so does not cover the complete volte
face performed by the media in relation to the Soviet Union.
When it comes to
politicians effusing about strongmen, how about this by Churchill in the House of
Commons, November 1945:
"Therefore, I say that it is the profound desire of this House-and the House
speaks in the name of the British nation-that these feelings of comradeship and
friendship, which have developed between the British and Russian peoples, should be
not only preserved but rapidly expanded. Here I wish to say how glad we all are to
know and feel that Generalissimo Stalin is still strongly holding the helm and
steering his tremendous ship. Personally, I cannot feel anything but the most lively
admiration for this truly great man, the father of his country, the ruler of its
destinies in times of peace, and the victorious defender of its life in time of war."
Stalin ticked off Molotov for publishing it in Pravda. He did not need flattery
from imperialists.
So, we have a Cabinet Head saying killing people is entertainment and an elected
official saying people already suffering through no fault of their own ought to
suffer further. And I'm sure more such sentiments are uttered daily and can easily be
found since that's the mindset of far too many people within the Outlaw US Empire. It
would seem to be Puritanical Thinking's logical conclusion, and one can find many
examples of it beginning at Plymouth.
ASEAN affairs, Cambodia could not be theirs,
100 percent, it is an ally of China. Laos, it is always an ally of China. Vietnam,
same thing. Widodo of Indonesia is neutral. Duterte of the Philippines is veering
towards China. [applause]
Because China has the character of an Oriental. [applause]
It does not go around insulting people, insisting on policies to follow them and
trying to control the money of the world through the IMF and the World Bank.
[applause] Dito (here) Asian Development Bank.
Now go that of late, China decided to make a counterbalance here and that is the
AIIB. And so, America is really checkmate here. It is not ready for war because they
are not ready to die anymore.
And you can see it when in the special forces when they go home, there's a lot of
crying and criticism and a congressman talking there, filibustering about the lost of
an American life.
Filipinos, if you want to go to war, go. As long as it is really the desire of the
nation, to protect itself.
When you're exceptional, anything is possible! A dictator can become a symbol of
democracy, while an elected leader can become a brutal tyrant. The US owns the
mainstream media's lexicon and the NY Times, WaPo, CNN, etc. always carefully toe the
line of what the powers that be consider proper terminology. It's so much better than
overt censorship!
Duarte is advocating and practicing (due-process free) vigilantism, see also
lynching, which is often very very popular with everyone who is not a target ... the
problems are many, most glaringly that of proportionality and mission-creep (see also
lynching and/or Emmett Till) ... seriously, eventually in all likelihood, as with
McCarthyism or 6 degrees of separation or NSA surveillance, you will likely become a
target or collateral damage.
As to the marketing bullshit, I suspect virtue morality naive realists believe it.
The people who believe these things, including many (former) leftists, are naive, in
the sense that they do not hold a prior theory or information of the world, and often
lack means or willingness to develop such theories or find such information. A prior
theory need not be an absolute bedrock, and it should be modified *logically* per the
normal logical process of science, as expressed in the tautologies:
for all a,z,
((a) AND (a implies z)) implies z
for all a,z, z implies ((not a) OR (not (a implies z)))
Let a be composite (c AND d AND ...), and apply de Morgan's theorem ((not c) OR
(not d)...) with OR being inclusive or (a OR b = a OR b OR both). Let c be the fact
that US supported (mis)information peddlers/propaganda houses claim a given
violation, and d be the truth of a claim. Z is "Assad used Sarin," or "The rebels are
moderate," etc. Attention to prior claims, especially long after the claims have
served their purpose, may disabuse one of a high probability of d being true for a
given c.
Allow that d is probably false in a given case. If d is false, then no logical
conclusion follows on z, although it should be assumed to be false until evidence to
the contrary arrives; compare this situation to the defendant in a criminal case, who
has been suborned to institutionalised perjury (plea bargain)---even if the defendant
perpetrated the alleged actus reus, the particulars of the complaint are likely to be
in error due to police sloppiness, efforts by the police to hide their own crimes,
and erroneous presuppositions on the part of the police.
There is a non-zero probability that a given claim, no matter how ridiculous on
its face, may be substantially true. Put aside the fear of being abused verbally or
prosecuted legally for de facto abetting a serious crime---leftists, and even
apolitical journalists, will often face that risk, based on their beliefs and
evidence before them, and proudly so. Rather, the problem is facing oneself, and
living with oneself given the possibility that the propaganda is true. Once one caves
once, caving to the propaganda in the future may become easier, and harder to
recognise.
Thus we may understand this problem of the left, and of otherwise critical
journalists, not so much as prior fecklessness and dishonesty, but as subconscious
fear of unvirtuous conduct. Some examples:
Chomsky (and his hangers on, e.g. Amy Goodman, Michael Albert and similar folks),
repeat lurid fantasies from the propaganda, about Assad, for example, but given an
external reference (
Postol
),
he may make a principled stand---his conscience may bear it.
Another example is Stan Goff, who has written at some length on
virtue
ethics
, complaining about
Tulsi Gabbard
, and sounding uncharacteristically like Louis Proyect; he has
omitted to post my first comment, in which I gave a detailed criticism of the
background to the current situation, especially regarding Ukraine. Allow that what he
says about the character of Gabbard to be true---if she is not bound by virtue
ethics, and judges matters based on self-interest, or on ethical frameworks other
than virtue ethics, she can observe the reality in Syria far more keenly.
Perhaps this is why universities have ethics courses that lay special emphasis on
virtue ethics (when convenient)---my experience was a course on ethics for engineers,
although the usual practice is to give the example of killing an infant, in order to
save the lives of many infants. The purpose of such examples is precisely to produce
an inability to act of one's own volition outside of social(ly engineered) norms.
Goff's own example in the one link (crime novels) may serve a similar purpose.
Because of the general weakness of logical thinking, especially in the west at the
moment (elimination of Euclidean geometry a generation ago in most syllabi, followed
by the elimination of syllabi for rot such as "
outcomes
based education
", and general incoherence when that farce is ended), a naive
realism takes hold, in which the reality that is held to be true, is the information
given.
I abused Proyect recently, to rub in his face his support for aggression against
Syria, but perhaps the problem is greater. He
studied Turkish
some years ago; this would have made him particularly receptive
to Turkish propaganda on Syria. The fact that his background is programming, should
not lead one to think that he has a good formal logical background---many programmers
do not have such a background, and have simply developed a large set of algorithms
that work, and algorithms to develop new algorithms, rather than clear logical
thinking. I nearly ran into a similar problem when studying Ukrainian (around the
time of the first Maidan), and if it weren't for prior information about Ukraine, and
information from counterpunch at the time, I might well have gone down the same
route.
Thus there is a danger to see these individuals as necessarily unvirtuous, which
is a precise misdiagnoses. A better solution was presented by Ward Churchill, who
suggested
deliberately non-virtuous
conduct (guns, less than ideal feminist attitudes
toward sex) as a curative for what ails the left. Once one can willingly do something
evil, even as one generally avoids such conduct, and the fear of evil conduct
(including abetting) no longer dominates how one approaches situations in which the
information is incomplete, it becomes easier to resist the lurid propaganda.
Then of course, accompanying the Imperial Doublethink is its Junk Economics, an
ideological system economist Michael Hudson's made a career of bashing/debunking. To
further his mission, Hudson embraces what he calls "The economics of the future" in
the form of Steve Keen's new book,
Can We Avoid Another Financial Crisis?
,
http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/05/02/the-economics-of-the-future/
Excerpt:
"But mainstream models [Randian Neoliberal Economics, ie Junk Economics] ignore
the overgrowth of debt, as if the economy operates on a barter basis. Keen calls this
"the barter illusion," and reviews his wonderful exchange with Paul Krugman (who
plays the role of an intellectual Bambi to Keen's Godzilla), who insists that banks
do not create credit but merely recycle savings – as if they are savings banks, not
commercial banks. It is the old logic that debt doesn't matter because "we" owe the
debt to "ourselves."
"The "We" are the 99%, the "ourselves" are the 1%. Krugman calls them "patient"
savers vs "impatient" borrowers, blaming the malstructured economy on personal
psychology of indebted victims having to work for a living and spend their working
lives paying off the debt needed to obtain debt-leveraged homes of their own,
debt-leveraged education and other basic living costs."
fastfreddy @ 15 hit on it, I think. the USG does not give a hoot about anyone gunning
down its own people, be they citizens, terrorists, drug dealers, minorities,
migrants, refugees, homeless, witches, adulterers, etc.
Philippines is about China,
that big base there in Subic Bay, etc. trump knows what's up w/that. is he just sweet
talking duterte for other reasons? and folks like at WaPo have to make a show of
hand-wringing, Nicholas Kristof runs to buy another Thai out of the sex trade or
whatev. propaganda for us rubes. is trump "the strongman coddler" in on this
performance? a wink-wink nudge-nudge thing going on b/n the unitary executive & the
msm?
most folks who were adults in the 1980's can remember how quickly hand-wringing over
China's human rights issues (particularly wrt Tiananmen Square 1989) and "Buy
American" and even "buy union" campaigns evaporated into the ether when size of the
money to be made from off-shoring became apparent.
For myself, exposure to the working class as a laborer has undone much of
my liberal arts programming where during the 90s in public education, post-feminist
and generally postmodernist thought was idealistically tainting a healthy world view.
You want geopolitics and how this shapes one's place say here in America? History can
inform!
Read Thucydides and pay attention to the Mytelanian Debate. Or the debate before
Athens sailed to Sicily where it's empire was destroyed. Shades of John McCain...
This essay, too, adds another dimension to why we fight evil:
"In the United States, conquests are frequently labeled as humanitarian interventions
whose sole purpose is to unilaterally help various people across the world. This has
become an official mantra, despite the long-term outcomes of such actions. Within the
context of the humanitarian interventions narrative, a framework of personalizing
foreign evil holds great significance. American people have to be convinced that
actions are indeed helping the people in distant lands get rid of evil dictators, and
to feel that sacrifice is worth the promised outcome."
and
"Depending on national security interest, individual evil located somewhere between
90 and 10,000 miles from our country's shores has one of the three forms."
"Who believes such marketing bullshit?"
... "but marketing itself is a science with proven track record: a lot of people
believe."
Unfortunately Piotr, 95 or better % of the American sheeple who read
(sorry, see/hear, most can't read past a seventh grade level) and believe the
prestitutetic MSM. A major roadblock to intelligence, sanity and peace.
...
Yes, Edward Bernays style, not just marketing, but propaganda. In these times, a
highly developed and effective science. Ronnie was just one of the trial balloons.
The article in the link from
Zok Palivic
just above is hilarious, thanks "47".
Almost Hitler
is an evil dictator who may have been our friend and ally at
one time, but is not any more. Change occurred when he, in an apparent moment of
madness, decided to simultaneously (A) run his own affairs and (B) for no reason
begin torturing his own people.
...
Hitler
, or better say, the
New Hitler
, is the next form of evil. He
not only tortures his own people, but tends, for example, to nationalize the
country's oil industry and have economic and military interaction with other New
Hitlers.
...
Worse than Hitler
is evil that has fully graduated. He not only tortures
his own people and exports terrorism, but may have attempted to generate even
worse crimes against humanity. Among them are attempts to abolish the country's
central bank, return to a gold standard, and trade oil and goods internationally
in currencies other than the dollar.
I'm re-posting this in hope that we can return to some of the fun and snark of the
Moon's early days ... not that I don't value the imformation-rich yet somehow
monotonic, serious posts of recent times.
Also popping my head up in harmony with other founding moonbats. Hey y'all!
Lest we think this is some kind of new standard, Obama was raked over the coals for
suggesting he even meet with Iranian diplomats. It cuts both ways of course. We were
quite cozy with Sadaam until we decided it was not cool to be cozy with him so that
we could go to war. Both the media and the government play us when it comes to who we
should and shouldn't form relationships with.
@25
Bemusing stuff---ancient adventurists for our neocons versus realist imperialists,
although the ancient Hellenes lacked the bomb. Then again, on Syrian Perspective,
there is a commenter who uses the name Thucydides, and he always suggests that we
learn to love the bomb...
An intriguing story from Germany. A cleaner working at Vienna airport found a handgun
hidden in a restroom. The Austrian police checked the fingerprints and they matched
those of a Syrian refugee in Germany. When the Germans called the refugee in, they
found out that he was actually a soldier in the Bundeswehr. He had been pretending to
be a Syrian refugee for 18 months, receiving the full benefits refugees are entitled
to. In his original application, he claimed to be from a French colonial part of
Damascus, in order to explain his lack of Arabic and fluency in French. Followup
investigations found evidence suggesting a hit list of left wing German politicians.
The soldier had right wing views (revealed in a Masters dissertation he wrote at an
elite French university) and the theory is that he was planning to frame refugees for
attacks. A whole can of worms has been opened.
i don't think it's a question of 'belief' ... i think most people accept the role of
lying propagandists for 'our side' ... people are fearful of losing what 'benefits'
they enjoy from the lopsided system, stacked in their favor, and will support
anything they feel will safeguard their 'privilege'. until it doesn't anymore.
unless and until the 'tried and true' system is seen to be absolutely broken,
unfixable, and an alternative proposed, one capable of eliciting mass faith and
belief ... the beatings will continue, and the drivel to drip out of the tnc msm
trumpets.
people need to accept that the 'old way' is done, and a 'new day' is being born.
certainly it seems the collapse of faith in the continued 'viability' of the old
system must come before an opening can be found for an alternative.
the present level of 'play' has sunk below all levels of believability - mina
above mentions HRW's
death by chemicals
, the blueprint for the continued p2p destruction of syria.
and people have linked the destruction of syria and other nations to be named
later, somehow, with foreclosing the end of their own 'good thing' in the west.
it's becoming clear that it's 'not working'. the way for an alternative is opening
up.
It makes for very interesting reading, not least because Duterte has adopted
socialist initiatives and has expressed interest in a Cuban-style healthcare policy.
RUkidding @ 8 said: " they claimed that Philippine citizens mostly support Duterte."
I just had a stay in the hospital, and, most of my attending RNs were from the
Philippines.
they ALL said they backed Duarte, so, maybe most of what we hear about him is BS?
At any rate, as long as the U$A backs a murderous regime like the KSA, who cares?
If such nations act in our interests, the rulers of the U$A don't care what they
do...
I appreciate all of b's efforts to deconstruct the nonsense of the MSM - perversely,
this leaves me free not to care that much.
Instead, I find the greater matter to be how Trump is behaving. I have a theory
that he will come to be seen as the greatest Teflon president of all time, far
surpassing Reagan in his ability to make a gaffe one day and rebound effortlessly the
next.
Indeed, perhaps only someone like Trump could play the card of actually meeting
with Kim Jong-Un - which China wants - and make it sound, in his insouciance, like
the US is holding a better hand than DPRK, when in fact both nations are holding
lesser hands than China's, in my opinion.
But everything about Trump requires time to see the full extent of the sine waves
he rides: up and down, this and that - where does he come to rest? We have yet to see
this because not enough time and motion have gone by. We and the Pentagon both have
known all along that the US has no real violence it can lay on North Korea without
reciprocal damage to itself an order of magnitude greater. And yet, all this bluster.
I've maintained for some time that the US has no effective material power left
that it can exert against serious opposition. All it has left is treachery and
theater - theater aided and abetted by a servile MSM that loses the plot as quickly
as it relays new ones, as shown by b's current analysis. And of these two tools,
treachery loses its effectiveness as more people come not to believe you in the first
place. But perhaps the theater still works?
Is it possible that the true purpose of the US is served as soon as it manages to
scare investment money away from this part of Asia, in capital flight to US
Treasuries?
We began a discussion about this in an earlier thread, and it was off topic. I'm
not sure it fits here, but maybe we can keep carrying it forward. The original
discussion occurs here, principally in comments
31
and
39
.
These contain links to an
Alasdair Mcleod analysis
of a
Chinese appraisal
also presented in an
alternative
translation
- all essentially saying that capital flight to the US dollar from
trouble spots in the world, is actually the reason that the US incites trouble in
those spots in the first place.
Thanks for claiming Australia is a democracy, the fact that the prime minister is a
former goldman sacks banker and the ruling party are us supporting, brain dead,
empathy bypassed, mainstream thinkers (who have ratified the tpp in the absence of
the us) shows that murdock owning 65% of all the media was a good investment.
The marketing bullshit works here too.
You know the MSM is completely full of shit and yet you accept that Duterte is the
murderous thug they claim him to be. Nothing more to the man. Murderous thug.
Why do you suppose they present him in that light?
Subic Bay for the Chinese, baby. Dollar can take a shit.
@27 - 47.. thanks for that! very succinct on the thread topic at hand..
@32
curtis.. good video.. thanks
@33 yonantan.. wonder where that story ends? one wonders how he could have pulled
that off - being a cop and getting the refugee benefits... sounds like the records
are not cross checking names, or he gave a different name, or? interesting.
@38 outraged.. good overview... i am sure the nyt covered it well, lol..
collective amnesia is alive and well at the nyt and in it's readership..
When the Filipino people realize the grandeur of their future destiny by reason of
association with the great Republic, and come to understand that they are a chosen
people to carry not only American commerce, but also republican institutions and
the principles of personal liberty throughout Asia, they may be relied upon to
rally to the inspiring thoughts thus suggested and follow and support the American
flag in whatever contests the future may have in store for it as the symbol of
human liberty throughout the world.
...
We are now living in a heroic age of human history. ... There is one very
noticeable feature in the American occupation of that archipelago. It arises from
contrast with the inspiring motives that have actuated and controlled the action
of other branches of the Aryan race, which have worked their way back, coming in
the opposite direction. We are planting in those islands imperishable ideas. All
other governments that have gone to the East have simply planted trading
establishments; they have not materially affected the conditions of the people.
... The contrasting idea with our occupation is this: In planting our ideas we
plant something that cannot be destroyed. To my mind the archipelagois a fertile
soil upon which to plant republicanism. ... Beneficient republican American
institutions once planted in the Philippines will last forever, and therefore,
will radiate an influence the appreciation of which it is hard to estimate. But
that fact in itself is beyond any possibility of dispute. We are planting the best
traditions, the best characteristics of Americanism in such a way that they never
can be removed from that soil.
testimony of general arthur macarthur,
american imperialism and the philippine
insurrection: testimony taken from hearings on affairs in the philippine islands
before the senate committee on the philippines - 1902
, little, brown and
company, 1969
alfred w. mccoy:
..this study's first substantive conclusion: the creation of sophisticated modern
policing was crucial to the U.S. pacification of the Philippines.
..a second major conclusion: the U.S. colonial regime's reliance on police for
pacification and political control embedded this securty apparatus within an
emerging Philippine state, contributing ultimately to an unstable excess of
executive power after independence.
..a fourth conclusion: by collaborating in the refinement of covert techniques for
internal security, these two states have forged powerful instruments to fortify
themselves against the processes of political change, slowing progress toward
civil rights in America and social justice in the Philippines.
The study of U.S.-Philippine security relations also serves as a microcosm for
America's changing role in international affairs. No other nation has felt the
force of American power so closely, so constantly throughout Washington's
century-long rise to world leadership. No other nation can reveal so much about
the character of America's international influence, both direct colonial rule and
diffuse global hegemony.
policing america's empire: the united states, the philippines, and the rise of
the surveillance state
, the university of wisconsin press, 2009
There is no doubt that some of the strategies Duterte has promoted in a
sensationalist attempt to address the Philippinnes crystal meth problem are beyond
questionable, but equally Filipino politics have finally elected a president from
outside the five ruling families of Luzon. Duterte himself originates from Mindanao -
altho his origins are from the language group of an island that lies between Luzon &
Mindanao.
Mindanao has been treated like a garbage dump ever since imperialists
chose Luzon as the administrative base for their takeovers.
Spanish, amerikan, Japanese and then amerikan again, greedy fuckers. They didn't just
fuck over Luzon, the uncaring assholes destroyed the ancient cultures of Mindanao by
dint of slave driven resource extraction. Initially by using the low level conflicts
that had been happily bubbling away between different clans on Mindanao. But it
didn't take the indigenous people long to recognise that unity was needed to overcome
the external threat; they unified so the next trick was to destroy the social fabric
& cultures of the island by indulging in a program pretty similar to the Indonesian
transmigration program. Indonesian transmigration caused many formerly peaceful &
productive islands in the Indonesian archipelago to be 'javanised' due to the forced
migration of thousands/millions of people from the slums of Djakarta to outlying
islands.
The same on Luzon. With a practice which appears to have been invented by the
englanders & Australia, millions of Luzonese have been forcibly removed to other
islands.
Selecting the already disadvantaged as the forced migrants ensured that Mindanao,
once a home to several successful if competong cultures, became anarchic and
uncontrollable. Little surprise then that when Duterte was just a Mindanao pol, he
promoted himself as the 'great bridgebuilder' whose stated aim was to restore a
semblance of order by favouring neither indigenous nor the bigger population of
exotic cultures. He became popular & he went on to dominate national politics.
To also paraphrase FDR, Filipinos may believe Duterte is an asshole but he is their
asshole.
I don't wanna sound all drug elitist - there is no doubt that people who do bad
shit when intoxicated, do that shit as a result of who they are - their behaviors -
not the drug's; but one cannot deny that crystal meth does inspire/enable more people
to do more dreadful shit that most other illegal intoxicants do.
The shit meth heads can get up to reduces much more ordered societies than the
Philippines' chaotic tightrope of a developing culture to near disaster.
Most people just want to 'get by'. That is the unfortunate reality for those of us
who understand the world could be much better for humans if more of us gave a fuck
about more than just the immediate needs of our
whanau
, that is not how most people think however, so Duterte was elected in a
reasonably honest (definitely a more accurate & true reflection of voters wishes than
say, amerikan elections) ballot as the president of the Philippines.
He announced he was going to go to war with the metho's and he did.
There are many concerns particularly about the concentration on street level dealers
who are frequently only in the game to fund their habits, whilst the 'Mr Bigs' have
largely escaped the old double tap to the base of the brain, but even so most
filipinos support his strategy.
We all know what this dislike of Duterte by western media and to a lesser extent the
trumpet himself, is really about.
Firstly he is not a regular example of what a philippines prez should be. Ke doesn't
prostrate himself in kneejerk obeisance to the biggest amerikan asshole in the room.
Neoliberalism is only partially accepted - where the benefits are palpable and the
'deal' has been examined for fish hooks - worst of all President Duterte has taken on
a few activists formerly with NPA (New Peoples Army) links into his team. amerika
views them in still in 1950's terms as "Chicoms". Duterte understands that the
Philippines has a substantial Islam population and that the only real hope the nation
has of not being destroyed by sectarian civil war is if the primary driver of
dissatisfaction towards the established order, inequality and its inevitable partner,
poverty is seen to be addressed.
Even that could be considered 'tolerable' by the assholes in DC, London, Paris and
Tel Aviv, if Duterte led the way in allowing his nation to be a battleground for the
coming war on China.
Duterte may be old but he isn't stupid or senile; he knows that the only opportunity
his people have lies in not taking sides in the coming blue.
Hence he has backed away from previous governments' (amerikan poodles all of em)
antagonism toward China particularly in regard to disputed territories.
Not because he is a commie, but because he understands that if he can successfully
negotiate a way through without overly antagonising either side, filipinos will
benefit long term. As China shifts much of its low wage low skills work offshore, the
Philippines can benefit and hopefully enjoy a similar move up the laddr as China has.
We (correctly IMHO) can consider that to be a bad deal longterm for the
Philippines, but OTOH if you have spent any time in that beautifully cursed nation
you must concede that 'things cannot continue as they are'.
amerika believes that things must continue as they are and has always blocked any
move (even pointlessly cosmetic base closures by previous filipino govts) as being
unacceptable.
When the trumpet & Duterte talk, the trumpet will doubtlessly adopt the usual
bully-boy tone towards Duterte that State, amerikan military and corporate assholes
have always used.
Except they cannot, if Duterte drops Xi Jinping's name as a more frequent dinner
partner of his than trumpet's, amerika has to listen. Listen and alter the way they
consider the Philippines in future.
In the old days they would simply off Duterte, but just as with Latin America, the
amerikan concentration on ME 'terrorism' since the late 90's, has left them somewhat
impotent. Plus of course Filipinos would be understandably outraged & the country
would either sink into a chaotic civil war with jihdists on one side, duterte-ists
another and Luzonese neolibbs another, if somewhat less popular, third grouping.
That doesn't prevent the Davos loving neoliberal cocksuckers from trying to revert
back to the old days using their media propaganda. It won't work, but it could
encourage amerikans to naively support the truly outrageous - the rape of Manila or
something equally awful.
So, for want of a viable alternative, it is Duterte who is the one most deserving of
our support.
B writes: "Meanwhile U.S. they U.S. directed war on drugs in Mexico has killed
thousands...."
in fact, this figure is in the many tens of thousands of lives, all
a direct result of blatant US foreign policy dictates to the president/congress of
mexico to start and continue this awful phony "war on drugs"
...Mexico stepped up its drug war in 2006, bringing a new wave of homicides as
Mexican officials and drug cartels clashed in horrific violence that killed soldiers,
police, drug cartel members, and civilians.
The researchers noted, "The mortality rate for males ages 20–39 in Chihuahua in
the period 2005–10 reached unprecedented levels: It was about 3.1 times higher than
the mortality rate of US troops in Iraq between March 2003 and November 2006.".....
....as shown by Mexico's war on drugs, in which as many as 80,000 people have
died....
from this July 2015 PBS article: "...Last week, the Mexican government released
new data showing that between 2007 and 2014 - a period that accounts for some of the
bloodiest years of the nation's war against the drug cartels - more than 164,000
people were victims of homicide. Nearly 20,000 died last year alone, a substantial
number, but still a decrease from the 27,000 killed at the peak of fighting in
2011...."
thanks for that unbelievable quote from a macarthur jr. perfectly
believable of course, just so opposite to reality, only someone in uniform or an
american politician of the first water could have made it.
"Chomsky (and his hangers on, e.g. Amy Goodman, Michael Albert and similar folks),
repeat lurid fantasies from the propaganda, about Assad, for example, but given an
external reference (Postol), he may make a principled stand---his conscience may bear
it."
If anyone told me they're avid readers of the Washington Post, NY Times, etc I'd walk
away immediately, they're a lost cause and cannot be reasoned with. I almost feel
physically ill when even an excerpt from those rags is published on a site like this.
@51
People who quote
BellingCat
are either brain damaged or willfully malevolent. Postol's point about
the explosive being placed outside the container stands---which begs the obvious
question of when the container was filled with Sarin, if it is to be believed that
the container in fact contained Sarin. But then again, as Hersh correctly pointed
out, Turkish prosecutors had prosecuted these 'rebels' before for being in possession
of Sarin---hence the AKP and 'rebel' rubbish about anti-freeze, following a certain
US movie, where the liquid form is identified as being green, where in fact it is
colourless. But keep on spinning---the US/Saudi/Turkish sponsored rebels need their
own industrial base, rather than use the industrial base of their sponsors---your
claim. Once US policy changes, I hope to see you legally prosecuted, for abetting
after the fact. The funniest thing in your link is your apparent lack of knowledge of
highschool physical chemistry---you claim that special technology is needed to
separate HF from Sarin, yet the boiling point of Sarin is 158C, while the boiling
point of HF is 19C, at standard pressure.
@51
The even more disgusting aspect of your comment about the need for an industrial base
for separation of Sarin (the utter nonsense of it aside), is the looting, and
shipping off to Turkey, of Syria's industrial base, by your so-called rebels. You
clearly lack any sense of shame.
Thanks for the chemistry lesson, Johan. I certainly could use some instruction on the
boiling point of sarin but I certainly know the difference between 2013 and 2017.
@57
The point about the boiling point of Sarin versus Hydrogen fluoride being that one
can separate them by evaporation at room temperature. If degradation of Sarin is a
concern (too slow separation), one can cool the mixture e.g. -40C/F and use vacuum
distillation with a rough to low vacuum pump to lower the boiling point---no
industrial base needed.
As you cannot answer the substance of Postol's charges
(local detonation outside vessel) nor Hersh's (Turkish prosecutors prosecuted your
'rebel' friends for possession of Sarin), you distract with a fumble of similar
events in different years, by an elderly man (Postol). Your claims, that it is
necessarily (let alone probably---again, not) Assad that launched a chemical attack,
when even the rescue videos disprove a Sarin attack, speak to your habitual
dishonesty, though I suspect that that dishonesty is in the first instance to
yourself.
are wayoutwest and louisproyect actually the same person? or are their often
convergent views brought about by their common provenance ... retired
cia/state/dnc/mic hangers-on? they never die ... just fade away. too. poor wow has
just about faded completely. may lp slowly hasten to join him.
@57
The chemistry lesson is a reaction to the bunkum that you wrote, to which I linked in
53, to wit:
In a must-read article on Bellingcat by Dan Kaszeta, we learn that
Sarin gas is extremely volatile and cannot be stored as the final product used in
military strikes since the main chemical reaction that produces Sarin creates one
molecule of hydrogen fluoride (HF) for every molecule of Sarin. This hydrogen
fluoride byproduct destroys nearly anything the Sarin would be stored in and quickly
degrades the Sarin gas itself.
Basic Boltzmann statistics and phase diagrams are enough to understand that what
you wrote is idiotic. My comments on chemistry are of the spelling out variety that
an irritated instructor might make to mock an arrogant and stupid (Dunning Kruger
effect) student, and give a laugh to the capable students---a tactic I've seen a
number of times in my day.
Rex Tillerson makes an interesting distinction between foreign
policy missions/aims and 'values' ... not sure it all makes sense but there is some
clarity in his expose of the situation in hand. Numerous internal re-org messages for
a department under the 'change' banner, but also some good insights into US thinking
at the top on global role and balance. I think he articulates his vision rather well
although I'm not sure that vision is shared by others who see the large gap between
the talk and the walk. Interesting omission at the end of a certain three-letter
agency (CIA) in his linking of DoD and State Dept. Perhaps there is hope if Tillerson
and Sergey Lavrov can establish a working relationship. Yet the emerging future will
be based on the how close the Americans can actually get to their espoused set of
immovable values in practice. Well worth the 39min, imo.
"Secretary of State Tillerson Addresses Department of State Employees"
(Published on May 3, 2017)
https://youtu.be/jMqa2T4nRj0
"... The centrists have been parring away at the welfare state, not just pushing austerity on small
nations. ..."
"... In a way the triumph of neoliberalism created preconditions for far right movement renaissance.
Neoliberalism encourages actors within it (especially "reckless" sectors of financial oligarchy such
as hedge funds, private equity vultures, etc) to behave in ways that gradually make the neoliberal regime
politically unworkable. ..."
"... This way neoliberalism leads to, or contributes to the rise of neo-fascism. ..."
"... Deregulated markets are disembedded markets that amplify the feeling that capitalism is inherently
too dynamic and too unstable and as such unsafe for humans. It seems likely that what happened during
the last elections is simply a revulsion against the circumstances in which people find themselves ..."
Macron isn't exactly in favor of the welfare state which Krugman likes as he is in favor of
labor market reforms, etc.
The centrists have been parring away at the welfare state, not just pushing austerity on
small nations.
Krugman appears to be sort of backing an economic explanation to the right-wing populist backlish
(Brexit, Trump, Le Pen) in that he suggests the European elite's austerity is helping to create
the crisis where a Le Pen can make it to a second round.
Whereas center left Vox's Zak Beauchamp suggest it's only about immigration and Muslim extremists
and nothing more.
"fascism, like socialism, was rooted in a market society that refused to function' (p.239).
The more market crisis, the better fascism prospered, since it purportedly offered a way to
re-embed markets within social structures, albeit at the cost of human freedom. "
is a deep one.
In a way the triumph of neoliberalism created preconditions for far right movement renaissance.
Neoliberalism encourages actors within it (especially "reckless" sectors of financial oligarchy
such as hedge funds, private equity vultures, etc) to behave in ways that gradually make the neoliberal
regime politically unworkable.
This way neoliberalism leads to, or contributes to the rise of neo-fascism.
Deregulated markets are disembedded markets that amplify the feeling that capitalism is
inherently too dynamic and too unstable and as such unsafe for humans. It seems likely that what
happened during the last elections is simply a revulsion against the circumstances in which people
find themselves...
"... People should recall that back in the 1950s, Henry Kissinger wrote a study of the idea of limited nuclear war. As head of Nixon's NSC, Kissinger gave us SALT I, the first and in many respects most successful nuclear arms agreement. SALT I banned ballistic missile defense. It was understood by everyone, that ballistic missile defense is not a "defensive" system, but is part of a first strike weapons package. Ballistic missile defense can never be made good enough to defend against someone else's first strike. Ballistic missile defense can, however, be expected to defend after YOU have launched your own first strike and taken out most of the other side's nuclear forces. ..."
The North Korean "crisis" is a Washington orchestration. North Korea was last at war 1950-53.
N. Korea has not attacked or invaded anyone in 64 years. N. Korea lacks the military strength
to attack any country, such as South Korea and Japan, that is protected by the US. Moreover, China
would not permit N. Korea to start a war.
So what is the demonization of N. Korea by the presstitutes and Trump administration about?
It is about the same thing that the demonization of Iran was about. The "Iranian threat" was
an orchestration that was used as cover to put US anti-ballistic missile bases on Russia's borders.
An anti-ballistic missile (ABM) is intended to intercept and destroy nuclear-armed ICBMs (intercontinental
ballistic missiles) and prevent them from reaching their targets.
Washington claimed that the anti-ABM bases were not directed at Russia, but were for the protection
of Europe against Iran's nuclear ICBMs. Insouciant Americans might have believed this, but the
Russians surely did not as Iran has neither ICBMs nor nuclear weapons. The Russian government
has made it clear that Russia understands the US bases are directed at preventing a Russian retalliation
against a Washington first strike.
The Chinese government also is not stupid. The Chinese leadership understands that the reason
for the N. Korean "crisis" is to provide cover for Washington to put anti-ballistic missile sites
near China's border.
In other words, Washington is creating a shield against nuclear retalliation from both Russia
and China from a US nuclear strike against both countries.
China has been more forceful in its reply to Washington's efforts than have the Russians. China
has demanded an immediate halt to the US deployment of missiles in South Korea.
https://www.rt.com/news/386828-china-thaad-south-korea/
In order to keep Americans confused, Washington now calls anti-ABMs THAAD, Terminal High Altitude
Area Defense. China understands that THAAD has nothing whatsoever to do with N. Korea, which borders
S. Korea, making it pointless for N. Korea to attack S. Korea with ICBMs.
THAAD in S. Korea is directed against China's retaliatory forces. It is part of Washington's
preparations to nuke both Russia and China with minimal consequence to the US, although Europe
would certainly be completely destroyed as THAAD or anti-ABMs are useless against Russian nuclear
cruise missiles and the Russian air force.
But no Empire has ever cared about the fate of its vassals, and Washington is uninterested
in Europe's fate. Washington is interested only in its hegemony over the world.
The question is: now that Russia and China understand that Washington is preparing for a preemptive
nuclear strike against them in order to remove the two constraints on Washington's unilateral
behavior, will the two countries sit there and wait for the strike?
What would you do?
On April 27 I posted on this website a column, "Washington Plans to Nuke Russia and China."
My column was a report that this was the conclusion of the Russians and Chinese themselves. I
quoted Russian Lt. Gen. Viktor Poznikhir, Deputy Head of Operations of the Russian General Staff
and provided links for his expression of concern such as:
https://www.rt.com/news/386276-us-missile-shield-russia-strike/
Jus' Sayin'... May 4, 2017 at 9:07 pm GMT
BTW, I agree entirely with the essential point of this essay, Mr. Roberets. It's obvious to
any rational and informed person that the USA is engaged in a geopolitical strategy to surround
Russia and China with a coordinated anti-ballistic-missile system. The posting of THAAD in the
Korean peninsula is the latest phase of this plan. The USA's establishment seems to be planning
a strategic system that they think will give the USA a first-strike capability and the flexibility
to start a nuclear war with impunity. This plan is insanely dangerous and puts the entire world
at risk of a nuclear conflagration.
But the poignancy of your message is greatly diminished by the overwrought, paranoid style with
which you present it.
dearieme May 4, 2017 at 10:44 pm GMT
Are the people who run the US really prepared to gamble on a guaranteed 100% success
rate for anti-missile missiles? Won't they die too if they are wrong?
Still, it's the simplest way to explain their very odd behaviour. Perhaps they think they can
frighten the Russians and Chinese into surrender. Sounds awfully risky to me.
What I find disturbing in all this is that the U.S. has to know that they can't simultaneously
neutralize Russia and China's entire nuclear arsenals and every means of delivery. But if so then
this means they are ready and willing to sacrifice a portion of the American landmass and tens
of millions of people to nuclear fire just to be the last man standing. Russia has "boomers" or
submarines that can fire nuclear missiles from sea. I don't think the Chinese have that capability
yet but I haven't been paying close attention.
Russia has multiple ways to deliver nuclear warheads and even if our nuclear defenses are only
partially breached that means a terrible loss of life. It seems the U.S. high command has war
gamed every scenario imaginable and thinks we will win with "acceptable" losses which of course
doesn't include they or their loved ones.
We've become as bloodthirsty and psychopathic as the Likud party of Israel. For all intents
and purposes the mover and shakers within our government are either real or honorary Likudniks.
I have to wonder if the South Korean regime change of a few months back wasn't a CIA color revolution
designed to put a puppet into government in SK that would be willing to host these missiles.
It had all the hallmarks:
-Fancy stage with a visual/audio propaganda machine
-Highly coordinated crowd (lighters, etc )
-Trumped up charges
-Demonization of the 'Church of Eternal Life', which is basically just another wacky protestant
op,not a cult. If one looks at the google search results for this church (as opposed to, say bing)
it is clear that they are on google's CIA list of organizations to demonize by leading search
results to propaganda sites
-Use of the media to constantly demonize a single individual (Choi Soon) whose father was adviser
to Ms Park (sounds like a pretty legit advisor to me)
-Ms Park had expressed a desire to work with both China and the US
In Tolkien's Silmarillion
he describes the lineage of Sauron as essentially a fallen angel, aka a demon.
There is no doubt that Washington is run by a host of people who are possessed by demons.
As far as using real names, the reason I don't spell a full name out is not the desire to be
unknown, but to avoid a search engine like google from collating everything I do online into a
search result. Its one thing to be known in a certain circle of the internet, another for any
bloke to pull everything together without context or participation in the actual discussions.
Harry Huntington, May 5, 2017 at 3:35 pm GMT
@Paul Craig Roberts
Folks who have seriously looked at the subject cannot help but agree with you. People
should recall that back in the 1950s, Henry Kissinger wrote a study of the idea of limited
nuclear war. As head of Nixon's NSC, Kissinger gave us SALT I, the first and in many respects
most successful nuclear arms agreement. SALT I banned ballistic missile defense. It was
understood by everyone, that ballistic missile defense is not a "defensive" system, but is
part of a first strike weapons package. Ballistic missile defense can never be made good
enough to defend against someone else's first strike. Ballistic missile defense can, however,
be expected to defend after YOU have launched your own first strike and taken out most of the
other side's nuclear forces.
Of course the Russians have not been standing still with all of this. Their S400 system has
capabilities against both US stealth aircraft and ballistic missiles. The Russians make
incremental changes to their systems and the Russian S500 system will have full blown
ballistic missile defense capabilities. The Russians are also deploying their Topol M ICBM
systems, and soon a successor, which is mobile and has multiple maneuverable warheads and
penetration aids designed to defeat US ballistic missile defense systems. Most likely, as it
seems is always the case, the US neocons will trust too much in US technology and will be
unpleasantly surprised by the Russian response to any US nuclear first strike.
The wildcard of course is that a nuclear war need not be fought entirely with nuclear weapons.
US conventional cruise missiles can be launched to target Russian radars. Likewise, however,
the Russian Kalibr cruise missiles can directly take on US ballistic missile defense by
threatening both US sea based defensive systems and land based THAAD systems.
It is easy to picture a scenario where in a crisis Russia strikes first using its
conventional cruise missiles to target US ballistic missile defense sites. US sea based
systems cannot engage in ballistic missile defense if they have to expend all of their
missiles defending themselves from conventional attack. Similarly, a THAAD system is of
limited use if Russians successfully destroy the missiles on the ground, or if they destroy
the radars.
The US was surprised when the Russians used their Kalibr missiles with great success in
Syria. That success created another layer of complexity in the US planning for nuclear war.
botazefa: May 5, 2017 at 7:16 pm GMT
It is my understanding that our THAAD deployments are not particularly numerous in
comparison to the existing ICBM arsenal. It is also my understanding that THAAD is not
particularly accurate.
If the author is so thin skinned that he cannot handle disagreement, then perhaps he lacks the
self awareness to label dissenters as narcissists. To put it more plainly, the inability to
take criticism is one of the diagnostic criteria of Narcissistic Personality Disorder. To
believe that ones comments are so interesting that they invite active espionage on the part of
Mossad and NATO is indicative of grandiose thinking, another diagnostic criteria of NPD.
alexander says:
May 5, 2017 at 8:10 pm GMT • 100 Words
@alexander
As though perhaps in the final tally we will have hit fifty two of "their" cities and they will
only have hit 20 of "ours" .like Seattle , Houston, Atlanta, Miami, Chicago, Albany , Denver,
Boston, Charlotte, San Francisco,Richmond, Trenton, Juneau,Wilmington, Raleigh,
Concord,Providence,Detroit, Hartford and Columbia .
Is this "victory "in your mind , Utu ?
Can you really be suggesting this ?
34.Mao Cheng Ji says:
May 5, 2017 at 8:10 pm GMT • 100 Words
@utu
What is the purpose of anti-ABM installations around Russia and China? What is the purpose of
claims of inflated abilities of these systems? Certainly not to prepare the first strike. It
is to make Russia and China think that they will not win the first strike.
It's exactly the opposite. Modern ABM systems are useless against the first strike with 1500
nuclear ICBMs among god knows how many decoys. They are useful, however, against a much weaker
retaliation strike, provided that most of the enemy's ICBMs have been destroyed (by your first
strike) inside their silos. You will probably lose a few cities, but win Total World
Domination. And that's the game.
"... Well calling him a Fascist was somewhat drama queen-ish to begin with. In any case, the way the American system of checks and blanaces is set up was always going to balance out any excesses he thought he could ram through. ..."
"... He never had any experience in government. He just assumed it was run like a business, where the boss says 'do it' and everyone follows. Much to his surprise, he has learnt it doesn't work that way. ..."
"... The comparison to Hitler/Mussolini is interesting but omits a crucial difference: Germany and Italy were in the grip of profound and longlasting socio-economic chaos, with mass unemployment and massive poverty. ..."
"... The USA, when Trump came to power, had a 4.7% unemployment rate and was economically is normal to good shape, albeit the outcomes were unequally distributed.So what accounts for Trump's rise and enduring protofascist appeal? My answer: the loss of cultural capital ..."
"... His problem with CIA is that he is not their asset, as was every president since at least Reagan. But don't worry. The Agency will take care of the "problem" one way or the other. It's the american way, right? ..."
Trump is not like Hitler; Trump does not believe in anything but pleasing himself. That is
dangerous, but not as dangerous as if he had a delusional vision. Trump is not very bright and
a bit lazy (although restless at the same time); he is a billionaire's son who got away with everything
in life and has no concern for anybody but himself.
If the US institutions hold their nerve, we can get through his presidency with a functioning
planet.
A recent poll asked whether people think negatively about him because he has not fulfilled
his campaign promises or positively despite not having fulfilled them. I am grateful that he has
not achieved anything; that is a big positive.
As the article rightly pointed out fascism is a product of socialism. Socialists see the riches
of the business world and strike a pact with it and the state they seize.
Trump is very much part of that business world and strikes down the state to conservative levels
of near libertarian scope.
Namely: Trump is the polar opposite of a fascist. Thanks Professor de Grazia
Not sure if I missed something, but I can't see where the article 'points out' that fascism
is a product of socialism and it would be a shaky hypothesis if it did considering that neither
Italy nor Germany were socialist countries prior to the rise of fascism in the one and naziism
in the other. Fear of socialism was certainly a driving force behind fascism, especially amongst
those who had most to lose from it, but trying to put the blame for fascism on socialism is just
silly.
But a very good article, and one of the best analyses of what Trump is about I have read.
Hitler carried out a series of political extrajudicial executions of his immediate staff
and any opposition that seemed to be a threat to him such as during the "Night of the Long
Knives"; Trump had no opponents rounded-up and shot (yet... and highly unlikely he intends
to or that the courts would allow him to authorise that)
Hitler made numerous speeches vilifying the Jews and blaming them for exploiting the working
class and manipulating the economies of Europe; Trump made friendly comments about cooperating
with Israel.
Hitler implemented Fascism, being a totalitarian ideology, needing a strong state;Trump
seems to think that you can have strong leadership and a weak government at the same time.
Hitler had a totalitarian ideology and surrounded himself with militant, uniformed party
members and followers who had a military structure and a system of party branch leaders called
Gauleiter; Trump lacks both totalitarian ideology and a militant, uniformed party or movement
to qualify as a true fascist.
Hitler 's part the National Socialist German Workers' Party (Nazi party) emerged from the
German nationalist, racist, and the populist Freikorps paramilitary culture, which fought against
the communist uprisings, Trump's Republican party has a very different history and comes from
a much older tradition.
Hitler's Nazi political strategy focused on anti-big business, anti-bourgeois, and anti-capitalist
rhetoric, although such aspects were later downplayed in order to gain the support of industrial
entities; Trump from the start played the card making American businesses great again, empowering
businesses to create jobs.
Hitler sought to improve the stock of the Germanic people through racial purity and eugenics,
broad social welfare programs, and a collective subordination of individual rights, which could
be sacrificed for the good of the state and the "Aryan master race"; Trump doesn't propagate
a master race ideology and Trump is not a fan of Broad welfare programs at all.
Hitler invaded Germany's neighbour Poland; Trump does not intend invading Mexico, although
he wants to prevent invaders entering from that side. (Nervous Canadians, I don't think anyone
is willing to avenge The War of 1812 just yet)
Hitler established death camps to exterminate Jews, undesirables and the "mentally feeble";
Trump has not built death camps where people are gassed and cremated en masse nor does Trump
have a Gestapo marching around arresting people.
Hitler executed his immediate staff and any opposition that seemed to be a threat to him
such as the "Night of the Long Knives" Trump had no opponents rounded-up and shot (yet and
highly unlikely he will or that the courts would allow him to authorise that)
Hitler's party, executed homosexuals; No evidence that Trump does the same.
Hitler's followers organised instigating protests and a pogrom against Jewish businesses
smashing shops and burning businesses as during Kristallnacht; Trump's supporters don't do
the same. As for protestors smashing and looting shops you probably are thinking of anti-Trump
protestors.
Hitler started a world war by invading Poland, Austria and France; Trump has not started
a world war or invaded any New country or New areas of conflict, yet other than where American
troops were already deployed under previous governments.
Is it useful to refer to Trump as Hitler or a Fascist? Not really, because you are preoccupied
by a label and trying constantly to make it stick by indulging in name calling while not analysing
and dealing with the root of the problems in a rational or effective way.
Bashing of minorities that are not considered legitimate members of the nation is not an exclusive
Nazi or a pass time of Hitler alone, Stalin did so as well he also targeted Jews along with Kalmyk
people, Crimean Tatars, Armenians and Azerbaijanis , Estonians, Cossacks, Ukrainians, Poles and
even Germans and there were many other leaders and political systems and genocides the Armenian
genocide or the Serbian genocides to name a few. Trump is not exactly involved in a nazi style
genocide against undocumented migrants in America although some nutters would try hard to create
some extreme narrative like that.
My observations have told me from the very first time I saw him on TV in the 80's that he is a
con man. Since the campaign I learned about his brother and I have seen more of him than I would
have voluntarily subjected myself to. I still think he is a con man with the addition of some
idea of his pathology.
I expect that his father was an abusive twat. His brother was mercilessly mentally and emotionally
beaten down and turned to drink as many do to kill the unspeakable pain of having ones self esteem
destroyed by a parent. Donald saw this and chose to please dad for fear of facing the same fate.
He dissociated that fact and internilized everything dad said.
The him we see is the construct he created to please daddy, the little boy inside never got
to grow into a man because he had to maintain the false construct to create the impression he
had to for dad. This is why he has such disregard for the truth. He does not understand that truth
is truth.
Everything else is the frenetic activity adult children of abuse engage in to avoid feeling
what they feel while waiting for the next opportunity to trot out the constructed self.
He never became a person in his own right. He is a construct of all the behaviors he has developed,
first to please daddy and then to please/manipulate those he wished to take advantage of or please.
Trump and his republican henchmen and enablers isn't a Nazi because they do not possess the historical
context or political tools to become proper fascists.
If the Americans had been humiliated in war, undergone a vast currency devaluation, and starved
in the streets, then these people would have everything they need to set up a real tyranny.
People have predicted the rise of American fascism for years. When the true global emergency
arrives, which is climate change and the wars that it will cause, and the coasts start contracting,
and the dollar turns to confetti, and the militias start to march, then the military will seize
control and true American fascism will emerge.
Well calling him a Fascist was somewhat drama queen-ish to begin with. In any case, the
way the American system of checks and blanaces is set up was always going to balance out any excesses
he thought he could ram through.
He never had any experience in government. He just assumed it was run like a business,
where the boss says 'do it' and everyone follows. Much to his surprise, he has learnt it doesn't
work that way.
A cool and calm assessment there. I would credit him with more nous than you provide but it's
difficult to prove. How about going in with the worst eventualities and bargain from there as
a way of getting what one wants.
Two examples:
1. I'm taking us out of NATO. NATO needs America more than vice versa but it's certainly useful
for America to be a part of it, they just want to not pay so much.
2. I'm going to build a wall and Mexico is going to pay for it. Trump wants a secure border
and a total re-negotiation of Nafta, the wall is the bargaining chip.
He can do both, he might yet end up doing so, nobody has called his bluff yet, we'll see. He's
way smarter than certain people think.
On target. A few points of amplification:
1) The Nazis did not have enough votes to pass the Enabling Act that made Hitler the dictator
of Germany. The key votes were provided by the deputies from the Catholic Center Party led by
Msgr Ludwig Kaas. As in Italy, the Catholic Church played a significant role in enabling fascist
dictatorship.
2) The correct historical analogy for Trump isn't Hitler or Mussolini, its Alfred Hugenberg.
3) The success of German and Italian fascism, and the Trump phenomenon, have some important common
elements. All are rooted in the fact that conservative, elitist parties defending the interests
of the wealthy can't attract sufficient masses of voters successfully without appeals to forms
of bigotry. This is most successful when appealing to middle-class voters battered by economic
changes and to those with frustrated middle-class aspirations.
4) Readers interested in exploring this topic further should read Robert Paxton's (one time colleague
of Prof. de Grazia at Columbia) thoughtful Anatomy of Fascism.
He's signing Executive Orders (remember when he said that Obama was behaving like a dictator
for signing EO's, despite Obama signing less than he has?) that effectively dismantle any barrier
to Corporations making profit, from slashing and burning Environmental Protection Laws to abolishing
Consumer Protection Laws.
He's using his position to build up the family business, including positioning family members
into key political positions, and making the tax payer fund his various jaunts to the property
he owns, while Ivanka sits in on important meetings then tweets that you too can own that piece
of jewellery she wore that she coincidently will directly profit from if you do, while his sons
use tax payer funds to travel overseas and make business deals.
Trump is also slashing taxes for the rich and corporations while slashing programs that help
the sick, the disabled, the elderly and the unemployed.
He has also openly attacked the Judiciary, threatens to oust any one who dares go against him
from within the Legislative Branch, attacks at will the 'Fourth Estate', and today stated the
Constitution is 'archaic' and, I quote, 'really a bad thing for the country.'
He attacks minorities at will, creates enemies by making false claims (no, Obama didn't have
you tapped), holds rallies for the faithful making bombastic claims, openly states he could shoot
someone in the head and his supporters would still love him, and on live television states he
will have his political opponents jailed.
He has close links and is supported by radical white supremacists ans also has close links
to conspiracy theorists.
He is a gross misogynist who has admitted to grabbing women by the pussy and is recorded as
stating that he would often walk into the dressing rooms of young, underage teenage girls while
they were in various states of undress essentially because he was the boss and he was entitled
to.
He also stated without foundation that millions of illegals voted in the Election attempting
to throw into doubt the validity of any results (logically this would naturally throw into doubt
his win, but hey, the guy is an idiot).
He has also expanded the military budget despite the US spending by far more than any other
nation (more than the next 7 nations combined in fact).
He also has an obsession with nationalal security, deliberately making false claims not only
about statistics within the US but also falsely claiming that events have occurred overseas when
they clearly have not. He is also using his obsession with National Security to push for an enormous
and expensive Border Wall while claiming that Mexico will pay for it.
His disdain for intellectuals and the arts is clear (he had a juvenile dig at Hollywood today,
again), in fact it was one of the platforms which he used to gain the Presidency, all couched
within the term 'Liberal elite' which seems to include just about anyone who would dare speak
out against him.
He has now created a group that will announce crimes committed by immigrants, despite statistics
that show immigrants commit crimes at lower rates than the general population, which satisfy not
only his obsession with crime and punishment, but also his obsession with scapegoating minorities.
Now I know, many people don't like the term fascist, but what else should we call him??? The
terms 'fascist' and 'fascism' actually have real meanings. And Trumps actions very much tick the
majority of the following list:
14 signs of fascism:
Powerful and continuing nationalism
Disdain for human rights
Identification of enemies as a unifying cause
Supremacy of the military
Rampant sexism
Controlled mass media
Obsession with national security
Religion and government intertwined
Corporate power protected
Labor [sic] power suppressed
Disdain for intellectuals & the arts
Obsession with crime & punishment
Rampant cronyism & corruption
Fraudulent elections
Seems to tick a whole lot on that list, doesn't he??
What you have listed is just a hysterical fruit salad of campaign speech quotes and catastrophist
exaggerations. The notion that Trump encapsulates ALL that you find distasteful is one thing,
but your attempt to prove (and fail) that in 100 days of office he has single-handedly transformed
a liberal democracy into a fascist hell-hole is risible.
"Nazi storm troopers lit bonfires of un-German books"
The only people I see burning books, attacking free speech, and starting streetfights with
those they disagree with are the progressives (I resfuse to call them liberal or left wing as
they are not). They are the new fascists.
I dislike Mr. Trump intensely but to call him the only fascist is incorrect. It is the left that
attack anyone who agrees with Mr. Trump - and I mean physically and with extreme violence. There
is a major attempt to shut down free speech and drive the Trump supporters into silence. The comparison
with the Nazi brownshirts in the harsh days of the 1930's is unmistakable. Actually the two sides
in American politics show a mish-mash of Nazi characteristics each. I despair of sanity returning
to the United States anytime soon.
The US is a corporate plutocracy and there is enormous false consciousness on the liberal side
to take tax cutting and populist measures that are pro-American business to constitute a fascist
regime.
The psychology behind this false consciousness is the denial of the failure of the Obama's
Democrat presidency to address the extremities of free market capitalism. Fair enough, as the
US will always be a high risk free market society, but the partisan project of the liberal international
media is to convince the world that somehow the Democrats are always on the side of the angels.
This is wholly dishonest ideological manipulation which results only in the inevitable conversion
of American politics into a never-ending culture war.
Trump has adopted Hillary's foreign policy, so the MIC is happy with him. The liberals still hate
jis domestic policies, though. So he's no longer fascist, just reactionary.
A bombing raid carried out before any inquiry took place . The last time they investigated a supposed
attack by Assad's troops the investigators did not even visit the site . This time they bombed
one of the only places they could have gathered evidence. I guess the depth of an investigation
or the burden of proof depend on the agenda. I don't know if it was a false flag or not .I do
know no real investigation has taken place. I also know the media is biased. There were no cries
of heinous crime when the following week the rebels backed by the US bombed busses full of civilians,
mostly children being evacuated . The mainstream media hardly mentioned it. No cries of war crimes.
We are living in a post truth era. America, Israel ,Saudi and Turkey have an agenda. Could it
just be a coincidence Assad is that stupid to cross the line in the sand just as he realises he
is winning. Britain's ex ambassador to Damascus certainly didn't think so when interviewed the
day after the attack.
If we look at Adolf Hitler's action over his 100 days, we see his goals were terrifyingly
consistent, namely, to build a world empire over the corpse of the Soviet Union and to eliminate
the Jews.
The comparison to Hitler/Mussolini is interesting but omits a crucial difference: Germany and
Italy were in the grip of profound and longlasting socio-economic chaos, with mass unemployment
and massive poverty. The USA, when Trump came to power, had a 4.7% unemployment rate and was economically
is normal to good shape, albeit the outcomes were unequally distributed. So what accounts for
Trump's rise and enduring protofascist appeal? My answer: the loss of cultural capital experienced
by white Americans, and the ideology of liberalism-hatred this has produced. Democracy and social
justice are hated because they underpin the transfer of social prestige away from whites and towards
minorities and women--hence the economically irrational hatred of Democrats. The GOP is basically
driven by an ideology of white hatred these days. The old left-right argument about the role of
the state has given way to an identitarian politics.
The comparison to Hitler/Mussolini is interesting but omits a crucial difference: Germany
and Italy were in the grip of profound and longlasting socio-economic chaos, with mass unemployment
and massive poverty.
The USA, when Trump came to power, had a 4.7% unemployment rate and was economically is
normal to good shape, albeit the outcomes were unequally distributed.So what accounts for Trump's
rise and enduring protofascist appeal? My answer: the loss of cultural capital experienced
by white Americans, and the ideology of liberalism-hatred this has produced.
Democracy and social justice are hated because they underpin the transfer of social prestige
away from whites and towards minorities and women -- hence the economically irrational hatred
of Democrats. The GOP is basically driven by an ideology of white hatred these days. The old left-right
argument about the role of the state has given way to an identitarian politics.
His problem with CIA is that he is not their asset, as was every president since at least
Reagan. But don't worry. The Agency will take care of the "problem" one way or the other. It's
the american way, right?
"... Oh Please -- Without a teleprompter, the great(est) orator (whose time ?) couldn't orate his way out of a recyclable plastic bag unless the noun 'folks' was interspersed every other sentence !!! ..."
"... His style was actually fairly drone like. He went up and then down in every sentence. He spoke platitudes with great force. If that is the definition of an "orator' than, yes , he was an orator. But an "orator" can also be a "film flam man" an Elmer Gantry. But if you define an orator as someone who conveyed great ideas, he was a nothingburger. ..."
"... Obama is not a great orator and his insincere use "folks" vocally dripped of his disdain. (He should have used "lessers" if he wanted some real authenticity and human feeling to be projected. ..."
"... Stoller had an article saying Obama is just a Hamiltonian. Here in 08′, standing next to Sen Casey, in front of a war memorial, Obama's entire speech used the Founder Hamilton as a narrative device, expounding Hamiltoin's greatness and sort of promising a return to Hamilton's vision. I thought then, having just read a book on Jefferson and his hatred for Hamilton and the bankers, is this a dog whistle signal to the bankers? ..."
Oh Please -- Without a teleprompter, the great(est) orator (whose time ?) couldn't orate his
way out of a recyclable plastic bag unless the noun 'folks' was interspersed every other sentence
!!!
Thanks Polecat, I agree whole heartedly. His style was actually fairly drone like. He went
up and then down in every sentence. He spoke platitudes with great force. If that is the definition
of an "orator' than, yes , he was an orator. But an "orator" can also be a "film flam man" an
Elmer Gantry. But if you define an orator as someone who conveyed great ideas, he was a nothingburger.
I agree. Obama is not a great orator and his insincere use "folks" vocally dripped of his disdain. (He should have used "lessers" if he wanted some real authenticity and human feeling to be projected.
Stoller had an article saying Obama is just a Hamiltonian. Here in 08′, standing next to Sen Casey,
in front of a war memorial, Obama's entire speech used the Founder Hamilton as a narrative device,
expounding Hamiltoin's greatness and sort of promising a return to Hamilton's vision. I thought
then, having just read a book on Jefferson and his hatred for Hamilton and the bankers, is this
a dog whistle signal to the bankers?
Very interesting discussion of how the project of mass surveillance of internet traffic started
and what were the major challenges. that's probably where the idea of collecting "envelopes" and correlating
them to create social network. Similar to what was done in civil War.
The idea to prevent corruption of medical establishment to prevent Medicare fraud is very interesting.
Notable quotes:
"... I suspect that it's hopelessly unlikely for honest people to complete the Police Academy; somewhere early on the good cops are weeded out and cannot complete training unless they compromise their integrity. ..."
"... 500 Years of History Shows that Mass Spying Is Always Aimed at Crushing Dissent It's Never to Protect Us From Bad Guys No matter which government conducts mass surveillance, they also do it to crush dissent, and then give a false rationale for why they're doing it. ..."
"... People are so worried about NSA don't be fooled that private companies are doing the same thing. ..."
"... In communism the people learned quick they were being watched. The reaction was not to go to protest. ..."
"... Just not be productive and work the system and not listen to their crap. this is all that was required to bring them down. watching people, arresting does not do shit for their cause ..."
"People who believe in these rights very much are forced into compromising their integrity"
I suspect that it's hopelessly unlikely for honest people to complete the Police Academy; somewhere
early on the good cops are weeded out and cannot complete training unless they compromise their
integrity.
500 Years of History Shows that Mass Spying Is Always Aimed at Crushing Dissent It's Never to Protect Us From Bad Guys No matter which government conducts mass surveillance,
they also do it to crush dissent, and then give a false rationale for why they're doing it.
I am wondering how much damage your spying did to the Foreign Countries, I am wondering how
you changed regimes around the world, how many refugees you helped to create around the world.
Don Kantner, 2 weeks ago
People are so worried about NSA don't be fooled that private companies are doing the same
thing. Plus, the truth is if the NSA wasn't watching any fool with a computer could potentially
cause an worldwide economic crisis.
Bettor in Vegas 1 year ago
In communism the people learned quick they were being watched. The reaction was not to go to
protest.
Just not be productive and work the system and not listen to their crap. this is all that was
required to bring them down. watching people, arresting does not do shit for their cause......
In defense of Obama making $400K while Clinton only made $225K
he was actually able to *GET ELECTED*.. She took all her bribes up front then lost to Trump
with a 2-1 money advantage and the press completely in her pocket. Truly pathetic. He should get
WAY more than 2x what she does. HE ACTUALLY DELIVERED SOMETHING TO HIS BENEFACTORS. If she had
any shame - which she obviously doesn't - she'd disappear forever. And we'd all be the better
for it.
Hillary, Bill, and Chelsea are three of the most embarrassing Americans to have ever lived.
If you think I'm being too harsh, ask yourself why the (D) party they built for 30 years prefers
fascism to democratic socialism.
Whether fair or not, it's not difficult to look at Wall Street paying $400,000 to Obama
as a reward for [not prosecuting anyone on Wall Street for the crash].
Well, something that seems fairer , if not inarguable, is that if President Obama
had prosecuted people on Wall Street, demanded Pecora investigation-style hearings, or,
y'know, acted generally in the public interest, Wall Street would not be shelling out
$400,000 to hear his views on anything.
To view Obama during his presidency as not being constrained under those circumstances
seems, to me, to be a kind of willful obliviousness.
I have always wondered how successful the big producers, such as Wall Street
traders, would be if they were subjected to random stop-and-frisk of them in
their cars and coming out of the bars at night like they would be regularly
subjected to if they lived in poor neighborhoods. It is likely that a lot of
DWI and drug charges would be filed, similar to what we see in the inner city,
with attending legal issues impacting their productivity. Assuming they then
faced the court system with court-provided counsel instead of highly-paid
Harvard Law grads, I wonder how many of them would be back at work the next
day?
My spouse teaches in an inner city school and its pretty much only the
immigrant kids who have intact families providing them with support at home –
most of the American (black, white, and hispanic) kids in her classes have
parents in jail, domestic abuse protective orders, etc. They are frequently
raised by their grandparents or other relatives. Playing outside at recess and
lunch at school is very important because many of the kids live in
neighborhoods where it is unsafe to play outside. Being poor is very effective
at teaching kids how to be poor.
"... Well calling him a Fascist was somewhat drama queen-ish to begin with. In any case, the way the American system of checks and blanaces is set up was always going to balance out any excesses he thought he could ram through. ..."
"... He never had any experience in government. He just assumed it was run like a business, where the boss says 'do it' and everyone follows. Much to his surprise, he has learnt it doesn't work that way. ..."
"... The comparison to Hitler/Mussolini is interesting but omits a crucial difference: Germany and Italy were in the grip of profound and longlasting socio-economic chaos, with mass unemployment and massive poverty. ..."
"... The USA, when Trump came to power, had a 4.7% unemployment rate and was economically is normal to good shape, albeit the outcomes were unequally distributed.So what accounts for Trump's rise and enduring protofascist appeal? My answer: the loss of cultural capital ..."
"... His problem with CIA is that he is not their asset, as was every president since at least Reagan. But don't worry. The Agency will take care of the "problem" one way or the other. It's the american way, right? ..."
Trump is not like Hitler; Trump does not believe in anything but pleasing himself. That is
dangerous, but not as dangerous as if he had a delusional vision. Trump is not very bright and
a bit lazy (although restless at the same time); he is a billionaire's son who got away with everything
in life and has no concern for anybody but himself.
If the US institutions hold their nerve, we can get through his presidency with a functioning
planet.
A recent poll asked whether people think negatively about him because he has not fulfilled
his campaign promises or positively despite not having fulfilled them. I am grateful that he has
not achieved anything; that is a big positive.
As the article rightly pointed out fascism is a product of socialism. Socialists see the riches
of the business world and strike a pact with it and the state they seize.
Trump is very much part of that business world and strikes down the state to conservative levels
of near libertarian scope.
Namely: Trump is the polar opposite of a fascist. Thanks Professor de Grazia
Not sure if I missed something, but I can't see where the article 'points out' that fascism
is a product of socialism and it would be a shaky hypothesis if it did considering that neither
Italy nor Germany were socialist countries prior to the rise of fascism in the one and naziism
in the other. Fear of socialism was certainly a driving force behind fascism, especially amongst
those who had most to lose from it, but trying to put the blame for fascism on socialism is just
silly.
But a very good article, and one of the best analyses of what Trump is about I have read.
Hitler carried out a series of political extrajudicial executions of his immediate staff
and any opposition that seemed to be a threat to him such as during the "Night of the Long
Knives"; Trump had no opponents rounded-up and shot (yet... and highly unlikely he intends
to or that the courts would allow him to authorise that)
Hitler made numerous speeches vilifying the Jews and blaming them for exploiting the working
class and manipulating the economies of Europe; Trump made friendly comments about cooperating
with Israel.
Hitler implemented Fascism, being a totalitarian ideology, needing a strong state;Trump
seems to think that you can have strong leadership and a weak government at the same time.
Hitler had a totalitarian ideology and surrounded himself with militant, uniformed party
members and followers who had a military structure and a system of party branch leaders called
Gauleiter; Trump lacks both totalitarian ideology and a militant, uniformed party or movement
to qualify as a true fascist.
Hitler 's part the National Socialist German Workers' Party (Nazi party) emerged from the
German nationalist, racist, and the populist Freikorps paramilitary culture, which fought against
the communist uprisings, Trump's Republican party has a very different history and comes from
a much older tradition.
Hitler's Nazi political strategy focused on anti-big business, anti-bourgeois, and anti-capitalist
rhetoric, although such aspects were later downplayed in order to gain the support of industrial
entities; Trump from the start played the card making American businesses great again, empowering
businesses to create jobs.
Hitler sought to improve the stock of the Germanic people through racial purity and eugenics,
broad social welfare programs, and a collective subordination of individual rights, which could
be sacrificed for the good of the state and the "Aryan master race"; Trump doesn't propagate
a master race ideology and Trump is not a fan of Broad welfare programs at all.
Hitler invaded Germany's neighbour Poland; Trump does not intend invading Mexico, although
he wants to prevent invaders entering from that side. (Nervous Canadians, I don't think anyone
is willing to avenge The War of 1812 just yet)
Hitler established death camps to exterminate Jews, undesirables and the "mentally feeble";
Trump has not built death camps where people are gassed and cremated en masse nor does Trump
have a Gestapo marching around arresting people.
Hitler executed his immediate staff and any opposition that seemed to be a threat to him
such as the "Night of the Long Knives" Trump had no opponents rounded-up and shot (yet and
highly unlikely he will or that the courts would allow him to authorise that)
Hitler's party, executed homosexuals; No evidence that Trump does the same.
Hitler's followers organised instigating protests and a pogrom against Jewish businesses
smashing shops and burning businesses as during Kristallnacht; Trump's supporters don't do
the same. As for protestors smashing and looting shops you probably are thinking of anti-Trump
protestors.
Hitler started a world war by invading Poland, Austria and France; Trump has not started
a world war or invaded any New country or New areas of conflict, yet other than where American
troops were already deployed under previous governments.
Is it useful to refer to Trump as Hitler or a Fascist? Not really, because you are preoccupied
by a label and trying constantly to make it stick by indulging in name calling while not analysing
and dealing with the root of the problems in a rational or effective way.
Bashing of minorities that are not considered legitimate members of the nation is not an exclusive
Nazi or a pass time of Hitler alone, Stalin did so as well he also targeted Jews along with Kalmyk
people, Crimean Tatars, Armenians and Azerbaijanis , Estonians, Cossacks, Ukrainians, Poles and
even Germans and there were many other leaders and political systems and genocides the Armenian
genocide or the Serbian genocides to name a few. Trump is not exactly involved in a nazi style
genocide against undocumented migrants in America although some nutters would try hard to create
some extreme narrative like that.
My observations have told me from the very first time I saw him on TV in the 80's that he is a
con man. Since the campaign I learned about his brother and I have seen more of him than I would
have voluntarily subjected myself to. I still think he is a con man with the addition of some
idea of his pathology.
I expect that his father was an abusive twat. His brother was mercilessly mentally and emotionally
beaten down and turned to drink as many do to kill the unspeakable pain of having ones self esteem
destroyed by a parent. Donald saw this and chose to please dad for fear of facing the same fate.
He dissociated that fact and internilized everything dad said.
The him we see is the construct he created to please daddy, the little boy inside never got
to grow into a man because he had to maintain the false construct to create the impression he
had to for dad. This is why he has such disregard for the truth. He does not understand that truth
is truth.
Everything else is the frenetic activity adult children of abuse engage in to avoid feeling
what they feel while waiting for the next opportunity to trot out the constructed self.
He never became a person in his own right. He is a construct of all the behaviors he has developed,
first to please daddy and then to please/manipulate those he wished to take advantage of or please.
Trump and his republican henchmen and enablers isn't a Nazi because they do not possess the historical
context or political tools to become proper fascists.
If the Americans had been humiliated in war, undergone a vast currency devaluation, and starved
in the streets, then these people would have everything they need to set up a real tyranny.
People have predicted the rise of American fascism for years. When the true global emergency
arrives, which is climate change and the wars that it will cause, and the coasts start contracting,
and the dollar turns to confetti, and the militias start to march, then the military will seize
control and true American fascism will emerge.
Well calling him a Fascist was somewhat drama queen-ish to begin with. In any case, the
way the American system of checks and blanaces is set up was always going to balance out any excesses
he thought he could ram through.
He never had any experience in government. He just assumed it was run like a business,
where the boss says 'do it' and everyone follows. Much to his surprise, he has learnt it doesn't
work that way.
A cool and calm assessment there. I would credit him with more nous than you provide but it's
difficult to prove. How about going in with the worst eventualities and bargain from there as
a way of getting what one wants.
Two examples:
1. I'm taking us out of NATO. NATO needs America more than vice versa but it's certainly useful
for America to be a part of it, they just want to not pay so much.
2. I'm going to build a wall and Mexico is going to pay for it. Trump wants a secure border
and a total re-negotiation of Nafta, the wall is the bargaining chip.
He can do both, he might yet end up doing so, nobody has called his bluff yet, we'll see. He's
way smarter than certain people think.
On target. A few points of amplification:
1) The Nazis did not have enough votes to pass the Enabling Act that made Hitler the dictator
of Germany. The key votes were provided by the deputies from the Catholic Center Party led by
Msgr Ludwig Kaas. As in Italy, the Catholic Church played a significant role in enabling fascist
dictatorship.
2) The correct historical analogy for Trump isn't Hitler or Mussolini, its Alfred Hugenberg.
3) The success of German and Italian fascism, and the Trump phenomenon, have some important common
elements. All are rooted in the fact that conservative, elitist parties defending the interests
of the wealthy can't attract sufficient masses of voters successfully without appeals to forms
of bigotry. This is most successful when appealing to middle-class voters battered by economic
changes and to those with frustrated middle-class aspirations.
4) Readers interested in exploring this topic further should read Robert Paxton's (one time colleague
of Prof. de Grazia at Columbia) thoughtful Anatomy of Fascism.
He's signing Executive Orders (remember when he said that Obama was behaving like a dictator
for signing EO's, despite Obama signing less than he has?) that effectively dismantle any barrier
to Corporations making profit, from slashing and burning Environmental Protection Laws to abolishing
Consumer Protection Laws.
He's using his position to build up the family business, including positioning family members
into key political positions, and making the tax payer fund his various jaunts to the property
he owns, while Ivanka sits in on important meetings then tweets that you too can own that piece
of jewellery she wore that she coincidently will directly profit from if you do, while his sons
use tax payer funds to travel overseas and make business deals.
Trump is also slashing taxes for the rich and corporations while slashing programs that help
the sick, the disabled, the elderly and the unemployed.
He has also openly attacked the Judiciary, threatens to oust any one who dares go against him
from within the Legislative Branch, attacks at will the 'Fourth Estate', and today stated the
Constitution is 'archaic' and, I quote, 'really a bad thing for the country.'
He attacks minorities at will, creates enemies by making false claims (no, Obama didn't have
you tapped), holds rallies for the faithful making bombastic claims, openly states he could shoot
someone in the head and his supporters would still love him, and on live television states he
will have his political opponents jailed.
He has close links and is supported by radical white supremacists ans also has close links
to conspiracy theorists.
He is a gross misogynist who has admitted to grabbing women by the pussy and is recorded as
stating that he would often walk into the dressing rooms of young, underage teenage girls while
they were in various states of undress essentially because he was the boss and he was entitled
to.
He also stated without foundation that millions of illegals voted in the Election attempting
to throw into doubt the validity of any results (logically this would naturally throw into doubt
his win, but hey, the guy is an idiot).
He has also expanded the military budget despite the US spending by far more than any other
nation (more than the next 7 nations combined in fact).
He also has an obsession with nationalal security, deliberately making false claims not only
about statistics within the US but also falsely claiming that events have occurred overseas when
they clearly have not. He is also using his obsession with National Security to push for an enormous
and expensive Border Wall while claiming that Mexico will pay for it.
His disdain for intellectuals and the arts is clear (he had a juvenile dig at Hollywood today,
again), in fact it was one of the platforms which he used to gain the Presidency, all couched
within the term 'Liberal elite' which seems to include just about anyone who would dare speak
out against him.
He has now created a group that will announce crimes committed by immigrants, despite statistics
that show immigrants commit crimes at lower rates than the general population, which satisfy not
only his obsession with crime and punishment, but also his obsession with scapegoating minorities.
Now I know, many people don't like the term fascist, but what else should we call him??? The
terms 'fascist' and 'fascism' actually have real meanings. And Trumps actions very much tick the
majority of the following list:
14 signs of fascism:
Powerful and continuing nationalism
Disdain for human rights
Identification of enemies as a unifying cause
Supremacy of the military
Rampant sexism
Controlled mass media
Obsession with national security
Religion and government intertwined
Corporate power protected
Labor [sic] power suppressed
Disdain for intellectuals & the arts
Obsession with crime & punishment
Rampant cronyism & corruption
Fraudulent elections
Seems to tick a whole lot on that list, doesn't he??
What you have listed is just a hysterical fruit salad of campaign speech quotes and catastrophist
exaggerations. The notion that Trump encapsulates ALL that you find distasteful is one thing,
but your attempt to prove (and fail) that in 100 days of office he has single-handedly transformed
a liberal democracy into a fascist hell-hole is risible.
"Nazi storm troopers lit bonfires of un-German books"
The only people I see burning books, attacking free speech, and starting streetfights with
those they disagree with are the progressives (I resfuse to call them liberal or left wing as
they are not). They are the new fascists.
I dislike Mr. Trump intensely but to call him the only fascist is incorrect. It is the left that
attack anyone who agrees with Mr. Trump - and I mean physically and with extreme violence. There
is a major attempt to shut down free speech and drive the Trump supporters into silence. The comparison
with the Nazi brownshirts in the harsh days of the 1930's is unmistakable. Actually the two sides
in American politics show a mish-mash of Nazi characteristics each. I despair of sanity returning
to the United States anytime soon.
The US is a corporate plutocracy and there is enormous false consciousness on the liberal side
to take tax cutting and populist measures that are pro-American business to constitute a fascist
regime.
The psychology behind this false consciousness is the denial of the failure of the Obama's
Democrat presidency to address the extremities of free market capitalism. Fair enough, as the
US will always be a high risk free market society, but the partisan project of the liberal international
media is to convince the world that somehow the Democrats are always on the side of the angels.
This is wholly dishonest ideological manipulation which results only in the inevitable conversion
of American politics into a never-ending culture war.
Trump has adopted Hillary's foreign policy, so the MIC is happy with him. The liberals still hate
jis domestic policies, though. So he's no longer fascist, just reactionary.
A bombing raid carried out before any inquiry took place . The last time they investigated a supposed
attack by Assad's troops the investigators did not even visit the site . This time they bombed
one of the only places they could have gathered evidence. I guess the depth of an investigation
or the burden of proof depend on the agenda. I don't know if it was a false flag or not .I do
know no real investigation has taken place. I also know the media is biased. There were no cries
of heinous crime when the following week the rebels backed by the US bombed busses full of civilians,
mostly children being evacuated . The mainstream media hardly mentioned it. No cries of war crimes.
We are living in a post truth era. America, Israel ,Saudi and Turkey have an agenda. Could it
just be a coincidence Assad is that stupid to cross the line in the sand just as he realises he
is winning. Britain's ex ambassador to Damascus certainly didn't think so when interviewed the
day after the attack.
If we look at Adolf Hitler's action over his 100 days, we see his goals were terrifyingly
consistent, namely, to build a world empire over the corpse of the Soviet Union and to eliminate
the Jews.
The comparison to Hitler/Mussolini is interesting but omits a crucial difference: Germany and
Italy were in the grip of profound and longlasting socio-economic chaos, with mass unemployment
and massive poverty. The USA, when Trump came to power, had a 4.7% unemployment rate and was economically
is normal to good shape, albeit the outcomes were unequally distributed. So what accounts for
Trump's rise and enduring protofascist appeal? My answer: the loss of cultural capital experienced
by white Americans, and the ideology of liberalism-hatred this has produced. Democracy and social
justice are hated because they underpin the transfer of social prestige away from whites and towards
minorities and women--hence the economically irrational hatred of Democrats. The GOP is basically
driven by an ideology of white hatred these days. The old left-right argument about the role of
the state has given way to an identitarian politics.
The comparison to Hitler/Mussolini is interesting but omits a crucial difference: Germany
and Italy were in the grip of profound and longlasting socio-economic chaos, with mass unemployment
and massive poverty.
The USA, when Trump came to power, had a 4.7% unemployment rate and was economically is
normal to good shape, albeit the outcomes were unequally distributed.So what accounts for Trump's
rise and enduring protofascist appeal? My answer: the loss of cultural capital experienced
by white Americans, and the ideology of liberalism-hatred this has produced.
Democracy and social justice are hated because they underpin the transfer of social prestige
away from whites and towards minorities and women -- hence the economically irrational hatred
of Democrats. The GOP is basically driven by an ideology of white hatred these days. The old left-right
argument about the role of the state has given way to an identitarian politics.
His problem with CIA is that he is not their asset, as was every president since at least
Reagan. But don't worry. The Agency will take care of the "problem" one way or the other. It's
the american way, right?
Workers in the so-called 'gig economy' face heightening conditions of precarity and exploitation.
From delivery couriers to taxi drivers,
this series has shown that conditions of work are increasingly deleterious and show little sign
of improvement.
To combat this, innovative new strategies of organisation and mobilisation have been developed.
New, and more direct, tactics of trade union struggle have been at the heart of
successful disputes led by the Independent Workers Union of Great Britain in London and via spontaneous
strikes by Uber drivers and others across
the USA ,
the UK ,
France , and
beyond .
As yet, there has been less traction for these forms of the gig economy in Latin America. This
may be about to change, as according to a
recent Bloomberg report Uber HQ is responding to recent negative press attention by turning to
the region as its new 'Promised Land'.
Three reasons may explain why the gig economy has had little success so far in the region. First,
it relies on a business model that requires particular market conditions, namely a high volume of
relatively high-income consumers living alongside significant surplus labour. Such conditions are
not as widespread in Latin America as in Europe and North America.
sorry to be a debbie downer--Uber-Lyft drivers have been trying to organize (both work slowdowns
and unions) for years with no success outside of Seattle, Austin, NYC. (wouldn't count Denver)
(see the organization forums at uberpeople dot net)
problems: workers' don't have the capital to organize a viable alternative unless there is
a very pro-driver local govt/regulatory system (eg, Austin). Austin is literally one of the few
municipalities who didn't buy Uber-Lyft's Orwellian it-aint-a-cab-it's "rideshare" nonsense.
Yes, while the app can be replicated--Uber's moats are ultracheap/subsidized fares, regulatory
capture, a global network and user inertia as Uber is the go-to app.
More problems: atomized workforce; lots of part-timers who have different incentives v. full-timers;
(sorry if this sounds awful) desperate or innumerate natives or recent immigrants who don't mind
working at/or below minimum wage as it's > $0; drivers are commodities easily replaced, lack of
support/indifference from customers; customers are addicted to low fares and don't want to care
about the externalities (like Americans are with cheap meat); people had a low opinion of the
taxi industry.
Bottom line; many drivers have been thinking these problems for a while it's David v. Goliath
and his lobbyists and his investor cash hoarde.
Cite: I was a driver who completed literally thousands of rides.
Gig workers won't organize into unions – until they do. Something will spark it, it will happen
first in Seattle and the other places where the organizing infrastructure is in place, and then
it will happen lots of other places all at once, well ahead of any drawn out organizing activity.
This is how it happens, how it always happens.
Because we have an existing private sector labor law that says independent contractors are
not employees, the legal part will be awkward and confusing. But when the spark is lit, that won't
really matter. The law will, eventually, accommodate itself to the reality.
The only question is whether this happens sometime in the next two years or in the next twenty
years.
Actually, I gave up reading the article after the first paragraph (skipped right to the always
insightful comments section). Anyone who uses the words 'precarity" (I don't even think that's
real word) and "deleterious" in the first two sentences is someone whose clarity of thinking is
immediately suspect. Inflated academic jargon has become the death rattle of the university intellectual
class. A long time ago Joan Didion hit the nail on the head: "As it happens, I am still committed
to the idea that the ability to think for one's self depends upon one's mastery of the language."
Oh Please -- Without a teleprompter, the great(est) orator (whose time ?) couldn't orate
his way out of a recyclable plastic bag unless the noun 'folks' was interspersed every other
sentence !!!
Thanks Polecat, I agree whole heartedly. His style was actually fairly drone like. He went
up and then down in every sentence. He spoke platitudes with great force. If that is the definition
of an "orator' than, yes , he was an orator. But an "orator" can also be a "film flam man"
an Elmer Gantry. But if you define an orator as someone who conveyed great ideas, he was a
nothingburger.
I agree. Obama is not a great orator and his insincere use "folks" vocally dripped of his
disdain. (He should have used "lessers" if he wanted some real authenticity and human feeling
to be projected.
Stoller had an article saying Obama is just a Hamiltonian. Here in 08′, standing next to Sen
Casey, in front of a war memorial, Obama's entire speech used the Founder Hamilton as a narrative
device, expounding Hamiltoin's greatness and sort of promising a return to Hamilton's vision.
I thought then,having just read a book on Jefferson and his hatred for Hamilton and the bankers,
is this a dog whistle signal to the bankers?
"... I like Marina's argument and mostly agree but it's important to remember that there is no incentive
for the DP to reform as long as they have have political influence to sell. ..."
"... I believe my criticism of both Bernie Sanders and Elisabeth Warren as being too accepting of
the U.S. Empire and ignoring how the drain of finances to fund the Empire's wars and global expansion
would prevent their commendable domestic social/economic policies from being funded precipitated Marina
Bart's original essay and its comments, so I appreciate this follow-up by Marina, as well as the comments
to it. ..."
"... animal spirits. ..."
"... " .So, is there any way to get from here to a country with broadly shared prosperity, a healthy
and happy citizenry, and a more peaceful mode of governmental operation both at home and abroad? One
that does not require increased bloodshed or waiting until the entire system collapses (which would
involve tremendous suffering, particularly for the billions already being exploited by the global ruling
elite)? ." ..."
"... We are heading into a situation where there is very likely no way out other than collapse and
rebuilding and we have made no meaningful progress on any other possible outcome in the last 30 years.
..."
The essential problem remains unsolved. The majority of United States citizens would benefit
from a government focused on citizen needs over elite desires. They neither want nor benefit from
our military adventurism. Neither do the people everywhere else on Earth. There is already a electoral
majority for a number of important policies and legislative initiatives that would move the country's
governance in that direction. Those policies and initiatives remain unimplemented not because people
don't want them, but because the United States is not functionally a democracy. The economic elite
controls all the levers of government, as well as all the pathways into government. We have a deeply
corrupted electoral system, which the ruling elite uses to engage in empty democracy theater as a
means of social control.
So, is there any way to get from here to a country with broadly shared prosperity, a healthy and
happy citizenry, and a more peaceful mode of governmental operation both at home and abroad? One
that does not require increased bloodshed or waiting until the entire system collapses (which would
involve tremendous suffering, particularly for the billions already being exploited by the global
ruling elite)?
I think there is. Yves and Lambert agree with me. We're not the only ones. The idea is to build
such a massive, energized coalition, organized around a nurturing, peaceful vision of what American
government and community can and should be, that we can overwhelm the electoral, media and other
entrenched obstacles that stand in the way of real change.
Yves and I were both arguing that there's an opening now to do this. There are challenges.
Nothing is guaranteed. But the times they are a-changing, and this offers the left a real opportunity
it hasn't had in decades. A key goal would be a significantly reduced military. We are not
advocating assisting current Democratic Party leadership in any way. In fact, the objective is
to remove them from power, inside the party as well as in government. All we are saying is
give universal direct material benefits a chance to build the coalition and teach Americans what
a government that serves them can and should do. There's more to the strategy. Coming up next
will be a post laying out the whole plan – there's more to it than "vote" + "magic" = Utopia!
But first, since this is a grassroots strategy aimed at creating a more egalitarian society, I
thought it might be useful to hear from other members of the commentariat. As some old dude once
said, "It's not me. It's us."
... ... ...
While the full game plan does not require every member of the coalition to ever cast a vote
for a Democrat or even vote at all, it does hinge on purging corporatist Democrats from the party.
Not just as elected officials, but within the party machinery at the state and local level. Among
other advantages, that means we won't get McGoverned this time. We're not asking any leftist to
help any corporatist ever, just as we are not asking anyone to support any warmongering candidate
ever. As
per Sluggeaux ,
Federal, State, and Local campaign laws favor the so-called "two-party system" and it is
quite impossible for a third-party solution at the ballot box. At this moment the Democrat
party is completely out of power in any branch of government and in most states, so there is
indeed no reason for the Military-Industrial Complex to direct graft the way of the Democrat
establishment. This creates an opportunity to push the agents of the Washington-Wall Street
axis out of the party.
The two major parties have been working for over a century to guarantee that no national
third party can take power. This is intended to trap the left, stranding it in the wilderness
with no path to power. Even if your preferred outcome is a new party, weakening the corporate
hold over the Democratic Party is a necessary condition for success. It's their job to stop
us. We have a unique opportunity to instead oust them. Universal material benefits are the key
that unlocks the door of our cell.
As a precursor to the next post explaining the overall strategy,
here's Kurt Sperry :
I like Marina's argument and mostly agree but it's important to remember that there
is no incentive for the DP to reform as long as they have have political influence to sell.
They must first be weakened and starved of resources–and political power–before reform
efforts will find any traction. I think that means in the near term that we cannot give any
aid to the party where that aid is administered by the party, and that we should vote Republican
(or at the least withhold our votes) when there are no reformist Dems on the ballot to vote
for. To reform the DP, it must mostly be torn down first, and that in practice necessarily
means allowing Republicans to win any contests where there are no reformers to vote for.
I have a daughter. When she was about the same age I was when my mother pushed me in that
stroller, I pushed her in a stroller through the Los Angeles Zoo on September 11 th
, 2001. A friend had called and suggested we get the kids out of the house so they wouldn't
be around much television, to give us time to figure out what to tell them. I don't want her
to also have to push her daughter in a stroller over another American war or blowback from
the last one. I want to be a citizen of a peaceful nation. Doing the same thing again and again
yet expecting a different result is famously considered to be unuseful. Perhaps a paradigm
shift can get us where so many of us have been trying to go for so very, very long.
Agreed. And I'd add one more thing. You want to invigorate the anti-militarist movement? Instate
a draft. No exceptions. Everyone owes a commitment to do 1.5 years, at any time up to age 40.
I posted a similar suggestion in the comments section of the April 27th article. NC reader
"Waking Up" posted a reply that is worth quoting:
"shinola: I agree that reinstating the draft (including women) would jolt people out of their
apathy. However, it won't happen. A major lesson learned from the Vietnam War was to avoid a draft
at almost any cost (far more difficult to promote war when people aren't willing to die for imperialism).
It is "easier" for those with money and power to keep the majority of people compromised economically.
That way they get "troops" who lack other options AND they can profit handsomely from military
arms and weapons sales. A win-win for imperialists, neo-cons, and neo-liberals."
Unfortunately, I am inclined to agree. All these years I thought the PTB had learned nothing
from the Vietnam debacle.
1. Immiserate the proles so that soldiering becomes an attractive, well paid, career.
2. Drones and bombs are cheaper than hueys and F-105's. The US lost a staggering amount of
expensive brand new aircraft over Vietnam.
3. Censor the press's war coverage via embedded reporters and press pools. Any reporters not
toeing the DoD line get their access revoked.
4. Deploy the NG and reserve components to bolster active duty recruiting, and to discourage
those on active duty from transferring to the reserves en masse.
Great, just great thinking. At minimum in our even more crowded world you are saying throw
at least these
many people into a meat grinder to relearn/ get back to where we are now, with no draft?
Arguably the only victory the anti-war movement of that time gained.
Total number of U.S. soldiers / personnel deployed to South Vietnam 2,594,000
Total number of U.S. casualties in the Vietnam War 58,220
Total number of U.S. soldiers wounded in the Vietnam War 303,644
I cannot begin to imagine the horrors had the U.S. maintained a draft these past 40 years..
under any of our presidents and congress.
Historically, the way to get power in America's two party system is for the other side to preside
over a stagnating economy. The way to keep it is to preside over broad-based prosperity. Basically,
almost everyone has a job and feels economically secure. If your party has that, they have a lot
of leeway on foreign and military policy, as well as social and environmental policy.
This is what the Clintonites don't want to get. Focusing on identity politics instead of economics
just perpetuates identity grievances and stymies everything else. I suppose that's the whole idea.
An anti war agenda will have to come from a position of strength. Broad-based prosperity is
the only way to get there. A full-employment agenda is vital for achieving prosperity. Only the
left can do it because the neoliberal way won't ever improve on current conditions.
If everyone is working, the left can do all the other anti war and justice stuff. Under current
conditions, there's no traction for any of it.
FAIL!!! Reformer's Paradox.
The Reformer's Paradox is the expectation that a corrupt system will seek to its own reform, or
enable its reform to take place. Thus any "solution" that uses this paradox is bound to fail.
Instituting the draft as an anti-war strategy is nothing new. Hell, this was proposed to stop,
or at least slow down Bush I Iraq War. But there are two major problem with this strategy.
One, the establishment is already aware of this approach. Thus they will never institute the
draft for the specific reason that it could harden public discontent. (Keep in mind, as the article
already noted, the endless wars are already unpopular.) Besides, they don't need the draft with
poverty and social mobility such as it is.
Two: Voters are not stupid. When the anti-war movement is the one PROMOTING the draft, then
its the anti-war movement that rightful gets the BLAME for trying to institute the draft. There
is a contradiction at work here in that the anti-war faction is promoting the mandatory recruiting
of soldiers to fight a war, When you mess around with contradictions, unintended consequences
tend to be the result. Some results I can foresee is generous enlistment bonuses (which help to
lift minorities out of poverty) get gutted. Poor people now have to server for the equivalent
of a minimum wage and few benefits, And as we also saw from the Vietnam War, the draft becomes
its own form of discrimination as the wealthy kids get to pay for draft deferments or can pick
their post, while the poor have few options and get sent to the front lines.
The Nation-State emerged for the purpose of fielding large armies by filling the ranks with
soldiers across multiple ethnic identities, as opposed to tribal clan warfare. Colonial arrangements
are made to support massive troop concentrations. I don't believe American Imperialists or Lockheed
invented bloodshed. But without the need for the means to cave-in the skull of the other poor
bastard tasked with doing the same for his leaders, people would prefer small localized government.
I'm sure nobody would choose of their own free will to be ruled by the Dems or Repubs unless under
threat of incineration.
Peacenik movements are ineffectual counter-forces at best, and co-opted belligerent parties
at worst. Historically bands of humans have avoided bloodshed by ritualizing [most of] the warfare
and sublimating the death drive. Pantomime the battles across the entire electromagnetic spectrum.
I support what you are doing and would like to make a few observations. Contra Lambert, I don't
think material benefits alone will provide the motivation to overtake the Democrat Party despite
the amassed corpus of Marxist literature. I would point you to work done by Scott Atran showing
the need to fuse a sacred value with an identity to motivate a group. (I am not linking to Atran
to avoid Skynet.)
Referring to yesterday's inclusion in the Water Cooler was a tweet from Ms Magazine's editor wanting
to bury Bernie.
This may be metaphorical, but literally a potent remark This and a few other signals points to
my conclusion that the Feminist and likely the LQBTQ movements are in competition with the Left/Labor
to control the Democrat Party. Of course, alliances should be pursued, but the iron law of oligarchy
will cement the eventual leaders and their particular interests.
All in all, I wish you good fortune.
Regarding the conflict you posit between Feminist/LBGT and Labor/Left factions in the Democratic
Party, I can only imagine that Betty Friedan, who, before writing " The Feminine Mystique" and
becoming a founder of Second Wave feminism, was editor-in-chief of the UE News, publication of
the most left wing union in the US (the United Electrical Workers Union, or UE) is spinning, or
sobbing, in her grave.
Nothing personal, but it seems to me that Stopping The War gets conflated with everybody's
pet issue or pet take on what needs to happen to reform the parties. No. Stop The War should be
the only message. It's simple. It's easy for everybody to understand. It's universal. The numbers
support it. It cuts across parties and religions and geographies and ethnicities and genders and
age groups:
All We Are Saying Is Give Peace A Chance
Litmus test every politician from local to national on this (like the anti-abortion people
do).
I believe my criticism of both Bernie Sanders and Elisabeth Warren as being too accepting
of the U.S. Empire and ignoring how the drain of finances to fund the Empire's wars and global
expansion would prevent their commendable domestic social/economic policies from being funded
precipitated Marina Bart's original essay and its comments, so I appreciate this follow-up by
Marina, as well as the comments to it.
As a conscientious objector since 1970, and no longer a registered Democrat, I look forward
to Marina's full exposition of her strategy.
"War is immoral, advocating for and implementing war is immoral, and therefore supporting any
politician who advocates for or implements war is immoral. I agree."
This is the classic pacifist position, the refusal to accept violence as a solution under any
circumstances. It is a coherent position, though not, I suspect, one that most of us would actually
adopt. (Incidentally, Rosa Luxemburg was imprisoned for opposition to the War, but died during
the violent Spartacist uprising in Germany that followed it: she was no pacifist.)
Seen from across the Atlantic then, and without wishing to pronounce on US politics, the real
issue is whether you can have an ŕ la carte approach to war. Luxemburg opposed WW1, as did many
on the Left, because she thought it was an internecine capitalist struggle. She supported the
Russian Revolution, and the Reds in the Civil War, because she believed in their cause. Effectively
the same arguments were used by many on the Left in Europe and the US in the 1930s, that any war
with Hitler would be a struggle for supremacy among capitalist nations, and so the Left's duty
was to oppose it. More did so at the time than they would later want to remember.
Being a little older than some readers, I remember the Vietnam War, and I remember the very confused
reaction to it among my contemporaries. A few were pacifists, but the majority simply wanted the
other side to win: they were "against the war" in the sense that they hoped the side supported
by their government would lose, which was a reasonable position with historical analogues (Spain,
for example) but it's very different from a blanket opposition to war as such.
You won't convince people to be "against war" until you sort out in your own minds what you are
against. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that many who are "against war" in Afghanistan,
for example, were fervent interventionists throughout the whole parade of humanitarian causes
from the 90s onwards: Bosnia, Kosovo, Rwanda, Darfur, Libya, Syria . Indeed, militarism has tended
to migrate in a curious fashion from the Right to the Left in the last couple of decades (Albright,
Power, Clinton etc. etc.)
I know what I think: war is never a good solution but sometimes it's the least bad. Sometimes
it's necessary, but I hope I have enough moral sense to distinguish good cases from bad ones,
and, more importantly, explain my reasoning to others. What about the rest of you?
Luxemburg opposed WW1, as did many on the Left, because she thought it was an internecine
capitalist struggle. She supported the Russian Revolution, and the Reds in the Civil War, because
she believed in their cause.
It is true but must be qualified.
While Luxemburg was no pacifist, she was still vehemently against WWI, not only because it
was motivated by colonial interest of ruling European aristocracies, nothing to do with peoples'
interest only profit for elites but most of all because she was internationalist believing that
working class has no country and that stirring nationalist fervor, that war propaganda did, would
lead to divisions in international workers movement as well as mere fact that most of dead and
injured would have been working people killing other working people, again war would have weaken
workers movement.
Her anti-war stance was pragmatic not principal in a word she represented working class morality
based judgment (to counter ruling class morality judgment) about the war and not pacifism based
on general morality judgment.
As far as Russian Revolution she was for it, but criticized Lenin for how he led it and what
actually he was able to accomplished.
It is an important distinction between what Lenin in the end did (in aftermath of Bolshevik
and Menshevik revolution and civil war) and what Luxemburg saw as a way of true revolution of
class consciousnesses , as she tried to accomplish during Spartacist revolt, namely to build new
parallel structures of power while German Emporium was collapsing instead of taking over existing
structures of power as Lenin and later Stalin did from hands of weak few months old, bourgeois
government.
In a sense Luxemburg revolution was by nature of not taking over the government directly, nonviolent
except for self-defense, and not unexpectedly it was what exactly happened during Spartacist revolt
and similarly in Hungarian revolution 1918 both failed while aggressive and violent Russian revolution
in the end "succeeded" ironically by Stalin resurrecting Russian empire under new label of Soviet
Union using German bankers money.
Maybe what we're really against is the profit that comes from making war? In principle there
are is probably some violence that I could support In the immortal words of Omar from The Wire,
"Some people need to get got". I guess I'm not really a pacifist but I'd still call myself anti-war.
I'd aruge that none of our current global strife is really about saving anyone from anything.
Further, I'd argue that it is about making rich people even richer at the expense of many millions
of peoples' lives and homelands and I'm firmly against that.
I don't think war (aggression against another country) is really the same thing as revolution
(internal aggression against the existing power structure). Nor do I think defense of one's own
country is the same as aggressive war.
Now do I think revolution against the belly of the beast in the U.S. is possible? Noone wants
it anyway, and noone can agree on what a good result would be anyway. But also no, I don't. But
in some less colonized countries it might possibly be viable (but there are so many external players
with their own agendas, it's hard to say, beware of color revolutions!).
What the U.S. does the overwhelming majority of the time is aggressive war. It also more covertly
supports reactionary elements (even to the point of ISIS). And I know enough to oppose that! And
it really does serve larger economic interests, even if occasionally another (usually not virtuous
either!) motive gets mixed in, it's about profits and economic dominance. I know to oppose this
unequivocally, without reservations, even if I can't single-handedly stop it.
I know what I think: war is never a good solution but sometimes it's the least bad. Sometimes
it's necessary, but I hope I have enough moral sense to distinguish good cases from bad ones,
and, more importantly, explain my reasoning to others.
I used to hold your position, until, like, ten minutes ago.
Seriously, I thought about that statement that you referenced for a while before I wrote it.
It wasn't in the first draft. Here's my personal current thinking on this: war and violence are
not identical acts. War is an act of aggression, and as such, it is always about taking something,
some resource by force, is it not? The slippery slope the American century and neoliberalism put
us on is to keep redefining what wars are and what defense is until both terms are meaningless.
The American military is currently overseeing and protecting poppy production in Afghanistan,
while waging a "war on drugs" in other parts of the empire. It's all nonsense. You can't "wage
war" on drug use, as the United States has proven every day for over forty years. And the United
States isn't even trying to stop drug use and production, in reality, just monetize it in a favorable
way for war and havoc-making branches and affiliates of the government.
I had a teacher who had been a conscious objector in World War II, which was practically designed
in a lab to be the ultimate "good war." It's basically the permanent excuse for sending young
people outside the country's borders to die in the service of some projected, often fantasized
threat. Consider 9/11. That actually WAS an attack on our soil. Did the two wars launched overseas
to supposedly protect us here actually do that?
Meanwhile, Germany is basically waging war on Greece, very successfully, using economic means.
The citizens of Greece are starving and dying, as their lands and goods are sold off against their
will to private entities. They are now ruled by outside powers, for the benefit of those outside
powers. Sounds like they lost a war, to me.
War is immoral. Perhaps an argument might be made for some situation like World War II in the
future, whereby providing an assistance to an allied country overseas makes some sense. But even
if that ever occurs again, it would not make war a moral choice ever. Murder is immoral. This
is drummed into all our heads. Sometimes, our society deems that killing another person - in self-defense,
for example - is morally justified, in which case, it is deemed not to be murder. But we set a
societally high bar for determining this. We operate from a position that when one person kills
another, it is treated as an immoral murder unless a specific, stringent set of facts is demonstrated
to prove otherwise. (What's going on with sanctioned police violence is an erosion of that principle,
and a great deal of effort is put forth by the state when these murders are revealed to prove
that they are not what they appear. At no point do they ever say, "murder is fine.") I think we
have to embrace and accept as a society that war is innately immoral, if we're ever to have any
chance to create a system where the need for protective defense can't and won't once again be
twisted into immoral empire-building.
Sadly, Marina, no - war is not unjustified aggression while violent self defense is a rational
response. There is no escape in semantics from the cold fact that war is an innate, natural part
of our primate nature. Humans organize for, and opt for war the same as a band of chimpanzees
occasionally will. It's done for territory, plunder, or for the most common impulse - because
we can. Behold - we have the strength and power to deal out death. We can be gods for a little
while.
In chimps it's usually the males who go for it, but they have the full approval of the females,
who enjoy the booty and expanded territory afterwards. Who doesn't like a little lebensraum?
Chimpanzee and homo sapiens males find war exhilarating, and the most totally engaging emotional
and psychological peak experience they can ever have because war is when it's down to your existential
survival, and the only rules are tooth and claw. You are never so alive as when you're struggling
against death. There's no guarantee for anyone locked in the melee of group combat that this is
not their last, best effort to live on, if only for another minute.
Humans, with our much bigger intellects, don't talk ourselves out of aggression. Quite the
opposite. We celebrate and honor it. What's the Wall Street phrase for a rising market - animal
spirits. We do business as war, we do politics as winner take all war, and to hell with any
women and children in the way. Collateral damage.
We play football as war. We play it as war quite religiously.
So war is loose in the human psyche, and it's not going away while our DNA encodes it. And
war will find each of us. It will come right to us.
When the wolves come for your children and you, the rational choices are to hide, to get gone,
or to surrender by paying their price. Some of you might live to fight another day. Slavery is
better than death.
It makes no difference if the wolves are four-legged, or are grown men in crisp business suits,
or in military uniforms, or wearing ISIS hoods. They are all creatures come to exercise total
power over you. War has come right to your front door.
It's also a rational choice to engage in violent self-defense. Shoot back, pour boiling oil
from the ramparts, load the trebuchets, launch the ICBM's before they can launch theirs. All of
which presupposes that you prepared for war, knowing that it will come. Which makes you a war-maker,
a warrior when the need arises.
Wherever human populations exist, it will always be possible for sociopaths to divide the group.
Color of eyes, shoe size, choice of music, whether you like or hate broccoli, anything will do.
Once tribes divide, identity politics works to deepen and spread the division, like ice splitting
granite mountains. This is the seed of war.
The seed is seeing that the Other is not with us. If it comes down to tooth and nail, we must
survive, not the Other. We must exercise power over Them, not Them over us.
Individual humans can renounce and forswear war. But our species shows no ability to overcome
our innate insanity, which is to destroy anyone or anything that thwarts our desire to walk the
earth like gods.
That's our crazy. That's where war lives within us.
Today I pointed my history class toward an article about plastic debris piling up on the beaches
in Kau district on the Big Island of Hawaii. I had previously urged them to eliminate or at least
reduce their use of plastics. In an ideal world we could banish plastics entirely with a stroke
of the pen. That is not happening but if my students and their parents and their friends and their
friends parents and so forth stop using plastics and remind its producers and users that they
are passing along the externalities of plastics to all of us and if the heat is turned up high
enough, then change can and will happen.
The same thing can be done to slow down and then shut down the war machine.
In an ideal world we could banish plastics entirely with a stroke of the pen
Really? A ballpark estimate of the ;lives saved by plastic is pushing a billion. Go walk around
a hospital and look at all the plastics there and start trying to tell me how you would replace
them with alternatives. How much CO2 do you think it takes to make an aluminum can or a glass
bottle compared to a plastic one? I could go on.
There are lots of downsides to the status quo use of plastics but your efforts would be much
better directed at pushing to limit the production of non recyclable plastics and to find better
ways of mandating that all products get recycled.
" .So, is there any way to get from here to a country with broadly shared prosperity, a
healthy and happy citizenry, and a more peaceful mode of governmental operation both at home and
abroad? One that does not require increased bloodshed or waiting until the entire system collapses
(which would involve tremendous suffering, particularly for the billions already being exploited
by the global ruling elite)? ."
This is a strong candidate for an application of Betteridge's Law.
I personally am a committed Socialist in political terms. But I try really hard to also to
take into account the reality of the situation we find ourselves in. I also acknowledge that I
have evolved from the young idealist I once was (I participated in the 1st Earth Day demonstrations
as well as others against the Vietnam War) into an undeniable cynic.
To wit: All proposed solutions to governing structures, financial structures and procedures,
alternative energy policies, developing the economies of the 3rd world, feeding the starving,
etc, etc, and so on have to be evaluated in light of the global situation we find ourselves in.
The world is swiftly entering into the effects of a rapidly changing climate due to our emissions
of greenhouse gases, we are continuing to pollute the world at a rapid pace, the global carrying
capacity is rapidly shrinking due to these things as well as due to the worsening impact of having
a rapidly growing global population. These are the critical issues we face as a global human population.
If we do not take drastic measures to reduce the rate at which this situation is deteriorating
the declining carrying capacity curve and the rising consumption curves are going to race past
each other very soon. The rational part of me does not see much likelyhood we are capable of making
the really hard decisions on a global basis to address these macro problems and the cynic in me
thinks that those who really do have the power to address them are far more likely to use the
situation to further their personal interests at the expense of everyone else.
We are heading into a situation where there is very likely no way out other than collapse and
rebuilding and we have made no meaningful progress on any other possible outcome in the last 30
years.
My socialist interests and moral positions are not likely to be addressed in this declining
world and they would in fact not have a measurable effect on solving our existential problems
I am sad to say.
We have big problems to deal with but we spend all of our time on political and financial ideology
and pretending that green solutions (a marketing tactic mostly) are actually meaningful and will
lead us somewhere useful. There is simply no time left for this type of activity unless it is
done in concert and as part of a package of dealing with our vast overpopulation and the crushing
effects of climate change.
We are heading into a situation where there is very likely no way out other than collapse
and rebuilding and we have made no meaningful progress on any other possible outcome in the last
30 years.
My socialist interests and moral positions are not likely to be addressed in this declining
world and they would in fact not have a measurable effect on solving our existential problems
I am sad to say.
I like your comment very much. But I take issue with the notion that "collapse" or any other
similar outcome is a singular event we are powerless to affect. There are, and will continue to
be, different kinds and degrees of "collapse," and the more unequal our society is at the time
of "collapse," the more unequal and ugly that collapse will be.
For many people, in the U.S. and elsewhere, it is not at all clear that society has not "collapsed"
already. That doesn't mean that there is nothing to do or nothing that can be done. Nor does it
mean that things have to get worse before they get better, or will get better just because they
got worse. I'm not attributing any or all of these sentiments to you. But I do think it is important
for all of us not to fall into the trap of saying, "That's it, there is nothing that we can do,"
or "nothing we can do that makes a difference."
My socialist interests and moral positions are not likely to be addressed in this declining
world and they would in fact not have a measurable effect on solving our existential problems
I am sad to say.
Maybe. Probably. But not necessarily. My thing is, if it's going to be ugly when things collapse,
they there is nothing wrong with making things ugly right now for those that are most intent on
bringing about the (predicted) collapse. No need to worry about social niceties!
On the other hand, I think you misunderstand some of the objection to your previous entry.
I for one do not find you or Yves or Lambert to be insufficiently antiwar. It is the suggested
approach which I find ultimately so, and I believe much of the hostility you correctly perceive
is because the approach involves what many find to be a myopic interpretation of the implications
of "not require[ing] that candidates overtly and aggressively campaign against" America's military
machine.
Foremost, I staunchly believe that allowing representatives to ignore this issue is, even as
we speak, to the ongoing detriment of the American psyche, the manifest national illness of which
is in my opinion too massive for me to state here and be taken seriously. This fact itself is
also part of that problem. The US is so gravely ill that there is no medical coverage that can
fix it. And we cannot expect to have some kind of two-pronged approach wherein all the grass roots
are out campaigning about something for which the people they're supposed to elect have nothing
more than, at best, milquetoast patriotic electoral boilerplate if they cannot avoid the topic
altogether.
Now, while it may be true that many Americans on balance do not benefit from the MIC, insofar
as that money could be spent much on what your approach advocates several times over, there is
a very tangible benefit to the American economy that serves the interests of not just the upper
10 percent. I don't want to put too fine a point on this, but it's a big reason there isn't the
anti-war coalition that can break thru the mainstream press or politics. The war economy is huge.
If Americans were to win universal healthcare tomorrow or next year or four to eight years from
now, that would not change the national mindset in this regard, and most certainly not the politicians
known as "viable" who we allow to skirt the issue. In short: you cannot just chalk the pushback
to your previous entry down to misreading. We disagree and it has nothing to do with you not being
purely anti-war. However: I do find the "let's get material benefits for us first" to be a little
bit troubling.
So you say you thought Obama would be a lesser war-wager and, bravo, admit that he wasn't.
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that those of us who knew better and didn't lend him any
support could smell this tidbit between the lines of the previous entry. How? The argument you're
making is the same one his more sober supporters were making eight years ago. The only difference
I read is that your suggesting we shift the purity line on some things and ignore, at least on
some level, one other critical issue - so that we can get people elected .
You cannot tell me that you were around to work for McCarthy yet have not heard your argument
before. I do wonder myself who all the non-corporate Dems are and how they'd fare, assuming they
really aren't corporate Dems at heart. America needs a complete conversation change. The Warrens
and Sanders of the world are the gatekeepers before the gatekeepers named Schumer, Pelosi, and
Feinstein, whose default function is to stop this conversation change. There's an Ellison before
every Perez. A Booker before every you get the point I hope. So how are we gonna oust these people
while our list of enemies grows to numbers unspoken?
This is not the same as the Obama phenomenon. For one thing, our strategy focuses on specific
policies, not vague nostrums like "Hope and Change." That anchors the discussion in ways that
are difficult to evade and elide, which is why the Democrats are working so diligently to shut
this kind of thing down.
I don't want to take over the discussion here, because this is not about me. But under this
strategy, I would never have voted for Obama. I wouldn't have had to be savvy enough to know to
read Glen Ford. I would have be able to reason, "He was given a speaking slot by the Democrats
at the convention, so he's a favored insider. That means he has already been corrupted." Or I
might have thought, "Hope and Change is fine, but he's not promoting universal direct material
benefits, so he's not worth backing." Obama got in because he exploited signifiers he in no way
deserved and people like me had not yet accepted that the Democratic Party (and the rest of the
ruling elite, like the corporate media) had been corrupted root and branch.
If you take the focus off personality and "values," it's easier to cut through the piles of
ripe manure the Democrats offer up. Shifting the purity line away from personal identity (both
citizen and politician) to policy that can be enacted is a bigger change, with a series of multiplier
effects, than you seem to realize. For example, right now, the most extreme "position" corporate
Democrats take is being "pro-choice." But what do they mean by that? What policy do they advocate
to achieve this goal? They never say. It's just expressed as a value. Whereas "I'm in favor of
universal health care via expanded and improved Medicare for All, and opposed to the president
applying the Hyde Amendment to it affirmatively via executive order. Since abortion is a legal
medical procedure, done and done." Obviously, there would still be a vociferous pushback. But
notice how significantly this shifts the playing field. The best possible way to get past abortion
as a wedge issue is to embed it in some universal program that benefits EVERYBODY. And it pins
politicians down. They can't slither around as much as they like. It's easier to hold them accountable.
Corruption will always be with us. Whatever politicians the left might install would be liable
to the same phenomenon over time. But focusing on concrete policies with concrete benefits is
different that what's been going on. This approach doesn't rely on Bernie or any other politician
being noble and pure. That's part of the point.
It may or may not work, and you may or may not ever agree with me. But it is NOT the same.
But it is the same. It's been the same for a century. If we were to begin with Eugene McCarthy
as a measuring stick: In retrospect, would you say the strategy then should have been the same,
say, move Viet Nam to the back burner (oh the unfortunate irony)? If not, why not? "Our boys"?
No, I'm sorry, you're right. It's actually worse. The expansion of war and the profiteering
that goes along with it, that serves congressional districts from sea to shining sea, is not the
same, but growing so broadly that most people you say don't want it, don't even know how many
countries and with which dictators we're allied. No one who does not put those most egregious
human rights violations in the name of what they admit is a nation governed by an intrinsically
corrupted body politic deserves the material benefits you propose to make central focus. The whole
world is watching.
don't deserve is too extreme, because it's not necessarily the people you think it is, people
without decent healthcare in the U.S. is very broad and includes people whose ancestors were brought
over here as slaves, who were red-lined, Jim Crowed, new Jim Crowed, generation after generation.
Of course they have a harder time being American $uce$$ $tories. Your beef is probably more with
a particular form of privileged American blindness that will never see the U.S. as anything but
basically good and the questions only whether or not we can "save the whole world" (though bombing
them) or not.
You're really trying hard not to get this. Material benefits providers that also are anti war
become the people who ensured I have a job, healthcare and old-age security, and my kids aren't
dying in some Middle East quagmire. Anti war without material benefits is just a bunch of annoying
longhairs, if not traitors. My life sucks but at least I can hate on those people.
But it is the same. It's been the same for a century, with the caveat that the sixties brought
about both civil rights and the anti-war movement. If we were to begin with your bona fides, with
Eugene McCarthy as a measuring stick: In retrospect, would you say the strategy then should have
been the same, say, move Viet Nam to the back burner (oh the unfortunate irony)? If not, why not?
Not enough of "our boys" coming home in bags with heroin in 'em?
No, I'm sorry, you're right. It's actually worse. The expansion of war and the profiteering
that goes along with it, that serves congressional districts from sea to shining sea, is not the
same, but growing so broadly that most people you say don't want it, don't even know how many
countries and with which dictators we're allied. No one who does not put those most egregious
human rights violations in the name of what they admit is a nation governed by an intrinsically
corrupted body politic deserves the material benefits you propose to make central focus. The whole
world is watching.
This from Cat Burgler deserves repeating again and again!
" universal benefits is a way to allow people the free space in their lives to overcome the
military-industrial-congressional complex"
Not to be too harsh but the twin purity tests of Identity Politics and Anti-War-ism would logically
appeal to those higher up the Maslow Hierarchy no? Widespread civic engagement starts when basic
needs are met. Otherwise there is no solidarity but just a low trust society where everyone is
screwing over everybody else.
Is the Left of use to anyone besides the anti-status-quo and as captured opposition to serve
the status quo?
What is the purpose of humanity? I don't see any good secular answers to that. And spiritually
I am thinking o of "There is a time for war and a time for peace".
But, how can an economic system have morals if it can create money from nothing without consequences?
Even the Magic Money Tree can create money from nothing.
Looks like some "economists" will have to create a "Morals Variable" in their economic models.
I think we should all incorporate. Maybe create the first diffuse political corporation via
the internet. We all buy shares, for some cheap price so that we can get tens of millions of shareholders.
We write up a corporate constitution for our goals. One of them, the first one, could be universal
health care, funded of course by our share purchases into a pool of money – a war chest – that
can serve among other things to be a mutual insurance organization. Recruit those medical professionals
who would like to participate, indeed take their experience into consideration. Buy into medical
facilities, hospitals, drug companies. A takeover of the medical industry. Because politics doesn't
work anymore.
I second that from CanCyn, great idea!!And then, if that secret TPP meeting in Canada leads
to its enactment, we sue using ISDS claiming low wages and war spending are depriving us of investors.
Your words – "Believe me. I have directly and personally confronted Democratic trust fund scions
on this and faced immediate, life-threatening blowback. "
Both the public awareness and appreciation of the consequences of real corruption remain low.
In fact, I find few in my own circle of contacts who even care, at best dismissing it as normal
or inevitable. There is a reason for this apathy. There is a reason we, as a nation, fought corrupt
practices and it is well presented in Zephyr Teachout's book on the topic. There is also a reason
that ways of catching and punishing criminals operating at the highest levels of business and
government have diminished over the last several decades. Not only has the threat of punishment
diminished, the possibility of even discovering the facts has shrunk concomitantly. I suggest
that there is a direct relation between the ability to effect change and the efficacy of punishments
for the powerful.
It is clear the elites don't want effective heath care for the underlings and until the methods
and reasons are clearly exposed it will not happen. Alternative sources of information exist and
still confusion can be maintained by mainstream, corporate owned, media propaganda. But what if
we can push through this first barrier? Will the leaders of any such movement be able to stand
firm in the face of the next?
I started this post with your own words. I don't know the method you used to confront these people
but I would suggest that the response you got is even less dangerous than that you might have
experienced had you represented a real and functional threat to the status quo.
I think some of the pushback was just how people prioritize issues. If one was both anti-war
and for expanding benefits but prioritized benefits (NOT for a pragmatic reason of them being
perceived as more politically feasible but just as a priority for rational, emotional, value,
or even personal reasons) then of course they might be in total agreement. If for some reason
they were both entirely equal in one's eyes then one might agree. But if one actually deeply cares
about opposing the wars, if anti-war is a primary (if far from the only) issue, it's hard not
to prioritize, and to agree to let it take a backburner until "after the revolution". Especially
if one is not sure it will even happen even "after the revolution". It might actually be a values
disagreement at some level among people who might nominally seem to agree and yet prioritize things
differently.
My reaction to Trump bombing Syria was absolute horror (whether Trump intends to escalate that
war I honestly don't know at this point, I think Trump is a disaster, but I don't know the end
game there), but it sure seemed so at the time, that he wanted to overthrow Assad period. It's
a visceral reaction, but it's not irrational, not wanting the horror of another regime change
and all the death, the endless death it entails is not irrational, even if rationally one ought
to care just as much about some other issue they don't quite care as much about.
As for what issues will draw the masses into action, nationally that might be economics. But
around here it seems racial issues get FAR more traction than economic issues EVER do. More protests,
etc. And it's not because there isn't economic desperation, because there is!
I just think people are USED TO things sucking economically and don't even see the possibility
of change there but only of adaptation, whereas they do see the possibility of resisting I.C.E.,
of protesting police brutality, etc.. Of course environmental and peace movements get even less
traction.
So maybe what I'm saying is what moves the masses is not always what they see as most urgent,
but what they see as changeable. Politics is the art of what is perceived as possible. And the
CA Dem party has probably conditioned many a Californian into real economic change not being one
of those things (I can't even get my state reps to respond to me when I email them demanding state
single payer. This does not really say anything particularly good about it's possible passage,
although I can hope).
Now there are real objective reasons why ending the empire and the war machine are nearly impossible,
the forces against it just being too strong, but to do something it not ONLY has to be possible,
but also it has to be seen as possible. Otherwise people just adapt to whatever the situation
is ("accept the things they cannot change" etc.), even when things are pretty bad.
Solomon Stanwood Menken about 100 years ago today, he went from being the executive director
of to president of some little organization he founded called the national security league menken
was one of jp (the jp) morgans lawyers to study him and the national security league is to understand
the genesis of the oft bantered and whispered meme when one gets too close to the burning coals
and if one wants to understand how from then we get to today study mary bancroft our own little
mata hari yes the wsj bancrofts she was good friends with one ruth forbes paine young whose son
As to the notion of stepping into the democratic party there certainly is an opening since
the party depends on surfz and other unpaid or underpaid volunteers the reality is the system
might sniff out so many volunteers and will cleave off any moves to consolidate unapproved or
inappropriate power grabs from the uninvited verily it will certainly be a challenge could be
done but many lives will be crushed in the making tis why the notion those over 65 need to be
volunteered for the front lines currently tis a bit difficult to remove those monthly checks from
arriving, however small they might appear to be everyone else can have their lives disrupted .
"The prominent anti-war activist Ann Wright says that, after being arrested for protesting
at a U.S. drone base, she stopped receiving her monthly social security checks, in what she believes
was a deliberate attempt "to curtail dissent of seniors."
that did not seem to last too long she has not mentioned it since and in her mentioning she
had explained she had already begun the process of "correcting" the record although the rule is
not arbitrary in and of itself but that if you are in jail for more than 30 days your social security
check can be voided for the time in jail
wright wrote a piece on her ordeal at drudgeleft but have seen nothing more on her issue guessing
she goterfyxd
In Canada, Naomi Klein and some others are championing the LEAP Manifesto as a way forward:
https://leapmanifesto.org/en/the-leap-manifesto/#manifesto-content
I've signed on but it has never really felt like exactly the right thing. I could never quite
put my finger on what it is missing having read this post, I know what it is. Just like championing
anti-war above all other things (in spite of the rightness of the idea of no war and all of the
good consequences that would follow) won't work as a first step, championing the environment and
indigenous rights and perspective (in spite of it being right and the many good things would follow)
is just not the way to get a majority of people on board and to lead change. People want healthcare,
decent jobs, and decent lives – let's get together on that. Then talk about how to stop the corporatization
& privatization of EVERYTHING. Clean out the swamp for real. I believe that, at its heart, that's
what Occupy wanted.
I would love to hope and I do see the glimmer of opportunity – people are talking and asking questions.
But, like Diptherio, the pessimist in me is strong. Where is Occupy now? Was is simply the right
movement at the wrong time? Or is there just too little support? Are people just too defeated?
People want healthcare, decent jobs, and decent lives – let's get together on that. Then
talk about how to stop the corporatization & privatization of EVERYTHING.
Corporatization and privatization should be part of the discussion, whatever the prioritization
of specific demands, to contrast with demands for systems, services, and institutions that serve
the common good.
Not being killed, incarcerated, deported, banned, tortured by the armed power of the state
is a material benefit. As an observer, it seems to me that people organizing around these issues
domestically often do make connections to the international aspects (war, blowback, US alliances
with despotic regimes).
I also believe the Single Payer movement may be the best first step and most efficient approach
to promoting the true progressive message, which could effectively
marginalize and defeat, as I refer to them, the heartless "Condescenders." I will use an example
of a glaring problem within our current heartless and progressively demoralizing Healthcare System.
The example below came as a result of my own developed understanding of the serious socio-economic
issues currently faced by many struggling people, including those driven to bankruptcy, poverty
and a myriad of other problems (e.g. substance abuse). As we know, poverty and falling incomes
undeniably beget increasing problematic health issues for those affected by their struggles, whatever
the cause. I should briefly mention here that I believe a Single Payer System should include the
option for citizens to pursue certified naturopathic modalities (proper nutrition and other proven
strategies that offer freedom from horrible pharmaceutical drugs hawked by Big Pharma and For
Profit Medicine).
How many people with life-long undiagnosed neurological/physiological disorders, have perpetually
exacerbated physiological symptoms associated with their disorder, many times caused by triggers
unknown to them, which becomes a negative feedback loop propelled by environmental, dietary and
socio-economic factors, ad infinitum, as well as a lack of receiving proper care, let alone a
proper diagnosis? They stumble though life, mis-labeled and misunderstood. Their lives are many
times a life of varying economic or social poverty (and most likely both in some degree or another)
caused by gross underachievement based on fleeting societal standards driven by the elites who
control the narrative. They are stuck in the mire of life's undesirable swamps where the Condescenders
all-knowingly think they belong, because, well, "it is the 'Losers' fault for the messes they
are in; therefore, why should we help them?" Is this not the prevalent attitude of the Ayn Rand's,
ahem, Paul Ryan's and the filthy rich cohort Koch Brothers and other filthy rich bastards of the
world, grubbing for more money and power over the majority of citizens they oppress (lower taxes
via less government support for the middle and lower classes)?
As former Reagan Republican, right-wing, and so-called Christian, I can effectively see right
through their "mercy" horse hockey. My own move away from the Repugnants started in 2002-2003),
so I also easily see the glaring problems with the elite establishment Democrats and their enablers.
Yet, my faith has still grown, because I have now long seen the light. I cannot ignore the undeniable
call to social democracy, justice and mercy found, for example, in the Book of James or the teachings
of Jesus (you know, the guy who drove the money-changers out of the Temple). It just took a long
process of reasoning and critical thinking over the years for me to be liberated. As an Independent,
Green Party-type and part of the "Christian Left," I am happy to be a part of the clarion cry
for a paradigm shift on many social democratic fronts, starting with the Single Payer and then
Anti-War movements, as well as other great causes. I have no interest in being associated with
warmongering right wing or libertarian "Christians" who "hand their brother a stone" when they
are in need a "loaf of bread," who also have apparently forgotten that their God "is no respecter
of persons." I am truly ashamed to say, there is no "right" in the "Christian Right" supporting
any of their arguments for their ungracious attitudes and merciless political positions on these
issues.
The first proper act toward even attempting to address this ungodly attitude toward our fellow
citizens (and if they are not considered "fellow citizens," then who are they?), would be to remove
a large majority the Condescenders, who are unwilling to consider and change their heartless mindsets,
marginalizing them in the national discussion of how we can keep this sinking ship afloat and
get her to shore. I believe the first step would be the unmitigated nationalization of the healthcare
system, you know, like Universal Health Care found in other CIVILIZED developed countries throughout
the world.
I understand that you are frustrated with the right, but Libertarians do share your anti-war
and anti-interventionist positions. As one myself, I am concerned that Marina's focus on universal
benefits will splinter existing anti-war support, including the somewhat sizable portion of libertarian-minded
voters (4.5 million in 2016).
The solution is to FIGHT, and FIGHT again against the jumped up generalsimos and their enablers
in the five-sided bughouse. The country really has no enemies except those we make for ourselves.
These very same morons are extremely sensitive to the gross weakness of their position, and
implacable oposition will only emphasize it; RESIST them always! Don't let them catch their breath!
The benefits are obvious to eveybody; when they paint gory pictures of millions of chinamen
or russians against us, just give them your best belly-laugh!
I would have agreed that a universal material benefits (UMB) coalition-building strategy was
better than an anti-war strategy until I campaigned for Bernie in the south. Too many potential
coalition members buy into "meritocracy" and often find UMB threaten their identities by putting
them at the bottom of the totem pole – a place they've fought hard to inch away from.
While campaigning, I walked up to two guys on an electric cart working outdoor maintenance
for the city – at the time I thought they would be making far less than the $15/hr UMB that Bernie
supports. Figured we could find some common ground on a minimum wage. The older, 40ish, more experienced
of the two, informed me that if Bernie got his way on the minimum wage, he'd be making $15, no
better than someone just starting out. Turned out that one guy made $12/hr and the other $10.
Wouldn't the older guy be $3/hr better off? That just didn't matter to him. What mattered was
making 50% or so more than people at the bottom.
I suspect that objections to some other UMBs will face similar identity-threatening objections
from the masses who've bought into meritocracy. It will be difficult to "flip" the working class
on meritocracy and I believe that is essential for a UMB-based strategy to succeed. Perhaps even
more difficult than convincing the military and veterans to support an anti-war coalition.
The problem ultimately comes down to where are you willing to draw the line and vote for the
lesser evil. This will always be a problem with our shitty first past the post election method.
Of course there is little chance of fixing the problem because it suffers the same problem a JG
does. It has an UBI, a proposal that is not threatening to the current power structure so all
the reform energy that should be behind a JG gets syphoned off into something pointless. For voting
reform all the energy is behind ranked choice because it won't threaten the current power structure
at all. 3-2-1 Voting or Score voting would be much better and actually change things. Here is
a good discussion on voter satisfaction efficiency that explains what the different methods involve.
http://electology.github.io/vse-sim/VSE/
Or a shorter summary that explains the results a bit better. http://electology.github.io/vse-sim/VSEbasic/
Because if we had a better voting method than .. https://electology.org/blog/honest-voters-had-preference-2016
Of course I don't see any hope for change in the future, at least not in the time scale we
need to save the planet. Even if there was universal consensus to do everything possible to avoid
climate change I don't see us avoiding 2C. Short of people pouring a ton of money into safe nuclear
I doubt this planet will be habitable in 150 years.
Greetings All, Thank you for this discussion. Back in the dark ages of the 1960's and early
70's, we were confronted with the same discussion. What I think I learned was that single issue
based coalitions were very good organizing tools. Each had its own rallying cry: For example,
"Bring the boys home now. Stop the War. Down with Imperialism", organized and rallied the anti-war
movement. A coalition around "Single payer Medicare for all" would act in the same way. However,
meetings, demonstrations and organizations around single issues provided arena's for discussing
and organizing around other issues. Back in the day, it was impossible not to have Women's Liberation
people, for example, handing out women's literature that was pro-abortion at the door of anti-war
meetings and at anti-war rallies. It was often normal operating procedure to invite people into
single issue coalition meetings to announce their separate issue meetings and demonstration as
the last agenda point of the evening. They were invited in to the big "tent" and allowed to speak
at the end as long as they were against the war. Demonstrations brought people into the movement
and educated them. Meetings organized people for action. The Democratic Party's elections took
the air out of organizing the movements. The big anti-war demonstrations, every last one of them,
were in non-election years: 1965, 1967, 1969 and 1971. We learned to hate the pro-capitalist Democratic
Party and its Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee (DSOC), including its leading members
like Ted Kennedy and Bernie Sanders. They were after all pro-capitalist and committed to rigged
pro-capitalist elections. Capitalism is war: Class war and imperialist war. They travel hand and
glove. Capitalism will not end war or liberate people. It is an exploitive system. It does give
concessions, when threatened. Concession and reform are here today and out the other. Look what
happened to the New Deal and the UN etc. etc.
Build single issue coalitions, for a starters, but educate people to unified struggle against
all exploitation and oppression. There is no other way that I can see to win and secure the victory.
As to war, I believe there is only one war that is supportable, class war. This is what Rosa Luxemborg
and the Third Socialist International gave their lives to during World War One and the 1920's.
Please keep on discussing and organizing. Study and fight back. You have nothing to lose but your
chains.
Peace and love,
k
This is an excellent start. It is not enough to be anti-war. The Reagan-Thatcher counter-coup
and globalization have been extremely efficient at atomizing 80% of the population who've been
marginalized and forgotten. War today is simply a mechanism to extract wealth from the western
middle class who still have jobs and pay taxes. If human beings are to survive, a new form of
government must arise that puts people and the earth first; controls man's mortal sin of hording
power and puts rich criminals in jail.
Readers might like to know that Davis Sloan Wilson is a fervent champion
of the importance of group selection in evolution, a possible mechanism
(differential survival among groups, distinct in genetically-based
socially-mediated characters) often deployed as an 'explanation' for
altruistic behaviours. He also sees an understanding of group selection as
crucial to the solution of myriad human social ills: "Evolutionary science,"
Wilson argues, "will eventually prove so useful on a daily basis that we
will wonder how we survived without it. I'm here to make that day come
sooner rather than later, starting with my own city of Binghamton [NY]."
After decades of effort, he has so far failed to make many converts, and
the prevailing view is that, while group selection is indeed a mechanism
that might possibly operate in some circumstances, those circumstances are
generally very limited in most organisms, and, moreover, the strength of
group selection will almost always be much lower than that operating among
individuals. As Jerry Coyne put it in a commentary on Wilson's
"Neighbourhood Project" in the NYT: "Group selection isn't widely accepted
by evolutionists for several reasons. First, it's not an efficient way to
select for traits, like altruistic behavior, that are supposed to be
detrimental to the individual but good for the group. Groups divide to form
other groups much less often than organisms reproduce to form other
organisms, so group selection for altruism would be unlikely to override the
tendency of each group to quickly lose its altruists through natural
selection favoring cheaters. Further, little evidence exists that selection
on groups has promoted the evolution of any trait. Finally, other, more
plausible evolutionary forces, like direct selection on individuals for
reciprocal support, could have made humans prosocial." see
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/11/books/review/the-neighborhood-project-by-david-sloan-wilson-book-review.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all
"... "The foundation of Fascism is the conception of the State, its character, its duty, and its aim. Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived of in their relation to the State. " ..."
"... "...Fascism [is] the complete opposite of Marxian Socialism, the materialist conception of history of human civilization can be explained simply through the conflict of interests among the various social groups and by the change and development in the means and instruments of production.... And above all Fascism denies that class-war can be the preponderant force in the transformation of society.... ..."
"... I think romnraven's definition and Mussolini's work very well together. Nothing odd about romnraven's characterization of "fascism" at all. YOUR specifically quoted portion of the Mussolinian dictionary definition (a piece of propaganda in its own right) is more about Totalitarianism than fascism. ..."
Fascism has a clear meaning defined by Mussolini as, corporatism, when the state is managed
by corporations and the wealthy. Fascism is a mindset that only the wealthy deserve to rule. Which
is blindly adhered to by the Petit Bourgeoisie. For obvious reasons, fascists see organized labor,
or any organized opposition to their agenda, as their enemy. The bourgeoisie is too self absorbed
to even care about such things. t rump is a master of obfuscation. T rump gibberish is now substituted
for official policy statements. While he is misdirecting our attention with blatant lies and gibberish,
he is working to undermine years of bi partison work on policy that benefits we the people.
I thought this sounded rather odd so I did a quick search:
"The foundation of Fascism is the conception of the State, its character, its duty, and
its aim. Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals
or groups are relative, only to be conceived of in their relation to the State. " Source:
https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/mussolini-fascism.asp
There was also, in the late 20th century, a general public understanding of fascists as those
authoritarian policitians who would compel the public, burn books and have people beaten up.
The early 21st century definition of a fascist appears to be "anyone who disagrees with ME"
to a lot of people...
"...Fascism [is] the complete opposite of Marxian Socialism, the materialist conception
of history of human civilization can be explained simply through the conflict of interests among
the various social groups and by the change and development in the means and instruments of production....
And above all Fascism denies that class-war can be the preponderant force in the transformation
of society....
I think romnraven's definition and Mussolini's work very well together. Nothing odd about
romnraven's characterization of "fascism" at all. YOUR specifically quoted portion of the Mussolinian
dictionary definition (a piece of propaganda in its own right) is more about Totalitarianism than
fascism.
There are those who confuse "socialism" with "fascism". The link you provided shows how clearly
such a conflation is nonsense.
I think the major difference between the US and the European experience is the timing between
the existence of a monarchy/aristocracy and the implementation of totalitarian rule.
The US has always been mostly democratic, even when the country was 13 colonies being ruled
by a distant power. The likelihood that people would "accept their fates" in the face of an autocrat
is much less likely here, whereas Germany still had experience with a monarch in the 20th century.
Fascism is defined as a merger of state and corporate power so, really, the US has been a quasifascist
state since Nixon embraced neoliberalism in the 70s. The difference is the existence of a police
state.
It is clear Hitler and Mussolini led fascist police states in the 20th century. As for whether
or not the US is also a police state depends on who you ask. The US leads the world in incarcerations
and a significant percentage of black and Latino males are incarcerated.
You make very good points. Still, I would suggest that the so-called War on Terror has considerably
softened the American people's resolve against being treated as "serfs with cellphones." I don't
believe Trump would succeed if he were, today, just to shut down Congress and ascribe by fiat
all political power to himself. That, the people and the legislative branch wouldn't allow. But
if there is a full-scale war or a major terrorist incident, I'm not at all certain that whatever
drastically antidemocratic steps Trump might care to take wouldn't be sent right on through the
legislative pipe, effectively ending the republic and replacing it with the reign of a corrupt
plutocrat and his family, along with assorted flunkies in government and industry. That sounds
an awful lot like fascist dictatorship, doesn't it? It could happen. It probably won't, but it
could.
I think you Americans don't grasp the concept of fascism. Trump is a wanna be authoritarian
leader and has some very backwards ideas, like Mussolini might have been, but you should not confuse
ideology with the form of government. Back in the '20s, Italy was a parliamentary monarchy. It
had a so called flexible constitution, meaning that it could be easily changed to give the government
extraordinary powers to the detriment of the parliament, and this is exactly what Mussolini did.
He eliminated the opposition parties both by changing the law and by force (he had the leader
of the communist party Giacomo Matteotti killed), while the king stood there doing nothing. The
rest is in the article. Trump does not have the power to do that, at least not alone. But if the
entire Republican party allows him to get more power, shut out the congress and eliminate "unfriendly"
judges, then the danger will be a lot more real.
"... Politics is all about timing, as Machiavelli said. Not being able to choose the times or circumstances, the prince's success depends on his virtue or genius and good fortune. And both in turn depend on having an agenda, sticking with it, and finding the way for the vested interests and major institutions of power to accommodate it. That is especially true if the prince, führer or duce – however we want to call him – claims to want to change everything to bring back national greatness. ..."
"... Victoria de Grazia is Professor of History at Columbia University. She has written numerous books on fascism ..."
"... above all Fascism denies that class-war can be the preponderant force in the transformation of society.... ..."
"... There are those who confuse "socialism" with "fascism". The link you provided shows how clearly such a conflation is nonsense. ..."
"... Fascism is defined as a merger of state and corporate power so, really, the US has been a quasifascist state since Nixon embraced neoliberalism in the 70s. The difference is the existence of a police state. ..."
"... It is clear Hitler and Mussolini led fascist police states in the 20th century. As for whether or not the US is also a police state depends on who you ask. The US leads the world in incarcerations and a significant percentage of black and Latino males are incarcerated. ..."
"... You make very good points. Still, I would suggest that the so-called War on Terror has considerably softened the American people's resolve against being treated as "serfs with cellphones." ..."
"... But if there is a full-scale war or a major terrorist incident, I'm not at all certain that whatever drastically antidemocratic steps Trump might care to take wouldn't be sent right on through the legislative pipe, effectively ending the republic and replacing it with the reign of a corrupt plutocrat and his family, along with assorted flunkies in government and industry. That sounds an awful lot like fascist dictatorship, doesn't it? It could happen. It probably won't, but it could. ..."
A close historical examination of Hitler and Mussolini's early days underscores how different
Trump's path is to the dictators of the 1930 'Whereas the establishment embraced Hitler and
Mussolini, Trump has embraced the establishment.'
Many call Trump a fascist. 100 days in, is he just a reactionary Republican? Victoria de Grazia
A close historical examination of Hitler and Mussolini's early days underscores how different Trump's
path is to the dictators of the 1930
Sunday 30 April 2017 06.00 EDT Last modified on Monday 1 May 2017 11.25 EDT O n 10 May 1933, Adolf
Hitler's 100th day as German chancellor, as students and Nazi storm troopers lit bonfires of un-German
books in central Berlin, the new minister of enlightenment and propaganda, Joseph Goebbels, endorsed
their "right to clean up the debris of the past". On 6 February 1923, his 100th day in office, Benito
Mussolini battered parliament with another bellicose speech, this one about Italy's right to play
a more aggressive role in international affairs.
Neither the 44-year-old führer of the Nazi party, whom President General Von Hindenburg had named
Reich's chancellor on 30 January 1933, nor the 39-year-old duce of fascism, whom King Victor Emmanuel
III had called to Rome on 30 October 1922 to form a cabinet, began with an electoral majority.
The establishment's expectation was that they would get rid of the left and trade unions, bring
back law and order, and restore the nation's ancient glory. Yet by the end of their first 100 days
of rule, they had obtained so tight a grip over national political life that by the end of another
thousand, they had become dictators for life.
Politics is all about timing, as Machiavelli said. Not being able to choose the times or circumstances,
the prince's success depends on his virtue or genius and good fortune. And both in turn depend on
having an agenda, sticking with it, and finding the way for the vested interests and major institutions
of power to accommodate it. That is especially true if the prince, führer or duce – however we want
to call him – claims to want to change everything to bring back national greatness.
Now, Donald Trump
did want to change everything, if we take seriously his October 2016 "100-Day Action Plan to
Make America Great Again". Pursuing this end, many have accused him of showing fascistic impulses
in his contempt for the administrative state and eagerness to upend the liberal international order,
his hyper-nationalism, militarism, populist sympathies, cult of leadership, misogyny, racism and
political showmanship.
Has his modus operandi in his first months in office reinforced this accusation? Or have his "alt-right"
propensities been coopted by the establishment he promised to oust?
•••
If we look at Hitler's action over his 100 days, we see his goals were terrifyingly consistent,
namely, to build a world empire over the corpse of the Soviet Union and to eliminate the Jews. And
he was utterly ruthless to achieve those ends, starting the very evening of Day 1, when he paraded
tens of thousands of followers around parliament in a torch lit parade. Day 3, 1 February 1933, in
a national radio address to the German people, after underscoring the "appalling inheritance of 14
years of Marxist parties and their followers," he asked for "four years and then to judge us".
But he had no intention to wait for, much less to be judged on the basis of open elections. As
the condition for accepting the appointment, he had President Hindenburg promise to dissolve parliament
and hold elections on 5 March. Meanwhile, after filling all of the major police and security positions
with his own men, he governed without parliamentary checks. By the end of Week 2, Hitler had reassured
the military and industrial establishments of his plans for rearmament and infrastructure projects.
By lucky timing, before Month 1 was up, on 27 February, the Reichstag building – home to the German
parliament –
was set on fire , Hitler immediately laid the blame on a communist plot to overthrow the government,
and before the next day was over, issued the so-called Reichstag Fire Decree "for the Protection
of the People and the State", stripping citizens of their constitutional liberties and outlawing
the communists.
This enabled Hitler, after his coalition won the 5 March general elections by a plurality, to
muster the two-thirds majority to
pass the
constitution-changing Enabling Act on 23 March , to strip the Reichstag of its legislative powers
and create the legal basis for his dictatorship.
On 11 March, Hitler extracted cabinet approval for the creation of the infamous Ministry for Popular
Enlightenment and Propaganda. On 20 March, with arrests of the political opposition soaring into
the scores of thousands, the Bavarian police commissioner, Heinrich Himmler, opened the first concentration
camp at Dachau. By Day 60 or so, after the left parties had been smashed, organized labor became
easier to co-opt.
On 1 May, Hitler's 90th day, he held the first national socialist May Day, only to dissolve the
unions altogether the following week and to incorporate them soon thereafter into the Nazi party-controlled
Labor Front.
With that, virtually every signature policy was in place. Germany was a full-fledged dictatorship.
The Nazi party, which had 850,000 members on Hitler's Day 1, had soared to 2.85 million on Day 100.
As for the Jews: on April 1, the Third Reich began systematic persecution with a one-day boycott
of Jewish businesses.
If we look at Mussolini, he seem slower paced, but only because Hitler had learned from the duce's
1922 coup, failed at his own first Beer Hall Putsch in 1923, and spent the next 10 years perfecting
his targets and timing.
In his first 100 days, Mussolini usurped power immediately by taking the key foreign and interior
departments for himself, obtaining emergency powers to push through fiscal and civil service reforms,
without parliamentary approval, and on
16 November 1922, by making
his first speech as prime minister to the Italian
chamber of deputies
, flaunting his power.
"I could have transformed this drab silent hall into a bivouac for my squads...I could have barred
the door to parliament and formed a government exclusively of fascists, he said, "but I chose not
to, at least not for the present."
To allay the establishment's suspicions of him as an ex-socialist, he made nice with the church
and he de-regulated wartime controls on industry, reversed land reforms, reduced inheritance taxes
and privatized telephone and telegraph services.
Like Hitler, he set up a parallel government. On 15 December, he set up a parallel cabinet in
the Grand Council. On 3 January, he turned his private army of black shirts into a national militia
loyal solely to him, not the king or the army. Failing to co-opt the left unions, he licensed his
squads to terrorize them.
People protested after a Black Shirts massacred 19 workers on 18 December at Turin, only to see
the government amnesty the squadristi five days later for having acted in the name of the
nation.
•••
President Trump, who started his 100 days with a Republican majority in Congress, immediately
showed his authoritarian impulses with his show-off immigration ban, only to see it overturned by
the courts, and he set up his National Security Council outside of normal channels, only to see his
main advisors unceremoniously removed.
Fortunately, the US has faced no national emergency to accelerate the tempo of his illegalities,
though the president has flailed around to invent one – or several – in terrorist immigrants, North
Korean missiles, terrorist attacks abroad, and the disloyal "party of the opposition" in the liberal
media.
However, with no significant activist base of his own, no special laws to suppress dissent, and
no monopoly over the media, he can't prevent the opposition from growing louder and louder. And the
liberal international order, no matter how dispirited at the US's harum-scarum leadership, is multilateral
and with substantial enough ballast in the United Nations, international treaties, and other powers,
notably China and the European Union to curb the worst saber-rattling
Whereas the establishment embraced Hitler and Mussolini, Trump has embraced the establishment.
That leaves us to conclude that after having fumbled around his first 100 days, the 45th president
will push ahead another thousand days in the time-honored ways of reactionary Republican regimes.
He has brought Wall Street into his inner circle, empowered the military to make national strategy,
reinforced racial antagonisms by enhanced policing, and by means of tariffs, regressive taxation,
and cuts in provisions for health, education, and welfare intends to further impoverish America's
most vulnerable citizens, his own white working class constituency included.
That leaves us to contemplate liberal democracy's greatest asset, namely, the tick tock of the
electoral cycle. By the end of their 1,000 days, Mussolini spoke of "Eternal fascism," and Hitler
of the Thousand Year Reich. Trump will have to face elections, and failed presidents get turned out
of office.
Victoria de Grazia is Professor of History at Columbia University. She has written numerous
books on fascism
The modern American is a wounded cornered animal, running from his own shadow. The Bully Pulpit
now belongs to the most wounded and insecure animal in America. The "president" fears more than
he understands, so he channels that fear into oppression, rather than admit his own shortcomings.
Fear of Freedom by Fromm sums it up nicely: "The lust for power is not rooted in strength but
in weakness. It is the expression of the inability of the individual self to stand alone and live.
It is the desperate attempt to gain secondary strength where genuine strength is lacking. The
word power has a twofold meaning. One is the possession of power over somebody, the ability to
dominate him; the other meaning is the possession of power to do something, to be able, to be
potent. The latter meaning has nothing to do with domination; it expresses mastery in the sense
of ability."
Promoting fear in order to cement power is the essence of authoritarianism..( which Erich Fromm,
having observed the effects, quite correctly sees as human weakness) rather odd that promoting
fear and bullying others seems so popular in a nation that proclaims to be enthusiastic about
'christianity'..
I dont like it at all.. too many idiots who are unable to feel safe without guns because they
live in fear..
No, Trump is not Hitler and he is not Mussolini. He has, however, with his policies and pronouncements,
followed a time-tested path to populist, fascist authoritarianism. He has rallied his base by
demonizing discreet and vulnerable minorities with false allegations of criminality and lack of
patriotism and by making absurd claims that foreigners and foreign governments are responsible
for the sense of economic disenfranchisement afflicting so many in the United States. He has waged
an unrelenting war on the press and our collective sense that an objective truth can be divined.
He has attacked the independant judiciary in a manner that betrays either a complete failure to
understand, or a thorough contempt for, our system of checks and balances. He has gone so far
as to say of our democratic structure that "It's a very rough system," ... It's an archaic system
It's really a bad thing for the country." It may be that the rapidity of the descent to facism
in pre-war Germany and Italy is more a reflection of the relative fragility of those democracies.
To assume that our institutions are immune from historically tried and true methods of delegitimization
is analogous to the "...it can't happen here" prelude to the worst atrocities in modern history.
We are fools if we whistle past this graveyard. This is not normal. It is extremely dangerous
and we all need to recognize that fact and respond accordingly with resistance at every level
and by speaking out loudly at every opportunity.
Here's where I'm at on Trump the fascist (to be a fascist someone does not need to be Hitler or
Mussolini and indeed fascism is a mass movement so it's a bit pointless focusing too much on the
individual), one definition of fascism that I've used a lot is this one from Robert Paxton:
"A form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation
or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party
of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional
elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical
or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion."
That definition almost exactly captures Trump and Trump_vs_deep_state except for the bit about violence
and expansion.
The "obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation [and] victimhood" pretty much
sums up his election campaign.
The "compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity," sums up his rallies.
The "committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional
elites," almost sums up his voter base.
The "abandon[ment of] democratic liberties" sums up some of his policies like the muslim ban.
He has displayed no "ethical or legal restraints" in his life let alone his presidency.
So the only bits we're missing are:
"redemptive violence" (let's ignore his calls to beat up protestors at his rallies) and "goals
of internal cleansing" (let's ignore his overt racism) and "external expansion." (fingers crossed).
Many of the checks and balances that were put in place by the US constitution (many of which
he has tried to circumvent) were to prevent someone like Trump doing his worse. So just because
the system has so far withstood a full blown dictatorship shouldn't mean that we shouldn't be
worried.
Trump has significant authoritarian tendencies which set him apart from previous republican
candidates.
Bannon's influence seems to have waned recently which might suggest he's moving away from the
far right (either by design or in response to the realities he's facing).
The big question with Trump however is what does he want?
Calling him a fascist is pointless unless we know what he's up to.
Is he "just" after money or power or does he have a specific political goal?
When he stirs up islamophobic and racial tensions or when he undermines the press, is he doing
this deliberately and why is he doing it?
I think he is doing it deliberately. He's a master manipulator. So that leaves the "why"?
It could be a divide and conquer thing but it could also be part of an ideology.
There's plenty of evidence that he is in fact racist.
Ok I apologise for linking to the Huffongton Post but one of the examples given is this:
"When Donald and Ivana came to the casino, the bosses would order all the black people off
the floor," Kip Brown, a former employee at Trump's Castle, told the New Yorker for a September
article. "It was the eighties, I was a teen-ager, but I remember it: they put us all in the back."
If this story is true then this would indicate that he is in fact ideologically racist.
Fascist movements usually have an ideological and practical form of racism, but the latter
usually drives the former.
For example, the reason the Nazis targetted the Jews was because they wanted their stuff. They
then made up some bull shit ideology to justify taking it.
It's the same with the slave trade where it was really just about making money by selling human
beings and then was justified through pseudo science about black people having smaller brains.
With Trump there could well be the ideologcial but there's still the issue of the practical.
Practically how can he gain from his racism? Well he can gain power (by dividing and conquering)
and he might even make some money (by starting wars).
There also needs to be the right conditions for fascism to occur. Societies before were less
integrated and were easier to divide. It's harder to do that these days because races and cultures
won't stay in their boxes (which is part of the reason for the backlash).
So for me Trump is a fascist but he may hopefully be prevented from turning America into a
fascist state because of a large number of random factors.
Fascism is a totalitarian ideology which brooks no political opposition while allowing some private
ownership of the means of production. Sorta like China today, come to think of it. In any case
Trump hasn't made any move to shut down the Democrats or the Lefty-lib media. With both Left and
Right in the West accusing each other of being "fascist," it seems that Godwin's Law is getting
strong reinforcement.
It was the last administration which legalized "disappearing" people into secret prisons as well
as the Kill List, filled out by a secret committee. The one before that sort of legalized torture.
Names don't matter much. The USA has been drifting towards authoritarianism and disguised dictatorship
for a long time.
I think the national psyches of Italy and Germany in the 1920s and 30s was much different than
the US psyche(s) in 2017. The US hasn't been forced to pay huge war reparations to Britain and
France and hasn't been kept from having an effective military. The "nationalism" that Trump claims
isn't rooted in a real national humiliation, just a badly made fake one. On the other hand, there
were lots of such rationalizations before Hitler became a true menace.
As Bertram Gross predicted in Friendly Fascism , when it comes to America it will not take
the form that fascism took in Germany and Italy. It will have a friendly face, one most likely
with less overt brutality and without the public spectacles and perhaps even without an in-your-face
dictatorship.
But what it will have, at its base, is the ever increasing collusion of big business and big
government "in order to 'manage society' in the interests of the rich and powerful"
Donald Trump has eliminated the middle men. We now have government of, by and for big business.
Friendly fascism, American style.
Mussolini wasn't all talk and no action unfortunately. imprisonment, torture and murder of political
opponents on the part of his militia happened very frequently throughout the 20s, well before
hitler took power. They killed socialist mp giacomo Matteotti in 1924 for example.
Or have his alt-right propensities been coopted by the establishment he promised to oust?
On the contrary, the only Trump policy coopted by the "establishment" so far has been his antiwar
stance!
For years, he expressed strong opposition to Obama's war in Syria, he advocated good relations
with Russia, and at one point he even promised to pull all US troops out of South Korea. In his
first hundred days in office, under heavy pressure from the "establishment," he has turned sharply
against all of those positions, bringing the world to the brink of nuclear war.
The Guardian is one of many media outlets to have played a role in this process, though there
are obviously much stronger forces driving the imperialist killing machine than just its pro-war
media mouthpieces.
Fascism, like all the other 'isms' are so overused they have become impotent words with no actual
meaning anymore.
Like the way Brits overuse 'brilliant' or feminists overuse 'sexism' etc. The left have become
fascist themselves with all their bans on anything they don't like. [And I used to be left until
this rather infantile means of 'debate' became the norm for fake progressives.]
An article very similar to this one was published over a month ago by Stansfield Smith. Here
his idea has been fleshed out a bit in terms of historical background and watered down a bit in
terms of political clarity.
Regardless, it is true, and important to point out, that Trump is not a fascist. Fascism is
a violent mobilization of the middle class against the working class, an activist movement of
lynch mobs. It is capitalism's emergency Plan B when the charade of the democratic republic is
no longer possible. Trump is not part of such a movement or party, let alone the leader of one,
although the way he talks does embolden those who are, and in his administration, they do seem
to have some friends in high places.
I don't see the intelligence or the ruthless, murderous drive in Trump that an outright "fascist
dictator" needs. I see a willingness to upend the traditions of governance, but not much skill
in actually doing that since (so far, anyway) the courts keep laughing in his face. The thing
I see coming from him that's on a par with the infamous rulers referenced in the article is Trump's
evident delight in whipping up mobs of ignorant, wholly irrational and even delusional people
who adore him without reserve. In his apparent hatred of a free press and his love for political
spectacle over rational, measured discourse, he is justly mentioned alongside Hitler and Mussolini,
who went out of their way to appeal to people's desires and passions rather than to their minds.
Probably the main point of similarity would be the wish to do away with pesky legal inhibitions
getting in the way of doing what they want to do. Trump's plan for doing so however is to simply
cry 'wahh wahh wahh' until enough people cave in.
Fascism has a clear meaning defined by Mussolini as, corporatism, when the state is managed by
corporations and the wealthy. Fascism is a mindset that only the wealthy deserve to rule. Which is
blindly adhered to by the Petit Bourgeoisie.
For obvious reasons, fascists see organized labor, or
any organized opposition to their agenda, as their enemy. The bourgeoisie is too self absorbed to
even care about such things.
Trump is a master of obfuscation. Trump gibberish is now substituted
for official policy statements. While he is misdirecting our attention with blatant lies and gibberish,
he is working to undermine years of bipartisan work on policy that benefits we the people.
I thought this sounded rather odd so I did a quick search: "The foundation of Fascism is the conception
of the State, its character, its duty, and its aim. Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute,
in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived of in their
relation to the State. " Source:
https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/mussolini-fascism.asp
There was also, in the late 20th century, a general public understanding of fascists as those
authoritarian policitians who would compel the public, burn books and have people beaten up.
The early 21st century definition of a fascist appears to be "anyone who disagrees with ME" to
a lot of people...
"...Fascism [is] the complete opposite of Marxian Socialism, the materialist conception of history
of human civilization can be explained simply through the conflict of interests among the various
social groups and by the change and development in the means and instruments of production.... And
above all Fascism denies that class-war can be the preponderant force in the transformation of society....
I think romnraven's definition and Mussolini's work very well together. Nothing odd about romnraven's
characterization of "fascism" at all. YOUR specifically quoted portion of the Mussolinian dictionary
definition (a piece of propaganda in its own right) is more about Totalitarianism than fascism.
There are those who confuse "socialism" with "fascism". The link you provided shows how clearly
such a conflation is nonsense.
I think the major difference between the US and the European experience is the timing between
the existence of a monarchy/aristocracy and the implementation of totalitarian rule. The US has always
been mostly democratic, even when the country was 13 colonies being ruled by a distant power. The
likelihood that people would "accept their fates" in the face of an autocrat is much less likely
here, whereas Germany still had experience with a monarch in the 20th century.
Fascism is defined
as a merger of state and corporate power so, really, the US has been a quasifascist state since Nixon
embraced neoliberalism in the 70s. The difference is the existence of a police state.
It is clear
Hitler and Mussolini led fascist police states in the 20th century. As for whether or not the US
is also a police state depends on who you ask. The US leads the world in incarcerations and a significant
percentage of black and Latino males are incarcerated.
You make very good points. Still, I would suggest that the so-called War on Terror has considerably
softened the American people's resolve against being treated as "serfs with cellphones."
I don't
believe Trump would succeed if he were, today, just to shut down Congress and ascribe by fiat all
political power to himself. That, the people and the legislative branch wouldn't allow.
But if there
is a full-scale war or a major terrorist incident, I'm not at all certain that whatever drastically
antidemocratic steps Trump might care to take wouldn't be sent right on through the legislative pipe,
effectively ending the republic and replacing it with the reign of a corrupt plutocrat and his family,
along with assorted flunkies in government and industry. That sounds an awful lot like fascist dictatorship,
doesn't it? It could happen. It probably won't, but it could.
I think you Americans don't grasp the concept of fascism. Trump is a wanna be authoritarian leader
and has some very backwards ideas, like Mussolini might have been, but you should not confuse ideology
with the form of government.
Back in the '20s, Italy was a parliamentary monarchy. It had a so called
flexible constitution, meaning that it could be easily changed to give the government extraordinary
powers to the detriment of the parliament, and this is exactly what Mussolini did.
He eliminated
the opposition parties both by changing the law and by force (he had the leader of the communist
party Giacomo Matteotti killed), while the king stood there doing nothing. The rest is in the article.
Trump does not have the power to do that, at least not alone.
But if the entire Republican party
allows him to get more power, shut out the congress and eliminate "unfriendly" judges, then the danger
will be a lot more real.
bobkolker 2d ago
Where are the Brown Shirts (or in Trump's case, The Orange Shirts). Trump was and is a
business man (of questionable quality, no doubt). He is not founding a Political Movement. So
far Trump has done nothing unconstitutional. One hundred days, and no Reichstag Fire! Imagine
that!
There is no doubt that Our Donald is inept in the Office he now occupies. And he does at times
lack couth. Also he has a twitchy tweeting thumb. But a Fascist???? Not even close.
"... "The foundation of Fascism is the conception of the State, its character, its duty, and its aim. Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived of in their relation to the State. " ..."
"... "...Fascism [is] the complete opposite of Marxian Socialism, the materialist conception of history of human civilization can be explained simply through the conflict of interests among the various social groups and by the change and development in the means and instruments of production.... And above all Fascism denies that class-war can be the preponderant force in the transformation of society.... ..."
"... I think romnraven's definition and Mussolini's work very well together. Nothing odd about romnraven's characterization of "fascism" at all. YOUR specifically quoted portion of the Mussolinian dictionary definition (a piece of propaganda in its own right) is more about Totalitarianism than fascism. ..."
Fascism has a clear meaning defined by Mussolini as, corporatism, when the state is managed
by corporations and the wealthy. Fascism is a mindset that only the wealthy deserve to rule. Which
is blindly adhered to by the Petit Bourgeoisie. For obvious reasons, fascists see organized labor,
or any organized opposition to their agenda, as their enemy. The bourgeoisie is too self absorbed
to even care about such things. t rump is a master of obfuscation. T rump gibberish is now substituted
for official policy statements. While he is misdirecting our attention with blatant lies and gibberish,
he is working to undermine years of bi partison work on policy that benefits we the people.
I thought this sounded rather odd so I did a quick search:
"The foundation of Fascism is the conception of the State, its character, its duty, and
its aim. Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals
or groups are relative, only to be conceived of in their relation to the State. " Source:
https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/mussolini-fascism.asp
There was also, in the late 20th century, a general public understanding of fascists as those
authoritarian policitians who would compel the public, burn books and have people beaten up.
The early 21st century definition of a fascist appears to be "anyone who disagrees with ME"
to a lot of people...
"...Fascism [is] the complete opposite of Marxian Socialism, the materialist conception
of history of human civilization can be explained simply through the conflict of interests among
the various social groups and by the change and development in the means and instruments of production....
And above all Fascism denies that class-war can be the preponderant force in the transformation
of society....
I think romnraven's definition and Mussolini's work very well together. Nothing odd about
romnraven's characterization of "fascism" at all. YOUR specifically quoted portion of the Mussolinian
dictionary definition (a piece of propaganda in its own right) is more about Totalitarianism than
fascism.
There are those who confuse "socialism" with "fascism". The link you provided shows how clearly
such a conflation is nonsense.
I think the major difference between the US and the European experience is the timing between
the existence of a monarchy/aristocracy and the implementation of totalitarian rule.
The US has always been mostly democratic, even when the country was 13 colonies being ruled
by a distant power. The likelihood that people would "accept their fates" in the face of an autocrat
is much less likely here, whereas Germany still had experience with a monarch in the 20th century.
Fascism is defined as a merger of state and corporate power so, really, the US has been a quasifascist
state since Nixon embraced neoliberalism in the 70s. The difference is the existence of a police
state.
It is clear Hitler and Mussolini led fascist police states in the 20th century. As for whether
or not the US is also a police state depends on who you ask. The US leads the world in incarcerations
and a significant percentage of black and Latino males are incarcerated.
You make very good points. Still, I would suggest that the so-called War on Terror has considerably
softened the American people's resolve against being treated as "serfs with cellphones." I don't
believe Trump would succeed if he were, today, just to shut down Congress and ascribe by fiat
all political power to himself. That, the people and the legislative branch wouldn't allow. But
if there is a full-scale war or a major terrorist incident, I'm not at all certain that whatever
drastically antidemocratic steps Trump might care to take wouldn't be sent right on through the
legislative pipe, effectively ending the republic and replacing it with the reign of a corrupt
plutocrat and his family, along with assorted flunkies in government and industry. That sounds
an awful lot like fascist dictatorship, doesn't it? It could happen. It probably won't, but it
could.
I think you Americans don't grasp the concept of fascism. Trump is a wanna be authoritarian
leader and has some very backwards ideas, like Mussolini might have been, but you should not confuse
ideology with the form of government. Back in the '20s, Italy was a parliamentary monarchy. It
had a so called flexible constitution, meaning that it could be easily changed to give the government
extraordinary powers to the detriment of the parliament, and this is exactly what Mussolini did.
He eliminated the opposition parties both by changing the law and by force (he had the leader
of the communist party Giacomo Matteotti killed), while the king stood there doing nothing. The
rest is in the article. Trump does not have the power to do that, at least not alone. But if the
entire Republican party allows him to get more power, shut out the congress and eliminate "unfriendly"
judges, then the danger will be a lot more real.
"... To begin with, the Libertarians are not a united front. It's not a consolidated party or philosophy. It's based on the non-aggression principle, but after that, opinions vary widely. ..."
"... The corporation itself is based on an anti-free market principle--limited liability--so the whole legal definition of a corporation is called into question by some forms of Libertarianism. ..."
"... One of the main arguments of Libertarians is there wouldn't be anywhere near as many impoverished people. In theory, a free market and free enterprise undermines monopoly and the power to oppress and distributes wealth more even. It's corruption through government force that enables corporations to monopolize and move wealth to the top. ..."
"... Bush destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan. Two countries. ..."
"... Obama destroyed Libya, Syria, Yemen and Ukraine. Four countries. ..."
"... The US's military industrial complex works around any president, sadly, When President Barack Obama was announced as the recipient of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize I was shocked. ..."
"... The Democrats have shifted to the right as well. Today's mainstream Democrats are pretty much what used to be called 'moderate Republicans ..."
"... When the illiberal policies began to be instituted -- deregulation and so on -- then you start getting a series of financial crises and every time the public bails them out. ..."
Excellent interview. Personally I've been listening to so-called alternative media for a very
long time now, more or less since about I finished school (I was reading books by Erich Fromm,
Hans A. Pestalozzi and others at that time) and I read occasionally alternative newspapers and
magazines.
But this has rather dramatically changed now. In fact I more or less completely abandoned the
so-called mainstream media, because at least in my opinion a big part of the mass media here in
Germany has begun to turn into agencies for very radical and destructive policies designed in
part by Brussels and in part by the German government. It doesn't matter which political issue
you look at: The so-called refugee crisis, economical topics, the rise of right wing extremism
in Germany and so on: A big part of the mainstream media systematically shifts attention away
from the really interesting issues.
Take for example the stream of refugees coming to Germany and other European countries. It
could have been a starting point for the German media to discuss what the real reasons for this
so-called crisis are: For example the German, British, French and other weapons exports and what
they are used for. Or the ecomical policies of the European Union, which severely damages the
economies of countries like Senegal or Burkina Faso. But this just doesn't happen. When you turn
on the publicly financed radio stations you hear them discussing technical terms of Germans policies
shutting down the European borders to stop the flow of refugees, but almost no word about what
this means for the desperate people who end up there. It's a very shocking experience to basically
see that even publicly financed media (which we are supposed to be proud of) stay diligently within
the limits of discussion, which according to Noam's and Edward Herman's work you would expect
for commercial media.
Of course you can find journalism here which does not follow these restrictions, but in case
of the publicly financed radio and news programmes you mostly have to wait until late in the evening
(when most of the working population doesn't watch TV or listen to radio anymore) or turn to newspapers
which are sold at only very few places. The media is in a terrible condition here nowadays, at
least in my opinion.
coldflame 1 day ago
philosophers theory says that human cultures demonstrate severe & increasingly polarizing
cycles where the rich get richer & the poor get poorer until the poor are so extremely desperate
that a revolution is inevitable....Then there is a massive redistribution of wealth & things
even out for awhile & then the cycle begins again.
It seems to me that this theory is massively sped up by technology & industry & finance
abuses.
My guess about it is that the power-wacko-wealthy will abuse science & technology to destroy
many billions of people, leaving various levels of slaves to serve them & theirs. Ultimately
it won't work for them but the ego of humanity is so short-sighted & narcissistic that it's
very hard to imagine otherwise. God I hope I'm wrong. We do have a chance at solving major
problems of energy, extinction, food, education, so let's hope for the best.
Siddharth Sharma 3 days ago
Chomsky hits the nail on Bernie's campaign. The energy behind the campaign is great, but it's
very likely to die after the election. Which Bernie also understands as his major hurdle. He has
stated many times, about creating a political revolution, and said that Obama's biggest mistake
was, that he let the mass movement that elected him die.
Bernie wants people to be actively involved in politics, and take rational decisions. When
asked how he intends to tackle Republicans while pushing for his progressive reforms, he replied(on
the lines of), if his campaign was successful there won't be many Republicans to deal with. While
I hope that to happen, it's rather optimistic of Bernie to think so.
Many people are completely missing the point of his campaign, rather worshiping him as an idol,
without understanding the ideals that he stands for. Sanders supporters need to be more mature
and serious, as electing him President will not be a panacea; much will remain to be done.
Callme Ishmael 5 hours ago
Chomsky is always off the mark on American Libertarianism. To begin with, the Libertarians
are not a united front. It's not a consolidated party or philosophy. It's based on the non-aggression
principle, but after that, opinions vary widely. His argument about environmental destruction
are countered by arguments by Libertarians about private property and prosecution of fraud and
the behavior of informed consumers in a free market. The corporation itself is based on an
anti-free market principle--limited liability--so the whole legal definition of a corporation
is called into question by some forms of Libertarianism.
The master-servant relationship is not advocated by most Libertarians. That's absurd. And why
does he think there wouldn't be any private bus systems? And no empathy or private forms of welfare?
One of the main arguments of Libertarians is there wouldn't be anywhere near as many impoverished
people. In theory, a free market and free enterprise undermines monopoly and the power to oppress
and distributes wealth more even. It's corruption through government force that enables corporations
to monopolize and move wealth to the top.
Rodrigo Rodrigues 3 days ago
Bush destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan. Two countries.
Obama destroyed Libya, Syria, Yemen and Ukraine. Four countries.
The US's military industrial complex works around any president, sadly, When President
Barack Obama was announced as the recipient of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize I was shocked.
He admitted he didn't deserve the prize at the presentation. He went on to praise militarism,
and gave tepid support for preventive wars, a war crime. I would like to know Chomsky's opinion
on Donald Trump being a candidate .
EnnoiaBlog 2 days ago (edited)
"The Democrats have shifted to the right as well. Today's mainstream Democrats are pretty
much what used to be called 'moderate Republicans.' -- Noam Chomsky, in interview with Abby
Martin, Oct. 24ish 2015.
MY HERO!!!!!!!
Chris Neglia 1 day ago (edited)
10:00 -- "If a major financial institution gets in trouble, the government will bail it out,
which happens repeatedly--only during the illiberal periods [not free / rights lacking] incidentally.
There were no major failures during the 50s and 60s. When the illiberal policies began to
be instituted -- deregulation and so on -- then you start getting a series of financial crises
and every time the public bails them out.
>>> Well that has consequeces. For one thing that means the credit agencies understand these
corporations are high value beyond the level of what they actually do because they're gonna be
bailed out. So they get good credit ratings, means they can get cheap credit, means they can get
cheap loans from the government, they can undertake risky transactions which are profitable because
if something goes wrong the tax payer will take care of it.
>>>> Net result is: that amounts to practically all their profits. Is that Capitalism?"
A more comprehensive attempt at an answer to the question, why is populism on the
rise?, is suggested in the concluding chapter of the volume in an interview with Jurgen Habermas.
Habermas calls out several factors in the past twenty-five years that have led to a rising appeal
of right-wing populism among large segments of the populations of democratic countries in Europe
and the United States. First among these factors is the steep and continuing increase in
inequalities that neoliberal economies brought about since 1989. He believes that this trend
could only be offset by an active state policy of social welfare -- the policies of social
democracy -- and that advanced capitalist democracies have retreated from such policies.
Second, he highlights the deliberate politics and rhetoric of the right in both Europe and the
United States in pursuing a politics of division and resentment. People suffer; and politicians
aim their resentment at vulnerable others.
Third, Habermas emphasizes the fact that neoliberal globalization has not delivered on the
promises made on its behalf in the 1970s, that globalization will improve everyone's standard of
living. In fact, he argues that globalization has led to stagnation of living standards in many
countries and has led to an overall decline of the importance of the western capitalist economies
within the global system overall. This trend in turn has given new energy to the nationalistic
forces underlying right-wing populism.
So what advice does Habermas offer to the progressive parties in western democracies? He argues
that the progressive left needs to confront the root of the problem -- the increasing
inequalities that exist both nationally and internationally. Moreover, he argues that this will
require substantial international cooperation:
The question is why left-wing parties do not go on the offensive against social inequality by
embarking upon a co-ordinated and cross-border taming of unregulated markets. As a sensible
alternative – as much to the status quo of feral financial capitalism as to the agenda for a
völkisch
or left-nationalist retreat into the supposed sovereignty of long-since
hollowed-out nation states – I would suggest there is only a supranational form of
co-operation that pursues the goal of shaping a socially acceptable political reconfiguration
of economic globalisation. (Kindle Locations 566-569)
In Habermas's judgment, the fundamental impetus to right-wing populism was the cooptation of
"social-democrat" parties like the Democratic Party in the United States and the Labour Party in
Britain by the siren song of neoliberalism:
Since Clinton, Blair and Schröder social democrats have swung over to the prevailing
neoliberal line in economic policies because that was or seemed to be promising in the
political sense: in the "battle for the middle ground" these political parties thought they
could win majorities only by adopting the neoliberal course of action. This meant taking on
board toleration of long-standing and growing social inequalities. Meantime, this price – the
economic and socio-cultural "hanging out to dry" of ever-greater parts of the populace – has
clearly risen so high that the reaction to it has gone over to the right. (Kindle Locations
573-578)
So what is the path to broad support for the progressive left? It is to be
progressive
-- to confront the root cause of the economic stagnation of the working class people whose lives
are increasingly precarious and whose standard of living has not advanced materially in
twenty-five years.
But this requires being willing to open up a completely different front in domestic politics
and doing so by making the above-mentioned problem the key point at issue: How do we regain
the political initiative vis-ŕ-vis the destructive forces of unbridled capitalist
globalisation? Instead, the political scene is predominantly grey on grey, where, for example,
the left-wing pro-globalisation agenda of giving a political shape to a global society growing
together economically and digitally can no longer be distinguished from the neoliberal agenda
of political abdication to the blackmailing power of the banks and of the unregulated markets.
(Kindle Locations 590-595)
Princess Ivanka is just part of a cosmopolitan global aristocracy. She can change her mind
anytime she likes and what are you going to do about it? Zip. Same with the Lady Chelsea.
The Trump administration would double the
standard deduction, essentially eliminating
taxes on the first $24,000 of a couple's
earnings. It also called for the elimination of
most itemized tax deductions [drop dead, NY, CA
and IL] but would leave in place the popular
deductions for mortgage interest and charitable
contributions. The estate tax and the
alternative minimum tax, which Mr. Trump has
railed against for years [because, as David Cay
Johnston showed using DJT's 2005 return, it does
what it's supposed to do], would be repealed
under his plan.
The plan would include a special one-time tax
[just kidding – GWB did the same thing, with
predictable results that did not include a jobs
boom] to entice companies to repatriate cash
that they are parking overseas.
Mr. Trump also signaled support for changes
to the tax code that would help families with
child-care costs. His plan also would end the
3.8 percent tax on investment income [ka-ching!]
that was imposed by the Affordable Care Act.
Beyond cutting the tax rate to 15 percent for
large corporations, which now pay a rate of 35
percent, Mr. Trump also wants that rate for a
broad range of firms known as pass-through
entities - including hedge funds, real estate
concerns like Mr. Trump's and large partnerships
[i.e., working stiffs] - that currently pay
taxes at individual rates, which top off at 39.6
percent.
Acknowledging concerns that such a move could
potentially be used as a tax shelter, Mr.
Mnuchin insisted on Wednesday that the
administration's plan would not be used as a
loophole to allow people to pay less tax than
they should be paying. [And you can take Mr.
Mnuchin's word to the bank. Just ask the
customers
victims of OneWest.]
The concern would be that lawyers, doctors,
consultants or other wealthy people in
partnerships could structure much of their
personal income as business income, effectively
reducing their tax rate from 39.6 percent to 15
percent. [As could anybody else – just ask your
employer to fire you and hire you back as a
Chapter S corporation.]
The concern would be that lawyers,
doctors, consultants or other wealthy people
in partnerships could structure much of
their personal income as business income,
effectively reducing their tax rate from
39.6 percent to 15 percent.
I'm confused. I thought that S corporations
did not pay income taxes (they do pay FICA taxes
for employees, etc.), because they pass through
all profits to the individuals, trusts, or
charities that own the corporation. The
individuals then pay regular income tax at the
individual tax rate, not the corporate rate.
Have I misunderstood how this works?
"double the
standard deduction,
essentially
eliminating taxes on
the first $24,000 of
a couple's
earnings."
Now, if the first
$24,000 of earnings
were exempted from
FICA, with those
"earning" over
$200,000 paying
double FICA on
everything over
$24,000 just to keep
Social Security
well-funded and
healthy, you might
actually be talking
about a stimulus for
the economy. [I put
"earning" in quotes
because very, very
few people could
actually EARN more
than $200 grand in a
year.]
But I doubt
that's what Mnuchin
and company have in
mind.
You mean if Borders had become Barnes
& Noble? Well, B&N is struggling, too.
Just like Walmart, Amazon's business model ELIMINATES the competition.
In my view, every Amazon purchase is a rock thrown through the window of
a local retailer, large or small. Personally, if I ever throw rocks, they're
going to be aimed bigger and better targets than that.
B&N closed their Georgetown (DC)
store a couple of years ago, IIRC
right before the xmas season got
started. It was an oasis on a side
of town that would rather sell you a
$500 pair of pants dotted with
embroidered lobsters. The building
was a nicely reclaimed three-floor
warehouse space with coffee and
lounging areas, and it had become a
nice excuse to go into DC and hang
out.
I'm not sure this is entirely true. Just
as an example, a trade paperback I bought in
1998 for a cover price of $12.95 (Anne
Carson's
Eros the bittersweet
) now
has a cover price of $13.95, only a dollar
more. The BLS's CPI calculator says the book
should cost $19.54 in today's dollars.
That doesn't strike me as unaffordable.
It's possible that if I went out and bought
a copy of the book now, the printing might
be worse, or the paper of a lower quality,
but I cannot imagine it being much worse
than the copy I already own.
Obama was a bought president now he bought and paid president. Master
of "bait and switch" now got his silver coins.
Notable quotes:
"... Obama's real legacy also includes zero bankers jailed for fraud despite the rampant criminal behavior of Wall Street in the run-up to the 2008 economic devastation. As he told a group of Wall Street CEOs in 2009 , "My administration is the only thing between you and the pitchforks." He was right, and proved an effective shield. ..."
"... For all of those efforts, those that succeeded (passing ACA, protecting Wall Street CEOs) and those that failed (cuts to SS and Medicare, TPP, Keystone), he fully expected to be granted a "Bill Clinton future" - the big money, the big foundation, the international love and acclaim. ..."
"... Fresh from his vacation on privately-owned Necker Island with billionaire Richard Branson, Obama has just inked his first lucrative speaking deal. The fee: $400,000. The venue: Wall Street. ..."
"... When he was president he called them "fat cats," but now he's likely thanking them for a huge payday. ..."
"... Former President Barack Obama, less than 100 days out of office, has agreed to speak at a Wall Street conference run by Cantor Fitzgerald LP, senior people at the firm confirm to FOX Business. His speaking fee will be $400,000, which is nearly twice as much as Hillary Clinton, his secretary of state, and the 2016 Democratic Party candidate, charged private businesses for such events. ..."
"... And typical of Obama, the issue is words versus deeds . That "record of attacks" was entirely verbal. Obama's deeds were the opposite of attacks; they were entirely supportive. Which is entirely to be expected given the level of funding Wall Street poured into making and keeping him president in the first place: ..."
"... One-third of the Obama re-election campaign's record-breaking second-quarter fundraising came from sources associated with the financial sector, the Washington Post reports. ..."
"... Bottom line - Wall Street invested millions in Barack Obama's career in 2008 and 2012. That investment paid off over the eight years of his presidency to the tune of billions upon billions in profit and millions upon millions per year in executive compensation and bonuses. ..."
By
Gaius Publius
, a professional writer living on
the West Coast of the United States and frequent
contributor to DownWithTyranny, digby, Truthout, and
Naked Capitalism. Follow him on Twitter
@Gaius_Publius
,
Tumblr
and
Facebook
. GP article archive
here
. Originally published at
DownWithTyranny
My words fly up, my deeds remain below.
Words without deeds never to heaven go.
-Barack, Prince of Denmark,
Act III
,
Scene 3
This is a story I didn't want to produce, but
fully expected to. For years I've been writing about
Barack Obama and his legacy, the one he wants to
have and the one he actually has. In
2013
I listed the four economic items Obama
wanted to achieve to complete what he considered his
legacy list before his presidency ended:
Privatized "Medicare expansion" (the ACA).
Benefits cuts for SS and Medicare. Keystone
[pipeline built]. TPP [passed]. If Obama gets
these four, he's a happy man, and in his mind he
goes out in glory.
He succeeded on the first; tried and tried and
tried on the second; bailed on the third only when
forced to by popular opposition; and pulled out all
the stops, every last one of them, to pass the
fourth in the last months of his last year, even as
his chosen Democratic successor, Hillary Clinton,
under pressure in the primary, finally came out as
opposed. (Obama's chosen DNC chair, Tom Perez, was
never opposed, nor was anyone else close to his
administration, though Perez doesn't talk about that
much these days.)
If it weren't for Tea Party and Freedom Caucus
Republicans, he'd have been three for four - Social
Security "reform" and TPP would have passed. Obama
didn't lose for lack of trying.
Obama's real legacy also includes zero
bankers jailed for fraud despite the rampant
criminal behavior of Wall Street in the run-up to
the 2008 economic devastation. As he told a group of
Wall Street CEOs
in 2009
, "My administration is the only thing
between you and the pitchforks." He was right, and
proved an effective shield.
For all of those efforts, those that
succeeded (passing ACA, protecting Wall Street CEOs)
and those that failed (cuts to SS and Medicare, TPP,
Keystone), he fully expected to be granted a "Bill
Clinton future" - the big money, the big foundation,
the international love and acclaim.
You can read about
his fundraising for the foundation here
. It's
quite a story in its own right. You can hear the
international acclaim grow stronger by the day,
thanks to the serendipitous contrast with his
successor, Donald Trump. And now the money is
starting to flow.
"Bill Clinton Money"
Fresh from his vacation on privately-owned
Necker Island with billionaire Richard Branson,
Obama has just inked his first lucrative speaking
deal. The fee: $400,000. The venue: Wall Street.
Former President Obama has agreed to speak at
a Wall Street conference for $400,000, according
to a new report.
Obama will appear at Cantor Fitzgerald LP's
healthcare conference in September, Fox Business
Network first reported
Monday
.
Fox Business said it confirmed Obama's
appearance with senior members at Cantor, a
financial services firm.
Obama will serve as the keynote speaker for
one day at the company's event, sources there
told Fox Business.
The following is from the underlying Fox Business
report
by Charlie Gasparino and Brian Schwartz,
who broke the story. Note the criticism that looks
to us like praise (my emphasis):
When he was president he called them "fat
cats," but now he's likely thanking them for a
huge payday.
Former President Barack Obama, less than
100 days out of office, has agreed to speak at a
Wall Street conference run by Cantor Fitzgerald
LP, senior people at the firm confirm to FOX
Business. His speaking fee will be $400,000,
which is nearly twice as much as Hillary
Clinton, his secretary of state, and the 2016
Democratic Party candidate, charged private
businesses for such events.
[ ]
News of Obama's speaking deal with Cantor,
which had yet to be reported, comes as the
former president made on Monday his first public
comments since leaving office after an extended
vacation. In those comments to college students
at the University of Chicago, the president
spoke broadly about the need for public service
and studiously avoided any mention of the
current president, Republican Donald Trump, or
how he intends to make a living now that he's a
private citizen.
It's also likely to be a source of criticism
against the former president given Obama's
record of attacks against Wall Street bankers
for making huge salaries while average Americans
were suffering from the ravages of the 2008
financial crisis.
Obama, a progressive
Democrat, spoke frequently about Wall Street
greed
during his eight years as
president, and now he's accepting a speaking fee
from the industry he singled out as the main
culprit of the banking collapse.
I'll return to the Fox piece in a moment. First,
about the timing, compare Obama's first
post-presidential days to Bill Clinton's immediate
post-presidential trajectory
(my emphasis):
On
December 21, 2000
,
President Bill Clinton signed a bill called the
Commodities Futures Modernization Act. This law
ensured that derivatives could not be regulated,
setting the stage for the financial crisis.
Just two months later, on
February 5,
2001
, Clinton
received
$125,000 from Morgan Stanley, in
the form of a payment for a speech Clinton gave
for the company in New York City. A few weeks
later, Credit Suisse also hired Clinton for a
speech, at a $125,000 speaking fee, also in New
York. It turns out, Bill Clinton could make a
lot of money, for not very much work.
Notice that just like Clinton was fresh off his
late December win for Wall Street deregulation,
Obama is fresh off his highly focused effort to pass
TPP in the final days of his own presidency. Unlike
Clinton, who won, Obama ultimately failed, but
Obama's win would have been much more monumental
than Clinton's. Commodities futures deregulation
enriched just one industry, though it did help wreck
the whole economy. TPP was truly "NAFTA on
steroids," a multi-industry monopoly protection
scheme, and nearly everyone in America with real
money would have benefited, not just the bankers.
By the way, if you compare Obama's speaking fee
with Clinton's early fees, you may notice the price
has gone up. (Clinton's later fees grew in line with
those prices. His 2015 fee was
$500,000 per speech
.) A good example of asset
inflation - and that's not sarcasm. Everything the
rich are buying these days is rocketing up in price.
See "
Art
and real estate are the new gold, says Blackrock CEO
."
Word and Deeds
I quoted Gasparino and Schwartz's piece for a
reason. In it you can see the double benefit Obama
gets - Wall Street reward money, plus undeserved
credit for opposing Wall Street while in office.
Fox, in hitting him for hypocrisy - "given
Obama's record of attacks against Wall Street
bankers for making huge salaries while average
Americans were suffering from the ravages of the
2008 financial crisis" - actually praises him as an
kind of "anti-Wall Street warrior" during his
presidency, something (a) he certainly was not, but
(b) something he desperately wants to be thought to
have been.
After all, you can't retire as a "champion of the
people" if you don't at least appear to champion the
people. And you can't be internationally loved in
your "retirement" years if the world sees you as a
quid-pro-quo greed head. Managing how the world sees
him will be crucial to Obama's success going
forward.
And typical of Obama, the issue is
words versus deeds
. That "record of attacks" was
entirely verbal. Obama's deeds were the opposite of
attacks; they were entirely supportive. Which is
entirely to be expected given the level of funding
Wall Street poured into
making and keeping him president
in the first
place:
Wall Street Responsible For One-Third
Of Obama's Campaign Funds
One-third of the Obama re-election
campaign's record-breaking second-quarter
fundraising came from sources associated with
the financial sector,
the Washington Post
reports.
That percentage is up from the 20% of
donations that came from Wall Street donors in
2008, and contradicts reports that a growing
Wall Street animosity towards the Obama
administration may jeopardize his re-election
bid.
And please don't forget that Obama's real legacy,
the one involving actual deeds, includes what
David Dayen called
"the greatest disintegration
of black wealth in recent memory." Of that I
wrote this
:
Occasionally, when there's justice in the
world, one is not just branded by the manicured
and curated image one tries to project. One is
branded instead by what one actually does in the
sight of others.
Will Obama see more justice than the millions
whose homelessness he caused? I guess that part
of the story is still being written.
One can hope. It will be interesting to watch
this unfold.
You Get What You Pay For
Bottom line - Wall Street invested millions in
Barack Obama's career in 2008 and 2012. That
investment paid off over the eight years of his
presidency to the tune of billions upon billions in
profit and millions upon millions per year in
executive compensation and bonuses.
It would not be at all surprising if Wall Street
bankers were now saying "thank you" by giving him
money he can keep. In fact, it would be entirely
surprising if they weren't.
UPDATE:
I discussed this issue
and post on "The Attitude with Arnie Arnesen," WNHN-FM,
progressive radio on New Hampshire. You can
listen here
; start at 30:00 (or earlier to
listen to Garth Brooks sing "It Pays Big Money").
Madeleine
,
April 28, 2017 at 1:20 am
Honest question: what do banks get out of paying
a former president to lecture them?
Isn't it likely that Obama underregulated because
he agrees with the neoliberals, without the need for
quid pro quo/influence peddling? I'm sure he always
planned to cash in, but I read him as true believer
in markets anyway.
They are demonstrating to the next Obama that
good deeds go rewarded. Its the same reason why
so many ex politicians get insanely large book
deals for books nobody ever reads from media
companies. The point is not to give money to an
ex politician, its to remind the next generation
of politicians the rewards they can reap if they
are good boys and girls.
Exactly. They are telling the next President
so inclined to be of aid to them that there are
massive piles of cash waiting for them for
things like being "the only thing between [them]
and the pitchforks."
To make the conference attendees feel like
VIPs so they keep on believing in the importance
of networking with the .1%. Then, if they
believe in the game and in their special powers,
they will buy the financially engineered
products.
It's all about feeling as if you are part of
the winning group.
It would look very bad and send the wrong message
if those who have served you well didn't get
rewarded. Compared to the service they received it's
a real bargain.
He rented a house in DC that have rental market
price equivalent to his presidential pension.
Negotiations for the 60 million book remuneration
was probably already finished.
I always thought one of the goals of passing BS
healthcare reform was to use it as a bargaining chip
to get Democrats to accept Social Security and
Medicare cuts and privatization. It would have
worked but for that pesky Tea Party that couldn't
take yes for an answer from the Kenyan Muslim
atheist socialist. Despite his every effort to bend
over backward and kiss their asses
The French it seems are missing a trick by
relying on a candidate with all of the charisma of a
dead fish. I imagine it would not be too difficult
to find a popular game show host type who can sing a
little of the repertoire of a Gallic version of Al
Green, follow an autocue with a touch of pizazz &
generally charm all & sundry.
Judging from what I have read on my FB feed, the
man can do no wrong, especially it appears among the
female contingent, one of whom suggested it was
racist to criticise the cool cat for licking up the
presented cream. I have also noticed a similar
reaction from the females to one of the latest
additions to the Neoliberal crew, " Pretty Boy "
Trudeau.
Yes! and though the forgiveness is not
surprising, I am stunned by the furious reaction
at any attempt to criticize O for promptly
cashing in. It includes statements like, Oh
c'mon, you want the guy to work for free to be
morally pure?? Or, it's just like big name
artists who finally make it and then people
resent that they make good money. The litany of
excuses nearly always comes from people who find
Trump appallingly greedy, crude, vulgar,
corrupt, etc.
I probably should add that this is not
just a female phenomenon as from my
experience, many males have also been taken
in by the above tailor's dummies.
I am somehow reminded of the situation
that developed when that infamous smoothie,
Ted Bundy appeared in court.
You highlight something which I have been
thinking about recently and welcome suggestions
from the "Nakeds", if only so I can ask the
bookies for a quote at Newmarket next week-end.
After Obama, Trudeau and Macron, who are the
next pretty boys and girls the neo-liberals can
use to advance their interests? Are there any
empty suits with a USP out there? I was thinking
of Corporate Hooker, but we have just had Obama.
One of the twins from Texas or the pretty boys
from San Francisco? I can't think of any in the
UK apart from Chuka Umunna and Sadiq Khan.
Yes, but you do need the opposite for the
contrast & the hisses & boos from the
groundlings. For instance, that Neoliberal
hellhole Romania in a future election might
consist of a battle between some decorative
one time Eurovision song contest winner &
the equivalent of Vlad the Impaler.
I must admit though, that if Juliet
Binoche stood for the far right, the devil
would be whispering in my ear.
I saw one of Jeb's! kids give a speech
several years ago. Pretty boy, biracial,
smooth talker and a Bush. He's not that old
yet so if the clan can reinvigorate
themselves after the damage Trump did to the
Bush pedigree, watch out for that one.
I had forgotten about the little
brown one as George HW Bush called his
grandson George P Bush. One can get a
bet for George P Bush and Chelsea
Clinton to square up in 2024.
The difference between France and Canada is
that millions of French households are feeling
the negative impacts of neoliberalism and bad EU
policies while most Canadian households are
still clueless, basking in their home equity or
should I say home debt.
If you have a copy of Gordon Wood's "The
Radicalism of the American Revolution" pull it off
the shelf and reread Chapter 14: "Interests." He
adroitly describes the shift from
disinterest
to
self-interest
in that period.
I'd enjoin Obama to read that chapter, too, if I
could. He could learn something from non hip-hop
Hamilton.
Hamilton knew that many public officials were
using their connections to get rich, but he did
not want to be one of them. In 1795, at a time
when he was very much in need of money and out
of public office, his close friend Robert Troup
pleaded with him to get involved in business,
especially speculative land schemes. Everyone
else was doing it, said Troup. "Why should you
object to making a little money in a way that
cannot be reproachful? Is it not time for you to
think of putting yourself in a state of
independence?" Troup even joked to Hamilton that
such moneymaking schemes might be "instrumental
in making a man of fortune–I may say–a gentleman
of you.For such is the present insolence of the
World that hardly a man is treated like a
gentleman unless his fortune enables him to live
at his ease."
But Hamilton refused. "Saints," he said,
might get away with such profit-making, but he
knew that he would be denounced by his
Republican opponents as just another one of
those "speculators" and "peculators." He had to
refuse "because" as he sardonically put it,
"there must be some public fools who who
sacrifice private to public interest at the
certainty of ingratitude and obloquy–because my
vanity whispers I ought to be one of those fools
and ought to keep myself in a situation the best
calculated to render service." Hamilton clung as
long and as hard to the classical conception of
leadership as anyone in post-revolutionary
America. Unfortunately for the Federalists,
however, Hamilton's classical vision of
aristocratic leadership required more than just
himself and Washington, more than just a handful
of farsighted, cosmopolitan, and great-souled
gentlemen who remained virtuous and above the
concerns of crass moneymaking.
can anyone direct me to sources citing Obama
wanting to reform Medicare & SS?? This isn't
surprising, but I guess I was too busy trying to
make a living at the time.
"Bottom line - Wall Street invested millions in
Barack Obama's career in 2008 and 2012."
It started well before 2008. Even before Obama's
2004 speech at the Democratic convention he had
drawn the attention of the movers and shakers, and
after his speech Obama essentially entered into
their world, became friends with and an acolyte of
Pete Peterson and that whole circle.
Their investment paid off handsomely for Wall
Street and the Republican Party; America and the
Democratic Party are the worse for it.
"[Obama] just a few days ago went and met with
the editorial board of The Des Moines Register, the
leading newspaper out in that portion of Iowa, and
he had a discussion off the record, and emphasized
that because it was off the record he could be more
blunt, and said that his first course of business,
and one that he believed he could get done very
quickly should he be reelected, would be to strike a
grand bargain. And he described the grand bargain,
and there would be $2 in budget cuts for every
dollar in increased taxes.
So this grand bargain is: we will weight this
much more heavily towards killing social programs,
or at least cutting them back significantly and
raising taxes on the rich."
The Trump administration would double the
standard deduction, essentially eliminating
taxes on the first $24,000 of a couple's
earnings. It also called for the elimination of
most itemized tax deductions [drop dead, NY, CA
and IL] but would leave in place the popular
deductions for mortgage interest and charitable
contributions. The estate tax and the
alternative minimum tax, which Mr. Trump has
railed against for years [because, as David Cay
Johnston showed using DJT's 2005 return, it does
what it's supposed to do], would be repealed
under his plan.
The plan would include a special one-time tax
[just kidding – GWB did the same thing, with
predictable results that did not include a jobs
boom] to entice companies to repatriate cash
that they are parking overseas.
Mr. Trump also signaled support for changes
to the tax code that would help families with
child-care costs. His plan also would end the
3.8 percent tax on investment income [ka-ching!]
that was imposed by the Affordable Care Act.
Beyond cutting the tax rate to 15 percent for
large corporations, which now pay a rate of 35
percent, Mr. Trump also wants that rate for a
broad range of firms known as pass-through
entities - including hedge funds, real estate
concerns like Mr. Trump's and large partnerships
[i.e., working stiffs] - that currently pay
taxes at individual rates, which top off at 39.6
percent.
Acknowledging concerns that such a move could
potentially be used as a tax shelter, Mr.
Mnuchin insisted on Wednesday that the
administration's plan would not be used as a
loophole to allow people to pay less tax than
they should be paying. [And you can take Mr.
Mnuchin's word to the bank. Just ask the
customers
victims of OneWest.]
The concern would be that lawyers, doctors,
consultants or other wealthy people in
partnerships could structure much of their
personal income as business income, effectively
reducing their tax rate from 39.6 percent to 15
percent. [As could anybody else – just ask your
employer to fire you and hire you back as a
Chapter S corporation.]
The concern would be that lawyers,
doctors, consultants or other wealthy people
in partnerships could structure much of
their personal income as business income,
effectively reducing their tax rate from
39.6 percent to 15 percent.
I'm confused. I thought that S corporations
did not pay income taxes (they do pay FICA taxes
for employees, etc.), because they pass through
all profits to the individuals, trusts, or
charities that own the corporation. The
individuals then pay regular income tax at the
individual tax rate, not the corporate rate.
Have I misunderstood how this works?
"double the
standard deduction,
essentially
eliminating taxes on
the first $24,000 of
a couple's
earnings."
Now, if the first
$24,000 of earnings
were exempted from
FICA, with those
"earning" over
$200,000 paying
double FICA on
everything over
$24,000 just to keep
Social Security
well-funded and
healthy, you might
actually be talking
about a stimulus for
the economy. [I put
"earning" in quotes
because very, very
few people could
actually EARN more
than $200 grand in a
year.]
But I doubt
that's what Mnuchin
and company have in
mind.
"... By Mark Ames, founding editor of the Moscow satirical paper The eXile and co-host of the Radio War Nerd podcast with Gary Brecher (aka John Dolan). Subscribe here . Originally published at The Exiled ..."
"... Can hugely rich new capitalists weather a backlash from the angry masses? ..."
"... Great piece. Mark Ames and his former eXile comrades Yasha Levine and Matt Taibbi write some of the most honest and ideologically neutral critiques of the current political and economic clusterfuck. The Guardian, OTOH, is pure neoliberal establishment propaganda. ..."
"... 'Why do I get the feeling that this "playbook" is being resurrected to manage a "privatization" of the American "safety net?" ..."
Posted on
April 27, 2017 by
Yves
Smith Yves here. At the end, Ames explains why this sudden handwringing
about Russian inequality is newsworthy:
Without any of this context, it's as though Russia's extremes of inequality
that Credit Suisse just reported on suddenly appeared out of nowhere, as
a manifestation of Vladimir Putin's innate evil. As though nothing preceded
him-the 1990s had never happened, and our Establishment has always sincerely
cared about how Russians must suffer from inequality and corruption. Erasing
history like this has a funny way of making America look exceptionally good,
and Russia look exceptionally bad.
As anyone who knows a smidge about this sordid history could tell you, the
US's neoliberal reforms set the stage for a plutocratic land grab, with members
of the Harvard team advising the State Department feeding at the trough in a
big way. As we've written, the fact that Harvard paid $26.5 million in fines,
yet Larry Summer not merely failed to sanction the professor who headed the
team, his personal friend Andrei Shleifer, but actually protected him
was the proximate cause of the ouster of Summers as Harvard president .
The Guardian just published a piece on
Russia's inequality problem - first and worst in the world, according to
a new
Credit Suisse report . Funny to see Credit Suisse wringing its hands over
Russian inequality, given that bank's active complicity in designing and profiting
off the privatization of Russia in the early-mid 1990s. Shortly before Credit
Suisse arrived in Russia, it was the most equal country on the planet; a few
years after Credit Suisse arrived and pocketed up to hundreds of millions in
profits, Russia was the most unequal country on earth, and it's pretty much
been that way since.
Credit Suisse's new Russia branch was set up in 1992, and it was led by a
young twenty-something American banker named Boris Jordan, the grandson of wealthy
White Russian emigres. Jordan was key to the bank's success, thanks to his cozy
relationships with Russia's neoliberal "young reformers" in charge of privatizing
the former Communist country. In the first wave of voucher privatization-when
all Russians were issued vouchers which they could then either convert into
shares in a newly-privatized company, or sell off-Credit Suisse's Boris Jordan
gobbled up
17 million of Russia's privatization vouchers, over 10 percent of the total.
Inside connections were the key. While working for Credit Suisse, Jordan
advised the Yeltsin government on how to implement its Russia's disastrous voucher
privatization scheme. Jordan worked together with the two of the most powerful
US-backed Russian free-marketeers: Prime Minister Yegor Gaidar, architect of
the shock therapy program that led to the mass impoverishment of tens of millions
of Russians; and Anatoly Chubais, architect of Russia's privatization program,
which created Russia's new billionaire oligarch class. Gaidar's shock therapy
confiscated wealth from the masses; Chubais' privatization concentrated wealth
in a few hands. And Jordan's Credit Suisse advised, traded off, and profited
from this wealth transfer. This was the trio that played a central role in creating
the inequality that Credit Suisse is now wringing its hands over. (You can read
an
interview with Jordan about how he co-advised the voucher implementation
in 1992, which is stunning for a lot of reasons- he admits they sped up its
implementation of voucher privatization to make sure that Russia's parliament,
i.e. representative democracy, couldn't interfere with it. Democracy was not
something anyone involved in Russia's privatization in the 1990s gave a shit
about.)
The conflicts-of-interest here were so over-the-top, they were almost impossible
to wrap your head around: Credit Suisse banker Boris Jordan helped implement
the voucher privatization scheme with Russia's top political figures; and Credit
Suisse massively profited off this same privatization scheme. And it was all
done with the full backing and support of the US Treasury Department and the
IMF.
(Another major beneficiary of Russian privatization vouchers was a murky
hedge fund run by the billionaire Chandler brothers. They made a killing snapping
up vouchers cheap, converting them into stakes in key Russian industries, and
selling their stakes for huge profits. I
wrote about them a couple of years ago because one of the Chandler brothers
plowed some of his Russia loot into something called the
Legatum Institute -a Dubai-based neocon front group that's been bankrolling
the
"Russia disinformation panic!" for
several years now, issuing
report after
report after
report on the Kremlin disinformation scare by their protege
Peter Pomerantsev . You have to let these vulture-capitalist billionaires
wet their beaks a little, or they'll raise an army of human rights activists
to regime-change your ass.)
Shock therapy, first implemented in 1992 and not really ended until Russia's
devastating financial crash in 1998, was politically useful in that by confiscating
the Russian middle-class's and lower-class's savings, it created a massively
unequal society. And that alone drove Russia further from its Communist recent
past, which was the political goal that justified everything.
In 1994, this same young Credit Suisse banker, Boris Jordan,
told Forbes' Paul Khlebnikov about a scheme he was trying to sell to the
Yeltsin regime. It was called "loans-for-shares" and when it was finally adopted
at the end of 1995, it resulted in what many considered the single largest plunder
of public wealth in recorded history: The crown jewels of Russian industry-oil,
gas, natural resources, telecoms, state banks-given away to a tiny group of
connected bankers. It was this scheme, first devised by a Credit Suisse banker,
that created Russia's world-famous oligarchy.
The scheme went something like this: The Yeltsin regime announced in late
1995 auctions under which bankers would lend the government money in exchange
for "temporary" control over the revenue streams of Russia's largest and most
valuable companies. After a period, the government would "repay" the "loans"
and the banks would give the their large stakes back to the government.
In reality, every single "auction" was rigged by the winning bank, which
paid next to nothing for its control over an oil company/nickel company/etc.
Even the little money paid by this bank was often stolen from the state. That's
because Russia used a handful of private banks as authorized treasury institutions
to transfer government salaries and other funds around the country. This allowed
the same bankers who were authorized as state treasury banks to keep those funds
for themseles rather than distribute them to the teachers, doctors and scientists
as salaries-so they did what was in their rational self-interest and kept the
money, delaying salary payments for months or even years at a time, while they
used the funds for themselves to speculate, or to buy up assets in auctions
they rigged for themselves. It was pure libertarian paradise on earth-everything
von Hayek and von Mises dreamed of-in practice.
By the time the loans-for-shares was actually put into effect in late 1995,
Credit Suisse's Boris Jordan joined up with an anointed banker-oligarch, Vladimir
Potanin, to set up their own investment bank, Renaissance Capital. They raised
their first private equity fund, Sputnik Capital-with George Soros and Harvard
University as co-investors-and Sputnik Capital went on to take advantage of
the loans-for-shares investment opportunities, which had even more help from
the fact that Yeltsin made Potanin his Finance Minister in 1996.
This sudden mass wealth transfer from the many to the few had a devastating
effect on Russia's population. Inflation in the first two years of shock therapy
and voucher privatization ran at 1,354% in 1992, and 896% in 1993, while real
incomes plunged 42% in 1992 alone; real wages in 1995 were half of where they
were in 1990 (pensions in 1995 were only a quarter in real terms of where they
were in 1990). According to very conservative official Russian statistics, GDP
plunged 44% from 1992-1998 - others put the GDP crash even higher, 50% or more.
By comparison the Soviet GDP fell 24% during its war with Nazi Germany, and
the US's GDP fell 30% during the Great Depression. So what happened in the 1990s
was unprecedented for a major developed country-by the end of the decade and
all of the Washington/financial industry-backed reforms, Russia was a basket
case, a third-rate country with an even bleaker future. Capital investment had
collapsed 85% during that decade-everyone was stripping assets, not investing
in them. Domestic food production collapsed to half the levels during perestroika;
and by 1999, anywhere from a third to half of Russians relied on food grown
in their own gardens to eat. They'd reverted to subsistence farming after a
decade of free market medicine.
All of this had a catastrophic effect on Russians' health and lives. Male
Russian life expectancy dropped from 68 years during the late Soviet era, to
56 in the mid-1990s, about where it had been a century earlier under the Tsar.
Meanwhile, as births plunged and child poverty and malnutrition soared, Russia's
death-to-birth ratio reached levels not seen in the 20th century. According
to Amherst economist David Kotz, over 6 million Russians died prematurely during
the US-backed free-market reforms in the 1990s. What's odd is how little pity
or empathy has ever been shown for those Russians who were destroyed by the
reforms we backed, advised funded, bribed, coerced, and were accessory to in
every way. They weren't entirely America's fault; Yeltsin and his US-backed
"market bolsheviks" had their own cynical, ideological and political reasons
to restructure Russia's political economy in the most elitist, hierarchical
unequal manner possible. But if the US had acted differently, given how much
influence the Clinton Administration had with the Yeltsin regime, things could
certainly have turned out differently. The point is-they didn't. The inequality
was the surest sign of success. It only became something to wring our hands
about later, a soft-power weapon to smack them with, now that we have little
to zero influence over Russia.
It's interesting that our literature is filled with plenty of official empathy
for Weimar German victims of that country's hyperinflation, but nothing of the
sort for Russians of the 1990s, who were, it was argued, being ennobled and
lifted up by the linear thread of liberal history-they were heading towards
the bright market-based future, can't let a few knocks and scratches distract
us! Can't make an omelet without cracking a few eggs, as the West's Stalin apologists
used to say.
Here, for example, is a typical cheerleader story about the new Russian inequality,
published in
Businessweek in 1996-a fluff job on Boris Jordan's Russian backer, Vladimir
Potanin. Notice how the headline/subheader make clear that the hero of this
narrative is the Russian billionaire, and the villains are the "angry masses"
of poor envious Russians:
The Battle for Russia's Wealth
Can hugely rich new capitalists weather a backlash from the angry
masses?
Russia's answer to J.P. Morgan could not be less like the eccentric,
bulbous-nosed original. Vladimir O. Potanin is a shy, athletic man of
35. Holding court in his rosewood-paneled office on Moscow's Masha Poryvaeva
Street, the president of Oneximbank quietly gives instructions to two
strapping bodyguards at his door. Cool and controlled, Potanin is a
standout in a group of dynamic businessmen who have seized huge slices
of the economy.
Which reads a lot like this fluff job in the Los Angeles Times, published
around the same time, headlined
"Whiz-Kid Banker Named to Russian Cabinet" . Which reads a lot like
a Businessweek followup up with even more shameless hagiography, headlined
"The Most Powerful Man in Russia" . You can try reading that last one
if you want, but I recommend keeping a vomit bag close by-and a cyanide
pill for good measure.
So this is the sordid and depressing backstory to the Credit Suisse report
on Russian inequality-the story you definitely won't and don't read about
in Credit Suisse's own account. They're a bank; their reports, while perhaps
truthful, are far from The Truth-more like marketing pamphlets than serious
scholarship.
Credit Suisse made a killing in Russia in the early-mid 1990s,
dominating two-thirds of Russia's capital markets deals-while tens of
millions sank into desperate poverty. That too is inequality.
Jordan himself remained a
powerful celebrity-investor through the early Putin era. In 1997, Boris
Jordan was caught up in a major scandal surrounding the privatization of
the national telecoms concern, Svyazinvest-which was won by a consortium
that included Soros, Harvard, and a bank owned by Finance Minister Potanin
and his partner, Mikhail Prokhanov, who today owns the Brooklyn Nets. The
scandal was this: The government official in charge of auctioning off the
telecoms to Soros-Harvard-Potanin-Jordan consortium, Alfred Kokh, had been
given a shady $100,000 book advance by a shady Swiss company connected to
Potanin's bank. The book had not been written; the advance was unusually
high; and the Swiss "publisher" which had never published a book before
was itself incorporated and led by none other than Boris Jordan's cousin,
Tikhon Troyanos.
The revelations led to scandals, and Yeltsin was forced to fire his privatization
chief Alfred Kokh, along with a handful of other corrupt US-backed "young
reformers" caught getting paid on the eve of a rigged auction.
But what did it really matter? What really mattered to everyone who matters
was the political structure of Russia's economy. No longer egalitarian,
no longer a threat to the neoliberal order-it now had the world's most unequal
society, and that was a good thing, because the new elites would identify
their interests more with the interests of their Davos counterparts than
with the interests of the "backwards" Russian masses, whose fate was their
problem, not ours. This is when racist caricatures of the "backwards" Russian
masses help-you don't have to empathize with them, history is sending them
to the trash heap of history, not you. The world was safe for business,
and that was all the affirmation anyone needed to hear.
At the end of the Yeltsin era, I visited the sprawling suburban Moscow
"compound" owned by Potanin and his banking partner, Mikhail Prokhorov,
as well as Renaissance Capital-the bank first founded with Boris Jordan
in the mid-1990s. It was a huge gated compound with several buildings, a
mini-hotel, and a nightclub/concert hall. One of the first things I saw
entering the gaming hall building was two familiar-looking men in track
suits playing backgammon: Vladimir Potanin, billionaire oligarch; and Alfred
Kokh, the fired, disgraced head of Yeltsin's privatization committee.
The financial crisis of 1998 left Russia's in complete tatters, and Boris
Jordan was never the big shot that he had been before. His real value was
providing cover for the new boss Vladimir Putin as he re-centralized power
under Kremlin control. The first upstart oligarch that Putin took down was
Vladimir Gusinsky. He was briefly jailed and then exiled to Israel. His
once-respected opposition TV station, NTV, was "bought" by Gazprom, and
Gazprom, needing a western-friendly face for its hostile takeover,
hired Boris Jordan as the new general director of the network-and his
old partner-in-crime, Alfred Kokh, the disgraced ex-privatization chief,
as chairman of NTV's board. Almost immediately, 25 NTV journalists- half
the staff-
"resigned" . Jordan's job was to blunt western criticism of the Kremlin
as it destroyed the lone critical voice on Russian television, and two years
later, his job done, he moved on.
Without any of this context, it's as though Russia's extremes of inequality
that Credit Suisse just reported on suddenly appeared out of nowhere, as
a manifestation of Vladimir Putin's innate evil. As though nothing preceded
him-the 1990s had never happened, and our Establishment has always sincerely
cared about how Russians must suffer from inequality and corruption. Erasing
history like this has a funny way of making America look exceptionally good,
and Russia look exceptionally bad.
Great piece. Mark Ames and his former eXile comrades Yasha Levine and
Matt Taibbi write some of the most honest and ideologically neutral critiques
of the current political and economic clusterfuck. The Guardian, OTOH, is
pure neoliberal establishment propaganda. It really went downhill after
Katherine Viner replaced Allan Rusbridger as chief editor. If the Snowden
affair happened today they would probably be loudly calling for his arrest.
Why do I get the feeling that this "playbook" is being resurrected to
manage a "privatization" of the American "safety net?" When it happened
in Russia, the Russians ended up with Vladimir Vladimirovitch rising to
stem the tide of officially sanctioned criminality. One could say that Russia
has had precious little experience with "representational" governance, and
thus a return to some form of autocracy was understandable. America, on
the other hand, has, supposedly, a storied history of representative governance.
So far, that "story" isn't showing signs of turning out so well for the
"angry masses" of the Homeland. What, then, will America "put up with" to
see the mere appearance of social justice? This is where the supposed "opposition"
party, the Democrats, have fallen down. They aren't even "talking" a good
game today. The longer these tensions continue, and increase, the greater
the damage from the eventual unwinding will be.
The job of the Dems is to herd the sheep in the right direction. They
do this by pretending to be lefties while keeping the true alternative,
socialism, in its box. One could argue the whole history of the 20th century
after WW1 was about keeping socialism in its box. Funny how the end of the
Evil Empire–at least notionally committed to socialism–has made the situation
in the West so much worse. It's almost a though those 20th century progressive
reforms were only intended to keep the commies at bay. Now the plutocrats
don't have to pretend any more.
Ambrit wrote: 'Why do I get the feeling that this "playbook" is being
resurrected to manage a "privatization" of the American "safety net?"
Because many of the same sociopaths who learned how to loot a collapsing
empire after the fall of the USSR took the lessons learned and applied them
over here.
Well this is to be expected isn't it. The same banks that go around the
world selling their brand of "market based reforms" then turn around and
wring their hands when the post-reform economy has been stratified in favour
of the 1%. It's almost as if registering their concern about the inequality
levels they had a hand in creating somehow assuages their guilt. In my own
country South Africa, one of the most unequal societies in the world, we
are drowning in a constant, ad nauseum barrage of media commentary about
how orthodox neoliberal thinking is the only thing that will save the country.
Such stories of how orthodoxy itself plunged a country like Russia into
economic anarchy are sadly lacking, in fact speaking ill of orthodoxy is
anathema and one suspects that journalists are either infected with terminal
gullibility vis a vis neoliberal thinking or are towing the line to stay
in their jobs
Thanks for this great article It looks like Popper's positivism did
wonders for George Soros. As he would say: "I made a killing". Sure nothing
a couple of his humanitarian NGO's can not fix!
I suppose we'll never forgive the Russians for how bad they let neoliberal
capitalism look.
I think that in some circles there's a deeply seated viral antagonism
toward Russia and Russians that goes far beyond, and is far more deeply
laid, than the liberal-v-not-liberal clash of civilizations du jour. Like
herpes, this particular disease bubbles to the surface under certain conditions,
such as a the Ukraine coup. Perhaps the virus first broke out around the
time of the Venetian
Sack of Constantinople ?
Ask a Russian. If you ask a Western liberal and you'll get nothing but
a blank stare. Of course Russia bad . That's all we need to known.
Full stop. My Western liberal conscience is clean.
The rank hypocrisy involved reminds one of Obama's
gratuitous Russia bashing . And who is more iconically Western, more
iconically liberal, than President Obama? Obama is nothing if not cool,
and Western liberalism is coolness itself.
I've wondered what a better alternative would have looked like – instead
of looting and refitting Russia to join a neoliberal capitalist world. Wasn't
it Jeffrey Sachs, now reformed, who said shock therapy would be the fastest
and least painful way to get Russia up and running? And Putin has been a
tightrope walker all along and seems to be very sensible. Almost too sensible.
He has his nationalist opponents on one side (the late, great Boris Nemtsov
was one) who say he is giving Russian wealth away to the West and his western-neoliberal
detractors one the other side who call him a nationalist tyrant. In between
he has the backing of the Russian people. Very agile.
The obvious alternative way would be the various routes followed by the
former Iron Curtain countries. Most had some form of shock therapy, if none
as extreme as that in Russia, probably because they don't have the easy
to grab mineral resources. None have done as well as hoped, but some have
been moderately successful by steering a middle course – The Czech Republic
and Poland have done reasonably well over the past 20 years. In general,
I would say that those which opted for slower and gentler market reform
did better than the 'get it over quick' ones. The one country that tried
not to change – Belarus – is still standing, if a bit of a basket case.
Keep in mind the EU played a much more constructive role back then. The
elites at the time really wanted integration and modernization to work,
especially in the Central European countries like those ones you listed.
Not directly related, but for wider context, very similar programs happened
in Mexico during the Salinas administration (1988-1994) around the same
time. NAFTA in 1994 was the 'reward' for the Mexican elites doing as they
were told.
Here's an old NYT article which aims for a tone of 'cheerleading with
reservations', but does give you a sense of the corruption involved during
the biddings, especially around TelMex and the resulting problems.
Of course, we know how the story ends in Mexico with the 1994-5 Tequila
Crisis, much like the story ended in Russia with the 1998 default which
crushed the LTCM hedgies.
I've wondered what a better alternative would have looked like – instead
of looting and refitting Russia to join a neoliberal capitalist world. Wasn't
it Jeffrey Sachs, now reformed, who said shock therapy would be the fastest
and least painful way to get Russia up and running? And Putin has been a
tightrope walker all along and seems to be very sensible. Almost too sensible.
He has his nationalist opponents on one side (the late, great Boris Nemtsov
was one) who say he is giving Russian wealth away to the West and his western-neoliberal
detractors one the other side who call him a nationalist tyrant. In between
he has the backing of the Russian people. Very agile.
My one minor quibble is the assertion that those in the West put the
blame of the downfall of the Russian masses on the masses themselves. Most
of those in the West are either ignorant, or in denial, of how bad it got
for the average Russian in the aftermath of the fall of the Soviet Union.
They were taught that the USSR was a hellhole where everyone lived in horrific
poverty except for the party leaders. So they saw the horrible conditions
under Yeltsin and company as a continuation of how things had always been.
Some even argue it got better, painting any report showing things were better
under the USSR as communist propaganda.
Pleasantly surprised to see this research article
on the need to combat rising income inequality and the
death of the American dream in the AAAS journal Science:
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/356/6336/398
I don't know why everyone is calling the Raise the
Wage Act "Bernie Sanders' Minimum Wage Act," since the
bill was introduced by Patty Murray. Further, the Act
doesn't have anyone receiving $15 until 2024. If you
live in Seattle and work for a large employer (over
500 employees), you will receive $15 per hour minimum
either in 2017 or 2018, depending on whether or not
the company provides health insurance as a benefit.
People are hurting
now
. They need $15 per hour
now
. Once again, the Dems are "fighting" but
not trying to win.
With four times as many Democratic co-sponsors as he had just two years
ago, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) on Wednesday morning re-introduced a bill
to raise the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour.
In 2015, Sanders introduced similar legislation with just five co-sponsors.
On Wednesday, he boasted 21, in addition to lead co-sponsor Sen. Patty Murray
(D-Wash.). They are:
Actually, Patty Murray introduced the bill
on April 30, 2015, which would have raised the
minimum wage gradually to $12 by 2020. There
were 32 original co-sponsors, all Dems. Bernie
introduced a similar bill on July 22, 2015,
with Ed Markey as the original co-sponsor, which
would have raised the minimum wage to
$15
dollars by 2020. Members of the Congressional
Progressive Caucus introduced a companion bill
in the House. The most recent bill is a re-introduction
of Murray's bill, with Sanders now supporting
$15 by 2024.
I know that many here continue to wish to believe that Sanders hasn't
sold out to the Dems, but the evidence becomes clearer that he is no longer
the fighter he was when he ran for President.
I hope you're wrong. But the wind did
go out of his sails when he lost NY, before
that he was still hoping.
I continue to see him as fighting for us,
but the dems keep kicking him
the only way to kick back is third party,
but a monumental effort for an older fellow.
Imagine MSM, Mic, dems, reps, insurance,
banks, the 1% and then the challenge to
register in even a majority of states
Easier to take over greens and convert to
functional, but no indication he's thinking
that.
Shattered depicts a calamity of a campaign. While on the surface, Hillary
Clinton's team were far more unified and capable than their counterparts
in 2008 had been, behind the scenes there was utter discord. The senior
staff engaged in constant backstabbing and intrigue, jockeying for access
to the candidate and selectively keeping information from one another. Clinton
herself never made it exactly clear who had responsibility for what, meaning
that staff were in a constant competition to take control. Worse, Clinton
was so sealed off from her own campaign that many senior team members had
only met her briefly, and interacted with her only when she held conference
calls to berate them for their failures. Allen and Parnes call the situation
"an unholy mess, fraught with tangled lines of authority, petty jealousies,
distorted priorities, and no sense of general purpose," in which "no one
was in charge."
If you want a good definition / description of the Deep State you just
have to watch the old Thatcher-era BBC comedy Yes, Minister – the whole
show is more or less entirely about friction between elected representatives
and the UK Deep State.
Short, short version: the Deep State is the set of people (government
officials, mostly) who wield some amount of power but whose positions are
not affected by election results. Nothing particularly secret about it.
As a former government employee, I'm trying to figure out who "the set
of people (government officials, mostly) who wield some amount of power
but whose positions are not affected by election results" are. I hear about
them all the time, particularly on right wing blogs, but I've never actually
seen one
The power in a government agency is held by political appointees ("politicos"
in guvspeak) and those political appointees are the only ones that speak
for or direct the agency. And they change every time there is a change in
the Presidency. Most agencies have more than one political appointee. My
last job was with a small agency (less than two hundred employees) that
had five. If a senior staff member is not immediately in line with the politicos'
policies, that person is removed (demoted, sidelined, or transferred to
another agency). Those governmental employees that stay year after year
(the "weebees") just do the work, they have no power, and they definitely
cannot make any decisions for the agency.
In some government agencies, the high ranking career employees seem to
be rather good at manipulating the political appointees. This does not apply
to all agencies; the primary examples are in the military, intelligence,
financial, and justice realms. Unsurprisingly, these are the agencies that
are the heaviest users of secrecy. There's also a lot of cross pollination
between portions of the private sector (completely unelected, of course),
and the murky deep state. Some of this involves the "revolving door", but
some is just shadowy cooperation, such as we see among the NSA and various
giants in telecommunications and Silicon Valley, or among Wall Street, the
Treasury Department, and the Federal Reserve. The public does not elect
those people.
I don't think there is much "manipulation" needed. After all the politicos
come from the lobby/contractor/donor class, whether they be Democrat or
Republican and they are already unwilling to change anything that they perceive
as giving them power and control ..
But I guess it is easier to believe in a "Deep State" than realize that
those shiny new politicians we just elected really do not want to change
anything
"The phrase "deep state" derives from the Turkish "derin devlet",
which emerged after the 1996 Susurluk incident so dramatically unmasked
the Turkish deep state. It has experienced a surge of use in 2017, though
often not in keeping with the meaning attributed by the diplomat who
coined the phrase.
As powerful and self-interest groups ( probably even more dominated
by psychopaths and sociopaths than other large hierarchies ), deep
states seek to frustrate radical and progressive change, so as to preserve
their own power, and that of the establishment in general. In contrast
to overtly authoritarian rule, deep states must operate more or less
secretly, like terrorist groups, so preserving secrecy is a high priority.
Control of the commercially-controlled media is essential to the effective
preservation of secrecy need for the deep state to work effectively.
In the US this is effected through deep state control of the CIA With
the apparatus of nation states under their control, their subterfuges
can be elaborate and complex. The deep states of the world have a natural
common interest in hiding their existence, which predisposes them to
mutual assistance. As a Turkish cartoon put it in 1997 "Deep state protects
its own."[5] "
I think the term "deep state" is closely connected with the notion of
"national security state" and by extension with the term "military industrial
complex". And the core of deep state are always intelligence agencies which
tend to escape the control of the governments and in turn attempt to control
the government that should control them. There are certain requirement for
such agencies that very few agencies outside intelligence agencies meet.
1. Institualized ability to collect dirt of politicians, or access to
such information collected by other agencies.
2. The veil of secrecy over the actions and funding. Access to some "non-controlled"
or "semi-controlled" funding for "special operations" and "actions"
3. Set of people trained for conducting covert operations, especially
false flag operations.
4. Experience with covert operations abroad that can be transferred to
the "home territory" in case of necessity. Peter Dale Scott refers in a
recent essay to "A Supranational Deep State", noting how their international
integration effectively allows intelligence agencies to evade even the limited
control national governments had on them in the first half of the 20th century.
5. Infiltrated, or at lease "influencable" on the level of "useful contacts"
with publishers and top journalists media. Deep state generally controls
corporate media as Church commission established long ago.
Any agency that meets whose three criteria is "by definition" belongs
to deep state. That means that outside Pentagon and three letter agencies
only State Department (which now performs a part of functions of CIA as
for color revolutions preparation) and Energy Department can qualify.
The Deep State is fundamentally the public-private centralized nodes
that collect, archive and curate dominant narratives and their supporting
evidence, and disseminate these narratives (and their implicit teleologies)
to the public via the media and to the state agencies via formal and
informal inter-departmental communication channels.
In other words, the people who, in the public mind, define and legitimize
(or delegitimize) the agenda and the members and objectives of the ideal
power structure you describe, which, contrary to almost any anecdotal observation
of office politics in general, seems to contain no dotted lines, no stovepipes,
perfect subordination, no split allegiances or conflicting interests, and
no other indirect pressures from within or without. Sounds more liberal
than progressive, tbh.
Years ago, while working in an Australian state public service department,
we considered 'Yes Minister' to be a documentary, and used it amongst ourselves
as training material.
The House of War:
The Pentagon and the Disastrous Rise of American
Power
,
Because he used to play in the Pentagon as a kid and demonstrated against
the War in Vietnam outside of of (DIA Director) dad's office window, there is
a lot of interesting chapter and verse to argue the point you both make.
"... By Mark Ames, founding editor of the Moscow satirical paper The eXile and co-host of the Radio War Nerd podcast with Gary Brecher (aka John Dolan). Subscribe here . Originally published at The Exiled ..."
"... Can hugely rich new capitalists weather a backlash from the angry masses? ..."
"... Great piece. Mark Ames and his former eXile comrades Yasha Levine and Matt Taibbi write some of the most honest and ideologically neutral critiques of the current political and economic clusterfuck. The Guardian, OTOH, is pure neoliberal establishment propaganda. ..."
"... 'Why do I get the feeling that this "playbook" is being resurrected to manage a "privatization" of the American "safety net?" ..."
Posted on
April 27, 2017 by
Yves
Smith Yves here. At the end, Ames explains why this sudden handwringing
about Russian inequality is newsworthy:
Without any of this context, it's as though Russia's extremes of inequality
that Credit Suisse just reported on suddenly appeared out of nowhere, as
a manifestation of Vladimir Putin's innate evil. As though nothing preceded
him-the 1990s had never happened, and our Establishment has always sincerely
cared about how Russians must suffer from inequality and corruption. Erasing
history like this has a funny way of making America look exceptionally good,
and Russia look exceptionally bad.
As anyone who knows a smidge about this sordid history could tell you, the
US's neoliberal reforms set the stage for a plutocratic land grab, with members
of the Harvard team advising the State Department feeding at the trough in a
big way. As we've written, the fact that Harvard paid $26.5 million in fines,
yet Larry Summer not merely failed to sanction the professor who headed the
team, his personal friend Andrei Shleifer, but actually protected him
was the proximate cause of the ouster of Summers as Harvard president .
The Guardian just published a piece on
Russia's inequality problem - first and worst in the world, according to
a new
Credit Suisse report . Funny to see Credit Suisse wringing its hands over
Russian inequality, given that bank's active complicity in designing and profiting
off the privatization of Russia in the early-mid 1990s. Shortly before Credit
Suisse arrived in Russia, it was the most equal country on the planet; a few
years after Credit Suisse arrived and pocketed up to hundreds of millions in
profits, Russia was the most unequal country on earth, and it's pretty much
been that way since.
Credit Suisse's new Russia branch was set up in 1992, and it was led by a
young twenty-something American banker named Boris Jordan, the grandson of wealthy
White Russian emigres. Jordan was key to the bank's success, thanks to his cozy
relationships with Russia's neoliberal "young reformers" in charge of privatizing
the former Communist country. In the first wave of voucher privatization-when
all Russians were issued vouchers which they could then either convert into
shares in a newly-privatized company, or sell off-Credit Suisse's Boris Jordan
gobbled up
17 million of Russia's privatization vouchers, over 10 percent of the total.
Inside connections were the key. While working for Credit Suisse, Jordan
advised the Yeltsin government on how to implement its Russia's disastrous voucher
privatization scheme. Jordan worked together with the two of the most powerful
US-backed Russian free-marketeers: Prime Minister Yegor Gaidar, architect of
the shock therapy program that led to the mass impoverishment of tens of millions
of Russians; and Anatoly Chubais, architect of Russia's privatization program,
which created Russia's new billionaire oligarch class. Gaidar's shock therapy
confiscated wealth from the masses; Chubais' privatization concentrated wealth
in a few hands. And Jordan's Credit Suisse advised, traded off, and profited
from this wealth transfer. This was the trio that played a central role in creating
the inequality that Credit Suisse is now wringing its hands over. (You can read
an
interview with Jordan about how he co-advised the voucher implementation
in 1992, which is stunning for a lot of reasons- he admits they sped up its
implementation of voucher privatization to make sure that Russia's parliament,
i.e. representative democracy, couldn't interfere with it. Democracy was not
something anyone involved in Russia's privatization in the 1990s gave a shit
about.)
The conflicts-of-interest here were so over-the-top, they were almost impossible
to wrap your head around: Credit Suisse banker Boris Jordan helped implement
the voucher privatization scheme with Russia's top political figures; and Credit
Suisse massively profited off this same privatization scheme. And it was all
done with the full backing and support of the US Treasury Department and the
IMF.
(Another major beneficiary of Russian privatization vouchers was a murky
hedge fund run by the billionaire Chandler brothers. They made a killing snapping
up vouchers cheap, converting them into stakes in key Russian industries, and
selling their stakes for huge profits. I
wrote about them a couple of years ago because one of the Chandler brothers
plowed some of his Russia loot into something called the
Legatum Institute -a Dubai-based neocon front group that's been bankrolling
the
"Russia disinformation panic!" for
several years now, issuing
report after
report after
report on the Kremlin disinformation scare by their protege
Peter Pomerantsev . You have to let these vulture-capitalist billionaires
wet their beaks a little, or they'll raise an army of human rights activists
to regime-change your ass.)
Shock therapy, first implemented in 1992 and not really ended until Russia's
devastating financial crash in 1998, was politically useful in that by confiscating
the Russian middle-class's and lower-class's savings, it created a massively
unequal society. And that alone drove Russia further from its Communist recent
past, which was the political goal that justified everything.
In 1994, this same young Credit Suisse banker, Boris Jordan,
told Forbes' Paul Khlebnikov about a scheme he was trying to sell to the
Yeltsin regime. It was called "loans-for-shares" and when it was finally adopted
at the end of 1995, it resulted in what many considered the single largest plunder
of public wealth in recorded history: The crown jewels of Russian industry-oil,
gas, natural resources, telecoms, state banks-given away to a tiny group of
connected bankers. It was this scheme, first devised by a Credit Suisse banker,
that created Russia's world-famous oligarchy.
The scheme went something like this: The Yeltsin regime announced in late
1995 auctions under which bankers would lend the government money in exchange
for "temporary" control over the revenue streams of Russia's largest and most
valuable companies. After a period, the government would "repay" the "loans"
and the banks would give the their large stakes back to the government.
In reality, every single "auction" was rigged by the winning bank, which
paid next to nothing for its control over an oil company/nickel company/etc.
Even the little money paid by this bank was often stolen from the state. That's
because Russia used a handful of private banks as authorized treasury institutions
to transfer government salaries and other funds around the country. This allowed
the same bankers who were authorized as state treasury banks to keep those funds
for themseles rather than distribute them to the teachers, doctors and scientists
as salaries-so they did what was in their rational self-interest and kept the
money, delaying salary payments for months or even years at a time, while they
used the funds for themselves to speculate, or to buy up assets in auctions
they rigged for themselves. It was pure libertarian paradise on earth-everything
von Hayek and von Mises dreamed of-in practice.
By the time the loans-for-shares was actually put into effect in late 1995,
Credit Suisse's Boris Jordan joined up with an anointed banker-oligarch, Vladimir
Potanin, to set up their own investment bank, Renaissance Capital. They raised
their first private equity fund, Sputnik Capital-with George Soros and Harvard
University as co-investors-and Sputnik Capital went on to take advantage of
the loans-for-shares investment opportunities, which had even more help from
the fact that Yeltsin made Potanin his Finance Minister in 1996.
This sudden mass wealth transfer from the many to the few had a devastating
effect on Russia's population. Inflation in the first two years of shock therapy
and voucher privatization ran at 1,354% in 1992, and 896% in 1993, while real
incomes plunged 42% in 1992 alone; real wages in 1995 were half of where they
were in 1990 (pensions in 1995 were only a quarter in real terms of where they
were in 1990). According to very conservative official Russian statistics, GDP
plunged 44% from 1992-1998 - others put the GDP crash even higher, 50% or more.
By comparison the Soviet GDP fell 24% during its war with Nazi Germany, and
the US's GDP fell 30% during the Great Depression. So what happened in the 1990s
was unprecedented for a major developed country-by the end of the decade and
all of the Washington/financial industry-backed reforms, Russia was a basket
case, a third-rate country with an even bleaker future. Capital investment had
collapsed 85% during that decade-everyone was stripping assets, not investing
in them. Domestic food production collapsed to half the levels during perestroika;
and by 1999, anywhere from a third to half of Russians relied on food grown
in their own gardens to eat. They'd reverted to subsistence farming after a
decade of free market medicine.
All of this had a catastrophic effect on Russians' health and lives. Male
Russian life expectancy dropped from 68 years during the late Soviet era, to
56 in the mid-1990s, about where it had been a century earlier under the Tsar.
Meanwhile, as births plunged and child poverty and malnutrition soared, Russia's
death-to-birth ratio reached levels not seen in the 20th century. According
to Amherst economist David Kotz, over 6 million Russians died prematurely during
the US-backed free-market reforms in the 1990s. What's odd is how little pity
or empathy has ever been shown for those Russians who were destroyed by the
reforms we backed, advised funded, bribed, coerced, and were accessory to in
every way. They weren't entirely America's fault; Yeltsin and his US-backed
"market bolsheviks" had their own cynical, ideological and political reasons
to restructure Russia's political economy in the most elitist, hierarchical
unequal manner possible. But if the US had acted differently, given how much
influence the Clinton Administration had with the Yeltsin regime, things could
certainly have turned out differently. The point is-they didn't. The inequality
was the surest sign of success. It only became something to wring our hands
about later, a soft-power weapon to smack them with, now that we have little
to zero influence over Russia.
It's interesting that our literature is filled with plenty of official empathy
for Weimar German victims of that country's hyperinflation, but nothing of the
sort for Russians of the 1990s, who were, it was argued, being ennobled and
lifted up by the linear thread of liberal history-they were heading towards
the bright market-based future, can't let a few knocks and scratches distract
us! Can't make an omelet without cracking a few eggs, as the West's Stalin apologists
used to say.
Here, for example, is a typical cheerleader story about the new Russian inequality,
published in
Businessweek in 1996-a fluff job on Boris Jordan's Russian backer, Vladimir
Potanin. Notice how the headline/subheader make clear that the hero of this
narrative is the Russian billionaire, and the villains are the "angry masses"
of poor envious Russians:
The Battle for Russia's Wealth
Can hugely rich new capitalists weather a backlash from the angry
masses?
Russia's answer to J.P. Morgan could not be less like the eccentric,
bulbous-nosed original. Vladimir O. Potanin is a shy, athletic man of
35. Holding court in his rosewood-paneled office on Moscow's Masha Poryvaeva
Street, the president of Oneximbank quietly gives instructions to two
strapping bodyguards at his door. Cool and controlled, Potanin is a
standout in a group of dynamic businessmen who have seized huge slices
of the economy.
Which reads a lot like this fluff job in the Los Angeles Times, published
around the same time, headlined
"Whiz-Kid Banker Named to Russian Cabinet" . Which reads a lot like
a Businessweek followup up with even more shameless hagiography, headlined
"The Most Powerful Man in Russia" . You can try reading that last one
if you want, but I recommend keeping a vomit bag close by-and a cyanide
pill for good measure.
So this is the sordid and depressing backstory to the Credit Suisse report
on Russian inequality-the story you definitely won't and don't read about
in Credit Suisse's own account. They're a bank; their reports, while perhaps
truthful, are far from The Truth-more like marketing pamphlets than serious
scholarship.
Credit Suisse made a killing in Russia in the early-mid 1990s,
dominating two-thirds of Russia's capital markets deals-while tens of
millions sank into desperate poverty. That too is inequality.
Jordan himself remained a
powerful celebrity-investor through the early Putin era. In 1997, Boris
Jordan was caught up in a major scandal surrounding the privatization of
the national telecoms concern, Svyazinvest-which was won by a consortium
that included Soros, Harvard, and a bank owned by Finance Minister Potanin
and his partner, Mikhail Prokhanov, who today owns the Brooklyn Nets. The
scandal was this: The government official in charge of auctioning off the
telecoms to Soros-Harvard-Potanin-Jordan consortium, Alfred Kokh, had been
given a shady $100,000 book advance by a shady Swiss company connected to
Potanin's bank. The book had not been written; the advance was unusually
high; and the Swiss "publisher" which had never published a book before
was itself incorporated and led by none other than Boris Jordan's cousin,
Tikhon Troyanos.
The revelations led to scandals, and Yeltsin was forced to fire his privatization
chief Alfred Kokh, along with a handful of other corrupt US-backed "young
reformers" caught getting paid on the eve of a rigged auction.
But what did it really matter? What really mattered to everyone who matters
was the political structure of Russia's economy. No longer egalitarian,
no longer a threat to the neoliberal order-it now had the world's most unequal
society, and that was a good thing, because the new elites would identify
their interests more with the interests of their Davos counterparts than
with the interests of the "backwards" Russian masses, whose fate was their
problem, not ours. This is when racist caricatures of the "backwards" Russian
masses help-you don't have to empathize with them, history is sending them
to the trash heap of history, not you. The world was safe for business,
and that was all the affirmation anyone needed to hear.
At the end of the Yeltsin era, I visited the sprawling suburban Moscow
"compound" owned by Potanin and his banking partner, Mikhail Prokhorov,
as well as Renaissance Capital-the bank first founded with Boris Jordan
in the mid-1990s. It was a huge gated compound with several buildings, a
mini-hotel, and a nightclub/concert hall. One of the first things I saw
entering the gaming hall building was two familiar-looking men in track
suits playing backgammon: Vladimir Potanin, billionaire oligarch; and Alfred
Kokh, the fired, disgraced head of Yeltsin's privatization committee.
The financial crisis of 1998 left Russia's in complete tatters, and Boris
Jordan was never the big shot that he had been before. His real value was
providing cover for the new boss Vladimir Putin as he re-centralized power
under Kremlin control. The first upstart oligarch that Putin took down was
Vladimir Gusinsky. He was briefly jailed and then exiled to Israel. His
once-respected opposition TV station, NTV, was "bought" by Gazprom, and
Gazprom, needing a western-friendly face for its hostile takeover,
hired Boris Jordan as the new general director of the network-and his
old partner-in-crime, Alfred Kokh, the disgraced ex-privatization chief,
as chairman of NTV's board. Almost immediately, 25 NTV journalists- half
the staff-
"resigned" . Jordan's job was to blunt western criticism of the Kremlin
as it destroyed the lone critical voice on Russian television, and two years
later, his job done, he moved on.
Without any of this context, it's as though Russia's extremes of inequality
that Credit Suisse just reported on suddenly appeared out of nowhere, as
a manifestation of Vladimir Putin's innate evil. As though nothing preceded
him-the 1990s had never happened, and our Establishment has always sincerely
cared about how Russians must suffer from inequality and corruption. Erasing
history like this has a funny way of making America look exceptionally good,
and Russia look exceptionally bad.
Great piece. Mark Ames and his former eXile comrades Yasha Levine and
Matt Taibbi write some of the most honest and ideologically neutral critiques
of the current political and economic clusterfuck. The Guardian, OTOH, is
pure neoliberal establishment propaganda. It really went downhill after
Katherine Viner replaced Allan Rusbridger as chief editor. If the Snowden
affair happened today they would probably be loudly calling for his arrest.
Why do I get the feeling that this "playbook" is being resurrected to
manage a "privatization" of the American "safety net?" When it happened
in Russia, the Russians ended up with Vladimir Vladimirovitch rising to
stem the tide of officially sanctioned criminality. One could say that Russia
has had precious little experience with "representational" governance, and
thus a return to some form of autocracy was understandable. America, on
the other hand, has, supposedly, a storied history of representative governance.
So far, that "story" isn't showing signs of turning out so well for the
"angry masses" of the Homeland. What, then, will America "put up with" to
see the mere appearance of social justice? This is where the supposed "opposition"
party, the Democrats, have fallen down. They aren't even "talking" a good
game today. The longer these tensions continue, and increase, the greater
the damage from the eventual unwinding will be.
The job of the Dems is to herd the sheep in the right direction. They
do this by pretending to be lefties while keeping the true alternative,
socialism, in its box. One could argue the whole history of the 20th century
after WW1 was about keeping socialism in its box. Funny how the end of the
Evil Empire–at least notionally committed to socialism–has made the situation
in the West so much worse. It's almost a though those 20th century progressive
reforms were only intended to keep the commies at bay. Now the plutocrats
don't have to pretend any more.
Ambrit wrote: 'Why do I get the feeling that this "playbook" is being
resurrected to manage a "privatization" of the American "safety net?"
Because many of the same sociopaths who learned how to loot a collapsing
empire after the fall of the USSR took the lessons learned and applied them
over here.
Well this is to be expected isn't it. The same banks that go around the
world selling their brand of "market based reforms" then turn around and
wring their hands when the post-reform economy has been stratified in favour
of the 1%. It's almost as if registering their concern about the inequality
levels they had a hand in creating somehow assuages their guilt. In my own
country South Africa, one of the most unequal societies in the world, we
are drowning in a constant, ad nauseum barrage of media commentary about
how orthodox neoliberal thinking is the only thing that will save the country.
Such stories of how orthodoxy itself plunged a country like Russia into
economic anarchy are sadly lacking, in fact speaking ill of orthodoxy is
anathema and one suspects that journalists are either infected with terminal
gullibility vis a vis neoliberal thinking or are towing the line to stay
in their jobs
Thanks for this great article It looks like Popper's positivism did
wonders for George Soros. As he would say: "I made a killing". Sure nothing
a couple of his humanitarian NGO's can not fix!
I suppose we'll never forgive the Russians for how bad they let neoliberal
capitalism look.
I think that in some circles there's a deeply seated viral antagonism
toward Russia and Russians that goes far beyond, and is far more deeply
laid, than the liberal-v-not-liberal clash of civilizations du jour. Like
herpes, this particular disease bubbles to the surface under certain conditions,
such as a the Ukraine coup. Perhaps the virus first broke out around the
time of the Venetian
Sack of Constantinople ?
Ask a Russian. If you ask a Western liberal and you'll get nothing but
a blank stare. Of course Russia bad . That's all we need to known.
Full stop. My Western liberal conscience is clean.
The rank hypocrisy involved reminds one of Obama's
gratuitous Russia bashing . And who is more iconically Western, more
iconically liberal, than President Obama? Obama is nothing if not cool,
and Western liberalism is coolness itself.
I've wondered what a better alternative would have looked like – instead
of looting and refitting Russia to join a neoliberal capitalist world. Wasn't
it Jeffrey Sachs, now reformed, who said shock therapy would be the fastest
and least painful way to get Russia up and running? And Putin has been a
tightrope walker all along and seems to be very sensible. Almost too sensible.
He has his nationalist opponents on one side (the late, great Boris Nemtsov
was one) who say he is giving Russian wealth away to the West and his western-neoliberal
detractors one the other side who call him a nationalist tyrant. In between
he has the backing of the Russian people. Very agile.
The obvious alternative way would be the various routes followed by the
former Iron Curtain countries. Most had some form of shock therapy, if none
as extreme as that in Russia, probably because they don't have the easy
to grab mineral resources. None have done as well as hoped, but some have
been moderately successful by steering a middle course – The Czech Republic
and Poland have done reasonably well over the past 20 years. In general,
I would say that those which opted for slower and gentler market reform
did better than the 'get it over quick' ones. The one country that tried
not to change – Belarus – is still standing, if a bit of a basket case.
Keep in mind the EU played a much more constructive role back then. The
elites at the time really wanted integration and modernization to work,
especially in the Central European countries like those ones you listed.
Not directly related, but for wider context, very similar programs happened
in Mexico during the Salinas administration (1988-1994) around the same
time. NAFTA in 1994 was the 'reward' for the Mexican elites doing as they
were told.
Here's an old NYT article which aims for a tone of 'cheerleading with
reservations', but does give you a sense of the corruption involved during
the biddings, especially around TelMex and the resulting problems.
Of course, we know how the story ends in Mexico with the 1994-5 Tequila
Crisis, much like the story ended in Russia with the 1998 default which
crushed the LTCM hedgies.
I've wondered what a better alternative would have looked like – instead
of looting and refitting Russia to join a neoliberal capitalist world. Wasn't
it Jeffrey Sachs, now reformed, who said shock therapy would be the fastest
and least painful way to get Russia up and running? And Putin has been a
tightrope walker all along and seems to be very sensible. Almost too sensible.
He has his nationalist opponents on one side (the late, great Boris Nemtsov
was one) who say he is giving Russian wealth away to the West and his western-neoliberal
detractors one the other side who call him a nationalist tyrant. In between
he has the backing of the Russian people. Very agile.
My one minor quibble is the assertion that those in the West put the
blame of the downfall of the Russian masses on the masses themselves. Most
of those in the West are either ignorant, or in denial, of how bad it got
for the average Russian in the aftermath of the fall of the Soviet Union.
They were taught that the USSR was a hellhole where everyone lived in horrific
poverty except for the party leaders. So they saw the horrible conditions
under Yeltsin and company as a continuation of how things had always been.
Some even argue it got better, painting any report showing things were better
under the USSR as communist propaganda.
With such friends like Paul Wolfowitz Defense Secretary Mattis and National Security Advisor H.R.
McMaster belong to Hillary team. And Trump are strongly advised to perform sex change operation.
Notable quotes:
"... How to explain this sudden embrace of the neocon line on Syria and elsewhere? It might be telling that according to recent press reports the architect of the disastrous Iraq war, Paul Wolfowitz, is lending advice on the Middle East to Defense Secretary Mattis and National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster. They have all apparently been friends for years. More in today's Ron Paul Liberty Report: ..."
"... If you are interested, I wrote a very detailed blog post , in which I examine the evidence about the recent chemical attack and compare the situation with what happened after the chemical attack in Ghouta in August 2013 ..."
"... Wolfowitz? The same jackass who thought Iraq could be conquered by 10,000 troops in under one hour? One of the biggest reason why US foreign policy is so recalcitrant and feckless is that former F-ups are continually called upon to lend an opinion just because they have putative experience. ..."
"... If you do not think a concerted conspiracy is taking place, I suggest you visit the Atlantic Council website and others pushing almost identical stories -- And yes - they cover events in the Ukraine as well -- Conspiracy -- They just SUPPORT each other -- What's WRONG with that ? ..."
President Trump has yet to provide any credible evidence that the gas attack in Syria earlier
this month was carried out by Assad, and in the meantime very serious questions about the veracity
of White House claims are arising from very credible experts. Yet the Administration seems ever more
determined now that it has done a 180 degree turn and demanded regime change for Syria. Late last
week the White House announced sanctions on 271 Syrian scientists who Trump claims are working on
chemical weapons. The proof? None.
How to explain this sudden embrace of the neocon line on Syria and elsewhere? It might be
telling that according to recent press reports the architect of the disastrous Iraq war, Paul Wolfowitz,
is lending advice on the Middle East to Defense Secretary Mattis and National Security Advisor H.R.
McMaster. They have all apparently been friends for years. More in today's Ron Paul Liberty Report:
Virtually all those in USGov leadership roles are not interested in peace; MIC makes for favors
to dispense & $contributions for re-election. But wars can't be waged if few are willing to join
military & work for Dept of Defense (what a truth-twisted name!). Depopularize both military participation
& "support the troops" mania.
Take a day off from sanity and watch TV all day. The advertising for just about every commercial
product is being taken over by militarism. Toys, breakfast cereals, restaurants, cars, beer commercials,
good thing we don't have tobacco commercials anymore, or we'll have a campaign like Lucky Strike
GREEN is going to War! (the tobacco company changed the color on the packets because the red dye
had a lot of chromium in it and chromium was needed for aircraft parts) Rice Krispies cereal was
touted as "Shot from Guns!" (Let's get the kids involved!) That last one was courtesy of my Mom
and her sisters, they were kids at the time. The Recruiters are getting worse.
If you are interested, I wrote a very detailed
blog post , in which I examine the evidence about the recent chemical attack and compare the
situation with what happened after the chemical attack in Ghouta in August 2013.
I argue that, in the case of the attack in Ghouta, the media narrative had rapidly unravelled
and that, for that reason, we should be extremely prudent about the recent attack and not jump
to conclusions. Among other things, I discuss the ballistic analysis produced by Postol and Lloyd
at the time, which showed that both the much-touted NYT/HRW analysis and the US intelligence were
mistaken.
I also show that, despite the fact that a lot of evidence came out that undermined the official
narrative, the media never changed their stance and continued to talk as if there was no doubt
that Assad's regime was responsible for the attack.
It's more than 5,000 words long and I provide a source for every single factual claim I make.
The post has already been widely shared and some people have criticized it, so I will soon post
a follow-up where I reply to critics and say more about the evidence that bears on the attack
in Khan Sheikhoun.
Wolfowitz? The same jackass who thought Iraq could be conquered by 10,000 troops in under
one hour? One of the biggest reason why US foreign policy is so recalcitrant and feckless is that
former F-ups are continually called upon to lend an opinion just because they have putative experience.
The truth about the gas attack might take some time to wiggle to the surface, especially if
claims made by the administration turn out bankrupt. They will likely bury it as long as possible.
The media will likely be reticent to dig, having all thrown roses at Trump's feet for a little
"shock and awe". Never underestimate either the willful ignorance or the ignominious glorification
(by the media) of reckless bombing under the guise of humanitarian concerns. It seems they learned
not a damned thing from the debacle of Iraq. They have simply gone back to sleep since then.
Paul talks about "sensibility and a better policy". It seems he was yet another "believer"
who was duped by a man who tells lies faster than his lips can move. They had about 16 months
to watch Trump put truth in a dumpster fire, and yet they STILL believed that his election would
herald some utopian, isolationist, wet-dream fantasy-land where the MIC would fold up overnight
and bring all the boys back home. How's that working out for the "believers"? Trust a man with
no core at your own peril. The messiah complex (as a projection) really needs to die in this country...before
we do some REAL damage to ourselves.
Nice post. In defense of Paul, I never saw any statement of his that he was a supporter of
Trump. He did say he liked SOME of the things he was saying on the campaign trail (like bring
the troops home). Also, it didn't take him long to publicly criticize Trump. Contrast these critical/skeptical
statements to those of other public figures. I suspect Paul's attacks on Trump will accelerate
(they already have).
Also, Paul did cite "red flags" about Trump during the campaign. I saw him on one interview
criticize the proclivity of Trump to propose executive actions that seemed imperial in nature,
certainly outside of the confines of a president's Constitutional role.
Ron Paul's voice and views are more important than mine as they get heard and read by far more
people. Thank goodness he is still around to offer his contrarian views.
I'm sure Trump already doesn't like Ron Paul, and that Trump's antagonism for Paul will only
grow as events transpire.
For all those deluded conspiracy theorists out there -- The mainstream news almost without exception
supports accusations that Syria uses Sarin gas and that Assad kills his own citizens --
They all agree that the 'moderate' opposition, 'free speech' community service activists, with
only peaceful intentions, as they are deserve both our support and protection - but I am beginning
to wonder who it is doing the fighting ? Oh, sorry -- Assad -- Sorry for my foolish mistake !
If you do not think a concerted conspiracy is taking place, I suggest you visit the Atlantic
Council website and others pushing almost identical stories -- And yes - they cover events in the
Ukraine as well -- Conspiracy -- They just SUPPORT each other -- What's WRONG with that ? Just
pass the hymn-sheet around -- Please feel welcome to join in the singing --
Posted on
April 25, 2017
by
Yves Smith
Yves here. The article makes a comment in passing
that bears teasing out. The inflation that started
in the later 1960s was substantially if not entirely
the result of Lyndon Johnson refusing to raise taxes
because it would be perceived to be to pay for the
unpopular Vietnam War. Richard Nixon followed that
approach.
By Michael Bordo, Professor
of Economics, Rutgers University. Originally
published at
VoxEU
Scholars and policymakers interested in the
reform of the international financial system have
always looked back to the Bretton Woods system as an
example of a man-made system that brought both
exemplary and stable economic performance to the
world in the 1950s and 1960s. Yet Bretton Woods was
short-lived, undone by both flaws in its basic
structure and the unwillingness of key sovereign
members to follow its rules. Many commentators hark
back to the lessons of Bretton Woods as an example
to possibly restore greater order and stability to
the present international monetary system. In a
recent paper, I revisit these issues from over a
half century ago (Bordo 2017).
The Bretton Woods system was created by the 1944
Articles of Agreement at a global conference
organised by the US Treasury at the Mount Washington
Hotel in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, at the height
of WWII. It was established to design a new
international monetary order for the post war, and
to avoid the perceived problems of the interwar
period: protectionism, beggar-thy-neighbour
devaluations, hot money flows, and unstable exchange
rates. It also sought to provide a framework of
monetary and financial stability to foster global
economic growth and the growth of international
trade.
The system was a compromise between the fixed
exchange rates of the gold standard, seen as
conducive to rebuilding the network of global trade
and finance, and the greater flexibility to which
countries had resorted in the 1930s to restore and
maintain domestic economic and financial stability.
The Articles represented a compromise between the
American plan of Harry Dexter White and the British
plan of John Maynard Keynes. The compromise created
an adjustable peg system based on the US dollar
convertible into gold at $35 per ounce along with
capital controls. The compromise gave members both
exchange rate stability and the independence for
their monetary authorities to maintain full
employment. The IMF, based on the principle of a
credit union, whereby members could withdraw more
than their original gold quotas, was established to
provide relief for temporary current account
shortfalls.
It took close to 15 years to get the Bretton
Woods system fully operating. As it evolved into a
gold dollar standard, the three big problems of the
interwar gold exchange standard re-emerged:
adjustment, confidence, and liquidity problems.
The
adjustment
problem in Bretton Woods
reflected downward rigidity in wages and prices
which prevented the normal price adjustment of the
gold standard price specie flow mechanism to
operate. Consequently, payment deficits would be
associated with rising unemployment and recessions.
This was the problem faced by the UK, which
alternated between expansionary monetary and fiscal
policy, and then in the face of a currency crisis,
austerity – a policy referred to as 'stop-go'. For
countries in surplus, inflationary pressure would
ensure, which they would try to block by
sterilisation and capital controls.
A second aspect of the adjustment problem was
asymmetric adjustment between the US and the rest of
the world. In the pegged exchange rate system, the
US served as central reserve country and did not
have to adjust to its balance of payments deficit.
It was the
n-1th
currency in the system of
n
currencies (Mundell 1969). This asymmetry
of adjustment was resented by the Europeans.
The US monetary authorities began to worry about
the balance of payments deficit because of its
effect on
confidence
. As official dollar
liabilities held abroad mounted with successive
deficits, the likelihood increased that these
dollars would be converted into gold and that the US
monetary gold stock would eventually reach a point
low enough to trigger a run. Indeed by 1959, the US
monetary gold stock equalled total external dollar
liabilities, and the rest of the world's monetary
gold stock exceeded that of the US. By 1964,
official dollar liabilities held by foreign monetary
authorities exceeded that of the US monetary gold
stock (Figure 1).
Figure 1.
US gold stock and
external liabilities, 1951-1975
Source
: Banking and Monetary
Statistics 1941‐1970, Washington DC Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve System, September
1976, Table 14.1, 15.1.
A second source of concern was the dollar's role
in providing
liquidity
to the rest of the
world. Elimination of the US balance of payments
deficits (as the French and Germans were urging)
could create a global liquidity shortage. There was
much concern through the 1960s as to how to provide
this liquidity.
Robert Triffin (1960) captured the problems in
his famous dilemma. Because the Bretton Woods
parities, which were declared in the 1940s, had
undervalued the price of gold, gold production would
be insufficient to provide the resources to finance
the growth of global trade. The shortfall would be
met by capital outflows from the US, manifest in its
balance of payments deficit. Triffin posited that as
outstanding US dollar liabilities mounted, they
would increase the likelihood of a classic bank run
when the rest of the world's monetary authorities
would convert their dollar holdings into gold
(Garber 1993). According to Triffin when the tipping
point occurred, the US monetary authorities would
tighten monetary policy and this would lead to
global deflationary pressure. Triffin's solution was
to create a form of global liquidity like Keynes'
(1943) bancor to act as a substitute for US dollars
in international reserves.
Policies to Shore Up the System
The problems of the Bretton Woods system were
dealt with by the IMF, the G10 plus Switzerland, and
by US monetary authorities. The remedies that
followed often worked in the short run but not in
the long run. The main threat to the system as a
whole was the Triffin problem, which was exacerbated
after 1965 by expansionary US monetary and fiscal
policy which led to rising inflation.
After a spike in the London price of gold to
$40.50 in October 1960 – based on fears that John F
Kennedy, if elected, would pursue inflationary
policies – led the Treasury to develop policies to
discourage Europeans from conversing dollars into
gold. These included:
Moral suasion on Germany with the threat of
pulling out US troops;
The creation of the Gold Pool in 1961, in
which eight central banks pooled their gold
reserves in order to keep the London price of
gold close to the $35 per ounce parity price;
The issue of Roosa bonds (foreign currency
denominated bonds);
The General Arrangements to Borrow in 1961,
which was an IMF facility large enough to offer
substantial credit to the US;
Operation Twist in 1962, in which the US
Treasury bought long term debt to lower long
term interest rates and encourage investment,
while the Federal Reserve simultaneously sold
short-term Treasury bills to raise short-term
rates and attract capital inflows; and
The Interest Equalization Tax in 1963, which
imposed a tax on capital outflows.
The US Treasury, aided by the Federal Reserve,
also engaged in sterilised exchange market
intervention.
The main instrument used by the Fed to protect
the gold stock was the swap network. It was designed
to protect the US gold stock by temporarily
providing an alternative to foreign central bank
conversion of their dollar holdings into gold. In a
typical swap transaction, the Federal Reserve and a
foreign central bank would undertake simultaneous
and offsetting spot and forward exchange
transactions, typically at the same exchange rate
and equal interest rate. The Federal Reserve swap
line increased from $900 million to $11.2 billion
between March 1962 and the closing of the gold
window in August 1971 (see Figure 2 and Bordo et al.
2015)
Figure 2.
Federal Reserve swap
lines, 1962 –1973
Source
: Federal Reserve System.
The swaps and ancillary Treasury policies
protected the US gold reserves until the mid-1960s,
and were viewed at the time as a successful policy.
The Breakdown of Bretton Woods, 1968 to 1971
A key force that led to the breakdown of Bretton
Woods was the rise in inflation in the US that began
in 1965. Until that year, the Federal Reserve
Chairman, William McChesney Martin, had maintained
low inflation. The Fed also attached high importance
to the balance of payments deficit and the US
monetary gold stock in its deliberations (Bordo and
Eichengreen 2013). Beginning in 1965 the Martin Fed
shifted to an inflationary policy which continued
until the early 1980s, and in the 1970s became known
as the Great Inflation (see figure 3).
Figure 3
. Inflation rates
Source
: US Bureau of Labor
Statistics, IMF (various issues).
The shift in policy mirrored the accommodation of
fiscal deficits reflecting the increasing expense of
the Vietnam War and Lyndon Johnson's Great Society.
The Federal Reserve shifted its stance in the
mid-1960s away from monetary orthodoxy in response
to the growing influence of Keynesian economics in
the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, with its
emphasis on the primary objective of full employment
and the belief that the Fed could manage the
Phillips Curve trade-off between inflation and
unemployment (Meltzer 2010).
Increasing US monetary growth led to rising
inflation, which spread to the rest of the world
through growing US balance of payments deficits.
This led to growing balance of payments surpluses in
Germany and other countries. The German monetary
authorities (and other surplus countries) attempted
to sterilise the inflows but were eventually
unsuccessful, leading to growing inflationary
pressure (Darby et al. 1983).
After the devaluation of sterling in November
1967, pressure mounted against the dollar via the
London gold market. In the face of this pressure,
the Gold Pool was disbanded on 17 March 1968 and a
two-tier arrangement put in its place. In the
following three years, the US put considerable
pressure on other monetary authorities to refrain
from converting their dollars into gold.
The decision to suspend gold convertibility by
President Richard Nixon on 15 August 1971 was
triggered by French and British intentions to
convert dollars into gold in early August. The US
decision to suspend gold convertibility ended a key
aspect of the Bretton Woods system. The remaining
part of the System, the adjustable peg disappeared
by March 1973.
A key reason for Bretton Woods' collapse was the
inflationary monetary policy that was inappropriate
for the key currency country of the system. The
Bretton Woods system was based on rules, the most
important of which was to follow monetary and fiscal
policies consistent with the official peg. The US
violated this rule after 1965 (Bordo 1993).
Conclusion
The collapse of the Bretton Woods system between
1971 and 1973 led to the general adoption by
advanced countries of a managed floating exchange
rate system, which is still with us. Yet this
outcome (at least at the time) was not inevitable.
As was argued by Despres et al. (1966) in
contradistinction to Triffin, the ongoing US balance
of payments deficit was not really a problem. The
rest of the world voluntarily held dollar balances
because of their valuable service flow – the deficit
was demand-determined. In their view, the Bretton
Woods system could have continued indefinitely. This
of course was not the case, but although the par
value system ended in 1973 the dollar standard
without gold is still with us, as McKinnon (1969,
1988, 2014) has long argued.
The dollar standard was resented by the French in
the 1960s and referred to as conferring "the
exorbitant privilege" on the US, and the same
argument was made in 2010 by the Governor of the
Central Bank of China. However, the likelihood that
the dollar will be replaced as the dominant
international currency in the foreseeable future
remains remote. The dollar standard and the legacy
of the Bretton Woods system will be with us for a
long time.
'Because the Bretton Woods parities, which
were declared in the 1940s, had undervalued the
price of gold, gold production would be insufficient
to provide the resources to finance the growth of
global trade.'
Twenty years on from Britain's "lost decade" of
the 1920s - caused by repegging sterling to gold at
the pre-World War I parity - the same mistake was
repeated at Bretton Woods. (The US had made the
identical error in 1871, which required 25 years of
relentless deflation to sweat out Civil War
greenback inflation.)
Even as the Bretton Woods conference was underway
in 1944, it went unnoticed that the US Federal
Reserve had embarked on a vast buying spree of US
Treasuries. This was done to peg their yield at 2.5%
or below, in order to finance WW II at negative real
yields. By 1945, US Treasuries (shown in blue and
orange on this chart) loomed larger in the Fed's
balance sheet than gold (shown in chartreuse):
Obviously a fixed gold price is utterly
incompatible with a central bank expanding its
balance sheet with government debt, reducing its
gold holdings to the tiny residual that they
constitute today.
Bretton Woods might have worked by limiting
central banks' ability to monetize gov't securities.
Or it might have worked with the gold price allowed
to float with expanding central bank assets,
according to a formula.
What was lost with Bretton Woods was fixed
exchange rates, which are conducive to trade. Armies
of traders seeking to extract rents from
fluctuations between fiat currencies are a pure
deadweight loss to the global economy.
In North America, sharp depreciations of the
Mexican and Canadian currencies against the USD are
fanning US protectionism, in forms ranging from a
proposed border wall to countervailing duties on
Canadian lumber and dairy products. What a mess.
Irredeemable fiat currencies are a tribulation
visited on humanity. When the central bank blown
Bubble III explodes in our fool faces, this insight
will be more widely appreciated.
Fiat currency is a tribulation visited on
capitalist trade advocates and their financial
backers.
International trade, which is hobbled by fiat
currencies as you say, was a rounding error in
most peoples lives until the Thatcher/Reagan
neoliberal innovations.
Since then that rounding error has rounded
away most of the distributive properties of the
economic systems so distorted to facilitate
capital profits through long distance trade that
they are impoverishing enough people that Brits
vote Brexit, Yanks vote Trump and French vote Le
Pen.
Bretton Woods would have worked a lot better
if Keynes had won the argument in favor of
"bancor", but he was arguing from a position of
weakness and lost out.
And yes, when this blows, as it will, it will
all become more widely appreciated.
missing from the article is the decision to
raise the price of oil in order to put most of
the 3rd world into debt slavery. This
exasperated the inflation mentioned, caused by
US deficits. Because the US was still a
manufacturing leader and the Unions were strong
– we had the wage price stagflation of the
70's,. The elites solution – Nixon went to China
– not to open up a market of a billion people
but to make use of a disciplined labor force
that would work for cheap – breaking the power
of the unions with globalisation aided by
computers. The Republicans in the US and
Thatcher in England broke the unions in the
80s.Clinton went along in the 90s. Was that plan
a factor in the decision to leave the gold
standard?
This was most interesting for its lack of regret
for losing a dollar pegged to $35 oz. gold. It is
almost a rationale for letting inflation and deficit
spending occur because in the end the system using a
reserve currency works as good as anything. I do
think the expense of the Vietnam war and the obvious
policy that it was necessary to allow inflation
(from the 70s onward) was incomplete, looking at
everything today, because it was based on an
assumption that we humans could just aggressively
keep growing our way into the future like we had
always done. Already in 1970 there were
environmental concerns, well-reasoned ones, and
global warming was being anticipated. If it had been
possible to use a hard gold standard we might not be
in this ecological disaster today, but there would
have been some serious poverty, etc. The obvious
policy today is to put our money into the
environment and fix it and by doing that put people
to work for a good and urgent cause. As opposed to
bombing North Korea; building a Wall to nowhere;
giving money to corporations which do not contribute
to repairing the planet; and impoverishing people
unnecessarily, etc. Money, in the end, is only as
valuable as the things it accomplishes.
Wrong on your poverty concept. It is the
inflation associated with a reckless fiat
monetary system that causes much of the poverty.
Prior the fiat era there was minimal inflation.
As Keynes explained in his prophetic criticism
of the Treaty of Versailles, The Economic
Consequences of the Peace, when he called
attention to Lenin, of all people:
"By a continuing process of inflation,
governments can confiscate, secretly and
unobserved, an important part of the wealth of
their citizens. By this method, they not only
confiscate, but they confiscate arbitrarily;
and, while the process impoverishes many, it
actually enriches some. The sight of this
arbitrary rearrangement of riches strikes not
only at security, but at confidence in the
equity of the existing distribution of wealth.
Those to whom the system brings windfalls . . .
become 'profiteers', who are the object of the
hatred of the bourgeoisie, whom the inflationism
has impoverished not less than the proletariat.
As the inflation proceeds . . . all permanent
relations between debtors and creditors, which
form the ultimate foundation of capitalism,
become so utterly disordered as to be almost
meaningless.
Lenin was certainly right. There is no
subtler, nor surer means of overturning the
existing basis of society that to debauch the
currency. The process engages all the hidden
forces of economic law on the side of
destruction, and does it in a manner which not
one man in a million is able to diagnose."
The core problem with hard currency is
the power asymmetry of the fixed interest
contract in whatever form.
Because costs are constant and growing
under such contracts, income requirements
become "sticky": in a market reverse, wage
earners, renters, mortgage holders etc are
obligated by these contracts and cannot
accept a cut in their wage unless they have
adequate financial reserves. Recessions soak
these reserves from debtors to creditors
despite the loose underwriting of creditors
in the speculative and ponzi phases of the
Minsky cycle being the root cause of the
business cycle, not profligacy or
irresponsibility by wage earners and small
business people. In a depression, this
liquidationist dynamic starts working its
way up the the industrial supply chain,
dismantling the actual means of production.
The main potential public benefit of fiat
currency is that in such conditions it costs
the state nothing to preserve the wealth of
those not implicated in causing the collapse
and to preserve those means of production.
Unfortunately, what we saw in 2008 was
Bush/Obama using the innocent victims of the
business cycle to "foam the runway" for the
institutions that caused it.
Poverty is a simple result of being cut
off from possible income sources. To the
extent that inflation is managed with what
Keynes called "a reserve army of the
unemployed", high levels of poverty are
assured. In the high wage, high cost era of
the New Deal, the intent was take what
burden of financial risk could be taken off
of workers and small producers and to
provide good paying opportunities for one
cycle's economic losers to get back on their
feet in the next cycle. But this only works
with full employment where labor has the
power to bid for a share of the overall
returns on investments.
I found this fascinating and quite
persuasive.
But unless you can posit the existence
of a state that will reliably act to
"preserve the wealth of those not
implicated in causing the collapse and
to preserve those means of production"
it is just a useless academic exercise.
I do not see any such state anywhere in
view, with the possible exception of the
Chinese, who seem to understand
"preserving the means of production" as
a state priority. For the West however
that idea is a real howler.
If it had been possible to use a hard
gold standard we might not be in this
ecological disaster today, but there would
have been some serious poverty, etc.
Some serious poverty only if because the
elites would have been even more neoliberal.
The last gold-standard-free 50 years of
innovation and growth have made extinct
1. Shoes that last more than a few months
2. Clothes that you can pass on to future
generations
3. Likewise, furniture
4. Milk or Coke in glass bottles
etc.
Isn't that because we have evicted
competition from our global commercial model
and replaced it with planned production so
every factory knows the size of its likely
market?
At what point would China, for example, be able
to assert more of a reserve currency, or at least
alternative, role based on its economic and trade
power and build-up of hard and financial assets? Or
is their near-term internal surplus recycling
through uneconomic lending enough to keep them
off-balance for quite a while on the world financial
stage? Many in the West are watching the development
of the One Belt/One Road infrastructure and shifting
country linkages and alliances with grave concern.
The key to reserve status is large external
holdings of your monetary instruments: for
foreigners to transact in your currency they
must have it. China, thus far, fails profoundly
on this count, no one has its currency.
The inverse of this is that the best way for
the US to end the dollars reserve status is to
eliminate the "National Debt", which is in fact
nothing other than the inventory if dollar
instruments the rest of the world holds in order
to be able to spend dollars into our system:
eliminate that inventory and the dollar will no
longer be a reserve currency.
This raises the large question of whether
"reserve status" is actually beneficial.
Apparently it consists largely of being
enormously in debt – and in fact, it's been
a way for Japanese and Chinese to buy up
large chunks of our "means of production."
The prosperity of my original home town,
Columbus, IN, rests on Japanese
"investment." It does mean some good
Japanese restaurants in town.
To me the question is, who benefits
from it? It has been of great benefit to
a very particular set of people here in
the US and quite destructive since the
70s to most everyone else.
It is a power relationship that has
been used for imperial aims rather than
for the good of citizens. It needn't be
that way, but as US power has become
increasingly unaccountable its abuse of
this particular tool has grown.
First, the US could just as easily
deficit spend. We are not "in debt"
because the US can always create more
dollars to retire Treasury bonds.
The requirement for being a reserve
currency is running trade deficits. That
does require that furriners take and
hold your paper. They prefer bonds or
other investments to cash to get some
yield.
Running ongoing trade deficits also
means that you are using your domestic
demand to support jobs overseas. That is
the problematic feature, not all of this
other noise.
The concept of a reserve currency came
about from resolution 9 of the Genoa
Monetary Conference of 1922. The idea was
that any currency that was convertible to
gold was de facto equivalent to gold and
therefore an acceptable central bank reserve
asset. In other words there is really no
such thing as an international reserve
currency without gold in the system
according to the very reasoning that
established the idea. The U.S. pulled off
the greatest bait and switch in history when
it "suspended" the gold window in 1971. The
whole system because an enormous debt based
Ponzi scheme after that and we are now
dealing with the consequences.
And yes the key to reserve status: is
large external holdings of your monetary
instruments for foreigners to transact in".
But what incentive do they have to hold such
a currency and transact in it? Remember they
don't need it since they generally run trade
surpluses. The answer was, because that
currency was convertible to gold. What about
now when it is not tied to gold? Why hold
the currency of profligate debtor nation?
Answer provided in post below.
And anyone who thinks that running large
trade and budget deficits is the secret to
reserve currency status is a moron.
Argentina or Paraguay could just as easily
produce the necessary surplus liquidity
under that logic.
" But what incentive do they have to
hold such a currency and transact in it?
Remember they don't need it since they
generally run trade surpluses. "
Restart back at the very beginning,
forget everything you know, and try
again.
"They" got foreign reserve currency
by selling to the US and getting paid in
dollars. Their banks then traded the
dollars to the PBoC central bank for
freshly printed renimbi.
yes, but why would the central
bank endlessly collect another
country's debt?
And you inadvertently point out
one of the key frauds in the system.
The dollar supports a double pyramid
of credit, one domestic and the
other foreign. There is also a third
pyramid of credit, the euro dollar
market, which is built on top of the
U.S. domestic pyramid of credit, but
lets ignore that for now.
So "they" give us real stuff made
of raw material and labor inputs and
we give them wampum!!! Greatest scam
in history.
"The dollar supports a double
pyramid of credit, one domestic
and the other foreign. "
Except the PBoC prints the
Many Yuan to buy dollars from
the Chinese banking system. The
value of the Many Yuan is backed
by sales of exports, in that
case. A tiny little subset where
MMT (The imaginary version) is
actually in force. Then the PBoC
buys our debt with these foreign
reserves, which we wisely spend
on our country and citizens.
Next, the Chinese banking
system, thru the power of The
Money Multiplier, uses that base
money to make loans and expand
credit to Chinese.
" The value of the Many
Yuan is backed by sales of
exports, in that case."
WTF? The value the "Many
Yuan" is backed by the sale
of exports which yields
wampum, uh I mean dollars,
and they purchase the
dollars with the many yuan
they created. The PBoC
expands its balance sheet to
buy those dollars with yuan
created from nothing, hence
the double pyramid of
credit. The dollars get lent
back to us in the form of
U.S. government securities
because we issue the word's
"boomerang" currency.
And yes you can run a
system like this; for how
long? That is the big
question.
And you have misunderstood
what those reserves are for. The
Fed also can't spend all of
those US assets it holds on its
balance sheet either, now can
it?
The use of foreign currency
reserves is to defend the
currency and keep the IMF away.
Having a currency depreciate
rapidly leads to a big inflation
spike (unless you are close to
being an autarky) due to the
prices of foreign goods, in
particular commodities, going up
in your currency.
China is not self sufficient
in a whole bunch of things,
including in particular energy.
It had a spell last year when
it was running through its FX
reserves at such a rate that it
would have breached the IMF
trouble level for an economy of
its size if it had persisted for
4-6 months more.
A chemist, a physicist and
economist are ship wrecked on a
deserted island with only some
canned goods for food. They sit down
to figure out how they are going to
open the cans. To which the
economist says: "assume we have a
can opener"
Three MMT Economists are
stranded on a desert island.
They say, "WTF's a can
opener? That sounds like work!"
and live 3 months and are then
rescued by Skipper, Gillian,
Mary Ann and the Perfesser too,
on an Easter Break Tour. Ginger
and Mr. Howe are downstairs busy
downstairs knocking up.
They are living happily ever
after in Kansas City, Mo.
Seems to me the dollar system will work until
it doesn't. And those who run it have been doing
all within their power for about 15 years to
encourage anyone who can to come up with an
alternative.
None look viable, and they won't until
suddenly one is.
The euro isn't one due to the mess its
banking system is in. Japan doesn't want the
job and in any event is a military
protectorate of the US.
China is a minimum of 20 years away. Even
though it would like the status of being the
reserve currency, it most decidedly does not
want the attendant obligations, which are
running ongoing trade deficits, which is
tantamount to exporting jobs. Maintaining
high levels of employment and wage growth
are the paramount goals for China's leaders.
There are underreported riots pretty much
all the time in China due to dissatisfaction
over labor conditions now. The officialdom
is not going to commit political suicide.
Domestic needs always trump foreign goals.
Just getting around to reading Piketty's
doorstopper and was struck by his argument that
prior to WWI there had been very little inflation
worldwide for centuries. It was the need to pay off
all the war debt that shook things up.
Graeber's book on debt also makes the argument
that money as physical circulating metal currency
came about because of the need to pay for wars.
Something similar seems to have been going on
with the Bretton Woods agreement.
I know it's crazy but I'm just going to throw it
out there – maybe if we'd like a more stable economy
we could try starting fewer very destabilizing,
extremely expensive wars???
That is exactly my thought. There is a
disturbing cycle of war, monetary expansion to
pay for the war, post-war deflation leading to
political instability, leading to a repeat of
the cycle, at least in Europe and the U.S.
One can see this even in the period between
the creation of the Bank of England through the
end of the Napoleonic wars.
It is evident as well in the United States
pre- and post-Civil war.
Deficit hawks never seem to have a problem
with war-time deficit spending, only general
welfare deficit spending.
We could have a system where the fiscal power
of the state is fully harnessed for the general
welfare, but that would threaten the current
system which allows a small minority to
overwhelmingly reap the benefits of the money
creation power of the state and private banks.
This renders the issue a political one more
than a purely economic one. If history is any
guide, we will continue to have the kind of
political uncertainty we've experienced until
there has been enough war spending to start the
cycle over again. :(
" The inflation that started in the later 1960s
was substantially if not entirely the result of
Lyndon Johnson refusing to raise taxes "
I'm almost afraid to ask, but how does this make
sense? Any increase in taxes will be passed on to
the consumer to increase prices even more. If you
doubt this, watch what Trump's import taxes do to
prices.
No, you have been propagandized by the right
wing anti tax people.
Taxes drains demand from the economy. Lower
demand means more slack, more merchants having
to compete with each other, some headcount cuts,
etc.
By deficit spending in an economy that was
already at full employment, Johnson basically
guaranteed inflation. Both his own former
economist, Walter Heller, and Milton Friedman
warned against it. But because Heller was a Dem
and an outlier (most Dems weren't gonna
challenge their own party's policies), it was
Friedman's warnings that were publicized.
Another subject that is relevant to the current
post 2008 collapse and FED shenanigans to save the
day. i.e. save their cronies. And what it is
completely missing in this piece written by the
insiders is exactly that Bretton Woods; Cui
Bono:namely US ruling elite and new world order
after WWII.
Bretton Woods was a monetary session of the
overall conference 1944-1945 of new world order
namely a formal switch from British empire global
dominance system into American global dominance
system and trade/monetary policies were just an
important but small part of overall new global
political and military arrangement.
Global pound was killed, global dollar has been
created and blessed by western sphere of influence
and defended by supposedly the most powerful US
militarily in the world, [as was British navy
before] US military of global reach via US navy and
air force.
The political symbolism of Bretton Woods
conference correlated with invasion of Normandy in
June 1944, the last step in defeating Nazism in
Europe cannot be understated.
Also the dominance of two figures of White and
Keynes in this conference is an exemplification of
closing era of British empire as a world [decaying
at that time] leader which was accelerated by the
role of Japanese and German/Italian aggression in
colonial Asia, Africa [also helped by French
surrender to Nazis that spurred western support for
independent French colony of Algeria] and ME boosted
up the anti-colonial movements and political
parties, which like in Vietnam even US supported
during WWII.
Little known fact is that Nazis championed
themselves as anti-colonial force in ME while they
attempted to colonize eastern Europe.The many Arabs
fell for this propaganda siding with Nazis against
British colonialism in Palestine setting themselves
against Jews vehemently anti Nazi at that time.
In other words Bretton Woods was a consequence of
the fact that British empire was collapsing fast
ironically with the help of its allies and that
Included Soviets. Also helped that British were
broke and all the British Gold was already in the US
as a payment for bankrolling British defenses in
Europe since 1940 and elsewhere, so were Soviet gold
payments for military technology and materiel they
received from US and allies.
The political void had to be filled or it would
have been filled by Soviets, and hence the Bretton
Woods system was not based on unfettered
exploitation of slaves of newly expanded US empire
what US Oligarchy would have liked and was freely
practicing before 1929, but for ideological reason
was aimed for economic improvements in order to stem
massive anti-capitalist, communist and anti-colonist
movements that threatened western hegemony over the
world and hence the dreaded anti-capitalist words
used by in Bretton Woods system like fixed exchange
rate or blasphemous capital controls, things the
would crucify you if you utter them today during a
seminar in any Ivy league economy department.
Bretton Woods was primarily a tool into an
ideological war west and Soviets knew they would
have to fight, cold or hot.
This [economic dominance] war ended in mid
nineteen sixties when seeds of collapse of Soviet
Union and betrayal of leftist ideals and
socialist/communists movements all over the world
were sawed and hence Bretton Woods was no longer
needed and brutality of unfettered capitalist could
begin to return starting with Kennedy tax cut
freeing capital in private hands and then FED going
full fiat in later 1960-ties, capital flow
deregulation, free floating currencies, all that for
benefit of oligarchic class and of colossal
detriment to American workers, devastating result of
which we are experiencing now.
One of the great ironies of Bretton Woods is
that Harry Dexter White, the US rep at the talks
was in fact a Soviet agent. I wonder if he
understood monetary economics enough to hope
that the Bretton Woods gold standard system, as
opposed to Keynes bancor proposal, would self
immolate with a run on US gold stocks and take
the West down with it.
Let's think of "root causes", both Keynes
and White were big fans of Soviet-style
command and control top-down planned
economies ("I have seen the future and it
works!"). So that's what they divined and
devised for money: a top-down price-fixing
regime.
So while people would laugh themselves
silly if you told them we were going to
price things the way the Soviets did ("we'll
raise X number of cows because we'll need Y
quantity of shoe leather"), we somehow
accept central planning for the price of the
most important item of all: money itself.
The supreme geniuses at the Fed et al, with
their supreme formulae, can divine at any
moment precisely what the price of money
should be. This, of course, is folly.
And people should understand that the
gold standard (not the gold-exchange
standard it is often confused with) was not
designed, was not somehow imposed, and was
not agreed upon by some collective body. It
simply arose organically because time and
again through painful experience throughout
history it was shown that any system where
people can simply vote themselves more money
ends in tears. Not usually, but always.
You'd think that a 100% historical failure
rate would clue people in to rethink the
head-hammer-hitting approach.
And as Dr. Haygood points out above,
"everything floating against everything
else" is nothing but a colossal waste of
time and money. You wouldn't attempt to
build or make something without an agreed
and immutable unit of measure.
Completely untrue of Keynes. He ran
the UK Treasury twice very pointedly in
the interests of industrial capitalists.
He was however very opposed to financial
rents, a real classicist in that regard.
Keynes ran the UK treasury twice more
or less along classical lines: in favor
of industrial capitalism and against
financial rents. Not top down, not
Soviet. Its not clear where you get your
facts, fiat systems have lasted hundreds
of years many times. They tend to arise
in empires with secure borders. They
depend on the productive relations of
their societies for the value of their
money rather than a commodity hedge.
Warfare favors the commodity hedge
because the productive relations in a
society are frequently destroyed by war.
Because of the stickyness of wages, hard
currency tends to choke economic growth
because a fixed money supply has to be
spread increasingly thin as more real
wealth is created to be denominated with
a fixed quantity of specie, requiring
wages to drop because there is more
stuff to purchase.
Each has benefits and costs, both are
tools and while the one favors growth
and the other war, neither must be used
for either. A representative system will
use either as its constituencies direct,
an authoritarian one according to the
intent of the authority. It isn't tools
that make the problems, though some are
better for some purposes than others. It
is the intent of the powerful that is
expressed and from which others suffer.
@jsn " fiat systems have lasted
hundreds of years many times."
what? can you please back that
statement up. Only major fiat system
in history that I have ever seen
written about is the one that
existed in China several hundred
years ago. If there were others you
need to give some examples.
I think you objected to my
comments without actually refuting
them:
1. We have a top-down price fixing
money system;
2. Keynes and White were a big fans
of Soviet central planning (see The
Battle for Bretton Woods for chapter
and verse);
3. And I've never understood the
"fixed quantity of specie" argument.
Surely it's about price, not
physical quantity. You could easily
run the world economy on 100 tons of
gold if it was priced accordingly.
Michael Hudson's book Superimperialism, published
astonishingly in 1972, nailed it. Details some great
history of FDR's economic diplomacy during the late
Depression and WW2 period that preceded the Bretton
Woods settlement. Worth a read.
yes Michael Hudson is great, but that is why
he must be marginalized/ignored. Can't maintain
control of the official narrative if people like
Hudson were to ever be taken seriously..
"However, the likelihood that the dollar will be
replaced as the dominant international currency in
the foreseeable future remains remote. The dollar
standard and the legacy of the Bretton Woods system
will be with us for a long time."
That is the BIG question and the answer remains
to be seen. I for one don't believe it will continue
much longer, but then again nobody knows. Bordo also
leaves out a critical part of the narrative, i.e.,
the U.S. secret deal with Saudi Arabia in 1974 to
officially tie the dollar to oil. See link below for
details. Without this secret arrangement the dollar
would have never survived as the international
reserve currency. The Saudis reportedly pushed for
greater use of the SDR, but the U.S. made them a
deal they couldn't refuse and the Saudi royal family
realized that if they didn't go along with U.S.
demands the CIA would find some other branch of the
family that would.
The system is a mess and it is retarded to allow
one country's currency to serve as the main reserve
asset for the system. That is the ultimate free
lunch and the equivalent to believing in a perpetual
motion machine. It is hard to believe in can
continue much longer despite of Bordo's view that it
will. It has reached a point where it has created
massive problems that can not continue.
So in a sense when China and Russia are
forced to hold dollars for global trade,
they're essentially paying for the Pentagon
to do what it's doing. You can see why
they'd be mad.
It is almost a gift from heaven when fixing a
single problem offers the chance to fix a whole
bunch of them. This IMHO is very possibly one of
those gifts. Without this "ultimate free lunch"
the globalization scam of allowing this
country's and the world's 1% to keep adding
zeros to their bank accounts ("to keep score" as
Pres. Trump puts it) would not have been
possible. Without countries like Saudi Arabia
willing to keep accepting more "debt that can't
be repaid (and) won't be", the US military
industrial complex would not be able to keep
increasing its threat to world peace and
threatening the survival of humanity. Without
the Saudi stranglehold over politics and US
Middle Eastern policy the US could stop killing
Muslims in its bogus 'war on terror'. It could
get busy replacing its fossil fuel energy
sources with renewable ones and its oil-powered
transportation system with an electrified one
(yes, maybe even a few EVs)
It is hard to believe in can continue
much longer despite of Bordo's view that it
will.
And yet where is the dollar's replacement?
If you'd told me ten years that the
petrodollar as an institution enforcing
compliance w. the dollar as global reserve
currency could end and yet the dollar would
continue with that status, I'd have laughed at
you. However, that increasingly looks like it
might happen.
Yes, yes, I know - we await the basket of
currencies solution pushed by China and Russia,
and others sick of the situation. We've been
waiting for a while now.
I'm thinking globalization has something
to do with the dollar's longevity. Strip a
country of the ability to support itself by
exporting its jobs and it's people become
dependent on a strong military to insure
it's money continues to be "accepted" even
when it's people no longer have anything to
trade for what they really need.
@Moneta, these numbers are
roughly correct. The U.S. defense
budget is about $600 billion, the
trade deficit is about $600 billion
and last year we issued $1.4
trillion in incremental debt.
Foreigners own about 40% of U.S.
debt. 40% of of $1.4 trillion is
$560 billion so yes there is a
pretty strong correlation. Massive
defense budget wouldn't be possible
without reserve currency scam.
I'm completely confused. Anything available in
plain English for laypeople?
"The adjustment problem in Bretton Woods
reflected downward rigidity in wages and prices
which prevented the normal price adjustment of the
gold standard price specie flow mechanism to
operate"
Canada which was one of the founding members of
Bretton Woods pulled out as early as 1949 in order
to move to a floating exchange rate and full capital
mobility. Bretton Woods was dead before it ever
began.
"... By Ignacio Portes, formerly the economy editor of the English-speaking daily Buenos Aires Herald. He has also published at Pando Daily and NSFWcorp ..."
"... Folha de Săo Paulo ..."
"... "'I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were cold or hot! So, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew you out of my mouth.'" ..."
"... Her response of a Greek-style, slow austerity plan during the next two years only helped her lose a large part of her harder-core electoral base. ..."
"... mierda de toro ..."
"... O Globo ..."
"... Globo ..."
"... While these economic own-goals are definitely the key, ..."
Posted on
April 25, 2017
by
Yves Smith
Yves here. I wanted to emphhsize a factor to
consider in the difficulties Latin American (and
developing) countries have had in trying to manage
their affairs, namely, the impact of advanced
central bank monetary operations on them. Our guest
writer Ignacio Portes mentions it in his post below,
but it is worth discussing at greater length.
Remember how for at least 18 months before the
2014 Bernanke "taper tantrum" that markets around
the world were following a "risk on/risk off" trade,
with reactions based largely on the latest central
bank oracle reading? And that emerging economies
were the ones most whipsawed by these trades?
None other than that card-carrying Communist,
former IMF chief economist Raghuram Rajan complained
about it when he was the head of the Central Bank of
India.
From a 2014 post
in which we first quote a Rajan
interview with Bloomberg and then add further
comments:
Rajan is blunt by the standards of official
discourse Some of his key points:
Emerging markets were hurt both by the
easy money which flowed into their economies
and made it easier to forget about the
necessary reforms, the necessary fiscal
actions that had to be taken, on top of the
fact that emerging markets tried to support
global growth by huge fiscal and monetary
stimulus across the emerging markets. This
easy money, which overlaid already strong
fiscal stimulus from these countries. The
reason emerging markets were unhappy with
this easy money is "This is going to make it
difficult for us to do the necessary
adjustment." And the industrial countries at
this point said, "What do you want us to do,
we have weak economies, we'll do whatever we
need to do. Let the money flow."
Now when they are withdrawing that money,
they are saying, "You complained when it
went in. Why should you complain when it
went out?" And we complain for the same
reason when it goes out as when it goes in:
it distorts our economies, and the money
coming in made it more difficult for us to
do the adjustment we need for the
sustainable growth and to prepare for the
money going out
International monetary cooperation has
broken down. Industrial countries have to
play a part in restoring that, and they
can't at this point wash their hands off and
say we'll do what we need to and you do the
adjustment. .Fortunately the IMF has
stopped giving this as its mantra, but you
hear from the industrial countries: We'll do
what we have to do, the markets will adjust
and you can decide what you want to do . We
need better cooperation and unfortunately
that's not been forthcoming so far.
Narrowly, Rajan is correct, but the
underlying problem is much bigger and most
orthodox economists are unwilling to confront it
because it conflicts with their free markets
religion. Carmen Reinhart and Ken Rogoff, in an
analysis that got much less attention that their
work on debt levels and growth, looked
at 800 years of history of crises
and found
a strong correlation between the level of
international capital flows and the frequency
and severity of financial crises. That's
implicit in his discussion of the impact of hot
money flowing in and out. The Reinhart/Rogoff
finding was confirmed by
a 2010 paper by Claudio Borio and Piti Disyatat
of the BIS
that argued that what drives
financial crises is not net capital flows
("global imbalances") but gross capital flows
(too much financial "elasticity" as they called
it, or what most of us would describe as too
much speculation). But Rajan may in fact be
referring to remedies like capital controls when
he says, basically, that the industrial
economies may not like the remedies that
emerging economies implement.
Back to the present post. Voters in countries in
Latin America hold their officials accountable for
economic performance. Yet the destabilizing impact
of hot money in and outflows, brought to them by the
tender ministrations of neoliberal orthodoxy, means
that the degree of control is limited.
By Ignacio Portes, formerly the
economy editor of the English-speaking daily Buenos
Aires Herald. He has also published at Pando Daily
and NSFWcorp
The world's attention over the last few months
has been focused on the rise of right-wing movements
across the first world, and the struggle of the
previously-ruling liberal establishment to
understand the nature of what hit them. Somewhat
buried below those news, however, one can also read
about what seem to be the last pangs of another
regional alliance going haywire, though with
somewhat different protagonists.
It wasn't long ago that South American
governments were seen as the biggest political
alternative in a world moving mostly to the right,
as parties backed by unemployed and landless
movements, trade unions, indigenous groups and
socialist organizations took power and pushed for
certain re-distributive policies.
Now, the continent's two biggest economies,
Argentina and Brazil, are ruled by coalitions packed
with center-right businessmen. And in Venezuela -
the country which arguably started to turn the
continental political tide to the left back in 1998
- Hugo Chávez's heir Nicolás Maduro is barely
holding to the presidency, losing by a landslide in
the last mid-term elections amid frightening levels
of social disarray.
Unpacking what went wrong for them will be key
for whoever ends up being the next leftist movement
to have a shot at power. And much of what went wrong
was about the economy.
The fact that those three collapses took place
almost simultaneously had a lot to do with the end
of the commodity price supercycle that made life so
much easier for governments across Latin America
throughout the 2000s. But it wasn't simply a stroke
of bad luck with the region's primary exports.
Wherever you looked, voters also had the growing
perception that the malaise was also explained by
local policy. And that was much harder to accept
both for officials and for their most ardent
supporters, who preferred to focus on outside
factors, be them the global economy or some kind of
internal or external political conspiracy.
Not that some degree of conspiracy couldn't be a
factor. Dilma Rousseff's ousting in Brazil was
largely an exercise in hypocrisy from a political
opposition mired in corruption scandals and with
several past episodes of embellishing the budget's
figures. Yet it accused the government of exactly
those two things, first to switch sides from
congressional allies to staunch enemies and then to
impeach Rousseff.
But none of that would have worked hadn't
Rousseff's government also been under growing
popular pressure since the country fell into a
recession in 2014. Rousseff had already lost most of
the middle class before that. Her response of a
Greek-style, slow austerity plan during the next two
years only helped her lose a large part of her
harder-core electoral base. With the recession
deepening and unemployment soaring, Rousseff's
approval ratings plunged below 20%. Her former
allies turned on her and there was no way back from
there.
Brazil's Workers' Party fell into the classic
emerging market boom and bust. The capital that had
flown into the country with the commodities at high
prices made it easy for the government and the
private sector to take on debt and finance a larger
expansion. The hype made Brazil an easy sale. In
2009, The Economist famously printed Jesus' statue
at the top of Rio de Janeiro's Corcovado mountain
taking off from the ground as if it were a rocket,
illustrating a story about the country's supposed
transformation. The government seemed to believe it
too, embarking into grandiose, costly projects to
host the 2014 football World Cup and the 2016 summer
Olympic Games announcing Brazil's arrival into the
global center stage, while also playing up the
significance of the massive (but hard to reach) oil
deposits discovered off the Brazilian coast.
But the foundations of the boom weren't really
solid. The country's currency, the real, appreciated
beyond what many local industries could resist in
the long run due to the sudden influx of foreign
capital. Protectionism and subsidies to some of
Brazil's top business owners tried to compensate for
that, but the costs of doing so started to mount.
When commodity prices stopped helping, the
underlying problems surfaced. By 2013, The Economist
ran exactly the opposite cover than in 2009, with
Jesus' statue crashing down after a failed launch.
Short-term investors panicked and moved their cash
elsewhere. Suddenly, re-financing public and private
debt became much harder. Millions of Brazilians
started struggling with defaulted loans for the
consumer goods they had recently purchased, and
repayments only got harder when the Central Bank
also raised interest rates to try cut inflation.
Subsidies to companies became hard to sustain too,
while basic services and infrastructure, which never
improved much, started suffering even more, with the
tightening budgets focused on completing the
billionaire Olympic and World Cup stadiums and
luxury hotels. Even oil failed to deliver, both due
to the plunge in international prices and the
massive corruption schemes uncovered in the
state-run Petrobras, which threw the company into
disarray.
The question, then, is why did the Workers' Party
go for policies that would end up destroying its
popularity and its grip on power?
A tentative answer, unglamorous as it might be,
is that they didn't know what else to do. Their
problem could be seen as another manifestation of a
general failing of the post Cold War left: the lack
of a trusted economic programme of its own, which
forced them to borrow from here and there as
circumstances presented themselves.
They used a bit of orthodoxy to avoid "scaring"
the markets when they first took office in 2003,
tried to take advantage of those first moves by
leveraging the credit they were given as a result,
and added some re-distributive policies when there
seemed to be room for them, all of that almost
inevitably mixed with the endemic corruption schemes
and inefficiency troubles that seem to mar all of
the region's politics (but that hardly came to the
surface during the boom times).
When the crises came, the government tried some
countercyclical moves at first, but Brazilian laws
made them less effective than normally expected, as
private and public debt could not be diluted due to
indexation clauses written into contracts, keeping
the burden high despite some stimulus. So they
resumed the international bond market appeasing as a
(failed) last-ditch effort, with political scandals
erupting in the background as capital flight and
coalition disbanding made the end increasingly
inevitable.
Brazil's elites decided for a transition behind
the backs of the electorate, backing Rousseff's
former VP Michel Temer, a man from the ideologically
flexible PMDB party, to take her place after a
largely ridiculous impeachment process where the
charges against the President were barely even
mentioned. Unconcerned about his lower-than-Dilma
popularity, the possibility of re-election or the
need to be loyal to his voting base, Temer is now
enacting a much more thorough austerity program that
has slightly turned markets around, but which has
seen unemployment continue to skyrocket, now
reaching 13% percent, up from 7% just a couple of
years ago.
Could it have gone differently? In the most
short-termist of views, it's hard to see how the
Workers Party could have held on. Falling
governments are the norm amid huge economic crises
with no seemingly end in sight, and this was
Brazil's largest recession on record. In a
European-like parliamentary system, the situation
would surely have led to a vote of no confidence,
used in similar circumstances to oust Prime
Ministers in more democratically-friendly fashion.
But as we'll see in parts II and III, the
multiple roads taken by other left-of-centre
coalitions in Latin America showed that the Workers
Party's long-term approach was just one of many
possibilities.
Actually I think the critical strategic mistake
here was made by the Brazilian right, which had the
option of just waiting until 2018 and then taking
power in a normal election. They may have been
spooked by the prospect of running against Lula
again (though they have beaten Lula in the past
several times). Or there may have been behind the
scenes US pressure for a color revolution, due to
Brazil's previous closeness to Russia.
But not just waiting until the election and then
taking power on the normal pendulum swing will blow
up in their faces.
The overall Workers' Party strategy was
appropriate for the situation they were in. My only
real criticism is political, they should have made
winning statehouses more of a priority and less so
the presidency, but you have to run a presidential
candidate, and when you have a candidate like Lula
you are going to try to capitalize.
I hope you're right that it was a mistake.
Every poll I have seen shows Lula easily winning
any election, and the Brazilian capitalist class
was well aware of this. In fact there was the
pathetic incident where
Folha de Săo Paulo
intentionally
obfuscated poll data
showing that 62 percent
of Brazilians want new elections and they would
have voted for Lula. The stunning speed and
extent of the destruction
wrought by Temer
(and Macri) shows that the right wing is
convinced that this may be their only shot at
power, so they need to get in and obliterate as
much of the welfare state as quickly as
possible, like vandals who know the security
guards will arrive any second.
That said, I agree that the impeachment
debacle shows that PT needs a far bigger
presence in congress and in the governorships,
otherwise it is vulnerable to another
constitutional coup. However, I disagree that
"the overall Workers' Party strategy was
appropriate": they were gravely wrong to
implement austerity in an economic downturn.
The Brazilian right had no choice. If Dilma
had been left in charge she might have chosen to
sacrifice a whole bunch of corrupt businessman
and politicians to placate the middle class.
Someone was going down. The only question was
who.
Well, I guess I will wait for parts 2 and 3. Thus
far in the story, it is hard to see how Brazil,
Argentina and Venezuela represent three cases of the
same phenomenon.
Nah, their approaches were different for
sure, I think it will become clear in far more
detail starting in the second post. Part of the
point of the series is to show that the
governments fell into different failure modes,
despite some common themes such as international
economics (commodity prices first helping a lot,
then not so much) or the fact they were all part
of a regional political alliance.
I think this represents a clear example of the
failure of 3rd way politics again. The jackals on
the right in Latin America do not and will not
respect parties of the left, no matter if they stick
with orthodoxy. They must be confronted and beaten
with deeper reforms and a well-organized base.
Ecuador's recent election shows what can be done.
Correa's party has achieved its best result ever and
still won even though the opposition was united this
election.
But Rousseff did use the stick of orthodoxy,
and she was overthrown nonetheless!
"'I know your works: you are neither cold
nor hot. Would that you were cold or hot!
So, because you are lukewarm, and neither
cold nor hot, I will spew you out of my
mouth.'"
"But Rousseff did use the stick of
orthodoxy, and she was overthrown
nonetheless!" – Exactly! The lesson for
parties of the left is not to trust the
right. They are not your friends. They will
stick the knife in your back at the first
chance!
As far as the question of "how", Yves intro and
2014 post was more insightful. Parsing relevant
facts from irrelevant facts seems always a grind,
and discerning facts from opinion seems even more
so. Context always matters, and proportionality
often seems distorted or missing, imO. I've
gravitated towards the opinion that "capital" seems
a euphemism for power, "capitalism" seems a
euphemism for a network of unaccountable, unelected
"Davos" insiders(aka tPtb) , and "capitalists" seem
to be the gatekeepers that keep the outsiders
outside the power to shape, re-shape, form, re-form,
structure, re-structure, structurally adjust and
re-adjust etc., a social order that willingly or
unwittingly serves these insiders as the highest
priority and loftiest of purposes, at the expense of
anything and everything else. Which is why I've also
gravitated towards the opinion that "capitalism" and
"democracy" are not only antithetical to each other,
but irreconcilable a neoliberal project that
facilitates a virtual-parliament, where "governance"
is done through "capital" flows, by and at the
behest of unseen, unaccountable, unelected insiders.
Anecdote: When I was in Brazil last December I
asked everyone I could why Dilma was impeached. The
near unanimous answer was "por corrupçăo" (the
outliers were two responders who, interestingly,
said it was because she was unpopular). While
Ignacio's excellent post does hint at this, I think
it's important to stress the battle for "hearts and
minds" currently underway in LatAm that, in the case
of Brazil, has led to Rousseff losing her base and
the far right returning to power.
Yves and Ignacio look at two important aspects,
with Yves focusing on deleterious capital flows and
Ignacio on the resulting fiscal policy. Ignacio's
point is particularly salient, and one that often
gets lost among leftist pundits prone to ideological
Manichaeism:
Her response of a Greek-style, slow
austerity plan during the next two years only
helped her lose a large part of her harder-core
electoral base.
This, IMO, is the number one reason that led to
Rousseff's overthrow: Dilma inflicted austerity on
the working class and it abandoned her, leaving her
vulnerable to a rightwing attack. But how can I say
that when it goes against the findings of my (highly
unscientific, anecdotal) survey? Let me answer that
with yet more anecdotal evidence.
Here in Latin America there is an almost
universal narrative as to why we have so much
poverty, that goes as follows: "we live in a
resource rich region, but we are plagued by
'corruption', which means politicians with their
hands in the till. We wish we could have safe roads,
sewers, transportation, hospitals but the state
always ends up bankrupt because the politicians
steal all the money". (At this point the narrative
gets taken over by political allegiances and media
memes: "what we need to do is throw these corrupt
bums out of office and bring in [enter name of
political party supported by the media]".
This narrative is, of course, total
mierda de
toro
. First the state cannot go bankrupt, so
that should be BS tell n° 1. When Rousseff's base
saw their infrastructure, pensions and jobs cut, it
was not because Rousseff is a corrupt politician
with her hand in the till, bankrupting the state.
Even in Brazil, which has a particularly corrupt
political elite, they rob millions when the economy
is a matter of hundreds of billions. Yet like so
many revolutionaries of her generation, Rousseff is
solid on socialist ideology when it comes to
politics, but when it comes to economic
understanding, not so much. So when the
international economic crisis came to Brazil, she
appointed the Finance Minister who seemed to know
something about that economics stuff: Washington
Consensus Superstar Joachim Levy. Levy sold her the
usual neoliberal BS line that "the state is broke,
TINA, we need to cut social programmes", yadda
yadda. And austerity was suddenly on the menu.
Meanwhile, the monopolist media conglomerate
O Globo
broadcasted everywhere 24/7 that Dilma
was corrupt with the usual narrative. If you're in a
favela and you see your life getting worse because
of budget cuts and you hear the non-stop
"Corrupçăo!" narrative from the media, in the
absence of a media and education system that tell
the truth about economics, there is no way you stick
your neck out to support Rousseff. Here the media
and its oligarchical overlords ensure that people
have a hard time differing between millions and
trillions, between microeconomy and macroeconomy.
The TV is full non-stop with caterwauling that this
or that politician might have stolen $10m and they
incorrectly associate that with the macroeconomic
situation caused by the government's bad fiscal
policy.
In sum, yes the QE/ZIRP capital flows play a
role. Yes this was used to push the PT to make bad
fiscal decisions. But there is also an ideological
battle on in Latin America, where the
oligarchic-dominated media are pushing a false
'corruption' narrative to take advantage of the
fiscal missteps of ostensibly left-wing governments.
While these economic own-goals are definitely the
key, if it were not for this false narrative, the
PT, Kirchnerism, Chavism even Lugo in Paraguay
would still be in the drivers seat.
Personally, yes, the media is rotten and
that's a tremendous problem. The plunging
economy (caused by int'l capital tidal flows +
austerity) + media narrative of scapegoating is,
of course, how the script goes to throw
left-leaning govts out of power. However, I
don't think that gets you ALL the way there.
Otherwise, how to explain Venezuela and
Ecuador? The oligarchs ran the same playbook in
all countries in LatAm. But it doesn't always
work.
1) Venezuela is arguably MORE vulnerable to
capital flows and commodity prices than in
Brazil. The government has been handicapped by
its own incompetence (especially with regard to
the currency, as Comrade Haygood will tell you
any chance he gets!). The Chavista government
has also had plenty of corruption problems, at
least somewhat linked to those bad currency
policies. Yet, somehow, the government is still
hanging in there. In fact, its popularity seems
to be on the rebound as the population gets
tired of the violent, extremist idiots that seem
to be leading the opposition. In my view,
they've kept a core of supporters, who have
stayed loyal and haven't been sold out by their
government. Those core supporters are organized
and actively pushing back against the hard-right
in the country. This seems to be enough to
endure the turbulence.
2) Ecuador's example is also telling.
Correa's party, Allianza Pais, just hauled in
its largest ever vote total. They seem less
corrupt and incompetent than the Chavista party
in Venezuela, but face the same problems of
tumultuous capital flows and rabidly hostile
media with the constant accusations of
corruption that are present in Venezuela and
Brazil. Yet, in spite of this, they continue to
increase their support and expand their base.
From where I stand the lessons seem clear for
lefty parties of Lat Am:
No compromise with the right or with
orthodoxy. They hate you and will slit your
throat if you let them. Do not abandon your base
(and they won't abandon you). Organize your base
and be prepared for crisis. These things let you
survive as a political force. If you show
competence and reduce corruption (in reality,
not according to the media narrative), then
you'll get even stronger and do even better at
the ballot box.
Thanks Johnny, likewise. With regard to
"ALL the way there", I tried to be clear
that the main reason for Rousseff's fall was
her austerity policies, with the media
playing a crucial role thereafter. With
regard to Ecuador vs. Venezuela, BOTH made
currency missteps, as Correa's biggest
failure was that he was never able to wean
Ecuador off the USD. The main difference I
see between the two countries' leftist
governments is that Correa was
somewhat more successful at diversifying the
economy
whereas Venezuela is still far
too dependent on oil rents. In all the South
American economies, the key is developing an
internal market by bringing the excluded
masses into the economy and ditching the
commodity exporter model. Nevertheless I
agree with your point about the Venezuelan
right: they are overplaying their hand and
Maduro is gaining strength (eg, yesterday's
poor turnout opposition march).
I'd also point out that the last
elections in the countries in question (Ecu
2017, Bol 2016, Arg 2015, Bra 2014, Ven
2013) were all photo finishes (with ≈2%
margins), where the slightest tweeks could
have reversed the outcome completely, so it
is hard to talk about mandates or "what the
people want".
Lastly you discuss corruption as being a
factor for the Maduro and Correa
administrations. Does that mean you disagree
with my point that "corruption!" is just a
rightwing meme that has little to do with
most people's household economies?
Sorry, squishing too many thoughts
into my comments with limited time to
write (at work).
To clarify my addition to your point
about austerity being the real Rousseff
killer, I'd say, "Yes, that's absolutely
the proximate cause. However, there are
underlying reasons that are just as
important that shouldn't be left out of
the story".
Perry Anderson's article in LRB is a
real must read on what has happened in
Brazil. He covers a wide range of
issues, including why the PT has failed
in a broader political context.
If you're interested, read the part
that starts: "Half-hidden, the roots of
this debacle lay in the soil of the PT's
model of growth itself. From the outset,
its success relied on two kinds of
nutrient: a super-cycle of commodity
prices, and a domestic consumption
boom."
Anderson goes on to discuss how the
PT failed to improve public services,
only relying on the private sector.
Finance Minister Mantega tried to
stimulate private investment and also
attempted to split off industrial
interests away from big finance. That
attempt failed spectacularly. Again,
here's Anderson's money quote: "In the
belief that this must rally
manufacturers to its side, the
government confronted the banks by
forcing interest rates down to an
unprecedented real level of 2 per cent
by the end of 2012. In Săo Paulo the
Employers Federation briefly expressed
its appreciation of the change, before
hanging out flags in support of the
anti-statist marchers of June 2013."
Re: Ecuador election, yes it was
close. However, I think the margin of
victory doesn't tell the full story.
Allianza Pais keeps building its vote
totals every election since 2006. Check
wikipedia on this. Correa had a big
breakthrough from 2009 to 2013, but
Moreno didn't lose votes, he got more. I
could be wrong, but that makes me thing
they're building something more lasting
than what PT did.
Just looking, Rousseff couldn't match
Lula's vote totals, neither could Maduro
match Chavez's. Somehow, Moreno beat
Correa's numbers from previous
elections. That might be a real sign, or
might not.
Lastly, regarding this, "Does that
mean you disagree with my point that
"corruption!" is just a rightwing meme
that has little to do with most people's
household economies?" - No, I think
you're right. But I do think corruption
is more of a problem in Venezuela.
Unless you've got some other explanation
for why they won't fix the screwy
currency policy that seems to magnify
problems, rather than dampen them (as a
well managed currency should do)?
I can only guess that someone fairly
important is making a lot of money in
cross-border smuggling to Colombia.
I think Ecuador seems to have done
better on corruption, the best the media
could do was drum up a scandal that
sounded ridiculous on its face. I don't
recall the details, but it seemed like
they were really desperate to latch onto
something.
Corruption is important, just not
in the way of the simplistic media
spin that you mentioned – obviously
what a President might take home is
irrelevant when compared to a
national budget or a GDP. (and
Dilma, by the way, doesn't seen to
have been personally corrupt at all;
even if there was obviously
corruption at her party, I have
never seen any hint that it might
have help line up her pockets)
A topic that I have never read
anyone write about in depth is how
left political alternatives can
finance their campaigns. Obviously,
if you are a business candidate
you'll find it easier to get donors,
but if you want to build a working
class or socialist party then it
gets tougher. And in Latin America,
this has often led to all kinds of
shady deals with the underworld,
with public works contracts and so
on. And the problem is the economic
distortions that this brings: to
keep those dirty schemes that
finance your party going, you have
to create infrastructure programmes
not where they are most needed but
where it's easier to take a cut off
without anyone noticing it (this
happened a lot in Argentina), you
have to take part in corruption
schemes with the country's oligarchs
(see Brazil), you have to make deals
with murderous criminal cartels and
so on. This can be incredibly
damaging: it weakens the economy for
starters, but it ultimately even
derails the point of the political
project completely, turning a
political party into a bureaucracy
whose main goal is just
self-perpetuation. Venezuela's
military trying to hang on to power
and to its failed economic policies
no matter how in order to keep its
power over black market deals is
part of the explanation for that
country's crisis, for sure, and
another example of this.
Example 1: Upon assuming the
presidency, the Macri
administration immediately
embarks on a plan to devalue the
peso. Four of Macri's ministers,
including
éminence grise
Marcos Peńa buy dollar futures
before the devaluation and make
out like bandits when the peso
plummets.
Example 2: Upon Macri taking
office as Buenos Aires Mayor,
his cousin's construction firm,
IECSA, suddenly jumps from
virtual anonymity to being the
third largest recipient of
public works contracts.
Are these examples of
corruption the same? I would
argue no. In example 2– which is
the type you mention and which
is the type most screamed about
in the press– the damage is that
favouritism may have led to not
the best postulant winning the
bid, thus providing the public
with inferior infrastructure.
But there is a general good that
occurs: insofar as Calcaterra
hires local workers and uses
domestic materials, the economy
will grow from the multiplier
effect. (Of course insofar as
the money is not used for
construction and instead gets
parked in Miami, there is a net
loss.) While I agree
infrastructure does not get well
distributed– I burn with rage
when I see stupid multi-million
peso overpasses in Buenos Aires
while my neighbourhood doesn't
even have proper sewers– there
is no reason why both can't be
built; Argentina has plenty of
people and materials just
waiting to be employed.
Example 1 on the other hand
is the type of corruption we
should worry about. It involves
politicians making
decisions not based on the
public good, but rather to
benefit themselves and/or a
small group of powerful people.
The devaluation of the peso
immediately went to the supply
chain and inflation skyrocketed,
resulting in a 12% loss in real
wages. This less-publicised
corruption affected the
pocketbook of everyone in the
country, whereas the eternally
repeated infrastructure issue–
be it Calcaterra or Baéz or
whoever– is not even noticeable
in the average citizen's
economy. Nevertheless, when
Globo
shows the latest
accused in Lava Joto, the public
inevitably gets angry because
they think that the suspect's
alleged crime cost them money
personally; that he is the
reason why there is no money for
housing or pensions. No, the
reason why there are housing and
pension cuts is because it was a
political decision by the
Dilma/Temer governments; Lava
Joto has nothing to do with it.
______
Secondly, with regard to
campaign financing here's my two
cents: I think it is less of an
issue here then it is up north.
First because mandatory voting
makes GOTV largely unnecessary,
thus greatly reducing the amount
of money needed. Secondly,
because (for better or worse)
all the Mercosur countries have
very strong party apparatuses
that perform much of the
campaigning work. And thirdly
because of (partially) public
funded elections. In this
regard, politics here is not as
much about fundraising as it is
about lining up all the unions
and social movements. But this
system giveth and taketh. On one
hand it often involves mass
mobilisations that are largely
based on individuals' political
motivation and organising
efforts; but on the other hand
it entails party patronage
systems that often fund goons
who carry out ratf*cking
operations and small-scale
political violence (the mafias
you mentioned? eg, the AAA in
the 70s; or more recently the
thugs who stormed the Santa Cruz
Governer's House, etc.). This is
not to say that there is not a
growing trend toward expensive
marketing campaigns and black
money, but for now at least it
is more subdued. And lastly, in
the case the left needs campaign
money, I think the Sanders 2016
campaign provided an excellent,
viable model.
While these economic own-goals are
definitely the key,
Rabid G: could you expound on which own-goals
were problematic, what could or should have been
done differently? There seems to be an argument
that:
1. Rousseff mis-steps led to lack of support
among people who were, and apparently still are,
Lula supporters. Presumably the argument is that
she could have run large fiscal deficits and
targeted spending to poor? Or canceled the
Olympics?
2. This lack of support made possible soft coup.
From what I know of what happened, I am
skeptical of both claims. And seems to
completely absolve hot money of any
responsibility, which I took as the main point
of the post. But I claim no expertise.
Yes that is the argument: Rousseff
implemented two rounds of austerity,
cutting pensions and capping spending
when Brazil's economy was already
retracting. As readers here well know, these
pro-cyclical measures always have the same
result: throwing the country into deeper
recession. Each round of austerity
coincided with steep drops in Rousseff's top
approval rating
(Optimal/Good).
Meanwhile, Lula– who never cut pensions and
spending– remains the most popular
politician in the country.
And as I made clear in my post (as
Ignacio did in the OP), these factors are
just part of what led to Rousseff's
impeachment; no one is "completely absolving
hot money" which is certainly another part
of the equation. That said, given mainstream
economists' monetarist bent, there is a
tendency to see everything that happens in
Latin America through a capital
flow/commodity lens (cough *Haygood* cough).
But this only holds true to the degree that
these countries are dependent on finance and
commodities. And the whole mantra of these
leftist governments has been to supplant
finance/commodity dependency with an
internal market. So with all respect to Yves
(and I think she might agree), to the degree
to which they have been successful at
creating this internal market, the hot money
argument does not come into play.
We never get ahead of the problem. In the early
70s Nixon was advised by Sec. Treas John Conally, of
Dallas fame, that we could go off the gold standard
bec we could basically do anything we wanted to
generate growth in our own economy and that the
imbalances that would follow for other countries
"were their problem." This attitude preceded the
free-market mania that followed, thinking that the
market would balance it all out. So, starting with
Breton Woods and an incomplete monetary system which
did not address the real world, we have come to 2017
wherein candidates are running for office without a
party and sovereign states don't understand the
power of their own sovereignty. We need a "peg" – a
new rational one. Gold has always been irrational,
but the environment is as rational as you can get.
And every sovereign country has an environment. The
environment is everywhere! Whereas the nutty
obsession with gold made it valuable and it was
arbitrarily priced at some "standard" to which all
else was valued (insane, right?) we could do it the
rational way and price the environment at some value
and thereby eliminate inflation altogether (because
you can't inflate a currency that is both ubiquitous
and invaluable already) and at the same time have a
resourceful, healthy world. Everywhere. This would
get rid of all the neoliberal money hoarding and all
sorts of ills. But, I'm dreaming again.
Another great discussion set up by Yves but the
article, probably because of limited length, could
only scratch the surface of what is and was brewing
in Latin America in last decade or so and Obama's
policies of global color revolutions having a lot to
do with it.
Moreover, it is hard in English speaking media to
figure out what is going on in Latin America
especially recently in Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia
even Brazil or Argentina but one thing in my
opinion, is sure there is no socialism there, nor
ever was.
Instead there were more or less social-democratic
governments trying to elevate horrible poverty of
the peoples due to extreme exploitation by local
oligarchs, while in all cases leaving intact
capitalist/neo-feudal system and social structures
including reactionary religious organizations as it
was there before. Now all those governments are
under a direct attack from Global oligarchy.
It may sound harsh but the main problem is that
Maduro and other "people's" leaders in Latin America
were being heavily influenced or down right
corrupted by western money. Yes, leftist leaders
directly or due to their global policies withd USD
dominated financial system are in Wall Street
pockets already. Too many friends of Lula, Chavez
and now Maduro revolution have bank accounts in New
York to appropriately respond to this blatant
aggression we are witnessing in a revolutionary
manner, as they should if they did not betray their
people.
Those South American springs we are witnessing in
Argentina, Brazil, Venezuela, Bolivia, and Ecuador,
and soon Cuba etc., are not due to lack of
cooperation between popular South American leaders
and US.gov and Wall Street but that they cooperate
to little to win approval of Washington hegemons,
namely they do not exploit and betray their people
hard enough.
It is a world oligarch's quarrel and those who do
not heed the warnings are expelled from the cushy
country club of globalists, and that's why they are
so polite, yes polite, facing Washington economic
aggression. But there is deeper reason for it.
Former radicals, communists, worker trade
unionists or native populists and other leftist such
as Lula-Rousseff, Chavez,(Maduro), Corea, Morales
etc., after being brought to power, via peoples
popular movements spawned by catastrophe of raging
neoliberalism in previous decades , not on their own
merits as a true leftists since they later betrayed
the true left, but on the wave of global capital
instigated booms of commodity demand from China
itself stimulated to the brink of orgasm via Wall
Street money changers and now is awaiting eruption
anytime and following by a long secular economic
flaccidity which will turn this mockery of workers'
led Chinese government into openly
fascistic/regional imperial regime as it already is.
One must realize that those recent South American
leftist revolutions, including Chavez revolution,
were underwritten by Wall Street bubbles, one might
have asserted wrongly, that they were being
skillfully exploited by leftist leaders while in
truth they fell into a trap that ultimately doomed
and condemned truly leftist Marxian or even
Maoist/Leninist revolutionary political movements in
South America into political oblivion for decades to
come.
And hence sweeping counterrevolutionary wind of
Washington doing, blowing across the South American
continent.
And that seems to be the plan to discredit any
political left as a vital and even viable or
effective political force in South America, Europe
and elsewhere.
It took him eight years but Obama Mission was
Accomplished. And that's his legacy few wants to
talk about.
"Let's not dance around. Your first steps will be
breaking the power of current economic and political
elites who are not willing to convincingly join you
or at least let you rule without trying to sabotage
you.
You must do this all at once. When it happens, it
happens to everyone it is going to happen to. This
is Machiavelli's dictum, and he was right. After it
has happened, those who weren't broken know they're
safe as long as they don't get in your way."
Break up the banks and the media, have competent
administrators ready to step in, and insulate
yourself from foreign cash flows as much as you can.
Otherwise you will be sabotaged.
I am transmitting from Brazil, having witnessed
in situ the last 15 years of surreal economics.
The current 'crisis' has nothing to do with
politics, ideology, government policy, corruption,
etc.
In fact, there's no crisis at all happening in
Brazil.
From 2003-2014, Brazil went through a surreal
bubble of credit (and corresponding debt), equally
divided amongst families and corporations.
The total debt stock went from 25% to 56% of GDP,
in eleven years. That's roughly 3% of cocaine-like
GDP injected into the veins of the economy, over
quasi-eternal 11 years.
The debt bubble is now gloriously bursting. Two
years of bubble deflation already checked, my guess
is that the Brazilian economy should return to its
natural size around 4Q 2017 / 1Q 2018.
From there on, there's slow growth in the works.
We Brazilians do not know how to grow via investment
and innovation. And everyone is vaxxed against
diving into debt again.
Without digging into details of your numbers,
I don't think what you wrote is factually
incorrect. However, the tone of what you wrote
gives no agency to any person or institution.
Big debt bubbles don't just 'happpen' like bad
weather. They happen because of policy decisions
made by people, individually and as groups.
Why those decisions were made and how they
succeeded or failed is the part worth
discussing.
"... it would have more to do with it probably leading to the US having a weaker hold over the Korean peninsula ..."
"... 'A reunification would endow the fully up-to-date South Korean army backed by a roaring advanced economy with the one weapon it does not have: the atomic bomb.' ..."
"... sixty-four ..."
"... - H-bomb technology, and it took minds of the caliber of von Neumann and Teller a decade to work out how to make those. ..."
"... Is it clear how much v Neumann had a hand in on that key problem? ..."
Yves here. Even though some may try arguing that
Hillary Clinton was discussing China's view of North
and South Korea in her Goldman speech, it is naive
to think that it is actually different from ours,
despite the regular histrionics. As an anonymous
reader at DownWithTyranny pointed out:
Again, if you review our (and their) policies
since '50 and think about it for only a minute,
you realize both we and the Chinese want a split
Korea. And we want it for much the same reasons.
The North provides an annoyance to the US which
inspires fear and stupidity AND billions spent
on weapons to keep certain sectors rich and
occupied.
Now that the south has emerged as an economic
and manufacturing behemoth, the need to keep
them separate is even more pronounced, for just
the reasons enunciated.
By
Gaius Publius
, a professional writer living on
the West Coast of the United States and frequent
contributor to DownWithTyranny, digby, Truthout, and
Naked Capitalism. Follow him on Twitter
@Gaius_Publius
,
Tumblr
and
Facebook
. GP article archive
here
. Originally published at
DownWithTyranny
"We don't want a unified Korean peninsula
We [also] don't want the North Koreans to
cause more trouble than the system can absorb."
Our policy toward North Korea is not what most
people think it is. We don't want the North Koreans
to go away. In fact, we like them doing what they're
doing; we just want less of it than they've been
doing lately. If this sounds confusing, it's because
this policy is unlike what the public has been led
to assume. Thanks to something uncovered by
WikiLeaks, the American public has a chance to be
unconfused about what's really going on with respect
to our policies in Korea.
This piece isn't intended to criticize that
policy; it may be an excellent one. I'm just want to
help us understand it better.
Our source for the U.S. government's actual
Korean policy - going back decades really - is
former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. She
resigned that position in
February 2013
, and on June 4, 2013 she gave a
speech at Goldman Sachs with Lloyd Blankfein present
(perhaps on stage with her) in which she discussed
in what sounds like a very frank manner, among many
other things, the U.S. policy toward the two Korea
and the relationship of that policy to China.
That speech and two others were sent by
Tony Carrk
of the Clinton campaign to a number
of others in the campaign, including John Podesta.
WikiLeaks subsequently released that email as part
of its release of other Podesta emails (source email
with attachments
here
). In that speech, Clinton spoke
confidentially and, I believe, honestly. What she
said in that speech, I take her as meaning
truthfully. There's certainly no reason for her to
lie to her peers, and in some cases her betters, at
Goldman Sachs. The entire speech reads like elites
talking with elites in a space reserved just for
them.
I'm not trying to impugn Clinton or WikiLeaks by
writing this - that's not my intention at all. I
just want to learn from what she has to say - from a
position of knowledge - about the real U.S. policy
toward North Korea. After all, if Goldman Sachs
executives can be told this, it can't be that big a
secret. We should be able to know it as well.
What Clinton's Speech Tells Us about U.S.
Korea Policy
The WikiLeaks tweet is above. The entire speech,
contained in the attachment to the email, is
here
. I've reprinted some of the relevant
portions below, first quoting Ms. Clinton with some
interspersed comments from me. Then, adding some
thoughts about what this seems to imply about our
approach to and relations with South Korea.
The Korea section of the Goldman Sachs speech
starts with a discussion of China, and then
Blankfein pivots to Korea. Blankfein's whole
question that leads to the Clinton quote tweeted by
WikiLeaks above (my emphasis throughout):
MR. BLANKFEIN: The Japanese - I was more
surprised that it wasn't like that when you
think of - all these different things. It's such
a part of who they are, their response to Japan.
If you bump into the Filipino fishing boats,
then I think you really - while we're in the
neighborhood [i.e., discussing Asia], the
Chinese is going to help us or help themselves -
what is helping themselves? North Korea?
On
the one hand they [the Chinese] wouldn't want -
they don't want to unify Korea, but they can't
really like a nutty nuclear power on their
border. What is their interests and what are
they going to help us do?
Clinton's whole answer is reprinted in the
WikiLeaks tweet attachment (click through to the
tweet and expand the embedded image to read it all).
The relevant portions, for my purposes, are printed
below. From the rest of her remarks, the context of
Blankfein's question and Clinton's answer is the
threat posed by a North Korean ICBM, not unlike the
situation our government faces today.
MS. CLINTON: Well, I think [Chinese]
traditional policy has been close to what you've
described.
We don't want a unified Korean
peninsula, because if there were one South Korea
would be dominant for the obvious economic and
political reasons.
We [also]
don't want the North Koreans to
cause more trouble than the system can absorb
.
So we've got a pretty good thing going with the
previous North Korean leaders [Kim Il-sung and
Kim Jung-il]. And then along comes the new young
leader [Kim Jung-un], and he proceeds to insult
the Chinese. He refuses to accept delegations
coming from them. He engages in all kinds of
both public and private rhetoric, which seems to
suggest that he is preparing himself to stand
against not only the South Koreans and the
Japanese and the Americans, but also the
Chinese.
Translation - three points:
The U.S. prefers that Korea stay divided. If
Korea were to unite, South Korea would be in
charge, and we don't want South Korea to become
any more powerful than it already is.
We also don't want the trouble North Korea
causes South Korea to extend beyond the region.
We want it to stay within previously defined
bounds.
Our arrangement with the two previous North
Korean leaders met both of those objectives.
North Korea's new leader, ,Kim Jung-un, is
threatening that arrangement.
It appears that China has the same interest in
keeping this situation as-is that we do. That is,
they want South Korea (and us) to have a Korean
adversary, but they don't want the adversary acting
out of acceptable bounds - coloring outside the
lines laid down by the Chinese (and the U.S.), as it
were. Clinton:
So the new [Chinese] leadership basically
calls him [Kim Jung-un] on the carpet. And
a
high ranking North Korean military official has
just finished a visit in Beijing and basically
told [him, as a message from the Chinese]: Cut
it out.
Just stop it. Who do you think you
are? And you are dependent on us [the Chinese],
and you know it. And we expect you to
demonstrate the respect that your father and
your grandfather [Kim Jung-il, Kim Il-sung]
showed toward us, and there will be a price to
pay if you do not.
Now, that looks back to an important
connection of what I said before. The biggest
supporters of a provocative North Korea has been
the PLA [the Chinese People's Liberation Army].
The deep connections between the military
leadership in China and in North Korea has
really been the mainstay of the relationship.
So
now all of a sudden new leadership with Xi and
his team, and they're saying to the North
Koreans - and by extension to the PLA - no. It
is not acceptable. We don't need this [trouble]
right now. We've got other things going on. So
you're going to have to pull back from your
provocative actions,
start talking to South
Koreans again about the free trade zones, the
business zones on the border, and get back to
regular order
and do it quickly.
Now,
we don't care if you occasionally
shoot off a missile. That's good. That upsets
the Americans and causes them heartburn, but you
can't keep going down a path that is
unpredictable
. We don't like that. That is
not acceptable to us.
So I think they're trying to reign Kim Jong
in. I think they're trying to send a clear
message to the North Korean military.
They
also have a very significant trade relationship
with Seoul and they're trying to reassure Seoul
that, you know, we're now on the case.
Clinton ends with a fourth point:
From the U.S. standpoint, the current
problem is now on the Chinese to fix.
Clinton:
So they want to keep North Korea within their
orbit. They want to keep it predictable in their
view. They have made some rather significant
statements recently that they would very much
like to see the North Koreans pull back from
their nuclear program. Because I and everybody
else - and I know you had Leon Panetta here this
morning. You know, we all have told the Chinese
if they continue to develop this missile program
and they get an ICBM that has the capacity to
carry a small nuclear weapon on it, which is
what they're aiming to do, we cannot abide that.
Because they could not only do damage to our
treaty allies, namely Japan and South Korea,
but they could actually reach Hawaii and the
west coast theoretically, and we're going to
ring China with missile defense
. We're going
to put more of our fleet in the area.
So China, come on. You either control them
or we're going to have to defend against them
.
The four bullets above (three, and then one) give
a very clear definition of longstanding U.S. policy
toward the two Koreas. I think the only surprise in
this, for us civilians, is that the U.S. doesn't
want the Korean peninsula unified. So two questions:
Why not? And, do the South Koreans know this? I'll
offer brief answers below.
The "Great Game" In East Asia - Keeping the
Korean "Tiger" in Check
South Korea is one of the great emerging nations
in East Asia, one of the "Asian tigers," a
manufacturing and economic powerhouse that's lately
been turning into a technological and innovative
powerhouse as well.
Why South Korea Will Be The Next Global
Hub For Tech Startups
American business has long led the way in
high tech density
or the proportion of
businesses that engage in activities such as
Internet software and services, hardware and
semiconductors.
The US is fertile ground for
tech start-ups with access to capital
and a
culture that celebrates risk taking. Other
countries have made their mark on the world
stage, competing to be prominent tech and
innovation hubs. Israel has been lauded as a
start-up nation with several hundred companies
getting funded by venture capital each year. A
number of these companies are now being acquired
by the likes of Apple, Facebook and Google.
Finland and Sweden have attracted notice by
bringing us Angry Birds and Spotify among
others.
But a new start-up powerhouse is on
the horizon – South Korea
. [ ]
In other words, South Korea has leaped beyond
being a country that keeps U.S. tech CEOs wealthy -
it's now taking steps that threaten that wealth
itself. And not just in electronics; the biological
research field - think cloning - is an area the
South Koreans are trying to take a lead in as well.
It's easy to understand Ms. Clinton's - and the
business-captured American government's - interest
in making sure that the U.S. CEO class isn't further
threatened by a potential doubling of the capacity
of the South Korean government and economy. Let them
(the Koreans) manufacture to their heart's content,
our policy seems to say; but to threaten our lead in
billionaire-producing entrepreneurship that's a
bridge too far.
Again, this is Clinton speaking, I'm absolutely
certain, on behalf of U.S. government policy makers
and the elites they serve:
We don't want a
unified Korean peninsula, because if there were one,
an already-strong South Korea would be dominant for
obvious economic reasons.
As to whether the South Koreans know that this is
our policy, I'd have to say, very likely yes. After
all, if Clinton is saying this to meetings of
Goldman Sachs executives, it can't be that big a
secret. It's just that the South Korea leadership
knows better than the North Korean leader how to
handle it.
Weren't we scared shitless of the Japanese in the
80s, thinking they were gonna clean our clocks? Try
not to get too worked up and overestimate the
ability of a conformist society to bury us.
It's a lot more complicated than that. You
forget that Japan was and is a military
protectorate of the US. For instance, in the
1987 crash, the Fed called the Bank of Japan and
told it to buy Treasuries. The BoJ told the
Japanese banks to comply and they did.
The US ran the yen up via the Plaza Accords
in 1985. Way up. They did succeed in denting
Japanese exports to the US but it did squat for
increasing US exports to Japan.
The US also forced rapid bank deregulation on
Japan. It was like telling someone who ran a
drayage company that they were really in the
transportation business, giving them a 747, and
telling them to fly it. I had Sumitomo Bank as a
client when the deregulation was starting. They
were (correctly) considered the best run bank in
Japan. They didn't even have modern
asset-liability management adequate to handle
traditional retail and wholesale banking, let
alone capital markets operations. The Japanese
bubble and bust was in no small measure our
doing.
While I certainly understand all of that
about Japan, is it not the same case with
South Korea? My understanding is that we
have between 25-30,000 troops constantly
stationed along the DMZ and within South
Korea. I would presume we're also gladly
selling the South Koreans military
technology. And let's say that magically
North and South Korea do reunite, what
happens then with the Chinese border? Won't
the Koreans still want to remain essentially
a military protectorate during what would
certainly be a messy reunification period so
as to not have to worry about China working
to undermine the process? I would say the US
would have a major role in shaping how the
reunification were to go and do it's best to
keep the billionaire classes happy as can
be.
> I would presume we're also gladly
selling the South Koreans military
technology.
There's a big govt-sponsored push to
develop an indigenous Korean
defense/aerospace industry. It's 0.5 – 1
generation behind the US (on paper), but
more than sophisticated enough for
export to developing nations.
>won't the Koreans still want to
remain essentially a military
protectorate
Not necessarily. Koreans don't view
China as an existential threat/rival as
US neocons do. China is Korea's #1
export market. And Korea has no
existential threats in its neighborhood
(ex. North Korea).
historically, the only invaders that
came from the North were the Mongols and
Khitans (a Manchurian tribe) not Han
Chinese. (if i recall correctly)
The Koreans have a very
sophisticated domestic defence
industry – and its already started
to annoy the US as weapons like the
T-50 trainer (a sort of cheap
knock-off of the F-16) is attracting
sales US companies were hoping for
(it might even be in with a chance
of winning the competition to supply
the US with new supersonic
trainers). They've a new tank
purpose built for fighting in
mountainous regions and is probably
the best in the world for that role.
But most of their weaponry is still
US made.
Korea is the Poland of Asia – a
country forever plagued by being
sandwiched between two larger,
nastier neighbours. In theory they
should be friends with Japan, but
old wounds haven't healed, and they
are not particularly pro-Chinese
historically either. They currently
have a very delicate relationship
with China – in theory very good, in
practice, the Chinese are fond of
reminding them of their weaker
position, as with the current
economic-boycott-in-all-but-name
over the siting of THAAD missiles in
Korea. I don't think they would look
forward at all to the decisions
required if they found themselves
sharing a border with China. Like
Japan, they find delegating hard
geopolitical decisions to the US to
be comfortable, it avoids having to
face up to hard issues.
What is not mentioned is that
Japan is a bigger threat in terms of
military aggression or economic
competition to Korea. Plenty of
Koreans still have 1st hand
knowledge of how they were treated
by invading Japanese troops.
It is dumb and frankly, quite racist to
assume the Japanese are conformist. Many of the
top materials sciences areas are now dominated
by Japan. The US continues to run a deficit on
Japan.
Oh and Japanese culture has its own
following. Pokemon, Japanese anime, and a few
things like Sushi are their own inventions.
Eh. This post is very much 'Department of
Breaking News: Rain is Wet.'
Two points -
[1] The bolded quote from Forbes -
But a
new start-up powerhouse is on the horizon – South
Korea.
[ ] - very much understates the
situation. For instance, some tech cognoscenti like
to talk about the stacks. See forex this book -
The stacks are Amazon, Google, Amazon, Microsoft,
Facebook and Apple. There is only one non-American
stack and that's Samsung. That's not a small deal.
South Korea has arrived.
[2] Gaius Publius claims: 'It's easy to
understand Ms. Clinton's - and the business-captured
American government's - interest in making sure that
the U.S. CEO class isn't further threatened by a
potential doubling of the capacity of the South
Korean government and economy.'
No. If Mrs. Clinton and the U.S. CEO class are
threatened, then the one thing they won't mind is
the re-unification of the two Koreas.
That's because
conservative
estimates
are that modernizing North Korea's economy could
cost South Korea at least $500 billion. Per capita
GDP in North Korea today is roughly $1,000-$1,200.
Whereas South Korea's per capita GDP is $33,062,
according to the World Bank.
The cost of German reunification was a trifle by
comparison.
With regard to reunification and its cost,
around the time of Kim Il Sung's passing and the
mass outpouring of grief, it was suggested that
the Northerners had psychological issues and
were not of a type that could fit into the
South's economy / society, so reunification was
best kicked permanently into the long grass.
This sort of view has often been expressed
about Ossis by Wessis in Germany. There is a
joke that Wessis would like to rebuild the wall,
but higher.
If Stuxnet could wreak havoc with Iranian
nuclear infrastructure I wonder what strange and
delightful memetic goodies our tech-spook chefs
could cook up against an Apple rival like
Samsung. The Galaxy Note S7 debacle was WEIRD.
I don't think the Galaxy Note fiasco was
weird at all. The stories that emerged in
the aftermath indicated that Samsung saw a
gap to exploit in Apple's iPhone update
cycle and they rushed their product to
market with substandard QC. The battery was
ultimately under physical stress that
destabilized the Li batteries cells and
leading to spontaneous combustion. Rushing
substandard products to market to grab
market isn't unique to Samsung by any
stretch, but to think that America had
anything to do with it is just pure
speculation that ignores the reported facts.
Yes, I was thinking that too, a fear of a
united Korea as some sort of global competitor
to the US doesn't really make sense in the short
to medium term. It would certainly take up most
of Koreas energies and spare resources at least
10 years to deal with it. And its hard to see
how Korea's big companies would benefit so much,
as they already have access to cheap
manufacturing zones all over Asia. Anyway, a
unified Korea would still be significantly
smaller than in terms of population and economy
than Japan.
If the US establishment is really against
unification (I have to say, that my
interpretation of whats written is that HRC was
talking more about China's views), I'd say it
would have more to do with it probably leading
to the US having a weaker hold over the Korean
peninsula, as a unified Korea would likely
pursue a more independent foreign policy.
I agree with you that Clinton was
summarizing China's view, not the U.S. view,
when she said, "We don't want a unified
Korean peninsula, because if there were one
South Korea would be dominant for the
obvious economic and political reasons." I
suspect U.S. strategists would prefer a
unified, South-dominated Korea on China's
border, to help contain China better. The
Pentagon could hope for even more military
sales to a unified Korea pressed right up
against China.
That said, getting from here to there
would be so disruptive I doubt any U.S.
administration would try to accomplish it.
Though with Trump, who knows?
it would have more to do with it
probably leading to the US having a
weaker hold over the Korean peninsula
South Korea has a technologically
advanced economy and a modern army. It
increasingly designs and produces its own
fighting equipment (e.g. tanks) instead of
buying them from, crucially, the USA. In
several decades of hard work, it built
entire industries that can provide
everything that is needed: steel industry,
naval yards, automobile industry,
electronics, telecommunications, software,
etc.
A reunification would endow the fully
up-to-date South Korean army backed by a
roaring advanced economy with the one weapon
it does not have: the atomic bomb.
Neither China, nor the USA, nor Japan,
nor Russia want that.
This nails the situation IMHO.
Everyone subjected to US imperialism
dreams of nuclear power because the
bargaining power it gives against US
power. The US is doing more to promote
other nations gaining nuclear weapons
than it is in slowing it.
Other countries have had nuclear
weapons and given them up. No reason to
believe it couldn't happen in Korea if
the South ended up with the whole thing.
'A reunification would endow the
fully up-to-date South Korean army
backed by a roaring advanced economy
with the one weapon it does not have:
the atomic bomb.'
No. The Norkean nukes are simple
fission weapons that would provide no
real technological or strategic
advantage to any future re-unified
Republic of both Koreas.
Despite what you've heard, no
nation-state that seriously tried to
build simple fission weapons ever failed
to do so. This includes the likes of
South Africa, which dismantled its
weapons. Ukraine also gave up its
weapons and other countries, like Sweden
have curtailed such nuclear bomb
programs.
These countries did this because it's
not clear that in general nukes provide
a strategic advantage in international
relations, unless you're in a situation
where you're surrounded by enemies like
Israel or Pyongyang.
Fission weapons are simple once
you've acquired the enriched uranium and
plutonium. How simple can they be? So
simple that in the case of the Fat Man
device dropped on Nagasaki, the U.S.
bomber crew kept the fissile components
disassembled till they approached the
target because the potential existed
otherwise to go critical if there was,
say, excessive air turbulence that shook
the plane on the way to the target.
Basically, the Norkeans seem to be at
the stage of boosted fission weapons,
where (to simplify) some fusion fuel
(deuterium) is wrapped around a fission
device - what Edward Teller called an
"Alarm Clock" type of bomb, and Andrei
Sakharov a "Sloika" or "Layer Cake"
device. In other words, the Norkeans
have gotten no further than pre-1953
U.S. nuclear boosted fission technology
- that is, no further than the U.S.
sixty-four
years ago.
Not that you want such weapons in
Pyongyang's hands. Also, what makes a
difference is that they can access 2017
rocket and computer guidance technology,
so they can put these relatively bulky
bombs atop rockets. But if you really
want serious nuclear warheads of all
sizes and capabilities, you need staged
fusion devices - H-bomb technology, and
it took minds of the caliber of von
Neumann and Teller a decade to work out
how to make those.
To sum up: if South Korea wanted to
build mere fission weapons of the type
that Pyongyang has it could do so
immediately. So could Japan and others.
- H-bomb technology, and it
took minds of the caliber of von
Neumann and Teller a decade to work
out how to make those.
Just a footnote: S Ulam
should get at least equal
billing with Teller. This is a
notorious case of not giving
credit where credit is due. Or
discredit-when the future of
humanity is at stake?
(Is it clear how much v
Neumann had a hand in on that
key problem?)
Is it clear how much v
Neumann had a hand in on that
key problem?
In the sense that all the
other guys ran their maths and
theories by von Neumann, and
Ulam in particular was best
buddies with him. When it came
time in 1953, post-Ivy Mike, to
do the road show presentation to
the U.S. Air Force to tell them
that in future H-bombs could be
built small enough to make ICBMs
feasible, it was von Neumann and
Teller who made the
presentation.
Von Neumann also had the
clout on the AEC and elsewhere
by then to make it happen, too.
Thank you for this clarification, Yves. Splendid,
as always.
This issue reminds me of attitudes towards
Germany in / around 1989 – 90. You may recall
Thatcher's trip / plea to Moscow to prevent
unification. France came up with a different way of
"containing" Germany I remember particular comments
about the combination of wirtschaftwunder West
Germany and what was then considered the Warsaw Pact
/ Comecon's best performer, including in
intelligence, East Germany. The musings also
stretched to sport, West Germany being good at
football and East Germany at athletics, and, again,
what a pairing that would be.
With regard to Sumitomo, former colleagues who
worked there (in the 1990s) say similar, but don't
mention US interference. Did not Sumitomo and
Hawai'i's Kamehameha, ahem, bail out Goldman Sachs
soon after the Tequila crisis?
German reunification was a threat to the
other states of Europe, and history has shown
that the threat was real. Look at their economic
domination of the EU. I don't think a unified
Korea is a threat to anyone. Perhaps the US
laments that it is losing a semi-client state,
and they prefer the "let's bribe the North
Koreans every five years" strategy that worked
with the previous regime.
I am surprised that Russia does get more
involved; there is a shared border with North
Korea. Maybe they don't care if it is a Chinese
client state or a neutral reunified Korea next
door.
From 1919 right up to Germany's blitz across
Europe, Churchill was maneuvering to turn
Germany's aggression eastward. I find it
interesting that no one is analyzing Russia's
reaction to NK's aggressiveness because it could
well be that anti-Russian sentiment here in the
US has considered turning NK inland, against
eastern Siberia. It could also be that NK's
nuclear capabilities are already neutered by
Russian jamming technology. But still, the
Russian have been very quiet. Allowing the
reunification of the Koreas would entail a new
constitution and new international treaties and
agreements which would all serve to tame NK.
It's just a piddly little state.
Long-term, however, German reunification also
provided the new Germany with cheap labor which was
used to discipline its own workers and boost exports
in order to undercut its neighbors/competitors,
something I bet South Korean chaebol wouldn't mind.
Reunification also brings into play proliferation
issues. The ROK for many years had a nuclear arms
program (enriching uranium as recently as 2000), and
DPRK tech, however stone age it is in comparison,
adds considerable weight to this issue. A reunified
Korea with nukes is absolutely not something China
or the US wants.
Thatcher was concerned that German unification
would threaten Gorbachev's political survival. Page
315, 'The President, The Pope and The Prime
Minister'.
This is explained in more details in published
parts of Horst Telchuk diary (advisor to Helmut
Kohl). make sure democracy takes hold in Eastern
Europe before Germany unites otherwise push back on
and or by the Soviet Union
Further along in the book it says Mitterrand was
passionately opposed to German unification in
private but much more circumspect in public.
When Clinton said "We don't want a unified Korean
Peninsula" and "We don't want the North Koreans to
cause more trouble than the system can absorb," she
was speaking as the Chinese, not the U.S. Clinton
switched to the third person "the Chinese" in the
same paragraph, which may explain the confusion. The
U.S. may fear economic competition from a unified
Korea, but the main concern of the U.S. is losing a
pretext for military bases on China's (and Russia's)
border.
Interesting stuff, but yeah this is pretty
obviously Clinton talking about China not wanting a
united Korea. Maybe she / other US policymakers have
that same preference, but there's no evidence they
do in this speech. It's obvious why China wouldn't
want a strong American allied Korea on its border.
American tech companies being concerned about South
Korean competition being more of a threat if they
absorbed the North is much less plausible.
ok then what do clinton and goldman sachs
want if she's telling the chinese view? American
tech companies, indeed all american companies
want to be protected from competition the world
over, see the TPP, see ISDS Clinton defenders
seem to be unable to see past her smartly
pragmatic views into the fact that she carries
water for the aforementioned goldman sachs, who
if you haven't noticed basically run the gov't
for both parties, and what they want is to make
the most money with the least risk and they have
no qualms about creating conflict, nurturing
conflict, and sowing conflict if it means there
is an easy competition free path to profit.
Couldn't we just stop with the reading of tea
leaves with clinton? All of the parsing about
how she said something but that wasn't what she
meant, especially when what she says is power is
the most important thing, we don't care who gets
hurt, unless it's one of us, the acceptable
elite, who eat babies with their oatmeal. If you
want to tell me what clinton thinks with
citations that ould be great, but spare me the
malarkey that you know what she didn't mean in
her statements. Probably the main reason she
lost is because she and her supporters could not
say what she stood for. What does she stand for
in this case?
I think this sort policy – the policy of "Lets
you and him fight" has parallels in domestic policy.
Often referred to as "Wedge " issues. The center
can much more easily control things if the proper
buttons are pushed –
This of any issue – guns, women's health,
welfare, food stamps (SNAP), and so on – the list is
long –
Each side has proponents who can easily be
influenced much like Pavlov's dog, to vote,
contribute, and so forth. And these are deliberate
manipulations to keep the center in power – nothing
more.
The elites use this power to continue the
looting.
Good article- thanks for posting this. I don't
fault the strategy here, but I think that our
leaders need to do more to be this open with the
American public and not just bankers.
This seems like a strained reading of the plain
text of the statements:
Well, I think [Chinese] traditional policy
has been close to what you've described. We
don't want a unified Korean peninsula, because
if there were one South Korea would be dominant
for the obvious economic and political reasons.
The We here clearly refers to China - China
doesn't want a unified Korea because it thinks it
would be one big South Korea. This is exactly the
sort of groundbreaking revelation that we have all
come to expect from Hillary Clinton. Then later on
in that same quote, she talks about We don't mind if
you shoot off the occasional missile and that's
good, again, using the same rhetorical technique
(where "We" is the PLA).
Finding basically no support for your thesis in
the quotes, you then tack on some nonsense about how
the US elites need North Korea because Google is
afraid of Naver or whatever. Japan is within missile
range, has over 2x as many people and a 50% higher
GDP per capita, and seems not to be much of a
threat. It just doesn't make sense that the US as
afraid of the competition from a unified Korea,
which would have only 25m more people than South
Korea, basically all of whom are starving and crazy.
Look what it cost Germany to unify, with much less
of a disparity.
There are a lot of reasons why the US might favor
a divided Korea: an excuse to maintain a massive
military base a few hundred miles from Beijing, or
military spending and warmongering generally. But
none of them are supported by this primary source,
which is just a bland recitation of conventional
wisdom, which, along with fealty, is all you get for
$250,000.
Well, I've seen it all. When people say Hillary
meant China when she said "we" and there is no clear
indication that "we" doesn't refer to the USA, when
the actions of the last 50 years support the
interpretation that "we" means the USA and not
China, when "we" as in China would point away from
the misdeeds of Hillary as SecState, then I've seen
it all.
Students of international affairs who take the long view have for some time been worried about
the trajectory of U.S.-China relations. While in theory a cooperative relationship would be most
beneficial to both parties, in practice dominant powers and rising challengers rarely are able
to work out a fruitful accommodation. Instead, most often the two stumble into a conflict that
devastates both countries' interests.
Graham Allison calls the underlying
theory -
detailed in his new book - the Thucydides Trap. So long as both powers rationally assume that
the dominant power aims to maintain its supremacy, even accommodative policies will be interpreted
as a way to get the rising power to settle for less than it might achieve by revisionist agitations.
So if the dominant power is accommodative, the rising power will take advantage, provoking a reversal
by the dominant power and a confrontation. But if the dominant power is confrontational and tries
to encircle the rising power, it will provoke the rising power to break out - and in the meantime
the dominant power will exhaust its resources more quickly than the rising power does, accelerating
the power transition.
So how can war be avoided?
Allison's prescription is for robust communication along with a willingness on the part of
the dominant power to think big in terms of how the international order will have to change to
accommodate the rising power. Rather than try to prevent or limit the power transition, the dominant
power has to facilitate it, get the rising power to understand that this is in fact the policy,
and thereby forge a cooperative path through the transition that gives both powers an appropriate
role to their new relative power position. I've argued in this space before that
Korea would be a perfect place to try to
achieve those twin goals.
The Obama administration's much-touted but never-completed "pivot" to Asia could be understood
as an effort to preserve America's position within the context of partnership with China - or
as an effort to contain China and maintain American supremacy. Strengthened alliances with countries
like Australia and Vietnam were intended to discourage China from adventurism in its near-abroad,
while the Trans-Pacific Partnership was
designed to counter Chinese economic leadership in the region. On the other hand, the TPP
did not explicitly exclude China, and it is plausible to think that its ultimate purpose was more
to keep America in than to keep China out. Obama clearly saw a value in working with the Chinese
rather than merely against them, but he also recognized that China intended to challenge America's
interests in the western Pacific and aimed to counter it.
We'll never know whether the Obama strategy would have been a way out of the Thucydides Trap,
or whether it would have led us right into it. We'll never know because President Trump has trashed
the strategy entirely,
pulling out of the
TPP , musing about
abandoning the one-China policy , threatening unilateral
action in Korea , and calling for tariffs on Chinese manufacturers. His initial policy mix
looked like it was premised on the assumption that war was inevitable, so we might as well make
it happen on our terms.
But a funny thing happened on the way to the battlefield: The Chinese realized we were bluffing.
Our military options in Korea
aren't really viable , and Trump has proved that he knows they aren't by his eagerness to
get the Chinese to handle the problem - eagerness so overwhelming it has already led him to
abandon a core campaign theme, confronting the Chinese on trade . Trump has already reaffirmed
the one-China policy. And he has not only gratuitously insulted
key
allies , but demonstrated tactical
incompetence in his communications about the mission of
the aircraft carrier Carl Vinson . Watching Trump, America's Asian allies surely
are questioning our reliability and basic competence, while the Chinese surely are far less worried
that America will be able to restrain their rise even if we desire to do so.
Normally, this would provoke the rising power to be more confrontational. But if the Chinese
really understand Trump, they'll see that they could get far more by picking his pocket than by
mugging him. Trump is transparently eager for a deal - almost any deal. The Chinese could probably
ask for the moon and the stars - or control of the South China Sea - in exchange for minor promises
- to let their currency rise a bit (which has already happened), to build a few manufacturing
plants in Ohio, to get North Korea to restrain itself for a few months. Why wouldn't the Chinese
try to get what they want at the table rather than taking the risk of a confrontation?
Of course, normally a political leader would pay a gruesome price for cutting a terrible deal
with a key rival. If Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton had rolled over for the Chinese, the Republican
Party would go ballistic. But Donald Trump's brand is all about making America great again. His
most vocal liberal critics, meanwhile, are more concerned that he's going to stumble into World
War III than that he is going to be insufficiently firm in defending America's interests. While,
as with Syria, they may support any military actions he does take, they are unlikely to provoke
him into backing up his blustery threats with actual shows of force.
Paradoxically, Trump could achieve by sloth and incompetence what is very difficult for dominant
powers to accept: a transition out of that dominant position.
"... Counter-terrorism specialists in the US government knew perfectly well that US regime change in Iraq through military force would give a powerful boost to Osama bin Laden's organization and to anti-American terrorism generally. ..."
"... After it quickly became clear that the US war in Iraq was already motivating young men across the Middle East to wage jihad against the US in Iraq, the chief architect of the occupation of Iraq, Paul Wolfowitz, came up with the patently false rationalization that Iraq would be a "flytrap" for jihadists. ..."
"... But Hayden and the CIA had a huge bureaucratic interest in that war. He had lobbied Bush in 2007 to loosen restraints on drone strikes in Pakistan and let the CIA launch lethal attacks on the mere suspicion that a group of males were al-Qaeda. ..."
"... It soon became clear that it wasn't really weakening the al-Qaeda in the northwest Pakistan at all. Even drone operators themselves began privately criticizing the drone attacks for making many more young Pakistanis hate the United States and support al-Qaeda. The only thing Leon Panetta, Hayden's successor as CIA director, could say in defense of the program was that it was "the only game in town" . ..."
"... Barack Obama wanted out of a big war in Iraq. But CENTCOM Commander Gen. David Petraeus and Joint Staff director Gen. Stanley A McChyrstal, talked Obama into approving a whole new series of covert wars using CIA drone strikes and special operations commando raids against al-Qaeda and other jihadist organizations in a dozen countries in the Middle East, North Africa and Central Asia. At the top of their list of covert wars was Yemen, where al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) had just been formed. ..."
"... In late 2011 and early 2012, the contradiction between the US pretension to counter-terrorism in its Middle East policy and the interests sharpened even further. That's when the Obama administration adopted a new anti-Iran hard line in the region to reassure the Saudis that we were still committed to the security alliance. That hard line policy had nothing to do with a nuclear deal with Iran, which came more than a year later. ..."
"... The Obama national security team was willing to take advantage of the considerable military power of the Nusra Front-led jihadist alliance. But it was all done with a wink and a nod to maintain the fiction that it was still committed to defeating al-Qaeda everywhere. ..."
"... AQAP will certainly emerge from the disastrous war in Yemen as the strongest political force in the south, with a de-facto safe haven in which to plot terrorist attacks against the US. And they can thank the war bureaucracies in the US who helped them achieve that powerful position. ..."
"... But the reason for the betrayal of US counter-terrorism interests is not that the senior officials in charge of these war bureaucracies want to promote al-Qaeda. It is because they had to sacrifice the priority of countering al-Qaeda to maintain the alliances, the facilities and the operations on which their continued power and resources depend. ..."
Since 2001, senior Pentagon and CIA
officials have sacrificed American interests in weakening
al-Qaeda to pursue their own interests
New York Times
columnist Tom Friedman outraged many
readers when he
wrote an opinion piece
on 12 April calling on President
Trump to "back off fighting territorial ISIS in Syria". The
reason he gave for that recommendation was not that US wars
in the Middle East are inevitably self-defeating and
endless, but that it would reduce the "pressure on Assad,
Iran, Russia and Hezbollah".
That suggestion that the US
sell out its interest in counter-terrorism in the Middle
East to gain some advantage in power competition with its
adversaries was rightly attacked as cynical.
But, in fact, the national security bureaucracies of the
US – which many have come to call the "Deep State" – have
been selling out their interests in counter-terrorism in
order to pursue various adventures in the region ever since
George W Bush declared a "Global War on Terrorism" in late
2001.
The whole war on terrorism has been, in effect, a
bait-and-switch operation from the beginning. The idea that
US military operations were somehow going to make America
safer after the 9/11 attacks was the bait. What has actually
happened ever since then, however, is that senior officials
at the Pentagon and the CIA have been sacrificing the
interest of American people in weakening al-Qaeda in order
to pursue their own institutional interests.
'The only game in town'
It all began, of course, with the invasion of Iraq.
Counter-terrorism specialists in the US government knew
perfectly well that US regime change in Iraq through
military force would give a powerful boost to Osama bin
Laden's organization and to anti-American terrorism
generally. Rand Beers, then senior director for
counter-terrorism on the National Security Council staff,
told his predecessor Richard Clarke
in late 2002, "Do
you know how much it will strengthen al-Qaeda and groups
like that if we occupy Iraq?"
After it quickly became clear that the US war in Iraq was
already motivating young men across the Middle East to wage
jihad against the US in Iraq, the chief architect of the
occupation of Iraq, Paul Wolfowitz, came up with the
patently false rationalization that
Iraq would be a "flytrap"
for jihadists.
But in January 2005, after a year of research, the CIA
issued a
major intelligence assessment
warning that the war was
breeding more al-Qaeda extremist militants from all over the
Middle East and even giving them combat experience that they
would eventually be able to use back home. In a
2006 National Intelligence Estimate
, the intelligence
community warned that the number of people identifying
themselves as jihadists was growing and was becoming more
widespread geographically and even the predicted growing
terrorist threats from "self-radicalized cells" both in the
US and abroad.
The war managers continued to claim that their wars were
making Americans safer. CIA Director Michael Hayden not only
sought to sell the flypaper argument on Iraq, but also
bragged to the Washington Post in 2008
that the CIA was
making great progress against al-Qaeda, based mainly on its
burgeoning drone war in Pakistan.
But Hayden and the CIA had a
huge bureaucratic interest
in that war. He had lobbied
Bush in 2007 to loosen restraints on drone strikes in
Pakistan and let the CIA launch lethal attacks on the mere
suspicion that a group of males were al-Qaeda.
It soon became clear that it wasn't really weakening the
al-Qaeda in the northwest Pakistan at all. Even drone
operators themselves began
privately criticizing the drone attacks
for making many
more young Pakistanis hate the United States and support
al-Qaeda. The only thing Leon Panetta, Hayden's successor as
CIA director, could say in defense of the program was that
it was
"the only game in town"
.
Covert wars
Barack Obama wanted out of a big war in Iraq. But CENTCOM
Commander Gen. David Petraeus and Joint Staff director Gen.
Stanley A McChyrstal, talked Obama into approving a whole
new series of covert wars using CIA drone strikes and
special operations commando raids against al-Qaeda and other
jihadist organizations in a dozen countries in the Middle
East, North Africa and Central Asia. At the top of their
list of covert wars was Yemen, where al-Qaeda in the Arabian
Peninsula (AQAP) had just been formed.
The CIA again claimed they were doing a splendid job of
hitting AQAP, but in fact the Yemeni offshoot of al-Qaeda
continued to be the primary terrorism threat while the
covert war continued. Three times between late 2009 and
2012, it mounted efforts to bring down airliners and nearly
succeeded in two of the three.
Sharpened contradictions
In late 2011 and early 2012, the contradiction between
the US pretension to counter-terrorism in its Middle East
policy and the interests sharpened even further. That's when
the Obama administration adopted a new anti-Iran hard line
in the region to reassure the Saudis that we were still
committed to the security alliance. That hard line policy
had nothing to do with a nuclear deal with Iran, which came
more than a year later.
At first, it took form of covert logistical assistance to
the Sunni allies to arm Sunni anti-Assad forces in Syria.
But in 2014, the Obama administration began providing
antitank missiles to selected anti-Assad armed groups. And
when the Nusra Front wanted the groups the CIA had supported
in Idlib to
coordinate with the jihadist offensive
to seize control
of Idlib province, the Obama administration did not object.
The Obama national security team was willing to take
advantage of the considerable military power of the Nusra
Front-led jihadist alliance. But it was all done with a wink
and a nod to maintain the fiction that it was still
committed to defeating al-Qaeda everywhere.
When the Saudis came to Washington in March 2015 with a
plan to wage a major war in Yemen against the Houthis and
their new ally, former President Ali Abdullah Saleh, the
deep state was ready to
give Saudi a green light
. A predictable consequence of
that decision has been to fuel the rise of AQAP, which had
already emerged as the primary threat of terrorist attack on
the US, to an unprecedented position of power.
The biggest winner
As documented
by the International Crisis Group, AQAP
has been the
biggest winner in the war, taking advantage of state
collapse, an open alliance with the Saudi-supported
government and a major infusion of arms – much of its
provided indirectly by the Saudis.
Endowed with a political strategy of playing up AQAP's
role as champion of Sunni sectarian interests against those
Yemenis whom they wrongly call Shia, AQAP controlled a large
swath of territory across southern Yemen with the port of
Mukalla as their headquarters. And even though the Saudi
coalition recaptured the territory, they maintain a strong
political presence there.
AQAP will certainly emerge from the disastrous war in
Yemen as the strongest political force in the south, with a
de-facto safe haven in which to plot terrorist attacks
against the US. And they can thank the war bureaucracies in
the US who helped them achieve that powerful position.
But the reason for the betrayal of US counter-terrorism
interests is not that the senior officials in charge of
these war bureaucracies want to promote al-Qaeda. It is
because they had to sacrifice the priority of countering
al-Qaeda to maintain the alliances, the facilities and the
operations on which their continued power and resources
depend.
Gareth Porter, an investigative historian and
journalist specializing in US national security policy,
received the UK-based Gellhorn Prize for journalism for 2011
for articles on the U.S. war in Afghanistan. His new book is
Manufactured Crisis: the Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear
Scare
. He can be contacted at
[email protected].
Reprinted from the
Middle East Eye
with the author's permission.
MOSCOW - The American and European sanctions against the Russian
oil industry
have dashed, at least for now, the Western oil majors' ambitions to
drill in the Arctic Ocean.
But drilling will continue all the same, Russian government and state oil company
officials have been taking pains to point out, ever since
the sanctions
took effect over the summer.
"We will do it on our own," Igor I. Sechin, the president of Russia's
state-controlled oil company, Rosneft, told journalists in October. "We'll continue
drilling here next year and the years after that."
Rather than throw in the towel in the face of Western sanctions intended to halt
Russia's Arctic oil ambitions by stopping technology transfers, the Russians have
responded with plans to "Russify" the technology to be deployed in the world's
largest effort to date to extract oil from the thawing Arctic Ocean.
The solution to tapping the Arctic, Yevgeny Primakov, a former prime minister, told a
group of high officials in October, "is found first of all in our own industrial
base."
A major hurdle is already cleared: An Exxon-led joint venture discovered oil in the
Russian sector of the Arctic Ocean in September, proving the region holds
commercially viable volumes of oil.
Rosneft is already laying plans to drill without Western oil major cooperation. Along
with Exxon, Eni of Italy and Statoil of Norway had joint ventures to work with
Rosneft in the Kara, Laptev, and Chukchi seas above Russia.
After the September sanctions
suspended those deals
, Rosneft negotiated to rent from Gazprom four Russian
ice-class drilling rigs for next season's exploration work, should Exxon still be
sanction-barred from doing the work next summer.
Rosneft has also booked six rigs from North Atlantic Drilling, a unit of Seadrill of
Norway, under contracts signed in July and grandfathered in under the sanctions.
The Russians are in early talks with the Chinese over sailing rigs from the South
China Sea to the Arctic Ocean, industry executives say.
This spring as the threat of sanctions loomed, Rosneft bought the Russian and
Venezuelan well-drilling business of Weatherford, adding to its in-house
capabilities.
A further "Russification" of the industry seems inevitable. In October, President
Vladimir V. Putin approved the creation of a state-owned oil services company, RBC, a
Russian business newspaper reported. The intention is to duplicate, as well as
possible, the services purveyed now by Halliburton, Baker Hughes and Schlumberger.
Certainly, some in the oil industry see the Russian official response as bluff,
asserting Rosneft has neither the skills nor the capital to drill for oil in its 42
offshore licenses blocks. Under the joint ventures, the Western companies financed
and managed the exploration work.
The three companies, Exxon, Eni and Statoil, were to invest $20 billion in
exploration, and the company has been mute on how it will replace that. Just this
summer, Exxon paid $700 million to drill the Universitetskaya-1 well in the Kara Sea.
Russia, meanwhile, does not even manufacture subsea hardware like well heads.
Rosneft's finances are restricted to 30-day loans under sanctions.
Yet the company and the Russian industry are already tooling up for just such an
effort.
The sheer uncertainty of sanctions is pushing the Russian industry to turn inward.
Russian companies, even those who prefer to work with U.S. oilfield equipment or
services providers because the cost or quality is better, can never know when new
sanctions might scuttle a deal.
DealBook
DealBook delivers the news driving the markets and the
conversation. Delivered weekday mornings and afternoons.
Thank you for subscribing.
An error has occurred. Please try again
later.
You are already subscribed to this email.
"The client looks at you and says 'I like you, I like your product, but you are not
dependable,' " Alexis Rodzianko, the director of the American Chamber of Commerce in
Russia said in an interview.
Russia now has a "hierarchy of procurement" placing domestic and Asian companies
first, U.S. companies last.
"The consensus in Russia is this is not a one-off, short-term problem," Ildar
Davletshin, an oil analyst at Renaissance Capital in Moscow, said in an interview, of
the Russian effort to pivot to domestic and Asian suppliers.
"Nobody will just sit and wait" for sanctions to be lifted, he said.
Whether Russian technology can fill the gap left by Western oil majors as the country
prepares for the extraordinary engineering challenge of oil drilling under the Arctic
ice remains an unsettled question within the industry.
Russia brings Soviet legacy technologies, including the world's only fleet of nuclear
icebreakers, awesome machines of immense power, with names like 50 Years of Victory
and Yamal, which sail year-round in the Arctic Ocean.
"Let's not underestimate them," said one oil company executive who visited Exxon's
West Alpha rig this summer, but could not speak publicly because of company policy.
Russians are no strangers to the north, and the cold. "They are determined to do it.
They might do it on their own."
The Russian intention to do just that became clear out on the Arctic Ocean at the end
of the short drilling window this summer.
Ice floes were already creeping down from the polar ice cap in tongues when the U.S.
government announced Sept. 12 that Exxon was to halt all assistance to Rosneft by
Sept. 26, in response to Russian military assistance to a rebel counteroffensive
against the Ukrainian Army in late August.
The Exxon crew stopped drilling, though the well was only about 75 percent complete.
In an early indication of the Russians' intentions to go it alone after sanctions,
Rosneft executives told Exxon they would not allow the
West Alpha rig
to leave Russian waters without finishing the well, according to
the oil company executive familiar with events on the platform in September.
If Exxon withdrew American engineers, Rosneft would fly out a Russian replacement
crew, putting the localization plan into immediate action, the executive said.
Rosneft's press service contested this characterization of the company's position,
calling it a "fiction."
In the end, Exxon obtained an extension on its waiver to the sanction from the U.S.
Treasury Department, stretching the window for work with Rosneft in the Arctic until
Oct. 10.
The Arctic Ocean, Mr. Sechin said later that month in the interview with Bloomberg
News at the drilling site in the Kara Sea, is Russia's "Saudi Arabia" of oil, vast
and pivotal to Russia's national interests.
Rosneft's website estimates the Kara Sea's reservoirs hold about 87 billion barrels
of oil and the equivalent in
natural gas
, calling this more than the deposits of the Gulf of Mexico, the
Brazilian shelf or the offshore potential north of Alaska and Canada.
After a daylong pause on Sept. 12 to Sept. 13, the Russian brinkmanship worked: The
American crew continued drilling and about a week later, in mid-September, discovered
a vast oil deposit, holding about 750 million barrels of oil. Mr. Sechin thanked
Western partners for the find, and named the field Pobeda, or Victory.
"... On April 17 th , Scott Humor, the Research Director at the geostrategic site "The Saker," headlined "Trump has lost control over the Pentagon" , and he listed (and linked-to) the following signs that Trump is following through with his promise to allow the Pentagon to control U.S. international relations: ..."
"... March 14 th , the US National Nuclear Security Administration field tested the modernized B61-12 gravity nuclear bomb in Nevada . ..."
"... April 7, Liberty Passion, loaded with US military vehicles, moored at Aqaba Main Port, Jordan ..."
"... On April 7 th the Pentagon US bombed Syria's main command center in fight against terrorists ..."
"... April 10, United States Deploying Forces At Syrian-Jordanian Border ..."
"... April 11, The US Air Force might start forcing pilots to stay in the service against their will, according to the chief of the military unit's Air Mobility Command. ..."
"... April 12, President Donald Trump has signed the US approval for Montenegro to join NATO ..."
"... April 13, NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg announced the alliance's increased deployment in Eastern Europe ..."
"... On April 13 th , the Pentagon bombed Afghanistan. The US military has bombed Afghanistan with its GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast Bomb (MOAB) ..."
"... April 13, the US-led coalition bombed the IS munitions and chemical weapons depot in Deir ez-Zo r killing hundreds of people ..."
"... April 14, The Arleigh Burke-class, guided-missile destroyer USS Stethem (DDG 63) has been deployed to the South China Sea ..."
"... April 14, the US sent F-35 jets to Europe ..."
"... April 14, Washington failed to attend the latest international conference hosted by Moscow, where 11 nations discussed ways of bringing peace to Afghanistan . The US branded it a "unilateral Russian attempt to assert influence in the region". ..."
"... April14, the US has positioned two destroyers armed with Tomahawk cruise missiles close enough to the North Korean nuclear test site to act preemptively ..."
"... On April 16 th , the US army makes largest deployment of troops to Somalia since the 90s. ..."
On April 15th, Zero
Hedge bannered
"Doomsday Bunker Sales Soar After Trump's Military Strikes", but this growth in the market
for nuclear-proof bunkers is hardly new; it started during the Obama Administration, in Obama's second
term, specifically after the Russia-friendly government of Ukraine, next-door to Russia, got taken
over in 2014 by a rabidly anti-Russian government that's backed by the U.S. government.
This boom in nuclear-bunker sales is only increasing now, as the new U.S. President, Donald
Trump, tries to out-do his predecessor in demonstrating his hostility toward the other nuclear superpower,
Russia, and displaying his determination to overthrow the leader of any nation (such as Syria and
Iran) that is at all friendly toward Russia. For earlier examples of feature-articles on this booming
market for homes that allegedly would enable buyers to survive the first blast effects, and the most
immediate nuclear contaminations, of a Third World War, see
here, and
here,
and
here, and
here, and
here, and
here, and
here, and
here, and
here, and
here.
Whereas all of the purchasers of these bunkers are being kept secret, the U.S. federal
government provides, free-of-charge, to top officials, nuclear bunkers, so as to allow the then-dictatorship
(continuation of America's current dictatorship)
to function, in order, supposedly, to serve their country, which they'd already have destroyed (along
with destroying the rest of the world) by their determination to conquer Russia. No one
knows what the reality would actually be in such a post-WW-III world, except that there would be
no functioning electrical grid, nights would be totally dark for anyone whose sole reliance is on
the grid, and all rivers and other water-sources would be intensely radioactive from the fallout,
so that groundwater soon would also be unusable - and, of course, the air itself would also be toxic;
so, lifespans would be enormously shortened, and excruciating, not to say extremely depressing.
No one has published a computer-model of a U.S.-Russia nuclear war, because doing that would be
unacceptable to the "military-industrial complex" including the U.S. government, but in 2014
a "limited,
regional nuclear war between India and Pakistan" was computer-modeled and projected to produce
global ozone-depletion and "the coldest average surface temperatures in the last 1000 years", which
"could trigger a global nuclear famine". But such a war would be only 50 bombs instead of
the 10,000+ that would be used in a WW III scenario; and, so, everyone who is paying money in order
to survive WW III is simply wasting money.
But, somehow, there are people who either want a Russia-U.S. war, or else whose
preparations for it are directed at surviving in such a world, instead of at ending the current grip
on political power in the United States, on the part of the people who are working to bring about
this type of (end to the) world. At least the owners of the major U.S. armaments-firms, such as Raytheon
Corporation, would have an explosive financial boost during the build-up toward that war, but buying
bunkers in order to survive it, would seem to be a dubious follow-up to such an investment-plan.
On the other hand, it might appeal to some thrill-seekers who don't even feel the need for a good
computer-simulation of a post-WW-III world; maybe they've got money to burn and a craving to experience
'the ultimate thrill', and don't want unpleasant knowledge to spoil the thrill.
After President Trump threw out his National Security Advisor Michael Flynn and replaced him with
the rabidly anti-Russian H.R. McMaster, and then lobbed 59 cruise missiles against the Syrian government
(which is protected by the Russian government), the cacophony of press that had been calling for
President Trump to be impeached and replaced by his rabidly anti-Russian Vice President Mike Pence,
considerably quieted down; and, so, the Obama-Trump market for nuclear bunkers seems now to be established
on very sound foundations, for the foreseeable immediate future. And, if anyone in the U.S. federal
government has been planning to prepare the U.S. for a post-WW-III world, that has not been publicly
announced, and no newsmedia have even been inquiring about it - so, nothing can yet be said about
it.
The general message, thus far, is that, after World War III, everyone will be on his or
her own, but that the dictators will (supposedly) be in a far better position than will anyone outside
that ruling group. However, if the survivors end up merely envying the dead, it will be
no laughing matter, regardless of how silly those nuclear bunkers are. It would be nothing funny
at all.
On April 17th, Scott Humor, the Research Director at the geostrategic site "The
Saker," headlined
"Trump has
lost control over the Pentagon", and he listed (and linked-to) the following signs that Trump
is following through with his promise to allow the Pentagon to control U.S. international relations:
Mr. Humor drew attention to an article that had been published in "The Daily Beast" a year ago,
on 8 April 2016,
"CALL OF DUTY: The Secret Movement to Draft General James Mattis for President. Gen. James Mattis
doesn't necessarily want to be president-but that's not stopping a group of billionaire donors from
hatching a plan to get him there". Though none of the alleged "billionaires" were named there,
one prominent voice backing Mattis for the Presidency, in that article, was Bill Kristol, the Rupert
Murdoch agent who co-founded the Project for a New American Century, which was the first influential
group pushing the "regime-change in Iraq" idea during the late 1990s, and which also advocated for
the foreign policies that George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Donald Trump, have since
been pursuing, each in his own way. It seems that whomever those "billionaires" were, they've now
gotten their wish, with a figurehead Donald Trump as President, and James Mattis actually running
foreign policy. Humor also noted that Mattis wants to boost the budget of the Pentagon by far more
than the 9% that Trump has proposed. Perhaps Trump knew that even to get a 9% Pentagon increase
passed this year would be almost impossible to achieve. First, the unleashed Pentagon needs
to place the military into an 'emergency' situation, so as to persuade the public to clamor for a
major invasion. That 'emergency' might be the immediate goal, toward which the March-April timeline
of events that Humor documented is aiming.
As regards the military comparisons of the personnel and equipment on both sides of a
U.S.-Russia war, the key consideration would actually be not
the 7,000
nuclear warheads that Russia has versus the 6,800 nuclear warheads that the U.S. has, but the
chief motivation on each of the respective sides: conquest on the part of the U.S. aristocracy, defense
on the part of the Russian aristocracy. (Obviously, the U.S. having continued its NATO military
alliance after the Soviet Union's Warsaw Pact military alliance ended in 1991, indicates America's
aggressive intent against Russia. That became a hyper-aggressive intent when NATO absorbed Russia's
former Warsaw Pact allies. NATO even brought in some parts of the former USSR itself, when in 2004,
Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, entered NATO, and in 2014 U.S. President Obama tried to get Ukraine
into NATO, and these five countries hadn't even been Warsaw Pacters, but had instead been parts of
the USSR itself. It was as if Russia had grabbed not only America's allies, but some states in the
U.S. itself. This constituted extreme aggression, and shows the U.S. aristocracy's obsessive intent
for global empire - to include Russia.)
Any limited war between the two powers would become a nuclear war once the side that's
losing this limited war becomes faced with the choice of either surrendering that limited territory
(now likely Syria) or else going nuclear. On Russia's side, allowing such military conquest
of an ally would be unacceptable; the war would then expand with the U.S. and its allies invading
Russian territory for Russia's continuing refusal to accept the U.S.-Saudi and other allies' grabbing
of Syria (on 'humanitarian grounds', of course - as if, for example, the Sauds aren't far more brutal
than Assad). After the traditional-forces' invasion of Russia, Russia's yielding its sovereignty
over its own land has never been part of Russia's culture: If Russia were to be invaded by allies
of the U.S., then launching all of Russia's nuclear weapons against the U.S. and America's invasion-allies,
would be a reasonably expected result. Here's how it would develop: On America's
side, which (very unlike Russia) has no record of any foreign invasion against its own mainland (other
than the Sauds' own 9/11 'false flag' attacks), the likely response in the event of Russia's crushing
its invaders would be for the U.S. President to seek to negotiate a face-saving end to that limited
war, just as the American President Richard Nixon did regarding America's invasion and occupation
of Vietnam.
However, a reasonable question can be raised as to whether, in such a situation, Russia
would accept anything less than America's total surrender, much as Franklin Delano Roosevelt in WW
II was determined to accept nothing less than Germany's total surrender, at the end of that war.
If Trump wants to play Hitler, then Putin (acting in accord with Russian tradition) would probably
play both FDR and Stalin, even if it meant the end of the world. For Russia to be conquered, especially
by such intense evil as those invaders would be representing, would probably be viewed by Russians
as being even worse than ending everything, and this would probably be Putin's view as well. If America
did not simply capitulate, Putin would probably nuclear-blitz-attack the U.S. and its allies, rather
than give Trump (or Pence) the opportunity to blitz-attack Russia and to sacrifice all of the U.S.
side's invading troops in Russia so as to 'win' the overall war and finally conquer Russia.
It would be like WW II, except with nuclear weapons - and thus an entirely different type of historical
outcome after the war.
Consequently, either the U.S. will cease its designs on Russia, or there will be WW
III. Russia's sovereignty will never be yielded, especially not to
the thuggish gang who have come to rule the U.S.
(both as "Republicans" and as "Democrats"). The bipartisan neoconservative dream of America's
aristocrats (world-conquest) will never be achieved. Russia will never accept it. If America's
rulers continue to press it, the result will be even worse than when the Nazis tried. It's just an
ugly pipe-dream, but any attempt to make it real would be even uglier. And nobody who buys a 'nuclear-proof
bunker' will get what he or she thinks is being bought - safety in such a world as that.
It won't exist.
False. We have a simulation, and it is far worse than people can even imagine.
[...
Even humans living in shelters equipped with many years worth of food, water, energy, and
medical supplies would probably not survive in the hostile post-war environment.
Another reason why USSA is in hurry to have the war with Russia ASAP is that they know that
very soon - if not even now in the present, USSA ICBM defense is outdated and 100% ineficient
against the newest Russian ICBMs, if by any bad chance Russia launches the 1st strike Disney Land
USSA is Bye Felicia without even a chance to retaliate.
Wells Fargo
's board and management are scheduled to meet shareholders at the
company's annual meeting Tuesday in Ponte Vedra Beach, Fla. With the phony
account-opening scandal still making
headlines
, and the
company's stock
underperforming its peers, it's a good bet the bank's brass will
have some explaining to do.
How could such pernicious practices at the bank be allowed for so long? Why didn't
the board do more to stop the scheme or the incentive programs that encouraged it?
And where, oh where, were the regulators?
Wells Fargo's management has conceded making multiple mistakes over many years; it
also says it has learned from them. In a meeting this week with reporters at The New
York Times, Timothy J. Sloan, Wells Fargo's chief executive, said the bank had made
substantive changes to its structure and culture to ensure that dubious practices
won't take hold again.
But there's a deeper explanation for why Wells Fargo's corrosive sales practices came
about and continued for years. And it has everything to do with the bank-friendly
regulatory regime in Washington and the immense sway that institutions like Wells
Fargo have there. This poisonous combination contributes to a sense among giant
banking institutions that they answer to no one.
The capture of our regulatory and political system by big and powerful corporations
is real. And it is a central and disturbing theme in the new
book
by Senator
Elizabeth Warren
, Democrat of Massachusetts.
"This Fight Is Our Fight" contains juicy but depressing anecdotes about how our most
trusted institutions have let us down. It also shows why, years after the financial
crisis, big banks are still large, in charge and, basically, unaccountable for their
actions.
"In too many of these organizations, there are rewards for cheating and punishments
for calling out the cheaters," Ms. Warren said in an interview Wednesday. "As long as
that's the case, the biggest financial institutions will continue to put their
customers and the economy at risk."
Ms. Warren's no-nonsense views are bracing. But they are also informed by a thorough
understanding of how dysfunctional Washington now is. This failure has cost Main
Street dearly, she said, but has benefited the powerful.
Wells Fargo got a lot of criticism from Ms. Warren, both in her book and in my
interview - and on live television during the Senate Banking Committee hearing on the
account-opening mess in September. She was among the harshest cross-examiners
encountered by John G. Stumpf, who was Wells Fargo's chief executive at the time.
"You should resign,"
she told him
, "and you should be criminally investigated." (Mr. Stumpf retired
the next month.)
This week, Ms. Warren called for the ouster of the company's directors and a criminal
inquiry into the bank.
"Yes, the board should be removed, but that's not enough," she told me. "There still
needs to be a criminal investigation. The expertise is in the regulatory agencies,
but the power to prosecute lies mostly with the Justice Department, and if they don't
have either the energy or the talent - or the backbone - to go after the big banks,
then there will never be any real accountability."
Banks are not the only targets in Ms. Warren's book. Others include Wal-Mart, for its
treatment of employees; for-profit education companies, for the way they pile debt on
unsuspecting students; the Chamber of Commerce, for battling Main Street; and
prestigious think tanks, for their undisclosed conflicts of interest.
My favorite moments in the book involve the phenomenon of regulatory capture: the
pernicious condition in which institutions that are supposed to police the nation's
financial behemoths actually come to view them as clients or pals.
Photo
One telling moment took place in 2005, when Ms. Warren, then a Harvard law professor,
was invited to address the staff at the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, a
top regulator charged with monitoring the activities of big banks.
She was thrilled by the invitation, she recalled in the book. After years of tracking
various problems consumers experienced with their banks - predatory lending, sky-high
interest rates and dubious fees - Ms. Warren felt that, finally, she'd be able to
persuade the regulators to crack down.
Her host for the meeting was Julie L. Williams, then the acting comptroller of the
currency. In a conference room filled with economists and bank supervisors, Ms.
Warren presented her findings: Banks were tricking and cheating their consumers.
DealBook
DealBook delivers the news driving the markets and the
conversation. Delivered weekday mornings and afternoons.
Thank you for subscribing.
An error has occurred. Please try again
later.
You are already subscribed to this email.
After the meeting ended and Ms. Williams was escorting her guest to the elevator, she
told Ms. Warren that she had made a "compelling case," Ms. Warren writes. When she
pushed Ms. Williams to have her agency do something about the dubious practices, the
regulator balked.
"No, we just can't do that," Ms. Williams said, according to the book. "The banks
wouldn't like it."
Ms. Warren was not invited back.
Ms. Williams left the agency in 2012 and is a managing director at
Promontory
, a
regulatory-compliance consulting firm specializing in the financial services
industry. When I asked about her conversation with Ms. Warren, she said she had a
different recollection.
"I told her I agreed with her concerns," Ms. Williams wrote in an email, "but when I
said, 'We just can't do that,' I explained that was because the Comptroller's office
did not have jurisdiction to adopt rules to ban the practice. I told her this was the
Federal Reserve Board's purview."
Interestingly, though, Ms. Warren's take on regulatory capture at the agency was
substantiated in a damning
report
on its supervision of Wells Fargo, published by a unit of the Office of
the Comptroller of the Currency on Wednesday.
The report cited a raft of agency oversight breakdowns regarding Wells Fargo. Among
them was its failure to follow up on a slew of consumer and employee complaints
beginning in early 2010. There was no evidence, the report said, that agency
examiners "required the bank to provide an analysis of the risks and controls, or
investigated these issues further to identify the root cause and the appropriate
supervisory actions needed."
Neither did the agency document the bank's resolution of whistle-blower complaints,
the report said, or conduct in-depth reviews and tests of the bank's controls in this
area "at least from 2011 through 2014." (
The
agency recently removed
its top Wells Fargo examiner, Bradley Linskens, from his
job running a staff of 60 overseeing the bank.)
"Regulatory failure has been built into the system," Ms. Warren said in our
interview. "The regulators routinely hear from the banks. They hear from those who
have billions of dollars at stake. But they don't hear from the millions of people
across this country who will be deeply affected by the decisions they make."
This is why the
Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau
plays such a crucial role, she said. The agency allows
consumers to sound off about their financial experiences, and their complaints
provide a heat map for regulators to identify and pursue wrongdoing.
But this setup has also made the bureau a target for evisceration by bank-centric
politicians.
"There was a time when everything that went through Washington got measured by
whether it created more opportunities for the middle class," Ms. Warren said. "Now,
the people with money and power have figured out how to invest millions of dollars in
Washington and get rules that yield billions of dollars for themselves."
"Government," she added, "increasingly works for those at the top."
MOSCOW - The Russian government announced Wednesday that it will sell nearly 20 percent of its
state
oil company,
Rosneft , to the Swiss commodity trading firm Glencore and the
sovereign wealth fund of Qatar.
The deal defies expectations that no investor would dare buy a share in the Russian asset, given
Western sanctions against the government of President Vladimir V. Putin.
But the emergence of foreign money suggests that investors are reassessing the sanctions after
the election of Donald J. Trump, who has advocated warming ties with authorities in Moscow and is
considering the chairman of Exxon Mobil, Rex W. Tillerson, as a candidate for secretary of state.
Mr. Tillerson criticized the sanctions as harmful for business after they halted an Exxon joint
venture with Rosneft to drill for oil in the Kara Sea, in
Russia 's sector of the Arctic Ocean.
The deal will bring Moscow $11.3 billion to help plug a widening budget deficit as Russia fights
two wars, in Syria and Ukraine, and has struggled to meet pension payments and public-sector payrolls.
The agreement came as a surprise twist in the privatization of Rosneft. With an end-of-the-year
deadline looming, no buyers had come forward for the 19.5 percent share in the world's largest publicly
traded oil company, as measured by production and reserves. The apparent lack of bidders was a pessimistic
sign for investor interest in Russia.
The Russian government had for most of the year planned to sell shares back to the majority state-owned
company itself, which would hardly have qualified as a genuine privatization.
The sanctions limit long-term lending and transfer of American technology for drilling offshore
and shale oil deposits.
The deal carries other risks as well. Both Glencore and the Qatari fund, the Qatar Investment
Authority, have extensive investments in emerging markets. The Qatar fund is also an investor in
Glencore.
The announced price valued Rosneft at $58 billion, slightly less than the company's stock market
value at the close of trading in Moscow on Wednesday, of just under $59 billion.
Both the market price of shares and the sale price for the 19.5 percent stake announced Wednesday
are a relative bargain, indicating the Russian government's eagerness to cut a deal to shore up its
finances.
Bretislav Stejskal
3 weeks ago Gerry Lamb you don't really know much now, do you. You are a little Alice in wonderland
when it comes to geopolitics. Russia never ever seeked war. If you knew enough about Russia, you'd
know this first. the entire western greed cannot accept the ownership of the subhuman Russians of
a vast and rich land. To the Anglo-Saxons all slavs will always be lesser people. It's in them. They
sponsored the fascism, comunism and pretty much every evil on this planet. Even Stalin did what he
did for all patriotic reasons, while the west does it all out of a simple and pure greed.
"... On April 17 th , Scott Humor, the Research Director at the geostrategic site "The Saker," headlined "Trump has lost control over the Pentagon" , and he listed (and linked-to) the following signs that Trump is following through with his promise to allow the Pentagon to control U.S. international relations: ..."
"... March 14 th , the US National Nuclear Security Administration field tested the modernized B61-12 gravity nuclear bomb in Nevada . ..."
"... April 7, Liberty Passion, loaded with US military vehicles, moored at Aqaba Main Port, Jordan ..."
"... On April 7 th the Pentagon US bombed Syria's main command center in fight against terrorists ..."
"... April 10, United States Deploying Forces At Syrian-Jordanian Border ..."
"... April 11, The US Air Force might start forcing pilots to stay in the service against their will, according to the chief of the military unit's Air Mobility Command. ..."
"... April 12, President Donald Trump has signed the US approval for Montenegro to join NATO ..."
"... April 13, NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg announced the alliance's increased deployment in Eastern Europe ..."
"... On April 13 th , the Pentagon bombed Afghanistan. The US military has bombed Afghanistan with its GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast Bomb (MOAB) ..."
"... April 13, the US-led coalition bombed the IS munitions and chemical weapons depot in Deir ez-Zo r killing hundreds of people ..."
"... April 14, The Arleigh Burke-class, guided-missile destroyer USS Stethem (DDG 63) has been deployed to the South China Sea ..."
"... April 14, the US sent F-35 jets to Europe ..."
"... April 14, Washington failed to attend the latest international conference hosted by Moscow, where 11 nations discussed ways of bringing peace to Afghanistan . The US branded it a "unilateral Russian attempt to assert influence in the region". ..."
"... April14, the US has positioned two destroyers armed with Tomahawk cruise missiles close enough to the North Korean nuclear test site to act preemptively ..."
"... On April 16 th , the US army makes largest deployment of troops to Somalia since the 90s. ..."
On April 15th, Zero
Hedge bannered
"Doomsday Bunker Sales Soar After Trump's Military Strikes", but this growth in the market
for nuclear-proof bunkers is hardly new; it started during the Obama Administration, in Obama's second
term, specifically after the Russia-friendly government of Ukraine, next-door to Russia, got taken
over in 2014 by a rabidly anti-Russian government that's backed by the U.S. government.
This boom in nuclear-bunker sales is only increasing now, as the new U.S. President, Donald
Trump, tries to out-do his predecessor in demonstrating his hostility toward the other nuclear superpower,
Russia, and displaying his determination to overthrow the leader of any nation (such as Syria and
Iran) that is at all friendly toward Russia. For earlier examples of feature-articles on this booming
market for homes that allegedly would enable buyers to survive the first blast effects, and the most
immediate nuclear contaminations, of a Third World War, see
here, and
here,
and
here, and
here, and
here, and
here, and
here, and
here, and
here, and
here.
Whereas all of the purchasers of these bunkers are being kept secret, the U.S. federal
government provides, free-of-charge, to top officials, nuclear bunkers, so as to allow the then-dictatorship
(continuation of America's current dictatorship)
to function, in order, supposedly, to serve their country, which they'd already have destroyed (along
with destroying the rest of the world) by their determination to conquer Russia. No one
knows what the reality would actually be in such a post-WW-III world, except that there would be
no functioning electrical grid, nights would be totally dark for anyone whose sole reliance is on
the grid, and all rivers and other water-sources would be intensely radioactive from the fallout,
so that groundwater soon would also be unusable - and, of course, the air itself would also be toxic;
so, lifespans would be enormously shortened, and excruciating, not to say extremely depressing.
No one has published a computer-model of a U.S.-Russia nuclear war, because doing that would be
unacceptable to the "military-industrial complex" including the U.S. government, but in 2014
a "limited,
regional nuclear war between India and Pakistan" was computer-modeled and projected to produce
global ozone-depletion and "the coldest average surface temperatures in the last 1000 years", which
"could trigger a global nuclear famine". But such a war would be only 50 bombs instead of
the 10,000+ that would be used in a WW III scenario; and, so, everyone who is paying money in order
to survive WW III is simply wasting money.
But, somehow, there are people who either want a Russia-U.S. war, or else whose
preparations for it are directed at surviving in such a world, instead of at ending the current grip
on political power in the United States, on the part of the people who are working to bring about
this type of (end to the) world. At least the owners of the major U.S. armaments-firms, such as Raytheon
Corporation, would have an explosive financial boost during the build-up toward that war, but buying
bunkers in order to survive it, would seem to be a dubious follow-up to such an investment-plan.
On the other hand, it might appeal to some thrill-seekers who don't even feel the need for a good
computer-simulation of a post-WW-III world; maybe they've got money to burn and a craving to experience
'the ultimate thrill', and don't want unpleasant knowledge to spoil the thrill.
After President Trump threw out his National Security Advisor Michael Flynn and replaced him with
the rabidly anti-Russian H.R. McMaster, and then lobbed 59 cruise missiles against the Syrian government
(which is protected by the Russian government), the cacophony of press that had been calling for
President Trump to be impeached and replaced by his rabidly anti-Russian Vice President Mike Pence,
considerably quieted down; and, so, the Obama-Trump market for nuclear bunkers seems now to be established
on very sound foundations, for the foreseeable immediate future. And, if anyone in the U.S. federal
government has been planning to prepare the U.S. for a post-WW-III world, that has not been publicly
announced, and no newsmedia have even been inquiring about it - so, nothing can yet be said about
it.
The general message, thus far, is that, after World War III, everyone will be on his or
her own, but that the dictators will (supposedly) be in a far better position than will anyone outside
that ruling group. However, if the survivors end up merely envying the dead, it will be
no laughing matter, regardless of how silly those nuclear bunkers are. It would be nothing funny
at all.
On April 17th, Scott Humor, the Research Director at the geostrategic site "The
Saker," headlined
"Trump has
lost control over the Pentagon", and he listed (and linked-to) the following signs that Trump
is following through with his promise to allow the Pentagon to control U.S. international relations:
Mr. Humor drew attention to an article that had been published in "The Daily Beast" a year ago,
on 8 April 2016,
"CALL OF DUTY: The Secret Movement to Draft General James Mattis for President. Gen. James Mattis
doesn't necessarily want to be president-but that's not stopping a group of billionaire donors from
hatching a plan to get him there". Though none of the alleged "billionaires" were named there,
one prominent voice backing Mattis for the Presidency, in that article, was Bill Kristol, the Rupert
Murdoch agent who co-founded the Project for a New American Century, which was the first influential
group pushing the "regime-change in Iraq" idea during the late 1990s, and which also advocated for
the foreign policies that George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Donald Trump, have since
been pursuing, each in his own way. It seems that whomever those "billionaires" were, they've now
gotten their wish, with a figurehead Donald Trump as President, and James Mattis actually running
foreign policy. Humor also noted that Mattis wants to boost the budget of the Pentagon by far more
than the 9% that Trump has proposed. Perhaps Trump knew that even to get a 9% Pentagon increase
passed this year would be almost impossible to achieve. First, the unleashed Pentagon needs
to place the military into an 'emergency' situation, so as to persuade the public to clamor for a
major invasion. That 'emergency' might be the immediate goal, toward which the March-April timeline
of events that Humor documented is aiming.
As regards the military comparisons of the personnel and equipment on both sides of a
U.S.-Russia war, the key consideration would actually be not
the 7,000
nuclear warheads that Russia has versus the 6,800 nuclear warheads that the U.S. has, but the
chief motivation on each of the respective sides: conquest on the part of the U.S. aristocracy, defense
on the part of the Russian aristocracy. (Obviously, the U.S. having continued its NATO military
alliance after the Soviet Union's Warsaw Pact military alliance ended in 1991, indicates America's
aggressive intent against Russia. That became a hyper-aggressive intent when NATO absorbed Russia's
former Warsaw Pact allies. NATO even brought in some parts of the former USSR itself, when in 2004,
Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, entered NATO, and in 2014 U.S. President Obama tried to get Ukraine
into NATO, and these five countries hadn't even been Warsaw Pacters, but had instead been parts of
the USSR itself. It was as if Russia had grabbed not only America's allies, but some states in the
U.S. itself. This constituted extreme aggression, and shows the U.S. aristocracy's obsessive intent
for global empire - to include Russia.)
Any limited war between the two powers would become a nuclear war once the side that's
losing this limited war becomes faced with the choice of either surrendering that limited territory
(now likely Syria) or else going nuclear. On Russia's side, allowing such military conquest
of an ally would be unacceptable; the war would then expand with the U.S. and its allies invading
Russian territory for Russia's continuing refusal to accept the U.S.-Saudi and other allies' grabbing
of Syria (on 'humanitarian grounds', of course - as if, for example, the Sauds aren't far more brutal
than Assad). After the traditional-forces' invasion of Russia, Russia's yielding its sovereignty
over its own land has never been part of Russia's culture: If Russia were to be invaded by allies
of the U.S., then launching all of Russia's nuclear weapons against the U.S. and America's invasion-allies,
would be a reasonably expected result. Here's how it would develop: On America's
side, which (very unlike Russia) has no record of any foreign invasion against its own mainland (other
than the Sauds' own 9/11 'false flag' attacks), the likely response in the event of Russia's crushing
its invaders would be for the U.S. President to seek to negotiate a face-saving end to that limited
war, just as the American President Richard Nixon did regarding America's invasion and occupation
of Vietnam.
However, a reasonable question can be raised as to whether, in such a situation, Russia
would accept anything less than America's total surrender, much as Franklin Delano Roosevelt in WW
II was determined to accept nothing less than Germany's total surrender, at the end of that war.
If Trump wants to play Hitler, then Putin (acting in accord with Russian tradition) would probably
play both FDR and Stalin, even if it meant the end of the world. For Russia to be conquered, especially
by such intense evil as those invaders would be representing, would probably be viewed by Russians
as being even worse than ending everything, and this would probably be Putin's view as well. If America
did not simply capitulate, Putin would probably nuclear-blitz-attack the U.S. and its allies, rather
than give Trump (or Pence) the opportunity to blitz-attack Russia and to sacrifice all of the U.S.
side's invading troops in Russia so as to 'win' the overall war and finally conquer Russia.
It would be like WW II, except with nuclear weapons - and thus an entirely different type of historical
outcome after the war.
Consequently, either the U.S. will cease its designs on Russia, or there will be WW
III. Russia's sovereignty will never be yielded, especially not to
the thuggish gang who have come to rule the U.S.
(both as "Republicans" and as "Democrats"). The bipartisan neoconservative dream of America's
aristocrats (world-conquest) will never be achieved. Russia will never accept it. If America's
rulers continue to press it, the result will be even worse than when the Nazis tried. It's just an
ugly pipe-dream, but any attempt to make it real would be even uglier. And nobody who buys a 'nuclear-proof
bunker' will get what he or she thinks is being bought - safety in such a world as that.
It won't exist.
False. We have a simulation, and it is far worse than people can even imagine.
[...
Even humans living in shelters equipped with many years worth of food, water, energy, and
medical supplies would probably not survive in the hostile post-war environment.
Another reason why USSA is in hurry to have the war with Russia ASAP is that they know that
very soon - if not even now in the present, USSA ICBM defense is outdated and 100% ineficient
against the newest Russian ICBMs, if by any bad chance Russia launches the 1st strike Disney Land
USSA is Bye Felicia without even a chance to retaliate.
HOUSTON - The Trump administration delivered a setback to Exxon Mobil on Friday, announcing that
it would not grant the oil giant a waiver from sanctions against Russia that would allow drilling
in the Black Sea.
The decision, reinforcing barriers erected by the United States over Russia's intervention in
Ukraine, was another sign that President Trump has been unwilling or unable to improve relations
with the Kremlin early in his term, after pledging as a candidate that he would seek a thaw.
"In consultation with President Donald J. Trump," Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said in a
terse, prepared statement, "the Treasury Department will not be issuing waivers to U.S. companies,
including Exxon, authorizing drilling prohibited by current Russian sanctions."
The prospect of a waiver had drawn denunciations from both Democratic and Republican lawmakers.
When news of Exxon Mobil's proposal
emerged this week , Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona,
wrote in a
Twitter post , "Are they crazy?"
The matter was complicated by the continuing congressional scrutiny of reports of Russian intervention
in support of Mr. Trump in last year's election, and by Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson's role
as Exxon Mobil's chief executive until the president nominated him for his current position.
Exxon Mobil applied for the waiver in 2015, arguing that it could lose its exploration rights
in the Black Sea if it did not begin drilling operations by the end of 2017 under its contract with
the Russian state oil company Rosneft.
The Obama administration did not act on the application, but Exxon Mobil hoped that the Trump
administration would take a favorable view.
The company released a brief statement on Friday that did not express regret but explained its
argument in favor of the waiver.
"We understand the statement today by Secretary Mnuchin in consultation with President Trump,"
the statement said. "Our 2015 application for a license under the provisions outlined in the U.S.
sanctions was made to enable our company to meet its contractual obligations under a joint venture
agreement in Russia, where competitor companies are authorized to undertake such work under European
sanctions."
DealBook
DealBook delivers the news driving the markets and the conversation. Delivered weekday mornings
and afternoons.
Thank you for subscribing. An error has occurred. Please try again later. You are
already subscribed to this email.
United States and European sanctions were first imposed on Russia in March 2014 in response to
Moscow's annexation of Crimea from Ukraine. Exxon Mobil signed an expansion of its joint venture
projects anyway, even after Igor I. Sechin, Rosneft's chief executive, was personally blacklisted
in connection with the sanctions.
The deal was legal, but Exxon Mobil was more fully constrained when tighter sanctions were imposed
after Russia was implicated that summer in the shooting down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 over
eastern Ukraine.
It has become increasingly clear in recent days that relations between the United States and Russia
are unlikely to improve any time soon. Mr. Tillerson has used increasingly tough talk to highlight
the Trump administration's differences with Russia over its alliance with the Syrian government.
He has not suggested that any sanctions be lifted, and the administration has affirmed its commitment
to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and European security.
Exxon Mobil's hopes to produce new oil in Arctic waters and in Siberian shale fields were delayed
indefinitely by the toughened sanctions, which prohibited transfers of drilling technology capable
of reaching oil in fields that previously had been virtually inaccessible. The company received a
few exceptions to the sanctions, including a waiver in late 2014 that allowed it complete drilling
of one exploration well in the frigid Kara Sea that it said would be unsafe to leave half finished.
A big oil field was confirmed, but no new oil was produced and exported.
Exxon Mobil has long argued that it was being put at a disadvantage against some of its European
competitors operating in Russia. ENI, the Italian oil giant, plans to drill this year in the Black
Sea, a largely untapped area with enormous oil reserve potential.
European sanctions are somewhat weaker than those imposed by the United States since they exempted
some contracts signed before the sanctions were put in place. The American sanctions drew a harder
line.
Exxon Mobil's drilling rights in the Black Sea were part of a sweeping strategic partnership Exxon
Mobil developed with Rosneft in 2011 while Mr. Tillerson was in charge of the American company. The
agreement came at a time when the Obama administration was seeking to improve relations with Russia,
and several Western oil companies expanded their operations.
MOSCOW - The Russian government announced Wednesday that it will sell nearly 20 percent of its
state
oil company,
Rosneft , to the Swiss commodity trading firm Glencore and the
sovereign wealth fund of Qatar.
The deal defies expectations that no investor would dare buy a share in the Russian asset, given
Western sanctions against the government of President Vladimir V. Putin.
But the emergence of foreign money suggests that investors are reassessing the sanctions after
the election of Donald J. Trump, who has advocated warming ties with authorities in Moscow and is
considering the chairman of Exxon Mobil, Rex W. Tillerson, as a candidate for secretary of state.
Mr. Tillerson criticized the sanctions as harmful for business after they halted an Exxon joint
venture with Rosneft to drill for oil in the Kara Sea, in
Russia 's sector of the Arctic Ocean.
The deal will bring Moscow $11.3 billion to help plug a widening budget deficit as Russia fights
two wars, in Syria and Ukraine, and has struggled to meet pension payments and public-sector payrolls.
The agreement came as a surprise twist in the privatization of Rosneft. With an end-of-the-year
deadline looming, no buyers had come forward for the 19.5 percent share in the world's largest publicly
traded oil company, as measured by production and reserves. The apparent lack of bidders was a pessimistic
sign for investor interest in Russia.
The Russian government had for most of the year planned to sell shares back to the majority state-owned
company itself, which would hardly have qualified as a genuine privatization.
The sanctions limit long-term lending and transfer of American technology for drilling offshore
and shale oil deposits.
The deal carries other risks as well. Both Glencore and the Qatari fund, the Qatar Investment
Authority, have extensive investments in emerging markets. The Qatar fund is also an investor in
Glencore.
The announced price valued Rosneft at $58 billion, slightly less than the company's stock market
value at the close of trading in Moscow on Wednesday, of just under $59 billion.
Both the market price of shares and the sale price for the 19.5 percent stake announced Wednesday
are a relative bargain, indicating the Russian government's eagerness to cut a deal to shore up its
finances.
I am a true patriot. I'm America first all the way. But we've been giving Russia the
short end of the stick since the end of WWII. Harry Truman started it with nuclear
blackmail after we bombed Japan. Even though (yes it's true folks) the Soviets are the
ones who really took the guts out of the Nazi war machine. We would have won anyway, but
Russia accelerated the process in a huge way. They also invaded Japan forcing the
emperors hand after we dropped the second atom bomb. During the Cuban missle crisis we
really didn't have a leg to stand on in negotions. We had tactical nukes in Siberia
armed and ready long before Russia put missiles in Cuba. I'm not a sympathizer, Stalin
was an oppressor of human rights, and I feel communism is fundamentally flawed. But
Putin is right, we've tried to force our ideas on the rest of the world and alienated
most of it through out the process. Vietnam, El Salvador, Korea, Cuba, and Iran during
the cold war.
"... A Libyan military solution to the civil war is fast becoming the only option however a Mandela type Truth and Reconciliation Commission following straight after such military victory is also a top priority. ..."
The West retains it's out of touch Libyan policies when in Luca, Italy last week the G7
'warned and commanded' that the fractious warring Libyan parties 'must' work with the dying
UN appointed and recognised Government of National Accord (GNA), situated only in a small
naval base in Tripoli and its so called Presidency Council (PC). And further ordered
Libyans to work together to fix the economic crisis by recognising that the Central Bank of
Libya (CBL) need to only collaborate with the GNA/PC, so out of touch with the real issues
on the ground in Libya are the G7 Countries. Their language almost expressed in colonial
terms!
Other global interference in Libya continues. Most recently also the GNA and Presidency
Council (PC) leader Fayez Serraj was seeing the head, at his HQ in Stuttgart, of the United
Stated Africa Command (AFRICOM) General Thomas Waldhauser. I didn't know Stuttgart was in
Africa?
Other pronouncements of one kind or another backing the phantom GNA appear almost
weekly.
All a waste of time, as UN and EU efforts have proven these past years. As far as Serraj
is concerned he is unelected by Libyans but chosen by the foreigners. That's never going to
achieve forward progress for Libya's future.
The one year anniversary of the General National Accord (GNA) created by the UN and
headed by Serraj was on the 30th March just two weeks ago. But the GNA doesn't function. To
compound the GNA's inability to govern, an acute emergency has emerged in the last 7 days
revolving around further direct sales by Cyrenaica (East Libya) of oil bypassing Tripoli
and the West. If this issue remains unresolved the country may split into two or three
pieces. There is now tremendous in-fighting between National Oil Company (NOC) and a
variety of diverse interests. The West's reactions to these realities remain puzzling and
totally unrealistic to say the least.
A Libyan military solution to the civil war is fast becoming the only option however a
Mandela type Truth and Reconciliation Commission following straight after such military
victory is also a top priority.
These developments are part of a new dynamic that is entering the Libyan Civil War that
is another trend that may satisfy weary Libyans themselves. The re-entry of two of Gaddafis
children who are seeking a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, similar to South Africa's,
in order to bring unity to the country. Specific Libyan tribes are starting to back the
Gaddafi clan a new and hopefully peaceful attempt at country unification may appear that
ousts the GNA and other Tripoli militias and extremists for good from the political scene.
This is becoming a realistic proposition.
It is to this point that national reconciliation must be addressed. South Africa's
process helped to unify the country after decades of apartheid.
The LNA's Field Marshall Khalifa Haftar is close to Elders of Warfalla tribe that give
him their support in the war against terrorism. Warfalla tribe is the biggest tribe in
Libya located in Bani Walid and Sirte area, the Warshfana tribe is second located to the
South West of Tripoli. Both tribes are from the west of Libya and both are against
extremists and very sympathetic to the Gaddafis. Importantly, the tribes believe that the
Gaddafis can reach an accommodation with Libyan parties to one another forgive crimes
committed before and after the revolt of 2011. Already, evidence can be seen of this trend:
In the past week, Libyan authorities have released some Gaddafi era nobles from prison. The
involvement of the former AQ-LIFG fighters to take credit for these releases is a vain
attempt to try to align themselves with Gaddifites which will never succeed.
While the limelight is on Saif, who still is believed to suffer from physical and mental
injuries sustained during his capture, his sister Aisha Gaddafi is fast becoming the most
important member of the family. She is generating a good deal of attention and she may well
be very influential in future. Aisha is a pragmatic and sensible Libyan with acute
political acumen and a sharp wit and intellect. She has a dynamic personality and is the
most well educated of the Colonel's siblings. There is an argument that she needs to return
to the political scene. Whether she wants to, no one knows due to her low profile so far.
However with Aisha's victory last week in the European Court of Justice against the UN
Security Council-sponsored sanctions this may very well be the first indicator. She has
also had her travel ban lifted. A major achievement. Together with her brother, when he
achieves 100 percent fitness, both Gaddafi's can begin to work together with all Libyans to
rescue the country from its dreadful plight as part of a team never a return to
dictatorship.
This tandem approach -Gaddafi siblings and the Tribes- is the possible solution to
Libya's civil war. Haftar recognizes the values of tribes and the Libyan Field Marshall is
now using all his might to solidify and unify all Libyans whilst continuing to fight
terrorists. As stated earlier, South Africa's dismantling of decades of apartheid serves as
the example, the model for Libya.
The South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) was set up to help deal with
what awful things happened under apartheid, much worse than Gaddafi's crimes ever were. The
remnants of conflict during this post-apartheid period resulted in still some limited
violence and human rights abuses from all sides but no section of society escaped exposure
or punishment.
Libya is suffering under a system of constant outside international interference in a
Libyan decision about their own future. Self-reflection is an important part of
reconciliation and it is thought that if the Gaddafis assistance in such an effort will
help in a "cleansing" to build a new Libyan future, this would be a good thing. Of course,
Libya is not South Africa, and the issues completely different, yet it is the process of
reconciliation and forgiveness itself which has its primordial roots in today's modern
Libyan tribes.
Russia involvement with Egypt is essential. Also African countries must unite to help
Libya through this process, not US's AFRICOM, UN or even the EU. The only other country
that appears to be a true friend to Libya is the UAE who also have the advantage of being
anti-Muslim Brotherhood, a dangerous sect that has influence in the West of Libya.
If body language is anything to go by, this picture (of Mohamed bin Zayed, the powerful
Crown Prince of the UAE with Haftar) taken last week in Abu Dhabi speaks volumes!
AFRICOM headquarters are in Stuttgart, because Gaddafi was adamantly against its
location on Africa's soil. One of the reasons for NATO's war against Libya and the
killing of Gaddafi.
If only we could get a similar update for Yemen, where only continued famine and bombing
seem on the agenda.
And Somalia is such a black hole that not even its despair and deaths reach the MSM or
social networks.
Only tangentially relevant to this post, but Libya is a good example of the power we
have allowed our politicians to confer to central banks.
Few will remember that whilst
the war in Libya was raging, somehow, some faction found it both relevant and a priority
to announce the creation of the central bank of Libya. This piece of news was reported
far and wide by the international press too.
i hope the libyans can rally round aisha gaddafi and put their country back together.
they need to keep the us/eu out of the country. sue for damages - at least, and bigtime
- in international court if they are unable to prosecute the war criminals themselves.
show the iraqis and the syrians and the afghans and the ukrainians and everyone else how
war criminals must be treated.
Libya deserves far more attention than it gets. The war is still going on there but
receives no attention because the deaths there are not politically useful anymore.
That's why after 2011 all the media coverage shifted to Syria. If the Israel/Nato
alliance had their way, Syria would now be in the same situation Libya is - a failed
state. This is what they mean when they refer to "bringing democracy" to the Middle
East.
Only Russia's intervention in August 2013 prevented that, which explains why they
decided to punish Russia by organising the "regime change" in Ukraine and spreading the
chaos to Russia's doorstep. Ukraine is now also a failed state with two different
governments embroiled in a civil war. Funny how that always seems to be the result of
the Israel/Nato alliance bringing "freedom and democracy" to countries - it's almost as
if that was their plan all along...
Perhaps Libya will be brought together again, the world can hope. Will that old saying:
"what goes around, comes around" ring true on this? Colonialism is alive still, but
there are those who just don't see the light. One fact is certain, the "war on terror"
birthing after 9-11, if anything, created the mother of all C-F's to date. One might get
the impression that the end game is to destroy the U.S./western ways?
We don't hear much of US (Hillary, Obama, etc) "successes" in Libya from the US MSM.
It's shameful that the UN tries to force govt from above (with outsiders) on these
people like the US does in places like Iraq. What happened to the other two govts in
Tripoli and Tobruk? I doubt any govt in the east will go along due to extremist
influences and greed to dominate oil in that area. I wish Gaddhafis all the luck and
success in fixing the wrong done to them and bringing this to the world. It's bad enough
the US and especially western media participation in the death, destruction, pain, and
suffering.
Re: the photo
Haftar had better hope Zayed's left hand does not contain a knife. The emirates and
saudis are not known to be trustworthy fans of others in the ME neighborhood who do not
conform.
AFRICOM is in Stuttgart because it was created out of the staff from US EUCOM (European
Command). At first, the staff sections did both areas of operations (Europe & Africa).
Once additional staff officers and NCOs were sent to EUCOM, AFRICOM was separated from
EUCOM, but stayed in Stuttgart. AFRICOM was moved to another base in Stuttgart, Kelly
Barracks. EUCOM is on Patch Barracks - a few miles away. The German government was quite
displeased at the addition of a major US headquarters in their country, but had little
power or courage to do anything except grumble. The US DoD wanted to put AFRICOM in
Africa, but there were no countries willing to accept it that were in any way safe for
families. When no options in Africa were viable, the US simply created the new
headquarters in Stuttgart.
I am a retired US Army officer that was assigned to US EUCOM from 2008-2009.
How to understand the MCM (Mainstream Corporate Media) and its love of lies.
The MCM
will report factual truths, but usually buried somewhere in a long article, bracketed by
the acceptable lies. Or, if the inconvenient truths do get an article of their own,
those facts are subsequently ignored by the MCM with the lies being repeated over and
over.
And, then, even the lies become the conventional wisdom.
Such as has happened with the lies about the August 2013 chemical attack in Syria.
The MCM did note that the proof was not there to accuse the Syrian government, BUT it
was buried and ignored and now, in 2017, it is accepted history that the Assad
government did attack their own supporters with sarin.
It's enough to make one never trust anything the MCM puts out.
Again b is mistakenly describing the attack on Libya as a civil war. A civil war is a
war between different factions of a country; the war against Libya was carried out al
most entirely external forces, by NATO and mercenaries. This constant reference to the
attack on Libya, and indeed the attack on Syria, as civil wars, is the language of
propaganda.
Massive bombing by NATO led to the death and wounding of at least many
tens of thousands of Libyans, and the destruction of much infrastructure, followed by
hell on earth via head choppers and mass murdering and raping mercenaries.
Libya in 2010 was leading the UN human development index for Africa, with a high
standard of living, high literacy rate, largely happy and healthy people, with free
education and health care, and generous financial presents for marriage and birth, and
wonderful development projects. Blacks were doing well there. When Gaddafi took over,
Libya was a colonized, wretchedly poor basket case.
Libya had built up large gold reserves on the basis of its high quality oil and was
attempting to implement a pan African alternative to the parasitic and criminal western
banking system and its debt enslavement of much of Africa.
Lurid lies were used to 'justify' a 'no fly zone' via the UNSC and this was then used
to commit the ultimate crime according to Nuremberg trials, a war of aggression, by NATO
and their useful mercenary monsters.
The Stephen Miller Band | Apr 19, 2017 11:24:58 AM |
14
What's interesting is the lack of interest in JASTA. I brought it up yesterday and there
was nothing but silence. Hmmmm. One would think it would be ripe for critical dissection
at this venue considering the revelatory implications that could possibly emanate from
it. Unless. That's it. I think it's the unless. I'll let you guess what the unless is.
Let me just say, it's what I've always known to be true.
Where do Trump & Sessions
stand on JASTA? If Trump truly is a patriot and believes his jingoistic "America First"
rhetoric, then he has to support the integrity of this legislation and direct his DOJ
and all the alphabet agencies to comply and let the chips fall where they may and act
accordingly to the facts. Or he can be a Saudi chump and continue to bomb Yemen and
Syria for the Saudi pricks.
Needless to say, this is getting hardly any coverage in the press. Gee, I wonder why?
But I expected different at this venue. Not really.
On March 29, 2016, the 9/11 Families & Survivors United for Justice Against Terrorism
organization filed a letter with the Department of Justice to request the DOJ
commence an immediate national security investigation into potential widespread
criminal violations of the Foreign Regisration Act ("FARA"), by foreign agents
retained to conduct what we view as an unprecedented foreign influence campaign on
behalf of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
The apparent goal of the massive Saudi-funded foreign agent offensive is to delude
Congress into passing unprincipled and unwarranted amendments to the Justice Against
Sponsors of Terrrorism Act ("JASTA").
In service of this dangerous effort to influence Congress into passing legislative
text promoted by a foreign power, the Kingdom and its foreign agents have targeted
U.S. veterans nationwide through a campaign that deeply mischaracterizes JASTA, and
even more importantly has been conducted in ways that conceal the fact that the
influence and propaganda onslaught has been and continues to be orchestrated and
financed by the Saudi government and foreign agents working on its behalf. Read full
complaint here:
http://passjasta.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/FARA-COMPLAINT-20170329.pdf
i 2nd @5 jfls comments and hope they can move forward with the children of gaddaffi
in forming a gov't and coalition.
@7 mina.. i think you have the answer - yes.. every time the usa state dept mention
libya it is in the context of everyone working with the gna.. i guess that will give the
required structure for continued abuse from the west - bend over and take this..
Libya is hard to read. France, Russia, Egypt, and UAE are supposed to be supporting
Haftar. Then France issues a
statement
yesterday supporting Serraj and the GNA in the wake of Haftar's Libyan
National Army attack on Tamenhant air base in the south. Italian troops were reported to
be stationed at Tamenhant working with the pro-GNA militias there.
Fascinating article.
Inspiring in that the T&R process allows the Libyans to take their future into their own
hands - A fundemental right!
But that the Gadaffis might actually be the key to the future of Libya is a resoundingly
damning indictment of the West's actions!
It also occurs to me how very imbalanced is the media coverage of the ME conflicts.
Thanks, b, for providing the forum for such writing. And look forward to more articles,
Richard.
Looks like they got rid of ISIS for good, even if some of its former fighters are
probably still in the country. Good. Without major external assistance (as in 'massive
air strikes and special forces'), no side is strong enough to conquer the entire
country. This being obvious, there should be a good chance that they'll come to some
sort of national unity agreement.
Which is pretty much what I predicted in an article in early 2016.
Why would anyone even care about what the West thinks or wants? Clearly, it's a
troubled, fast-declining polity that is desperately trying to cling to the glory days
that are long gone, and will never return. It'll be getting weaker with every passing
year.
As soon as Trump becomes serious about tackling the US trade deficit, the globalization
will stop and then kick into ferocious reverse, as the whole thing is sustained solely
by the US' willingness to endure the unrelenting economic punishment for purely
ideological reasons. Globalization in its present form is devastating America's core,
and its patience is nearly exhausted. Give it a year, or two at the most, then lashing
out begins.
Once it's over, everything that globalization had birthed - the EU, the Singapores and
Dubais of the world, the Israel - the end of globalization will bring to an inevitable
denouement.
Libya will be taken over by a neighboring country that is becoming hideously
overpopulated and is in a dire need of additional living space and inexpensive energy.
Egypt simply has no other options, other than a national implosion.
@24 telescope, '... the whole thing is sustained solely by the US' willingness to endure
the unrelenting economic punishment for purely ideological reasons ...'
the whole
thing is sustained by the globalized 1%'s willingness to inflict unrelenting economic
punishment purely for their own economic 'well-being' ... 'profit', at any rate. they've
made a joke of money as 'a store of value' and - i agree - 'Globalization in its present
form is devastating America's (all the west's) core, and its patience is nearly
exhausted. Give it a year, or two at the most, then lashing out begins.'
as for egypt - overpopulated - taking over libya - 'underpopulated' ... they'll
certainly have to do that without russia's help ... think of the precedent that would
set vis-ŕ-vis russia-china! or do you envision a takeover of russia by china as being in
the cards ... that china, too, simply has no other options, other than a national
implosion.
Libya has a central bank now and no longer exports as much oil to China as it once did.
The people no longer get free health care and education. Why does anyone believe that
the powers that be care much about anything else.
#27: they DO care a lot. you see the positive results of their military campaign, when
people have none of these. like in Egypt, KSA, Jordan and all the major allies.
As of
today, 40 mass graves have been discovered in Kassai (Congo Kinshasa=DRC) and 2 UN
inspectors sent to enquire there were killed ten days ago. But who cares?
In that article, it's funny to think of the NTC wanting to bring back foreign oil
workers after how they treated them especially the blacks from neighboring countries.
Foreigners like that couple who sold Libya cleaning products had to face al Qaeda so
they might not be eager to return. But that was 2011. The current status sounds mixed.
In one of the books I read, there was a Libyan plan with the Chinese (and Russians?) to
build a railway connecting Tripoli, Sirte, and Tobruk. But that ended with Gaddhafi
gone.
Those who blame the Syrian government for the allegedly chemical incident in Khan
Sheikhun are now pushing the analysis of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical
Weapons (OPCW) to the front. But the results of the OPCW tests are inconsistent with the
observed technical and medical facts of the incident.
The OPCW Director General Ambassador Üzümcü, a Turk, yesterday
released
its first results of his organization:
The bio-medical samples collected from three victims during their autopsy were
analysed at two OPCW designated laboratories. The results of the analysis indicate that
the victims
were exposed to Sarin or a Sarin-like substance
.
Bio-medical samples from seven individuals undergoing treatment at hospitals were also
analysed in two other OPCW designated laboratories. Similarly, the results of these
analyses
indicate exposure to Sarin or a Sarin-like substance
.
Director-General Üzümcü stated clearly: "The results of these analyses from four OPCW
designated laboratories
indicate exposure to Sarin or a Sarin-like substance
.
That's "Sarin or Sarin- like substance" three times a row. Sarin is also mentioned in
the headline. Someone is pushing that meme hard.
But the OPCW did not conclude that a chemical attack occurred in Khan Sheikhun. It
suggested nothing about the incident itself. Instead it talked about bio-medical samples -
nothing more, nothing less.
A "Sarin like substances" could be a different chemical weapon than sarin - soman is
possible. But many general insecticides belong to the same chemical class as sarin and
soman. They are organophosphorus compounds. (Sarin was originally developed as
insecticide). All of such compounds could be a source of the exposure found by by the OPCW.
These chemicals tend to degrade within hours or days. A forensic analysis will not find the
original substance but only decomposition products of some organophosporus compound. That
is the reason why the OPCW result is not fixed on sarin but also mentions "sarin like
substances".
The question is now where those samples come from? And what is the chain of evidence
that connects the samples to the incident in question. The OPCW has not send an
investigation team to Khan Sheikhun. No samples were taken by its own inspectors. While
Russia and Syria have asked for OPCW inspections on the ground, Tahrir al-Sham, the renamed
al-Qaeda in Syria which controls the area, has not asked for inspectors. Without its
agreement any investigation mission is simply too dangerous. None of the OPCW inspectors
are interested in literally losing their heads to those terrorists.
Immediately after the incident bodies of dead and wounded were brought to Turkey where
they were taken into hospital. Al-Qaeda or al-Qaeda aligned personal must have transported
these. It is a three hour trip from Khan Sheikhun to the Turkish border. Unless we trust
the words of al-Qaeda operatives we can not be sure that the corpses delivered were indeed
from Khan Sheikhun.
The incident happened on April 4. An immediate OPCW statement on April 4
referred
to chlorine, not sarin or similar:
The OPCW is investigating the incident in southern Idlib under the on-going mandate of
the Fact-Finding Mission (FFM), which is "to establish facts surrounding allegations of
the use of toxic chemicals,
reportedly chlorine
, for hostile purposes
in the Syrian Arab Republic".
The UN Security Council convened on April 6 to discuss the incident. The Turkish
newspaper Hurriyet
reported
:
Turkey sent a report to the United Nations just before a U.N. Security Council meeting
to address accusations that the Syrian government staged a chemical weapons attack on
April 4,
stating that the gas used in the attack was chlorine gas
.
Turkey's Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear teams (KBRN) prepared an
initial report over the possible material of the alleged chemical attack, relying on the
symptoms of and tests conducted on the victims and their testimonies.
The report stated that the initial findings of the tests conducted on around 30
victims brought to Turkey for treatment
pointed to a chlorine gas attack
.
Thirty victims were immediately brought to Turkey after the incident. But the Turkish
doctors and CBRN specialist did not consider sarin, but chlorine gas -a much less potent
chemical- to be involved. (Chlorine is not designated a chemical weapon under the various
chemical warfare regulations. This fact is often obfuscated for pure propaganda reasons. )
The symptoms of chlorine ingestion and the effects of sarin exposure are quite different.
It is extremely unlikely that the emergency doctors and chemical weapon specialists have
misdiagnosed the issue when the patients arrived and were taken care of.
The 30
casualties arriving in Turkey were not the casualties of a sarin incident.
But the Turkish Health Ministry
told
a different story:
The poison used in the deadly chemical bomb attack in a rebel-held part of northern
Syria this week was the banned nerve agent sarin, the Turkish Health Ministry said in a
statement on Thursday.
...
"According to the results of preliminary tests," the statement said, "patients were
exposed to chemical material (Sarin)."
...
The Turkish statement
did not elaborate on how the sarin had been identified
in the assault on Tuesday, but it said some of the
telling symptoms
seen in the victims included "
lung edema
, increase in lung weight and
bleeding in lungs."
From the CDC Emergency Response Database:
At high exposure levels, irritation of the upper respiratory tract and accumulation of
fluid in the lungs (pulmonary edema)
contribute to a sensation of
choking.
The CDC entry
for Sarin
mentions "fluid accumulation in the airways" as one symptom among many more conspicuous
ones. It does not mention an edema of the lungs.
Contradicting the first Turkish reports the Turkish Health Ministry claimed
"sarin" (in parenthesis?!). But the symptom it described as proof was not of sarin but of
chlorine exposure.
The Turkish Justice Minister also
made
a statement but that did not mention sarin at all
Turkish Justice Minister Bekir Bozdag told reporters that "Autopsies were carried out on
three of the bodies after they were brought from Idlib. The results of the autopsy
confirms that chemical weapons were used," quoted by state-run Anadolu news agency.
"This scientific investigation also confirms that Assad used chemical weapons,"
Bozdag added, without giving further details.
...
Bozdag said autopsies were conducted with the "participation" of officials from the
World Health Organization (WHO) in the southern province of Adana together with
officials from Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW).
But WHO immediately countered Bozdag's claims
that it was involved
in the postmortem, saying the organisation did not conduct autopsies, adding: "It is not
our mandate."
...
[It] also stressed that no samples or swabs had been taken by WHO despite claims by the
Adana prosecutor that "examples" had been sent to the organisation and the OPCW.
The Justice Minister claimed that samples had been given to the WHO and OPCW from the
very first autopsies. But the WHO clearly denies that. I find no OPCW statement on this.
In 2013 a Turkish court, under Justice Minister Bozdag, set one suspected Ahrar al Sham
member
free
after he was caught with sarin precursors. The person was later sentenced in
absentia as he had fled back to Syria. Ahrar al Sham, while not in charge, has a presence
in Khan Sheikhun.
The neuroscientist and neuro-pharmacologist Denis O'Brien, a Ph.D. with a research and
teaching career in that field, analyzed the symtoms of the casualties that were depicted in
the various videos coming out of Khan Sheikhun. His diagnostics and chemical-biological
explanations are humorously titled
Top Ten Ways to Tell
When You're Being Spoofed by a False-Flag Sarin Attack
.
O'Brian notes the total absence of feces, urine, vomit and cyanosis (turning blue) in
the videos. Sarin exposure causes, according to
the CDC
database
"Nausea, vomiting (emesis), diarrhea, abdominal pain, and cramping." Sarin
effected patients would spontaneously shit, peed and vomited all over. But the casualties
in the videos, even the "dead" ones, have clean undies. The "clinic" in the videos has
clean floors. The patients show red skin color, not oxygen deprived blue. The patients in
the videos were not effected by sarin.
Medical personal and rescue workers in the videos (
example
)
and pictures also show none of the typical sarin symptoms. Sarin degrades relatively fast.
Half of the potency will be gone within five hours after release (depending on
environmental factors). But these rescue workers and medical personal were immediately
involved with the casualties. They do not wear any reasonable protection. They would have
been dead or at least effected if sarin would have been involved in any relevant
concentration.
The Turkish doctors and chemical weapon specialists who received the first patients
diagnosed chlorine exposure, not sarin. The first Turkish reports to the UN speak of
chlorine, not sarin. It is only the Turkish Health Minister who mentions sarin - in
parentheses, but then lists a symptom of severe chlorine exposure as one of sarin. Neither
the casualties nor the unprotected medical personal involved in the incident show any
effect of sarin exposure.
Fifteen days after the incident the OPCW say that samples it was given(!) "indicate
exposure to Sarin or a Sarin-like substance".
Turkey has been the supply and support lifeline for Ahrar al Sham as well as for
al-Qaeda in Syria. The samples given to the OPCW were taken by Turkish personal in Turkey.
The current head of the OPCW is a Turkish citizen. It is in the interest of Turkey and its
terrorist clients in Syria to blame the Syrian government for chemical weapon use.
The medical and
technical evidence
is not consistent with a sarin attack by the Syrian government. All
of the videos and pictures of the incident were taken in al-Qaeda controlled territory. All
witnesses were under al-Qaeda control. How much of the incident was staged for videos (see
al-Qaeda doctor video linked above) or how many of the witnesses were told to lie is not
testable under current circumstance. The Syrian government insist that it has given up all
its chemical weapons. The Russian government also asserts that no chemical weapon attack
took place.
The OPCW analysis may well have found that samples it received indicated
organophosphorus exposure. But the chain of evidence for these samples is very dubious.
The observable facts of the incident on the ground
do not support
the conclusion that sarin
was present
in the Khan Sheikhun incident.
Note: Part of the above is based on the work and
tweets
of
Ali Ornek
Posted by b on April 20, 2017 at 03:26 PM |
Permalink
Nice report. Although facts didn't matter with the incubator babies, Benghazi black
mercenaries, WMD, ... it's good to set the record straight for those who are interested
in the truth. It also proves again and again that big party politicians and main stream
media are a bunch of whoring liars.
Oh I do believe the bodies will show sarin.. But they would be christian or alawite
bodies.. Just like the bodies shown in ghouta who were kidnapped victims of al queda.
Who is going to verify the bodies are actual people and who they say they are.. In many
decades of knowing multi racial couples I have never seen blonde white babies as shows
in al queda photos. No woman would be stupid enough to go live in such freedom loving
hell hole like idlib unlike kids who think screwing dozens of jihadis are actually fun.
The Swedish Doctors for Human Rights whose text and video were used at the UNSC
presentation on the topic report: "The response of Western media journalists have also
in occasions taken a bizarre, seemingly desperate character ... Le Figaro indulges in a
series of libellous statements ad-hominem against the messenger of the objective
research-conclusions they dislike," which is a sure sign the Doctors are correct,
http://theindicter.com/libellous-attack-by-mainstream-journalists-angered-by-swedhr-denounce-of-unethical-anti-syria-propaganda/
The Indicter
also published a witness account of the big refugee massacre
bombing, testifying that at least 4 Turkish ambulances were on-site prior to the
explosion, were filled with the children's bodies and took them away, probably for their
organs. Canthama at SyrPers observes: "There is a REAL RISK of children organ
trafficking, this has been a very common sad aspect of the war of aggression against the
Syrians, many children and adults (thousands) were kidnaped and had their organs removed
in Turkey and either for use inside Turkey or shipped to terrorist friendly UK, France,
Germany, US, KSA, Qatar and Israhell. The UN is well aware of this illegal trade and
crime, but as usual double standard is applied as if Syrians are no humans."
[sic]
Putin was right to publicly announce the "attack" to be a False Flag, and it looks
ever more likely the Turkish government played a role and is complicit in a number of
other Syria related crimes of the most vilest.
I wanted to post the Javad Zarif statement you posted at SyrPers because of
its strong condemnation of the Outlaw US Empire's alliance with terrorists, but it's not
yet listed at the Iranian Foreign Ministry's website. Perhaps you could post a link to
where you found it?
The white helmet actor that played the part of father of twins in the
bombing very quickly appeared for photo shoot with Erdogan. Also Bana the seven year old
tweeting from Aleppo, who miraculously escaped Aleppo and then appeared for photo shoot
with Erdogan.
It seems Turkey does play a very direct role, Erdogan personally, working directly with
AQ.
Not forgetting the direct links between Erdogan and the ISIS oil convoys.
the us election was hacked! => the russians are coming! => assad gasses his own people!
all have in common their shrill hysteria and faith-based appeal. they are diammetrically
opposed to reality. but the people who want us to believe this nonsense will not be
denied! the people who want us all to believe include all the western trans-national
corporate mainstream media and, of course, the minority neo-cons for whom they shill.
this shrill minority is bent on continuing their terrorism in syria, ukraine, libya
and elsewhere. the governments of the us/nato/eu and their gcc/il proxies comprise the
early 21st-century axis of evil. they will be defeated by the alliance of the rest of
the countries of the world free of their dominion as the 21st-century unfolds, but their
horrid reign of death, devastation, destruction, and deceit around the world, and in
ukraine and mena especially, will live on in infamy, just as has that of the third reich
and its axis.
thanks b, for articulating what the msm will not.. it doesn't serve there bosses agenda.
look, when someone is going for your jugular, it is a case of surviving however you
can.. the west is like a heroin addict looking for it's next fix. the fix is making war
openly, and if they can't do that - silently.. the msm is just a stooge for them at this
point..
as for the turk throwing this out - if he hasn't gotten a promotion from king erdogan
yet, i would be surprised.. what an embarrassment the turk establishment is at this
point.. that means they will be used more by the west and i do wonder what this means
for the turkey relationship with russia and iran at this point..
already looks questionable when there is no chain of custody, no samples taken from the
site, and no samples from the air force base that was attacked.
already looks questionable when there is no chain of custody, no samples taken from the
site, and no samples from the air force base that was attacked.
It may take awhile, but Erdogan and the Turks will experience blowback in
a big way when the SAA and allies push the terrorists back over the border into Turkey.
Hard to fathom what Putin and Lavrov think about Erdogan at this point as little is
being written or said, other than the MoD's statement on the OPCW report covered by the
TASS link above and Putin's call regarding the election victory on the 18th about which
little was said,
http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/54330
And unfortunately, the remarks by
Russia's OPCW rep are fully posted at the Foreign Affairs Ministry's website, although
they will sometime,
http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/news/-/asset_publisher/cKNonkJE02Bw/content/id/2732765
re: the "Blonde" babies, it looks like peroxide...or perhaps super-strong chlorine. Too
orange/yellow to be real. Also the "father" isn't one of those light-eyed Syrians iykwim.
What really clinched it for me though was the video of the already-dead children,
showing no signs of chemical poisoning, lined up in a row to be filmed. As the cell
phone camera panned over them, the guy realizes one of their heads is lolled to the
side, not facing the camera. Instead of simply repositioning the head, he slaps it into
place, very roughly.
These dead are not mourned by the living who were there to document the event.
He also exposes the NSA penchant for "swindles", such as preventing the plugging of holes in software
around the world, to preserve their spying access.
Frank Oak
3 weeks ago Big Mike's boat 200 tons coke bust n Hussien on the run as cosmic Camelots crimes
going viral
Nancy M
3 weeks ago The Clinton campaign to divert attention to Russia instead of her myriad of crimes
that were revealed during the election must be stopped and the alt media needs to start talking about
her and Obama's crimes again and demand justice...control the dialogue
John
3 weeks ago It's almost comical to hear that they lie to each other. No wonder why these retards
in the mid-east and every other third world country gets the better of us.
Great interview, thanks RT. I knew most of the material in this interview for years now, but
it's good for it to get out whatever way possible. Hope you continue doing more such great interviews.
jake gittes 1 year ago
RT? Imagine the Russian equivalent? Golly, NSA out of control? Who knew? Who knew that
the NSA mandate *is to exceed their mandate" .
If you were in prison for the last 15 yrs you would know that NSA security in triplicate is
just doing what they've always been doing except that PRISM, restarted in 2007, is just updated
software.
Jim Jimmy 2 years ago
there is one main reason they collect all information and target everyone, even members of
congress and people like Angela merkel. If they have personal information on these powerful people
there comes the chance to blackmail them. "vote this way on this" "consent to this policy". It's
political leverage
"... By Amit Bhaduri, Professor Emeritus, Jawaharlal Nehru University and Visting Professor, Council for Social Development. Originally published at the New Economic Perspectives website ..."
"... why do we accept the artificial devolution of political economy into economics and politics? ..."
"... gets interest from ..."
"... Economics should be transferred to the divinity school. Then it will be untouchable! ..."
Yves here. I'm using the original headline from INET even though "false
arrogance" seems like rhetorical overkill. After all, arrogance and hubris are
closely related phenomena (my online thesaurus list "arrogance" as the first
synonym for "hubris"). But in Greek tragedies, the victims of hubris were all
legitimately accomplished, yet let their successes go to their heads. Thus the
use of "false arrogance" presumably means that economists' high opinion of
themselves is not warranted.
By Amit Bhaduri, Professor Emeritus,
Jawaharlal Nehru University and Visting Professor, Council for Social
Development. Originally published at the
New Economic Perspectives website
The problem of any branch of knowledge is to systematize a set of particular
observations in a more coherent form, called hypothesis or 'theory.' Two
problems must be resolved by those attempting to develop theory: (1) finding
agreement on what has been observed; (2) finding agreement on how to
systematize those observations.
In economics, there would be more agreement on the second point than on the
first. Many would agree that using the short-hand rules of mathematics is a
convenient way of systematizing and communicating knowledge - provided we have
agreement on the first problem, namely what observations are being
systematized. Social sciences face this problem in the absence of controlled
experiments in a changing, non-repetitive world. This problem may be more acute
for economics than for other branches of social science, because economists
like to believe that they are dealing with quantitative facts, and can use
standard statistical methods. However, what are quantitative facts in a
changing world? If one is dealing with questions of general interest that arise
in macroeconomics, one has to first agree on 'robust' so-called 'stylized'
facts based on observation: for example, we can agree that business cycles
occur; that total output grows as a long term trend; that unemployment and
financial crisis are recurring problems, and so on.
In the view of the economic world now dominant in major universities in the
United States - with its ripple effect around the world - is these are
transient states, aberrations from a perfectly functioning equilibrium system.
The function of theory, in this view, is to systematize the perfectly
functioning world as a deterministic system with the aid of mathematics. One
cannot but be reminded of the great French mathematician Laplace, who claimed
with chilling arrogance, two centuries after Newton, that one could completely
predict the future and the past on the basis of scientific laws of motion - if
only one knew completely the present state of all particles. When emperor
Napoleon asked how God fitted into this view, Laplace is said to have replied
that he did not need that particular hypothesis. Replace 'God' by
'uncertainty', and you are pretty close to knowing what mainstream
macro-economists in well-known universities are doing with their own variety of
temporal and inter-temporal optimization techniques, and their assumption of a
representative all knowing, all-seeing rational agent.
Some find this extreme and out-dated scientific determinism difficult to
stomach, but are afraid to move too far away, mostly for career reasons. They
change assumptions at the margin, but leave the main structure mostly
unchallenged. The tragedy of the vast, growing industry of 'scientific'
knowledge in economics is that students and young researchers are not exposed
to alternative views of how problems may be posed and tackled.
This exclusion of alternative views is not merely a question of vested
interest and the ideological view that we live in the best of all possible
worlds where optimum equilibria rule, except during transient moments. It
stems, also, from a misplaced notion of the aesthetics of good theory: Good
theory is assumed to be a closed axiomatic system. Its axioms can, at best, be
challenged empirically - e.g. testing the axiom of individual rationality by
setting up experimental devices - but such challenges hardly add up to any
workable alternative way of doing macro-economics.
There is however an alternative way, or, rather, there are alternative ways.
We must learn to accept that when undeniable facts stare us in the face and
shake up our political universe - e.g. growing unemployment is a problem, and
money and finance have roles beyond medium of payment in an uncertain world
shaken by financial crises - they are not transient problems; they are a part
of the system we are meant to study. It is no good saying my axiomatic system
does not have room for them. Instead, the alternative way is to take each
problem and devise the best ways in which we are able to handle them
analytically. Physicist Feynman (economist Dow (1995) made a similar
distinction) had made a distinction between the Greek way of doing mathematics
axiomatically, and the Babylonian way, which used separate known results
(theorems) without necessarily knowing the link among them. We must accept this
Babylonian approach to deal with macro-economic problems, without pretending
that it must follow from some grand axiom.
Awareness of history must enter economic theory by showing that concepts
such as cost, profit, wage, rent, and even commercial rationality have
anthropological dimensions specific to social systems. The humility to accept
that economic propositions cannot be universal would save us from
self-defeating arrogance.
I can't tell you how much I agree with the article.
For example, what CRITERIA are used that something is a "good" job. Before you
even start to debate the "facts" at least set up the criteria by which you will
evaluate them. It seems evident to me (pension, "good" – what is "good" health
care) but apparently, one of the "pre-eminent" economists, at least according
to another economist, thinks part time jobs are just as good as retail .
It works for me as an executive summary, but almost every paragraph would
probably require a similarly-sized essay to explain it. I agree with its
judgment that too many economists view the world as being governed by some
sort of universal economic law (or "laws"), when in reality those laws work
in very limited circumstances. Whether it's possible there could be such
laws some day, I don't have an opinion one way or another, and nothing in
this article sheds much light on that issue.
It's my experience that the overwhelming number of economists don't know
squat about employment/ unemployment, including why and employer hires and
why people look for and accept jobs. I assume this is because all of these
things are rare event in the personal lives of economists, who spend little
time looking for or between jobs. An economist is either employed, or he/she
is not an economist, and so once they gain experience with the above, they
are no longer in a position where they can speak about it among others still
in the field.
pension + black lung = good job? I mean if we're saying coal mining is a
"good job" now noone who can do better wants it though, that's what a
"good job" it is. Compensation matters but so do working conditions, and by
the way externalities matter, and "coal mining" as a good job certainly
doesn't account for that and the whole community being a cancer cluster etc.
As an economist, now semi retired (author, handyman, carer ), I can speak
of my own experiences.
I think one aspect of my degree course was a lack of normative studies
and not enough, 'well that is the mainstream theory, now this is what we
observe in practice' (and why eg control fraud, captured political
interests)
We were also mispoken to about how private banks create money, taxes fund
government spending and so on.
My choice to study economics was regretted years later, yet it gave me a
lift up career-wise.
It now seems sad that the profession has become mis-trusted and
denigrated. We don't all think alike.
When I studied economics, I realized how absurd a lot of it was so I
answered according to what the prof wanted to see.
However, I'm under the impression that my education in a Cdn
university was way less dogmatic than in the US.
Externalities were discussed, as was the dubious quality of GDP
growth. I had a book on the history of the Cdn financial system. It
explained very well how we went from gold standard to current system..
and how the leading countries used devaluations (France, UK, US) to their
advantage.
The problem with objective economists is that they realize that there
exists something called the law of unintended consequences. Once you
realize there are too many variables to control, you become a leaf in the
wind. And no one likes ambivalent people. They want leaders who KNOW the
answers. So leaders who appear to have answers are chosen.
Well said. I always appreciated having my undergraduate economic
theory class delivered by an active duty Marine Corp Major. A hardened
realist with a talent for illuminating theory.
No offense to Dean Baker, but what doesn't Krugman NOT get wrong? His
public disagreement with Real Economist, Steve Keen, would have been
hilarious had it not been so pathetic in demonstrating either what a sheer
idiot he is, or professional liar, whatever the case may be. (Krugman was
claiming that banks do not create credit as Krugman has no understanding of
that rather simple fractional reserve banking system. I once wrote to
Krugman to correct him on his supply-and-demand
theory
as to the
cause of that incredible spiking upwards of oil/energy costs around 2008,
even though the Baltic Exchange Index ad pretty much collapsed, with an
incredible number of oil tankers floating off the coasts of Singapore and
Malaysia, in an inactive state – – attempting to explain to him about
Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, et al., speculating up the prices on ICE
via commodity futures speculation or wash sales, and he didn't get that
either!)
But this reminds me of a local (Seattle) witless talk show (KIRO radio
station: the John and Curley Show) where the two snarky hosts, as ignorant
as can be, go on and on about their love of globalization, scoffing at those
who don't understand that offshoring manufacturing (they ignored all the
other categories) jobs to China and elsewhere was most clever, and "freed up
America to manufacture high-end goods" - evidently ignorant of the fact as
to where most chip fabs are located, and that 70% to 100% of many auto parts
and aircraft parts are manufactured overseas, shipped back to America only
for assembling purposes.
That ultra-boondoggle, the F-35, is manufactured across 9 foreign
countries plus America - wonder why it's such a cluster screw-up, huh?
A further aside: I don't see all Greek tragedies as turning on hubris.
Where is the hubris, say, of Oedipus? He is the King, there is a plague, the
people call on him for help, he helps. And the plague is vanquished (mind
you, he and his family – the ones still living – are in a mess. But that –
Sophocles seems to be saying – is Life).
The important thing according to the Greek scholar Michael Scott is to
recognize that Greek theater and Greek democracy are joined at the hip.
The former educated the electorate in the difficult choices they would
have to make as managers of their own political existence. We have
political theater today but no-one considers it instruction in one's
civic duty.
"We" here can say it to each other, over and over, in different and
ever-better-documented ways, that almost all economics and the "findings" it
generates, and almost all economists and their credentials, are BS, MS, Ph.D
(bullish!t, more sh!t, piled higher and deeper). But how to reach a larger, and
large enough, set of people who actually have votes that count and can "call
bullsh!t" and demand and get an end to the "policies" that are built on and
gather "legitimacy" from the "findings" of all those faux 'economists?" Who
after all do have those (feedback-loop-granted) "credentials," and so many
sous-chefs to keep pumping out the mega-gallons of Bernays sauce to make the
sh!t sandwiches seem au courant, de rigeur, and somehow palatable?
Agreed, I think that's the issue. Debating whether or not economics is a
science plays right into the prevailing power structure. Rather, the
question is why do we accept the artificial devolution of political economy
into economics and politics? There are lots of quantitative (and
qualitative) "facts" in the world about economics; it can be a scientific
discipline like any other. The important civic debate is the political part:
what values should guide our interpretation and implementation of those
economic understandings?
why do we accept the artificial devolution of political economy
into economics and politics?
This is the right question if we change "why to we accept" to "how is
it that we now have" – that is, if we ask an empirical, historical
question and not a metaphysical or psychological question. In an academic
sense, I would say the answer has to do with a long battle within
economics that was decisively won in the 50s or 60s by one "school" to
the extent that they could ostracize and ignore alternative "schools"
without much effective criticism, and an implicit "bargain" with
sociology and political science to craft an academic division of labor.
And then, inertia and serious pushback against any and all challengers.
In the non-academic world, the answer has to do with a certain
confluence of interest between neoclassical economics and existing social
and economic power.
"But how to reach a larger, and large enough, set of people who
actually have votes that count and can "call bullsh!t" and demand and get
an end to the "policies" that are built on and gather "legitimacy" from
the "findings" of all those faux 'economists?"
I think one method, to move in that direction, is to make a very small
number of very specific demands. Single payer healthcare, and a living wage.
We demand them!! Why don't we have them??!!
When the "economists" tie themselves up into illogical pretzels, trying
to "explain" why we can't have these nice things, they destroy their
credibility– to the point where their dogma is revealed as false and
inhuman. Then, we can shake off their dead hand and begin to build a new
society on more rational and humane principles.
I understand and share your frustration with a brand of economics
being used as a cudgel to tell us we cannot have nice things even as each
individual US state's GDP is the equivalent to that of (at least) a
medium EU nation which individually can afford far better health
insurance schemes than we do. It should be the economists' job to smooth
the way, to find ways so that we can have nice things not just leave it
at can't.
I disagree with washunate that to engage with economists who are
failing is a waste of time that plays into the hands of the prevailing
power structure. Neoliberal economists should be hearing from us that
they are not scientists no matter how much math they dress their pet
theories with. The greatest glory of a science is the predictive powers
of its foundational theories and in that regard neoliberal economics
fails spectacularly. It is not by any definition a science and they
should hear it as often as possible. Of course they know this in their
bones but their theories give their funders significant political cover
as they seek more undeserved goods for themselves. It is our job to
remind everyone who will hear that neoliberal theories are fiction not
science.
Why don't we have universal health care? Sadly, I think the answer is
quite simple – the elasticity of demand for health is infinite as the
alternative is death. Hence, Genentech can and does charge $20,000 for a
round of rituxan, which is very effective on non-Hodgkins lymphoma. Is it
worth it? Of course it is – lymphoma is deadly.
My point is that while the social benefit of universal health care is
high, so is the opportunity cost to the healthcare industry. And since
the industry is free to bribe politicians (sans a quid pro quo of course)
we are unlikely to ever get it. As discussed above, economics divorced
from politics is useless.
wow pretty awesome that Europe/Great Britain and Japan don't have
politicians . just teasing you, how though did those countries manage
to get around your problem is the question//
The British learned from the washout of the first world war that
the usual politicians could not be trusted to produce a country fit
for heroes as was promised, so they voted for socialism.
As for the Japanese, my memory is that the US set their health
system up! Dang!
The British polititician who lost out big time in that
election that brought the Labour Party's version of socialism
into power, was Winston Churchill – after the end of World War
Two.
It goes to show that you might need one kind of leader in
existential-wartime, and another for peacetime. However,
nowadays how do you know whether the there is an existential
struggle or not?
Yes, hubris was the tragic flaw. Treating it as a mere synonym for arrogance
is a fine example of why to avoid thesaurusi. A good dictionary with synonymies
is more reliable.
Speaking of hubris, there's a recently published book by a "professor of
national security" (good luck with that one!!!), Tom Nichols, titled:
The
Death of Expertise
, and it's a real hoot!
Not because the author got anything right, he got almost everything
completely wrong, and simply for that reason!
At one point in this garbage book by Nichols, he is repeating an exchange
between a political appointee whom he believes to be an "expert" and a grad
student concerning Reagan's spaced-based missile defense {SDI or Star Wars -
in this case I believe it was the space-based platform} of which much of it
turned out to be a hoax meant to mislead the Soviets – – and historically we
know the grad student was correct, and Jastrow, if I recall his name
correctly, was most incorrect – – but you would never know it from this
author! -- !
(If you observe any American space-based missile platforms, please be
sure to let me know!)
Besides acknowledging that economic theory is bound to time and society, it
would also be good to give some fresh thought to familiar economic concepts we
take as Bible-given.
Let's re-examine the ideas of interest [can we do without it], growth [can
we have a no-growth economy], and differential pay [need we pay a much higher
salary for "higher" work],
I would go on to look at profit [should there be profit in all economic
activities, such as health care, education, and others], oligopolies [is it
good to have very large corporations], and competition [should we promote
competition is all aspects of life].
Some of these have been questioned in these pages, such as the question of
oligopoly. I encourage raising more and continued questioning, as we've done
here.
It tends to draw fire when I mention it, but "Sharia or Islamic banking
and finance" is supposed to be done without any interest. And the system
(now under assault by Western interest-holders, by physical violence and
subversion of many types, and co-optation via corruption) kind of relies on
actual trust and risk-sharing. Here's some details for anyone "interested:"
http://www.islamic-banking.com/islamic_banking_principle.aspx
Thank you for your first reference, JTMcPhee, from the Institute of
Islamic Banking. It makes a great deal of sense that lenders bear risk
along with borrowers when we are talking about financing
entrepreneurship. In this view, the lender has
an interest in
rather than
gets interest from
. [I very much suspect that the
former
meaning became detached from the
latter
very
early on in human history, which is why the latter was condemned as
'usury', a result itself of an imbalance of power leading to coercive
lending.]
I wonder, however, about 'consumer lending' where there is clearly no
entrepreneurial risk.
Do you have a useful reference about how this 'consumer lending'
occurs without 'interest' in the Islamic world?
In 1955, the economist Simon Kuznets thought he had found such a law of
motion, one that determined the path of income inequality in a growing economy.
The scant data that he could gather together seemed to suggest that, as a
nation's GDP grows, inequality first rises, then levels off, and ultimately
starts to fall. Despite Kuznets' explicit warnings that his work was 5%
empirical, 95% speculation and "some of it possibly tainted by wishful
thinking", his findings were soon touted as an economic law of motion,
immortalized as "the Kuznets Curve"– resembling an upside-down U on the page –
and has been taught to every economics student for the past half century.
As for the curve's message? When it comes to inequality, it has to get worse
before it can get better, and more growth will make it better. And so the
Kuznets Curve became a perfect justification for trickle-down economics and for
enduring austerity today in the pursuit of making everyone better off some day.
Forty years later, in the 1990s, economists Gene Grossman and Alan Krueger
thought they too had found an economic law of motion, this time about
pollution. And it appeared to follow the very same trajectory as Kuznets' curve
on inequality: first rising then falling as the economy grows. Despite the
familiar caveats that the data were incomplete, and available for local air and
water pollutants only, their findings were quickly labeled the "Environmental
Kuznets Curve". And the message? When it comes to pollution, it has to get
worse before it can get better and – guess what – more growth will make it
better. Like a well-trained child, growth will apparently clean up after
itself.
Except it doesn't.
===================================================================
More fuel to the fire
They both seem typical of the human search for knowledge, with or without
resorting to the Scientific Method.
Typical in that
1. we fail to recognize our knowledge is always partial and limited
1A. Sometimes with the added arrogance of saying we know it's partial and
limited
(Some can't afford that added arrogance, because they have been exposed
already, like, say, fortune tellers)
And yet
2. we use that knowledge as if it's complete and applicable everywhere.
The Greek concept of hubris was not merely arrogance, but involved an INJURY
to others. (I discuss this in J is for Junk Economics.) The main examples were
creditors and land monopolizers - and kings. Nemesis not only fight hubris, but
specifically supported the weak and poor who were the main injured parties. The
iconography is quite similar to Sumerian Nanshe of Lagash.
So the concept of hubris is linked to affluenza: irresponsibility of wealth,
injuring society at large.
My Lord! The best economist on the planet is commenting! Our Economist
God! (As someone here aptly characterized you a few weeks ago when Yves ran
your discussion of Jubilees.)
I'll come right out with it, I'm a Michael Hudson super fan/groupie and
after Yves published one of your articles, which of course, I had already
read being a big fan/internet tube tracker, I suggested we concerned
citizens, get a Michael Hudson fan club going and somehow convince you to
take your stellar, economics distilling/demystifying self on the road along
with other exemplary economists and some musicians and comedians. Like that
stadium event you did in Europe or that Irish Econ Conference, but this
would be for the education of the vast citizenry, hence the addition of a
bit of music/comedy to entice. A touring TED/Coachella or South by Southwest
but for the Economic Edification of the 99%. (You wouldn't neccessarily have
to deliver all of your addresses in person. Some could be taped.)
You would be bigger than Bernie if the millenials became familiar with your
work, but more importantly, you and other like minded economists, could arm
people with the deeper understanding that is essential to overturning the
prevailing paradigm.
Thank You For Your Works!
Hope
ps I looked into getting Economic Rock Star as a website but it is taken.
Yes, 'injury' as in
injustice -- Of course that may entail
physical damage, but the recent tendency to reduce 'injury' to that narrow
sense alone misses most of the point.
Thanks for the connection to 'hubris', concerning which I was Classically
clueless until a few minutes ago. If hubris corresponds to injury in the
proper sense, perhaps 'arrogance' should be paired with 'insult', i.e. the
gratuitous gloating (= self-aggrandizement of the unjust) and gleeful
blaming of the injured that at least in living memory seems almost always to
be packaged with the injustice?
None of these practices is new, although their use has expanded over the
years. What does seem to be new, as Bettina Boxall of the Los Angeles Times
reported this week, is that some California farmers are now experimenting with
flooding fields that have grapevines and almond trees growing on them. And in
general, people in California are paying a lot more attention to groundwater
than they used to.
In 2014, the California Legislature approved a package of
groundwater-management laws - long after most other Western states had done so
- that are now slowwwwwly beginning to take effect. Local
groundwater-management agencies are being formed that will have to come up with
plans to reach groundwater sustainability within 20 years.
========================================================
You can look at this optimistically or pessimistically. With the population
growing year, after year, after year, it doesn't take high intelligence that
water demand will exceed water supply. And yet CA government choose to deal
with this freight train coming down the tracks in ..2014.
> With the population growing year, after year, after year, it doesn't
take high intelligence that water demand will exceed water supply.
Supply is not fixed. A lot of the current "supply" (rainfall) isn't being
retained, stored, or used intelligently. So there's still quite a bit of
room for population growth, particularly in the northern, wetter parts of
the state. Even without artificial restrictions on usage.
On the other had, I agree with the point that humanity should not have as
its primary goal the maximization of population on a single finite sphere.
And thus economics should not have as its primary goal the maximization of
"growth".
"The problem of any branch of knowledge is to systematize a set of
particular observations in a more coherent form, called hypothesis or 'theory.'
Two problems must be resolved by those attempting to develop theory: (1)
finding agreement on what has been observed; (2) finding agreement on how to
systematize those observations."
How will modern economists agree to agree on anything real now that
post-modernist thought and critique has entered the economics field?
"But Foucault had belatedly spotted that post-modernism and "neo-liberal"
free-market economics, which had developed entirely independently of each other
over the previous half-century, pointed in much the same direction. "
http://www.economist.com/node/8401159
adding: The economists who use a post-modernist approach( all is
uncertain and events are transient and therefore immaterial to the core
theory) to defend a scientific determinist* core theory are engaging in
double-think. I'm not an economist so maybe there's a
there
there I
cannot see.
*
"Popper insisted that the term "scientific" can only be applied to
statements that are falsifiable. Popper's book The Open Universe: An
Argument For Indeterminism defines scientific determinism as the claim that
any event can be rationally predicted, with any desired degree of
precision, if we are given a sufficiently precise description of past
events, together with all the laws of nature, a notion that Popper asserted
was both falsifiable and adequately falsified by modern scientific
knowledge.
"In his book, A Brief History of Time, Hawking claims that predictability
is required for 'scientific determinism' (start of chapter 4). He defines
'scientific determinism"" as meaning: 'something that will happen in the
future can be predicted.' "
By measures that register actual human engagement – rather than fake
accounts and bot activity - Facebook does not seem to be growing at all. In
2016, its users generated about 25 percent less original content than in 2015.
The time users spend on Facebook dropped from 24 hours in mid-2015 to 18.9
hours in February, Comscore reported.
========================================
One can only hope.
I am only on Facebook because a friend and co-worker signed me up (without my
knowledge or consent, but I think most people looked upon it like getting a
greeting card) back in the day when the Facebook fad was at its peak. And I was
interested in it as a social and economic phenomenon.
My own anecdotal experience is that the most ardent users (multi daily
postings) have declined by 95%. The occasional 2 or 3 times weekly posters are
down to once monthly, and so on.
And the response to postings seems to have had even greater declines. Even good
friends who I used to TRY and keep up with postings, I scarcely ever bother now
– and when I do open one, people who used to get near 100 "looks" have 2 or 3 –
maybe once in a while for something real (somebody died, instead this is a
picture of a meal I eated) , maybe 5.
Woolworths used to be a juggernaut – so was Sears. Who remembers "My Space"
???
I saw too many people turning into Trump Fraidy Cats before the election
("Vote for Hillary because Trump! He's so awful!") or Vote Shamers ("You're
voting third party? Shame on you!").
After the election, Facebook seemed like a psych ward. Too many sobbing,
crying, and raving loons for my taste.
Cutting back on Facebook is part of my larger goal of spending less time
on social media and more time in social reality.
Bravo, another critical issue absent from MSM or even worse purposefully
being confused.
It would help a lot if people take time to understand the money in itself
that permeates every aspect of life since it is a central feature of any
financial system under any economic system ancient or contemporary.
Here is an simple essay that explains without financial jargon what money is
in itself as a social construct and whom in reality it serves:
Economics isn't economical, it is political-economics. Politics first,
economics second. Politics is the art, not the science, of sharing out the
wealth, power and fame in a society in an organized way. If your politics is
corrupt, then your economics will be corrupt also.
Blame Pythagoras. From Pythagoras and Croesus, we got the idea that value
was a number, and that everything had a value, and that a market (aka city
state) is where the hidden hand determined the relationship between prices,
goods and services. The actual "cost" per capita, of running a subsistence
agrarian society hasn't changed since the days of Babylon. We simply have
more technical bookkeeping (and accounting). A shekel was the weight of 180
grains of dried barley seed. The Babylonians didn't have a primitive society
they had monarchy, theocracy, militarism and receipts. A thing might be
valued in so many shekels of silver, but the receipt accomplished what a
coin would have, because it was honored. Clay money instead of paper money.
You got your receipt for your socialist food dole, went to the temple
granary to pick it up (this was long before Rome), visited the temple
prostitutes (way better than Roman games), then went home. And as has been
pointed out, this was a clay fiat and honesty was just as vanishing then
as now. And yes, it was a debt system, not a credit system. The US and the
world has moved from a credit system to a debt system in the last 100 years.
The Great Whore, Babylon is still awaiting her destiny.
"Daniel reads the words MENE, MENE, TEKEL, PARSIN and interprets them for
the king: MENE, God has numbered the days of your kingdom and brought it to
an end; TEKEL, you have been weighed and found wanting; and PERES, the
kingdom is divided and given to the Medes and Persians."
Having once held a 1776 edition of Wealth of Nations in my hand I recall
Smith was a Moral Philosopher and that Economics was a branch of Moral
Philosophy choosing between Goods and Bads and seeing Utility Functions as
Demand Curves.
Then I recall Keynes, the Mathematician, writing beautiful prose in The
General Theory. Somewhere the Reduced Form Equation boys started to play with
Stochastic Variables to make the R2 fit Deterministic equations replaced Moral
choices and an obsession with Beta proceeded to ignore Alpha.
Economics is something of an academic joke. Steve Keen has introduced some
life into a dead subject with his Hyman MInsky analysis since so much of
Economic Theory as propounded is simply a Java Box running inside the main
system
We must learn to accept that when undeniable facts stare us in the face
and shake up our political universe - e.g.
growing unemployment is a
problem
, and money and finance have roles beyond medium of payment in an
uncertain world shaken by financial crises - they are not transient
problems; they are a part of the system we are meant to study.
I think studying some of these things might be better left to psychologists.
I emphasized the phrase about unemployment as a case in point – it could be
argued that we have the unemployment we have right now thanks to telling
ourselves, collectively, that we can't employ people. Anyone who chooses to
look around and observe can find things we could be paying people to do, like
fixing our streets and bridges, educating our young, exploring space and
advancing science, providing medical care to the significant portion of our
population who don't have access, but we are told that this would be bad for
some reason, and many of us seem to believe this.
I don't know if that confirms the author's ideas or not, but as several of
us have observed now in these comments, our economic problems have less to do
with the dismal science (or lack of it) and more to do with what people are
inclined to believe is true, regardless of the facts.
Actually, economics is more like a branch of medieval scholasticism. It's
about forcing reality to fit dogma by imposing methodological and
epistemological gag rules on its practitioners so that they're blinded to
substance by form - and the non-expert public is bamboozled into mute
acquiescence. Econned, as Yves would say.
Yes, I'm baffled that we hear all this about oh jobs are going away becuz
robots and maybe UBI and on and on when there are SO MANY UNFILLED JOBS staring
us in the face where filling them would be of enormous benefit to all. Are they
looking around at ALL?
As you can see, I'm baffled, too. UBI might be a good idea, and various
forms of technology have certainly eliminated jobs over the years, but when
so much work remains to be done, I don't see how you can argue that we've
reached an age where most of us are truly unemployable.
FTM, what is employment? Put most simply, it is one person or entity who
has money paying someone to perform some task(s), possibly to a minimum
acceptable quality. There are many forms of work we do that no one wants to
pay us to do. My work at an amateur theatre falls into that category, as
does the work of the people in the food bank/soup kitchen next door. Maybe
our concept of what constitutes useful work needs to change, too.
The place to start paying decent wages is for all kinds of
housework, daycare and elder care. All are undervalued and underpaid
while that latter two are essential for a healthy community. None of
these should be consigned to robots as only human contact can do the
job well.
But the irony of basic income is that's one of the things it
does. A huge portion of "housework, daycare, and elder care" is
better done
informally
, outside of the GDP-measured formal
economy of employers and jobs and wages and benefits, especially
given how crappy the formal jobs tend to be in those sectors.
Income supports that lack formal work requirements by definition
create more time for people to do things in the informal economy.
But wouldn't it be better to pay parents and caregivers for
caring? First of all, it's work and deserves to be remunerated
like work. Second, keeping care work in the informal economy
only "works" if people have other income with which to satisfy
their needs and wants. There is no possibility that any basic
income grant will provide a single parent with the funds to
allow them to work taking care of their children, which is the
socially optimal situation in almost all cases.
pretty funny. that's been standard econ cirricuulum at the University of
Magonia for, oh, let's see, 1, 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9. Nine! Nine years!
Pretty funny. Is this still April 1st? I guess not. Oh well, a day late, a
dollar short (no pun intended) is better than a year late and a grand short, or
a century late and a million short. There's a pattern there! it goes back to
the Testament of Amram, Manuscript B. The Dead Sea Scrolls. That's what we
teach in econo 101 during the "money" unit. Money, at the Universtiy of Magonia,
is an idea that mediates the boundary wtihin a society between cooperation and
conflict.. That's not a theory, it's a reality. Everybody has heard this before
in the peanut gallery so I won't reapeat myself.
They should send a delegation from Harvard to the Universtiy of Magonia for
a seminar in money and economics. hahahaha. That's pretty funny even to think
about. Believe me. They'd learn a few things but they might get ontological
shock and end up like MIT mathematical economist Ed Bucks who spent two months
in the New Hampshire woods looking at deer through binoculars in search of a
theory of economics that could survive a collision with nature AND be
deterministic and mathematically rigorous. He pretty much had a nervous
breakdown and ended up back at MIT sucking up grant money like a baby at his
mamas tits. Many are called, but few are chosen. LOL
"... By Don Quijones, Spain & Mexico, editor at Wolf Street. Originally published at Wolf Street ..."
"... By Don Quijones . ..."
"... When it comes to debt, everything is relative, especially if you don't have a reserve-currency-denominated printing press. Read Is Mexico Facing "Liquidity Problems?" ..."
"... Greenspan's Fraud ..."
"... It would also stop phony war on drugs in Mexico ..."
"... To make matters worse, much of Mexico's new debt is in foreign-denominated currencies. Between 2015 and 2016 alone, the total amount of euro and dollar-denominated debt it issued rose by 46%. ..."
"... [u]nlike debt issued in pesos, Mexico's central bank cannot just print dollars and euros to bail out bond holders or inflate away the debt. ..."
"... Therefore shouldn't the question be the absolute external debt in dollars instead of the relative amount in pesos? ..."
"... To make matters worse, much of Mexico's new debt is in foreign-denominated currencies. ..."
Mexico's Economy Is Being Plundered Dry Posted on
April 20, 2017 by
Yves Smith Yves here. Most Americans know on some level that Mexico has become an economic and
political disaster, save for those at the very top of the food chain. This post gives vignettes that
bring home how much of a failed state it has become. And needless to say, the US had no small role
in that outcome.
By Don Quijones, Spain & Mexico, editor at Wolf Street. Originally published at
Wolf Street
The government of Mexico has a new problem on its hands: what to do with the burgeoning ranks
of state governors, current or former, that are facing prosecution for fraud or corruption. It's
a particularly sensitive problem given that most of the suspects belong to the governing political
party, the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI), which ruled Mexico uninterruptedly from 1929
to 2000. It returned to power in December 2012 with the election of Enrique Peńa Nieto. And it clearly
hasn't changed its ways.
Some of the accused governors were so compromised they went on the run. In the last few weeks,
two of them, Tomás Yarrington, former state governor of Tamaulipas, and Javier Duarte, former governor
of Veracruz, were tracked down. Yarrington, accused of laundering proceeds from drug trafficking
as well as helping Mexico's Gulf Cartel export "large quantities" of cocaine to the United States,
was ensnared by Italian Police in the Tuscan city of Florence. He faces possible extradition
to the United States.
Yarrington's successor as governor of Tamaulipas, Eugenio Hernández, a fellow PRI member who is
also accused of close ties with narcotraficantes and money laundering,
has not been seen in public since last June .
As for Duarte, he was caught this week by police in Guatemala. Like Yarrington, he wasn't exactly
laying low. Among the accusations he faces is that of
buying fake chemotherapy
drugs , which were then unknowingly administered by state-run hospitals to children suffering
from cancer. He and his cohorts purportedly pocketed the difference. He is also alleged to have set
up 34 shell companies with the intention of diverting 35 billion pesos (roughly $2 billion) of public
funds into his and his friends' deep pockets.
In just about any jurisdiction on earth, $2 billion is a substantial amount of money, even by
today's inflated standards. But in Mexico, where neither the super rich (accounting for a very large
chunk of the country's wealth) nor the super poor (accounting for roughly half of the population)
pay direct taxes of any kind, it's a veritable fortune.
And when the country's public debt is already growing at an unprecedented pace, rampant corruption
becomes a serious problem.
In the year 2000, Mexico had a perfectly manageable debt load of roughly 20% of GDP. Today, it
is almost two and a half times that size. Last year alone the Mexican state
issued a grand total of $20.31 billion in new debt, the largest amount since 1995, the year immediately
after the Tequila Crisis when the country received an international bailout to rescue its entire
banking system from collapse and to
make whole the Wall Street investment banks that had gone all in on Mexican assets.
To make matters worse, much of Mexico's new debt is in foreign-denominated currencies. Between
2015 and 2016 alone, the total amount of euro and dollar-denominated debt it issued rose by 46%.
Unlike debt issued in pesos, Mexico's central bank cannot just print dollars and euros to bail out
bond holders or inflate away the debt. This debt must be serviced the hard way.
In recent years, Mexico's public debt has mushroomed in order to make up for lackluster growth,
a weakening peso, much lower global oil prices, and the dwindling contribution to government coffers
of the country's erstwhile sugar daddy, Pemex. The state-owned oil giant has itself been systematically
plundered dry by its burgeoning ranks of senior managers and administrators, the untouchable,
unsackable leaders of the oil workers' union, all closely aligned to PRI, and legions of Pemex contractors.
Between 2008 and 2016 Pemex's contribution to the government's tax revenues shrank from 40% to
13%. During roughly the same period (2009-2016) its debt grew
187% , to nearly
$100 billion. Its pension liabilities amount to $1.2 billion. The losses and debt keep growing in
tandem, while its production and reserves are shrinking. The company was already
bailed out once last year.
The more Pemex's financial health declines, the larger the shortfall in public finances and the
faster Mexico's public debt will grow.
The really twisted part? The more the debt grows, the more opportunities the country's corrupt
politicians will get to feather their nests. It's not like there's much deterrent. In recent years
only 17 of 42 serving or former governors suspected of corruption have been investigated, according
to a study by María Amparo Casar, executive president of the advocacy group Mexicans Against Corruption
and Impunity. Before the latest rash of detentions, only three of them ended up in prison.
"The decades of impunity have generated a level of shamelessness we've never seen before in Mexico,"
Max Kaiser, anti-corruption director for the Mexican Institute of Competitiveness (IMCO), told the
New York Times . The excesses are more public than ever and have brought Mexicans to the verge
of bankruptcy.
Mexico's debt continues to grow at a much faster pace than its economy, whose growth is forecast
to slow this year to 1.5%, compared to last year's 2.4%. In February Mexico's top auditor, the Federal
Audit Office (ASF), warned
that Mexico's debt situation was just a step away from becoming unsustainable. A number of states
are
already facing bankruptcy , including Duarte's Veracruz.
Last August, Standard & Poor's lowered the outlook for Mexico's sovereign bonds from stable to
negative and saw "an at least one-in-three possibility of a downgrade over the next 24 months." Mexico's
foreign currency sovereign credit rating, which is what matters with bonds denominated in a foreign
currency, at BBB+, is just three notches above junk. A downgrade would raise the cost of borrowing,
pushing Mexico's finances even closer to the brink. In the meantime, the plunder must go on.
By Don Quijones .
When it comes to debt, everything is relative, especially if you don't have a reserve-currency-denominated
printing press. Read
Is Mexico Facing "Liquidity Problems?"
And needless to say, the US had no small role in that outcome.
Can you elaborate on this? What responsibility do average US citizens bear for Mexico's crisis?
Given the massive wealth transfer upwards in the last decade do we not have the same corruption
issues in the US, regardless of it being under cover of law?
Maybe the stuff in this article has something to do with explaining the role "our" government
and corruptorations have had and continue to have in catalyzing an dexporting and importing immiseration
in Mexico and here "at home" too? "The Political Economy of Mexico's Drug War,"
http://isreview.org/issue/90/political-economy-mexicos-drug-war
I don't know if this is what was meant by that comment or not but, at the very least, it is
the US' appetite for drugs that has allowed the cartels to flourish into practically nation states
unto themselves.
The problem with either is that a) The Mexican drug cartels are moving toward producing more
lethal, cheaper drugs in massive quantities as the profits from selling marijuana dry up, and
b) there needs to be, in the USA, a much more rigorous process regulating (as opposed to banning)
controlled substances and of assisting addicts towards recovery. We've made periodic moves in
this direction, but none have had staying power and that needs to change.
@Loblolly: The U.S.'s role south of its borders has been predation and looting for centuries
now. I've read that between 1798 and 1994 the U.S. was responsible for 41 changes of government
south of its borders.
When the Haitians, one of the two poorest nations in the hemisphere, had the temerity to elect
Jean Bertrand Aristide, the candidate of the poor, the Clintons sent troops, and Bush 43 kidnapped
him and took him to Central Africa.
The Reagan administration famously sold arms to Iran right after it had kidnapped U.S. embassy
staff to fund a proxy war against the other poorest nation in the hemisphere, Nicaragua. Reagan
asked the Mexican president to endorse his line that Nicaragua was a threat to the U.S. The Mexican
president replied he would be happy to do that if there was any way he could say such a thing
without being laughed out of office.
More recently, then secretary of state Hillary Clinton blessed the Honduran coup, installing
a military junta to replace the democratically-elected government–a government which had the temerity
to try to raise Honduras' minimum wage from 60˘ an hour. (The nerve of those people!). Meanwhile,
30,000 unaccompanied minors made their way to Gringolandia to avoid Honduran chaos. (I heard from
WaPo's Ruben Navarette, deploring the treatment of these kids, but he uttered not a peep about
what made them choose exile over their homes.)
For Mexico's current corruption and sad-and-sorry economy, we can at least take credit for
NAFTA. Actually their president, Carlos Salinas Gotari, drank enough of the neoliberal koolaid
with his Harvard education to propose "free trade" to Bush 41 whose administration authored the
actual legislation. Clinton signed the treaty with environmental and labor provisions that just
aren't enforced.
To demonstrate what a great idea was NAFTA, almost immediately the U.S. had to come up with
a $20 billion loan to deal with the capital flight it permitted–and not incidentally to bail out
U.S. banks that bet wrong on Mexico, and to rehearse the U.S. bank bailouts for any later financial
scandal.
One might guess that shipping a bunch of subsidized Iowa corn south of the border would put
some subsistence corn farmers in Mexico out of business and it did. Sure, corn is only arguably
the most important food crop in the world, and those little farmers were keeping the diversity
of the corn genome alive, but hey! They weren't making any money for Monsanto!
In the wake of NAFTA, Mexican real incomes declined 34% (says Ravi Batra in his Greenspan's
Fraud )–really saying something in a country where half the population gets by on less than
$4 a day. One has to return to the halcyon days of the Great Depression to find a decline like
that in the U.S. economy.
Of course that U.S. decline provoked no great migration oh wait! The Okies! The only more recent
comparable economic decline (besides the Greeks) that I can think of is when Cuba lost its oil
and subsidies from the Soviets in the early '90s. In the U.S., Michael Pollan reports we get one
calorie of food by burning 10 calories of petroleum. Without that Russian oil, I've read that
the average Cuban lost 20 lbs.
So the constant attacks, political, economic and military, from the U.S. have had an effect.
All those "illegal aliens" (no, not Martians with unpaid traffic tickets actually: "undocumented
workers") came north for a reason. Ask one if he'd rather be back home, and you'll seldom hear
them say "no."
We read daily in nakedcapitalism how we're sowing the wind, but we're surely going to reap
the whirlwind for the way the U.S. has treated its southern neighbors.
It's widely known that NAFTA allowed US agriculture companies that are heavily subsidized by
the government to dump their cheap corn in Mexico putting farmers there off their land and out
of business. And yet people still wonder why so many are immigrating to the US.
Also, I'd keep an eye on that governor who is facing extradition to the US for facilitating
the export of "large quantities" of cocaine. Speculation to be sure, but something tells me you
don't do that without the knowledge and possible assistance of Uncle Sugar.
I'd say ask Gary Webb, but he's dead of course after exposing a similar scandal back in the
90s.
NAFTA is directly responsible for increased cartel power. Besides corn dumping disrupting Mexico's
rural economy and legitimate income, it generated the "maquiladora's" or Mexican factories along
the US border for assembling tariff free imported materials for export.
The large population increase the factories attracted had no increase in public infrastructure
like schools, housing etc and youth gangs proliferated. The cartels then began using the gangs
as enforcers for smuggling routes and distribution into the US and many associated criminal tasks.
A cascade of events ..
Between 2008 and 2016 Pemex's contribution to the government's tax revenues shrank from
40% to 13%.
A radio journalist friend in Guadalajara has been expecting and writing about this scenario
for at least a dozen years. Mexico is a petro-state, but production is declining in its big oilfields
and isn't being replaced. He visited South America to check out alternate bolt holes, on the theory
that when the oil runs out, it's gonna turn ugly in Mexico.
So far his worries proved to be early. We don't have enough data points, but it's worth noting
that Mexico's 1982 debt crisis occurred after a spike in US interest rates, a US recession and
an oil patch meltdown in 1981.
Similarly, the US Fed started hiking interest rates in early 1994, while the price of oil had
been sliding toward $15/bbl ever since the late 1990 spike to $40/bbl in anticipation of the Gulf
war. Here's a long term chart of crude oil:
Now J-Yel and her sidekick Stanley Mellon Fischer are once again "normalizing" interest rates,
in a process they imagine to be smooth sailing. One should doubt this proposition. Among other
things, recent extreme peso devaluation makes Mexico's dollar-denominated debt more onerous to
service.
By next year, the question on everyone's lips in Vichy DC may be " Who lost Mexico?
"
IIRC, Cantarell, the supergiant Mexican offshore field, peaked quite awhile ago. Maybe some
new discoveries have made up for some of the decline, but I hadn't heard much about that.
If US establishment would go after murderous Mexican oligarchy's Wall Street interests and
support democratic movements in Mexico based of egalitarian principles, return of land to the
people and establish social justice, we would have to build a wall to keep Mexicans in the US
not the other way around.
It would also stop phony war on drugs in Mexico, a war that is nothing but a modern form, a
sad reincarnation of popular insurrection against Mexican aristocracy happens to be at this time
funded by drug trade, as a proud Mexican tradition of noble outlaws, a country founded on "Bandits"
myth as national heroes bringers of independence from Spain.
If the US removed big Imperial foot of the throats of billions of peoples all over the world,
and that includes Mexico nobody would want to go to America enjoying living in their own countries
as everybody wants.
World immigration is an artifact of exploitative globalism and wars. Nothing natural or normal
or desired is in emigration of people. Tourism yes but emigration is a sociopolitical tools of
global oligarchy combined with chaos and violence.
If US let, as it were before in history (revolution of 1910-1930-ties, before PRI was corrupted
to the bone) for political left to takeover the Mexican government then fate of Mexican people
would have changed significantly for better.
The primary aim of official propaganda is to generate an "official narrative" that can be
mindlessly repeated by the ruling classes and those who support and identify with them. This
official narrative does not have to make sense, or to stand up to any sort of serious scrutiny.
Its factualness is not the point. The point is to draw a Maginot line, a defensive ideological
boundary, between "the truth" as defined by the ruling classes and any other "truth" that contradicts
their narrative.
Or to use your language, it's to keep in place the foot of US authority on its own people.
The damage to Mexico in the war on drugs is collateral damage – a necessary cost of keeping people
in the US disciplined. Nothing personal just bidness.
This article focuses on the oil, but where does Carlos Slim figure into this? I find it endlessly
fascinating that one of the world's richest people hails from one of its poorest countries.
Point taken, but it should be noted that in terms of per capita GDP (PPP), Mexico is 68th out
of 186 in the world, meaning it is not really one of the world's poorest countries. That said,
there is rampant poverty in Mexico that makes Slim's hoarding all the more despicable.
Per capita GDP is just an average. Median income is what you should be considering
here. There are a handful of Carlos Slims down there that bust the curve for everyone else. Oh,
by the way, did I mention that Seńor Slim now owns the New York Times?
Far be it from me to defend the Peńa Nieto administration, but I'm not sure from where Quijones
gets this:
To make matters worse, much of Mexico's new debt is in foreign-denominated currencies. Between
2015 and 2016 alone, the total amount of euro and dollar-denominated debt it issued rose by
46%.
The
figures I have from the Bank of México show the country ended 2015 with a gross external debt
of USD $417bn, while it ended 2016 at USD $412 bn: ie not a 46% increase but rather the first
decrease in Mexico's external debt since 2009.
What I do see is that the total external debt (in dollars) decreased but the peso lost 18%
to the USD in 2016. Since GDP only grew 7% last year, Mexico's external debt as a percentage of
GDP (denominated in pesos) would have grown by around 40%. But this goes against Quijones' correct
point that " [u]nlike debt issued in pesos, Mexico's central bank cannot just print dollars
and euros to bail out bond holders or inflate away the debt. ". Therefore shouldn't the question
be the absolute external debt in dollars instead of the relative amount in pesos?
I would guess that we want to answer the question "How much Mexican production would have to
be diverted to pay off that debt?" So we either work out the value of Mexican GDP in dollars,
or convert the value of the debt to pesos.
Therefore shouldn't the question be the absolute external debt in dollars instead of the
relative amount in pesos?
Simpler to keep the currency conversions out, and just track changes on a per currency basis.
A perennial question I always ask when it comes to trade imbalances by the US is that we send
our dollars to foreign countries for goods, and it only a subset of the US dollars come back to
the US for goods what's happening to the rest of our US dollars? In the case of Mexico, an answer
in theory could be that at least some of those US dollars are being used to pay US debt. But that
would mean the Fed Gov of Mexico would have to implement a tax that is denominated in US dollars.
Which would then fall on their exporters, as they're the ones hoovering up the US dollars. And
they don't want that.
So instead they tax the losers. And they only have pesos. So the conversion rate is an issue.
What's interesting in all this is that while Mexico's Fed Gov is taking on debt in US dollars,
their central bank owns US treasuries (that's how they manipulate their currency). But it begs
the question, is there a way that Mexico's central bank and Mexico's Fed Gov could come to a deal
to use the US treasuries that the central bank is holding to cancel out the US debt obligation
by Mexico's Fed Gov? I'm guessing no – it's the principle of the matter, lol.
To make matters worse, much of Mexico's new debt is in foreign-denominated currencies.
Why do countries do this to themselves? Seems to be the very definition of insanity.
"Why do countries do this to themselves?" They don't. They have an elite that does this to
the country because it benefits them as a class, with most people in the country excluded from
the decision-making process.
I don't get what good it can possibly do to build a wall to keep those bad hombres out when
the bad hombres are all the politicians in Mexico. This is not a cautionary tale, it's too late
for that. We need entirely new thinking here. Look how complex Brexit is – which lets us know
how detailed the union tried to be in order to protect its interests. Which is looking pretty
futile. Victor Orban was the only leader in the EU to put up a wall to keep refugees/immigrants
out and instead of sanctioning Hungary, Mutti has confessed her immigration policy was a mistake.
Why on earth didn't she say the ME war was a mistake? It's practically genocide. Three years ago
when Syrians started leaving in a panic they knew it was going to be annihilation. How did they
know they were sitting on such unlucky ground? If free trade treaties had a way of maintaining
decent wages and living standards as the prerequisite to that trade we could begin to set things
right. And that is what we should be doing instead of going to war to kickstart the free market
economy. Trump is acting like that wall is actually infrastructure. And I wonder if people are
amused by the double meaning of "the war on poverty." Everything is such a mess we can't keep
pretending that the basics we follow are right. It seems like one long and insane emergency. I'm
so burned out with political failure.
"[Pemex's] pension liabilities amount to $1.2 billion" this figure seemed a bit low in today's
world of inflated pension return expectations–wondering about the source here. I saw the following
study said Pemex's liabilities were closer to $90 billion although it is Wharton.
That is a terrible typo on my part and I hang my head in shame - it should read 1.8 trillion
pesos (roughly $90 billion at today's exchange rate), though there's some controversy around the
number since some of the liabilities were supposed to have been transferred to the government's
books last year. I don't how how the $1.2 billion crept in but I apologize with complete sincerity
to all readers (and Yves) for the cock up.
That data point you mention was taken from
an article (second paragraph down) published in EL Financiero, the third most read newspaper
in Mexico and an affiliate of Bloomberg. Will look into the disparity.
As for Mexico's GDP, it grew by 2.3% last year, not 7%. The country hasn't experienced such
buoyant growth for decades - and certainly not since joining NAFTA.
Thanks DQ: sorry I wasn't clear about the 7% figure; the Bank of Mexico data I cited refer
to nominal GDP growth in pesos. Since the peso devalued 18% to the dollar in 2016, real GDP in
dollars shrank from USD 1.3 trillion to 1.15 trillion. Might this account for why EF calculated
a 46% increase in external debt– because they are stating how many dollars Mexico borrowed but
calculated in pesos? If so, this figure is misleading and detracts from your argument: those obligations
are in foreign currencies, so their value in pesos is beside the point.
As I see it, the external debt is not (yet) a major issue in Mexico; more of a concern are
the bonds issued by the states and semi-public companies that cannot print their own currencies
and will leave the public on the hook. (Not to mention PRI whacking the public with spending cuts
and utility/gas hikes, which are another story )
Thanks for clarifying, RG. And you're probably right: external debt is not the biggest issue
here. More important are the out of control public spending at the regional level, the systemic
corruption at both the state and federal level, which Peńa Nieto's government has done nothing
to address, and Pemex's worsening woes, and the risk they pose to Mexico's fiscal health.
If the peso once again begins to fall in value, the exposure of Mexico's corporate sector to
foreign denominated debt is likely to be a much more immediate threat than the government's.
Mexico has always been like this. Even prior to American meddling. Transferring all their mineral
wealth i.e. silver to China for cheap, yet profitable, ceramics, and turning the Yucatan from
growing food into the plants that were used to weave bags for storage containers in the 18th C.,
peonage and companies stores, on and on it goes.
What's happening now is just a continuation of the plundering that's been happening since the
16th C.
this sounds like the standard bezzle:
run up debts
buy things
pocket the things
burn down the store
collect insurance $ on everything that was "inside" the store (even though it had actually been
looted long ago)
As for Duarte, he was caught this week by police in Guatemala. Like Yarrington, he wasn't
exactly laying low. Among the accusations he faces is that of buying fake chemotherapy drugs,
which were then unknowingly administered by state-run hospitals to children suffering from
cancer. He and his cohorts purportedly pocketed the difference.
Shades of Harry Lime, no? The drug war has done to Mexico what it took WWII to do to Vienna.
Anecdote here, but an uncle on my husband's side who lives in Mexico City had mentioned big
problems with his pension. (he works in media, and the family refers to it as a government pension).
he said that pensions are being looted and they are paying out pennies on the dollar. so he withdrew
what he could in lump sum and bought a small apartment near a beach somewhere. the only way to
keep any of the value. they say what used to be hundreds of dollars a month to retire on is now
less than $50 per month, and that no one can live off that little.
"... I confess I really had hopes for some conscience from Trump about America's wars, but I was wrong -- fooled again! -- as I had been by the early Reagan, and less so by Bush 43. Reagan found his mantra with the "evil empire" rhetoric against Russia, which almost kicked off a nuclear war in 1983 -- and Bush found his 'us against the world' crusade at 9/11, in which of course we're still mired. ..."
"... It seems that Trump really has no 'there' there, far less a conscience, as he's taken off the handcuffs on our war machine and turned it over to his glorified Generals ..."
"... well, he got my generation started/up to speed with JFK truth, and took a beating for it. in the eyes of the entertainment media, he was a patriotic steven spielberg before jfk, he was conspiracy theorist with a good director of photography and editing team after. ..."
"... his general analysis for 9/11 and who benefited from it, (<<cui bono, project for new american century>>) was pointing in the right direction. he might have done more harm than good if he started speaking about thermite or whatever, or would have been dismissed as a nut out of hand. ..."
"... Stone is right enough is enough. Anyone who doesn't believe that countries use psychological warfare and propaganda to sway the opinions of people both in and outside of their country should be considered naive. ..."
"... Americans have every reason to be concerned and worried considering revelations of just how big the government intelligent agencies have grown since 9-11 and how unlimited their spying and surveillance operations have become. The article below explores this growth and questions whether we have lost control. ..."
"... We were all deceived by a great, maybe brilliant, actor. ..."
In
March of last year, Academy Award-winning director Oliver Stone warned the world :
"we're going to war - either hybrid in nature...or a hot war (which will destroy our country).
Our citizens should know this, but they don't because our media is dumbed down in its 'Pravda'-like
support for our 'respectable', highly aggressive government."
"As much as we may disagree with Donald Trump (and I do) he's right now target number one of the
MSM propaganda -- until, that is, he changes to the anti-Kremlin track over, God knows, some kind
of petty dispute cooked up by CIA, and in his hot-headed way starts fighting with the Russians ...
I never thought I'd find myself at this point in time praying for the level-headedness of a Donald
Trump . "
Stone was correct and in a
Facebook
post tonight expresses his disappointment at Trump and disgust for The Deep State (and America's
wilful ignorance).
"So It Goes"
I confess I really had hopes for some conscience from Trump about America's wars, but I was
wrong -- fooled again! -- as I had been by the early Reagan, and less so by Bush 43. Reagan found
his mantra with the "evil empire" rhetoric against Russia, which almost kicked off a nuclear war
in 1983 -- and Bush found his 'us against the world' crusade at 9/11, in which of course we're still
mired.
It seems that Trump really has no 'there' there, far less a conscience, as he's taken off the
handcuffs on our war machine and turned it over to his glorified Generals -- and he's being
praised for it by our 'liberal' media who continue to play at war so recklessly. What a tortured
bind we're in. There are intelligent people in Washington/New York, but they've lost their minds
as they've been stampeded into a Syrian-Russian groupthink, a consensus without asking -- 'Who benefits
from this latest gas attack?' Certainly neither Assad nor Putin. The only benefits go to the terrorists
who initiated the action to stave off their military defeat.
It was a desperate gamble, but it worked because the Western media immediately got behind it with
crude propagandizing about murdered babies , etc. No real investigation or time for a UN chemical
unit to establish what happened, much less find a motive. Why would Assad do something so stupid
when he's clearly winning the civil war?
No, I believe America has decided somewhere, in the crises of the Trump administration, that we
will get into this war at any cost, under any circumstances -- to, once again, change the secular
regime in Syria, which has been, from the Bush era on, one of the top goals -- next to Iran -- of
the neoconservatives. At the very least, we will cut out a chunk of northeastern Syria and call it
a State.
Abetted by the Clintonites, they've done a wonderful job throwing America into chaos with probes
into Russia's alleged hacking of our election and Trump being their proxy candidate (now clearly
disproved by his bombing attack) -- and sadly, worst of all in some ways, admitting no memory of
the same false flag incident in 2013, for which again Assad was blamed (see Seymour Hersh's fascinating
deconstruction of this US propaganda, 'London Review of Books' December 19, 2013, "Whose sarin?").
No memory, no history, no rules -- or rather 'American rules.'
No, this isn't an accident or a one-off affair. This is the State deliberately misinforming the
public through its corporate media and leads us to believe, as Mike Whitney points out in his brilliant
analyses, "Will Washington Risk WW3" and "Syria: Where the Rubber Meets the Road," that something
far more sinister waits in the background .
Mike Whitney, Robert Parry, and former intelligence officer Phil Giraldi all comment below. It's
well worth 30 minutes of your time to read. Lastly, below is a link to Bruce Cumings's "Nation" analysis
of North Korea, as he again reminds us of the purposes of studying history.
Mike Whitney, "Will Washington Risk WW3 to Block and Emerging EU-Russia Superstate," Counterpunch,
http://bit.ly/2oJ9Tpn
Robert Parry, "Mainstream Media as Arbiters of Truth," Consortiumnews,
http://bit.ly/2oSDo8A
Mike Whitney, "Blood in the Water: the Trump Revolution Ends in a Whimper," Counterpunch,
http://bit.ly/2oSDEo4
Bruce Cumings, "This is What's Really Behind North Korea's Nuclear Provocations," The Nation,
http://bit.ly/2nUEroH
Can we wake up before it's too late? I for one feel like the John Wayne veteran (of war) character
in "Fort Apache," riding with the arrogant Custer-like General (Henry Fonda) to his doom. My country,
my country, my heart aches for thee.
FIAT CON -> knukles •Apr 19, 2017 8:22 PM
Everything is finite on this planet except the US$, I can't see how believing this will
cause any trouble. /s
gregga777 -> SallySnyd •Apr 19, 2017 7:44 PM
"One has to wonder how many fronts Congress thinks that the American military complex
can fight and win wars?"
The truth is that America, as a deliberate policy, does not win wars. Dragging out wars
(e.g., Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, etc.) produces far greater revenues
and profits for the War Profiteers and Merchants of Death that control United States foreign
policy. They all deserve bullets to the back of the neck for their evil takeover of the United
States and their willingness to sacrifice the lives of millions of people to their evil,
illegal and Unconstitutional Wars of Aggression.
well, he got my generation started/up to speed with JFK truth, and took a beating for
it. in the eyes of the entertainment media, he was a patriotic steven spielberg before jfk, he
was conspiracy theorist with a good director of photography and editing team after.
yeah, i've come to see him as a bit of fatuous idiot in some interviews, he sure has got his
own achille's heel and hasn't offered every last truth on the subject, but who has done more
to popularize critical thinking and research on it than him? i'm forever grateful for that
his general analysis for 9/11 and who benefited from it, (<<cui bono, project for new
american century>>) was pointing in the right direction. he might have done more harm than
good if he started speaking about thermite or whatever, or would have been dismissed as a nut
out of hand.
Let it Go •Apr 19, 2017 8:12 PM
Stone is right enough is enough. Anyone who doesn't believe that countries use
psychological warfare and propaganda to sway the opinions of people both in and outside of
their country should be considered naive. To many people America is more than a little
hypocritical when they criticize other countries for trying to gain influence considering our
history of meddling in the affairs of other countries.
Americans have every reason to be concerned and worried considering revelations of just
how big the government intelligent agencies have grown since 9-11 and how unlimited their
spying and surveillance operations have become. The article below explores this growth and
questions whether we have lost control.
trump is perhaps the best president for the deep state...... a president who doesn't really
care about anything too much.
he has been a carefree billionaire playboy all his life, never gets to involved in any fight,
as he isnt all that bright, so he just
moves along when things get tough.
he betrayed the USA
Anonymous IX •Apr 19, 2017 9:46 PM
A very simple question.
Why has Trump completely reneged on his promise to stay out of foreign wars and regime change?
Not only Syria but Yemen. Why has Trump placed the U.S. in a needless confrontation with
Russia? Before the election, he spoke about establishing strong economic relations with other
countries in favor of the U.S.
Part of making "American Great Again" involves staying out of foreign wars which do not
concern us and using our monies to re-educate and protect the diminishing American worker.
Mr. Stone is right.
Akhenaten II -> Anonymous IX •Apr 20, 2017 12:44 AM
Trump works for Israel and the jewish mob. Always has.
We were all deceived by a great, maybe brilliant, actor. The only saving grace is
that this play is nearing its last act before they knock the entire theatre down, to be
abandoned like the Coliseum.
Great interview, thanks RT. I knew most of the material in this interview for years now, but
it's good for it to get out whatever way possible. Hope you continue doing more such great interviews.
jake gittes 1 year ago
RT? Imagine the Russian equivalent? Golly, NSA out of control? Who knew? Who knew that
the NSA mandate *is to exceed their mandate" .
If you were in prison for the last 15 yrs you would know that NSA security in triplicate is
just doing what they've always been doing except that PRISM, restarted in 2007, is just updated
software.
Jim Jimmy 2 years ago
there is one main reason they collect all information and target everyone, even members of
congress and people like Angela merkel. If they have personal information on these powerful people
there comes the chance to blackmail them. "vote this way on this" "consent to this policy". It's
political leverage
Really agitated Hillary supporter and a member of coup d'état against Trump/
Notable quotes:
"... "A foreign government messing around in our elections is, I think, an existential threat to our way of life," Morell said. "To me, and this is to me not an overstatement, this is the political equivalent of 9/11." ..."
Evidence that Russia attempted to sway the outcome of the presidential election with a hacking
campaign targeting Democrats "is the political equivalent of 9/11," the former acting director of
the CIA, Michael Morell, said in an interview published Monday.
Morell, an intelligence analyst who served as acting director of the CIA twice between 2011 and
2013,
told The Cipher Brief that revelations disclosed
in a new
CIA report about how Russia meddled in the election to help get Donald Trump elected "is an attack
on our very democracy."
"A foreign government messing around in our elections is, I think, an existential threat to
our way of life," Morell said. "To me, and this is to me not an overstatement, this is the political
equivalent of 9/11."
Looks like the former CIA Director Michael Morell is kind of "inside CIA" chickenhawk. Never
was in field operations
Notable quotes:
"... Morell has proposed the US change tactics in Syria by targeting President Bashar Assad's allies, adding that killing Russians should be done covertly. ..."
"... Morell was suggesting to kill Russian and Iranian people – I'm assuming soldiers, even though he wasn't that specific – as payback for their actions in Syria and Iran's actions in Iraq. Apparently Iran was providing supplies and armaments to the people we were fighting there during our occupation. Is this of strategy or tactics the norm or the oddity for the CIA in planning? ..."
"... What Mike Morell is proposing is quite simply illegal. You just can't wantonly kill people because you don't like their politics. One of the important things that Mike Morell has forgotten or has chosen to ignore is that [Syrian President Bashar] Assad, whether we like him or not, is the internationally recognized leader of a sovereign country. And the Russian military has been invited into that country by its sovereign leader. So it's not up to us to decide we don't like that, and so we are going to start killing people because of it. ..."
"... What a fraud. A transparent fraud. John knows him better than I do because John dealt with him. ..."
"... Mike Morell was a golden boy for many years. He was a very young manager and rose quickly through the ranks, and had the most important jobs in the CIA, at least on the analytic side Once he got into the senior intelligence service, he took on a broader role, but that role never involved operations. This is a problem inside the agency. ..."
"... You have somebody who has never served overseas except in the very final years of his career in a very cushy position. But certainly never operationally. He's never recruited a foreign national to spy for the United States; he's never been involved in difficult or dangerous operations, yet he's advocating putting American lives on the line to kill foreign nationals against whom we have no declaration of war. ..."
"... Say he gets the chance to implement this great strategy of his which is apparently murdering a bunch of people and blowing up a bunch of stuff around Assad. How does that bring peace to Syria? ..."
"... The definition of a neocon is somebody who has great difficulty distinguishing between the strategic interests of Israel, on the one hand, and the strategic interests of the United States on the other. Israel wants bedlam in Syria, and they've got it. ..."
Former CIA Director Michael Morell sparked uproar when he said in an interview on Charlie Rose
that Russians and Iranians should be killed in Syria. Was the provocative statement an effort to
promote himself as the new CIA Director under Hillary Clinton?
Morell has proposed the US change tactics in Syria by targeting President Bashar Assad's allies,
adding that killing Russians should be done covertly.
"We need to make the Iranians pay a price in Syria, we need to make the Russians pay a price,"
Morell told a stunned Charlie Rose, who asked if that means killing Iranians and Russians. Morell
answered "Yes," saying the killings should be done "convertly" but done in such way
that "Moscow would get the message."
Two former CIA officials turned whistleblowers, Ray McGovern and John Kiriakou, appeared on RT's
"Watching the Hawks" program to give their analysis on the disturbing comments, as well as other
tantalizing bits of information.
RT (Tyrel Ventura): Morell was suggesting to kill Russian and Iranian people
– I'm assuming soldiers, even though he wasn't that specific – as payback for their actions in Syria
and Iran's actions in Iraq. Apparently Iran was providing supplies and armaments to the people we
were fighting there during our occupation. Is this of strategy or tactics the norm or the oddity
for the CIA in planning?
John Kiriakou: This is the exception. It's not the norm. Even under George W.
Bush when the CIA wanted to initiate or institute a policy or program that would result in the killing
of foreign nationals, my God, we went to the UN Security Council and asked for a vote. What Mike
Morell is proposing is quite simply illegal. You just can't wantonly kill people because you don't
like their politics. One of the important things that Mike Morell has forgotten or has chosen to
ignore is that [Syrian President Bashar] Assad, whether we like him or not, is the internationally
recognized leader of a sovereign country. And the Russian military has been invited into that country
by its sovereign leader. So it's not up to us to decide we don't like that, and so we are going to
start killing people because of it.
Ray McGovern:What a fraud. A transparent fraud. John knows him better than
I do because John dealt with him.
JK: I worked closely with Mike Morell for several years in CIA headquarters.
Mike Morell was a golden boy for many years. He was a very young manager and rose quickly through
the ranks, and had the most important jobs in the CIA, at least on the analytic side Once he got
into the senior intelligence service, he took on a broader role, but that role never involved operations.
This is a problem inside the agency. It's emblematic of what has happened with what I like to
think is a neoconservative takeover of CIA policy. You have somebody who has never served overseas
except in the very final years of his career in a very cushy position. But certainly never operationally.
He's never recruited a foreign national to spy for the United States; he's never been involved in
difficult or dangerous operations, yet he's advocating putting American lives on the line to kill
foreign nationals against whom we have no declaration of war.
RT (Tabetha Wallace): Say he gets the chance to implement this great strategy
of his which is apparently murdering a bunch of people and blowing up a bunch of stuff around Assad.
How does that bring peace to Syria?
JK: It doesn't, it can't and it won't. This whole idea that he espoused on the
Charlie Rose show will not come to pass. If Mike Morell were serious about this, if this were something
that Hillary Clinton would seriously consider, it would be kept so secret and so private that even
inside the CIA 99 percent of employees wouldn't know anything about it. So for him to just go on
TV and dramatically say this is what he would do it's just grandstanding.
This is such an obviously transparent bid by Michael Morell to be the CIA Director
under a Hillary Clinton administration... This is a political ploy by him that is not thought
through at all - Gareth Porter, investigative journalist, to RT in a separate interview.
RT (Tyrel Ventura): Why do you think Morell is getting on TV and grandstanding
like that? What is his motivation for doing this?
RM: He's not the only one. There are others who are candidates to be head of
the CIA or other high positions. The whole thing is so vacuous. Charlie Rose has had this guy on
11 times in the last two years. They never question the unspoken premises. I mean, Hello? Why does
Bashar al-Assad have to go? Is he a threat to the United States? No. Then why does he have to go?
It's very simple. The neocons want him to go. Why do the neocons want him to go? The definition
of a neocon is somebody who has great difficulty distinguishing between the strategic interests of
Israel, on the one hand, and the strategic interests of the United States on the other. Israel wants
bedlam in Syria, and they've got it.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
"... And I think I came across as saying U.S. Special Forces should go in there and start killing Iranians and Russians. I did not say that. ..."
"... And here I did argue, Charlie, that the U.S. military itself should take some action, and what I would see as valuable is limited, very, very, very limited U.S. airstrikes against those assets that are extremely important to Assad personally. ..."
"... (Emphasis added) ..."
"... "Now these issues that I'm talking about here, right, are talked about in the sit room. They're talked about in national security circles all the time, right. These are debates that people have, and I certainly understand that there are people on the other side of the argument from me, right. But I wasn't talking about the U.S. starting a major war with Iran and Russia, and I think that was the way people interpreted it." ..."
"... Morell is advocating here violates international law, the rules that – in other circumstances, i.e. when another government is involved – the U.S. government condemns as "aggression" or as an "invasion" or as "terrorism." ..."
Exclusive: Official Washington's disdain for international law – when it's doing the lawbreaking
– was underscored by ex-CIA acting director Morell voicing plans for murdering Iranians and maybe
Russians in Syria, ex-CIA analyst Ray McGovern says.
On Aug. 17, TV interviewer Charlie Rose gave former acting CIA Director Michael Morell a "mulligan"
for an earlier wayward drive on Aug. 8 that sliced deep into the rough and even stirred up some nonviolent
animals by advocating the murder of Russians and Iranians. But, alas, Morell duffed the second drive,
too.
Morell did so despite Rose's efforts to tee up the questions as favorably as possible, trying
to help Morell explain
what he meant about "killing" Russians and Iranians in Syria and bombing Syrian President Bashar
al-Assad into submission.
Former CIA deputy director Michael Morell.
In the earlier interview, Morell said he wanted to "make the Iranians pay a price in Syria.
make the Russians pay a price in Syria."
Rose: "We make them pay the price by killing Russians?"
Morell: "Yeah."
Rose: "And killing Iranians?"
Morell: "Yes You don't tell the world about it. But you make sure they know it in Moscow and
Tehran."
In the follow-up
interview , some of Rose's fretful comments made it clear that there are still some American
non-neocons around who were withholding applause for Morell's belligerent suggestion.
Rose apparently has some viewers who oppose all terrorism, including the state-sponsored variety
that would involve a few assassinations to send a message, and the notion that U.S. bombing Syria
to "scare" Assad is somehow okay (as long as the perpetrator is the sole "indispensable" nation in
the world).
Rose helped Morell 'splain that he really did not want to have U.S. Special Forces kill Russians
and Iranians. No, he would be satisfied if the U.S.-sponsored "moderate opposition" in Syria did
that particular killing. But Morell would not back away from his advocacy of the U.S. Air Force bombing
Syrian government targets. That would be "an okay thing" in Morell's lexicon.
The FBI defines terrorism as "the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property
to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance
of political or social objectives." That would seem to cover Morell's plan.
But Morell seems oblivious to international law and to the vast human suffering already
inflicted in Syria over the past five years by government forces, rebels, terrorists and outside
nations trying to advance one geopolitical goal or another.
What is needed is a serious commitment to peace talks without unacceptable preconditions, such
as outside demands for "regime change." Instead, the focus should be on creating conditions for Syrians
to make that choice themselves through elections or power-sharing negotiations.
Morell prefers to think that a few more U.S.-directed murders and some more aerial-inflicted mayhem
should do the trick. Perhaps he thinks that's the sort of tough-guy/gal talk that will impress a
prospective President Hillary Clinton.
A Slight Imprecision?
Charlie Rose begins the "mulligan" segment with the suggestion that Morell might have slightly
misspoken: "Tell me what you wanted to say so we understand it Tell me what you meant to say
perhaps you did not speak as precisely as you should have or I didn't ask the right questions."
TV interviewer Charlie Rose.
Morell responded, "No, no, Charlie, you always ask the right questions," and then he presented
his killing plan as a route to peace, albeit one in which the United States dictates "regime change"
in Syria: "So there's not a military solution to this, there is only a political solution. And
that political solution is, in my view, a transition of power from Assad to a, a, a transitional
government that represents all of the Syrian people.
"That is only going to happen if Assad wants it to happen, if Russia wants it to happen, if Iran
wants it to happen. So we need to increase our leverage over those three people and countries,
in order to get them more interested in having a conversation about a transition to a new government.
"And sometimes you use military force for military ends. Sometimes you use military force to give
you political leverage. So what I tried to say was, Look, we need to find some ways to put some
pressure on Assad, or put some pressure on Russia, and put some pressure on Iran. Now, with regard
to Russia and Iran, what I said was, what I wanted to say was: Look, the moderate opposition, which
the United States is supporting (everybody knows that, right?), the moderate opposition is already
fighting the Syrian government, and they're already fighting Russians and Iranians.
"So the Syrian military, supported by Russia and the Iranians, is fighting the moderate opposition.
And the moderate opposition is already killing Iranians and Syrians. What, what I said is that's
an okay thing, right, because it puts pressure on Iran and Russia to try to see some value in ending
this thing politically. And what I said is that we should encourage the moderate opposition to continue
to do that and perhaps get a lot more aggressive." (Emphasis added)
Rose: "You weren't suggesting that the United States should do that, but the moderate forces on
the ground."
Morell: "And I think I came across as saying U.S. Special Forces should go in there and start
killing Iranians and Russians. I did not say that.
"So that's Russia and Iran. Now, Assad. How do you put some pressure on Assad, right? And
here I did argue, Charlie, that the U.S. military itself should take some action, and what I would
see as valuable is limited, very, very, very limited U.S. airstrikes against those assets that are
extremely important to Assad personally. So, in the middle of the night you destroy one of his
offices; you don't kill anybody, right, zero collateral. You do this with the same rules of engagement
we use against terrorists . (Emphasis added)
"You take out his presidential aircraft, his presidential helicopters, in the middle of the night,
right, just to send him a message and get his attention that, that maybe your days are numbered here,
just to put some pressure on him to think about maybe, maybe the need to think about a way out of
this.
"Now these issues that I'm talking about here, right, are talked about in the sit room. They're
talked about in national security circles all the time, right. These are debates that people have,
and I certainly understand that there are people on the other side of the argument from me, right.
But I wasn't talking about the U.S. starting a major war with Iran and Russia, and I think that was
the way people interpreted it."
Acts of Illegal War
Not to put too fine a point on this, but everything that Morell is advocating here violates
international law, the rules that – in other circumstances, i.e. when another government is involved
– the U.S. government condemns as "aggression" or as an "invasion" or as "terrorism."
Video of the Russian SU-24 exploding in flames inside Syrian territory after
it was shot down by Turkish air-to-air missiles on Nov. 24, 2015.
Remember, after the U.S.-backed coup in Ukraine in February 2014, when Russia intervened to allow
Crimea to hold a referendum on splitting away from the new regime in Kiev and rejoining Russia, the
U.S. government insisted that there was no excuse for President Vladimir Putin not respecting the
sovereignty of the coup regime even if it had illegally ousted an elected president.
However, regarding Syria, the United States and its various "allies," including Saudi Arabia,
Turkey and Israel, have intervened directly and indirectly in supporting various armed groups, including
Al Qaeda's Nusra Front, seeking the violent overthrow of Syria's government.
Without any legal authorization from the United Nations, President Barack Obama has ordered the
arming and training of anti-government rebels (including
some who have fought under Nusra's command structure ), has carried out airstrikes inside Syria
(aimed at Islamic State militants), and has deployed U.S. Special Forces inside Syria with Kurdish
rebels.
Now, a former senior U.S. intelligence official is publicly urging bombing of Syrian government
targets and the killing of Iranians and Russians who are legally inside Syria at the invitation of
the internationally recognized government. In other words, not only does the U.S. government operate
with breathtaking hypocrisy in the Syrian crisis, but it functions completely outside international
law.
And, Morell says that in attacking Syrian government targets - supposedly without causing any
deaths - the United States would employ "the same rules of engagement we use against terrorists,"
except those rules of engagement explicitly seek to kill targeted individuals. So, what kind of dangerously
muddled thinking do we have here?
One can only imagine the reaction if some Russian version of Morell went on Moscow TV and urged
the murder of U.S. military trainers operating inside Ukraine – to send a message to Washington.
And then, the Russian Morell would advocate Russia bombing Ukrainian government targets in Kiev with
the supposed goal of forcing the U.S.-backed government to accept a "regime change" acceptable to
Moscow.
A Fawning Audition
Rather than calls for him to be locked up or at least decisively repudiated, the American Morell
was allowed to continue his fawning audition for a possible job in a Hillary Clinton administration
by extolling her trustworthiness and "humanity."
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton addressing the AIPAC conference in Washington D.C. on
March 21, 2016. (Photo credit: AIPAC)
Morell offered a heartwarming story about how compassionate Clinton was as Secretary of State
when he lost out to John Brennan to be the fulltime CIA Director. After he was un-picked for the
job, Morell said he was in the White House Situation Room and Clinton, "sat down next to me, put
her hand on my shoulder, and she simply said, 'Are you okay?' There is humanity there, and I think
the public needs to know."
And, Clinton was a straight-shooter, too, Morell explained: "You know, it's interesting, Charlie,
I worked with her for four years. Leon Panetta, David Petraeus worked with her for four years. We
trusted her word; we trusted her judgment. You know, [CIA] Director Panetta, [CIA] Director Petraeus,
I provided her with some of the most sensitive information that the CIA collects and she never gave
us one reason to doubt how she was handling that. You know, she spoke to us forthrightly. I trust
her word and I trust her judgment."
Can Morell be unaware that Clinton repeatedly put highly sensitive intelligence on her very vulnerable
private email server along with other data that later investigations determined should have been
marked SECRET, TOP SECRET, CODEWORD, and/or SPECIAL ACCESS PROGRAMS?
FBI Director James Comey, in announcing that he would not recommend prosecuting Clinton for compromising
these secrets, called her behavior "extremely careless."
For his part, Charlie Rose offered a lament about how hard it is for Clinton to convey her "humanity"
and how deserving she is of trust. He riffed on the Biblical passage about those who can be trusted
in small matters (like sitting down next to Morell, putting her hand on his shoulder, and asking
him if he is okay) can be trusted on big matters, too.
My Travails With Charlie
Twelve years ago, I was interviewed by Charlie Rose, with the other interviewee (who participated
remotely) James Woolsey, former head of the CIA (1993-95), arch-neocon, and self-described "anchor
the Presbyterian wing of JINSA
" (the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs).
The occasion was the New York premier of Robert Greenwald's full-length film version of his documentary,
"Uncovered: the Whole Truth About the Iraq War," in which I had a small part and which described
the many falsehoods that had been used by President George W. Bush and his neocon advisers, to justify
invading Iraq. Woolsey did not like the film, and Greenwald asked me to take the Rose invitation
that had originally been extended to him.
True to form, Charlie Rose knew on which side his bread was buttered, and it wasn't mine. He was
his usual solicitous self when dealing with an "important" personage, such as Woolsey. I was going
to count the minutes apportioned to me and compare them with those given to Woolsey, but I decided
to spare myself the trouble.
The last time I checked the Aug. 20, 2004 video is available for purchase but I refuse to pay
for it. Fortunately, a friend taped and uploaded the audio onto
YouTube. It might be worth
a listen on a slow summer day 12 years after my travails with Charlie.
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour
in inner-city Washington. He was a CIA analyst from 1963 to 1990 and is now on the Steering Group
of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).
300 Words An interesting article. A few random thoughts.
"Preventive war is like committing suicide for fear of death" – Otto von Bismarck.
In general I agree and wish that the United States military would be more defensive
and waste fewer resources attacking irrelevant nations on the other side of the world.
But. It is nevertheless true that "defensive" Russia has been invaded and devastated multiple
times, and the United States has not. Perhaps creating chaos on the other side of the world
is long-term not quite so ineffective as sitting around waiting for an attack?
The American elites are simply corrupt and insane/don't care about the long-term.
At every level – companies taking out massive loans to buy back their stock to boost CEO bonuses,
loading up college students with massive unplayable debt so that university administrators
can get paid like CEOs, drug prices going through the roof, etc.etc. Military costs will never
be as efficient as civilian, war is expensive, but the US has gotten to the point where there
is no financial accountability, it's all about the right people grabbing as much money as possible.
To make more money you just add another zero at the end of the price tag. At some point
the costs will become so inflated and divorced from reality that we will be unable to afford
anything And the right people will take their loot and move to New Zealand and wring their
hands at how the lazy Americans were not worthy of their brilliant leadership
"... Cynicism does derive from Socrates; from that part of the Socratic approach that questions community norms so aggressively that they have to kill you to shut you up. As for Socrates, so for Jesus. ..."
"... What would Jesus disrupt? Clearly the banks. He would be all about debt forgiveness. http://www.michael-hudson.com/2017/01/the-land-belongs-to-god/ ..."
"... I believe Lambert's point was exactly that: that the money-changers should be thrown out of the temple; that Blankfein is not doing "God's work"; that the whole article was a depiction of the deliberate debauchery of the Christian message by conflating it with material enterprise. That article in the links was a spiritual horror show. ..."
"... Has someone written a good book on the history of usury? When did it become acceptable in the Christian dominated US? Islam bans it. Shakespeare talked about it. Our founders lamented their usurious debts. Think I read somewhere that the Zionists pledged, after WW2, to get out of banking altogether? ..."
Christ was apparently a true cynic. See the wikipedia article on Cynicism
before judging that; it's not original with me. Cynicism was open in its
denunciation of all human convention. Nevertheless, it was non-violent, so
"bringing a sword" means not the waging of organized war, but rather is a
metaphor of conflict between those who support conventional morality and
those who support the Cynical way of life; if indeed those were Jesus's
words (if there were any words of Jesus, for that matter), as they are
mostly incompatible with the rest of his speech.
Cynicism does derive from Socrates; from that part of the Socratic
approach that questions community norms so aggressively that they have to
kill you to shut you up. As for Socrates, so for Jesus.
It's amazing the doors that open onto the understanding of Christianity
once its Cynical features are recognized, and the neo-Platonist frosting
that was applied by Paul, and the forces of order later on, is demoted. The
cake is actually quite inspirational; the frosting, pretty revolting. But
the natural selection of ideas, that process which favors the survival of
ideas that enhance power and authority, has decisively suppressed the
Cynical core.
Re: What would Jesus disrupt? (just the question, not the linked article)
Wasn't there something about money changers in the temple?
My view is that Forex is
the
great threat to whatever commonwealth
anyone lives in – if not now, sooner or later. Always cheaper elsewhere.
So I reckon Jesus would disrupt the system of foreign currency exchange. I
imagine that something more turbulent than disrupting the equilibrium of Forex
trader's desks would be involved. Now,
that
would be a miracle!
Jesus rendered unto Caesar those things which are Caesar's. He was
getting the money-changers out of the temple, not getting rid of them
altogether. The spiritual path is not material, or military, it is in the
mind and the soul. People cannot pursue a material, political, or social
agenda of any kind, even one of redistribution, and still be truly
"Christian," as Christ would have had it. They must give all they have and
find their way in poverty. They must abandon judgment of the actions of
their fellows. Just as Diogenes lived in a barrel, but did not much care
about the decor of the Athens' St Regis lobby one way or another.
Ultimately the message was that to be poor and angry is to be a slave
twice over; to be poor and happy is to be free of the chains of both wealth
and resentment. Hence also the point that the poor are always with you; that
has come up often here, and the real message is missed: that the most
important thing is not necessarily to help the poor, but to be among them:
to eliminate concern for material things from life entirely. The same goes
for pain; turning the other cheek is not metaphorical; it is a statement
that suffering imposed by others has only the meaning one gives it, and to
deny that meaning is to deny them power over your mind.
I'm not saying that all of that is right, or even arguable; I'm just
saying that I think the philosophical basis of it should be considered more
profoundly, and given more respect, than it often is, when it is used for
political polemic.
I believe Lambert's point was exactly that: that the money-changers
should be thrown out of the temple; that Blankfein is not doing "God's
work"; that the whole article was a depiction of the deliberate debauchery
of the Christian message by conflating it with material enterprise. That
article in the links was a spiritual horror show.
Has someone written a good book on the history of usury? When did it
become acceptable in the Christian dominated US? Islam bans it.
Shakespeare talked about it. Our founders lamented their usurious debts.
Think I read somewhere that the Zionists pledged, after WW2, to get out
of banking altogether?
I'm not surprised at all that the professional Democrats out there view
American politics as an extended episode of
The West Wing
. It should
come as no surprise, considering the impact that
24
had on the views
that many have about torture.
As far as politics-based TV shows go,
The West Wing
isn't bad, and
is probably a little less ridiculous than the American version of
House of
Cards
. Neither one of them is good as the Danish TV show
Borgen
,
though.
-Rob Lowe had the relationship with the hooker who was nympho and made
lots of money while she went to prestigious law school so it was okay. The
hero Is really helping her. And Lowe's liberalism meant she didn't take his
money.
-the mindless support for free trade; "trade stops wars"
-the Supreme Court nominee situation; hey let's get one guy who thinks guys
should marry called Rodriguez and one guy who makes. Hitler look emphatic
and call it a day because centrism is great!
-Sheen did Welfare reform
-Lawrence O'Donnell. He didn't become insufferable on MSNBC. His episodes
were the worst.
-the moderate Republican fetish
-"smart wars"
-an insane portrayal of deficit hawks as reasonable
The show was garbage. The joke is "who is the office Jonah?" On "The West
Wing", they were all Jonah. The Hillary Clinton campaign and Obama
Administration were the West Wing put into action.
Admission, I loved the West Wing. I also enjoyed 24. In particular,
West Wing is a joy for self admitted acting addict. And yes it played to
my sensibilities, but even I began to realize that the episodes that
meant the most to me, the ones that really resonated and stayed with me
were the ones where the underlying issue was not solved or changed by
working in the White House who most of the time just put on a bandage on
it for themselves (and the viewers). So Veterans still didn't get their
benefits and the care of a "grateful nation" but a funeral, drunk drivers
still kill, etc. And on return to it a decade later, things like how
crazy the voters are, and only a really smart staffer can realize that
they are not seeing the real problem for the trees began to grate
unbearably.
Oh, and NTG, don't forget the Rob Lowe character was the speech writer
for many of the Bartlett early speeches, which when you think about it is
the prototype for the Obama administration talk pretty about things and
dazzle them before failing to change anything prototype. He also later
ran for Congress, loses and becomes a highly paid lawyer (because?) only
to give it up to become the Deputy Chief of Staff of the first Latino
President. (And maybe I am the only one who can see so much wrong with
that.)
Sure, but Kiefer William Frederick Dempsey George Rufus
Sutherland took it nearly as often as he dished it out. And it was
him against a world full of bad guys.
Good series, you just need to remind yourself it's only the
TeeBee.
FYI – This is really his full name!
Kiefer William Frederick Dempsey George Rufus Sutherland
I'm a fan of whodunnits and 24 was at its base a whodunnit/stop
them before they can do more, and a well crafted one at that. The
thing is that the one season I watched it, there was far less
torture in it than probably one fifth of a season of Criminal
Minds. Now CM does supposedly make the case the torturer is a
criminal, but when it comes to torture porn (like the movies SAW)
CM is near the top on television. And torture is one of those
things that many people do find entertaining though they vocally
condemn it. And most have not thought out the larger political and
social implications of it. We are savage creatures with a veneer.
Where 24 and Zero Dark Thirty are detrimental is they make people
think torture actually works in real life rather than in fantasy.
or life in this society is so boring and unrewarding that
people need ever more violence (fictional OR real) to entertain
themselves. Granted people have always liked stories with
violence, but it probably does play in.
And if you are an atheist getting off on the righteous
violence, then go the whole hog, and embrace Hell Fire &
Eternal Damnation. (Or stop saying people who do are dumb,
when they are just you, a step further.)
Yeah, I nodded along to that article, but was surprised that it didn't
connect the dots between liberals' love of war, sorry, "humanitarian
intervention" and the appalling post-9/11 "West Wing" episodes. As we say
around these parts, those storylines were "wonderfully clarifying."
"The Newsroom" was like "The West Wing" a fantasy version of the
real deal. But embedded in both fantasies was the same embrace of the
exceptionalism of the USA, USA, USA. American politics should only be
dished out to us in comedic form like the first two years of VEEP. If
you want to get a funny view of our class system and urban versus
rural dynamics, and just want a good laugh, watch "Schitts Creek"
starring Catherine O'Hara and Eugene Levy.
Anyone who has given money to a Sorkin production has largely
gotten that (although less for his television industry set pieces),
it is a feature of his work along with the soaring emotional speech
by the lead. Don't forget that Sorkin's first big work had the
following speech (delivered in typical style by Jack Nicholson in
the movie):
You can't handle the truth! Son, we live in a world that has
walls. And those walls have to be guarded by men with guns.
Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinberg? I have a greater
responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for
Santiago and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You
have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Santiago's
death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence,
while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives You
don't want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don't
talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on
that wall.
We use words like honor, code, loyalty we use these words as the
backbone to a life spent defending something. You use 'em as a
punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to
explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket
of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in
which I provide it! I'd rather you just said thank you and went
on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand
a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you're
entitled to!
From the West Wing article:
"The West Wing "took something that was for the most part considered dry and
nerdy-especially to people in high school and college-and sexed it up",
former David Axelrod advisor Eric Lesser told Vanity Fair in a longform 2012
feature about the "Sorkinization of politics".
I didn't watch West Wing on TV as I wasn't in the USA during its original
airing times, but we bought DVDs of the series and watched it in 2012, by
which time I'd become plenty cynical about US politics in general! Looking
back, rather than (or as well as) depicting politics' "Sorkinization" I'd
say that West Wing = the Hallmark-ization of US politics.
One thing from the article that really stands out to me is where he talks
about how the administration in The West Wing doesn't actually seem to stand
for (or accomplish) much of anything, and viewers could project their views
onto it. Compare this to The Thick of It/In the Loop, where the party of the
characters is never specified, only there it's part of the joke. They're
just 'The Party' and the other side is 'The Opposition'. Intentionally or
not, this has the effect of portraying British politics as filled with
parties that aren't actually terribly different internally, and just
obsessed with optics and media relations. Both Armando Iannucci and Aaron
Sorkin have created shows that portray politics as vapid, empty, and stupid,
only Sorkin thinks this is something positive and praiseworthy, that this is
how 'serious' politics should be.
Also, bah, Borgen. I dropped that show after the "we must stay the course
in Afghanistan, because reasons" episode.
The Thick of It
also makes it clear that the intelligent but
vicious consultants lead the dim-witted elected officials and party
bureaucrats (all of whom went to Oxbridge) around by the nose.
Literally no one in the world of
The Thick of It
is both
competent and admirable. One episode does suggest that Malcolm Tucker,
the famously nasty PR and messaging expert, honestly believes that his
party is better for workers and regular people. But there's no way to map
his beliefs onto policy. So there's no way to test whether he's a
Blairite or an old fashioned Labor dude. (I think it's pretty clear his
unnamed party is Labor and the other unnamed Party is the Tories -
there's even a season whether that party is in a coalition with another,
weaker party that's clearly the Liberals.)
Allysa B. provides an interesting overview of the UBI issue in the piece
linked above. She is even-handed and thorough, without blatant cherry-picking
to promote any specific agenda.
Yet the conclusion of her piece is profoundly dissatisfying.
"Basic income isn't the only way to make that demand, and it isn't even a
necessary part of it-but its utopian elements can help drive a more visionary
agenda for labor.
None of the UBI proposals we hear today-in Canada, the United Kingdom, or in
France-is likely to be quite the basic income imagined by luxury communists
(there aren't enough of them to win an election yet), but they're a start.
Utopia is possible. If we want it, though, we'll need to make it a part of
the demands and visions of the left movements we build over the next few years.
Because we can't just invent the future-we're going to have to fight for it."
If her real interest is in building powerful movements, more than the
technical pros and cons of UBI or a Jobs Guarantee, why not share some
strategic thoughts on how to build such movements? She is rightly unenthused at
the prospects of accomplishing anything through politics as usual in the U.S.,
or other parts of the developed world. So how will these new movements seize
power?!?!
In other words– does she have any useful ideas on how to translate the
energy of well-meaning doctoral students like herself, in places like New
Haven, Ithaca, or Princeton, into positive changes in the working lives of
people in places like Akron or Camden?
Without including real strategies for the seizure of political and economic
power by workers, these earnest discussions may only do what Alyssa B.,
herself, decries: "Instead of fighting off the dystopian future, settle into
the interregnum of the present, with all its morbid symptoms."
adding: and what goals will they advance besides leisure?
A guaranteed income that helps people pay for expensive insurance for
still-unaffordable healthcare, or clothes and appliances that fall apart, or
social services that don't exist, or rent-extracting tolls and fees, or the
bill for their poisoned water isn't utopian.
It was a labor movement, not an 8-hr day movement. People expected
to be productive and have enough of a share in the fruits of their
labor to meet their needs, and enjoy their leisure.
Neither automation nor an income guarantee will enable people to
meet their needs, and enjoy their leisure in the examples in my
comment and many other areas of our diminished economic life. That's
not an argument against an income guarantee. It's a question about
what problem it's supposed to solve.
UBI in combination with corporate dominance is an absolutely terrible
idea.
After corps have exploited labor to the point they have no consumers
(already happening), UBI just becomes a gov subsidy to oligarchs keeping
them in power and the people out, when they (oligarchs and corps) would
otherwise crumble under their own extractive overreach.
UBI can be good, UBI combined with corporate dominance is most certainly
not.
Why do you think all the squillionaires are calling for UBI. It's
certainly not because they give a damn about the workers they've violently
exploited for decades.
"... Will the UN hold U$, Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, France, the UK responsible for this attack which was carried out by their takfiri, jihadist terrorist clients in Syria? ..."
"... I agree. And if the OPCW refuses to do anything, have Bolivia, and other neutral third parties do the testing. Importantly, let's call those so-called White Helmet guys. Interview them and take the blood samples. ..."
"... Agree. It's about keeping the momentum going. The more the warmedia avoids the blatant truth, the more people are going to be turned off by their crap. This story among many, must never be buried. Cheers from New Zealand. ..."
"... Dead children shown only on white helmets videos, not one "rescuer" had correct protective clothing and nobody was affected by poison gas, so there was no gas? But children are dead? Assad was blamed immediately for what reason? The airport was back in use, one day after the attack. 23 Tomahawks hit the airport, 36 Tomahawks went missing? The US media was celebrating this attack which cost the lives of at least 6 people. Surrealistic psychopath behavior - That is the only real fact in this story. ..."
"... The US is allowed to rain down as many Tomahawks/ Hellfires as they want wherever they want as long as they can get away with it. It is called the law of the jungle. If you are weak don' t complain about it. Get nukes, a strong army and be happy about a favourable geography and maybe a strong ally next to you (as North Korea is/was). ..."
"... "It is called the law of the jungle". And it works out very satisfactorily as long as you are on top. Less so when someone else turns out to be more powerful, or unscrupulous, or sneaky. ..."
"... I just have ten fingers so I give up counting the nations the US is having war like actions with. But technically the US has not declared war so it must be at peace right now? ..."
In an another note: Will the UN and its so-called 'security council' condemn the horrific and
barbaric attack on that took the lives of 126 mainly women and children refugee being evacuated
from their villages?
Will the UN hold U$, Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, France, the UK responsible
for this attack which was carried out by their takfiri, jihadist terrorist clients in Syria?
I agree. And if the OPCW refuses to do anything, have Bolivia, and other neutral third parties
do the testing. Importantly, let's call those so-called White Helmet guys. Interview them and
take the blood samples.
Agree. It's about keeping the momentum going. The more the warmedia avoids the blatant truth,
the more people are going to be turned off by their crap. This story among many, must never be
buried.
Cheers from New Zealand.
Dead children shown only on white helmets videos, not one "rescuer" had correct protective
clothing and nobody was affected by poison gas, so there was no gas? But children are dead?
Assad was blamed immediately for what reason? The airport was back in use, one day after the attack.
23 Tomahawks hit the airport, 36 Tomahawks went missing? The US media was celebrating this attack
which cost the lives of at least 6 people. Surrealistic psychopath behavior - That is the only
real fact in this story.
The US is allowed to rain down as many Tomahawks/ Hellfires as they want wherever they want
as long as they can get away with it. It is called the law of the jungle. If you are weak don'
t complain about it. Get nukes, a strong army and be happy about a favourable geography and maybe
a strong ally next to you (as North Korea is/was).
If you let the NeoConNazis (or Israelis, if you are close by) take your nukes you are one step
closer to get disposed of (see Lybia, Syria, Iraq). From the 7 countries (as in 7 countries in
5 years) several ones have been already attacked but progress was kinda slow and we haven't seen
vibrant democracies yet:
-Iraq: broken apart into a US friendly Kurdish, an Iran friendly Shia and an ISIS territory
-Syria: Civial war being waged, divided into loyalist, AlQuaeda,ISIS and Kurdish part
-Lebanon: Civil war incited by Saudi Arabia, stopped by Hisbollah
-Libya: Complete clusterfuxx thanks to Hillary Clinton wanting to have a lasting moment as
US secretary of foreign affairs
-Somalia: Who put that on a list? It was already a complete mess in 2001
-Sudan: Friends of China as well as Saudi Arabia - are allowed to butcher whomever they want
as long as they are Christian
-Iran: Prevented attack by letting the US military bleed out in Iraq. Were already outflanked
in Iraq and Afghanistan. No need to take actions in Afghanistan, as Pakistan's ISI made sure the
US bleeds there too.
Ah, let' s start war in a different country, why not in North Korea. What are the odds it could
go south?
The North Koreans killed 55000 American soldiers and marines in that war without mercy.
McCain´s father was singing like a songbird but the rice eaters hanged him anyway because they
were against freedom.
55000 dead americans? Do you know that 55000 Americans are not a lot compared to a total of
more then 3 million deaths, most of them civilians? Most north korean cities were leveled by US
bomber attacks. There were many massacres with more then 10000 dead civilians - committed by South
Korean troops supported by the US. And also many atrocities committed directly by US soldiers.
Same thing was repeated in Vietnam, except that especially the northern part of Korea was well
industrialized so there was a stark contrast when the got bombed back to the stone age.
Have you ever been to Jeju-Do? It is a cute little island - many South Koreans have spent their
honeymoon their. In 1948 the South Korean strongmen president (who has been in exile in the US)
made sure that everybody with suspected communist ties went to a camp. And some of these internment
camps became death camps and about 20000 Koreans lost their life. Way to go! USA! USA! USA!
So you stupid racist pig, calling asians rice eaters and crying about 55000 souls while many
more people died by their hand: have a look at history and when maybe to think before supporting
any kind of stupid war that just benefits the MIC...
"It is called the law of the jungle". And it works out very satisfactorily as long as you are on top. Less so when someone else turns
out to be more powerful, or unscrupulous, or sneaky.
If a major US city were to disappear in a thermonuclear explosion, or to be immersed in a cloud
of poison gas or deadly virus, the USA would not have a leg to stand on in protest.
International law and the UN Charter unambiguously state that the only justified reasons for
attacking another country are a UN mandate to use force, or self-defence against a country that
has already attacked you. There are no exceptions.
So we must conclude that the USA is now at war with at least several dozen nations. Go on,
count the nations that the USA has attacked with military force since (let's say) 1945.
Any one (or more) of those nations has the right, under international law, to commit acts of
war against the USA. Including (now I come to think of it) North Korea, with whom the USA never
agreed a treaty of peace.
I just have ten fingers so I give up counting the nations the US is having war like actions
with. But technically the US has not declared war so it must be at peace right now?
The only wars fought I personally remember are the war on the middle class and the war against
Xmas. Maybe also the the war against free speech called political correctness, something I liked
about Trump... ;-)
But Trump succeeded to kill 4 children and 8 civilians in his Tomahawk attack on a Syrian Airport
and related village as revenge for a staged fake, while he was crying Assad is "an animal who
kill beautyful babies".
100 Words
@dearieme
"Funny patriotism where they're most revved up to kill other Koreans". You
could say that of the American "patriots" of 1776 who were revved up to kill
fellow Britons.
{You could say that of the American "patriots" of 1776 who were revved up
to kill fellow Britons.}
You could also say that about the 4 year long
US Civil War.
Both sides considered themselves very patriotic Americans, yet were revved
up to kill each other to a total of about 785,000-1,000,000 KIA. Considering
US population was about 20-25 million around then, that was huge number of
dead.
Really agitated Hillary supporter and a member of coup d'état against Trump/
Notable quotes:
"... "A foreign government messing around in our elections is, I think, an existential threat to our way of life," Morell said. "To me, and this is to me not an overstatement, this is the political equivalent of 9/11." ..."
Evidence that Russia attempted to sway the outcome of the presidential election with a hacking
campaign targeting Democrats "is the political equivalent of 9/11," the former acting director of
the CIA, Michael Morell, said in an interview published Monday.
Morell, an intelligence analyst who served as acting director of the CIA twice between 2011 and
2013,
told The Cipher Brief that revelations disclosed
in a new
CIA report about how Russia meddled in the election to help get Donald Trump elected "is an attack
on our very democracy."
"A foreign government messing around in our elections is, I think, an existential threat to
our way of life," Morell said. "To me, and this is to me not an overstatement, this is the political
equivalent of 9/11."
I'm not surprised at all that the professional Democrats out there view
American politics as an extended episode of
The West Wing
. It should
come as no surprise, considering the impact that
24
had on the views
that many have about torture.
As far as politics-based TV shows go,
The West Wing
isn't bad, and
is probably a little less ridiculous than the American version of
House of
Cards
. Neither one of them is good as the Danish TV show
Borgen
,
though.
-Rob Lowe had the relationship with the hooker who was nympho and made
lots of money while she went to prestigious law school so it was okay. The
hero Is really helping her. And Lowe's liberalism meant she didn't take his
money.
-the mindless support for free trade; "trade stops wars"
-the Supreme Court nominee situation; hey let's get one guy who thinks guys
should marry called Rodriguez and one guy who makes. Hitler look emphatic
and call it a day because centrism is great!
-Sheen did Welfare reform
-Lawrence O'Donnell. He didn't become insufferable on MSNBC. His episodes
were the worst.
-the moderate Republican fetish
-"smart wars"
-an insane portrayal of deficit hawks as reasonable
The show was garbage. The joke is "who is the office Jonah?" On "The West
Wing", they were all Jonah. The Hillary Clinton campaign and Obama
Administration were the West Wing put into action.
Admission, I loved the West Wing. I also enjoyed 24. In particular,
West Wing is a joy for self admitted acting addict. And yes it played to
my sensibilities, but even I began to realize that the episodes that
meant the most to me, the ones that really resonated and stayed with me
were the ones where the underlying issue was not solved or changed by
working in the White House who most of the time just put on a bandage on
it for themselves (and the viewers). So Veterans still didn't get their
benefits and the care of a "grateful nation" but a funeral, drunk drivers
still kill, etc. And on return to it a decade later, things like how
crazy the voters are, and only a really smart staffer can realize that
they are not seeing the real problem for the trees began to grate
unbearably.
Oh, and NTG, don't forget the Rob Lowe character was the speech writer
for many of the Bartlett early speeches, which when you think about it is
the prototype for the Obama administration talk pretty about things and
dazzle them before failing to change anything prototype. He also later
ran for Congress, loses and becomes a highly paid lawyer (because?) only
to give it up to become the Deputy Chief of Staff of the first Latino
President. (And maybe I am the only one who can see so much wrong with
that.)
Sure, but Kiefer William Frederick Dempsey George Rufus
Sutherland took it nearly as often as he dished it out. And it was
him against a world full of bad guys.
Good series, you just need to remind yourself it's only the
TeeBee.
FYI – This is really his full name!
Kiefer William Frederick Dempsey George Rufus Sutherland
I'm a fan of whodunnits and 24 was at its base a whodunnit/stop
them before they can do more, and a well crafted one at that. The
thing is that the one season I watched it, there was far less
torture in it than probably one fifth of a season of Criminal
Minds. Now CM does supposedly make the case the torturer is a
criminal, but when it comes to torture porn (like the movies SAW)
CM is near the top on television. And torture is one of those
things that many people do find entertaining though they vocally
condemn it. And most have not thought out the larger political and
social implications of it. We are savage creatures with a veneer.
Where 24 and Zero Dark Thirty are detrimental is they make people
think torture actually works in real life rather than in fantasy.
or life in this society is so boring and unrewarding that
people need ever more violence (fictional OR real) to entertain
themselves. Granted people have always liked stories with
violence, but it probably does play in.
And if you are an atheist getting off on the righteous
violence, then go the whole hog, and embrace Hell Fire &
Eternal Damnation. (Or stop saying people who do are dumb,
when they are just you, a step further.)
Yeah, I nodded along to that article, but was surprised that it didn't
connect the dots between liberals' love of war, sorry, "humanitarian
intervention" and the appalling post-9/11 "West Wing" episodes. As we say
around these parts, those storylines were "wonderfully clarifying."
"The Newsroom" was like "The West Wing" a fantasy version of the
real deal. But embedded in both fantasies was the same embrace of the
exceptionalism of the USA, USA, USA. American politics should only be
dished out to us in comedic form like the first two years of VEEP. If
you want to get a funny view of our class system and urban versus
rural dynamics, and just want a good laugh, watch "Schitts Creek"
starring Catherine O'Hara and Eugene Levy.
Anyone who has given money to a Sorkin production has largely
gotten that (although less for his television industry set pieces),
it is a feature of his work along with the soaring emotional speech
by the lead. Don't forget that Sorkin's first big work had the
following speech (delivered in typical style by Jack Nicholson in
the movie):
You can't handle the truth! Son, we live in a world that has
walls. And those walls have to be guarded by men with guns.
Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinberg? I have a greater
responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for
Santiago and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You
have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Santiago's
death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence,
while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives You
don't want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don't
talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on
that wall.
We use words like honor, code, loyalty we use these words as the
backbone to a life spent defending something. You use 'em as a
punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to
explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket
of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in
which I provide it! I'd rather you just said thank you and went
on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand
a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you're
entitled to!
From the West Wing article:
"The West Wing "took something that was for the most part considered dry and
nerdy-especially to people in high school and college-and sexed it up",
former David Axelrod advisor Eric Lesser told Vanity Fair in a longform 2012
feature about the "Sorkinization of politics".
I didn't watch West Wing on TV as I wasn't in the USA during its original
airing times, but we bought DVDs of the series and watched it in 2012, by
which time I'd become plenty cynical about US politics in general! Looking
back, rather than (or as well as) depicting politics' "Sorkinization" I'd
say that West Wing = the Hallmark-ization of US politics.
One thing from the article that really stands out to me is where he talks
about how the administration in The West Wing doesn't actually seem to stand
for (or accomplish) much of anything, and viewers could project their views
onto it. Compare this to The Thick of It/In the Loop, where the party of the
characters is never specified, only there it's part of the joke. They're
just 'The Party' and the other side is 'The Opposition'. Intentionally or
not, this has the effect of portraying British politics as filled with
parties that aren't actually terribly different internally, and just
obsessed with optics and media relations. Both Armando Iannucci and Aaron
Sorkin have created shows that portray politics as vapid, empty, and stupid,
only Sorkin thinks this is something positive and praiseworthy, that this is
how 'serious' politics should be.
Also, bah, Borgen. I dropped that show after the "we must stay the course
in Afghanistan, because reasons" episode.
The Thick of It
also makes it clear that the intelligent but
vicious consultants lead the dim-witted elected officials and party
bureaucrats (all of whom went to Oxbridge) around by the nose.
Literally no one in the world of
The Thick of It
is both
competent and admirable. One episode does suggest that Malcolm Tucker,
the famously nasty PR and messaging expert, honestly believes that his
party is better for workers and regular people. But there's no way to map
his beliefs onto policy. So there's no way to test whether he's a
Blairite or an old fashioned Labor dude. (I think it's pretty clear his
unnamed party is Labor and the other unnamed Party is the Tories -
there's even a season whether that party is in a coalition with another,
weaker party that's clearly the Liberals.)
"... Will the UN hold U$, Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, France, the UK responsible for this attack which was carried out by their takfiri, jihadist terrorist clients in Syria? ..."
"... I agree. And if the OPCW refuses to do anything, have Bolivia, and other neutral third parties do the testing. Importantly, let's call those so-called White Helmet guys. Interview them and take the blood samples. ..."
"... Agree. It's about keeping the momentum going. The more the warmedia avoids the blatant truth, the more people are going to be turned off by their crap. This story among many, must never be buried. Cheers from New Zealand. ..."
"... Dead children shown only on white helmets videos, not one "rescuer" had correct protective clothing and nobody was affected by poison gas, so there was no gas? But children are dead? Assad was blamed immediately for what reason? The airport was back in use, one day after the attack. 23 Tomahawks hit the airport, 36 Tomahawks went missing? The US media was celebrating this attack which cost the lives of at least 6 people. Surrealistic psychopath behavior - That is the only real fact in this story. ..."
"... The US is allowed to rain down as many Tomahawks/ Hellfires as they want wherever they want as long as they can get away with it. It is called the law of the jungle. If you are weak don' t complain about it. Get nukes, a strong army and be happy about a favourable geography and maybe a strong ally next to you (as North Korea is/was). ..."
"... "It is called the law of the jungle". And it works out very satisfactorily as long as you are on top. Less so when someone else turns out to be more powerful, or unscrupulous, or sneaky. ..."
"... I just have ten fingers so I give up counting the nations the US is having war like actions with. But technically the US has not declared war so it must be at peace right now? ..."
In an another note: Will the UN and its so-called 'security council' condemn the horrific and
barbaric attack on that took the lives of 126 mainly women and children refugee being evacuated
from their villages?
Will the UN hold U$, Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, France, the UK responsible
for this attack which was carried out by their takfiri, jihadist terrorist clients in Syria?
I agree. And if the OPCW refuses to do anything, have Bolivia, and other neutral third parties
do the testing. Importantly, let's call those so-called White Helmet guys. Interview them and
take the blood samples.
Agree. It's about keeping the momentum going. The more the warmedia avoids the blatant truth,
the more people are going to be turned off by their crap. This story among many, must never be
buried.
Cheers from New Zealand.
Dead children shown only on white helmets videos, not one "rescuer" had correct protective
clothing and nobody was affected by poison gas, so there was no gas? But children are dead?
Assad was blamed immediately for what reason? The airport was back in use, one day after the attack.
23 Tomahawks hit the airport, 36 Tomahawks went missing? The US media was celebrating this attack
which cost the lives of at least 6 people. Surrealistic psychopath behavior - That is the only
real fact in this story.
The US is allowed to rain down as many Tomahawks/ Hellfires as they want wherever they want
as long as they can get away with it. It is called the law of the jungle. If you are weak don'
t complain about it. Get nukes, a strong army and be happy about a favourable geography and maybe
a strong ally next to you (as North Korea is/was).
If you let the NeoConNazis (or Israelis, if you are close by) take your nukes you are one step
closer to get disposed of (see Lybia, Syria, Iraq). From the 7 countries (as in 7 countries in
5 years) several ones have been already attacked but progress was kinda slow and we haven't seen
vibrant democracies yet:
-Iraq: broken apart into a US friendly Kurdish, an Iran friendly Shia and an ISIS territory
-Syria: Civial war being waged, divided into loyalist, AlQuaeda,ISIS and Kurdish part
-Lebanon: Civil war incited by Saudi Arabia, stopped by Hisbollah
-Libya: Complete clusterfuxx thanks to Hillary Clinton wanting to have a lasting moment as
US secretary of foreign affairs
-Somalia: Who put that on a list? It was already a complete mess in 2001
-Sudan: Friends of China as well as Saudi Arabia - are allowed to butcher whomever they want
as long as they are Christian
-Iran: Prevented attack by letting the US military bleed out in Iraq. Were already outflanked
in Iraq and Afghanistan. No need to take actions in Afghanistan, as Pakistan's ISI made sure the
US bleeds there too.
Ah, let' s start war in a different country, why not in North Korea. What are the odds it could
go south?
The North Koreans killed 55000 American soldiers and marines in that war without mercy.
McCain´s father was singing like a songbird but the rice eaters hanged him anyway because they
were against freedom.
55000 dead americans? Do you know that 55000 Americans are not a lot compared to a total of
more then 3 million deaths, most of them civilians? Most north korean cities were leveled by US
bomber attacks. There were many massacres with more then 10000 dead civilians - committed by South
Korean troops supported by the US. And also many atrocities committed directly by US soldiers.
Same thing was repeated in Vietnam, except that especially the northern part of Korea was well
industrialized so there was a stark contrast when the got bombed back to the stone age.
Have you ever been to Jeju-Do? It is a cute little island - many South Koreans have spent their
honeymoon their. In 1948 the South Korean strongmen president (who has been in exile in the US)
made sure that everybody with suspected communist ties went to a camp. And some of these internment
camps became death camps and about 20000 Koreans lost their life. Way to go! USA! USA! USA!
So you stupid racist pig, calling asians rice eaters and crying about 55000 souls while many
more people died by their hand: have a look at history and when maybe to think before supporting
any kind of stupid war that just benefits the MIC...
"It is called the law of the jungle". And it works out very satisfactorily as long as you are on top. Less so when someone else turns
out to be more powerful, or unscrupulous, or sneaky.
If a major US city were to disappear in a thermonuclear explosion, or to be immersed in a cloud
of poison gas or deadly virus, the USA would not have a leg to stand on in protest.
International law and the UN Charter unambiguously state that the only justified reasons for
attacking another country are a UN mandate to use force, or self-defence against a country that
has already attacked you. There are no exceptions.
So we must conclude that the USA is now at war with at least several dozen nations. Go on,
count the nations that the USA has attacked with military force since (let's say) 1945.
Any one (or more) of those nations has the right, under international law, to commit acts of
war against the USA. Including (now I come to think of it) North Korea, with whom the USA never
agreed a treaty of peace.
I just have ten fingers so I give up counting the nations the US is having war like actions
with. But technically the US has not declared war so it must be at peace right now?
The only wars fought I personally remember are the war on the middle class and the war against
Xmas. Maybe also the the war against free speech called political correctness, something I liked
about Trump... ;-)
But Trump succeeded to kill 4 children and 8 civilians in his Tomahawk attack on a Syrian Airport
and related village as revenge for a staged fake, while he was crying Assad is "an animal who
kill beautyful babies".
April 18, 2017 "
Information
Clearing House
" -
Beirut - As the US Tomahawk missiles were raining on Syria, the entire
Middle East was shaken to its core. Here, even the name itself – Syria –
triggers extremely complex and often contradictory sets of emotions. To
some, Syria is synonymous
with pride and a determined struggle against Western imperialism, while
others see it as an uncomfortable reminder of how low their own rulers
and societies have managed to sink, serving foreign interests and various
neo-colonialist designs.
Many people are hiding their
heads in the sand, obediently repeating the official Western narrative,
while others are gradually resorting to the alternative sources of
information that are coming from outlets such as RT Arabic,
Al-Mayadeen
and Press TV.
Here in the Middle East and, in
fact, all over the entire Arab world, feelings towards the Syrian
President Bashar Al-Assad are always 'strong'; no one appears to be
'neutral'. But even the divisions are often 'pre-defined', carved along
pan-Arab versus pro-Western, or Sunni versus Shi'a lines. It is rarely
being mentioned that the Syrian state is constructed mainly on secular
and socialist principles.
The recent opportunistic
statements by certain badly informed and biased Western 'progressive'
intellectuals, calling the Syrian system "disgraceful" has confused
things even further.
*****
Overall, in the countries
encircling Syria, there is very little support among the general
population as well as among the intellectuals, for the Western assaults
on the country, conducted directly, and indirectly by proxies.
Pro-Western regimes and governments are currently governing Jordan,
Lebanon and Turkey, and all of them are officially supporting the Western
military actions. So is, naturally, Israel. The leaders of both Turkey
and Israel would actually like to see more military actions, and more
attacks against one of the last Arab countries, which is still upholds
its independence.
But ask the thinkers from all
over the region, and the reaction is near unanimously against the
assaults that are being conducted by the West.
Ms
Zeinab Al-Saffar (Photo: Andre Vltchek)
An Iraqi educationalist,
prominent journalist and researcher, Ms Zeinab Al-Saffar explained:
I believe that the attacks
against Syria that we are now witnessing, are a pre-orchestrated
flagrant imperialist violation of a sovereign state, a flexing of
muscles which is supposed to prove that the US is still the global
power. Why on earth would the Syrian government perform a chemical
attack knowing that the fingers would be immediately pointed at it,
consequently thwarting an ongoing political process? Only fools could
buy such narratives that are reminiscent of the 2003 US-led aggression
to destroy the WMDs in Iraq, which only resulted in the devastation of
Iraq, in the ruining of its people, and wiping out of its culture.
After the US missile assault on
Syria, the Bolivian Ambassador to the United Nations, Sacha Llorenti,
lashed out at Trump's decision, which he defined as, "an extremely
serious violation of international law."
Llorenti reminded the Council of
February 5th, 2003, when the then US secretary of State Colin
Powell, "came to this room to present to us, according to his own words,
convincing proof that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq."
Incirlik NATO air base in Turkey near Syria (Photo: Andre Vltchek)
Such views are not held in Iraq
only; I encountered fairly similar logic and recollection of the events
even in Turkey, from where a well-known columnist Feryal Çeviköz wrote to
me:
The real question is: "who
orchestrated that chemical attack?" It seems that only the US could
benefit from this chemical assault. The US had finally found the
'reason', the pretext for its direct attack against Syria. There were
already many similar incidents in the region and in other parts of the
world, and the screenplay is always the same. It seems that only the
players, the actors keep changing.
In Latin America, Russia, China,
much of Africa and, of course, in the neighboring Iran, people are
beginning to see clearly both the pattern and predictability of the
Western foreign policy.
A young prominent Iranian
researcher, columnist and filmmaker, Hamed Ghashghavi, gave me his
opinion on the recent developments:
It seems to me that the US
behaves like an injured wolf that is close to its death, but before
vanishing is trying to hurt others. The more aggressively the US
behaves, the closer, it appears to be at its end. The recent attack
against Syria, whatever the reasons and consequences, has symbolically
proven how and why the so-called US Empire is declining. What the US
did is also sending a strong signal to Iran and its project of the
military base near the Syrian town of Khmeimim, but it is also a
message to an anti-Trump wing of neocons who have been accusing him of
being too much 'pro-Putin' and 'pro-Assad'.
What is now clearly detectable
in the region is not just a condemnation of the US and Western actions,
it is also a deep fatigue of having to endure the same type aggression
which brings absolutely nothing except misery to the people of the Middle
East and the world.
In Syria, the sentiments are
clear. My friend, a Syrian educator Ms. Fida Bashour summarized it all, I
believe:
I feel sad and worried. I
want this war to finally stop, no blood any more, I want peace and to
have my safe existence. I don't want others to interfere in our life.
Why doesn't Trump let us live as we want to; why is he doing this to
us?
Andre Vltchek is a
philosopher, novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist. He has
covered wars and conflicts in dozens of countries. Three of his latest
books are revolutionary novel
"Aurora"
and two bestselling works of political non-fiction: "
Exposing
Lies Of The Empire
"
and "
Fighting
Against Western Imperialism
"
.
View his other books
here
.
Andre is making films for teleSUR and Al-Mayadeen. Watch
Rwanda Gambit
,
his groundbreaking documentary about Rwanda and DRCongo. After having
lived in Latin America, Africa and Oceania, Vltchek presently resides in
East Asia and the Middle East, and continues to work around the world. He
can be reached through his
website
and his
Twitter
.
"... Al-Qaeda Suicide Attack Kills 100+ Children, Women ..."
"... An MoA commentor reports that the group Nour al Din al Zenki which is is financed, armed and promoted by NATO, is responsible for this latest atrocity in Syria. IOW, another NATO war crime. ..."
"... Apparently, we only care when "beautiful, beautiful babies" are killed. Quick, do an air lift of American cosmetics so that we can extend our concern / sarc ..."
Al-Qaeda Suicide Attack Kills 100+ Children, Women
An MoA commentor reports that the group
Nour al Din al Zenki
which is is financed, armed and promoted by NATO, is responsible for this
latest atrocity in Syria. IOW, another NATO war crime.
Apparently, we only care when "beautiful, beautiful babies" are killed.
Quick, do an air lift of American cosmetics so that we can extend our
concern / sarc
They can get 'em on Overstock.com now! Just package 'em up on the
pallets stacked with $100 bills and air drop them wherever we know
there are friendly terrorists. It'll all work out. Helicopter money
always does.
A few seasons back, South Park pointed out how easy it was for corporations
to co-opt social justice rhetoric. Since then, life has stubbornly insisted on
supporting that thesis.
Every now and then the un-system bites back as we just saw with the Pepsi
ad, although they did get a ton of free press, similar to United. That
approach worked for The Donald ..
Corporations love non-class based identity politics. They love arguing
that the real problems in society are not about economic inequality but
rather on identity based sensitivity. You can learn the fancy sensitivity
codes at your uppity college and look down your nose at the poor whites who
don't get the semiotic coaching. Business as Usual.
"... Most of the information about the specific instance of the CIA torturing an individual in Lebanon came from a biography on Bob Ames titled The Good Spy (2014) by Kai Bird. Which was a pretty good book. Ames has an interesting history. He forged a relationship which the author characterized as a friendship with high ranking individuals in the Palestinian Liberation Organization at a time when the PLO was labeled as a terrorist organization. It was this back channel connection that formed the basis of American diplomacy for peace negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians. He died in the 1983 embassy bombing. ..."
"... Similar methods that resulted in the death of prisoners during CIA's systemic torture program during the Bush Administration were used. They'd dump cold water on'em and leave them in a cold cell. Nimr was left in a cell with a fan blowing cold air on them. Hall wasn't present at the time Nimr died. ..."
"... Besides the embassy bombing Mughniyeh was blamed for a lot of other terrorist acts that I think are based on nothing more than circumstantial evidence. Contemporary analysis suggests it's basically the "Blame Putin!" trope in action. ..."
*I was in a rush yesterday so this is a follow-up to
yesterday's hastily written comment
on the torture report. Any fault or errors in that comment
can be attributed to my gullibility.
Most of the information about the specific instance of the CIA torturing an individual in Lebanon
came from a biography on Bob Ames titled The Good Spy (2014) by Kai Bird. Which was a pretty
good book. Ames has an interesting history. He forged a relationship which the author characterized
as a friendship with high ranking individuals in the Palestinian Liberation Organization at a time
when the PLO was labeled as a terrorist organization. It was this back channel connection that formed
the basis of American diplomacy for peace negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians. He
died in the 1983 embassy bombing.
-The individual who was tortured and died soon afterward was Elias Nimr . A Christian intelligence
chieftain who appears to have played every side and angle he could during the Lebanon Civil War.
-The name of the CIA contractor who tortured Nimr was identified as Keith "Captain Crunch"
Hall . He was originally identified by Mark Bowden in his book Road Work: Among Tyrants, Heroes,
Rogues, and Beasts. (2007) A former Marine before he joined the CIA and was later a cop in
California.
Similar methods that resulted in the death of prisoners during CIA's systemic torture program
during the Bush Administration were used. They'd dump cold water on'em and leave them in a cold
cell. Nimr was left in a cell with a fan blowing cold air on them. Hall wasn't present at the
time Nimr died.
-Bob Baer neglects to mention this specific incident of torture in See No Evil but doesn't
blame Nimr for the bombing of the embassy. *cough* Appropriately titled book if you ask me. *cough*
A part of his theory on the masterminds behind the '83 embassy bombings involves a former PLO
turned Hezbollah operative named Imad Mughniyeh . Baer claims that Mughniyeh is was still in contact
with his old Fatah contacts when the embassy was bombed.
Besides the embassy bombing Mughniyeh was blamed for a lot of other terrorist acts that
I think are based on nothing more than circumstantial evidence. Contemporary analysis suggests
it's basically the "Blame Putin!" trope in action.
-The name of the alleged defector from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard was actually a deputy
defense minister and former brigadier general named Ali Reza Asgari . There was and still probably
is controversy whether he was kidnapped or defected. The Iranians wouldn't want it known that
such a high ranking defector went over to the West hence the kidnapping story.
Hah! Guess not posting much for a few months finally caught up with me.
If there were ever a Just Cause for the Yanks to invade and bring democracy somewhere, it would be North Korea. The horrors
that generations of North Koreans in concentration camps are enduring, would even make the holo-jews cringe.
Then again, is Israel ready to take a second row seat on the holocaust narrative and let the North Koreans take the gold
medal of international victimhood?
And what do you do with millions of people coping with culture shock, paranoia, etc.? And, last but not least, who would
make our clothing for 5 cents a piece?
All in all. I do not think the Israeli's would let the USA attack North Korea.
Zero chance of any attack on Korea beyond a prearranged choreographed pinprick. The explanation is simple: nothing in it for the
Jooies and Izzies who worked overtime to install a US government of the jooies, by the jooies, for the jooies. Why would they
waste their satrap's assets when they could be used on Iran?
October 18, 1994 Remarks on the Nuclear Agreement With North Korea William J. Clinton
Good afternoon. I am pleased that the United States and North Korea yesterday reached agreement on the text of a framework
document on North Korea's nuclear program.
"... A conventional US attack on North Korea would be far more difficult. The North is a small nation of only 24.8 million. Its air and sea forces are obsolete and ineffective. They would be vaporized on the first day of a war. But North Korea's million-man army has been training and digging in for decades to resist a US invasion. Pyongyang's 88,000-man Special Forces are poised for suicide attacks on South Korea's political and military command and control and to cripple key US and South Korean air bases, notably Osan and Kunsan. ..."
"... The stupidity, cultural ignorance and geopolitical autism of the people that actually have their fingers on the trigger on our side in today's world is mind blowing. ..."
"... Starting a war with N Korea is crazy. Are we going to start a war that would kill millions in order to stop a war that does not exist? There has been little blood spilled between the Koreas in the last 60 years – let's try for another 60 years. ..."
"... How is Trump protecting us, if we are killing and dying in a far-off land? The truth is that our homeland is a very long way from being attacked by N Korea – PERIOD. ..."
"... North Korea has got nothing anyone wants so they won't be attacked. It is all a lot of bluffing, except if the Chinese (aghast at Trump's avowed view that China is raping the US economy) try to placate him by promising to give the North Koreans the cold shoulder. ..."
"... China cannot accept a collapse of North Korea into the US client south. ..."
"... China is the central, most important actor on the peninsula, and China controls whatever happens there. ..."
"... America's main weakness is its utterly delusional political and military leadership. ..."
"... We have not fought a peer since 1945, and since 1945 we have a long record of failure. At present, we are fighting and losing to lightly armed Third World militias. ..."
"... It is an open question as to whether we can defeat ISIS in Syria and Iraq, and we certainly cannot unless we ally ourselves with Iran, Russia, Hezbollah and Assad. ..."
"... What we are watching today is the collapse of the American military and empire. ..."
"... Lots of murkkans , the Trumpsters, are crying foul, They are 'betrayed' by Trump who now 'surrender to the deep state', 'the neocons have finally gotten to Trump', blah blah blah . ..."
"... Astute obsevers like Vltchek, Engdahl, Draistser ..reminded murkkans about the exercise in futility in the 'election circus' long ago. ..."
"... Mathematically, Ian Fleming's fundamental law of probability practically guarantees that the 45th POTUS would be same as the old boss, MIC front man who speaks with forked tongue. ..."
"... As the pathetic hack Fareed Zakaria of Times magazine would gush after the Syria bombing, ' With this act, Trump has just become POTUS ' He didnt know how right he's, hehehehe ..."
"... That will not sit very well with American global full spectrum dominance and end the day that American can commit war crimes, crimes against peace and crimes against humanity on the phantom WMD allegation as humanitarian intervention. ..."
"... The simple scenario germane to this article is if Trump deploys a carrier fleet even closer to the proximity of the Norks. ..."
"... To those interested in the Korean War, I highly recommend David Halberstam's posthumous book, The Coldest Winter: America and the Korean War. It is not a standard military chronicle instead a spellbinding journalistic read. Major theme, MacArthur's super ego, pomposity and geo-political ignorance resulting in catastrophe. American troops experienced the thrill of Stalingrad. In an eerie way, Trump now has a chance of becoming American Caesar 2.0 and in the very same playground. History repeats, rhymes whatever.... ..."
"... The only book I've read on the Korean War is IF Stone's firsthand account, The Hidden History of the Korean War. It is absolutely staggering. Why was it fought? No reason. It was a military exercise for MacArthur, just kind of for the hell of it. ..."
Memory of the bloody, indecisive first Koran War, 1950-53, which killed close to 3 million people, has faded. Few Americans have
any idea how ferocious a conventional second Korean War could be. They are used to seeing Uncle Sam beat up small, nearly defenseless
nations like Iraq, Libya or Syria that dare defy the Pax Americana.
The US could literally blow North Korea off the map using tactical
nuclear weapons based in Japan, South Korea and at sea with the 7th Fleet. Or delivered by B-52 and B-1 bombers and cruise missiles.
But this would cause clouds of lethal radiation and radioactive dust to blanket Japan, South Korea and heavily industrialized northeast
China, including the capital, Beijing.
China would be expected to threaten retaliation against the United States, Japan and South Korea to deter a nuclear war in next
door Korea. At the same time, if heavily attacked, a fight-to-the-end North Korea may fire off a number of nuclear-armed medium-range
missiles at Tokyo, Osaka, Okinawa and South Korea. These missiles are hidden in caves in the mountains on wheeled transporters and
hard to identify and knock out.
This is a huge risk. Such a nuclear exchange would expose about a third of the world's economy to nuclear contamination, not to
mention spreading nuclear winter around the globe.
A conventional US attack on North Korea would be far more difficult. The North is a small nation of only 24.8 million. Its
air and sea forces are obsolete and ineffective. They would be vaporized on the first day of a war. But North Korea's million-man
army has been training and digging in for decades to resist a US invasion. Pyongyang's 88,000-man Special Forces are poised for suicide
attacks on South Korea's political and military command and control and to cripple key US and South Korean air bases, notably Osan
and Kunsan.
North Korea may use chemical weapons such as VX and Sarin to knock out the US/South Korean and Japanese airbases, military depots,
ports and communications hubs. Missile attacks would be launched against US bases in Guam and Okinawa.
Short of using nuclear weapons, the US would be faced with mounting a major invasion of mountainous North Korea, something for
which it is today unprepared. It took the US six months to assemble a land force in Saudi Arabia just to attack feeble Iraq. Taking
on the tough North Korean army and militia in their mountain redoubts will prove a daunting challenge.
US analysts have in the past estimated a US invasion of North Korea would cost some 250,000 American casualties and at least $10
billion, though I believe such a war would cost four times that much today. The Army, Air Force and Marines would have to mobilize
reserves to wage a war in Korea. Already overstretched US forces would have to be withdrawn from Europe and the Mideast. Military
conscription might have to be re-introduced.
Indeed. It was a sorrowful read with the exception of the heroics of the First Marines at Chosin Reservoir. Wiki called that
action a victory as if rearguard actions or successful retreats could ever be put in a victory column.
The big point now is what do the Chinese think. They were the reason that there even was a Korean War for those who prefer
headlines over history or happen to be in elective office in the US government (or Pentagon).
The stupidity, cultural ignorance and geopolitical autism of the people that actually have their fingers on the trigger
on our side in today's world is mind blowing.
" Hit the dirt, join the crowd, lookee mamma, a mushroom cloud" from MAD magazine, in the sixties, a kids rag that makes some
people wonder why the non funny, non witty Onion even exists.
Today that cloud thing suddenly becomes real possibility. Did I say MAD?
Starting a war with N Korea is crazy. Are we going to start a war that would kill millions in order to stop a war that
does not exist? There has been little blood spilled between the Koreas in the last 60 years – let's try for another 60 years.
How is Trump protecting us, if we are killing and dying in a far-off land? The truth is that our homeland is a very long
way from being attacked by N Korea – PERIOD.
It is time to deescalate – it is time to trade with the bastard – it is time to open up N Korea. Send in the food. Help the
people. Be better than the dictator. Give his people what he cannot deliver. Give them the power to demand freedom. It is hard
to see – but when dictator governments trade with others, they evolve to freedom.
Peace - Art
p.s. The Trump Whisperer – Ivanka – needs to get in daddy's ear and say "cool it Pops."
North Korea has got nothing anyone wants so they won't be attacked. It is all a lot of bluffing, except if the Chinese (aghast
at Trump's avowed view that China is raping the US economy) try to placate him by promising to give the North Koreans the cold
shoulder.
History shows that the leadership of states in danger of losing their independent status will choose uncertain and perilous
courses of action . The best thing is this will fizzle out. If China tries to pressure Kim, he would seriously consider starting
a conventional war. He couldn't possibly win, but that is the point: China cannot accept a collapse of North Korea into the
US client south. Nuclear weapons will not be used in any event.
@bob sykes Any
discussion of a new Korean War that does not emphasize China is asinine, like this one. China is the central, most important
actor on the peninsula, and China controls whatever happens there.
China will not permit an American ally on the Yalu River. Any state bordering China on the Yalu must be explicitly pro-Chinese.
If a war does break out on the peninsula, China will intervene on the side of the North Koreans.
To call the first Korean War inconclusive is tendentious: China decisively defeated the US/NATO forces, and did so with
with a primitive WW I style army and no navy or air force to speak of. Human wave assaults sufficed then. They did not occupy
the whole peninsula because their primitive army lacked the logistical capacity to do so.
Today China has a large modern military with a full spectrum of capabilities, including tactical and strategic nuclear weapons
and a large amphibious force. China would crush the US, Japanese and South Korean militaries, even assuming Russia stands aside.
It didn't in Korea I and Vietnam. And China's strategic nuclear forces would prevent the US from using nuclear weapons on the
peninsula. Anyway, the antique nuclear weapons we have today may not even work.
America's main weakness is its utterly delusional political and military leadership. The military that invaded
Iraq no longer exists, and it was smaller than the one that liberated Kuwait. The US military has been downsized to the point
that it cannot meet our treaty commitments. Sequestration has stripped the remaining military of funds needed for training
and maintenance. Only a third of our fighter/bombers are available for war, and the pilots get only half the hours needed to
maintain their skills. We do not practice combined arms warfare any more.
We have not fought a peer since 1945, and since 1945 we have a long record of failure. At present, we are fighting and
losing to lightly armed Third World militias. The use of the MOAB against ISIS in Afghanistan was an indicator of panic
in our military command there and at home. It is an open question as to whether we can defeat ISIS in Syria and Iraq, and
we certainly cannot unless we ally ourselves with Iran, Russia, Hezbollah and Assad.
What we are watching today is the collapse of the American military and empire.
{We have not fought a peer since 1945, and since 1945 we have a long record of failure. }
Almost true.
Imperial Japan was no Nazi Germany.
Although Japanese were tenacious fighters and they had first-rate military hardware*, U.S. and U.S. Navy were a rung above
the Imperial Japanese military. Japan simply did not have the resources or the industrial might of U.S.
By the time Allies (really the U.S.) landed in Europe in 1944, Wehrmacht was a spent force: 80% of its best, toughest units
were destroyed on the Eastern Front. Even then, at the Battle of the Bulge U.S. troops ran from the advancing Germans (mostly
** ). GIs were saved by the powerful USAF when the skies cleared up.
So we don't really have a good example of peer-to-peer land warfare for US military (other than the US Civil War).
--
* Zero was considered superior to US equipment in the beginning.
** Heroic defense of Bastogne.
And the only thing that has kept Japan and South Korea non nuclear is the US. A real threat would be for the US to simply to
go home. When Trump was tweeting that exactly -- it was seen as quite threatening.
A nuclear North Korea which is barely in the nuclear club and doesn't have the economy to militarize is simply an annoyance
to China. Japan and South Korea could be real threats quite quickly. And there is no love lost between any of them.
An irony is that the US has effectively disarmed Europe via NATO, and if the US told Germany to take care of themselves, Russia
wouldn't feel threatened, they would be threatened.
The truth is that the US hasn't won a war since we decided to constrain our military in Korea. They wanted to nuke China, and
also wanted to use them in Vietnam.
North Korea's only threat is nuclear, which is hollow, since they are assured of massive retaliation in kind. I suppose China
has been OK with the situation, since it annoys us to no end and hasn't cost them much. So far. {The truth is that the US hasn't
won a war since we decided to constrain our military in Korea. They wanted to nuke China, and also wanted to use them in
Vietnam.}
This an enduring myth that was created to salve the psych wound of being beaten by 'inferior' yellow-man.
Other than using atomic bombs, there were no constraints on US military. US military was given a free hand to bomb and destroy
anything and everything, including civilian targets* in both wars.
As to nukes.
China had no nukes during Korean war, but Soviet Union did.
First SU nuke test: Aug 1949.
First US thermonuke test: Nov 1952
First SU thermonuke test: Aug 1953.
POTUS Truman fired delusional Gen McArthur because he knew SU would most certainly use tac nukes in Korea if US did.
If you recall, Truman had no compunction using nukes on civilian targets, so he must have had good reason to restrain the crazy
generals.
Same with Viet Nam: yes US military wanted to nuke Hanoi in desperation, but cooler civilian heads prevailed. Again, there
was near-certainty that SU would respond in kind in Viet Nam.
--
* targeted deliberately: war crimes.
'" If China is not going to solve North Korea , we will."
With this porky pie,
Trump becomes the 45th 'bald faced liars' elected by the murkkans.
And .
With the bombing of Syria, Yemen
Trump joins the 'prestigious' ranks of the previous 44 war criminals in WH.
Lots of murkkans , the Trumpsters, are crying foul, They are 'betrayed' by Trump who now 'surrender to the deep state',
'the neocons have finally gotten to Trump', blah blah blah .
B.S. --
Astute obsevers like Vltchek, Engdahl, Draistser ..reminded murkkans about the exercise in futility in the 'election circus'
long ago.
Mathematically, Ian Fleming's fundamental law of probability practically guarantees that the 45th POTUS would be same as
the old boss, MIC front man who speaks with forked tongue.
As the pathetic hack Fareed Zakaria of Times magazine would gush after the Syria bombing, ' With this act, Trump has
just become POTUS ' He didnt know how right he's, hehehehe
Why not allow that? That will not sit very well with American global full spectrum dominance and end the day that American
can commit war crimes, crimes against peace and crimes against humanity on the phantom WMD allegation as humanitarian intervention.
I picked up a batch of old Rollingstone magazines from my local library for pennies to use as bathroom/breakfast reading. One
issue had Matt Taibbi following Trump on the campaign trail while still battling for the Republican party nomination. In this
leg of his tour he talked about how big insurance conglomerates were setting the prices to their liking and how he as president
would bust them up etc.. Then came the commentary from Duck Dynasty types on how they are sick and tired of paying high premiums
and so on. It gave me a minor epiphany, namely that this guy is, was and always will be full of shit in other words nothing but
a super salesman.
While I was happy that he blew away the syphilitic structure of the mainstream parties and the press I now realize that the
volatile and insane world now has a monkey with a machine gun in a major position of power. This can't end well.
The Great Pumpkin cut his jib by beating up other businessmen in the vicious world of East coast real estate. In this world
he had the MacArthur motto for there being 'no substitute for victory'. If he transmogrifies his business instincts onto the world
stage, stock up on rice and beans (and iodine tablets).
The simple scenario germane to this article is if Trump deploys a carrier fleet even closer to the proximity of the Norks.
Who thinks fat boy Jong-Un is sane? Ivanka? Sending even just conventional missiles across the bow is well within his mental construct.
With their faulty accuracy they could accidentally hit the target. A carrier sunk. What options does Trump have now? None really.
It's show time and by probable extension, "overture, curtains, lights, this is it night of nights..."
To those interested in the Korean War, I highly recommend David Halberstam's posthumous book, The Coldest Winter: America
and the Korean War. It is not a standard military chronicle instead a spellbinding journalistic read. Major theme, MacArthur's
super ego, pomposity and geo-political ignorance resulting in catastrophe. American troops experienced the thrill of Stalingrad.
In an eerie way, Trump now has a chance of becoming American Caesar 2.0 and in the very same playground. History repeats, rhymes
whatever....
Cheers- The only book I've read on the Korean War is IF Stone's firsthand account, The Hidden History of the Korean War.
It is absolutely staggering. Why was it fought? No reason. It was a military exercise for MacArthur, just kind of for the hell
of it.
"... A conventional US attack on North Korea would be far more difficult. The North is a small nation of only 24.8 million. Its air and sea forces are obsolete and ineffective. They would be vaporized on the first day of a war. But North Korea's million-man army has been training and digging in for decades to resist a US invasion. Pyongyang's 88,000-man Special Forces are poised for suicide attacks on South Korea's political and military command and control and to cripple key US and South Korean air bases, notably Osan and Kunsan. ..."
"... The stupidity, cultural ignorance and geopolitical autism of the people that actually have their fingers on the trigger on our side in today's world is mind blowing. ..."
"... Starting a war with N Korea is crazy. Are we going to start a war that would kill millions in order to stop a war that does not exist? There has been little blood spilled between the Koreas in the last 60 years – let's try for another 60 years. ..."
"... How is Trump protecting us, if we are killing and dying in a far-off land? The truth is that our homeland is a very long way from being attacked by N Korea – PERIOD. ..."
"... North Korea has got nothing anyone wants so they won't be attacked. It is all a lot of bluffing, except if the Chinese (aghast at Trump's avowed view that China is raping the US economy) try to placate him by promising to give the North Koreans the cold shoulder. ..."
"... China cannot accept a collapse of North Korea into the US client south. ..."
"... China is the central, most important actor on the peninsula, and China controls whatever happens there. ..."
"... America's main weakness is its utterly delusional political and military leadership. ..."
"... We have not fought a peer since 1945, and since 1945 we have a long record of failure. At present, we are fighting and losing to lightly armed Third World militias. ..."
"... It is an open question as to whether we can defeat ISIS in Syria and Iraq, and we certainly cannot unless we ally ourselves with Iran, Russia, Hezbollah and Assad. ..."
"... What we are watching today is the collapse of the American military and empire. ..."
"... Lots of murkkans , the Trumpsters, are crying foul, They are 'betrayed' by Trump who now 'surrender to the deep state', 'the neocons have finally gotten to Trump', blah blah blah . ..."
"... Astute obsevers like Vltchek, Engdahl, Draistser ..reminded murkkans about the exercise in futility in the 'election circus' long ago. ..."
"... Mathematically, Ian Fleming's fundamental law of probability practically guarantees that the 45th POTUS would be same as the old boss, MIC front man who speaks with forked tongue. ..."
"... As the pathetic hack Fareed Zakaria of Times magazine would gush after the Syria bombing, ' With this act, Trump has just become POTUS ' He didnt know how right he's, hehehehe ..."
"... That will not sit very well with American global full spectrum dominance and end the day that American can commit war crimes, crimes against peace and crimes against humanity on the phantom WMD allegation as humanitarian intervention. ..."
"... The simple scenario germane to this article is if Trump deploys a carrier fleet even closer to the proximity of the Norks. ..."
"... To those interested in the Korean War, I highly recommend David Halberstam's posthumous book, The Coldest Winter: America and the Korean War. It is not a standard military chronicle instead a spellbinding journalistic read. Major theme, MacArthur's super ego, pomposity and geo-political ignorance resulting in catastrophe. American troops experienced the thrill of Stalingrad. In an eerie way, Trump now has a chance of becoming American Caesar 2.0 and in the very same playground. History repeats, rhymes whatever.... ..."
"... The only book I've read on the Korean War is IF Stone's firsthand account, The Hidden History of the Korean War. It is absolutely staggering. Why was it fought? No reason. It was a military exercise for MacArthur, just kind of for the hell of it. ..."
Memory of the bloody, indecisive first Koran War, 1950-53, which killed close to 3 million people, has faded. Few Americans have
any idea how ferocious a conventional second Korean War could be. They are used to seeing Uncle Sam beat up small, nearly defenseless
nations like Iraq, Libya or Syria that dare defy the Pax Americana.
The US could literally blow North Korea off the map using tactical
nuclear weapons based in Japan, South Korea and at sea with the 7th Fleet. Or delivered by B-52 and B-1 bombers and cruise missiles.
But this would cause clouds of lethal radiation and radioactive dust to blanket Japan, South Korea and heavily industrialized northeast
China, including the capital, Beijing.
China would be expected to threaten retaliation against the United States, Japan and South Korea to deter a nuclear war in next
door Korea. At the same time, if heavily attacked, a fight-to-the-end North Korea may fire off a number of nuclear-armed medium-range
missiles at Tokyo, Osaka, Okinawa and South Korea. These missiles are hidden in caves in the mountains on wheeled transporters and
hard to identify and knock out.
This is a huge risk. Such a nuclear exchange would expose about a third of the world's economy to nuclear contamination, not to
mention spreading nuclear winter around the globe.
A conventional US attack on North Korea would be far more difficult. The North is a small nation of only 24.8 million. Its
air and sea forces are obsolete and ineffective. They would be vaporized on the first day of a war. But North Korea's million-man
army has been training and digging in for decades to resist a US invasion. Pyongyang's 88,000-man Special Forces are poised for suicide
attacks on South Korea's political and military command and control and to cripple key US and South Korean air bases, notably Osan
and Kunsan.
North Korea may use chemical weapons such as VX and Sarin to knock out the US/South Korean and Japanese airbases, military depots,
ports and communications hubs. Missile attacks would be launched against US bases in Guam and Okinawa.
Short of using nuclear weapons, the US would be faced with mounting a major invasion of mountainous North Korea, something for
which it is today unprepared. It took the US six months to assemble a land force in Saudi Arabia just to attack feeble Iraq. Taking
on the tough North Korean army and militia in their mountain redoubts will prove a daunting challenge.
US analysts have in the past estimated a US invasion of North Korea would cost some 250,000 American casualties and at least $10
billion, though I believe such a war would cost four times that much today. The Army, Air Force and Marines would have to mobilize
reserves to wage a war in Korea. Already overstretched US forces would have to be withdrawn from Europe and the Mideast. Military
conscription might have to be re-introduced.
Indeed. It was a sorrowful read with the exception of the heroics of the First Marines at Chosin Reservoir. Wiki called that
action a victory as if rearguard actions or successful retreats could ever be put in a victory column.
The big point now is what do the Chinese think. They were the reason that there even was a Korean War for those who prefer
headlines over history or happen to be in elective office in the US government (or Pentagon).
The stupidity, cultural ignorance and geopolitical autism of the people that actually have their fingers on the trigger
on our side in today's world is mind blowing.
" Hit the dirt, join the crowd, lookee mamma, a mushroom cloud" from MAD magazine, in the sixties, a kids rag that makes some
people wonder why the non funny, non witty Onion even exists.
Today that cloud thing suddenly becomes real possibility. Did I say MAD?
Starting a war with N Korea is crazy. Are we going to start a war that would kill millions in order to stop a war that
does not exist? There has been little blood spilled between the Koreas in the last 60 years – let's try for another 60 years.
How is Trump protecting us, if we are killing and dying in a far-off land? The truth is that our homeland is a very long
way from being attacked by N Korea – PERIOD.
It is time to deescalate – it is time to trade with the bastard – it is time to open up N Korea. Send in the food. Help the
people. Be better than the dictator. Give his people what he cannot deliver. Give them the power to demand freedom. It is hard
to see – but when dictator governments trade with others, they evolve to freedom.
Peace - Art
p.s. The Trump Whisperer – Ivanka – needs to get in daddy's ear and say "cool it Pops."
North Korea has got nothing anyone wants so they won't be attacked. It is all a lot of bluffing, except if the Chinese (aghast
at Trump's avowed view that China is raping the US economy) try to placate him by promising to give the North Koreans the cold
shoulder.
History shows that the leadership of states in danger of losing their independent status will choose uncertain and perilous
courses of action . The best thing is this will fizzle out. If China tries to pressure Kim, he would seriously consider starting
a conventional war. He couldn't possibly win, but that is the point: China cannot accept a collapse of North Korea into the
US client south. Nuclear weapons will not be used in any event.
@bob sykes Any
discussion of a new Korean War that does not emphasize China is asinine, like this one. China is the central, most important
actor on the peninsula, and China controls whatever happens there.
China will not permit an American ally on the Yalu River. Any state bordering China on the Yalu must be explicitly pro-Chinese.
If a war does break out on the peninsula, China will intervene on the side of the North Koreans.
To call the first Korean War inconclusive is tendentious: China decisively defeated the US/NATO forces, and did so with
with a primitive WW I style army and no navy or air force to speak of. Human wave assaults sufficed then. They did not occupy
the whole peninsula because their primitive army lacked the logistical capacity to do so.
Today China has a large modern military with a full spectrum of capabilities, including tactical and strategic nuclear weapons
and a large amphibious force. China would crush the US, Japanese and South Korean militaries, even assuming Russia stands aside.
It didn't in Korea I and Vietnam. And China's strategic nuclear forces would prevent the US from using nuclear weapons on the
peninsula. Anyway, the antique nuclear weapons we have today may not even work.
America's main weakness is its utterly delusional political and military leadership. The military that invaded
Iraq no longer exists, and it was smaller than the one that liberated Kuwait. The US military has been downsized to the point
that it cannot meet our treaty commitments. Sequestration has stripped the remaining military of funds needed for training
and maintenance. Only a third of our fighter/bombers are available for war, and the pilots get only half the hours needed to
maintain their skills. We do not practice combined arms warfare any more.
We have not fought a peer since 1945, and since 1945 we have a long record of failure. At present, we are fighting and
losing to lightly armed Third World militias. The use of the MOAB against ISIS in Afghanistan was an indicator of panic
in our military command there and at home. It is an open question as to whether we can defeat ISIS in Syria and Iraq, and
we certainly cannot unless we ally ourselves with Iran, Russia, Hezbollah and Assad.
What we are watching today is the collapse of the American military and empire.
{We have not fought a peer since 1945, and since 1945 we have a long record of failure. }
Almost true.
Imperial Japan was no Nazi Germany.
Although Japanese were tenacious fighters and they had first-rate military hardware*, U.S. and U.S. Navy were a rung above
the Imperial Japanese military. Japan simply did not have the resources or the industrial might of U.S.
By the time Allies (really the U.S.) landed in Europe in 1944, Wehrmacht was a spent force: 80% of its best, toughest units
were destroyed on the Eastern Front. Even then, at the Battle of the Bulge U.S. troops ran from the advancing Germans (mostly
** ). GIs were saved by the powerful USAF when the skies cleared up.
So we don't really have a good example of peer-to-peer land warfare for US military (other than the US Civil War).
--
* Zero was considered superior to US equipment in the beginning.
** Heroic defense of Bastogne.
And the only thing that has kept Japan and South Korea non nuclear is the US. A real threat would be for the US to simply to
go home. When Trump was tweeting that exactly -- it was seen as quite threatening.
A nuclear North Korea which is barely in the nuclear club and doesn't have the economy to militarize is simply an annoyance
to China. Japan and South Korea could be real threats quite quickly. And there is no love lost between any of them.
An irony is that the US has effectively disarmed Europe via NATO, and if the US told Germany to take care of themselves, Russia
wouldn't feel threatened, they would be threatened.
The truth is that the US hasn't won a war since we decided to constrain our military in Korea. They wanted to nuke China, and
also wanted to use them in Vietnam.
North Korea's only threat is nuclear, which is hollow, since they are assured of massive retaliation in kind. I suppose China
has been OK with the situation, since it annoys us to no end and hasn't cost them much. So far. {The truth is that the US hasn't
won a war since we decided to constrain our military in Korea. They wanted to nuke China, and also wanted to use them in
Vietnam.}
This an enduring myth that was created to salve the psych wound of being beaten by 'inferior' yellow-man.
Other than using atomic bombs, there were no constraints on US military. US military was given a free hand to bomb and destroy
anything and everything, including civilian targets* in both wars.
As to nukes.
China had no nukes during Korean war, but Soviet Union did.
First SU nuke test: Aug 1949.
First US thermonuke test: Nov 1952
First SU thermonuke test: Aug 1953.
POTUS Truman fired delusional Gen McArthur because he knew SU would most certainly use tac nukes in Korea if US did.
If you recall, Truman had no compunction using nukes on civilian targets, so he must have had good reason to restrain the crazy
generals.
Same with Viet Nam: yes US military wanted to nuke Hanoi in desperation, but cooler civilian heads prevailed. Again, there
was near-certainty that SU would respond in kind in Viet Nam.
--
* targeted deliberately: war crimes.
'" If China is not going to solve North Korea , we will."
With this porky pie,
Trump becomes the 45th 'bald faced liars' elected by the murkkans.
And .
With the bombing of Syria, Yemen
Trump joins the 'prestigious' ranks of the previous 44 war criminals in WH.
Lots of murkkans , the Trumpsters, are crying foul, They are 'betrayed' by Trump who now 'surrender to the deep state',
'the neocons have finally gotten to Trump', blah blah blah .
B.S. --
Astute obsevers like Vltchek, Engdahl, Draistser ..reminded murkkans about the exercise in futility in the 'election circus'
long ago.
Mathematically, Ian Fleming's fundamental law of probability practically guarantees that the 45th POTUS would be same as
the old boss, MIC front man who speaks with forked tongue.
As the pathetic hack Fareed Zakaria of Times magazine would gush after the Syria bombing, ' With this act, Trump has
just become POTUS ' He didnt know how right he's, hehehehe
Why not allow that? That will not sit very well with American global full spectrum dominance and end the day that American
can commit war crimes, crimes against peace and crimes against humanity on the phantom WMD allegation as humanitarian intervention.
I picked up a batch of old Rollingstone magazines from my local library for pennies to use as bathroom/breakfast reading. One
issue had Matt Taibbi following Trump on the campaign trail while still battling for the Republican party nomination. In this
leg of his tour he talked about how big insurance conglomerates were setting the prices to their liking and how he as president
would bust them up etc.. Then came the commentary from Duck Dynasty types on how they are sick and tired of paying high premiums
and so on. It gave me a minor epiphany, namely that this guy is, was and always will be full of shit in other words nothing but
a super salesman.
While I was happy that he blew away the syphilitic structure of the mainstream parties and the press I now realize that the
volatile and insane world now has a monkey with a machine gun in a major position of power. This can't end well.
The Great Pumpkin cut his jib by beating up other businessmen in the vicious world of East coast real estate. In this world
he had the MacArthur motto for there being 'no substitute for victory'. If he transmogrifies his business instincts onto the world
stage, stock up on rice and beans (and iodine tablets).
The simple scenario germane to this article is if Trump deploys a carrier fleet even closer to the proximity of the Norks.
Who thinks fat boy Jong-Un is sane? Ivanka? Sending even just conventional missiles across the bow is well within his mental construct.
With their faulty accuracy they could accidentally hit the target. A carrier sunk. What options does Trump have now? None really.
It's show time and by probable extension, "overture, curtains, lights, this is it night of nights..."
To those interested in the Korean War, I highly recommend David Halberstam's posthumous book, The Coldest Winter: America
and the Korean War. It is not a standard military chronicle instead a spellbinding journalistic read. Major theme, MacArthur's
super ego, pomposity and geo-political ignorance resulting in catastrophe. American troops experienced the thrill of Stalingrad.
In an eerie way, Trump now has a chance of becoming American Caesar 2.0 and in the very same playground. History repeats, rhymes
whatever....
Cheers- The only book I've read on the Korean War is IF Stone's firsthand account, The Hidden History of the Korean War.
It is absolutely staggering. Why was it fought? No reason. It was a military exercise for MacArthur, just kind of for the hell
of it.
If there were ever a Just Cause for the Yanks to invade and bring democracy somewhere, it would be North Korea. The horrors
that generations of North Koreans in concentration camps are enduring, would even make the holo-jews cringe.
Then again, is Israel ready to take a second row seat on the holocaust narrative and let the North Koreans take the gold
medal of international victimhood?
And what do you do with millions of people coping with culture shock, paranoia, etc.? And, last but not least, who would
make our clothing for 5 cents a piece?
All in all. I do not think the Israeli's would let the USA attack North Korea.
Zero chance of any attack on Korea beyond a prearranged choreographed pinprick. The explanation is simple: nothing in it for the
Jooies and Izzies who worked overtime to install a US government of the jooies, by the jooies, for the jooies. Why would they
waste their satrap's assets when they could be used on Iran?
"... It isn't. It's the world's biggest, most advanced cloud-computing company with an online retail storefront stuck between you and it. In 2005-2006 it was already selling supercomputing capability for cents on the dollar - way ahead of Google and Microsoft and IBM. ..."
"... Do you really think the internet created Amazon, Snapchat, Facebook, etc? No, the internet was just a tool to be used. The people who created those businesses would have used any tool they had access to at the time because their original goal was not automation or innovation, it was only to get rich. ..."
"... "Disruptive parasitic intermediation" is superb, thanks. The entire phrase should appear automatically whenever "disruption"/"disruptive" or "innovation"/"innovative" is used in a laudatory sense. ..."
"... >that people have a much bigger aversion to loss than gain. ..."
"... As the rich became uber rich, they hid the money in tax havens. As for globalization, this has less to do these days with technological innovation and more to do with economic exploitation. ..."
+100 to your comment. There is a decided attempt by the plutocrats to get us to focus our anger
on automation and not the people, like they themselves, who control the automation ..
Plutocrats control much automation, but so do thousands of wannabe plutocrats whose expertise
lets them come from nowhere to billionairehood in a few short years by using it to create some
novel, disruptive parasitic intermediation that makes their fortune. The "sharing economy" relies
on automation. As does Amazon, Snapchat, Facebook, Dropbox, Pinterest,
It's not a stretch to say that automation creates new plutocrats . So blame the individuals,
or blame the phenomenon, or both, whatever works for you.
So John D. Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie weren't plutocrats–or were somehow better plutocrats?
Blame not individuals or phenomena but society and the public and elites who shape it. Our
social structure is also a kind of machine and perhaps the most imperfectly designed of all of
them. My own view is that the people who fear machines are the people who don't like or understand
machines. Tools, and the use of them, are an essential part of being human.
I'm replying to your upthread comment which seems to say today's careless campers and the technology
they rely on are somehow different from those other figures we know so well from history. In fact
all technology is tremendously disruptive but somehow things have a way of sorting themselves
out. So–just to repeat–the thing is not to "blame" the individuals or the automation but to get
to work on the sorting. People like Jeff Bezos with his very flaky business model could be little
more than a blip.
Automation? Those companies? I guess Amazon automates ordering not exactly R. Daneel
Olivaw for sure. If some poor Asian girl doesn't make the boots or some Agri giant doesn't make
the flour Amazon isn't sending you nothin', and the other companies are even more useless.
'Automation? Those companies? I guess Amazon automates ordering not exactly R. Daneel Olivaw
for sure.'
Um. Amazon is highly deceptive, in that most people think it's a giant online retail store.
It isn't. It's the world's biggest, most advanced cloud-computing company with an online retail
storefront stuck between you and it. In 2005-2006 it was already selling supercomputing capability
for cents on the dollar - way ahead of Google and Microsoft and IBM.
Do you really think the internet created Amazon, Snapchat, Facebook, etc? No, the internet
was just a tool to be used. The people who created those businesses would have used any tool they
had access to at the time because their original goal was not automation or innovation, it was
only to get rich.
Let me remind you of Thomas Edison. If he would have lived 100 years later, he would have used
computers instead of electricity to make his fortune. (In contrast, Nikolai Tesla/George Westinghouse
used electricity to be innovative, NOT to get rich ). It isn't the tool that is used, it is the
mindset of the people who use the tool
"Disruptive parasitic intermediation" is superb, thanks. The entire phrase should appear
automatically whenever "disruption"/"disruptive" or "innovation"/"innovative" is used in a laudatory
sense.
100% agreement with your first point in this thread, too. That short comment should stand as a
sort of epigraph/reference for all future discussion of these things.
No disagreement on the point about actual and wannabe plutocrats either, but perhaps it's worth
emphasising that it's not just a matter of a few successful (and many failed) personal get-rich-quick
schemes, real as those are: the potential of 'universal machines' tends to be released in the
form of parasitic intermediation because, for the time being at least, it's released into a world
subject to the 'demands' of capital, and at a (decades-long) moment of crisis for the traditional
model of capital accumulation. 'Universal' potential is set free to seek rents and maybe to
do a bit of police work on the side, if the two can even be separated.
The writer of this article from 2010 [
http://www.metamute.org/editorial/articles/artificial-scarcity-world-overproduction-escape-isnt
] surely wouldn't want it to be taken as conclusive, but it's a good example of one marginal
train of serious thought about all of the above. See also 'On Africa and Self-Reproducing Automata'
written by George Caffentzis 20 years or so earlier [https://libcom.org/library/george-caffentzis-letters-blood-fire];
apologies for link to entire (free, downloadable) book, but my crumbling print copy of the single
essay stubbornly resists uploading.
Unfortunately, the healthcare insurance debate has been simply a battle between competing ideologies.
I don't think Americans understand the key role that universal healthcare coverage plays in creating
resilient economies.
Before penicillin, heart surgeries, cancer cures, modern obstetrics etc. that it didn't matter
if you are rich or poor if you got sick. There was a good chance you would die in either case
which was a key reason that the average life span was short.
In the mid-20th century that began to change so now lifespan is as much about income as anything
else. It is well known that people have a much bigger aversion to loss than gain. So if you currently
have healthcare insurance through a job, then you don't want to lose it by taking a risk to do
something where you are no longer covered.
People are moving less to find work – why would you uproot your family to work for a company
that is just as likely to lay you off in two years in a place you have no roots? People are less
likely to day to quit jobs to start a new business – that is a big gamble today because you not
only have to keep the roof over your head and put food on the table, but you also have to cover
an even bigger cost of healthcare insurance in the individual market or you have a much greater
risk of not making it to your 65th birthday.
In countries like Canada, healthcare coverage is barely a discussion point if somebody is looking
to move, change jobs, or start a small business.
If I had a choice today between universal basic income vs universal healthcare coverage, I
would choose the healthcare coverage form a societal standpoint. That is simply insuring a risk
and can allow people much greater freedom during the working lives. Similarly, Social Security
is of similar importance because it provides basic protection against disability and not starving
in the cold in your old age. These are vastly different incentive systems than paying people money
to live on even if they are not working.
Our ideological debates should be factoring these types of ideas in the discussion instead
of just being a food fight.
>that people have a much bigger aversion to loss than gain.
Yeah well if the downside is that you're dead this starts to make sense.
>instead of just being a food fight.
The thing is that the Powers-That-Be want it to be a food fight, as that is a great stalling
at worst and complete diversion at best tactic. Good post, btw.
As the rich became uber rich, they hid the money in tax havens. As for globalization, this
has less to do these days with technological innovation and more to do with economic exploitation.
I will note that Germany, Japan, South Korea, and a few other nations have not bought into
this madness and have retained a good chunk of their manufacturing sectors.
'As for globalization, this has less to do these days with technological innovation and more
to do with economic exploitation.'
Economic exploiters are always with us. You're underrating the role of a specific technological
innovation. Globalization as we now know it really became feasible in the late 1980s with the
spread of instant global electronic networks, mostly via the fiberoptic cables through which everything
- telephony, Internet, etc - travels Internet packet mode.
That's the point at which capital could really start moving instantly around the world, and
companies could really begin to run global supply chains and workforces. That's the point when
shifts of workers in facilities in Bangalore or Beijing could start their workdays as shifts of
workers in the U.S. were ending theirs, and companies could outsource and offshore their whole
operations.
"... As soon as I turned on a television here I wondered if I had arrived through an alt-right wormhole. ..."
"... On the popular Russian television program "Vesti Nedeli," the host, Dmitry Kiselyov, questioned how Syria could have been responsible for the attack. After all, he said, the Assad government had destroyed all of its chemical weapons. It was the terrorists who possessed them, said Mr. Kiselyov, who also heads Russia's main state-run international media arm. ..."
"... One of Mr. Kiselyov's correspondents on the scene mocked "Western propagandists" for believing the Trump line, saying munitions at the air base had "as much to do with chemical weapons as the test tube in the hands of Colin Powell had to do with weapons of mass destruction in Iraq." ..."
"... RT, the Russian-financed English-language news service, initially translated Mr. Putin as calling it a "false flag. ..."
"... As the pro-Kremlin newspaper Izvestia put it, "Apparently it was for good reason Donald Trump called unverified information in the mass media one of the main problems in the U.S." ..."
"... The author asserts that those who questioned the Assad-did-it narrative were only on the alt-right "fringe". But this is absurd, as anyone who looks at a non-alt right site like https://consortiumnews.com/ can easily confirm. And of course a highly respected MIT scientist, Theodore Postol, has published not one but two notes effectively showing that the White House "Intelligence Report" about the incident was rubbish ("obviously false, misleading and amateurish") - but you are unlikely to read about this in the NYT. ..."
"... The US media should have learned something about the Iraq war, but it still hasn't. It blindly supports every stupid foreign policy decision wrapped in humanitarian clothes while being unwilling to honestly tell the American people that its a proxy war where all the actors in it are evil. That no one knows for sure what happened because it wasn't investigated. The media in Russia may be a tool of the Kremlin but the US media is the tool of the war profiteers. There is no way to get around that no matter how Rutenberg tries to frame it around what he thinks is the correct opinion. ..."
"... Israel wants the Syrian war to go on forever. The Saudi and Iranian proxies aren't saints. There are no good guys yet removing Assad is the preferred outcome for the US media. ..."
"... The good thing about the US corporate media is that it is being put behind paywalls. I just use software to block these sites so I don't even bother wasting my time by clicking and then having to click back. I get "the line" from sources not behind a paywall. Only an idiot would pay to be lied to on behalf of groups that do not have the US interest at heart. ..."
Mr. Trump had just ordered a Tomahawk strike against Syria's Shayrat air base, from which,
the United States said, President Bashar al-Assad of Syria had launched the chemical weapons attack
that killed more than 80 and sickened hundreds.
As soon as I turned on a television here I wondered if I had arrived through an alt-right
wormhole.
Back in the States, the prevailing notion in the news was that Mr. Assad had indeed been responsible
for the chemical strike. There was some "reportage" from sources like the conspiracy theorist
and radio host Alex Jones - best known for suggesting that the Sandy Hook school massacre was
staged - that the chemical attack was a "false flag" operation by terrorist rebel groups to goad
the United States into attacking Mr. Assad. But that was a view from the fringe.
Here in Russia, it was the dominant theme throughout the overwhelmingly state-controlled mainstream
media.
On the popular Russian television program "Vesti Nedeli," the host, Dmitry Kiselyov, questioned
how Syria could have been responsible for the attack. After all, he said, the Assad government
had destroyed all of its chemical weapons. It was the terrorists who possessed them, said Mr.
Kiselyov, who also heads Russia's main state-run international media arm.
One of Mr. Kiselyov's correspondents on the scene mocked "Western propagandists" for believing
the Trump line, saying munitions at the air base had "as much to do with chemical weapons as the
test tube in the hands of Colin Powell had to do with weapons of mass destruction in Iraq."
That teed up Mr. Putin to suggest in nationally televised comments a couple of days later that
perhaps the attack was an intentional "provocation" by the rebels to goad the United States into
attacking Mr. Assad. RT, the Russian-financed English-language news service, initially translated
Mr. Putin as calling it a "false flag." The full Alex Jones was complete.
When Trump administration officials tried to counter Russia's "false narratives" by releasing
to reporters a declassified report detailing Syria's chemical weapons stockpiles - and suggesting
to The Associated Press without proof that Russia knew of Mr. Assad's plans to use chemical weapons
in advance - the Russians had a ready answer borrowed from Mr. Trump himself.
As the pro-Kremlin newspaper Izvestia put it, "Apparently it was for good reason Donald
Trump called unverified information in the mass media one of the main problems in the U.S."
It was the best evidence I've seen of the folly of Mr. Trump's anti-press approach. You can't
spend more than a year attacking the credibility of the "dishonest media" and then expect to use
its journalism as support for your position during an international crisis - at least not with
any success.
While Mr. Trump and his supporters may think that undermining the news media serves their larger
interests, in this great information war it serves Mr. Putin's interests more. It means playing
on his turf, where he excels.
Integral to Mr. Putin's governing style has been a pliant press that makes his government the
main arbiter of truth.
While talking to the beaten but unbowed members of the real journalism community here, I heard
eerie hints of Trumpian proclamations in their war stories.
Take Mr. Trump's implicit threat to the owner of The Washington Post, Jeff Bezos, during the
election campaign. In case you've forgotten, while calling The Post's coverage of him "horrible
and false," Mr. Trump warned that if he won the presidency Mr. Bezos's other business, Amazon,
would have "such problems." (The Post was undaunted, and the issue hasn't come up again.)
300 Words
Is this parody or for real? Everything he cites the Russian press as saying
seems to me far more believable than the "alternative" version purveyed by
the NYT and other such "respectable" sources.
To put it mildly, anyone
with half a brain would be willing to accept that it was far more likely
that the alleged chemical attack was the work of the not-so-moderate rebels,
rather than the Syrian Government which had nothing to gain, and everything
to lose, from such an attack (assuming that it still had chemical weapons,
which even the US previously admitted was no longer the case). That those
fighting Assad do indeed possess stocks of chemical weapons is no secret.
Regarding Isis, for example, you can learn from
Newsweek
today (April
17) via Yahoo News:
ISIS Militants Launch Multiple Chemical Weapons Attacks On Iraqi
Troops
The author tells us that
Back in the States, the prevailing notion in the news was that Mr.
Assad had indeed been responsible for the chemical strike.
Of course this was and is the prevailing view, a convincing testimony to
the effect of the "fake news" that is reported as "fact" by the mainstream
media.
The author asserts that those who questioned the Assad-did-it narrative
were only on the alt-right "fringe". But this is absurd, as anyone who looks
at a non-alt right site like
https://consortiumnews.com/
can easily confirm. And of course a highly
respected MIT scientist, Theodore Postol, has published not one but two
notes effectively showing that the White House "Intelligence Report" about
the incident was rubbish ("obviously false, misleading and amateurish") -
but you are unlikely to read about this in the NYT.
I live outside the US and also have the time and energy to investigate
alternative sources. What amazes and pains me is that many friends of mine
(US, UK) have swallowed hook, line and sinker the official story, not only
about this incident but the general story about what is going on in Syria
(and elsewhere, notably vis-ŕ-vis Russia).
400 Words
@for-the-record
Is this parody or for real? Everything he cites the Russian press as saying
seems to me far more believable than the "alternative" version purveyed by
the NYT and other such "respectable" sources.
To put it mildly, anyone with half a brain would be willing to accept that
it was far more likely that the alleged chemical attack was the work of the
not-so-moderate rebels, rather than the Syrian Government which had nothing
to gain, and everything to lose, from such an attack (assuming that it still
had chemical weapons, which even the US previously admitted was no longer
the case). That those fighting Assad do indeed possess stocks of chemical
weapons is no secret. Regarding Isis, for example, you can learn from
Newsweek
today (April 17) via Yahoo News:
ISIS Militants Launch Multiple Chemical Weapons Attacks On Iraqi Troops
The author tells us that
Back in the States, the prevailing notion in the news was that Mr. Assad
had indeed been responsible for the chemical strike.
Of course this was and is the prevailing view, a convincing testimony to the
effect of the "fake news" that is reported as "fact" by the mainstream
media.
The author asserts that those who questioned the Assad-did-it narrative were
only on the alt-right "fringe". But this is absurd, as anyone who looks at a
non-alt right site like https://consortiumnews.com/ can easily confirm. And
of course a highly respected MIT scientist, Theodore Postol, has published
not one but two notes effectively showing that the White House "Intelligence
Report" about the incident was rubbish ("obviously false, misleading and
amateurish") -- but you are unlikely to read about this in the NYT.
I live outside the US and also have the time and energy to investigate
alternative sources. What amazes and pains me is that many friends of mine
(US, UK) have swallowed hook, line and sinker the official story, not only
about this incident but the general story about what is going on in Syria
(and elsewhere, notably vis-ŕ-vis Russia).
many friends of mine (US, UK) have swallowed hook, line and sinker the
official story, not only about this incident but the general story about
what is going on in Syria (and elsewhere, notably vis-ŕ-vis Russia).
It's unreal to me after everything that has happened the last 15 years
that anyone who lived through it could not have learned a thing. It seems to
be getting more blatant too. Now the BBC is pushing neocon talking points
harder than most US outlets.
Don't
ever
trust a western news outlet whenever it goes on a
months long crusade to 'expose' a certain regime that is alleged to be doing
exactly what our 'allies' do and get no coverage about. I knew little about
what was going on in Syria years ago but when the BBC started telling me how
horrible 'barrel bombs' were over and over, night after night, making sure
to mention Assad in every sentence, my bullshit detector sprang up and I
looked at the alt media I trusted. (Which I trusted as taking the narrative
from them I was able to better predict and understand the world and this
simply can't be said for mainstream media)
I know a guy who thinks of himself as worldly but reads WaPo and Der
Speigel daily. He doesn't understand how I can't believe how good Obama
handled the US economy and how low US unemployment is. Any attempt to
explain that US unemployment numbers post-1994 are not what he thinks it is
is met with a dismissive as though I am full of bullshit.
I think it might also be generational. I grew up in my teens with Iraq
and the explosion of alt middle east commentators and journalists who posted
to the net what they'd never get cleared in the MSM. You know exactly the
deal with everybody, the anti-war left, the 'alt-right', the counter jihadis
and the important motivations and differences between them that colour their
commentary on different events, but it still didn't change the fact that
what they were posting was news and information that was being deliberately
obscured. But for a lot of people in their 40s and older everything non-MSM
looks like InfoWars and is scary.
It must be scary to be plugged into the MSM today. A kind of learned
helplessness like this.
many friends of mine (US, UK) have swallowed hook, line and sinker the
official story, not only about this incident but the general story about
what is going on in Syria (and elsewhere, notably vis-ŕ-vis Russia).
It's unreal to me after everything that has happened the last 15 years that
anyone who lived through it could not have learned a thing. It seems to be
getting more blatant too. Now the BBC is pushing neocon talking points
harder than most US outlets.
Don't
ever
trust a western news outlet whenever it goes on a months
long crusade to 'expose' a certain regime that is alleged to be doing
exactly what our 'allies' do and get no coverage about. I knew little about
what was going on in Syria years ago but when the BBC started telling me how
horrible 'barrel bombs' were over and over, night after night, making sure
to mention Assad in every sentence, my bullshit detector sprang up and I
looked at the alt media I trusted. (Which I trusted as taking the narrative
from them I was able to better predict and understand the world and this
simply can't be said for mainstream media)
I know a guy who thinks of himself as worldly but reads WaPo and Der Speigel
daily. He doesn't understand how I can't believe how good Obama handled the
US economy and how low US unemployment is. Any attempt to explain that US
unemployment numbers post-1994 are not what he thinks it is is met with a
dismissive as though I am full of bullshit.
I think it might also be generational. I grew up in my teens with Iraq and
the explosion of alt middle east commentators and journalists who posted to
the net what they'd never get cleared in the MSM. You know exactly the deal
with everybody, the anti-war left, the 'alt-right', the counter jihadis and
the important motivations and differences between them that colour their
commentary on different events, but it still didn't change the fact that
what they were posting was news and information that was being deliberately
obscured. But for a lot of people in their 40s and older everything non-MSM
looks like InfoWars and is scary.
It must be scary to be plugged into the MSM today. A kind of learned
helplessness like this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8moePxHpvok
Nice short film. However, I cannot agree that people are in some kind of "oh
dear" mindset. On the contrary, they are easily instrumented into supporting
any random "something must be (militarily) done" call for action. Maybe a
direct consequence of post-Gulf War 1 triumphalism, when the US was great
again and apparently had left behind of trauma of Vietnam for good (that was
an actual talking point, believe it or not!). With the Soviet Union no more,
poised to rework the world in its own image, the US was!
It all went south
of course. We got the Yougoslavia catastrophe. Taking sides along with
Europeans acting according to reflexes harking back to 1914 and dropping
bombs didn't go all that well. When bombing started, Serbia was as
MSM-tarred as Syria is today. We got 10 years of suppressing Mr. Hussein.
Something was happening in Russia and maybe Chechnya and Georgia but no-one
was all too certain what or why. We got the surprise Hutu-on-Tutsi massacre
after which liberventionists were clamoring that "something should have been
done". There was some "cruise missile diplomacy" (i.e. Clinton bombs Sudan).
There were noises from Afghanistan with military commanders in particular
Ahmad Shah Massoud fighting someone called "Taliban" but nobody cared about
that. There was the marginally interesting Israel-Palestinian conflict with
neverending talks and the Israelis starting to behave like jerks after the
assassination of Yitzhak Rabin. We got first "hard" terrorism hits: A
bombing in the WTC basement, a sarin gas attack in Tokyo, a diplomatic
mission in Africa and of course the OKC bombing. Well, I guess those years
of practically pre-Internet chaos were when "liberventionism" gelled.
The US media should have learned something about the Iraq war, but it still
hasn't. It blindly supports every stupid foreign policy decision wrapped in
humanitarian clothes while being unwilling to honestly tell the American
people that its a proxy war where all the actors in it are evil. That no one
knows for sure what happened because it wasn't investigated. The media in
Russia may be a tool of the Kremlin but the US media is the tool of the war
profiteers. There is no way to get around that no matter how Rutenberg tries
to frame it around what he thinks is the correct opinion.
Also VIPS had
American intelligence contacts in the Middle East who said the Syrians hit
something that had chemicals in it. Everyone has their anonymous
intelligence sources. Assad isn't going anywhere there could have been a
proper investigation. The US media salivated at the bombing of Syria. The US
media is the American Empire's id. It tells it to do stupid stuff that is
going to get it killed. The US media loves to play nuclear chicken with
Russia. I suppose psychopaths need a lot of stimulation and what could be
more stimulating than a risk of nuclear war.
If the US media was doing its job it would not just be after Trump's
relationship with Russia. It would be after the whole American
establishments cozy relationship with Israel and Saudi Arabia. They've
turned the US into a banana empire. Of course the US media is tied to
weapons producers and Israel gets a welfare check to buy American arms and
Saudi Arabia buys American arms. Also Israel no matter what it does is
protected because of guilt (which will be its undoing because its bad
behavior is not being checked). If Russia bought American arms I bet the US
media would love Putin. The US media then would take it upon themselves to
support Putin against his enemies.
Israel wants the Syrian war to go on forever. The Saudi and Iranian
proxies aren't saints. There are no good guys yet removing Assad is the
preferred outcome for the US media. Its irrational unless you realize who
its working for. Its not the American people. Its not even working to keep
the US Empire in a position of strength. It demands obedience to the whims
of the Empire's global subjects and its domestic war industry. That is what
this Russian crap was about Trump. Maybe they tried to interfere. People
were going to vote the way they voted anyway because Trump struck an
emotional cord with his larger than life personality and the Democrats
conspired against the candidate that could have beaten him (Bernie) while
making sure no one that could win would run for the Democrat nomination.
Also the Israelis are right wing and they get away with stuff the Alt-right
could never get away with in the US (and I hope wouldn't want to engage in).
What they do to the Palestinians is straight out of Nazi Germany before the
holocaust (which is coming for the Palestinians). They loved Trump and voted
for him. US media doesn't make a big deal about this. Any reporter who did
would risk losing their job.
The good thing about the US corporate media is that it is being put
behind paywalls. I just use software to block these sites so I don't even
bother wasting my time by clicking and then having to click back. I get "the
line" from sources not behind a paywall. Only an idiot would pay to be lied
to on behalf of groups that do not have the US interest at heart. By being
whores for war profiteers and their global allies the US media makes Russian
government controlled media seem great in comparison. There is no reason why
the US should be a whore for unsavory governments and organizations across
the world. Its 20 trillion in debt and the US media uses verbal abuse and
praise to manipulate the President into making war, while framing the war
into simplistic and cartoonish terms. There are some that are extremely
wealthy. The Europeans could handle their own security but manipulating the
US to do it is easy because of the US media and easily malleable
politicians.
How about the US media find some poor defenseless country and harp up a
war and bleed the US Empire dry of its wealth in a fruitless quagmire and
call it a day? Some of us do have a self preservation instinct and fighting
Russia for the mess in Syria is stupid. If it was me I'd try to get the
defense companies to focus on space and space mining. Whoever controls outer
space will control humanity's destiny. But go ahead bleed the US dry on
these short sided money grabbing crusades so other countries can take over
outer space instead.
"... "I think it is clear to all of us that the reign of the Assad family is coming to an end, but the question of how that ends, and the transition itself, could be very important, in our view, to the durability, the stability inside of a unified Syria. We are not presupposing how that occurs," the more measured Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was quoted by The Washington Post as saying in Italy before he flew to Russia. http://www.denverpost.com/2017/04/12/trump-is-escalating-foreign-conflicts/ ..."
So we're not going into Syria, but neither are we going to tolerate the tactics Assad has been
using for six years. Where exactly is the "red line" in Syria? The president's spokesman, Sean
Spicer, further muddied the waters, making similar statements about barrel bombs.
This kind of confusion doesn't help American allies or even our foes like Syria, Russia and Iran
who are trying to navigate this conflict. Trump needs to take a page from the book of his cabinet
members who have been talking with more clarity about Syria and Russia.
"I think it is clear to all of us that the reign of the Assad family is coming to an end, but
the question of how that ends, and the transition itself, could be very important, in our view,
to the durability, the stability inside of a unified Syria. We are not presupposing how that
occurs," the more measured Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was quoted by The Washington Post
as saying in Italy before he flew to Russia.
http://www.denverpost.com/2017/04/12/trump-is-escalating-foreign-conflicts/
"... overwhelming majority of US political "elite" is generally an office plankton with law or political "science" (or journalism--which is not a profession or a skill) degrees from Ivy League "humanities" departments and their comprehension of the war is limited to Hollywood. Most difficulties in life they ever experienced was, most likely, being overbooked for the first class seats on the flight to Hawaii (or any other resort). ..."
No one has forgotten the near genocide and no one in Korea, north or south, wants to repeat
the experience.
Meanwhile, overwhelming majority of US political "elite" is generally an office plankton
with law or political "science" (or journalism--which is not a profession or a skill) degrees
from Ivy League "humanities" departments and their comprehension of the war is limited to Hollywood.
Most difficulties in life they ever experienced was, most likely, being overbooked for the first
class seats on the flight to Hawaii (or any other resort).
"... Just as the day of rest was a spiritual discipline that demonstrated there is more to life than production and consumption - and so was a threat to every narrative of power and control... ..."
"... The spring festival was originally a fertility celebration, so the bunnies connection runs deep. And shallow. ..."
Easter echoes the eons old human festivity to celebrate the March exquinox (in the northern hemisphere)
and the arrival of spring. The dark and cold days of winter are gone. The bright time of fertility
has come.
Today's fertility symbols of Easter, the egg and the hare,
relate to the old Germanic fertility goddess Eostre (Ostara). Ishtar, a Mesopotamian goddess
of love, stepped down into the
underworld of death but was revived. The Christian resurrection of Jesus is probably a transformation
of this older hopeful tale.
When the Christian message spread from its eastern Mediterranean origin its incorporation of old
local gods and fables helped to convert the multi-theistic societies to the new monotheistic
* believe. The gods of the pre-Christian religions were not completely discarded but their
tales transformed to support the new united message the Christian preachers were spreading.
But whatever. - It is spring, the darkness vanishes and it is my favored holiday. This year the
Julian and Gregorian calendars coincide. We thus
follow
the Russian Barbarians and wish us all
Happy Easter
Faberge egg with spring flowers and music box-
bigger
Please join me, v. Goethe and Dr. Faust in our traditional
Easter Walk:
Look from this height whereon we find us
Back to the town we have left behind us,
Where from the dark and narrow door
Forth a motley multitude pour.
They sun themselves gladly and all are gay,
They celebrate Christ's resurrection to-day.
For have not they themselves arisen?
From smoky huts and hovels and stables,
From labor's bonds and traffic's prison,
From the confinement of roofs and gables,
From many a cramping street and alley,
From churches full of the old world's night,
All have come out to the day's broad light.
...
How it hums o'er the fields and clangs from the steeple!
This is the real heaven of the people,
Both great and little are merry and gay,
I am a man, too, I can be, to-day.
* The Christian Trinity
, the three aspects of the one God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, is a doctrinaire addition
of the 4th century. It just adds an explanatory layer on top of the Abrahamic core of the monotheistic
Christian message.
Happy Easter to all and may we celebrate more Happy Easters to come!
Thanks B for reminding us that as long as we continue to celebrate Easter and remember what
it represents, we are also celebrating hope, the possibility of renewal and setting humanity on
a path towards peace and away from greed, violence, exploitation and lack of care for our fellow
humans, animals and other travellers on this planet.
Actually the Trinity was one of the earliest pantheistic traditions incorporated and the most
foundational to Christianity, as it incorporated the Greek Year Gods, essentially past, present
and future. (Father, Son, Holy Spirit)
A good book on the subject; http://www.gutenberg.org/files/30250/30250-h/30250-h.htm
Of course, the Catholic Church, as the eternal institution, didn't really care for a foundational
concept of renewal and did its best to fudge the message. Which they did a good job of, resulting
in the need for Luther to push the reset button.
Then again the essential fallacy of monotheism is that absolute is basis, not apex, so a spiritual
absolute would be the essence of sentience, from which consciousness rises, not an ideal of wisdom
and judgement from which it fell. The new born babe, not the wise old man.
It's just socially effective to assert the laws are given, rather than emergent with the processes
they describe. The assumptions are still deeply embedded in western culture, even if the folk
concepts have faded.
Or whether doth my mind, being crowned with you,
Drink up the monarch's plague, this flattery?
Or whether shall I say, mine eye saith true,
And that your love taught it this alchemy,
To make of monsters and things indigest
Such cherubins as your sweet self resemble,
Creating every bad a perfect best,
As fast as objects to his beams assemble?
O! 'tis the first, 'tis flattery in my seeing,
And my great mind most kingly drinks it up:
Mine eye well knows what with his gust is 'greeing,
And to his palate doth prepare the cup:
If it be poisoned, 'tis the lesser sin
That mine eye loves it and doth first begin.
Christianity proclaims that it is righteous and it is at war with (battling) ALL the other religions
which are deemed to be (at best) false. The adherents to these other religions are misled (at
best) or evil. Christianity says that it cannot tolerate (must destroy) evil. Accordingly, one
day the king of Christianity will return to rule the world.
Islam offers up the same story.
What a perfect formula we have for fomenting war. Inspiring youths to kill for their (faith)
religion.
Religion is a fundamental component in the justification of mass murder. It's been used this
way for centuries and it has not ebbed.
Just as the day of rest was a spiritual discipline that demonstrated there is more to life
than production and consumption - and so was a threat to every narrative of power and control...
So the resurrection is a symbol that the alternative narrative of the Kingdom of Heaven does
triumph over the fear and death we all live in. Not only does the Kingdom of Heaven out-survive
death, it transforms it. The resurrection narrative does not defeat the powers of this world through
conflict. It 'outlives' them, most especially with those eternal qualities of mercy, forgiveness,
life, light, and yes, love.
May we all celebrate this day and the lives of those who have pointed us all to a life of wholeness.
thank you b, for this site and for your work to host it.
I checked and indeed, you can find Russian greeting cards "Happy Easter", but that seems to be
copied from the West. More standard is to greet people on that day with words "Christ has resurrected",
and post cards have those words but there are also other, less religious versions. From Holy Internet:
" Traditional Easter greeting is Христос воскрес! (Christ is risen!) and the response is Воистину
воскрес! (In truth He is risen!) ".
A muslim couple walk past a shop, there's eggs & stuff and a big sign reading 'Happy Easter'.
One of them to the other: 'From what I understand, some rabbit was born to them...'
I think the next phase change of human evolution will involve a switch back from the linear, growth
oriented view of the last several thousand years, to a more cyclical, thermodynamic conceptual
foundation.
For instance, we think of time as the point of the present moving past to future, but the reality
is change turning future to past. Tomorrow becomes yesterday because the earth turns. Events have
to occur, in order to be determined.
Alan Watts used the example of a boat and its wake, as analogy, in that the wake doesn't steer
the boat, the boat creates the wake. Events are first in the present, then in the past.
This makes time an effect of activity, similar to temperature, color, pressure, etc.
If you consider the actual, physical manifestation of time and history, this concept on which
human culture is based, it is residue in the present state. What is measured as time; duration,
is the state of the present, as events form and dissolve.
The overwhelming physical reality is the thermodynamic convection cycles/feedback loops in
which we evolved. They underlay all aspects of biology and civilization. Right now, you might
say we are at the crest of an enormous wave and it's mostly foam and bubbles, with a massive undertow.
thanks for the easter reminder, amidst everything else that is being focused on.. new beginnings
which we surely do need... looking for new leaders to pave a new direction here at this moment
and don't see anything on the horizon yet..
"... A conventional US attack on North Korea would be far more difficult. The North is a small nation of only 24.8 million. Its air and sea forces are obsolete and ineffective. They would be vaporized on the first day of a war. But North Korea's million-man army has been training and digging in for decades to resist a US invasion. Pyongyang's 88,000-man Special Forces are poised for suicide attacks on South Korea's political and military command and control and to cripple key US and South Korean air bases, notably Osan and Kunsan. ..."
"... The stupidity, cultural ignorance and geopolitical autism of the people that actually have their fingers on the trigger on our side in today's world is mind blowing. ..."
"... Starting a war with N Korea is crazy. Are we going to start a war that would kill millions in order to stop a war that does not exist? There has been little blood spilled between the Koreas in the last 60 years – let's try for another 60 years. ..."
"... How is Trump protecting us, if we are killing and dying in a far-off land? The truth is that our homeland is a very long way from being attacked by N Korea – PERIOD. ..."
"... North Korea has got nothing anyone wants so they won't be attacked. It is all a lot of bluffing, except if the Chinese (aghast at Trump's avowed view that China is raping the US economy) try to placate him by promising to give the North Koreans the cold shoulder. ..."
"... China cannot accept a collapse of North Korea into the US client south. ..."
"... China is the central, most important actor on the peninsula, and China controls whatever happens there. ..."
"... America's main weakness is its utterly delusional political and military leadership. ..."
"... We have not fought a peer since 1945, and since 1945 we have a long record of failure. At present, we are fighting and losing to lightly armed Third World militias. ..."
"... It is an open question as to whether we can defeat ISIS in Syria and Iraq, and we certainly cannot unless we ally ourselves with Iran, Russia, Hezbollah and Assad. ..."
"... What we are watching today is the collapse of the American military and empire. ..."
"... Lots of murkkans , the Trumpsters, are crying foul, They are 'betrayed' by Trump who now 'surrender to the deep state', 'the neocons have finally gotten to Trump', blah blah blah . ..."
"... Astute obsevers like Vltchek, Engdahl, Draistser ..reminded murkkans about the exercise in futility in the 'election circus' long ago. ..."
"... Mathematically, Ian Fleming's fundamental law of probability practically guarantees that the 45th POTUS would be same as the old boss, MIC front man who speaks with forked tongue. ..."
"... As the pathetic hack Fareed Zakaria of Times magazine would gush after the Syria bombing, ' With this act, Trump has just become POTUS ' He didnt know how right he's, hehehehe ..."
"... That will not sit very well with American global full spectrum dominance and end the day that American can commit war crimes, crimes against peace and crimes against humanity on the phantom WMD allegation as humanitarian intervention. ..."
"... The simple scenario germane to this article is if Trump deploys a carrier fleet even closer to the proximity of the Norks. ..."
"... To those interested in the Korean War, I highly recommend David Halberstam's posthumous book, The Coldest Winter: America and the Korean War. It is not a standard military chronicle instead a spellbinding journalistic read. Major theme, MacArthur's super ego, pomposity and geo-political ignorance resulting in catastrophe. American troops experienced the thrill of Stalingrad. In an eerie way, Trump now has a chance of becoming American Caesar 2.0 and in the very same playground. History repeats, rhymes whatever.... ..."
"... The only book I've read on the Korean War is IF Stone's firsthand account, The Hidden History of the Korean War. It is absolutely staggering. Why was it fought? No reason. It was a military exercise for MacArthur, just kind of for the hell of it. ..."
Memory of the bloody, indecisive first Koran War, 1950-53, which killed close to 3 million people, has faded. Few Americans have
any idea how ferocious a conventional second Korean War could be. They are used to seeing Uncle Sam beat up small, nearly defenseless
nations like Iraq, Libya or Syria that dare defy the Pax Americana.
The US could literally blow North Korea off the map using tactical
nuclear weapons based in Japan, South Korea and at sea with the 7th Fleet. Or delivered by B-52 and B-1 bombers and cruise missiles.
But this would cause clouds of lethal radiation and radioactive dust to blanket Japan, South Korea and heavily industrialized northeast
China, including the capital, Beijing.
China would be expected to threaten retaliation against the United States, Japan and South Korea to deter a nuclear war in next
door Korea. At the same time, if heavily attacked, a fight-to-the-end North Korea may fire off a number of nuclear-armed medium-range
missiles at Tokyo, Osaka, Okinawa and South Korea. These missiles are hidden in caves in the mountains on wheeled transporters and
hard to identify and knock out.
This is a huge risk. Such a nuclear exchange would expose about a third of the world's economy to nuclear contamination, not to
mention spreading nuclear winter around the globe.
A conventional US attack on North Korea would be far more difficult. The North is a small nation of only 24.8 million. Its
air and sea forces are obsolete and ineffective. They would be vaporized on the first day of a war. But North Korea's million-man
army has been training and digging in for decades to resist a US invasion. Pyongyang's 88,000-man Special Forces are poised for suicide
attacks on South Korea's political and military command and control and to cripple key US and South Korean air bases, notably Osan
and Kunsan.
North Korea may use chemical weapons such as VX and Sarin to knock out the US/South Korean and Japanese airbases, military depots,
ports and communications hubs. Missile attacks would be launched against US bases in Guam and Okinawa.
Short of using nuclear weapons, the US would be faced with mounting a major invasion of mountainous North Korea, something for
which it is today unprepared. It took the US six months to assemble a land force in Saudi Arabia just to attack feeble Iraq. Taking
on the tough North Korean army and militia in their mountain redoubts will prove a daunting challenge.
US analysts have in the past estimated a US invasion of North Korea would cost some 250,000 American casualties and at least $10
billion, though I believe such a war would cost four times that much today. The Army, Air Force and Marines would have to mobilize
reserves to wage a war in Korea. Already overstretched US forces would have to be withdrawn from Europe and the Mideast. Military
conscription might have to be re-introduced.
Indeed. It was a sorrowful read with the exception of the heroics of the First Marines at Chosin Reservoir. Wiki called that
action a victory as if rearguard actions or successful retreats could ever be put in a victory column.
The big point now is what do the Chinese think. They were the reason that there even was a Korean War for those who prefer
headlines over history or happen to be in elective office in the US government (or Pentagon).
The stupidity, cultural ignorance and geopolitical autism of the people that actually have their fingers on the trigger
on our side in today's world is mind blowing.
" Hit the dirt, join the crowd, lookee mamma, a mushroom cloud" from MAD magazine, in the sixties, a kids rag that makes some
people wonder why the non funny, non witty Onion even exists.
Today that cloud thing suddenly becomes real possibility. Did I say MAD?
Starting a war with N Korea is crazy. Are we going to start a war that would kill millions in order to stop a war that
does not exist? There has been little blood spilled between the Koreas in the last 60 years – let's try for another 60 years.
How is Trump protecting us, if we are killing and dying in a far-off land? The truth is that our homeland is a very long
way from being attacked by N Korea – PERIOD.
It is time to deescalate – it is time to trade with the bastard – it is time to open up N Korea. Send in the food. Help the
people. Be better than the dictator. Give his people what he cannot deliver. Give them the power to demand freedom. It is hard
to see – but when dictator governments trade with others, they evolve to freedom.
Peace - Art
p.s. The Trump Whisperer – Ivanka – needs to get in daddy's ear and say "cool it Pops."
North Korea has got nothing anyone wants so they won't be attacked. It is all a lot of bluffing, except if the Chinese (aghast
at Trump's avowed view that China is raping the US economy) try to placate him by promising to give the North Koreans the cold
shoulder.
History shows that the leadership of states in danger of losing their independent status will choose uncertain and perilous
courses of action . The best thing is this will fizzle out. If China tries to pressure Kim, he would seriously consider starting
a conventional war. He couldn't possibly win, but that is the point: China cannot accept a collapse of North Korea into the
US client south. Nuclear weapons will not be used in any event.
@bob sykes Any
discussion of a new Korean War that does not emphasize China is asinine, like this one. China is the central, most important
actor on the peninsula, and China controls whatever happens there.
China will not permit an American ally on the Yalu River. Any state bordering China on the Yalu must be explicitly pro-Chinese.
If a war does break out on the peninsula, China will intervene on the side of the North Koreans.
To call the first Korean War inconclusive is tendentious: China decisively defeated the US/NATO forces, and did so with
with a primitive WW I style army and no navy or air force to speak of. Human wave assaults sufficed then. They did not occupy
the whole peninsula because their primitive army lacked the logistical capacity to do so.
Today China has a large modern military with a full spectrum of capabilities, including tactical and strategic nuclear weapons
and a large amphibious force. China would crush the US, Japanese and South Korean militaries, even assuming Russia stands aside.
It didn't in Korea I and Vietnam. And China's strategic nuclear forces would prevent the US from using nuclear weapons on the
peninsula. Anyway, the antique nuclear weapons we have today may not even work.
America's main weakness is its utterly delusional political and military leadership. The military that invaded
Iraq no longer exists, and it was smaller than the one that liberated Kuwait. The US military has been downsized to the point
that it cannot meet our treaty commitments. Sequestration has stripped the remaining military of funds needed for training
and maintenance. Only a third of our fighter/bombers are available for war, and the pilots get only half the hours needed to
maintain their skills. We do not practice combined arms warfare any more.
We have not fought a peer since 1945, and since 1945 we have a long record of failure. At present, we are fighting and
losing to lightly armed Third World militias. The use of the MOAB against ISIS in Afghanistan was an indicator of panic
in our military command there and at home. It is an open question as to whether we can defeat ISIS in Syria and Iraq, and
we certainly cannot unless we ally ourselves with Iran, Russia, Hezbollah and Assad.
What we are watching today is the collapse of the American military and empire.
{We have not fought a peer since 1945, and since 1945 we have a long record of failure. }
Almost true.
Imperial Japan was no Nazi Germany.
Although Japanese were tenacious fighters and they had first-rate military hardware*, U.S. and U.S. Navy were a rung above
the Imperial Japanese military. Japan simply did not have the resources or the industrial might of U.S.
By the time Allies (really the U.S.) landed in Europe in 1944, Wehrmacht was a spent force: 80% of its best, toughest units
were destroyed on the Eastern Front. Even then, at the Battle of the Bulge U.S. troops ran from the advancing Germans (mostly
** ). GIs were saved by the powerful USAF when the skies cleared up.
So we don't really have a good example of peer-to-peer land warfare for US military (other than the US Civil War).
--
* Zero was considered superior to US equipment in the beginning.
** Heroic defense of Bastogne.
And the only thing that has kept Japan and South Korea non nuclear is the US. A real threat would be for the US to simply to
go home. When Trump was tweeting that exactly -- it was seen as quite threatening.
A nuclear North Korea which is barely in the nuclear club and doesn't have the economy to militarize is simply an annoyance
to China. Japan and South Korea could be real threats quite quickly. And there is no love lost between any of them.
An irony is that the US has effectively disarmed Europe via NATO, and if the US told Germany to take care of themselves, Russia
wouldn't feel threatened, they would be threatened.
The truth is that the US hasn't won a war since we decided to constrain our military in Korea. They wanted to nuke China, and
also wanted to use them in Vietnam.
North Korea's only threat is nuclear, which is hollow, since they are assured of massive retaliation in kind. I suppose China
has been OK with the situation, since it annoys us to no end and hasn't cost them much. So far. {The truth is that the US hasn't
won a war since we decided to constrain our military in Korea. They wanted to nuke China, and also wanted to use them in
Vietnam.}
This an enduring myth that was created to salve the psych wound of being beaten by 'inferior' yellow-man.
Other than using atomic bombs, there were no constraints on US military. US military was given a free hand to bomb and destroy
anything and everything, including civilian targets* in both wars.
As to nukes.
China had no nukes during Korean war, but Soviet Union did.
First SU nuke test: Aug 1949.
First US thermonuke test: Nov 1952
First SU thermonuke test: Aug 1953.
POTUS Truman fired delusional Gen McArthur because he knew SU would most certainly use tac nukes in Korea if US did.
If you recall, Truman had no compunction using nukes on civilian targets, so he must have had good reason to restrain the crazy
generals.
Same with Viet Nam: yes US military wanted to nuke Hanoi in desperation, but cooler civilian heads prevailed. Again, there
was near-certainty that SU would respond in kind in Viet Nam.
--
* targeted deliberately: war crimes.
'" If China is not going to solve North Korea , we will."
With this porky pie,
Trump becomes the 45th 'bald faced liars' elected by the murkkans.
And .
With the bombing of Syria, Yemen
Trump joins the 'prestigious' ranks of the previous 44 war criminals in WH.
Lots of murkkans , the Trumpsters, are crying foul, They are 'betrayed' by Trump who now 'surrender to the deep state',
'the neocons have finally gotten to Trump', blah blah blah .
B.S. --
Astute obsevers like Vltchek, Engdahl, Draistser ..reminded murkkans about the exercise in futility in the 'election circus'
long ago.
Mathematically, Ian Fleming's fundamental law of probability practically guarantees that the 45th POTUS would be same as
the old boss, MIC front man who speaks with forked tongue.
As the pathetic hack Fareed Zakaria of Times magazine would gush after the Syria bombing, ' With this act, Trump has
just become POTUS ' He didnt know how right he's, hehehehe
Why not allow that? That will not sit very well with American global full spectrum dominance and end the day that American
can commit war crimes, crimes against peace and crimes against humanity on the phantom WMD allegation as humanitarian intervention.
I picked up a batch of old Rollingstone magazines from my local library for pennies to use as bathroom/breakfast reading. One
issue had Matt Taibbi following Trump on the campaign trail while still battling for the Republican party nomination. In this
leg of his tour he talked about how big insurance conglomerates were setting the prices to their liking and how he as president
would bust them up etc.. Then came the commentary from Duck Dynasty types on how they are sick and tired of paying high premiums
and so on. It gave me a minor epiphany, namely that this guy is, was and always will be full of shit in other words nothing but
a super salesman.
While I was happy that he blew away the syphilitic structure of the mainstream parties and the press I now realize that the
volatile and insane world now has a monkey with a machine gun in a major position of power. This can't end well.
The Great Pumpkin cut his jib by beating up other businessmen in the vicious world of East coast real estate. In this world
he had the MacArthur motto for there being 'no substitute for victory'. If he transmogrifies his business instincts onto the world
stage, stock up on rice and beans (and iodine tablets).
The simple scenario germane to this article is if Trump deploys a carrier fleet even closer to the proximity of the Norks.
Who thinks fat boy Jong-Un is sane? Ivanka? Sending even just conventional missiles across the bow is well within his mental construct.
With their faulty accuracy they could accidentally hit the target. A carrier sunk. What options does Trump have now? None really.
It's show time and by probable extension, "overture, curtains, lights, this is it night of nights..."
To those interested in the Korean War, I highly recommend David Halberstam's posthumous book, The Coldest Winter: America
and the Korean War. It is not a standard military chronicle instead a spellbinding journalistic read. Major theme, MacArthur's
super ego, pomposity and geo-political ignorance resulting in catastrophe. American troops experienced the thrill of Stalingrad.
In an eerie way, Trump now has a chance of becoming American Caesar 2.0 and in the very same playground. History repeats, rhymes
whatever....
Cheers- The only book I've read on the Korean War is IF Stone's firsthand account, The Hidden History of the Korean War.
It is absolutely staggering. Why was it fought? No reason. It was a military exercise for MacArthur, just kind of for the hell
of it.
If there were ever a Just Cause for the Yanks to invade and bring democracy somewhere, it would be North Korea. The horrors
that generations of North Koreans in concentration camps are enduring, would even make the holo-jews cringe.
Then again, is Israel ready to take a second row seat on the holocaust narrative and let the North Koreans take the gold
medal of international victimhood?
And what do you do with millions of people coping with culture shock, paranoia, etc.? And, last but not least, who would
make our clothing for 5 cents a piece?
All in all. I do not think the Israeli's would let the USA attack North Korea.
Zero chance of any attack on Korea beyond a prearranged choreographed pinprick. The explanation is simple: nothing in it for the
Jooies and Izzies who worked overtime to install a US government of the jooies, by the jooies, for the jooies. Why would they
waste their satrap's assets when they could be used on Iran?
"... Isnt it amazing, the media in the west will always (ALWAYS!) be there for western nations when they want to wage a war, year after year. And then they say that we, who protest and expose them we are somehow the propagandists and disinformation agents?! ..."
"... The pressure to capitulate to the US government on this issue is immense. The propaganda relentless. For over 64 years the American people have been living the Big Lie. ..."
"... I cannot see how this ends well for any of us, mainly due to the intransigence and irrationality of the US ruling class, who do not care how much blood they shed. ..."
"... The USA as representing western elites have never signed off on the Korean War as a truce and cessation of hostilities but not a peace treaty is the current situation. This war continues and is being pursued by other means, mainly financial and with sanctions, by the west and its South Korean proxies. ..."
"... This on going policy by the west is of course aimed at its geo-political adversaries in China and Russia as allies of the North Korean nation. ..."
"... No small country is safe from the evil empire (USA) if they don't have nuclear weapons. Witness what happened to Iraq (and others) who had no weapons of mass destruction. (even though USA claimed they did) ..."
"... There is no other way to declare that China have backed off, otherwhise we wouldn't see this preparation for war by Trump that came after his big China meeting last week. ..."
"... China will sure remember this idiot stance they have taken when the wars begin, after North Korea, China will be in the cross-hair themselves. ..."
"... I still wonder why China stayed away from Syria with no talk of supporting Russia. This is/was a golden chance to show solidarity, in my opinion. Both NK and Pakistan are Chinese partners and nuclear powers. With MOAB in Afghanistan and forces around NK, this is a clear message to China. Is China setting a classic trap militarily or they just choosing to fight economically or otherwise? Somehow, Chinese reaction does not add up. ..."
"... It is utmost stupidity. Trump is parking US war ships in reach of North Korea, Russia and China. Now he depends on them not to do anything. ..."
"... If you ever ask a local jingoist to list all the countries attacked by North Korea vs a comparable USA list, you will illicit blank stares, followed by anger, followed by the suggestion you go live in North Korea. Putin's analogy of chess with a pigeon comes to mind. ..."
"... China does not care about the current leadership of North Korea at all. Their concern is to keep US forces no closer to the Chinese border than they are now, and that they will do. ..."
"... Actually what you are describing is the average westerner today (although, perhaps the average westerner is a jingoist today), they are indoctrinated every day by by the MSM, they have no idea whats going on in the world, its so tragic when you try to explain world events and they always react like you said, anger, hate, accuations etc. ..."
"... why is the usa here there and everywhere on the planet where their war machines? answer - they are the planets most warmongering nation, hands down.. ..."
"... This is extremely relevant yet almost never discussed in the US. North Korea is said to be "crazy", and is treated as some kind of rabid, non-human country that threatens the US. Of course, the opposite is more true. ..."
"... Chinese FM earlier today said 'war might come to Korea any time now', basically, US and allies could attack Korea and we wont do aynthing about it, what a corrupt nature they are show off now, disgusting. ..."
"... NK has seen what happens when nations give up their WMD's Iraq got invaded and Saddam first tortured, then hanged. Libya got smashed and Qaddafi got a bayonet up his arse. ..."
"... Now Syria is in the cross-hairs, with much of the nation in ruins, close 500K dead, millions more wounded and millions more homeless, with Assad being fitted for a hemp necktie. ..."
"... One point he makes is that the Korean war gave Truman a perfect excuse to expand the military and set up the national security complex. One thing he does not say is that US likely has zero interest in defusing the conflict - lest they'd have to leave the area. ..."
"... I'm now wondering how much worse the Known Entity - the Murderous Bloody Hillary could have been. Trump is a bull in a China Shop. ..."
"... This is why Trump acting so tough now, he know China+UN+EU+Nato will support his coming war. ..."
"... Well well well, this is almost getting comical, chinese show its true nature once again, what a backstabbing nation. China will be as complicit in this war on NK as Trump (and other pathetic allies). How many billion dollar deals did the stupid president get by Trump to be able to accept this tremendous blunder? ..."
"... At this stage, Russia was supposed to be the gas station that produced nothing. Syria should have fallen to US headchoppers. Philippines has pulled out of the pivot on China. ..."
"... Obama's leading from behind, and proxy wars largely failed. This leaves the US very short on time to take down China, plus they now have to deal with a Russia that has risen from the dead. ..."
"... Saudi's just formed a NATO-like Sunni force with an ex-Pakistani general as it's head. Now they have a about 20 nation force for basic ground ops and this will help Saudi's in Yemen and may be Syria especially with Pakistan's depth in recruiting regulars and non-regulars. This could not have happened without US approval, imo. ..."
"... overwhelming majority of US political "elite" is generally an office plankton with law or political "science" (or journalism--which is not a profession or a skill) degrees from Ivy League "humanities" departments and their comprehension of the war is limited to Hollywood. Most difficulties in life they ever experienced was, most likely, being overbooked for the first class seats on the flight to Hawaii (or any other resort). ..."
"... The #1 reason the Outlaw US Empire gets away with its continuation of massive crimes against humanity is that its citizenry is mostly ignorant--made so purposefully--of the history that matters and are today's equivalent of "Good Germans." ..."
"... Anyways, cornering Iran is the goal that the US/Israel trying to accomplish, at least from reading the pattern of activities. Slippery slope indeed. ..."
"... The development of napalm specifically to target civilians ties in the testing of the two US nuclear weapons in Japan. The Japanese target cities were left untouched by conventional air raids throughout, even though they contained valid military targets such a torpedo production plants. ..."
"... The occupants were so used to seeing US planes pass them by without ill effect, that on the fateful day they stood out in the open watching the planes pass by as normal or so they thought. The two attacks - for different designs of weapon - were designed to test and calibrate the effects of nuclear weapons on undamaged cities and unprotected civilians. They were actual medical and physical experiments on real people. ..."
"... The difference between now and all the years since WWII, through the cold war and so forth is that the US has very little time left. In trying to think how the US is acting different now to the past, or actually dig up solid points I would probably point to MH17. With MH17 Australia, one of the five eyes gladly sacrificed some people for empire. That shook me. The evidence was the same as the crap dossier on Assad gassing his own people, yet not a word of protest out of any Australian politician. ..."
"... From US point of view--absolutely. US establishment, yet again, thinks that it can control escalation. ..."
"... North Korean leader Kim Jong-un ordered 25 percent of Pyongyang residents to leave the city immediately, according to a Russian news outlet on Friday. The Pravda report said that in accordance with the order, 600,000 people should be urgently evacuated. ..."
"... If China/Russia were facing imminent War, then they would very probably dump all US reserves and Treasury Bonds first, and pre-emptively trigger economic collapse & rout. Unless it's MAD first strike stuff, where is the industrial and manufacturing base of the US/UK to sustain and win a 'Total War' ? Russia/China/Iran/NK are all militarily self-sufficient ... long-term sanctions do that, somewhat self-defeating, no ? ..."
"... IF the US collapses without War occurring, the 0.01% driving this will have already relocated in advance to, New Zealand or Iceland, etc ? To live lives of luxury, whilst purchasing collapsed US corporations for pennies on the dollar, perhaps, and wait for the investment to mature, maybe ? Ruthless bastards, citizens of the world ;) ..."
"... Yet, mistakes & miscalculations can occur unintentionally when even only a sustained 'strategy of tension' goes on and on ... ..."
"... "The US is going to war. Much thought and training going into fighting peer, or near peer adversary. " Do not see substantive evidence of the former, yet. Re the latter, other than neo-con/lib chickenhawk warmongers and detached from facts/reason/competent analysis & reality stink-tanks, again, see no evidence other than endless PR and rabid rhetoric, MSM abetted. ..."
"... Have you seen the most recent data/reports on DOD readiness levels, it's not a pleasant read if you're a jingoistic warmonger ... would argue, short version, the opportunity existed prior to 2001, maybe even as late as 2004-2006 at a pinch ..."
"... Thanks for a great article. It is so good to read truthful information and not the propaganda bullshit the MSM saturates us with. ..."
"... Who knows, maybe NK will be rehabilitated, as is, and accepted back into the Russia/China 'Axis', openly, as for the then USSR/ChiCom 'Axis' pre and during the Korean war ? After all, given the insane and surreal rabid propaganda in western MSM, what difference would it make re supposed 'image' in the eyes of the supposed 'International Community' (US/UK/Israhell & good time vassals) ... any ? ..."
"... I'll certainly echo Outraged's point about USA lacking the required industrial capacity and raw material for any such war other than MAD versus China/Russia. One of the main reasons the Lead From Behind strategy was adopted along with using terrorist proxies to destabilize Russia/China is because of that rather stark reality. ..."
"... ...The figure of 1,800 massacre victims was given...Somebody--presumably in either the American military or government--seems to have made the decision to turn this into a Northern massacre, the characteristic, single atrocity of the entire war. The truth seems inescapable: The worst atrocity of the war was committed by forces acting in the name of the United Nations, and a concerted effort was then made to cover it up by blaming it on the North Korean enemy... ..."
"... "...On the admission of [U.S.] General Ridgeway's Head Office, more POWs died in United Nations camps than in North Korean camps..." http://wherechangeobama.blogspot.com/2013/05/revisiting-history-of-korea-again-part-4.html?m=0 ..."
"... China does have limited versions of both Klub-NK and Club-S, those were shorter ones until recently when China started to get her hands on actual Russian versions of such weapons as P-800 Onyx with their ranges of 660 kilometers, add here SU-35 (also in Russian configuration) and S-400, also in Russian configuration, and you have a rather interesting dynamics suddenly. ..."
"... US MIC armament production ought to be seen/understood as MIC profitmaking scam that happens to produce few usable/battle-worthy assets. There's a very good reason for calling the USA's once mighty industrial heartland the Rust Belt--it's literally rotting away as a ride on Amtrak's Capitol Limited will testify. ..."
"... It really makes little sense what the US is up to. Are they relying on bluff and bluster to win the day? ..."
"... Thanks B for the information regarding how the US and South Korea time their military maneuvers to coincide with the rice planting and harvesting periods in North Korea. I had not been aware of this before. ..."
"... Bill Clinton's offer to North Korea to supply grain and materials for building two new reactors and his later reneging on that do not surprise me at all as these are of a piece with the Clinton Foundation raising hundreds of millions for Haiti's post-quake reconstruction which in the end resulted in the construction of one factory employing 30 people making T-shirts for export. No doubt with the North Korean "offer" the Clintons got something of that. ..."
"... "Approximately 30 nuclear power plants are operational in South Korea. Several of them could be destroyed even if conventional bombs and shells are used. This could lead to five-six Chernobyl-type disasters on a relatively small area of 99 square kilometers that could instantly turn into a place unsuitable for life," he explained. ..."
"... I have read although ,in a casual way rather than a study, too much of the history of wars. Often what comes across the insanity of a country starting a war and then is itself destroyed. Nazi Germany - leading edge tech, smart people. Country of sixty million conquered virtually all of Europe with ease then took on Russia. Instead of being content with being a leading country, they were willing to gamble everything to have it all. ..."
"... This is somewhat where the US is at today. The position is that it has over reached and now needs to pull back and consolidate, but we are not seeing that. instead, we are seeing the US become more threatening. ..."
"... A primary problem there is that they have convinced at least 20% of those 300M to be human shields in the service of Empire. ..."
"... In addition nuclear reactors require fossil fuel power plants as backup up they suddenly lose power. In case of an air blast over South Korea the electrical grid would shut down with possible meltdown of reactors which didn't go into standby prior to the nuclear detonation. ..."
"... it brings a huge conundrum in decision making, if trump doesn't do anything, all countries in asia will switch alliances towards china in the long run, except for broke jokes japan/usa. ..."
"... "Wag the Dog" scenarios focus on salacious scandals, but the collapse of domestic Presidencies are usually followed by war Presidencies. Trump is largely the idiot he appears to be and is simply grabbing onto the various interests within the borg. Trump will bounce from "enemy" to "enemy" trying to find an issue to get his Presidency back on track. ..."
"... Something that has struck me as this thread goes on.. WWII never ended. Nazi/imperial Japan quest for empire morphed into US quest for empire that is coming to a climax today. ..."
"... Wide ranging fascinating interview with former high ranking CIA intelligence officer, Robert David Steele https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8UfYLA7FCqQ ..."
"... If North Korea, Russia, Iran, China or any other country that resists Zio-U.S. imperialism sent an Armada off the U.S. coast on the fourth of July, the U.S. wouldn't hesitate to sink it immediately, no questions asked. Trump is proving every day that he's a dangerous idiot. ..."
"... The wars to consolidate the world under one power has been going on for well over a century. Britain took the lead early on before passing the torch to the US once Rhodes plan to recover America was accomplished, sometime between Mckinleys assassination and the and of WWI . Wall Street and the money power in the city of London were always in sync. Albert Pike predicted 3 World Wars would be needed. ..."
"... we are ruled by idiots, con men, war-mongers, and Neanderthal whackos. Any attack by the US would be a massacre and humanitarian disaster of epic proportions. Plus, I assume, the north korean army that remains would likely shower much of south korea with tens of thousands of rockets, mortars and missiles. http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/04/14/whackos-in-washington-the-risky-game-of-regime-decapitation/ ..."
"... Whackos in Washington: the Risky Game of Regime Decapitation by Dave Lindorff ..."
"... A lot of people do not know that the US bombed the hell out of the entire of north Korea during the war. Like to ashes. The Chinese, and even more so, the Soviet reconstruction project for north Korea was the biggest of its kind post WWII. Even bigger than what actually went to European reconstruction I believe, but don't quote me on that (not in terms of what was earmarked but spent). ..."
"... ALSO perhaps the biggest crime was bombing the north's huge dams. Unless your a poor farmer you don't know what kind a thing that it is to do. No military value (I heard it was bombed because they ran out of other targets in some way). ..."
"... Its insane and breeds a toooon of animosity. Plus rejecting all attempts at peace talks. Plus having the media only present it in one way and an attitude of RA RA we don't engage in diplomacy with the terrorist obviously he only listens to force. ..."
"... The focus seems to be on what DPRK (north), PRC and USA might do. I would like to suggest that closer scrutiny should be applied to what is actually going on in RK (South). I think that this tension is being ratcheted upwards primarily to influence the outcome of the presidential election in the South. ..."
"... As we all know, Park has recently been impeached. In normal circumstances it could be expected that an opposition figure like Moon Jae-In would be the favourite to win the election. This may not be in the interests of either the US, Japan or the powers-that-be in South Korea. ..."
"... The election is 9 May 2017, and the US president has just ensured that North Korea will be front and centre in the campaign. ..."
"... South Korea is clearly benefiting economically (finally) from US support, but also pays a price by being another lapdog to the US and an eternal host for our military presence, willing or not. I suspect it's 'willing' because the US does everything possible to remind South Koreans of their peril by demonizing the North. South Korean press is worse than the US MSM. ..."
"... who pointed out above that wwii has not yet ended on the korean peninsula. i always knew that the war was 'technically' not over in the sense of no peace treaty's having been signed ... the same obtains between russia and japan, doesn't it? that's an indictment right there of the us. in both cases, as the us still has japan on a short leash. ..."
"... The main issue will be South Korea's relationship with the US and China. Traditionally South Korea has profited more from the US than from exchange with China. I bet this has already changed. But the US managed to create a security conflict between China and South Korea that ensures increased Chinese military support for North Korea. ..."
"... South Korean residents and civic group activists on Thursday filed a petition against the deployment of the U.S. Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile defense system, which they depicted as unconstitutional. ..."
"... Seoul and Washington abruptly announced a decision in July last year to install one THAAD battery in the county by the end of this year. Just three days before the announcement, Defense Minister Han Min-koo told lawmakers that he hadn't been informed of any notice about the THAAD installation. ..."
"... "The THAAD decision did not follow any proper procedure. No effort has been made for dialogue with residents," said Ha Joo-hee, an attorney at Lawyers for a Democratic Society, an advocacy group composed of liberal lawyers. ..."
"... Yet bet NATO wouldn't be happy. The entire 'containment' policy towards Beijing rests on the surrounding states being hostile to/ scared of China. Already SE Asia has all but 'fallen' (from a western viewpoint), what remains is Japan and SK. Detente? God forbid! ..."
"... According to US MSM the Chinese are totally on board and only have moved troops to bolster the border and help the US. And Russia and China really aren't conducting military exercises together. ..."
"... This constant mistranslated rhetoric and literally putting of words into foreign leaders mouths is of course one aspect of the western propaganda arm. Even when the headline or text of the article is updated, corrected or removed the meat of it remains in social media like Facebook. ..."
"... I do know more than a few Koreans firsthand pissed off at US army personnel behaviour though. Perhaps that can be channelled into meaningful change. They tell me that the impunity from judicial retribution plays a big role in the anger. Certain bases in Japan have had similar problems (I get the sense it cause more anger there though unfortunately). Perhaps this is just the views of a few people I talk to in SK though. ..."
"... What is real Russian position on this WWIII POTENTIAL STANDOFF. NK only one condemned attack on Syria while if what I hear is true, they want NK disarmed even in face of open US aggression. Also China if awfully quiet while repeating thirty year old equitable solution rejected by US that never looked for any solutions but domination. What's going on? ..."
"... Don't know about Russia but I have some thoughts re. China. Xi made it clear to Donald that China would support Kim if NK is attacked i.e WW3. ..."
"... Wikileaks, Podesta email about the Hillary Clinton speech for Goldman Sachs "We don't want a unified Korean Peninsula" because China, not the U.S., would naturally dominate it. The U.S. will do everything it can to prevent reunification. ..."
"... Would that be Judith Miller, perhaps, or possibly just a hero/role model ? ;) One perfectly reasonable phrase comes to mind, ' Subsequent to good faith negotiations & actual, guarantees '. ..."
Isnt it amazing, the media in the west will always (ALWAYS!) be there for western nations
when they want to wage a war, year after year. And then they say that we, who protest and expose
them we are somehow the propagandists and disinformation agents?!
As b show, North Korea is the rational, but no one in our "free" western media brings these
fact up.
No wonder western populations dont have any faith in their states and media.
I really hope North Korea put an end to this by standing tall, the pathetic China have backed
away apparently..
Another key consideration from a strategic military perspective, re the massive extensive military
'exercises' by US/SK annually is such can and have been used historically in war to create a sense
of routine & normalcy, so if the Nth should be complacent, and its been going on for decades,
a surprise attack can be launched and have devastating effects, even thought the Nth is on 'annual'
'alert'.
Maintaining heightened readiness, to
Stand To! , stand
ready for an attack, especially daily before dawn and prior to & after sunset, bayonets fixed,
eye-peeled, adrenaline pumping, day after day, when the extended 'exercises' run, year after year
after year is very difficult psychologically for the troops involved, corrosive of morale and
discipline, and the Empire is very cognizant of this indeed.
I really hope North Korea put an end to this by standing tall, the pathetic China have
backed away apparently..
China doesn't have the option of backing away because a North Korea threatened by AmeriKKKa
is also a China threatened by AmeriKKKa. I hope Trump knows what he's doing because the Chinese
most certainly do know what they're doing.
The pressure to capitulate to the US government on this issue is immense. The propaganda
relentless. For over 64 years the American people have been living the Big Lie.
The oozing sore of a Cold War that never ended, that was really a Hot War for millions, now
threatens to metastasize into Total War. I cannot see how this ends well for any of us, mainly
due to the intransigence and irrationality of the US ruling class, who do not care how much blood
they shed.
The USA as representing western elites have never signed off on the Korean War as a truce
and cessation of hostilities but not a peace treaty is the current situation. This war continues
and is being pursued by other means, mainly financial and with sanctions, by the west and its
South Korean proxies.
The imposition of a state of tension by the west is all the west
seems capable of with the result in the current situation and any time a solution is proposed
that could lead to a lessening of tensions the west either sabotages or outright rejects the initiative.
This on going policy by the west is of course aimed at its geo-political adversaries in
China and Russia as allies of the North Korean nation. The only fix that I can see is an
economic collapse in the west that leads to a pull back from western imperial outposts as they
become too expensive to maintain. This can only take place with the demise of the Federal Reserve
Note (USD) as the world reserve currency which is printable in any amount the western elites desire
in maintaining their grip and domination through imperial dictate over the rest of the world.
End this financial death grip and the rest follows very very quickly.
No small country is safe from the evil empire (USA) if they don't have nuclear weapons. Witness
what happened to Iraq (and others) who had no weapons of mass destruction. (even though USA claimed
they did)
The USA has always believed the myth that WW2 saved the economy from the Great Depression and
that the country would have slide back into depression without a war to fight --- hence the
cold war and all the CIA wars ever since. Then came the "destroy the middle east" for the
sake of Israel. (or oil or whatever)
The USA remains today the greatest impediment to world peace that there is. The USA may set
off nuclear war and the destruction of all civilization at some point.
If you parse Obama's Nobel prize acceptance speech he hints at the theoretical model he used
to cut off chances for peace anywhere. With China's premiere in the room, no less.
Let me also say this: the promotion of human rights cannot be about exhortation alone. At times,
it must be coupled with painstaking diplomacy. I know that engagement with repressive regimes
lacks the satisfying purity of indignation. But I also know that sanctions without outreach
- and condemnation without discussion - can carry forward a crippling status quo. No repressive
regime can move down a new path unless it has the choice of an open door.
Effing liar. America offers the choice of an open door to North Korea? Ha. We like our indignation
without cream and sugar, to maximize purity.
There is no other way to declare that China have backed off, otherwhise we wouldn't see
this preparation for war by Trump that came after his big China meeting last week.
China will sure remember this idiot stance they have taken when the wars begin, after North
Korea, China will be in the cross-hair themselves.
@ Posted by: Jeff Kaye | Apr 14, 2017 10:04:05 AM | 4
All honor & respect to you Invictus , for daunting, tireless & seemingly endless endeavor.
Deepest & abiding respect indeed, Sir/Madam. Wishing you & yours safety & joy this Easter. '
Vale, Pax Tecum '.
I still wonder why China stayed away from Syria with no talk of supporting Russia. This is/was
a golden chance to show solidarity, in my opinion. Both NK and Pakistan are Chinese partners and
nuclear powers. With MOAB in Afghanistan and forces around NK, this is a clear message to China.
Is China setting a classic trap militarily or they just choosing to fight economically or otherwise?
Somehow, Chinese reaction does not add up.
If you ever ask a local jingoist to list all the countries attacked by North Korea vs a
comparable USA list, you will illicit blank stares, followed by anger, followed by the suggestion
you go live in North Korea. Putin's analogy of chess with a pigeon comes to mind.
@ 8, China does not care about the current leadership of North Korea at all. Their concern
is to keep US forces no closer to the Chinese border than they are now, and that they will do.
If Trump actually is dumb enough to strike, the Chinese will happily stand by and watch him
hang himself. Just as promised at Mar-a-Lago.
+1 on that. Actually what you are describing is the average westerner today (although, perhaps the average
westerner is a jingoist today), they are indoctrinated every day by by the MSM, they have no idea
whats going on in the world, its so tragic when you try to explain world events and they always
react like you said, anger, hate, accuations etc.
thanks b... many good comments already too! thanks folks.. @12 lysander - bang on example of how
ignorant most folks remain.. why is the usa here there and everywhere on the planet where
their war machines? answer - they are the planets most warmongering nation, hands down..
Good article, b. This is extremely relevant yet almost never discussed in the US. North Korea
is said to be "crazy", and is treated as some kind of rabid, non-human country that threatens
the US. Of course, the opposite is more true.
It's important to note that every country that disagrees with the US is called crazy. Al-Assad
is a "butcher", an "animal", a "dictator who kills his own people". Every time the US wants regime
change they first vilify the leader of said country to turn him into a non-human entity that should
be feared and loathed. This self-justifies the impending destruction of the country, which after
all happened "for its own good."
If I told you ten years ago that the defacto American diplomat to North Korea Dennis Rodman would
get kicked out of the country for getting drunk and taking a shit in a Pyongyang hotel; and that
WWE hall of famer and reality TV star Donald Trump would threaten to attack North Korea as POTUS...
would you have believed me?
Chinese FM earlier today said 'war might come to Korea any time now', basically, US and allies
could attack Korea and we wont do aynthing about it, what a corrupt nature they are show off now,
disgusting.
Kudos b putting this together. That was some digging.
Here is my 2 dumb questions: will the person who did the tallying of the MOAB taking out the
36 in Afghanistan be sent to NK for a similar task? Not to be crass, but given it was the "mother
of all bombs" should the Pentagon folks not be embarrassed to release the count? KROI.
China warns, and this from Her Majesty's paper, The Telegraph.co.uk with video interview:
LINK
"World 'on the brink of thermo-nuclear war', as North Korea mulls test that could goad Trump"
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Trump, as we have observed, does not enjoy being goaded - fights back when he is accused of
having small hands.
And Kim Jong-Un? Well never mind.
~ ~ ~ ~
Wish all abundant blessings this Easter. We may not see 2018.
Imo, the main reason AmeriKKKa is threatening Korea at this time is because Xi scared them,
and their freedom of navigation charade, out of the South China Sea. And now they're adding blackmail
to the provocation by putting NK between them. It's cowardly and stupid, which is why I said I
hope Trump knows what he's doing, because it doesn't look that way to me.
A violent conflict in NK will create a NK refugee problem which, as history illustrates, is
AOK with AmeriKKKans but no-one else.
And if Xi has scared AmeriKKKa once, he can do it again.
NK has seen what happens when nations give up their WMD's Iraq got invaded and Saddam first
tortured, then hanged. Libya got smashed and Qaddafi got a bayonet up his arse.
Now Syria is in the cross-hairs, with much of the nation in ruins, close 500K dead, millions
more wounded and millions more homeless, with Assad being fitted for a hemp necktie.
So why should Kim give up his nukes, where's the benefit?
For anyone even marginally interested in the issue of NK vs SK - please take time to listen to
this interview - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ba3dgDUtE9A
(actually, 2 2-hr interviews).
Historian Bruce Cumings looks way back in trying to explain
the peninsula and its troubles. One point he makes is that the Korean war gave Truman a perfect
excuse to expand the military and set up the national security complex. One thing he does not
say is that US likely has zero interest in defusing the conflict - lest they'd have to leave the
area.
Trump is not a huge moron. He is an actor - pretending to be a moron for his moron fan club. He
is very convincing. Superb acting. Terrific. An Armada of Stagecraft. Unfortunately, his moronic
behavior leads to moronic and zany consequences.
I'm now wondering how much worse the Known Entity - the Murderous Bloody Hillary could
have been. Trump is a bull in a China Shop.
IMO, if anyone it is Trump that have "scared" the chinese or rather baited the Chinese with
good trade deals and have got the word from the chinese that they wont rescue NK nor attack US
if US feel like attacking NK. This is why Trump acting so tough now, he know China+UN+EU+Nato
will support his coming war.
b, this occasion, your writing is very one-sided. You left out (as did all the commentators to
this moment) the decades of brinksmanship by NK, demanding as much as $50 million annually from
all the presidents prior to Bush 43, including oil shipments.
Consider this: (who ever is in charge of the WH now or last time, etc.) does not matter as
much as "perhaps" that entire region, and the multiple layers of MIC/Deep State folks/their proxies
in Congress in the USA, are finally fed up with the brinksmanship for cash to keep that guy's
family and supporters in power, and now that NK lunatic has raised the anti to the nuke level
(thanks Bill for helping them out there in the 1990's)... it looks like the Pentagon will work
the decisions at their level as we now see in real-time.
I served a recent tour there. "Ready to Fight Tonight" is not just a motto with South Korea.
They have lived it since 1953 and they are really tired of it.
Could you rephrase your whole chunk of text, it makes no sense, US dont "pay" North Korea anything
and the lunatic is not in NorthKorea but in the White House allied with your dear South Koreans.
@30
You've likely absorbed too much MCM (c - corporate) reporting; for a more complex understanding
of the subject, pls listen to
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ba3dgDUtE9A
- that is you're interested in learning, as opposed to just repeating MCM talking points.
@ Posted by: E Ring 46Z Vet | Apr 14, 2017 12:51:46 PM | 30
Respectfully, your comments are very one-sided, and you appear to be profoundly ignorant of
the entire genesis of the Korean v US conflict and the motivations and conduct of involved parties
since the days of the Kuomintang (KMT), Chiang Kai-shek, in the Chinese Civil War starting in
1940 but especially US actions from Sept 1946 and 1949 onward, as well as relevant USSR/Chinese
involvement.
Should you be interested there is significant detail in posts re 'Forgotten & buried History'
of which you may be oblivious in the last three threads posts, or not.
If you served in SK, ' Ready to Fight Tonight ', then why did you not bother to actually
learn something of the Korean history, if only the last 70 years, with you and your buddies lives
'on the line', as opposed to merely regurgitating 'kool-aid' propaganda & misinformation ?
It said Mattis would "reaffirm key U.S. military alliances," and "discuss cooperative effort
to counter destabilizing activities and defeat extremist terror organizations" during the April
18-23 tour. In Israel, he will hold talks with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the statement
said.
.......
Syria? or Iran? When the above group talk about terrorist organizations they are talking Hezbollah.
It is starting to look like the US is about to launch a two front war. Korea/China, Middle East/Russia.
@ Posted by: From The Hague | Apr 14, 2017 1:20:25 PM | 36
Have been involved in detailed discussions that have carried thru the last three threads re
Korea covering from 1940, to the critical events of Sept 1945, then thru to 1949 and just as important
1949 onwards, PRECEDING the Korean War of '50 ... many extracts, numerous links/sources/references,
from multiple participating posters. Hm, suppose start around here:
I you come here for "neutral" piece that give equal weight and view to all sides you are in
the wrong place. No author does that anyway and there are mountains to read that always highly
endorse the U.S. side on each and every issue. I am not from the States and have a way more neutral
view than you will find in your media. But I am not one sided. I have my moral position, my conscience
and I follow it. I know what the U.S. has done to Korea - unnecessarily and for what I consider
nefarious reasons.
I also know that the claim NoKo was "demanding as much as $50 million annually from all the
presidents prior to Bush 43, including oil shipments." is stupidly wrong.
It was only Clinton who made a deal with NoKo which included for the U.S. side the delivery
of oil and grain and the building of two civil nuclear reactors in North Korea. North Korea, in
exchange, was to stop all nuclear work it had proceeded with including its own building of civil
reactors which it urgently needed for electricity. It was a deal. Both side got something out
of it.
It was Clinton who broke that deal. It was Clinton who never delivered on his promises. The
delivery of oil and grain was slow and ended early. Only the foundations of the reactors were
build (by North Korea). No components were delivered. Bush only officially ended the deal Clinton
had already renegaded on.
"demanding as much as $50 million annually from all the presidents prior to Bush 43"
Should take lessons from Israel and demand 3 Bil. 50 mil is chump change. How much do you think
these annual maneuvers cost? More to the point, isn't it interesting that the US's war budget
is practically unlimited, while money spent on peace is always too much.
You probably support tax cuts for oligarchs while bitching about money squandered upon the
poor, homeless and ill.
Also very highly recommend the following article and embedded links/references re Korea and
consequences/issues surrounding detailed expert factual analysis re possible war here:
Posted by: Outraged | Apr 12, 2017 8:38:58 PM | 248, 'Is There A New U.S. Syria Policy? Is
There One At All?' thread. Cheers.
I wonder how warm and fuzzy the USA would be if NK had 60+ years ago, devastated our population
with the bloodlust described by MacArthur, yet still had 50,000 troops stationed all along the
Mexican border(DMZ)with nuclear capabilities that in an instant could destroy Houston, Austin,
Dallas, Phoenix and Los Angeles??? Somehow I hear screaming and howling coming from the bowels
or our esteemed Washington overlords. Kim's behavior is no more foolish.
Well well well, this is almost getting comical, chinese show its true nature once again,
what a backstabbing nation. China will be as complicit in this war on NK as Trump (and other pathetic
allies). How many billion dollar deals did the stupid president get by Trump to be able to accept
this tremendous blunder?
Is the US going the full John McCain? China rising, pivot on Asia behind schedule. Resources Diverted
back to Middle East when Obama's headchoppers threatened US oil at Erbil. More resources for the
pivot on China with Russia's re entry into the world of hard power.
At this stage, Russia was supposed to be the gas station that produced nothing. Syria should
have fallen to US headchoppers. Philippines has pulled out of the pivot on China.
Obama's leading from behind, and proxy wars largely failed. This leaves the US very short
on time to take down China, plus they now have to deal with a Russia that has risen from the dead.
So US going full John McCain to make up for time lost / ground lost through the Obama years?
@ Posted by: Peter AU | Apr 14, 2017 1:32:44 PM | 37
I still think it's a one-front war. Saudi's just formed a NATO-like Sunni force with an
ex-Pakistani general as it's head. Now they have a about 20 nation force for basic ground ops
and this will help Saudi's in Yemen and may be Syria especially with Pakistan's depth in recruiting
regulars and non-regulars. This could not have happened without US approval, imo.
Syria? or Iran? When the above group talk about terrorist organisations they are talking Hezbollah.It
is starting to look like the US is about to launch a two front war. Korea/China, Middle East/Russia.
US is in no position to launch any serious military operation as of now, certainly not against
Iran, not to speak about Russia. Bombing something? Sure, as long as it is stand-off weapons and
no US casualties. Yet, US is under pressure to "perform" something because, as of lately things
are not going too well for US in general and her military in particular. Consider all these plans
a self-medication. Per China, China is not in the shape to fight US Navy as of now, not does she
want to risk losing the access to US markets.
For those wondering what book the page is from, it's Napalm: An American Biography by Robert
Neer, Belknap, 2013. Using google, enter this exactly into the search box: macarthur "biblical
devastation resulted" hit search and the top result will take you to the page. (The actual url
is about 4 lines, so I refrained from posting.) I do suggest reading the next several paragraphs,
but they are not for the squeamish as what's described is 100% revolting. If after reading the
text you cannot fathom why the North Koreans detest Americans more than anything else, then you'll
make a perfect Neocon and ought to join Cheney and Co.
Thanks b for posting that extract provided by Jeffery Kaye!
No one has forgotten the near genocide and no one in Korea, north or south, wants to repeat
the experience.
Meanwhile, overwhelming majority of US political "elite" is generally an office plankton
with law or political "science" (or journalism--which is not a profession or a skill) degrees
from Ivy League "humanities" departments and their comprehension of the war is limited to Hollywood.
Most difficulties in life they ever experienced was, most likely, being overbooked for the first
class seats on the flight to Hawaii (or any other resort).
PAKISTAN'S Parliament rejected a Saudi request to dispatch troops to combat Houthi rebels in
Yemen, much to the chagrin of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA). When Pakistan joined the Saudi
led 34 nation military alliance, Iran took offence believing itself to be the target. Pakistan
thus found itself between a rock and a hard place. Stung by the sensitivities of both its friends,
Pakistan has had to rethink its diplomatic overtures to maintain the right balance between
Tehran and Riyadh.
@ Posted by: Peter AU | Apr 14, 2017 1:55:14 PM | 45
Succinct overview recap, though very pessimistic ;)
Its occurred to me you may not fully follow, with utmost respect, what I've referred to on
occasion as: no key indicators re logistics/materiel mandatory pre-deployments with minimum ~3-6
months lead times, ONCE, a decision to go to War, or an Op that risks War breakout, any War, has
been taken and formally committed to, before the War or risk 'of' Operation, can commence ?
To do so without such pre-deployments well in advance of boots-on-the-ground, ships firing
armaments or aircraft launching strikes, ie engaging in Ops that have inherent escalation to War
risk, virtually guarantees failure and defeat should a War subsequently breakout ... Lieutenants
study tactics, Field officers/Commanders/Generals/Admirals study logistics, to paraphrase numerous
famous military commanders, especially smarmy/cheeky/insubordinate military logisticians ;)
SmoothieX12 47 China is not in the shape to fight US Navy as of now
That is a good reason for the US to act now. Look up the Rand Corp report - Thinking the Unthinkable.
Report finance by the pentagon as a military strategy for taking down China.
In the report, if the US acts now, they have a good chance. In five years time it will it will
be 50/50 and in ten year it is all over for the US. By then China will be militarily superior
or at a point when any US force projection against China will be totally destroyed very quickly.
I still read this blog from time to time, but this very issue is why I almost never comment
anymore. North Korea is to the Left as Israel is to the Right, and it infuriates me. The decades
of kidnapping foreign nationals, hijacked planes, international assassination attempts-- basically
70 years of deliberate destabilization and human rights abuses are all justified because... "America"
spelled any various number of ways is eeeeeeeevil.
I live in South Korea and have for the past 15 years. I posted a story here in 2012, shortly
after Kim Jong-un came to power, about a defector badmouthing North Korea. B chastised me for
believing such propaganda and responded with a linked story about how Kim Jong-un had created
an agricultural revolution resulting in a surplus of crops that year and was a hero as a result
of it. I am in South Korea.
Kim Jong-un had been in power for less than a year. The time of year was very, very early Spring
and the ground in South Korea was still frozen and no crops of any sort had been planted at all,
so I know they could not possibly have been planted yet in the north. Yet I was the one believing
in baseless propaganda. There's just no way to have any rational debate when the subject is as
sacred a cow to the residents here as North Korea is. You'll catch abuse for your comment daring
to suggest any culpability whatsoever for poor, innocent bystander North Korea, but I wanted to
reassure you that there do exist a small minority of us who appreciated what you had to say.
The #1 reason the Outlaw US Empire gets away with its continuation of massive crimes against
humanity is that its citizenry is mostly ignorant--made so purposefully--of the history that matters
and are today's equivalent of "Good Germans."
However, that doesn't excuse the remainder of the planet's citizenry from demanding an end
to the criminal actions of the Rogue United States.
@ Posted by: Peter AU | Apr 14, 2017 2:15:00 PM | 52
Thought scenario ... US launches attacks and starts War with China, no virtually 'non-concealable'
6 month mandatory preparation lead-time ... however unlikely, events don't go well for PLA ...
China assesses at risk of conventional defeat ... however unlikely, no possibility to continue
to conventionally resist or recover for an extended conventional conflict or guerilla campaign...
fires a demonstration tactical nuke (no casualties) to send a message re de-confliction/de-escalation,
or else ... US either stands down or its MAD. Game Over.
Alternately US just goes MAD straight up and risks it all with a supposed surprise First Strike
(highly improbable to adequately conceal) ... only a few Sino nukes make it to Stateside, yet
enough to wipe out 80Million+ instantly and same number in initially non-KIA casualties of varying
degrees plus turn to 'glass' half a dozen major cities ... well armed citizens response/reaction
to their new post-apocalyptic lives of joy & happiness ?
Thanks for proving how well the South Korean state propaganda work, you are basically calling
for war against your own country (or perhaps you are not even a native korean?) and your own people,
and you are calling people here crazy?
The 'Big Event' that Kim Jong Un boasted of, and had 'everyone' paralyzed in fear of nuke tests
- the grand opening of a new mass residential area in Pyongyang.
As others have stated, this whole mess is yet another US creation - the consequence of a 'nukes
for oil' deal that the US reneged on - NK would cease nuke development in exchange for eased sanctions.
ISLAMABAD: Defence Minister Khawaja Asif on Thursday assured the National Assembly that Pakistan
would not become part of any alliance against a Muslim state.
Responding to a calling attention notice, he said that the terms of reference (TOR) of the
Saudi-led military alliance would be unveiled by Saudi authorities next month.
He said that the TOR of the alliance, which is to be led by former Chief of the Army Staff
Gen Raheel Sharif, and its aims and objectives will be presented in parliament before formally
deciding whether Pakistan should become part of it or not.
"We have committed to safeguarding Saudi Arabia's soil for the safety and sanctity of the
two holy sites - Makkah and Medina - but we will not become part of any conflict against any
Muslim state, including Iran," the defence minister said, responding to the notice moved by
Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) MNA Dr Shireen Mazari.
In Libya, the three states seem to be in lock step, supporting Khalifa Haftar, for example.
In Palestine, a theatre long abandoned by the Arab leaders, Cairo has a deep-seated interest
and is backing the anti-Hamas Mohammed Dahlan, who is also very close with the ruling family
in the UAE.
In Yemen, the Egyptian regime has announced its plan to maintain its limited presence, although
Cairo's unwillingness to expand this presence is another source of disagreement with Riyadh.
The issue on which there is the most daylight between Cairo and Riyadh, however, is the
most significant conflict affecting the region today: the Syrian war.
While Riyadh has backed forces opposed to the regime since the outset, Cairo has moved from
a position of ambivalence to open support for the regime.
...
Although rumblings of an Egyptian military presence in Syria have not been substantiated,
Egyptian rhetoric and diplomatic efforts have firmly supported Assad. Most recently, Cairo
abstained from a key vote in a UN Security Council resolution that would have imposed sanctions
on the Syrian government, no doubt to the displeasure of the Saudis.
This position is more consistent with the Egyptian regime's outlook; Sisi rose to power
on an anti-Islamist platform and is waging a war against a small scale insurgency in the Sinai.
The Trump administration's policy goals in the region seem to align with Sisi's vision of supporting
authoritarian regimes against Islamists. This agenda puts both Trump and Sisi into Assad's
camp.
For this reason, it seems that Sisi's dream of a joint Arab military force will not materialise
anytime soon, at least not with joint Egyptian and Saudi participation.
Without agreement on Syria, this endeavor to unify Arab governments under his leadership
is dead on arrival, as the Syrian conflict is currently the most significant security threat.
The US laid a similar (though smaller scale) trail of destruction in Germany at the end of
WWII.
The development of napalm specifically to target civilians ties in the testing of the two
US nuclear weapons in Japan. The Japanese target cities were left untouched by conventional air
raids throughout, even though they contained valid military targets such a torpedo production
plants.
The occupants were so used to seeing US planes pass them by without ill effect, that on
the fateful day they stood out in the open watching the planes pass by as normal or so they thought.
The two attacks - for different designs of weapon - were designed to test and calibrate the effects
of nuclear weapons on undamaged cities and unprotected civilians. They were actual medical and
physical experiments on real people.
I have been giving your posts a lot of consideration. How to tie the logistics and so forth
lead time, to what we are seeing take place?
create major incident, congress quickly votes for war?
Can the US deploy faster than we have seen in the past? Most US wars since WWII have been wars
of choice, done at leisure, in a time and place of US choosing.
The difference between now and all the years since WWII, through the cold war and so forth
is that the US has very little time left. In trying to think how the US is acting different now
to the past, or actually dig up solid points I would probably point to MH17. With MH17 Australia,
one of the five eyes gladly sacrificed some people for empire. That shook me. The evidence was
the same as the crap dossier on Assad gassing his own people, yet not a word of protest out of
any Australian politician.
The US now have total and complete control over all its vassal. The US can now say and do anything,
no matter how obvious, and the bobble heads as Putin calls them, just bobble their heads in agreement.
I think what we will see in the next few years will be much different to the last 70 or so
years. If the US does nothing, it will start to collapse as the power of the dollar is eroded
by other currencies taking up market share.
I believe US will act, and that means taking down China as China is currently the number one
threat to the US. China simply continuing the way it is, manufacturing, trading ect will take
down the US.
The US is going to war. Much thought and training going into fighting peer, or near peer adversary.
At the same time, China and Russia are working to prevent the US from going to war.
What you have said about lead time does have to be taken into account to try and work out US
strategy. Does the US need another Pearl Harbour to get its population on a war footing for the
coming war with China? Sink a few useless aircraft carriers, similar to battleships being sunk
at Pearl harbour when WWII was a aircraft carrier war and battle ships were largely obsolete?
US think tanks like Brookings and Rand. Fronts for the 0.01% ? US policy roughly follows the lines
put out by these type think tanks.
The decades of kidnapping foreign nationals, hijacked planes, international assassination attempts--
basically 70 years of deliberate destabilization and human rights abuses are all justified
because...
following on from the defeat of Japan at end WWII occurred without any similar actions prior
to, concurrent with and subsequent to events of the Korean War, and the issues are purely of Left
& Right 'isms', not basic matters of Humanity, then frankly, you're viewpoint/position is wilfully
documented counter-factual, IMHO. Have seen no 'abuse' as you assert.
You live in SK ? Respectfully, please enlighten us as to the history of the island of Jeju
from Sept 1945 thru to today, as an example, maybe comment on the abandoned truth & reconciliation
inquiries/compensation and the persisting existing community divisions thru to this day, hm ?
From US point of view--absolutely. US establishment, yet again, thinks that it can control
escalation. Conventionally, North Korea is a punching bag. But I also would be very careful
with any (I underscore--any) supposedly "reputable" US analytical source assessments of anyone.
Overwhelming empirical evidence testifies to the fact that often they have no idea what they are
talking about.
Kim Jong-un orders evacuation of Pyongyang: report
North Korean leader Kim Jong-un ordered 25 percent of Pyongyang residents to leave the
city immediately, according to a Russian news outlet on Friday. The Pravda report said that in
accordance with the order, 600,000 people should be urgently evacuated.
If the US does nothing, it will start to collapse as the power of the dollar is eroded by other
currencies taking up market share.
Stepping back from fundamental military strategy/necessities ...
If China/Russia were facing imminent War, then they would very probably dump all US reserves
and Treasury Bonds first, and pre-emptively trigger economic collapse & rout. Unless it's MAD
first strike stuff, where is the industrial and manufacturing base of the US/UK to sustain and
win a 'Total War' ? Russia/China/Iran/NK are all militarily self-sufficient ... long-term sanctions
do that, somewhat self-defeating, no ?
IF the US collapses without War occurring, the 0.01% driving this will have already relocated
in advance to, New Zealand or Iceland, etc ? To live lives of luxury, whilst purchasing collapsed
US corporations for pennies on the dollar, perhaps, and wait for the investment to mature, maybe
? Ruthless bastards, citizens of the world ;)
Yet, mistakes & miscalculations can occur unintentionally when even only a sustained 'strategy
of tension' goes on and on ...
Another thing to consider now when looking at US actions... US have pinned all their hopes for
military dominance on the F-35. Thirty years of R&D, a trillion dollars, and all they have produced
is a flying scrapyard. The F-22 is a top aircraft, but they scrapped production to concentrate
all resources on the F-35. I read not long ago that production of upgraded Super Hornets is about
to kick off again.
The F-35 has put the US too far behind. By the time they have designed and produced another
5th gen or later version aircraft, it will be all over for the US.
These shifts in the South Korean polity, particularly the rise in anti-Americanism, confront
the Bush Administration with a policy dilemma: how to manage the U.S.-ROK alliance while pursuing
a more confrontational approach toward North Korea than that favored by many, if not most,
South Koreans.
You make good points Outraged. Will wait and watch, but I have a bad feeling that comes from a
lot of small, on their own, seemingly inconsequential events/moves.
Opinion polls taken over the past few years generally have found that large majorities of respondents
favor a partial or total withdrawal of U.S. troops from South Korea, though most holding this
position say they favor a drawdown unless there are improvements in North-South Korean relations;
few favor an outright withdrawal.
It is not just F-35, it is a combination of factors of strategic, technological and operational
nature. Take a look at LCS program or at the cost of SSBN Ohio-class replacement--a single hull
for $8.1 billion. This is more than Russia spent on all 8 of her latest state-of-the-art SSBNs
of Borey-class (Project 955, 955A)--3 afloat, 5-in different stages of readiness.
The US is going to war. Much thought and training going into fighting peer, or near peer adversary.
"The US is going to war. Much thought and training going into fighting peer, or near peer
adversary. " Do not see substantive evidence of the former, yet. Re the latter, other than neo-con/lib
chickenhawk warmongers and detached from facts/reason/competent analysis & reality stink-tanks,
again, see no evidence other than endless PR and rabid rhetoric, MSM abetted.
Have you seen the most recent data/reports on DOD readiness levels, it's not a pleasant
read if you're a jingoistic warmonger ... would argue, short version, the opportunity existed
prior to 2001, maybe even as late as 2004-2006 at a pinch ... since then, and now, the window
has closed and the opportunity lost ... the vassals you refer to have been as suborned as they
are now since the late '40's, they just are now led by such incompetents that they don't have
the sense to conceal that they are, bought & paid for, bobbleheads. Yet, they are good time opportunists
and no guarantee of staying the course should it come to a potential WWIII, see Germany/Italy/etc
...
Thanks for a great article. It is so good to read truthful information and not the propaganda
bullshit the MSM saturates us with.
If more people read this the outrage would force the fascist US government to back off.
Of passing interest...according to CGTN World Today, April 15, China and Russia's foreign ministers
spoke by telephone on Friday to discus stability on the Korean Peninsula.
Who knows, maybe NK will be rehabilitated, as is, and accepted back into the Russia/China
'Axis', openly, as for the then USSR/ChiCom 'Axis' pre and during the Korean war ? After all,
given the insane and surreal rabid propaganda in western MSM, what difference would it make re
supposed 'image' in the eyes of the supposed 'International Community' (US/UK/Israhell & good
time vassals) ... any ?
Perhaps the most important yet neglected fact related to the build-up for war with China is
the lack of preparing the ignorant US citizenry via the sort of dehumanization campaign waged
at Islam/Muslims. Heck, just the great preference for Chinese food makes such a campaign more
than difficult--the Yellow Peril proclamations of the past long ago ceased to resonate. Plus,
I'll certainly echo Outraged's point about USA lacking the required industrial capacity and
raw material for any such war other than MAD versus China/Russia. One of the main reasons the
Lead From Behind strategy was adopted along with using terrorist proxies to destabilize Russia/China
is because of that rather stark reality.
Yonatan @62--
Thanks for your reply. Napalm was developed at Harvard and the book was published by one of
Harvard's publishing houses. Given its current attitude, I bet Harvard would now call its own
published work Fake News, and disallow it from classrooms while removing it from libraries.
Monolycus--
The following extracts are from Australian National University Professor Gavan McCormack's
Target Korea: Pushing North Korea To The Brink of Nuclear Catastrophe and detail just which
side did most of the murdering:
"At the outbreak of war in 1950, one of the first acts of the [South Korean] Rhee regime was
to order the execution of political prisoners, whose deaths were in due course attributed to atrocities
by the incoming Northern forces...Declassified U.S. documents indicated that `more than 2,000'
political prisoners were executed without trial in the early weeks, hundreds of them were taken
out to sea from the port of Pohang and shot, their bodies dumped overboard...Throughout the country,
according to Gregory Henderson, then a U.S. Embassy official in Seoul and later a prominent historian
of Korea, probably over 100,000 people were killed without trial or legal warrant. Investigations
into all this have scarcely begun...
"When Seoul was recaptured by U.S. and South Korean forces perhaps as many as 29,000 Koreans
were executed on suspicion of collaboration with the North...The occupation of Pyongyang and many
other cities and villages above the 38th parallel [by South Korean forces] was characterized by
atrocities...According to one estimate, 150,000 people were executed or kidnapped...
"The official U.S. Army report at the end of the [Korean] war gave 7,334 as the figure for
civilian victims of North Korean atrocities, a small fraction of those now known to have been
executed by [government of South Korean leader] Rhee in the first moments of the war alone...
"...The Taejon Massacre...became the centerpiece of the U.S. case for North Korean brutality...A
U.S. Army report on the massacre, including graphic photographs, was published around the world
in October 1953...
"At Taejon, a town of about 160 kilometers south of Seoul, a massacre undoubtedly occurred...
"...It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the most brutal North Korean atrocity in the South
was actually a Southern atrocity in a brutal ongoing civil war...
"...The figure of 1,800 massacre victims was given...Somebody--presumably in either the
American military or government--seems to have made the decision to turn this into a Northern
massacre, the characteristic, single atrocity of the entire war. The truth seems inescapable:
The worst atrocity of the war was committed by forces acting in the name of the United Nations,
and a concerted effort was then made to cover it up by blaming it on the North Korean enemy...
Re US war manufacturing base. Where is the MIC at now? US is by far the largest manufacturer of
military hardware. The assembly of the final product has not been offshored. How much do they
import in the way of raw or processed materials? Steel smelting, rolling ect - Aluminium - Titanium?
Rare earth metals required for high tech military is imported from China, North Korea has the
other known large recoverable rare earth reserve. Any US war with China would most likely be a
naval missile war, something along the lines of the Rand report?
Any US war with China would most likely be a naval missile war, something along the lines of
the Rand report?
China does have limited versions of both Klub-NK and Club-S, those were shorter ones until
recently when China started to get her hands on actual Russian versions of such weapons as P-800
Onyx with their ranges of 660 kilometers, add here SU-35 (also in Russian configuration) and S-400,
also in Russian configuration, and you have a rather interesting dynamics suddenly.
China's very weak spot navy-wise is their submarine force, despite some good SSKs, PLAN's nuclear
submarine component is atrocious--a generation or two behind what Russia and US operate. So, for
now it is a mixed bag. Plus there is an issue of targeting, I don't know if Russia will make her
Liana system available to China. Can China today sink US nuclear carrier? Possibly, In 5-7 years
it will become not only possible but highly probable.
US MIC armament production ought to be seen/understood as MIC profitmaking scam that happens
to produce few usable/battle-worthy assets. There's a very good reason for calling the USA's once
mighty industrial heartland the Rust Belt--it's literally rotting away as a ride on Amtrak's Capitol
Limited will testify.
It would be far cheaper, saner and moral to obtain rare earth minerals and other goods via
trade than expanding industrial capacity, instituting a military draft, outfitting such a force,
then waging a war for conquest.
I tried for some 15 minutes to find the comment you wrote about and can not find it.
But two remarks:
byongjin policy ('progress in tandem' or 'move two things forward simultaneously') was developed
and implemented years before Kim Jong-un came to power. He (more precise: those who are behind
him) made it an official party policy and created the slogan long after the program had started.
The first nuclear test in NoKo was 2006 - five years before him. The deterrence effects were already
in place as well as a lessened conventional positioning, the economic trend was already positive.
I may well have berated you about the uncritical quoting of a North Korean defector. These
are notorious liars. Their income in South Korea was reported to be paid by the secret service
in dependence of the media splash they create.
There is huge amount of fake horror stories about North Korea in the South Korean (esp. Chosun
Ilbo) and global press. Much of it is planted by the South Korean government. U.S. media have
thankfully stopped to regurgitate most of the stories for now as too many
turned out to be false .
North Korea hacked Sony? No it did not. It was an
insider hack by a former Sony IT person. Sony made the "North Korea hack" up to escape culpability
and to sell an otherwise unsellable bad movie.
Kim Jong-Un kills his half brother by having an unprotected person smear highly toxic VX in
his face in a very public place in Malaysia? The person who does that gets not hurt one bit? Check
the life style of his half brother - girls and drugs and rock&roll - lots of drugs and lots of
alcohol. The dude much more likely had a heart infarct and the rest was made up like the other
stories above.
North Korea did and does some outrageous stuff. So did and do other countries. How many alleged
"communists" and "sympathizers" did the various dictatorships in South Korea kill under U.S. tutelage?
Thousands? Ten thousands? A hundredthousand at least. How many sabotage acts did they engineer
in North Korea? How many were hurt by those?
I am not blind on one eye. But the anti-NoKo propaganda is similar to the propaganda that created
the war on Iraq fever. It is now even more important to look from the other side and to write
that up, not just some pseudo-concerned "all sides are bad" pieces.
Looking in vain for the old Monolycus comment I came across a piece I wrote in 2012.
Therein I quote Tariq Ali from a piece
he wrote about his
1970s visit to North Korea. This bit from the end of the piece on the U.S. position under Bush/Obama
is enlightening:
Over lunch I asked her about [the Bush administration] plans for North Korea. She was cogent.
'You haven't seen the glint in the eyes of the South Korean military,' she said. 'They're desperate
to get hold of the North's nuclear arsenal. That's unacceptable.' Why? 'Because if a unified
Korea becomes a nuclear power, it will be impossible to stop Japan from becoming one too and
if you have China, Japan and a unified Korea as nuclear states, it shifts the relationship
of forces against us.' Obama seems to agree with this way of thinking.
It really makes little sense what the US is up to. Are they relying on bluff and bluster
to win the day? Anon1 @80 put up a good link. It is one of the things that has me worried.
What we are seeing now, is it bluff and bluster? or is it Doolittle raid/battle of Midway type
culture - US can overcome all no matter what?
- North Korea has some good reasons to not trust the US.
1) In the 1990s they had a deal with the US, in which the US would supply Nort Korea with oil
in return for a suspension of their nuclear program. But the US didn't deliver on theri promises.
2) In 2003 or 2004 the US made some serious movements that did suggest that the US was preparing
a MAJOR attack on North Korea. Under secretary Paul Wolfowitz also made some remarks that would
suggest such a move.
3) The G.W.Bush administration (2000-2008) deliberately increased tension with North Korea.
What we are seeing now, is it bluff and bluster? or is it Doolittle raid/battle of Midway type
culture - US can overcome all no matter what?
Both. I am not sure that I can correctly estimate a percentage of both. Let me take a wild
guess: bluster/bluff-60-65%, Doolittle--35-40%. The foundation of Pax Americana is a mythology
of the "best military in the world", without this myth the whole house of cards begins to fold.
It was folding with increasing speed since circa 2008 and accelerated tremendously in 2014.
Great that you swing by every so often. But I am not sure why you are offended when people
criticise your point of view. That's what comments are for. And that's why this blog is here.
To present an alternative view to mainstream lies. And just because you live in South Korea does
not mean you have an objective view of the situation there. In the bigger picture, the mad dogs
in the US government do all the things you mention, but no doubt because they are America they
are ignored and their actions declared righteous. The agreements are historical and it was not
North Korea who backed away, broke them or refused to consider them. North Korea has the tightest
sanctions on earth and so b's reporting about the rationale for North Korea's actions is timely.
Instead of the insidious propaganda we get from Western media. Enjoy yourself in South Korea.
Just remember who invaded who there and who is causing mayhem in the rest of the world. Hint;
it is not Kim Yong-Un.
An old saw, but a profound truism, 'No Battleplan survives first engagement with the enemy'.
So Rands 'plan' ain't worth much ... secondly, if you go into combat/war without actually considering
the enemies own moves/counters/plans/actions, then you've already lost before the first shot is
fired.
For example, the Chinese have built an autobahn grade highway which ends ~10Kms short of the
China-Afghan border, they have 3 combined arms army groups including air divisions from the adjacent
Western Military Region they could send over that border pass, after getting the combat engineers,
sweating hard and using machinery, to finish the final stretch in a matter of hours ... the remaining
army group & numerous Police divisions could secure the military region, as its isolated from
potential threats other than Indian border effectively.
Within 3-4 days forced march, worst case, they've crossed the Iran-Afghan border and the ME
is toast ... concurrent and co-ordinated with similar capabilities from Russia, the ME is toast.
And in conjunction with Iran free to wipeout the GCC's pathetically unprofessional non-commital
'green' 'parade only' militaries.
What has the US got, pre-positioned to prevent it ?
The conventional forces that NATO used to have deployed, pre-positioned and in number to defend
a USSR, now RF, multi echelon armored deep penetration into EU, no longer exists ...
The Bundeswehr is a shadow of its glory days as an armored/mechanized shield during the Cold
War, now periodically ridiculed for not having sufficient MGs or ammunition to train with on joint
training exercises ... War ready in 2017 ?
The nuclear and non-nuclear subs of both sides would promptly slaughter each other in a mutual
knife-fight, sudden death, whilst taking out the majority of the Carriers, US/UK/FR ... the remainder
of the Carrier group escorts exist and are designed/configured to defend/protect & shield the
carrier, not very useful once its at the bottom of the ocean along with all the strike aircraft,
pilots, support crews and sailors ...
Thanks B for the information regarding how the US and South Korea time their military maneuvers
to coincide with the rice planting and harvesting periods in North Korea. I had not been aware
of this before.
Bill Clinton's offer to North Korea to supply grain and materials for building two new
reactors and his later reneging on that do not surprise me at all as these are of a piece with
the Clinton Foundation raising hundreds of millions for Haiti's post-quake reconstruction which
in the end resulted in the construction of one factory employing 30 people making T-shirts for
export. No doubt with the North Korean "offer" the Clintons got something of that.
Also thanks to Karlof1 for being the tireless terrier that he is in hunting down the information
about US-allied atrocities during the Korean War.
I would like to pose to Monolycus and the other South Korean-based commenter the challenge
of explaining how South Korea rapidly recovered from total war devastation in the early 1960s
to the point where in 1988 the nation's capital could host the Summer Olympic Games. This all
took place in the space of less than 30 years. If you both can do this convincingly and somehow
mention Park Chunghee as an enlightened free-market democratic capitalist ideologue, rest assured
I will be blown away.
American Technological progress is probably stymied by the manner in which it is conducted. That
is to spread contracts for hardware/software/parts among competing states via state representative
congressional bag men. Wasting time and money in the process. Hoping for cost overruns and delays
which increase profits. Small wonder the state-of-the-art US warplane is shit.
I'd have to question Kims sanity if he OK's a missile or nuclear test at this time. Trumps obviously
a mad man trying to show how tough he is in order go terrorize countries and maybe his own citizens
into submission. However, he has the means to execute the destruction. The MSM will be behind
him all the way and Americans love war because God blesses them and they believe they are the
good guys fighting evil and making the world safe for liberty and Democracy. American exceptionalism
they call it.. The citizens as a group might be the most insane of all of these entities. Certainly
the dumbest.
B @ 92: I should think Air China's flight cuts are due to people suddenly cancelling flight plans
after the threats made by the Trump government against Nth Korea.
Anticipating though that if the US were to make the first move against Nth Korea, Air China's
flights back and forth between China and Nth Korea are going to be very full. I believe there
are some 2 million Koreans living in China (mainly in Manchuria) and many if not most of them
have family in Nth Korea. Beijing must consider preparing for a refugee exodus into China's northeast
provinces if there are as yet no plans.
mmm... well something major is brewing. What is smoke and mirrors and deflection and what is the
real US strategy?
Syria, Korea,
Mattis cooking up a plot with GCC+Isreal = Iran
Wow - I'm impressed with this approach from China. But they still need to be a bit stronger about
denying the US the right or the chance to attack NK. Even Russia has several times sent a fleet
to Syria. China should do this to ward off the Hegemon.
interesting discussion on the likelihood of war, upcoming.
i think certainly outraged has the 'rational' analysis of war well in hand. but i don't think
that war is rational in, literally, the end.
i think the 'smartest guys in the room' in the us are not military types, but financial types.
the same guys who run the hedge funds run the 'rational analysis' and forecast the 'outcomes'
of wars, purely imaginary. and they have the rest of the world backing down before the 'overwhelming'
might of the us wehrmacht, though a good part of their analysis is based on their own 'funny money'
based 'power', which is only as good as everyone else's willing suspension of disbelief. no 'rational
actor' would not back down, they say, in double negative. they're reductionists, and their results
only hold true in the very much reduced world they've disconnected, bottled, and simulate their
'trades' in.
i think there is a very real chance that they'll take us all over the edge, especially now
that they have the donald himself unequivocally - well for him - on board. we'll see, won't we?
we won't be safe from all this until after the air has been let out of their financial balloon,
for good this time, and they are no longer the 'smartest guys' in the room. and then we'll only
be safe if we claim our world and install an alternative management.
thanks b, for the excellent perspective on the ceaseless grind the us has put the peninsula
under over the past six decades. i never noticed their lockstep of stress and torture with the
agricultural cycle either. hades and persephone all over again. i guess it never stops.
Thanks much for the complement. There are two main credible reporters on the Korean War that
I use: IF Stone's The Hidden History of the Korean War was published in 1952 and was excellent
for its timely veracity; Bruce Cumings, recently History Chair at University of Chicago, has written
extensively on Korea, and his two volume The Origins of the Korean War is the most extensive
examination of the conflict. In 2010, he published a very abridged version that looks serviceable,
easier to find and much less expensive. This links to a review of Stone's book in doc format,
www.ais.org/~jrh/Hidden_History_of_Korean_War.doc Cumins also co-authored Inventing the Axis
of Evil: The Truth about North Korea, Iran, and Syria which is short and very readable. Cumins
has also examined and written about the relationship between War and Television within
the USA. And here's a website containing many of IF Stone's writings,
http://www.ifstone.org/index.php
I am amazed by the depth of the comments on Trump's military threats against North Korea (trolls
excepted). I would hope that Trump is just playing Teddy Roosevelt who "carried the big stick"
using the white fleet to intimidate Japan: http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h942.html
The US has positioned two cruise missile carrying destroyers within 300 miles of the North
Korean nuclear test site awaiting the USS Carl Vinson aircraft carrier strike group including
the WC-135 "nuclear sniffer" aircraft.
U.S. Air Force has also just staged and epic Elephant Walk at Kadena Air Base Japan comprised
of HH-60 Pave Hawks, F-15 Eagles, E-3 Sentries and KC-135 Stratotankers as a show of force (see
Superstation95 for photos).
In addition to the thermobaric bomb demonstration in Afghanistan, the US just tested the upgraded
B61-12 nuclear gravity bomb (just linked by Anon1)
Trump's "Big Stick" approach has led to mass movements of:
(1) China moved 200,000 troops on the border of North Korea;
(2) Evacuation of about 600,000civilians from Pyongyang;
(3) Plans by Japan's National Security Council on how to evacuate its nearly 60,000 citizens
from South Korea;
(4) Lots of flights out of South Korea.
There are reports that China has sent its submarines sent out to sea (setting on the bottom?)
and is likely making additional preparations without fanfare.
North Korea has recently stated that if an attack is perceived a nuclear war will occur. I
would expect that the first strike would be an airburst meant to wipe out all electronics not
protected by Faraday cages, including unhardened military communications systems.
On the US West coast it would be wise to stock up on iodine tablets as attacks on nuclear reactors
and other nuclear facilities will release iodine 131 from fuel rods as well as other biologically
hazardous radionuclides including strontium-90, cesium-137, and uranium-234.
It may be the Make America Great Again is actually represents the Jewish word for combat (MAGA).
Such an approach was warned against by General Smedley Butler in his critical essay "War is a
Racket". https://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html
As a side note the South Korean elections are coming up soon. Does anyone have a point of view?
@104 The hedge fund guys are only good if they make the right bets. What they depend on is inside
information, which companies are in trouble, which country is going to get whacked etc. But they
don't always get it right. And their thinking is mostly short term.
'Alternative management' would be nice. Maybe a race of benevolent aliens could take over.
I feel I should simply repeat what I said yesterday on this site. It still seems rather relevant:
This is where this is going, I would guess:
US Airstrike on North Korea Risks Leading to '5-6 Chernobyl-Type Disasters'
https://sputniknews.com/politics/201704131052612166-us-north-korea-chernobyl/
/~~~~~~~~~~ "Approximately 30 nuclear power plants are operational in South Korea. Several of them could
be destroyed even if conventional bombs and shells are used. This could lead to five-six Chernobyl-type
disasters on a relatively small area of 99 square kilometers that could instantly turn into a
place unsuitable for life," he explained.
\~~~~~~~~~~
But that's not all we're going to get:
/~~~~~~~~~~
The Pentagon "cannot but take into account that in case of an airstrike against North Korea, US-made
Tomahawks will fly toward the territory of Russia and China. This is a more dangerous scenario
than the show of force in Syria," he said. "Russia will not be able to wait for US missiles to
accidentally land on its territory. Moscow will be forced to shoot down the missiles while they
are in North Korean airspace."
\~~~~~~~~~~
Meanwhile, tens of millions of South Koreans perish, with a few becoming radionuclide refugees.
Good job, eh?
@ blues
I would guess that SK, Japan, Australia, are all viewed simply as forward military bases by the
US, that can be abandoned if required.
@ jfl
I have read although ,in a casual way rather than a study, too much of the history of wars.
Often what comes across the insanity of a country starting a war and then is itself destroyed.
Nazi Germany - leading edge tech, smart people. Country of sixty million conquered virtually all
of Europe with ease then took on Russia. Instead of being content with being a leading country,
they were willing to gamble everything to have it all.
This is somewhat where the US is at today. The position is that it has over reached and
now needs to pull back and consolidate, but we are not seeing that. instead, we are seeing the
US become more threatening.
So for me that needs to be matched/reconciled to Outraged comments on pre-positioning, indicators
ect.
TRUMP READY TO REMOVE CRAZED NORTH KOREAN KILLER [GLOBE as observed in my supermarket yesterday,
front page reported on-line]
IN a gutsy move to save the world from global disaster, courageous President Donald Trump
has drawn up a ruthless, top-secret plan to kill North Korean warmonger Kim Jong Un before he
can push the button that would unleash nuclear holocaust!
D.C. insiders tell GLOBE the iron-willed president is fed up with roly-poly Kim's blustery
bull and is determined to squash the pint-sized dictator, who recently launched four intercontinental
ballistic missiles into the Sea of Japan!
"Trump has put the elite fighting teams of Delta Force and SEAL Team 6 in Trump has put the
elite fighting teams of Delta Force and SEAL Team 6 in South Korea on standby and ordered Tomahawk
missiles and nuclear weapons to the North Korean border!" a White House insider tells GLOBE.
Get all the details and the latest information on the White House's latest moves against the
tyrannical North Korean dictator in this week's issue of GLOBE.
====
Piotr: I understand how "top-secrets" can make it to our intrepid GLOBE reporters. But how
did they determined who is "iron-willed" and who is "rolly-polly". E.g. it seems to me that Mr.
Trump and Mr. Kim have similar BMI. Or how both leaders exhibited iron will firing employees.
i agree. no matter what happens, it won't be good ... until the Mother Of All Bubbles has burst.
and then it might be but a brief respite indeed if we don't take advantage of the lull in 'play'
to 'decapitate' our own 'leadership'. it's our sheer, mere 300 million+ souls (600 million+ soles?)
to their 535 caputs ... think we have a chance?
Apologies if this has already been mentioned - but if the USA were to unilaterally launch strikes
on North Korea could Russia itself intervene and launch missiles against the ships/fleet at fault
- ie - against those who have abrogated their responsibilities to international peace and security?
The aggressor nation.
Could Russia sink the ships with the USS Carl Vinson in the name of maintaining international
peace and security??
What side of Korea is the Carl Vinson and is it closer to the coastline of Russia or Syria?
According to Jim Stone NK has a very formidable 50+ submarine fleet. He also said these subs
are of NK manufacture based on their upgrades to Russian 1990's designs. They are nowhere to be
seen at the moment and as they run on batteries when still, there is no easy way to detect them
if they are on the ocean floor.
Many are nuclear, have on average 100 mile range and the largest one could travel to and hit
the West Coast. So if the Trump armada attacks they may quickly find themselves on the bottom
of the South China Sea. And as for a war with China, IMO there is no way the US can win conventionally
IMO. And if it looks to go to nuclear, Russia will regretfully reduce us to ash. It appears Trump
has turned over management of the military to the generals. I have the same sense of pending disaster
that I would have if I, on rounding a corner bumped into 1000 Daleks and with not a Doctor in
sight.
In addition nuclear reactors require fossil fuel power plants as backup up they suddenly
lose power. In case of an air blast over South Korea the electrical grid would shut down with
possible meltdown of reactors which didn't go into standby prior to the nuclear detonation.
An even more critical issue is that a lack of power would shutoff cooling water to the spent
nuclear fuel storage ponds. This would result in the water boiling off and
"Once the fuel is uncovered, it could become hot enough to cause the metal cladding encasing
the uranium fuel to rupture and catch fire, which in turn could further heat up the fuel until
it suffers damage. Such an event could release large amounts of radioactive substances, such as
cesium-137, into the environment."
It is important to remember that there is more spent nuclear fuel in spent fuel rods than in
the reactors. There is a DOE computer program for calculating the radionuclide composition of
the fuel vs storage time (Origin code). but I cannot find it on the internet. The release of these
daughter products and the long term dispersal onto the land would turn Korea into a dead zone
for hundreds of years.
This is very disturbing but I still believe it is show and that trump is just using theater to
intimidate N Korea and actually China to control N Korea.
i fully expect that China will give him a bogus way of looking tough that will achieve nothing
and do little to n Korea. The problem is what happens if n Korea and China call his bluff and
give him no way to look tuff.
Is it possible this is a distraction for further actions in Syria?
Maybe connected.....maybe not? With the election of Trump....word gets out that North Korea is
very interested in talks with the incoming administration....and then what happens: Kim Jong-un's
brother dies in a spectacularly suspicious fashion. Now that Park has been impeached.......and
her likely successor looks to be someone open to talks with North Korea, the US is suddenly on
the brink of war with the DPRK. Coincidence...neocon serendipity? Inquiring minds wanna know!
@29 - This is why Trump acting so tough now, he know China+UN+EU+Nato will support his coming
war.Posted by: Anon1 | Apr 14, 2017 12:49:02 PM | 29
ridiculous idea to even contend with. scared of what? the very first place for he n.korean nukes
will be US army basesin japan, even before s korea.
everyone knows the so called armada is a bluff here in asia, on other note, it shows USA doesn't
provide security to the freedom of navigation that it keeps on pushing onto others. it does the
opposite, it shows all the nations what freedom of navigation really means ..... to push for war
instead of protecting trade, of which almost all the trade is coming from china anyways.
it brings a huge conundrum in decision making, if trump doesn't do anything, all countries
in asia will switch alliances towards china in the long run, except for broke jokes japan/usa.
if trump does do something ridiculous, there won't be much of US/japan influence left in asia
as china/russia will be forced to respond, and respond it will not like the fake wars washington
is content with nowadays. trump obviously wants to change the tune of the conflicts....... but
sending an armada into enemy territory while espousing support from nato..... (pacific nato?)
puts so much fear into any nation here, knowing there is no petroleum logistics here for the war
lovers.
where u going to buy oil from Hong kong? singapore? japan? russia?
@127 The simple answer is much like Obama, Trump is turning to bumbling around the international
stage now that his domestic Presidency is finished. Between the Freedom Caucus and extinction
of the Democrats who have been reliable crossover votes, there isn't a working majority in Washington.
The key event wasn't the chemical weapon false flag or Rachel Maddow's latest Glenn Beck screed
but the failure to repeal ACA and the recognition the Republicans don't have a plan to go or much
of anything. The budget will be up in a few months, and he still has the same problem he has ACA:
Demcorats who cant provide cover and the Freedom Caucus types.
"Wag the Dog" scenarios focus on salacious scandals, but the collapse of domestic Presidencies
are usually followed by war Presidencies. Trump is largely the idiot he appears to be and is simply
grabbing onto the various interests within the borg. Trump will bounce from "enemy" to "enemy"
trying to find an issue to get his Presidency back on track.
One other jewel of US propaganda is why US is there, Keeping peace between NK and SK? Not at all
US is there to keep peace between both Koreas and Japan and US stake imperial claim against China.
Numerous cases of Japanese even minute encroachments on territorial waters of whole Korea were
met by SK and NK alike with joint condemnation recalling ambassadors and even small shooting war
and that including sharp conflict between both Koreans and Japan over so called disputed islands
and waters.
In fact a claim that US role there is stabilizing the situation cannot be entirely dismissed
however the issue is that it is the US THAT CAUSED THIS INSTABILITY IN THE FIRST PLACE pushing
regional divisions what amounts to precluding possibility to really end WWII among enemies resolve
issues that still remind unresolved like Korea and move on with acknowledgment of reality of Chinese
economic and political leadership which would be just return to historical situation just two
centuries ago with modern solutions for coexistence.
But that would spell the end of globalist project under US imperial umbrella, a prospective
that is strongly opposed on all sides for diametrically different reasons.
Something that has struck me as this thread goes on.. WWII never ended. Nazi/imperial Japan
quest for empire morphed into US quest for empire that is coming to a climax today.
Russia/USSR won WWII in Vietnam, and Vietnam is now an independent sovereign country. US won
WWII in Germany and Germany is still an occupied country. Japan has never been disputed and remains
a US occupied country. Korea has never been settled and WWII is still ongoing.
If North Korea, Russia, Iran, China or any other country that resists Zio-U.S. imperialism
sent an Armada off the U.S. coast on the fourth of July, the U.S. wouldn't hesitate to sink it
immediately, no questions asked. Trump is proving every day that he's a dangerous idiot.
so mark pence is in sk with the troops 'observing easter prayer', what fucking hypocrites , 'god's
army' on the way to another killing spree. --
i wonder if pence's son is with the grunts ? mao sent his son together with the troops to help
nk beat back the murkkans, hundreds of thousands never went home, including mao's son.
but nuthin about the chinese sacrifice was mentioned in the nk war memorial hall, its all about
the 'great leader'.
during the sino/soviet split, nk had no hesitation ditching beijing for the more powerful ussr.
by all accounts kim jong un would dearly wish to dump beijing for the more powerful unitedsnake...if
only washington would accept him.
wouldnt be surprised if kim is eventually 'cowed' by trump's armada and submit to washington
wish.
then trump would brag 'didnt i tell you all the past prez are pussies, it takes a real man
to get things done'
@ outraged.
What would we see for a naval and to a lesser extent air war to blockade China? No ground war
component with the massive logistic tail that requires. Obama's pivot on China entailed moving
60% of US naval assets to Asia pacific region.
Where are US subs located? Where are US missile ships located. What is classified in the way
of US naval asset positioning and not available to the public?
Carriers are smoke and mirrors. A bygone era.
From what I can make of it, Carter pre-positioned India as a US asset in 2016.
it may be that b has hit the nail on the head again ...
"As a first step, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) may suspend its nuclear
and missile activities in exchange for the suspension of large-scale U.S.-Republic of Korea
(ROK) military exercises," Wang told a press conference on the sidelines of the annual session
of the National People's Congress.
... what happens is that tee-rump unveils essentially this plan at the 'last minute' and takes
credit for it, having exercised us all and directed the attention to his spotlight on the yellow
sea.
i hope that's what happens. we're stuck with this clown for four more years. he has no talent
of his own, unless you call this kind of 'performance' talent ... and in fact he seems to have
claimed it ... he may be an a**hole but he's the world's biggest a**hole! ... at least we might
all live through it, ruled by a 70 year-old enfant terrible. tee-rump will play dummy and putin
and xi can alternate as ventriloquists ... smiling and holding the dummy up to take the bows.
Dr. Wellington Yueh | Apr 15, 2017 1:21:00 AM |
134
@145: I don't really consider folks here'bouts as peasants. There are trolls and sock puppets.
B and the commentators here (you and jfl are high on the list!) comprise a collection of 'reality
lenses' that I find useful.
RE: My initial response to jfl, the 20% I envision as human shields might be splittable, but
you're only going to flake off a few %. Also, ignorance/apathy/fear (or incapacity for some other
reason) on 'our side' brings the numbers way down. Add to that attrition from whatever course
of action Empire attempts, and you have even fewer. Since we seem to be dealing with the 'upset-the-table'
kind of losers, I'm sure they'll do something spectacular as a coda.
Anyway, currently reading "The Shining", "Conquest of the Useless", "Roughing It", "Moby Dick".
Just finished Gregory Benford's "Galactic Center" series...that was gripping and depressing for
6 long volumes.
Vice President Pence is scheduled to visit Seoul on Sunday, during his first Asian trip. The
timing of his visit, after the Day of the Sun, might indicate the US does not plan any pre-emptive
strike against North Korea on the Day of the Sun However, while Pence is ostensibly going to South
Korea to talk with the government there about North Korea's nuclear development, the White House
has also said it has contingency plans for the VP's visit, should North Korea carry out another
nuclear test, indicating the possibility of a sudden shift to a war footing if Kim goes ahead
with his apparent plans.
\~~~~~~~~~~
@146 denk, 'by all accounts kim jong un would dearly wish to dump beijing for the more powerful
unitedsnake...'
but that's a plan made looking in the rearview mirror ... isn't it? the future is china's.
the very recent past is the 'legacy' of the us, burnt-out shooting star. sacrificed to the greed
of its ruling class. in this life, at any rate.
any opportunist worth his wages would go with china at this point in the game. and isn't kim
really just the korean version of trump?
an apprentice working for the apparat that really runs the country as their frontman, to bound
about on stage and keep the world's attention on korea?
151
Ignorance/apathy covers the middle 75% or so. A US manual on special forces hybrid/covert warfare
covers that well. Even has a pie chart. Too many home brews at the moment to dig up the link,
compounded by the fact that it is nearly time for my nana nap.
If Kim does want to 'provoke' the Americans and test a missile or nuke surely he's most likely
to do it a bit later than people think - ie - like Tuesday night Korean time - perhaps just before
US markets open for Tuesday after the holidays. Or are they open on Monday? If they are, perhaps
9-10pm Monday night Korean time???
Try and cause a 'panicked' market crash before Trump can react? Ensuring he will react against
the backdrop of a market crash should he choose to react.
i re-read moby dick myself a couple of years ago. found a
whale
chart to go along with it, which helped bring the voyage to life ... back in the day ... when
i was a kid there were always films from africa on tv, millions of gazelles and wildebeasts. i
imagine they're all gone now, as are the buffalo, as go the whales.
i think that, just as the man himself has turned on a dime when confronted with 'reality',
so too will we and many of our usian brothers and sisters, many his followers, once we reach the
point of personal betrayal required to open our eyes to our real enemies, to forget the scripted
'enemies' our real enemies had taught us to love to hate. but i've never been through a real meltdown
and revolution before, so i don't know. that looks to me the way things are headed though. deplored
by all sides, yet thought to be well under control, yet we all have our own peculiar 'red lines',
and are being pushed, relentlessly toward them. we are many and growing more numerous; they are
few and getting fewer, by their own design.
The wars to consolidate the world under one power has been going on for well over a century.
Britain took the lead early on before passing the torch to the US once Rhodes plan to recover
America was accomplished, sometime between Mckinleys assassination and the and of WWI . Wall Street
and the money power in the city of London were always in sync. Albert Pike predicted 3 World Wars
would be needed.
The main change has been the form of government envisioned for the future. This has changed
from Communism to Fascism. Many supporters of fascism here in the 1930's including FDR. After
WWII many of the fascist bankers and industrialists in Germany and Japan got off light and were
reintegrated into the global economy where they trained up the next generation of fascists. They
joined forces with those likeminded folks in the US and Brits by working together in BIS, various
international agencies and groups like the Bilderbergers and Trilaterals to develop strategies
to acccomplish their goals in the short and long terms
...
After all, given the insane and surreal rabid propaganda in western MSM, what difference would
it make re supposed 'image' in the eyes of the supposed 'International Community' (US/UK/Israhell
& good time vassals) ... any ?
Posted by: Outraged | Apr 14, 2017 4:03:27 PM | 78
That's a really good question. Imo, Western propaganda often seems to have an influence on
the actions and statements of AmeriKKKa's fake enemies. There are two (maybe more?) ways of looking
at this.
1. The fake enemies really are worried about public opinion in the West.
2. They're not worried, but deem it sensible to pretend that they are, because anything they can
do to encourage AmeriKKKa to believe more of its own bullshit should lead to an escalation to
the point where it crosses the line dividing the sublime from the ridiculous - which is what seems
to have happened this year.
we are ruled by idiots, con men, war-mongers, and Neanderthal whackos. Any attack by the US
would be a massacre and humanitarian disaster of epic proportions. Plus, I assume, the north korean
army that remains would likely shower much of south korea with tens of thousands of rockets, mortars
and missiles.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/04/14/whackos-in-washington-the-risky-game-of-regime-decapitation/
Whackos in Washington: the Risky Game of Regime Decapitation by Dave Lindorff
.....But what would the result of such a strike be?
For one thing, almost certainly it would mean the contamination of part or even much of the
country in North Korea with nuclear fallout and radiation. For another it - given the long history
of US "precision" targeting going terribly wrong - it would mean much death and destruction for
the long-suffering North Korean people.
It would also mean chaos in a country that for nearly three-quarters of a century has been
ruled by one absolute tyrant or another, in which there is simply no organized system of governance
at lower levels to handle anything, from delivery of health services to distribution of food.
If you think the chaos that followed the US invasion and overthrow of Saddam Hussein and the Baathist
leadership of Iraq was bad, or that the chaos of the US overthrow of Gaddafy in Libya was bad,
you ain't seen nothing yet if North Korea's leader gets offed in a US strike.
In theory, China, South Korea or Japan could step in with troops, money and civilian personnel
to help reestablish some kind of order and peace, while preventing the rise of yet another tyrannical
government, but none of that is likely. The Chinese would probably not want to take it on, the
Japanese are viewed negatively as a former colonial power, and South Korea may not want the financial
burden of rescuing the North, which would be staggering.
Meanwhile, while the US could relatively easily, and at minimal cost, "take out" North Korea's
missiles, nukes and leadership, especially in the case of the Trump administration, there is absolutely
no interest in taking on the costs of occupying and subsidizing the rebuilding North Korea following
such an ill-conceived attack......
A lot of people do not know that the US bombed the hell out of the entire of north Korea during
the war. Like to ashes. The Chinese, and even more so, the Soviet reconstruction project for north
Korea was the biggest of its kind post WWII. Even bigger than what actually went to European reconstruction
I believe, but don't quote me on that (not in terms of what was earmarked but spent).
ALSO perhaps the biggest crime was bombing the north's huge dams. Unless your a poor farmer
you don't know what kind a thing that it is to do. No military value (I heard it was bombed because
they ran out of other targets in some way).
Its insane and breeds a toooon of animosity. Plus rejecting all attempts at peace talks.
Plus having the media only present it in one way and an attitude of RA RA we don't engage in diplomacy
with the terrorist obviously he only listens to force.
Crazy world. And most people can't see past it at a level more deep than "crazy dictator with
a bad haircut."
The 'mother of all bombs' is big, deadly – and won't lead to peace Medea Benjamin
"I'm really very good at war. I love war, in a certain way," bragged candidate Donald Trump at
a campaign rally in Iowa. This is the same Donald Trump who avoided the Vietnam draft by claiming
a bone spur in his foot, a medical problem that never kept him off the tennis courts or golf courses,
and miraculously healed on its own.
But with the escalation of US military involvement in Syria, the record number of drone attacks
in Yemen, more US troops being sent to the Middle East and, now, the dropping of a massive bomb
in Afghanistan, it looks like Trump may indeed love war. Or at least, love "playing" war.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/apr/14/the-mother-of-all-bombs-big-deadly-ineff
I've also heard the total death toll was between 1/10 and 1/5 of the total population.
Of the TOTAL population. Imagine knowing no one could name a person not being touched by the
violence. Having total families decimated. Breeds a ton of hatred and understandably so. We need
to get that its not just as one sided as having everyone "brainwashed" without access to outside
culture. Its an insane outlook.
Solo sorry for the triple post, also needed to say that because everyone hates this crazy dictator
people never take the anti war position. Its just we should charge in with our guns - or giant
missiles - blazing hooorahh.
No one sees the death and destruction that will take place. The artillery alone not even nukes,
would smash Seoul. They can't see beyond the black and white of 'allow dictator nukes' and 'kill
him.' There's never room for diplomacy here - its just as bad as 'negotiating with terrorists.'
What a crock of shit. And trumps played his hand badly cause he has no wiggle room. Makes Syrian
strike looks like a joke. So much for being friendly with China. How about a piece of delicious
cake as consolation?
LOVE B's take on the economics of nuclear might is. Crazy I never heard of those documents. Doesn't
help that the North has been straved of food - and more importantly OIL. Means a lot of money
when you get down to brass taxes. Worst of all, north Korea NEEDS subsistence farming and its
so mountainous you need oil and diesel to blow these hilly as hell fields. When you strave them
of oil, you strave them of food again in a way. Without subsistence farming they strave for the
most part. And people think that drives people AWAY from a demagogic/personality cult type figure.
It only endears them more. It, in a way, is proving the dictator right... That the US IS OUT TO
GET US (and it is) and THE US IS STARVING YOU NOT ME (also true).
@all - done some housecleaning here for Day of the Sun - Juche 105 (.i.e.today)
---
The parade in North Korea yesterday was quite a show. Lots of new TEL (Transport-Erector-Launch
Vehicles) for big intercontinental missiles. We don't know if real missiles were inside but NoKo
likes to show new stuff off and only field it a year or two later.
Even though Pyongyang withheld from testing this weekend amid rumors of possible retaliation
by the United States, North Korea is still looking to improve its missile know-how. Moreover,
the long-dreaded ICBM flight test also might not be too far off now. Given the ever-growing
number of TELs - both wheeled and tracked - North Korea may soon field nuclear forces amply
large that a conventional U.S.-South Korea first strike may find it impossible to fully disarm
Pyongyang of a nuclear retaliatory capability. That would give the North Korean regime what
it's always sought with its nuclear and ballistic missile program: an absolute guarantee against
coercive removal.
smoothie X2 82
Ah -- what lies beneath the waves? . I remember in the early 1970's comments in the Western press
that China through budget constraints was putting its 'eggs' into the submarine basket - cost
effectiveness - . The article stressed that Chinese strategists deliberately eschewed using non-Chinese
designs and 'fast track' technology so as to develop submarine systems that would have unique
, secret capabilities honed to Chinese conditions . Perhaps of all weaponary the Chinese sub-mariners
may have some surprises in store . Let's hope we never have to find out --
Dear b and community. I read all of your posts on this topic with interest.
The focus seems to be on what DPRK (north), PRC and USA might do. I would like to suggest
that closer scrutiny should be applied to what is actually going on in RK (South). I think that
this tension is being ratcheted upwards primarily to influence the outcome of the presidential
election in the South.
For the past two presidential terms, the South has had Lee Myung-Bak and Park Geun-Hye both
of whom took a hardline against North Korea and have killed the Sunshine Policy of their predecessors
(Kim Dae-Jung and Roh Moo-Hyun). As we all know, Park has recently been impeached. In normal
circumstances it could be expected that an opposition figure like Moon Jae-In would be the favourite
to win the election. This may not be in the interests of either the US, Japan or the powers-that-be
in South Korea.
The election is 9 May 2017, and the US president has just ensured that North Korea will
be front and centre in the campaign.
Just a thought. Thanks for everyone's contributions. This is a really good place to gain insight.
Extremely interesting take. Plus the anti THAAD movement is growing. Incidents between American
soldiers in South Korean bases and the locals have been growing and that doesn't help. Remember
that Osprey crash a couple months back?
oneoffposter@154 - Thanks for that, oneoffposter. Korea would (supposedly) have been re-unified
in the late 90's if it wasn't for US and Japanese efforts to prevent that from happening. I don't
have specifics to back that up, but that 'feels' about right with regards to US actions over the
years.
South Korea is clearly benefiting economically (finally) from US support, but also pays
a price by being another lapdog to the US and an eternal host for our military presence, willing
or not. I suspect it's 'willing' because the US does everything possible to remind South Koreans
of their peril by demonizing the North. South Korean press is worse than the US MSM.
Likewise, the US does everything possible to antagonize North Korean leaders and rattle their
cage, making them seem even more insane than they usually are. Resulting, of course, in the South
Koreans eagerly approving an eternal US presence for protection and the North Korean leaders sliding
further into a black hole of indignation and rage. We didn't create the psychopaths in North Korea,
but we're sure good at keeping them in power. They're useful to us.
I'll be watching the elections in the South with much interest now.
i wonder how much we really know about the koreans. it's hard for me to imagine that the korean
people hate and fear each other. korea is not a settler country, like us five eyes, where the
possibility of setting one group against another is so conveniently ready to hand to the oppressors.
can either set of koreans hate and fear one of their governments more than the other? i think,
as someone else pointed out above, the worst of the terror after the war was undertaken by korean
compradors of the japanese, at american instigation. i remember reading about a program to 'allow'
southerners to cross the border for family reunions. i think it was terrifically popular.
who pointed out above that wwii has not yet ended on the korean peninsula. i always knew
that the war was 'technically' not over in the sense of no peace treaty's having been signed ...
the same obtains between russia and japan, doesn't it? that's an indictment right there of the
us. in both cases, as the us still has japan on a short leash.
treating peoples like objects, we'll be objects of hate ourselves, finally. already are in
many quarters, of course. but in far fewer than we 'merit'. i don't see how that cannot change
now that we have embraced 'the dark side', as cheney put it, and now the unabashed evil-clown/wicked-witch
with trump/clinton in the 2016 coin toss.
now with mercenaries, cruise missiles, drones, chemical weapons, and none of our own skin in
the game ourselves any longer, we really do fit the description of creatures from another planet
to our victims. the image of hg wells' aliens in tripods sticks in my mind. that must be just
what americans - not even in - drones and cruise missiles must seem to our victims.
atonement. at-one-ment a friend of mine used to say. with the human race. how long will that
take for america and americans, once 'the pride of man' is broken in the dust again.
Well, it's 19:02m in Korea, on the 15th and no nuke blast. President Loon (my apology to the bird)
will have to pack up his toys and go home.
I wonder how much that hubris cost the US?
From German experience this would not work. Every South Korean knows that war with the North
was/would be total desaster.
It is also clear that North Korea will only open up if they feel safe. The break down of communist
systems is over, there is no use to wait for that.
German Social Democrats had their best election results when promoting a "change by approach"
policy.
The main issue will be South Korea's relationship with the US and China. Traditionally
South Korea has profited more from the US than from exchange with China. I bet this has already
changed. But the US managed to create a
security
conflict between China and South Korea that ensures increased Chinese military support for
North Korea.
Thanks for posting the figures. I don't know what the present day figures are like (your source
seems to be posting figures for 2015).
Since then, Park Geun-Hye gave the go ahead for THAAD to be installed overriding the objections
of the local people. People more informed than I question (to put it mildly) the benefit this
gives to South Korea. However, it has already had an impact on the South's economic relationship
with China (and I guess, the political relationship too), showing just how important the question
of who holds power in South Korea really is.
Posters here often refer to the US/NATO attempt to split the Russia/China axis. It seems to
me that this KOR/CHINA relationship also would not be welcomed.
The ideas and slow-build towards reunification as evidenced by Kim Dae-Jung & Roh Moo-Hyun
(e.g. Sunshine policy and the Truth commissions) were (in my opinion) logical steps to be taken
towards first reducing the tensions on the peninsula leading perhaps to reunification talks (you
never know). It is impossible to know now where they would have led, but they have been thoroughly
discredited at this point and it is difficult to see how they could be restarted.
SEOUL, April 6 (Xinhua) -- South Korean residents and civic group activists on Thursday
filed a petition against the deployment of the U.S. Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD)
missile defense system, which they depicted as unconstitutional.
Residents from Seongju county and Gimcheon city in southeast South Korea and peace activists
gathered outside the constitutional court in central Seoul, holding a press conference before
submitting the constitutional appeal.
According to the petition document, the residents and activists said the THAAD deployment
violated many of the constitution clauses while failing to follow any appropriate procedures.
Seoul and Washington abruptly announced a decision in July last year to install one
THAAD battery in the county by the end of this year. Just three days before the announcement,
Defense Minister Han Min-koo told lawmakers that he hadn't been informed of any notice about
the THAAD installation.
Foreign Minister Yun Byung-se visited a department store when the THAAD deployment decision
was announced, indicating no advance discussions between ministers of defense and foreign affairs
and the presidential office.
The petitioners said the decision-making process on THAAD was rough and ready as there was
no approval in the cabinet meeting, and that it was unilaterally determined by the national
security council of the presidential office.
"The THAAD decision did not follow any proper procedure. No effort has been made for
dialogue with residents," said Ha Joo-hee, an attorney at Lawyers for a Democratic Society,
an advocacy group composed of liberal lawyers.
So much provocation, vilification and preparation of the public...for nothing.
The Neocons had really hoped that NK would react in some spectacularly 'menacing' way on its
national holiday...but no, just a parade with some huge phal...er, missiles. Sad.
It doesn't really matter *who* starts an aggression, but somebody at some point would surely
lose his nerves, no? And NK would make for such a good villain, reminding SK and Japan of how
dearly they need all that 'protection'.
Let's see where the next act will play out. Ukraine once again, or Libya?
(on that MOAB - looks like a strong message that 'we' are not about to give Afghanistan up,
but rather willing to up the ante...)
Yet bet NATO wouldn't be happy. The entire 'containment' policy towards Beijing rests on
the surrounding states being hostile to/ scared of China. Already SE Asia has all but 'fallen'
(from a western viewpoint), what remains is Japan and SK. Detente? God forbid!
The THAAD deployment places SK (even more) firmly in the cross-hairs of China's missiles. So
now, at least they have some reason to fear it and scramble for 'protection'...mission accomplished!
(President Park didn't approve of this...which is why she was removed.)
Is there a way out of this? Not really. The US running out of money, maybe.
b
I read the nj.gov link and it does not tend to match your narrative in that paragraph although
I agree that official narratives tend to twist the truth. I cannot see the Soviet motives towards
Korea as anymore altruistic than Japan's especially in that time period. The Soviets are no more
saints in the WWII period than the US.
I do agree that US maneuvers close to the borders of "opponents" whether Russia or NK are antagonistic
and unnecessary. And sometimes stupid action takes place after them like we saw in Georgia 2008.
Putin shook a finger at Bush and rightly so. If Mr. "Art of the Deal" really were a deal maker
he would meet at Panmunjon with the leaders of NK, SK, Russia, and China and sign an final official
end to the Korean war and set the framework for demilitarization of the peninsula and trade/other
deals.
For nothing? The american ship have pretty much just arrived, within next 4 weeks we probably
will see something happen by the US. He simply cant back now.
According to US MSM the Chinese are totally on board and only have moved troops to bolster
the border and help the US. And Russia and China really aren't conducting military exercises together.
This constant mistranslated rhetoric and literally putting of words into foreign leaders
mouths is of course one aspect of the western propaganda arm. Even when the headline or text of
the article is updated, corrected or removed the meat of it remains in social media like Facebook.
I have friends who use Facebook, I don't, who constantly say the oddest, incorrect things to
me that could only have been fomented there.
Yes, when the arm twisting doesn't suffice they remove you, that's part of what the NSA and
CIA do. Smear, blackmail and gather corruption evidence, whether real, perceived or planted to
keep US puppets in line.
yes, somebody's link had the china-south korea trade at 300 billion, whereas the numbers in
the link i found were at ~220 billion. but the the china-south korea trade at 220 billion was
just about twice the us-south korea trade in that period. i imagine it ratio was higher, if anything,
up until thaad.
@162, sb,
maybe the trade value lost due to the thaad deal will make everyone 'notice' its illegality
... now that they're starting to bleed. money speaks louder than the law, in most countries these
days.
@167 curtis
they'd set the peninsula on fire if they thought it would bring them closer to world domination.
the us ruling class cares not a whit for humans of any 'brand', americans included. certainly
not for koreans, north or south.
@170 gravatomic
i have no proof but that's exactly the thought that ran through my head when park went down
: she wasn't 'on board' the thaad train. i suppose it was the memory of the pictures with xi ...
and of the vile cia's past actions, all over the world.
I saw your response earlier about how no writer can represent both sides equally, and I agree.
I still lurk here and find no fault with your insights 99% of the time. You know perfectly well
that in most situations, I am a staunch non-interventionist. I simply disagree (strongly) on this
particular issue. Anyway, I apologize for sounding so hostile--especially at you. This situation
just has my nerves pretty frayed right now.
I don't want to be dragged into a giant tu quoque match, so I won't respond to much
more here, except to address George Smiley @155, above. I'm not sure where you read that
the anti-THAAD movement is "growing," but that certainly doesn't seem to be the case from here
on the ground. I am about 20 minutes from Seongju, and have spoken to many of the anti-THAAD people
about their concerns. There's very, very little going on there politically; Seongju is a very
poor area which is economically dependent on a particular melon crop they are famous for. Most
of the anti-THAAD demonstrators were local farmers who had gotten the idea that the EM radiation
coming from the THAAD radar would hurt their crops. In the wake of China's economic retaliation
against THAAD, however, a good many of the locals have reversed their opinion and now support
it. When the deployment was first announced, there was a lot of buzz about it (nobody wanted it
here in their backyard,) but now when the subject is brought up at all (increasingly rarely,)
it's usually digging in their heels about how China deserves it for kicking out their K-pop stars
and shutting down the Lotteria fast food restaurants unfairly. Public opinion might change again
if Moon Jae-in declares a firm position about it instead of waffling back and forth, but at this
moment it's only a small but vocal minority that are opposed to it.
@158 The US armada will be off to Pattaya soon for some well deserved R&R.
The BBC coverage is worth a watch BTW for those who like to read between the lines. Lots of
spin of course but the commentator does admit at one point that NK needs its nukes to avoid going
the way of Iraq and Libya.
was there ever an 'official' announcement of a nuclear test planned for saturday? or was it
just an 'expectation' ... if the latter, maybe the cia fostered it, knowing it wasn't going to
happen, so they could thwack tee-rump's rump and have him take a 'victory lap' when it didn't?
if they're serious about nukes ... and they should be as long as the us has them in its sights
... the north koreans have got to test more at some point.
it's really hard for me to imagine any good excuse for a us battle group to be between china
and korea in the yellow sea without an invitation. what would the us position be if a chinese
- not to mention a russian - battle group showed up in the caribbean, or hudson's bay, concerned
about the rogue american state and it's mad leader ?
here's the oft derided 'unelected' ccp partial plan for 2017,
'to lift another 10-20m people outta poverty and step up the anti corruption battle'.
thats in addition to the 70m already bailed out , cited by UN as a text book case of social development.
whats the vaunted 'elected' leaders of murkka plan for 2017,
to do 'syria, nk, iran, china, russia.... '?
350 ships for the 'depleted' USN ?
'star war' redux ?
by the guy who got 'elected' on his 'anti deep state' and 'populist' platform --
lots of people say mdm park is a murkkan stooge and she's been removed by people power.
well like i say many times before, park is a very reluctant 'stooge',
first off she is a known sinophile who's well versed in chinese culture,
she had been dragging her feet over the thaad installation for years and china is sk's largest
market.
hence antagonising china must be the last thing on her mind.
anyone of the above is enough reason for a regime change.
the last straw was most likely when she defied washington's dictat and join putin in china's ww2
memorial ceremony in 2015.
mind you, she's the only leader from the murkkan camp with 'cojones'to attend. [1]
i guess her fate was sealed from that moment.
so is her ouster yet another color rev masqueraded as 'people power',like the 'arab spring'
etc ?
Yes you are of course right, as usual when US does it themselves, it is apparently the fault
of the other party (North Korea) according to the useless MSM in the west.
There are some rumours that NK will test its nuclear tech. again soon and then US will strike.
China is getting nervous somehow, apparently dont understand what they effectively have giving
a green light to:
China : "We call on all parties to refrain from provoking and threatening each other, whether
in words or actions, and not let the situation get to an irreversible and unmanageable stage."
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/04/15/nkor-a15.html
The chinese cant even condemn the foreign aggressor anymore.
Thank you very much for this important and critical posting, b. I wish for you and all who come
here a joyful and rich Springtime holy season to assuage our fears and give us hope for the future.
Sure would be nice to find the original of the comments attributed to MacArthur. I've looked at
the references in "Napalm: an American biography" by Robert M. Neer but can't find any original
sources online. The footnote for this passage is jumbled, citing seven sources for this passage.
I did find that at the time MacArthur was advocating far more attacks in Korea, not
less, which makes such comments suspect. Why would someone who was losing their job, and likely
their career, due to their stance advocating more military action make such comments?
The first step to solving the North Korean problem is removing U.S. troops from the middle
of it.
By Doug Bandow
April 13, 2017
It's Time for America to Cut South Korea Loose
Asia contains the world's two most populous nations, the country with the largest Muslim population,
the two largest economies after America, and the next superpower and peer competitor to the United
States. But when U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson visited the continent recently, small,
impoverished North Korea nearly monopolized his attention.
Why is the United States, which dominates the globe militarily, politically, and economically,
fixated on this poor, isolated, and distant nation? Because America has gotten entangled where
it does not belong.
Washington has been deeply involved in the Korean Peninsula since the end of World War II.
Subsequently, the Cold War gave a zero-sum quality to international relations, with Washington's
loss being the Soviet Union's gain. Having invested some 37,000 lives to save South Korea during
the Korean War, America's credibility was also at stake. And with the "loss" of China to communism
fresh on Americans' minds, nobody was willing to see another Asian nation go red.
But that world disappeared long ago.
The Korean Peninsula has lost its geopolitical significance, South Korea its helplessness,
and America's Korea commitment its purpose.
The Korean Peninsula has lost its geopolitical significance, South Korea its helplessness,
and America's Korea commitment its purpose. While there is much to criticize in the approach of
Donald Trump's administration to the rest of the world, the president correctly sees the need
for a foreign policy that more effectively protects America's interests. A good place to start
shifting course is the region home to the world's newest and least responsible nuclear power.
The Koreas are no longer a proxy battleground between superpowers. There was a time when U.S.
withdrawal from a confrontation with a Soviet ally in Asia would have, analysts believed, signaled
weakness a continent away in Europe. But the Soviets are long gone and the cause for American
commitment with them. An inter-Korean war would be tragic and the body count enormous, but absent
American involvement the fighting would largely be confined to the peninsula. The continued presence
of U.S. forces, by contrast, virtually guarantees the spread of conflict.
South Korea's defense no longer requires Washington's presence. The South's economy began racing
past its northern antagonist during the 1960s. Democracy arrived in the late 1980s. By the 1990s,
when mass starvation stalked Pyongyang as Seoul's economy boomed, the gap between the two Koreas
was already huge and growing. The South's military potential is correspondingly great though as
yet unrealized - in part because dependence on the U.S. presence has affected strategic choices.
Yet America's military presence has remained sacrosanct. Jimmy Carter's plan to bring home
U.S. troops was opposed even by his own appointees. Ronald Reagan pushed a more muscular confrontation
with the Soviet Union and other communist states. With the end of the Cold War, his successors
expanded alliance commitments, particularly in Europe, but also in Asia. Today, 28,500 troops
remain in South Korea, backed up by U.S. forces in Okinawa and other Asian-Pacific bases, and
highlighted by periodic decisions to overfly the North with bombers or send aircraft carriers
to nearby waters whenever Washington wants to demonstrate "resolve" to Pyongyang.
So why is America still there?
One argument, advanced by analyst Robert E. McCoy, is moral, "since it was American ignorance
that facilitated the division of the Korean Peninsula in the concluding days of World War II."
Some Koreans malign America for this division. But this is the wisdom of hindsight; in the chaotic
aftermath of global conflict, no U.S. official wanted to push the Soviets over a faraway peninsula.
The alternative was pure inaction, which would have resulted in South Koreans joining their northern
neighbors in the Kim dynasty's new Dark Age. Perhaps inadvertently, Washington did a very good
deed. For that it deserves praise, not criticism and claims that it must forever police the peninsula.
More practical is the contention of analysts such as the Heritage Foundation's Bruce Klingner
that U.S. backing is "necessary to defend" the South. Yet, in contrast to 1950, there is no reason
the South cannot protect itself - if properly motivated to do so by the departure of U.S. conventional
forces. With a bigger economy, larger population, and significant technological edge, as well
as greater international support, Seoul could construct armed forces capable of deterring and
defeating the North. Doing so would be expensive and take serious effort, but so what? The South
Korean government's most important duty is to protect its people.
Taking on that responsibility also would force Seoul to treat Pyongyang more consistently.
The "Sunshine Policy" begun under former South Korean President Kim Dae-jung resulted in the transfer
of some $10 billion in cash and assistance to the North, even as the latter was developing missiles
and nuclear weapons. That approach was viable only because Washington provided a military backstop
(and if the new South Korean president, to be elected in May, revives the Sunshine Policy, as
some have suggested, there's no telling if the Trump administration would be so forgiving). The
South needs to bear both the costs and benefits of whatever approach it takes.
But even if South Korea couldn't defend itself, the argument would still fall short.
American soldiers shouldn't be treated as defenders of the earth, deployed here, there, and
everywhere.
American soldiers shouldn't be treated as defenders of the earth, deployed here, there, and
everywhere. The United States should go to war only when its most important interests are at stake.
South Korea's prosperity is not one of those vital interests, at least in security terms. A
renewed conflict confined to the two Koreas would be horrific, but the consequences for the United
States would be primarily humanitarian and economic, not security. The cost would be high but
fall primarily on the region. In contrast, direct U.S. involvement in another Korean War would
be much more expensive than the Afghan and Iraqi conflicts, which have cost America thousands
of lives and trillions of dollars.
Of course, the North's possession of what we assume to be a growing and at some point deliverable
nuclear arsenal skews the peninsula's balance of power. However, this doesn't create a need for
a conventional American military presence on the peninsula. Washington could still guarantee massive
retaliation against any North Korean use of nuclear weapons, providing a deterrent against the
North's threats.
But it is worth contemplating whether it would be better to allow South Korea to construct
its own deterrent. In the late 1970s, South Korean President Park Chung-hee worried about Washington's
reliability and began work on a Korean bomb - only to stop under U.S. pressure. Since then, support
for reviving such work has periodically surfaced in South Korea. Encouraging such efforts might
actually be in the best interests of the United States, even if America has to maintain its nuclear
umbrella while the Korean bomb is developed.
Yes, encouraging nuclear proliferation is a risky path. But the United States would gain from
staying out of Northeast Asia's nuclear quarrels. China, fearful that Japan would join the nuclear
parade, might take tougher action against Pyongyang in an attempt to forestall Seoul's efforts.
The South could feel confident in its own defense, rather than remaining reliant upon U.S. willingness
to act.
A potpourri of broader claims is also made for maintaining U.S. forces. America's presence
supposedly constrains China, promotes regional stability, and deters an arms race. Let's consider
those claims in order. What sort of constraint is allegedly being posed to China? If the idea
is to coerce it into assuming responsibility for North Korea in the event of its collapse, Beijing
has shown no interest in attempting to swallow a Korean population likely to prove indigestible.
And if the calculation is rather that Washington can persuade South Korea to pressure China on
non-Korean matters, it's easy to predict the unfriendly response Seoul's Blue House would give
if invited by the White House to join it in warring against China to, say, save an independent
Taiwan, counter Chinese moves in the South China Sea - or, horror of horrors, defend Japan. Indeed,
absent U.S. protection, South Korea and Japan might feel greater pressure to finally settle historical
disputes so often misused by their nationalist politicians.
As for the idea that the U.S. presence deters a regional arms race, building weapons so others
don't have to is not the sort of charity America should engage in. Alliances can deter. But, as
dramatically demonstrated by World War I, they also can act as transmission belts of war. Moreover,
small nations often act irresponsibly - such as underinvesting in defense - when protected by
big powers.
The U.S. security presence in South Korea is an expensive and dangerous commitment that America
can no longer afford. Nor has it ever brought the United States much popularity in the country,
where U.S. soldiers are a constant irritant to nationalists. The South is no longer a poor nation
in need of protection from the specter of global communism but one more than capable of standing
on its own two feet.
@172 That makes me sad to hear. I appreciate a perspective that comes from first hand experience.
Its hard to get a proper outloom I feel outside of speaking with Koreans or even knowing the language.
Perhaps reading articles published by journalists opposed to THAAD has distorted my handle
of the situation. Sad the movement doesn't have more traction.
I do know more than a few Koreans firsthand pissed off at US army personnel behaviour though.
Perhaps that can be channelled into meaningful change. They tell me that the impunity from judicial
retribution plays a big role in the anger. Certain bases in Japan have had similar problems (I
get the sense it cause more anger there though unfortunately). Perhaps this is just the views
of a few people I talk to in SK though.
What is real Russian position on this WWIII POTENTIAL STANDOFF. NK only one condemned attack
on Syria while if what I hear is true, they want NK disarmed even in face of open US aggression.
Also China if awfully quiet while repeating thirty year old equitable solution rejected by US
that never looked for any solutions but domination. What's going on?
I wanted to see the footnotes for that section, too, but I don't have a paper copy of the book.
However, based upon other readings of same testimony, I believe they were made during Congressional
testimony.
Perhaps the most important element to learn from the aggression waged against the peoples of
Korea, Indochina, and Iraq by the Outlaw US Empire is their Genocidal nature, and the additional
fact that in their post-war environment the killing and maiming continues unabated: All casualty
categories combined add up to well over 10 million and rising, far outperforming Hitler's genocide
of jews, gypsies and others.
Fully concur. And the Chinese are 'civilized' re public discourse, just because the are not
openly bellicose and full of aggressive rhetoric, does not mean they are push over pussies, exactly
the opposite behind the agreeable, diplomatic, ' face '. Talk softly, yet have a big stick
ready, just in case.
the foreign policy article extends tee-tump's 'pay for a native implementation of us policy'
a la nato to south korea ... and wouldn't it be a good idea if south korea had nukes, too. their
summary of us 'involvement' in korea post-wwii is shameful ...
The alternative was pure inaction, which would have resulted in South Koreans joining their
northern neighbors in the Kim dynasty's new Dark Age. Perhaps inadvertently, Washington did
a very good deed. For that it deserves praise, not criticism ...
Depraved foreign policy recommendations from the us foreign policy establishment might as well
stay in their echo chamber, behind their paywall, as far as i'm concerned. news of the us foreign
policy establishment's depravity is dog bites man.
Why should that happen, if no side is willing to fire the first shot? There's been 'increased
tensions' many times before, missile and nuclear tests, naval drills...so far it's all just scaremongering
to me, and I don't quite see why it should be heating up *now*.
Other authors sympathetic to the plight of Korea are...
Gavan NcCormack
Gregory Elich
Desaix Anderson, who delivered an address on the US monstrous and systematic betrayal of NK to
the Nautilus Institute called Crisis In North Korea. Anderson was the CEO of the Korean Peninsula
Energy Development Organisation (KEDO).
I can no longer find the article on the www but one of the sleuths here may be able to track it
down.
Actually, all the problems started with the demands that Kim Jong Un made to USA --
First, he has demanded that USA give up all of its nuclear weapons, that USA stop all nuclear
research, that there should be a "regime change" in Washington, plus he had the chutzpah to send
assassins to USA to kill the POTUS !! So I'm not surprised at the reaction of D Trump to this
provocation ??
Wikileaks,
Podesta email about the Hillary Clinton speech for Goldman Sachs
"We don't want
a unified Korean Peninsula" because China, not the U.S., would naturally dominate it. The
U.S. will do everything it can to prevent reunification.
The NK offer says that they "MAY suspend its nuclear and missile activities in exchange for the
suspension of large-scale U.S.-Republic of Korea (ROK) military exercises"
It does not say that they WILL suspend its nuclear and missile activities.
Would that be Judith Miller, perhaps, or possibly just a hero/role model ? ;) One perfectly
reasonable phrase comes to mind, ' Subsequent to good faith negotiations & actual, guarantees
'.
The NK offer says that they "MAY suspend its nuclear and missile activities in exchange for the
suspension of large-scale U.S.-Republic of Korea (ROK) military exercises".
It does not say that they WILL suspend its nuclear and missile activities, just that they may.
It is not surprising that the U.S. turned down the offer since it did not guarantee that NK would
do anything.
"... Just as the day of rest was a spiritual discipline that demonstrated there is more to life than production and consumption - and so was a threat to every narrative of power and control... ..."
"... The spring festival was originally a fertility celebration, so the bunnies connection runs deep. And shallow. ..."
Easter echoes the eons old human festivity to celebrate the March exquinox (in the northern hemisphere)
and the arrival of spring. The dark and cold days of winter are gone. The bright time of fertility
has come.
Today's fertility symbols of Easter, the egg and the hare,
relate to the old Germanic fertility goddess Eostre (Ostara). Ishtar, a Mesopotamian goddess
of love, stepped down into the
underworld of death but was revived. The Christian resurrection of Jesus is probably a transformation
of this older hopeful tale.
When the Christian message spread from its eastern Mediterranean origin its incorporation of old
local gods and fables helped to convert the multi-theistic societies to the new monotheistic
* believe. The gods of the pre-Christian religions were not completely discarded but their
tales transformed to support the new united message the Christian preachers were spreading.
But whatever. - It is spring, the darkness vanishes and it is my favored holiday. This year the
Julian and Gregorian calendars coincide. We thus
follow
the Russian Barbarians and wish us all
Happy Easter
Faberge egg with spring flowers and music box-
bigger
Please join me, v. Goethe and Dr. Faust in our traditional
Easter Walk:
Look from this height whereon we find us
Back to the town we have left behind us,
Where from the dark and narrow door
Forth a motley multitude pour.
They sun themselves gladly and all are gay,
They celebrate Christ's resurrection to-day.
For have not they themselves arisen?
From smoky huts and hovels and stables,
From labor's bonds and traffic's prison,
From the confinement of roofs and gables,
From many a cramping street and alley,
From churches full of the old world's night,
All have come out to the day's broad light.
...
How it hums o'er the fields and clangs from the steeple!
This is the real heaven of the people,
Both great and little are merry and gay,
I am a man, too, I can be, to-day.
* The Christian Trinity
, the three aspects of the one God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, is a doctrinaire addition
of the 4th century. It just adds an explanatory layer on top of the Abrahamic core of the monotheistic
Christian message.
Happy Easter to all and may we celebrate more Happy Easters to come!
Thanks B for reminding us that as long as we continue to celebrate Easter and remember what
it represents, we are also celebrating hope, the possibility of renewal and setting humanity on
a path towards peace and away from greed, violence, exploitation and lack of care for our fellow
humans, animals and other travellers on this planet.
Actually the Trinity was one of the earliest pantheistic traditions incorporated and the most
foundational to Christianity, as it incorporated the Greek Year Gods, essentially past, present
and future. (Father, Son, Holy Spirit)
A good book on the subject; http://www.gutenberg.org/files/30250/30250-h/30250-h.htm
Of course, the Catholic Church, as the eternal institution, didn't really care for a foundational
concept of renewal and did its best to fudge the message. Which they did a good job of, resulting
in the need for Luther to push the reset button.
Then again the essential fallacy of monotheism is that absolute is basis, not apex, so a spiritual
absolute would be the essence of sentience, from which consciousness rises, not an ideal of wisdom
and judgement from which it fell. The new born babe, not the wise old man.
It's just socially effective to assert the laws are given, rather than emergent with the processes
they describe. The assumptions are still deeply embedded in western culture, even if the folk
concepts have faded.
Or whether doth my mind, being crowned with you,
Drink up the monarch's plague, this flattery?
Or whether shall I say, mine eye saith true,
And that your love taught it this alchemy,
To make of monsters and things indigest
Such cherubins as your sweet self resemble,
Creating every bad a perfect best,
As fast as objects to his beams assemble?
O! 'tis the first, 'tis flattery in my seeing,
And my great mind most kingly drinks it up:
Mine eye well knows what with his gust is 'greeing,
And to his palate doth prepare the cup:
If it be poisoned, 'tis the lesser sin
That mine eye loves it and doth first begin.
Christianity proclaims that it is righteous and it is at war with (battling) ALL the other religions
which are deemed to be (at best) false. The adherents to these other religions are misled (at
best) or evil. Christianity says that it cannot tolerate (must destroy) evil. Accordingly, one
day the king of Christianity will return to rule the world.
Islam offers up the same story.
What a perfect formula we have for fomenting war. Inspiring youths to kill for their (faith)
religion.
Religion is a fundamental component in the justification of mass murder. It's been used this
way for centuries and it has not ebbed.
Just as the day of rest was a spiritual discipline that demonstrated there is more to life
than production and consumption - and so was a threat to every narrative of power and control...
So the resurrection is a symbol that the alternative narrative of the Kingdom of Heaven does
triumph over the fear and death we all live in. Not only does the Kingdom of Heaven out-survive
death, it transforms it. The resurrection narrative does not defeat the powers of this world through
conflict. It 'outlives' them, most especially with those eternal qualities of mercy, forgiveness,
life, light, and yes, love.
May we all celebrate this day and the lives of those who have pointed us all to a life of wholeness.
thank you b, for this site and for your work to host it.
I checked and indeed, you can find Russian greeting cards "Happy Easter", but that seems to be
copied from the West. More standard is to greet people on that day with words "Christ has resurrected",
and post cards have those words but there are also other, less religious versions. From Holy Internet:
" Traditional Easter greeting is Христос воскрес! (Christ is risen!) and the response is Воистину
воскрес! (In truth He is risen!) ".
A muslim couple walk past a shop, there's eggs & stuff and a big sign reading 'Happy Easter'.
One of them to the other: 'From what I understand, some rabbit was born to them...'
I think the next phase change of human evolution will involve a switch back from the linear, growth
oriented view of the last several thousand years, to a more cyclical, thermodynamic conceptual
foundation.
For instance, we think of time as the point of the present moving past to future, but the reality
is change turning future to past. Tomorrow becomes yesterday because the earth turns. Events have
to occur, in order to be determined.
Alan Watts used the example of a boat and its wake, as analogy, in that the wake doesn't steer
the boat, the boat creates the wake. Events are first in the present, then in the past.
This makes time an effect of activity, similar to temperature, color, pressure, etc.
If you consider the actual, physical manifestation of time and history, this concept on which
human culture is based, it is residue in the present state. What is measured as time; duration,
is the state of the present, as events form and dissolve.
The overwhelming physical reality is the thermodynamic convection cycles/feedback loops in
which we evolved. They underlay all aspects of biology and civilization. Right now, you might
say we are at the crest of an enormous wave and it's mostly foam and bubbles, with a massive undertow.
thanks for the easter reminder, amidst everything else that is being focused on.. new beginnings
which we surely do need... looking for new leaders to pave a new direction here at this moment
and don't see anything on the horizon yet..
Where in 1980 real per capita Gross Domestic product in China was a mere 6.4% that of Brazil, in 2016 per capita GDP in China
was larger than that of Brazil or 101.4% that of Brazil.
A "chicken hawk" is a person "who strongly supports war or other military action, yet who actively
avoids or avoided military service when of age." And, according to Wikipedia, "generally the implication
is that chicken hawks lack the moral character to participate in war themselves, preferring to ask others
to support, fight and perhaps die in an armed conflict." Why would the NYT run a column suggesting the
US should support ISIS "the same way we encouraged the mujahedeen... this is "tantamount
to saying that the US should have reduced pressure on the Nazis to keep the Soviets bleeding"
back in the 1940's. In Friedman's defense, ORB International (an American research firm)
revealed in 2015 how 85 percent of Iraqis and 82 percent of Syrians believe the US created ISIS.
With The New York Times publishing columns like this, this just became better proven.
Let's go through the logic: There are actually two ISIS manifestations.
One is "virtual ISIS." It is satanic, cruel and amorphous; it disseminates its ideology through
the internet. It has adherents across Europe and the Muslim world. In my opinion, that ISIS is the
primary threat to us, because it has found ways to deftly pump out Sunni jihadist ideology that inspires
and gives permission to those Muslims on the fringes of society who feel humiliated - from London
to Paris to Cairo - to recover their dignity via headline-grabbing murders of innocents.
The other incarnation is "territorial ISIS." It still controls pockets in western Iraq and larger
sectors of Syria. Its goal is to defeat Bashar al-Assad's regime in Syria - plus its Russian, Iranian
and Hezbollah allies - and to defeat the pro-Iranian Shiite regime in Iraq, replacing both with a
caliphate.
Challenge No. 1: Not only will virtual ISIS, which has nodes all over the world, not go away even
if territorial ISIS is defeated, I believe virtual ISIS will become yet more virulent to disguise
the fact that it has lost the territorial caliphate to its archenemies: Shiite Iran, Hezbollah, pro-Shiite
militias in Iraq, the pro-Shiite Assad regime in Damascus and Russia, not to mention America.
Challenge No. 2: America's goal in Syria is to create enough pressure on Assad, Russia, Iran and
Hezbollah so they will negotiate a power-sharing accord with moderate Sunni Muslims that would also
ease Assad out of power. One way to do that would be for NATO to create a no-fly safe zone around
Idlib Province, where many of the anti-Assad rebels have gathered and where Assad recently dropped
his poison gas on civilians. But Congress and the U.S. public are clearly wary of that.
So what else could we do? We could dramatically increase our military aid to anti-Assad rebels,
giving them sufficient anti-tank and antiaircraft missiles to threaten Russian, Iranian, Hezbollah
and Syrian helicopters and fighter jets and make them bleed, maybe enough to want to open negotiations.
Fine with me.
What else? We could simply back off fighting territorial ISIS in Syria and make it entirely a
problem for Iran, Russia, Hezbollah and Assad. After all, they're the ones overextended in Syria,
not us. Make them fight a two-front war - the moderate rebels on one side and ISIS on the other.
If we defeat territorial ISIS in Syria now, we will only reduce the pressure on Assad, Iran, Russia
and Hezbollah and enable them to devote all their resources to crushing the last moderate rebels
in Idlib, not sharing power with them.
I don't get it. President Trump is offering to defeat ISIS in Syria for free - and then pivot
to strengthening the moderate anti-Assad rebels. Why? When was the last time Trump did anything for
free? When was the last real estate deal Trump did where he volunteered to clean up a toxic waste
dump - for free - before he negotiated with the owner on the price of the golf course next door?
This is a time for Trump to be Trump - utterly cynical and unpredictable. ISIS right now is the
biggest threat to Iran, Hezbollah, Russia and pro-Shiite Iranian militias - because ISIS is a Sunni
terrorist group that plays as dirty as Iran and Russia.
Trump should want to defeat ISIS in Iraq. But in Syria? Not for free, not now. In Syria, Trump
should let ISIS be Assad's, Iran's, Hezbollah's and Russia's headache - the same way we encouraged
the mujahedeen fighters to bleed Russia in Afghanistan.
How is this administration supposed to 'fix" the chaos that is engulfing and devouring Syria
when it's woefully unprepared to host the annual Easter Egg Roll?
Mr. Friedman is thinking that Trump is a chess player, all strategy and end-game.
Trump is a checkers player. King Me!
He has a very simple set of ideas. ISIS bad. Iran bad. Russia good except when bad. Assad bad
when gasses babies. He isn't thinking of hegemony and spheres of influence. He isn't thinking
of a Hydra that grows a few more heads when you cut one off. He isn't thinking six moves ahead.
Syria is an intractable, long term problem. Sunni ideologues are an intractable long term problem
and a Hydra. Iran is a long term problem, but maybe not totally intractable. And Russia is self
interested and big on hegemony.
Trump has no plan to deal with all that. Just ISIS bad. So that's why he is fighting in Syria.
Your question has an obvious answer. Why did Reagan invade Grenada? Why did Bush attack Panama?
Why did Bush II assault Iraq after being struck by Saudis?
Republican Presidents have learned that flexing military might wins elections for them and their
party. It costs a lot, but has a huge pay off. Trump is just doing what he thinks he needs to
do to improve his odds of staying in office. It is a calculated risk, but given his poll numbers,
and the likely collusion of his people with the Russians during the election, this was a perfect
plan.
That is the answer to your question.
The question should not be why are we fighting ISIS in Syria but why are we fighting in the
literal sense at all? The U.S. is the strongest economic, political and military country in the
world by far and yet we seem to rely on military solutions rather than using our economic and
political assets.
In the Middle East, at least, the answer is not that complicated. Using our political and economic
assets would put us squarely at odds with some of our so-called allies, particularly the Sunni
Saudis who are primarily responsible for the rise of militant Islam in recent decades. We'd have
to call them out on moral grounds, which would be embarrassing for them, as well as on economic
grounds, which might cause us and our other allies some economic pain.
Instead, we use only our military assets to go after what Saudi Arabia's support of radical
Islam has produced, extremists who see terror as their best weapon. Furthermore, our economic
and political assets would be much more effective against both Iran and Russia than essentially
the empty threat of knocking out a Syrian air base for a few hours.
That is, remember, how we brought down the USSR and got Iran to agree to stop their nuclear
arms development. Nary a shot was fired in what were two of our most important victories in the
past few decades. Compare that to our "military solution" in Iraq which still plagues us.
Bruce Rozenblit is a trusted commenter Kansas City, MO
April 12, 2017
This editorial is based upon a false premise. It assumes that Trump has a Syrian strategy.
There is no Syrian strategy. There is no why. There is no goal. There is no policy team. There
is only Trump and he only does what makes him look good at any given moment. The attack on the
Syrian airport was such an event. It is still in operation but Trump got a big boost in the polls
from it.
Mr. Friedman is trying to make sense of the senseless. Trump is a never ending contradiction.
His positions flip flop from day to day. This is exactly how he spoke during the campaign. He
would contradict himself from one minute to the next. This is how his mind works. This is how
he is governing. Why is anyone surprised?
Sometimes when people appear to be doing illogical things, we strain to try to understand the
logic behind them, i.e., what we are missing. But oftentimes people doing apparently illogical
things are just being illogical.
In terms of substantive policy and strategy in Syria, Trump is being illogical. The most logical
thing is to leave the fighting to others and just to help all Syrians who want to emigrate to
do so and then help then to resettle including in the US.
But Trump does not act in the interests of substance. For him, there is no substance. There
is only appearance, his image, that concerns him. He wants that image to be that of a strong leader
protecting the US from terrorism in the form of ISIS.
Attacking the virulent form of ISIS has no optics. It cannot be shown on TV. Attacking territorial
ISIS has optics, and Trump can manipulate the media to show these attacks and thus further his
desired image.
One of Trump's many problems is his obsession with his image. A subsidiary part of that problem
is he wants to project the wrong image. If he could only get past his overwhelming narcissism
to understand that he'd actually be much better liked if people felt that he actually cared about
other people.
Since it is always all about Him, my guess is that He's going
to start a war, maybe two, because war time presidents do well
in the polls. He doesn't have a plan for Syria, remember the
"secret plan to defeat ISIS?" Where's that plan??
This Country is not going to survive 4 years of this.
Everybody is on edge and loosing sleep, but Trump plays
golf on the taxpayer dime at the cost of 3 mill a week end.
Mexico, will you take us when Canada turns us down?
Maybe California and Massachusetts could secede?
(I'm grasping for answers and a new place to live)
Larry Eisenberg is a trusted commenter New York City
April 12, 2017
Commenting on Trump is degrading
All logic and sense he's evading,
Bankruptcy's his gambit
Illogic his ambit
His ego growth isn't abating.
A TV reality show
Is about the one thing he does know
A statesman he's not
The POTUS we've got
As a learner? Egregiously slow.
Your questions are valid absolutely provided that "Defeating Isis" is really some kind of serious
issue rather than a campaign soundbite. This administration hasn't yet figured out the difference.
So "Defeating Isis" is simply the backbeat to an incoherent set of practices.
Christine McM is a trusted commenter Massachusetts
April 12, 2017
"I don't get it. President Trump is offering to defeat ISIS in Syria for free - and then pivot
to strengthening the moderate anti-Assad rebels. Why? When was the last time Trump did anything
for free?"
Good points. I don't think Trump gives one hoot about Syria. Nor do I believe would have done
anything like he did last week if his daughter hadn't spoken up. That blew my mind: it takes a
daughter to convince her father that banned chemical gassing is criminal?
As to your main point, that ISIS is a state of mind that can't be simply eliminated, I say
yes, yes, and yes. Virtually all recent ISIS attacks on American soil were committed by naturalized
Americans converted to jihadism online.
The Trump administration seems unconcerned about the more powerful online ISIS while territorial
ISIS has so many players it's a wonder they all know who they're shooting at.
Syria is going the way of Lebanon, stripped down to rubble. Trump should do some hard thinking
(not easy for him) as to what his objective is in Syria, if any. It's a complex dilemma that risks
focusing on the easier aspects of war ( troops and treasure) over the near impossible task of
eliminating online jihadism made worse by administration policies like the "Muslim ban," all Trump's
(and Bannon's) anti-Islam rhetoric.
Nine times in your essay, Mr. Friedman, you employ this construction. Here's the problem: Donald
Trump doesn't understand any of them. Why do you think he hasn't resorted to his go-to move, the
tweet? He doesn't know what to do.
Had he bothered to attend daily security briefings and acquaint himself with the regional problems
after Nov. 8 it wouldn't be "gee, who knew fighting ISIS would be so complex?" But no; he embarked
upon victory laps, post-Nov. 8 campaign rallies, retreats with good ole boys to Philly when he
should have been assembling a team and a policy and demanding briefing papers. The foreign policy
professionals could have told him that ISIS is like a bad smell after an even worse dinner and
"deal with it."
It says here that if Trump were at all smart (which he is not) he would allow Bashar al-Assad
to remain Vladimir Putin's headache. Let his Russian pal prop up a regime that destroys "babies...beautiful
babies...children." Israel should have some skin in this game; they're all neighbors.
I disagree with you, Mr. Friedman, when you write that ISIS has two manifestations; they have
as many as they have willing warriors. They're like flies at a picnic; you can wave them away
and maybe kill some, but they'll always return. They will always be there. ISIS isn't so much
a fighting force as it is an idea. Trump can't destroy the Internet.
He'll soon learn what his predecessor did: ISIS may be defeated but not destroyed.
Mark Thomason is a trusted commenter Clawson, Mich
April 12, 2017
"The Trump foreign policy team"
Stop right there. That is not what we are seeing. It is not a "team."
There are various isolated factions, vying for the favor of a man who does not really know
what he's doing. They slash at each other.
So far, they've drawn a lot of blood internally, but there is not semblance of any accepted
outcome yet. They are in mid-brawl.
My money is on people with experience, discipline, and hard fists. But we'll see. Meanwhile,
there is no "foreign policy team."
Following the 911 attacks, the United States misidentified the enemy and never stepped back.
The media was as complicit as Congress in not demanding answers or questioning rationales prior
to sending this nation to endless war. The enemy was identified as terrorism (a license to attack
any group anywhere deemed too hostile to US goals). Conservatives and republicans, with major
media approval, began identifying terrorists as 'Islamic'.
Media and political leaders never stepped forward to identify the specific enemy as extremist
Muslims influenced and often supported by the Sunni Wahhabi and Salafi sects, not all of Islam
and most certainly not the Shia Islam practiced by much of Iran and Iraq. Why?
Perhaps the answer is that Saudi Arabia is the global promulgator of Wahhabism, the sect most
often fueling terrorist attacks in the region and abroad. It is Saudi Arabia and Israel who worked
together in defiance of the US to block constitutional government in Egypt and install a Salafi
influenced military dictatorship. As I type this the Trump gang is working with the Saudis to
restore order in Syria – a recipe for disaster and long term terrorism.
Trump has no knowledge; the least this paper can do is attempt to educate him.
I understand the urge to write about Trump as if he has a plan, a strategy or even thinks in
depth with intelligence about anything. Americans are yearning for a president, not someone who
sets foreign policy based on what he sees on Fox and Friends or what his handbag selling daughter
whispers in his ear. We want to think that there is something in Trump that is redeemable. But
Mr. Friedman, there isn't.
Five months after the election and he still refers to Hillary Clinton as "crooked Hillary"
in a NYT interview. The man is irredeemable. Give up trying to make something of him and let's
just figure out how to run him from office.
Mr. Friedman: I agree with your strategy: let the Russians and Iranians deal with ISIS on the
ground. I also agree with your assessment of Trump; that he should be unpredictable so our adversaries
don't know what he will do next. But there is one fundamental place where your logic seems to
fall short:
"And those will only emerge if there are real power-sharing deals in Syria and Iraq"
Show me a single Arab country where Sunni and Shi'a factions have a working power sharing arrangement
without one side dominating the other, and I'll agree that this is a reasonable goal. The only
formulas that seem to work in that part of the world are to put a strongman in place to force
compliance, or to divide the place up, Sunni here, Shi'a there.
IMHO if you could help the locals develop a federal method of power sharing that works for
all parties, you could clean up the whole Middle East. There must be enough of them that want
the fighting to stop, but each group is terrified of being subjugated by the other, and for good
reason, because their history shows them that this is inevitable. That is the true knot that must
be untangled before there will be peace in the Middle East.
The problem, it seems to me, is that if "moderate" Sunni movements exist in Iraq and Syria
in the first place, they lack the military power and brutal drive of an ISIS that observes no
humanitarian boundry moral limitation to its behavior.
Obscene brutalization has become so endemic in Syria and the territory around it that it has
become normalized colective behavior. Russia is fully complicit, but the US carries its own oversized
share of the blame. Absent Bush's misguided Iraq debacle, we would be facing a completely different
Middle East today.
These are the consequences of brain-dead, knee-jerk decision-making where the world's greatest
military power resides.
Mr Friedman, I am steadily losing all hope that POTUS and DC politicians have the capability
and the caliber to lead and inspire America through the many and varied challenges we face.
To me, politicians ask citizens for their votes based on a fantasy world where complexity is
never recognized and Americans have the God given right to expect a world where they receive more
of everything without the sacrifice or payment needed to secure these benefits.
Although I am inherently optimistic about life, I think we are facing challenges that will
only be solved by the next generation because our generation is failing to defend our fragile
democracy.
Wahhabism is an essential part of the ISIS problem, but is often overlooked, or hidden. Saudi
Arabia and the Gulf monarchs are responsible for the global reach of ISIS through their support
of Wahhabi schools and preachers. Fighting ISIS in Syria is foolish, for all of the reasons given
here and because America and Europe have failed to tell the truth about the Wahhabi basis of ISIS.
The war in Iraq and Syria is a war between Sunni Wahhabi extremists and Shiites. For propaganda
purposes our government and our pundits have implied that world terrorism is related to Shiites,
knowing all the while that it is and has always been a Sunni Wahhabi terror. Russia's Muslim population
ranges between 6% and 15% of it's population, with 1 million Muslims living in Moscow. 90% of
Russia's Muslim population is Sunni. Chechnya is a Sunni state under Russian sway. Russia is under
threat by ISIS. Why should we fight ISIS in Syria. Friedman is correct. America and the EU have
no interest in defeating ISIS in Syria. We do have an interest in preventing the use of poison
gas.
ISIL in Syria v. ISIL in Iraq? Does terrorism have a border?
Syria is a can of worms. By now, people should appreciate what President Obama. Just as President
Clinton before President Bush the 43rd, Mr Obama navigated the rapid by minimizing damages. But
both Messrs. Clinton and Obama are followed by two simpletons whose one-dimensional thinking will
inevitably lead the U.S. into quagmire. Well, we really don't know what is in Trump's head. His
Syrian excursion might very well be a sleight of hand light show - how else can you explain the
facts that he pre-warned Russia before the raid and little damage was done to an airbase after
59 tomahawks dropped there? If that is a light show for N Korea, then it is doubtful Trump would
do anything more. For all we know, Trump-Russia rift may very well be a charade
While one could argue Syria now is Iraq before Bush's invasion, Syria is too far gone. Everyone
is at risk. Trump is riding the tiger now. There is only one certainty: his bombing of Syria is
as inexplicable as his saying the U.S. no longer cares if Assad wanted to stay. Either there are
ulterior motives in both situations or Trump's ADHD acting up, neither of the scenarios bodes
well to the world's future
The situation in Syria is exactly why our unfit and unstable president is such a danger to
our country and the world.
He doesn't know the history of Syria, he doesn't know the current situation in Syria and he
has no desire to learn either. His missile attack came days after his administration seemed to
be willing to accept Assad as president. It accomplished nothing except to confuse both our allies
and our adversaries.
Now you want him to distinguish between the territorial ICIS and the virtual ICIS, between
the ICIS in Syria and the ICIS in Iraq, and to implement a strategy that involves long term thinking
while Tweeting about something other than himself. It's not going to happen, he doesn't have the
intelligence or the vision to follow through on such a plan.
There are no moderates in Syria, it is a fantasy created in the minds of John McCain and other
neoconservatives who seem to be blind to the disasters they have created in Libya, Iraq and Yemen.
Syria is in the midst of a Sunni-Shia civil war.
Once again there is the usual mistake of thinking that Trump can stick to a plan, any plan.
He is impulsive through and through, in a compulsive way. He has neither a complete functioning
brain nor a complete functioning personality. That is why he needs his daughter-wife-and-second-first-lady
and Kushner as advisers. He does not look for information that experts can provide but to the
family members who serve as a collective nanny to more or less try to keep him in line and to
clean up the messes he makes. Understanding Trump is easier when one thinks of his White House
as an extension of his dysfunctional family relations.
Just because someone has a lot of money doesn't make them smart.
Trump could have been a good President -- we sure could use a fresh look at many policies and
programs but his lack of basic knowledge (enough to select good people and work with them to develop
strategies/plans, which he would then follow) has created chaos. Our adversaries, other governments,
our own government -- nobody knows what our foreign policy is.
In answer to your question, this administration has no coherent military strategy to fight
ISIS at all. The president was all campaign talk and no action. He has yet to lay a glove on ISIS.
He knew more about ISIS than his generals, so his unilateral strike last week was carried out
without the need to consult his military brass or Congress. Just trust him, his actions said.
The missile strike was, in your words, a "headline-grabbing" ploy to distract attention away
from the investigations into his ties to Russia last year. His act of war produced a spike in
his popularity, especially among Republicans and his base who joyfully celebrated the awakening
of the sleeping American giant who finally had enough of Middle East terrorism. The bully was
thumping his chest and braying "bring it on, radical Islam".
Syria, like Viet Nam, is a no-win proposition. Any protracted military involvement there will
cost many American lives and Treasury spending will go through the roof. Mr. President and erstwhile
draft dodger, don't raid the war chest and let your mouth write out a check that your behind can't
cash.
"Where's that Trump when we need him?" Geez Tom, you're asking Trump to think five steps ahead
of today--- you''re talking strategy, Tom? The man is incapable of putting a complex sentence
together with a qualifying clause, and you're asking the Trump we know to "think"--to plot strategy...
never happen.
The United States has
dropped its largest non-nuclear weapon ever used in combat against Isis targets in Afghanistan.
But why drop such a gargantuan bomb in the first place? No one can have any sympathy for Isis and
its murderous offshoots, but you don't need to be a military expert to suspect something strange
might be going on here.
Since the US's stated objective was to destroy underground tunnels, wouldn't so-called bunker
buster bombs, which can also be huge and dig deep into the earth, serve the aims of this mission
just as well, if not better?
Look to the history of colonial warfare for the answer. The lands of the colonized have always
served as the western world's laboratory for the newest and worst weapons of war.
Bombs may have been with us since the invention of gunpowder, but the phenomenon of aerial warfare
is only as old as 1 November 1911, when
Libya became the first country to suffer a bombardment from the sky.
Late to the colonial scramble for Africa, Italy coveted Libya, then a province of the failing
Ottoman empire. In 1911, the Italians invaded the north African territory and that November, Lieutenant
Giulio Gavotti flew over Ain Zara, just east of Tripoli. Unbeknownst to his superiors,
Gavotti tossed four 1.5kg
grenades out of his window, pulling the pins with his teeth, and watching them explode on the oasis
town below. He later wrote that he was "really pleased with the result".
Just like today, the press went crazy with the news. The innovation of aerial warfare was mind
blowing. Gavotti was lauded as a true Italian hero, although Europe's professional warriors initially
thought otherwise. They considered the act beneath the rules of civilized combat. Their contempt
didn't last long, and a new era of aerial warfare, especially against "uncivilized" peoples, began.
In 1920, Britain took charge of Iraq, and a popular revolt quickly erupted. The Royal Air Force
responded with a new strategy they called "control without occupation". The thinking was that there
would be no need for large and costly contingents of soldiers on the ground if one could simply bomb
the local population into submission from the sky. And bomb they did. For days, weeks, and months
on end.
Churchill , who in 1919 had penned a memo stating that he was "strongly in favour of using poisoned
gas against uncivilised tribes", even pushed Air Marshal Trenchard in 1920 to "proceed with the experimental
work on gas bombs, especially mustard gas, which would inflict punishment upon recalcitrant natives
without inflicting grave injury upon them". Historians now believe there wasn't enough mustard gas
to go around, so large-scale conventional bombing was left to achieve Britain's desired result in
Iraq.
The United States is not immune to such military opportunism either. The US fired its first depleted
uranium munitions during the 1991 Gulf war. A total of 320 tons (290,300 kgs)
landed in Iraq in that war, and depleted uranium has a half-life of 4.5 billion years, as old
as our solar system now is. The results have been spectacularly
terrible
throughout Iraq, with birth defects and cancer rates disturbingly elevated throughout the country.
The Russian military has exploited its campaign assisting the Assad regime in Syria to test out
162 new weapons systems, including new cruise missiles and long-range bombers. It would seem the
Russians are very proud of their new weapons. Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu used the occasion of
Vladimir Putin's 63 rd birthday to
announce that Russia had fired cruise missiles at targets in Syria from the Caspian Sea, some
900 miles away.
Look at the countries mentioned thus far – Libya, Iraq, Syria, and
Afghanistan . Southeast
Asia of course also suffered terribly when it was the west's main laboratory of death and destruction,
but this list of countries should give us a sense of history regarding our current conflicts along
with some much-needed humility about the success of bombing people into submission.
This brings us to the GBU-43/B, a 22,600-pound bomb that is known as a Moab, officially a Massive
Ordinance Air Blast and unofficially a Mother of All Bombs. Developed for the 2003 Iraq war, each
GBU-43/B reportedly
costs $16m. The bomb, which explodes before impact and with a reported blast radius as large
as a mile in diameter, is the second largest non-nuclear weapon in the American arsenal. It has never
been used before. Until now.
Once again, the territory inhabited by the "uncivilized" has been shelled so the west can try
out its new lethal toys. Forgotten in all of this is that bombs, especially ones this size, don't
affect only people. Munitions may be aimed at enemies, but an enormous bomb such as this kills plant
life massively as well. When such a bomb detonates, a percussive blast destroys everything in it
fatal path, shattering the insides of humans and animals alike.
The air is literally sucked out of the atmosphere to feed the jealous fire created by its explosion.
The aim of such a bomb is to kill enemies but at what consequence to our earth? There is something
narcissistic to think that bombs of this enormity are an attack on humanity. In fact, they are an
assault on all forms of life.
-->
Devondaddy ,
13m ago
The MOAB used in Afghanistan was almost exactly the same size as Barns Wallace's Grandslam' bomb
deployed by the RAF against the Nazis in 1945.
Sorry if that doesn't fit with the narrative, but in conflict the most appropriate weapons are deployed
irrespective of who the enemy are.
Try reading a little military history if you are going to write about it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Slam_(bomb
)
Oh, Poison Gas was first used, on Europeans, by Europeans.
Nuclear weapons only use was not on `uncivilised tribes`, but an Industrial Nation, Imperial Japan.
Mostly, we used the most sdvanced weapons, to kill other western forces: only then, were they
used in Colonial wars. Custers men at the Little Big Horn, used single shot rifles, the only repeating
rifles were used by some of the Native Americans. He could have taken `Gatling Guns`he refused!
"The Lakota and Cheyenne warriors did join the battle with a number of Henry and Spencer repeating
rifles" https://www.wired.com/2009/06/dayintech_0625
/
http://www.historynet.com/battle-of-little-bighorn-were-the-weapons-the-deciding-factor.htm
http://custerlives.com/7thcav11.htm
Of course The West doesn't do things like this - as far as its own self portrait is concerned.
You won't find any shade of the opinion of this commentator in the items singing the praises of
America's massive WMDs in the media today. They are so excited about the size of the bomb! About
the message it sends about the West's Greatness. I daresay most men of god will similarly support
it this Sunday by not mentioning the obscenity of calling the bomb a "mother" or deploying it
at Easter. It's just so Christian - killing people of lesser gods en masse at what the West regards
as the holiest time of the year.
Failing banana republics like the US need to distract as much as possible from the domestic problems.
Dropping big bombs in Afghanistan makes Americans think they are still powerful, while the country
is collapsing like a cheap tent.
Note, in the below - famous - Churchill memo on the use of `poison gas` he states quite clearly
the type he envisages using: "making his eyes water by means of lachrymatory gas".
Lachrymatory means tears/crying, in other words tear gas, formally known as a lachrymatory
agent. He had been in the Trenches, the effects of Mustard gas on the Eyes, Skin & Lungs would
have been familiar to him, read the memo yourself, does it sound like WWI poison gasses: Chlorine,
Phosgene or Mustard gas, was being proposed? Note: the blinded of Mustard Gas, could have lived
until the late 20th Century, why no accounts of them blinded as children, great anti British propoganda,
so why has no such tales of gas blindings from the 1920`s ever been reported from Iraq?
" as shown in a War Office minute of 12 May 1919 in which Winston Churchill argued
:
"I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. We have definitely adopted
the position at the Peace Conference of arguing in favour of the retention of gas as a permanent
method of warfare. It is sheer affectation to lacerate a man with the poisonous fragment of a
bursting shell and to boggle at making his eyes water by means of lachrymatory gas. I am strongly
in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes. The moral effect should be so good
that the loss of life should be reduced to a minimum. It is not necessary to use only the most
deadly gasses: gasses can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror
and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected."
It amazes me, well, not anymore, how ignorant Americans are. This "Mother" bomb is not the biggest
ever used. One of them yes, but the RAF used a 22,000 pound bomb called the Grand Slam. Carried
by the Avro Lancaster, it was used for highly reinforced positions like U boat pens.
Reply Share
Biggest in terms of the amount of explosives inside it. Grand Slam had just less than half the
amount of explosives inside it that the MOAB does. We used to have a few empty Grand Slam casings
laying around on one of the MoD sites I worked at. Extremely thick steel, to say the least.
Reply Share
Grand Slams were designed to go deep into the ground and explode creating an underground chamber.They
were also known as earthquake bombs.The largest high explosive bomb was the Blockbuster. A 12000lb
bomb 3/4 of the weight of the bomb was the contents.It was designed as a blast bomb.
Reply Share
I spent a bit of my MoD career working with what was euphemistically referred to as "energetic
materials". We had quite a few WW2 relics at one of the sites. From bits of Tallboy and Grand
Slam casings, to all different types of MC and HC bombs. Last I heard the scrappy got his hands
on them, so they're probably baked-bean cans by now.
I have figured out 90% of the US government activity is selling BS to the American people so that
they can continue doing what they're doing without being questioned.
In the big scheme of things this is a big bomb to take out supposedly a large depot of arms
belonging to the ISIS terrorists who were about to commence their spring offensive in that area.
Americans have done bombings like this before (not with MOAB ~~ but hundreds of smaller bombs).
But, the "public relations" aspect of this bombing was just out of this world. For example retired
general McCaffrey on MSNBC said this is a weapon of terror (he meant it in a good way). It terrorizes
ISIS and anyone who cooperates with them. I guess he meant in a "shock and awe" way. The American
media is cheering this, as if no one in the world knows US has nukes and can blow everyone off
the face of the earth several times, until they deployed this weapon. You hear from the talking
heads and their echo chambers, this is going to give a message to the North Koreans and this or
that group. The message North Koreans, and this or that group is getting is US has a huge amount
of weapons, a big military, but after fighting for 16 years in an impoverished country, with a
GDP of $3 billion, US has resorted to biggest nonnuclear weapon in its arsenal to show how tough
they are. The message this sends to the rest of the world is US military is impotent and incompetent,
so is the US government.
"... The intervention triggers resentment and hostility at the new government, the legitimacy of which is reduced through the participation of an outside government. ..."
"... In late 2015, Eren Erdem, a Turkish MP, said in Parliament that the Turkish state was permitting Da'esh to send sarin precursors to Syria. He had a file of evidence, so was accused of treason for accessing and publicizing confidential material. The investigation into the people responsible for the transfer of toxic chemicals was shut down. ..."
"... Al-Assad is certainly capable of murdering opponents, and not bothering too much about collateral damage, but strategically it makes no sense for him to do this now, when peace talks under the aegis of Russia and Iran have begun, and the world is watching. Also, Assad has been engaged in a reconciliation process, allowing members of the FSA to return to the Syrian army, and Aleppans remain in Damascus if they didn't wish to go to Idlib. At such a juncture, using chemical weapons would be counter-productive. If Sarin was used at his command, he should be properly prosecuted: but bombing a Syrian air base merely assists Da'esh and its cronies. ..."
"... I have just watched the press conference in which Trump labelled Assad a butcher, and went on again about dead babies. I just wish that someone at one of these conferences would have the guts to point out to Trump his own butchery. ..."
"... Anyone watching this performance would think that US forces had never been responsible for killing innocent civilians, men, women, children and babies. To listen to Trump, you wouldn't think that US forces had ever killed over 150 civilians in Mosul, dozens in Raqqa, or had bombed hospitals in Afghanistan, or schools in Iraq, or were supporting the Saudi blockade of Yemen resulting in the starvation of children and babies, or had destroyed wedding parties with drones,.....I could go on. ..."
"... If Assad is a butcher, he is only a junior, apprentice, corner-shop butcher. Trump is the real thing, the large-scale, wholesale, expert butcher. ..."
"... Gotta get that pipeline in for the Saudi's, eh, no matter how many children's carcasses it crosses, yay, regime change again, yay, and a heap of new terrorists for our kids in the west to dodge and duck, yay. ..."
"... Despite the several misrepresentations, the facts are that Britain has been one of the main protagonists in prosecuting this war against Syria , which is a proxy war against Iran. ..."
"... Britain was at the forefront in setting up the Al Nusra Front and in hosting the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights to disseminate deeply negative propaganda about the Syrian Government and armed forces. ..."
"... Every step of this including the media campaign which has comprised a major part of the military campaign against Syria, has been an attempt to delegitimize the Sovereign government and its institutions and to gain consensus from the somnambulistic British and US public for yet another direct military campaign against another Middle Eastern country. ..."
"... Assad's removal would be catastrophic. There would be no stable government in Syria, it would be controlled by warlords backed by Saudi Arabia, al-Qaeda or ISIS and millions of refugees would have no country to return to or to live in. This will mean more refugees in Europe, more destabilisation and more money drained from our treasuries. ..."
The intervention triggers resentment and hostility at the new government, the legitimacy of which is reduced through the participation
of an outside government.
Soon, the new regime is considered a "puppet" and its existence is questioned by the people. Interestingly, the Middle East has
proven particularly resistant to durable regime change and democratization, further making the success of any US-led intervention
doubtful.
The situation will be even more fraught if other external actors turn any attempt at regime change into a proxy war, as Russia
and Iran are likely to do. The US experienced the downside of this during the ill-conceived war in Vietnam. During the Soviet-led
war in Afghanistan, the US played the spoiler of Soviet efforts, funnelling money and weapons to the anti-Soviet mujahideen, turning
the USSR's intervention into a protracted, bloody war.
Prof Michael John Williams is Director of the International Relations Program at New York University.
Instead, the western powers have followed the example cited by Machiavelli: "in order to prove their liberality, they allowed
Pistoia to be destroyed."
In late 2015, Eren Erdem, a Turkish MP, said in Parliament that the Turkish state was permitting Da'esh to send sarin precursors
to Syria. He had a file of evidence, so was accused of treason for accessing and publicizing confidential material. The investigation
into the people responsible for the transfer of toxic chemicals was shut down.
That surely ought to make us at least ask evidence-seeking questions about the Idlib gas attack before yet again demanding
regime change.
Al-Assad is certainly capable of murdering opponents, and not bothering too much about collateral damage, but strategically
it makes no sense for him to do this now, when peace talks under the aegis of Russia and Iran have begun, and the world is watching.
Also, Assad has been engaged in a reconciliation process, allowing members of the FSA to return to the Syrian army, and Aleppans
remain in Damascus if they didn't wish to go to Idlib. At such a juncture, using chemical weapons would be counter-productive.
If Sarin was used at his command, he should be properly prosecuted: but bombing a Syrian air base merely assists Da'esh and its
cronies.
I have just watched the press conference in which Trump labelled Assad a butcher, and went on again about dead babies. I just
wish that someone at one of these conferences would have the guts to point out to Trump his own butchery.
Anyone watching this performance would think that US forces had never been responsible for killing innocent civilians,
men, women, children and babies. To listen to Trump, you wouldn't think that US forces had ever killed over 150 civilians in Mosul,
dozens in Raqqa, or had bombed hospitals in Afghanistan, or schools in Iraq, or were supporting the Saudi blockade of Yemen resulting
in the starvation of children and babies, or had destroyed wedding parties with drones,.....I could go on.
If Assad is a butcher, he is only a junior, apprentice, corner-shop butcher. Trump is the real thing, the large-scale,
wholesale, expert butcher.
...Indeed, Richard Spencer last week protested outside the White House against the airstrikes on the regime airbase carrying a
sign that read "No more wars 4 Israel."
Syria's ruling Baath party and its allies won a majority of seats in parliamentary elections last week across government-held
parts of the country, the national electoral commission announced late Saturday.
Who are the rebels supported by Washington and Westminster?
And we're going to learn a lot more about the "rebels" whom we in the West – the US, Britain and our head-chopping mates
in the Gulf – have been supporting.
They did, after all, include al-Qaeda (alias Jabhat al-Nusra, alias Jabhat Fateh al-Sham), the "folk" – as George W Bush
called them – who committed the crimes against humanity in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania on 11 September 2001. Remember
the War on Terror? Remember the "pure evil" of al-Qaeda. Remember all the warnings from our beloved security services in the
UK about how al-Qaeda can still strike terror in London?
Gotta get that pipeline in for the Saudi's, eh, no matter how many children's carcasses it crosses, yay, regime change again,
yay, and a heap of new terrorists for our kids in the west to dodge and duck, yay.
I agree that Bashar al-Assad is not a "good person". It is impossible to be an authoritarian leader, struggling to maintain the
unity, or even existence, of a nation state, and at the same time be a kind and gentle person. However, I do not believe him to
be the psychopathic monster that he is portrayed as being, either. He is almost certainly not personally responsible for the chemical
attack in Idlib province.
Presidents do not normally make detailed decisions on what sort of weapons should be used on every airstrike made by their
aircraft. He may be a dictator, but he is not a complete imbecile. Even the dimmest of politicians could have foreseen that this
chemical attack would end up being a massive own-goal. Nobody as cynically calculating as Assad is supposed to be, would be that
stupid. My own hunch, (and that is all it is) is that sarin was used due to a blunder by a low or medium ranking Syrian airforce
officer.
Yes, of course Assad bears responsibility for overall strategy in this vicious war of survival, and as such, has blood on his
hands. But, so does Trump, so does Obama, so does Putin so does Erdogan, so does May, and so do all the leaders who have supplied
the numerous rebel groups with billions of pounds worth of weapons, and have therefore kept the pot boiling.
Last year, Theresa May stood up in parliament and proudly proclaimed her willingness to commit mass indiscriminate murder on
a scale that would make Syria look like a pinprick. She declared her willingness to press the nuclear button and therefore slaughter
hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of completely innocent men, women, children and babies. She not only has blood on her
hands, she is proud of it. Perhaps we should remember that, when she comes out with one of her sanctimonious, nauseatingly hypocritical
statements about Syria.
Assad was democratically elected more than once so he must be doing something right. (OK, so they're democracy might not be our
democracy but 'our' democracy has brought us Trump, Brexit and the like so its really six to one, a half dozen to the other).
Syria until we started messing with it -- creating, supporting and even arming opposition groups -- was stable, wasn't messing
with its neighbors and had significant religious and cultural freedoms compared to other countries in the area. (Our actions might
suggest that we really don't want stable, peaceful, countries in that region, we need them to be weak and riven by internal factions.)
Anyway, given our outstanding track record of success with regime change in that part of the world we should probably adopt
a hands-off approach -- all we seem to do is make an unsatisfactory situation dire. Hardly the way to win friends and influence
people.
Despite the several misrepresentations, the facts are that Britain has been one of the main protagonists in prosecuting this
war against Syria , which is a proxy war against Iran.
Britain was at the forefront in setting up the Al Nusra Front and in hosting the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights to
disseminate deeply negative propaganda about the Syrian Government and armed forces.
Every step of this including the media campaign which has comprised a major part of the military campaign against Syria,
has been an attempt to delegitimize the Sovereign government and its institutions and to gain consensus from the somnambulistic
British and US public for yet another direct military campaign against another Middle Eastern country.
The whole which has visited terrible and incalculable suffering, on the Syrian people. Syria was a paradise before the British
and US did their usual work. The journalists, government and security services in Britain who have wrought this mess , I'm sure
will not escape the consequences of their actions. One hopes they experience a 1000 times of the hell they have visited on Syria.
These actions are truly despicable acts of cowardice and absolute wickedness.
Syria was a paradise for those who rule Syria........ the Assad regime brutally repressed any opposition to their rule. In 1982
Assad´s father killed probably more than 30,000 in the siege of Hama. As well as sheltering a number of terrorist organisations
who have their headquarters in Damascus....... he also armed and supported the fledgling Al-Quaeda resistance to the coalition
in Iraq, giving them asylum in Syria........now the IS ....... I can think of Paradise in different ways......
The prosecution of a Swedish national accused of terrorist activities in Syria has collapsed at the Old Bailey after it
became clear Britain's security and intelligence agencies would have been deeply embarrassed had a trial gone ahead, the Guardian
can reveal.
His lawyers argued that British intelligence agencies were supporting the same Syrian opposition groups as he was, and were
party to a secret operation providing weapons and non-lethal help to the groups, including the Free Syrian Army.
Leaked emails from the private intelligence firm Stratfor including notes from a meeting with Pentagon officials confirmed
US-UK training of Syrian opposition forces since 2011 aimed at eliciting "collapse" of Assad's regime "from within."
More guff from the guardian/ Mr Williams, with just a little realistic sense, but who can replace Assad and in Syria he remains
very popular, despite the western media like lies!
Russia has to move quickly to secure a 100 year lease for the Latakia port and airbase. Otherwise the US will soon attempt to
render it useless as well, regardless of which of the moderate rebel factions it decides to install.
... Spirits die hard, and those of the Arab spring and the Orange Revolution are still alive in the halls of the Pentagon.
.... A controlled cold war however, is the only way to a avoid a larger mess than what the West has already inflicted on the
innocent Syrian people by using the most abortive war design that has ever been conceived by the war college or any other war
commander.
...... At the current rate there will be more Syrians in Germany than those remaining in Syria.
......... Is it hard to wonder why Syrians might hold a grudge against the, US?
Regime change ? All in the name of democracy as we see it.Why not try it in the Kingdom of family owned country KSA or why not
another family owned enterprises called UAE.
History tells us replacing Assad would be a bad idea. We should have learned the lesson with Hussain and Iraq, but didn't. We
would go on to replace Gaddafi of Libya and boom, it trigged ISIS.
The hard lesson here is that for some reason Muslim majority countries have a strong central authoritarian leader. No matter
if that leaders is called president, king, prime minister, or whatever. When that strong leaders is deposed, chaos ensues.
The Americans have a fetish with regime change. Up until recently they were discrete about it and did it in secret, now they are
all in the open. People who are against regime change are considered anti-Americans and tools of the Soviets...ahm.... Russia.
The amazing thing is Tillerson said Assad's faith should be left with the Syrian people, the American establishment in unison
said how could he says such a terrible thing, "we should decide what Syrian people want."
These are the same people who elected
Trump, maybe they should let Syrian people select the US president. The result may end up better.
> Bashar al-Assad is not a good person. He has reduced once great Syrian cities such as Homs and Aleppo to rubble. All six
of Syria's Unesco world heritage sites have been damaged. Worse still, more than 500,000 Syrian civilians have been killed
in the civil war, 6.1 million have been internally displaced and another 4.8 million are seeking refuge abroad.
Yes, Assad is not a good person. But what about American politicians such as Hillary Clinton, who armed "moderate rebels" and
supported the opposition in pursuit of regime change? And Syria is not the only country were this happened. Will there ever any
responsibility taken for their actions by the US and NATO?
First, they make a manageable problem into a huge problem, then just hightail back home, living local people to pick up the
pieces.
Those half millions of deaths - are they all responsibility of Assad or do the sponsors of jihadists and jihadists themselves
have some responsibility as well?
A. A horrible authoritarian regime that tortures and murders it's opponents...........but women can wear what they like in
public, get a good education courtesy of the State, and embark on a career.
B. A horrible authoritarian regime that tortures and murders it's opponents...........where women are denied education, made
virtual prisoners in their own homes, and have acid flung in their faces for having the temerity to appear unveiled when they
do go out in public.
It's not a great choice, but one is definitely better than the other.
Also worth remembering that under Assad people are allowed religious freedom. I know two Syrian Christians who are terrified of
what will happen if the rebels take control of their country.
Choice B also includes Sharia law, full extermination of other faiths and death sentence for rejection of Islam. Basically Choice
B is another Saudi Arabia, but a lot of people will have to die first.
The world's biggest superpower is willing to risk a nuclear war with mass destruction of billions and possible extinction of life
on earth on an unproven assertion made by Al Qaeda sympathisers that the Syrian government bombed them with sarin? OBL must be
laughing in his grave.
1. Who is threatening a nuclear war? The Russians? I haven't heard them threaten that. Probably because no-one would seriously
believe them.
2. An intellectually honest person should not describe young children as terrorist sympathisers. Let alone imply they somehow
deserve to be deliberately targeted by nerve gas as a result.
An intellectually honest person should question the veracity of a report that is unverified by a terrorist organisation. The children
were never described by me as 'terrorist sympathisers' so you make a dishonest accusation, the terrorist sympathisers are those
who produced the report on which the whole story is based. It is not about the death of the children which is of course a crime,
but they are being used by the terrorists for thier purposes.
An intellectually honest person would also show outrage about the mass murder of civilians, including children in Mosul and
by a US bombing in Syria that seem to not arouse the same outrage.
Regime change by US has been used at least three times against democracies, in Chili, in Iran and in Ukraine. Attempted regime
change has also been used often in South America to oust populist rulers because of US interests. Although the above analysis
raises the very good point that change has to come from the bottom up, it starts with the same fallacies of assuming that all
of the death and destruction in Syria comes from one person which is an extremely flawed point to start from. The point that is
to be made is that there is no military solution to the conflict except in an anti terrorist capacity. The problem is that all
of those against the Syrian government in the current conflict are either outright terrorists or those who collaborate heavily
with terrorists making it difficult to have a conventional peace process.
America engaged in regime changes to suit American interests during the cold war and the New world order drive. The fact that
they supported dictatorships worldwide and helped them overthrow democratically elected governments tells clearly that imposing
democracy forcibly was not their intention. Intervention in global conflicts is mainly for controlling pathways for resources
and gaining ground for business opportunities for their multinational giant corporations.
The West's narrative has fallen apart, nobody believes that the Syrian rebels are peace loving democrats. We have ample evidence
that they are infinitely worse than Assad.
We also have plenty of evidence that the Western deep state, not the public, wants another regime change in the middle east
and will stop at nothing to achieve its end including false flag gas attacks. This article goes into detail.
False Flag: How the U.S. Armed Syrian Rebels to Set Up an Excuse to Attack Assad
Evidence suggests a false flag chemical weapons attack on the Syrian people was initiated by Syrian rebels with the help
of the United States in order to justify Thursday night's U.S. Military attack on a Syrian base.
The Left is very opposed to war in Syria, the Libertarian right is very opposed to war in Syria but a hugely powerful Deep
State will stop at nothing to achieve its ends.
"Worse still, more than 500,000 Syrian civilians have been killed in the civil war, 6.1 million have been internally displaced
and another 4.8 million are seeking refuge abroad. "
well, you cannot put the blame on Assad only. He never asked for that war for a start and a lot of the refugees you're talking
about may very well be pro-Assad.
Finally an article which still sticks to logical thinking when it comes to Syria. Assad is a terrible leader but atleast with
him, most of the factions within the country can be sorted. The West's obsession with stuffing democracy down the throats of every
oil producing country in the Middle East has resulted in the Mad Max wasteland i.e. Libya and the unsolvable puzzle i.e. Iraq.
Both Gaddafi and Saddam were terrible human beings but removing them left a vacuum which has cost the lives of thousands and displaced
millions. The West must make its peace with Assad for now, stop supporting the rebels and try to find common ground with Russia
against the real enemy - ISIS.
The west - as the US/UK like to themselves, couldn't give a damn about democracy . They want compliance , not democracy. A good(brutal)
dictator is better than a 'difficult' democratically elected leader , look at events in Egypt for example.
Our own democracies are pretty ropey, certainly not up there with the Scandinavian best practice.
You're kidding right? The West stuffing democracy down the throats of the Gulf countries. More like defending them against the
threat of democracy by arming them to the teeth and stationing troops there. Have you heard of Bahrain?
The only plausible solution to this conflict is partition assuming of course the imminent defeat of Isis.
While getting rid of Assad would create a dangerous power vacuum and is in any case perhaps impossible given Russias backing,
the sheer scale of the killing he's done and destruction he's unleashed on his own people - of a totally different scale to Saddam
Hussein and even his father, from whom he seems to have inherited his psychopathic tendencies -renders the idea that he could
continue to rule a "united" Syria or even the majority of it, laughable.
If you get rid of Assad, whoever replaces him is going to have a very difficult task. How on Earth do you enforce any sort of
civilized law and order in a country which has some of the worst terrorist organizations the world has ever known. With organizations
like ISIS around, a government is gong to need to take a firm hand somewhere. It's not as if you can send Jihadists on community
service and expect them to come back as reformed characters.
Fact is that Assad still enjoys considerable support among Syrians. In particular among those who have no problem with a woman
going to the beach in a bikini and driving a car to work. He is not giong anywhere soon. And if he did, the situation would be
worse. As in the case of the butcher Saddam Hussein and the crazy dictator Khadaffi, who also were supposedly removed in an attempt
to bring "freedom and democracy to the people."
Syria was one of the few countries in the ME where you could drink alcohol. Does anyone believe whoever follows Assad be
it someone picked by the US/Israel/KSA/Qatar will be quite so tolerant?
Why can't world leaders be held to account for their crimes against humanity? Is it not about time that they are compelled to
comply with international law and for the United Nations Assembly to make them so by enforceable resolutions passed by a majority
vote?
Assad is a tyrant who should be removed from office and held accountable for his crimes against humanity. Syrians should be
entitled to a government that is respectful of their human rights.
The UN should take responsibility for enforcing a permanent ceasefire and brokering talks to secure Syria's future. It should
require as a condition of UN membership compliance with and adherence to international law protecting human rights. Non compliance
should be met with expulsion and the economic isolation of the country concerned from the rest of the world.
There is no shortcut to lasting peace. As uncomfortable as it is, the best that western governments can do is provide aid
and assistance to those in distress, while pressuring those countries that continue to feed money and weapons to the combatants
to change their positions.
You are absolutely right.
Such a pity then that the western governments in question, the UK, America and to a lesser extent, France, are in fact the
same entities, via their surrogate power in the middle east, Saudi Arabia, who are the ones providing the weapons and money.
Just as they did in Iraq and Libya, and always for the same reason, to achieve regime change against the Middle Eastern leaders
who were threatening their control of the oil market.
This situation is nothing new, these Western Powers have been attacking various parts of the Middle East for nigh on a century.
Winston Churchill was responsible for bombing Iraq in the 1920's. That also was to achieve regime change.
All of the deaths and the destruction in the Middle East can ultimately be laid at the door of the 'Western Powers' and their
willingness to do anything to protect their oil interests.
One of the most despicable thing about the West's attempts to bribe, entice and force Russia into abandoning the Syrian Government,
so that America, France, Britain and Saudi Arabia can rush in, like hyenas to finish off a wounded animal, is how patronising
they have been towards the Russians and Iranians. Granted that their racism towards the Russians might not be what it is towards
the Syrian state, which they want to deny a voice and disrespect to the extent of talking to the Russians, and ignoring the Syrian
government.
Yes, the West is behaving towards the Syrian state as if it is just something for it to manipulate, as it does with the global
economy. Not having made any progress in manipulating the Syrian proxy conflict into the outcomes it wants, the West has now resorted
to making merciless and unjustified attacks on Russian and the Iranians. Despite the fact that it is Russia and the Syrian government
forces and their Hezbollah allies who have broken the impasse in this terrible war.
It is scurrilous that there should now be this coordinated media and political campaign to make Russia out to be 'the bad guy',
the 'devil', as it were.
As for 'the liberals', well, guess what, if you want to do something constructive. Then stop blaming Russia and demonising
the Russians, the Syrian Government and their allies. Look closer to home, to America, To Britain, to France and Saudi Arabia.
There you will find more demons disguised as 'humanitarians' and 'angels' than probably in all of Russia and Syria.
The guys in the West who are posturing as angels are no less culpable than the Syrian government.
Of course the West should not destroy the Syrian state and government. But, since when has logic prevented this cartel from
exercising its destructive force? As Libya, Iraq and Yemen have proven? The liberals need to grow up and stop being allied to
the right.
Firstly, we have yet to see the results of any impartial investigation checking out the Syrian/Russian version of events about
the gas in Idlib province, which could be true. Nobody that I can see is 'supporting' the use of gas against civilians, but it
is known that the bigger terrorist organisations such as ISIS and al Qaeda do have stocks of poison gas. Secondly,so many uninformed
commentators have not understood that Syria's 6 year war has been and remains a religious war! Asad's Shiite/ Alawite/Christian/
Druse/ Ismaili communities and other minorities supported by Iran and Lebanon's Shiites, fighting for their very survival against
Saudi/ Qatari/Gulf States' extremist Wahhabi fighters, who via ISIS ,Al Qaeda and similar Islamists, want to wipe them off the
face of the earth (with Turkey playing a double game). At this very moment people are condemning Assad for bombing civilians,
whilst the US-led coalition including our own RAF, is doing exactly the same thing in the ISIS held city of Mosul -for the same
reasons. The rebels take over and then surround themselves in cities, with civilians, hoping that these horrors will raise western
public opinion against the government forces trying to defeat them. The 'half- informed' public opinion is now behaving in exactly
this predictable way against the Syrian government, trying to deal with its own religious extremist rebels, many of whom are not
even Syrians. It was always a war that the west should stay out of -other peoples religious wars are incomprehensible to non-believers
in that particular faith. To talk now of replacing Asad is juvenile and mischievous - maybe that's why Boris is so engaged?
There is an equality of evil between Assad and ISIS. That said, Assad's forces and their Shia allies have slaughtered the vast
majority of the victims.
Both Assad and ISIS will lose eventually. How many Syrians are slaughtered in the meantime is anyone's guess.
Why murderous dictators are so popular btl is a mystery.
According to Wikipedia Estimates of deaths in the Syrian Civil War, per opposition activist groups, vary between 321,358
and 470,000.
On 23 April 2016, the United Nations and Arab League Envoy to Syria put out an estimate of 400,000 that had died in the war.
Also,according to Wikipedia I n 2016, the United Nations (UN) identified 13.5 million Syrians requiring humanitarian assistance,
of which more than 6 million are internally displaced within Syria, and over 4.8 million are refugees outside of Syria. In January
2017, UNHCR counted 4,863,684 registered refugees.
Turkey is the largest host country of registered refugees with over 2.7 million Syrian refugees.
Before the troubles,Syria had a population of 23 million.
No country could go back to normality after that upheaval.
That's because politics is heartlessly, ruthlessly, compassionlessly pragmatic. If having a pet local petty king in the area keeps
it stable and does not a politically costly military operation, everything else is seen as "acceptable collateral damage".
It's funny but western foreign policy is fundamentally the same in the methods, just different in goals. If the goal of regime
change is achieved and political points collected, everything else is completely irrelevant. Opposition can become "moderately
islamist", "democratic" rebels may implement sharia law, "precision strikes" may cause tens of thousands of civilian casualties,
but it's all for the greater good.
Every time the West especially the Anglo west of the USA and Britain intervene in another countries affairs, the end product is
a disaster so for that reason alone these two societies which can only communicate in English should leave this to the Russians.
This almost manages to achieve sense, and it's good to see an article not promoting regime change for once, but it still falls
short of stating the truth that the correct policy in Syria is to help Assad win the war, and then impose conditions on his conduct
in the peace.
He has reduced once great Syrian cities such as Homs and Aleppo to rubble. All six of Syria's Unesco world heritage sites
have been damaged.
I must now begrudgingly thank the Trump Administration for causing me to realize a profound and universal truth. History doesn't
rhyme at all; it parodies.
The build up to our inevitable Syria invasion is essentially an SNL parody of our Iraq invasion. All the way down to allegations
of to "hidden stockpiles of WMDs", "gassing own citizens", "violation of no WMD agreement", "weapons inspectors not doing job",
and most recently "Assad/Saddam is Hitler". All that's left is the final piece of evidence to tip public opinion in...the holy
grail, "yellowcake uranium".
I'm not sure exactly what comes next (presumably Trump declaring an "Axis of Evil" consisting of Syria, ISIS, Iran, N.Korea...and
perhaps Russia and/or China or both...thus setting the stage for a hilarious parody of WWII).
Perhaps dear Boris should have had more talks with the British government to find out what is the political position of the conservative
government over Syria, and more importantly with Russia. So far the American have by the look of things, telling the British Government
in what they want, not bothering to ask what Britain thinks what is important.
There is actually no point in swapping one master the EU, to handcuff ourselves to the a far more right wing America.
Take Isil and jihadists out of the equation and what you're left with are people that want to oust a tyrannical and unelected
leader who clearly has nothing but disdain for his people (groups of at least).
Those rebels (or freedom fighters) are being seen as the bad guys it seems to me...?
The only reason I can see for this is that they have slight support from the United States.
Had the boot been on the other foot and the US we're supporting Assad and Russia,the rebels (freedom fighters) I'm quite sure
public opinion (Guardian readers at least) would be quite different.
So what do the Syrian rebels who are looking to overthrow a dictator have to do to be put on a pedestal of righteousness as
Castro was for effectively trying to achieve the same end goal....
Oh, that's right, Castro was trying to stick it to the Yanks.... now I get it.
I think there's a definite strain of anti-Americanism on display however cautiously we have to view their actions after Iraq and
give their closeness to the Gulf States. A quarter of the country has fled Assad, some 10 million internally displaced not to
mention the incredible numbers of dead and wounded.
And yet there's a close minded reflex to say that things will be better off with him in charge ignoring even the possibility
of partition, which strikes me as the most plausible option. The idea that Assad can now after all he's done rule a united country
indefinitely putting a lid on refugees and terrorism strikes me as utterly preposterous.
My sentiments entirely and it shocks me that there are a considerable number of Assad apologists commenting on here as he is clearly
seen as a better 'devil' than Trump...
I'm just very pleased I don't live in Syria and I think the run of the mill Syrian dying in their droves due to gas, bombs
or simply drowning in the Med would be horrified to read a large number of comments on here in relation to this article and how
Assad 'isn't such a bad old stick!'
Take Isil and jihadists out of the equation and what you're left with
what you are left is nothing. This was the big point since 2013, when Nusra began taking over the last remnants of the FSA. Since
then Cameron (or was it Hammond) had to coin the term "relatively hardline islamists" to make some of the jihadi groups somewhat
acceptable.
In its latest iteration, Nusra (now rebranded yet againTahrir al-Sham) has formally absorbed several other "rebel" group, including
the Nour al-Din al-Zenki, who were in the past equipped by the US, and were quoted by various agencies (including this paper)
as "opposition" during the recapture of Aleppo.
Ah, yes, you also have the Kurds, who are building their own state. But if there is something all the local powers agree on
(Russia, US, Turkey, Syria, Iraq...) is that they don't want an independent Kurdish state.
President Obama was heavily criticized for not doing more in Syria, but he made a difficult decision that was in many ways
the right on.
Obama required cover from the British Parliament. Bombing Syria was incredibly unpopular with the UK public from right to left.
David Miliband listened to the public and stopped the bombing of Syria. Nobody expected a Labour politician to dare to oppose
the US war machine, it took them all by surprise.
Bombing Syria was incredibly unpopular with the US public and the European public, Miliband saved us from ISIS and Al Nusra
both al Qaeda franchises running Syria.
The BBC routinely portrays the Libertarian right wing in the USA as Isolationists but if you hear it from them they are anti-war.
The American working class understands what war is like in the middle east because many of them have experienced it. They are
clearly anti another war in the middle east. proof:
You could argue this isn't about regime change per se but prosecuting a dictator for targeting and massacring civilians. And surely
the same rationale can be used against Isis. In other words you don't allow mass murderers to take. Over but prosecute them as
well.
Good article. Hits the nail on the head. Regime change may be required for Syria the G7 and Arab countries must come together
to carefully plan what happens afterwards.
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our
community standards . Replies may also be deleted.
For more detail see our FAQs .
'Monster' Assad was courted by western leaders: Remember the Assads pictured taking tea at Buckingham Palace with the Queen(google
it) , Blair all smiles in Damascus. The Kerry family pictured in Damascus enjoying a late evening supper with the Assads(google
it).
But Bashar al-Assad is a stubborn man , he wouldn't distance himself from Iran and their proxies such as Hezbollah, thus his
fate was sealed.
Well it's all tied in . People talk about Israel wanting the Golan Heights permanently in part due to oil interests, they talk
about Qatar and the gas pipeline to Europe Assad refuses. They talk about the KSA being unnerved by Iran's growing influence in
the region after the Iraq war, and how it would suit KSA , Israel and the US for Sunni leadership to emerge in Syria to rebalance
the region.
I think it's all of the above . Which isn't what US/UK populations are being told.
The West learns nothing from its mistakes. Can't we understand that our real enemy is ISIS and that springs directly from our
disastrous invasion of Iraq? Assad may be pretty awful but surely we should be able to comprehend that he is an ally in the fight
against ISIS just as the far more horrible Stalin was an ally against the Nazis.
Just because Trump suddenly talks about "beautiful babies", we all go mad again.
Syria is going to need serious amounts of aid and foreign investment to recover when peace starts to take hold. But Assad cannot
travel internationally because he will be subject to arrest. At least in any civilised country. So he will be gone one way or
antithetical. Putin has backed the wrong horse. It's too handicapped to run.
Until the Saudis, US & UK decide that enough is enough, then this idiocy will continue. Assad is a better leader for Syria than
Isis, Al Qaeda, or the other Saudi-backed groups would be.
Syria was secular and religiously tolerant under Assad. It won't be either of those things if Assad is deposed. More than likely,
it would end up as a Saudi-style Islamic theocracy with the harshest head-chopping, hand-chopping version of sharia law.
He has reduced once great Syrian cities like Homs and Aleppo to rubble
Did Assad deliberately bring his country into civil war? When his forces are being attacked by rebels sponsored by foreign
groups, he really only has two choices: give up leadership and allow the rebels to take over the country, or fight back. Given
that you're arguing that a regime change is a bad idea it logically follows that you support the second option, so it hardly seems
fair to criticise him for the consequences of that resistance. You might do better to blame the rebels and those who sponsor them
for bringing war to what was previously a (relatively) peaceful country.
This Regime Change Policy adopted by the US and in many, if not all cases, supported by the UK, whilst in some case toppling Dictators,
has left nothing but chaos in its wake.
We need to consider the case of Syria, very carefully, as we may well find ourselves handing the Country to ISIL on a plate.
Better to help Assad stabilise the Country, and then discuss political change.
The rhetoric coming from the Foreign and Defence Secretaries, can do nothing to help, but make the UK look stupid.
Hahahahaha, collude with crimes against humanity in the name of stability and call it progress because after six years we cannot
think of an alternative. Great.
He has reduced once great Syrian cities like Homs and Aleppo to rubble
Did Assad deliberately bring his country into civil war? When his forces are being attacked by rebels sponsored by foreign
groups, he really only has two choices: give up leadership and allow the rebels to take over the country, or fight back. Given
that you're arguing that a regime change is a bad idea it logically follows that you support the second option, so it hardly seems
fair to criticise him for the consequences of that resistance. You might do better to blame the rebels and those who sponsor them
for bringing war to what was previously a (relatively) peaceful country.
This Regime Change Policy adopted by the US and in many, if not all cases, supported by the UK, whilst in some case toppling Dictators,
has left nothing but chaos in its wake.
We need to consider the case of Syria, very carefully, as we may well find ourselves handing the Country to ISIL on a plate.
Better to help Assad stabilise the Country, and then discuss political change.
The rhetoric coming from the Foreign and Defence Secretaries, can do nothing to help, but make the UK look stupid.
Hahahahaha, collude with crimes against humanity in the name of stability and call it progress because after six years we cannot
think of an alternative. Great.
Absolutely no... it will be a colossal disaster... and would explode the entire region affecting not only all ME countries
including Israel, but will extend to Europe and NA, You can't keep it all "Over There"
Regime change, evidently the US has n't learned from the past experience. Look at Iraq, Lybia, regime change has resulted in complete
chaos, instability, and perpetual conflict. Syrian population is strictly divided on sectarian line - Sunnis, Shias, Christians,
Kurds. Who is going to make a cohesive government capable of running the affairs of the state? Bashar Assaad's father, Hafiz Assaad
ruled Syria with an iron grip, he understood Syrian sectarian divide.
If any country needs regime change, it is Saudi Arabia. All important positions are controlled by hundreds of Royals of Al Saud,
even honest criticism of royals brings you closer to the back swing of executioner .
My newsagent loves Assad. Why because he's a Syrian Christian. Assad is the only hope for the minority's in Syria. All of the
opposition groups are some variation on Islamic nationalists. They will all happily slaughter anyone not of their faith. Assad
is a murdering bastard but he kills those that threaten him. In Middle Eastern terms he's a liberal.
Quite right. What the people of Syria need is stability and an end to the fighting. All else is secondary. In particular, the
greatest crime that the West has committed in recent decades is the attempt to foist democracy on countries like Syria and Iraq,
where it simply does not work. Even now, Western liberals dream of sitting Sunni, Shia, Alevi, Kurds, secularists and Islamic
militants around a table to talk through to a democratic and mutually acceptable future for Syria. This is a fantasy - as democracy
always is in heavily tribalised societies. It can only end in renewed civil war and inevitable dictatorship. I often wonder whether
the West is just naive in these attempts at liberal cultural imperialism, or whether they are in fact a cynical front to mask
the equally egregious aim of checkmating Russian influence in the region. Either way, shame on us.
Now to be fair, no one knows really what the president is thinking, not even apparently his chief diplomat or his UN envoy, who
have sent conflicting messages. But let's cut to the chase – this is a very, very bad idea.
WW3 is definately a very very bad idea.
The idea that the US can change the government of another country for the better is born of US arrogance and lying manipulation.
It's a bit funny that we just casually mention that the country harping on about the respect of the international rule book sinc
2014 vaiolate one of the core UN charter principles 72 times and is openly speaking of braking it the 73th time.
Jsut picture China saying openly their goal is to change the Abe regime in Tokio or Russia to change the regime in Kiev. They
can't even have a pefered presidential candidate without mass interference hysteria and we just feel like it's A OK to go around
the world changing who's in charge of countries.
> They can't even have a pefered presidential candidate without mass interference hysteria and we just feel like it's A OK to
go around the world changing who's in charge of countries.
There are two main choices... Regime change... which hasn't worked out well where it's been attempted or just let the despots
get on with it...
There are no easy answers but perhaps the only way is to let dictators crush and annihilate their opposition, utilise death
squads to make dissenters disappear in the dead of night and, outwardly at least pretend everything is rosey....
If we, as a civilised society are able to 'look the other way' then that might be the simple answer... just hope everyone can
sleep well at night and be grateful that, however much you hate our present government they aren't out gassing (allegedly) Guardian
readers.
Not gassing people no, but still killing plenty of "innocent little babies" bombing hospitals and helping the Saudis cluster bomb
fishing villages. Why don't we see pictures on TV of Yemeni kids mutilated by American bombs? How do we sleep with that?
Well, we saw the aftermath of a deliberate attack by Saudis planes on a clearly demarcated Yemeni hospital on the BBC last year.
The first rocket hit an arriving ambulance with civilian casualties and a doctor on board. The response of the Saudi shills in
the Commons - what is it about the British upper class and the Arabs, I wonder - was to demand forcefully that the Saudis set
up an inquiry to examine the evidence of a war crime.
It should have been sadly obvious from the get-go that we had to back Assad before he attempted to beat his father's record
for murder and repression, the whole family's fucking insane, but it's long past too late now. He's soiled goods and Tillerson's
untutored idea of elections is surely farcical.
Fair article, although ISI and rebels actively participated in the destruction of Syria. If Assad falls, anarchy due to vacuum
will follow, guaranteed. Agree with the last paragraph in particular and still wondering why they (the West) don't do it especially
pressuring the countries that feed the rebels, and they are not so moderate, with money and weapon. Unless this is because of
the infamous pipeline. Tragic state of affair indeed.
Decade after decade, the west has interfered or overthrown government after governemnt , all over the world , mainly for the benefit
of capitalist puppeteers . America has been the worst , one only has to look at the CIA's track record in South America when legitimately
elected governments were ousted by force so that "American business" interest were looked after.
This same vested self interest has been the driving force over the last few years. The interventions in Iraq , Libya, Afghanistan
have all been total disasters fro the regions and resulted in more deaths than any tin pot dictator could have achieved. Backing
so called "moderate" terrorists seems to be the excuse to get involved.
More moral achievement and good could have been achieved by widespread dropping of food around the world , or even the cost
of the military hegemony being given as cash handouts to poor people , but this simplistic altruism does not allow for the geopolitical
control games that is the true beating heart of western aggression.
We are all Brexiteers now. I voted remain, but accept the democratic will of the people. Blame David Cameron and get on with the
job of making a success of it, rather than whining about it....
I'm just saying people making the case for the West to back off would probably be saying the opposite in that case if the white
minority were massacring black people on the scale of Syria. Isn't that hypocrisy?
The successful regime changes mentioned in the article such as Poland and the rest of the Eastern bloc were initiated by the people
themselves, rather than the the "help" of a foreign power.
The people did it all by themselves did they? So nothing to do with the economic collapse of the Soviet Union caused by an arms
race ramped up by President Reagan. Nothing to do with a very costly war in Afghanistan?
Given the situation, it is understandable why some people may think ousting Assad is necessary. Such thinking has a long pedigree
in the United States, where there is a robust belief in a supposed American ability to fix what is wrong.
Would you have said the same thing in 1917 and 1940. Would you have said the same thing in the duration of the cold war. If US
did not have a bigger penis then you would not be around to comment about it.
Long live the US penis and may it grow longer and stronger.
WW2 was won principally by the USSR, who suffered many more casualties than the western alliances. The cold war would not have
happened if not for the USA.
Sorry, the USA is more of a threat to the planet than any country, and Trump is unintelligent, a real threat to the world.
If the US wants Assad ousted, they should support a UN investigation to find out WHO was at fault. Shoot first questions later?
Hollywood Wild West thinking. The US has zero credibility. You simply cannot blame someone without having the facts independently
checked out. Yet they didn't wait and decided to break interantional law instead.
There seems to be a crucial component of reality lacking in this opinion piece: rather than bombing and droning and etc, why does
the 'world order' not stop the manufacture and distribution of weapons of mass destruction like barrel bombs, nuclear warheads
etc etc -- where profits are made by arms manufacturers and their investors--oh, could that be the reason?
Quite. Assad is awful, but he is less awful that the Islamist alternatives, which are the only realistic alternatives. We should
stop posturing and accept this unpalatable reality.
Much more level reporting, but still is framing the narrative as a brutal gas attack and is still a rush to judgement when the
case is that bombs were dropped on a supply of toxic gas, most likely Phosgene.
At last, some common sense. like Saddam and Gaddafi, Assad is a ruthless tyrant. What the West, including the petulant Boris Johnson
need to realise is that Syria ISN'T the West. Don't impose your values on a country that isn't ready for them. The sickening hypocrisy
of the British government would look very foolish if Putin pulled out and allowed Syria to fall to isis. Would Boris and Theresa
put British troops on the ground to keep the extremists out of Turkey?
Why isn't Syria ready for Western values? After what the country has been through the people would probably leap at the chance
of free elections. Prior to the conflict Syria was a multi-ethnic patchwork. Whatever happens to the country needs to be decided
by the Syrians themselves.
The geopolitical status quo in the Middle East is unstable, and tribal affiliations/religious/ ethnic allegiances need to be
carefully balanced and controlled. Something Lebanon, Libya, Syria and Iraq achieved reasonably peacefully for many years before
all the US led interventions.
There is no evidence that the terrorists are fighting for democracy, although if westerners ask them that is what they will
likely say.
So Trump is unfit to govern because of his locker room humour and possible antics, but gas a few thousand people and hey presto!
A darling of the left.
You're talking about this rag. Take a look at what's coming out of Howard Dean's mouth, or Bernie Sanders's, or practically any
Democrat in Washington not named Tulsi Gabbard.
Or, if you have a really strong stomach, take a look at Daily Kos.
They're what passes for "left" in America, unfortunately, because the number of SWP and Green Party members is statistically
insignificant.
Regime change is illegal under international law, except to the rogues of course found in western capitals, and their Gulf vassals.
These are the only group of people in the entire planet who talk openly about overthrowing sovereign governments of other countries.
The unfortunate truth is that, along with the ongoing decline of western civilization, one 'by-product' is that International
Law is continually disdained. The USA, having lack of insightful leadership, does as it wants, when it wants .. the result is
that perpetual wars seem to be a given .. meanwhile, Asia continues to rise and is growing real and genuine wealth by producing
and exporting the goods the rest of the world consumes and is doing it very well..
President Trump didn't do enough (yet) by bombing an air base at night. The people of Syria need weapons, tanks, missiles, air
support, etc. from a country like the USA that stands for freedom and human rights. Assad, who lives by the sword should also
die by the sword. For the U.S. to stand by and watch these atrocities unchallenged would simply be not who we are. I don't agree
with President Trump on a lot of things, but on this point he is right. I have changed from not liking him at all to liking him
just a bit more.
"The logic is that by removing and replacing an undesirable leader, the political situation in the country will change. "
Absolute tosh.
The logic behind nearly all attempts at cold war regime change was to replace a regime which aligned itself with the USSR with
one that aligned itself with the USA.
The internal situation, politically or otherwise was of no concern
Good piece. Regime change has been such a resounding success, you only have to look at Iraq and Libya to see that. Nor does a
country which has a history of using napalm and carcinogenic defoliants any room to take the moral high ground.
If Assad, is so bad, how come most of the civilian population prefer his areas to those of the rebels? The one certainty in all
of this is that the MSM has sold its credibility. Most of what I see is vested interest propaganda.
Isn't the main reason that people prefer Assad's areas because he doesn't bomb them.
There is no love of Assad anywhere.
If the US were to limit itself to punishing strikes against Assad whenever his forces committed war crimes – bombing hospitals
using poison gas etc then a minor at the level of civilisation creeps back into the equation.
The situation will be even more fraught if other external actors turn any attempt at regime change into a proxy war, as Russia
and Iran are likely to do.
A proxy war between the United States and Russia is the thing we all have to fear. In Trump and Putin you have two leaders
who use brinkmanship to get what they want and who will never back down from any position no matter what the consequences. They'd
rather pursue a misguided policy rathen than lose face. I'd like to think the recent war of words between the two countries is
just bluster, but as each day goes by I'm no longer sure anymore.
Regime change should work if all parties believe in democracy and respect each other. That does not seem likely in the middle
east. We have seen what that means forcing that idea in Iraq, Egypt and Libya. A secular SOB is better than somebody who believes
in laws of yesteryears.
Another way: reducing accidental use of chemical weapons?
Always drop 2 bombs; one from each side of ammunition dump. That way, one of such unmarked ordinance is likely to be conventional
explosives. The latter would further disperse, and dilute (reduce density) of the chemical gas; hence lessening lethality.
So we agree on the final result (need for regime change which by the way the article conflicts with its own title), but we disagree
on the method. Many bottoms-up revolutions would not have been successful without outside help. The French helped America achieve
freedom although their reason was somewhat revengeful. The people of Syria have no chance against an army and tanks ruled by a
ruthless evil dictator like Assad without outside assistance. If you think they are not shedding enough blood for their freedom,
then you are living in a hole in the ground.
In the latest iteration for 2016, the bottom ten places in the Index, reserved for the least peaceful countries on earth, include
Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya: four countries where "regime change" has been brought about – or, in Syria's case, where there
is arguably an ongoing attempt to bring it about – by the use of military force.
The evidence so far is that the use of force to topple regimes does not make things better, even when the behaviour of those
regimes is/was objectionable in many ways.
He has reduced once great Syrian cities such as Homs and Aleppo to rubble. All six of Syria's Unesco world heritage sites
have been damaged.
Nope. Most of Homs and Aleppo are intact. The areas occupied by foreign Jihadists using the local populace as human shields
were heavily bombed but now they have been liberated.
Who was it who destroyed these heritage sites? Not the SAA. The Jihadists even filmed themselves doing it and posted the videos
online for goodness sake.
Bashar al-Assad is not a good person. He has reduced once great Syrian cities like Homs and Aleppo to rubble. All six of Syria's
Unesco World Heritage sites have been damaged.
So thousands of mostly foreign jihadists occupying parts of those cities had nothing to do with it? Did the US led forces in
now n Mosul, or before that in Fallujah find the way to dislodge terrorists from urban strongholds without devastation of the
city? Also for all world heritage sites in Syria, they were defended by Syrian troops, and everything that could be moved was
moved to safe place. It was exclusively jihadists that were destroying temples, churches, shrines, even muslim graveyards when
they found the funeral momunent "too tall". In all of these efforts to save the history of the humanity, syrian govermnent got
no help nor acknowledgment. To add insult to injury, the western "cultural" response was touring 3D model of Palmyra gates through
western capitals but while Daesh was methodically blowing it up under clear desert skies, there was interestingly not a single
american drone to be found anywhere. It was syrian, iranian and russian blood spilled to liberate it twice from the death cult.
Yep. There isn't a solution to this problem, but the one thing I'm 99.999% convinved will not work is 'the west' dusting off it's
world policeman uniform and bombing the heck out of Syria.
This is precisely why the west has largely stayed out of the Syrian conflict; despite having a policy favouring the removal of
Assad there hasn't been an attempt (or even the suggestion of an attempt at a policy level) at regime change.
One does wonder, though, at what point the conflict becomes so abhorrent and the civilian casualties so grotesque that our
intervention could scarcely make things any worse
It seems that Spicer, the White House Press Secretary, whilst putting all his cerebral energy into attempting to apologise
for his jaw-droppingly ignorant statement that Hitler never used chemical weapons on his own people, failed to stop his mouth
making yet another gaffe;
"I needed to make sure that I clarified, and was not in any shape or form any more of a distraction from the president's
decisive action in Syria and the attempts that he is making to destabilise the region and root out ISIS out of Syria."
(my emphasis)
Spicer speaks about the president's attempts to destabilise the region in a CNN television interview too.
As people are beginning to ask, does Spicer actually know what distabilise means?
It bothers me that Trump is suddenly showing such concern toward innocent Syrians. Yet, at the same time he wants a ban on immigration
from seven predominantly Muslim countries, including Syria.
Don't you think the timing here is - for Trump - rather convenient? Just when he is under pressure for being a Russian patsy,
something happens to allow him to portray himself as 'standing up to Putin'.
Right. Also, the question should be...if Putin is sleazy enough to be complicit with Syria, then why wouldn't they be sleazy enough
to be involved in trying to swing the American election?
In essence there must be incremental change in the political climate and culture of a state amongst the masses before it culminates
in regime change at the top.
The political climate is no longer there because Assad has systematically murdered everyone who could have formed a credible
oppostion to his regime; opposition activitsts, aid workers, doctors and nurses, journalists - all have either been killed, have
fled to Europe, or are currently being tortured in one of his detention centres. There is no one left to rise up against him.
The intervention triggers resentment and hostility at the new government whose legitimacy is reduced through the participation
of an outside government. Soon the new regime is considered a 'puppet' and its own existence is questioned by the people.
This is indeed true. However backing Assad also has its costs; where is the legitimacy of someone who is now merely a "puppet"
for Russia and Iran's ambitions in the region?
As uncomfortable as it is the best western governments can do is to provide aid and assistance to those in distress, whilst
pressuring those countries that continue to feed money and weapons to the combatants to change their positions.
As reasonable as this sounds, I'm afraid this is just wishful thinking.
"The political climate is no longer there because Assad has systematically murdered everyone who could have formed a credible
oppostion to his regime;"
There is a credible position inside Syria which has been largely ignored by the western MSM and governments, because it does
not support the uprisisng or the violent overthrow of the Syrian government. It was refused participation when the first peace
talks were arranged.
Wow, a Guardian article I can finally wholeheartedly agree with. Does this Professor chap have a hotline to Trump and the rest
of the Western leaders itching for a fight with Assad?
Why do I get the feeling this is just another one of those "Now that Trump is in charge, we shouldn't do regime change" pieces?
I note that the author nowhere comes out against fighting an eternal war in Syria -- he just doesn't want Trump doing the "regime
change."
Yeah, he blabbers on about "aid and assistance" and "pressuring those countries that continue to feed money and weapons to
the combatants to change their positions" -- obviously choosing to ignore how several western governments provide money and weapons
to the combatants (should they be "pressuring" themselves?) But the pinnacle of his cluelessness -- or his agenda -- is reached
with this whopper:
The situation will be even more fraught if other external actors turn any attempt at regime change into a proxy war, as
Russia and Iran are likely to do.
--as if this hadn't been a proxy war for years already, one in which his own country has been quite actively engaged.
This idiot has got to go, he is not rational. He clearly has not an inkling of the gravity of his actions. Nor does he care.
How did we get to this? We always thought that a rogue state would be the end of us all. We were wrong. This moron is doing it
all by himself. Some one needs to step in, take back control. This is frightening stuff.
Assad's removal would be catastrophic. There would be no stable government in Syria, it would be controlled by warlords
backed by Saudi Arabia, al-Qaeda or ISIS and millions of refugees would have no country to return to or to live in. This will
mean more refugees in Europe, more destabilisation and more money drained from our treasuries.
Russia would also be far from pleased and if the conflict erupted into a confrontation between NATO affiliated forces
in Syria against Russia, the Eastern European front will become a lot more precarious (at a time when Britain is cutting
back on military spending and very few European countries adequately contribute towards NATO). Do we really want a repeat of tensions
from the pre-1991 era? I don't think so, especially with the combined threat of domestic Islamic terrorism throughout Europe and
with the continental debt crisis that cannot afford more wars that are not in its interests. Russia will quickly mobilise its
forces into the non-Russian caucuses, already closely aligned with Armenia and potentially link up with Iran territoriality. And
what about Turkey? They cannot be relied upon.
So what benefit exactly is it to create anarchy in Syria for Britain's immediate and long-term interests? The destruction of
Libya has created nothing but chaos and a stream of migrants from across Africa. Why Boris Johnson is waltzing around the world
demanding hard action against Russia when we are cutting back on our armed forces is startling. A better question would be in
whose immediate economic and geopolitical interests is the destruction of Assad beneficial? Well... there's two countries in the
Middle East which come to mind... not hard to guess.
That's fair enough but what if Assad stays in power? Will the refugees, who mainly fled him, return? Will anyone invest in rebuilding
the country? WIll anyone deal with the country other than Russia or Iran? Above all will the hatred of Assad, terrorism or indeed
the conflict as a whole recede?
They didn't flee him... they fled the war. Most people, in any country, are apolitical. I expect the refugees in the Middle East
and Anatolia will return to Syria and those in the West must be forced to return back.
The problem with Syria now is that it has become such a hot plate. If the West concedes to Russia and allows Syria to survive
under the rule of Assad then we will lose face internationally... and it would be domestically embarrassing. No doubt Saudi Arabia,
Israel and the Gulf monarchies would be less than pleased, and we depend on them for a lot of our oil.
It's a difficult question but what we do know is that there are no other credible groups that can rule Syria at the moment,
other than Assad's Alawite minority. If we decide to nation-build, that will cost billions, possibly even trillions with no concrete
result as our attempt in Iraq shows and we have no idea who we would put in charge. The Christians have about as much legitimacy
as the Alawites. Perhaps the only conceivable outcome would be the breakup of Syria. The Christian and Alawite regions go towards
Lebanon, the Kurdish regions are given independence and the Sunni areas are also given an independent state. But of course, the
Sunni and Christian areas are intertwined and many Sunni's support Assad, or at least do not oppose him. And Turkey, as well as
Iran, would never allow an independent Kurdistan. Iran would be less than pleased with the breakup of Syria as well.
I want to see a post-Assad plan. We all know what happens to non-Sunni minorities when a secular Arab leader is toppled. No
one has yet to provide a coherent post-Assad state-structure. Unless of course they want Turkey to territoriality expand... we
want to preserve the post-Ottoman borders and state-system yet at the same time we're waging war against the forces actively preserving
it.
There is no simple answer. Assad is a pawn of Russia and Iran, yet the other options are either Turkish expansion (which, the
last time they did that, they had sizeable European territories) or Saudi expansion (which I hope everyone agrees is less than
desirable). We have no friends in the Middle East, other than Jordan, Egypt and Israel. But they all have their own interests
and I suspect their friendships are determined upon those interests. I think our aim is to maintain the balance of power. Perhaps
only the growth of Israel could act as a counter-weight to Sunni and Shia interests.
Would you support another leader from perhaps the same party taking over as an interim measure whilst different factions are brought
together to defeat ISIS?
In an ideal world, I would love to see this happening, along with a form of truth and reconciliation commission, and a commitment
from the international community and other bodies independent of the Syrian government to assist in tackling issues such as warlordism
and corruption. The dogmatic belief that there can be no leader other than Assad is one that might have ultimately cost millions
of lives and it would be wrong to use the old dictator's mantra of 'me or chaos'. And to be fair, Assad does not have a great
track record in Syria.
And a final question - do you believe Russia should be doing more to put pressure on Assad or do you think it will be happy
to put its international credibility on the line for him? (There is something pathological I believe in Putin's willingness to
support other dictators)
How can one call for 'peaceful transition to a new society' when the original opposition to Assad was sponsored by multifarious
power-hungry foreign actors? They exploited the Arab Spring pro-democracy utopianism then messed up their insurrectional strategy
disastrously. The country now needs to be made a protectorate of an international peace-keeping force until a representative transitional
government is agreed upon.
No, that sounds like the pseudo-leftist neo-colonial discourse that Obama was so fond of.
The counter-argument to regime change is more that by now Assad controls most cities again, the opposition are awful sectarians
who should be let nowhere near power and it may still be possible to contain IS to a manageable extent while Assad maintains a
dictatorship indefinitely.
Not quite sure what you mean. Just saying that the "man on the street" would more likely than not understand "protectorate" pretty
much the same as e.g. the Moroccans did.
Regime change in Syria was being talked directly since 9/11 and it never stopped. It's on the record. So is john Kerry, on record
on TV, stating gulf states offered to cover part of the costs of a US invasion in Syria at least twice way before the so called
''civil war'' even started.
They prepared it for years but the poor taste Iraq/Libya left on the US public meant the US pulled out of the deal (all because
of the planed gas pipelines from Qatar to Europe that has to go through Syria).
The Saudis along with Qatar, Turkey and Israel believed they could force the hand of the US and acted alone initiating the
takeover. This is why despite the intel, organisation and provision of what is estimated to be 300k(german estimates) foreign
jihadists eventually came to a standstill without direct US support.
The Jihadists then prematurely jumped the gun fragmented creating ISIS (something meant to take place behind the scenes after
they defeated Assad)
The point is of course...it's all about oil...nothing about democracy or Gas or any of that crap
Yes, this is all quite true. What the USA almost always seems to do is create a power vacuum in the countries it attempts to "save"
and, inevitably it seems, the USA always chooses the wrong damn party or person to support in said vacuum. A stunning misreading
and proof of the failure of American foreign policy "experts" and CIA strategists to grasp the realities on the ground.
Yes, this is all quite true. What the USA almost always seems to do is create a power vacuum in the countries it attempts
to "save" and, inevitably it seems, the USA always chooses the wrong damn party or person to support in said vacuum.
Like in Japan. Just that Japan is ... Shinto. Or something. Not M.........
I'm sure its fair to say that for many instability, disorder, mayhem and the like are entirely desirable. Witness Kissinger who
out-and-out advocated/advocates looking after US long-term interests through war, disease and starvation.
'The on-going devastation in Syria cries out for a response, 'do something' is the inherent plea.'
Might I suggest sending generous quantities of bubble wrap to each of the 'something must be done' brigade. Popping those bubbles
is relaxing and calming. They will otherwise impatiently agitate for some ineffective, or more likely counter-productive measure
that makes things drastically worse.
Not very sensible, actually -- see the comment by capatriot above (or below, if you do "newest first"). Rather appalling that
someone with academic credentials would (1) engage in a comic book-style analysis of world politics (big bad nearly omnipotent
supervillain!) and (2) put all the blame for the carnage and destruction on one side.
We tried to change the leader in Iraq. It didn't work, and now the country is a hotbed of terrorism and incredibly corrupt and
ineffectual government. We tried to change the leader in Libya. It didn't work, and now the country is a hotbed of terrorism and
incredibly corrupt and ineffectual government. I guess we could try to change the leader in Syria, if we really, really want.
He has reduced once great Syrian cities like Homs and Aleppo to rubble.
What, he, personally? What is he, superman? And I wonder why he'd choose to do that to his own nation's cities?
But wait, you mean that there was a rebellion against the recognized government which developed into a civil war, aided and
abetted by sectarian outsiders and terrorists and the United States/West, with political and religious/ethnic overtones? And that
later, as it looked like the recognized govt was going to fail, other interested outsiders like Russia and Iran intervened to
help it?
Gosh, I wonder what the least worst outcome for the people of Syria actually is here ... perhaps we should leave it to them?
It's actually a very serious question. How much control does Assad have over his government, let alone his armed forces? He's
a trained dentist, ferchrissakes, and his older brother was the one groomed for the <strike>throne</strike> presidency. It makes
sense to assume that his powers over an entrenched nomenklatura, to say nothing of all of the different armed factions nominally
serving him, aren't limitless.
"... The intervention triggers resentment and hostility at the new government, the legitimacy of which is reduced through the participation of an outside government. ..."
"... In late 2015, Eren Erdem, a Turkish MP, said in Parliament that the Turkish state was permitting Da'esh to send sarin precursors to Syria. He had a file of evidence, so was accused of treason for accessing and publicizing confidential material. The investigation into the people responsible for the transfer of toxic chemicals was shut down. ..."
"... Al-Assad is certainly capable of murdering opponents, and not bothering too much about collateral damage, but strategically it makes no sense for him to do this now, when peace talks under the aegis of Russia and Iran have begun, and the world is watching. Also, Assad has been engaged in a reconciliation process, allowing members of the FSA to return to the Syrian army, and Aleppans remain in Damascus if they didn't wish to go to Idlib. At such a juncture, using chemical weapons would be counter-productive. If Sarin was used at his command, he should be properly prosecuted: but bombing a Syrian air base merely assists Da'esh and its cronies. ..."
"... I have just watched the press conference in which Trump labelled Assad a butcher, and went on again about dead babies. I just wish that someone at one of these conferences would have the guts to point out to Trump his own butchery. ..."
"... Anyone watching this performance would think that US forces had never been responsible for killing innocent civilians, men, women, children and babies. To listen to Trump, you wouldn't think that US forces had ever killed over 150 civilians in Mosul, dozens in Raqqa, or had bombed hospitals in Afghanistan, or schools in Iraq, or were supporting the Saudi blockade of Yemen resulting in the starvation of children and babies, or had destroyed wedding parties with drones,.....I could go on. ..."
"... If Assad is a butcher, he is only a junior, apprentice, corner-shop butcher. Trump is the real thing, the large-scale, wholesale, expert butcher. ..."
"... Gotta get that pipeline in for the Saudi's, eh, no matter how many children's carcasses it crosses, yay, regime change again, yay, and a heap of new terrorists for our kids in the west to dodge and duck, yay. ..."
"... Despite the several misrepresentations, the facts are that Britain has been one of the main protagonists in prosecuting this war against Syria , which is a proxy war against Iran. ..."
"... Britain was at the forefront in setting up the Al Nusra Front and in hosting the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights to disseminate deeply negative propaganda about the Syrian Government and armed forces. ..."
"... Every step of this including the media campaign which has comprised a major part of the military campaign against Syria, has been an attempt to delegitimize the Sovereign government and its institutions and to gain consensus from the somnambulistic British and US public for yet another direct military campaign against another Middle Eastern country. ..."
"... Assad's removal would be catastrophic. There would be no stable government in Syria, it would be controlled by warlords backed by Saudi Arabia, al-Qaeda or ISIS and millions of refugees would have no country to return to or to live in. This will mean more refugees in Europe, more destabilisation and more money drained from our treasuries. ..."
The intervention triggers resentment and hostility at the new government, the legitimacy of which is reduced through the participation
of an outside government.
Soon, the new regime is considered a "puppet" and its existence is questioned by the people. Interestingly, the Middle East has
proven particularly resistant to durable regime change and democratization, further making the success of any US-led intervention
doubtful.
The situation will be even more fraught if other external actors turn any attempt at regime change into a proxy war, as Russia
and Iran are likely to do. The US experienced the downside of this during the ill-conceived war in Vietnam. During the Soviet-led
war in Afghanistan, the US played the spoiler of Soviet efforts, funnelling money and weapons to the anti-Soviet mujahideen, turning
the USSR's intervention into a protracted, bloody war.
Prof Michael John Williams is Director of the International Relations Program at New York University.
Instead, the western powers have followed the example cited by Machiavelli: "in order to prove their liberality, they allowed
Pistoia to be destroyed."
In late 2015, Eren Erdem, a Turkish MP, said in Parliament that the Turkish state was permitting Da'esh to send sarin precursors
to Syria. He had a file of evidence, so was accused of treason for accessing and publicizing confidential material. The investigation
into the people responsible for the transfer of toxic chemicals was shut down.
That surely ought to make us at least ask evidence-seeking questions about the Idlib gas attack before yet again demanding
regime change.
Al-Assad is certainly capable of murdering opponents, and not bothering too much about collateral damage, but strategically
it makes no sense for him to do this now, when peace talks under the aegis of Russia and Iran have begun, and the world is watching.
Also, Assad has been engaged in a reconciliation process, allowing members of the FSA to return to the Syrian army, and Aleppans
remain in Damascus if they didn't wish to go to Idlib. At such a juncture, using chemical weapons would be counter-productive.
If Sarin was used at his command, he should be properly prosecuted: but bombing a Syrian air base merely assists Da'esh and its
cronies.
I have just watched the press conference in which Trump labelled Assad a butcher, and went on again about dead babies. I just
wish that someone at one of these conferences would have the guts to point out to Trump his own butchery.
Anyone watching this performance would think that US forces had never been responsible for killing innocent civilians,
men, women, children and babies. To listen to Trump, you wouldn't think that US forces had ever killed over 150 civilians in Mosul,
dozens in Raqqa, or had bombed hospitals in Afghanistan, or schools in Iraq, or were supporting the Saudi blockade of Yemen resulting
in the starvation of children and babies, or had destroyed wedding parties with drones,.....I could go on.
If Assad is a butcher, he is only a junior, apprentice, corner-shop butcher. Trump is the real thing, the large-scale,
wholesale, expert butcher.
...Indeed, Richard Spencer last week protested outside the White House against the airstrikes on the regime airbase carrying a
sign that read "No more wars 4 Israel."
Syria's ruling Baath party and its allies won a majority of seats in parliamentary elections last week across government-held
parts of the country, the national electoral commission announced late Saturday.
Who are the rebels supported by Washington and Westminster?
And we're going to learn a lot more about the "rebels" whom we in the West – the US, Britain and our head-chopping mates
in the Gulf – have been supporting.
They did, after all, include al-Qaeda (alias Jabhat al-Nusra, alias Jabhat Fateh al-Sham), the "folk" – as George W Bush
called them – who committed the crimes against humanity in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania on 11 September 2001. Remember
the War on Terror? Remember the "pure evil" of al-Qaeda. Remember all the warnings from our beloved security services in the
UK about how al-Qaeda can still strike terror in London?
Gotta get that pipeline in for the Saudi's, eh, no matter how many children's carcasses it crosses, yay, regime change again,
yay, and a heap of new terrorists for our kids in the west to dodge and duck, yay.
I agree that Bashar al-Assad is not a "good person". It is impossible to be an authoritarian leader, struggling to maintain the
unity, or even existence, of a nation state, and at the same time be a kind and gentle person. However, I do not believe him to
be the psychopathic monster that he is portrayed as being, either. He is almost certainly not personally responsible for the chemical
attack in Idlib province.
Presidents do not normally make detailed decisions on what sort of weapons should be used on every airstrike made by their
aircraft. He may be a dictator, but he is not a complete imbecile. Even the dimmest of politicians could have foreseen that this
chemical attack would end up being a massive own-goal. Nobody as cynically calculating as Assad is supposed to be, would be that
stupid. My own hunch, (and that is all it is) is that sarin was used due to a blunder by a low or medium ranking Syrian airforce
officer.
Yes, of course Assad bears responsibility for overall strategy in this vicious war of survival, and as such, has blood on his
hands. But, so does Trump, so does Obama, so does Putin so does Erdogan, so does May, and so do all the leaders who have supplied
the numerous rebel groups with billions of pounds worth of weapons, and have therefore kept the pot boiling.
Last year, Theresa May stood up in parliament and proudly proclaimed her willingness to commit mass indiscriminate murder on
a scale that would make Syria look like a pinprick. She declared her willingness to press the nuclear button and therefore slaughter
hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of completely innocent men, women, children and babies. She not only has blood on her
hands, she is proud of it. Perhaps we should remember that, when she comes out with one of her sanctimonious, nauseatingly hypocritical
statements about Syria.
Assad was democratically elected more than once so he must be doing something right. (OK, so they're democracy might not be our
democracy but 'our' democracy has brought us Trump, Brexit and the like so its really six to one, a half dozen to the other).
Syria until we started messing with it -- creating, supporting and even arming opposition groups -- was stable, wasn't messing
with its neighbors and had significant religious and cultural freedoms compared to other countries in the area. (Our actions might
suggest that we really don't want stable, peaceful, countries in that region, we need them to be weak and riven by internal factions.)
Anyway, given our outstanding track record of success with regime change in that part of the world we should probably adopt
a hands-off approach -- all we seem to do is make an unsatisfactory situation dire. Hardly the way to win friends and influence
people.
Despite the several misrepresentations, the facts are that Britain has been one of the main protagonists in prosecuting this
war against Syria , which is a proxy war against Iran.
Britain was at the forefront in setting up the Al Nusra Front and in hosting the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights to
disseminate deeply negative propaganda about the Syrian Government and armed forces.
Every step of this including the media campaign which has comprised a major part of the military campaign against Syria,
has been an attempt to delegitimize the Sovereign government and its institutions and to gain consensus from the somnambulistic
British and US public for yet another direct military campaign against another Middle Eastern country.
The whole which has visited terrible and incalculable suffering, on the Syrian people. Syria was a paradise before the British
and US did their usual work. The journalists, government and security services in Britain who have wrought this mess , I'm sure
will not escape the consequences of their actions. One hopes they experience a 1000 times of the hell they have visited on Syria.
These actions are truly despicable acts of cowardice and absolute wickedness.
Syria was a paradise for those who rule Syria........ the Assad regime brutally repressed any opposition to their rule. In 1982
Assad´s father killed probably more than 30,000 in the siege of Hama. As well as sheltering a number of terrorist organisations
who have their headquarters in Damascus....... he also armed and supported the fledgling Al-Quaeda resistance to the coalition
in Iraq, giving them asylum in Syria........now the IS ....... I can think of Paradise in different ways......
The prosecution of a Swedish national accused of terrorist activities in Syria has collapsed at the Old Bailey after it
became clear Britain's security and intelligence agencies would have been deeply embarrassed had a trial gone ahead, the Guardian
can reveal.
His lawyers argued that British intelligence agencies were supporting the same Syrian opposition groups as he was, and were
party to a secret operation providing weapons and non-lethal help to the groups, including the Free Syrian Army.
Leaked emails from the private intelligence firm Stratfor including notes from a meeting with Pentagon officials confirmed
US-UK training of Syrian opposition forces since 2011 aimed at eliciting "collapse" of Assad's regime "from within."
More guff from the guardian/ Mr Williams, with just a little realistic sense, but who can replace Assad and in Syria he remains
very popular, despite the western media like lies!
Russia has to move quickly to secure a 100 year lease for the Latakia port and airbase. Otherwise the US will soon attempt to
render it useless as well, regardless of which of the moderate rebel factions it decides to install.
... Spirits die hard, and those of the Arab spring and the Orange Revolution are still alive in the halls of the Pentagon.
.... A controlled cold war however, is the only way to a avoid a larger mess than what the West has already inflicted on the
innocent Syrian people by using the most abortive war design that has ever been conceived by the war college or any other war
commander.
...... At the current rate there will be more Syrians in Germany than those remaining in Syria.
......... Is it hard to wonder why Syrians might hold a grudge against the, US?
Regime change ? All in the name of democracy as we see it.Why not try it in the Kingdom of family owned country KSA or why not
another family owned enterprises called UAE.
History tells us replacing Assad would be a bad idea. We should have learned the lesson with Hussain and Iraq, but didn't. We
would go on to replace Gaddafi of Libya and boom, it trigged ISIS.
The hard lesson here is that for some reason Muslim majority countries have a strong central authoritarian leader. No matter
if that leaders is called president, king, prime minister, or whatever. When that strong leaders is deposed, chaos ensues.
The Americans have a fetish with regime change. Up until recently they were discrete about it and did it in secret, now they are
all in the open. People who are against regime change are considered anti-Americans and tools of the Soviets...ahm.... Russia.
The amazing thing is Tillerson said Assad's faith should be left with the Syrian people, the American establishment in unison
said how could he says such a terrible thing, "we should decide what Syrian people want."
These are the same people who elected
Trump, maybe they should let Syrian people select the US president. The result may end up better.
> Bashar al-Assad is not a good person. He has reduced once great Syrian cities such as Homs and Aleppo to rubble. All six
of Syria's Unesco world heritage sites have been damaged. Worse still, more than 500,000 Syrian civilians have been killed
in the civil war, 6.1 million have been internally displaced and another 4.8 million are seeking refuge abroad.
Yes, Assad is not a good person. But what about American politicians such as Hillary Clinton, who armed "moderate rebels" and
supported the opposition in pursuit of regime change? And Syria is not the only country were this happened. Will there ever any
responsibility taken for their actions by the US and NATO?
First, they make a manageable problem into a huge problem, then just hightail back home, living local people to pick up the
pieces.
Those half millions of deaths - are they all responsibility of Assad or do the sponsors of jihadists and jihadists themselves
have some responsibility as well?
A. A horrible authoritarian regime that tortures and murders it's opponents...........but women can wear what they like in
public, get a good education courtesy of the State, and embark on a career.
B. A horrible authoritarian regime that tortures and murders it's opponents...........where women are denied education, made
virtual prisoners in their own homes, and have acid flung in their faces for having the temerity to appear unveiled when they
do go out in public.
It's not a great choice, but one is definitely better than the other.
Also worth remembering that under Assad people are allowed religious freedom. I know two Syrian Christians who are terrified of
what will happen if the rebels take control of their country.
Choice B also includes Sharia law, full extermination of other faiths and death sentence for rejection of Islam. Basically Choice
B is another Saudi Arabia, but a lot of people will have to die first.
The world's biggest superpower is willing to risk a nuclear war with mass destruction of billions and possible extinction of life
on earth on an unproven assertion made by Al Qaeda sympathisers that the Syrian government bombed them with sarin? OBL must be
laughing in his grave.
1. Who is threatening a nuclear war? The Russians? I haven't heard them threaten that. Probably because no-one would seriously
believe them.
2. An intellectually honest person should not describe young children as terrorist sympathisers. Let alone imply they somehow
deserve to be deliberately targeted by nerve gas as a result.
An intellectually honest person should question the veracity of a report that is unverified by a terrorist organisation. The children
were never described by me as 'terrorist sympathisers' so you make a dishonest accusation, the terrorist sympathisers are those
who produced the report on which the whole story is based. It is not about the death of the children which is of course a crime,
but they are being used by the terrorists for thier purposes.
An intellectually honest person would also show outrage about the mass murder of civilians, including children in Mosul and
by a US bombing in Syria that seem to not arouse the same outrage.
Regime change by US has been used at least three times against democracies, in Chili, in Iran and in Ukraine. Attempted regime
change has also been used often in South America to oust populist rulers because of US interests. Although the above analysis
raises the very good point that change has to come from the bottom up, it starts with the same fallacies of assuming that all
of the death and destruction in Syria comes from one person which is an extremely flawed point to start from. The point that is
to be made is that there is no military solution to the conflict except in an anti terrorist capacity. The problem is that all
of those against the Syrian government in the current conflict are either outright terrorists or those who collaborate heavily
with terrorists making it difficult to have a conventional peace process.
America engaged in regime changes to suit American interests during the cold war and the New world order drive. The fact that
they supported dictatorships worldwide and helped them overthrow democratically elected governments tells clearly that imposing
democracy forcibly was not their intention. Intervention in global conflicts is mainly for controlling pathways for resources
and gaining ground for business opportunities for their multinational giant corporations.
The West's narrative has fallen apart, nobody believes that the Syrian rebels are peace loving democrats. We have ample evidence
that they are infinitely worse than Assad.
We also have plenty of evidence that the Western deep state, not the public, wants another regime change in the middle east
and will stop at nothing to achieve its end including false flag gas attacks. This article goes into detail.
False Flag: How the U.S. Armed Syrian Rebels to Set Up an Excuse to Attack Assad
Evidence suggests a false flag chemical weapons attack on the Syrian people was initiated by Syrian rebels with the help
of the United States in order to justify Thursday night's U.S. Military attack on a Syrian base.
The Left is very opposed to war in Syria, the Libertarian right is very opposed to war in Syria but a hugely powerful Deep
State will stop at nothing to achieve its ends.
"Worse still, more than 500,000 Syrian civilians have been killed in the civil war, 6.1 million have been internally displaced
and another 4.8 million are seeking refuge abroad. "
well, you cannot put the blame on Assad only. He never asked for that war for a start and a lot of the refugees you're talking
about may very well be pro-Assad.
Finally an article which still sticks to logical thinking when it comes to Syria. Assad is a terrible leader but atleast with
him, most of the factions within the country can be sorted. The West's obsession with stuffing democracy down the throats of every
oil producing country in the Middle East has resulted in the Mad Max wasteland i.e. Libya and the unsolvable puzzle i.e. Iraq.
Both Gaddafi and Saddam were terrible human beings but removing them left a vacuum which has cost the lives of thousands and displaced
millions. The West must make its peace with Assad for now, stop supporting the rebels and try to find common ground with Russia
against the real enemy - ISIS.
The west - as the US/UK like to themselves, couldn't give a damn about democracy . They want compliance , not democracy. A good(brutal)
dictator is better than a 'difficult' democratically elected leader , look at events in Egypt for example.
Our own democracies are pretty ropey, certainly not up there with the Scandinavian best practice.
You're kidding right? The West stuffing democracy down the throats of the Gulf countries. More like defending them against the
threat of democracy by arming them to the teeth and stationing troops there. Have you heard of Bahrain?
The only plausible solution to this conflict is partition assuming of course the imminent defeat of Isis.
While getting rid of Assad would create a dangerous power vacuum and is in any case perhaps impossible given Russias backing,
the sheer scale of the killing he's done and destruction he's unleashed on his own people - of a totally different scale to Saddam
Hussein and even his father, from whom he seems to have inherited his psychopathic tendencies -renders the idea that he could
continue to rule a "united" Syria or even the majority of it, laughable.
If you get rid of Assad, whoever replaces him is going to have a very difficult task. How on Earth do you enforce any sort of
civilized law and order in a country which has some of the worst terrorist organizations the world has ever known. With organizations
like ISIS around, a government is gong to need to take a firm hand somewhere. It's not as if you can send Jihadists on community
service and expect them to come back as reformed characters.
Fact is that Assad still enjoys considerable support among Syrians. In particular among those who have no problem with a woman
going to the beach in a bikini and driving a car to work. He is not giong anywhere soon. And if he did, the situation would be
worse. As in the case of the butcher Saddam Hussein and the crazy dictator Khadaffi, who also were supposedly removed in an attempt
to bring "freedom and democracy to the people."
Syria was one of the few countries in the ME where you could drink alcohol. Does anyone believe whoever follows Assad be
it someone picked by the US/Israel/KSA/Qatar will be quite so tolerant?
Why can't world leaders be held to account for their crimes against humanity? Is it not about time that they are compelled to
comply with international law and for the United Nations Assembly to make them so by enforceable resolutions passed by a majority
vote?
Assad is a tyrant who should be removed from office and held accountable for his crimes against humanity. Syrians should be
entitled to a government that is respectful of their human rights.
The UN should take responsibility for enforcing a permanent ceasefire and brokering talks to secure Syria's future. It should
require as a condition of UN membership compliance with and adherence to international law protecting human rights. Non compliance
should be met with expulsion and the economic isolation of the country concerned from the rest of the world.
There is no shortcut to lasting peace. As uncomfortable as it is, the best that western governments can do is provide aid
and assistance to those in distress, while pressuring those countries that continue to feed money and weapons to the combatants
to change their positions.
You are absolutely right.
Such a pity then that the western governments in question, the UK, America and to a lesser extent, France, are in fact the
same entities, via their surrogate power in the middle east, Saudi Arabia, who are the ones providing the weapons and money.
Just as they did in Iraq and Libya, and always for the same reason, to achieve regime change against the Middle Eastern leaders
who were threatening their control of the oil market.
This situation is nothing new, these Western Powers have been attacking various parts of the Middle East for nigh on a century.
Winston Churchill was responsible for bombing Iraq in the 1920's. That also was to achieve regime change.
All of the deaths and the destruction in the Middle East can ultimately be laid at the door of the 'Western Powers' and their
willingness to do anything to protect their oil interests.
One of the most despicable thing about the West's attempts to bribe, entice and force Russia into abandoning the Syrian Government,
so that America, France, Britain and Saudi Arabia can rush in, like hyenas to finish off a wounded animal, is how patronising
they have been towards the Russians and Iranians. Granted that their racism towards the Russians might not be what it is towards
the Syrian state, which they want to deny a voice and disrespect to the extent of talking to the Russians, and ignoring the Syrian
government.
Yes, the West is behaving towards the Syrian state as if it is just something for it to manipulate, as it does with the global
economy. Not having made any progress in manipulating the Syrian proxy conflict into the outcomes it wants, the West has now resorted
to making merciless and unjustified attacks on Russian and the Iranians. Despite the fact that it is Russia and the Syrian government
forces and their Hezbollah allies who have broken the impasse in this terrible war.
It is scurrilous that there should now be this coordinated media and political campaign to make Russia out to be 'the bad guy',
the 'devil', as it were.
As for 'the liberals', well, guess what, if you want to do something constructive. Then stop blaming Russia and demonising
the Russians, the Syrian Government and their allies. Look closer to home, to America, To Britain, to France and Saudi Arabia.
There you will find more demons disguised as 'humanitarians' and 'angels' than probably in all of Russia and Syria.
The guys in the West who are posturing as angels are no less culpable than the Syrian government.
Of course the West should not destroy the Syrian state and government. But, since when has logic prevented this cartel from
exercising its destructive force? As Libya, Iraq and Yemen have proven? The liberals need to grow up and stop being allied to
the right.
Firstly, we have yet to see the results of any impartial investigation checking out the Syrian/Russian version of events about
the gas in Idlib province, which could be true. Nobody that I can see is 'supporting' the use of gas against civilians, but it
is known that the bigger terrorist organisations such as ISIS and al Qaeda do have stocks of poison gas. Secondly,so many uninformed
commentators have not understood that Syria's 6 year war has been and remains a religious war! Asad's Shiite/ Alawite/Christian/
Druse/ Ismaili communities and other minorities supported by Iran and Lebanon's Shiites, fighting for their very survival against
Saudi/ Qatari/Gulf States' extremist Wahhabi fighters, who via ISIS ,Al Qaeda and similar Islamists, want to wipe them off the
face of the earth (with Turkey playing a double game). At this very moment people are condemning Assad for bombing civilians,
whilst the US-led coalition including our own RAF, is doing exactly the same thing in the ISIS held city of Mosul -for the same
reasons. The rebels take over and then surround themselves in cities, with civilians, hoping that these horrors will raise western
public opinion against the government forces trying to defeat them. The 'half- informed' public opinion is now behaving in exactly
this predictable way against the Syrian government, trying to deal with its own religious extremist rebels, many of whom are not
even Syrians. It was always a war that the west should stay out of -other peoples religious wars are incomprehensible to non-believers
in that particular faith. To talk now of replacing Asad is juvenile and mischievous - maybe that's why Boris is so engaged?
There is an equality of evil between Assad and ISIS. That said, Assad's forces and their Shia allies have slaughtered the vast
majority of the victims.
Both Assad and ISIS will lose eventually. How many Syrians are slaughtered in the meantime is anyone's guess.
Why murderous dictators are so popular btl is a mystery.
According to Wikipedia Estimates of deaths in the Syrian Civil War, per opposition activist groups, vary between 321,358
and 470,000.
On 23 April 2016, the United Nations and Arab League Envoy to Syria put out an estimate of 400,000 that had died in the war.
Also,according to Wikipedia I n 2016, the United Nations (UN) identified 13.5 million Syrians requiring humanitarian assistance,
of which more than 6 million are internally displaced within Syria, and over 4.8 million are refugees outside of Syria. In January
2017, UNHCR counted 4,863,684 registered refugees.
Turkey is the largest host country of registered refugees with over 2.7 million Syrian refugees.
Before the troubles,Syria had a population of 23 million.
No country could go back to normality after that upheaval.
That's because politics is heartlessly, ruthlessly, compassionlessly pragmatic. If having a pet local petty king in the area keeps
it stable and does not a politically costly military operation, everything else is seen as "acceptable collateral damage".
It's funny but western foreign policy is fundamentally the same in the methods, just different in goals. If the goal of regime
change is achieved and political points collected, everything else is completely irrelevant. Opposition can become "moderately
islamist", "democratic" rebels may implement sharia law, "precision strikes" may cause tens of thousands of civilian casualties,
but it's all for the greater good.
Every time the West especially the Anglo west of the USA and Britain intervene in another countries affairs, the end product is
a disaster so for that reason alone these two societies which can only communicate in English should leave this to the Russians.
This almost manages to achieve sense, and it's good to see an article not promoting regime change for once, but it still falls
short of stating the truth that the correct policy in Syria is to help Assad win the war, and then impose conditions on his conduct
in the peace.
He has reduced once great Syrian cities such as Homs and Aleppo to rubble. All six of Syria's Unesco world heritage sites
have been damaged.
I must now begrudgingly thank the Trump Administration for causing me to realize a profound and universal truth. History doesn't
rhyme at all; it parodies.
The build up to our inevitable Syria invasion is essentially an SNL parody of our Iraq invasion. All the way down to allegations
of to "hidden stockpiles of WMDs", "gassing own citizens", "violation of no WMD agreement", "weapons inspectors not doing job",
and most recently "Assad/Saddam is Hitler". All that's left is the final piece of evidence to tip public opinion in...the holy
grail, "yellowcake uranium".
I'm not sure exactly what comes next (presumably Trump declaring an "Axis of Evil" consisting of Syria, ISIS, Iran, N.Korea...and
perhaps Russia and/or China or both...thus setting the stage for a hilarious parody of WWII).
Perhaps dear Boris should have had more talks with the British government to find out what is the political position of the conservative
government over Syria, and more importantly with Russia. So far the American have by the look of things, telling the British Government
in what they want, not bothering to ask what Britain thinks what is important.
There is actually no point in swapping one master the EU, to handcuff ourselves to the a far more right wing America.
Take Isil and jihadists out of the equation and what you're left with are people that want to oust a tyrannical and unelected
leader who clearly has nothing but disdain for his people (groups of at least).
Those rebels (or freedom fighters) are being seen as the bad guys it seems to me...?
The only reason I can see for this is that they have slight support from the United States.
Had the boot been on the other foot and the US we're supporting Assad and Russia,the rebels (freedom fighters) I'm quite sure
public opinion (Guardian readers at least) would be quite different.
So what do the Syrian rebels who are looking to overthrow a dictator have to do to be put on a pedestal of righteousness as
Castro was for effectively trying to achieve the same end goal....
Oh, that's right, Castro was trying to stick it to the Yanks.... now I get it.
I think there's a definite strain of anti-Americanism on display however cautiously we have to view their actions after Iraq and
give their closeness to the Gulf States. A quarter of the country has fled Assad, some 10 million internally displaced not to
mention the incredible numbers of dead and wounded.
And yet there's a close minded reflex to say that things will be better off with him in charge ignoring even the possibility
of partition, which strikes me as the most plausible option. The idea that Assad can now after all he's done rule a united country
indefinitely putting a lid on refugees and terrorism strikes me as utterly preposterous.
My sentiments entirely and it shocks me that there are a considerable number of Assad apologists commenting on here as he is clearly
seen as a better 'devil' than Trump...
I'm just very pleased I don't live in Syria and I think the run of the mill Syrian dying in their droves due to gas, bombs
or simply drowning in the Med would be horrified to read a large number of comments on here in relation to this article and how
Assad 'isn't such a bad old stick!'
Take Isil and jihadists out of the equation and what you're left with
what you are left is nothing. This was the big point since 2013, when Nusra began taking over the last remnants of the FSA. Since
then Cameron (or was it Hammond) had to coin the term "relatively hardline islamists" to make some of the jihadi groups somewhat
acceptable.
In its latest iteration, Nusra (now rebranded yet againTahrir al-Sham) has formally absorbed several other "rebel" group, including
the Nour al-Din al-Zenki, who were in the past equipped by the US, and were quoted by various agencies (including this paper)
as "opposition" during the recapture of Aleppo.
Ah, yes, you also have the Kurds, who are building their own state. But if there is something all the local powers agree on
(Russia, US, Turkey, Syria, Iraq...) is that they don't want an independent Kurdish state.
President Obama was heavily criticized for not doing more in Syria, but he made a difficult decision that was in many ways
the right on.
Obama required cover from the British Parliament. Bombing Syria was incredibly unpopular with the UK public from right to left.
David Miliband listened to the public and stopped the bombing of Syria. Nobody expected a Labour politician to dare to oppose
the US war machine, it took them all by surprise.
Bombing Syria was incredibly unpopular with the US public and the European public, Miliband saved us from ISIS and Al Nusra
both al Qaeda franchises running Syria.
The BBC routinely portrays the Libertarian right wing in the USA as Isolationists but if you hear it from them they are anti-war.
The American working class understands what war is like in the middle east because many of them have experienced it. They are
clearly anti another war in the middle east. proof:
You could argue this isn't about regime change per se but prosecuting a dictator for targeting and massacring civilians. And surely
the same rationale can be used against Isis. In other words you don't allow mass murderers to take. Over but prosecute them as
well.
Good article. Hits the nail on the head. Regime change may be required for Syria the G7 and Arab countries must come together
to carefully plan what happens afterwards.
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our
community standards . Replies may also be deleted.
For more detail see our FAQs .
'Monster' Assad was courted by western leaders: Remember the Assads pictured taking tea at Buckingham Palace with the Queen(google
it) , Blair all smiles in Damascus. The Kerry family pictured in Damascus enjoying a late evening supper with the Assads(google
it).
But Bashar al-Assad is a stubborn man , he wouldn't distance himself from Iran and their proxies such as Hezbollah, thus his
fate was sealed.
Well it's all tied in . People talk about Israel wanting the Golan Heights permanently in part due to oil interests, they talk
about Qatar and the gas pipeline to Europe Assad refuses. They talk about the KSA being unnerved by Iran's growing influence in
the region after the Iraq war, and how it would suit KSA , Israel and the US for Sunni leadership to emerge in Syria to rebalance
the region.
I think it's all of the above . Which isn't what US/UK populations are being told.
The West learns nothing from its mistakes. Can't we understand that our real enemy is ISIS and that springs directly from our
disastrous invasion of Iraq? Assad may be pretty awful but surely we should be able to comprehend that he is an ally in the fight
against ISIS just as the far more horrible Stalin was an ally against the Nazis.
Just because Trump suddenly talks about "beautiful babies", we all go mad again.
Syria is going to need serious amounts of aid and foreign investment to recover when peace starts to take hold. But Assad cannot
travel internationally because he will be subject to arrest. At least in any civilised country. So he will be gone one way or
antithetical. Putin has backed the wrong horse. It's too handicapped to run.
Until the Saudis, US & UK decide that enough is enough, then this idiocy will continue. Assad is a better leader for Syria than
Isis, Al Qaeda, or the other Saudi-backed groups would be.
Syria was secular and religiously tolerant under Assad. It won't be either of those things if Assad is deposed. More than likely,
it would end up as a Saudi-style Islamic theocracy with the harshest head-chopping, hand-chopping version of sharia law.
He has reduced once great Syrian cities like Homs and Aleppo to rubble
Did Assad deliberately bring his country into civil war? When his forces are being attacked by rebels sponsored by foreign
groups, he really only has two choices: give up leadership and allow the rebels to take over the country, or fight back. Given
that you're arguing that a regime change is a bad idea it logically follows that you support the second option, so it hardly seems
fair to criticise him for the consequences of that resistance. You might do better to blame the rebels and those who sponsor them
for bringing war to what was previously a (relatively) peaceful country.
This Regime Change Policy adopted by the US and in many, if not all cases, supported by the UK, whilst in some case toppling Dictators,
has left nothing but chaos in its wake.
We need to consider the case of Syria, very carefully, as we may well find ourselves handing the Country to ISIL on a plate.
Better to help Assad stabilise the Country, and then discuss political change.
The rhetoric coming from the Foreign and Defence Secretaries, can do nothing to help, but make the UK look stupid.
Hahahahaha, collude with crimes against humanity in the name of stability and call it progress because after six years we cannot
think of an alternative. Great.
He has reduced once great Syrian cities like Homs and Aleppo to rubble
Did Assad deliberately bring his country into civil war? When his forces are being attacked by rebels sponsored by foreign
groups, he really only has two choices: give up leadership and allow the rebels to take over the country, or fight back. Given
that you're arguing that a regime change is a bad idea it logically follows that you support the second option, so it hardly seems
fair to criticise him for the consequences of that resistance. You might do better to blame the rebels and those who sponsor them
for bringing war to what was previously a (relatively) peaceful country.
This Regime Change Policy adopted by the US and in many, if not all cases, supported by the UK, whilst in some case toppling Dictators,
has left nothing but chaos in its wake.
We need to consider the case of Syria, very carefully, as we may well find ourselves handing the Country to ISIL on a plate.
Better to help Assad stabilise the Country, and then discuss political change.
The rhetoric coming from the Foreign and Defence Secretaries, can do nothing to help, but make the UK look stupid.
Hahahahaha, collude with crimes against humanity in the name of stability and call it progress because after six years we cannot
think of an alternative. Great.
Absolutely no... it will be a colossal disaster... and would explode the entire region affecting not only all ME countries
including Israel, but will extend to Europe and NA, You can't keep it all "Over There"
Regime change, evidently the US has n't learned from the past experience. Look at Iraq, Lybia, regime change has resulted in complete
chaos, instability, and perpetual conflict. Syrian population is strictly divided on sectarian line - Sunnis, Shias, Christians,
Kurds. Who is going to make a cohesive government capable of running the affairs of the state? Bashar Assaad's father, Hafiz Assaad
ruled Syria with an iron grip, he understood Syrian sectarian divide.
If any country needs regime change, it is Saudi Arabia. All important positions are controlled by hundreds of Royals of Al Saud,
even honest criticism of royals brings you closer to the back swing of executioner .
My newsagent loves Assad. Why because he's a Syrian Christian. Assad is the only hope for the minority's in Syria. All of the
opposition groups are some variation on Islamic nationalists. They will all happily slaughter anyone not of their faith. Assad
is a murdering bastard but he kills those that threaten him. In Middle Eastern terms he's a liberal.
Quite right. What the people of Syria need is stability and an end to the fighting. All else is secondary. In particular, the
greatest crime that the West has committed in recent decades is the attempt to foist democracy on countries like Syria and Iraq,
where it simply does not work. Even now, Western liberals dream of sitting Sunni, Shia, Alevi, Kurds, secularists and Islamic
militants around a table to talk through to a democratic and mutually acceptable future for Syria. This is a fantasy - as democracy
always is in heavily tribalised societies. It can only end in renewed civil war and inevitable dictatorship. I often wonder whether
the West is just naive in these attempts at liberal cultural imperialism, or whether they are in fact a cynical front to mask
the equally egregious aim of checkmating Russian influence in the region. Either way, shame on us.
Now to be fair, no one knows really what the president is thinking, not even apparently his chief diplomat or his UN envoy, who
have sent conflicting messages. But let's cut to the chase – this is a very, very bad idea.
WW3 is definately a very very bad idea.
The idea that the US can change the government of another country for the better is born of US arrogance and lying manipulation.
It's a bit funny that we just casually mention that the country harping on about the respect of the international rule book sinc
2014 vaiolate one of the core UN charter principles 72 times and is openly speaking of braking it the 73th time.
Jsut picture China saying openly their goal is to change the Abe regime in Tokio or Russia to change the regime in Kiev. They
can't even have a pefered presidential candidate without mass interference hysteria and we just feel like it's A OK to go around
the world changing who's in charge of countries.
> They can't even have a pefered presidential candidate without mass interference hysteria and we just feel like it's A OK to
go around the world changing who's in charge of countries.
There are two main choices... Regime change... which hasn't worked out well where it's been attempted or just let the despots
get on with it...
There are no easy answers but perhaps the only way is to let dictators crush and annihilate their opposition, utilise death
squads to make dissenters disappear in the dead of night and, outwardly at least pretend everything is rosey....
If we, as a civilised society are able to 'look the other way' then that might be the simple answer... just hope everyone can
sleep well at night and be grateful that, however much you hate our present government they aren't out gassing (allegedly) Guardian
readers.
Not gassing people no, but still killing plenty of "innocent little babies" bombing hospitals and helping the Saudis cluster bomb
fishing villages. Why don't we see pictures on TV of Yemeni kids mutilated by American bombs? How do we sleep with that?
Well, we saw the aftermath of a deliberate attack by Saudis planes on a clearly demarcated Yemeni hospital on the BBC last year.
The first rocket hit an arriving ambulance with civilian casualties and a doctor on board. The response of the Saudi shills in
the Commons - what is it about the British upper class and the Arabs, I wonder - was to demand forcefully that the Saudis set
up an inquiry to examine the evidence of a war crime.
It should have been sadly obvious from the get-go that we had to back Assad before he attempted to beat his father's record
for murder and repression, the whole family's fucking insane, but it's long past too late now. He's soiled goods and Tillerson's
untutored idea of elections is surely farcical.
Fair article, although ISI and rebels actively participated in the destruction of Syria. If Assad falls, anarchy due to vacuum
will follow, guaranteed. Agree with the last paragraph in particular and still wondering why they (the West) don't do it especially
pressuring the countries that feed the rebels, and they are not so moderate, with money and weapon. Unless this is because of
the infamous pipeline. Tragic state of affair indeed.
Decade after decade, the west has interfered or overthrown government after governemnt , all over the world , mainly for the benefit
of capitalist puppeteers . America has been the worst , one only has to look at the CIA's track record in South America when legitimately
elected governments were ousted by force so that "American business" interest were looked after.
This same vested self interest has been the driving force over the last few years. The interventions in Iraq , Libya, Afghanistan
have all been total disasters fro the regions and resulted in more deaths than any tin pot dictator could have achieved. Backing
so called "moderate" terrorists seems to be the excuse to get involved.
More moral achievement and good could have been achieved by widespread dropping of food around the world , or even the cost
of the military hegemony being given as cash handouts to poor people , but this simplistic altruism does not allow for the geopolitical
control games that is the true beating heart of western aggression.
We are all Brexiteers now. I voted remain, but accept the democratic will of the people. Blame David Cameron and get on with the
job of making a success of it, rather than whining about it....
I'm just saying people making the case for the West to back off would probably be saying the opposite in that case if the white
minority were massacring black people on the scale of Syria. Isn't that hypocrisy?
The successful regime changes mentioned in the article such as Poland and the rest of the Eastern bloc were initiated by the people
themselves, rather than the the "help" of a foreign power.
The people did it all by themselves did they? So nothing to do with the economic collapse of the Soviet Union caused by an arms
race ramped up by President Reagan. Nothing to do with a very costly war in Afghanistan?
Given the situation, it is understandable why some people may think ousting Assad is necessary. Such thinking has a long pedigree
in the United States, where there is a robust belief in a supposed American ability to fix what is wrong.
Would you have said the same thing in 1917 and 1940. Would you have said the same thing in the duration of the cold war. If US
did not have a bigger penis then you would not be around to comment about it.
Long live the US penis and may it grow longer and stronger.
WW2 was won principally by the USSR, who suffered many more casualties than the western alliances. The cold war would not have
happened if not for the USA.
Sorry, the USA is more of a threat to the planet than any country, and Trump is unintelligent, a real threat to the world.
If the US wants Assad ousted, they should support a UN investigation to find out WHO was at fault. Shoot first questions later?
Hollywood Wild West thinking. The US has zero credibility. You simply cannot blame someone without having the facts independently
checked out. Yet they didn't wait and decided to break interantional law instead.
There seems to be a crucial component of reality lacking in this opinion piece: rather than bombing and droning and etc, why does
the 'world order' not stop the manufacture and distribution of weapons of mass destruction like barrel bombs, nuclear warheads
etc etc -- where profits are made by arms manufacturers and their investors--oh, could that be the reason?
Quite. Assad is awful, but he is less awful that the Islamist alternatives, which are the only realistic alternatives. We should
stop posturing and accept this unpalatable reality.
Much more level reporting, but still is framing the narrative as a brutal gas attack and is still a rush to judgement when the
case is that bombs were dropped on a supply of toxic gas, most likely Phosgene.
At last, some common sense. like Saddam and Gaddafi, Assad is a ruthless tyrant. What the West, including the petulant Boris Johnson
need to realise is that Syria ISN'T the West. Don't impose your values on a country that isn't ready for them. The sickening hypocrisy
of the British government would look very foolish if Putin pulled out and allowed Syria to fall to isis. Would Boris and Theresa
put British troops on the ground to keep the extremists out of Turkey?
Why isn't Syria ready for Western values? After what the country has been through the people would probably leap at the chance
of free elections. Prior to the conflict Syria was a multi-ethnic patchwork. Whatever happens to the country needs to be decided
by the Syrians themselves.
The geopolitical status quo in the Middle East is unstable, and tribal affiliations/religious/ ethnic allegiances need to be
carefully balanced and controlled. Something Lebanon, Libya, Syria and Iraq achieved reasonably peacefully for many years before
all the US led interventions.
There is no evidence that the terrorists are fighting for democracy, although if westerners ask them that is what they will
likely say.
So Trump is unfit to govern because of his locker room humour and possible antics, but gas a few thousand people and hey presto!
A darling of the left.
You're talking about this rag. Take a look at what's coming out of Howard Dean's mouth, or Bernie Sanders's, or practically any
Democrat in Washington not named Tulsi Gabbard.
Or, if you have a really strong stomach, take a look at Daily Kos.
They're what passes for "left" in America, unfortunately, because the number of SWP and Green Party members is statistically
insignificant.
Regime change is illegal under international law, except to the rogues of course found in western capitals, and their Gulf vassals.
These are the only group of people in the entire planet who talk openly about overthrowing sovereign governments of other countries.
The unfortunate truth is that, along with the ongoing decline of western civilization, one 'by-product' is that International
Law is continually disdained. The USA, having lack of insightful leadership, does as it wants, when it wants .. the result is
that perpetual wars seem to be a given .. meanwhile, Asia continues to rise and is growing real and genuine wealth by producing
and exporting the goods the rest of the world consumes and is doing it very well..
President Trump didn't do enough (yet) by bombing an air base at night. The people of Syria need weapons, tanks, missiles, air
support, etc. from a country like the USA that stands for freedom and human rights. Assad, who lives by the sword should also
die by the sword. For the U.S. to stand by and watch these atrocities unchallenged would simply be not who we are. I don't agree
with President Trump on a lot of things, but on this point he is right. I have changed from not liking him at all to liking him
just a bit more.
"The logic is that by removing and replacing an undesirable leader, the political situation in the country will change. "
Absolute tosh.
The logic behind nearly all attempts at cold war regime change was to replace a regime which aligned itself with the USSR with
one that aligned itself with the USA.
The internal situation, politically or otherwise was of no concern
Good piece. Regime change has been such a resounding success, you only have to look at Iraq and Libya to see that. Nor does a
country which has a history of using napalm and carcinogenic defoliants any room to take the moral high ground.
If Assad, is so bad, how come most of the civilian population prefer his areas to those of the rebels? The one certainty in all
of this is that the MSM has sold its credibility. Most of what I see is vested interest propaganda.
Isn't the main reason that people prefer Assad's areas because he doesn't bomb them.
There is no love of Assad anywhere.
If the US were to limit itself to punishing strikes against Assad whenever his forces committed war crimes – bombing hospitals
using poison gas etc then a minor at the level of civilisation creeps back into the equation.
The situation will be even more fraught if other external actors turn any attempt at regime change into a proxy war, as Russia
and Iran are likely to do.
A proxy war between the United States and Russia is the thing we all have to fear. In Trump and Putin you have two leaders
who use brinkmanship to get what they want and who will never back down from any position no matter what the consequences. They'd
rather pursue a misguided policy rathen than lose face. I'd like to think the recent war of words between the two countries is
just bluster, but as each day goes by I'm no longer sure anymore.
Regime change should work if all parties believe in democracy and respect each other. That does not seem likely in the middle
east. We have seen what that means forcing that idea in Iraq, Egypt and Libya. A secular SOB is better than somebody who believes
in laws of yesteryears.
Another way: reducing accidental use of chemical weapons?
Always drop 2 bombs; one from each side of ammunition dump. That way, one of such unmarked ordinance is likely to be conventional
explosives. The latter would further disperse, and dilute (reduce density) of the chemical gas; hence lessening lethality.
So we agree on the final result (need for regime change which by the way the article conflicts with its own title), but we disagree
on the method. Many bottoms-up revolutions would not have been successful without outside help. The French helped America achieve
freedom although their reason was somewhat revengeful. The people of Syria have no chance against an army and tanks ruled by a
ruthless evil dictator like Assad without outside assistance. If you think they are not shedding enough blood for their freedom,
then you are living in a hole in the ground.
In the latest iteration for 2016, the bottom ten places in the Index, reserved for the least peaceful countries on earth, include
Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya: four countries where "regime change" has been brought about – or, in Syria's case, where there
is arguably an ongoing attempt to bring it about – by the use of military force.
The evidence so far is that the use of force to topple regimes does not make things better, even when the behaviour of those
regimes is/was objectionable in many ways.
He has reduced once great Syrian cities such as Homs and Aleppo to rubble. All six of Syria's Unesco world heritage sites
have been damaged.
Nope. Most of Homs and Aleppo are intact. The areas occupied by foreign Jihadists using the local populace as human shields
were heavily bombed but now they have been liberated.
Who was it who destroyed these heritage sites? Not the SAA. The Jihadists even filmed themselves doing it and posted the videos
online for goodness sake.
Bashar al-Assad is not a good person. He has reduced once great Syrian cities like Homs and Aleppo to rubble. All six of Syria's
Unesco World Heritage sites have been damaged.
So thousands of mostly foreign jihadists occupying parts of those cities had nothing to do with it? Did the US led forces in
now n Mosul, or before that in Fallujah find the way to dislodge terrorists from urban strongholds without devastation of the
city? Also for all world heritage sites in Syria, they were defended by Syrian troops, and everything that could be moved was
moved to safe place. It was exclusively jihadists that were destroying temples, churches, shrines, even muslim graveyards when
they found the funeral momunent "too tall". In all of these efforts to save the history of the humanity, syrian govermnent got
no help nor acknowledgment. To add insult to injury, the western "cultural" response was touring 3D model of Palmyra gates through
western capitals but while Daesh was methodically blowing it up under clear desert skies, there was interestingly not a single
american drone to be found anywhere. It was syrian, iranian and russian blood spilled to liberate it twice from the death cult.
Yep. There isn't a solution to this problem, but the one thing I'm 99.999% convinved will not work is 'the west' dusting off it's
world policeman uniform and bombing the heck out of Syria.
This is precisely why the west has largely stayed out of the Syrian conflict; despite having a policy favouring the removal of
Assad there hasn't been an attempt (or even the suggestion of an attempt at a policy level) at regime change.
One does wonder, though, at what point the conflict becomes so abhorrent and the civilian casualties so grotesque that our
intervention could scarcely make things any worse
It seems that Spicer, the White House Press Secretary, whilst putting all his cerebral energy into attempting to apologise
for his jaw-droppingly ignorant statement that Hitler never used chemical weapons on his own people, failed to stop his mouth
making yet another gaffe;
"I needed to make sure that I clarified, and was not in any shape or form any more of a distraction from the president's
decisive action in Syria and the attempts that he is making to destabilise the region and root out ISIS out of Syria."
(my emphasis)
Spicer speaks about the president's attempts to destabilise the region in a CNN television interview too.
As people are beginning to ask, does Spicer actually know what distabilise means?
It bothers me that Trump is suddenly showing such concern toward innocent Syrians. Yet, at the same time he wants a ban on immigration
from seven predominantly Muslim countries, including Syria.
Don't you think the timing here is - for Trump - rather convenient? Just when he is under pressure for being a Russian patsy,
something happens to allow him to portray himself as 'standing up to Putin'.
Right. Also, the question should be...if Putin is sleazy enough to be complicit with Syria, then why wouldn't they be sleazy enough
to be involved in trying to swing the American election?
In essence there must be incremental change in the political climate and culture of a state amongst the masses before it culminates
in regime change at the top.
The political climate is no longer there because Assad has systematically murdered everyone who could have formed a credible
oppostion to his regime; opposition activitsts, aid workers, doctors and nurses, journalists - all have either been killed, have
fled to Europe, or are currently being tortured in one of his detention centres. There is no one left to rise up against him.
The intervention triggers resentment and hostility at the new government whose legitimacy is reduced through the participation
of an outside government. Soon the new regime is considered a 'puppet' and its own existence is questioned by the people.
This is indeed true. However backing Assad also has its costs; where is the legitimacy of someone who is now merely a "puppet"
for Russia and Iran's ambitions in the region?
As uncomfortable as it is the best western governments can do is to provide aid and assistance to those in distress, whilst
pressuring those countries that continue to feed money and weapons to the combatants to change their positions.
As reasonable as this sounds, I'm afraid this is just wishful thinking.
"The political climate is no longer there because Assad has systematically murdered everyone who could have formed a credible
oppostion to his regime;"
There is a credible position inside Syria which has been largely ignored by the western MSM and governments, because it does
not support the uprisisng or the violent overthrow of the Syrian government. It was refused participation when the first peace
talks were arranged.
Wow, a Guardian article I can finally wholeheartedly agree with. Does this Professor chap have a hotline to Trump and the rest
of the Western leaders itching for a fight with Assad?
Why do I get the feeling this is just another one of those "Now that Trump is in charge, we shouldn't do regime change" pieces?
I note that the author nowhere comes out against fighting an eternal war in Syria -- he just doesn't want Trump doing the "regime
change."
Yeah, he blabbers on about "aid and assistance" and "pressuring those countries that continue to feed money and weapons to
the combatants to change their positions" -- obviously choosing to ignore how several western governments provide money and weapons
to the combatants (should they be "pressuring" themselves?) But the pinnacle of his cluelessness -- or his agenda -- is reached
with this whopper:
The situation will be even more fraught if other external actors turn any attempt at regime change into a proxy war, as
Russia and Iran are likely to do.
--as if this hadn't been a proxy war for years already, one in which his own country has been quite actively engaged.
This idiot has got to go, he is not rational. He clearly has not an inkling of the gravity of his actions. Nor does he care.
How did we get to this? We always thought that a rogue state would be the end of us all. We were wrong. This moron is doing it
all by himself. Some one needs to step in, take back control. This is frightening stuff.
Assad's removal would be catastrophic. There would be no stable government in Syria, it would be controlled by warlords
backed by Saudi Arabia, al-Qaeda or ISIS and millions of refugees would have no country to return to or to live in. This will
mean more refugees in Europe, more destabilisation and more money drained from our treasuries.
Russia would also be far from pleased and if the conflict erupted into a confrontation between NATO affiliated forces
in Syria against Russia, the Eastern European front will become a lot more precarious (at a time when Britain is cutting
back on military spending and very few European countries adequately contribute towards NATO). Do we really want a repeat of tensions
from the pre-1991 era? I don't think so, especially with the combined threat of domestic Islamic terrorism throughout Europe and
with the continental debt crisis that cannot afford more wars that are not in its interests. Russia will quickly mobilise its
forces into the non-Russian caucuses, already closely aligned with Armenia and potentially link up with Iran territoriality. And
what about Turkey? They cannot be relied upon.
So what benefit exactly is it to create anarchy in Syria for Britain's immediate and long-term interests? The destruction of
Libya has created nothing but chaos and a stream of migrants from across Africa. Why Boris Johnson is waltzing around the world
demanding hard action against Russia when we are cutting back on our armed forces is startling. A better question would be in
whose immediate economic and geopolitical interests is the destruction of Assad beneficial? Well... there's two countries in the
Middle East which come to mind... not hard to guess.
That's fair enough but what if Assad stays in power? Will the refugees, who mainly fled him, return? Will anyone invest in rebuilding
the country? WIll anyone deal with the country other than Russia or Iran? Above all will the hatred of Assad, terrorism or indeed
the conflict as a whole recede?
They didn't flee him... they fled the war. Most people, in any country, are apolitical. I expect the refugees in the Middle East
and Anatolia will return to Syria and those in the West must be forced to return back.
The problem with Syria now is that it has become such a hot plate. If the West concedes to Russia and allows Syria to survive
under the rule of Assad then we will lose face internationally... and it would be domestically embarrassing. No doubt Saudi Arabia,
Israel and the Gulf monarchies would be less than pleased, and we depend on them for a lot of our oil.
It's a difficult question but what we do know is that there are no other credible groups that can rule Syria at the moment,
other than Assad's Alawite minority. If we decide to nation-build, that will cost billions, possibly even trillions with no concrete
result as our attempt in Iraq shows and we have no idea who we would put in charge. The Christians have about as much legitimacy
as the Alawites. Perhaps the only conceivable outcome would be the breakup of Syria. The Christian and Alawite regions go towards
Lebanon, the Kurdish regions are given independence and the Sunni areas are also given an independent state. But of course, the
Sunni and Christian areas are intertwined and many Sunni's support Assad, or at least do not oppose him. And Turkey, as well as
Iran, would never allow an independent Kurdistan. Iran would be less than pleased with the breakup of Syria as well.
I want to see a post-Assad plan. We all know what happens to non-Sunni minorities when a secular Arab leader is toppled. No
one has yet to provide a coherent post-Assad state-structure. Unless of course they want Turkey to territoriality expand... we
want to preserve the post-Ottoman borders and state-system yet at the same time we're waging war against the forces actively preserving
it.
There is no simple answer. Assad is a pawn of Russia and Iran, yet the other options are either Turkish expansion (which, the
last time they did that, they had sizeable European territories) or Saudi expansion (which I hope everyone agrees is less than
desirable). We have no friends in the Middle East, other than Jordan, Egypt and Israel. But they all have their own interests
and I suspect their friendships are determined upon those interests. I think our aim is to maintain the balance of power. Perhaps
only the growth of Israel could act as a counter-weight to Sunni and Shia interests.
Would you support another leader from perhaps the same party taking over as an interim measure whilst different factions are brought
together to defeat ISIS?
In an ideal world, I would love to see this happening, along with a form of truth and reconciliation commission, and a commitment
from the international community and other bodies independent of the Syrian government to assist in tackling issues such as warlordism
and corruption. The dogmatic belief that there can be no leader other than Assad is one that might have ultimately cost millions
of lives and it would be wrong to use the old dictator's mantra of 'me or chaos'. And to be fair, Assad does not have a great
track record in Syria.
And a final question - do you believe Russia should be doing more to put pressure on Assad or do you think it will be happy
to put its international credibility on the line for him? (There is something pathological I believe in Putin's willingness to
support other dictators)
How can one call for 'peaceful transition to a new society' when the original opposition to Assad was sponsored by multifarious
power-hungry foreign actors? They exploited the Arab Spring pro-democracy utopianism then messed up their insurrectional strategy
disastrously. The country now needs to be made a protectorate of an international peace-keeping force until a representative transitional
government is agreed upon.
No, that sounds like the pseudo-leftist neo-colonial discourse that Obama was so fond of.
The counter-argument to regime change is more that by now Assad controls most cities again, the opposition are awful sectarians
who should be let nowhere near power and it may still be possible to contain IS to a manageable extent while Assad maintains a
dictatorship indefinitely.
Not quite sure what you mean. Just saying that the "man on the street" would more likely than not understand "protectorate" pretty
much the same as e.g. the Moroccans did.
Regime change in Syria was being talked directly since 9/11 and it never stopped. It's on the record. So is john Kerry, on record
on TV, stating gulf states offered to cover part of the costs of a US invasion in Syria at least twice way before the so called
''civil war'' even started.
They prepared it for years but the poor taste Iraq/Libya left on the US public meant the US pulled out of the deal (all because
of the planed gas pipelines from Qatar to Europe that has to go through Syria).
The Saudis along with Qatar, Turkey and Israel believed they could force the hand of the US and acted alone initiating the
takeover. This is why despite the intel, organisation and provision of what is estimated to be 300k(german estimates) foreign
jihadists eventually came to a standstill without direct US support.
The Jihadists then prematurely jumped the gun fragmented creating ISIS (something meant to take place behind the scenes after
they defeated Assad)
The point is of course...it's all about oil...nothing about democracy or Gas or any of that crap
Yes, this is all quite true. What the USA almost always seems to do is create a power vacuum in the countries it attempts to "save"
and, inevitably it seems, the USA always chooses the wrong damn party or person to support in said vacuum. A stunning misreading
and proof of the failure of American foreign policy "experts" and CIA strategists to grasp the realities on the ground.
Yes, this is all quite true. What the USA almost always seems to do is create a power vacuum in the countries it attempts
to "save" and, inevitably it seems, the USA always chooses the wrong damn party or person to support in said vacuum.
Like in Japan. Just that Japan is ... Shinto. Or something. Not M.........
I'm sure its fair to say that for many instability, disorder, mayhem and the like are entirely desirable. Witness Kissinger who
out-and-out advocated/advocates looking after US long-term interests through war, disease and starvation.
'The on-going devastation in Syria cries out for a response, 'do something' is the inherent plea.'
Might I suggest sending generous quantities of bubble wrap to each of the 'something must be done' brigade. Popping those bubbles
is relaxing and calming. They will otherwise impatiently agitate for some ineffective, or more likely counter-productive measure
that makes things drastically worse.
Not very sensible, actually -- see the comment by capatriot above (or below, if you do "newest first"). Rather appalling that
someone with academic credentials would (1) engage in a comic book-style analysis of world politics (big bad nearly omnipotent
supervillain!) and (2) put all the blame for the carnage and destruction on one side.
We tried to change the leader in Iraq. It didn't work, and now the country is a hotbed of terrorism and incredibly corrupt and
ineffectual government. We tried to change the leader in Libya. It didn't work, and now the country is a hotbed of terrorism and
incredibly corrupt and ineffectual government. I guess we could try to change the leader in Syria, if we really, really want.
He has reduced once great Syrian cities like Homs and Aleppo to rubble.
What, he, personally? What is he, superman? And I wonder why he'd choose to do that to his own nation's cities?
But wait, you mean that there was a rebellion against the recognized government which developed into a civil war, aided and
abetted by sectarian outsiders and terrorists and the United States/West, with political and religious/ethnic overtones? And that
later, as it looked like the recognized govt was going to fail, other interested outsiders like Russia and Iran intervened to
help it?
Gosh, I wonder what the least worst outcome for the people of Syria actually is here ... perhaps we should leave it to them?
It's actually a very serious question. How much control does Assad have over his government, let alone his armed forces? He's
a trained dentist, ferchrissakes, and his older brother was the one groomed for the <strike>throne</strike> presidency. It makes
sense to assume that his powers over an entrenched nomenklatura, to say nothing of all of the different armed factions nominally
serving him, aren't limitless.
"... If Assad is removed, Syria falls and Iran is next. Russia absolutely cannot afford to have Iran destroyed by the Anglo-Zionists because after Iran, she will next. Everybody in Russia understands that. But, as I said, the problem with military responses is that they can lead to military escalations which then lead to wars which might turn nuclear very fast. ..."
"... So here is my central thesis: You don't want Russia to stop the USA by purely military means as this places the survival of of mankind at risk. ..."
"... I realize that for some this might be counter-intuitive, but remember that deterrences only works with rational actors . Russia has already done a lot, more than everybody else besides Iran. And if Russia is not the world's policeman, neither is she the world savior. The rest of mankind also needs to stop being a silent bystander and actually do something! ..."
"... Russia and China can stop the US, but they need to do that together. And for that, Xi needs to stop acting like a detached smiling little Buddha statue and speak up loud and clear. ..."
"... So far China has been supporting Russia, but only from behind. This is very nice and very prudent, but Russia is rapidly running out of resources. ..."
"... The Russians are afraid of war. The Americans are not. The Russians are ready for war. The Americans are not. ..."
"... The problem is that every sign of Russian caution and every Russian attempt to de-escalate the situation (be it in the Ukraine, with Turkey or in Syria) has always been interpreted by the West as a sign of weakness. ..."
"... This is what happens when there is a clash between a culture which places a premium on boasting and threatening and one which believes in diplomacy and negotiations. ..."
"... Russia is in a very difficult situation and a very bad one. And she is very much alone. European are cowards. Latin Americans have more courage, but no means to put pressure on the USA. India hopes to play both sides. Japan and the ROK are US colonies. Australia and New Zealand belong to the ECHELON / FIVE EYES gang. Russia has plenty of friends in Africa, but they more or less all live under the American/French boot. Iran has already sacrificed more than any other country and taken the biggest risks. It would be totally unfair to ask the Iranians to do more. The only actor out there who can do something in China. If there is any hopes to avoid four more years of "Obama-style nightmare" it is for China to step in and tell the US to cool it. ..."
"... Maybe an impeachment of Trump could prove to be a blessing in disguise. If Mike Pence becomes President, he and his Neocons will have total power again and they won't have to prove that they are tough by doing stupid and dangerous things? Could President Pence be better than President Trump? I am afraid that it might. Especially if that triggers a deep internal crisis inside the USA. ..."
But the two countries which really need to step up to the plate are Russia and China. So far,
it has been Russia who did all the hard work and, paradoxically, it has been Russia which has been
the object of the dumbest and most ungrateful lack of gratitude (especially from armchair warriors).
This needs to change. China has many more means to pressure the USA back into some semi-sane mental
state than Russia. All Russia has are superb military capabilities. China, in contrast, has the ability
to hurt the USA where it really matters: money. Russia is in a pickle: she cannot abandon Syria to
the Takfiri crazies, but neither can she go to nuclear war with the USA over Syria. The problem is
not Assad. The problem is that he is the only person capable, at least at this point in time, to
protect Syria against Daesh.
If Assad is removed, Syria falls and Iran is next. Russia absolutely cannot afford to have
Iran destroyed by the Anglo-Zionists because after Iran, she will next. Everybody in Russia understands
that. But, as I said, the problem with military responses is that they can lead to military escalations
which then lead to wars which might turn nuclear very fast.
So here is my central thesis: You don't want Russia to stop the USA by purely military means
as this places the survival of of mankind at risk.
I realize that for some this might be counter-intuitive, but remember that deterrences only
works with rational actors . Russia has already done a lot, more than everybody else besides Iran.
And if Russia is not the world's policeman, neither is she the world savior. The rest of mankind
also needs to stop being a silent bystander and actually do something!
Russia and China can stop the US, but they need to do that together. And for that, Xi needs
to stop acting like a detached smiling little Buddha statue and speak up loud and clear. That
is especially true since the Americans show even less fear of China than of Russia.
[Sidebar: the Chinese military is still far behind the kind of capabilities Russia has, but
the Chinese are catching up really, really fast. Just 30 years ago the Chinese military used to
be outdated and primitive. This is not the case today. The Chinese have done some tremendous progress
in a record time and their military is now a totally different beast than what it used to be.
I have no doubt at all that the US cannot win a war with China either, especially not anywhere
near the Chinese mainland. Furthermore, I expect the Chinese to go full steam ahead with a very
energetic military modernization program which will allow them to close the gap with the USA and
Russia in record time.
So any notions of the USA using force against China, be it over Taiwan or the DPRK, is an absolutely
terrible idea, sheer madness. However, and maybe because the Americans believe their own propaganda,
it seems to me like the folks in DC think that we are in the 1950s or 1960 and that they can terrify
the "Chinese communist peasants" with their carrier battle groups.
What the fail to realize is that with every nautical mile the US carriers make towards China,
the bigger and easier target they make for a military which has specialized in US carrier destruction
operatons. The Americans ought to ask themselves a simple question: what will they do if the Chinese
either sink or severely damage one (or several) US Navy carriers?
Go to nuclear war with a nuclear China well capable of turning many US cities into nuclear
wastelands? Really? You would trade New York or San Francisco for the Carl Vinson Strike Group?
Think again.]
So far China has been supporting Russia, but only from behind. This is very nice and very
prudent, but Russia is rapidly running out of resources. If there was a sane man in the White
House, one who would never ever do something which might result in war with Russia, that would not
be a problem. Alas, just like Obama before him, Trump seems to think that he can win a game of nuclear
chicken against Russia. But he can't. Let me be clear he: if pushed into a corner the Russian will
fight, even if that means nuclear war. I have said this over and over again, there are two differences
between the Americans and the Russians
The Russians are afraid of war. The Americans are not. The Russians are ready for war. The Americans
are not.
The problem is that every sign of Russian caution and every Russian attempt to de-escalate
the situation (be it in the Ukraine, with Turkey or in Syria) has always been interpreted by the
West as a sign of weakness.
This is what happens when there is a clash between a culture which places a premium on boasting
and threatening and one which believes in diplomacy and negotiations.
[Sidebar. The profound cultural differences between the USA and Russia are perfectly illustrated
with the polar difference the two countries have towards their most advanced weapons systems.
As soon as the Americans declassify one of their weapon systems they engage into a huge marketing
campaign to describe it as the "bestest of the bestest" "in the world" (always, "in the world"
as if somebody bothered to research this or even compare). They explain at length how awesome
their technology is and how invincible it makes them. The perfect illustration is all the (now,
in retrospect, rather ridiculous) propaganda about stealth and stealth aircraft. The Russians
do the exact opposite. First, they try to classify it all. But then, when eventually they declassify
a weapons system, they strenuously under-report its real capabilities even when it is quite clear
that the entire planet already knows the truth!
There have been any instances when Soviet disarmament negotiators knew less about the real
Soviet capabilities than their American counterparts!
Finally, when the Russian export their weapons systems, they always strongly degrade the export
model, at least that was the model until the Russians sold the SU-30MKI to India which included
thrust vectoring while the Russian SU-30 only acquired later with the SU-30SM model, so this might
be changing.
Ask yourself: did you ever hear about the Russian Kalibr cruise missile before their first
use in Syria? Or did you know that Russia has had
nuclear underwater missiles
since the late 1970 s capable of "flying under water" as speeds exceeding 230 miles per hour?]
Russia is in a very difficult situation and a very bad one. And she is very much alone. European
are cowards. Latin Americans have more courage, but no means to put pressure on the USA. India hopes
to play both sides. Japan and the ROK are US colonies. Australia and New Zealand belong to the
ECHELON /
FIVE EYES gang. Russia has
plenty of friends in Africa, but they more or less all live under the American/French boot. Iran
has already sacrificed more than any other country and taken the biggest risks. It would be totally
unfair to ask the Iranians to do more. The only actor out there who can do something in China. If
there is any hopes to avoid four more years of "Obama-style nightmare" it is for China to step in
and tell the US to cool it.
In the meantime Russia will walk a very fine like between various bad options. Her best hope,
and the best hope of the rest of mankind, is that the US elites become so involved into fighting
each other that this will leave very little time to do any foreign policy. Alas, it appears that
Trump has "figured out" that one way to be smart (or so he thinks) in internal politics is to do
something dumb in external politics (like attack Syria). That won't work.
Maybe an impeachment of Trump could prove to be a blessing in disguise. If Mike Pence becomes
President, he and his Neocons will have total power again and they won't have to prove that they
are tough by doing stupid and dangerous things? Could President Pence be better than President Trump?
I am afraid that it might. Especially if that triggers a deep internal crisis inside the USA.
US Threatens Further Attacks on Syria
Despite Threats, Mattis Insists US Policy 'Unchanged'
by Jason Ditz, April 11, 2017
Print This | Share This
With the region still reeling after last week's US missile attacks on Syria, top administration
officials continue to threaten further attacks against the Syrian military, with the White House
saying President Trump retains the option to attack Syria whenever he thinks it's "in the national
interest."
Defense Secretary James Mattis concurred, adding that any use of chemical weapons would draw US
attacks against the Syrian government. The US claimed last week's attacks were a response to an
accused Syrian "gas attack" against rebel-held Idlib.
Since then, US officials have repeatedly talked up thew idea of further missile attacks against
Syria, though at the same thing Mattis once again insisted today that US military policy in Syria
is totally unchanged in the wake of the attacks.
That's demonstrably untrue, of course, as Pentagon officials have confirmed changes inside Syria
designed to protect US ground troops from potential retaliation, and have confirmed that US airstrikes
against ISIS targets have decreased significantly since the attack, again fearing Syrian air defense
will target the US warplanes as potential hostiles.
Officials have sent conflicting messages on their exact position on Syria since then, insisting
that ISIS remains their "priority," but continuing to pick fights with the Syrian government,
and needle Russia in such a way as to greatly diminish the US ability to operate against ISIS.
"... The intervention triggers resentment and hostility at the new government, the legitimacy of which is reduced through the participation of an outside government. ..."
"... In late 2015, Eren Erdem, a Turkish MP, said in Parliament that the Turkish state was permitting Da'esh to send sarin precursors to Syria. He had a file of evidence, so was accused of treason for accessing and publicizing confidential material. The investigation into the people responsible for the transfer of toxic chemicals was shut down. ..."
"... Al-Assad is certainly capable of murdering opponents, and not bothering too much about collateral damage, but strategically it makes no sense for him to do this now, when peace talks under the aegis of Russia and Iran have begun, and the world is watching. Also, Assad has been engaged in a reconciliation process, allowing members of the FSA to return to the Syrian army, and Aleppans remain in Damascus if they didn't wish to go to Idlib. At such a juncture, using chemical weapons would be counter-productive. If Sarin was used at his command, he should be properly prosecuted: but bombing a Syrian air base merely assists Da'esh and its cronies. ..."
"... I have just watched the press conference in which Trump labelled Assad a butcher, and went on again about dead babies. I just wish that someone at one of these conferences would have the guts to point out to Trump his own butchery. ..."
"... Anyone watching this performance would think that US forces had never been responsible for killing innocent civilians, men, women, children and babies. To listen to Trump, you wouldn't think that US forces had ever killed over 150 civilians in Mosul, dozens in Raqqa, or had bombed hospitals in Afghanistan, or schools in Iraq, or were supporting the Saudi blockade of Yemen resulting in the starvation of children and babies, or had destroyed wedding parties with drones,.....I could go on. ..."
"... If Assad is a butcher, he is only a junior, apprentice, corner-shop butcher. Trump is the real thing, the large-scale, wholesale, expert butcher. ..."
"... Gotta get that pipeline in for the Saudi's, eh, no matter how many children's carcasses it crosses, yay, regime change again, yay, and a heap of new terrorists for our kids in the west to dodge and duck, yay. ..."
"... Despite the several misrepresentations, the facts are that Britain has been one of the main protagonists in prosecuting this war against Syria , which is a proxy war against Iran. ..."
"... Britain was at the forefront in setting up the Al Nusra Front and in hosting the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights to disseminate deeply negative propaganda about the Syrian Government and armed forces. ..."
"... Every step of this including the media campaign which has comprised a major part of the military campaign against Syria, has been an attempt to delegitimize the Sovereign government and its institutions and to gain consensus from the somnambulistic British and US public for yet another direct military campaign against another Middle Eastern country. ..."
"... Assad's removal would be catastrophic. There would be no stable government in Syria, it would be controlled by warlords backed by Saudi Arabia, al-Qaeda or ISIS and millions of refugees would have no country to return to or to live in. This will mean more refugees in Europe, more destabilisation and more money drained from our treasuries. ..."
The intervention triggers resentment and hostility at the new government, the legitimacy of which is reduced through the participation
of an outside government.
Soon, the new regime is considered a "puppet" and its existence is questioned by the people. Interestingly, the Middle East has
proven particularly resistant to durable regime change and democratization, further making the success of any US-led intervention
doubtful.
The situation will be even more fraught if other external actors turn any attempt at regime change into a proxy war, as Russia
and Iran are likely to do. The US experienced the downside of this during the ill-conceived war in Vietnam. During the Soviet-led
war in Afghanistan, the US played the spoiler of Soviet efforts, funnelling money and weapons to the anti-Soviet mujahideen, turning
the USSR's intervention into a protracted, bloody war.
Prof Michael John Williams is Director of the International Relations Program at New York University.
Instead, the western powers have followed the example cited by Machiavelli: "in order to prove their liberality, they allowed
Pistoia to be destroyed."
In late 2015, Eren Erdem, a Turkish MP, said in Parliament that the Turkish state was permitting Da'esh to send sarin precursors
to Syria. He had a file of evidence, so was accused of treason for accessing and publicizing confidential material. The investigation
into the people responsible for the transfer of toxic chemicals was shut down.
That surely ought to make us at least ask evidence-seeking questions about the Idlib gas attack before yet again demanding
regime change.
Al-Assad is certainly capable of murdering opponents, and not bothering too much about collateral damage, but strategically
it makes no sense for him to do this now, when peace talks under the aegis of Russia and Iran have begun, and the world is watching.
Also, Assad has been engaged in a reconciliation process, allowing members of the FSA to return to the Syrian army, and Aleppans
remain in Damascus if they didn't wish to go to Idlib. At such a juncture, using chemical weapons would be counter-productive.
If Sarin was used at his command, he should be properly prosecuted: but bombing a Syrian air base merely assists Da'esh and its
cronies.
I have just watched the press conference in which Trump labelled Assad a butcher, and went on again about dead babies. I just
wish that someone at one of these conferences would have the guts to point out to Trump his own butchery.
Anyone watching this performance would think that US forces had never been responsible for killing innocent civilians,
men, women, children and babies. To listen to Trump, you wouldn't think that US forces had ever killed over 150 civilians in Mosul,
dozens in Raqqa, or had bombed hospitals in Afghanistan, or schools in Iraq, or were supporting the Saudi blockade of Yemen resulting
in the starvation of children and babies, or had destroyed wedding parties with drones,.....I could go on.
If Assad is a butcher, he is only a junior, apprentice, corner-shop butcher. Trump is the real thing, the large-scale,
wholesale, expert butcher.
...Indeed, Richard Spencer last week protested outside the White House against the airstrikes on the regime airbase carrying a
sign that read "No more wars 4 Israel."
Syria's ruling Baath party and its allies won a majority of seats in parliamentary elections last week across government-held
parts of the country, the national electoral commission announced late Saturday.
Who are the rebels supported by Washington and Westminster?
And we're going to learn a lot more about the "rebels" whom we in the West – the US, Britain and our head-chopping mates
in the Gulf – have been supporting.
They did, after all, include al-Qaeda (alias Jabhat al-Nusra, alias Jabhat Fateh al-Sham), the "folk" – as George W Bush
called them – who committed the crimes against humanity in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania on 11 September 2001. Remember
the War on Terror? Remember the "pure evil" of al-Qaeda. Remember all the warnings from our beloved security services in the
UK about how al-Qaeda can still strike terror in London?
Gotta get that pipeline in for the Saudi's, eh, no matter how many children's carcasses it crosses, yay, regime change again,
yay, and a heap of new terrorists for our kids in the west to dodge and duck, yay.
I agree that Bashar al-Assad is not a "good person". It is impossible to be an authoritarian leader, struggling to maintain the
unity, or even existence, of a nation state, and at the same time be a kind and gentle person. However, I do not believe him to
be the psychopathic monster that he is portrayed as being, either. He is almost certainly not personally responsible for the chemical
attack in Idlib province.
Presidents do not normally make detailed decisions on what sort of weapons should be used on every airstrike made by their
aircraft. He may be a dictator, but he is not a complete imbecile. Even the dimmest of politicians could have foreseen that this
chemical attack would end up being a massive own-goal. Nobody as cynically calculating as Assad is supposed to be, would be that
stupid. My own hunch, (and that is all it is) is that sarin was used due to a blunder by a low or medium ranking Syrian airforce
officer.
Yes, of course Assad bears responsibility for overall strategy in this vicious war of survival, and as such, has blood on his
hands. But, so does Trump, so does Obama, so does Putin so does Erdogan, so does May, and so do all the leaders who have supplied
the numerous rebel groups with billions of pounds worth of weapons, and have therefore kept the pot boiling.
Last year, Theresa May stood up in parliament and proudly proclaimed her willingness to commit mass indiscriminate murder on
a scale that would make Syria look like a pinprick. She declared her willingness to press the nuclear button and therefore slaughter
hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of completely innocent men, women, children and babies. She not only has blood on her
hands, she is proud of it. Perhaps we should remember that, when she comes out with one of her sanctimonious, nauseatingly hypocritical
statements about Syria.
Assad was democratically elected more than once so he must be doing something right. (OK, so they're democracy might not be our
democracy but 'our' democracy has brought us Trump, Brexit and the like so its really six to one, a half dozen to the other).
Syria until we started messing with it -- creating, supporting and even arming opposition groups -- was stable, wasn't messing
with its neighbors and had significant religious and cultural freedoms compared to other countries in the area. (Our actions might
suggest that we really don't want stable, peaceful, countries in that region, we need them to be weak and riven by internal factions.)
Anyway, given our outstanding track record of success with regime change in that part of the world we should probably adopt
a hands-off approach -- all we seem to do is make an unsatisfactory situation dire. Hardly the way to win friends and influence
people.
Despite the several misrepresentations, the facts are that Britain has been one of the main protagonists in prosecuting this
war against Syria , which is a proxy war against Iran.
Britain was at the forefront in setting up the Al Nusra Front and in hosting the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights to
disseminate deeply negative propaganda about the Syrian Government and armed forces.
Every step of this including the media campaign which has comprised a major part of the military campaign against Syria,
has been an attempt to delegitimize the Sovereign government and its institutions and to gain consensus from the somnambulistic
British and US public for yet another direct military campaign against another Middle Eastern country.
The whole which has visited terrible and incalculable suffering, on the Syrian people. Syria was a paradise before the British
and US did their usual work. The journalists, government and security services in Britain who have wrought this mess , I'm sure
will not escape the consequences of their actions. One hopes they experience a 1000 times of the hell they have visited on Syria.
These actions are truly despicable acts of cowardice and absolute wickedness.
Syria was a paradise for those who rule Syria........ the Assad regime brutally repressed any opposition to their rule. In 1982
Assad´s father killed probably more than 30,000 in the siege of Hama. As well as sheltering a number of terrorist organisations
who have their headquarters in Damascus....... he also armed and supported the fledgling Al-Quaeda resistance to the coalition
in Iraq, giving them asylum in Syria........now the IS ....... I can think of Paradise in different ways......
The prosecution of a Swedish national accused of terrorist activities in Syria has collapsed at the Old Bailey after it
became clear Britain's security and intelligence agencies would have been deeply embarrassed had a trial gone ahead, the Guardian
can reveal.
His lawyers argued that British intelligence agencies were supporting the same Syrian opposition groups as he was, and were
party to a secret operation providing weapons and non-lethal help to the groups, including the Free Syrian Army.
Leaked emails from the private intelligence firm Stratfor including notes from a meeting with Pentagon officials confirmed
US-UK training of Syrian opposition forces since 2011 aimed at eliciting "collapse" of Assad's regime "from within."
More guff from the guardian/ Mr Williams, with just a little realistic sense, but who can replace Assad and in Syria he remains
very popular, despite the western media like lies!
Russia has to move quickly to secure a 100 year lease for the Latakia port and airbase. Otherwise the US will soon attempt to
render it useless as well, regardless of which of the moderate rebel factions it decides to install.
... Spirits die hard, and those of the Arab spring and the Orange Revolution are still alive in the halls of the Pentagon.
.... A controlled cold war however, is the only way to a avoid a larger mess than what the West has already inflicted on the
innocent Syrian people by using the most abortive war design that has ever been conceived by the war college or any other war
commander.
...... At the current rate there will be more Syrians in Germany than those remaining in Syria.
......... Is it hard to wonder why Syrians might hold a grudge against the, US?
Regime change ? All in the name of democracy as we see it.Why not try it in the Kingdom of family owned country KSA or why not
another family owned enterprises called UAE.
History tells us replacing Assad would be a bad idea. We should have learned the lesson with Hussain and Iraq, but didn't. We
would go on to replace Gaddafi of Libya and boom, it trigged ISIS.
The hard lesson here is that for some reason Muslim majority countries have a strong central authoritarian leader. No matter
if that leaders is called president, king, prime minister, or whatever. When that strong leaders is deposed, chaos ensues.
The Americans have a fetish with regime change. Up until recently they were discrete about it and did it in secret, now they are
all in the open. People who are against regime change are considered anti-Americans and tools of the Soviets...ahm.... Russia.
The amazing thing is Tillerson said Assad's faith should be left with the Syrian people, the American establishment in unison
said how could he says such a terrible thing, "we should decide what Syrian people want."
These are the same people who elected
Trump, maybe they should let Syrian people select the US president. The result may end up better.
> Bashar al-Assad is not a good person. He has reduced once great Syrian cities such as Homs and Aleppo to rubble. All six
of Syria's Unesco world heritage sites have been damaged. Worse still, more than 500,000 Syrian civilians have been killed
in the civil war, 6.1 million have been internally displaced and another 4.8 million are seeking refuge abroad.
Yes, Assad is not a good person. But what about American politicians such as Hillary Clinton, who armed "moderate rebels" and
supported the opposition in pursuit of regime change? And Syria is not the only country were this happened. Will there ever any
responsibility taken for their actions by the US and NATO?
First, they make a manageable problem into a huge problem, then just hightail back home, living local people to pick up the
pieces.
Those half millions of deaths - are they all responsibility of Assad or do the sponsors of jihadists and jihadists themselves
have some responsibility as well?
A. A horrible authoritarian regime that tortures and murders it's opponents...........but women can wear what they like in
public, get a good education courtesy of the State, and embark on a career.
B. A horrible authoritarian regime that tortures and murders it's opponents...........where women are denied education, made
virtual prisoners in their own homes, and have acid flung in their faces for having the temerity to appear unveiled when they
do go out in public.
It's not a great choice, but one is definitely better than the other.
Also worth remembering that under Assad people are allowed religious freedom. I know two Syrian Christians who are terrified of
what will happen if the rebels take control of their country.
Choice B also includes Sharia law, full extermination of other faiths and death sentence for rejection of Islam. Basically Choice
B is another Saudi Arabia, but a lot of people will have to die first.
The world's biggest superpower is willing to risk a nuclear war with mass destruction of billions and possible extinction of life
on earth on an unproven assertion made by Al Qaeda sympathisers that the Syrian government bombed them with sarin? OBL must be
laughing in his grave.
1. Who is threatening a nuclear war? The Russians? I haven't heard them threaten that. Probably because no-one would seriously
believe them.
2. An intellectually honest person should not describe young children as terrorist sympathisers. Let alone imply they somehow
deserve to be deliberately targeted by nerve gas as a result.
An intellectually honest person should question the veracity of a report that is unverified by a terrorist organisation. The children
were never described by me as 'terrorist sympathisers' so you make a dishonest accusation, the terrorist sympathisers are those
who produced the report on which the whole story is based. It is not about the death of the children which is of course a crime,
but they are being used by the terrorists for thier purposes.
An intellectually honest person would also show outrage about the mass murder of civilians, including children in Mosul and
by a US bombing in Syria that seem to not arouse the same outrage.
Regime change by US has been used at least three times against democracies, in Chili, in Iran and in Ukraine. Attempted regime
change has also been used often in South America to oust populist rulers because of US interests. Although the above analysis
raises the very good point that change has to come from the bottom up, it starts with the same fallacies of assuming that all
of the death and destruction in Syria comes from one person which is an extremely flawed point to start from. The point that is
to be made is that there is no military solution to the conflict except in an anti terrorist capacity. The problem is that all
of those against the Syrian government in the current conflict are either outright terrorists or those who collaborate heavily
with terrorists making it difficult to have a conventional peace process.
America engaged in regime changes to suit American interests during the cold war and the New world order drive. The fact that
they supported dictatorships worldwide and helped them overthrow democratically elected governments tells clearly that imposing
democracy forcibly was not their intention. Intervention in global conflicts is mainly for controlling pathways for resources
and gaining ground for business opportunities for their multinational giant corporations.
The West's narrative has fallen apart, nobody believes that the Syrian rebels are peace loving democrats. We have ample evidence
that they are infinitely worse than Assad.
We also have plenty of evidence that the Western deep state, not the public, wants another regime change in the middle east
and will stop at nothing to achieve its end including false flag gas attacks. This article goes into detail.
False Flag: How the U.S. Armed Syrian Rebels to Set Up an Excuse to Attack Assad
Evidence suggests a false flag chemical weapons attack on the Syrian people was initiated by Syrian rebels with the help
of the United States in order to justify Thursday night's U.S. Military attack on a Syrian base.
The Left is very opposed to war in Syria, the Libertarian right is very opposed to war in Syria but a hugely powerful Deep
State will stop at nothing to achieve its ends.
"Worse still, more than 500,000 Syrian civilians have been killed in the civil war, 6.1 million have been internally displaced
and another 4.8 million are seeking refuge abroad. "
well, you cannot put the blame on Assad only. He never asked for that war for a start and a lot of the refugees you're talking
about may very well be pro-Assad.
Finally an article which still sticks to logical thinking when it comes to Syria. Assad is a terrible leader but atleast with
him, most of the factions within the country can be sorted. The West's obsession with stuffing democracy down the throats of every
oil producing country in the Middle East has resulted in the Mad Max wasteland i.e. Libya and the unsolvable puzzle i.e. Iraq.
Both Gaddafi and Saddam were terrible human beings but removing them left a vacuum which has cost the lives of thousands and displaced
millions. The West must make its peace with Assad for now, stop supporting the rebels and try to find common ground with Russia
against the real enemy - ISIS.
The west - as the US/UK like to themselves, couldn't give a damn about democracy . They want compliance , not democracy. A good(brutal)
dictator is better than a 'difficult' democratically elected leader , look at events in Egypt for example.
Our own democracies are pretty ropey, certainly not up there with the Scandinavian best practice.
You're kidding right? The West stuffing democracy down the throats of the Gulf countries. More like defending them against the
threat of democracy by arming them to the teeth and stationing troops there. Have you heard of Bahrain?
The only plausible solution to this conflict is partition assuming of course the imminent defeat of Isis.
While getting rid of Assad would create a dangerous power vacuum and is in any case perhaps impossible given Russias backing,
the sheer scale of the killing he's done and destruction he's unleashed on his own people - of a totally different scale to Saddam
Hussein and even his father, from whom he seems to have inherited his psychopathic tendencies -renders the idea that he could
continue to rule a "united" Syria or even the majority of it, laughable.
If you get rid of Assad, whoever replaces him is going to have a very difficult task. How on Earth do you enforce any sort of
civilized law and order in a country which has some of the worst terrorist organizations the world has ever known. With organizations
like ISIS around, a government is gong to need to take a firm hand somewhere. It's not as if you can send Jihadists on community
service and expect them to come back as reformed characters.
Fact is that Assad still enjoys considerable support among Syrians. In particular among those who have no problem with a woman
going to the beach in a bikini and driving a car to work. He is not giong anywhere soon. And if he did, the situation would be
worse. As in the case of the butcher Saddam Hussein and the crazy dictator Khadaffi, who also were supposedly removed in an attempt
to bring "freedom and democracy to the people."
Syria was one of the few countries in the ME where you could drink alcohol. Does anyone believe whoever follows Assad be
it someone picked by the US/Israel/KSA/Qatar will be quite so tolerant?
Why can't world leaders be held to account for their crimes against humanity? Is it not about time that they are compelled to
comply with international law and for the United Nations Assembly to make them so by enforceable resolutions passed by a majority
vote?
Assad is a tyrant who should be removed from office and held accountable for his crimes against humanity. Syrians should be
entitled to a government that is respectful of their human rights.
The UN should take responsibility for enforcing a permanent ceasefire and brokering talks to secure Syria's future. It should
require as a condition of UN membership compliance with and adherence to international law protecting human rights. Non compliance
should be met with expulsion and the economic isolation of the country concerned from the rest of the world.
There is no shortcut to lasting peace. As uncomfortable as it is, the best that western governments can do is provide aid
and assistance to those in distress, while pressuring those countries that continue to feed money and weapons to the combatants
to change their positions.
You are absolutely right.
Such a pity then that the western governments in question, the UK, America and to a lesser extent, France, are in fact the
same entities, via their surrogate power in the middle east, Saudi Arabia, who are the ones providing the weapons and money.
Just as they did in Iraq and Libya, and always for the same reason, to achieve regime change against the Middle Eastern leaders
who were threatening their control of the oil market.
This situation is nothing new, these Western Powers have been attacking various parts of the Middle East for nigh on a century.
Winston Churchill was responsible for bombing Iraq in the 1920's. That also was to achieve regime change.
All of the deaths and the destruction in the Middle East can ultimately be laid at the door of the 'Western Powers' and their
willingness to do anything to protect their oil interests.
One of the most despicable thing about the West's attempts to bribe, entice and force Russia into abandoning the Syrian Government,
so that America, France, Britain and Saudi Arabia can rush in, like hyenas to finish off a wounded animal, is how patronising
they have been towards the Russians and Iranians. Granted that their racism towards the Russians might not be what it is towards
the Syrian state, which they want to deny a voice and disrespect to the extent of talking to the Russians, and ignoring the Syrian
government.
Yes, the West is behaving towards the Syrian state as if it is just something for it to manipulate, as it does with the global
economy. Not having made any progress in manipulating the Syrian proxy conflict into the outcomes it wants, the West has now resorted
to making merciless and unjustified attacks on Russian and the Iranians. Despite the fact that it is Russia and the Syrian government
forces and their Hezbollah allies who have broken the impasse in this terrible war.
It is scurrilous that there should now be this coordinated media and political campaign to make Russia out to be 'the bad guy',
the 'devil', as it were.
As for 'the liberals', well, guess what, if you want to do something constructive. Then stop blaming Russia and demonising
the Russians, the Syrian Government and their allies. Look closer to home, to America, To Britain, to France and Saudi Arabia.
There you will find more demons disguised as 'humanitarians' and 'angels' than probably in all of Russia and Syria.
The guys in the West who are posturing as angels are no less culpable than the Syrian government.
Of course the West should not destroy the Syrian state and government. But, since when has logic prevented this cartel from
exercising its destructive force? As Libya, Iraq and Yemen have proven? The liberals need to grow up and stop being allied to
the right.
Firstly, we have yet to see the results of any impartial investigation checking out the Syrian/Russian version of events about
the gas in Idlib province, which could be true. Nobody that I can see is 'supporting' the use of gas against civilians, but it
is known that the bigger terrorist organisations such as ISIS and al Qaeda do have stocks of poison gas. Secondly,so many uninformed
commentators have not understood that Syria's 6 year war has been and remains a religious war! Asad's Shiite/ Alawite/Christian/
Druse/ Ismaili communities and other minorities supported by Iran and Lebanon's Shiites, fighting for their very survival against
Saudi/ Qatari/Gulf States' extremist Wahhabi fighters, who via ISIS ,Al Qaeda and similar Islamists, want to wipe them off the
face of the earth (with Turkey playing a double game). At this very moment people are condemning Assad for bombing civilians,
whilst the US-led coalition including our own RAF, is doing exactly the same thing in the ISIS held city of Mosul -for the same
reasons. The rebels take over and then surround themselves in cities, with civilians, hoping that these horrors will raise western
public opinion against the government forces trying to defeat them. The 'half- informed' public opinion is now behaving in exactly
this predictable way against the Syrian government, trying to deal with its own religious extremist rebels, many of whom are not
even Syrians. It was always a war that the west should stay out of -other peoples religious wars are incomprehensible to non-believers
in that particular faith. To talk now of replacing Asad is juvenile and mischievous - maybe that's why Boris is so engaged?
There is an equality of evil between Assad and ISIS. That said, Assad's forces and their Shia allies have slaughtered the vast
majority of the victims.
Both Assad and ISIS will lose eventually. How many Syrians are slaughtered in the meantime is anyone's guess.
Why murderous dictators are so popular btl is a mystery.
According to Wikipedia Estimates of deaths in the Syrian Civil War, per opposition activist groups, vary between 321,358
and 470,000.
On 23 April 2016, the United Nations and Arab League Envoy to Syria put out an estimate of 400,000 that had died in the war.
Also,according to Wikipedia I n 2016, the United Nations (UN) identified 13.5 million Syrians requiring humanitarian assistance,
of which more than 6 million are internally displaced within Syria, and over 4.8 million are refugees outside of Syria. In January
2017, UNHCR counted 4,863,684 registered refugees.
Turkey is the largest host country of registered refugees with over 2.7 million Syrian refugees.
Before the troubles,Syria had a population of 23 million.
No country could go back to normality after that upheaval.
That's because politics is heartlessly, ruthlessly, compassionlessly pragmatic. If having a pet local petty king in the area keeps
it stable and does not a politically costly military operation, everything else is seen as "acceptable collateral damage".
It's funny but western foreign policy is fundamentally the same in the methods, just different in goals. If the goal of regime
change is achieved and political points collected, everything else is completely irrelevant. Opposition can become "moderately
islamist", "democratic" rebels may implement sharia law, "precision strikes" may cause tens of thousands of civilian casualties,
but it's all for the greater good.
Every time the West especially the Anglo west of the USA and Britain intervene in another countries affairs, the end product is
a disaster so for that reason alone these two societies which can only communicate in English should leave this to the Russians.
This almost manages to achieve sense, and it's good to see an article not promoting regime change for once, but it still falls
short of stating the truth that the correct policy in Syria is to help Assad win the war, and then impose conditions on his conduct
in the peace.
He has reduced once great Syrian cities such as Homs and Aleppo to rubble. All six of Syria's Unesco world heritage sites
have been damaged.
I must now begrudgingly thank the Trump Administration for causing me to realize a profound and universal truth. History doesn't
rhyme at all; it parodies.
The build up to our inevitable Syria invasion is essentially an SNL parody of our Iraq invasion. All the way down to allegations
of to "hidden stockpiles of WMDs", "gassing own citizens", "violation of no WMD agreement", "weapons inspectors not doing job",
and most recently "Assad/Saddam is Hitler". All that's left is the final piece of evidence to tip public opinion in...the holy
grail, "yellowcake uranium".
I'm not sure exactly what comes next (presumably Trump declaring an "Axis of Evil" consisting of Syria, ISIS, Iran, N.Korea...and
perhaps Russia and/or China or both...thus setting the stage for a hilarious parody of WWII).
Perhaps dear Boris should have had more talks with the British government to find out what is the political position of the conservative
government over Syria, and more importantly with Russia. So far the American have by the look of things, telling the British Government
in what they want, not bothering to ask what Britain thinks what is important.
There is actually no point in swapping one master the EU, to handcuff ourselves to the a far more right wing America.
Take Isil and jihadists out of the equation and what you're left with are people that want to oust a tyrannical and unelected
leader who clearly has nothing but disdain for his people (groups of at least).
Those rebels (or freedom fighters) are being seen as the bad guys it seems to me...?
The only reason I can see for this is that they have slight support from the United States.
Had the boot been on the other foot and the US we're supporting Assad and Russia,the rebels (freedom fighters) I'm quite sure
public opinion (Guardian readers at least) would be quite different.
So what do the Syrian rebels who are looking to overthrow a dictator have to do to be put on a pedestal of righteousness as
Castro was for effectively trying to achieve the same end goal....
Oh, that's right, Castro was trying to stick it to the Yanks.... now I get it.
I think there's a definite strain of anti-Americanism on display however cautiously we have to view their actions after Iraq and
give their closeness to the Gulf States. A quarter of the country has fled Assad, some 10 million internally displaced not to
mention the incredible numbers of dead and wounded.
And yet there's a close minded reflex to say that things will be better off with him in charge ignoring even the possibility
of partition, which strikes me as the most plausible option. The idea that Assad can now after all he's done rule a united country
indefinitely putting a lid on refugees and terrorism strikes me as utterly preposterous.
My sentiments entirely and it shocks me that there are a considerable number of Assad apologists commenting on here as he is clearly
seen as a better 'devil' than Trump...
I'm just very pleased I don't live in Syria and I think the run of the mill Syrian dying in their droves due to gas, bombs
or simply drowning in the Med would be horrified to read a large number of comments on here in relation to this article and how
Assad 'isn't such a bad old stick!'
Take Isil and jihadists out of the equation and what you're left with
what you are left is nothing. This was the big point since 2013, when Nusra began taking over the last remnants of the FSA. Since
then Cameron (or was it Hammond) had to coin the term "relatively hardline islamists" to make some of the jihadi groups somewhat
acceptable.
In its latest iteration, Nusra (now rebranded yet againTahrir al-Sham) has formally absorbed several other "rebel" group, including
the Nour al-Din al-Zenki, who were in the past equipped by the US, and were quoted by various agencies (including this paper)
as "opposition" during the recapture of Aleppo.
Ah, yes, you also have the Kurds, who are building their own state. But if there is something all the local powers agree on
(Russia, US, Turkey, Syria, Iraq...) is that they don't want an independent Kurdish state.
President Obama was heavily criticized for not doing more in Syria, but he made a difficult decision that was in many ways
the right on.
Obama required cover from the British Parliament. Bombing Syria was incredibly unpopular with the UK public from right to left.
David Miliband listened to the public and stopped the bombing of Syria. Nobody expected a Labour politician to dare to oppose
the US war machine, it took them all by surprise.
Bombing Syria was incredibly unpopular with the US public and the European public, Miliband saved us from ISIS and Al Nusra
both al Qaeda franchises running Syria.
The BBC routinely portrays the Libertarian right wing in the USA as Isolationists but if you hear it from them they are anti-war.
The American working class understands what war is like in the middle east because many of them have experienced it. They are
clearly anti another war in the middle east. proof:
You could argue this isn't about regime change per se but prosecuting a dictator for targeting and massacring civilians. And surely
the same rationale can be used against Isis. In other words you don't allow mass murderers to take. Over but prosecute them as
well.
Good article. Hits the nail on the head. Regime change may be required for Syria the G7 and Arab countries must come together
to carefully plan what happens afterwards.
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our
community standards . Replies may also be deleted.
For more detail see our FAQs .
'Monster' Assad was courted by western leaders: Remember the Assads pictured taking tea at Buckingham Palace with the Queen(google
it) , Blair all smiles in Damascus. The Kerry family pictured in Damascus enjoying a late evening supper with the Assads(google
it).
But Bashar al-Assad is a stubborn man , he wouldn't distance himself from Iran and their proxies such as Hezbollah, thus his
fate was sealed.
Well it's all tied in . People talk about Israel wanting the Golan Heights permanently in part due to oil interests, they talk
about Qatar and the gas pipeline to Europe Assad refuses. They talk about the KSA being unnerved by Iran's growing influence in
the region after the Iraq war, and how it would suit KSA , Israel and the US for Sunni leadership to emerge in Syria to rebalance
the region.
I think it's all of the above . Which isn't what US/UK populations are being told.
The West learns nothing from its mistakes. Can't we understand that our real enemy is ISIS and that springs directly from our
disastrous invasion of Iraq? Assad may be pretty awful but surely we should be able to comprehend that he is an ally in the fight
against ISIS just as the far more horrible Stalin was an ally against the Nazis.
Just because Trump suddenly talks about "beautiful babies", we all go mad again.
Syria is going to need serious amounts of aid and foreign investment to recover when peace starts to take hold. But Assad cannot
travel internationally because he will be subject to arrest. At least in any civilised country. So he will be gone one way or
antithetical. Putin has backed the wrong horse. It's too handicapped to run.
Until the Saudis, US & UK decide that enough is enough, then this idiocy will continue. Assad is a better leader for Syria than
Isis, Al Qaeda, or the other Saudi-backed groups would be.
Syria was secular and religiously tolerant under Assad. It won't be either of those things if Assad is deposed. More than likely,
it would end up as a Saudi-style Islamic theocracy with the harshest head-chopping, hand-chopping version of sharia law.
He has reduced once great Syrian cities like Homs and Aleppo to rubble
Did Assad deliberately bring his country into civil war? When his forces are being attacked by rebels sponsored by foreign
groups, he really only has two choices: give up leadership and allow the rebels to take over the country, or fight back. Given
that you're arguing that a regime change is a bad idea it logically follows that you support the second option, so it hardly seems
fair to criticise him for the consequences of that resistance. You might do better to blame the rebels and those who sponsor them
for bringing war to what was previously a (relatively) peaceful country.
This Regime Change Policy adopted by the US and in many, if not all cases, supported by the UK, whilst in some case toppling Dictators,
has left nothing but chaos in its wake.
We need to consider the case of Syria, very carefully, as we may well find ourselves handing the Country to ISIL on a plate.
Better to help Assad stabilise the Country, and then discuss political change.
The rhetoric coming from the Foreign and Defence Secretaries, can do nothing to help, but make the UK look stupid.
Hahahahaha, collude with crimes against humanity in the name of stability and call it progress because after six years we cannot
think of an alternative. Great.
He has reduced once great Syrian cities like Homs and Aleppo to rubble
Did Assad deliberately bring his country into civil war? When his forces are being attacked by rebels sponsored by foreign
groups, he really only has two choices: give up leadership and allow the rebels to take over the country, or fight back. Given
that you're arguing that a regime change is a bad idea it logically follows that you support the second option, so it hardly seems
fair to criticise him for the consequences of that resistance. You might do better to blame the rebels and those who sponsor them
for bringing war to what was previously a (relatively) peaceful country.
This Regime Change Policy adopted by the US and in many, if not all cases, supported by the UK, whilst in some case toppling Dictators,
has left nothing but chaos in its wake.
We need to consider the case of Syria, very carefully, as we may well find ourselves handing the Country to ISIL on a plate.
Better to help Assad stabilise the Country, and then discuss political change.
The rhetoric coming from the Foreign and Defence Secretaries, can do nothing to help, but make the UK look stupid.
Hahahahaha, collude with crimes against humanity in the name of stability and call it progress because after six years we cannot
think of an alternative. Great.
Absolutely no... it will be a colossal disaster... and would explode the entire region affecting not only all ME countries
including Israel, but will extend to Europe and NA, You can't keep it all "Over There"
Regime change, evidently the US has n't learned from the past experience. Look at Iraq, Lybia, regime change has resulted in complete
chaos, instability, and perpetual conflict. Syrian population is strictly divided on sectarian line - Sunnis, Shias, Christians,
Kurds. Who is going to make a cohesive government capable of running the affairs of the state? Bashar Assaad's father, Hafiz Assaad
ruled Syria with an iron grip, he understood Syrian sectarian divide.
If any country needs regime change, it is Saudi Arabia. All important positions are controlled by hundreds of Royals of Al Saud,
even honest criticism of royals brings you closer to the back swing of executioner .
My newsagent loves Assad. Why because he's a Syrian Christian. Assad is the only hope for the minority's in Syria. All of the
opposition groups are some variation on Islamic nationalists. They will all happily slaughter anyone not of their faith. Assad
is a murdering bastard but he kills those that threaten him. In Middle Eastern terms he's a liberal.
Quite right. What the people of Syria need is stability and an end to the fighting. All else is secondary. In particular, the
greatest crime that the West has committed in recent decades is the attempt to foist democracy on countries like Syria and Iraq,
where it simply does not work. Even now, Western liberals dream of sitting Sunni, Shia, Alevi, Kurds, secularists and Islamic
militants around a table to talk through to a democratic and mutually acceptable future for Syria. This is a fantasy - as democracy
always is in heavily tribalised societies. It can only end in renewed civil war and inevitable dictatorship. I often wonder whether
the West is just naive in these attempts at liberal cultural imperialism, or whether they are in fact a cynical front to mask
the equally egregious aim of checkmating Russian influence in the region. Either way, shame on us.
Now to be fair, no one knows really what the president is thinking, not even apparently his chief diplomat or his UN envoy, who
have sent conflicting messages. But let's cut to the chase – this is a very, very bad idea.
WW3 is definately a very very bad idea.
The idea that the US can change the government of another country for the better is born of US arrogance and lying manipulation.
It's a bit funny that we just casually mention that the country harping on about the respect of the international rule book sinc
2014 vaiolate one of the core UN charter principles 72 times and is openly speaking of braking it the 73th time.
Jsut picture China saying openly their goal is to change the Abe regime in Tokio or Russia to change the regime in Kiev. They
can't even have a pefered presidential candidate without mass interference hysteria and we just feel like it's A OK to go around
the world changing who's in charge of countries.
> They can't even have a pefered presidential candidate without mass interference hysteria and we just feel like it's A OK to
go around the world changing who's in charge of countries.
There are two main choices... Regime change... which hasn't worked out well where it's been attempted or just let the despots
get on with it...
There are no easy answers but perhaps the only way is to let dictators crush and annihilate their opposition, utilise death
squads to make dissenters disappear in the dead of night and, outwardly at least pretend everything is rosey....
If we, as a civilised society are able to 'look the other way' then that might be the simple answer... just hope everyone can
sleep well at night and be grateful that, however much you hate our present government they aren't out gassing (allegedly) Guardian
readers.
Not gassing people no, but still killing plenty of "innocent little babies" bombing hospitals and helping the Saudis cluster bomb
fishing villages. Why don't we see pictures on TV of Yemeni kids mutilated by American bombs? How do we sleep with that?
Well, we saw the aftermath of a deliberate attack by Saudis planes on a clearly demarcated Yemeni hospital on the BBC last year.
The first rocket hit an arriving ambulance with civilian casualties and a doctor on board. The response of the Saudi shills in
the Commons - what is it about the British upper class and the Arabs, I wonder - was to demand forcefully that the Saudis set
up an inquiry to examine the evidence of a war crime.
It should have been sadly obvious from the get-go that we had to back Assad before he attempted to beat his father's record
for murder and repression, the whole family's fucking insane, but it's long past too late now. He's soiled goods and Tillerson's
untutored idea of elections is surely farcical.
Fair article, although ISI and rebels actively participated in the destruction of Syria. If Assad falls, anarchy due to vacuum
will follow, guaranteed. Agree with the last paragraph in particular and still wondering why they (the West) don't do it especially
pressuring the countries that feed the rebels, and they are not so moderate, with money and weapon. Unless this is because of
the infamous pipeline. Tragic state of affair indeed.
Decade after decade, the west has interfered or overthrown government after governemnt , all over the world , mainly for the benefit
of capitalist puppeteers . America has been the worst , one only has to look at the CIA's track record in South America when legitimately
elected governments were ousted by force so that "American business" interest were looked after.
This same vested self interest has been the driving force over the last few years. The interventions in Iraq , Libya, Afghanistan
have all been total disasters fro the regions and resulted in more deaths than any tin pot dictator could have achieved. Backing
so called "moderate" terrorists seems to be the excuse to get involved.
More moral achievement and good could have been achieved by widespread dropping of food around the world , or even the cost
of the military hegemony being given as cash handouts to poor people , but this simplistic altruism does not allow for the geopolitical
control games that is the true beating heart of western aggression.
We are all Brexiteers now. I voted remain, but accept the democratic will of the people. Blame David Cameron and get on with the
job of making a success of it, rather than whining about it....
I'm just saying people making the case for the West to back off would probably be saying the opposite in that case if the white
minority were massacring black people on the scale of Syria. Isn't that hypocrisy?
The successful regime changes mentioned in the article such as Poland and the rest of the Eastern bloc were initiated by the people
themselves, rather than the the "help" of a foreign power.
The people did it all by themselves did they? So nothing to do with the economic collapse of the Soviet Union caused by an arms
race ramped up by President Reagan. Nothing to do with a very costly war in Afghanistan?
Given the situation, it is understandable why some people may think ousting Assad is necessary. Such thinking has a long pedigree
in the United States, where there is a robust belief in a supposed American ability to fix what is wrong.
Would you have said the same thing in 1917 and 1940. Would you have said the same thing in the duration of the cold war. If US
did not have a bigger penis then you would not be around to comment about it.
Long live the US penis and may it grow longer and stronger.
WW2 was won principally by the USSR, who suffered many more casualties than the western alliances. The cold war would not have
happened if not for the USA.
Sorry, the USA is more of a threat to the planet than any country, and Trump is unintelligent, a real threat to the world.
If the US wants Assad ousted, they should support a UN investigation to find out WHO was at fault. Shoot first questions later?
Hollywood Wild West thinking. The US has zero credibility. You simply cannot blame someone without having the facts independently
checked out. Yet they didn't wait and decided to break interantional law instead.
There seems to be a crucial component of reality lacking in this opinion piece: rather than bombing and droning and etc, why does
the 'world order' not stop the manufacture and distribution of weapons of mass destruction like barrel bombs, nuclear warheads
etc etc -- where profits are made by arms manufacturers and their investors--oh, could that be the reason?
Quite. Assad is awful, but he is less awful that the Islamist alternatives, which are the only realistic alternatives. We should
stop posturing and accept this unpalatable reality.
Much more level reporting, but still is framing the narrative as a brutal gas attack and is still a rush to judgement when the
case is that bombs were dropped on a supply of toxic gas, most likely Phosgene.
At last, some common sense. like Saddam and Gaddafi, Assad is a ruthless tyrant. What the West, including the petulant Boris Johnson
need to realise is that Syria ISN'T the West. Don't impose your values on a country that isn't ready for them. The sickening hypocrisy
of the British government would look very foolish if Putin pulled out and allowed Syria to fall to isis. Would Boris and Theresa
put British troops on the ground to keep the extremists out of Turkey?
Why isn't Syria ready for Western values? After what the country has been through the people would probably leap at the chance
of free elections. Prior to the conflict Syria was a multi-ethnic patchwork. Whatever happens to the country needs to be decided
by the Syrians themselves.
The geopolitical status quo in the Middle East is unstable, and tribal affiliations/religious/ ethnic allegiances need to be
carefully balanced and controlled. Something Lebanon, Libya, Syria and Iraq achieved reasonably peacefully for many years before
all the US led interventions.
There is no evidence that the terrorists are fighting for democracy, although if westerners ask them that is what they will
likely say.
So Trump is unfit to govern because of his locker room humour and possible antics, but gas a few thousand people and hey presto!
A darling of the left.
You're talking about this rag. Take a look at what's coming out of Howard Dean's mouth, or Bernie Sanders's, or practically any
Democrat in Washington not named Tulsi Gabbard.
Or, if you have a really strong stomach, take a look at Daily Kos.
They're what passes for "left" in America, unfortunately, because the number of SWP and Green Party members is statistically
insignificant.
Regime change is illegal under international law, except to the rogues of course found in western capitals, and their Gulf vassals.
These are the only group of people in the entire planet who talk openly about overthrowing sovereign governments of other countries.
The unfortunate truth is that, along with the ongoing decline of western civilization, one 'by-product' is that International
Law is continually disdained. The USA, having lack of insightful leadership, does as it wants, when it wants .. the result is
that perpetual wars seem to be a given .. meanwhile, Asia continues to rise and is growing real and genuine wealth by producing
and exporting the goods the rest of the world consumes and is doing it very well..
President Trump didn't do enough (yet) by bombing an air base at night. The people of Syria need weapons, tanks, missiles, air
support, etc. from a country like the USA that stands for freedom and human rights. Assad, who lives by the sword should also
die by the sword. For the U.S. to stand by and watch these atrocities unchallenged would simply be not who we are. I don't agree
with President Trump on a lot of things, but on this point he is right. I have changed from not liking him at all to liking him
just a bit more.
"The logic is that by removing and replacing an undesirable leader, the political situation in the country will change. "
Absolute tosh.
The logic behind nearly all attempts at cold war regime change was to replace a regime which aligned itself with the USSR with
one that aligned itself with the USA.
The internal situation, politically or otherwise was of no concern
Good piece. Regime change has been such a resounding success, you only have to look at Iraq and Libya to see that. Nor does a
country which has a history of using napalm and carcinogenic defoliants any room to take the moral high ground.
If Assad, is so bad, how come most of the civilian population prefer his areas to those of the rebels? The one certainty in all
of this is that the MSM has sold its credibility. Most of what I see is vested interest propaganda.
Isn't the main reason that people prefer Assad's areas because he doesn't bomb them.
There is no love of Assad anywhere.
If the US were to limit itself to punishing strikes against Assad whenever his forces committed war crimes – bombing hospitals
using poison gas etc then a minor at the level of civilisation creeps back into the equation.
The situation will be even more fraught if other external actors turn any attempt at regime change into a proxy war, as Russia
and Iran are likely to do.
A proxy war between the United States and Russia is the thing we all have to fear. In Trump and Putin you have two leaders
who use brinkmanship to get what they want and who will never back down from any position no matter what the consequences. They'd
rather pursue a misguided policy rathen than lose face. I'd like to think the recent war of words between the two countries is
just bluster, but as each day goes by I'm no longer sure anymore.
Regime change should work if all parties believe in democracy and respect each other. That does not seem likely in the middle
east. We have seen what that means forcing that idea in Iraq, Egypt and Libya. A secular SOB is better than somebody who believes
in laws of yesteryears.
Another way: reducing accidental use of chemical weapons?
Always drop 2 bombs; one from each side of ammunition dump. That way, one of such unmarked ordinance is likely to be conventional
explosives. The latter would further disperse, and dilute (reduce density) of the chemical gas; hence lessening lethality.
So we agree on the final result (need for regime change which by the way the article conflicts with its own title), but we disagree
on the method. Many bottoms-up revolutions would not have been successful without outside help. The French helped America achieve
freedom although their reason was somewhat revengeful. The people of Syria have no chance against an army and tanks ruled by a
ruthless evil dictator like Assad without outside assistance. If you think they are not shedding enough blood for their freedom,
then you are living in a hole in the ground.
In the latest iteration for 2016, the bottom ten places in the Index, reserved for the least peaceful countries on earth, include
Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya: four countries where "regime change" has been brought about – or, in Syria's case, where there
is arguably an ongoing attempt to bring it about – by the use of military force.
The evidence so far is that the use of force to topple regimes does not make things better, even when the behaviour of those
regimes is/was objectionable in many ways.
He has reduced once great Syrian cities such as Homs and Aleppo to rubble. All six of Syria's Unesco world heritage sites
have been damaged.
Nope. Most of Homs and Aleppo are intact. The areas occupied by foreign Jihadists using the local populace as human shields
were heavily bombed but now they have been liberated.
Who was it who destroyed these heritage sites? Not the SAA. The Jihadists even filmed themselves doing it and posted the videos
online for goodness sake.
Bashar al-Assad is not a good person. He has reduced once great Syrian cities like Homs and Aleppo to rubble. All six of Syria's
Unesco World Heritage sites have been damaged.
So thousands of mostly foreign jihadists occupying parts of those cities had nothing to do with it? Did the US led forces in
now n Mosul, or before that in Fallujah find the way to dislodge terrorists from urban strongholds without devastation of the
city? Also for all world heritage sites in Syria, they were defended by Syrian troops, and everything that could be moved was
moved to safe place. It was exclusively jihadists that were destroying temples, churches, shrines, even muslim graveyards when
they found the funeral momunent "too tall". In all of these efforts to save the history of the humanity, syrian govermnent got
no help nor acknowledgment. To add insult to injury, the western "cultural" response was touring 3D model of Palmyra gates through
western capitals but while Daesh was methodically blowing it up under clear desert skies, there was interestingly not a single
american drone to be found anywhere. It was syrian, iranian and russian blood spilled to liberate it twice from the death cult.
Yep. There isn't a solution to this problem, but the one thing I'm 99.999% convinved will not work is 'the west' dusting off it's
world policeman uniform and bombing the heck out of Syria.
This is precisely why the west has largely stayed out of the Syrian conflict; despite having a policy favouring the removal of
Assad there hasn't been an attempt (or even the suggestion of an attempt at a policy level) at regime change.
One does wonder, though, at what point the conflict becomes so abhorrent and the civilian casualties so grotesque that our
intervention could scarcely make things any worse
It seems that Spicer, the White House Press Secretary, whilst putting all his cerebral energy into attempting to apologise
for his jaw-droppingly ignorant statement that Hitler never used chemical weapons on his own people, failed to stop his mouth
making yet another gaffe;
"I needed to make sure that I clarified, and was not in any shape or form any more of a distraction from the president's
decisive action in Syria and the attempts that he is making to destabilise the region and root out ISIS out of Syria."
(my emphasis)
Spicer speaks about the president's attempts to destabilise the region in a CNN television interview too.
As people are beginning to ask, does Spicer actually know what distabilise means?
It bothers me that Trump is suddenly showing such concern toward innocent Syrians. Yet, at the same time he wants a ban on immigration
from seven predominantly Muslim countries, including Syria.
Don't you think the timing here is - for Trump - rather convenient? Just when he is under pressure for being a Russian patsy,
something happens to allow him to portray himself as 'standing up to Putin'.
Right. Also, the question should be...if Putin is sleazy enough to be complicit with Syria, then why wouldn't they be sleazy enough
to be involved in trying to swing the American election?
In essence there must be incremental change in the political climate and culture of a state amongst the masses before it culminates
in regime change at the top.
The political climate is no longer there because Assad has systematically murdered everyone who could have formed a credible
oppostion to his regime; opposition activitsts, aid workers, doctors and nurses, journalists - all have either been killed, have
fled to Europe, or are currently being tortured in one of his detention centres. There is no one left to rise up against him.
The intervention triggers resentment and hostility at the new government whose legitimacy is reduced through the participation
of an outside government. Soon the new regime is considered a 'puppet' and its own existence is questioned by the people.
This is indeed true. However backing Assad also has its costs; where is the legitimacy of someone who is now merely a "puppet"
for Russia and Iran's ambitions in the region?
As uncomfortable as it is the best western governments can do is to provide aid and assistance to those in distress, whilst
pressuring those countries that continue to feed money and weapons to the combatants to change their positions.
As reasonable as this sounds, I'm afraid this is just wishful thinking.
"The political climate is no longer there because Assad has systematically murdered everyone who could have formed a credible
oppostion to his regime;"
There is a credible position inside Syria which has been largely ignored by the western MSM and governments, because it does
not support the uprisisng or the violent overthrow of the Syrian government. It was refused participation when the first peace
talks were arranged.
Wow, a Guardian article I can finally wholeheartedly agree with. Does this Professor chap have a hotline to Trump and the rest
of the Western leaders itching for a fight with Assad?
Why do I get the feeling this is just another one of those "Now that Trump is in charge, we shouldn't do regime change" pieces?
I note that the author nowhere comes out against fighting an eternal war in Syria -- he just doesn't want Trump doing the "regime
change."
Yeah, he blabbers on about "aid and assistance" and "pressuring those countries that continue to feed money and weapons to
the combatants to change their positions" -- obviously choosing to ignore how several western governments provide money and weapons
to the combatants (should they be "pressuring" themselves?) But the pinnacle of his cluelessness -- or his agenda -- is reached
with this whopper:
The situation will be even more fraught if other external actors turn any attempt at regime change into a proxy war, as
Russia and Iran are likely to do.
--as if this hadn't been a proxy war for years already, one in which his own country has been quite actively engaged.
This idiot has got to go, he is not rational. He clearly has not an inkling of the gravity of his actions. Nor does he care.
How did we get to this? We always thought that a rogue state would be the end of us all. We were wrong. This moron is doing it
all by himself. Some one needs to step in, take back control. This is frightening stuff.
Assad's removal would be catastrophic. There would be no stable government in Syria, it would be controlled by warlords
backed by Saudi Arabia, al-Qaeda or ISIS and millions of refugees would have no country to return to or to live in. This will
mean more refugees in Europe, more destabilisation and more money drained from our treasuries.
Russia would also be far from pleased and if the conflict erupted into a confrontation between NATO affiliated forces
in Syria against Russia, the Eastern European front will become a lot more precarious (at a time when Britain is cutting
back on military spending and very few European countries adequately contribute towards NATO). Do we really want a repeat of tensions
from the pre-1991 era? I don't think so, especially with the combined threat of domestic Islamic terrorism throughout Europe and
with the continental debt crisis that cannot afford more wars that are not in its interests. Russia will quickly mobilise its
forces into the non-Russian caucuses, already closely aligned with Armenia and potentially link up with Iran territoriality. And
what about Turkey? They cannot be relied upon.
So what benefit exactly is it to create anarchy in Syria for Britain's immediate and long-term interests? The destruction of
Libya has created nothing but chaos and a stream of migrants from across Africa. Why Boris Johnson is waltzing around the world
demanding hard action against Russia when we are cutting back on our armed forces is startling. A better question would be in
whose immediate economic and geopolitical interests is the destruction of Assad beneficial? Well... there's two countries in the
Middle East which come to mind... not hard to guess.
That's fair enough but what if Assad stays in power? Will the refugees, who mainly fled him, return? Will anyone invest in rebuilding
the country? WIll anyone deal with the country other than Russia or Iran? Above all will the hatred of Assad, terrorism or indeed
the conflict as a whole recede?
They didn't flee him... they fled the war. Most people, in any country, are apolitical. I expect the refugees in the Middle East
and Anatolia will return to Syria and those in the West must be forced to return back.
The problem with Syria now is that it has become such a hot plate. If the West concedes to Russia and allows Syria to survive
under the rule of Assad then we will lose face internationally... and it would be domestically embarrassing. No doubt Saudi Arabia,
Israel and the Gulf monarchies would be less than pleased, and we depend on them for a lot of our oil.
It's a difficult question but what we do know is that there are no other credible groups that can rule Syria at the moment,
other than Assad's Alawite minority. If we decide to nation-build, that will cost billions, possibly even trillions with no concrete
result as our attempt in Iraq shows and we have no idea who we would put in charge. The Christians have about as much legitimacy
as the Alawites. Perhaps the only conceivable outcome would be the breakup of Syria. The Christian and Alawite regions go towards
Lebanon, the Kurdish regions are given independence and the Sunni areas are also given an independent state. But of course, the
Sunni and Christian areas are intertwined and many Sunni's support Assad, or at least do not oppose him. And Turkey, as well as
Iran, would never allow an independent Kurdistan. Iran would be less than pleased with the breakup of Syria as well.
I want to see a post-Assad plan. We all know what happens to non-Sunni minorities when a secular Arab leader is toppled. No
one has yet to provide a coherent post-Assad state-structure. Unless of course they want Turkey to territoriality expand... we
want to preserve the post-Ottoman borders and state-system yet at the same time we're waging war against the forces actively preserving
it.
There is no simple answer. Assad is a pawn of Russia and Iran, yet the other options are either Turkish expansion (which, the
last time they did that, they had sizeable European territories) or Saudi expansion (which I hope everyone agrees is less than
desirable). We have no friends in the Middle East, other than Jordan, Egypt and Israel. But they all have their own interests
and I suspect their friendships are determined upon those interests. I think our aim is to maintain the balance of power. Perhaps
only the growth of Israel could act as a counter-weight to Sunni and Shia interests.
Would you support another leader from perhaps the same party taking over as an interim measure whilst different factions are brought
together to defeat ISIS?
In an ideal world, I would love to see this happening, along with a form of truth and reconciliation commission, and a commitment
from the international community and other bodies independent of the Syrian government to assist in tackling issues such as warlordism
and corruption. The dogmatic belief that there can be no leader other than Assad is one that might have ultimately cost millions
of lives and it would be wrong to use the old dictator's mantra of 'me or chaos'. And to be fair, Assad does not have a great
track record in Syria.
And a final question - do you believe Russia should be doing more to put pressure on Assad or do you think it will be happy
to put its international credibility on the line for him? (There is something pathological I believe in Putin's willingness to
support other dictators)
How can one call for 'peaceful transition to a new society' when the original opposition to Assad was sponsored by multifarious
power-hungry foreign actors? They exploited the Arab Spring pro-democracy utopianism then messed up their insurrectional strategy
disastrously. The country now needs to be made a protectorate of an international peace-keeping force until a representative transitional
government is agreed upon.
No, that sounds like the pseudo-leftist neo-colonial discourse that Obama was so fond of.
The counter-argument to regime change is more that by now Assad controls most cities again, the opposition are awful sectarians
who should be let nowhere near power and it may still be possible to contain IS to a manageable extent while Assad maintains a
dictatorship indefinitely.
Not quite sure what you mean. Just saying that the "man on the street" would more likely than not understand "protectorate" pretty
much the same as e.g. the Moroccans did.
Regime change in Syria was being talked directly since 9/11 and it never stopped. It's on the record. So is john Kerry, on record
on TV, stating gulf states offered to cover part of the costs of a US invasion in Syria at least twice way before the so called
''civil war'' even started.
They prepared it for years but the poor taste Iraq/Libya left on the US public meant the US pulled out of the deal (all because
of the planed gas pipelines from Qatar to Europe that has to go through Syria).
The Saudis along with Qatar, Turkey and Israel believed they could force the hand of the US and acted alone initiating the
takeover. This is why despite the intel, organisation and provision of what is estimated to be 300k(german estimates) foreign
jihadists eventually came to a standstill without direct US support.
The Jihadists then prematurely jumped the gun fragmented creating ISIS (something meant to take place behind the scenes after
they defeated Assad)
The point is of course...it's all about oil...nothing about democracy or Gas or any of that crap
Yes, this is all quite true. What the USA almost always seems to do is create a power vacuum in the countries it attempts to "save"
and, inevitably it seems, the USA always chooses the wrong damn party or person to support in said vacuum. A stunning misreading
and proof of the failure of American foreign policy "experts" and CIA strategists to grasp the realities on the ground.
Yes, this is all quite true. What the USA almost always seems to do is create a power vacuum in the countries it attempts
to "save" and, inevitably it seems, the USA always chooses the wrong damn party or person to support in said vacuum.
Like in Japan. Just that Japan is ... Shinto. Or something. Not M.........
I'm sure its fair to say that for many instability, disorder, mayhem and the like are entirely desirable. Witness Kissinger who
out-and-out advocated/advocates looking after US long-term interests through war, disease and starvation.
'The on-going devastation in Syria cries out for a response, 'do something' is the inherent plea.'
Might I suggest sending generous quantities of bubble wrap to each of the 'something must be done' brigade. Popping those bubbles
is relaxing and calming. They will otherwise impatiently agitate for some ineffective, or more likely counter-productive measure
that makes things drastically worse.
Not very sensible, actually -- see the comment by capatriot above (or below, if you do "newest first"). Rather appalling that
someone with academic credentials would (1) engage in a comic book-style analysis of world politics (big bad nearly omnipotent
supervillain!) and (2) put all the blame for the carnage and destruction on one side.
We tried to change the leader in Iraq. It didn't work, and now the country is a hotbed of terrorism and incredibly corrupt and
ineffectual government. We tried to change the leader in Libya. It didn't work, and now the country is a hotbed of terrorism and
incredibly corrupt and ineffectual government. I guess we could try to change the leader in Syria, if we really, really want.
He has reduced once great Syrian cities like Homs and Aleppo to rubble.
What, he, personally? What is he, superman? And I wonder why he'd choose to do that to his own nation's cities?
But wait, you mean that there was a rebellion against the recognized government which developed into a civil war, aided and
abetted by sectarian outsiders and terrorists and the United States/West, with political and religious/ethnic overtones? And that
later, as it looked like the recognized govt was going to fail, other interested outsiders like Russia and Iran intervened to
help it?
Gosh, I wonder what the least worst outcome for the people of Syria actually is here ... perhaps we should leave it to them?
It's actually a very serious question. How much control does Assad have over his government, let alone his armed forces? He's
a trained dentist, ferchrissakes, and his older brother was the one groomed for the <strike>throne</strike> presidency. It makes
sense to assume that his powers over an entrenched nomenklatura, to say nothing of all of the different armed factions nominally
serving him, aren't limitless.
"... From the moment the chemical attack was blamed on Assad, however, I expressed my doubts about the claims. It simply makes no sense for Assad to attack civilians with a chemical weapon just as he is winning his war against ISIS and al-Qaeda and has been told by the US that it no longer seeks regime change. On the verge of victory, he commits a suicidal act to no strategic or tactical military advantage? More likely the gas attack was a false flag by the rebels -- or perhaps even by our CIA -- as a last ditch effort to forestall a rebel defeat in the six year war. ..."
"... The gas attack, which took some 70 civilian lives, was horrible and must be condemned. But we must also remember that US bombs in Syria have killed hundreds of civilians. Just recently, US bombs killed 300 Iraqi civilians in one strike! Does it really make a difference if you are killed by poison gas or by a US missile? ..."
"... Donald Trump's attack on Syria was clearly illegal. However, Congress shows no interest in reining in this out-of-control president. We should fear any US escalation and must demand that our Representatives prohibit it. If there ever was a time to flood the Capitol Hill switchboard demanding an end to US military action in Syria, it is now! ..."
Thursday's US missile attack on Syria must represent the quickest foreign policy U-turn in history.
Less than a week after the White House gave Assad permission to stay on as president of his own country,
President Trump decided that the US had to attack Syria and demand Assad's ouster after a chemical
attack earlier in the week. Trump blamed Assad for the attack, stated that "something's going to
happen" in retaliation, and less than two days later he launched a volley of 59 Tomahawk missiles
(at a cost of $1.5 million each) onto a military airfield near where the chemical attack took place.
President Trump said it is in the "vital national security interest of the United States" to attack
Syria over the use of poison gas. That is nonsense. Even if what Trump claims about the gas attack
is true – and we've seen no evidence that it is – there is nothing about an isolated incident of
inhuman cruelty thousands of miles from our borders that is in our "vital national security interest."
Even if Assad gassed his own people last week it hardly means he will launch chemical attacks on
the United States even if he had the ability, which he does not.
From the moment the chemical attack was blamed on Assad, however, I expressed my doubts about
the claims. It simply makes no sense for Assad to attack civilians with a chemical weapon just as
he is winning his war against ISIS and al-Qaeda and has been told by the US that it no longer seeks
regime change. On the verge of victory, he commits a suicidal act to no strategic or tactical military
advantage? More likely the gas attack was a false flag by the rebels -- or perhaps even by our CIA
-- as a last ditch effort to forestall a rebel defeat in the six year war.
Would the neocons and the mainstream media lie to us about what happened last week in Syria? Of
course they would. They lied us into attacking Iraq, they lied us into attacking Gaddafi, they lied
us into seeking regime change in Syria in the first place. We should always assume they are lying.
Who benefits from the US attack on Syria? ISIS, which immediately after the attack began a ground
offensive. Does President Trump really want the US to act as ISIS's air force?
The gas attack, which took some 70 civilian lives, was horrible and must be condemned. But
we must also remember that US bombs in Syria have killed hundreds of civilians. Just recently, US
bombs killed 300 Iraqi civilians in one strike! Does it really make a difference if you are killed
by poison gas or by a US missile?
What's next for President Trump in Syria? Russia has not backed down from its claim that the poison
gas leaked as a result of a conventional Syrian bomb on an ISIS chemical weapons factory. Moscow
claims it is determined to defend its ally, Syria. Will Trump unilaterally declare a no fly zone
in parts of Syria and attempt to prevent Russian air traffic? Some suggest this is his next move.
It is one that carries a great danger of igniting World War Three.
Donald Trump's attack on Syria was clearly illegal. However, Congress shows no interest in
reining in this out-of-control president. We should fear any US escalation and must demand that our
Representatives prohibit it. If there ever was a time to flood the Capitol Hill switchboard demanding
an end to US military action in Syria, it is now!
"... "We have reports from multiple sources that false flags like this one – and I cannot call it otherwise – are being prepared in other parts of Syria, including the southern suburbs of Damascus. They plan to plant some chemical there and accuse the Syrian government of an attack," ..."
"... "President Mattarella and I discussed it, and I told him that this reminds me strongly of the events in 2003, when the US representatives demonstrated at the UN Security Council session the presumed chemical weapons found in Iraq. The military campaign was subsequently launched in Iraq and it ended with the devastation of the country, the growth of the terrorist threat and the appearance of Islamic State [IS, formerly ISIS] on the world stage," ..."
"... "The sight of people being gassed and blown away by barrel bombs ensures that if we see this kind of action again, we hold open the possibility of future action," ..."
"... "We are planning to address the corresponding UN structure in The Hague and call on the international community to thoroughly investigate all those reports and take appropriate action based on the results of such a probe," ..."
"... "These actions are aimed at creating a new pretext for accusing the government of Syria of more chemical weapons attacks and provoking more strikes by the US," ..."
Russia has information of a potential incident similar to the alleged chemical attack in Idlib province,
possibly targeting a Damascus suburb, President Vladimir Putin said. The goal is to discredit the
government of Syrian President Assad, he added. https://www.facebook.com/plugins/video.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2FRTvids%2Fvideos%2F1533173910026190%2F&show_text=0&width=560"
name="I1">
"We have reports from multiple sources that false flags like this one – and I cannot call
it otherwise – are being prepared in other parts of Syria, including the southern suburbs of Damascus.
They plan to plant some chemical there and accuse the Syrian government of an attack," he said
at a joint press conference with Italian President Sergio Mattarella in Moscow.
Damascus denied the allegations, noting that the targeted area may have been hosting chemical
weapons stockpiles belonging to Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) or Al-Nusra Front jihadists.
The incident has not been properly investigated as yet, but the US fired dozens of cruise missiles
at a Syrian airbase in a demonstration of force over what it labeled a chemical attack by Damascus.
"President Mattarella and I discussed it, and I told him that this reminds me strongly of
the events in 2003, when the US representatives demonstrated at the UN Security Council session the
presumed chemical weapons found in Iraq. The military campaign was subsequently launched in Iraq
and it ended with the devastation of the country, the growth of the terrorist threat and the appearance
of Islamic State [IS, formerly ISIS] on the world stage," he added.
It was the first time the US had targeted Syrian troops deliberately. The White House says it
will repeat military action in response to any possible new chemical weapon attacks.
"The sight of people being gassed and blown away by barrel bombs ensures that if we see this
kind of action again, we hold open the possibility of future action," spokesman Sean Spicer
said Monday.
Putin reiterated the call to properly investigate what happened in Khan Sheikhoun, saying that
the alleged use of chemical weapons demands one.
"We are planning to address the corresponding UN structure in The Hague and call on the international
community to thoroughly investigate all those reports and take appropriate action based on the results
of such a probe," he said.
A separate report of a potential false flag operation in Syria came from the Russian General Staff,
which said militants were transporting toxic agents into several parts of Syria, including Eastern
Ghouta, the site of the 2013 chemical weapons incident.
"These actions are aimed at creating a new pretext for accusing the government of Syria of
more chemical weapons attacks and provoking more strikes by the US," said Colonel General Sergey
Rudskoy, the head of Operations.
YOU CAN SEE JOHN MCCAIN, BUT ALL YOU HEAR IS ISRAEL AND ZIONISM. McCain
should be rotting in a jail cell waiting for execution by SAWED OFF SHOTGUN FIRING SQUAD. This
jew owned whore deserves nothing less than to have his fucking head blown off by an American appointed
execution squad supported by the American people and put in place to deter : 1.) LOYALTY TO ISRAEL
OVER AMERICA. 2.) THE ENRICHMENT OF PRIVATE WAR PORTFOLIOS. 3.) THE WARMONGERING AND DESTABILIZATION
OF THE MIDDLE EAST.
The American people know that this is nothing more than a war for ISRAEL.
NOTHING BUT ISRAEL.
From Robert Steele - We do now know (I did not know this at the time the below video was recorded
and I have no link for this, it comes to me from an inside source) that former CIA Director John
Brennan plotted this false flag attack, which may have involved some real sarin allegedly destroyed
during the Obama Administration, with Senator John McCain and National Security Advisor Herbert McMaster.
Brennan got the Saudis to pay half and McCain got Israel to pay half. They blind-sided – this
is clearly treason – not only the Director of the CIA, but the President, the Secretary of State,
and the Secretary of Defense. In my personal view, both John McCain and Israel Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu should be impeached by their respective legislative bodies.
Whether true or not I cannot certify – it is consistent with my evaluation of each of these people,
and a good starting point for an international investigation. I have long felt that John Brennan
should be standing before the International Court of Justice as a war criminal, not least because
of the CIA's drone assassination program that I recently denounced in a book review article for Intelligence
and National Security.
If you appreciate what we do here at VL, consider supporting us on Patreon.. Thank you :-)
It was supposed to be different with Trump. Dozens of times as candidate and even early on as
president, he stated that it would be a big mistake to go into Syria. He also finally cancelled Obama's
"Assad must go" policy. Then came reports of a gas attack in Syria which was blamed on Assad with
no evidence given. Suddenly missiles are flying, US boots are on the ground, and again we hear "Assad
must go."
Is it our role to determine who can and cannot rule foreign countries? We are joined in-studio
today by Mises Institute founder Lew Rockwell to discuss:
"... I am a Chinese American, I voted for trump. I feel betray after the missile strike. Trump seems just like another puppet by the Zionist Jew to eliminate Syria then Iran ..."
I am a Chinese American, I voted for trump. I feel betray after the missile strike. Trump
seems just like another puppet by the Zionist Jew to eliminate Syria then Iran
so trump clearly has no choice in things it's soo clear. everything that happens is decided
by the zionists. so let me get this straight, the CIA provide chemical weapons like sarin gas
to terrorists groups and when the Syrian army bombs the factory it explodes the gas killing the
civilians in the area, America proceeds to Launch 60 tomahawk missiles(and only half land) at
a Syrian air base and terrorist groups just happen to launch a quick offensive soon after.
didn't the trump administration say getting rid of assad is no longer on the agenda?
From Robert Steele - We do now know (I did not know this at the time the below video was recorded
and I have no link for this, it comes to me from an inside source) that former CIA Director John
Brennan plotted this false flag attack, which may have involved some real sarin allegedly destroyed
during the Obama Administration, with Senator John McCain and National Security Advisor Herbert McMaster.
Brennan got the Saudis to pay half and McCain got Israel to pay half. They blind-sided – this
is clearly treason – not only the Director of the CIA, but the President, the Secretary of State,
and the Secretary of Defense. In my personal view, both John McCain and Israel Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu should be impeached by their respective legislative bodies.
Whether true or not I cannot certify – it is consistent with my evaluation of each of these people,
and a good starting point for an international investigation. I have long felt that John Brennan
should be standing before the International Court of Justice as a war criminal, not least because
of the CIA's drone assassination program that I recently denounced in a book review article for Intelligence
and National Security.
If you appreciate what we do here at VL, consider supporting us on Patreon.. Thank you :-)
It was supposed to be different with Trump. Dozens of times as candidate and even early on as
president, he stated that it would be a big mistake to go into Syria. He also finally cancelled Obama's
"Assad must go" policy. Then came reports of a gas attack in Syria which was blamed on Assad with
no evidence given. Suddenly missiles are flying, US boots are on the ground, and again we hear "Assad
must go."
Is it our role to determine who can and cannot rule foreign countries? We are joined in-studio
today by Mises Institute founder Lew Rockwell to discuss:
John Graves
4
days ago
Russian connection = Democrats Red Herring! They're
experts at it. In reality a Nothing Burger!
g bridgman
4
days ago
The whole Russian conspiracy thing is so
preposterous as to not even merit discussion yet the
MSM has been all over it from at least 6 months.
g bridgman
3
days ago
Yes, if credit is the right word, they
deserve an A+. It's amazing to me democrats
are stupid enough to believe this wild
conspiracy with no proof and the
politicians pushing the narrative are
cunning enough to realize their rank and
file will believe the BS and continue to
push it using the MSM as their vehicle. I
suppose it is a stellar accomplishment in
deception. It's also an extreme dis-service
to the nation and could ultimately lead to
the total destruction of the democratic
party.
RUHDD4HVN
3
days ago
I smell a deep state set up to distract from all the
crimes that are being committed within the US
government. Distract, Divert, to Deceive.......The
deep state doing what it does. They have now thrown
President Trump into a political stumbling mode that
will make it hard for him to catch his balance once
again. Such a shame.......
Aiz Mor
3
days ago
RUSSIA did not care who won. There purpose is to
make us look like police state, banana Republic.,
Embarrass us in front of the world. Which they have
succeeded. This deep state they probably knew about:
as well as the unmasking and leaking. The DNC
cheating sanders, 45% of americans are basket of
deplorable, christians are backward people, Pro life
woman expelled from woman march, News outlets giving
debate questions, it goes on and on. One caucus
refuses to respect President, the other bunch
wearing white...open riots to stop free speech.. it
goes on and on and on.One of the best qualified
Judges Fillabusted ( breaking 200 year od tradition)
causing a need for rule change. .Because of
political reasons mostly hurt feelings.. These
people, politicians are a national disgrace. Just
what Russia wanted..Russia did not care who won
election.
Russian radar data show that the Tomahawk missiles were fired from the US destroyers Porter
and Ross in the Mediterranean between 03:42 and 03:56 Moscow time, the general said.
The Syrian army's air defense system will be reinforced in the near future to protect the most
important infrastructure facilities, Konashenkov assured.
In 2016, several batteries of Russia's air defense system S-300 were moved to the naval logistic
facility at Tartus to provide protection for the base and Russian ships off Syria's shores. Russian
Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu said a multi-tier defense system had been created around Tartus
and the Hmeymim air base. At the end of November the newest air defense system S-400 was delivered
to Syria after a Turkish F-18 fighter shot down Russia's Sukhoi-24 bomber.
Pantsir systems protect Russian military facilities from low-flying aircraft and missiles. Also,
the defense of Russian facilities incorporates the system Bastion, capable of hitting naval and
ground targets 350-450 kilometers away. Russia has helped Syria to restore the operation of its
S-200 air defense systems that protect Russian bases from potential attacks from the east. Also,
the Syrian army uses air defense systems Buk.
The chemical attack
The US missile strike in Syria had been planned in advance, while the chemical weapons incident
was used just as a pretext, Konashenkov has noted.
"It is nakedly clear that the attack on a Syrian air base with US cruise missiles had been
planned well beforehand," he said.
"For any specialist it is clear that the decision to conduct the missile strike on Syria had been
made in Washington long before the events at Khan Shaykhun, which were used a far-fetched pretext.
The show of military muscle stemmed exclusively from internal political reasons," the ministry's
spokesman added.
Cooperation with Pentagon
The Russian Defense Ministry has suspended cooperation with Pentagon on prevention of incidents
in Syria.
"We consider these steps taken by the United States to be a blatant violation of the 2015 Memorandum
on preventing military incidents and ensuring security during operations in Syria's air space,"
the ministry's spokesman said.
"The Russian Defense Ministry is suspending cooperation with Pentagon aimed at the implementation
of the memorandum."
"To protect the most sensitive facilities of the Syrian infrastructure, a set of measures will
be taken in the immediate future to reinforce and raise the effectiveness of the Syrian armed
forces' air defense system," he added.
Syria' losses
US strikes on military airfield in Homs province leave six dead - Syrian armed forces.
"According to the air base command, two Syrian servicemen went missing, while four were killed
and six sustained burn injuries while combating the fire," Konashenkov said.
At the same time, according to the Syrian army command, the attack killed six people.
According to the Russian Defense Ministry, six Mikoyan MiG-23 fighter jets, a radar station and
other equipment have been destroyed.
"The strike destroyed a logistics warehouse, a training building, a canteen, six MiG-23 planes
in the repair hangars and also a radar station."
"The runway, taxiways and parked planes of the Syrian Air Force have not been damaged," the spokesman
said.
Trump admits he issued order for missile strike on Syrian airbase
On Thursday night, at the direction of US President Donald Trump, the US forces fired 59 Tomahawk
Land Attack Missiles on a Syrian military air base located in the Homs Governorate. The attack
came as a response to the alleged use of chemical weapons in the Idlib Governorate on April 4.
The US authorities believe that the airstrike on Idlib was launched from that air base.
General Wesley Clark just asked what is Trump's policy towards Assad. As in is it OK for Assad
to kill his own people the regular way just so he does not use chemical weapons. Harsh commentary
but the key question.
I like how MSM honchos picked up sarin story this time. As if somebody kicked them in the butt.
BTW both Turkey and KSA had bet all cards on Syrian insurgency. In the past Turkey's intelligence
service MIT was supporting not only the Free Syrian Army but also Al-Nusra, which produced sarin
from components bought in Turkey.
Yeah. It's not that I don't think some kind of 'false flag' or falsehood in general is possible
here. I certainly wouldn't put it past them. I simply don't know. It's just that I see so many
loudly proclaiming that they know for SURE that it definitely IS a false flag, while providing
only the flimsiest evidence, if any.
People who are doing that are doing the same thing 'they' are when they say they know for SURE
that Assad is behind the attack. I don't trust either side, and I don't recommend anyone else
does either. There's a lot of agendas flying around, both personal and interpersonal.
"... I can't verify the symptoms of sarin, but if you watch the videos posted you will note the people walking among the victims and those picking up and carrying victims are not wearing any protective gear. No gas masks, no protective suits, no protective footwear, and no gloves. ..."
"... I'd say this pretty well rules out sarin, because sarin can be absorbed through the skin. ..."
This best way to see immediately that the victims have not died from sarin intoxication is
that in almost every case their skin is red/pink. Sarin turns people blue - always. Sarin makes
people puke on themselves, urinate on themselves, shit themselves. Show me the evidence of sarin.
Scores and scores of "sarin victims," not a single one has the constellation of symptoms produced
by sarin. Not a single one.
The red/pink color of the victims in the vids suggests the people were executed with cyanide
or carbon monoxide, which, in turn, suggests these scenes are staged after the executions. The
evidence for KS is just now being collected. The evidence for Ghouta is very, very strong: those
people were gassed by the terrorists using, probably, CO.
Please quit spreading the lie that these are sarin victims and sarin attacks. They are false
flags and now that there is a moron in the WH we see how effective those false flags will be unless
the public understands what is going on biologically.
My PhD is in pharmacology, specializing in neuropharmacology, University of Virginia. My postdoc
was at Harvard in neurosciences. I am a lawyer. I know bullshit when I smell it. This sarin bullshit
has to stop. " (Posted by: Denis | Apr 7, 2017 8:09:40 AM | 47)
I can't verify the symptoms of sarin, but if you watch the videos posted you will note the
people walking among the victims and those picking up and carrying victims are not wearing any
protective gear. No gas masks, no protective suits, no protective footwear, and no gloves.
I'd
say this pretty well rules out sarin, because sarin can be absorbed through the skin.
If you thought
someone was the victim of sarin you would not want to expose your bare skin to possible residue.
I say this based on the CBR training I got in the Army thirty years ago. Maybe current doctrine
is different.
President Vladimir Putin's spokesman said the risk of confrontation between aerial assets of the
U.S.-led coalition and Russia has "significantly increased" after President Trump ordered the launch
of 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles at a Syrian air base in retaliation for a chemical attack that killed
scores of civilians.
Later Friday, the Russian Defense Ministry announced that it has officially informed the United
States that it is suspending its obligations under the memorandum at midnight.
Under the pact, the two countries have traded information about flights by a U.S.-led coalition
targeting the Islamic State and Russian planes operating in Syria in support of the Assad government.
Moscow was taking its action, the Defense Ministry said, because it sees the U.S. strike "as a grave
violation of the memorandum."
During a special U.N. Security Council session on the airstrikes Friday, Russia's United Nations
envoy condemned what he called an "illegitimate action by the United States."
"The consequences of this for regional and international stability could be extremely serious,"
Deputy Ambassador Vladimir Safronkov said. "The U.S. has often talked about the need to combat international
terrorism," he said, yet it attacked the Syrian air force, which he claimed is leading that fight
in Syria.
"It's not difficult to imagine how much the spirits of terrorists have been raised by this action
from the United States," Safronkov said.
... ... ...
The council has set aside for now a separate discussion of whether to condemn the Assad government
for Tuesday's chemical attack. Russia is expected to veto a resolution supported by the United States,
Britain and France.
Putin's spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, earlier claimed that the Syrian government had no chemical weapons
and dismissed the Trump administration's explanation as an excuse to enter the conflict.
"President Putin considers the American strikes against Syria an aggression against a sovereign
government in violations of the norms of international law, and under a far-fetched pretext," Peskov
told reporters. "This step by Washington is causing significant damage to Russian-American relations,
which are already in a deplorable state."
... ... ..
Konashenkov said the attack destroyed a warehouse, classrooms, a cafeteria, six Mig-23 fighter
jets that were being repaired and a radar station. The runway and other aircraft were not affected,
he said.
... ... ...
Maria Zakharova, a spokeswoman for Russia's Foreign Ministry, also dismissed the U.S. assertion
that the attacks were a response to this week's chemical weapon attack in northern Syria, which left
scores dead in a village in Idlib province - one of the last strongholds of anti-Assad factions.
"It is obvious that the strike by U.S. cruise missiles was prepared well in advance," Zakharova
said on Russian state television. "It is clear to any specialist that the decision to deliver the
strikes was made in Washington before the Idlib events, which were simply used as a pretext for demonstrating
force."
Putin's spokesman said the Russian president considered the attack an attempt to distract attention
from the heavy civilian casualties caused by a U.S.-backed offensive to capture the northern Iraqi
city of Mosul from the Islamic State group.
Dan Lamothe and David Nakamura in Washington and Andrew Roth in Moscow contributed to this
report.
Jeff Black, 4/8/2017 3:46 AM EDT [Edited]
You Liberals lost the election because you had a failed candidate. This led you to your safe
rooms where you thumb sucked and did your bed wetting while playing with your tinker toys and
dreamed of a Russian conspiracy between Putin and Trump. Got any evidence on the Russian deal?
I didn't think so.
3August, 4/7/2017 9:52 PM EDT
For a British diplomatic official to call Assada a war criminal is beyond reason. He is a duly
elected leader of a sovereign country who is fighting not only opposition rebels but also international
terrorist within his country. He is not attacking other countries as is the West. Who has destroyed
Yemen with the help of the US, Saudia Arabia. They are the true war criminals!
georgex9 4/7/2017 9:31 PM EDT
The U.S. policy of trying change dictatorships has not been working in the Middle East. And, yet,
here we are in Syria trying to oust this brutal dictator who now has support from Russia. Our
objective in Syria ought to be limited to defeating radical religious fanatics like ISIS. If Assad
is replaced who knows what subsequent turmoil will follow. Of course, the warmongers in Congress
are happy with this missile attack in Syria. This means more profits for the makers of the cruise
weapons.
whatthe---- 4/7/2017 10:39 PM EDT
What's to complain about, more jobs now available in the munitions industry.
ezpaddler, 4/7/2017 8:18 PM EDT [Edited]
The President is prohibited from starting a war without the approval of Congress unless we
are under the threat of impending attack. This of course is not the case.
Once again Trump ignores the Constitution.
NS Bingo, 4/7/2017 8:32 PM EDT
Just like Bill Clinton bombed an Aspirin factory without approval from congress.
ezpaddler, 4/7/2017 8:50 PM EDT
Why do neocons always try to defend the crimes of NOW by referencing the past?
Weak, pathetic, Sad.
BostonCommon, 4/7/2017 7:43 PM EDT
Why not Trump in front of the Hague for crimes against humanity? With 3 military actions he
has killed over 150 children.. Mosul 300 civilians, mostly children.. Syria attack last night
6 children... And the Navy Seal engagement a few days after his Inaugural.. 7 children.
And he hasnt even been office 100 days..
supermoe88, 4/7/2017 7:38 PM EDT
While the use of chemical weapons is abhorrent and should be condemned, since when was the
U.S. the globally elected policeman of the world? No country has the right to attack another sovereign
country, which has not initiated an attack on it, without an approved UN resolution. This is an
illegal act and a blatant violation of international law, as Putin rightly states. If Trump is
so concerned by the killing of babies then why has he not condemned the killing of babies by the
U.S. bombing of innocent civilians and babies in Iraq last week?? What a double standard!
Vladdie Luvs Donnie, 4/7/2017 7:39 PM EDT
We're the biggest Suckers.
BostonCommon, 4/7/2017 7:23 PM EDT
biggest winners today? ISIS.. That airfield launched bombing raids on them, as well.
AMR56 4/7/2017 6:53 PM EDT
I've been watching "Platoon" and "Full Metal Jacket" recently. It's clear to me that history is
repeating itself in East Ukraine and Syria.
America is the world's most powerful country. It needs to make the right decisions about which
side to back...otherwise defeat beckons. Again.
sasha59 4/7/2017 6:44 PM EDT
So MAGA hat wearing Trump lovers, are you or your kids ready to take off that hat, put on a helmet
and some Kevlar, and go fight in Donny's new war if this escalates?
Being omnipotent to unleash military actions is a sign of
imperial presidency, and the sign that the US is not longer
democracy, even if we assume that it was for some period of
time such a republic.
But Bacevich conveniently forgot that this was situation
did not suddenly appeared with Trump -- the case with
several previous Us presidents.
Let's be clear: Syria's Bashar Assad is a bum and probably a
war criminal. Yet it does not follow that the president of the
United States possesses the authority to order an armed attack
on the sovereign state that Assad governs.
That authority rests with the Congress, as Article I, Section
8 of the Constitution explicitly states. As a result of President
Trump's actions, that provision has now become a dead letter.
The last constraints inhibiting the use of force by whoever happens
to be commander-in-chief have now disappeared. When it comes
to initiating hostilities, the occupant of the Oval Office is
now omnipotent.
Granted, presidents have been encroaching on congressional war
powers for decades now. At least since Harry Truman ordered US
troops into Korea back in 1950, the role allotted Congress in
authorizing the use of force has eroded. Not since December 1941
has Congress actually "declared" war, now a quaint notion akin
to asking your girlfriend's dad for her hand in marriage.
True, to sustain a pretense of relevance, Congress has periodically
issued broad statements that essentially give presidents a free
hand to do as they see fit. The Tonkin Gulf Resolution of 1964
offers one infamous example of this practice. The so-called Authorization
to Use Military Force, or AUMF, passed with minimal debate on
September 14, 2001, offers a second.
That document directs the president to "use all necessary
and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or
persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided"
the events of 9/11. In effect, it says to the president: You
decide; just keep us safe.
The AUMF is the ultimate blank check. In the 15-plus years
since, senior US officials have cited it as a basis for conducting
military operations against various and sundry evildoers who
had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11. It has become the point
of departure for permanent war conducted according to the whim
of whoever happens to be sitting in the Oval Office. What's left
to the Congress is simply to pay the bills, which it does routinely
with minimal complaint or partisan bickering. When it comes to
funding wars, bipartisanship reigns.
Small wonder then that in initiating hostilities against Syria,
Trump felt no need to consult Congress. In what the New York
Times describes as a "meeting of considerable length," he huddled
with a handful of aides - more than a few of them career military
officers - and rendered a decision. From start to finish, the
process consumed less time than Trump normally spends in signing
off on the construction of a new luxury golf resort.
All indications suggest that this one military action - not much
more than a pinprick really - is a mere prelude. Secretary of
State Rex Tillerson has announced that regime change in Syria
has now become an administration priority. Unless Assad goes
voluntarily, that suggests the prospect of further US military
action, the nature and duration of which remain to be seen. Always
eager to "support the troops," a compliant Congress will pony
up the necessary funds. The $54 billion increase to the Pentagon
budget that Trump has already requested will be just for starters.
Perhaps Trump will convene another "meeting of considerable
length" to assess the consequences likely to follow if and when
Assad is finally removed. We must hope so. The previous results
of regime change - Iraq in 2003 and Libya in 2011 - suggest that
the real trouble begins after the evil dictator leaves the scene.
...
Was Trump's Syria Strike Illegal? Explaining
Presidential War Powers https://nyti.ms/2oaFfoB
NYT - CHARLIE SAVAGE -mAPRIL 7, 2017
WASHINGTON - President Trump ordered the military on Thursday to carry out a missile attack
on Syrian forces for using chemical weapons against civilians. The unilateral attack lacked authorization
from Congress or from the United Nations Security Council, raising the question of whether he
had legal authority to commit the act of war.
Mr. Trump and top members of his administration initially justified the operation as a punishment
for Syria's violating the ban on chemical weapons and an attempt at deterrence. But they did not
make clear whether that was a legal argument or just a policy rationale.
The strike raises two sets of legal issues. One involves international law and when it is lawful
for any nation to attack another. The other involves domestic law and who gets to decide - the
president or Congress - whether the United States should attack another country.
Did Trump have clear authority under international law to attack Syria?
No. The United Nations Charter, a treaty the United States has ratified, recognizes two justifications
for using force on another country's soil without its consent: the permission of the Security
Council or a self-defense claim. In the case of Syria, the United Nations did not approve the
strike, and the Defense Department justified it as "intended to deter the regime from using chemical
weapons again," which is not self-defense.
Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson, in a briefing with reporters, invoked Syria's violation
of the Chemical Weapons Convention and a related Security Council resolution from 2013, saying,
"The use of prohibited chemical weapons, which violates a number of international norms and violates
existing agreements, called for this type of a response, which is a kinetic military response."
However, while the resolution said the Security Council would impose "measures" if anyone used
chemical weapons in Syria in the future, it did not directly authorize force. The chemical weapons
treaty does not provide an enforcement mechanism authorizing other parties to attack violators
as punishment.
Mr. Trump's attack was different from the United States' bombings targeting the Islamic State
in rebel-held areas of Syria. The United States has justified those airstrikes as part of the
collective self-defense of Iraq, which asked for help against the group. But Syria did not use
its chemical weapons against the United States or an ally like Iraq.
Could the strike be justified as a humanitarian intervention?
Some human rights advocates have argued that customary international law, which develops from
the practices of states, also permits using force to stop an atrocity. Others worry that accepting
such a doctrine could create a loophole that would be subject to misuse, eroding important constraints
on war. The United States has not taken the position that humanitarian interventions are lawful
absent Security Council authorization.
Still, in 1999, the United States participated in NATO's air war to stop the Serbian ethnic-cleansing
campaign in Kosovo, even though the operation lacked a Security Council authorization. The Clinton
administration never offered a clear explanation for why that operation complied with international
law. Instead, it cited a list of "factors" - like the threat to peace and stability and the danger
of a humanitarian disaster - without offering a theory for why those factors made that war lawful.
In a seeming acknowledgment that this was dubious, the administration said the Kosovo intervention
should not serve as a precedent.
Did Trump have domestic legal authority to attack Syria?
The answer is murky because of a split between the apparent intent of the Constitution and
how the country has been governed in practice. Most legal scholars agree that the founders wanted
Congress to decide whether to go to war, except when the country is under an attack. But presidents
of both parties have a long history of carrying out military operations without authorization
from Congress, especially since the end of World War II, when the United States maintained a large
standing army instead of demobilizing.
In the modern era, executive branch lawyers have argued that the president, as commander in
chief, may use military force unilaterally if he decides a strike would be in the national interest,
at least when its anticipated nature, scope and duration fall short of "a 'war' in the constitutional
sense," as a Clinton administration lawyer wrote in the context of a contemplated intervention
in Haiti. ...
The War Powers Resolution (also known as the War Powers Resolution of 1973 or the War Powers Act)
(50 U.S.C. 1541–1548) is a federal law intended to check the president's power to commit the United
States to an armed conflict without the consent of the U.S. Congress. The Resolution was adopted
in the form of a United States Congress joint resolution. It provides that the U.S. President
can send U.S. Armed Forces into action abroad only by declaration of war by Congress, "statutory
authorization," or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States,
its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."
The War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing
armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days,
with a further 30-day withdrawal period, without a Congressional authorization for use of military
force (AUMF) or a declaration of war by the United States. The resolution was passed by two-thirds
of Congress, overriding a presidential veto. ... (Wikipedia)
(That is, IN THE SHORT TERM, the President
can do 'as necessary', i.e., as he pleases,
with US armed forces, overseas at least.)
'The victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won, whereas he who
is destined to defeat first fights and afterwards looks for victory," wrote Sun Tzu in his book
"The Art of War."
That's good advice - and advice that the author of "The Art of the Deal" should take to heart
when thinking about the act of war that he unilaterally ordered this week against the Syrian regime.
A cruise missile fusillade is an efficient way to wreck an airbase. But it is only a military
tactic, not a strategy for victory.
To be sure, there won't be any victors in the years-long human tragedy unfolding in Syria.
The poison gas used against civilians there is a stark reminder of man's capacity for indiscriminate
cruelty as well as the international community's inability or unwillingness to restrain it.
Restraint is important when it comes to waging war. It is the reason our constitution prevents
the president from launching one alone. Congress restrains the executive by approving or rejecting
war. Donald Trump certainly thought so when he tweeted, on August 30, 2013: "The President must
get congressional approval before attacking Syria - big mistake if he does not!" Just so. Congress
considered military action in Syria after a poison gas attack and opposed it.
Trump must seek immediate congressional approval for continued conflict in Syria. The idea
that the Authorization for the Use of Military Force passed in the wake of the 9/11 attacks is
somehow applicable here is farcical. The Assad regime is not Al Qaeda.
One of the first questions that legislators will - or should - ask, and which the president must
explain, is this: What are US goals in Syria, and how will these particular military actions help
achieve them? There may indeed be answers to those questions, but they have yet to be brought
before the American people, in whose name those missiles are being fired.
Articulating a coherent strategy and the way that strategy will be implemented is critical,
because it forces a unity of effort between military, diplomatic, humanitarian, and intelligence
efforts, which have often been at cross purposes.
The Trump administration is coming late to the war in Syria. Yet it seems keen to fight first
and afterwards look for a victory. What they should also be looking for is an exit strategy from
one of the world's bloodiest quagmires.
(Indeed, given that there ARE US troops on the
ground in Syria, and have been for some time,
an AUMF would seem to be necessary.)
Unless I see evidence of ordnance that delivered the volatile liquefied sarin, and there would
be plenty, I will not accept the unsubstantiated fake news from NYT.
To say Assad had nothing to lose is mind reading.
US will bomb away toward regime change and another Yemen for less truth than this.
And passing jihadi propaganda as reason for becoming their air support is insane.
... Victims of a suspected chemical attack in Syria appeared to show symptoms consistent with
reaction to a nerve agent, the World Health Organization said on Wednesday.
"Some cases appear to show additional signs consistent with exposure to organophosphorus chemicals,
a category of chemicals that includes nerve agents," WHO said in a statement, putting the death
toll at at least 70.
The United States has said the deaths were caused by sarin nerve gas dropped by Syrian aircraft.
Russia has said it believes poison gas had leaked from a rebel chemical weapons depot struck by
Syrian bombs.
Syria attack symptoms consistent with nerve agent
use: WHO http://reut.rs/2nWTdZo via @Reuters
(It is the Trump admin that says Assad is to blame.)
"... So finally Trump got slapped in the face and started to regurgitate psychotic delusions of his MIC and Wall Street masters.Now he is ready for war with Russia while his face stil sours. ..."
"... Here I found a prophetic post about Trump from just a week before his election 2016. https://syrianwarupdate.wordpress.com/2016/10/31/us-elections-a-farcical-spectacle-of-blood-and-imperial-hubris/ ..."
"... Standard operating procedure of right-wing politicians: When you don't get anything accomplished domestically, distract with some foreign policy 'adventure'/ escalation and watch them rally around the flag. Trump's yielding to Neocon interventionist demands was just a matter of time, as it was obvious that he wouldn't be able to 'deliver' on economic issues etc. ..."
Pic: April 5 2017 - U.S. Ambassador to the UN
Nikki Haley
during an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council
Nikki
Haley, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, on Wednesday strongly
condemned the Syrian government in the wake of an alleged chemical weapons attack
perpetrated on its own civilians this week. "When the UN consistently fails in its
duty to act collectively, there are times in the life of states that we are compelled
to take our own action," Haley said. She added that if the UN doesn't take collective
action, "we may."
Hacked emails from a British
mercenary company were posted online, leading to claims Washington was backing a
dirty war against Syria in which a chemical attack on Syria could be blamed on the
Syrian regime, thereby strengthening the case for immediate intervention on the part
of the United States military.
One of the hacked emails that has resulted in the most embarrassment for the U.S.
government concerned Syria. The email reads as follows:
Phil, we've got a new offer. It's about Syria again. Qataris propose an attractive
deal and swear that the idea is approved in Washington. We'll have to deliver a CW
to Homs, a Soviet origin g-shell [sic] from Libya similar to those that Assad
should have. They want us to deploy our Ukrainian personnel that should speak
Russian and make a video record. Frankly, I don't think it is a good idea but the
sums proposed are enormous. Your opinion?
So finally Trump got slapped in the face and started to regurgitate psychotic
delusions of his MIC and Wall Street masters.Now he is ready for war with Russia
while his face stil sours.
If dead children are paraded in front of
cameras, it does not show a chemical weapons attack. It is proof of murder, someone
massacred these children and their families.
To
claim a gas attack
, you have to show photos and videos of the attack site; dead
families in or outside their homes. Dead animals. Rescue workers breaking into houses
and discovering the bodies.
The Western press is buying the hoax narrative. I have heard hysterical screaming
on the radio all day. No one ever asked or answered the essential questions: When and
where did the attack happen? How was the chemical delivered? What neighborhoods were
affected? Where was the wind blowing from? How were the victims taken to the place
where they were first filmed? Who did the rescue work? Where where the White Helmets
and their camera crews when this happened?
The
White Helmets
did not exist in 2013. Today they are an Oscar-winning film crew,
with GoPro action cams attached to their signature helmets. They film each and every
real and fake rescue operation they take part in. So why no video of the Khan
Sheikhoun rescue and recovery work?
This is just another staged hoax, like the
Ghouta chemical massacre
of August 2013. Hostages were kept in cellars and then
gassed with chlorine when the time came to make propaganda videos and call for a
No-Fly Zone.
The Stephen Miller Band | Apr 5, 2017 2:45:01 PM |
13
Actually, if Trump really does sneak attack Damascus and take on Putin if he tries to
intervene it would prove his Russian connections are meaningless and he's not a
quisling afterall, therefore, the news spectacle surrounding this issue and the
investigation by the Senate can be dropped even though there will be no one left to
set the record straight except a few cockroaches and last time I checked they don't
have opposable thumbs so therefore they aren't up to the task if they were so
inclined.
Over the last days I recall reading the UN-OPCW had taken ALL Syria's chemical weapon
on ship out to sea for destruction. Was I dreaming?
Here is a report for you
4 September 2014
Ninety-six percent of Syria's declared chemical weapons destroyed – UN-OPCW
mission chief
UN Link
The Special Coordinator for the Joint Mission of the Organization for the
Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and the United Nations (OPCW-UN) told the Security
Council today that 96 percent of Syria's declared stockpile, including the most
dangerous chemicals, had been destroyed and preparation were underway to destroy
the remaining 12 production facilities.
"This is a chemical weapons disarmament process, it's been unique," said Sigrid
Kaag after her final briefing to the Security Council in her capacity as the head
of the joint mission dealing with Syria's chemical weapons, which is winding up
its work at the end of September.
"At the same time, we reiterate our strong hope that if this is achieved, that
conditions for peace and security and the political process will be centre stage
for the benefit of the people of Syria and that of the region, particularly in
these days of profound crisis."
Ms. Kaag told a press conference at UN Headquarters following her closed-door
briefing to the Council that the mission had overseen that destruction of 100
percent of "priority chemicals" and 96 percent of Syria's chemical weapons
stockpile, but the good offices of the UN Secretary-General on this issue,
discussions on monitoring verification, and accurate reporting to the Council will
be continued [.]
See..I did not dream that ship, it's real AND it was a U.S. vessel
"UN chief welcomes destruction of Syrian chemical weapons aboard U.S. vessel"
UN Link
The Secretary-General welcomes the destruction of the declared chemical weapons
material on board the United States Maritime Vessel Cape Ray. This marks a
significant achievement in the international community's efforts to eliminate the
chemical weapons programme of the Syrian Arab Republic following the framework
agreement between the Russian Federation and the United States of America.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The USUKEU should stop throwing sh**T. Propaganda Fatigue has taken root. There is
the Net for instant recall. As b observed, if it was sarin, how is it those timely
"rescuers" were not affected?
Every time Assad is winning, we have a chemical attack or humanitarian trajedy. Oh
sure, I believe it. The propaganda and false flags will continue until the SAA
finally wins. Putin best have his EW and S-400s ready and both Russia and Iran need
to send more troops to help Assad win already.
The Syrian opposition has stated their motive for the attack. Suspicions of who's
responsible lies strongly with the opposition.
A suspected Syrian government
chemical attack in Syria was a "direct consequence" of recent U.S. statements that it
was not now focused on making Syrian President Bashar al-Assad leave power, a Syrian
opposition member said on Tuesday.
"The first reaction from Syrians is that this is a direct consequence of American
statements about Assad not being a priority and giving him time and allowing him to
stay in power," Basma Kodmani told Reuters in Washington.
Just checked comments & likes in a major conservative European newspaper: Roughly 5%
seem to believe that Assad is to blame.
Nikki Haley is as Neocon as Samantha Power,
now who would've guessed. As I've been saying for a year: Even if Trump has a
different foreign policy agenda (which I doubt), he's far too weak to stand up to
them. In times of crisis, a country needs a strong president, not a narcissist
showmaster.
"Jesus, these people are insane, why on earth do Trump that have
spoken out against useless war put this stupid woman in the UN?"
Well , I think this is Tronalds way out of the pressure he's under. Start a war, then
they will unite behind their Führer.
I fear you may be right. Neo-cons on a roll again. This chemical farce
is clearly designed to put pressure on Trump to see which way he turns. Looks like he
may move away from his 'America First' isolationist rhetoric in a desperate bid to
say something meaningful. Loads of Neo-cons on his back to push for more mayhem in
the Middle East. Things aren't the way they were in 2003 tho', so probably won't go
for the invasion. Cantonisation of Syria is probably what the neo-cons are after.
Shit crazy.
If Trump is going all teary eyed over this unclear, suspect, plausibly 'WMD' false
flag, he is a child, an ignoramus, or too near the raw onions; or he is being fed
hogwash. If he is posturing 'tactically' to justify making more war, he is a fiend
and war criminal. One might hope that this was merely a random neural-tweet-impulse
by force of habit, signifying nothing much.
"Well , I think this is Tronalds way out of the pressure he's under. Start a war,
then they will unite behind their Führer." 23
Yep. that's what it feels like to me.
The abject snivel of his response serves that purpose absolutely. God. How STUPID
people can be! Kidnap then murder then staging with the dead..fcking white helmets
necrophilia ..
ere's an alarming "hey, batter, batter" heckling "what'za matta, you chicken??"
quality to the media war drums. I can't tell if people actually want Trump to "do
something" (as they are demanding) or hoping that he punts or walks, this time at
bat. It's (presidenting) "harder than it looks" has been a popular refrain for weeks
and the still insulted Obama crowd seems more interested in seeing Trump shamed, than
that anything be "done" about Assad or Syria ... coming within two weeks of our 200
dead in Mosul, Trump's self-proclaimed change of heart wrt Assad (of course
undefined) seems right out of PT Barnum ... The timing really couldn't be better for
something showy, given China's Xi Jinping's imminent arrival at Mar-A-Lago ... want's
to top the theatrical show they he put-on Abe of Japan (on the event ot a Korean
missle launch) ... I am and have been nauseated with anxiety
These photos and videos that we saw of Khan Sheikhoun, some of them showed a site
with white rock in the background and sleazy white mud on the ground (like here:
https://youtu.be/fGPa0k3J4vI).
Some have described it as a rebel dugout.
Maybe it was hit by the Syrian Airforce, though almost certainly not with any
chemical ammunitions. I think that the hit on said site could be in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYOMEDK_uVs
- third impact on the right, where
much brighter dust is rising, but much slower than from the other impact sites, plus
the height and shape of the cloud is very different.
I'm saying "maybe" it was hit by the Syrian Airforce because to me, it seems equally
likely that something was set off on the ground there - by rebels, in that case. It
would explain the strikingly different appearance of this one cloud that I mentioned
(and there
has
to be an explanation for it).
This whitish rock background that I mentioned in the beginning looks very much like
limestone or chalk to my eyes. Maybe it's a limestone quarry turned rebel hideout.
Anyway, for any makeshift Sarin production or storage facility a limestone/chalk
surrounding would be the perfect setting. Short of a state-of-the-art chemical plant,
you couldn't make up any better location, and there's two reasons for that.
One concerns possible manufacturing of Sarin. Whatever process you use, there will be
leftover acids in your end product. You have to get rid of those in order for your
product to have an acceptable shelf life. Even the most masterfully created Sarin
will be usable for only about 5 years. This time is strongly reduced if you don't
purify it by eliminating the excess acids in the product. This can only be done with
a nice base or alkaline substance, and limestone/chalk is the perfect raw material to
create such an alkaline (namely lye or brine or whatever you want to call it), large
scale.
The other reason a limestone surrounding such as seen in Khan Sheikhoun is a perfect
match for Sarin has to do with safeguarding against the obvious hazards of dealing
with Sarin – accidental spilling and poisoning. For decontamination and neutralizing
purposes any strong and simple alkaline is, again, the go-to substance. While Sarin
victims need to have atropine injected asap to even have the slightest chance for
survival, their clothes and the body have to be thoroughly rinsed with an alkaline
solution, too.
And even if you don't use the limestone for anything at all, just moving in a "limy"
environment when having to deal with Sarin release will help, and would have helped
the White Helmets in this case. This might help to explain why so many of them were
able to "do their thing" there and then without wearing any protective gear. As it
happens, limestone/chalk will also help with destroying any Sarin-related evidence.
We could also see some kind of tanker truck in the pictures. People were sprayed with
liquid coming from this truck. It's not just water that comes to mind here, it could
also have been ready-made lye solution in that tank.
But whatever had been going on in this place prior to the incident, I'm also
wondering what all those children and young people were doing there. Why would they
gather (or be gathered)
right there
, of all places? I know this will sound
gross, but some of the bodies I saw didn't look so "recently deceased" either.
This whole thing, it's just All the BS we're getting from western politicians and
the MSM right now - nothing adds up, nothing makes sense here, and yet it's cheered
as a pretext for more war?
"It's very, very possible, and I will tell you it has already happened, that my
attitude toward Syria and Assad, has changed very much," Mr. Trump said
"If Trump is going all teary eyed over this unclear, suspect, plausibly 'WMD' false
flag, he is a child, an ignoramus, or too near the raw onions; or he is being fed
hogwash. If he is posturing 'tactically' to justify making more war, he is a fiend
and war criminal. One might hope that this was merely a random neural-tweet-impulse
by force of habit, signifying nothing much."
Posted by: canuck | Apr 5, 2017
4:54:07 PM | 29
While I agree with your sentiment, war crimes are not defined by the perpetrators'
states of minds. Threatening the UNSC to go with the US 'or else' is a war crime
already, full stop. I'm sure many thought launching a war of aggression on Iraq and
Afghanistan was the 'right' or 'moral' position at the time (however deluded that may
be), but they are still war criminals.
I think many of us need to separate any actions in question from intent and
reasons when it comes to war crimes. It's like the US saying "well we bombed a
hospital by accident sorry but we thought we were striking a weapons cache. Terrible
tragedy and it won't happen again" - even if every they said was true it doesn't make
it any less of a war crime. Maybe easier for us as individuals to sympathise with but
that should be another question as a whole.
I think people would be well served to read a little about the subject (not
directing this at you cancuck so don't get me wrong). There's a lot of misconceptions
I see held by many, including here and other similar forums.
Regardless of all that, to threaten the security council to do what they want -
coming only hours after initial reports and with no confirmation for much of the
official western state sanctioned story - it doesn't look good. I follow developments
in Syria awful closely and I really am blown away and would never have expected such
a development. Really came out of no where. I had few if any hopes for change from
Trump re foreign policy but goddamn I def didn't expect this. I really hope its just
further bluster and big talk, but i doubt it would do that job effectively. Just
seems counterproductive towards western goals (unless goal is overt aggression and
occupation). Crazy day.
I implore everyone here to keep Syria and its people in your thoughts and/or
prayers these coming days. I suppose that goes for basically the entire MENA region
the way it'd go up like tinder if another US occupation force entered.
I may be biased, but Powell's performance at UN is a tough act to follow. Steady
delivery, deep baritone, and the gaze so straight that it could drill brain of any
doubter. That said, Tony Blair was a clear champion in the tenor class. While Powell
was all experience of a principled elder, Blair was in his own words "passionate",
like a 9 year old boy describing how he was personally instructed by Our Lady of
Fatima (together with two pre-teen girls, now we have 100-th anniversary*). Which
gives pointers to soprano section.
Condoleeza Rice was a total miscast in that
role. Shifty eyes, unsteady diction, twitching head. Perhaps I will check a video of
Nikki Halley.
AMY GOODMAN: Let me go to a clip from the 2013 BBC documentary Saving Syria's
Children, where the filmmakers traveled with you, Dr. Rola Hallam, inside Syria to
reveal how children are impacted by the war. This is Dr. Hallam describing the
aftermath of an airstrike at a school playground, as patients pour into a hospital
in Aleppo.
The US doesnt want a military conflict with Russia over the Syria Crisis. Trumps
stance has changed towards Assad. Therefore expect a US response to events (as aluded
to at the UNSC). The only way to achieve all three of the above is a precision strike
against Assad personally.
SYRIAN AVIATION AIRSTRIKE IN IDLIB TARGETED CHEMICAL ARMS LAB - RUSSIAN DEFENSE
MINISTRY -
"MOSCOW, April 5. /TASS/. A Syrian aviation airstrike on the eastern outskirts of
Khan Sheikhun on Tuesday targeted workshops to produce chemical-laden projectiles, a
spokesman for the Russian Defense Ministry said Wednesday.
"According to Russian airspace monitoring systems, yesterday between 11.30 and
12.30 local time the Syrian aviation carried out an airstrike on the eastern
outskirts of Khan Sheikhun, targeting a major ammunition storage facility of
terrorists and a cluster of military hardware. The territory of this storage facility
housed workshops to produce projectiles stuffed with toxic agents," Maj. Gen. Igor
Konashenkov said.
"From this major arsenal, chemical-laden weapons were delivered by militants to
Iraq. Their use by terrorists was confirmed on numerous occasions by international
organizations and official authorities of the country," he said.
The spokesman added that these projectiles were similar to those used by militants
in Syria's Aleppo, where their use was recorded by Russian military specialists.
Of course Trump knows this. No question. If he takes any kind of military action
whatsoever in Syria against sovereign troops, over a really lame propaganda campaign
all of us can see through, well, that's about as dumb as it gets. If I know this, a
lowly news aggregator blogger, you can damn well be sure Trump knows this.
Anyone and everyone who can read or talk or see knows for a fact that the UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA'S military has not been invited into Syria by Syria nor has the
U.S. Congress passed a WAR RESOLUTION. Thus, if the U.S. Military takes aim at Syria
and her government it will be under the extremely nimble CIA article whatever for
covert action. And no lawyer worth chit can, not even Gonzalez, twist the law into
the pretzel necessary to take 'legal' covert military action.
If I'm wrong please feel free to inform me with the facts. I'm happy to be
wrong...
And I will tell you, it's already happened that my attitude toward Syria and
Assad has changed very much.
[notice he says:
it already happened
therefore the plan for Syria was already in the works and the chemical attack was
like 9/11 for justifying the plan]
Syrian chemical attack crossed a lot of
lines for me...beyond a red line.
I now have responsibility.
[translation: I now have the excuse, cover to expand this war]
That
responsibility could be made a lot easier if it was handled years ago.
[don't
blame me for what I'm about to unleash; blame the other guy who hesitated to put
boots on the ground and kicked the can to me.]
I'm not saying I'm doing anything one way or another, but I'm certainly not
going to be telling you.
[sneaky, opaque agenda]
Trump Neocon-speak in italics.
Sigh...if only Obama had put boots on the ground and expanded this war, then Trump
man-god wouldn't have to burst the bubble of his adoring followers here and we could
all keep on pretending we don't see the Emperor's naked ass and keep blaming Obama
for all Trump's screw-ups. Trump and Mattis met with the Saudi Defense Minister and
blacked-out the press on that meeting, but we're supposed to believe that a plan
wasn't in the works and that Trump is moved solely to defend the innocent in Syria,
while he helps the Saudis slaughter children on the brink of starvation in Yemen.
In the Various Issues thread, 'maningi' at #101 points out that young children don't
usually stray far from their mothers. This makes images depicting lots of dead young
children, but no dead mothers, smell a bit fishy.
Translation: both healthcare and tax reform are now indefinitely dead, which means
that a suddenly pivoting Trump, who earlier today said he had "changed his mind" on
Syria, may have no choice but to begin war with Assad to distract from everything
else that is going on in the US.
Cream rises till its sours. Trump looks really out of his league atm.
The only woman I've seen in any of the MSM's 'news' was alive and purported to be
recovering in a hospital in Turkey which, imo, could be any hospital, anywhere, on
the planet.
Tillerson to meet Lavrov in Moscow next week
By MADELINE CONWAY 04/05/17 11:09 AM EDT
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson will
travel to Moscow next Wednesday for a meeting with Russian officials, including the
Kremlin's foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov.
Tillerson plans to discuss issues including Ukraine, North Korea, Syria, and
counterterrorism with the officials while in Moscow, according to the State
Department.
The "trip is part of our effort to maintain direct lines of communication with
senior Russian officials and to ensure U.S. views are clearly conveyed, including on
next steps in Minsk implementation," the department said in a statement.
Matthew Rycroft
, the barking UK UN representative, once worked with NATO and also
Tony Blair. He was the author of the infamous secret memo about the lead up to the
Iraq war in which he said words to the effect that 'facts' and 'intelligence' were
being fixed to comply with policy. Nothing has changed. 'Facts' and 'intelligence'
are still being fixed to policy.
Nice to see you Taxi. This mass hysteria from Western Politicians and MSM against
Assad 'Sentance first, verdict afterwards' should only serve to instruct Putin and
Assad that regime change [by any means necessary] are the ultimate goals of the West,
and formulate their policies accordingly. Many in the West like neo con John McCain
think US aggression against Assad will not receive push back from Russia. Now might
be the right time for Putin to quietly disabuse the US of that notion.
Standard operating procedure of right-wing politicians: When you
don't get anything accomplished domestically, distract with some foreign policy
'adventure'/ escalation and watch them rally around the flag. Trump's yielding to
Neocon interventionist demands was just a matter of time, as it was obvious that he
wouldn't be able to 'deliver' on economic issues etc.
There won't be a 'full-scale' invasion like 2003, but an increased use of SF
embedded with the regional (or foreign jihadi) allies. To make sure the war goes on
for as long as possible, hopefully get Russia and Iran drawn deeper into that
quagmire, or at least prevent them from securing their positions.
There's no international support whatsoever (apart from the GCC), but Trump is not
the one who'd care. So it seems the only thing that could stop this would be the US
running out of money...
Turkey sent a report to the United Nations just before a U.N. Security Council
meeting to address accusations that the Syrian government staged a chemical weapons
attack on April 4, stating that the gas used in the attack was chlorine gas.
The significant fact is that they say chlorine gas, not sarin. Chlorine gas
is dual use, easy to obtain and manufacture, and the "rebels" are known for using it.
It was not on the list of chemical weapons Syria was supposed to destroy.
The Russian version of hitting a warehouse where chlorine gas was stored is very
likely depending on how the wind blows. There are
accidents with chlorine gas
all over the world.
It is industrally used and produced - as simple as that.
Actually first reporting in German media was chlorine gas, I was surprised to hear
it was switched to sarin.
Turkish medics seem to have diagnozed "gas poisoning" - they keep it as unspecific
as that.
It is absorbed through skin, one drop is enough to kill.
If that was indeed sarin attack, there would be scores of dead people, dogs, cats,
rats, sheep, cows, chicken and white helmets littered all around in all kinds of
contorted positions.
Oxygen masks on vicims are pointless. The affected are in neural shock, muscles
twitching and spasming over all body. There is no coughing, because coughing
reflex is disrupted.
Only treatment is atropine injection straight to the muscle. You need gas mask and
full hazmat overall and gloves to enter the contaminated zone. Surgical mask over
face will help you nil.
You're spot-on.
Skin, any mucous membrane, Sarin will enter the body even through the eyeballs.
And even if you had full protective gear, you'd have to thoroughly decontaminate
that
before you could even think about taking it off again.
To think that hordes of college-educated, well paid, experienced people in
politics, in the media everywhere should be impressed by such a cheap stunt by the
White Helmet freaks, who are effectively using corpses for props - it just makes me
scream inside.
One might wonder what Trump actually understood when he declared ISIS the great
enemy:
Was he aware that ISIS was a PTB creature, and that his beloved Israel's IDF have
been low profile participants in ISIS?
For example: www.globalresearch.ca/israel-supports-isis/5492807
"Dec. 2, 2015 – Israel Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon admitted Israel support for
ISIS"
A number of victims of the April 4 attack on the town of Khan Sheikhoun were
brought to the hospital, located about 60 miles to the north, near the Turkish
border. Eight people who were examined by MSF staff displayed symptoms consistent
with exposure to an agent such as sarin gas or similar compounds, including
constricted pupils, muscle spasms and involuntary defecation.
The MSF team provided drugs and antidotes to treat patients, and distributed
protective clothing to medical staff in the hospital's emergency room.
MSF medical teams also visited other hospitals treating victims of the attack,
and reported that they smelled of bleach, indicative of possible exposure to
chlorine.
These reports strongly suggest that victims of the attack on Khan Sheikhoun
were exposed to at least two different chemical agents.
Nikki Haley barks very loudly and may be getting on Trump's nerves. He must regret
not having chosen Bolton at the UN. At least he was predictable and would have
submitted to Trump's authority.
Nikki is a wild goose.
Posted by: virgile | Apr 5, 2017 2:57:47 PM | 16
Nikki is the front for The Heritage Foundation. Trump seems to have outsourced US
foreign policy (along with most of domestic policy) the Heritage.
There was an interesting post on Zero Hedge:
""A day prior to the attack, Gulf-based Orient TV announced "Tomorrow we are
launching a media campaign to cover the airstrikes on Hama country side including the
usage of chemical warfare against civilians." This shows clear foreknowledge that the
rebels were going to stage an attack by Orient TV."
As Taxi 105 noted, If Trump attacks Syria he will lose the Independents and Dems that
rejected HC et al and voted for him. But more than losing them he may turn them
against him and they may well support the current Dem's Impeach Him effort. People
are tired of being lied to, they will not take much more IMO, from either side.
I agree with you. Trump always say that he will not reveal what he intends to do
and when.
In this case he will watch the current. There already voices in the congress
doubting that the Syrian president actually ordered a chemical attack that goes
against his interests. Why would the Syrian army be interested to randomly kill
dozens of civilians when it has to fight ten of thousands of well armed Islamist
terrorists.
Trump will come to his senses and do nothing. The neocons will certainly come up
with something else because they only want an Israel-friendly Sunni leader in Syria,
not an Iran-friendly leader.
Trump has a VERY tough fight against the Dems and the Neocons. It will be bloody
and the USA will weaken even further in the next 4 years.
Nunes taking himself off the investigation (presumably under White House orders) is
another sign that the Trump administration is surrendering to the Russophobes.
By
the sTrumpet's own criteria, every nation on the planet has 100% justification to
attack his Outlaw US Empire anywhere and everywhere until it's completely devastated.
Erdogan stating in an interview this evening that Trump should put his words into
action and that Turkey is willing to do anything it takes to support the US
militarily in Syria AND Iraq!! "Let's pull together all the strength of the coalition
with the US at its head..."
Erdogan also stated that he had spoken to Putin, but
that Putin was still questioning whether Assad had done it or not ...
This looks very much like Turkey seeing how far it can push Trump.
Southfront has posted an article first published by
Veterans Today
(yes, I
know about its unreliable nature) that is essentially an attempt to provide wider
distribution of a very damning report about the White Helmet terrorists by the
Swedish Doctors for Human Rights organization: "The doctors found that the videos
were counterfeit, where even Arabic stage directions were overheard, and that the
alleged "Rescue" in actuality is a murder."
https://southfront.org/swedish-medical-associations-says-white-helmets-murdered-kids-for-fake-gas-attack-videos/
Just caught Deutche Welle news on PBS World channel. They interviewed Abdullah with
White Helmets. The announcer said the Syrian government claimed it had hit a base
with illegal weapons. Then he asked Abdullah about this. HA HA HA!. Right! As if the
ones reporting the incident would ever reverse themselves. So Mr. White Helmet
reiterated the earlier strikes and govt denial and then said who would have such
weapons. Geeeeee, maybe those opposed to Assad who have a lot of outside help?
The United States tried to launch a war of
aggression against Syria in August 2013, following the #ChemicalHoax massacre in
Ghouta. It was prevented from doing so by the Russian Navy, which had taken control
of the Eastern Mediterranean.
The plan in 2013 was to coordinate the missile strike with al-Qaeda forces, so
that Islamist would quickly overrun the government bases and capture Damascus. I
believed at the time that Russia would respond to the attack, the secret orders to
the fleet were to sink any U.S. ship launching an illegal attack.
Will Russia respond this time? (Or has it already retaliated?) I do not think so.
The difference is that the Syrian government is no longer in a mortal danger. The
missiles are mainly symbolic. There is no al-Nusra army waiting for the signal to
launch their coordinated attack.
The United States launched a military strike on Syrian government targets in
retaliation for their chemical weapon attack on civilians earlier in the week, CNN
is told.
On President Donald Trump's orders, US warships launched 50 Tomahawk cruise
missiles.
The strikes are the first direct military action the US has taken against the
leadership of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in the country's six-year civil war
and represent a substantial escalation of the US' military campaign in the region,
which could be interpreted by the Syrian government as an act of war. The US began
launching airstrikes in Syria in September 2014 under President Barack Obama as
part of its coalition campaign against ISIS, but has only targeted the terrorist
group and not Syrian government forces.
This cruise missile attack isn't totally pointless. It makes Trump look tough and
shuts the war party up temporarily. Syria loses a few planes and runways.
The
question is will Assad retaliate? If he lets it pass it's just a question of time
until the next 'gas attack'.
It is interesting that Trump et. al. executed an attack on Syria within hours of the
Xi/Trump meeting.
If we don't go the nuclear extinction route out of this I suspect
the China and Russia can take the US to the UN and see what happens. If nothing else
it may build a coalition to stop funding further war crimes by buying more US
Treasuries.
That is the high road that I think that China/Russia and ??? will take.
Sigh! May you live in interesting times. Call it a curse or a blessing, either
way, live this interesting time honorably.
"... I find revealing is that the United States Ambassador to the UN should decide in effect to dictate to the UN. Diplomacy and belligerency differ, Ambassador Haley does not appear to care. ..."
What the outcome may be I have no idea, but what I find revealing is that the United States
Ambassador to the UN should decide in effect to dictate to the UN. Diplomacy and belligerency
differ, Ambassador Haley does not appear to care.
From a trading perspective, the big news was at the top: "The minutes will
show it will be unlikely that the labor market improvement will be
substantial enough to stave off new Treasury purchases into 2013." And in
the sixth paragraph it describes how the Fed was likely to vote as early as
December to stop the part of its MBS buying designed to counter the bonds
being paid off (due to foreclosures, home sales, refis) and buy roughly $45
billion a month of Treasuries instead.
The amount of granular detail was stunning. For instance:
The committee will attach a predictive timetable outlining the
duration of these purchases The monthly MBS purchases of around $40
billion will continue along side the new program Tomorrow's minutes will
reference a staff paper The minutes will show the dovish majority was
ready .[to make] open ended MBS and Treasury purchases as early as last
month.
This is so specific that it comes of as if Medley either got its hands on
an advance draft of the FOMC minutes or someone read it to her.
The report also describes, again in depth, how the decision process prior
to the September meeting departed from established norms as well as
voyeristic tidbits, such as that finalizing the text of the policy
recommendations kept staffers up until after midnight.
Given how extraordinarily revealing this note was, Lacker's departure is
unsatisfactory. Specifically:
Either Lacker lied or the investigators aren't even close to
getting to the bottom of this
. Lacker has admitted only to taking a
call from the Medley analyst, supposedly having her run insider detail by
him, and indirectly confirming it by not getting off the phone. From his
resignation letter, which was released by law firm McGuireWoods, not the
Richmond Fed:
During that October 2, 2012 discussion, the [Medley] Analyst
introduced into the conversation an important non-public detail about one
of the policy options considered by participants prior to the meeting.
Due to the highly confidential and sensitive nature of this information,
I should have declined to comment and perhaps have ended the phone call.
Instead, I did not refuse or express my inability to comment and the
interview continued. Additionally, after that phone call, I did not, as
required by the Information Security Policy, report to any FOMC personnel
that the Analyst was in possession of confidential FOMC information. When
Medley published a report by the Analyst the following day, October 3,
2012, it contained this important detail about one of the policy options
and I realized that my failure to decline comment on the information
could have been taken by the Analyst, in the context of the conversation,
as an acknowledgment or confirmation of the information.
This reads like the equivalent of a plea bargain, that Lacker and his
lawyers negotiated him to 'fess up to the most minimal breach possible
provided he resign.
Alternatively, if Lacker is being truthful, it means that one or more
additional people provided the information to the Medley analyst, Regina
Schleiger.
"General Dynamics christens U.S. Navy's USS Thomas Hudner"
By Ryan Maass...April 5, 2017...11:34 AM
"April 5 (UPI) -- General Dynamics Bath Iron Works christened the U.S. Navy's future Arleigh Burke-class
guided-missile destroyer USS Thomas Hudner during a ceremony.
The christening took place at Bath Iron Works' shipyard on Saturday, and was attended by the ship's
namesake, Capt. Thomas Hudner. During the Korean War, Hudner intentionally crash-landed his plane
to save Ensign Jesse Brown, the first African-American Navy pilot...
The christening comes almost two after the keel for the vessel was laid down in Bath, Maine. The
Navy expects to commission the ship in Boston in 2018.
Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyers are multirole surface ships built to engage threats
in all directions. The vessels can be used to support anti-air warfare as well as anti-submarine
warfare. They can operate independently or as part of larger groups."
Years behind in replacing Arleigh
Burkes*. Nothing replacing the Ticonderoga class cruisers.
Two more hulls and the Arleigh
Burkes class gets an upgrade, designated "Flight III" about 1000 more tons, 4 ft wider stern,
and if it works (might use some new materials GaNi chips) a new radar replacing the 40 year
old Aegis.
The extra weight is to make room for air conditioners to keep all the denser electronics
cool.
The Navy lost Zumwalt (DD 1000) at 3 ships and never got a chance for bigger cruiser class
ships.
A serious compromise and risky proposition with air and missile defenses that are questionable
from the outset.
*there seems to be about 17 new hulls for Arleigh Burke with the last 15 being new "Flt
III" for the newer radar. I see s schedule issue!
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final
sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.
This world in arms is not spending money alone.
It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its
children.
The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities.
It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population.
It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some 50 miles of concrete highway.
We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat.
We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.
This, I repeat, is the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking.
This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war,
it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.
"That's total horseshit," said Wayne Merry, a senior fellow at the American Foreign Policy Council
who worked as a U.S. diplomat to Russia and has known Kislyak for decades. "It's a witch-hunt
with paranoia and hysteria at its core. Normally it's the Russians who become paranoid and hysterical.
That the conspiracy theories and paranoia is coming from Americans makes me very uncomfortable."
The past two U.S. ambassadors to Russia defended Kislyak in interviews with The Hill: Michael
McFaul a fierce Trump critic who was appointed by former President Obama, and John Beyrle, who
was appointed by former President George W. Bush but served for three years under Obama.
Both former ambassadors tell The Hill that the Russian ambassador was merely doing his job
and that there is no evidence of any illicit collusion between him and the Trump campaign.
McFaul and Beyrle say they are extremely troubled by evidence that suggests the Russians interfered
in the U.S. election. They support an independent investigation into the matter.
But allegations and insinuations that Kislyak was the point person for this - and that it could
have played out in broad daylight at meetings on Capitol Hill or at Trump campaign events - are
preposterous, they say.
"Kislyak's job is to meet with government officials and campaign people and I think he's good
at his job," said McFaul. "People should meet with the Russian ambassador and it's wrong to criminalize
that or discourage it. I want the Russian government to be as informed as possible about the American
political process. When I was ambassador, it was frustrating how poorly informed the Russian government
was. It's a good thing to meet with him, not a bad thing."
National security experts generally agree that Sessions and other Trump campaign officials
have handled the Russia issue poorly.
Sessions, they say, should have told Congress about his meeting with Kislyak.
And they say Flynn was reckless and wrong to speak with Russian diplomats about sanctions during
the transition period when Obama was still president.
Still, former diplomats say the atmosphere in Washington over anything that carries even a
whiff of Russia is out of control.
"It's the usual Washington breathlessness that accompanies any story these days about Trump
or the Russians," said Beyrle. "That doesn't mean there isn't need for an investigation. There
is almost no question that there was Russian interference in the election and there needs to be
an investigation. But to conclude from all this that Kislyak was somehow a bad actor is missing
the target."
National security experts say the uproar around Kislyak could have foreign policy reverberations,
potentially making life difficult for the current U.S. ambassador to Russia, John Tefft, or his
successor, former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman.
"The Russian default mode is reciprocity," said Beyrle. "If they feel we're doing it to them,
more often than not they'll do it back to us."
McFaul has experienced this first-hand. He routinely landed on the front page of Russian newspapers,
accused of fomenting revolution.
"I was demonized and called all kinds of things in the Russian press and I don't want Americans
to do to Kislyak what the Russian government did to me," McFaul said. "It's not good for U.S.
Russian relations. People should be able to meet with him without fear of being called a double-agent.
Throwing around loosely, without documentation, that this person is an intelligence officer is
dangerous."
It's damaging to U.S. interests for lawmakers to be skittish about meeting with foreign ambassadors,
according to Nikolas Gvosdev, a professor of national security at the U.S. Naval War College.
From the Russian perspective, Gvosdev is worried that the frenzy around Kislyak will provoke
the Russians to shut down diplomatic backchannels needed for the countries to cooperate on even
basic levels.
"Russia is still a major player. We can't not talk to them, " Gvosdev said. "We are really
creating issues for future diplomacy with the Russians and this will make it harder when there's
an actual major challenge from them."
Andrey Sushentsov, the head of the Moscow-based Foreign Policy Advisory Group and a program
director at the Valdai Club there, says the damage has already been done.
"It seems that the "Russian question" is becoming one of the issues in America's culture wars,"
Sushentsov said in an email to The Hill. "By demonizing a foreign partner for a political purposes
the U.S. limits it's capability in global governance and diplomacy.
"Russia was not expecting the relations with the U.S. to improve significantly, but was not
striving to worsen them even more. What Russia needs is predictability and stability in its relations
with the US - even if this is a negative stability. Current climate in Washington does not permit
this." Tags Jeff Sessions
"... If I had a 401K, I would not be trusting those jackals with my money. My ex lost pretty much everything after he had contributed for 12+ years. ..."
"... As far as cutting off Wall Street from the teat of the Fed, this is a virtual impossibility. Wall Street, the Fed, and the Federal Government, and particularly the National Security State, are all just different faces of the same entity. It would be like trying to separate the front and the back of a dollar bill. You can't do it without destroying the whole thing. ..."
"... "Companies are worried about their employees retirement prospects" Gotta love the language. Maybe they should pay their employees more ..."
"... this is why I don't read the news anymore. The ongoing casual lies are embedded within a broader tapestry of falsehood. ..."
"... Even of the boomers I bet many of them don't have pensions. Why? They didn't work for government or fortune 500s, and it was probably never that many people with lifetime at careers at small companies that got pensions. But much of the employment is small businesses. ..."
"... "The great lie is that the 401(k) was capable of replacing the old system of pensions," No kidding. There are so many great lies with 401(k)'s, the biggest being that it is now expected that people should be able to save enough for their own retirement if they would only assume some personal responsibility. ..."
"... Over the years, I have been astonished at how little many executives understand about finance, taxes, and business. I have always wondered what they actually do in their cocooned meetings. Generally speaking, those meetings result in hilarious memos re-organizing people that don't appear to have anything to do with the normal business while cutting costs that are essential to executing the business. ..."
"... So it is not a surprise to me that a high-level executive would be unaware that a 401k is tax-deferred, not tax-exempt. He probably also thinks that a hedge fund is guaranteed to outperform the S&P 500 and has already moved his money into one, which means he will have less money to pay his taxes with. ..."
"... I'm curious: If you pay the interest on the 401k loan with already-taxed money, is that interest taxed again upon withdrawal from the 401k? ..."
"... Yes it is a 35% tax savings, even if not in the highest bracket. Say in the 25% fed bracket (income of $37,950 to $91,900). Then California income taxes for that income can come to nearly 10%. ..."
"... many 401k accounts tend to have higher costs for equivalent funds than one can get in a rollover IRA. Buyer gots to do their research. ..."
"... No, he's correct. 401(k)s have TONS of hidden fees. You can't even get full disclosure of the full fees. You are guaranteed to have lower fees and more choices at Vanguard. ..."
Since American companies are run by the greediest psychopaths on the planet, the real reason
for the objection to 401K withdrawals might as well be that selling overpriced stock and using
the cash to pay bills, reduces the opportunity of the chief corporate psychopaths to cash out
on their stock options.
It's personal. How dare a peasant beat a corporate bigwig by cashing out early, and reduce
the bigwig's monetary takings by even a penny.
Tapping or pocketing retirement funds early, known in the industry as leakage, threatens
to reduce the wealth in U.S. retirement accounts by about 25% when the lost annual savings are
compounded over 30 years, according to an analysis by economists at Boston College's Center for
Retirement Research.
That's 25% less available funds that Wall Street can steal from customers. Starve the beast?
How do we cut them off from the teat of the FED?
Bernie Sanders: The business of Wall Street is fraud and greed.
precisely. If I had a 401K, I would not be trusting those jackals with my money. My ex
lost pretty much everything after he had contributed for 12+ years.
Re: " American companies are run by the greediest psychopaths on the planet "
I have a quibble with this point of view. Greed takes many forms, and greed for power is just
as motivating as greed for wealth. So I'm of the opinion that corporate psychopaths have plenty
of company in the halls of government, particularly in the National Security arena. These people
have shown that killing hundreds of thousands and destroying the lives of millions more is not
enough to satisfy their lust for power and control. Oh no, not nearly enough. The beast you speak
of must eat every day.
As far as cutting off Wall Street from the teat of the Fed, this is a virtual impossibility.
Wall Street, the Fed, and the Federal Government, and particularly the National Security State,
are all just different faces of the same entity. It would be like trying to separate the front
and the back of a dollar bill. You can't do it without destroying the whole thing.
And if I was Marc Jones, I wouldn't be crying "ovens" too loud. It's happened before, and by
people who may not have been all that much further along the psychopath curve than the ones we
are dealing with now.
I have friends who are just past their mid-30s and borrowed against their 401k to make a house
purchase. A promotion lead to a desire for a bigger home in a nicer town (i.e. schools) and when
they sold their current house a combination of real estate transaction fees and being slightly
underwater on mortgage (I thought housing prices always went up!?) meant the only place they could
go for excess savings was their retirement accounts. Now that's something I would never do, but
I understand the motivation. And from their perspective, things are still on the upswing in terms
of their age and career expected earnings.
I have another colleague who has been at our large company long enough to still have a pension
plan, while our U.K. colleagues are still in a union. Instead of wondering why our older colleagues
have it so good with regards to benefits and time off, they just joke about the days of a pension
being gone and make with the old man cracks.
"Companies are worried about their employees retirement prospects" Gotta love the language.
Maybe they should pay their employees more
If you actually believe that's what companies are concerned about but seriously this
is why I don't read the news anymore. The ongoing casual lies are embedded within a broader tapestry
of falsehood.
Well they could just make contributions to the 401ks for employees themselves without even
requiring the employee to put anything in (without requiring matching). Some companies do do this.
Probably better than just paying them more if they are really worried about their retirement funds,
because if they just paid them more there's a good chance it wouldn't go to retirement. I'm not
opposed to more pay, just realistic about how much might go to retirement. A pension of course
is better but small companies aren't going to manage that financially even if they wanted to.
Even of the boomers I bet many of them don't have pensions. Why? They didn't work for government
or fortune 500s, and it was probably never that many people with lifetime at careers at small
companies that got pensions. But much of the employment is small businesses.
"The great lie is that the 401(k) was capable of replacing the old system of pensions,"
No kidding. There are so many great lies with 401(k)'s, the biggest being that it is now expected
that people should be able to save enough for their own retirement if they would only assume some
personal responsibility.
But the math has never worked. According to Reaganomics, personal responsibility is the solution
to retirement needs, medical costs, education costs, child care costs, unemployment, etc. No one
has ever been able to produce a household budget for a family in the lower half of income that
would ever come remotely close to fulfilling the conservative's fantasy of personal responsibility.
It. Can't. Be. Done.
The great lie that is the 401(k) and Reaganomics serves the same purpose as so many other conservative
lies: it allows more money to flow to Wall Street and the richest Americans. It also is used to
justify tax cuts for the rich and cuts in social programs. It is about the greed of the few against
the living standards of the rest of our society.
The 401(k) was intended to be a supplemental income to a pension, but those pensions no longer
exist and are never coming back. In the face of what has happened, particularly the graft Wall
Street and financial managers have imposed on 401(k)'s and other retirement investments, what
is needed is a much more muscular Social Security system for retirement.
Does anyone know what percentage of boomers (or even older boomers) have pensions? I'm guessing
it's not all that high (even if it's 50%, that means half would be relying on SS and other savings
etc.).
So if all benefited from well funded DB plan wouldn't the economy be smaller from less spending
and markets even more overvalued?
Oh no, the economy would have been smaller so there would have been less money to save
My head hurts thinking about all those what ifs!
It just seems to me that the cost of living for the vast majority will always equal disposable
income because there is alway someone out there younger, willing to work longer hours, willing
to take a pay cut or pay extra for a house. Arbitrage rules.
Asking everyone to save for 30 years of retirement is a farce and sure to fail. And we are
currently witnessing its failure. There are just too many variables.
All it takes is for someone out there to plan using a life expectancy of 80 while another with
the same income uses 95. This gives them way more cash flow during their working years to increase
the price of everything screwing up the plans of those using more conservative assumptions.
Since companies don't care if you survive after you leave them and I bet in many of these big
box stores newbies and old timers probably earn about the same amount 10-15/hr. What is the real
reason they want to stop leakage? That 25% drop in gambling money & earnings for fund managers.
I am guilty moved on to new job and cashed it out. I didn't put any money in, don't care and don't
see this as a real way to ?retire.
After 2008 it seems like 401ks are just a place to dump garbage. What do I know, I am young &
dumb.
Question:
So my spouse has changed jobs 4 times in the last 5 years. Each time we have to cash out the old
401k and deposit it in the new one. Some times this rollover was done by direct wire transfer
from old to new, but one time they sent us a check, which we signed over to the new 401k account.
Are these somehow being counted as "cashing out"? We though these are really rollovers? Just curious
The Wall Street crooks through the governments they own have convinced the majority of the
people that 401(k)s are good because of (1) tax deferral and (2) company contributions. Americans
are obsessed with paying lower taxes that they let the Wall Street Banksters get their claws on
their savings. The laws dictate that only the banksters/brokers can keep and handle your savings.
Each trade results in a commission. Add to this mix the myriad of so called financial consultants
who churn the account for their own benefit. When Wall Street crashes, Good Bye!
BIL (high-level TV executive mostly unemployed for two years) withdrew his entire 401k without
understanding the tax consequences. April 15 a very large number is due to the Feds. Oops.
Over the years, I have been astonished at how little many executives understand about finance,
taxes, and business. I have always wondered what they actually do in their cocooned meetings.
Generally speaking, those meetings result in hilarious memos re-organizing people that don't appear
to have anything to do with the normal business while cutting costs that are essential to executing
the business.
So it is not a surprise to me that a high-level executive would be unaware that a 401k
is tax-deferred, not tax-exempt. He probably also thinks that a hedge fund is guaranteed to outperform
the S&P 500 and has already moved his money into one, which means he will have less money to pay
his taxes with.
Borrowing against your 401k is only an issue if you are saving in it at a low rate. The really
big issue with 401ks is that companies generally do not put much in matching funds in – typically
far less than their old pension fund contributions would be. Instead, those funds have been going
to pay for exorbitant healthcare insurance plans in the vastly over-priced US healthcare system.
I have borrowed against my 401ks over the years. However, I also save at a pretty high rate,
generally at the highest rate that the company permits. So I get the tax savings (been in some
of the highest tax brackets for over 20 years and live in a high income tax state, so about 35%
or so tax deferral) while building an asset base.
Occasionally, something comes up that needs some cash, so I take a loan against the 401k (generally
the value is less than a year's worth of contributions) and set up a schedule to pay it back over
a couple of years. Some years the interest rate on the loan (that you are paying to yourself)
is higher than the portfolio returns and other years it is lower. In the end, I have come out
ahead because I am not trying to save those chunks of money after tax in a bank savings account
that pays little or not interest.
Yes it is a 35% tax savings, even if not in the highest bracket. Say in the 25% fed bracket
(income of $37,950 to $91,900). Then California income taxes for that income can come to nearly
10%.
Mostly true, but it depends. If the new 410k has good, low cost investment options that one
wishes to utilize then it's probably fine. That said, many 401k accounts tend to have higher
costs for equivalent funds than one can get in a rollover IRA. Buyer gots to do their research.
No, he's correct. 401(k)s have TONS of hidden fees. You can't even get full disclosure
of the full fees. You are guaranteed to have lower fees and more choices at Vanguard.
Not just the corporation investing in equities or stock buybacks, or workers investing in equities,
but also the corporations turn themselves into finance/insurance businesses (Westinghouse, etc.)
It's funny that they can't see how they have defeated themselves – and they are blaming leakage
when spending the money is the antidote to stagnation as the system now works. It's hard to imagine
that the corporations want to retire the old workers to make room for new – I don't believe that
for a second because they'll gladly retire 4 olds and hire 1new. It's "flexibility" they are looking
for.
It's time to end US military engagements in the Middle East.
Drones, special operations, CIA arms supplies, military advisers, aerial bombings - the whole
nine yards. Over and done with.
That might seem impossible in the face of ISIS, terrorism, Iranian ballistic missiles, and
other US security interests, but a military withdrawal from the Middle East is by far the safest
path for the United States and the region. That approach has instructive historical precedents.
America has been no different from other imperial powers in finding itself ensnared repeatedly
in costly, bloody, and eventually futile overseas wars. From the Roman empire till today, the
issue is not whether an imperial army can defeat a local one. It usually can, just as the United
States did quickly in Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003.
The issue is whether it gains anything by doing so. Following such a "victory," the imperial
power faces unending heavy costs in terms of policing, political instability, guerilla war, and
terrorist blowback.
Wheresoever the Roman conquers, he inhabits. -- Seneca
Iraq has fallen. Saddam's statues are face down in the dust. His evil tyranny is at an end.
So -- can we, like, go home now?
You didn't have to wait long for a perfect symbol of the fundamental weakness at the heart
of the new American imperialism -- sorry, humanitarianism. I'm talking about its chronically short
time frame. I wasn't counting, but the Stars and Stripes must have been up there on the head of
that statue of Saddam for less than a minute. You have to wonder what his commanding officer said
to the marine responsible, Cpl. Edward Chin, when he saw Old Glory up there. ''Son, get that thing
down on the double, or we'll have every TV station from here to Bangladesh denouncing us as Yankee
imperialists!''
An echo of Corporal Chin's imperial impulse can be heard in the last letter Cpl. Kemaphoom
Chanawongse sent home before he and his Marine unit entered Iraq. Chanawongse joked that his camp
in Kuwait was like something out of ''M*A*S*H'' -- except that it would need to be called ''M*A*H*T*S*F'':
''marines are here to stay forever.''
But the question raised by Corporal Chanawongse's poignant final joke -- he was killed a week
later, when his amphibious assault vehicle was blown up in Nasiriya -- is, Are the marines in
Iraq ''to stay forever''? No doubt it is true, as President Bush said, that the America will ''honor
forever'' Corporal Chanawongse and the more than 120 other service personnel so far killed in
the conflict. Honored forever, yes. But there forever? In many ways the biggest mystery about
the American occupation of Iraq is its probable duration. Recent statements by members of the
Bush administration bespeak a time frame a lot closer to ephemeral than eternal. As the president
himself told the Iraqi people in a television broadcast shortly after the fall of Baghdad: ''The
government of Iraq and the future of your country will soon belong to you. . . . We will respect
your great religious traditions, whose principles of equality and compassion are essential to
Iraq's future. We will help you build a peaceful and representative government that protects the
rights of all citizens. And then our military forces will leave.''
What the president didn't make entirely clear was whether the departing troops would be accompanied
by the retired Lt. Gen. Jay Garner and his ''Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance,''
newspeak for what would once have been called Omgus -- the Office of Military Government (United
States). Nor was he very specific about when exactly he expected to see the handover of power
to the ''peaceful and representative government'' of Iraqis.
But we know the kind of time frame the president has in mind. In a prewar speech to the American
Enterprise Institute, Bush declared, ''We will remain in Iraq as long as necessary and not a day
more.'' It is striking that the unit of measure he used was days. Speaking less than a week before
the fall of Baghdad, Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of defense, suggested that Garner would
be running Iraq for at least six months. Other administration spokesmen have mentioned two years
as the maximum transition period. When Garner himself was asked how long he expected to be in
charge, he talked about just three months.
If -- as more and more commentators claim -- America has embarked on a new age of empire, it
may turn out to be the most evanescent empire in all history. Other empire builders have fantasized
about ruling subject peoples for a thousand years. This is shaping up to be history's first thousand-day
empire. Make that a thousand hours.
Let me come clean. I am a fully paid-up member of the neoimperialist gang. Two years ago --
when it was not at all fashionable to say so -- I was already arguing that it would be ''desirable
for the United States to depose'' tyrants like Saddam Hussein. ''Capitalism and democracy,'' I
wrote, ''are not naturally occurring, but require strong institutional foundations of law and
order. The proper role of an imperial America is to establish these institutions where they are
lacking, if necessary . . . by military force.'' ...
What is CAPE, or the cyclically adjusted price-earnings ratio, exactly? Bear with me.
This is a bit technical: It is real, or inflation-adjusted, stock price divided by a
10-year average of real earnings. It is usually measured using the price and earnings
of the Standard & Poor's 500-stock index, adjusted for inflation with the
Consumer Price Index
. In 1988, John Y. Campbell (now at Harvard) and I
showed in
a joint article
that such a
ratio
has, since 1881, forecast returns somewhat well in the stock market. That
"somewhat" is important because the ratio has its limits as a forecasting tool.
We found back then that averaging earnings over 10 years smoothed short-run or
cyclical fluctuations, providing a better indicator of fundamental value. The CAPE
ratio has successfully explained about a third of the variation in real 10-year stock
market returns in United States history since 1881.
This is the important point: In 1988, we found that CAPE had averaged about 15 since
1881. In years when CAPE was lower than that, subsequent 10-year returns for the
stock market tended to be good. In years when it was higher, the 10-year returns
tended to be bad.
That's why today's CAPE is sending a troubling message. The ratio is now almost 30.
Using monthly data, it has been higher only in 1929, when it reached 33, and in the
few years around 2000, when it reached 44. In both instances, sharp market declines
followed those very high readings. The current level of CAPE suggests a dim outlook
for the American stock market over the next 10 years or so, but it does not tell us
for sure nor does it say when to expect a decline. As I said, CAPE is useful, but it
does not provide a clear guide to the future.
Investor sentiment is another factor, and current readings also give us cause for
concern.
I have been involved in regular opinion surveys of institutional and individual
investors in the United States since 1989. These surveys are undertaken and published
online
by the Yale School of Management.
From these data, I created a Valuation
Confidence Index, which is the percent of respondents who think the domestic stock
market is not overvalued; a Crash Confidence Index, which is the percent who think
that a 1929- or 1987-style crash in the next six months is highly unlikely; and a
One-Year Confidence Index, which is the percent who think the stock market will go up
in the next year. The indexes are measured in six-month intervals, and our latest
data are for the six months through February, which includes the election of
President Trump on Nov. 8, 2016.
Valuation confidence in February was quite low. The only time it has been lower was
in the years surrounding the market peak of 2000. In February, crash confidence was
quite low too, though it has been slightly lower on a number of occasions since 1989.
These two indicators might seem to confirm the apparent signal of the CAPE ratio:
trouble ahead. They are certainly saying that investors aren't confident that current
prices are reasonable or that the market is stable.
But one metric went the opposite direction. One-year confidence is at a record high
for institutional investors, and it is at the highest level since 2007 for individual
investors. (That means, by the way, that in 2007, the eve of the Great Recession and
financial crisis, most people had no clue that big problems were imminent.)
The Upshot
Get the best of The Upshot's news, analysis and graphics about
politics, policy and everyday life.
Thank you for subscribing.
An error has occurred. Please try again
later.
You are already subscribed to this email.
It is hard to reconcile these results. One possible interpretation might be that
respondents perceive a stock market bubble: They think valuations are high and there
is a non-negligible probability of a crash. At the same time, they are hanging in
because they think the Trump boom will probably last for at least another year.
That doesn't provide much reassurance. The high fraction of our survey respondents
who think that the stock market is unlikely to fall in the next year may simply
reflect a failure of imagination about how a Trump bull market could suddenly end.
There are scores of ways, of course. Just because people can't picture a big decline
doesn't mean that they won't react very badly if the market comes under real stress.
Many people appear to believe that a business-oriented president will preside over a
long stock market boom. At a glance, there appears to be some precedent for this,
first with the 1920 election that brought in President Warren G. Harding and Vice
President Calvin Coolidge (who took over when Harding died in 1923) and then with the
1980 victory of Ronald Reagan. These elections were followed by the Roaring Twenties
of 1921 to 1929 and the Millennium Boom market of 1982 to 2000.
But in both cases, during the initial election campaigns the economy was in recession
and the CAPE ratio was extremely low - around 5 in 1920 and 9 in 1980.
We are in a very different situation now. The economy has largely recovered from the
last recession, and CAPE shows us that stocks are now relatively expensive.
There is no clear message from all of this. Long-term investors shouldn't be alarmed
and shouldn't avoid stocks altogether. But my bottom line is that the high pricing of
the market - and the public perception that the market is indeed highly priced - are
the most important factors for the current market outlook. And those factors are
negative.
We don't know where the market will go this month or this year. It could well rise a
lot. But investors should not let themselves be tempted to bet aggressively on the
Trump bull market.
This is largely a politically-based rally by ardent
pro-business retail 'investors' that cannot help but to harken back to the
overglorified 80's--giving far too much credit to a deregulation-fueled boom. The
institutional investors (hedge funds and professionals) have locked in gains and are
holding a whole bunch of cash. It's amazing that the current irrational exuberance is
heavily tied to politics and faith in a supposed pro-business agenda that has not yet
materialized, and that the former cash-holding Republicans that missed the Obama
rally, and have now thrown their cash into this Trump gamble, will be the ones that
suffer the losses. Sad!
-->
With all of Trump's talk about: Taxation; repealing
Dodd-Frank; the AHCA Debacle; Infrastructure--"sometime this year", it's hard not to
expect the economy to be moving in opposite directions. Then his attempted
micromanagement by thinking that CEOs will base business decisions on Trumpisms,
Isolationism,a d Trade Wars, and the nonsense goes on and on.
I wouldn't be surprised, at all, to see a return to 1970s style Stagflation, and
Trump doesn't have the nerve to pul;l a Volcker. Trumpie is in over his head, and
grasping for both the anchor and a cannonball!
Yes, it is good to have plenty of cash indoor portfolio.
Schiller brought this up 1.5 years ago. Like everyone else (I
listen to and talk with), I think the stock market is definitely over-valued. There
has been no recession since 2008-2009. Worst of all stocks have not made money
because America's companies are investing in capital equipment and making more goods.
Instead they were/are using cheap rates to buy-back stock and do other corporate
money maneuvers to make the company look attractive. The GDP remains fairly dismal,
especially when you take into account demographic growth. I would say the market is
due for a downturn. When Shiller talked about this the last time he said the downturn
would be on the order of 30%. He's being more conservative. I don't blame him. We
live in a world of declining real investment and sliding real productivity, along
with wages that have been stagnant forever.
-->
The market is indeed overpriced, might not show any signs of
correction any time soon. Current level might be supported by "political delusion"
for quite a while, just like all other "bubbles" before.
-->
Over your time scale, the nature of investors has changed.
There are more "asset classes" of investors: HFTs, Investment houses, hedge funds,
instutional investors, pension funds, 401ks and Uncle Buck with more money than
sense.
All the goodness of a lagged tie series aside, the think to look at is the second
derivative of these curves. It's the velocity of the changes that matters. Has that
changed? Now it's six trillion in 401k's heading for the exit in a downturn, with the
people in the expensive seats jamming in ahead; taking all the lifeboats to mix
metaphors.
When someone yells "fire" in a theater the results are always the same, and they
never have anything to do with whether there is one or not.
-->
The stock market is fueled by the flow of easy money and the
near zero interest rate credit. Beginning this year, FED will start tightening credit
by not continue buying bond when they are due to mature in 2017 and after. When the
easy money and credit become dry, the stock market will feel the pinch and shrink
dramatically. Otherwise, how could Amazon have such a large free cash flow and in the
meantime her depreciation exceeds capital investment & expense? And the stock is
still blooming?
-->
I have another index that I use to reduce stock in my
portfolio.
It is called: Doctor Investment Sentiment Index.
My daughter and her husband are both doctors. When they tell me that they just
invested in the stock market because they here that it has gone up and their
colleagues have also recently "made money", I take that as a signal and reallocate.
This is sentiment is not limited to doctors. In fact, stockbrokers and MBA students
in finance have the same problem. There have been experiments involving MBA students
who have sufficient information to see that they are participating in a bubble, but
they continue playing the game, believing that they will be able to withdraw "just
before" the crash, knowing that a crash will occur. You can see the experiment in a
lecture by Professor Charles Plott here at around 1 hour into the lecture:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJWy-cLbqh8
-->
Read John Hussman (Phd)'s weekly newsletter. He has charts
of the other best historic indicators of future returns, including Buffet's
favorite Total Market Cap/GDP. All of them are right up there with CAPE, meaning
look out below.
-->
I agree with Prof. Shiller about the risks in the
stockmarket. The PE (forward 12 month earnings) at 17,6 is high indeed. And earnings
for S&P 500 are projected to increase by 10,1 % (17/16) and S&P500 has increased more
than 12% last 12 month. But compared to the last 10 years interestrates are still low
- 10 year T-bill was at approx. 4,75% in 2007 and now stands at 2,4%. In addition to
this, one of the goals of president Trumph is to lower corporate tax rate, from 35%
to 15%. The last will increase EPS. Corporate tax rate in Sweden stands at 22%. (But
we do not know if there will be financing for such a tax decrease.)
My question to prof. Shiller is how this will effect the interpretation of the
Shiller PE, as this is based in different tax rate and higher interest rate. Are
risks still that pronounced?
-->
doktorij
is a trusted commenter
Eastern Tn
2 days ago
One should have been treading on eggshells since the
primaries and definitely since the election. Take some profits, if you have them, and
patiently wait. Yields are a bit better and patience is a virtue we've seemed to have
forgotten.
Schiller is right to sound these warnings although he's
something of a permabear and his cape index is iffy. Stocks aren't in bubble
territory yet but they are certainly expensive and moving in that direction. The
market has priced in totally unrealistic expectation about Trump policies. Thus a
huge crash doesn't seem probable but a substantial correction is very likely.
Different investors have different goals but most people with any sense were doing
some profit taking two weeks ago.
-->
While the usefulness of Professor Schiller's research is
indisputable, there some issues that he doesn't account for sufficiently, that cloud
his conclusions.
Chief among them is his negative bias, the opposite of exuberance, a perfect word for
which, doesn't even exist. Granted, his negative bias is entirely rational, unlike
the irrational exuberance he's famously written about. Nevertheless, like a
weatherman predicting a Tsunami weeks prior. There's no way to dismiss it because the
weatherman is obviously qualified, but to credibly play climate scientist, must first
distance himself from weather forecasting.
With critique out of the way, and more than sufficiently-distanced from the
number-crunching, let's take a closer look at Mr. Shiller's backward-looking
statements. We have two components: Price and Earnings, with Price in a gallop. So we
have to ask, what gives? One very plausible reason is irrational behavior, which
Shiller has eloquently written about. But may well be other reasons, as Schiller
himself admits.
Let us give the market the benefit of doubt. What is the market saying, really? That
they expect future earnings to rise. Which, given these are not normal times,
perfectly rational. En-masse stripping of regulation, job growth, increased
manufacturing, consumption. All pointing to higher earnings.
Provided of course, as Shakespeare would say, taken at flood. We just have to
figure-out who will, and pick their stocks wisely. Good luck.
Yes, but what guarantees do we have of job growth? If the
government cuts back on its expenditures, as it is promising to do, we may look
for layoffs in the public sector which could offset any gains in the private one.
Furthermore, such layoffs could minimize consumer consumption-as will consumer
cautiousness once necessary regulation is removed, and we have a few gross
examples of how it should not have been removed. All of this could even waylay the
predicted increase in manufacturing..... I'm not saying this will happen, I am
just suggesting that all of the pie-in-the-sky predictions that Trumpeters have
been making are to some extent contradictory...
Shortly after Trump was elected (LOL--I almost accidentally
wrote "arrested"), a Trump supporter beamed in a NY Times comment about how Trump had
already made everything better. Why, look at the stock market! Soaring!
I guess the promises of a one-trillion dollar ($1,000,000,000,000) tax cut for the
wealthy and pro-corporate tax reform (i.e., additional tax cuts for the wealthy)
really put a bounce in the step of all those mighty Wall Street warriors. You'll
remember them as the folks who brought you the Great Recession.
Trump's government-by-Twitter and hostility to all the major world players but Russia
could wreck the markets in any number of ways. Some of his tweets praise or criticize
individual companies, picking stock-market winners and losers at the president's
whim.
Yes, the stock market is on fire and breaking all the records! But the Trump
conflagration could too easily spread and burn the house down.
-->
The market does seem "frothy" to me, just from my quite
unacademic standpoint after reading my quarterly statements. It's counting on tax
reform, especially corporate tax reform.
Unfortunately, tax reform is now in the hands of politicians who seem to me
completely incompetent. They control two branches of the federal government, and they
can't pass any legislation. Trump "the businessman," moreover, is a fiction. The
guy's a real estate salesman, and those people don't always have a good track record
of total disclosure.
What are we amateurs to do? Set a ratio of stocks to bonds in our mutual fund
portfolios that suits our appetite for risk (mine's moderate). And then we can use
tools like a good retirement estimator to predict how much money we'll have at a
certain age, using the most pessimistic assumptions in a Monte Carlo simulation. If
one has enough money at the estimated age of demise under severely underperforming
market conditions, one will probably be all right.
Tax reform as a way to boost valuations is yet another
'bubble". It undercuts investment which is what ultimately makes companies and
stocks worth more. The financial equivalent of empty carb calories.
Monte Carlo simulation is useful, however you won't know what the underlying model
is unless you do it yourself. I have three separate 401ks and administrators that
have this feature and using the same data, they have different results.What's
important is how they handle "absorbing barriers" in stochastic process terms. In
gambling it's when you run out of money, or close to it.
You also need a monte carlo model for when you need money. That's the probability
of significant life time events. They can be good: selling your house, or bad,
full onset alzheimers at 68. Most models use average life expectancy, not survival
curves (ie if you are now x years old you have y% chance of living to X+1). Some
companies let you plug in "best guess" for these events. Use it.
As a result I build my own MC models, but I'm a mathematician, and I have access
to a small supercomputer. But the guidance that comes of all this simulation to
keep a large cash buffer, bigger than you might like, given the return on fixed
income investments. That's the real problem in today's investment market. The
traditional diversified portfolio model is broken, and those 401k models don't
acknowledge this.
The main point of the article about over valuation seems
to be correct. Higher stock prices are driven mostly by
low interest rates and high liquidity created by the Fed
to prop up the economy. Economic growth rate doesn't
justify high price earnings ratio. It is profitable to borrow
at low rates and invest in stocks. With the expected
rise in interest rates stocks won't be so attractive.
World economy is sluggish. US and Europe have growth
rate of less than 2%, China and India report high rates but
most economists believe the rates are fake.. Japan as usually
is in doldrum. Recent rise in stock market is based on
expectation of tax rate cuts, infrastructure spending. Trade
wars would offset the impact of rate cuts and sugar rush
of infrastructure spending.
If you want to see poverty, one can go to Michigan or
Wisconsin.
Or try India and China where perhaps 1 billion do not have enough to eat, no
government programs for health care nor for education. Yes, they grow at 5 or 6%,
but from a very low base. Or try all of Africa, Egypt, Turkey, the Middle East:
and what do we in the USA have, tsurus. The President who does not understand
people, nor tries to. A president who will not even go to the opening game in DC
because he knows he will get the biggest boo ever heard!
Sell now. Don't wait for May. The lunatics in the House will kill the
budget bill and we will have our credit rating downgraded once again.
Impeachment cannot be far behind, in my opinion.
To those who pooh pooh Dr Schiller, please remember that he won the Nobel Prize
for Economics.
The so-called "stock market" is not a barometer of economic activity, but a
caricature of failing fiscal and monetary policies. It is mostly nurtured and
sustained by political expedience and fraudulent accounting practices in accordance
with the misguided principles(!) of the ruling elite.
Conference Board Index of Consumer Sentiment is the highest
since December 2000. Who says they don't ring a bell at the top of a bull market?
Saying this, I haven't witnessed folks drinking champagne out of cowboy boots which
signaled the end of the oil market boom in the 1970's, nobody has run their Ferrari
off the road and killed themselves which occurred at the peak of the 1983 bull
market. Companies and consumers are not highly leveraged. There's more anxiety than
"irrational exuberance" for which reason the equity markets are up more than 20% for
the 12 months ended Feb 28.
With respect to Shiller's work, II have the same opinion as of an accordian. It makes
music when it hits the ash can.
I agree the market is overvalued especially given that
interest rates will be rising, and the risk premium Trump adds all by himself with
his threats to free trade. But there is so much liquidity in the capital markets and
the owners of that liquidity are looking for anything, just anything, to buy to put
it to work. This could be a bubble created by the quantitative easing monetary policy
of the Fed. The sad thing is that machinery and equipment is worn out and corporate
America chooses not to reinvest all that liquidity to replace it. Instead it buys
back stock and issues special dividends, and adds to the bubble.
There is certainly value in CAPE and the index is
extraordinarily high. But by focusing on the cyclical but ignoring the structural
changes in earnings, it may miss the big picture.
For most of the past decade, the global economy has been flat, owing to the wreckage
caused by the GFC. But that is not the likely long term scenario. The Asia-Pacific
share of the global middle class is estimated to grow from 28% in 2009 to 66% in
2030. Just under half the S&P 500 revenue today is generated outside the US, and that
will grow substantially.
The global glut of savings will keep interest rates historically low, holding down
capital costs of automation, renewable energy and resource extraction and creating
greater leveraging of equity.
Highly inefficient bricks and mortar retail will concede further share to on-line
sales, freeing up capital for more productive uses.
These are just a few of the structural changes already underway. Some of this is not
pretty for some categories of US workers, unless we can address the gaps in our labor
supply, as we are chronically short of qualified workers at all levels.
Bloomberg reported this week that corporate profits rose 22% in 4Q2016 vs 4Q2015,
suggesting some structural changes underway.
gary brandwein
NYC/ fomerly of Sheffield GB
2 days ago
Note that revenue growth did not expand by 22% but is
contracting making these numbers fungible.
"... Trump voters that I know well said the following: "The system is broken, and at least Trump is saying something about it. Whether he actually does anything about it is anyone's guess given his unpredictability, but at least he acknowledges what is so plainly obvious to so many. " ..."
"... Anyone but Hillary is something I can at least accept, since anyone with a brain in America realizes that the Clintons (and that's the entire family, for the ignoramuses out there) gave EVERYTHING to the banksters, period! ..."
"... And while I greatly appreciate this article, it is really so bloody obvious by 2016, that only the dumbest, most ignorant and mentally lazy among us cannot grasp the simple arithmetic of waaay over 100,000 factories and production facilities offshored, of all the imported foreign visa replacement workers (i.e., scabs), etc., etc., etc. Plus add to that the offshore creation of jobs by American companies and corporations, instead of inshore job creation! ..."
"... We only have ourselves to blame for the mess we are in because we continue to vote for people that support corporate interests over those of the people. Then again, that is how American was founded. Only land owners (read: rich white men) were able to participate in American democracy at is founding. Not much has changed now that money is speech. ..."
"... The Democratic candidate was the candidate selected by and for the 1%. So was the LAST Democratic candidate. The Democratic party is how the 1% makes sure the citizens cannot get their needs met peacefully. They are therefore the ones to blame. Not "us." Definitely not me. I voted for Bernie. Twice. ..."
"... Sure there's a few racists in the group (there almost always are) but by and large I think Trump voters pulled the lever in spite of his hysterical rantings on the topic, not because of them. ..."
"... You're missing the point of this article. Counties that had twice voted for Obama voted for Trump. If these counties are "single-issue" voters dedicated to abortion & gun rights, then why did they twice vote for Obama? ..."
"... I know a bunch of people who were Bernie supporters who voted for Trump. And they voted for Trump because at least he was change and he wasn't insulting them. Some of them have now gone all in on Trumpian conservatism because they are recoiling from the murderous hypocrisy of the corporate Democrats, so they're giving "the other side" a chance. It saddens me, but there's nothing I can do about it. I understand that standing the wilderness of the real left pushing for change is daunting. ..."
"... The Middle Eastern small business owner who went all-in for Trump and hugged me sympathetically for being a Bernie supporter had a point of view yet to be disproved. "Your guy is the better man. He would have given us better policies. But they were never going to let him win. Trump can win, and perhaps clear out the viper's nest so that someone decent can win in the future." ..."
"... Like it or not, the Democratic Party betrayed the left, betrayed the New Deal, and became a second pro-war, pro-Wall Street Party. ..."
"... I think that this is what identity politics is about. Had Clinton won, she would not have done much for the minorities. Maybe she would have called them superpredators again. Same with the constant Bernie Bashing. They desperately wanted to shut down Bernie Sanders because he called out, if only briefly, what a terrible candidate Clinton was. She would have suppressed the left aggressively. ..."
"... Even the phony baloney "Russians Are Coming" meme should be challenged by voters on the right and left. Putin is a more valuable ally than Merkel. He's a Russian nationalist. A populist. Globalists like Pelosi, Graham, Obama and McCain use dog whistles on their respective demographics to thwart Trump's efforts to make Americans first in fevered, corrupt swamps of DC and NY. ..."
"... I decided to judge Trump by his enemies left and right. Hollywood hates him, not because of his human rights record but because he killed TPP. Without international copyright protections hidden deep in that well, the studios are bankrupt. ..."
"... Meryl Streep is a huckster, a fraud, and a tool of the same people we all hate. ..."
"... This reminds me of the arguments Zionists use to deflect criticism about Israel's actions towards its neighbors – as in "That's just the sort of thing people who hate Jews would say. Why do you hate Jews? Oh, wait, you're Jewish? Well, obviously, then, you're a self-hating Jew". ..."
"... I'm neither Muslim nor Jewish (self-hating or otherwise), but back in the '60s and early '70s I was generally supportive of Israel. The idea that only Jews could criticize Israel without being accused of hating Jews bugged me, and then the meme of the "self-hating Jew" really made it obvious what the game was. Just another ad hom argument, dressed up in the respectable clothing of religious tolerance. ..."
"... And this idea that Trump voters need to justify their votes, while HRC voters (or Stein or Johnson voters?) don't, is pretty much the same. Don't mind those people, they're just hateful bigots until proven otherwise. Nothing to see here, move along. ..."
"... Admittedly, Not a Trump fan, I don't have television or listen to radio in the car. But every time I heard cries of racism and I could find/read actual transcripts rather than just believe 'reports' I was not alarmed, at least no more and probably less than Demo/Clinton policy for decades running. But then, just being against more immigration with 320 million people already here doesn't make one automatically a racist. ..."
"... Many people are simply sick & tired of the smug self righteousness of "Identity" politicians. Sick of their belief that the mere suggestion that one is sexist/racist will cause a knee jerk retreat from any debate. The Identity crowd has been playing this nasty little game for decades now & it has WORN THIN . ..."
"... Why did Hillary voters ignore her explicitly racist, corporatist, corrupt, war-mongering ways? Why did all the blood on her hands (from Libya, Honduras, Iraq etc) cause little or no offense to them? ..."
"... Perhaps because she was what many of them aspired to be: a member of the 1%, a shining success, a winner whose failures, lies, betrayals and foul deeds were easy to ignore if you had swallowed the vile, anti-human propaganda of neoliberalism. ..."
"... a similar argument could be made for those who voted democrat ignoring their racist actions all around the world murdering, dropping bombs, and economically exploiting black and brown people. ..."
"... This Bernie Bro voted for Trump out of sheer hatred for the "Listen Liberal" crowd of sanctimonious meritocrats and desire to see their playhouse pulled down. Not real nuanced, but glad I did it. ..."
"... replace corrupt tax farming / private medical insurance (with equitable tax based medicare?) ..."
In an earlier post, "Political Misfortune: Anatomy of Democratic Party Failure in Clinton's Campaign
2016" (parts
one and
two ) I looked why Clinton lost (summarized by two political cliches: "It's the economy, stupid"
and "change vs. more of the same", with Clinton representing "more of the same," as in "America is
already great"). I should write a post on how Trump won, but I'm not yet ready to tackle that yet
( exit polls here ).
My goal in this short post is far more modest: I want to introduce the idea that Trump voters took
their votes seriously, and that their motivations were - dare I say it - more nuanced and complex
than typical liberal narratives suggest (Jamelle Bouie's
"There's No Such Thing as a Good Trump Voter" is a classic of the genre[1]). To do this, I'll
look at things Trump voters actually said, using some material from Democracy Corps (
"Macomb County in the Age of Trump" )[2] on Obama voters who flipped to Trump, and more material
from Chris Arnade. Both sources can be said to be reasonably representative, given that Democracy
Corps used a focus group methodology[3], and Chris Arnade was been traveling through the flyover
states for two years, talking to people and taking photographs. I'm going to throw what Trump voters
said into three buckets: Concrete material benefits, inequity aversion, and volatility voting.[4]
Concrete Material Benefits
One concrete material benefit is no more war and a peace dividend.
Arnade :
I found a similar viewpoint in communities such as West Cleveland: Donna Weaver, 52, is a waitress,
and has spent her entire life in her community. "I was born and raised here. I am not happy. Middle
class is getting killed; we work for everything and get nothing. I hate both of the candidates,
but I would vote for Trump because the Iraq war was a disaster . Why we got to keep
invading countries. Time to take care of ourselves first ."
"Bring the jobs back, bring the jobs back to the States." "He's trying
to create jobs , trying to keep jobs in the United States." "I just like
the talk about bringing the jobs back." "To me, it's going to get us our jobs
back, he's going to boost our economy, boost their economic growth for families, to bring
our future generations up."
A third - and the most important - concrete material benefit is
Democracy Corps :
10. [Trump will fix health care. The cost of health care dominated the discussion in these
focus groups . They say Trump "promised within the first hundred days to get rid of Obamacare"
and fixing the health care system is one of their great hopes for his presidency. They speak of
the impossibly high costs and hope Trump will bring "affordable healthcare" which will "help [us]
raise our families and make us be prosperous."
The experience of Trump voters is our health care system is similar to the experiences of many
commenters here.
Democracy Corps :
"My insurance for the last three years went up, went up, went up. Started out for a family
of four, I was paying $117 a week out of my paycheck. Three years later I'm paying $152 a week
out of my paycheck. I don't even go to the doctor for one. I don't take medicine."
Such a deal. And here's a lovely Catch-22:
"They cut my insurance at work My doctor, because my back is bad, said, 'Well, cut your hours.
You can only work so many hours.' Now I have to work more hours, take more pain pills, to get
my insurance back, and now they're telling me I can't get it back for another year."
Inequity Aversion
Here's a description of "inequity aversion" from
the New Yorker , as shown in the famous experiment from Sarah Brosnan and Frans de Waal with
female capuchin monkeys:
[T]hey found that monkeys hate being disadvantaged. A monkey in isolation is happy to eat either
a grape or a slice of cucumber. But a monkey who sees that she's received a cucumber while her
partner has gotten a grape reacts with anger: she might hurl her cucumber from her cage. Some
primates, Brosnan and de Waal concluded, "dislike inequity." They hate getting the short end of
the stick. Psychologists have a technical term for this reaction: they call it "disadvantageous-inequity
aversion." This instinctual aversion to getting less than others has been found in chimpanzees
and dogs, and it occurs, of course, in people, in whom it seems to develop from a young age.
So who's getting the short end of the stick? One perceived inequity is immigration in the context
of scarcity[5].
Democracy Corps :
"Well I mean we're all talking about illegals, I made a straight up post that in America we
have hungry, we have veterans, we have mental illness, we have so many problems in our own
country that we at this point in time just can't be concerned with, I feel bad but our country's
in dire straits financially." "I mean we need to take care of home first . We need
to take care of the veterans, we need to take care of the elderly, we need to take care of the
mentally ill, we need to take care everyone instead of us worrying about other people in other
countries, we need to take care of our house first. Get our house in order then you
know what, you need this and this and then we'll help you."
A second perceived inequity is bailouts for bankers and not for the rest of us.
Democracy Corps :
[Obama] brought the country to a macro recovery by the end of his term, but not a single person
in these groups mentioned any economic improvements under his presidency, even after the president
closed the 2016 campaign in Detroit making the case for building on his economic progress. They
have strong feelings about him, but in the written comments only one mentioned anything about
the economy in positive impressions – specifically that he saved GM and Chrysler from bankruptcy
– and just five mentioned anything economic when elaborating their doubts. Some described him
as a steward for the status quo: "I think he just maintained. He didn't really do much for the
country. And he let a lot of jobs go." Some did recall the bailout of the banks even though the
crisis "affected millions or people," leading them to think he favored the elites – "the wealthy,"
"the richer people," "the big wigs," and "the lobbyists." They know he "didn't help the lower
class, he didn't help the middle class" people like them, they insisted over and over.
And:
Taking on the reckless banks told them who you are really for. Some said they were "really
irritated about the reckless banks" and "protecting consumers from Wall Street and reckless banks
was very important." They recalled that "we lost our home because of that" and "with the bailout
all the money went to the banks and it affected millions of people. And, then, a short time later,
the banks were back to these huge bonuses" and "there's never really punishment for them."
Trump voters may not vote the way I want them to, but after having spent the last five years
working in (and having grown up in) parts of the US few visit, they are not dumb. They are doing
whatever any other voter does: Trying to use their vote to better their particular situation (however
they define that) .. Frustrated with broken promises, they gave up on the knowable and went with
the unknowable. They chose Trump, because he comes with a very high distribution. A high volatility.
As any trader will tell you, if you are stuck lower, you want volatility, uncertainty. No matter
how it comes. Put another way. Your downside is flat, your upside isn't. Break the system.
The elites loathe volatility. Because, the upside is limited, but the downside isn't. In option
language, they are in the money.
People don't make reckless decisions because things are going well. They make them because
they have reached a breaking point. They are desperate enough to trying anything new. Especially
if it offers escape, or a glimmer of hope. Even false hope.
That might mean drugs. Politically that might mean breaking the system. Especially if you think
the system is not working for you. And viewed from much of the America the system doesn't work.
The factories are gone. Families are falling apart. Social networks are frayed.
Lori Ayers, 47, works in the gas station. She was blunt when I asked her about her life. "Clarington
is a shithole. Jobs all left. There is nothing here anymore. When Ormet Aluminum factory closed,
jobs all disappeared." She is also blunt about the pain in her life. "I have five kids and two
have addictions. There is nothing else for kids to do here but drugs. No jobs. No place to play."
She stopped and added: "I voted for Obama the first time, not the second. Now I am voting for
Trump. We just got to change things ."
"I felt like it was – it's time for a change, not just a suit to change, it's time for
everything to change . Status quo's not good enough anymore." "Just a lot of change, no
more politics as usual. Maybe something can be changed." "I was tired of politics as usual, and
I thought if we had somebody in there that wasn't a Clinton or wasn't a Bush that would shake
things up , which he obviously has, and maybe get rid of the people who are just milking
the office and not doing their job. I'm hoping that he's going to hold people more accountable
for the job that they're doing for us."
Conclusion
The
Democracy Corps pollsters conclude - and I should say I'm quite open to the idea that they were
trying to sell the Democrat Party on a strategy the party was ultimately not willing to adopt, as
shown (for example) by the Ellison defenestration - as follows:
Democrats don't have a white working class problem, as so many have suggested. They have a
working class problem that includes working people in their own base. We can learn an immense
amount from listening and talking to the white working class independent and Democratic Trump
voters, particularly those who previously supported Obama or failed to turnout in past presidential
contests.
Clearly, I agree with this conclusion. It's also clear that a Democratic Party that had come out
for #MedicareForAll, wasn't openly thirsting for war, and was willing to bring the finance sector
to heel would win a respectful hearing from these voters. (At this point, it's worth noting that
the Democrats, as a party, are even less popular than Trump and Pence . So I guess focusing like
a laser beam on gaslighting a war with Russia is working great.) Whether today's Democrat party is
capable of seizing this opportunity is at the very best an open question; the dominant liberal framing
of Trump voters as Others who are motivated solely by immutable and essentially personal failings
and frailties - racism; stupidity - would argue that the answer is no.
NOTES
[1] This is not so say that no Trump voter was motivated by racism (or sexism). However, that
is a second post I'm not ready to tackle, in part because I find the presumption that liberal Democrats
pushing that line are not racist (
"İ cried when they shot Medgar Evers"
) at the very least open to question, in part because the assumption seems to be that racism is an
immutably fixed personal essence (in essence, sinful), which ignores the role of liberal Democrats
in constructing the profoundly racist carceral state ("super-predators"). However,
this passage from a Democracy Corps focus group gives one hope:
But despite all that, Macomb has changed. Immigrants and religion were central to the deep
feelings about how America was changing, but black-white relations were just barely part of the
discussion. Detroit was once a flash point for the discussion of racial conflict, black political
leaders and government spending. Today, Detroit did not come up in conversation until we introduced
it and Macomb residents see a city "turning around for the good" and "on an upswing" and many
say they like to visit downtown. Even the majority African American city of Flint provokes only
sympathetic responses. They describe the area as "downscale" and "poor" and lament the water crisis
and the suffering it caused.
[3] "Democracy Corps conducted focus groups with white non-college educated (anything less than
a four-year college degree) men and women from Macomb County, Michigan on February 15 and 16, 2017
in partnership with the Roosevelt Institute. All of the participants were Trump voters who identified
as independents, Democratic-leaning independents, or Democrats and who voted for Obama in 2008, 2012
or both. Two groups were among women, one 40-65 and one 30-60 years old. Two groups were among men,
one 35-45 and one 40-60 years old."
Stephen King has an interview with a panel of fictional Trump voters . They sound quite
different from the voters of Macomb county, and I don't think the difference is entirely accounted
for by geography, much as I respect Stephen King, who has done great things for the state.
[4] A fourth possibility is that Trump voters were engaging in altruistic punishment, where people
"punish non-cooperators
even at cost to themselves ." (Personally shushing a cellphone user in the Quiet Car instead
of calling in the conductor is a trivial example.) Altruistic punishment would provide an account
for why Trump voters (supposedly) don't vote "in their own interests," but I couldn't find examples
in the sources I looked at.
[5] Democracy Corps puts legal immigration, illegal immigration, and refugees in the same bucket
as, to be fair, some voters seem to. I think they are three different use cases. In my personal view,
we need to accept refugees, particularly those from wars we ourselves started. For legal and illegal
immigration, the United States should put United States citizens first. I would love to emigrate
to Canada to work there and take advantage of its single payer system, or to any of a number of countries
where the cost of living is half our own. However, if I travel and overstay my visa, even as an "economic
refugee," I would expect to pay a fine and be forced to leave. I don't see why my case is any different
from any other illegal immigrant in this country. Canada does not have an open border. Nor need we
(except to the extent our goal is
beating down wages ,
especially in the working class, of course ).
Trump voters that I know well said the following: "The system is broken, and at least Trump
is saying something about it. Whether he actually does anything about it is anyone's guess given
his unpredictability, but at least he acknowledges what is so plainly obvious to so many. "
I am neither racist nor sexist, and do not appreciate being called that. My staff was 30% black,
over half female and everyone got along. Don't penalize or demonize me for trying to do the right
thing, and then expect me to vote for your platform.
Anyone but Hillary as she is the anti-Christ with corruption, debt, war and entrenched bureaucracies
bent on their own sick agendas. I know Trump is crazy, but less than alternatives.
Anyone but Hillary is something I can at least accept, since anyone with a brain in America
realizes that the Clintons (and that's the entire family, for the ignoramuses out there) gave
EVERYTHING to the banksters, period!
And while I greatly appreciate this article, it is really so bloody obvious by 2016, that
only the dumbest, most ignorant and mentally lazy among us cannot grasp the simple arithmetic
of waaay over 100,000 factories and production facilities offshored, of all the imported foreign
visa replacement workers (i.e., scabs), etc., etc., etc. Plus add to that the offshore creation
of jobs by American companies and corporations, instead of inshore job creation!
I hear your frustration, but why take that out on the democratic candidate? All of your gripes
should be directed at the 1%. The moneyed oligarchs, like the Koch brothers, that have used their
money to buy politicians and shape policy to suite their needs. They are ones that hire immigrants
with H1Bs, they are ones that dictate wages. They took away healthcare coverage and pensions.
They choose to close factories and open up in China and Mexico. Why did we vote for elected officials
for the last 40 years that passed legislation to allow this?
Again, why do people reward Republicans with the presidency, both houses of congress, and state
legislatures when the republicans, starting with Regan, busted unions and fought for deregulation,
free trade, and globalization. These things happen under Republicans and Democrats.
America is a capitalist society. Private business exists to make profits. Why an American $40
an hour for a job that can be done in China for $4? What can government do to stop that? Would
the people really vote for the policies needed to achieve that? Show me one politician office
that is willing to return to a Reagan era tax structure.
We only have ourselves to blame for the mess we are in because we continue to vote for
people that support corporate interests over those of the people. Then again, that is how American
was founded. Only land owners (read: rich white men) were able to participate in American democracy
at is founding. Not much has changed now that money is speech.
Squanto and twenty other Indians were kidnapped by Thomas Hunt and sold as slaves in Spain
in 1614. He somehow escaped and made his way to England and then back to New England. This is
how he learned English well enough to translate for the Pilgrims in 1620. The first documented
delivery of African slaves to the Massachusetts Bay Colony was in 1638, eight years after the
Colony's formation. [All my info above comes from 'New England Bound'.]
There had been slavery directed by Europeans in the Caribbean for a hundred years prior to
the European settlement of New England. Columbus's first words upon seeing the natives of Hispaniola
were: 'They will make fine slaves'.
The Democratic candidate was the candidate selected by and for the 1%. So was the LAST
Democratic candidate. The Democratic party is how the 1% makes sure the citizens cannot get their
needs met peacefully. They are therefore the ones to blame. Not "us." Definitely not me. I voted
for Bernie. Twice.
forwarded far and wide with prefix "For those interested in why actual people actually do things,
who aren't placated with comforting thoughts that all those who disagree with them are irredeemable
racist know-nothings."
"Democrats don't have a white working class problem, as so many have suggested. They have a
working class problem that includes working people in their own base."
Well put. Still haven't received anything other than a flummoxed look from any Clinton apologists
when I asked if *all* the 2012 Obama voters that went Trump are racists.
I see the U.S. political duopoly as a Juggernaut. The tea party, a grass-roots movement toward
the common man, was subsumed by the Kochs into an battering ram to destroy moderate Republicans
and those not hopelessly bought-off.
The Occupy Movement, which I credit with paving the way for Bernie, simply ran into the Democratic
Establishment Wall.
No to single-payer, yes to ACA. No to federal tuition assistance, yes to student loans. No
to deficit spending to improve the economy, yes to austerity. And, heaven forbid we tax the wealthy,
or run a socialist (gasp) for president. We came close to defeating that wall in 2016. We can't
stop now.
so much of flyover country is comprised of single-issue voters. Not all, of course, but I would
rank the prevalence of those issues as 1) abortion 2) gun rights. I believe #1 here dominated
the thinking of Trump voters. There was no chance in hell they were going to let Hillary Clinton
have a shot at nominating SC justices over the next 4 years.
Sure there's a few racists in the group (there almost always are) but by and large I think
Trump voters pulled the lever in spite of his hysterical rantings on the topic, not because of
them.
You're missing the point of this article. Counties that had twice voted for Obama voted
for Trump. If these counties are "single-issue" voters dedicated to abortion & gun rights, then
why did they twice vote for Obama?
without knowing the nuances of the counties in question, my hypothesis would be that turnout
was lower for Clinton-voting democrats as compared to Obama-voters in those counties while Republican
voters was the same or perhaps a bit higher. I think it's pretty reasonable to assume that single-issue
voters aren't voting for the Democratic candidate in any national election and I interpret your
point as to suggest that they switched their votes ( voted Obama in 2008 and 2012 but Trump in
2016).
I'm not saying this is the only reason, just that IMO it's a vastly under-appreciated one.
It's expressly about why Trump voters say they voted for Trump: your "single-issue" hobby horse
isn't in evidence.
You do, however, raise an interesting question: in these swing counties I'll try to find the
time to look at how much of the swing came from collapsing turn out rather than actual Obama to
Trump votes.
I personally know at least three people who voted Obama and then Trump and none are "single-issue",
all I would put in Lambert's/Arnade's "volatility voters" class.
But I'll grant that's not a meaningful polling set.
I know a bunch of people who were Bernie supporters who voted for Trump. And they voted
for Trump because at least he was change and he wasn't insulting them. Some of them have now gone
all in on Trumpian conservatism because they are recoiling from the murderous hypocrisy of the
corporate Democrats, so they're giving "the other side" a chance. It saddens me, but there's nothing
I can do about it. I understand that standing the wilderness of the real left pushing for change
is daunting.
The Middle Eastern small business owner who went all-in for Trump and hugged me sympathetically
for being a Bernie supporter had a point of view yet to be disproved. "Your guy is the better
man. He would have given us better policies. But they were never going to let him win. Trump can
win, and perhaps clear out the viper's nest so that someone decent can win in the future."
Lots of the people who sat out 2016 rather than vote for Clinton will probably continue to
sit out for Booker/Harris/Clinton (shudder) - whatever neoliberal gets coughed up. They aren't
going to become activists. They're too exhausted, disgusted or drugged.
It has nothing to do with complacency. Activists have been pushing for decades for better choices.
If we had had our way, Bernie Sanders would now be president, busily browbeating Chuck Schumer
into passing his free college bill, having already shoved Improved Medicare for All through the
Congress.
Lambert was very clear, and you don't seem to be disputing his evidence. The Democrats lost
their voters because they killed, jailed, starved and immiserated their voters. Democrats stole
their homes, pensions and jobs. Democrats said they were deplorable and showed they thought they
were disposable. Enough of their voters understood their self-interest well enough not to vote
for their oppressors, whether they came out for Trump or just stayed home. That is how Clinton
lost and Trump won.
Like it or not, the Democratic Party betrayed the left, betrayed the New Deal, and became
a second pro-war, pro-Wall Street Party.
Trump, despite being widely disliked at least was offering the economically devastated an opportunity
potentially to improve their lives. That was assuming that he kept his promises. Most people voted
for him out of despair knowing that even if he did not keep his promises, they would have lost
nothing since Clinton would not have either.
As for the wealthy Democrats? They wanted the bottom 90% to preserve their "upper class" and
"upper middle class privilege". That's what this is about. They want the people making less than
30,000 a year to vote the same way as big city Liberals making more than 130,000 a year.
I think that this is what identity politics is about. Had Clinton won, she would not have done
much for the minorities. Maybe she would have called them superpredators again. Same with the
constant Bernie Bashing. They desperately wanted to shut down Bernie Sanders because he called
out, if only briefly, what a terrible candidate Clinton was. She would have suppressed the left
aggressively.
Bernie Sanders's style of class politics - and his program of mild social-democratic redistribution
- did not gain much favor in New Canaan, Connecticut (where he won 27 percent of the vote)
or Northfield, Illinois (39 percent). For some suburban Democrats, Sanders's throttling in
these plush districts virtually disqualified him from office: "A guy who got 36 percent of
the Democrats in Fairfax County," an ebullient Michael Tomasky wrote after the Virginia primary,
"isn't going to be president."
Clinton was their candidate. By holding off Sanders's populist challenge - and declining
to concede fundamental ground on economic issues - the former secretary of state proved she
could be trusted to protect the vital interests of voters in Newton, Eden Prairie, and Falls
Church. They, more than any other group in America, were enthusiastically #WithHer.
To some extent, Clinton's appeal even carried over to wealthy red-state suburbs. In Forysth
County outside Atlanta, and Williamson County outside Nashville - the richest counties in Georgia
and Tennessee - Clinton lost big but improved significantly on Obama's performance in 2012.
But wealthy, educated suburbanites were never going to push the Democrats over the top all
by themselves. Despite Clinton's incremental gains, in the end, most rich white Republicans
remained rich white Republicans: hardly the sturdiest foundation for an anti-Trump majority.
The numbers show it.
As for the Liberals freaking out, they can be split into a few categories:
1. The ones who profited economically from the status quo, like the professional 10%ers. They
don't want someone who is going to rock the boat. The Fairfax County Jacobin article captures
them brilliantly. They hated Bernie Sanders.
2. The SJWs, intersectionalists, second generation feminists, and other identity politics groups.
They are not all wealthy, but unifying them is their identity politics ideology.
3. The hardcore Democratic partisans who "vote blue no matter who".
The Liberals want to pretend like it was racism or sexism or Russia that prevented their "chosen
one" from winning. In reality it was economics and the fact that people could see what Clinton
really was. For all the talk of the most progressive platform ever, Clinton was really the anti-thesis
of Bernie Sanders.
Did they really think their identity politics was going to fool anyone? We saw upper middle
class well off people lecturing less well off Bernie Sanders supporters this election to check
their "white privilege", even though the Sanders supporters were often poor and had their future
destroyed by the economic policies that neoliberal politicians like Hillary Clinton advocated
for.
I think it is because they don't want to appeal to working class people, because if they did,
they would have to serve them.
This election has been a real eye-opener as to who our allies and opponents are in this class
struggle. I think that in the coming years we will see a Liberal Left split of sorts. The best
possible outcome is a third party or even better the Democrats going the way of the Whigs.
The question is, how to build such a party? There is clearly the votes. Bernie showed that
and the left might even find some common ground with Trump voters. Keep in mind they are paleoconservatives
who are anti-war, want manufacturing and good benefits. By contrast the Clintons are pro war and
economically have more in common with the GOP Establishment than the Trump "economic despair base".
Excellent comment thank you, I agree the opportunity is there.. the question of how to mobilize
seems to be the problem. Trump is a total unknown, and who knows what the midterms will bring.
The fact the bernie got as many votes as he did as an old, socialist, by no means charismatic
jew gives a lot of hope for the future, as well as the demographic that voted for him (mostly
young).
These paradigm shifts are generational and take a lot of time, and for some reason that remains
unclear it still seems like Trump is necessary right now. Perhaps some internal political destruction
is needed before we can get a clear handle on the path forward.
This Trump voter liked and listened to Sanders early on. But as his profile and possibilities
rocketed, he abandoned his anti immigration platform.
Immigrants from anywhere - yes anywhere – in a zero sum economy don't benefit the working middle
class. It's not racist, but realistic. Someone had "the talk" with Bernie and his speeches became
more and more party line.
And his voters should have jumped to Trump, but for the hysteria from institutional DC insiders
in both parties. Trump is no knuckle dragging Cheney Goper.
He's fighting the bad guys on both fronts. With no help from natural allies too afraid to bolt
the herd and call out the enemies of the middle class.
Even the phony baloney "Russians Are Coming" meme should be challenged by voters on the right
and left. Putin is a more valuable ally than Merkel. He's a Russian nationalist. A populist. Globalists
like Pelosi, Graham, Obama and McCain use dog whistles on their respective demographics to thwart
Trump's efforts to make Americans first in fevered, corrupt swamps of DC and NY.
All Americans should be rallying around the first president to shake up the party identity.
Bernie had his chance and caved to party insiders. He is no hero.
I decided to judge Trump by his enemies left and right. Hollywood hates him, not because of
his human rights record but because he killed TPP. Without international copyright protections
hidden deep in that well, the studios are bankrupt.
Meryl Streep is a huckster, a fraud, and a tool of the same people we all hate.
This reminds me of the arguments Zionists use to deflect criticism about Israel's actions towards
its neighbors – as in "That's just the sort of thing people who hate Jews would say. Why do you
hate Jews? Oh, wait, you're Jewish? Well, obviously, then, you're a self-hating Jew".
The answer always is that the other side is all about the hate, even if they clearly don't
hate the people they're accused of hating, because what they're saying is "discursive", and, you
know, sooner or later it will be hate, because people just can't help themselves
I actually got called a self hating Jew when I identified myself of Jewish descent and backed
MintPress News in an argument that she was having with a Pro Israel person. It utterly killed
and undermined his position me doing that and he just turned on and attacked me.
I'm neither Muslim nor Jewish (self-hating or otherwise), but back in the '60s and early '70s
I was generally supportive of Israel. The idea that only Jews could criticize Israel without being
accused of hating Jews bugged me, and then the meme of the "self-hating Jew" really made it obvious
what the game was. Just another ad hom argument, dressed up in the respectable clothing
of religious tolerance.
And this idea that Trump voters need to justify their votes, while HRC voters (or Stein or
Johnson voters?) don't, is pretty much the same. Don't mind those people, they're just hateful
bigots until proven otherwise. Nothing to see here, move along.
Racism, racism, racism, sexism, sexism, sexism, transgenderism, transgenderism, transgenderism
- this commenter is the perfect example of the purely ignorant American today (assuming she/he/it
is an American) - everything robotically repeating the Identity Political meme, no thinking or
independent thought allowed.
Nope, you just don't want to ever address the plight of the American worker, now do ya????
Admittedly, Not a Trump fan, I don't have television or listen to radio in the car. But every
time I heard cries of racism and I could find/read actual transcripts rather than just believe
'reports' I was not alarmed, at least no more and probably less than Demo/Clinton policy for decades
running. But then, just being against more immigration with 320 million people already here doesn't
make one automatically a racist.
Trump's going to have to work real hard to out deport Obama who has by far the record in that
department.
Many people are simply sick & tired of the smug self righteousness of "Identity" politicians.
Sick of their belief that the mere suggestion that one is sexist/racist will cause a knee jerk
retreat from any debate.
The Identity crowd has been playing this nasty little game for decades now & it has WORN THIN .
One does not "call these ways of thinking" anything, especially not words that are so overused
as to have lost all meaning except as a kind of profane slur. Rather, one characterizes ways of
thinking in all their complexity and examines their origins and likely political outcomes and
affiliations, as Lambert has done. One describes them and tries to see if they are justified in
the context of the lives as lived by their thinkers; how they are adaptive, and how they are maladaptive-not
judging ex cathedra , based on utterly inadequate information, not to mention an almost
complete moral imbecility, whether they are "orthodox" or "heretical" according to the schema
of rainbow righteousness, and then categorizing them with what has now deteriorated into a grade-school
epithet, rather than the damned ideology it once connoted.
Yea I think many of them may not be justified though, but may be based on the world view of
the voters. In other words it may be what they believe is true even it isn't.
For example they might think they are all losing their job to immigrants and in a few cases
this might be true, but I don't think statistics bear this out as a major source of job loss compared
to say outsourcing. So if they think the reason the job market is so bad is because of immigrants
that's not necessarily racist per se but it may be inaccurate.
"So what should does call these ways of thinking if not racist and/or sexist?"
You should call them: "Nobody cares about racism and sexism, because banksters, insurance companies,
defense companies and other crony capitalists use tools like you to distract from their robbing
the public blind."
You are part of the problem, so I don't care about you. FU.
Whom should they have voted for to strike against bigotry? Hillary "bring black criminals to
heel"/against gay marriage until 2013/"the future is female" Clinton?
"Besides, shouldn't one ask these voters why Trump's racist dogwhistle pronouncements and explicitly
sexist actions caused little or no offense to them? Did I miss that somewhere?"
Why did Hillary voters ignore her explicitly racist, corporatist, corrupt, war-mongering ways?
Why did all the blood on her hands (from Libya, Honduras, Iraq etc) cause little or no offense
to them?
Perhaps because she was what many of them aspired to be: a member of the 1%, a shining success,
a winner whose failures, lies, betrayals and foul deeds were easy to ignore if you had swallowed
the vile, anti-human propaganda of neoliberalism.
I am not satisfied with this whole "white innocence" subtext
The subtext is there for you to impute. It seems like the only way you can be convinced that
it is not there is for the interviewees to be explicitly condemned as racist because they voted
for a racist. You and others who hold your stance overlook the fact that there were only two candidates,
not several, including Trump's non-racist twin, to vote for, and so you have to deal with truly
awful tradeoffs. Should I assume you are an imperialist because you voted for someone who helped
install a military regime in Honduras??
Would you consider yourself a "social justice warrior"? Your comment certainly reads as if
a "social justice warrior" could have written it.
Are you a Race Card Identyan? The Race Card has been played so often it is wearing out. In
fact, it has worn all the way out for many people. The intended targets of this guilt-inducement
gambit may no longer feel the guilt you seek to induce. And where there is no more guilt, there
will be no more obedience. And where does that leave you?
You sound like a typical Clinton-Brock Democrat. Today's Mainstream Democratic Party would
be a good fit for you. If you aren't already in it, you might consider joining it.
Politics has been fractal for the past 30-35 years. Same old input-output on an ever expanding
iterative footprint. It's old. It's tired. It'd not serving most voters. It's economically hurting
most voters. Bernie and Trump showed promise of breaking the fractal iteration and replacing it
with something new. Maybe better. That's what people voted for, imo.
Oh no no no no.. you do not get away with crap like "shouldn't one ask these
voters why Trump's racist dogwhistle pronouncements and explicitly sexist actions caused
little or no offense to them".
Show me one that said Trump's stuff wasn't offensive. And your phrasing is either
deliberately or just stupidly messed up. "[C]aused little or no offense to them". I'm a white
male, saying bad things about black females will get me near about ready throttle you but it
"caused little or no offense to" me because that would be insanely presumptuous on my
part. I have a heartache about how people are put upon due to race and or sex but that
oppression sure isn't something I can claim as mine.
>ignores the discursive nature of racist attitudes and beliefs and how easily they can
transmute into a self-justifying politics
Do these people have money? No. Do their kids have job prospects? No. I think that is
enough to legitimatize what they are saying, I don't care if their very next breath is "them
n-words get all the stuff". They are far from perfect, but it is just *so* funny how the most,
tell you to your face racist will then say "oh but Jim down at work is OK". They are just
people, plenty of warts. Get off your high horse, bet you have a number of warts of your own.
a similar argument could be made for those who voted democrat ignoring their racist actions
all around the world murdering, dropping bombs, and economically exploiting black and brown people.
This Bernie Bro voted for Trump out of sheer hatred for the "Listen Liberal" crowd of sanctimonious
meritocrats and desire to see their playhouse pulled down. Not real nuanced, but glad I did it.
Odd that you would attack the "Listen Liberal crowd," given that Thomus Frank was mostly critical
of the Democrats. I am not attacking, just want to learn more about your perspective.
I'm just guessing, but I think that casino implosion is referring to his distaste for the people
that Frank discusses in that book, not his distaste for people like Frank.
I don't know who/what casino implosion meant to address herm's comment to, but I will just
guess that by "Listen Liberal" crowd, heeshee meant the crowd about/against/to whom "Listen Liberal"
was written.
Turns out Trump Voters are Human.
Here, looking into the myths behind "Trump voters" might be constructive. The biggest myth is
that they are tust political troles. In the course of deconverting from Catholism to Atheism,
abserveed that many of our political beleifes are formed under the same structures as one's religous
beleifes. Thoughts about the "free market" are heald just as strongly as stronly as devotion to
Jesus.
Even those who deconvert from their religion, often bring their political belifes with them
into the Athiest community. Often without having them challanged.
And this is the point. One deconverts from a religion because it is challanged by science.
But political beleifes are rarly chalanged.
One exception was in 2007, when the economey colapsed. Many peoples convictions in the "free
market" were directly challanged by reality. And on the political stage they saw McCain talking
about freee markets as if nothing had happend. Conservatives were confused and looking for answers.
They thoght Obama had them.
But Obama also dubbled down on the free market narative. This was a huge mistake because part
of that narative is that all Liberals are socialists. And socialism is evil. So yay, Trump is
Obama's legacy.
Trump voters are human. This means they are far smarter than people give them credit, even
without a GED. They vote acording to the information and evidence they hae been presented with.
But we live in a world where that narative has been carfuly mananged and tended too. Democrats,
rather than chalanging that system, felt they could simply build their own and construct their
own naraive. Hence we get "Russia Russia Russia!" And this is not convicing to conservative votes
who already know the one "true" narrative,
I live in Macomb County. My precinct, my neighbors, voted for Trump. They hate NAFTA. They
hate free trade with China. They hate H1B visas. These are people to whom $100,000 plus a year
union factory job was nothing. We all knew people who had them. Those jobs built this county.
Period. So Clinton never stood a chance here.
They were willing to give Trump a chance. And what's one of the very first things he did? Appointed
a fast food CEO to head up the labor department. A real indicator that the plight of the working
class in America keeps him up at night.
The other option available to us was the fast coffee CEO as Labor Secretary. McJobs were more
or less baked into the Establishment lineup on "both" sides. It's almost as if the real decisions
were made long before the election and concealed from us, and elections are held to manufacture
the image of just consent to the proto-feudal system.
To Teleportnow:
And from this distance, even I could see that nothing, other than PR, was going to be done about
any of them by either R or D candidate. There I go again, flogging the same dead horse.
And what's one of the very first things he did? Appointed a fast food CEO to head up the
labor department. A real indicator that the plight of the working class in America keeps him
up at night.
We're fortunate that Puzder's nomination was withdrawn. It's a pity that the same didn't happen
to Pruitt's nomination (Trump supporters are just as vulnerable to pesticides, lead, mercury,
and other poisons as other people), or Mnuchin's nomination (many Trump supporters have been abused
by corrupt bankers or mortgage processors like Mnuchin and his recently divested OneWest Bank).
You are absolutely correct about Trump's lack of concern for the plight of the American working
class. Not that Obama or Clinton care much about them, either.
Obama's betrayals of his core voters were disguised in the smoke of financial collapse where
systemic effects were years in expressing themselves, brutal though they proved to be. They were
as smooth and subtle as the man who envisioned them.
Trump's betrayals are, like him, blunt, flagrant and outrageous.
That the Democrats have achieved even lower approval ratings(CBS) than the Donald (Gallup)
is the strongest legitimizing force in his thus far execrable presidency.
Unlke Reagan he might actually be a good actor :). Or he can give a speech like he feels working
class pain and hit all the right notes, but policy so far is horrible.
"And what's one of the very first things he did? Appointed a fast food CEO to head up the labor
department. A real indicator that the plight of the working class in America keeps him up at night."
Trump's appointments have been unfortunate, but remember every establishment bigwig had been
lining up to announce she would never serve in this administration, all of them too good and pure
for Trump. So what is he supposed to do if he couldn't even convince a couple of second rate rock
and roll bands to gyrate at his inauguration. Of course he appointed friends and friends-of-friends
and relatives. The establishment brought this on themselves. I couldn't care less as long as he
keeps torpedoing the dearest plans of the slave owners. And by the way the first thing he did
was he castrated TPP and that cannot be said enough times.
In other good news, Today the SIlicon Valley H1B exploiters got raided by ICE and about time.
You know what? Maybe the plight of his base really does keep him up at night
This is part of the collateral damage I knew I was risking when I voted for Trump in order
to make my vote against Clinton as effective as possible. And we have kept Clinton out of the
office for at least this time around.
If/when we are able to crush, smash and destroy the rolling Slow Coup against the 2016 Presidential
Election Outcome by the IC, the Wall Street Elite, and the Mainstream Democratic Party . . . .
then we will be free to try preventing Trump's damage, mitigating the Trump damage already achieved,
and begin growing culture-and-politics-based Economic Combat movements devoted to targeting the
purchasing and consumption choices of a hundred million people against certain Black Hat Industries
which support Trump to advance their own sinister agendas.
We could start doing that now, if we didn't have to spend energy on countering the Remove Trump
conspiracy first.
1. The Dem Party is in a tough position. Where do they go from here?
On the one hand, it'll be tough to wean from the big givers on Wall St and Silicon valley.
Cultivating the small givers and unions will take a lot of time and work.
Also the Dems seem to have little use for Bernie. They seem to wish that he would just go just
go away and leave the Party alone. Bernie, however, could be the Dem's savior.
I don't see the Dem Party choosing a feasible direction. Maybe it will take a few more years
for the Party to sort it out and find a point man.
2. I'm not surprised there is racism, misogyny, and chauvinism among many voters, including
Trumpeters. I suspect that in times of economic "stress" pointing fingers feels natural, even
desirable. Judging from the press, there's a lot of economic "stress" around.
The Bernies could begin by invading and conquering those regional and local Democratic Party
areas which seem least pro-Clinton. Those could be First Landing Beachheads. Once those were secured,
the Berniecrats could work on building strength within them, eliminating every Clintonite " Left-Behind"
type person remaining to try destroying the Berniecrats from within, and then working to break
out of their Secured Beachheads to conquer and decontaminate more Democratic Party territory.
I'm a life-long Democrat and I despise my party. But I'm not stupid. That Trump was a con man
was evident from the beginning but, like most voters, both candidates made me want to vomit. (James
Howard Kunstler called them "human hairballs." )
Unfortunately, all those Trump voters who are worried about jobs, the economy, health care,
etc., will soon discover that Trump doesn't give a fuck about them. He likes their adulation,
since it feeds his ego, but he and every one of his execrable appointments will just make their
lives worse.
Yes, you can't blame people who cast their vote in "hope" of something better.
In the case of Trump, their inevitable disappointment will be that much sadder & acute.
I want to know the extent to which the Faux Noise network is responsible for shaping the views
of Trump voters. It is by far the favored mainstream TV station for news in red-state America.
A steady diet of a certain skewed viewpoint for years upon years has to have a significant effect
on one's thought processes. I can't believe that millions of people spontaneously rose up and
decided to throw off the shackles of business as usual without some major groundwork being done
to get them all riled up. Years of being told that Hillary was corrupt, the devil incarnate etc
etc by right-wing talking heads has to be a factor.
Obama was demonized by Fox News too, yet the reason for the Trump win was that the Trump vote
(in numbers) was essentially the same as the Romney vote, but the Dem vote was down v. 2012, and
that was due to lower turnout, notably of people of color.
Lambert has also repeatedly pointed out that the swing state wins were due to Rust Belt counties
that went for Obama going for Trump. And it has been documented repeatedly that propensity to
vote for Trump correlated strongly with opioid related deaths in the area, regardless of the voter's
income level.
Economic insecurity is the driving factor. The more insecure people become the more tribal
their behavior. People want economic change more than anything else and if they see that the government
is doing something to provide them a better life then other social changes are possible..
A paralyzed Congress is great for the elite as the status quo is beneficial to them as they
have successfully rigged the system. People want to see legislative action.
Ryan stated " "Moving from an opposition party to a governing party comes with some growing
pains," The problem is that Republicans were never an opposition party, they were an obstructionist
party that only knew how to say "NO".
The establishment Democrats are setting themselves up to become the exact same obstructionists..
This will not help them in 2018. Now is the time to try to force votes on measures that are obviously
what the people want.even if they are sure to fail. Let the Republicans stay the obstructionists.
I am a bit disappointed to not see a reference to Jeremy Grantham's quarterly letter at GMO
regarding the narrarives that motivated people to vote for Trump. I have posted about this several
times before. His letter runs on pages 9-15 of this link:
The Road to Trumpsville: The Long, Long Mistreatment of the American Working Class
JG presents a lot of compelling information regarding the decline of labor vs. capital in compensation,
the exploding income of the top 0.1% vs. everyone else, income inequality and the breakdown of
social cohesion – both in words and charts. His Post Script summary is classic in my humble opinion,
especially this line about what the voters across Red state are desperately seeking from Washington:
"Save me, oh leaders, from the rich and powerful!" Personally I would edit that to "the rich
and powerfully corrupt".
Of course there are issues, and of course Hillary was a horrible candidate, but voting for
trump was an insane way to make a point. He will clearly do more to damage the lower and middle
classes than any president in the last 100 years. He will be able to fix NOTHING. More war (jobs?).
More tax breaks for the rich. Less money for anyone without money. A simple tried and true capitalist
asshole approach. He will not survive term 1, and then pence comes in lovely, not.
Please. He stopped Clinton, which at least slowed down TPP and the Russian War. Trump doesn't
even seem interested in killing Social Security. He yanked Ryan's health care "plan"; Hillary
said she was looking forward to working with Ryan. Trump's going to do horrible things, but so
far, his election is far better for American workers than if Clinton had been installed. If nothing
else, it slows down Washington's neoliberal horror show, and the pain of people in the midwest
was at least briefly covered in the corporate press, as opposed to being completely hidden under
Obama, which would have continued under Clinton. Voting for Trump was saner than voting for Clinton.
(I voted for neither. I also live in California.)
The only way we get Pence is if the Democrats and the CIA succeed in their coup. So let's all
try to get them to cut it out.
This post is absolutely correct and important. The financialization of the economy which has
led to inequality, skyrocketing debt, and early death in Mid-America must be addressed. Corporate
Media and the Democrats ignore it and are scapegoating Russia to continue getting their paybacks
from Wall Street. This post highlights the coming tragedy. Clearly Disruptive Capitalism destroys
governments and society. Under stress people revert to their tribal roots. By ignoring the base
causes; war, infinite growth on a finite planet and exploitation by the Elite, the West is being
ripped apart.
It's not just the West. The Global South, largely unseen and unreported on and very much at
the sharp end of extractive neo-colonialism, isn't in great shape either. Voters in Western Europe
express "legitimate concerns" about economic and climate migrants from Africa and the ME, but
often don't stop to think about the dire conditions and political strife that are driving that
migration flow.
Thousands of people are drowning every year in the Mediterranean and that's the visible tip
of the iceberg. It's just unimaginable what's currently happening.
So, Dems ran a terrible status quo candidate that had been a long time target of Faux News
in a "change" election. Most Trump voters in rural Kentucky told me they were voting against H
rather than for T. Oh, and abortion, guns, bathrooms.
Dems have ignored rural communities they didn't already hold for several election cycles. No
prominent national Democratic politician has ventured outside of the cities of Louisville and
Lexington if they visit Kentucky at all. Spend a little time in rural communities and you begin
to see how bleak the picture is for them – I asked everyone I could what they would do if they
were King of Kentucky with an unlimited budget. There were very few soloutions offered.
(IMO Kentucky is Ground Zero. A border state since the Civil War that used to be Democratic
– what better place for Dems to start to rebuild and appeal to Rural America?)
Dems also could have chosen to include and even woo independent voters. Instead, they took
a "who else are you gonna vote for" attitude and pivoted right. Yes, Vice President Sanders would
have been a pita but that would have been a significantly better result.
Still no house cleaning in the Democratic Party, Clintons and Wassermans and Brazilles still
circling. Grrr.
oof, sorry about the wonky link formatting. I tried to use the "link" button in the editor,
and got this weird result. I tried to edit twice, now can't edit.
A third - and the most important - concrete material benefit is Democracy Corps:
The object after "is" probably isn't suppose to be the polling source. It probably should read
something like
A third - and the most important - concrete material benefit is replace corrupt tax
farming / private medical insurance (with equitable tax based medicare?) Democracy Corps:
So what is going to happen when Trump voters realize at the end of four years that their choice
has not delivered for them? Unfortunately they will not be able to realize that he never intended
to deliver anything for them. However, the same problems or worse will remain. Lets project the
current situation out into the future with the understanding that there is no credible agent or
desire for real meaningful change and improvement from those presently in power. What I see does
not look good, and perhaps I will have the good fortune not to be around to see it.
"... Then came the buildup in Vietnam, and I watched this program broken and eviscerated as if it were some idle political plaything on a society gone mad on war. And I knew that America would never invest the necessary funds or energies in rehabilitation of its poor so long as adventures like Vietnam continued to draw men and skills and money like some demonic, destructive suction tube. So I was increasingly compelled to see the war as an enemy of the poor and to attack it as such. ..."
"... Perhaps a more tragic recognition of reality took place when it became clear to me that the war was doing far more than devastating the hopes of the poor at home. It was sending their sons and their brothers and their husbands to fight and to die in extraordinarily high proportions relative to the rest of the population. ..."
"... Also, it must be clear that the leaders of Hanoi considered the presence of American troops in support of the Diem regime to have been the initial military breach of the Geneva Agreement concerning foreign troops. ..."
"... Hanoi remembers how our leaders refused to tell us the truth about the earlier North Vietnamese overtures for peace, how the president claimed that none existed when they had clearly been made. ..."
"... Each day the war goes on the hatred increased in the hearts of the Vietnamese and in the hearts of those of humanitarian instinct. The Americans are forcing even their friends into becoming their enemies. ..."
"... It is curious that the Americans, who calculate so carefully on the possibilities of military victory, do not realize that in the process they are incurring deep psychological and political defeat. The image of America will never again be the image of revolution, freedom, and democracy, but the image of violence and militarism. ..."
"... sustained applause ..."
"... applause continues ..."
"... sustained applause ..."
"... sustained applause ..."
"... In 1957 a sensitive American official overseas said that it seemed to him that our nation was on the wrong side of a world revolution. During the past ten years we have seen emerge a pattern of suppression which has now justified the presence of U.S. military advisors in Venezuela. This need to maintain social stability for our investments accounts for the counterrevolutionary action of American forces in Guatemala. It tells why American helicopters are being used against guerrillas in Cambodia and why American napalm and Green Beret forces have already been active against rebels in Peru. ..."
"... It is with such activity that the words of the late John F. Kennedy come back to haunt us. Five years ago he said, "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ..."
"... A true revolution of values will lay hand on the world order and say of war, "This way of settling differences is not just." This business of burning human beings with napalm, of filling our nation's homes with orphans and widows, of injecting poisonous drugs of hate into the veins of peoples normally humane, of sending men home from dark and bloody battlefields physically handicapped and psychologically deranged, cannot be reconciled with wisdom, justice, and love. A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death. [ sustained applause ..."
"... Therefore, communism is a judgment against our failure to make democracy real and follow through on the revolutions that we initiated. ..."
Over the past two years, as I have moved to break the betrayal of my own silences and to speak
from the burnings of my own heart, as I have called for radical departures from the destruction of
Vietnam, many persons have questioned me about the wisdom of my path. At the heart of their concerns,
this query has often loomed large and loud: "Why are you speaking about the war, Dr. King? Why are
you joining the voices of dissent?" "Peace and civil rights don't mix," they say. "Aren't you hurting
the cause of your people?" they ask. And when I hear them, though I often understand the source of
their concern, I am nevertheless greatly saddened, for such questions mean that the inquirers have
not really known me, my commitment, or my calling. Indeed, their questions suggest that they do not
know the world in which they live. In the light of such tragic misunderstanding, I deem it of signal
importance to state clearly, and I trust concisely, why I believe that the path from Dexter Avenue
Baptist Church-the church in Montgomery, Alabama, where I began my pastorate-leads clearly to this
sanctuary tonight.
I come to this platform tonight to make a passionate plea to my beloved nation. This speech is
not addressed to Hanoi or to the National Liberation Front. It is not addressed to China or to Russia.
Nor is it an attempt to overlook the ambiguity of the total situation and the need for a collective
solution to the tragedy of Vietnam. Neither is it an attempt to make North Vietnam or the National
Liberation Front paragons of virtue, nor to overlook the role they must play in the successful resolution
of the problem. While they both may have justifiable reasons to be suspicious of the good faith of
the United States, life and history give eloquent testimony to the fact that conflicts are never
resolved without trustful give and take on both sides. Tonight, however, I wish not to speak with
Hanoi and the National Liberation Front, but rather to my fellow Americans.
Since I am a preacher by calling, I suppose it is not surprising that I have seven major reasons
for bringing Vietnam into the field of my moral vision. There is at the outset a very obvious and
almost facile connection between the war in Vietnam and the struggle I and others have been waging
in America. A few years ago there was a shining moment in that struggle. It seemed as if there was
a real promise of hope for the poor, both black and white, through the poverty program. There were
experiments, hopes, new beginnings. Then came the buildup in Vietnam, and I watched this program
broken and eviscerated as if it were some idle political plaything on a society gone mad on war.
And I knew that America would never invest the necessary funds or energies in rehabilitation of its
poor so long as adventures like Vietnam continued to draw men and skills and money like some demonic,
destructive suction tube. So I was increasingly compelled to see the war as an enemy of the poor
and to attack it as such.
Perhaps a more tragic recognition of reality took place when it became clear to me that the
war was doing far more than devastating the hopes of the poor at home. It was sending their sons
and their brothers and their husbands to fight and to die in extraordinarily high proportions relative
to the rest of the population. We were taking the black young men who had been crippled by our
society and sending them eight thousand miles away to guarantee liberties in Southeast Asia which
they had not found in southwest Georgia and East Harlem. So we have been repeatedly faced with the
cruel irony of watching Negro and white boys on TV screens as they kill and die together for a nation
that has been unable to seat them together in the same schools. So we watch them in brutal solidarity
burning the huts of a poor village, but we realize that they would hardly live on the same block
in Chicago. I could not be silent in the face of such cruel manipulation of the poor.
... .. ..
And as I ponder the madness of Vietnam and search within myself for ways to understand and respond
in compassion, my mind goes constantly to the people of that peninsula. I speak now not of the soldiers
of each side, not of the ideologies of the Liberation Front, not of the junta in Saigon, but simply
of the people who have been living under the curse of war for almost three continuous decades now.
I think of them, too, because it is clear to me that there will be no meaningful solution there until
some attempt is made to know them and hear their broken cries.
They must see Americans as strange liberators. The Vietnamese people proclaimed their own independence
in 1954-in 1945 rather-after a combined French and Japanese occupation and before the communist revolution
in China. They were led by Ho Chi Minh. Even though they quoted the American Declaration of Independence
in their own document of freedom, we refused to recognize them. Instead, we decided to support France
in its reconquest of her former colony. Our government felt then that the Vietnamese people were
not ready for independence, and we again fell victim to the deadly Western arrogance that has poisoned
the international atmosphere for so long. With that tragic decision we rejected a revolutionary government
seeking self-determination and a government that had been established not by China-for whom the Vietnamese
have no great love-but by clearly indigenous forces that included some communists. For the peasants
this new government meant real land reform, one of the most important needs in their lives.
For nine years following 1945 we denied the people of Vietnam the right of independence. For nine
years we vigorously supported the French in their abortive effort to recolonize Vietnam. Before the
end of the war we were meeting eighty percent of the French war costs. Even before the French were
defeated at Dien Bien Phu, they began to despair of their reckless action, but we did not. We encouraged
them with our huge financial and military supplies to continue the war even after they had lost the
will. Soon we would be paying almost the full costs of this tragic attempt at recolonization.
After the French were defeated, it looked as if independence and land reform would come again
through the Geneva Agreement. But instead there came the United States, determined that Ho should
not unify the temporarily divided nation, and the peasants watched again as we supported one of the
most vicious modern dictators, our chosen man, Premier Diem. The peasants watched and cringed and
Diem ruthlessly rooted out all opposition, supported their extortionist landlords, and refused even
to discuss reunification with the North. The peasants watched as all of this was presided over by
United States influence and then by increasing numbers of United States troops who came to help quell
the insurgency that Diem's methods had aroused. When Diem was overthrown they may have been happy,
but the long line of military dictators seemed to offer no real change, especially in terms of their
need for land and peace.
The only change came from America as we increased our troop commitments in support of governments
which were singularly corrupt, inept, and without popular support. All the while the people read
our leaflets and received the regular promises of peace and democracy and land reform. Now they languish
under our bombs and consider us, not their fellow Vietnamese, the real enemy. They move sadly and
apathetically as we herd them off the land of their fathers into concentration camps where minimal
social needs are rarely met. They know they must move on or be destroyed by our bombs.
So they go, primarily women and children and the aged. They watch as we poison their water, as
we kill a million acres of their crops. They must weep as the bulldozers roar through their areas
preparing to destroy the precious trees. They wander into the hospitals with at least twenty casualties
from American firepower for one Vietcong-inflicted injury. So far we may have killed a million of
them, mostly children. They wander into the towns and see thousands of the children, homeless, without
clothes, running in packs on the streets like animals. They see the children degraded by our soldiers
as they beg for food. They see the children selling their sisters to our soldiers, soliciting for
their mothers.
What do the peasants think as we ally ourselves with the landlords and as we refuse to put any
action into our many words concerning land reform? What do they think as we test out our latest weapons
on them, just as the Germans tested out new medicine and new tortures in the concentration camps
of Europe? Where are the roots of the independent Vietnam we claim to be building? Is it among these
voiceless ones?
We have destroyed their two most cherished institutions: the family and the village. We have destroyed
their land and their crops. We have cooperated in the crushing of the nation's only noncommunist
revolutionary political force, the unified Buddhist Church. We have supported the enemies of the
peasants of Saigon. We have corrupted their women and children and killed their men.
Now there is little left to build on, save bitterness. Soon the only solid physical foundations
remaining will be found at our military bases and in the concrete of the concentration camps we call
"fortified hamlets." The peasants may well wonder if we plan to build our new Vietnam on such grounds
as these. Could we blame them for such thoughts? We must speak for them and raise the questions they
cannot raise. These, too, are our brothers.
Perhaps a more difficult but no less necessary task is to speak for those who have been designated
as our enemies. What of the National Liberation front, that strangely anonymous group we call "VC"
or "communists"? What must they think of the United States of America when they realize that we permitted
the repression and cruelty of Diem, which helped to bring them into being as a resistance group in
the South? What do they think of our condoning the violence which led to their own taking up of arms?
How can they believe in our integrity when now we speak of "aggression from the North" as if there
was nothing more essential to the war? How can they trust us when now we charge them with violence
after the murderous reign of Diem and charge them with violence while we pour every new weapon of
death into their land? Surely we must understand their feelings, even if we do not condone their
actions. Surely we must see that the men we supported pressed them to their violence. Surely we must
see that our own computerized plans of destruction simply dwarf their greatest acts.
How do they judge us when our officials know that their membership is less than twenty-five percent
communist, and yet insist on giving them the blanket name? What must they be thinking when they know
that we are aware of their control of major sections of Vietnam, and yet we appear ready to allow
national elections in which this highly organized political parallel government will not have a part?
They ask how we can speak of free elections when the Saigon press is censored and controlled by the
military junta. And they are surely right to wonder what kind of new government we plan to help form
without them, the only real party in real touch with the peasants. They question our political goals
and they deny the reality of a peace settlement from which they will be excluded. Their questions
are frighteningly relevant. Is our nation planning to build on political myth again, and then shore
it up upon the power of a new violence?
Here is the true meaning and value of compassion and nonviolence, when it helps us to see the
enemy's point of view, to hear his questions, to know his assessment of ourselves. For from his view
we may indeed see the basic weaknesses of our own condition, and if we are mature, we may learn and
grow and profit from the wisdom of the brothers who are called the opposition.
So, too, with Hanoi. In the North, where our bombs now pummel the land, and our mines endanger
the waterways, we are met by a deep but understandable mistrust. To speak for them is to explain
this lack of confidence in Western worlds, and especially their distrust of American intentions now.
In Hanoi are the men who led this nation to independence against the Japanese and the French, the
men who sought membership in the French Commonwealth and were betrayed by the weakness of Paris and
the willfulness of the colonial armies. It was they who led a second struggle against French domination
at tremendous costs, and then were persuaded to give up the land they controlled between the thirteenth
and seventeenth parallel as a temporary measure at Geneva. After 1954 they watched us conspire with
Diem to prevent elections which could have surely brought Ho Chi Minh to power over a unified Vietnam,
and they realized they had been betrayed again. When we ask why they do not leap to negotiate, these
things must be considered.
Also, it must be clear that the leaders of Hanoi considered the presence of American troops
in support of the Diem regime to have been the initial military breach of the Geneva Agreement concerning
foreign troops. They remind us that they did not begin to send troops in large numbers and even
supplies into the South until American forces had moved into the tens of thousands.
Hanoi remembers how our leaders refused to tell us the truth about the earlier North Vietnamese
overtures for peace, how the president claimed that none existed when they had clearly been made.
Ho Chi Minh has watched as America has spoken of peace and built up its forces, and now he has
surely heard the increasing international rumors of American plans for an invasion of the north.
He knows the bombing and shelling and mining we are doing are part of traditional pre-invasion strategy.
Perhaps only his sense of humor and of irony can save him when he hears the most powerful nation
of the world speaking of aggression as it drops thousands of bombs on a poor, weak nation more than
eight hundred, or rather, eight thousand miles away from its shores.
At this point I should make it clear that while I have tried to give a voice to the voiceless
in Vietnam and to understand the arguments of those who are called "enemy," I am as deeply concerned
about our own troops there as anything else. For it occurs to me that what we are submitting them
to in Vietnam is not simply the brutalizing process that goes on in any war where armies face each
other and seek to destroy. We are adding cynicism to the process of death, for they must know after
a short period there that none of the things we claim to be fighting for are really involved. Before
long they must know that their government has sent them into a struggle among Vietnamese, and the
more sophisticated surely realize that we are on the side of the wealthy, and the secure, while we
create a hell for the poor.
Surely this madness must cease. We must stop now. I speak as a child of God and brother to the
suffering poor of Vietnam. I speak for those whose land is being laid waste, whose homes are being
destroy, whose culture is being subverted. I speak for the poor in America who are paying the double
price of smashed hopes at home, and dealt death and corruption in Vietnam. I speak as a citizen of
the world, for the world as it stands aghast at the path we have taken. I speak as one who loves
America, to the leaders of our own nation: The great initiative in this war is ours; the initiative
to stop it must be ours.
This is the message of the great Buddhist leaders of Vietnam. Recently one of them wrote these
words, and I quote:
Each day the war goes on the hatred increased in the hearts of the Vietnamese and in the hearts
of those of humanitarian instinct. The Americans are forcing even their friends into becoming their
enemies.
It is curious that the Americans, who calculate so carefully on the possibilities of military
victory, do not realize that in the process they are incurring deep psychological and political defeat.
The image of America will never again be the image of revolution, freedom, and democracy, but the
image of violence and militarism.
Unquote.
If we continue, there will be no doubt in my mind and in the mind of the world that we have no
honorable intentions in Vietnam. If we do not stop our war against the people of Vietnam immediately,
the world will be left with no other alternative than to see this as some horrible, clumsy, and deadly
game we have decided to play. The world now demands a maturity of America that we may not be able
to achieve. It demands that we admit we have been wrong from the beginning of our adventure in Vietnam,
that we have been detrimental to the life of the Vietnamese people. The situation is one in which
we must be ready to turn sharply from our present ways. In order to atone for our sins and errors
in Vietnam, we should take the initiative in bringing a halt to this tragic war.
I would like to suggest five concrete things that our government should do to begin the long and
difficult process of extricating ourselves from this nightmarish conflict:
Number one: End all bombing in North and South Vietnam.
Number two: Declare a unilateral cease-fire in the hope that such action will create the atmosphere
for negotiation.
Three: Take immediate steps to prevent other battlegrounds in Southeast Asia by curtailing
our military buildup in Thailand and our interference in Laos.
Four: Realistically accept the fact that the National Liberation Front has substantial support
in South Vietnam and must thereby play a role in any meaningful negotiations and any future Vietnam
government.
Five: Set a date that we will remove all foreign troops from Vietnam in accordance with the
1954 Geneva Agreement. [ sustained applause ]
Part of our ongoing [ applause continues ], part of our ongoing commitment might well
express itself in an offer to grant asylum to any Vietnamese who fears for his life under a new regime
which included the Liberation Front. Then we must make what reparations we can for the damage we
have done. We must provide the medical aid that is badly needed, making it available in this country
if necessary. Meanwhile [ applause ], meanwhile, we in the churches and synagogues have
a continuing task while we urge our government to disengage itself from a disgraceful commitment.
We must continue to raise our voices and our lives if our nation persists in its perverse ways in
Vietnam. We must be prepared to match actions with words by seeking out every creative method of
protest possible.
As we counsel young men concerning military service, we must clarify for them our nation's role
in Vietnam and challenge them with the alternative of conscientious objection. [ sustained applause
] I am pleased to say that this is a path now chosen by more than seventy students at my own
alma mater, Morehouse College, and I recommend it to all who find the American course in Vietnam
a dishonorable and unjust one. [ applause ] Moreover, I would encourage all ministers of
draft age to give up their ministerial exemptions and seek status as conscientious objectors. [
applause ] These are the times for real choices and not false ones. We are at the moment
when our lives must be placed on the line if our nation is to survive its own folly. Every man of
humane convictions must decide on the protest that best suits his convictions, but we must all protest.
Now there is something seductively tempting about stopping there and sending us all off on what
in some circles has become a popular crusade against the war in Vietnam. I say we must enter that
struggle, but I wish to go on now to say something even more disturbing.
The war in Vietnam is but a symptom of a far deeper malady within the American
spirit, and if we ignore this sobering reality [ applause ], and if we ignore this sobering
reality, we will find ourselves organizing "clergy and laymen concerned" committees for the next
generation. They will be concerned about Guatemala and Peru. They will be concerned about Thailand
and Cambodia. They will be concerned about Mozambique and South Africa. We will be marching for these
and a dozen other names and attending rallies without end unless there is a significant and profound
change in American life and policy. [ sustained applause ] So such thoughts take us beyond
Vietnam, but not beyond our calling as sons of the living God.
In 1957 a sensitive American official overseas said that it seemed to him that our nation
was on the wrong side of a world revolution. During the past ten years we have seen emerge a pattern
of suppression which has now justified the presence of U.S. military advisors in Venezuela. This
need to maintain social stability for our investments accounts for the counterrevolutionary action
of American forces in Guatemala. It tells why American helicopters are being used against guerrillas
in Cambodia and why American napalm and Green Beret forces have already been active against rebels
in Peru.
It is with such activity that the words of the late John F. Kennedy come back to haunt us.
Five years ago he said, "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution
inevitable." [ applause ] Increasingly, by choice or by accident, this is the role
our nation has taken, the role of those who make peaceful revolution impossible by refusing to give
up the privileges and the pleasures that come from the immense profits of overseas investments. I
am convinced that if we are to get on to the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must
undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin [ applause ], we must rapidly
begin the shift from a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society. When machines and computers,
profit motives and property rights, are considered more important than people, the giant triplets
of racism, extreme materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.
A true revolution of values will soon cause us to question the fairness and justice of many of
our past and present policies. On the one hand we are called to play the Good Samaritan on life's
roadside, but that will be only an initial act. One day we must come to see that the whole Jericho
Road must be transformed so that men and women will not be constantly beaten and robbed as they make
their journey on life's highway. True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar. It comes
to see than an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring. [ applause ]
A true revolution of values will soon look uneasily on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth.
With righteous indignation, it will look across the seas and see individual capitalists of the West
investing huge sums of money in Asia, Africa, and South America, only to take the profits out with
no concern for the social betterment of the countries, and say, "This is not just." It will look
at our alliance with the landed gentry of South America and say, "This is not just." The Western
arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not
just.
A true revolution of values will lay hand on the world order and say of war, "This way of
settling differences is not just." This business of burning human beings with napalm, of filling
our nation's homes with orphans and widows, of injecting poisonous drugs of hate into the veins of
peoples normally humane, of sending men home from dark and bloody battlefields physically handicapped
and psychologically deranged, cannot be reconciled with wisdom, justice, and love. A nation that
continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift
is approaching spiritual death. [ sustained applause ]
America, the richest and most powerful nation in the world, can well lead the way in this revolution
of values. There is nothing except a tragic death wish to prevent us from reordering our priorities
so that the pursuit of peace will take precedence over the pursuit of war. There is nothing to keep
us from molding a recalcitrant status quo with bruised hands until we have fashioned it into a brotherhood.
This kind of positive revolution of values is our best defense against communism. [ applause
] War is not the answer. Communism will never be defeated by the use of atomic bombs or nuclear
weapons. Let us not join those who shout war and, through their misguided passions, urge the United
States to relinquish its participation in the United Nations. These are days which demand wise restraint
and calm reasonableness. We must not engage in a negative anticommunism, but rather in a positive
thrust for democracy [ applause ], realizing that our greatest defense against communism
is to take offensive action in behalf of justice. We must with positive action seek to remove those
conditions of poverty, insecurity, and injustice, which are the fertile soil in which the seed of
communism grows and develops.
These are revolutionary times. All over the globe men are revolting against old systems of exploitation
and oppression, and out of the wounds of a frail world, new systems of justice and equality are being
born. The shirtless and barefoot people of the land are rising up as never before. The people who
sat in darkness have seen a great light. We in the West must support these revolutions.
It is a sad fact that because of comfort, complacency, a morbid fear of communism, and our proneness
to adjust to injustice, the Western nations that initiated so much of the revolutionary spirit of
the modern world have now become the arch antirevolutionaries. This has driven many to feel that
only Marxism has a revolutionary spirit. Therefore, communism is a judgment against our failure
to make democracy real and follow through on the revolutions that we initiated. Our only hope
today lies in our ability to recapture the revolutionary spirit and go out into a sometimes hostile
world declaring eternal hostility to poverty, racism, and militarism. With this powerful commitment
we shall boldly challenge the status quo and unjust mores, and thereby speed the day when "every
valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low [ Audience: ] (
Yes ); the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough places plain."
A genuine revolution of values means in the final analysis that our loyalties must become ecumenical
rather than sectional. Every nation must now develop an overriding loyalty to mankind as a whole
in order to preserve the best in their individual societies.
This call for a worldwide fellowship that lifts neighborly concern beyond one's tribe, race, class,
and nation is in reality a call for an all-embracing and unconditional love for all mankind. This
oft misunderstood, this oft misinterpreted concept, so readily dismissed by the Nietzsches of the
world as a weak and cowardly force, has now become an absolute necessity for the survival of man.
When I speak of love I am not speaking of some sentimental and weak response. I'm not speaking of
that force which is just emotional bosh. I am speaking of that force which all of the great religions
have seen as the supreme unifying principle of life. Love is somehow the key that unlocks the door
which leads to ultimate reality. This Hindu-Muslim-Christian-Jewish-Buddhist belief about ultimate
reality is beautifully summed up in the first epistle of Saint John: "Let us love one another (
Yes ), for love is God. ( Yes ) And every one that loveth is born of God and knoweth
God. He that loveth not knoweth not God, for God is love. . . . If we love one another, God dwelleth
in us and his love is perfected in us." Let us hope that this spirit will become the order of the
day.
We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. The
oceans of history are made turbulent by the ever-rising tides of hate. History is cluttered with
the wreckage of nations and individuals that pursued this self-defeating path of hate. As Arnold
Toynbee says: "Love is the ultimate force that makes for the saving choice of life and good against
the damning choice of death and evil. Therefore the first hope in our inventory must be the hope
that love is going to have the last word." Unquote.
"... he never lost his aversion for the 'economism' that presumes that matters of public policy, employment, ecology and culture can be interpreted mainly in terms of mathematical abstractions. ..."
"... Lean Logic: A Dictionary for the Future and How to Survive It ..."
"... Tomorrow's World ..."
"... So in an economy like ours, a technological advance that doubles the amount of useful work a person can do in a day becomes a problem rather than a benefit. It tends to put half the workers out of work, turning them into a potential drain on the state. ..."
"... Tomorrow's World ..."
"... Lean Logic ..."
"... Surviving the Future: Culture, Carnival and Capital in the Aftermath of the Market Economy ..."
"... Didn't residents keep on doing whatever they were doing when the Vesuvius erupted ..."
"... As a dispirited milennial myself, it seems that the best option for me is to cut loose, live somewhere cheap and warm, enjoy nature and some friendly neighbors and watch this apocalypse unfold. ..."
"... News from Nowhere ..."
"... Illegitimi non carborundum ..."
"... During my time as a retail worker it struck me how much of effective customer service was really an unpaid use of our spontaneous urge to give aid to other people, to respond to their needs as human beings. ..."
"... We were often in the position of spiking the SOP of the business to get them what they wanted. It hit me then how much the ostensible money economy is a free rider on the world of our human non-economic lives, or is like free clean water used in an industrial process. ..."
As my friend David
Fleming once wrote, conventional economics 'puts the grim into reality.'
Something of a radical, back in the 1970s Fleming was involved in the early days of what is now
the Green Party of England and Wales. Frustrated by the mainstream's limited engagement with ecological
thinking, he urged his peers to learn the language and concepts of economics in order to confound
the arguments of their opponents.
By the time I met Fleming in 2006, he had practised what he preached and earned himself a PhD
in Economics. But he never lost his aversion for the 'economism' that presumes that matters of
public policy, employment, ecology and culture can be interpreted mainly in terms of mathematical
abstractions.
Worse, he noted that even the word ' economics' has the power to make these life-defining
topics seem impenetrable, none-of-our-business and, of all things, boring . Fleming's work
was all about returning them to their rightful owners-those whose lives are shaped by them, meaning
all of us.
Fleming was a key influence on the birth of the
New Economics Foundation and
Transition
Towns movement , but it was only in the aftermath of his sudden death in 2010 that I discovered
the breadth of the powerfully-different vision of economics that underpinned his life. On his home
computer I discovered a manuscript for the book he had been preparing to publish after thirty years'
work entitled
Lean Logic: A Dictionary for the Future and How to Survive It .
Reminding us that our present growth-based market economy has only been around for a couple of
hundred years (and is already hitting the buffers), Fleming's lifework looks to the great majority
of human history for insight: "We know what we need to do,"
he writes , "We need to build the sequel, to draw on inspiration which has lain dormant, like
the seed beneath the snow."
What he found was that-in the absence of a perpetually-growing economy- community and culture are key. He quotes, for example,
the historian Juliet Schor's view of working life in the Middle Ages:
"The medieval calendar was filled with holidays These were spent both in sober churchgoing
and in feasting, drinking and merrymaking All told, holiday leisure time in medieval England
took up probably about one third of the year. And the English were apparently working harder than
their neighbors. The a ncien régime in France is reported to have guaranteed fifty-two
Sundays, ninety rest days, and thirty-eight holidays. In Spain, travelers noted that holidays
totaled five months per year."
Reading this took me back to a childhood fed by TV programmes like the BBC's Tomorrow's World
, which had informed me that by now robots would be doing all the menial work, leaving humans
free to relax and enjoy an abundance of leisure time. So it came as a shock to realise that the good
folk of the Middle Ages were enjoying far more of it than we are in our technologically-advanced
society. What gives?
Fleming explains
,
"In a competitive market economy a large amount of roughly-equally-shared leisure time – say,
a three-day working week, or less – is hard to sustain, because any individuals who decide to
instead work a full week can produce for a lower price (by working longer hours than the competition
they can produce a greater quantity of goods and services, and thus earn the same wage by selling
each one more cheaply). These more competitive people would then be fully employed, and would
put the more leisurely out of business completely. This is what puts the grim into reality."
So in an economy like ours, a technological advance that doubles the amount of useful work
a person can do in a day becomes a problem rather than a benefit. It tends to put half the workers
out of work, turning them into a potential drain on the state.
Of course, in theory all the workers could just work half-time and still produce all that is needed,
much as Tomorrow's World predicted. But in practice they are often afraid of having their
pay cut, or losing their jobs to a stranger who is willing to work longer hours, so they can't take
the steps needed to solve their collective economic problems and enjoy more leisurely lives. Instead,
people are kept busy partly through what anthropologist David Graeber memorably characterised as
" bullshit jobs ."
How, then, can we feed, house and support ourselves without working as relentlessly as we do today?
Fleming's work explores the answer, making a rigorous case that we need to get beyond mainstream
economists' ideas of minimising 'spare labour' if we are to sustain a post-growth economy. This 'spare
labour' is what most of us would call spare time-a welcome part of a life well lived rather than
a 'problem of unemployment.'
He highlights that the holidays of former times were far from a product of laziness. Rather
they were, in an important sense, what men and women lived for . 'Spare time' spent in feasting,
performing, collaborating and merrymaking together formed the basis of community bonding and membership.
Those shared cultural ties hold people together, even in the absence of economic growth and full-time
employment. When productivity improves,
as one of
his readers put it , "in our system you have a problem, in Fleming's system you have a party."
Under the current economic paradigm, the only way to keep unemployment from rising to the point
where the population can't be supported is through endless economic growth, which thus becomes an
obligation. So we are damned if we grow and damned if we don't, since endless growth will eventually
cross every conceivable biophysical boundary and destroy the planet's ability to support us. That's
why, in practice, we just keep growing and cross our fingers that somehow it will all work out.
As Fleming writes :
"The reduction of a society and culture to dependence on mathematical abstraction has infantilised
a grown-up civilisation and is well on the way to destroying it. Civilisations self-destruct anyway,
but it is reasonable to ask whether they have done so before with such enthusiasm, in obedience
to such an acutely absurd superstition, while claiming with such insistence that they were beyond
being seduced by the irrational promises of religion."
Technological fixes do not help, as we are all discovering to our cost. We are already working
ever harder, and with ever more advanced technologies, yet the hope of a better future dwindles day-by-day.
Take heart though, for when the current paradigm transparently provides nothing but a dead end, we
can be sure that we are on the cusp of a fundamental shift.
Fleming provides a radical but historically-proven alternative: focusing neither on the growth
or de-growth of the market economy, but the huge expansion of the 'informal' or non-monetary economy-the
'core economy' that allows our society to exist, even today. This is the economy of what we love:
of the things we naturally do when not otherwise compelled, of music, play, family, volunteering,
activism, friendship and home.
At present, this core non-monetary economy is much weakened, pushed out and wounded by the invasion
of the market. Fleming's work demonstrates that nurturing it back to health is not just some quaint
and obsolete sharing longing but an absolute practical priority.
The key challenge of today, for Fleming, is to repair the atrophied social structures on which
most human cultures have been built; to rediscover how to rely on each other rather than on money
alone. Then life after the painful yet inevitable end to the growth of the monetary economy will
start to seem feasible again, and our technological progress can bring us the fruits it always promised.
It's increasingly clear that this is the conversation we all need to have, and Fleming's compelling,
grounded vision of a post-growth world is rare in its ability to inspire optimism in the creativity
and intelligence of human beings to nurse our economy, ecology and culture back to health. I am proud
to have played a part in bringing it to the world; in fact, it might just be the best thing I have
done.
The thing of it is, we have had growth except for recessions every 10 years or so. But somewhere
along the line, due to the fact that we can never speak of "DISTRIBUTION" of this growth, we get
the completely artificial idea that the lower income can ONLY be helped by higher growth. Economics
has a nice scam going – only if the rich get much richer can anything be done for the 90%.
And we're told (by the rich) that this is just "natural" – a law of nature .Yeah, back when
the church owned everything the priests told us it was God who wanted it that way. Now the economic
priests tell us its nature that wants it this way
I am increasingly of the view that we conflate two entirely different ideas, or that we don't
emphasize enough that there are two fundamentally different critiques, when we challenge economists'
reliance on "growth." I'm not opposed to the notion of 'steady-state' economics. But it seems
presumptuous TSTL for Americans (famously 5% of the world's population using 25% of the world's
resources), really 'first-world'ers in general, to say, "OK, no more growth and time to stay within
in our limits, and by the way I'm good with what I've got." So I think there is a lot more work
that has to be done to make that concept appropriate in a reality-based sense.
Whereas, even though Marxists have often tended toward productivist notions of economic growth
that share many problematic features of capitalist growth, there is a deconstruction of capitalist,
and neoclassical depictions of, economic growth that is not by definition anti-community or anti-planet.
While the fundamental issues are power and control, they are perhaps most easily understood through
measurement – specifically what capitalists and their economists choose to measure as growth and
what they choose to ignore or take for granted. Why is paying someone else to take care of your
kid considered 'economic activity,' a provider of 'jobs,' a contributor to economic growth, but
raising your own kid is not? Actually, working at McDonald's while you pay someone to raise your
kid counts as two jobs, while raising your own kid counts as no jobs, even though the second is
in virtually all cases a socially superior outcome. (True, someone else might take that job at
McD's, so the net might only be one job. But with less demand for that job, perhaps it would have
to pay more and be a better job.) If you extend this line of thinking through elder care, and
then family- and community-based health care ('health care' in the widest, not specifically industrial
sense of the word), one could imagine substantially more healthy (in the widest sense) families,
communities, and societies with substantially lower carbon footprints than our current predicament.
One question is, if one took current measures of paid 'care work' as a baseline for what counts
as 'work,' and then provided similar levels of compensation to those currently performing similar
unpaid work (and I would advocate for higher pay for carers with a closer social bond to those
they care for, because in knowing the 'patient' better they are more 'skilled'), what implications
would that have for 'the economy' and the society in general?
(Similarly, as many others have noted, we need new economic categories that allow us to identify
negative economic activity (much finance, deforestation, pollution, waste, de-humanization, etc.)
that subtracts from standard measures of well-being rather than being included in them.)
There are many different ways to think about this, not all positive. Commodification vs. de-commodification
is a long-running discussion in Marxist circles, and one could imagine arguments in favor of extending
the latter to many more spheres of society. I think many supporters of BIG are de-commifiers at
heart. Even in our current context, massively improving and extending paid leave is a nod in this
direction. OTOH, one could also easily imagine to make kids the one paying their parents to raise
them, and going even deeper into debt, on the same logic of paying for college – your parents
are working to improve your social capital and earning potential and so you should pay them out
of your future earnings.
Relatedly, I am not opposed to alternative measures of social well-being, such as 'happiness
indexes.' But until we are able to directly challenge capitalist and neoclassical hegemony over
what counts as paid work (i.e. 'useful economic activity') and directly address the economic cost
of social 'bads,' there will be no taking the foot off the accelerator of economic growth, even
as we plunge Thelma-and-Louise-style over the cliff.
And I believe that at least several, if not all, of the "notable signers" listed in my comment
above have actually done some of that challenging of capitalist and neoclassical hegemony for
which you are calling.
I absolutely agree that "there is a lot more work that has to be done to make that [steady
state economy] concept appropriate in a reality-based sense."
I think we can continue with "growth" maybe not indefinitely but certainly for a very long
time to come. Just remove the giant parasitic vampire squid that drains away all of the blood,
8 guys holding 50% of the world's wealth, I mean gimme a break you don't have to be a dreaded
pinko Commie to think that is just hideously wrong. The more we talk about that and the less we
talk about how great it is for us all to cut back and move into Mom's basement the better. It's
US versus THEM and there are very very few of THEM.
Piling on:
All of the artists that I personally know, and I know many, make their living doing something
other than their art. Even the professional musicians get paid playing someone else's music so
they can make their own.
So the thing that gives an artist's life meaning- creating art- and contributes to or even defines
a local or regional culture doesn't count as work, but the day job does. The cost of making the
art not only doesn't count as a job, it counts as a drain of resources in terms of both time and
treasure.
I had never heard of the author or the book, I will definitely be ordering it. It's helpful
to have a reminder now and again, that our society, and whole way of living and being is a historical
aberration and there are many better options.
It also made me smile while reading to think about someone like Krugman reading this book and
twisting themselves into pretzels to dispute it (reality).
I imagine it would be one very complex pretzel but if anything could manage it, it would be
a serious of krugfacts.
: What he found was that-in the absence of a perpetually-growing economy-community and culture
are key.
There is a distinct difference from an ordinary pastoral in 'As You Like It' – the shepherds
do not own their sheep, and specific reference is made to the rural displaced, set to walk and
die on the roads. The policy was simply industrialized post-WWII, with tracts of suburbs in company
towns, separated from the competing allegiances of extended family and culture.
The problem is an old one. The successful solutions are not well publicized. The equivocations
of economicysts are now being revealed, and needs be drawn and quartered for the metastases they
encourage.
Soo.. we're working more now than the middle ages. Great! Good job america!
As a dispirited milennial myself, it seems that the best option for me is to cut loose, live
somewhere cheap and warm, enjoy nature and some friendly neighbors and watch this apocalypse unfold.
I sure as hell am not grinding my life away in the corporate trenches for ever-diminishing purchasing
power, give me a job at the grocer! What's that they've all been automated? Oh, damnit.
As a dispirited milennial myself, it seems that the best option for me is to cut loose,
live somewhere cheap and warm, enjoy nature and some friendly neighbors and watch this apocalypse
unfold.
Also the case for a reasonably affluent babyboomer
I actually did that. At 55, seven years ago now, I got disgusted and bailed out. I closed my
business (I actually gave it to my last two employees who wanted to keep going), sold my couple
of real estate holding in the city (my house and my business property) and moved out to the sticks
to brood and live cheaply. Turns out the living is cheap but there's been no brooding. Although
I had a ball in business, until the last two years, I've never had this much fun and contentment
with life. I'm a two bit hobby farmer or homesteader, if you will. You say that flippantly, as
I did, but bailing out and disconnecting from a Madison Ave determined lifestyle can actually
be quite rewarding. It's not for everyone but it's been a very fulfilling experience for me. Good
luck.
I had a weird dream about capitalism in reverse. Where we came to understand money as just
another form of energy and distributed it to people regularly so nobody needed to sell their labor
and the economy didn't need to grow to make profits. Instead of selling products/labor, everyone
used their money to make things we need and then paid again to give their product to someone:
"I'll give you the cost of making this naturally cured ham if you will please take it and enjoy
it." And we gave our money back to the environment the same way: here, please take all of our
energy and help to repair yourself. Or, we've spent our energy making these sustainable homes,
and we can offer your family $20K to take one and live in it. Sounds so nutty. I guess it would
still work to form a partnership, pool our money, and build a state of the art drug research lab.
And pay people to use these excellent drugs. Never mind.
William Morris, News from
Nowhere . Pleasant overview, not big on infrastructure, well-handled dream sequence.
To clarify: I approve, but don't expect this book to give assembly instructions.
Thanks for this great post, more like it please! It's no good endlessly criticising the status
quo we all need to spend more time discussing the alternatives and moving ourselves forward.
During my time as a retail worker it struck me how much of effective customer service was
really an unpaid use of our spontaneous urge to give aid to other people, to respond to their
needs as human beings.
We were often in the position of spiking the SOP of the business to get them what they
wanted. It hit me then how much the ostensible money economy is a free rider on the world of our
human non-economic lives, or is like free clean water used in an industrial process.
My co-workers and I sometimes became bitter about the low wages, and stopped paying attention
to people, but we couldn't keep it up for long, because you couldn't feel good for long about
taking it out on innocent people, and eventually even the bitterest co-workers would encounter
someone they just had to respond to as another person. We all figured out, sooner or later, that
the connection was the enduring value in the job.
This book, Lean Logic has twigged to this reality underlying the economy.
Hmmm. Resonates strongly with the bricklaying scene in Solzhenitsyn's One Day in the Life
of Ivan Denisovitch (about working in a prison camp.) I've got to see tomorrow if the bookstore
can get Lean Logic .
In an Utopian world the hardest least desirable jobs pay the most. CEOs make minimum wage while
the burger flippers being whipped by managers to hurry up are raking it in but do we have enough
unambitious intelligent people to keep the world turning
Socialism will always have to be balanced by the carrot and stick to minimize the mis-allocation
of resources.
Thus we can see reasons behind the high priority capitalistic societies put on individualism,
privatization, the self, the breaking down of "the commons," and fearing other groups, such as
Hispanics, Jews, or Muslims, at one time Catholics too as in the US. The whole mode of social
"we're all in this together" thinking is antithetical to it's reason for being. We need to think
"bigly" with a whole new paradigm (or is it an ancient paradigm) on how we view the world, and
we better do so quickly.
"... Then came the buildup in Vietnam, and I watched this program broken and eviscerated as if it were some idle political plaything on a society gone mad on war. And I knew that America would never invest the necessary funds or energies in rehabilitation of its poor so long as adventures like Vietnam continued to draw men and skills and money like some demonic, destructive suction tube. So I was increasingly compelled to see the war as an enemy of the poor and to attack it as such. ..."
"... Perhaps a more tragic recognition of reality took place when it became clear to me that the war was doing far more than devastating the hopes of the poor at home. It was sending their sons and their brothers and their husbands to fight and to die in extraordinarily high proportions relative to the rest of the population. ..."
"... Also, it must be clear that the leaders of Hanoi considered the presence of American troops in support of the Diem regime to have been the initial military breach of the Geneva Agreement concerning foreign troops. ..."
"... Hanoi remembers how our leaders refused to tell us the truth about the earlier North Vietnamese overtures for peace, how the president claimed that none existed when they had clearly been made. ..."
"... Each day the war goes on the hatred increased in the hearts of the Vietnamese and in the hearts of those of humanitarian instinct. The Americans are forcing even their friends into becoming their enemies. ..."
"... It is curious that the Americans, who calculate so carefully on the possibilities of military victory, do not realize that in the process they are incurring deep psychological and political defeat. The image of America will never again be the image of revolution, freedom, and democracy, but the image of violence and militarism. ..."
"... sustained applause ..."
"... applause continues ..."
"... sustained applause ..."
"... sustained applause ..."
"... In 1957 a sensitive American official overseas said that it seemed to him that our nation was on the wrong side of a world revolution. During the past ten years we have seen emerge a pattern of suppression which has now justified the presence of U.S. military advisors in Venezuela. This need to maintain social stability for our investments accounts for the counterrevolutionary action of American forces in Guatemala. It tells why American helicopters are being used against guerrillas in Cambodia and why American napalm and Green Beret forces have already been active against rebels in Peru. ..."
"... It is with such activity that the words of the late John F. Kennedy come back to haunt us. Five years ago he said, "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ..."
"... A true revolution of values will lay hand on the world order and say of war, "This way of settling differences is not just." This business of burning human beings with napalm, of filling our nation's homes with orphans and widows, of injecting poisonous drugs of hate into the veins of peoples normally humane, of sending men home from dark and bloody battlefields physically handicapped and psychologically deranged, cannot be reconciled with wisdom, justice, and love. A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death. [ sustained applause ..."
"... Therefore, communism is a judgment against our failure to make democracy real and follow through on the revolutions that we initiated. ..."
Over the past two years, as I have moved to break the betrayal of my own silences and to speak
from the burnings of my own heart, as I have called for radical departures from the destruction of
Vietnam, many persons have questioned me about the wisdom of my path. At the heart of their concerns,
this query has often loomed large and loud: "Why are you speaking about the war, Dr. King? Why are
you joining the voices of dissent?" "Peace and civil rights don't mix," they say. "Aren't you hurting
the cause of your people?" they ask. And when I hear them, though I often understand the source of
their concern, I am nevertheless greatly saddened, for such questions mean that the inquirers have
not really known me, my commitment, or my calling. Indeed, their questions suggest that they do not
know the world in which they live. In the light of such tragic misunderstanding, I deem it of signal
importance to state clearly, and I trust concisely, why I believe that the path from Dexter Avenue
Baptist Church-the church in Montgomery, Alabama, where I began my pastorate-leads clearly to this
sanctuary tonight.
I come to this platform tonight to make a passionate plea to my beloved nation. This speech is
not addressed to Hanoi or to the National Liberation Front. It is not addressed to China or to Russia.
Nor is it an attempt to overlook the ambiguity of the total situation and the need for a collective
solution to the tragedy of Vietnam. Neither is it an attempt to make North Vietnam or the National
Liberation Front paragons of virtue, nor to overlook the role they must play in the successful resolution
of the problem. While they both may have justifiable reasons to be suspicious of the good faith of
the United States, life and history give eloquent testimony to the fact that conflicts are never
resolved without trustful give and take on both sides. Tonight, however, I wish not to speak with
Hanoi and the National Liberation Front, but rather to my fellow Americans.
Since I am a preacher by calling, I suppose it is not surprising that I have seven major reasons
for bringing Vietnam into the field of my moral vision. There is at the outset a very obvious and
almost facile connection between the war in Vietnam and the struggle I and others have been waging
in America. A few years ago there was a shining moment in that struggle. It seemed as if there was
a real promise of hope for the poor, both black and white, through the poverty program. There were
experiments, hopes, new beginnings. Then came the buildup in Vietnam, and I watched this program
broken and eviscerated as if it were some idle political plaything on a society gone mad on war.
And I knew that America would never invest the necessary funds or energies in rehabilitation of its
poor so long as adventures like Vietnam continued to draw men and skills and money like some demonic,
destructive suction tube. So I was increasingly compelled to see the war as an enemy of the poor
and to attack it as such.
Perhaps a more tragic recognition of reality took place when it became clear to me that the
war was doing far more than devastating the hopes of the poor at home. It was sending their sons
and their brothers and their husbands to fight and to die in extraordinarily high proportions relative
to the rest of the population. We were taking the black young men who had been crippled by our
society and sending them eight thousand miles away to guarantee liberties in Southeast Asia which
they had not found in southwest Georgia and East Harlem. So we have been repeatedly faced with the
cruel irony of watching Negro and white boys on TV screens as they kill and die together for a nation
that has been unable to seat them together in the same schools. So we watch them in brutal solidarity
burning the huts of a poor village, but we realize that they would hardly live on the same block
in Chicago. I could not be silent in the face of such cruel manipulation of the poor.
... .. ..
And as I ponder the madness of Vietnam and search within myself for ways to understand and respond
in compassion, my mind goes constantly to the people of that peninsula. I speak now not of the soldiers
of each side, not of the ideologies of the Liberation Front, not of the junta in Saigon, but simply
of the people who have been living under the curse of war for almost three continuous decades now.
I think of them, too, because it is clear to me that there will be no meaningful solution there until
some attempt is made to know them and hear their broken cries.
They must see Americans as strange liberators. The Vietnamese people proclaimed their own independence
in 1954-in 1945 rather-after a combined French and Japanese occupation and before the communist revolution
in China. They were led by Ho Chi Minh. Even though they quoted the American Declaration of Independence
in their own document of freedom, we refused to recognize them. Instead, we decided to support France
in its reconquest of her former colony. Our government felt then that the Vietnamese people were
not ready for independence, and we again fell victim to the deadly Western arrogance that has poisoned
the international atmosphere for so long. With that tragic decision we rejected a revolutionary government
seeking self-determination and a government that had been established not by China-for whom the Vietnamese
have no great love-but by clearly indigenous forces that included some communists. For the peasants
this new government meant real land reform, one of the most important needs in their lives.
For nine years following 1945 we denied the people of Vietnam the right of independence. For nine
years we vigorously supported the French in their abortive effort to recolonize Vietnam. Before the
end of the war we were meeting eighty percent of the French war costs. Even before the French were
defeated at Dien Bien Phu, they began to despair of their reckless action, but we did not. We encouraged
them with our huge financial and military supplies to continue the war even after they had lost the
will. Soon we would be paying almost the full costs of this tragic attempt at recolonization.
After the French were defeated, it looked as if independence and land reform would come again
through the Geneva Agreement. But instead there came the United States, determined that Ho should
not unify the temporarily divided nation, and the peasants watched again as we supported one of the
most vicious modern dictators, our chosen man, Premier Diem. The peasants watched and cringed and
Diem ruthlessly rooted out all opposition, supported their extortionist landlords, and refused even
to discuss reunification with the North. The peasants watched as all of this was presided over by
United States influence and then by increasing numbers of United States troops who came to help quell
the insurgency that Diem's methods had aroused. When Diem was overthrown they may have been happy,
but the long line of military dictators seemed to offer no real change, especially in terms of their
need for land and peace.
The only change came from America as we increased our troop commitments in support of governments
which were singularly corrupt, inept, and without popular support. All the while the people read
our leaflets and received the regular promises of peace and democracy and land reform. Now they languish
under our bombs and consider us, not their fellow Vietnamese, the real enemy. They move sadly and
apathetically as we herd them off the land of their fathers into concentration camps where minimal
social needs are rarely met. They know they must move on or be destroyed by our bombs.
So they go, primarily women and children and the aged. They watch as we poison their water, as
we kill a million acres of their crops. They must weep as the bulldozers roar through their areas
preparing to destroy the precious trees. They wander into the hospitals with at least twenty casualties
from American firepower for one Vietcong-inflicted injury. So far we may have killed a million of
them, mostly children. They wander into the towns and see thousands of the children, homeless, without
clothes, running in packs on the streets like animals. They see the children degraded by our soldiers
as they beg for food. They see the children selling their sisters to our soldiers, soliciting for
their mothers.
What do the peasants think as we ally ourselves with the landlords and as we refuse to put any
action into our many words concerning land reform? What do they think as we test out our latest weapons
on them, just as the Germans tested out new medicine and new tortures in the concentration camps
of Europe? Where are the roots of the independent Vietnam we claim to be building? Is it among these
voiceless ones?
We have destroyed their two most cherished institutions: the family and the village. We have destroyed
their land and their crops. We have cooperated in the crushing of the nation's only noncommunist
revolutionary political force, the unified Buddhist Church. We have supported the enemies of the
peasants of Saigon. We have corrupted their women and children and killed their men.
Now there is little left to build on, save bitterness. Soon the only solid physical foundations
remaining will be found at our military bases and in the concrete of the concentration camps we call
"fortified hamlets." The peasants may well wonder if we plan to build our new Vietnam on such grounds
as these. Could we blame them for such thoughts? We must speak for them and raise the questions they
cannot raise. These, too, are our brothers.
Perhaps a more difficult but no less necessary task is to speak for those who have been designated
as our enemies. What of the National Liberation front, that strangely anonymous group we call "VC"
or "communists"? What must they think of the United States of America when they realize that we permitted
the repression and cruelty of Diem, which helped to bring them into being as a resistance group in
the South? What do they think of our condoning the violence which led to their own taking up of arms?
How can they believe in our integrity when now we speak of "aggression from the North" as if there
was nothing more essential to the war? How can they trust us when now we charge them with violence
after the murderous reign of Diem and charge them with violence while we pour every new weapon of
death into their land? Surely we must understand their feelings, even if we do not condone their
actions. Surely we must see that the men we supported pressed them to their violence. Surely we must
see that our own computerized plans of destruction simply dwarf their greatest acts.
How do they judge us when our officials know that their membership is less than twenty-five percent
communist, and yet insist on giving them the blanket name? What must they be thinking when they know
that we are aware of their control of major sections of Vietnam, and yet we appear ready to allow
national elections in which this highly organized political parallel government will not have a part?
They ask how we can speak of free elections when the Saigon press is censored and controlled by the
military junta. And they are surely right to wonder what kind of new government we plan to help form
without them, the only real party in real touch with the peasants. They question our political goals
and they deny the reality of a peace settlement from which they will be excluded. Their questions
are frighteningly relevant. Is our nation planning to build on political myth again, and then shore
it up upon the power of a new violence?
Here is the true meaning and value of compassion and nonviolence, when it helps us to see the
enemy's point of view, to hear his questions, to know his assessment of ourselves. For from his view
we may indeed see the basic weaknesses of our own condition, and if we are mature, we may learn and
grow and profit from the wisdom of the brothers who are called the opposition.
So, too, with Hanoi. In the North, where our bombs now pummel the land, and our mines endanger
the waterways, we are met by a deep but understandable mistrust. To speak for them is to explain
this lack of confidence in Western worlds, and especially their distrust of American intentions now.
In Hanoi are the men who led this nation to independence against the Japanese and the French, the
men who sought membership in the French Commonwealth and were betrayed by the weakness of Paris and
the willfulness of the colonial armies. It was they who led a second struggle against French domination
at tremendous costs, and then were persuaded to give up the land they controlled between the thirteenth
and seventeenth parallel as a temporary measure at Geneva. After 1954 they watched us conspire with
Diem to prevent elections which could have surely brought Ho Chi Minh to power over a unified Vietnam,
and they realized they had been betrayed again. When we ask why they do not leap to negotiate, these
things must be considered.
Also, it must be clear that the leaders of Hanoi considered the presence of American troops
in support of the Diem regime to have been the initial military breach of the Geneva Agreement concerning
foreign troops. They remind us that they did not begin to send troops in large numbers and even
supplies into the South until American forces had moved into the tens of thousands.
Hanoi remembers how our leaders refused to tell us the truth about the earlier North Vietnamese
overtures for peace, how the president claimed that none existed when they had clearly been made.
Ho Chi Minh has watched as America has spoken of peace and built up its forces, and now he has
surely heard the increasing international rumors of American plans for an invasion of the north.
He knows the bombing and shelling and mining we are doing are part of traditional pre-invasion strategy.
Perhaps only his sense of humor and of irony can save him when he hears the most powerful nation
of the world speaking of aggression as it drops thousands of bombs on a poor, weak nation more than
eight hundred, or rather, eight thousand miles away from its shores.
At this point I should make it clear that while I have tried to give a voice to the voiceless
in Vietnam and to understand the arguments of those who are called "enemy," I am as deeply concerned
about our own troops there as anything else. For it occurs to me that what we are submitting them
to in Vietnam is not simply the brutalizing process that goes on in any war where armies face each
other and seek to destroy. We are adding cynicism to the process of death, for they must know after
a short period there that none of the things we claim to be fighting for are really involved. Before
long they must know that their government has sent them into a struggle among Vietnamese, and the
more sophisticated surely realize that we are on the side of the wealthy, and the secure, while we
create a hell for the poor.
Surely this madness must cease. We must stop now. I speak as a child of God and brother to the
suffering poor of Vietnam. I speak for those whose land is being laid waste, whose homes are being
destroy, whose culture is being subverted. I speak for the poor in America who are paying the double
price of smashed hopes at home, and dealt death and corruption in Vietnam. I speak as a citizen of
the world, for the world as it stands aghast at the path we have taken. I speak as one who loves
America, to the leaders of our own nation: The great initiative in this war is ours; the initiative
to stop it must be ours.
This is the message of the great Buddhist leaders of Vietnam. Recently one of them wrote these
words, and I quote:
Each day the war goes on the hatred increased in the hearts of the Vietnamese and in the hearts
of those of humanitarian instinct. The Americans are forcing even their friends into becoming their
enemies.
It is curious that the Americans, who calculate so carefully on the possibilities of military
victory, do not realize that in the process they are incurring deep psychological and political defeat.
The image of America will never again be the image of revolution, freedom, and democracy, but the
image of violence and militarism.
Unquote.
If we continue, there will be no doubt in my mind and in the mind of the world that we have no
honorable intentions in Vietnam. If we do not stop our war against the people of Vietnam immediately,
the world will be left with no other alternative than to see this as some horrible, clumsy, and deadly
game we have decided to play. The world now demands a maturity of America that we may not be able
to achieve. It demands that we admit we have been wrong from the beginning of our adventure in Vietnam,
that we have been detrimental to the life of the Vietnamese people. The situation is one in which
we must be ready to turn sharply from our present ways. In order to atone for our sins and errors
in Vietnam, we should take the initiative in bringing a halt to this tragic war.
I would like to suggest five concrete things that our government should do to begin the long and
difficult process of extricating ourselves from this nightmarish conflict:
Number one: End all bombing in North and South Vietnam.
Number two: Declare a unilateral cease-fire in the hope that such action will create the atmosphere
for negotiation.
Three: Take immediate steps to prevent other battlegrounds in Southeast Asia by curtailing
our military buildup in Thailand and our interference in Laos.
Four: Realistically accept the fact that the National Liberation Front has substantial support
in South Vietnam and must thereby play a role in any meaningful negotiations and any future Vietnam
government.
Five: Set a date that we will remove all foreign troops from Vietnam in accordance with the
1954 Geneva Agreement. [ sustained applause ]
Part of our ongoing [ applause continues ], part of our ongoing commitment might well
express itself in an offer to grant asylum to any Vietnamese who fears for his life under a new regime
which included the Liberation Front. Then we must make what reparations we can for the damage we
have done. We must provide the medical aid that is badly needed, making it available in this country
if necessary. Meanwhile [ applause ], meanwhile, we in the churches and synagogues have
a continuing task while we urge our government to disengage itself from a disgraceful commitment.
We must continue to raise our voices and our lives if our nation persists in its perverse ways in
Vietnam. We must be prepared to match actions with words by seeking out every creative method of
protest possible.
As we counsel young men concerning military service, we must clarify for them our nation's role
in Vietnam and challenge them with the alternative of conscientious objection. [ sustained applause
] I am pleased to say that this is a path now chosen by more than seventy students at my own
alma mater, Morehouse College, and I recommend it to all who find the American course in Vietnam
a dishonorable and unjust one. [ applause ] Moreover, I would encourage all ministers of
draft age to give up their ministerial exemptions and seek status as conscientious objectors. [
applause ] These are the times for real choices and not false ones. We are at the moment
when our lives must be placed on the line if our nation is to survive its own folly. Every man of
humane convictions must decide on the protest that best suits his convictions, but we must all protest.
Now there is something seductively tempting about stopping there and sending us all off on what
in some circles has become a popular crusade against the war in Vietnam. I say we must enter that
struggle, but I wish to go on now to say something even more disturbing.
The war in Vietnam is but a symptom of a far deeper malady within the American
spirit, and if we ignore this sobering reality [ applause ], and if we ignore this sobering
reality, we will find ourselves organizing "clergy and laymen concerned" committees for the next
generation. They will be concerned about Guatemala and Peru. They will be concerned about Thailand
and Cambodia. They will be concerned about Mozambique and South Africa. We will be marching for these
and a dozen other names and attending rallies without end unless there is a significant and profound
change in American life and policy. [ sustained applause ] So such thoughts take us beyond
Vietnam, but not beyond our calling as sons of the living God.
In 1957 a sensitive American official overseas said that it seemed to him that our nation
was on the wrong side of a world revolution. During the past ten years we have seen emerge a pattern
of suppression which has now justified the presence of U.S. military advisors in Venezuela. This
need to maintain social stability for our investments accounts for the counterrevolutionary action
of American forces in Guatemala. It tells why American helicopters are being used against guerrillas
in Cambodia and why American napalm and Green Beret forces have already been active against rebels
in Peru.
It is with such activity that the words of the late John F. Kennedy come back to haunt us.
Five years ago he said, "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution
inevitable." [ applause ] Increasingly, by choice or by accident, this is the role
our nation has taken, the role of those who make peaceful revolution impossible by refusing to give
up the privileges and the pleasures that come from the immense profits of overseas investments. I
am convinced that if we are to get on to the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must
undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin [ applause ], we must rapidly
begin the shift from a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society. When machines and computers,
profit motives and property rights, are considered more important than people, the giant triplets
of racism, extreme materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.
A true revolution of values will soon cause us to question the fairness and justice of many of
our past and present policies. On the one hand we are called to play the Good Samaritan on life's
roadside, but that will be only an initial act. One day we must come to see that the whole Jericho
Road must be transformed so that men and women will not be constantly beaten and robbed as they make
their journey on life's highway. True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar. It comes
to see than an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring. [ applause ]
A true revolution of values will soon look uneasily on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth.
With righteous indignation, it will look across the seas and see individual capitalists of the West
investing huge sums of money in Asia, Africa, and South America, only to take the profits out with
no concern for the social betterment of the countries, and say, "This is not just." It will look
at our alliance with the landed gentry of South America and say, "This is not just." The Western
arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not
just.
A true revolution of values will lay hand on the world order and say of war, "This way of
settling differences is not just." This business of burning human beings with napalm, of filling
our nation's homes with orphans and widows, of injecting poisonous drugs of hate into the veins of
peoples normally humane, of sending men home from dark and bloody battlefields physically handicapped
and psychologically deranged, cannot be reconciled with wisdom, justice, and love. A nation that
continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift
is approaching spiritual death. [ sustained applause ]
America, the richest and most powerful nation in the world, can well lead the way in this revolution
of values. There is nothing except a tragic death wish to prevent us from reordering our priorities
so that the pursuit of peace will take precedence over the pursuit of war. There is nothing to keep
us from molding a recalcitrant status quo with bruised hands until we have fashioned it into a brotherhood.
This kind of positive revolution of values is our best defense against communism. [ applause
] War is not the answer. Communism will never be defeated by the use of atomic bombs or nuclear
weapons. Let us not join those who shout war and, through their misguided passions, urge the United
States to relinquish its participation in the United Nations. These are days which demand wise restraint
and calm reasonableness. We must not engage in a negative anticommunism, but rather in a positive
thrust for democracy [ applause ], realizing that our greatest defense against communism
is to take offensive action in behalf of justice. We must with positive action seek to remove those
conditions of poverty, insecurity, and injustice, which are the fertile soil in which the seed of
communism grows and develops.
These are revolutionary times. All over the globe men are revolting against old systems of exploitation
and oppression, and out of the wounds of a frail world, new systems of justice and equality are being
born. The shirtless and barefoot people of the land are rising up as never before. The people who
sat in darkness have seen a great light. We in the West must support these revolutions.
It is a sad fact that because of comfort, complacency, a morbid fear of communism, and our proneness
to adjust to injustice, the Western nations that initiated so much of the revolutionary spirit of
the modern world have now become the arch antirevolutionaries. This has driven many to feel that
only Marxism has a revolutionary spirit. Therefore, communism is a judgment against our failure
to make democracy real and follow through on the revolutions that we initiated. Our only hope
today lies in our ability to recapture the revolutionary spirit and go out into a sometimes hostile
world declaring eternal hostility to poverty, racism, and militarism. With this powerful commitment
we shall boldly challenge the status quo and unjust mores, and thereby speed the day when "every
valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low [ Audience: ] (
Yes ); the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough places plain."
A genuine revolution of values means in the final analysis that our loyalties must become ecumenical
rather than sectional. Every nation must now develop an overriding loyalty to mankind as a whole
in order to preserve the best in their individual societies.
This call for a worldwide fellowship that lifts neighborly concern beyond one's tribe, race, class,
and nation is in reality a call for an all-embracing and unconditional love for all mankind. This
oft misunderstood, this oft misinterpreted concept, so readily dismissed by the Nietzsches of the
world as a weak and cowardly force, has now become an absolute necessity for the survival of man.
When I speak of love I am not speaking of some sentimental and weak response. I'm not speaking of
that force which is just emotional bosh. I am speaking of that force which all of the great religions
have seen as the supreme unifying principle of life. Love is somehow the key that unlocks the door
which leads to ultimate reality. This Hindu-Muslim-Christian-Jewish-Buddhist belief about ultimate
reality is beautifully summed up in the first epistle of Saint John: "Let us love one another (
Yes ), for love is God. ( Yes ) And every one that loveth is born of God and knoweth
God. He that loveth not knoweth not God, for God is love. . . . If we love one another, God dwelleth
in us and his love is perfected in us." Let us hope that this spirit will become the order of the
day.
We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. The
oceans of history are made turbulent by the ever-rising tides of hate. History is cluttered with
the wreckage of nations and individuals that pursued this self-defeating path of hate. As Arnold
Toynbee says: "Love is the ultimate force that makes for the saving choice of life and good against
the damning choice of death and evil. Therefore the first hope in our inventory must be the hope
that love is going to have the last word." Unquote.
Nick Begich - Wikipedia
Dr. Nick Begich
is the eldest son of the late United States Congressman from Alaska, Nick Begich Sr., and political
activist Pegge Begich. He is well known in Alaska for his own political activities. He was twice
elected President of both the Alaska Federation of Teachers and the Anchorage Council of Education.
He has been pursuing independent research in the sciences and politics for most of his adult life.
Begich received Doctor of Medicine (Medicina Alternitiva), honoris causa, for independent work in
health and political science, from The Open International University for Complementary Medicines,
Colombo, Sri Lanka, in November 1994.
Raoulfr des Roches
1
day ago
Gary Duarte You're delusional!!! The FBI
and The CIA have both implicated the
Russians in interfering in the American
political process.
Geral Hammonds
1
day ago
Because EVERYONE knows Russia hacking , interfering,
meddling, influencing is a complete joke. Its only
the MSM & the democrats that pretend its real. SMH
206 guy
1
day ago (edited)
timmy turner Only a fool would a believe a
central intelligence agency just because
they're the central intelligence agency.
Fucking sheep's.
Natalia Jensen
1
day ago
timmy turner Not only are you a
brainwashed, delusional libtard, you're
also a racist. Poor baby. The Alt-Left
libtards are a worldwide joke & I love it.
Question:
Today we see a growing split of the world political
elites. There are globalists who express the interests of transnational corporations
and world financial organisations and there is a new political concept, the so-called
populists who express the interests of the people in their countries. A vivid example
is the election of US President Donald Trump, and there are a number of other
political leaders who are seen as fringe politicians in the West, for example Marine
Le Pen. Given this, it is not by chance that Russia is seen as a leader in half of
the world. Is this view justified? Can we talk about a future victory for one of
these ideologies? How would this influence today's world order?
Sergey
Lavrov:
I wouldn't call Donald Trump or Marine Le Pen "fringe politicians"
if only because they absolutely fit into the principles that underlie the functioning
of the American and French states. Marine Le Pen is a European member of parliament
and her party is active in the national parliament. Donald Trump has been elected in
full accordance with the American constitution, with its two-level indirect system of
electing the president. I would not even call them populists. The word "populist" has
a negative connotation. You said interestingly that populists are those who represent
the people. There are nuances in the interpretation of the word "populist." In modern
Russian it tends to be applied to people who go into politics, but do not bear the
responsibility for their words and just seek to lure voters. A populist is someone
who might promise to triple wages while the budget absolutely cannot support it, etc.
So I would rather call them realists or anti-globalists, if you like. Having said
that, anti-globalists are also associated with hooligans who try to disrupt the G20
and G7 summits, and so on. Come to think of it, even now that the new president of
the world's largest power has declared that it is necessary to think not of global
expansion, but of how America lives, the role of globalists will be changing.
American corporations have already demanded a reduction in manufacturing in
developing countries to move it to the US in order to create jobs there. Granted,
this may not be very good news for the consumer because labour is more expensive in
the US, so the prices for goods, cars and so on will increase. But this is the trend.
In general, President Trump's conceptual slogans during his election campaign to the
effect that America should interfere less in the affairs of other countries and
address its own issues send a very serious signal to the globalists themselves.
Again, up until now the US has been perceived as a symbol of globalism and the
expansion of transnational corporations. Those who represent their interests are the
huge team that has taken up arms against President Trump and his administration and
in general against everything he does, and which tries, in any way possible, to throw
a spanner in the works. Something similar things are happening in France where
mountains of compromising materials of ten or fifteen years ago have been unearthed
which invariably are presented through an "anti-Russia prism." It's been a long time
since I've seen such a dirty campaign when at stake are the concepts and ideas of how
to develop the state and their country, and a smear war is being waged. We had this
not so long ago, and I don't see anything good about it.
In parallel the global market and the global trade system are being reappraised
through the actions and statements of the new US administration. As you know, they
have walked away from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, from the Transatlantic Trade and
Investment Partnership and said they would work through regional and bilateral
agreements. We believe, though, that the World Trade Organisation which it took us
such a long time to join did provide a common umbrella for world trade. Some regional
structures could be built into these universal systems so as not to break the ties
with the non-members of these regional organisations to maintain some common contact
and exchanges through the WTO. That too is now under threat. So, we are in a period
of rethinking our approaches, and I don't think it has everything to do with Trump.
These changes have been brewing; otherwise the American position on so many issues
could not have changed so abruptly. They were long in coming, and the WTO was in a
major crisis when the Western countries categorically refused to listen to the
leading developing countries on a range of issues connected with investment,
financial services, etc.
I wouldn't say that there are globalists and populists. There are simply people
who want to get elected and follow a well-trodden path and preserve the neoliberal
structures that are all over the place in the West, and then there are people who see
the neoliberalism and permissiveness which are part of the neoliberal approach as a
threat to their societies, traditions and cultures. This is accompanied by
philosophical reflections and practical discussions of what to do about the problem
of illegal migrants, their own roots and religions, whether it is politically correct
to remind people that you are an Orthodox or Catholic or whether you should forget
about religion altogether. I have said more than once that the European Union wanted
to adopt a constitution many years ago and was drafting it. The commission was headed
by Giscard d'Estaing and he proposed a very simple sentence about Europe having
Christian roots. He was prevented from doing so on the grounds that it would not be
politically correct and would insult the Muslims. In reality it turns out that if you
are cautious about making your religious roots known you end up not caring about the
religious roots of others and the consequences are not usually good. Therefore, at
the UN and UNESCO, we actively support all the initiatives that are particularly
relevant today: the Dialogue of Civilisations, the Dialogue of Cultures and the
Dialogue of Religions. It is not by chance that they have become topical issues on
the agenda because they reflect the fermentation within societies and the need to
somehow search for a national consensus.
For a country that is on the brink of a gargantuan public bailout of its toxic-loan riddled banking
sector, or failing that, a full-blown financial crisis that could bring down the European financial
system, things are eerily quiet in Italy these days. It's almost as if the more serious the crisis
gets, the less we hear about it - otherwise, investors and voters might get spooked. And elections
are coming up.
But an
article published in the financial section of Italian daily Il Sole lays out just how serious
the situation has become. According to new research by Italian investment bank Mediobanca, 114 of
the close to 500 banks in Italy have "Texas Ratios" of over 100%. The Texas Ratio, or TR, is calculated
by dividing the total value of a bank's non-performing loans by its tangible book value plus reserves
- or as American money manager Steve Eisman put it, "all the bad stuff divided by the money you have
to pay for all the bad stuff."
If the TR is over 100%, the bank doesn't have enough money "pay for all the bad stuff." Hence,
banks tend to fail when the ratio surpasses 100%. In Italy there are 114 of them. Of them, 24 have
ratios of over 200%.
Granted, many of the banks in question are small local or regional savings banks with tens or
hundreds of millions of euros in assets. These are not systemically important institutions and can
be resolved without causing disturbances to the broader system. But the list also includes many of
Italy's biggest banks which certainly are systemically important to Italy, some of which have Texas
Ratios of over 200%. Top of the list, predictably, is Monte dei Paschi di Siena, with €169 billion
in assets and a TR of 269%.
Next up is Veneto Banca, with €33 billion in assets and a TR of 239%. This is the bank that, together
with Banco Popolare di Vicenza (assets: €39 billion, TR: 210%), was supposed to have been saved last
year by an intervention from government-sponsored, privately funded bank bailout fund Atlante, but
which now urgently requires more public funds. Their combined assets place them seventh on the list
of Italy's largest banks.
Some experts, including the U.S. bank hired last year to save MPS, JP Morgan Chase, have
warned that Popolare di Vicenza and Veneto Banca will not be eligible for a bailout since they
are not regarded as systemically important enough. This prompted investors to remove funds from the
banks, further exacerbating their financial woes.
According to sources in Rome, the two banks' failure would send shock waves through the wider
Italian financial industry.
There are other major Italian banks with Texas Ratios well in excess of 100%. They include:
Banco Popolare (the offspring of a merger of Banco Popolare di Verona e Novara and Banca Popolare
Italiana in 2017 and then a subsequent merger with Banca Popolare di Milano on 1 January 2017):
€120 billion in assets; TR: 217%. UBI Banca: €117 billion in assets; TR: 117% Banca Nazionale
del Lavoro: €77 billion in assets; TR: 113% Banco Popolare Dell' Emilia Romagna: €61 billion in
assets; TR: 140% Banca Carige: €30 billion in assets; TR: 165% Unipol Banca: €11 billion in assets;
TR: 380%
In sum, almost all of Italy's largest banking groups, with the exception of Unicredit, Intesa
Sao Paolo and Mediobanca itself, have Texas Ratios well in excess of 100%.
But, as Eisman recently pointed out, the two largest banks, Unicredit and Intesa Sanpaolo, have
TRs of over 90%. As long as the other banks continue to languish in their current zombified state,
they will continue to drag down the two bigger banks. And if either Unicredit or Intesa begin to
wobble, the bets are off.
To stay on the right side of the solvency threshold, Unicredit has already had to raise €13 billion
of new capital this year and last week it
took advantage of the ECB's latest splurge of charitable lending (formally known as TLTRO II)
to borrow €24 billion of free money. But as long as the financial health of the banks all around
it continues to deteriorate, staying upright is going to be a tough order.
This is where things get complicated. In order to qualify for public assistance, banks must be
solvent. Presumably, that would automatically disqualify any bank with a Texas Ratio of over 150%,
which includes MPS, Banco Popolare, Popolare di Vicenza, Veneto Banca, Banca Carige and Unipol Banca.
The bailout must also comply with current EU regulations including the Bank Recovery and Resolution
Directive of Jan 1, 2016, which specifically mandates that before public funds are injected into
a bank, shareholders and creditors must be bailed in for a minimum amount of 8% of total liabilities,
as famously happened in the rescue of Cyprus' banking system in 2013.
The Italian government knows that this approach could end up wiping out retail investors (otherwise
known as voters) who were missold, in many cases fraudulently, subordinated bonds by cash-hungry
banks in the wake of the last crisis, in turn wiping out the government's votes. To avoid such an
outcome, the government has proposed compensating those retail bondholders with public funds, just
as the Spanish government did with the holders of preferente bonds. Which, of course, is
in direct contravention of EU laws.
So far, the European Commission has stayed silent on the issue, presumably in the hope that the
resolution of Italy's financial sector can be held off until at least after the French elections
in late April, if not the German elections in September. Then, if those elections go Brussels' way,
a continent-wide taxpayer funded bailout of banks' NPLs can be unleashed, as already
requested by ECB Vice President Vitor Constancio and European Banking Authority President Andrea
Enria.
With no guarantee that Italy's NPL-infested banks can hold out that long, it's a dangerous waiting-and-hoping
game. In the meantime, shhhhhhhh
I wanna tell you about Texas Ratios and he Big Cheat
It comes out of the Italian swamps
cool and slow without any precision
like a fettuncini marinara recipe that's hard to master
Some call it heavenly in its brilliance
others mean and rueful of the Prussian dream
Don't you love the friends gathered together for this Italian graft
They have schemed up pyramids in honor of their escaping
This is the land where the euro died.
1. What is the overall Texas Ratio for the Italian banking system?
2. What is the mechanism connecting a 'bad' Texas Ratio to failure in this case? Are they funding
long term liabilities with short term borrowing like Lehman and hence are at risk of being locked
out of the market?
3. How interconnected are the Italian banks? Is there potential for a domino effect? What would
be the mechanism, loss of confidence or actual counterparty risk?
All good questions. Come June, one may expect more EU austerity practices in the form of public
bailout, Yes? The "public," the disappeared element of modern western political cultures, is the
"backstop," the final insurer. Neoliberalism plays a strong role in the grossly unfair practice
of public bailouts.
What radar? Italy's last radar stations shut down for lack of money in 2013 and all the operators
who could leave the country left for science jobs in Uganda and Brazil. There is no radar in Italy.
Germany has radar but it only picks up signals from NATO or Brussels. Italy's scientific minds
are busy with financial theory, in New Yawk. I've seen a few of them. Pretty smart dudes! And
women! They like stochastic volatility and Wishart distributions but God Forbid you put them in
front of a radar machine. They wouldn't know a bird from the Luftwaffe (haha sorry that was a
long time ago).
What radar? Radar is so 20th century! Today we have Twitter and Facebook if you wanna stare
at a glass screen and hear beeps. I think there's a Wikipedia page for radar but it's rusting.
They use radar on boats and ships though. Maybe one of Italy's banks will go floating by on the
ocean of liquidity from the ECB. Then it might show up on a radar someplace out near the Azores.
Too bad you'll lose money no matter how you try to trade it. Or at least I would! That's for sure.
a day late and a dollar short here, why do I have all my good ideas on April Fool's day? –
but anyway: Schaeuble's "we are overbanked" is now Schaeuble's Paradox because if they let the
little ones go they will bring down the big ones because everybody and their dog has a stake in
this – much like you explained about China's bubble. So, yes Wolfgang, we are overbanked and no,
Wolfgang, we are not overbanked everything is in perfect balance. And all those euros and dollars
racing around with nowhere to go? – here's a suggestion: pour them as fast as you can back into
the planet. Clean it up. Cool it down.
A couple of reasons come to mind, but I may be too anecdotal:
When I was in Italy three weeks back, some friends of mine (and my friends are all pretty much
red) mentioned that parties on the left had looted Monte dei Paschi di Siena. So the Partito Democratico,
the successor party, is going to end up with a scandal (or with even more scandal).
A second idea crossed my mind: For many years, the Italians were the champion savers of Europe.
(They were nearly as good at savings as the Japanese.) So these banks are filled with Italians'
savings accounts and their retirement nest eggs. Weirdly, the Italian regulators may have some
idea that the Italians and their savings habits can shift the balance. What's more likely, though,
and what's worse is that once these banks start failing in series, you will see Italian families
wiped out financially. The social devastation will bring down the government and may even bring
down most of the political parties. The irony would be that the newer Movimento Cinque Stelle
is less implicated (not that they have a plan either).
Needless to say, raised eyebrows by yours truly given previous material posted here.
Just gave a first listen to it, and nothing he (Padoan) says suggests the dire straits outlined
in the NC post. I'll follow up later, but perhaps a shorter version of his answers to the interviewer
here would have been "Shhhhhhhhh "
Maybe they are expecting a mysterious cash drop like it happened a number of years ago when
two Japanese men were arrested at the Italian-Swiss border at Chiasso with fat briefcases carrying
$134 billion in US bearer bonds. Of course since it was undeclared money the Italian State got
to keep 50%. Now, since the Italian finance minister thinks the banking problems are resolved
I imagine there must be a whole bus of Japanese moneymen on their way to Chiasso
Well isn't that what most Keynesians think? That the fundamentals are relatively sound, the
only problem is a financial crisis caused by asset bubbles? And that if we just increase the deficit
(update the nation's infrastructure), things will be fine?
The reality is that it wasn't just a financial crisis that caused the post 2008 recession.
The real economy is not in good shape, nor has been since the 1970's. The industrialization of
Europe and Japan, followed by China and India, has caused a crisis of overproduction/under-utilization
of capacity that has eaten away profit rates in manufacturing firms around the globe (even with
the abundant supply of labor available from the ease of outsourcing). The only growth we've had
since then has been from asset bubbles (Japanese real estate in the 80's, the US stock market
in the 90's, US real estate in the 00's, EU bubbles in the 00's, etc.).
Fiscal stimulus can temporarily ease the burden by increasing demand, and monetary stimulus
can temporarily reflate the asset bubbles, but there's no light at the end of the tunnel. (Not
to mention that US federal deficit spending just boosts Chinese manufacturing sector and pollutes
the planet more than anything else.) Earth has a finite amount of space and resources, and the
mathematics of compound interest mean that growth rates will have to be low from here on out (there's
no way the global economy will double by 2060 and then double again by 2100; not even the Chinese
and Indian booms together could get us growing like that, nor do I think Africa alone could, either).
That's something that fixing up a few dilapidated subway stations won't change–eventually, the
gains will slow as we'll run out of infrastructure to repair.
The reality is the urbanization and industrialization are the lifeblood of capitalism, and
without those two processes happening on a major scale, growth is low (just as it was during the
17th century). The only thing that will get us growing again is a major world war that blows up
buildings and infrastructure everywhere, just like World War II did.
The article does not emphasize the factor that should (but surely will not) mitigate
the extent to which the EU requires bail-ins by depositors and retail bondholders: the Italian
banks' problem is non-performing loans substantially attributable to the austerity imposed by
the EU's [non]growth and [non]stability pact. (Of course there's also the factor of bank managers'
favoritism to political allies and back-scratching among the local elites. While that's a key
factor with MPS and some of the four already-partially-rescued smaller regional banks, it's not
the main cause of the Italian banking crisis).
Why should this be significant? Because some Italian political party (5 Stelle? Fratelli d'Italia?
Lega Nord?) may be able to clearly and simply enunciate the case that (1) EU austerity is the
direct result of other nations' (Spain, UK, Germany, US, ) banks' irresponsible speculation in
derivatives and the like but (2) Italian banks did not participate in that speculative orgy; they
were just fulfilling their proper mission of financing local, regional, and national enterprises
and (3) much of the Italian middle class will be ruined by EU-required bail-ins. If the voting
public understands this causal chain, I think Italians' conservative tendency to thus far stick
with the EU and the Euro no matter what might be reversed overnight - and high time, too.
I'm sorry; but for the current problems, the Italians have nobody to blame but themselves.
1/ Their system did not allow them to fix their banks in time. The financial crisis was in 2008.
It's almost TEN years after and they still haven't fixed their non-performing loans. The US did
it quite fast (thanks, Obama) and put in a new bail-in rule. The EU took their time, but eventually
did it and put in the BRRD, too. THe BRRD took years to negotiate and was not immediately implemented
– so Italy could have bailed in its banks in the mean time, too.
They did not.
2/ The bail in would have worked like a charm in a non-fraudulent system. But Italian banks
sold their subordinated bonds – fraudulently – to mom&pop investors, thus making it ill-adapted.
3/ Italian banks did not receive non-performing loans out of nowhere. It is the Italian banks
themselves that gave or bought such non-performing loans.
So they did participate in the orgy, did not clean up afterwards for more than 10 years, fraudulently
tried to cover everything up (because the subordinated bonds that are bail-in able are supposed
to provide more capital to the banks), and are now going to screw the entire European Union because
of this.
They have successfully masked the Banking problems under various CREATIVE accounting with final
paint job of Extend & Pretend' No one challenged and the investors have accepted without any skepticism.
Besides, they believe in the PUT by Draghi!
They've also masked it as I've said before:
They say it's a "populist" (voter) created crisis.
At root, it's yet anothet gift from the financial sector.
Italy as a country, 8th richest in global terms I believe, ain't poor, so somewhere along the
line as ever, both within and without, as elsewhere in the EZ and the rest of the world, some
are making hay out this debt crisis and have an interest in perpetuating it, whilst the blameless
are yet again forced to endure its bitter consequences.
I wonder how Italy would fare if they left the Euro, compared to the problems discussed here
in the case of Greece. Specifically, how easily could Italy be self-sufficient in food at medicines?
I suspect Italy would be in a stronger position to weather any such storm, and they would have
even more tourism Euro revenue in a transition period. (Assuming a messy transition period during
which the conventional payment systems would be in disarray.)
I've seen Yves and NC writers argue a few times that Italy is the euro country best suited
to ditch the euro. I think it'd be France though; their economy has always been more national
and independent than the rest of Europe, which is why in the early years of the crisis, things
weren't nearly as bad there as they were in the PIIGS.
Whichever country decides to do so will end up facing economic ruin as the powers that be will
make sure to punish it as much as possible (just as they'll do to the UK with the trade agreements)
to make an example of it. Currency speculators will destroy the value of the new currency. And
there are all of the crazy logistical and IT challenges that have been well-documented here as
well.
Of course the most interesting scenario, by far, is Germany leaving the euro. But I can't ever
seeing them be the first to do so, as they benefit too much from it.
I think that the EU and Italy will come to some sort of compromise on the bail-in law, or they
will organize some sort of private sector rescue. And if not, I don't think Italians are quite
ready to ditch the euro, even if a lot of folks lose money on the bail-in. Also, Beppe Grillo
is not allowed to run for public office because of that manslaughter charge. We'll see more of
the status quo, at least for a few more years.
" . the more serious the crisis gets, the less we hear about it" Isn't that always the case
with our 'keep it under your hat' media – information is money. For the money reporter its "What
am I bid for an early chance to avoid loss?" For the politician hoping for a trouble-free life
its "Don't excite the natives you know how irritable they can get!"
Don Quijones, Wolf Street and Naked Capitalism have done us all a great favor yet again. The
level of money inflation is accelerating everywhere.
Why are NPLs important in determining the solvency of a bank? Certainly, the bank doesn't have
to pay to keep them on their books. So they are neither an asset or a liability. All that is relevant
are performing loans, i.e. income, to liabilities. Now, it is certainly probable that banks have
taken on liabilities in the expectation that what are now NPLs would be performing. And that is
the core of the problem. But the measurement of the extent of the problem is simply income, future
and current, based on performing assets vs liabilities, future and current.
"Former CIA deputy director
Michael Morell, who supports Hillary Clinton and insists
that Donald Trump is being manipulated by Russian
President Vladimir Putin, said that Russians and Iranians
in Syria should be killed covertly to "pay the price."
The top CIA official, who twice served as the acting
director of the agency, and worked with Clinton while she
was secretary of state, told PBS host Charlie Rose that
Iran and Russia should "pay a big price" in Syria – and by
that he meant killing them.
"I ran the CIA now I'm endorsing Hillary Clinton and I
want Hillary to kill lots of Russians and Iranians in
Syria"
Referring to the US-backed rebels in Syria, Morell said he
wanted Washington to support them in more aggressive
actions, not only against Bashar Assad's government, but
against Iranians and Russians.
Morrell then went on a diatribe about how the US should
"scare" Assad, including going after his national guard
and "bombing his offices in the middle of the night."
After he retired from the CIA in August 2013, Morrell took
a job at Beacon Global Strategies, a Washington, DC
consultancy founded by Clinton aides Philippe Reines and
Andrew Shapiro. There he worked with Leon Panetta, another
Clinton aide and his predecessor at the helm of the CIA,
who also spoke in support of Clinton at the Democratic
convention in Philadelphia last month.
Last year, Morrell apologized to "every American" and
finally owned up to the "mistakes" made by the CIA in
Iraq, where over 4,000 US soldiers and at least 250,000
Iraqi civilians have been killed since the 2003 US
invasion." - RT News
Employees of the Central
Intelligence Agency find themselves in challenging times.
The agency is dealing with the release by WikiLeaks of
top-secret documents, apparently detailing
highly-classified surveillance methods, and a fraught
relationship with President Trump, who has criticized the
intelligence community ever since he campaigned for
president. CBS News senior security contributor Michael
Morell, former deputy director of the CIA, discusses the
state of the agency, and what it means for America's
security.
Get the latest news and best in original reporting from
CBS News delivered to your inbox. Subscribe to newsletters
HERE:
http://cbsn.ws/1RqHw7T
Get new episodes of shows you love across devices the next
day, stream local news live, and watch full seasons of CBS
fan favorites anytime, anywhere with CBS All Access. Try
it free!
http://bit.ly/1OQA29B
---
Delivered by Charlie Rose, Norah O'Donnell and Gayle King,
"CBS This Morning" offers a thoughtful, substantive and
insightful source of news and information to a daily
audience of 3 million viewers. The Emmy Award-winning
broadcast presents a mix of daily news, coverage of
developing stories of national and global significance,
and interviews with leading figures in politics, business
and entertainment. Check local listings for "CBS This
Morning" broadcast times.
Geral Hammonds
3 weeks ago
Jfk wanted to disband the CIA (Military
industrial complex ) and i guess the CIA didn't
like that very much and let Kennedy know how kuch
they didn't like that in the most violent way
possible, :(. And its really strange that the
democrats are pro deep state, pro war, just
advocates for the CIA But then again anything an
anyone that is anti Trump is goo for them, Since
the guy from the apprentice has completely
devistated them as individuals and as a political
party.
At
2:25
, Hillary supporter Mike Morell even
admits that someone in the Obama CIA leaked
info. Reports are that in December, 2016, a
small group of IT contractors gave the info to
WikiLeaks. Obama has other people do the dirty
work for him.
CIA killed journalist Mike Hastings with remote
crashing his car. CIA has surpassed the authority
of the NSA. CIA has no oversight, not even by
President Trump. They are colluding with media to
destroy Trump's presidency via revealing lies
manufactured to bring criminal charges on him.
CIA is out of control, need the entire senior
officers fired, investigated, charged and
imprisoned or executed for treason & espionage &
Title 8. If CIA does this to a president, they
will do it to Americans who interfere with their
criminal activities world-wide.
another MSM whitewash .... a ex CIA talking head
minimising the illegalities of CIA actions and
promoting a big $$$$ spend on an upgrade of CIA
systems.... no doubt the US zombie public will
swallow it hook line and sinker. There is no
future for the US , it will either cause a WW3
scenario or disintegrate in to an internal civil
conflict....
Mike Morell interview reveal it ia an inside job
and many in the CIA is disillusioned,
demoralized, and become Whistle Blowers! There
have been to many scandals and leaks. The entire
US Intelligence INDUSTRY must be dismantled and
then rebuild. \
It is deeply troubling that
sensitive data that can create huge problems is
released. There is too many with security
clearance to look at the data. Security clearance
should only be given for the data relevant to do
their job. The NSA collects all our data, all the
time, and can query/search the database for
something as simple as a phone number, IP
address, bank account or name.
If the NSA, FBI, or CIA wants email or phone
calls, on Trump or Flynn all they must do is
query their name or phone number or email and
date range. Bingo, they got it! This is going on
24/7. They capture all data flowing through the
major fiber optic lines in the US. Over 5,000
people in the intel community are assigned to do
nothing but mine this data.The NSA, CIA, and FBI
have access to the information realtime, anytime!
All of this is done without a warrant. Hell, who
needs a FISA request? They have everything, and
thousands of intel personnel have access to the
information! You wonder why Jim Comey and others
are freaking out! This is totally illegal. It was
part of an Executive Order issued with the intent
of pursuing drug dealers and know criminals NOT
spying on the American people, but of course they
wouldn't do that, or Would They? Businesses
world-wide has now to spend large sums of money
protecting themselves against CIA criminally
invented malware and viruses. More than 1,5
BILLION phones and computers using Apple or
Android operating system is affected. So far only
1% of Vault 7 released. What if the remaining 99%
contain top-secret information on US neuro
science programs (Mind and Mass Control). No
problem, if this top-secret programs falls into
the hands of Russia or China, since their neuro
science programs is even better, but it would be
a catastrophe if Mr. Kim in North Korea got hold
of it and continued developing it.
The article is pure low quality McCarthyism (as one commenter characterized it "Bullshit of the
most brainless sort") and signify that Democratic Party brass kointed forces with neocons to undermine
Trump. But some comments are interesting
Notable quotes:
"... Popycock! Complete and utter drivel! Hillary's credibility has been undermined by many years of attacks by the "legitimate" media, as well as the right-wing conspiracy media. Was James Comey, a right-wing hack himself, a Russian plant? ..."
"... Secondly, by far most of the Republicans would've voted for Trump regardless. Beyond that he managed to seduce some voters in the key states that he was bringing jobs back. He lied, of course, and everyone knew it, but ti was still more compelling than whatever Hillary was peddling. And let's face it, Clinton just failed to inspire voters. ..."
"... The Clintoncrats for a start should be purged from the party as expediently as is polite. Like real fucking soon. ..."
"... What a pathetic display of failed propaganda, Salon. Even Sith Lord Clapper came out and said there's NO EVIDENCE. Piss off and go fight your WW3 alone you warmongers! ..."
"... That investigation is just beginning. And today, Nunes didn't help Easy D's case. On the other hand, it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Putin does not wrestle bears. ..."
"... Don't pull that innocent bullshit -- America is complicit in virtually every geopolitical disaster on the planet since the end of WW II. You play with the bull, you get the horn... . ..."
"... Democrats!! -- Your candidate lost! The Russians didn't steal the election! I know that The Powers That Be need an Enemy, an "Other" to justify America's monstrous defense budget, but enough of the anti-Russia hysteria bullsh*t! ..."
"... Um, the candidate who ostensibly 'won' is proposing to increase our defense budget at the expense of virtually everything ..."
Knowing what we know now, it's no longer a stretch to report that Trump was placed in office by Putin.
But it only happened because millions of Americans unknowingly volunteered to serve as enemy combatants,
undermining and betraying their own country and their own democratic elections. Make no mistake:
Putin's attack was less about electing Donald Trump and more about turning Americans against America.
Whether you were suckered by Putin or voted for Trump based on fake news, we all suffer from a skewed
view of U.S. elections today. We're all more suspicious about whether our elections are on the level,
and we should be. Putin's goal was to goad us into asking the perpetual question: How can we possibly
trust the outcomes of future elections knowing that Russia preselected our president years ago and
then set about guaranteeing that outcome by turning our people against us?
This is the next
colossal problem to solve. Once we weed out Putin's quislings inside the White House, we have no
choice but to pursue a far greater task: re-establishing the integrity of our elections while re-establishing
facts and reality as the basis for our decisions. There are too many of us who sadly and disturbingly
can't tell the difference between foreign propaganda - fake news - and legitimate news. This has
to change or else Putin will have won, and democracy as we know it will cease to exist.
Bob Cesca is a regular contributor to Salon.com. He's also the host of "The
Bob Cesca Show" podcast, and a weekly guest on both the "Stephanie Miller Show" and "Tell Me
Everything with John Fugelsang." Follow him on
Facebook and
Twitter.
Popycock! Complete and utter drivel! Hillary's credibility has been undermined by many years
of attacks by the "legitimate" media, as well as the right-wing conspiracy media. Was James Comey,
a right-wing hack himself, a Russian plant?
Secondly, by far most of the Republicans would've voted for Trump regardless. Beyond that
he managed to seduce some voters in the key states that he was bringing jobs back. He lied, of
course, and everyone knew it, but ti was still more compelling than whatever Hillary was peddling.
And let's face it, Clinton just failed to inspire voters.
The DNC is in deep trouble as they look to project all their woeful inadequacies on nefarious
Russian hackers. The Clintoncrats for a start should be purged from the party as expediently
as is polite. Like real fucking soon.
What a pathetic display of failed propaganda, Salon. Even Sith Lord Clapper came out and said
there's NO EVIDENCE. Piss off and go fight your WW3 alone you warmongers!
That investigation is just beginning. And today, Nunes didn't help Easy D's case. On the other
hand, it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Putin does not wrestle bears.
Is it possible you have mistaken Russias target? It is not democracy that they are attempting
to undermine, because they don't exhibit this kind of animus towards any of the other democracies
in the world, with the exception of those that consistently meddle in Russian interests.
Don't
pull that innocent bullshit -- America is complicit in virtually every geopolitical disaster on
the planet since the end of WW II. You play with the bull, you get the horn... .
Democrats!! -- Your candidate lost! The Russians didn't steal the election! I know that
The Powers That Be need an Enemy, an "Other" to justify America's monstrous defense budget, but
enough of the anti-Russia hysteria bullsh*t!
Um, the candidate who ostensibly 'won' is proposing to increase our defense budget at the
expense of virtually everythingelse so your logic does not track, Comrade. Oh, and have a
shot of Putinka on me, Comrade.
"... By Raúl Ilargi Meijer, editor of Automatic Earth. Originally published at Automatic Earth ..."
"... I tried to make do with what my paycheck would allow and yet I'd see others who I knew made about the same salary as me living much better and I never could figure out how they managed. ..."
"... What we should do in the short term is lower private debt levels (drastically, jubilee style), and temporarily raise public debt to encourage economic activity, aim for more and better jobs. ..."
"... The government has announced plans for Britain to issue a Ł200m Islamic bond in a bid to attract new money to London. The bond will be aimed at institutions, but there are Islamic finance products available to regular savers, investors and homebuyers. Here us a guide to how sharia-compliant funds and mortgages work. ..."
"... Why aren't regular accounts sharia-compliant? Central to Islamic finance is the fact that money itself has no intrinsic value; it is simply a medium of exchange. Each unit is 100% equal in value to another unit of the same denomination and you are not allowed to make a profit by exchanging cash with another person. A Muslim is not allowed to benefit from lending money or receiving money from someone. This means that earning interest (riba) is not allowed – whether you are an individual or a bank. To comply with these rules, interest is not paid on Islamic savings or current accounts, or charged on Islamic mortgages. How do sharia-complaint banking products work? There are several ways that banks can structure accounts so that they are sharia-compliant. Ijara works as a leasing arrangement: the bank buys something for a customer and then leases it back to them. Different forms of leasing are permissible, including those where part of the instalment payment goes toward the final purchase. This might be used to help you buy a car or other item, or to help a business buy equipment. Murabaha works by the bank supplying goods for resale to the customer at a price that includes a margin above the costs, and allows them to repay in installments. This might be used to provide a mortgage on a property. The property is registered to the buyer from the start. Musharaka is a joint venture in which the customer and bank contribute funding to an investment or purchase and agree to share the returns (as well as the risks) in proportions agreed in advance. Wakala is an agreement that the bank will work as the individual's agent. If a saver enters into this type of agreement, the bank can use their cash to invest in sharia-compliant trading activities to generate a target profit for them. How do the banks make money? Banks can profit [nothing like the "profit" that western banks and banksters extract and extort, of course, but a decent living] from the buying and selling of approved goods and services. The principal means of Islamic finance are based on trading, and it is essential that risk be involved in any trading activity, so banks and financial institutions will trade in sharia-compliant investments with the money deposited by customers, sharing the risks and the profits between them. Islamic banks are structured so that they retain a clearly differentiated status between shareholders' capital and clients' deposits in order to make sure profits are shared correctly. Although they cannot charge interest, the banks can profit from helping customers to purchase a property using a ijara or murabaha scheme. With an ijara scheme the bank makes money by charging the customer rent; with a murabaha scheme, a price is agreed at the outset which is more than the market value. This profit is deemed to be a reward for the risk that is assumed by the bank. ..."
"... There are firm laws governing the types of businesses with which the banks can trade. There should be absolutely no investment in unsuitable businesses, including those involved with armaments, pork, tobacco, drugs, alcohol or pornography. ..."
We are witnessing the demise of the world's
two largest economic power blocks, the US and EU. Given deteriorating economic
conditions on both sides of the Atlantic, which have been playing out for many
years but were so far largely kept hidden from view by unprecedented issuance
of debt, the demise should come as no surprise.
The debt levels are not just unprecedented, they would until recently have
been unimaginable. When the conditions for today's debt orgasm were first
created in the second half of the 20th century, people had yet to wrap their
minds around the opportunities and possibilities that were coming on offer.
Once they did, they ran with it like so many lemmings.
The reason why economies are now faltering invites an interesting
discussion. Energy availability certainly plays a role, or rather the energy
cost of energy, but we might want to reserve a relatively larger role for the
idea, and the subsequent practice, of trying to run entire societies on debt
(instead of labor and resources).
It almost looks as if the cost of energy, or of anything at all really,
doesn't play a role anymore, if and when you can borrow basically any sum of
money at ultra low rates. Sometimes you wonder why people didn't think of that
before; how rich could former generations have been, or at least felt?
The reason why is that there was no need for it; things were already getting
better all the time, albeit for a briefer period of time than most assume, and
there was less 'want'. Not that people wouldn't have wanted as much as we do
today, they just didn't know yet what it was they should want. The things to
want were as unimaginable as the debt that could have bought them.
It's when things ceased getting better that ideas started being floated to
create the illusion that they still were, and until recently very few people
were not fooled by this. While this will seem incredible in hindsight, it still
is not that hard to explain. Because when things happen over a period of
decades, step by step, you walk headfirst into the boiling frog analogy: slowly
but surely.
At first, women needed to start working to pay the bills, health care and
education costs started rising, taxes began to rise. But everyone was too busy
enjoying the nice slowly warming water to notice. A shiny car -or two, three-,
a home in the burbs with a white picket fence, the American -and German and
British etc.- Dream seemed to continue.
Nobody bothered to think about the price to pay, because it was far enough
away: the frog could pay in installments. In the beginning only for housing,
later also for cars, credit card debt and then just about anything.
Nobody bothered to look at external costs either. Damage to one's own living
environment through a huge increase in the number of roads and cars and the
demise of town- and city cores, of mom and pop stores, of forest land and
meadows, basically anything green, it was all perceived as inevitable and
somehow 'natural' (yes, that is ironic).
Damage to the world beyond one's own town, for instance through the
exploitation of domestic natural resources and the wars fought abroad for
access to other nations' resources, only a very precious few ever cared to
ponder these things, certainly after the Vietnam war was no longer broadcast
and government control of -or cooperation with- the media grew exponentially.
Looking at today's world in a sufficiently superficial fashion -the way most
people look at it-, one might be forgiven for thinking that debt, made cheap
enough, tapers over all other factors, economic and otherwise, including
thermodynamics and physics in general. Except it doesn't, it only looks that
way, and for a limited time at that. In the end, thermodynamics always beats
'financial innovation'. In the end, thermodynamics sets the limits, even those
of economics.
That leads us into another discussion. If not for the constraints, whether
they emanate from energy and/or finance, would growth have been able to
continue at prior levels? Both the energy and the finance/political camps
mostly seem to think so.
The energy crowd -peak oilers- appear to assume that if energy would have
been more readily available, economic growth could have continued pretty much
unabated. Or they at least seem to assume that it's the limits of energy that
are responsible for the limits to economic growth.
The finance crowd mostly seems to think that if we would have followed
different economic models, growth would have been for the taking. They tend to
blame the Fed, or politics, loose regulation, the banking system.
Are either of them right? If they are, that would mean growth can continue
de facto indefinitely if only we were smart enough to either make the right
economic and political decisions, or to find or invent new sources of energy.
But what kind of growth do both 'fields' envision? Growth to what end, and
growth into what? 4 years ago, I wrote
What Do We Want To Grow Into?
I have still never seen anyone else ask that
question, before or since, let alone answer it.
We want growth by default, we want growth for growth's sake, without caring
much where it will lead us. Maybe we think unconsciously that as long as we can
secure growth, we can figure out what to do with it later.
But it doesn't work that way: growth changes the entire playing field on a
constant basis, and we can't keep up with the changes it brings, we're always
behind because we don't care to answer that question: what do we want to grow
into. Growth leads us, we don't lead it. Next question then: if growth stops,
what will lead us?
Because we don't know where we want growth to lead us, we can't define it.
The growth we chase is therefore per definition blind. Which of necessity means
that growth is about quantity, not quality. And that in turn means that the
-presupposed- link between growth and progress falls apart: we can't know if
-the next batch of- growth will make us better off, or make our lives easier,
more fulfilling. It could do the exact opposite.
And that's not the only consequence of our blind growth chase. We have
become so obsessed with growth that we have turned to creative accounting, in
myriad ways, to produce the illusion of growth where there is none. We have
trained ourselves and each other to such an extent to desire growth that we're
all, individually and collectively, scared to death of the moment when there
might not be any. Blind fear brought on by a blind desire.
As we've also seen, we've been plunging ourselves into ever higher debt
levels to create the illusion of growth. Now, money (debt) is created not by
governments, as many people still think, but by -private- banks. Banks
therefore need people to borrow. What people borrow most money for is housing.
When they sign up for a mortgage, the bank creates a large amount of money out
of nothing.
So if the bank gets itself into trouble, for instance because they lose
money speculating, or because people can't pay their mortgages anymore that
they never could afford in the first place, the only way out for that bank,
other than bailouts, is to sign more people up for mortgages -or car loans-,
preferably bigger ones all the time.
What we have invented to keep big banks afloat for a while longer is ultra
low interest rates, NIRP, ZIRP etc. They create the illusion of not only
growth, but also of wealth. They make people think a home they couldn't have
dreamt of buying not long ago now fits in their 'budget'. That is how we get
them to sign up for ever bigger mortgages. And those in turn keep our banks
from falling over.
Record low interest rates have become the only way that private banks can
create new money, and stay alive (because at higher rates hardly anybody can
afford a mortgage). It's of course not just the banks that are kept alive, it's
the entire economy. Without the ZIRP rates, the mortgages they lure people
into, and the housing bubbles this creates, the amount of money circulating in
our economies would shrink so much and so fast the whole shebang would fall to
bits.
That's right: the survival of our economies today depends one on one on the
existence of housing bubbles. No bubble means no money creation means no
functioning economy.
What we should do in the short term is lower private debt levels
(drastically, jubilee style), and temporarily raise public debt to encourage
economic activity, aim for more and better jobs. But we're doing the exact
opposite: austerity measures are geared towards lowering public debt, while
they cut the consumer spending power that makes up 60-70% of our economies.
Meanwhile, housing bubbles raise private debt through the -grossly overpriced-
roof.
This is today's general economic dynamic. It's exclusively controlled by the
price of debt. However, as low interest rates make the price of debt look very
low, the real price (there always is one, it's just like thermodynamics) is
paid beyond interest rates, beyond the financial markets even, it's paid on
Main Street, in the real economy. Where the quality of jobs, if not the
quantity, has fallen dramatically, and people can only survive by descending
ever deeper into ever more debt.
Do we need growth? Is that even a question we can answer if we don't know
what we would need or use it for? Is there perhaps a point, both from an energy
and from a financial point of view, where growth simply levels off no matter
what we do, in the same way that our physical bodies stop growing at 6 feet or
so? And that after that the demand for economic growth must necessarily lead to
The Only Thing That Grows Is Debt
?
It's perhaps ironic that the US doesn't appear to be either first or most at
risk this time around. There are plenty other housing markets today with what
at least look to be much bigger bubbles, from London to China and from Sydney
to Stockholm.
Auckland's bubble
already looks to be popping. The potential consequences
of such -inevitable- developments are difficult to overestimate. Because, as I
said, the various banking systems and indeed entire economies depend on these
bubbles.
The aftermath will be chaotic and it's little use to try and predict it too
finely, but it'll be 'interesting' to see what happens to the banks in all
these countries where bubbles have been engineered, once prices start dropping.
It's not a healthy thing for an economy to depend on blowing bubbles. It's also
not healthy to depend on private banks for the creation of a society's money.
It's unhealthy, unnecessary and unethical. We're about to see why.
This is one of the most succinct analyses of what we are doing and what we
are in for. It answers my question about why each new subdivision where I live
has bigger and bigger houses built on it. I think it is preposterous that a
family of two or maybe four roams around in a three-story house with three
bathrooms and four bedrooms in a highly priced home.
Growth is really destruction when you think about it: destruction of the
trees cut down to build homes; destruction of the earth beneath the house that
can no longer grow crops; destruction of bird's nests (by the thousands) when
the trees are cut down; destruction of the water polluted by runoff;
destruction and erosion from other plant removal, etc. And my example is just
the building of one house–multiply that by many hundreds of thousands and the
destruction becomes world wide. This is mind-boggling!
New builds keep on getting bigger here too it gives people the idea that
resources and energy are plentiful. Many don't seem to realize that this
growth is based on short-termism and externalities.
It's ironic that houses are getting ever bigger when environmental and
infrastructural problems are ballooning.
On a similar vein, a heavily wooded lot near my home was clearcut about a
year ago and an office building was constructed. It sits vacant to this day.
I have no idea what the speculative motivation for constructing the building
was, but the entire character of the area was irrevocably changed for the
worst. Where once a beautiful natural environment soothed the soul and
offered habitat for numerous creatures, an unsightly building now stands-
unused. Concrete, asphalt, and minimal landscaping. It is really a hole in
the world. An unused hole.
The building is currently maintained though unoccupied, no doubt the
investors still hoping to unload the property. With a downturn in the
economy, the building is headed for abandonment. The only bright spot is
that the forest will eventually reclaim the land- in only a few hundred
years.
Top article! Banks rent-seeking like there's no tomorrow have ensured for
many borrowers there will be no tomorrow. But the banks will be OK: they'll be
bailed out for their excesses. As Michael Hudson says, the FIRE sector
(finance, insurance and real estate) is running rampant at enormous cost to the
real economy.
Extending this line of thought, the article (and your link) makes it very
clear why economic growth, especially growth with no goal is unsustainable
and damaging.
The same is true for population. Overpopulation leads to increased
exploitation, increased ecological destruction, a decreasing standard of
living and increased suffering for billions.
Population growth for the sake of growth leads to the same unmanageable
and unjust state of affairs that we see in unsustainable economic growth.
Overpopulation is also a driver for that economic instability as
resources and energy to keep that keep real-econ growth going become thinner
and thinner and more capital is funneled into speculative bubbles, less real
resource dependent.
Population growth can either be managed, stabilized and slowly reduced,
just as unfocused and exploitative economic growth should be, or we have 2
other choices.
The entire world population lives at the same standard in terms of energy
and caloric intake as rural Nigeria or we continue to blow a giant
population bubble that
will
pop with truly disastrous effects that
we may never come back from.
Indeed a great post. The focus on thermodynamics is why.
When we look at biological systems, "growth" is balanced by
"consumption"; or more technically, photosynthesis is balanced by
respiration. Hence even though the biosphere is very active, it consumes as
much as it creates, so it is in steady state. So the grass grows every year,
then is eaten every year, and life goes on at a placid rate. Can humans
learn to live like this?
This society encourages the opposite behavior – accumulate, accumulate,
accumulate. One small house? Get a bigger house. Get a vacation home. Get
two vacation homes. Put two cars and a truck in each home. Buy a boat and an
airplane. Put expensive electronics in every home. Buy food imported from
all over the world. Fly all over the world for expensive vacations. That's
the dream. Of course everyone can't live like this so there has to be a
large servant class to take care of the elite class. But they are encouraged
to consume as much as possible, too. One house, maybe, but lots of
electronics. Garages stuffed with exercise machines and stuff they bought on
sale but never use. Closests full of clothes they never wear, huge racks of
shoes. And huge credit bills to pay for all the stuff. Let alone all the
addictive substances to blow money on, from alcohol to opiates to tobacco,
more money down the rat hole.
I don't get it. I'd rather have a tiny cottage on a huge lot with a
garden and a hedgerow than a huge house covering the whole lot. I could grow
a lot of my own food, I'd have space outside, I'd never buy any processed
food, I'd rarely eat out, I could invest in solar panels and cut down on
energy use and be perfectly happy. And if everyone did this, they'd call it
an economic recession because nobody would be buying all the cheap plastic
crap imported from China.
What kind of screwed-up system have we invented? A system that
deliberately produces greed, envy, anxiety, depression, misery, so go buy
more useless shit to make yourself feel better, that's the essence of this
society. It's everywhere, you can't get away from it – everyday interactions
with people consumed by this mentality, it's like living with a pack of
crazed idiot monkeys high on consumerism. Alienation is a sign of sanity.
There is no reason to believe that thermodynamics applies to anything
but thermodynamics. Why not apply the "law of gravity" to economics?
It's just another attempt to apply "science" or sciency sounding words
and "laws" to stuff that science has never been able to model, let alone
predict in any reliable way. Which, seems very un-sciency.
Economics is an ecological system by extension. Living organisms
(us) are using energy resources from the environment (our food is oil)
to generate a "civilizational free energy" that allows us to do things
and increase our population.
This is exactly the kind of system that is bound by laws of
thermodynamics (maximum efficiency, inevitable loss, etc).
We create mighty illusions that humans are somehow divorced from
the laws of physics. We print trillions and call ourselves rich.
Self deception only lasts for so long. People will realize that the
perpetual motion machine they have been sold (the economic model of
eternal growth as the basis for our entire civilization) only in a
time of it's-to-late-now-mega-crisis.
My parents were both classical musicians. I am so lucky! In our home
there was never money for the latest gizmo, but always enough to pay for
piano lessons. My mother cut everybody's hair, but opened bank accounts
in my sister's and my names when we were born - our "college accounts."
We had very nice home-cooked meals, but never ate out. I remain
profoundly grateful to my parents for the example they gave us: that
neither money nor material goods could constitute a worthy aim in life.
Debt and printing has permitted us to keep on getting the resources and
energy to keep the game going.
Over the last 5 decades, the number of people enjoying developed world
creature comforts has gone from maybe 500 million to maybe 2 billion. But those
not enjoying this have gone from 3 billion to 5 billion.
There is a limit to this materialism and this fact has been creeping up on
us in developed countries. Most think it's only the 1% not sharing when instead
we are probably facing a global redistribution of resources. IMO, most in
developed countries are confusing past wealth and future wealth infra and a
structure of society that needs mega energy and resources might just be wealth
destroying.
Ten years ago I wondered how people could afford the big homes, cars and all
of the consumer products they were buying. 45 years ago I bought a home. I
thought I got a deal at 7 3/4% interest. At that time a car loan was a good
deal at 10% or less. Knowing this I wondered how people could be buying so much
stuff when real wages were not any better than when I joined the work force in
1963. Then it hit me like a brick thrown into my face. It was because of so
called cheap money. This leads people to borrow more than they really should
because as long as they could make the payment everything would be fine. That
is as long as they don't experience a crises like becoming unemployed , their
job disappearing ,or having to take a job at a lower wage. Also they may become
sick or disabled and not able to work. Neoliberal economics created the false
economy. Then came the great recession that is still effecting the majority of
the population. It happened gradually so most people dind't see it coming. Not
mentioned that I believe is important is the creation of the student debt
bubble. These college graduates, who were prime candidates to buy homes and
consumer goods, found out they had no extra money after they paid their student
debt. In fact many were forced to live with their parents. This removed an
entire generation from the housing market and excess consumption. Until we have
a drastic overhaul of how the economy functions things will only get worse for
the majority of people. A major crises is in the making when present day
working people reach retirement age. Since the vast majority of them lack
enough resources they will retire in poverty or be forced to work until the
die. The future looks very grim for the majority of todays working population.
The old could always just file bankruptcy, and zero out all that
unplayable student-loan and consumer-credit and mortgage debt oh wait, I
forget a fresh star is only for corporate persons
Or we olds could do what heedless youngs and the neolibs advise: Just
Die!
There was a TV commercial several years ago with a crisply dressed,
smiling man mowing the immaculate lawn of his McMansion, with a new SUV in
the driveway, seemingly living the American Dream.
The narration asked 'How do they do it?' with the answer being 'They're
up to their eyeballs in debt'. As someone brought up to be extremely debt
averse, that commercial really hit home.
I tried to make do with what my paycheck would allow and yet I'd see
others who I knew made about the same salary as me living much better and I
never could figure out how they managed. Fast forward several years and my
wife is out for a 'ladies night' with 3-4 other moms who all have larger
homes, more cars, and go on more expensive vacations than we do. They
started talking about pooling some money to start an investment club. As
they got to talking about their financial situations, ALL of them except us
had declared bankruptcy in recent years to get out from under their debt
burdens.
This seems to be the dirty little secret of life in the US – if you're
not in the 1%, the only way to 'keep up with the Joneses' is to take on
unsustainable debt.
What does "living much better" actually mean, I wonder?
Rich folks apparently display very pointedly a flaw in human wiring:
an infinite capacity to absorb self-pleasing "getting and spending."
Hardly a new observation, cf. Wordsworth, 1888:
http://www.bartleby.com/145/ww317.html
"We" have no idea of "enough," not a clue about eating to a reasonably
hunger and stopping with the satisfaction of a reasonable thirst. And of
course zero agreement on what is "reasonable:" how dare "we" deny the
agile and corrupt, or the desperate and oppressed, their shot at yuuuuge
consumption and destruction?
I'm not likely to live to see it, but it sure seems like there's a big
die-off coming - and once again, the Few who promote and profit from it,
who serve up the cultural corpse that "we" have been trained to recognize
as "good," with a heaping helping of Bernays sauce ™
So some of ":us" recognize the problem. Next question is, what is ?(or
is there) a solution?
That wasn't the best choice of words on my part – living more
expensively would have been better.
But you're right and it does get to the heart of the problem – how
much is enough? Running an economy based on financialization is not
going to end well.
And about the die-off, it's already here. It just hasn't affected
humans yet so we pretend not to notice. Everything will be OK though –
until suddenly it isn't.
Thank You for the Wordsworth! This one is often running in my mind:
The Second Coming
By William Butler Yeats
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: somewhere in sands of the desert
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
The 'rich folks' I know are remarkable for their lack of spending.
It's not that they make more money than others, though some do. It's
that they consume less and invest their savings. Nobody wants to hear
that.
'The Millionaire Next Door' was a popular book with an unpopular
message: as far as becoming wealthy goes, playing defense is more
important than playing offense. A frugal wife is very helpful.
Planning is important. Some of the millionaires in the book never
earned more than $75,000 a year.
Nobody wants to hear those messages of self sacrifice. Too bad.
They work.
A more equitable society isn't just a Lefty's wet dream or a
thinly veiled disguise for the politics of envy.
Constantly striving to aspire to it, which can only be achieved
by 'good' government incidentally rather than relying on the
largely pointless symbolic acts of often well meaning individuals,
actually makes sound economic sense as well as social.
I've always believed that the sole justification for current
warped status quo, for those who make their money largely in their
sleep, is that maybe they like to see themselves as closet
environmentalists, albeit self-serving eco-warriors, whose very
actions effectively amount to the suppression of consumption
through controlled impoverishment by debt.
I believe we should all be more frugal when it comes to goods
and services that are resource and energy intensive.
However, those millionaires next door getting rich on 70k
incomes needed the market returns to get them their million or 2.
So their wealth depended on the masses' overconsumption.
Yes indeed, I agree, and the power that accruing wealth
allows them to exercise ever more control of course. The
environmental 'upside' is clearly an unintended, if arguably
positive, consequence.
Thanks to the close to tested to destruction debt based money
system the 'masses' are merely one component of demand. Their
sheer numbers ensure a ready supply of consumers, thus rendering
them expendable to those best placed to exploit them.
They are sustained increasingly at subsistence levels
because, as you rightly say, they are vital to sustaining the
wealth advantage of those who need them, but in their eyes, to
coin a phrase, 'there's one born every minute.'
Moneta: I certainly agree that the Millonaire Next Door who
got their on $70K or less probably needed the stock market to
get there. However, I think the more typical MND got there by
being thrifty while building a business, often a not very sexy
business having to do with some obscure service that one would
never think of when describing a millionaire.
We all need each other in some way. What many of the utopians
writing on this page miss–I don't consider you among them, I
might add–is how many services and goods would stop being
produced, and how many jobs would disappear, if income and
property were suddenly taxed at the levels they prefer.
I tried to make do with what my paycheck would allow and yet I'd
see others who I knew made about the same salary as me living much better
and I never could figure out how they managed.
Sounds like you still have dry powder! I think you should put on your
Altruism Hat and start buying down your neighbors debts!
Maybe park your beater on the driveway so there room to fix their fking
jetskiis in your garage while you store them??
Housing is really raging again. Who thought it was possible to have a second
bubble in a decade? We're looking at a 6% rise in the last six months around
here!
We've got a huge cohort hitting retirement years. According to the
pension structure that was determined decades ago, this retirement needs to
be financed with either markets and/or real estate.
Since something like 75% of our leaders are part of that cohort which
needs high valuations, can we expect anything different?
Huh? Not sure how you got to " exploit the planet" from my
comment, but it mostly seems that when using the word "capital",
the distinction between the nominal and the real always seems
blurred, whether willingly or unwittingly.
Interesting that you would use a phrase like " taking from the
workers' pay" and use the word "retirees" as opposed to retired
workers, while never considering a LVT and a TFRT taxes have never
been voluntary, and tax-cuts ARE debt write-downs, implying that an
ISSUER of a currency CAN write-down a USERS "private" debt much
more readily than a USER-as-creditor will
Let's say the retiree needs to buy groceries and then you tax
the land value of the rich retiree to pay for the poor retiree's
grocery bill the rich retiree is still not working. It's the
worker who still gets to produce the food and the retiree who
gets to eat it. Great the worker gets to work for the benefit
of others.
At the end of the day, the real world trumps the money world.
It's the workers who produce the goods and services no matter
how many dollars you print. So if you print and tax in a way
where the workers stop working or become less productive, you
are in trouble.
It's like the Spaniards thinking that coming back with
shiploads of gold from the new world will make them rich
while their economy has not changed. Just huge inflation or
loss of purchasing power.
Just as a reminder, the constraints on a USER of a
currency are not the same constraints on an ISSUER and in
this context, taxes do NOT fund spending. However taxes
can AND do modify behavior.
>" Great the worker gets to work for the benefit of
others."
This is a wedge and phatic half-statement "we" "all
work for the benefit of others", so why shouldn't "we"
also benefit from the work of others via a living wage? In
the context of social security, why should age,
disability, sickness, unemployment etc. translate into a
death sentence?
In the context of inequality, a TFRT (Too F*cking Rich
Tax) would not be needed to "fund" anything but could
mitigate the effects of the contempt that the "haves" have
with the "have-nots".
I think that plenty of that boomer cohort, those
that haven't saved enough for their retirements, would
be happy to have and willing to work at living wage
jobs and forgo retirement.
That
problem, lack of living wage jobs,
cuts across age demographics.
I guess if you believe the economy is a perpetual
motion machine and that all we need is redistribution,
your argument makes sense.
But what I see is a planet with physical limits and
those retiring in the developed world clinging to a high
energy/resource way of life.
IMO, the vast majority of those about to retire have
already consumed more than their fair share of the world's
resources and want the young's help to keep it going in
retirement.
I believe our humanity requires us to help the elderly
but the question for me is how do we distributes those
joules? Everyone focuses on dollars when the treasure is
the joules
My house has appreciated 23.5% in price since I bought it three years
ago. I was talking with my neighbors about this just last week. We are
concerned because what appears to be happening in our sub is that houses are
being bought by investment companies and then being put up for rent (there
are real estate agents knocking on doors weekly in my sub asking to list our
houses). When someone in our area puts up a house for sale, it is rarely on
the market for more than a couple of weeks. What scares us even more is that
these investment companies are renting them out for extremely low prices –
far lower than what someone would pay for a mortgage, even with a 20% +
down. It just doesn't make sense
Out here where I live, homes have appreciated in value ~20% per year
for many years now.
I'm in the process of house hunting now in an area south of Seattle.
Crappy starter track homes with zero character or view run for $450-500k,
and the national home builders are throwing these places up as fast as
they can. There are vast subdivisions of these places under construction
now, and many of the empty lots already have "sold" signs out front.
Better construction that looks like it will still be in good shape in
10-15 years will run in the $650-700k range, minimum.
Also, when I drive around and see the people buying these places are
they do not strike me as the kinds of people who can afford a
half-million dollar starter home – beater pickups parked in the
driveways, obese people smoking cigarettes on the porches, etc. They've
got to be just on the edge of what they can afford. I predict eventually
this is going to end very badly
The monetary system depends on it; the monetary system requires growth to
pay off the interest.
The banks create money through loans but they only create the principal and
not the money to pay the interest. There is never enough money in existence to
pay off all the debt plus all the interest.
Government issued money that is not based on debt can be used in a static
system, but people who propose this tend to get assassinated, e.g. Lincoln and
Kennedy.
Why did debt explode?
Debt = money
When the world came off the gold standard in 1971, there were no hard
anchors on the monetary system and debt and money creation were now unlimited.
One nation couldn't go crazy on its own as their currency would depreciate
against everyone elses, the West when crazy together.
Housing booms create lots of money from new debt, which feeds back into the
economy and gives rise to a more general boom throughout the economy.
House prices peak and the capital gain possibilities disappear, the
speculators run and the housing boom turns to bust, usually caused by rising
interest rates.
The repayments start to overtake the new debt and now the opposite effect
takes hold, the money supply contracts into debt deflation, money is sucked out
of the general economy and a very dangerous doom loop can easily form.
What is the problem with the explosion of debt?
It is all money borrowed from an impoverished future.
Hardly any of the lending has been productive lending into business and
industry that generates the money to pay off the debt.
It has nearly all been lending intro financial speculation of all kinds,
including housing.
Why are Western economies stagnating?
All the wealth has concentrated at the top subduing demand.
We used neoclassical economics in the 1920s and maintained consumption with
debt and allowed debt fuelled speculation in the US stock market. The stock
market crashed and the debt deflation of the 1930s Great Depression followed.
The impoverished future, set up by the preceding debt binge.
Keynes realized redistribution was needed to make capitalism sustainable,
progressive taxation funding subsidized housing, education and services.
Income was just as important as profit, income looked after the demand side
and profit the supply side.
We went back to neoclassical economics to find it still has all the old
problems.
What we humans perceive as wealth is not wealth in Mother Nature's eyes.
Rien ne se perd, rien ne se crée. It's a transformation of matter pure and
simple.
This means that most of the wealth we create depreciates and needs to be
maintained or replaced for wealth to keep its value over the long term. So
most of it is a reflection of past wealth not future wealth.
Over the last 5 decades, our profitability and productivity has depended
on exploiting the investments we made in the decades before. Many of those
assets are reaching their end of life and will need to be replaced.
However our system is mainly set up for growth and exploitation of
existing assets/minimal maintenance not for replacing assets.
And the US with the reserve currency has forced everyone to play the same
game.
I don't see how we can avoid a shock when all at the same time, we all
start rebuilding the assets reaching their end of life
We have probably gone back to raw capitalism at the worse possible
time, some of those resource limits are already over the horizon and
coming towards us.
The neo-liberal, new world order is disintegrating and it has left
many problems behind to keep our minds off what should be the most
pressing issues.
The main pre-occupation of our elites is getting one over on everyone
else, not a good place to be.
When they start squabbling among themselves, this is when wars start,
and with the existing order falling apart there is going to be some
squabbling, they hate to lose anything.
Not exactly. The problem is you are officially bankrupt when no one will
lend you the money to pay off the compounding interest. The secret is to
perpetually roll over the principal. This can go on a surprisingly long time
– which explains why we have boiling frog syndrome.
That happens to be almost were we are. Now economists like to believe if
you are a government, you can eternally run a 3% deficit. But the math still
says someday the interest payment will balloon beyond this. Another popular
fix is "inflate the debt away". But this means you need to be able to borrow
forever at interest rates below the general inflation level. Some countries
have been borrowing at negative interest rates very recently, but that is an
anomaly in the history of the world.
None of these things work for consumer borrowers, so they are the weak
point, and need
real
income growth to get ahead of the
game.
The only thing that fixes this scenario is real growth. So we got our
self addicted to growth, at both personal and state and federal guv level,
and withdrawal may be fatal. Generally, corporate and bank leverage is also
too high to withstand any shocks to the economy.
South America being a good example, they kept rolling over the debt
until it eventually got out of control.
The neo-liberal ideology assumes the trading world will naturally come
to a stable equilibrium and the mainstream complain about Trump's
protectionism.
Like you say you can't run a deficit forever and the fault lines in
the global economy are just widening not converging.
The Greek's liked German products until they reached max. debt and
collapsed.
Debt based consumption is only ever a short term solution, it maxes.
out.
Several million words ago, commenter Guy Fawkes Lives wrote a
comment about how those relatively few people who "own" their
houses and yards after finishing paying off the mortgage may, in
some cases, be able to force the "proof" of ownership down out of
the digital Cloud ( MERS) and back to analog Earth ( a legally
unassailable Deed or whatever that thing is called) in a County
Courthouse Registry of Deeds.
But that was several million words ago. Who has the time to go
back and find it now?
If it is actually realistically possible for some house-and-yard
owners to really do this the way I think I remember Guy Fawkes
Lives writing about it in a comment, it would be nice if someone
could re-write about it in a way totally understandable to the
intelligent layman. If it were written well enough to be a Post,
perhaps our Blogmasters might even decide to hoist it up out of
Comments and make it a Post of its Own.
Perhaps it could even be the first Post to begin a new category
which could be called Airgapping. As in persons or even communities
airgapping themselves against one or another part of the Greater
System.
This is not "setting an assignment". This is "voicing a wishful
dream." Perhaps if enough "Airgapping" posts showed up over time,
from devoted Commenters doing their best to write Postworthy
comments, the accumulating buildup of "Airgap" -categorizable posts
might grow big enough to earn itself an Airgap category just as so
many Permaculture Posts were posted that it was decided that they
had earned the right to the category-title Permaculture.
The banks are doing a nice dance called the "Deed of
Satisfaction." That way, they get to robosign that you're done
paying them. But wait-- don't they still retain the promissory
note? Why arent you getting that back when you finish paying?
Because the thieves continue to rehypothecate it into eternity.
Ask for the promissory note back. It will be a battle you lose.
I won't ever be playing this debt game again. No loans. No
taxes. Nothing to fuel their fake economy. I'm done. It's all a
big circle jerk.
"Jubilee" means "party", I think, so that's not a very
descriptive plan in my mind. I think about what it may mean in
terms of specific actions, then decide I don't wanna think about it
anymore. Depending on scope, it can lead to international wars,
civil wars, assassin wars, or collapse of all our institutions that
make things sorta an intelligent civilization instead of having 7
billion lone wolves roaming the planet and surviving however they
can manage.
But without making too big a deal of things, they really blew it
when they decided to go with what we hear described as "Socialism
for the Rich and capitalism for the poor". That's just a nice way
of saying the government aligned the legal system and other
government powers with banks, capitalism, and the rich to protect
their paper wealth and become an all powerful predator class
aligned against, say, the 90%.
Allowing the bankruptcy system to function as it should –
eliminating bad debt and making holders of bad debt take losses,
would have purged the worst cases in the system. If additional
safety net programs are required, or maybe you find out you have a
surplus of empty houses, then devise equitable solutions once you
understand what's needed.
Then some obviously grossly unfair things like student loans at
8% during 10 years of a ZIRP economy – restructure these w/ new
terms, or if that's not legally possible, re-fi at what mortgages
go for – 3.5%. That would cut payments nearly in half.
Then the Fed goes and blows the next bubble economy by blowing
assets bubbles in order to fix up everyone's net worth. Except,
IIRC, the 3% own 90% of the assets. So home prices never stay
affordable relative to incomes, and we are back to the game of
taking out home equity loans to finance your cost of living.
So that's as much thought as I care to give it, then I get tired
and give up.
Jubilee in the biblical sense only means a reversion of
contracts to null and void, money and asset evaluations had
nothing to do with it because they had no stock exchanges, nor
the effects such concentration of trading creates.
BTW the Fed does not blow bubbles, that distinction is the
result of industry leverage applied to the political system, by
all and sundry, too include the decades of funding wonky
economics to facilitate some quasi religious ideological agenda.
disheveled . how many years have you been reading this blog –
?????
As long as it's been around, and yes, the Fed does indeed
blow bubbles.
I've been reading financial news, working in biz,
investing, and watching the Fed since the 70s, and a few NC
bloggers and commenters don't have a monopoly on the Truth in
these areas. Often, very much not.
Fiddling around with IR does not have distributional
vectors, nor does the Fed dictate what ADI's do.
Industries and their lobbyists [see Hudson] have a much
more distributional effect on asset prices [see Gates
frictionless capitalism and the Dot.com bubble].
disheveled . Wall St. is the distribution mechanism
imo
See "Search for yield" when the Fed floods the
system with liquidity and drives the Fed Funds Rate to
zero. Then also claims they are not a "regulator" in
the financial system.
"Not exactly. The problem is you are officially bankrupt when no one
will lend you the money to pay off the compounding interest. The secret
is to perpetually roll over the principal. "
Or (instead of denying a new loan):
The new and higher interest rate to lend you money to roll over your
debt is beyond your ability to pay.
What is this "The Economy" that has been foisted on us? We treat it as this
nebulous, yet fearsome god that must be appeased. Was there an Economy before
'71? 1933? 1913? What is a "functioning economy"?
To re-purpose Arthur Silbers' "The Tale That Might Be Told"
(powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2008/02/tale-that-might-be-told.html): What
would happen to ordinary folk if we began to avoid the multi-nationals as best
we could and increased our cash spending on Main St? Would we still be at the
mercy of The Economy? How long? Is there a tipping point? How do we get the
word out?
How do we demand local, public banking? Not to mention local public
health-care and indigent relief, retirement security, and better funded local
education.
Please do. All of you, please do what the human tells you to do. The rest
of us, who know what happens to prices when the demand curve sinks, promise
to cooperate. At first. We promise not to go shopping! Not, at least, until
your virtuous self-denial has had its predictable effect on the prices at
the Big Box stores, as manifested during this year's inventory clearance
sale.
If just enough grouploads of people do this in a purposeful way, they
might build little Lifeboat Fortresses of Conviviality Economics. Here is a
groupload of people doing and researching some of that in their own little
area of expertise.
Your suggestion is just as good a theory as anyone else's. Actions based
upon it would be Theory-Action. If enough people joined together to do this
in the same time and place to be called a Group, then you would have a
Theory Action Group . . . a TAG, if you will.
Someone else who has spent years working out a Theory-Action theory of
this approach is named Catherine Austin Fitts. It has been years since I
thought about Catherine Austin Fitts. She calls her concept "Solari". Some
of it that I read begins to feel ever so slightly cultish, and she keeps
referrencing God over and over. But could the concepts be cooled off to a
less-than-cultish temperature? Could it be merely secular and not
God-invoking? I don't know. Perhaps it is worth study.
https://solari.com/blog/
And there is Richard Heinberg with his Power Down, and there is the
Transition Town movement, and other such groups.
Terrific post- you've articulated the current scenario as I see it quite
well. I've been saying this verbally for about five years, that the global
dominance of capitalism depends upon constant expansion, which we cannot
continue with the parameters we have established. I've been deriding capitalism
since the mid nineties for the inherent exploitation on which it depends. So
you're not alone in this view, you've simply taken the lead in writing it all
out.
"Growth to what end, and growth into what? 4 years ago, I wrote What Do We
Want To Grow Into? I have still never seen anyone else ask that question,
before or since, let alone answer it."
I'm comfortable with less, a lot less, and a much more ethically based,
spiritual existence. My community, as in the people who share and live my
values who I commune with, has shrunk commensurate with my ambitions. My
relationships feel more genuine, though, and my quality of life and
mental/emotional/spiritual well being has improved considerably.
Thank you for offering solutions. I fear the likelihood of our collective
ability to restructure our economies around production is slim, at best. We'd
have to get the banksters to release their strangle hold on the rest of us, and
we'd have to get all the bubble participants to wake up and completely re
arrange their lives incorporating sustainable models. Convert all those trophy
homes into cooperative living arrangements, reduce our environmental footprint
to a limited amount per person, etc. It's such a radically different model than
what we have here in the US, I'm tempted to look for it elsewhere and emigrate.
As if that were an easy option.
"It's not a healthy thing for an economy to depend on blowing bubbles."
–Great line. Sadly, a great line and image for us to savor as we collectively
implode.
"And that's not the only consequence of our blind growth chase. We have
become so obsessed with growth that we have turned to creative accounting, in
myriad ways, to produce the illusion of growth where there is none. We have
trained ourselves and each other to such an extent to desire growth that we're
all, individually and collectively, scared to death of the moment when there
might not be any. Blind fear brought on by a blind desire."
Wasn't that the story of Enron? Does everyone think it will be "different
this time", for them?
Indeed.
And as for housing, do people really think the issue about public records of
deeds and all the disasters of robo signing were resolved after 08?
It must be nice living in American Dream sugar plum fairy optimism alt
reality.
Not sure I understand the implications of your "solution", a debt jubilee.
Whose debt, specifically, will be relieved? Owners of debt on multimillion
dollar properties and Range Rovers or students?
What we should do in the short term is lower private debt levels
(drastically, jubilee style), and temporarily raise public debt to encourage
economic activity, aim for more and better jobs.
The developed world wants a debt jubilee so it can keep on consuming at
the expense of the 5 billion in the developing world . "but it's no fair, we
were promised the American dream!"
The funny thing about debt is that if Goldman Sachs loses a trillion
dollars, the government lickety split creates a trillion dollars at 0 interest
for them (and to add insult to injury, the government pays interest to the
banks for holding money that the government just loaned to the banks for free )
If millions of homeowners lose a trillion dollars, they are tossed into the
streets .Paying your debts is important when your poor, but not at all when
your rich
And inflation as a cure???? Inflation in health care, inflation in
education, inflation in housing ..yet no inflation in wages.
And the worst thing is that the CARNAGE is not spoken of, lest the fact that
the system works for the few and against the many becomes apparent.
If one knows one is going to be unfairly driven out of one's home with
nothing to show for it, might there be slow motion ways to sabotage the
property so that no-one else can reap any underserved-by-definition gains
from it?
Filling the toilet, bathtub, furnace, water heater and all lines and
pipes with cement? Opening small strategically placed holes in the roof so
that water can seep in slowly and slo-mo destructively? removing electrical
socket plates and hiding small pieces of ultra-stenchy-when-rotted food in
the revealed spaces and then carefully replacing the socket plates? Etc.
etc. etc.?
Yeah! Almost seems like 180 million aren't doin' anything except
borrowing boatloads of money and blowing it on German cars, overpriced
houses, and Chinese stuff.
Weird. hahaha. Pass the bong, please. Just picked up an ounce of pot for
$300. For only $200, went to an ophthalmologist who told me I'm going blind
and wrote me a 'script. Feel like I beat the system! At least until the OZ
is gone and gotta get another. haha.
Actually I made that up. I'm not an idiot. craazyman wouldn't even do
that. He goes for sensible shoes, red wine and xanex.
Kurt Saxon the survivalist author once wrote an article about how to
grow your own marijuana cheaply in money and electricity. I haven't been
able to re-find it anywhere.
It most basically involved getting one of those U-Haul type
long-distance-moving garment boxes.
Paint the inside totally white with flat white latex paint. Hang a
fluorescent bulb shop-light from the hanger bar with long small link
hardware chains. Adjust the free-hanging chain length so that the lights
are about 6 inches above the growing plants. As the plants grow taller,
adjust the chains so as to keep the lights always 6 inches above the
growing plants. That's your grow chamber.
And tell nobody. The way he put it was . . . " tell nobody. Don't tell
your future ex-boyfriend. Don't tell your future ex-wife. Tell NOOOOO –
body."
Bravo and amen! Ever since I discovered the true nature of our money supply
twenty some years ago in my college-aged youth the realization has plagued me
and alienated me from the rest of our consumption based, debt crazed,
materialistic society. Just thinking of thirty year mortgage on a unbelievably
inflated house just so I can make some idiot, drop-out house flipper a
multimillionaire, and prop up the lavish lifestyles and elaborate schemes of
Wall Street bankers is enough to make me want to wretch because I know bank
money (Federal Reserve Notes) is fake, but the debt and obligation involved
with taking a mortgage for hundreds of thousands of dollars, for me as a peon,
is extremely real. It's wonderful that places like Naked Capitalism exist, as I
remember a time when Monetary reform and even the mere talk of the workings of
our monetary system was the domain of gold bugs, right-wing, tin foil hatters
and musty old alternative press bookstores. It's amazing though, even post MMT,
post derivative meltdown 2008 financial crisis, post Naked Capitalism/left/wing
financial blogs, 99% of the populace still thinks you're a tin foil hat fool if
you tell them money is created out of thin air when they take a loan from a
bank. The eye-roll and the accompanying condescending response is guaranteed to
increase proportionally with education and income level. The most vitriolic
reactions almost always come from finance guys, but maybe one out of twenty
already know the truth, enlighten you with some interesting insider tidbit and
admit they just want to loot a little more for themselves and then they will
retire to a nice comfortable and simple life far away from the casino.
"Grow into what?" A fantastic question that every elected official and
government economist should be forced to answer for the public record. The next
question every citizen/consumer should ask before their next purchase is does
this new "x" really make me happy and do I need it? Can I be simpler? What are
the impacts of me enjoying this new consumer thing and who really pays the
costs associated with creation, transportation and eventual discarding of this
thing? Is there a better way or a way for me to go without this? Simple
questions that could go a long way towards solving our problems.
The problem is using GDP as a goal. As the old maxim says "What gets
measured gets done". If the goal is stupid the result will be as well.
Consider a simple service economy where everyone is a hair cutter. In order
to get growth you have to cut hair more often. You may start with everyone
getting a hair cut every 2 months, but if you want a growth in GDP you need to
gradually increase the frequency of hair cuts (otherwise you have no growth).
Soon you have everyone getting hair cuts every day. So you have gotten growth,
but where is the "wealth". It only comes from whether or not you see a daily
hair cut as some kind of gain. It definitely is not permanent!
Our current economy is similar especially as we move to a more and more
service based economy. Most new jobs are in restaurants and bars (almost now
equal to manufacturing jobs in total) and old aged homes. Basically looking
after people. This by its nature limits the kind and amount of growth you can
get under the current goals (GDP). I mean once you get to where somebody cooks
your three meals a day how much more upside is there.
The solution is obvious, but hard to get to. A different metric, that is
quality based. Change the goal and behaviour will follow. The problem finding
a goal that is acceptable and that will not happen until we have a crisis.
We haven't had real economic growth since the 1970's. Once the
reconstruction of Europe and Japan in the postwar era finished, the global
manufacturing sector became stymied in a crisis of
overproduction/under-utilization of capacity that only continuously worsens as
profit rates continue their decline. The only growth the first world countries
have had since then has been from asset bubbles (Japanese real estate in the
80's, US stock market in the 90's, US real estate in the 00's, euro bubbles in
the 00's).
Capitalism cannot provide 3% growth rates ad infinitum. There is a finite
amount of space and resources, and because of the math behind compound
interest, to grow at 3% per year the economy would need to double by 2060 and
double again by 2100 (with the pace only increasing). What drives economic
growth is industrialization and urbanization, and after those processes are
finished, only asset bubbles or external demand can do the trick (this is the
same reason that growth rates during the 17th century were anemic).
These are structural problems that remodeling a few old train stations will
not solve. The Keynesian solution may temporarily boost demand in the short
term, but eventually you run out of infrastructure to repair. (And in the US
nowadays, more than anything else, fiscal stimulus simply subsidize Chinese
manufacturing and pollute the planet). The best case scenario is that we'll be
stuck with low growth indefinitely–unless a war destroys most of civilization
and we get to rebuild again.
This article misses the root of the problems we face. Economic growth does
not require environmental destruction, or increases of private debt. If you
check Michael Hudson's article published earlier this week at NC, you will have
much better understanding of how the economy works:
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2017/03/michael-hudson-democracy-collaborative.html
The author addresses the symptoms, not the disease.
Growth is demanded by capitalism, which is the root of the problem. Who will
invest capital unless there is a reasonable expectation for a return on the
investment – i.e. growth of capital? Macro-scale capitalism requires
macro-scale growth in the national and/or global real economy. The fake
financial economy, which is just rentier extraction for the leisure class, is
merely an accelerant to inequality that capitalism creates. Macro-scale real
growth requires more physical resources – more people, more energy, more
materials, more land – so population growth and expanding resource exploitation
are necessary requirements for capitalism to flourish. Capitalism was never
going to last. The energy resources were banked over millions of years, but are
being used up in mere hundreds of years – therefore not sustainable.
Overpopulation is causing wars and migrations – we are running out of land to
support an expanding population – therefore not sustainable. CO2 levels in the
ocean are killing off ecosystems, and CO2 in the air is changing the climate –
a finale to the man-made 6th extinction.
Since growth is not sustainable, capitalism is not sustainable. As Naomi
Klein clearly outlined in "This Changes Everything" – capitalism is the root
cause of all the coming crises – economic, climate, migrations, and war. Time
to create a sustainable economic system – and it can't be capitalism.
Fortunately there are an infinite set of choices. Economies are merely sets of
rules governing how goods and wealth are distributed, and how exchanges of
goods are made. How do we fix the economy? Easy – change the rules so they
penalize unsustainable exploitation and so they are not designed to just
benefit the 1% (no more trickle-down economics). How do we solve the debt
crisis? Easy – we forgive the debt – after all it is just money owed to
ourselves. "the debts that can't be repaid won't be repaid. And all you have
to work at is how you're not going to repay them." (Steve Keen partly
paraphrasing Michael Hudson). How do we solve overpopulation? Easy – education
and birth control, create a global economy where the next generation does not
require population growth to survive. How do we solve wars and migrations? Easy
– stop manufacturing the crises through corporate resource exploitation and
theft, and stop funding the military-industrial complex. How do we solve the
climate crisis? Easy – heavily tax fossil fuels and fund clean energy (solar
and wind) – it will cost no more than the bank bailout.
How do we do all this politically? Hard – very hard – because we have a 1%
that is more interested in protecting their unearned wealth, protecting their
profit margins, then in saving the human race from catastrophe. We won't be
able to convince them to change their ways – they believe they are "doing God's
work" (Blankfein) – their indoctrination is too complete. "It is difficult to
get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not
understanding it." (Upton Sinclair) That 1% is the most ruthless 1% of the
population – they would kill billions of us to protect their wealth – and they
are currently killing millions. They use that wealth to manipulate us and to
control the political system by buying the politicians. They rely on "the
pounding twin impulses that drive modern America: burning hatred of all losers
and the poor, and breathless, abject worship of the rich, even the talentless
and undeserving rich." (Taibbi) They use a "complex system of public-private
bureaucracies that constitutes our modern politics a giant, brainless machine
for creating social inequity. It mechanically, automatically keeps the poor
poor, devours money from the middle class, and sends it upward. And because
it's fueled by the irrepressibly rising vapor of our darkest hidden values, it
attacks people without money, particularly nonwhite people, with a weirdly
venomous kind of hatred, treating them like they're already guilty of
something, which of course they are – namely, being that which we're all afraid
of becoming." (Matt Taibbi)
So what do we do? We look to the past for what worked – movements and unions
addressed slavery, suffrage, inequality, child labor, jim crow – they created
the progressive long-lasting changes in our social structures. We abandon what
doesn't work – the delegating of the struggle to NGOs and advocates who ask for
our donations and merely call on small groups of us to mobilize and shout on a
warm sunny afternoon. We look at those groups that have the power elite
concerned – BLM, DAPL, Occupy, Whistleblowers, minimum wage movement – and
consider what they could become if only they had the rest of us onboard. We
educate ourselves and each other – and we inoculate ourselves against
manipulation by understanding how propaganda and manipulation works. (study
Bernays, watch "The Brainwashing of my Dad") We do deep organizing into
networks of support groups (Jane McAlevey – "No Shortcuts") and form a
movement. We abandon the major political parties and create new ones (the first
thing to do is re-register to a 3rd party, preferably the Greens, then take
over the party and make it your own. The major parties are too entrenched with
corporate money for this inside strategy to work). And we grab the reins of
power from the 1% – which will likely cost many lives because the 1% are
ruthless – but as with most bullies, they will eventually back down – but our
window of opportunity is short.
Or we do nothing and let the crises continue until the collapse. Do we allow
billions of people to suffer and die in the crises because we were too lazy to
get off our butts? Was Cornel West correct when he said: "The oppressive effect
of the prevailing market moralities leads to a form of sleepwalking from womb
to tomb, with the majority of citizens content to focus on private careers and
be distracted with stimulating amusements. They have given up any real hope of
shaping the collective destiny of the nation. Sour cynicism, political apathy,
and cultural escapism become the pervasive options." Will we allow the insanity
that Arundhati Roy describes to continue: "While one arm is busy selling off
the nation's assets in chunks, the other, to divert attention, is arranging a
baying, howling, deranged chorus of cultural nationalism. The inexorable
ruthlessness of one process feeds directly into the insanity of the other."
Will we be like the Jews and Armenians and wait too long – "And when they came
for me, there was no one left to speak out for me." (Martin Niemoller) Or like
Chris Hedges, do we believe that some things are worth fighting for: "I do not
fight fascists because I will win. I fight fascists because they are fascists."
"Growth is demanded by capitalism, which is the root of the problem. "
Actually, this is another half truth created by the neolib folks back in
the 60s-70s era.
Taking the case of publically held corporations whose common stock traded
on Wall Street, we used to have two basic types of companies to buy stock
in. One was the "growth company" and the other was one which paid out most
free cash flow in the form of regular dividends. Electric utilities and
telecom stocks were examples of this type, some are still around today, but
they are known as being "slow growth". The investor expectation is the stock
price will only grow fast enough to keep up with inflation.
Any kind of company could adopt the high dividend approach to provide a
return to investors. But for many reasons, like growth stock actually
costing companies nothing, and tax deferment by not taking dividends and
getting long term capital gains instead being preferred by most investors,
most companies decided to aspire to being growth(stock) companies.
Where the problem came in was some companies, mostly in emerging growth
fields, really could mange 15% growth or more, investors came to expect
growth like that from most of the market. Then Wall Street figured out if
they could load up upper management with lots of company stock or stock
options, this would "align management's interests with the shareholders". Oh
man, did that work. Good biz sense was no longer an impediment to looting
the company anyway they could think of as long as they could justify it as
short term benefit to the shareholders.
So we got massive mergers, leveraged buyouts financed by junk bonds,
disappearing pension plans, off shoring, mega sizing of factories – they
ship to the whole world now – my bet is eventually from Bangladesh, H1-Bs
and green cards, outsourcing and related consolidation there, and a bunch of
stuff I'm probably forgetting. Oh yeah, a "Cloud" and accounting firms in
India. And here we are.
Apparently craazyboy fails to understand the difference between a
rentier economy (or feudal system) and capitalism. Such rentier drains on
the economy are exactly what the capitalists were trying to end when they
attacked the feudal system several centuries ago. A rentier economy is
not capitalism – just pure wealth extraction – a parasitical relationship
as Michael Hudson so eloquently describes in "Killing the Host." And it
appears that the capitalists, now that they own practically everything,
want to bring back good old fashioned feudalism using financialization to
place us all in their debt - accelerating the process by using their
purchased politicians to privatize the profits and socialize the losses.
When capitalism fails and the key goal is protecting the unearned wealth
of the 1%, I guess feudalism is their next best choice. Perhaps
Blankfein's message of "doing God's work" will morph into "Wall Street
was ordained by God" to own everything. That way the 1% can justify
charging us rents for everything - even the soon-to-be privatized water
we drink – the same reason the Nobles and Kings used to justify the theft
from the peasants.
It's not that the 'rentier economy' is inefficient or that
investors are addicted to high returns (although both are true).
The problem is the rate of profit in manufacturing (the lifeblood
of a modern economy) has been in steady decline since the 1970s
because of the crisis of overproduction/under-utilization of
capacity that resulted from the rise of European and Japanese
competition.
Yes, space and resources on a planet are finite, but more
importantly, at 3% growth the global economy would have to double
by 2060 and then double again by the end of the century (and that
pace will only increase ad infinitum). I'm sorry but there's just
no way that that's going to happen. What drives robust economic
growth in a capitalist economy is industrialization and
urbanization (this is why growth rates were anemic in the 17th
century), and once those processes have been completed, growth can
only come from external demand, "urban renewal," or asset bubbles.
This has been the case for the developed world since the 70's, and
why our future, at best, is looking like post-1990 Japan.
Unless a big war blows the heck out of everything and we get to
rebuild, just like we did in the post-WWII era. But if not,
remodeling a few old train stations won't get us out of this
crisis, as eventually you run out of infrastructure to repair.
It's more like why would the developed world get to write off
its debt so as to get a clean slate so it can keep on buying
resources to replace its infra when many parts of the world
still have not gotten its own share?
Many here seem to think that the only problem we face is
redistribution not realizing that a fair redistribution on a
global basis would mean a drastic drop in their material lives.
Completely. And of course the dynamics of the global
economy benefit the first world countries at the expense of
the third world countries. And even Keynesian stimulus is
unjust: it subsidizes the wealthy economies in ways that
poorer countries cannot enjoy (if they did the same, they'd
face a public debt/currency crisis). Although I guess
nowadays in the US, Keynesian economics means subsidizing
Chinese manufacturing firms–at the expense of US workers and
the environment.
Everyone talks about how we want a more equitable
distribution of wealth: tax the rich to provide social
programs for the poor, use government spending to create more
middle class jobs, etc. But if we actually wanted to
redistribute wealth, it'd mean all of us would have to see a
huge drop in the standard of living in order to help the poor
in other countries live a little more like we do.
Of course all of this is ecologically unsustainable. A
capitalist economy (and especially Keynesian economics) is
entirely dependent upon consumption ad infinitum, and that is
impossible for our planet. We have a finite amount of space
and resources, and our ecological footprint is far greater
than what the earth can produce.
If you define "standard of living" by the current
capitalist metric, then yes, all our "living" standards
will go down. We will all have less disposable stuff for
our individual consumption.
But what if you imagined society based on the
satisfaction of human needs instead of infinite wants-
which is the pathology of the extreamely rich and is
needed to maintain the current system.
Society has lost the larger motivating vision. The
elite offer a paltry vision that is unsatisfactory to the
human soul.
Thinking about sustaining life, instead of exploiting
it, offers new avenues for action. It makes life worth
living.
The only way to keep the economy going (reasonable
growth rates and reasonable unemployment rates) is
through consumption ad infinitum. This is not
ecologically, economically, or socially sustainable. We
need to transition to an economy that only serves human
(and the planet's) needs rather than the need to create
"wealth" (assets in the hands of a feel capitalists)
until the end of time.
Of course the only way this will happen is if the
people seize the means of production and we move away
from the capitalist system. Not exactly something the
Keynesians are suggesting (they think that government
spending ad infinitum can solve these problems).
The true problem is changing our thinking from a "growth"
economy to a steady state economy. The need is for building a
sustainable, self reinforcing system that takes inspiration from
life cycles based on nature. Nothing grows forever. An optimal
size is reached and then the organism dies of old age, returning
all the material elements of itself back into the environment
from which it arose, enabling the process to begin again.
The failed understanding and appreciation of humans place in
the world, in the order of life, will be our undoing as a
species. We have a choice to be stewards of this world, or to be
exploiters, parasites. The reigning ideology is that humans are
separate from the natural world. We are natures master. Our
rational minds have given us a glimpse into a great potential
for molding the natural world to our will. To have influence
over our collective futures. The current reigning ideology is
one of dominance not of unity.
The notion of rebuilding society from the ashes of war and
conflict, brought about by competition is the root cause of our
failure. War and planned obsolescence is the longterm failure of
capitalism. The proof of this statement is evident from the slow
destruction of the natural environment upon which all life
depends. The environment cannot regenerate fast enough to keep
up with the greed and avarice of those in power. The few
parasites have convinced the many that there is no other way of
life. It truly is a death spiral, masked by hubris and
shortsightedness. The fate of humanity is in the balance. Will
it take mass die offs to drive this point home? Can any other
explanation for the degradation visible all around hold sway? If
that outcome is welcomed by the power elite, how can they hold
legitimacy in the aftermath?. In the end, In evolutionary terms,
humans are a blip in the chain of life. This works against
positive change. It seems catastrophe is the only motivator on
both individual and societal scales- along with positive action
being reabsorbed into the competitive, scarcity driven,
individualistic, narrow view vision.
Shortsightedness and willful blindness is the problem. Larger
questions of why are we here- and what is our purpose in life
need to be redirected. Hedonistic leadership, brought about by
the short term success of capitalism as an organizing structure,
will one way or another come to an end. People don't choose a
life of slavery. They are driven to it.
A word about "Sharia Banking and Finance Law:" James
McFadden asks "Who will invest capital unless there is a
reasonable expectation for a return on the investment – i.e.
growth of capital?" "Sharia banking" and "Sharia investment"
get shoved in with head-chopping and ethnic cleansing, likely
by the "capitalist" PR folks who want to drown the humane
elements and wisdom of Muslim economic -relation models in a
bathtub of rotting Bernays sauce. But it seems to me that
there's wisdom in Islamic finance and banking that ought to
inform any efforts to displace the cancers that are riding us
westerners.
Note that I make no claim to deep understanding of either
the western mess or Islamic banking and finance. The surface
contrasts, though, are absolutely striking, to my
understanding.
The government has announced plans for Britain to
issue a Ł200m Islamic bond in a bid to attract new money to
London. The bond will be aimed at institutions, but there are
Islamic finance products available to regular savers,
investors and homebuyers. Here us a guide to how
sharia-compliant funds and mortgages work.
Why aren't regular accounts sharia-compliant?
Central to Islamic finance is the fact that money itself
has no intrinsic value; it is simply a medium of exchange.
Each unit is 100% equal in value to another unit of the same
denomination and you are not allowed to make a profit by
exchanging cash with another person. A Muslim is not allowed
to benefit from lending money or receiving money from
someone.
This means that earning interest (riba) is not allowed –
whether you are an individual or a bank. To comply with these
rules, interest is not paid on Islamic savings or current
accounts, or charged on Islamic mortgages.
How do sharia-complaint banking products work?
There are several ways that banks can structure accounts
so that they are sharia-compliant.
Ijara works as a leasing arrangement: the bank buys
something for a customer and then leases it back to them.
Different forms of leasing are permissible, including those
where part of the instalment payment goes toward the final
purchase. This might be used to help you buy a car or other
item, or to help a business buy equipment.
Murabaha works by the bank supplying goods for resale to
the customer at a price that includes a margin above the
costs, and allows them to repay in installments. This might
be used to provide a mortgage on a property. The property is
registered to the buyer from the start.
Musharaka is a joint venture in which the customer and
bank contribute funding to an investment or purchase and
agree to share the returns (as well as the risks) in
proportions agreed in advance.
Wakala is an agreement that the bank will work as the
individual's agent. If a saver enters into this type of
agreement, the bank can use their cash to invest in
sharia-compliant trading activities to generate a target
profit for them.
How do the banks make money?
Banks can profit [nothing like the "profit" that western
banks and banksters extract and extort, of course, but a
decent living] from the buying and selling of approved goods
and services. The principal means of Islamic finance are
based on trading, and it is essential that risk be involved
in any trading activity, so banks and financial institutions
will trade in sharia-compliant investments with the money
deposited by customers, sharing the risks and the profits
between them.
Islamic banks are structured so that they retain a clearly
differentiated status between shareholders' capital and
clients' deposits in order to make sure profits are shared
correctly.
Although they cannot charge interest, the banks can profit
from helping customers to purchase a property using a ijara
or murabaha scheme. With an ijara scheme the bank makes money
by charging the customer rent; with a murabaha scheme, a
price is agreed at the outset which is more than the market
value. This profit is deemed to be a reward for the risk that
is assumed by the bank.
There are firm laws governing the types of businesses
with which the banks can trade. There should be absolutely no
investment in unsuitable businesses, including those involved
with armaments, pork, tobacco, drugs, alcohol or pornography.
So what is a "reasonable return on investment?" That would
justify a prudent, grasping capitalist to put some of that
money stuff into?
Here's a a more scholarly link that will lead into the
lots of scholarly articles that frame what, for a western
bankster, "capitalist," re-election specialist, or corruption
generator, would be complete anathema:
http://www.islamic-banking.com/islamic_banking_principle.aspx
And yes, there's lots of cheating amongst the Sharia
financial it's (often fomented by western "banks" and QGOs
(:quasi-government organizations, like World Bank and IMF and
such) who have found how much pleasure and power can be
scammed, with no apparent consequences to themselves, for
lying with the enemy.
It seems clear to me that the flood of "anti-Sharianism"
all about the west has a whole lot to do with the long-game
need to be sure ideas of such equityable and just and
distributionalist and true-risk-based finance and banking
don't gain a toe hold. Although interestingly enough, quite a
few US banks now offer some forms of sharia accounts to help
their growth profiles
http://www.kslaw.com/Library/publication/6-09%20New%20Horizon%20Shayesteh.pdf
Looks to me like Sharia means banks charge commissions
and fees rather than interest. I don't see where the big
magic is. It's the magnitude of money that the bank gets
that matters. Like if they are ripping off the economy. Or
another way to look at it is if the financial sector
consumes too large a percentage of GDP. Tho that seems an
incomplete measure after you have a GFC and kill the world
economy.
Altho one thing is if banks can only make money on the
front end of a transaction rather than a small steady
income like interest or rent from lending, then econ and
industry political pressure would be to increase
transactions in the economy – for example, banks would
embrace supporting real estate flipping rather than refuse
to participate. This is how pursuit of industry profit
growth gets conflated to transaction growth then to GDP
growth. Kinda what is metastasizing the cancer.
Like I said, I do not pretend to understand western
or Islamic banking, either theory or practice, well
enough to do an Ilargi or Hudson-level exegesis. Yes,
fees after a fashion, but what I read is that the
banker has to take on a lot more risk in every
transaction. And that prohibition on money for
armaments, pornography (broadly defined, no doubt, like
"not wearing a hijab" and such), pork, alcohol, tobacco
and illicit drugs, that kind of resonates. Also all
those derivatives and re-insurance scams, And maybe
stock buybacks? Those purists would take away all the
fun, right?
No doubt there are endless, slippery workarounds,
supported by fatwahs and encyclicals from the many
ayatollahs and mullahs who parse the entrails, that's
our nature of course. And also, of course, the "ethics"
and practice in western banking might make me or you,
if we can participate in the grift and casino, richer
in money and pleasure-bits. Who will be the first
acknowledged TRILLIONAIRE, I wonder" But isn't there
some silly sense that maybe that way lies the
precipice?
Of course, living in our "advanced" and
"sophisticated" part of the world, a few of us can hope
for those 10-baggers, and maybe be smart or lucky
enough to buy the next original issue Microsoft or
Apple or Berkshire Hathaway, or do a Bezos or
something. And then diddle ourselves silly in pursuit
of pleasures always just over the horizon, until death
finally overtakes us (with nice nurses and doctors to
clean our poop and pee, and wipe our drooling chins,)
so we "go with dignity and comfort" to where we are
beyond retribution or restitution. Yah, "Apres nous le
deluge," so foch all you inept mopes!
I think both of us are oversimplifying and not fully
understanding (and what's that bit about a man not
understanding if his payday depends on it?) the tenets
of Islamic banking, finance and economics, as it comes
from the doctrinal source (tho possibly, in this most
corrupt and increasingly devastated world,full of
rotten, selfish humans, not how it gets applied and
perverted).
Seems to me it is hardly as simple to get around
moral hazard under what I perceive as the Islamic
fundamentals, as it is in our own charming system
It's pretty clear that if "good ethics" ruled
biz, the world would be more ethical. But in the
mean time we search around for a mechanical
mechanism that keeps everyone honest – but we always
fail to find it.
The problem is that people are addicted to economic
growth. The whole system is. If we get 1% growth, everyone
complains (while it's only the poor that really have right
to). The only way we're going to this "steady-state economy"
is if people get so dissatisfied with capitalism that they
rebel and somehow manage to beat the right (backed by the
military).
Good post, mate. Yet, I think the majority feel that protests are a waste
of time.
They see what happened to occupy and DAPL – the return of the Pinkerton
boys.
I don't think the big change (where the govt acts in the working person's
interest) can be achieved politically. The only way that money is coming
back, for all those commons to be returned, is to use force. It's he only
language the rich understand.
The only part of this essay I have a problem with is the recommendation to
lower private debt by "Jubilee style" if necessary. Isn't this what bankruptcy
is in effect, a jubilee style lowering of debt. I do not think people learn
anything from these "gifts". I was in favor of helping the economy after the
debacle of 2008, because I did not think an actual depression served any
purpose, but now I question if anyone learned a damn thing from all the
"quantitative easing"? I am afraid that people have to have their noses rubbed
in it to really learn a lesson from their own stupidity.
Ah, the Calvinist comes out -- Rub people's noses in it (naughty dog!)
Incidentally, "people" got damn little benefit from QE - nor were they
intended to.
A debt jubilee is only moral in secondary sense: it's technical – a reset to
remove financial blockages (unpayable debt)
Debt inflation has led to asset inflation way beyond the fundamentals, the
income needed to service the debt. Look at student debt. It should not exist in
the first place if a society says we value a highly educated workforce and we
will pay for it. All those note holders of your debt own assets which are
inflated (regardless of what they paid for it). And in a debt jubilee, they
should lose their investment as you don't have the income to service it a live
a good life.
A jubilee would write down or off your debt and every other natural person's
debt, AND, the asset prices return to normal levels.
It's a reset, a realisation, by society, that everyone has borrowed too much
Property has been the go to economic and political 'strategy' for
self-serving financiers and venal, expedient, resolutely unimaginative, lazy
careerist politicians the world over. Unfortunately they just can't get enough
of it, and it's not difficult to see why.
A safe and secure home satisfies one of our most primal needs. In pretty
much any society people don't just WANT a roof over their heads, they actually
NEED one. As luck would have it (for some) property is also one of, if not the
greatest and most effective means of debt/money creation, and has consequently
come to be seen as the preminent measure and store of wealth.
I would also argue that in some countries, particularly the UK, the supply
of property is deliberately suppressed in the face of ever greater demand in
order to stoke price inflation, hence facilitating the greater debt creation
that in turn feeds into the money supply and helps to promote the illusion,
albeit ephemeral, of growing prosperity.
For the politicians and money men it's the low maintenance golden goose that
just keeps on laying, and when it eventually stops, which it always does of
course, and these economic miracle workers are revealed for the snake oil
salesmen they are, most of them have long since donned their golden parachutes,
grabbed their ill-gotten gains and bailed out.
*On a positive note, and lest we forget, somewhere at the bottom of this
teetering Ponzi economic tower that debt built, there still is a genuine
economic foundation underpinning it all, and hopefully there's still time to
save what's left of it from these voracious, sociopathic debtmongers hellbent
on mortgaging the future to infinity and beyond.
'It's not a healthy thing for an economy to depend on blowing bubbles. It's
also not healthy to depend on private banks for the creation of a society's
money. It's unhealthy, unnecessary and unethical.
We had the HOUSING bubble already in 2007-2008 followed by the burst. Now
the bubble is back to the previous level! Who needs MONEY when one can have
debt to infinity?
Dr.
Nick Begich breaks down what he thinks is why the globalists are so afraid of Russia, relating to
it's history and it's progress post communism.
Help us spread the word about the liberty movement, we're reaching millions help us reach
millions more. Share the free live video feed link with your friends & family:
http://www.infowars.com/show
"... A major reason that Democrats have become neo-McCarthyite is to keep the Bernistas at bay. Blaming everything on Putin blocks any accountability for the party's Wall Street leadership. If Masha Gessen is complaining about Democratic overreach (" Don't Fight Their Lies With Lies of Your Own ") then you know something is seriously out of whack. ..."
"... the chairs and vice-chairs of each state Democratic Party's central committee ..."
"... by the state Democratic Party committee ..."
"... a number of elected officials serving in an ex officio capacity ..."
"... representatives of major Democratic Party constituencies ..."
A major reason that Democrats have become neo-McCarthyite is to keep the Bernistas at
bay. Blaming everything on Putin blocks any accountability for the party's Wall Street
leadership. If Masha Gessen is complaining about Democratic overreach ("
Don't
Fight Their Lies With Lies of Your Own
") then you know something is seriously out of
whack.
Salon's latest appears to blame America ennui and cynicism on deliberate putin ploys ...
I suspect he's soon to be blamed for the rising "despair suicide epidemic" (amazed he's
been spared blame for the opiate, fentanyl, epidemic)
It would be funny if they weren't deadly serious and if Gessen were not getting thumbs-up retweets and endorsements all over the place from
folks who should be wiser.
The autocratic Russian president, his oligarch allies and his intelligence services,
including the Federal Security Service (or FSB) and the GRU, recognized an emerging
perfect storm in America that included a convergence of the following:
A distrust in institutions and the news media.
The emergence of almost universal social-media usage.
The willingness to repeat outrageous rumors or fake news to help boost
personal social-media branding.
Political polarization and the accompanying emergence of information
bubbles, confirmation bias and echo chambers.
The metastasizing of the post-Watergate misconception that anyone can or
should be president, leading to the candidacy of a reality-show celebrity named
Trump. (Today's folksy "have a beer" qualification nearly supersedes other
qualifications.)
It rained today but I wanted sun ... the cynicism-inducing effects of the "revealed"
Obama and Clinton over the last decade not.worth.mentioning.
When you are owned by Wall Street and the Deep State you aren't concerned with trivial
things that the hoi polloi are dying to have.
If you want to see how the DNC reacted
to last November's total defeat take a look at Jon Ossoff, the guy chosen to run for Tom
Price's open seat in the 6th District of Georgia. Georgetown, Madeleine Albright, London
School of Economics, propaganda films. The only thing missing in his wikipedia bio is
when he signed up with the CIA I'm guessing it was sometime in high school.
The thing I find so insidious in this Russian conspiracy mongering is the underlying
helplessness, even defeatism, suggesting that -- "self evidently" -- Putin has already
won and we've already lost -- it suggests some upcoming apocalyptic ("which side are you
on") day-of-reckoning ... which I (perhaps erroneously) doubt reasonates with most folks
who long-ago turned off the fear-mongering press .. perhaps in favor of savoring the
present and being surprised when the end comes.
lol... good one b! sad kettle of fish for the american people and for the people of the
world with a political system that is the laughing stock of the world at this point..
It's always fun to hear Right-wing Cranks/Wannabe Masters Of The Universe blaming
someone else when one, or more, of their half-baked plots collapses under the weight of
the bullshit which made it seem like a good idea.
If Putin and the Russians are so diabolically clever and successful at subverting US
democracy that means that US intelligence agencies have been abject failures. Have any
heads rolled over these alleged massive intelligence failures? Rhetorical question.
"Salon's latest appears to blame America ennui and cynicism on deliberate putin
ploys ..."
_____________________________
Whether it's genuine Russophobia, or fake Party Line Russophobia, I've noticed that
it includes this thread of cultural "soft criticism".
That is, the US/EU/NATO infoganda artists-- Elected Misrepresentatives and state
mass-media consent manufactories-- have made "hard" allegations, albeit based on
insinuations and innuendo, that Russia's state-security apparatus has directly and
overtly "tampered with" election results, sponsored or colluded with hackers, cultivated
"fifth column" sympathizers and
de facto
operatives to nefariously influence
Western public opinion, etc.
But they also work in the "charge(s)" that the evil, pernicious Russkies have also
sought to undermine the public's faith and confidence in government and the electoral
process. The charlatans utter this indictment with the gravest, Churchillian high
dudgeon and self-righteousness.
How
dare
some "outsider" cast aspersions upon the paragons of Modern Democracy
represented by the US and EU hegemony! Surely,
any
radical criticism of these
governments and their policies and actions is implicitly false and meritless, and can
only
be understood and explained as an attempt to undermine and destroy appropriate
faith and trust in their political leadership!
Any discerning observer can see that this impassioned cri de cśur, stripped of its
high-flown rhetoric, amounts to whining, "Hey! Those damned Russkies are making us
look bad
!" It is to laugh!
This phenomenon induced a feeling of déjŕ vu. Of course, this complaint isn't novel.
Conservative Elders have traditionally excoriated iconoclasts for supposedly encouraging
social decay and "anarchy" by refuting Panglossian exceptionalism and exposing political
leaders' feet of clay.
Among other precedents, it reminds me of the 1970s reactionary criticisms of writers
like Kurt Vonnegut. Indignant wingnuts chastised writers like Vonnegut and Joseph Heller
for impermissibly "teaching Youth to be cynical about patriotism and democratic
institutions".
It's no surprise that "Salon", a progressive-liberal lite bastion, echoes this "soft"
authoritarian-submissive doctrine.
The democrat party is the same as it was before Trump got elected. The DNC are going to
maintain their establishment and wait for Trump and the REpublicans to fail miserably at
their jobs. I guess that is all they can do
Lavrov's recent lecture at Russia's Military Academy for the General Staff provided some
insights in to how Kremlin leaders view the Outlaw US Empire and its "slanderous"
campaign against Russia. Here's the passage most relevant to the current discourse:
"Question: Recent experience shows that, in terms of the damage they cause, aggressive
actions in the media at times have consequences similar to the use of weapons of mass
destruction. In your opinion, isn't it time, at the UN, in the format of bilateral ties
with other states, to move forward with drafting and signing a comprehensive treaty in
this field, similar to strategic arms limitation treaties?"
"Sergey Lavrov: We've been working on this for several years now. Russia put forward
an initiative that became known at the UN as International Information Security
[Initiative]. It has been a subject of independent resolutions at a number of UN General
Assembly sessions. While initially these resolutions were rejected by some of our
Western partners, in recent years resolutions related to the UN contribution to
international information security have been adopted unanimously.
"Several years ago, a group of government experts was set up. It drafted a report
that was approved by consensus at the UN General Assembly. The General Assembly
expressed support for continuing this effort in the context of identifying specific
cyberspace risks at present. Another government expert group was also formed, which is
beginning to work. It is meant to prepare specific proposals in one and a half years.
"I'd like to say right away that despite the apparently constructive participation of
all states in this discussion, we are aware of the desire [of certain states] to limit
themselves to discussions and not reach practical international legal agreements. So,
alongside the work that I just mentioned, Russia and its partners, in particular in the
SCO, have drafted a document entitled Code of Conduct for Cyberspace. It was also
distributed at the UN and is designed to promote targeted dialogue on the legal aspects
of this problem. Overall, we believe (and we have already submitted this proposal) that
it is time to draft an international convention on cyber security, including the
elimination of threats and risks related to hacking. We were the first to propose
penalising and banning hacking within the framework of international law. We will see
how those who are accusing Russian hackers of seeking to blow up the world in the style
of James Bond will respond to this.
"There is another important topic related to these issues. It concerns internet
governance. For several years now a discussion on the democratisation of the internet
and internet governance has been ongoing at the International Telecommunication Union. A
very serious ideological struggle, if you will, is under way. Some people are upholding
free market principles but there are also those who believe that farming out the
internet to the free market is tantamount to giving it away to just one country. In this
context, serious debate lies ahead.
"We see all these problems. The majority of countries agree on the need to enforce
some generally acceptable order. Focused work is under way but it is too early to expect
any results yet."
There are other points within the Q&A where this topic gets discussed further,
although within a somewhat different context than the above. Relative to Hybrid War,
Lavrov says: "An information war is underway when slander becomes a mandatory condition
for the media. This is an objective fact." Later in response to another question
regarding the defense of national interests, Lavrov replies:
"It's amazing to see how the media in the countries you mentioned and other EU
countries come up with absolutely fictional and, most importantly, inept, clumsily
written articles and reports about Russia's widespread influence on their electoral
processes. I would say they should be ashamed of having election systems they cannot
even protect from external interference. I am referring to such major countries as
Germany and France, not some small countries. Second, they do not offer a single fact.
We constantly remind them about it; President Vladimir Putin regularly communicates with
German politicians and business leaders. My German counterpart, German Foreign Minister
Sigmar Gabriel, has visited Russia recently. He met with President Putin and they had a
frank discussion of these issues. When you talk to them at our regular meetings, they
show no such fanaticism. But obviously, someone really wants this fanaticism to be
artificially maintained and whipped up. I could never imagine that these self-respecting
media outlets could sink so low – to flagrant slander without even bothering to provide
facts."
Anyone here read the
"Russian Democracy Act 2002"
enacted by the Senate and House
of Representatives of the United States of America?
Section 2, Finding and Purposes:
(3A)
Since 1992, United States Government democratic
reform programs and public diplomacy programs, including
training, and small grants have provided access to and training
in the use of the Internet, brought nearly 40,000 Russian
citizens to the United States, and
have led to the establishment
of more than 65,000 nongovernmental organizations
, thousands
of independent local media outlets, despite governmental
opposition, and numerous political parties
.
(Unquote)
More than 65.000 NG0s
established in Russia by the US-Government from
1999-2002? What a crazy number!
And how many more NGOs have been created there in the following 15 years till today? In
the tens of thousands the figure must be.
But how many NGOs have the Russians established in the West meanwhile (the West, not
only US)?
Its far less than a dozen, as far as I am know.
Hybrid war is somewhere between diplomacy and war. It is like being half-pregnant.
Hybrid war is never all-out war. Instead it tries to limit escalation into a real
war.
NATO's definition of Russian hybrid war arises from the short appearance of polite
people or the 50 or so unmarked green men at the Simferopol airport on February 28,
2014. Russia could naturally have sent in a whole tank division or moved its 15,000
troops on Crimea from their bases, but that could have resulted in a formal state of
war existing between the Russian Federation and the Maidan regime in Kiev. By leaving
out national identification markings Russia allowed Kiev to ignore the incident and
to maintain diplomatic ties.
The "Little Green Men" caused huge alarm and hysteria in NATO headquarters. They
were suddenly seen as a Russian miracle weapon that could threaten the security of
Western Europe. This of course is bullshit!
The window for the use of "Green Men" and other methods of hybrid warfare arises
from the internal weaknesses and conflicts of the target country. These by definition
cannot exist in an open society like the democratic West purports to be. The clear
exception is the Baltic apartheid states of Estonia and Latvia. They are not
democracies but more like ethnic dictatorships and U.S. protectorates.
Someone more informed on the NATO side wrote an article two years ago debunking
the whole narrative. He said that the "hybrid" threat of domestic insurrection as
seen in Estonia and Latvia cannot be countered by NATO security guarantees or
international intervention, but must be handled by local police and security forces
locally.
Western security looks different if one rejects the notion that Western
democracies are open societies and instead sees them as semi-dictatorships controlled
by the Anglo-American "Deep State" and by the the fake news and false narratives of
the mainstream media. In this scenario the election of Trump as president becomes an
act of Russian hybrid war. It was the result of hostile elements of Russian
information influence entering the U.S. information space. If one lives in a hybrid
war mentality, then everything the "enemy" does or may have done becomes and act of
hybrid war.
The link given by Susan Sunflower @5 proves the point. Bob Cesca of
Salon
is
totally delusional!
Russia declared war on the United States last year, and it's a war that continues
to be waged today...
Millions of our own people, millions of American voters on both sides of the aisle
were manipulated into acting as unwitting foot soldiers for Vladimir Putin's
invasion...
Trench by trench, Facebook group by Facebook group, Americans executed Putin's
attacks for him...
Trump was placed in office by Putin. But it only happened because millions of
Americans unknowingly volunteered to serve as enemy combatants, undermining and
betraying their own country and their own democratic elections. Make no mistake:
Putin's attack was less about electing Donald Trump and more about turning Americans
against America. Whether you were suckered by Putin or voted for Trump based on fake
news, we all suffer from a skewed view of U.S. elections today. We're all more
suspicious about whether our elections are on the level, and we should be. Putin's
goal was to goad us into asking the perpetual question: How can we possibly trust the
outcomes of future elections knowing that Russia preselected our president years ago
and then set about guaranteeing that outcome by turning our people against us?
This is the next colossal problem to solve. Once we weed out Putin's quislings
inside the White House...
That many games being played... Political hacks working against Trump, many Presidential
appointments still unfilled, Trying to take out those around Trump and Trump himself and
concentrating on the fight against Russia.
Even though Trump was not the anointed, he still has qualities the P-nacker types can
work with. Those that write the constant updates to manifest destiny always have Iran
and North Korea in their sights.
If Trump cannot be removed he can be used to try and take out Iran and NK and also take
the blame for US boots in bodybags.
The partitioning of Syria is now going ahead to Rand Corp plans. This will give the US
control of a large amount of territory on Irans western border. US has already announced
it Will keep military forces in Iraq after ISIS is defeated. Genocide of the people of
Yemen is underway as US will need full control of Bab al-Mandab straight before
attacking Iran.
A couple of plays occurring? Political hacks will continue to try and
remove or restrict Trump, meantime the powers that be are moving forward with their
plans, simply adjusting them to Trump for the moment?
That's an excellent example of Cultural Imperialism. Russia is trying to
rid itself of those deemed detrimental to its sociocultural being. And Russia is far
from the only victim of such.
Something like that was listed on the US Russian embassy website about two
years ago
At that time the US Syrian embassy website, amongst other things where advertising
for American companies to supply and install oil infrastructure in rebel held parts of
Syria.
Most everything the US was doing around the world at that time was blandly in your
face listed on their various embassy websites, no tinfoil hat required.
Everyone seems to present this as a Putin v. U.S. war when, in fact, the Brits have been
much more vicious against Putin than the U.S. media. The real war here is Putin v. the
Rothschild cabal in its City of London. The U.S. and the CIA (CIA has no real U.S.
connection, works directly for the cabal) are just the present kneecappers for the
cabal.
For some readson i read all of that in Dany Devitos voice which made it all the more
funnier. But seriously their Focus on the russian "allegations" is just going to
strengthen Trump when the whole thing just blows up in their faces. It kind of reminds
me of the Situation back in 2008 when Obama was First elected and panicing republicans
called him a commie and claimed that he wad going to fuck up the country. I mean sure
they were right, but they could not have possibly known that then. The point is this
"ressistance" is a joke, and Trump will probably deliver the punchline soon enough
I keep thinking that this is all fanfare leading up to Hillary Clinton's moment of
triumphant return (or something) ... in which she will galvanize the party, which will
unify behind her and drive Trump and his minions from Washington (actual method and
details to be determined / unspecified) ... "like in a movie" or more likely Hillary's
"dream sequence"
It feels like the sort of noisy loud barking that's heard with over-anxious "guard
dogs", who would actually be willing and eager to be called off by their master, but
won't stop barking until given permission to stop ... or something.
Professional Putin hater Gessen is getting kudos galore for point out that the Putin
Trump conspiracy theory lacks evidence ... yes, I was glad for the NYRB piece ... but I
fear it may mean that she (and her Putin hating) will gain stature and credibility on
her next go-around ... Has Gessen displaced Applebaum temporarily? Pussy Riot has been
in the news again ... and I'm on the look out for some Michael Khodorkovsky update or
editorial, since like the seasons these things seem to follow one another and -- gosh --
Putin is up for reelection this year ... speaking of whom:
WAshington Times: Russian dissident hopes Trump will end Putin's power (03/08/2017)
.
TRUMP: increases sanctions on Russia.
TRUMP: expands wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, Libya and Syria
TRUMP: dismantles environmental regulations.
TRUMP: kills worker protection, lowers billionaire taxes.
TRUMP: launches nuclear war with North Korea.
DEMOCRATS: sh*t ... Trump did our
homework ... "Trump's a russki-commie-pinko-faggot!"
whenever the demoblicans loose to the republicrats they make an end-run around them
on the right. only now that requires going out of bounds completely, over the edge and
into mccarthyism, jingo, fascism and ... shrill irrelevance.
confusing the democrat party with an opposition to the neolibraconians?
at this late stage in the 'game'?
there may be less than a dime's worth of difference between the repbublicrats and
demoblicans ... but the salaries of hundreds of thousands / millions of neolibraconian
hacks are on the line here ... and trump ain't hirin'!
what we need to do ... sez i ... is to organize and seriously start firin' ... there
are only 546 of them (537, the supremes are not yet elected)! there are 313 million of
us!
replace all the elephants and jackasses with ordinary americans chosen from among
ourselves.
it'll take a decade. no time like the present to begin.
no citizen denied her/his vote* for any reason => federal recall, referendum,
initiative.
* we citizens register ourselves, authorize and authenticate ourselves, run our
paper-ballot polls ourselves, count and store the results ourselves.
I think the only level of disregard that will move Democrats is to respond to their
every speech act with a call to literally commit seppuku. Anything else admits of a
continued need for them and their performative contrition Rollenspiel.
What is bullshit about it? The fact that Trump is a fraud and dismantling America
while rattling sabers at all and sundry abroad, or the fact that the DNC and its
sycophants blame Russia and Putin for, well, everything they dislike?
You have to ask? They're two corrupt sides of the same coin. I've been repeating
this for months now and getting nothing but abuse around here for it. Trump is a CON, a
snake oil salesman, i.e. a LIAR, a narcissist i.e. megalomaniac and everything is
unfolding as I was convinced it would.
One of Trumps first moves was to kill the TPP, something that would have put all
governments signed up to it under the control of the mostly US based multi-national
corporations ????
It's important to maintain perspective. The "big news" today was that Dick Cheney called
Russian meedling in the 2016 Elections an "act of war". McCain had said the same in
December but for Cheney to repeat that now - after little, if any, evidence of such
interference only shows (again) how much the establishment despises Trump.
Trump hate
is a blind alley. Purposely so. Promoting such thinking does a disservice. We see to
think about what comes after Trump (ike jfl above). IMO, a successful Movement that
returns power to the people is one that unites the principled left and principled right.
I think direct democracy can do that. I encourage everyone to explore the Pirate Party,
a Party that provides a form of direct democracy that makes a good start.
They're two corrupt sides of the same coin. I've been repeating this for months now
and getting nothing but abuse around here for it. Trump is a CON, a snake oil
salesman, i.e. a LIAR, a narcissist i.e. megalomaniac
I agree with you wholeheartedly. That's why I was asking "Sabine", who apparently
does not agree, what exactly is "bullshit" about pointing out the failings of Trump
and
the DNC crowd.
I hope that today's offering indicates "b" has let the scales fall from his eyes
regarding Trump and sees the guy for the nefarious danger he and his junta and Goldman
Sachs/corporate raider administration are to the United States and the world.
Anyone
who looks into Steve Bannon's background and reads his public comments and
still
thinks the Chump administration stands for peaceful trade and ending American
imperialism is a fool or an idiot.
It's important to understand what the establishment dislikes about Trump.
1) Trump is
NOT a proponent of
Assad must go!
.
Neocons and their ME sponsors reject any middle-ground/accommodation on Syria. They want
total victory for headchoppers because that eliminates Iranian influence and the
Hezbolla 'threat to Israel.
2) Trump is anti-TPP.
This trade deal is sold as the best way to contain China. But it is actually a means off
destroying sovereignty that strengthens the form of Empire that powerful "allies"
prefer.
3) Trump uses the power of his office to connect and communicate with people.
Obama scolded us and communicated when he had to. Trump trashes the media, former
Presidents, etc.
4) Drain the Swamp
Trump has instituted tough rules on lobbying. Washington doesn't care for rules that
constrain money-making.
Historical traditions should also be mentioned among the factors that determine a
nation's role in world politics. "History is the memory of States," said Henry
Kissinger, the theoretician and practitioner of international relations. By the way,
the United States, whose interests Mr Kissinger has always defended, did not aspire
to be the centre of the liberal world order for a greater part of its own fairly
short history, and did not see that role as its preeminent mission. Its Founding
Fathers wanted its leadership and exceptional nature to derive from its own positive
example. Ironically, the American elite, which emerged as freedom fighters and
separatists anxious to cast off the yoke of the British crown, had transformed itself
and its state by the 20th century into a power thirsting for global imperialist
domination. The world is changing, however, and – who knows – America might yet
purify itself and return to its own forgotten sources.
Excerpt from
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's remarks and answers to questions
during a lecture for senior officers of the Military Academy of the General Staff,
Moscow, March 23, 2017
Why doesn't b just come right out and slam Trump and expose him in every sense for
the lying, pretender ass that he is? Right away, the title tells you who he's really
blaming; the title says nothing of Trump...but-but the buck stops with Trump. Every
criticism is couched by the Democrats are distracted by Russiagate, but isn't
everyone??? Which is the bigger elephant in the room: grandpa Trump's pretense at
respectability and more laughably, President, or Russia collusion?
Russia or no Russia Trump is disgusting. One Howard Stern interview is enough proof;
it's not rocket science for crying out loud! sleazy and corrupt does Washington,
specifically, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue; that's the least of it.
...
4) Drain the Swamp
Trump has instituted tough rules on lobbying. Washington doesn't care for rules that
constrain money-making.
Posted by: Jackrabbit | Mar 28, 2017 11:51:20 PM | 37
Trump's inaugural Drain The
Swamp promise was no accident. It put The Swamp Club on notice which was unnecessarily
sporting of him considering their own tactics. He wouldn't have been so upfront about
his intentions if he hadn't already written the How To Drain the Swamp Manual long
before the Election. Anyone who thinks he expected a smooth run, after such a
confrontational start, isn't terribly bright; or grown-up.
Throughout America's adventure in free government, our basic purposes have been to
keep the peace; to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty,
dignity and integrity among people and among nations. To strive for less would be
unworthy of a free and religious people. Any failure traceable to arrogance, or our
lack of comprehension or readiness to sacrifice would inflict upon us grievous hurt
both at home and abroad.
Progress toward these noble goals is persistently threatened by the conflict
now engulfing the world. It commands our whole attention, absorbs our very beings. We
face a hostile ideology-global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose,
and insidious in method. Unhappily the danger it poses promises to be of indefinite
duration. To meet it successfully, there is called for, not so much the emotional and
transitory sacrifices of crisis, but rather those which enable us to carry forward
steadily, surely, and without complaint the burdens of a prolonged and complex
struggle-with liberty at stake. Only thus shall we remain, despite every provocation,
on our charted course toward permanent peace and human betterment.
President Dwight D. Eisenhower's Farewell Address, January 17, 1961.
Oh yeah Ike was a real authority on
peace in the world
, he only threatened
the Chinese with nuclear weapons and ordered the CIA to overthrow the
democratically-elected leader of Iran at the time to install the Shah and conspire with
the U.K. to steal Iranian oil and commit atrocities against the people of Iran. From
wiki:
He therefore authorized the Central Intelligence Agency to overthrow Prime Minister
Mohammad Mosaddegh.[174] This resulted in an increased strategic control over Iranian
oil by U.S. and British companies.[175]
Such a nice guy! It's like I always say: actions speak louder than silver-tongued
words.
Also, I would like to say that if the practice of leaking information that
concerns not just the United States but also Russia, which has become a tradition in
Washington in the past few years, continues, there will come a day when the media
will publish leaks about the things that Washington asked us to keep secret, for
example, things that happened during President Obama's terms in office. Believe me,
this could be very interesting information.
h/t Zerohedge -- Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria , Moscow, March 23,
2017
Next door to the Lavrov speech @14 karlof1 (Thank you!)
Let's consider the possibility that Russia has fully penetrated the CIA (not a
stretch) (and by transposition the DNC) (laugh if you like) and actually DID run Trump
as a presidential stooge. Let's say that the US media accidentally stumbled upon the
theoretical truth that Snowden and Assange are in fact operating with/for Russia (who
pays their bills?) (Ecuador?)(Iran?)(Soros?)
Why would Russia agree to keep American secrets as Zakharova implies, and what do we
think of the threat of Russia revealing the dirt it has on the MOBama administration? Is
Russia playing the USG or is it a pointed insinuation to make fun of the Russophobia?
Elsewhere in her remarks, Zakharova refers to the assassination in Kiev:
Note that she condemns Ukraine's reflexive finger-pointing at Moscow yet she herself
asserts evidence that it was a contract killing to send a message. How would she know?
What evidence? What message?
The Russians are a sophisticated yet ruthless bunch. Their theme of taking the high
road and pointing their condescending finger at anyone who accuses them is fairly
consistent. I still wouldn't dismiss the idea that they are in fact pulling some strings
along with Turkey, the Saudis, the Izzies, etc. or were they played? The Clintons
harvested a lot of cash from folks that wanted favor in the new administration, if you
believe the Guccifer leaks. So many leaks, ship sinks, rats swim.
Evidence suggests it was a contract killing that, by all indications, was meant to
send a message. As soon as the media reported this assassination Moscow hoped that
Ukrainian law enforcement agencies would be able promptly to solve this crime and
identify the masterminds behind it and of course its perpetrators, without any
politicisation[sic] and based on objective data. However, after Ukrainian President
Poroshenko announced that this assassination was "an act of terror perpetrated by
Moscow," naturally, there was no more hope left that the investigation would be
impartial or objective. We have no doubt about that. By all indications, this time as
well the "killer regime" (as it is already being referred to) will do its best to
make sure that no one will ever know the truth about what happened in Kiev.
karlof1@14 - Lavrov understands my country better than I do - I always enjoy being
educated by him. I have to say that there was one zinger at the very end:
What will
Russia do about that girl they won't let in Eurovision?
Now I know this has outraged
many Russians (and rightfully so), but to put this question to the Russian Foreign
Minister after THAT lecture? If I were him, I would have said with the most deadpan face
I could muster, "We have not taken the option of a pre-emptive nuclear strike off the
table at this time." and than just walked off the stage.
The Eisenhower quote put up by stumpy is interesting... US ingrained culture, manifest
destiny, exceptional people ect.
In looking up the various missiles systems and
aircraft over the last few years, something starts to stand out.
Since WWII Soviet, and now Russian design perimeters are guided by keeping the US out.
US designs always have had the base perimeter of breaking through Soviet and now Russian
defence systems.
US culture is based on total aggression to any who do not bow to its power.
No matter the US president is a nationalist or a globalist, this culture will continue
until it is destroyed
Enjoy the theater folks.. Blaming Russia for all that's evil in the world, instead of
speaking up for the workers in the U$A, is the Dems newest plan. Trump was elected
because he ran as a progressive. We know now, he has no interest in such foolishness.
Both parties are the parties of $, and will further the interests of corporate America,
over the interests of the people. That means " Full Spectrum Dominance."
Trump haters don't talk about what comes after Trump.
A BIG clue as to what
motivates them.
Here's a big clue: A jackass who doesn't have to pretend he's not one ergo we can all
rally to kick his ass. The thing about Trump is that those who used to fight on the good
side moved to the dark side when they were reeled in by Trump.
So who cares who comes after Trump as long as we all go back to fighting in
solidarity the enemy that Trump represents and his successor from the right or left
aisle will surely represent as well.
Re: Posted by: Circe | Mar 29, 2017 12:39:28 AM | 39
I won't go as far as disagreeing
with you about Trump, but I would ask the obvious question given you are just so
relentlessly anti-Trump.
Logically that means a few things.
1. You would have preferred Hillary Clinton won the Election and became President.
If you reject that assertion then please remove the scales from your eyes - there was
no other choice -
it was Clinton or Trump
. No one else was going to win that
election, saying
"I don't like either"
isn't an answer and is a failure to
acknowledge reality.
2. You would like Mike Pence to step up and take over from Trump (because Trump is
so awful he must be replaced asap).
Pence is the only person who is going to replace Trump - so logically you would
prefer a President Pence to Trump. Fair enough - but is that really your view? Or is
your view that they're all awful and we'd be better off with Jill Stein? Or Ralph Nader?
Or Ross Perot? Rand Paul? Who? Doesn't matter anyway - because it is again evidence that
you are living in a place detached from reality if your argument is NO TRUMP, NO PENCE -
someone else!
Nope. Forget it.
At the moment your choice is Trump (or Pence) - no one else. So clarify again for me
- you prefer Pence then?
If your answer to all of the above is No, No, No, No, No, we need
someone else
I'm afraid it is completely pointless to argue with you -
What are YOU going to do
about it?
Because I sure as hell am not going to try and find a way to get someone else
installed besides Trump, or Pence. Just how would one go about doing that anyway? Not
worth thinking about as far as I'm concerned.
It's called living in an alternate reality, and perhaps it's best if you retire to
Patagonia and live out your fantasies far far away from anyone else who might deign to
interrupt you.
Re: Posted by: Jackrabbit | Mar 29, 2017 1:32:00 AM | 48
It's interesting isn't it.
Trump haters logically want to see President Mike Pence.
But why this yearning for Pence? On the face of it it would appear that given their
complaints about Trump Pence would be even more odious to them, but yet - Pence is
exactly what they want!
- The Democrats are looking more and more stupid every day. Keep in mind, I don't get
the impression that Trump has the best in mind for the US Joe sixpack as well.
Circe you throw tantrums without putting up alternatives. Much like my daughters when
they were in a huff.
Sniff some salts, fan your face, you'll be right.
You're ad homs for lack of an argument are predictable. If you have nothing better
to write don't *remove all doubt*. You know the saying: better to keep your trap shut
and be thought a fool than open it up and...**
Miss/Mrs Circe... by your username I take it you identify as female?
Address Julian's
questions. Who would you prefer as head warmonger
A) Clinton
B) Trump
C) Pence
Easy peasy. No other options at present time. Put up or shut up.
For me, I would like to see the US and its culture of manifest destiny totally
destroyed. I cannot see that happening in the foreseeable future unless they initiate
mutual assured destruction.
Re: Posted by: Circe | Mar 29, 2017 2:32:19 AM | 57
Re: Posted by: Circe | Mar 29,
2017 3:14:57 AM | 61
D eh. Once again you fail to answer a simple question. Your response is pointless. It
lacks a basis in reality.
There is no D option. Are you the D option. You seem to think so.
My point is that its better to fight the system together than divided by a worthless
shit like Trump!
And how exactly are you fighting this system? Writing a few sentences on someone's
(admittedly GREAT! Blog) ain't going to get you very far.
Thanks for the support Peter. I don't think anyone here who supported Trump (over
Clinton) was under the illusion Trump was going to be a "Great" President by any stretch
of the imagination.
But it was fairly simple - do you want the proven warmongering maniac, or the
egotistical narcissist?
Easy choice for mine - and like you Peter, I don't get to vote in US Elections so I
could hardly make my voice heard at a US ballot box.
For the record, speaking as someone with libertarian leanings, Rand Paul was my
initial choice in the US Primaries Republican/ Democrat. Rand seems eminently sensible
on foreign policy issues. Stop expanding NATO, leave the Middle East. Of course Rand
(like his father) is roundly ignored by the MSM most of the time.
Rand even jumped on Tulsi Gabbard's Stop Arming Terrorists Act! Good move for your
credibility Rand, bad move if you want higher office.
Re: Posted by: Lozion | Mar 29, 2017 3:32:11 AM | 63
I assume D means none of the above as well, but provide the alternative then - a
realistic alternative. As far as I can see - there is no D alternative being offered at
the moment in
reality
.
Oh, lord. You people ganging up on Circe again? It's beneath your normally good
commentary. Irritatingly so.
Circe's expectations about Trump have so far proven
correct. Many of you -- INCLUDING ME! -- who hoped to see more sensible behavior from
Trump must admit you're disappointed.
So far, it seems I -- and many of you -- owe Circe "you told me so". (*Not* like it
would've made me change my vote from "Jill Stein" to "Killary" just to try to keep Trump
out of office.)
>> It's interesting isn't it. Trump haters logically want to see President Mike
Pence.
You're not using logic. You're mocking it.
I, for one, abhor Trump's decisions thus far. Do you really think it's a matter of
"logic" that I would prefer Pence's?
That argument is embarrassing.
>> Easy peasy. No other options at present time. Put up or shut up.
People are free to condemn what Trump does without being obligated to "choose" a
veritable "s*** sandwich" from your "replacement menu".
But more importantly, stay civil! I choose to lurk because I rarely have anything
(other than "thumbs up" to practically everything from jfl or psychohistorian). But, I
read comments fairly regularly and have seen very little hostility from Circe -- except
for maybe one understandable comment as a reaction to constant harassment -- that would
justify this antagonism, Peter AU.
In the mean-time we have the Ecuador run-off Presidential Election this week. Sunday
April 2, 2017.
Pro-Assange
Lenin Moreno
Anti-Assange
Guillermo Lasso
Easy choice for mine. Go Lenin.
Then we have the French Election (April-June 2017). Viva Le Pen (Destroyer of the
EU).
The German Elections (September 2018). A total non-event. Schulz v Merkel - both as
bad as each other.
The Russian Elections (March-April 2018). Putin to be re-elected assuming he stands.
The Italian Elections (By May 2018). Can Beppe Grillo win and take Italy out of the
Euro and thereby destroy the Europeon project? Perhaps, but I don't trust Grillo as much
as Le Pen.
Unfortuntely, if Le Pen loses, Grillo might be the last hope for a sane resolution to
all that ails the world (The West) at the moment.
If things continue going to plan I foresee Russia/Putin shutting down all gas
supplies to the EU either Winter 2018/19 or Winter 2019/20.
At that point, the election season is completed, and why bother extending chance
after chance for the Europeons to wise up? Plus, the TurkStream and pipes to China will
be completed by then.
That's my estimate of when Russian patience with the EU runs out anyway.
The only question then becomes, does the West collapse economically before then?
Perhaps, but I see no reason they can't just continue with the tricks of the last
decade for another 2 years.
Dumbass, come up with an alternative
narrative.
JFL and psychohistorian I have respect for, but I do feel their alternatives are
dreamtime stuff.
What we see is the real world. Human nature at its "finest".
Constant revolution is perhaps the most applicable to the real world though perhaps
not in the intention of the originator.
1.
the chairs and vice-chairs of each state Democratic Party's central
committee
,
2. two hundred members apportioned among the states based on population and generally
elected either on the ballot by primary voters or
by the state Democratic Party
committee
,
3.
a number of elected officials serving in an ex officio capacity
, and
4. a variety of
representatives of major Democratic Party constituencies
.
1. public enemies of the jackass persuasion numbers 1 through 100 ...
2. like to see the breakdown of 'elected' / appointed ... even when elected, elected by
their cronies, no one else knows who they are ...
3. political hacks given sinecures ... the 'grateful dead' ...
4. lobbyists for wall street, the military industrial complex, the prison industrial
complex, the medical industrial complex, the 'intelligence community', enemies of the
people in general ...
don't imagine these folks will be resigning. they're just killing off the hired hands
... they're the ones who 'ate our homework!' ... right ... the hh's will be replaced by
interchangable clones. the dnc are dead men and women walking. and talking, of course.
@43
probably a false-flag by the googleplex itself, an alibi for discontinuing
'extremist' postings. 'hey, it's not us! it's our advertizers ... it's just bidnez,
g-o-i ...'
Prior to Trumps election, The US/globalist fellow travelers were all walking along
nicely. Trump usurped the throne from the anointed one and now the fellow travelers are
arguing.
Some say Trump will take us to a few places on our bucket list, others say say- no Trump
has to go.
the reason i consdier this post to be a load of bullshit is simple.
the democratic party is so diminised it has not effect on anything the orange turd
and his henchmen do.
So they can whinge about what ever they want to.
secondly: in general the US American Jane and Joe Do don't give a flying fuck about
war. Its the only thing they have going for the, the million plus peoples army of the US
and the weapons manufactures. If they don't have the army and the weapons company US
unemployemnt would be through the roof and there would be rioting in the streets. Can
you imagine the orange turd bringing home his troops from anywhere in Europe if they
'don't pay his bill for Nato"?
thridly: many of us predicted precisely that. Namely that the orange turd will do as
any other US president did before him, war oversees and weapons selling. But oh noes, he
is gonna be besties with Putin (who will win the election cause anyone else running will
be dead by the time people get to put their fingerprints on a piece of paper)
fourth: i find it funny how many here over the years are ok with foreign influence in
the US election, obviously its ok now to just delegitimze the last little bit of
'influence' people get to have in their countries.
fifth: i no more rejoice in the forth coming misery for the US American women and
children then i do in the ongoing misery for the women of Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon,
Yemen, Gaza, Westbank, Somalia.
and as another poster said above, there was no real choice for teh US, there was
Hillary with all her faults, and then there was the orange turd.
as for 'sabine' i have used my name as a handle since the time of billmon. and
frankly this blog is going to shite. Sadly so.
Lavrov's speech to the military academy sits in nicely behind Putin's speech to the UN
Assembly a couple of years ago. Writing the global script with openness, clarity and
integrity.
Makes a great sequel due to the ease and detail of which Lavrov breaks down
each and every question. Nothing mealy mouthed as you might expect from a US state
department press outing...from the top down the Russians' believe in what they say, mean
what they say, and do not mince words because its so much easier to give quick, detailed
and direct answers when they are guided by truth and not a forked tongue.
From him you get a sense that today's Russia has very much evolved from a deep
appreciation of it's history and, in a typically strong yet understated fashion, very
much understands it's place within it. All the while the west embarrasses itself under
the weight of repeatedly failing realities.
...the difference between a politician and a statesman.
aaaa 13
"It's still rock and roll to me." - Billy Joel
In the case of the DEMs, it's all about politics and winning. (and not much diff to the
GOP). For FDR and the DEMs in 1932 it was more important to let more of the economy (and
banks) fail to have a more spectacular loss for Hoover and the GOP. (The Roosevelt Myth)
And now the DEMs and the media sycophants are more shrill. Their one-trick pony
obsession is Putin (riding a horse without his shirt - ha ha). If they cannot stand up
for anything else, it's about time those in the party notice and change things.
The surprise of FDR was to find out he had no real ideology and simply took on people
whose ideas sounded good. Otherwise it was the political machines of NYC, Chicago, and
the unions (some dominated by Communists) that propelled him into higher office. He
wanted to win and that was all that counted.
Russian private money has also played a role in Trump's career. Though Trump has said
repeatedly that he has never invested in Russia, Russia has invested in him.
Famously, Donald Trump Jr. declared in 2008 that Russian money made up a "pretty
disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets." More recently, a Reuters
investigation showed that holders of Russian passports invested at least $98 million
into seven Trump properties in Florida alone, a number that doesn't include any
investors who hid their names behind anonymous shell companies.
Technically, none of this money had anything to do with the Russian state. But in
practice, it likely won goodwill and influence for Russia. Over many years, and long
before he became president, Trump repeatedly praised Russia and its president. In
2007, he declared that Putin is "doing a great job." In 2015, he described the
Russian president as a "man so highly respected within his own country and beyond."
Just like Deripaska's payments to Manafort, the "disproportionate" Russian
investments in Trump's businesses, which Trump still owns, weren't bribes. They
didn't involve the KGB, and they probably didn't include any secret payments either.
The question now is whether our political system is capable of grappling with this
particular form of modern Russian corruption at all. Congress cannot simply ask the
question "was this all legal," because it probably was. Congress, or an independent
investigator, needs to find a way to ask, "was this moral," because it surely wasn't,
and "does it constitute undue influence," which it surely does.
Apparently Congress will need to parse the morality of all Russian dealings with, oh
hell, about everyone everywhere ... she's implicating pretty much the entire Russian
Business class as Putin's water carrying agents of influence ... regardless, in this
climate, this appears to be something resembling "a voice of reason and moderation" (or
at least goal posts and some definitions of the 5 questoins -- who, what, why, where,
when --variety)
@2 The long term effects of recruiting self funding non entities are at play too. Many
of these Democrats were recruited at lower levels because they were bland enough to not
offend local interests and had the money to upfront the funding for their campaign.
Independent Senator Bernie Sanders wasn't entrusted with the budget and veteran
committee select spots because he is such a shining star or has leverage with the
caucus, he's not joining the GOP. He holds those positions because the Democrats don't
have people interested or even capable of those jobs serving in Congress. Russia is a
convenient refrain. They know voters want answers, and a good portion of the elected
Democrats know so little about policy they can't possibly offer answers.
The US is whining about how Russia dealt with 100s of people attending unlicensed
demonstrations in Russia. Russians are pussies when it comes to dealing with protestors.
This is how the US does it.
US have just accepted Montenegro as a coming member of NATO, you guys think that Nato
will come to formally accept Montenegro on the Nato meeting on 31 of march?
/~~~~~~~~~~
Zero Hedge -- ACLU Actively Assisting With Soros-Driven Protest Organization After
Accepting Funds From The Open Society Institute -- Mar 6, 2017
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-03-06/aclu-...
The ACLU itself has received
massive amounts of funding from George Soros. A February 6th, 2017 article from
Zerohedge cited research from LifeZette and the Capital Research Center indicating that
Soros's Open Society Institute has sunk over $35 million into the ACLU alone and
millions more to other liberal organizations directly involved in filing lawsuits
against various policies of Donald Trump all around the country. The massive donation
drive is part of Soros' overall effort to "reshape the American justice system" by
buying district attorneys in races across the country.
\~~~~~~~~~~
On March 11, the ACLU is holding a Resistance Training. This event will launch People
Power, the ACLU's new effort to engage grassroots volunteers across the country and take
the fight against Donald Trump's policies not just into the courts, but into the
streets. We're organizing grassroots events in communities across the country to watch
the livestream together. Please join us!
Sign up to learn more about People Power and the Resistance Training livestream on
March 11 at 5pm ET. We'll follow up with you about opportunities to volunteer and attend
events near you.
\~~~~~~~~~~
So. George Soros gives the ACLU $35 million and they promptly "take the fight against
Donald Trump's policies not just into the courts, but into the streets". Of course, if
they dispose of Trump, we get -- Mike Pence as president. He would be so much better?
Consider:
Vice President Mike Pence voted in favor of the Iraq Resolution, which called for the
use of military force in Iraq.
Pence went on a widely condemned trip with Senator John McCain to Iraq in 2007.
In a 2002 statement on the floor of the House of Representatives (reported in the
Congressional Record), Pence told his colleagues "... I also believe that someday
scientists will come to see that only the theory of intelligent design provides even a
remotely rational explanation for the known universe."
"[Indiana governor] Mike Pence's time in office has been so toxic that Hoosier
Republicans are publicly begging Donald Trump to save their party," [by getting him out
of Indiana] said Drew Anderson, [Indiana Democratic] communications director.
I've given up complaining about Circe. Maybe he works for Soros, or is Soros' grandson.
Or something. Nearly constant single complaint, no alternatives discussed.
Can't you just leave it at your comment @84 rather than wasting a separate post
just to personally attack me by taking a cheap shot with bullshit speculation? You just
had to back-up the other 2 offenders; makes you feel big, huh?
@70
Yes I have posted my political preferences and leadership preferences that don't
include any of the choices you listed. Either you weren't paying attention or you just
don't give a damn what I think. I suspect it's the latter, since you pay too much
attention as obviously you never fail to deliver with your ad homs each and every time I
comment on a topic and you disagree with what I write. I don't have to repeat what I
posted previously to live up to your standards or pass some kind of litmus test to meet
with your approval.
Here's the acceptable viewpoints as near as I can tell,
1) it's infallible truth that there's no substance to the awful rumors that the Trump
team and the Putin team may have colluded prior to the election.
2) Putin has been a beacon of integrity and forthrightness with no desire for
anything but the nations of the world to live in harmony.
3) Trump is really on the same page as Putin but the evil forces of the deep state
try mightily to derail his plans for our betterment
4) any attempt at free trade is inherently evil, the machinations of that cabal that
seeks to rule the world
5) we should accept Trump simply because there's nobody that can do any better.
If you stick to these the no one will flame you. If you don't then you work for Soros.
Yeah, fucking right, Trump's the man. we should learn to love him.
1) love how he's pouring troops and assets into the ME
2) accept that climate change is bullshit and cheer the deregulation that is
currently taking place
3) accept that the bankers aren't so bad and realize that the regulations placed on
them had to go because they were really hurting business and consequently their plans
for making America great
4) accept that Latinos are the root of many of America's problems and cheer the zeal
with which they are being rounded up
5) accept that the poor have only themselves to blame and applaud the way their
safety net is being dismantled
Because Trump likes Putin and Putin likes Trump and that's all that really matters. Well
suck me dry and call me Dusty, how could anybody not see that?
Ad hom straight off?
Choices...action...habit...character.
>> Dumbass, come up with an alternative narrative.
Your "narrative" thus far is to make the same pitch the 2-party duopolists make:
choose from the shitty choices we give you. History proves the governments' imperialist
policies do not change from one administration/party to another. So, I choose options
not on your list. I'm not changing my "narrative" to accommodate your dogmatism.
>> What we see is the real world.
Real world? Your choices are not even "real". Here they were:
>> Address Julian's questions. Who would you prefer as head warmonger
>> A) Clinton
>> B) Trump
>> C) Pence
>> Easy peasy. No other options at present time. Put up or shut up.
Those aren't even "real world" choices. They're your own artificial, limited
construct. Another election isn't until 2020. Clinton may or may not run. Your choices
are stupid and contradict your self-professed "real world" pragmatism.
By the way, saying your choices are "stupid" and that you contradict yourself isn't
ad hominem, though judgments about your comment quality might lead people to draw
inferences about you personally.
There're no grounds for that supposition. All Putin and Lavrov have stated is their
willingness to work with whomever was elected. Mr Lavrov just again in an interview
published today, 3/29, in
National Interest Magazine
: "We said what we did, that
we are ready to work with any administration, any president who would be elected by the
American people. This was our line throughout the electoral campaign, unlike the acting
leaders of most European countries who were saying absolutely biased things, supporting
one candidate, unlike those who even bluntly warned against the choice in favor of the
Republican candidat[sic], and this somehow is considered normal."
http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/news/-/asset_publisher/cKNonkJE02Bw/content/id/2710445
It is worse than just Pence. It goes Pence, Speaker Ryan, president pro tempore
box turtle McConnell, and then Exxon Sec. State Tillerman. And eventually in the
cabinet, you would get to Ben Carson. Jesus wept...
C'mon Peter. A, Clinton is NOT an option at all. Unless the entire
government is overthrown to install her. See my comment above re succession. There is no
'reset' to give her the election. Surely you know this, so why are you trying to make
Clinton an option for Circe?
IMO Pence will be an order of magnitude worse than Trump. He will be
piously waving his bible while screwing the people of the US more than can be imagined,
as he knows all the crazies in Congress and agrees with the most disgusting views of the
right wing. He will be more effective in our destruction.
"b" dude, maybe your playing to your crowd here and cha-ching and all that...but
Blowhard Chump and the MSM's crazed rantings about him just aren't that interesting. Ya
know? He's not going to bring world peace, detente with Russia or make America great
again. Probably quite the opposite. And the media will continue to focus on him and
ignore the many failings of the Demosplats et al. Move on is my advice.
Look, I don't like Clinton/Obama, neoliberalism, "free trade" agreements etc. BUT I
don't like Trump either. If you thought Obama was bad how can you like Chump? He's a
fucking liar and an über-capitalist piece of shit who takes his orders from Darth Bannon.
Fuck em' all I say. I am not a Soros agent btw. (but if I was I probably wouldn't tell
ya...heheheheh)
I also think Trump is "better", or at least less terrible, than Pence,
McCain/Graham, Hillary or any of the demented fanatics and war mongers waiting in the
wings. So while I don't like the guy or his junta/corporate raider administration
impeaching him is not cool. And the "Russia did it" crap is seriously insane and there
is no evidence Putin "threw" the election.
The people holding a candle for Chump are like the morons who still maintain O'Bomber
did good things for America and the world. You are the other side of that particular
coin. That's what you get when you meed a hero figure to worship.
In 2008, the whole world was convulsed by a financial crisis, leading
to mass unemployment in the United States and Europe. The initial
response was fairly similar in both places, featuring immense public
bailouts of ailing banks. But after that, there was a sharp
divergence: America generally tried large fiscal and monetary
stimulus, while Europe did the opposite with spending cuts and tax
increases - that is, austerity - and tight money.
Though the U.S.
stimulus was inadequate, the worst was avoided, and economic
conditions improved slowly, surpassing its
pre-crisis GDP
by 2011. In Europe - and especially within the eurozone, where the
common currency became a
gold standard-esque
economic straitjacket - the result was
disaster. So much austerity was forced on debtor nations that they
fell into full-blown depression. Greece's economy is
worse than that of America in the 1930s
- and the eurozone as a
whole only matched its pre-crisis GDP in
April of last year
.
Mass unemployment is electoral poison, and about every party that
happened to be holding power during the worst of it - generally either
center-right (Fianna Fáil in Ireland, People of Freedom in Italy) or
center-left (the Socialist Party in France, the Democrats in America)
- suffered serious setbacks in subsequent elections. Radical parties
on both the left and right gained as establishment parties were badly
discredited. New fascist parties (Golden Dawn in Greece) sprung to
prominence, and older fascist-lite ones (National Front in France)
gained strength.
But Beauchamp barely even references this history, restricting his
argument almost entirely to welfare policy. He assembles reasonably
convincing evidence and expert testimony to the effect that welfare
states increase racist resentment in both the United States and
Europe. But he does not mention mass unemployment, austerity, or the
eurozone. These are yawning absences in an article purporting to deal
with the social effects of economic policy.
Welfare is one chapter of leftist economic policy, but the first
and most important one is full employment.
That
is the major
route by which leftist economic policy can deflate right-wing
nativism. Center-left parties often claim to support full employment,
but they have manifestly failed to do so over the last eight years,
and
arguably long before that
. (President Obama was
plumping for austerity
in February of 2010, with
unemployment at
9.8 percent
.) Fascists organize best in the chaos and misery of
depression, as people lose faith in traditional solutions and root
around for scapegoats. Is it really a coincidence that the Nazi
electoral high tide
came at a time of
nearly 30 percent
unemployment?
Now, politics is a chaotic process. It takes a lot of ideological
spadework to convince people that austerity is the problem, and a lot
of time and effort to build a political coalition dedicated to an
anti-austerity platform. And sometimes it doesn't work well, as
Beauchamp's detailed discussion of the U.K. Labour Party's
difficulties since losing the elections of 2015 (on a pro-austerity
platform, mind you). But
savage infighting
within the party is likely just as much to blame
for Labour's collapse as leader Jeremy Corbyn's left-wing views.
Sometimes political coalitions fracture over personality and internal
struggles for dominance.
Ryan Cooper is a national correspondent at TheWeek.com. His work has appeared in the Washington Monthly, The New Republic, and the Washington Post.
October 23, 2016
|
Posted in
Uncategorized
A propaganda war bubbled up in London last week as an antiquated Russian aircraft
carrier steamed down the English Channel, on its way to the coast of Syria.
NatWest, subsidiary of the Royal Bank of Scotland Group, which is mostly owned by
the British government,
announced
that it planned to close the accounts of Russia Today, the Russian
government's news service and television network – presumably because
RT
publishes material critical of Britain and the US.
I read one or two RT items almost every day,
via
Johnson's Russia List
. In fact RT publishes a good deal of
interesting material.
"... " This looks more like what you'd see in a banana republic, " says Tyson Slocum of Public Citizen, a liberal watchdog group. " You've got a strongman who surrounds himself with billionaires or wealthy advisers who conduct the business of government to benefit their business. " ..."
"... In the first paragraph, we're told that jobs are moving to Mexico -- as usual. It's taken for granted (and without much concern here from Krugman) that US employers are going to keep exporting manufacturing jobs. This is followed by a defense of NAFTA, an attack on protectionism, and the suggestion that there is no alternative better than the status quo. And Democrats wonder why they're losing the Rust Belt states? ..."
"... The governmental action that was probably most important in creating the rust belt was the Reagan tax cuts. Those came as the Volcker effort to end inflation was still happening. That had to be continued, so the Reagan deficit could not be paid by inflating the money supply, and the necessary US bond sales kept our interest rate up, making the US the best place in the world to park money. Foreign exchange poured in, and the dollar's value soared by 70%. That rise made foreign production cheaper to Americans, and made US production uncompetitive elsewhere. ..."
"... Isn't this the same question that the British asked in 1845. The only thing we really know is that there are millions who no longer have a role in our economy. ..."
"... Liberals and Conservatives will not emerge until after the purge. Paul Krugman and Paul Ryan are part of the same priesthood of the only acceptable theology the Church of Neoliberalism. The belong to the same Tory Party of Robert Peel the only debate is about how best to grow the economy. ..."
"... The world's financial elite all fly the same flag called the Jolly Roger and finally we have a US government not ashamed to unfurl it. ..."
"... globalization has clearly not produced the promised big boost in overall growth in this country - economists would not be talking about "secular stagnation" if it had. ..."
"... Instead of denying the obvious facts and trying to divert the discussion with false claims about robots, why don't US economist try to work through the complications of trade and aim at policies which really would benefit US workers and might reduce the ever-growing inequality? Do they need to devote all their attention to defending the Democratic political establishment and their own failed theories and assumptions? ..."
"... It is obvious to most that the huge trade surge with China disrupted many commodity industries, steel, solar cells, electronics. ..."
"... If you do not see nothing obviously wrong, when a US company , bailed out by the US taxpayer, thanks the tax payer by importing cars made at Chinese wages to the US, putting out of work US workers, you must be a macro economist. ..."
"... Nowhere on the GM website is mentioned that those cars are made in China. Check ..."
"... the effective ban on big Western internet services like Google, Facebook, and Twitter, as well as local data storage rules for those who are allowed to operate. It's all done in the name of security ..."
Amazing how so many conservatives dismiss what Krugman as to say since he's so clearly a 'commie.'
Then they support Trump the capitalist businessman who will get things done.
Meanwhile, in the real world, Krugman is writing capitalist essays on his blog about the benefits
of Trade, and trump is running a kleptocracy that seeks to bring back a disproven form of protectionism
that would be much more at home among early 20th century socialists than with Milton Freedman
or Adam Smith.
It goes to show that the Republicans are a party without a purpose. They have given up on their
capitalist roots and instead just cater to the whims of the highest bidding campaign contributors
and the worst instincts of their bigoted base.
Paul Mathisis a trusted commenter Fairfax, Virginia
1 day ago
Nobody Knew Trade Could Be So Complicated!
Actually everybody knows that negotiating trade deals takes years of intensive efforts because
there are many moving parts that all affect each other.
Since Trump has the attention span of the average 3 year old, he has no time for anything more
complicated than banning Muslims from traveling to America. That simple "solution" did not work
out either.
So Trump is not going to do anything on trade simply because it is way too complicated and
time consuming. After all, he couldn't even spend 3 weeks on replacing Obamacare with his "fantastic"
plan. One month ago:
"We have a plan that I think is going to be fantastic. . . . I think it's going to be something
special ... I think you're going to like what you hear." --CNN
Re: "Oh, and China currency manipulation was an issue 5 years ago - but isn't now." I find
this interesting. Five years ago China was building up their reserves by purchasing US government
and agency bonds to keep their exchange rate low. Today those reserves of government and agency
bonds are falling as they are converted into US real estate and corporate assets while the trade
deficit remains at some $500 billion. This is supposed to make everything OK. What am I missing
here? http://www.rweconomics.com/htm/WDCh_2.htm
China has more than 1.3 billion people, and wages in China have risen faster for a longer period
of time than anywhere ever.
It's not a mystery why wages in China are what they are. It started as a poor country with
an enormous, mostly rural population. If anything, the surprise is that they have managed to increase
wages so strongly for so long.
There are legitimate reasons to be concerned about trade and immigration, of course, but understanding
Trump requires one to abandon the notion that he is appealing to legitimate concerns.
He is appealing to spite. Anything resembling a legitimate concern is pretense, to give cover
to what would otherwise be recognized as ugly and deplorable. He says the spiteful parts loudly
and doesn't even feign competence or coherence on policy.
Once this is fully recognized, all that he says and does makes sense. It also suggests that
people interested in real substantive policy discussions should disregard Trump entirely.
Dr. K. is correct we should watch what DJT actually does, instead of what he says, though what
DJT says is designed to whip up his partisans by pointing to real issues, but instead of blaming
the ' lost factories ' and ' stripped wealth ' on the portion of economic strata DJT inhabits
- which is where the wealth stripping/lost factory hedgies and sacrosanct banker pay contract
holders also exist - DJT always points somewhere else.
Somewhere else is a moving target that can shift each time a new sun rises on the Twitter-verse.
And it's hard to see how everyone will continue to admire the Emperor's new clothes when the
stock markets reverse course, or if there is a 2011 re-dux next month over House GOP'ers raising
the debt ceiling.
Anyhoooo, the best indicator of how things are going regarding economic policies at the White
House is to see how DJT adviser Carl Icahn has benefited from specific policy carve-outs:
" This looks more like what you'd see in a banana republic, " says Tyson Slocum of Public Citizen,
a liberal watchdog group. " You've got a strongman who surrounds himself with billionaires or
wealthy advisers who conduct the business of government to benefit their business. "
Though DJT may be correct there are issues with NAFTA and at WTO, those issues are preferable
to bald-faced kleptocracy.
In the first paragraph, we're told that jobs are moving to Mexico -- as usual. It's taken for
granted (and without much concern here from Krugman) that US employers are going to keep exporting
manufacturing jobs. This is followed by a defense of NAFTA, an attack on protectionism, and the
suggestion that there is no alternative better than the status quo. And Democrats wonder why they're
losing the Rust Belt states?
Trump's record low approval rating is likely to take a further hit in the near future from
deteriorating economic conditions. Measures of consumer and business confidence soared since the
election yet hard economic data continues to weaken with the Atlanta Fed's GDPNow estimate of
first quarter GDP growth falling to just 0.9%, after this morning's weak personal income and spending
report. Indeed, growth in real personal consumption expenditures peaked way back in January 2015.
While there was a mild rebound that started in March 2016 the trend has since turned negative
since the start of the 2017. See chart:
Interesting fact is the recent polarization of consumer confidence readings. Democrats are
generally pessimists while Republicans are optimistic about the economy. That suggests consumer
confidence readings will fall when Republicans get over their infatuation with Trump. And will
most likely be driven by disappointing economic growth -- actual growth and not empty promises.
Trump promised 4% growth which is impossible over the long term due to slow population growth.
Yet, that growth rate now looks far out of reach even for a single quarter and fiscal stimulus
looks less and less likely to happen even if some tax cuts for the wealthy do manage to pass Congress.
Tax cuts are not stimulative if they heavily favor the wealthy. Probably the opposite is true
considering the Bush tax cuts were so ineffective.
Krugman is an economist; he's not merely trying to sway voters. And he knows that the decline
in industrial jobs is more due to productivity gains than factories' moving abroad. In any case,
measures like Trump's scolding businessmen is not and will not be important in keeping jobs from
leaving. More important is the exchange rate.
The governmental action that was probably most important in creating the rust belt was the
Reagan tax cuts. Those came as the Volcker effort to end inflation was still happening. That had
to be continued, so the Reagan deficit could not be paid by inflating the money supply, and the
necessary US bond sales kept our interest rate up, making the US the best place in the world to
park money. Foreign exchange poured in, and the dollar's value soared by 70%. That rise made foreign
production cheaper to Americans, and made US production uncompetitive elsewhere.
But the decline in manufacturing would be happening regardless. It is the same process that
did in most US family farms throughout the 20th century. US farming is now so efficient that farmers,
once 3/4 of us, are now as small a fraction of Americans as "gardeners, groundskeepers, and growers
of ornamental plants." The same thing is now happening to factories; we're just too efficient
at making things to require the number of manufacturing workers we once did.
Ron Cohenis a trusted commenter Waltham, MA
20 hours ago
Prof. Krugman, in your column today about Coal Country, you rightfully identify it as a state
of mind. But that state of mind is not nostaglia as you argue. Rather, it is a profound cultural
resentment that motivates the voters of West Virginia.
For perspective on this subject, I urge you to read Arlie Hochschild's, widely praised, "Strangers
in Their Own Land." http://thenewpress.com/node/10362
.
All but one of the columns, below, are from The New York Times. Taken together, they form a
coda to Hochschild's book. I suggest you start with the last one, Sabrina Tavernise's piece.
Bernie Sanders Has A Plan To Win Back Trump Voters, The Huffington Post, March 9, 2017
http://tinyurl.com/zy2nzxh
Trump Budget Proposal Reflects Working-Class Resentment of the Poor, Eduardo Porter, March
7, 2017 http://tinyurl.com/ho5zkha
Thank you or the opportunity of answering your question with my question.
Isn't this the same question that the British asked in 1845. The only thing we really know
is that there are millions who no longer have a role in our economy.
Liberals and Conservatives will not emerge until after the purge. Paul Krugman and Paul
Ryan are part of the same priesthood of the only acceptable theology the Church of Neoliberalism.
The belong to the same Tory Party of Robert Peel the only debate is about how best to grow the
economy.
The question that comes to my mind is why do we want to grow an economy where production exceeds
demand every day and our ideological Dogma says we must work even harder than ever to increase
the inequality between supply and demand?
We have ceded control to the Whigs and I fear it isn't only 3 million Irish peasants who will
disappear. The conversion of dollars into real estate really struck a high note as those worthless
hovels that housed 3 million economically worthless peasants provided room for what was most important
in the Irish economy pigs and cattle. Again I feel I must repeat there was no famine in Ireland
it was a failure of potato crops and each year Ireland exported enough food to feed all of Ireland's
hungry for seven potatoless years. Then as now the bible was The Economist.
The world's financial elite all fly the same flag called the Jolly Roger and finally we
have a US government not ashamed to unfurl it.
A good start would be to insist on living wages in mexico and Asia along with humane working
conditions. That's a starting position a trump or Clinton administration would never consider,
but Sanders would have. Bringing those changes about would create more of a level playing field
for US workers. Also if China isn't controlling currency anymore why is labor still so cheap.?
It can't be fully explained by excess labor supply. Something must be going on, and we should
be trying to figure it out.
skeptonomistis a trusted commenter Tennessee
1 day ago
lt's true that modern trade is very complicated but certain things are obvious. One is that
the US runs huge trade deficits, amounting to nearly $750 billion in goods. Yes, this is obviously
bigly unfair to the United States, that is considering the majority of its citizens and especially
wage earners, who have been put into competition with those in developing countries, rather than
the capitalists whose profits have been increased by the lower wage costs. Those goods represent
a very large number of jobs that are now in other countries. Another is that globalization has
clearly not produced the promised big boost in overall growth in this country - economists would
not be talking about "secular stagnation" if it had.
Instead of denying the obvious facts and trying to divert the discussion with false claims
about robots, why don't US economist try to work through the complications of trade and aim at
policies which really would benefit US workers and might reduce the ever-growing inequality? Do
they need to devote all their attention to defending the Democratic political establishment and
their own failed theories and assumptions?
Trade is a tough policy to debate with people and come to consensus. It is obvious to most
that the huge trade surge with China disrupted many commodity industries, steel, solar cells,
electronics. More should have been done to minimize the disruption. That said we are where we
are.
Our manufacturing now is higher up the value chain. Our commodity mills now need to innovate
to take advantage of niche higher value low volume markets that big producers can't supply effectively.
Innovate to develop new materials and specialized processes that displace current materials. Innovation,
flexibility and agility is our competitive advantage. Time to make the jobs of the future, commodity
production is in the past.
"But even there it's not obvious what you would demand from a new agreement."
Let me help out the professor with an article from the NY Times 3/30/17 and provide an obvious
example
"China's Taxes on Imported Cars Feed Trade Tensions With U.S."
reporting that a Jeep retailing for $ $40,530 in the US cost in China , quote " $ $71,000,
mostly because of taxes that Beijing charges on every car, minivan and sport utility vehicle that
is made in another country"
Meanwhile , quote "General Motors started shipping the Buick Envision model from a factory
in eastern China's Shandong Province to the United States last year. That decision irritated the
United Automobile Workers union"
But that is not all. The NY Times reported on 1/29/16 that GM's Cadillac devision started to
import its " plug-in hybrid version of its new CT6 flagship sedan from China " and "A PEEK under
the hood of three new cars from Buick and Cadillac will not reveal a Made in China label"
If you do not see nothing obviously wrong, when a US company , bailed out by the US taxpayer,
thanks the tax payer by importing cars made at Chinese wages to the US, putting out of work US
workers, you must be a macro economist.
Either US consumer win (cheaper cars) or US companies (more profit for the stock holders).
Final Note
Nowhere on the GM website is mentioned that those cars are made in China. Check
Ron,
Europe's parliamentary democracies have always given the 20% an outsized role in elections and
governance because coalitions are the rule not the exception and 20% is a lot of seats.
From here on a less than 4 hour drive to Waltham it looks like your 20% has the house, the senate,
the executive and soon the courts and the Supreme Court.
Donald Trump was a wake-up call for the world's 80% as Europe like North America is over 80% urban.
If Trump had the attention span and work ethic needed to become a dictator, he would seek the
confrontation over expelling the undocumented, not over trade. Trade isn't visceral enough, not
existential enough, to sustain the fear of the Other a dictator needs.
On China, there actually are a few obvious imbalances that affect the tech industry, though
it's doubtful the US has the leverage to change them.
The first comes from the Chinese government's drive to build their domestic tech industry by
coercing technology transfer from Western firms outsourcing manufacturing in China.
The second is the effective ban on big Western internet services like Google, Facebook, and
Twitter, as well as local data storage rules for those who are allowed to operate. It's all done
in the name of security (and censorship), of course, but it's also an obvious form of protectionism. Baidu and Weibo might not exist otherwise.
The government is also investing in a Chinese variant
of Linux, no doubt with the ultimate goal of gaining complete control over all software running
inside the country.
"... The Obama era looks like an echo of the Federalist power grabs of the 1780's and 1790's both in its enrichment and glorification of financial elites and its open disdain for anything resembling true economic democracy ..."
Thank you, thank you, Lambert, for that excellent Matt Stoller piece ( https://thebaffler.com/salvos/hamilton-hustle-stoller
). At the risk of repeating what others I hope have already read, this stood out for me:
As economist Simon Johnson pointed out in a 2009 essay in The Atlantic titled "The
Quiet Coup," what the bailouts truly represented was the seizure of political power by a small
group of American financiers. Just as in the founding era, we saw a massive foreclosure crisis
and the evisceration of the main source of middle class wealth. A bailout, similar to one that
created the national debt, ensured that wealth would be concentrated in the hands of a small
group. The Citizens United decision and the ever-increasing importance of money in
politics have strong parallels to the property disenfranchisement along class lines that occurred
in the post-Revolutionary period. Just as turnout fell to record lows in much of the country
in 2014, turnout collapsed after the rebellions were put down. And in another parallel, Occupy
Wall Street protesters camped out across the country were evicted by armed guards-a martial
response coordinated by banks, the federal government, and many Democratic mayors.
The Obama era looks like an echo of the Federalist power grabs of the 1780's and 1790's
both in its enrichment and glorification of financial elites and its open disdain for anything
resembling true economic democracy "
b's quote from Obama is from January 2016. I don't think Obama was EVER serious about fighting ISIS.
He helped to create ISIS when he ignored their rise, calling them al Queda's "JV team". He confirmed
his support for ISIS with his "leading from behind" policy.
In January 2016, the US was starting the charade of separating moderate rebels. We know how that
farce turned out.
Even after the San Bernardino (Dec. 2015) and Orlando (Jun. 2016) terror attacks - attributed to
ISIS - nothing really changed. For Obama it was business as usual.
Trump initiated talks between US military command and Russians for the first time since 2014. Gen.
Dunford met with Gen. Gerasimov in Feb. 2017. We now see Israel stepping up operations in Syria as a
result of US pulling back from the failed
'Assad must go!'
policy.
<> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Has there been any real change or just a hiatus? I don't think we'll know until Trump meets with
Putin.
Many in the US (esp. neocons) will have a hard time coming to terms with a multi-lateral world. Whatever
peace is offered to Russia is likely to be conditioned on pulling Russia out of China's orbit.
I'm sorry about this long contribution, but as I was writing this, more information and
ideas came to hand.
Iraqi situation:
Recently, Iraqi PM Al-Abadi met with President Trump in the White House.
As well as the usual niceties of a meeting between two heads of state in Washington,
the meeting centred around three main areas where the US has objectives that need to be
address by their Iraqi counterparts:
1) The Popular Mobilisation Units (PMU): These forces must be disbanded, and are seen as
a stumbling block in the face of US objectives in Iraq and the wider region. There has been
some indications that PM Al-Abadi will disband them after the elimination of Daesh/ISIS,
allowing those that wish to remain to be integrated into the Iraqi security apparatus and
disbanding those that do not. This is the "objective", but whether Al-Abadi can deliver
is an entirely different matter. Already, Iraqi members of parliament have come out in protest
at there mere possibility of the disbandment of the PMU, stating that the PM does not have
the legal authority to disband them, and it needs parliamentary approval, where any MP voting
for this will be committing political suicide due to the popularity the the PMU among ordinary
Iraqis.
2) Permanent american Bases in Iraq and increasing the number of troops in the country:
This is a big issue for President Trump. During his presidential campaign, he repeatedly
stated the need to control Iraqi oil, and stated that leaving Iraq was a mistake. He even
said this IN FRONT OF PM Al-Abadi several times.There is also widespread concern amongst
Iraqis that the US is on its way back to Iraq, and in large numbers- some report a figure
of up to fifty thousand troops, in permanent bases. There is also a very large US
military base being build in Al Qayyarah area in Northern Iraq (about half way between Beiji
and Mosul), that reports say will equal the size of Incirlik. This is another very "hot"
topic in Iraq, and has widespread rejection by the Iraqi people. Once again, Iraqi MPs state
that Al-Abadi DOES NOT have legal authority to allow permanent bases or keep foreign troops
permanently in Iraq, and that such a step would need approval by parliament. Again, any
MP voting for this will be committing political suicide. There is genuine fear amongst Iraqis
about the situation "after" Daesh/ISIS. The concern is, that in the event the Government
DOES NOT cede to the will of the US, and approve bases and troops etc.. there will be a
dramatic political change, either in the form of a coup, or declaration of a state of emergency,
through which special measures will take place. There is also talk of appointing a military
governor for the mainly Sunni provinces of Nainawa, Salahuldeen (Saladin) and Anbar- a de
facto state within a state- this could link up with Eastern Syria (see bellow).
3) Moving Iraq away from Iran and closer to the Saudi "camp". The recent visit to Iraq by
the Saudi Foreign Minister has been well covered. There was also a meeting between the Iraqi
PM and the Saudi King on the 29th on March. Al-Abadi's speech at the Heads of State of the
Arab League in Jordan (29th March) was notable in that it was close to the Saudi position
on several topics: a) His statement did not mention Syria, b) It stated that Iraq will "expel
ISIS outside Iraq" { ?into Syria as per the objectives of others wishing to topple the Syrian
state}, c) Is stressed the need for a unified Arab front against threats to Iraqi
sovereignty, or the sovereignty of any Arab nation {reference to alleged Iranian interference
in the region}. On the face of it, it seems that Iraq is moving away from Iran and edging
closer to the Saudi camp, albeit slowly, but this is purely at the level of the current
Iraqi government. I think efforts to distance Iraq from Iran and closer to Saudi Arabia
will ultimately fail, for two reasons:
Firstly, The vast majority of Iraqi people view Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Gulf Monarchies
very negatively. Unlike Iraqi politicians, who will certainly have some personal gains from
closer ties with Saudi Arabia, Iraqi people are unwilling to just "forgive and forget" how
the Saudis and others persistently conspired against the Iraqi people over the years. It
was the Saudis and other Gulf States who supported Saddam Hussein and his regime, which
oppressed Iraqis terribly, they supported him to the tune of over 200 billion dollars for
the war against Iran and persistently opposed the political process since 2003 (and Democracy
was NOT the reason!). More recently, the Saudis have been supporting Daesh/ISIS
both financially and ideologically. This support has carried on unabated to this day.
Secondly: the links between Iraq and Iran are much closer and deeper than others realise,
and including at a cultural, religious and tribal level, and no government can alter that.
The only exception to this would be a harsh dictatorial regime, such as that of Saddam Hussein,
whereby government policy had absolutely no relation to Iraqi public opinion, and was simply
a tool for carrying out the wishes of the "Dear Leader".
Other Iraq developments:
A) PMU still barred from entering Tel Afar. The Iraqi government has succumbed to pressure
from Turkey to prevent Tal Afar from being liberated, with a threat of invasion by a Turkish
force stationed at the boarder town of Silopi should the PMUs enter Tel Afar.
B) Rumours that Daesh/ISIS evacuating injured/ getting supplies from through a corridor
to the North of Mosul, via Masoud Barzani controlled territory / Turkey, and plans are to
slow down the Iraqi advance long enough for the majority of Daesh/ISIS forces to evacuate
into Syria. The route takes them through Tell Kayf and Batnay (see Southfront mosul situation
update map 31 March
https://southfront.org/military-situation-in-mosul-on-march-31-2017-iraqi-map-update/ ).
Syria situation:
With the ongoing advance towards Raqqa by US/SDF forces, the bid event recently was the
surprise Tabqa operation. It is notable that the airborne landings in Tabqa by a small US/SDF
force occurred with relatively little resistance from Daesh/ISIS, with few casualties.
Some have concluded that the majority of ISIS had already withdrawn. Contrast this with
the Ithriyah-Raqqa offensive carried out by the Syrian Arab Army in 2016, whereby the SAA
suffered heavy casualties and resulted in Daesh/ISIS gains. There are also reports of a
rapid withdraw on ISIS from East As-Suwayda to reinforce strength in Raqqa, Deir Ezzor and
As-Sukhnah.
The US/SDF landings in Tabqa aimed at achieving several objectives. The most important is
blocking the path of the Syrian army and allies from Reqqa.
If/when US/SDF forces defeat Daesh/ISIS in Reqqa , they will have virtual control of
the whole of Eastern Syria, save for three pockets of SAA control in Qamishli, Hasakah and
Deir Ezzur, as well as some areas where Daesh/ISIS will remain.
The Eastern part of Syria is where the baulk of the oil and gas is located as well as
being the agricultural heartland of the country. The US secretary of State, Tillerson
stated that the the US longer sees toppling President Assad as a primary objective. This
may be the case (for now), but on the ground, events are such that Syria is being divided
into regions of influence whereby the Damascus Government no longer has authority over large
swathes of it. We are witnessing a de facto federalisation of Syria, with the Eastern part
no longer under the rule of Damascus, and in effect a US protectorate, with troops on the
ground. The creation of this "region" also serves another critical US objective in
the region - it acts as a "wall" separating Iran & "Shia" Iraq from the Government of Syria
and Lebanon. There are whispers that parts of Western Iraq will be added to this new entity
in a "redrawing" of the political maps in the region. As stated in a previous post of mine,
I believe that Daesh/ISIS will concentrate its forces in Deir Ezzor after its defeat in
Raqqa, for a final "showdown" with other forces. It will likely face both US/SDF and Syrian/Russian
forces there, but time will tell.
Turkey announced the Euphrates Shield has concluded. Turkey has managed to split the two
areas of Kurdish influence in Syria, but I believe the operation was concluded as there
was no more room for Turkey to move, rather than by choice. Erdogan has finally got a foothold
in Norther Syria. Could this area now be used to house refugees as per "safe zones" advocated
by Turkey, Saudi and now the new US administration?
Arab Summit:
Some are sating that the recent summit of the Arabs Heads of State held in Jordan on
March 29th marked the unofficial start of the "Arab NATO" to face Iran. There was the usual
anti-Iran rhetoric from the "usual suspects" but Iraq was usually cold towards Iran. The
question of Palestine was high on the agenda at the summit, but it is thought that this
is merely being used as a tool to provide "political cover" for the upcoming Sunni NATO,
with an expected summit to be held sometime down the line in Washington that will bring
together these Arab leaders together with their Israeli counterparts in a public display
of a new type alliance between Arabs and Israelis to face the "Iranian threat".
War in Yemen:
There are signs that the US is about to enter the war in Yemen, against the government
in Sana'a (Houthi-Saleh alliance). This is seen as a war against Iran in Yemen. There
are currently three US destroyers with support vessels in the Red Sea. The is a media storm
from the Saudi side regarding the port of Hodeida, and that it is used to smuggle weapons
into Yemen, stressing the importance of "taking it out". The next large operation could
well be the battle for the West coast of Yemen (on the Red Sea). The Sana'a forces have
stated that they will NOT tolerate an attack on Hodeida, and any such action will mean a
major escalation on their part. At present, the Sana'a forces have refrained from going
deep into Saudi territory- but this could change and their forces may receive the political
green light to proceed if Hodeida is attacked.
End in sight in Syria .....?
Things seem to be clearing up in Syria.. Daesh/ISIS is on the ropes, US/SDF making steady
progress in the East, and the Syrian army, backed by the Russians is in control of most
of the major population areas, and the fact that the US publicly states that removal of
Assad is no longer a priority have lead some to argued that it is the beginning of the end..
that the players are making their final touches before a political settlement is reached..
they argue that at the start, the US and its allies wanted regime change by supporting the
rebels, and aimed at taking the whole of Syria- this has failed. Now, the US and its allies
are involved directly and will settle for a different model, whereby there are regions of
influence, a division between the US and Russian Axis. I disagree with this. I think it
is still too early, and the US, Turkey, Saudi and other will still relish the overthrow
of the Syrian government- and as things stand, they cant do it, but are still open to seizing
any opportunity that may present itself in the future to achieve this. That is the only
explanation for the lack of full co-ordination between the US and Russia to bring a devastating
defeat to Daesh/ISIS, Al-Nusra and groups allied to them. If the US and its allies were
serious in accepting what gains they have made, then they would start the full co-ordination
of efforts to defeat the extremists with a view of working out a final political settlement.
We have to remember that Daesh/ISIS and other groups are only a tool, a means to an end.
they are weapons on mass destruction- some may have outlived their usefulness and will need
to be exterminated, others still have a role to play.
Its not over yet,. it is not clear what the final outcome for both Iraq and Syria will be
after Daesh/ISIS. As regards Syria, I think there is a false sense of security, and the
danger to the Syrian government will stem from the South- contrary to expectations.
I used to use the term "Obusha" for the hybrid nature of the last two administrations where
the Coke/Pepsi branding masked the fact that the core policies were the same. Perhaps "Trama"
is the term for the current state where the Washington-Wall Street consensus types scream
about how Trump is an abomination while in reality business as usual goes in most areas.
Certainly Trama describes the impact on the rest of the world, particularly in Syria, Yemen,
Iraq, Afghanistan, and Ukraine.
Excellent analysis. I wonder what the Iranian, Syrian, Hezbollah reaction will
be. Part of Trump's goal, I suspect, is moving Russia away from Iran. There are already
points of contention between Russia and Syria/Iran namely that the former has not made the
continued unity of Syrian territory a non-negotiable condition. Which begs the question
what Russia's actual goals in Syria are.
b - thank you... the only dupes who are going to swallow the change in the words, are the
same dupes who believed all the previous lies... meanwhile, until an actual change happens,
it will be the same biz as usual from the same group of liars... they must think folks are
complete idiots to believe any of their bs!! change my ass... hopey changey, lol...
yes b, Haley also said "Assad regime, Iran and Russia committed war crimes"
No, never mind "war crimes" Assad may stay because we failed the regime change thingy
after Mr. Putin entered in support of Syria..Bad Putin who hijacked our elections they are
no match for us. So, our new focus is North Korea, third world dictator Kim Jung-Un, piece
of cake we can readily beat just like we did the Taliban in Afghanistan. Kim Jung's half
brother was offed - we will continue to send a message. This time around we really do intend
to teach NK people a lesson in democracy and vassalship. See..the USA Sec. of War
In London, Mad-Dog Mattis: "North Korea 'Has Got to Be Stopped"
Mad-Dog is an apt descriptor MAD --setting up the final event for total collapse.
I gotta go buy some supplies: plastic sheeting, duct tape, water and food. Can't afford
a luxury underground bunker.
John McCain loves his friends, ISIS.
Here he is outing himself on Hannity Show
saying:
"ISIS! not true" "I know these people intimately, I know these people I am in contact with
them all the time."
Temporarily Sane 19 "There are already points of contention between Russia and Syria/Iran
namely that the former has not made the continued unity of Syrian territory a non-negotiable
condition. Which begs the question what Russia's actual goals in Syria are."
There is
the matter of the UNSC resolution, that Russia put up and US agreed to, that Syria retains
its territorial integrity.
US may occupy part of Syria for awhile. Nothing Russia can do about that in the short term,
short of going to war with the US. Russia is looking at the long term.
Okay, it is now six years and counting. How many years will it take for you to figure out
that the USA prefers Assad to the religiously conservative rural poor? Maybe both Obama
and Trump took the advice of the RAND corporation:: "Regime collapse, while not considered
a likely outcome, was perceived to be the worst possible outcome for U.S. strategic interests"
Russia's primary goal in Syria is to destroy the Islamic terrorists
so they can't be sent on to Russia. They have already taken out around 4500 terrorists whose
passports show they were from RF states. The Russia media is littered with details of small
scale takfiri terrorist acts around the RF southern borders - the biggest most recent was
6 or so taken out on the border to Chechnya.
Secondary goals include the support for primacy of international law relating to national
integrity, support for an ally, testing military systems in real conditions and increasing
the strength of the multipolar opposition to Anglo-Zionist hegemony.
There is the matter of the UNSC resolution, that Russia put up and US agreed to, that
Syria retains its territorial integrity.
If Kurds get de-facto independence within Syria (according to their manifesto) a la Barzanistan,
resolution of "territorial integrity" technically remains intact. Russia could make such
concessions (even blasted Assad for desiring to return all of Syria's territory) if only
US would agree to barter, so far they didnt (or maybe Trump/Putin already did, who knows).
While for Syria/Iran its as bad as it gets.
US may occupy part of Syria for awhile. Nothing Russia can do about that in the short
term, short of going to war with the US. Russia is looking at the long term.
US wont be the one occupying, Kurds will (US will just rule them). Do you think Syria
will start a war with Kurds (especially under US protection)? Of course not. Kurds expanded
their territory 10x (now finishing off ethnic cleansing that ISIS started), occupied as
many oilfields as they could.
Kurds themselves are divided, but US will make sure their puppets have the power, while
pro-Syrian Kurds will be marginalized or simply killed. The idea that Kurds will come to
their senses is slim and most likely wont happen, just look at Barzanistan. Independence
US dangling in front of them is powerful motivator, not to speak of how much influence and
money US, Israel, monarchies, etc. have.
As for Russia, both short and long term its looking after its own interests, which may
or may not be whats the best for Syria. Hence the clashes.
The more US soldiers are stuck in Islamic badlands (Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iraq) - without
any chances of even remotely favorable outcome - the better it's for America's foes. The
US will keep bleeding financially, emotionally, spiritually and literally, until its military
machine simply unravels and disappears into a memory hole. The Russians and the Chinese
must be watching US moves with utter amazement. America's inability to perform even the
simplest geopolitical calculations may very well be unprecedented in world's history.
While i agree that the goal remains one of dividing Syria, I doubt it will work out as planned
by the US/Saudis/Israelis etc. Raqqa is not Kurd territory and I'm skeptical that the various
arab tribes there are going to accept governance by a Kurd/US alliance. I also wonder why
Kurds are liberating Raqqa. The main advantage to them beyond killing ISIS is really leverage
in negotiations with Assad. Do you want Raqqa back? Well here is what we want. I have a
hard time believing the Kurds really expect to occupy Arab territories under the nose of
Assad, Russia and Turkey for any extended period of time?
Net: capturing Raqqa gives the kurds bargaining power against the Asaad government towards
Kurd autonomy.
"Russians used 'Bernie Bros' as 'unwitting agents' in disinformation
campaign: Senate Intel witness" [Raw Story].
Medicare for all and universal single payer healthcare is a Russian plot to
divide America and was used to interfere with the election to get Trump elected
and steal the Presidency from Hillary, who would have defeated Putin by now if
she had won, just like we won in Iraq, Afghanistan, Ukraine, Syria, Libya,
Yemen, and lots of other places.
I think I'm going to try this line out on customers next time I tend bar.
Their input should be very helpful especially after they've had several
cocktails.
Of course. The Democratic Party is dismissive of the fact that the
institutions they hold so dear are corrupted beyond reformability. They have
zero self-awareness no matter how much yoga or meditation they practice and
the sooner the party goes extinct the better.
So now Bernie Bros are Stalin's unwitting dupes since "Trump is a Putin
agent" doesn't seem to be working out. As a Bernie Bro this Russian
connection is news to me, I couldn't stand Hillary forever (before Putin
even) and even less her hapless cadre of well wishers. If you pile up all
the lying and obfuscating that went on with Obama and Bush, I was more than
ready to look outside the Beltway for a life raft.
I tell you when I absolutely decided I was not going to play the 'lesser
evil' game and that was when it became patently obvious that Sec State
Hillary Clinton was going to approve of the DAPL pipeline by having its
environmental impact 'independently' scrutinized by a contractor that was
also working for the pipeline's owners. That piece of straw broke the
camel's back
I have yet to figure out why Apple's autocorrect keeps changing Bernie
Bros to beriberi
White russians vs formerfakered russians 100 yrs
later, razputin sez read my hips no interference in
american election
but from archangel where about 100 years ago the
only americans ever shot by russians died about 20
there and 30 Vladivostok if I have split the 50 killed
over two years from actual combat correctly
America and russia must always be kept
apart otherwise europe (and china) will not flourish
Russia is twice the physical size of the usa with
one third its population
Are there and have there been conflicts between the
2 nations these last 100 years well we invaded them at
the end of ww1 just as we (& others) invaded and
occupied china for a few decades but yes major
countries and with russia spanning three
continents(arguing diomide island & Aleutian isles are
part of n. America) it is impossible for Russian
interests to not involve most northern hemisphere
economies
Just as communism and marxism is not some
communicable disease neither is hamiltonianism
If fearless leader were powerful, the trappings of
power(big building we see you erdo ), big posters, big
parades & 365247 as talking head would not be
necessary
If pinochet, fidel, marcos, stalin & franco were
"powerful" they would not have had to round up and kill
"dissidents"
actually i am worried about this. if they can
persistently smear sanders enough with this kind of
associated-with-foreign-enemies lie–which they can
escalate in various directions from a foundational
"russians used bernie"–i can see it taking him out from
any further effectiveness. the younger generation may
not take it seriously, but knee-jerk patriotism is
still quite useful–it's never failed when TPTB want a
war, has it?–for directing americans' minds to where
TPTB want them to go. i keep thinking of how easy it
was for mccarthyism to take hold in the 1950s, and we
are now seeing so much that is reminiscent of that. and
mccarthyism was very effective in crushing the left,
with consequences we are still suffering. the more
followers sanders attracts, the more dangerous and
frightening to TPTB he will become. they have barely
begun to take him seriously as a threat. this is only
the beginning of what they will try in their effort to
erase it if they see it escalating.
Unfortunately, the only thing you are wrong about
is just being worried about "this" so specifically
the TPTB will try any and all possible levers to get
what they want. It will take more than Sanders to
stop them, and they will crush quite a few people
along the way. Might include Sanders, but if he's
the only resistance then they will certainly crush
his movement and will get their war on.
We need a 1000 flowers to bloom. Every type and
in every direction.
agreed. i am specifically worried about the
russia/sanders thing (and not mentioning all the
rest that you refer to) because i don't see it
being taken seriously now at its inception. i
think it's important to call attention at the
first emergence of a new disinfo campaign, which
often evokes from people, initially, laughter and
disbelief.
I was thinking along the lines of an internet
deluge of messages which convey something along
the lines of , " Do you actually think you have
dumbed us down to the point where we would
actually believe this Red Scare Shit? Or are just
gauging how much worse you have to make common
core education and lead levels to get us there?"
Not catchy but something to that effect.
I was reading the comments on the RawStorys piece
last night. It was absolutely frightening the hate the
majority of commenters have for people who supported
Bernie. The fact that almost all of their information
is untrue doesn't make any difference to them. They are
poorly informed and becoming very unhinged.
Do you remember "battle tested" and boasts about
Hillary winning Republicans? Those were just as
fantastical. Hillary ran in two elections (2006
doesn't count). She carpet bagged her way into New
York where she wound up facing a candidate too
extreme for Peter King and only won by 10 points.
Gore won by 25. Then she lost to Obama. She polled
as a consistent drag on down ticket races.
The stuff about Obama's soaring rhetoric was
absolutely nuts. "We aren't red states or blue
states. We are the United states." He was dopey
then. This is largely the result of emotional
investment in candidates. Admittedly, they are
lashing out because their imaginary friends aren't
on TV all the time. They remind me very much of
Lonzo Ball's old man or crazed sports parents and
stage mom's in general.
*this* - realize the Republican Party, hard
to say about Trump himself, but the Rs are
literally no more to the right of these people
than Sanders is to the left.
So it's not unhinged to treat him just as
badly.
They are OK with US tax levels because they
are comfortably well off, and being more urban
they can see the infrastructure and understand
that it has to be paid for. They are OK with
Obamacare because they aren't subject to it
and it "sounds good". They are OK with wars
because other people fight them. And so on.
I have said before that the millions upon
millions of Klinton Koolaid Kultists will be a
social problem going forward. They may well become a
menace.
Should Sanders supporters quietly begin forming
armed and trained militias to be able to protect
themselves and eachother from rioting Clintonite
mobs, Clintonite home-invaders, and so forth?
"Russians used 'Bernie Bros' as 'unwitting agents'
in disinformation campaign: Senate Intel witness" [Raw
Story]. You knew this was coming, right?
Well, no, I did not know that this was coming. I
suppose I should have; I did not realize that I, as a
Sanders supporter, was a tool of Russian propaganda. I
naively thought that I opposed Clinton because of her
immoral family foundation activities, her secret and
lucrative speeches to Wall Street firms, her Senate vote
for the invasion of Iraq, her vote to make it harder for
people to get out of bankruptcy, her votes to create and
reauthorize the Patriot Act, her disdain for
environmentalists, and all of the bizarre events
associated with her private email server. I guess I now
better now. (sarc)
That's no excuse. One must strive to not have
overlap with the Russian agenda. America depended on us
when we were most needed and in our failings we failed
America. /sarc
Almost as though a term as a US Senator and four
years as SoS would give us no idea how she might
govern. It was Russian propaganda that made us believe
she was going to do no better than give us more of the
same
And to think that my beloved aunt (RIP, Jean!)
turned me on to Bernie Sanders. Does that make her a
BernieAunt? If so, she'd think that it was hilarious.
Every time she does her leather lesbian routine,
I get excited for a brief moment that she's going to
come out as bi, which would be one cool progressive
thing she could achieve that would cost her nothing
(in reality - in her mind, I think she still
believes she's going to be President).
And then I remember the scam about the hot sauce
in her purse, and I wonder whose pocket she's trying
to pick by doing this.
October 23, 2016
|
Posted in
Uncategorized
A propaganda war bubbled up in London last week as an antiquated Russian aircraft
carrier steamed down the English Channel, on its way to the coast of Syria.
NatWest, subsidiary of the Royal Bank of Scotland Group, which is mostly owned by
the British government,
announced
that it planned to close the accounts of Russia Today, the Russian
government's news service and television network – presumably because
RT
publishes material critical of Britain and the US.
I read one or two RT items almost every day,
via
Johnson's Russia List
. In fact RT publishes a good deal of
interesting material.
"... " This looks more like what you'd see in a banana republic, " says Tyson Slocum of Public Citizen, a liberal watchdog group. " You've got a strongman who surrounds himself with billionaires or wealthy advisers who conduct the business of government to benefit their business. " ..."
"... In the first paragraph, we're told that jobs are moving to Mexico -- as usual. It's taken for granted (and without much concern here from Krugman) that US employers are going to keep exporting manufacturing jobs. This is followed by a defense of NAFTA, an attack on protectionism, and the suggestion that there is no alternative better than the status quo. And Democrats wonder why they're losing the Rust Belt states? ..."
"... The governmental action that was probably most important in creating the rust belt was the Reagan tax cuts. Those came as the Volcker effort to end inflation was still happening. That had to be continued, so the Reagan deficit could not be paid by inflating the money supply, and the necessary US bond sales kept our interest rate up, making the US the best place in the world to park money. Foreign exchange poured in, and the dollar's value soared by 70%. That rise made foreign production cheaper to Americans, and made US production uncompetitive elsewhere. ..."
"... Isn't this the same question that the British asked in 1845. The only thing we really know is that there are millions who no longer have a role in our economy. ..."
"... Liberals and Conservatives will not emerge until after the purge. Paul Krugman and Paul Ryan are part of the same priesthood of the only acceptable theology the Church of Neoliberalism. The belong to the same Tory Party of Robert Peel the only debate is about how best to grow the economy. ..."
"... The world's financial elite all fly the same flag called the Jolly Roger and finally we have a US government not ashamed to unfurl it. ..."
"... globalization has clearly not produced the promised big boost in overall growth in this country - economists would not be talking about "secular stagnation" if it had. ..."
"... Instead of denying the obvious facts and trying to divert the discussion with false claims about robots, why don't US economist try to work through the complications of trade and aim at policies which really would benefit US workers and might reduce the ever-growing inequality? Do they need to devote all their attention to defending the Democratic political establishment and their own failed theories and assumptions? ..."
"... It is obvious to most that the huge trade surge with China disrupted many commodity industries, steel, solar cells, electronics. ..."
"... If you do not see nothing obviously wrong, when a US company , bailed out by the US taxpayer, thanks the tax payer by importing cars made at Chinese wages to the US, putting out of work US workers, you must be a macro economist. ..."
"... Nowhere on the GM website is mentioned that those cars are made in China. Check ..."
"... the effective ban on big Western internet services like Google, Facebook, and Twitter, as well as local data storage rules for those who are allowed to operate. It's all done in the name of security ..."
Amazing how so many conservatives dismiss what Krugman as to say since he's so clearly a 'commie.'
Then they support Trump the capitalist businessman who will get things done.
Meanwhile, in the real world, Krugman is writing capitalist essays on his blog about the benefits
of Trade, and trump is running a kleptocracy that seeks to bring back a disproven form of protectionism
that would be much more at home among early 20th century socialists than with Milton Freedman
or Adam Smith.
It goes to show that the Republicans are a party without a purpose. They have given up on their
capitalist roots and instead just cater to the whims of the highest bidding campaign contributors
and the worst instincts of their bigoted base.
Paul Mathisis a trusted commenter Fairfax, Virginia
1 day ago
Nobody Knew Trade Could Be So Complicated!
Actually everybody knows that negotiating trade deals takes years of intensive efforts because
there are many moving parts that all affect each other.
Since Trump has the attention span of the average 3 year old, he has no time for anything more
complicated than banning Muslims from traveling to America. That simple "solution" did not work
out either.
So Trump is not going to do anything on trade simply because it is way too complicated and
time consuming. After all, he couldn't even spend 3 weeks on replacing Obamacare with his "fantastic"
plan. One month ago:
"We have a plan that I think is going to be fantastic. . . . I think it's going to be something
special ... I think you're going to like what you hear." --CNN
Re: "Oh, and China currency manipulation was an issue 5 years ago - but isn't now." I find
this interesting. Five years ago China was building up their reserves by purchasing US government
and agency bonds to keep their exchange rate low. Today those reserves of government and agency
bonds are falling as they are converted into US real estate and corporate assets while the trade
deficit remains at some $500 billion. This is supposed to make everything OK. What am I missing
here? http://www.rweconomics.com/htm/WDCh_2.htm
China has more than 1.3 billion people, and wages in China have risen faster for a longer period
of time than anywhere ever.
It's not a mystery why wages in China are what they are. It started as a poor country with
an enormous, mostly rural population. If anything, the surprise is that they have managed to increase
wages so strongly for so long.
There are legitimate reasons to be concerned about trade and immigration, of course, but understanding
Trump requires one to abandon the notion that he is appealing to legitimate concerns.
He is appealing to spite. Anything resembling a legitimate concern is pretense, to give cover
to what would otherwise be recognized as ugly and deplorable. He says the spiteful parts loudly
and doesn't even feign competence or coherence on policy.
Once this is fully recognized, all that he says and does makes sense. It also suggests that
people interested in real substantive policy discussions should disregard Trump entirely.
Dr. K. is correct we should watch what DJT actually does, instead of what he says, though what
DJT says is designed to whip up his partisans by pointing to real issues, but instead of blaming
the ' lost factories ' and ' stripped wealth ' on the portion of economic strata DJT inhabits
- which is where the wealth stripping/lost factory hedgies and sacrosanct banker pay contract
holders also exist - DJT always points somewhere else.
Somewhere else is a moving target that can shift each time a new sun rises on the Twitter-verse.
And it's hard to see how everyone will continue to admire the Emperor's new clothes when the
stock markets reverse course, or if there is a 2011 re-dux next month over House GOP'ers raising
the debt ceiling.
Anyhoooo, the best indicator of how things are going regarding economic policies at the White
House is to see how DJT adviser Carl Icahn has benefited from specific policy carve-outs:
" This looks more like what you'd see in a banana republic, " says Tyson Slocum of Public Citizen,
a liberal watchdog group. " You've got a strongman who surrounds himself with billionaires or
wealthy advisers who conduct the business of government to benefit their business. "
Though DJT may be correct there are issues with NAFTA and at WTO, those issues are preferable
to bald-faced kleptocracy.
In the first paragraph, we're told that jobs are moving to Mexico -- as usual. It's taken for
granted (and without much concern here from Krugman) that US employers are going to keep exporting
manufacturing jobs. This is followed by a defense of NAFTA, an attack on protectionism, and the
suggestion that there is no alternative better than the status quo. And Democrats wonder why they're
losing the Rust Belt states?
Trump's record low approval rating is likely to take a further hit in the near future from
deteriorating economic conditions. Measures of consumer and business confidence soared since the
election yet hard economic data continues to weaken with the Atlanta Fed's GDPNow estimate of
first quarter GDP growth falling to just 0.9%, after this morning's weak personal income and spending
report. Indeed, growth in real personal consumption expenditures peaked way back in January 2015.
While there was a mild rebound that started in March 2016 the trend has since turned negative
since the start of the 2017. See chart:
Interesting fact is the recent polarization of consumer confidence readings. Democrats are
generally pessimists while Republicans are optimistic about the economy. That suggests consumer
confidence readings will fall when Republicans get over their infatuation with Trump. And will
most likely be driven by disappointing economic growth -- actual growth and not empty promises.
Trump promised 4% growth which is impossible over the long term due to slow population growth.
Yet, that growth rate now looks far out of reach even for a single quarter and fiscal stimulus
looks less and less likely to happen even if some tax cuts for the wealthy do manage to pass Congress.
Tax cuts are not stimulative if they heavily favor the wealthy. Probably the opposite is true
considering the Bush tax cuts were so ineffective.
Krugman is an economist; he's not merely trying to sway voters. And he knows that the decline
in industrial jobs is more due to productivity gains than factories' moving abroad. In any case,
measures like Trump's scolding businessmen is not and will not be important in keeping jobs from
leaving. More important is the exchange rate.
The governmental action that was probably most important in creating the rust belt was the
Reagan tax cuts. Those came as the Volcker effort to end inflation was still happening. That had
to be continued, so the Reagan deficit could not be paid by inflating the money supply, and the
necessary US bond sales kept our interest rate up, making the US the best place in the world to
park money. Foreign exchange poured in, and the dollar's value soared by 70%. That rise made foreign
production cheaper to Americans, and made US production uncompetitive elsewhere.
But the decline in manufacturing would be happening regardless. It is the same process that
did in most US family farms throughout the 20th century. US farming is now so efficient that farmers,
once 3/4 of us, are now as small a fraction of Americans as "gardeners, groundskeepers, and growers
of ornamental plants." The same thing is now happening to factories; we're just too efficient
at making things to require the number of manufacturing workers we once did.
Ron Cohenis a trusted commenter Waltham, MA
20 hours ago
Prof. Krugman, in your column today about Coal Country, you rightfully identify it as a state
of mind. But that state of mind is not nostaglia as you argue. Rather, it is a profound cultural
resentment that motivates the voters of West Virginia.
For perspective on this subject, I urge you to read Arlie Hochschild's, widely praised, "Strangers
in Their Own Land." http://thenewpress.com/node/10362
.
All but one of the columns, below, are from The New York Times. Taken together, they form a
coda to Hochschild's book. I suggest you start with the last one, Sabrina Tavernise's piece.
Bernie Sanders Has A Plan To Win Back Trump Voters, The Huffington Post, March 9, 2017
http://tinyurl.com/zy2nzxh
Trump Budget Proposal Reflects Working-Class Resentment of the Poor, Eduardo Porter, March
7, 2017 http://tinyurl.com/ho5zkha
Thank you or the opportunity of answering your question with my question.
Isn't this the same question that the British asked in 1845. The only thing we really know
is that there are millions who no longer have a role in our economy.
Liberals and Conservatives will not emerge until after the purge. Paul Krugman and Paul
Ryan are part of the same priesthood of the only acceptable theology the Church of Neoliberalism.
The belong to the same Tory Party of Robert Peel the only debate is about how best to grow the
economy.
The question that comes to my mind is why do we want to grow an economy where production exceeds
demand every day and our ideological Dogma says we must work even harder than ever to increase
the inequality between supply and demand?
We have ceded control to the Whigs and I fear it isn't only 3 million Irish peasants who will
disappear. The conversion of dollars into real estate really struck a high note as those worthless
hovels that housed 3 million economically worthless peasants provided room for what was most important
in the Irish economy pigs and cattle. Again I feel I must repeat there was no famine in Ireland
it was a failure of potato crops and each year Ireland exported enough food to feed all of Ireland's
hungry for seven potatoless years. Then as now the bible was The Economist.
The world's financial elite all fly the same flag called the Jolly Roger and finally we
have a US government not ashamed to unfurl it.
A good start would be to insist on living wages in mexico and Asia along with humane working
conditions. That's a starting position a trump or Clinton administration would never consider,
but Sanders would have. Bringing those changes about would create more of a level playing field
for US workers. Also if China isn't controlling currency anymore why is labor still so cheap.?
It can't be fully explained by excess labor supply. Something must be going on, and we should
be trying to figure it out.
skeptonomistis a trusted commenter Tennessee
1 day ago
lt's true that modern trade is very complicated but certain things are obvious. One is that
the US runs huge trade deficits, amounting to nearly $750 billion in goods. Yes, this is obviously
bigly unfair to the United States, that is considering the majority of its citizens and especially
wage earners, who have been put into competition with those in developing countries, rather than
the capitalists whose profits have been increased by the lower wage costs. Those goods represent
a very large number of jobs that are now in other countries. Another is that globalization has
clearly not produced the promised big boost in overall growth in this country - economists would
not be talking about "secular stagnation" if it had.
Instead of denying the obvious facts and trying to divert the discussion with false claims
about robots, why don't US economist try to work through the complications of trade and aim at
policies which really would benefit US workers and might reduce the ever-growing inequality? Do
they need to devote all their attention to defending the Democratic political establishment and
their own failed theories and assumptions?
Trade is a tough policy to debate with people and come to consensus. It is obvious to most
that the huge trade surge with China disrupted many commodity industries, steel, solar cells,
electronics. More should have been done to minimize the disruption. That said we are where we
are.
Our manufacturing now is higher up the value chain. Our commodity mills now need to innovate
to take advantage of niche higher value low volume markets that big producers can't supply effectively.
Innovate to develop new materials and specialized processes that displace current materials. Innovation,
flexibility and agility is our competitive advantage. Time to make the jobs of the future, commodity
production is in the past.
"But even there it's not obvious what you would demand from a new agreement."
Let me help out the professor with an article from the NY Times 3/30/17 and provide an obvious
example
"China's Taxes on Imported Cars Feed Trade Tensions With U.S."
reporting that a Jeep retailing for $ $40,530 in the US cost in China , quote " $ $71,000,
mostly because of taxes that Beijing charges on every car, minivan and sport utility vehicle that
is made in another country"
Meanwhile , quote "General Motors started shipping the Buick Envision model from a factory
in eastern China's Shandong Province to the United States last year. That decision irritated the
United Automobile Workers union"
But that is not all. The NY Times reported on 1/29/16 that GM's Cadillac devision started to
import its " plug-in hybrid version of its new CT6 flagship sedan from China " and "A PEEK under
the hood of three new cars from Buick and Cadillac will not reveal a Made in China label"
If you do not see nothing obviously wrong, when a US company , bailed out by the US taxpayer,
thanks the tax payer by importing cars made at Chinese wages to the US, putting out of work US
workers, you must be a macro economist.
Either US consumer win (cheaper cars) or US companies (more profit for the stock holders).
Final Note
Nowhere on the GM website is mentioned that those cars are made in China. Check
Ron,
Europe's parliamentary democracies have always given the 20% an outsized role in elections and
governance because coalitions are the rule not the exception and 20% is a lot of seats.
From here on a less than 4 hour drive to Waltham it looks like your 20% has the house, the senate,
the executive and soon the courts and the Supreme Court.
Donald Trump was a wake-up call for the world's 80% as Europe like North America is over 80% urban.
If Trump had the attention span and work ethic needed to become a dictator, he would seek the
confrontation over expelling the undocumented, not over trade. Trade isn't visceral enough, not
existential enough, to sustain the fear of the Other a dictator needs.
On China, there actually are a few obvious imbalances that affect the tech industry, though
it's doubtful the US has the leverage to change them.
The first comes from the Chinese government's drive to build their domestic tech industry by
coercing technology transfer from Western firms outsourcing manufacturing in China.
The second is the effective ban on big Western internet services like Google, Facebook, and
Twitter, as well as local data storage rules for those who are allowed to operate. It's all done
in the name of security (and censorship), of course, but it's also an obvious form of protectionism. Baidu and Weibo might not exist otherwise.
The government is also investing in a Chinese variant
of Linux, no doubt with the ultimate goal of gaining complete control over all software running
inside the country.
"... The Obama era looks like an echo of the Federalist power grabs of the 1780's and 1790's both in its enrichment and glorification of financial elites and its open disdain for anything resembling true economic democracy ..."
Thank you, thank you, Lambert, for that excellent Matt Stoller piece ( https://thebaffler.com/salvos/hamilton-hustle-stoller
). At the risk of repeating what others I hope have already read, this stood out for me:
As economist Simon Johnson pointed out in a 2009 essay in The Atlantic titled "The
Quiet Coup," what the bailouts truly represented was the seizure of political power by a small
group of American financiers. Just as in the founding era, we saw a massive foreclosure crisis
and the evisceration of the main source of middle class wealth. A bailout, similar to one that
created the national debt, ensured that wealth would be concentrated in the hands of a small
group. The Citizens United decision and the ever-increasing importance of money in
politics have strong parallels to the property disenfranchisement along class lines that occurred
in the post-Revolutionary period. Just as turnout fell to record lows in much of the country
in 2014, turnout collapsed after the rebellions were put down. And in another parallel, Occupy
Wall Street protesters camped out across the country were evicted by armed guards-a martial
response coordinated by banks, the federal government, and many Democratic mayors.
The Obama era looks like an echo of the Federalist power grabs of the 1780's and 1790's
both in its enrichment and glorification of financial elites and its open disdain for anything
resembling true economic democracy "
06:54 31.03.2017
Get
short URL
0
34
1
0
Increased US military aid or tactical
air support for the Saudi-led coalition involved in Yemen's civil war can only drain
American strength in a remote conflict where it has no real interests, former CIA
analyst and whistleblower John Kiriakou told Sputnik.
WASHINGTON (Sputnik) - The US Department of Defense is considering increasing its
support for Saudi Arabia and its Gulf Arab allies in their support for the government
of Yemen seeking to suppress Houthi rebel forces, according to US media reports this
week.
"Any increase in support for the Saudis, whether
in weapons sales, hardware, air support, or anything else, will draw the US into a
conflict in which it has no interest," Kiriakou, who served in the Middle East as a
CIA officer said on Thursday.
Instead, it would only enable the Saudi-led coalition to conflict ever larger
numbers of casualties, increasing hatred of the Sanaa government and thereby
prolonging the conflict, he observed.
"It can only lead to more destruction in an already almost
destroyed country," he said,
Far from ending or alleviating the sufferings of the Yemeni people in the
conflict, increased US aid and support to the Saudi-led coalition would only make
that suffering worse while also further draining US financial resources, Kiriakou
added.
"It will add to human misery among Yemenis, and it will cost
the American taxpayer untold millions of dollars," he stated.
Kiriakou gained international recognition as the only person the US government
sent to prison for exposing the George W. Bush administration's torture program.
After revealing classified information to ABC News in 2007, Kiriakou was sentenced
to 30 months in prison, of which he served 23 months between February 2013 and
February 3, 2015.
"... Centralized bargaining (sector wide labor agreements) practiced by the Teamster's National Master Freight Agreement -- also by French Canada, continental Europe and I think Argentina and Indonesia -- blocks the Walmart-killing-supermarket-contracts race to the bottom. Airline employees would kill for centralized too. ..."
"... Truly populist up politics in the long run reduce financialization, for-profit scams, phara gouging, etc. etc., etc. Dean of Washington press corps said when he came to Washington (1950s?) all the lobbyists were union. ..."
"... The center-left are technocrats and don't really believe in unions or economic democracy. ..."
"... They're all about the meritocracy and so instead of arguing for workers to get organized and political and instead of arguing for a hot economy so labor markets are tight, they scold workers for not "skilling up" and acquiring the skills business want for their jobs. ..."
STARTS OUT A LITTLE OFF TOPIC BUT THEN GOES PRECISELY WHERE THE AUTHOR WANTS US TO GO I THINK
Re: Keynes' flaws - Stumbling and Mumbling
[cut-and-paste]
Neither rust-belt Americans nor Chicago gang-bangers are interested in up-to-date kitchens or
two vans in the driveway. Both are most especially not interested in $10 an hour jobs.
Both would be very, very especially interested in $20 an hour jobs.
80 years ago Congress forgot to put criminal enforcement in the NLRA(a). Had union busting
been a felony all along we would be like Germany today. Maybe at some point our progressives might
note that collective bargaining is the T-Rex in the room -- or the missing T-Rex.
The money is there for $20 jobs. 49 years -- and half the per capita income ago -- the fed
min wage was $11. Since then the bottom 45% went from 20% overall income share to 10% -- while
the top 1% went from 10% to 20%.
How to get it -- how to get collective bargaining set up? States can make union busting a felony
without worrying about so-called federal preemption:
+ a state law sanctioning wholesalers, for instance, using market power to block small retail
establishments from combining their bargaining power could be the same one that makes union busting
a felony -- overlap like min wage laws -- especially since on crim penalties the fed has left
nothing to overlap since 1935
+ First Amendment right to collectively bargain cannot be forced by the fed down (the current)
impassable road. Double ditto for FedEx employees who have to hurdle the whole-nation-at-once
certification election barrier
+ for contrast, examples of state infringement on federal preemption might be a state finding
of union busting leading to a mandate for an election under the fed setup -- or any state certification
setup for labor already covered by NLRA(a) or RLA(a). (Okay for excluded farm workers.)
Collective bargaining would ameliorate much competition for jobs from immigrants because labor's
price would be set by how much the consumer can be squeezed before (s)he goes somewhere else --
not by how little the most desperate worker will hire on for. Your kid will be grabbed before
somebody still mastering English.
Centralized bargaining (sector wide labor agreements) practiced by the Teamster's National
Master Freight Agreement -- also by French Canada, continental Europe and I think Argentina and
Indonesia -- blocks the Walmart-killing-supermarket-contracts race to the bottom. Airline employees
would kill for centralized too.
Republicans would have no place to hide -- rehabs US labor market -- all (truly) free market.
Truly populist up politics in the long run reduce financialization, for-profit scams, phara
gouging, etc. etc., etc. Dean of Washington press corps said when he came to Washington (1950s?)
all the lobbyists were union.
PS. After I explained the American spinning wheels labor market to my late brother John (we
were not even talking about race), he came back with: "Martin Luther King got his people on the
up escalator just in time for it to start going down for everybody."
I agree. All of the center-left are like Keynes in a bad way. Chris Dillow nails it.
The center-left are technocrats and don't really believe in unions or economic democracy.
They're all about the meritocracy and so instead of arguing for workers to get organized
and political and instead of arguing for a hot economy so labor markets are tight, they scold
workers for not "skilling up" and acquiring the skills business want for their jobs.
They enjoy scolding the backward rural and dying manufacturing towns where the large employers
have closed.
The technocrats are running the economy the best they can, it's up to the workers to educate
themselves so they can be "competitive" on international markets.
Meanwhile for the past 40 years the technocrats have been doing a poor job.
(or maybe a good job from their sponsors' perspective as Chris Dillow points out.)
DeLong is right about mainstream economics. SWL is wrong. "Mainstream" economics is complicit
as the technocrats are complicit.
Perhaps even DeLong is too much like Keynes and too much the "neoliberal" technocrat to understand
why businessmen keep voting Republican even though the economy does better on Democrats.
"Un Village Français," which
began in 2009, was also a sensation, possibly because it was the first major French television
series seriously to address collaboration during the Nazi occupation in World War II. Vichy
is not a taboo subject by any means. There have been scores of history books, novels, movies,
documentaries and even graphic novels about the occupation. (Though it is a measure of how
quickly postwar amnesia and myth making took hold that in the 1970s, one of the first scholars
to point out that the Pétain regime willingly went along with Hitler was an American historian,
Robert O. Paxton.)
But France is not as much of a television culture as are Britain and other
European countries. The French film industry, internationally respected and state subsidized,
has thrived better than most, and, accordingly, producers and stars tended to favor movies
over television. Films, commercial and art house, were a better reflection of the national
mood and cultural mainstream; most of the top-rated series on French television are made in
the United States.
"Un Village Francais," which is about to start its fifth season, is evidence that the tide
has shifted. The drama begins in June 1940 in Villeneuve, a fictional village in the Jura Mountains,
when the Germans are at the door, and the illusion of invulnerability is crumbling. The byword
of the series is "To live is to choose," and in each episode, and each season, the war intensifies,
options narrow and collaboration thickens....
"Un Village Français," which
began in 2009, was also a sensation, possibly because it was the first major French television
series seriously to address collaboration during the Nazi occupation in World War II. Vichy
is not a taboo subject by any means. There have been scores of history books, novels, movies,
documentaries and even graphic novels about the occupation. (Though it is a measure of how
quickly postwar amnesia and myth making took hold that in the 1970s, one of the first scholars
to point out that the Pétain regime willingly went along with Hitler was an American historian,
Robert O. Paxton.)
But France is not as much of a television culture as are Britain and other
European countries. The French film industry, internationally respected and state subsidized,
has thrived better than most, and, accordingly, producers and stars tended to favor movies
over television. Films, commercial and art house, were a better reflection of the national
mood and cultural mainstream; most of the top-rated series on French television are made in
the United States.
"Un Village Francais," which is about to start its fifth season, is evidence that the tide
has shifted. The drama begins in June 1940 in Villeneuve, a fictional village in the Jura Mountains,
when the Germans are at the door, and the illusion of invulnerability is crumbling. The byword
of the series is "To live is to choose," and in each episode, and each season, the war intensifies,
options narrow and collaboration thickens....
"... Further, the Northern District of New York has jurisdiction over Albany, so the swampiest part of New York State politics did not lie in Bharara's jurisdiction. ..."
"... Obama was a rapacious doer for the .001%. ..."
"... That smirky dubya-esque smile on his face while on Sir Richard Branson's private island off of the coast of Madagascar says it all. "Fuck all of y'all, I got out and away with screwing the rest of the nation, not once, but twice!" ..."
"... Draining Wall Street is more challenging than cleaning out the Augean stables. ..."
"... Not for nothing, but Preet came out of Schumer's office who has parlayed being Wall Street's senator into dejure leadership of the Senate Dems and defacto control of the Democratic party. ..."
By Bill Black, the author of The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One, an associate professor
of economics and law at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, and c–founder of Bank Whistleblowers
United. Jointly published with New
Economic Perspectives
The New York Times' editorial board published an
editorial on March 12, 2017, praising Preet Bharara as the "Prosecutor Who Knew How to Drain
a Swamp." I agree with the title. At all times when he was the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District
of New York (which includes Wall Street) Bharara knew how to drain the swamp. Further, he had the
authority, the jurisdiction, the resources, and the testimony from whistleblowers like Richard Bowen
(a co-founder of Bank Whistleblowers United (BWU)) to drain the Wall Street swamp. Bowen personally
contacted Bharara beginning in 2005.
You were quoted in The Nation magazine as saying that if a whistleblower comes forward
with evidence of wrongdoing, then you would be the first to prosecute [elite bankers].
I am writing this email to inform you that there is a body of evidence concerning wrongdoing,
which the Department of Justice has refused to act on in order to determine whether criminal charges
should be pursued.
Bowen explained that he was a whistleblower about Citigroup's senior managers and that he was
(again) coming forward to aid Bharara to prosecute. Bowen tried repeatedly to interest Bharara in
draining the Citigroup swamp. Bharara refused to respond to Bowen's blowing of the whistle on the
massive frauds led by Citigroup's senior officers.
Bharara knew how to drain the Wall Street swamp and was positioned to do so because he had federal
prosecutorial jurisdiction over Wall Street crimes. Whistleblowers like Bowen, who lacked any meaningful
power, sacrificed their careers and repeatedly demonstrated courage to ensure that Bharara would
have the testimony and documents essential to prosecute successfully some of Wall Street's most elite
felons. Bharara never mustered the courage to prosecute those elites. Indeed, Bharara never mustered
the courtesy to respond to Bowen's offers to aid his office.
The editorial lauds Bharara for his actions against public corruption in New York.
New Yorkers, who have had a front-row seat to his work over the last seven years, know him
for his efforts to drain one of the swampiest states in the country of its rampant public corruption.
We are all for rooting out public corruption. The editorial ignores three key facts. First, New
York politics are less corrupt than many other states, but Wall Street's leaders created the "swampiest"
region in American business. Further, the Northern District of New York has jurisdiction over Albany,
so the swampiest part of New York State politics did not lie in Bharara's jurisdiction. Second, Wall
Street CEOs created, and infest, the swampiest of regions over which Bharara had jurisdiction. They
led the epidemics of "control fraud" that hyper-inflated the housing bubble, drove the financial
crisis, and caused the Great Recession. Third, Bharara did not prosecute any of them even when whistleblowers
brought him the cases on platinum platters. Indeed, Bharara did not prosecute even low-level bank
officers who were minor leaders in implementing those fraud epidemics.
I will summarize briefly Bowen's story as it intersects Bharara. Bowen held a senior position
with Citigroup supervising a staff of several hundred professionals that conducted risk assessments
on roughly $100 billion in annual mortgage purchases – a majority of which Citigroup resold to Fannie
and Freddie or mortgage securitizers. Citigroup was exposed to enormous losses on these mortgages
because the sellers had strong incentives to provide false "reps and warranties" to Citigroup and
sell them fraudulently originated loans that were particularly likely to default and suffer larger
losses upon default. Citigroup could only sell these fraudulently originated mortgages to others
through making essentially the same fraudulent reps and warranties that it received from the original
sellers. Bowen's staff found originally that 60% of the loans it was buying had false reps and warranties.
He warned his superiors about the problem, but they responded by weakening Citigroup's already inadequate
underwriting by buying pervasively fraudulent "liar's" loans. Bowen put Citigroup's senior management,
including Robert Rubin, on written notice of the growing crisis and called for immediate intervention
to stem the crisis. Citigroup's senior management responded by removing Bowen's staff and responsibilities.
The incidence of fraud grew to 80 percent.
Bowen was blowing the whistle internally at Citigroup and acting exactly as he was supposed to
do – as Citigroup articulated what an officer should do in such circumstances. He was not looking
for money or a lawsuit. He was the opposite of a disgruntled employee. He had never gone public.
Citigroup's top leaders forced Bowen out – for doing exactly the right think according to Citigroup's
own policies. Bowen did eventually blow the whistle to the public about the Citigroup's top leadership
and the banks hundreds of billions of dollars in sales of mortgages through false reps and warranties.
Those sales, because of the losses they caused to Fannie and Freddie, were substantial contributors
to Fannie and Freddie's failures and the public bailout of both firms. Bowen met with the SEC staff
and Assistant U.S. Attorneys (AUSAs) in several districts to provide them with the critical facts
and documents. Bowen also testified before the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (FCIC), which
made multiple criminal referrals against Citigroup, including a referral based on Bowen's testimony.
Bowen was the perfect witness for a criminal prosecution of Citigroup's senior managers and for an
SEC enforcement action against Citigroup for securities fraud.
Assistant U.S. Attorneys (AUSAs) in Denver, the Eastern District of New York (where Loretta Lynch
was then the U.S. Attorney), and Bharara's office told Bowen that the Department of Justice (DOJ)
had never sent the criminal referrals that FCIC made about Citigroup to them. Bowen met with the
AUSAs to assist them in what he had expected to be a series of prosecutions in 2016. Phil Angelides,
FCIC's Chairman, made public in 2016 the fact that the FCIC had made a criminal referral about Citigroup
based on Bowen's testimony before the inquiry. Bowen was by 2016 one of the best-known and most respected
whistleblowers in America. FCIC's chair found his testimony about Citigroup's leaders highly credible,
leading him to make the criminal referral, but DOJ's leadership not only refused to prosecute, but
also buried the criminal referrals to discourage any U.S. Attorney from prosecuting Citigroup's fraudulent
leaders.
AUSA Jonathon Schmidt (San Francisco) called Bowen on July 10, 2010. Bowen gave him everything.
Schmidt was excited and said that they were going to pursue the claims that Bowen had laid out, particularly
Citigroup's fraudulent reps and warranties. Bowen challenged Schmidt, telling him that I believed
that once he talked to DC DOJ that Bowen would never hear from him again. Schmidt promised he would
be back to Bowen within a week. Bowen never heard from him again.
Alayne Fleischmann, also one of the most famous whistleblowers to emerge from the crisis, provided
vital information and documents to DOJ prosecutors about frauds led by JPMorgan's senior managers.
Fleischmann continued to seek to aid a DOJ prosecution after the Attorney General transferred responsibility
for the case to Bharara's office. No prosecution has occurred.
Bharara is like every other federal prosecutor and the SEC's top leaders. Bowen met with the SEC
staff and five Assistant U.S. Attorneys (AUSAs) in four different districts (including Bharara's)
to provide them with the critical facts and documents. Each failed to prosecute the elite Wall Street
officials who drove the three epidemics of fraud that drove the financial crisis. What is different
is that because his office had jurisdiction over the elite frauds and the staff to conduct sophisticated
investigations and prosecutions he could have drained the Wall Street swamp. Bharara simply had to
take advantage of the courage and competence of whistleblowers like Bowen and Fleischman who brought
him cases against the top managers of two of the world's largest banks on a platinum platter. Bharara
also could have taken advantage of the expertise and experience of regulators and prosecutors who
worked together to produce over 1,000 felony convictions in "major" cases against financial executives
and their co-conspirators in the savings and loan debacle. Bharara (and Lynch and their counterparts)
failed to take either approach.
Bharara knew how to drain the Wall Street swamp. He had the facts, the staff, and the jurisdiction
to drain the Wall Street swamp. Bharara refused to do so.
Sorry to say it but the situation as it stands now makes mob actions against the financial
elites a rational choice.
I know that such ideas are an essential part of the Libertarian Dream State, but, what else is
left to do then either submit or fight?
As is the case in our politics now, reform is no longer an option.
Of course the NYT defines the liberal version of draining the swamp. Government actors are
already considered bad eggs. But the upper echelons of elite Wall St firms sit on the boards of
America's cultural and educational institutions and are culturally liberal, so whatever they may
have done was done with no ill intent nor malice. Black exposes this as completely bogus in a
short editorial but the leading pundits will be pounding on Russia, Hillbillies, and Russia some
more.
Dang, NC needs those up arrows so I could show my approval. The philanthropy fig-leaf of America's
elite hides a plentitude of warts. Too many people are duped by these 'pillars of community.'
Prof. Black loses some credibility when he writes,
First, New York politics are less corrupt than many other states
Evidence? Links to studies? Anything?
Given the national trends of the last few decades (many of them originating from Wall Street
or Wall Street-owned politicians in D.C.), the NYS economy would have been fighting some very
strong headwinds in any case. But the cesspool in Albany helped convince a lot of businesses and
individuals to make their futures elsewhere.
Parents in NYS know that their children's adult lives will (if they're lucky) be spent somewhere
else.
Yes, Preen is a fraud, but Albany was and remains a very corrupt place and the state suffers
because of it.
Recall Bill Black's work during the S & L crisis across the country. I'm one who was involved
with the economic class of Americans who were likely to have their savings in CDs in the fraudulent
institutions in the swamp that Black was instrumental in draining. And, pertinent to this piece
about Citi, I recently met a group of former Citi mid-level execs who were laid off during the
mortgage mess: they rec'd golden parachutes, stock options, and never had to work again.
I couldn't paste the link successfully but this is from the Center for Public Integrity: New
York GRADE:D-(61)RANK:31ST
So 19 states are worse than New York. More than a few in other words, and only 3 states scored
higher than a D+. At any rate, the swamp in Albany was not under Bhahara's jurisdiction anyway,
as Black points out.
I have great respect for the work that Prof. Black did in the past and the work he continues
to do.
But public corruption can be incredibly damaging to government functions
in the short and medium run, and corrosive to trust in government in the long run.
To suggest that NYS doesn't have a serious problem is not helpful.
I would much rather have the USA for SDNY devoting limited resources to going after that,
even if it might be publicity-seeking bigfooting of the USA in Albany,
rather than crusading against insider trading.
Even though I agree that Bharara, Breuer and Holder (and the czar they all worked for)
were a disaster for the rule of law in this country.
Further, the Northern District of New York has jurisdiction over Albany, so the swampiest
part of New York State politics did not lie in Bharara's jurisdiction.
Bill Black has all the credibility he needs. This is a classic propaganda technique to focus
on unimportant minor points to impeach an otherwise very import essay. People here know better
than to listen to that.
The Obama Administration prevented any investigations, let alone prosecutions, of Wall Street
and large scale mortgage fraud. Obama's 50 State Solution was sold as consolidation of multiple
state efforts, which were making good progress, into a single, streamlined and comprehensive federal
effort that would take the burden off the states. It was a lie.
Preet Bharara was fired by Trump and has gotten a lot of sympathetic press over his firing.
And he has certainly done many good things. But when it came to the biggest financial crimes in
the history of the world he followed his orders, failed to do his job, and kept his mouth shut
as the criminals reaped hundreds of billions of dollars and millions of American families suffered.
And he is still keeping his mouth shut. But other than that .
+1,000,000! Obama was a rapacious doer for the .001%.
That smirky dubya-esque smile on his
face while on Sir Richard Branson's private island off of the coast of Madagascar says it all.
"Fuck all of y'all, I got out and away with screwing the rest of the nation, not once, but twice!"
There's not one politician who doesn't deserve pitchforks and lamposts. Tar and feather these
folk!
Good essay by a man I highly respect, but I, too, noted long ago that New York State politics
are real down and dirty. It's the home of Wall Street, so how could it be otherwise?
It is all theater. We read Wikileaks exposures. There are crimes or at least valid reasons
for investigations.
We get teasers that investigations will happen.
They never do.
The political and corporate leadership class is immune from prosecution except for passing fine
monies back and forth.
These people are completely corrupt and have greatly participated in corrupting our society and
its cultures.
I have always found the Richard Bowen story particularly fascinating and infuriating. His memo
to Rob Rubin is unbelievable. Frontline also did a piece on the failure to prosecute the banks.
The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission took testimony from Bowen but then locked it up under
seal for five years. Do we have any rational explanation for this other than that the system is
that corrupt. I am a cynic but this still shocks me to the point where I can't fathom that it
is really this bad.
"Bharara knew how to drain the Wall Street swamp. He had the facts, the staff, and the jurisdiction
to drain the Wall Street swamp. Bharara refused to do so."
If my memory serves me, perhaps, like Neil Barofsky (SIGTARP), he had lunch with Larry Summers
where it was explained to him that if he wanted to have a $$$career after leaving government it
would be wise to let things slide ( i.e. see Lanny Breuer).
Bahara did what he was told by Obama. That's the end of it.
Anyone who wants to deify Obama – and I know far too many people who do – are completely ignoring
Obama's and Bahara's criminal neglect to hold the banks and Wall St truly accountable.
Recall Jamie "Presidential Cufflinks" Dimon basically thumbing his snooty nose at the hoi poloi.
What? Me, worry? Sucks to be you, great to be me.
These crooks will never do a perp walk, and Bahara made sure that they didn't. All the whining
about Bahara being "fired" by Trump is ignoring these inconvenient truths.
I'm no Obama apologist, but if Bahara indited someone on Wall Street just how was Obama going
to explain firing him? If either had an ounce of integrity the right people would be in jail.
Some manufactured scandal or leak regarding improper or compromising behaviour, well before
the ball trully got rolling on prosecuting our criminal elite forcing Obama to step in and either
move him down, sideways or outright let go to ensure the integrity of the office.
Citigroup (previously Citibank, etc) has always been corrupt. They were caught money laundering
for drug cartels in the 1980s and terrorism back in the 1990s and should have been shut down forever
both times. They weren't.
The only conclusion I can come to is that Citigroup is a heavily exposed to CIA activity. It
sounds like a loony conspiracy theory until you look at the history of Riggs Bank, BCCI, etc and
realize that historically its in the realm of possibility. So yes, its entirely possible.
It doesn't sound at all loony to me, sd. I think the current mess goes all the way back to
the 50s. In defiance of financial prudence, in 1954, the rich guys went to DC, like some super
mercenary army (pun intended) and threw what was called "The Bankruptcy Ball" which everyone who
was anyone attended, all decked out in tuxedos and gowns. Catherine Graham's autobiography. And
I think it marks a point in time when our government became blood brothers with the banks. A relationship
that saw us through the Cold War – which had already bankrupted us – and the Vietnam War which
was an awful and senseless debacle; and on through till the USSR finally said "enough" – at which
point our government and the banks were one. One big mess. We should have had the integrity at
that point, 1990, to fix things. But we couldn't because our capitalist economy, upon which most
of the world had become addicted, would have failed without the crazy growth that the banksters
provided so, god. Talk about a mess. But that's just my opinion.
Ah, yes, the ol' "Bank of Crooks and Criminals, Intl." I remember them and good old Clark Clifford.
Boy, that guy died just in time, huh? Good times! / sarc
Well said, Professor Black. The Southern District of New York was the biggest crime scene in
the U.S. during Bharara's tenure as United States Attorney, and he was the man in charge of the
Holder doctrine, printing "Get Out of Jail Free" cards for the donor class. Of course, Bharara
is ambitious enough not to take a multi-million dollar desk at Covington like Holder and Breuer
did. Bad optics. He's going to academia, as a Distinguished Scholar in Residence at NYU School
of Law. How noble!
NOT. Naked Capitalism readers recognize NYU as what Pam Martens called "a tyrannical slush
fund for privileged interests" where Obot Flexian grifters roost in luxury:
Not for nothing, but Preet came out of Schumer's office who has parlayed being Wall Street's
senator into dejure leadership of the Senate Dems and defacto control of the Democratic party.
Picking off egregious individuals like Madoff, who can be described as "bad apples" while ignoring
systemic fraud is the playbook.
"The fall of Empire, gentlemen, is a massive thing, however, and not easily fought. It is dictated
by a rising bureaucracy, a receding initiative, a freezing of caste, a damming of curiosity-a hundred
other factors. It has been going on, as I have said, for centuries, and it is too majestic and massive
a movement to stop." –
Isaac Asimov, Foundation
"Any fool can tell a crisis when it arrives. The real service to the state is to detect it in
embryo." –
Isaac Asimov, Foundation
I read Isaac Asimov's renowned award winning science fiction trilogy four decades ago as a teenager.
I read them because I liked science fiction novels, not because I was trying to understand the correlation
to the fall of the Roman Empire. The books that came to be called the
Foundation Trilogy (Foundation, Foundation and Empire, and Second Foundation) were not written
as novels; they're the collected Foundation stories Asimov wrote between 1941 and 1950. He wrote
these stories during the final stages of our last
Fourth Turning Crisis and the beginning stages of the next High. This was the same time frame
in which Tolkien wrote the
Lord of the Rings Trilogy and Orwell wrote
1984 . This was not a coincidence.
The tone of foreboding, danger, dread, and impending doom, along with unending warfare, propels
all of these novels because they were all written during the bloodiest and most perilous portion
of the last
Fourth Turning . As the linear thinking establishment continues to be blindsided by the continued
deterioration of the economic, political, social, and cultural conditions in the world, we have entered
the most treacherous phase of our present
Fourth Turning .
That ominous mood engulfing the world is not a new dynamic, but a cyclical event arriving every
80 or so years. Eight decades ago the world was on the verge of a world war which would kill 65 million
people. Eight decades prior to 1937 the country was on the verge of a Civil War which would kill
almost 5% of the male population. Eight decades prior to 1857 the American Revolution had just begun
and would last six more bloody years. None of this is a coincidence. The generational configuration
repeats itself every eighty years, driving the mood change which leads to revolutionary change and
the destruction of the existing social order.
Isaac Asimov certainly didn't foresee his Foundation stories representing the decline of an American
Empire that didn't yet exist. The work that inspired Asimov was Edward Gibbon's multi-volume series,
The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire , published between 1776 and 1789. Gibbon saw Rome's
fall not as a consequence of specific, dramatic events, but as the result of the gradual decline
of civic virtue, monetary debasement and rise of Christianity, which made the Romans less vested
in worldly affairs.
Gibbon's tome reflects the same generational theory espoused by Strauss and Howe in The
Fourth Turning . Gibbon's conclusion was human nature never changes, and mankind's penchant for
division, amplified by environmental and cultural differences, is what governs the cyclical nature
of history. Gibbon constructs a narrative spanning centuries as events unfold and emperors' successes
and failures occur within the context of a relentless decline of empire. The specific events and
behaviors of individual emperors were inconsequential within the larger framework and pattern of
historical decline. History plods relentlessly onward, driven by the law of large numbers.
Asimov described his inspiration for the novels:
"I wanted to consider essentially the science of psychohistory, something I made up myself. It
was, in a sense, the struggle between free will and determinism. On the other hand, I wanted to do
a story on the analogy of The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, but on the much larger scale
of the galaxy. To do that, I took over the aura of the Roman Empire and wrote it very large. The
social system, then, is very much like the Roman imperial system, but that was just my skeleton.
It seemed to me that if we did have a galactic empire, there would be so many human beings-quintillions
of them-that perhaps you might be able to predict very accurately how societies would behave, even
though you couldn't predict how individuals composing those societies would behave. So, against the
background of the Roman Empire written large, I invented the science of psychohistory. Throughout
the entire trilogy, then, there are the opposing forces of individual desire and that dead hand of
social inevitability."
Is History Pre-Determined?
"Don't you see? It's Galaxy-wide. It's a worship of the past. It's a deterioration – a stagnation!"
–
Isaac Asimov, Foundation
"It has been my philosophy of life that difficulties vanish when faced boldly." –
Isaac Asimov, Foundation
The Foundation trilogy opens on Trantor, the capital of the 12,000-year-old Galactic Empire. Though
the empire appears stable and powerful, it is slowly decaying in ways that parallel the decline of
the Western Roman Empire. Hari Seldon, a mathematician and psychologist, has developed psychohistory,
a new field of science that equates all possibilities in large societies to mathematics, allowing
for the prediction of future events.
Psychohistory is a blend of crowd psychology and high-level math. An able psychohistorian can
predict the long-term aggregate behavior of billions of people many years in the future. However,
it only works with large groups. Psychohistory is almost useless for predicting the behavior of an
individual. Also, it's no good if the group being analyzed is aware it's being analyzed - because
if it's aware, the group changes its behavior.
Using psychohistory, Seldon has discovered the declining nature of the Empire, angering the aristocratic
rulers of the Empire. The rulers consider Seldon's views and statements treasonous, and he is arrested.
Seldon is tried by the state and defends his beliefs, explaining his theory the Empire will collapse
in 300 years and enter a 30,000-year dark age.
He informs the rulers an alternative to this future is attainable, and explains to them generating
an anthology of all human knowledge, the Encyclopedia Galactica, would not avert the inevitable fall
of the Empire but would reduce the Dark Age to "only" 1,000 years.
The fearful state apparatchiks offer him exile to a remote world, Terminus, with other academic
intellectuals who could help him create the Encyclopedia. He accepts their offer, and sets in motion
his plan to set up two Foundations, one at either end of the galaxy, to preserve the accumulated
knowledge of humanity and thereby shorten the Dark Age, once the Empire collapses. Seldon created
the Foundation, knowing it would eventually be seen as a threat to rulers of the Empire, provoking
an eventual attack. That is why he created a Second Foundation, unknown to the ruling class.
Asimov's psychohistory concept, based on the predictability of human actions in large numbers,
has similarities to Strauss & Howe's generational theory. His theory didn't pretend to predict the
actions of individuals, but formulated definite laws developed by mathematical analysis to predict
the mass action of human groups. His novel explores the centuries old debate of whether human history
proceeds in a predictable fashion, with individuals incapable of changing its course, or whether
individuals can alter its progression.
The cyclical nature of history, driven by generational cohorts numbering tens of millions, has
been documented over centuries by Strauss & Howe in their 1997 opus The
Fourth Turning . Human beings in large numbers react in a herd-like predictable manner. I know
that is disappointing to all the linear thinking individualists who erroneously believe one person
can change the world and course of history.
The cyclical crisis's that occur every eighty years matches up with how every Foundation story
centers on what is called a Seldon crisis, the conjunction of seemingly insoluble external and internal
difficulties. The crises were all predicted by Seldon, who appears near the end of each story as
a hologram to confirm the Foundation has traversed the latest one correctly.
The "Seldon Crises" take on two forms. Either events unfold in such a way there is only one clear
path to take, or the forces of history conspire to determine the outcome. But, the common feature
is free will doesn't matter. The heroes and adversaries believe their choices will make a difference
when, in fact, the future is already written. This is a controversial viewpoint which angers many
people because they feel it robs them of their individuality.
Most people don't want to be lumped together in an amalgamation of other humans because they believe
admitting so would strip them of their sense of free will. Their delicate sensibilities are bruised
by the unequivocal fact their individual actions are virtually meaningless to the direction of history.
But, the madness of crowds can dramatically impact antiquity.
"In reading The History of Nations, we find that, like individuals, they have their whims and
their peculiarities, their seasons of excitement and recklessness, when they care not what they do.
We find that whole communities suddenly fix their minds upon one object and go mad in its pursuit;
that millions of people become simultaneously impressed with one delusion, and run after it, till
their attention is caught by some new folly more captivating than the first." –
Charles Mackay, Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds
Many people argue the dynamic advancements in technology and science have changed the world in
such a way to alter human nature in a positive way, thereby resulting in humans acting in a more
rational manner. This alteration would result in a level of human progress not experienced previously.
The falsity of this technological theory is borne out by the continuation of war, government corruption,
greed, belief in economic fallacies, civic decay, cultural degradation, and global disorder sweeping
across the world. Humanity is incapable of change. The same weaknesses and self- destructive traits
which have plagued them throughout history are as prevalent today as they ever were.
Asimov's solution to the failure of humanity to change was to create an academic oriented benevolent
ruling class who could save the human race from destroying itself. He seems to have been well before
his time with regards to creating Shadow Governments and Deep State functionaries. It appears he
agreed with his contemporary Edward Bernays. The masses could not be trusted to make good decisions,
so they needed more intellectually advanced men to guide their actions.
"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses
is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society
constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed,
our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard
of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized.
Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly
functioning society. In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or
business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small
number of persons who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they
who pull the wires which control the public mind." –
Edward Bernays – Propaganda
In Part Two of this article I will compare and contrast Donald Trump's rise to power to the rise
of The Mule in Asimov's masterpiece. Unusually gifted individuals come along once in a lifetime to
disrupt the plans of the existing social order.
" He seems to have been well before his time with regards to creating Shadow Governments and
Deep State functionaries. It appears he agreed with his contemporary Edward Bernays. The masses
could not be trusted to make good decisions, so they needed more intellectually advanced men to
guide their actions."
The masses aren't the ones begging to start all of these wars. They are the ones TRYING to
make a few good decisions. The Shadow Government and Deep State however, are hell bent on getting
us all killed. Who exactly is the problem here??
Asimov was a good writer and created some great fiction. That's as far as it goes.
Huxle LetThemEatRand •Mar 27,
2017 10:50 PM y is the one who predicted the current state of affairs. Orwell gets honorable
mention. You could also throw in some biblical passages for the mark of the beast, though the
best part was clearly written about Nero.
"... By Michael Hudson, a research professor of Economics at University of Missouri, Kansas City, and a research associate at the Levy Economics Institute of Bard College. His latest book is KILLING THE HOST: How Financial Parasites and Debt Bondage Destroy the Global Economy ..."
"... Naked Capitalism ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
"... U.S. presidential elections no longer are much about policy. Like Obama before him, Trump campaigned as a rasa tabla ..."
"... There is a covert economic program, to be sure, and it is bipartisan. It is to make elections about just which celebrities will introduce neoliberal economic policies with the most convincing patter talk. That is the essence of rasa tabla ..."
Nobody yet can tell whether Donald Trump is an
agent of change with a specific policy in mind, or merely a catalyst heralding
an as yet undetermined turning point. His first month in the White House saw
him melting into the Republican mélange of corporate lobbyists. Having promised
to create jobs, his "America First" policy looks more like "Wall Street First."
His cabinet of billionaires promoting corporate tax cuts, deregulation and
dismantling Dodd-Frank bank reform repeats the Junk Economics promise that
giving more tax breaks to the richest One Percent may lead them to use their
windfall to invest in creating more jobs. What they usually do, of course, is
simply buy more property and assets already in place.
One of the first reactions to Trump's election victory was for stocks of the
most crooked financial institutions to soar, hoping for a deregulatory scythe
taken to the public sector. Navient, the Department of Education's knee-breaker
on student loan collections accused by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
(CFPB) of massive fraud and overcharging, rose from $13 to $18 now that it
seemed likely that the incoming Republicans would disable the CFPB and shine a
green light for financial fraud.
Foreclosure king Stephen Mnuchin of IndyMac/OneWest (and formerly of Goldman
Sachs for 17 years; later a George Soros partner) is now Treasury Secretary –
and Trump is pledged to abolish the CFPB, on the specious logic that letting
fraudsters manage pension savings and other investments will give consumers and
savers "broader choice," e.g., for the financial equivalent of junk food.
Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos hopes to privatize public education into
for-profit (and de-unionized) charter schools, breaking the teachers' unions.
This may position Trump to become the Transformational President that
neoliberals have been waiting for.
But not the neocons. His election rhetoric promised to reverse traditional
U.S. interventionist policy abroad. Making an anti-war left run around the
Democrats, he promised to stop backing ISIS/Al Nusra (President Obama's
"moderate" terrorists supplied with the arms and money that Hillary looted from
Libya), and to reverse the Obama-Clinton administration's New Cold War with
Russia. But the neocon coterie at the CIA and State Department are undercutting
his proposed rapprochement with Russia by forcing out General Flynn for
starters. It seems doubtful that Trump will clean them out.
Trump has called NATO obsolete, but insists that its members up their
spending to the stipulated 2% of GDP - producing a windfall worth tens of
billions of dollars for U.S. arms exporters. That is to be the price Europe
must pay if it wants to endorse Germany's and the Baltics' confrontation with
Russia.
Trump is sufficiently intuitive to proclaim the euro a disaster, and he
recommends that Greece leave it. He supports the rising nationalist parties in
Britain, France, Italy, Greece and the Netherlands, all of which urge
withdrawal from the eurozone – and reconciliation with Russia instead of
sanctions. In place of the ill-fated TPP and TTIP, Trump advocates
country-by-country trade deals favoring the United States. Toward this end, his
designated ambassador to the European Union, Ted Malloch, urges the EU's
breakup. The EU is refusing to accept him as ambassador.
Will Trump's Victory Break Up the Democratic Party?
At the time this volume is going to press, there is no way of knowing how
successful these international reversals will be. What is more clear is what
Trump's political impact will have at home. His victory – or more accurately,
Hillary's resounding loss and the
way
she lost – has encouraged
enormous pressure for a realignment of both parties. Regardless of what
President Trump may achieve vis-ŕ-vis Europe, his actions as celebrity chaos
agent may break up U.S. politics across the political spectrum.
The Democratic Party has lost its ability to pose as the party of labor and
the middle class. Firmly controlled by Wall Street and California billionaires,
the Democratic National Committee (DNC) strategy of identity politics
encourages any identity
except
that of wage earners. The candidates
backed by the Donor Class have been Blue Dogs pledged to promote Wall Street
and neocons urging a New Cold War with Russia.
They preferred to lose with Hillary than to win behind Bernie Sanders. So
Trump's electoral victory is their legacy as well as Obama's. Instead of
Trump's victory dispelling that strategy, the Democrats are doubling down. It
is as if identity politics is all they have.
Trying to ride on Barack Obama's coattails didn't work. Promising "hope and
change," he won by posing as a transformational president, leading the
Democrats to control of the White House, Senate and Congress in 2008. Swept
into office by a national reaction against the George Bush's Oil War in Iraq
and the junk-mortgage crisis that left the economy debt-ridden, they had free
rein to pass whatever new laws they chose – even a Public Option in health care
if they had wanted, or make Wall Street banks absorb the losses from their bad
and often fraudulent loans.
But it turned out that Obama's role was to
prevent
the changes that
voters hoped to see, and indeed that the economy needed to recover: financial
reform, debt writedowns to bring junk mortgages in line with fair market
prices, and throwing crooked bankers in jail. Obama rescued the banks, not the
economy, and turned over the Justice Department and regulatory agencies to his
Wall Street campaign contributors. He did not even pull back from war in the
Near East, but extended it to Libya and Syria, blundering into the Ukrainian
coup as well.
Having dashed the hopes of his followers, Obama then praised his chosen
successor Hillary Clinton as his "Third Term." Enjoying this kiss of death,
Hillary promised to keep up Obama's policies.
The straw that pushed voters over the edge was when she asked voters,
"Aren't you better off today than you were eight years ago?" Who were they
going to believe: their eyes, or Hillary? National income statistics showed
that only the top 5 percent of the population were better off. All the growth
in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) during Obama's tenure went to them – the Donor
Class that had gained control of the Democratic Party leadership. Real incomes
have fallen for the remaining 95 percent, whose household budgets have been
further eroded by soaring charges for health insurance. (The Democratic
leadership in Congress fought tooth and nail to block Dennis Kucinich from
introducing his Single Payer proposal.)
No wonder most of the geographic United States voted for change – except for
where the top 5 percent, is concentrated: in New York (Wall Street) and
California (Silicon Valley and the military-industrial complex). Making fun of
the Obama Administration's slogan of "hope and change," Trump characterized
Hillary's policy of continuing the economy's shrinkage for the 95% as "no hope
and no change."
Identity Politics as Anti-Labor Politics
A new term was introduced to the English language: Identity Politics. Its
aim is for voters to think of themselves as separatist minorities – women,
LGBTQ, Blacks and Hispanics. The Democrats thought they could beat Trump by
organizing Women for Wall Street (and a New Cold War), LGBTQ for Wall Street
(and a New Cold War), and Blacks and Hispanics for Wall Street (and a New Cold
War). Each identity cohort was headed by a billionaire or hedge fund donor.
The identity that is conspicuously excluded is the working class. Identity
politics strips away thinking of one's interest in terms of having to work for
a living. It excludes voter protests against having their monthly paycheck
stripped to pay more for health insurance, housing and mortgage charges or
education, or better working conditions or consumer protection – not to speak
of protecting debtors.
Identity politics used to be about three major categories: workers and
unionization, anti-war protests and civil rights marches against racist Jim
Crow laws. These were the three objectives of the many nationwide
demonstrations. That ended when these movements got co-opted into the
Democratic Party. Their reappearance in Bernie Sanders' campaign in fact
threatens to tear the Democratic coalition apart. As soon as the primaries were
over (duly stacked against Sanders), his followers were made to feel unwelcome.
Hillary sought Republican support by denouncing Sanders as being as radical as
Putin's Republican leadership.
In contrast to Sanders' attempt to convince diverse groups that they had a
common denominator in needing jobs with decent pay – and, to achieve that, in
opposing Wall Street's replacing the government as central planner – the
Democrats depict every identity constituency as being victimized by every
other, setting themselves at each other's heels. Clinton strategist John
Podesta, for instance, encouraged Blacks to accuse Sanders supporters of
distracting attention from racism. Pushing a common economic interest between
whites, Blacks, Hispanics and LGBTQ always has been the neoliberals' nightmare.
No wonder they tried so hard to stop Bernie Sanders, and are maneuvering to
keep his supporters from gaining influence in their party.
When Trump was inaugurated on Friday, January 20, there was no pro-jobs or
anti-war demonstration. That presumably would have attracted pro-Trump
supporters in an ecumenical show of force. Instead, the Women's March on
Saturday led even the pro-Democrat
New York Times
to write a
front-page article reporting that white women were complaining that they did
not feel welcome in the demonstration. The message to anti-war advocates,
students and Bernie supporters was that their economic cause was a distraction.
The march was typically Democratic in that its ideology did not threaten the
Donor Class. As Yves Smith wrote on
Naked Capitalism
: "the track
record of non-issue-oriented marches, no matter how large scale, is poor, and
the status of this march as officially sanctioned (blanket media coverage when
other marches of hundreds of thousands of people have been minimized, police
not tricked out in their usual riot gear) also indicates that the officialdom
does not see it as a threat to the status quo."
[1]
Hillary's loss was not blamed on her neoliberal support for TPP or her
pro-war neocon stance, but on the revelations of the e-mails by her operative
Podesta discussing his dirty tricks against Bernie Sanders (claimed to be given
to Wikileaks by Russian hackers, not a domestic DNC leaker as Wikileaks
claimed) and the FBI investigation of her e-mail abuses at the State
Department. Backing her supporters' attempt to brazen it out, the Democratic
Party has doubled down on its identity politics, despite the fact that an
estimated 52 percent of white women voted for Trump. After all, women do work
for wages. And that also is what Blacks and Hispanics want – in addition to
banking that serves
their
needs, not those of Wall Street, and health
care that serves
their
needs, not those of the health-insurance and
pharmaceuticals monopolies.
Bernie did not choose to run on a third-party ticket. Evidently he feared
being accused of throwing the election to Trump. The question is now whether he
can remake the Democratic Party as a democratic socialist party, or create a
new party if the Donor Class retains its neoliberal control. It seems that he
will not make a break until he concludes that a Socialist Party can leave the
Democrats as far back in the dust as the Republicans left the Whigs after 1854.
He may have underestimated his chance in 2016.
Trump's Effect on U.S. Political Party Realignment
During Trump's rise to the 2016 Republican nomination it seemed that he was
more likely to break up the Republican Party. Its leading candidates and gurus
warned that his populist victory in the primaries would tear the party apart.
The polls in May and June showed him defeating Hillary Clinton easily (but
losing to Bernie Sanders). But Republican leaders worried that he would not
support what they believed in: namely, whatever corporate lobbyists put in
their hands to enact and privatize.
The May/June polls showed Trump and Clinton were the country's two most
unpopular presidential candidates. But whereas the Democrats maneuvered Bernie
out of the way, the Republican Clown Car was unable to do the same to Trump. In
the end they chose to win behind him, expecting to control him. As for the DNC,
its Wall Street donors preferred to lose with Hillary than to win with Bernie.
They wanted to keep control of their party and continue the bargain they had
made with the Republicans: The latter would move further and further to the
right, leaving room for Democratic neoliberals and neocons to follow them
closely, yet still pose as the "lesser evil." That "centrism" is the essence of
the Clintons' "triangulation" strategy. It actually has been going on for a
half-century. "As Tanzanian President Julius Nyerere quipped in the 1960s, when
he was accused by the US of running a one-party state, 'The United States is
also a one-party state but, with typical American extravagance, they have two
of them'."
[2]
By 2017, voters had caught on to this two-step game. But Hillary's team paid
pollsters over $1 billion to tell her ("Mirror, mirror on the wall ") that she
was the most popular of all. It was hubris to imagine that she could convince
the 95 Percent of the people who were worse off under Obama to love her as much
as her East-West Coast donors did. It was politically unrealistic – and a
reflection of her cynicism – to imagine that raising enough money to buy
television ads would convince working-class Republicans to vote for her,
succumbing to a Stockholm Syndrome by thinking of themselves as part of the 5
Percent who had benefited from Obama's pro-Wall Street policies.
Hillary's election strategy was to make a right-wing run around Trump. While
characterizing the working class as white racist "deplorables," allegedly
intolerant of LBGTQ or assertive women, she resurrected the ghost of Joe
McCarthy and accused Trump of being "Putin's poodle" for proposing peace with
Russia. Among the most liberal Democrats, Paul Krugman still leads a biweekly
charge at
The New York Times
that President Trump is following
Moscow's orders. Saturday Night Live, Bill Maher and MSNBC produce weekly skits
that Trump and General Flynn are Russian puppets. A large proportion of
Democrats have bought into the fairy tale that Trump didn't really win the
election, but that Russian hackers manipulated the voting machines. No wonder
George Orwell's
1984
soared to the top of America's best-seller lists
in February 2017 as Donald Trump was taking his oath of office.
This propaganda paid off on February 13, when neocon public relations
succeeded in forcing the resignation of General Flynn, whom Trump had appointed
to clean out the neocons at the NSA and CIA His foreign policy initiative
based on rapprochement with Russia and hopes to create a common front against
ISIS/Al Nusra seemed to be collapsing.
Tabula Rasa Celebrity Politics
U.S. presidential elections no longer are much about policy. Like Obama
before him, Trump campaigned as a
rasa tabla
, a vehicle for everyone
to project their hopes and fancies. What has all but disappeared is the past
century's idea of politics as a struggle between labor and capital, democracy
vs. oligarchy.
Who would have expected even half a century ago that American politics would
become so post-modern that the idea of class conflict has all but disappeared.
Classical economic discourse has been drowned out by their junk economics.
There is a covert economic program, to be sure, and it is bipartisan. It
is to make elections about just which celebrities will introduce neoliberal
economic policies with the most convincing patter talk. That is the essence of
rasa tabla
politics.
Can the Democrats Lose Again in 2020?
Trump's November victory showed that voters found
him
to be the
Lesser Evil, but all that voters really could express was "throw out the bums"
and get a new set of lobbyists for the FIRE sector and corporate monopolists.
Both candidates represented Goldman Sachs and Wall Street. No wonder voter
turnout has continued to plunge.
Although the Democrats' Lesser Evil argument lost to the Republicans in
2016, the neoliberals in control of the DNC found the absence of a progressive
economic program to less threatening to their interests than the critique of
Wall Street and neocon interventionism coming from the Sanders camp. So the
Democrat will continue to pose as the Lesser Evil party not really in terms of
policy, but simply
ad hominum
. They will merely repeat Hillary's
campaign stance: They are
not
Trump. Their parades and street
demonstrations since his inauguration have not come out for any economic
policy.
On Friday, February 10, the party's Democratic Policy group held a retreat
for its members in Baltimore. Third Way "centrists" (Republicans running as
Democrats) dominated, with Hillary operatives in charge. The conclusion was
that no party policy was needed at all. "President Trump is a better
recruitment tool for us than a central campaign issue,' said Washington Rep.
Denny Heck, who is leading recruitment for the Democratic Congressional
Campaign Committee (DCCC)."
[3]
But what does their party leadership have to offer women, Blacks and
Hispanics in the way of employment, more affordable health care, housing or
education and better pay? Where are the New Deal pro-labor, pro-regulatory
roots of bygone days? The party leadership is unwilling to admit that Trump's
message about protecting jobs and opposing the TPP played a role in his
election. Hillary was suspected of supporting it as "the gold standard" of
trade deals, and Obama had made the Trans-Pacific Partnership the centerpiece
of his presidency – the free-trade TPP and TTIP that would have taken economic
regulatory policy out of the hands of government and given it to corporations.
Instead of accepting even Sanders' centrist-left stance, the Democrats'
strategy was to tar Trump as pro-Russian, insist that his aides had committed
impeachable offenses, and mount one parade after another. "Rep. Marcia Fudge of
Ohio told reporters she was wary of focusing solely on an "economic message"
aimed at voters whom Trump won over in 2016, because, in her view, Trump did
not win on an economic message. "What Donald Trump did was address them at a
very different level - an emotional level, a racial level, a fear level," she
said. "If all we talk about is the economic message, we're not going to win."
[4]
This stance led Sanders supporters to walk out of a meeting organized by the
"centrist" Third Way think tank on Wednesday, February 8.
By now this is an old story. Fifty years ago, socialists such as Michael
Harrington asked why union members and progressives still imagined that they
had to work through the Democratic Party. It has taken the rest of the country
half a century to see that Democrats are not the party of the working class,
unions, middle class, farmers or debtors. They are the party of Wall Street
privatizers, bank deregulators, neocons and the military-industrial complex.
Obama showed his hand – and that of his party – in his passionate attempt to
ram through the corporatist TPP treaty that would have enabled corporations to
sue governments for any costs imposed by public consumer protection,
environmental protection or other protection of the population against
financialized corporate monopolies.
Against this backdrop, Trump's promises and indeed his worldview seem
quixotic. The picture of America's future he has painted seems unattainable
within the foreseeable future. It is too late to bring manufacturing back to
the United States, because corporations already have shifted their supply nodes
abroad, and too much U.S. infrastructure has been dismantled.
There can't be a high-speed railroad, because it would take more than four
years to get the right-of-way and create a route without crossing gates or
sharp curves. In any case, the role of railroads and other transportation has
been to increase real estate prices along the routes. But in this case, real
estate would be torn down – and having a high-speed rail does not increase land
values.
The stock market has soared to new heights, anticipating lower taxes on
corporate profits and a deregulation of consumer, labor and environmental
protection. Trump may end up as America's Boris Yeltsin, protecting U.S.
oligarchs (not that Hillary would have been different, merely cloaked in a more
colorful identity rainbow). The U.S. economy is in for Shock Therapy. Voters
should look to Greece to get a taste of the future in this scenario.
Without a coherent response to neoliberalism, Trump's billionaire cabinet
may do to the United States what neoliberals in the Clinton administration did
to Russia after 1991: tear out all the checks and balances, and turn public
wealth over to insiders and oligarchs. So Trump's his best chance to be
transformative is simply to be America's Yeltsin for his party's oligarchic
backers, putting the class war back in business.
What a Truly Transformative President Would Do/Would Have Done
No administration can create a sound U.S. recovery without dealing with the
problem that caused the 2008 crisis in the first place: over-indebtedness. The
only one way to restore growth, raise living standards and make the economy
competitive again is a debt writedown. But that is not yet on the political
horizon. Obama's doublecross of his voters in 2009 prevented the needed policy
from occurring. Having missed this chance in the last financial crisis, a
progressive policy must await yet another crisis. But so far, no political
party is preparing a program to juxtapose to Republican-Democratic austerity
and scale-back of Social Security, Medicare and social spending programs in
general.
Also no longer on the horizon is a more progressive income tax, or a public
option for health care – or for banking, or consumer protection against
financial fraud, or for a $15-an-hour minimum wage, or for a revived protection
of labor's right to unionize, or environmental regulations.
It seems that only a new party can achieve these aims. At the time these
essays are going to press, Sanders has committed himself to working within the
Democratic Party. But that stance is based on his assumption that somehow he
can recruit enough activists to take over the party from Its Donor Class.
I suspect he will fail. In any case, it is easier to begin afresh than to
try to re-design a party (or any institution) dominated by resistance to
change, and whose idea of economic growth is a pastiche of tax cuts and
deregulation. Both U.S. parties are committed to this neoliberal program – and
seek to blame foreign enemies for the fact that its effect is to continue
squeezing living standards and bloating the financial sector.
If this slow but inexorable crash does lead to a political crisis, it looks
like the Republicans may succeed in convening a new Constitutional Convention
(many states already have approved this) to lock the United States into a
corporatist neoliberal world. Its slogan will be that of Margaret Thatcher:
TINA – There Is No Alternative.
And who is to disagree? As Trotsky said, fascism is the result of the
failure of the left to provide an alternative.
"... As Mr. Hudson explained in the piece, the operatives of what Gore Vidal called the Property Party, (which has two right wings,) co-opted each successive movement. Lower middle class and working class people had the Koch brothers funded Tea Party pushed on them. The DNC sponsored "identity groups" quickly sucked all originality out of the various specious "identities" so represented. On the war front, the Pentagon imposed "embedment" upon journalists. In each case, the viewpoints of the "average" person so involved were restricted to vistas guaranteed to promote the "sponsored" agenda. Thus, the present assault upon "alternative" media makes sense from a status quo perspective. It is all about control of the dialogue. ..."
"... Perez only got 235 votes; Sanders' candidate Ellison got 200. The Democratic Party establishment did not "ignore" Sanders by running Perez. They were semi-desperately trying to block him (and his cohort) from advancing on a low rung on the ladder to power. ..."
"... Wikileaks made it plain what the Democrats do to mavericks who win races without a party bit in their mouths. The corruption is institutional, it is their operatives' identity. ..."
"... The "masses of people who have dropped out of the workforce" are old, overweight, have multiple physical deficits and are hooked on at least 2 types of prescription dope. They will not be manning your nostalgia-draped barricades. Not ever. ..."
"... I agree with Hudson's critique of FIRE and the problem of debt in our society. But it is not easy to explain to the general public - which would not recognize the acronym. ..."
"... "Also, while I agree Dems are dominated by Blue Dogs who want to use Wall Street money to run Repub lite candidates in purple states, and that their appeal to identity politics is manipulative and a way to deflect from economic issues," ..."
"... " it does not logically follow that voters do not often think of themselves and their goals in terms of racism or religion or guns. Their are cultural "us v them" identities that have a powerful effect on politics." ..."
"... "We can beat them if we find common sense solutions to our problems and articulate those ideas to our neighbors. We need energy and hard work, but it is not clear that a third party is needed." ..."
"... I also agree that there is no solution, certainly not an evolutionary solution via EITHER of the two parties. ..."
"... The big changes in the USA occurred during the Great Depression as financial reform was introduced, the idea of government infrastructure could provide employment and what I believe is little mentioned, an increased awareness on the part of many that their success was not achieved solely by their own efforts. ..."
"... Many of the USA's post war corporate executives should have remembered that their families struggled during the thirties, and this may have made them more connected with their employees and communities. ..."
"... People are not sheep. We've been psyop'd senseless. "Public relations" began around the turn of the 20th century. It was ramped up by orders of magnitude after WWII. ..."
"... Gore Vidal quotes JFK as saying to him, we've entered an era in which "it is the *appearance of things that matters" ..."
"... Psychology and other social sciences have been weaponized and turned against us. With a facile understanding of the human mind (as if it were nothing but a mere mechanism), immense effort has gone into controlling the inputs in order to control the outputs (behavior). ..."
"... Newly declassified documents from the Reagan presidential library help explain how the U.S. government developed its sophisticated psychological operations capabilities that – over the past three decades – have created an alternative reality both for people in targeted countries and for American citizens, a structure that expanded U.S. influence abroad and quieted dissent at home. ..."
"... Today, "public opinion" is a Frankenstein's monster. Most of my fellow Americans believe in a world that never existed and doesn't exist right now. We can't even agree on what happened to JFK, or MLK, or what happened on 9/11/01. ..."
"... Contra UF, it's not that people are incapable of rational thought; rather, the information we have is hopelessly corrupted. People are acting rationally, but the numerators and denominators have been faked. On purpose. Or did the Russians really do it? ..."
"... It's far more simpler. Charter schools are about following the money. Public schools have seemingly huge revenue streams. Why can't GE get a cut is the thought process? For profit Healthcare was forbidden until 1973 (thanks to Teddy), why not public schools? ..."
"... The HMO Act of 1973 (thanks Teddy and Tricky Dick; bipartisanship at its finest) made it easier to start and run HMOs which faced regulatory hurdles mostly due to financing. Non profits had an easier time of it hence Hospitals named "St X" or "X General." Since the hospital were non profits and employers made deals with the hospitals, health insurance was effectively non-profit. There were gaps, mostly in rural areas. Other changes from the HMO Act of 1973 encouraged profit seeking from denial of coverage to pushing unnecessary procedures or prescriptions. ..."
"... The US Left has been controlled opposition since 1950. There was never a chance it could provide a reasonable and effective alternative. FBI/CIA moles make sure they never will. The Democrats have never been true Left FDR didn't really betray his class, he saved them from their own stupidity. ..."
"... "As Tanzanian President Julius Nyerere quipped in the 1960s, when he was accused by the US of running a one-party state, 'The United States is also a one-party state but, with typical American extravagance, they have two of them'." ..."
"... The identity politics of today lack in solidarity, too. What with Hillary Clinton running the most ageist campaign in memory, Obama breaking the record on deportations, Bill Clinton blowing racist dogwhistles as hard he can and also helping to shepherd a police state that puts Thailand to shame, and the whole of the Democratic Party stoking Russophobia and neoconservative. ..."
"... The diagnosis is mostly correct. But omits the role class bigotry and affluenza with attendant celebrity culture and pursuit of prestige plays. Thus the prognosis and protocol go astray. ..."
"... The wealthy and the politicians don't care about you/us. They care about maintaining any fiction that allows them to keep acquiring. Trump is not the problem; Mercer"s values are The Problem. Trump is the PERFECT reality TV/celebrity fantasy creature to keep the twisted Mercer chariot's wheels turning. ..."
"... Bernie was NOT The Answer. Putting on a mask of concern does not take away the sorrows of empire. As long as the blatant US militarism and imperialism continues we cannot unite the working class. Everything it needs to flourish continues - mass incarceration, join the military or stay in the ghetto, graft and corruption of military/industrial/media complex, no respect for other cultures being swarmed, consumerism. ..."
"... The jobs plan: more prison guards, border agents, munitions makers, soldiers, cops, various bodyguards for the rich and the other useful mandarins to the affluenza-stricken is set in stone. ..."
"... Michael Hudson makes great points but I am still wrestling with his (and others) push back against so-called identity politics as it pertains to this perception of it splintering or at least limiting the Democratic party. The Dems are most certainly a party committed to the ideals of neoliberalism and corporatism. They did not lose this election based on "Russian hacking/emails" and other trite nonsense. ..."
"... The Obama part of maintaining the looting of society status quo. ..."
"... The point about Trump being the US Yeltsin is one very much worth considering, if only because Russia, after much degradation and also suffering, has managed to begin to overcome those shameful and depressing times. May we do so also. ..."
"... Excellent piece. Americans have forgotten that the things they took for granted (40 hour week, humane working conditions, employer provided benefits etc.) were gained by the blood, sweat and tears of their forebears. ..."
"... The Clintons, the Obamas, the Blairs, possibly the Macrons, the Ruttes, even the Merkels of this world are wolves in sheep's clothing. They have come to represent, for increasing numbers, little better than managed decline in apparently safe hands, conducted in plain sight, in the ever narrower interests of the few. ..."
"... Regarding the subject line of the article. I'd say that the Democratic Party has been the "paid loyal opposition" for quite a while. . . meaning they are paid to loose. Given the party's ties to Wall Street and Big Pharma it's pretty clear they mostly work for the same folks that own "mainstream" Republicans so their apparent fecklessness and inability to mount ANY sort of effective opposition, even when they are in the majority, shouldn't be any surprise. ..."
As long as the people of America had a reasonable expectation of gaining a better life, or,
the next best thing, that their children would gain that better life, the Social Contract remained
strong. Aspiration was both a spur to striving within the existing system, and a palliative for
most discontents encountered. Where the status quo did not offer any real hope, the Civil Rights
for minorities being an example, more "robust" methods were necessary, and were employed. What
else is civil disobedience but counter violence against the State? Naturally, the State ramps
up it's 'violence' in an attempt to quash the disaffected masses.
In this struggle, optics and expectations are crucial. As Gil Scott-Heron famously invoked;
"The revolution will not be televised." Paradoxically, by ensuring the wide dissemination of images
of the nascent "Revolution," activists ensured that whatever came out of the Days of Rage would
not be a true revolution. The newsreels of colored people bravely enduring police oppression in
the American South guaranteed that that particular issue would not be dumped down Orwell's "Memory
Hole." Television footage of young American men fighting and dying in Vietnam spurred the families
of those who could even potentially be drafted to go overseas to die for their country to take
to the streets and vote against the war and the warmongers. Gay rights is generally considered
to have begun to take form and substance after the "Stonewall Riots" in New York in 1969. See:
https://www.socialistalternative.org/stonewall-riots-1969/
By "going postal," the New York gays declared loud and proud that the old way of doing business
was no longer acceptable to them.
As Mr. Hudson explained in the piece, the operatives of what Gore Vidal called the Property
Party, (which has two right wings,) co-opted each successive movement. Lower middle class and
working class people had the Koch brothers funded Tea Party pushed on them. The DNC sponsored
"identity groups" quickly sucked all originality out of the various specious "identities" so represented.
On the war front, the Pentagon imposed "embedment" upon journalists. In each case, the viewpoints
of the "average" person so involved were restricted to vistas guaranteed to promote the "sponsored"
agenda. Thus, the present assault upon "alternative" media makes sense from a status quo perspective.
It is all about control of the dialogue.
The main strength of the old style identity politics is it's ability to focus the energies
of participants toward a particular goal. To that end, the concept of the "United Front" is useful.
You watch my back, I'll show up at your demonstration is the operative concept. Thus, the development
and widespread dissemination of images of a uniting "struggle" are needed. All of this is actually
self evident. What is needed are "leaders" ready to stand up and shout it out over the rooftops.
When Paul Revere made his famous ride, he was actually stopped by British troops before he
could reach either Concord or Lexington, Massachusetts. A companion, a Dr. Prescott made the actual
warnings to the American rebels. Revere and Prescott were members of an extensive Patriot organization.
A Doctor and an Artisan, two usually distinct social classes at the time were collaborating towards
a common goal. A "United Front" made the American Revolution. See:
http://www.biography.com/news/paul-reveres-ride-facts
Today's struggle can proceed no differently.
A Doctor and an Artisan, two usually distinct social classes at the time were collaborating
towards a common goal
"We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately." A bit
of wisdom from the mind of Ben Franklin in the early days of the revolution.
Let us remember, when a college student asked Rep. Nancy Pelosi whether the party might move
toward a more socialistic economic system, she answered, "
We're capitalists. That's
just the way it is. ", and went on to support a return to noblesse oblige, completely failing
to grasp the contradiction between modern neoliberal theology (maximizing shareholder return/profits)
and such niceties as paying a living wage. We the left have a problem we need to attack head-on
– our semantics have been demonized. Socialism is widely disparaged as subordinating individual
will to the state – as tyranny – and the MSM often portrays economic downturns in social democracies
(Venezuela, Argentina) as caused by foolish socialist policies, not broadscale economic issues
(oil glut), or financial stupidity of prior governments (Argentina). I applaud Senator Sanders
for continuing to use the moniker "social democrat" as he has done much to legitimize the word.
We need more. Ich bin ein social democrat.
Oh yes, and I remember wondering when I first read about that "interaction," just what did
Pelosi really mean by Capitalist? As someone else here remarked, she might have been confusing
capitalist with corporatist in her mind.
seeking to impose a doctrine in all circumstances without regard to practical considerations:
1. 'Nancy Pelosi asked whether the party might move toward a more socialistic economic system,
she answered, "We're capitalists. That's just the way it is."
ambrit: Excellent comment. What I would add, though, is that all three of the movements that
you cite had equality as a main goal: Black people wanted equality in civil rights and civil liberties.
The antiwar movement drew strength from the draft, which affected people of all classes (men most
directly) and led to various unequal uses of deferments that are causes of political problems
to this very day. Gay folk also wanted civil rights and civil liberties (although marriage equality
may not be the proper culmination–identity politics gone divergent).
A while back, I read Norberto Bobbio's influential little book, Right and Left. He states that
the main motivators of leftist politics are liberty, equality, and fraternité (let's call it solidarity).
And he points out that leftists usually place equality first. So to animate a new movement, we
have to get back to issues of political and economic equality. The metaphor of The One Percent
is a hint. That hint has to be expanded.
Good point. The American Revolt had it's "Committees of Correspondence." They operated outside
of the MSM of the day. The Civil Rights movement early on had the black churches as sanctuaries
and disseminators of the message. The anti-war movement had both the Underground press and, unwittingly,
later, the MSM of the day proclaiming the problem. In general, each information spreading system
used was not a part of the "Official Version" apparatus.
The point about equality is important. The unmentioned basis of Capitalism is competition.
Competition implies inequality as the outcome. This is not true aspiration, but aspiration's evil
twin, ambition. So, the Left's real uphill slog is going to be to frame the debate about social
policy in an anti-competitive form.
Bashing the .01% is always good fun, but, as many have remarked, and the recent failed Democrat
Party campaigns have demonstrated, a positive goal is needed to really motivate and engage those
of us "on the ground." As earlier remarked, a "Single Payer" healthcare campaign, framed as an
"equality" measure would do the trick. There are doubtless many other issues that would lend themselves
to a similar treatment. Meld these issues into a "Progressive United Front" campaign and we will
begin to see some movement.
In essence, as the earlier socialist and communist thinkers proclaimed, the ownership of the
means of production are a good place to start. Given the unequal distribution of such ownership
however, the next best thing would be the control of the distribution of the fruits of production;
especially germaine with the rise of automation.
I also see the dream ahead of him, beckoning, beguiling, beatifying despite the false realities
around him.
Something to believe in will generally trump something to be fearful of, in the hearts of men.
IMO there's not a practical electoral solution, in the sense of electing a bunch of candidates
at multiple levels of government to unwind or replace all the laws, regulations/lack of regulations,
court decisions, and algorithms that misgovern our lives and misappropriate our wealth.
Building on your comment ambrit@5:29 and Ulysses@8:38:
A – No more than 3 universal issues (Medicare for All; publicly funded tuition for post-secondary
education, training, and apprenticeships; end the wars, for example). Medicare for All is part
of the discussion now and should have a prominent place.
B – Activism continues, as it must and will, in other areas: issues of survival (police violence,
incarceration, homelessness and hunger; minimum wage ); support for activism across issues (Food
not Bombs, ACLU and NLG, Light Brigades, local jail and bail support ); and forward-looking activism
(local sustainable food and energy solutions, workplace and community coops ).
C – Electoral politics that functions as the political arm of the movement for "A" and locally
appropriate subsets of "B" issues. In practical term, this may need to be an insurgency in the
Dem ranks, or more organized Greens, plus coordination with other "third" parties that have a
presence and ballot access in some places.
Then we work on ambrit's:
"You watch my back, I'll show up at your demonstration"
Adding: "We recruit candidates who understand your issues and have policy proposals to address
them, you show up to vote".
I can't find much on the Light Brigades. Who are they?
And my issues at the universal level would be health care for all (with minimal fees and premiums),
free education for all, an end to the endless wars, and, if I may have a fourth, expansion of
Social Security with some big raises to recipients to give people a base income that they can
retire on (or safely go into disability retirement). The money is there for all of these, but
the political will consists of the likes of Paul Ryan and Nancy Pelosi.
Yes: You watch my back, and I'll watch your back. But "back" is defined broadly–we are all
in this together.
Good Comment. What bothers me is there is a lot of conversation about all our issues and proposed
solutions, but I see no actions taking place. There are no leaders on the national level, other
than Senator Sanders. We need a Socialist Huey Long with a big horn and perhaps a little action
like, Act Up" to get things moving. There is going to be a revolt sooner or later. It will get
to a point where ordinary people, especially our young, who will not take it anymore.
Love Hudson, but no one is right about everything.
He accepts as an article of faith that it would be easier to start a new party than win primaries
in Dem party. Not clear at all.
Also, while I agree Dems are dominated by Blue Dogs who want to use Wall Street money to run
Repub lite candidates in purple states, and that their appeal to identity politics is manipulative
and a way to deflect from economic issues, it does not logically follow that voters do not often
think of themselves and their goals in terms of racism or religion or guns. Their are cultural
"us v them" identities that have a powerful effect on politics.
I agree with Hudson's critique of FIRE and the problem of debt in our society. But it is not
easy to explain to the general public - which would not recognize the acronym. And what exactly
is the Hudson platform to address debt or FIRE now? I understand the argument (as I understand
it) that 2009 was an opportunity to use bankruptcy of Wall Street to break up economic olarchy
and write down debt for homeowners. I agree. I am angry and frustrated by the lost opportunity.
I also understand the sly reference to having to wait for the next crisis to get another chance.
Why do we have to wait? This is Hudson's concession that there is no general understanding of
the debt problem or support for Willy-Nilly support for dismantling Wall Street or existing debt
relationships.
I am convinced by Hudson that rising housing prices are a scam for loading debt on people and
raising the burden of a rentier class. But most people who own houses are excited when you tell
them housing prices are going up. What exactly should be our political message.
Some districts have strong evangelical communities and find abortion to be the top issue year
in andvyear out. Some evangelicals stuck with Trump in the hope of a Supreme Court that will outlaw
abortion. How to Dems or a new Hudson party win in those districts?
Politics is a fluid business. Forget coalition building (extremely tough), even finding a message
for one voter (who may be of 2 or 3. Or 4 minds about the world, and change views daily, is tough.
In my view, a Progressive majority must be put together piece by piece, place by place, from
the ground up. Bernie articulated a place to start. The Schumer crowd own the Dems now, but it
is a fragile hold. We can beat them if we find common sense solutions to our problems and articulate
those ideas to our neighbors. We need energy and hard work, but it is not clear that a third party
is needed.
Because we have a political system–from the Fed to the Congress to the media–that is designed
to keep current arrangements in place. Public complacency has allowed this to happen and now only
another systemic breakdown is likely to force change on an entrenched elite and confused electorate.
One might hope that the Democratic party would be the necessary force for reform but it's surely
clear by now that its leadership intends to go down with the ship. Time for the rest of us to
pile into the lifeboats (a third party). And even if one believes there is hope for the Dems,
it's unlikely they will change without some serious threat to their power and that would be a
viable third party. For much of the country's history there were lots of third parties and splinter
movements which is what one would expect from such a diverse population. The duopoly is a very
artificial arrangement.
Sanders should never have taken this third party threat off the table and it is why the Dem
leadership doesn't take him seriously. It's also a reason for some of the rest of us to question
his seriousness. "Don't want to be the Nader" isn't the sort of call to arms that has one putting
up the Che posters.
Did Bernie have a big impact? The mainstream media mostly ignore him and the Dems go out of
their way to ignore him by running Perez. And didn't the Bernie endorsed primary challengers in
the last cycle do poorly?
You will only get the elites' attention by threatening their power, not their message. Obviously
establishing a viable third party is extremely difficult which is why I agree with Hudson that
it will take the next crisis to change things. Incrementalism has been shown not to work.
Perez only got 235 votes; Sanders' candidate Ellison got 200. The Democratic Party establishment
did not "ignore" Sanders by running Perez. They were semi-desperately trying to block him (and
his cohort) from advancing on a low rung on the ladder to power.
Primary challenges across the nation, in every city council and state assembly race. Again
and again. Then on to the governorships and federal offices. This is the swiftest, least expensive
and least damaging way to power for Sanders partisan. We could take over the party in under ten
years if this tactic were widely deployed.
Wikileaks made it plain what the Democrats do to mavericks who win races without a party bit
in their mouths. The corruption is institutional, it is their operatives' identity. A successful
third party will be very difficult to achieve, but is perhaps possible. A useful Democratic party
is not possible until every careerist is unemployed–ie until their employers run out of money.
That can't come about, as long as there are empowered Democrats and Republicans.
Primary challenges across the nation, in every city council and state assembly race. Again
and again. Then on to the governorships and federal offices. This is the swiftest, least expensive
and least damaging way to power for Sanders partisan. We could take over the party in under
ten years if this tactic were widely deployed.
I agree with this statement.
And it's happening: various groups (Our Revolution, Brand New Congress, Justice Democrats,
and probably others) are planning primary challengers in just that way. And it's already happened
at the
local and district level in California. It's a different political environment than even just
a few years ago and it will be even still more different when some (or, let's hope, many)
of these candidates start winning.
The real problem is corporatism. The power to make decisions on public policy has been transferred
from democratic government to corporations, run by oligarchs. Both political parties in the US
are committed to this political arrangement. The thin veneer of democracy is used to check public
dissatisfaction. In short order, even this facade will be deemed unnecessary and discarded. This
consolidation of power was enabled by masking class consciousness. Worker aspirations mirror their
corporate masters. Life consists of maximizing personal wealth in the form of money and possessions.
Mass media provides the conduit to achieve this conditioning.
Trying to rebuild the Democratic party form within is a waste of energy and time that most
citizens don't have. If anything, the existing political establishment has perfected the techniques
and tools needed to make dissent impotent. This is largely accomplished by perpetuating the myth
that change can occur by working within the existing system, and then undermining effective policy
that would focus on worker interests. The chumps get scraps.
In the end, oligarchy is the cost that must be paid for our modern life of convenience and
endless entertainment. Moving forward must be about rejection. Rejection of the current social
and cultural order. A new party, a true workers party, is needed to restore equilibrium to the
existing power imbalance. The mass of people who have dropped out of the workforce and electoral
system are waiting for leadership to offer a better vision for the future. This vision is not
forthcoming because the human imagination must turn outside the existing failed norms and seek
new horizons removed from capitalist ideology. Political power follows or grows naturally from
a social order, not the other way around. Imposed social orders are always unstable and need violence
to maintain. A way of life determines the political possibilities. This is why those wanting change
must always work outside the existing system, both mentally and physically.
Just as crony capitalist ideology turned the notion of individual freedom on its head to justify
the greatest inequality known to human societies, the remedy centers on the rejection of exploitive
violence. It is based on preservation, regeneration, and a spiritual awareness that one must give
back to the world and not only take from it. To my mind, coalitions built on these principles
stretch across all social groups. Spending time, money, and energy building these networks and
infrastructure will be productive and longer lasting. Strikes, boycotts, and dropping out of the
existing system sends a much more powerful message to the oligarchs. They will respond with violence,
but then their true nature is open for all to see, making it easier for others to reject their
ideology.
Capitalism was born of Feudalism. Individual rights superseding the rights of Kings. Nothing
lasts forever. A post- capitalist world must be first envisioned and then articulated. Capitalism
maintained the inequality and hierarchical use of violence of the previous system. This relationship
forms most of the underlying root causes of intractable problems faced today. Egalitarianism provides
a way and an alternative. Socialist ideas can be suppressed but never eradicated. Human social
evolution points in this direction. Slavery will never return. The human spirt will not allow
it.
What a cavalier and condescending dismissal. With an arrogant wave of the hand, history goes
*poof*. And though you "agree" (how generous of you!) )with some of the symptoms Hudson identifies,
you categorically deny what he identifies as the root systemic cause of those ills. Instead, a
little modest, cautious, sensible, "piece by piece", "place by place" reform around the edges,
and everything will work out just fine in its own time, because abortion.
You are an exemplary and model Democrat, and Exhibit A why left politics will never emerge
from within the Democrat Party.
although it may be an uphill climb now, striking and unionizing still sounds infinitely less
pie in the sky and far more brass tacks and addressing some of the actual problems, than creating
a 3rd party in the U.S.. If that is one's solution they have no right to criticize anyone on their
proposals not being practical. At least striking has some history of actually working.
It is the participation in our own destruction that I am trying to express and get my head
around. Engagement by all means, but somehow the rules need to be changed.
The amount of time, energy, and resources needed to engage in effective politics today is prohibitive
to most citizens. What Hudson is saying is that the two party system in America is broken and
the only way forward is to start anew. I would tend to agree. In my lifetime, the Democratic party
has been reforming for close to 40 years now. That is a long time to be ineffectual concerning
worker's interests. The long dissent of the American workforce is reaching critical mass and some
radical thinking and action is needed.
The left needs to develop some productive alternatives, which again Hudson points out. An egalitarian
alternative needs to be articulated. Candidates running for office as socialists, espousing actual
socialist ideals. Win or loose, speaking in public about socialist ideals can only help. Government
sponsorship of small business and cooperatives over monopolistic corporations. Actually running
and building sustainable communities. As was stated in comments, Sanders raised upwards of 240
million dollars during the last campaign. What is there to show for all that effort and resource
depletion?
An actual show of distain for the elite ruling class for their crass barbarism and masked cruelty
is a start. Followed by actually building something of lasting value.
The "masses of people who have dropped out of the workforce" are old, overweight, have multiple
physical deficits and are hooked on at least 2 types of prescription dope. They will not be manning
your nostalgia-draped barricades. Not ever.
alrighty, everyone who can't get a job is overweight and a drug addict and unhealthy etc..
Get real. Old sometimes has something to do with it, just because companies do age discriminate
in hiring.
I agree with Hudson's critique of FIRE and the problem of debt in our society. But it is
not easy to explain to the general public - which would not recognize the acronym.
People are not a miniscule fraction as stupid as you think they are, and I will posit that this
is one of, if not the main problem with democrat loyalists such as yourself.
first you say this
"Also, while I agree Dems are dominated by Blue Dogs who want to use Wall Street money to
run Repub lite candidates in purple states, and that their appeal to identity politics is manipulative
and a way to deflect from economic issues,"
shorter, I realize democrats don't represent you, and that's too bad but you have no other option
and PH doesn't want you to have another option.
followed by
" it does not logically follow that voters do not often think of themselves and their goals
in terms of racism or religion or guns. Their are cultural "us v them" identities that have a
powerful effect on politics."
Is this unmoored jab at rural identity not a double negative that can be rephrased "it logically
follows that voters think of themselves in terms of racism or religion or guns"? and isn't that
just another way of saying people are stupid and you are not because you can hide your class and
race bias behind a double negative, and people being stupider than you will never know it because
clever, but clever ain't working anymore, and isn't likely to start working any time soon.
You
close with a call for incrementalism yeah that's worked really great for all of us in the hoi
polloi, and you don't fail to mention abortion, the only democrat platform, and schumer et al's
"fragile grip" is in reality an "iron law of institutions" grip and they and you are not going
to let go.
"We can beat them if we find common sense solutions to our problems and articulate those ideas
to our neighbors. We need energy and hard work, but it is not clear that a third party is needed."
so who is this "we" kemo sabe? I am in the veal pen. Come into the veal pen with me. We will be
in the veal pen thanks but no thanks. I've had plenty of common sense discussions with my neighbors,
and it's depressing as we all know none of those sensible policies will be enacted by the useless
to the common citizen and enabler to the criminals on wall street democrat party, rotten to it's
core.
Федеральное агентство по управлению государственным имуществом (Росимущество) was what created
Oligarchs under Yeltsin. It was headed by Chubais who helped make Khordorovsky and the rest of
the Oligarchs incredibly rich. He then headed the 1996 Re-Election Campaign for Unpopular Yeltsin
and bought victory and sold off State assets for nugatory worth.
Khordorovsky was to deliver Yukos to Exxon and let US interests control Russia's natural resources.
Berezhovsky needed a "roof" – he had Chechens protecting his outside interests but once Yeltsin's
liver gave out the KGB Siloviki would put The Family on trial so he found Putin as a Lieut-Col.
with a background in St Petersburg where Chubais had been active for Sobchak also. Putin was the
"roof" to keep the KGB from executing the looters for treason.
Like a new Tsar with Boyars, Putin had to find which were his "Oligarchs" and Berezhovsky turned
his assets over to Abramovich who is Putin's man. Chubais now sits on CFR and JP Morgan Board
for his good works.
Trump won on the slogan Make America Great. I live in upstate NY which is strong republican.
These people thought the slogan meant great for them. That coupled with a bitter hate of Clinton
made it easy for Trump to get their vote. A sad thing is that these voters are very uninformed
and depend on what they know from corporate media especially FOX news. None of them know what
Neoliberal means and that the root of their problems lie with neoliberal policies.
When I tell
them that Obama and Cuomo aren't really democrats but moderate republicans they think I'm out
of my mind. I tend to look at thing objectively based on verifiable facts.Most of these voters
look at issues in an emotional way. They will say Obamacare is bad and need to be repealed. When
you ask them how it's bad the best they can come up with is it forces you to buy insurance and
you can't keep your own doctor. I guess what I'm saying is that the average voter is too lazy
to get informed and relies on the political propaganda fed to them.
At 75 years old I don't see
that the immediate future will change much. The only hope I see is in the young of our country.
Unless someone or a movement can educate them about the evils that are destroying their future,
democracy is dead. Because of how the economy is structured the economic future for most of the
population is grim. They will not be able to afford to retire and will live in poverty. Perhaps
this will wake them up. Unfortunately it will be too late for them.
At best we can work at the margin on the handful of people that are capable of rational thought.
Which is why nothing ever changes, appeals to emotion are always more potent than appeals to reason.
There is no solution.
I also agree that there is no solution, certainly not an evolutionary solution via EITHER of
the two parties.
The big changes in the USA occurred during the Great Depression as financial reform was introduced,
the idea of government infrastructure could provide employment and what I believe is little mentioned,
an increased awareness on the part of many that their success was not achieved solely by their
own efforts.
Many of the USA's post war corporate executives should have remembered that their families
struggled during the thirties, and this may have made them more connected with their employees
and communities.
Now we have a government of the internally connected top 10%, with the bottom 90% detached
and watching from outside.
And CEO's and the executive class have loyalty only to their company's stock price.
The recent rehabilitation of serial screw-up George W. Bush and attempted elevation of serial
screw-up Hillary Clinton is direct evidence that the political class does not care how much harm
they do to the "deplorable" voters they appeal to every 2/4/6 years.
With the money sloshing around DC and the media control of content, how does one replace the
leadership of both parties with more progressive people in any reasonable time frame?
Per Mark Blyth, Global Trump_vs_deep_state is the current response, but what will this morph into after
Global Trump_vs_deep_state hangover manifests?.
I think although it may seem that only a small percent of the population is capable of rational
thought I think this is actually not the case and its more productive (and optomistic) to think
of this issue in terms of a behaviour rather than a fixed capability, like how some ancient Greek
philosophers thought about moral behaviour or how some modern phychologists think about psychopathy.
Almost everyone is capable of rational thought (or moral or psychopathitic behaviour) but its
how often or more precisly in what situations an individual decides to engage in or deploy rational
thought.
Capable of rational thought really doesn't do much good for all the things one has no exposure
to. Ok in this case they may have little real understanding of say leftists ideas. And I really
think they don't. That may not be the case for the political junkies here for political ideas,
but we all have our areas of things (not politics) we may have a similar stupidity about.
Sorry, but I think that's way too disrespectful of other people and not realistic. All, save
those with extreme mental disabilities, are capable of some degree of rational thought. That doesn't
mean they can be quickly or easily convinced, but they will be more amenable to persuasion if
you approach them as equals and open your mind to their reality in order to find the right terms
with which to present your ideas. Bernie has shown himself to be very good at that, as are all
good teachers. Those who insist on framing everything in their own terms without adapting their
communication to another's experience will always get blank stares.
Dehumanizing ("people are sheep") and dismissing our neighbors as incapable of rational (good?)
thinking will get us nowhere. Like I've said, the propaganda is working when we're dividing and
conquering ourselves. That horrid little word often seen in this context, "sheeple," is just another
word for "deplorables."
People are not sheep. We've been psyop'd senseless. "Public relations" began around the turn
of the 20th century. It was ramped up by orders of magnitude after WWII.
Gore Vidal quotes JFK
as saying to him, we've entered an era in which "it is the *appearance of things that matters"
(emphasis original in the TRNN video,
The National Security State with Gore Vidal ). Psychology and other social sciences have been
weaponized and turned against us. With a facile understanding of the human mind (as if it were
nothing but a mere mechanism), immense effort has gone into controlling the inputs in order to
control the outputs (behavior).
Newly declassified documents from the Reagan presidential library help explain how the U.S.
government developed its sophisticated psychological operations capabilities that – over the
past three decades – have created an alternative reality both for people in targeted countries
and for American citizens, a structure that expanded U.S. influence abroad and quieted dissent
at home.
Today, "public opinion" is a Frankenstein's monster. Most of my fellow Americans believe in
a world that never existed and doesn't exist right now. We can't even agree on what happened to
JFK, or MLK, or what happened on 9/11/01.
Contra UF, it's not that people are incapable of rational thought; rather, the information
we have is hopelessly corrupted. People are acting rationally, but the numerators and denominators
have been faked. On purpose. Or did the Russians really do it?
Once again, TPTB thought they had found a magic method of machining people into permanent compliance.
But they neglected the fact that relying on psyops drives people crazy. You just can't keep rejecting
real reality and substituting a manufactured Narrative (looking at you, NYT) forever.
ISTM we're acting without sufficient contact with reality. The effort to control the population,
the better to exploit us, has driven many of us mad. Neglecting the century or so of effort that's
gone into manufacturing consent leads to blaming the victims.
Propagandists and PSYOPeratives have put out the people's eyes, and you berate them for their
blindness?
While I would absolutely agree with everything you've just said and believe the facts you've
cited are the main reason for the bleak outlook for our species, how the myriad of lies fed to
the population is received is a more complex process than just plain deception. People are incredibly
complex and operate on a number of levels simultaneously. For instance the notion that universal
health care or a strong union would be personally beneficial, or that the banking system is corrupt
and that all the wars since 1945 have been unnecessary must be known to anyone with functioning
eyes and ears on a relatively conscious level, but the majority have chosen to effectively overlook
this reality I believe for reasons that ultimately feed in to human predispositions for conformity.
It's ironic that our evolutionary highly successful nature of collectivism is now working against
us as a species and leading to a destructive subservience that is almost sadomasochistic. If the
population were to be unequivocally presented with reality I doubt many would tolerate the state
we have now but conversely this would mean that the elite in our society had sanctioned truthfulness,
so we would not really be going against the wishes of the powerful. Basically the fact that the
powerful in our society have presented us with lies means lies are what they want us to believe,
so dutifully most will oblige, however obviously at odds with reality those lies are.
Why such an overwhelming percent of the population do not vote in their own economic interest
is because political affiliations seem to be a complex expression of self-identity, something
which includes attitudes, social prejudices and 'beliefs' that are dependent on complex emotional
interactions between internal and external events, and can include for instance a desire for status
within your tribe, family loyalty, even sadistic impulses. I;m probably wrong about most of this
but part of me cant help feeling some of the victims share a little of the blame
>> For instance the notion that universal health care or a strong union would be personally
beneficial, or that the banking system is corrupt and that all the wars since 1945 have been unnecessary
must be known to anyone with functioning eyes and ears on a relatively conscious level, but the
majority have chosen to effectively overlook this reality I believe for reasons that ultimately
feed in to human predispositions for conformity.
You're projecting your knowledge and views, and then blaming people who don't see things your
way. A majority supports single payer, yes, but the rest is wishful thinking.
If you read Zinn's A People's History of the US, you'll see that even WWII was a manufactured
war. I'm willing to bet a majority still thinks we were attacked out of the blue on Pearl Harbor
Day, despite FDR's plan to provoke Japan. Or that incinerating Nagasaki and Hiroshima ended the
war and saved tens of thousands of US lives. There was an almost perfectly complete news blackout
on the aftermath specifically so that opposition to the bombings couldn't form. There are endless
examples like this.
We're not told what we need to know to govern ourselves. What we are told amounts to propaganda,
sometimes explicitly so.
Yes, a lot of people have drunk the koolaid, some with gusto. Who's pouring it? You can blame
the victims all you like. I blame the people who've deliberately set out to deceive us.
What our deluded brothers and sisters need is our compassion. It's hard to have compassion
for someone trying to run you over for exercising your rights (been there, done that), but no
one ever said it would be easy.
The only hope I see is in the young of our country.
I think Trump, the Repubs and most of the Dems see that too. That's why they've promoted DeVos,
Arnie Duncan, and all the other advocates of "charter schools," strangled public education, and
attacked teachers.
The problem with this approach is that all this does is kill off liberal cosmopolitanism, not
Marxism. Marxism doesn't need a widespread secondarily-educated population to spread. And it definitely
does not need liberal cosmopolitanism as a stepping stone; quite the opposite, really. Just in
the US, when the wobblies and Black Panthers started turning red, how many of their rank and file
went to college or even finished high school?
Considering that the elites are using liberal cosmopolitanism to strangle Marxism (class-only
Marxists want to throw women and nonwhites under the bus to get their single-payer and you, the
woke liberal identitarian, must support capitalism to protect the marginalized), this strategy
is not only pointless but it's also self-defeating.
It's far more simpler. Charter schools are about following the money. Public schools have seemingly
huge revenue streams. Why can't GE get a cut is the thought process? For profit Healthcare was
forbidden until 1973 (thanks to Teddy), why not public schools?
The HMO Act of 1973 (thanks Teddy and Tricky Dick; bipartisanship at its finest) made it easier
to start and run HMOs which faced regulatory hurdles mostly due to financing. Non profits had
an easier time of it hence Hospitals named "St X" or "X General." Since the
hospital were non
profits and employers made deals with the hospitals, health insurance was effectively non-profit.
There were gaps, mostly in rural areas. Other changes from the HMO Act of 1973 encouraged profit seeking
from denial of coverage to pushing unnecessary procedures or prescriptions.
There is a noticeable correlation between this act and the explosion of Healthcare costs.
The Miller Center had a series on Nixon expressing doubts to the Kaiser about HMOs. The arguments
played out just like charter schools today.
I recall hearing the tape of a conversation among Nixon and his aides regarding HMOs. The audio,
like most of the Johnson & Nixon tapes, was poor, but what did come through was Nixon's support
for Kaiser's business model, summed up by Erlichman as, "the less care they give them, the more
money they make."
The US Left has been controlled opposition since 1950. There was never a chance it could provide
a reasonable and effective alternative. FBI/CIA moles make sure they never will. The Democrats
have never been true Left FDR didn't really betray his class, he saved them from their own stupidity.
"As Tanzanian President Julius Nyerere quipped in the 1960s, when he was accused by the US
of running a one-party state, 'The United States is also a one-party state but, with typical American
extravagance, they have two of them'."
I seem to recall that the identity politics of yore were lacking in solidarity. The antiwar protestors, some of whom were hippies, were beaten up by working class union members.
Remember the hard hat riots? And the African American leadership of the Civil Rights era? Well, they were from the black
churches, and they thought that the hippies were uncouth.
The identity politics of today lack in solidarity, too. What with Hillary Clinton running the
most ageist campaign in memory, Obama breaking the record on deportations, Bill Clinton blowing
racist dogwhistles as hard he can and also helping to shepherd a police state that puts Thailand
to shame, and the whole of the Democratic Party stoking Russophobia and neoconservative.
A cynic might say that liberal identity politics (as opposed to post-Frankfurt/Focault Marxist
identity politics) was intentionally designed to do these things both in the 60-70s and now.
I don't see how antiwar protestors qualify as identity politics, since the group is defined
by a policy concern, not by some quasi-biological tag. Same with working class union members;
policy and economic interests, not tags.
I'd say the same about the African American leadership of the Civil Rights era, even though
they did generally share the tag of being "black". They focused on a policy goal and welcomed
those who didn't share the tag to participate in the struggle.
Identity politics are not the same thing as left-wing or progressive or liberal (or whatever
you want to call it) politics. In very real sense, Identity politics are a form of anti-politics
since they don't address interests, policy or allow any form of accommodation or reconciliation
of different points of view.
Identity politics is about tags. Non-identity politics is about interests and policies.
But the focus is on the policy issues. The campaign for gay marriage was about getting gay
marriage, not about being gay. And anyone who supported gay marriage was a part of that campaign
- gay, straight, black, white, male, female; all the tags. It may have started with those who
were gay, but it wasn't exclusive to the tag.
By contrast, Hillary's campaign was just about the tags. Not doing anything for those with
the tags, or changing any policies, no matter how they affected various tags, or even addressing
any issues that are important to one or more of the tags, just acknowledging the tags and verbally
supporting pride in them. That's why even a bunch of people possessing the tags didn't support
her: there was nothing there for them, or, indeed, anyone else outside the financial and imperial
elite.
Abernathy and King were from black churches. The rest of the leadership came from the street
or universities. King's lament about the "white moderate" was code for the "black church." Ministers
were glorified house slaves and liked the big houses. Jim Crow worked for black ministers. If
better of blacks moved to white neighborhoods and more importantly white churches, who would put
money in the collection plate?
With the exception of Jackson when he showed up (he was young), those young black men who were
always around King were Communists and atheists. They didn't broadcast it for obvious reasons,
but a guy like Malcolm X was skeptical of King for real reasons.
Jackson was important because he forced the black churches to get with the program. If there
was a minister successor to King, the congregants might ask questions about their own ministers.
The black church hated hippies, but the real civil rights leadership didn't.
The diagnosis is mostly correct. But omits the role class bigotry and affluenza with attendant
celebrity culture and pursuit of prestige plays. Thus the prognosis and protocol go astray.
The wealthy and the politicians don't care about you/us. They care about maintaining any fiction
that allows them to keep acquiring. Trump is not the problem; Mercer"s values are The Problem.
Trump is the PERFECT reality TV/celebrity fantasy creature to keep the twisted Mercer chariot's
wheels turning.
Bernie was NOT The Answer. Putting on a mask of concern does not take away the sorrows of empire.
As long as the blatant US militarism and imperialism continues we cannot unite the working class.
Everything it needs to flourish continues - mass incarceration, join the military or stay in the
ghetto, graft and corruption of military/industrial/media complex, no respect for other cultures
being swarmed, consumerism.
Bernie picked up Occupy"s talking points (good plagarist!) but left the hurdle of recognizing
plutocracy the same as Occupy did. Plutocracy is democratic as well it just usnt!
What is there to show for 200 million in donations to overcome the Third Way? A new minuet
with the crushing DemocRATic "party".
The war has come home. First step is to admit it. Consistency in VALUES is the left"s primary
directive. There needs to be funerals for both parties not more illusion.
The tax break "fight" will be hilarious. Another example of how our rulers cannot solve a single
problem .
The jobs plan: more prison guards, border agents, munitions makers, soldiers, cops, various
bodyguards for the rich and the other useful mandarins to the affluenza-stricken is set in stone.
You cannot heal a chronic disease without seeing the entirety of its degenerative properties.
We're fighting a nasty virus.
Bernie did not plagiarize Occupy. He had been saying the same things in Vermont for 25 years,
but saying them in ways that lots of very various people connected with.
20 years ago, Bernie lawn signs used to be run over by irate people who knew he was a no-good
dirty Socialist. But because he has consistently framed issues in terms of ordinary people's lives
and because he has always been absolutely honest and forthright, most of those people who flattened
the signs now like and respect him and vote for him. They also pay attention to issues that only
no-good dirty Socialists do in most other states.
"a revived protection of labor's right to unionize"
Do this and everything else will follow - don't do this and nothing will ever follow.
"It seems that only a new party can achieve these aims."
Don't depend on right or left parties. Depend on yourselves: rebuild American union density
(6% unions in private economy analogous to 20/10 BP - starves every other healthy process). Both
parties will come begging to your door.
Here's how to "do this":
[snip]
80 years ago Congress forgot to put criminal enforcement in the NLRA(a). Had union busting been
a felony all along we would be like Germany today. Maybe at some point our progressives might
note that collective bargaining is the T-Rex in the room - or the missing T-Rex .
The money is there for $20 jobs. 49 years - and half the per capita income ago - the fed min
wage was $11. Since then the bottom 45% went from 20% overall income share to 10% - while the
top 1% went from 10% to 20%.
How to get it - how to get collective bargaining set up? States can make union busting a felony
without worrying about so-called federal preemption:
+ a state law sanctioning wholesalers, for instance, using market power to block small retail
establishments from combining their bargaining power could be the same one that makes union busting
a felony - overlap like min wage laws - especially since on crim penalties the fed has left nothing
to overlap since 1935;
+ First Amendment right to collectively bargain cannot be forced by the fed down (the current)
impassable road. Double ditto for FedEx employees who have to hurdle the whole-nation-at-once
certification election barrier;
+ for contrast, examples of state infringement on federal preemption might be a state finding
of union busting leading to a mandate for an election under the fed setup - or any state certification
setup for labor already covered by NLRA(a) or RLA(a). (Okay for excluded farm workers.)
[snip]
Michael Hudson makes great points but I am still wrestling with his (and others) push back
against so-called identity politics as it pertains to this perception of it splintering or at
least limiting the Democratic party. The Dems are most certainly a party committed to the ideals
of neoliberalism and corporatism. They did not lose this election based on "Russian hacking/emails"
and other trite nonsense.
Nor did they lose it by appealing to so-called identity politics or
tribalism. If the Left is going to move forward effectively it can't pretend we are merely having
class and by extension economic arguments. Race is the thru line and has consistently been since
the countries inception. Many things cited i.e. the New Deal, pro-Union policy, etc are standard
bearers on the Left but have also been rife with racist treatment of potential Black and Latino
allies. Why would that be ignored if we are only having conversations of class? Class does not
explain redlining which has economic and social implications.
These are complex issues, but they are not as class focused (solely) as many on the Left would
like to believe. Our failure to speak honestly and openly about it and critique capitalism and
its most malevolent (and seductive form neoliberalism) as being tied to the practice and idea
of white supremacy is why we ultimately will find it more and more challenging to wage a successful
countermovement against it.
Wow. Ok, so since racial bias was written into past economic policy that was intended to address
class issues, addressing class based inequality should just be abandoned?
How about just demanding policy that addresses class based inequality simply be written without
the racial bias? Why is this so difficult to get into the minds of liberals? This is not that
hard.
The refusal to recognize is a nice idea. I've often thought of late that Democrats, or at least
the Left, should refuse to recognize Trump's horrible cabinet appointments, even if the delegitimizing
effect is minimal. Just referring to these people at citizen or whatever rather than secretary
would be some small repudiation, at least.
There's a very long and comprehensive
musing on politics and public dialog at slatestarcodex. My takeaway: if your dialog is weaponized,
if you consider your mission to be "How do I force these people to admit that I'm right?" then
you'll keep seeing the same results we see now.
Been saying #TrumpIsObamaLegacy since early morning in November. Yves was WAAAAY ahead of the curve back in late 08 calling that out.
The Obama part of maintaining the looting of society status quo.
The point about Trump being the US Yeltsin is one very much worth considering, if only because
Russia, after much degradation and also suffering, has managed to begin to overcome those shameful
and depressing times. May we do so also.
Great summary, forwarding to friends.
As commented above, progressive candidates that Bernie backed did not do well. Neolib always willing
to boost funding for any candidate of any party if primary challenged by a progressive. Takeover
of state party machinery e.g. Ca did have some success, but pretty slow.
Third party seems both the only way and imo more doable than many think unlike in the past,
electorate is now desperate for real change. Third party impossible until probable. IMO we are
now at just such a point.
But neolib will fight tooth and nail to keep a progressive party off the ballot....
progressive candidates that Bernie backed did not do well.
I'm not so sure about that. Here's the list of candidates backed by Our Revolution (not precisely
the same as Sanders, but close). I didn't bother to do an exact count, but it appears that the
winners exceed the losers by about 6 to 5.
The Republicans control a majority of the state legislatures, governorships, and both houses
of Congress. Compared to the establishment Democratic Party as a whole, the Sanders people in
Our Revolution are doing pretty well. A new party isn't required; we just need some new people
in charge of the Democratic Party. Heck, a lot of the same people could remain in charge, so long
as they change their attitudes and stop obeying Wall Street and the billionaires.
Excellent piece. Americans have forgotten that the things they took for granted (40 hour week,
humane working conditions, employer provided benefits etc.) were gained by the blood, sweat and
tears of their forebears.
Today, as the attack on what's left
of employee protections and benefits is ramped up, people are alienated from one another and encouraged
to channel their despair and anger into blaming scapegoats or invest their energy stoking paranoid
delusions about the illuminati and Russian agents. If that gets boring there's always alcohol
and heroin to take the edge off.
The left has a momentous job – it has to convince people to give a shit and think of their
fate as intertwined with others in a similar position. After decades of neoliberal economics empathy
and giving a shit are associated with weakness and losers in many people's minds. Nobody wants
to give a shit about anyone outside their preferred identity group or groups but everyone wants,
demands , others give a shit about them.
It's almost comical how self-defeating and illogical people can be.
My belief is that Trump (and his kin) is likely the 'apotheosis' of neoliberalism or, as is
far less likely, he (or they) might pleasantly surprise us.
Like Brexit in the UK, I for one, hopefully not mistakenly, mark this anti establishment ascendency
as the beginning of the end of neoliberal economics rather than a further ringing endorsement
ie I fully accept things may have to get worse before they get better.
People mostly vote to maintain a status quo they believe serves or may serve their interests
in the future or, increasingly in the case of ever plausible (to the trusting and naďve) neoliberalism,
out of misplaced hope, desperation, exasperation or understandable fear of the unknown.
The Clintons, the Obamas, the Blairs, possibly the Macrons, the Ruttes, even the Merkels of
this world are wolves in sheep's clothing. They have come to represent, for increasing numbers,
little better than managed decline in apparently safe hands, conducted in plain sight, in the
ever narrower interests of the few.
Unfortunately events are conspiring to demand the once virtuous, now vicious, circle be broken
by fair means or foul.
It seems that only a new party can achieve these aims. At the time these essays are going
to press, Sanders has committed himself to working within the Democratic Party. But that stance
is based on his assumption that somehow he can recruit enough activists to take over the party
from Its Donor Class.
I suspect he will fail. In any case, it is easier to begin afresh than to try to re-design
a party (or any institution) dominated by resistance to change, and whose idea of economic
growth is a pastiche of tax cuts and deregulation. Both U.S. parties are committed to this
neoliberal program – and seek to blame foreign enemies for the fact that its effect is to continue
squeezing living standards and bloating the financial sector.
I couldn't have said it better myself. Its encouraging to know that minds like Hudson's are
thinking in these terms.
Regarding the subject line of the article. I'd say that the Democratic Party has been the "paid
loyal opposition" for quite a while. . . meaning they are paid to loose. Given the party's ties
to Wall Street and Big Pharma it's pretty clear they mostly work for the same folks that own "mainstream"
Republicans so their apparent fecklessness and inability to mount ANY sort of effective opposition,
even when they are in the majority, shouldn't be any surprise.
The question might more appropriately
be can EITHER party survive Trump? Frankly, one can only HOPE that the current version of the
Democratic Party DOES go the way of the Whig Party. I can only hope that the Republicans stay
as gridlocked as they currently are by the stupid faction of their party.
The Dems and The Repubs are
BOTH
austerity mongers. They both want to
starve the 99% and wage trillion dollar wars. The spoiler effect induced two
party system is what sustains the Deep State.
Of the now literally
hundreds of "fancy" voting methods all over the Internet, strategic hedge
simple score voting is the only one that specifically enables the common
voters to win elections against the two-party empowered Deep State. (All of
the many others treat elite interest involved elections as if they were
casual "hobby club" elections.)
Too bad we don't have simple score voting. Then we could give between 1
and 10 votes to many candidates. But no votes at all for Hillary the war
monger. We might place 8 votes for Bernie (since he is less bad than Hillary
(or more accurately, was previously though to be)), 10 write-in votes for
Jesse Ventura, and 10 write-in votes for Dennis Kucinich.
Strategic hedge simple score voting can be described in one simple
sentence: Strategically bid no vote at all for undesired candidates (ignore
them as though they did not exist), or strategically cast from one to ten
votes (or five to ten votes, for easier counting) for any number of
candidates you prefer (up to some reasonable limit of, say, twelve
candidates, so people don't hog voting booths), and then simply add all the
votes up.
We must also abolish Deep State subvertible election machines ("computer
voting"), and get back to had counted paper ballots, with results announced
at each polling station just prior to being sent up to larger tabulation
centers.
b. Excellent post. The same phenomenon is occurring throughout the Atlantic
Alliance. This indicates that all share something in common. It is the
neo-liberal economic philosophy of the Oligarchy who have purchased western
politicians, media, think tanks and education and are superseding democracy
with corporate supranational rule. Inequality and chaos are hardwired into
the current system.
It's interesting that the Salon piece (essentially the Sanders viewpoint)
was written in response to a Vanity Fair piece (the Clintonite viewpoint)
that ends with the claim that non-Party members share
. . . the belief that the real enemy, the true Evil Empire, isn't Putin's
Russia but the Deep State, the CIA/F.B.I./N.S.A. alphabet-soup
national-security matrix. But if the Deep State can rid us of the
blighted presidency of Donald Trump, all I can say is "Go, State, go."
So that's your Clinton Democrat / McCain Republican viewpoint - aka
"neoliberal-neoconservative fascism." Rather tellingly, the Salon piece does
not include the world "neoliberal" but just rehashes the stale PR-speak of
"liberals vs. conservatives" that dominates mass corporate media in the
United States. In reality, policy in Washington is made by politicians and
bureaucrats who adhere to neoliberal and neoconservative ideologies and who
are really servants of consolidated wealth - the American oligarch class -
and their conflicts merely reflect disagreements among the oligarchs; for
example do Warren Buffett and George Soros and the Koch Brothers see
eye-to-eye on all issues? No, they don't, so their sock puppets like Bush
and Clinton have their differences. However, the neocons and neolibs are
so close to one another as to be indistinguishable
to the average
American citizen:
The main similarity between the two is that they have both become known
as "technofacists", meaning melders of corporate, state and military
power into a few political elites that allow comprehensive control. The
left and the right have marched full circle and met one another.
As blues@5 notes above, fixing the electoral system (paper ballots,
ranked-choice voting, voting districts that are coherent regional sectors,
not octopus-like, maybe drawn along watershed boundaries, etc.) is a key
step in breaking their grip on power.
Another critical issue is using anti-trust to break up the media
conglomerates and destroy the centralized propaganda system that controls
U.S. corporate mass media, in which a handful of Wall Street-owned corporate
monsters dictate what kind of news stories are fed to the American public
via television, radio and print journalism.
These reforms seem highly unlikely, however, in the current political
environment.
What we probably have to look forward to is more likely continued
economic downturn and rising poverty. The deep state and establishment
politicians are not likely to give Trump anything, and will probably try to
push an economic collapse just to make Trump look bad - not that Trump's
policies have much to offer; infrastructure looks dead in the water and at
best will look like Iraqi Reconstruction 2.0 under GW Bush and Cheney. We'd
need an FDR-scale New Deal to turn that around and neither neocons nor
neolibs will ever go for that. Instead we'll likely get infighting and
factionalism, maybe a war between Trump and the Federal Reserve, etc.
Honestly given the rot in the federal government it seems the only hope
is for states to take matters into their own hands as much as possible and
set their own policies on rebuilding infrastructure and creating jobs but
the federal government and their oligarchic corporate overlords are pressing
down on that as well. One hell of a nasty situation for the American people
is what it is, and maybe massive Soviet-scale collapse, and a fundamental
change in government (as happened with Putin in Russia post-Boris Yeltsin)
followed by rebuilding from the ground up is the only way out of this mess.
For too long, I've pointed out that the detailed list of
grievances stated in the
Declaration of Independence
were currently
alive and being carried out by the executive of the US federal government;
and that if the Patriots of 1776 were correct to revolt from British
tyranny, then the US citizenry was just as right and proper to revolt
against Outlaw US Empire tyranny. I expounded that position through the
comments at CommonDreams.org until I was banned because they went against
that website's support for Obama then the Killer Queen HRC.
At the end of the previous thread, I wrote that society has only one tool
to control human behavior--culture--and I've long argued that human culture
in the great majority of its societies is dysfunctional and has been for
quite some time--in what's now the USA, from the founding of Jamestown
onward. My view is the culture has reached a level of dystopia well beyond
the ability of anyone to return it to a functional state and find myself
agreeing with Reg Morrison--
The Spirit in the Gene
--that humanity is
what's known as a plague species, a conclusion shared by some very powerful
minds,
https://regmorrison.edublogs.org/1999/07/20/plague-species-the-spirit-in-the-gene/
I don't particularly enjoy reaching such a conclusion given its meaning
for my progeny and the remainder of humanity. But unless we--humanity as a
whole--can regain control over ourselves through the imposition of a new,
stronger--perhaps seen as more ridged--culture capable of suborning vice and
desire to a satisfactory fitness for all, then we will reap the results of
having grossly overshot our ecological support systems and like other
species die-off as Morrison describes. How to accomplish such a radical
change in a very short time period given the levels of resistance to such
change is really the question of the moment. We know where the root of the
problem lies. But uprooting that weed that threatens the garden of humanity
presents the greatest challenge to humanity it will ever have to face.
The demodogs will not change any time soon if ever. They the party leaders
are only interest taking all the money the can from supporters small and
large giving to friends foundations and consultants.
It's funny that pseudo-Leftists like Dems, PS, Labour, SD and others don't
realize that what Kennedy once said still stands:
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution
inevitable.
Which is why it's no wonder many of those on the shitty end of the current
neo-liberal take-over are flocking to the few really leftist groups and to
the numerous and vast ultra-right parties/movements.
Which is also why trying to keep them out of power at all costs - as happens
in Europe, most notably in France - or trying to impeach/oust/coup/kill the
elected right-wing populist - as happens in the US right now - is a suicidal
move. If that sizable fraction of the population never gets anything, never
any part of power, not even a bone to gnaw, sooner or later, they'll just
get fed up, and when they'll have barely anything of value to lose, they
will go nuts. This, of course, would be even worse in the US than in EU,
considering that it's the part of society with the guns, the training to use
them, and more or less the will to use them if forced to.
But then, as another US president once said, the tree of liberty must be
refreshed in blood from time to time - his one famous quote who's
conspicuously absent from the Jefferson Memorial. And when I look closely, I
can't see any Western country where this "refreshment" isn't long overdue.
You're right, b. Dems will continue to bleed out. A good place to see this
will be the special election to replace in Georgia's 6th CD Rep. Tom Price,
who took the job to be Trump's Health and Human Services Secretary. Daily
Kos and ActBlue are shaking the can raising money for a young Dem staffer
named Jon Ossoff. Here's the Daily Kos
pitch
for Ossof:
But while Price might love him some Trump, his district doesn't feel the
same way. In fact, the 6th saw a remarkable shift on election night. Four
years ago, voters in this conservative but well-educated area supported
Mitt Romney by a wide 61-37 margin. In 2016, however, hostility toward
Trump gave the president just a 48-47 win-a stunning 23-point collapse.
That dramatic change in attitudes means this seat might just be in play.
The "Women's Strike" on International Women's Day was a dud. The Dems are
labeling what they're doing a "Resistance," as if they are fighting a
guerrilla war against Vichy. But what they're "fighting" for is really a
restoration of Vichy (Trump is more a caudillo) with young
corporate-friendly Dems like Ossoff.
Unfortunately, the Greens seem to be hobbled. They can't get
past the Democratic FEAR machine. And Jill Stein's recounts reeked of
collusion with Democrats.
That's why I switched from Greens to Pirate Party. Direct democracy has
appeal to anyone that doesn't want rule by a permanent monied class of
neolib cronys.
Actually I don't agree that the Left has lost. There's simply a lack of
ideas.
The extreme nationalist right goes in the US because geographically
isolated. In Europe it is time limited. In UK Brexit has won for the moment,
but it is falling apart, because it can't deliver economic success. (more to
see). In continental Europe, the extreme right are not gaining in the polls
(Wilders, Le Pen), rather stagnating.
Macron, in france, could have the right attitude, oriented to the young.
But it could turn bad.
The managed resistance serves corporate interests, just as the ruling party
does. Whichever party is in power. Billions of dollars in 1% money and
nearly all the media are behind keeping the 'resistance' and the party in
power the only two 'acceptable' vehicles for expressing yourself
politically.
But it's worse ... The universities are almost entirely populated by
identity politics and/or neoliberal 'left' professors, which of course
generates brain-fried future leaders and cadres of the two mainstream
parties. Such university environments also mean that alternative, real left
research and ideas are severely underfunded and legitimized.
But it's worse ... Even the left opposition to the two party system can't
bring itself to (or is too scared to) oppose open borders for economic
immigrants. Minimizing immigration had always been standard pro-worker
position prior to the rise of identity politics in the 1970s.
"Real wages sink but they continue to import cheep labor (real policy) under
the disguise of helping "refugees" (marketing policy) which are simply
economic migrants."
Sorry B, but this is outright bullshit. No country in EU-Europe needs to
import cheep labor from not-EU-countries. There are more then enough
EU-Europeans in search of better wages. The EU was extended exactly in order
to achieve this 'abundance' (o.k. not the only reason). The people you
denounce as "simply economic migrants" are not an imported good - they enter
the EU against all odds. And many, many are refguees coming from countries
ruined by western military interventions.
Well, if Zero Hedge is anything to go by, in a few years automation will
abolish the working class anyway. Then Bill Gates' depopulation scheme will
mop up the remnants.
"The ship was sinking---and
sinking fast. The captain told the passengers and crew, "We've got to get
the lifeboats in the water right away."
But the crew said, "First we have to end capitalist oppression of the
working class. Then we'll take care of the lifeboats."
Then the women said, "First we want equal pay for equal work. The
lifeboats can wait."
The racial minorities said, "First we need to end racial discrimination.
Then seating in the lifeboats will be allotted fairly."
The captain said, "These are all important issues, but they won't matter
a damn if we don't survive. We've got to lower the lifeboats right away!"
But the religionists said, "First we need to bring prayer back into the
classroom. This is more important than lifeboats."
Then the pro-life contingent said, "First we must outlaw abortion.
Fetuses have just as much right to be in those lifeboats as anyone else."
The right-to-choose contingent said, "First acknowledge our right to
abortion, then we'll help with the lifeboats."
The socialists said, "First we must redistribute the wealth. Once that's
done everyone will work equally hard at lowering the lifeboats."
The animal-rights activists said, "First we must end the use of animals
in medical experiments. We can't let this be subordinated to lowering the
lifeboats."
Finally the ship sank, and because none of the lifeboats had been
lowered, everyone drowned.
The last thought of more than one of them was, "I never dreamed that
solving humanity's problems would take so long---or that the ship would sink
so SUDDENLY."
― Daniel Quinn
On the question of the far right, only if
substantial sections of the political spectrum are shut out is there scope
for the extremists to come in and fill the gap. That is the danger to a
minor degree in England and to a greater degree in Continental Europe, as we
are told it was the danger in the Weimar republic. Some precedent, that.
I am not sure about the "populist" movements in Continental Europe but
the Brexit vote in England and the Trump movement in America do not, in
spite of the almost universal assertion to the contrary, represent a swing
to the right, let alone the far right. They represent a return to the
centre, a centre that has long been shut out in Western politics generally
and that is now tentatively re-asserting itself. It is only if that return
to the centre fails that we need fear the Neo-Nazis and the like coming in
to fill the gap.
Great post, b. Short and sweet and right on the money.
There's certainly a
looming trend. Western Australia's 8 year-old (Turnbull affiliated) Liberal
Govt was annihilated at the weekend.
On Saturday night the interim result was:
Labor 39, Liberal 11, Nats 4, unresolved 5.
(39 seats in a 59-seat parliament)
Malcolm Turnbull is pretending to be 'philosophical' about it...
the 'left' is a gang of 'middle-class' would-be jacobins, directing 'the
masses' while eating cake. there is no left, there is no right, there is a
top - the few - and a bottom - the many. as b points out the desperately
vocal few are left and/or right, they are on their own side of the top,
definitely not on the side of us many on the bottom. their policies create
more and more of us every day. they
are
our fathers and mothers in
that sense. we will dance on their graves.
b, please don't say 'pseudo
democrats' it sounds too jacobin, like the trots at wsws.org and their
constant 'pseudo left'. 'fake' will do for pseudo. and it's two fewer key
strokes - three in the same row. stick with the bottom against the top.
write what you want of course ... that's just a rant roiling my gut
gaining vent.
B in case you do not know (I doubt that) "true left" has been murdered long
time ago also in Europe where betrayal of working class interests by the
so-called mainstream workers parties/socialists, so-called communists and
trade unions in the West was fought on the streets in 1968 Paris and all
over the Europe and surprisingly it spilled out to eastern Europe in a form
of Prague revolt, Warsaw riots and mass strikes that swept across the
eastern block in anger of betrayal of workers interests by the ruling
socialist workers parties who turned into a calcified cliques and turned
against socialist workers movements and ideals of egalitarianism and
equality and started selling out to the Western oligarchs.
It was at that
time that under the guise of fake political detente first time massive
policies of outsourcing jobs from the western Europe to the Eastern Europe
commenced (starting with Hungary and Poland and later in Romania where the
Ceausescu's mafia turn away openly from Russian sphere of influence in
ideological, economic and political realm) in a ploy to provoke strikes in
the West and subsequently shutting down the factories (in fact transferring
the production to the eastern block in Europe and/or south America ruled
under dictatorships) if demanded by the oligarchs concessions of lowering
wages and decrease of benefits was not agreed upon by the Trade Unions.
In other words if Trade Unions did not completely capitulate they close
striking factories. Similar tactics have been use in the US under
environmental or productivity requirements pretension in 1960-tois and
1970-ties and later openly outsourcing for profits down south Mason-Dickson
line parallel and later to Mexico and Asia.
This unified betrayal of working class simultaneously by the West and the
East prompted proud vanguard of working class (leftists students of European
Universities and some of the trade unions) to respond to the exigent
circumstances, to respond to mortal threat to workers movements all over the
Europe in 1960-ties and 1970-ties.
These were unsung heroes of last true revolutionary leftist organizations
such as ETA, BR, RAF, AD, FLQ (in Canada) who took upon themselves a heroic,
revolutionary responsibility for defending vital interests of working
people, betrayed by mainstream leftists political parties, via a measured,
targeted and restrained self-defense campaign that aimed at threatening and
destruction of vital economic and financial interest of European oligarchy
including direct assaults on their personal safety and welfare, as a way to,
through a personal pain, humanize for them their abhorrent inhumane ways and
to make them suffer as working class comrades suffered under their inhuman
policies and acts including of violence, intimidation and murder.
This was the last stand of the true left against evil of spawning global
neoliberalism that in following decades swept the world with no opposition
to speak of left to fight it may be except for neo-Maoist guerrillas in
South America and Indian subcontinent. Even anti-imperial Palestinian FATAH
has been tamed while Islamic/religious movements have been supported to
control leftist tendencies within populations, a consequences of such a cold
decision of globalists we live with today.
This was the last stand of the true left in the Eastern and Western
Europe against betrayal of the Soviet Union elites, betrayal of the programs
and ideals of the international working class struggle they proliferated all
over the world.
It was utter betrayal by the descendants of soviet revolutionaries who
later transformed the hope for just, socialist egalitarian project into a
shallow propaganda façade of a mafia state conspiring with the West to rob
their own working people of the national treasure soviet/Eastern Block
working class worked hard to produce and preserve for future generations.
The betrayal culminated with a western orchestrated political collapse of
Soviet Union while the country was still on sound economic footing despite
of cold war military baggage, western embargoes and massive theft of the
corrupted party apparatchiks and cronies of Soviet ruling elite in last
decade before 1991, in way resembling massive US national treasure theft by
US banking mafia especially after 2008.
It is true that true left in US (decades before) and in Europe had to be
murdered since it was the last bastion of defenders of working class
interests against neoliberal globalist visions of a dystopia under umbrella
of US imperial neoconservative rule.
Now voters throughout the world have only two "no choice" choices between
full throttle globalist neoliberalism or globalist neoliberalism with
national flavor of corrupted Identity Politics of race or nationality, a
politics of division to prevent reinsurgency of the true leftist ideology of
simple self-defense or working class under assault that naturally brews
underneath the political reality of mass extermination and neoliberal
slavery.
The call to International Working Class: Proletariat or more
appropriately today "Precariat of the World Unite" has not been more
appropriate and needed since at least 1848 after collapse of another
globalization freed trade sham under umbrella of British empire.
We must unite, and not succumb to a mass manipulation and stay united in
solidarity among all ordinary working people who see through provocation and
manipulation of identity politics of phony left or phony right and see that
they do not have any interest in this fight set up in a way that ordinary
people can only lose while cruel inhumane neoliberalism will always win.
I contributed to a progressive blog for years until I was finally kicked off
for suggesting Bernie was herding progressives into Hillary's tent. I often
criticized Obama's foreign policy and the local partisan blogs--when they
weren't ignoring the perspective I represented--ridiculed me for being a
"conspiracy theorist" when I pushed back against the anti-Russian consensus.
I spent many years working with chronic homeless people in Montana in the
"progressive" utopia known as Missoula and when the Democrats that run this
town aren't actively making housing more unaffordable with their bonds for
parks and endless schemes to gentrify this town into being Boulder,
Colorado, they are making symbolic stands against guns and enabling Uber.
now I work with aging individuals and I am learning a lot about the cruel
complexity of Medicare and Medicaid. it's already really bad and, sadly, it
will only get worse--just in time for the American Boomer generation's
silver tsunami to hit entitlement programs.
I noticed a lot of British Proletariat have moved to the Costa del Sol
leaving plenty of job openings for the Polish and Roumanian Proletariat. Not
sure if this is a typical European trend.
It reminds me of the attitudes espoused by Ishmael:
"The ship was sinking---and sinking fast. The captain told the passengers
and crew, "We've got to get the lifeboats in the water right away."
But the crew said, "First we have to end capitalist oppression of the
working class. Then we'll take care of the lifeboats."
Then the women said, "First we want equal pay for equal work. The
lifeboats can wait."
The racial minorities said, "First we need to end racial discrimination.
Then seating in the lifeboats will be allotted fairly."
The captain said, "These are all important issues, but they won't matter
a damn if we don't survive. We've got to lower the lifeboats right away!"
But the religionists said, "First we need to bring prayer back into the
classroom. This is more important than lifeboats."
Then the pro-life contingent said, "First we must outlaw abortion.
Fetuses have just as much right to be in those lifeboats as anyone else."
The right-to-choose contingent said, "First acknowledge our right to
abortion, then we'll help with the lifeboats."
The socialists said, "First we must redistribute the wealth. Once that's
done everyone will work equally hard at lowering the lifeboats."
The animal-rights activists said, "First we must end the use of animals
in medical experiments. We can't let this be subordinated to lowering the
lifeboats."
Finally the ship sank, and because none of the lifeboats had been
lowered, everyone drowned.
The last thought of more than one of them was, "I never dreamed that
solving humanity's problems would take so long---or that the ship would sink
so SUDDENLY."
― Daniel Quinn
Life isn't gonna get better for those who are not born into a solidly upper
middle class family until nation states are downsized. amerika needs to be
carved up into 40 or 50 - units maybe even more particularly for the large
population seaboard 'states'. The one good thing about the brexit the
englander tory government is gonna deliver is that it is likely to cause
scots and maybe even ulster-people to leave the union.
I've lived in quite
a few nation states over the years and have found that a small population
state is far more responsive to the needs of its citizens than large ones -
even when a mob of carpet-bagging greedheads has jerry-mandered their way
into political power in a small state and an allegedly humanist political
entity is running the large state this holds true.
As far as I can discern there are two reasons for this or maybe 2 facets
of one reason. Firstly even the rightist greedheads cannot shit on any group
be it divided by race gender or sexual preference long term in a small
population state. The reason is that in smaller population units people tend
to know others better and obvious injustices always reach the ears and
consciences of rightist voters - even supporters of racist or sexist asshole
governments and it results in a backlash. Humanist pols in large entities
fall back on 'pragmatic' excuses about 'perception' at the drop of a hat -
no different in action than their 'enemy'.
The second reason is the other end of the first. Because of that degrees of
separation thing, when you live in a small population political unit, you
find you will always know someone who knows any political aspirant. Those
with a rep for being greedy, malicious or deceitful cannot hide behind press
spokespeople and bullshit for long - they cop the flick quickly.
I have long believed that this is the real motive for the corporatists to
support politicians' incessant centralising & empire building.
Claims about large population groups somehow being more efficient are
quickly shown to be false when put to the test of reality. In nature
biological systems, even those within large entities are localised and full
of seemingly inefficient redundancies because one thing evolution has taught
is that a system that has inbuilt alternative modes of survivability will
keep the entity alive much longer than some 'simple & straightforward'
system whose failure means the death or massive disability of the entity.
Corporations themselves tend to be labyrinthine full of small similarly
named but legally discrete modules because that is what works best, yet
corporations keep underwriting politicians who strive to make their 'entity'
bigger, more centralised and 'simpler' - why?
Well because political failure is a capitalist's best ally and of course
when a political entity is really large as amerika is, it is possible to
deceive all the people all the time. The average citizen is a stranger to
any/all of the members of the political elite and as such are entirely
dependent upon third party information vectors - the so-called mainstream
media who push out whatever deceit their masters instruct them to.
I make the point in this thread because too many people appear to believe
that it would be possible to reform the amerikan political system despite
the fact that helluva lot have already tried and failed long before they got
anywhere near the centre of power.
It just isn't possible because of the simple principle that anyone who is
capable of convincing large numbers of people who he/she has never had any
personal contact with, to support their 'character', ideas and political
objectives is by virtue of their success, unworthy of anyone's vote.
No person can convince that many strangers without resorting to some form
of gamesmanship and that makes them a bad choice. There is no way around
that reality yet most citizens adopt the usual cognitive dissonace every
election cycle and pay no heed to what should be blindingly self-evident.
Finally!...this is where all mericans eyes and ears has to be, i.e if they
still have them...non is so blind as those who refuse to see.Clean your own
backyards before commenting on or trying to clean others.
b's premise is that disenfranchised voters will go the polls for far right
interests under the promise of nationalistic interests and the policy that
springs from this. However, I do not believe that they will rue the day for
this choice from being squeezed out. The Nazi party ascension was a huge
success for bread and butter interests of the common kraut. Autobahn,
infrastructure, industry: this nationalism scared the allies enough to go to
war with Germany for asserting it's independence and own interests. Are we
Weimar Germany? No, no, no. Our military is already to the hilt and yet is
being halted in its advance by Russia, Iran, etc. You can't keep squeezing
the same lemon and expect more lemonade. The only option for Trump is to
invest in America again, period. Anything less or a further downward
trajectory will only incite the deplorables more and Trump would be gone
after four years, and maybe sooner to the clicking of boots marching on the
White House. Something truly unpredictable and unexpected might transpire at
that juncture.
You said:
/~~~~~~~~~~
As blues@5 notes above, fixing the electoral system (paper ballots,
ranked-choice voting, voting districts that are coherent regional sectors,
not octopus-like, maybe drawn along watershed boundaries, etc.) is a key
step in breaking their grip on power.
\~~~~~~~~~~
Actually, what the "election methods cognoscenti" call "ranked-choice
voting" always fails spectacularly. It is quite different than what they
call "score voting", which can actually work, if kept simple enough.
Like other people never heard of Preet Bharara. Appears he was called the
"Sheriff of Wall Street". Looked up his record and yes, he did not put any
banksters in jail. Lots of fines which were tax deductible I believe.
Strange Sheriff who has no jail. I would bet he joins a Wall Street legal
firm and gets paid six-to-seven figures to defend the banksters.
This is where Wall Street feared Sanders--Bernie appeared to insist the
Sheriff's he appointed actually have jails.
A safe bet: next wednesday ultra right-wing Geert Wilders will win the dutch
elections, after the diplomatic row with sultan-wanna-be Erdogan. And then
Marine Le Pen...
In the US, the Democrats and Republicans are two wings on the same bird.
Left wing, Right Wing
The US is a democratic theme park, where the levers and handles are not
attached to anything,
whose only purpose is to deceive the masses into thinking that
they make a "difference"
blues | Mar 13, 2017 12:31:00 AM |
Yep they can be relied upon to be corporate slaves for sure I cannot think
of a single example over the past 50 years of any amerikan pol who succeeded
at a national level, who wasn't a forked toungued corporate shill.
There are plenty of examples of pols whose history at a low level 'seemed
OK' - where their occasional examples of perfidy could be dismissed as just
having to toe the party line; "Once he's his own man/woman he will really
strut his/her stuff for the people" a certain Oblamblamblam comes to mind as
the most egregious recent example - when they get in power everyone gets to
see what whores they always were. Whores concealing their inner asshole to
get into real power. That type of duplicity is much more difficult to pull
off in smaller populations - it gets found out and the pol really struggles
to get past the bad reputation chiefly because a lot of voters can put a
face to the 'victim' which makes the evil palpable.
What I find really odd
is the way that even self described lefties who acknowledge the massive evil
committed by amerika still seek to evade and/or justify the evil.
It goes to show how brainwashed all amerikans are. I guess they think
everyone feels that way - when people who haven't been subjected to that
level of conditioning about their homeland actually don't hold that blind
'right or wrong determination. I like where I live now and everything else
being equal probably would go in to bat for my friends or family if this
country somehow got into a tussle. But I would back off and advocate for the
other side in a heartbeat if I felt the nation I lived in was doing wrong.
I was living in Australia when Gulf War 1 kicked off and up until that point
I doubt there was a more dedicatedly loyal Australian but the cynical
decision to suppoft GH Bush made by the Australian Labor Party just wouldn't
wash and without wanting to be accused of the current heinous crime de jour
ie virtue signalling, I like many others took a stance against my adopted
nation that cost me professionally & personally. This was no great
achievement by me, it was easy because I hadn't been indoctrinated into any
sort of exceptionalism.
Yet I see the effects of the cradle to the grave conditioning amerikans are
subjected to in the posts on virtually any subject made by amerikans.
That of itself makes the destruction of amerika essential, a prerequisite
that must be met if there is to be any real change in the amerikan political
structure.
@ Debsisdead who wrote about ".....how brainwashed amerikans are." and
"
What I find really odd is the way that even self described lefties who
acknowledge the massive evil committed by amerika still seek to evade and/or
justify the evil.
"
I live in the belly of the beast you want to destroy. What exactly is it
that I should do to effect your goal? I continue to struggle with knowing
that. I also disagree that it is amerika that must be destroyed but the
tools of those that control our world.......private finance.
I also want
to state to commenter karlof1 that her call for focus on "culture" is
exactly what I think I am attacking by wanting to end private finance. And I
had the pleasure of studying under an anthropologist for a year and very
much appreciate that perspective on our current social maladies. I think
that anthropological characterizations of our species are harder to
misrepresent than history....hence my reference to tenets of social
organization, etc.
We need some adults in the world to stand up to the bastardization of
language and communication.
Any form of social organization not based on any type of compulsion is
inherently socialistic. If we can agree to socialize the provision of water,
electricity, etc. why can't we do the same for finance?
Probably for the same reason we continue to prattle on about right/left
mythologies and ignore the top/bottom reality.
b, excellent analysis. Amerika is rotten to its core. There are no
cures..... just sit and watch on the sideline for these tugs NeoCon,
NeoLiberal, progressive etc.. Kill themselves and blames it on Putin.
I
hold two valid passports, neither better than the other. Hot frying pans,
hot boiling oil?
b said.."When LGBT claptrap, gluten free food, political correctness and
other such niceties beat out programs to serve the basic needs of the common
people nothing "left" is left. The priority on the left must always be the
well-being of the working people. All the other nice-to-have issues follow
from and after that."
Private finance... most countries have a reserve bank. Yours has the
fed.
Your country has made private money an ideology and tries to export this
ideology around the globe. The opposite extreme to collective communism.
Most countries have foreign policy and foreign ministers. When I looked up
the websites of Your presidential candidates, none had a foreign policy. In
place, all had war policy. Sanders had his titled war and peace.
Most countries have foreign ministers. Your country has a secretary of
state. I guess when you are a country that feels it has the god given right
to rule the world, no country is foreign, all are vassal states.
Your country needs to collapse, or be destroyed, to knock this ideology
out of the inhabitants, and then rebuilt as a normal country.
What the US is now, is just a natural progression of its foundations.
I think there's no left
left for the simple reason that it's role in the system, at least since the
end of ww2, became void after 91. No competing system, no need for niceties,
back to the 30's, plenty of unfinished business, 80 years of taxes to get
back. New Deal and European Social Model are obsolete. The armies of workers
offshored, what is left is a kind of lumpen, busy fingering their
smartphones. A highly educated lumpen, probably the highest educated
generation ever, but lumpen nonetheless, Indoctrinated by all media to
individualism, their atomization seems assured. I wonder if anyone under 30
reads MoA. Might be wrong but looks like most of us are over 60 considering
the muppet like kind of grumpyness that erupts so often.
There are drops in the ocean, in places were solidarity still has strong
roots.
Marinaleda
(sorry, the english wiki sucks, a machine translation from
the spanish wiki is certainly more informative) 0% unemployment, equal pay
to all residents, housing provided through self-building, the city council
provides plot, technical supervision, building materials, charges 15 euros
monthly rent. Collective economy based on farming, husbandry and industrial
transformation of it's products. I repeat, equal pay to all residents 1,128
euros for 35 hours a week. Just a drop in the ocean, but a worthy one.
Elsewhere true social-democracy can be found in Latin America. Nicaragua,
Venezuela, Equador, Bolivia, Uruguay pop up as examples that neoliberalism,
racism and neocolonialism can be defeated, on their terms, even if there are
setbacks like Brazil and Argentina. There one can find rivers of solidarity.
Telesur
english
keeps you up to date, with better coverage on Syria than CNN.
All those USAG's and IG's and NO one wants or has investigated where all
those Pentagon missing trillions went to?
Ditto for the MSM, who use all that print space pushing to let men dressed
as women use the little girl's bathroom. The USA project has failed, it's
Kaput, time to turn out the lights.
The 'Left' has been bought by the oligarchs, just like the media, the NGOs,
the 'human rights' organizations, etc. Tony Blair was perhaps the most
blatant example, especially with his 'third way', undefined by him to this
day. I guess it tried to merge bits from the right such as Nationalism and
bits from the left such as Socialism, but who knows!
I am German but not living in Germany. I am disgusted with my compatriots.
They seem to have bought the line that in order to atone for their parents
or grandparents' crimes they have to open the doors to the dregs of the
Earth and let themselves get plundered and their daughters raped without a
protest. Meanwhile, the German police continue to prosecute Germans for any
transgression, including speaking out about it.
So the left is good at pointing to its own flaws & decay but your simplistic
view of a "static" right that doesn't evolve and alway represent the "evil"
is laughable. Both the left and right have merged on most issue, it's a
system of croony capitalism with a big government and where "financial
capitalism" has destroyed industrial capitalism and innovations. Who would
invest to hire employees or innovate if it's more lucrative to sell private
bonds to a central bank or "buy back" the shares of the cies (to boost their
price with a loan in order to get a "productivity" bonus?
A long, long time ago both left/right were pretending to offer a solution
and improve the living standards, one faction with individual liberties, low
taxes and a sound money policy (gold & silver) while the left was fighting
against inequalities and proposing wealth redistribution with a big
government & taxes. Both the left & right started to be coopted in the
1960's
"Real wages sink but they continue to import cheep [sic: that should be
"cheap"] labor (real policy) under the disguise of helping "refugees"
(marketing policy) which are simply economic migrants. (Even parts of the
German "Die Linke" party are infected with such nonsense.)"
Kudos. It's
rare to see someone intelligent admit that an open borders immigration
policy is all about cheap labor, period. Bernie Sanders started to say that,
but after a couple of days of being screamed at for his 'racism' he of
course folded.
I note that by refusing to acknowledge that importing massive numbers of
workers we are pushing wages down, we are also responsible for the misery in
places like Yemen and Somalia etc. How can we expect people in these places
to stop having more children than they can afford, when our
Nobel-prizewinning whores keep screaming that more people are always better?
I mean, if we propagandize that eating arsenic is wonderful (or at lest not
an issue), and people somewhere else keep eating arsenic, we are to blame.
The characteristics which define Right-wingers are...
1. They are are obliged to believe their own bullshit in order to sell it to
the masses.
2. Bribery is an indispensable component of Modern Democracy.
3. Whenever one of their inane schemes backfires, it's ALWAYS somebody
else's fault, NEVER their own.
Malcolm & the Liberals will spend the next
6 months looking for scapegoats (with their fingers in their ears - another
R-W trait).
Democrats become neoliberal Republicans, letting actual Republicans get
elected. Rinse and repeat while blaming Russia for failure. That is the
center-right mantra of the elite Democrats and their NGO supporters (who are
well paid to represent the party line without deviation, if they deviate
they get cut off). Yet my Democrat friends howl that I'm a Trump supporter
because I wouldn't vote for Hillary.
The unfortunate truth is that outside
of protest votes there is no political force in America for dissenters to
turn to outside of what they can do on their own. The two-headed hydra of
the Demopublicans appears to be fighting against itself now but in reality
they still agree on most issues, to the detriment of all working people.
@35 Your version of "score voting" is clearly the best approach to "ranked
choice voting" as currently used. Also, using paper ballots that are counted
by optical scanning machines? That's just as subject to hacking as
electronic voting machines are, since nobody is going to back and hand-count
those paper ballots.
But really, under current finance rules, the
oligarchs tightly control the electoral process via their control of
corporate media and their ability to run puppet candidates against any
honest politicians who defy their agenda. Ultimately this is why politicians
gravitate towards the BS issues describe by b, i.e.
"When LGBT claptrap, gluten free food, political correctness and other
such niceties beat out programs to serve the basic needs of the common
people nothing "left" is left. The priority on the left must always be
the well-being of the working people. All the other nice-to-have issues
follow from and after that."
But addressing the well-being of the working people - wages, homes,
affordable healthcare for their parents and education for their children -
that impacts multinational corporate profits. This is why politicians steer
clear of such issues - they don't want to incur the anger of the oligarchs,
who can spend millions to get them removed from office. Journalists do the
exact same thing, wanting to keep their jobs in corporate media outfits
controlled by Wall Street oligarchs. This is highly similar to how the
oligarchs ran Russia during the Boris Yeltsin era.
There are clearly many similarites between the Russian billionaires of
that era and their various American counterparts today, from the Silicon
Valley billionaires to the oil & gas billionaires to the finance
billionaires; they could never have made all that money without the active
cooperation of politicians and bureaucrats who serve their interests in
Washington as well as in many state governments. This vast extraction of
wealth from the middle class, coupled with a desire to control the whole
world and move money freely across borders without restrictions, and to use
the military to invade and crush any countries who don't go with the
program, that's what the neocon-neolib agenda is all about.
When people like b start to make tremendous confusion between the Neoliberal
Democratic party and the Left, I fear things will go from bad to worse ...
Confusing Neolib and Left after all these years, b? There's no light at the
end of the tunnel, huh?
We've heard stupid people say that Hitler was Socialist ... after all the
NSDAP had the "S", hadn't it? But they are stupid people, right?
Now this?
Well-meaning populist politicians throughout history are either bought off
or assassinated.
Populist rhetoric is tolerated (and necessary for R vs. D political
theater to function).
The rhetoric is one thing. BUT if anyone actually DOES anything of value
for the common people, he will be maligned, castigated, shunned and soon
become enmeshed in a manufactured scandal.
@ nonsense factory | Mar 13, 2017 10:36:25 AM | 58
What the "election
methods cognoscenti" call "ranked-choice voting" is quite distinct from
"score voting" With the score voting method I described you could give from
(1) to (10) votes to up to (12) candidates. So you could give, for example,
(10) votes to Candidates (A), (B), and (C), and (8) votes to (D), (E), and
(F). But with ranked choice voting, you cannot do that, since you must
"rank" the candidates in an "ordinal" fashion. This could look like: (A) >
(B) > (C) >(D) > (E) > (F). And this forced "ranking" leads to astonishingly
complex dilemmas. So, score voting is definitely not a version of ranked
voting.
I did insist on "hand counted paper ballots" because ballot scanning
machines are absurdly complex, and can easily be hacked. Remember that the
Deep State will always completely control anything that becomes sufficiently
complex. The fine print on insurance policies is an example.
Take a look at the Italian Cooking Show ladies. They aren't fat. Their
immune system see gluten as an invader causing physical inflammation.
Personally if I eat gluten my lower gut blows up like an inflated bicycle
tire. Gluten intolerance is not a trend. Check out online videos titled
'wheat belly.'
The wheat we eat today has been genetically modified mainly to increase
crop yields.
Yep. There's a reason the Democratic Socialists of America has seen a huge
explosion in growth over the past year. The Democratic Party has no soul,
and the DSA, by far the most major democratic socialist group in the
country, is benefiting from Bernie Sanders constantly calling himself a
"democratic socialist." If Democrats don't take their cue from this and
other leftist groups, they're going to lose elections for decades to come.
We need policies that work for the people, not neoliberal giveaways to
corporations or conservative policies outright hostile to people who aren't
rich.
What do you call a Social-Democracy without social-democrats?
Although
many have called the "crisis of social-democracy" in previous years
(especially after the "crash" of 2007-8), so far it is James Corbett that
has given us the most extensive non-scholar research on
How The Left Stopped Worrying and Learned to Embrace War
This is disturbingly close to what a co-worker said to me, before knowing
my views about the matter, when US-backed forces were overthrowing Gaddafi
in Libya: "Go, rebels, go!" He said he "normally" wasn't pro-war. A lot of
ditzy liberals out there.
b states that the disenfranchised will rue the day they threw in their card
for the far-right. I am not sure that this reality will pan out here in the
states, though I am unsure what will ultimately transpire. My reasonING for
this goes back to the nazification of Germany and the great benefits to that
nationalist movement in general. Autobahn, infrastructure, industry: their
new deal was very beneficial for the common kraut in addressing their
concerns, though this nationalism scared the shit out of the global finance
cabal and hence war. I am not entirely versed as to the legitimacy of their
claim to Poland or the moral implications of that seizure, though the ethnic
cleanses in the Russian steppes were evil.
My point is that nationalism
could be one of the only forces that could bring down the global finance
elite. This propelled me to vote for Trump and to hold out hope for a while.
My thought is that we already have military spending covered and I don't see
how the trickle down of more military spending would impress the deplorables
too much. If Trump wants a 2.0, he will have to invest in another new deal.
And what choice does he have? Continually being blocked my Russia and Iran?
I am not convinced yet of his total idiocy, but if he continues along a
neoconservative route, there will be little doubt. I guess tyrannies are
stupid after all. Are Americans that stupid, too? We'll see.
Clueless Joe 16
I've started to like that JFK quote more and more these days, too. At the
time he did not mean it for the US but it truly applies here.
1945 - 2000 +. In Europe the 'Left' was overcome in principally 2 ways.
1)
Was the 'red scare of communism', i.e. against the USSR - old memes now home
again. Even though there were some quite strong Communist parties,
particularly in France. (Today, the ex-leader of the dead communist party,
R. Hue, has come out supporting Macron.) The 'liberals' (economic
liberalism) of course used any tool and propaganda to hand.
2) The expansion of W economies, 1950-1980 (about), that so to speak
'lifted all boats', and afforded for ex. cars, fridges, TVs, and at the
start, just the basics like a small flat and some electricity, and water
plus a flush toilet (or better services for small houses) plus universal
free education (to age 14-15) and some basic health / social care. Transport
flowered (fossil fuel use and railways) As opposed to living in a hut in a
filthy slum though rurals were always better off. The economy basically
boomed and jobs, even if ugly and badly paid, were available. This was all a
tremendous advance and it was credited to a 'liberal' economic model.
NOT-communist. (Though it had nothing to do with any political arrangement
per se. See Hobsbawm on the USSR.)
Later, Third-wayers (Bill Clinton, Tony Blair..) tried to 'snow' ppl who
would become 'poorer' with fakey Socialist-Dem party platforms, actually
favoring the 'rich' (Corps, Finance, MIC, Big Gov..), in an attempt to keep
ppl quiet. This 'third way' has now failed, ppl turn where they can, for now
it is voting for the 'alt-right' (Trump, Wilders, Le Pen..) along a sort of
nationalist line, which seems to contain germs of proto-fascim (as some
would say), but which is actually principally directed against the PTB.
I haven't yet read comments, but actually I don't agree with the title of
this piece, though the point about no left is certainly valid. I really
can't see folk just swinging far right because there is nowhere else to go,
since at least in this country, the US, we were burned so badly by the right
- the right took us into Iraq and we have not escaped the horrors there even
now. No way we're going back to that group of crazies just because another
group of crazies, and now apparently Trump as well, are marching to the same
bloody tune. We are being smothered by all of them.
I'm no prognosticator
- I can't see the future. All I can do is say this ongoing spilling of blood
is not what I voted for, and thank heavens I did not vote for Trump. I don't
blame those who did, thinking he might break the mold. In doing that, they
were not 'voting far right.' They were voting for what Trump said he would
do, act peacefully towards each country, take care of citizens' grievances.
He hasn't, and now we know. What happens next is anyone's guess but it won't
be more of the same, not in this country. Experience does matter, and when
we sort ourselves out and finish licking our wounds, us deplorables will
build on what has come before. And perhaps in other countries citizens
facing such non-choices and aware of what has happened here will trim their
sails accordingly.
The great tragedy of the collapse of the left is that there will be nobody
around to protect the minorities who live in the nations of the West. As a
nonwhite American, I see the polarization of politics around racial lines is
a catastrophe waiting to happen. The Democrats want to play the good cop,
using fear of to control their minority vote bank while doing sweet F A for
their communities that they profess to love so much. The Trumpian right has
now dropped all pretense and is openly embracing white supremacy, race
baiting for votes and stirring up all kinds of anti-foreigner sentiment on
top of the folksy old fashioned racism done by "good" GOPers. As disgusting
as the smug, patronizing prejudice of liberals is, the wild vitriolic hatred
found in parts of the white community is backed up with state force. Even
when faced with this reality, the Democratic party views discussions of
economic issues as pandering to the "deplorables"! Never mind the rampant
poverty and unemployment in black and latin ghettoes, talking about jobs is
racism! They will continue this political death spiral and we will pay the
price. There have been two shootings I know of where Indians (mistaken for
Muslims by rednecks hopped up on hate) and I'm sure we'll see plenty more.
God help Europe when their right wingers crack down on the Muslims. You
think the young are being radicalized now? You ain't seen nothing yet.
I don't blame those who did, thinking he might break the mold. In
doing that, they were not 'voting far right.' They were voting for what
Trump said he would do, act peacefully towards each country, take care of
citizens' grievances.
Yes, right on. And that extends to all the 'nationalist' voters. What
they - perhaps confusedly for some - are trying to effect is a timid step in
the present horrific political landscape, towards having a say, >> having
the space, and scope, of decision-making circumsribed, and made not only
smaller, but more rigidly, clearly defined - in this case down to nation
size where the ppl may hopefully garner some more power.
The labels 'right' and 'left' of course are nonsense, but we all use them
as 'tags' for e.g. Dems vs. Reps, and that's ok, as long as everyone
undertands the short-hand. Being 'nationalist', 'anti-globalist',
'localist', 'community oriented' (footnotes skipped) is not left or right,
it doesn't project to any point on the left-right polarity. Nor does it
relate to an authoritarian, controlling axis. vs. a libertarian one. But of
course these challengers are painted as Hitler 'nationalist' stooges and
putative vicious invaders, war mongers, conquerers, as is for ex. Putin.
And if anyone is interested, I chose the name "Perimetr" because that is the
way my friend Colonel Yarynich spelled it . . .
Also known as the "Deadhand" system, Perimetr is a semi-automated system
through which a retaliatory nuclear strike can be ordered by a decapitated
Russian National Command Authority. Perimetr came into being in the 1980s
and appears to still be functional. You can read a detailed analysis of it
in the book by Colonel Valery Yarynich, "C3: Nuclear Command, Control,
Cooperation" (if you can get your hands on a copy).
https://www.amazon.com/C3-Nuclear-Command-Control-Cooperation/dp/1932019081
Perimetr uses emergency communication rockets to issue launch orders to
any (surviving) Russian nuclear forces; such orders would automatically
trigger a launch of these forces without further human intervention. The
crew that mans the Perimetr launch control center requires several things to
happen before they launch: (1) an initial preliminary authorization from the
National Command Authority following the detection of an incoming attack,
(2) a complete loss of communication on all channels (various radio
frequencies, land lines, etc) with the National Command Authority, and (3) a
simultaneously set of positive signals from seismic, optical, and
radiological nuclear detonation detectors indicating that a nuclear attack
has occurred.
At that point, the crew is ordered to launch the ECRs. This "Deadhand"
launches the missiles even after those who gave the preliminary launch order
have been incinerated in a nuclear strike. Valery thought that Perimetr
added a measure of safety having the system, in that it would make it less
likely that the NCA would launch a "retaliatory" strike (Launch on Warning,
LOW) before nuclear detonations confirmed the strike was real (if the
warning was false, then the "retaliatory strike" would actually be a first
strike . . . hence Perimetr offers some certainty of retaliation for
choosing to "ride out" a perceived attack). I took less comfort that did
Valery, as I found it disconcerting that there was a non-human mechanism or
means to order a Russian nuclear attack.
@21
The aim of importing cheap labour is to allow continued expansion of capital
without depressing the rate of profit. Unless the labour force constantly
expands, any accumulation of capital tends to drive down the rate of profit
in two ways: 1) it raises the ratio of capital stock to national income, so
if the wage share remains the same, the rate of profit falls; 2)
Accumulation of capital faster than the growth of the labour force creates a
sellers market for labour and allows real wages to rise. For these two
reasons big business favours rapid immigration.
Are you illiterate?
"Perimeter" is graphically different of "Perimetr". In addition and mainly,
interested people can differentiate one from the other ideologically. So do
not worry, kid.
The thing is black people in USA are fed up. White people (including some
jews) are fed up. Black people have been marginalized and are no longer the
primary darlings of the Bleeding Heart Party. You must add as well that many
of them like Carson are quite conservative and wealthy, so they go
Republican. One cannot discount the very high sense of patriotism that many
Afro-Americans feel for the USA. They can smell the BS.
"White's", can be racially disparaged, mocked, used and abused and it O.K.
You can call a certain segment of the population; "White Trash", white
bitch, fucking cracker, honky, racist, etc, etc and they just have to take
it.
You can openly say that it's no longer their country, that they will no
longer be the majority, if you are an immigrant and have a short time in
USA, you are toasted and cheered while saying it. So soft genocide against
"whites" is ok.
This is wrong and it's true what B say's, there is nothing LEFT. I gave
Obama 8 and I'm still waiting for my change.
- Someone in a townhall meeting asked a Democratic representitive: "What do
the Democrats stand for". And the representitive replied with platitudes.
and the whole thing was captured on video.
the left in America is small and estranged, like an illegitimate child. the
blacks fucked up long ago when they aligned with the Democratic Party,
which, as we know, is just a gaggle of pro-war liberals. their reckoning is
on its way...like a bad asteroid.
i'd check out the relationship between the exponential growth
in the use of glyphosate, decimated microbial populations in the human gut
as a result of its use, and the sudden eruption of gluten intolerance.
that'd get any biochemist / epidemiologist fired in short order, or
demonized on publication. i'm sure that's why we haven't seen it.
@ Posted by: Willy2 | Mar 14, 2017 3:55:52 AM | 85
Thank you for the link.
Succint & concise. Tragicomedy(sic) ... :(
What was highlighted with cutting clarity is what the average Joe & Betty
six-pack, and not just Stateside, throughout the 'West' are primarily up in
arms about, IMV. And the Owned & Controlled, Corporate 'Mainstream'
Mega-Media will not touch it nor even acknowledge 'it' ... hopefully
the scales will fall
from enough peoples eyes to awaken from the
somnolance induced by all-encompassing '
digital valium
' ...
If locales can ever reach a critical mass re numbers ... maybe the
Tumbrels
will yet again roll to swing humanities 'pendulum' back the other way. If
they don't ...
There never has been a political party of the Left in America that held any
political power or even a balance of power at important state or federal
levels. Leaders of the emerging Left in America have been either jailed or
assassinated. Any other leaders of the people, not necessarily of the left,
have also met a similar fate. The American establishment has always been a
repressive clique of any populous movements. Other western nations, being
further from the central authority, developed at minimum Leftist political
opposition that at least held a balance of power enough to effect national
policies that were of benefit to the working classes as defined. In America
Leftist appeal of grievances was applied through the existing two party
system, mainly the Democrats with their unionized labour wing. This has all
fallen by the wayside. Enough said....
RE: Perimeter | Mar 13, 2017 10:14:10 PM | 83 "Perimeter" is graphically
different of "Perimetr". In addition and mainly, interested people can
differentiate one from the other ideologically. So do not worry, kid.
Well
let's see, would Circe be upset if someone started posting under "Circes"?
Would Outraged mind if someone started posting here as "Outrages"? How about
"Alberto" instead of "ALberto"??
Sorry, there are lots of other names available, so what is the point in
posting under one that is essentially identical to mine, except to confuse
those who might not be paying much attention?
@84, the racial-ethnic divides among populations pale in comparison to the
divisions between classes. The Reptilian Order must rake up the former
through media exploits lest the proles wise up to the latter.
Outraged @ 89
Thanks for the compliment on the other thread.
I also value what you write.
In certain conditions it is possible to attain meaningfull goals without
setting the tumbrells in motion. I linked to
Marinaleda
in a comment above. They din't decapitate the Duque del Infantado, they cut
a substantial part of his estate. It was possible for 3 reasons, a
charismatic leader, a strong sense of solidarity and a strong cultural
identity. It's a tiny scale but if one looks at current examples in a
multinational scale Chávez, Evo, Correa, Kirchner, Lula, were/are all
outstanding leaders in nations that have strong cultural identities and a
solidarity forged by resistance.
BRF @ 90
Exactly, jailed or assassinated. And when this was no longer feasible, when
human rights became a tool in the cold war, the discourse was deflected to
identitary policies and sex drugs and r&r
My views tend towards
pacifism these last many years and am totally opposed to capital punishment
for common criminal acts ... the death of even one innocent due to failures
of the system, injustice, or mere errors, is one life too many, IMV.
Have personally seen the dire consequences of psychopaths & sociopaths,
in Military, Intelligence, Government & Corporate environments, in positions
of leadership/authority. They select alike as near peers and congregate
fellow-travellers, arch-opportunists & sellswords as underlings,
enablers/facilitators.
Yet, long reflection on ... bitter ... experiences, have brought me to a
perceived unpalatable truth, that there likely must be, long overdue, a cull
of the 'Impune', via the tender mercies of such as madame guillotine, to
reset the balance, for their number and reach in primarily western first
world countries has become a vast cancer upon humanity.
If one can be reviled by the community and dealt with at Law for a simple
common murder, why can one who abuses the authority of the State, or
delegated thereof, order policies or acts that result in dozens, 100's or
thousands or more deaths of innocents, yet be impune, wholly and forever,
unassailable, unaccountable ?
When exactly was it that Presidents & Prime Ministers once again quietly
assumed the pseudo-Regnum like Majesty & Dictatorial Imperium of Caesars,
Emperors, Kings/Monarchs of history past ?
Had thought the last 'Sun King' was in France ~160 years ago ...
Technology has opened a Pandora's Box of expanding destructive forces &
potentialities at the behest of these psychopaths that, as Karlof1 somewhat
similarly fears, will have a singular end result, if left unchecked.
Do not believe a little pruning of wealth/capital will any longer suffice
... Iceland alone, started tentatively upon the right path, after the GFC.
My views tend towards
pacifism these last many years and am totally opposed to capital punishment
for common criminal acts ... the death of even one innocent due to failures
of the system, injustice, or mere errors, is one life too many, IMV.
Have personally seen the dire consequences of psychopaths & sociopaths,
in Military, Intelligence, Government & Corporate environments, in positions
of leadership/authority. They select alike as near peers and congregate
fellow-travellers, arch-opportunists & sellswords as underlings,
enablers/facilitators.
Yet, long reflection on ... bitter ... experiences, have brought me to a
perceived unpalatable truth, that there likely must be, long overdue, a cull
of the 'Impune', via the tender mercies of such as madame guillotine, to
reset the balance, for their number and reach in primarily western first
world countries has become a vast cancer upon humanity.
If one can be reviled by the community and dealt with at Law for a simple
common murder, why can one who abuses the authority of the State, or
delegated thereof, order policies or acts that result in dozens, 100's or
thousands or more deaths of innocents, yet be impune, wholly and forever,
unassailable, unaccountable ?
When exactly was it that Presidents & Prime Ministers once again quietly
assumed the pseudo-Regnum like Majesty & Dictatorial Imperium of Caesars,
Emperors, Kings/Monarchs of history past ?
Had thought the last 'Sun King' was in France ~160 years ago ...
Technology has opened a Pandora's Box of expanding destructive forces &
potentialities at the behest of these psychopaths that, as Karlof1 somewhat
similarly fears, will have a singular end result, if left unchecked.
Do not believe a little pruning of wealth/capital will any longer suffice
... Iceland alone, started tentatively upon the right path, after the GFC.
"When exactly was it that Presidents & Prime Ministers once
again quietly assumed the pseudo-Regnum like Majesty & Dictatorial Imperium
of Caesars, Emperors, Kings/Monarchs of history past?"
I don't believe the Divine Right of Monarchs was ever completely expunged
as it continued to operate in the shadows until it retuned to the surface at
WW2's end with Truman.
Don't know how much you agree with my assessment above @12, but one of
the smartest people I've ever known--the late Lynn Margulis, Carl Sagan's
first wife, the superior microbiologist who proved symbiosis within species
and agent of evolution to be fact--wrote the forward to the paperback
edition of Morrison's work I cited, agreeing with him.
It's easy to observe and analyze the situation then prescribe the remedy.
But said remedy must be applied by millions of currently very disparate
individuals having almost no solidarity or in agreement about said remedy,
or even knowing a remedy exists. I'd do more, but my responsibilities limit
me to my current activities--writing and exhorting those able to act.
The great irony of our dilemma is humans have overcome Nature in almost
every sphere, yet that triumph is precisely what threatens humanity and the
biota--a triumph driven by Nature itself. So, to overcome our overcoming of
Nature, we must again triumph at overcoming our Human Nature by limiting the
impact of Nature on our actions through the use of a very ancient
technology--culture, by making certain actions by humans taboo and their
violation punishable by death as the Polynesians practiced.
Yes, radical, controversial, requiring a great deal of prior knowledge to
comprehend the logic driving the remedy. Yet, as Spock would say, there it
is: Long life and prosperity lies down remedy's path; massive destruction,
pain and eventual oblivion if the status quo continues.
... it returned to the surface at WW2's end with Truman.
... we must again triumph at overcoming our Human Nature by limiting
the impact of Nature on our actions through the use of a very ancient
technology--culture,
by making certain actions by humans
(Leaders/Leadership) taboo and their violation punishable by death
as the Polynesians practiced.
... massive destruction, pain and eventual oblivion if the status quo
continues.
Concur.
Yet, would take that slightly further re amending formal application of
Law & Sentencing & Punishment.
A number of Navies apply Mandatory MAXIMUM punishments for any offense,
where found guilty, committed outside the parent nations 12 Mile limit, for
good reason re discipline under a Captain's authority ... the ship becomes
the nation and the crew the 'people' thereof and the ultimate survival of
all dependent upon such.
The
greater
the status, rank, education, authority, experience,
length of service of the '
Taboo Breaker,
' (
Leaders/Leadership
),
the less any mitigating circumstances can be considered, and the
proportionally higher the punishment, towards the maximum. Such should be
able to plead no excuse, ignorance or misunderstanding, or lack of
comprehension whatsoever, compared to a 'Constable/Trooper/Sailor/Airman'.
The pyramid of actual accountability & consequent punishment, must be
inverted
, by society.
If one looks carefully throughout humanities recorded history, across
cultures, down thru millennia, sooner or later the stone (
society
)
could be squeezed no further, and there was inevitably blowback and a,
culling.
Yet, since the inter-continent telegraph and the widespread ubiquitous
distribution of the mass 'Press', concurrent with the machinations of the
Bankers & War Profiteers behind the scenes since the late 1800's, IMV, the
ability to manipulate, divide & rule, society has become an artform, ever
accelerating in scope, scale & effectiveness, preventing the necessary
'cull' in the 'International Community' of the 'west'.
IMV, the old grey men may have misunderstood/underestimated the accident
of the 'net, hence desperation of such as ProPornOT etc, which provides
alternate independent voices re communication & re perceived reality ... it
may be enough, a small window of opportunity given the obvious accident of
'Trumps' ascension, to possibly enable a reckoning, there are a few
discordant shrill cries and desperate pleas arising amongst the 'narrative'
from the Globalists/Atlanticists (US/EU/UK/AUS/CAN), to believe & trust TPTB
... but only if there is a true, not faux,
accounting
.
Otherwise, yes, almost inevitably, your last. Faint hope ...
... it returned to the surface at WW2's end with Truman.
... we must again triumph at overcoming our Human Nature by limiting
the impact of Nature on our actions through the use of a very ancient
technology--culture,
by making certain actions by humans
(Leaders/Leadership) taboo and their violation punishable by death
as the Polynesians practiced.
... massive destruction, pain and eventual oblivion if the status quo
continues.
Concur.
Yet, would take that slightly further re amending formal application of
Law & Sentencing & Punishment.
A number of Navies apply Mandatory MAXIMUM punishments for any offense,
where found guilty, committed outside the parent nations 12 Mile limit, for
good reason re discipline under a Captain's authority ... the ship becomes
the nation and the crew the 'people' thereof and the ultimate survival of
all dependent upon such.
The
greater
the status, rank, education, authority, experience,
length of service of the '
Taboo Breaker,
' (
Leaders/Leadership
),
the less any mitigating circumstances can be considered, and the
proportionally higher the punishment, towards the maximum. Such should be
able to plead no excuse, ignorance or misunderstanding, or lack of
comprehension whatsoever, compared to a 'Constable/Trooper/Sailor/Airman'.
The pyramid of actual accountability & consequent punishment, must be
inverted
, by society.
If one looks carefully throughout humanities recorded history, across
cultures, down thru millennia, sooner or later the stone (
society
)
could be squeezed no further, and there was inevitably blowback and a,
culling.
Yet, since the inter-continent telegraph and the widespread ubiquitous
distribution of the mass 'Press', concurrent with the machinations of the
Bankers & War Profiteers behind the scenes since the late 1800's, IMV, the
ability to manipulate, divide & rule, society has become an artform, ever
accelerating in scope, scale & effectiveness, preventing the necessary
'cull' in the 'International Community' of the 'west'.
IMV, the old grey men may have misunderstood/underestimated the accident
of the 'net, hence desperation of such as ProPornOT etc, which provides
alternate independent voices re communication & re perceived reality ... it
may be enough, a small window of opportunity given the obvious accident of
'Trumps' ascension, to possibly enable a reckoning, there are a few
discordant shrill cries and desperate pleas arising amongst the 'narrative'
from the Globalists/Atlanticists (US/EU/UK/AUS/CAN), to believe & trust TPTB
... but only if there is a true, not faux,
accounting
.
Otherwise, yes, almost inevitably, your last. Faint hope ...
"... it may be enough, a small window of opportunity given
the obvious accident of 'Trumps' ascension, to possibly enable a
reckoning..."
Like using The Force to guide a missile into the exhaust shaft of the
Death Star. But that was just one victory amidst many losses prior to the
decapitation of the sole Evil Leader. I believe our task just as daunting
with our enemy best depicted as The Hydra. In both myths, Good triumphed. In
both tales, the multitude of innocents had no idea what was taking place or
why. I don't think we can prevail unless the multitudes know what's
happening and why. All too often they seem to differ little from my
Alzheimer's afflicted mom. But her fate is determined; it's just a matter of
time. Our fate's in the balance, with time being of the essence.
When "the left" endlessly debates which core issues or constituencies must be sacrificed for political
gain, as if economic justice for the poor and the working class could be separated from social
justice for women and people of color and the LGBT community and immigrants and people with disabilities,
it is no longer functioning as the left.
When LGBT claptrap, gluten free food, political correctness and other such niceties beat out programs
to serve the basic needs of the common people nothing "left" is left. The priority on the left must
always be the well-being of the working people. All the other nice-to-have issues follow from and
after that.
Many nominally social-democratic parties in Europe are on the same downward trajectory as the
Democrats in the U.S. for the very same reason. Their real policies are center right. Their marketing
policies hiding the real ones are to care for this or that minority interest or problem the majority
of the people has no reason to care about. Real wages sink but they continue to import cheep labor
(real policy) under the disguise of helping "refugees" (marketing policy) which are simply economic
migrants. (Even parts of the German "Die Linke" party are infected with such nonsense.)
The people with real economic problems, those who have reason to fear the future, have no one
in the traditional political spectrum that even pretends to care about them. Those are the voters
now streaming to the far right. (They will again get screwed. The far right has an economic agenda
that is totally hostile to them. But it at least promises to do something about their fears.) Where
else should they go?
The U.S. Democrats are currently applauding the former United States attorney in Manhattan, Preet
Bharara. The position is a political appointed one. Whoever is appointed serves "at the pleasure
of the President". It is completely normal that people in such positions get replaced when the presidency
changes from one party to the other. The justice department asked Bharara to "voluntary resign".
He rejected that, he was fired.
Oh what a brave man! Applause!
The dude served as United States attorney during the mortgage scams and financial crash. Wall
Street was part of his beat. How many of the involved banksters did he prosecute? Well, exactly zero.
What a hero! How many votes did the Democrats lose because they did not go after the criminals ruling
Wall Street?
Bharara is one reason the Democrats lost the election. Oh yes, he is part of a minority and that
makes him a favorite with the pseudo left Democrats. But he did nothing while millions got robbed.
How can one expect to get votes when one compliments such persons?
But the top reader comments to the New York Times
report on the issue
are full of voices who laud Bharara for his meaning- and useless "resistance"
to Trump.
Those are the "voices of the people" the political functionaries of the Democratic Party want
to read and hear. Likely the only ones. But those are the voices of people (if real at all and not
marketing sock-puppets) who are themselves a tiny, well pampered minority. Not the people one needs
to win elections.
Unless they change their political program (not just its marketing) and unless they go back to
consistently argue for the people in the lower third of the economic scale the Democrats in the U.S.
and the Social-Democrats in Europe will continue to lose voters. The far right will, for lack of
political alternative, be the party that picks up their votes.
"... Originally published at the Tax Justice Network ..."
"... US finance sector is a net drag on their economy ..."
"... It is a cleverly worked out system for wealth transfer. Complex laws, political backing and protection even if you break the law. At least in the old days when you got robbed you had the signal of having a pistol pointed at you. The modern version, with all the insider media psyops, leaves those who are preyed upon feeling that they are the ones to blame. ..."
"... The business model is straight out of the Cosa Nostra playbook – except there is media, political and legal backing. ..."
"... As an Italian friend of mine (who rarely goes north of 14th Street) once remarked, "The difference between the Mafia and bankers is that the Mafia always leaves a few crumbs on the table." ..."
"... Did I hear that right – the private finance sector will have cost us (in the US) 23Tr$ by 2020. And from 1990 to 2005 big finance cost us (already) 14Tr in fees, pay, fraud, misallocation and lost productivity. Yet we continue to deregulate even though all governments know how destructive deregulated finance is. ..."
"... yes, the EU does seem to be hungry to grab up all that finance for itself I keep thinking about Schaeuble coming to NYC c2012 and holding an impromptu news conference wherein he said it was fine with him if some banks went down because "we are overbanked." But we do have to admit that "overbanked" is an understatement since there are no productive investments and it's just self-defeating. I mean, how long can this go on? ..."
"... I don't know, how much money do you have left? ..."
"... It pays to remember that prior to 2008, hot (sovereign state backed) money flowed unimpeded like water across all EU borders, regardless of regulation, in search of quick handsome and easy returns, and much of it from subsequently bailed out by the ECB backdoor major lenders in France and Germany lending recklessly to poorer EZ members. ..."
"... The lasting results of this and its hasty, damaging retreat and the inequitable socialisation of the debt across the EZ are, of course, still being felt today. ..."
"... One of the major causes of the financial crisis was lax global regulation period. So let's not kid ourselves that by removing the UK from the European Union equation it is suddenly going to render it a bastion of sound prudential banking practice, particularly given various members recent comments that they intend to do anything in their power to tempt a post Brexit UK's financial services at the earliest opportunity. ..."
"... I do subscribe to the belief that the UK financial services sector has been and still is toxic to its economy and long-term future, and without a doubt this informed the Brexit vote, albeit in some cases on a subconscious level. ..."
In our March 2017 Taxcast: the high price we're paying for our finance sectors – we look at staggering
statistics showing how the US finance sector is a net drag on their economy .
Also, as the British government initiates Brexit divorce negotiations to leave the EU, we discuss
something they ought to know, but obviously don't – they're actually in a very weak position. Could
it mean the beginning of the end of the finance curse gripping the UK economy?
If you look at particular finance centres, say London and New York, the problem is that the
net cost of this system is quite significant, it imposes a cost not only on people who use finance
but for the whole economy. So, what we need to think about is what are the more productive activities
that ought to be substituted for these excessive aspects of finance?
John Christensen, Tax Justice Network on Britain's weak position in Brexit negotiations:
We might be seeing the start of the end of Britain's grip by the Finance Curse
https://www.youtube.com/embed/E7oOiJl1n1I
Download the mp3 to listen offline anytime on your computer, mobile/cell phone or handheld device
by right clicking
here and selecting
'save link as'.
Want to subscribe? Subscribe via email by contacting the Taxcast producer on naomi [at] taxjustice.net
OR subscribe to the Taxcast RSS feed here
OR subscribe to our youtube channel,
Tax Justice TV OR find
us on
iTunes
It is a cleverly worked out system for wealth transfer. Complex laws, political backing and
protection even if you break the law. At least in the old days when you got robbed you had the signal of having a pistol pointed
at you. The modern version, with all the insider media psyops, leaves those who are preyed upon
feeling that they are the ones to blame.
The business model is straight out of the Cosa Nostra playbook – except there is media, political
and legal backing.
As an Italian friend of mine (who rarely goes north of 14th Street) once remarked, "The difference
between the Mafia and bankers is that the Mafia always leaves a few crumbs on the table."
"Wouldn't you rather give me my money, that you have in your pocket, rather than force me
to take the pistol out of my pocket, and point it at you, and rob you, and become a criminal?"
As you can clearly see, the logic is flawless, we are all much better off acquiescing to the
reasonable demands of the FIRE sector, the only alternative being an admission that we're in the
clutches of a deeply organized criminal element.
Did I hear that right – the private finance sector
will have cost us (in the US) 23Tr$ by 2020. And from 1990 to 2005 big finance cost us (already)
14Tr in fees, pay, fraud, misallocation and lost productivity. Yet we continue to deregulate even
though all governments know how destructive deregulated finance is.
And we know that the US is
the biggest and most secret tax haven of them all
The first part of Taxcast speculated that Brexit
will actually free the UK from the stranglehold of big finance and the country will be able to
move on to more productive economic activity. So let us hope the US comes to its senses – just
as the EU has finally isolated the rot of UK finance, maybe the rest of the world will isolate
us.
Regulation seems to be hand-in-glove with national sovereignty. Whereas globalized finance
might have escaped national regulation bec. there was always a safe haven for banksters, now with
a backlash of indignant people all over the world there will be re-regulation at national levels.
Since there is no global authority that can do that yet. Anyway, now that economies are trashed,
there is way too much hot money to find good investments. It has already become absurd.
I would not be so hasty thinking that the EU(27) has finally isolated the rot of UK finance.
Much of that finance was not UK, but using the UK. The EU(27) is no less corrupt than the UK and
as susceptible to big finance's charms.
I worked as a lobbyist in Brussels (and Basel and DC) for years.
yes, the EU does seem to be hungry to grab up all that finance for itself I keep thinking
about Schaeuble coming to NYC c2012 and holding an impromptu news conference wherein he said it
was fine with him if some banks went down because "we are overbanked." But we do have to admit
that "overbanked" is an understatement since there are no productive investments and it's just
self-defeating. I mean, how long can this go on?
I'm not sure I get the 'rules on financial services are different than other goods and services'
line being peddled here though. Maybe in theory, but it's pretty much a moot point.
It pays to remember that prior to 2008, hot (sovereign state backed) money flowed unimpeded
like water across all EU borders, regardless of regulation, in search of quick handsome and easy
returns, and much of it from subsequently bailed out by the ECB backdoor major lenders in France
and Germany lending recklessly to poorer EZ members.
The lasting results of this and its hasty, damaging retreat and the inequitable socialisation
of the debt across the EZ are, of course, still being felt today.
One of the major causes of the financial crisis was lax global regulation period. So let's
not kid ourselves that by removing the UK from the European Union equation it is suddenly going
to render it a bastion of sound prudential banking practice, particularly given various members
recent comments that they intend to do anything in their power to tempt a post Brexit UK's financial
services at the earliest opportunity.
I do subscribe to the belief that the UK financial services sector has been and still is toxic
to its economy and long-term future, and without a doubt this informed the Brexit vote, albeit
in some cases on a subconscious level.
"... As Mr. Hudson explained in the piece, the operatives of what Gore Vidal called the Property Party, (which has two right wings,) co-opted each successive movement. Lower middle class and working class people had the Koch brothers funded Tea Party pushed on them. The DNC sponsored "identity groups" quickly sucked all originality out of the various specious "identities" so represented. On the war front, the Pentagon imposed "embedment" upon journalists. In each case, the viewpoints of the "average" person so involved were restricted to vistas guaranteed to promote the "sponsored" agenda. Thus, the present assault upon "alternative" media makes sense from a status quo perspective. It is all about control of the dialogue. ..."
"... Perez only got 235 votes; Sanders' candidate Ellison got 200. The Democratic Party establishment did not "ignore" Sanders by running Perez. They were semi-desperately trying to block him (and his cohort) from advancing on a low rung on the ladder to power. ..."
"... Wikileaks made it plain what the Democrats do to mavericks who win races without a party bit in their mouths. The corruption is institutional, it is their operatives' identity. ..."
"... The "masses of people who have dropped out of the workforce" are old, overweight, have multiple physical deficits and are hooked on at least 2 types of prescription dope. They will not be manning your nostalgia-draped barricades. Not ever. ..."
"... I agree with Hudson's critique of FIRE and the problem of debt in our society. But it is not easy to explain to the general public - which would not recognize the acronym. ..."
"... "Also, while I agree Dems are dominated by Blue Dogs who want to use Wall Street money to run Repub lite candidates in purple states, and that their appeal to identity politics is manipulative and a way to deflect from economic issues," ..."
"... " it does not logically follow that voters do not often think of themselves and their goals in terms of racism or religion or guns. Their are cultural "us v them" identities that have a powerful effect on politics." ..."
"... "We can beat them if we find common sense solutions to our problems and articulate those ideas to our neighbors. We need energy and hard work, but it is not clear that a third party is needed." ..."
"... I also agree that there is no solution, certainly not an evolutionary solution via EITHER of the two parties. ..."
"... The big changes in the USA occurred during the Great Depression as financial reform was introduced, the idea of government infrastructure could provide employment and what I believe is little mentioned, an increased awareness on the part of many that their success was not achieved solely by their own efforts. ..."
"... Many of the USA's post war corporate executives should have remembered that their families struggled during the thirties, and this may have made them more connected with their employees and communities. ..."
"... People are not sheep. We've been psyop'd senseless. "Public relations" began around the turn of the 20th century. It was ramped up by orders of magnitude after WWII. ..."
"... Gore Vidal quotes JFK as saying to him, we've entered an era in which "it is the *appearance of things that matters" ..."
"... Psychology and other social sciences have been weaponized and turned against us. With a facile understanding of the human mind (as if it were nothing but a mere mechanism), immense effort has gone into controlling the inputs in order to control the outputs (behavior). ..."
"... Newly declassified documents from the Reagan presidential library help explain how the U.S. government developed its sophisticated psychological operations capabilities that – over the past three decades – have created an alternative reality both for people in targeted countries and for American citizens, a structure that expanded U.S. influence abroad and quieted dissent at home. ..."
"... Today, "public opinion" is a Frankenstein's monster. Most of my fellow Americans believe in a world that never existed and doesn't exist right now. We can't even agree on what happened to JFK, or MLK, or what happened on 9/11/01. ..."
"... Contra UF, it's not that people are incapable of rational thought; rather, the information we have is hopelessly corrupted. People are acting rationally, but the numerators and denominators have been faked. On purpose. Or did the Russians really do it? ..."
"... It's far more simpler. Charter schools are about following the money. Public schools have seemingly huge revenue streams. Why can't GE get a cut is the thought process? For profit Healthcare was forbidden until 1973 (thanks to Teddy), why not public schools? ..."
"... The HMO Act of 1973 (thanks Teddy and Tricky Dick; bipartisanship at its finest) made it easier to start and run HMOs which faced regulatory hurdles mostly due to financing. Non profits had an easier time of it hence Hospitals named "St X" or "X General." Since the hospital were non profits and employers made deals with the hospitals, health insurance was effectively non-profit. There were gaps, mostly in rural areas. Other changes from the HMO Act of 1973 encouraged profit seeking from denial of coverage to pushing unnecessary procedures or prescriptions. ..."
"... The US Left has been controlled opposition since 1950. There was never a chance it could provide a reasonable and effective alternative. FBI/CIA moles make sure they never will. The Democrats have never been true Left FDR didn't really betray his class, he saved them from their own stupidity. ..."
"... "As Tanzanian President Julius Nyerere quipped in the 1960s, when he was accused by the US of running a one-party state, 'The United States is also a one-party state but, with typical American extravagance, they have two of them'." ..."
"... The identity politics of today lack in solidarity, too. What with Hillary Clinton running the most ageist campaign in memory, Obama breaking the record on deportations, Bill Clinton blowing racist dogwhistles as hard he can and also helping to shepherd a police state that puts Thailand to shame, and the whole of the Democratic Party stoking Russophobia and neoconservative. ..."
"... The diagnosis is mostly correct. But omits the role class bigotry and affluenza with attendant celebrity culture and pursuit of prestige plays. Thus the prognosis and protocol go astray. ..."
"... The wealthy and the politicians don't care about you/us. They care about maintaining any fiction that allows them to keep acquiring. Trump is not the problem; Mercer"s values are The Problem. Trump is the PERFECT reality TV/celebrity fantasy creature to keep the twisted Mercer chariot's wheels turning. ..."
"... Bernie was NOT The Answer. Putting on a mask of concern does not take away the sorrows of empire. As long as the blatant US militarism and imperialism continues we cannot unite the working class. Everything it needs to flourish continues - mass incarceration, join the military or stay in the ghetto, graft and corruption of military/industrial/media complex, no respect for other cultures being swarmed, consumerism. ..."
"... The jobs plan: more prison guards, border agents, munitions makers, soldiers, cops, various bodyguards for the rich and the other useful mandarins to the affluenza-stricken is set in stone. ..."
"... Michael Hudson makes great points but I am still wrestling with his (and others) push back against so-called identity politics as it pertains to this perception of it splintering or at least limiting the Democratic party. The Dems are most certainly a party committed to the ideals of neoliberalism and corporatism. They did not lose this election based on "Russian hacking/emails" and other trite nonsense. ..."
"... The Obama part of maintaining the looting of society status quo. ..."
"... The point about Trump being the US Yeltsin is one very much worth considering, if only because Russia, after much degradation and also suffering, has managed to begin to overcome those shameful and depressing times. May we do so also. ..."
"... Excellent piece. Americans have forgotten that the things they took for granted (40 hour week, humane working conditions, employer provided benefits etc.) were gained by the blood, sweat and tears of their forebears. ..."
"... The Clintons, the Obamas, the Blairs, possibly the Macrons, the Ruttes, even the Merkels of this world are wolves in sheep's clothing. They have come to represent, for increasing numbers, little better than managed decline in apparently safe hands, conducted in plain sight, in the ever narrower interests of the few. ..."
"... Regarding the subject line of the article. I'd say that the Democratic Party has been the "paid loyal opposition" for quite a while. . . meaning they are paid to loose. Given the party's ties to Wall Street and Big Pharma it's pretty clear they mostly work for the same folks that own "mainstream" Republicans so their apparent fecklessness and inability to mount ANY sort of effective opposition, even when they are in the majority, shouldn't be any surprise. ..."
As long as the people of America had a reasonable expectation of gaining a better life, or,
the next best thing, that their children would gain that better life, the Social Contract remained
strong. Aspiration was both a spur to striving within the existing system, and a palliative for
most discontents encountered. Where the status quo did not offer any real hope, the Civil Rights
for minorities being an example, more "robust" methods were necessary, and were employed. What
else is civil disobedience but counter violence against the State? Naturally, the State ramps
up it's 'violence' in an attempt to quash the disaffected masses.
In this struggle, optics and expectations are crucial. As Gil Scott-Heron famously invoked;
"The revolution will not be televised." Paradoxically, by ensuring the wide dissemination of images
of the nascent "Revolution," activists ensured that whatever came out of the Days of Rage would
not be a true revolution. The newsreels of colored people bravely enduring police oppression in
the American South guaranteed that that particular issue would not be dumped down Orwell's "Memory
Hole." Television footage of young American men fighting and dying in Vietnam spurred the families
of those who could even potentially be drafted to go overseas to die for their country to take
to the streets and vote against the war and the warmongers. Gay rights is generally considered
to have begun to take form and substance after the "Stonewall Riots" in New York in 1969. See:
https://www.socialistalternative.org/stonewall-riots-1969/
By "going postal," the New York gays declared loud and proud that the old way of doing business
was no longer acceptable to them.
As Mr. Hudson explained in the piece, the operatives of what Gore Vidal called the Property
Party, (which has two right wings,) co-opted each successive movement. Lower middle class and
working class people had the Koch brothers funded Tea Party pushed on them. The DNC sponsored
"identity groups" quickly sucked all originality out of the various specious "identities" so represented.
On the war front, the Pentagon imposed "embedment" upon journalists. In each case, the viewpoints
of the "average" person so involved were restricted to vistas guaranteed to promote the "sponsored"
agenda. Thus, the present assault upon "alternative" media makes sense from a status quo perspective.
It is all about control of the dialogue.
The main strength of the old style identity politics is it's ability to focus the energies
of participants toward a particular goal. To that end, the concept of the "United Front" is useful.
You watch my back, I'll show up at your demonstration is the operative concept. Thus, the development
and widespread dissemination of images of a uniting "struggle" are needed. All of this is actually
self evident. What is needed are "leaders" ready to stand up and shout it out over the rooftops.
When Paul Revere made his famous ride, he was actually stopped by British troops before he
could reach either Concord or Lexington, Massachusetts. A companion, a Dr. Prescott made the actual
warnings to the American rebels. Revere and Prescott were members of an extensive Patriot organization.
A Doctor and an Artisan, two usually distinct social classes at the time were collaborating towards
a common goal. A "United Front" made the American Revolution. See:
http://www.biography.com/news/paul-reveres-ride-facts
Today's struggle can proceed no differently.
A Doctor and an Artisan, two usually distinct social classes at the time were collaborating
towards a common goal
"We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately." A bit
of wisdom from the mind of Ben Franklin in the early days of the revolution.
Let us remember, when a college student asked Rep. Nancy Pelosi whether the party might move
toward a more socialistic economic system, she answered, "
We're capitalists. That's
just the way it is. ", and went on to support a return to noblesse oblige, completely failing
to grasp the contradiction between modern neoliberal theology (maximizing shareholder return/profits)
and such niceties as paying a living wage. We the left have a problem we need to attack head-on
– our semantics have been demonized. Socialism is widely disparaged as subordinating individual
will to the state – as tyranny – and the MSM often portrays economic downturns in social democracies
(Venezuela, Argentina) as caused by foolish socialist policies, not broadscale economic issues
(oil glut), or financial stupidity of prior governments (Argentina). I applaud Senator Sanders
for continuing to use the moniker "social democrat" as he has done much to legitimize the word.
We need more. Ich bin ein social democrat.
Oh yes, and I remember wondering when I first read about that "interaction," just what did
Pelosi really mean by Capitalist? As someone else here remarked, she might have been confusing
capitalist with corporatist in her mind.
seeking to impose a doctrine in all circumstances without regard to practical considerations:
1. 'Nancy Pelosi asked whether the party might move toward a more socialistic economic system,
she answered, "We're capitalists. That's just the way it is."
ambrit: Excellent comment. What I would add, though, is that all three of the movements that
you cite had equality as a main goal: Black people wanted equality in civil rights and civil liberties.
The antiwar movement drew strength from the draft, which affected people of all classes (men most
directly) and led to various unequal uses of deferments that are causes of political problems
to this very day. Gay folk also wanted civil rights and civil liberties (although marriage equality
may not be the proper culmination–identity politics gone divergent).
A while back, I read Norberto Bobbio's influential little book, Right and Left. He states that
the main motivators of leftist politics are liberty, equality, and fraternité (let's call it solidarity).
And he points out that leftists usually place equality first. So to animate a new movement, we
have to get back to issues of political and economic equality. The metaphor of The One Percent
is a hint. That hint has to be expanded.
Good point. The American Revolt had it's "Committees of Correspondence." They operated outside
of the MSM of the day. The Civil Rights movement early on had the black churches as sanctuaries
and disseminators of the message. The anti-war movement had both the Underground press and, unwittingly,
later, the MSM of the day proclaiming the problem. In general, each information spreading system
used was not a part of the "Official Version" apparatus.
The point about equality is important. The unmentioned basis of Capitalism is competition.
Competition implies inequality as the outcome. This is not true aspiration, but aspiration's evil
twin, ambition. So, the Left's real uphill slog is going to be to frame the debate about social
policy in an anti-competitive form.
Bashing the .01% is always good fun, but, as many have remarked, and the recent failed Democrat
Party campaigns have demonstrated, a positive goal is needed to really motivate and engage those
of us "on the ground." As earlier remarked, a "Single Payer" healthcare campaign, framed as an
"equality" measure would do the trick. There are doubtless many other issues that would lend themselves
to a similar treatment. Meld these issues into a "Progressive United Front" campaign and we will
begin to see some movement.
In essence, as the earlier socialist and communist thinkers proclaimed, the ownership of the
means of production are a good place to start. Given the unequal distribution of such ownership
however, the next best thing would be the control of the distribution of the fruits of production;
especially germaine with the rise of automation.
I also see the dream ahead of him, beckoning, beguiling, beatifying despite the false realities
around him.
Something to believe in will generally trump something to be fearful of, in the hearts of men.
IMO there's not a practical electoral solution, in the sense of electing a bunch of candidates
at multiple levels of government to unwind or replace all the laws, regulations/lack of regulations,
court decisions, and algorithms that misgovern our lives and misappropriate our wealth.
Building on your comment ambrit@5:29 and Ulysses@8:38:
A – No more than 3 universal issues (Medicare for All; publicly funded tuition for post-secondary
education, training, and apprenticeships; end the wars, for example). Medicare for All is part
of the discussion now and should have a prominent place.
B – Activism continues, as it must and will, in other areas: issues of survival (police violence,
incarceration, homelessness and hunger; minimum wage ); support for activism across issues (Food
not Bombs, ACLU and NLG, Light Brigades, local jail and bail support ); and forward-looking activism
(local sustainable food and energy solutions, workplace and community coops ).
C – Electoral politics that functions as the political arm of the movement for "A" and locally
appropriate subsets of "B" issues. In practical term, this may need to be an insurgency in the
Dem ranks, or more organized Greens, plus coordination with other "third" parties that have a
presence and ballot access in some places.
Then we work on ambrit's:
"You watch my back, I'll show up at your demonstration"
Adding: "We recruit candidates who understand your issues and have policy proposals to address
them, you show up to vote".
I can't find much on the Light Brigades. Who are they?
And my issues at the universal level would be health care for all (with minimal fees and premiums),
free education for all, an end to the endless wars, and, if I may have a fourth, expansion of
Social Security with some big raises to recipients to give people a base income that they can
retire on (or safely go into disability retirement). The money is there for all of these, but
the political will consists of the likes of Paul Ryan and Nancy Pelosi.
Yes: You watch my back, and I'll watch your back. But "back" is defined broadly–we are all
in this together.
Good Comment. What bothers me is there is a lot of conversation about all our issues and proposed
solutions, but I see no actions taking place. There are no leaders on the national level, other
than Senator Sanders. We need a Socialist Huey Long with a big horn and perhaps a little action
like, Act Up" to get things moving. There is going to be a revolt sooner or later. It will get
to a point where ordinary people, especially our young, who will not take it anymore.
Love Hudson, but no one is right about everything.
He accepts as an article of faith that it would be easier to start a new party than win primaries
in Dem party. Not clear at all.
Also, while I agree Dems are dominated by Blue Dogs who want to use Wall Street money to run
Repub lite candidates in purple states, and that their appeal to identity politics is manipulative
and a way to deflect from economic issues, it does not logically follow that voters do not often
think of themselves and their goals in terms of racism or religion or guns. Their are cultural
"us v them" identities that have a powerful effect on politics.
I agree with Hudson's critique of FIRE and the problem of debt in our society. But it is not
easy to explain to the general public - which would not recognize the acronym. And what exactly
is the Hudson platform to address debt or FIRE now? I understand the argument (as I understand
it) that 2009 was an opportunity to use bankruptcy of Wall Street to break up economic olarchy
and write down debt for homeowners. I agree. I am angry and frustrated by the lost opportunity.
I also understand the sly reference to having to wait for the next crisis to get another chance.
Why do we have to wait? This is Hudson's concession that there is no general understanding of
the debt problem or support for Willy-Nilly support for dismantling Wall Street or existing debt
relationships.
I am convinced by Hudson that rising housing prices are a scam for loading debt on people and
raising the burden of a rentier class. But most people who own houses are excited when you tell
them housing prices are going up. What exactly should be our political message.
Some districts have strong evangelical communities and find abortion to be the top issue year
in andvyear out. Some evangelicals stuck with Trump in the hope of a Supreme Court that will outlaw
abortion. How to Dems or a new Hudson party win in those districts?
Politics is a fluid business. Forget coalition building (extremely tough), even finding a message
for one voter (who may be of 2 or 3. Or 4 minds about the world, and change views daily, is tough.
In my view, a Progressive majority must be put together piece by piece, place by place, from
the ground up. Bernie articulated a place to start. The Schumer crowd own the Dems now, but it
is a fragile hold. We can beat them if we find common sense solutions to our problems and articulate
those ideas to our neighbors. We need energy and hard work, but it is not clear that a third party
is needed.
Because we have a political system–from the Fed to the Congress to the media–that is designed
to keep current arrangements in place. Public complacency has allowed this to happen and now only
another systemic breakdown is likely to force change on an entrenched elite and confused electorate.
One might hope that the Democratic party would be the necessary force for reform but it's surely
clear by now that its leadership intends to go down with the ship. Time for the rest of us to
pile into the lifeboats (a third party). And even if one believes there is hope for the Dems,
it's unlikely they will change without some serious threat to their power and that would be a
viable third party. For much of the country's history there were lots of third parties and splinter
movements which is what one would expect from such a diverse population. The duopoly is a very
artificial arrangement.
Sanders should never have taken this third party threat off the table and it is why the Dem
leadership doesn't take him seriously. It's also a reason for some of the rest of us to question
his seriousness. "Don't want to be the Nader" isn't the sort of call to arms that has one putting
up the Che posters.
Did Bernie have a big impact? The mainstream media mostly ignore him and the Dems go out of
their way to ignore him by running Perez. And didn't the Bernie endorsed primary challengers in
the last cycle do poorly?
You will only get the elites' attention by threatening their power, not their message. Obviously
establishing a viable third party is extremely difficult which is why I agree with Hudson that
it will take the next crisis to change things. Incrementalism has been shown not to work.
Perez only got 235 votes; Sanders' candidate Ellison got 200. The Democratic Party establishment
did not "ignore" Sanders by running Perez. They were semi-desperately trying to block him (and
his cohort) from advancing on a low rung on the ladder to power.
Primary challenges across the nation, in every city council and state assembly race. Again
and again. Then on to the governorships and federal offices. This is the swiftest, least expensive
and least damaging way to power for Sanders partisan. We could take over the party in under ten
years if this tactic were widely deployed.
Wikileaks made it plain what the Democrats do to mavericks who win races without a party bit
in their mouths. The corruption is institutional, it is their operatives' identity. A successful
third party will be very difficult to achieve, but is perhaps possible. A useful Democratic party
is not possible until every careerist is unemployed–ie until their employers run out of money.
That can't come about, as long as there are empowered Democrats and Republicans.
Primary challenges across the nation, in every city council and state assembly race. Again
and again. Then on to the governorships and federal offices. This is the swiftest, least expensive
and least damaging way to power for Sanders partisan. We could take over the party in under
ten years if this tactic were widely deployed.
I agree with this statement.
And it's happening: various groups (Our Revolution, Brand New Congress, Justice Democrats,
and probably others) are planning primary challengers in just that way. And it's already happened
at the
local and district level in California. It's a different political environment than even just
a few years ago and it will be even still more different when some (or, let's hope, many)
of these candidates start winning.
The real problem is corporatism. The power to make decisions on public policy has been transferred
from democratic government to corporations, run by oligarchs. Both political parties in the US
are committed to this political arrangement. The thin veneer of democracy is used to check public
dissatisfaction. In short order, even this facade will be deemed unnecessary and discarded. This
consolidation of power was enabled by masking class consciousness. Worker aspirations mirror their
corporate masters. Life consists of maximizing personal wealth in the form of money and possessions.
Mass media provides the conduit to achieve this conditioning.
Trying to rebuild the Democratic party form within is a waste of energy and time that most
citizens don't have. If anything, the existing political establishment has perfected the techniques
and tools needed to make dissent impotent. This is largely accomplished by perpetuating the myth
that change can occur by working within the existing system, and then undermining effective policy
that would focus on worker interests. The chumps get scraps.
In the end, oligarchy is the cost that must be paid for our modern life of convenience and
endless entertainment. Moving forward must be about rejection. Rejection of the current social
and cultural order. A new party, a true workers party, is needed to restore equilibrium to the
existing power imbalance. The mass of people who have dropped out of the workforce and electoral
system are waiting for leadership to offer a better vision for the future. This vision is not
forthcoming because the human imagination must turn outside the existing failed norms and seek
new horizons removed from capitalist ideology. Political power follows or grows naturally from
a social order, not the other way around. Imposed social orders are always unstable and need violence
to maintain. A way of life determines the political possibilities. This is why those wanting change
must always work outside the existing system, both mentally and physically.
Just as crony capitalist ideology turned the notion of individual freedom on its head to justify
the greatest inequality known to human societies, the remedy centers on the rejection of exploitive
violence. It is based on preservation, regeneration, and a spiritual awareness that one must give
back to the world and not only take from it. To my mind, coalitions built on these principles
stretch across all social groups. Spending time, money, and energy building these networks and
infrastructure will be productive and longer lasting. Strikes, boycotts, and dropping out of the
existing system sends a much more powerful message to the oligarchs. They will respond with violence,
but then their true nature is open for all to see, making it easier for others to reject their
ideology.
Capitalism was born of Feudalism. Individual rights superseding the rights of Kings. Nothing
lasts forever. A post- capitalist world must be first envisioned and then articulated. Capitalism
maintained the inequality and hierarchical use of violence of the previous system. This relationship
forms most of the underlying root causes of intractable problems faced today. Egalitarianism provides
a way and an alternative. Socialist ideas can be suppressed but never eradicated. Human social
evolution points in this direction. Slavery will never return. The human spirt will not allow
it.
What a cavalier and condescending dismissal. With an arrogant wave of the hand, history goes
*poof*. And though you "agree" (how generous of you!) )with some of the symptoms Hudson identifies,
you categorically deny what he identifies as the root systemic cause of those ills. Instead, a
little modest, cautious, sensible, "piece by piece", "place by place" reform around the edges,
and everything will work out just fine in its own time, because abortion.
You are an exemplary and model Democrat, and Exhibit A why left politics will never emerge
from within the Democrat Party.
although it may be an uphill climb now, striking and unionizing still sounds infinitely less
pie in the sky and far more brass tacks and addressing some of the actual problems, than creating
a 3rd party in the U.S.. If that is one's solution they have no right to criticize anyone on their
proposals not being practical. At least striking has some history of actually working.
It is the participation in our own destruction that I am trying to express and get my head
around. Engagement by all means, but somehow the rules need to be changed.
The amount of time, energy, and resources needed to engage in effective politics today is prohibitive
to most citizens. What Hudson is saying is that the two party system in America is broken and
the only way forward is to start anew. I would tend to agree. In my lifetime, the Democratic party
has been reforming for close to 40 years now. That is a long time to be ineffectual concerning
worker's interests. The long dissent of the American workforce is reaching critical mass and some
radical thinking and action is needed.
The left needs to develop some productive alternatives, which again Hudson points out. An egalitarian
alternative needs to be articulated. Candidates running for office as socialists, espousing actual
socialist ideals. Win or loose, speaking in public about socialist ideals can only help. Government
sponsorship of small business and cooperatives over monopolistic corporations. Actually running
and building sustainable communities. As was stated in comments, Sanders raised upwards of 240
million dollars during the last campaign. What is there to show for all that effort and resource
depletion?
An actual show of distain for the elite ruling class for their crass barbarism and masked cruelty
is a start. Followed by actually building something of lasting value.
The "masses of people who have dropped out of the workforce" are old, overweight, have multiple
physical deficits and are hooked on at least 2 types of prescription dope. They will not be manning
your nostalgia-draped barricades. Not ever.
alrighty, everyone who can't get a job is overweight and a drug addict and unhealthy etc..
Get real. Old sometimes has something to do with it, just because companies do age discriminate
in hiring.
I agree with Hudson's critique of FIRE and the problem of debt in our society. But it is
not easy to explain to the general public - which would not recognize the acronym.
People are not a miniscule fraction as stupid as you think they are, and I will posit that this
is one of, if not the main problem with democrat loyalists such as yourself.
first you say this
"Also, while I agree Dems are dominated by Blue Dogs who want to use Wall Street money to
run Repub lite candidates in purple states, and that their appeal to identity politics is manipulative
and a way to deflect from economic issues,"
shorter, I realize democrats don't represent you, and that's too bad but you have no other option
and PH doesn't want you to have another option.
followed by
" it does not logically follow that voters do not often think of themselves and their goals
in terms of racism or religion or guns. Their are cultural "us v them" identities that have a
powerful effect on politics."
Is this unmoored jab at rural identity not a double negative that can be rephrased "it logically
follows that voters think of themselves in terms of racism or religion or guns"? and isn't that
just another way of saying people are stupid and you are not because you can hide your class and
race bias behind a double negative, and people being stupider than you will never know it because
clever, but clever ain't working anymore, and isn't likely to start working any time soon.
You
close with a call for incrementalism yeah that's worked really great for all of us in the hoi
polloi, and you don't fail to mention abortion, the only democrat platform, and schumer et al's
"fragile grip" is in reality an "iron law of institutions" grip and they and you are not going
to let go.
"We can beat them if we find common sense solutions to our problems and articulate those ideas
to our neighbors. We need energy and hard work, but it is not clear that a third party is needed."
so who is this "we" kemo sabe? I am in the veal pen. Come into the veal pen with me. We will be
in the veal pen thanks but no thanks. I've had plenty of common sense discussions with my neighbors,
and it's depressing as we all know none of those sensible policies will be enacted by the useless
to the common citizen and enabler to the criminals on wall street democrat party, rotten to it's
core.
Федеральное агентство по управлению государственным имуществом (Росимущество) was what created
Oligarchs under Yeltsin. It was headed by Chubais who helped make Khordorovsky and the rest of
the Oligarchs incredibly rich. He then headed the 1996 Re-Election Campaign for Unpopular Yeltsin
and bought victory and sold off State assets for nugatory worth.
Khordorovsky was to deliver Yukos to Exxon and let US interests control Russia's natural resources.
Berezhovsky needed a "roof" – he had Chechens protecting his outside interests but once Yeltsin's
liver gave out the KGB Siloviki would put The Family on trial so he found Putin as a Lieut-Col.
with a background in St Petersburg where Chubais had been active for Sobchak also. Putin was the
"roof" to keep the KGB from executing the looters for treason.
Like a new Tsar with Boyars, Putin had to find which were his "Oligarchs" and Berezhovsky turned
his assets over to Abramovich who is Putin's man. Chubais now sits on CFR and JP Morgan Board
for his good works.
Trump won on the slogan Make America Great. I live in upstate NY which is strong republican.
These people thought the slogan meant great for them. That coupled with a bitter hate of Clinton
made it easy for Trump to get their vote. A sad thing is that these voters are very uninformed
and depend on what they know from corporate media especially FOX news. None of them know what
Neoliberal means and that the root of their problems lie with neoliberal policies.
When I tell
them that Obama and Cuomo aren't really democrats but moderate republicans they think I'm out
of my mind. I tend to look at thing objectively based on verifiable facts.Most of these voters
look at issues in an emotional way. They will say Obamacare is bad and need to be repealed. When
you ask them how it's bad the best they can come up with is it forces you to buy insurance and
you can't keep your own doctor. I guess what I'm saying is that the average voter is too lazy
to get informed and relies on the political propaganda fed to them.
At 75 years old I don't see
that the immediate future will change much. The only hope I see is in the young of our country.
Unless someone or a movement can educate them about the evils that are destroying their future,
democracy is dead. Because of how the economy is structured the economic future for most of the
population is grim. They will not be able to afford to retire and will live in poverty. Perhaps
this will wake them up. Unfortunately it will be too late for them.
At best we can work at the margin on the handful of people that are capable of rational thought.
Which is why nothing ever changes, appeals to emotion are always more potent than appeals to reason.
There is no solution.
I also agree that there is no solution, certainly not an evolutionary solution via EITHER of
the two parties.
The big changes in the USA occurred during the Great Depression as financial reform was introduced,
the idea of government infrastructure could provide employment and what I believe is little mentioned,
an increased awareness on the part of many that their success was not achieved solely by their
own efforts.
Many of the USA's post war corporate executives should have remembered that their families
struggled during the thirties, and this may have made them more connected with their employees
and communities.
Now we have a government of the internally connected top 10%, with the bottom 90% detached
and watching from outside.
And CEO's and the executive class have loyalty only to their company's stock price.
The recent rehabilitation of serial screw-up George W. Bush and attempted elevation of serial
screw-up Hillary Clinton is direct evidence that the political class does not care how much harm
they do to the "deplorable" voters they appeal to every 2/4/6 years.
With the money sloshing around DC and the media control of content, how does one replace the
leadership of both parties with more progressive people in any reasonable time frame?
Per Mark Blyth, Global Trump_vs_deep_state is the current response, but what will this morph into after
Global Trump_vs_deep_state hangover manifests?.
I think although it may seem that only a small percent of the population is capable of rational
thought I think this is actually not the case and its more productive (and optomistic) to think
of this issue in terms of a behaviour rather than a fixed capability, like how some ancient Greek
philosophers thought about moral behaviour or how some modern phychologists think about psychopathy.
Almost everyone is capable of rational thought (or moral or psychopathitic behaviour) but its
how often or more precisly in what situations an individual decides to engage in or deploy rational
thought.
Capable of rational thought really doesn't do much good for all the things one has no exposure
to. Ok in this case they may have little real understanding of say leftists ideas. And I really
think they don't. That may not be the case for the political junkies here for political ideas,
but we all have our areas of things (not politics) we may have a similar stupidity about.
Sorry, but I think that's way too disrespectful of other people and not realistic. All, save
those with extreme mental disabilities, are capable of some degree of rational thought. That doesn't
mean they can be quickly or easily convinced, but they will be more amenable to persuasion if
you approach them as equals and open your mind to their reality in order to find the right terms
with which to present your ideas. Bernie has shown himself to be very good at that, as are all
good teachers. Those who insist on framing everything in their own terms without adapting their
communication to another's experience will always get blank stares.
Dehumanizing ("people are sheep") and dismissing our neighbors as incapable of rational (good?)
thinking will get us nowhere. Like I've said, the propaganda is working when we're dividing and
conquering ourselves. That horrid little word often seen in this context, "sheeple," is just another
word for "deplorables."
People are not sheep. We've been psyop'd senseless. "Public relations" began around the turn
of the 20th century. It was ramped up by orders of magnitude after WWII.
Gore Vidal quotes JFK
as saying to him, we've entered an era in which "it is the *appearance of things that matters"
(emphasis original in the TRNN video,
The National Security State with Gore Vidal ). Psychology and other social sciences have been
weaponized and turned against us. With a facile understanding of the human mind (as if it were
nothing but a mere mechanism), immense effort has gone into controlling the inputs in order to
control the outputs (behavior).
Newly declassified documents from the Reagan presidential library help explain how the U.S.
government developed its sophisticated psychological operations capabilities that – over the
past three decades – have created an alternative reality both for people in targeted countries
and for American citizens, a structure that expanded U.S. influence abroad and quieted dissent
at home.
Today, "public opinion" is a Frankenstein's monster. Most of my fellow Americans believe in
a world that never existed and doesn't exist right now. We can't even agree on what happened to
JFK, or MLK, or what happened on 9/11/01.
Contra UF, it's not that people are incapable of rational thought; rather, the information
we have is hopelessly corrupted. People are acting rationally, but the numerators and denominators
have been faked. On purpose. Or did the Russians really do it?
Once again, TPTB thought they had found a magic method of machining people into permanent compliance.
But they neglected the fact that relying on psyops drives people crazy. You just can't keep rejecting
real reality and substituting a manufactured Narrative (looking at you, NYT) forever.
ISTM we're acting without sufficient contact with reality. The effort to control the population,
the better to exploit us, has driven many of us mad. Neglecting the century or so of effort that's
gone into manufacturing consent leads to blaming the victims.
Propagandists and PSYOPeratives have put out the people's eyes, and you berate them for their
blindness?
While I would absolutely agree with everything you've just said and believe the facts you've
cited are the main reason for the bleak outlook for our species, how the myriad of lies fed to
the population is received is a more complex process than just plain deception. People are incredibly
complex and operate on a number of levels simultaneously. For instance the notion that universal
health care or a strong union would be personally beneficial, or that the banking system is corrupt
and that all the wars since 1945 have been unnecessary must be known to anyone with functioning
eyes and ears on a relatively conscious level, but the majority have chosen to effectively overlook
this reality I believe for reasons that ultimately feed in to human predispositions for conformity.
It's ironic that our evolutionary highly successful nature of collectivism is now working against
us as a species and leading to a destructive subservience that is almost sadomasochistic. If the
population were to be unequivocally presented with reality I doubt many would tolerate the state
we have now but conversely this would mean that the elite in our society had sanctioned truthfulness,
so we would not really be going against the wishes of the powerful. Basically the fact that the
powerful in our society have presented us with lies means lies are what they want us to believe,
so dutifully most will oblige, however obviously at odds with reality those lies are.
Why such an overwhelming percent of the population do not vote in their own economic interest
is because political affiliations seem to be a complex expression of self-identity, something
which includes attitudes, social prejudices and 'beliefs' that are dependent on complex emotional
interactions between internal and external events, and can include for instance a desire for status
within your tribe, family loyalty, even sadistic impulses. I;m probably wrong about most of this
but part of me cant help feeling some of the victims share a little of the blame
>> For instance the notion that universal health care or a strong union would be personally
beneficial, or that the banking system is corrupt and that all the wars since 1945 have been unnecessary
must be known to anyone with functioning eyes and ears on a relatively conscious level, but the
majority have chosen to effectively overlook this reality I believe for reasons that ultimately
feed in to human predispositions for conformity.
You're projecting your knowledge and views, and then blaming people who don't see things your
way. A majority supports single payer, yes, but the rest is wishful thinking.
If you read Zinn's A People's History of the US, you'll see that even WWII was a manufactured
war. I'm willing to bet a majority still thinks we were attacked out of the blue on Pearl Harbor
Day, despite FDR's plan to provoke Japan. Or that incinerating Nagasaki and Hiroshima ended the
war and saved tens of thousands of US lives. There was an almost perfectly complete news blackout
on the aftermath specifically so that opposition to the bombings couldn't form. There are endless
examples like this.
We're not told what we need to know to govern ourselves. What we are told amounts to propaganda,
sometimes explicitly so.
Yes, a lot of people have drunk the koolaid, some with gusto. Who's pouring it? You can blame
the victims all you like. I blame the people who've deliberately set out to deceive us.
What our deluded brothers and sisters need is our compassion. It's hard to have compassion
for someone trying to run you over for exercising your rights (been there, done that), but no
one ever said it would be easy.
The only hope I see is in the young of our country.
I think Trump, the Repubs and most of the Dems see that too. That's why they've promoted DeVos,
Arnie Duncan, and all the other advocates of "charter schools," strangled public education, and
attacked teachers.
The problem with this approach is that all this does is kill off liberal cosmopolitanism, not
Marxism. Marxism doesn't need a widespread secondarily-educated population to spread. And it definitely
does not need liberal cosmopolitanism as a stepping stone; quite the opposite, really. Just in
the US, when the wobblies and Black Panthers started turning red, how many of their rank and file
went to college or even finished high school?
Considering that the elites are using liberal cosmopolitanism to strangle Marxism (class-only
Marxists want to throw women and nonwhites under the bus to get their single-payer and you, the
woke liberal identitarian, must support capitalism to protect the marginalized), this strategy
is not only pointless but it's also self-defeating.
It's far more simpler. Charter schools are about following the money. Public schools have seemingly
huge revenue streams. Why can't GE get a cut is the thought process? For profit Healthcare was
forbidden until 1973 (thanks to Teddy), why not public schools?
The HMO Act of 1973 (thanks Teddy and Tricky Dick; bipartisanship at its finest) made it easier
to start and run HMOs which faced regulatory hurdles mostly due to financing. Non profits had
an easier time of it hence Hospitals named "St X" or "X General." Since the
hospital were non
profits and employers made deals with the hospitals, health insurance was effectively non-profit.
There were gaps, mostly in rural areas. Other changes from the HMO Act of 1973 encouraged profit seeking
from denial of coverage to pushing unnecessary procedures or prescriptions.
There is a noticeable correlation between this act and the explosion of Healthcare costs.
The Miller Center had a series on Nixon expressing doubts to the Kaiser about HMOs. The arguments
played out just like charter schools today.
I recall hearing the tape of a conversation among Nixon and his aides regarding HMOs. The audio,
like most of the Johnson & Nixon tapes, was poor, but what did come through was Nixon's support
for Kaiser's business model, summed up by Erlichman as, "the less care they give them, the more
money they make."
The US Left has been controlled opposition since 1950. There was never a chance it could provide
a reasonable and effective alternative. FBI/CIA moles make sure they never will. The Democrats
have never been true Left FDR didn't really betray his class, he saved them from their own stupidity.
"As Tanzanian President Julius Nyerere quipped in the 1960s, when he was accused by the US
of running a one-party state, 'The United States is also a one-party state but, with typical American
extravagance, they have two of them'."
I seem to recall that the identity politics of yore were lacking in solidarity. The antiwar protestors, some of whom were hippies, were beaten up by working class union members.
Remember the hard hat riots? And the African American leadership of the Civil Rights era? Well, they were from the black
churches, and they thought that the hippies were uncouth.
The identity politics of today lack in solidarity, too. What with Hillary Clinton running the
most ageist campaign in memory, Obama breaking the record on deportations, Bill Clinton blowing
racist dogwhistles as hard he can and also helping to shepherd a police state that puts Thailand
to shame, and the whole of the Democratic Party stoking Russophobia and neoconservative.
A cynic might say that liberal identity politics (as opposed to post-Frankfurt/Focault Marxist
identity politics) was intentionally designed to do these things both in the 60-70s and now.
I don't see how antiwar protestors qualify as identity politics, since the group is defined
by a policy concern, not by some quasi-biological tag. Same with working class union members;
policy and economic interests, not tags.
I'd say the same about the African American leadership of the Civil Rights era, even though
they did generally share the tag of being "black". They focused on a policy goal and welcomed
those who didn't share the tag to participate in the struggle.
Identity politics are not the same thing as left-wing or progressive or liberal (or whatever
you want to call it) politics. In very real sense, Identity politics are a form of anti-politics
since they don't address interests, policy or allow any form of accommodation or reconciliation
of different points of view.
Identity politics is about tags. Non-identity politics is about interests and policies.
But the focus is on the policy issues. The campaign for gay marriage was about getting gay
marriage, not about being gay. And anyone who supported gay marriage was a part of that campaign
- gay, straight, black, white, male, female; all the tags. It may have started with those who
were gay, but it wasn't exclusive to the tag.
By contrast, Hillary's campaign was just about the tags. Not doing anything for those with
the tags, or changing any policies, no matter how they affected various tags, or even addressing
any issues that are important to one or more of the tags, just acknowledging the tags and verbally
supporting pride in them. That's why even a bunch of people possessing the tags didn't support
her: there was nothing there for them, or, indeed, anyone else outside the financial and imperial
elite.
Abernathy and King were from black churches. The rest of the leadership came from the street
or universities. King's lament about the "white moderate" was code for the "black church." Ministers
were glorified house slaves and liked the big houses. Jim Crow worked for black ministers. If
better of blacks moved to white neighborhoods and more importantly white churches, who would put
money in the collection plate?
With the exception of Jackson when he showed up (he was young), those young black men who were
always around King were Communists and atheists. They didn't broadcast it for obvious reasons,
but a guy like Malcolm X was skeptical of King for real reasons.
Jackson was important because he forced the black churches to get with the program. If there
was a minister successor to King, the congregants might ask questions about their own ministers.
The black church hated hippies, but the real civil rights leadership didn't.
The diagnosis is mostly correct. But omits the role class bigotry and affluenza with attendant
celebrity culture and pursuit of prestige plays. Thus the prognosis and protocol go astray.
The wealthy and the politicians don't care about you/us. They care about maintaining any fiction
that allows them to keep acquiring. Trump is not the problem; Mercer"s values are The Problem.
Trump is the PERFECT reality TV/celebrity fantasy creature to keep the twisted Mercer chariot's
wheels turning.
Bernie was NOT The Answer. Putting on a mask of concern does not take away the sorrows of empire.
As long as the blatant US militarism and imperialism continues we cannot unite the working class.
Everything it needs to flourish continues - mass incarceration, join the military or stay in the
ghetto, graft and corruption of military/industrial/media complex, no respect for other cultures
being swarmed, consumerism.
Bernie picked up Occupy"s talking points (good plagarist!) but left the hurdle of recognizing
plutocracy the same as Occupy did. Plutocracy is democratic as well it just usnt!
What is there to show for 200 million in donations to overcome the Third Way? A new minuet
with the crushing DemocRATic "party".
The war has come home. First step is to admit it. Consistency in VALUES is the left"s primary
directive. There needs to be funerals for both parties not more illusion.
The tax break "fight" will be hilarious. Another example of how our rulers cannot solve a single
problem .
The jobs plan: more prison guards, border agents, munitions makers, soldiers, cops, various
bodyguards for the rich and the other useful mandarins to the affluenza-stricken is set in stone.
You cannot heal a chronic disease without seeing the entirety of its degenerative properties.
We're fighting a nasty virus.
Bernie did not plagiarize Occupy. He had been saying the same things in Vermont for 25 years,
but saying them in ways that lots of very various people connected with.
20 years ago, Bernie lawn signs used to be run over by irate people who knew he was a no-good
dirty Socialist. But because he has consistently framed issues in terms of ordinary people's lives
and because he has always been absolutely honest and forthright, most of those people who flattened
the signs now like and respect him and vote for him. They also pay attention to issues that only
no-good dirty Socialists do in most other states.
"a revived protection of labor's right to unionize"
Do this and everything else will follow - don't do this and nothing will ever follow.
"It seems that only a new party can achieve these aims."
Don't depend on right or left parties. Depend on yourselves: rebuild American union density
(6% unions in private economy analogous to 20/10 BP - starves every other healthy process). Both
parties will come begging to your door.
Here's how to "do this":
[snip]
80 years ago Congress forgot to put criminal enforcement in the NLRA(a). Had union busting been
a felony all along we would be like Germany today. Maybe at some point our progressives might
note that collective bargaining is the T-Rex in the room - or the missing T-Rex .
The money is there for $20 jobs. 49 years - and half the per capita income ago - the fed min
wage was $11. Since then the bottom 45% went from 20% overall income share to 10% - while the
top 1% went from 10% to 20%.
How to get it - how to get collective bargaining set up? States can make union busting a felony
without worrying about so-called federal preemption:
+ a state law sanctioning wholesalers, for instance, using market power to block small retail
establishments from combining their bargaining power could be the same one that makes union busting
a felony - overlap like min wage laws - especially since on crim penalties the fed has left nothing
to overlap since 1935;
+ First Amendment right to collectively bargain cannot be forced by the fed down (the current)
impassable road. Double ditto for FedEx employees who have to hurdle the whole-nation-at-once
certification election barrier;
+ for contrast, examples of state infringement on federal preemption might be a state finding
of union busting leading to a mandate for an election under the fed setup - or any state certification
setup for labor already covered by NLRA(a) or RLA(a). (Okay for excluded farm workers.)
[snip]
Michael Hudson makes great points but I am still wrestling with his (and others) push back
against so-called identity politics as it pertains to this perception of it splintering or at
least limiting the Democratic party. The Dems are most certainly a party committed to the ideals
of neoliberalism and corporatism. They did not lose this election based on "Russian hacking/emails"
and other trite nonsense.
Nor did they lose it by appealing to so-called identity politics or
tribalism. If the Left is going to move forward effectively it can't pretend we are merely having
class and by extension economic arguments. Race is the thru line and has consistently been since
the countries inception. Many things cited i.e. the New Deal, pro-Union policy, etc are standard
bearers on the Left but have also been rife with racist treatment of potential Black and Latino
allies. Why would that be ignored if we are only having conversations of class? Class does not
explain redlining which has economic and social implications.
These are complex issues, but they are not as class focused (solely) as many on the Left would
like to believe. Our failure to speak honestly and openly about it and critique capitalism and
its most malevolent (and seductive form neoliberalism) as being tied to the practice and idea
of white supremacy is why we ultimately will find it more and more challenging to wage a successful
countermovement against it.
Wow. Ok, so since racial bias was written into past economic policy that was intended to address
class issues, addressing class based inequality should just be abandoned?
How about just demanding policy that addresses class based inequality simply be written without
the racial bias? Why is this so difficult to get into the minds of liberals? This is not that
hard.
The refusal to recognize is a nice idea. I've often thought of late that Democrats, or at least
the Left, should refuse to recognize Trump's horrible cabinet appointments, even if the delegitimizing
effect is minimal. Just referring to these people at citizen or whatever rather than secretary
would be some small repudiation, at least.
There's a very long and comprehensive
musing on politics and public dialog at slatestarcodex. My takeaway: if your dialog is weaponized,
if you consider your mission to be "How do I force these people to admit that I'm right?" then
you'll keep seeing the same results we see now.
Been saying #TrumpIsObamaLegacy since early morning in November. Yves was WAAAAY ahead of the curve back in late 08 calling that out.
The Obama part of maintaining the looting of society status quo.
The point about Trump being the US Yeltsin is one very much worth considering, if only because
Russia, after much degradation and also suffering, has managed to begin to overcome those shameful
and depressing times. May we do so also.
Great summary, forwarding to friends.
As commented above, progressive candidates that Bernie backed did not do well. Neolib always willing
to boost funding for any candidate of any party if primary challenged by a progressive. Takeover
of state party machinery e.g. Ca did have some success, but pretty slow.
Third party seems both the only way and imo more doable than many think unlike in the past,
electorate is now desperate for real change. Third party impossible until probable. IMO we are
now at just such a point.
But neolib will fight tooth and nail to keep a progressive party off the ballot....
progressive candidates that Bernie backed did not do well.
I'm not so sure about that. Here's the list of candidates backed by Our Revolution (not precisely
the same as Sanders, but close). I didn't bother to do an exact count, but it appears that the
winners exceed the losers by about 6 to 5.
The Republicans control a majority of the state legislatures, governorships, and both houses
of Congress. Compared to the establishment Democratic Party as a whole, the Sanders people in
Our Revolution are doing pretty well. A new party isn't required; we just need some new people
in charge of the Democratic Party. Heck, a lot of the same people could remain in charge, so long
as they change their attitudes and stop obeying Wall Street and the billionaires.
Excellent piece. Americans have forgotten that the things they took for granted (40 hour week,
humane working conditions, employer provided benefits etc.) were gained by the blood, sweat and
tears of their forebears.
Today, as the attack on what's left
of employee protections and benefits is ramped up, people are alienated from one another and encouraged
to channel their despair and anger into blaming scapegoats or invest their energy stoking paranoid
delusions about the illuminati and Russian agents. If that gets boring there's always alcohol
and heroin to take the edge off.
The left has a momentous job – it has to convince people to give a shit and think of their
fate as intertwined with others in a similar position. After decades of neoliberal economics empathy
and giving a shit are associated with weakness and losers in many people's minds. Nobody wants
to give a shit about anyone outside their preferred identity group or groups but everyone wants,
demands , others give a shit about them.
It's almost comical how self-defeating and illogical people can be.
My belief is that Trump (and his kin) is likely the 'apotheosis' of neoliberalism or, as is
far less likely, he (or they) might pleasantly surprise us.
Like Brexit in the UK, I for one, hopefully not mistakenly, mark this anti establishment ascendency
as the beginning of the end of neoliberal economics rather than a further ringing endorsement
ie I fully accept things may have to get worse before they get better.
People mostly vote to maintain a status quo they believe serves or may serve their interests
in the future or, increasingly in the case of ever plausible (to the trusting and naďve) neoliberalism,
out of misplaced hope, desperation, exasperation or understandable fear of the unknown.
The Clintons, the Obamas, the Blairs, possibly the Macrons, the Ruttes, even the Merkels of
this world are wolves in sheep's clothing. They have come to represent, for increasing numbers,
little better than managed decline in apparently safe hands, conducted in plain sight, in the
ever narrower interests of the few.
Unfortunately events are conspiring to demand the once virtuous, now vicious, circle be broken
by fair means or foul.
It seems that only a new party can achieve these aims. At the time these essays are going
to press, Sanders has committed himself to working within the Democratic Party. But that stance
is based on his assumption that somehow he can recruit enough activists to take over the party
from Its Donor Class.
I suspect he will fail. In any case, it is easier to begin afresh than to try to re-design
a party (or any institution) dominated by resistance to change, and whose idea of economic
growth is a pastiche of tax cuts and deregulation. Both U.S. parties are committed to this
neoliberal program – and seek to blame foreign enemies for the fact that its effect is to continue
squeezing living standards and bloating the financial sector.
I couldn't have said it better myself. Its encouraging to know that minds like Hudson's are
thinking in these terms.
Regarding the subject line of the article. I'd say that the Democratic Party has been the "paid
loyal opposition" for quite a while. . . meaning they are paid to loose. Given the party's ties
to Wall Street and Big Pharma it's pretty clear they mostly work for the same folks that own "mainstream"
Republicans so their apparent fecklessness and inability to mount ANY sort of effective opposition,
even when they are in the majority, shouldn't be any surprise.
The question might more appropriately
be can EITHER party survive Trump? Frankly, one can only HOPE that the current version of the
Democratic Party DOES go the way of the Whig Party. I can only hope that the Republicans stay
as gridlocked as they currently are by the stupid faction of their party.
"... Ugh what an awful display of pop economism. Globalization and technology are "impersonal forces." No mention of the rise of inequality or the SecStags. No mention of monetary policy fail in Europe. The biggest lies of economism are the lies of omission. ..."
"... Looks like this concept of "Economism" introduced by James Kwak in his book Economism is very important conceptual tool for understanding the tremendous effectiveness of neoliberal propaganda. ..."
"... When competitive free markets and rational well-informed actors are the baseline assumption, the burden of proof shifts unfairly onto anyone proposing a government policy. ..."
"... For example, the basic Econ 101 theory of supply and demand is fine for some products, but it doesn't work very well for labor markets. It is incapable of simultaneously explaining both the small effect of minimum wage increases and the small impact of low-skilled immigration. Some more complicated, advanced theory is called for. ..."
"... But no matter how much evidence piles up, people keep talking about "the labor supply curve" and "the labor demand curve" as if these are real objects, and to analyze policies -- for example, overtime rules -- using the same old framework. ..."
"... An idea that we believe in despite all evidence to the contrary isn't a scientific theory -- it's an infectious meme. ..."
"... Academic economists are unsure about how to respond to the abuse of simplistic econ theories for political ends. On one hand, it gives them enormous prestige. The popularity of simplistic econ ideas has made economists the toast of America's intellectual classes. ..."
"... It has sustained enormous demand for the undergraduate econ major, which serves, in the words of writer Michael Lewis, as a "standardized test of general intelligence" for future businesspeople. But as Kwak points out, the simple theories promulgated by politicians and on the Wall Street Journal editorial page often bear little resemblance to the sophisticated theories used by real economists. ..."
"... And when things go wrong -- when the financial system crashes, or millions of workers displaced by Chinese imports fail to find new careers -- it's academic economists who often get blamed, not the blasé and misleading popularizers. ..."
"So I wonder if economism was really as unrealistic and useless as Kwak seems to imply.
Did countries that resisted economism -- Japan, for example, or France [Germany?] -- do better
for their poor and middle classes than the U.S.? Wages have stagnated in those countries, and
inequality has increased, even as those countries remain poorer than the U.S. Did the U.S.'s
problems really all come from economism, or did forces such as globalization and technological
change play a part? Cross-country comparisons suggest that the deregulation and tax cuts of
the 1980s and 1990s, although ultimately excessive, probably increased economic output somewhat."
Ugh what an awful display of pop economism. Globalization and technology are "impersonal forces."
No mention of the rise of inequality or the SecStags. No mention of monetary policy fail in Europe.
The biggest lies of economism are the lies of omission.
libezkova -> Peter K.... , -1
Thank you --
Looks like this concept of "Economism" introduced by James Kwak in his book Economism is
very important conceptual tool for understanding the tremendous effectiveness of neoliberal propaganda.
I think it is proper to view Economism as a flavor of Lysenkoism. As such it is not very effective
in acquiring the dominant position and suppressing of dissent, but it also can be very damaging.
...When competitive free markets and rational well-informed actors are the baseline assumption,
the burden of proof shifts unfairly onto anyone proposing a government policy. For far too
many years, free-marketers have gotten away with winning debates by just sitting back and saying
"Oh yeah? Show me the market failure!" That deck-stacking has long forced public intellectuals
on the left have to work twice as hard as those safely ensconced in think tanks on the free-market
right, and given the latter a louder voice in public life than their ideas warrant.
It's also true that simple theories, especially those we learn in our formative years, can
maintain an almost unshakeable grip on our thinking.
For example, the basic Econ 101 theory of supply and demand is fine for some products,
but it doesn't work very well for labor markets. It is incapable of simultaneously explaining
both the small effect of minimum wage increases and the small impact of low-skilled immigration.
Some more complicated, advanced theory is called for.
But no matter how much evidence piles up, people keep talking about "the labor supply curve"
and "the labor demand curve" as if these are real objects, and to analyze policies -- for example,
overtime rules -- using the same old framework.
An idea that we believe in despite all evidence to the contrary isn't a scientific theory
-- it's an infectious meme.
Academic economists are unsure about how to respond to the abuse of simplistic econ theories
for political ends. On one hand, it gives them enormous prestige. The popularity of simplistic
econ ideas has made economists the toast of America's intellectual classes.
It has sustained enormous demand for the undergraduate econ major, which serves, in the
words of writer Michael Lewis, as a "standardized test of general intelligence" for future businesspeople.
But as Kwak points out, the simple theories promulgated by politicians and on the Wall Street
Journal editorial page often bear little resemblance to the sophisticated theories used by real
economists.
And when things go wrong -- when the financial system crashes, or millions of workers displaced
by Chinese imports fail to find new careers -- it's academic economists who often get blamed,
not the blasé and misleading popularizers.
... ... ...
Russia and China have given up communism not because they stopped having working classes, but
because it became obvious that their communist systems were keeping them in poverty. And Americans
are now starting to question economism because of declining median income, spiraling inequality
and a huge financial and economic crisis.
"... I suspect that Bill and Hillary Clinton were recruited in the sixties under COINTELPRO (Hillary) and the CIA to do spywork for them. Having been a college student in the late sixties, if you went to a peace rally there was an undercover FBI agent to your left, a CIA asset to your right, a military intelligence officer sitting behind you and a cop from the local red squad in front of you. ..."
"... I understand that Bill's friends in England just presumed he was CIA ..."
"... Hillary's morphing from Goldwater Girl to neoliberal Democrat occurred while she was hovering around Black Panther legal problems. She observed the Panther trials in New Haven and then spent a summer interning for the law firm in Berkeley that at the time was representing the Black Panthers on the West Coast. The Panthers were the FBI's number one target back then. ..."
"... having "moderate" Dems connected to the Deep State is always helpful. It appears that the role of the Clintons in our unwritten history was to move the Democratic Party to the corporate right. ..."
"... Hillary, when serving on the legal staff for the Democratic Watergate Committee, certainly sat in a place where she could report Democratic progress and how various intelligence leaks were viewed by the other Democrats. ..."
"... The current "Russia hack/Trump traitor" false flag (I describe it more fully below) was originally to give a self-righteous President Clinton the moral high ground to march into Ukraine, the one thing that Trump wouldn't give the Deep State. ..."
This should be no real surprise. Hillary and her faction were neo-Republicans. Their liberal
interventionist hawk was the same idea as neocons, in many cases it was the same people.
They kept control of the party. It is not Democratic in the sense of opposing war or McCarthyism
or corporate abuses or Wall Street or trade agreements. It is bought and paid for by the people
who were the Republicans all along.
This is the end state of triangulating courtesy of Bill Clinton. We have two Republican parties,
one even crazier than the other.
Bob In Portland , March 23, 2017 at 4:00 pm
I suspect that Bill and Hillary Clinton were recruited in the sixties under COINTELPRO
(Hillary) and the CIA to do spywork for them. Having been a college student in the late sixties,
if you went to a peace rally there was an undercover FBI agent to your left, a CIA asset to your
right, a military intelligence officer sitting behind you and a cop from the local red squad in
front of you.
I understand that Bill's friends in England just presumed he was CIA
Hillary's morphing from Goldwater Girl to neoliberal Democrat occurred while she was hovering
around Black Panther legal problems. She observed the Panther trials in New Haven and then spent
a summer interning for the law firm in Berkeley that at the time was representing the Black Panthers
on the West Coast. The Panthers were the FBI's number one target back then.
After JFK's removal, the Deep State wanted better control of both parties. Nixon wasn't supposed
to be the problem he was for them, so Watergate. But having "moderate" Dems connected to the Deep
State is always helpful. It appears that the role of the Clintons in our unwritten history was
to move the Democratic Party to the corporate right.
Perhaps Bill earned his bones with Asa Hutchinson
in the 80s by ignoring Mena. Hillary, when serving on the legal staff for the Democratic Watergate
Committee, certainly sat in a place where she could report Democratic progress and how various
intelligence leaks were viewed by the other Democrats.
The current "Russia hack/Trump traitor" false flag (I describe it more fully below) was originally
to give a self-righteous President Clinton the moral high ground to march into Ukraine, the one
thing that Trump wouldn't give the Deep State.
JWalters , March 23, 2017 at 9:14 pm
Interesting speculations. For new readers just getting acquainted with the Deep State, consider
the scholarly work by professor Peter Dale Scott. Here are three interviews about his books.
"... Another official US moron has blamed Russia, this time for "supplying Taliban" in Afghanistan. US Gen. Curtis Scaparrotti announced that "it was conceivable that Russia was providing supplies to the Afghan Taliban". ..."
"... It appears that absolutely any personal or group failure by any US official gets automatically converted into "Russia did it". Little kids are more creative when they say "the dog ate my homework". ..."
"... He showed the two political parties as 'two wings of the same bird of prey" ..."
"... 69 percent of the [US] people have been taken in with the Russia bashing ..."
"... I would trace the transition of the Democrats to a war party, not to the fear of being labeled disloyal after Iraq War 1, but to their being taken over by the zionists. The top ten "donors" to Clinton (Kleinberg) were Jewish, every single one of them! Over $100 million. Obama got over $100 million from a single Jewish "donor." They want those Mideast wars because they are religious fanatics and thieves. Those are the facts of the Democrats. They are owned by zionist traitors. They are Ziocrats. ..."
"... The simplistic notion that the Democrats have been "taken over by the zionists" is a dangerous illusion that needs debunking. While there is no doubt that Natanyahu's Israel supports a policy in sync with that of neo-con objectives, it is beyond a stretch to attribute that policy to that Israel's exaggerated influence in the US. ..."
"... Rather, Israel, as well as Israel's Saudi allies, are both instruments of British Empire policy, sometimes called "globalism," which was adopted and embraced by what can be called the Obama faction of the Democratic Party and its backers in the Republican right. ..."
"... US policy, especially in the post-Soviet era has been determined by a failing attempt to maintain a "unipolar" world that no longer exists and should never have been. The freak-out over Trump's exposure of British Intelligence's GCHQ, heralding a possible rupture in Britain's "special relationship" is an indication of the fear gripping the Anglo-American financial oligarchy that their control over the US is slip-sliding away and that the US will pursue its political and economic self-interest by establishing new relationships to true world powers Russia, China, India and Japan. ..."
"... The simplistic notion that the Democrats have been "taken over by the zionists" is a dangerous illusion that needs debunking. ..."
"... Can you share with readers why you used the term "dangerous illusion" and why it needs debunking? According to William Binney, Obama's use of GCHQ was nothing more than standard operating procedure, an everyday mode of business, to avoid breaking American laws – nothing new, so therefore presenting no threat of rupturing U.S.-British "special relationship". ..."
"... The top ten "donors" to Clinton (Kleinberg) were Jewish, every single one of them! Over $100 million. Obama got over $100 million from a single Jewish "donor." ..."
"... I can tell you that the atmosphere is such on campus that a social science faculty member needs to be very careful not to be taken for having "sympathies" for either Russia or China. I repeatedly hear comments that are chilling, and just nod and get away. ..."
"... When did the Democratic Party turn into the post-war war party? At the Democratic convention in 1944 when the establishment did a coup against FDR's right hand man, ..."
Every time the ranking Democrat, Rep. Adam Schiff of California opens his mouth to propagate
unsubstantiated allegations against Russia and Russian influence on the last US elections, he
makes a reminder, inadvertently, of the First Husband (the philanderer) taking $500.000 from Russians.
The money was a bribe intended to make a right impression on Mrs. Clinton. Keep going Mr. Schiff.
There were also tens of millions of $US dollars delivered to Clintons Foundation by the major
sponsors of terrorism. These tens of millions of dollars from Saudis, Qatari, and Moroccans constitute
bribing of a State Department official. As a result of these bribes, the US government has violated
the US Constitution by supplying the US-made weaponry to the Middle Eastern warmongering despots/sponsors
of terrorism. That is indeed a treason. Let Mr. Schiff talk. He has been making a nice rope for
his own hanging.
Skip Scott , March 24, 2017 at 8:02 am
Great post Anna.
Kiza , March 24, 2017 at 8:06 am
Another official US moron has blamed Russia, this time for "supplying Taliban" in Afghanistan.
US Gen. Curtis Scaparrotti announced that "it was conceivable that Russia was providing supplies
to the Afghan Taliban".
It appears that absolutely any personal or group failure by any US official
gets automatically converted into "Russia did it". Little kids are more creative when they say
"the dog ate my homework".
Therefore, all these US Demopublicans, generals and other assorted officials are obviously
all on Putin's payroll, because they keep working to increase his popularity.
Bill Bodden , March 23, 2017 at 1:32 pm
Democrats. Republicans. Same old, same old.
In 1904 Upton Sinclair wrote in The Jungle :
"The original edition of the novel concluded with its proletarian protagonist attending a mass
rally addressed by the American Socialist Party's mesmerizing presidential candidate – Sinclair's
fictional representation of Eugene Debs. The candidate, Sinclair wrote:
"was a man of electric presence, tall and gaunt, with a face worn think by struggle and suffering.
The fury of outraged manhood gleamed in him – and the tears of suffering. When he spoke he paced
the stage restlessly; he was lithe and eager, like a panther. He leaned over, reaching out for
his audience; he pointed into their souls with an insistent finger. His voice was husky from much
speaking, but the hall was still as death, and everyone heard him. He spoke the language of workingmen
– he pointed them the way. He showed the two political parties as 'two wings of the same bird
of prey" [emphasis added]. The people were allowed to choose between their candidates, and
both of them were controlled, and all their nominations were dictated by, the same [money] power."
In a number of essays Walter Karp made similar points backed up by lots of evidence.
Accidental , March 23, 2017 at 8:04 pm
That book should be required reading in this country. I suspect most people have never even
heard of it despite the fact that it was undoubtedly one of the most influential books of the
early 20th century.
D5-5 , March 23, 2017 at 1:34 pm
The time is extraordinary in the reckless and naked way the PTB (i.e. the two major parties)
are exposing themselves as to NOT serving the people. I was disappointed today to read on RT that
69 percent of the [US] people have been taken in with the Russia bashing (showing I've
been wrong lately on my estimates), but I'm hopeful that will not last. More important, Robert's
article shows us the dedication of the parties to their deeper playbook, which is obviously controlled
by financial interests, not the people's interests. The nakedness of this exposure today is unusual
in my experience of watching Washington.
Recommended: a look at what could be a companion piece to Robert's article from Mike Whitney
in today's counterpunch, titled "Will Washington risk WWIII to block an emerging EU-Russia super-state":
From that article:
"For the last 70 years the imperial strategy has worked without a hitch, but now Russia's resurgence
and China's explosive growth are threatening to break free from Washington's stranglehold. The
Asian allies have begun to crisscross Central Europe and Asis with pipelines and high-speed rail
that will gather together the far-flung statelets scattered across the steppe, draw them into
a Eurasian Economic Union, and link them to an expansive and thriving superstate, the epicenter
of global commerce and industry."
Neither the proud Russians nor Chinese will diminish their nation and culture. BRICS is the
level of unity they will accept.
Sam F , March 23, 2017 at 1:36 pm
I would trace the transition of the Democrats to a war party, not to the fear of being
labeled disloyal after Iraq War 1, but to their being taken over by the zionists. The top ten
"donors" to Clinton (Kleinberg) were Jewish, every single one of them! Over $100 million. Obama
got over $100 million from a single Jewish "donor." They want those Mideast wars because they
are religious fanatics and thieves. Those are the facts of the Democrats. They are owned by zionist
traitors. They are Ziocrats.
J. D. , March 23, 2017 at 2:02 pm
The simplistic notion that the Democrats have been "taken over by the zionists" is a dangerous
illusion that needs debunking. While there is no doubt that Natanyahu's Israel supports a policy
in sync with that of neo-con objectives, it is beyond a stretch to attribute that policy to that
Israel's exaggerated influence in the US.
Rather, Israel, as well as Israel's Saudi allies, are both instruments of British Empire
policy, sometimes called "globalism," which was adopted and embraced by what can be called the
Obama faction of the Democratic Party and its backers in the Republican right.
US policy, especially in the post-Soviet era has been determined by a failing attempt to
maintain a "unipolar" world that no longer exists and should never have been. The freak-out over
Trump's exposure of British Intelligence's GCHQ, heralding a possible rupture in Britain's "special
relationship" is an indication of the fear gripping the Anglo-American financial oligarchy that
their control over the US is slip-sliding away and that the US will pursue its political and economic
self-interest by establishing new relationships to true world powers Russia, China, India and
Japan.
Brad Owen , March 23, 2017 at 3:15 pm
Well said. It's also time to get rid of the phony "Special Relationship" (between 1%er oligarchs
of The City and The Street), to replace it with the actual Special Relationship, so as to ease
UK's transition into the New multi-polar Era dawning: this is tribal, in that dear old "Mother
Country" need not worry that Her "Four Children" (Australia, Canada, N.Z., USA) will leave Her
out in the cold. THAT is the TRUE special relationship; the far-flung, English-speaking Tribe
will see to the General Welfare of ALL of its' members, but without degrading the well-being of
the rest of the World. War is obsolete, not conducive to anyone's well-being, Geopolitics & divide
& conquer is over, finished.
Brad Owen , March 23, 2017 at 4:03 pm
Zionism is a product of Cecil Rhodes' RoundTable Group, which, in concert with the Synarchist
Movement for Empire, concerned how to manage African and Middle East colonies and assets belonging
mainly to British and French Empires (which also explains WHY the Brits dawdled in North Africa
during WWII, much to the chagrin of Stalin and Gen Marshall, who wanted to open up the Western
Front ASAP).
They found the perfect opportunity to implement the strategy post-WWII, and suckered USA, via
The City's Wall Street Tories, into guaranteeing the existence of Israel. End of story.
Check out the tons of articles on the subject at the EIR website. Tarpley covers it well also.
Argue your case with them, F Sam. Good luck. You'll need lots of it.
rosemerry , March 23, 2017 at 4:49 pm
All the talk of "Russian interference" takes over the media, but the ever-present Israeli connection
is just accepted as normal. Saudi Arabia, too, is allowed plenty of influence while Iran is demonized.
Sam F , March 23, 2017 at 6:12 pm
Yes, Brad, I agree that Cecil Rhodes and others were involved with the zionists fairly early,
although perhaps the greatest British interest was in the Suez canal. Also agree that the US was
fooled into taking over the Suez protection and pressuring the UN to create Israel. No doubt there
was Wall St interest, although I gather that zionists made direct "donations" to Truman's campaign
for the UN pressure.
No doubt there were British zionists involved. But I think that JD's theory that Brits control
US policy in the Mideast is a diversion from the obvious zionist control, whether he knows it
or not. I will look again at your EIR website. Did not mean to offend.
Brad Owen , March 24, 2017 at 4:27 am
Sam, we just disagree on the location of the REAL enemy. The zionistas are indeed real, and
a threat, a real enemy to the USA, but I maintain they are just a weapon wielded by our traditional
enemy who has always fought to undermine us here in America; the British Empire (an entity distinct
from the Anglo-Celtic people living on the British Isles who are our tribal mates and suffering
under the same yoke of Empire as are we).
Sam F , March 23, 2017 at 3:26 pm
Completely wrong: it is an obvious fact that the Democrats have been taken over by the zionists.
Obama got over $100 million from a single Jewish "donor." Hillary's major campaign sponsors are
all Jewish.
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/033116/top-10-corporate-contributors-clinton-campaign.asp
The top 10 contributors to HRCs Superpac were as follows:
1. Dustin Moskovitz and Cari Tuna: $35 million
2. Donald Sussman, Paloma Partners: $21,100,000
3. Jay Robert Pritzker (Mary), Pritzker Group and Foundation: $12,600,000
4. Haim Saban and Cheryl Saban, Saban Capital Group: $10,000,000
5. George Soros (Schwartz): $9,525,000 (changed name from Schwartz)
6. S. Daniel Abraham, SDA Enterprises: $9,000,000
7. Fred Eychaner (Eichner), Newsweb Corporation: $8,005,400
8. James Simons (Shimon), Euclidean Capital: $7,000,000
9. Henry Laufer and Marsha Laufer, Renaissance Technologies: $5,500,000
10. Laure Woods (Wald), Laurel Foundation: $5 million
Your suggestion that this is "British empire" policy is way beyond the ridiculous, it is zionist
propaganda. The entire UK economy is a small fraction of that of the US, and there is little financial
connection.
I challenge you to deny these facts, or to substantiate the absurd theory of British control.
US mass media.
Sam F , March 23, 2017 at 3:44 pm
To continue, the US mass media are also controlled by Jews, presumably zionists. About 40-60
percent of US newspapers are controlled by persons of identifiable Jewish surnames, while less
than half of Jewish people can be so identified. Most of the rest are indirectly controlled by
Jews.
No further explanation is needed of the mass media craze for Hillary Clinton (Kleinberg). The
DNC emails show that she talks to no one but Jews about Mideast policy.
No further proof is needed of the origins of Democrat policy in the Mideast. It may play to
the interests of the MIC and oil companies sometimes, but not in Syria/Libya/Egypt. And we got
no special deals on Iraqi oil anyway, and had no reason to expect them.
Your move.
JWalters , March 23, 2017 at 8:33 pm
In support of your points, here is an excellent article at a Jewish-run, anti-Zionist website
that points out the huge known influence of Israel on American politics that is being ignored
amidst all the speculation about possible Russian influence, "Let's talk about Russian influence"
http://mondoweiss.net/2016/08/about-russian-influence/
Mondoweiss is a site of news and analysis with high journalistic standards. Like Consortium
News it has also been attacked by the Deep State for its honesty.
Sam F , March 23, 2017 at 9:45 pm
Thank you; it is very appropriate to note that many Jewish people are strong critics of zionism
and Israeli policies. There is some hope that they will assist in liberating Jews as well as Palestinians
from the racism of the zionists, as many whites assisted in greatly reducing racism among whites
in the US against African-Americans.
Bill Bodden , March 23, 2017 at 4:02 pm
The simplistic notion that the Democrats have been "taken over by the zionists" is a dangerous
illusion that needs debunking.
There were references in an earlier post quoting two former Israeli prime ministers saying,
in effect, they could take care of U.S. politicians to ensure they would do Israel's bidding.
I recall Yitzhak Shamir was one of them. The spectacle of Netanyahu showing contempt for Obama
in the way he addressed Congress and the standing ovations Netanyahu got from the senators and
Congresspersons who sold their souls to the Israel lobby kind of supports the proposition that
"the Democrats have been "taken over by the zionists"" Same thing goes for the Republicans.
Thanks for the links. PNAC founders Kristol and Kagan helped harness forces for zionist goals.
PNAC signers W. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz were principal promoters of Iraq War II,
as Wolfowitz installed Israeli spy operatives Perl, Feith, and Wurmser at CIA/DIA/NSA offices
to select known-bad "intelligence" to incite the war.
"The simplistic notion that the Democrats have been "taken over by the zionists" is a
dangerous illusion that needs debunking."
Can you share with readers why you used the term "dangerous illusion" and why it needs
debunking? According to William Binney, Obama's use of GCHQ was nothing more than standard operating
procedure, an everyday mode of business, to avoid breaking American laws – nothing new, so therefore
presenting no threat of rupturing U.S.-British "special relationship".
Can you share the names of major influential figures composing what you describe as the "Anglo-American
financial oligarchy" for the benefit of others who pass this way?
It's hard to explain away Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton and so many other U.S. politicians
fighting each other to get to the head of the pack in supporting Israel. Bernie Sanders only mentioned
that Palestinians suffer human and civil rights deficiencies and the world shook, despite it being
only a very minor, tiny critique of Israel. Can we imagine what would have happened – the titanic
reaction – had Mr. Sanders blurted out during one of the debates with Ms, Clinton the same conclusion
that Professor Virginia Tilley and Professor Richard Falk's report arrived at very recently –
that the State of Israel is guilty of the crime of apartheid?
Years ago while Mr. Sanders appeared weekly with Thom Hartmann on "Brunch With Bernie" we redialed
the call-in program until finally getting through and asking two questions. The first was a request
for a response from Senator Sanders on the trillion-dollar / year global tax haven-evasion industry
facilitated by the world's most powerful accounting, legal and banking firms. The second requested
response on the suggestion that it was time to "nationalize the privately-owned Federal Reserve".
Mr. Sanders responded to the 1st, then suddenly the show went to music and a break – then after
the break until show's end nothing about the Federal Reserve.
My guess is that Mr. Sanders and Mr. Hartmann were aware of a "panic button to break" to be
triggered when the live call-in topics became, let's say, "unmanageable". That is just a guess,but
another guess is that Mr. Sanders was the recipient of, how shall we put it, very "risky" news
during his campaign for president when running against Ms. Clinton. So, long story short, Sanders
capitulated because he's fully aware of what happened to JFK, MLK and RFK, Clinton became spoiled
goods and unacceptable as America's new CEO, and Donald Trump was selected. Trump's long-time
friends include "Lucky" Larry Silverstein, who just happened to avoid being in his Twin Towers
on September 11, 2001, breaking his religiously kept routine of breakfast every morning in a restaurant
located in the top floors of one of the towers – because his wife fortunately convinced him to
keep an appointment with his dermatologist.
Donald Trump, "Lucky Larry" and Benjamin Netanyahu are long-time friends.
***
Men and women wishing to read, copy, save and disseminate the report on Israel apartheid by
Professor Tilley and Professor Falk can find it online at the co-author's internet platform, available
at:
The top ten "donors" to Clinton (Kleinberg) were Jewish, every single one of them! Over
$100 million. Obama got over $100 million from a single Jewish "donor."
In exchange Israel got a $38 BILLION package of US aid. What a deal!! Presumably, the Israel
lobby will show its appreciation to Obama with donations to his presidential library probably
making that library the most expensive ever.
Sam F , March 23, 2017 at 6:27 pm
Yes, there can be little doubt that the zionist campaign money comes at least indirectly from
US aid to Israel, and that the aid is intended substantially for that purpose. Investigation of
such cashflows might turn up evidence, although there is a quid pro quo economy on both sides
that could easily obscure the feedback.
You may well be right in suggesting that the vast aid flows simply make campaign donations
a great investment for those who would otherwise have invested in Israel. But the Dems and Reps
know that this aid to Israel is for campaign bribes, pure and simple.
JWalters , March 23, 2017 at 8:42 pm
In addition to the carrot bribes, there are also the blackmail sticks. This possibility is
consistent with the following segment of a 1998 interview with Kay Griggs, former wife of the
U.S. Army's director of assassination training.
Kay Griggs: "Even when he [General Al Gray] was General he ran an intelligence operation which
was a contract organization trying to hook politicians, and get them. What is the word? In other
words "
Interviewer: "In compromising situations?"
Kay Griggs: "Yes, yes. He had and still has an organization which brings in whores, prostitutes,
whatever you want to say, who will compromise politicians so they can be used."
In Part 1 of the interview she explains the motives behind this.
Kay Griggs: "I'm talking about the Brooklyn-New Jersey mob. My husband, Al Gray, Sheehan, they're
all Brooklyn. Cap Weinberger. Heinz Kissinger – there's the Boston mob, which was shipping weapons
back and forth to Northern Ireland. And I don't want to get too deeply involved in that, but it
goes – Israel – some of the Zionists who came over from Germany, according to my husband, were
– he works with those people – they do a lot of money laundering in the banks, cash transactions
for the drugs they're bringing over, through Latin America, the Southern Mafia, the Dixie Mafia,
which now my husband's involved with in Miami. The military are all involved once they retire.
They're – you know, they go into this drug and secondary weapon sales."
Shortly afterward in the same segment is this exchange.
Kay Griggs: "It's kind of like Monica and Bill. I think they put Monica in there to have something
on Bill. That's my own feeling. Sarah McClendon feels the same way. Because "
Interviewer: "And Linda Tripp was there to guide the situation."
Kay Griggs: "Absolutely, of course. Linda Tripp was Delta Force. Linda Tripp was trained by
Carl Steiner, who's in the diary [her husband's] with my husband. And he [Steiner] tried to
trip up Schwarzkopf. I mean, he was trying to take, to take the whole Iraqi thing over because
they had been baiting, you know using the Israeli rogues in Turkey. They were having little zig-zag
wars. It's all to sell weapons. It's all about weapons sales, it's all about drugs, it's all about
funny money."
A blackmail factor, combined with financial carrots, and especially if backed up with a death
threat, could easily explain why a reasonably intelligent and educated person would act uninformed
and irrational. The surface inconsistency becomes easy to understand. A strategic system of blackmail
of the sort Kay Griggs described could easily explain a phalanx of politicians lying in lockstep
to American voters, and voting against America's best interests.
backwardsevolution , March 24, 2017 at 12:19 am
JWalters – fascinating! Thanks for posting. Makes sense, doesn't it?
Sam f , March 24, 2017 at 12:33 pm
That is fascinating. There must be material on the linkages of secret agencies, ex-military
staff, political gangsters, and money-laundering banksters to the drugs and weapons trade. They
would be useful tools for false-flag incidents and to supply terror groups.
Those with connections should contact independent news reporters, who could perhaps train journalism
students to investigate further. There may be material in the Wikileaks Vault-7 dump of CIA docs.
Pablo Diablo , March 23, 2017 at 1:39 pm
A military buildup=an empire in decline.
chuck b , March 23, 2017 at 2:25 pm
before they let their hegemony over humanity collapse, they blow up the planet.
what's remarkable, for me as an outsider at least, how many insane people are running the show
and that's not exclusive to the psychotic right. seeing the mad general at hillary's DNC coronation
and the "U!S!A!" chants from the crowd, i'm under the impression that the majority of Americans,
that has not yet been marginalized and impoverished, is as deranged as ecstatic Germans cheering
on Goebbels and his total war.
Accidental , March 23, 2017 at 8:29 pm
Actually what's happening now in the US is more like France in 1848
Pauline Saxon , March 23, 2017 at 1:50 pm
I have supported you from the beginning. I would like to understand why you seem to be protecting
Trump
D5-5 , March 23, 2017 at 2:15 pm
I don't believe Robert Parry or this site are protecting Trump. Questioning the demonizing
and slandering of Trump, and efforts to remove him, also do not constitute "protecting."
Trump was elected legitimately to be the president for better or worse. An assessment means
looking at both sides of whatever it is. Trump is obviously not doing well and getting negative
evaluations, but some of his views (for one example) that promise toward détente or acceptance
of a multi-polar world are worth considering.
Is he genuinely moving in this direction, or faking for some hidden reason? The jury is still
considering. So investigating an attack on Trump that is primarily bogus and motivated as a smoke
screen to demonize Russia, and prepare the nation for war, is not protecting Trump, but trying
to get at the underbrush of what's really going on behind the headlines.
Perhaps you could give us some idea of what you see as protecting Trump?
For myself I'm very critical of Trump. At this time he seems bent on building up ground troops
in Syria, but with ISIS already being subdued without this action, we should question why. What's
going on. Is he seeking a Ronald Reagan/George W. type of glory moment as One Tough Supreme Commander?
Is he now falling in to the neocon overview of controlling the middle east? It's more foolishness
in my view, that will not settle the problems and what W uncorked with his phony Iraq war. But
this kind of considering doesn't take the heat off the DEM Party for its unconscionable manipulations
with Trump and Russia bashing at this time.
Hayden Head , March 23, 2017 at 7:38 pm
Well said! You are spot on in your defense of Parry, who has consistently shown himself to
be committed to the truth, regardless of whom he is defending or the consequences of his position.
Many of us are waiting to see if Trump might, just might, lead us away from endless war to something
approaching a rational foreign policy. Is such hope foolishness? Well, hope usually is.
Bill Bodden , March 23, 2017 at 8:08 pm
Unfortunately, this site is afflicted with the utterances of sloppy readers who are triggered
to hit their keyboard when some sentence gets their attention and causes them to ignore other
contradictory commentary.
Jake G , March 23, 2017 at 2:27 pm
What are you talking about? There are as many Trump-critic articles from him.
JWalters , March 23, 2017 at 8:49 pm
It seems to me Parry is not so much protecting Trump as trying to protect America from another
needless war manufactured by the Deep State, e.g. "War Profiteers and the Roots of the War
on Terror" http://warprofiteerstory.blogspot.com
Gina , March 23, 2017 at 1:52 pm
Excellent article. I am pretty horrified at the direction of the Dems which has become Rethuglican-lite.
LJ , March 23, 2017 at 2:06 pm
The Democrats abandoned their core constituency , LABOR, when Clinton got the 1992 nomination
promising to sign NAFTA a short time after having been pictured attending a Bilderberg Beer fest,
Since then by jumping further under the sheets with High Finance and Tech Billionaires they have
continuously bled votes everywhere except the West Coast. Recent Polling you may have noticed
has the Democrats declining in favorability even more since the election. Strange Days have found
us haven't they?. .when all else fails we can whip the horses eyes and make them sleep and cry ..
I say for starters we separate the words Military and Intelligence forever with a Constitutional
Amendment .. How then will Senators McCain and Feinstein react? What will they do for God's sake?
The rest of the Two Party infrastructure will quickly implode. Sorry. Thank God and the ACA,,
the Amazon Drone has just delivered my prescription meds.. Peace in our time.
chuck b , March 23, 2017 at 2:13 pm
i think it's safe to say that the democrats have been equally adept at waging war since the
nutcase LBJ didn't know if they were shooting at whales in the bay of tomkin and started the American
holocaust. obama let his darling Hillary run amok which resulted in a rise of refugees and idp
by 50% to over 60 million, in just his first term. you actually live in a country run by Nazis
for a very long time. from Kissinger to McCain, they are people in power who have collaborated
with Nazis (phoenix, condor) and continue to do so in Ukraine or with Islamic extremists in syria.
the prospect of McCain anywhere near the state dept must be avoided by an means necessary.
Tristan , March 23, 2017 at 2:22 pm
"[B]ut what good that would do for the American people and the world is hard to fathom." That's
it Mr. Parry. That is the key that we need to understand. It is not, not, a priority of either
political half of the Republican/Democratic dynamic, to do good for the American people. We are
being subjected to the policies which previously were our export, the evisceration of nation(s)
to benefit private capital.
I had previously wondered, back in the 90's when Russia was being subjected to neo liberal
economic intervention, why these vultures hadn't descended upon the United States, being the feted
calf that it were. But I was blind, they were already descending, it only has take some time and
a couple of "opportunities", such as 9/11, the Katrina hurricane, to implement those same measures
here.
We need to understand that our current political structure is indifferent to the well being
of the majority of the "citizens" ie; what are now more commonly called consumers. If the prisons
stay full and the indebtedness mounts that is part of the program. Stop thinking that our present
system is offering anything that would be recognized by a rational and moral human being as something
even close to "a government of the People, by the People, for the People; [or] Life, Liberty,
and the pursuit of Happiness."
ltr , March 23, 2017 at 2:22 pm
I can tell you that the atmosphere is such on campus that a social science faculty member
needs to be very careful not to be taken for having "sympathies" for either Russia or China. I
repeatedly hear comments that are chilling, and just nod and get away.
Tristan , March 23, 2017 at 2:38 pm
It is nearly impossible to engage with someone in a political context and advocate for a least
a fair mind, some neutrality in examining the domestic political situation and relations with
Russia. I have to mute myself unless I am willing to engage in a long and tiring argument/discussion
in which my point is lost and I have to defend simple ideas of statesmanship and diplomacy.
Sheryl , March 23, 2017 at 5:22 pm
I can relate. The frustrating part is that they think I'm a nut wearing a tinfoil hat.
Realist , March 23, 2017 at 5:55 pm
Would you go so far as to say that most such discussions now take place on terrain far removed
from the real world? And, if you insist on sticking to facts rather than fantasy, are you immediately
branded an enemy of the state, an intellectual exile without friends or influence, and probably
someone marked for extinction, at least on the professional level, if this country must repeat
the greatest mistakes of the 1930's and 40's, as it seems headed? So glad I am retired, and I
worked in the natural sciences, not the more volatile and political social sciences. Now their
only leverage against me is my state pension and health benefits, which many do want to make into
a political football.
Tristan , March 23, 2017 at 7:31 pm
The distinction between the real and the ideological has been blurred in accordance with the
principles of public opinion management, ie; propaganda. The prevailing mania, contextualized
via the dynamic of globalized free market capitalism masquerading as the promotion of freedom
and democracy, is where one finds that the seeds of "treason" are sown wider and wider against
heretics.
Kiza , March 24, 2017 at 8:35 am
Just reading what all of you guys have written about the prevailing atmosphere in the so called
intellectual community, which is much more serious than the atmosphere in the nutty MSM, makes
me think of the Decline of the Roman Empire. Many people here are leftists, therefore they will
disagree with me, but I see absolutely solid parallels between Russia-hate and AGW. Both have
become religion for the vast majority of the Western intellectual class, devoid of the principal
tool of the intellectuals – rationality. If you are a doubter, you will be ostracized .
Enquiring Mind , March 23, 2017 at 2:24 pm
They have no decency, sir.
At least McCarthy was right on the commie threat, even though his methods and execution were unsound.
Miranda Keefe , March 23, 2017 at 3:59 pm
"At least McCarthy was right on the commie threat."
The US was the aggressor in the Cold War. The Soviet Union, after the war, wanted to continue
to co-exist under the spheres of influence agreed on by the US at Yalta.
When did the Democratic Party turn into the post-war war party? At the Democratic convention
in 1944 when the establishment did a coup against FDR's right hand man, his VP, his chosen
future VP and successor, the great Henry Wallace.
Gregory Herr , March 23, 2017 at 7:52 pm
Wallace instead of Truman? One of the big "what might have been" turns of history.
"... In the same way, neoliberals are no different. They aren't bad people – they just see their policies as right and just because those policies are working well for them and the people in their class, and I don't think they really understand why it doesn't work for others – maybe, like Adam Smith, they think that is the "natural state" .. ..."
"... Read the first sentence of the Theory of Moral Sentiments – it makes an assumption which is the foundation of all of Adam Smith. He asserted that all men are moral. Morality in economics is the invisible hand creating order like gravity in astronomy. Unfortunately, Adam Smith's assumption is false or at least not true enough to form a sound foundation for useful economic theory. ..."
"... But "morality" means different things to different people. Smith only saw the morality of his own class. For example, I am sure a wealthy man would consider it very moral to accumulate as much money as he could so that he would be seen by his peers as a good and worthy man who cares for his future generations and the well being of his class – he doesn't see this accumulation as amoral – whilst a poor man may think that kind of accumulation is amoral because he thinks that money could be better used provide for those without the basic needs to survive ..."
"... "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices." ..."
"... Another I remember from Smith was something like, "The law exists to protect those who have much from those who have little." Sounds about right. ..."
"... One of Steve Keen's favourite analogies is astronomy. Neoclassical economics is like Ptolemy's epicycles; assume the Earth is at the centre, and that the planets orbit in circles and simply by adding little circles-epicycles-you can accurately describe the observed motion of the planets. The right epicycles in the right places can describe any motion. But they can't explain anything, they add nothing to understanding, they subtract from it, because they are false but give the illusion of knowledge. Drop the assumptions and you can begin to get somewhere. ..."
"... Steve Keen seems to have latched onto this in the last year or so, pointing out that all production is driven by energy. And the energy comes ultimately from the sun. Either it is turned into production via feeding workers, or by fueling machinery (by burning hydrocarbons extracted from plant and animal remains). ..."
"... I have a question about a similar thing. Simon Kuznetz is credited as someone who has invented modern concept of GDP and he revolutionized the field of economics with statistical method (econometrics). However, Kuznets , in the same report in which he presented modern concept of GDP to US congress, wrote following(from wikipedia): ..."
"... "The valuable capacity of the human mind to simplify a complex situation in a compact characterization becomes dangerous when not controlled in terms of definitely stated criteria. With quantitative measurements especially, the definiteness of the result suggests, often misleadingly, a precision and simplicity in the outlines of the object measured. Measurements of national income are subject to this type of illusion and resulting abuse, especially since they deal with matters that are the center of conflict of opposing social groups where the effectiveness of an argument is often contingent upon oversimplification. ..."
"... All these qualifications upon estimates of national income as an index of productivity are just as important when income measurements are interpreted from the point of view of economic welfare. But in the latter case additional difficulties will be suggested to anyone who wants to penetrate below the surface of total figures and market values. Economic welfare cannot be adequately measured unless the personal distribution of income is known. And no income measurement undertakes to estimate the reverse side of income, that is, the intensity and unpleasantness of effort going into the earning of income. The welfare of a nation can, therefore, scarcely be inferred from a measurement of national income as defined above. Distinctions must be kept in mind between quantity and quality of growth, between costs and returns, and between the short and long run. Goals for more growth should specify more growth of what and for what." ..."
"... "So , my question is why economists keep treating GDP as some scared metric when its creator himself deems it not reliable? Why all qualifications about GDP by Kuznetz is ignored by most of the economists nowadays?"@Vedant ..."
"... That is your explanation right there. Large abstract numbers such as GDP obscure social issues such as "the personal distribution of income." and the effort that goes into creating that income. Large abstract numbers obscure the moral dimension that must be a part of all economic discussion and are obscured by statistics and sciencism. As the genius of Mark Twain put it, "There are lies, damned lies and statistics." Beware the credentialed classes! ..."
"... Interesting. There is a great book by John Dupré called 'Human Nature and the Limits of Science (2001)", which tackles this subject in a general way: the facts that taking a mechanistic model as a paradigm for diverse areas of science is problematic and leads to myopia. ..."
"... He describes it as a form of 'scientific imperialism', stretching the use of concepts from one area of science to other areas and leading to bad results (because there are, you know, relevant differences). As a prime example, he mentions economics. (When reading EConned;s chapter of the science ( 'science') of economics, I was struck by the similar argument.) ..."
"... Soddy was a scientist. He should have written as a scientist with definitions, logic and rigour, but he wrote like a philosopher, full of waffle and unsubstantiated assertions like other economists. It is unscientific to apply universal laws discovered in physics and chemistry to economics without proving by observations that those laws also apply to economics. ..."
"... I get irritated by radical free-marketeers who when presented with a social problem tend to dogmatically assert that "The free market wills it," as if that ended all discussion. It is as if the free market was their God who must always be obeyed. Unlike Abraham, we do not need to obey if we feel that the answer is unjust. ..."
"... Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire ..."
"... The moralistic explanations for the disintegration of the (Western) Roman Empire were long ago discarded by all serious analysis of late antiquity. More practical explanations, especially the loss of the North African bread basket to the Vandals, are presented in the scholarly work these days. ..."
"... That book of Gibbon's is an incredible achievement. If it is not read by historians today, it is their loss. Its moral explanations, out of fashion today, are actually quite compelling. They become more so when read with de Tocqueville's views of the moral foundations of American township democracy and their transmission into the behavior, and assumptions, of New Englanders, whose views formed the basis of the federal republican constitution. ..."
"... The loss of the breadbasket was problematical, too. And it may be that no civilization, however young and virile, could withstand the migrations forever, as they withstood or absorbed them, with a few exceptions, for eight hundred years. But the progressive losses to the migratory tribes may have been a symptom of the real, "moral," cause of the decline. ..."
"... From 536-539AD the entire planet suffered a staggering holocaust. Krakatoa blew up - ejecting so much dust that it triggered a 'nuclear winter' that lasted through those years. ..."
"... It was this period that ended agriculture in North Africa. ( Algeria-Tunisia ) The drought blew all of the top soil into the Med. It was an irreversible tragedy. ..."
"... Economics is not science, simply because economics does not take facts seriously enough to modify flawed theories. ..."
"... In college I couldn't help but notice the similarities between modern economic theory and the control theory taught in engineering. Not such a great fit though, society is not a mechanical governor. ..."
Yves here. This post takes what I see as an inconsistent, indeed, inaccurate stance
on Adam Smith, since it depicts him as advocating laissez faire and also not being concerned about
"emotions, sentiment, human relations and community." Smith was fiercely opposed to monopolies as
well as businessmen colluding to lower the wages paid to workers. He also saw The Theory of Moral
Sentiments as his most important work and wanted it inscribed on his gravestone.
Jacob Viner addressed the laissez-faire attribution to Adam Smith in 1928 ..Here is a list
extracted from Wealth Of Nations:
the Navigation Acts, blessed by Smith under the assertion that 'defence, however, is of much
more importance than opulence' (WN464); Sterling marks on plate and stamps on linen and woollen
cloth (WN138–9); enforcement of contracts by a system of justice (WN720); wages to be paid
in money, not goods; regulations of paper money in banking (WN437); obligations to build party
walls to prevent the spread of fire (WN324); rights of farmers to send farm produce to the
best market (except 'only in the most urgent necessity') (WN539); 'Premiums and other encouragements
to advance the linen and woollen industries' (TMS185); 'Police', or preservation of the 'cleanliness
of roads, streets, and to prevent the bad effects of corruption and putrifying substances';
ensuring the 'cheapness or plenty [of provisions]' (LJ6; 331); patrols by town guards and fire
fighters to watch for hazardous accidents (LJ331–2); erecting and maintaining certain public
works and public institutions intended to facilitate commerce (roads, bridges, canals and harbours)
(WN723); coinage and the mint (WN478; 1724); post office (WN724); regulation of institutions,
such as company structures (joint- stock companies, co-partneries, regulated companies and
so on) (WN731–58); temporary monopolies, including copyright and patents, of fixed duration
(WN754); education of youth ('village schools', curriculum design and so on) (WN758–89); education
of people of all ages (tythes or land tax) (WN788); encouragement of 'the frequency and gaiety
of publick diversions'(WN796); the prevention of 'leprosy or any other loathsome and offensive
disease' from spreading among the population (WN787–88); encouragement of martial exercises
(WN786); registration of mortgages for land, houses and boats over two tons (WN861, 863); government
restrictions on interest for borrowing (usury laws) to overcome investor 'stupidity' (WN356–7);
laws against banks issuing low-denomination promissory notes (WN324); natural liberty may be
breached if individuals 'endanger the security of the whole society' (WN324); limiting 'free
exportation of corn' only 'in cases of the most urgent necessity' ('dearth' turning into 'famine')
(WN539); and moderate export taxes on wool exports for government revenue (WN879).
"Viner concluded, unsurprisingly, that 'Adam Smith was not a doctrinaire advocate of laissez-faire'.
By Douglass Carmichael, perviously a Professor at University of California at Santa Cruz and
a Washington DC based consultant, which clients including Hewlett-Packard, World Bank, Bell laboratories,
The White House and the State Department. For the last ten years he has focused on the broad social
science issues relevant to rethinking humanity's relationship to nature. Cross posted from
the Institute for New Economic Thinking website
With Adam Smith, and hints before in Ricardo and others, economics took the path of treating the
economy as a natural object that should not be interfered with by the state. This fit the Newtonian
ethos of the age: science was great, science was mathematics; science was true, right and good.
But along the way the discussion in, for example, Montaigne and Machiavelli - about the powers
of imagination, myth, emotions, sentiment, human relations and community - was abandoned by the economists.
(Adam Smith had written his Theory of Moral Sentiments 20 years earlier and sort of left
it behind, though the Wealth of Nations is still concerned with human well-being.) Gibbon's
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire was published in 1776, the same year as Smith's
Wealth , but hardly read today by most economists.
In philosophy and the arts (romanticism among others) there was great engagement in these issues
economics was trying to avoid. But that philosophy and art criticism have not been widely read for
many years.
The effect of ignoring the human side of lives was to undermine the social perspective of the
"political," by merging it with the individually focused "interest." So, instead of exploring the
inner structure of interest (or later utility or preference), or community feeling and the impact
of culture, these were assumed to be irrelevant to the mechanics of the market. Politics, having
to do with interest groups and power arrangements, is more vague and harder to model than economic
activity.
Those who wanted economics to be a science were motivated by the perception that "being scientific"
was appreciated by the society of the time, and was the path to rock-solid truth. But the move towards
economics as a science also happened to align with a view of the landed and the wealthy that the
economy was working for them, so don't touch it. We get the equation, embracing science = conservative.
This is still with us because of the implication that the market is made by god or nature rather
than being socially constructed. Since economics is the attempt at a description of the economy,
it was more or less locked in to the naturalist approach, which ignores things like class and ownership
and treated capital as part of economic flow rather than as a possession that was useable for social
and political power.
Even now, economics still continues as if it were part of the age of Descartes and avoids most
social, historical and philosophical thought about the nature of man and society. Names like Shaftesbury
and Puffendorf, very much read in their time, are far less known now than Hobbes, Descartes, Ricardo,
Mill and Keynes. Karl Polanyi is much less well known than Hayek. We do not learn of the social history
such as the complex interplay in Viennese society among those who were classmates and colleagues
such as Hayek, Gombrich, Popper and Drucker. The impact of Viennese culture is not known to many
economists.
The result is an economics that supports an economy that is out of control because the feedback
loops through society and its impact of the quality of life - and resentment - are not recognized
in a dehumanized economics, and so can't have a feedback correcting effect.
The solution, however, is not to look for simplicity, but to embrace a kind of complexity that
honors nature, humans, politics, and the way they are dealt with in philosophy, arts, investigative
reporting, anthropology and history. Because the way forward cannot be a simple projection of the
past. We are in more danger than that.
Anthony Pagden, in Why the Enlightenment is Still Important , writes that before the
enlightenment, late feudalism and the Renaissance, "The scholastics had made their version of the
natural law the basis for a universal moral and political code that demanded that all human beings
be regarded in the same way, no matter what their culture or their beliefs. It also demanded that
human beings respect each other because they share a common urge to 'come together,' and it required
them to offer to each other, even to total strangers, help in times of need, to recognize 'that amity
among men is part of the natural law.' Finally, while Hobbes and Grotius had accepted the existence
of only one natural right - the right to self-preservation - the scholastics had allowed for a wide
range of them." -
Pagen also writes, "The Enlightenment, and in particular that portion with which I am concerned,
was in part, as we shall now see, an attempt to recover something of this vision of a unified and
essentially benign humanity, of a potentially cosmopolitan world, without also being obliged to accept
the theologians' claim that this could only make sense as part of the larger plan of a well-meaning,
if deeply inscrutable, deity."
But as Pagen shows, that effort was overcome by market, technical and financial interests.
The reason this is so important is that the simple and ethical view in Smith (and many other classical
economists if we were to read them) that it was wrong to let the poor starve because of manipulated
grain prices, was replaced by a more mechanical view of society that denied human intelligence except
as calculators of self interest. This is a return to the Hobbesian world leading to a destructive
society: climate, inequality, corruption. Today, the poor are hemmed in by so many regulations and
procedures (real estate, education, police) that people are now starved. Not having no food, but
having bad food, which along with all the new forms of privation add up to a seriously starved life,
is not perceived by a blinded society to be suffering. Economics in its current form - most economics
papers and college courses - do not touch the third rail of class, or such pain.
Interesting. I've been reading (thanks to an intro from NC) Mark Blyth's "Austerity" and, thus
far, seems to imply, if not outright state, that Adam Smith was quite suspicious of government
intervention in the economy. The "can't live with it, can't live without it, don't want to pay
for it" perspective. The bullet points you've listed above seem to refute that notion.
Adam Smith tried to make a moral science out of what his class wanted to hear. If he had actually
gone into those factories of his time, he might have had a different opinion of what labour was
and how there was no "natural state" for wages, but only what was imposed on people who couldn't
fight back. If he had gotten out of his ivory tower for a while, he might have had a different
opinion of what those owners of stock were doing. He also might have had different views on trade
if he could have seen what was happening to the labourers in the textile industries in France.
And I could go on. But instead he created a fantasy that has been the basis for all economic thinking
since.
In the same way, neoliberals are no different. They aren't bad people – they just see their
policies as right and just because those policies are working well for them and the people in
their class, and I don't think they really understand why it doesn't work for others – maybe,
like Adam Smith, they think that is the "natural state" ..
Sorry, but there needs to be a Copernican Revolution in Economics just as there was in science.
We have to realize that maybe Adam Smith was wrong – and I know that will be hard – just as it
was hard for people to realize that the Earth wasn't the center of the universe.
Since I am retired, maybe I will go back to school, hold my nose and cover my lying eyes long
enough to finish that Economics degree, so that I can get good access to all the other windows
in Economics. I can't really believe I am the only person thinking this way – there must be some
bright people out there who have come to similar conclusions and I would dearly love to know who
they are.
Read the first sentence of the Theory of Moral Sentiments – it makes an assumption which
is the foundation of all of Adam Smith. He asserted that all men are moral. Morality in economics
is the invisible hand creating order like gravity in astronomy. Unfortunately, Adam Smith's assumption
is false or at least not true enough to form a sound foundation for useful economic theory.
But "morality" means different things to different people. Smith only saw the morality
of his own class. For example, I am sure a wealthy man would consider it very moral to accumulate
as much money as he could so that he would be seen by his peers as a good and worthy man who cares
for his future generations and the well being of his class – he doesn't see this accumulation
as amoral – whilst a poor man may think that kind of accumulation is amoral because he thinks
that money could be better used provide for those without the basic needs to survive
I've read a fair amount of Wealth of Nations although far from all of it and my take was that
Smith was describing the economic system of his time as it was , not necessarily as it
should or must be. Smith gets a bad rap from the left due to many people over the last 200+ years
hearing what they wanted to hear from him to justify their own actions rather than what he actually
said.
I'm cherry picking a bit here since I don't have the time to go through several hundred pages,
but I think Smith might actually agree with you about the plight of labor and he was well aware
of what the ownership class was up to –
"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but
the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices."
there needs to be a Copernican Revolution in Economics
One of Steve Keen's favourite analogies is astronomy. Neoclassical economics is like Ptolemy's
epicycles; assume the Earth is at the centre, and that the planets orbit in circles and
simply by adding little circles-epicycles-you can accurately describe the observed motion of the
planets. The right epicycles in the right places can describe any motion. But they can't
explain anything, they add nothing to understanding, they subtract from it, because they
are false but give the illusion of knowledge. Drop the assumptions and you can begin to get somewhere.
And that is exactly what Marx did, but then got himself sidetracked by trying to find (or create)
support for his labor theory of value.
Actually most of what he writes in Capital basically refutes said theory, instead hinting at
energy being the core source of value (how much food/fuel is needed to produce one unit, basically).
Steve Keen seems to have latched onto this in the last year or so, pointing out that all
production is driven by energy. And the energy comes ultimately from the sun. Either it is turned
into production via feeding workers, or by fueling machinery (by burning hydrocarbons extracted
from plant and animal remains).
Since words have somewhat flexible boundaries, it's hard to tell from what perspective this
response is looking at the history of science. Characterizing cybernetics as mechanistic would
require an unusually broad definition of "mechanistic". Even a superficial reading of Norbert
Wiener, Warren McCulloch, W. Ross Ashby, or any of the other early contributors to the discipline
will make one aware that they were explicitly trying to address the limitations of simplistic
mechanistic thinking.
In the related discipline, General Systems Theory, von Bertalanffy expressly argued that we
should take our cues from the organic living world to understand complex systems. With the introduction
of Second Order Cybernetics by Heinz von Foerster, Margaret Mead, Gregory Bateson and others,
the role of a sentient observer in describing the system in which he/she is embedded becomes the
focus of attention. Bateson was an original participant with many of the people mentioned above
in the Macy conferences where cybernetics was first introduced. The bulk of his work was a direct
attack on the mechanistic view of the natural world.
Of course, many writers treat cybernetics, General Systems Theory, and their related disciplines
as pseudoscientific. But those are typically people who are firmly committed to mechanistic explanations.
I have a question about a similar thing. Simon Kuznetz is credited as someone who has invented
modern concept of GDP and he revolutionized the field of economics with statistical method (econometrics).
However, Kuznets , in the same report in which he presented modern concept of GDP to US congress,
wrote following(from wikipedia):-
"The valuable capacity of the human mind to simplify a complex situation in a compact characterization
becomes dangerous when not controlled in terms of definitely stated criteria. With quantitative
measurements especially, the definiteness of the result suggests, often misleadingly, a precision
and simplicity in the outlines of the object measured. Measurements of national income are subject
to this type of illusion and resulting abuse, especially since they deal with matters that are
the center of conflict of opposing social groups where the effectiveness of an argument is often
contingent upon oversimplification.
All these qualifications upon estimates of national income as an index of productivity are just
as important when income measurements are interpreted from the point of view of economic welfare.
But in the latter case additional difficulties will be suggested to anyone who wants to penetrate
below the surface of total figures and market values. Economic welfare cannot be adequately measured
unless the personal distribution of income is known. And no income measurement undertakes to estimate
the reverse side of income, that is, the intensity and unpleasantness of effort going into the
earning of income. The welfare of a nation can, therefore, scarcely be inferred from a measurement
of national income as defined above.
Distinctions must be kept in mind between quantity and quality of growth, between costs and returns,
and between the short and long run. Goals for more growth should specify more growth of what and
for what."
So , my question is why economists keep treating GDP as some scared metric when its creator
himself deems it not reliable? Why all qualifications about GDP by Kuznetz is ignored by most
of the economists nowadays?
"So , my question is why economists keep treating GDP as some scared metric when its creator
himself deems it not reliable? Why all qualifications about GDP by Kuznetz is ignored by most
of the economists nowadays?"@Vedant
" Economic welfare cannot be adequately measured unless the personal distribution of income
is known. And no income measurement undertakes to estimate the reverse side of income, that is,
the intensity and unpleasantness of effort going into the earning of income."
That is your explanation right there. Large abstract numbers such as GDP obscure social
issues such as "the personal distribution of income." and the effort that goes into creating that
income. Large abstract numbers obscure the moral dimension that must be a part of all economic
discussion and are obscured by statistics and sciencism. As the genius of Mark Twain put it, "There
are lies, damned lies and statistics." Beware the credentialed classes!
Interesting. There is a great book by John Dupré called 'Human Nature and the Limits of Science
(2001)", which tackles this subject in a general way: the facts that taking a mechanistic model
as a paradigm for diverse areas of science is problematic and leads to myopia.
He describes it
as a form of 'scientific imperialism', stretching the use of concepts from one area of science
to other areas and leading to bad results (because there are, you know, relevant differences).
As a prime example, he mentions economics. (When reading EConned;s chapter of the science ( 'science')
of economics, I was struck by the similar argument.)
Science does not imply only mechanistic models, which may be appropriate for physics, but not
economics. Science is a method of obtaining sound knowledge by iterative interaction between facts
and theory.
Just because equilibrium is shitty mechanistic model to try and stamp onto economics doesn't
mean that all scientific modeling of economics futile. Soddy just about derived MMT from the conservation
of energy in 1921.
Soddy was a scientist. He should have written as a scientist with definitions, logic and rigour,
but he wrote like a philosopher, full of waffle and unsubstantiated assertions like other economists.
It is unscientific to apply universal laws discovered in physics and chemistry to economics without
proving by observations that those laws also apply to economics.
Soddy needed to have developed a scientific methodology for economics first, before stating
his opinions which are scientifically unproven like most economic propositions.
I get irritated by radical free-marketeers who when presented with a social problem tend to
dogmatically assert that "The free market wills it," as if that ended all discussion. It is as
if the free market was their God who must always be obeyed. Unlike Abraham, we do not need to
obey if we feel that the answer is unjust.
Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire was published in 1776, the same year
as Smith's Wealth, but hardly read today by most economists.
Other than as a reflection of the sentiments of the time Gibbon was writing in, historians
don't spend much time reading it either. The moralistic explanations for the disintegration of
the (Western) Roman Empire were long ago discarded by all serious analysis of late antiquity.
More practical explanations, especially the loss of the North African bread basket to the Vandals,
are presented in the scholarly work these days.
That book of Gibbon's is an incredible achievement. If it is not read by historians today,
it is their loss. Its moral explanations, out of fashion today, are actually quite compelling.
They become more so when read with de Tocqueville's views of the moral foundations of American
township democracy and their transmission into the behavior, and assumptions, of New Englanders,
whose views formed the basis of the federal republican constitution.
The loss of the breadbasket was problematical, too. And it may be that no civilization, however
young and virile, could withstand the migrations forever, as they withstood or absorbed them,
with a few exceptions, for eight hundred years. But the progressive losses to the migratory tribes
may have been a symptom of the real, "moral," cause of the decline.
After all, the Romans did not always have that breadbasket; indeed, they had to conquer it
to get it, along with the rest of the mighty and ancient civilizations of the Mediterranean and
beyond, using the strengths derived from the mores of their martial republic. The story of the
Punic Wars is a morality play in history, as much as anything else. But the main problem was the
dilution of the Roman republican mores into a provincial stew.
And after that nice detached remark, about which historians can surely natter on in the abstract,
I'll toss in this completely anti-historicist piece of nonsense: I think it's actually much the
same problem the Americans are having today, as the mores of the founders have dissolved into
the idea that the nation is about national government, centralized administration, world leadership,
global domination through military might, and imperialist capitalism. That is not a national ethic
that leads to lasting nobility of purpose and moral strength-as George Washington and Ike Eisenhower
both pointed out.
Dendrochronology ( tree ring dating & organic history ) has established a wholly new rationale
for the termination of the Roman Empire the re-boot of the Chinese and Japanese cultures and
the death of a slew of Meso-American cultures.
From 536-539AD the entire planet suffered a staggering holocaust. Krakatoa blew up - ejecting so much dust that it triggered a 'nuclear winter' that lasted through
those years.
The Orientals actually heard the blasts recognized that they emminated from the Indonesian
islands. ( Well, at least to the south. ) The erruption and the weather was duly recorded by Court
scribes.
Roman accounts assert that 90% of the population of Constantinople died or fled. ( mostly died
) The Emperor and his wife were at the dockside ready to flee - when she talked him back off the
boat. Her reasoning was sound: it's Hell everywhere. He won't have any authority once he leaves
his imperial guard.
It was this period that ended agriculture in North Africa. ( Algeria-Tunisia ) The drought
blew all of the top soil into the Med. It was an irreversible tragedy.
This super drought triggered the events in Beowulf - and the exodus of the Petrans from Petra.
They marched off to Mecca and Medina both locations long known to have mountain springs with
deep water. The entire Arabian population congregated there.
This was the founding population amongst which Mohammed was raised many years later.
The true reason that Islam swept through Araby and North Africa was that both lands were still
largely de-populated. The die-off was so staggering that one can't wrap ones mind around it.
Period art is so bleak that modern historians discounted it until the tree ring record established
that this trauma happened on a global scale.
Or throw them out! I remember the very first thing I was taught in Economics 101 about supply
and demand and how they would balance at an equilibrium price. It didn't take much thinking to
realize that there is no equilibrium price and that an equilibrium price was exactly the last
thing suppliers or demanders wanted, and that the price of a good depended on who had the most
power to set the price. Yet, we had to accept the "supply and demand theory" as coming directly
from God. It's as if we were taught in Chemistry that the only acceptable theory of bonding possible
was the hydrogen-oxygen bond and even though we could see with our own eyes that hydrogen also
bonds to carbon, we should throw that out because it is an aberration from "acceptable theory" ..
Yes, coming from God; Platonic, like a Form. Economics is written in Forms, like "homo economicus"
and "the efficient market." But we live in the Cave, where the markets that humans actually make
are sad imitations of the Forms in the textbooks.
There's a lot good in the post, I think; noting the important philosophical underpinnings and
challenges to Economics, and particularly in making it a moral, and therefore political and "social"
science. But it's great to see where people's use of "incantatory names from the past" is called
out by the curator. It's a pet peeve.
Economics is the last "science" to hold onto the notion of equilibrium. The rest has moved on to complex systems/chaos theory, first demonstrated in meteorology.
Trying to apply complex systems to economics have been the goal of Steve Keen's work for several
decades now.
In college I couldn't help but notice the similarities between modern economic theory and the
control theory taught in engineering. Not such a great fit though, society is not a mechanical
governor.
Ha. That's the same thing that got economists so excited. Things is, an engineering student
attempting to model a simple system with two moving parts cares a great deal about whether the
moving parts are connected by a spring, or ball screw, or shock absorber, or lever, or even invisible
stuff like a temperature gradient when coming up with the system math model. Economists seem to
think wtf is the difference?
Next, if the math gets a bit unwieldy as the number of moving parts increase, which it does
in a hurry, they decide to simplify the math. Next, assume they have perfect sensors for everything and system lag can assumed to be zero
for talking purposes, and in research papers too. Next, hysteresis effects due to bent parts, leaky valves and stretched springs are assumed
not to exist. Congress has the "Highway Bill" thingy to address that.
Next, the guy with the control knob will do the "right thing". Or better yet, a "market" is
doing the control knob. There could be "intermediaries", but these are modeled as zero loss pieces
of golden wire and gold plated connectors.
Finally, money comes from batteries and there is no such thing in the real world like "shorts",
"open circuits", or "semiconductors" with their quantum tunneling properties.
Thanks for this, and especially the heads up about the author's take on Smith. This is exactly
what I'm on about. Not only are there more ways of knowing than the infamous mechanical, it itself
should've died long ago.
The author stresses economics is stuck in the age of Descartes. The history of Newton's refutation
of Descartes's mechanical philosophy is very interesting. Yes, refutation. Descartes's mechanical
philosophy is as dead as a dodo. So why does it still plague us? Obviously, because thinking of
and acting on nature as if it were all just one great big machine works at getting you paid, much
better than that wishy-washy humanism crap. /f (facetious).
I used to go on and on against reducing everything to mechanisms, and I largely blamed Newton.
I was wrong.
I've spent an hour trying to boil this down. Ain't happenin. Apologies for the length.
The background is the so-called "mechanical philosophy" – mechanical science in modern terminology.
This doctrine, originating with Galileo and his contemporaries, held that the world is a machine,
operating by mechanical principles, much like the remarkable devices that were being constructed
by skilled artisans of the day and that stimulated the scientific imagination much as computers
do today; devices with gears, levers, and other mechanical components, interacting through
direct contact with no mysterious forces relating them. The doctrine held that the entire world
is similar: it could in principle be constructed by a skilled artisan, and was in fact created
by a super-skilled artisan. The doctrine was intended to replace the resort to "occult properties"
on the part of the neoscholastics: their appeal to mysterious sympathies and antipathies, to
forms flitting through the air as the means of perception, the idea that rocks fall and steam
rises because they are moving to their natural place, and similar notions that were mocked
by the new science.
The mechanical philosophy provided the very criterion for intelligibility in the sciences.
Galileo insisted that theories are intelligible, in his words, only if we can "duplicate [their
posits] by means of appropriate artificial devices." The same conception, which became the
reigning orthodoxy, was maintained and developed by the other leading figures of the scientific
revolution: Descartes, Leibniz, Huygens, Newton, and others.
Today Descartes is remembered mainly for his philosophical reflections, but he was primarily
a working scientist and presumably thought of himself that way, as his contemporaries did.
His great achievement, he believed, was to have firmly established the mechanical philosophy,
to have shown that the world is indeed a machine, that the phenomena of nature could be accounted
for in mechanical terms in the sense of the science of the day. But he discovered phenomena
that appeared to escape the reach of mechanical science. Primary among them, for Descartes,
was the creative aspect of language use, a capacity unique to humans that cannot be duplicated
by machines and does not exist among animals, which in fact were a variety of machines, in
his conception.
As a serious and honest scientist, Descartes therefore invoked a new principle to accommodate
these non-mechanical phenomena, a kind of creative principle. In the substance philosophy of
the day, this was a new substance, res cogitans, which stood alongside of res extensa. This
dichotomy constitutes the mind-body theory in its scientific version. Then followed further
tasks: to explain how the two substances interact and to devise experimental tests to determine
whether some other creature has a mind like ours. These tasks were undertaken by Descartes
and his followers, notably Géraud de Cordemoy; and in the domain of language, by the logician-grammarians
of Port Royal and the tradition of rational and philosophical grammar that succeeded them,
not strictly Cartesian but influenced by Cartesian ideas.
All of this is normal science, and like much normal science, it was soon shown to be incorrect.
Newton demonstrated that one of the two substances does not exist: res extensa. The properties
of matter, Newton showed, escape the bounds of the mechanical philosophy. To account for them
it is necessary to resort to interaction without contact. Not surprisingly, Newton was condemned
by the great physicists of the day for invoking the despised occult properties of the neo-scholastics.
Newton largely agreed. He regarded action at a distance, in his words, as "so great an Absurdity,
that I believe no Man who has in philosophical matters a competent Faculty of thinking, can
ever fall into it." Newton however argued that these ideas, though absurd, were not "occult"
in the traditional despised sense. Nevertheless, by invoking this absurdity, we concede that
we do not understand the phenomena of the material world. To quote one standard scholarly source,
"By `understand' Newton still meant what his critics meant: `understand in mechanical terms
of contact action'."
It is commonly believed that Newton showed that the world is a machine, following mechanical
principles, and that we can therefore dismiss "the ghost in the machine," the mind, with appropriate
ridicule. The facts are the opposite: Newton exorcised the machine, leaving the ghost intact.
The mind-body problem in its scientific form did indeed vanish as unformulable, because one
of its terms, body, does not exist in any intelligible form. Newton knew this very well, and
so did his great contemporaries.
And later:
Similar conclusions are commonplace in the history of science. In the mid-twentieth century,
Alexander Koyré observed that Newton demonstrated that "a purely materialistic pattern of nature
is utterly impossible (and a purely materialistic or mechanistic physics, such as that of Lucretius
or of Descartes, is utterly impossible, too)"; his mathematical physics required the "admission
into the body of science of incomprehensible and inexplicable `facts' imposed up on us by empiricism,"
by what is observed and our conclusions from these observations.
So the wrong guy was declared the winner of Descartes vs. Newton, and we've been living with
the resultant Frankenstein's monster of an economy running rampant all this time. And the mad
"scientists" who keep it alive, who think themselves so "realistic" and "pragmatic" in fact are
atavists ignorant of the last few centuries of science. But they do get paid, whereas I (relatively)
don't.
Alexander Koyré observed that Newton demonstrated that "a purely materialistic pattern
of nature is utterly impossible (and a purely materialistic or mechanistic physics, such as
that of Lucretius or of Descartes, is utterly impossible, too)"
I think that Newton considered phenomena like gravity, magnetism, and optics to be non-material,
perhaps even spiritual, and separate from matter. Modern physicists would disagree, and would
consider gravity and electro-magnetism to be purely material phenomena. Newton didn't prove that
the world is non-mechanical; he showed that objects do not need to touch for them to have influence
on each other.
It is still quite possible that there are non-material phenomena, but those would be separate
from gravity and electro-magnetism, which Newton considered non-material.
Are all products of the brain. I don't see how the results of the interaction of electrical
impulses and chemicals are non-material. Magic is not an explanation for anything.
So Newton formulated his theories because of his belief in Alchemy and not, as I had thought,
despite it.
Discussions like this are what make this site so great.
All modern economic thought ( 1900+ ) has been corrupted by the arrogance of Taylor's Time
& Motion Studies. The essence of which is that bean counters can revolutionize economic output by statistics
and basic accounting.
AKA Taylorism.
Big Government is Taylorism as practiced.
At bottom, it arrogantly assumes that if you can count it, you can optimise it.
The fact is that 'things' are too complicated.
Taylor's principles only work in a micro environment. His work started in machine shops, and
at that level of simplicity, still applies.
Its abstractions and assumptions break down elsewhere.
MOST economic models in use today are the grandsons of Taylorism.
They are also the analytic engines that have driven the global economy to the edge of the cliff.
For my penny's worth the sentence "Today, the poor are hemmed in by so many regulations and
procedures (real estate, education, police) that people are now starved" reveals the main problem.
Too many of the most lucrative parts of every national economy have been closed off by politicians
and reserved for their friends.
DAVID BARSAMIAN: One of the heroes of the current right-wing revival is Adam Smith. You've
done some pretty impressive research on Smith that has excavated a lot of information that's
not coming out. You've often quoted him describing the "vile maxim of the masters of mankind:
all for ourselves and nothing for other people."
NOAM CHOMSKY: I didn't do any research at all on Smith. I just read him. There's no research.
Just read it. He's pre-capitalist, a figure of the Enlightenment. What we would call capitalism
he despised.
People read snippets of Adam Smith, the few phrases they teach in school. Everybody
reads the first paragraph of The Wealth of Nations where he talks about how wonderful the division
of labor is. But not many people get to the point hundreds of pages later, where he says that
division of labor will destroy human beings and turn people into creatures as stupid and ignorant
as it is possible for a human being to be.
And therefore in any civilized society the government
is going to have to take some measures to prevent division of labor from proceeding to its
limits.
And here is a link to Adam Smith's poignant denunciation of division of labour:
This mention of division of labor is, as Chomsky points out, left out of the index of the University
of Chicago scholarly edition! Of George Stigler's introduction Chomsky claims, "It's likely he
never opened The Wealth of Nations. Just about everything he said about the book was completely
false."
I recommend reading the entire paragraph at the link above. Smith writes:
"The man whose whole life is spent in performing a few simple operations, of which the effects
are perhaps always the same, or very nearly the same, has no occasion to exert his understanding
or to exercise his invention in finding out expedients for removing difficulties which never
occur. He naturally loses, therefore, the habit of such exertion, and generally becomes as
stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human creature to become. But in every improved
and civilized society this is the state into which the labouring poor, that is, the great body
of the people, must necessarily fall, unless government takes some pains to prevent it.
"
"Economics Upside Down" or Why "Free Markets" Don't Exist
This is an instructive interview with Ha-Joon Chang, author of the new book "23
Things They Don't Tell You About Capitalism." He debunks some widely accepted
beliefs, such at the existence of "free markets" or the necessity of "free
trade" for the development of capitalism.
Enjoy!
Topics: China, Corporate governance, Credit markets, Free markets and their
discontents, Globalization, The dismal science
Email This Post Posted by Yves Smith at 12:09 am
11 Comments " Links to this post
11 Comments:
Charles Frith says:
June 15, 2011 at 2:25 am
Bravo.
Reply
Septeus7 says:
June 15, 2011 at 5:57 am
Ha-Joon Chang is one of the best real world economists out there and I find it
sad that Asians now have to teach Americans about traditional American system
development and industrial policies but we should take any help we can get at
this point.
When will we stop with these idiotic so-called "free market" economics and start
understanding that
if we run away from our
responsibility to look out for our own economic interest politically then we
will have our lunch taken by those "free market" types pouring billions into
political influence because they obviously don't believe a word of their own
faux-economic ideology?
Reply
Another Gordon says:
June 15, 2011 at 6:22 am
An excellent book, nicely structured and easy to read.
However, he does leave out a couple of things, for example that competition does
not always lead to lower prices and/or better outcomes as the neoliberal fantasy
has it.
Competition only works when it costs less than its benefits. Yet it is often
horribly expensive and the benefits often modest at best.
Reply
Iolaus says:
June 15, 2011 at 11:02 am
Ha-Joon says "You can't have slaves." But we do have slavery, right here.
Reply
Anonymous Jones says:
June 15, 2011 at 12:42 pm
What is truly amazing is that something this obvious (that all markets are
regulated by some means, and that whether you prefer those means versus others
is almost entirely based on outcomes rather than procedures) is such a fringe
idea.
I was watching the Bobby Fischer documentary on HBO, and it struck me how easy
it must be slip into madness living in this completely insane world. There are
so many obvious fallacies you must accept to "fit into" normal society (the
existence not just of a god, but the particular consensus "God" of your
community; the belief that your community (oh, let's say America) always has
good intentions and could never (gasp) be using its might to enrich the people
running the place; the weird idea that "honor" for samurai or other military
types is selflessly serving the elite who are exploiting the rest of society).
To be thought sane, one's insanity must match others' insanity.
To investigate the world, to examine the BS that you have been told over and
over, has the potential to completely untether the psyche. Look at all the
rampant conspiracy theorists on this site. Are they really different (in kind,
not in specifics) from the "Protocols" crazies or the bilderberg lunatics or the
"end of the world" preachers? Another thing that is so amazing is that you read
history and watch documentaries and you realize these crazies are doing almost
*exactly* the same thing as someone else in another generation 50 years ago, 100
years ago, 150 years ago, 1000 years ago. Fischer himself was once in the thrall
of an "end of the world" preacher who was doing almost exactly what Harold
Camping just did and then Fischer moved onto this insane "Protocols" fixation.
I guess people are just incapable of reflecting on themselves enough to see
this. Or I guess it would make them as crazy as Fischer if they ever did.
Reply
Just Tired says:
June 15, 2011 at 3:13 pm
Read Eric Fromm's, The Sane Society. In the 1950's, Fromm recognized that a
whole society could be mentally ill and those who were thought to be out of the
mainstream were really the sane ones. He also raised the question to the mental
health profession as to who were the proper ones to treat given that reality. It
is almost as if the mental health takes a kind of democratic approach to the
definition of mental illness, i.e. the majority of the population was defined as
sane by definition. Fromm argued that the approach should be more objective.
Reply
Foppe says:
June 15, 2011 at 5:25 pm
subjectivity and objectivity are meaningless notions once you start 'diagnosing'
entire societies as mentally ill or diseased. What is perceived as either is
done so through consensus formation; this cannot meaningfully happen if you
exclude the majority of the population from weighing in on the basis of an
argument that they are mentally ill. (I do not find Fromm's vocabulary very
helpful in this case)
Reply
LifelongLib says:
June 15, 2011 at 5:00 pm
Conspiracy theories are often twisted versions of things that are really
happening. Mark of the Beast, without which you can't buy or sell? Try getting a
plane ticket or renting a hotel room without a major credit card. World ruled by
alien reptiles? Some kid joins the army to get money for college, and ends up
getting blown apart 10,000 miles from home. Sure sounds like something alien
reptiles would set up. Actual human beings wouldn't do those things to each
other, right?
Reply
Fed Up :-) says:
June 16, 2011 at 5:05 am
How have individuals been affected by the technological advances of recent
years?
Here is the answer to this question given by a philosopher-psychiatrist, Dr.
Erich Fromm:
Our contemporary Western society, in spite of its material, intellectual and
political progress, is increasingly less conducive to mental health, and tends
to undermine the inner security, happiness, reason and the capacity for love in
the individual; it tends to turn him into an automaton who pays for his human
failure with increasing mental sickness, and with despair hidden under a frantic
drive for work and so-called pleasure.
Our "increasing mental sickness" may find expression in neurotic symptoms.
These symptoms are conspicuous and extremely distressing. But "let us beware,"
says Dr. Fromm, "of defining mental hygiene as the prevention of symptoms.
Symptoms as such are not our enemy, but our friend; where there are symptoms
there is conflict, and conflict always indicates that the forces of life which
strive for integration and happiness are still fighting." The really hopeless
victims of mental illness are to be found among those who appear to be most
normal. "Many of them are normal because they are so well adjusted to our mode
of existence, because their human voice has been silenced so early in their
lives, that they do not even struggle or suffer or develop symptoms as the
neurotic does." They are normal not in what may be called the absolute sense of
the word; they are normal only in relation to a profoundly abnormal society.
Their perfect adjustment to that abnormal society is a measure of their mental
sickness. These millions of abnormally normal people, living without fuss in a
society to which, if they were fully human beings, they ought not to be
adjusted, still cherish "the illusion of individuality," but in fact they have
been to a great extent deindividualized. Their conformity is developing into
something like uniformity. But "uniformity and freedom are incompatible.
Uniformity and mental health are incompatible too. . . . Man is not made to be
an automaton, and if he becomes one, the basis for mental health is destroyed."
Reply
Andrew P says:
June 15, 2011 at 9:07 pm
My main problem with Chang's book is that even though he destroys all these
market conceits, he doesn't properly incorporate Marxian, and other structural
critiques of capitalism. He just accepts that capitalism and market systems are
the best distributive means available, which is absurd. He ignores the
fundamentally irrational nature of capitalism, how it's at conflict with itself
and that as marx noted, "it sows the seeds of its own destruction."
For a great structural critique of modern capital everyone here at NC should
read up on John Bellamy Foster's Monopoly and finance capital. He builds on
Sweezy and Baran's earlier work on Monopoly capital, showing how production in
the "real" economy is less and less profitable, necessitating the explosion in
financial speculation and debt in order to keep resuscitating the moribund
monopoly production sector. It has aspects of Keen's Credit Accelerator argument
but goes a bit further.
This article is the first in a series. You can find the rest at the site.
Reply
MichaelPgh says:
June 16, 2011 at 4:02 am
Great post! See also Freud, "Civilization and its Discontents". The stories we
tell ourselves about how the world works versus our discoveries of how the world
actually works are a continuous source of "cognitive dissonance" (in modern
psychology), "alienation" (in Marxism), or "madness" (in Foucault). Trying to
reconcile the story with our own experience is perilous business indeed.
The documents posted by WikiLeaks suggest that the CIA had obtained
information on 14 security flaws
in Apple's iOS operating system for phones and tablets. The
leaked documents also identified at least two dozen flaws in Android, the most popular operating
system for smartphones, which was developed by Alphabet's Google division.
Notable quotes:
"... The spy software described in the latest documents was designed to be injected into a Mac's firmware, a type of software preloaded in the computer's chips. It would then act as a "listening post," broadcasting the user's activities to the CIA whenever the machine was connected to the internet. ..."
"... A similar tool called NightSkies was developed in 2009 to spy on iPhones, the documents said, with the agency figuring out how to install it undetected before a new phone was turned on for the first time. (Apple said that flaw affected only the iPhone 3G and was fixed in all later models.) ..."
"... By rewriting the firmware of a computer or a phone, tools that operate at the chip level can hide their existence and avoid being wiped out by routine software updates. ..."
The
CIA developed tools to spy on Mac computers by injecting software into the chips that control
the computers' fundamental operations, according to the latest
cache of classified government
documents published on Thursday by
WikiLeaks .
Apple said in a statement Thursday evening that its preliminary assessment of the leaked information
indicated that the Mac vulnerabilities described in the disclosure were previously fixed in all Macs
launched after 2013.
However, the documents also indicated that the Central Intelligence Agency was developing a new
version of one tool last year to work with current software.
The leaked documents were the second batch recently released by WikiLeaks, which said it obtained
a hoard of information on the agency's cyberweapons programs from a former government worker or contractor.
The
first group of documents , published March 7, suggested that the CIA had found ways to hack
Apple iPhones and Android smartphones, Microsoft Windows computers, Cisco routers and Samsung smart
televisions.
Since the initial release of the CIA documents, which the agency has not confirmed are authentic,
major technology companies have been
scrambling to assess whether the security holes exploited by the CIA still exist and to patch
them if they do.
All of the surveillance tools that have been disclosed were designed to be installed on individual
phones or computers. But the effects could be much wider. Cisco Systems, for example, warned customers
this week that many of its popular routers, the backbone of computer networks, could be hacked using
the CIA's techniques.
... ... ...
The spy software described in the latest documents was designed to be injected into a Mac's firmware,
a type of software preloaded in the computer's chips. It would then act as a "listening post," broadcasting
the user's activities to the CIA whenever the machine was connected to the internet.
A similar tool called NightSkies was developed in 2009 to spy on iPhones, the documents said,
with the agency figuring out how to install it undetected before a new phone was turned on for the
first time. (Apple said that flaw affected only the iPhone 3G and was fixed in all later models.)
Although most of the tools targeted outdated versions of the Apple devices' software, the CIA's
general approach raises new security concerns for the industry, said Eric Ahlm, who studies cybersecurity
at Gartner, a research firm. By rewriting the firmware of a computer or a phone, tools
that operate at the chip level can hide their existence and avoid being wiped out by routine software
updates.
Under an agreement struck during the Obama administration, intelligence agencies were supposed
to share their knowledge of most security vulnerabilities with tech companies so they could be fixed.
The CIA documents suggest that some key vulnerabilities were kept secret for the government's
use.
The CIA declined to comment Thursday, pointing reporters to
its earlier statement about the leaks, in which it defended its use of "innovative, cutting-edge"
techniques to protect the country from foreign threats and criticized WikiLeaks for sharing information
that could help the country's enemies.
"... By Scott Ferguson, an assistant professor of Film & Media Studies in the Department of Humanities & Cultural Studies at the University of South Florida. His current research and pedagogy focus on Modern Monetary Theory and critiques of neoliberalism; aesthetic theory; the history of digital animation and visual effects; and essayistic writing across media platforms. Originally published at Arcade ..."
"... requirement ..."
"... You don't know what you've got 'til it's gone ..."
Posted on
January 5, 2017
by
Yves Smith
Yves here. The reason I prefer a jobs guarantee
(with an income guarantee at a lower income level)
is that the time an income guarantee was implemented
on an open-ended, long term basis, it produced an
unskilled underclass (see
our post on the Speenhamland system
for more
detail).
Moreover, the idea that people are
brimming with all sorts of creative things they'd do
if they had an income to allow themselves to do it
is bunk. For instance, MacArthur Foundation grant
recipients, arguably some of the very most creative
people in society, almost without exception do not
do anything productive while they have their grant
funding. And let us not kid ourselves: most people
are not creative and need structure and pressure to
get anything done.
Finally, humans are social animals. Work provides
a community. If you are extraverted and need to be
around people during the day, it's hard to create
enough opportunities for interaction on your own.
By Scott Ferguson, an assistant
professor of Film & Media Studies in the Department
of Humanities & Cultural Studies at the University
of South Florida. His current research and pedagogy
focus on Modern Monetary Theory and critiques of
neoliberalism; aesthetic theory; the history of
digital animation and visual effects; and essayistic
writing across media platforms. Originally published
at
Arcade
In the wake of Donald Trump's alarming election
to the White House, historian James Livingston
published an essay in Aeon Magazine with the
somewhat provocative title, "
Fuck
Work
." The piece encapsulates the argument
spelled out in Livingston's latest book,
No
More Work: Why Full Employment is a Bad Idea
(The
University of North Carolina Press, 2016).
In both his book and the Aeon essay, Livingston
sets out to address several overlapping crises: an
alienating and now exhausted "work ethic" that
crystallized during the Protestant Reformation;
forty years of rampant underemployment, declining
wages, and widening inequality; a corresponding
surge in financial speculation and drop in
productive investment and aggregate demand; and a
post-2008 climate of cultural resentment and
political polarization, which has fueled populist
uprisings from Left to Right.
What the present catastrophe shows,
according to Livingston's diagnosis, is the ultimate
failure of the marketplace to provision and
distribute social labor. What's worse, the future of
work looks dismal. Citing the works of Silicon
Valley cyber-utopians and orthodox economists at
Oxford and M.I.T., Livingston insists that
algorithms and robotization will reduce the
workforce by half within twenty years and that this
is unstoppable, like some perverse natural process.
"The measurable trends of the past half-century, and
the plausible projections for the next half-century,
are just too empirically grounded to dismiss as
dismal science or ideological hokum," he concludes.
"They look like the data on climate change-you can
deny them if you like, but you'll sound like a moron
when you do."
Livingston's response to this
"empirical," "measurable," and apparently undeniable
doomsday scenario is to embrace the collapse of
working life without regret. "Fuck work" is
Livingston's slogan for moving beyond the demise of
work, transforming a negative condition into a
positive sublation of collective life.
In concrete terms, this means implementing
progressive taxation to capture corporate earnings,
and then redistributing this money through a "
Universal
Basic Income
," what in his book is described as
a "minimum annual income for every citizen." Such a
massive redistribution of funds would sever the
historical relationship between work and wages, in
Livingston's view, freeing un- and underemployed
persons to pursue various personal and communal
ends. Such a transformation is imminently
affordable, since there are plenty of corporate
funds to seize and redirect to those in need. The
deeper problem, as Livingston sees it, is a moral
one. We must rebuff the punishing asceticism of the
Protestant work ethic and, instead, reorganize the
soul on more free and capacious bases.
Lest we get the wrong idea, Livingston maintains
that social labor will not simply disappear in a
world organized by a tax-funded Universal Basic
Income. Rather, he envisions an increasingly
automated future, where leisure is our primary
preoccupation, social labor becomes entirely
voluntary, and ongoing consumption props up
aggregate demand. Eschewing utopian plans or
prescriptions, he wonders,
What would society and civilisation be like
if we didn't have to 'earn' a living-if leisure
was not our choice but our lot? Would we hang
out at the local Starbucks, laptops open? Or
volunteer to teach children in less-developed
places, such as Mississippi? Or smoke weed and
watch reality TV all day?
Enraged over the explosion of underpaid and
precarious service work? Disaffected by soulless
administration and info management positions?
Indignant about the history of unfree labor that
underwrites the history of the so-called "free
market"? Want more free time? Not enough work to go
around? Well, then, fuck work, declares Livingston.
Say goodbye to the old liberal-democratic goal of
full employment and bid good riddance to misery,
servitude, and precarity.
"Fuck work" has struck a chord with a
diverse crowd of readers. Since its release, the
essay has garnered more than 350,000 clicks on the
Aeon website. The Spanish publication
Contexto
y Acción
has released a translation of the
piece. And weeks later, Livingston's rallying cry
continues to resonate through social media networks.
"Fuck Work" has been enthusiastically retweeted by
everyone from Marxists and small "l" liberals to
anarchists and tech gurus.
The trouble is that Livingston's "Fuck Work"
falls prey to an impoverished and, in a sense,
classically
Liberal
social
ontology, which reifies the neoliberal order it aims
to transform. Disavowing modern humanity's reliance
on broadscale political governance and robust public
infrastructures, this Liberal ontology predicates
social life on immediate and seemingly "free"
associations, while its critical preoccupation with
tyranny and coercion eschews the charge of political
interdependence and caretaking. Like so many
Universal Basic Income supporters on the
contemporary Left, Livingston doubles down on this
contracted relationality. Far from a means to
transcend neoliberal governance, Livingston's
triumphant negation of work only compounds
neoliberalism's two-faced retreat from collective
governance and concomitant depoliticization of
social production and distribution.
In a
previous
contribution
to Arcade, I critiqued the Liberal
conception of money upon which Marxists such as
Livingston unquestionably rely. According to this
conception, money is a private, finite and alienable
quantum of value, which must be wrested from private
coffers before it can be made to serve the public
purpose. By contrast, Modern Monetary Theory
contends that money is a boundless and fundamentally
inalienable public utility. That utility is grounded
in political governance. And government can always
afford to support meaningful social production,
regardless of its ability to capture taxes from the
rich. The result: employment is always and
everywhere a political decision, not merely a
function of private enterprise, boom and bust
cycles, and automation. There is therefore nothing
inevitable about underemployment and the misery it
induces. In no sense are we destined for a "jobless
future."
Thus upon encountering Aeon Magazine's
tagline for Livingston's piece-"What if jobs are not
the solution, but the problem?"-I immediately began
wondering otherwise.
What if we rebuffed the white
patriarchal jargon of full employment, which keeps
millions of poor, women, and minorities
underemployed and imprisoned? What if, in lieu of
this liberal-democratic ruse, we made an
all-inclusive and well-funded
federal
Job Guarantee
the basis for a renewed leftist
imaginary?
What if we stopped believing that
capitalists and automation are responsible for
determining how and when we labor together? What if
we quit imagining that so-called "leisure"
spontaneously organizes itself like the
laissez-faire markets we elsewhere decry?
What if we created a public works
system, which set a just and truly livable wage
floor for the entire economy? What if we made it
impossible for reprehensible employers like Walmart
to exploit the underprivileged, while multiplying
everyone's bargaining powers? What if we used such a
system to decrease the average work day, to demand
that everyone has healthcare, and to increase the
quality of social participation across public and
private sectors? What if economic life was no longer
grounded solely in the profit motive?
What if we cared for all of our
children, sick, and growing elderly population? What
if we halved teacher-student ratios across all grade
levels? What if we built affordable homes for
everyone? What if there was a community garden on
every block? What if we made our cities energy
efficient? What if we expanded public libraries?
What if we socialized and remunerated historically
unpaid care work? What if public art centers became
standard features of neighborhoods? What if we paid
young people to document the lives of retirees?
What if we guaranteed that
Black
lives really matter
? What if, in addition to
dismantling the prison industrial complex, we
created a rich and welcoming world where everyone,
citizen or not, has the right to participation and
care?
What if private industry's rejection of
workers freed the public to organize social labor on
capacious, diverse, and openly contested premises?
What if public works affirmed
inclusion, collaboration, and difference? What if we
acknowledged that the passions of working life are
irreducible to a largely mythical Protestant work
ethic? What if questioning the meaning and value of
work become part of working life itself?
What if we predicated social critique
on terms that are not defined by the neoliberal
ideology that we wish to circumvent?
What if we radically affirmed our
dependence on the public institutions that support
us? What if we forced government to take
responsibility for the system it already conditions?
What if we admitted that there are no
limits to how we can care for one another and that,
as a political community, we can always afford it?
Livingston's argument cannot abide such
questions. Hence the Left's reply to "fuck work"
should be clear: fuck that.
Again the seemingly endless conflation of work,
good, with being a wage slave, not so good.
Progressives would do well to focus on justice and
that does not include making victims work for
restitution. One would think Progressives would wish
to f@uck wage slavery, not perpetuate it.
Finally, humans are social animals. Work
provides a community. If you are extraverted and
need to be around people during the day, it's hard
to create enough opportunities for interaction on
your own.
Yves Smith
I solve that problem with volunteer labor at a
local laundry. I do it ONLY when my favorite worker
is there because I like her, she has a family to
support, she is overworked, she is in constant pain
from fibromyalgia, has carpal tunnel syndrome and
because of the interesting people I get to see
there.
How can I afford to do meaningful work for free?
Because I'm retired and have a guaranteed income
from Social Security and a small pension.
And let's be honest. A guaranteed job as opposed
to a guaranteed income is meant to boost wages by
withholding labor from the private sector. But who
needs wages with an adequate guaranteed income?
I'll also piggyback onto this, even though I
am not keen on basic income until I see a little
more work put into it.
Many people aren't actually contributing
anything in any given work environment in our
current system. To expect differently if we have
a guaranteed jobs program seems naive.
In the administrative structures I've worked
under (both private and non profit, often
interacting with government), many workers have
obstructionist compliance responsibilities.
Decisions are put off through nonsense data
gathering and reporting, signatures in
triplicate, etc. It's why I've become a huge
proponent of the
Garbage Can theory
of administration: most
of the work being done is actually to connect or
disconnect problems from decision making. When
it comes down to it, there are only a few actual
decision makers within an organization, with
everyone else there to CYA. That goes for any
bureaucracy, private or public.
David Graeber has detailed the "bullshit
jobs" phenomenon pretty well, and dismantles
bureaucracy in his book, and says all this
better than I. But the federal job guarantee
seems like a path to a bureaucratic hell. Of
course, an income guarantee for the disabled,
mental, physical, otherwise, is absolutely
critical.
There is no magic bullet, whether JG or
UBI. But I think the author and Yves are
absolutely correct in asserting that there
is no workable UBI under the current
political economy. It would by definition
not meet the needs its proponents claim it
could because private (and non-profit!)
employers would scream about how it was
raising labor costs and otherwise destroying
the "real" "productive" economy. A UBI after
the revolution? Perhaps. Before? Extremely
problematic.
On the other hand, a JG that emphasized
care work (including paying people to
parent) and energy efficiency would meet
screaming needs in our society and provide
many people with important new skills, many
of which would be transferable to the
private economy. But even here, the
potential pitfalls and problems are
numerous, and there would no doubt be
stumbles and scandals.
Two things:
1. Goverments can hire people without a
JG, the argument that the JG is
necessary for the goverment to find
employees is therefore not a very
convincing argument.
2. Increasing and enforcing reduced
hours an employer can demand of a worker
will strengthen the bargaining position
of all workers. But the people
advocating the JG appears to see the
reduced hours of work as a bad thing?
People get to meet people at work but
the more pleasant interaction (to me)
comes outside of work with the same
people.
How many paid days off should a
person in JG get? As many as Germans
get? Or the Japanese? Or?
When can a person in JG retire? At 60?
65? 70? When does work in JG stop being
a blessing and instead living at leisure
is the bliss? Are we all to be assumed
to live for work?
And finally: If income guarantee is
too liberal, isn't job-guarantee too
much of one of its opposites –
totalitarian?
I think a combination of both would
be best. As has been said many times
here, a lot of current jobs are complete
BS anyway and I don't really want to be
guaranteed a job just so I can take the
dirt out of Boss Keen's ditch and then
put it back in.
Then there's automation which has
already taken away a lot of jobs and
will continue to do so. That's not a bad
thing as long as people are still
getting an income.
As there likely isn't enough
productive work to go around, ideally
there would be a UBI and instead of a
job guarantee, have a minimal job
requirement
. That exact amount of
work required could be tinkered with,
but maybe it's a couple days a week, a
few months a year, or something similar.
You'd have to report to work in order to
be able to collect your UBI when your
work was no longer required.
When you're not doing required work,
you can relax and live off your UBI or
engage in some sort of non-essential
free enterprise.
I don't know what sort of fantasy land
you live in. Being an adult means doing
stuff that is not fun so that you and your
family can survive. This is the nature of
the human condition, from the
hunter-gatherer phases of existence onward.
You see to believe that you have the right
to be paid for doing stuff you enjoy. And
the sort of jobs you deem to be "bullshit
jobs" would seem like paradise to coal
miners or people who had to go backbreaking
manual work or factory workers in sweatshops
in the 19th century. Go read Dickens or Karl
Marx to get some perspective.
Was this meant to be a reply to
cocomaan's post? It seems like it's
replying to something else.
If I understand "Bullshit jobs"
aren't bullshit because they are
unpleasant to do, but because they are
to some significant degree unproductive
or even counterproductive.
Administrative bloat in acedemia is
pretty much the gold standard here from
my perspective. They are great jobs to
have and to do, just useless,
unnecessary, and often counterproductive
ones. High rise office buildings are, I
have always suspected, staffed with a
lot of these well paid administrative
types of bullshit jobs.
The Civilian Conservation Corps is, to my
mind, the single most important civilian
jobs program of the past century because it
provided millions of people meaningful work
at a time when they could not get it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_Conservation_Corps
The military also provides a similar
function to many people with no other way
out of a poor situation. It is likely that
one of the reasons that there was such a
huge economic post WW II economic boom is
because many people (men and women) learned
discipline and skills in the military and
industrial work places during WW II.
Problems with deadlines are the key
drivers for productivity. If there are no
problems defined with no deadline, then most
people will simply drift. Occasionally a
Faraday, Edison, or Einstein will show up
who will simply endlessly grind through
theoretical and experimental failures on
ill-defined problems to come up with
something brilliant. Even Maxwell needed
Faraday's publications of his experiments
showing electro-magnetic fields to get him
to come up with his great equations.
The assumption that work (for profit) is good
is very entrenched in culture. The argument that
people aren't motivated to work (Americans are
lazy) is disputed by the sheer amount of
'volunteerism' (unpaid labor).
Corporations are not going to give up on
marketing jobs as they get the vast benefit of
labors efforts.No one system works it will take
employee ownership to counteract the negatives
of private ownership and a ubi along with a job
guarantee and expenditures on leisure to shift
from a consumer based economy.
I always thought that people were supposed to
argue for more than they want and then settle.
Here the argument is always on the right side of
the political spectrum capitalism and private
ownership. Privatize schools and then use a
transfer of wealth through taxes and a captured
labor force to work in them?
Job guarantee all the way, as long as our bosses
aren't dicks. We've already kicked people off of
public assistance and into shitty underpaid jobs. If
having a job is so important, there should always be
a good one available. And anyone that can't or won't
work can live off a limited basic income. Makes for
a smooth and just transition too when our dirty,
dull, and dangerous industries are shut down or
automated out of existence.
Which brings us, along the way, to the need
for meaningful educational opportunities for
those who the system has heretofore failed.
Concrete case in point. My cousin is a young,
single mom in central North Carolina who works
hard but is just barely scraping by. Recently my
wife and I decided to help her out by giving her
the money she'd need to get broadband service so
that she and her teenage daughter could take
advantage of free, high quality online resources
like EdX.org (
https://edx.org
,
check it out if you haven't yet). But actually
getting her hooked up has been a challenge
because the Internet provider Duopoly dropped
their most affordable plans sometime last year
(around $15/mo) so that the cost will now be a
minimum of $40/mo before modem rental, taxes and
whatever other fees the carriers can dream up
(for the techs out there, even DSL costs $35/mo
in that service area). This in a state where
there's a law prohibiting local governments from
providing Internet services to its citizens in
competition with the Duopoly, and where a
private initiative like Google Fiber has
stumbled so badly that it actually has had a
negative impact on price competition.
Of course you might say this is a first world
problem, heck at least we have (semi) affordable
electricity nowadays. But this happens to be a
first world country, where big business pushes
paperless constantly to cut its own costs and a
semester in college is basically the price of a
recent model preowned sedan, _every semester_.
So, a guaranteed job for everyone PLUS the
resources to learns what's needed to obtain a
job that's more than another dead-end.
P.S. Anyone who has ever tried to use free
Internet services at their local library knows
that's not a viable option both because of
restrictive timeouts and bandwidth caps.
Bosses will be more likely to be dicks when
their employees are a captured labor pool. If
you don't comply with commands you'll be out of
your 'job guarantee'.
I support Yves' idea for a basic income as a
default position for disabled people. Although I'll
advocate for something a bit different if possible
for the ambulatory: instead of a monetary income,
let's provide free basic rations and solar panels,
along with a small plot of land in a rural area,
free gardening and household supplies, (including
free seeds that are appropriate for the given area).
And free classes in ecology, cooking, composting,
soil management, blacksmithing, carpentry,
appropriate technolies and any other good stuff I
happen to think of.
As for what the guest poster wrote–well he seems
like a good guy but this social justice warrior
thing is a dying fad that'll provoke a very
unpleasant counter reaction if it keeps up for much
longer. I'm positive that Trump garnered thousands
of votes in those vital Midwestern swing states
thanks to the highly visible sjw activities on
campuses, and theis backlash is only going to
increase as this goes on.
I have a son with a disability. Without a
job, he would watch movies all day.
With a job he becomes a productive part of
society. He loves it and he is dedicated. It
also gives him the opportunity to bond with
people which is hard when you don't have full
autonomy because of some aspects of your
disability.
From my personal experience, a large
percentage of people with a disabilities would
prefer a job to income guarantee.
And many would be quite happy with what most
consider shit jobs.
My mom shops at a store that hires
intellectually disabled people to do things
like shopping cart roundups and bagging
customers' groceries. These aren't the kinds
of jobs that most of us would flock to, but
that's our perspective.
I have to second this. Having worked
briefly with developmentally challenged
students, they have a much easier go of
things when they feel empowered, when they
feel like they have some control over their
lives, despite the challenges they face.
Rendering them even more helpless simply
increases frustration and exacerbates
existing problems.
Which I think should be brought into the
larger argument. It surprises me that any
Marxist worth her salt would glomp onto
this, when, it seems, the purpose is to
further alienate people from the means of
production and control over the political
economy. When Silicon Valley types and
Charles Murray are arguing for it, you have
to wonder what the underlying reasons might
be. Murray never met a poor or uneducated
person he didn't want to drive into the
ground, so I find it rather curious that he
would suddenly be all for a form of social
welfare.
And as to the boss point above, there's
nothing stopping anyone from making the jobs
program have a cooperative structure. As the
article says, these are all political
choices, not naturally occurring phenomena.
When Silicon Valley types and
Charles Murray are arguing for it,
you have to wonder what the
underlying reasons might be.
My tankie friends on Twitter think
that basic income is a trojan horse
that's going to be used to try and trick
the American public into ending Social
Security and Medicare. They're usually
right, sadly.
It seems to me as if basic income
would also be a great excuse to chip
away even further at the idea if
public education and single-payer
health care as social goods. If your
parents aren't able to shell out for
them, well, you don't need to be
healthy or literate to recieve UBI.
If there were both a UBI and
a job requirement rather than a
job guarantee, that might solve
the problem you mentioned.
If everyone were required to
work a certain amount in
essential services like housing,
food production, health care,
etc before they could collect a
UBI, that would require a
trained and healthy workforce.
As a disabed person myself I would argue
it's not jobs that disabled people are
necessarily after, it's being able to
actively participate in society in a
contributing, meaningful and productive way,
to be included in something with a purpose,
a purpose you believe in. If income is not
an issue, most people would still engage in
projects. Your son would watch movies all
day only because there is no better role to
play, we are at a transition stage where
disabled people, still considered invalids,
are being discovered to be not so invalid.
I take issue with the notion that
disabled people would be happy to do any
deadend work. We deserve more and better
than that, everyone does.
I'm a deaf person with a talent which
fintech wants and needs, which so happens to
be ensuring our tech is accessible,
inclusve, making it so much better; so
disabled people can truly participate in
society, to do all the same things tech
supposedly does to liberate while making it
truly liberating for all.
But we are also socially responsible for
finding meaningful and significant work for
the talents disabled people actually have,
as opposed to getting them to do something
stupid because it's something to do and
they're disabled and so should be satisfied
with whatever they get. We're not
vegetables, nobody is. So that goes for
non-disabled folks too.
Which brings us to the heart of this
UBI/JG discussion, either you're coming to
this from a perspective of people should
have jobs, any job, cuz they're basically
vegetables or some kind of autonomous
machination which goes through motions and
capitalism doesn't work without those
machinations so there's some kind of moral
imperative to labour or wage slavery, and
the measure or class of a person is whether
they are jobbed machinations/slaves, or
UBI/JG is secondary to the question of are
people as a whole happy and doing what
they'd rather be doing, are they truly
participating in society, as part of the
human project.
That's the reality most corporations are
facing at the moment. The meaning and nature
of "work" itself is undergoing change,
becoming "play", as capitalism shoots itself
in the foot and in the drive for profit
either necessitates socialism and
classlessness, or mass social upheaval and
less profits.
Thank you. It gets tiresome that the
default is people are lazy. People are
describing what seems to be human
nature . the desire to connect with
others and to contribute.
After reading some of these
arguments, and thinking about what I
have experienced and seen, I think there
are merits to both approaches (UBI and
JG). From experience I can't entirely
agree with Yves that people would remain
unskilled and not pursue activities that
engage with others and improve their
lives and skills. Perhaps this is
because I have always been fascinated by
and have known many Hippy communities. I
live in Eugene Oregon now, but grew up
in San Francisco. The running joke I was
told was that all the hippies left SF
and came to Eugene because there were no
jobs :-). I did see hippy groups in SF
that did pretty much nothing but play
all day. They didn't last. However, here
in Eugene I see many lasting legacies of
what they built after they "dropped
out"; many if not most of my favorite
businesses were created by these people:
the alternative groceries like Sundance
(supposedly Whole Foods was purported to
model themselves after this store-bah!)
and Kiva and Growers Market, the
Saturday and Farmers Markets, Tsunami
books. The Oregon Country Fair, the
coops. Not all were directly started by
"hippies" per se but the early hippy
groups did much to create a culture and
an environment that encourages this.
I also know a lot of people here that
work "precariously" and there are times
when work is hard to come by. But these
people do not seem to sit around, they
find other things to do, like learn
about gardening, or get skills
volunteering for Bring recycling (they
do things like find creative re-use or
"decom" houses slated for demolition and
take out useful items), or Habitat for
Humanity, or Center for Appropriate
Transport (bicycle and human powered),
or local tree planting and park cleanup.
They often find work this way, and make
connections, and get new skills. They
don't have to But they want to stay
active and involved.
This is why I think UBI is not such a
bad thing.. I know many people who would
benefit and still do many things like
I've described I also am aware that
there are more general tasks that
society needs doing and that is where
the JG might come in. But maybe Eugene
is too much of an exception?
Of course, all this is besides what
these policies may be used for by the
PTB. That's an entirely different
discussion; here I am arguing the
merits, not the agendas.
I was careful to use the word many
and not all people with disabilities.
My son has an intellectual
disability. He needs to be instructed
and the routine will not come on its own
unless it is well practiced. But as long
as someone is directing, he does great
work.
It is obvious by your post that the
menial job he would enjoy does not
correspond to what you could offer the
world!
I spent hours holding him in the
NICU, worrying about his future until
one day, instead of feeling sorry for
the both of us, I looked around and
noticed a regular guy, apathetic
looking, spending his entire day
cleaning and disinfecting the room then
the thought came to me that someone with
special needs could do the same job and
actually be happy.
Around that time, I read an article
about the problems they were now
encountering with the integration of
people with special needs in France. It
would seem that when the job became
boring, many would just stop showing up
to work Why bother when the state and
society has always been there for
support that's what happens when
individuals never get to feel true
independence.
Any action that produces a good or a
service is a form of work. Hugging is a
service. So are smiling and cleaning a
toilet.
For some reason we have huge trouble
putting monetary value on many of the
most essential services.
We are also having a very hard time
filling the jobs with individuals who
have the right skill set and
temperament.
Oy .. make the disabled do hard labor of
agriculture? Blind? Deaf around heavy machinery?
Wheelchairs on plowed land?
You are proposing this as it seems enriching,
gets them out of your community, and is
economically sound. This lifestyle choice should
apply to everyone. Let any who want do this and
you will have removed people from the labor pool
(made up unemployment number magically goes
down) less resource consumption.
Thanks Yves for pounding this issue. As a former
lazy BIG'er I am naturally wired to stare at my
navel all day. I think at the heart of it we have an
existential problem with toil. Tcherneva's succinct
take-down of BIG vs JG also set me on the
straight and narrow.
Plus she spanks Yglesias
which is always enjoyable.
My biggest quibble with JG is that "work"
often involves needless consumption. Most people
(in America) require a car and 1-2 dangerous
hours a day getting to and from "work".
Personally this is a very good reason NOT to
work.
1-2 dangerous hours a day getting
to and from "work".
The reason I get to work 2 hours before
I'm required to is because I find driving to
work is the most stressful part of my day. I
commute while the roads are quiet. The
deterioration in driving etiquette is
maddening. It is dog eat dog out there. The
fact that we are all flying around at 70 MPH
in 4,000 pounds of steel and glass is lost
on most drivers.
I think there should be an indicator
on the dashboard showing the probability
of surviving a frontal impact at your
current road speed, people might slow
down as they saw the number approach
zero
"If you are extraverted and need to be around
people during the day, it's hard to create enough
opportunities for interaction on your own."
People have all sorts of mental quirks, but to what
extent do we rig society to handle them? As a
justification for work, this one sounds expensive.
We are social creatures. That's not a quirk,
just a fact. The average work environment
already has people with various "quirks". Some
are chatty, some not. Not a big deal, no need
for a radical redesign.
As for costs – unemployment imposes
devastating costs in sickness, addiction, crime,
etc. JG is a no-brainer. It's been tried with
great success in Argentina. It works. There's a
slogan for ya:
Work
Works
.
Well, OK, but we all vary in the level of
our sociability. Some need people around
them all the time others value their
solitude and still others are in between.
That's not a quirk, just a fact.
One that you're overstating.
The average work environment already
has people with various "quirks". Some
are chatty, some not. Not a big deal,
Actually, it is a big deal since noise
and lack of privacy are two of the biggest
problems in today's workplaces, particularly
those with "open work space" designs. I
speak from personal experience here.
I'd rather be out in the woods spending my
time growing fruit trees. I hate people–and
reading above about all the inspirational work
the government would be giving me and the people
I'd have to be around while while doing it left
me wondering about whether or not going postal
would be a good idea.
Secondly, the wishlist I saw above for
everything the government is supposed to be
doing to help people was pretty scary. Ehile the
intentions might be good, power like this given
to government never, ever turns out well for the
people. As an example, let's say Scott waved his
magic wand and suddenly Trump had all the power
and authority he needed to accomplish everything
on Scott's list today. Alright, now try to
imagine just how awful the next four years would
be. Not good!
I sympathize with the desire to just be
alone and do your own thing–I'm like that as
well–but I think you're missing an important
aspect of the argument, one which Tcherneva
makes more forcefully, which is that there
is a knock on benefit of people being more
engaged in public life: they are harder to
politically disenfranchise. I wouldn't be
surprise if one of the reasons why elites
are so gung ho about UBI is that it would
serve to further alienate people and
fragment communities, thus preventing them
from organizing anything like meaningful
resistance to state power.
Also, Ferguson kind of already addressed
this:
What if private industry's rejection
of workers freed the public to organize
social labor on capacious, diverse, and
openly contested premises?
The problem with a JG and that line
of argument, is that JG does not propose
to engage people more in public life
than an Unconditional Income, as an
Unconditional Income is by definition,
far more inclusive of all kinds of work
that people may do for others.
You may even do things that nobody in
a society approves of, with an
Unconditional Income, like trying to
prove that the world is round, not flat.
JG got nothing on enabling people to
be active citizens. It's a policy to
look backwards, or it's so inclusive
that it's basically an unconditional
income to everyone. You gotta be willed
to take a long shot sometimes
(increasingly often, looking at the
world as it is today and might
increasingly be tomorrow), to properly
empower people so they can be active
citizens.
How about we have more public housing I
would like to see boarding houses come back
but another option could be monastery type
living? There could even be separate ones
for men, women and families that way you
could select a monastery that is focused on
agriculture and you could have space away
from women.
I sometimes have incredibly vivid
dreams. One of them I hade a couple of
years ago was somewhat apocolyptic;
something had happened (unknown) and I
was in a dilapidated city of middlin'
size. The blocks of cheek-by-jowl houses
and storefronts were all boarded up. But
I entered one and found that 1) they had
been connected by knocking down walls
between them, and 2) the
Interior
Of the block was completely open. All
the buildings faced inward (no boarded
windows) and that had been transformed
into a Commons with gardens, vegetables,
corrals, parklands, small outbuildings.
Maybe something like that .
It would never happen but eminent
domain should apply to abandoned
buildings. If it's been unused for x
amount of years, it's raffled off
for public use . housing, education
etc. Heck, it could apply to
manufacturing. If a corp wants to
leave, don't let the door hitcha,
but that building is going to the
employees as a coop as competition
is as good for the goose as it is
for the gander.
I would imagine more people will
be having dreams like yours if
things keep declining and people try
to imagine what's next.
Actually I know a few artist who won the
Guggenheim Award and I beg to differ. Art is not
something that given bunch of money produces great
work. It comes with time and time spent
contemplating and thinking. Most of the artists who
won had to work to pay the bills before. Many were
teachers and many still are. There are so few fine
artists who just make art. The 1980s really pulled
the wool over non-artists eyes.
Case in point since getting the grant, not right
after of course, Cara Walker made one the best
pieces of her career. A Subtlety, or the Marvelous
Sugar Baby, an Homage to the unpaid and overworked
Artisans who have refined our Sweet tastes from the
cane fields to the Kitchens of the New World on the
Occasion of the demolition of the Domino Sugar
Refining Plant.
Job guarantee maybe, but not corvee. We can have
jobs for everyone, if we build pyramids. Forced
labor is totalitarian. But entitlement and free
lunches are destructive of society. Neo-liberalism
involves entitlement and free lunch for some people,
and for some countries (I see what you are doing to
everyone else USA, GB, Germany, Japan). Entitlement
isn't just for individuals. I love my work, as long
as it is "sort of" a free choice. Economic necessity
works for most of us, and while wage and debt
slavery aren't fun, they are both better than
chattel slavery.
In a country like the USA, the only limit on
socially useful, meaningful work for everyone is
the will and creativity to do it. Off the top of
my head I can think of more programs that could
be implemented than people to fill them.
I agree. But the problem seems to reside
in the link between the services and the
hard goods.
One is unlimited while the other is
limited so the human tendency is to use
money from the unlimited side and
consume/stock up/hoard the hard goods
creating a scarcity.
I don't see how we can solve that problem
with property rights as they are protected
now.
In my mind, land and resources would have
to be a common good why should someone get
the waterfront property or more arable land
or pools of oil just because of a birthright
or some other non sharing policy.
Going even further, why should some
groups/countries benefit from resources
while not sharing with others?
Lots of sharing problems to deal with
nationally and globally before we get it
right
For the last few decades, our system has
been based on debt to income and debt to
GDP. Those nations and individuals who
loaded up on it did ok . so we did not think
of the fair distribution of resources.
But now that debt levels are hitting what
we consider ceilings we will be changing the
rules of the game you know what happens
when someone decides to invent their own
rules in a board game midway through the
game!
All this to say that even if we guarantee
jobs the physical world of resources will
constrain us.
There needs to be a shift from work
and consumption to leisure. Leisure is
infinite . walking trails, biking
trails, parks, movies/music in the parks
(our community puts up a big screen and
a 150 or so show up with lawn chairs,
snacks and blankets), art shows,
community theatre, festivals, music,
picnic areas, chess/checkers concrete
tables .
I want to start a game library: sort
of a pub/restaurant with games. Have a
bite, beer and a game of scrabble. I
like the idea of pub nites with quiz
events. If there were public buildings,
gathering spaces would not have to make
a 'profit', public health would be the
benefit.
"What if public works affirmed inclusion,
collaboration, and difference? What if we
acknowledged that the passions of working life are
irreducible to a largely mythical Protestant work
ethic? What if questioning the meaning and value of
work become part of working life itself?
"What if we predicated social critique on terms
that are not defined by the neoliberal ideology that
we wish to circumvent?
"What if we radically affirmed our dependence on
the public institutions that support us? What if we
forced government to take responsibility for the
system it already conditions?
"What if we admitted that there are no limits to
how we can care for one another and that, as a
political community, we can always afford it?"
First, thanks for this article – this is a good
and interesting debate to have.
It makes me suspicious that the author's sort of
trump-card, climactic 'takedown' of UBI is a series
of questions rather than answers. Things which even
the author can't figure out the answer to,
apparently, so how can they expect UBI to have the
answers.
Think about the answers (i.e. in terms of, policy
changes to people's material lives) to the questions
posed above. What would any of those policies look
like? Who knows?
My point is, it's easy to make things (including
UBI) look dumb by comparing them to impossibly high
vague standards like "no limits to how we can care
for one another."
If the author had a better more concrete,
specific reason why UBI is bad, they would have used
that, yeah?
In my view, Unconditional Incomes answer
these questions without being wasteful of human
life, and with being unconditionally pro-labor,
as opposed to being conditionally pro labor as a
JG would be. JG only empowers labor that is
recognized immediately, by some body of people
who do not represent the valuations of all who
are part of society.
Unconditional Incomes recognize labor that
only later might generate appreciable results,
and it recognizes broad valuation of the fine
grained process where it is societally
worthwhile, as individuals perceive it. If
understood as enablement and pay for all labor
related time, unconditionally.
Pay beyond that would be representation of
how much respect you command, how much you
desire to obtain monopoly incomes, and how much
you might hate a job. But not the labor value.
That's what unconditional incomes can provide.
To the guy writing open source for a greater
benefit to many, to the hardworking construction
worker whose job involves a lot of undesirable
factors (for which he may demand additional
comensation), to the superstar/superbrand owner
who seeks to maximize customer awareness and
monetization with a blend of natural and
artificial marketing and monopolization
strategies, and to the guy who strategically
maximizes market incomes to do even greater
things for society than what he could be doing
with just writing open source.
On that note, thanks Amazon for pushing the
envelope. At least for the time being. We can
financially burden all of these market/rent
incomes to provide unconditional (labor)
incomes, to ensure that there's not too much
emphasis on just cashing in on your good (brand)
name and market position. Coca Cola is a prime
example for what such a cashing in would look
like. Customers are beasts of convenience,
unless there's breakthroughs that radically
improve on some process of delivery or
production, that somehow isn't taken notice of
by the big brand, before another active citizen
takes the opportunity to compete by help of it.
tl;dr: No to turning society into a glorified
Arnish settlement, yes to Amazon as it is today,
though with a higher tax burden, yes to
unconditional incomes, yes to political
activism, independent research, parenting work,
work for being a decent person among equal
people that may look however like you chose.
BIG was tried before with disastrous results.
When a BIG program can be proven to address its
deep and complex past failure, it may be worth a
try. I agree with Yves on when and where an IG
is appropriate until someone somewhere test
drives a better one.
Don't worry, most UBI experiments and
proposals nowadays aren't 'Income
Guarantees' but rather Unconditional
payments to all, or Tapered negative income
tax proposals (britain's RSA has a UBI
equivalent NIT proposal like that at least),
on top of which people could earn more. Only
experienceing regular taxation or a modest
clawback rate of the benefit.
UBI is commonly understood to not be a
top-up to the same point for everyone as the
speenhamland system was, which of course
destroys motivation to expose oneself to a
strenuous environment, when you can't
actually get compensated for your troubles.
Any sensible person would tell you that the
speenhamland system was an insane offer to
the people, it asked of people to work for
free, basically.
By what mechanism does UI prevent
employers from bidding down wages? As
Yves post form last year says, "Taxes
would therefore need to be increased to
offset those effects. The best tax
outcome you could expect would be a
progressive tax on income. Thus the end
result in a best-case scenario would be
tantamount to a means-tested BIG,
graduated so as to avoid any sudden
cutoff for someone who wanted to work.
Thus the result (whether achieved
directly or indirectly) is likely to
resemble Milton Friedman's negative
income tax, with the zero tax rate set
at a living wage level." Meaning the UI
just pushes free money into an otherwise
unchanged system incentivized from the
top down to soak that money back up and
out.
So pushing more money into the system
just inflates the system while
sustaining the ongoing upward
redistribution.
Thus: "The trouble is that
Livingston's "Fuck Work" falls prey to
an impoverished and, in a sense,
classically Liberal social ontology,
which reifies the neoliberal order it
aims to transform. Disavowing modern
humanity's reliance on broadscale
political governance and robust public
infrastructures, this Liberal ontology
predicates social life on immediate and
seemingly "free" associations, while its
critical preoccupation with tyranny and
coercion eschews the charge of political
interdependence and caretaking. Like so
many Universal Basic Income supporters
on the contemporary Left, Livingston
doubles down on this contracted
relationality. Far from a means to
transcend neoliberal governance,
Livingston's triumphant negation of work
only compounds neoliberalism's two-faced
retreat from collective governance and
concomitant depoliticization of social
production and distribution."
It sounds like it's is going to be a lot of work
- to abolish work.
Who's gonna do all the work involved? LOL.
If you think of sub-cultures where nobody works -
like ancient Roman nobles, Europes aristocrats,
gang-bangers, southern antebellum planters– mostly
they got into fights about nonsense and then killed
each other. That is something to consider.
The crap jobs will be the easiest to get rid
of, but then we won't have any necessary goods
and services. The Romans knew this, which is why
they had a pretty good run before collapsing.
OTOH, with so much more humanity getting
their creative juices going, we could end up
with lots and lots of art. There would be so
much art, it would probably be given away for
free!
Then there is the start your own biz path.
I've been keeping an eye on our local self serve
dog wash. The sign outside changed to "Self
Service Pet Wash". Has me wondering what's that
all about. Expanding the biz into cats,
hamsters, parrots and turtles maybe? Good to see
success in the entrepreneurial class, but then I
wonder if that's really for everyone and there
may need to be some larger organizational
structure geared towards producing some more
complex thing or service. Dunno, but that could
be food for thought as a next step for analysis
in this whole job creation subject.
If anybody actually expects to get paid
for their "art", that's when all hell will
break loose.
A self-service dog wash is interesting,
but if you let a dog wash itself it may not
do a good job. Dogs hate to get washed. I'm
not sure if this is gonna work.
Kwame Anthony Appiah talks about the end to
duels in his book on Honor. It's interesting
stuff.
One takeaway I remember is that the lower
classes actually began to clamor for an end to
the idea that murder was okay if you were in the
upper classes, since dueling was a matter of
challenging, preserving, and reifying an upper
class. The other way to look at it is that the
lower classes wanted in on the action.
It also ended when everyone was embarrassed
and fed up that their leaders were slaying each
other by night.
Great philosophical thougths are cauught. In the
Moderbator!
Even the moderbator is already working to thwart
illumination and enlightenment. That should be a
lesson of some sort. I'm not sure what though. That
wouldd mean mental work. I'll do it but it's still
kind of early. I'll do it later.
Yup. There is a big difference between work in a
Capitalist ecosystem and work in an Anarchistic
ecosystem. In the first you have to ask for a
Universal Basic Income and equality, etc. In the
second there is no need to ask for it.
So maybe "F@ck Work" is really "F@ck Capitalism"
or "F@ck Authoritarianism", but they just don't
quite get it yet.
Agreed that what the author is really saying
is f@ck capitalism. Pretending it's all about
the current fad for neoliberalism ignores the
reality that neoliberalism is simply old
fashioned laissez-faire capitalism with better
excuses. The problem with left utopianism is
that human nature works against it. So the
author's "what ifs" don't carry a lot of
intellectual punch. What if we all loved each
other? Well, we don't.
Personally I'd rather just have the BIG and
the freedom. The Right may be just as paranoid
as the Left when they claim all forms of
government social engineering are totalitarian
but there is a grain of truth there. Neither
side seems to have a very firm grasp of the
human
problems that need to be solved in
order for society to work.
"neoliberalism is simply old fashioned
laissez-faire capitalism with better
excuses"
I think it has worse excuses, actually.
No excuses. There is no excuse for the
centrally managed wealth extraction in the
name of "markets" that we have been seeing
since Bill Clinton made nice with Goldman
Sachs in the 1990s.
While MMT correctly conceives of money as a
limitless resource, what it doesn't take into
account is the fact that continuing to allow vast
accumulations of the stuff at the top of the economy
inevitably translates into political power.
And I suspect that those with such power,
principally the financial industry, will work
assiduously to reinforce conventional notions of
money as finite, which in turn enhances their power
and their ability to profit from widespread misery.
That is the taproot of The Big Lie – keeping
the masses convinced of money scarcity, which
goes hand-in-hand with scare mongering on the
national "debt". The delegitimizing of the
national currency as worthless IOUs, mere
"scraps of paper".
The .01%, who have accumulated political
power through this con, will not just give it
up.
It reminds me of the (probably apocryphal)
anecdote about Queen Victoria hearing about
Darwin's Origin of Species and asking, "Is it
true?"
"I'm afraid so, your majesty."
"Well then, let's hope the commoners don't
find out!"
Great piece!!! Does anyone know of any proposals
or white papers for a State or City wide Job
Guarantee? Laboratory for democracy or something. I
know the lack of a currency printer throws a wrench
into the MMT aspects and clearly there would be
migration affects greater than on a national scale,
but I think that a state or local program would
almost necessarily have to come before a national
one, or at least would make the debate about a
national one less arduous. This is something I am
pushing with my state house rep (Raymond Dehn, who
recently threw his hat in the ring for Minneapolis's
Mayoral contest)
"What if we admitted that there are no limits to
how we can care for one another and that, as a
political community, we can always afford it?" MMT
acknowledges that the availability of natural
resources is a limit to money creation and, overall,
economic growth. I wish this essay had addressed
this issue, as I believe we are in the post-peak oil
world and still not facing how this fact -peak oil
when properly understood is an empirical fact to me-
is dismembering modern political economies.
Simultaneously, this destruction is proceeding in
accord with neoliberal domination.
And most of the time, when I see MMT, it
seems to be associated with projects and
investments that are incredibly energy and
resource intensive.
Many MMT supporters seem to work on the
assumption that the US will always have the
right to consume an inordinate share of global
energy and resources.
It seems that many attempting to
pigeonhole MMT, seem to not recognize the
role of fiscal policy to regulate and
modulate. Full employment need not correlate
to consuming " an inordinate share of global
energy and resources." IMHO, how the term
"growth" is often used with and within
"economics" seems misleading and
disingenuous.
It seems to me we have done that no work
experiment for .OH, 70 years. Its called social
security.
Maybe every single person on social security doesn't
have as many friends as they should – the book
"Bowling Alone" as well as many other publications
about the isolation of modern society address what
is a problem. But many people with jobs are
isolated, as well as not getting social interaction
on and off the job. I think if you asked the average
social security recipient, the first thing they
would want is mo' money, mo' money, MO' MONEY.
People on social security can work, volunteer,
follow a hobby or take up one. In CA old folks used
to be able to "audit" college classes, where you
could attend for free but get no credit. Alas, no
longer the case (as well as when I was young and
went to college, it was dirt cheap – how did it get
so frigging expensive?).
And to the extent old people are isolated, more
money would do a lot to allow old people to take
cruises and other activities that cost money and
give people the opportunity to mingle. I imagine
young people would do the same, especially if the
stress of wondering where there income would come
from was removed.
There were people at work who said they would
never retire because they wouldn't be able to fill
their time. I find that just sad. Somebody has to
give these people something to do because in there
whole lives they have never developed any interests?
I was very lucky to have a career that was
interesting. It was also frustrating, difficult, and
stressful, and besides the friends from work, there
were also the assh*les. It was fine for 26, but it
was time to move on. And though I thought about
getting another job, I have found that not working
is ..WONDERFUL.
I also do not work, and I enjoy it. I need to
find things to fill my days (other than NC), but
this is complicated by not having competence in
the local language. I could speed up my
citizenship process by getting a job here in
Uruguay, but I don't want to go back to a
stressful life feeling like I don't have enough
time to do interesting things. So learning
Spanish is my job now.
I think if you asked the average social
security recipient, the first thing they
would want is
mo' money, mo' money,
MO' MONEY
.
And to the extent old people are
isolated, more money would do a lot to allow
old people to take cruises and
other
activities that cost money
and give
people the opportunity to mingle
I suppose it's a much larger ambition in many
ways, but I've always thought that a more
worthwhile aim than a basic income guarantee
would be de-financialization. Private health
care and car-based communities put people in the
very precarious position of having to worry
about their cash buffer for lots of basic
survival needs. I live in a country with
government-funded health care, and even though
my income is a fraction of what I made when I
lived in the US it would be easy for me to quit
my job and live on savings for an extended
period of time, since the only real expenses I
have are food and housing, and the other
necessities like clothes or bicycle repairs can
be done on the cheap when one has lots of free
time.
Public transit connecting libraries, parks,
community colleges, and other public forums
where people can socialize are much preferable
to cruise ships!
I too have for years now enjoyed and
sometimes struggled with not having to work for
money. While my ability to engage in many
activities is currently limited by health
issues, I have previously gone back to
university and earned a degree, learned fine
woodworking, volunteered as a charity fundraiser
and done field work for the wolf reintroduction
program in Yellowstone. I have also spent a lot
of time reading, gardening, fixing up my old
house, watching movies, political activity,
fishing, motorcycling, the list could go on.
However, to be honest, I do suspect that the
years I did spend working and the earnings
therefrom did lay a foundation upon which I
could build an edifice more of my own choosing.
Make work more interesting and rewarding by
directing it toward esthetic goals. Promote the arts
and education at all ages. Put art, design, music,
theater, & crafts back into the curriculum, identify
people with special skills & talent, support them
and provide venues for learning, exhibits &
performances with low- or no- cost access to the
public. Elevate culture to the epitome of human
achievement in all walks of life and expand
involvement. Discourage commercial television
watching, especially for children.
I do wonder if there's a kind of circular
argument to this piece, or at least there is a
continuum between this job guarentee solution and
the basic income. In one sense, it is said that
people cannot be left to themselves to create
because they just won't. So the solution is some
kind of municipal creativity, an entitity which does
the creating and then forces people to work on its
projects in return for income. The more top down
'new deal'-like this is, then it looks like a JG
system. If it can be bottom up, it more closely
resembles a basic income.
There is little difference, in the real world,
between sitting on a park bench all day and sitting
in a cubicle filling out spreadsheets, because most
jobs are already busy-work. So most people are
already doing corvee labor in a totalitarian
civilization: digging holes and filling them up
again. In a typical office building, the only people
who are doing real, productive work are the janitors
and maintenance engineers.
I think it would take a long time, as in many
generations, to begin to know who we are, what we
would do and be without a Protestant work-ethic.
It's almost impossible for most to imagine life in
some other form just as it's impossible for most
to imagine a democratic process, even within just
one party. Idle time scares the beejesus out of so
many people I know. I've watched people 'retire' and
move to these beautiful Ozark mountains for
decades and do nothing but destroy them, over and
over again, out of boredom and idle guilt. I can't
remember the last time I cut down a live tree for
firewood.. since there are always mountains of
forrest being laid to waste.
But we must face the fact most work is useless,
crap, BS, and or outright destructive. MIC and
Insurance come to mind immediately. To enforce human
work for the sake of it is to perhaps destroy the
big blue marble host at – at best an highly
accelerated rate. If we keep making ourselves act
like drones our world will continue to look like
it's what we are doing / who we are. Just drive down
any street America built post 1960 looking for
something esthetically pleasing, somewhat unique,
that isn't either mass produced or designed to fall
apart in a few decades or less.
Or maybe with a jobs guarantee we should just
outlaw bulldozers, chainsaws, 18 wheelers, private
jets, dwellings/offices with more than four units,
and large farm equipment.
If we are going to force labor then give every
man and woman a shovel or a hoe with their HS
diploma – not a gun, not an office for predatory
FIRE purposes. That way we wont destroy ourselves so
quickly.
Joni sang..
You don't know what you've got
'til it's gone
. What about the people who never
knew what was there to begin with? Will some of us
live long enough to morn the passing of parking
lots?
"A job at a decent wage, set by public policy,
will eliminate at least 2/3 of poverty. we can then
work on eliminating the rest thru compassion."
Doesn't strike me as morally agreeable to reduce
the right to nature and ideas that anyone may reason
to have, to a matter of compassion.
"This is the high road that can increase
productive capacity"
Giving people an unconditional income and letting
people earn money on top, could also increase
productive capacity, and having a JG scheme in place
might as well reduce productive capacity where it
pretends to people that they're doing something
important, when they're not. Overpaying work can be
a disservice to the people and society alike. Let
individuals themselves tell others how much they
think something is worth, in respect and in monetary
terms. We just need to equip people with money (that
maintains relevance in relation to the aggregate of
all money), for that.
The high road that can increase productivity is a
commitment to enabling people as individuals,
unconditionally, to make economic expressions,
rooted in their rights to nature.
""Modern Monetary Theory contends that money is a
boundless and fundamentally inalienable public
utility. That utility is grounded in political
governance. And government can always afford to
support meaningful social production, regardless of
its ability to capture taxes from the rich. The
result: employment is always and everywhere a
political decision, not merely a function of private
enterprise, boom and bust cycles, and automation.
There is therefore nothing inevitable about
underemployment and the misery it induces. In no
sense are we destined for a "jobless future."""
Wouldn't it be interesting if it took someone
like Trump to get the fact that money is a public
utility into the public mindset.
This is a strong and powerful tool. Seems like it
could be up his alley.
But Trump WONT do that. He's very much a
super 1% elitist who thinks of people as winners
and losers. He thinks the government is like a
business that has to balance its books and "live
within its means" (means = tax receipts + fees).
Trump is NOT an MMTer. He's closer to gold
standard idiots in the GOP (whether they
actually want the gold standard to return or not
means nothing the idea that the federal budget
needs to be balanced is 100% outgrowth of the
gold standard dinosaur days so they are ALL
goldbugs at core).
I agree with many of the skeptical views above.
In the endeavor to provide equitable incomes an
underlying problem is who decides what industries or
groups get funded from the taxes collected? Is there
private capital? How do you keep certain people from
manipulating the system to assure they can collect
more wealth than someone else?
All of these might be questions may be resolved
with strict laws, but I can recall in my childhood
such laws and such cultures that assured a more
equitable system, but these too were corrupted by
people who wanted to "keep their wealth", because
"they earned it", or inherited it ("Death to the
Death Tax!").
This utopia sounds good on paper, but it appears
to me that the execution is most times corrupted by
the connected and powerful.
In any case the most difficult task in this
process will be getting enough power to take any
sizable wealth away from the "shareholders" , ie
owners, to redistribute in a society controlled via
media and laws by our lords and masters.
I think we need to remember just how modern is
the concept of "work" is that's being debated here.
In nearly the whole world a century ago (and still
in parts of it today) people didn't have "jobs",
they raised crops, tended cattle, caught fish,
practised manual crafts, played a role in the
community and family etc. and were in general
productively occupied most of the time. Even with
the factory system, and the beginning of paid
employment, many of the workforce were skilled
craftsmen with years of training and a high social
status. The modern idea of a "job" as an unnecessary
task carried out to gain money you don't need to buy
things you don't want would have seemed
incomprehensible. Indeed, there are parts of Africa
today where a "job" is what you get to earn enough
money to live on for a while and that's it.
The real problem then is a sense of purpose in life.
There's some evidence that work can and does provide
this, provided that work is minimally useful and
satisfying. Certainly, the psychological damage from
long-term unemployment as well as the psychological
dangers of working alone are extensively documented.
But the opposite is also true – work can make you
ill, and the line between guaranteeing work and
forcing people to work is a treacherously easy one
to cross.
It would be better to move towards thinking about
what kind of society and economy we want. After all,
much of the contemporary economy serves no useful
purpose whatever, and could be dispensed with and
the assets invested elsewhere. Without getting into
the magic wand thinking in the article, it must be
possible to identify a host of things that people
can usefully "do", whether or not these are "jobs"
in the traditional sense.
You're onto something here. Reading the post
and comments, I couldn't identify what was
bothering me, because when I think of work now
(having been out of the paid workforce a while)
I think in terms of things that make life more
livable, either in very practical ways or
through learning, enlarging my view of the
world, and I don't in the least want to see the
elimination of that kind of work. It's the other
kind of work, that expects you to feign devotion
to the manufacture or marketing of widgets, that
probably needs to be largely eliminated (I won't
say wholly, as there may be some for whom
widgets are mentally rewarding). The author
seems too certain of what needs to change and
how. I think you're right that we need to give
it more thought.
The author of this review misses much of what
James Livingston is all about. JL spends some
time discussing how to imagine a meaningful life
and he refers to Freud (!) that we need work and
love. If work is no longer available then how do
we imagine love as the basis for social
solidarity? OR, is solidarity another way to
express love? The author's concerns for wonky
policy BS takes us down the wrong path into the
scrubland of intellectual vapidity.
And btw Fred Block has devastated the
Speenhamland analogy long ago. I think not many
folks have gotten beyond Andre Gorz on these
topics.
Yeah, I'm sort of skeptical of BIG
myself, but I really don't think
Speenhamland is a good comparison at all.
Speenhamland had too many particularities
that separate it from most modern BIG
proposals IMHO.
I think we need to remember just how
modern is the concept of "work" is that's
being debated here. In nearly the whole
world a century ago (and still in parts of
it today) people didn't have "jobs", they
raised crops, tended cattle, caught fish,
practised manual crafts, played a role in
the community and family etc. and were in
general productively occupied most of the
time
Too true. If you want to see what someone's
ancestor most likely did, look at their last
name. Tanner, Cooper, Fuller, etc.
People used to have a right to land with
which they could harvest building supplies,
roofing supplies, food to feed themselves, fuel
to heat and cook, raise livestock for food and
fiber. The people have been stripped of the
rights and ability to provide for their basic
needs by force. They now have to have a job, the
majority of their labor benefits someone else,
to gain money in a system where nearly every
transaction isn't just monetized but
exploitative.
There is still the pull towards liberalism .
to develop a hierarchy of needs, and a hierarchy
of the usefullness/productiveness/profitability
of tasks. There needs to be a ubi along with the
jg. When the focus is on developing hierarchies,
the end result will be a rigid bureaucratic
structure and the use of force to ensure
compliance.
"What if we predicated social critique on terms
that are not defined by the neoliberal ideology that
we wish to circumvent?"
To do this, I propose that we give everyone,
unconditionally, an income, as expression of their
potential (and natural desire) to contribute to
society, and all the prerequisite time that goes
into that, and for the very contributions
themselves. An unconditional labor value derived
income, for all. An income that both enables all
kinds of work, and pays that labor value in the same
stroke.
From there, additional earned income becomes a
matter of how much respect you command, how well you
utilize monopolies, and how much you hate your job
and require compensation for how much you hate it.
But the labor value would be accounted for,
unconditionally.
In a world where there's superstars (and
superbrands) who command respect and natural
monopolies to make a lot of money, and people
writing open source for the greater benefit of
everyone else predominantly, it makes sense to make
a statement such as that, about labor value, and to
pay it to everyone. Mothers and fathers in active
care of their children too, could agree, I'd
imagine.
But making a list of things that you think might
be cool for society, and try to have tangible
compensations for only those, seems problematic, if
not to say, counterproductive. Rather recognize ALL
the time that people spend, to be decent people
among fellow people, to educate themselves formally
and informally, be it in the process of being an
entrepreneur in a broader sense, at times. A sense
of justice that can only be achieved by the state
deciding for its people what is purposeful, will
fall flat on its face when it comes to practicality,
unless we have artifical super intelligence. Because
you will have to literally know better than the
people, what they will appreciate to what extent.
And you don't know that. Neither do I.
There's great things in community/entertainment
space happening today, that nobody was thinking of 5
years ago. Because people still have some power to
recognize things as individuals, that others do, as
purposeful (as much as aggregate demand is
increasingly in a sorry state, as the result of a 3+
decade long trend that seems to still keep going.
Just fixing that issue would already help a lot.). I
say we should build on that, and further empower
people in that direction. Which to me means to give
money to all the people of the society, so they can
more directly at times, express what benefits
society, that is themselves. And for macro
economic/long term considerations we can always have
direct democracy.
The sorts of psychopaths that tend to be in
control of modern human societies clearly prefer
money as a tool of social control to money as any
sort of public utility that would facilitate
individual productivity and/or affirm human dignity,
whether in the context of neoliberal derangement or
not. That's the view from the long-frozen Rust Belt
and certainly nothing new in history.
It also appears that any human capacity for moral
innovation is easily constrained by our basic
feces-hurling primate OS, particularly if said
primates consider money to be something finite and
concrete.
On the real balance sheet, though, the sweet old
Earth likely can't afford a JG for a population of 7
billion, at least not under any current or
previously existing model of labor exploitation. As
all NCpeeps know, we're resource-constrained, not
dollar-constrained.
So we arrive back at the same old power
relationships, the coercion, desperation and ecocide
to which we have been accustomed, in the absence of
any disruptive® (!) moral innovation. Can anyone
suggest that modern humans have demonstrated a
capacity for moral innovation outside of prison
camps? Actual, non-hopey-changey varieties of moral
innovation? If so, is that capacity retarded only by
misperceptions regarding the nature of money?
Retarded perhaps by an exceptional propaganda
system? One might only answer that for themselves,
and likely only until the SWAT team arrives. It
seems unlikely that some rational and compassionate
bureaucracies will be established to compensate in
their stead: Congress is wholly unable to formulate
policy in the public interest for very good reasons,
none of them admirable. It seems the social economic
entities they protect require human desperation just
as much as they require currency liquidity or
juvenile male soldiers.
In the absence of representation, rule of law or
some meager rational public policy, a reproductive
strike may be a better individual approach than FW,
as not having children avoids the voluntary
provisioning of debt slaves into a corrupt and
violent system of social control. There is also the
many ecologically salubrious effects of less humans
and a potential opportunity to avoid being forced to
constantly sell one's labor at a sharp discount.
Couples I know, both having made catastrophic errors
in career choice (education, research, seriously
OMG!), are able to persist with some degree of
dignity only and precisely because they have avoided
begetting, in the very biblical sense, more debt
slaves.
The author's contention that JG is better than
BIG is persuasive; however I am not convinced that
JG is best implemented by the govt. We have had
systems like these, e.g. USSR, and it is very clear
that central planning for large masses never works.
Why not implement that JG as saying that the govt
guarantees X $/hr for up to T hrs per week for every
one, no matter where they are hired. Advantages:
– small business owners are afforded breathing space
to get their dreams off the ground,
– Walmart workers will walk off if Walmart doesn't
up its game significantly beyond $(X x 4T) per
month,
– Non profits will be able to afford to pay
volunteers more reliably,
– People who want to be alone / not work can setup
their own "self preservation" business and earn the
minimum $X/hr for T hrs.
This form of decentralized planning may help
implement JGs in a more sustainable manner than
centralized planning. It also puts a floor on
minimum income. Also, when combined with barriers on
moving jobs outside the US, it helps provide a
sharper threshold on how good automation needs to be
in order to replace labor.
X and T can be the $15 and 40 hrs that is being
implemented in big coastal cities, progressive
states. Or it could be set to just above poverty
level earnings, depending on how comfortable we are
in letting go of our Pilgrim/Protestant shackles.
Past time to kill off the Protestant Ethic.
The future has always supposed to be made up of
robots doing scut work while people get to chill
out and NOT do shit work.
The job race is why people STILL don't take
enough vacation or full vacation. It is why they
feel COMPELLED to not take days off because if
they do, their boss will hold it against them
come promotion time.
Not all jobs are worth doing and forcing
people to take them doesn't do anyone any good,
and makes people into commodities, THE biggest
problem with neoliberalism. People are NOT
commodities and work should NOT be a measure of
one's value. CEOs outrageously overvalue
themselves for doing little or nothing while
engineers and workers they mistreat do
EVERYTHING. That is neoliberalism and capitalism
in a nutshell.
Guaranteed Basic Income ends that. Set a max
income so there will be no more over-compensated
CEOs AND provide a decent income for EVERYONE,
gratis, so they are not forced to take a job
polishing the shoes of the useless eater CEOs.
I prefer the Universal Basic Income guarantee to
the Work guarantee. The Work guarantee guarantees
MAKEWORK
. "Here, have a broom
and do some sweeping with it. Somewhere."
Or, "Here's a desk and a pile of papers with
staples in them. Remove the staples."
"You! Toss this box of trash in the street and
you, walk behind him and pick it up and put it in
THIS box!"
Fuck work. In particular, fuck MAKEWORK. A job,
ANY job, just to say you have a job is CRAP.
Better: Income guarantee. Period. Gratis. If a
company wants you to do a job for them then they
will have to provide incentive enough to get you to
take the job. You don't HAVE to take a shit job
because you have a guaranteed income so employers
better offer a sweat deal like good pay and benefits
(and LESS pay and benefits for CEOs, etc the lazy
do-nothing self-entitled class).
The basic income and the job guarantee are
natural complements. In terms of the acquis that any
sovereign state must comply with (the UDHR,) you
have the right to a standard of living adequate for
the health and well-being of [your]self and of
[your] family, and the right to free choice of
employment. Two different rights. That means work
should be an option.
The idea is, you're not on the treadmill, it's
the state that's on the treadmill, working
continually to fulfill your economic and social
rights. It's the state that bears duties, you have
rights. So if you want to do something and you need
structure, knock yourself out, work for the state or
some customer or boss. If you want to spend all the
time you can with your kid before the mass
extinction starves her, that's fine too.
When you ask people, Do you exist for the state,
or does the state exist for you? People are quick to
say, I don't exist for the state, that's
totalitarianism! But people seem to accept that they
exist for the economy. They accept that their life
depends on acceptable service to the labor market.
Just like I don't exist for the state, I don't exist
for the economy. The economy exists for me. That is
the revolutionary import of the ICESCR (and that's
why the US strangled Venezuela when Chavez committed
the state to it.)
Human rights is a complete, consistent and
coherent alternative to neoliberal market worship.
The idea sounds so strange because the neoliberal
episcopate uses an old trick to get people to hold
still for exploitation. In the old days, the
parasitic class invented god's will to reify an
accidental accretion of predatory institutions and
customs. Everybody nodded and said, I see, it's not
some greedy assholes, it's god's will. After a while
everybody said, Wait a minute. The parasitic class
had to think fast, so they invented the economy to
reify an accidental accretion of predatory
institutions and customs. So now you submit to that.
Suckers!
"All of humanity's problems stem from man's
inability to sit quietly in a room alone."
I am in favor of the job or income guarantee
program. We really should not and do not need to
work nearly as much as is common in U.S. (nevermind
the even more repressive slave labor in Asia). The
claim that "algorithms and robotization will reduce
the workforce by half within twenty years and that
this is unstoppable" seems like a pretty likely
scenario at this point. Why have we been working for
millenia to build this advanced civilization, if not
to relax and enjoy it and be DONE slaving away?!
I recently sold everything I had and travelled
around the US for 6 months, and it was delightful. I
was next to broke, but if I had an income guarantee
I could have had way more freedom to stop here and
there, get involved in who knows what, and enjoy
myself with very low stress.
I agree most people will not do anything
productive unless forced, but that is what we need
to finally work on: ourselves and our crippling
egos. The world is plenty advanced technologically,
we have made incredible inventions and that will
continue to happen, but people need to start working
on themselves inwardly as well or the outward world
will be destroyed.
What does being productive mean? Besides
making a profit for an oligarch. Everything is
work. Cook for yourself, not work. Cook for
someone else, work. Garden for yourself, not
work. Garden for someone else, work. Travel for
yourself, not work. Travel for someone else,
work. etc.
Has anyone run the numbers for a 4 day work
week, or 3? How about if full time work were
lowered to 30, 25 hours per week?
Automation was supposed to free up labors
time. Workers have participated in designing
automation, installing automation, testing
automation and training others for automation.
It's time labor takes the share of their labor
and if oligarchs get the permanent financial
benefit of labors efforts to automate, so does
labor.
We found [the pyramids] were not built by
slaves. They were built by well-paid skilled
labour. The problem in these early periods
was how to get labour to work at hard tasks,
if not willingly? For 10,000 years there was
a labour shortage. If people didn't want to
work hard, they could just move somewhere
else. The labour that built temples and big
ceremonial sites had to be at least
quasi-voluntary even in the Bronze Age c.
2000 BC. Otherwise, people wouldn't have
gone there.
We found that one reason why people were
willing to do building work with hard manual
labour was the beer parties. There were huge
expenditures on beer. If you're going to
have a lot of people come voluntarily to do
something like city building or constructing
their own kind of national identity of a
palace and walls, you've got to have plenty
of beer. You also need plenty of meat, with
many animals being sacrificed.
Archaeologists have found their bones and
reconstructed the diets with fair accuracy.
What they found is that the people doing
the manual labour on the pyramids, the
Mesopotamian temples and city walls and
other sites were given a good high protein
diet. There were plenty of festivals. The
way of integrating these people was by
public feasts.
Now, you can argue that labor is no longer
scarce, so the logic doesn't apply. But you
can't generalize that people won't work unless
forced; it's not true.
I see what you mean, but they built the
pyramids because they needed money to
survive, the beer and festivals is an added
bonus. Whether you call it slave labor or
working for a decent wage, the premise is
the same – your survival depends on doing
the work so you do it.
The distinction I think relates to what
waldenpond says above. People want to feel a
sense of ownership, meaning and community
around what they are doing, and then they do
it of their own volition, so it is not seen
as work. This is something quite rare in
todays labor market, but it doesn't have to
be that way.
Looks like people chose to work not just
for pay but for pay and the addition of
leisure activities (cooking, eating,
partying) and a sense of community.
I agree with this. I think of the people I
knew who had to work at two or more jobs, full
time or more, to be "allowed" to be a painter,
musician, writer, or performer, etc. It is
sapping us culturally, not to let the creative
people have time to do what they were born to
do. And I think at least a little of this lives
in all of us. There are things that we are born
to do. How much does our society let us be who
we are?
similar arguments made regarding all of the lands
in North and South America.
"they aren't using it for anything productive.
best we take it from them."
who are you to say what is productive in another
person's life? if we had a meaningful culture and
education in this debased society, each of us would
be able to make the decision about what exactly we
find most productive and worthy of our efforts, and
what isn't. since we have no public lands to hunt
and gather and fish and farm and live upon, we are
forced into this economic system. i find it odd as
heck that two people who are effectively
"unemployed" find it better for everyone else to be
chained to a money-for-work scheme. will you both be
signing up for some labor-conscription hours? will
it be compulsory for all, without ability to opt-out
except for complete physical/emotional disability
with no gaming by the rich? (my apologies if you all
do not agree, and i have misrepresented your
positions)
more rationales to make people love their chains,
please. because we know how this would work out:
rather as it does now when you sign up for
unemployment/food assistance-you MUST take the first
job for the first abuser that comes along and makes
an offer for you.
I think we should separate the wage/salary
component of work from social welfare provisioning.
Namely, universal health care and universal old age
pensions. The more you think about it in the context
of today's various pressures, the more sense it
makes.
Social welfare provisioning isn't just the
means of exchange, it's the ability to acquire
the necessities of survival of shelter, food,
heat etc. If the focus is just within the
capitalist system of private ownership and rent
seeking is not ended, the welfare is merely
passed through and ends with the oligarchs.
I have several questions, concerns with UBI. One
is if everyone is given a base salary who is to
decide what that amount should be. Will it be
indexed to inflation, what will it do to inflation,
specifically, inflation for housing, food,
healthcare.
Will a UBI be an excuse to gut all social
contracts/guarantees. Who will make those decisions.
What will happen to social services (public schools,
hospitals), and social needs (clean water, air,
sanitation/trash, police/fire protection).
Primitive human cultures traditionally "worked"
to fulfill their needs only 3-4 hours a day. The
rest was leisure, taking care of children/elderly,
and rest. I agree, that a large percentage of time
at work is wasted time due to hour artificial 9:5
business schedule. If we all perform work from home,
what will the hours be like? Will we have more time
to meet our neighbors and become more involved in
the community or will we be shut in our houses all
day not seeing anyone. Will the family unit be
stronger, since people will not have to travel
across the country for job opportunities and stay
near each other.
Who will be provided with basic education, will
that be free or for a fee, or will the idle
relatives and neighbors collaborate to provide it.
Will some neighborhoods/regions be more organized
and successful than others? Will all the "lazy
people" filter into future slums riddled with crime
and disease? Who will provide for them if there is
no longer any social services.
I'm sure someone has already posted this, but my
idea was to have a huge Federally funded
Environmental Cleanup Dept. that essentially hires
mass amounts of people to literally clean streets,
parks, waterways, sort through trash, etc. It's
needed, its relatively low skill labor, but at least
it could provide an alternative to Welfare, which is
a huge huge scam that's imprisons people in the
lowest class (cant own a car or land).
Obviously this doesn't solve the entire issue,
but it's become pretty clear that just having a huge
Welfare state will not work longterm, as Yves
mentions, the detriments are huge and real:
unskilled lower class, unmoivitated lower class
(more free time = more criminal activity), etc.
Again with the Americans are lazy myth. I
would argue criminal activity is more related to
being blocked by state violence from accessing a
thoroughly monetized society (poverty) and a
purposely bled social structure than from
boredom.
If a person has access to a share of the
resources of a society (shelter/food and
enrichment) they will not likely commit crime.
For those that want a rush, we can add some
climbing walls etc. ha!
For those that are critical of the'welfare
state'.. it isn't natural nor accidental, it's
purposeful. Stop putting in so many resources
(legal, political, financial) to create one.
What do you actually want to work
for
?
In early societies, you worked so that you and your
family and community didn't die, and could produce
the goods needed to make society function. But
that's changed, and today we work to earn the money
to pay other people to carry out these same
functions. We even work to earn the money to pay the
costs of working to earn the money to pay others. We
buy a house (which in the past would have been
constructed by the society) and have to pay to
travel to work to earn the money to pay for the
house, and then the insurance on the house, and the
business clothes, and then buy a car and insurance
on the car because the time we spend working and
traveling means we have to shop at the supermarket
instead of local shops, and then we pay a garage to
maintain the car, and we pay someone to look after
our garden because between trips to the supermarket
we don't have time ourselves, and then we pay
someone to look after our children because we work
so hard earning money to pay for childcare that we
have no time actually left for caring for our
children. And the idea is that everybody should be
guaranteed the right to do this?
In the drive towards totalitarianism, universal
basic income is the carrot that enables the
abolition of cash. India is the trial run. Although
after seeing what's transpired in India, it's
probably safe to say the ruling elite have wisely
concluded that it might be better to offer the
carrot before rolling out the stick.
There seems to be this false dilemma between the
impending "end" of work and the unlimited potential
of creative job creation. BOTH of these utopias are
apocalyptically blind to history.
In 2017 what counts as "work" - a job, wage labor
- is inseparably bound up with the consumption of
fossil fuel. A "job" consumes "x" barrels of oil per
annum. Lumps of labor are directly quantifiable in
lumps of coal.
The ecological implications of this are clearly
that the dilemma does not resolve itself into a
choice between different schemes for redistributing
some proverbial surplus. That "surplus" represents
costs that have been shifted for decades and even
centuries onto the capacity of the ambient
environment to absorb wastes and to have resources
extracted from it.
Can such an extractive economy continue
indefinitely? Not according to the laws of
thermodynamics.
A UBI might reduce the dire incentive to
"work or starve" at the same time as it
increases opportunities and incentives to
pursue the bright elusive butterfly of
"meaningful work." That would be good if it
was the only consideration. But it is not.
There is also an inconvenient truth about
the relationship between productivity and
fossil fuel consumption. In the industrial
economy, larger amounts of better work mean
more greenhouse gas emissions. Productivity
is a double-edged sword.
We have long since passed the point where
capital "diminishes labour time in the
necessary form so as to increase it in the
superfluous form; hence posits the
superfluous in growing measure as a
condition – question of life or death – for
the necessary."
Currently, world-wide carbon emissions
per year are roughly double what can be
re-absorbed by oceans and plants. This is
not to say that the re-absorption by oceans
is harmless –it leads to acidification. But
clearly more than half of the emissions are
superfluous to sustainability. Lo and
behold, carbon emission increase in virtual
lockstep with hours of work. In the U.S.,
the correlation between the two has been
about 95% over the last quarter century.
Don't even think of using the
"correlation doesn't prove causation"
gambit. We are talking about a "water is
wet" relationship. Fossil fuel is burned to
do work. Period. Not just correlation -
identity.
So the bottom line is we either need to
cut hours of work at least in half or the
remaining hours need to be
less
productive not more.
Reducing the hours of work also implies the
potential for redistributing hours of work to
create more jobs from less total work time. This
of course flies in the face of "
laws
of political economy
" that were discredited
more than a century ago but nonetheless get
repeated as gospel
ad nauseum
by
so-called "economists."
I like where this guy is trying to go, but I
think I'd put forth more of a
F-k Stupid Jobs
with Bad Pay
ethos, rather than
F-k Work
. Too oversimple too broad. Work, on some
level, is really all there is. The idea of a
collective life devoted to perpetual and unbridled
hedonism just sounds like death by holiday to me;
just as awful as working yourself into the grave.
As to Yves' notion - probably this is true.
Pressure is a fine agent for production and problem
solving; but I suspect that stagnant period might
just be a byproduct of the initial hangover. Guilt
is an engine that hums in many of us - I think most
people feel guilty if they spend an entire day doing
nothing, let alone a lifetime tossed away.
It is going to be interesting to see what happens
as the financial sector "high value" employees
continue to be replaced by passive investing and
computer programs. I suspect this process will
result in a rethinking of many of these people about
the value of work and job security.
I have been stating this also. So many tasks
are open to automation in law, healthcare
(remote offices), writing (algorithms), teaching
(one math teacher per language!), policing. I
can even imagine automated fire trucks that can
pinpoint hot spots, hook up to hydrants, open a
structure and target.
What we need is not a guaranteed minimum income,
but universal ownership of key productive assets,
like Alaska does with its Permanent Fund. These
assets could include partial citizenship ownership
of our largest corporations. All paid work would be
on top of this.
As Peter Barnes says, "With Dividends and Liberty
for All". Thus everyone would have a base income,
enough to prevent extreme poverty, but still with
plenty of incentives for jobs. Note: You'd also need
to make it illegal for these "dividends" to become
security for loan sharks.
I spent a lot of time over the holidays thinking
about the future of human work and came to this
conclusion: As we move forward, robots and other
automation will take over a lot of human work, but
in 3 areas I think humans will always have an edge.
I'll summarize these 3 essentially human endeavors
as: "sex, drugs and rock-and-roll", but each of
those is a proxy for a wider range of human
interactions.
"Sex work" (compare to "Fuck Work" from this
essay) means what it says, but is also a proxy for
human interactions such as massage, phys-therapy,
etc. Robots will encroach on this turf somewhat
(serving as tools), but for psychological reasons,
humans will always prefer to be worked over by other
humans.
Drugs is a proxy for human appreciation of
chemical substances. Machines will of course be used
to detect such substances, but no one will
appreciate them like us. The machines will need us
to tell them whether the beer is as good as the last
batch, and we must make sure to get paid for that.
Finally, rock-and-roll is a proxy for human
artistic expression as well as artistic
appreciation. Robots will never experience sick
beats the way we do, and while they may produce
some, again for psychological reasons, I think
humans will tend to value art created by other
humans above that produced by machines.
The good news is that the supply and demand
balance for these activities will scale in a stable
way as the population grows (or shrinks). So I think
the key is to make sure these types of activities
are considered "work", and renumerated accordingly
in our bright J.G. future.
Many writers and pundits are currently framing Trump's election in terms of
a dispossessed and disenfranchised white, male working class, unsatisfied
with neoliberal globalization and the insecurity and hardship it has
unleashed-particularly across regions of the United States that were
formerly manufacturing powerhouses (like the Rust Belt states of
Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin, four states believed to have
cost Hillary Clinton the election). While there is much truth to this
perspective and substantial empirical evidence to support it, it would be a
mistake to see Trump's election wholly in these terms.
"What Trump's election has accomplished is an unmasking of the corporate
state."
Trump's election is in some ways a neoliberal apex, an event that
portends the completion of the U.S. government's capture by wealthy
corporate interests. While in my opinion Trump's election does not signal
the beginning of a rapid descent into European-style fascism, it appears to
be a key stage in the ongoing process of American democratic disintegration.
American democracy has been under attack from large and wealthy corporate
interests for a long time, with this process accelerating and gaining
strength over the period of neoliberal globalization (roughly the early
1970s to the present). This time period is associated with the rise of
powerful multinational corporations with economic and political might that
rivals that of many national governments.
In terms of the political consequences of these trends in the U.S.,
certain thinkers have argued that the U.S. political system is not
democratic at all, but rather an "inverted totalitarian" system. Political
commentator Chris Hedges notes: "Inverted totalitarianism is different from
classical forms of totalitarianism. It does not find its expression in a
demagogue or charismatic leader but in the faceless anonymity of the
corporate state." Citing the American political theorist Sheldon Wolin,
Hedges continues, "Unlike the Nazis, who made life uncertain for the wealthy
and privileged while providing social programs for the working class and
poor, inverted totalitarianism exploits the poor, reducing or weakening
health programs and social services, regimenting mass education for an
insecure workforce threatened by the importation of low-wage workers." Our
inverted totalitarian system is one that retains the trappings of a
democratic system-e.g. it retains the appearance of loyalty to "the
Constitution, civil liberties, freedom of the press, [and] the independence
of the judiciary"-all the while undermining the capacity of citizens to
substantively participate and exert power over the system.
In my view, what Trump's election has accomplished is an unmasking of the
corporate state. Trump gives inverted totalitarianism a persona and a face,
and perhaps marks the beginning of a transformation from inverted
totalitarianism to totalitarianism proper. In spite of this, it makes no
sense to me to call the system toward which we are heading (that is, if we
do not stand up and resist with all our might right this second) "fascism"
or to make too close comparisons to the Nazis. Whatever totalitarian
nightmare is on our horizon, it will be uniquely American. And it will bear
a striking resemblance to the corporate oriented system we've been living in
for decades. Indeed, if the pre-Trump system of inverted totalitarianism
solidified in the context of global neoliberalism, the period we are
entering now seems likely to be one characterized by what I call "national
neoliberalism."
Trump's Election Doesn't Mean the End of Neoliberalism
Trump's election represents a triumph of neoliberal thinking and values.
Perhaps most importantly, we should all keep in mind the fact that Americans
just elected a businessman to the presidency. In spite of his Wall Street
background and billionaire status, Trump successfully cast himself as the
"anti-establishment" candidate. This configuration-in which a top-one-percenter
real estate tycoon is accepted as a political "outsider"-is a hallmark of
neoliberal thinking. The fundamental opposition between market and
government is a central dichotomy in the neoliberal narrative. In electing
Trump, American voters are reproducing this narrative, creating an
ideological cover for the closer connections between business and the state
that are in store moving forward (indeed, Trump is already using the
apparatus of the U.S. federal government to promote his own business
interests). As states and markets further fuse in coming years, this
representation of Trump and his administration-as being anti-government-will
help immunize his administration from accusations of too-cozy relationships
with big business. Trump's attempts to "drain the swamp" by imposing
Congressional term limits and constraints on lobbying activities by former
political officials will also help to hide this relationship. (Has anyone
else noticed that Trump only addresses half of the "revolving door," i.e.,
he plans to limit the lobbying of former politicians, but not the political
roles of businessmen?)
"Whatever totalitarian nightmare is on our horizon, it
will be uniquely American."
Trump's Contract with the American Voter, his plan for the first 100 days
in office, discusses policies and programs many of which are consistent with
neoliberal thinking. (I understand the term "neoliberalism" to emphasize at
its core the importance of private property rights, market-based social
organization, and the dangers of government intervention in the economy.)
Trump's plan redirects the activities of the U.S. government along the lines
touted by neoliberal "market fundamentalists" like Milton Friedman, who
advocate limiting government's role to market-supportive functions like
national defense (defense stocks are doing very well since the election) and
domestic law and order (Trump's proposals have a lot to do with altering
immigration policy to "restore security"). Trump also plans to use
government monies to revitalize physical infrastructure and create jobs.
Other government functions, for example, health care provision and education
as well as protecting the environment and public lands, are open for
privatization and defunding in Trump's agenda. Under Trump, the scope of
federal government activities will narrow, likely to infrastructure,
national defense, and domestic policing and surveillance, even if overall
government spending increases (as bond markets are predicting).
Trump also seems content to take neoliberal advice in regard to business
regulation (less is best) and the role of the private sector in regulating
itself (industry insiders understand regulatory needs better than public
officials). Trump's plan for the first 100 days specifies "a requirement
that for every new federal regulation, two existing regulations must be
eliminated." As of the time of this writing, his selection of cabinet
appointees illustrate a broad willingness to appoint businesspeople to
government posts. As of mid-December 2016, a Goldman Sachs veteran, Steven
Mnuchin, has been appointed Secretary of the Treasury; billionaire investor
Wilbur Ross has been appointed Secretary of Commerce; fossil fuel industry
supporter and Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt has been appointed as
EPA administrator; and fast-food mogul Andrew Puzder has been appointed as
Secretary of Labor. Trump's business council is staffed by the CEOs of major
U.S. corporations including JP Morgan Chase, IBM and General Motors. To be
fair, the "revolving door" between government and industry has been
perpetuated by many of Trump's predecessors, with Trump poised to continue
the tradition. But this is not to say that neoliberalism will continue going
in a "business as usual" fashion. The world is about to get much more
dangerous, and this has serious implications for patterns of global trade
and investment.
Trump's Election Does Mean the End of Globalism
The nationalism, xenophobia, isolationism, and paranoia of Donald Trump
are about to replace the significantly more cosmopolitan outlook of his
post-WWII predecessors. While Trump is decidedly pro-business and
pro-market, he most certainly does not see himself as a global citizen. Nor
does he intend to maintain the United States' extensive global footprint or
its relatively open trading network. In other words, while neoliberalism is
not dead, it is being transformed into a geographically more fragmented and
localized system (this is not only about the US election, but also about
rising levels of global protectionism and Brexit, among other
anti-globalization trends around the world). I expect that the geographic
extent of the US economy in the coming years will coincide with the new
landscape of U.S. allies and enemies, as defined by Donald Trump and his
administration.
Trump's Contract with the American Voter outlines several policies that
will make it more expensive and riskier to do business abroad. All of these
need not occur; I think that even one or two of these changes will be
sufficient to alter expectations in business communities about the benefits
of certain cross-border economic relationships. Pulling the United States
out of the TPP, along with threats to pull out of the Paris Climate
Agreement and attempts to renegotiate NAFTA, is already signaling to other
countries that we are not interested in international cooperation and
collaboration. A crackdown on foreign trading abuses will prompt
retaliation. Labelling China a currency manipulator will sour relations
between the two countries and prompt retaliation by China. As Trump goes
forward with his anti-immigration and anti-Muslim rhetoric and policies, he
will alienate the United States' traditional allies in Europe (at least
until Europe elects its own nationalist and xenophobic leaders) and
communities across the Global South. The U.S. election has already
undermined performance in emerging markets, and bigoted rhetoric and policy
will only increase anti-American sentiment in struggling economies populated
largely by people of color. Add to this the risk of conflict posed by any
number of the following: his antagonizing China, allying with Russia,
deploying ground troops to stop ISIS, and pulling out of the Korean DMZ,
among other initiatives that seem likely to contribute to a more
confrontational and violent international arena. All of this is to say that
Trump will not have to intervene directly in the affairs of business in
order to nationalize it. The new global landscape of conflict and risk,
combined with elevated domestic spending on infrastructure and security,
will bring U.S. business and investment back home nonetheless.
National Neoliberalism and State-Market Relations
Fascist states are corporatist in nature, a state of affairs marked by a
fusion of state and business functions and interests, with an often
significant role for labor interests as well. In the fascist states on the
European continent in the 1930s and 1940s-systems that fall under the
umbrella of "national socialism"-the overwhelming power of the state
characterized this tripartite relationship. Political theorist Sheldon Wolin
writes in
Democracy, Inc.
in regard to Nazi Germany and Fascist
Italy (as well as Stalinist Russia), "The state was conceived as the main
center of power, providing the leverage necessary for the mobilization and
reconstruction of society".
By contrast, in Trump's America-where an emergent "national
neoliberalism" may be gradually guiding us to a more overt and obvious
totalitarian politics-we can expect a similar fusion of state and market
interests, but one in which the marketplace and big business have almost
total power and freedom of movement (I think that labor will do poorly in
this configuration). State and market in the U.S. will fuse further together
in the coming years, leading some to make close parallels with European
fascism. But it will do so not because of heavy handed government dictates
and interventions, but rather because domestic privatization initiatives,
appointments of businessmen to government posts, fiscal stimulus and the
business community's need for protection abroad will bring them closer.
Corporate interests will merge with state interests not because corporations
are commanded to, but rather because the landscape of risk and reward will
shift and redirect investment patterns to a similar effect. This may be
where a budding U.S. totalitarianism differs most starkly from its European
cousins.
Of course it helps that much of the fusion of state and market in the
United States is already complete, what with decades of revolving doors and
privatization initiatives spanning the military, police, prison, healthcare
and educational sectors, among others. It will not take much to further
cement the relationship.
"Why Steve Bannon Wants You to Believe in the Deep State" [Politico]. Yesterday, Jane Harmon on On
Point Radio also denied the existence of an American Deep State. That was especially rich coming from
a long time supporter of the Military Industrial Complex, and current member of the pundit class from
her position as the
First Woman
to Head the Wilson Center.
Let the word go forth from this time and place that the government works in your best interests, despite
the apparent fact that it doesn't work for most Americans and keeps delivering more and more benefits
to the oligarchy. Any attempt to explain it as deliberate policy is a fantasy, a fever dream of
rabid leftists
right wing nuts.
Funny how some are getting their undies in a twist over "foreign interference"
in our elections.
Globalists push global markets, global labor pools, global "race to the bottom" rules for white collar
crime. Yet are surprised/offended by "global elections". Especially when the US government interferes
(directly or indirectly) with every country on the face of the earth.
Maybe we should be happy that our government is for sale to the highest bidder, worldwide. After
all, global competition has done so much for US business and labor.
So we have Global Kleptocrats. In charge of the Global Banana Republic.
Watch that definite article. (What that Politico article shows is how
easy it is to write sloppy articles about the "deep state." That's because
the deep state is such a sloppy, amorphous concept. It's very sloppiness is
what makes it simultaneously (a) useful to our scribes in the political
class, who can (b) bang out stories with click-baity headlines easily, while
(c) disempowering to the rest of us (since to have power over your enemies,
you have to understand them).
"... By Scott Ferguson, an assistant professor of Film & Media Studies in the Department of Humanities & Cultural Studies at the University of South Florida. His current research and pedagogy focus on Modern Monetary Theory and critiques of neoliberalism; aesthetic theory; the history of digital animation and visual effects; and essayistic writing across media platforms. Originally published at Arcade ..."
"... requirement ..."
"... You don't know what you've got 'til it's gone ..."
Posted on
January 5, 2017
by
Yves Smith
Yves here. The reason I prefer a jobs guarantee
(with an income guarantee at a lower income level)
is that the time an income guarantee was implemented
on an open-ended, long term basis, it produced an
unskilled underclass (see
our post on the Speenhamland system
for more
detail).
Moreover, the idea that people are
brimming with all sorts of creative things they'd do
if they had an income to allow themselves to do it
is bunk. For instance, MacArthur Foundation grant
recipients, arguably some of the very most creative
people in society, almost without exception do not
do anything productive while they have their grant
funding. And let us not kid ourselves: most people
are not creative and need structure and pressure to
get anything done.
Finally, humans are social animals. Work provides
a community. If you are extraverted and need to be
around people during the day, it's hard to create
enough opportunities for interaction on your own.
By Scott Ferguson, an assistant
professor of Film & Media Studies in the Department
of Humanities & Cultural Studies at the University
of South Florida. His current research and pedagogy
focus on Modern Monetary Theory and critiques of
neoliberalism; aesthetic theory; the history of
digital animation and visual effects; and essayistic
writing across media platforms. Originally published
at
Arcade
In the wake of Donald Trump's alarming election
to the White House, historian James Livingston
published an essay in Aeon Magazine with the
somewhat provocative title, "
Fuck
Work
." The piece encapsulates the argument
spelled out in Livingston's latest book,
No
More Work: Why Full Employment is a Bad Idea
(The
University of North Carolina Press, 2016).
In both his book and the Aeon essay, Livingston
sets out to address several overlapping crises: an
alienating and now exhausted "work ethic" that
crystallized during the Protestant Reformation;
forty years of rampant underemployment, declining
wages, and widening inequality; a corresponding
surge in financial speculation and drop in
productive investment and aggregate demand; and a
post-2008 climate of cultural resentment and
political polarization, which has fueled populist
uprisings from Left to Right.
What the present catastrophe shows,
according to Livingston's diagnosis, is the ultimate
failure of the marketplace to provision and
distribute social labor. What's worse, the future of
work looks dismal. Citing the works of Silicon
Valley cyber-utopians and orthodox economists at
Oxford and M.I.T., Livingston insists that
algorithms and robotization will reduce the
workforce by half within twenty years and that this
is unstoppable, like some perverse natural process.
"The measurable trends of the past half-century, and
the plausible projections for the next half-century,
are just too empirically grounded to dismiss as
dismal science or ideological hokum," he concludes.
"They look like the data on climate change-you can
deny them if you like, but you'll sound like a moron
when you do."
Livingston's response to this
"empirical," "measurable," and apparently undeniable
doomsday scenario is to embrace the collapse of
working life without regret. "Fuck work" is
Livingston's slogan for moving beyond the demise of
work, transforming a negative condition into a
positive sublation of collective life.
In concrete terms, this means implementing
progressive taxation to capture corporate earnings,
and then redistributing this money through a "
Universal
Basic Income
," what in his book is described as
a "minimum annual income for every citizen." Such a
massive redistribution of funds would sever the
historical relationship between work and wages, in
Livingston's view, freeing un- and underemployed
persons to pursue various personal and communal
ends. Such a transformation is imminently
affordable, since there are plenty of corporate
funds to seize and redirect to those in need. The
deeper problem, as Livingston sees it, is a moral
one. We must rebuff the punishing asceticism of the
Protestant work ethic and, instead, reorganize the
soul on more free and capacious bases.
Lest we get the wrong idea, Livingston maintains
that social labor will not simply disappear in a
world organized by a tax-funded Universal Basic
Income. Rather, he envisions an increasingly
automated future, where leisure is our primary
preoccupation, social labor becomes entirely
voluntary, and ongoing consumption props up
aggregate demand. Eschewing utopian plans or
prescriptions, he wonders,
What would society and civilisation be like
if we didn't have to 'earn' a living-if leisure
was not our choice but our lot? Would we hang
out at the local Starbucks, laptops open? Or
volunteer to teach children in less-developed
places, such as Mississippi? Or smoke weed and
watch reality TV all day?
Enraged over the explosion of underpaid and
precarious service work? Disaffected by soulless
administration and info management positions?
Indignant about the history of unfree labor that
underwrites the history of the so-called "free
market"? Want more free time? Not enough work to go
around? Well, then, fuck work, declares Livingston.
Say goodbye to the old liberal-democratic goal of
full employment and bid good riddance to misery,
servitude, and precarity.
"Fuck work" has struck a chord with a
diverse crowd of readers. Since its release, the
essay has garnered more than 350,000 clicks on the
Aeon website. The Spanish publication
Contexto
y Acción
has released a translation of the
piece. And weeks later, Livingston's rallying cry
continues to resonate through social media networks.
"Fuck Work" has been enthusiastically retweeted by
everyone from Marxists and small "l" liberals to
anarchists and tech gurus.
The trouble is that Livingston's "Fuck Work"
falls prey to an impoverished and, in a sense,
classically
Liberal
social
ontology, which reifies the neoliberal order it aims
to transform. Disavowing modern humanity's reliance
on broadscale political governance and robust public
infrastructures, this Liberal ontology predicates
social life on immediate and seemingly "free"
associations, while its critical preoccupation with
tyranny and coercion eschews the charge of political
interdependence and caretaking. Like so many
Universal Basic Income supporters on the
contemporary Left, Livingston doubles down on this
contracted relationality. Far from a means to
transcend neoliberal governance, Livingston's
triumphant negation of work only compounds
neoliberalism's two-faced retreat from collective
governance and concomitant depoliticization of
social production and distribution.
In a
previous
contribution
to Arcade, I critiqued the Liberal
conception of money upon which Marxists such as
Livingston unquestionably rely. According to this
conception, money is a private, finite and alienable
quantum of value, which must be wrested from private
coffers before it can be made to serve the public
purpose. By contrast, Modern Monetary Theory
contends that money is a boundless and fundamentally
inalienable public utility. That utility is grounded
in political governance. And government can always
afford to support meaningful social production,
regardless of its ability to capture taxes from the
rich. The result: employment is always and
everywhere a political decision, not merely a
function of private enterprise, boom and bust
cycles, and automation. There is therefore nothing
inevitable about underemployment and the misery it
induces. In no sense are we destined for a "jobless
future."
Thus upon encountering Aeon Magazine's
tagline for Livingston's piece-"What if jobs are not
the solution, but the problem?"-I immediately began
wondering otherwise.
What if we rebuffed the white
patriarchal jargon of full employment, which keeps
millions of poor, women, and minorities
underemployed and imprisoned? What if, in lieu of
this liberal-democratic ruse, we made an
all-inclusive and well-funded
federal
Job Guarantee
the basis for a renewed leftist
imaginary?
What if we stopped believing that
capitalists and automation are responsible for
determining how and when we labor together? What if
we quit imagining that so-called "leisure"
spontaneously organizes itself like the
laissez-faire markets we elsewhere decry?
What if we created a public works
system, which set a just and truly livable wage
floor for the entire economy? What if we made it
impossible for reprehensible employers like Walmart
to exploit the underprivileged, while multiplying
everyone's bargaining powers? What if we used such a
system to decrease the average work day, to demand
that everyone has healthcare, and to increase the
quality of social participation across public and
private sectors? What if economic life was no longer
grounded solely in the profit motive?
What if we cared for all of our
children, sick, and growing elderly population? What
if we halved teacher-student ratios across all grade
levels? What if we built affordable homes for
everyone? What if there was a community garden on
every block? What if we made our cities energy
efficient? What if we expanded public libraries?
What if we socialized and remunerated historically
unpaid care work? What if public art centers became
standard features of neighborhoods? What if we paid
young people to document the lives of retirees?
What if we guaranteed that
Black
lives really matter
? What if, in addition to
dismantling the prison industrial complex, we
created a rich and welcoming world where everyone,
citizen or not, has the right to participation and
care?
What if private industry's rejection of
workers freed the public to organize social labor on
capacious, diverse, and openly contested premises?
What if public works affirmed
inclusion, collaboration, and difference? What if we
acknowledged that the passions of working life are
irreducible to a largely mythical Protestant work
ethic? What if questioning the meaning and value of
work become part of working life itself?
What if we predicated social critique
on terms that are not defined by the neoliberal
ideology that we wish to circumvent?
What if we radically affirmed our
dependence on the public institutions that support
us? What if we forced government to take
responsibility for the system it already conditions?
What if we admitted that there are no
limits to how we can care for one another and that,
as a political community, we can always afford it?
Livingston's argument cannot abide such
questions. Hence the Left's reply to "fuck work"
should be clear: fuck that.
Again the seemingly endless conflation of work,
good, with being a wage slave, not so good.
Progressives would do well to focus on justice and
that does not include making victims work for
restitution. One would think Progressives would wish
to f@uck wage slavery, not perpetuate it.
Finally, humans are social animals. Work
provides a community. If you are extraverted and
need to be around people during the day, it's hard
to create enough opportunities for interaction on
your own.
Yves Smith
I solve that problem with volunteer labor at a
local laundry. I do it ONLY when my favorite worker
is there because I like her, she has a family to
support, she is overworked, she is in constant pain
from fibromyalgia, has carpal tunnel syndrome and
because of the interesting people I get to see
there.
How can I afford to do meaningful work for free?
Because I'm retired and have a guaranteed income
from Social Security and a small pension.
And let's be honest. A guaranteed job as opposed
to a guaranteed income is meant to boost wages by
withholding labor from the private sector. But who
needs wages with an adequate guaranteed income?
I'll also piggyback onto this, even though I
am not keen on basic income until I see a little
more work put into it.
Many people aren't actually contributing
anything in any given work environment in our
current system. To expect differently if we have
a guaranteed jobs program seems naive.
In the administrative structures I've worked
under (both private and non profit, often
interacting with government), many workers have
obstructionist compliance responsibilities.
Decisions are put off through nonsense data
gathering and reporting, signatures in
triplicate, etc. It's why I've become a huge
proponent of the
Garbage Can theory
of administration: most
of the work being done is actually to connect or
disconnect problems from decision making. When
it comes down to it, there are only a few actual
decision makers within an organization, with
everyone else there to CYA. That goes for any
bureaucracy, private or public.
David Graeber has detailed the "bullshit
jobs" phenomenon pretty well, and dismantles
bureaucracy in his book, and says all this
better than I. But the federal job guarantee
seems like a path to a bureaucratic hell. Of
course, an income guarantee for the disabled,
mental, physical, otherwise, is absolutely
critical.
There is no magic bullet, whether JG or
UBI. But I think the author and Yves are
absolutely correct in asserting that there
is no workable UBI under the current
political economy. It would by definition
not meet the needs its proponents claim it
could because private (and non-profit!)
employers would scream about how it was
raising labor costs and otherwise destroying
the "real" "productive" economy. A UBI after
the revolution? Perhaps. Before? Extremely
problematic.
On the other hand, a JG that emphasized
care work (including paying people to
parent) and energy efficiency would meet
screaming needs in our society and provide
many people with important new skills, many
of which would be transferable to the
private economy. But even here, the
potential pitfalls and problems are
numerous, and there would no doubt be
stumbles and scandals.
Two things:
1. Goverments can hire people without a
JG, the argument that the JG is
necessary for the goverment to find
employees is therefore not a very
convincing argument.
2. Increasing and enforcing reduced
hours an employer can demand of a worker
will strengthen the bargaining position
of all workers. But the people
advocating the JG appears to see the
reduced hours of work as a bad thing?
People get to meet people at work but
the more pleasant interaction (to me)
comes outside of work with the same
people.
How many paid days off should a
person in JG get? As many as Germans
get? Or the Japanese? Or?
When can a person in JG retire? At 60?
65? 70? When does work in JG stop being
a blessing and instead living at leisure
is the bliss? Are we all to be assumed
to live for work?
And finally: If income guarantee is
too liberal, isn't job-guarantee too
much of one of its opposites –
totalitarian?
I think a combination of both would
be best. As has been said many times
here, a lot of current jobs are complete
BS anyway and I don't really want to be
guaranteed a job just so I can take the
dirt out of Boss Keen's ditch and then
put it back in.
Then there's automation which has
already taken away a lot of jobs and
will continue to do so. That's not a bad
thing as long as people are still
getting an income.
As there likely isn't enough
productive work to go around, ideally
there would be a UBI and instead of a
job guarantee, have a minimal job
requirement
. That exact amount of
work required could be tinkered with,
but maybe it's a couple days a week, a
few months a year, or something similar.
You'd have to report to work in order to
be able to collect your UBI when your
work was no longer required.
When you're not doing required work,
you can relax and live off your UBI or
engage in some sort of non-essential
free enterprise.
I don't know what sort of fantasy land
you live in. Being an adult means doing
stuff that is not fun so that you and your
family can survive. This is the nature of
the human condition, from the
hunter-gatherer phases of existence onward.
You see to believe that you have the right
to be paid for doing stuff you enjoy. And
the sort of jobs you deem to be "bullshit
jobs" would seem like paradise to coal
miners or people who had to go backbreaking
manual work or factory workers in sweatshops
in the 19th century. Go read Dickens or Karl
Marx to get some perspective.
Was this meant to be a reply to
cocomaan's post? It seems like it's
replying to something else.
If I understand "Bullshit jobs"
aren't bullshit because they are
unpleasant to do, but because they are
to some significant degree unproductive
or even counterproductive.
Administrative bloat in acedemia is
pretty much the gold standard here from
my perspective. They are great jobs to
have and to do, just useless,
unnecessary, and often counterproductive
ones. High rise office buildings are, I
have always suspected, staffed with a
lot of these well paid administrative
types of bullshit jobs.
The Civilian Conservation Corps is, to my
mind, the single most important civilian
jobs program of the past century because it
provided millions of people meaningful work
at a time when they could not get it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_Conservation_Corps
The military also provides a similar
function to many people with no other way
out of a poor situation. It is likely that
one of the reasons that there was such a
huge economic post WW II economic boom is
because many people (men and women) learned
discipline and skills in the military and
industrial work places during WW II.
Problems with deadlines are the key
drivers for productivity. If there are no
problems defined with no deadline, then most
people will simply drift. Occasionally a
Faraday, Edison, or Einstein will show up
who will simply endlessly grind through
theoretical and experimental failures on
ill-defined problems to come up with
something brilliant. Even Maxwell needed
Faraday's publications of his experiments
showing electro-magnetic fields to get him
to come up with his great equations.
The assumption that work (for profit) is good
is very entrenched in culture. The argument that
people aren't motivated to work (Americans are
lazy) is disputed by the sheer amount of
'volunteerism' (unpaid labor).
Corporations are not going to give up on
marketing jobs as they get the vast benefit of
labors efforts.No one system works it will take
employee ownership to counteract the negatives
of private ownership and a ubi along with a job
guarantee and expenditures on leisure to shift
from a consumer based economy.
I always thought that people were supposed to
argue for more than they want and then settle.
Here the argument is always on the right side of
the political spectrum capitalism and private
ownership. Privatize schools and then use a
transfer of wealth through taxes and a captured
labor force to work in them?
Job guarantee all the way, as long as our bosses
aren't dicks. We've already kicked people off of
public assistance and into shitty underpaid jobs. If
having a job is so important, there should always be
a good one available. And anyone that can't or won't
work can live off a limited basic income. Makes for
a smooth and just transition too when our dirty,
dull, and dangerous industries are shut down or
automated out of existence.
Which brings us, along the way, to the need
for meaningful educational opportunities for
those who the system has heretofore failed.
Concrete case in point. My cousin is a young,
single mom in central North Carolina who works
hard but is just barely scraping by. Recently my
wife and I decided to help her out by giving her
the money she'd need to get broadband service so
that she and her teenage daughter could take
advantage of free, high quality online resources
like EdX.org (
https://edx.org
,
check it out if you haven't yet). But actually
getting her hooked up has been a challenge
because the Internet provider Duopoly dropped
their most affordable plans sometime last year
(around $15/mo) so that the cost will now be a
minimum of $40/mo before modem rental, taxes and
whatever other fees the carriers can dream up
(for the techs out there, even DSL costs $35/mo
in that service area). This in a state where
there's a law prohibiting local governments from
providing Internet services to its citizens in
competition with the Duopoly, and where a
private initiative like Google Fiber has
stumbled so badly that it actually has had a
negative impact on price competition.
Of course you might say this is a first world
problem, heck at least we have (semi) affordable
electricity nowadays. But this happens to be a
first world country, where big business pushes
paperless constantly to cut its own costs and a
semester in college is basically the price of a
recent model preowned sedan, _every semester_.
So, a guaranteed job for everyone PLUS the
resources to learns what's needed to obtain a
job that's more than another dead-end.
P.S. Anyone who has ever tried to use free
Internet services at their local library knows
that's not a viable option both because of
restrictive timeouts and bandwidth caps.
Bosses will be more likely to be dicks when
their employees are a captured labor pool. If
you don't comply with commands you'll be out of
your 'job guarantee'.
I support Yves' idea for a basic income as a
default position for disabled people. Although I'll
advocate for something a bit different if possible
for the ambulatory: instead of a monetary income,
let's provide free basic rations and solar panels,
along with a small plot of land in a rural area,
free gardening and household supplies, (including
free seeds that are appropriate for the given area).
And free classes in ecology, cooking, composting,
soil management, blacksmithing, carpentry,
appropriate technolies and any other good stuff I
happen to think of.
As for what the guest poster wrote–well he seems
like a good guy but this social justice warrior
thing is a dying fad that'll provoke a very
unpleasant counter reaction if it keeps up for much
longer. I'm positive that Trump garnered thousands
of votes in those vital Midwestern swing states
thanks to the highly visible sjw activities on
campuses, and theis backlash is only going to
increase as this goes on.
I have a son with a disability. Without a
job, he would watch movies all day.
With a job he becomes a productive part of
society. He loves it and he is dedicated. It
also gives him the opportunity to bond with
people which is hard when you don't have full
autonomy because of some aspects of your
disability.
From my personal experience, a large
percentage of people with a disabilities would
prefer a job to income guarantee.
And many would be quite happy with what most
consider shit jobs.
My mom shops at a store that hires
intellectually disabled people to do things
like shopping cart roundups and bagging
customers' groceries. These aren't the kinds
of jobs that most of us would flock to, but
that's our perspective.
I have to second this. Having worked
briefly with developmentally challenged
students, they have a much easier go of
things when they feel empowered, when they
feel like they have some control over their
lives, despite the challenges they face.
Rendering them even more helpless simply
increases frustration and exacerbates
existing problems.
Which I think should be brought into the
larger argument. It surprises me that any
Marxist worth her salt would glomp onto
this, when, it seems, the purpose is to
further alienate people from the means of
production and control over the political
economy. When Silicon Valley types and
Charles Murray are arguing for it, you have
to wonder what the underlying reasons might
be. Murray never met a poor or uneducated
person he didn't want to drive into the
ground, so I find it rather curious that he
would suddenly be all for a form of social
welfare.
And as to the boss point above, there's
nothing stopping anyone from making the jobs
program have a cooperative structure. As the
article says, these are all political
choices, not naturally occurring phenomena.
When Silicon Valley types and
Charles Murray are arguing for it,
you have to wonder what the
underlying reasons might be.
My tankie friends on Twitter think
that basic income is a trojan horse
that's going to be used to try and trick
the American public into ending Social
Security and Medicare. They're usually
right, sadly.
It seems to me as if basic income
would also be a great excuse to chip
away even further at the idea if
public education and single-payer
health care as social goods. If your
parents aren't able to shell out for
them, well, you don't need to be
healthy or literate to recieve UBI.
If there were both a UBI and
a job requirement rather than a
job guarantee, that might solve
the problem you mentioned.
If everyone were required to
work a certain amount in
essential services like housing,
food production, health care,
etc before they could collect a
UBI, that would require a
trained and healthy workforce.
As a disabed person myself I would argue
it's not jobs that disabled people are
necessarily after, it's being able to
actively participate in society in a
contributing, meaningful and productive way,
to be included in something with a purpose,
a purpose you believe in. If income is not
an issue, most people would still engage in
projects. Your son would watch movies all
day only because there is no better role to
play, we are at a transition stage where
disabled people, still considered invalids,
are being discovered to be not so invalid.
I take issue with the notion that
disabled people would be happy to do any
deadend work. We deserve more and better
than that, everyone does.
I'm a deaf person with a talent which
fintech wants and needs, which so happens to
be ensuring our tech is accessible,
inclusve, making it so much better; so
disabled people can truly participate in
society, to do all the same things tech
supposedly does to liberate while making it
truly liberating for all.
But we are also socially responsible for
finding meaningful and significant work for
the talents disabled people actually have,
as opposed to getting them to do something
stupid because it's something to do and
they're disabled and so should be satisfied
with whatever they get. We're not
vegetables, nobody is. So that goes for
non-disabled folks too.
Which brings us to the heart of this
UBI/JG discussion, either you're coming to
this from a perspective of people should
have jobs, any job, cuz they're basically
vegetables or some kind of autonomous
machination which goes through motions and
capitalism doesn't work without those
machinations so there's some kind of moral
imperative to labour or wage slavery, and
the measure or class of a person is whether
they are jobbed machinations/slaves, or
UBI/JG is secondary to the question of are
people as a whole happy and doing what
they'd rather be doing, are they truly
participating in society, as part of the
human project.
That's the reality most corporations are
facing at the moment. The meaning and nature
of "work" itself is undergoing change,
becoming "play", as capitalism shoots itself
in the foot and in the drive for profit
either necessitates socialism and
classlessness, or mass social upheaval and
less profits.
Thank you. It gets tiresome that the
default is people are lazy. People are
describing what seems to be human
nature . the desire to connect with
others and to contribute.
After reading some of these
arguments, and thinking about what I
have experienced and seen, I think there
are merits to both approaches (UBI and
JG). From experience I can't entirely
agree with Yves that people would remain
unskilled and not pursue activities that
engage with others and improve their
lives and skills. Perhaps this is
because I have always been fascinated by
and have known many Hippy communities. I
live in Eugene Oregon now, but grew up
in San Francisco. The running joke I was
told was that all the hippies left SF
and came to Eugene because there were no
jobs :-). I did see hippy groups in SF
that did pretty much nothing but play
all day. They didn't last. However, here
in Eugene I see many lasting legacies of
what they built after they "dropped
out"; many if not most of my favorite
businesses were created by these people:
the alternative groceries like Sundance
(supposedly Whole Foods was purported to
model themselves after this store-bah!)
and Kiva and Growers Market, the
Saturday and Farmers Markets, Tsunami
books. The Oregon Country Fair, the
coops. Not all were directly started by
"hippies" per se but the early hippy
groups did much to create a culture and
an environment that encourages this.
I also know a lot of people here that
work "precariously" and there are times
when work is hard to come by. But these
people do not seem to sit around, they
find other things to do, like learn
about gardening, or get skills
volunteering for Bring recycling (they
do things like find creative re-use or
"decom" houses slated for demolition and
take out useful items), or Habitat for
Humanity, or Center for Appropriate
Transport (bicycle and human powered),
or local tree planting and park cleanup.
They often find work this way, and make
connections, and get new skills. They
don't have to But they want to stay
active and involved.
This is why I think UBI is not such a
bad thing.. I know many people who would
benefit and still do many things like
I've described I also am aware that
there are more general tasks that
society needs doing and that is where
the JG might come in. But maybe Eugene
is too much of an exception?
Of course, all this is besides what
these policies may be used for by the
PTB. That's an entirely different
discussion; here I am arguing the
merits, not the agendas.
I was careful to use the word many
and not all people with disabilities.
My son has an intellectual
disability. He needs to be instructed
and the routine will not come on its own
unless it is well practiced. But as long
as someone is directing, he does great
work.
It is obvious by your post that the
menial job he would enjoy does not
correspond to what you could offer the
world!
I spent hours holding him in the
NICU, worrying about his future until
one day, instead of feeling sorry for
the both of us, I looked around and
noticed a regular guy, apathetic
looking, spending his entire day
cleaning and disinfecting the room then
the thought came to me that someone with
special needs could do the same job and
actually be happy.
Around that time, I read an article
about the problems they were now
encountering with the integration of
people with special needs in France. It
would seem that when the job became
boring, many would just stop showing up
to work Why bother when the state and
society has always been there for
support that's what happens when
individuals never get to feel true
independence.
Any action that produces a good or a
service is a form of work. Hugging is a
service. So are smiling and cleaning a
toilet.
For some reason we have huge trouble
putting monetary value on many of the
most essential services.
We are also having a very hard time
filling the jobs with individuals who
have the right skill set and
temperament.
Oy .. make the disabled do hard labor of
agriculture? Blind? Deaf around heavy machinery?
Wheelchairs on plowed land?
You are proposing this as it seems enriching,
gets them out of your community, and is
economically sound. This lifestyle choice should
apply to everyone. Let any who want do this and
you will have removed people from the labor pool
(made up unemployment number magically goes
down) less resource consumption.
Thanks Yves for pounding this issue. As a former
lazy BIG'er I am naturally wired to stare at my
navel all day. I think at the heart of it we have an
existential problem with toil. Tcherneva's succinct
take-down of BIG vs JG also set me on the
straight and narrow.
Plus she spanks Yglesias
which is always enjoyable.
My biggest quibble with JG is that "work"
often involves needless consumption. Most people
(in America) require a car and 1-2 dangerous
hours a day getting to and from "work".
Personally this is a very good reason NOT to
work.
1-2 dangerous hours a day getting
to and from "work".
The reason I get to work 2 hours before
I'm required to is because I find driving to
work is the most stressful part of my day. I
commute while the roads are quiet. The
deterioration in driving etiquette is
maddening. It is dog eat dog out there. The
fact that we are all flying around at 70 MPH
in 4,000 pounds of steel and glass is lost
on most drivers.
I think there should be an indicator
on the dashboard showing the probability
of surviving a frontal impact at your
current road speed, people might slow
down as they saw the number approach
zero
"If you are extraverted and need to be around
people during the day, it's hard to create enough
opportunities for interaction on your own."
People have all sorts of mental quirks, but to what
extent do we rig society to handle them? As a
justification for work, this one sounds expensive.
We are social creatures. That's not a quirk,
just a fact. The average work environment
already has people with various "quirks". Some
are chatty, some not. Not a big deal, no need
for a radical redesign.
As for costs – unemployment imposes
devastating costs in sickness, addiction, crime,
etc. JG is a no-brainer. It's been tried with
great success in Argentina. It works. There's a
slogan for ya:
Work
Works
.
Well, OK, but we all vary in the level of
our sociability. Some need people around
them all the time others value their
solitude and still others are in between.
That's not a quirk, just a fact.
One that you're overstating.
The average work environment already
has people with various "quirks". Some
are chatty, some not. Not a big deal,
Actually, it is a big deal since noise
and lack of privacy are two of the biggest
problems in today's workplaces, particularly
those with "open work space" designs. I
speak from personal experience here.
I'd rather be out in the woods spending my
time growing fruit trees. I hate people–and
reading above about all the inspirational work
the government would be giving me and the people
I'd have to be around while while doing it left
me wondering about whether or not going postal
would be a good idea.
Secondly, the wishlist I saw above for
everything the government is supposed to be
doing to help people was pretty scary. Ehile the
intentions might be good, power like this given
to government never, ever turns out well for the
people. As an example, let's say Scott waved his
magic wand and suddenly Trump had all the power
and authority he needed to accomplish everything
on Scott's list today. Alright, now try to
imagine just how awful the next four years would
be. Not good!
I sympathize with the desire to just be
alone and do your own thing–I'm like that as
well–but I think you're missing an important
aspect of the argument, one which Tcherneva
makes more forcefully, which is that there
is a knock on benefit of people being more
engaged in public life: they are harder to
politically disenfranchise. I wouldn't be
surprise if one of the reasons why elites
are so gung ho about UBI is that it would
serve to further alienate people and
fragment communities, thus preventing them
from organizing anything like meaningful
resistance to state power.
Also, Ferguson kind of already addressed
this:
What if private industry's rejection
of workers freed the public to organize
social labor on capacious, diverse, and
openly contested premises?
The problem with a JG and that line
of argument, is that JG does not propose
to engage people more in public life
than an Unconditional Income, as an
Unconditional Income is by definition,
far more inclusive of all kinds of work
that people may do for others.
You may even do things that nobody in
a society approves of, with an
Unconditional Income, like trying to
prove that the world is round, not flat.
JG got nothing on enabling people to
be active citizens. It's a policy to
look backwards, or it's so inclusive
that it's basically an unconditional
income to everyone. You gotta be willed
to take a long shot sometimes
(increasingly often, looking at the
world as it is today and might
increasingly be tomorrow), to properly
empower people so they can be active
citizens.
How about we have more public housing I
would like to see boarding houses come back
but another option could be monastery type
living? There could even be separate ones
for men, women and families that way you
could select a monastery that is focused on
agriculture and you could have space away
from women.
I sometimes have incredibly vivid
dreams. One of them I hade a couple of
years ago was somewhat apocolyptic;
something had happened (unknown) and I
was in a dilapidated city of middlin'
size. The blocks of cheek-by-jowl houses
and storefronts were all boarded up. But
I entered one and found that 1) they had
been connected by knocking down walls
between them, and 2) the
Interior
Of the block was completely open. All
the buildings faced inward (no boarded
windows) and that had been transformed
into a Commons with gardens, vegetables,
corrals, parklands, small outbuildings.
Maybe something like that .
It would never happen but eminent
domain should apply to abandoned
buildings. If it's been unused for x
amount of years, it's raffled off
for public use . housing, education
etc. Heck, it could apply to
manufacturing. If a corp wants to
leave, don't let the door hitcha,
but that building is going to the
employees as a coop as competition
is as good for the goose as it is
for the gander.
I would imagine more people will
be having dreams like yours if
things keep declining and people try
to imagine what's next.
Actually I know a few artist who won the
Guggenheim Award and I beg to differ. Art is not
something that given bunch of money produces great
work. It comes with time and time spent
contemplating and thinking. Most of the artists who
won had to work to pay the bills before. Many were
teachers and many still are. There are so few fine
artists who just make art. The 1980s really pulled
the wool over non-artists eyes.
Case in point since getting the grant, not right
after of course, Cara Walker made one the best
pieces of her career. A Subtlety, or the Marvelous
Sugar Baby, an Homage to the unpaid and overworked
Artisans who have refined our Sweet tastes from the
cane fields to the Kitchens of the New World on the
Occasion of the demolition of the Domino Sugar
Refining Plant.
Job guarantee maybe, but not corvee. We can have
jobs for everyone, if we build pyramids. Forced
labor is totalitarian. But entitlement and free
lunches are destructive of society. Neo-liberalism
involves entitlement and free lunch for some people,
and for some countries (I see what you are doing to
everyone else USA, GB, Germany, Japan). Entitlement
isn't just for individuals. I love my work, as long
as it is "sort of" a free choice. Economic necessity
works for most of us, and while wage and debt
slavery aren't fun, they are both better than
chattel slavery.
In a country like the USA, the only limit on
socially useful, meaningful work for everyone is
the will and creativity to do it. Off the top of
my head I can think of more programs that could
be implemented than people to fill them.
I agree. But the problem seems to reside
in the link between the services and the
hard goods.
One is unlimited while the other is
limited so the human tendency is to use
money from the unlimited side and
consume/stock up/hoard the hard goods
creating a scarcity.
I don't see how we can solve that problem
with property rights as they are protected
now.
In my mind, land and resources would have
to be a common good why should someone get
the waterfront property or more arable land
or pools of oil just because of a birthright
or some other non sharing policy.
Going even further, why should some
groups/countries benefit from resources
while not sharing with others?
Lots of sharing problems to deal with
nationally and globally before we get it
right
For the last few decades, our system has
been based on debt to income and debt to
GDP. Those nations and individuals who
loaded up on it did ok . so we did not think
of the fair distribution of resources.
But now that debt levels are hitting what
we consider ceilings we will be changing the
rules of the game you know what happens
when someone decides to invent their own
rules in a board game midway through the
game!
All this to say that even if we guarantee
jobs the physical world of resources will
constrain us.
There needs to be a shift from work
and consumption to leisure. Leisure is
infinite . walking trails, biking
trails, parks, movies/music in the parks
(our community puts up a big screen and
a 150 or so show up with lawn chairs,
snacks and blankets), art shows,
community theatre, festivals, music,
picnic areas, chess/checkers concrete
tables .
I want to start a game library: sort
of a pub/restaurant with games. Have a
bite, beer and a game of scrabble. I
like the idea of pub nites with quiz
events. If there were public buildings,
gathering spaces would not have to make
a 'profit', public health would be the
benefit.
"What if public works affirmed inclusion,
collaboration, and difference? What if we
acknowledged that the passions of working life are
irreducible to a largely mythical Protestant work
ethic? What if questioning the meaning and value of
work become part of working life itself?
"What if we predicated social critique on terms
that are not defined by the neoliberal ideology that
we wish to circumvent?
"What if we radically affirmed our dependence on
the public institutions that support us? What if we
forced government to take responsibility for the
system it already conditions?
"What if we admitted that there are no limits to
how we can care for one another and that, as a
political community, we can always afford it?"
First, thanks for this article – this is a good
and interesting debate to have.
It makes me suspicious that the author's sort of
trump-card, climactic 'takedown' of UBI is a series
of questions rather than answers. Things which even
the author can't figure out the answer to,
apparently, so how can they expect UBI to have the
answers.
Think about the answers (i.e. in terms of, policy
changes to people's material lives) to the questions
posed above. What would any of those policies look
like? Who knows?
My point is, it's easy to make things (including
UBI) look dumb by comparing them to impossibly high
vague standards like "no limits to how we can care
for one another."
If the author had a better more concrete,
specific reason why UBI is bad, they would have used
that, yeah?
In my view, Unconditional Incomes answer
these questions without being wasteful of human
life, and with being unconditionally pro-labor,
as opposed to being conditionally pro labor as a
JG would be. JG only empowers labor that is
recognized immediately, by some body of people
who do not represent the valuations of all who
are part of society.
Unconditional Incomes recognize labor that
only later might generate appreciable results,
and it recognizes broad valuation of the fine
grained process where it is societally
worthwhile, as individuals perceive it. If
understood as enablement and pay for all labor
related time, unconditionally.
Pay beyond that would be representation of
how much respect you command, how much you
desire to obtain monopoly incomes, and how much
you might hate a job. But not the labor value.
That's what unconditional incomes can provide.
To the guy writing open source for a greater
benefit to many, to the hardworking construction
worker whose job involves a lot of undesirable
factors (for which he may demand additional
comensation), to the superstar/superbrand owner
who seeks to maximize customer awareness and
monetization with a blend of natural and
artificial marketing and monopolization
strategies, and to the guy who strategically
maximizes market incomes to do even greater
things for society than what he could be doing
with just writing open source.
On that note, thanks Amazon for pushing the
envelope. At least for the time being. We can
financially burden all of these market/rent
incomes to provide unconditional (labor)
incomes, to ensure that there's not too much
emphasis on just cashing in on your good (brand)
name and market position. Coca Cola is a prime
example for what such a cashing in would look
like. Customers are beasts of convenience,
unless there's breakthroughs that radically
improve on some process of delivery or
production, that somehow isn't taken notice of
by the big brand, before another active citizen
takes the opportunity to compete by help of it.
tl;dr: No to turning society into a glorified
Arnish settlement, yes to Amazon as it is today,
though with a higher tax burden, yes to
unconditional incomes, yes to political
activism, independent research, parenting work,
work for being a decent person among equal
people that may look however like you chose.
BIG was tried before with disastrous results.
When a BIG program can be proven to address its
deep and complex past failure, it may be worth a
try. I agree with Yves on when and where an IG
is appropriate until someone somewhere test
drives a better one.
Don't worry, most UBI experiments and
proposals nowadays aren't 'Income
Guarantees' but rather Unconditional
payments to all, or Tapered negative income
tax proposals (britain's RSA has a UBI
equivalent NIT proposal like that at least),
on top of which people could earn more. Only
experienceing regular taxation or a modest
clawback rate of the benefit.
UBI is commonly understood to not be a
top-up to the same point for everyone as the
speenhamland system was, which of course
destroys motivation to expose oneself to a
strenuous environment, when you can't
actually get compensated for your troubles.
Any sensible person would tell you that the
speenhamland system was an insane offer to
the people, it asked of people to work for
free, basically.
By what mechanism does UI prevent
employers from bidding down wages? As
Yves post form last year says, "Taxes
would therefore need to be increased to
offset those effects. The best tax
outcome you could expect would be a
progressive tax on income. Thus the end
result in a best-case scenario would be
tantamount to a means-tested BIG,
graduated so as to avoid any sudden
cutoff for someone who wanted to work.
Thus the result (whether achieved
directly or indirectly) is likely to
resemble Milton Friedman's negative
income tax, with the zero tax rate set
at a living wage level." Meaning the UI
just pushes free money into an otherwise
unchanged system incentivized from the
top down to soak that money back up and
out.
So pushing more money into the system
just inflates the system while
sustaining the ongoing upward
redistribution.
Thus: "The trouble is that
Livingston's "Fuck Work" falls prey to
an impoverished and, in a sense,
classically Liberal social ontology,
which reifies the neoliberal order it
aims to transform. Disavowing modern
humanity's reliance on broadscale
political governance and robust public
infrastructures, this Liberal ontology
predicates social life on immediate and
seemingly "free" associations, while its
critical preoccupation with tyranny and
coercion eschews the charge of political
interdependence and caretaking. Like so
many Universal Basic Income supporters
on the contemporary Left, Livingston
doubles down on this contracted
relationality. Far from a means to
transcend neoliberal governance,
Livingston's triumphant negation of work
only compounds neoliberalism's two-faced
retreat from collective governance and
concomitant depoliticization of social
production and distribution."
It sounds like it's is going to be a lot of work
- to abolish work.
Who's gonna do all the work involved? LOL.
If you think of sub-cultures where nobody works -
like ancient Roman nobles, Europes aristocrats,
gang-bangers, southern antebellum planters– mostly
they got into fights about nonsense and then killed
each other. That is something to consider.
The crap jobs will be the easiest to get rid
of, but then we won't have any necessary goods
and services. The Romans knew this, which is why
they had a pretty good run before collapsing.
OTOH, with so much more humanity getting
their creative juices going, we could end up
with lots and lots of art. There would be so
much art, it would probably be given away for
free!
Then there is the start your own biz path.
I've been keeping an eye on our local self serve
dog wash. The sign outside changed to "Self
Service Pet Wash". Has me wondering what's that
all about. Expanding the biz into cats,
hamsters, parrots and turtles maybe? Good to see
success in the entrepreneurial class, but then I
wonder if that's really for everyone and there
may need to be some larger organizational
structure geared towards producing some more
complex thing or service. Dunno, but that could
be food for thought as a next step for analysis
in this whole job creation subject.
If anybody actually expects to get paid
for their "art", that's when all hell will
break loose.
A self-service dog wash is interesting,
but if you let a dog wash itself it may not
do a good job. Dogs hate to get washed. I'm
not sure if this is gonna work.
Kwame Anthony Appiah talks about the end to
duels in his book on Honor. It's interesting
stuff.
One takeaway I remember is that the lower
classes actually began to clamor for an end to
the idea that murder was okay if you were in the
upper classes, since dueling was a matter of
challenging, preserving, and reifying an upper
class. The other way to look at it is that the
lower classes wanted in on the action.
It also ended when everyone was embarrassed
and fed up that their leaders were slaying each
other by night.
Great philosophical thougths are cauught. In the
Moderbator!
Even the moderbator is already working to thwart
illumination and enlightenment. That should be a
lesson of some sort. I'm not sure what though. That
wouldd mean mental work. I'll do it but it's still
kind of early. I'll do it later.
Yup. There is a big difference between work in a
Capitalist ecosystem and work in an Anarchistic
ecosystem. In the first you have to ask for a
Universal Basic Income and equality, etc. In the
second there is no need to ask for it.
So maybe "F@ck Work" is really "F@ck Capitalism"
or "F@ck Authoritarianism", but they just don't
quite get it yet.
Agreed that what the author is really saying
is f@ck capitalism. Pretending it's all about
the current fad for neoliberalism ignores the
reality that neoliberalism is simply old
fashioned laissez-faire capitalism with better
excuses. The problem with left utopianism is
that human nature works against it. So the
author's "what ifs" don't carry a lot of
intellectual punch. What if we all loved each
other? Well, we don't.
Personally I'd rather just have the BIG and
the freedom. The Right may be just as paranoid
as the Left when they claim all forms of
government social engineering are totalitarian
but there is a grain of truth there. Neither
side seems to have a very firm grasp of the
human
problems that need to be solved in
order for society to work.
"neoliberalism is simply old fashioned
laissez-faire capitalism with better
excuses"
I think it has worse excuses, actually.
No excuses. There is no excuse for the
centrally managed wealth extraction in the
name of "markets" that we have been seeing
since Bill Clinton made nice with Goldman
Sachs in the 1990s.
While MMT correctly conceives of money as a
limitless resource, what it doesn't take into
account is the fact that continuing to allow vast
accumulations of the stuff at the top of the economy
inevitably translates into political power.
And I suspect that those with such power,
principally the financial industry, will work
assiduously to reinforce conventional notions of
money as finite, which in turn enhances their power
and their ability to profit from widespread misery.
That is the taproot of The Big Lie – keeping
the masses convinced of money scarcity, which
goes hand-in-hand with scare mongering on the
national "debt". The delegitimizing of the
national currency as worthless IOUs, mere
"scraps of paper".
The .01%, who have accumulated political
power through this con, will not just give it
up.
It reminds me of the (probably apocryphal)
anecdote about Queen Victoria hearing about
Darwin's Origin of Species and asking, "Is it
true?"
"I'm afraid so, your majesty."
"Well then, let's hope the commoners don't
find out!"
Great piece!!! Does anyone know of any proposals
or white papers for a State or City wide Job
Guarantee? Laboratory for democracy or something. I
know the lack of a currency printer throws a wrench
into the MMT aspects and clearly there would be
migration affects greater than on a national scale,
but I think that a state or local program would
almost necessarily have to come before a national
one, or at least would make the debate about a
national one less arduous. This is something I am
pushing with my state house rep (Raymond Dehn, who
recently threw his hat in the ring for Minneapolis's
Mayoral contest)
"What if we admitted that there are no limits to
how we can care for one another and that, as a
political community, we can always afford it?" MMT
acknowledges that the availability of natural
resources is a limit to money creation and, overall,
economic growth. I wish this essay had addressed
this issue, as I believe we are in the post-peak oil
world and still not facing how this fact -peak oil
when properly understood is an empirical fact to me-
is dismembering modern political economies.
Simultaneously, this destruction is proceeding in
accord with neoliberal domination.
And most of the time, when I see MMT, it
seems to be associated with projects and
investments that are incredibly energy and
resource intensive.
Many MMT supporters seem to work on the
assumption that the US will always have the
right to consume an inordinate share of global
energy and resources.
It seems that many attempting to
pigeonhole MMT, seem to not recognize the
role of fiscal policy to regulate and
modulate. Full employment need not correlate
to consuming " an inordinate share of global
energy and resources." IMHO, how the term
"growth" is often used with and within
"economics" seems misleading and
disingenuous.
It seems to me we have done that no work
experiment for .OH, 70 years. Its called social
security.
Maybe every single person on social security doesn't
have as many friends as they should – the book
"Bowling Alone" as well as many other publications
about the isolation of modern society address what
is a problem. But many people with jobs are
isolated, as well as not getting social interaction
on and off the job. I think if you asked the average
social security recipient, the first thing they
would want is mo' money, mo' money, MO' MONEY.
People on social security can work, volunteer,
follow a hobby or take up one. In CA old folks used
to be able to "audit" college classes, where you
could attend for free but get no credit. Alas, no
longer the case (as well as when I was young and
went to college, it was dirt cheap – how did it get
so frigging expensive?).
And to the extent old people are isolated, more
money would do a lot to allow old people to take
cruises and other activities that cost money and
give people the opportunity to mingle. I imagine
young people would do the same, especially if the
stress of wondering where there income would come
from was removed.
There were people at work who said they would
never retire because they wouldn't be able to fill
their time. I find that just sad. Somebody has to
give these people something to do because in there
whole lives they have never developed any interests?
I was very lucky to have a career that was
interesting. It was also frustrating, difficult, and
stressful, and besides the friends from work, there
were also the assh*les. It was fine for 26, but it
was time to move on. And though I thought about
getting another job, I have found that not working
is ..WONDERFUL.
I also do not work, and I enjoy it. I need to
find things to fill my days (other than NC), but
this is complicated by not having competence in
the local language. I could speed up my
citizenship process by getting a job here in
Uruguay, but I don't want to go back to a
stressful life feeling like I don't have enough
time to do interesting things. So learning
Spanish is my job now.
I think if you asked the average social
security recipient, the first thing they
would want is
mo' money, mo' money,
MO' MONEY
.
And to the extent old people are
isolated, more money would do a lot to allow
old people to take cruises and
other
activities that cost money
and give
people the opportunity to mingle
I suppose it's a much larger ambition in many
ways, but I've always thought that a more
worthwhile aim than a basic income guarantee
would be de-financialization. Private health
care and car-based communities put people in the
very precarious position of having to worry
about their cash buffer for lots of basic
survival needs. I live in a country with
government-funded health care, and even though
my income is a fraction of what I made when I
lived in the US it would be easy for me to quit
my job and live on savings for an extended
period of time, since the only real expenses I
have are food and housing, and the other
necessities like clothes or bicycle repairs can
be done on the cheap when one has lots of free
time.
Public transit connecting libraries, parks,
community colleges, and other public forums
where people can socialize are much preferable
to cruise ships!
I too have for years now enjoyed and
sometimes struggled with not having to work for
money. While my ability to engage in many
activities is currently limited by health
issues, I have previously gone back to
university and earned a degree, learned fine
woodworking, volunteered as a charity fundraiser
and done field work for the wolf reintroduction
program in Yellowstone. I have also spent a lot
of time reading, gardening, fixing up my old
house, watching movies, political activity,
fishing, motorcycling, the list could go on.
However, to be honest, I do suspect that the
years I did spend working and the earnings
therefrom did lay a foundation upon which I
could build an edifice more of my own choosing.
Make work more interesting and rewarding by
directing it toward esthetic goals. Promote the arts
and education at all ages. Put art, design, music,
theater, & crafts back into the curriculum, identify
people with special skills & talent, support them
and provide venues for learning, exhibits &
performances with low- or no- cost access to the
public. Elevate culture to the epitome of human
achievement in all walks of life and expand
involvement. Discourage commercial television
watching, especially for children.
I do wonder if there's a kind of circular
argument to this piece, or at least there is a
continuum between this job guarentee solution and
the basic income. In one sense, it is said that
people cannot be left to themselves to create
because they just won't. So the solution is some
kind of municipal creativity, an entitity which does
the creating and then forces people to work on its
projects in return for income. The more top down
'new deal'-like this is, then it looks like a JG
system. If it can be bottom up, it more closely
resembles a basic income.
There is little difference, in the real world,
between sitting on a park bench all day and sitting
in a cubicle filling out spreadsheets, because most
jobs are already busy-work. So most people are
already doing corvee labor in a totalitarian
civilization: digging holes and filling them up
again. In a typical office building, the only people
who are doing real, productive work are the janitors
and maintenance engineers.
I think it would take a long time, as in many
generations, to begin to know who we are, what we
would do and be without a Protestant work-ethic.
It's almost impossible for most to imagine life in
some other form just as it's impossible for most
to imagine a democratic process, even within just
one party. Idle time scares the beejesus out of so
many people I know. I've watched people 'retire' and
move to these beautiful Ozark mountains for
decades and do nothing but destroy them, over and
over again, out of boredom and idle guilt. I can't
remember the last time I cut down a live tree for
firewood.. since there are always mountains of
forrest being laid to waste.
But we must face the fact most work is useless,
crap, BS, and or outright destructive. MIC and
Insurance come to mind immediately. To enforce human
work for the sake of it is to perhaps destroy the
big blue marble host at – at best an highly
accelerated rate. If we keep making ourselves act
like drones our world will continue to look like
it's what we are doing / who we are. Just drive down
any street America built post 1960 looking for
something esthetically pleasing, somewhat unique,
that isn't either mass produced or designed to fall
apart in a few decades or less.
Or maybe with a jobs guarantee we should just
outlaw bulldozers, chainsaws, 18 wheelers, private
jets, dwellings/offices with more than four units,
and large farm equipment.
If we are going to force labor then give every
man and woman a shovel or a hoe with their HS
diploma – not a gun, not an office for predatory
FIRE purposes. That way we wont destroy ourselves so
quickly.
Joni sang..
You don't know what you've got
'til it's gone
. What about the people who never
knew what was there to begin with? Will some of us
live long enough to morn the passing of parking
lots?
"A job at a decent wage, set by public policy,
will eliminate at least 2/3 of poverty. we can then
work on eliminating the rest thru compassion."
Doesn't strike me as morally agreeable to reduce
the right to nature and ideas that anyone may reason
to have, to a matter of compassion.
"This is the high road that can increase
productive capacity"
Giving people an unconditional income and letting
people earn money on top, could also increase
productive capacity, and having a JG scheme in place
might as well reduce productive capacity where it
pretends to people that they're doing something
important, when they're not. Overpaying work can be
a disservice to the people and society alike. Let
individuals themselves tell others how much they
think something is worth, in respect and in monetary
terms. We just need to equip people with money (that
maintains relevance in relation to the aggregate of
all money), for that.
The high road that can increase productivity is a
commitment to enabling people as individuals,
unconditionally, to make economic expressions,
rooted in their rights to nature.
""Modern Monetary Theory contends that money is a
boundless and fundamentally inalienable public
utility. That utility is grounded in political
governance. And government can always afford to
support meaningful social production, regardless of
its ability to capture taxes from the rich. The
result: employment is always and everywhere a
political decision, not merely a function of private
enterprise, boom and bust cycles, and automation.
There is therefore nothing inevitable about
underemployment and the misery it induces. In no
sense are we destined for a "jobless future."""
Wouldn't it be interesting if it took someone
like Trump to get the fact that money is a public
utility into the public mindset.
This is a strong and powerful tool. Seems like it
could be up his alley.
But Trump WONT do that. He's very much a
super 1% elitist who thinks of people as winners
and losers. He thinks the government is like a
business that has to balance its books and "live
within its means" (means = tax receipts + fees).
Trump is NOT an MMTer. He's closer to gold
standard idiots in the GOP (whether they
actually want the gold standard to return or not
means nothing the idea that the federal budget
needs to be balanced is 100% outgrowth of the
gold standard dinosaur days so they are ALL
goldbugs at core).
I agree with many of the skeptical views above.
In the endeavor to provide equitable incomes an
underlying problem is who decides what industries or
groups get funded from the taxes collected? Is there
private capital? How do you keep certain people from
manipulating the system to assure they can collect
more wealth than someone else?
All of these might be questions may be resolved
with strict laws, but I can recall in my childhood
such laws and such cultures that assured a more
equitable system, but these too were corrupted by
people who wanted to "keep their wealth", because
"they earned it", or inherited it ("Death to the
Death Tax!").
This utopia sounds good on paper, but it appears
to me that the execution is most times corrupted by
the connected and powerful.
In any case the most difficult task in this
process will be getting enough power to take any
sizable wealth away from the "shareholders" , ie
owners, to redistribute in a society controlled via
media and laws by our lords and masters.
I think we need to remember just how modern is
the concept of "work" is that's being debated here.
In nearly the whole world a century ago (and still
in parts of it today) people didn't have "jobs",
they raised crops, tended cattle, caught fish,
practised manual crafts, played a role in the
community and family etc. and were in general
productively occupied most of the time. Even with
the factory system, and the beginning of paid
employment, many of the workforce were skilled
craftsmen with years of training and a high social
status. The modern idea of a "job" as an unnecessary
task carried out to gain money you don't need to buy
things you don't want would have seemed
incomprehensible. Indeed, there are parts of Africa
today where a "job" is what you get to earn enough
money to live on for a while and that's it.
The real problem then is a sense of purpose in life.
There's some evidence that work can and does provide
this, provided that work is minimally useful and
satisfying. Certainly, the psychological damage from
long-term unemployment as well as the psychological
dangers of working alone are extensively documented.
But the opposite is also true – work can make you
ill, and the line between guaranteeing work and
forcing people to work is a treacherously easy one
to cross.
It would be better to move towards thinking about
what kind of society and economy we want. After all,
much of the contemporary economy serves no useful
purpose whatever, and could be dispensed with and
the assets invested elsewhere. Without getting into
the magic wand thinking in the article, it must be
possible to identify a host of things that people
can usefully "do", whether or not these are "jobs"
in the traditional sense.
You're onto something here. Reading the post
and comments, I couldn't identify what was
bothering me, because when I think of work now
(having been out of the paid workforce a while)
I think in terms of things that make life more
livable, either in very practical ways or
through learning, enlarging my view of the
world, and I don't in the least want to see the
elimination of that kind of work. It's the other
kind of work, that expects you to feign devotion
to the manufacture or marketing of widgets, that
probably needs to be largely eliminated (I won't
say wholly, as there may be some for whom
widgets are mentally rewarding). The author
seems too certain of what needs to change and
how. I think you're right that we need to give
it more thought.
The author of this review misses much of what
James Livingston is all about. JL spends some
time discussing how to imagine a meaningful life
and he refers to Freud (!) that we need work and
love. If work is no longer available then how do
we imagine love as the basis for social
solidarity? OR, is solidarity another way to
express love? The author's concerns for wonky
policy BS takes us down the wrong path into the
scrubland of intellectual vapidity.
And btw Fred Block has devastated the
Speenhamland analogy long ago. I think not many
folks have gotten beyond Andre Gorz on these
topics.
Yeah, I'm sort of skeptical of BIG
myself, but I really don't think
Speenhamland is a good comparison at all.
Speenhamland had too many particularities
that separate it from most modern BIG
proposals IMHO.
I think we need to remember just how
modern is the concept of "work" is that's
being debated here. In nearly the whole
world a century ago (and still in parts of
it today) people didn't have "jobs", they
raised crops, tended cattle, caught fish,
practised manual crafts, played a role in
the community and family etc. and were in
general productively occupied most of the
time
Too true. If you want to see what someone's
ancestor most likely did, look at their last
name. Tanner, Cooper, Fuller, etc.
People used to have a right to land with
which they could harvest building supplies,
roofing supplies, food to feed themselves, fuel
to heat and cook, raise livestock for food and
fiber. The people have been stripped of the
rights and ability to provide for their basic
needs by force. They now have to have a job, the
majority of their labor benefits someone else,
to gain money in a system where nearly every
transaction isn't just monetized but
exploitative.
There is still the pull towards liberalism .
to develop a hierarchy of needs, and a hierarchy
of the usefullness/productiveness/profitability
of tasks. There needs to be a ubi along with the
jg. When the focus is on developing hierarchies,
the end result will be a rigid bureaucratic
structure and the use of force to ensure
compliance.
"What if we predicated social critique on terms
that are not defined by the neoliberal ideology that
we wish to circumvent?"
To do this, I propose that we give everyone,
unconditionally, an income, as expression of their
potential (and natural desire) to contribute to
society, and all the prerequisite time that goes
into that, and for the very contributions
themselves. An unconditional labor value derived
income, for all. An income that both enables all
kinds of work, and pays that labor value in the same
stroke.
From there, additional earned income becomes a
matter of how much respect you command, how well you
utilize monopolies, and how much you hate your job
and require compensation for how much you hate it.
But the labor value would be accounted for,
unconditionally.
In a world where there's superstars (and
superbrands) who command respect and natural
monopolies to make a lot of money, and people
writing open source for the greater benefit of
everyone else predominantly, it makes sense to make
a statement such as that, about labor value, and to
pay it to everyone. Mothers and fathers in active
care of their children too, could agree, I'd
imagine.
But making a list of things that you think might
be cool for society, and try to have tangible
compensations for only those, seems problematic, if
not to say, counterproductive. Rather recognize ALL
the time that people spend, to be decent people
among fellow people, to educate themselves formally
and informally, be it in the process of being an
entrepreneur in a broader sense, at times. A sense
of justice that can only be achieved by the state
deciding for its people what is purposeful, will
fall flat on its face when it comes to practicality,
unless we have artifical super intelligence. Because
you will have to literally know better than the
people, what they will appreciate to what extent.
And you don't know that. Neither do I.
There's great things in community/entertainment
space happening today, that nobody was thinking of 5
years ago. Because people still have some power to
recognize things as individuals, that others do, as
purposeful (as much as aggregate demand is
increasingly in a sorry state, as the result of a 3+
decade long trend that seems to still keep going.
Just fixing that issue would already help a lot.). I
say we should build on that, and further empower
people in that direction. Which to me means to give
money to all the people of the society, so they can
more directly at times, express what benefits
society, that is themselves. And for macro
economic/long term considerations we can always have
direct democracy.
The sorts of psychopaths that tend to be in
control of modern human societies clearly prefer
money as a tool of social control to money as any
sort of public utility that would facilitate
individual productivity and/or affirm human dignity,
whether in the context of neoliberal derangement or
not. That's the view from the long-frozen Rust Belt
and certainly nothing new in history.
It also appears that any human capacity for moral
innovation is easily constrained by our basic
feces-hurling primate OS, particularly if said
primates consider money to be something finite and
concrete.
On the real balance sheet, though, the sweet old
Earth likely can't afford a JG for a population of 7
billion, at least not under any current or
previously existing model of labor exploitation. As
all NCpeeps know, we're resource-constrained, not
dollar-constrained.
So we arrive back at the same old power
relationships, the coercion, desperation and ecocide
to which we have been accustomed, in the absence of
any disruptive® (!) moral innovation. Can anyone
suggest that modern humans have demonstrated a
capacity for moral innovation outside of prison
camps? Actual, non-hopey-changey varieties of moral
innovation? If so, is that capacity retarded only by
misperceptions regarding the nature of money?
Retarded perhaps by an exceptional propaganda
system? One might only answer that for themselves,
and likely only until the SWAT team arrives. It
seems unlikely that some rational and compassionate
bureaucracies will be established to compensate in
their stead: Congress is wholly unable to formulate
policy in the public interest for very good reasons,
none of them admirable. It seems the social economic
entities they protect require human desperation just
as much as they require currency liquidity or
juvenile male soldiers.
In the absence of representation, rule of law or
some meager rational public policy, a reproductive
strike may be a better individual approach than FW,
as not having children avoids the voluntary
provisioning of debt slaves into a corrupt and
violent system of social control. There is also the
many ecologically salubrious effects of less humans
and a potential opportunity to avoid being forced to
constantly sell one's labor at a sharp discount.
Couples I know, both having made catastrophic errors
in career choice (education, research, seriously
OMG!), are able to persist with some degree of
dignity only and precisely because they have avoided
begetting, in the very biblical sense, more debt
slaves.
The author's contention that JG is better than
BIG is persuasive; however I am not convinced that
JG is best implemented by the govt. We have had
systems like these, e.g. USSR, and it is very clear
that central planning for large masses never works.
Why not implement that JG as saying that the govt
guarantees X $/hr for up to T hrs per week for every
one, no matter where they are hired. Advantages:
– small business owners are afforded breathing space
to get their dreams off the ground,
– Walmart workers will walk off if Walmart doesn't
up its game significantly beyond $(X x 4T) per
month,
– Non profits will be able to afford to pay
volunteers more reliably,
– People who want to be alone / not work can setup
their own "self preservation" business and earn the
minimum $X/hr for T hrs.
This form of decentralized planning may help
implement JGs in a more sustainable manner than
centralized planning. It also puts a floor on
minimum income. Also, when combined with barriers on
moving jobs outside the US, it helps provide a
sharper threshold on how good automation needs to be
in order to replace labor.
X and T can be the $15 and 40 hrs that is being
implemented in big coastal cities, progressive
states. Or it could be set to just above poverty
level earnings, depending on how comfortable we are
in letting go of our Pilgrim/Protestant shackles.
Past time to kill off the Protestant Ethic.
The future has always supposed to be made up of
robots doing scut work while people get to chill
out and NOT do shit work.
The job race is why people STILL don't take
enough vacation or full vacation. It is why they
feel COMPELLED to not take days off because if
they do, their boss will hold it against them
come promotion time.
Not all jobs are worth doing and forcing
people to take them doesn't do anyone any good,
and makes people into commodities, THE biggest
problem with neoliberalism. People are NOT
commodities and work should NOT be a measure of
one's value. CEOs outrageously overvalue
themselves for doing little or nothing while
engineers and workers they mistreat do
EVERYTHING. That is neoliberalism and capitalism
in a nutshell.
Guaranteed Basic Income ends that. Set a max
income so there will be no more over-compensated
CEOs AND provide a decent income for EVERYONE,
gratis, so they are not forced to take a job
polishing the shoes of the useless eater CEOs.
I prefer the Universal Basic Income guarantee to
the Work guarantee. The Work guarantee guarantees
MAKEWORK
. "Here, have a broom
and do some sweeping with it. Somewhere."
Or, "Here's a desk and a pile of papers with
staples in them. Remove the staples."
"You! Toss this box of trash in the street and
you, walk behind him and pick it up and put it in
THIS box!"
Fuck work. In particular, fuck MAKEWORK. A job,
ANY job, just to say you have a job is CRAP.
Better: Income guarantee. Period. Gratis. If a
company wants you to do a job for them then they
will have to provide incentive enough to get you to
take the job. You don't HAVE to take a shit job
because you have a guaranteed income so employers
better offer a sweat deal like good pay and benefits
(and LESS pay and benefits for CEOs, etc the lazy
do-nothing self-entitled class).
The basic income and the job guarantee are
natural complements. In terms of the acquis that any
sovereign state must comply with (the UDHR,) you
have the right to a standard of living adequate for
the health and well-being of [your]self and of
[your] family, and the right to free choice of
employment. Two different rights. That means work
should be an option.
The idea is, you're not on the treadmill, it's
the state that's on the treadmill, working
continually to fulfill your economic and social
rights. It's the state that bears duties, you have
rights. So if you want to do something and you need
structure, knock yourself out, work for the state or
some customer or boss. If you want to spend all the
time you can with your kid before the mass
extinction starves her, that's fine too.
When you ask people, Do you exist for the state,
or does the state exist for you? People are quick to
say, I don't exist for the state, that's
totalitarianism! But people seem to accept that they
exist for the economy. They accept that their life
depends on acceptable service to the labor market.
Just like I don't exist for the state, I don't exist
for the economy. The economy exists for me. That is
the revolutionary import of the ICESCR (and that's
why the US strangled Venezuela when Chavez committed
the state to it.)
Human rights is a complete, consistent and
coherent alternative to neoliberal market worship.
The idea sounds so strange because the neoliberal
episcopate uses an old trick to get people to hold
still for exploitation. In the old days, the
parasitic class invented god's will to reify an
accidental accretion of predatory institutions and
customs. Everybody nodded and said, I see, it's not
some greedy assholes, it's god's will. After a while
everybody said, Wait a minute. The parasitic class
had to think fast, so they invented the economy to
reify an accidental accretion of predatory
institutions and customs. So now you submit to that.
Suckers!
"All of humanity's problems stem from man's
inability to sit quietly in a room alone."
I am in favor of the job or income guarantee
program. We really should not and do not need to
work nearly as much as is common in U.S. (nevermind
the even more repressive slave labor in Asia). The
claim that "algorithms and robotization will reduce
the workforce by half within twenty years and that
this is unstoppable" seems like a pretty likely
scenario at this point. Why have we been working for
millenia to build this advanced civilization, if not
to relax and enjoy it and be DONE slaving away?!
I recently sold everything I had and travelled
around the US for 6 months, and it was delightful. I
was next to broke, but if I had an income guarantee
I could have had way more freedom to stop here and
there, get involved in who knows what, and enjoy
myself with very low stress.
I agree most people will not do anything
productive unless forced, but that is what we need
to finally work on: ourselves and our crippling
egos. The world is plenty advanced technologically,
we have made incredible inventions and that will
continue to happen, but people need to start working
on themselves inwardly as well or the outward world
will be destroyed.
What does being productive mean? Besides
making a profit for an oligarch. Everything is
work. Cook for yourself, not work. Cook for
someone else, work. Garden for yourself, not
work. Garden for someone else, work. Travel for
yourself, not work. Travel for someone else,
work. etc.
Has anyone run the numbers for a 4 day work
week, or 3? How about if full time work were
lowered to 30, 25 hours per week?
Automation was supposed to free up labors
time. Workers have participated in designing
automation, installing automation, testing
automation and training others for automation.
It's time labor takes the share of their labor
and if oligarchs get the permanent financial
benefit of labors efforts to automate, so does
labor.
We found [the pyramids] were not built by
slaves. They were built by well-paid skilled
labour. The problem in these early periods
was how to get labour to work at hard tasks,
if not willingly? For 10,000 years there was
a labour shortage. If people didn't want to
work hard, they could just move somewhere
else. The labour that built temples and big
ceremonial sites had to be at least
quasi-voluntary even in the Bronze Age c.
2000 BC. Otherwise, people wouldn't have
gone there.
We found that one reason why people were
willing to do building work with hard manual
labour was the beer parties. There were huge
expenditures on beer. If you're going to
have a lot of people come voluntarily to do
something like city building or constructing
their own kind of national identity of a
palace and walls, you've got to have plenty
of beer. You also need plenty of meat, with
many animals being sacrificed.
Archaeologists have found their bones and
reconstructed the diets with fair accuracy.
What they found is that the people doing
the manual labour on the pyramids, the
Mesopotamian temples and city walls and
other sites were given a good high protein
diet. There were plenty of festivals. The
way of integrating these people was by
public feasts.
Now, you can argue that labor is no longer
scarce, so the logic doesn't apply. But you
can't generalize that people won't work unless
forced; it's not true.
I see what you mean, but they built the
pyramids because they needed money to
survive, the beer and festivals is an added
bonus. Whether you call it slave labor or
working for a decent wage, the premise is
the same – your survival depends on doing
the work so you do it.
The distinction I think relates to what
waldenpond says above. People want to feel a
sense of ownership, meaning and community
around what they are doing, and then they do
it of their own volition, so it is not seen
as work. This is something quite rare in
todays labor market, but it doesn't have to
be that way.
Looks like people chose to work not just
for pay but for pay and the addition of
leisure activities (cooking, eating,
partying) and a sense of community.
I agree with this. I think of the people I
knew who had to work at two or more jobs, full
time or more, to be "allowed" to be a painter,
musician, writer, or performer, etc. It is
sapping us culturally, not to let the creative
people have time to do what they were born to
do. And I think at least a little of this lives
in all of us. There are things that we are born
to do. How much does our society let us be who
we are?
similar arguments made regarding all of the lands
in North and South America.
"they aren't using it for anything productive.
best we take it from them."
who are you to say what is productive in another
person's life? if we had a meaningful culture and
education in this debased society, each of us would
be able to make the decision about what exactly we
find most productive and worthy of our efforts, and
what isn't. since we have no public lands to hunt
and gather and fish and farm and live upon, we are
forced into this economic system. i find it odd as
heck that two people who are effectively
"unemployed" find it better for everyone else to be
chained to a money-for-work scheme. will you both be
signing up for some labor-conscription hours? will
it be compulsory for all, without ability to opt-out
except for complete physical/emotional disability
with no gaming by the rich? (my apologies if you all
do not agree, and i have misrepresented your
positions)
more rationales to make people love their chains,
please. because we know how this would work out:
rather as it does now when you sign up for
unemployment/food assistance-you MUST take the first
job for the first abuser that comes along and makes
an offer for you.
I think we should separate the wage/salary
component of work from social welfare provisioning.
Namely, universal health care and universal old age
pensions. The more you think about it in the context
of today's various pressures, the more sense it
makes.
Social welfare provisioning isn't just the
means of exchange, it's the ability to acquire
the necessities of survival of shelter, food,
heat etc. If the focus is just within the
capitalist system of private ownership and rent
seeking is not ended, the welfare is merely
passed through and ends with the oligarchs.
I have several questions, concerns with UBI. One
is if everyone is given a base salary who is to
decide what that amount should be. Will it be
indexed to inflation, what will it do to inflation,
specifically, inflation for housing, food,
healthcare.
Will a UBI be an excuse to gut all social
contracts/guarantees. Who will make those decisions.
What will happen to social services (public schools,
hospitals), and social needs (clean water, air,
sanitation/trash, police/fire protection).
Primitive human cultures traditionally "worked"
to fulfill their needs only 3-4 hours a day. The
rest was leisure, taking care of children/elderly,
and rest. I agree, that a large percentage of time
at work is wasted time due to hour artificial 9:5
business schedule. If we all perform work from home,
what will the hours be like? Will we have more time
to meet our neighbors and become more involved in
the community or will we be shut in our houses all
day not seeing anyone. Will the family unit be
stronger, since people will not have to travel
across the country for job opportunities and stay
near each other.
Who will be provided with basic education, will
that be free or for a fee, or will the idle
relatives and neighbors collaborate to provide it.
Will some neighborhoods/regions be more organized
and successful than others? Will all the "lazy
people" filter into future slums riddled with crime
and disease? Who will provide for them if there is
no longer any social services.
I'm sure someone has already posted this, but my
idea was to have a huge Federally funded
Environmental Cleanup Dept. that essentially hires
mass amounts of people to literally clean streets,
parks, waterways, sort through trash, etc. It's
needed, its relatively low skill labor, but at least
it could provide an alternative to Welfare, which is
a huge huge scam that's imprisons people in the
lowest class (cant own a car or land).
Obviously this doesn't solve the entire issue,
but it's become pretty clear that just having a huge
Welfare state will not work longterm, as Yves
mentions, the detriments are huge and real:
unskilled lower class, unmoivitated lower class
(more free time = more criminal activity), etc.
Again with the Americans are lazy myth. I
would argue criminal activity is more related to
being blocked by state violence from accessing a
thoroughly monetized society (poverty) and a
purposely bled social structure than from
boredom.
If a person has access to a share of the
resources of a society (shelter/food and
enrichment) they will not likely commit crime.
For those that want a rush, we can add some
climbing walls etc. ha!
For those that are critical of the'welfare
state'.. it isn't natural nor accidental, it's
purposeful. Stop putting in so many resources
(legal, political, financial) to create one.
What do you actually want to work
for
?
In early societies, you worked so that you and your
family and community didn't die, and could produce
the goods needed to make society function. But
that's changed, and today we work to earn the money
to pay other people to carry out these same
functions. We even work to earn the money to pay the
costs of working to earn the money to pay others. We
buy a house (which in the past would have been
constructed by the society) and have to pay to
travel to work to earn the money to pay for the
house, and then the insurance on the house, and the
business clothes, and then buy a car and insurance
on the car because the time we spend working and
traveling means we have to shop at the supermarket
instead of local shops, and then we pay a garage to
maintain the car, and we pay someone to look after
our garden because between trips to the supermarket
we don't have time ourselves, and then we pay
someone to look after our children because we work
so hard earning money to pay for childcare that we
have no time actually left for caring for our
children. And the idea is that everybody should be
guaranteed the right to do this?
In the drive towards totalitarianism, universal
basic income is the carrot that enables the
abolition of cash. India is the trial run. Although
after seeing what's transpired in India, it's
probably safe to say the ruling elite have wisely
concluded that it might be better to offer the
carrot before rolling out the stick.
There seems to be this false dilemma between the
impending "end" of work and the unlimited potential
of creative job creation. BOTH of these utopias are
apocalyptically blind to history.
In 2017 what counts as "work" - a job, wage labor
- is inseparably bound up with the consumption of
fossil fuel. A "job" consumes "x" barrels of oil per
annum. Lumps of labor are directly quantifiable in
lumps of coal.
The ecological implications of this are clearly
that the dilemma does not resolve itself into a
choice between different schemes for redistributing
some proverbial surplus. That "surplus" represents
costs that have been shifted for decades and even
centuries onto the capacity of the ambient
environment to absorb wastes and to have resources
extracted from it.
Can such an extractive economy continue
indefinitely? Not according to the laws of
thermodynamics.
A UBI might reduce the dire incentive to
"work or starve" at the same time as it
increases opportunities and incentives to
pursue the bright elusive butterfly of
"meaningful work." That would be good if it
was the only consideration. But it is not.
There is also an inconvenient truth about
the relationship between productivity and
fossil fuel consumption. In the industrial
economy, larger amounts of better work mean
more greenhouse gas emissions. Productivity
is a double-edged sword.
We have long since passed the point where
capital "diminishes labour time in the
necessary form so as to increase it in the
superfluous form; hence posits the
superfluous in growing measure as a
condition – question of life or death – for
the necessary."
Currently, world-wide carbon emissions
per year are roughly double what can be
re-absorbed by oceans and plants. This is
not to say that the re-absorption by oceans
is harmless –it leads to acidification. But
clearly more than half of the emissions are
superfluous to sustainability. Lo and
behold, carbon emission increase in virtual
lockstep with hours of work. In the U.S.,
the correlation between the two has been
about 95% over the last quarter century.
Don't even think of using the
"correlation doesn't prove causation"
gambit. We are talking about a "water is
wet" relationship. Fossil fuel is burned to
do work. Period. Not just correlation -
identity.
So the bottom line is we either need to
cut hours of work at least in half or the
remaining hours need to be
less
productive not more.
Reducing the hours of work also implies the
potential for redistributing hours of work to
create more jobs from less total work time. This
of course flies in the face of "
laws
of political economy
" that were discredited
more than a century ago but nonetheless get
repeated as gospel
ad nauseum
by
so-called "economists."
I like where this guy is trying to go, but I
think I'd put forth more of a
F-k Stupid Jobs
with Bad Pay
ethos, rather than
F-k Work
. Too oversimple too broad. Work, on some
level, is really all there is. The idea of a
collective life devoted to perpetual and unbridled
hedonism just sounds like death by holiday to me;
just as awful as working yourself into the grave.
As to Yves' notion - probably this is true.
Pressure is a fine agent for production and problem
solving; but I suspect that stagnant period might
just be a byproduct of the initial hangover. Guilt
is an engine that hums in many of us - I think most
people feel guilty if they spend an entire day doing
nothing, let alone a lifetime tossed away.
It is going to be interesting to see what happens
as the financial sector "high value" employees
continue to be replaced by passive investing and
computer programs. I suspect this process will
result in a rethinking of many of these people about
the value of work and job security.
I have been stating this also. So many tasks
are open to automation in law, healthcare
(remote offices), writing (algorithms), teaching
(one math teacher per language!), policing. I
can even imagine automated fire trucks that can
pinpoint hot spots, hook up to hydrants, open a
structure and target.
What we need is not a guaranteed minimum income,
but universal ownership of key productive assets,
like Alaska does with its Permanent Fund. These
assets could include partial citizenship ownership
of our largest corporations. All paid work would be
on top of this.
As Peter Barnes says, "With Dividends and Liberty
for All". Thus everyone would have a base income,
enough to prevent extreme poverty, but still with
plenty of incentives for jobs. Note: You'd also need
to make it illegal for these "dividends" to become
security for loan sharks.
I spent a lot of time over the holidays thinking
about the future of human work and came to this
conclusion: As we move forward, robots and other
automation will take over a lot of human work, but
in 3 areas I think humans will always have an edge.
I'll summarize these 3 essentially human endeavors
as: "sex, drugs and rock-and-roll", but each of
those is a proxy for a wider range of human
interactions.
"Sex work" (compare to "Fuck Work" from this
essay) means what it says, but is also a proxy for
human interactions such as massage, phys-therapy,
etc. Robots will encroach on this turf somewhat
(serving as tools), but for psychological reasons,
humans will always prefer to be worked over by other
humans.
Drugs is a proxy for human appreciation of
chemical substances. Machines will of course be used
to detect such substances, but no one will
appreciate them like us. The machines will need us
to tell them whether the beer is as good as the last
batch, and we must make sure to get paid for that.
Finally, rock-and-roll is a proxy for human
artistic expression as well as artistic
appreciation. Robots will never experience sick
beats the way we do, and while they may produce
some, again for psychological reasons, I think
humans will tend to value art created by other
humans above that produced by machines.
The good news is that the supply and demand
balance for these activities will scale in a stable
way as the population grows (or shrinks). So I think
the key is to make sure these types of activities
are considered "work", and renumerated accordingly
in our bright J.G. future.
"... History will look back at us with the same wonder that we look back on the mad excesses of certain nations founded in devotion to extreme, almost other-worldly, ideologies of the last century. ..."
"... Apparently the slashing of health benefits for the unfortunate is not severe enough in the proposed Trump/Ryan plan. Our GOP house neo-liberals are enthusiastic to unleash the wonders of the cure-all deregulated market on the American public, again. Like a dog returns to its vomit. ..."
"The problem of the last three decades is not the 'vicissitudes of the marketplace,' but rather
deliberate actions by the government to redistribute income from the rest of us to the one percent.
This pattern of government action shows up in all areas of government policy."
Dean Baker
"When the modern corporation acquires power over markets, power in the community, power over
the state and power over belief, it is a political instrument, different in degree but not in
kind from the state itself. To hold otherwise - to deny the political character of the modern
corporation - is not merely to avoid the reality.
It is to disguise the reality. The victims of that disguise are those we instruct in error."
John Kenneth Galbraith
And unfortunately the working class victims of that disguise are going to be receiving the consequences
of their folly, and then some.
Secure in their monopolies and key positions with regard to reform and the law, the corporations
are further acquiring access to the protections of the rights of individuals as well, it appears,
at least according to Citizens United .
Maybe our leaders and their self-proclaimed technocrats will finally do the right thing. I personally
doubt it, except that if they do it will probably be by accident.
More likely, the right thing will eventually come about the old-fashioned way- under the duress
of a crisis, and the growing protests of the much neglected and long suffering.
History will look back at us with the same wonder that we look back on the mad excesses of certain
nations founded in devotion to extreme, almost other-worldly, ideologies of the last century.
... ... ...
Apparently the slashing of health benefits for the unfortunate is not severe enough in the
proposed Trump/Ryan plan. Our GOP house neo-liberals are enthusiastic to unleash the wonders of the
cure-all deregulated market on the American public, again. Like a dog returns to its vomit.
Better if they start breaking up corporate health monopolies and embrace real reform at the sources
of the soaring costs. The US pays far, far too much for drugs and healthcare, and deregulating the
markets is not the solution. We do have the example of the rest of the developed world for what to
do about this. It is called 'single payer.'
But players keep on playing. And politicians and their enablers in the professions will not see
what their big money donors do not wish them to see. And that is one of their few bipartisan efforts.
Might one suggest that our political animals stop trying to do all the reforming and cost controls
bottom up, while applying the stimulus top down? That approach they have been flogging to no avail
for about thirty years is a recipe for a dying middle class.
Here is a short video from the Bernie Sanders WV town hall that shows The Face of American Desperation.
By the way, the governor of West Virginia is a Democrat. He wasn't there.
The mainstream U.S. media has virtually banned any commentary that doesn't treat Russian President
Putin as the devil, but a surprising breach in the groupthink has occurred in Foreign Affairs magazine,
reports Gilbert Doctorow.
Realistically, no major change in U.S. foreign and defense policy is possible without substantial
support from the U.S. political class, but a problem occurs when only one side of a debate gets a
fair hearing and the other side gets ignored or marginalized. That is the current situation regarding
U.S. policy toward Russia.
For the past couple of decades, only the neoconservatives and their close allies, the liberal
interventionists, have been allowed into the ring to raise their gloves in celebration of an uncontested
victory over policy. On the very rare occasion when a "realist" or a critic of "regime change" wars
somehow manages to sneak into the ring, they find both arms tied behind them and receive the predictable
pounding.
While this predicament has existed since the turn of this past century, it has grown more pronounced
since the U.S.-Russia relationship slid into open confrontation in 2014 after the U.S.-backed coup
in Ukraine overthrowing elected President Viktor Yanukovych and sparking a civil war that led Crimea
to secede and join Russia and Ukraine's eastern Donbass region to rise up in rebellion.
But the only narrative that the vast majority of Americans have heard – and that the opinion centers
of Washington and New York have allowed – is the one that blames everything on "Russian aggression."
Those who try to express dissenting opinions – noting, for instance,
the intervention in Ukrainian affairs by Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland as well
as the U.S.-funded undermining on Yanukovych's government – have been essentially banned from both
the U.S. mass media and professional journals.
When a handful of independent news sites (including Consortiumnews.com) tried to report on the
other side of the story, they were denounced as "Russian propagandists" and
ended up on "blacklists" promoted by The Washington Post and other mainstream news outlets.
An Encouraging Sign
That is why it is encouraging that Foreign Affairs magazine, the preeminent professional journal
of American diplomacy, took the extraordinary step (extraordinary at least in the current environment)
of publishing Robert English's
article , entitled "Russia, Trump, and a new Détente," that challenges the prevailing groupthink
and does so with careful scholarship.
A wintery scene in Moscow, near Red Square. (Photo by Robert Parry)
In effect, English's article trashes the positions of all Foreign Affairs' featured contributors
for the past several years. But it must be stressed that there are no new discoveries of fact or
new insights that make English's essay particularly valuable. What he has done is to bring together
the chief points of the counter-current and set them out with extraordinary writing skills, efficiency
and persuasiveness of argumentation. Even more important, he has been uncompromising.
The facts laid out by English could have been set out by one of several experienced and informed
professors or practitioners of international relations. But English had the courage to follow the
facts where they lead and the skill to convince the Foreign Affairs editors to take the chance on
allowing readers to see some unpopular truths even though the editors now will probably come under
attack themselves as "Kremlin stooges."
The overriding thesis is summed up at the start of the essay: "For 25 years, Republicans and Democrats
have acted in ways that look much the same to Moscow. Washington has pursued policies that have ignored
Russian interests (and sometimes international law as well) in order to encircle Moscow with military
alliances and trade blocs conducive to U.S. interests. It is no wonder that Russia pushes back. The
wonder is that the U.S. policy elite doesn't get this, even as foreign-affairs neophyte Trump apparently
does."
English's article goes back to the fall of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s and explains why
and how U.S. policy toward Russia was wrong and wrong again. He debunks the notion that Boris Yeltsin
brought in a democratic age, which Vladimir Putin undid after coming to power.
English explains how the U.S. meddled in Russian domestic politics in the mid-1990s to falsify
election results and ensure Yeltsin's continuation in office despite his unpopularity for bringing
on an economic Depression that average Russians remember bitterly to this day. That was a time when
the vast majority of Russians equated democracy with "shitocracy."
English describes how the Russian economic and political collapse in the 1990s was exploited by
the Clinton administration. He tells why currently fashionable U.S. critics of Putin are dead wrong
when they fail to acknowledge Putin's achievements in restructuring the economy, tax collection,
governance, improvements in public health and more which account for his spectacular popularity ratings
today.
English details all the errors and stupidities of the Obama administration in its handling of
Russia and Putin, faulting President Obama and Secretary of State (and later presidential candidate)
Hillary Clinton for all of their provocative and insensitive words and deeds. What we see in U.S.
policy, as described by English, is the application of double standards, a prosecutorial stance towards
Russia, and outrageous lies about the country and its leadership foisted on the American public.
Then English takes on directly all of the paranoia over Russia's alleged challenge to Western
democratic processes. He calls attention instead to how U.S. foreign policy and the European Union's
own policies in the new Member States and candidate Member States have created all the conditions
for a populist revolt by buying off local elites and subjecting the broad populace in these countries
to pauperization.
English concludes his essay with a call to give détente with Putin and Russia a chance.
Who Is Robert English?
English's Wikipedia entry and biographical data provided on his University of Southern California
web pages make it clear that he has quality academic credentials: Master of Public Administration
and PhD. in politics from the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton
University. He also has a solid collection of scholarly publications to his credit as author or co-editor
with major names in the field of Russian-Soviet intellectual history.
Red Square in Moscow with a winter festival to the left and the Kremlin to the right. (Photo by
Robert Parry)
He spent six years doing studies for U.S. intelligence and defense: 1982–1986 at the Department
of Defense and 1986-88 at the U.S. Committee for National Security. And he has administrative experience
as the Director of the USC School of International Relations.
Professor English is not without his political ambitions. During the 2016 presidential election
campaign, he tried to secure a position as foreign policy adviser to Democratic hopeful Sen. Bernie
Sanders. In pursuit of this effort, English had the backing of progressives at The Nation,
which in February 2016 published an article of his entitled "Bernie Sanders, the Foreign Policy
Realist of 2016."
English's objective was to demonstrate how wrong many people were to see in Sanders a visionary
utopian incapable of defending America's strategic interests. Amid the praise of Sanders in this
article, English asserts that Sanders is as firm on Russia as Hillary Clinton.
By the end of the campaign, however, several tenacious neocons had attached themselves to Sanders's
inner circle and English departed. So, one might size up English as just one more opportunistic academic
who will do whatever it takes to land a top job in Washington.
While there is nothing new in such "flexibility," there is also nothing necessarily offensive
in it. From the times of Machiavelli if not earlier, intellectuals have tended to be guns for hire.
The first open question is how skilled they are in managing their sponsors as well as in managing
their readers in the public. But there is also a political realism in such behavior, advancing a
politician who might be a far better leader than the alternatives while blunting the attack lines
that might be deployed against him or her.
Then, there are times, such as the article for Foreign Affairs, when an academic may be speaking
for his own analysis of an important situation whatever the political costs or benefits. Sources
who have long been close to English assure me that the points in his latest article match his true
beliefs.
The Politics of Geopolitics
Yet, it is one thing to have a courageous author and knowledgeable scholar. It is quite another
to find a publisher willing to take the heat for presenting views that venture outside the mainstream
Establishment. In that sense, it is stunning that Foreign Affairs chose to publish English and let
him destroy the groupthink that has dominated the magazine and the elite foreign policy circles for
years.
President Barack Obama meets with President Vladimir Putin of Russia on the sidelines of the G20
Summit at Regnum Carya Resort in Antalya, Turkey, Sunday, Nov. 15, 2015. National Security Advisor
Susan E. Rice listens at left. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)
The only previous exception to the magazine's lockstep was an article by University of Chicago
professor John Mearsheimer entitled "Why the Ukraine Crisis is the West's Fault" published in September
2014. That essay shot holes in Official Washington's recounting of the events leading up to the Russian
annexation of Crimea and intervention in the Donbass.
It was a shock to many of America's leading foreign policy insiders who, in the next issue, rallied
like a collection of white cells to attack the invasive thinking. But there were some Foreign Affairs
readers – about one-third of the commenters – who voiced agreement with Mearsheimer's arguments.
But that was a one-time affair. Mearsheimer appears to have been tolerated because he was one of
the few remaining exponents of the Realist School in the United States. But he was not a Russia specialist.
Foreign Affairs may have turned to Robert English because the editors, as insider-insiders, found
themselves on the outside of the Trump administration looking in. The magazine's 250,000 subscribers,
which include readers from across the globe, expect Foreign Affairs to have some lines into the corridors
of power.
In that regard, the magazine has been carrying water for the State Department since the days of
the Cold War. For instance, in the spring issue of 2007, the magazine published a cooked-up
article signed by Ukrainian politician Yuliya Tymoshenko on why the West must contain Russia,
a direct response to Putin's
famous Munich
speech in which he accused the United States of destabilizing the world through the Iraq War
and other policies.
Anticipating Hillary Clinton's expected election, Foreign Affairs' editors did not hedge their
bets in 2016. They sided with the former Secretary of State and hurled rhetorical bricks at Donald
Trump. In their September issue, they compared him to a tin-pot populist dictator in South America.
Thus, they found themselves cut off after Trump's surprising victory. For the first time in many
years in the opening issue of the New Year following a U.S. presidential election, the magazine did
not feature an interview with the incoming Secretary of State or some other cabinet member.
Though Official Washington's anti-Russian frenzy seems to be reaching a crescendo on Capitol Hill
with strident hearings on alleged Russian meddling in the presidential election, the underlying reality
is that the neocons are descending into a fury over their sudden loss of power.
The hysteria was highlighted when neocon Sen. John McCain lashed out at Sen. Rand Paul after the
libertarian senator objected to special consideration for McCain's resolution supporting Montenegro's
entrance into NATO. In a stunning breach of Senate protocol, a livid McCain accused Paul of "working
for Vladimir Putin."
Meanwhile, some Democratic leaders have begun
cautioning their anti-Trump followers not to expect too much from congressional investigations
into the supposed Trump-Russia collusion on the election.
In publishing Robert English's essay challenging much of the anti-Russian groupthink that has
dominated Western geopolitics over the past few years, Foreign Affairs may be finally bending to
the recognition that it is risking its credibility if it continues to put all its eggs in the we-hate-Russia
basket.
That hedging of its bets may be a case of self-interest, but it also may be an optimistic sign
that the martyred Fifteenth Century Catholic Church reformer Jan Hus was right when he maintained
that eventually the truth will prevail.
Gilbert Doctorow is a Brussels-based political analyst. His latest book, Does Russia Have
a Future? was published in August 2015.
"... History will look back at us with the same wonder that we look back on the mad excesses of certain nations founded in devotion to extreme, almost other-worldly, ideologies of the last century. ..."
"... Apparently the slashing of health benefits for the unfortunate is not severe enough in the proposed Trump/Ryan plan. Our GOP house neo-liberals are enthusiastic to unleash the wonders of the cure-all deregulated market on the American public, again. Like a dog returns to its vomit. ..."
"The problem of the last three decades is not the 'vicissitudes of the marketplace,' but rather
deliberate actions by the government to redistribute income from the rest of us to the one percent.
This pattern of government action shows up in all areas of government policy."
Dean Baker
"When the modern corporation acquires power over markets, power in the community, power over
the state and power over belief, it is a political instrument, different in degree but not in
kind from the state itself. To hold otherwise - to deny the political character of the modern
corporation - is not merely to avoid the reality.
It is to disguise the reality. The victims of that disguise are those we instruct in error."
John Kenneth Galbraith
And unfortunately the working class victims of that disguise are going to be receiving the consequences
of their folly, and then some.
Secure in their monopolies and key positions with regard to reform and the law, the corporations
are further acquiring access to the protections of the rights of individuals as well, it appears,
at least according to Citizens United .
Maybe our leaders and their self-proclaimed technocrats will finally do the right thing. I personally
doubt it, except that if they do it will probably be by accident.
More likely, the right thing will eventually come about the old-fashioned way- under the duress
of a crisis, and the growing protests of the much neglected and long suffering.
History will look back at us with the same wonder that we look back on the mad excesses of certain
nations founded in devotion to extreme, almost other-worldly, ideologies of the last century.
... ... ...
Apparently the slashing of health benefits for the unfortunate is not severe enough in the
proposed Trump/Ryan plan. Our GOP house neo-liberals are enthusiastic to unleash the wonders of the
cure-all deregulated market on the American public, again. Like a dog returns to its vomit.
Better if they start breaking up corporate health monopolies and embrace real reform at the sources
of the soaring costs. The US pays far, far too much for drugs and healthcare, and deregulating the
markets is not the solution. We do have the example of the rest of the developed world for what to
do about this. It is called 'single payer.'
But players keep on playing. And politicians and their enablers in the professions will not see
what their big money donors do not wish them to see. And that is one of their few bipartisan efforts.
Might one suggest that our political animals stop trying to do all the reforming and cost controls
bottom up, while applying the stimulus top down? That approach they have been flogging to no avail
for about thirty years is a recipe for a dying middle class.
Here is a short video from the Bernie Sanders WV town hall that shows The Face of American Desperation.
By the way, the governor of West Virginia is a Democrat. He wasn't there.
"... "There's been a real evolution," Philippe Renault-Guillemet, the retired head of a small manufacturing company, said as he handed out National Front leaflets in the market on a recent day. "A few years ago, they would insult us. It's changed ..."
"... With a month to go, the signs are mixed. Many voters, particularly affluent ones, at markets here and farther up the coast betray a traditional distaste for the far-right party. Yet others once repelled by a party with a heritage rooted in France's darkest political traditions - anti-Semitism, xenophobia and a penchant for the fist - are considering it. ..."
"... French politics are particularly volatile this election season. Traditional power centers - the governing Socialists and the center-right Republicans - are in turmoil. Ms. Le Pen's chief rival, Emmanuel Macron, is a youthful and untested politician running at the head of a new party. ..."
"... Those uncertainties - and a nagging sense that mainstream parties have failed to offer solutions to France's economic anemia - have left the National Front better positioned than at any time in its 45-year history. ..."
"... Frédéric Boccaletti, the party's leader in the Var, knows exactly what needs to be done. Last week, he and his fellow National Front activists gathered for an evening planning session in La Seyne-Sur-Mer, a working-class port town devastated by the closing of centuries-old naval shipyards nearly 20 years ago. Mr. Boccaletti, who is running for Parliament, keeps his headquarters here. ..."
"... It is not unlike the strategy that President Trump applied in the United States by campaigning in blue-collar, Democratic strongholds in rust-belt Ohio. No one thought he stood a chance there. Yet he won. ..."
"... "Now, we've got doctors, lawyers, the liberal professions with us," Mr. Boccaletti said. "Since the election of Marine" to the party's presidency in 2011, "it's all changed. ..."
"... The backlash against neoliberal globalization creates very strange alliances indeed. That was already visible during the last Presidential elections. When a considerable part of lower middle class professionals (including women) voted against Hillary. ..."
"... As Fred noted today (Why did so many white women vote for Donald Trump http://for.tn/2f51y7s ) there were many Trump supporters among white women with the college degree, for which Democrats identity politics prescribed voting for Hillary. ..."
"... I think this tendency might only became stronger in the next elections: neoliberal globalization is now viewed as something detrimental to the country future and current economic prosperity by many, usually not allied, segments of population. ..."
As French Election Nears, Le Pen Targets Voters Her Party Once Repelled
By ADAM NOSSITER
MARCH 19, 2017
SANARY-SUR-MER, France - The National Front's leafleteers are no longer spat upon. Its local
candidate's headquarters sit defiantly in a fraying Muslim neighborhood. And last week, Marine
Le Pen, the party's leader, packed thousands into a steamy meeting hall nearby for a pugnacious
speech mocking "the system" and vowing victory in this spring's French presidential election.
"There's been a real evolution," Philippe Renault-Guillemet, the retired head of a small
manufacturing company, said as he handed out National Front leaflets in the market on a recent
day. "A few years ago, they would insult us. It's changed."
It has long been accepted wisdom that Ms. Le Pen and her far-right party can make it through
the first round of the presidential voting on April 23, when she and four other candidates will
be on the ballot, but that she will never capture the majority needed to win in a runoff in May.
But a visit to this southeastern National Front stronghold suggests that Ms. Le Pen may be
succeeding in broadening her appeal to the point where a victory is more plausible, even if the
odds are still stacked against her.
With a month to go, the signs are mixed. Many voters, particularly affluent ones, at markets
here and farther up the coast betray a traditional distaste for the far-right party. Yet others
once repelled by a party with a heritage rooted in France's darkest political traditions - anti-Semitism,
xenophobia and a penchant for the fist - are considering it.
"I've said several times I would do it, but I've never had the courage," Christian Pignol,
a vendor of plants and vegetables at the Bandol market, said about voting for the National Front.
"This time may be the good one."
"It's the fear of the unknown," he continued, as several fellow vendors nodded. "People would
like to try it, but they are afraid. But maybe it's the solution. We've tried everything for 30,
40 years. We'd like to try it, but we're also afraid."
French politics are particularly volatile this election season. Traditional power centers
- the governing Socialists and the center-right Republicans - are in turmoil. Ms. Le Pen's chief
rival, Emmanuel Macron, is a youthful and untested politician running at the head of a new party.
Those uncertainties - and a nagging sense that mainstream parties have failed to offer
solutions to France's economic anemia - have left the National Front better positioned than at
any time in its 45-year history.
But if it is to win nationally, the party must do much better than even the 49 percent support
it won in this conservative Var department, home to three National Front mayors, in elections
in 2015. More critically, it must turn once-hostile areas of the country in Ms. Le Pen's favor
and attract new kinds of voters - professionals and the upper and middle classes. Political analysts
are skeptical.
Frédéric Boccaletti, the party's leader in the Var, knows exactly what needs to be done.
Last week, he and his fellow National Front activists gathered for an evening planning session
in La Seyne-Sur-Mer, a working-class port town devastated by the closing of centuries-old naval
shipyards nearly 20 years ago. Mr. Boccaletti, who is running for Parliament, keeps his headquarters
here.
"I'm telling you, you've got to go to the difficult neighborhoods - it's not what you think,"
Mr. Boccaletti told them, laughing slyly. "Our work has got to be in the areas that have resisted
us most" - meaning the coast's more affluent areas.
It is not unlike the strategy that President Trump applied in the United States by campaigning
in blue-collar, Democratic strongholds in rust-belt Ohio. No one thought he stood a chance there.
Yet he won.
"Now, we've got doctors, lawyers, the liberal professions with us," Mr. Boccaletti said.
"Since the election of Marine" to the party's presidency in 2011, "it's all changed."
The backlash against neoliberal globalization creates very strange alliances indeed. That
was already visible during the last Presidential elections. When a considerable part of lower
middle class professionals (including women) voted against Hillary.
As Fred noted today (Why did so many white women vote for Donald Trump
http://for.tn/2f51y7s ) there were many Trump
supporters among white women with the college degree, for which Democrats identity politics prescribed
voting for Hillary.
I think this tendency might only became stronger in the next elections: neoliberal globalization
is now viewed as something detrimental to the country future and current economic prosperity by
many, usually not allied, segments of population.
"... [Arzheimer] found that the stronger the welfare state, the bigger the gains for far-right parties among the working class. The top third of countries - that is, the ones with the largest welfare states - saw roughly four times the rate of far-right support among the working class as the countries in the bottom third did. ..."
"... Welfare state policies are the link between economic crisis, unemployment and far right party support. Welfare cuts have increased the insecurity of the European middle classes that are being hit by the economic crisis. This matters because of the implications it has for policy. By reversing austerity, which results in welfare cuts and increases insecurity, we can limit the appeal of right-wing extremism. ..."
"... The typical model for how social democratic politics would defeat far-right reactionaries rests on the belief that "universal benefits enable a solidarity mindset" while "means-tested [benefits] enable resentment," as Ryan Cooper of The Week has argued. So one would expect that citizens living under social democratic welfare regimes would be more sympathetic to immigrants than those living under Christian democratic or liberal welfare regimes would. ..."
"... This suggests that less diverging lifestyles between the rich and the poor lead to more understanding towards (potential) immigrant welfare recipients among majority populations. Put differently, in more unequal societies the rich are more likely to consider minority groups deviant, and therefore less entitled to welfare. [Emphasis added] ..."
"... A 2014 study by Antonio Martín-Artiles, a professor at the Autonomous University of Barcelona, and Guglielmo Meardi, a professor at the University of Warwick, meanwhile, found that "social protection expenditure and unemployment benefits are correlated with a reduction in social inequality and the risk of poverty, ultimately contributing to the formation of attitudes favourable to immigration." ..."
Why Zack Beauchamp's piece arguing otherwise is wrong
Zack Beauchamp of Vox has written an article entitled "No
easy answers: why left-wing economics is not the answer to
right-wing populism." In this piece, he argues that "tacking
to the left on economics won't give Democrats a silver bullet
to use against the racial resentment powering Trump's success
[and] could actually wind up [making] Trump [stronger.]" Matt
Bruenig has written about the piece's odd moral implications;
I want to discuss some of the evidence Beauchamp provides,
and why I don't find it all that convincing.
There's plenty of evidence suggesting strong welfare
states can blunt the far-right
"A legion of commentators and politicians," Beauchamp
writes, "have argued that center-left parties must shift
further to the left in order to fight off right-wing
populists such as [Donald] Trump and France's Marine Le Pen."
Supporters of these leaders[, these commentators and
politicians] argue, are motivated by a sense of economic
insecurity in an increasingly unequal world; promise them a
stronger welfare state, one better equipped to address their
fundamental needs, and they will flock to the left.
Against these claims, Beauchamp contends that:
[A] lot of data suggests that countries with more robust
welfare states tend to have stronger far-right movements.
Providing white voters with higher levels of economic
security does not tamp down their anxieties about race and
immigration - or, more precisely, it doesn't do it powerfully
enough. For some, it frees them to worry less about what it's
in their wallet and more about who may be moving into their
neighborhoods or competing with them for jobs.
His main evidence for this claim consists of a study from
Kai Arzheimer, a professor at the University of Mainz,
looking at "data on working-class voters, the traditional
base of social democratic parties, between 1980 and 2002."
[Arzheimer] found that the stronger the welfare state, the
bigger the gains for far-right parties among the working
class. The top third of countries - that is, the ones with
the largest welfare states - saw roughly four times the rate
of far-right support among the working class as the countries
in the bottom third did.
There are plenty that conclude just the opposite. A 2003
study by Duane Swank of Marquette University and Hans-Georg
Betz of the University of Zurich, for example, based on an
"empirical analysis of national elections in 16 European
[countries] from 1981 to 1998" found that "the universal
welfare state directly depresse[d] the vote for radical
right-wing populist parties." Furthermore, a 2015 study by
Daphne Halikiopoulou and Tim Vlandas of the University of
Reading looking at the link between unemployment benefit
levels and far-right party success in the 2014 European
parliament elections found that across countries
"[u]nemployment benefits have a strongly negative and
statistically significant association with far-right
support." Based off of this, they write in The Huffington
Post that:
Welfare state policies are the link between economic
crisis, unemployment and far right party support. Welfare
cuts have increased the insecurity of the European middle
classes that are being hit by the economic crisis. This
matters because of the implications it has for policy. By
reversing austerity, which results in welfare cuts and
increases insecurity, we can limit the appeal of right-wing
extremism.
Anti-immigrant sentiment and the welfare state
Anti-immigrant sentiment (which Beauchamp argues is the
true driver of far-right support), has also been shown to be
ameliorated by stronger welfare states.
In his 1990 book The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism,
Gřsta Esping-Andersen, a professor at Pompeu Fabra University
in Spain, divided the welfare states of developed countries
into three types: liberal, Christian democratic, and social
democratic. The liberal category ("liberal" being used in the
classical, European sense) includes the US, as well as
Britain and Australia (among others)- countries that have
relatively small and highly targeted welfare states. The
Christian democratic category, on the other hand, is typified
by the welfare regimes that exist in Germany and Austria.
Falling in the middle between liberal type welfare states and
social democratic type welfare states in generosity, the
Christian democratic welfare state tends to make less use of
means-tested benefits than the liberal welfare state does,
but places more emphasis on preserving traditional family
structures through benefit design than the social democratic
welfare state tends to. Lastly, there is the social
democratic category, typified by the welfare regimes that
exist in the Nordic countries, which is the most generous and
universalistic of the three welfare regimes.
The typical model for how social democratic politics would
defeat far-right reactionaries rests on the belief that
"universal benefits enable a solidarity mindset" while
"means-tested [benefits] enable resentment," as Ryan Cooper
of The Week has argued. So one would expect that citizens
living under social democratic welfare regimes would be more
sympathetic to immigrants than those living under Christian
democratic or liberal welfare regimes would.
And indeed, a study by Jeroen Van Der Waal and Willem De
Koster of Erasmus University Rotterdam and Wim Van Oorschot
of KU Leuven finds that the "native[-born] populations of
liberal and [Christian democratic] welfare regimes are more
reluctant to entitle immigrants to welfare than those living
under social-democratic regimes." They conclude that the
reason why "the native populations in social-democratic
welfare regimes consider immigrants most entitled to welfare
[is] because of the low levels of income inequality" as
"higher levels of income inequality go hand in hand with
higher levels of welfare chauvinism." They then continue:
This suggests that less diverging lifestyles between the
rich and the poor lead to more understanding towards
(potential) immigrant welfare recipients among majority
populations. Put differently, in more unequal societies the
rich are more likely to consider minority groups deviant, and
therefore less entitled to welfare. [Emphasis added]
This point is especially significant given Beauchamp's
accurate observation that "[r]ight-wing populists typically
have gotten their best results in wealthier areas of
countries - that is, with voters who experience the least
amounts of economic insecurity."
"Our results" Van Der Waal, De Koster, and Van Oorschot
write, "indicate that strengthening policies and institutions
aimed at reducing income inequality can be utilized" to "help
in fighting" against "exclusionary sentiments".
A 2014 study by Antonio Martín-Artiles, a professor at the
Autonomous University of Barcelona, and Guglielmo Meardi, a
professor at the University of Warwick, meanwhile, found that
"social protection expenditure and unemployment benefits are
correlated with a reduction in social inequality and the risk
of poverty, ultimately contributing to the formation of
attitudes favourable to immigration."
Additionally, Markus Crepaz and Regan Damron of the
University of Georgia found in 2012 that "the more
comprehensive the welfare state is, the more tolerant
native[-born citizens] are of immigrants," while a 2009 study
by Xavier Escandell of the University of Iowa and Alin
Ceobanu of the University of Florida, looking at
"Anti-immigrant Sentiment and Welfare State Regimes in
Europe" found "mean levels of anti-immigrant sentiment" to be
"lower in those countries with high levels of public spending
in social protection programs." They therefore conclude that
"investments in social protection systems seem to have a
strong payoff when it comes to reducing prejudice towards
immigrants."
The Great Recession clearly gave rise to right-wing
populism
by Ryan Cooper
at's to blame for the resurgence of racist right-wing
populism? Since the election of President Trump, the American
left has been consumed with this question, with leftists
blaming the failures of neoliberal economic policy and
liberals leaning more on cultural explanations.
Over at Vox, Zack Beauchamp has an entry in this debate on
the latter side. He argues that left-wing economic policy
actually causes people to be more racist, largely because
welfare states tend to disproportionately benefit poor
minorities and immigrants, and hence raise resentment among
whites. But his account of economics is jarringly incomplete
- in particular, skipping almost entirely over the financial
collapse of 2008, the ensuing plague of austerity, and the
ongoing eurozone currency crisis. And this provides by far
the strongest evidence for the leftist case.
Let's review. In 2008, the whole world was convulsed by a
financial crisis, leading to mass unemployment in the United
States and Europe. The initial response was fairly similar in
both places, featuring immense public bailouts of ailing
banks. But after that, there was a sharp divergence: America
generally tried large fiscal and monetary stimulus, while
Europe did the opposite with spending cuts and tax increases
- that is, austerity - and tight money.
Though the U.S. stimulus was inadequate, the worst was
avoided, and economic conditions improved slowly, surpassing
its pre-crisis GDP by 2011. In Europe - and especially within
the eurozone, where the common currency became a gold
standard-esque economic straitjacket - the result was
disaster. So much austerity was forced on debtor nations that
they fell into full-blown depression. Greece's economy is
worse than that of America in the 1930s - and the eurozone as
a whole only matched its pre-crisis GDP in April of last
year.
Mass unemployment is electoral poison, and about every
party that happened to be holding power during the worst of
it - generally either center-right (Fianna Fáil in Ireland,
People of Freedom in Italy) or center-left (the Socialist
Party in France, the Democrats in America) - suffered serious
setbacks in subsequent elections. Radical parties on both the
left and right gained as establishment parties were badly
discredited. New fascist parties (Golden Dawn in Greece)
sprung to prominence, and older fascist-lite ones (National
Front in France) gained strength.
But Beauchamp barely even references this history,
restricting his argument almost entirely to welfare policy.
He assembles reasonably convincing evidence and expert
testimony to the effect that welfare states increase racist
resentment in both the United States and Europe. But he does
not mention mass unemployment, austerity, or the eurozone.
These are yawning absences in an article purporting to deal
with the social effects of economic policy.
Welfare is one chapter of leftist economic policy, but the
first and most important one is full employment. That is the
major route by which leftist economic policy can deflate
right-wing nativism. Center-left parties often claim to
support full employment, but they have manifestly failed to
do so over the last eight years, and arguably long before
that. (President Obama was plumping for austerity in February
of 2010, with unemployment at 9.8 percent.) Fascists organize
best in the chaos and misery of depression, as people lose
faith in traditional solutions and root around for
scapegoats. Is it really a coincidence that the Nazi
electoral high tide came at a time of nearly 30 percent
unemployment?
Now, politics is a chaotic process. It takes a lot of
ideological spadework to convince people that austerity is
the problem, and a lot of time and effort to build a
political coalition dedicated to an anti-austerity platform.
And sometimes it doesn't work well, as Beauchamp's detailed
discussion of the U.K. Labour Party's difficulties since
losing the elections of 2015 (on a pro-austerity platform,
mind you). But savage infighting within the party is likely
just as much to blame for Labour's collapse as leader Jeremy
Corbyn's left-wing views. Sometimes political coalitions
fracture over personality and internal struggles for
dominance.
What's more, Beauchamp doesn't mention other cases where
organizing has been more successful, such as Greece or Spain,
where parties that didn't even exist before the crisis have
leaped to the front rank of politics. In Greece, the
center-left PASOK has all but ceased to exist, while the
left-wing Syriza actually won in 2015 very obviously because
of their anti-austerity platform (the fact that they later
were prevented from implementing it at economic knifepoint by
eurozone elites notwithstanding). Now, the fascists are the
only credible anti-austerity party left in that beleaguered
country.
It's perfectly plausible - obvious even - to say that
immigration or more welfare can lead to a racist backlash,
especially if you means-test benefit policy to restrict it to
disproportionately minority poor people only, as American
liberals tend to do. But it simply beggars belief to argue
that running on full employment and an end to austerity in a
time of depression is a guaranteed loser.
"... Economist James K. Galbraith disputes these claims of the benefit of comparative advantage. He states that "free trade has attained the status of a god" and that ". . . none of the world's most successful trading regions, including Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and now mainland China, reached their current status by adopting neoliberal trading rules." He argues that ". . . comparative advantage is based upon the concept of constant returns: the idea that you can double or triple the output of any good simply by doubling or tripling the inputs. But this is not generally the case. For manufactured products, increasing returns, learning, and technical change are the rule, not the exception; the cost of production falls with experience. With increasing returns, the lowest cost will be incurred by the country that starts earliest and moves fastest on any particular line. Potential competitors have to protect their own industries if they wish them to survive long enough to achieve competitive scale."[42] ..."
"... Galbraith, as always, is very succinct and readable. I well remember sitting in an economics lecture in the 1980's when the Professor mentioned Galbraith and described him as with distain someone 'who's ideas were more popular with the public than with economists'. The snigger of agreement that ran around the students in the hall made me realise just how ingrained the ideology of economics was as I'm pretty sure I was the only one of the students who'd actually read any Galbraith. ..."
"... I'd also recommend Ha-Joon Chang as someone who is very readable on the topic of the many weaknesses of conventional ideas on comparative advantage. ..."
"... "The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." ..."
"... I've noticed many experts are especially bad at verbosity. Maybe they think somehow that quantity of words is a form of potency. Maybe that's it. Also individuals with a grievance who write posts about their grievance. I know when I have a grievance it's hard to shut up. I'm just being honest. I'll keep rambling and rambling, repeating myelf and fulminating. Thankfully I know better than to write like that. ..."
"... Thing 13: Making rich people richer doesn't make the rest of us richer. Trickle down economics doesn't work because wealth doesn't trickle down. It trickles up, which is why the rich are the rich in the first place ..."
"... Thing 23: Good economic policy does not require good economists. Most of the really important economic issues, the ones that decide whether nations sink or swim, are within the intellectual reach of intelligent non-economists. Academic Economics with a capital "E" has remarkably little to say about the things that really matter. Concerned citizens need to stop being intimidated by the experts here. ..."
"... Although Ha Joon Chang is an excellent economist, I would also strongly recommend Michael Hudson, Michael Perelman, Steve Keen and E. Ray Canterbery - they are really great, along with Samir Amin of Senegal. ..."
"... A major issue is that those incapable politicians do rely upon experts, but they have consistently selected experts not on their track record (such as how good economists were at predicting the evolution of the economy, or how good political scientists were at predicting the evolution of communist or Arab societies), but on whether pronouncements of experts corresponded to their ideological preconceptions and justified their intended policies. ..."
"... A bit like rejecting physicians' diagnoses when they do not suit you and preferring the cure of a quack. ..."
"... This is not restricted to economists, it pervasive in science in general. I can't remember how many times I got a paper for peer review where I couldn't figure out what the person was trying to say because they layered the jargon ten levels deep. ..."
"... I think it is as simple as: if you create something that justifies the behaviors of the rich and powerful, you have something to sell and willing buyers. If you create something that delegitimizes the behaviors of the rich and powerful, you not only have no willing patrons but you have made powerful enemies. ..."
"... It is the law of supply and demand for pretentious bullshit. ..."
"... Leave workers exposed to starvation long enough and they'll work for next- to-nothing. The solution to James O'Connor's Fiscal Crisis of the State is to clean house in a big way, a very big way. Put everyone out on the street and start all over again. (Everyone but the 1% of course.) ..."
"... It's Andrew Mellon's advice for getting out of the Depression: "liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate farmers, liquidate real estate it will purge the rottenness out of the system. High costs of living and high living will come down. People will work harder, live a more moral life. Values will be adjusted, and enterprising people will pick up from less competent people." ..."
"... The Reserve Army of Labor saves the Capitalist Day, once again. (Except for the little problem that the 1% won't accept their own liquidation, so Goldman Sachs and the rest must be exempted from the purging–which means that the purging can't work.) ..."
"... Not too long before he died, Paul Samuelson said: "Maybe I was wrong on the subject of jobs offshoring." (I.e., maybe offshoring all the jobs and dismantling the US economy wasn't so intelligent after all!) ..."
"... C. Wright Mills called them "crackpot realists." ..."
"... It's all a part and parcel of the meritocracy. If you don't have a degree in Econ, your opinion doesn't matter about why your job moved to China. If you don't have a degree in Urban Planning, you don't get to comment on how the city wants to tear down the park and put up condos. ..."
"... Their advice helped lead to this 2008 Financial Crisis. The promise of neoliberalism was faster growth. It did not happen. Quite the opposite. It gave the rich intellectual cover to loot society. That"s what this was always about. ..."
"... Then there's the matter of the Iraq War. Another example. Many foreign policy "experts", particularly affiliated with the neoconservative assured the American people that invading Iraq would be easy to do and lead to lots of long term benefits. Others insisted, despite evidence to the contrary, that Saddam was developing weapons of mass destruction. Now look at where we are. No WMDs, long and cost war, with no long-term solutions. Many of said "experts" later endorsed Clinton. ..."
"... We do not need pro-Establishment experts who sell themselves out to enrich themselves. We need experts who act in the public interest. ..."
First, to explain our basic concepts and most important insights in plain English. Famously,
Paul Samuelson, the founder of modern macroeconomics, was asked whether economics told us anything
that was true but not obvious. It took him a couple of years, but eventually he gave an excellent
and topical example – simply the theory of comparative advantage.
Similarly, I often say that the most useful thing I did in my 6 years as Chief Economist at
DWP was to explain the lump of labour fallacy – that there isn't a fixed number of jobs in the
economy, and increased immigration or more women working adds to both labour demand and labour
supply – to six successive Secretaries of State. So that's the first.
Second is to call bullshit.
O.K. I call bullshit. What Portes explained "to six successive Secretaries of State" was
a figment of the imagination of a late 18th century Lancashire magistrate, a self-styled "
friend
to the poor " who couldn't understand why poor people got so upset about having their wages cut
or losing their jobs - to the extent they would go around throwing rocks through windows, breaking
machines and burning down factories - when it was obvious to him that it was all for the best
and in the long run we would all be better off or else dead.
I call bullshit because what Portes explained to six successive Secretaries of State was
simply the return of the repressed - the obverse of "Say's Law" (which was neither Say's nor a Law)
that "supply creates its own demand," which John Maynard Keynes demolished in The General Theory
of Employment, Interest and Money and that John Kenneth Galbraith subsequently declared "
sank without trace " in the wake of Keynes's demolition of it.
I call bullshit because when Paul Samuelson resurrected the defunct fallacy claim that
Portes explained to six successive Secretaries of State, he did so on the condition that governments
pursued the sorts of "Keynesian" job-creating policies that the discredited principle of "supply
creates its own demand" insisted were both unnecessary and counter-productive.
But the lump of labor argument implies that there is only so much useful remunerative work
to be done in any economic system, and that is indeed a fallacy . If proper and sound
monetary, fiscal, and pricing policies are being vigorously promulgated , we need not resign
ourselves to mass unemployment. And although technological unemployment is not to be shrugged
off lightly, its optimal solution lies in offsetting policies that create adequate job
opportunities and new skills.
[Incidentally, as Robert Schiller has noted, the promised prevention of mass unemployment by vigorous
policy intervention did not imply the preservation of wage levels. Schiller cited the following passage
from the Samuelson textbook, " a decrease in the demand for a particular kind of labor because of
technological shifts in an industry can he adapted to - lower relative wages and migration of labor
and capital will eventually provide new jobs for the displaced workers."]
I call bullshit because what Portes explained to six successive Secretaries of State was
not even Paul Samuelson's policy-animated zombie lump-of-labour fallacy but a supply-side, anti-inflationary
retrofit cobbled together by Richard Layard and associates and touted by Tony Blair and Gerhard Schroeder
as the Third Way " new supply-side
agenda for the left. " Central to that agenda were tax cuts to promote economic growth and
"active labour market policies" to foster non-inflationary expansion of employment by making conditions
more "flexible" and lower-waged:
Part-time work and low-paid work are better than no work because they ease the transition from
unemployment to jobs.
Encourage employers to offer 'entry' jobs to the labour market by lowering the burden of tax
and social security contributions on low-paid jobs.
Adjustment will be the easier, the more labour and product markets are working properly. Barriers
to employment in relatively low productivity sectors need to be lowered if employees displaced
by the productivity gains that are an inherent feature of structural change are to find jobs elsewhere.
The labour market needs a low-wage sector in order to make low-skill jobs available.
I call bullshit because in defending the outcomes of supply-side labour policies, Portes soft-pedaled
the stated low-wage objectives of the Third Way agenda. In a
London Review of Books review, Portes admitted that "it may drive down wages for the low-skilled,
but the effect is small compared to that of other factors (technological change, the national minimum
wage and so on)." In the Third Way supply-side agenda, however, a low-wage sector was promoted as
a desirable feature - making more low-skill jobs available - not a trivial bug to be brushed aside.
In other words, in "driving down wages for the low skilled" the policy was achieving exactly what
it was intended to but Portes was "too discreet" to admit that was the stated objectives of the policy.
Economist James K. Galbraith disputes these claims of the benefit of comparative advantage.
He states that "free trade has attained the status of a god" and that ". . . none of the world's
most successful trading regions, including Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and now mainland China, reached
their current status by adopting neoliberal trading rules." He argues that ". . . comparative
advantage is based upon the concept of constant returns: the idea that you can double or triple
the output of any good simply by doubling or tripling the inputs. But this is not generally
the case. For manufactured products, increasing returns, learning, and technical change are
the rule, not the exception; the cost of production falls with experience. With increasing
returns, the lowest cost will be incurred by the country that starts earliest and moves fastest
on any particular line. Potential competitors have to protect their own industries if they
wish them to survive long enough to achieve competitive scale."[42]
Galbraith also contends that "For most other commodities, where land or ecology places limits
on the expansion of capacity, the opposite condition – diminishing returns – is the rule. In
this situation, there can be no guarantee that an advantage of relative cost will persist once
specialization and the resultant expansion of production take place. A classic and tragic example,
studied by Erik Reinert, is transitional Mongolia, a vast grassland with a tiny population
and no industry that could compete on world markets. To the World Bank, Mongolia seemed a classic
case of comparative advantage in animal husbandry, which in Mongolia consisted of vast herds
of cattle, camels, sheep, and goats. Opening of industrial markets collapsed domestic industry,
while privatization of the herds prompted the herders to increase their size. This led, within
just a few years in the early 1990s, to overgrazing and permanent desertification of the subarctic
steppe and, with a slightly colder than normal winter, a massive famine in the herds."
Galbraith, as always, is very succinct and readable. I well remember sitting in an economics
lecture in the 1980's when the Professor mentioned Galbraith and described him as with distain
someone 'who's ideas were more popular with the public than with economists'. The snigger of agreement
that ran around the students in the hall made me realise just how ingrained the ideology of economics
was as I'm pretty sure I was the only one of the students who'd actually read any Galbraith.
I'd also recommend Ha-Joon Chang
as someone who is very readable on the topic of the many weaknesses of conventional ideas on comparative
advantage.
James K Galbraith is the son of the famous New Deal economist John K Galbraith.
John K G:
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy;
that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."
"In the case of economics there are no important propositions that cannot be stated in plain
language."
"I was an editor of Fortune under Henry Luce, the founder of Time, Inc., who was one of the
most ruthless editors that I have ever known, that anyone has ever known. Henry could look over
a sheet of copy and say, "This can go, and this can go, and this can go," and you would be left
with eight to ten lines which said everything that you had said in twenty lines before.
And I can still, to this day, not write a page without the feeling that Henry Luce is looking
over my shoulder and saying, "That can go." That illuminate one "problem" in our age of internet,
unlimited space to be verbose and no editors that de-obscure the writers "thoughts".
I wonder if this phenomenon – the desirability succinct communication -- was a holdover of
earlier times, when accurate communication made the difference between life and death. Settling
and developing a continent would place a high value on such purposeful human exchanges.
Today, we are awash in branding and marketing intended to maintain the current order. The language
is used to obfuscate, not clarify experience or goals.
An expert in any field that has the ability to communicate in a general , popular mode, is
of great value to society. Truth and understanding is its main function. Knowledge, or insight
that cannot be shared is more often than not just an excuse to hide methods of control and exploitation.
If citizens can't get the generalities right, the specifics will be impossible to comprehend.
Almost everything can go. I remember seeing a video of the photographer William Klein saying
a master photographer is remembered for just a handfull of images. Maybe 10 or 15, tops. Out of
probably at least 100,000 serious photos.
Of course what goes is necessary fertilizer for what doesn't go. You can't avoid it. Hahahah.
But you have to let it go anyway. Or your editor has to be williing to cut.
I've noticed lots and lots of posts here could be a lot better if the post author had said
the same thing in half as many words. Most wouldn't lose any persuasion, if they had any to begin
with. And they'd gain reader attention for the pruning.
I've noticed many experts are especially bad at verbosity. Maybe they think somehow that
quantity of words is a form of potency. Maybe that's it. Also individuals with a grievance who
write posts about their grievance. I know when I have a grievance it's hard to shut up. I'm just
being honest. I'll keep rambling and rambling, repeating myelf and fulminating. Thankfully I know
better than to write like that.
Having saidd all that, Say was rite. If the supply of labor increases, that createes its
own demand for jobs! How is that not completely obvious.
Huffington Post review has a synopsis of the Ha-Joon Change book.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ian-fletcher/a-review-of-ha-joon-chang_b_840417.html
My favorite: Thing 13: Making rich people richer doesn't make the rest of us richer. Trickle down economics
doesn't work because wealth doesn't trickle down. It trickles up, which is why the rich are the
rich in the first place
Thanks for the tip PK & thank you fd for the link to the review. I'm going to check this fellow
out; sounds like he has some interesting things to say. One of the "things" that may apply to
the above article:
Thing 23: Good economic policy does not require good economists. Most of the really important
economic issues, the ones that decide whether nations sink or swim, are within the intellectual
reach of intelligent non-economists. Academic Economics with a capital "E" has remarkably little
to say about the things that really matter. Concerned citizens need to stop being intimidated
by the experts here.
Although Ha Joon Chang is an excellent economist, I would also strongly recommend Michael
Hudson, Michael Perelman, Steve Keen and E. Ray Canterbery - they are really great, along with
Samir Amin of Senegal.
A word of warning from the UK. Denigrate experts too much and you end up like us with government
by people who really are inexpert. That is not an improvement.
Ha! I think an anti brexiter just rolled the white eye.
Strange that the awful things that the experts told us all would happen haven't and don't look
like happening since the people called bullshit on the EU mess. Britain with or without those
blokes in dresses up north will do just fine as they steer themselves out of the EU quagmire.
I'll take the people anytime anonymous – they have more common sense than the experts. Didn't
you read the article?
I remember back in the 1980s, when so-called "experts" were prattling about such nonsense as
. . .
"Computers don't make mistakes, humans make mistakes !"
Which was surely untrue as anyone with any real IT expertise back then would have explained
that 97% or more of hardware crashes generate software problems (for obvious reasons).
A major issue is that those incapable politicians do rely upon experts, but they have consistently
selected experts not on their track record (such as how good economists were at predicting the
evolution of the economy, or how good political scientists were at predicting the evolution of
communist or Arab societies), but on whether pronouncements of experts corresponded to their ideological
preconceptions and justified their intended policies.
A bit like rejecting physicians' diagnoses when they do not suit you and preferring the
cure of a quack.
This is not restricted to economists, it pervasive in science in general. I can't remember
how many times I got a paper for peer review where I couldn't figure out what the person was trying
to say because they layered the jargon ten levels deep. This is in chemistry, so things are
typically straightforward, no need for convoluted explanations and massaging of the data.
But people still do it because that's the culture that they've been educated in, a scientific
paper has to be high-brow, using obscure words and complicated sentences.
I think it is as simple as: if you create something that justifies the behaviors of the
rich and powerful, you have something to sell and willing buyers. If you create something that
delegitimizes the behaviors of the rich and powerful, you not only have no willing patrons but
you have made powerful enemies.
It is the law of supply and demand for pretentious bullshit.
So in the end, we wind up with Say's Law anyway, since creating a "low wages" sector is exactly
how Say's Law functions–supply creates its own demand because declining wages means investment
spending can increase, which keeps aggregate demand where it needs to be for full employment.
This is the solution, we are told, to Keynes "sticky prices." Jim Grant makes this very argument
in his book about the "short-lived" crisis of the early 1920s. Leave workers exposed to starvation
long enough and they'll work for next- to-nothing. The solution to James O'Connor's Fiscal Crisis
of the State is to clean house in a big way, a very big way. Put everyone out on the street and
start all over again. (Everyone but the 1% of course.)
It's Andrew Mellon's advice for getting out of the Depression: "liquidate labor, liquidate
stocks, liquidate farmers, liquidate real estate it will purge the rottenness out of the system.
High costs of living and high living will come down. People will work harder, live a more moral
life. Values will be adjusted, and enterprising people will pick up from less competent people."
The Reserve Army of Labor saves the Capitalist Day, once again. (Except for the little
problem that the 1% won't accept their own liquidation, so Goldman Sachs and the rest must be
exempted from the purging–which means that the purging can't work.)
Not too long before he died, Paul Samuelson said: "Maybe I was wrong on the subject of
jobs offshoring." (I.e., maybe offshoring all the jobs and dismantling the US economy wasn't so
intelligent after all!)
Just finished a book called, The Death of Expertise , by a professor of national security
(oh give me a frigging break!!!!), Tom Nichols.
Biggest pile of crapola I have ever read! The author was also yearning for the days when "experts"
were blindly followed!
It's all a part and parcel of the meritocracy. If you don't have a degree in Econ, your
opinion doesn't matter about why your job moved to China. If you don't have a degree in Urban
Planning, you don't get to comment on how the city wants to tear down the park and put up condos.
The answer is that said "experts" have failed the general public miserably.
Their advice helped lead to this 2008 Financial Crisis. The promise of neoliberalism was
faster growth. It did not happen. Quite the opposite. It gave the rich intellectual cover to loot
society. That"s what this was always about.
Now people wonder, why they don't trust "experts"?
Then there's the matter of the Iraq War. Another example. Many foreign policy "experts",
particularly affiliated with the neoconservative assured the American people that invading Iraq
would be easy to do and lead to lots of long term benefits. Others insisted, despite evidence
to the contrary, that Saddam was developing weapons of mass destruction. Now look at where we
are. No WMDs, long and cost war, with no long-term solutions. Many of said "experts" later endorsed
Clinton.
We do not need pro-Establishment experts who sell themselves out to enrich themselves.
We need experts who act in the public interest.
"... What are we to make of the chasm between effort expended and results achieved? Why on those increasingly infrequent occasions when Afghanistan attracts notice do half-truths and pettifoggery prevail, rather than hard-nosed assessments? Why has Washington ceased to care about the Afghan war? ..."
"... The answer, it seems to me, is this: As with budget deficits or cost overruns on weapons purchases, members of the national security apparatus - elected and appointed officials, senior military officers and other policy insiders - accept war as a normal condition. ..."
"... Once, the avoidance of war figured as a national priority. On those occasions when war proved unavoidable, the idea was to end the conflict as expeditiously as possible on favorable terms. ..."
"... These precepts no longer apply.... ..."
"... As of August 2016, the US has already appropriated, spent, or taken on obligations to spend more than $3.6 trillion in current dollars on the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Syria and on Homeland Security (2001 through fiscal year 2016). To this total should be added the approximately $65 billion in dedicated war spending the Department of Defense and State Department have requested for the next fiscal year, 2017, along with an additional nearly $32 billion requested for the Department of Homeland Security in 2017, and estimated spending on veterans in future years. When those are included, the total US budgetary cost of the wars reaches $4.79 trillion. ..."
"... When was the last time you saw a major economist...or a prominent Democrat complain about wasteful 'defense' spending? ..."
The Never-Ending War in Afghanistan
By ANDREW J. BACEVICH
BOSTON - Remember Afghanistan? The longest war in American history? Ever?
When it comes to wars, we Americans have a selective memory. The Afghan war, dating from October
2001, has earned the distinction of having been forgotten while still underway.
President Trump's Inaugural Address included no mention of Afghanistan. Nor did his remarks
last month at a joint session of Congress. For the new commander in chief, the war there qualifies
at best as an afterthought - assuming, that is, he has thought about it all.
A similar attitude prevails on Capitol Hill. Congressional oversight has become pro forma.
Last week Gen. Joseph Votel, the head of Central Command, told Congress that the Pentagon would
probably need more troops in Afghanistan, a statement that seemed to catch politicians and reporters
by surprise - but that was old news to anyone who's been paying attention to the conflict.
And that's the problem. It doesn't seem that anyone is. At the Senate hearings on the nomination
of James Mattis as defense secretary, Afghanistan barely came up.
To be fair, Mr. Mattis did acknowledge that "our country is still at war in Afghanistan," albeit
without assessing the war's prospects. In response to a comment by Senator John McCain, the Armed
Services Committee chairman, that "we are in serious trouble in Afghanistan," Mr. Mattis merely
allowed that the Taliban had "eroded some of our successes."
That was it. No further follow up. Other members of the committee, Republican and Democratic,
focused on more pressing concerns like seeking to induce Mr. Mattis to endorse military programs
and installations in their home state.
The military brass deserves some of the blame. Soon after Mr. Mattis's hearing, Gen. John Nicholson,
the latest in a long line of American commanders to have presided over the Afghan mission, arrived
in Washington to report on its progress. While conceding that the conflict is stalemated, General
Nicholson doggedly insisted that it is a "stalemate where the equilibrium favors the government."
Carefully avoiding terms like "victory" or "win," he described his strategy as "hold-fight-disrupt."
He ventured no guess on when the war might end.
All of this flies in the face of what the conflict in Afghanistan has become, a reality made
clear in a recent report from the Defense Department's special inspector general for Afghanistan
reconstruction.
Despite appropriating over three-quarters of a trillion dollars on Afghanistan since 2001,
Afghan security forces continue to be plagued by the problem of inflated rolls, with local commanders
pocketing American-supplied funds to pay for nonexistent soldiers; according to the report, "The
number of troops fighting alongside 'ghost soldiers' is a fraction of the men required for the
fight."
Large-scale corruption persists, with Afghanistan third from the bottom in international rankings,
ahead of only Somalia and North Korea. Adjusted for inflation, American spending to reconstruct
Afghanistan now exceeds the total expended to rebuild all of Western Europe under the Marshall
Plan; yet to have any hope of surviving, the Afghan government will for the foreseeable future
remain almost completely dependent on outside support.
And things are getting worse. Although the United States has invested $70 billion in rebuilding
Afghan security forces, only 63 percent of the country's districts are under government control,
with significant territory lost to the Taliban over the past year. Though the United States has
spent $8.5 billion to battle narcotics in Afghanistan, opium production there has reached an all-time
high.
For this, over the past 15 years, nearly 2,400 American soldiers have died, and 20,000 more
have been wounded.
What are we to make of the chasm between effort expended and results achieved? Why on those
increasingly infrequent occasions when Afghanistan attracts notice do half-truths and pettifoggery
prevail, rather than hard-nosed assessments? Why has Washington ceased to care about the Afghan
war?
The answer, it seems to me, is this: As with budget deficits or cost overruns on weapons
purchases, members of the national security apparatus - elected and appointed officials, senior
military officers and other policy insiders - accept war as a normal condition.
Once, the avoidance of war figured as a national priority. On those occasions when war
proved unavoidable, the idea was to end the conflict as expeditiously as possible on favorable
terms.
US Budgetary Costs of Wars through 2016: $4.79 Trillion and Counting
Summary of Costs of the US Wars in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and Pakistan and Homeland Security
By Neta C. Crawford
Summary
Wars cost money before, during and after they occur - as governments prepare for, wage, and
recover from them by replacing equipment, caring for the wounded and repairing the infrastructure
destroyed in the fighting. Although it is rare to have a precise accounting of the costs of war
- especially of long wars - one can get a sense of the rough scale of the costs by surveying the
major categories of spending.
As of August 2016, the US has already appropriated, spent, or taken on obligations to spend
more than $3.6 trillion in current dollars on the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Syria
and on Homeland Security (2001 through fiscal year 2016). To this total should be added the approximately
$65 billion in dedicated war spending the Department of Defense and State Department have requested
for the next fiscal year, 2017, along with an additional nearly $32 billion requested for the
Department of Homeland Security in 2017, and estimated spending on veterans in future years. When
those are included, the total US budgetary cost of the wars reaches $4.79 trillion.
But of course, a full accounting of any war's burdens cannot be placed in columns on a ledger.
From the civilians harmed or displaced by violence, to the soldiers killed and wounded, to the
children who play years later on roads and fields sown with improvised explosive devices and cluster
bombs, no set of numbers can convey the human toll of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, or how
they have spilled into the neighboring states of Syria and Pakistan, and come home to the US and
its allies in the form of wounded veterans and contractors. Yet, the expenditures noted on government
ledgers are necessary to apprehend, even as they are so large as to be almost incomprehensible....
"... "The Warrior Kagan Family", that must have been Greenwald's big joke, I hope. Those people give a meaning to the name chickenhawks, they would not know from which end a gun fires, but they certainly know how to get millions killed by others. ..."
"... Their money ensures that their aggressive writings still get published in the usual Deep State media. I particularly liked a touch of light humor by Mr Parry: "There was also hope that a President Hillary Clinton would recognize how sympatico the liberal hawks and the neocons were by promoting Robert Kagan's neocon wife, Victoria Nuland, to Secretary of State." ..."
"... What is troublesome is with the Kagan's screaming out, 'watch the Russians, beware of the Russians' and with the 24/7 MSM alarm bells going off over Russia, will the Trump Adminstration need to craft their foreign policy around the likes of these Russia Haters? ..."
"... The common denominator is profit and increased market share fueled by greed ..Part of the blame can be laid at the feet of the average USA investor who fuels the stock market looking for the best return on his/her money. ..."
"... After finding this early warning essay by Cartalucci I have often wondered that if our MSM were to have scooped this kind of news regarding the travels of Senator John McCain would the tragedy of Benghazi have never happened. ..."
"... Plus this article adds insight to how the Deep State operates. McCain should be the one held for high treason, but as things are that will never happen. The more you may learn the more you may find that Donald Trump seems to be less of a problem than we all know. Now that isn't an endorsement of Trump, as much as it is a heads up to notice who all is behind the curtain. ..."
"... I recommend reading the latest blog by Moon of Alabama and enlightened comments. You will get further details on what the Kagans' plans are – what they would have done for sure under their L'Amour Toujours, Clinton as President. ..."
"... I read that moonofalabama, b is always right on. In fact b and Robert Parry are excellent examples of how 'small' is good. http://journal-neo.org/2017/03/15/us-expands-defacto-syrian-invasion/ The above article by Tony Cartalucci is along the same lines as moonofalabama. ..."
"... Excellent point – how to quickly recognise psychopaths: "psychopathy is the habit of using emotionally loaded language in tones which betray no actual connection to the content". A large proportion of our politicians fit the description. ..."
"... "I noted two years ago in an article entitled "A Family Business of Perpetual War": "Neoconservative pundit Robert Kagan and his wife, Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, run a remarkable family business: she has sparked a hot war in Ukraine and helped launch Cold War II with Russia and he steps in to demand that Congress jack up military spending so America can meet these new security threats. This extraordinary husband-and-wife duo makes quite a one-two punch for the Military-Industrial Complex, an inside-outside team that creates the need for more military spending, applies political pressure to ensure higher appropriations, and watches as thankful weapons manufacturers lavish grants on like-minded hawkish Washington think tanks." ..."
"... "the so-called "#Resistance" to Trump's presidency and President Obama's unprecedented use of his intelligence agencies to paint Trump as a Russian "Manchurian candidate" gave new hope to the neocons and their agenda. It has taken them a few months to reorganize and regroup but they now see hope in pressuring Trump so hard regarding Russia that he will have little choice but to buy into their belligerent schemes. As often is the case, the Family Kagan has charted the course of action – batter Republicans into joining the all-out Russia-bashing and then persuade a softened Trump to launch a full-scale invasion of Syria. In this endeavor, the Kagans have Democrats and liberals as the foot soldiers." ..."
"... For instance, Robert's brother Frederick works at the American Enterprise Institute, which has long benefited from the largesse of the Military-Industrial Complex, and his wife Kimberly runs her own think tank called the Institute for the Study of War (ISW). ..."
"... Andrew Bacevich referred to Kagan as "the chief neoconservative foreign-policy theorist" in reviewing Kagan's book The Return of history and the end of dreams.[21] ..."
"... Here's Andrew Bacevich's 2014 piece on the Kagans: https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/duplicity-ideologues ..."
"... But Mr Parry, I think it will also be interesting to examine the 'Vault 7' disclosure with regards to this Russia bashing. If the CIA has the ability to put out any email or documentation without a trail as to its origin, the Kagans could be shown as the charlatans they are if it was the CIA who meddled with the US election. ..."
"... "The US military will try to take Raqqa from ISIS with the help of the Kurds in coordination with Syrian government forces. The Syrian government will also destroy al Qaeda in Idleb. The chance that Trump will pick up on any of these neo-con plans is practically zero. But who knows?" ..."
"... On MSNBC's "Morning Joe" show, Friedman demanded that the Russia hacking allegations be treated as a casus belli: "That was a 9/11 scale event. They attacked the core of our democracy. That was a Pearl Harbor scale event." Both Pearl Harbor and 9/11 led to wars. ..."
"... It's just reported on Global Research that Russia has absorbed 2.5 million Ukrainian refugees since the US 2014 coup and Europe 900,000 more, according to a Kremlin parliamentarian in February. Thanks to Victoria Nuland! ..."
"... Far too much money which MIC wants play with. ..and as Admiral Thomas Moorer commented, " No American President can stand up to Israel " ..."
"... the virulent fixation on Russia is out of control. ..."
It's not the Family Kagan, but rather as Glenn Greenwald dubbed them, The Warrior Kagan
Family with a trade mark sign as suffix.
I'll bet Victoria resigned from State, seeing her future there granting visas in Baku.
Thanks, Robert, I haven't had a Kagan fix in quite a while!
Kiza , March 15, 2017 at 8:26 pm
"The Warrior Kagan Family", that must have been Greenwald's big joke, I hope. Those people
give a meaning to the name chickenhawks, they would not know from which end a gun fires, but they
certainly know how to get millions killed by others.
As to Mr Parry, calling them the American neocon royalty, it certainly is some foul-mouth royalty,
telling another Zio servant EU to get f'ed.
Thank you Robert Parry for a great article, just like Bart I was wondering what happened to
the cookie distributing "royalty" after the Clinton fail. It is not surprising that they are now
learning to manipulate outcomes from the opposition. Their money ensures that their aggressive
writings still get published in the usual Deep State media. I particularly liked a touch of light
humor by Mr Parry: "There was also hope that a President Hillary Clinton would recognize how
sympatico the liberal hawks and the neocons were by promoting Robert Kagan's neocon wife,
Victoria Nuland, to Secretary of State."
Between the Clinton liberals and the Ziocons C'est une Affaire d'Amour Toujours , as
Pepé Le Pew likes to say.
Skip Edwards , March 15, 2017 at 11:28 pm
"The Warrior Kagan Family", that must have been Greenwald's big joke, I hope. Those people
give a meaning to the name chickenhawks, they would not know from which end a gun fires, but they
certainly know how to get millions killed by others.
I learned how to laugh again; and, at the expense of all those despicable Kagen's.
Joe Tedesky , March 15, 2017 at 11:49 pm
KIza there is good news inside Robert Parry's article if you look for it. One good thing is
that Hillary isn't the president, and if she were one could only imagine what her and the Kagan's
would be up to right now. The other piece of good news, is that the Kagan's are writing op-eds
and not working for the Trump Adminstration.
Now I have read somewhere where the U.S. is working with Russia, and that for the most part
for now has to be done on the low key. Of course with news being 'fake' and all of that, who's
to know?
What is troublesome is with the Kagan's screaming out, 'watch the Russians, beware of the
Russians' and with the 24/7 MSM alarm bells going off over Russia, will the Trump Adminstration
need to craft their foreign policy around the likes of these Russia Haters?
Cheney and Rumsfeld developed 'the Continuity of Government Program' and I'm wondering if that
cast of characters could seep into the mix of things? Plus don't forget the ever reliable CIA
So with all of that working against you, one could only wonder if Ghandi and Jesus could do much
better up against this evil array of villains.
Joe Tedesky , March 16, 2017 at 12:10 am
Here is something worth reading Tony Cartalucci explains the Deep State, and goes on to talk
about how it may be defeated. Here's a hint, the world will not be run by the New World Order.
Very good link, Joe!! The common denominator is profit and increased market share fueled
by greed ..Part of the blame can be laid at the feet of the average USA investor who fuels the
stock market looking for the best return on his/her money. I would not look for much altruistic
behavioral changes in human nature Greed is still the preferred method of operation .and firmly
in control ..
Joe, many thanks for this powerful link on the deep state, and its explanation of the multi-polar
conditions needed, and as happening, plus the link you supplied below related to what's going
on in Syria, also clear and helpful.
Joe Tedesky , March 16, 2017 at 3:30 pm
I'm glad that you all found the link to be informative. I am posting another link to a Tony
Cartalucci article that got my attention of his work a few years ago, and ever since I look forward
to reading his reporting.
This link is interesting for the fact that the original article was published March 2012 which
was somewhere in the neighborhood of six months before the deadly attack took place in Benghazi.
After finding this early warning essay by Cartalucci I have often wondered that if our MSM were
to have scooped this kind of news regarding the travels of Senator John McCain would the tragedy
of Benghazi have never happened.
Plus this article adds insight to how the Deep State operates. McCain should be the one
held for high treason, but as things are that will never happen. The more you may learn the more
you may find that Donald Trump seems to be less of a problem than we all know. Now that isn't
an endorsement of Trump, as much as it is a heads up to notice who all is behind the curtain.
Curious , March 16, 2017 at 5:16 pm
Thanks for the two links Joe. I didn't think it was possible for me to dislike McCain more
than I already did, but I was wrong. I did like Senator Pauls' comment about McCain today however.
He basically said McCain is a perfect example of why we should have term limits in the Senate,
which is so true.
Kiza , March 16, 2017 at 12:24 am
Oh no, I did not mean that it is bad news this is why I wrote that the Kagans are learning
to spew hate from the opposition not from the government. Like D5-5, I recommend reading the
latest blog by Moon of Alabama and enlightened comments. You will get further details on what
the Kagans' plans are – what they would have done for sure under their L'Amour Toujours, Clinton
as President.
As to Jesus, he self-sacrificed himself to show the way out of human predicament. Jesus was
fighting against such ideologues of hate and moneychangers as the Kagans, who are an exemplar
of the mad-gleaming-eye-greedy-finger types so well known in the old Europe. Just observe the
first photo to the article: she looks like she would murder just about any baby in the world to
take her sweet candy.
Joe Tedesky , March 16, 2017 at 1:08 am
I read that moonofalabama, b is always right on. In fact b and Robert Parry are excellent
examples of how 'small' is good.
The above article by Tony Cartalucci is along the same lines as moonofalabama.
At this stage of the game the best that I can put forward with, is we got to take one day at
a time, in order to make sense of whatever the real news is going on inside Syria. From one article
to another it's hard to tell who's fighting, or going to fight who. With the atmosphere here in
America I'm waiting for an arrest to be made if you talk favorably about Russia, or Putin. Seriously,
our MSM cable news networks are going hells bells on this Russian hacking, Russian tampering with
our democracy, Russia has a puppet in the White House, Russia _______fill in the blank. We have
gone totally nuts this time, and it looks like we are going to stay that way for awhile.
I always like to ponder the politics that would have prevailed during the time of Jesus. If
you get a grasp on that then Jesus really stands out better for what he was preaching too, and
preaching against. I'm sure Herod or Ceasar had their Kagan's around in their day, and who knows
how discreetly those ancient Kagan's could have whispered vile and nasty ideas of war and conquest
into their leaders head. When it's all about power and money it's easy to lose ones head, or so
they say. Let's all hope the Kagan's amount to be nothing more than sore losers.
Peter Loeb , March 16, 2017 at 6:13 am
WITH MCCAIN AS HELPER
A good comment Joe Tedesky.
As to Syria, we already have invaded and already plan more (see Defense Appropriation). Of
interest would be Putin's response on the ground.
(When Netanyahu went to Moskow to ask for help in getting Syria to reign in Iran, he was referred
to the sovereign government of Syria! Is the current (and future) US invasion of the sovereign
state of Syria at the invitation of the Syrian Government??
Ans: No! See UN Charter on aggression, I think it is Article 4(2) if memory serves. Besides
the current administration wants to make all its sins of commission such as drones done by the
CIA Which is to say covert and not accountable to anyone (such as DOD, White House etc.).Our
invasion will evidently be
accountable to Israel and Saudi Arabia.
I am certain Moscow has a plan, a response (diplomatic or otherwise).
Donald Trump likes war and being "Commander-in-Chief". All countries involved in war are always
absolutely persuaded that their victory will be quick, easy etc.It also helps(??) the US economy
as all wars have for hundreds of years. No one will oppose more money for defense. I have already
contacted my Mass. Senators in regard to funds for the invasion of Syria as well as my Congressional
Representative. (I expect little support. All lawgivers are dependent on AIPAC support )
--Peter Loeb, Boston, MA, USA
Joe Tedesky , March 16, 2017 at 10:15 am
Except for Desert Storm every war has lasted long past it's end date, and even one could argue
over Desert Storm if you add in the time of occupation or establishing no fly zones to how long
we have been there.
I'm not all that sure yet that Trump likes war. There are times he stresses peace, after he
rally's the people around a powerful military speech. Now, what I do worry about is the people
around him. NIkki Haley just recently in a NBC interview said how we should never trust Russia.
Wow, and she is our UN ambassador. So much for statesmanship and diplomacy.
As far as our CIA goes they are going to get everyone on this planet killed. It's long overdue
to crunch the CIA down to being an information gatherer and stop with the convert intrigue. If
we factor in stability and the quality of human life, then tell me about the one CIA operation
which has been a success. The CIA's interference, and trashing of foreign government sovereignty
is a disgrace, and should I add be prosecuted as a war crime in the highest order. If Trump could
shred the CIA into a thousand pieces then I say, do it Mr President.
The real problem we face while attempting to establish the Yinon Plan, is that we will finally
either partner with Russia somehow over something, or end up fighting Russia and possibly not
fight them through proxies. I don't see either Russia or the U.S. using nukes on each other at
first, but I would be praying for the poor souls in places such as Iran, Yemen, or places like
that. And while we are at it North and South Korea, and once again Japan would most likely be
countries well inside the lines of being in jeopardy.
Russia, and China, should be our natural allies, but there's nothing natural about our country's
foreign policy when world hegemony overrides man's human nature to life in peace.
John , March 16, 2017 at 4:24 pm
Joe,
The other piece of good news is that they are actually starting to walk back the Russia hacked
the election an we can prove it nonsense. Read Glenn Greenwald's latest piece at The Intercept.
At long last sir have they actually some human decency? Nah!!!
Joe Tedesky , March 16, 2017 at 4:52 pm
Thanks John I will be sure to read Greenwald's article, but you know we in America need a bogey
man .so if not Russia then who?
Concerning the foul-mouthing, I was disturbed to hear such strong talk (at least to this earthy
soul) in such a delicate voice. To me a sign of psychopathy is the habit of using emotionally
loaded language in tones which betray no actual connection to the content. Another is causing
the killing of no small amount of people with a large amount of apparent unconcern, but then again
that's a net which would drag an alarming amount of people from corridors of power. Perhaps the
majority of these have mastered the art of matching tone and content in their requirement to at
least appear Human to their subjects.
Kiza , March 16, 2017 at 6:00 am
Excellent point – how to quickly recognise psychopaths: "psychopathy is the habit of using
emotionally loaded language in tones which betray no actual connection to the content". A large
proportion of our politicians fit the description. Thank you.
Nastarana , March 16, 2017 at 10:34 am
Kiza, Please don't forget that is a "sign of psychopathy". There are other kinds of derangement
in which the unfortunate sufferers are prone to the use of inappropriate body language and verbal
tone, but are not necessarily a danger to others. As for the Kagans, I consider them to be criminals,
plain and simple.
Anon , March 16, 2017 at 1:31 pm
I am waiting to see the male ballerina "foot soldiers" demanding transgender bathrooms in the
trenches.
Joe Tedesky , March 16, 2017 at 3:46 pm
Anon in 1919 Max Sennett was way ahead of you. You might get a kick out of watching Sennett's
movie called 'Yankee Doodle in Berlin'. It is a story about an American soldier dressed as a woman
going behind enemy lines to entice the Kaiser. Also notice the slanted propaganda of the way American
Hollywood film producers were characterizing the Germans. We are all but a product of who came
before us I'm sad to say .but hey enjoy the silent flick anyway.
Oh and with all due respect let's at least give a salute to Chelsea Manning.
BART GRUZALSKI PROF. EMERITUS , March 16, 2017 at 9:26 am
BART IN VIRGINIA!!
Are you really "Bart" as in short for "Bartholomew"!!!!
Parry, thank you for a GREAT article.
Early on you pegged them:
"Back pontificating on prominent op-ed pages, the Family Kagan now is pushing for an expanded
U.S. military invasion of Syria and baiting Republicans for not joining more enthusiastically
in the anti-Russian witch hunt over Moscow's alleged help in electing Donald Trump."
Then skillfully reminding us: "I noted two years ago in an article entitled "A Family Business
of Perpetual War": "Neoconservative pundit Robert Kagan and his wife, Assistant Secretary of State
Victoria Nuland, run a remarkable family business: she has sparked a hot war in Ukraine and helped
launch Cold War II with Russia and he steps in to demand that Congress jack up military spending
so America can meet these new security threats. This extraordinary husband-and-wife duo makes
quite a one-two punch for the Military-Industrial Complex, an inside-outside team that creates
the need for more military spending, applies political pressure to ensure higher appropriations,
and watches as thankful weapons manufacturers lavish grants on like-minded hawkish Washington
think tanks."
Your conclusion is actually overly optimistic:
"the so-called "#Resistance" to Trump's presidency and President Obama's unprecedented
use of his intelligence agencies to paint Trump as a Russian "Manchurian candidate" gave new hope
to the neocons and their agenda. It has taken them a few months to reorganize and regroup but
they now see hope in pressuring Trump so hard regarding Russia that he will have little choice
but to buy into their belligerent schemes. As often is the case, the Family Kagan has charted
the course of action – batter Republicans into joining the all-out Russia-bashing and then persuade
a softened Trump to launch a full-scale invasion of Syria. In this endeavor, the Kagans have Democrats
and liberals as the foot soldiers."
Instead, the Deep State is preparing to begin getting rid of Trump on June 1st:
IF you the reader haven't read my "The Deep State Versus President Trump" it is time (on Amazon
for only $12.95 or less).
Parry, I will immediately post this EXCELLENT article on Facebook. Because my wife and I are
living "by the skin of our teeth" on social security, I can't make a donation, but I will send
in an article on why the Deep State wants Trump gone as a pro bono contribution. Hope you think
it is worthy of publication.
Dr. Bart Gruzalski, Professor Emeritus, Philosophy (ethics, public policy) and Religion
(books: "On the Buddha": "On Gandhi"; and "Why Christians and World-Peace Advocates Voted for
President Donald Trump"), Northeastern University, Boston, MA-and the only Ph.D. in philosophy
among the thousands that I and my mentor Professor Samuel Gorovitz know who voted for and supports
Trump [no, Sam was and is opposed to our POTUS].
dineesh , March 15, 2017 at 7:01 pm
Who is behind them rascals?
evelync , March 15, 2017 at 8:22 pm
Good question! And I don't know the answer, but I googled the question and FWIW depending on
the reliability of the writers of the articles, here's what I found:
"A Family Business
There's also a family-business aspect to these wars and confrontations, since the Kagans collectively
serve not just to start conflicts but to profit from grateful military contractors who kick back
a share of the money to the think tanks that employ the Kagans.
For instance, Robert's brother Frederick works at the American Enterprise Institute, which
has long benefited from the largesse of the Military-Industrial Complex, and his wife Kimberly
runs her own think tank called the Institute for the Study of War (ISW).
According to ISW's annual reports, its original supporters were mostly right-wing foundations,
such as the Smith-Richardson Foundation and the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, but it was
later backed by a host of national security contractors, including major ones like General Dynamics,
Northrop Grumman and CACI, as well as lesser-known firms such as DynCorp International, which
provided training for Afghan police, and Palantir, a technology company founded with the backing
of the CIA's venture-capital arm, In-Q-Tel. Palantir supplied software to US military intelligence
in Afghanistan.
Since its founding in 2007, ISW has focused mostly on wars in the Middle East, especially Iraq
and Afghanistan, including closely cooperating with Gen. David Petraeus when he commanded US forces
in those countries. However, more recently, ISW has begun reporting extensively on the civil war
in Ukraine. [See "Neocons Guided Petraeus on Afghan War."]
"In 1983, Robert Kagan was foreign policy advisor to New York Republican Representative
Jack Kemp. From 1984–86, under the administration of Ronald Reagan, he was a speechwriter for
Secretary of State George P. Shultz and a member of the United States Department of State Policy
Planning Staff. From 1986–1988 he served in the State Department Bureau of Inter-American Affairs.[10]
In 1997, Kagan co-founded the now-defunct neoconservative think tank Project for the New
American Century with William Kristol.[3][5][11] Through the work of the PNAC, Kagan was a
strong advocate of the Iraq war.
From 1998 until August, 2010, Kagan was a Senior Associate with the Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace. He was appointed senior fellow in the Center on United States and Europe
at the Brookings Institution in September 2010.[12][13][14][15] He is also a member of the
board of directors for the neoconservative think tank The Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI).[16]
During the 2008 presidential campaign he served as foreign policy advisor to John McCain,
the Republican Party's nominee for President of the United States in the 2008 election.[17][18]
Since 2011, Kagan has also served on the 25-member State Department's Foreign Affairs Policy
Board under Secretaries of State Hillary Clinton[19] and John Kerry.[20]
Andrew Bacevich referred to Kagan as "the chief neoconservative foreign-policy theorist"
in reviewing Kagan's book The Return of history and the end of dreams.[21]
It's not too difficult to identify the think-tanks the Kagans belong to or run. These organizations
have web sites, and the web sites usually list who the funders are. That's the information you
seek.
For example, the Institute for the Study of War is supported by the likes of General Dynamics,
CACI, Microsoft, Centerra, Capital Bank, etc.
Diana , March 16, 2017 at 7:02 am
Robbie Martin has produced a three-part documentary on them rascals called "A Very Heavy Agenda."
It's well worth watching, but it's expensive the box set of the three DVDs costs $50.00. I opted
for the Vimeo version, where each part can be purchased for $6.99 or rented for $2.99. You can
watch the trailers and learn more at http://averyheavyagenda.com
.
Diana , March 16, 2017 at 8:10 am
You can find the Vimeo versions at
https://vimeo.com/ondemand/averyheavyagenda
. Watch the trailer for Part 3 and you will see that it refers to Robert Parry's "Family Kagan"
article.
Sam , March 16, 2017 at 7:03 am
The ME warmongers are largely zionist Jews, including the Kagan/Nulands and the 2003 Iraq War
II sponsors SecDef Wolfowitz and his Israeli spy operatives Perl, Feith, and Wurmser installed
at CIA/DIA/NSA offices to select known-bad "intelligence" to incite war. The Kochs are of course
complicit. Any who aren't zionist Jews are after their stolen US funds to Israel, fed to stink
tanks and political bribe donations.
The war in Iraq was such a success that the US was forced out having ensured the pro-Iran government
it most feared, having built AlQaeda from a CIA proxy to a regional and then a worldwide enemy,
and having guaranteed the violent Sunni uprising now called IS. Read Bamford's Pretext for War.
Don't we need more of those wars.
BART GRUZALSKI PROF. EMERITUS , March 16, 2017 at 9:29 am
dineesh,
This is a reply to your (lost in the undergrowth): MORE RASCALS, in fact, THE ENTIRE DEEP STATE.
dineesh's question: Who is behind those rascals.
D5-5 , March 15, 2017 at 7:17 pm
Take a look at Moon of Alabama on this Kagan rehash. The comments in response to the analysis
also recommended. Posted today.
Apparently, the lessons taught in Iraq have been forgotten.
Scott , March 15, 2017 at 8:06 pm
A lesson can be had only by those willing to learn. Democrats just lost over 900 seats across
state and federal offices and even that proved not to be a teachable moment.
Curious , March 15, 2017 at 7:50 pm
What a disturbing headline. I had hoped they would have been neutered after the Hillary defeat.
But Mr Parry, I think it will also be interesting to examine the 'Vault 7' disclosure with
regards to this Russia bashing. If the CIA has the ability to put out any email or documentation
without a trail as to its origin, the Kagans could be shown as the charlatans they are if it was
the CIA who meddled with the US election. It would shake their entire platform of blaming
Russia to the core. It is difficult enough as it is to tell the originator of many internal docs
leaked to the public, so the blame game is false as it is. I would welcome more release of the
CIA vault 7 if only to show how often the CIA is involved in internal US politics and "homeland"
situations. This meddling is supposedly against the law.
One could only hope.
Tannenhouser , March 15, 2017 at 8:26 pm
Not only that .A 'democrats' views are so symbiotic to a kagans shows they play for the same
team while occasionally wearing different color jersey's. Curious indeed . I share your hope.
As b says, analyst at Moon of Alabama (he's German by the way) on this topic, "The US military
will try to take Raqqa from ISIS with the help of the Kurds in coordination with Syrian government
forces. The Syrian government will also destroy al Qaeda in Idleb. The chance that Trump will
pick up on any of these neo-con plans is practically zero. But who knows?"
He also finds the Kaganista notions on a THIRD try at raising "the moderates" to get rid of
Assad "drinking the kool aid."
My question is how does this troop infusion, made problematical as Assad has not okayed it,
calling it illegal, and which includes 2500 "tip of the spear" paratroopers in Kuwait, move the
situation on, additional to (or beyond) the goal of cleaning out ISIS? To what, why? Suppose ISIS
defeated (replaced in how long by another ISIS unless the political/economic situation changes
for the sunnis) then what? Trump does an Obama and the US leaves again? Or cuts a deal with the
neocons on pipeline projects etc?
LJ , March 15, 2017 at 9:01 pm
I read that article. The Qatar Turkey Pipeline was one of the hoped for outcomes of the Regime
Change in Syria . This was problematic for Russia and will remain so. If the USA>NATO>EU thought
that they could bring Turkey into the fold with this pipeline it might make sense but right now
this is very unlikely.
Personally I do not think Trump and Tillerson would go for World War .Do not forget that China
is allied with Russia on this and they see Syria as very important to the completion of One Belt
One Road'. Israel's role in the region and in Syria should not be forgotten ever. They are anxious
about the Golan and Russia and they always want the USA to attack Iran. So does Saudi Arabia and
you may have noticed the Saudi Foreign Minister dropping a comment a couple days ago that this
planned action against Hezbollah and Iran is very much on the table.
There are many heads on the chopping block right now not just Assad's, enemies and allies also.
The Planners cannot control the outcome in Turkey (We played our card already), in Iraq, in Syria
or in Lebanon. WE are not liked. All the USA can do at this point is destroy, we can never win
hearts and minds in the Middle East.. Can of Worms.
Joe Tedesky , March 16, 2017 at 1:23 am
I think the biggest worry is to hope that whoever loses can bear the cost of loss. This Syrian
war I don't think at this point is as much about ISIS as it is about land. Land for pipelines
mostly, but land for a whole host of other reasons as well. Sunni, Shia, and Kurds, are the predominant
people who are fighting for space, but so are countries like Turkey, Saudi's, and the Israeli's
in the Golan Heights. So stretching pipelines, and building new one road infrastrutures need land oh
and let's not forget the Shia Crescent and Iran. This area is so messed up I'm not that sure even
the winner will have won much more than a big headache.
Enjoyed reading both of your comments, and thought I'd make some noise to accompany your conversation.
MEexpert , March 16, 2017 at 2:41 am
Joe, both the Syrian and Iraq wars now have two purposes. First is to prevent the dreaded "Shia
Crescent," and the second is to protect Israel. The latest surge in Iraq and Syria by the US forces
is to keep the perpetual wars going by creating "Sunni" zones in Iraq and Syria. When the Iraqi
Army and the Shia militias were battling the ISIS, there were no US boots on the ground. Same
thing in Syria. Consider the timing of this surge. ISIS is almost routed in Iraq and Syria and
all of a sudden Trump sends ground forces to help mop up the remnants of ISIS.
The real purpose is not to clean up ISIS but to prevent the government forces to establish
rule in Mosul. Saudi Arabia wants that part to remain Sunni. This way Iran doesn't win. The US
wants to divide Iraq in three parts, Shia, Sunni, and Kurdish, as has been her plan all along.
Similarly, in Syria, if Assad wins the whole of Syria is under his rule. By inserting herself
in the war, the US wants to set up a Sunni section on behalf of Saudi Arabia and Israel, to be
a thorn in Assad's side and a Kurdish side to punish Erdogan for his behavior and keep him occupied.
The wars will continue in the Middle East, the Military-Industrial Complex will continue to sell
weapons and Israel will be worry free.
What I don't understand is why is US so against the Shias. I can understand Israel's position.
Israel got her rear end kicked twice by a tiny Hezbollah force but why US. It can't be just to
please Israel or is it? So much bloodshed just for that.
Sam , March 16, 2017 at 7:13 am
The US is involved solely to get political campaign funds from Israel stolen from US "aid".
Joe Tedesky , March 16, 2017 at 10:25 am
Going back to the old communist days and Nassar the U.S. sided with Israel. That was back at
a time when we Americans were exposed to the propaganda that Israeli's were like us Americans,
and all Arabs were crazy. We were fine with Iran as long as we had the Shad there to protect our
interest. The Iran Hostage event was excellent PR to demonize Iran for over a forty year period,
and life goes on.
You and I along with many others here believe now is a great time to hit the Middle East reset
button .now how do we convince our country's leadership to do that, is the question.
John P , March 16, 2017 at 8:49 pm
Good article and I think you hit the nails on the heads MEexpert. Your final paragraph, I think
the U.S. wants a stable ally in the region and they believe Israel fills that roll, even though
I see little common interest in eithers ambitions, one for stability the other for annexations.
Perhaps the U.S. politicians hold their noses and hope.
Sam , March 16, 2017 at 7:21 am
The Qatar-Turkey pipeline concept tried to break the "Shiite crescent" of Iran/Iraq/Syria/Lebanon
and compete with the southern Russia-Turkey pipeline; otherwise they would not be seeking war
near pipelines that could more easily have coexisted.
MEexpert , March 16, 2017 at 2:57 am
"Suppose ISIS defeated (replaced in how long by another ISIS unless the political/economic
situation changes for the sunnis) then what?"
Why such concern about the Sunnis? In Iraq only 20% population is Sunni. Yet Saddam, a Sunni,
ruled more that 60% Shias for 35 years and other Sunni rulers before that. There was no concern
for their feelings or their safety by Papa Bush in 1991 or after that when Saddam gassed the Shias
and the Kurds. Bahrain, on the other hand, at one time was 90% Shia with a Sunni ruler, thanks
to the British. The Emir of Bahrain has been systematically stripping the Shias of their citizenship
and importing Sunnis from other countries and giving them Citizenship by recruiting them into
the Bahraini Armed Forces. Even when the uprising started in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia moved in
there to put the uprising down, all US did was to send down the Chairman of the Joints Chiefs
to reassure the Emir of Bahrain and to make sure that the 5th fleet was safe.
D5-5 , March 16, 2017 at 1:02 pm
@ ME Expert:
Thank you for your comments! I'm looking at the above responses, including the additional link
on Syria from Joe, which provides historical perspective also, in terms of US establishing a presence
in eastern Syria to be "a thorn in Assad's side" as you say, and continue to push for regional
control allied with Israel and Saudi Arabia, et al.
On your question why such concern about the Sunnis, here's my impression, which could be too
simple.
With the conquest of Iraq and Bremer's releasing the 400,000 military, a highly Shia favored
sort of revenge government program fell into place, favoring Shias and leading to problems for
Sunnis (including high unemployment) that led on to the creation of ISIS. If similar economic
and political problems are not dealt with, wiping out this iteration of ISIS could lead to another
version of it. I also have the impression the potential number of these dissatisfied, as potential
recruits, could number in many millions (not sure how many). I don't intend to take a position
favoring Sunnis, but am trying to understand the complexity of the grievances of whomever. As
part of this, my understanding is that many members of ISIS are not head-chopping maniacs but
joined as ISIS was the only available opposing force.
On your question why is the US so against the Shias, my impression is they haven't been against
the Shias in Iraq, while simultaneously (and shortsightedly) exercising no influence on fair governance
of Iraq following the 03 invasion, and this favoritism favored the Shias there and stirred Sunni
resistance. But, I'm thinking, the animosity toward Shias elsewhere is related to alignments in
the region, toward dominating the entire region, including taking down Syria and Iran. So it's
not so much animosity toward Shias per se as it is to regime change uncooperative rulers, whether
in Lebanon, Syria, or Iran, with their Shia populations (and lately of course throw in Russia).
At stake is pipelines of various sorts, and water rights, and overall in terms of globalism and
full spectrum dominance taking over the entire middle east region.
I welcome being straightened out on where I'm correct or too simplistic. Thanks again.
D5-5 , March 16, 2017 at 1:08 pm
Meant to say INcorrect or too simplistic!
LJ , March 16, 2017 at 1:48 pm
The politics of divide and conquer can create strange bedfellows. There is deep routed historical
enmity between the Sunnis and Shiites to begin with. Search Twelver. The US has allies and enemies,
Bottom line, Saudi Arabia has a lot of oil and Israel has a lot of political power through it's
representatives in the USA especially but also in Britain and France. The Iranians were our friends
too after the USA overthrow their Democratic Government in 1953 and installed the Shah and the
CIA set up ZAVAK to protect him. It worked until he got weak. . Iran's enmity with the USA and
Israel is well supported by facts . So is Hezbollah's enmity as is the enmity of Palestinians
living in camps in stateless exile in Lebanon and elsewhere. . We don't necessarily hate Shias.
It's policy. A fun fact to know and tell is that the Saudis pump oil from under the feet of the
Shia minority in Saudi Arabia. who have live near the Persian Gulf since they were Persians and
Zoroastrians. Also The US 5th Fleet is stationed in Bahrain courtesy of a treaty with the Sunni
Rulers of the 90% Shiite nation. Yemen in the same story. Policy is a reason why during the Bush
years the USA began referring to the Persian Gulf as the Arabian Gulf. So too, When I was young
Yemen was not unified. It will never be. Houthis are being oppressed in a genocidal manner right
now with US backing because House of Saud sits on the Thrown of Damocles . That is why the King
of Saudi Arabia is on a worldwide tour shaking hands with Xi in China yesterday. etc.,,,, ad nauseum
Joe Tedesky , March 16, 2017 at 4:16 pm
I wouldn't argue with any of you who are commenting here on this thread, because I agree with
all of you. I would like to point out that when Iraq fell the Shia (Shiites) became the popular
ruling segment of Iraq, and then came General David Petraeus. The Sunni Awakening has had profound
ramifications on what we are up against now, if we should be up against anything at all since
most of what we are dealing with is U.S. inspired. The ultimate goal was to descale Iraq away
from Iranian influence, and this social engineering by the U.S. could not have been a bigger mistake
than what it's turned out to be. Now we are turning Yemen into our new Cambodia, and this will
also turn out to be an even bigger mistake unless better minds prevail inside of our White House
(if the Oval Office even has the deciding decision on this). Take a look at a map and see where
Iran is, and then see where we are positioning ourselves. My thoughts are that Iran is the final
goal, and until Iran is brought down, done of us will get a good nights sleep hoping to wake up
to a peaceful world. Also don't take that last sentence of mine to be an endorsement to attack
Iran. I am more than happy to let Iran be Iran.
If we wish to end war, then let's quit fighting them!
MEexpert , March 16, 2017 at 5:57 pm
I agree Iran is the real target. The Afghan and Iraq wars were less against Al-Qaeda, since
there was no Al-Qaeda in Iraq, but more against Iran. George Bush wanted to establish bases around
Iran. In addition to these two countries, he wanted to establish one more in Turkmenistan. US
already had a base in Turkey. Turkmenistan refused to allow any US base. Turkey refused the use
of Turkish base to launch an attack on Iran. US got bogged down in Afghanistan and Iraq. So the
attack on Iran never came. Mind you, the largest US base in Iraq is near the Iran border.
The dismantling of the Iraqi army wasn't the only thing Paul Bremer did wrong. He gave veto
power to the minority Kurds and Sunnis. That is the reason for the non-functional Iraqi government.
Nothing gets done. The Kurds are taking advantage of this situation and with the help of US are
consolidating their territorial position. Saudi Arabia doesn't want another Shia government as
its neighbor and so keeps the sectarian war going adding to the instability of the government.
D5-5 , March 16, 2017 at 7:56 pm
I keep trying to post a link to The Saker for Feb 7 this year, and it keeps disappearing. Easy
to find, however. His analysis on what war with Iran would mean is excellent. "US vs Iran a war
of apples vs. oranges."
LJ , March 15, 2017 at 8:36 pm
Pence seems to be on board already as are McCain and Graham.I agree we can't can't on the Pelosi,
Feinstein, Schumer's Liberal wing of the Democrats here. Maybe the Trump's Generals will save
us? Yeah right. The House of Representatives ? Not likely . Strange days indeed .,
CitizenOne , March 15, 2017 at 9:45 pm
I was not aware of the Kagan's role and I thank you for doing the due diligence on outlining
how this family is intertwined with recent misadventures. But also it is kind of picking at Nits.
This is a smallish operation. It does not compare to the decades long operation of Cheney to privatize
the DOD, teach his corporate buddies a Halliburton how to cash in, dream of further cashing in
himself with PNAC and the Carlyle Group, gin up a war, destabilize the middle east and get a pass
from the media. Cheney and Bush ignored all of the warnings from the FBI and the CIA that Saudi
terrorists were planning an attack which would instantly make the Carlyle Group the wealthiest
private equity firm on the planet.
I agree it is all planned. Planned well in advance. The goal is to become rich by creating
a war or wars.
I realize it is aimed at a microscopic part of the picture but fails to connect the dots of
Kagan and PNAC and 9/11. Cheney's own admission that short of "A New Pearl Harbor" Americans would
not likely go along with his dreams of launching preemptive wars reveal a naked desire to become
rich along with his buddies over at the Carlyle Group which snatched up defense stocks when the
Berlin Wall fell and the USSR was disintegrating. While the rest of the World was celebrating
the possibility of future peace with Russia, The PNAC folks were buying up stock in the defense
industry and were dreaming of a war. which they created by ignoring all of the signs that 9/11
was underway. I get that they felt some future democratic branch of the government would botch
an opportunity to create a fake enemy in Iraq and would fail to launch a war.
But the facts are the whole thing was avoidable and was pushed with a mountain of lies which
the major media simply regurgitated leading us to war.
It doesn't end there. While we are now busy banning millions of people from coming to America
because they might be terrorists, the real terrorists from abroad and here at home with Islamic
ties were all known by the authorities. Yet they did nothing to stop them and instead have used
their failures as excuses to create chaos which they hope will lead to more violence.
How does a guy who went to the FBI and confessed was delusional and heard voices in his head
trying to convert him to an ISIS terrorist then be allowed to board an airplane with a gun?
How was the underpants bomber allowed on a plane when his parents called the US Consulate to
inform US officials that their son was getting on that plane with a bomb. Yet we let this person
on a plane. Why has the media never investigated this failure?
It is failure after failure with gross incompetence from federal authorities charged with our
security that has led to terrorist acts and not the failure to keep millions of people from traveling
here.
The Boston Marathon bombers were singled out to US intelligence agencies by none other than
the Russians that they were terrorists but we let them in. No investigation of that but banning
entire nations is an option we have now tried twice. What about the failure of intelligence to
flag two people who were singled out as terrorists?
There is a much bigger story here.
The US government and intelligence agencies have obviously allowed terrorist attacks to happen.
This has happened time and time again and yet the media focuses on the terrorists time and time
again while ignoring and under reporting the backstory of how we just let it happen.
It can be rationalized by a reasoned argument that we must allow some attacks to focus our
efforts on thwarting even bigger attacks like nuclear attacks but there has been no action by
the government to actually improve security so what is the point.
The meaningless act of taking ones shoes off at an airport is only not copied by forcing us
to all strip down to our underpants based on a similar event to the shoe bomber because people
would not tolerate being forced to take off all their clothes.
Now since an FAA test of airport security revealed that guns were not detected 95% of the time
we are all preparing for pat downs. Nobody is examining the reason that 95% of the time somebody
with a gun in their baggage gets through security which is supposedly equipped with machines that
can spot guns. Where is the investigation of the machines since they fail so often?
There are all sorts of similar stories which all conclude that we are faced with a rational
reason that our government needs to allow some terrorist action to happen which in turn turns
our state increasingly toward a militaristic police state.
What I have a problem with is that we are more likely to be attacked by known terrorists and
that nobody seems to be concerned with. I guess that allowing terrorist attacks provides the political
concurrence to launch trillion dollar wars against other nations all for profit and put spy cupcakes
in our refrigerators. Watch out! There's a camera just below the icing on the cupcake! Don't eat
it!
We can't just ignore home grown terrorists like the shooters in California who, while on a
watch list, were allowed to purchase weapons or the crazy guy who told FBI ISIS was inside his
head to board an airplane with a gun and do nothing to investigate these intelligence failures
and instead use them to seek Apple to grant access to all our information on smartphones and order
travel bans for millions of people while justifying turning our TVs into Big Brother.
We can't ignore the obvious windfalls of Cheney and his pals at the Carlyle group to grow rich
by allowing terrorists to kill thousands of people.
If we are going to spill blood in preparation for war, then we need to make sure we are doing
everything in our power to prevent it and especially not to seek to become rich from it. We also
need to protect our privacy.
So now it comes down to making Russia the new enemy. We have to reinvent an old enemy to justify
further reasons for keeping America strong. But we spend ten times the money on our National Defense
than the Russians do. Where does that line up with weakness? How do we just invent some myth that
there are liberators working abroad in Ukraine and Syria to justify military spending just like
we invented Vietnam? Has Vietnam attacked us recently? I think not. Is Syria a serious player
in the international terrorism game? I think not.
Here is a suggestion. Apply all that money used to create advanced defensive capability into
an industry aimed at real security.
Destabilizing the whole World to get rich is a bad idea. Getting rich by providing the means
of nonmilitary industry aimed at enhancing security is a good idea. Easy money is a crime. Earning
it the hard way is an honest living.
Time for the easy money folks to be sidelined and for the people interested in long term survival
to hold power.
Anyone in the USA who can say they are not aware of the Kagan clan no nothing and should not
be writing such a long comment. Go back to sleep.
CitizenOne , March 16, 2017 at 7:48 pm
That would be spelled: knows nothing
Perhaps you should wake up, learn to spell, and spend more than a lazy moment trolling me. If
you have something intelligent to say we are all waiting with baited breath.
CitizenOne , March 16, 2017 at 7:54 pm
Well I guess I have to forgive Bruce Walker for not being a very good speller.
That would be : bated breath.
My bad.
geoff , March 15, 2017 at 10:07 pm
kagans never fail to excite. a package of madness on my monitor and how the hell did they get
to screw things up. oh!! scuse me yes, hillary whatsaname!!!
Brad N , March 15, 2017 at 10:15 pm
The picture painted here is actually rather dismal when one considers the long term consequences
of having such nonsense going on. Trump as possible savior from a war with Russia is a really
hard pill to swallow. Very hard indeed, it is worth repeating. I have no confidence in his consistency
at all. As for this article, I wish I could find fault with the analysis presented here. Sadly,
I cannot.
Chris Jonsson , March 15, 2017 at 10:37 pm
War, Inc. A family owned and operated corporation.
"Despite his overall unfitness for the presidency, Trump defeated Clinton,"
I greatly appreciate Mr. Parry's reporting and insights. However, I believe that the determination
of fitness for the Presidency is determined by the voters and democracy determines who is qualified.
Sam , March 16, 2017 at 7:35 am
If only we had a democracy, Fran. But in fact elections and mass media are controlled by money,
and our Constitution has no protection of these tools of democracy from money power, because there
were no businesses then larger than plantations and small ships that would be small businesses
today. We do not have a democracy now.
Bill Bodden , March 15, 2017 at 10:44 pm
On MSNBC's "Morning Joe" show, Friedman demanded that the Russia hacking allegations be
treated as a casus belli: "That was a 9/11 scale event. They attacked the core of our democracy.
That was a Pearl Harbor scale event." Both Pearl Harbor and 9/11 led to wars.
This quote suggests it is time to send a team of men with a strait-jacket into the New York
Times to cart this nutcase off to the loony bin. Come to think of it, maybe they should take several
strait-jackets with them and clean out the editorial staff.
Gregory Herr , March 16, 2017 at 6:17 pm
It's absolutely asinine isn't it?! I'll have to take a look, but I'll bet there wasn't a snicker
or even a raised eyebrow when Friedman (the oh-so-serious-in-the-know hushed-toned Friedman who
reveled in promoting the Iraq killing field) spittled his brain drool. He really should be referred.
At the very least, he should have been called out for his absurdity before being excused at the
next commercial break.
It's amazing how people like Kagan & Friedman can straight-face their farcical musings about
Russian "interference". It's funny too how they can go on about the integrity and reliability
of democratic processes when it is precisely the compromise of such that Wikileaks revealed. As
noted by Mr. Parry:
" by all accounts, the WikiLeaks-released emails were real and revealed wrongdoing by leading
Democrats, such as the Democratic National Committee's tilting of the primaries against Sen. Bernie
Sanders and in favor of Clinton. The emails of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta disclosed
the contents of Clinton's paid speeches to Wall Street, which she was trying to hide from voters,
as well as some pay-to-play features of the Clinton Foundation. In other words, the WikiLeaks'
releases helped inform American voters about abuses to the U.S. democratic process. The emails
were not "disinformation" or "fake news." They were real news."
So much for real news in this country. And my God Mr. Kagan, Trump doesn't necessarily have
faith in the findings or motives of the "intelligence community". I wonder why.
I hope the Kagans find their karma. Oh, and that weasel Friedman too.
Bill Bodden , March 15, 2017 at 10:48 pm
Given the wars the Kagans have helped promote and the consequences of these wars, surely there
is some crime they could be charged with.
MEexpert , March 16, 2017 at 11:29 pm
We wish.
F. G. Sanford , March 15, 2017 at 11:21 pm
The desperation with which neocons are baiting for a new Cold War suggests that there is something
much bigger than "election hacking" that needs covering up. Profit motives aside, the cost-benefit
ratio looks more like a ploy to stay out of jail. Not that anyone in the "deep state" ever faces
penalties for High Crimes and Misdemeanors, but it must be a nagging thought to anyone familiar
with Julius Streicher and Alfred Rosenberg.
Institute for the Study of War, that says it all! I remember when Dennis Kucinich as Representative
from Ohio introduced a bill to create a Department of Peace. It didn't go very far.
I also did not know about Frederick and Kimberly Kagan. How many more of these Kagans can be
spawned?
Thanks for a good warning, Robert Parry. These people must dream of war at night. I hope Trump
and Tillerson are wary of them.
Eric Bischoff , March 16, 2017 at 9:11 am
"How many more of these Kagans can be spawned?"
Yes and how many more Devos and Princes can we afford as well. Or how many Bushes, Clintons
or Trumps!
Sr. Gibbonk , March 16, 2017 at 1:10 am
Ah yes, The Project for a New American Century manifesto: primary authors Robert Kagan and
William Kristol on behalf of the neocon cabal and the European colonial Zionist project. Another
demonstration that narrow, selfish interests, greed and the thirst for power drive this world.
And all the while there are two great storms brewing on the horizon, each capable of driving our's
and the majority of this earth's species to extinction. One, perhaps the most imminent, is the
very real possibility of nuclear annihilation which is being spearheaded by the reckless ideologues
and predatory capitalist deep state demagogues in their quest for Full Spectrum Dominance of global
affairs. Even if the dire specter of nuclear holocaust is somehow avoided the global corporate
world's avaricious, boundless appetite for short term profits, especially through fossil fuel
extraction, will make the worst predictions of climate change inevitable: ecological collapse
and along with it the collapse not only of nation states but of the human capacity to reason.
How will the great nuclear powers, flailing like dinosaurs during the Permian-Triassic extinction
- also known as The Great Dying - not then Become Death, the Destroyer of Worlds?
Stygg , March 16, 2017 at 6:44 pm
FWIW, dinosaurs did not yet exist by the end of the Permian.
Eric Downey , March 16, 2017 at 3:15 am
Robert Parry thank you, and please continue your hard work. Our best hope for peace lies with
Trump, Bannon, Tillerson and the Generals. It sounds crazy (and it is!) but they are well suited
because they are aligned with a good chunk of the vocal electorate. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) proposed
a bill Stop Arming Terrorists Act, and it has a companion in the Senate, sponsored by Rand Paul:
https://www.mintpressnews.com/rand-paul-joins-tulsi-gabbard-calling-congress-stop-funding-isis-al-qaeda/225868/
This is an informed electorate taking action. Parry is doing his job by informing us. Our job
is to support H.R.608 and S.532.
Gary , March 16, 2017 at 5:05 am
There are so many in Washington who deserve to be tried for crimes against humanity that it
is difficult to know where one would start. Actually, come to think of it, the Kagan family would
be a great place to start! Then of course we'd have to move on to Bill and Hillary and another
highly deserving couple Samantha Powers and hubby Cass Sustien of "cognitive infiltration" fame.
Apparently psychopaths do find each other quite attractive, though who knows how many homicidal
fantasies these particular spouses might actually harbor toward each other??
Trump has been neutralised to become a puppet of deep state. The world should expect the war
business as usual.
Geoffrey de Galles , March 16, 2017 at 7:44 am
If I were the Kagans with as loaded an agenda as they share in the worldwide assertion of American
exceptionalism, then I would consider the POTUS's Achilles heel to be Jared Kushner and his wife;
and, in a more or less gentle and subtle way, would endeavour first to establish a relationship
with them as a means of gradually bringing the pater familias around to my bellicose and imperialistic
way of thinking. Myself, I consider the Kagans (among many others) to be the true enemy of the
people. But that's my concern - viz., with trying to anticipate and out-think the enemy. So best
watch out in that direction.
fudmier , March 16, 2017 at 8:00 am
The problem here is lack of ideal structure to for the concerned to become involved with
No one has outlined the ideal America as seen from the point of everyday Americans..
these 340,000,000 millions have no idea what to be for and against because they have
no structure and no purpose .. seems to me developing that structure (culture, education,
health care, voting rights, financial security, infra structure, and the like).
Developing the structure is a first step to mounting the support Trump needs to make the right
decisions..
Trump himself lacks that structure.. Once the structure becomes a household word everyone knows
the
right decision they might agree to disagree on its implementation but the result intended is in
plain view.
Why would the Russians need to undermine democracy in the United States when the Democratic
and Republican party machines are doing such a marvellous job of it by themselves?
The title should be, "How To Turn Unemployment Into A Great Day At The Gallows."
Eric Bischoff , March 16, 2017 at 9:08 am
Aren't there laws that the Kagan family are breaking? Seems to me we should start with them
and arrest them for the lies that took the Bush regime into the Middle East wars and definitely
for the Ukraine coup. They are financing and spreading terrorism therefore the money and the financiers
behind these war think tanks are also guilty. This goes all the way to the Koch Brothers and they
should be arrested as well! Why are we, the peace crusaders, on the defensive. We need to go on
the offensive. Enough already!
As P T barnum said " Theres a sucker born every minute". The real question is ; Are the American
people going to get suckered into a war with Russia and or China? Given their past record of seriously
questioning the propaganda put out by the Kagans et all i am not too hopeful over this present
push to what will be a catastrophic war.
LJ , March 16, 2017 at 2:26 pm
It's all talk. We can't beat the Taliban or the Viet Cong or the Mexican and Central American
drug Gangs on the ground if it comes to that. Russia? China? That's funny. This is to justify
perpetuation of the status quo in this nation. We the People can't be allowed to pick up our heads
and gaze at reality. We need to be preoccupied with the BS. Political Correctness has done it's
job now we have to spend a bunch of money on imaginary threats so billionaires and bankers can
get richer and we can all pretend that they matter and that this is fair and justified and Democracy
in action , We need idiotic Generals in charge and tough talking politicians too. Obfuscation,
whatever word or combination of words you like . It's fascistic crap. We the People didn't want
more war in Syria under Obama . Nothing has changed , next time it won't matter if 90% of calls
to Congressional offices are against a war. This is what Eisenhower said would happen back in
1958 though the entrenchment of the Military Industrial Financial Cyber Intelligence Complex.
exiled off mainstreet , March 16, 2017 at 10:26 am
Rather than being extolled and given mainstream platforms to exercise their baleful interests,
the Kagans should face some sort of legal accountability as professional war criminals.
Stiv , March 16, 2017 at 11:42 am
Jesus Christ. Yea yea yea. Same old same old. In searching for a sign of light after the elections,
the best I was able to do is " well at least Nuland won't be Secretary of State". But to go on
and on and on
Isn't there more important stuff going on? How about the "Hard diplomacy" Trumpistas are spouting
about?
It's been funny .in a sick way to see Trump and administration figures using the same language
as Parry and his hangers on. "McCarthyism", "Deep State" are used every other paragraph.
It's been noted a marked shift towards the Trump administration talking points in commentary
here at Consortium "news". Even the "fake news" debacle is furthered here.
And not in the right direction.
My question .When does the news start, Robert?
D5-5 , March 16, 2017 at 1:17 pm
You know it's possible you're so angry you're not really paying attention. It you think there's
been a "marked shift towards Trump administration talking points in commentary here" you're not
really reading what's here, just swiftly glancing and stamping your foot with irritation. Why
don't you provide a little news yourself instead of your same old same old bitching all the time?
So your grasp of what has "importance" is not aligned with CN and the thrust of its commentary.
I think you've made that clear on several ad nauseam occasions.
I should think that if this site was about reiterating Trump Administration talking points, we'd
have the "hard diplomacy" thing covered by now. If you are concerned about what Mr. Parry publishes,
submit articles on what you think is important. If you are concerned about the level or direction
of commentary here, contribute with something substantive.
LJ , March 16, 2017 at 10:18 pm
Well, the Trump team players even Donald himself need to defend themselves for their own reasons.
I think most commenters here are a little worried and rightly so for their own reasons, I personally
do not like the vilification of all things Russian and the obvious McCarthy like tactics that
have been going on calling for a witch hunt, a special prosecutor on the basis of unsubstantiated
allegations. Democrats aren't calling out for justice they want to geld Trump but Pense would
be even worse. Maybe it's time tobelieve in Democracy at some level.
John , March 16, 2017 at 12:06 pm
The Kagans are simply supplying a strategy to further a growing agenda ..The average USA citizen's
strategy is complacency and their agenda is simply to do nothing ..This is why the 1% rule over
the 99% ..
Tony Cartaluccu's article on The Deep State is excellent, thank you, Joe. The multipolar world
he speaks of, which Putin often refers to, is what the neocon imperialists such as the Kagans
don't want, but they're getting it, anyway. Since the days of the Iraq War, many great alternative
journalists, such as this website, have exposed and continue to expose the facts behind deep state
propaganda so these folks can't dominate as they used to. The USA doesn't look so good to a lot
of nations after the disasters created by the regime change proxy wars. Despite the badmouthing
of Putin and Russia in the US, many other countries aren't signing on to that attitude, from what
I've read. I have just read that China wants to help rebuild Syria, since Syria is an important
geographic route on their One Belt, One Road project. If the US can't recognize it can't remain
top dog forever and that it's a multipolar world, it might find itself isolated.
Dag , March 16, 2017 at 1:23 pm
The Kagans should be in prison for all the crimes they've enabled, all the lives they've destroyed.
Robert Parry & Glenn Greenwald are at the top of my short list of real-life, courageous, truth-telling
heroes but, for today, Kiza reigns supreme with her tour de force:"Between the Clinton liberals
and the Ziocons C'est une Affaire d'Amour Toujours, as Pepé Le Pew likes to say."
Massive props, Zika, for referencing Pepe, HRC, & neocons in a single sentence
Ted , March 16, 2017 at 2:00 pm
OK, I get it about the Kagans, but I still don't trust Putin.
So then, Ted, why don't you move to Russia so that you can do an objective evaluation of the
country and under Putin? Of course, Russian is not an easy language to learn! It's just reported on Global Research that Russia has absorbed 2.5 million Ukrainian refugees
since the US 2014 coup and Europe 900,000 more, according to a Kremlin parliamentarian in February.
Thanks to Victoria Nuland!
Ted , March 16, 2017 at 4:46 pm
Hmm that's a response I would expect at TheBlaze – knee-jerk and black-and-white.
Perhaps I should learn Russian. Are you offering to teach me, comrade?
J'hon Doe II , March 16, 2017 at 3:39 pm
UK/US is the Last Empire and Trump is an 'angel-of-death'.
Nothing good can or will from his spurious administration .
The PNAC psychopaths did their part in 911.
The conquer 7 Nations in 5 years for Israel has been delayed.
The MIC has Al qeada,ISIS. ..even Muslim Brotherhood, ..all over the place, to give the MIC years and years. ..even another decade or more war pleasuring.
Trump kicked huge gift to the Military. ..before the Ides of March arrived.
The Saudi/Qatar block have invested multi millions in regime change Assad.
The trained Mercs forces, logistics, weapons. posture against Iran, and the dream of Pipelines.
Erdogan the Mad Caliph is the receiver of the Terrorists from Saudi or Libya and other, the
reciever of the pipelines.
Israel will not give back the Golan .wants Hezbollah gone from near its Safe Zone.
Far too much money which MIC wants play with. ..and as Admiral Thomas Moorer commented,
" No American President can stand up to Israel "
US boots going back into Afghanistan, in Yemen, in Iraq, going into Syria, media bleating about US needs go back to Libya and fix that mess.
Trump is where on his supposed non intervention promises?
The John McCain and Deep State media rush against Russia with lies like WMD Iraq.
Is this Deja Vu
Ted, my comment was sarcastic because you did not back up your opinion with any facts. The
situation is getting very sticky with now Canada's Foreign Minister getting into the smearfest.
Freeland just pulled out the Crimean Tatars as being victims of Russian aggression, and I, knowing
nothing about the issue, had to start digging, which began with US articles supporting brutalization
by Russia, some from 2016. Digging out further are some articles that this is not the case, Tatars
supported going with Russia as Crimeans voted. All which supports that propaganda is rife, is
there a free press anymore, and the virulent fixation on Russia is out of control. And my position
is that some politicians are willing to take us to extinction to get their way, while we have
a planet with many problems we should be addressing.
"... The Kagan family, America's neoconservative aristocracy, has reemerged having recovered from the letdown over not gaining its expected influence from the election of Hillary Clinton and from its loss of official power at the start of the Trump presidency. ..."
"... "Neoconservative pundit Robert Kagan and his wife, Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, run a remarkable family business: she has sparked a hot war in Ukraine and helped launch Cold War II with Russia and he steps in to demand that Congress jack up military spending so America can meet these new security threats. ..."
"... "This extraordinary husband-and-wife duo makes quite a one-two punch for the Military-Industrial Complex, an inside-outside team that creates the need for more military spending, applies political pressure to ensure higher appropriations, and watches as thankful weapons manufacturers lavish grants on like-minded hawkish Washington think tanks. ..."
"... the Ukraine putsch led to the secession of Crimea and a bloody civil war in eastern Ukraine with ethnic Russians, events that the State Department and the mainstream Western media deemed "Russian aggression" or a "Russian invasion." ..."
"... Yet, the so-called "#Resistance" to Trump's presidency and President Obama's unprecedented use of his intelligence agencies to paint Trump as a Russian "Manchurian candidate" gave new hope to the neocons and their agenda. ..."
"... It has taken them a few months to reorganize and regroup but they now see hope in pressuring Trump so hard regarding Russia that he will have little choice but to buy into their belligerent schemes. ..."
"... As often is the case, the Family Kagan has charted the course of action – batter Republicans into joining the all-out Russia-bashing and then persuade a softened Trump to launch a full-scale invasion of Syria. In this endeavor, the Kagans have Democrats and liberals as the foot soldiers. ..."
Exclusive: The neocon royalty Kagans are counting on Democrats and liberals to be the foot soldiers
in the new neocon campaign to push Republicans and President Trump into more "regime change" wars,
reports Robert Parry.
The Kagan family, America's neoconservative aristocracy, has reemerged having recovered from
the letdown over not gaining its expected influence from the election of Hillary Clinton and from
its loss of official power at the start of the Trump presidency.
Back pontificating on prominent op-ed pages, the Family Kagan now is pushing for an expanded U.S.
military invasion of Syria and baiting Republicans for not joining more enthusiastically in the anti-Russian
witch hunt over Moscow's alleged help in electing Donald Trump.
In a Washington Post op-ed on March 7, Robert Kagan, a co-founder of the Project for the New American
Century and a key architect of the Iraq War, jabbed at Republicans for serving as "Russia's accomplices
after the fact" by not investigating more aggressively.
Then, Frederick Kagan, director of the Critical Threats Project at the neocon American Enterprise
Institute, and his wife, Kimberly Kagan, president of her own think tank, Institute for the Study
of War, touted the idea of a bigger U.S. invasion of Syria in a Wall Street Journal op-ed on March
15.
Yet, as much standing as the Kagans retain in Official Washington's world of think tanks and op-ed
placements, they remain mostly outside the new Trump-era power centers looking in, although they
seem to have detected a door being forced open.
Still, a year ago, their prospects looked much brighter. They could pick from a large field of
neocon-oriented Republican presidential contenders or – like Robert Kagan – they could support the
establishment Democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton, whose "liberal interventionism" matched closely
with neoconservatism, differing only slightly in the rationalizations used for justifying wars and
more wars.
There was also hope that a President Hillary Clinton would recognize how sympatico the liberal
hawks and the neocons were by promoting Robert Kagan's neocon wife, Victoria Nuland, from Assistant
Secretary of State for European Affairs to Secretary of State.
Then, there would have been a powerful momentum for both increasing the U.S. military intervention
in Syria and escalating the New Cold War with Russia, putting "regime change" back on the agenda
for those two countries. So, early last year, the possibilities seemed endless for the Family Kagan
to flex their muscles and make lots of money.
A Family Business
As I noted two years ago in an article entitled "
A Family Business of Perpetual War ": "Neoconservative pundit Robert Kagan and his wife,
Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, run a remarkable family business: she has sparked a
hot war in Ukraine and helped launch Cold War II with Russia and he steps in to demand that Congress
jack up military spending so America can meet these new security threats.
"This extraordinary husband-and-wife duo makes quite a one-two punch for the Military-Industrial
Complex, an inside-outside team that creates the need for more military spending, applies political
pressure to ensure higher appropriations, and watches as thankful weapons manufacturers lavish grants
on like-minded hawkish Washington think tanks.
"Not only does the broader community of neoconservatives stand to benefit but so do other members
of the Kagan clan, including Robert's brother Frederick at the American Enterprise Institute and
his wife Kimberly, who runs her own shop called the Institute for the Study of War."
But things didn't quite turn out as the Kagans had drawn them up. The neocon Republicans stumbled
through the GOP primaries losing out to Donald Trump and then – after Hillary Clinton muscled aside
Sen. Bernie Sanders to claim the Democratic nomination – she fumbled away the general election to
Trump.
After his surprising victory, Trump – for all his many shortcomings – recognized that the neocons
were not his friends and mostly left them out in the cold. Nuland not only lost her politically appointed
job as Assistant Secretary but resigned from the Foreign Service, too.
With Trump in the White House, Official Washington's neocon-dominated foreign policy establishment
was down but far from out. The neocons were tossed a lifeline by Democrats and liberals who detested
Trump so much that they were happy to pick up Nuland's fallen banner of the New Cold War with Russia.
As part of a dubious scheme to drive Trump from office, Democrats and liberals hyped evidence-free
allegations that Russia had colluded with Trump's team to rig the U.S. election.
New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman spoke for many of this group when he compared Russia's
alleged "meddling" to Japan's bombing of Pearl Harbor and Al Qaeda's 9/11 terror attacks.
On MSNBC's "Morning Joe" show, Friedman
demanded that the Russia hacking allegations be treated as a casus belli: "That was a 9/11 scale
event. They attacked the core of our democracy. That was a Pearl Harbor scale event." Both Pearl
Harbor and 9/11 led to wars.
So, with many liberals blinded by their hatred of Trump, the path was open for neocons to reassert
themselves.
Baiting Republicans
Robert Kagan
took to the high-profile op-ed page of The Washington Post to bait key Republicans, such as Rep.
Devin Nunes, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee who was pictured above the Post article
and its headline, "Running interference for Russia."
Gen. David Petraeus posing before the U.S. Capitol with Kimberly Kagan, founder and president
of the Institute for the Study of War. (Photo credit: ISW's 2011 Annual Report)
Kagan wrote: "It would have been impossible to imagine a year ago that the Republican Party's
leaders would be effectively serving as enablers of Russian interference in this country's political
system. Yet, astonishingly, that is the role the Republican Party is playing."
Kagan then reprised Official Washington's groupthink that accepted without skepticism the claims
from President Obama's outgoing intelligence chiefs that Russia had "hacked" Democratic emails and
released them via WikiLeaks to embarrass the Clinton campaign.
Though Obama's intelligence officials
offered no verifiable evidence to support the claims – and WikiLeaks denied getting the two batches
of emails from the Russians – the allegations were widely accepted across Official Washington as
grounds for discrediting Trump and possibly seeking his removal from office.
Ignoring the political conflict of interest for Obama's appointees, Kagan judged that "given the
significance of this particular finding [about Russian meddling], the evidence must be compelling"
and justified "a serious, wide-ranging and open investigation."
But Kagan also must have recognized the potential for the neocons to claw their way back to power
behind the smokescreen of a New Cold War with Russia.
He declared: "The most important question concerns Russia's ability to manipulate U.S. elections.
That is not a political issue. It is a national security issue. If the Russian government did interfere
in the United States' electoral processes last year, then it has the capacity to do so in every election
going forward. This is a powerful and dangerous weapon, more than warships or tanks or bombers.
"Neither Russia nor any potential adversary has the power to damage the U.S. political system
with weapons of war. But by creating doubts about the validity, integrity and reliability of U.S.
elections, it can shake that system to its foundations."
A Different Reality
As alarmist as Kagan's op-ed was, the reality was far different. Even if the Russians did hack
the Democratic emails and somehow slipped the information to WikiLeaks – an unsubstantiated and disputed
contention – those two rounds of email disclosures were not that significant to the election's outcome.
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders. (NBC photo)
Hillary Clinton blamed her surprise defeat on FBI Director James Comey briefly reopening the investigation
into her use of a private email server while serving as Secretary of State.
Further, by all accounts, the WikiLeaks-released emails were real and revealed wrongdoing by leading
Democrats, such as the Democratic National Committee's tilting of the primaries against Sen. Bernie
Sanders and in favor of Clinton. The emails of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta disclosed the
contents of Clinton's paid speeches to Wall Street, which she was trying to hide from voters, as
well as some pay-to-play features of the Clinton Foundation.
In other words, the WikiLeaks' releases helped inform American voters about abuses to the U.S.
democratic process. The emails were not "disinformation" or "fake news." They were real news.
A similar disclosure occurred both before the election and this week when someone leaked details
about Trump's tax returns, which are protected by law. However, except for the Trump camp, almost
no one thought that this illegal act of releasing a citizen's tax returns was somehow a threat to
American democracy.
The general feeling was that Americans have a right to know such details about someone seeking
the White House. I agree, but doesn't it equally follow that we had a right to know about the DNC
abusing its power to grease the skids for Clinton's nomination, about the contents of Clinton's speeches
to Wall Street bankers, and about foreign governments seeking pay-to-play influence by contributing
to the Clinton Foundation?
Yet, because Obama's political appointees in the U.S. intelligence community "assess" that Russia
was the source of the WikiLeaks emails, the assault on U.S. democracy is a reason for World War III.
More Loose Talk
But Kagan was not satisfied with unsubstantiated accusations regarding Russia undermining U.S.
democracy. He asserted as "fact" – although again without presenting evidence – that Russia is "interfering
in the coming elections in France and Germany, and it has already interfered in Italy's recent referendum
and in numerous other elections across Europe. Russia is deploying this weapon against as many democracies
as it can to sap public confidence in democratic institutions."
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, flanked by Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian
Affairs Victoria "Toria" Nuland, addresses Russian President Vladimir Putin in a meeting at the Kremlin
in Moscow, Russia, on July 14, 2016. [State Department Photo]
There's been a lot of handwringing in Official Washington and across the Mainstream Media about the
"post-truth" era, but these supposed avatars for truth are as guilty as anyone, acting as if constantly
repeating a fact-free claim is the same as proving it.
But it's clear what Kagan and other neocons have in mind, an escalation of hostilities with Russia
and a substantial increase in spending on U.S. military hardware and on Western propaganda to "counter"
what is deemed "Russian propaganda."
Kagan recognizes that he already has many key Democrats and liberals on his side. So he is taking
aim at Republicans to force them to join in the full-throated Russia-bashing, writing:
"But it is the Republicans who are covering up. The party's current leader, the president, questions
the intelligence community's findings, motives and integrity. Republican leaders in Congress have
opposed the creation of any special investigating committee, either inside or outside Congress. They
have insisted that inquiries be conducted by the two intelligence committees.
"Yet the Republican chairman of the committee in the House has indicated that he sees no great
urgency to the investigation and has even questioned the seriousness and validity of the accusations.
The Republican chairman of the committee in the Senate has approached the task grudgingly.
"The result is that the investigations seem destined to move slowly, produce little information
and provide even less to the public. It is hard not to conclude that this is precisely the intent
of the Republican Party's leadership, both in the White House and Congress.
"When Republicans stand in the way of thorough, open and immediate investigations, they become
Russia's accomplices after the fact."
Lying with the Neocons
Many Democrats and liberals may find it encouraging that a leading neocon who helped pave the
road to war in Iraq is now by their side in running down Republicans for not enthusiastically joining
the latest Russian witch hunt. But they also might pause to ask themselves how they let their hatred
of Trump get them into an alliance with the neocons.
Russian President Vladimir Putin, following his address to the UN General Assembly on Sept. 28,
2015. (UN Photo)
On Wednesday in The Wall Street Journal, Robert Kagan's brother Frederick and his wife Kimberly
dropped the other shoe, laying out the neocons' long-held dream of a full-scale U.S. invasion of
Syria, a project that was put on hold in 2004 because of U.S. military reversals in Iraq.
But the neocons have long lusted for "regime change" in Syria and were not satisfied with Obama's
arming of anti-government rebels and the limited infiltration of U.S. Special Forces into northern
Syria to assist in the retaking of the Islamic State's "capital" of Raqqa.
In the Journal op-ed, Frederick and Kimberly Kagan call for opening a new military front in southeastern
Syria:
"American military forces will be necessary. But the U.S. can recruit new Sunni Arab partners
by fighting alongside them in their land. The goal in the beginning must be against ISIS because
it controls the last areas in Syria where the U.S. can reasonably hope to find Sunni allies not yet
under the influence of al Qaeda. But the aim after evicting ISIS must be to raise a Sunni Arab army
that can ultimately defeat al Qaeda and help negotiate a settlement of the war.
"The U.S. will have to pressure the Assad regime, Iran and Russia to end the conflict on terms
that the Sunni Arabs will accept. That will be easier to do with the independence and leverage of
a secure base inside Syria. President Trump should break through the flawed logic and poor planning
that he inherited from his predecessor. He can transform this struggle, but only by transforming
America's approach to it."
A New Scheme on Syria
In other words, the neocons are back to their clever word games and their strategic maneuverings
to entice the U.S. military into a "regime change" project in Syria.
The neocons thought they had almost pulled off that goal by pinning a mysterious sarin gas attack
outside Damascus on Aug. 21, 2013, on the Syrian government and mousetrapping Obama into launching
a major U.S. air assault on the Syrian military.
But Russian President Vladimir Putin stepped in to arrange for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad
to surrender all his chemical weapons even as Assad continued to deny any role in the sarin attack.
Putin's interference in thwarting the neocons' dream of a Syrian "regime change" war moved Putin
to the top of their enemies' list. Soon key neocons, such as National Endowment for Democracy president
Carl Gershman, were taking aim at Ukraine, which Gershman
deemed "the biggest prize" and a steppingstone toward eventually ousting Putin in Moscow.
It fell to Assistant Secretary Victoria "Toria" Nuland
to oversee the "regime change" in Ukraine. She was caught on an unsecured phone line in late
January or early February 2014 discussing with U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt how "to
glue" or "to midwife" a change in Ukraine's elected government of President Viktor Yanukovych.
Several weeks later, neo-Nazi and ultranationalist street fighters spearheaded a violent assault
on government buildings forcing Yanukovych and other officials to flee for their lives, with the
U.S. government quickly hailing the coup regime as "legitimate."
But the Ukraine putsch led to the secession of Crimea and a bloody civil war in eastern Ukraine
with ethnic Russians, events that the State Department and the mainstream Western media deemed "Russian
aggression" or a "Russian invasion."
So, by the last years of the Obama administration, the stage was set for the neocons and the Family
Kagan to lead the next stage of the strategy of cornering Russia and instituting a "regime change"
in Syria.
All that was needed was for Hillary Clinton to be elected president. But these best-laid plans
surprisingly went astray. Despite his overall unfitness for the presidency, Trump defeated Clinton,
a bitter disappointment for the neocons and their liberal interventionist sidekicks.
Yet, the so-called "#Resistance" to Trump's presidency and President Obama's unprecedented
use of his intelligence agencies to paint Trump as a Russian "Manchurian candidate" gave new hope
to the neocons and their agenda.
It has taken them a few months to reorganize and regroup but they now see hope in pressuring
Trump so hard regarding Russia that he will have little choice but to buy into their belligerent
schemes.
As often is the case, the Family Kagan has charted the course of action – batter Republicans
into joining the all-out Russia-bashing and then persuade a softened Trump to launch a full-scale
invasion of Syria. In this endeavor, the Kagans have Democrats and liberals as the foot soldiers.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press
and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either
in
print here or as an e-book (from
Amazon and
barnesandnoble.com ).
While I strongly
disagree with the
proposed cuts in
domestic spending and
I would not want to
see more defense
spending, let's put
this in context:
"The $54 billion boost
for the military is
the largest since
President Ronald
Reagan's Pentagon
buildup in the 1980s"
In 2016, defense
spending had declined
to 3.9% of GDP. If all
of this passed -
defense spending would
be 4.2% of GDP. Under
Reagan, this ratio was
closer to 7%.
Hey I'm fine with
keeping defense
spending low but this
quote is a bit of
hyperbole.
I know, I know
military spending of
$732.2 billion in 2016
was not really that
high when we stand
upside down and look
in a mirror. Let's
have more, after all
there is the war we
are fighting while not
fighting in Yemen to
consider. Yemen?
"I know, I know military spending of $732.2 billion in 2016
was not really that high when we stand upside down and look
in a mirror. Let's have more, after all there is the war we
are fighting while not fighting in Yemen to consider."
In
constant dollars, "defense spending" is as large as during
the Vietnam war.
The spending was 94.261 billion in 1968 which is according
to measuring worth, "In 2015, the relative value of
$94,261.00 from 1968 ranges from $503,000.00 to
$1,800,000.00."
But war is primarily labor engaged in destroying capital
and killing workers and consumers. Bombs and bullets cost the
labor to manufacture them, as everything is consumption by
the end of wars.
Thus the best measure is "labor earnings of that commodity
is $659,000.00 (using the unskilled wage) or $818,000.00
(using production worker compensation)"
The nominal cost in 2015 from the same source, us
governmentspending.com, is 797.878 billion.
But the number of soldiers in the military, in and out of
combat, is about 3.5 million in 1968 vs 1.4 million today.
The military until Nixon was a major job training system.
The military did virtually everything with soldiers, and
soldiers served an average of 3 years, so in three years, a
soldier, did a few "normal" jobs, while at the same time
being ready to "fight", and serving active soldiers with some
appreciation of why their work mattered to soldiers.
Today, the military no longer provides much in the way of
job training and worker development. It is far less efficient
and productive, and that is the result of bad policy by both
conservatives and progressives.
Progressives are especially bad because they want job
killing defense cuts to pay the poor to not work and stay in
economic dead zones. After all, what progressive has called
for creating a government job Corp of, in population adjusted
terms, at least 3 million workers, drafted into the job Corp,
paid low wages because they are given room and board, and
working for 2-3 years in whatever backwater government sends
you, doing whatever crap job tells you to do?
While we are having fun with nominal figures over time,
defense spending was only $181 billion in 1980 but grew to
$412 billion by 1991. It was $392 billion in 2000 (the last
year of the peace dividend) and grew to $837 billion by 2011
(when we finally pulled out of Iraq). Of course all this
needs to be adjusted for inflation etc.
It goes almost without saying
that our country is extremely
nutty about defense spending.
That is 'ok' (i.e.
'accepted')
because National Security is a
role ceded to the federal guv'mint
by the states, and has a military
focus. The 'general welfare' aspects
of National Security are much less
appreciated/accepted/understood by
the population at large, it would seem.
"... "The Warrior Kagan Family", that must have been Greenwald's big joke, I hope. Those people give a meaning to the name chickenhawks, they would not know from which end a gun fires, but they certainly know how to get millions killed by others. ..."
"... Their money ensures that their aggressive writings still get published in the usual Deep State media. I particularly liked a touch of light humor by Mr Parry: "There was also hope that a President Hillary Clinton would recognize how sympatico the liberal hawks and the neocons were by promoting Robert Kagan's neocon wife, Victoria Nuland, to Secretary of State." ..."
"... What is troublesome is with the Kagan's screaming out, 'watch the Russians, beware of the Russians' and with the 24/7 MSM alarm bells going off over Russia, will the Trump Adminstration need to craft their foreign policy around the likes of these Russia Haters? ..."
"... The common denominator is profit and increased market share fueled by greed ..Part of the blame can be laid at the feet of the average USA investor who fuels the stock market looking for the best return on his/her money. ..."
"... After finding this early warning essay by Cartalucci I have often wondered that if our MSM were to have scooped this kind of news regarding the travels of Senator John McCain would the tragedy of Benghazi have never happened. ..."
"... Plus this article adds insight to how the Deep State operates. McCain should be the one held for high treason, but as things are that will never happen. The more you may learn the more you may find that Donald Trump seems to be less of a problem than we all know. Now that isn't an endorsement of Trump, as much as it is a heads up to notice who all is behind the curtain. ..."
"... I recommend reading the latest blog by Moon of Alabama and enlightened comments. You will get further details on what the Kagans' plans are – what they would have done for sure under their L'Amour Toujours, Clinton as President. ..."
"... I read that moonofalabama, b is always right on. In fact b and Robert Parry are excellent examples of how 'small' is good. http://journal-neo.org/2017/03/15/us-expands-defacto-syrian-invasion/ The above article by Tony Cartalucci is along the same lines as moonofalabama. ..."
"... Excellent point – how to quickly recognise psychopaths: "psychopathy is the habit of using emotionally loaded language in tones which betray no actual connection to the content". A large proportion of our politicians fit the description. ..."
"... "I noted two years ago in an article entitled "A Family Business of Perpetual War": "Neoconservative pundit Robert Kagan and his wife, Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, run a remarkable family business: she has sparked a hot war in Ukraine and helped launch Cold War II with Russia and he steps in to demand that Congress jack up military spending so America can meet these new security threats. This extraordinary husband-and-wife duo makes quite a one-two punch for the Military-Industrial Complex, an inside-outside team that creates the need for more military spending, applies political pressure to ensure higher appropriations, and watches as thankful weapons manufacturers lavish grants on like-minded hawkish Washington think tanks." ..."
"... "the so-called "#Resistance" to Trump's presidency and President Obama's unprecedented use of his intelligence agencies to paint Trump as a Russian "Manchurian candidate" gave new hope to the neocons and their agenda. It has taken them a few months to reorganize and regroup but they now see hope in pressuring Trump so hard regarding Russia that he will have little choice but to buy into their belligerent schemes. As often is the case, the Family Kagan has charted the course of action – batter Republicans into joining the all-out Russia-bashing and then persuade a softened Trump to launch a full-scale invasion of Syria. In this endeavor, the Kagans have Democrats and liberals as the foot soldiers." ..."
"... For instance, Robert's brother Frederick works at the American Enterprise Institute, which has long benefited from the largesse of the Military-Industrial Complex, and his wife Kimberly runs her own think tank called the Institute for the Study of War (ISW). ..."
"... Andrew Bacevich referred to Kagan as "the chief neoconservative foreign-policy theorist" in reviewing Kagan's book The Return of history and the end of dreams.[21] ..."
"... Here's Andrew Bacevich's 2014 piece on the Kagans: https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/duplicity-ideologues ..."
"... But Mr Parry, I think it will also be interesting to examine the 'Vault 7' disclosure with regards to this Russia bashing. If the CIA has the ability to put out any email or documentation without a trail as to its origin, the Kagans could be shown as the charlatans they are if it was the CIA who meddled with the US election. ..."
"... "The US military will try to take Raqqa from ISIS with the help of the Kurds in coordination with Syrian government forces. The Syrian government will also destroy al Qaeda in Idleb. The chance that Trump will pick up on any of these neo-con plans is practically zero. But who knows?" ..."
"... On MSNBC's "Morning Joe" show, Friedman demanded that the Russia hacking allegations be treated as a casus belli: "That was a 9/11 scale event. They attacked the core of our democracy. That was a Pearl Harbor scale event." Both Pearl Harbor and 9/11 led to wars. ..."
"... It's just reported on Global Research that Russia has absorbed 2.5 million Ukrainian refugees since the US 2014 coup and Europe 900,000 more, according to a Kremlin parliamentarian in February. Thanks to Victoria Nuland! ..."
"... Far too much money which MIC wants play with. ..and as Admiral Thomas Moorer commented, " No American President can stand up to Israel " ..."
"... the virulent fixation on Russia is out of control. ..."
It's not the Family Kagan, but rather as Glenn Greenwald dubbed them, The Warrior Kagan
Family with a trade mark sign as suffix.
I'll bet Victoria resigned from State, seeing her future there granting visas in Baku.
Thanks, Robert, I haven't had a Kagan fix in quite a while!
Kiza , March 15, 2017 at 8:26 pm
"The Warrior Kagan Family", that must have been Greenwald's big joke, I hope. Those people
give a meaning to the name chickenhawks, they would not know from which end a gun fires, but they
certainly know how to get millions killed by others.
As to Mr Parry, calling them the American neocon royalty, it certainly is some foul-mouth royalty,
telling another Zio servant EU to get f'ed.
Thank you Robert Parry for a great article, just like Bart I was wondering what happened to
the cookie distributing "royalty" after the Clinton fail. It is not surprising that they are now
learning to manipulate outcomes from the opposition. Their money ensures that their aggressive
writings still get published in the usual Deep State media. I particularly liked a touch of light
humor by Mr Parry: "There was also hope that a President Hillary Clinton would recognize how
sympatico the liberal hawks and the neocons were by promoting Robert Kagan's neocon wife,
Victoria Nuland, to Secretary of State."
Between the Clinton liberals and the Ziocons C'est une Affaire d'Amour Toujours , as
Pepé Le Pew likes to say.
Skip Edwards , March 15, 2017 at 11:28 pm
"The Warrior Kagan Family", that must have been Greenwald's big joke, I hope. Those people
give a meaning to the name chickenhawks, they would not know from which end a gun fires, but they
certainly know how to get millions killed by others.
I learned how to laugh again; and, at the expense of all those despicable Kagen's.
Joe Tedesky , March 15, 2017 at 11:49 pm
KIza there is good news inside Robert Parry's article if you look for it. One good thing is
that Hillary isn't the president, and if she were one could only imagine what her and the Kagan's
would be up to right now. The other piece of good news, is that the Kagan's are writing op-eds
and not working for the Trump Adminstration.
Now I have read somewhere where the U.S. is working with Russia, and that for the most part
for now has to be done on the low key. Of course with news being 'fake' and all of that, who's
to know?
What is troublesome is with the Kagan's screaming out, 'watch the Russians, beware of the
Russians' and with the 24/7 MSM alarm bells going off over Russia, will the Trump Adminstration
need to craft their foreign policy around the likes of these Russia Haters?
Cheney and Rumsfeld developed 'the Continuity of Government Program' and I'm wondering if that
cast of characters could seep into the mix of things? Plus don't forget the ever reliable CIA
So with all of that working against you, one could only wonder if Ghandi and Jesus could do much
better up against this evil array of villains.
Joe Tedesky , March 16, 2017 at 12:10 am
Here is something worth reading Tony Cartalucci explains the Deep State, and goes on to talk
about how it may be defeated. Here's a hint, the world will not be run by the New World Order.
Very good link, Joe!! The common denominator is profit and increased market share fueled
by greed ..Part of the blame can be laid at the feet of the average USA investor who fuels the
stock market looking for the best return on his/her money. I would not look for much altruistic
behavioral changes in human nature Greed is still the preferred method of operation .and firmly
in control ..
Joe, many thanks for this powerful link on the deep state, and its explanation of the multi-polar
conditions needed, and as happening, plus the link you supplied below related to what's going
on in Syria, also clear and helpful.
Joe Tedesky , March 16, 2017 at 3:30 pm
I'm glad that you all found the link to be informative. I am posting another link to a Tony
Cartalucci article that got my attention of his work a few years ago, and ever since I look forward
to reading his reporting.
This link is interesting for the fact that the original article was published March 2012 which
was somewhere in the neighborhood of six months before the deadly attack took place in Benghazi.
After finding this early warning essay by Cartalucci I have often wondered that if our MSM were
to have scooped this kind of news regarding the travels of Senator John McCain would the tragedy
of Benghazi have never happened.
Plus this article adds insight to how the Deep State operates. McCain should be the one
held for high treason, but as things are that will never happen. The more you may learn the more
you may find that Donald Trump seems to be less of a problem than we all know. Now that isn't
an endorsement of Trump, as much as it is a heads up to notice who all is behind the curtain.
Curious , March 16, 2017 at 5:16 pm
Thanks for the two links Joe. I didn't think it was possible for me to dislike McCain more
than I already did, but I was wrong. I did like Senator Pauls' comment about McCain today however.
He basically said McCain is a perfect example of why we should have term limits in the Senate,
which is so true.
Kiza , March 16, 2017 at 12:24 am
Oh no, I did not mean that it is bad news this is why I wrote that the Kagans are learning
to spew hate from the opposition not from the government. Like D5-5, I recommend reading the
latest blog by Moon of Alabama and enlightened comments. You will get further details on what
the Kagans' plans are – what they would have done for sure under their L'Amour Toujours, Clinton
as President.
As to Jesus, he self-sacrificed himself to show the way out of human predicament. Jesus was
fighting against such ideologues of hate and moneychangers as the Kagans, who are an exemplar
of the mad-gleaming-eye-greedy-finger types so well known in the old Europe. Just observe the
first photo to the article: she looks like she would murder just about any baby in the world to
take her sweet candy.
Joe Tedesky , March 16, 2017 at 1:08 am
I read that moonofalabama, b is always right on. In fact b and Robert Parry are excellent
examples of how 'small' is good.
The above article by Tony Cartalucci is along the same lines as moonofalabama.
At this stage of the game the best that I can put forward with, is we got to take one day at
a time, in order to make sense of whatever the real news is going on inside Syria. From one article
to another it's hard to tell who's fighting, or going to fight who. With the atmosphere here in
America I'm waiting for an arrest to be made if you talk favorably about Russia, or Putin. Seriously,
our MSM cable news networks are going hells bells on this Russian hacking, Russian tampering with
our democracy, Russia has a puppet in the White House, Russia _______fill in the blank. We have
gone totally nuts this time, and it looks like we are going to stay that way for awhile.
I always like to ponder the politics that would have prevailed during the time of Jesus. If
you get a grasp on that then Jesus really stands out better for what he was preaching too, and
preaching against. I'm sure Herod or Ceasar had their Kagan's around in their day, and who knows
how discreetly those ancient Kagan's could have whispered vile and nasty ideas of war and conquest
into their leaders head. When it's all about power and money it's easy to lose ones head, or so
they say. Let's all hope the Kagan's amount to be nothing more than sore losers.
Peter Loeb , March 16, 2017 at 6:13 am
WITH MCCAIN AS HELPER
A good comment Joe Tedesky.
As to Syria, we already have invaded and already plan more (see Defense Appropriation). Of
interest would be Putin's response on the ground.
(When Netanyahu went to Moskow to ask for help in getting Syria to reign in Iran, he was referred
to the sovereign government of Syria! Is the current (and future) US invasion of the sovereign
state of Syria at the invitation of the Syrian Government??
Ans: No! See UN Charter on aggression, I think it is Article 4(2) if memory serves. Besides
the current administration wants to make all its sins of commission such as drones done by the
CIA Which is to say covert and not accountable to anyone (such as DOD, White House etc.).Our
invasion will evidently be
accountable to Israel and Saudi Arabia.
I am certain Moscow has a plan, a response (diplomatic or otherwise).
Donald Trump likes war and being "Commander-in-Chief". All countries involved in war are always
absolutely persuaded that their victory will be quick, easy etc.It also helps(??) the US economy
as all wars have for hundreds of years. No one will oppose more money for defense. I have already
contacted my Mass. Senators in regard to funds for the invasion of Syria as well as my Congressional
Representative. (I expect little support. All lawgivers are dependent on AIPAC support )
--Peter Loeb, Boston, MA, USA
Joe Tedesky , March 16, 2017 at 10:15 am
Except for Desert Storm every war has lasted long past it's end date, and even one could argue
over Desert Storm if you add in the time of occupation or establishing no fly zones to how long
we have been there.
I'm not all that sure yet that Trump likes war. There are times he stresses peace, after he
rally's the people around a powerful military speech. Now, what I do worry about is the people
around him. NIkki Haley just recently in a NBC interview said how we should never trust Russia.
Wow, and she is our UN ambassador. So much for statesmanship and diplomacy.
As far as our CIA goes they are going to get everyone on this planet killed. It's long overdue
to crunch the CIA down to being an information gatherer and stop with the convert intrigue. If
we factor in stability and the quality of human life, then tell me about the one CIA operation
which has been a success. The CIA's interference, and trashing of foreign government sovereignty
is a disgrace, and should I add be prosecuted as a war crime in the highest order. If Trump could
shred the CIA into a thousand pieces then I say, do it Mr President.
The real problem we face while attempting to establish the Yinon Plan, is that we will finally
either partner with Russia somehow over something, or end up fighting Russia and possibly not
fight them through proxies. I don't see either Russia or the U.S. using nukes on each other at
first, but I would be praying for the poor souls in places such as Iran, Yemen, or places like
that. And while we are at it North and South Korea, and once again Japan would most likely be
countries well inside the lines of being in jeopardy.
Russia, and China, should be our natural allies, but there's nothing natural about our country's
foreign policy when world hegemony overrides man's human nature to life in peace.
John , March 16, 2017 at 4:24 pm
Joe,
The other piece of good news is that they are actually starting to walk back the Russia hacked
the election an we can prove it nonsense. Read Glenn Greenwald's latest piece at The Intercept.
At long last sir have they actually some human decency? Nah!!!
Joe Tedesky , March 16, 2017 at 4:52 pm
Thanks John I will be sure to read Greenwald's article, but you know we in America need a bogey
man .so if not Russia then who?
Concerning the foul-mouthing, I was disturbed to hear such strong talk (at least to this earthy
soul) in such a delicate voice. To me a sign of psychopathy is the habit of using emotionally
loaded language in tones which betray no actual connection to the content. Another is causing
the killing of no small amount of people with a large amount of apparent unconcern, but then again
that's a net which would drag an alarming amount of people from corridors of power. Perhaps the
majority of these have mastered the art of matching tone and content in their requirement to at
least appear Human to their subjects.
Kiza , March 16, 2017 at 6:00 am
Excellent point – how to quickly recognise psychopaths: "psychopathy is the habit of using
emotionally loaded language in tones which betray no actual connection to the content". A large
proportion of our politicians fit the description. Thank you.
Nastarana , March 16, 2017 at 10:34 am
Kiza, Please don't forget that is a "sign of psychopathy". There are other kinds of derangement
in which the unfortunate sufferers are prone to the use of inappropriate body language and verbal
tone, but are not necessarily a danger to others. As for the Kagans, I consider them to be criminals,
plain and simple.
Anon , March 16, 2017 at 1:31 pm
I am waiting to see the male ballerina "foot soldiers" demanding transgender bathrooms in the
trenches.
Joe Tedesky , March 16, 2017 at 3:46 pm
Anon in 1919 Max Sennett was way ahead of you. You might get a kick out of watching Sennett's
movie called 'Yankee Doodle in Berlin'. It is a story about an American soldier dressed as a woman
going behind enemy lines to entice the Kaiser. Also notice the slanted propaganda of the way American
Hollywood film producers were characterizing the Germans. We are all but a product of who came
before us I'm sad to say .but hey enjoy the silent flick anyway.
Oh and with all due respect let's at least give a salute to Chelsea Manning.
BART GRUZALSKI PROF. EMERITUS , March 16, 2017 at 9:26 am
BART IN VIRGINIA!!
Are you really "Bart" as in short for "Bartholomew"!!!!
Parry, thank you for a GREAT article.
Early on you pegged them:
"Back pontificating on prominent op-ed pages, the Family Kagan now is pushing for an expanded
U.S. military invasion of Syria and baiting Republicans for not joining more enthusiastically
in the anti-Russian witch hunt over Moscow's alleged help in electing Donald Trump."
Then skillfully reminding us: "I noted two years ago in an article entitled "A Family Business
of Perpetual War": "Neoconservative pundit Robert Kagan and his wife, Assistant Secretary of State
Victoria Nuland, run a remarkable family business: she has sparked a hot war in Ukraine and helped
launch Cold War II with Russia and he steps in to demand that Congress jack up military spending
so America can meet these new security threats. This extraordinary husband-and-wife duo makes
quite a one-two punch for the Military-Industrial Complex, an inside-outside team that creates
the need for more military spending, applies political pressure to ensure higher appropriations,
and watches as thankful weapons manufacturers lavish grants on like-minded hawkish Washington
think tanks."
Your conclusion is actually overly optimistic:
"the so-called "#Resistance" to Trump's presidency and President Obama's unprecedented
use of his intelligence agencies to paint Trump as a Russian "Manchurian candidate" gave new hope
to the neocons and their agenda. It has taken them a few months to reorganize and regroup but
they now see hope in pressuring Trump so hard regarding Russia that he will have little choice
but to buy into their belligerent schemes. As often is the case, the Family Kagan has charted
the course of action – batter Republicans into joining the all-out Russia-bashing and then persuade
a softened Trump to launch a full-scale invasion of Syria. In this endeavor, the Kagans have Democrats
and liberals as the foot soldiers."
Instead, the Deep State is preparing to begin getting rid of Trump on June 1st:
IF you the reader haven't read my "The Deep State Versus President Trump" it is time (on Amazon
for only $12.95 or less).
Parry, I will immediately post this EXCELLENT article on Facebook. Because my wife and I are
living "by the skin of our teeth" on social security, I can't make a donation, but I will send
in an article on why the Deep State wants Trump gone as a pro bono contribution. Hope you think
it is worthy of publication.
Dr. Bart Gruzalski, Professor Emeritus, Philosophy (ethics, public policy) and Religion
(books: "On the Buddha": "On Gandhi"; and "Why Christians and World-Peace Advocates Voted for
President Donald Trump"), Northeastern University, Boston, MA-and the only Ph.D. in philosophy
among the thousands that I and my mentor Professor Samuel Gorovitz know who voted for and supports
Trump [no, Sam was and is opposed to our POTUS].
dineesh , March 15, 2017 at 7:01 pm
Who is behind them rascals?
evelync , March 15, 2017 at 8:22 pm
Good question! And I don't know the answer, but I googled the question and FWIW depending on
the reliability of the writers of the articles, here's what I found:
"A Family Business
There's also a family-business aspect to these wars and confrontations, since the Kagans collectively
serve not just to start conflicts but to profit from grateful military contractors who kick back
a share of the money to the think tanks that employ the Kagans.
For instance, Robert's brother Frederick works at the American Enterprise Institute, which
has long benefited from the largesse of the Military-Industrial Complex, and his wife Kimberly
runs her own think tank called the Institute for the Study of War (ISW).
According to ISW's annual reports, its original supporters were mostly right-wing foundations,
such as the Smith-Richardson Foundation and the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, but it was
later backed by a host of national security contractors, including major ones like General Dynamics,
Northrop Grumman and CACI, as well as lesser-known firms such as DynCorp International, which
provided training for Afghan police, and Palantir, a technology company founded with the backing
of the CIA's venture-capital arm, In-Q-Tel. Palantir supplied software to US military intelligence
in Afghanistan.
Since its founding in 2007, ISW has focused mostly on wars in the Middle East, especially Iraq
and Afghanistan, including closely cooperating with Gen. David Petraeus when he commanded US forces
in those countries. However, more recently, ISW has begun reporting extensively on the civil war
in Ukraine. [See "Neocons Guided Petraeus on Afghan War."]
"In 1983, Robert Kagan was foreign policy advisor to New York Republican Representative
Jack Kemp. From 1984–86, under the administration of Ronald Reagan, he was a speechwriter for
Secretary of State George P. Shultz and a member of the United States Department of State Policy
Planning Staff. From 1986–1988 he served in the State Department Bureau of Inter-American Affairs.[10]
In 1997, Kagan co-founded the now-defunct neoconservative think tank Project for the New
American Century with William Kristol.[3][5][11] Through the work of the PNAC, Kagan was a
strong advocate of the Iraq war.
From 1998 until August, 2010, Kagan was a Senior Associate with the Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace. He was appointed senior fellow in the Center on United States and Europe
at the Brookings Institution in September 2010.[12][13][14][15] He is also a member of the
board of directors for the neoconservative think tank The Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI).[16]
During the 2008 presidential campaign he served as foreign policy advisor to John McCain,
the Republican Party's nominee for President of the United States in the 2008 election.[17][18]
Since 2011, Kagan has also served on the 25-member State Department's Foreign Affairs Policy
Board under Secretaries of State Hillary Clinton[19] and John Kerry.[20]
Andrew Bacevich referred to Kagan as "the chief neoconservative foreign-policy theorist"
in reviewing Kagan's book The Return of history and the end of dreams.[21]
It's not too difficult to identify the think-tanks the Kagans belong to or run. These organizations
have web sites, and the web sites usually list who the funders are. That's the information you
seek.
For example, the Institute for the Study of War is supported by the likes of General Dynamics,
CACI, Microsoft, Centerra, Capital Bank, etc.
Diana , March 16, 2017 at 7:02 am
Robbie Martin has produced a three-part documentary on them rascals called "A Very Heavy Agenda."
It's well worth watching, but it's expensive the box set of the three DVDs costs $50.00. I opted
for the Vimeo version, where each part can be purchased for $6.99 or rented for $2.99. You can
watch the trailers and learn more at http://averyheavyagenda.com
.
Diana , March 16, 2017 at 8:10 am
You can find the Vimeo versions at
https://vimeo.com/ondemand/averyheavyagenda
. Watch the trailer for Part 3 and you will see that it refers to Robert Parry's "Family Kagan"
article.
Sam , March 16, 2017 at 7:03 am
The ME warmongers are largely zionist Jews, including the Kagan/Nulands and the 2003 Iraq War
II sponsors SecDef Wolfowitz and his Israeli spy operatives Perl, Feith, and Wurmser installed
at CIA/DIA/NSA offices to select known-bad "intelligence" to incite war. The Kochs are of course
complicit. Any who aren't zionist Jews are after their stolen US funds to Israel, fed to stink
tanks and political bribe donations.
The war in Iraq was such a success that the US was forced out having ensured the pro-Iran government
it most feared, having built AlQaeda from a CIA proxy to a regional and then a worldwide enemy,
and having guaranteed the violent Sunni uprising now called IS. Read Bamford's Pretext for War.
Don't we need more of those wars.
BART GRUZALSKI PROF. EMERITUS , March 16, 2017 at 9:29 am
dineesh,
This is a reply to your (lost in the undergrowth): MORE RASCALS, in fact, THE ENTIRE DEEP STATE.
dineesh's question: Who is behind those rascals.
D5-5 , March 15, 2017 at 7:17 pm
Take a look at Moon of Alabama on this Kagan rehash. The comments in response to the analysis
also recommended. Posted today.
Apparently, the lessons taught in Iraq have been forgotten.
Scott , March 15, 2017 at 8:06 pm
A lesson can be had only by those willing to learn. Democrats just lost over 900 seats across
state and federal offices and even that proved not to be a teachable moment.
Curious , March 15, 2017 at 7:50 pm
What a disturbing headline. I had hoped they would have been neutered after the Hillary defeat.
But Mr Parry, I think it will also be interesting to examine the 'Vault 7' disclosure with
regards to this Russia bashing. If the CIA has the ability to put out any email or documentation
without a trail as to its origin, the Kagans could be shown as the charlatans they are if it was
the CIA who meddled with the US election. It would shake their entire platform of blaming
Russia to the core. It is difficult enough as it is to tell the originator of many internal docs
leaked to the public, so the blame game is false as it is. I would welcome more release of the
CIA vault 7 if only to show how often the CIA is involved in internal US politics and "homeland"
situations. This meddling is supposedly against the law.
One could only hope.
Tannenhouser , March 15, 2017 at 8:26 pm
Not only that .A 'democrats' views are so symbiotic to a kagans shows they play for the same
team while occasionally wearing different color jersey's. Curious indeed . I share your hope.
As b says, analyst at Moon of Alabama (he's German by the way) on this topic, "The US military
will try to take Raqqa from ISIS with the help of the Kurds in coordination with Syrian government
forces. The Syrian government will also destroy al Qaeda in Idleb. The chance that Trump will
pick up on any of these neo-con plans is practically zero. But who knows?"
He also finds the Kaganista notions on a THIRD try at raising "the moderates" to get rid of
Assad "drinking the kool aid."
My question is how does this troop infusion, made problematical as Assad has not okayed it,
calling it illegal, and which includes 2500 "tip of the spear" paratroopers in Kuwait, move the
situation on, additional to (or beyond) the goal of cleaning out ISIS? To what, why? Suppose ISIS
defeated (replaced in how long by another ISIS unless the political/economic situation changes
for the sunnis) then what? Trump does an Obama and the US leaves again? Or cuts a deal with the
neocons on pipeline projects etc?
LJ , March 15, 2017 at 9:01 pm
I read that article. The Qatar Turkey Pipeline was one of the hoped for outcomes of the Regime
Change in Syria . This was problematic for Russia and will remain so. If the USA>NATO>EU thought
that they could bring Turkey into the fold with this pipeline it might make sense but right now
this is very unlikely.
Personally I do not think Trump and Tillerson would go for World War .Do not forget that China
is allied with Russia on this and they see Syria as very important to the completion of One Belt
One Road'. Israel's role in the region and in Syria should not be forgotten ever. They are anxious
about the Golan and Russia and they always want the USA to attack Iran. So does Saudi Arabia and
you may have noticed the Saudi Foreign Minister dropping a comment a couple days ago that this
planned action against Hezbollah and Iran is very much on the table.
There are many heads on the chopping block right now not just Assad's, enemies and allies also.
The Planners cannot control the outcome in Turkey (We played our card already), in Iraq, in Syria
or in Lebanon. WE are not liked. All the USA can do at this point is destroy, we can never win
hearts and minds in the Middle East.. Can of Worms.
Joe Tedesky , March 16, 2017 at 1:23 am
I think the biggest worry is to hope that whoever loses can bear the cost of loss. This Syrian
war I don't think at this point is as much about ISIS as it is about land. Land for pipelines
mostly, but land for a whole host of other reasons as well. Sunni, Shia, and Kurds, are the predominant
people who are fighting for space, but so are countries like Turkey, Saudi's, and the Israeli's
in the Golan Heights. So stretching pipelines, and building new one road infrastrutures need land oh
and let's not forget the Shia Crescent and Iran. This area is so messed up I'm not that sure even
the winner will have won much more than a big headache.
Enjoyed reading both of your comments, and thought I'd make some noise to accompany your conversation.
MEexpert , March 16, 2017 at 2:41 am
Joe, both the Syrian and Iraq wars now have two purposes. First is to prevent the dreaded "Shia
Crescent," and the second is to protect Israel. The latest surge in Iraq and Syria by the US forces
is to keep the perpetual wars going by creating "Sunni" zones in Iraq and Syria. When the Iraqi
Army and the Shia militias were battling the ISIS, there were no US boots on the ground. Same
thing in Syria. Consider the timing of this surge. ISIS is almost routed in Iraq and Syria and
all of a sudden Trump sends ground forces to help mop up the remnants of ISIS.
The real purpose is not to clean up ISIS but to prevent the government forces to establish
rule in Mosul. Saudi Arabia wants that part to remain Sunni. This way Iran doesn't win. The US
wants to divide Iraq in three parts, Shia, Sunni, and Kurdish, as has been her plan all along.
Similarly, in Syria, if Assad wins the whole of Syria is under his rule. By inserting herself
in the war, the US wants to set up a Sunni section on behalf of Saudi Arabia and Israel, to be
a thorn in Assad's side and a Kurdish side to punish Erdogan for his behavior and keep him occupied.
The wars will continue in the Middle East, the Military-Industrial Complex will continue to sell
weapons and Israel will be worry free.
What I don't understand is why is US so against the Shias. I can understand Israel's position.
Israel got her rear end kicked twice by a tiny Hezbollah force but why US. It can't be just to
please Israel or is it? So much bloodshed just for that.
Sam , March 16, 2017 at 7:13 am
The US is involved solely to get political campaign funds from Israel stolen from US "aid".
Joe Tedesky , March 16, 2017 at 10:25 am
Going back to the old communist days and Nassar the U.S. sided with Israel. That was back at
a time when we Americans were exposed to the propaganda that Israeli's were like us Americans,
and all Arabs were crazy. We were fine with Iran as long as we had the Shad there to protect our
interest. The Iran Hostage event was excellent PR to demonize Iran for over a forty year period,
and life goes on.
You and I along with many others here believe now is a great time to hit the Middle East reset
button .now how do we convince our country's leadership to do that, is the question.
John P , March 16, 2017 at 8:49 pm
Good article and I think you hit the nails on the heads MEexpert. Your final paragraph, I think
the U.S. wants a stable ally in the region and they believe Israel fills that roll, even though
I see little common interest in eithers ambitions, one for stability the other for annexations.
Perhaps the U.S. politicians hold their noses and hope.
Sam , March 16, 2017 at 7:21 am
The Qatar-Turkey pipeline concept tried to break the "Shiite crescent" of Iran/Iraq/Syria/Lebanon
and compete with the southern Russia-Turkey pipeline; otherwise they would not be seeking war
near pipelines that could more easily have coexisted.
MEexpert , March 16, 2017 at 2:57 am
"Suppose ISIS defeated (replaced in how long by another ISIS unless the political/economic
situation changes for the sunnis) then what?"
Why such concern about the Sunnis? In Iraq only 20% population is Sunni. Yet Saddam, a Sunni,
ruled more that 60% Shias for 35 years and other Sunni rulers before that. There was no concern
for their feelings or their safety by Papa Bush in 1991 or after that when Saddam gassed the Shias
and the Kurds. Bahrain, on the other hand, at one time was 90% Shia with a Sunni ruler, thanks
to the British. The Emir of Bahrain has been systematically stripping the Shias of their citizenship
and importing Sunnis from other countries and giving them Citizenship by recruiting them into
the Bahraini Armed Forces. Even when the uprising started in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia moved in
there to put the uprising down, all US did was to send down the Chairman of the Joints Chiefs
to reassure the Emir of Bahrain and to make sure that the 5th fleet was safe.
D5-5 , March 16, 2017 at 1:02 pm
@ ME Expert:
Thank you for your comments! I'm looking at the above responses, including the additional link
on Syria from Joe, which provides historical perspective also, in terms of US establishing a presence
in eastern Syria to be "a thorn in Assad's side" as you say, and continue to push for regional
control allied with Israel and Saudi Arabia, et al.
On your question why such concern about the Sunnis, here's my impression, which could be too
simple.
With the conquest of Iraq and Bremer's releasing the 400,000 military, a highly Shia favored
sort of revenge government program fell into place, favoring Shias and leading to problems for
Sunnis (including high unemployment) that led on to the creation of ISIS. If similar economic
and political problems are not dealt with, wiping out this iteration of ISIS could lead to another
version of it. I also have the impression the potential number of these dissatisfied, as potential
recruits, could number in many millions (not sure how many). I don't intend to take a position
favoring Sunnis, but am trying to understand the complexity of the grievances of whomever. As
part of this, my understanding is that many members of ISIS are not head-chopping maniacs but
joined as ISIS was the only available opposing force.
On your question why is the US so against the Shias, my impression is they haven't been against
the Shias in Iraq, while simultaneously (and shortsightedly) exercising no influence on fair governance
of Iraq following the 03 invasion, and this favoritism favored the Shias there and stirred Sunni
resistance. But, I'm thinking, the animosity toward Shias elsewhere is related to alignments in
the region, toward dominating the entire region, including taking down Syria and Iran. So it's
not so much animosity toward Shias per se as it is to regime change uncooperative rulers, whether
in Lebanon, Syria, or Iran, with their Shia populations (and lately of course throw in Russia).
At stake is pipelines of various sorts, and water rights, and overall in terms of globalism and
full spectrum dominance taking over the entire middle east region.
I welcome being straightened out on where I'm correct or too simplistic. Thanks again.
D5-5 , March 16, 2017 at 1:08 pm
Meant to say INcorrect or too simplistic!
LJ , March 16, 2017 at 1:48 pm
The politics of divide and conquer can create strange bedfellows. There is deep routed historical
enmity between the Sunnis and Shiites to begin with. Search Twelver. The US has allies and enemies,
Bottom line, Saudi Arabia has a lot of oil and Israel has a lot of political power through it's
representatives in the USA especially but also in Britain and France. The Iranians were our friends
too after the USA overthrow their Democratic Government in 1953 and installed the Shah and the
CIA set up ZAVAK to protect him. It worked until he got weak. . Iran's enmity with the USA and
Israel is well supported by facts . So is Hezbollah's enmity as is the enmity of Palestinians
living in camps in stateless exile in Lebanon and elsewhere. . We don't necessarily hate Shias.
It's policy. A fun fact to know and tell is that the Saudis pump oil from under the feet of the
Shia minority in Saudi Arabia. who have live near the Persian Gulf since they were Persians and
Zoroastrians. Also The US 5th Fleet is stationed in Bahrain courtesy of a treaty with the Sunni
Rulers of the 90% Shiite nation. Yemen in the same story. Policy is a reason why during the Bush
years the USA began referring to the Persian Gulf as the Arabian Gulf. So too, When I was young
Yemen was not unified. It will never be. Houthis are being oppressed in a genocidal manner right
now with US backing because House of Saud sits on the Thrown of Damocles . That is why the King
of Saudi Arabia is on a worldwide tour shaking hands with Xi in China yesterday. etc.,,,, ad nauseum
Joe Tedesky , March 16, 2017 at 4:16 pm
I wouldn't argue with any of you who are commenting here on this thread, because I agree with
all of you. I would like to point out that when Iraq fell the Shia (Shiites) became the popular
ruling segment of Iraq, and then came General David Petraeus. The Sunni Awakening has had profound
ramifications on what we are up against now, if we should be up against anything at all since
most of what we are dealing with is U.S. inspired. The ultimate goal was to descale Iraq away
from Iranian influence, and this social engineering by the U.S. could not have been a bigger mistake
than what it's turned out to be. Now we are turning Yemen into our new Cambodia, and this will
also turn out to be an even bigger mistake unless better minds prevail inside of our White House
(if the Oval Office even has the deciding decision on this). Take a look at a map and see where
Iran is, and then see where we are positioning ourselves. My thoughts are that Iran is the final
goal, and until Iran is brought down, done of us will get a good nights sleep hoping to wake up
to a peaceful world. Also don't take that last sentence of mine to be an endorsement to attack
Iran. I am more than happy to let Iran be Iran.
If we wish to end war, then let's quit fighting them!
MEexpert , March 16, 2017 at 5:57 pm
I agree Iran is the real target. The Afghan and Iraq wars were less against Al-Qaeda, since
there was no Al-Qaeda in Iraq, but more against Iran. George Bush wanted to establish bases around
Iran. In addition to these two countries, he wanted to establish one more in Turkmenistan. US
already had a base in Turkey. Turkmenistan refused to allow any US base. Turkey refused the use
of Turkish base to launch an attack on Iran. US got bogged down in Afghanistan and Iraq. So the
attack on Iran never came. Mind you, the largest US base in Iraq is near the Iran border.
The dismantling of the Iraqi army wasn't the only thing Paul Bremer did wrong. He gave veto
power to the minority Kurds and Sunnis. That is the reason for the non-functional Iraqi government.
Nothing gets done. The Kurds are taking advantage of this situation and with the help of US are
consolidating their territorial position. Saudi Arabia doesn't want another Shia government as
its neighbor and so keeps the sectarian war going adding to the instability of the government.
D5-5 , March 16, 2017 at 7:56 pm
I keep trying to post a link to The Saker for Feb 7 this year, and it keeps disappearing. Easy
to find, however. His analysis on what war with Iran would mean is excellent. "US vs Iran a war
of apples vs. oranges."
LJ , March 15, 2017 at 8:36 pm
Pence seems to be on board already as are McCain and Graham.I agree we can't can't on the Pelosi,
Feinstein, Schumer's Liberal wing of the Democrats here. Maybe the Trump's Generals will save
us? Yeah right. The House of Representatives ? Not likely . Strange days indeed .,
CitizenOne , March 15, 2017 at 9:45 pm
I was not aware of the Kagan's role and I thank you for doing the due diligence on outlining
how this family is intertwined with recent misadventures. But also it is kind of picking at Nits.
This is a smallish operation. It does not compare to the decades long operation of Cheney to privatize
the DOD, teach his corporate buddies a Halliburton how to cash in, dream of further cashing in
himself with PNAC and the Carlyle Group, gin up a war, destabilize the middle east and get a pass
from the media. Cheney and Bush ignored all of the warnings from the FBI and the CIA that Saudi
terrorists were planning an attack which would instantly make the Carlyle Group the wealthiest
private equity firm on the planet.
I agree it is all planned. Planned well in advance. The goal is to become rich by creating
a war or wars.
I realize it is aimed at a microscopic part of the picture but fails to connect the dots of
Kagan and PNAC and 9/11. Cheney's own admission that short of "A New Pearl Harbor" Americans would
not likely go along with his dreams of launching preemptive wars reveal a naked desire to become
rich along with his buddies over at the Carlyle Group which snatched up defense stocks when the
Berlin Wall fell and the USSR was disintegrating. While the rest of the World was celebrating
the possibility of future peace with Russia, The PNAC folks were buying up stock in the defense
industry and were dreaming of a war. which they created by ignoring all of the signs that 9/11
was underway. I get that they felt some future democratic branch of the government would botch
an opportunity to create a fake enemy in Iraq and would fail to launch a war.
But the facts are the whole thing was avoidable and was pushed with a mountain of lies which
the major media simply regurgitated leading us to war.
It doesn't end there. While we are now busy banning millions of people from coming to America
because they might be terrorists, the real terrorists from abroad and here at home with Islamic
ties were all known by the authorities. Yet they did nothing to stop them and instead have used
their failures as excuses to create chaos which they hope will lead to more violence.
How does a guy who went to the FBI and confessed was delusional and heard voices in his head
trying to convert him to an ISIS terrorist then be allowed to board an airplane with a gun?
How was the underpants bomber allowed on a plane when his parents called the US Consulate to
inform US officials that their son was getting on that plane with a bomb. Yet we let this person
on a plane. Why has the media never investigated this failure?
It is failure after failure with gross incompetence from federal authorities charged with our
security that has led to terrorist acts and not the failure to keep millions of people from traveling
here.
The Boston Marathon bombers were singled out to US intelligence agencies by none other than
the Russians that they were terrorists but we let them in. No investigation of that but banning
entire nations is an option we have now tried twice. What about the failure of intelligence to
flag two people who were singled out as terrorists?
There is a much bigger story here.
The US government and intelligence agencies have obviously allowed terrorist attacks to happen.
This has happened time and time again and yet the media focuses on the terrorists time and time
again while ignoring and under reporting the backstory of how we just let it happen.
It can be rationalized by a reasoned argument that we must allow some attacks to focus our
efforts on thwarting even bigger attacks like nuclear attacks but there has been no action by
the government to actually improve security so what is the point.
The meaningless act of taking ones shoes off at an airport is only not copied by forcing us
to all strip down to our underpants based on a similar event to the shoe bomber because people
would not tolerate being forced to take off all their clothes.
Now since an FAA test of airport security revealed that guns were not detected 95% of the time
we are all preparing for pat downs. Nobody is examining the reason that 95% of the time somebody
with a gun in their baggage gets through security which is supposedly equipped with machines that
can spot guns. Where is the investigation of the machines since they fail so often?
There are all sorts of similar stories which all conclude that we are faced with a rational
reason that our government needs to allow some terrorist action to happen which in turn turns
our state increasingly toward a militaristic police state.
What I have a problem with is that we are more likely to be attacked by known terrorists and
that nobody seems to be concerned with. I guess that allowing terrorist attacks provides the political
concurrence to launch trillion dollar wars against other nations all for profit and put spy cupcakes
in our refrigerators. Watch out! There's a camera just below the icing on the cupcake! Don't eat
it!
We can't just ignore home grown terrorists like the shooters in California who, while on a
watch list, were allowed to purchase weapons or the crazy guy who told FBI ISIS was inside his
head to board an airplane with a gun and do nothing to investigate these intelligence failures
and instead use them to seek Apple to grant access to all our information on smartphones and order
travel bans for millions of people while justifying turning our TVs into Big Brother.
We can't ignore the obvious windfalls of Cheney and his pals at the Carlyle group to grow rich
by allowing terrorists to kill thousands of people.
If we are going to spill blood in preparation for war, then we need to make sure we are doing
everything in our power to prevent it and especially not to seek to become rich from it. We also
need to protect our privacy.
So now it comes down to making Russia the new enemy. We have to reinvent an old enemy to justify
further reasons for keeping America strong. But we spend ten times the money on our National Defense
than the Russians do. Where does that line up with weakness? How do we just invent some myth that
there are liberators working abroad in Ukraine and Syria to justify military spending just like
we invented Vietnam? Has Vietnam attacked us recently? I think not. Is Syria a serious player
in the international terrorism game? I think not.
Here is a suggestion. Apply all that money used to create advanced defensive capability into
an industry aimed at real security.
Destabilizing the whole World to get rich is a bad idea. Getting rich by providing the means
of nonmilitary industry aimed at enhancing security is a good idea. Easy money is a crime. Earning
it the hard way is an honest living.
Time for the easy money folks to be sidelined and for the people interested in long term survival
to hold power.
Anyone in the USA who can say they are not aware of the Kagan clan no nothing and should not
be writing such a long comment. Go back to sleep.
CitizenOne , March 16, 2017 at 7:48 pm
That would be spelled: knows nothing
Perhaps you should wake up, learn to spell, and spend more than a lazy moment trolling me. If
you have something intelligent to say we are all waiting with baited breath.
CitizenOne , March 16, 2017 at 7:54 pm
Well I guess I have to forgive Bruce Walker for not being a very good speller.
That would be : bated breath.
My bad.
geoff , March 15, 2017 at 10:07 pm
kagans never fail to excite. a package of madness on my monitor and how the hell did they get
to screw things up. oh!! scuse me yes, hillary whatsaname!!!
Brad N , March 15, 2017 at 10:15 pm
The picture painted here is actually rather dismal when one considers the long term consequences
of having such nonsense going on. Trump as possible savior from a war with Russia is a really
hard pill to swallow. Very hard indeed, it is worth repeating. I have no confidence in his consistency
at all. As for this article, I wish I could find fault with the analysis presented here. Sadly,
I cannot.
Chris Jonsson , March 15, 2017 at 10:37 pm
War, Inc. A family owned and operated corporation.
"Despite his overall unfitness for the presidency, Trump defeated Clinton,"
I greatly appreciate Mr. Parry's reporting and insights. However, I believe that the determination
of fitness for the Presidency is determined by the voters and democracy determines who is qualified.
Sam , March 16, 2017 at 7:35 am
If only we had a democracy, Fran. But in fact elections and mass media are controlled by money,
and our Constitution has no protection of these tools of democracy from money power, because there
were no businesses then larger than plantations and small ships that would be small businesses
today. We do not have a democracy now.
Bill Bodden , March 15, 2017 at 10:44 pm
On MSNBC's "Morning Joe" show, Friedman demanded that the Russia hacking allegations be
treated as a casus belli: "That was a 9/11 scale event. They attacked the core of our democracy.
That was a Pearl Harbor scale event." Both Pearl Harbor and 9/11 led to wars.
This quote suggests it is time to send a team of men with a strait-jacket into the New York
Times to cart this nutcase off to the loony bin. Come to think of it, maybe they should take several
strait-jackets with them and clean out the editorial staff.
Gregory Herr , March 16, 2017 at 6:17 pm
It's absolutely asinine isn't it?! I'll have to take a look, but I'll bet there wasn't a snicker
or even a raised eyebrow when Friedman (the oh-so-serious-in-the-know hushed-toned Friedman who
reveled in promoting the Iraq killing field) spittled his brain drool. He really should be referred.
At the very least, he should have been called out for his absurdity before being excused at the
next commercial break.
It's amazing how people like Kagan & Friedman can straight-face their farcical musings about
Russian "interference". It's funny too how they can go on about the integrity and reliability
of democratic processes when it is precisely the compromise of such that Wikileaks revealed. As
noted by Mr. Parry:
" by all accounts, the WikiLeaks-released emails were real and revealed wrongdoing by leading
Democrats, such as the Democratic National Committee's tilting of the primaries against Sen. Bernie
Sanders and in favor of Clinton. The emails of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta disclosed
the contents of Clinton's paid speeches to Wall Street, which she was trying to hide from voters,
as well as some pay-to-play features of the Clinton Foundation. In other words, the WikiLeaks'
releases helped inform American voters about abuses to the U.S. democratic process. The emails
were not "disinformation" or "fake news." They were real news."
So much for real news in this country. And my God Mr. Kagan, Trump doesn't necessarily have
faith in the findings or motives of the "intelligence community". I wonder why.
I hope the Kagans find their karma. Oh, and that weasel Friedman too.
Bill Bodden , March 15, 2017 at 10:48 pm
Given the wars the Kagans have helped promote and the consequences of these wars, surely there
is some crime they could be charged with.
MEexpert , March 16, 2017 at 11:29 pm
We wish.
F. G. Sanford , March 15, 2017 at 11:21 pm
The desperation with which neocons are baiting for a new Cold War suggests that there is something
much bigger than "election hacking" that needs covering up. Profit motives aside, the cost-benefit
ratio looks more like a ploy to stay out of jail. Not that anyone in the "deep state" ever faces
penalties for High Crimes and Misdemeanors, but it must be a nagging thought to anyone familiar
with Julius Streicher and Alfred Rosenberg.
Institute for the Study of War, that says it all! I remember when Dennis Kucinich as Representative
from Ohio introduced a bill to create a Department of Peace. It didn't go very far.
I also did not know about Frederick and Kimberly Kagan. How many more of these Kagans can be
spawned?
Thanks for a good warning, Robert Parry. These people must dream of war at night. I hope Trump
and Tillerson are wary of them.
Eric Bischoff , March 16, 2017 at 9:11 am
"How many more of these Kagans can be spawned?"
Yes and how many more Devos and Princes can we afford as well. Or how many Bushes, Clintons
or Trumps!
Sr. Gibbonk , March 16, 2017 at 1:10 am
Ah yes, The Project for a New American Century manifesto: primary authors Robert Kagan and
William Kristol on behalf of the neocon cabal and the European colonial Zionist project. Another
demonstration that narrow, selfish interests, greed and the thirst for power drive this world.
And all the while there are two great storms brewing on the horizon, each capable of driving our's
and the majority of this earth's species to extinction. One, perhaps the most imminent, is the
very real possibility of nuclear annihilation which is being spearheaded by the reckless ideologues
and predatory capitalist deep state demagogues in their quest for Full Spectrum Dominance of global
affairs. Even if the dire specter of nuclear holocaust is somehow avoided the global corporate
world's avaricious, boundless appetite for short term profits, especially through fossil fuel
extraction, will make the worst predictions of climate change inevitable: ecological collapse
and along with it the collapse not only of nation states but of the human capacity to reason.
How will the great nuclear powers, flailing like dinosaurs during the Permian-Triassic extinction
- also known as The Great Dying - not then Become Death, the Destroyer of Worlds?
Stygg , March 16, 2017 at 6:44 pm
FWIW, dinosaurs did not yet exist by the end of the Permian.
Eric Downey , March 16, 2017 at 3:15 am
Robert Parry thank you, and please continue your hard work. Our best hope for peace lies with
Trump, Bannon, Tillerson and the Generals. It sounds crazy (and it is!) but they are well suited
because they are aligned with a good chunk of the vocal electorate. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) proposed
a bill Stop Arming Terrorists Act, and it has a companion in the Senate, sponsored by Rand Paul:
https://www.mintpressnews.com/rand-paul-joins-tulsi-gabbard-calling-congress-stop-funding-isis-al-qaeda/225868/
This is an informed electorate taking action. Parry is doing his job by informing us. Our job
is to support H.R.608 and S.532.
Gary , March 16, 2017 at 5:05 am
There are so many in Washington who deserve to be tried for crimes against humanity that it
is difficult to know where one would start. Actually, come to think of it, the Kagan family would
be a great place to start! Then of course we'd have to move on to Bill and Hillary and another
highly deserving couple Samantha Powers and hubby Cass Sustien of "cognitive infiltration" fame.
Apparently psychopaths do find each other quite attractive, though who knows how many homicidal
fantasies these particular spouses might actually harbor toward each other??
Trump has been neutralised to become a puppet of deep state. The world should expect the war
business as usual.
Geoffrey de Galles , March 16, 2017 at 7:44 am
If I were the Kagans with as loaded an agenda as they share in the worldwide assertion of American
exceptionalism, then I would consider the POTUS's Achilles heel to be Jared Kushner and his wife;
and, in a more or less gentle and subtle way, would endeavour first to establish a relationship
with them as a means of gradually bringing the pater familias around to my bellicose and imperialistic
way of thinking. Myself, I consider the Kagans (among many others) to be the true enemy of the
people. But that's my concern - viz., with trying to anticipate and out-think the enemy. So best
watch out in that direction.
fudmier , March 16, 2017 at 8:00 am
The problem here is lack of ideal structure to for the concerned to become involved with
No one has outlined the ideal America as seen from the point of everyday Americans..
these 340,000,000 millions have no idea what to be for and against because they have
no structure and no purpose .. seems to me developing that structure (culture, education,
health care, voting rights, financial security, infra structure, and the like).
Developing the structure is a first step to mounting the support Trump needs to make the right
decisions..
Trump himself lacks that structure.. Once the structure becomes a household word everyone knows
the
right decision they might agree to disagree on its implementation but the result intended is in
plain view.
Why would the Russians need to undermine democracy in the United States when the Democratic
and Republican party machines are doing such a marvellous job of it by themselves?
The title should be, "How To Turn Unemployment Into A Great Day At The Gallows."
Eric Bischoff , March 16, 2017 at 9:08 am
Aren't there laws that the Kagan family are breaking? Seems to me we should start with them
and arrest them for the lies that took the Bush regime into the Middle East wars and definitely
for the Ukraine coup. They are financing and spreading terrorism therefore the money and the financiers
behind these war think tanks are also guilty. This goes all the way to the Koch Brothers and they
should be arrested as well! Why are we, the peace crusaders, on the defensive. We need to go on
the offensive. Enough already!
As P T barnum said " Theres a sucker born every minute". The real question is ; Are the American
people going to get suckered into a war with Russia and or China? Given their past record of seriously
questioning the propaganda put out by the Kagans et all i am not too hopeful over this present
push to what will be a catastrophic war.
LJ , March 16, 2017 at 2:26 pm
It's all talk. We can't beat the Taliban or the Viet Cong or the Mexican and Central American
drug Gangs on the ground if it comes to that. Russia? China? That's funny. This is to justify
perpetuation of the status quo in this nation. We the People can't be allowed to pick up our heads
and gaze at reality. We need to be preoccupied with the BS. Political Correctness has done it's
job now we have to spend a bunch of money on imaginary threats so billionaires and bankers can
get richer and we can all pretend that they matter and that this is fair and justified and Democracy
in action , We need idiotic Generals in charge and tough talking politicians too. Obfuscation,
whatever word or combination of words you like . It's fascistic crap. We the People didn't want
more war in Syria under Obama . Nothing has changed , next time it won't matter if 90% of calls
to Congressional offices are against a war. This is what Eisenhower said would happen back in
1958 though the entrenchment of the Military Industrial Financial Cyber Intelligence Complex.
exiled off mainstreet , March 16, 2017 at 10:26 am
Rather than being extolled and given mainstream platforms to exercise their baleful interests,
the Kagans should face some sort of legal accountability as professional war criminals.
Stiv , March 16, 2017 at 11:42 am
Jesus Christ. Yea yea yea. Same old same old. In searching for a sign of light after the elections,
the best I was able to do is " well at least Nuland won't be Secretary of State". But to go on
and on and on
Isn't there more important stuff going on? How about the "Hard diplomacy" Trumpistas are spouting
about?
It's been funny .in a sick way to see Trump and administration figures using the same language
as Parry and his hangers on. "McCarthyism", "Deep State" are used every other paragraph.
It's been noted a marked shift towards the Trump administration talking points in commentary
here at Consortium "news". Even the "fake news" debacle is furthered here.
And not in the right direction.
My question .When does the news start, Robert?
D5-5 , March 16, 2017 at 1:17 pm
You know it's possible you're so angry you're not really paying attention. It you think there's
been a "marked shift towards Trump administration talking points in commentary here" you're not
really reading what's here, just swiftly glancing and stamping your foot with irritation. Why
don't you provide a little news yourself instead of your same old same old bitching all the time?
So your grasp of what has "importance" is not aligned with CN and the thrust of its commentary.
I think you've made that clear on several ad nauseam occasions.
I should think that if this site was about reiterating Trump Administration talking points, we'd
have the "hard diplomacy" thing covered by now. If you are concerned about what Mr. Parry publishes,
submit articles on what you think is important. If you are concerned about the level or direction
of commentary here, contribute with something substantive.
LJ , March 16, 2017 at 10:18 pm
Well, the Trump team players even Donald himself need to defend themselves for their own reasons.
I think most commenters here are a little worried and rightly so for their own reasons, I personally
do not like the vilification of all things Russian and the obvious McCarthy like tactics that
have been going on calling for a witch hunt, a special prosecutor on the basis of unsubstantiated
allegations. Democrats aren't calling out for justice they want to geld Trump but Pense would
be even worse. Maybe it's time tobelieve in Democracy at some level.
John , March 16, 2017 at 12:06 pm
The Kagans are simply supplying a strategy to further a growing agenda ..The average USA citizen's
strategy is complacency and their agenda is simply to do nothing ..This is why the 1% rule over
the 99% ..
Tony Cartaluccu's article on The Deep State is excellent, thank you, Joe. The multipolar world
he speaks of, which Putin often refers to, is what the neocon imperialists such as the Kagans
don't want, but they're getting it, anyway. Since the days of the Iraq War, many great alternative
journalists, such as this website, have exposed and continue to expose the facts behind deep state
propaganda so these folks can't dominate as they used to. The USA doesn't look so good to a lot
of nations after the disasters created by the regime change proxy wars. Despite the badmouthing
of Putin and Russia in the US, many other countries aren't signing on to that attitude, from what
I've read. I have just read that China wants to help rebuild Syria, since Syria is an important
geographic route on their One Belt, One Road project. If the US can't recognize it can't remain
top dog forever and that it's a multipolar world, it might find itself isolated.
Dag , March 16, 2017 at 1:23 pm
The Kagans should be in prison for all the crimes they've enabled, all the lives they've destroyed.
Robert Parry & Glenn Greenwald are at the top of my short list of real-life, courageous, truth-telling
heroes but, for today, Kiza reigns supreme with her tour de force:"Between the Clinton liberals
and the Ziocons C'est une Affaire d'Amour Toujours, as Pepé Le Pew likes to say."
Massive props, Zika, for referencing Pepe, HRC, & neocons in a single sentence
Ted , March 16, 2017 at 2:00 pm
OK, I get it about the Kagans, but I still don't trust Putin.
So then, Ted, why don't you move to Russia so that you can do an objective evaluation of the
country and under Putin? Of course, Russian is not an easy language to learn! It's just reported on Global Research that Russia has absorbed 2.5 million Ukrainian refugees
since the US 2014 coup and Europe 900,000 more, according to a Kremlin parliamentarian in February.
Thanks to Victoria Nuland!
Ted , March 16, 2017 at 4:46 pm
Hmm that's a response I would expect at TheBlaze – knee-jerk and black-and-white.
Perhaps I should learn Russian. Are you offering to teach me, comrade?
J'hon Doe II , March 16, 2017 at 3:39 pm
UK/US is the Last Empire and Trump is an 'angel-of-death'.
Nothing good can or will from his spurious administration .
The PNAC psychopaths did their part in 911.
The conquer 7 Nations in 5 years for Israel has been delayed.
The MIC has Al qeada,ISIS. ..even Muslim Brotherhood, ..all over the place, to give the MIC years and years. ..even another decade or more war pleasuring.
Trump kicked huge gift to the Military. ..before the Ides of March arrived.
The Saudi/Qatar block have invested multi millions in regime change Assad.
The trained Mercs forces, logistics, weapons. posture against Iran, and the dream of Pipelines.
Erdogan the Mad Caliph is the receiver of the Terrorists from Saudi or Libya and other, the
reciever of the pipelines.
Israel will not give back the Golan .wants Hezbollah gone from near its Safe Zone.
Far too much money which MIC wants play with. ..and as Admiral Thomas Moorer commented,
" No American President can stand up to Israel "
US boots going back into Afghanistan, in Yemen, in Iraq, going into Syria, media bleating about US needs go back to Libya and fix that mess.
Trump is where on his supposed non intervention promises?
The John McCain and Deep State media rush against Russia with lies like WMD Iraq.
Is this Deja Vu
Ted, my comment was sarcastic because you did not back up your opinion with any facts. The
situation is getting very sticky with now Canada's Foreign Minister getting into the smearfest.
Freeland just pulled out the Crimean Tatars as being victims of Russian aggression, and I, knowing
nothing about the issue, had to start digging, which began with US articles supporting brutalization
by Russia, some from 2016. Digging out further are some articles that this is not the case, Tatars
supported going with Russia as Crimeans voted. All which supports that propaganda is rife, is
there a free press anymore, and the virulent fixation on Russia is out of control. And my position
is that some politicians are willing to take us to extinction to get their way, while we have
a planet with many problems we should be addressing.
While I strongly
disagree with the
proposed cuts in
domestic spending and
I would not want to
see more defense
spending, let's put
this in context:
"The $54 billion boost
for the military is
the largest since
President Ronald
Reagan's Pentagon
buildup in the 1980s"
In 2016, defense
spending had declined
to 3.9% of GDP. If all
of this passed -
defense spending would
be 4.2% of GDP. Under
Reagan, this ratio was
closer to 7%.
Hey I'm fine with
keeping defense
spending low but this
quote is a bit of
hyperbole.
I know, I know
military spending of
$732.2 billion in 2016
was not really that
high when we stand
upside down and look
in a mirror. Let's
have more, after all
there is the war we
are fighting while not
fighting in Yemen to
consider. Yemen?
"I know, I know military spending of $732.2 billion in 2016
was not really that high when we stand upside down and look
in a mirror. Let's have more, after all there is the war we
are fighting while not fighting in Yemen to consider."
In
constant dollars, "defense spending" is as large as during
the Vietnam war.
The spending was 94.261 billion in 1968 which is according
to measuring worth, "In 2015, the relative value of
$94,261.00 from 1968 ranges from $503,000.00 to
$1,800,000.00."
But war is primarily labor engaged in destroying capital
and killing workers and consumers. Bombs and bullets cost the
labor to manufacture them, as everything is consumption by
the end of wars.
Thus the best measure is "labor earnings of that commodity
is $659,000.00 (using the unskilled wage) or $818,000.00
(using production worker compensation)"
The nominal cost in 2015 from the same source, us
governmentspending.com, is 797.878 billion.
But the number of soldiers in the military, in and out of
combat, is about 3.5 million in 1968 vs 1.4 million today.
The military until Nixon was a major job training system.
The military did virtually everything with soldiers, and
soldiers served an average of 3 years, so in three years, a
soldier, did a few "normal" jobs, while at the same time
being ready to "fight", and serving active soldiers with some
appreciation of why their work mattered to soldiers.
Today, the military no longer provides much in the way of
job training and worker development. It is far less efficient
and productive, and that is the result of bad policy by both
conservatives and progressives.
Progressives are especially bad because they want job
killing defense cuts to pay the poor to not work and stay in
economic dead zones. After all, what progressive has called
for creating a government job Corp of, in population adjusted
terms, at least 3 million workers, drafted into the job Corp,
paid low wages because they are given room and board, and
working for 2-3 years in whatever backwater government sends
you, doing whatever crap job tells you to do?
While we are having fun with nominal figures over time,
defense spending was only $181 billion in 1980 but grew to
$412 billion by 1991. It was $392 billion in 2000 (the last
year of the peace dividend) and grew to $837 billion by 2011
(when we finally pulled out of Iraq). Of course all this
needs to be adjusted for inflation etc.
It goes almost without saying
that our country is extremely
nutty about defense spending.
That is 'ok' (i.e.
'accepted')
because National Security is a
role ceded to the federal guv'mint
by the states, and has a military
focus. The 'general welfare' aspects
of National Security are much less
appreciated/accepted/understood by
the population at large, it would seem.
The writing on the wall for the oil industry is pretty clear: (1) high oil
prices are needed to finance recovery of the remaining dirty, hard-to-get oil, but
(2) high oil prices drive a collapse in demand as consumers respond by turning to
efficient technologies and renewable energy.
The oil industry, from multinationals like Exxon to state actors like OPEC
members, is thus trying to keep prices in a narrow band that is just high enough
to make things like fracking and shale oil profitable, but not so high as to
accelerate demand collapse. The highest-cost dirtiest oil is being abandoned, for
example
Exxon just wrote off tar sand oil holdings:
The company said Wednesday in its annual 10-K filing to the Securities and
Exchanges Commission that it has cut its estimate of recoverable reserves by a
net 3.3 billion barrels of oil equivalent (or "bboe"), to just under 20
billion, a result of low crude prices that have made some of its investments in
high-cost oil uneconomic to extract. Specifically, the company de-booked its
entire pro rata 3.5 billion barrels of reserves in a Canadian oil sands
project.
Clearly the long-term picture is a shift to highly efficient vehicles (Toyota's
133-mpg Prius just came out), electric vehicles, low-pollution fuels like natural
gas for the trucking industry, etc. – meaning that gasoline and diesel are heading
the same way as coal, slowly but surely. Smart investors should be unwinding their
oil holdings as fast as possible.
Toyota's Prius Prime isn't rated at 133 mpg on gas – it's closer to 50-60
mpg and the Prius Prime is more expensive than the conventional prius. The
primary benefit of the prius prime is that it has bigger batteries and 'plug
in' capabilities. It goes 133 miles on the electricity equivalent of 1 gallon
of gas but its batteries are so small that it can only go about 20 miles on
electricity until it switches over to gas.
Meanwhile, Toyota's Camry (a 30 mpg car) is losing its sales volume to the
Rav4 (a 24 mpg SUV). America's desire for SUVs and AWD has resulted in a pretty
constant fleet mpg average over the past two decades with gains in efficiency
offset by gains in vehicle mass and capability.
I recently talked to somebody from Toyota and he mentioned that their
production mix in North America is skewed compared to their demand. Their
production mix 45:55 passenger cars to trucks/SUV's right now, but the
demand is 40:60 and it's shifting further to the heavy side, they expect
this year to be 35:65.
This is despite heavy promotions and discounts they are doing on smaller
vehicles to try to get them off the lot. On the truck side, they sell them
as soon as they are out of the factory. Cheap oil is driving the demand for
larger vehicles and killing the hybrid/electric sales.
The basic issue is that electric motors approach 99% efficiency at
converting stored electric charge to power, while gasoline and diesel
internal combustion engines tend to operate at 15-25% efficiency when
converting gasoline or diesel to power. At current fuel & electricity
prices, costs per-mile are at least 3 times higher for fossil fueled
vehicles vs. electric vehicles.
What effect would a 10% drop in demand for gasoline and diesel have on
crude oil prices? And at those low prices, what would be the effect on
investment in exploration and production of oil? That's the downward death
spiral for the fossil fuel industry.
"The basic issue is that electric motors approach 99% efficiency at
converting stored electric charge to power,"
This is not true. Electric motor in cars works via transmission, not
directly because they rotate at higher speeds then is necessary to rotate
the wheels.
Which impose at least 20% losses.
Battery also impose 10% losses as it has internal impedance and
conversion of chemical energy into electrical and vise versa in not 100%
efficient.
Efficiency of the battery drops with age and three year battery is
even less efficient. Another 5% losses are in charging devices and
transmission.
Add to this that electrical car needs to heat cabin with 5 KW heater
or cool it with 3 KW air conditioner and outside California hybrids beat
electrical vehicle to the punch in all important technological
parameters.
That means that electrical car right now is more of a status symbol,
then a practical solution for regular folks.
Electricity is still mostly being produced by fossil fuel. If you
factor in distribution loss and the much higher energy cost for producing
batteries electric cars are less efficient. That is unless you take to
producing electrity from renewables. But the renewables are not always on
line and therefore you need to have the same amount of legacy power
stations as before. You need to find a way to store energy but we are
still very far from that and I personally don´t think we will ever return
to the days when one unit of energy yields 100 units of energy in oil.
Renewables will never provide these kinds of yields. And it isn´t at all
clear to me why one had to move one ton of iron to get somebody from A to
B. It is all in the mind .
Quite a bit of the enduring switch to larger, lower mpg vehicles seems to
be fueled by lending practices that favor big-ticket big machines. Absent
this market-distorting 'push' from car manufacturers' affiliated finance
arms .. this preference might disappear. From the user perspective there are
benefits to owning larger vehicles, but on our increasingly congested roads
there are obvious drawbacks as well.
You are – implicitly – claiming consumers naturally prefer the big
vehicles that are pushed on them by financing gimmicks. I see the almighty
consumer as being gamed on this matter.
There are definitely regional and cultural differences that you are
correct to point out, and status symbols corresponding.
I think there are generational differences, also. Young people are
much less into cars than the older crowd. Plus they prefer cities
more, where cars become more of a hassle.
With rising default rates and rising interest rates, the auto
lending sector looks set to take a bath in the next year or two.
If you are going to be stuck in trafic for hours on end, with the
kids in the back seat, would you rather be in a closterfobic combac or
a spatious SUV?
In MA I see a ton of shiny, otherwise normal looking pickups with
commercial plates. I've always assumed it was tradesmen or plowers who
could plausibly claim a tax break for these vehicles.
Peak oil consumption equals stranded resource. The race is on to pump as
much as possible before demand dries up even more and prices collapse to $10
p/b. There is so much debt leverage against oil in the ground that pumping must
be ramped to pay it off making a price collapse even more certain.
I wish we live in such a comfortable Universe as you describe. But this
is a Utopia. In reality:
1. There no peak oil consumption on the horizon world wide. Mankind
adds around one million barrels per day in consumption each year. China
and India consumption is growing and probably will continue to grow for
at least a decade. Consumption in other Africa and Asian countries is
growing too.
2. There are very few oil fields were you can profitably extract oil
at prices below $50 per barrel. And those fields are old and are closer
and closer to depletion (those fields are mainly KSA, Iraq and other Gulf
fields). Neither US shale nor Canadian oil sands belong to this category.
But with oil prices above 60 or 70 the US economy will stagnate, unless
supported by printing money. See nonsense factory post above. This is a
new Catch 22 but will pretty menacing implications.
3. Junk bonds generated by shale companies in the USA is a bubble (or
Ponzi finance in Minsky classification, if you like) that will eventually
collapse/deflate. Few bondholders will ever be paid.
Yes, I am really frightened. We cut
taxes for the wealthy by $60 billion a year, to spend another $54 billion on the military, and take
away healthcare insurance from 20 million and more. And, in case readers are wondering, we spent
$732.2 billion on the military in 2016:
Our defense spending is as much
as the next 10 countries combined. But sure, let's spend more on it while we cut clean water
projects in the Chesapeake bay cleanup(Trump's nominee to head EPA has opposed the Chesapeake
Bay cleanup):
You're frightened? So am I. My daughter works as an epidemiologist at a state (but all the
staff work on federal grants) and they're all scared that "Trumponomics" will force layoffs
there.
My daughter works as an epidemiologist
at a state (but all the staff work on federal grants) and they're all scared that "Trumponomics"
will force layoffs there.
[ Important, and the Chesapeake Bay is a treasure. ]
Yes, I am really frightened. We cut
taxes for the wealthy by $60 billion a year, to spend another $54 billion on the military, and take
away healthcare insurance from 20 million and more. And, in case readers are wondering, we spent
$732.2 billion on the military in 2016:
Our defense spending is as much
as the next 10 countries combined. But sure, let's spend more on it while we cut clean water
projects in the Chesapeake bay cleanup(Trump's nominee to head EPA has opposed the Chesapeake
Bay cleanup):
You're frightened? So am I. My daughter works as an epidemiologist at a state (but all the
staff work on federal grants) and they're all scared that "Trumponomics" will force layoffs
there.
My daughter works as an epidemiologist
at a state (but all the staff work on federal grants) and they're all scared that "Trumponomics"
will force layoffs there.
[ Important, and the Chesapeake Bay is a treasure. ]
"... It is "our job," not Trump's, to "control exactly what people think," gasped MSNBC's Mika Brzezinski last month. This week's gasp from the media assumes a slightly different form and can be translated as: It is our job, not Trump's, to push stories about the government investigation of Trumpworld. ..."
"... For months, the media, drawing upon criminal leaks from Obama holdovers, has been saying in effect: Trumpworld is under investigation for ties to Russia! Then Trump says essentially the same thing on Twitter and the media freaks out. ..."
"... The Obama holdovers are denying the import of the very stories that they planted. ..."
"... The Obama administration used half-baked (or, more likely, completely fabricated) information from some "foreign source" as the pretext to launch a clandestine fishing expedition against Trump during the election. ..."
"... We live in a police state folks under the warrantless eavesdropping program. ..."
George Neumayr
Posted on 3/6/2017 4:42:04 PM by RoosterRedux
It is "our job," not Trump's, to "control exactly what people think," gasped MSNBC's Mika Brzezinski last month. This week's
gasp from the media assumes a slightly different form and can be translated as: It is our job, not Trump's, to push stories about
the government investigation of Trumpworld.
For months, the media, drawing upon criminal leaks from Obama holdovers, has been saying in effect: Trumpworld is under
investigation for ties to Russia! Then Trump says essentially the same thing on Twitter and the media freaks out.
Why does the latter merit condemnation but not the former?
Notice what is happening here: The Obama holdovers are denying the import of the very stories that they planted. Where
did the liberal BBC's story (building on a story first reported by Heat Street) on intelligence agencies receiving a FISA court
warrant to investigate Russian-Trumpworld ties come from? It came from a "senior member of the US intelligence community":
On 15 October, the US secret intelligence court issued a warrant to investigate two Russian banks. This news was given to me
by several sources and corroborated by someone I will identify only as a senior member of the US intelligence community. He
would never volunteer anything – giving up classified information would be illegal – but he would confirm or deny what I had
heard from other sources.
Notice on the Sunday talk shows that Obama's CIA director John Brennan did not appear. Yet he served as the genesis of this investigation,
according to the BBC story:
The Obama administration used half-baked (or, more likely, completely fabricated) information from some "foreign source"
as the pretext to launch a clandestine fishing expedition against Trump during the election.
Can't wait to see the application paperwork for the requested FISA orders!!
To: RoosterRedux Don't want to start a separate thread for this and it is somewhat related.
Listening to Hannity show today and William Binney was on and interviewed. Binney was a US Intelligence Official with the NSA
who resigned in 2001 and turned whistleblower.
I am paraphrasing but - He says phone, email, test, surveillance is routinely done on everyone with no warrant. He said they
can go back for years and pull out the data.
Please listen to Hannity at the top of the 3rd hour for details.
We live in a police state folks under the warrantless eavesdropping program.
"... It is "our job," not Trump's, to "control exactly what people think," gasped MSNBC's Mika Brzezinski last month. This week's gasp from the media assumes a slightly different form and can be translated as: It is our job, not Trump's, to push stories about the government investigation of Trumpworld. ..."
"... For months, the media, drawing upon criminal leaks from Obama holdovers, has been saying in effect: Trumpworld is under investigation for ties to Russia! Then Trump says essentially the same thing on Twitter and the media freaks out. ..."
"... The Obama holdovers are denying the import of the very stories that they planted. ..."
"... The Obama administration used half-baked (or, more likely, completely fabricated) information from some "foreign source" as the pretext to launch a clandestine fishing expedition against Trump during the election. ..."
"... We live in a police state folks under the warrantless eavesdropping program. ..."
George Neumayr
Posted on 3/6/2017 4:42:04 PM by RoosterRedux
It is "our job," not Trump's, to "control exactly what people think," gasped MSNBC's Mika Brzezinski last month. This week's
gasp from the media assumes a slightly different form and can be translated as: It is our job, not Trump's, to push stories about
the government investigation of Trumpworld.
For months, the media, drawing upon criminal leaks from Obama holdovers, has been saying in effect: Trumpworld is under
investigation for ties to Russia! Then Trump says essentially the same thing on Twitter and the media freaks out.
Why does the latter merit condemnation but not the former?
Notice what is happening here: The Obama holdovers are denying the import of the very stories that they planted. Where
did the liberal BBC's story (building on a story first reported by Heat Street) on intelligence agencies receiving a FISA court
warrant to investigate Russian-Trumpworld ties come from? It came from a "senior member of the US intelligence community":
On 15 October, the US secret intelligence court issued a warrant to investigate two Russian banks. This news was given to me
by several sources and corroborated by someone I will identify only as a senior member of the US intelligence community. He
would never volunteer anything – giving up classified information would be illegal – but he would confirm or deny what I had
heard from other sources.
Notice on the Sunday talk shows that Obama's CIA director John Brennan did not appear. Yet he served as the genesis of this investigation,
according to the BBC story:
The Obama administration used half-baked (or, more likely, completely fabricated) information from some "foreign source"
as the pretext to launch a clandestine fishing expedition against Trump during the election.
Can't wait to see the application paperwork for the requested FISA orders!!
To: RoosterRedux Don't want to start a separate thread for this and it is somewhat related.
Listening to Hannity show today and William Binney was on and interviewed. Binney was a US Intelligence Official with the NSA
who resigned in 2001 and turned whistleblower.
I am paraphrasing but - He says phone, email, test, surveillance is routinely done on everyone with no warrant. He said they
can go back for years and pull out the data.
Please listen to Hannity at the top of the 3rd hour for details.
We live in a police state folks under the warrantless eavesdropping program.
This is the founding idea behind the fantastic new book,
Against the
Fascist Creep
, by anti-fascist journalist and author,
Alexander
Reid Ross
. The book, just released by
AK Press
, outlines a history of fascism
since its development in Italy, Germany, Austria, and other European nations, and how it has shifted
and evolved in the decades since.
The "fascist creep," as I am using the term in this text, refers to the porous borders between
fascism and the radical right, through which fascism is able to "creep" into mainstream discourse.
However, the "fascist creep" is also a double-edged term, because it refers more specifically
to the crossover space between right and left that engenders fascism in the first place. Hence,
fascism creeps in two ways: (1) it draws left-wing notions of solidarity and liberation into ultranationalist,
right-wing ideology; and (2), at least in its early stages, fascists often utilize "broad front"
strategies, proposing a mass-based, nationalist platform to gain access to mainstream political
audiences and key administrative positions. (AtFC, pg. 3)
Ross weaves a history in the crevices where fascism attempts to find an avenue into mainstream
discourse and reclamation of its revolutionary potential. In the years after World War II, fascist
ideologues changed their rhetoric and strategies, often arguing for ethnic separatism, anti-colonial
racial nationalism, and meta-political orientations so that they could avoid the associations with
the failed movements of Mussolini and Hitler. At the same time, far right terrorism through the
Years of Lead
had direct ties to the spiritual paths of people like Julius Evola and to right populist political
parties like France's Front Nationale. Over the years the development of neofolk, Asatru and ethnic
forms of Nordic paganism, the militia movement, the European New Right, and, later, the Alt Right,
were all attempts at finding a new space for fascist ideas and a way to make them new and exciting
again to an upcoming generation of racialists.
This is the founding idea behind the fantastic new book,
Against the
Fascist Creep
, by anti-fascist journalist and author,
Alexander
Reid Ross
. The book, just released by
AK Press
, outlines a history of fascism
since its development in Italy, Germany, Austria, and other European nations, and how it has shifted
and evolved in the decades since.
The "fascist creep," as I am using the term in this text, refers to the porous borders between
fascism and the radical right, through which fascism is able to "creep" into mainstream discourse.
However, the "fascist creep" is also a double-edged term, because it refers more specifically
to the crossover space between right and left that engenders fascism in the first place. Hence,
fascism creeps in two ways: (1) it draws left-wing notions of solidarity and liberation into ultranationalist,
right-wing ideology; and (2), at least in its early stages, fascists often utilize "broad front"
strategies, proposing a mass-based, nationalist platform to gain access to mainstream political
audiences and key administrative positions. (AtFC, pg. 3)
Ross weaves a history in the crevices where fascism attempts to find an avenue into mainstream
discourse and reclamation of its revolutionary potential. In the years after World War II, fascist
ideologues changed their rhetoric and strategies, often arguing for ethnic separatism, anti-colonial
racial nationalism, and meta-political orientations so that they could avoid the associations with
the failed movements of Mussolini and Hitler. At the same time, far right terrorism through the
Years of Lead
had direct ties to the spiritual paths of people like Julius Evola and to right populist political
parties like France's Front Nationale. Over the years the development of neofolk, Asatru and ethnic
forms of Nordic paganism, the militia movement, the European New Right, and, later, the Alt Right,
were all attempts at finding a new space for fascist ideas and a way to make them new and exciting
again to an upcoming generation of racialists.
Augustus Invictus
says:
December 30, 2016 at 12:41 am
While I am flattered to be included in your little book club, I would point out that the
article "Fascism Against Time: Nationalism, Media Blindness, and the Cult of Augustus Sol
Invictus" was actually the third in a series of three articles by Mr. Burley. Here they are in
order:
It makes no sense to list one without the others. It's like watching Star Wars Episode VI
without having watched Episodes IV and V. But then again, I guess no one would accuse Antifa
of trying to be logical.
"... Alexander Reid Ross teaches geography at Portland State University. He is the author of Against the Fascist Creep and the editor of Grabbing Back: Essays Against the Global Land Grab . His articles have appeared at sites like ThinkProgress, The Ecologist and the Cambridge University Strategic Initiative in Global Food Security. Project Censored recognized his work for Media Democracy in Action in Censored2016. ..."
Fascism, as we know it today, came amid the sweeping nationalism accompanying
World War I
. Numerous leftists shifting from left to right ported their
watchwords of solidarity and insurrection over to militant formations designed to
destroy the left and seize power. They were not unopposed in this mobilization of
a left and right so-called "revolution." This is the story of the revolutionaries,
renegades, and warriors who broke with the powerful movement toward
totalitarianism and continue to struggle as partisans for freedom and equality.
Fascism did not emerge on its own as a full cloth ideology. It developed from a
complex history of anti-Semitism, ultranationalism, reactionary Catholicism, and
the conditions of economic exploitation of industrial workers and peasants. At the
turn of the 20th Century, the
Dreyfus Affair
marked the flash point for violent confrontations between left
and right as ultranationalist anti-Semites framed a Jewish army captain for
conspiring with the hated Prussians. The right relied on
leagues
and sporting clubs through which they could practice for physical
confrontation while developing the mannerisms and affectations that would attempt
to refine an otherwise blunt and stupid politics. Long at odds over the question
of anti-Semitism, the left organized through associations, syndicates, and
humanitarian organizations to
support Dreyfus
, organizing an important consensus that would affect future
political positions.
In Germany, a financial crisis led to pogroms against Jews. Pogroms throughout
Eastern Europe also led to the strengthening of Jewish workers' defense
organizations like the Jewish
Bund
.
Tough men of the Jewish working class, the Bund stewarded marches for dignity and
better wages, organized self-defense trainings, and developed autonomous aid
networks within Jewish sectors. While Vladimir Lenin criticized the Bund for
representing stop-gap politics, the Bolshevik wing of the Russian Social
Democratic Labor Party went about building
combat groups
that would resist the counter-revolutionary forces of the Black
Hundreds.
[1]
The anarchists of Russia went a similar direction, including
Voline
of the St. Petersburg Soviet,
Uncle Vanya
who helped organize workers' insurrections from Samara to Ukraine.
But Fascism emerged through the breakdown in the Dreyfusard consensus, the
alliance of ultranationalists and leftists around the notion of destroying liberal
parliamentarianism, and in doing so managed to bypass the strongest left-wing
resistance in the early stages. Instead, through the aesthetics of futurism, the
charismatic leadership of Mussolini, and the syncretic positions of national
syndicalism, Fascists presented themselves as marking the radical edge that could
finally penetrate the armor of moderate politics. Recognizing the danger,
anarchists like Errico Malatesta called for a broad antifascist front that
discarded political differences in favor of resisting the vicious hierarchies and
empty rhetoric of Fascists. Marxists, under the leadership of Antonio Gramsci,
would brook no compromise with the anarchist-supported
Arditi del Popolo
(Army of the People), hoping instead for a mass insurrection
of armed workers. With the resistance internally fragmented and the left under
assault by an increasing alliance between the Fascists and the state, Mussolini
entered government supported by a mass movement and the Fascist blackshirts
continued to assassinate and apprehend leaders like Malatesta and Gramsci.
In Germany, the left stood similarly fractured. World War I ended through a
massive revolution that started in a Naval mutiny and resulted in the abdication
of the Kaiser, as well as a
Bavarian insurrection
that deposed the local government and established a
"Soviet" led by anarchists and communists. Having voted to enter the war, the
Social Democrats rose to power through popular left-wing sentiment and compromises
with the far right-in particular, the Freikorps, a paramilitary force of army
veterans who the Social Democrats would deploy to brutally crush a
Communist uprising
in Berlin led by Rosa Luxemberg and Karl Liebknecht and the
Bavarian Soviet, as well as a renewed uprising in the industrial Ruhr Valley led
by a militant force calling itself the Red Army of the Ruhr. It was only after the
defeat of these three significant left-wing revolutionary uprisings that Hitler
would rise in a
beerhall
in Munich and pretend to lead a "national revolution" of Freikorps
and other paramilitary rightist factions under Nazi guidance.
The left scrambled to the defensive to set Hitler back on his heels, setting up
its own combat groups (
Kampfbunds
)
and attacking Nazi meetings and events. Even the Social Democrats, observing the
fearsome rise of the brutal Stormtroopers, set up the militant
Reichsbanner
, but the leadership had already granted significant powers to the
Freikorps and the SA simply heightened the tensions. By the early 1930s, the
German Communist Party had adopted a defeatist attitude, marking the Social
Democrats as "
social
fascists
" and supporting Nazi strikes and parliamentary efforts like a
significant "no confidence" vote in the Reichstagg. Those who risked life and limb
in the streets fighting Nazis were placed in vulnerable positions by their own
leadership. When Hitler took power, the aspirations of the Communist Party's
"First Hitler, then us!" strategy proved totally foolish, as the Nazis immediately
demobilized the Kampfbunds, including Antifaschistische Aktion, and sent the left
to concentration camps.
In France and the UK, resistance to fascism also manifested in street battles
and strategic competitions over urban space. Famously, the UK antifascists
repeatedly broke up the meetings of the pugilistic cad, Oswald Mosley, refusing to
yield London's working class East End to fascist influence by halting a march in
an event that came to be known as the
Battle of Cable Street
. Meanwhile, French fascists asserted that they had
created fascism by destroying the Dreyfusard consensus, and paramilitary
formations emerged across the far right enlisting, paradoxically, the
support
of anti-Jewish North African Arabs in exchange for money and services.
While members of the French radical left "drifted" toward fascism vis-a-vis the
"neo-socialism" of Marcel Dčat and the populism of former Communist Party central
committee member, "le Grande Jacques" Doriot, others confronted fascists,
blockaded meeting venues, and launched antifascist boycotts. Unlike in Germany and
Italy, the French and English left was able to prevent voluntary capitulation to
fascism-perhaps in part as a result of the rejection of the
defeatist
line that "bourgeois socialists" and "radical liberals" and even
moderate conservatives should be considered as bad as, if not worse than, fascism.
Perhaps nowhere was fascism more heavily contested, however, than in Spain
where fascism had a significant following. In 1930, a military coup by Miguel
Primo de Rivera adopted fascism "spiritually," but generally reproduced the old
19th Century authoritarian conservatism and bare-knuckles corporatism. While
General Miguel fell from grace, however, his son José Antonio Primo de Rivera,
also known simply as José Antonio, rose to prominence and supported a purer form
of fascist dictatorship led by the
militant forces
of a fascist Falange that would defeat leftism in the streets.
Leftists, of course, rose to the challenge and fought tooth and nail against the
fascism of Spanish aristocrats that situated itself within the working class
through an alliance with the Committees of the National Syndicalist Offensive
under the leadership of Ramiro Ledesma Ramos. Street fighting between the left and
the Falange-National Syndicalist alliance grew extremely intense, with
assassinations and beatings spilling over onto left-wing sympathizers and
liberals. Following the election of the left-wing Popular Front, leftist police
assassinated a leader of the reactionary Catholic conservatives named Calvo Sotelo,
sparking an outcry that led, in no small part, to the invasion of Spain by the
colonial military forces of Francisco Franco. Although the Popular Front
incarcerated José Antonio, the Falange formed a significant, loyal, and ferocious
section of Franco's army, which met with the valiant opposition of
anarchist militias
hoping not only to defend the Republic but to further the
revolutionary interests of self-determination, land, and liberty. Under the
anarchist leader, Buenaventura Durruti, the Iron Column marched against Franco's
invading force along with a quasi-Trotskyist forces of POUM, the liberal fighters
under Largo Caballero and the Stalinist-backed Communist Party. However, supplied
by corporate powers across the Atlantic and tacitly enabled through Allied
neutrality and appeasement, the armies of Franco beat down the antifascist
resistance with Hitler and Mussolini's overt assistance.
When Hitler's tanks rolled into France the next year, it found relatively
little resistance. Partisan forces emerged from Italy to Greece and across the
Eastern Front. These
partisans
worked to sabotage fascist communications and supply lines,
assassinate officials, and develop antifascist networks, workers' associations,
and societies to propagandize against their respective repressive regimes. After
Mussolini and Hitler invaded Greece in 1941, leftists brokered a tenuous truce
with ultranationalist "Hellenic Patriots" who supported parafascist dictator
Ioannis Metaxas. Fighting persisted in
Ukraine
and the
Balkans
, as well, where Nazi-allied forces committed some of the worst
atrocities of the war. When the US invaded Italy and occupied Rome in 1943, the
partisans of the North engaged in fierce behind-the-lines struggle against the
likes of the Black Prince Borghese who remained faithful to Mussolini's
government-in-exile, the Republic of Salň. Russia marshaled and lost tens of
millions of people in the explicitly antifascist war to defeat the Reich and the
ideology it represented, while the fascist-friendly Allen Dulles set up the
architecture for a post-war insurgency inclusive of fascist "stay-behinds"
fighting against Soviet influence in Europe.
The tenuous peace between partisans unravelled after the War and the collapse
of the Reich, at which point the British supported the Hellenic forces' military
struggle against the Communist partisans with whom they had fought only months
prior. Similarly, in Italy, the US's Office of Strategic Services, later eclipsed
by the CIA, recruited Fascist agents to oppose the left-wing Popular Front in the
1946 elections, continuing over the next decades to support links between Fascist
networks within the government and clandestine terrorist groups targeting public
infrastructure in a "
Strategy
of Tension
" designed to pull the population toward the security state. These
fascist groups like Black Prince Borghese's Fronte Nazionale, which included the
Nuovo Ordine and Avanguardia Nazionale, were schooled by the CIA-supported Greek
military dictatorship that took power in 1967, and attempted on at least one
occasion the similar overthrow of Italy's Christian Democratic Party, were opposed
in the streets by a mass movement of left-wing workers, students, and women in the
tradition of antifascist partisans.
In France, Franco-sympathizer Pierre Poujade extended the street fights of the
1930s into the 1950s with his radical right populist party of the Union de Défense
des Commerçants et Artisans, which was heavily contested by the left. The
far-right paramilitary group Organisation Armée Secrčte emerged out of the
far-right hatred of the post-War Fourth Republic and resistance to decolonization
in Algeria to plague the left and set the violent standard for fascist militants
organized through
groupuscules
like Occident and the
Groupe Union Défense
. These organizations met opposition in Algeria by the
militants of the Front de Libération National and in France by militant ultras. A
former Poujadist named Jean-Marie Le Pen, who had purportedly lost the use of one
eye in a particularly brutal street fight before rising to lead the new National
Front in 1972. Some three years later, a bomb blast ripped through Le Pen's Paris
apartment, followed just two years later by a car bomb that killed Le Pen's close
ally, "national revolutionary" François Duprat.
In Italy, the assassinations, fights, and bombings between left and right grew
so intense that the period between 1969 and the late 1970s became known as the
Years of
Lead
. The "Hot Summer" of 1969, in which a wave of factory strikes and
occupations spread to the general population, sparking the Autonomia movement, was
followed by an explosion in Milan's Piazza Fontana set by fascists to frame the
left. Police rounded up anarchists and leftists by the hundreds, including a
railroad worker named
Giuseppe Pinelli
who died in police custody, producing a massive outcry
throughout Italy. As fascists persisted in attempting to infiltrate left-wing
groups and co-opt the leadership of Autonomia, ongoing clashes and bomb blasts
rocked Italy, which spilled into other countries as Italian fascists laying low
abroad helped to spread their strategies and tactics elsewhere.
In Germany, opposition to fascism was similarly complicated by post-war
"stay-behind" networks. Like Italy, the post-war order in Germany maintained tacit
bonds between state entities like the
Bundesnachrechtendienst
and non-state fascist groupuscules. However, fascist
groups like the Sozialistische Reichsparty faced a ban, making overt organizing
difficult. At the same time, veterans organizations became breeding grounds for
Holocaust denial and Nazi propaganda, and anti-immigrant sentiment was not
unusual. During the 1980s, a strong horizontalist resistance movement grew in
opposition to nuclear weapons, environmental destruction, and economic
exploitation called the
Autonomen
movement, which targeted and was targeted by fascists seeking to generate mass
resistance to immigration, refugees, and multicultural society. Partly in response
to the Autonomen movement and the government's ban on certain fascist parties,
"national revolutionaries" developed the strategy of "Freie Kameradschaften"-small
groups of 3 to 5 people committed to engaging in political violence against the
homeless, disabled people, migrants, non-whites and non-straight people. Through
the Freie Kameradschaften, fascists began to appropriate the
strategies
of the Autonomen movement, including donning black clothing and
black masks to maintain anonymity. Yet they met with violent resistance from the
leftist Autonomen movement, which produced a new wave of horizontalist
Antifaschistische Aktion groups.
As with the Italian terrorists who fled through Franco's Spain to promote
fascism elsewhere in the world, Nazi war criminals like Klaus Barbie had escaped
to areas of Latin America and worked to foster a new international movement.
Throughout Latin America, and most notoriously in Argentina where the
fascist-organized
Alianza Anticommunista Argentina
fought a "Dirty War" against left-wing
Peronists known as
Montoneros
, fascists helped train and create anti-left paramilitary groups
that instigated the conditions for Civil War and military coup. These forces found
militant opposition in the form of national liberation armies like the Frente
Farabundo Martí para la Liberación Nacional in El Salvador who engaged in a
long-term revolutionary war against paramilitaries who committed such heinous acts
as assassinating the Archbishop Romero during mass and raping then murdering a
group of Catholic nuns. At the same time, fascist networks oriented through
Salazar's Portugal strove to maintain colonialism in African countries like
Guinea-Bissau, where anti-colonial forces under Amílcar Cabral fought them.
Such far-right and colonial networks developed and/or supported by fascists
found happy allies within the US government, including the fairly extensive
intelligence networks created by fascist propagandist Willis Carto, Roy Cohn and
Lyndon Larouche. Intimately tied to the former's large base of supporters was a
rising fascist militant named David Duke, who mass marketed a new generation of Ku
Klux Klan violence as "white civil rights." Having fallen off after its height in
the 1920s, the Klan received a boost of support from the White Citizens Councils
and the populist politician George Wallace in the 1960s; however, Wallace's events
faced
violent resistance
from community groups, and FBI support for integration
hindered the Invisible Empire's growth. The resurgent Klan found powerful
opposition in the form of civil society groups and new anti-racist formations.
As the Southern Poverty Law Center came into effect, working within the courts
and peaceful social organizations to promote diversity against hate, left-wing
radicals developed more militant strategies for opposing the rise of fascism.
Targeting racism through militant class struggle, the Workers' Viewpoint
Organization attempted to organize an inter-racial textile workers' union to
oppose the Klan in Greensboro, North Carolina. However, the Klan fought back,
uniting with area fascists for a
1979 ambush
against an anti-Klan rally that left five dead and five wounded.
Other left-wing groups like the
John Brown Anti-Klan Committee and the Prairie Fire Organizing Committee
emerged with the desire to expose fascism within the US and to defeat racism
through militant class struggle, and met with varying levels of success in the
Midwest amid the rise of fascist skinheads.
As well as Latin American military dictatorships, Italian fascists also
influenced the English far-right, bringing the "political soldier" concept to a
group of fascists that decided to splinter front the National Front and organize
skinheads as the frontline shock troops of a new fascist movement. These fascist
skinheads mobilized through a network of Oi! punk bands and publications,
spreading throughout North America and meeting an increasingly organized
resistance by the mid-1980s. Anti-racist skinheads organized into Anti-Racist
Action, Red and Anarchist Skinheads, and local manifestations of
Skinheads Against Racial Prejudice
, among other groups, to confront fascists
attempting to create a violent mass movement against non-straight, non-white
people in society. As fascist skinheads were beaten out of urban areas by
anti-racists, fascist strategy moved toward the militia and Patriot movement
during the 1990s, which provided a new kind of "leaderless resistance" based in
rural areas where the left had a less formidable presence.
These small bands of violent fascists often identified with the fascist
skinhead movement also appeared in France under the Parti Nationaliste Française
et Européen and Troisičme Voie through the related paramilitary formation, the
Jeunneses Nationalistes Révolutionnaires, who at times stewarded marches of Le
Pen's Front National. With Le Pen increasingly pressuring the centrist parties at
the polls, the French Socialist Party created the popular S.O.S. Racisme group,
which promoted multiculturalism through large events and public gatherings. In the
streets, the foot soldiers of the "national revolution" found more violent
opposition from gangs like the
Black Dragons
and Duckie Boys. Similarly, in the UK, the large Rock Against
Racism movement gave way to the
Anti-Nazi League
, which cultivated a mass movement against the National Front
and British National Party. More confrontational and revolutionary left-wing
groups also emerged like Red Action and Anti-Fascist Action, which like
Anti-Racist Action joined the militant horizontal strategies and tactics of
Antifaschistische Aktion. By the late 2000s, these groups and groups like them
were increasingly referred to as "Antifa."
The appropriation of Autonomen movement strategy and tactics came to a head
amid the 2008 recession, when "
Autonomist
Nationalists
" began to form black blocs from the Czech Republic to Germany and
the Netherlands. The black blocs were repeated by supporters of the "CounterJihad"
movement appearing in Germany as PEGIDA and in England as the English Defense
League, among other places. Meanwhile, those groups have seen a rising wave of
opposition, including a humiliating running battle between fascists and
antifascists in Brighton that left the "
March
for England
" in tatters. This and other events showed that groups with names
like National Action and National Resistance that have emerged from Sweden to
Ukraine, linking up for spontaneous street demonstrations and acts of
mob violence
, are virtually impossible to oppose without organized community
defense.
In the US, the CounterJihad groups associated with the militia movement
galvanized the
anti-mosque
movement of 2014, appearing outside of places of worship or
community centers often with black
masks
armed with assault rifles and other weapons. These formations are
increasingly opposed by likewise-armed community defense groups and antifas who
seek to protect non-white communities from attacks and intimidation. More
recently, the alt-right has emerged in league with Donald Trump, taking much of
its inspiration from the "intellectual" fascist milieu that emerged during the
Years of Lead to link left and right and reproduce the conditions that led to the
destruction of the Dreyfusard consensus. Where the alt-right has moved into the
physical space of real life, it has been dogged by antifa opposition-as in the
recent protests against Milo Yiannopolos at the University of California–
Berkeley
.
Fascism has never arisen without opposition through community consensus.
Instead, antifascists have worked to root out fascist infiltration and "entryism"
that seeks to pass as the merger of left and right, while also militantly opposing
fascist marches and meetings. Where fascism obtained power, it did so through the
largely through the betrayal of the organized left by its leadership, along with
state collaboration with the fascists amid significant, often violent, fighting
amongst left-wing groups. If, in Italy and Germany, antifascists had decided to
join with powerful liberals and even conservatives to defend their communities
against Blackshirts, if the Communists of Germany had not succumbed to the
temptation of labelling social democrats the equivalent of fascists while
completely alienating everyone outside of a particularly small section of the
industrial working class, perhaps fascism might never have emerged-perhaps it
would have only been a detail in the history of Italy in the 1910s. It is wise,
then, to heed the warnings of history and to maintain a form of militant
antifascist action based in tactical alliances and the spirit of friendship rather
than vulgar self-interest and political bravado. Where fascism is proud, we must
be humble. Where fascism is divisive, we must unite. Where fascism is weak, we
must strike.
[1]
The shock troops of the merciless anti-Jewish
pogroms in Ukraine, the Black Hundreds are widely seen today as some of the
earliest formations of what would become the fascist movement, and it was none
other than the famous writer Fyodor Dostoevsky who, with a co-author, would set
out the platform of the "conservative revolution" followed by the later melding of
the German "Patriotic movement" and Marxian theorists known as the National
Bolshevik wing of the Nazi Party.
###
Alexander Reid Ross teaches geography at Portland
State University. He is the author of
Against
the Fascist Creep
and the editor of
Grabbing
Back: Essays Against the Global Land Grab
. His articles have appeared at sites
like ThinkProgress, The Ecologist and the Cambridge University Strategic
Initiative in Global Food Security. Project Censored recognized his work for Media
Democracy in Action in Censored2016.
"... Kiev throws paramilitaries – some openly neo-Nazi - into the front of the battle with rebels ..."
"... But Kiev's use of volunteer paramilitaries to stamp out the Russian-backed Donetsk and Luhansk "people's republics", proclaimed in eastern Ukraine in March, should send a shiver down Europe's spine. Recently formed battalions such as Donbas, Dnipro and Azov, with several thousand men under their command, are officially under the control of the interior ministry but their financing is murky, their training inadequate and their ideology often alarming. ..."
"... The Azov men use the neo-Nazi Wolfsangel (Wolf's Hook) symbol on their banner and members of the battalion are openly white supremacists, or anti-Semites. ..."
"... The regiment's first commander was far-right nationalist Andriy Biletsky, who led the neo-Nazi Social-National Assembly and Patriot of Ukraine. ..."
"... Azov has gained notoriety among its detractors due to allegations of torture and war crimes, as well as the neo-Nazi sympathies of some of its members. ..."
Ukraine crisis: the neo-Nazi brigade fighting pro-Russian
separatists
Kiev throws paramilitaries – some openly neo-Nazi - into the
front of the battle with rebels
By Tom Parfitt
9:00AM BST 11 Aug 2014
......................................
But Kiev's use of volunteer paramilitaries to stamp out
the Russian-backed Donetsk and Luhansk "people's republics",
proclaimed in eastern Ukraine in March, should send a shiver
down Europe's spine. Recently formed battalions such as
Donbas, Dnipro and Azov, with several thousand men under
their command, are officially under the control of the
interior ministry but their financing is murky, their
training inadequate and their ideology often alarming.
The Azov men use the neo-Nazi Wolfsangel (Wolf's Hook)
symbol on their banner and members of the battalion are
openly white supremacists, or anti-Semites.
The Azov Regiment (Ukrainian: Полк Азов) is a National Guard
of Ukraine regiment.[1][2][3][4]
The unit is based in Mariupol in the Azov Sea coastal
region.[5] It saw its first combat experience recapturing
Mariupol from pro-Russian separatists forces in June 2014.[3]
Initially a volunteer militia, formed as the Azov
Battalion on 5 May 2014 during the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in
Ukraine, since 12 November 2014 Azov has been incorporated
into the National Guard of Ukraine.[6] All members of the
unit are under contract of and serve as part of the National
Guard of Ukraine.[7]
More than half of the Battalion members are from eastern
Ukraine and speak Russian,[8] and some of its recruits come
from the eastern cities of Donetsk and Luhansk.[9] The
regiment's first commander was far-right nationalist Andriy
Biletsky, who led the neo-Nazi Social-National Assembly and
Patriot of Ukraine.[10][11]
In its early days, Azov was the Ministry of Internal
Affairs' special police company, led by Volodymyr Shpara, the
leader of the Vasylkiv, Kiev, branch of Patriot of Ukraine
and Right Sector.[12][13][14] Under the "Azov" umbrella were
also created the non-governmental organization "Azov Civil
Corps" and the political party National Corps.[15]
Azov has gained notoriety among its detractors due to
allegations of torture and war crimes, as well as the
neo-Nazi sympathies of some of its members.
"... While I'm told that Russia did provide some light weapons to the rebels early in the struggle so they could defend themselves and their territory and a number of Russian nationalists have crossed the border to join the fight the claims of an overt "invasion" with tanks, artillery and truck convoys have been backed up by scant intelligence. ..."
"... One former U.S. intelligence official who has examined the evidence said the intelligence to support the claims of a significant Russian invasion amounted to "virtually nothing." ..."
"... Instead, it appears that the ethnic Russian rebels may have evolved into a more effective fighting force than many in the West thought. They are, after all, fighting on their home turf for their futures. ..."
"... "You need to know," the group wrote, "that accusations of a major Russian 'invasion' of Ukraine appear not to be supported by reliable intelligence. Rather, the 'intelligence' seems to be of the same dubious, politically 'fixed' kind used 12 years ago to 'justify' the U.S.-led attack on Iraq." ..."
"... Slavs are killing each other for the same reason Arabs are killing each other: to ensure the USA geopolitical and economic interests are served well. Divide and conquer was polished by British elite to perfection, and the USA elite adopted this policy like a very talented student. This is what neocolonialism is about. Disaster capitalism in action. ..."
Official Washington draws the Ukraine crisis in black-and-white colors with Russian President
Putin the bad guy and the U.S.-backed leaders in Kiev the good guys. But the reality is much more
nuanced, with the American people consistently misled on key facts.
...............
A Mysterious 'Invasion'
And now there's the curious case of Russia's alleged "invasion" of Ukraine, another alarmist
claim trumpeted by the Kiev regime and echoed by NATO hardliners and the MSM.
While I'm told that Russia did provide some light weapons to the rebels early in the struggle
so they could defend themselves and their territory and a number of Russian nationalists have
crossed the border to join the fight the claims of an overt "invasion" with tanks, artillery and
truck convoys have been backed up by scant intelligence.
One former U.S. intelligence official who has examined the evidence said the intelligence
to support the claims of a significant Russian invasion amounted to "virtually nothing."
Instead, it appears that the ethnic Russian rebels may have evolved into a more effective
fighting force than many in the West thought. They are, after all, fighting on their home turf
for their futures.
Concerned about the latest rush to judgment about the "invasion," the Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity, a group of former U.S. intelligence officials and analysts, took the
unusual step of sending a memo to German Chancellor Angela Merkel warning her of a possible replay
of the false claims that led to the Iraq War.
"You need to know," the group wrote, "that accusations of a major Russian 'invasion' of
Ukraine appear not to be supported by reliable intelligence. Rather, the 'intelligence' seems
to be of the same dubious, politically 'fixed' kind used 12 years ago to 'justify' the U.S.-led
attack on Iraq."
But these doubts and concerns are not reflected in the Post's editorial or other MSM accounts
of the dangerous Ukraine crisis. Indeed, Americans who rely on these powerful news outlets for
their information are as sheltered from reality as anyone living in a totalitarian society.
Slavs are killing each other for the same reason Arabs are killing each other: to ensure the
USA geopolitical and economic interests are served well. Divide and conquer was polished by British
elite to perfection, and the USA elite adopted this policy like a very talented student. This
is what neocolonialism is about. Disaster capitalism in action.
"... Polanyi has shown that the rise of fascism was the direct result of the preceding rise of market liberalism (Robber barons epoch in the USA) and the Crash of 1929 and subsequent Great Depression. ..."
"... As Polanyi noted the fascist (far right militaristic nationalism) impulse -- in the impulse to protect society from "enemy forces" -- the liberalized market -- by sacrificing human freedom. In other words it was the direct result of the failure of market liberalism. ..."
"... As Polanyi stressed "Fascism, like socialism, was rooted in a market society that refused to function". ..."
libezkova -> anne...
March
11, 2017 at 02:32 PM
Polanyi has shown that the rise of fascism was the direct
result of the preceding rise of market liberalism (Robber
barons epoch in the USA) and the Crash of 1929 and subsequent
Great Depression.
Due to the financial bubble created in 20th nations were
forced to choose between protecting the exchange rate, or
protecting their citizens. In was out of this choice in favor
of exchange rate and gold standard that fascism emerged.
As Polanyi noted the fascist (far right militaristic
nationalism) impulse -- in the impulse to protect society
from "enemy forces" -- the liberalized market -- by
sacrificing human freedom. In other words it was the direct
result of the failure of market liberalism.
Fascism and Bolshevism were not only alternatives
social-economic systems; they also represented a drastic,
radical departure from market liberalism. Kind of dialectic
thesis-antithesis development.
As Polanyi stressed "Fascism, like socialism, was rooted
in a market society that refused to function".
This is Polianyi views, so his work is definitive.
Connection between the crisis of neoliberalism and rise of
neo-fascist movements was discussed by many researchers.
You can try an excellent summation and update to Polanyi's
critique of free-market fundamentalism in the book:
The Power of Market Fundamentalism: Karl Polanyi's
Critique Paperback – August 29, 2016 by Fred Block (Author),
Margaret R. Somers (Author)
Here is one amazon review:
Excellent review of Polanyi and excellent critique of the
modern economy
B. Brinkeron May 10, 2014
This book deserves to be a part of the national
discussion, as do Polanyi's thoughts. I read Polanyi some
years ago and was looking for a refresher when I came across
this book. This book not only reviews Polanyi's work and
places it in the context of modern economic and sociological
research, but also adapts many of his theories to the current
times. Along the way the authors offer useful insights into
Polanyi's life and how his experiences shaped his thoughts.
... ... ...
Have you been noticing how politics is becoming
increasingly polarized? If you hop over to look at the
reviews for Piketty's "Capital in the 21st Century" you'll
notice that literally 100's of ideological zealots have been
attacking the book. Not reading and critiquing, but posting
bad reviews even though they've never read it.
Ever wonder why people act like this? Why Market
Fundamentalism has become so strong? This book will help you
think on and answer these questions.
Isn't it odd that we have been pursuing neo-liberal
policies for 30 years, even though they have already proven
to be a failure? Debt is rising, health care costs are
spiraling out of control, college is unaffordable, the gap
between rich and poor is widening. Despite the fact that we
live in an age of failed neoliberalism, rolling back such
policies isn't the answer, oh no what we need is more
neoliberalism.
This book will help you understand the appeal of
neoliberalism and its emergence as a utopian ideal that can
never be achieved. The book also explains the historical
context of market fundamentalism and the decline of Keynesian
economics to show why the one serious challenge to
neoliberalism was eventually marginalized.
The concept of neoliberal rationality and its link to the
rise of anti-democratic movements was discussed by Wendy
Brown
Neoliberalism and the Demise of Democracy:
Resurrecting Hope in Dark Times
by Henry A. Giroux
www.dissidentvoice.org
August 7, 2004
Send this page to a friend! (click here)
Neoliberalism has become one of the most pervasive, if not,
dangerous ideologies of the 21st century. Its pervasiveness
is evident not only by its unparalleled influence on the
global economy, but also by its power to redefine the very
nature of politics itself.
Free market fundamentalism rather than democratic idealism
is now the driving force of economics and politics in most of
the world, and it is a market ideology driven not just by
profits but by an ability to reproduce itself with such
success that, to paraphrase Fred Jameson, it is easier to
imagine the end of the world than the end of neoliberal
capitalism.
... ... ...
As democracy becomes a burden under the reign of
neoliberalism, civic discourse disappears and the reign of
unfettered social Darwinism with its survival-of-the-slickest
philosophy emerges as the template for a new form of
proto-fascism. None of this will happen in the face of
sufficient resistance, nor is the increasing move toward
proto-fascism inevitable, but the conditions exist for
democracy to lose all semblance of meaning in the United
States..
CIA and militarism loving Democrats are what is called Vichy left...
Notable quotes:
"... "Apparently, most Democrats are now defending the CIA [and bashing the US constitution] and trashing WikiLeaks (who have never had to retract a single story in all their years). The brainwashing is complete. Take a valium and watch your Rachel Maddow [read your poor pk]. I can no longer help you. You have become The Borg." ..."
"... There is a large amount of ground between being a Victoria Nuland neocon hawk going around picking unnecessary fights with Russia and engaging in aggression overt or covert against her or her allies ..."
"... I happen to support reasonable engagement with Russia on matters of mutual interest, and I think there are many of those. I do not support cheerleading when Russia commits aggression against neighbors, which it has, and then lies about it. There is a middle ground, but you and ilsm both seem to have let your brains fall out of your heads onto the sidewalk and then stepped on them hard regarding all this. ..."
"... US Deep state analogy to Stalin's machinations against his rivals seems reasonable. ..."
"Apparently, most Democrats are now defending the CIA [and bashing the US constitution] and
trashing WikiLeaks (who have never had to retract a single story in all their years). The brainwashing
is complete. Take a valium and watch your Rachel Maddow [read your poor pk]. I can no longer help
you. You have become The Borg."
I am going to make one more point, a substantive one. There is a large amount of ground between
being a Victoria Nuland neocon hawk going around picking unnecessary fights with Russia and engaging
in aggression overt or covert against her or her allies and simply rolling over to be a patsy
for the worst fort of RT propaganda and saying that there is no problem whatsoever with having
a president who is in deep financial hock to a murderous lying Russian president and who has made
inane and incomprehensible remarks about this, along with having staff and aides who lie to the
public about their dealings with people from Russia.
I happen to support reasonable engagement with Russia on matters of mutual interest, and I
think there are many of those. I do not support cheerleading when Russia commits aggression against
neighbors, which it has, and then lies about it. There is a middle ground, but you and ilsm both
seem to have let your brains fall out of your heads onto the sidewalk and then stepped on them
hard regarding all this.
If you find this offensive or intimidating, anne, sorry, but I am not going to apologize. Frankly,
I think you should apologize for the stupid and offensive things you have said on this subject,
about which I do not think you have the intimately personal knowledge that I have.
Reply Wednesday, March 08, 2017 at 12:36 AM
My dear interlocutor
As a once overt and future sleeper cell Stalinist
I'm perplexed by your artful use of Stalinist
In my experience that label was restricted to pinko circles notably
Trotskyists pinning the dirty tag on various shades of commie types
On the other side of the great divide of the early thirties
Buy you --
To you it seems synonymous with Orwellian demons of all stripes
"... Not too long ago I argued * that Bonapartism in the nineteenth century was the predecessor of Mussolini fascism in the twentieth, the emphasis on a militaristic dictator emphasizing strong nationalism that smothers all groups into following the national leader. ..."
"... Cola di Rienzo seized power in Rome in 1347, declaring a revived Roman republic and attempted to conquer Italy and declared that he wished to conquer the whole world. His rule did not last long and he fell from power after trying, but he took power under the first use of a red flag in political history, and he had a grandiose notion of himself, to put it mildly, giving himself the title "Nicholas, the Severe and Merciful, Tribune of Liberty, Peace and Justice, Liberator of the Holy Roman Republic." He was also the first person in history to write with a silver pen, with which signed official decrees. ..."
"... "These are: literary, artistic, vague and contradictory ideas, practically unrelated to the contemporary world, the vast ambition to dominate all Italy, to re-establish the Empire, and, in the end the rest of Europ; the dream of building a 'new State,' inspired by ancient history, in which peace, law and virtue would prevail; a genuine love for his people,his country, and their glorious past, a love so intense it could be confused with self-love, as if he identified himself with Italy and the Italians; and the desire to avenge his peoples' ruin and humiliation, which he attributed solely to the wickedness of others." ..."
Not too long ago I argued * that Bonapartism in the
nineteenth century was the predecessor of Mussolini fascism
in the twentieth, the emphasis on a militaristic dictator
emphasizing strong nationalism that smothers all groups into
following the national leader. However, it turns out that
Napoleon Bonaparte had his own model. When he invaded Russia
he carried a book with him written in 1733 called Conjurat de
Nicholas, dit de Rienzi, about Cola di Rienzo.
Cola di Rienzo seized power in Rome in 1347, declaring a
revived Roman republic and attempted to conquer Italy and
declared that he wished to conquer the whole world. His rule
did not last long and he fell from power after trying, but he
took power under the first use of a red flag in political
history, and he had a grandiose notion of himself, to put it
mildly, giving himself the title "Nicholas, the Severe and
Merciful, Tribune of Liberty, Peace and Justice, Liberator of
the Holy Roman Republic." He was also the first person in
history to write with a silver pen, with which signed
official decrees.
The astute Luigi Barzini in The Italians claims that he
was the pure Italian hero and describes him as having the
following characteristics (one sentence):
"These are: literary, artistic, vague and contradictory
ideas, practically unrelated to the contemporary world, the
vast ambition to dominate all Italy, to re-establish the
Empire, and, in the end the rest of Europ; the dream of
building a 'new State,' inspired by ancient history, in which
peace, law and virtue would prevail; a genuine love for his
people,his country, and their glorious past, a love so
intense it could be confused with self-love, as if he
identified himself with Italy and the Italians; and the
desire to avenge his peoples' ruin and humiliation, which he
attributed solely to the wickedness of others."
Addendum: Wagner's obscure early opera, "Rienzi," is about
this figure....
The word fascist, perhaps one of the most abused forms of
political abuse, should properly apply to those connected
with the Italian party of that name, founded by Benito
Mussolini and others in 1919.
A fascis was a birch rod carried in ancient Rome by the
lictors, a kind of proto-police force.
The individual fascis was used to impose discipline on
behalf of the state, but when bound together in a bundle of
fasces, the one rod became, both symbolically and physically,
stronger.
The bundled rods, which also incorporated an axe
symbolising the lictors' right to carry out judicial
executions, became a symbol of power for the Romans, but it
survived into later history.
Some representations of the American flag contain a fasces
symbol, as does the statue of Abraham Lincoln in his Memorial
in Washington DC, albeit without the axe.
The Romans were undoubtedly racist in outlook, and many of
the Founding Fathers of the United States were slave-owners.
Mussolini's political philosophy was not based to such an
all-encompassing extent as Hitler's on dogmas of racial
purity, but Jews and black people were routine targets of his
thuggish supporters in post-First World War Italy.
The history of Paolo di Canio's straight-armed salute,
favoured by Mussolini and later adopted by the Nazis, also
pre-dates Italian fascism.
It is a subject steeped in dissent, but the salute seems
to date back to the French Revolutionary period when the
painter David depicted scenes of ancient Rome in which oaths
of allegiance were accompanied by that type of salute.
There seems to be no pictorial evidence of the salute in
use in ancient Rome.
"... Kiev throws paramilitaries – some openly neo-Nazi - into the front of the battle with rebels ..."
"... But Kiev's use of volunteer paramilitaries to stamp out the Russian-backed Donetsk and Luhansk "people's republics", proclaimed in eastern Ukraine in March, should send a shiver down Europe's spine. Recently formed battalions such as Donbas, Dnipro and Azov, with several thousand men under their command, are officially under the control of the interior ministry but their financing is murky, their training inadequate and their ideology often alarming. ..."
"... The Azov men use the neo-Nazi Wolfsangel (Wolf's Hook) symbol on their banner and members of the battalion are openly white supremacists, or anti-Semites. ..."
"... The regiment's first commander was far-right nationalist Andriy Biletsky, who led the neo-Nazi Social-National Assembly and Patriot of Ukraine. ..."
"... Azov has gained notoriety among its detractors due to allegations of torture and war crimes, as well as the neo-Nazi sympathies of some of its members. ..."
Ukraine crisis: the neo-Nazi brigade fighting pro-Russian
separatists
Kiev throws paramilitaries – some openly neo-Nazi - into the
front of the battle with rebels
By Tom Parfitt
9:00AM BST 11 Aug 2014
......................................
But Kiev's use of volunteer paramilitaries to stamp out
the Russian-backed Donetsk and Luhansk "people's republics",
proclaimed in eastern Ukraine in March, should send a shiver
down Europe's spine. Recently formed battalions such as
Donbas, Dnipro and Azov, with several thousand men under
their command, are officially under the control of the
interior ministry but their financing is murky, their
training inadequate and their ideology often alarming.
The Azov men use the neo-Nazi Wolfsangel (Wolf's Hook)
symbol on their banner and members of the battalion are
openly white supremacists, or anti-Semites.
The Azov Regiment (Ukrainian: Полк Азов) is a National Guard
of Ukraine regiment.[1][2][3][4]
The unit is based in Mariupol in the Azov Sea coastal
region.[5] It saw its first combat experience recapturing
Mariupol from pro-Russian separatists forces in June 2014.[3]
Initially a volunteer militia, formed as the Azov
Battalion on 5 May 2014 during the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in
Ukraine, since 12 November 2014 Azov has been incorporated
into the National Guard of Ukraine.[6] All members of the
unit are under contract of and serve as part of the National
Guard of Ukraine.[7]
More than half of the Battalion members are from eastern
Ukraine and speak Russian,[8] and some of its recruits come
from the eastern cities of Donetsk and Luhansk.[9] The
regiment's first commander was far-right nationalist Andriy
Biletsky, who led the neo-Nazi Social-National Assembly and
Patriot of Ukraine.[10][11]
In its early days, Azov was the Ministry of Internal
Affairs' special police company, led by Volodymyr Shpara, the
leader of the Vasylkiv, Kiev, branch of Patriot of Ukraine
and Right Sector.[12][13][14] Under the "Azov" umbrella were
also created the non-governmental organization "Azov Civil
Corps" and the political party National Corps.[15]
Azov has gained notoriety among its detractors due to
allegations of torture and war crimes, as well as the
neo-Nazi sympathies of some of its members.
"... While I'm told that Russia did provide some light weapons to the rebels early in the struggle so they could defend themselves and their territory and a number of Russian nationalists have crossed the border to join the fight the claims of an overt "invasion" with tanks, artillery and truck convoys have been backed up by scant intelligence. ..."
"... One former U.S. intelligence official who has examined the evidence said the intelligence to support the claims of a significant Russian invasion amounted to "virtually nothing." ..."
"... Instead, it appears that the ethnic Russian rebels may have evolved into a more effective fighting force than many in the West thought. They are, after all, fighting on their home turf for their futures. ..."
"... "You need to know," the group wrote, "that accusations of a major Russian 'invasion' of Ukraine appear not to be supported by reliable intelligence. Rather, the 'intelligence' seems to be of the same dubious, politically 'fixed' kind used 12 years ago to 'justify' the U.S.-led attack on Iraq." ..."
"... Slavs are killing each other for the same reason Arabs are killing each other: to ensure the USA geopolitical and economic interests are served well. Divide and conquer was polished by British elite to perfection, and the USA elite adopted this policy like a very talented student. This is what neocolonialism is about. Disaster capitalism in action. ..."
Official Washington draws the Ukraine crisis in black-and-white colors with Russian President
Putin the bad guy and the U.S.-backed leaders in Kiev the good guys. But the reality is much more
nuanced, with the American people consistently misled on key facts.
...............
A Mysterious 'Invasion'
And now there's the curious case of Russia's alleged "invasion" of Ukraine, another alarmist
claim trumpeted by the Kiev regime and echoed by NATO hardliners and the MSM.
While I'm told that Russia did provide some light weapons to the rebels early in the struggle
so they could defend themselves and their territory and a number of Russian nationalists have
crossed the border to join the fight the claims of an overt "invasion" with tanks, artillery and
truck convoys have been backed up by scant intelligence.
One former U.S. intelligence official who has examined the evidence said the intelligence
to support the claims of a significant Russian invasion amounted to "virtually nothing."
Instead, it appears that the ethnic Russian rebels may have evolved into a more effective
fighting force than many in the West thought. They are, after all, fighting on their home turf
for their futures.
Concerned about the latest rush to judgment about the "invasion," the Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity, a group of former U.S. intelligence officials and analysts, took the
unusual step of sending a memo to German Chancellor Angela Merkel warning her of a possible replay
of the false claims that led to the Iraq War.
"You need to know," the group wrote, "that accusations of a major Russian 'invasion' of
Ukraine appear not to be supported by reliable intelligence. Rather, the 'intelligence' seems
to be of the same dubious, politically 'fixed' kind used 12 years ago to 'justify' the U.S.-led
attack on Iraq."
But these doubts and concerns are not reflected in the Post's editorial or other MSM accounts
of the dangerous Ukraine crisis. Indeed, Americans who rely on these powerful news outlets for
their information are as sheltered from reality as anyone living in a totalitarian society.
Slavs are killing each other for the same reason Arabs are killing each other: to ensure the
USA geopolitical and economic interests are served well. Divide and conquer was polished by British
elite to perfection, and the USA elite adopted this policy like a very talented student. This
is what neocolonialism is about. Disaster capitalism in action.
CIA and militarism loving Democrats are what is called Vichy left...
Notable quotes:
"... "Apparently, most Democrats are now defending the CIA [and bashing the US constitution] and trashing WikiLeaks (who have never had to retract a single story in all their years). The brainwashing is complete. Take a valium and watch your Rachel Maddow [read your poor pk]. I can no longer help you. You have become The Borg." ..."
"... There is a large amount of ground between being a Victoria Nuland neocon hawk going around picking unnecessary fights with Russia and engaging in aggression overt or covert against her or her allies ..."
"... I happen to support reasonable engagement with Russia on matters of mutual interest, and I think there are many of those. I do not support cheerleading when Russia commits aggression against neighbors, which it has, and then lies about it. There is a middle ground, but you and ilsm both seem to have let your brains fall out of your heads onto the sidewalk and then stepped on them hard regarding all this. ..."
"... US Deep state analogy to Stalin's machinations against his rivals seems reasonable. ..."
"Apparently, most Democrats are now defending the CIA [and bashing the US constitution] and
trashing WikiLeaks (who have never had to retract a single story in all their years). The brainwashing
is complete. Take a valium and watch your Rachel Maddow [read your poor pk]. I can no longer help
you. You have become The Borg."
I am going to make one more point, a substantive one. There is a large amount of ground between
being a Victoria Nuland neocon hawk going around picking unnecessary fights with Russia and engaging
in aggression overt or covert against her or her allies and simply rolling over to be a patsy
for the worst fort of RT propaganda and saying that there is no problem whatsoever with having
a president who is in deep financial hock to a murderous lying Russian president and who has made
inane and incomprehensible remarks about this, along with having staff and aides who lie to the
public about their dealings with people from Russia.
I happen to support reasonable engagement with Russia on matters of mutual interest, and I
think there are many of those. I do not support cheerleading when Russia commits aggression against
neighbors, which it has, and then lies about it. There is a middle ground, but you and ilsm both
seem to have let your brains fall out of your heads onto the sidewalk and then stepped on them
hard regarding all this.
If you find this offensive or intimidating, anne, sorry, but I am not going to apologize. Frankly,
I think you should apologize for the stupid and offensive things you have said on this subject,
about which I do not think you have the intimately personal knowledge that I have.
Reply Wednesday, March 08, 2017 at 12:36 AM
My dear interlocutor
As a once overt and future sleeper cell Stalinist
I'm perplexed by your artful use of Stalinist
In my experience that label was restricted to pinko circles notably
Trotskyists pinning the dirty tag on various shades of commie types
On the other side of the great divide of the early thirties
Buy you --
To you it seems synonymous with Orwellian demons of all stripes
That's not so much about Eurocentric modernism as America-centric neoliberalism
Notable quotes:
"... He first caught the scent that something was off as an economics student in India, wondering why, despite his mastery of the mathematics and technology of the discipline, the logic always escaped him. Then one day he had an epiphany: the whole thing was "cockeyed from start to finish." To his amazement, his best teachers agreed. "Then why are we studying economics?" demanded the pupil. "To protect ourselves from the lies of economists," replied the great economist Joan Robinson. ..."
"... Kanth realized that people are not at all like Adam Smith's homo economicus , a narrowly self-interested agent trucking and bartering through life. Smith had turned the human race - a species capable of wondrous caring, creativity, and conviviality - into a nasty horde of instinctive materialists: a society of hustlers. ..."
"... how this way of thinking took hold of us, and how it delivered a society which is essentially asocial - one in which everybody sees everybody else as a means to their own private ends. ..."
"... he argues, consigned us to an endless and exhausting Hobbesian competition. For every expansion of the market, we found our social space shrunk and our natural environment spoiled. For every benefit we received, there came a new way to pit us against each other. Have the costs become too high? ..."
"... "That's our big dream," says Kanth. "Everyone and everything is a stepping stone to our personal glorification." When others get in our way, we end up with a grim take on life described succinctly by Jean Paul Sartre: "Hell is other people." ..."
"... Mr. Kanth makes some valid points, but his criticism of the European Enlightenment is mistaken. Many of the horrors of modernity had their origins in the Counter-Enlightenment and in the Church Inquisitions, not the Enlightenment. The modern police state is a refinement of and a descendant of the struggles against heresy. ..."
"... Agreed. Parramore's phrase 'history of a set of bad ideas' does seem a bit harsh for a description of the Enlightenment. ..."
"... Like most big ideas, the problem isn't with the original idea so much as the corruption of it over the years as it's put into practice. Massive reform is necessary for sure but I'll take the Enlightenment over nasty, brutish, and short any day. ..."
"... I read somewhere that some Native Americans looking down on the ruins of San Fransisco after the great quake of 1906, thought that at last the crazy white people would realize the folly of their ways, and become normal humans. ..."
"... So they were amazed that before the ruins even stopped smoking, the crazy white people, ignoring the obvious displeasure of the Great Spirit, were busy rebuilding the same mess that had just been destroyed. ..."
"... I have a strong suspicion that evil empires do not come to their senses, rather, one way or another, they get flattened. ..."
"... I can remember arguing over this in my philosophy classes way back in the 80's – that Objectivism and the Enlightenment were two sides of the same coin, and that those Enlightenment writers were writing tomes to justify their own greed and prejudices, while cloaking their greed and prejudices in "morality". ..."
"... At the time (I was young) it seemed to me that the Enlightenment was an attempt to destroy the basis of Jesus's and Buddha's philosophy – that the most moral position of humanity was to care for its members, just as clans, tribes, families, and other human societies did. ..."
"... "They didn't accomplish much" meaning they lost militarily to cultures with more aggression and better weapons. ..."
"... It seems to me that humans, as hierarchical mammals, really do have a desire to compete with each other for status and respect. The trouble is in organizing all of society around this one struggle, forcing everyone into explicit competition and making the stakes too high. When the losers can't afford to buy food, when they and their little children live on the street and die in the cold, when their kids can never compete on an equal field to improve their own status, things have gone too far. And in addition to material needs, humans also have a need for independence, an escape from being constantly ordered around by the winners and under someone else's thumb. ..."
"... Note, as an aside, how granting economic rights to outgroups like women and Blacks brought them into the same market competition. Well, a lot of men don't want to compete with women for status. They want to compete with each other. The more competitors you add the harder it is to win. But when all resources ..."
"... I think you're right about that and if we do ever manage to abolish capitalism and develop a less violent and more egalitarian society, there will need to be an outlet for that innate desire. I propose hockey. Beats starting a war . ..."
"... When President Trump defeated his rival in the last election, among the many ways in which the event was captured was a representation of the President as Perseus carrying the head of Medusa (Clinton) in his outstretched left hand. Medusa was a monster gorgon of the Greek mythology; a representation in this case by Clinton (a woman) who dared to take real power in this essentially male world and silenced for trying to participate in the public discourse (election). ..."
"... The point is that what passes as Modernism has never entered modern life. In support of my proposition I cite an encounter between a journalist and Mahatma Gandhi in 1930s: The journalist asked Gandhi, "Mr. Gandhi, what is your opinion of the western civilization?" Gandhi replied instantaneously "It would be a good idea". ..."
"... I think he's right about Eurocentric modernism being incompatible with human civilization. But it can't be just an evolutionary accident that civilization is so aggressive. It served a purpose. We refer to it as 'survival'. I used to tell my daughter not to make fun of those 'dorky little boys' too much because they all had a way of growing up to be very nice men. And I told her women are the reason we have all survived, but men have made it so much easier! And etc. ..."
"... I believe that one element of modern life that should be removed forever is the infinite search for maximizing profits. ..."
"... On more than one occasion I've compared the rent-seeking profit mongers to Molocks that cultivate us milder Eloi and cannabalize us. ..."
"... But the economics profession's problem isn't "blind faith in science." It's a massive failure to apply the scientific method, combined with an expectation that we all put our blind faith in THEM anyway. ..."
"... Essentially a post-modern critique of modernism without all the jargon of p-m critical theory (yay!!). I don't think we have enough data from the pre-modern huddling societies to determine if that's how we want to live. Yes, my boss at work exploits me, but on the other hand, I can walk into an air-conditioned supermarket and survey row after row of steaks that I can afford to buy. I love to drive cars. The cinema is enchanting. Dying of a plague is a very remote possibility. We could give it all up, but there's no guarantee our lives would be richer or fuller–just different, at best. ..."
"... Just how dark were the Dark Ages? Or, to borrow Churchill's phrase, how dark would a NEW Dark Age be? ..."
"... Two possibles: the cargo cult children of Mad Max: Beyond the Thunderdome, or the society depicted in Aldous Huxley's Ape and Essence. At least the Church in Rome and Constantinople provided some kind of lifeline of civilization during the collapse of the Roman Empire. What similar institution have we now? ..."
"... Sounds like bog-standard post-modernist tosh to me, just without the obscure ProfSpeak jargon that usually accompanies it. I fail to see how this is helpful. ..."
"... The only thing missing in this post is Bambi. Of course the Bushmen would kill Bambi dead with spears and roast her flesh over a fire. So would we, actually. hmmmm. ..."
"... I agree dude is right that the values now unraveling (democracy, pluralism, individualism, free speech, international-ism (in both the good and bad ways)) go all the way back to that time. ..."
"... But this article is a perfect example of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Surely none of the third world cultures he praises got where they are by totally throwing out previous systems, the good parts and bad, every time they faced a crisis. ..."
"... IMO the problem is enlightenment values have been hollowed out, narrowed to only those superficial aspects of those values which benefit the marketplace. Like how real food got turned into Mosanto fast-food so gradually, nobody noticed that the nutrients are missing. ..."
"... Adam Smith had some good points that have been lost along the way, namely penalizing rent seeking. ..."
"... Smith has been seriously misrepresented. The Theory of Moral Sentiments shows a very different side to that presented by those who selectively quote from The Wealth of Nations. ..."
"... It's hard to tell from the rather incoherent summary of what looks like an incoherent argument, but the "everything went wrong after the Enlightenment" meme has been circulating for ages. It was speared pretty effectively by Domenico Losurdo in "War and Revolution" some years ago. The author seems to be jumbling all sorts of arguments together, some valid and some not, but the valid arguments are in general criticisms of liberalism, which is not the same of the Enlightenment. ..."
"... This is a very good point, as the Enlightenment was not merely a straight line connection to the blight of NeoLiberalism ..."
"... The naked embrace of selfishness, while never absent over these centuries, did have countervailing currents and forces with which to contend that were sometimes able to at least minimize the damage. But more recently, with supposedly scientific NeoLiberal economic thought sweeping the field throughout much of the first world, and with the overall decline of religious and moral systems as a counterpoise, things have reached an unlovely pass. ..."
"... homo economicus ..."
"... For further reading, I strongly recommend John Ralston Saul's "Voltaire's Bastards". ..."
"... I think that people who are interested in how the Enlightenment may or may not have contributed to the problems of modernity would do well to read Enemies of the Enlightenment: The French Counter-Enlightenment and the Making of Modernity , by Darrin McMahon. Another book of value is The Enlightenment: And Why It Still Matters , by Anthony Pagden. ..."
"... I should have mentioned that the full title is "Voltaire's Bastards: The Dictatorship of Reason in the West". ..."
Across the globe, a collective freak-out spanning the whole political system is picking up steam
with every new "surprise" election, rush of tormented souls across borders, and tweet from the star
of America's great unreality show, Donald Trump.
But what exactly is the force that seems to be pushing us towards Armageddon? Is it capitalism
gone wild? Globalization? Political corruption? Techno-nightmares?
Rajani Kanth, a political economist, social thinker, and poet , goes beyond any of these
explanations for the answer. In his view, what's throwing most of us off kilter - whether we think
of ourselves as on the left or right, capitalist or socialist -was birthed 400 years ago during the
period of the Enlightenment. It's a set of assumptions, a particular way of looking at the world
that pushed out previous modes of existence, many quite ancient and time-tested, and eventually rose
to dominate the world in its Anglo-American form.
We're taught to think of the Enlightenment as the blessed end to the Dark Ages, a splendid blossoming
of human reason. But what if instead of bringing us to a better world, some of this period's key
ideas ended up producing something even darker?
Kanth argues that this framework, which he calls Eurocentric modernism, is collapsing, and unless
we understand why and how it has distorted our reality, we might just end up burnt to a crisp as
this misanthropic Death Star starts to bulge and blaze in its dying throes.
A Mass Incarceration of Humanity
Kanth's latest book, Farewell to Modernism: On Human Devolution in the Twenty-First Century , tells the history
of a set of bad ideas. He first caught the scent that something was off as an economics student
in India, wondering why, despite his mastery of the mathematics and technology of the discipline,
the logic always escaped him. Then one day he had an epiphany: the whole thing was "cockeyed from
start to finish." To his amazement, his best teachers agreed. "Then why are we studying economics?"
demanded the pupil. "To protect ourselves from the lies of economists," replied the great economist
Joan Robinson.
Kanth realized that people are not at all like Adam Smith's homo economicus , a narrowly
self-interested agent trucking and bartering through life. Smith had turned the human race - a species
capable of wondrous caring, creativity, and conviviality - into a nasty horde of instinctive materialists:
a society of hustlers.
Using his training in history and cultural theory, Kanth dedicated himself to investigating
how this way of thinking took hold of us, and how it delivered a society which is essentially
asocial - one in which everybody sees everybody else as a means to their own private ends. Eurocentric
modernism, he argues, consigned us to an endless and exhausting Hobbesian competition. For every
expansion of the market, we found our social space shrunk and our natural environment spoiled. For
every benefit we received, there came a new way to pit us against each other. Have the costs become
too high?
The Creed of Capture
The Eurocentric modernist program, according to Kanth, has four planks: a blind faith in science;
a self-serving belief in progress; rampant materialism; and a penchant for using state violence to
achieve its ends. In a nutshell, it's a habit of placing individual self-interest above the welfare
of community and society.
To illustrate one of its signature follies, Kanth refers to that great Hollywood ode to the Western
spirit, "The Sound of Music." Early in the film, the Mother Superior bursts into song, calling on
the nun Maria to "climb every mountain, ford every stream."
Sounds exhilarating, but to what end? Why exactly do we need to ford every stream? From the Eurocentric
modernist viewpoint, Kanth says, the answer is not so innocent: we secretly do it so that we can
say to ourselves, "Look, I achieved something that's beyond the reach of somebody else." Hooray for
me!
"That's our big dream," says Kanth. "Everyone and everything is a stepping stone to our personal
glorification." When others get in our way, we end up with a grim take on life described succinctly
by Jean Paul Sartre: "Hell is other people."
Sounds bad, but didn't Eurocentric modernism also give us our great democratic ideals of equality
and liberty to elevate and protect us?
Maybe these notions are not really our salvation, suggests Kanth. He notes that when we replace
the vital ties of kinship and community with abstract contractual relations, or when we find that
the only sanctioned paths in life are that of consumer or producer, we become alienated and depressed
in spirit. Abstract rights like liberty and equality turn out to be rather cold comfort. These ideas,
however lofty, may not get at the most basic human wants and needs. .
... ... ...
Kanth, like many, senses that a global financial crisis, or some other equivalent catastrophe,
like war or natural disaster, may soon produce painful and seismic economic and political disruptions.
Perhaps only then will human nature reassert itself as we come to rediscover the crucial nexus of
reciprocities that is our real heritage. That's what will enable us to survive.
"The Eurocentric modernist program, according to Kanth, has four planks: a blind faith in science;
a self-serving belief in progress; rampant materialism; and a penchant for using state violence
to achieve its ends. In a nutshell, it's a habit of placing individual self-interest above the
welfare of community and society."
Kanth hasn't dealt much with the wild skepticism of Enlightenment and modernist thinkers: That
would put a strain on such simplistic thinking. He's never heard of Kant or Rousseau? Pascal?
He's never even read Matthew Arnold's "Dover Beach"? Dickens? A speech by Abraham Lincoln? The
novels of Jane Austen? Maybe some articles by Antonio Gramsci? The Leopard by Tomasi di Lampedusa?
Anything about Einstein? Or even Freud for that matter? Looked at a painting or etching or work
in ceramic by Picasso?
Just because economics has devolved into looting and excuse-making for looting isn't a critique
of the cultural and scientific flowering that were part of the Enlightenment and Modernism. Are
we really supposed to think that Milton Friedman and his delusions have destroyed all aspects
of the enormous changes since 1600 or so? And I, for one, don't want to backslide into the Baroque–when
states used their power for religious wars so virulent that Silesia and Alsace were depopulated.
Alienation is not the name of a river in Egypt BTW, Did any of your examples lead to anything
other than this?
The sum of individuals adds up to the bizarre creature we call "culture." A flower in the air,
to be sure.
They didn't even have food delivery! This post isn't the best evah in the history of NC - I
mean it shouldn't be censored or taken down or anything and everybody has a right to an opinion,
but "Oy Vey what a shock to a reader's delicate intellectual sensibilities."
You wonder if it's Beer Goggles that are being looked through or if this is a case of transference
and projection. The fact that the post author is a poet raises suspicion, since they aren't the
most reliable sources when it come so sober factual analysis.
Mr. Kanth makes some valid points, but his criticism of the European Enlightenment is mistaken.
Many of the horrors of modernity had their origins in the Counter-Enlightenment and in the Church
Inquisitions, not the Enlightenment. The modern police state is a refinement of and a descendant
of the struggles against heresy.
If one is going to criticize societies for lacking "moral economies", it's not just the European
(and American) based societies that need to be targeted. Other societies have deep failures that
extend back for millennia, such as the caste system of India.
Agreed. Parramore's phrase 'history of a set of bad ideas' does seem a bit harsh for a
description of the Enlightenment.
Been a while since I read Candide , but the end where he meets the world famous sage
and asks for the secret of happiness in a terrible world only to be told 'Tend your own garden'
and then having the gate slammed in his face has always stuck with me.
You could interpret that to mean isolate yourself from your fellow human beings and just look
out for yourself, but I don't think that's what Voltaire was getting at.
Like most big ideas, the problem isn't with the original idea so much as the corruption
of it over the years as it's put into practice. Massive reform is necessary for sure but I'll
take the Enlightenment over nasty, brutish, and short any day.
Perhaps, beyond anthropology, there are lessons in evolutionary biology. Individual humans
are fairly weak animals. Our ancestors were obligated to "huddle" to survive, or as Richard Dawkins
might suggest, huddling, banding together in families and groups, was an evolutionarily successful
strategy. Those well adapted to communal living were more likely to survive, so that tendency
was selected for. However, "cheaters" can also survive. That is, it is not uncommon in the natural
world to find individuals and groups of individuals who cheat the group – expend less energy to
reproduce, such as male sunfish that display the secondary sexual characteristics of females,
so are not driven off by nest building males, make a mad dash in to fertilize eggs when a real
female shows up, but provides no protection for the young – the adult male does that. In human
culture, there are also cheaters, those who provide little to the larger society, yet reap a disproportionate
level of resources.
So, learning more of our cultural roots and adopting positive measures for social cohesion
is a good idea, but much like Jesus' view that the poor will always be with us, cheaters, from
banksters to dictators, will too.
As Kanth sees it, most of our utopian visions carry on the errors and limitations born of
a misguided view of human nature. That's why communism, as it was practiced in the Soviet Union
and elsewhere, projected a materialist perspective on progress while ignoring the natural human
instinct for autonomy- the ability to decide for ourselves where to go and what to say and
create. On flip side, capitalism runs against our instinct to trust and take care of each other.
I think this paragraph speaks volumes for transitioning to a society with a BGI with libertarian
socialist leanings. Let people be free to create what they are passionate about while allowing
humans to express their innate desire to care for one another without it signifying weakness or
at their time own personal expense. I don't think this approach necessarily precludes rockets
to Mars either. The engineers who are passionate will still get together and build one. It may
take a little longer if they can't convince others to help but hopefully this will foster more
cooperative approaches and less viewing of other humans as consumables.
Libertarianism and libertarian socialism are two different things. Libertarianism is a less
authoritative conservatism while libertarian socialism is a less authoritative social democracy.
Think Chomsky, not Ron Paul. Or think of it as a more relaxed Bernie who thinks things should
be done on a smaller, more local scale.
Kanth, like many, senses that a global financial crisis, or some other equivalent catastrophe,
like war or natural disaster, may soon produce painful and seismic economic and political disruptions.
Perhaps only then will human nature reassert itself as we come to rediscover the crucial nexus
of reciprocities that is our real heritage. That's what will enable us to survive.
I read somewhere that some Native Americans looking down on the ruins of San Fransisco
after the great quake of 1906, thought that at last the crazy white people would realize the folly
of their ways, and become normal humans.
So they were amazed that before the ruins even stopped smoking, the crazy white people,
ignoring the obvious displeasure of the Great Spirit, were busy rebuilding the same mess that
had just been destroyed.
I have a strong suspicion that evil empires do not come to their senses, rather, one way
or another, they get flattened.
I can remember arguing over this in my philosophy classes way back in the 80's – that Objectivism
and the Enlightenment were two sides of the same coin, and that those Enlightenment writers were
writing tomes to justify their own greed and prejudices, while cloaking their greed and prejudices
in "morality".
At the time (I was young) it seemed to me that the Enlightenment was an attempt to destroy
the basis of Jesus's and Buddha's philosophy – that the most moral position of humanity was to
care for its members, just as clans, tribes, families, and other human societies did.
The most frequent response from professors and classmates to my thesis? But those clans, tribes,
families, etc., didn't accomplish much, did they? As if the only reason for humanity's existence
was to compete against itself
Needless to say, I didn't stick with Philosophy ..
And we need new syntheses, at which this is an attempt.
It's not a stretch to say the trend since the renaissance has been to exalt the individual.
Kanth is aiming for a communitarian philosophy. An interesting departure point for discussion.
I don't see what people find so offensive.
"They didn't accomplish much" meaning they lost militarily to cultures with more aggression
and better weapons.
It seems to me that humans, as hierarchical mammals, really do have a desire to compete
with each other for status and respect. The trouble is in organizing all of society around this
one struggle, forcing everyone into explicit competition and making the stakes too high. When
the losers can't afford to buy food, when they and their little children live on the street and
die in the cold, when their kids can never compete on an equal field to improve their own status,
things have gone too far. And in addition to material needs, humans also have a need for independence,
an escape from being constantly ordered around by the winners and under someone else's thumb.
Capitalism made the stakes too high. But it was designed by the winners.
You might argue that there were plenty of "hopeless losers" in the systems that preceded capitalism
- the orphans, elderly crones, and beggars without livelihoods who used to wander the hedgerows
in medieval times. We have more resources now which also means no excuses.
Note, as an aside, how granting economic rights to outgroups like women and Blacks brought
them into the same market competition. Well, a lot of men don't want to compete with women for
status. They want to compete with each other. The more competitors you add the harder it is to
win. But when all resources are restricted to the market, it's unjust to exclude any
group from access. Once again the stakes are too high. Social democracies are better places to
live for exactly this reason.
It seems to me that humans, as hierarchical mammals, really do have a desire to compete
with each other for status and respect.
I think you're right about that and if we do ever manage to abolish capitalism and develop
a less violent and more egalitarian society, there will need to be an outlet for that innate desire.
I propose hockey. Beats starting a war .
When President Trump defeated his rival in the last election, among the many ways in which
the event was captured was a representation of the President as Perseus carrying the head of Medusa
(Clinton) in his outstretched left hand. Medusa was a monster gorgon of the Greek mythology; a
representation in this case by Clinton (a woman) who dared to take real power in this essentially
male world and silenced for trying to participate in the public discourse (election).
I take this example to point out that both Lynn Parramore and Rajni Kanth declaring in a version
of mumbo-jumbo are sadly wrong-modernism has always been skin-deep excepting in accommodating
the technological element in the tone of life. Voltaire and Rousseau aside, both Kanth and Parramore
know which side of the mumbo-jumbo bread is their butter; even bemoaning the collapsing supposed
ruins of modernism they do not fail to take advantage! "Eurocentric modernism has unhinged us
from our human nature" asserts Kanth in his "book" but I would like to bluntly ask him: Please
define your "us" and "our" in that proposition and clarify if poor Indians like Yours Truly find
a dot in that set.
The point is that what passes as Modernism has never entered modern life. In support of
my proposition I cite an encounter between a journalist and Mahatma Gandhi in 1930s: The journalist
asked Gandhi, "Mr. Gandhi, what is your opinion of the western civilization?" Gandhi replied instantaneously
"It would be a good idea".
It does not at all. This is the price one pays as an innocent reader by reading social science
mumbo jumbo which is so irksome. It lacks the grace of the real mumbo jumbo too. Kanth is bluffing;
the author misunderstands his stupid linguistic constructions of Kanth and incomprehension and
chaos follow. The whole article seems to be a bluff about a bluff(the book).
I think he's right about Eurocentric modernism being incompatible with human civilization.
But it can't be just an evolutionary accident that civilization is so aggressive. It served a
purpose. We refer to it as 'survival'. I used to tell my daughter not to make fun of those 'dorky
little boys' too much because they all had a way of growing up to be very nice men. And I told
her women are the reason we have all survived, but men have made it so much easier! And etc.
We have been very successful as a species; surviving all of our own inquisitions, pogroms,
hallucinations and yes, this is a serious situation we are in. We might even try to guide ourselves
out of it, using science and technology, as we huddle.
I suspect there was a fatal error long, long ago: you lend me your ram so my ewe can have offspring.
If there are twins, we each get one; if not, we agree upon future breeding rights and grazing
areas. After generations of this sort of breeding activity, I have in my mind the notion that
there is a 'natural increase' from lending or swapping.
Along comes a scribe with a tablet, whom I have now hired to list the number of my flocks (wealth
on the hoof); I lend you forms of wealth (rams, ewes, oxen, axes, boats) , and the scribe assumes
there must be some 'natural increase' as the outcome of this lending and swapping. Consequently,
the scribe carves cuneiform markings to represent what we might call 'compound interest' that
result from lending and swapping of non-biological resources - despite the fact that if you sit
two clay tablets in the sun, they do not (and never will!) create an additional clay tablet. Ditto
heaps of dollar bills; it's not the money that creates increase; it's the assumption of 'increase'
(originating in breeding activity of flocks and herds) that makes the money generate surplus -
not any property of those scraps of paper themselves.
BTW: FWIW, double entry bookkeeping seems to trace the earliest period of modernism, which
IMVHO adds heft to Kanth's argument about something shifting probably earlier than 400 years
ago.
It's possible that Michael Hudson has covered this; if so, I've not had time to read it yet.
I hope to in future. David Graeber's work on redemption ('buying back' someone enslaved or indentured)
and his anthropological findings also lend heft to Kanth's analysis.
"He first caught the scent that something was off as an economics student in India, wondering
why, despite his mastery of the mathematics and technology of the discipline, the logic always
escaped him. Then one day he had an epiphany: the whole thing was "cockeyed from start to finish.""
But the economics profession's problem isn't "blind faith in science." It's a massive failure
to apply the scientific method, combined with an expectation that we all put our blind faith in
THEM anyway.
I think our problems do not stem from any theories or ideologies, they are the predictable
result of human nature – specifically of the fact that the balance between the loving side of
human nature and the aggressive side is not evenly distributed among individuals. It is precisely
the most aggressive among us who most desire, and work the hardest, to dominate and control others.
I had the same experience as he had with economics with law, ok I only studied it when studying
business and that does not a lawyer make, but it made no sense for me. But I do think I maybe
just have the wrong kind of brain for it, expect a logic that isn't there.
Essentially a post-modern critique of modernism without all the jargon of p-m critical theory
(yay!!). I don't think we have enough data from the pre-modern huddling societies to determine
if that's how we want to live. Yes, my boss at work exploits me, but on the other hand, I can
walk into an air-conditioned supermarket and survey row after row of steaks that I can afford
to buy. I love to drive cars. The cinema is enchanting. Dying of a plague is a very remote possibility.
We could give it all up, but there's no guarantee our lives would be richer or fuller–just different,
at best.
Just how dark were the Dark Ages? Or, to borrow Churchill's phrase, how dark would a NEW Dark
Age be? I don't think you can get rid of Modernism very easily, for certain parts would survive.
Science and tech, for example. Ideas of surveillance and control. But along with this, new prejudices,
new superstitions, perhaps? What perverse new form of religion or philosophy might arise from
the ashes of our civilization?
Two possibles: the cargo cult children of Mad Max: Beyond the Thunderdome,
or the society depicted in Aldous Huxley's Ape and Essence. At least the Church in Rome and Constantinople
provided some kind of lifeline of civilization during the collapse of the Roman Empire. What similar
institution have we now?
Sounds like bog-standard post-modernist tosh to me, just without the obscure ProfSpeak jargon
that usually accompanies it. I fail to see how this is helpful.
The only thing missing in this post is Bambi. Of course the Bushmen would kill Bambi dead with
spears and roast her flesh over a fire. So would we, actually. hmmmm.
To illustrate one of its signature follies, Kanth refers to that great Hollywood ode to
the Western spirit, "The Sound of Music." Early in the film, the Mother Superior bursts into
song, calling on the nun Maria to "climb every mountain, ford every stream."
Sounds exhilarating, but to what end? Why exactly do we need to ford every stream? From
the Eurocentric modernist viewpoint, Kanth says, the answer is not so innocent: we secretly
do it so that we can say to ourselves, "Look, I achieved something that's beyond the reach
of somebody else." Hooray for me!
Many would part company with Kanth over the above characterization. There are many reasons
why people climb mountains and ford streams that do not include, or even consider, that element
of exclusive personal achievement. Some might even aver that climbing and fording and so many
other human activities are done "because it is there", while others appreciate a spiritual or
other inspirational aspect.
Will we climbers and forders be told that we are selfish or otherwise deficient or on the wrong
side of history or whatever the mal du jour is because we like a little bit of hygge
or Gemütlichkeit as we live our lives?
Quite that is indeed the point where I stopped reading and started skimming someone who mistakes
metaphors in a musical for physical actions is not going to enlighten my world (no matter how
much I dislike the film).
climbing every mountain and fording every stream is probably impossible in the literal sense
(aren't there way too many streams for this? and mountains probably too), and certainly it is
impossible in the metaphoric one.
I don't see why poor Julie Andrews, of all people, has to be singled out here as exemplifying
malign post-Enlightenment discourses of proprietorship and exploitation. That's just mean
. Surely those ideologies are better examined through a close reading of the Shamen's inexcusable
'90s electro hit "Move Every Mountain"?
I agree dude is right that the values now unraveling (democracy, pluralism, individualism,
free speech, international-ism (in both the good and bad ways)) go all the way back to that time.
But this article is a perfect example of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Surely none
of the third world cultures he praises got where they are by totally throwing out previous systems,
the good parts and bad, every time they faced a crisis.
IMO the problem is enlightenment values have been hollowed out, narrowed to only those superficial
aspects of those values which benefit the marketplace. Like how real food got turned into Mosanto
fast-food so gradually, nobody noticed that the nutrients are missing.
While it's obvious how this thesis deflates modern capitalism, it would also appear to me that
the idea of refocusing on "kinship and community" would present a challenge to the "global solidarity"
mentality underlying most leftist thinking as well. You cannot simultaneously have an emphasis
on the huddled community, while also arguing that workers worldwide have a deeper and more important
connection than the business owner and his or her employees (assuming both are from within the
same community, natch). Either you assume humans have a universal commonness, which effectively
obliterates the notion of community, or you accept humans tend towards tribalism, which both discounts
any notion of creating a global, uniform leftist economics, but also suggests a troubling tendency
towards xenophobia.
Good point, "kinship and community" are analogous to tribalism and nationalism on a larger
scale unless you rephrase it to mean kinship with your family and neighbors on the local level,
and with humanity on a national/global level. Unfortunately, some of our current liberal globalists
seem to be forgetting the part about local kinship and community while embracing global humanity.
I dunno, may have something to do with cheaper labor abroad.
Partly, but there's also an association in the minds of many liberals and leftists of localized
control and thinking equating with oppression, historically. Things like segregation, discrimination,
violations of the separation of church and state, anti-labor employment & worksite laws, etc.
I think Kanth is quick to criticize materialism and scientific progress for all our ills while
seeming to have missed the horrid standards of living in his anthropological studies prior to
scientific progress with enlightenment principles over theocracy. I'd like to know what the longevity
of per-enlightenment citizens was compared to today. In fact, longevity in this country around
1900 was still in the mid 40's for most.
What I find would have been a better argument is to focus his critique not on scientific progress,
but on how there always seems to be a certain small minority of the population which seems to
have an out sized voice in how we choose to self govern. What we seem to be losing today is the
silent majority of voices who are for universal health care, not eroding further entitlements,
bodily security as well as economic security while still being able to encourage those who chose
to take risks and put themselves through more work and strain to be fairly rewarded.
The problem as I see it today, is that the pendulum, both politically, and socially, has swung
too far towards the selfish individualist.
The problem with how science is seen in a modernist context is two-fold. The "blind faith"
leads people to see it as all-encompassing, all-powerful, and not recognizing its scope and where
that scope ends. Ergo, anything that is successfully sold to the public and TPTB as "science"
gets said treatment and is viewed as being unquestionable (like, say, neoclassical economics).
Bruno Latour has been on this for decades in 1991 the book "We Have Never Been Modern" This has been followed by many other books, prizes, invited lectures, and thought exhibition
called Reset Modernity. The book, published last year, is related to the exhibition with that
title. Published by MIT press with 60 authors.
Reset Modernity
Reset Modernity!
Edited by Bruno Latour and Christophe Leclerc
Overview
Modernity has had so many meanings and tries to combine so many contradictory sets of attitudes
and values that it has become impossible to use it to define the future. It has ended up crashing
like an overloaded computer. Hence the idea is that modernity might need a sort of reset. Not
a clean break, not a "tabula rasa," not another iconoclastic gesture, but rather a restart
of the complicated programs that have been accumulated, over the course of history, in what
is often called the "modernist project." This operation has become all the more urgent now
that the ecological mutation is forcing us to reorient ourselves toward an experience of the
material world for which we don't seem to have good recording devices.
Reset Modernity! is organized around six procedures that might induce the readers to reset
some of those instruments. Once this reset has been completed, readers might be better prepared
for a series of new encounters with other cultures. After having been thrown into the modernist
maelstrom, those cultures have difficulties that are just as grave as ours in orienting themselves
within the notion of modernity. It is not impossible that the course of those encounters might
be altered after modernizers have reset their own way of recording their experience of the
world.
At the intersection of art, philosophy, and anthropology, Reset Modernity! has assembled
close to sixty authors, most of whom have participated, in one way or another, in the Inquiry
into Modes of Existence initiated by Bruno Latour. Together they try to see whether such a
reset and such encounters have any practicality. Much like the two exhibitions Iconoclash and
Making Things Public, this book documents and completes what could be called a "thought exhibition:"
Reset Modernity! held at ZKM | Center for Art and Media Karlsruhe from April to August 2016.
Like the two others, this book, generously illustrated, includes contributions, excerpts, and
works from many authors and artists.
Seems to me that the insight into the relevancy of anthropology vis a vis economics is a product
of science. And Adam Smith had some good points that have been lost along the way, namely penalizing rent
seeking.
Smith has been seriously misrepresented. The Theory of Moral Sentiments shows a very different
side to that presented by those who selectively quote from The Wealth of Nations.
It's hard to tell from the rather incoherent summary of what looks like an incoherent argument,
but the "everything went wrong after the Enlightenment" meme has been circulating for ages. It
was speared pretty effectively by Domenico Losurdo in "War and Revolution" some years ago. The
author seems to be jumbling all sorts of arguments together, some valid and some not, but the
valid arguments are in general criticisms of liberalism, which is not the same of the Enlightenment.
This is a very good point, as the Enlightenment was not merely a straight line connection to
the blight of NeoLiberalism. Rather, there were those, such as Burke, or some of our "Founding
Fathers" who were students of history, and while discriminating observers of the deleterious elements
of human nature, they were also cognizant of the more helpful elements of that same human nature.
They, however, tended toward the view that those helpful elements required deliberate nurturance
in order to come to the fore. Some of this nurturance could be achieved by partially neutralizing
the deleterious elements by balancing interests (you weren't going to get rid of the propensities,
but you could limit the scope of their play by pitting societal forces one against the other in
political structures, vide the doctrine of separation of powers), while nurturance could
also be achieved through perpetuation of those societal institutions that address the individual
conscience and behaviors like religious doctrine and examples.
The naked embrace of selfishness, while never absent over these centuries, did have countervailing
currents and forces with which to contend that were sometimes able to at least minimize the damage.
But more recently, with supposedly scientific NeoLiberal economic thought sweeping the field throughout
much of the first world, and with the overall decline of religious and moral systems as a counterpoise,
things have reached an unlovely pass.
But it would be incorrect to solely blame Enlightenment themes for where we are today. Much
of what was presumed to be necessary to the proper, humane functioning of the ideal Enlightenment
society has been pushed aside in favor of the degraded every-man-for-himself, homo economicus
scourge that holds sway.
Joseph de Maistre, the conservative critic of Enlightenment values, deserves far more blame
for the horrors of modernity than do Voltaire or his like minded colleagues. And I can't even
find de Maistre mentioned in the index of Saul's book.
Thanks for mentioning Joseph de Maistre. I have never heard of him. I think you'd enjoy this
book, nonetheless. Saul doesn't actually "blame" Voltaire. He blames those who came after Voltaire.
For that matter, the bulk of the book is about the 20th century's (mis)interpretation of the Enlightment
project. I should have mentioned that the full title is "Voltaire's Bastards: The Dictatorship
of Reason in the West".
Interesting story Waring told when I heard her speak in Toronto – As she boarded a bus at the
airport to travel to her hotel, and a young man (20s) recognized her because the film is shown
to high school students throughout Canada.
And Capital Institute's John Fullerton
FIELD GUIDE TO A REGENERATIVE
ECONOMY Primarily due to reading George Monbiot's inane rejection of the work of Allan Savory
and Capital Institute's work with Grasslands LLC. Brought to me this morning by Nicole Foss and
the Guardian.
And for farmer's and lovers of the land, I couldn't help but hear Wendell Berry, "It all turns
on affection."
Interesting to have these things intersect with this morning's coffee. Thank you.
"... This was Alan Greenspan's trick that he pulled in the 1980s as head of the Greenspan Commission. He said that what was needed in America was to traumatize the workers – to squeeze them so much that they won't have the courage to strike. Not have the courage to ask for better working conditions. He recognized that the best way to really squeeze wage earners is to sharply increase their taxes. He didn't call FICA wage withholding a tax, but of course it is. His trick was to say that it's not really a tax, but a contribution to Social Security. And now it siphons off 15.4% of everybody's pay check, right off the top. ..."
"... The effect of what Greenspan did was more than just to make wage earners pay this FICA rake-off out of their paycheck every month. The charge was set so high that the Social Security fund lent its surplus to the government. Now, with all this huge surplus that we're squeezing out of the wage earners, there's a cut-off point: around $120,000. The richest people don't have to pay for Social Security funding, only the wage-earner class has to. Their forced savings are lent to the government to enable it to claim that it has so much extra money in the budget pouring in from social security that now it can afford to cut taxes on the rich. ..."
"... So the sharp increase in Social Security tax for wage earners went hand-in-hand with sharp reductions in taxes on real estate, finance for the top One Percent – the people who live on economic rent, not by working, not by producing goods and services but by making money on their real estate, stocks and bonds "in their sleep." That's how the five percent have basically been able to make their money. ..."
"... The Federal Reserve has just published statistics saying the average American family, 55 and 60 years old, only has about $14,000 worth of savings. This isn't nearly enough to retire on. There's also been a vast looting of pension funds, largely by Wall Street. That's why the investment banks have had to pay tens of billions of dollars of penalties for cheating pension funds and other investors. The current risk-free rate of return is 0.1% on government bonds, so the pension funds don't have enough money to pay pensions at the rate that their junk economics advisors forecast. The money that people thought was going to be available for their retirement, all of a sudden isn't. The pretense is that nobody could have forecast this! ..."
"... In Chile, the Chicago Boys really developed this strategy. University of Chicago economists made it possible, by privatizing and corporatizing the Social Security system. Their ploy was to set aside a pension fund managed by the company, mostly to invest in its own stock. The company would then set up an affiliate that would actually own the company under an umbrella, and then leave the company with its pension fund to go bankrupt – having already emptied out the pension fund by loaning it to the corporate shell. ..."
"... We have the highest healthcare costs in the world, so out of your paycheck – which is not increasing – you're going to have to pay more and more for FICA withholding for Social Security, more and more for healthcare, for the pharmaceutical monopoly and the health insurance monopoly. You'll also have to pay more and more to use public services for transportation to get to work, because the state is not funding that anymore. We're cutting taxes on the rich, so we don't have the money to do what social democracies are supposed to do. You're going to privatize the roads, so that now you're going to have to pay to use the road to drive to work, if you don't have public transportation. ..."
"... "Classical and neo-classical economics, as dominant today, has used the deductive methodology: Untested axioms and unrealistic assumptions are the basis for the formulation of theoretical dream worlds that are used to present particular 'results'. As discussed in Werner (2005), this methodology is particularly suited to deriving and justifying preconceived ideas and conclusions, through a process of working backwards from the desired 'conclusions', to establish the kind of model that can deliver them, and then formulating the kind of framework that could justify this model by choosing suitable assumptions and 'axioms'. In other words, the deductive methodology is uniquely suited for manipulation by being based on axioms and assumptions that can be picked at will in order to obtain pre-determined desired outcomes and justify favoured policy recommendations. It can be said that the deductive methodology is useful for producing arguments that may give a scientific appearance, but are merely presenting a pre-determined opinion." ..."
"... "Progress in economics and finance research would require researchers to build on the correct insights derived by economists at least since the 19th century (such as Macleod, 1856). The overview of the literature on how banks function, in this paper and in Werner (2014b), has revealed that economics and finance as research disciplines have on this topic failed to progress in the 20th century. The movement from the accurate credit creation theory to the misleading, inconsistent and incorrect fractional reserve theory to today's dominant, yet wholly implausible and blatantly wrong financial intermediation theory indicates that economists and finance researchers have not progressed, but instead regressed throughout the past century. That was already Schumpeter's (1954) assessment, and things have since further moved away from the credit creation theory." ..."
"... "Although commercial banks create money through lending, they cannot do so freely without limit. Banks are limited in how much they can lend if they are to remain profitable in a competitive banking system." ..."
"... it insults the intelligence of the audience, ..."
"... we would now call ..."
"... totally insupportable on its face. ..."
"... as a corporate, spiritually mandated obligation, ..."
"... You're going to privatize the roads, so that now you're going to have to pay to use the road to drive to work, if you don't have public transportation. ..."
"... Henry Ford II: Walter, how are you going to get those robots to pay your union dues? Walter Reuther: Henry, how are you going to get them to buy your cars? ..."
"... "You're turning the economy into what used to be called feudalism. Except that we don't have outright serfdom, because people can live wherever they want. But they all have to pay to this new hereditary 'financial/real estate/public enterprise' class that is transforming the economy." ..."
"... "The industrial capitalists, these new potentates, had on their part not only to displace the guild masters of handicrafts, but also the feudal lords, the possessors of the sources of wealth. In this respect, their conquest of social power appears as the fruit of a victorious struggle both against feudal lordship and its revolting prerogatives, and against the guilds and the fetters they laid on the free development of production and the free exploitation of man by man. The chevaliers d'industrie, however, only succeeded in supplanting the chevaliers of the sword by making use of events of which they themselves were wholly innocent. They have risen by means as vile as those by which the Roman freedman once on a time made himself the master of his patronus. ..."
"... The starting point of the development that gave rise to the wage labourer as well as to the capitalist, was the servitude of the labourer. The advance consisted in a change of form of this servitude, in the transformation of feudal exploitation into capitalist exploitation. " ..."
Posted on
March 9, 2017 by Yves
Smith Yves here. This Real News Network interview is from a multi-part series about Michael Hudson's
new book, J is for Junk Economics. And after a lively discussion by readers of the economic necessity
of many to become expats to get their living costs down to a viable level, a discussion of the disingenuous
political messaging around retirement seemed likely. Among the people in my age cohort, the ones
that managed to attach themselves to capital (being in finance long enough at a senior enough level,
working in Corporate America and stock or stock options) are generally set to have an adequate to
very comfortable retirement. The ones who didn't (and these include people I know who are very well
paid professionals but for various reasons, like health problems or periods of unemployment that
drained savings, haven't put much away) will either have to continue working well past a normal retirement
age (even charitably assuming they can find adequately compensated work) or face a struggle or even
poverty.
SHARMINI PERIES: It's The Real News Network. I'm Sharmini Peries, coming to you from Baltimore.
I'm speaking with Michael Hudson about his new book J Is For Junk Economics: A Guide to Reality in
the Age of Deception.
Thanks for joining me again, Michael.
MICHAEL HUDSON: Good to be here.
SHARMINI PERIES: So, Michael, on page 260 of your book you deal with the issue of Social Security
and it's a myth that Social Security should be pre-funded by its beneficiaries, or that progressive
taxes should be abolished in favor of a flat tax. Just one tax rate for everyone you criticize. We
talked about this earlier, but let's apply what this actually means when it comes to Social Security.
MICHAEL HUDSON: The mythology aims to convince people that if they're the beneficiaries of Social
Security, they should be responsible for saving up to pre-fund it. That's like saying that you're
the beneficiary of public education, so you have to pay for the schooling. You're the beneficiary
of healthcare, you have to save up to pay for that. You're the beneficiary of America's military
spending that keeps us from being invaded next week by Russia, you have to spend for all that – in
advance, and lend the money to the government for when it's needed.
Where do you draw the line? Nobody anticipated in the 19th century that people would have to pay
for their own retirement. That was viewed as an obligation of society. You had the first public pension
(social security) program in Germany under Bismarck. The whole idea is that this is a public obligation.
There are certain rights of citizens, and among these rights is that after your working life you
deserve to live in retirement. That means that you have to be able to afford this retirement, and
not have to beg in the street for money. The wool that's been pulled over people's eyes is to imagine
that because they're the beneficiaries of Social Security, they have to actually pay for it.
This was Alan Greenspan's trick that he pulled in the 1980s as head of the Greenspan Commission.
He said that what was needed in America was to traumatize the workers – to squeeze them so much that
they won't have the courage to strike. Not have the courage to ask for better working conditions.
He recognized that the best way to really squeeze wage earners is to sharply increase their taxes.
He didn't call FICA wage withholding a tax, but of course it is. His trick was to say that it's not
really a tax, but a contribution to Social Security. And now it siphons off 15.4% of everybody's
pay check, right off the top.
The effect of what Greenspan did was more than just to make wage earners pay this FICA rake-off
out of their paycheck every month. The charge was set so high that the Social Security fund lent
its surplus to the government. Now, with all this huge surplus that we're squeezing out of the wage
earners, there's a cut-off point: around $120,000. The richest people don't have to pay for Social
Security funding, only the wage-earner class has to. Their forced savings are lent to the government
to enable it to claim that it has so much extra money in the budget pouring in from social security
that now it can afford to cut taxes on the rich.
So the sharp increase in Social Security tax for wage earners went hand-in-hand with sharp
reductions in taxes on real estate, finance for the top One Percent – the people who live on economic
rent, not by working, not by producing goods and services but by making money on their real estate,
stocks and bonds "in their sleep." That's how the five percent have basically been able to make their
money.
The idea that Social Security has to be funded by its beneficiaries has been a setup for the wealthy
to claim that the government budget doesn't have enough money to keep paying. Social Security may
begin to run a budget deficit. After having run a surplus since 1933, for 70 years, now we have to
begin paying some of this savings out. That's called a deficit, as if it's a disaster and we have
to begin cutting back Social Security. The implication is that wage earners will have to starve in
the street after they retire.
The Federal Reserve has just published statistics saying the average American family, 55 and
60 years old, only has about $14,000 worth of savings. This isn't nearly enough to retire on. There's
also been a vast looting of pension funds, largely by Wall Street. That's why the investment banks
have had to pay tens of billions of dollars of penalties for cheating pension funds and other investors.
The current risk-free rate of return is 0.1% on government bonds, so the pension funds don't have
enough money to pay pensions at the rate that their junk economics advisors forecast. The money that
people thought was going to be available for their retirement, all of a sudden isn't. The pretense
is that nobody could have forecast this!
There are so many corporate pension funds that are going bankrupt that the Pension Benefit Guarantee
Corporation doesn't have enough money to bail them out. The PBGC is in deficit. If you're going to
be a corporate raider, if you're going to be a Governor Romney or whatever and you take over a company,
you do what Sam Zell did with the Chicago Tribune: You loot the pension fund, you empty it out to
pay the bondholders that have lent you the money to buy out the company. You then tell the workers,
"I'm sorry there is nothing there. It's wiped out." Half of the employee stock ownership programs
go bankrupt. That was already a critique made in the 1950s and '60s.
In Chile, the Chicago Boys really developed this strategy. University of Chicago economists
made it possible, by privatizing and corporatizing the Social Security system. Their ploy was to
set aside a pension fund managed by the company, mostly to invest in its own stock. The company would
then set up an affiliate that would actually own the company under an umbrella, and then leave the
company with its pension fund to go bankrupt – having already emptied out the pension fund by loaning
it to the corporate shell.
So it's become a shell game. There's really no Social Security problem. Of course the government
has enough tax revenue to pay Social Security. That's what the tax system is all about. Just look
at our military spending. But if you do what Donald Trump does, and say that you're not going to
tax the rich; and if you do what Alan Greenspan did and not make higher-income individuals contribute
to the Social Security system, then of course it's going to show a deficit. It's supposed to show
a deficit when more people retire. It was always intended to show a deficit. But now that the government
actually isn't using Social Security surpluses to pretend that it can afford to cut taxes on the
rich, they're baiting and switching. This is basically part of the shell game. Explaining its myth
is partly what I try to do in my book.
SHARMINI PERIES: If the rich people don't have to contribute to the Social Security base, are
they able to draw on it?
MICHAEL HUDSON: They will draw Social Security up to the given wage that they didn't pay Social
Security on, which is up to $120,000 these days. So yes, they will get that little bit. But what
people make over $120,000 is completely exempt from the Social Security system. These are the rich
people who run corporations and give themselves golden parachutes.
Even for companies that have engaged in massive financial fraud, the large banks, City Bank, Wells
Fargo – all these have golden parachutes. They still are getting enormous pensions for the rest of
their lives. And they're talking as if, well, corporate pensions are in deficit, but for the leading
officers, arrangements are quite different from the pensions to the blue collar workers and the wage
earners as a whole. So there's a whole array of fictitious economic statistics.
I describe this in my dictionary as "mathiness." The idea that if you can put a number on something,
it somehow is scientific. But the number really is the product of corporate accountants and lobbyists
reclassifying income in a way that it doesn't appear to be taxable income.
Taking money out and giving it to the richest 5%, while making it appear as if all this deficit
is the problem of the 95%, is "blame the victim" economics. You could say that's the way the economic
accounts are being presented by Congress to the American people. The aim is to popularize a "blame
the victim" economics. As if it's your fault that Social Security's going bankrupt. This is a mythology
saying that we should not treat retirement as a public obligation. It's becoming the same as treating
healthcare as not being a public obligation.
We have the highest healthcare costs in the world, so out of your paycheck – which is not
increasing – you're going to have to pay more and more for FICA withholding for Social Security,
more and more for healthcare, for the pharmaceutical monopoly and the health insurance monopoly.
You'll also have to pay more and more to use public services for transportation to get to work, because
the state is not funding that anymore. We're cutting taxes on the rich, so we don't have the money
to do what social democracies are supposed to do. You're going to privatize the roads, so that now
you're going to have to pay to use the road to drive to work, if you don't have public transportation.
You're turning the economy into what used to be called feudalism. Except that we don't have outright
serfdom, because people can live wherever they want. But they all have to pay to this new hereditary
"financial/real estate/public enterprise" class that is transforming the economy.
SHARMINI PERIES All right, Michael. Many, many, many things to learn from your great book, J Is
For Junk Economics: A Guide to Reality in the Age of Deception. Michael is actually on the road promoting
the book. So if you have an opportunity to see him at one of the places he's going to be speaking,
you should check out his website, michael-hudson.com
So I thank you so much for joining us today, Michael. And as most of you know, Michael Hudson
is a regular guest on The Real News Network. We'll be unpacking his book and some of the concepts
in it on an ongoing basis. So please stay tuned for those interviews.
It's 10 bagger time for sure. A house in the tropics with servants at your beck and call. Breakfast
on the veranda. Lunch at the club. An afternoon sail. Dinner at the house of a famous author.
Or some native woman who cooks spicy food and is hotter than the sun. No shuffleboard and pills!
You need to stay buff if you wanna live like this. You can't be flabby and short of breath.
Yves's remark on retirement by sector is apt. I laugh bitter tears when I see that a financial
CEO contract always includes a "pension," as if the tens of millions of dollars in salary and
bonuses weren't enough.
A "pension" is for those who, broken by a life of hard physical labor, finally can't work any
more for their crust of bread. It's not another revenue line-item that's barely enough to refuel
the yacht.
There was a time when people "saved for retirement." With real rates of return being negative,
and all assets priced arbitrarily at the whim of the central bank's policy du jour, I am perfectly
frank when people ask "what should they invest in": nothing. Pay down your debt, and spend whatever
you have beyond an emergency cushion right now, while you can enjoy it. Savings will inevitably
be wasted, by inflation, the "health-care system," or financial-sector scammers. Do not ask for
whom the bell tolls; if you have to ask, you can't afford it.
This is all in the context of the Federal Government already spending 20% of GDP, a number
that was never designed to happen. It is the States that were supposed to be in charge of the
people's welfare, not the national authority. So the argument that we should increase Federal
taxes to somehow redistribute wealth is also wrong, because that wealth will simply be wasted,
spent by people who are responsible to no one.
At moments like this there are no good choices. Most Europeans have long learned to live with
governments that were hostile to them, and that is where we stand now.
Tocqueville's Democracy In America is tough going in spots, but my gosh, what a beautiful world
he depicts, when the average Pennsylvanian's tax liability beyond his township was $4 a year.
I won't argue too hard about your "Federal vs State" argument, but note that if the state is
in charge of most taxation then Richy Rich can live in a low tax state next door and employ the
well-educated, healthy (single-payer) people in your state.
"Classical and neo-classical economics, as dominant today, has used the deductive methodology:
Untested axioms and unrealistic assumptions are the basis for the formulation of theoretical dream
worlds that are used to present particular 'results'. As discussed in Werner (2005), this methodology
is particularly suited to deriving and justifying preconceived ideas and conclusions, through
a process of working backwards from the desired 'conclusions', to establish the kind of model
that can deliver them, and then formulating the kind of framework that could justify this model
by choosing suitable assumptions and 'axioms'. In other words, the deductive methodology is uniquely
suited for manipulation by being based on axioms and assumptions that can be picked at will in
order to obtain pre-determined desired outcomes and justify favoured policy recommendations. It
can be said that the deductive methodology is useful for producing arguments that may give a scientific
appearance, but are merely presenting a pre-determined opinion."
"Progress in economics and finance research would require researchers to build on the correct
insights derived by economists at least since the 19th century (such as Macleod, 1856). The overview
of the literature on how banks function, in this paper and in Werner (2014b), has revealed that
economics and finance as research disciplines have on this topic failed to progress in the 20th
century. The movement from the accurate credit creation theory to the misleading, inconsistent
and incorrect fractional reserve theory to today's dominant, yet wholly implausible and blatantly
wrong financial intermediation theory indicates that economists and finance researchers have not
progressed, but instead regressed throughout the past century. That was already Schumpeter's (1954)
assessment, and things have since further moved away from the credit creation theory."
"A lost century in economics: Three theories of banking and the conclusive evidence" Richard
A. Werner
Francis Fukuyama talked of the "end of history" and "liberal democracy" in 1989.
Capitalism had conquered all and was the one remaining system left that had stood the test
of time.
With such a successful track record, everything was being changed to a new neo-liberal ideology
and globalization was used to test this new ideology everywhere.
The Great Moderation seemed to indicate that the new ideology was a great success.
"Seemed" is the operative word here.
A "black swan" arrives in 2008 and nothing is the same again, the Central Bankers pump in trillions
to maintain the new normal of secular stagnation.
Sovereign debt crises erupt, the Euro-zone starts to disintegrate, austerity becomes the norm.,
no one knows how to restore growth and the populists rise.
A new ideology comes in that is rolled out globally and seems to work before 2008.
What happened in 2008?
This is the build up to 2008 that can be seen in the money supply (money = debt):
The money supply is flat in the recession of the early 1990s.
Then it really starts to take off as the dot.com boom gets going which rapidly morphs into
the US housing boom, courtesy of Alan Greenspan's loose monetary policy.
When M3 gets closer to the vertical, the black swan is coming and you have an out of control
credit bubble on your hands (money = debt).
The theory.
Irving Fisher produced the theory of debt deflation in the 1930s.
Hyman Minsky carried on with his work and came up with the "Financial instability Hypothesis"
in 1974.
Steve Keen carried on with their work and spotted 2008 coming in 2005.
You can see what Steve Keen saw in the graph above, it's impossible to miss when you know what
you are looking for but no one in the mainstream did.
If you paid off all the debt there would be no money.
Money and debt are opposite side of the same coin, matter and anti-matter.
The money supply reflects debt/credit bubbles.
Monetary theory has been regressing for over 100 years to today's abysmal theory where banks
act as intermediaries and don't create and destroy money.
The success of earlier years was mainly due to money creation from new debt (mainly in housing
booms) globally feeding into economies leaving a terrible debt over-hang.
Jam today, penury tomorrow.
This is how debt works.
Twelve people were officially recognised by Bezemer in 2009 as having seen 2008 coming, announcing
it publicly beforehand and having good reasoning behind their predictions (Michael Hudson and
Steve Keen are on the list of 12).
They all saw the problem being excessive debt with debt being used to inflate asset prices
(US housing).
The Euro's periphery nations had unbelievably low interest rates with the Euro, the risks were
now based on common debt service. Mass borrowing and spending occurs at the periphery with the
associated money creation causing positive feedback.
Years later, it was found the common debt service didn't actually exist and interest rates
correct for the new reality.
Jam today, penury tomorrow.
Why doesn't austerity work? (although it has been used nearly everywhere)
You need to understand money, debt, money creation and destruction on bank balance sheets and
its effect on the money supply. Almost no one does.
Alternative and I would say much more accurate realities:
1) Michael Hudson "Killing the Host", "J is for Junk Economics"
The knowledge of economic history and the classical economists that has been lost and the problems
this is causing. Ancient Sumer had more enlightened views on debt than we have today.
2) Steve Keen "De-bunking Economics"
His work is based on that of Hyman Minsky and looks into the effects of private debt on the
economy and the inflation of asset bubbles with debt.
3) Richard Werner "Where does money come from?"
The only book generally available that tells the truth about money, I don't think there are
any other modern books that do and certainly not in economics textbooks
4) Richard Koo's study on the Great Depression and Japan after 1989 showing the only way out
of debt deflation/balance sheet recessions.
"Although commercial banks create money through lending, they cannot do so freely without
limit. Banks are limited in how much they can lend if they are to remain profitable in a competitive
banking system."
The limit for money creation holds true when banks keep the debt they issue on their own books.
The BoE's statement was true, but is not true now as banks can securitize bad loans and get
them off their books.
Before 2008, banks were securitising all the garbage sub-prime mortgages, e.g. NINJA mortgages,
and getting them off their books.
Money is being created freely and without limit, M3 is going exponential before 2008.
Thanks SOS, agree. We're at that 08 point now, in fact it's worse.
Pensions should just be a click of the computer, no borrowings, savings or taxes needed and
they need to be sufficient to live on.
No, we aren't 'winning'
In Australia, we used to give people the 'aged' at 60 for women and 65 for men. Now its 67
for both, the woman's aged cut in was raised for 'equality' reasons, and it going up to 70 for
my kids.
Politicians, judges, CEOs and the c-class, all those 'shiny bums', they can often work well
into their 60s. The rest of us experience age discrimination in a tight job market and are forced
into menial jobs just when society should be funding their well earned retirement.
The whole "there aren't enough workers to support retirees" meme is risible.
Example: Jane funds an IRA for 30 years. For those 30 years, there is one person paying in,
and zero taking out. When Jane retires, the IRA flips to one person taking out, and zero paying
in.
Disaster, or working as advertised?
That Serious Thinkers, elected officials and the SSA themselves advance this trope to explain
why SS is hopeless is proof of willful mendacity.
Now if these folks admit, well yuh, you paid in over all of these years, but the money ain't
there no more, then first, that's an admission of mismanagement (unsurprising), and second, bail
us the fuck out like you did Wall Street.
Most every purported "help" by the government is the exact opposite: your paying into a black
hole.
Look around you. What around you was paid for by the government? The answer is none of it was.
Taxes are a way to keep the bureaucratic structure afloat. What is very clear is that once government
reaches a certain size it begins to massively leach off of those that work and gives it to those
that "manage".
Look at any industry today and you will find, in the private sector, declining or stagnant
wages for the "drones". Then look at the public sector: expanding, better benefits, better wages,
less work etc. Thinking about it makes my blood boil. I see truckers making less now then 10 years
ago, yet, the industry keeps crying that they "don't have enough workers". Yeah, sorry no one
wants to work 25/8 driving around in the day time, sleeping in a truck at night, getting tracked
through GPS & get penalized for going above speed limits when they can work for the DMV, make
the same amount, and sit at a desk for 7 hours a day with plenty of benefits and vacation time.
Its about time for this system to implode. I see globalization and government expansion as
a huge force that will eventually cause a revolution in the States.
Globalization and the government are simply red herrings meant to distract Trump voters while
shareholder value driven corporate overlords continue looting.
Look around you . The government employs less people than pretty much for my whole
life. Please get informed before you go off on a multi-paragraph rant.
maybe noone should work in trucking, freight trains are much more energy efficient as far as
a means of transporting goods over long distances. Nah I'm not faulting truckers, just saying
it makes no societal sense is all except maybe for the last few miles, but then neither do a lot
of things. I doubt many people want to work at the DMV, but then maybe the benefits are enough
to make a distasteful job seem worth it.
As usual, the abuse of history is the outstanding credibility-buster in this piece. When an
author says this,
Nobody anticipated in the 19th century that people would have to pay for their own retirement.
That was viewed as an obligation of society.
why should I believe anything else that he has to say?
The sole instance given is of Bismarck's Germany, actually ground-breaking in its social welfare
policies, which came only in the last part of the 19th century.
For most of the 19th century, just about everywhere, nobody who worked for a living expected
to live long enough to retire.
Indeed, retirement in past centuries had a different denotation. Its common use was among the
aristocracy, when one of that number determined to remove himself from active (urban) social or
political life and withdraw (hence the etymology, "re-tirer"), usually to the country.
Haygood had to resuscitate "rusticate" for the other day, to achieve a modern equivalent of
that.
All of this is common knowledge. In case you don't think so, spend five minutes with any book
of demographics or social history; and that's just for Europe. Don't let's even ask what "nobody
expected to pay for their retirement" meant in early nineteenth-century Alabama.
By the way, Hudson does this all the time. When I can fact-check offhand, from my fund of common
knowledge, he is often casually abusing the truth. I can be pretty sure that the rest of what
he says is just as unreliable.
You may be correct about the 19th century, but it is 2017. And his points about the US tax
system, the banks, the wealthiest 1% and our gov't deceiving the middle and lower class are solid.
A very basic retirement and healthcare should be provided to all in any decent marginally successful
society. Not to mention a supposedly "great" one.
I think this is where some progressive get tripped up and don't understand why their policies
aren't more popular to the wide swaths of America outside of their bubble.
Often times, these people (I use this term loosely to include working class whites in Appalachia
as well as Silicon Valley libertarians) like to provide a fair and wide safety net. However, most
policies that are advanced are strictly means tested. This causes significant resentment among
those just outside of the cutoff lines. Think: Social Security has essentially blanket coverage.
Yes, there's some redistribution going on behind the scenes, but if I pay in for 30 years I will
get most of my money back. It's wildly popular, while welfare programs are not.
The same applies for health care – Medicare is popular and Medicaid is not. If I pay in for
a government program, I want to be able to take advantage of it. Save me the crap about not wanting
to subsidize the lifestyles of the 1%; they pay in far more than they would take out of the program.
It's a small price to pay to have universal coverage and buy in from all segments of society.
So extending Medicare down to everyone is a better political strategy than extending Medicaid
upwards to encompass higher income levels.
You read a great deal into a statement that you didn't at all prove was untrue. Not impressive.
The question is, did society believe that it had a responsibility of care for people that got
too old to work? You didn't even address that. Yes we know life was "nasty, brutish and (most
often) short. That doesn't invalidate what he said.
PhilM 'I can be pretty sure that the rest of what he says is just as unreliable.'
No mate, he speaks truth and may have exaggerated, but the point remains that here, the UK,
most of Europe – then the state funds your pension if you need one. It is now a social obligation.
Only in the US, do you have this class of people (the working class) who don't deserve retirement
and must fund their own meagre pensions, and if the 'pool which funds the pensions' becomes insufficient,
well you know the rest.
Taxes see, they fund things, or more often don't, because it's a widely accepted lie to keep
the private bank money creation bullshit going forever.
That's the problem, Dog, I generally agree with his point, and with the responders to my comment,
on policy grounds. My point is that leading with something that is provably false, and even probably
false to common knowledge, is not a winning tactic; some would say it insults the intelligence
of the audience, even.
To me this site, if it's about anything, is about filtering out the BS that is used by people
with an agenda to "enhance" their arguments. Lambert does this with a Lancelot-sized skewer. And
part of the beauty is the crowd-sourced fact-checking from an extraordinarily informed, and sceptical,
community.
I may not have much to add to their expertise, but one thing I do know is some European history,
and it drives me berzerk to see people just misuse history as if it strengthens their argument.
If they don't know that what they are saying is true, they should not say it. And by "know it
is true," I mean, know the source, and the source of the source, and be able to judge its reliability.
That is what scholarship is all about: seeing how far down the turtles go.
So when someone just tosses out an assertion about "what the past thought was right," as if
that created a moral obligation or not in 2017 (which as MBC quite rightly observed it does not,
at least not without a clearer argument), they should be critiqued. When their assertion is based
on sloppy cherry-picked facts and wrongly generalized, they should be called out as either uninformed
or malicious, in hopes they will be less so in the future.
That's all I was saying; I did not have a point to make about pensions, because I agree with
Hudson's viewpoints almost all the time, which is why it is so sad to see him turn out to be so
cheesy, so often.
My personal experience of pensions is this: they are a total scam to lock people into exploitive,
nearly intolerable working conditions on the flimsiest of promises in the private sector; and
in the public sector, they are a way of adding to the debt burden of generations yet to come without
the assent of the people: taxation without representation, in effect.
I have seen professionals crumble morally thanks to the force of the pension. It is despicable
corporate oppression at the subtle level, because it looks as if they are doing a good thing,
which of course they are not. It's more subtle than their obvious screaming cruelties to people
and animals and the land, which, it must also be said, nobody does anything about either.
Yes pension systems aren't perfect, but some people don't have family or money to fall back
on when they get old. I am seeing more and more of my own friends in their 60s struggling to earn
money through work. They want to stop, but can't afford to.
And, I am dismayed and disheartened of seeing people on the sidewalks that could be my parents.
Or, shit, me
I have no sympathy for these people. Read Hillbilly Elegy and see the perspective from the
white working class. More often than not, people who are "struggling" in mid life are those who
made bad choices. They abused drugs, had kids out of wedlock, or didn't make a career for themselves.
Often, they spend poorly – on luxury items and consuming excessively.
I live now just like how I did when I was a poor student – with a carefully limited budget
and spending within my means (more on experiences than products). I save 80% of my income and
plan to retire early. More people can do the same.
My mentor/hero bought a fixer upper house that she repaired by herself. She bikes to work every
day in the snow, and buys her clothes from thrift stores. She makes a six figure salary.
Save for an uncertain future, folks, and you won't find yourself in dire straits later on in
life.
For most of the 19th century, just about everywhere, nobody who worked for a living expected
to live long enough to retire.
I suspect your children or your extended family, were your retirement if you lived long enough
pre-20th century times. Also I cannot imagine there was any sort of defined retirement prior to
20th century for the masses. People simply did whatever they could within their families until
they couldn't. Work loads probably just decreased with the fragility of old age.
Also many people did live long lives. IIRC, heavy mortality was primarily concentrated in children
and childbirth and maybe the occasional mass epidemic or bloody war. Dodge those and you could
probably live a fairly long life.
Quite right; there was a bimodal or multimodal curve, which is why mean averages of life expectancy
are not all that enlightening. But the fact is that most people who worked or fought, worked or
fought their whole lives, until they were incapacitated; then there was their family, or the Church,
or the poorhouse, or starvation, usually leading to mortal illness, if it had not done so before
then.
The other side of that story is that the old folk were there as part of the social and economic
unit: helping to pick the harvest with the very youngest; sharing skills and knowledge across
four or five generations, century after century-rather than being shuffled off to die in some
wretched cubby, doing "retirement" things. There's a terrific little book, Peter Laslett's The
World We Have Lost, that gives a well-sourced and interesting picture of pre-industrial family
life that pushes people to overcome some of their self-satisfaction about this kind of thing.
I remember reading where they found a Neanderthal remains that showed that this guy was definitely
disabled to the point where he couldn't have survived alone. Which means someone else helped him
live longer.
That's what humans have always done pretty much, before money. People paid in by being part of
society, and then their community helped them later. Social insurance is just the money big civilization
version of it isn't it?
I'm just thinking of the people with aging parents and children with parent cosigned student
loans And what if they were responsible for paying the $90,000+ / year nursing home payment and
all the medical bills, instead of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid On top of trying to help
their kids get through college.
The whole scenario is a bad joke and getting worse.
There wasn't 15-20% of the population expecting to live 30 years in retirement and the next
generations to pay for their still mortgaged McMansions and trips to the tropics.
I have no issues paying for retirees. I have issues with asking the younger generations to
pay for lifestyles that are bigger than theirs. The Western retirement lifestyle is too energy
and resource intensive.
I don't think most people collecting a social security check actually have a big lifestyle,
much less trips to the tropics, that's a Charles Schwab commercial, not a reality for most people.
What Social Security has done is mostly reduce the number of old people living in poverty. Ok
so young and middle age people are still living in poverty, making everyone live in poverty including
people that are old and frail and sick is not an improvement. Are retired people's lifestyles
actually shown to be more energy intensive, I think in many ways they would be less so, ie not
making that long commute to the office everyday anymore etc..
Sorry, but your comment is delusional. It is impossible for someone retired on only Social
Security to "pay for their still mortgaged McMansions and trips to the tropics". In what universe
is that possible on a MAXIMUM annual income of less than $32,000? Googling "maximum social security
benefits" generates the following info:
"The maximum monthly Social Security benefit payment for a person retiring in 2016 at full retirement
age is $2,639. However, the maximum allowable benefit amount is only payable to those who had
the maximum taxable earnings for at least 35 working years. Depending on when you retire and how
much you made while working, your benefits may be considerably less. The estimated average monthly
benefit for "all retired workers" in 2016 is $1,341."
I suspect a lot of people (younger than boomers) might be still mortgaged to a small degree
when they retire as housing costs have gone up so that people can't afford a mortgage when they
are young, so if they buy real estate at all it's at middle age, buy the first home in their 30s
or 40s or 50, for a 30 year mortgage. But McMansions have nothing to do with that.
The income distribution table shows that the younger retirees 65-75 are not suffering when
compared to the working population they seem to have a good thing going for them
Merging all these data points, it becomes quite apparent that there is a large percentage of
retirees who still carry debt while collecting social security.
Increasing social security to some group means making another group pay
As usual, the abuse of history is the outstanding credibility-buster in this piece. When
an author says this,
Nobody anticipated in the 19th century that people would have to pay for their own retirement.
That was viewed as an obligation of society.
why should I believe anything else that he has to say?
The sole instance given is of Bismarck's Germany, actually ground-breaking in its social
welfare policies, which came only in the last part of the 19th century.
For most of the 19th century, just about everywhere, nobody who worked for a living expected
to live long enough to retire.
Indeed, retirement in past centuries had a different denotation. Its common use was among
the aristocracy, when one of that number determined to remove himself from active (urban) social
or political life and withdraw (hence the etymology, "re-tirer"), usually to the country.
Historically, he is right and you are entirely wrong, which is not surprising as Michael Hudson
is originally a philologist and historian and has specialised in economic history.
The modern conception of retirement is mostly a 20th Century invention, but throughout history,
there are many versions of 'retirement', and they were almost always paid out of current expenditures.
Roman soldiers were paid lump sums and frequently given land on reaching retirement age through
the Aerarium Militare. Militaries throughout ancient and medieval history had similar schemes,
and not just for officers, but again, these were rarely if ever paid out of a contribution scheme
– it was considered an obligation of the State.
In many, if not most societies, it was accepted that aristocratic employers and governments
had obligations to elderly staff – for example, fuedal workers would keep their homes when they
were no longer capable of working, and this extended well into the 19th Century. Organised religions
would almost always have systems for looking after retired religious members, again, always paid
out of current revenues, not some sort of investment fund. The concept of a fixed retirement age
(outside of the military) is a relatively modern one, but the concept of 'retirement' is not modern
at all.
This is the worst strawmanning bull**** I have seen in a while; it is simply infuriating. I
don't have the time to put all of what follows into perfect order, but here's what I can tap out
in a minute or two.
If, PK, you are trying to prove that some people in the past have stopped work and still gotten
paid, as part of their lifetime compensation for the work they have done, and that this is, de
facto, compensation during what we would now call "retirement," you win. Straw man knocked
over.
So let me again quote what Hudson says, just so your argument can be demonstrated as the pointless
distraction that it is:
"Nobody anticipated in the 19th century that people would have to pay for their own retirement.
That was viewed as an obligation of society."
That couldn't be clearer. "Nobody anticipated," as in "nobody." Meaning it was a generally
accepted social value that . what follows. What follows is "people," as in "people"; not just
soldiers, or priests, or servants; "people," ie, Gesellschaft; and then, "their own retirement,"
(which can only imply a period when they were old enough still to do something productive that
earned money, but chose not to, instead; because otherwise it would be called "disability," right?).
"That was viewed as an obligation of society," meaning, it was a right, not a privilege or gift
or compensation, and it was universal, because it applied to "people," and "nobody" thought otherwise.
There is just nothing there that is justifiable in any way based on the history of the nineteenth
century. The only exception is Bismarck's Germany, which is adduced as proof of the statement,
which is totally insupportable on its face.
If you stand by that, and are trying to suggest that "retirees," meaning as a group everyone
in society beyond a pre-defined age, as opposed to the disabled, were ever perceived as having
a societally based right to welfare support before the very late nineteenth or early twentieth
century, and that only in a very few, very advanced places, you fail three times over.
You do this in classically ahistorical ways: you conflate Gesellschaft with Gemeinschaft; you
adduce the military of the ancient world, which is just hilariously anachronistic, but even those
prove you wrong when examined closely; you completely misconstrue the rules of the corporately
organized ancien regime, which by the way was ancient history as far as the post-Dickensian industrializing
Europe that Hudson speaks of; you adduce the military and the priesthood as if they were representatives
of "society" as a whole, which they were not–they were adherents of the body that made the rules,
and liked to keeps its friends close, and could reward them. The same, while you are at it, was
true of some different varieties of public servants–but not many, and again, not before the late
nineteenth century, and certainly not in the US:
"Like military pensions, pensions for loyal civil servants date back centuries. Prior to the
nineteenth century, however, these pensions were typically handed out on a case-by-case basis;
except for the military, there were few if any retirement plans or systems with well-defined rules
for qualification, contributions, funding, and so forth. Most European countries maintained some
type of formal pension system for their public sector workers by the late nineteenth century.
Although a few U.S. municipalities offered plans prior to 1900, most public sector workers were
not offered pensions until the first decades of the twentieth century. Teachers, firefighters,
and police officers were typically the first non-military workers to receive a retirement plan
as part of their compensation."
Your ad hominem appeal to Hudson's authority as a historian is amusing: it is actually
not surprising that Hudson is wrong, and I am right; because he is an economic historian,
with a special faculty, apparently, for conducting contemporary policy polemics; and I would be
happy to give you my professional authority, except that this is the internet, so appeals to professional
authority don't mean anything at all, but I'll just put it to you that it is more than sufficient;
but leaving that aside, I am without a polemical agenda, except just this one: that the past needs
to be respected in its totality, and that even when being used to score points in contemporary
policy arguments. I know which of us has more credibility here just by reading Hudson's sentences,
which are devoid of historical meaning or sensitivity; and I know that I, as a historian, would
never knowingly misuse the past to make a point about the present, because that is being a bad,
bad doctor.
You bring up three cases: military, clergy, and servants. Those are exactly not what
Hudson is talking about when he mentions Bismarck, or the nineteenth century, or retirement and
its old age provisions as a whole, so you basically proved my point just by failing to address
the actual argument. What Hudson is referring to-because he says so with his one example-is the
Bismarckian "Gesellschaft" obligation to what had in previous centuries been called the the third
estate in generic terms. Not, mind you, the first and second estates and their servants and adherents.
If Hudson were talking about pensions for the military, he would have said so, and his argument
would have ended there, in a paragraph, because they are fully protected in that regard and have
been, at least more than the average citizen, since the GI Bill. Pensions for the military is
not part of some kind of "social obligation" for retirees; it is a reward for long service, and
therefore not some kind of "right of social welfare," but a kind of compensation, and it was not
much, at that, in the 19th century.
The regular clergy, which made up most of the clergy until the dissolutions, did not retire:
their jobs were for life, because they lived a life of prayer, and that was not something that
ever ended. The Church supported all clergy as a corporate, spiritually mandated obligation,
not as a generalized "social obligation" like social security, or what Bismarck instituted.
If your point is that certain corporate groups took care of their privileged members when they
no longer worked, that is one thing; if your point is that "retirement" as a condition that merited
social welfare, in general, the clergy don't make that for you. They were exceptions to the general
rule that people had to fend for themselves, a rule that applied to the entire third estate by
definition from time immemorial.
Lastly, servants: those who "retired" in the nineteenth century very often did not have the
same treatments as servants in the ancien regime, many of whom died in harness in any case. But,
if their employing families did continue to provide for them, they did so not out of a sense they
were meeting the "obligation of society to the retired," but as a matter of family or community
duty, noblesse oblige. It was completely at the mercy and discretion of the family involved. It
was a matter of personal honor, and still is, when servants have been your friends and companions
and have prepared and eaten the same food you have, and cleaned your mess and watched your back
and brushed your horses and trained you to ride, and seen your youthful foolishness, sometimes
for generations. Those are not "obligations of society"; they are personal and family and moral
obligations. So Cato the Elder took some heat for his recommendations on discarding old and broken
down slaves, but nobody suggested it was up to the Republic to pay for them instead. Since you're
going to the ancient world, you might better have used that example than that of the soldiers.
And so all that is what Hudson is not talking about. He's talking about Bismarck's
social security as a moral precedent, reflecting a widely held belief in the popular right to
a social safety net after a certain age.
So of course some people were "pensioned." They were called "pensioners," and many of them
were not at all "retired," but had gone on to work at other things, like soldiers who opened up
fish-and-chips shops (q.v.). That does not mean that there was ever a Gesellschaft-like concept
of "retirement" as a condition that brought the right to support by the commonwealth; not before
Bismarck. That's what Hudson's reference tries to imply, that such a concept was common in the
19th century, at a widespread societal level in Western Civilization, and it is provably, demonstrably,
obviously wrong. If it weren't, why would the Old-Age Pensions Act 1908 have ever been passed?
"Nobody anticipated in the 19th century that people would have to pay for their own retirement.
That was viewed as an obligation of society."
You simply cannot construe that to have any truth, given the facts of the century. You can
straw-man me about the concept of "retirement" all you like, although you are still wrong there,
because the groups you name aren't people who "work for a living," which is the third estate;
they are the first and second estates, and their adherents: those who fight for a living, and
pray for a living, and those who obey them.
So the fact remains that Hudson's statement was just polemical fluff, and no historian worth
the name should have uttered it. I guess I'll sit here and wait for his response, because yours,
well .
"He didn't call FICA wage withholding a tax, but of course it is."
This just drives me to apoplexy. 1, that it is not called a tax, and 2, that wage taxes are
never ever reduced.
Incessant yammering about "incentives" – but doesn't a wage tax disincentivise both employers
and employees with regard to wage work? – – Endless talk about how CEO's can't do ANYTHING unless
their taxes are REDUCED!!!!!!! But somehow .that just goes out the window when it comes to wages
– TAXES MUST GO UP.
Cheney – deficits don't matter .except apparently with regard to social security ..
The other scam about FICA and its "separate" funding is that social security being in balance
is OH SO IMPORTANT – deficits will be the death of it. Yet the general fund is in deficit (see
Mish today for a bunch of stuff on the hypocrisy of repubs on the deficit) and ever more deficit
and nobody seriously cares about it or worries about it. MONEY can always be found for invading
for Iraq, and paying for invading anybody is NEVER a problem. Feeding old folks, on the other
hand, sure strains the resources
Its like it is as important to keep a reserve army of the impoverished as it is to keep the empire.
FD -'This just drives me to apoplexy' Breathe, buddy.
Yes, mate, feeding old folks – looking after the oldies so they have health care, decent food
and a home.
How well each country does it reflects their views on whether it's a social obligation. For
many countries, there is no safety net and families provide the care, if they can.
It's becoming that way in the west too. I don't see many governments increasing welfare for
our poorest people, benefits are being gutted and those that did save for retirement are seeing
their funds looted and zero interest paid
Life in Indian joint family is great- no retirement work- food for life for a member- great
lack of boredoms and lonely depressions- life, life ,- exquisite vegetarian food fit for Gods-
low tech human scale towns- GREAT TO BE ALIVE ON 3 dollars a day! This talk of retirement and
working and senior junior savings is so pathetic that my sex drive just evaporated into thin air
reading it! Get a life.
It's good to read Michael Hudson's call-out of FICA as a mechanism to crush workers and transfer
wealth to the already rich.
FICA is indeed the worse sort of deductive reasoning. It is based on the premise that the rich
are entitled to be rich, and that the masses want to take their money from them. In America in
particular, wealth has historically been based on grants from the sovereign to loot the commons
(timber, agriculture, mineral extraction, railroads, military procurement, data mining, etc.).
These grants to loot the commons have nearly always been based on corrupt practices of cronyism
and bribery. Alchemists like Greenspan simply provide theo-classical mumbo-jumbo after-the-fact
justification for their piracy.
Ironically, I was just reading about impending failure of the Oroville Dam, a prime example
of America as the seat of greed. It was well-known that the spillways were inadequate and crumbling
due to 50 years of use. However, the Reagan-ites of Southern California refused to tax themselves
in order to save Oroville and Yuba City, 450 miles away.
It's sad that everyone, especially the rich, think that they can blow-up the United States
and then fly to their bolt-hole in New Zealand or Australia - or if you're not so rich to a shack
in Panama or Thailand. I suspect that we will soon find ourselves to be unwelcome pariahs in those
places.
How is FICA a redistribution to the wealthy? If anything, what you pay in buys you a share
of the distributions when you retire. That means the output is roughly proportional to the input
you contribute. The wealthy stop contributing after roughly the $120,000 limit, but that doesn't
mean they take an outsized distribution. They take home exactly the same (pre-tax) as someone
who only made $120,000 per year.
If anything there's a bit of redistribution behind the scenes that favours the poor. See my
earlier post. If you make too many changes to Social Security such that it becomes another welfare
program, it will lose its popular backing and eventually get axed.
Neoliberalism is OUT-DATED. Rather, for the past four decades, it's been fiat currency for
the .01% and gold standard straitjacket ideology for everyone else.
"The mainstream view is no longer valid for countries issuing their own non-convertible currencies
and only has meaning for those operating under fixed exchange rate regimes,
'The two monetary systems are very different. You cannot apply the economics of the gold standard
(or USD convertibility) to the modern monetary system. Unfortunately, most commentators and professors
and politicians continue to use the old logic when discussing the current policy options. It is
a basic fallacy and prevents us from having a sensible discussion about what the government should
be doing. All the fear-mongering about the size of the deficit and the size of the borrowings
(and the logic of borrowing in the first place) are all based on the old paradigm. They are totally
inapplicable to the fiat monetary system' (Mitchell, 2009).
We might now consider the opportunity afforded by the new monetary reality, effectively modelled
by MMT. A new socio-political reality is possible which throws off the shackles of the old. The
government can now act as a currency issuer and pursue public purpose. Functional finance is now
the order of the day. For most nations, issuing their own fiat currency under floating exchange
rates the situation is different to the days of fixed exchange rates. Since the gold window closed
a different core reality exists – one which, potentially at least, provides governments with significantly
more scope to enact policies which benefit society.
However, the political layer, in the way it interacts with monetary reality, has a detrimental
effect on the power of democratic governments to pursue public purpose. In the new monetary reality
political arrangements that sprang up under the old regimes are no longer necessary or beneficial.
They can largely be considered as self-imposed constraints on the system; in short the political
layer contains elements which are out-of-date, ideologically biased and unnecessary. However,
mainstream economists have not grasped this situation – or perhaps they cannot allow themselves
to- because of the vice-like grip that their ethics and 'traditional' training has on them.
MMT provides the best monetary models out there and highlights the existence of additional
policy space acquired by sovereign states since Nixon closed the gold window and most nations
adopted floating exchange rates. We just need to encourage the use of the space to enhance the
living standards of ordinary people."
Heterodox Views of Money and Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) by Phil Armstrong (York College)
2015
A new socio-political reality is possible which throws off the shackles of the old. The
government can now act as a currency issuer and pursue public purpose. Functional finance is
now the order of the day. For most nations, issuing their own fiat currency under floating
exchange rates the situation is different to the days of fixed exchange rates. Since the gold
window closed a different core reality exists – one which, potentially at least, provides governments
with significantly more scope to enact policies which benefit society.
What I especially like about your post is that it finally takes the mask off and openly admits
what everyone who tries to learn about MMT has realized at once: that for all of its utility in
understanding money systems, it is designed and propounded with an agenda: to undermine the mores
underlying centuries of private-property-based liberal capitalism. Those mores, which remain more
than illusions despite the encroachments of central banks, are the last barrier to prevent state
capitalism from becoming completely authoritarian, because as long as "taxation" is, at least
theoretically, the limit on state spending and therefore power, then "representation" actually
means something, and so representative democracy and property rights, which are the keys to a
functioning productive civil society and underlie all human progress for eight hundred years,
can survive a bit longer.
The very real and useful core of MMT, which describes what we see happening since the gold
standard fell, and is therefore unimpeachable from a certain objective turn of mind, is Janus-faced.
On the one hand, it acknowledges what the Framers knew intuitively when they gave the Federal
government the power of issuing money: the sovereign makes the money. On the other, as often used
here, and especially in your comment, it is a rationale for a government unrestrained by property
rights and representative constraints on its power of expenditure. That will not end well, simply
because it will not last long, and it will end in a military despotism or landed aristocracy (if
you're lucky). Because it always has, and you are not going to change that, are you?
In one of the recently discovered lectures (1940) by Karl Polanyi, in referring to post-war
Europe (post 1918) he argued:
"The alternative was between an integration of society through political power on a democratic
basis, or if democracy proved too weak, integration on an authoritarian basis in a totalitarian
society, at the price of the sacrifice of democracy."
It is still the same issue today which PhilM nicely illuminates when he states: "..What I especially
like about your post is that it finally takes the mask off and openly admits what everyone who
tries to learn about MMT has realized at once: that for all of its utility in understanding money
systems, it is designed and propounded with an agenda to undermine the mores underlying centuries
of private-property-based liberal capitalism. These mores, which remain more than illusions despite
the encroachments of central banks, are the last barrier to prevent state capitalism from becoming
completely authoritarian, because as long as "taxation" is, at least theoretically, the limit
on state spending and therefore power, then "representation" actually means something "
The national security state already has a potentially totalitarian hold on us and in the future
the MMT scenario "as a rationale for a government unrestrained by property rights and representative
constraints on its powers of expenditure" might nicely finish us off.
It would no longer be the neo-liberal present where the whole of society must be subordinated
to the needs of the market system, but the other extreme, where the whole of society must be subordinated
to the needs of the state supposedly working in the "public interest."
it is designed and propounded with an agenda: to undermine the mores underlying centuries
of private-property-based liberal capitalism.
You say that like it's a bad thing :-)
the last barrier to prevent state capitalism from becoming completely authoritarian
State capitalism? If this is supposed to be a topical reference I don't get it.
as long as "taxation" is, at least theoretically, the limit on state spending and therefore
power, then "representation" actually means something
How so? Did "taxation" restrain Bush from spending trillions on invasions? Can't you have representation
without taxation?
representative democracy and property rights, which are the keys to a functioning productive
civil society and underlie all human progress for eight hundred years
I thought that was the Catholic Church
"Property rights"-the private monopolisation of the gifts of nature-at least in their traditional
form, seem to me to be the third fundamental flaw in our political economy, along with Capitalism
(narrowly defined) and our bogus monetary ludibrium. We need a new Church.
MMT: great stuff. With you 100%. The issue is corruption and this culture of privilege and
corruption we live in. You better believe the government will be issuing currency for other than
the public interest. The fact is we live in an MMT economy now, it's just that the currency created
by the government is being passed out to the ethnically privileged .001%. The talk of deficits
and national debt is all a smoke screen to cover up this fact. It is way past time to educate
the masses on this theme, kudos to Michael Hudson & Steve Keen.
One part of society parasitical on the productive part .. starts small. $1 per $1000, then
$10 per $1000 until it gets to $1000 per $1000. Neither bought politicians, nor bought citizens,
stays bought.
Of course we shouldn't expect women and children to work that is destructive of reproduction
and child raising. Some women should work some children should work but only a few. Otherwise
obvious system dynamics will reduce the net population in quality and quantity.
You're going to privatize the roads, so that now you're going to have to pay to use the
road to drive to work, if you don't have public transportation.
This is a zero-sum game for the elite. They're already soaking us. If they soak us on tolls,
they'll have to take less money soaking us another way.
In contrast, Fed Gov reducing spending is not a zero-sum game for the elite. That means less
money to be soaked up from the public. Unless of course, the public compensates by taking out
more private debt. In which case, ka ching for the elite again.
That said, I don't think the mind-set really is to reduce Fed Gov spending. Rather, the mind-set
is to reduce entitlements so that other Fed Gov spending can be increased, namely on defense,
intelligence communities, etc. And I really don't think the elite have much of a dog in that fight.
After all, the elite suck up all the money regardless of how it's spent by the Fed Gov. So my
guess is that this campaign to reduce entitlement spending is being waged by the other agencies
in the Fed Gov and the eco-system that feeds off them.
In the 1980s Greenspan pushed for massive increases in FICA. And Reagan spent it on Star Wars.
Recently I've read that that wasn't really a missile shield project but a cyber technology project.
Today we read that the CIA has disseminated all this accumulated and obsolete technology; leased
it out to private contractors; or variously bribed the Europeans with it. Etc. Fast-back to the
1930s and FDR took the same SS money for WW2. In the 60s, JFK agonized about the budget and the
value of the dollar and could see no reason to go into Vietnam, but oops. LBJ bulldozed through
Congress our Medicare plan, which upped SS contributions, and he went promptly into Vietnam, spending
it all and stuffing the retirement funds with treasuries. Shouldn't we all be looking at how transitory
these achievements (or disasters) have been. Maybe nothing more than boosting the economy for
a few years every other decade or so. Money could achieve much more than this if we accepted as
fact the fleeting benefits of misspending it and instead concentrated on a steady economy benefiting
all. Hubris rules, but it doesn't ever make things better.
'it's a myth that Social Security should be pre-funded by its beneficiaries' - Sharmini
Peries
If it's a myth, it's one that's incorporated in the Social Security Act of 1935, as well as
(for private pensions) the ERISA Act of 1974.
After about a century of experimentation, we know how to fund pensions securely: estimate the
present value of the future liability using an appropriate discount rate, and then keep it funded
on a current basis.
Social Security grossly violates this model in three respects. First, it is only about 20 percent
funded, headed for zero in 2034 according to its own trustees.
Second, because Social Security does not avail itself of the Capital Asset Pricing Model developed
in the 1960s, it invests in low-return Treasuries, which causes required contributions to be cruelly
high. Had Soc Sec been invested in a 60/40 mix of stocks and bonds, FICA taxes could have been
half their current level and funded higher benefits.
Third and finally, Social Security is treated as an off balance sheet obligation in the Financial
Report of the United States. Unlike the legally enforceable obligation of private pension sponsors
to make good on their promises, the government refuses to take responsibility and put itself on
the hook. The Supreme Court has ruled that Social Security essentially is a welfare program, which
Congress can cut back or cancel at will. So much for "security" - there isn't any.
Social Security is part of a general pattern of government taking a sleazy, second-rate approach
to its social promises, by exempting itself from well-established prudential rules mandating best
practices. Frank Roosevelt wanted his constituents to be forever dependent on the kindness of
perfidious politicians. He got his wish.
>we know how to fund pensions securely: estimate the
C'mon Jim you can do better than that. Here is dictionary.com, do you see the problem with
your statement?
know:
verb (used with object), knew, known, knowing.
1. to perceive or understand as fact or truth; to apprehend clearly and with certainty:
estimate
verb (used with object), estimated, estimating.
1.to form an approximate judgment or opinion regarding the worth, amount, size, weight, etc.,
of; calculate approximately:
When you lend money to the profligate, they are happy. When you ask to be repaid, they are
furious. It turns out that is just as true when workers who payroll taxes on their whole income
"lend money" to the wealthy by paying excess amounts to the SS trust fund which in turn, enabled
tax cuts for the wealthy. The wealthy are incensed that the SS trust fund, which has "lent" trillions
to the treasury is now demanding to be "repaid" with interest.
That's the trick about S.S. that gets me. You cannot pay in 15% of your income with some amount
of reasonable compounding interest for your entire career and not have a massive nest egg at the
end. But the math is done straight up such that there never was interest on the payments, so we
are entitled to very little, despite every other form of investing on the planet returning some
kind of interest.
It's one of the reasons I argue for a Sovereign Wealth Fund to retain and manage all SS recepts,
so at least the contributions and return on investment are accounted for in plain sight, so nobody
can bait and switch.
And heaven forbid the Sovereign wealth fund could also be used as government bank that loans
(our) money direct to citizens, without private banks getting a cut.
It ain't utopia, but it is a way of playing their game and still winning results and the pr
war even in the face of the most anti-sociailst conservative.
We need to keep up with the Feudalism 2.0 Moniker.
We continue to refine society towards only 4 classes of people:
Warlords/Politicians
Productivity Owners
Rent Extractors
The Oppressed
Over the last 35 years the productivity owners have been making a run, vacuuming up all the
productivity improvements leaving everybody else stagnant, before considering inflation, but with
the robotic age coming, they are just getting warmed up.
>but with the robotic age coming, they are just getting warmed up.
Hmmm.
Henry Ford II: Walter, how are you going to get those robots to pay your union dues?
Walter Reuther: Henry, how are you going to get them to buy your cars?
Apparently not an actual quote, but one Reuther certainly endorsed.
You know "they" are just planning to kill 2/3 of us off, don't you? The elite are evil and
sure many of them are stupid, but far from all of them.
"You're turning the economy into what used to be called feudalism. Except that we don't
have outright serfdom, because people can live wherever they want. But they all have to pay to
this new hereditary 'financial/real estate/public enterprise' class that is transforming the economy."
Spot.On.
From Marx's "Capital", Chapter 26 (The Secret of Primitive Accumulation):
"The industrial capitalists, these new potentates, had on their part not only to displace
the guild masters of handicrafts, but also the feudal lords, the possessors of the sources of
wealth. In this respect, their conquest of social power appears as the fruit of a victorious struggle
both against feudal lordship and its revolting prerogatives, and against the guilds and the fetters
they laid on the free development of production and the free exploitation of man by man. The chevaliers
d'industrie, however, only succeeded in supplanting the chevaliers of the sword by making use
of events of which they themselves were wholly innocent. They have risen by means as vile as those
by which the Roman freedman once on a time made himself the master of his patronus.
The starting point of the development that gave rise to the wage labourer as well as to
the capitalist, was the servitude of the labourer. The advance consisted in a change of form of
this servitude, in the transformation of feudal exploitation into capitalist exploitation. "
Read something by Douglas Valentine. Or listen to him on YouTube. Guy laid it all out in book
form in 1990, The Phoenix Program. Guy is a great historian on many subjects but they all lead
back to the CeyeA.
George Webb is slicing and dicing all of the CIA dirty tricks the agency has going on US soil.
Dyncorpse, JTTF, hacking and cracking, brownstone operations, etc. etc. etc. ...... And now, Gulan
is getting undressed in public. (I was warned to stay out of that one myself because it would
really piss off the CIA) ..... Next up? .. Chemtrails, I hope. That one has us all in the cross
hairs and needs to be addressed. (Listening, Mr President? ... The chems are killing your grandkids
too)
Truman wrote in a July 21 passage, "The Jews, I find are very, very selfish. They care not
how many Estonians, Latvians, Finns, Poles, Yugoslavs or Greeks get murdered or mistreated as
D[isplaced] P[ersons] as long as the Jews get special treatment. Yet when they have power, physical,
financial or political neither Hitler nor Stalin has anything on them for cruelty or mistreatment
to the under dog."
Standard Disclaimer: Tell me that last line is not the most honest truth you've read today.
James Warburg, son of Federal Reserve founder Paul Warbug, gained some notice in a February
17, 1950, appearance before the
U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations in which he said,
"We shall have world government, whether or not we like it.
The question is only whether world government will be achieved by consent or by conquest."
As much as I respect Truman (I was born and raised in Independence, Missouri),
I think now that he was THEIR patsy. I suspect he never saw it coming.
It wouldn't be quite so bad if the CIA didn't have a strangle hold on the media too. ... You
can't even get any information about the sumy-bitches in print or on the tube.
~~ ( The CIA News Agency Isn't Going To Cover This News Story )~~
I guess we'll have to tune into Russia Today to find out what's going on in Wash DC.
Pretty soon they will have to encrypt the news feeds, I can just feel it in my spooks.
If the CIA wants us to leave them alone they better get out of news crushing business. ..........
In your face lies 24/7 doesn't help their PR any at all.
Live Hard, News With A Spin Doesn't Mean It Has To Be Red-Lined All Of The Time, Just A Leisurely
Slow Twist Will Do It, Die Free
And yet - what did they do after 9/11? The formed an even larger and more convoluted organization,
DHS, because they supposedly "needed at that time a central organization that would bring all
the various intelligence reports we were getting in those days, and there must have been a dozen
of them, maybe more, bring them all into one organization so that the President would get one
report on what was going on in various parts of the world" . Instead of a dozen, now there are
what ... 17?
Truman was a complete tool if he couldn't have seen that coming. Kind of like Greenspan trying
to claim he didn't know his actions would cause financial bubbles. Bullshit.
This issue of CIA level of illegal needs definitively to be feed and exposed to the audience,
until its dealt with. Same for this BIT FAT conglomerate of 17 Intelligence communities. That
many is definitively NOT needed. Not only does it hurt the budget (paid with american people taxes),
it also hurt the spirit of the republic itself. Since the killing of JFK and 9/11 (without even
mentionning the number of people dying in the middle east and elsewhere), this level of organized
criminality is a disgrace and a ongoing shame for the country.
The spider-web of influence in the U.S. Congress may include the Deep State - but, that connection
is facilitated by the Deep State's coziness with the intelligence services of other nation states,
notably, Israel's Mossad, which supports AIPAC, which funds many members of Congress and scares
the shit out of the rest.
Congress has simply abdicated most of its responsibilities to the executive branch. They seem
to think their only job is pork and pandering, then retiring to become a lobbyist or a sinecure
at some corporation they did favors for ... rather than being the sole source of all legislation
and - the way the Founding Fathers expected - jealous of their prerogatives and fearful of executive
power.
A healthy Congress would act like the executive branch works for them - as in a parliamentary
system.
More recently, ex-president Carter told us that the U.S. is "no longer a democracy", in large
measure due to the
Citizens United case . The combination of a CIA-dominated deep state and an elitist election
process has seriously injured democracy in the U.S.
He was educated in the public school of Plains, attended Georgia Southwestern College and the
Georgia Institute of Technology, and received a B.S. degree from the United States Naval Academy
in 1946. In the Navy he became a submariner, serving in both the Atlantic and Pacific fleets and
rising to the rank of lieutenant. Chosen by Admiral Hyman Rickover for the nuclear submarine program,
he was assigned to Schenectady, New York, where he took graduate work at Union College in reactor
technology and nuclear physics, and served as senior officer of the pre-commissioning crew of
the Seawolf , the second nuclear submarine.
Depends entirely on what you think scholarship is and intelligence ? If you think you get them
from what we call our higher ed system, you are completely mind fucked just as they are ? Do you
see much if any real scholarship taking place anywhere these days or the complete denial of any
form of free speech and Orwellian extremes at what we call our higher ed institutions ? Time to
rethinhk a bunch of stuff my man -- Most higher ed today is more about sucking the brains out of
peoples heads, indoctrination and propaganda, not scholarship or any form of truth. And it is
nothing new at all for sure. Really got rolling during Carter's era and been rolling stronger
ever since. You are well behind the curve, not up to speed as you seem to think and I do not say
this as a negative, just information for you to ponder and rethink. Good luck with it.
You're right. Highly educated, yet without the common sense to defend himself against swamp
rabbits. Jimmy Carter's Afghanistan policy as President is what brought the Taliban to power.
He spent 40 Billion in 1979 dollars to train and equip the Mujahideen, in some misguided attempt
to thwart the damn Russki's.
The Carter Administration also tried to seat the Khmer Rouge as the rightful government of
Cambodia even though they slaughtered one out of three Cambodians in the 1975-78 genocide.
That's a pretty high level of moronity for an educated man.
Yes Carter inherited a mess - Pakistani nuclear weapons and the oil crisis too. A lot fo bad
shit happening back then. It seemed early on tha the was a one term president. Serving only one
term is probably why he is still alive today and wasn't stressed to death by a second term.
Unfortunately Reagan doubled down on it and he funded Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda. He went
all in with a weak hand.
The Mujahideen have been around for centuries though, but the CIA brought them into the 20th
century.
Now as nearly as I can make out, those fellows in the CIA don't just report on wars and the
like, they go out and make their own, and there's nobody to keep track of what they're up to.
They spend billions of dollars on stirring up trouble so they'll have something to report on.
They've become ... it's become a government all of its own and all secret. They don't have to
account to anybody.
"... At that link, Taibbi goes astray by trusting CNN; I hate to cite a source with the John Birch society on its blogroll, but when they're right, they're right, and CNN sexed up the transcript. ..."
"... Back to Taibbi. I think this is exactly right, and in today's vicious atmosphere, courageous: ..."
"... Similarly, Democrats in congress have been littering their Russia speeches with caveats like, "We do not know all the facts," and, "More information may well surface." They repeatedly refer to what they don't know as a way of talking about what they hope to find out. ..."
"... Reporters should always be nervous when intelligence sources sell them stories. Spooks don't normally need the press. Their usual audiences are other agency heads, and the executive. They can bring about action just by convincing other people within the government to take it. ..."
"... In the extant case, whether the investigation involved a potential Logan Act violation, or election fraud, or whatever, the CIA, FBI, and NSA had the ability to act both before and after Donald Trump was elected. But they didn't, and we know why, because James Clapper just told us – they didn't have evidence to go on. ..."
"Why the Russia Story Is a Minefield for Democrats and the Media" [Matt Taibbi,
Rolling Stone ]. Well worth a read. "There is a lot of smoke in the Russia story . Moreover,
the case that the Russians hacked the Democratic National Committee now appears fairly solid.
Even Donald Trump thinks so ."
At that link, Taibbi goes astray by trusting CNN; I hate to cite a source with the John
Birch society on its blogroll, but when they're right, they're right, and
CNN sexed up the transcript.
Here's the CNN quote: "'I think it was Russia, [1] but I think we also get hacked
by other countries and other people. ' Trump said. Putin '[2]should not be doing it. He
won't be doing it. Russia will have much greater respect for our country when I am leading it
than when other people have led it.'"
From the full transcript , [1] shows what CNN deleted, and [2] comes 45 minutes later, in
response to a very qualified question. Trump doesn't do nuance well, but I think he was trying
to do it here.
Back to Taibbi. I think this is exactly right, and in today's vicious atmosphere, courageous:
[T]he manner in which these stories are being reported is becoming a story in its own right.
Russia has become an obsession, cultural shorthand for a vast range of suspicions about Donald
Trump.
The notion that the president is either an agent or a useful idiot of the Russian state
is so freely accepted in some quarters that Beck Bennett's shirtless representation of Putin
palling with Alec Baldwin's Trump is already a no-questions-asked yuks routine for the urban
smart set .
We can't afford to bolster [Trump's] accusations of establishment bias and overreach by
using the techniques of conspiracy theorists to push this Russia story. Unfortunately, that
is happening.
One could list the more ridiculous examples, like the Washington Post's infamous "PropOrNot"
story identifying hundreds of alternative media sites as fellow travellers aiding Russia, or
the Post's faceplant over a report about a hacked utility in Vermont.
Setting all of that aside, look at the techniques involved within the more "legitimate"
reports. Many are framed in terms of what they might mean, should other information surface.
There are inevitably uses of phrases like "so far," "to date" and "as yet." These make visible
the outline of a future story that isn't currently reportable, further heightening expectations.
Similarly, Democrats in congress have been littering their Russia speeches with caveats
like, "We do not know all the facts," and, "More information may well surface." They repeatedly
refer to what they don't know as a way of talking about what they hope to find out.
Reporters should always be nervous when intelligence sources sell them stories. Spooks
don't normally need the press. Their usual audiences are other agency heads, and the executive.
They can bring about action just by convincing other people within the government to take it.
In the extant case, whether the investigation involved a potential Logan Act violation,
or election fraud, or whatever, the CIA, FBI, and NSA had the ability to act both before and
after Donald Trump was elected. But they didn't, and we know why, because James Clapper just
told us – they didn't have evidence to go on.
Thus we are now witnessing the extremely unusual development of intelligence sources that
normally wouldn't tell a reporter the time of day litigating a matter of supreme importance
in the media. What does this mean?
That's not so much about Eurocentric modernism as America-centric neoliberalism
Notable quotes:
"... He first caught the scent that something was off as an economics student in India, wondering why, despite his mastery of the mathematics and technology of the discipline, the logic always escaped him. Then one day he had an epiphany: the whole thing was "cockeyed from start to finish." To his amazement, his best teachers agreed. "Then why are we studying economics?" demanded the pupil. "To protect ourselves from the lies of economists," replied the great economist Joan Robinson. ..."
"... Kanth realized that people are not at all like Adam Smith's homo economicus , a narrowly self-interested agent trucking and bartering through life. Smith had turned the human race - a species capable of wondrous caring, creativity, and conviviality - into a nasty horde of instinctive materialists: a society of hustlers. ..."
"... how this way of thinking took hold of us, and how it delivered a society which is essentially asocial - one in which everybody sees everybody else as a means to their own private ends. ..."
"... he argues, consigned us to an endless and exhausting Hobbesian competition. For every expansion of the market, we found our social space shrunk and our natural environment spoiled. For every benefit we received, there came a new way to pit us against each other. Have the costs become too high? ..."
"... "That's our big dream," says Kanth. "Everyone and everything is a stepping stone to our personal glorification." When others get in our way, we end up with a grim take on life described succinctly by Jean Paul Sartre: "Hell is other people." ..."
"... Mr. Kanth makes some valid points, but his criticism of the European Enlightenment is mistaken. Many of the horrors of modernity had their origins in the Counter-Enlightenment and in the Church Inquisitions, not the Enlightenment. The modern police state is a refinement of and a descendant of the struggles against heresy. ..."
"... Agreed. Parramore's phrase 'history of a set of bad ideas' does seem a bit harsh for a description of the Enlightenment. ..."
"... Like most big ideas, the problem isn't with the original idea so much as the corruption of it over the years as it's put into practice. Massive reform is necessary for sure but I'll take the Enlightenment over nasty, brutish, and short any day. ..."
"... I read somewhere that some Native Americans looking down on the ruins of San Fransisco after the great quake of 1906, thought that at last the crazy white people would realize the folly of their ways, and become normal humans. ..."
"... So they were amazed that before the ruins even stopped smoking, the crazy white people, ignoring the obvious displeasure of the Great Spirit, were busy rebuilding the same mess that had just been destroyed. ..."
"... I have a strong suspicion that evil empires do not come to their senses, rather, one way or another, they get flattened. ..."
"... I can remember arguing over this in my philosophy classes way back in the 80's – that Objectivism and the Enlightenment were two sides of the same coin, and that those Enlightenment writers were writing tomes to justify their own greed and prejudices, while cloaking their greed and prejudices in "morality". ..."
"... At the time (I was young) it seemed to me that the Enlightenment was an attempt to destroy the basis of Jesus's and Buddha's philosophy – that the most moral position of humanity was to care for its members, just as clans, tribes, families, and other human societies did. ..."
"... "They didn't accomplish much" meaning they lost militarily to cultures with more aggression and better weapons. ..."
"... It seems to me that humans, as hierarchical mammals, really do have a desire to compete with each other for status and respect. The trouble is in organizing all of society around this one struggle, forcing everyone into explicit competition and making the stakes too high. When the losers can't afford to buy food, when they and their little children live on the street and die in the cold, when their kids can never compete on an equal field to improve their own status, things have gone too far. And in addition to material needs, humans also have a need for independence, an escape from being constantly ordered around by the winners and under someone else's thumb. ..."
"... Note, as an aside, how granting economic rights to outgroups like women and Blacks brought them into the same market competition. Well, a lot of men don't want to compete with women for status. They want to compete with each other. The more competitors you add the harder it is to win. But when all resources ..."
"... I think you're right about that and if we do ever manage to abolish capitalism and develop a less violent and more egalitarian society, there will need to be an outlet for that innate desire. I propose hockey. Beats starting a war . ..."
"... When President Trump defeated his rival in the last election, among the many ways in which the event was captured was a representation of the President as Perseus carrying the head of Medusa (Clinton) in his outstretched left hand. Medusa was a monster gorgon of the Greek mythology; a representation in this case by Clinton (a woman) who dared to take real power in this essentially male world and silenced for trying to participate in the public discourse (election). ..."
"... The point is that what passes as Modernism has never entered modern life. In support of my proposition I cite an encounter between a journalist and Mahatma Gandhi in 1930s: The journalist asked Gandhi, "Mr. Gandhi, what is your opinion of the western civilization?" Gandhi replied instantaneously "It would be a good idea". ..."
"... I think he's right about Eurocentric modernism being incompatible with human civilization. But it can't be just an evolutionary accident that civilization is so aggressive. It served a purpose. We refer to it as 'survival'. I used to tell my daughter not to make fun of those 'dorky little boys' too much because they all had a way of growing up to be very nice men. And I told her women are the reason we have all survived, but men have made it so much easier! And etc. ..."
"... I believe that one element of modern life that should be removed forever is the infinite search for maximizing profits. ..."
"... On more than one occasion I've compared the rent-seeking profit mongers to Molocks that cultivate us milder Eloi and cannabalize us. ..."
"... But the economics profession's problem isn't "blind faith in science." It's a massive failure to apply the scientific method, combined with an expectation that we all put our blind faith in THEM anyway. ..."
"... Essentially a post-modern critique of modernism without all the jargon of p-m critical theory (yay!!). I don't think we have enough data from the pre-modern huddling societies to determine if that's how we want to live. Yes, my boss at work exploits me, but on the other hand, I can walk into an air-conditioned supermarket and survey row after row of steaks that I can afford to buy. I love to drive cars. The cinema is enchanting. Dying of a plague is a very remote possibility. We could give it all up, but there's no guarantee our lives would be richer or fuller–just different, at best. ..."
"... Just how dark were the Dark Ages? Or, to borrow Churchill's phrase, how dark would a NEW Dark Age be? ..."
"... Two possibles: the cargo cult children of Mad Max: Beyond the Thunderdome, or the society depicted in Aldous Huxley's Ape and Essence. At least the Church in Rome and Constantinople provided some kind of lifeline of civilization during the collapse of the Roman Empire. What similar institution have we now? ..."
"... Sounds like bog-standard post-modernist tosh to me, just without the obscure ProfSpeak jargon that usually accompanies it. I fail to see how this is helpful. ..."
"... The only thing missing in this post is Bambi. Of course the Bushmen would kill Bambi dead with spears and roast her flesh over a fire. So would we, actually. hmmmm. ..."
"... I agree dude is right that the values now unraveling (democracy, pluralism, individualism, free speech, international-ism (in both the good and bad ways)) go all the way back to that time. ..."
"... But this article is a perfect example of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Surely none of the third world cultures he praises got where they are by totally throwing out previous systems, the good parts and bad, every time they faced a crisis. ..."
"... IMO the problem is enlightenment values have been hollowed out, narrowed to only those superficial aspects of those values which benefit the marketplace. Like how real food got turned into Mosanto fast-food so gradually, nobody noticed that the nutrients are missing. ..."
"... Adam Smith had some good points that have been lost along the way, namely penalizing rent seeking. ..."
"... Smith has been seriously misrepresented. The Theory of Moral Sentiments shows a very different side to that presented by those who selectively quote from The Wealth of Nations. ..."
"... It's hard to tell from the rather incoherent summary of what looks like an incoherent argument, but the "everything went wrong after the Enlightenment" meme has been circulating for ages. It was speared pretty effectively by Domenico Losurdo in "War and Revolution" some years ago. The author seems to be jumbling all sorts of arguments together, some valid and some not, but the valid arguments are in general criticisms of liberalism, which is not the same of the Enlightenment. ..."
"... This is a very good point, as the Enlightenment was not merely a straight line connection to the blight of NeoLiberalism ..."
"... The naked embrace of selfishness, while never absent over these centuries, did have countervailing currents and forces with which to contend that were sometimes able to at least minimize the damage. But more recently, with supposedly scientific NeoLiberal economic thought sweeping the field throughout much of the first world, and with the overall decline of religious and moral systems as a counterpoise, things have reached an unlovely pass. ..."
"... homo economicus ..."
"... For further reading, I strongly recommend John Ralston Saul's "Voltaire's Bastards". ..."
"... I think that people who are interested in how the Enlightenment may or may not have contributed to the problems of modernity would do well to read Enemies of the Enlightenment: The French Counter-Enlightenment and the Making of Modernity , by Darrin McMahon. Another book of value is The Enlightenment: And Why It Still Matters , by Anthony Pagden. ..."
"... I should have mentioned that the full title is "Voltaire's Bastards: The Dictatorship of Reason in the West". ..."
Across the globe, a collective freak-out spanning the whole political system is picking up steam
with every new "surprise" election, rush of tormented souls across borders, and tweet from the star
of America's great unreality show, Donald Trump.
But what exactly is the force that seems to be pushing us towards Armageddon? Is it capitalism
gone wild? Globalization? Political corruption? Techno-nightmares?
Rajani Kanth, a political economist, social thinker, and poet , goes beyond any of these
explanations for the answer. In his view, what's throwing most of us off kilter - whether we think
of ourselves as on the left or right, capitalist or socialist -was birthed 400 years ago during the
period of the Enlightenment. It's a set of assumptions, a particular way of looking at the world
that pushed out previous modes of existence, many quite ancient and time-tested, and eventually rose
to dominate the world in its Anglo-American form.
We're taught to think of the Enlightenment as the blessed end to the Dark Ages, a splendid blossoming
of human reason. But what if instead of bringing us to a better world, some of this period's key
ideas ended up producing something even darker?
Kanth argues that this framework, which he calls Eurocentric modernism, is collapsing, and unless
we understand why and how it has distorted our reality, we might just end up burnt to a crisp as
this misanthropic Death Star starts to bulge and blaze in its dying throes.
A Mass Incarceration of Humanity
Kanth's latest book, Farewell to Modernism: On Human Devolution in the Twenty-First Century , tells the history
of a set of bad ideas. He first caught the scent that something was off as an economics student
in India, wondering why, despite his mastery of the mathematics and technology of the discipline,
the logic always escaped him. Then one day he had an epiphany: the whole thing was "cockeyed from
start to finish." To his amazement, his best teachers agreed. "Then why are we studying economics?"
demanded the pupil. "To protect ourselves from the lies of economists," replied the great economist
Joan Robinson.
Kanth realized that people are not at all like Adam Smith's homo economicus , a narrowly
self-interested agent trucking and bartering through life. Smith had turned the human race - a species
capable of wondrous caring, creativity, and conviviality - into a nasty horde of instinctive materialists:
a society of hustlers.
Using his training in history and cultural theory, Kanth dedicated himself to investigating
how this way of thinking took hold of us, and how it delivered a society which is essentially
asocial - one in which everybody sees everybody else as a means to their own private ends. Eurocentric
modernism, he argues, consigned us to an endless and exhausting Hobbesian competition. For every
expansion of the market, we found our social space shrunk and our natural environment spoiled. For
every benefit we received, there came a new way to pit us against each other. Have the costs become
too high?
The Creed of Capture
The Eurocentric modernist program, according to Kanth, has four planks: a blind faith in science;
a self-serving belief in progress; rampant materialism; and a penchant for using state violence to
achieve its ends. In a nutshell, it's a habit of placing individual self-interest above the welfare
of community and society.
To illustrate one of its signature follies, Kanth refers to that great Hollywood ode to the Western
spirit, "The Sound of Music." Early in the film, the Mother Superior bursts into song, calling on
the nun Maria to "climb every mountain, ford every stream."
Sounds exhilarating, but to what end? Why exactly do we need to ford every stream? From the Eurocentric
modernist viewpoint, Kanth says, the answer is not so innocent: we secretly do it so that we can
say to ourselves, "Look, I achieved something that's beyond the reach of somebody else." Hooray for
me!
"That's our big dream," says Kanth. "Everyone and everything is a stepping stone to our personal
glorification." When others get in our way, we end up with a grim take on life described succinctly
by Jean Paul Sartre: "Hell is other people."
Sounds bad, but didn't Eurocentric modernism also give us our great democratic ideals of equality
and liberty to elevate and protect us?
Maybe these notions are not really our salvation, suggests Kanth. He notes that when we replace
the vital ties of kinship and community with abstract contractual relations, or when we find that
the only sanctioned paths in life are that of consumer or producer, we become alienated and depressed
in spirit. Abstract rights like liberty and equality turn out to be rather cold comfort. These ideas,
however lofty, may not get at the most basic human wants and needs. .
... ... ...
Kanth, like many, senses that a global financial crisis, or some other equivalent catastrophe,
like war or natural disaster, may soon produce painful and seismic economic and political disruptions.
Perhaps only then will human nature reassert itself as we come to rediscover the crucial nexus of
reciprocities that is our real heritage. That's what will enable us to survive.
"The Eurocentric modernist program, according to Kanth, has four planks: a blind faith in science;
a self-serving belief in progress; rampant materialism; and a penchant for using state violence
to achieve its ends. In a nutshell, it's a habit of placing individual self-interest above the
welfare of community and society."
Kanth hasn't dealt much with the wild skepticism of Enlightenment and modernist thinkers: That
would put a strain on such simplistic thinking. He's never heard of Kant or Rousseau? Pascal?
He's never even read Matthew Arnold's "Dover Beach"? Dickens? A speech by Abraham Lincoln? The
novels of Jane Austen? Maybe some articles by Antonio Gramsci? The Leopard by Tomasi di Lampedusa?
Anything about Einstein? Or even Freud for that matter? Looked at a painting or etching or work
in ceramic by Picasso?
Just because economics has devolved into looting and excuse-making for looting isn't a critique
of the cultural and scientific flowering that were part of the Enlightenment and Modernism. Are
we really supposed to think that Milton Friedman and his delusions have destroyed all aspects
of the enormous changes since 1600 or so? And I, for one, don't want to backslide into the Baroque–when
states used their power for religious wars so virulent that Silesia and Alsace were depopulated.
Alienation is not the name of a river in Egypt BTW, Did any of your examples lead to anything
other than this?
The sum of individuals adds up to the bizarre creature we call "culture." A flower in the air,
to be sure.
They didn't even have food delivery! This post isn't the best evah in the history of NC - I
mean it shouldn't be censored or taken down or anything and everybody has a right to an opinion,
but "Oy Vey what a shock to a reader's delicate intellectual sensibilities."
You wonder if it's Beer Goggles that are being looked through or if this is a case of transference
and projection. The fact that the post author is a poet raises suspicion, since they aren't the
most reliable sources when it come so sober factual analysis.
Mr. Kanth makes some valid points, but his criticism of the European Enlightenment is mistaken.
Many of the horrors of modernity had their origins in the Counter-Enlightenment and in the Church
Inquisitions, not the Enlightenment. The modern police state is a refinement of and a descendant
of the struggles against heresy.
If one is going to criticize societies for lacking "moral economies", it's not just the European
(and American) based societies that need to be targeted. Other societies have deep failures that
extend back for millennia, such as the caste system of India.
Agreed. Parramore's phrase 'history of a set of bad ideas' does seem a bit harsh for a
description of the Enlightenment.
Been a while since I read Candide , but the end where he meets the world famous sage
and asks for the secret of happiness in a terrible world only to be told 'Tend your own garden'
and then having the gate slammed in his face has always stuck with me.
You could interpret that to mean isolate yourself from your fellow human beings and just look
out for yourself, but I don't think that's what Voltaire was getting at.
Like most big ideas, the problem isn't with the original idea so much as the corruption
of it over the years as it's put into practice. Massive reform is necessary for sure but I'll
take the Enlightenment over nasty, brutish, and short any day.
Perhaps, beyond anthropology, there are lessons in evolutionary biology. Individual humans
are fairly weak animals. Our ancestors were obligated to "huddle" to survive, or as Richard Dawkins
might suggest, huddling, banding together in families and groups, was an evolutionarily successful
strategy. Those well adapted to communal living were more likely to survive, so that tendency
was selected for. However, "cheaters" can also survive. That is, it is not uncommon in the natural
world to find individuals and groups of individuals who cheat the group – expend less energy to
reproduce, such as male sunfish that display the secondary sexual characteristics of females,
so are not driven off by nest building males, make a mad dash in to fertilize eggs when a real
female shows up, but provides no protection for the young – the adult male does that. In human
culture, there are also cheaters, those who provide little to the larger society, yet reap a disproportionate
level of resources.
So, learning more of our cultural roots and adopting positive measures for social cohesion
is a good idea, but much like Jesus' view that the poor will always be with us, cheaters, from
banksters to dictators, will too.
As Kanth sees it, most of our utopian visions carry on the errors and limitations born of
a misguided view of human nature. That's why communism, as it was practiced in the Soviet Union
and elsewhere, projected a materialist perspective on progress while ignoring the natural human
instinct for autonomy- the ability to decide for ourselves where to go and what to say and
create. On flip side, capitalism runs against our instinct to trust and take care of each other.
I think this paragraph speaks volumes for transitioning to a society with a BGI with libertarian
socialist leanings. Let people be free to create what they are passionate about while allowing
humans to express their innate desire to care for one another without it signifying weakness or
at their time own personal expense. I don't think this approach necessarily precludes rockets
to Mars either. The engineers who are passionate will still get together and build one. It may
take a little longer if they can't convince others to help but hopefully this will foster more
cooperative approaches and less viewing of other humans as consumables.
Libertarianism and libertarian socialism are two different things. Libertarianism is a less
authoritative conservatism while libertarian socialism is a less authoritative social democracy.
Think Chomsky, not Ron Paul. Or think of it as a more relaxed Bernie who thinks things should
be done on a smaller, more local scale.
Kanth, like many, senses that a global financial crisis, or some other equivalent catastrophe,
like war or natural disaster, may soon produce painful and seismic economic and political disruptions.
Perhaps only then will human nature reassert itself as we come to rediscover the crucial nexus
of reciprocities that is our real heritage. That's what will enable us to survive.
I read somewhere that some Native Americans looking down on the ruins of San Fransisco
after the great quake of 1906, thought that at last the crazy white people would realize the folly
of their ways, and become normal humans.
So they were amazed that before the ruins even stopped smoking, the crazy white people,
ignoring the obvious displeasure of the Great Spirit, were busy rebuilding the same mess that
had just been destroyed.
I have a strong suspicion that evil empires do not come to their senses, rather, one way
or another, they get flattened.
I can remember arguing over this in my philosophy classes way back in the 80's – that Objectivism
and the Enlightenment were two sides of the same coin, and that those Enlightenment writers were
writing tomes to justify their own greed and prejudices, while cloaking their greed and prejudices
in "morality".
At the time (I was young) it seemed to me that the Enlightenment was an attempt to destroy
the basis of Jesus's and Buddha's philosophy – that the most moral position of humanity was to
care for its members, just as clans, tribes, families, and other human societies did.
The most frequent response from professors and classmates to my thesis? But those clans, tribes,
families, etc., didn't accomplish much, did they? As if the only reason for humanity's existence
was to compete against itself
Needless to say, I didn't stick with Philosophy ..
And we need new syntheses, at which this is an attempt.
It's not a stretch to say the trend since the renaissance has been to exalt the individual.
Kanth is aiming for a communitarian philosophy. An interesting departure point for discussion.
I don't see what people find so offensive.
"They didn't accomplish much" meaning they lost militarily to cultures with more aggression
and better weapons.
It seems to me that humans, as hierarchical mammals, really do have a desire to compete
with each other for status and respect. The trouble is in organizing all of society around this
one struggle, forcing everyone into explicit competition and making the stakes too high. When
the losers can't afford to buy food, when they and their little children live on the street and
die in the cold, when their kids can never compete on an equal field to improve their own status,
things have gone too far. And in addition to material needs, humans also have a need for independence,
an escape from being constantly ordered around by the winners and under someone else's thumb.
Capitalism made the stakes too high. But it was designed by the winners.
You might argue that there were plenty of "hopeless losers" in the systems that preceded capitalism
- the orphans, elderly crones, and beggars without livelihoods who used to wander the hedgerows
in medieval times. We have more resources now which also means no excuses.
Note, as an aside, how granting economic rights to outgroups like women and Blacks brought
them into the same market competition. Well, a lot of men don't want to compete with women for
status. They want to compete with each other. The more competitors you add the harder it is to
win. But when all resources are restricted to the market, it's unjust to exclude any
group from access. Once again the stakes are too high. Social democracies are better places to
live for exactly this reason.
It seems to me that humans, as hierarchical mammals, really do have a desire to compete
with each other for status and respect.
I think you're right about that and if we do ever manage to abolish capitalism and develop
a less violent and more egalitarian society, there will need to be an outlet for that innate desire.
I propose hockey. Beats starting a war .
When President Trump defeated his rival in the last election, among the many ways in which
the event was captured was a representation of the President as Perseus carrying the head of Medusa
(Clinton) in his outstretched left hand. Medusa was a monster gorgon of the Greek mythology; a
representation in this case by Clinton (a woman) who dared to take real power in this essentially
male world and silenced for trying to participate in the public discourse (election).
I take this example to point out that both Lynn Parramore and Rajni Kanth declaring in a version
of mumbo-jumbo are sadly wrong-modernism has always been skin-deep excepting in accommodating
the technological element in the tone of life. Voltaire and Rousseau aside, both Kanth and Parramore
know which side of the mumbo-jumbo bread is their butter; even bemoaning the collapsing supposed
ruins of modernism they do not fail to take advantage! "Eurocentric modernism has unhinged us
from our human nature" asserts Kanth in his "book" but I would like to bluntly ask him: Please
define your "us" and "our" in that proposition and clarify if poor Indians like Yours Truly find
a dot in that set.
The point is that what passes as Modernism has never entered modern life. In support of
my proposition I cite an encounter between a journalist and Mahatma Gandhi in 1930s: The journalist
asked Gandhi, "Mr. Gandhi, what is your opinion of the western civilization?" Gandhi replied instantaneously
"It would be a good idea".
It does not at all. This is the price one pays as an innocent reader by reading social science
mumbo jumbo which is so irksome. It lacks the grace of the real mumbo jumbo too. Kanth is bluffing;
the author misunderstands his stupid linguistic constructions of Kanth and incomprehension and
chaos follow. The whole article seems to be a bluff about a bluff(the book).
I think he's right about Eurocentric modernism being incompatible with human civilization.
But it can't be just an evolutionary accident that civilization is so aggressive. It served a
purpose. We refer to it as 'survival'. I used to tell my daughter not to make fun of those 'dorky
little boys' too much because they all had a way of growing up to be very nice men. And I told
her women are the reason we have all survived, but men have made it so much easier! And etc.
We have been very successful as a species; surviving all of our own inquisitions, pogroms,
hallucinations and yes, this is a serious situation we are in. We might even try to guide ourselves
out of it, using science and technology, as we huddle.
I suspect there was a fatal error long, long ago: you lend me your ram so my ewe can have offspring.
If there are twins, we each get one; if not, we agree upon future breeding rights and grazing
areas. After generations of this sort of breeding activity, I have in my mind the notion that
there is a 'natural increase' from lending or swapping.
Along comes a scribe with a tablet, whom I have now hired to list the number of my flocks (wealth
on the hoof); I lend you forms of wealth (rams, ewes, oxen, axes, boats) , and the scribe assumes
there must be some 'natural increase' as the outcome of this lending and swapping. Consequently,
the scribe carves cuneiform markings to represent what we might call 'compound interest' that
result from lending and swapping of non-biological resources - despite the fact that if you sit
two clay tablets in the sun, they do not (and never will!) create an additional clay tablet. Ditto
heaps of dollar bills; it's not the money that creates increase; it's the assumption of 'increase'
(originating in breeding activity of flocks and herds) that makes the money generate surplus -
not any property of those scraps of paper themselves.
BTW: FWIW, double entry bookkeeping seems to trace the earliest period of modernism, which
IMVHO adds heft to Kanth's argument about something shifting probably earlier than 400 years
ago.
It's possible that Michael Hudson has covered this; if so, I've not had time to read it yet.
I hope to in future. David Graeber's work on redemption ('buying back' someone enslaved or indentured)
and his anthropological findings also lend heft to Kanth's analysis.
"He first caught the scent that something was off as an economics student in India, wondering
why, despite his mastery of the mathematics and technology of the discipline, the logic always
escaped him. Then one day he had an epiphany: the whole thing was "cockeyed from start to finish.""
But the economics profession's problem isn't "blind faith in science." It's a massive failure
to apply the scientific method, combined with an expectation that we all put our blind faith in
THEM anyway.
I think our problems do not stem from any theories or ideologies, they are the predictable
result of human nature – specifically of the fact that the balance between the loving side of
human nature and the aggressive side is not evenly distributed among individuals. It is precisely
the most aggressive among us who most desire, and work the hardest, to dominate and control others.
I had the same experience as he had with economics with law, ok I only studied it when studying
business and that does not a lawyer make, but it made no sense for me. But I do think I maybe
just have the wrong kind of brain for it, expect a logic that isn't there.
Essentially a post-modern critique of modernism without all the jargon of p-m critical theory
(yay!!). I don't think we have enough data from the pre-modern huddling societies to determine
if that's how we want to live. Yes, my boss at work exploits me, but on the other hand, I can
walk into an air-conditioned supermarket and survey row after row of steaks that I can afford
to buy. I love to drive cars. The cinema is enchanting. Dying of a plague is a very remote possibility.
We could give it all up, but there's no guarantee our lives would be richer or fuller–just different,
at best.
Just how dark were the Dark Ages? Or, to borrow Churchill's phrase, how dark would a NEW Dark
Age be? I don't think you can get rid of Modernism very easily, for certain parts would survive.
Science and tech, for example. Ideas of surveillance and control. But along with this, new prejudices,
new superstitions, perhaps? What perverse new form of religion or philosophy might arise from
the ashes of our civilization?
Two possibles: the cargo cult children of Mad Max: Beyond the Thunderdome,
or the society depicted in Aldous Huxley's Ape and Essence. At least the Church in Rome and Constantinople
provided some kind of lifeline of civilization during the collapse of the Roman Empire. What similar
institution have we now?
Sounds like bog-standard post-modernist tosh to me, just without the obscure ProfSpeak jargon
that usually accompanies it. I fail to see how this is helpful.
The only thing missing in this post is Bambi. Of course the Bushmen would kill Bambi dead with
spears and roast her flesh over a fire. So would we, actually. hmmmm.
To illustrate one of its signature follies, Kanth refers to that great Hollywood ode to
the Western spirit, "The Sound of Music." Early in the film, the Mother Superior bursts into
song, calling on the nun Maria to "climb every mountain, ford every stream."
Sounds exhilarating, but to what end? Why exactly do we need to ford every stream? From
the Eurocentric modernist viewpoint, Kanth says, the answer is not so innocent: we secretly
do it so that we can say to ourselves, "Look, I achieved something that's beyond the reach
of somebody else." Hooray for me!
Many would part company with Kanth over the above characterization. There are many reasons
why people climb mountains and ford streams that do not include, or even consider, that element
of exclusive personal achievement. Some might even aver that climbing and fording and so many
other human activities are done "because it is there", while others appreciate a spiritual or
other inspirational aspect.
Will we climbers and forders be told that we are selfish or otherwise deficient or on the wrong
side of history or whatever the mal du jour is because we like a little bit of hygge
or Gemütlichkeit as we live our lives?
Quite that is indeed the point where I stopped reading and started skimming someone who mistakes
metaphors in a musical for physical actions is not going to enlighten my world (no matter how
much I dislike the film).
climbing every mountain and fording every stream is probably impossible in the literal sense
(aren't there way too many streams for this? and mountains probably too), and certainly it is
impossible in the metaphoric one.
I don't see why poor Julie Andrews, of all people, has to be singled out here as exemplifying
malign post-Enlightenment discourses of proprietorship and exploitation. That's just mean
. Surely those ideologies are better examined through a close reading of the Shamen's inexcusable
'90s electro hit "Move Every Mountain"?
I agree dude is right that the values now unraveling (democracy, pluralism, individualism,
free speech, international-ism (in both the good and bad ways)) go all the way back to that time.
But this article is a perfect example of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Surely none
of the third world cultures he praises got where they are by totally throwing out previous systems,
the good parts and bad, every time they faced a crisis.
IMO the problem is enlightenment values have been hollowed out, narrowed to only those superficial
aspects of those values which benefit the marketplace. Like how real food got turned into Mosanto
fast-food so gradually, nobody noticed that the nutrients are missing.
While it's obvious how this thesis deflates modern capitalism, it would also appear to me that
the idea of refocusing on "kinship and community" would present a challenge to the "global solidarity"
mentality underlying most leftist thinking as well. You cannot simultaneously have an emphasis
on the huddled community, while also arguing that workers worldwide have a deeper and more important
connection than the business owner and his or her employees (assuming both are from within the
same community, natch). Either you assume humans have a universal commonness, which effectively
obliterates the notion of community, or you accept humans tend towards tribalism, which both discounts
any notion of creating a global, uniform leftist economics, but also suggests a troubling tendency
towards xenophobia.
Good point, "kinship and community" are analogous to tribalism and nationalism on a larger
scale unless you rephrase it to mean kinship with your family and neighbors on the local level,
and with humanity on a national/global level. Unfortunately, some of our current liberal globalists
seem to be forgetting the part about local kinship and community while embracing global humanity.
I dunno, may have something to do with cheaper labor abroad.
Partly, but there's also an association in the minds of many liberals and leftists of localized
control and thinking equating with oppression, historically. Things like segregation, discrimination,
violations of the separation of church and state, anti-labor employment & worksite laws, etc.
I think Kanth is quick to criticize materialism and scientific progress for all our ills while
seeming to have missed the horrid standards of living in his anthropological studies prior to
scientific progress with enlightenment principles over theocracy. I'd like to know what the longevity
of per-enlightenment citizens was compared to today. In fact, longevity in this country around
1900 was still in the mid 40's for most.
What I find would have been a better argument is to focus his critique not on scientific progress,
but on how there always seems to be a certain small minority of the population which seems to
have an out sized voice in how we choose to self govern. What we seem to be losing today is the
silent majority of voices who are for universal health care, not eroding further entitlements,
bodily security as well as economic security while still being able to encourage those who chose
to take risks and put themselves through more work and strain to be fairly rewarded.
The problem as I see it today, is that the pendulum, both politically, and socially, has swung
too far towards the selfish individualist.
The problem with how science is seen in a modernist context is two-fold. The "blind faith"
leads people to see it as all-encompassing, all-powerful, and not recognizing its scope and where
that scope ends. Ergo, anything that is successfully sold to the public and TPTB as "science"
gets said treatment and is viewed as being unquestionable (like, say, neoclassical economics).
Bruno Latour has been on this for decades in 1991 the book "We Have Never Been Modern" This has been followed by many other books, prizes, invited lectures, and thought exhibition
called Reset Modernity. The book, published last year, is related to the exhibition with that
title. Published by MIT press with 60 authors.
Reset Modernity
Reset Modernity!
Edited by Bruno Latour and Christophe Leclerc
Overview
Modernity has had so many meanings and tries to combine so many contradictory sets of attitudes
and values that it has become impossible to use it to define the future. It has ended up crashing
like an overloaded computer. Hence the idea is that modernity might need a sort of reset. Not
a clean break, not a "tabula rasa," not another iconoclastic gesture, but rather a restart
of the complicated programs that have been accumulated, over the course of history, in what
is often called the "modernist project." This operation has become all the more urgent now
that the ecological mutation is forcing us to reorient ourselves toward an experience of the
material world for which we don't seem to have good recording devices.
Reset Modernity! is organized around six procedures that might induce the readers to reset
some of those instruments. Once this reset has been completed, readers might be better prepared
for a series of new encounters with other cultures. After having been thrown into the modernist
maelstrom, those cultures have difficulties that are just as grave as ours in orienting themselves
within the notion of modernity. It is not impossible that the course of those encounters might
be altered after modernizers have reset their own way of recording their experience of the
world.
At the intersection of art, philosophy, and anthropology, Reset Modernity! has assembled
close to sixty authors, most of whom have participated, in one way or another, in the Inquiry
into Modes of Existence initiated by Bruno Latour. Together they try to see whether such a
reset and such encounters have any practicality. Much like the two exhibitions Iconoclash and
Making Things Public, this book documents and completes what could be called a "thought exhibition:"
Reset Modernity! held at ZKM | Center for Art and Media Karlsruhe from April to August 2016.
Like the two others, this book, generously illustrated, includes contributions, excerpts, and
works from many authors and artists.
Seems to me that the insight into the relevancy of anthropology vis a vis economics is a product
of science. And Adam Smith had some good points that have been lost along the way, namely penalizing rent
seeking.
Smith has been seriously misrepresented. The Theory of Moral Sentiments shows a very different
side to that presented by those who selectively quote from The Wealth of Nations.
It's hard to tell from the rather incoherent summary of what looks like an incoherent argument,
but the "everything went wrong after the Enlightenment" meme has been circulating for ages. It
was speared pretty effectively by Domenico Losurdo in "War and Revolution" some years ago. The
author seems to be jumbling all sorts of arguments together, some valid and some not, but the
valid arguments are in general criticisms of liberalism, which is not the same of the Enlightenment.
This is a very good point, as the Enlightenment was not merely a straight line connection to
the blight of NeoLiberalism. Rather, there were those, such as Burke, or some of our "Founding
Fathers" who were students of history, and while discriminating observers of the deleterious elements
of human nature, they were also cognizant of the more helpful elements of that same human nature.
They, however, tended toward the view that those helpful elements required deliberate nurturance
in order to come to the fore. Some of this nurturance could be achieved by partially neutralizing
the deleterious elements by balancing interests (you weren't going to get rid of the propensities,
but you could limit the scope of their play by pitting societal forces one against the other in
political structures, vide the doctrine of separation of powers), while nurturance could
also be achieved through perpetuation of those societal institutions that address the individual
conscience and behaviors like religious doctrine and examples.
The naked embrace of selfishness, while never absent over these centuries, did have countervailing
currents and forces with which to contend that were sometimes able to at least minimize the damage.
But more recently, with supposedly scientific NeoLiberal economic thought sweeping the field throughout
much of the first world, and with the overall decline of religious and moral systems as a counterpoise,
things have reached an unlovely pass.
But it would be incorrect to solely blame Enlightenment themes for where we are today. Much
of what was presumed to be necessary to the proper, humane functioning of the ideal Enlightenment
society has been pushed aside in favor of the degraded every-man-for-himself, homo economicus
scourge that holds sway.
Joseph de Maistre, the conservative critic of Enlightenment values, deserves far more blame
for the horrors of modernity than do Voltaire or his like minded colleagues. And I can't even
find de Maistre mentioned in the index of Saul's book.
Thanks for mentioning Joseph de Maistre. I have never heard of him. I think you'd enjoy this
book, nonetheless. Saul doesn't actually "blame" Voltaire. He blames those who came after Voltaire.
For that matter, the bulk of the book is about the 20th century's (mis)interpretation of the Enlightment
project. I should have mentioned that the full title is "Voltaire's Bastards: The Dictatorship
of Reason in the West".
Interesting story Waring told when I heard her speak in Toronto – As she boarded a bus at the
airport to travel to her hotel, and a young man (20s) recognized her because the film is shown
to high school students throughout Canada.
And Capital Institute's John Fullerton
FIELD GUIDE TO A REGENERATIVE
ECONOMY Primarily due to reading George Monbiot's inane rejection of the work of Allan Savory
and Capital Institute's work with Grasslands LLC. Brought to me this morning by Nicole Foss and
the Guardian.
And for farmer's and lovers of the land, I couldn't help but hear Wendell Berry, "It all turns
on affection."
Interesting to have these things intersect with this morning's coffee. Thank you.
Read something by Douglas Valentine. Or listen to him on YouTube. Guy laid it all out in book
form in 1990, The Phoenix Program. Guy is a great historian on many subjects but they all lead
back to the CeyeA.
George Webb is slicing and dicing all of the CIA dirty tricks the agency has going on US soil.
Dyncorpse, JTTF, hacking and cracking, brownstone operations, etc. etc. etc. ...... And now, Gulan
is getting undressed in public. (I was warned to stay out of that one myself because it would
really piss off the CIA) ..... Next up? .. Chemtrails, I hope. That one has us all in the cross
hairs and needs to be addressed. (Listening, Mr President? ... The chems are killing your grandkids
too)
Truman wrote in a July 21 passage, "The Jews, I find are very, very selfish. They care not
how many Estonians, Latvians, Finns, Poles, Yugoslavs or Greeks get murdered or mistreated as
D[isplaced] P[ersons] as long as the Jews get special treatment. Yet when they have power, physical,
financial or political neither Hitler nor Stalin has anything on them for cruelty or mistreatment
to the under dog."
Standard Disclaimer: Tell me that last line is not the most honest truth you've read today.
James Warburg, son of Federal Reserve founder Paul Warbug, gained some notice in a February
17, 1950, appearance before the
U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations in which he said,
"We shall have world government, whether or not we like it.
The question is only whether world government will be achieved by consent or by conquest."
As much as I respect Truman (I was born and raised in Independence, Missouri),
I think now that he was THEIR patsy. I suspect he never saw it coming.
It wouldn't be quite so bad if the CIA didn't have a strangle hold on the media too. ... You
can't even get any information about the sumy-bitches in print or on the tube.
~~ ( The CIA News Agency Isn't Going To Cover This News Story )~~
I guess we'll have to tune into Russia Today to find out what's going on in Wash DC.
Pretty soon they will have to encrypt the news feeds, I can just feel it in my spooks.
If the CIA wants us to leave them alone they better get out of news crushing business. ..........
In your face lies 24/7 doesn't help their PR any at all.
Live Hard, News With A Spin Doesn't Mean It Has To Be Red-Lined All Of The Time, Just A Leisurely
Slow Twist Will Do It, Die Free
And yet - what did they do after 9/11? The formed an even larger and more convoluted organization,
DHS, because they supposedly "needed at that time a central organization that would bring all
the various intelligence reports we were getting in those days, and there must have been a dozen
of them, maybe more, bring them all into one organization so that the President would get one
report on what was going on in various parts of the world" . Instead of a dozen, now there are
what ... 17?
Truman was a complete tool if he couldn't have seen that coming. Kind of like Greenspan trying
to claim he didn't know his actions would cause financial bubbles. Bullshit.
This issue of CIA level of illegal needs definitively to be feed and exposed to the audience,
until its dealt with. Same for this BIT FAT conglomerate of 17 Intelligence communities. That
many is definitively NOT needed. Not only does it hurt the budget (paid with american people taxes),
it also hurt the spirit of the republic itself. Since the killing of JFK and 9/11 (without even
mentionning the number of people dying in the middle east and elsewhere), this level of organized
criminality is a disgrace and a ongoing shame for the country.
The spider-web of influence in the U.S. Congress may include the Deep State - but, that connection
is facilitated by the Deep State's coziness with the intelligence services of other nation states,
notably, Israel's Mossad, which supports AIPAC, which funds many members of Congress and scares
the shit out of the rest.
Congress has simply abdicated most of its responsibilities to the executive branch. They seem
to think their only job is pork and pandering, then retiring to become a lobbyist or a sinecure
at some corporation they did favors for ... rather than being the sole source of all legislation
and - the way the Founding Fathers expected - jealous of their prerogatives and fearful of executive
power.
A healthy Congress would act like the executive branch works for them - as in a parliamentary
system.
More recently, ex-president Carter told us that the U.S. is "no longer a democracy", in large
measure due to the
Citizens United case . The combination of a CIA-dominated deep state and an elitist election
process has seriously injured democracy in the U.S.
He was educated in the public school of Plains, attended Georgia Southwestern College and the
Georgia Institute of Technology, and received a B.S. degree from the United States Naval Academy
in 1946. In the Navy he became a submariner, serving in both the Atlantic and Pacific fleets and
rising to the rank of lieutenant. Chosen by Admiral Hyman Rickover for the nuclear submarine program,
he was assigned to Schenectady, New York, where he took graduate work at Union College in reactor
technology and nuclear physics, and served as senior officer of the pre-commissioning crew of
the Seawolf , the second nuclear submarine.
Depends entirely on what you think scholarship is and intelligence ? If you think you get them
from what we call our higher ed system, you are completely mind fucked just as they are ? Do you
see much if any real scholarship taking place anywhere these days or the complete denial of any
form of free speech and Orwellian extremes at what we call our higher ed institutions ? Time to
rethinhk a bunch of stuff my man -- Most higher ed today is more about sucking the brains out of
peoples heads, indoctrination and propaganda, not scholarship or any form of truth. And it is
nothing new at all for sure. Really got rolling during Carter's era and been rolling stronger
ever since. You are well behind the curve, not up to speed as you seem to think and I do not say
this as a negative, just information for you to ponder and rethink. Good luck with it.
You're right. Highly educated, yet without the common sense to defend himself against swamp
rabbits. Jimmy Carter's Afghanistan policy as President is what brought the Taliban to power.
He spent 40 Billion in 1979 dollars to train and equip the Mujahideen, in some misguided attempt
to thwart the damn Russki's.
The Carter Administration also tried to seat the Khmer Rouge as the rightful government of
Cambodia even though they slaughtered one out of three Cambodians in the 1975-78 genocide.
That's a pretty high level of moronity for an educated man.
Yes Carter inherited a mess - Pakistani nuclear weapons and the oil crisis too. A lot fo bad
shit happening back then. It seemed early on tha the was a one term president. Serving only one
term is probably why he is still alive today and wasn't stressed to death by a second term.
Unfortunately Reagan doubled down on it and he funded Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda. He went
all in with a weak hand.
The Mujahideen have been around for centuries though, but the CIA brought them into the 20th
century.
Now as nearly as I can make out, those fellows in the CIA don't just report on wars and the
like, they go out and make their own, and there's nobody to keep track of what they're up to.
They spend billions of dollars on stirring up trouble so they'll have something to report on.
They've become ... it's become a government all of its own and all secret. They don't have to
account to anybody.
The OECD's new
terms of reference
to assess the
implementation by countries of BEPS Action 13 related to Country-by-Country
Reports (CbCR) may penalise countries, especially developing ones, that try
to obtain by their own means the CbCR's valuable data needed to tackle
multinational tax avoidance.
Country-by-Country Reports (CbCR) (to be
prepared by multinationals with group revenues over EUR 750 million) will
offer information on multinational economic activity, profits and tax paid
broken down for each country where they operate. This CbCR "map" will reveal
any misalignments between the location of real activity, and where profits
are ultimately declared to hold both multinationals and tax havens to
account.
We have long advocated that this CbCR map
should be publicly available, so that all tax authorities, civil society and
journalists may have access to them.
Our suggestion
is that multinational companies
publish their CbCR maps on their webpages.
But the OECD, which is, after all, a club
dominated by the interests of rich countries, disagrees. It wants this map's
information to be fully confidential and to be obtained by authorities only
via bilateral automatic exchange of information, in the same way as banking
information.
Banking information should be confidential
and it makes sense to exchange it bilaterally, as the OECD's Common
Reporting Standard or CRS requires. After all, information on bank accounts
held by say, Zambians in German banks is only relevant for Zambia, but no
other country could make use of it.
But with CbCR "maps", the opposite is true.
Not only should they be public (because they contain no confidential or
sensitive information), but if they are to remain confidential, at least
their dissemination to foreign authorities should be as easy as possible.
Once a multinational prepares their CbCR map,
that same CbCR map is relevant for every country where the multinational
operates. There was thus no need to create a new international legal
framework and have countries sign new treaties for automatic exchange of
CbCR maps among authorities. Multinationals should have been required to
disseminate their CbCR maps to all of their subsidiaries for them to locally
submit the CbCR to every tax authority.
But the OECD wanted the complex framework
precisely to limit access to CbCR, not only by the general public, but also
by developing countries' authorities. Responding to the OECD's approach,
TJN's
last report
advised countries, especially
developing countries, not to follow the OECD's complicated framework
enshrined in the Model Legislation that all countries are required to adopt
(see the figure below, left side). Since CbCR maps are so relevant to tackle
tax avoidance, countries should make sure that they will obtain them one way
or another. If any country is unable to receive the CbCR automatically from
another country for whatever reason (regardless of the reasons that the OECD
legislation contemplates), they should ask for the CbCR map from any local
subsidiary resident in their country ("local filing") as the figure below
shows, right side. Otherwise, they may never access the CbCR at all (see
text in red in the figure below). Also, for a fuller explanation graphic on
CbCR see
here
.
The OECD approach, based on automatic
exchange of information, uses a complex framework that depends on developing
countries being able to convince a developed country to sign an
international agreement with them. Not only is it complex, but it leads to
situations (in red) where the developing country will not access CbCR
information they need. TJN's improved OECD-proposal, while not as ideal as
having multinationals publish CBCR information on their websites, at least
simplifies the framework and ensures that developing countries obtain the
CbCR one way or another.
The new OECD's
Terms of Reference for peer reviews on CbCR
however, will penalise countries that do not abide by the OECD's Model
legislation that focuses on restricting "local filing" by subsidiaries. The
OECD allows local filing of CbCR maps, only if, among other things, the
interested country already has an international agreement to exchange
information with the country where the multinational company is
headquartered, very likely a wealthy country. Local filing is allowed only
when a second international agreement is not in force:
"(c) Limitation on local filing obligation:
( ) iv. that
no
local filing of a CbC report relating to a particular fiscal year can be
required
unless
one or more
of the following conditions have been met with respect to that fiscal year:
( ) b) the jurisdiction in which the Ultimate
Parent Entity is resident for tax purposes
has a
current International Agreement to which the given jurisdiction is a party
but does not have a Qualifying Competent Authority Agreement in effect to
which this jurisdiction is a party by the time for filing the
Country-by-Country Report" (Terms of Reference, page 13; emphasis added)
If the wealthy country (where the
multinational is headquartered) does not want to sign the first agreement
with the developing country interested in receiving the CbCR map, what
happens then? Well, the developing country pays the price: it will not be
able to obtain the CbCR at all.
The OECD does say that all jurisdictions
should sign agreements with all relevant countries, but it also acknowledges
that this takes time
1
–
and that means time paid for by the country interested in receiving the CbCR
map.
In the meantime, if the developing country tries to require the
CbCR from a local subsidiary, the OECD may penalise it with a bad peer
review.
It is clear to us that the OECD does not want
local filing (the easier way to access CbCR), and that not only will it give
a bad review to those countries that do not respect the Model legislation
framework,
but the OECD also explicitly welcomes countries not requiring
local filing at all:
"Local filing is not required to be
introduced in order to meet the minimum standard and the absence of local
filing requirements will not affect the outcome of the peer review on CbC
reporting" (Terms of Reference, page 18).
The OECD does not seem to welcome civil
society involvement either:
"Because peer review is an intergovernmental
process, business and civil society groups' participation in the formal
evaluation process and, in particular, the evaluation exercise and the
discussions in the CbC Reporting Group is not specifically solicited"
(ibid., page 22).
As for developing countries, the only
provisions in their favour is that if they cannot implement CbCR provisions
or expect to receive the CbCR
, they will not be penalised (as long as
they prove that none of their multinationals would be covered by CbCR
provisions):
"It is recognised that developing countries
may face capacity challenges in implementing CbC reporting ( ). Many
developing countries are interested in receiving CbC reports, and as such
will introduce CbC reporting obligations even if they do not have any MNE
Groups headquartered in their jurisdiction that would be subject to CbC
reporting. This is because introducing domestic legislation for CbC
reporting is a precondition in order to receive CbC reports. However, it is
possible that there are developing countries that do not have any MNE Groups
headquartered in their jurisdiction that would be subject to CbC reporting,
and that are not yet ready to receive CbC reports
.
In such cases, rather than find such developing countries to have failed to
implement CbC reporting, the peer review will instead require a
certification process whereby the jurisdiction could confirm that there are
no MNE Groups within scope that are headquartered in the country and
documenting how that fact is known for the year in question" (ibid. page 18;
emphasis added).
To sum up,
given the OECD's opposition to
public CbCR, developing countries will be on the safe side with regard to
blacklists if they do not expect to access the CbCR.
If they want to
access it, they will have to depend on the discretion of rich countries on
whether they will deign to sign an international agreement with them. If a
developing country cannot convince a developed country (where most major
multinationals are headquartered) to sign an international agreement, and
decides to require it from a local subsidiary, it may be given a bad review
by the OECD, with the potential of being blacklisted.
The worst part is that developing countries
have a greater need to access CbCR to try and address tax avoidance by
multinationals, and this information is so general that it should be
considered public, so that civil society, researchers and journalists have
access to it as well.
1
End note 11 on page
18 of the Terms of Reference Report reads: "It is acknowledged that
jurisdictions may not have exchange of information instruments in place with
all members of the Inclusive Framework. Jurisdictions are encouraged to
expand the coverage of their international agreements for exchange of
information. However, as this can take time, for the purposes of the peer
reviews, jurisdictions will be assessed on their compliance with the minimum
standard in respect of the exchange of information network in effect for the
year of the particular annual review".
What are the practical implications for a country being blacklisted by
the OECD? Would the downside really outweigh the potential advantage of
going after tax revenue due?
What countries are currently on the OECD blacklist and who cares?
If a developing country has corrupt leaders that might be getting bribes
from MNEs to not go after taxes, wouldn't this whole question be moot at the
practical level?
Why not what CA tried for a While?
Profit in country = sales in country/worldwide sales x worldwide profit.
All readily available data. If in fact sales in country not profitable
because costs in country too high, take business elsewhere.
Think apple would they like to forget about their us or china sales?
Seriously, nuclear mole missiles? Off our coast? Note to Viktor, US subs do
sonar scans of the ocean floor all the time, and underwater sonar contacts are
generally listed in a nice book that is published yearly. Do you honestly think
no one is not going to notice a bunch of new sonar contacts where there were
none before? And just how long do you think it would be before the U.S.
recovered one of these "nuclear mole missiles"? Back during the Cold War, one
of the USS Trepang's mission was to pilfer the Russian equivalent of a SOSUS
buoy. (Mission - successful...was not overly surprised to find it was full of
chips from Texas Instruments.) You used to actually be able to find this little
gem of the Cold War on-line, but with the rate at which ever increasing amounts
of new information gets stored, the older information just seems to disappear.
Russia has deployed a land-based cruise missile that violates the "spirit
and intent" of an arms control treaty and poses a threat to NATO, Vice Chairman
of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff General Paul Selva said on Wednesday.
What a complete fucking douchebag, considering we trek around the globe with
cruise missiles (quite possibly nuclear-tipped) aboard our subs and surface
fleet. Time to target is not that long when your cruising speed is 500mph and
you're sitting no more than a mile off your enemy's shoreline.
Standard Disclaimer: NATO, like the CIA, are worn-out relics of the Cold
War, and both need to die a swift death.
Counter-Coup Spookmaster Dr. Steve Pieczenik Discusses Destruction Of CIA
And Game Changing Implications Of #Vault7
ZeroPointNow
Mar 8, 2017 2:25 PM
0
SHARES
This is as close to a real life spy novel as you're going to get...
Dr. Steve
Pieczenik is a legend. For those of you who don't know - he's the guy Tom Clancy based
Jack Ryan on. He's served 5 U.S. Presidents (Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan and the 1st
Bush) and was co-founder of Delta Force. Pieczenik served as former Dep. Sec of State
under Kissinger, Vance and Baker - and was instrumental in negotiating the 1978
Camp David
Accords
. He holds degrees from Cornell, M.I.T. and Harvard, and as a CIA expert in
psychological warfare, he was the first psychiatrist ever to receive a PhD focusing on
international relations. Steve can probably crush your larynx with his mind.
Shortly before the election, Pieczenik released a series of YouTube videos explaining
just what in the hell was going on with all of the Wikileaks revelations - which, as he
revealed, were part of a "counter-coup" by patriotic elements within the intelligence
community - assisted by Julian Assange, to wrestle control out of the hands of the
globalists by exposing Hillary Clinton and the deep-state apparatus she represented.
Last night, Pieczenik appeared on Infowars to discuss #Vault7, the counter-coup,
Edward Snowden, Currencies, Steve Mnuchin, the death of the DNC, and where we go from
here. The entire interview is almost 50 minutes long, however here are some select clips
(or scroll down for the entire thing):
The implications of Vault7, technology
overreach, and the fact that the NSA has a mandate for cyber-command and cyber-warfare.
The CIA never did, and it has committed "crimes against the state"
Structural problems in the EU -
eventual dissolution, currency fluctuations - NWO does not exist anymore, Soros
irrelevant, China technically insolvent:
Don't want to eliminate enemies -
instead, the goal is to discredit them. No violence. Trump has brought in Mnuchin to
realign US Dollar with rest of the world to boost exports.
We've won - but we need to have
humility. Oh, and the left "is already in the cemetery. All we've got [to do] is put
flowers on their graves and walk away"
This is just another example of how Big Data can fail. All polling is is
the use of Big Data – weighting factors are just another name for
algorithms. Unlike Cambridge Analytica which was going outside its data to
make projections, the pollsters insisted on using the wrong model to
determine human behavior – and that is just as bad. Instead of watching who
the polls said was in the lead, I was watching the error analyses. The model
of how people vote had changed, but polling companies just didn't notice (or
perhaps didn't want to notice). Certainly the elections of 2010, 2012, and
2014 should have alerted them to changing trends and model instability and
their error analyses should have been much higher than they were. But
putting data into a garbage compactor just gives you more garbage .
People assume that "Big Data" is science. It is not. They are
"models", like kid's Lego models, that reflect the consciousness of the
"Model's Creator" (This kid seriously likes battleships, or cosy little
houses!) Sort of like the way IQ tests reflect the culture, class and
race of its creator. (You usually do not get points for identifying a
bird by it's bird-song or differentiating edible plants from the
inedible, by taste/smell).
This proves that most Big Polling companies are run by Clintonistas,
just as Big Media is run by Clintonistas. Their polling numbers still
show that Trump is losing, to this day. They are truly exceptional
people. (In a weird and creepy way)
This also implies that Lambert possesses that very rare quality-
The Open Mind
, that can see through
powerful/dense/stinky bullshit, with x-ray vision.
It's amazing how much more complex a humanities approach is compared
to a stone cold set of unemotional variables. To wit: Trump won because
the "rural" component of the LA Times was exaggerated – so then what does
that say for the urban component who where almost as down-and-out. This
is logic karma. The humanities guy, using a tree of almost-psychic
analysis gets it right. Love it a lot. And there is some connection to
our favorite Mr. Professor, Mark Blyth when he describes these fed-up
electorates (those betrayed by neoliberalism) as "no-shows." Well, we
could go on and on. Truth becomes the fractal analysis of politics.
"The humanities guy, using a tree of almost-psychic analysis gets
it right".
I've got some bad news for you. Decision trees are part and parcel
of Machine Learning techniques.
And polling has nothing to do with Big Data per se – sample of a
few thousand is not Big Data in any way form or shape, it's just
statistics. And while statistics doesn't have any bias, statisticians
(and polsters) do (as do, for the matter, any and all humans).
Your comment reminds me of some data science jokes going around:
1. Data science is statistics done on a Mac.
2. A data scientist is a statistician living in San Francisco.
3. A data scientist is a person who knows more about statistics
than a computer scientist and knows more about computer science
than a statistitian.
(I'd give credit to whoever started these jokes if I could only
figure out who they were ..)
Statistics is a big part of Big Data – it cannot be done without
it. You'd probably be surprised to know that polling is a part of
data science. And you'd probably don't know that the first
documented use of Big Data was by Tycho Brache/Kepler ..
It is important to understand what Big Data/Data Science is since
it is here and it isn't going away. Curiosity Stream has an
excellent video, "The Human Faces of Big Data" that is well worth
the watch.
And as always, the worst thing a person can do is give up their
ability to think critically when presented with Big Data results,
which are not truths, but only patterns based on the data given.
GIGO still applies .
I need to correct my next to last sentence to read: .which
are not truths, but only patterns based on the data given AND
the algorithm used ..
Sometimes the data is good, but the algorithm is bad and vice
versa
I have to remind myself every time I see data modelling political and
cultural phenomenon that these particular models can or will work well
until they don't. They always operate within a political and cultural
paradigm and when that paradigm is broken or even just faltering the
methods (which are heavily biased by that paradigm) fall apart. I can't
say it is apophenia as the data/patterns
are
relevant within an
existing paradigm. Maybe it is apophenia in reverse. The culture
establishes an agreed upon framework thus informing the modeller and
skewing their modelling. So the culture creates the patterns on a largely
nonscientific basis and the modeller simply interprets them to predict
the culture's future behavior. It seems like an exercise in futility.
While the "horse race" data is interesting & kinda fun to dissect in
retrospect, I don't think it really captures the essence of what happened.
Boiled down to 2 factors:
1) Trump was the "bomb thrower" candidate. First he blew up the R's
establishment candidates in the primaries & then blew up the D's
hyper-establishment candidate in the general.
2) HRC was a terrible and, ultimately, incompetent candidate. Her
palpable sense of entitlement & arrogance was quite off-putting to a
significant portion of the electorate. That she won the popular vote but
still managed to lose the election says it all about her campaign strategy.
Trump's election was a giant middle finger to the "politics-as-usual"
crowd.
(Unfortunately Trump is really very "establishment" – he just ran a
non-traditional campaign. I'll be rather surprised if he makes beyond 2020)
I suspect there was a lot more neo-liberal working behind the sceine
that we might suspect. Polling companies are a lot like the acounting
firms for the banks – they are paid to overlook acounting issues. Those
that don't, do not get to keep their contracts. The polling firms were
paied not to measure the mood of the electorate, but to produce polls
that conformed to the narative. And the narative was that Clintion was
going to win by a landslide.
The polls were just another tool for manufacturing consent.
The OECD's new
terms of reference
to assess the
implementation by countries of BEPS Action 13 related to Country-by-Country
Reports (CbCR) may penalise countries, especially developing ones, that try
to obtain by their own means the CbCR's valuable data needed to tackle
multinational tax avoidance.
Country-by-Country Reports (CbCR) (to be
prepared by multinationals with group revenues over EUR 750 million) will
offer information on multinational economic activity, profits and tax paid
broken down for each country where they operate. This CbCR "map" will reveal
any misalignments between the location of real activity, and where profits
are ultimately declared to hold both multinationals and tax havens to
account.
We have long advocated that this CbCR map
should be publicly available, so that all tax authorities, civil society and
journalists may have access to them.
Our suggestion
is that multinational companies
publish their CbCR maps on their webpages.
But the OECD, which is, after all, a club
dominated by the interests of rich countries, disagrees. It wants this map's
information to be fully confidential and to be obtained by authorities only
via bilateral automatic exchange of information, in the same way as banking
information.
Banking information should be confidential
and it makes sense to exchange it bilaterally, as the OECD's Common
Reporting Standard or CRS requires. After all, information on bank accounts
held by say, Zambians in German banks is only relevant for Zambia, but no
other country could make use of it.
But with CbCR "maps", the opposite is true.
Not only should they be public (because they contain no confidential or
sensitive information), but if they are to remain confidential, at least
their dissemination to foreign authorities should be as easy as possible.
Once a multinational prepares their CbCR map,
that same CbCR map is relevant for every country where the multinational
operates. There was thus no need to create a new international legal
framework and have countries sign new treaties for automatic exchange of
CbCR maps among authorities. Multinationals should have been required to
disseminate their CbCR maps to all of their subsidiaries for them to locally
submit the CbCR to every tax authority.
But the OECD wanted the complex framework
precisely to limit access to CbCR, not only by the general public, but also
by developing countries' authorities. Responding to the OECD's approach,
TJN's
last report
advised countries, especially
developing countries, not to follow the OECD's complicated framework
enshrined in the Model Legislation that all countries are required to adopt
(see the figure below, left side). Since CbCR maps are so relevant to tackle
tax avoidance, countries should make sure that they will obtain them one way
or another. If any country is unable to receive the CbCR automatically from
another country for whatever reason (regardless of the reasons that the OECD
legislation contemplates), they should ask for the CbCR map from any local
subsidiary resident in their country ("local filing") as the figure below
shows, right side. Otherwise, they may never access the CbCR at all (see
text in red in the figure below). Also, for a fuller explanation graphic on
CbCR see
here
.
The OECD approach, based on automatic
exchange of information, uses a complex framework that depends on developing
countries being able to convince a developed country to sign an
international agreement with them. Not only is it complex, but it leads to
situations (in red) where the developing country will not access CbCR
information they need. TJN's improved OECD-proposal, while not as ideal as
having multinationals publish CBCR information on their websites, at least
simplifies the framework and ensures that developing countries obtain the
CbCR one way or another.
The new OECD's
Terms of Reference for peer reviews on CbCR
however, will penalise countries that do not abide by the OECD's Model
legislation that focuses on restricting "local filing" by subsidiaries. The
OECD allows local filing of CbCR maps, only if, among other things, the
interested country already has an international agreement to exchange
information with the country where the multinational company is
headquartered, very likely a wealthy country. Local filing is allowed only
when a second international agreement is not in force:
"(c) Limitation on local filing obligation:
( ) iv. that
no
local filing of a CbC report relating to a particular fiscal year can be
required
unless
one or more
of the following conditions have been met with respect to that fiscal year:
( ) b) the jurisdiction in which the Ultimate
Parent Entity is resident for tax purposes
has a
current International Agreement to which the given jurisdiction is a party
but does not have a Qualifying Competent Authority Agreement in effect to
which this jurisdiction is a party by the time for filing the
Country-by-Country Report" (Terms of Reference, page 13; emphasis added)
If the wealthy country (where the
multinational is headquartered) does not want to sign the first agreement
with the developing country interested in receiving the CbCR map, what
happens then? Well, the developing country pays the price: it will not be
able to obtain the CbCR at all.
The OECD does say that all jurisdictions
should sign agreements with all relevant countries, but it also acknowledges
that this takes time
1
–
and that means time paid for by the country interested in receiving the CbCR
map.
In the meantime, if the developing country tries to require the
CbCR from a local subsidiary, the OECD may penalise it with a bad peer
review.
It is clear to us that the OECD does not want
local filing (the easier way to access CbCR), and that not only will it give
a bad review to those countries that do not respect the Model legislation
framework,
but the OECD also explicitly welcomes countries not requiring
local filing at all:
"Local filing is not required to be
introduced in order to meet the minimum standard and the absence of local
filing requirements will not affect the outcome of the peer review on CbC
reporting" (Terms of Reference, page 18).
The OECD does not seem to welcome civil
society involvement either:
"Because peer review is an intergovernmental
process, business and civil society groups' participation in the formal
evaluation process and, in particular, the evaluation exercise and the
discussions in the CbC Reporting Group is not specifically solicited"
(ibid., page 22).
As for developing countries, the only
provisions in their favour is that if they cannot implement CbCR provisions
or expect to receive the CbCR
, they will not be penalised (as long as
they prove that none of their multinationals would be covered by CbCR
provisions):
"It is recognised that developing countries
may face capacity challenges in implementing CbC reporting ( ). Many
developing countries are interested in receiving CbC reports, and as such
will introduce CbC reporting obligations even if they do not have any MNE
Groups headquartered in their jurisdiction that would be subject to CbC
reporting. This is because introducing domestic legislation for CbC
reporting is a precondition in order to receive CbC reports. However, it is
possible that there are developing countries that do not have any MNE Groups
headquartered in their jurisdiction that would be subject to CbC reporting,
and that are not yet ready to receive CbC reports
.
In such cases, rather than find such developing countries to have failed to
implement CbC reporting, the peer review will instead require a
certification process whereby the jurisdiction could confirm that there are
no MNE Groups within scope that are headquartered in the country and
documenting how that fact is known for the year in question" (ibid. page 18;
emphasis added).
To sum up,
given the OECD's opposition to
public CbCR, developing countries will be on the safe side with regard to
blacklists if they do not expect to access the CbCR.
If they want to
access it, they will have to depend on the discretion of rich countries on
whether they will deign to sign an international agreement with them. If a
developing country cannot convince a developed country (where most major
multinationals are headquartered) to sign an international agreement, and
decides to require it from a local subsidiary, it may be given a bad review
by the OECD, with the potential of being blacklisted.
The worst part is that developing countries
have a greater need to access CbCR to try and address tax avoidance by
multinationals, and this information is so general that it should be
considered public, so that civil society, researchers and journalists have
access to it as well.
1
End note 11 on page
18 of the Terms of Reference Report reads: "It is acknowledged that
jurisdictions may not have exchange of information instruments in place with
all members of the Inclusive Framework. Jurisdictions are encouraged to
expand the coverage of their international agreements for exchange of
information. However, as this can take time, for the purposes of the peer
reviews, jurisdictions will be assessed on their compliance with the minimum
standard in respect of the exchange of information network in effect for the
year of the particular annual review".
What are the practical implications for a country being blacklisted by
the OECD? Would the downside really outweigh the potential advantage of
going after tax revenue due?
What countries are currently on the OECD blacklist and who cares?
If a developing country has corrupt leaders that might be getting bribes
from MNEs to not go after taxes, wouldn't this whole question be moot at the
practical level?
Why not what CA tried for a While?
Profit in country = sales in country/worldwide sales x worldwide profit.
All readily available data. If in fact sales in country not profitable
because costs in country too high, take business elsewhere.
Think apple would they like to forget about their us or china sales?
"... The constraint on punditry is that they are all a bunch of high school mean girls. They spend just as much time gossiping and trashing each other as teenagers. Anyone who doesn't parrot faux objectivity, which is little more than the D party line, can expect to be ostracized and not given opportunities for advancement. ..."
"... They all pretend they can divine absolutely everything from polls, enabling them to forego any real reporting in favor of some number crunching or referencing fivethirtyeight. Polls have so many problems in the first place, that to try and extrapolate to what the electorate is really saying is a fool's errand. Polls don't let people say that they would rather be boiled in oil than elect the wife of the guy that laid the groundwork for the GFC, or that they really hate both of them and as long as it looks like Clinton is going to win I might not bother to show up. They certainly don't have an option for: I see how this country works, I see how corrupt 95% of the elites are, I see how they have had success in their lives and pulled up the ladders of opportunity behind them, I see how they think they are peers with the titans of industry and are willing to forgive them of just about any misbehavior no matter how consequential and despite all that the titans think of them as the paid help. I see how willing they are to make life harder for the majority just to fellatiate their donors; leaving rhetoric and shame as the only tools to get compliance and votes. ..."
"... I think it has to do with the knowledge that she holds grudges and the level of inevitability she was able to command. Anyone who dared to go even an inch beyond the mean girl hive mind could be assured zero access in her Whitehouse and to have future opportunities for advancement disappear. ..."
"... It's just not that hard: the Democrats bent the rules and thwarted what people wanted in order to run Hillary because it was her turn, ignoring the negatives that were present before the inept campaign increased them. ..."
I went on two email rants tangential to this if anyone is interested, I enjoyed them.
On journalism:
The constraint on punditry is that they are all a bunch of high school mean girls. They
spend just as much time gossiping and trashing each other as teenagers. Anyone who doesn't parrot
faux objectivity, which is little more than the D party line, can expect to be ostracized and
not given opportunities for advancement.
They all pretend they can divine absolutely everything from polls, enabling them to forego
any real reporting in favor of some number crunching or referencing fivethirtyeight. Polls have
so many problems in the first place, that to try and extrapolate to what the electorate is really
saying is a fool's errand. Polls don't let people say that they would rather be boiled in oil
than elect the wife of the guy that laid the groundwork for the GFC, or that they really hate
both of them and as long as it looks like Clinton is going to win I might not bother to show up.
They certainly don't have an option for: I see how this country works, I see how corrupt 95% of
the elites are, I see how they have had success in their lives and pulled up the ladders of opportunity
behind them, I see how they think they are peers with the titans of industry and are willing to
forgive them of just about any misbehavior no matter how consequential and despite all that the
titans think of them as the paid help. I see how willing they are to make life harder for the
majority just to fellatiate their donors; leaving rhetoric and shame as the only tools to get
compliance and votes.
At the end of the day, polls are like horoscopes, a kernel of truth but you can see what you
want to see. Which is why we were subjected to copious think pieces about Bernie Bros and Racist
Trump voters that are little more than polling cross tabs woven into whatever narrative would
best help Clinton.
But why Clinton? It certainly isn't because there was a cozy relationship before this campaign.
Note this quote from
Politico :
But to this day she's surrounded herself with media conspiracy theorists who remain some
of her favorite confidants, urged wealthy allies to bankroll independent organizations tasked
with knee-capping reporters perceived as unfriendly, withdrawn into a gilded shell when attacked
and rolled her eyes at several generations of aides who suggested she reach out to journalists
rather than just disdaining them. Not even being nice to her in print has been a guarantor
of access; reporters likely to write positive stories have been screened as ruthlessly as perceived
enemies, dismissed as time-sucking sycophants or pretend-friends.
I think it has to do with the knowledge that she holds grudges and the level of inevitability
she was able to command. Anyone who dared to go even an inch beyond the mean girl hive mind could
be assured zero access in her Whitehouse and to have future opportunities for advancement disappear.
But it certainly isn't above her to play favorites and reword good coverage with access,
even to the point of
dictating adjectives to reporters .
The second email was to 538 because they put up a job listing, which I used as an opportunity
to get an email read by them.
Well, I don't have any experience editing or writing (except as a hobby) but I do have a very
extensive knowledge of current events, political trends, polling, voting methods, and heterodox
economics. Since it's doubtful you would consider me for a policy editor position I just thought
I would offer some constructive criticism.
1. Instead of using your models to display the odds of a candidate winning if the election
were held today, incorporate the polling error and historical trends to make a graph that starts
with lines for the past and ends with probability cones into the future. You may know that
polls are only for a snapshot in time, but the vast majority of the TV pundits who use this site
as a bible don't. Then they go and decide who gets coverage based on it. This is especially important
when you have a well known candidate vs lesser known ones. This is a key reason Sanders didn't
do as well and why we have a president Trump. They also couldn't emphasize enough how unelectable
he was despite the polls constantly saying otherwise which really was the one thing
that sank him . For some reason about
40% of
the country says they will vote even if they don't care about the outcome. I'm sure in reality
it is much less, even more so for a primary. However, one of the reason politics is so dysfunctional
right now is that no one in their right mind would run for congress or anything else when only
63/435 house districts had a margin under 15%. Any damage you do to the incumbency effect is a
huge plus.
2. Alternative voting. Since your site is all about data I can't for the life of me
understand why you haven't done a dive into alternative voting methods. It there is one thing
this election should have taught us it's that first past the post (FPTP) is a creation from hell
that needs to die. Then the only other option widely expressed is Instant Run Off (IRV), which
is just ever so slightly better than FPTP. Would it really be too much to ask to dive into
Score Voting ,
3-2-1 voting , Condorcet,
and Schultz? And maybe look at some of the
work being done to model
voter satisfaction with those systems.
3. Improving Polling. Clearly you have contacts at all the major polling firms I have
absolutely no clue why you haven't pressured them to gather better data. Since the elites in this
country absolutely refuse to be within a 5 mile radius of real people, they rely on polls to take
the temperature of the public. I'd say that hasn't been working so well. I have seen polls where
they find out your stance on ACA, give both side some of the opposing arguments, and then ask
again and manage to flip like 20% from each side. Any poll that is going to ask our suboptimally
informed electorate something about a hot button issue should give a reason or two for and against
before getting a response. Polls that are meant to determine a participant's preference on a range
of hot button issues really should be done with
quadratic voting .
Which brings me to horse race polls. Just to get a baseline about how dysfunctional FPTP is I
would have loved to see a poll in the middle of the Dem primary ask "regardless of who you plan
on voting for, who do you want to be the next president?" Primary season would also be a great
time to test out some of the alternative voting methods mentioned above, most of which would eliminate
the need for primaries entirely. But if we are stuck with FPTP I would love for the follow up
question to be "In one sentence why do you plan to vote for that person?" That would really be
invaluable data.
I could probably go on for another hour with things that I think you could do to personally
improve the miserable state this country is in and will continue to be in for the foreseeable
future, but I'll spare you. Thanks for reading this far if you did.
I'm glad you posted this! I wasn't familiar with quadratic voting and the link is quite interesting.
It seems to have some similarities with ranked preference voting. That said, I agree with Peter
Emerson that in any choice there should be at least 3 options to choose from, and those options
should come from the voting base.
Choosing from how much I agree or disagree with a single proposal is still a poor option–it
depends what the alternatives are if one disagrees, or at least some basics about the implementation
if one agrees.
Using the questions from the QV video as an example, in some questions the nature of the potential
alternatives might affect results more than others. (For example, "Do you want to repeal the ACA?"
How a person answers might vary considerably depending on the alternatives.)
It's just not that hard: the Democrats bent the rules and thwarted what people wanted in
order to run Hillary because it was her turn, ignoring the negatives that were present before
the inept campaign increased them.
I read that book a long time ago. What I remember (perhaps incorrectly) is that there are simple,
compound and complex failures. One error causes a simple failure, two a compound and three a complex.
Complex failures are usually catastrophic. The errors were 1) failure to learn 2) failure to anticipate
3) failure to adapt. Perhaps a bit overly structural, but it did stick in my mind for years.
> 1) failure to learn 2) failure to anticipate 3) failure to adapt.
Those are the types of failure, and those are reasonable enough buckets. But their analysis
of how multiple pathways to failure is to my mind far more supple - and you have to treat case
case separately.
While I generally agree with your analysis I think that your timeline is missing one key inflection
point, the ACA. During September and October some states began announcing pricing changes for
the coming year. That fed into the rolling narrative that the ACA was collapsing, or in a death
spiral, or otherwise in trouble right around the same time that radical opportunist
True Patriot(tm) Jim Comey was bringing up Weiners.
Others have argued (can't find the links right now sorry) that this was more meaningful than
the emails and my own informal poll of Trump voters is consistent with that. None of them mention
Bhengazi or the emails except as general background to her unsavoriness, meaning that the damage
was done long before October. But they do bring up the "collapsing state exchanges" and "unreasonable
price surges" as current problems.
I agree that the email furor could be masking the effect of an ObamaCare rate hike, but I have
never seen polling to this effect; if somebody has, please add! There are a lot of events happening
simultaneously, and then the press will pick one and make that the cause.
Bottom line, people in rural western Virginia (with which I am more familiar) might not have
even heard the term "neoliberal" [by the way, why do we use his portmanteau of two very positive
words to describe a loathsome philosophy? Why don't we just call it what it is, "neofeudalism"
or possibly more accurately, "archeofeudalism"], but these "deplorables" do know that their lives
suck more than they ever have due to their lives and livelihood being drained out of them by the
1% and the Accela Corridor Class, of which HRC was the examplar par excellence.
Just ignore all the polls, all the verbiage, all the analysis. Bottom line: Trump is the proverbial
"Ham Sandwich."
The original liberal revolution (circa 1776 and later) mobilized the power of the bourgeoisie,
money, and markets to correct the inadequacies of the remains of the feudal society based on agriculture
and land. The neoliberal revolution aims to mobilize the power of money and markets to correct
the inadequacies of the liberal society based on money and markets. Strategically, to put a price
on anything that's left without one, and eliminate the chances for Polanyi's "double movement".
You write: "all but the Daybreak poll got the popular vote outcome wrong. "
Ummh, your sentence exactly disagrees with your data. Almost all polls got the sign of the
popular vote total correct, with Clinton leading Trump by several points. The average (Huffington
Post does this) of a lot of polls was very close indeed to Trump's performance, with Trump having
fewer popular vote than Clinton by close to 3%.
I'm surprised in your narrative inflection points, you don't note Oct. 24 as a key date, the
day the administration announced that Obamacare premiums would increase by an average of 22%.
Though it didn't receive as much coverage from the horse-race media, it seems to me that if there
was one single event that tipped the race to Trump, it was that announcement.
I didn't follow the polling much in real-time, but my recollection from post-mortems is that
Trump received a number of bounces up at inflection events, but then his poll numbers subsided
back. But in the aftermath of Oct. 24 his numbers began to rise without subsiding later. The graphs
you posted are consistent with that, except that it's attributed to the Comey letter,, which received
a lot of media play, but probably was of lesser importance to voters, as opposed to its importance
as a Dembot excuse.
In Florida, Trump got 113,000 more votes than Hillary. However, election officials report that
130,000 voters refused to vote for either candidate and wrote in the names of various people and
cartoon characters. The usual "vote for the lesser of two evils" just isn't working any more.
Why not look at how Bill Clinton diverted the Democratic Party towards Wall Street and Oligarchs
and left behind huge swathes of traditional voters ? The story of the string-puller from Arkansas
and his connections, whether to get him a Rhodes Scholarship and multiple draft deferments, or
his visit to Russia in Dec 1969, or his governorship and its strange association with Rich Mountain
Aviation in Mena, AK.
This was where the Democratic Party turned away from its voter base and Blair copied this in
UK with New Labour, a Neo-Marxist front facilitating Financial Excess
You're asking why I didn't write another post. Basically, because I wanted to write about penguins,
and not peacocks. The focus is on the campaign, not on everything that's been wrong with the Democrat
Party since forever (though there'll be a bit more of that in the forthcoming post).
One of these days pundits are going to stop treating the election like some damn sporting event,
focusing on momentum and god knows what instead of where the candidates stand on the issues of
importance. When that happens, maybe we'll start electing candidates that are interested and capable
of solving problems instead of candidates merely striving to stroke their egos.
I commend you for your optimism, However, the two party (actually one party) duopoly will insist
on nominating neo-liberal candidates paid for by yuuge corporate bribes. May I suggest that you
look elsewhere if you want candidates capable of solving the people's problems rather than the
corporate ones.
The trouble with social science is that the subjects read about themselves and change behavior
based on what they read. This is the property that George Soros calls reflexive. Even physical
science at the quantum mechanical level has as a basic principle that the act of measuring something
changes it.
Yes, even George Soros can be right about a thing or two.
Interesting analysis. What would add considerably is if we had some way of also charting other
events, in particular election fraud events (including voter suppression, computer tabulator rigging,
etc.) and other election interference mechanisms such as media coverage / non-coverage / miscoverage.
Not to mention the primary problems. Or the issues having to do with "candidate selection"
in the first place.
Analysis of the election without examining the information made available to voters, and with
no hope of knowing how voters actually did vote (hint–we don't know this from official
election results), is dodgy to say the least.
At the minimum the glaring gaps in information (e.g. about actual vote tallies) should be acknowledged.
Did you read the title of the post? That often gives a good indiction of the subject matter
to be found therein. You want me to write another post. Perhaps one day.
The presence of actual election malfeasance for decades (and more–when have we ever had clean
elections under public scrutiny?) means that elegant analysis such as yours perversely perpetuates
the acceptance of phony election data. That's why some form of acknowledgement is needed somewhere
in the post. Not a different post or a different topic, just a mention that there are . . . issues.
I would love your approach if only it didn't contain the unspoken presumption of official election
results bearing any resemblance to actual votes cast! Maybe yes, maybe no, depending on the precinct
and specific election. We should not advocate people continuing to blindly accept official election
results regardless of whether the results were expected, unexpected, close, non-close, matching
polls, not matching polls. Analysis that does not acknowledge the absence of meaningful election
scrutiny inadvertently perpetuates the problem.
It's like doing financial analysis on an economy where all data is submitted by companies with
zero requirement for backup financial data. (Not to mention then carrying out "polls" of what
"financial analyses" we believe or prefer!) We would never accept that kind of "data" and subsequent
"analysis" in a financial context.
I see it as a contest for power between two jet setters. Both had Boeings. One was owned by
the candidate, bigger & black & red.
The other was some smaller, and nondescript blue.
I'd like to see the number of flights and where they went compared.
Concerning your inflection points, Lambert: I remember from a while back that Empty Wheel had
a chart that showed a major shift in sentiment toward Trump when new higher Obamacare costs were
announced for 2017. Sorry, but I don't know how to run down that link.
It's bad now, but it could be worse. Project Fear. OK, Trump is a lunatic but how does that
compare with the status quo? Let's give the lunatic a go. How bad can it get?
"... Until the Democrats reform their leadership and recommit to working people again, they will have no future as a party. ..."
"... Brad and Larry and Paul are a big part of the status quo for the liberal establishment, and the incredible failure of leadership they have achieved. ..."
"... Continuing to argue about it here, with the quick resort to personal attacks and name-calling, is irrelevant, because the Democratic party is dead. Seriously, how big of a loss can they take before the leadership gets tossed? It was not just the presidency. They have lost almost everything. ..."
"... Don't count the Democratic Party out yet. Politicians need to make a living. After the Civil War the Democratic Party had to scrape together what it could find that Republicans had tossed out with the garbage. ..."
"... So, the Democratic Party took to supporting immigrants and unions. Times have changed and the Democratic Party lost the unions to corporatism, but tried to make it up with racial politics. ..."
"... The Democratic Party made a big mistake abandoning the interests of ordinary working people, but that is what their corporate donors demanded. So, it is time for a makeover and if the next one does not take then they will be back at it again because politicians have to make a living. ..."
"... The Democratic party, much less so than the Republican party, is not homogenous. All the things you ascribe to them past or present don't apply to most of their current members or operatives. ..."
Until the Democrats reform their leadership and recommit to working people again, they will
have no future as a party.
Brad and Larry and Paul are a big part of the status quo for the liberal establishment,
and the incredible failure of leadership they have achieved.
Continuing to argue about it here, with the quick resort to personal attacks and name-calling,
is irrelevant, because the Democratic party is dead. Seriously, how big of a loss can they take
before the leadership gets tossed? It was not just the presidency. They have lost almost everything.
Don't count the Democratic Party out yet. Politicians need to make a living. After the Civil War
the Democratic Party had to scrape together what it could find that Republicans had tossed out
with the garbage.
So, the Democratic Party took to supporting immigrants and unions. Times have
changed and the Democratic Party lost the unions to corporatism, but tried to make it up with
racial politics.
That worked some, but the problem with identity politics is that eventually people
get their rights and freedoms and next thing you know they want jobs and college educations for
their children.
The Democratic Party made a big mistake abandoning the interests of ordinary working
people, but that is what their corporate donors demanded. So, it is time for a makeover and if
the next one does not take then they will be back at it again because politicians have to make
a living.
The Democratic party, much less so than the Republican party, is not homogenous. All the things
you ascribe to them past or present don't apply to most of their current members or operatives.
It is one of the pernicious aspects of an effectively two-party system that all progressives
have a strong motivation or even necessity to associate themselves with the "least bad" party.
By way of official narrative the Democrats definitely fit the bill, even though they contain a
lot of "co-opted" (if not corrupted) establishment baggage. That just happens with any major party
- elites and interest groups that nominally stay out of politics but factually participate and
not just a little are never resting.
In Germany, the 80's (perhaps late 70s?) saw an ascendancy of the Green party which was strongly
associated with environmentalism, and by implication resistance to then prevalent politics, social
mores, etc. They were successful as environmentalism and (I would say secondarily but that can
be debated) civil/individual liberties and gender/ethnic equality which they also featured big
time were themes that found wide appeal, and the time was ripe for them (e.g. environmental degradation
had become undeniable, and gender/ethnic discrimination had become recognized as a factor hindering
progress, aside from just fairness concerns).
A few decades later (and starting even a few years after the success) there was a noticeable
bifurcation in the Greens - it turned out they were not all on the same page regarding all social
issues. A number of Greens "defected" from the party and associated themselves with Red (Social
Democrats, equivalent of US Democrats) or Black (Christian Democrats, equivalent of US Republicans)
- showing that environmental or general (dimensions of) equal opportunity concerns are perhaps
orthogonal to stands on other more or less specific social issues (or if one wants to be more
cynical, that some people are careerist and not so much about principles - that exists but I would
prefer (with little proof) to think it doesn't explain the larger pattern).
"... The constraint on punditry is that they are all a bunch of high school mean girls. They spend just as much time gossiping and trashing each other as teenagers. Anyone who doesn't parrot faux objectivity, which is little more than the D party line, can expect to be ostracized and not given opportunities for advancement. ..."
"... They all pretend they can divine absolutely everything from polls, enabling them to forego any real reporting in favor of some number crunching or referencing fivethirtyeight. Polls have so many problems in the first place, that to try and extrapolate to what the electorate is really saying is a fool's errand. Polls don't let people say that they would rather be boiled in oil than elect the wife of the guy that laid the groundwork for the GFC, or that they really hate both of them and as long as it looks like Clinton is going to win I might not bother to show up. They certainly don't have an option for: I see how this country works, I see how corrupt 95% of the elites are, I see how they have had success in their lives and pulled up the ladders of opportunity behind them, I see how they think they are peers with the titans of industry and are willing to forgive them of just about any misbehavior no matter how consequential and despite all that the titans think of them as the paid help. I see how willing they are to make life harder for the majority just to fellatiate their donors; leaving rhetoric and shame as the only tools to get compliance and votes. ..."
"... I think it has to do with the knowledge that she holds grudges and the level of inevitability she was able to command. Anyone who dared to go even an inch beyond the mean girl hive mind could be assured zero access in her Whitehouse and to have future opportunities for advancement disappear. ..."
"... It's just not that hard: the Democrats bent the rules and thwarted what people wanted in order to run Hillary because it was her turn, ignoring the negatives that were present before the inept campaign increased them. ..."
I went on two email rants tangential to this if anyone is interested, I enjoyed them.
On journalism:
The constraint on punditry is that they are all a bunch of high school mean girls. They
spend just as much time gossiping and trashing each other as teenagers. Anyone who doesn't parrot
faux objectivity, which is little more than the D party line, can expect to be ostracized and
not given opportunities for advancement.
They all pretend they can divine absolutely everything from polls, enabling them to forego
any real reporting in favor of some number crunching or referencing fivethirtyeight. Polls have
so many problems in the first place, that to try and extrapolate to what the electorate is really
saying is a fool's errand. Polls don't let people say that they would rather be boiled in oil
than elect the wife of the guy that laid the groundwork for the GFC, or that they really hate
both of them and as long as it looks like Clinton is going to win I might not bother to show up.
They certainly don't have an option for: I see how this country works, I see how corrupt 95% of
the elites are, I see how they have had success in their lives and pulled up the ladders of opportunity
behind them, I see how they think they are peers with the titans of industry and are willing to
forgive them of just about any misbehavior no matter how consequential and despite all that the
titans think of them as the paid help. I see how willing they are to make life harder for the
majority just to fellatiate their donors; leaving rhetoric and shame as the only tools to get
compliance and votes.
At the end of the day, polls are like horoscopes, a kernel of truth but you can see what you
want to see. Which is why we were subjected to copious think pieces about Bernie Bros and Racist
Trump voters that are little more than polling cross tabs woven into whatever narrative would
best help Clinton.
But why Clinton? It certainly isn't because there was a cozy relationship before this campaign.
Note this quote from
Politico :
But to this day she's surrounded herself with media conspiracy theorists who remain some
of her favorite confidants, urged wealthy allies to bankroll independent organizations tasked
with knee-capping reporters perceived as unfriendly, withdrawn into a gilded shell when attacked
and rolled her eyes at several generations of aides who suggested she reach out to journalists
rather than just disdaining them. Not even being nice to her in print has been a guarantor
of access; reporters likely to write positive stories have been screened as ruthlessly as perceived
enemies, dismissed as time-sucking sycophants or pretend-friends.
I think it has to do with the knowledge that she holds grudges and the level of inevitability
she was able to command. Anyone who dared to go even an inch beyond the mean girl hive mind could
be assured zero access in her Whitehouse and to have future opportunities for advancement disappear.
But it certainly isn't above her to play favorites and reword good coverage with access,
even to the point of
dictating adjectives to reporters .
The second email was to 538 because they put up a job listing, which I used as an opportunity
to get an email read by them.
Well, I don't have any experience editing or writing (except as a hobby) but I do have a very
extensive knowledge of current events, political trends, polling, voting methods, and heterodox
economics. Since it's doubtful you would consider me for a policy editor position I just thought
I would offer some constructive criticism.
1. Instead of using your models to display the odds of a candidate winning if the election
were held today, incorporate the polling error and historical trends to make a graph that starts
with lines for the past and ends with probability cones into the future. You may know that
polls are only for a snapshot in time, but the vast majority of the TV pundits who use this site
as a bible don't. Then they go and decide who gets coverage based on it. This is especially important
when you have a well known candidate vs lesser known ones. This is a key reason Sanders didn't
do as well and why we have a president Trump. They also couldn't emphasize enough how unelectable
he was despite the polls constantly saying otherwise which really was the one thing
that sank him . For some reason about
40% of
the country says they will vote even if they don't care about the outcome. I'm sure in reality
it is much less, even more so for a primary. However, one of the reason politics is so dysfunctional
right now is that no one in their right mind would run for congress or anything else when only
63/435 house districts had a margin under 15%. Any damage you do to the incumbency effect is a
huge plus.
2. Alternative voting. Since your site is all about data I can't for the life of me
understand why you haven't done a dive into alternative voting methods. It there is one thing
this election should have taught us it's that first past the post (FPTP) is a creation from hell
that needs to die. Then the only other option widely expressed is Instant Run Off (IRV), which
is just ever so slightly better than FPTP. Would it really be too much to ask to dive into
Score Voting ,
3-2-1 voting , Condorcet,
and Schultz? And maybe look at some of the
work being done to model
voter satisfaction with those systems.
3. Improving Polling. Clearly you have contacts at all the major polling firms I have
absolutely no clue why you haven't pressured them to gather better data. Since the elites in this
country absolutely refuse to be within a 5 mile radius of real people, they rely on polls to take
the temperature of the public. I'd say that hasn't been working so well. I have seen polls where
they find out your stance on ACA, give both side some of the opposing arguments, and then ask
again and manage to flip like 20% from each side. Any poll that is going to ask our suboptimally
informed electorate something about a hot button issue should give a reason or two for and against
before getting a response. Polls that are meant to determine a participant's preference on a range
of hot button issues really should be done with
quadratic voting .
Which brings me to horse race polls. Just to get a baseline about how dysfunctional FPTP is I
would have loved to see a poll in the middle of the Dem primary ask "regardless of who you plan
on voting for, who do you want to be the next president?" Primary season would also be a great
time to test out some of the alternative voting methods mentioned above, most of which would eliminate
the need for primaries entirely. But if we are stuck with FPTP I would love for the follow up
question to be "In one sentence why do you plan to vote for that person?" That would really be
invaluable data.
I could probably go on for another hour with things that I think you could do to personally
improve the miserable state this country is in and will continue to be in for the foreseeable
future, but I'll spare you. Thanks for reading this far if you did.
I'm glad you posted this! I wasn't familiar with quadratic voting and the link is quite interesting.
It seems to have some similarities with ranked preference voting. That said, I agree with Peter
Emerson that in any choice there should be at least 3 options to choose from, and those options
should come from the voting base.
Choosing from how much I agree or disagree with a single proposal is still a poor option–it
depends what the alternatives are if one disagrees, or at least some basics about the implementation
if one agrees.
Using the questions from the QV video as an example, in some questions the nature of the potential
alternatives might affect results more than others. (For example, "Do you want to repeal the ACA?"
How a person answers might vary considerably depending on the alternatives.)
It's just not that hard: the Democrats bent the rules and thwarted what people wanted in
order to run Hillary because it was her turn, ignoring the negatives that were present before
the inept campaign increased them.
I read that book a long time ago. What I remember (perhaps incorrectly) is that there are simple,
compound and complex failures. One error causes a simple failure, two a compound and three a complex.
Complex failures are usually catastrophic. The errors were 1) failure to learn 2) failure to anticipate
3) failure to adapt. Perhaps a bit overly structural, but it did stick in my mind for years.
> 1) failure to learn 2) failure to anticipate 3) failure to adapt.
Those are the types of failure, and those are reasonable enough buckets. But their analysis
of how multiple pathways to failure is to my mind far more supple - and you have to treat case
case separately.
While I generally agree with your analysis I think that your timeline is missing one key inflection
point, the ACA. During September and October some states began announcing pricing changes for
the coming year. That fed into the rolling narrative that the ACA was collapsing, or in a death
spiral, or otherwise in trouble right around the same time that radical opportunist
True Patriot(tm) Jim Comey was bringing up Weiners.
Others have argued (can't find the links right now sorry) that this was more meaningful than
the emails and my own informal poll of Trump voters is consistent with that. None of them mention
Bhengazi or the emails except as general background to her unsavoriness, meaning that the damage
was done long before October. But they do bring up the "collapsing state exchanges" and "unreasonable
price surges" as current problems.
I agree that the email furor could be masking the effect of an ObamaCare rate hike, but I have
never seen polling to this effect; if somebody has, please add! There are a lot of events happening
simultaneously, and then the press will pick one and make that the cause.
Bottom line, people in rural western Virginia (with which I am more familiar) might not have
even heard the term "neoliberal" [by the way, why do we use his portmanteau of two very positive
words to describe a loathsome philosophy? Why don't we just call it what it is, "neofeudalism"
or possibly more accurately, "archeofeudalism"], but these "deplorables" do know that their lives
suck more than they ever have due to their lives and livelihood being drained out of them by the
1% and the Accela Corridor Class, of which HRC was the examplar par excellence.
Just ignore all the polls, all the verbiage, all the analysis. Bottom line: Trump is the proverbial
"Ham Sandwich."
The original liberal revolution (circa 1776 and later) mobilized the power of the bourgeoisie,
money, and markets to correct the inadequacies of the remains of the feudal society based on agriculture
and land. The neoliberal revolution aims to mobilize the power of money and markets to correct
the inadequacies of the liberal society based on money and markets. Strategically, to put a price
on anything that's left without one, and eliminate the chances for Polanyi's "double movement".
You write: "all but the Daybreak poll got the popular vote outcome wrong. "
Ummh, your sentence exactly disagrees with your data. Almost all polls got the sign of the
popular vote total correct, with Clinton leading Trump by several points. The average (Huffington
Post does this) of a lot of polls was very close indeed to Trump's performance, with Trump having
fewer popular vote than Clinton by close to 3%.
I'm surprised in your narrative inflection points, you don't note Oct. 24 as a key date, the
day the administration announced that Obamacare premiums would increase by an average of 22%.
Though it didn't receive as much coverage from the horse-race media, it seems to me that if there
was one single event that tipped the race to Trump, it was that announcement.
I didn't follow the polling much in real-time, but my recollection from post-mortems is that
Trump received a number of bounces up at inflection events, but then his poll numbers subsided
back. But in the aftermath of Oct. 24 his numbers began to rise without subsiding later. The graphs
you posted are consistent with that, except that it's attributed to the Comey letter,, which received
a lot of media play, but probably was of lesser importance to voters, as opposed to its importance
as a Dembot excuse.
In Florida, Trump got 113,000 more votes than Hillary. However, election officials report that
130,000 voters refused to vote for either candidate and wrote in the names of various people and
cartoon characters. The usual "vote for the lesser of two evils" just isn't working any more.
Why not look at how Bill Clinton diverted the Democratic Party towards Wall Street and Oligarchs
and left behind huge swathes of traditional voters ? The story of the string-puller from Arkansas
and his connections, whether to get him a Rhodes Scholarship and multiple draft deferments, or
his visit to Russia in Dec 1969, or his governorship and its strange association with Rich Mountain
Aviation in Mena, AK.
This was where the Democratic Party turned away from its voter base and Blair copied this in
UK with New Labour, a Neo-Marxist front facilitating Financial Excess
You're asking why I didn't write another post. Basically, because I wanted to write about penguins,
and not peacocks. The focus is on the campaign, not on everything that's been wrong with the Democrat
Party since forever (though there'll be a bit more of that in the forthcoming post).
One of these days pundits are going to stop treating the election like some damn sporting event,
focusing on momentum and god knows what instead of where the candidates stand on the issues of
importance. When that happens, maybe we'll start electing candidates that are interested and capable
of solving problems instead of candidates merely striving to stroke their egos.
I commend you for your optimism, However, the two party (actually one party) duopoly will insist
on nominating neo-liberal candidates paid for by yuuge corporate bribes. May I suggest that you
look elsewhere if you want candidates capable of solving the people's problems rather than the
corporate ones.
The trouble with social science is that the subjects read about themselves and change behavior
based on what they read. This is the property that George Soros calls reflexive. Even physical
science at the quantum mechanical level has as a basic principle that the act of measuring something
changes it.
Yes, even George Soros can be right about a thing or two.
Interesting analysis. What would add considerably is if we had some way of also charting other
events, in particular election fraud events (including voter suppression, computer tabulator rigging,
etc.) and other election interference mechanisms such as media coverage / non-coverage / miscoverage.
Not to mention the primary problems. Or the issues having to do with "candidate selection"
in the first place.
Analysis of the election without examining the information made available to voters, and with
no hope of knowing how voters actually did vote (hint–we don't know this from official
election results), is dodgy to say the least.
At the minimum the glaring gaps in information (e.g. about actual vote tallies) should be acknowledged.
Did you read the title of the post? That often gives a good indiction of the subject matter
to be found therein. You want me to write another post. Perhaps one day.
The presence of actual election malfeasance for decades (and more–when have we ever had clean
elections under public scrutiny?) means that elegant analysis such as yours perversely perpetuates
the acceptance of phony election data. That's why some form of acknowledgement is needed somewhere
in the post. Not a different post or a different topic, just a mention that there are . . . issues.
I would love your approach if only it didn't contain the unspoken presumption of official election
results bearing any resemblance to actual votes cast! Maybe yes, maybe no, depending on the precinct
and specific election. We should not advocate people continuing to blindly accept official election
results regardless of whether the results were expected, unexpected, close, non-close, matching
polls, not matching polls. Analysis that does not acknowledge the absence of meaningful election
scrutiny inadvertently perpetuates the problem.
It's like doing financial analysis on an economy where all data is submitted by companies with
zero requirement for backup financial data. (Not to mention then carrying out "polls" of what
"financial analyses" we believe or prefer!) We would never accept that kind of "data" and subsequent
"analysis" in a financial context.
I see it as a contest for power between two jet setters. Both had Boeings. One was owned by
the candidate, bigger & black & red.
The other was some smaller, and nondescript blue.
I'd like to see the number of flights and where they went compared.
Concerning your inflection points, Lambert: I remember from a while back that Empty Wheel had
a chart that showed a major shift in sentiment toward Trump when new higher Obamacare costs were
announced for 2017. Sorry, but I don't know how to run down that link.
It's bad now, but it could be worse. Project Fear. OK, Trump is a lunatic but how does that
compare with the status quo? Let's give the lunatic a go. How bad can it get?
Flynn definitely was compromised deliberately, because he just spoke with Russian ambassador as a private person (but may be on
instructions from Trump) and then understanding that lied to the vice president. So releasing his conversations was a part "color revolution"
against Trump, launched by neocons in intelligence services. As for the role of Jews in this affair is is naive to consider neocons
to be purely ethnically based, although "Israel firster" are an important part of them. So in Fred C. Dobbs post below one needs
to replace "Jew" with "Neocon" in Nixon's remarks. You will instantly see the point and it is difficlut nt to agree with Nixon that
neocons influence is huge threat to the USA. In this sense Nixon proved again that his was very talented, pretty shred politician...
Notable quotes:
"... Looks like "Color revolution" came to the USA and you being the US citizen better to learn what it means. And it means a lot (among other things that means an immediate end of remnants of democracy left; Welcome to the USSR, in other words.) ..."
"... Tom Clancy eat your heart out, this is as real as Dennis Kucinitch describes it as. The sinister globalist elite will stop at nothing in establishing their Luciferian dreams of the Novus Ordo Seclorum (New World Order). ..."
"... The old Elites need conflicts, so they can keep power. ..."
"... Yep. Trillion dollar military industrial complex is a lot of motivation for the establishment to revive the cold war and to keep the IC involved in the Saudi's proxy war via ISIS in the middle east. The CIA isn't interested in peace. It wants power. ..."
"... Yes, that appears to be their Operandi--to not only keep us distracted and our resources drained to continually feed their purses and purposes (to confiscate more wealth and usurp more power)...so, now that we are aware of this what are we doing to do to put a stop to it since we are Sovereign, and supposed to be in charge (self-governing). It appears we have not been taking our responsibility seriously and trusting our "servants" whilst they have been plotting and scheming against us. ..."
"... Trump is the last, best hope to disband the US' neolib version of the Gestapo ..."
"... if Clinton won there would never be a political opponent free from her deep state surveillance ..."
"... ... "The Jews are all over the government," Nixon complained to his chief of staff, H.R. "Bob" Haldeman, in an Oval Office meeting recorded on one of a set of White House tapes released yesterday at the National Archives. Nixon said the Jews needed to be brought under control by putting someone "in charge who is not Jewish" in key agencies. ..."
"... Washington "is full of Jews," the president asserted. "Most Jews are disloyal." He made exceptions for some of his top aides, such as national security adviser Henry Kissinger, his White House counsel, Leonard Garment, and one of his speechwriters, William Safire, and then added: ..."
"... "But, Bob, generally speaking, you can't trust the bastards. They turn on you. Am I wrong or right? ..."
"... The fact the nation's now-departed senior guardian of national security was unmoored by a scandal linked to a conversation picked up on a wire offers a rare insight into how exactly America's vaunted Deep State works. It is a story not about rogue intelligence agencies running amok outside the law, but rather about the vast domestic power they have managed to acquire within it. ..."
"... We know now that the FBI and the NSA, under their Executive Order 12333 authority and using the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act as statutory cover, were actively monitoring the phone calls and reading text messages sent to and from the Russian ambassador to the United States, Sergey Kislyak. ..."
"... Although the monitoring of any specific individual is classified TOP SECRET, and cannot be released to foreigners, the existence of this monitoring in general is something of an open secret, and Kislyak probably suspected he was under surveillance. ..."
"... The way it's supposed to work is that any time a "U.S. person" - government speak for a U.S. citizen, lawful permanent resident, even a U.S. company, located here or abroad - finds his or her communications caught up in Kislyak's, the entire surveillance empire, which was designed for speed and efficiency, and which, we now know, is hard to manage, grinds to a halt. That's a good thing. Even before Snowden, of course, the FBI would "minimize" the U.S. end of a conversation if analysts determined that the calls had no relevance to a legitimate intelligence gathering purpose. A late night call to order pizza would fall into this category. ..."
"... But if the analyst listening to Kislyak's call hears someone identify himself as an agent of the U.S. government - "Hi! It's Mike Flynn" certainly qualifies - a number of things have to happen, according to the government's own rules ..."
"... At this stage, the actual audio of the call and any transcript would be considered "Raw FISA-acquired information," and its distribution would be highly restricted. At the NSA, not more than 40 or so analysts or senior managers would be read into the classification sub-sub compartment that contains it, called RAGTIME-A,B,C D or P, where each letter stands for one of five different categories of foreign intelligence. ..."
Is this Intel community trying to undermine Trump's presidency? If so congratulations ask yourself if are living in a modern incarnation
of a police state. Intelligence agencies as a pinnacle of political power == police state.
The swamp lost part of the power and fights back.
Looks like "Color revolution" came to the USA and you being the US citizen better to learn what it means. And it means
a lot (among other things that means an immediate end of remnants of democracy left; Welcome to the USSR, in other words.)
All standard tricks used to depose governments like Yanukovych in Ukraine are now played against Trump. Media dominance is
one essential part. Coordinated series of leaks is a standard scenarios.
Former Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) on Gen. Michael Flynn resigning as President Trump's National Security Advisor and the
divide between the intelligence community and Trump.
"Who knows what is truth anymore. It's like a version of Mad magazine". -- Kusinich
All standard tricks used to depose governments like Yanukovych in Ukraine are now played against Trump.
Media dominance and hostility of media to the government is one essential part of any color revolution. That's what we have
now in the USA. Here is Kucinich warning:
Tom Clancy eat your heart out, this is as real as Dennis Kucinitch describes it as. The sinister globalist elite will
stop at nothing in establishing their Luciferian dreams of the Novus Ordo Seclorum (New World Order). Death to the Globalist/Islamic/Leftist
alliance. Deus Vult!
Mike V
In 2009, the Haitian parliament voted unanimously to raise the minimum wage, up to 61 cents per hour. US-based multinational
textile corporations such as Hanes and Levi's objected, claiming that paying these workers slightly more would cut into their
profits. As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton intervened and pressured Haiti to back off - blocking the raise. We only know
about this from WikiLeaks.
How on Earth is that something a communist would do? Communists want workers to unite and fire their bosses. Communists
want the workers to run the factories. How on God's green Earth does a Communist - who wants the workers to directly control
the means of production - intervene to block a tiny wage increase for those same workers.
Calling corporate Democrats like Clinton and Obama "communist" and "socialist" is so mindbogglingly stupid that I don't
even know how to respond to someone so blinded by partisanship.
Gg Mo
See: The Young Hegelians . CRONY Totalitarian "Communism" is the Goal, and the Minions are screaming for it , in their estrogen
soaked , Marxist indoctrinated IDIOCY.
IT WIZARD
Trump needs to drain the swamp on the Intel community
Joe
The old Elites need conflicts, so they can keep power.
sequorroxx
Yep. Trillion dollar military industrial complex is a lot of motivation for the establishment to revive the cold war
and to keep the IC involved in the Saudi's proxy war via ISIS in the middle east. The CIA isn't interested in peace. It wants
power.
Trisha Holmeide
Yes, that appears to be their Operandi--to not only keep us distracted and our resources drained to continually feed
their purses and purposes (to confiscate more wealth and usurp more power)...so, now that we are aware of this what are we
doing to do to put a stop to it since we are Sovereign, and supposed to be in charge (self-governing). It appears we have not
been taking our responsibility seriously and trusting our "servants" whilst they have been plotting and scheming against us.
Trump is the last, best hope to disband the US' neolib version of the Gestapo. As the Japanese Imperial Army noted, never
invade America there would be a "rifle behind every blade of grass"
In Nixon's day, the Deep State was all about 'Jews in the Guv'mint'. Not gonna happen on Trump's watch, not yet anyway, so that's
something. Now, it's 'Progressives', presumably. Call them NeoLiberals if you like.
... "The Jews are all over the government," Nixon complained to his chief of staff, H.R. "Bob" Haldeman, in an Oval
Office meeting recorded on one of a set of White House tapes released yesterday at the National Archives. Nixon said the Jews
needed to be brought under control by putting someone "in charge who is not Jewish" in key agencies.
Washington "is full of Jews," the president asserted. "Most Jews are disloyal." He made exceptions for some of his top
aides, such as national security adviser Henry Kissinger, his White House counsel, Leonard Garment, and one of his speechwriters,
William Safire, and then added:
"But, Bob, generally speaking, you can't trust the bastards. They turn on you. Am I wrong or right?"
Haldeman agreed wholeheartedly. "Their whole orientation is against you. In this administration, anyway. And they are smart.
They have the ability to do what they want to do--which is to hurt us." ...
The who, what, where, and why of the Trump administration's first major scandal - Michael Flynn's ignominious resignation on
Monday as national security advisor - have all been thoroughly discussed. Relatively neglected, and deserving of far more attention,
has been the how.
The fact the nation's now-departed senior guardian of national security was unmoored by a scandal linked to a conversation
picked up on a wire offers a rare insight into how exactly America's vaunted Deep State works. It is a story not about rogue intelligence
agencies running amok outside the law, but rather about the vast domestic power they have managed to acquire within it.
We know now that the FBI and the NSA, under their Executive Order 12333 authority and using the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Act as statutory cover, were actively monitoring the phone calls and reading text messages sent to and from the Russian ambassador
to the United States, Sergey Kislyak.
Although the monitoring of any specific individual is classified TOP SECRET, and cannot be released to foreigners, the
existence of this monitoring in general is something of an open secret, and Kislyak probably suspected he was under surveillance.
But a welter of laws, many of them tweaked after the Snowden revelations, govern the distribution of any information that is
acquired by such surveillance. And this is where it's highly relevant that this scandal was started by the public leaking of information
about Mike Flynn's involvement in the monitoring of Kisylak.
The way it's supposed to work is that any time a "U.S. person" - government speak for a U.S. citizen, lawful permanent
resident, even a U.S. company, located here or abroad - finds his or her communications caught up in Kislyak's, the entire surveillance
empire, which was designed for speed and efficiency, and which, we now know, is hard to manage, grinds to a halt. That's a good
thing. Even before Snowden, of course, the FBI would "minimize" the U.S. end of a conversation if analysts determined that the
calls had no relevance to a legitimate intelligence gathering purpose. A late night call to order pizza would fall into this category.
But if the analyst listening to Kislyak's call hears someone identify himself as an agent of the U.S. government - "Hi!
It's Mike Flynn" certainly qualifies - a number of things have to happen, according to the government's own rules
At this stage, the actual audio of the call and any transcript would be considered "Raw FISA-acquired information," and
its distribution would be highly restricted. At the NSA, not more than 40 or so analysts or senior managers would be read into
the classification sub-sub compartment that contains it, called RAGTIME-A,B,C D or P, where each letter stands for one of five
different categories of foreign intelligence.
For anything out of the ordinary - and, again, Flynn's status qualifies - the head of the National Security Division would
be notified, and he or she would bring the raw FISA transcript to FBI Director James Comey or his deputy. Then, the director and
his deputy would determine whether to keep the part of the communication that contained Flynn's words. The NSA has its own procedures
for determining whether to destroy or retain the U.S. half of an intercepted communication.
In this case, there were three sets of communications between Flynn and Kislyak, at least one of which is a text message. The
first occurs on Dec. 18. The last occurs on Dec. 30, a day after sanctions were levied against people that the Russian ambassador
knew - namely, spies posing as diplomats.
The factors FBI Director Comey and his deputy would have had to consider in this case are complex. Flynn was a former senior
intelligence official not in power at the time of the communications, though he did have an interim security clearance. Then there
was the policy context: The United States wanted to know why Russia decided not to retaliate, according to the Washington Post.
(Justice Department warned White House that
Flynn could be vulnerable to Russian blackmail,
officials say https://wpo.st/fthc2 Feb 13)
But the most important factor would have been that Flynn was talking to the ambassador of a country who has been credibly accused
of interfering in the election of his boss. Regardless of the content of Flynn's side of the call, it would be negligent if the
FBI decided to minimize, or ignore, these calls, simply because Flynn is a citizen who is not subject to surveillance himself.
But what Flynn said in the calls would have played a role in the FBI's determination to keep the transcripts unminimized - a fancy
way of saying "unredacted."
The Justice Department would then decide whether to pursue the matter further. If they thought Flynn was acting as an agent
of a foreign government - and there's not a gram of evidence for this - they could apply for a normal surveillance warrant under
Title III of the U.S. code.
It is rare for the FBI or NSA to distribute raw, unminimized FISA material outside of controlled channels. But given the intelligence
questions at stake, they would have had an obligation to circulate the Flynn transcripts to the National Security Council, which,
during most of January, was peopled with President Obama's staff and detailees from other government agencies.
Sometime before January 12, the fact that these conversations had occurred was disclosed to David Ignatius, who wrote about
them. That day, Sean Spicer asked Flynn about them. Flynn denied that the sanctions were discussed. A few days later, on January
16, Vice President Mike Pence repeated Flynn's assurances to him that the calls were mostly about the logistics of arranging further
calls when Trump was President.
At this moment, we are four days away from Trump's inauguration. The FBI agents and analysts who monitored the calls, as well
as some NSC officials in the Obama administration, along with a few senior Justice Department attorneys, all knew with certainty
that the content of the calls contradicted Flynn's account of them. The transcript of the Dec. 30 call proved as much.
For reasons unclear to us, the FBI director, James Comey, did not believe that Flynn's misrepresentations amounted to a sufficient
national security risk on January 16 to spring FBI investigators on the Trump team, or even on Flynn. Perhaps he felt that doing
so right before the inauguration would have been too unseemly.
But he did want to know more. In an extraordinary turn, agents were sent to the White House to interview Flynn just a few days
after Trump was sworn in, according to the New York Times. We don't know what they learned. But by January 26, Comey had dropped
his objections to notifying the White House. (In the interim, Sean Spicer was asked about the calls again, and repeated the Flynn
untruth.)
Acting attorney general Sally Yates informed the White House counsel, Don McGahn, that their account of what Flynn said did
not match what Flynn insisted he said.
McGahn had the clearance to see the transcript, but it's fair to assume that many members of Trump's team probably did not.
But that does not explain why it took 11 days for Vice President Pence, who certainly did have such clearance, to learn about
the Justice Department warning. And it does not explain what the White House was doing as it mulled over this information for
weeks.
Here we have to leave the realm of reasonable conjecture, but the best explanation might be the easiest: incompetence or ineffectiveness
from the White House counsel and an inability to foresee the real world consequences of their own decisions by White House principals.
The country's intelligence agencies, by contrast, were far more clear-sighted in the use of their prerogatives and power.
"... Keynesianism offered important tools for overcoming the economic crisis, but its application by Obama's government was too half-hearted and misdirected (going to banks rather than households) to effectively reduce the recession. Clinton paid the price. ..."
"... We need to work towards a post-capitalist system that aims at promoting equality, enhances instead of destroys the environment, is based on cooperation, and is engaged in planning to achieve short term, medium term, and long-term goals. ..."
"... "The Labour and time of the poor is in civilised countries sacrificed to the maintaining of the rich in ease and luxury. The Landlord is maintained in idleness and luxury by the labour of his tenants. The moneyed man is supported by his extractions from the industrious merchant and the needy who are obliged to support him in ease by a return for the use of his money." ..."
"... "But the rate of profit does not, like rent and wages, rise with the prosperity and fall with the declension of the society. On the contrary, it is naturally low in rich and high in poor countries, and it is always highest in the countries which are going fastest to ruin." ..."
Keynesianism offered important tools for overcoming the economic crisis,
but its application by Obama's government was too half-hearted and misdirected
(going to banks rather than households) to effectively reduce the recession.
Clinton paid the price.
This interview with Walden Bello is based on the article "Keynesianism in
the Great Recession:
Right Diagnosis, Wrong Cure," available here from the Trans National Institute.
Q: What were the main ways in which neoliberalism created the Great
Recession?
A: Neoliberalism sought to remove the regulatory constraints that the state
was forced to impose on capitalist profitability owing to the pressure of the
working class movement.
But it had to legitimize this ideologically. Thus it came out with two very
influential theories, the so-called efficient market hypothesis (EMH) and
rational expectations hypothesis (REH). EMH held that without
government-induced distortions, financial markets are efficient because they
reflect all the available information available to all market participants at
any given time. In essence, EMH said, it is best to leave financial markets
alone since they are self-regulating. REH provided the theoretical basis for
EMH with its assumption that individuals operate on the basis of rational
assessments of economic trends.
These theories provided the ideological cover for the deregulation or "light
touch" regulation of the financial sector that took place in the 1980s and
1990s. Due to a common neoliberal education and close interaction, bankers and
regulators shared the assumptions of this ideology. This resulted in the
loosening of regulation of the banks and the absence of any regulation and very
limited monitoring of the so-called "shadow banking" sector where all sorts of
financial instruments were created and traded among parties.
With so little regulation, there was nothing to check the creation and
trading of questionable securities like subprime mortgage-based securities. And
with no effective monitoring, there were no constraints on banks' build-up of
unsustainable balance sheets with a high debt to equity ratios.
Without adult supervision, as it were, a financial sector that was already
inherently unstable went wild. When the subprime assets were found to be toxic
since they were based on mortgages on which borrowers had defaulted, highly
indebted or leveraged banks that had bought these now valueless securities had
little equity to repay their creditors or depositors who now came after them.
This quickly led to their bankruptcy, as in the case of Lehman Brothers, or to
their being bailed out by government, as was the case with most of the biggest
banks. The finance sector froze up, resulting in a recession-a big one-in the
real economy.
Q: So how did these banks get to be so big and powerful? What drove the
"financialization boom" that triggered the recession?
A: Financialization or an increasing preference for speculative activity
instead of production as a source of profit was driven by four developments.
The first was the abolition, during the Clinton Administration, of the
Glass-Steagall Act that had served as a Chinese Wall between commercial or
retail banking and investment banking, as a result of tremendous pressure from
the big banks felt left out of the boom in trading. The second was the
expansive monetary policy promoted by the Federal Reserve to counter the
downturn following the piercing of the dot.com bubble in the first years of the
new century. Third was the government and business' move to shore up effective
demand by substituting household indebtedness for real wage increases. Fourth
was the lifting of capital controls on the international flow of finance
capital, following the era of financial repression during the post-war period.
These developments acted in synergy, first to produce a speculative boom in the
housing and stock markets, then feeding on one another to accelerate an
economic nose-dive during the bust.
Q: What was the worst impact of the crisis, and upon whom?
A: With unemployment hitting 10 per cent in 2010, working people suffered
the most. Although the unemployment rate is now down to five per cent, that
fall has been driven less by improved labor market conditions than a falling
rate of participation, as discouraged workers withdrew from the labor force.
More than 4 million homes were foreclosed. Lower income households, the main
victims of aggressive loan sharks, suffered most.
As far as growth was concerned, the recovery was tepid, with average GDP
growth barely 2 per cent per annum between 2011 and 2013, less than half the
pace of the typical post-World War II expansion. In terms of inequality, the
statistics were clear: 95% of income gains from 2009 to 2012 went to the top
1%; median income was $4,000 lower in 2014 than in 2000; concentration of
financial assets increased after 2009, with the four largest banks owning
assets that came to nearly 50% of GDP.
An Economic Policy Institute study summed up the trends: "[T]he gains of the
top 1 percent have vastly outpaced the gains for the bottom 99 percent as the
economy has recovered."
At the individual and household level, the economic consequences of being laid
off were devastating; with one study finding that workers laid off during
recessions "lose on average three full years of lifetime income potential." One
estimate showed that the income of the United States would have been $2
trillion higher had there been no crisis, or $17,000 per household.
Q: What did Keynesianism offer as a way of responding to the crisis?
A: Keynesianism offered two major weapons for overcoming the crisis. The
first and most important was a fiscal stimulus, or deficit spending by
government. The second was monetary expansion. Essentially, these were forms of
government intervention designed to revive the economy after a collapse of
investment on the part of the private sector. They are called "countercyclical"
since they are designed to counter the recessionary pressures brought about by
the crisis of the private sector.
Q: How were Keynesian policies and strategies applied in the wake of the
onset of the recession?
A: The Keynesian interventions were in the right direction. Unfortunately,
they were applied half-heartedly by the Obama administration. For instance, the
size of the fiscal stimulus $787 billion might have been enough to prevent the
recession from getting worse, but it was not enough to trigger an early
recovery, which would have demanded at least $1.8 trillion, according to
Cristina Romer, the head of Obama's Council of Economic Advisers.
Expansive monetary policy was always a second best solution and was not as
effective as a fiscal stimulus. Yes, cutting interests to zero and quantitative
easing-or providing banks with infusions of money-did have some impact, but
this was rather small since, for the most part, individuals and corporations
did not want to go further into debt but wanted to focus on lessening their
debt.
Q: What three things could have been done, "truer" to the spirit of
Keynesianism, that would have reduced the recession?
A: First of all, there should have been a much bigger stimulus, one along
the lines of Cristina Romer's proposal of $1.8 trillion. Second, instead of
focusing on saving the banks, the government should have devoted resources to
assisting the millions of troubled homeowners, a move which would have raised
effective demand. Third, the insolvent banks should have been taken over or
nationalized and the billions spent on recapitalizing them or guaranteeing
their borrowing should have been devoted to creating jobs to absorb the
unemployed.
Q: Is financialization still a threat?
A: Yes, even conservative analysts say that the so-called Dodd-Frank reform
encourages moral hazard or reckless behavior by banks owing to their belief
that when they get into trouble, the government will bail them out.
Derivatives-which Warren Buffet called "weapons of mass destruction"-are
still virtually unregulated. And so is the shadow banking sector. The
non-transparent derivatives market is now estimated to total US$707 trillion,
or significantly higher than the US$548 billion in 2008.
As one analyst puts it, "The market has grown so unfathomably vast, the
global economy is at risk of massive damage should even a small percentage of
contracts go sour. Its size and potential influence are difficult just to
comprehend, let alone assess." Former U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
Chairman Arthur Levitt, the former chairman of the SEC, says that none of the
post-2008 reforms has "significantly diminished the likelihood of financial
crises."
Q: What has been the legacy of the crisis on U.S. politics?
A: One can say that the Obama administration's failure to reinvigorate the
economy after eight years and to reform the banks was the central factor that
lost the elections for Hillary Clinton. If there's one certainty that emerged
in the 2016 elections, it was that Clinton's unexpected defeat stemmed from her
loss of four so-called "Rust Belt" states: Wisconsin, Michigan, and
Pennsylvania, which had previously been Democratic strongholds, and Ohio, a
swing state that had twice supported Barack Obama.
The 64 Electoral College votes of those states, most of which hadn't even
been considered battlegrounds, put Donald Trump over the top. Trump's numbers,
it is now clear, were produced by a combination of an enthusiastic turnout of
the Republican base, his picking up significant numbers of traditionally
Democratic voters, and large numbers of Democrats staying home.
But this wasn't a defeat by default. On the economic issues that motivate many
of these voters, Trump had a message: The economic recovery was a mirage,
people were hurt by the Democrats' policies, and they had more pain to look
forward to should the Democrats retain control of the White House.
The problem for Clinton was that the opportunistic message of this demagogue
rang true to the middle class and working class voters in these states, even if
the messenger himself was quite flawed. These four states reflected, on the
ground, the worst consequences of the interlocking problems of high
unemployment and deindustrialization that had stalked the whole country for
over two decades owing to the flight of industrial corporations to Asia and
elsewhere. Combined with the financial collapse of 2007-2008 and the widespread
foreclosure of the homes of millions of middle class and poor people who'd been
enticed by the banks to go into massive indebtedness, the region was becoming a
powder keg of resentment.
True, these working class voters going over to Trump or boycotting the polls
were mainly white. But then these were the same people that placed their faith
in Obama in 2008, when they favored him by large margin over John McCain. And
they stuck with him in 2012, though his margins of victory were for the most
part narrower. By 2016, however, they'd had enough, and they would no longer
buy the Democrats' blaming George W. Bush for the continuing stagnation of the
economy.
Clinton bore the brunt of their backlash, since she made the strategic mistake
of running on Obama's legacy-which, to the voters, was one of failing to
deliver the economic relief and return to prosperity that he had promised eight
years earlier.
Q: In what ways do we need to go beyond Keynesianism to address current
economic and ecological problems?
A: I think Keynesianism has valuable insights into how a capitalist economy
operates and can be steadied so its inherent instability and contradictions can
be mitigated. But, as Minsky says, these solutions do not address the inherent
instability of the system. A new equilibrium contains the seeds of
disequilibrium. With its focus on growth propelled by effective demand,
Keynesianism also has problems addressing the problem of ecological
disequilibrium brought about by growth.
The real issue is capitalism's incessant search for profit that severely
destabilizes both society and the environment. I think there is no longer any
illusion, even among its defenders, that capitalism is prone to crises, and
these days, these are crises that not only stem from the dynamics of production
but from the dynamics of finance.
We need to work towards a post-capitalist system that aims at promoting
equality, enhances instead of destroys the environment, is based on
cooperation, and is engaged in planning to achieve short term, medium term, and
long-term goals. In this scheme, finance would function to link savings to
investment and savers to investors, instead of becoming an autonomous force
whose dynamics destabilizes the real economy. A post-capitalist society does
not mean the elimination of the market. But it does mean making use of the
market to achieve democratically decided social goals rather than having the
market drive society in an anarchic fashion.
But Yobs! EMH is more than just a hypothesis. It's really, really true
stuff. Say Paris Hilton or even some squillionaire heir dude decides to spend a
little pocket change on a brand new pair of self driving, artificial
intelligence, rocket powered yoga pants.
An enterprising Silicon Valley startup will emerge and, with the help of IPO
financing, supply the product 'cause there is demand. It's that simple!
But can they patent their invention, monopolize the market, and defend
their obscene profits with an army of New York and D.C. lawyers circling
around the money machine? If so, count me in!
We need to work towards a post-capitalist system that aims at promoting
equality, enhances instead of destroys the environment, is based on
cooperation, and is engaged in planning to achieve short term, medium term, and
long-term goals.
Not going to happen because there is no long-term goal. That pile of
derivative crap will keep growing forestalling the day the nothing cancer it's
based on metastasis and brings it down, quantitative easing is a placebo.
That's the medium term. In the short term there's Silicon Valley's
monopolization model, run by selfish man-boy innovators stroking the egos of
old greedy politicians who look down on indebted, seduced spend happy
deplorables. The latest video of insecure man-boy Travis Kalanick arguing with
and dismissing the views of one of his drivers "Some people don't like to take
responsibility for their own shit." shows the attitude of the ruling classes
toward the 90% deplorable suckers they're working to con with new
"Innovations".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTEDYCkNqns
The long-term our elites have given up on, smart people they are and as
Chris Hedges has said "know what's coming" as today's news brings warnings of
permafrost gas release. What are our elites solutions? Do as Peter Thiel and
buy citizenship to an island nation, or like those smart people who purchased a
condo in some mid-western abandoned missile silo? Why they have a doctor and
dentist on the condo board has me confused, what no butcher, baker,
candle-stick maker? And then what? After Bannon's apocalyptic melt down come
back home and take an Uber ride to your AirBnB where the doctor's serve up a
delicious gourmet feast?
The Best and Brightest, the ruling class. Time is running out, as the planet
burns.
When you have a finance dominated economy, the uber ceo is the standard
for what the "best and brightest" will become. That youtube video captures
the immaturity, selfishness, and arrogance of this child masquerading as a
man.
If you want things biased in your favour, bias the economics that
everything runs on.
The Classical Economists looked out on a world of small state, basic
capitalism in the 18th and 19th Centuries and observed it. It is nothing like
our expectations today because they are just made up.
Adam Smith in the 18th century:
"The Labour and time of the poor is in civilised countries sacrificed to
the maintaining of the rich in ease and luxury. The Landlord is maintained in
idleness and luxury by the labour of his tenants. The moneyed man is supported
by his extractions from the industrious merchant and the needy who are obliged
to support him in ease by a return for the use of his money."
We still have a UK aristocracy that is maintained in luxury and leisure and
can see associates of the Royal Family that are maintained in luxury and
leisure by trust funds. As these people are doing nothing productive, nothing
can be trickling down, the system is trickling up to maintain them.
Adam Smith in the 18th century:
"But the rate of profit does not, like rent and wages, rise with the
prosperity and fall with the declension of the society. On the contrary, it is
naturally low in rich and high in poor countries, and it is always highest in
the countries which are going fastest to ruin."
Exactly the opposite of today's thinking, what does he mean?
When rates of profit are high, capitalism is cannibalising itself by:
1) Not engaging in long term investment for the future
2) Paying insufficient wages to maintain demand for its products and services
Today's problems with growth and demand.
Amazon re-invested its profits and didn't suck them out as dividends and
look how big it's grown. Ignoring today's economics can work wonders.
The Classical Economists direct observations come to some very unpleasant
conclusions for the ruling class; they are parasites on the economic system
using their land and capital to collect rent and interest to maintain
themselves in luxury and ease (Adam Smith above).
What can these vested interests do to maintain their life of privilege that
stretches back centuries?
Promote a bottom-up economics that has carefully crafted assumptions that hide
their parasitic nature. It's called neoclassical economics and it's what we use
today.
The distinction between "earned" and "unearned" income disappears and the
once separate areas of "capital" and "land" are conflated. The landowners,
landlords and usurers are now just productive members of society and not
parasites riding on the back of other people's hard work.
Unearned income is so easy, it's the UK favourite today.
Most of the UK now dreams of giving up work and living off the "unearned"
income from a BTL portfolio, extracting the "earned" income of generation rent.
The UK dream is to be like the idle rich, rentier, living off "unearned"
income and doing nothing productive.
Powerful vested interests come up with neoclassical economics so that it works
in their favour and only bottom-up economics can be easily corrupted. Top-down
economics is based on real world observation.
Their neoclassical economics blows up in 1929 due to its own internal flaws
but the powerful vested interests still love it as they designed it to work in
their favour.
Keynes comes up with new ideas that herald the New Deal and a way out of the
Great Depression.
The powerful vested interests don't want to lose their beloved neoclassical
economics and fuse it with Keynes ideas to roll out after the war. This gives
them the opportunity to get rid of some of Keynes's more unpleasant
conclusions, generally tone it down and remove all the really obvious conflicts
with their neoclassical economics. The only real Keynesian economics was in the
New Deal.
When the Keynesian synthesis fails in the 1970s, they seize the opportunity
to bring back their really biased neoclassical economics.
It still doesn't work of course.
It's reliance on debt based consumption and debt based speculation, tend to
end in debt deflation, e.g. the Great Depression, today's secular stagnation.
Today's secular stagnation is only being achieved by the Central Banker's
pumping in their trillions to stave off debt deflation and there are plenty of
asset bubbles still to burst.
Supply side economics – when inflation is too high and demand
exceeds supply
Demand side economics – when inflation is too low and supply exceeds demand
Today's economics was a solution to what went before it, as Keynesian
capitalism had ended in the stagflation of the 1970s, but it was far too
extreme.
Looking back with two assumptions:
1) Money at the top is mainly investment capital as those at the top can
already meet every need, want or whim. It is supply side capital.
2) Money at bottom is mainly consumption capital and it will be spent on goods
and services. It is demand side capital.
Pre-1930s – Supply side economics leading to:
Too much investment capital leading to rampant speculation and a Wall Street
crash
Too little consumption capital and demand is maintained with debt.
Leads to Great Depression and the debt deflation of an economy mired in debt
Post-1930s – Demand side economics leading to:
Too little investment capital compared to demand, supply constrained.
Too much consumption capital, leading to very high inflation.
Imbalance causes stagflation.
Post-1980s – Supply side economics leads to:
Too much investment capital leading to rampant speculation and a Wall Street
crash, asset bubbles all over the place.
Too little consumption capital and demand is maintained with debt. Global
aggregate demand is suffering and with such subdued demand there are few places
for real investment leading to more speculation.
Leads to the secular stagnation of the new normal, the assert bubbles have
yet to burst.
Maybe it's just the balance between supply and demand necessary to
achieve that happy medium.
Pre-1930s – Supply side economics – Runs into the debt deflation
of the Great Depression.
Post-1930s – Demand side economics – Runs into stagflation.
Post-1980s – Supply side economics – Runs into the new normal of
secular stagnation as the Central Bankers manage to stave off the
under-lying debt deflation.
Separate money and credit. We have a ridiculous system that requires
credit creation in order to create money, eventually too much credit is
created, but instead of that just being a banking crisis it's also a
monetary and economic crisis. Free your mind a little. Just separate the
two.
German Capitalism was State-sponsored. Siemens & Halske were based in Berlin
and lived off State contracts for railways, telegraphs. French Capitalism was
State-sponsored. English Capitalism was sponsored by Discrimination against
Congregationalists, Quakers, Unitarians, Baptists who were outside the Church
of England and could not therefore go to University or enter Professions under
Test & Corporation Acts 1665. They had to enter Trade. Hence Cadbury, Rowntree,
James Barclay, Samuel Lloyd were Quakers – the latter two forming banks.
Siemens created Deutsche Bank. As for Finance in Germany, Bleichroeder was
Bismarck's banker – the Bauer Family of Frankfurt became Rothschild. The
Finance in London was largely German immigrants – Kleinwort Benson, Sassoons,
Cassel etc.
Britain ultimately lacked investment opportunities because of Free Trade
letting competitors export goods into the UK market but tariffs preventing UK
exports to USA, Germany, Russia, France etc. Hence Capital was exported
building huge foreign investment portfolio through The City – liquidated in 1st
World War
'When the subprime assets were found to be toxic since they were based on
mortgages on which borrowers had defaulted, highly indebted or leveraged banks
that had bought these now valueless securities had little equity to repay their
creditors or depositors who now came after them.'
Interesting interpretation. Unfortunately it bears little relationship to
what actually happened. The financial crisis was a repo crisis. Most
collateralized mortgage obligations had plenty of equity to cover default
losses. Unfortunately, they were by nature opaque and hard to analyze quickly,
and like a murmuration of birds, everyone zigged at the same time, so there
were no buyers. The repo aspect of the crisis was what really counted. Suddenly
repo lenders refused to lend. Investment banks once had longer term financing
in place, but this eroded over the several years prior to the crisis. See Cohan
'House of Cards.' Also Ed Conard's 'Unintended Consequences.'
Anonymous, you are forgetting the role of the massive sub-prime mortgage
fraud that the banks initiated and then the banks foreclosed on those who
had bought the offered mortgages rather than re-negotiate new mortgages.
Forget repo; remember the fraud: forget opaque and hope for transparency
which was in short supply during the crisis. It's all about
the fraud
, you know.
Hmmmm ..let's see if I understand you correctly. It appears that when
everyone thought they were buying lunch, they were buying sh*t sandwiches.
So the problem wasn't that they were being sold sh*t under another name, the
problem was that they weren't willing to buy that sh*t? So if they'd have
been willing to eat sh*t instead of what they thought they were going to
get, everything would have been hunky dory? Ah ..lunch, sh*t, but it's all
the same, huh? Anything for a buck?
This is not correct. I wrote about this in sordid detail in ECONNED, with
the details of the structures, the amounts, and who was exposed.
Subprime CDOs (more accurately, asset backed CDOs, which at the time
happened to consist heavily of BBB- RMBS exposures) were a significant
portion of repo collateral. They went almost without exception to zero.
Those exposures wound up disproportionately at heavily leveraged,
systemically important, and tightly coupled financial institutions. The
Eurobanks loaded up on ABS CDOs because their trader bonus formulas highly
incentivized it (see discussion of "negative basis trade"). AIG and the
monolines were as we know heavily exposed. US investment banks were heavily
exposed by virtue of either being stupidly heavily involved in subprime CDOs
at the worst moment (Citi and Merrill, I explain why/how), Lehman and Bear
by simply being weakly capitalized second tier investment banks that tried
getting to be first tier by going way overweight in total risk terms in RMBS
and doing a bad job of risk management (Bear by extending too much in its
warehouse lines to originators like IndyMac and New Century as well as being
a large CDS player; Lehman by taking on too much risk everywhere, witness
its obvious balance sheet problems in 2008). Morgan Stanley also had a weak
balance sheet and big CDO/RMBS exposures, see AIG trial for details; Goldman
was heavily exposed to ABS CDOs by having too cleverly trying to pick up
extra margin by brokering them to Middle Eastern investors, leaving them
exposed when their AIG hedge was gonna fail.
Yes. repo was the proximate cause, but contrary to your claim, a lot of
the collateral was no good and that was why the repos were not rolled.
People who advocate reindustrialization and manufacturing are out of their
minds. Manufacturing margins are shrinking everywhere. China and Germany are
going to be in deep trouble. Bruce Greenwald, of Columbia Business School, says
that in fifty years most of the things that you buy will be made within fifty
miles of your home. Actually, they may be made in your garage, by you, and you
may not 'buy' them, per se, so much as buy the raw materials and make them.
What's that likely to do for manufacturing jobs?
That 50 mile radius is not only true; it's obvious. Fifty years from
now, all of our roadways and bridges will have crumbled, and so the
transport of finished goods beyond 50 miles of their manufacture will be
nigh on impossible.
Of course the transport of raw materials from their origins to their
points of refinement will also be similarly limited, which means that
most of what most of us use will be made out of sticks.
I'm sitting in my kitchen looking at all the things that are
manufactured, from my fridge, to my clothes, to my car, to my floors, to the
farm equipment I can see outside my window, etc. And heaven knows none of
these things last as long as they used to, so yes, I am going to have to
replace all this some day as is the farmer ..
So yes, there will be manufacturing jobs in the future, and not just within
a 50 mile radius. Perhaps when the actual economy gets better for people in
the lower 90%, they will be more willing to spend money on manufactured
products. But in order for their economy to get better, they are going to
have to be the ones doing the manufacturing, aren't they?
Derivatives are the biggest threat to the financial system.
James Rickards in Currency Wars gives some figures for the loss
magnification of complex financial instruments/derivatives in 2008.
Losses from sub-prime – less than $300 billion
With derivative amplification – over $6 trillion
It was the derivatives that really did the damage; derivatives were the
mechanism that allowed a housing bust in one nation to infect the global
economy.
Derivatives were used as leverage to increase bonuses on the way up and
losses on the way down.
The derivatives market is now bigger than ever, no sensible regulations have
been put in place since 2008.
Where does the real danger come from with derivatives?
Jim Rickards was at the top of LTCM when it collapsed in 1998 and saw how the
collapse in a link of the derivative chains turns losses, from nett to gross
within the system.
Everyone panicked as it was impossible to gauge the size of the losses.
When Lehman Brothers collapsed in 2008, everyone panicked as it was
impossible to gauge the size of the losses.
The same problem ten years later and the same problem will happen next time
as no regulations are in place. Everyone still believes the risk with
derivatives only comes from their nett value as they have learnt nothing from
experience.
Credit Default Swaps are an unregulated insurance product that bought down
AIG in 2008, the largest insurance company in the world. They took the
insurance premiums and didn't put anything aside in case these insurance
policies had to pay out as they weren't regulated.
CDSs are the most dangerous of the derivative products, they bought down AIG
and it all happened in a division in Curzon Street, Mayfair in the UK.
They are zero sum bets, so why do bankers love them?
Both sides think they are taking the right side of the bet and both sides can
post profits until that future bet is realised. They are great for bonuses.
They don't incur any costs up front and allow for enormous leverage, they
are great for bonuses.
Derivatives are the transmission mechanism for crises in one part of the
world to infect the whole global economy.
They interconnect the major banks in a way that has devastating consequences
should one of them fail, this has already been demonstrated by LTCM in 1998 and
Lehman Brothers in 2008.
The nett losses turn to gross losses within the derivatives chains and the
losses are incalculable as these chains are opaque and hard to trace.
We know the biggest threat to the financial system; will anyone do
anything about it?
First of all, there should have been a much bigger stimulus, one along
the lines of Cristina Romer's proposal of $1.8 trillion.
I was just reading accounts of the events leading up to the stimulus
package, and it seems Ms. Tomer was told time and time again that her stimulus
proposals were politically impossible. Is there actual evidence that Obama ever
saw that 1.8 trillion figure? According to Scheiber's book, Summers kept
brushing off Romer's numbers.
If so, the important economic advisors never wanted to fight for what was
necessary at a time when a majority of the US public would have gone along with
anything. They really are just a bunch of careerists.
I have a hard time taking anything said by Christina Romer seriously.
After all, she was one of the authors of the infamous ARRA justification
report that predicted a 10% peak unemployment rate without the stimulus and
a 8% peak unemployment rate with it. That prediction assumed $800 billion in
spending and tax cuts, and
we got
that $800 billion. The
unemployment rate shot past 10% anyway. [Additionally, the return to a 6%
unemployment rate took twice as long as predicted and only reached that
level because of a plummeting labor force participation rate.] The failure
of the predictions in the ARRA justification report were truly
epic
.
Competence matters. The economists working for the White House (Romer
among them) didn't have it.
This is part of why Trump won. The ARRA justification report promised a
glorious V-shaped recovery with 300k to 500k jobs per month. We didn't even
average 200k per month. The ACA promised cheaper health insurance by $2000
per year. Premium rose sharply instead. When you implement grand new plans,
those plans need to ACTUALLY WORK!!
It sounds like Ms. Romer wrote a report which matched the exact amount
that her bosses were going to get from Congress. So she was giving cover
for something that was already decided.
And the ACA is a pile of crap that anyone being involved with should
be ashamed of. Unfortunately since the Federal government is completely
captured by the renter's there is zero chance of reform without a
complete political revolution.
Summers agreed that Romer's analysis was correct, and Summers is the
last person to say that sort of thing. It's in Ron Suskind's book
Confidence Men. He nixed it for political reasons, not economic ones.
Is it not hard to imagine that Romer was pressured to create a model
to sell the deal? Why would her second model be so different from her
earlier one otherwise? That happens all the time in the private sector.
If you haven't seen it, you haven't been looking.
People keep forgetting that a large portion of that $781 billion was in the
form of tax credits weighted towards the usual suspects.
And since the MOTU never let an emergency go to waste, the scrum at the
trough resulted in the actual stimulus being even more anemic than it is
portrayed.
Here in Illinois, which received the second or third highest amount of
stimulus dollars, most of the money was spent on bridge and road repairs.
Yes, those repairs provided some construction jobs, but, otherwise hardly
served to promote the economy for ordinary people. The only really large
project to receive stimulus money here was the destruction of a massive,
abandoned Outboard Marine plant sitting right on the shores of Lake
Michigan. The building was dangerous–and an eyesore–and occupied prime real
estate. Unfortunately, what remains on the site is a low level of rubble.
Apparently, there isn't enough money, or interest, in developing the land to
provide jobs, recreational space, new living accommodations–anything that
might improve people's lives. In other words, the stimulus was used to
repair the old and crumbling, but not to generate new opportunities.
Here's a conundrum which baffles me: Bello writes (as have many before):
"These developments acted in synergy, first to produce a speculative boom in
the housing and stock markets, then feeding on one another to accelerate an
economic nose-dive during the bust."
So we did have our bust in the real estate market, here in California. My
own property, purchased in 2005, dropped about 30% in value in 2008 from its
market high in 2007.
It's nine years later - and my property value is now back up to its 2007
value. So is Los Angeles (and other cities no doubt) back in a "boom" that is
inevitably headed again for a "bust"? It seems to me the economy is worse now
than it was in 2007, and if these prices were an unsupportable boom then, why
wouldn't they be now? And yet we are (so I'm told) in a period of rising
interest rates and tight credit, two things absent the last "boom." I'm
befuddled.
I think Picketty Capitalism has been going on so long that the GFC was
caused by the labor classes being deprived too long, then the banksters
realized it and tried to resuscitate them but it was too late and because
the stimulus was too small even the cure got caught in the implosion
All of the desirable neighborhoods in LA are now well above their 2007
valuations. It seems like pure madness. The way-out exurbs of the Antelope
Valley and the Inland Empire are still lower but almost everything in LA
city limits is considerably higher now than in 2007. Median income for
normal Americans is still lower than in the year 2000, but yet no one seems
to think the market is in another bubble? I share your befuddlement. I
live/rent in LA and I am sitting on a good chunk of cash I would like to put
towards purchasing a home, but I can't bring myself to pay $600k for a 2
bedroom, 1 bath, 1200 square foot, 1950's shit box that some jerk is trying
to flip for a $200,000 profit. I'm still hoping for another housing crash.
The fundamentals of this market are rotten and prices need to come down
before I consider tethering myself to a large, long period mortgage.
Housing is not just about fulfilling our basic human need for security
and warmth, but also our innate powerful tendencies toward aspiration and
speculation.
Sure it is our house, our home, our security etc but for most of us mere
mortals it is our biggest financial outlay and has increasingly come to be
seen in investment terms.
Thus over time property has gradually displaced gold as the major store
of wealth, and this fixation has clearly been exploited accordingly.
Crucially it is also one of the biggest and most effective means for the
debt creation, through mortgages and their numerous spin offs, that
underwrites and drives most modern economies.
So apart from its obvious practical uses, property fulfils many other
functions within economies, many of which used to be filled by gold ie asset
backed promises to pay, but without its numerous obvious limitations. We
can't keep finding or creating more gold to keep up with debt/credit
expansion, but we can keep building more houses, or creating or exploiting
more desirable environments for them for example.
Equally as important, and unlike gold, government can regulate supply.
This ensures that demand ideally outstrips supply to pump the sometimes
apparently illogical price inflation that keeps people chasing the horizon
and thus keep feeding debt/money into the system.
Seems like there should be the discussion that there are two competing
theories running simultaneously here in the US and much of the EU. My
understanding of JMK's theory is that after the expansion of debt and other
financial stimulus to get us out of a recession, that after the recovery Keynes
called for paying off debt through generating surplus that we retire debt in
the form of higher taxes until we reach equilibrium. But that never happened.
You overlay the Neoliberial macro ideology and voila we get tax cuts to the
wealthy instituted by Reagan and Bush43 and austerity for everybody else,
exactly the wrong medicine. Compound the growth of debt by trillions of dollars
spent on never ending wars. The partial embrace of supply-side policy for 35
years accelerated growing government debt, thus causing subsequent economic
crisis.
It is as if our economic policy leaders are bipolar or schizophrenic.
Between this mishmash of conflicting policy and accelerating the uncoupling of
labor from capital and wealth creation, inequality has become endemic and
without change will become much, much worse. Just wait till the BLS U-6
participation number drops to 40% as millions of jobs cease to exist in the
next 20 years while 80% of the wealth will be held by a handful of people. In
this "free market" casino capitalist system with its insider trading, zero sum
wars, and disregard for collateral damage, survival will only happen for a few.
It will be ugly for those trapped in the Kansas silo. Little did George Miller
realize in the late 70's that his Mad Max movie would be a documentary.
Let's see – A gambling addict makes reckless bets using credit and loses
big. His Uncle Sam bails him out and admonishes him to never do it again but
does nothing else to deter future bad behavior.
The casino is still open for business, offering unlimited chips on credit.
Is Walden Bello an Argentinian by any chance? He sounds like my ancient
boyfriend Ezekiel who was the smartest, funniest guy I ever. And he always made
fun of me, my idiocy, and the USA for thinking we were the only answer for
humanity. I loved him, but I was a dummy and I loved him too late. As for this
delightful article, it's better than butter dumplings, I loved it too. I won't
elaborate all the points. It was great. I'm pondering how wise it seems to
demand a post capitalist society which uses the market to achieve democracy and
environmental justice – but I definitely do think it's time has come and we are
ready to go forward with this idea. Thank you for posting this. (versus both
financial and industrial capitalism which both fail to address the shitstorm we
are facing).
Another excellent, very succinct and up to the point expose of Keynesianism,
a condemned by corporate economists, out of fashion economic theory with plenty
of experimental foundations. Mostly the so-called " direct government
investments into the mainstream economy as a methods of increasing an aggregate
economic demand was hypocritically criticized as detrimental to free markets
and free trade, while the same investment in Wall Street financial instruments
was welcomed.
Here is another interesting unique, take what is or may be so-called demand
side economics in the context of Keynesianism which only deals with a fraction
of the issues of the economy in a deflationary spiral.
IS THE END GAME FOR THE SSE RADICALISM NEAR? MAY BE.
"The Supply Side Economics (SSE) did us all. Yes. Under this benign name the
SSE represent an extreme radical and dangerous ideology based on the unfounded
(or rather borrowed) believe that "If we build, they will come" supply side
fantasy that implicitly assumes that the real demand (nominal demand minus
weighted debt incurred while producing the demand) does not need not be of any
concern to the economic, financial and political decision makers, spelling the
decades of doom to the people who work for living and created a paradise for
the parasitic rent seekers, financial oligarchs and their government cronies.
The SSE (Supply Side Economic) was presented in the early seventies as an
alternative to the Keynesian Theory that supposedly was concerned about the
Demand Side Economics (DSE) but in fact it was not [only tangentially]. It
cared mostly about the so-called aggregate demand stimulation initiated
generally through the government investment policies leaving the task of "real
demand" creation on the shoulders of the working people through the organized
labor actions and leftist political movements lobbying the government and
imparting on the government fiscal policies in a way beneficial to the labor
and restricting the power of economic elites.
For the true demand side economic we would need a set of fiscal and economic
and trade policies that would build up the institutional support for completely
different, non financial, assets classes such as: the labor asset class (LAC)
and the natural environment assets class (NRAC) [and more]. The economic,
fiscal and monetary policies of the government in the DSE are [suppose to be]
dedicated to maintain the fair value and stable growth of the above asset
classes while leaving the other financial assets classes exposed to the global
free markets. The true DSE guaranties demand and adjust the supply to fit the
real demand hence no deflationary death spiral is ever possible, and if
value-based [not debt based] monetary system is imposed, no inflationary
pressures may ever develop."
"The non-transparent derivatives market is now estimated to total US$707
trillion, or significantly higher than the US$548 billion in 2008."
Wow! Is this figure real? Not that 548 billion is small sum but I thought
the derivative market in pre-crash '08 was in the neighborhood of 8 trillion?
It's now 707 trillion? That's nearly a hundred-fold increase in 9 years.
Anyone knowledgeable enough on the world derivative market to comment?
$548 trillion – the billion is likely a transcription mistake.
Note the fatuous accuracy, down to the trillion where in the next
paragraph is this.
>As one analyst puts it, "The market has grown so unfathomably vast, the
global economy is at risk of massive damage should even a small percentage
of contracts go sour. Its size and potential influence are
difficult
just to comprehend, let alone assess
."
Basically, no one knows. It could be over a quadrillion (1000 X 1
trillion) or a 1 followed by 15 zeros.
To give these figures a faint wisp of reality, I like using Nimitz class
aircraft carriers as coins of the realm.
$707 trillion would buy 153,420 of them at their original cost of $4.6
billion each, and were they placed end to end would stretch 31,707 miles.
Bernie Sanders: The business of Wall Street is fraud and greed.
What an ironic fate for the ever elegant Czar of style and the chief chair
of the blue blooded aristocracy of Bloomsbury Lord Keynes to be first turned
into 'keynesianism' and then as if it is not enough, to be 'discussed' by low
caste nincompoops in crude English. Alas. The author should not call Trump
opportunistic, pray tell me which capitalistic harlot is not one? He is
constitutionally elected please.
Edward Dodson
10
months ago
The first presenter (Professor Skidensky?) has
described very clearly my own experience as a
student and subsequently as a teacher. Decades ago
when I began my work on a master's degree I
initially chose economics but soon became very
disillusioned by the reliance on mathematics and the
absence of investigation into historical experience
and societal norms. Nor was there any serious
investigation into the validity of propositions put
forward as economic theory. At once time in class I
engaged my economics professor in a long exchange
over the impact of land hoarding and land
speculation in the U.S. economy. After about twenty
minutes he simply ended our exchanged exasperated
because he could not counter the observations made
by evidence offered by real world observations.
Fortunately, my university offered an
interdisciplinary alternative, a Master of Liberal
Arts degree and I switched programs. My course of
study permitted me to read and study the great
political economists, who were all historians and
all moral philosophers. They examined markets,
market forces, and government as a primary
externality, and they reached moral judgments based
on the principles of justice they embraced. Along
the way, I was introduced to the writings of the
great French school of political economists, the
Physiocrats, and to the American Henry George.
George's theory of the business cycle, based on the
classical three factor model of how economies and
societies function, provided to be quite useful in
my later work as a market analyst in the real estate
sector. When I retired from my professional work in
the mid-2000s I gave some thought to entering a
doctorate program in order to acquire the
credentials for college instruction. The very low
probablility of ever securing a full-time teaching
position pushed me in a different direction.
Instead, I developed two courses to teach to senior
adults in a non-credit environment. One is titled
"Understanding our Political Economy." The other is
"The History of Economic Thought." Although I do
introduce basic economic concepts, such as factor of
production and wealth distribution in these two
courses, my students are not required to know or use
mathematics in order to understand such concepts. I
found an introductory economics textbook written by
Professor Harry Gunnison Brown used to teach basic
economics without even one equation in the book.
Each course is two semesters in length is discussion
oriented. My view is that the more I am required to
lecture, the less the students are learning. I am
more than happy to share this course material with
any teacher who is attracted to the
interdisciplinary approach offered by the study of
political economy and by reliance on the classical
three factor model of wealth production and
distribution. I can be reached by email at
[email protected].
"... This article was originally published by INSURGE INTELLIGENCE , a crowdfunded investigative journalism project for the global commons. ..."
"... it vindicated what is routinely lambasted by oil majors as a myth: peak oil - the concurrent peak and decline of global oil production. ..."
"... INSURGE intelligence ..."
"... "Even in a world of slower oil demand growth, we think the biggest long-term challenge is to offset declines in production from mature fields. The scale of this issue is such that in our view rather there could well be a global supply squeeze some time before we are realistically looking at global demand peaking." ..."
"... Business Insider, ..."
"... "If we assumed a decline rate of 5%pa [per year] on global post-peak supply of 74mbd - which is by no means aggressive in our view - it would imply a fall in post-peak supply of c.38mbd by 2030 and c.52mbd out to 2040. In other words, the world would need to find over four times the size of Saudi Arabia just to keep supply flat, before demand growth is taken into account." ..."
"... " the decline-delaying techniques are only masking what could be significantly higher decline rates in the future." ..."
"... will have to ..."
"... " declining average EROIs [Energy Return on Investment] for all fossil fuels; with the EROI of oil having likely halved in the short course of the first 15 years of the 21st century." ..."
"... "The chance of future economic growth matching the current trajectory of the human population is inextricably bound to the wide and growing availability of highly concentrated energy sources enjoying broad applicability to energy end uses." ..."
"... "Global conventional oil peaked around the year 2005. All the following supply increase was due to unconventional oil exploitation and, since 2009, basically to US shale (tight) oil, which in turn peaked around March, 2015. ..."
"... What looks like to be even more important, anyway, is the fact that global oil supply has failed to keep the pace with the increase in total energy consumption, which 'natural' growth requires to be approximately proportional to population increase, leading to the decline of the oil share in the energy mix. While governments have struggled to fuel their economies with ever increasing energy supply, other sources have steadily replaced oil in the energy mix, such as coal in China. Yet, no other conventional source has proved to be a valuable substitute for oil, hence the need for debt in order to replace the vanishing oil share." ..."
"... "Recently, debt has started shrinking, basically because it has failed to generate real wealth. Assuming no meaningful (and fast) transition to renewable energy, the economic growth can only deteriorate further and further." ..."
"... Dr. Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed is an award-winning 15-year investigative journalist, noted international security scholar, bestselling author, film-maker, and creator of INSURGE intelligence , a crowdfunded public interest investigative journalism project. His new book, ..."
"... (Springer, 2017) is a scientific study of how climate, energy, food and economic crises are driving state failures around the world. Please support independent journalism for the global commons for as little as a $1/month via www.patreon.com/nafeez . ..."
This article was
originally published by
INSURGE INTELLIGENCE
, a crowdfunded investigative journalism project
for the global commons.
New scientific
research suggests that the world faces an imminent oil crunch, which will
trigger another financial crisis.
A report by HSBC shows
that contrary to the commonplace narrative in the industry, even amidst
the glut of unconventional oil and gas, the vast bulk of the
world's oil
production has already peaked
and is now in decline; while
European government scientists show that the value of energy produced by
oil has declined by half within just the first 15 years of the
21st century.
The upshot?
Welcome to a new age of permanent economic recession driven by ongoing
dependence on dirty, expensive, difficult oil unless we choose a
fundamentally different path.
*****
Last September, a
few outlets
were reporting the counter-intuitive findings of a new
HSBC research report on global oil supply. Unfortunately, the true
implications of the HSBC report were largely misunderstood.
The HSBC research
note - prepared for clients of the global bank - found that contrary to
concerns about too much oil supply and insufficient demand, the situation
was opposite: global oil supply will in coming years be insufficient to
sustain rising demand.
Yet the full, striking
import of the report, concerning the world's permanent entry into a new
age of global oil decline, was never really explained. The report didn't
just go against the grain that the most urgent concern is 'peak demand':
it vindicated what is routinely
lambasted by oil majors as a myth: peak oil - the concurrent peak and
decline of global oil production.
The HSBC report
you need to read, now
INSURGE intelligence
obtained a
copy of the report in December 2016, and for the first time we are
exclusively publishing the entire report in the public interest.
(Read and/or download the
full HSBC report by
clicking here
.)
Headquarted in
London, UK, HSBC is the world's sixth largest bank, holding assets of
$2.67 trillion. So when they produce a research report for their clients,
it would be wise to pay attention, and see what we can learn.
Among the report's most
shocking findings is that "81% of the world's total liquids production is
already in decline."
Between 2016 and 2020,
non-OPEC production will be flat due to declines in conventional oil
production, even though OPEC will continue to increase production
modestly. This means that by 2017, deliverable spare capacity could be as
little as 1% of global oil demand.
This heightens the risk
of a major global oil supply shock around 2018 which could "significantly
affect oil prices."
The report flatly asserts
that peak demand (the idea that demand will stop growing leaving the
world awash in too much supply), while certainly a relevant issue due to
climate change agreements and disruptive trends in alternative
technologies, is not the most imminent challenge:
"Even in a world of slower oil demand growth, we think the biggest
long-term challenge is to offset declines in production from mature
fields. The scale of this issue is such that in our view rather there
could well be a global supply squeeze some time before we are
realistically looking at global demand peaking."
Gas shortage.
Getty Images
Under the current
supply glut driven by rising unconventional production, falling oil
prices have damaged industry profitability and led to dramatic cut
backs in new investments in production. This, HSBC says, will
exacerbate the likelihood of a global oil supply crunch from 2018
onward.
Four Saudi
Arabias, anyone?
The HSBC report
examines two main data sets from the International Energy Agency and
the University of Uppsala's Global Energy Systems Programme in Sweden.
The latter, it should
be noted, has consistently advocated a global peak oil scenario for
many years - the HSBC report confirms the accuracy of this scenario,
and shows that the IEA's data supports it.
The rate and nature of
new oil discoveries has declined dramatically over the last few
decades, reaching almost negligible levels on a global scale, the
report finds. Compare this to the report's warning that just to keep
production flat against increasing decline rates, the world will need
to add four Saudi Arabia's worth of production by 2040. North American
production, despite remaining the most promising in terms of
potential, will simply not be able to fill this gap.
Business Insider,
the
Telegraph
and other outlets
which covered the report last year acknowledged the supply gap, but
failed to properly clarify that HSBC's devastating findings basically
forecast the long term scarcity of cheap oil due to global peak oil,
from 2018 to 2040.
The report revises the
way it approaches the concept of peak oil - rather than forecasting it
as a single global event, the report uses a disaggregated approach
focusing on specific regions and producers. Under this analysis, 81%
of the world's oil supply has peaked in production and so now "is
post-peak".
Using a more
restrictive definition puts the quantity of global oil that has peaked
at 64%. But either way, well over half the world's global oil supply
consists of mature and declining fields whose production is inexorably
and irreversibly decreasing:
"If we assumed a decline rate of 5%pa [per year] on global
post-peak supply of 74mbd - which is by no means aggressive in our
view - it would imply a fall in post-peak supply of c.38mbd by 2030
and c.52mbd out to 2040. In other words, the world would need to
find over four times the size of Saudi Arabia just to keep supply
flat, before demand growth is taken into account."
A 'Pumps Closed' sign in the window of a petrol station on 42nd
Street and 11th Avenue, New York during a fuel shortage, 19th June
1979. The Mobil Pegasus logo is visible on the right.
Getty Images
What's worse
is that when demand growth
is
taken into account - and the report notes that even the most
conservative projections forecast a rise in global oil demand by
2040 of more than 8mbd above that of 2015 - then even more oil
would be needed to fill the coming supply gap.
But with new
discoveries at an all time low and continuing to diminish, the
implication is that oil can simply never fill this gap.
Technological innovation exacerbates the problem
Much trumpeted
improvements in drilling rates and efficiency will not make things
better,
because they will only accelerate production in the short term
while, therefore, more rapidly depleting existing reserves. In this
case, the report concludes
:
" the decline-delaying techniques are only masking what
could be significantly higher decline rates in the future."
This does
not mean that peak demand should be dismissed as a serious concern.
As Michael Bradshaw, Professor of Global Energy at Warwick
University's Sloan Business School, told me for
my previous VICE article
, any return to higher oil prices will
have major economic consequences.
The HSBC report
takes the position that prices
will have to
rise eventually, because the drop in investment
due to declining profitability amidst the current glut will make a
supply squeeze inevitable. Better and more efficient drilling
creates a glut now: but it also accelerates depletion, meaning that
the lower prices and oil glut today is a precursor of tomorrow's
higher prices and supply squeeze.
There's another
possibility, which could mean that prices don't rise as HSBC
forecasts. In this scenario, the economy remains too weak to afford
an oil price hike. Demand for oil stays low because economic
activity remains tepid, while consumers and investors continue to
seek out alternative energy sources to fossil fuels. In that case,
the very inertia of a weakening economy would pre-empt the HSBC
scenario, and the industry would continue to slowly crush itself
out of the market due to declining profitability.
Price
spikes, economic recession
But what if the
HSBC supply forecast is correct?
Firstly, oil price
spikes would have an immediate recessionary effect on the global
economy, by amplifying inflation and leading to higher costs for
social activity at all levels, driven by the higher underlying
energy costs.
Secondly, even as
spikes may temporarily return some oil companies to potential
profitability, such higher oil prices will drive consumer
incentives to transition to cheaper renewable energy technologies
like solar and wind, which are already
becoming cost-competitive with fossil fuels
.
That means a global
oil squeeze could end up having a dramatic impact on continued
demand for oil, as twin crises of 'peak oil' and 'peak demand' end
up intensifying and interacting in unfamiliar ways.
May 1938: An oilfield of rotary derricks in the USA.
Getty Images
The demise of fossil fuels
The HSBC
report's specific forecasts of global oil supply and demand,
which may or may not turn out to be accurate, are part of a
wider story of global net energy decline.
A new scientific
research paper authored by a team of European government
scientists, published on Cornell University's
Arxiv website
in October 2016, warns that the global economy
has entered a new era of slow and declining growth. This is
because the value of energy that can be produced from the
world's fossil fuel resource base is declining inexorably.
The paper –
currently under review with an academic journal – was authored
by Francesco Meneguzzo, Rosaria Ciriminna, Lorenzo Albanese,
Mario Pagliaro, who collectively conduct research on climate
change, energy, physics and materials science at the Italian
National Research Council (CNR) - Italy's premier government
agency for scientific research.
According to
HSBC, oil prices are likely to rise and stabilize for some time
around the $75 per barrel mark due to the longer term decline in
production relative to persistent demand. But the Italian
scientists find that this is still too high to avoid
destabilizing recessionary effects on the economy.
The Italian
study offers a new model combining "the competing dynamics of
population and economic growth with oil supply and price," with
a view to evaluate the near-term consequences for global
economic growth.
Data from the
past 40 years shows that during economic recessions, the oil
price tops $60 per barrel, but during economic growth remains
below $40 a barrel. This means that prices above $60 will
inevitably induce recession.
Therefore, the
scientists conclude that to avoid recession, "the oil price
should not exceed a threshold located somewhat between $40/b
[per barrel] and $50/b, or possibly even lower."
More broadly,
the scientists show that there is a direct correlation between
global population growth, economic growth and total energy
consumption. As the latter has steadily increased, it has
literally fueled the growth of global wealth.
But even so, the
paper finds that the world is experiencing:
" declining average EROIs [Energy Return on Investment]
for all fossil fuels; with the EROI of oil having likely
halved in the short course of the first 15 years of the 21st
century."
The sunset fades beyond the Hillhouse A, left, and Hillhouse
B oil and gas platforms near the Federal Ecological Reserve
in the Santa Barbara Channel near Santa Barbara, CA.
Getty Images
EROI is
the total value of energy a resource can generate, calculated
by comparing the quantity of energy extracted, to the
quantity of energy put in to enable the extraction.
This means
that overall, despite total liquids production increasing, as
the energy value it generates is declining, the overall costs
of extraction are simultaneously increasing.
This is
acting as an increasing geophysical brake on global economic
growth. And it means the more the economy remains dependent
on fossil fuels, the more the economy is tied to the
recessionary impact of global net energy decline:
"The chance of future economic growth matching the
current trajectory of the human population is inextricably
bound to the wide and growing availability of highly
concentrated energy sources enjoying broad applicability
to energy end uses."
The
problem is that since the 1980s, the share of oil in the
global energy mix has declined. To make up for this, economic
growth has increasingly had to rely on clever financial
instruments based on debt: in effect, the world is borrowing
from the future to sustain our present consumption levels.
In an
interview, lead author Dr. Francesco Meneguzzo explained:
"Global conventional oil peaked around the year 2005.
All the following supply increase was due to
unconventional oil exploitation and, since 2009, basically
to US shale (tight) oil, which in turn peaked around
March, 2015.
What looks like to be even more important, anyway, is
the fact that global oil supply has failed to keep the
pace with the increase in total energy consumption, which
'natural' growth requires to be approximately proportional
to population increase, leading to the decline of the oil
share in the energy mix. While governments have struggled
to fuel their economies with ever increasing energy
supply, other sources have steadily replaced oil in the
energy mix, such as coal in China. Yet, no other
conventional source has proved to be a valuable substitute
for oil, hence the need for debt in order to replace the
vanishing oil share."
On a
business as usual trajectory, then, the economy can quite
literally never recover - unless it transitions to a truly
viable new energy source which can substitute for oil.
"In order to avoid the [oil] price affordable by the global
economy falling below the extraction cost, debt piling
(borrowing from the future) becomes a necessity, yet it is a
mere trick to gain some time while hoping for something
positive to happen," said Meneguzzo. "The reality is that
debt, basically as a substitute for oil, does not work to
produce real wealth, as apparent for example from the decline
of the industry value added as a percentage of GDP."
Where will
this end up?
"Recently, debt has started shrinking, basically
because it has failed to generate real wealth. Assuming no
meaningful (and fast) transition to renewable energy, the
economic growth can only deteriorate further and further."
Basically, this means, Meneguzzo adds, "delocalizing
manufacturing to economies using local, cheaper and dirtier
energy sources (such as coal in China) as well as lower
wages, further shrinking domestic aggregate demand and
fueling a downward spiral of deflation and/or debt."
Is there a
way out? Not within the current trajectory: "Unless that debt
is immediately used to exploit renewable sources on a massive
scale, along with 'accessories' such as storage making them
as qualified as oil, social and political derangements, even
before an economic crash, look to be unavoidable."
What an economic crash might look like.
Getty Images
Crisis convergence
Seen in this
broader scientific context, the HSBC global oil supply report
provides quite stunning confirmation that for the most part,
global oil production is already in post-peak. That much is
incontrovertible, and derived from industry-validated data.
HSBC believes
that after 2018, this is going to manifest in not simply a
global supply shock, but a world in which cheap, high quality
fossil fuels is increasingly hard to find.
We don't need
to accept this forecast dogmatically - the post-peak oil
market, which HSBC confirms now exists, may function
differently than what anyone can easily forecast.
But if HSBC's
forecast is accurate, here's what it might mean. One possible
scenario is that by 2018 or shortly thereafter, the world
will face a similar convergence of global crises that
occurred a decade earlier.
In this
scenario, oil price hikes would have a recessionary affect
that destabilizes the
global debt bubble
, which for some years has been higher
than pre-2008 crash levels, now at a record $152 trillion.
In 2008, oil
price shocks played a key role in creating pre-crisis
economic conditions for consumers in which rising living
costs helped trigger debt-defaults in housing markets, which
rapidly spiraled out of control.
In or shortly
after 2018, economic and energy crisis convergence would
drive global food prices up, re-generating the contours of
the
triple crunch we saw ravage the world from 2008 to 2011
,
the debilitating impacts of which we have yet to recover
from.
2018 is
likely to be crunch year for another reason.
1 January 2018
is the date when a host of new regulations
are set to come in force, which will "constrain lending
ability and prompt banks to only advance money to the best
borrowers, which could accelerate bankruptcies worldwide,"
according to Bloomberg. Other rules to come in play will
require banks to stop using their own international risk
assessment measures for derivatives trading.
Ironically,
the introduction of similar well-intentioned regulation in
January 2008 (through Basel II) laid the groundwork to
rupture the global financial architecture, making it
vulnerable to that year's banking collapse.
In fact, two
years earlier in July 2006, Dr David Martin, an expert on
global finance,
presciently forecast
that Basel II would interact with
the debt bubble to convert a collapse of the housing bubble
into a global financial conflagration.
Just a month
after that prescient warning,
I was told
by a former senior Pentagon official with
wide-ranging high-level access to the US military,
intelligence and financial establishment that a global
banking collapse was imminent, and would likely occur in
2008.
My source
insisted that the event was bound up with the peak of global
conventional oil production about two years earlier (which
according to
the UK's former chief government scientist Sir David King
did indeed occur around 2005, even though unconventional oil
and gas production has offset the conventional decline so
far).
Having first
outlined
my warning of a 2008 global banking collapse in
August 2006, I re-articulated the warning in November 2007,
citing Dr. Martin's forecast and my own wider systems
analysis at a lecture at Imperial College, London. In that
lecture, I specifically predicted that a housing-triggered
banking crisis would be sparked in the context of the new era
of expensive fossil fuels.
I called
it then, and I'm calling it now.
Some time
after January 2018, we are seeing the probability of a new
crisis convergence in global energy, economic and food
systems, similar to what occurred in 2008.
In the end, I
might be wrong. The crash might not happen in exactly 2018.
It might happen later. Or it might be triggered by something
else, something unexpected, that the model outlined here
doesn't capture.
The point of
a forecast is not to be right - but to imagine a potential
scenario based on the data available that one can reasonably
prepare for; and to adjust the model accordingly in light of
new data.
Whether or
not a crash takes place in precisely the way suggested here,
what's clear from the new research is that the economy is
hugely vulnerable to a financial crisis for reasons that
conventional economists don't talk about - reasons relating
to the energy system on which the economy is fundamentally
dependent.
Today, we are
all supposed to quietly believe that the economy is in
'recovery', when in fact it is merely transitioning through a
fundamental global systemic phase-shift in which the
unsustainability of prevailing industrial structures are
being increasingly laid bare.
The truth is
that the cycles of protracted economic crisis are symptomatic
of a deeper global systemic process.
One way we
can brace ourselves for the next crash is to recognise it
broadly for what it is: a symptom of global system failure,
and therefore of the inevitable transition to a post-carbon,
post-capitalist future.
The future we
are stepping into simply doesn't work the way we are
accustomed to.
The old,
industrial era rules for the dying age of energy and
technological super-abundance must be re-written for a new
era beyond fossil fuels, beyond endless growth at any
environmental cost, beyond debt-driven finance.
This year, we
can prepare for the post-2018 resurgence of crisis
convergence by planting seeds - however small - for that
future in our own lives, and with those around us, from our
families, to our communities and wider societies.
Flynn definitely was compromised deliberately, because he just spoke with Russian ambassador as a private person (but may be on
instructions from Trump) and then understanding that lied to the vice president. So releasing his conversations was a part "color revolution"
against Trump, launched by neocons in intelligence services. As for the role of Jews in this affair is is naive to consider neocons
to be purely ethnically based, although "Israel firster" are an important part of them. So in Fred C. Dobbs post below one needs
to replace "Jew" with "Neocon" in Nixon's remarks. You will instantly see the point and it is difficlut nt to agree with Nixon that
neocons influence is huge threat to the USA. In this sense Nixon proved again that his was very talented, pretty shred politician...
Notable quotes:
"... Looks like "Color revolution" came to the USA and you being the US citizen better to learn what it means. And it means a lot (among other things that means an immediate end of remnants of democracy left; Welcome to the USSR, in other words.) ..."
"... Tom Clancy eat your heart out, this is as real as Dennis Kucinitch describes it as. The sinister globalist elite will stop at nothing in establishing their Luciferian dreams of the Novus Ordo Seclorum (New World Order). ..."
"... The old Elites need conflicts, so they can keep power. ..."
"... Yep. Trillion dollar military industrial complex is a lot of motivation for the establishment to revive the cold war and to keep the IC involved in the Saudi's proxy war via ISIS in the middle east. The CIA isn't interested in peace. It wants power. ..."
"... Yes, that appears to be their Operandi--to not only keep us distracted and our resources drained to continually feed their purses and purposes (to confiscate more wealth and usurp more power)...so, now that we are aware of this what are we doing to do to put a stop to it since we are Sovereign, and supposed to be in charge (self-governing). It appears we have not been taking our responsibility seriously and trusting our "servants" whilst they have been plotting and scheming against us. ..."
"... Trump is the last, best hope to disband the US' neolib version of the Gestapo ..."
"... if Clinton won there would never be a political opponent free from her deep state surveillance ..."
"... ... "The Jews are all over the government," Nixon complained to his chief of staff, H.R. "Bob" Haldeman, in an Oval Office meeting recorded on one of a set of White House tapes released yesterday at the National Archives. Nixon said the Jews needed to be brought under control by putting someone "in charge who is not Jewish" in key agencies. ..."
"... Washington "is full of Jews," the president asserted. "Most Jews are disloyal." He made exceptions for some of his top aides, such as national security adviser Henry Kissinger, his White House counsel, Leonard Garment, and one of his speechwriters, William Safire, and then added: ..."
"... "But, Bob, generally speaking, you can't trust the bastards. They turn on you. Am I wrong or right? ..."
"... The fact the nation's now-departed senior guardian of national security was unmoored by a scandal linked to a conversation picked up on a wire offers a rare insight into how exactly America's vaunted Deep State works. It is a story not about rogue intelligence agencies running amok outside the law, but rather about the vast domestic power they have managed to acquire within it. ..."
"... We know now that the FBI and the NSA, under their Executive Order 12333 authority and using the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act as statutory cover, were actively monitoring the phone calls and reading text messages sent to and from the Russian ambassador to the United States, Sergey Kislyak. ..."
"... Although the monitoring of any specific individual is classified TOP SECRET, and cannot be released to foreigners, the existence of this monitoring in general is something of an open secret, and Kislyak probably suspected he was under surveillance. ..."
"... The way it's supposed to work is that any time a "U.S. person" - government speak for a U.S. citizen, lawful permanent resident, even a U.S. company, located here or abroad - finds his or her communications caught up in Kislyak's, the entire surveillance empire, which was designed for speed and efficiency, and which, we now know, is hard to manage, grinds to a halt. That's a good thing. Even before Snowden, of course, the FBI would "minimize" the U.S. end of a conversation if analysts determined that the calls had no relevance to a legitimate intelligence gathering purpose. A late night call to order pizza would fall into this category. ..."
"... But if the analyst listening to Kislyak's call hears someone identify himself as an agent of the U.S. government - "Hi! It's Mike Flynn" certainly qualifies - a number of things have to happen, according to the government's own rules ..."
"... At this stage, the actual audio of the call and any transcript would be considered "Raw FISA-acquired information," and its distribution would be highly restricted. At the NSA, not more than 40 or so analysts or senior managers would be read into the classification sub-sub compartment that contains it, called RAGTIME-A,B,C D or P, where each letter stands for one of five different categories of foreign intelligence. ..."
Is this Intel community trying to undermine Trump's presidency? If so congratulations ask yourself if are living in a modern incarnation
of a police state. Intelligence agencies as a pinnacle of political power == police state.
The swamp lost part of the power and fights back.
Looks like "Color revolution" came to the USA and you being the US citizen better to learn what it means. And it means
a lot (among other things that means an immediate end of remnants of democracy left; Welcome to the USSR, in other words.)
All standard tricks used to depose governments like Yanukovych in Ukraine are now played against Trump. Media dominance is
one essential part. Coordinated series of leaks is a standard scenarios.
Former Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) on Gen. Michael Flynn resigning as President Trump's National Security Advisor and the
divide between the intelligence community and Trump.
"Who knows what is truth anymore. It's like a version of Mad magazine". -- Kusinich
All standard tricks used to depose governments like Yanukovych in Ukraine are now played against Trump.
Media dominance and hostility of media to the government is one essential part of any color revolution. That's what we have
now in the USA. Here is Kucinich warning:
Tom Clancy eat your heart out, this is as real as Dennis Kucinitch describes it as. The sinister globalist elite will
stop at nothing in establishing their Luciferian dreams of the Novus Ordo Seclorum (New World Order). Death to the Globalist/Islamic/Leftist
alliance. Deus Vult!
Mike V
In 2009, the Haitian parliament voted unanimously to raise the minimum wage, up to 61 cents per hour. US-based multinational
textile corporations such as Hanes and Levi's objected, claiming that paying these workers slightly more would cut into their
profits. As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton intervened and pressured Haiti to back off - blocking the raise. We only know
about this from WikiLeaks.
How on Earth is that something a communist would do? Communists want workers to unite and fire their bosses. Communists
want the workers to run the factories. How on God's green Earth does a Communist - who wants the workers to directly control
the means of production - intervene to block a tiny wage increase for those same workers.
Calling corporate Democrats like Clinton and Obama "communist" and "socialist" is so mindbogglingly stupid that I don't
even know how to respond to someone so blinded by partisanship.
Gg Mo
See: The Young Hegelians . CRONY Totalitarian "Communism" is the Goal, and the Minions are screaming for it , in their estrogen
soaked , Marxist indoctrinated IDIOCY.
IT WIZARD
Trump needs to drain the swamp on the Intel community
Joe
The old Elites need conflicts, so they can keep power.
sequorroxx
Yep. Trillion dollar military industrial complex is a lot of motivation for the establishment to revive the cold war
and to keep the IC involved in the Saudi's proxy war via ISIS in the middle east. The CIA isn't interested in peace. It wants
power.
Trisha Holmeide
Yes, that appears to be their Operandi--to not only keep us distracted and our resources drained to continually feed
their purses and purposes (to confiscate more wealth and usurp more power)...so, now that we are aware of this what are we
doing to do to put a stop to it since we are Sovereign, and supposed to be in charge (self-governing). It appears we have not
been taking our responsibility seriously and trusting our "servants" whilst they have been plotting and scheming against us.
Trump is the last, best hope to disband the US' neolib version of the Gestapo. As the Japanese Imperial Army noted, never
invade America there would be a "rifle behind every blade of grass"
In Nixon's day, the Deep State was all about 'Jews in the Guv'mint'. Not gonna happen on Trump's watch, not yet anyway, so that's
something. Now, it's 'Progressives', presumably. Call them NeoLiberals if you like.
... "The Jews are all over the government," Nixon complained to his chief of staff, H.R. "Bob" Haldeman, in an Oval
Office meeting recorded on one of a set of White House tapes released yesterday at the National Archives. Nixon said the Jews
needed to be brought under control by putting someone "in charge who is not Jewish" in key agencies.
Washington "is full of Jews," the president asserted. "Most Jews are disloyal." He made exceptions for some of his top
aides, such as national security adviser Henry Kissinger, his White House counsel, Leonard Garment, and one of his speechwriters,
William Safire, and then added:
"But, Bob, generally speaking, you can't trust the bastards. They turn on you. Am I wrong or right?"
Haldeman agreed wholeheartedly. "Their whole orientation is against you. In this administration, anyway. And they are smart.
They have the ability to do what they want to do--which is to hurt us." ...
The who, what, where, and why of the Trump administration's first major scandal - Michael Flynn's ignominious resignation on
Monday as national security advisor - have all been thoroughly discussed. Relatively neglected, and deserving of far more attention,
has been the how.
The fact the nation's now-departed senior guardian of national security was unmoored by a scandal linked to a conversation
picked up on a wire offers a rare insight into how exactly America's vaunted Deep State works. It is a story not about rogue intelligence
agencies running amok outside the law, but rather about the vast domestic power they have managed to acquire within it.
We know now that the FBI and the NSA, under their Executive Order 12333 authority and using the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Act as statutory cover, were actively monitoring the phone calls and reading text messages sent to and from the Russian ambassador
to the United States, Sergey Kislyak.
Although the monitoring of any specific individual is classified TOP SECRET, and cannot be released to foreigners, the
existence of this monitoring in general is something of an open secret, and Kislyak probably suspected he was under surveillance.
But a welter of laws, many of them tweaked after the Snowden revelations, govern the distribution of any information that is
acquired by such surveillance. And this is where it's highly relevant that this scandal was started by the public leaking of information
about Mike Flynn's involvement in the monitoring of Kisylak.
The way it's supposed to work is that any time a "U.S. person" - government speak for a U.S. citizen, lawful permanent
resident, even a U.S. company, located here or abroad - finds his or her communications caught up in Kislyak's, the entire surveillance
empire, which was designed for speed and efficiency, and which, we now know, is hard to manage, grinds to a halt. That's a good
thing. Even before Snowden, of course, the FBI would "minimize" the U.S. end of a conversation if analysts determined that the
calls had no relevance to a legitimate intelligence gathering purpose. A late night call to order pizza would fall into this category.
But if the analyst listening to Kislyak's call hears someone identify himself as an agent of the U.S. government - "Hi!
It's Mike Flynn" certainly qualifies - a number of things have to happen, according to the government's own rules
At this stage, the actual audio of the call and any transcript would be considered "Raw FISA-acquired information," and
its distribution would be highly restricted. At the NSA, not more than 40 or so analysts or senior managers would be read into
the classification sub-sub compartment that contains it, called RAGTIME-A,B,C D or P, where each letter stands for one of five
different categories of foreign intelligence.
For anything out of the ordinary - and, again, Flynn's status qualifies - the head of the National Security Division would
be notified, and he or she would bring the raw FISA transcript to FBI Director James Comey or his deputy. Then, the director and
his deputy would determine whether to keep the part of the communication that contained Flynn's words. The NSA has its own procedures
for determining whether to destroy or retain the U.S. half of an intercepted communication.
In this case, there were three sets of communications between Flynn and Kislyak, at least one of which is a text message. The
first occurs on Dec. 18. The last occurs on Dec. 30, a day after sanctions were levied against people that the Russian ambassador
knew - namely, spies posing as diplomats.
The factors FBI Director Comey and his deputy would have had to consider in this case are complex. Flynn was a former senior
intelligence official not in power at the time of the communications, though he did have an interim security clearance. Then there
was the policy context: The United States wanted to know why Russia decided not to retaliate, according to the Washington Post.
(Justice Department warned White House that
Flynn could be vulnerable to Russian blackmail,
officials say https://wpo.st/fthc2 Feb 13)
But the most important factor would have been that Flynn was talking to the ambassador of a country who has been credibly accused
of interfering in the election of his boss. Regardless of the content of Flynn's side of the call, it would be negligent if the
FBI decided to minimize, or ignore, these calls, simply because Flynn is a citizen who is not subject to surveillance himself.
But what Flynn said in the calls would have played a role in the FBI's determination to keep the transcripts unminimized - a fancy
way of saying "unredacted."
The Justice Department would then decide whether to pursue the matter further. If they thought Flynn was acting as an agent
of a foreign government - and there's not a gram of evidence for this - they could apply for a normal surveillance warrant under
Title III of the U.S. code.
It is rare for the FBI or NSA to distribute raw, unminimized FISA material outside of controlled channels. But given the intelligence
questions at stake, they would have had an obligation to circulate the Flynn transcripts to the National Security Council, which,
during most of January, was peopled with President Obama's staff and detailees from other government agencies.
Sometime before January 12, the fact that these conversations had occurred was disclosed to David Ignatius, who wrote about
them. That day, Sean Spicer asked Flynn about them. Flynn denied that the sanctions were discussed. A few days later, on January
16, Vice President Mike Pence repeated Flynn's assurances to him that the calls were mostly about the logistics of arranging further
calls when Trump was President.
At this moment, we are four days away from Trump's inauguration. The FBI agents and analysts who monitored the calls, as well
as some NSC officials in the Obama administration, along with a few senior Justice Department attorneys, all knew with certainty
that the content of the calls contradicted Flynn's account of them. The transcript of the Dec. 30 call proved as much.
For reasons unclear to us, the FBI director, James Comey, did not believe that Flynn's misrepresentations amounted to a sufficient
national security risk on January 16 to spring FBI investigators on the Trump team, or even on Flynn. Perhaps he felt that doing
so right before the inauguration would have been too unseemly.
But he did want to know more. In an extraordinary turn, agents were sent to the White House to interview Flynn just a few days
after Trump was sworn in, according to the New York Times. We don't know what they learned. But by January 26, Comey had dropped
his objections to notifying the White House. (In the interim, Sean Spicer was asked about the calls again, and repeated the Flynn
untruth.)
Acting attorney general Sally Yates informed the White House counsel, Don McGahn, that their account of what Flynn said did
not match what Flynn insisted he said.
McGahn had the clearance to see the transcript, but it's fair to assume that many members of Trump's team probably did not.
But that does not explain why it took 11 days for Vice President Pence, who certainly did have such clearance, to learn about
the Justice Department warning. And it does not explain what the White House was doing as it mulled over this information for
weeks.
Here we have to leave the realm of reasonable conjecture, but the best explanation might be the easiest: incompetence or ineffectiveness
from the White House counsel and an inability to foresee the real world consequences of their own decisions by White House principals.
The country's intelligence agencies, by contrast, were far more clear-sighted in the use of their prerogatives and power.
"... This article was originally published by INSURGE INTELLIGENCE , a crowdfunded investigative journalism project for the global commons. ..."
"... it vindicated what is routinely lambasted by oil majors as a myth: peak oil - the concurrent peak and decline of global oil production. ..."
"... INSURGE intelligence ..."
"... "Even in a world of slower oil demand growth, we think the biggest long-term challenge is to offset declines in production from mature fields. The scale of this issue is such that in our view rather there could well be a global supply squeeze some time before we are realistically looking at global demand peaking." ..."
"... Business Insider, ..."
"... "If we assumed a decline rate of 5%pa [per year] on global post-peak supply of 74mbd - which is by no means aggressive in our view - it would imply a fall in post-peak supply of c.38mbd by 2030 and c.52mbd out to 2040. In other words, the world would need to find over four times the size of Saudi Arabia just to keep supply flat, before demand growth is taken into account." ..."
"... " the decline-delaying techniques are only masking what could be significantly higher decline rates in the future." ..."
"... will have to ..."
"... " declining average EROIs [Energy Return on Investment] for all fossil fuels; with the EROI of oil having likely halved in the short course of the first 15 years of the 21st century." ..."
"... "The chance of future economic growth matching the current trajectory of the human population is inextricably bound to the wide and growing availability of highly concentrated energy sources enjoying broad applicability to energy end uses." ..."
"... "Global conventional oil peaked around the year 2005. All the following supply increase was due to unconventional oil exploitation and, since 2009, basically to US shale (tight) oil, which in turn peaked around March, 2015. ..."
"... What looks like to be even more important, anyway, is the fact that global oil supply has failed to keep the pace with the increase in total energy consumption, which 'natural' growth requires to be approximately proportional to population increase, leading to the decline of the oil share in the energy mix. While governments have struggled to fuel their economies with ever increasing energy supply, other sources have steadily replaced oil in the energy mix, such as coal in China. Yet, no other conventional source has proved to be a valuable substitute for oil, hence the need for debt in order to replace the vanishing oil share." ..."
"... "Recently, debt has started shrinking, basically because it has failed to generate real wealth. Assuming no meaningful (and fast) transition to renewable energy, the economic growth can only deteriorate further and further." ..."
"... Dr. Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed is an award-winning 15-year investigative journalist, noted international security scholar, bestselling author, film-maker, and creator of INSURGE intelligence , a crowdfunded public interest investigative journalism project. His new book, ..."
"... (Springer, 2017) is a scientific study of how climate, energy, food and economic crises are driving state failures around the world. Please support independent journalism for the global commons for as little as a $1/month via www.patreon.com/nafeez . ..."
This article was
originally published by
INSURGE INTELLIGENCE
, a crowdfunded investigative journalism project
for the global commons.
New scientific
research suggests that the world faces an imminent oil crunch, which will
trigger another financial crisis.
A report by HSBC shows
that contrary to the commonplace narrative in the industry, even amidst
the glut of unconventional oil and gas, the vast bulk of the
world's oil
production has already peaked
and is now in decline; while
European government scientists show that the value of energy produced by
oil has declined by half within just the first 15 years of the
21st century.
The upshot?
Welcome to a new age of permanent economic recession driven by ongoing
dependence on dirty, expensive, difficult oil unless we choose a
fundamentally different path.
*****
Last September, a
few outlets
were reporting the counter-intuitive findings of a new
HSBC research report on global oil supply. Unfortunately, the true
implications of the HSBC report were largely misunderstood.
The HSBC research
note - prepared for clients of the global bank - found that contrary to
concerns about too much oil supply and insufficient demand, the situation
was opposite: global oil supply will in coming years be insufficient to
sustain rising demand.
Yet the full, striking
import of the report, concerning the world's permanent entry into a new
age of global oil decline, was never really explained. The report didn't
just go against the grain that the most urgent concern is 'peak demand':
it vindicated what is routinely
lambasted by oil majors as a myth: peak oil - the concurrent peak and
decline of global oil production.
The HSBC report
you need to read, now
INSURGE intelligence
obtained a
copy of the report in December 2016, and for the first time we are
exclusively publishing the entire report in the public interest.
(Read and/or download the
full HSBC report by
clicking here
.)
Headquarted in
London, UK, HSBC is the world's sixth largest bank, holding assets of
$2.67 trillion. So when they produce a research report for their clients,
it would be wise to pay attention, and see what we can learn.
Among the report's most
shocking findings is that "81% of the world's total liquids production is
already in decline."
Between 2016 and 2020,
non-OPEC production will be flat due to declines in conventional oil
production, even though OPEC will continue to increase production
modestly. This means that by 2017, deliverable spare capacity could be as
little as 1% of global oil demand.
This heightens the risk
of a major global oil supply shock around 2018 which could "significantly
affect oil prices."
The report flatly asserts
that peak demand (the idea that demand will stop growing leaving the
world awash in too much supply), while certainly a relevant issue due to
climate change agreements and disruptive trends in alternative
technologies, is not the most imminent challenge:
"Even in a world of slower oil demand growth, we think the biggest
long-term challenge is to offset declines in production from mature
fields. The scale of this issue is such that in our view rather there
could well be a global supply squeeze some time before we are
realistically looking at global demand peaking."
Gas shortage.
Getty Images
Under the current
supply glut driven by rising unconventional production, falling oil
prices have damaged industry profitability and led to dramatic cut
backs in new investments in production. This, HSBC says, will
exacerbate the likelihood of a global oil supply crunch from 2018
onward.
Four Saudi
Arabias, anyone?
The HSBC report
examines two main data sets from the International Energy Agency and
the University of Uppsala's Global Energy Systems Programme in Sweden.
The latter, it should
be noted, has consistently advocated a global peak oil scenario for
many years - the HSBC report confirms the accuracy of this scenario,
and shows that the IEA's data supports it.
The rate and nature of
new oil discoveries has declined dramatically over the last few
decades, reaching almost negligible levels on a global scale, the
report finds. Compare this to the report's warning that just to keep
production flat against increasing decline rates, the world will need
to add four Saudi Arabia's worth of production by 2040. North American
production, despite remaining the most promising in terms of
potential, will simply not be able to fill this gap.
Business Insider,
the
Telegraph
and other outlets
which covered the report last year acknowledged the supply gap, but
failed to properly clarify that HSBC's devastating findings basically
forecast the long term scarcity of cheap oil due to global peak oil,
from 2018 to 2040.
The report revises the
way it approaches the concept of peak oil - rather than forecasting it
as a single global event, the report uses a disaggregated approach
focusing on specific regions and producers. Under this analysis, 81%
of the world's oil supply has peaked in production and so now "is
post-peak".
Using a more
restrictive definition puts the quantity of global oil that has peaked
at 64%. But either way, well over half the world's global oil supply
consists of mature and declining fields whose production is inexorably
and irreversibly decreasing:
"If we assumed a decline rate of 5%pa [per year] on global
post-peak supply of 74mbd - which is by no means aggressive in our
view - it would imply a fall in post-peak supply of c.38mbd by 2030
and c.52mbd out to 2040. In other words, the world would need to
find over four times the size of Saudi Arabia just to keep supply
flat, before demand growth is taken into account."
A 'Pumps Closed' sign in the window of a petrol station on 42nd
Street and 11th Avenue, New York during a fuel shortage, 19th June
1979. The Mobil Pegasus logo is visible on the right.
Getty Images
What's worse
is that when demand growth
is
taken into account - and the report notes that even the most
conservative projections forecast a rise in global oil demand by
2040 of more than 8mbd above that of 2015 - then even more oil
would be needed to fill the coming supply gap.
But with new
discoveries at an all time low and continuing to diminish, the
implication is that oil can simply never fill this gap.
Technological innovation exacerbates the problem
Much trumpeted
improvements in drilling rates and efficiency will not make things
better,
because they will only accelerate production in the short term
while, therefore, more rapidly depleting existing reserves. In this
case, the report concludes
:
" the decline-delaying techniques are only masking what
could be significantly higher decline rates in the future."
This does
not mean that peak demand should be dismissed as a serious concern.
As Michael Bradshaw, Professor of Global Energy at Warwick
University's Sloan Business School, told me for
my previous VICE article
, any return to higher oil prices will
have major economic consequences.
The HSBC report
takes the position that prices
will have to
rise eventually, because the drop in investment
due to declining profitability amidst the current glut will make a
supply squeeze inevitable. Better and more efficient drilling
creates a glut now: but it also accelerates depletion, meaning that
the lower prices and oil glut today is a precursor of tomorrow's
higher prices and supply squeeze.
There's another
possibility, which could mean that prices don't rise as HSBC
forecasts. In this scenario, the economy remains too weak to afford
an oil price hike. Demand for oil stays low because economic
activity remains tepid, while consumers and investors continue to
seek out alternative energy sources to fossil fuels. In that case,
the very inertia of a weakening economy would pre-empt the HSBC
scenario, and the industry would continue to slowly crush itself
out of the market due to declining profitability.
Price
spikes, economic recession
But what if the
HSBC supply forecast is correct?
Firstly, oil price
spikes would have an immediate recessionary effect on the global
economy, by amplifying inflation and leading to higher costs for
social activity at all levels, driven by the higher underlying
energy costs.
Secondly, even as
spikes may temporarily return some oil companies to potential
profitability, such higher oil prices will drive consumer
incentives to transition to cheaper renewable energy technologies
like solar and wind, which are already
becoming cost-competitive with fossil fuels
.
That means a global
oil squeeze could end up having a dramatic impact on continued
demand for oil, as twin crises of 'peak oil' and 'peak demand' end
up intensifying and interacting in unfamiliar ways.
May 1938: An oilfield of rotary derricks in the USA.
Getty Images
The demise of fossil fuels
The HSBC
report's specific forecasts of global oil supply and demand,
which may or may not turn out to be accurate, are part of a
wider story of global net energy decline.
A new scientific
research paper authored by a team of European government
scientists, published on Cornell University's
Arxiv website
in October 2016, warns that the global economy
has entered a new era of slow and declining growth. This is
because the value of energy that can be produced from the
world's fossil fuel resource base is declining inexorably.
The paper –
currently under review with an academic journal – was authored
by Francesco Meneguzzo, Rosaria Ciriminna, Lorenzo Albanese,
Mario Pagliaro, who collectively conduct research on climate
change, energy, physics and materials science at the Italian
National Research Council (CNR) - Italy's premier government
agency for scientific research.
According to
HSBC, oil prices are likely to rise and stabilize for some time
around the $75 per barrel mark due to the longer term decline in
production relative to persistent demand. But the Italian
scientists find that this is still too high to avoid
destabilizing recessionary effects on the economy.
The Italian
study offers a new model combining "the competing dynamics of
population and economic growth with oil supply and price," with
a view to evaluate the near-term consequences for global
economic growth.
Data from the
past 40 years shows that during economic recessions, the oil
price tops $60 per barrel, but during economic growth remains
below $40 a barrel. This means that prices above $60 will
inevitably induce recession.
Therefore, the
scientists conclude that to avoid recession, "the oil price
should not exceed a threshold located somewhat between $40/b
[per barrel] and $50/b, or possibly even lower."
More broadly,
the scientists show that there is a direct correlation between
global population growth, economic growth and total energy
consumption. As the latter has steadily increased, it has
literally fueled the growth of global wealth.
But even so, the
paper finds that the world is experiencing:
" declining average EROIs [Energy Return on Investment]
for all fossil fuels; with the EROI of oil having likely
halved in the short course of the first 15 years of the 21st
century."
The sunset fades beyond the Hillhouse A, left, and Hillhouse
B oil and gas platforms near the Federal Ecological Reserve
in the Santa Barbara Channel near Santa Barbara, CA.
Getty Images
EROI is
the total value of energy a resource can generate, calculated
by comparing the quantity of energy extracted, to the
quantity of energy put in to enable the extraction.
This means
that overall, despite total liquids production increasing, as
the energy value it generates is declining, the overall costs
of extraction are simultaneously increasing.
This is
acting as an increasing geophysical brake on global economic
growth. And it means the more the economy remains dependent
on fossil fuels, the more the economy is tied to the
recessionary impact of global net energy decline:
"The chance of future economic growth matching the
current trajectory of the human population is inextricably
bound to the wide and growing availability of highly
concentrated energy sources enjoying broad applicability
to energy end uses."
The
problem is that since the 1980s, the share of oil in the
global energy mix has declined. To make up for this, economic
growth has increasingly had to rely on clever financial
instruments based on debt: in effect, the world is borrowing
from the future to sustain our present consumption levels.
In an
interview, lead author Dr. Francesco Meneguzzo explained:
"Global conventional oil peaked around the year 2005.
All the following supply increase was due to
unconventional oil exploitation and, since 2009, basically
to US shale (tight) oil, which in turn peaked around
March, 2015.
What looks like to be even more important, anyway, is
the fact that global oil supply has failed to keep the
pace with the increase in total energy consumption, which
'natural' growth requires to be approximately proportional
to population increase, leading to the decline of the oil
share in the energy mix. While governments have struggled
to fuel their economies with ever increasing energy
supply, other sources have steadily replaced oil in the
energy mix, such as coal in China. Yet, no other
conventional source has proved to be a valuable substitute
for oil, hence the need for debt in order to replace the
vanishing oil share."
On a
business as usual trajectory, then, the economy can quite
literally never recover - unless it transitions to a truly
viable new energy source which can substitute for oil.
"In order to avoid the [oil] price affordable by the global
economy falling below the extraction cost, debt piling
(borrowing from the future) becomes a necessity, yet it is a
mere trick to gain some time while hoping for something
positive to happen," said Meneguzzo. "The reality is that
debt, basically as a substitute for oil, does not work to
produce real wealth, as apparent for example from the decline
of the industry value added as a percentage of GDP."
Where will
this end up?
"Recently, debt has started shrinking, basically
because it has failed to generate real wealth. Assuming no
meaningful (and fast) transition to renewable energy, the
economic growth can only deteriorate further and further."
Basically, this means, Meneguzzo adds, "delocalizing
manufacturing to economies using local, cheaper and dirtier
energy sources (such as coal in China) as well as lower
wages, further shrinking domestic aggregate demand and
fueling a downward spiral of deflation and/or debt."
Is there a
way out? Not within the current trajectory: "Unless that debt
is immediately used to exploit renewable sources on a massive
scale, along with 'accessories' such as storage making them
as qualified as oil, social and political derangements, even
before an economic crash, look to be unavoidable."
What an economic crash might look like.
Getty Images
Crisis convergence
Seen in this
broader scientific context, the HSBC global oil supply report
provides quite stunning confirmation that for the most part,
global oil production is already in post-peak. That much is
incontrovertible, and derived from industry-validated data.
HSBC believes
that after 2018, this is going to manifest in not simply a
global supply shock, but a world in which cheap, high quality
fossil fuels is increasingly hard to find.
We don't need
to accept this forecast dogmatically - the post-peak oil
market, which HSBC confirms now exists, may function
differently than what anyone can easily forecast.
But if HSBC's
forecast is accurate, here's what it might mean. One possible
scenario is that by 2018 or shortly thereafter, the world
will face a similar convergence of global crises that
occurred a decade earlier.
In this
scenario, oil price hikes would have a recessionary affect
that destabilizes the
global debt bubble
, which for some years has been higher
than pre-2008 crash levels, now at a record $152 trillion.
In 2008, oil
price shocks played a key role in creating pre-crisis
economic conditions for consumers in which rising living
costs helped trigger debt-defaults in housing markets, which
rapidly spiraled out of control.
In or shortly
after 2018, economic and energy crisis convergence would
drive global food prices up, re-generating the contours of
the
triple crunch we saw ravage the world from 2008 to 2011
,
the debilitating impacts of which we have yet to recover
from.
2018 is
likely to be crunch year for another reason.
1 January 2018
is the date when a host of new regulations
are set to come in force, which will "constrain lending
ability and prompt banks to only advance money to the best
borrowers, which could accelerate bankruptcies worldwide,"
according to Bloomberg. Other rules to come in play will
require banks to stop using their own international risk
assessment measures for derivatives trading.
Ironically,
the introduction of similar well-intentioned regulation in
January 2008 (through Basel II) laid the groundwork to
rupture the global financial architecture, making it
vulnerable to that year's banking collapse.
In fact, two
years earlier in July 2006, Dr David Martin, an expert on
global finance,
presciently forecast
that Basel II would interact with
the debt bubble to convert a collapse of the housing bubble
into a global financial conflagration.
Just a month
after that prescient warning,
I was told
by a former senior Pentagon official with
wide-ranging high-level access to the US military,
intelligence and financial establishment that a global
banking collapse was imminent, and would likely occur in
2008.
My source
insisted that the event was bound up with the peak of global
conventional oil production about two years earlier (which
according to
the UK's former chief government scientist Sir David King
did indeed occur around 2005, even though unconventional oil
and gas production has offset the conventional decline so
far).
Having first
outlined
my warning of a 2008 global banking collapse in
August 2006, I re-articulated the warning in November 2007,
citing Dr. Martin's forecast and my own wider systems
analysis at a lecture at Imperial College, London. In that
lecture, I specifically predicted that a housing-triggered
banking crisis would be sparked in the context of the new era
of expensive fossil fuels.
I called
it then, and I'm calling it now.
Some time
after January 2018, we are seeing the probability of a new
crisis convergence in global energy, economic and food
systems, similar to what occurred in 2008.
In the end, I
might be wrong. The crash might not happen in exactly 2018.
It might happen later. Or it might be triggered by something
else, something unexpected, that the model outlined here
doesn't capture.
The point of
a forecast is not to be right - but to imagine a potential
scenario based on the data available that one can reasonably
prepare for; and to adjust the model accordingly in light of
new data.
Whether or
not a crash takes place in precisely the way suggested here,
what's clear from the new research is that the economy is
hugely vulnerable to a financial crisis for reasons that
conventional economists don't talk about - reasons relating
to the energy system on which the economy is fundamentally
dependent.
Today, we are
all supposed to quietly believe that the economy is in
'recovery', when in fact it is merely transitioning through a
fundamental global systemic phase-shift in which the
unsustainability of prevailing industrial structures are
being increasingly laid bare.
The truth is
that the cycles of protracted economic crisis are symptomatic
of a deeper global systemic process.
One way we
can brace ourselves for the next crash is to recognise it
broadly for what it is: a symptom of global system failure,
and therefore of the inevitable transition to a post-carbon,
post-capitalist future.
The future we
are stepping into simply doesn't work the way we are
accustomed to.
The old,
industrial era rules for the dying age of energy and
technological super-abundance must be re-written for a new
era beyond fossil fuels, beyond endless growth at any
environmental cost, beyond debt-driven finance.
This year, we
can prepare for the post-2018 resurgence of crisis
convergence by planting seeds - however small - for that
future in our own lives, and with those around us, from our
families, to our communities and wider societies.
"... He was elected not for his personal qualities, but despite them, as a symbol of anti-neoliberal movement. As the only candidate that intuitively felt the need for the new policy due to crisis of neoliberalism ("secular stagnation" to be exact) impoverishment of lower 80% and "appropriated" anti-neoliberal sentiments. ..."
"... And he is expected to accomplish at least two goals: ..."
"... Stop the wars of expansion of neoliberal empire fought by previous administration. Achieve détente with Russia as Russia is more ally then foe in the current international situation and hostility engineered by Obama administration was based on Russia resistance to neoliberalism ..."
"... Reverse or at least stem destruction of jobs and the standard of living of lower 80% on Americans due to globalization and, possibly, slow down or reverse the process of globalization itself. ..."
"... "And the banks - hard to believe in a time when we're facing a banking crisis that many of the banks created - are still the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill. And they frankly own the place," ..."
"... This is anathema for neoliberalism and it is neoliberals who ruled the country since 1980. So it is not surprising that they now are trying to stage a color revolution in the USA to return to power. See also pretty interesting analysis at ..."
The important mission has been accomplished - Trump has become president. What would motivate
many people to go out for weekend rallies now?
libezkova -> cm... , -1
"The important mission has been accomplished - Trump has become president."
You are absolutely wrong. Mission is not accomplished. It is not even started.
Trump IMHO was just a symbol of resistance against neoliberalism that is growing in the USA.
He was elected not for his personal qualities, but despite them, as a symbol of anti-neoliberal
movement. As the only candidate that intuitively felt the need for the new policy due to crisis
of neoliberalism ("secular stagnation" to be exact) impoverishment of lower 80% and "appropriated"
anti-neoliberal sentiments.
And he is expected to accomplish at least two goals:
Stop the wars of expansion of neoliberal empire fought by previous administration. Achieve
détente with Russia as Russia is more ally then foe in the current international situation and
hostility engineered by Obama administration was based on Russia resistance to neoliberalism
(despite
being neoliberal country with neoliberal President -- Putin is probably somewhat similar to Trump
"bastard neoliberal" a strange mixture of neoliberal in domestic politics with "economic nationalist"
on international arena that rejects neoliberal globalization, on term favorable to multinational
corporations).
Reverse or at least stem destruction of jobs and the standard of living of lower 80% on
Americans due to globalization and, possibly, slow down or reverse the process of globalization
itself.
The problem is there is extremely powerful and influential "fifth column" of globalization
within the country and they can't allow Trump to go this path. As Senator Dick Durbin said about
banks and the US Congress
== quote ==
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) has been battling the banks the last few weeks in an effort to
get 60 votes lined up for bankruptcy reform. He's losing.
On Monday night in an interview with a radio host back home, he came to a stark conclusion:
the banks own the Senate.
"And the banks - hard to believe in a time when we're facing a banking crisis that many
of the banks created - are still the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill. And they frankly
own the place,"
== end of the quote ==
This is anathema for neoliberalism and it is neoliberals who ruled the country since 1980.
So it is not surprising that they now are trying to stage a color revolution in the USA to
return to power. See also pretty interesting analysis at
"... Defense spending in 2016 was $732.3 billion, the president is asking for another $54 billion in 2017, while between 2001 and 2016, $4.79 trillion was spent on or allotted to the cost of the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Syria and on Homeland Security. ..."
"... Curiously there are ever so many people who make a point of always but always understating defense spending by playing all sorts of games from expressly leaving out spending on military field activities as in Afghanistan or Iraq to talking about real or surreal spending so that any ordinary person is made to think spending is tens of billions of dollars less than it actually is. ..."
"... If we look at %GDP I think US expenditures for the defense account included (not all) declined to about 3.9%. SIPRI is a good source for GDP activity. ..."
"... There remains a huge amount of (outlay) backlog to expend from FY 2009 through today. ..."
The dems are like fishermen, baiting the water (and viewership) and then setting the hook to
try to land the fish. They are following the old DC approach of pursuing one hot topic if there
is any potential for a catch.
The reps did that with the e-mails during the campaign and it paid off for them. They landed
the Hillary carp and found that it rotted from the head anyway.
The dems will see what type of fish, or old tire, or whatever, they land.
The Old Man and The Sea it ain't.
Those three neocon stooges wrote a really interesting piece. I would say this can qualify as
a classic anti-Russian propaganda. All major anti-Russian myths are present.
But in the sea of standard propaganda drivel and anti-Russian myths there are a couple of interesting
admissions (it is difficult to lie all the time ;-)
Vladimir Putin, who is quick to accuse the West of hypocrisy, frequently points to this history.
He sees a straight line from the West's support of the anti-Moscow "color revolutions," in Georgia,
Kyrgyzstan, and Ukraine, which deposed corrupt, Soviet-era leaders, to its endorsement of the
uprisings of the Arab Spring.
Five years ago, he blamed Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for the anti-Kremlin protests
in Moscow's Bolotnaya Square. "She set the tone for some of our actors in the country and gave
the signal," Putin said.
"They heard this and, with the support of the U.S. State Department, began active work." (No
evidence was provided for the accusation.) He considers nongovernmental agencies and civil-society
groups like the National Endowment for Democracy, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and
the election-monitoring group Golos to be barely disguised instruments of regime change.
... .. ...
Initially, members of the Russian élite celebrated Clinton's disappearance from the scene,
and the new drift toward an America First populism that would leave Russia alone. The fall of
Michael Flynn and the prospect of congressional hearings, though, have tempered the enthusiasm.
Fyodor Lukyanov, the editor-in-chief of a leading foreign-policy journal in Moscow, said that
Trump, facing pressure from congressional investigations, the press, and the intelligence agencies,
might now have to be a far more "ordinary Republican President than was initially thought."
In other words, Trump might conclude that he no longer has the political latitude to end sanctions
against Moscow and accommodate Russia's geopolitical ambitions. As a sign of the shifting mood
in Moscow, the Kremlin ordered Russian television outlets to be more reserved in their coverage
of the new President.
... ... ...
*An earlier version of this passage wrongly indicated that the U.S. is known to have funded
Russian political parties.
US Budgetary Costs of Wars through 2016: $4.79 Trillion and Counting
Summary of Costs of the US Wars in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and Pakistan and Homeland Security
By Neta C. Crawford
Summary
Wars cost money before, during and after they occur - as governments prepare for, wage, and
recover from them by replacing equipment, caring for the wounded and repairing the infrastructure
destroyed in the fighting. Although it is rare to have a precise accounting of the costs of war
- especially of long wars - one can get a sense of the rough scale of the costs by surveying the
major categories of spending.
As of August 2016, the US has already appropriated, spent, or taken on obligations to spend
more than $3.6 trillion in current dollars on the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Syria
and on Homeland Security (2001 through fiscal year 2016). To this total should be added the approximately
$65 billion in dedicated war spending the Department of Defense and State Department have requested
for the next fiscal year, 2017, along with an additional nearly $32 billion requested for the
Department of Homeland Security in 2017, and estimated spending on veterans in future years. When
those are included, the total US budgetary cost of the wars reaches $4.79 trillion....
Defense spending in 2016 was $732.3 billion, the president is asking for another $54 billion
in 2017, while between 2001 and 2016, $4.79 trillion was spent on or allotted to the cost of the
wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Syria and on Homeland Security.
"Curiously there are ever so many people who make a point of always but always understating
defense spending by playing all sorts of games from expressly leaving out spending on military
field activities as in Afghanistan or Iraq to talking about real or surreal spending so that any
ordinary person is made to think spending is tens of billions of dollars less than it actually
is."
I like the OMB historical tables that reflects outlay/ordering authority that is the checking
account to obligate money which might not show up in GDP expenditures for delivery for years.
Tracking GDP metric is limited in perspective, it shows what was delivered and paid for in
the accounting year. It does not show what is on the order books nor what new stuff is added to
the order books.
If we look at %GDP I think US expenditures for the defense account included (not all) declined
to about 3.9%. SIPRI is a good source for GDP activity.
There remains a huge amount of (outlay) backlog to expend from FY 2009 through today.
Why I am not sure measuring GDP impact without getting some account information on backlog
procurements means much for any country.
Life
Extension for KC 135, C 5, F-16, F-15, F-18, HH 53K models,
C-130
US bases in the US need infrastructure.
But there are a lot of things that should have less!
What Trump needs is to review "strategy", then figure it
out.
But that approach would make him look like FDR.
Reply
Saturday, March 04, 2017 at 01:41 PM
anne said in reply to anne...
Notice, $54 billion is not nearly a 10 percent increase in
military spending. The Pentagon budget is not $600 billion
yearly. Rather, the Pentagon budget in 2016 was $732.2
billion in all.
Reply
Saturday, March 04, 2017 at 01:51 PM
anne said in reply to anne...
$54 / $732 = 7.4%
The increase in military spending
proposed by the president will come to about 7.4% of current
defense spending. I would expect the increase to be augmented
in the course of the year since military spending plans
almost always understate costs and there is reason to think
foreign military operations will continue at least at 2016
levels.
Reply
Saturday, March 04, 2017 at 02:24 PM
This shows Trump and his highest campaign officials at the time complicit in pro-Russian spin
and from those in contact with Russia in the Trump campaign
"Trump Ally Drastically Changes Story About Altering GOP Platform On Ukraine"
By Allegra Kirkland....March 3, 2017....2:16 PM EDT
"In a significant reversal, a Trump campaign official on Thursday told CNN that he personally
advocated for softening the language on Ukraine in the GOP platform at the Republican National
Convention, and that he did so on behalf of the President.nnb877
CNN's Jim Acosta reported on air that J.D. Gordon, the Trump campaign's national security policy
representative at the RNC, told him that he made the change to include language that he claimed
"Donald Trump himself wanted and advocated for" at a March 2016 meeting at then-unfinished Trump
International Hotel in Washington, D.C.
Gordon claimed that Trump said he did not "want to go to World War III over Ukraine" during
that meeting, Acosta said.
Yet Gordon had told Business Insider in January that he "never left" the side table where he
sat monitoring the national security subcommittee meeting, where a GOP delegate's amendment calling
for the provision of "lethal defense weapons" to the Ukrainian army was tabled. At the time, Gordon
said "neither Mr. Trump nor [former campaign manager] Mr. [Paul] Manafort were involved in those
sort of details, as they've made clear."
Discussion of changes to the platform, which drew attention to the ties to a pro-Russia political
party in Ukraine that fueled Manafort's resignation as Trump's campaign chairman, resurfaced Thursday
in a USA Today story. The newspaper revealed that Gordon and Carter Page, another former Trump
adviser, met with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak at the GOP convention.
Trump and his team have long insisted that his campaign had no contact with Russian officials
during the 2016 race, and that they were not behind softening the language on Ukraine in the Republican
Party platform."...
This is not an update re: "Trump's Pro-Russiaism".
This is an update of your complete lack of understanding of political situation.
There was a pretty cold and nasty calculation on Trump's part to split Russia-China alliance
which does threaten the USA global hegemony. Now those efforts are discredited and derailed. Looks
like the US neoliberal elite is slightly suicidal. But that's good: the sooner we get rid of neoliberalism,
the better.
Sill Dems hysteria (in association with some Repugs like war hawks John McCain and Lindsey
Graham) does strongly smells with neo-McCarthyism. McCain and Graham are probably playing this
dirty game out of pure enthusiasm: Trump does not threatens MIC from which both were elected.
He just gave them all the money they wanted. But for Dems this is en essential smoke screen to
hide their fiasco and blame evil Russians.
In other words citing Marx: "History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce. "
This farce of making Russians a scapegoat for all troubles does make some short-term political
sense as it distracts from the fact the Dems were abandoned by its base. And it unites the nation
providing some political support for chickenhawks in US Congress for the next elections.
But in a long run the price might be a little bit too high. If Russian and China formalize
their alliance this is the official end for the US neoliberal empire. Britain will jump the sinking
ship first, because they do not have completely stupid elite.
BTW preventing Cino-Russian alliance is what British elite always tried to do (and was successful)
in the past -- but in their time the main danger for them was the alliance of Germany and Russia
-- two major continental powers.
Still short-termism is a feature of US politics, and we can do nothing against those forces
that fuel the current anti-Russian hysteria.
The evil rumors at the time of original McCarthyism hysteria were that this was at least partially
a smoke screen designed to hide smuggling of Nazi scientists and intelligence operatives into
the USA (McCarthy was from Wisconsin, the state in German immigrant majority from which famous
anti-WWI voice Robert M. La Follette was elected (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_M._La_Follette_Sr.))
So here there might well be also some hidden motives, because everybody, including even you
understands that "Trump is in the pocket of Russians" hypothesis is pure propaganda (BTW Hillary
did take bribes from Russian oligarchs, that's proven, but Caesar's wife must be above suspicion).
What we are witnessing is the truth coming out, too slowly for some of us, but it surely will
come out eventually despite the best efforts of Trump's WH, Gang, and his Republican lackies to
cover it up.
You probably would be better off sticking to posting music from YouTube then trying to understand
complex political events and posting political junk from US MSM in pretty prominent economic blog
(overtaking Fred)
Especially taking into account the fact that English is the only language you know and judging
from your posts you do not have degrees in either economics or political science (although some
people here with computer science background proved to be shrewd analysts of both economic and
political events; cm is one example).
Although trying to read British press will not hurt you, they do provide a better coverage
of US political events then the USA MSM. Even neoliberal Guardian. So if you can't fight your
urge to repost political junk please try to do it from British press.
As for your question: in 20 years we might know something about who played what hand in this
dirty poker, but even this is not given (JFK assassination is a classic example here; Gulf of
Tonkin incident is another)
Life
Extension for KC 135, C 5, F-16, F-15, F-18, HH 53K models,
C-130
US bases in the US need infrastructure.
But there are a lot of things that should have less!
What Trump needs is to review "strategy", then figure it
out.
But that approach would make him look like FDR.
Reply
Saturday, March 04, 2017 at 01:41 PM
anne said in reply to anne...
Notice, $54 billion is not nearly a 10 percent increase in
military spending. The Pentagon budget is not $600 billion
yearly. Rather, the Pentagon budget in 2016 was $732.2
billion in all.
Reply
Saturday, March 04, 2017 at 01:51 PM
anne said in reply to anne...
$54 / $732 = 7.4%
The increase in military spending
proposed by the president will come to about 7.4% of current
defense spending. I would expect the increase to be augmented
in the course of the year since military spending plans
almost always understate costs and there is reason to think
foreign military operations will continue at least at 2016
levels.
Reply
Saturday, March 04, 2017 at 02:24 PM
"... Successful medical coders learn and follow coding guidelines and use them to their benefit. Often if a claim is denied incorrectly, medical coders and billers use coding guidelines as a way to appeal the denial and get the claim paid. ..."
"... Each diagnosis code has to be coded to the highest level of specificity , so the insurance company knows exactly what the patient's diagnosis was. ..."
"... I've helpfully underlined places where an "unusual opportunity for profit" might be spotted and amplified; after all, it's not the coder's job to set policy in borderline cases; that's for management. ..."
"... A pair of transposed digits in a medical identification number was the difference between insurance coverage for Mike Dziedzic and the seemingly never-ending hounding for payment by the hospitals that cared for his dying wife. The astute eye of a medical billing advocate who Dziedzic hired for help caught the innocuous mistake - the sole reason his insurance company had refused to pay more than $100,000 in claims that had piled up and why collectors were now at his doorstep. ..."
"... Had it remained unnoticed - as often happens to patients faced with daunting medical debt - Dziedzic said, he most surely would have lost his Rifle home, his way of life and had little choice but to live in bankruptcy. ..."
"... thousands of providers turned to more expensive Medicare billing codes, while spurning use of cheaper ones. They did so despite little evidence that Medicare patients as a whole are older or sicker than in past years, or that the amount of time doctors spent treating them on average was rising. ..."
"... More than 7,500 physicians billed the two top paying codes for three out of four office visits in 2008, a sharp rise from the numbers of doctors who did so at the start of the decade. Officials said such changes in billing can signal overcharges occurring on a broad scale. Medical groups deny that. ..."
"... The most lucrative codes are billed two to three times more often in some cities than in others, costly variations government officials said they could not explain or justify. In some instances, higher billing rates appear to be associated with the burgeoning use of electronic medical records and billing software. ..."
"... eight of 10 bills its members have audited from hospitals and health care providers contain errors. ..."
"... It's estimated that at least 3 percent of all health care spending – roughly $68 billion – is lost to fraud and billing errors annually. ..."
"... Accounts of medical billing errors vary widely. While the American Medical Association estimated that 7.1 percent of paid claims in 2013 contained an error, a 2014 NerdWallet study found mistakes in 49 percent of Medicare claims. Groups that review bills on patients' behalf, including Medical Billing Advocates of America and CoPatient, put the error rate closer to 75 or 80 percent. ..."
"... Most services don't get paid based on ICD, they get paid based on HCPCs/CPTs (healthcare procedure codes) which is what is shown in the nerdwallet image. Also revenue codes will be used for facility services (such as the room charge in image). ..."
"... ICD-Diaganosis codes just tell you what conditions the provider diagnosed you with. ICD-Procedure codes are sometimes used for payments but usually only on inpatient claims. ..."
From my review of Akerlof and Shiller's Phishing for Phools ,
November 25, 2015 :
As businesspeople choose what line of business to undertake - as well as where they expand,
or contract, their existing business - they (like customers approaching checkout) pick off the
best opportunities. This too creates an equilibrium. Any opportunities for unusual profits are
quickly taken off the table, leading to a situation where such opportunities are hard to find.
This principle, with the concept of equilibrium it entails, lies at the heart of economics.
The principle also applies to phishing for phools. That means that if we have some weakness
or other - some way in which we can be phished for fools for more than the usual profit - in the
phishing equilibrium someone will take advantage of it . Among all those business persons
figuratively arriving at the checkout counter, looking around, and deciding where to spend their
investment dollars, some will look to see if there are unusual profits from phishing us for phools.
And if they see such an opportunity for profit, that will (again figuratively) be the "checkout
lane" they choose.
And economies will have a "phishing equilibrium," in which every chance for profit more than
the ordinary will be taken up.
We might summarize Akerlof and Shiller as "If a system enables fraud, fraud will happen," or,
in stronger form, "If a system enables fraud, fraud will already have happened."[1] And as we shall
see, plenty of "opportunities for unusual profits" exist in medical coding.
Successful medical coders learn and follow coding guidelines and use them to their benefit.
Often if a claim is denied incorrectly, medical coders and billers use coding guidelines as a
way to appeal the denial and get the claim paid.
Hmm. "Their" benefit. Here are the guidelines:
The specificity of the diagnosis code: Each diagnosis code has to be coded to
the highest level of specificity , so the insurance company knows exactly what the
patient's diagnosis was.
The correct reporting of procedure codes: There are too many rules and regulations
to go into here. There are specific ways to code each visit , which help identify
the service that was provided to the patient.
Reasonable and customary charges: Regulating bodies also suggest that providers
charge only "reasonable and customary" rates for their services. This prevents over-inflation
of medical fees.
Procedure code modifiers: When certain procedure codes are sent on the same claim
form, they sometimes require medical billing modifiers , which help differentiate
between the codes that were charged on the date of service.
I've helpfully underlined places where an "unusual opportunity for profit" might be spotted
and amplified; after all, it's not the coder's job to set policy in borderline cases; that's for
management. The
Denver Post gives a horrific example:
Miscoding Fictions, frauds found to abound in medical bills
A pair of transposed digits in a medical identification number was the difference between
insurance coverage for Mike Dziedzic and the seemingly never-ending hounding for payment by the
hospitals that cared for his dying wife. The astute eye of a medical billing advocate who Dziedzic
hired for help caught the innocuous mistake - the sole reason his insurance company had refused
to pay more than $100,000 in claims that had piled up and why collectors were now at his doorstep.
Had it remained unnoticed - as often happens to patients faced with daunting medical debt
- Dziedzic said, he most surely would have lost his Rifle home, his way of life and had little
choice but to live in bankruptcy.
But the Center's analysis of Medicare claims from 2001 through 2010 shows that over time,
thousands of providers turned to more expensive Medicare billing codes, while spurning use of
cheaper ones. They did so despite little evidence that Medicare patients as a whole are older
or sicker than in past years, or that the amount of time doctors spent treating them on average
was rising.
More than 7,500 physicians billed the two top paying codes for three out of four office
visits in 2008, a sharp rise from the numbers of doctors who did so at the start of the decade.
Officials said such changes in billing can signal overcharges occurring on a broad scale. Medical
groups deny that.
The most lucrative codes are billed two to three times more often in some cities than in
others, costly variations government officials said they could not explain or justify. In some
instances, higher billing rates appear to be associated with the burgeoning use of electronic
medical records and billing software.
Now, I'll be the first to admit that I can't quantify the impedance mismatches, the miscoding,
and the upcoding. Regardless, medical coding is
the key dataflow in the healthcare system :
"Roughly $250 billion is moving through those codes," [says Steve Parente, professor of finance
at the Carlson School of Management at the University of Minnesota]. On top of that, about 80%
of medical bills contain errors, according to Christie Hudson, vice president of Medical Billing
Advocates of America, making already-expensive bills higher. Today's complex medical-billing system,
guided by hundreds of pages of procedure codes, allows fraud, abuse and human error to go undetected,
Hudson says. "Until the fraud is detected in these bills the cost of health care is just going
to increase. It's not accidental. We've been fighting these overcharges they continue to happen
and we continue to get them removed from bills." These errors, which are hard to detect because
medical bills are written in a mysterious code, can result in overcharges that run from a few
dollars to tens of thousands.
Experts say there are tens of thousands more like Dziedzic across the country with strangling
medical debts.
Medical Billing Advocates of America, a trade group in Salem, Va., says that eight of 10
bills its members have audited from hospitals and health care providers contain errors.
It's estimated that at least 3 percent of all health care spending – roughly $68 billion
– is lost to fraud and billing errors annually. Some say new reform laws will only make things
worse." Others say that errors occur largely because of "the complexity of deciphering bills and
claims weighted down by complex codes."
Accounts of medical billing errors vary widely. While the American Medical Association
estimated that 7.1 percent of paid claims in 2013 contained an error, a 2014 NerdWallet study
found mistakes in 49 percent of Medicare claims. Groups that review bills on patients' behalf,
including Medical Billing Advocates of America and CoPatient, put the error rate closer to 75
or 80 percent.
Gee, I wonder if the errors are randomly distributed?
Neoliberal "Consumer"-Driven Solutions
My guts have started to gripe, so I won't go into detail about how you too, the citizen
, can learn medical billing codes if you want to dispute your bill. See this cheery post from
NerdWallet
on "How to Read Your Medical Bill :
Once you have the itemized medical bill for your care, you're ready to analyze it for mistakes
and overcharges.
Your medical bill is going to be chock-full of codes and words you may not understand, so the
first step is gathering resources that will translate them into plain English.
One useful adjunct to the coding discussion concerns other billing details such as meds. There
is wide variability in prices charged, and when you see $160 for a single pill (e.g., Hexabrix)
or $26 for a single Tylenol, then something is not right. Of course, that does not include any
allocation for nurses, pharmacy or other potential costs, since those are rolled into other line
items to decipher. When hospital billing reps are asked about the reasonability and basis of their
charges, they spout the canned line about being in line with their local competitors.
Why not have some program with mutual insurance companies, removing in theory some of the profit
that is driving the typical health care insurers?
Most services don't get paid based on ICD, they get paid based on HCPCs/CPTs (healthcare
procedure codes) which is what is shown in the nerdwallet image. Also revenue codes will be used
for facility services (such as the room charge in image).
ICD-Diaganosis codes just tell you what conditions the provider diagnosed you with. ICD-Procedure
codes are sometimes used for payments but usually only on inpatient claims.
_________________________________
Additionaly, coding also affects "risk adjustment" in Medicare Advantage and ACA payments and
this form of payment does use ICD codes. They use the codes on the claims to determine how "sick"(has
conditions that will cost more) each member is and give insurers more or less money based on the
average risk scores of their members. Since it relies on coding this system is also subject to
gaming.
In Medicare Advantage this is done relative to non-Medicare Advantage population, so if the
MA plans are upcoding they get more money from Federal government. In 2010 CMS was given the ability
to use some adjustment factors to MA payments to address the issue but I don't really know how
effective it is.
In ACA this is done relative to all the other insurers in the individual/small group market(so
all the money is changing hands between the insurers). More established plans generally do better
since they have more data on members from before ACA to make sure they get coded in addition to
resources they probably built from Medicare Advantage. This ends up disadvantaging smaller and
newer plans like co-ops.
_____________
"... " the U.S. debt remains , as it has been since 1790, a war debt : the United States continues to spend more on its military than do all other nations on earth put together, and military expenditures are not only the basis of the government's industrial policy; they also take up such a huge proportion of the budget that by many estimations, were it not for them, the United States would not run a deficit at all ..."
"... One element, however, tends to go flagrantly missing in even the most vivid conspiracy theories about the banking system , let alone in official accounts: that is, the role of military power . ..."
"... Karl Marx wrote Das Capital in an attempt to demonstrate that, even if we start from the economists' utopian vision, so long as we also allow some people to control productive capital, and, again, leave others with nothing to sell but but their brains and bodies, the results will be in very many ways barely distinguishable from slavery, and the whole system will eventually destroy itself . ~ David Graeber ..."
" the U.S. debt remains , as it has been since 1790, a war debt : the United States continues
to spend more on its military than do all other nations on earth put together, and military
expenditures are not only the basis of the government's industrial policy; they also take up
such a huge proportion of the budget that by many estimations, were it not for them, the United
States would not run a deficit at all
The essence of U.S. military predominance in the world is, ultimately, the fact that it
can, at will, drop bombs, with only a few hours' notice, at absolutely any point on the surface
of the planet
In fact, a case could well be made that it is this very power that holds the entire world monetary
system, organized around the dollar, together
One element, however, tends to go flagrantly missing in even the most vivid conspiracy theories
about the banking system , let alone in official accounts: that is, the role of military power
. There's a reason why the wizard has such a strange capacity to create money out of nothing.
Behind him there is a man with a gun
Karl Marx wrote Das Capital in an attempt to demonstrate that, even if we start from the
economists' utopian vision, so long as we also allow some people to control productive capital,
and, again, leave others with nothing to sell but but their brains and bodies, the results
will be in very many ways barely distinguishable from slavery, and the whole system will eventually
destroy itself . ~ David Graeber
"... Allen Dulles masterminded the coup that turned Iranian prime minister Mohammad Mossadegh out of office and installed the Shah on the Peacock Throne. Less than a year later he presided over the operation that ousted Guatemalan president Jacobo Arbenz. He set in motion plots to assassinate Gamal Abdel Nasser in Egypt, Sukarno in Indonesia, Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam, Patrice Lumumba in the Congo, and Fidel Castro in Cuba. He delegated to his deputy, Richard Bissell, leadership of the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba. ..."
"... Corporate greed is not new but for members of the US Congress and the Administartion to support corporate interests over Americans safety and put money ahead of the protection of the people of our country as well as the people of other nations is a violation of our US Constitution and these people should not be immune from prosecution. G.W. Bush destroyed the infrastructure of an entire country and he killed hundreds of thousand of innocent citizens just so Brown & Root and Halliburton, V.P. Cheney's company, could receive billions of dollars of US taxpayer monies to rebuild the very infrastructure that Bush destroyed that provided the life support for the people of Iraq. ..."
"... George W. Bush asked the question after 9/11-- "Why do they hate us?" The answer he came up with was, "Because of our Freedoms." When you read this book, you come face to face for the real reasons THEY (most of the rest of the world) hate us. It's because these Bush's "freedoms" are only for the United States, no other non-white, non-Christian, non-corporate cultures need apply. ..."
"... The missionary Christian, Corporatism of the Dulles Brothers--John, the former head of the largest corporate law firm in the world, then Secretary of State, and his brother Allen, the head of the CIA all the way from Korea through Vietnam -- constitutes the true behavioral DNA of America-in-the-world. It's enough to make you weep for the billions of people this country has deprived of freedom and security for the last sixty years. ..."
"... This book is, in fact, a MUST READ... for anyone who wants to know what their taxes have paid for in the last half century--for anyone who wants to know just exactly why the rest of the world wants either to attack us or throw us out of their countries. And a must read for anyone who no longer wishes their "representatives" in Washington to keep facilitating the stealing and killing all over the world and call it American Exceptionalism. ..."
"... Foster promptly works on a policy of "rollback" to replace the "containment" policy of Truman and Kennan. ..."
"... The 1953 coup of democratically elected Mohammed Mosaddegh in Iran was similar in the sense that it was made more urgent by Mosaddegh's nationalization of British oil interests after the Brits refused to let Mosaddegh audit their books or negotiate a better deal. ..."
"... Kinzer writes that Foster saw a danger in a country like Iran becoming prosperous and inspiring others toward neutrality that might result in eventual creep toward the USSR, hence he and others like him had to be eliminated. How much the coup was driven to help the UK is unknown. The blowback from intervention in South America and Iran has since come back to haunt the US in the form of skepticism and greater Leftist angst against the US and the 1979 overthrow of the Shah. ..."
"... This type of neutrality was against the Dulles' worldview, and in his memoir, Sukarno lamented "America, why couldn't you be my friend?" after the CIA spent a lot of manpower trying to topple his regime in 1958. There was also the training of Tibetan rebels in Colorado in 1957 and the ongoing plot to assassinate Congo's Lumumba, given with Ike's consent. ..."
"... Allen Dulles' reign at CIA reads like the nightmare everyone worried about "big government" warns you about. Experiments interrogating prisoners with LSD, the purchase to the movie rights of books like The Quiet American in order to sanitize them, planting stories in major newspapers, planting false documents in Joseph McCarthy's office to discredit him, along with the private armies and escapades. Dulles comes under official criticism by Doolittle, who wrote that he was a bad administrator, bad for morale, and had no accountability-- all of which was dismissed by Eisenhower who saw Allen as the indispensible man. ..."
"... When Castro seizes power in Cuba, the Eisenhower Administration made it official policy to depose him. ..."
"... Dulles' last act was on the Warren Commission investigating JFK's assassination. This was problematic because Dulles' goal was to keep CIA assassination operations in Cuba a secret. Kinzer writes of Lyndon Johnson's desire to make Oswald a lone gunman with no political attachments, which brings us to a whole other story. ..."
"... I was surprised that President Eisenhower, whose administration is commonly thought to be one of tranquility, approved toppling governments and assassinating leaders. In some ways, he was the front man, for instance urging Congress to approve funds for "maintenance of national independence" but really for fomenting a coup in Syria and installing a king in Saudi Arabia to get US friendly governments to oppose Gamal Nasser (p. 225). ..."
"... the story of these two scions of an American aristocratic family, who were fully steeped in Calvinistic Protestantism (and it's capitalist ethic) and unquestioningly convinced of American Exceptionalism and it's Manifest Destiny to lead the world and make it safe for democracy and American Business ..."
"... It is an exposition of the quintessential, archetypical American (WASP) mindset, worldview or psychology that has motivated our collective international behavior over the past six or seven decades. ..."
"... All State employees that don't hew the line are regularly fired or transferred to obscure jobs or roles and in place are pro-CIA hardliners. ..."
"... There is much here that further condemns Eisenhower. In many cases he fully supported and endorsed their plans while pretending not to, fully employing the most cynical of strategies; "plausible deniability". ..."
"... Having read the 2012 Eisenhower biography by Jean Edward Smith I was surprised here by the wealth of information that ties Eisenhower more directly to clandestine activities and their purposes. Particularly disappointing is his continues build up for the Bay of Pigs invasion in Cuba after Kennedy's election but before he took office and will little effort to brief the incoming president. Similarly our Vietnam involvement in the 1950's was so deep already as to make a Kennedy pullout far more difficult. ..."
"... There is much here about these issues and the corrupt relationships between the Dulles's prior careers at Sullivan and Cromwell and their support of private interests while working at State and the CIA ..."
"... At the heart of the story is the unfortunate belief by the brothers that if a country was not totally in agreement with American philosophy they were against us. Any nationalist leaders of a former colonial nation that believed in land reform or neutrality on the international scene had to be evil and must be destroyed. If they were not with us, they had to be communist. This American foreign policy changed the history of the Middle East, Southeast Asia, Africa and Central America. ..."
"... Its interesting to note that Kinzer asserts that on the death of Chief Justice Fred Vinson in 1953, Eisenhower offered the position of Chief Justice to John Foster Dulles. According to Kinzer, Dulles turned it down because he wanted to stay at the State Department. The story has always been that Ike had promised Earl Warren the first seat on the Supreme Court in exchange for his support in the 1952 election - Warren had been out maneuvered by Richard Nixon to get the bid for the vice presidency. How different legal history would have been had John Foster Dulles become Chief Justice! ..."
"... Author Stephen Kinzer explores the unique situation in which the intelligence gathering agency is also an actor. Throughout he illustrates how the relationship of their leaders enabled two agencies that would normally question and check each other, to work in seamless harmony to carry out the covert operations that both saw as primary instruments of American power. Behind them was President Eisenhower who had used covert operations during World War II and who approved their actions. In the end the author posits that the policies were the President's and the brothers were more his servants than his masters. ..."
One of them was the most powerful US Secretary of State in modern times. The other built the
CIA into a fearsome engine of covert war. Together, they shaped US foreign policy in the 1950s,
with tragic consequences that came to light in the decades that followed. These were the Dulles
brothers, Foster and Allen, born and reared in privilege, nephews of one Secretary of State and
grandsons of another.
What they did in office
Allen Dulles masterminded the coup that turned Iranian prime minister Mohammad Mossadegh
out of office and installed the Shah on the Peacock Throne. Less than a year later he presided
over the operation that ousted Guatemalan president Jacobo Arbenz. He set in motion plots to assassinate
Gamal Abdel Nasser in Egypt, Sukarno in Indonesia, Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam, Patrice Lumumba in
the Congo, and Fidel Castro in Cuba. He delegated to his deputy, Richard Bissell, leadership of
the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba. Later, out of office, he chaired the Warren Commission
on the assassination of John F. Kennedy. "'From the start, before any evidence was reviewed, he
pressed for the final verdict that Oswald had been a crazed gunman, not the agent of a national
and international conspiracy.'"
Foster Dulles repeatedly replaced US ambassadors who resisted his brother's assassination plots
in countries where they served. Pathologically fearful of Communism, he publicly snubbed Chinese
foreign minister Chou En-Lai, exacerbating the already dangerous tension between our two countries
following the Korean War. The active role he took in preventing Ho Chi Minh's election to lead
a united Vietnam led inexorably to the protracted and costly US war there. He reflexively rejected
peace feelers from the Soviet leaders who succeeded Josef Stalin, intensifying and prolonging
the Cold War. Earlier in life, working as the managing partner of Sullivan & Cromwell, the leading
US corporate law firm, Foster had engineered many of the corporate loans that made possible Adolf
Hitler's rise to power and the growth of his war machine.
What does it mean now?
At half a century's remove from the reign of the formidable Dulles brothers, with critical
documents finally coming into the light of day, we can begin to assess their true impact on US
history and shake our heads in dismay. However, during their time in office that spanned the eight
years of Dwight Eisenhower's presidency and, in Allen's case, extended into Kennedy's, little
was known to the public about about Allen's activities (or the CIA itself, for that matter), and
Foster's unimaginative and belligerent performance at State was simply seen as a fair expression
of the national mood, reflecting the fear that permeated the country during the most dangerous
years of the Cold War.
Diving deeply into recently unclassified documents and other contemporaneous primary sources,
Stephen Kinzer, author of The Brothers, has produced a masterful assessment of the roles played
at the highest levels of world leadership by these two very dissimilar men. Kinzer is respectful
throughout, but, having gained enough information to evaluate the brothers' performance against
even their own stated goals, he can find little good to say other than that they "exemplified
the nation that produced them. A different kind of leader would require a different kind of United
States."
Their unique leadership styles
To understand Foster's style of leadership, consider the assessments offered by his contemporaries:
Winston Churchill said "'Foster Dulles is the only case I know of a bull who carries his own china
shop around with him.'"
Celebrated New York Times columnist James Reston "wrote that [Foster] had become a 'supreme
expert' in the art of diplomatic blundering. 'He doesn't just stumble into booby traps. He digs
them to size, studies them carefully, and then jumps.'"
Senator William Fulbright, chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said Foster "misleads
public opinion, confuses it, [and] feeds it pap." "A foreign ambassador once asked Foster how
he knew that the Soviets were tied to land reform in Guatemala. He admitted that it was 'impossible
to produce evidence' but said evidence was unnecessary because of 'our deep conviction that such
a tie must exist.'" (Sounds similar to the attitude of a certain 21st-century President, doesn't
it?)
Allen, too, comes up very, very short: "He was not the brilliant spymaster many believed him
to be. In fact, the opposite is true. Nearly every one of his major covert operations failed or
nearly failed . . . [Moreover,] under Allen's lackadaisical leadership, the agency endlessly tolerated
misfits." He left the CIA riddled with "lazy, alcoholic, or simply incompetent" employees.
Stephen Kinzer was for many years a foreign correspondent for the New York Times, reporting
from more than fifty countries. The Brothers is his eighth nonfiction book. It's brilliant.
W. J. Haufon June 27, 2014
Without John Foster Dulles There Would Have Been No Hitler and No Nazi Germany!
After the Treaty of Versailles mandated the imposition of incredibly severe monetary reparations
on Germany, John Foster Dulles in the 1930s, as a partner in his law firm of Sullivan and Cromwell,
assembled a coalition of banks to lend Germany over $1 trillion, (in today's dollars), supposedly
for them to pay these reparations. Had Foster not organized these massive bank loans to Hitler's
Germany and organized the sale of raw materials such as cobalt to fabricate armor plating to build
Germany's war machine, there would have been no Nazi war machine or an Adolf Hitler to kill millions
of Americans, ally troops and civilians in a war that would have never happened.
As a reward our government appointed John Foster Dulles as Secretary of State so he could continue
his war against democracy by orchestrating the overthrow of democratically elected leaders such
as the Prime Minister of Iran to restore the Shah, and then continuing his reign of terror against
other democratically elected governments such the CIA overthrow of the President of Guatemala
in 1954 by his brother Allen, Director of the CIA, and installing a US controlled puppet President
so the United Fruit could continued its monopolistic hold on the banana industry in that country
and eventually throughout Central and South America and the Caribbean.
Oh did I mention that JFD was a stockholder in United Fruit. Corporate greed is not new
but for members of the US Congress and the Administartion to support corporate interests over
Americans safety and put money ahead of the protection of the people of our country as well as
the people of other nations is a violation of our US Constitution and these people should not
be immune from prosecution. G.W. Bush destroyed the infrastructure of an entire country and he
killed hundreds of thousand of innocent citizens just so Brown & Root and Halliburton, V.P. Cheney's
company, could receive billions of dollars of US taxpayer monies to rebuild the very infrastructure
that Bush destroyed that provided the life support for the people of Iraq.
Our Founding Fathers would never had fought to build a country of democratic principals if
they knew that the political representatives in this country would worship money and support corporate
greed over American human rights and freedoms.
G.W. Bush said that the attacks on 9-11 were because "they hate our freedoms". What a disgrace
for a President to lie and not say it was because we have been interfering and overthrowing democratically
elected governments for decades. Shame on you Mr. Bush, but you will meet your Maker one day and
you can explain why you killed so many people just so you and your friends could receive billions
of dollars in profits. "May God Have Mercy on Your Very Soul"
Mike Feder/Sirius XM and PRN.FM Radio on October 11, 2013
Best Political/Historical Book in Years
You know those reviews clips, headlines or ads that say "Must Read" or, "...if you only read
one book this year..."
I have to say, with all the books I've read before and am reading currently, this one is absolutely
the most eye-opening, informative and provocative one I've come across in many years.
And--after all I've read about American politics and culture--after all the experts I've interviewed
on my radio show... I shouldn't be shocked any more. But the scope of insanity, corruption and
hypocrisy revealed in this history of the Dulles brothers is, in fact, truly shocking.
Just when you thought you knew just how bad the United States has been in the world, you come
across a history like this and you suddenly become aware of the real depths to which "our" government
has sunk in subverting decency, freedom and democracy all over the world.
George W. Bush asked the question after 9/11-- "Why do they hate us?" The answer he came
up with was, "Because of our Freedoms." When you read this book, you come face to face for the
real reasons THEY (most of the rest of the world) hate us. It's because these Bush's "freedoms"
are only for the United States, no other non-white, non-Christian, non-corporate cultures need
apply.
The missionary Christian, Corporatism of the Dulles Brothers--John, the former head of
the largest corporate law firm in the world, then Secretary of State, and his brother Allen, the
head of the CIA all the way from Korea through Vietnam -- constitutes the true behavioral DNA
of America-in-the-world. It's enough to make you weep for the billions of people this country
has deprived of freedom and security for the last sixty years.
I grew up practically in love with America and the Declaration of Independence. When I was
a kid the USA had just beaten the Nazis. I saw the picture of the marines raising the flag at
Iwo Jima. I knew men in my neighborhood that had liberated concentration camps.
But they never taught us the real history of America in high school and barely at all in college.
If they had given us a clear picture of our true history, there never would have been a Vietnam
in the first place--and no Iraq or Afghanistan either; Global Banks wouldn't have gotten away
with stealing all our money and crashing our economy and Christian fundamentalist and corporate
puppets wouldn't have taken over our government.
Karma is real. You can't steal a whole country, kill and enslave tens of millions of human
beings, assassinate democratically elected leaders of countries, bribe and corrupt foreign governments,
train the secret police and arm the military of dictators for decades-- You cannot do all this
and escape the judgment and the punishment of history.
This book is, in fact, a MUST READ... for anyone who wants to know what their taxes have
paid for in the last half century--for anyone who wants to know just exactly why the rest of the
world wants either to attack us or throw us out of their countries. And a must read for anyone
who no longer wishes their "representatives" in Washington to keep facilitating the stealing and
killing all over the world and call it American Exceptionalism.
I'll also add that Stephen Kinzer is also a terrific writer; clear, articulate, factual and
dramatic. His inside the inner circle revelations of the Dulles brothers and their crimes is morbidly
page-turning.
Chris on October 11, 2013
The Dark-side of American foreign policy
The American people and the world at large still feel the reverberations from the policies
and adventures of the Dulles' brothers. They are in part to blame for our difficult relations
with both Cuba and Iran. This history helps answer the question, "Why do they hate us?" The answer
isn't our freedom, it's because we try to topple their governments.
The Dulles brother grew up in a privileged, religious environment. They were taught to see
the world in strictly black and white. Both were well-educated at Groton and the Ivy League schools.
Both worked on and off in the government, but spent a significant amount of time at the immensely
powerful law firm, Sullivan & Cromwell. They had virtually identical world views but nearly opposite
personalities. (John) Foster was dour, awkward, and straight-laced. Allen was outgoing, talkative,
and had loose morals.
There's no need for a blow-by-blow of their lives in this review. The core of the book revolves
around Foster Dulles as the Secretary of State under Eisenhower and Allen as the Director of the
CIA The center of the book is divided into six parts, each one dealing with a specific foreign
intervention: Mossaddegh of Iran, Arbenz of Guatemala, Ho Chi Minh of Vietnam, Lumumba of the
Congo, Sukarno of Indonesia and Castro of Cuba.
The Dulles view was that you were either behind the US 110% or a communist, with no room for
neutrals. Neutrals were to be targeted for regime change. The author lays out explicitly all the
dirty tricks our government tried on other world leaders, from poison to pornography. This dark
side of American foreign policy can help Americans better understand our relationships with other
countries.
My difficulty with this book is the final chapter. The author throws in some pop-psychology
such as; people take in information that confirms their beliefs and reject contradictory information,
we can be confident of our beliefs even when we're wrong, etc. The Dulles brothers are definite
examples of these psychological aspects. Then the author says the faults of the Dulles brothers
are the faults of American society, that we are the Dulles brothers. I felt like a juror in a
murder trial during the closing statements, "It's not my client's fault, society is to blame!"
In most of America's foreign adventures, the American people have been tricked with half-truths
and outright lies. Further more, these men received the best educations and were granted great
responsibility. They should be held to a higher standard than "Oh well, everyone has their prejudices."
I agree with the author that the public should be more engaged in foreign policy and have a
better understanding of our history with other nations. However, I think he goes too far in excusing
their decisions because they supposedly had the same beliefs as many Americans.
Harry Glasson August 24, 2015
So Eisenhower wasn't really a "do nothing" president, but based on this book, I wish he had
done less.
This is the most interesting and important book I have read in the past twenty or more years.
Most Americans, myself included, considered John Foster Dulles a great Secretary of State, and
few ordinary people knew Allen Dulles or had any idea how the CIA came to be what it is.
Learning the facts as they have been gradually made public by those who were witnesses, and
others who researched and wrote about the behavior of the United States during the height of the
Cold War has been an enlightening and saddening experience. I was in high school during Eisenhower's
first term, in college during his 2nd term, in the Air Force during JFK's time in office and deployed
to Key West during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis.
My view of America was the same as that of most Americans. I was patriotic. I bought into the
fear of Communist world dominance and the domino theory. But there was much that was being done
in the name of fighting Communist domination around the world that was monumentally counterproductive,
and contrary what we consider to be some of our basic principles.
This book helps fill important gaps in my knowledge. I highly recommend it to anyone who would
like to know what really was going on during the Cold War, its impact on where we are today, and
Kinzer's take on why it happened that way.
Mcgivern Owen L on August 15, 2015
The Cold War at it Core
This reviewer generally takes careful notes while he reads-the better to compose a future review.
In the case of "The Brothers", he was drawn right into the flow of the story.
"The Brothers" covers the period from the late 1940s to the mid -1960s when John Foster Dulles
was the powerful Secretary of State and Allen Dulles was the Director of the Central Intelligence
Agency. They fermented regime changes in Iran. Guatemala, Indonesia, the Belgian Congo and Iran.
And, as many know by now, Cuba as well. The troubles they stirred up in Iran and Cuba persist
to this day. The book jacket also states that the Dulles' "led the United States into the Vietnam
War..." That statement is unproven within these pages. The Vietnam conflict was vastly too complicated
to be reduced to one sentence.
"The Brothers" is sharply written and well documented. There are 55 pages of end notes in a
328 pages of text. Author Kinzer ostensibly turns on the brothers for all their regime changing
activities. He then reverses course and arrives at a most sensible elucidation: The brothers Dulles
were a product of their times and "exemplified the nation that produced them". A different kind
of leader would require a different United States". This reviewer can live with that sentiment.
There was a deadly serious Cold War in session during this period the brothers Dulles were
at the core. Author Kinzer deserves credit for capturing the essence of that era as well as he
does.
Amazon Customer on August 10, 2015
Informative and entertaining while also scary. Author oversimplifies, omits much about diplomacy
besides the Cold War.
This is my third Kinzer book (The Crescent and the Star and Reset), he is a master at spinning
off new books from research collected while writing other books. This work peels back the cover
on U.S. covert and overt foreign policy in the 1950s and what happens when two brothers have too
much power within an Administration that has the public's trust and far too little of its scrutiny.
It is a joint biography of John Foster Dulles and Allen Dulles who were Secretary of State (1953-1958)
and CIA Director (1953-1961), respectively.
Some reviewers have pointed out that Kinzer tends to oversimplify his message. For example,
Eisenhower and Dulles' overthrow of Mohammed Mosadegh, for example, may have had something to
do with our needing Britain's support in SE Asia more than simply a crusade to eliminate anyone
who was not clearly "for us" or "against the Communists." This book covers some of the territory
of Trento's Prelude to Terror, Perkin's controversial Confessions of an Economic Hitman and the
similar compilation A Game as Old as Empire. You may not believe what you read here as the facts
certainly seem more like fiction. Did the U.S. really (clumsily) secretly spend blood and treasure
to try and subvert governments on every continent? How many assassinations and overthrows did
Eisenhower surreptitiously give the go-ahead on? Eisenhower essentially comes across as a monster
from our 2015 vantage point. But is he any different than a President Obama who is given intelligence
and orders drone strikes to assassinate enemies of U.S. foreign policy? You be the judge. This
book speaks volumes about what is learned by declassification of documents over time. I will say
that I read a great biography on George Kennan last year and there appears to be little overlap;
Kennan's foreign policy may have been too dovish for the Dulles, but he had helped create the
precursor to the CIA, the Office of Policy Creation, on which both Dulles brothers worked--this
connection gets no attention from Kinzer. Much of the diplomatic effort during the Cold War--
which did exist-- at this time are left unmentioned by Kinzer, which is problematic.
The Dulles family grew up with an international mindset. One grandfather (John W. Foster) was
an Ambassador (before that title was formalized) to several countries, including Russia, before
becoming Secretary of State.The other was a missionary to India. They had other family connections
working in diplomacy and such a career seemed just fine to them. Their father was a conservative
Presbyterian minister who had an awkward relationship with his wayward children. Kinzer writes
that the boys (and their younger sister) essentially saw America as the City on a Hill that was
bringing light to the nations through democracy and capitalism.
Studying at Princeton hitched them to the rising star of Woodrow Wilson, who they adored.
Sister Eleanor deserves her own biography, she was a pioneer as a PhD female economist who did
relief work in WWI, attended Bretton Woods after WWII, and made her own career in diplomatic service.
John Foster (Foster henceforth) attended the Paris peace conference with Wilson and was disappointed
with the outcome, both he and Eleanor arguing along with J.M. Keynes that the German reparations
were simply setting the stage for the next European war. At the time, Foster was working in international
law for U.S. business interests, and even supposedly ghostwrote a rebuttle to Keynes' book to
serve his own interests. Foster's law firm designed the legal arrangements by which U.S. firms
could profit off the German reparations, which allowed him to be wealthy even during the Great
Depression. He was the more religious of the bunch and was mostly faithful to his wife.
Meanwhile, Allen Dulles was serving in the newly-formed Foreign Service while sleeping with
as many women as would have him. In a "What would have been?" moment of history Allen reportedly
brushed off meeting Vladimir Lenin, after Lenin supposedly called him just before Lenin went to
St. Petersburg for the Russian Revolution, in order to engage in a soiree with a couple of blonde
Swiss females. His own sister recounts that he had "at least a hundred" affairs, and his wife
approved of some and disapproved of others. A sign of the times, they remain married although
she probably miserably. This continued on all through his CIA years and makes one wonder why recent
CIA chief David Petraeus had to resign for anything.
Kinzer interestingly calls Wilson out for being a hypocrite, citing his inconsistent application
of the doctrine of self-determination. While that doctrine stirred nationalist sentiment in Eastern
Europe and the Middle East, Wilson obviously didn't apply it to the Philippines, Hawaii, or other
U.S.-occupied territories. Nonetheless, the three sibling Wilson devotees attend the Paris peace
talks together. Foster returns to his law firm where he's made a full partner while Allen remains
in the Foreign Service until joining the firm himself in 1926.
The author ignores much of Foster's religious interest and involvement in these years. Foster
changed his mind several times in life, whether in his religious devotions or from isolationist
to interventionist. Interestingly, Foster was a German sympathizer and refused to believe any
tales being produced about the Nazis as his firm had many German business interests. Allen disagreed
strongly after touring Germany himself, and after Germany began defaulting on its debts the firm
severed ties.
Allen Dulles built up his network through the law firm, the Council on Foreign Relations, and
his old Foreign Service contacts and made a fortune molding business deals for European connections,
including those in Nazi Germany. After the U.S. enters the war, Dulles is recruited by "Wild Bill"
for the new OSS, becoming the first OSS officer behind enemy lines, sneaking into Switzerland
to do so. He meets with all sorts of characters while feeding intelligence to the U.S., much of
which was false, but enough was helpful enough to expand his reputation. Of course, he has many
affairs, including a long one with a woman his wife approved of and shared with him. Interestingly,
when the Valkyrie operation was launched by German traitors to kill Hitler and restore order,
Dulles was the main contact with the U.S. relaying news back to Washington. The participants wanted
to sue for peace, but FDR officially rejected the olive branch and Dulles was not allowed to negotiate
on any such olive branch. After the War, Truman abolishes the OSS.
Foster helps draft the U.N. Charter and becomes an internationalist, seeing world peace as
a Christian ideal. Foster apparently contributed to the "Six Pillars of Peace" outline by the
Federal Council of Churches in 1942. He eventually reverses after the Iron Curtain falls, becoming
a militant anti-Communist and seeing the USSR as truly and evil empire, the antithesis of everything
American. Reinhold Niebuhr eventually pens critiques of Foster as he begins to promote a black-and-white
vision of the world.
Both brothers backed the Dewey campaign in 1948, which left them disappointed. However, Dewey
appoints Foster Dulles to fill a void in the Senate, which immediately elevates Foster into a
higher realm, although he promptly loses the special election for the seat. Nonetheless, he is
appointed to the State Department by Truman and impresses people in negotiating the final treaty
with Japan in 1950. This makes him a good choice for Secretary of State when Eisenhower is elected
in 1952, and Foster promptly works on a policy of "rollback" to replace the "containment"
policy of Truman and Kennan.
However, Kinzer also writes that NSC-68, a top secret foreign policy strategy signed by Truman
in 1950, was monumental in militarizing the response to the USSR and that the Dulles operated
under an NSC-68 mindset. "A chilling decree" according to Kinzer, NSC-68 called for a tripling
of defense spending in order to prevent Soviet influence from overtaking the West. Allen Dulles
was appointed the first civilian director of the CIA and the die was cast.
The 1950s roll like the Wild West, with Eisenhower signing off on expensive operations, assassinations,
and propaganda campaigns at home and abroad. Supposedly, more coups were attempted under Eisenhower
than in any other administration, and recently declassified documents show that Dulles' CIA actively
engaged in Eisenhower-warranted assassination plots in the Congo and elsewhere. Perhaps Richard
Bissell, Eisenhower's enforcer is more to blame than Kinzer allows. The CIA-backed 1954 coup in
Guatemala was actually initiated by Truman years earlier, but demonstrated Eisenhower's resolve.
"Once you commit the flag, you've committed the country." Dulles' secret armies in Guatemala and
the Philippines needed U.S. airpower for support. If the media went with a story exposing operations,
or a pilot was shot down, it didn't matter-- the mission must succeed once the U.S. was committed.
The CIA even used religious-based propaganda in Guatemala to foment political change, having priests
on the CIA payroll publish editorials denouncing Communism.
Guatemala also showed the intersection of U.S. business interests and foreign policy. The coup
was encouraged by the United Fruit Company, which had been a client of the Dulles' NY law firm
and Allen Dulles had served on its Board of Directors; others in the Eisenhower Administration
had ties. While Guatemala's president was democratically elected, he was a leftist, and anyone
showing Leftist sympathies was to be eliminated, particularly in the Western hemisphere. The
1953 coup of democratically elected Mohammed Mosaddegh in Iran was similar in the sense that it
was made more urgent by Mosaddegh's nationalization of British oil interests after the Brits refused
to let Mosaddegh audit their books or negotiate a better deal. Kinzer writes, however, that
Foster in particular was unable to see anyone as "neutral." Mosaddegh believed in democracy and
capitalism and could have been an ally, but Mosaddegh and others like Egypt's Nasser were nationalists
who favored neither the US nor the USSR, but courted deals from both. Kinzer writes that Foster
saw a danger in a country like Iran becoming prosperous and inspiring others toward neutrality
that might result in eventual creep toward the USSR, hence he and others like him had to be eliminated.
How much the coup was driven to help the UK is unknown. The blowback from intervention in South
America and Iran has since come back to haunt the US in the form of skepticism and greater Leftist
angst against the US and the 1979 overthrow of the Shah.
Ho Chi Minh had initially offered the US an olive branch after WWII and was not opposed to working
with US interests, but the more he was rebuffed the more he turned to harder Communism. John Foster
Dulles apparently hated the French for abandoning Vietnam, and never forgave them. While Eisenhower
did not want to replace the French in Vietnam, he eventually warmed to the idea as Foster promoted
the "domino theory" that if one nation fell victim to Communism then others would soon follow
and the eventual war would widen. Better to install brutal dictators as in Iran and South Vietnam
than let a country fall. Another enemy was Sukarno in Indonesia who was trying to thread the needle
between democracy, socialism, nationalism, and Islam. This type of neutrality was against
the Dulles' worldview, and in his memoir, Sukarno lamented "America, why couldn't you be my friend?"
after the CIA spent a lot of manpower trying to topple his regime in 1958. There was also the
training of Tibetan rebels in Colorado in 1957 and the ongoing plot to assassinate Congo's Lumumba,
given with Ike's consent.
Allen Dulles' reign at CIA reads like the nightmare everyone worried about "big government"
warns you about. Experiments interrogating prisoners with LSD, the purchase to the movie rights
of books like The Quiet American in order to sanitize them, planting stories in major newspapers,
planting false documents in Joseph McCarthy's office to discredit him, along with the private
armies and escapades. Dulles comes under official criticism by Doolittle, who wrote that he was
a bad administrator, bad for morale, and had no accountability-- all of which was dismissed by
Eisenhower who saw Allen as the indispensible man.
Eventually both John Foster Dulles and Eisenhower become old and unhealthy, Eisenhower suffering
a heart attack in 1955 and Foster dying of cancer in 1959. Allen Dulles' libido slows slightly
as age takes its toll and he becomes more detached from operations at the CIA, creating a more
dangerous situation. When Castro seizes power in Cuba, the Eisenhower Administration made
it official policy to depose him. While Dulles was officially in charge at the CIA, he was
far detached from the details of the anti-Castro operations which the media had exposed and continued
at great risk of failure.
Newly-elected JFK inherits the Bay of Pigs invasion plans and faces a political dilemma: Back
off and be accused of sparing Castro since the government was invested in success, or go forward
and risk a disaster. Unlike Eisenhower, Kennedy would not consent to air support or other official
military measures to help the CIA's army once it landed, dooming the operation. Those closest
to the operation begged Dulles and others to cancel the operation to no avail. Dulles was enjoying
a speaking engagement elsewhere in the region, giving the appearance of attachment to the operation
while being completely oblivious to its failure. The White House forced him to resign in 1961.
Dulles' last act was on the Warren Commission investigating JFK's assassination. This was
problematic because Dulles' goal was to keep CIA assassination operations in Cuba a secret. Kinzer
writes of Lyndon Johnson's desire to make Oswald a lone gunman with no political attachments,
which brings us to a whole other story.
Kinzer concludes the book with armchair psychology, writing that the Dulles brothers succummed
to cognitive biases, including confirmation bias. They saw everything in the world as they wanted
to, and not as it was. They were driven by a missionary Calvinism and the ideal of American Exceptionalism
that clouded their lenses. They also seemed to consider themselves infallible in their endeavors.
Ultimately, "they are us," writes Kinzer, which is why it is important to learn from them. The
parallels with recent American military and para-military endeavors is also clear, but Kinzer
lets the reader make those comparisons.
I learned a great deal from the history of this book, studying the Dulles is an integral part
in studying the execution of American foreign policy in the Cold War. Some of the omissions, simplifications,
and psychoanalysis mar the book somewhat. 3.5 stars out of 5.
Doug Nort, on April 23, 2015
Too Much Passion;Too Few Facts
This book is marred by Kinzer's repeated overstatements and failures to marshal facts to support
his theses about the Dulles brothers.
His failure to persuade me begins early: In the introduction Kinzler wrote of the naming of
Washington's Dulles airport: "The new president, John F. Kennedy, did not want to name an ultra-modern
piece of America's future after a crusty cold-war militant." He provides no documentation that
Kennedy himself thought that. Given that JFK was proud of his own credentials as a cold warrior,
it is unlikely that was his objection. It is much more likely his objection (or that of the staffer
speaking for him in the matter) was that Foster Dulles was an iconic figure of the Eisenhower
administration-which Kennedy and his New Frontiersmen viewed as having made a hash of things-or
that he was a stalwart of the Republican Party, or that Dulles disapproved of a Catholic becoming
president. Kinzler apparently thinks his sweeping statement is self-evident but it isn't to me.
A few pages later Kinzler gives us another hint that the pages to come will contain sweeping,
unsupported generalizations. He wrote "The story of the Dulles brothers is the story of America."
My goodness, didn't they share their times with FDR and Ralph Bunche and Dwight Eisenhower and
Tom Watson and A. Phillip Randolph and George Marshall and a host of others who, although coming
from backgrounds quite different from the brothers Dulles, are just as much the American story?
The accomplishments and peccadillos of two brothers with an upper-class pedigree is hardly "the
story of America."
Chapter eleven contains several such unsupported or historically blinkered generalizations.
At one point (sorry-I'm a Kindle reader, no page numbers), after noting "the depth of fear that
gripped many Americans during the 1950s." Kinzler asserts that "Foster and Allen were the chief
promoters of that fear." Crowning the brothers as chief fear-mongers ignores some powerful other
voices: Khrushchev, Joe McCarthy, General Curtis Lemay, Nixon, Churchill, Drew Pearson, Robert
Welch and his John Birch Society-the list could continue.
At another point Kinzler says, "They [the brothers] never imagined that their intervention[s]
. . . would have such devastating long-term effects." He cites Vietnam, Iran falling into violently
anti-American leadership, and the Congo descending "into decades of horrific conflict." Regarding
Vietnam, I think most historians would say that JFK, LBJ, and McNamara bear much, much more responsibility
than do the Dulles brothers. As for their Iran and Congo sins, I believe those developments were
much more due to unpredictable consequences than to the Dulles' blindness. Yogi is right: "Predictions
are hard, especially about the future."
And on the same page (excuse me "location") Kinzler is quite certain that "Their lack of foresight
led them to pursue reckless adventures that, over the course of decades, palpably weakened American
security." The reader who already believes that will nod and read on while the reader who expects
this ringing declaration to be followed by specifics that provide powerful support will read it
and say, like the customer in the fast food ad, "where's the beef?"
OK, enough already. Kinzler's writing obviously pushed my buttons and I wouldn't have finished
the book but for it being a selection of my book club. I am fine with criticism of people and
policies when well-documented-for example Michael Oren's Power, Faith and Fantasy-but I lose patience
with book-length op-ed pieces such as The Brothers.
Dale P. Henkenon, April 6, 2015
Cuba Si! Yankee No!
If a work based on Cold War history could construct a case against American (U.S.) exceptionalism,
The Brothers by Stephen Kinzler would be a strong candidate. It illustrates the dangers of a coupling
of foreign policy and covert operations involving what we now know as regime change.
It is a story of the Dulles brothers and coups arranged by the executive branch triad composed
of the President (Ike) and the dynamic duo of the Dulles brothers as Secretary of State and Director
of the CIA (without congressional oversight) in Guatemala, Iran, Cuba, Indonesia, the Congo and
Vietnam.
It is a story that deserved to be told and it is told well. It is somewhat slow going at the
start and one-dimensional but is a captivating read regardless. It is not a rigorous biography
or history of the era and the events it depicts. It is driven by the thesis that our actions in
the developing world even though driven by anti-communism or American idealism or Christian fundamentalist
fervor (all were involved) can have baleful results.
The results can be so bad that Americans are now resented and even hated and have been for
generations in large parts of the world. Highly recommended.
R. Spell VINE VOICE on March 28, 2015
Who We Are as Americans in the 50s
Engaging historical perspective that while dragging and repetitive at times, has so much information
that frames our world now, and generally NOT in a positive way, that it should be required reading.
Yes, I was aware of the name as a 61 yr old. But I was not aware of their roles. Not aware of
brothers. Not aware of Allen's involvement in the CIA Nor aware of their careers at the massive
law firm of Cromwell and Sullivan.
But reading this was stunning and made me angry. George Dulles was more responsible for the
Cold War than anyone. And documents after the war shows the Soviets were not near as devious as
we give them credit for. But our fear painted a view of a hidden enemy bent on our destruction.
We missed opportunities with Khrushchev. More importantly and totally unaware to me, these guys
we responsible for government overthrows and were actively involved in the 1950s with alienating
Vietnam leading eventually to a horrible loss of civilian lives and more importantly to me, American
soldiers who were led in to the wrong war at the wrong time.
But let us not forget the documented CIA overthrows of Congo, Guatemala,Indonesia and Iran.
Is this America? Well, in the post WWII world, we lost our values and stooped to such tactics.
There are stories here America doesn't study and they should. How the interface of commerce,
politics and war can lead to disastrous results that haunt us today.
Read this book to learn. Not all of it will make you proud. Yes, I learned. And yes, I'm angry
and ashamed.
Schnitzon February 25, 2015
Allen Dulles May have Inadvertently Saved the US from a Nuclear Holocaust
It is ironic that the Bay of Pigs debacle commissioned by Allen Dulles may have inadvertently
prevented the incineration of millions of Americans in a nuclear holocaust. As the author points
out when John F. Kennedy assumed the presidency he was told by his predecessor Dwight Eisenhower
that the invasion of Cuba by Cuban refugees with support from the US should move forward. As a
young, new President of the US, Kennedy did not want to appear weak so when Dulles presented him
with the plan seeking his approval Kennedy found himself in a box.
On the one hand Kennedy had doubts regarding the chances for success. On the other hand he
wanted to appear strong to the people of the US and the world. This was the first true test of
his presidency and legacy. After the abject failure of the operation Kennedy to his credit took
full responsibility in his address to the American people but he would never again trust the CIA
or the military.
Fast forward tot he Cuban missile crisis. If Kennedy had not experienced the Bay of Pigs failure
he probably would have placed more trust in the military and CIA who were vehemently urging him
to bomb Cuba at various stages of the crisis. If he had taken the military's advice it would have
likely resulted in escalation and possibly nuclear war with Russia. As it turned out Kennedy rejected
the advice and negotiated a settlement which saved face for both sides. Kennedy's wisdom born
of a past failure saved the day.
Compelling and informative about an era which had a darker ...
OLD1mIKEon February 17, 2015
The Dulles Brothers. They changed History.
Five Stars. Great book. Readable. Well researched, Informative. Highly recommended for someone
interested in mid 20th century history or understanding the root cause of the anti-american animosity
in certain parts of the world.
The Dulles brothers played pivotal roles in an incredible number of historic events that shaped
the 20th century. They exemplified american attitudes and beliefs of their day and were placed
in positions to act on these beliefs. The book not only presents their part in history, but also
helps us understand the reasoning behind their actions.
I should leave the book review end with the above paragraphs, but I was originally unaware
of how many key historical events of the 20th century the brothers participated in and influenced.
I find it impossible not to casually speculate on their effect on history. John Foster helped
write the Reparation portion of the WWI Treaty of Versailles. Some historians believe German anger
over the unfairness of the reparations to be one element causing WWII. John Foster helped write
the 1924 Dawes Plan that opened the door to American investment in Germany. Even in 1924 John
Foster was obsessed with fighting communism. He saw a strong Germany as an effective stop gap
against communistic expansion. Foster used his affiliation with Sullivan & Cromwell and his friendship
with Hjalmar Schacht, Hitlers Minister of Economics, to increase American investment in Germany
and its industry. Without international investment, Germany probably could not have supported
it's military aspirations. Allen and the CIA was instrumental in the 1953 Iranian Coup that overthrew
the democratically elected Iranian Government to install the Shaw of Iran. This action and the
heavy handed governing style of the Shaw certainly led to some of the anti American resentment
in the middle east today and the Iranian (Islamic) Rebellion in 1979. The Iranian Rebellion probably
helped elect Ronald Reagan in 1980. In regard to Vietnam. Foster, acting as Eisenhower's Secretary
of State, refused to sign the 1954 Geneva Accord. Over considerable objections, John Foster and
Allen chose and installed Ngo Dinh Diem as the 1st president of the newly created Republic of
South Vietnam. Diem had been a minor official in Vietnam and was Interior Minister for three months
in 1933. He had not held a job since. Once in power, Allen's CIA helped keep him there. John Foster
continued to support the escalation of our involvement in Vietnam until his death in 1959. Allen
took a hands off approach to the Bay of Pigs operation (17 April 1961), but as the Director of
the CIA, it was his responsibility. JFK fired him in November 1961. There are JFK Assassination
Conspiracy Theory's that include CIA involvement. It is interesting that Lyndon Johnson personally
chose Allen to be a member of the Warren Commission. Add U2 Spy Planes, Congo revolts, overthrow
of South American leaders, Cuba and a host more. The policies and action of these two men changed
global history and probably still effect the beliefs of many today.
Loves the View VINE VOICE on December 2, 2014
Attitude, Access, Ambition and US Foreign Policy
Stephen Kinzer shows how instrumental these brothers were in the design of US foreign policy
in the post war years. He shows how their attitudes and personalities were formed, developed,
and grew to influence the course of history.
The brothers' learned statecraft at their grandfather's side. John W. Foster, US ambassador
to three countries, later served as President Harrison's trouble shooter and Secretary of State.
He helped in the overthrow of Queen Liliuokalani in Hawaii and later used his State Department
connections to engineer government policy to benefit his corporate clients. Kinzer shows how the
brothers benefited from their grandfather's access and came to dual pinnacles of power in shaping
US foreign policy: one heading the CIA, the other the Department of State.
The 1950's operations weren't as hidden as I expected. Allen Dulles, in the Saturday Evening
Post, beamed with pride for removing Mohammad Mossadegh in Iran and Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala.
He even has copies made of Diego Rivera's critical mural where he is depicted taking money while
his brother shakes hands with a local puppet and Eisenhower is pictured on a bomb. Many willingly
joined in dirty tricks, for instance Cardinal Spellman wrote a pastoral letter to Guatemalan Catholics
calling their President a dangerous communist.
I was surprised that President Eisenhower, whose administration is commonly thought to
be one of tranquility, approved toppling governments and assassinating leaders. In some ways,
he was the front man, for instance urging Congress to approve funds for "maintenance of national
independence" but really for fomenting a coup in Syria and installing a king in Saudi Arabia to
get US friendly governments to oppose Gamal Nasser (p. 225).
With today's internet and 24 hour news cycle, can large covert operations such as those against
the President Sukarno (the first president of Indonesia who naively looked to the US for help
in developing his nation's fledgling democracy) go under the radar? I presume the CIA budget can
still hide items such as the $6 million a year paid to the Nazi General Reinhard Gehlen (who should
have been tried at Nuremberg (p. 185)).
By preventing compromise when compromise was possible, the brothers and President Eisenhower,
prolonged the Cold War into the Khruschev era and sowed the seeds of the Vietnam War. The lack
of reflection or personal responsibility is clear in the quote on p. 283 when years later Allen
Dulles coolly tells Eric Sevareid regarding the torture and murder of Patrice Lumumba, that "
we may have overrated the danger.." How would the Congo be today if the US had left its fledgling
democracy alone, and not have installed Mobutu in a leadership position?
The last coup attempt in the book is the Bay of Pigs. It was an Eisenhower approved intervention
and there seemed that to be no turning back for Kennedy. Its fiasco signaled the end of Allen
Dulles, but not the Cold War since its relic, Vietnam as a domino, was an image deeply ingrained
in policy DNA.
In a side story, the brothers show little consideration to their sister, who had to push to
have a career. She marginally benefits from the family name. They do not see that they have been
born on third base and she on first. In fact, when it is convenient for them, they try to fire
her, yet still go to her house for holiday dinners.
Kinzer concludes with recent work in psychology and personality profiling (" blind ourself
to contrary positions prepared to pay a high price to preserve our most cherished ideas declarations
of high confidence mainly tell you an individual has constructed a coherent story in his mind
beliefs become how you prove your identity.." p. 322) that not only characterize the brothers,
but a lot of the thinking in the Cold War.
These paradigms are with us today. Too many politicians and their appointees still their job
as responding to lobbyists, not just for big business, but for foreign countries with interests
contrary to those of the US. Similarly there are those who force their economic ideology on small
and helpless countries. The book tells a sobering and troubling story. It is greatly at odds with
what is taught in high schools. This book has been out for a year now, and it seems the story
told is just more noise in political system. Unfortunately it will make a large event for insiders
in Washington to reflect on what we now call "muscular" foreign policy and its results.
Regnal the Caretakeron November 13, 2014
Nasty lawyers and the rise of CIA
These two globo-corporate lawyers dictated USA foreign policy during governance of four presidents:
Roosevelt, Truman (he signed CIA into the law in 1947), Eisenhower and Kennedy. They were called
'Cold Warriors' and built Cold War model which rested on the premise that any growing social influence
in Third World countries must be resisted because socialist gains are always irreversible. Any
nation that tried to stay 'neutral' had to face CIA interventions that did not bring anything
positive for populations (notably we learn in details about Guatemala, Iran, Congo, Indonesia,
Vietnam and Cuba). Eisenhower times were the worst, when covert capability of CIA grew massively.
Fascinating work by Stephen Kinzer can be easily extrapolated to help explain XXI century behavior
of Washington. Not much has changed.
Craig N. Warrenon November 12, 2014
Making the World Safe for Democracy (and American Business).
I've learned more about the development of American foreign policy and international relations
in the twentieth (and twenty-first) century, especially since WWII, in reading the story of
these two scions of an American aristocratic family, who were fully steeped in Calvinistic Protestantism
(and it's capitalist ethic) and unquestioningly convinced of American Exceptionalism and it's
Manifest Destiny to lead the world and make it safe for democracy and American Business,
than I have anywhere else.
This is more than a biography (or double biography) of two very influential actors in American
history, politics and international relations. It is an exposition of the quintessential,
archetypical American (WASP) mindset, worldview or psychology that has motivated our collective
international behavior over the past six or seven decades.
Digital Rightson June 14, 2014
A "How to Not Run Foreign Policy" Primer
Stephen Kinzer's new book offers a very focused and surgical condemnation of the Dulles brothers
foreign policy collaboration in the 1950's that has resulted in a horrid and nightmarish chain
of events ever since.
Allen Dulles at CIA, first as a lead operative for covert missions and then as it's second
Director and John Foster Dulles as Secretary of State lead foreign policy during the Eisenhower
Presidency. The book goes through six operations to overthrow or destabilize governments through
that time; Iran, Guatemala, Indonesia, Cuba, Vietnam and the formerly Belgian Congo.
In each case Kinzer shows the limited lens of cold war anti communism that resulted in the
Dulles' tunnel vision where grouping all non-Pro American groups as enemies and communists. He
equally addresses their lack of personal curiosity and intellect and preference for slogans and
absolutism over analysis or objective debate. All State employees that don't hew the line
are regularly fired or transferred to obscure jobs or roles and in place are pro-CIA hardliners.
It is painful reading. The objective was to both create the world they wanted while limiting
the use of US military personnel to achieve those ends. The short cuts and limited world vision
have exacted a terrible price. Sadly there is not a place in the world where their activities
resulted in any sustainable success and in fact have lead to perhaps millions of deaths and suspicions
and misunderstandings for the next 50 to 60 years.
There is much here that further condemns Eisenhower. In many cases he fully supported and
endorsed their plans while pretending not to, fully employing the most cynical of strategies;
"plausible deniability".
Having read the 2012 Eisenhower biography by Jean Edward Smith I was surprised here by
the wealth of information that ties Eisenhower more directly to clandestine activities and their
purposes. Particularly disappointing is his continues build up for the Bay of Pigs invasion in
Cuba after Kennedy's election but before he took office and will little effort to brief the incoming
president. Similarly our Vietnam involvement in the 1950's was so deep already as to make a Kennedy
pullout far more difficult.
There is much here about these issues and the corrupt relationships between the Dulles's
prior careers at Sullivan and Cromwell and their support of private interests while working at
State and the CIA
It's grim but the writing is good and the story is well worth knowing.
C. Ellen Connally, May 22, 2014
An amazing tale of intrigue and deception
As we fly in or out of Dulles International Airport, no one gives much thought to the namesake,
John Foster Dulles. Sure, he was Secretary of State and some Americans have a vague knowledge
of his brother Allan Dulles, director of the CIA and long time super spy and intelligence person.
Reading Stephen Kinzer's book, THE BROTHERS reveals the truth about the Dulles brothers and how
they changed American and World History.
At the heart of the story is the unfortunate belief by the brothers that if a country was
not totally in agreement with American philosophy they were against us. Any nationalist leaders
of a former colonial nation that believed in land reform or neutrality on the international scene
had to be evil and must be destroyed. If they were not with us, they had to be communist. This
American foreign policy changed the history of the Middle East, Southeast Asia, Africa and Central
America.
There is much blame put on President Johnson for the War in Viet Nam. But reading THE BROTHERS
shows that the roots of the Viet Nam Conflict go back many years. Likewise, the situation in the
Middle East. We have to go back and look at the foreign policy that created the tensions that
now exist and the men that shaped that foreign policy.
Its interesting to note that Kinzer asserts that on the death of Chief Justice Fred Vinson
in 1953, Eisenhower offered the position of Chief Justice to John Foster Dulles. According to
Kinzer, Dulles turned it down because he wanted to stay at the State Department. The story has
always been that Ike had promised Earl Warren the first seat on the Supreme Court in exchange
for his support in the 1952 election - Warren had been out maneuvered by Richard Nixon to get
the bid for the vice presidency. How different legal history would have been had John Foster Dulles
become Chief Justice!
Kinzer is a masterful story teller. This book is extremely readable and a must read for understanding
the history of American foreign policy and how individual people can change.
John Berryon March 13, 2014
What Our History Lessons Didn't Tell Us!
It has been a long time since an author has captured my interest so quickly and made me question
everything I have been taught or have learned about our country. Churchill once said Democracy
is the worst kind of government except all others. This comment keeps reverberating around in
my mind as I read this book. I am one of those people that have flown into Dulles airport countless
times, yet never gave a moments thought as to why, what or even if there was a who to the airports
name. I grew up during the cold war and I vividly remember the fear of the Big Russian Bear overtaking
us with their form of government and the possibility of nuclear war. It would have never crossed
my mind that my very own government aided and abetted in promoting this fear in order for us to
gain public moral outrage and support for our endeavors. I kept trying to tell myself this was
different times, yet the author pointed out countless times where there were those in the known
that were summarily dismissed for having counter opinions.Or leaders from our allies that would
not support the Dulles brothers opinions and missions that so disagreed with who we told the world
we were. Abraham Lincoln once said "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test
a man's character, give him power". I can think of no better example of failure in handling power
than the two Dulles brothers. Not only was I continuously shocked by their gross misuse of power,
but I found myself being angry at them as well because of the fear I remember my mother facing
as a widower with three children to raise. She needed not to have been this afraid with all the
other issues she had to deal with but because of President Eisenhower and the Dulles brothers
she had to face this fear as well. Whether or not Mr. Kinzer took liberties with the political
agenda's of the leaders we either overthrew or attempted to overthrown does not matter to me at
all. The fact that we promoted our country as a free democracy yet we were willing to dance with
any leader in the world as long as they did exactly what we wanted them to do is so counter to
the way I was raised to believe still leaves me reeling.
Currently in the news President Putin has said in no uncertain terms that the U.S. is responsible
for the revolution taking place in the Ukraine. In the past I would have said he is just another
Russian bully trying to get his way. After reading The Brothers I now wonder what, if anything,
my country had to do with promoting this revolution. I heard our Ukraine Ambassador say almost
word for word what I read in this book our ambassador's under the power of The Brother's said
back during the cold war. The author tells us that the U.S. with its secret prisons and torture's
may have actually invented terrorism.
This author has opened my eyes to a whole new way of thinking and I am so disappointed in opportunities
missed and I am so disappointed with our current leaders for having learned apparently nothing
from history.
If you love reading history then please buy this book and ask your family to read it as well.
Do I believe everything I read, no not usually, but in this case there are just too many facts
that distort my view of who we are to dismiss.
James Gallen VINE VOICE on March 4, 2014
An Indepth Study Of American Covert Action
"The Brothers" tells the story of the brothers Dulles, John Foster and Allen, who drove American
foreign policy through much of the 1950s. Grandsons of Secretary of State John Foster and nephews
of Secretary of State Robert Lansing, the two grew up in an atmosphere mixing high diplomacy with
the spirit of Christian Crusaders. Their path to power was linear. At the law firm of Sullivan
and Cromwell they represented companies with interests around the world and came to see their
clients' interests united with America's. As Foster moved into politics and government service
he often brought Allen with him.
Although expected to be Secretary of State in a Dewey Administration, Foster came in with Dwight
Eisenhower in 1953. With Allen as Director of Central Intelligence, they formed a team that searched
the world for dragons to slay. Guided by a world view of us, American Christian capitalists, against
them, Socialist Evil Doers, they identified their foes and went after them. Among their successes
were Guatemalan President Árbenz, Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh and Congolese leader
Patrice Lumumba. TYhose who got away included Ho Chi Minh and Fidel Castro. This book is a study
of American covert operations in Guatemala, Iran, Vietnam, Indonesia, the Congo and Cuba. Allen's
Bay of Pigs operation is a case study of disaster.
Author Stephen Kinzer explores the unique situation in which the intelligence gathering
agency is also an actor. Throughout he illustrates how the relationship of their leaders enabled
two agencies that would normally question and check each other, to work in seamless harmony to
carry out the covert operations that both saw as primary instruments of American power. Behind
them was President Eisenhower who had used covert operations during World War II and who approved
their actions. In the end the author posits that the policies were the President's and the brothers
were more his servants than his masters.
Kinzer portrays the Brothers as men with rigid, narrow outlooks that saw enemies in independent
nationalists and conspiracies in disorganized movements. He presents them as two sides of the
coin, the molders and reflectors of public opinion. The book is not flattering. It depicts the
Dulles brothers as men whose flawed expectations caused many problems for the U.S. and the world
by destroying men who America need not have fought. Ultimately he concludes that they were representatives
of the people they served and their successes, and failures, are our own. "The Brothers" forces
the reader to confront a portion of America's past with its triumphs and shames. Although Kinzer
gives his opinions, he provides the facts to permit the reader to form his own. Any serious student
of history would do well to delve beneath the surface of our history and appreciate its deep currents
and lasting effects.
"... an unwillingness or inability among Americans to question the country's sinlessness feeds a culture of public conformism, ..."
"... he daringly points out America's "hypocrisy," which also is corroborated by other scholars, among them James Hillman in his recent book "A Terrible Love of War" in which he characterizes hypocrisy as quintessentially American. ..."
"... The combined resentments lead to a sort of chip on the shoulder patriotism which so characterizes American nationalism. ..."
"... The book suggests that the Republican Party is really like an old style European nationalist party. Broadly serving the interests of the moneyed elite but spouting a form of populist gobbledygook, which paints America as being in a life and death, struggle with anti-American forces at home and abroad. It is the reason for Anne Coulter, Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh. That is the rhetoric of struggle acts as a cover for political policies that benefit a few and lay the blame for the problems of ordinary Americans on fictitious entities. ..."
"... The main side effects of the nationalism are the current policies which shackles America to Israel uncritically despite what that country might and how its actions may isolate America from the rest of the world. It also justifies America on foreign policy adventures such as the invasion of Iraq. ..."
"... " The [U. S.] conduct of the war against terrorism looks more like a baroque apotheosis of political stupidity;" ..."
"... "One strand of American nationalism is radical...because it continually looks backward at a vanished and idealized national past; " ..."
"... " [George W.] Bush, his leading officials, and his intellectual and media supporters..., as nationalists, [are] absolutely contemptuous of any global order involving any check whatsoever on American behavior and interests ;" ..."
"... I find that Mr. Lieven's assessment of both the United States' and Israel's role rings true. While he does not excuse Arab leaders for their misdeeds, he clearly documents a history in which the United States has repeatedly subordinated vital U.S. regional interests in favor of accepting whatever Israel chooses to do. ..."
... While there are incontestable civilizing elements to America's nationalism, there are
also dangerous and destructive ingredients, a sort of Hegelian thesis and antithesis theme
which places a strong question mark in America's historical theme of exceptionalism.
Unlike in other post-World War II nations, America's nationalism is permeated by values
and religious elements derived mostly from the South and the Southern Baptists, though the
fears and panics of the embittered heartland provide additional fuel.
Lieven's book, among other elements, is also a summation of lots of minor observations--even
personal ones he made as a student in the small town of Troy, Alabama--and historical details
which reflect the grand evolution of America's nationalism. When he says that "an unwillingness
or inability among Americans to question the country's sinlessness feeds a culture of public
conformism," then he has the support of Mark Twain who said something to the effect
that we are blessed with three things in this country, freedom of speech, freedom of conscience
and, thirdly, the common sense to practice neither one! Ditto when he daringly points
out America's "hypocrisy," which also is corroborated by other scholars, among them James Hillman
in his recent book "A Terrible Love of War" in which he characterizes hypocrisy as quintessentially
American.
Lieven continues with the impact of the Cold War on America's nationalism and then, having
always expanded the theme of Bush's foreign policy and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, examines
with commendable perspective the complex and very much unadmitted current aspects of the U.S.'s
relationships with the Moslems, the Iraq War and the impact of the pro-Israeli lobby. It
is the sort of assessment one rarely finds in the U.S. media . He exposes the alienation
the U.S. caused among allies and, in particular, the Arabs and the EU.
Lieven wrote this book with passion and commendable sincerity. Though it comes from a foreigner,
its advice would without question serve not only America's interest but also provide a substantial
basis for a detached and objective approach to solving the intractable Israeli-Palestinian
conflict to the satisfaction of all involved before worse deeds and more burdens materialize.
Tom Munro:
What this book suggests is that a significant number of Americans have an outlook similar
to European countries around 1904. A sense of identification with an idea of nation and a dismissive
approach to other countries and cultures. Whilst in Europe the experience of the first
and second world wars put paid to nationalism in America it is going strong. In fact Europeans
see themselves less as Germans or Frenchmen today than they ever have.
The reason for American nationalism springs from a pride in American institutions but
it also contains a deep resentment that gives it its dynamism . Whilst America as a nation
has not lost a war there are a number of reasons for resentment. The South feels that its values
are not taken seriously and it is subject to ridicule by the seaboard states. Conservative
Christians are concerned about modernism. The combined resentments lead to a sort of chip
on the shoulder patriotism which so characterizes American nationalism.
Of course these things alone are not sufficient. Europeans live in countries that are small
geographically. They travel see other countries and are multilingual. Most Americans do not
travel and the education they do is strong in ideology and weak in history. It is thus easier
for some Americans to develop a rather simple minded view of the world.
The book suggests that the Republican Party is really like an old style European nationalist
party. Broadly serving the interests of the moneyed elite but spouting a form of populist
gobbledygook, which paints America as being in a life and death, struggle with anti-American
forces at home and abroad. It is the reason for Anne Coulter, Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh.
That is the rhetoric of struggle acts as a cover for political policies that benefit a few
and lay the blame for the problems of ordinary Americans on fictitious entities.
The main side effects of the nationalism are the current policies which shackles America
to Israel uncritically despite what that country might and how its actions may isolate America
from the rest of the world. It also justifies America on foreign policy adventures such as
the invasion of Iraq.
The book is quite good and repeats the message of a number of other books such as "What
is wrong with America". Probably there is something to be said for the books central message.
Keith Wheelock (Skillman, NJ USA)
A Socratic 'America know thyself': READ IT!, August 13, 2010
Foreigners, from de Tocqueville and Lord Bryce to Hugh Brogan and The Economist's John Micklethwait
and Adrian Woodridge, often see America more clearly than do Americans. In the post-World War
II period, R. L. Bruckberger's IMAGES OF AMERICA (1958) and Jean -Jacques Servan-Schreiber's
THE AMERICAN CHALLENGE (1967) presented an uplifting picture of America.
Two generations later, Englishman Anatol Lieven paints a troubling picture of a country
that is a far cry from John Winthrop's' "city upon a hill."
Has America changed so profoundly over the past fifty years or is Mr. Lieven simply highlighting
historical cycles that, at least for the moment, had resulted in a near `perfect storm?' His
2004 book has prompted both praise [see Brian Urquhart's Extreme Makeover in the New York Review
of Books (February 24, 2005)] and brick bats. This book is not a polemic. Rather, it is a scholarly
analysis by a highly regarded author and former The Times (London) correspondent who has lived
in various American locales. He has a journalist's acquaintance of many prominent Americans
and his source materials are excellent.
I applaud his courage for exploring the dark cross currents in modern-day America. In the
tradition of the Delphic oracle and Socrates, he urges that Americans `know thy self.' The
picture he paints should cause thoughtful Americans to shudder. Personally, I found his
book of a genre similar to Cullen Murphy's ARE WE ROME? THE FALL OF AN EMPIRE AND THE FATE
OF AMERICA.
I do not consider Mr. Lieven anti-American in his extensive critique of American cross
currents. That he wrote this in the full flush of the Bush/Cheney post-9/11 era suggests that
he might temper some of his assessments after the course corrections of the Obama administration.
My sense is that Mr. Lieven admires many of America's core qualities and that this `tough love'
essay is his effort to guide Americans back to their more admirable qualities.
Mr. Lieven boldly sets forth his book's message in a broad-ranging introduction:
" The [U. S.] conduct of the war against terrorism looks more like a baroque apotheosis
of political stupidity;"
"Aspects of American nationalism imperil both the nation's global leadership and its
success in the struggle against Islamic terror and revolution;"
"Insofar as American nationalism has become mixed up with a chauvinist version of Israeli
nationalism, it also plays an absolutely disastrous role in U.S. relations with the Muslim
world and in fueling terrorism;"
"American imperialists trail America's coat across the whole world while most ordinary
Americans are not looking and rely on those same Americans to react with `don't tread on
me' nationalist fury when the coat is trodden on;"
"One strand of American nationalism is radical...because it continually looks backward
at a vanished and idealized national past; "
"America is the home of by far the most deep, widespread and conservative religious
belief in the Western world;"
"The relationship between the traditional White Protestant world on one hand and the
forces of American economic, demographic, social and cultural change on the other may be
compared to the genesis of a hurricane;"
"The religious Right has allied itself solidly with extreme free market forces in the
Republican Party although it is precisely the workings of unrestricted American capitalism
which are eroding the world the religious conservatives wish to defend;"
"American nationalism is beginning to conflict very seriously with any enlightened,
viable or even rational version of American imperialism;"
" [George W.] Bush, his leading officials, and his intellectual and media supporters...,
as nationalists, [are] absolutely contemptuous of any global order involving any check whatsoever
on American behavior and interests ;"
"Nationalism therefore risks undermining precisely those American values which make
the nation most admired in the world;" and
"This book...is intended as a reminder of the catastrophes into which nationalism and
national messianism led other great countries in the past."
Mr. Lieven addressed the above points in six well-crafted and thought-provoking chapters
that I find persuasive. For some readers Chapter 6, Nationalism, Israel, and the Middle East,
may be the most controversial. I am the only living person who has lunched with Gamal Abdel
Nasser and David Ben-Gurion in the same week. I have maintained an interest in Arab-Israeli
matters ever since. I find that Mr. Lieven's assessment of both the United States' and Israel's
role rings true. While he does not excuse Arab leaders for their misdeeds, he clearly documents
a history in which the United States has repeatedly subordinated vital U.S. regional interests
in favor of accepting whatever Israel chooses to do.
In 1955 American historian Richard Hofstadter wrote,
"The most prominent and persuasive failing [of political culture] is a certain proneness
to fits of moral crusading that would be fatal if they were not sooner or later tempered
with a measure of apathy and common sense."
I am confident that Professor Hofstadter would agree with me that AMERICA RIGHT OR WRONG
is a timely and important book.
Not every globalist is a (((globalist))), but an important globalist is usually a (((globalist))).
Thank you if you are really fighting globalism and not being just another controlled opposition.
+Jake Coughlin People like Clinton and Merkel don't truly believe in globalism either, they
are just opportunists. I like to look at them as just pawns in this game. Clinton could never
be an independent politician, since she is receiving so much money from very controversial sources.
I really like Ron Paul too, he is awesome and he is addressing some very important subjects.
Thanks to globalism, The Rebel has media outlets that can transmit to other countries. Thanks
to globalism, they can buy high performance cameras to film their anti-globalism videos.
Thanks to globalism, you can buy a vast variety of products at a cheap price. Globalism is
what makes free markets possible.
In other words globalism is the very definition of freedom of businesses. Thanks to globalism,
you don't have to live in a primitive, nationalist, isolated, 1800s society where you have Kings
and Queens who rule like conservative tyrants and keep the population ignorant as peasants. Globalism
is capitalism, the very value that made America so notorious.
Nationalism is feeling that one's country is superior to another. That's not pride in one's
country, don't get it twisted. Patriotism is pride in one's country and its values. Don't let
the nationalist confuse you with their twisted definitions of globalism.
Nationalism is what tyrants during WW1 and WW2 fed to the people in order to make them sign
up for a war that would only benefit those monarchies. Nationalism appeals to a very primitive
feeling of pride instead of logic and progress. Nationalism goes hand in hand with isolationism
which prevents small businesses to grow and limits the country to a very small group of overpriced
home products. Nationalism is regressive thinking. It opposes development and growth.
Technological progress is not globalism. Trade agreements between countries are not globalism.
You don't have to destroy all independent countries to have free markets. Poor kid... this is
how severe case of globalist brainwashing looks like.
"... I think that there's still a lot of resistance in the US to consider seriously the idea that it could be responsible for assassinating it's own popular president (JFK) and also to consider critically our current activities in places like Ukraine, Libya and Syria. ..."
It seems that the last worthwhile president we had was JFK. He started out his presidency as a Cold
Warrior but at the end saw the futility of being involved in Vietnam and of the cold war in general.
At the time there was a very strong anti-communist pro-war sentiment in the US which resonated well
with the military industrial complex that Kennedy was up against when his views became more conciliatory
with Russia. This anti-Russian sentiment is trying to be re-whipped up in the US but isn't finding as
receptive an audience.
Kennedy essentially lost control of his presidency. Trump seems to be facing similar pressures but
I don't think he's so isolated in his battles. He has strong allies in both the military and industry
and there is a different public sentiment.
I think that there's still a lot of resistance in the US to consider seriously the idea that it could
be responsible for assassinating it's own popular president (JFK) and also to consider critically our
current activities in places like Ukraine, Libya and Syria.
Russia seems to be treating its Arab neighbors with more respect and it would be good if Trump could
get on that train. It would also be good to see Trump transition to a more climate friendly attitude
such as partnering with China on solar energy.
This is the complete talk (excluding the Q&A) of Noam Chomsky speaking at
Yale University on February 25, 1997
San Patch
Thank you, Noam Chomsky. Sharp, articulate, critical. Reminding us to cross-check our
favourite ideologies against the facts. Free markets, my arse. I salute Chomsky's courage, his
intellect and his humanity.
emir yi
He truly is the face of sheer honesty and intellectual openness. So admirable to be able to
be so critical of a system in which otherwise many including himself are subsumed.
Dimitrios Mavridopoulos
I strongly recommend his book World Orders: Old and New, where he substantiates all his
claims and accusations, in a far more coherent manner. He has a long chapter, where he
explains how the principles of free trade and classical economics, have been consistently
violated in history by the developed countries (imperial preference, tariffs,
state-intervention), while demanding that Third World countries conform to them, through the
IMF and the World Bank. Unfortunately he is not a gifted lecturer though he compensates by
being a moral titan
So what should egalitarian activists do in terms of future elections if and when the issues,
circumstances, and candidates seem right? First, they should form Egalitarian Democratic Clubs.
That gives them an organizational base as well as a distinctive new social identity within
the structural pathway to government that is labeled "the Democratic Party." Forming such clubs
makes it possible for activists to maintain their sense of separatism and purity while at the
same time allowing them to compete within the Democratic Party. There are numerous precedents
for such clubs within the party, including liberal and reform clubs in the past, and the conservative
Democratic Leadership Council at the present time.
This strategy of forging a separate social identity is also followed by members of the right
wing within the Republican Party. By joining organizations like the Moral Majority and Christian
Coalition, they can define themselves as Christians who have to work out of necessity within
the debased confines of the Republican Party. That is, they think of themselves as Christians
first and Republicans second, and that is what egalitarians should do: identify themselves
primarily as egalitarians and only secondarily as Democrats.
After forming Egalitarian Democrat Clubs, egalitarian activists should find people to run
in selected Democratic primaries from precinct to president. They should not simply support
eager candidates who come to them with the hope of turning them into campaign workers. They
have to create candidates of their own who already are committed to the egalitarian movement
and to its alternative economic vision of planning through the market. The candidates have
to be responsible to the clubs, or else the candidates naturally will look out for their own
self interest and careers.
Yes it is. Your excerpt zeroes in on the mechanism of How.
"clubs within the party" : Turchin writing on the Price Equation makes something clear. If
the within-group co-operators can be successful and reproduce, and then sequester non-co-operators
into a separate group, the chances of co-operator success increase. Put 'em on a committee.
That mechanism is what makes Zuck's presidential bid dangerous. As groups use Fcbk to organize,
a malevolent administrator can introduce
FBU
's that disrupt social cohesion within the group. An advanced form of voter suppression.
Clubs within the Party was how the Communist Party of the USSR operated. They were called factions.
They were unable to challenge the ruling elite and if they became too strong they were simply
purged from the Party.
Nothing new here. Cooptation of those who deviate left or right from the party platform and
party oligarchy can be effectively used within "game of clubs" framework due to the iron law of
oligarchy. Those who can't be coopted can be purged or excommunicated.
For all practical purposes two party system behaves as an improved version of one party system.
Iron law of oligarchy essentially guarantees the upper hand for the leadership within the interparty
struggle for power. And provides for the leadership the opportunity to pursue their own agenda,
different from the wishes of rank and file members. Like was the case with Bill Clinton selling
Democratic Party to Wall Street and turning it into yet another neoliberal party - soft neoliberals,
like sometime Clinton's "third way" neoliberalism is called.
Only parliamentary system when parties are allocated seats due to votes they got with some
"passing" threshold can provide the opportunity of the third party to emerge as the major political
force outside a single election cycle or two.
It is important to understand that the "first after the post" system virtually guarantees the
elimination of any contenders to both major parties. Unless there is a revolutionary situation
when the ruling elite is so discredited that can't rule "as usual". Then winners are usually incorporated
into the party framework and partially emasculated somewhat later, when they face the challenges
of governing the system which is totally against them. Like now the situation developed in case
of Trump.
You can say anything about British elite but this was pretty ingenious political invention.
In other words, the main task to two party system in to prevent any possibility for the challengers
of status quo to obtain political power via elections. Reforms should be approved by party oligarchy
to be viable. And there are powerful internal mechanisms like DNC which help to block advances
of anybody who want to challenge the status quo.
Also the emerging leaders can be simply bought. This is another way how the iron law of oligarchy
operates.
From a rhetorical point of view, however, lesser evilism involves more than just the logical
principle behind it. The reason is plain: except in a trivial sense, better choices are less bad
only when the alternatives are bad or, more precisely, regarded as bad. Less bad choices are less
evil only when the alternatives are or are thought to be bad indeed.
This is all that the "evil" in "lesser evilism" implies. Strictly speaking, evil is a religious,
not a political, notion. But lesser evilism in politics is a secular phenomenon, and the force
of the word is rhetorical only. Its religious origins and connotations are useful for giving the
word a resonance that "bad" and even "very bad" lack; not for making any theological or otherwise
portentous point.
Although the logic behind lesser evilism is impeccable, the principle seldom applies directly
in real world circumstances. In political contexts especially, there are too many complicating
factors, and there is too much indeterminacy.
This is why lesser evilism in politics – especially, electoral politics - can be, and often
is, a bad idea.
Myopia is a chronic problem in electoral contests because voters tend to focus on candidates'
personalities or on what they believe they are likely to do if elected, neglecting other pertinent
considerations.
Suppose, for instance, that Obama truly was less disposed than McCain in 2008 or Romney in
2012 to expand the wars he inherited from George Bush and Dick Cheney or to extend the range and
intensity of the Bush-Cheney "Global War on Terror."
Of course, war making is not the only thing Presidents do, but even if we focus only on that,
we can still wonder whether voters favoring peace who voted for Obama served their cause well.
Unofficially, but most assuredly, America has a duopoly party system – in consequence of deeply
entrenched practices and traditions, and thanks to laws that make ballot access difficult for
candidates who are neither Democrats nor Republicans.
Therefore, in Presidential elections and most others as well, Americans face straightforward
X versus Y choices. Independent or third party candidates have no chance of winning. They seldom
even have a chance of affecting the outcomes in more than negligible ways.
Some of the problems this raises have nothing to do with the comparative merits and shortcomings
of the candidates themselves; they are problems with lesser evil voting itself.
This is because elections in the present affect elections in the future; among other things,
they can and often do initiate or continue trends.
As a general rule, but especially when the choices voters face remain above the threshold beneath
which talk of lesser evil voting becomes rhetorically appropriate, choosing the better candidate
is no guarantee that the choices will be better still the next time around or the time after that.
But once the lesser evil threshold is crossed, it does seem that the choices keep getting worse.
There is no inherent reason why this must be so, but there is ample anecdotal evidence that bears
out the suggestion that, in our time and place, lesser evil voting encourages a downward spiral,
"a race to the bottom."
To be sure, America's deteriorating political culture cannot be blamed entirely, or even mainly,
on the pervasiveness of this practice. The corruptions of money undoubtedly play a larger role.
Still, lesser evil voting does seem to feed upon itself – hastening a downward trend.
The consequences are especially damaging in a duopoly party system like ours, where choosing
the lesser evil means choosing a Democrat or (in very rare instances) a Republican, further diminishing
the already meager prospects of breaking free from the duopoly's stranglehold.
For those of you who are interested in a brief, but quite penetrating introduction to Marx's overall
project (I realize this may seem like an acquired taste), as understood and elaborated upon by Harvey,
might I suggest watching this lecture? It includes a (newly developed) visualization of how capital
circulates through its various moments (resources, labor power, commodities that then have to be
sold, etc.), analogous to how water goes through the various stages listed in the water cycle: David
Harvey, Visualizing Capital
.
Main problem with it: 'taxes funds govt spending' - he should really talk to Michael Hudson about
this.
"... and Haim Saban's opinion matters more than millions of BernieCrats because money. ..."
"... The Dems are set up pretty well for 2018. ..."
"... "We lost this election eight years ago," concludes Michael Slaby, the campaign's chief technology officer. "Our party became a national movement focused on general elections, and we lost touch with nonurban, noncoastal communities. There is a straight line between our failure to address the culture and systemic failures of Washington and this election result." ..."
"... The question of why-why the president and his team failed to activate the most powerful political weapon in their arsenal. ..."
"... Obama's army was eager to be put to work. Of the 550,000 people who responded to the survey, 86 percent said they wanted to help Obama pass legislation through grassroots support; 68 percent wanted to help elect state and local candidates who shared his vision. Most impressive of all, more than 50,000 said they personally wanted to run for elected office. ..."
"... But they never got that chance. In late December, Plouffe and a small group of senior staffers finally made the call, which was endorsed by Obama. The entire campaign machine, renamed Organizing for America, would be folded into the DNC, where it would operate as a fully controlled subsidiary of the Democratic Party. ..."
"... Republicans, on the other hand, wasted no time in building a grassroots machine of their own-one that proved capable of blocking Obama at almost every turn. Within weeks of his inauguration, conservative activists began calling for local "tea parties" to oppose the president's plan to help foreclosed homeowners. ..."
"... Your friend should share her script for success w/ the DNC leadership. ..."
Former Labor Secretary Tom Perez was elected chairman of the Democratic
National Committee Saturday, giving the party an establishment leader at a
moment when its grass roots wing is insurgent.
Mr. Perez defeated Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison and four other candidates
in a race that had few ideological divisions yet illuminated the same rifts
in the party that drove the acrimonious 2016 presidential primary between
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Mr. Perez fell one vote short of a majority on the first vote for
chairman, with Mr. Ellison 13 votes behind him. The four second-tier
candidates then dropped out of the race before the second ballot. On the
second ballot, Mr. Perez won 235 of 435 votes cast.
Somehow, I think most people knew that this was going to happen.
There's a good chance that Trump will end up being a 2 term president and
that 2018 will be a disaster for the Democratic Party on the scale of 2010,
2014, and 1994. Meanwhile, they will surely blame the voters and especially the
left, which is what they always do when they don't win.
I think that we should keep in mind that the US is a plutocracy and that at
this point, the Democrats aren't even pretending to be a "New Deal" party for
the people anymore. Perhaps its existence always was an outlet to contain and
co-opt the left. At least now, the message is naked: the left is expected to
blindly obey, but will never be given leadership positions.
In other words, the left is not welcome. I think that it is time for people
to leave.
The only question at this point is, how hard is it going to be to form a
third party? I don't see the Left as being able to reform the Democrats very
easily. It may be so corrupt as to be beyond reform.
At least 1993, although the ideal time would have been after the
Coup of 1963, but unfortunately too many were still clueless than.
(Had more than five people and Mort Sahl ever bothered to read the
Warren Commission Report - where Lee Oswald was "positively ID'd by a
waitress for the murder of Officer Tippit:
W.C.: So you went into the room and looked at the lineup, did you
recognize anyone.
Helen Louise Markham: No, sir.
And there you have it, gentlement, a positive ID! And the rest of
the so-called report was even worse . . . .)
(Patting self on back) That's when I left it. God, was it really
that long ago?
And responding to the earlier part of the string: no, it isn't easy
to form a "3rd" party; and yes, there already is one. Just might be
time to stop nit-picking about it and help. (In Oregon, there are
about 6, two of them right-wing.)
Kshama Sawant, who is a socialist not a Green, is hoping (I think
that's the exact word) to put together a Left coalition. I think the
Green Party could be sold on that – for one thing, we would be much
the largest portion. Certainly I could, as I'm pretty tired of
spinning my wheels.
Remember, according to Gallup, the Dems are now down to 25%
affiliation (Reps at 28 – the first time they've been higher, I think
because they won the election.) Independents are the plurality by a
wide margin. Something's going to give, and we should try to get ahead
of the parade. It could easily get really nasty.
The problem with third parties is the same with the math of this
ballot. If Perez was one vote shy the first time, that means he
only picked up 18 votes the second time. So all the other
candidates mostly split the opposition. I'm sure if the democratic
establishment felt the need, they would form a few front parties.
People, you are just going to have to wait for it to blow up and
after that, coalesce around one cause; Public banking and money as
a publicly supported utility.
It took a few hundred years to recognize government is a public
function and drop monarchy.
Beats me how anyone thinks "public banking" will change
anything. In a capitalist system, banks are banks. They chase
the highest return. That's not where the public interest (qua
people) lies and never will be. And "government is a public
function" so long as it serves its mandate: to make return on
capital investment function smoothly.
For those of use who never were in the Democratic Party, this choice
ensures that many of us will be looking for another party. The DNC just
gave us the same choice as the last election – Corrupt establishment or
Fascism. The distinction these days is not worth pondering.
What people are doing right now with Donald Trump's
GOP - forcing town halls, making a ruckus, holding everyone
accountable - has to be the model for progressive change in
American politics. Doing this stuff inside the system
isn't
going to wor
k. Forming a party around ideology or ideas
isn't going to wor
k. Wearing the system down
is all that
works.
Before this gets turned into another thing where the establishment
Democrats posture as the reasonable adults victimized by the assaults
of those left-wing baddies, let's just be very clear about what
happened here. It was the establishment wing that decided to recruit
and then stand up a candidate in order to fight an internal battle
against the left faction of the party. It was the establishment wing
that then dumped massive piles of opposition research on one of their
own party members. And it was the establishment wing that did all of
this in the shadow of Trump, sowing disunity in order to contest a
position whose leadership they insist does not really matter.
The establishment wing has made it very clear that they will do
anything and everything to hold down the left faction, even as they
rather hilariously ask the left faction to look above their
differences and unify in these trying times. They do not have any
intent of ceding anything - even small things they claim are mostly
irrelevant - to the left wing.
Reform may become possible only when the money spigot dries up.
At some point, the oligarchs may simply decide its not cost effective
to finance such losers. With no money, there are no rice bowls and so the
professional pols and their minions will either wither away or seek a new
funding
model which may make possible a different politics.
I think it will take well under a decade to see how this plays out.
What is the cheapest way for oligarchs to maintain power in a
pseudo-democracy?
If there is enough conflict among them, I suppose they'll continue
to put money into both parties. Otherwise, why not just let one of the
two slowly die? Electoral theatre is expensive.
The scary thing is that it's NOT expensive, compared to the size
of the economy. As long as there's enough at stake for large
companies and ultra-rich individuals, they can very easily buy two
or even several parties.
(This is not to disagree with your main point, which is that
they may let the Democrats die.)
But why bother with that extra bit, if it can instead be
spent on a second or third bolt-hole?
But I suspect you are correct because the citizenry will
revolt fairly quickly after the illusion completely dissolves.
It's worth something to put that off for as long as possible.
Yes it is when a very competitive Senate race is now $50M as
a starting price tag and to run a viable Presidential campaign
will likely be $1B as a floor in 2020.
There'd still be 'choice' since we plebs would continue
quixotically financing this/that with our cashless dollars
(while they filter, oh say .30 of each, for the privilege).
At least, perhaps, until we finally get our sh*t together and
genuinely revolt. How long will that take?
The farce willl go on. After all, while the actual popular
sovereignty expressed in voting might be minimal, and the
information environment itself largely a corporate
construction, its gives a concrete, personal, representation
of popular sovereignty, and in so doing – and whatever the
despondency of its voters and the emptiness of their choice –
legitimates or "mandates" whatever it is the government does,
and however corporate friendly it might be. And it may be –
with its Private Public Partnerships, and revolving door from
the corporate to public office (and back) – very corporate
friendly indeed.
If this is the case, then the "China Model" is not, as
some think, the ideal neoliberal political model. Explicitly
authoritarian rule is, from the start, problematic in terms
of popular sovereignty. If a corporate-friendly authoritarian
regime is to avoid this, it has but one option. It must
deliver economic growth that is both noticeable and
widespread, and so do what neoliberal theory claims, but
neoliberal practice isn't much, if at all, interested in
providing.
We may well be in the midst of making a choice here
At least the China model provided growth unreal living
standards from the desperate poverty that most Chinese
were living in a generation ago.
It is certainly not without flaws. Corruption,
inequality, and pollution are big problems.
That said,the US is following the corruption and
inequality pretty well. With the Republicans and other
corporations in control, they will surely make sure that
pollution follows.
Actually it will be worse. The Chinese model ensured
that China built up a manufacturing sector. It followed
the economic growth trajectory of Japan after WW2 and
later South Korea. The neoliberals won't do that.
By "revolt" what do you actually mean? Armed overthrow of
the existing power structure? Or political revolt, forming a
new party? Breaking the US up into smaller countries?
I'm having hard time imagining a radical restructuring of
power in the US. Nor does it strikes me as particularly
desirable, as my observation is that the new power structure
is often just as bad as the existing one. But now has to deal
with governing a fractured society.
Whatever would be required to create necessary change.
A series of actions emerging from a plan,
ever-intensifying until the system-as-it-is has no more
power.
Do you think hundreds of millions of people should
continue to let themselves be trashed? That sort of thing
never lets up but only increases over time.
This situation is not unlike spousal abuse. The most
dangerous time for the abused is when the she/he decides
to leave. And the after-effects usually land her/him in
poverty but also peace and self-respect.
Yep, in a duopoly it is necessary to own and control both
halves–even a perpetually losing one. That is cheap insurance against
nasty surprises. American political parties and politicians are cheap
as hell to buy in any event. Gazillionaire couch change can control
entire parties.
Oh, c'mon. The money spent to provide an illusion of democracy is
chump change compared to the billions they are reaping from having
bought the government. The plutocrats are not trying to effect change
really, they like it pretty much as it is now. The purpose of the two
parties is to distract us from what is really going on. The only
plutocratic interest in what they do is fueled by perverse curiosity
of what their new toy can do.
Anon, I hope you are right. Somewhat lost in the news was the vote NOT
to ban corporate donations to the DNC. To me, that is at least as telling
as Ellison's loss. The Clintons may be gone, but their stench remains.
I think we need to accept the strong likelihood that there will be a
corporatist-dominated Constitutional Convention by 2025. First on the
agenda: a constitutional amendment that requires a balanced federal budget.
The globalist elites will slam on that lever to destroy what remains of the
economic safety net. "Balanced budgets" are very popular with the deceived
public but such an amendment will end general prosperity in this nation
forever. Imagine what else they'll outlaw and ban and 1860 doesn't feel so
far away.
What surprises me is that Establishment Ds make no effort to defend
themselves from attacks from the Left. It's like they don't care: no
leftward movement on policy. They just call Bernie and the Brodudes
names. What Sanders did to Hillary is a proof of concept. The most
powerful Establishment D is mortally wounded by an attack from a no name
senator from Vermont. This can be used against any Establishment D. The
Brodudes initially may not have wanted to burn it down, but they now know
they can. So what are the Establishment Ds doing to defend themselves?
Closer and closer it comes as the Democrats have let state after state
come under one-party Republican rule while unjustifiably preening
themselves for their "moral rectitude" (while yet continuing to assist in
looting the joint for a small percentage of the take ). That party has
come to play their part in cementing the injustices and inequalities into
place. Witness Obama, not only sitting on his hands when action against
palpable injustice was needed, but actively collaborating in rigidifying
the rotten structure. The quintessential globalist, authoritarian,
war-loving Democrat, the only kind permissable,
vide
Perez.
There's a good chance that Trump will end up being a 2 term president
and that 2018 will be a disaster for the Democratic Party on the scale of
2010, 2014, and 1994. Meanwhile, they will surely blame the voters and
especially the left, which is what they always do when they don't win.
If Trump doesn't deliver the manufacturing jobs to the "undesirables"
like he promised, if he dismantles ACA and leaves poor and working class
"undesirables" to the wolf of some sort of privatization scheme health care
w/ vouchers or tax breaks, if backtracking on financial sector reform leads
to another economic meltdown, and if he and Bannon get another war, which
metastasizes into asymmetrical warfare all over Western Europe and the US,
then Trump's ability to get reelected is in serious jeopardy to say the
least, no matter how lame the democratic challenger is. Bush's meltdown gave
us a Black President for christs sake.
On the other hand, the down ticket races could continue to be the usual
disaster for the dems unless they do a major reshift in their campaign
strategies outside the blue states that includes strong populist economic
messaging and pushing a strong safety net w/ a public option for health care
(assuming the GOP wipes out ACA.)
There are a lot of "ifs" there that are looking like "wills" at the
moment. He is playing true to type and delegating policy to whomsoever
flatters him best whilst jetting off to Mar-a-Lago for a game of golf
with his business buddies. With the exception of killing TPP (maybe?) and
no immediate European conflicts with Russia, this is what I would have
expected from him and, more importantly, Pence. The true believers seem
to be getting their way, thus far.
That said, I wouldn't discount the power of his ability to deflect
blame for the consequences of his actions. For the most part, those who
voted for him truly believe that everything is someone else's fault, and
I don't see that changing any time soon.
This is true, but don't you think the standards are different?
At the moment nothing is either Parties fault, according to their
leadership, but the reactions of both Party's base has been far
different to date. Dems have been comparatively unsuccessful
blaming Muslims, leftists and Russians for their problems whereas
that is, and always has been, red meat for Republicans. Any stick
to beat someone with just doesn't work as well for the Democratic
Party. Claire McCaskill calls Bernie a communist and is vilified
for it at the time, so now she is whining because her seat is at
risk in '18? What did she expect when she knew, at the time, that
she was alienating half the Party by so doing?
Dems are losing because they have the misfortune of not having
more Republicans in their electoral base, however hard they have
tried to include them in their "Big Tent" leadership. Republicans
actively fear their base, and would never make such an egregious
political mistake.
I thought all of the candidates for the DNC Chair were really
bad. Even the ever so popular Keith Ellison. This guy once
advocated for an entire separate country to be formed comprising
of only African Americans. Just curious, how "tolerant" and
"inclusive" would the immigration policy be for that country if
it were ever created? What would the trade policies be in that
country? Would they let a white owned business like Wal-Mart
move into a black neighborhood and put the local black owned
businesses out of business? Keith Ellison is nothing more than a
hypocrite every time he criticizes Donald Trump's policies and
advocates for his impeachment.
The entire Democratic party is falling apart. They are trying
to get elected because of their race, sex, and/or religion.
Instead of trying to get elected based on the content of their
character and their message. I truly believe the main reason
Keith Ellison was even considered for the DNC Chair is because
he is black and a Muslim.
The party rigged the primary against Bernie because they felt
it was time that a woman became president instead of a man. Some
democrats even called Bernie a white supremacist.
"@realDonaldTrump: The race for DNC Chairman was, of
course, totally "rigged." Bernie's guy, like Bernie
himself, never had a chance. Clinton demanded Perez!" –
Twitter
LMFAO
How about that new Clinton video, sure looks like she
is going to run again in 2020 – please, Hilary, you go,
girl!
The corporatist "third way" democrats are hoping for Trump to implode
so that they can get back into the White House. They really don't think
that they need progressives since it is undoubted in their opinion that
Trump will certainly be fail on his promises and be unelectable in 2020
and they will be back in power. And they may be right but the dems still
will have lost most of the states and many localities. It will be more of
the Obama/Clinton wing at the top with all the "professional" hangers on
facing down a Republican congress until the system collapses.
That's clearly what the Perez/Nate Coln Dems are banking on.
Metro-suburban class alliance of multicultural service workers and their
secular Republican employers nonplussed by Bush-style Trump clusterfark.
Heard no "strong populist message" out of Perez's mouth in the DNC
debates. Anything the Dems do there will be to elect more Blue Dogs to
strengthen the conservative wing of the party and push the Sanders people
back to the margins. That's all they care about right now.
But it's a completely passive strategy that is at the mercy of the
Republicans. For "what if" President Bannon lays off the coke and, like
Obama, doesn't do stupid?
The only real hazard the Trumpistas face is the timing of the next
recession. And that will depend on part on the Fed. The rest is: don't
start a war, just leave ACA sit there.
The Fed, the Fed, it all comes down to the Fed in the next 4 years.
Has Bannon studied up on Jackson's Bank War?
I was just at a "Community Meeting" with Rep. Peter DeFazio – one of
the more progressive Dems. Huge turnout, again. Questions were more
challenging than the ones to Wyden. Amazingly old audience – where are
all the Bernie millennials?
Toward the end, I asked him (1) what he thought had happened to the
Democrats over the last 8 disastrous years; and (2) whether he saw motion
to fix the problem.
He responded with a passionate statement of progressive ideas, so I
guess that answers #1; but he didn't answer Pt. 2 at all, really, which
is a negative answer. He had actually been pretty critical of the party
in earlier answers, and we had just learned that Perez would be chairing
the DNC.
I was wearing a Green Party T-shirt, which I'm sure he recognizes.
Oddly, both the first and last questions were from local Greens: the
first, from the former city councillor who runs against him on a regular
basis; and the last from my wife, about the Boycott-Divestment-Sanctions
movement. Time was limited, and we lined up for the microphones.
The wars won't matter to people as long as the propaganda is good
enough (perhaps a helpful false flag incident as well) and as long as
there is no draft. It's all about whipping up the patriotism we'll see
if that still works.
The Democratic Party has always about "left containment." Their entire
existence isn't about winning at all. It's about allowing establishment
rule, which is why even when Democrats are elected the forward march into
corporate rule continues unabated.
Neither party is worth a bucket of warm spit – and both parties pay no
attention what so ever to the vast majority their members, or the vast
majority of the citizens. And neither party can be reformed. IMHO, the only
question is if any new party constituted would be infiltrated and undermined
from within before it could do anything.
This seems very much like a kneejerk reaction. Your assuming the economy
doesn't go into recession by then which increasingly seems less and less
likely as well as the GOP Congressional leadership or Trump showing much
skill in executing their legislative agenda. A lot easier being the guy who
chants out about how the guy in charge sucks and another entirely when they
suddenly become the person in charge.
Unless Trump starts to deliver on jobs and meaningful wage growth, there
will be inevitable backlash in 2018 at him and the GOP. It is going to be
increasing when the rank and file American realizes that the GOP House tax
plan goes for essentially a 20% VAT to be implemented on imported goods
while they get a whopping income tax cut of 1-2%. Average American is a rube
but eventually this will start to sink in as to just how short changed
they'll be if it largely passes wholesale.
What if they do tax cuts for the rich without Social Security /
Medicare cuts? What if they don't do much about Obamacare and don't lose
votes that way either? And if the recovery continues, the labour market
will tighten.
Yes, and what if they *do* continue to put on a big show against
"illegals" and allegedly unfriendly Muslim immigrants? And tinker just
enough with NAFTA to claim a symbolic "win" against Mexico? This could
be potent stuff.
If the Democrats haven't managed to come up with a candidate people
can really get behind, it will be even easier for incumbency to pull
Trump over the finish line again. Many Republicans who wouldn't vote
for Trump this time "because Hitler" will have observed by then that
the country survived Term I, and they'll get back in line, because
Republicans always come home. The Democrats seem to think that since
the election was close, all they need to do is run Obama V2 (Booker),
thereby re-juicing the lagged African American turnout and putting a D
back in the Oval Office. I think that ship has sailed now. If Trump
truly bombs, then sure anyone will beat him. But as of now I'm not
confident that he will simply fail and the numbers may only be more
difficult for the Ds in 2020.
I seriously doubt Trump will be a one term president. DNC elections
notwithstanding. If there's no "there" there in the, according to Trump,
utterly nonexistent Russia scandal, why hide from the press? Take the
questions. Call for an investigation himself. Nothing to hide? Quit hiding.
Given very recent history, this is no surprise. Unfortunate, and I expect to
see "resistance" activities nudged even more toward the same weary mainstream
DNC tropes.
This is just another big fuck you to the progressive wing of the party. It's
time to board the ship and start a mutiny. And if that doesn't work, sink the
ship and build a new one.
"This is just another big fuck you to the progressive wing of the party."
The message is undeniable: You're not welcome here. Thank you for your
votes, thank you for your money, shut up, no you do not get to pick the
candidate, Debbie and Donna did nothing wrong, no we are not getting rid of
superdelegates, no we are not refusing corporate money, no you cannot have
even a Clinton-endorsing kinda-progressive as Chair, no to free college,
'never ever' to universal health care, 'we're capitalists here', and Haim
Saban's opinion matters more than millions of BernieCrats because money.
In March 2008, Saban was among a group of major Jewish donors to
sign a letter to Democratic Party house leader Nancy Pelosi warning
her to "keep out of the Democratic presidential primaries."The donors,
who "were strong supporters of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton
presidential campaign", "were incensed by a March 16 interview in
which Pelosi said that party 'superdelegates' should heed the will of
the majority in selecting a candidate."The letter to Pelosi stated the
donors "have been strong supporters of the DCCC" and implied,
according to The Jewish Telegraphic Agency, that Pelosi could lose
their financial support in important upcoming congressional elections.
Poor ol' Haim must be soooo pissed that Clinton lost again. Hahaha.
I wasn't planning on commenting for a while but ended up leaving a
comment here a few minutes ago and it disappeared into the ether.
Probably something to do with the one of the links I included. No big
deal.
I stopped being a Democrat a few years ago. And I have not donated for some
time. Yet I still receive constant requests for money to keep the consultants
in airline miles. Every so often I think that perhaps it might be time to "come
home" or at least that they aren't so bad anymore.
Then they go and do this.
At this point I see no reason to keep the ossified corpse of the
Clinton Machine
Democratic party going. It is clear that the last
thing they want to do is listen to actual voters to decide their direction. All
they have is the faint hope that Trump will be so godawful that everyone will
love them again.
But then that was Hillary Clinton's campaign strategy
If your state requires you to register as a Democrat in order to vote in
the Democratic primary, I recommend doing so. Then you can vote for
outsiders in the 2018 and 2020 primaries. If your state has an open primary
system, you don't have to taint yourself with official membership - just
request the appropriate primary ballot and vote.
This is my dilemma. In CT, you have to be R or D to vote in primary. I
left the D's after the CA primary b/c I was so disgusted. I'll see what
candidates are looking like when the time comes and make my decision
then.
I deregistered as a Democrat in CA today after 17 years (though I
was already pretty much out over the past few years, I let this be the
final straw opposite inertia). The CA "top two" system for general
elections only puts the top two vote-getters from any party during the
primary on the ballot, ostensibly switching the election to one
largely determined during the primary, by primary voters.
The California Democratic party allows those voters registered as
not specifying a political preference to vote in the Democratic
primary, so I might still end up voting among the various options,
especially if someone like Brand New Congress puts up a real candidate
here or there. During the 2016 primary, the D-party anti-Sanders
shenanigans were evident even in CA. In some areas, unaffiliated
voters who wanted a D-party ballot were misled or required to very
strictly repeat a specific phrase, or they were given ballots with no
effect on the D-party primary. I expect to have to be very careful to
request and obtain the correct ballot in advance. (Let's hope that the
slow takeover at lower levels within the state makes this less
necessary).
It's going to be a long, hard slog on the left, whether
occasionally peeking inside the tent or building something cohesive,
not co-opted and effective outside the tent (where it seems the
D-party has necessarily pushed many).
But whatever you do, make sure you know your state's election law in
advance, especially deadlines for registration changes, which may be
earlier than you expect.
"All they have is the faint hope that Trump will be so godawful that
everyone will love them again."
Well, that and Nancy "we know how to win elections" Pelosi promising the
Earth for votes to regain their majorities,
again,
only to then
take all of that off of the table and start the cycle over again.
I really don't know how many times one can go to that well; we have seen
this play before. Seems like an awful lot of people have caught on to the
tactic at this point. Were that not the case, HIllary would probably be
happily bombing Russia by now.
The Dems are set up pretty well for 2018. Both Trump and Hillary are
deeply unpopular and Hillary won't be a vote driver for the GOP in 2018
and Trump will be for the Dems. There are a bunch of important States
with Gov races and whatever happens the next 20 months Trump and the GOP
will own completely, they wont even have a recalcitrant legislative
branch to point the finger at.
I always figured whoever won in 2016 was set up to be a one term POTUS.
Best case scenario for Trump is that we tread water for the next 2-4
years and I don't think that will be enough get him a 2nd term although
it might be enough to staunch GOP losses in 2020. If he gets gets into a
messy hot war, fumbles a major natural disaster or sees an economic
downturn in 4 years we'll be talking about the impending death of GOP.
Those scenarios sound a little rosy considering the types of people
we are talking about. They can take a lot of pain as long as someone
else is feeling it more .and there is always someone else. If they
cannot find a demographic to blame they will invent one; see the
historic hatred for ObamaCare and the raucous town halls now defending
the ACA; they don't have to make sense.
Also, too, Dems are defending more incumbencies in '18 than are the
Reps., and the Republican Party has the machinery already in place to
reduce the voting public down to just those that are more likely to
vote for them. Just create a riot at a voting precinct, for example,
jail whomsoever you want and take their stuff as is now foreshadowed
in Arizona. They would love that stuff; "Beat those hippies!" And,
after the Democratic Primaries, the Democratic Party will be in no
position to take the high ground.
No, even if all that happens, I think the predicting the death of
the GOP is way premature.
His fans will vote for him, a lot of the the people who voted
for him as the lesser of two evils will be demotivated to vote or
will vote Dem as a check on him and this who voted for HRC as the
lesser of two evils will be motivated. At best his popularity right
now is about where GWB's was after he tried to privatize SS and
just before Katrina and the public's view on Iraq flipped for good.
I think 2018 will look a lot like 2006. Hate and spite will be on
the Dems side in 2018 and those are great motivators.
Trump may have deep support, but it isn't very broad. He didn't win
an 84 or even an 08 sized victory.
There is a reason the party in power does poorly in off year
elections and Trump is the least popular newly elected POTUS in
modern history.
It would be helpful to know, also, how many who normally vote
Republican abstained or went 3rd party rather than vote for
Trump. Maybe it wasn't that many (since Trump did get more votes
than Romney after all), but many of these people will be voting
for Trump in 2020 unless he completely tanks. It's never a good
idea to underestimate the party loyalty of GOP voters. Beating
Democrats is the Prime Directive.
I think the problem is that Republicans are much better at actually
winning elections. How many seats can the Democrats actually regain?
Keeping in mind that midterm voters skew older/Republican in any case.
"We lost this election eight years ago," concludes Michael Slaby, the
campaign's chief technology officer. "Our party became a national movement
focused on general elections, and we lost touch with nonurban, noncoastal
communities. There is a straight line between our failure to address the
culture and systemic failures of Washington and this election result."
The question of why-why the president and his team failed to activate
the most powerful political weapon in their arsenal.
Obama's army was eager to be put to work. Of the 550,000 people who
responded to the survey, 86 percent said they wanted to help Obama pass
legislation through grassroots support; 68 percent wanted to help elect state
and local candidates who shared his vision. Most impressive of all, more than
50,000 said they personally wanted to run for elected office.
But they never got that chance. In late December, Plouffe and a small
group of senior staffers finally made the call, which was endorsed by Obama.
The entire campaign machine, renamed Organizing for America, would be folded
into the DNC, where it would operate as a fully controlled subsidiary of the
Democratic Party.
Instead of calling on supporters to launch a voter registration drive or
build a network of small donors or back state and local candidates, OFA
deployed the campaign's vast email list to hawk coffee mugs and generate
thank-you notes to Democratic members of Congress who backed Obama's
initiatives.
Republicans, on the other hand, wasted no time in building a grassroots
machine of their own-one that proved capable of blocking Obama at almost every
turn. Within weeks of his inauguration, conservative activists began calling
for local "tea parties" to oppose the president's plan to help foreclosed
homeowners.
https://newrepublic.com/article/140245/obamas-lost-army-inside-fall-grassroots-machine
Thomas Frank: "The even larger problem is that there is a kind of chronic
complacency that has been rotting American liberalism for years, a hubris that
tells Democrats they need do nothing different, they need deliver nothing
really to anyone – except their friends on the Google jet and those nice people
at Goldman. The rest of us are treated as though we have nowhere else to go and
no role to play except to vote enthusiastically on the grounds that these
Democrats are the "last thing standing" between us and the end of the world. It
is a liberalism of the rich, it has failed the middle class, and now it has
failed on its own terms of electability."
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/09/donald-trump-white-house-hillary-clinton-liberals
And so it goes, unless. The ruling class, the professional class D&R, the
upper 10%, those who make more than $150 thousand, win no matter who sits in
the Oval Office or controls all 3 branches, both look down on their respective
bases, the deplorables. Taking a page from the TParty to fight harder, tougher,
longer, louder and make Perez move left.
"The rest of us are treated as though we have nowhere else to go and no
role to play "
And so far, they're right. At least, very few are going there. A lot are
staying home, but that doesn't accomplish much.
Take heart. One of my friends is a long-time progressive Democrat. She ran
as a Clean Elections candidate and was elected to the Arizona legislature last
November. She has never held office before.
Agree, Big River Bandido. She should share with progressive
Democratic primary challengers to those sorry Democrats only. Not that
anyone at the DNC would ever listen anyway.
Kudos to your friend! I think progressives fighting for places in the
state legislatures has to be our first step, especially with the
census/redistricting looming
Where do you live? 2/3'rds of the states have Republican governors and
66-70 percent Republican state legislatures. They have already been
gerrymandered and are very likely to remain this way for AT LEAST a
generation.
I live in Ohio. Democrat state legislators can do absolutely nothing.
Not that this particularly bothers them. They collect their $60,000
salaries - not bad for a VERY part-time position– regardless.
I'm guessing that you failed to mention - in addition to salary -
per diem, plus payments into the state retirement system? I'm guessing
that $60,000 is only the top part of the iceberg; best to look under
the waterline to get the whole picture?
They had Howard Dean, and a script for 50 state success and tossed it.
Yeah, I guess they at least should hold Perez's feet to the fire to make
him go lefty populist on the ground, if he doesn't, toss him and fight
them.
Brand New Congress just got out their fundraising email in response to the
election:
The DNC just elected a chair who is pro-TPP, against single-payer,
against tuition-free state universities and has no desire to transform our
economy in meaningful ways. A chair who thinks the status quo is ok. It's a
clear indicator that they're confident in their agenda, a confidence
exemplified in the words of Nancy Pelosi who believes that Democrats "don't
want a new direction".
Elect a Brand New Congress that works for all Americans.
We're running 400+ candidates in a single campaign to rebuild our
country.
Add Your Name
Join us if you believe it's time to reset our democracy.
Email
Please enter a valid email.
Zip
Please enter a valid zip code.
80% of Americans agree: Congress is broken. Both major parties have
proven time and time again that they are either unwilling or unable to
deliver results for the American people. But we have an alternative. We are
recruiting and running more than 400 outstanding candidates in a single,
unified, national campaign for Congress in 2018. Together, they will pass an
aggressive and practical plan to significantly increase wages, remove the
influence of big money from our government, and protect the rights of all
Americans. Let's elect a Brand New Congress that will get the job done.
This list of sponsors DOESN'T:
Washington Post
Wall Street Journal
Wired
The Huffington Post
The Daily Beast
Slate
The Nation
The Frisky
Salon
Bustle
Boing Boing
Roll Call
Well I for one am relieved he's the new chair. I won't have to think there
might be hope and change in the corp. owned demodog party. I'll celebrate with
a glass of whine later.
Arizona Slim, Thanks for the good news in AZ. It was tried in my part of
Calli but dnc did everything they good to elect repug instead of a real
progressive.
In order for real representative government to appear on the American scene,
two things have to happen:
1. Corporations have to be declared non-persons.
2. Money is declared not equal to speech.
Why do we have the situation we have now?
Two decisions by the Supreme Court. Santa Clara vs Southern Pacific RR and
Buckley vs. Valeo. So, who is the real power in our Government? The Judicial.
Thank you so much for this post!! I saw a video on the 1886 case in high
school and was disgusted. In passing time I forgot the specifics and have
been trying to locate that decision since. I kept thinking it was in the
1920s/30s
I'd add No. 3: Ranked preference voting. (Majority wins or run-offs do
not cut it.)
In this case, if choosing among 4 candidates, and I rank all 4 of them, my
first choice gets 4 points, my second choice gets 3 points, etc. If I only
rank 2 of them, my first choice gets 2 points, my second choice gets 1
point. If I only rank 1 person, they get 1 point.
Try this out on anything where you've got 3 or more options, in a group
of any size. It's amazing how much better the group consensus will be
reflected in the results.
You can vote your genuine preference without concern for "spoilers" or
dividing the opposition.
Seriously though, I kind of like this little game we play here, where we
act surprised or shocked or something at the Democratic Party's complete
lack of integrity. Like there was ever any question that 'they' might do the
right thing. I honestly don't know about you guys, but I decided a
long
time ago that the Democrats and Republicans were just two tentacles of the
same vampire squid or whatever, so.. why the outrage and/or disdain? cause
it's diverting I suppose.
The Democratic Party will never let the Republican Party go down. Haven't
we figured that out yet?
The only way to get rid of the Republican Party is to get rid of the
Democratic Party.
"He is clearly an anti-Semite and anti-Israel individual," pronounced Saban
about the African-American Muslim congressman, adding: "Keith Ellison would be
a disaster for the relationship between the Jewish community and the Democratic
Party."
"I'm a one-issue guy, and my issue is Israel," he told the New York Times
in 2004 about himself
he attacked the ACLU for opposing Bush/Cheney civil liberties assaults and
said: "On the issues of security and terrorism I am a total hawk."
We're not welcome anywhere it seems – and that has to be flippin'
ridiculous in a country of this size and diversity! Could there be a better
time for the Democratic Socialists to expand and come forth ? Cornel West at
the helm, to begin – perhaps persuading Bernie to join him.
From what I see already around the interwebs and comment sections, it
will be blamed on the lefty radicals who are fracturing the party by
resisting the borg. And Sanders. And Cornel West. Etc Etc
You know – it almost doesn't even matter. The Dems will get corporation
donations just in "case" they win. They really aren't terribly motivated.
It's like being a salesperson with no sales goals.
On another note – The Turks guy (Cent? can't remember his name) said that
it was time for a third party on his twitter account. Nina Turner "liked"
it. I found that a little hopeful.
The Democrats obviously can't wait for that constitutional convention by the
sadist wing of the Republican Party. The sooner it can no longer have any
loopholes that cause any interpretation outside of corporations rule, the
easier it will be for Democrats. No more worrying about doing good things for
those pesky people.
The United States already has third parties. There is no real need to start
another one. The Libertarian party is the radical antiauthoritarian center. The
Green Party ought to be adequate for progressive Democrats. There is also a
far-right christian theocrat Constitution Party.
I've voted forJill twice now (and contributed moderately). She seems
intelligent, well-spoken, progressive, passionate, everything we would
want a candidate to be and nothing. If there was EVER a year to have
broken through 5% sigh. So what's the problem?
The problem is that there's widespread election fraud. You could
see it in the Wisconsin and Michigan GE recounts and the Illinois
Democratic Party Recount. The reality is that we don't have any
trustworthy vote totals. Maybe Jill did a lot better (or maybe she
didn't), maybe Hillary actually beat Donald (or maybe she didn't),
maybe Bernie won the primary (okay, that one really isn't a maybe to
me since it's very clear that Hillary used tricks to move IA and NV
into her corner- which would have been fatal if she didn't, the CA,
NY, AZ, PR, and RI primary debacles, DNC collusion etc).
Here are two videos that really helped me understand that this
fraud is likely widespread:
Long video on the Illinois recount:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSNTauWPkTc&sns=em
–>The "good" part starts at minute 24. The underlying point becomes
clear really quickly if you want to just watch a small portion, but
the speaker who comes on around the hour mark is excellent.
Election Justice USA also had a great summary. There's a reason
many places in Europe still do manual, verifiable counting. Voting
security, even more than money in politics, is the biggest barrier to
having a legitimate Democracy. Unfortunately, that may be even more
difficult than money in politics, which at least could theoretically
be altered by Congress to cover the whole country at once.
What Carla said about the greens. Also, the Libertarians are basically
into neoliberalism. Theyre ok on social issues, but they aren't a real
answer either.
My hope is that the #Notmypresident millennials take the next steps from
Trump needs to be resisted and work for longer term gains and political
power by getting active in local politics/down ticket races and local
democratic party organizations to in effect bum rush the dems and make it
the party that it wants the country to be.
Love doesn't conquer all, Corporate lobbyists do. Organize for power, win
elections, work for change.
I think most people here are seeing what happened, but wrong about the
impact.
Head of DNC is not a good place to organize primary challenges, and that is
what is needed. DNC head is mostly just bag man for corporate money. Not that
much power but some visibility. Bernie guy gets in, and there are constant
questions about loyalty to the party and big tent and being fair to blue dogs.
And then questions of competence if not enough money is raised or not enough
elections won. No winning likely.
Losing suits us better. Establishment is against Progressives. Fine. The war
is on. Find primary challengers, and get them elected.
In my view, that has always been the only way forward.
Find primary challengers, even if they have no chance of winning. Even in
districts stacked against them turn money in politics into the wealthy's
biggest weakness. Make the ROI in elections too expensive to achieve.
I agree with you that losing this worthless race serves our long-term
interests better. This is war and clarity is always an advantage. Easier to
fight them from a clear outside position.
However, we have not the resources or the power base (within the Democrat
Party) to mount effective primary challenges. If that party is to be a
vehicle for change, we will have to take it away from them starting at the
lowest levels - local party offices - and gradually work our way up.
As we move up the chain, we purge all the deadwood.
At this point, perhaps progressives would have more luck joining the
Republican Party in hopes of "reform" or "changing the platform". They would
probably have more luck than with the Democrats. As for 2018 and 2020, the
congressional Republicans will have no incentive to defend congress or the
Presidency. They would rather have Democrats to blame things for than have to
deal with President Trump (whom they detest).
Einstein's definition of #Insanity immediately comes to mind.
We'll see what #BernieCrats, #DSA and others can do at the grassroots level.
Their (continued) #Resistance to the #corporatistDem structure is even more
important now.
That's just what Rep. DeFazio just said – even though he himself wins
by ridiculous margins in a "swing" district (the closest win for Hillary
inthe country, he said) by being a progressive's progressive.
I was a card-carrying member of DSA when it was DSOC! Long time ago. Time
to start paying dues again, even from the political wilderness in which I
find myself. Way past time, actually. The problem with waiting for the
Democrat Party to hit bottom is this: There is no bottom to this abyss.
As someone doing DSA organizing I'll say that we will be thrilled to
have you on board again. Interest is quite high among the Bernie youth,
so the seats are full but experience, generational diversity, and gas
money are in relatively short supply!
Perhaps from lack of organization on their part? After the election
my husband registered to join the DSA, and sent them money. Three
months later, no acknowledgement of any kind, not even a dumb
membership card. Not that the Democrats ever sent anything but
requests for cash, but we expected better.
It's OK. They let Ellison be play chairman. The Identities are pleased.
BTW: Perez was born in Buffalo, NY, and Wikipedia lists his nationality
as American. The WaPo headline is bullcrap, intended to distract readers
from the real issues, and promote the Clinton wing to Latin Americans, an
identity group that certainly would benefit more from the Sanders wing.
Bush's meltdown did give us a Black President - but after 8 years, not 4
years. During the election I too thought whichever candidate won was poised to
be a one-term President, but there's a big condition: there absolutely
must
be a compelling competing narrative, and a defined counter-platform. It doesn't
matter what calamity results from a Trump-led-monopoly-republican federal
government if they still dominate the narrative and the opposition is still
just "resisting" (or has an incoherent laundry list). It's overly-optimistic to
think the Rs will own bad outcomes, or that those in power ever necessarily do
(if that were so, neither Bush nor Obama would have been re-elected).
I'll hand it to the dems, I thought they'd string things out. I didn't think
they'd let it be this obvious, this quickly, that the counter force won't come
from the democrat party. None of us thought it would, but maybe we thought
they'd at least throw some dust in the air to try keep us guessing for a while.
The challenge for the Left remains organization and focus. The clarity
delivered by the democrat party is helpful. No need to debate reform, that's
been answered (at least for now). The democrat establishment has nothing to do
with the Left. It is not the opposition per say but might as well be (think of
it this way: an opponent would refute your work, try to tank or sabotage it;
the democrats invite you over to steal it, mess it up, fail, blame you, and
invite you over again, huffing that their own work is "essentially the same
anyway" but insisting that they be in charge).
It's time to own the Realignment. One part of that is making a clear break
from the democratic establishment in terms of agenda, priorities, solidarity,
identity. Not just a quibble among the like-minded; a divorce. We are only
serving its interests if we don't. Case in point, the linked article echoes the
common refrain that between Perez and Ellison "ideological differences are
few ". No, no, a thousand effing times no. That is wrong, and attempts to fit
in or make common cause with the dem establishment only validate the
self-serving Unity/Look Forward narrative whose purpose is obscure what's
really at issue and at stake.
And the corollary to cutting losses on the dem establishment is the second
part - building the realignment, which means finding and creating common cause
where it's been latent or non-existent. A compelling, competing narrative must
be a counterweight not just to Trump's blame-deflections, but to the drivel
spewing (at least as subtext) from the establishments of both parties. The key
is not to try make the Rs own the outcomes on their watch; it's to make the
Establishment own them, and to make Trump own that he
is
the
Establishment (or that he caters to it).
Everything else is secondary. Elections up and down the ballot (local, state
and federal) may force decisions on voting for a party, but which party
prevails is not important - it is incidental, relevant only if it serves the
cause, not vice versa. The Left needs to be clear on the realignment, stop
talking to and about parties, and take up common cause and concern where we can
find it. I have a feeling that the Left is less defined and determined than we
imagine, because we aren't really testing it yet. Illusions about the
democratic party are gone. And that's a good thing.
It doesn't matter what calamity results from a
Trump-led-monopoly-republican federal government if they still dominate
the narrative and the opposition is still just "resisting" (or has an
incoherent laundry list). It's overly-optimistic to think the Rs will own
bad outcomes, or that those in power ever necessarily do (if that were
so, neither Bush nor Obama would have been re-elected).
If Trump owns a narrative on a brick and mortar foundation of higher
unemployment in the battleground states, devastation of lives from another
financial meltdown (Bush had already stolen the second term prior to it),
devastation and death from a potential free market solution to health
care–"here's a voucher, go chose the best deal cause it's all about giving
you your freedom", and war that may end up being brought to the shores of
Western Europe and the United States killing a whole bunch more than 9/11,
it would be pretty difficult to come back and sell the medicine show elixir
a second time. Promising a whole lot and delivering less than zero, I don't
know if the "deplorables" will get fooled again by his fake populism when he
comes back for their votes in four years when they're still unemployed,
underemployed and in greater debt and or bankruptcy from increased medical
care costs. I'm not saying this as a affirmation of neoliberal democratic
people running for the presidency, but that a whole lot of nothing incumbent
running on a world of shit that he's created is vulnerable to a candidate
who may be a whole lot of nothing with less baggage.
And Trump would potentially be running on a bigger pile of poop that he's
added to the domestic and foreign fronts of Obama and Bush. O and B brought
us to the precipice of the cliff, but Trump incompetence GOP ideologue
arrogance can drive us off the cliff.
We may be pointing at different parts of a continuum - how bad things
are in four years relative to Trump promises, and why people believe
things are so bad. We are likely closest on how bad things could be - I
agree, the stuff Trump ran and won on is likely to be much, much worse -
but I think I'm less inclined to see that as handing him electoral defeat
in 2020. Of course it's always easier/better to be able to run on
something delivered. And less-than-zero can and by logic
should
tank a President. But the
why
is important - especially when the
electorate basically doesn't trust any of these clowns. No one really
expects anything from Washington, and is used to things getting worse. If
Trump can deflect and maintain his message - cast blame on various faces
of the establishment, the democrats, media, eventually even the
republicans - I don't think he's inevitably or even likely undone. I'm
not saying nothing will ever catch up with . just saying it's not
guaranteed. There are a lot of factors, but I think here's actually my
main thing: it depends less on "holding him to account" or pointing at
failures or making him own things, and more on advancing a coalition with
a compelling voice, coherent platform - and not about party. In the end,
pinning failures on Trump only succeeds if there's a concrete and
appealing answer to "compared to what." Trump just won against The
Establishment, and the classic establishment move is to point giddily at
failures and mis-steps, and say here's where you can donate, and thanks
for your vote. A successful opposition has to do better.
Is it too late to change my mind and support a Syrian no fly zone? I want
this country to fail. I want it to stop existing. I absolutely hate everything
about america. I want Both Clinton's and Obama's heads on a plate. If Bernie
doesn't announce he's creating a new party then I'll just be sitting around
thinking about the best way to undermine this shit hole of a country.
The Democratic Party no longer stands for anything at all (witness its
recent conversion to McCarthyism). Its actions are motivated by no purpose save
its leaders' self-enrichment.
A political party without a raison d'tre is little more than a walking
corpse and there is nothing to be lost by leaving it.
Though sad about the outcome of the DNC chair race, I think PH is right, DNC
chair is probably just about raising the corporate $$. I'm sticking with the
Tip O'Neil strategy, "all politics is local."
I joined the D party in 2014, mostly because I thought I had to get involved
and help remove Scott W from the governor's mansion. What I saw was lethargic
and not very welcoming. Couldn't get anyone to train me on how to canvas. I
offered over and over to do data entry, web, social media.
In the summer of 2015, I got involved with a local issue and we WON. 8
people (no other Dems) and we stopped a bad deal the city was about to make. We
did petitions and spoke at council meetings. Wrote op eds, did radio
interviews, put up yard signs.
Through that I met an organizer from a progressive group and I told him that
I was thinking of running for local office. He introduced me to the bare facts
of how to run a campaign and put me in touch with another progressive group
that runs candidate training seminars. I went to one of those seminars. I was
listening to Bernie too:) His positive voice was a great inspiration. By the
end of 2015, I knew I would run for the county board. All our local races are
non-partisan and often uncontested. The incumbent would be running for her
third term.
The local election is held during the spring Presidential primary. I live in
Wisconsin. My area is completely red. The election I could best model from was
the 2012 and Rich Santoruim won my district. I had access to the VAN as well
and could see that Republicans dominated my district in this election. (It
voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012) I planned my campaign based completely on
meeting the voter at the door and listening. Turnout is usually pretty low,
30%. I figured 50 hrs at the doors would do it. Interestingly, almost every
person I talked with didn't even know who represented them on the county board.
It was surprisingly easy, the only stress was the heat of the Presidential
primary and how that would bring unpredictability to my race.
Happy news, I won. More Happy news, I got involved with recruiting and
helping people run for local office. We're at it right now. School board, city
council. This is where it begins and this is where the ball has been dropped in
Wisconsin. The Republican party has used the local offices very effectively to
build their bench. What the Dems didn't do was build the bench.
In Wisconsin, this is so easy because the vast majority of the local offices
are non-partisan. When someone asked me what party I was with, I would just
say, "this is a non-partisan race." That was the end of that part of the
conversation and we were on to something else. The other thing about the local
elections is that very few people actually run a campaign, so if you do, you
will win. Your name is the only name they will know.
I now have connected with other people in the state who are working on this
strategy. It is going to take a while, but we will build the bench and take
back the state. It isn't going to happen overnight.
I went to the first local Our Revolution meeting today. I was impressed. The
organizer had exactly the same thought – we are going to fill the county board
with progressives. Stuff is going to happen. We've got the people, that is what
we need locally, not $$.
If only the Democratic party could see, they need to train up and use their
people. Forget the big $$$.
This is an inspiring story. The "silver lining" in these times is that
people are taking their anger and disappointment and doing something about
it at an actionable, local level. I went to a local assemblyman's town hall
meeting yestesrday that had hundreds more attendees than were planned. The
natives are restless.
I, too, am in WI and running for city council. The only reason I'm
willing to do so is *because* the local offices are nonpartisan – I am quite
disillusioned with national politics and both parties. At least locally some
good can be done. DC is irredeemable.
I will likely be using the WI open primary to vote for whichever
candidate the DNC opposes, not that it will matter. If nothing else, I will
feel better.
Taking over the dem party, starting with local races, will be a very long
struggle. Generations. Particularly considering candidates trying for dem nom
will be attacked by corp dems tooth and nail.
The greens are very disorganized. So What? Take them over and organize them.
This is doable, and with somebody like Bernie leading the charge you could pull
in half the dem party plus indies and win elections in 2018 doesn't take that
much support to win elections in three way races, look at GB.
and then be viable for pres in 2018.
Bernie has to give up on dems if he wants to move the needle. Perez win
might just be that extra middle finger that gets him off the dime.
The forces of capital own both parties in a two party system. They will
never give up either of them. Socialists, Social Democrats, Democratic
Socialists, even progressive liberals and .must look elsewhere. Anything else
is fruitless.
St. Bernard had his chance. He blew it. Time to move on from him and MoveOn
and the like.
And so the DNC has learned nothing from the past election cycle and the
repudiation of neoliberalism here and abroad. Confirms my decision to leave the
party.
Observations from the western border of the Granite State:
I decided to attend a local democrat meeting because the candidate I
supported in the D primary for governor (Steve Marchand – he lost) was the
keynote speaker. When I received my copy of Indivisible, and saw that one of
the working groups for the night was focusing on "Fake News," I almost decided
to stay home.
But I didn't. Steve was great. He, counter to the message of "we must play
defense; we cannot offer positive alternatives," in Indivisible, repeatedly
told us that "we cannot beat something with nothing." He spoke extensively
about local organizing, and about appealing to all voters on the issues. He got
a very enthusiastic response from the 100 or so people who turned out for the
meeting. Our governor has a two year term, and while Steve said that he was not
running for anything at the moment, he's clearly laying the ground for a 2018
run. He's getting out in front of every local Dem group, and doing meet and
greets all over the state. Good for him.
We have a Berniecrat, Josh Adjutant, running for state party chair. He may
not win, but he too, is out meeting with groups all over the state and getting
his name out there. He narrowly lost a bid for state rep in a deeply republican
district to a Free Stater, who hasn't shown up for a single vote since being
elected. Last week the Free Stater resigned, and now there will be a special
election. Josh is running again. He's likely to win this time.
After hearing that Perez won the DNC chair, my knee jerk reaction was to say
the hell with it. However there are no viable third party options here, and the
people who voted for Perez all come from the state party.
What I noticed among our Dem group, was a real desire to work on issues and
develop a positive counter message.
So I'm going to get more involved and fight from within. I joined the "fake
news" group, pushed to focus on policy, and volunteered to chair the group
going forward.
Great report, Jen. That's encouraging. Thanks for what you are doing.
We can support good individual Democrats and office holders and good
primary candidates, but with absolutely illusions about sorry sorry party
and its resolute determination to continue hippie punching.
Makes me sick when they go on about Russians and conflict of interest and
ignore things that affect everyone's lives, and that's what they plan to do.
As I have been saying for years now, the
ONLY
purpose of the
Democratic Party today is to crush its own left wing. Denying this at this
point is a fool's errand.
Given this, how can any member of this same left ever justify another vote
for any candidate this Democratic Party sponsors? You do not overcome such
hostility by electing its representatives.
Does that mean you has to vote for people like Donald Trump? Unfortunately,
it does. If you don't, you are not playing at the same level they are, and they
will beat you until the cows come home. These are the people who do not cede
power. These are the people it must be taken from.
"What all people have to realize," said Stuart Appelbaum, a labor leader
from New York and Perez supporter who brought the chair process to its end
Saturday afternoon by calling for the results to be accepted by acclamation,
"is the real form of resistance is voting."
"... In much the same way Blair's catastrophic prime ministerial terms as leader of the UK's mainstream 'Left' will be justifiably viewed unkindly through the lens of history, so too will corporate place man Obama's two abject 'Democratic' presidencies (although to be fair it was Billy boy who saw $ signs in his eyes and who really first started the rot proper for the Democrats.) ..."
"... Listen, Liberals ..."
"... Strangers in Their Own Land ..."
"... I live in a district shaped like a banana ..."
"... "If half of the Super Delegates had voted for the Sanders wing at the convention, wouldn't Sanders have been the Dem candidate?" ..."
Do we need any further proof that the Democratic Party is more interested in
reconciling with the corporate elite than with its populist base? Its core
party leadership is against populist ideas. Liberalism of the rich having
failed the middle and working classes, fails on its own terms of electability.
It helped create today's shockingly disillusioned and sullen public.
Did the Charlie Brown left really believe that this time that Lucy wouldn't
pull the football away and they wouldn't land on their kiesters? But the
Democratic Party always pulls the ball away. It's their nature.
"The crucial tasks for a committed left in the United States now are to
admit that no politically effective force exists and to begin trying to create
one. This is a long-term effort, and one that requires grounding in a vibrant
labor movement. Labor may be weak or in decline, but that means aiding in its
rebuilding is the most serious task for the American left. Pretending some
other option exists is worse than useless. There are no magical interventions,
shortcuts, or technical fixes. We need to reject the fantasy that some spark
will ignite the People to move as a mass. We must create a constituency for a
left program - and that cannot occur via MSNBC or blog posts or the New York
Times. It requires painstaking organization and building relationships with
people outside the Beltway and comfortable leftist groves. Finally, admitting
our absolute impotence can be politically liberating; acknowledging that as a
left we have no influence on who gets nominated or elected, or what they do in
office, should reduce the frenzied self-delusion that rivets attention to the
quadrennial, biennial, and now seemingly permanent horse races. It is long past
time for us to begin again to approach leftist critique and strategy by
determining what our social and governmental priorities should be and focusing
our attention on building the kind of popular movement capable of realizing
that vision." – Adolph Reed Jr., "Nothing Left, The long, slow surrender of
American liberals," Harper's Magazine, March 2014 issue
Don't waste any time pissing and moaning - organize!
It is time to revisit "Fighting Bob" LaFollette's Wisconsin tactics of the
early 1900s.
If the soul of the nation is to be saved, I believe that we must become its
soul.
"There never was a higher call to greater service than in this protracted
fight for social justice." – Robert M. La Follette Sr.
There is a liberal propaganda state of the 10%. It is dogmatic and thus
unfalsifiable.
Arguing with them is like arguing atheism to a fundamentalist. They cannot
hear arguments that violate the structure of their religion. They simply do not
parse.
I must say I really appreciated your analogy of neoliberalism and
religion.
To extend it, if I may, religions cannot exist and persist without faith
ie a conviction without the need for proof, or worse sometimes despite
overwhelming personal or widespread evidence to the contrary.
Most established religions, unsurprisingly are rigidly hierarchical,
controlling and equally require a self-serving, venal priesthood to act as
conduits to interpret and explain (away?) the finer points, gross injustices
and glaring contradictions thrown up by the current 'natural order' and
structures it demands and imposes on its potentially questioning or
waivering followers.
The 'religion's' arcane nature is maintained at all costs, and this is
facilitated by a deliberately impenetrable jargon (to a credulous, often
fearful laity whom mostly endure its harshest edicts), and all tied together
by an over arching fallacious narrative predicated on fear that demands
unconditional obedience and compliance or facing severe, lasting
consequences for apostacy.
In much the same way Blair's catastrophic prime ministerial terms as leader
of the UK's mainstream 'Left' will be justifiably viewed unkindly through the
lens of history, so too will corporate place man Obama's two abject
'Democratic' presidencies (although to be fair it was Billy boy who saw $ signs
in his eyes and who really first started the rot proper for the Democrats.)
Let's be realistic, really successful politicians are rarely shrinking
violets, and are mostly to a man or woman sociopathic narcissists, but it is
only in the modern age that these apparently credible, flag of convenience,
self-serving, ideologically bereft personalities not only have the power to
lead and dominate these long-established political parties during their
relatively brief tenure, it appears they now also have the power to profoundly
undermine or even possibly destroy them in the longer term.
Is it just a shame or coincidence that these once proud and powerful parties
of waning influence happen to traditionally represent the interests of working
people I wonder?
What a frustrating situation. It's hard to avoid the conclusion that the
corporate Democrats really do have a death wish. I agree with many comments
that it is incredibly destructive and stupid to double down on their losing
strategies instead of embracing the Sanders wing of the party. I partly agree
w/ Glenn Greenwald that electing Ellison would have been an easy way to welcome
in the Sanders wing, but unlike him, I'm not sure the Dem chair really is just
a symbolic position. It certainly is symbolic–and the corporate Dems have
chosen potent (and loathesome) symbols in Debbie W-S and Donna B. But I
disagree w/ Greenwald that it is only symbolic. I think the position does
matter in many ways. In any case, in this election which came to be seen by
Dems as a battle for control over the direction of the party, it is clear now
who runs the show and is determined to continue running the show: the corporate
shills of the Clinton/Obama Dems.
But I also see this as a failure of Ellison and the progressives. We have to
play hardball if we're going to win. Ellison had the endorsement of many Dem
stalwarts; he has a relatively strong record for a Democrat; emboldened with
party authority, I believe he could have done a lot; and yes, he would have had
great symbolic value. But he did not make a strong case for his leadership, as
far as I can tell. He didn't declare loudly and clearly why the Dems have been
losing and make a powerful case for why, now, the Dems need desperately to
change. Instead he was having dinner with Perez, cutting side deals, and making
a great effort to smile and please everyone. Haim Saban and the corporate Dems
came after him with hateful islamophobic slanders; Ellison stepped back, spoke
softly, praised Israel, and vowed to work closely with corporate Dems. And he
still lost. These conciliatory positions will not cut it. Unless and until
there's a vigorous position articulated within the party on the desperate need
for drastic changes, we'll lose.
One reason why this is so frustrating is that across the country, I believe
the landscape looks very promising for a progressive agenda–at least as
progressive, or more so, than what Sanders articulated. The energy is there,
and growing. But we still lack the organization. Where will it come from? Not
from the Greens, I'm afraid. As much as I agree with Stein and the Greens
positions on many issues, the Greens have over the decades proven that this is
not a party interested in building grassroots power. For that you need broad
and sustained efforts over time at the level of school boards and city
councils, building toward winning candidates to positions at the county level,
and mayors, and state representatives, and so on. You have to build a name for
yourself and prove through smaller campaigns what you stand for and that you
can win victories for your voters. And voters need to feel that it is their
party, our party. The Greens have not done any of this. It's not enough to just
have good ideas or be able to win a policy debate.
There's the Working Families Party, which has done some of this organizing
and has some victories. But it's still woefully short of what is necessary. But
I believe there's a lot of talent and potential on the left–and a growing and
restless energy now under Trump. We have to be strong and clear that this
corporate Dem program is unacceptable. We need to field local candidates on
issues people care about, from city banking and municipally owned power and IT,
to police violence, more community control in schools, and so on. Whether the
people carrying out these potentially popular programs are Dems, Greens,
Working FP or Socialists, matters less, it seems to me. But if people are
convinced that only a reinvigorated Dem Party will be able to do it, then there
needs to be a hostile takeover. The Clintonites & the Obama people, Haim Saban
and their ilk: they're not our friends and must be denounced and opposed. These
people are at best wishy-washy and mealy-mouthed when it comes to advocating
for us; they continue to compromise rightward and adopt unpopular conservative
agendas and to kick us in the teeth. Fuck them. We must articulate a positive,
winnable agenda around issues we care about.
See the comment above about local clubs. A good place to start.
Change is not going to come top down, even if that sounds like the
easiest way. Too much ego and money invested in the old ways.
Blue Dogs are confident Progressives cannot win in rural states. We must
prove them wrong.
Blue Dogs do not believe we can find credible primary challengers. They
think we are just a bunch of whining idealists. We must prove them wrong -
not on blogs - at the polls.
It is not only clubs. It's the party structure itself at the municipal
and county level, which is generally occupied by a combination of
well-meaning 10% liberals, eager corporate acolytes who see politics as a
path of personal advancement but find the Republican social positions
icky and whoever just shows up.
In many places it's mostly the latter. So, form your own club, yes,
and go to local party meetings, yes, but more than anything else, work.
Organize. Knock on your neighbor's door, listen to them and talk with
them. Then do that again, and again, and again. Recruit your friends and
colleagues to do the same. When the moment is right, get someone whose
values you really trust to run for office, and if there's resistance from
the existing party apparatus, well, run a contested primary. The people
who do that work - registering, persuading and turning out voters, can
take over the local structure of a party and win from the left.
And btw, if you're struggling to persuade others, don't give up. Get
your egalitarian club together, and instead of complaining about how
others don't get it, role play conversations with different types of
voters, put your beer down, and go back out on the doors.
"Blue Dogs are confident Progressives cannot win in rural states. We
must prove them wrong."
That's just been done, in Texas, of all places. Local organizing,
person to person contact, and no TV money led to success. The exact
opposite of HRC's campaign, of course.
American citizens are at the bottom of the bucket; shut up, stay poor, and
forget the "myth" of a middle class.
These are some very simple truths, which Usian's seem loathe to accept or
understand.
The evidence is clear with almost every comment offering nonsense solutions;
year after precious year; ad infinitum
If there is a solution; I have no idea what that would be. But knowing and
understanding the reality on the ground, gives a firm place to stand.
It's a place to start
There is no better sign of the contempt that the Democratic leadership has
for its constituents t
han the way Donna Edwards was treated in the primary for the open Senate seat
from Maryland.
Maryland being Maryland, whoever won the Democrat primary was going to win the
general.
The two leading candidates were Chris van Hollen, a slick fundraiser
high in Pelosi's train wreck House leadership,
and Donna Edwards, an African-American who was one of the most progressive
House members.
Almost the entire Dem power structure (and, of course, the WaPo) went after
Edwards guns blazing.
Oddly, Edwards critics were never accused of sexism or racism by Clinton
supporters. Weird.
The DNC is important, but only part of the story. The DSCC and DCCC have
been horror shows for years,
led by incompetent clowns, corporate fronts, or (in the case of Jon Tester, who
ran the DSCC this past cycle),
sock puppets for people like Schumer.
And yet it seems to be impossible to discuss this stuff rationally with many
Democrats.
Far easier for them to blame the party's woes on BernieBros.
Jeepers, you don't think some YOOJ, classy K Street "social networking
advocacy solutions" firm will now be tasked to slap together a grassroots,
Cumbaya warbling Democratic Socialist lemming forking oh, that's right been
there, dun did that? We can't mock Trump's craven churls, spoon-fed C & K
Street's große Lüge without turning the selfie-cam around on our geriatric
children's crusade, awaiting some canny carny barker messiah?
Ha! I lost a good friend because I told him in November 2015 that if it
comes down to Hillary Clinton v. Donald Trump, she will lose the state-by-state
contest while winning the popular vote, notwithstanding polls to the contrary.
I didn't let up on that obviously correct assessment through all of 2016, and
he finally told me my intellectual arguments rank down there with some of his
fundamentalist relatives. Another was still predicting a Hillary landslide
until 10:00 pm EST on Election Night. She is big on the "Stupid Trump Voters"
meme, while blaming "me" for the outcome. Everyone needs to face the truth. The
national Democrats only care about their membership in the Establishment, even
if they are relegated to "inconsequential" as they are overtaken by events due
to their abject fecklessness.
So be it. From 1974-2008 I voted for the Democrat as the "Left Wing of the
Possible," in Michael Harrington's phrase, and for at least 20 years too long.
Never again. As my brief colloquy here with a reader last night concluded, it's
time to rejoin DSA as an elder and raise even more hell with the "kids"!
I will continue to evaluate candidates on their merits, not their party
affiliation. I can't stop donating to the party organization, since I did
that years ago, but I can certainly tell it where to get off, whether in
phone calls or using its reply-paid envelopes. I realize what travels in
those may never be read by anyone but a data-entry clerk, if indeed they
bother to enter the data, which I've always doubted.
Well, I have to say that the volume of DNC et al. mail I receive has
fallen to a trickle since I spent the past year returning their pre-paid
donation envelopes with nasty comments. The pleading e-mails are gone as
well. So
someone
is entering data.
If a Hillary or Obama supporter has an open mind (yes, a few of them do
have open minds - a Hillary supporter in my family admitted to me that
Bernie would have been a better choice), these two articles can help them to
understand what's been happening.
Vatch: Let me try this again; first reply disappeared Beginning in
early 2016 I tried to convince my liberal friends with facts such as
those in your links, with no success whatsoever. Most of them stick to
the "Stupid Trump Voter" meme, even when confronted with the work of
Thomas Frank in
Listen, Liberals
and Ellie Russell Hochschild in
Strangers in Their Own Land
, which perfectly describes my many
cousins in Louisiana, not one of whom is stupid to my knowledge.
Different, yes, and for damn good reasons. Stupid, no. You can't be
stupid and survive on an offshore oil rig. My particular liberals go no
deeper than Rachel Maddow, whose Stanford-Oxford/Rhodes Scholar pedigree
is all the authority they need. It goes without saying that
Wellesley-Yale was/is just as authoritative, now and forevermore. Their
epistemic closure/confirmation bias is simply the opposite side of the
same coin the Tea Party or Alt-Right uses to explain markets or climate
change or liberal fascism. As the president would say, "Sad!"
Well, you tried. As Yves pointed out in her introduction, there are
aspects of cultish thought processes here.
Of course the Obots and Hillaristas aren't the only cult members.
Limbaugh's ditto-heads. some of the tea-partiers, and some of Trump's
more enthusiastic supporters also fit that mold. I don't like to say
this, but some of Bernie's supporters probably also qualify. Open
mindedness can require a lot of effort.
I became a more active commenter on PoliticalWire during the primary season
and was subject to considerable vitriol due to my lack of enthusiasm for HRC,
which only increased in amount after the election when I refused to vote for
her (going 3rd party instead). I hung on for a little while, trying to make my
points re where I thought the country needed to go, but have simply stopped
participating in the discussions as I realized that the system has to run its
course and I am not going to be able to change that. And slamming one's head
against a brick wall repeatedly does begin to hurt after a while. I think I'll
just use my vote to support those I policies I think are good, or at the very
least to block any candidates supported by the establishment. It isn't much,
but it is something.
I used was a regular reader of Kevin Drum for probably 10 years or so,
back to the CalPundit days. The commentariat there became really hostile to
any outside ideas as the primary wore on. The Closure is now complete,
although some of the the really hostile commenters have disappeared (their
David Brock paychecks stopped, I suppose) but still reality can't come into
play. Even Drum himself was changing weekly about the loss (It's BernieBros!
It's Comey! NO, it's the Russians! NO Wait, it's Comey)
Sad, he's done great work on lead and violent crime. I check in there
once in a while just to take the temperature of the Delusion of the
TenPercenters.
Self reflection still hasn't penetrated for any of the real reasons for
Trump
A Paul Street quote from his excellent piece in CounterPunch entitled,
'Liberal Hypocrisy, "Late-Shaming," and Russia-Blaming in the Age of Trump,'
should serve as an adequate riposte to the introspection and self-criticism
averse Mr Doe,
'Arrogant liberals' partisan hypocrisy, overlaid with heavy doses of
bourgeois identity politics and professional-class contempt for working class
whites, is no tiny part of how and why the Democrats have handed all three
branches of the federal government along with most state governments and the
white working class vote to the ever more radically reactionary,
white-nationalist Republican Party. Ordinary people can smell the rank
two-facedness of it all, believe it or not. They want nothing to do with snotty
know-it-all liberals who give dismal dollar Dems a pass on policies liberals
only seem capable of denouncing when they are enacted by nasty Republicans.
Contrary to my online rant, much of the liberal Democratic campus-town crowd
seems to feel if anything validated – yes, validated. of all things – by the
awfulness of Herr Trump. It exhibits no capacity for shame or self-criticism,
even in the wake of their politics having collapsed at the presidential,
Congressional, and state levels.'
"much of the liberal Democratic campus-town crowd seems to feel if
anything validated – yes, validated. of all things – by the awfulness of
Herr Trump."
I've noticed the same. My guess is that, imo, the Dem estab has spent
years teaching it's more left-ish base to accept losing – veal pen, 'f*cking
hippies', Dem estab suggest marching for a cause then fail to support cause,
march to show numbers and get nothing, elect Dem full control in 2008 and
lose single-payer, end of Iraq war, roll back Bush tax cuts, renegotiate
Nafta, etc. Lucy and the football. The left-ish part of the party has been
groomed over 30 years to accept losing its fights. When Trump wins it just
confirms "the way things are." No introspection required since it confirms
the trained outlook. imo.
This opinion masquerading as news appeared in The Sun:
Both Perez and his leading opponent, Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison, had
rejected the left-versus-centrist narrative that developed around the race,
and close observers agreed it was overblown.
People often have an emotional commitment to their candidate. Upon losing,
all Hillary supporters will not go "oh well." Many will be upset.
Better to focus on issues going forward.
Also, if you want to build a majority party, probably best not to devote ALL
your energy to screaming what clueless assholes most ordinary Americans are.
Most ordinary Americans do not agree with commenters here. One reason Blue Dogs
are so willing to ignore you.
You can come up with lots of reasons. There are lots of reasons. But bottom
line is that you not only have to be right; you have to convince.
And no, collapse of the world will not convince. It may make you feel like
there is proof you were right, but that is a hollow victory.
We have to win elections. To do that, we need a generous and positive
message. And we need the votes of many Democrats that will not agree with you
on some things - perhaps many things.
It can be done. It will be difficult. But it can be done.
Most people with ridiculous political ideas are nice people. There are
positive appeals that will work over time.
It is amazing how many people are still incapable of acknowledging how bad a
candidate HRC was and how far they reach to come up with other reasons for her
loss. I grew up in Midwest and have many friends and family who voted for Trump
not because they liked him but because they found Clinton even more unappealing
and even less trustworthy.
They looked at how the Clintons made tens of millions of dollars, Bill
Clinton's decades of predatory behavior towards women, the hubris, lack of
responsibility and poor decision making related to the Email issues and HRC's
unwillingness to even minimally tend to her health and physically prepare for
the months of campaigning. Her candidacy was based on years of amassing money
and power and entitlement. Other than the potential to elect the first female
president, there was absolutely nothing about HRC that was inherently
appealing.
It was an extraordinary challenge to field a candidate even more unappealing
than Trump to millions of swing voters, but the Democrats managed to do it. The
Clintons are finished, over and have tarnished themselves for history. Anyone
who could even imagine a 2020 HRC candidacy is delusional.
Pretty much everything you claim drives people away from Clinton applies
just as well to Trump. Look at how Trump made millions of dollars: sticking
investors with losses, tax law arbitrage, and above all inheriting then
failing to keep up with major equity indexes. Look at his hubris, and
decades of predatory behavior towards women, e.g. behaviors related to the
pageant he finances. Look at his history of poor decision making in business
resulting in numerous bankruptcies. One thing is true, he did make deals
that were good for himself: even as business ventures collapsed and other
investors lost money, Trump personally usually had very limited losses. To
my mind that's exactly the wrong kind of behavior we want for a president
though.
I readily agree that HRC ran a flawed campaign with little to draw
undecided voters, but even so there's a deep Clinton hatred in this country
I've never understood. A large fraction of the population appears to view
both Bill and Hillary as the coming of the anti-christ, for no good reason.
That is, the Clintons seem to be pretty much garden-variety politicians with
all the usual skeletons in the closet, but nothing that seems to stand out
from the rest of the Washington ilk. If the hatred came from leftists
betrayal could explain it, but most Clinton-haters seem to be deeply
conservative. Maybe I was too young during the WJC years to understand the
source.
Gonna beat a belabored dead horse: "Superpredators" + "bring them to heel" +
a campaign devoted to the identity politics of undocumented migration and not
the plight of lower-class whites and African-Americans.
African-Americans have Facebook accounts and access to Youtube.
The 30,000-feet pundits glossed it and declared everything A-OK over but
that 1996 archive footage left a viscerally bitter taste at street level.
"it's remarkable to see how childish and self-destructive the posture of
the orthodox Dem backers is. It isn't just the vitriol, self-righteousness, and
authoritarianism, as if they have the authority to dictate rules and those who
fail to comply can and must be beaten into line.
Sounds kinda like a cult.
I've run into this. My response is a blank stare followed by a vocally flat
"oh" to whatever nonsense I'm hearing. I have the same response to very young
children who are trying to tell me something. Although, with little children I
try to smile and stay engaged.
adding:
per Jeff – "It seems that my friends, my friends' friends, and I are
exclusively to blame for the Trump Presidency and the Republican takeover of
government."
Hillary was wooing the suburban GOP voters, not the working class
industrial belt voters. Really, it's the suburban GOP voters' fault Trump
won. /s
I appreciate two posts on this subject, which given the presumed
insignificance and technocratic nature of the position (!), aroused a lot of
ire on both sides of the Demo divide. (Anyone interested in real ire can just
head over to LGM, where iirc four threads and about 2,000 comments have now
been devoted to this topic of "nothing to see here, let's move on").
What is left to say, I wonder? What's the way forward for progressives who
are genuinely interested in supporting possibly-radical new approaches to
addressing economic inequality?
It occurred to me while reading the comments on this and the previous post
that perhaps after all, it's not that ways forward are unknown to the legacy
party members, but that they're unacceptable, because they would genuinely
lessen the gap between rich-poor.
If so (and I'm starting to feel that this is the case), then working within
the party could be quite difficult, although the arguments against 3rd party
start-ups are compelling. There was a great quote from Bill Domhoff on this
subject upthread with a powerful argument for continuing to work within the
existing structures.
Apropos of Domhoff, I was thinking that one way might be to continue to work
within the party, but to distinguish the progressive wing clearly, perhaps with
a new name – I like Domhoff's Egalitarian Democratic Party, it sort of reminded
me of Minnesota's DFL (Democratic Farmer Labor) party. As others have noted on
both threads, this would need to be purely grass-roots, local-to-state level
work, and as Domhoff wisely notes, candidates need to be identified and
encouraged to run for, well, everything. They would need to caucus with the
Dems at the state level, but eventually could force Dems, if they gain
sufficient numbers, to shift their positions on economic issues, thereby
creating momentum.
These past few days, I've most enjoyed reading comments from people who are
getting involved at the local level – that's so heartening. And also, I've
watched a good number of Town Hall meetings – the crowds are also heartening,
even if I wouldn't always have chosen the issues individual constituents
addressed. This massive awakening and interest in political life across the
country – I want to believe something positive will come of it.
I kind of wonder if a "Working Democrats" title would have a shot at
catching on, coupled with a heavy focus on strong, universal economic
policies: Medicare for All, $15 minimum wage, some kind of student loan debt
forgiveness, Glass-Steagall reinstatement, a constitutional amendment
removing corporate personhood.
Hell, couldn't that seriously catch on in today's environment?
Not to be that guy, but the problem is the perception the Democratic
Party cares about those things and nostalgia.
The black guy with the Muslim sounding name became President while
promising higher taxes, fair trade, and universal healthcare (perception
matters) while running against a war crazy veteran and a war crazy
lunatic who claim so to have dodged bullets.
I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying that the problem with such a
move is it would be too easily co-opted due in part to too many people
thinking the Democrats actually stand for these policies, despite the
fact that the majority of them and the party apparatus actively works
to undermine any movement in these directions?
Fair point if so. I think any such work via a faction within the
party, so to speak, would have to make itself clear to those who have
lost faith in the Democratic Party by taking active stances against
the establishment and exhibiting some level of hostility toward a good
faction of Democrats.
I would be all for a third party coalescence, but I'm sympathetic
toward the idea that third parties simply don't get traction in our
political system. So I lean a bit more toward an attempted hostile
takeover of the Democratic Party. On the other hand, party's die; it
may be that a third party route could work as a replacement for the
Democrats once they die from actively abusing and thus hemorrhaging
their base.
Alternatively, both approaches could work. A wing of the party
actively hostile toward the establishment could jump ship to a third
party if the Democrats were dying, joining forces to establish the
replacement party. Or the vice versa could happen; if a progressive
wing appeared to truly be winning and taking control of the Democrats,
a sympathetic third party movement could jump in for the final push to
clean house and reinvent the party from scratch.
I think it still comes back to the need for active movements and
organizing around clear policies and principles, then taking the
opportunity to gain nationwide traction whenever and however it
presents itself. Personally, I just wish I had a clearer idea of where
such efforts on my part would be best focused. (It's somewhat
complicated by being in Portland, Oregon and having some decent Dems
here, though there's still a lot of terrible ones and even the good
ones I'm still wary of.)
The Wall Street/establishment wing of the party has clearly learned nothing
from the debacle of the last election and is clearly unwilling to learn. Sadly
the same seems to be true for the "progressive" wing of the party – i.e.
WheresOurTeddy has it exactly right IMHO but the "left" still won't abandon the
dead hulk of FDR's party – which has rejected everything it formerly stood for
– if the calls for "unity" from Ellison and others are any indication.
I honestly don't see how things will truly get better, except with a lot
of people suffering or dying. It seems that we're in this desperate
last-gasp phase of trying to work a system that's supposed to be just, but
hasn't been for decades. My entire life.
On Friday I witnessed the NJ Pinelands Commission vote for a 15 mile
pipeline that should never have been approved. It's substantilaly for profit
and export. They voted while 800 people were screaming their opposition,
after five years of fierce opposition. Literally tallied the votes during
the screaming. This is the commission whose mission is to "preserve,
protect, and enhance the natural and cultural resources of the Pinelands
National Reserve." It was approved by a 9-5 vote. That's how far Governor
Christie and big money has gamed the system.
Billionaires get to throw hired hands in between us and them (like
politicians and police and receptionists and PR staff everyone's just "doing
their job!" we are "rude" if we fight them because they have nothing to do
with it!), we have to risk our bodies and time directly. We have to organize
masses of people with hardly any resources and a diminishing internet, they
write a check and get hired professionals with access to do their bidding as
they sit in their comfy third homes. They write the procedures and laws, we
get to yell and scream for ten minutes, then our voices tire and their
decisions get rammed through anyway.
Oh, and they had a public comment AFTER the vote, which was in the agenda
not as "vote" but "approve with conditions."
What about us in Michigan? We have been manipulated and mentally changed
from a strong union democratic state to a redneck, "wannabe backwards early
1900s southern state" that maintains a governor who knowingly fed thousands of
people lead tainted water. And he continues to do nothing about it. If we do
anything about it, the republican legislature will just gerrymander our
districts again to maintain their power. I live in a district shaped like a
banana, running east to west in the middle of the lower peninsula. 80% of the
district (US house seat) has always been strong democratic. But the district
was re shaped in the early nineties so that it was extended forty miles east to
encompass a county that was once known as the capital of the KKK in Michigan.
This swung the majority to republican. They are a minority, but with all the
money.
As I was saying to someone yesterday, when I say something like "I don't like
obamacare either", it is automatically assumed that I want trump & Paul Ryan to
hand out vouchers. Yet when I follow up by stating I want Medicare for all, I
am called a crazy Hillary loving liberal.
Well, you can always say scornfully that she never wanted anything as
good for people as Medicare for all. But it's tough being in a spot like
that. There is a relative of an inlaw whom I admire enormously because,
living in a conservative rural area she nevertheless firmly states her
progressive opinions, if necessary finishing up, "Anyway, that's what I
think," in a way that let's people know she has formed her opinion and will
not be changing it merely for fact-free hostile criticism. It takes amazing
steadfastness to go on doing that.
Here in upstate NY my (state assembly) district's shape was once
described as "Abe Lincoln riding on a vacuum cleaner." Like the one you
describe, it was carefully constructed to include a wealthy minority so as
to ensure that the "right" candidate always wins.
"Do what I want. That's unity." Wasn't that one of W's wise injunctions? Now
we hear it in motherly tones in HRC's video released on Friday. Is this
anything like her debate response to Bernie, "I get things done. That's
progress. (Therefore) I'm a progressive!"? Always need to look for what this
kind of word-salad leaves out.
A note as to the Establishment Dems: In the Dem primary race there were 800
or so "Super Delegates" and almost all of them were locked into HRC before the
primary race began. At the convention all but about 25 of them cast their votes
for HRC. (Sorry, I don't have exact numbers.)
Now, who are these 435 Dem Party luminaries who are tasked with electing the
DNC Chair? Am I right to assume that they are a carved-out chunk of the Super
Delegates of yore? If I am, then the Establishment Dems are in big trouble, and
they know it just from the numbers.
In other words, 200 of the 435 just voted for Sanders by proxy of Ellison.
That's half. If half of the Super Delegates had voted for the Sanders wing at
the convention, wouldn't Sanders have been the Dem candidate?
What we are seeing in the dulcet tones of HRC's "unity" video, together with
the power punch of the monied interests in the DNC, is the public face of a
party in panic, digging in with all of its claws. From this it seems that
Bernie is a bigger threat than many folks may realize.
I don't mean to be Pollyanna-ish here. It's anybody's guess as to what to do
with this state of affairs. But perhaps Bernie is on the right track with his
efforts to take over the Dem Party?
With that in mind, the real dividing-line is wealth vs. poverty, income
inequality, etc.,
"If half of the Super Delegates had voted for the Sanders wing at the
convention, wouldn't Sanders have been the Dem candidate?"
Uh, no because HRC got a clear majority of the
elected
delegates
and 3.5m more
votes
in the primary. But hey, don't let me disturb
your alternate reality, and enjoy the next four years --
True, if caucus states did vote (i.e. were democratic) HRC would
have won by even more. See e.g
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/wash-primary1/
.
I'm sure if the roles were reversed here you'd be screaming that
the corrupt DNC was ignoring the democratic vote in favor of an
undemocratic caucus.
But, as I said, enjoy the next four year. Maybe you really will
– Trump is the alternate reality candidate after all.
A democratic process within. Establish polling and voting by all members,
not some final 400 or super delegates.
The party writes, debates and endorses legislation, not lobbyists.
A serious cap on contributions. Complete immediate transparency on all money
matters.
Issue based platform long before leadership or candidates.
A way which leadership or candidates and office holders must adhere to the
party platform. Example if the party platform says expanded Single Payer (HR
676) for all then a vote for ACA would have been grounds for immediate removal
from the party for sitting Reps. Note that would have meant basically every
sitting prog would have received the boot. We would have all been better served
had we primaried all of our so-called own long ago (including Sanders and
Kucinich).
At the very least this should be established by a prog like wing within a
party. For we have no way in which to hold usurpers to account.. or keep the
eye sharply focused on issues. That's the lesson from '06 '08 '10. So many act
blue/blue America candidates lied and to this day they continue to be among the
least scrutinized.
I didn't see Sanders, Ellison etc. heading this way had they won. I don't
see it in any existing third party.
Testing. I tried posting a long comment and it didn't make it.
Short version–Sanders did everything people said Nader should have done and
Sanders was still treated like a pariah, so the self described pragmatists are
really the intolerant fanatics. There was more, but I don't feel like retyping
it, especially if I am having technical difficulties posting.
I agree that Sanders ran A primary campaign instead of third party, and
so answered a big establishment talking point.
Beyond that, I see the campaigns as vastly different. Nader campaigned at
the end of a long bubble. Bernie campaigned after the financial collapse and
after years of doing nothing to help ordinary people.
I think Bernie's campaign was more powerful, and gives more of a
springboard for future campaigns.
The part before the byline is reasonable and interesting. The DNC is acting
to preserve their own power, not to win elections. Classic "iron law of
oligarchy" stuff.
The part after the byline is less interesting. Why do we care what some
anonymous guy on facebook says? Of what interest is there in a facebook
argument between an activist and some rando? Is this more notable than a
thousand other political arguments on facebook that occur every day?
Dan Brooks has written about the practice of "eggmanning", as a sort of
counterpart to strawmanning– you can find people making basically any argument
on social media, no matter how specious.
http://combatblog.net/tom-hitchner-on-refuting-the-argument-no-one-is-making/
Elevating the voice of such a person just so you can dismantle their poorly
chosen words does not make for compelling reading.
Elitist Left – Whigs / Liberals / Neo-liberals / Democrats
Real Left – Labour (the US is not allowed this option)
You need a real left, liberals are not the real left.
Liberals have over-run the Labour party in the UK but progress is under-way
to get things back to the way they should be.
Universal suffrage came along and the workers wanted a party of the left
that represented them and wasn't full of elitist, left liberals.
The US has never allowed the common man and woman to have a party of
their own, they need one, a real left not a liberal, elitist left descended
from the Whigs.
This all makes me think the Democratic establishment are not honest actors.
They would rather meekly accept corporate money and play the part of the always
losing Washington Generals rather than come out swinging for progressive
values.
Paid Outside agitators coordinating NATO seaport strikes. See, men can
get together and march in the street around the world at the same time for a
cause.
Many thanks Paul for putting these things together. Encouraging and
important for a bunch of reasons at once.
1. Even the most zealous Friedmanite (M. or T., does it matter?) or
Richard Florida-type cheerleader for the 'creative class' (deceased)
would have a hard time passing global logistics off as a 'dinosaur'
industry.
With the disclaimer that most of what I'm about to recommend comes
from friends/comrades or publications I'm somehow entangled with, there's
serious thinking about the latent
global
power of logistics
workers on the German 'Wildcat' site - [http://wildcat-www.de/en/wildcat/100/e_w100_koper.html]
for a recent example from a fair-sized English and huge German-language
archive - and years' worth of great writing about much the same thing by
Brian Ashton, a 1995-97 Liverpool dock strike organizer and one of the
first people to describe coherently the
industrial
uses of
what's now sold as 'the internet of things'. See eg. [http://www.metamute.org/editorial/articles/liverpools-docks-dust-and-dirt]
(with images by David Jacques), but if you're interested it's worth
searching that site and Libcom.org - just to start with - for more.
And 2.: because right now it can't be repeated often enough that
face-to-face community experience can be a powerful source of class
solidarity but
it's not the only one
. Cultural sameness is
not
the only possible basis for collective action for shared
interests. It can happen in a meaningful way even over long distances and
long periods, as shown by international support for the Liverpool Dockers
of 95-7 (and the California port truck drivers of 2012? Please correct
the latter if misremebered).
Admittedly this a sort of a priori principle for me, but not just
because it sounds like something it would be nice to believe. No, it's
because the 'choice' between globally co-ordinated hyperexploitation and
perpetual petty warfare* between internally close-knit groups (with no
way out of those groups for individuals or sub-collectives, thus:
conscript warfare) is a recipe for general despair.
[*'Warfare' here applies literally in some cases and figuratively in
others. But even when it stops short of physical violence it's
competition
, which puts it well on the way to global exploitation
anyway. Who knows why it's not considered obvious that EU-type
transnational management institutions and the National Preference
revivalists 'opposed' to them
share
the same obsession with
national
Competitiveness
. (And sub- and supra-national
Competitiveness too, but it amounts to the same thing because each arena
of economic bloodsports is supposed to toughen the gladiators (upscale
slaves, remember) for the next one up.
Peer-to-peer prizefighting is officially healthy for everyone, because
even what
does
kill me makes "my" brand/parent
corporation/city/country/supra-national trading bloc stronger. And one
day glorious victory over Emerging (capitalist) Planets will kill the
Zero that screams in the Sum.)]
An economy - just like an Army - marches on its stomach. Supply chains
for the US economy are long - reaching to distant countries including
many countries that aren't our best of friends - and shallow - often
depending on few to as few as a single source for many products and key
components. Just-in-time deliveries support local inventories trimmed to
within a few days of demand. The US economy has a great exposed
underbelly.
Since defense amounts to 58.8% of federal spending, and since
there is going to be a federal tax cut and since increasing
the federal deficit will be considered a problem, with
defense spending increasing there will be no real or
significant possibility of increasing infrastructure spending
and there will be pressure to significantly cut nondefense
spending.
US Budgetary Costs of Wars through 2016: $4.79 Trillion
and Counting
Summary of Costs of the US Wars in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan
and Pakistan and Homeland Security
By Neta C. Crawford
Summary
Wars cost money before, during and after they occur - as
governments prepare for, wage, and recover from them by
replacing equipment, caring for the wounded and repairing the
infrastructure destroyed in the fighting. Although it is rare
to have a precise accounting of the costs of war - especially
of long wars - one can get a sense of the rough scale of the
costs by surveying the major categories of spending.
As of August 2016, the US has already appropriated, spent,
or taken on obligations to spend more than $3.6 trillion in
current dollars on the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan
and Syria and on Homeland Security (2001 through fiscal year
2016). To this total should be added the approximately $65
billion in dedicated war spending the Department of Defense
and State Department have requested for the next fiscal year,
2017, along with an additional nearly $32 billion requested
for the Department of Homeland Security in 2017, and
estimated spending on veterans in future years. When those
are included, the total US budgetary cost of the wars reaches
$4.79 trillion.
But of course, a full accounting of any war's burdens
cannot be placed in columns on a ledger....
So what should egalitarian activists do in terms of future elections if and when the issues,
circumstances, and candidates seem right? First, they should form Egalitarian Democratic Clubs.
That gives them an organizational base as well as a distinctive new social identity within
the structural pathway to government that is labeled "the Democratic Party." Forming such clubs
makes it possible for activists to maintain their sense of separatism and purity while at the
same time allowing them to compete within the Democratic Party. There are numerous precedents
for such clubs within the party, including liberal and reform clubs in the past, and the conservative
Democratic Leadership Council at the present time.
This strategy of forging a separate social identity is also followed by members of the right
wing within the Republican Party. By joining organizations like the Moral Majority and Christian
Coalition, they can define themselves as Christians who have to work out of necessity within
the debased confines of the Republican Party. That is, they think of themselves as Christians
first and Republicans second, and that is what egalitarians should do: identify themselves
primarily as egalitarians and only secondarily as Democrats.
After forming Egalitarian Democrat Clubs, egalitarian activists should find people to run
in selected Democratic primaries from precinct to president. They should not simply support
eager candidates who come to them with the hope of turning them into campaign workers. They
have to create candidates of their own who already are committed to the egalitarian movement
and to its alternative economic vision of planning through the market. The candidates have
to be responsible to the clubs, or else the candidates naturally will look out for their own
self interest and careers.
Yes it is. Your excerpt zeroes in on the mechanism of How.
"clubs within the party" : Turchin writing on the Price Equation makes something clear. If
the within-group co-operators can be successful and reproduce, and then sequester non-co-operators
into a separate group, the chances of co-operator success increase. Put 'em on a committee.
That mechanism is what makes Zuck's presidential bid dangerous. As groups use Fcbk to organize,
a malevolent administrator can introduce
FBU
's that disrupt social cohesion within the group. An advanced form of voter suppression.
Clubs within the Party was how the Communist Party of the USSR operated. They were called factions.
They were unable to challenge the ruling elite and if they became too strong they were simply
purged from the Party.
Nothing new here. Cooptation of those who deviate left or right from the party platform and
party oligarchy can be effectively used within "game of clubs" framework due to the iron law of
oligarchy. Those who can't be coopted can be purged or excommunicated.
For all practical purposes two party system behaves as an improved version of one party system.
Iron law of oligarchy essentially guarantees the upper hand for the leadership within the interparty
struggle for power. And provides for the leadership the opportunity to pursue their own agenda,
different from the wishes of rank and file members. Like was the case with Bill Clinton selling
Democratic Party to Wall Street and turning it into yet another neoliberal party - soft neoliberals,
like sometime Clinton's "third way" neoliberalism is called.
Only parliamentary system when parties are allocated seats due to votes they got with some
"passing" threshold can provide the opportunity of the third party to emerge as the major political
force outside a single election cycle or two.
It is important to understand that the "first after the post" system virtually guarantees the
elimination of any contenders to both major parties. Unless there is a revolutionary situation
when the ruling elite is so discredited that can't rule "as usual". Then winners are usually incorporated
into the party framework and partially emasculated somewhat later, when they face the challenges
of governing the system which is totally against them. Like now the situation developed in case
of Trump.
You can say anything about British elite but this was pretty ingenious political invention.
In other words, the main task to two party system in to prevent any possibility for the challengers
of status quo to obtain political power via elections. Reforms should be approved by party oligarchy
to be viable. And there are powerful internal mechanisms like DNC which help to block advances
of anybody who want to challenge the status quo.
Also the emerging leaders can be simply bought. This is another way how the iron law of oligarchy
operates.
From a rhetorical point of view, however, lesser evilism involves more than just the logical
principle behind it. The reason is plain: except in a trivial sense, better choices are less bad
only when the alternatives are bad or, more precisely, regarded as bad. Less bad choices are less
evil only when the alternatives are or are thought to be bad indeed.
This is all that the "evil" in "lesser evilism" implies. Strictly speaking, evil is a religious,
not a political, notion. But lesser evilism in politics is a secular phenomenon, and the force
of the word is rhetorical only. Its religious origins and connotations are useful for giving the
word a resonance that "bad" and even "very bad" lack; not for making any theological or otherwise
portentous point.
Although the logic behind lesser evilism is impeccable, the principle seldom applies directly
in real world circumstances. In political contexts especially, there are too many complicating
factors, and there is too much indeterminacy.
This is why lesser evilism in politics – especially, electoral politics - can be, and often
is, a bad idea.
Myopia is a chronic problem in electoral contests because voters tend to focus on candidates'
personalities or on what they believe they are likely to do if elected, neglecting other pertinent
considerations.
Suppose, for instance, that Obama truly was less disposed than McCain in 2008 or Romney in
2012 to expand the wars he inherited from George Bush and Dick Cheney or to extend the range and
intensity of the Bush-Cheney "Global War on Terror."
Of course, war making is not the only thing Presidents do, but even if we focus only on that,
we can still wonder whether voters favoring peace who voted for Obama served their cause well.
Unofficially, but most assuredly, America has a duopoly party system – in consequence of deeply
entrenched practices and traditions, and thanks to laws that make ballot access difficult for
candidates who are neither Democrats nor Republicans.
Therefore, in Presidential elections and most others as well, Americans face straightforward
X versus Y choices. Independent or third party candidates have no chance of winning. They seldom
even have a chance of affecting the outcomes in more than negligible ways.
Some of the problems this raises have nothing to do with the comparative merits and shortcomings
of the candidates themselves; they are problems with lesser evil voting itself.
This is because elections in the present affect elections in the future; among other things,
they can and often do initiate or continue trends.
As a general rule, but especially when the choices voters face remain above the threshold beneath
which talk of lesser evil voting becomes rhetorically appropriate, choosing the better candidate
is no guarantee that the choices will be better still the next time around or the time after that.
But once the lesser evil threshold is crossed, it does seem that the choices keep getting worse.
There is no inherent reason why this must be so, but there is ample anecdotal evidence that bears
out the suggestion that, in our time and place, lesser evil voting encourages a downward spiral,
"a race to the bottom."
To be sure, America's deteriorating political culture cannot be blamed entirely, or even mainly,
on the pervasiveness of this practice. The corruptions of money undoubtedly play a larger role.
Still, lesser evil voting does seem to feed upon itself – hastening a downward trend.
The consequences are especially damaging in a duopoly party system like ours, where choosing
the lesser evil means choosing a Democrat or (in very rare instances) a Republican, further diminishing
the already meager prospects of breaking free from the duopoly's stranglehold.
No real conflict emerged. The President proved to be a puppet of the Deep State.
Notable quotes:
"... Finally the most obvious attempt to sabotage the administration can be seen in the events in Ukraine. Unsurprisingly, Senators Graham and McCain, two of the deep state's top emissaries, visited Ukraine at the beginning of the year, prompting Ukrainian troops to resume their destructive offensive against the Donbass. ..."
"... "There are a lot of killers. We have a lot of killers", Trump said. "Well, you think our country is so innocent?" ..."
"... What the deep state refuses to accept is that they have lost the leading role in educating the rest of the world on humanitarian issues related to the concept of democracy. The main actors of the deep state clearly understand the negative implications for them personally in economic and financial terms associated with the abandonment of the pursuit of global hegemony. For over a hundred years, no US president has ever placed their country on a par with others, has ever abandoned the concept of a nation (the US) "chosen by God". ..."
"... "Donald Trump has emerged with in mind a precise foreign policy strategy, forged by various political thinkers of the realist world such as Waltz and Mearsheimer, trashing all recent neoconservative and neoliberal policies of foreign intervention (R2P - Right to Protect) and soft power campaigns in favor of human rights. No more UN resolutions, subtly used to bomb nations (Libya). Trump doesn't believe in the central role of the UN and reaffirmed this repeatedly. ..."
"... If one wants to place weight on his words during the election campaign, it should be taken into consideration that Trump won the election thanks to the clear objectives of wanting to avoid a further spending spree on destructive wars. This priority was made clear and expressed in every possible way with the adoption of an America First policy, especially regarding domestic policy. ..."
"... The bottom line is always that Trump has the ability and willingness to be resilient to the pressures of the deep state, focusing on the needs of the average American citizen, rather than caving in to the interests of the deep state such as intelligence agencies, neocons, Israel lobby, Saudi lobby, the military-industrial complex, and many more. ..."
The first two weeks of the new presidency have already provided a few significant events. The
operation that took place in Yemen, conducted by the American special forces and directed against
Al Qaeda, has reprised the previous administration. Being a complex operation that required thorough
preparation, the new administration thereby had to necessarily represent a continuation of the old
one.
Details are still vague, but looking at the outcome, the mission failed as a result of incompetence.
The American special forces were spotted before arriving at al Qaeda's supposed base. This resulted
in the shooting of anything that moved, causing more than 25 civilian deaths.
The media that had been silent during the Obama administration was rightfully quick to condemn
the killing of innocent people, and harsh criticism was directed at the administration for this operation.
It is entirely possible that the operation was set up to fail, intended to delegitimize the operational
capabilities of the new Trump team. Given the links between al Qaeda, the Saudis and the neoconservatives,
something historically proven, it is not unthinkable that the failure of the operation was a consequence
of an initial attempt at sabotaging Trump on a key aspect of his presidency, namely the successful
execution of counter-terrorist efforts against Islamist terrorism.
Another structural component in the attempts to undermine the Trump administration concern the
deployment of NATO and US troops on the western border of the Russian Federation. This attempt is
obvious and is one of the strategies aimed at preventing a rapprochement between Washington and Moscow.
The EU persists in its self-defeating policy, focusing its attention on foreign policy instead of
gaining strategic independence thanks to the new presidency. It is now even more clear that European
Union leaders, and in particular the current political representatives in Germany and France, have
every intention of continuing in the direction set by the Obama presidency, seeking a futile confrontation
with the Russian Federation instead of a sensible rapprochement.
Europe continues to insist on failed economic and social policies that will lead to bankruptcy,
using foreign-policy issues as diversions and excuses. The consequences of these wrongheaded efforts
will inevitably favor the election of nationalist and populist parties, as seen in the United States
and other countries, which will end in the destruction of the EU. For the US deep state and their
long-term objectives, this tactic has a dual effect: it prevents the proper functioning of the EU
as well as significantly halts any rapprochement between the EU and the Russian Federation. The latter
strategy looks more and more irreversible given the current European Union elites. In this sense,
the UK, thanks to Brexit, seems to have broken free and started to slowly restructure its foreign-
policy priorities, in close alignment to Trump's isolationism.
Finally the most obvious attempt to sabotage the administration can be seen in the events
in Ukraine. Unsurprisingly, Senators Graham and McCain, two of the deep state's top emissaries, visited
Ukraine at the beginning of the year, prompting Ukrainian troops to resume their destructive offensive
against the Donbass. The intentions are clear and assorted. First is the constant attempt to
sabotage any rapprochement between Moscow and Washington, hoping to engulf Trump in an American/NATO
escalation of events in Ukraine. Second, given the critical situation in Europe, is the effort to
push Berlin to assume the burden of economically supporting the failing administration in Kiev. Third
is the increasing pressure applied to Russia and Putin, as was already seen in 2014, in an effort
to actively involve the Russian Federation in the Ukrainian conflict so as to justify NATO's direct
involvement or even that of the United States. The latter situation would be the dream of the neoconservatives,
setting Trump and Putin on a direct collision course.
The new American administration has thus far suffered at least three sabotage attempts, and it
is the attitude Trump intends to have with the rest of the world that has spurred them. In an interview
with Bill O'Reilly on Fox News, Trump reiterated that his primary focus is not governed by the doctrine
of American exceptionalism, a concept he does not subscribe to anyhow. The religion driving democratic
evangelization looks more likely to be replaced with a pragmatic, realist geopolitical stance.
This is how one could sum up Trump's words to Bill O'Reilly:
"There are a lot of killers. We have a lot of killers", Trump said. "Well, you think our country
is so innocent?"
What the deep state refuses to accept is that they have lost the leading role in educating
the rest of the world on humanitarian issues related to the concept of democracy. The main actors
of the deep state clearly understand the negative implications for them personally in economic and
financial terms associated with the abandonment of the pursuit of global hegemony. For over a hundred
years, no US president has ever placed their country on a par with others, has ever abandoned the
concept of a nation (the US) "chosen by God".
In an
article a few weeks ago, I tried to lay the foundations for a future US administration, placing
a strong focus on foreign policy and revealing a possible shift in US historic foreign relations.
In a passage I wrote:
"Donald Trump has emerged with in mind a precise foreign policy strategy, forged by various
political thinkers of the realist world such as Waltz and Mearsheimer, trashing all recent neoconservative
and neoliberal policies of foreign intervention (R2P - Right to Protect) and soft power campaigns
in favor of human rights. No more UN resolutions, subtly used to bomb nations (Libya). Trump doesn't
believe in the central role of the UN and reaffirmed this repeatedly.
In general, the Trump administration intends to end the policy of regime change, interference
in foreign governments, Arab springs and color revolutions. They just don't work. They cost too much
in terms of political credibility, in Ukraine the US are allied with supporters of Bandera (historical
figure who collaborated with the Nazis) and in Middle East they finance or indirectly support al
Qaeda and al Nusra front".
The recent meeting in Washington with Theresa May, the first official encounter with a prominent
US ally, revealed, among other things, a possible dramatic change in US policy. The Prime Minister
of the United Kingdom expressed her desire to follow a new policy of non-intervention, in line with
the isolationist strategy Trump has spoken about since running for office. In a joint press conference
with the American president, May said: "The era of military intervention is over. London and Washington
will not return to the failed policy in the past that has led to intervention in Iraq, Afghanistan
and Libya".
During the election campaign, Trump made his intentions clear in different contexts, but always
coming from the standpoint of non-interventionism inspired by the concept of isolationism. It is
becoming apparent that these intentions are being put into action, though the rhetoric regarding
Iran has become alarming. In typical Trump fashion (which contrasts with the Iran issue), the situation
in Syria is normalizing and the initial threats directed at China appear to have been put aside.
The case of Iran is a different and complex story, requiring a deeper analysis that deserves a separate
article. What will gradually be important, as the Presidency progresses, is understanding the necessity
to distinguish between words and actions, separating provocations from intentions.
Conclusions and future questions
There is a whole list of Trump statements that are seen as threats to other countries, primarily
Iran. The next article will further explain the possible strategy to be employed by Donald Trump
to fight these attempts to sabotage his administration, a strategy that seems to be based on silences,
bluffs and admissions to counter the perpetual attempts to influence his presidency. If one wants
to place weight on his words during the election campaign, it should be taken into consideration
that Trump won the election thanks to the clear objectives of wanting to avoid a further spending
spree on destructive wars. This priority was made clear and expressed in every possible way with
the adoption of an America First policy, especially regarding domestic policy.
The bottom line is always that Trump has the ability and willingness to be resilient to the pressures
of the deep state, focusing on the needs of the average American citizen, rather than caving in to
the interests of the deep state such as intelligence agencies, neocons, Israel lobby, Saudi lobby,
the military-industrial complex, and many more. It is only in the next few months that we will come
to understand if Trump will be willing to continue the fight against war or bend the knee and pay
the price.
" What the deep state refuses to accept is that they have lost the leading role in educating
the rest of the world on humanitarian issues related to the concept of democracy."
This was a strange article, but after reading the above quote I had to laugh and could not
find the gumption to continue reading.
The Deep State ought to have beaten Trump already - one way or another...! But somebody with
brains has realised that it's not just Trump. It's the political movement that he heads***. Even
if they killed DT tomorrow (and it's certain to have been on their agenda), the Trumpista Party
would survive: it's too active and too popular to disappear. So the establishment pretty much
has to wrap up the entire movement. They have left things dangerously late, from their point of
view.
*** I know he didn't start it; it's the old Pat Buchanan + Ron Paul gang, but Donald is twice
as cunning as those chaps. I really don't think he'll win his war with the bad guys - the War
Party - but his influence will be quite long-lasting. And of course he is our last hope to roll
back the spectre of "1984".
"... "Exceptionalism"- the view that the United States has a right to impose its will because it knows more, sees farther, and lives on a higher moral plane than other nations-was to them not a platitude, but the organizing principle of daily life and global politics... ..."
"Exceptionalism"- the view that the United States has a right to impose its will because it
knows more, sees farther, and lives on a higher moral plane than other nations-was to them not a
platitude, but the organizing principle of daily life and global politics...
With a glance, a nod, and a few words, without consulting anyone other than the President, the
brothers could mobilize the full power of the United States anywhere in the world."
Stephen Kinzer,
The Brothers: John Foster Dulles, Allen Dulles, and Their Secret World War
"... entitlement and power means you never have to apologize for anything ..."
"... What the American with power does have in nearly limitless abundance is a grandiose yet unacknowledged sense of entitlement and a volcanic sense of indignation . ..."
Here's the American Disease in a nutshell: entitlement and power means you never have to apologize
for anything. Public relations might require a grudging, insincere quasi-apology, but the person
with power can't evince humility or shame--he or she doesn't have any.
What the American with power does have in nearly limitless abundance is a grandiose yet unacknowledged
sense of entitlement and a volcanic sense of indignation .
By Arthur MacEwan. Originally published at
Triple Crisis
The Issue Revisited
Around the time that the United States invaded Iraq, 14 years ago, I was in an auditorium at the
University of Massachusetts Boston to hear then-Senator John Kerry try to justify the action. As
he got into his speech, a loud, slow, calm voice came from the back of the room: "O – I – L." Kerry
tried to ignore the comment. But, again and again, "O – I – L." Kerry simply went on with his prepared
speech. The speaker from the back of the room did not continue long, but he had succeeded in determining
the tenor of the day.
Looking back on U.S. involvement in the Iraq, it appears to have been largely a failure. Iraq,
it turned out, had no "weapons of mass destruction," but this original rationalization for invasion
offered by the U.S. government was soon replaced by the goal of "regime change" and the creation
of a "democratic Iraq." The regime was changed, and Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussain was captured and
executed. But it would be very had to claim that a democratic Iraq either exists or is in the making-to
say nothing of the rise of the so-called Islamic State (ISIS) and the general destabilization in
the Middle East, both of which the U.S. invasion of Iraq helped propel.
Yet, perhaps on another scale, the invasion would register as at least a partial success. This
is the scale of O – I – L
The Profits from Oil
At the time of the U.S. invasion, I wrote an article for Dollars & Sense titled "Is It
Oil?" (available online
here
). I argued that, while the invasion may have had multiple motives, oil-or more precisely, profit
from oil-was an important factor. Iraq, then and now, has huge proven oil reserves, not in the same
league as Saudi Arabia, but in group of oil producing countries just behind the Saudis. It might
appear, then, that the United States wanted access to Iraqi oil in order to meet the needs of our
highly oil-dependent lifestyles in this country. After all, the United States today, with just over
4% of the world's population, accounts for 20% of the world's annual oil use; China, with around
20% of the world's population is a distant second in global oil use, at 13%. Even after opening new
reserves in recent years, U.S. proven reserves amount to only 3% of the world total.
Except in extreme circumstances, however, access to oil is not a major problem for this county.
And it was not in 2003. As I pointed out back then, the United States bought 284 million barrels
of oil from Iraq in 2001, about 7% of U.S. imports, even while the two countries were in a virtual
state of war. In 2015, only 30% as much oil came to the United States from Iraq, amounting to just
2.4% of total U.S. oil imports. Further, in 2015, while the United States has had extremely hostile
relations with Venezuela, 24% of U.S. oil imports came from that country's nationalized oil industry.
It would seem that, in the realm of commerce, bad political relations between buyers and sellers
are not necessarily an obstacle.
For the U.S. government, the Iraq oil problem was not so much access, in the sense of meeting
U.S. oil needs, as the fact that U.S. firms had been frozen out of Iraq since the country's oil industry
was nationalized in 1972. They and the other oil "majors" based in U.S.-allied countries were not
getting a share of the profits that were generated from the exploitation of Iraqi oil. Profits from
oil exploitation come not only to the oil companies-ExxonMobil, Shell, Chevron, British Petroleum,
and the other industry "majors"-but also to the companies that supply and operate equipment, drill
wells, and provide other services that bring the oil out of the ground and to consumers around the
world-for example, the U.S. firms Halliburton, Emerson, Baker Hughes, and others. They were also
not getting a share of the Iraqi oil action. (Actually, when vice president to be Dick Cheney was
running Halliburton, in the period before the invasion, the company managed to undertake some operations
in Iraq through a subsidiary, in spite of federal restrictions preventing U.S. firms from doing business
in Iraq.)
After the Troops
In the aftermath of the invasion and since most U.S. troops have been withdrawn, things have changed.
"Prior to the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq, U.S. and other western oil companies were all
but completely shut out of Iraq's oil market," oil industry analyst Antonia Juhasz told Al Jazeera
in 2012. "But thanks to the invasion and occupation, the companies are now back inside Iraq and producing
oil there for the first time since being forced out of the country in 1973."
From the perspective of U.S. firms the picture is mixed. Firms based in Russia and China have
developed operations in Iraq, and even an Indonesian-based firm is involved. Still, ExxonMobil (see
box) has established a significant stake in Iraq, having obtained leases on approximately 900,000
onshore acres and by the end of 2013 had developed several wells in Iraq's West Qurna field. Exxon
also has agreements with the Kurdistan Regional Government in northern Iraq to explore for oil. Chevron
holds an 80% stake and is the operator of the Qara Dagh block in the Kurdistan region of Iraq, but
as of mid-2014 the project was still in the exploratory phase and there was no production. No other
U.S. oil companies have developed operations in Iraq. The UK-headquartered BP (formerly British Petroleum)
and the Netherlands-headquartered Shell, however, are also significantly engaged in Iraq.
While data are limited on the operations of U.S. and other oil service firms in Iraq, they seem
to have done well. For example, according to a 2011 New York Times article:
The oil services companies Halliburton, Baker Hughes, Weatherford International [founded in Texas,
now incorporated in Switzerland] and Schlumberger [based in France] already won lucrative drilling
subcontracts and are likely to bid on many more. "Iraq is a huge opportunity for contractors," Alex
Munton, a Middle East analyst for Wood Mackenzie, a research and consulting firm based in Edinburgh,
said by telephone. "There will be an enormous scale of investment."
The Right to Access
While U.S. oil companies and oil service firms-as well as firms from other countries-are engaged
in Iraq, they and their U.S. government supporters have not gained the full legal rights they would
desire. In 2007, the U.S. government pressed the Iraqi government to pass the "Iraq Hydrocarbons
Law." The law would, among other things, take the majority of Iraqi oil out of the hands of the Iraqi
government and assure the right of foreign firms to control much of the oil for decades to come.
The law, however, has never been enacted, first due to general opposition to a reversal the 1972
nationalization of the industry, and recently due to continuing disputes between the government in
Baghdad and the government of the Kurdistan Region in northern Iraq.
U.S. foreign policy, as I elaborated in the 2003 article, has long been designed not simply to
protect U.S.-based firms in their international operations, but to establish the right of the firms
to access and security wherever around the world. Oil firms have been especially important in promoting
and gaining from this right, but firms from finance to pharmaceuticals and many others have been
beneficiaries and promoters of the policy.
Whatever else, as the Iraq and Middle East experience has demonstrated, this right comes at a
high cost. The best estimate of the financial cost to the United States of the war in Iraq is $3
trillion. Between the 2003 invasion and early 2017, U.S. military forces suffered 4,505 fatalities
in the war, and allied forces another 321. And, of course, most of all Iraqi deaths: estimates of
the number of Iraqis killed range between 200,000 and 500,000.
Basically the US seems to have invaded for the enrichment of the multinational corporations
at the expense of the rest of the world. Americans will pay a monetary price, but worse many have
died and many more have lost their lives.
Even if it had gone to plan, the average American would not have benefited. They would have
paid the costs for war. Let us face the reality. There was no noble intent in invading Iraq. It
was all a lie.
The ridiculousness of Paul Wolfowitz and his claim that invading Iraq could be paid for through
its oil revenue has become apparent. It has destroyed the stability of the area. We should nor
idealize Saddam, who was a horrible dictator, but the idea that the US is going to be able to
invade and impose its will was foolish.
There was never any need to invade Iraq. If oil was the goal, Washington DC could easily have
lifted the sanctions around Iraq. I doubt that the neoconservatives believed that Saddam was developing
nuclear weapons of destruction or had anything to do with the 9-11-2001 attacks, which is why
they claimed they invaded.
If this madness does not stop, it will do much more damage, and like the Soviet Union, bankrupt
the US.
Great overview of the real tragedy of Iraq-US companies having to share the spoils.
It reminds me of Russia: the US seethes because Putin is the one looting the country and not
them.
Back in the 90s President Clinton issued countless demands to Yeltsin about oil pipelines and
output increases, showing great impatience when the Russians dared to suggest environmental impact
studies. (See the linked UPI article.) If only Putin would have let us frack the Kremlin he'd
be our best friend!
Twenty-First Century American Nationalism Needs to Be
Profoundly Cosmopolitan
The right pose--substantive and rhetorical--is to
recognize that, just as since 1620 the good American
nationalism has always held that people anywhere can elect to
become Americans by joining our utopian project here at home,
so in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries that good
American nationalism is one that puts global prosperity and
being a good neighbor and benevolent hegemon first....
Howbout the IMF's treatment of Greece. Is that being a "good
neighbor."
What about Iraq? Was destabilizing the Middle East and
sending a flood of refugees into Europe being a benevolent
hegemon?
I guess for DeLong being a good hegemon means buying the
exports of our allies like Japan and Germany and allowing
them and China to run trade surpluses, even if it benefits
multinational corporations at the expense of the American
middle class.
And turns us into an oligarchy. How does that make the
globe safer?
By provoking a populist backlash which results in Brexit
and President Trump. How does that make the world safer?
"What happened here was the gradual habituation of the people, little by little, to
being governed by surprise; to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believing
that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information
which the people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if the people could
understand it, it could not be released because of national security... This separation
of government from people, this widening of the gap, took place so gradually and so
insensibly, each step disguised (perhaps not even intentionally) as a temporary
emergency measure or associated with true patriotic allegiance or with real social
purposes. And all the crises and reforms (real reforms, too) so occupied the people that
they did not see the slow motion underneath, of the whole process of government growing
remoter and remoter."-Historian Milton Mayer,
They Thought They Were
Free: The Germans, 1933-45
Brace yourself.
There is something being concocted in the dens of power, far beyond the public eye, and
it
doesn't bode well for the future of this country.
Anytime you have an entire nation so mesmerized by the antics of the political
ruling class that they are oblivious to all else, you'd better beware.
Anytime you
have a government that operates in the shadows, speaks in a language of force, and rules by
fiat, you'd better beware. And anytime you have a government so far removed from its people
as to ensure that they are never seen, heard or heeded by those elected to represent them,
you'd better beware.
The world has been down this road before.
As historian Milton Mayer recounts in his seminal book on Hitler's rise to power,
They Thought They Were
Free
, "Most of us did not want to think about fundamental things and never had.
There was no need to. Nazism gave us some dreadful, fundamental things to think about-we
were decent people?-and kept us so busy with continuous changes and 'crises' and so
fascinated, yes, fascinated, by the machinations of the 'national enemies', without and
within, that we had no time to think about these dreadful things that were growing, little
by little, all around us."
We are at our most vulnerable right now.
The gravest threat facing us as a nation is not extremism-delivered by way of
sovereign
citizens
or
radicalized Muslims
-but despotism, exercised by a ruling class whose only allegiance is
to power and money.
America is burning, and all most Americans can do is switch the channel, tune out what
they don't want to hear, and tune into their own personal
echo chambers
.
We're in a national state of denial.
Yet no amount of escapism can shield us from the harsh reality that the danger in our
midst is posed by an entrenched government bureaucracy that has no regard for the
Constitution, Congress, the courts or the citizenry.
If the team colors have changed from blue to red, that's just cosmetic.
The playbook remains the same. The leopard has not changed its spots.
Scrape off the surface layers and you will find that the American police state is alive
and well and continuing to wreak havoc on the rights of the American people.
"We the people" are no longer living the American Dream.
We're living the American Lie.
Indeed, Americans have been lied to so sincerely, so incessantly, and for so long
by politicians of all stripes
-who lie compulsively and without any seeming remorse-that
they've almost come to prefer the lies trotted out by those in government over
less-palatable truths.
The American people have become compulsive believers.
As Nick Cohen writes for
The Guardian
, "Compulsive liars shouldn't frighten
you. They can harm no one, if no one listens to them.
Compulsive believers, on the other hand: they should terrify you.
Believers are the
liars' enablers. Their votes give the demagogue his power. Their trust turns the charlatan
into the president. Their credulity ensures that the propaganda of half-calculating and
half-mad fanatics has the power to change the world."
While telling the truth "in a time of universal deceit is," as George Orwell concluded,
"a revolutionary act," believing the truth-and being able to distinguish the truth from a
lie-is also a revolutionary act.
Here's a truth few Americans want to acknowledge: nothing has changed (at least, not for
the better) since Barack Obama passed the reins of the police state to Donald Trump.
The police state is still winning. We the people are still losing.
In fact, the American police state has continued to advance at the same costly,
intrusive, privacy-sapping, Constitution-defying, relentless pace under President Trump as
it did under President Obama.
Police haven't stopped disregarding the rights of citizens
.
Having been given the green light to probe, poke, pinch, taser, search, seize, strip, shoot
and generally manhandle anyone they see fit in almost any circumstance, all with the
general blessing of the courts, America's law enforcement officials are no longer mere
servants of the people entrusted with keeping the peace. Indeed, they continue to keep the
masses corralled, under control, and treated like suspects and enemies rather than
citizens.
SWAT teams haven't stopped crashing through doors and terrorizing families.
Nationwide, SWAT teams continue to be employed to address an astonishingly trivial array of
criminal activities or mere community nuisances including angry dogs, domestic disputes,
improper paperwork filed by an orchid farmer, and misdemeanor marijuana possession. With
more than 80,000 SWAT team raids carried out every year on unsuspecting Americans for
relatively routine police matters and federal agencies laying claim to their own law
enforcement divisions, the
incidence of botched raids
and related casualties continue to rise.
The Pentagon and the Department of Homeland Security haven't stopped
militarizing and federalizing local police.
Police forces
continue to be transformed into heavily armed extensions of the military
, complete with
jackboots, helmets, shields, batons, pepper-spray, stun guns, assault rifles, body armor,
miniature tanks and weaponized drones. In training police to look and act like the military
and use the weapons and tactics of war against American citizens, the government continues
to turn the United States into a battlefield.
Schools haven't stopped treating young people like hard-core prisoners.
School districts continue to team up with law enforcement to create a "schoolhouse to
jailhouse track" by imposing a "double dose" of punishment for childish infractions:
suspension or expulsion from school, accompanied by an arrest by the police and a trip to
juvenile court. In this way, the paradigm of abject compliance to the state continues to be
taught by example in the schools, through school lockdowns where
police and drug-sniffing dogs enter the classroom
, and zero tolerance policies that
punish all offenses equally and result in young people being expelled for childish
behavior.
For-profit private prisons haven't stopped
locking up Americans and immigrants alike
at taxpayer expense.
States continue to outsource prison management to private corporations out to make a profit
at taxpayer expense. And how do you make a profit in the prison industry? Have the
legislatures pass laws that impose harsh penalties for the slightest noncompliance in order
keep the prison cells full and corporate investors happy.
Censorship hasn't stopped.
First Amendment activities continue to be
pummeled, punched, kicked, choked, chained and
generally gagged
all across the country. The reasons for such censorship vary widely
from political correctness, safety concerns and bullying to national security and hate
crimes but the end result remained the same: the complete eradication of what Benjamin
Franklin referred to as the "principal pillar of a free government."
The courts haven't stopped
marching in lockstep with the police state
.
The
courts continue to be dominated by technicians and statists who are deferential to
authority, whether government or business. Indeed, the Supreme Court's decisions in recent
years have most often been characterized by an abject deference to government authority,
military and corporate interests. They have run the gamut from suppressing free speech
activities and justifying suspicionless strip searches to warrantless home invasions and
conferring constitutional rights on corporations, while denying them to citizens.
Government bureaucrats haven't stopped
turning American citizens into criminals
.
The average
American now unknowingly commits three felonies a day, thanks to an overabundance of vague
laws that render otherwise innocent activity illegal, while reinforcing the power of the
police state and its corporate allies.
The
surveillance state hasn't stopped spying
on Americans'
communications, transactions or movements.
On any given day, whether you're
walking through a store, driving your car, checking email, or talking to friends and family
on the phone, you can be sure that some government agency, whether it's your local police,
a fusion center, the National Security Agency or one of the government's many corporate
partners, is still monitoring and tracking you.
The
TSA hasn't stopped groping or ogling travelers
.
Under
the pretext of protecting the nation's infrastructure (roads, mass transit systems, water
and power supplies, telecommunications systems and so on) against criminal or terrorist
attacks, TSA task forces (comprised of federal air marshals, surface transportation
security inspectors, transportation security officers, behavior detection officers and
explosive detection canine teams) continue to do random security sweeps of nexuses of
transportation, including ports, railway and bus stations, airports, ferries and subways,
as well as political conventions, baseball games and music concerts. Sweep tactics include
the use of x-ray technology, pat-downs and drug-sniffing dogs, among other things.
Congress hasn't stopped enacting draconian laws such as the USA Patriot Act and
the NDAA.
These laws-which completely circumvent the rule of law and the
constitutional rights of American citizens, continue to re-orient our legal landscape in
such a way as to ensure that martial law, rather than the rule of law, our U.S.
Constitution, becomes the map by which we navigate life in the United States.
The Department of Homeland Security hasn't stopped being a "
wasteful,
growing, fear-mongering beast
."
Is the DHS
capable
of plotting and planning to
turn the national guard into a federalized, immigration police force
? No doubt about
it. Remember, this is the agency that is notorious for militarizing the police and SWAT
teams; spying on activists, dissidents and veterans; stockpiling ammunition; distributing
license plate readers; contracting to build detention camps; tracking cell-phones with
Stingray devices; carrying out military drills and lockdowns in American cities; using the
TSA as an advance guard; conducting virtual strip searches with full-body scanners;
carrying out soft target checkpoints; directing government workers to spy on Americans;
conducting widespread spying networks using fusion centers; carrying out Constitution-free
border control searches; funding city-wide surveillance cameras; and utilizing drones and
other spybots.
The military industrial complex hasn't stopped profiting from
endless wars
abroad.
America's expanding military
empire continues to bleed the country dry at a rate of more than $15 billion a month (or
$20 million an hour). The Pentagon spends more on war than all 50 states combined spend on
health, education, welfare, and safety. Yet what most Americans fail to recognize is that
these ongoing wars have little to do with keeping the country safe and everything to do
with enriching the military industrial complex at taxpayer expense.
The Deep State's shadow government hasn't stopped calling the shots behind the
scenes.
Comprised of unelected government bureaucrats, corporations, contractors,
paper-pushers, and button-pushers who are actually calling the shots behind the scenes,
this
government
within a government
continues to be the real reason "we the people" have no real
control over our so-called representatives. It's every facet of a government that is no
longer friendly to freedom and is working overtime to trample the Constitution underfoot
and render the citizenry powerless in the face of the government's power grabs, corruption
and abusive tactics.
And the American people haven't stopped acting like gullible sheep
. In
fact, many Americans have been so carried away by their
blind rank-and-file partisan devotion to their respective political gods
that they have
lost sight of the one thing that has remained constant in recent years: our freedoms are
steadily declining.
Here's the problem as I see it: "we the people" have become so trusting, so gullible, so
easily distracted, so out-of-touch and so sure that our government will always do the right
thing by us that we have ignored the warning signs all around us.
In so doing, we have failed to recognize such warning signs as potential red
flags to use as opportunities to ask questions, demand answers, and hold our government
officials accountable to respecting our rights and abiding by the rule of law.
Unfortunately, once a free people allows the government to make inroads into their
freedoms, or uses those same freedoms as bargaining chips for security, it quickly becomes
a slippery slope to outright tyranny. And it doesn't really matter whether it's a Democrat
or a Republican at the helm, because the bureaucratic mindset on both sides of the aisle
now seems to embody the same philosophy of authoritarian government.
This is what happens when you fail to take alarm at the first experiment on your
liberties.
This is what happens when you fail to challenge injustice and government overreach until
the prison doors clang shut behind you.
In the American police state that now surrounds us, there are no longer such things as
innocence, due process, or justice-at least, not in the way we once knew them. We are all
potentially guilty, all potential criminals, all suspects waiting to be accused of a crime.
So you can try to persuade yourself that you are free, that you still live in a country
that values freedom, and that it is not too late to make America great again, but to anyone
who has been paying attention to America's decline over the past 50 years, it will be just
another lie.
The German people chose to ignore the truth and believe the lie.
They were not oblivious to the horrors taking place around them. As historian Robert
Gellately points out, "[A]nyone in Nazi Germany who wanted to find out about the Gestapo,
the concentration camps, and the campaigns of discrimination and persecutions need only
read the newspapers."
The warning signs were definitely there, blinking incessantly like large neon signs.
"Still," Gellately writes, "the vast majority voted in favor of Nazism, and in spite of
what they could read in the press and hear by word of mouth about the secret police, the
concentration camps, official anti-Semitism, and so on. . . . [T]here is no getting away
from the fact that at that moment, 'the vast majority of the German people backed him.'"
Half a century later, the wife of a prominent German historian, neither of whom were
members of the Nazi party, opined: "[O]n the whole, everyone felt well. . . . And there
were certainly eighty percent who lived productively and positively throughout the time. .
. . We also had good years. We had
wonderful
years."
In other words, as long as
their
creature comforts remained undiminished, as
long as
their
bank accounts remained flush, as long as
they
weren't being
discriminated against, persecuted, starved, beaten, shot, stripped, jailed and turned into
slave labor, life was good.
This is how tyranny rises and freedom falls.
As Primo Levi, a Holocaust survivor observed,
"Monsters exist, but they are
too few in number to be truly dangerous. More dangerous are the common men, the
functionaries ready to believe and to act without asking questions."
Freedom demands responsibility.
Freedom demands that people stop sleep-walking through life, stop cocooning
themselves in political fantasies, and stop distracting themselves with escapist
entertainment.
Freedom demands that we stop thinking as Democrats and Republicans and start
thinking like human beings, or at the very least, Americans.
Freedom demands that we not remain silent in the face of evil or wrongdoing but
actively stand against injustice.
Freedom demands that we treat others as we would have them treat us. That is the law
of reciprocity, also referred to as the Golden Rule, and it is found in nearly every world
religion, including Judaism and Christianity.
In other words, if you don't want to be locked up in a prison cell or a detention
camp-if you don't want to be discriminated against because of the color of your race,
religion, politics or anything else that sets you apart from the rest-if you don't want
your loved ones shot at, strip searched, tasered, beaten and treated like slaves-if you
don't want to have to be constantly on guard against government eyes watching what you do,
where you go and what you say-if you don't want to be tortured, waterboarded or forced to
perform degrading acts-if you don't want your children to grow up in a world without
freedom-then don't allow these evils to be inflicted on anyone else, no matter how tempting
the reason or how fervently you believe in your cause.
As German theologian and anti-Nazi dissident Dietrich Bonhoeffer observed, "We are not
to simply bandage the wounds of victims beneath the wheels of injustice, we are to drive a
spoke into the wheel itself."
No real conflict emerged. The President proved to be a puppet of the Deep State.
Notable quotes:
"... Finally the most obvious attempt to sabotage the administration can be seen in the events in Ukraine. Unsurprisingly, Senators Graham and McCain, two of the deep state's top emissaries, visited Ukraine at the beginning of the year, prompting Ukrainian troops to resume their destructive offensive against the Donbass. ..."
"... "There are a lot of killers. We have a lot of killers", Trump said. "Well, you think our country is so innocent?" ..."
"... What the deep state refuses to accept is that they have lost the leading role in educating the rest of the world on humanitarian issues related to the concept of democracy. The main actors of the deep state clearly understand the negative implications for them personally in economic and financial terms associated with the abandonment of the pursuit of global hegemony. For over a hundred years, no US president has ever placed their country on a par with others, has ever abandoned the concept of a nation (the US) "chosen by God". ..."
"... "Donald Trump has emerged with in mind a precise foreign policy strategy, forged by various political thinkers of the realist world such as Waltz and Mearsheimer, trashing all recent neoconservative and neoliberal policies of foreign intervention (R2P - Right to Protect) and soft power campaigns in favor of human rights. No more UN resolutions, subtly used to bomb nations (Libya). Trump doesn't believe in the central role of the UN and reaffirmed this repeatedly. ..."
"... If one wants to place weight on his words during the election campaign, it should be taken into consideration that Trump won the election thanks to the clear objectives of wanting to avoid a further spending spree on destructive wars. This priority was made clear and expressed in every possible way with the adoption of an America First policy, especially regarding domestic policy. ..."
"... The bottom line is always that Trump has the ability and willingness to be resilient to the pressures of the deep state, focusing on the needs of the average American citizen, rather than caving in to the interests of the deep state such as intelligence agencies, neocons, Israel lobby, Saudi lobby, the military-industrial complex, and many more. ..."
The first two weeks of the new presidency have already provided a few significant events. The
operation that took place in Yemen, conducted by the American special forces and directed against
Al Qaeda, has reprised the previous administration. Being a complex operation that required thorough
preparation, the new administration thereby had to necessarily represent a continuation of the old
one.
Details are still vague, but looking at the outcome, the mission failed as a result of incompetence.
The American special forces were spotted before arriving at al Qaeda's supposed base. This resulted
in the shooting of anything that moved, causing more than 25 civilian deaths.
The media that had been silent during the Obama administration was rightfully quick to condemn
the killing of innocent people, and harsh criticism was directed at the administration for this operation.
It is entirely possible that the operation was set up to fail, intended to delegitimize the operational
capabilities of the new Trump team. Given the links between al Qaeda, the Saudis and the neoconservatives,
something historically proven, it is not unthinkable that the failure of the operation was a consequence
of an initial attempt at sabotaging Trump on a key aspect of his presidency, namely the successful
execution of counter-terrorist efforts against Islamist terrorism.
Another structural component in the attempts to undermine the Trump administration concern the
deployment of NATO and US troops on the western border of the Russian Federation. This attempt is
obvious and is one of the strategies aimed at preventing a rapprochement between Washington and Moscow.
The EU persists in its self-defeating policy, focusing its attention on foreign policy instead of
gaining strategic independence thanks to the new presidency. It is now even more clear that European
Union leaders, and in particular the current political representatives in Germany and France, have
every intention of continuing in the direction set by the Obama presidency, seeking a futile confrontation
with the Russian Federation instead of a sensible rapprochement.
Europe continues to insist on failed economic and social policies that will lead to bankruptcy,
using foreign-policy issues as diversions and excuses. The consequences of these wrongheaded efforts
will inevitably favor the election of nationalist and populist parties, as seen in the United States
and other countries, which will end in the destruction of the EU. For the US deep state and their
long-term objectives, this tactic has a dual effect: it prevents the proper functioning of the EU
as well as significantly halts any rapprochement between the EU and the Russian Federation. The latter
strategy looks more and more irreversible given the current European Union elites. In this sense,
the UK, thanks to Brexit, seems to have broken free and started to slowly restructure its foreign-
policy priorities, in close alignment to Trump's isolationism.
Finally the most obvious attempt to sabotage the administration can be seen in the events
in Ukraine. Unsurprisingly, Senators Graham and McCain, two of the deep state's top emissaries, visited
Ukraine at the beginning of the year, prompting Ukrainian troops to resume their destructive offensive
against the Donbass. The intentions are clear and assorted. First is the constant attempt to
sabotage any rapprochement between Moscow and Washington, hoping to engulf Trump in an American/NATO
escalation of events in Ukraine. Second, given the critical situation in Europe, is the effort to
push Berlin to assume the burden of economically supporting the failing administration in Kiev. Third
is the increasing pressure applied to Russia and Putin, as was already seen in 2014, in an effort
to actively involve the Russian Federation in the Ukrainian conflict so as to justify NATO's direct
involvement or even that of the United States. The latter situation would be the dream of the neoconservatives,
setting Trump and Putin on a direct collision course.
The new American administration has thus far suffered at least three sabotage attempts, and it
is the attitude Trump intends to have with the rest of the world that has spurred them. In an interview
with Bill O'Reilly on Fox News, Trump reiterated that his primary focus is not governed by the doctrine
of American exceptionalism, a concept he does not subscribe to anyhow. The religion driving democratic
evangelization looks more likely to be replaced with a pragmatic, realist geopolitical stance.
This is how one could sum up Trump's words to Bill O'Reilly:
"There are a lot of killers. We have a lot of killers", Trump said. "Well, you think our country
is so innocent?"
What the deep state refuses to accept is that they have lost the leading role in educating
the rest of the world on humanitarian issues related to the concept of democracy. The main actors
of the deep state clearly understand the negative implications for them personally in economic and
financial terms associated with the abandonment of the pursuit of global hegemony. For over a hundred
years, no US president has ever placed their country on a par with others, has ever abandoned the
concept of a nation (the US) "chosen by God".
In an
article a few weeks ago, I tried to lay the foundations for a future US administration, placing
a strong focus on foreign policy and revealing a possible shift in US historic foreign relations.
In a passage I wrote:
"Donald Trump has emerged with in mind a precise foreign policy strategy, forged by various
political thinkers of the realist world such as Waltz and Mearsheimer, trashing all recent neoconservative
and neoliberal policies of foreign intervention (R2P - Right to Protect) and soft power campaigns
in favor of human rights. No more UN resolutions, subtly used to bomb nations (Libya). Trump doesn't
believe in the central role of the UN and reaffirmed this repeatedly.
In general, the Trump administration intends to end the policy of regime change, interference
in foreign governments, Arab springs and color revolutions. They just don't work. They cost too much
in terms of political credibility, in Ukraine the US are allied with supporters of Bandera (historical
figure who collaborated with the Nazis) and in Middle East they finance or indirectly support al
Qaeda and al Nusra front".
The recent meeting in Washington with Theresa May, the first official encounter with a prominent
US ally, revealed, among other things, a possible dramatic change in US policy. The Prime Minister
of the United Kingdom expressed her desire to follow a new policy of non-intervention, in line with
the isolationist strategy Trump has spoken about since running for office. In a joint press conference
with the American president, May said: "The era of military intervention is over. London and Washington
will not return to the failed policy in the past that has led to intervention in Iraq, Afghanistan
and Libya".
During the election campaign, Trump made his intentions clear in different contexts, but always
coming from the standpoint of non-interventionism inspired by the concept of isolationism. It is
becoming apparent that these intentions are being put into action, though the rhetoric regarding
Iran has become alarming. In typical Trump fashion (which contrasts with the Iran issue), the situation
in Syria is normalizing and the initial threats directed at China appear to have been put aside.
The case of Iran is a different and complex story, requiring a deeper analysis that deserves a separate
article. What will gradually be important, as the Presidency progresses, is understanding the necessity
to distinguish between words and actions, separating provocations from intentions.
Conclusions and future questions
There is a whole list of Trump statements that are seen as threats to other countries, primarily
Iran. The next article will further explain the possible strategy to be employed by Donald Trump
to fight these attempts to sabotage his administration, a strategy that seems to be based on silences,
bluffs and admissions to counter the perpetual attempts to influence his presidency. If one wants
to place weight on his words during the election campaign, it should be taken into consideration
that Trump won the election thanks to the clear objectives of wanting to avoid a further spending
spree on destructive wars. This priority was made clear and expressed in every possible way with
the adoption of an America First policy, especially regarding domestic policy.
The bottom line is always that Trump has the ability and willingness to be resilient to the pressures
of the deep state, focusing on the needs of the average American citizen, rather than caving in to
the interests of the deep state such as intelligence agencies, neocons, Israel lobby, Saudi lobby,
the military-industrial complex, and many more. It is only in the next few months that we will come
to understand if Trump will be willing to continue the fight against war or bend the knee and pay
the price.
" What the deep state refuses to accept is that they have lost the leading role in educating
the rest of the world on humanitarian issues related to the concept of democracy."
This was a strange article, but after reading the above quote I had to laugh and could not
find the gumption to continue reading.
The Deep State ought to have beaten Trump already - one way or another...! But somebody with
brains has realised that it's not just Trump. It's the political movement that he heads***. Even
if they killed DT tomorrow (and it's certain to have been on their agenda), the Trumpista Party
would survive: it's too active and too popular to disappear. So the establishment pretty much
has to wrap up the entire movement. They have left things dangerously late, from their point of
view.
*** I know he didn't start it; it's the old Pat Buchanan + Ron Paul gang, but Donald is twice
as cunning as those chaps. I really don't think he'll win his war with the bad guys - the War
Party - but his influence will be quite long-lasting. And of course he is our last hope to roll
back the spectre of "1984".
By Arthur MacEwan. Originally published at
Triple Crisis
The Issue Revisited
Around the time that the United States invaded Iraq, 14 years ago, I was in an auditorium at the
University of Massachusetts Boston to hear then-Senator John Kerry try to justify the action. As
he got into his speech, a loud, slow, calm voice came from the back of the room: "O – I – L." Kerry
tried to ignore the comment. But, again and again, "O – I – L." Kerry simply went on with his prepared
speech. The speaker from the back of the room did not continue long, but he had succeeded in determining
the tenor of the day.
Looking back on U.S. involvement in the Iraq, it appears to have been largely a failure. Iraq,
it turned out, had no "weapons of mass destruction," but this original rationalization for invasion
offered by the U.S. government was soon replaced by the goal of "regime change" and the creation
of a "democratic Iraq." The regime was changed, and Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussain was captured and
executed. But it would be very had to claim that a democratic Iraq either exists or is in the making-to
say nothing of the rise of the so-called Islamic State (ISIS) and the general destabilization in
the Middle East, both of which the U.S. invasion of Iraq helped propel.
Yet, perhaps on another scale, the invasion would register as at least a partial success. This
is the scale of O – I – L
The Profits from Oil
At the time of the U.S. invasion, I wrote an article for Dollars & Sense titled "Is It
Oil?" (available online
here
). I argued that, while the invasion may have had multiple motives, oil-or more precisely, profit
from oil-was an important factor. Iraq, then and now, has huge proven oil reserves, not in the same
league as Saudi Arabia, but in group of oil producing countries just behind the Saudis. It might
appear, then, that the United States wanted access to Iraqi oil in order to meet the needs of our
highly oil-dependent lifestyles in this country. After all, the United States today, with just over
4% of the world's population, accounts for 20% of the world's annual oil use; China, with around
20% of the world's population is a distant second in global oil use, at 13%. Even after opening new
reserves in recent years, U.S. proven reserves amount to only 3% of the world total.
Except in extreme circumstances, however, access to oil is not a major problem for this county.
And it was not in 2003. As I pointed out back then, the United States bought 284 million barrels
of oil from Iraq in 2001, about 7% of U.S. imports, even while the two countries were in a virtual
state of war. In 2015, only 30% as much oil came to the United States from Iraq, amounting to just
2.4% of total U.S. oil imports. Further, in 2015, while the United States has had extremely hostile
relations with Venezuela, 24% of U.S. oil imports came from that country's nationalized oil industry.
It would seem that, in the realm of commerce, bad political relations between buyers and sellers
are not necessarily an obstacle.
For the U.S. government, the Iraq oil problem was not so much access, in the sense of meeting
U.S. oil needs, as the fact that U.S. firms had been frozen out of Iraq since the country's oil industry
was nationalized in 1972. They and the other oil "majors" based in U.S.-allied countries were not
getting a share of the profits that were generated from the exploitation of Iraqi oil. Profits from
oil exploitation come not only to the oil companies-ExxonMobil, Shell, Chevron, British Petroleum,
and the other industry "majors"-but also to the companies that supply and operate equipment, drill
wells, and provide other services that bring the oil out of the ground and to consumers around the
world-for example, the U.S. firms Halliburton, Emerson, Baker Hughes, and others. They were also
not getting a share of the Iraqi oil action. (Actually, when vice president to be Dick Cheney was
running Halliburton, in the period before the invasion, the company managed to undertake some operations
in Iraq through a subsidiary, in spite of federal restrictions preventing U.S. firms from doing business
in Iraq.)
After the Troops
In the aftermath of the invasion and since most U.S. troops have been withdrawn, things have changed.
"Prior to the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq, U.S. and other western oil companies were all
but completely shut out of Iraq's oil market," oil industry analyst Antonia Juhasz told Al Jazeera
in 2012. "But thanks to the invasion and occupation, the companies are now back inside Iraq and producing
oil there for the first time since being forced out of the country in 1973."
From the perspective of U.S. firms the picture is mixed. Firms based in Russia and China have
developed operations in Iraq, and even an Indonesian-based firm is involved. Still, ExxonMobil (see
box) has established a significant stake in Iraq, having obtained leases on approximately 900,000
onshore acres and by the end of 2013 had developed several wells in Iraq's West Qurna field. Exxon
also has agreements with the Kurdistan Regional Government in northern Iraq to explore for oil. Chevron
holds an 80% stake and is the operator of the Qara Dagh block in the Kurdistan region of Iraq, but
as of mid-2014 the project was still in the exploratory phase and there was no production. No other
U.S. oil companies have developed operations in Iraq. The UK-headquartered BP (formerly British Petroleum)
and the Netherlands-headquartered Shell, however, are also significantly engaged in Iraq.
While data are limited on the operations of U.S. and other oil service firms in Iraq, they seem
to have done well. For example, according to a 2011 New York Times article:
The oil services companies Halliburton, Baker Hughes, Weatherford International [founded in Texas,
now incorporated in Switzerland] and Schlumberger [based in France] already won lucrative drilling
subcontracts and are likely to bid on many more. "Iraq is a huge opportunity for contractors," Alex
Munton, a Middle East analyst for Wood Mackenzie, a research and consulting firm based in Edinburgh,
said by telephone. "There will be an enormous scale of investment."
The Right to Access
While U.S. oil companies and oil service firms-as well as firms from other countries-are engaged
in Iraq, they and their U.S. government supporters have not gained the full legal rights they would
desire. In 2007, the U.S. government pressed the Iraqi government to pass the "Iraq Hydrocarbons
Law." The law would, among other things, take the majority of Iraqi oil out of the hands of the Iraqi
government and assure the right of foreign firms to control much of the oil for decades to come.
The law, however, has never been enacted, first due to general opposition to a reversal the 1972
nationalization of the industry, and recently due to continuing disputes between the government in
Baghdad and the government of the Kurdistan Region in northern Iraq.
U.S. foreign policy, as I elaborated in the 2003 article, has long been designed not simply to
protect U.S.-based firms in their international operations, but to establish the right of the firms
to access and security wherever around the world. Oil firms have been especially important in promoting
and gaining from this right, but firms from finance to pharmaceuticals and many others have been
beneficiaries and promoters of the policy.
Whatever else, as the Iraq and Middle East experience has demonstrated, this right comes at a
high cost. The best estimate of the financial cost to the United States of the war in Iraq is $3
trillion. Between the 2003 invasion and early 2017, U.S. military forces suffered 4,505 fatalities
in the war, and allied forces another 321. And, of course, most of all Iraqi deaths: estimates of
the number of Iraqis killed range between 200,000 and 500,000.
Basically the US seems to have invaded for the enrichment of the multinational corporations
at the expense of the rest of the world. Americans will pay a monetary price, but worse many have
died and many more have lost their lives.
Even if it had gone to plan, the average American would not have benefited. They would have
paid the costs for war. Let us face the reality. There was no noble intent in invading Iraq. It
was all a lie.
The ridiculousness of Paul Wolfowitz and his claim that invading Iraq could be paid for through
its oil revenue has become apparent. It has destroyed the stability of the area. We should nor
idealize Saddam, who was a horrible dictator, but the idea that the US is going to be able to
invade and impose its will was foolish.
There was never any need to invade Iraq. If oil was the goal, Washington DC could easily have
lifted the sanctions around Iraq. I doubt that the neoconservatives believed that Saddam was developing
nuclear weapons of destruction or had anything to do with the 9-11-2001 attacks, which is why
they claimed they invaded.
If this madness does not stop, it will do much more damage, and like the Soviet Union, bankrupt
the US.
Great overview of the real tragedy of Iraq-US companies having to share the spoils.
It reminds me of Russia: the US seethes because Putin is the one looting the country and not
them.
Back in the 90s President Clinton issued countless demands to Yeltsin about oil pipelines and
output increases, showing great impatience when the Russians dared to suggest environmental impact
studies. (See the linked UPI article.) If only Putin would have let us frack the Kremlin he'd
be our best friend!
"... *American style fascism. Spain and Italy still had a royal family under Franco and Mussilini, and in much the same way, the U.S. will always have elections. The national pride aspects will still reflect the host country at a level. ..."
"... Take the "Pussy Riot" outrage. Yes, we ignore our pals in Riyadh, but DC rallied to the side of a group that trespassed and damaged a state museum. Freedom of speech was the rallying cry, and of course, "Pussy Riot" disappeared from the National discussion when the elites saw the actual video. The propaganda has to focus around American values. ..."
"... Pussy Rioters served less time than US Terrorists serve waiting to be dismissed without charge. ..."
"... Regardless, US anti-ISIS operations in Iraq/Syria amount to around $30 million a day, a tiny fraction of the several hundred million daily cost of the decade long occupation of Iraq. Until a united Iraqi political structure solidifies, the US is well positioned to continue grinding away at the ISIS threat for the foreseeable future. ..."
"... Occupation was a $2 trillion disaster but the long game is stability and access to $20-30 trillion in oil, gas, and development. Obama has been consistent in his views that American 'ownership' of the Iraqi problem is a red-herring. Iraqis must rule themselves, and nothing forces divisive political groups together faster than the prospect of mutual annihilation. This will entail hard choices by all sides, border may be redrawn. However, Obama could yet pull a rabbit out of this hat. ..."
"... The US supports various "moderate" jihadi groups in Syria fighting against the Syrian government which, of course, is the main opponent of ISIS in Syria. ..."
"... How on earth does wearing down the Syrian government and effectively helping ISIS in Syria translate to "grinding down" ISIS in Iraq? Seems to me, if defeating ISIS is the main goal, supporting Syria would be the response. ..."
"... The neocon reapproachment with saudi arabia was the first part of this sunni islamist attack on every other faith of the native people of the me. ..."
"... I would love to know what Andrew Bacevitch thinks of Michael Glennon's little book "National Security and Double Government." ..."
"... I would say that defense industry sales and profits trump everything else- in a corporatocracy nothing else could be as important. ..."
"... If destroying the world means record profits, well then it is their fiduciary duty to do so. ..."
"... A hidden point: The American Imperial system is creating it's own enemies as it goes. When will it create an enemy who is a serious threat, say, someone who can shut down or take over The Kingdom and it's resources? ..."
"... Right now, the lunatics in DC are running the asylum. ..."
"... I try very hard not to be more cynical than others on NC, debating the fine points of foreign policy or banking reform or election strategy, but the fact-checker in my head keeps getting in the way. That checker tells me that the right answer for each of those boils down to one thing: filthy lucre. ..."
"... We do what we do, whether it is in Iraq or Wall St or Iowa because of one thing: there are a few billionaires who want another zero on their bank balances, and they could care less whether people starve or die or if the planet as a whole just chokes itself to death as a result. ..."
"... Colonel, now Professsor, Andrew Bacevich again points to D.C.'s collective security delusions, using a recent TV discussion about ISIS with three D.C. insiders. Leon Panetta (former Defense Secretary and CIA Director) expresses the insanity most clearly: "Our national security interests are involved; otherwise, why would we be over there in the first place?" This is inverted logic, which Bacevich rightly calls "madness lurking just beneath the surface." ..."
"... The principle threat to the nation is our disasterous policy of "internationalism", which inevitably puts us into the position of intervention - pouring blood and treasure into doubtful causes. ..."
No change needed: dear leader fast track defender and exporter of "American corporate interests"
[which latter now write the laws elected reps used to write] is now an un-elected entity and knows
no term limits.
*American style fascism. Spain and Italy still had a royal family under Franco and Mussilini,
and in much the same way, the U.S. will always have elections. The national pride aspects will
still reflect the host country at a level.
Take the "Pussy Riot" outrage. Yes, we ignore our pals in Riyadh, but DC rallied to the
side of a group that trespassed and damaged a state museum. Freedom of speech was the rallying
cry, and of course, "Pussy Riot" disappeared from the National discussion when the elites saw
the actual video. The propaganda has to focus around American values.
or that Russian culture (Orthodox Church) is deeply embedded in its relatively conservative
population. (Most Russians were outraged at the desecration.) That's why Putin came down hard
on the P-Riot. (Just like US courts come down hard on Terrists.)
I have Russian emigre' friends (Millienials) who think P-Riot is off the deep end.
On the other hand . The Kurds (purported good guys – secular, progressive, inclusive, oil rich)
are growing stronger every day. ISIS continues weakening the Assad regime (which is still supported
by Russia and Iran at great cost) – but now controls little more than a cluster of towns near
the coast and could lose Damascus altogether in the coming months. Iran is a wild card, do they
double-down in Iraq/Syria, or make a nuclear deal to reap billions on oil exports?
Regardless, US anti-ISIS operations in Iraq/Syria amount to around $30 million a day, a
tiny fraction of the several hundred million daily cost of the decade long occupation of Iraq.
Until a united Iraqi political structure solidifies, the US is well positioned to continue grinding
away at the ISIS threat for the foreseeable future.
Occupation was a $2 trillion disaster but the long game is stability and access to $20-30
trillion in oil, gas, and development. Obama has been consistent in his views that American 'ownership'
of the Iraqi problem is a red-herring. Iraqis must rule themselves, and nothing forces divisive
political groups together faster than the prospect of mutual annihilation. This will entail hard
choices by all sides, border may be redrawn. However, Obama could yet pull a rabbit out of this
hat.
Couple of problems: 1) what evidence do you have that Iraq can be salvaged as a unified state?
2) why, given the reality of global climate change, would we ever want that oil and gas extracted?
3) please provide a map of this shrunken territory you claim is all that ISIS controls today–have
they lost Ramadi yet? 4) ISIS is a creature of the Saudis and the Turks–how do they fit in all
this? 5) Why are the Israelis so conspicuously leaving ISIS alone while continuing intermittent
attacks against the duly constituted government of Syria?
Well, no one probably knows what's going to happen in Iraq, so many pieces are in play. What
is known, Assad is growing weaker, Syria is disintegrating, huge parts of Iraq are lawless without
governance. So much depends on a nuclear deal with Iran, political consensus among Iraqi political
groups ect the next 6 months will point to which direction things will move.
I checked. There have been 18 Friedman units since the term was used, so I guess this is the
19th. Friedman has been using "six month" intervals since November 03.
You're right. The term was coined in '06 but it was '03 that Friedman actually first said the
next six months were critical and it makes more sense to count from there. So 11 and a half years
or 23 FUs.
Has anyone yet been able to substantiate the gazillions that Iran is supposedly spending on
a campaign to destabilize Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, and Iraq? {Hey, and why not throw in destabilizing
Greece, too?}
The US supports various "moderate" jihadi groups in Syria fighting against the Syrian government
which, of course, is the main opponent of ISIS in Syria.
How on earth does wearing down the Syrian government and effectively helping ISIS in Syria
translate to "grinding down" ISIS in Iraq? Seems to me, if defeating ISIS is the main goal, supporting
Syria would be the response.
I'm not sure at all that Russia and Iran are anywhere close to giving up on Syria either, particularly
Russia with its Syrian naval base.
1. The kurds are not a monolith. There is the secular progressive marxist YPG in Syria, and
then the Barzani one clan state of Kurdistan. The YPG have been baring the brunt of the fighting
against daaesh.
2. The islamist advances in syria only come because of the supply of thousands of anti tank
weapons from the us and saudi. Along with air cover and artillery screens on the israeli border
and turkish border. If this support would cut off, they would again fail.
3. The us wrote the iraqi constitution to split it into ethnic statelets. The us set up the
iraqi military to be ineffectual. Everything here is going according to plan.
The neocon reapproachment with saudi arabia was the first part of this sunni islamist attack
on every other faith of the native people of the me. A human presence in washington could
end this very quickly.
There are at least two additional elements to the deeper consensus being affirmed by the speakers.
In addition to (1) ISIS is existential threat to US; (2) US must 'own' the problem; and, (3) 'ownership/leadership'
must build around military might is this pair:
A. Profits accruing to private sector military contractors are both sacrosanct and justified
in light of free market superiority; and,
B. The government/military/political establishment (e.g. these three speakers) cannot afford
democratic practices such as critical thinking and debates across all three of Hallin's spheres
(instead of just conventional wisdom) because that would undermine - be 'inefficient' – respecting
the other elements of this consensus.
I would put oil/gas right beside the defense industry in this case the U.S. isn't pushing all
of its chips into the overthrow of the Assad regime for nothing Israel (and its U.S.-based partner,
Noble Energy) needs to get the natural gas from the Levantine Basin to the Europe market somehow,
and the ideal solution is to construct a pipeline across Syria but that can't happen until Assad
is out and a "friendly" regime is put in place.
We all know that this is not going to end well for the Middle East, and for America.
A hidden point: The American Imperial system is creating it's own enemies as it goes. When
will it create an enemy who is a serious threat, say, someone who can shut down or take over The
Kingdom and it's resources?
There's the real danger. We are forcing an evolution of Islamist militancy. Each time, the
survivors of the current battle get more efficient.
Good post with good info. All I can say is: eh? what else is new? Sending tanks to Iraq, are
we now (again)? CHA CHING!!!!! What's good for the MIC is good for the crooks, thieves and liars
in Washington DC.
Why if ISIS didn't exist, it's almost like the CIA would have to recruit, arm, train and fund
a similar group. Oh wait .
I try very hard not to be more cynical than others on NC, debating the fine points of foreign
policy or banking reform or election strategy, but the fact-checker in my head keeps getting in
the way. That checker tells me that the right answer for each of those boils down to one thing:
filthy lucre.
We do what we do, whether it is in Iraq or Wall St or Iowa because of one thing: there
are a few billionaires who want another zero on their bank balances, and they could care less
whether people starve or die or if the planet as a whole just chokes itself to death as a result.
I should stop posting, it's not as though I want to see the the debates stop, and showing up
and farting at the dinner party is such bad form. But I guess I hope people will ponder whether
we really just have a money problem, and all of our other problems devolve from it.
Maybe the best thing at this point is to tacitly acknowledge that Iran is best positioned to
deal with ISIS and let them do it. This also entails accepting the reality of Iran's growing hegemony
in the region. And that this is the price of having acted like such bad asses in taking out Saddam,
only to get our pants pulled down in the aftermath.
Colonel, now Professsor, Andrew Bacevich again points to D.C.'s collective security delusions,
using a recent TV discussion about ISIS with three D.C. insiders. Leon Panetta (former Defense
Secretary and CIA Director) expresses the insanity most clearly: "Our national security interests
are involved; otherwise, why would we be over there in the first place?" This is inverted logic,
which Bacevich rightly calls "madness lurking just beneath the surface."
Panetta also most clearly expresses (3 times, every time he opens his mouth) the D.C. doctrine
of the "threat to our homeland," which is now ISIS in the Middle East, replacing al-Qaida. Bacevich
says: "Peer out of the rabbit hole and the sheer lunacy quickly becomes apparent." Michele Flournoy
reinforces Panetta by confirming that ISIS " is the new jihad." General Zinni reinforces the message
by saying a stable Middle East is in "our national interest," and that trouble there can quickly
"metastasize."
Bacevich cannot do much with these three "smirking cats, ill-mannered caterpillars, and Mock
Turtles" (though he does not identify which is which!), and he evidently was dissatisfied with
his own performance, hence his subsequent excellent article republished here.
Yet I wish Bacevich would focus on the main items of lunatic thinking, which is that ISIS is
a "threat to the U.S. homeland," and that our merely being over there is proof that our national
security interests are involved. We do not hear the leaders of European nations talking like this,
though they are closer to the Middle East. We do not hear the Chinese or the Indians talking like
this, though they are heavily reliant of buying oil in world markets. We do not hear anyone else
talking like this, and yet the United States is the safest country in the world, geographically,
yet it constantly talks as if it faces imminent threat.
The principle threat to the nation is our disasterous policy of "internationalism", which
inevitably puts us into the position of intervention - pouring blood and treasure into doubtful
causes.
The Chinese have meanwhile steadily grown their economic and political influence around the
world without ever firing a single shot. Unlike us, they will trade with any country that trades
in peace with them.
Which strategy does it seem more likely will win in the long term?
Authors outlined important reasons of the inevitability of the dominance of chicken hawks and jingoistic
foreign policy in the USA political establishment:
.
"...Beyond the problems our delusions of grandeur have caused in the wider world, there are enormous
domestic consequences of prolonged war and interventionism. We shell out
over $1 trillion a year in military-related expenses even as our social safety net frays and our
infrastructure crumbles. Democracy
itself has become virtually dysfunctional."
.
"...leading presidential candidates are
tapping neoconservatives like
John Bolton and
Paul Wolfowitz
- who still think the answer to any foreign policy quandary is military power - for advice. Our leaders
seem to forget that following this lot's advice was exactly what caused the meltdown in the first place.
War still excites them, risks and consequences be damned."
.
"...A "war first" policy in places like Iran and Syria is being strongly pushed by neoconservatives
like former Vice President
Dick Cheney and
Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman
John McCain.
"
.
"...But challenging the "exceptionalism" myth courts the danger of being labeled "unpatriotic" and
"un-American," two powerful ideological sanctions that can effectively silence critical or questioning
voices."
.
"...The United States did not simply support Kosovo's independence, for example. It bombed Serbia
into de facto acceptance. When the U.S. decided to remove the Taliban, Saddam Hussein, and Muammar Gaddafi
from power, it just did so. No other country is capable of projecting that kind of force in regions
thousands of miles from its borders."
.
"...The late political scientist Chalmers Johnson estimated that the U.S. has some 800 bases worldwide,
about the same as the British Empire had at its height in 1895.
. The United States has long relied on a military arrow in its diplomatic quiver, and Americans have
been at war almost continuously since the end of World War II. Some of these wars were major undertakings:
Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Kuwait, Afghanistan, Iraq (twice), Libya. Some were quick "smash and
grabs" like Panama and Grenada. Others are "shadow wars" waged by Special Forces, armed drones, and
local proxies. If one defines the term "war" as the application of organized violence, the U.S. has
engaged in close to 80 wars since 1945."
.
"...The state of ceaseless war has deeply damaged our democracy, bringing our surveillance and security
state to levels that many dictators would envy. The
Senate torture report, most
of it still classified, shatters the trust we are asked to place in the secret, unaccountable apparatus
that runs
the
most extensive Big Brother spy system ever devised."
.
"...the U.S. always reserves the right to use military force. The 1979 "Carter
Doctrine" - a document that mirrors the 1823 Monroe Doctrine about American interests in Latin America
- put that strategy in blunt terms vis-ŕ-vis the Middle East:"
.
"...In early 2014, some 57 percent of Americans
agreed
that "over-reliance on military force creates more hatred leading to increased terrorism." Only 37 percent
believed military force was the way to go. But once the hysteria around the Islamic State began, those
numbers shifted to pretty much an even split: 47 percent supported the use of military force, 46
percent opposed it.
.
It will always be necessary in each new crisis to counter those who mislead and browbeat the public
into acceptance of another military intervention. But in spite of the current hysterics about ISIS,
disillusionment in war as an answer is probably greater now among Americans and worldwide than it has
ever been. That sentiment may prove strong enough to produce a shift away from perpetual war, a shift
toward some modesty and common-sense realism in U.S. foreign policy."
Notable quotes:
"... Beyond the problems our delusions of grandeur have caused in the wider world, there are enormous domestic consequences of prolonged war and interventionism. We shell out over $1 trillion a year in military-related expenses even as our social safety net frays and our infrastructure crumbles . Democracy itself has become virtually dysfunctional. ..."
"... leading presidential candidates are tapping neoconservatives like John Bolton and Paul Wolfowitz - who still think the answer to any foreign policy quandary is military power - for advice. Our leaders seem to forget that following this lot's advice was exactly what caused the meltdown in the first place. War still excites them, risks and consequences be damned. ..."
"... A "war first" policy in places like Iran and Syria is being strongly pushed by neoconservatives like former Vice President Dick Cheney and Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain . ..."
"... But challenging the "exceptionalism" myth courts the danger of being labeled "unpatriotic" and "un-American," two powerful ideological sanctions that can effectively silence critical or questioning voices. ..."
"... The United States did not simply support Kosovo's independence, for example. It bombed Serbia into de facto acceptance. When the U.S. decided to remove the Taliban, Saddam Hussein, and Muammar Gaddafi from power, it just did so. No other country is capable of projecting that kind of force in regions thousands of miles from its borders. ..."
"... As military expenditures dwarf funding for deteriorating social programs, they drive economic inequality. The poor and working millions are left further and further behind. Meanwhile the chronic problems highlighted at Ferguson, and reflected nationwide, are a horrific reminder of how deeply racism - the unequal economic and social divide and systemic abuse of black and Latino youth - continues to plague our homeland . ..."
"... The state of ceaseless war has deeply damaged our democracy, bringing our surveillance and security state to levels that many dictators would envy. The Senate torture report , most of it still classified, shatters the trust we are asked to place in the secret, unaccountable apparatus that runs the most extensive Big Brother spy system ever devised. ..."
"... the U.S. always reserves the right to use military force. ..."
"... In early 2014, some 57 percent of Americans agreed that "over-reliance on military force creates more hatred leading to increased terrorism." Only 37 percent believed military force was the way to go. But once the hysteria around the Islamic State began, those numbers shifted to pretty much an even split: 47 percent supported the use of military force, 46 percent opposed it. It will always be necessary in each new crisis to counter those who mislead and browbeat the public into acceptance of another military intervention. But in spite of the current hysterics about ISIS, disillusionment in war as an answer is probably greater now among Americans and worldwide than it has ever been. That sentiment may prove strong enough to produce a shift away from perpetual war, a shift toward some modesty and common-sense realism in U.S. foreign policy. ..."
U.S. foreign policy is dangerous, undemocratic, and deeply out of sync with real global
challenges. Is continuous war inevitable, or can we change course?
There's something fundamentally wrong with U.S. foreign policy.
Despite glimmers of hope - a tentative
nuclear agreement with Iran, for one, and a long-overdue thaw with Cuba - we're locked into seemingly
irresolvable conflicts in most regions of the world. They range from tensions with nuclear-armed
powers like Russia and China to actual combat operations in the Middle East, South Asia, and Africa.
Why? Has a state of perpetual warfare and conflict become inescapable? Or are we in a self-replicating
cycle that reflects an inability - or unwillingness - to see the world as it actually is?
The United States is undergoing a historic transition in our relationship to the rest of the world,
but this is neither acknowledged nor reflected in U.S. foreign policy. We still act as if our enormous
military power, imperial alliances, and self-perceived moral superiority empower us to set the terms
of "world order."
While this illusion goes back to the end of World War II, it was the end of the Cold War and collapse
of the Soviet Union that signaled the beginning of a self-proclaimed "American Century." The idea
that the United States had "won" the Cold War and now - as the world's lone superpower - had the
right or responsibility to order the world's affairs led to a series of military adventures. It started
with President Bill Clinton's intervention in the Yugoslav civil war, continued on with George W.
Bush's disastrous invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and can still be seen in the Obama administration's
own misadventures in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, and beyond.
In each case, Washington chose war as the answer to enormously complex issues, ignoring the profound
consequences for both foreign and domestic policy. Yet the world is very different from the assumptions
that drive this impulsive interventionism.
It's this disconnect that defines the current crisis.
Acknowledging New Realities
So what is it about the world that requires a change in our outlook? A few observations come to
mind.
First, our preoccupation with conflicts in the Middle East - and to a significant extent,
our tensions with Russia in Eastern Europe and with China in East Asia - distract us from the
most compelling crises that threaten the future of humanity. Climate change and environmental
perils have to be dealt with now and demand an unprecedented level of international collective
action. That also holds for the resurgent danger of nuclear war.
Second, superpower military interventionism and far-flung acts of war have only intensified
conflict, terror, and human suffering. There's no short-term solution - especially by force -
to the deep-seated problems that cause chaos, violence, and misery through much of the world.
Third, while any hope of curbing violence and mitigating the most urgent problems depends
on international cooperation, old and disastrous intrigues over spheres of influence dominate
the behavior of the major powers. Our own relentless pursuit of military advantage on every continent,
including through alliances and proxies like NATO, divides the world into "friend" and "foe" according
to our perceived interests. That inevitably inflames aggressive imperial rivalries and overrides
common interests in the 21st century.
Fourth, while the United States remains a great economic power, economic and political influence
is shifting and giving rise to national and regional centers no longer controlled by U.S.-dominated
global financial structures. Away from Washington, London, and Berlin,
alternative centers of
economic power are taking hold in Beijing, New Delhi, Cape Town, and Brasilia. Independent
formations and alliances are springing up: organizations like the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India,
China, and South Africa); the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (representing 2.8 billion people);
the Union of South American Nations; the Latin American trade bloc, Mercosur; and others.
Beyond the problems our delusions of grandeur have caused in the wider world, there are enormous
domestic consequences of prolonged war and interventionism. We shell out
over $1 trillion a year in military-related expenses even as our social safety net frays and
our infrastructure crumbles.
Democracy itself has become virtually dysfunctional.
Short Memories and Persistent Delusions
But instead of letting these changing circumstances and our repeated military failures give us
pause, our government continues to act as if the United States has the power to dominate and dictate
to the rest of the world.
The responsibility of those who set us on this course fades into background. Indeed, in light
of the ongoing meltdown in the Middle East, leading presidential candidates are
tapping neoconservatives like
John Bolton
and Paul Wolfowitz
- who still think the answer to any foreign policy quandary is military power - for advice. Our leaders
seem to forget that following this lot's advice was exactly what caused the meltdown in the first
place. War still excites them, risks and consequences be damned.
While the Obama administration has sought, with limited success, to end the major wars it inherited,
our government makes wide use of killer drones in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia, and has put troops
back into Iraq to confront the religious fanaticism and brutality of the so-called Islamic State
(ISIS) - itself a direct consequence of the last U.S. invasion of Iraq. Reluctant to find common
ground in the fight against ISIS with designated "foes" like Iran and Syria, Washington clings to
allies like Saudi Arabia, whose leaders are fueling the crisis of religious fanaticism and internecine
barbarity. Elsewhere, the U.S. also continues to give massive support to the Israeli government,
despite its expanding occupation of the West Bank and its horrific recurring assaults on Gaza.
A "war first" policy in places like Iran and Syria is being strongly pushed by neoconservatives
like former Vice President
Dick Cheney
and Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman
John McCain.
Though it's attempted to distance itself from the neocons, the Obama administration adds to tensions
with planned military realignments like the "Asia
pivot" aimed at building up U.S. military forces in Asia to confront China. It's also taken a
more aggressive position than even other NATO partners in fostering a new cold war with Russia.
We seem to have missed the point: There is no such thing as an "American Century." International
order cannot be enforced by a superpower alone. But never mind centuries - if we don't learn to take
our common interests more seriously than those that divide nations and breed the chronic danger of
war, there may well be no tomorrows.
Unexceptionalism
There's a powerful ideological delusion that any movement seeking to change U.S. foreign policy
must confront: that U.S. culture is superior to anything else on the planet. Generally going by the
name of "American exceptionalism," it's the deeply held belief that American politics (and medicine,
technology, education, and so on) are better than those in other countries. Implicit in the belief
is an evangelical urge to impose American ways of doing things on the rest of the world.
Americans, for instance, believe they have the best education system in the world, when in fact
they've dropped from 1st place to 14th place in the number of college graduates.
We've made students of higher education the most indebted section of our population, while falling
to 17th place in international education ratings. According to the Organization for Economic
Cooperation, the average American pays more than twice as much for his or her education than those
in the rest of the world.
Health care is an equally compelling example. In the World Health Organization's ranking of health
care systems in 2000, the United States was ranked 37th. In a more recent
Institute of Medicine report in 2013, the U.S. was ranked the lowest among 17 developed nations
studied.
The old anti-war slogan, "It will be a good day when schools get all the money they need and the
Navy has to hold a bake sale to buy an aircraft carrier" is as appropriate today as it was in the
1960s. We prioritize corporate subsidies, tax cuts for the wealthy, and massive military budgets
over education. The result is that Americans are no longer among the most educated in the world.
But challenging the "exceptionalism" myth courts the danger of being labeled "unpatriotic"
and "un-American," two powerful ideological sanctions that can effectively silence critical or questioning
voices.
The fact that Americans consider their culture or ideology "superior" is hardly unique. But no
other country in the world has the same level of economic and military power to enforce its worldview
on others.
The United States did not simply support Kosovo's independence, for example. It bombed Serbia
into de facto acceptance. When the U.S. decided to remove the Taliban, Saddam Hussein, and Muammar
Gaddafi from power, it just did so. No other country is capable of projecting that kind of force
in regions thousands of miles from its borders.
The U.S. currently accounts for anywhere from 45 to 50 percent of the world's military spending.
It has hundreds of overseas bases, ranging from huge sprawling affairs like Camp Bond Steel in Kosovo
and unsinkable aircraft carriers around the islands of Okinawa, Wake, Diego Garcia, and Guam to tiny
bases called "lily
pads" of pre-positioned military supplies. The late political scientist Chalmers Johnson
estimated that the U.S. has some 800 bases worldwide, about the same as the British Empire had at
its height in 1895.
The United States has long relied on a military arrow in its diplomatic quiver, and Americans
have been at war almost continuously since the end of World War II. Some of these wars were
major undertakings: Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Kuwait, Afghanistan, Iraq (twice), Libya. Some
were quick "smash and grabs" like Panama and Grenada. Others are "shadow wars" waged by Special Forces,
armed drones, and local proxies. If one defines the term "war" as the application of organized
violence, the U.S. has engaged in close to 80 wars since 1945.
The Home Front
The coin of empire comes dear, as the old expression goes.
According Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government, the final butcher bill for the Afghanistan
and Iraq wars - including the long-term health problems of veterans - will cost U.S. taxpayers around
$6 trillion. One can add to that the over $1 trillion the U.S. spends each year on defense-related
items. The "official" defense budget of some half a trillion dollars doesn't include such items as
nuclear weapons, veterans' benefits or retirement, the CIA and Homeland Security, nor the billions
a year in interest we'll be paying on the debt from the Afghan-Iraq wars. By 2013 the U.S. had already
paid out $316 billion
in interest.
The domestic collateral damage from that set of priorities is numbing.
We spend more on our "official" military budget than we do on Medicare, Medicaid, Health and Human
Services, Education, and Housing and Urban Development combined. Since 9/11,
we've
spent $70 million an hour on "security" compared to $62 million an hour on all domestic programs.
As military expenditures dwarf funding for deteriorating social programs, they drive economic
inequality. The poor and working millions are left further and further behind. Meanwhile the chronic
problems highlighted at Ferguson, and reflected nationwide, are a horrific reminder of how deeply
racism - the unequal economic and social divide and systemic abuse of black and Latino youth -
continues to plague our homeland.
The state of ceaseless war has deeply damaged our democracy, bringing our surveillance and
security state to levels that many dictators would envy. The
Senate torture report, most
of it still classified, shatters the trust we are asked to place in the secret, unaccountable apparatus
that runs
the most extensive Big Brother spy system ever devised.
Bombs and Business
President Calvin Coolidge was said to have remarked that "the business of America is business."
Unsurprisingly, U.S. corporate interests play a major role in American foreign policy.
Out of the top 10 international arms producers, eight are American. The arms industry spends millions
lobbying Congress and state legislatures, and it defends its turf with an efficiency and vigor that
its products don't always emulate on the battlefield. The F-35 fighter-bomber, for example - the
most expensive weapons system in U.S. history - will cost $1.5 trillion and doesn't work. It's over
budget, dangerous to fly, and riddled with defects. And yet few lawmakers dare challenge the powerful
corporations who have shoved this lemon down our throats.
Corporate interests are woven into the fabric of long-term U.S. strategic interests and goals.
Both combine to try to control energy supplies, command strategic choke points through which oil
and gas supplies transit, and ensure access to markets.
Many of these goals can be achieved with standard diplomacy or economic pressure, but the
U.S. always reserves the right to use military force. The 1979 "Carter
Doctrine" - a document that mirrors the 1823 Monroe Doctrine about American interests in Latin
America - put that strategy in blunt terms vis-ŕ-vis the Middle East:
"An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded
as an assault on the vital interests of the United States, and such an assault will be repelled
by any means necessary, including military force."
It's no less true in East Asia. The U.S. will certainly engage in peaceful economic competition
with China. But if push comes to shove, the Third, Fifth, and Seventh fleets will back up the interests
of Washington and its allies - Japan, the Philippines, South Korea, and Australia.
Trying to change the course of American foreign policy is not only essential for reducing international
tensions. It's critically important to shift the enormous wealth we expend in war and weapons toward
alleviating growing inequality and social crises at home.
As long as competition for markets and accumulation of capital characterize modern society, nations
will vie for spheres of influence, and antagonistic interests will be a fundamental feature of international
relations. Chauvinist reaction to incursions real or imagined - and the impulse to respond by military
means - is characteristic to some degree of every significant nation-state. Yet the more that some
governments, including our own, become subordinate to oligarchic control, the greater is the peril.
Finding the Common Interest
These, however, are not the only factors that will shape the future.
There is nothing inevitable that rules out a significant change of direction, even if the demise
or transformation of a capitalistic system of greed and exploitation is not at hand. The potential
for change, especially in U.S. foreign policy, resides in how social movements here and abroad respond
to the undeniable reality of: 1) the chronic failure, massive costs, and danger inherent in "American
Century" exceptionalism; and 2) the urgency of international efforts to respond to climate change.
There is, as well, the necessity to respond to health and natural disasters aggravated by poverty,
to rising messianic violence, and above all, to prevent a descent into war. This includes not only
the danger of a clash between the major nuclear powers, but between regional powers. A nuclear exchange
between Pakistan and India, for example, would affect the whole world.
Without underestimating the self-interest of forces that thrive on gambling with the future of
humanity, historic experience and current reality elevate a powerful common interest in peace and
survival. The need to change course is not something that can be recognized on only one side of an
ideological divide. Nor does that recognition depend on national, ethnic, or religious identity.
Rather, it demands acknowledging the enormous cost of plunging ahead as everything falls apart around
us.
After the latest U.S. midterm elections, the political outlook is certainly bleak. But experience
shows that elections, important as they are, are not necessarily indicators of when and how significant
change can come about in matters of policy. On issues of civil rights and social equality, advances
have occurred because a dedicated and persistent minority movement helped change public opinion in
a way the political establishment could not defy.
The Vietnam War, for example, came to an end, despite the stubbornness of Democratic and Republican
administrations, when a stalemate on the battlefield and growing international and domestic opposition
could no longer be denied. Significant changes can come about even as the basic character of society
is retained. Massive resistance and rejection of colonialism caused the British Empire and other
colonial powers to adjust to a new reality after World War II. McCarthyism was eventually defeated
in the United States. President Nixon was forced to resign. The use of landmines and cluster bombs
has been greatly restricted because of the opposition of a small band of activists whose initial
efforts were labeled "quixotic."
There are diverse and growing political currents in our country that see the folly and danger
of the course we're on. Many Republicans, Democrats, independents, and libertarians - and much of
the public - are beginning to say "enough" to war and military intervention all over the globe, and
the folly of basing foreign policy on dividing countries into "friend or foe."
This is not to be Pollyannaish about anti-war sentiment, or how quickly people can be stampeded
into supporting the use of force. In early 2014, some 57 percent of Americans
agreed
that "over-reliance on military force creates more hatred leading to increased terrorism." Only 37
percent believed military force was the way to go. But once the hysteria around the Islamic State
began, those
numbers shifted to pretty much an even split: 47 percent supported the use of military force,
46 percent opposed it.
It will always be necessary in each new crisis to counter those who mislead and browbeat the public
into acceptance of another military intervention. But in spite of the current hysterics about ISIS,
disillusionment in war as an answer is probably greater now among Americans and worldwide than it
has ever been. That sentiment may prove strong enough to produce a shift away from perpetual war,
a shift toward some modesty and common-sense realism in U.S. foreign policy.
Making Space for the Unexpected
Given that there is a need for a new approach, how can American foreign policy be changed?
Foremost, there is the need for a real debate on the thrust of a U.S. foreign policy that chooses
negotiation, diplomacy, and international cooperation over the use of force.
However, as we approach another presidential election, there is as yet no strong voice among the
candidates to challenge U.S. foreign policy. Fear and questionable political calculation keep even
most progressive politicians from daring to dissent as the crisis of foreign policy lurches further
into perpetual militarism and war. That silence of political acquiescence has to be broken.
Nor is it a matter of concern only on the left. There are many Americans - right, left, or neither
- who sense the futility of the course we're on. These voices have to be represented or the election
process will be even more of a sham than we've recently experienced.
One can't predict just what initiatives may take hold, but the recent U.S.-China climate agreement
suggests that necessity can override significant obstacles. That accord is an important step forward,
although a limited bilateral pact
cannot
substitute for an essential international climate treaty. There is a glimmer of hope also in
the U.S.-Russian joint action that
removed
chemical weapons from Syria, and in negotiations with Iran, which continue despite
fierce opposition
from U.S. hawks and the Israeli government. More recently, there is Obama's bold move - long overdue
- to restore diplomatic
relations with Cuba. Despite shifts in political fortunes, the unexpected can happen if there
is a need and strong enough pressure to create an opportunity.
We do not claim to have ready-made solutions to the worsening crisis in international relations.
We are certain that there is much we've missed or underestimated. But if readers agree that U.S.
foreign policy has a national and global impact, and that it is not carried out in the interests
of the majority of the world's people, including our own, then we ask you to join this conversation.
If we are to expand the ability of the people to influence foreign policy, we need to defend democracy,
and encourage dissent and alternative ideas. The threats to the world and to ourselves are so great
that finding common ground trumps any particular interest. We also know that we won't all agree with
each other, and we believe that is as it should be. There are multiple paths to the future. No coalition
around changing foreign policy will be successful if it tells people to conform to any one pattern
of political action.
So how does the call for changing course translate to something politically viable, and how do
we consider the problem of power?
The power to make significant changes in policy ranges from the persistence of peace activists
to the potential influence of the general public. In some circumstances, it becomes possible - as
well as necessary - to make significant changes in the power structure itself.
Greece comes to mind. Greek left organizations came together to form Syriza, the political party
that was successfully elected to power
on a platform of ending austerity. Spain's anti-austerity Podemos Party - now the number-two party
in the country - came out of massive demonstrations in 2011 and was organized from the grassroots
up. We do not argue one approach over the over, but the experiences in both countries demonstrate
that there are multiple paths to generating change.
Certainly progressives and leftists grapple with the problems of power. But progress on issues,
particularly in matters like war and peace and climate change, shouldn't be conceived of as dependent
on first achieving general solutions to the problems of society, however desirable.
... ... ...
Conn Hallinan is a journalist and a columnist for Foreign Policy In Focus. His writings appear
online at Dispatches From
the Edge. Leon Wofsy is a retired biology professor and long-time political activist. His comments
on current affairs appear online at Leon's
OpEd.
"... The BRICS want to use oil to "force the US to lose its incredibly powerful role in owning the world's transactional reserve currency." It gives the US a great deal of power of empire that it would not ordinarily have, since the ability to add debt without consequence enables the expenditures to sustain it. ..."
"... Later, after listening to this again, the thought crossed my mind that this advisor might be a double agent using the paranoia of the military to achieve the ends of another. Not for the BRICS, but for the Banks. The greatest beneficiary of a strong dollar, which is a terrible burden to the real economy, is the financial sector. This is why most countries seek to weaken or devalue their currencies to improve their domestic economies as a primary objective. This is not so far-fetched as military efforts to provoke 'regime change' have too often been undertaken to support powerful commercial interests. ..."
"... A typical observation is that the US did indeed overthrow the democratically elected government of Mossadegh in 1953 in Iran. But 'the British needed the money' from the Anglo-Iranian oil company in order to rebuild after WW II. Truman had rejected the notion, but Eisenhower the military veteran and Republic agreed to it. Wilkerson says specifically that Ike was 'the last expert' to hold the office of the Presidency. ..."
Aug 15, 2015 | Jesse's Café Américain
"We are imperial, and we are in decline... People are losing confidence in the Empire."
This is the key theme of Larry Wilkerson's presentation. He never really questions whether empire
is good or bad, sustainable or not, and at what costs. At least he does not so in the same manner
as that great analyst of empire Chalmers Johnson.
It is important to understand what people who are in and near positions of power are thinking
if you wish to understand what they are doing, and what they are likely to do. What ought
to be done is another matter.
Wilkerson is a Republican establishment insider who has served for many years in the military
and the State Department. Here he is giving about a 40 minute presentation to the Centre For International
Governance in Canada in 2014.
I find his point of view of things interesting and revealing, even on those points where I may
not agree with his perspective. There also seem to be some internal inconsistencies in this thinking.
But what makes his perspective important is that it represents a mainstream view of many professional
politicians and 'the Establishment' in America. Not the hard right of the Republican party, but much
of what constitutes the recurring political establishment of the US.
As I have discussed here before, I do not particularly care so much if a trading indicator has
a fundamental basis in reality, as long as enough people believe in and act on it. Then it is worth
watching as self-fulfilling prophecy. And the same can be said of political and economic memes.
At minute 48:00 Wilkerson gives a response to a question about the growing US debt and of the
role of the petrodollar in the Empire, and the efforts by others to 'undermine it' by replacing it.
This is his 'greatest fear.'
He speaks about 'a principal advisor to the CIA Futures project' and the National Intelligence
Council (NIC), whose views and veracity of claims are being examined closely by sophisticated assets.
He believes that both Beijing and Moscow are complicit in an attempt to weaken the dollar.
This includes the observation that "gold is being moved in sort of unique ways, concentrated in
secret in unique ways, and capitals are slowly but surely divesting themselves of US Treasuries.
So what you are seeing right now in the supposed strengthening of the dollar is a false impression."
The BRICS want to use oil to "force the US to lose its incredibly powerful role in owning
the world's transactional reserve currency." It gives the US a great deal of power of empire that
it would not ordinarily have, since the ability to add debt without consequence enables the expenditures
to sustain it.
Later, after listening to this again, the thought crossed my mind that this advisor might
be a double agent using the paranoia of the military to achieve the ends of another. Not for
the BRICS, but for the Banks. The greatest beneficiary of a strong dollar, which is a terrible burden
to the real economy, is the financial sector. This is why most countries seek to weaken or devalue
their currencies to improve their domestic economies as a primary objective. This is not so far-fetched
as military efforts to provoke 'regime change' have too often been undertaken to support powerful
commercial interests.
Here is just that particular excerpt of the Q&A and the question of increasing US debt.
I am not sure how much the policy makers and strategists agree with this theory about gold. But
there is no doubt in my mind that they believe and are acting on the theory that oil, and the dollar
control of oil, the so-called petrodollar, is the key to maintaining the empire.
Wilkerson reminds me very much of a political theoretician who I knew at Georgetown University.
He talks about strategic necessities, the many occasions in which the US has used its imperial power
covertly to overthrow or attempt to overthrow governments in Iran, Venezuela, Syria, and the Ukraine.
He tends to ascribe all these actions to selflessness, and American service to the world in maintaining
a balance of power where 'all we ask is a plot of ground to bury our dead.'
A typical observation is that the US did indeed overthrow the democratically elected government
of Mossadegh in 1953 in Iran. But 'the British needed the money' from the Anglo-Iranian oil company
in order to rebuild after WW II. Truman had rejected the notion, but Eisenhower the military veteran
and Republic agreed to it. Wilkerson says specifically that Ike was 'the last expert' to hold the
office of the Presidency.
This is what is meant by realpolitik. It is all about organizing the world under a 'balance
of power' that is favorable to the Empire and the corporations that have sprung up around it.
As someone with a long background and interest in strategy I am not completely unsympathetic to
these lines of thinking. But like most broadly developed human beings and students of history and
philosophy one can see that the allure of such thinking, without recourse to questions of restraint
and morality and the fig leaf of exceptionalist thinking, is a terrible trap, a Faustian bargain.
It is the rationalization of every nascent tyranny. It is the precursor to the will to pure power
for its own sake.
The challenges of empire now according to Wilkerson are:
Disequilibrium of wealth - 1/1000th of the US owns 50% of its total wealth. The current
economic system implies long term stagnation (I would say stagflation. The situation in the US
is 1929, and in France, 1789. All the gains are going to the top.
BRIC nations are rising and the Empire is in decline, largely because of US strategic miscalculations.
The US is therefore pressing harder towards war in its desperation and desire to maintain the
status quo. And it is dragging a lot of good and honest people into it with our NATO allies
who are dependent on the US for their defense.
There is a strong push towards regional government in the US that may intensify as
global warming and economic developments present new challenges to specific areas. For example,
the water has left the Southwest, and it will not be coming back anytime soon.
This presentation ends about minute 40, and then it is open to questions which is also very interesting.
Lawrence Wilkerson, Distinguished Visiting Professor of Government and Public Policy at the
College of William Mary, and former Chief of Staff to U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell.
"... Yet, a return to protectionism is not likely to solve the problems of those who have lost ground due to globalisation without appropriate compensation of its 'losers', and is bound to harm growth especially in emerging economies. The world rather needs a more inclusive model of globalisation. ..."
"... From an energy point of view globalisation is a disaster. The insane level of fossil fuels that this current world requires for transportation of necessities (food and clothing) is making this world an unstable world. Ipso Facto. ..."
"... Those who believe that globalisation is bringing value to the world should reconsider their views. The current globalisation has created both monopolies on a geopolitical ground, ie TV make or shipbuilding in Asia. ..."
"... Do you seriously believe that these new geographical and corporate monopolies does not create the kind bad outcomes that traditional – country-centric ones – monopolies have in the past? ..."
"... Then there is the practical issue of workers having next to no bargaining power under globalization. Do people really suppose that Mexican workers would be willing to strike so that their US counterparts, already making ficew times as much money, would get a raise? ..."
"... Basically our elite sold us a bill of goods is why we lost manufacturing. Greed. Nothing else. ..."
"... So proof is required to rollback globalization, but no proof was required to launch it or continue dishing it out? It's good to be the King, eh? ..."
"... America hasn't just gotten rid of the low level jobs. It has also gotten rid of supervisors and factory managers. Those are skills you can't get back overnight. For US plants in Mexico, you might have US managers there or be able to get special visas to let those managers come to the US. But US companies have shifted a ton, and I meant a ton, to foreign subcontractors. Some would put operations in the US to preserve access to US customers, but their managers won't speak English. How do you make this work? ..."
"... The real issue is commitment. Very little manufacturing will be re-shored unless companies are convinced that it is in their longterm interest to do so. ..."
"... There is also what I've heard referred to as the "next bench" phenomenon, in which products arise because someone designs a new product/process to solve a manufacturing problem. Unless one has great foresight, the designer of the new product must be aware there is a problem to solve. ..."
"... When a country is involved in manufacturing, the citizens employed will have exposure to production problems and issues. ..."
"... After his speech he took questions. I asked "Would Toyota ever separate design from manufacturing?" as HP had done, shipping all manufacturing to Asia. "No" was his answer. ..."
"... In my experience, it is way too useful to have the line be able to easily call the designer in question and have him come take a look at what his design is doing. HP tried to get around that by sending part of the design team to Asia to watch the startup. Didn't work as well. And when problems emerged later, it was always difficult to debug by remote control. ..."
"... How about mass imports of cheap workers into western countries in the guise of emigrants to push down worker's pay and gut things like unions. That factor played a decisive factor in both the Brexit referendum and the US 2016 elections. Or the subsidized exportation of western countries industrial equipment to third world countries, leaving local workers swinging in the wind. ..."
"... The data sets do not capture some of the most important factors in what they are saying. It is like putting together a paper on how and why white men voted in the 2016 US elections as they did – and forgetting to mention the effect of the rest of the voters involved. ..."
"... I had a similar reaction. This research was reinforcing info about everyone's resentment over really bad distribution of wealth, as far as it went, but it was so unsatisfying ..."
"... "Right to work" is nothing other than a way to undercut quality of work for "run-to-the-bottom competitive pay." ..."
"... I've noticed that the only people in favor of globalization are those whose jobs are not under threat from it. ..."
"... First off, economic nationalism is not necessarily right wing. I would certainly classify Bernie Sanders as an economic nationalist (against open borders and against "free" trade). Syriza and Podemos could arguably be called rather ineffective economic nationalist parties. I would say the whole ideology of social democracy is based on the Swedish nationalist concept of a "folkhem", where the nation is the home and the citizens are the folk. ..."
"... So China is Turmpism on steroids. Israel obviously is as well. Why do some nations get to be blatantly Trumpist while for others these policies are strictly forbidden? ..."
"... One way to look at Globalization is as an updated version of the post WW1 Versailles Treaty which imposed reparations on a defeated Germany for all the harm they caused during the Great War. The Globalized Versailles Treaty is aimed at the American and European working classes for the crimes of colonialism, racism, slavery and any other bad things the 1st world has done to the 3rd in the past. ..."
"... And yes, this applies to Bernie Sanders as well. During that iconic interview where Sanders denounced open borders and pushed economic nationalism, the Neoliberal interviewer immediately played the global guilt card in response. ..."
"... During colonialism the 3rd world had a form of open borders imposed on it by the colonial powers, where the 3rd world lost control of who what crossed their borders while the 1st world themselves maintained a closed border mercantilist regime of strict filters. So the anti-colonialist movement was a form of Trumpist economic nationalism where the evil foreigners were given the boot and the nascent nations applied filters to their borders. ..."
"... Nationalism (my opinion) can do this – economic nationalism. And of course other people think oh gawd, not that again – it's so inefficient for my investments- I can't get fast returns that way but that's just the point. ..."
"... China was not a significant exporter until the 2001 inclusion in WTO: it cannot possibly have caused populist uprisings in Italy and Belgium in the 1990s. It was probably too early even for Pim Fortuyn in the Netherlands, who was killed in 2002, Le Pen's electoral success in the same year, Austria's FPOE in 1999, and so on. ..."
"... In the 1930s Keynes realized, income was just as important as profit as this produced a sustainable system that does not rely on debt to maintain demand. ..."
"... "Although commercial banks create money through lending, they cannot do so freely without limit. Banks are limited in how much they can lend if they are to remain profitable in a competitive banking system." ..."
"... The Romans are the basis. Patricians, Equites and Plebs. Most of us here are clearly plebeian. Time to go place some bets, watch the chariot races and gladiatorial fights, and get my bread subsidy. Ciao. ..."
"... 80-90% of Bonds and Equities ( at least in USA) are owned by top 10 %. 0.7% own 45% of global wealth. 8 billionaires own more than 50% of wealth than that of bottom 50% in our Country! ..."
"... Globalisation has caused a surge in support for nationalist and radical right political platforms. ..."
"... Trump's withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership seems to be a move in that direction. ..."
"... Yet, a return to protectionism is not likely to solve the problems of those who have lost ground due to globalisation without appropriate compensation of its 'losers' ..."
"... and is bound to harm growth especially in emerging economies. ..."
"... The world rather needs a more inclusive model of globalisation. ..."
Definitely a pleasant read but IMHO wrong conclusion: Yet, a return to protectionism is
not likely to solve the problems of those who have lost ground due to globalisation without appropriate
compensation of its 'losers', and is bound to harm growth especially in emerging economies. The
world rather needs a more inclusive model of globalisation.
From an energy point of view globalisation is a disaster. The insane level of fossil fuels
that this current world requires for transportation of necessities (food and clothing) is making
this world an unstable world. Ipso Facto.
We need a world where goods move little as possible (yep!) when smart ideas and technology
(medical, science, industry, yep that's essential) move as much as possible. Internet makes this
possible. This is no dream but a XXIth century reality.
Work – the big one – is required and done where and when it occurs. That is on all continents
if not in every country. Not in an insanely remote suburbs of Asia.
Those who believe that globalisation is bringing value to the world should reconsider their
views. The current globalisation has created both monopolies on a geopolitical ground, ie TV make
or shipbuilding in Asia.
Do you seriously believe that these new geographical and corporate monopolies does not
create the kind bad outcomes that traditional – country-centric ones – monopolies have in the
past?
Yves Smith can have nasty words when it comes to discussing massive trade surplus and policies
that supports them. That's my single most important motivation for reading this challenging blog,
by the way.
Another thing is that reliance on complex supply chains is risky. The book 1177 B.C.: The Year
Civilization Collapsed describes how the ancient Mediterranian civilization collapsed when the
supply chains stopped working.
Then there is the practical issue of workers having next to no bargaining power under globalization.
Do people really suppose that Mexican workers would be willing to strike so that their US counterparts,
already making ficew times as much money, would get a raise?
Is Finland somehow supposed to force the US and China to adopt similar worker rights and environmental
protections? No, globalization, no matter how you slice it,is a race to the bottom.
I do not agree with the article's conclusion either.
Reshoring would have 1 of 2 outcomes:
Lots of manufacturing jobs and a solid middle class. We may be looking at more than 20
percent total employment in manufacturing and more than 30 percent of our GDP in manufacturing.
If the robots take over, we still have a lot of manufacturing jobs. Japan for example has
the most robots per capita, yet they still maintain very large amounts of manufacturing employment.
It does not mean the end of manufacturing at all, having worked in manufacturing before.
Basically our elite sold us a bill of goods is why we lost manufacturing. Greed. Nothing
else.
The conclusion is the least important thing. Conclusions are just interpretations, afterthoughts,
divagations (which btw are often just sneaky ways to get your work published by TPTB, surreptitiously
inserting radical stuff under the noses of the guardians of orthodoxy).
The value of these reports is in providing hardcore statistical evidence and quantification
for something for which so many people have a gut feeling but just cann't prove it (although many
seem to think that just having a strong opinion is sufficient).
Yes, correct. Intuition is great for coming up with hypotheses, but it is important to test
them. And while a correlation isn't causation, it at least says the hypothesis isn't nuts on its
face.
In addition, studies like this are helpful in challenging the oft-made claim, particularly
in the US, that people who vote for nationalist policies are bigots of some stripe.
You are missing the transition costs, which will take ten years, maybe a generation.
America hasn't just gotten rid of the low level jobs. It has also gotten rid of supervisors
and factory managers. Those are skills you can't get back overnight. For US plants in Mexico,
you might have US managers there or be able to get special visas to let those managers come to
the US. But US companies have shifted a ton, and I meant a ton, to foreign subcontractors. Some
would put operations in the US to preserve access to US customers, but their managers won't speak
English. How do you make this work?
The only culture with demonstrated success in working with supposedly hopeless US workers is
the Japanese, who proved that with the NUMMI joint venture with GM in one of its very worst factories
(in terms of the alleged caliber of the workforce, as in many would show up for work drunk). Toyota
got the plant to function at better than average (as in lower) defect levels and comparable productivity
to its plants in Japan, which was light years better than Big Three norms.
I'm not sure any other foreign managers are as sensitive to detail and the fine points of working
conditions as the Japanese (having worked with them extensively, the Japanese hear frequencies
of power dynamics that are lost on Westerners. And the Chinese do not even begin to have that
capability, as much as they have other valuable cultural attributes).
That is really interesting about the Japanese sensitivity to detail and power dynamics. If
anyone has managed to describe this in any detail, I would love to read more, though I suppose
if their ability is alien to most Westerners the task of describing it might also be too much
to handle.
I lean more to ten years than a generation. And in the grand scheme of things, 10 years is
nothing.
The real issue is commitment. Very little manufacturing will be re-shored unless companies
are convinced that it is in their longterm interest to do so. Which means having a sense
that the US government is serious, and will continue to be serious, about penalizing off-shoring.
Regardless of Trump's bluster, which has so far only resulted in a handful of companies halting
future offshoring decisions (all to the good), we are nowhere close to that yet.
There is also what I've heard referred to as the "next bench" phenomenon, in which products
arise because someone designs a new product/process to solve a manufacturing problem. Unless one
has great foresight, the designer of the new product must be aware there is a problem to solve.
When a country is involved in manufacturing, the citizens employed will have exposure to
production problems and issues.
Sometimes the solution to these problems can lead to new products outside of one's main
business, for example the USA's Kingsford Charcoal arose from a scrap wood disposal problem that
Henry Ford had.
If one googles for "patent applications by countries" one gets these numbers, which could be
an indirect indication of some of the manufacturing shift from the USA to Asia.
Patent applications for the top 10 offices, 2014
1. China 928,177
2. US 578,802
3. Japan 325,989
4. South Korea 210,292
What is not captured in these numbers are manufacturing processes known as "trade secrets"
that are not disclosed in a patent. The idea that the USA can move move much of its manufacturing
overseas without long term harming its workforce and economy seems implausible to me.
While a design EE at HP, they brought in an author who had written about Toyota's lean design
method, which was currently the management hot button du jour. After his speech he took questions.
I asked "Would Toyota ever separate design from manufacturing?" as HP had done, shipping all manufacturing
to Asia. "No" was his answer.
In my experience, it is way too useful to have the line be able to easily call the designer
in question and have him come take a look at what his design is doing. HP tried to get around
that by sending part of the design team to Asia to watch the startup. Didn't work as well. And
when problems emerged later, it was always difficult to debug by remote control.
And BTW, after manufacturing went overseas, management told us for costing to assume "Labor
is free". Some level playing field.
Oh gawd! The man talks about the effects of globalization and says that the solution is a "a
more inclusive model of globalization"? Seriously? Furthermore he singles out Chinese imports
as the cause of people being pushed to the right. Yeah, right.
How about mass imports of cheap workers into western countries in the guise of emigrants
to push down worker's pay and gut things like unions. That factor played a decisive factor in
both the Brexit referendum and the US 2016 elections. Or the subsidized exportation of western
countries industrial equipment to third world countries, leaving local workers swinging in the
wind.
This study is so incomplete it is almost useless. The only thing that comes to mind to say
about this study is the phrase "Apart from that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?" And what form
of appropriate compensation of its 'losers' would they suggest? Training for non-existent jobs?
Free moving fees to the east or west coast for Americans in flyover country? Subsidized emigration
fees to third world countries where life is cheaper for workers with no future where they are?
Nice try fellas but time to redo your work again until it is fit for a passing grade.
Aw jeez, mate – you've just hurt my feelings here. Take a look at the actual article again.
The data sets do not capture some of the most important factors in what they are saying. It
is like putting together a paper on how and why white men voted in the 2016 US elections as they
did – and forgetting to mention the effect of the rest of the voters involved.
Hey, here is an interesting thought experiment for you. How about we apply the scientific method
to the past 40 years of economic theory since models with actual data strike your fancy. If we
find that the empirical data does not support a theory such as the theory of economic neoliberalism,
we can junk it then and replace it with something that actually works then. So far as I know,
modern economics seems to be immune to scientific rigour in their methods unlike the real sciences.
Not all relevant factors need to be included for a statistical analysis to be valid, as long
as relevant ignored factors are randomized amongst the sampling units, but you know that of course.
Thanks for you kind words about the real sciences, we work hard to keep it real, but once again,
in all fairness, between you and me mate, is not all rigour, it is a lot more Feyerabend than
Popper.
What you say is entirely true. The trouble has always been to make sure that that statistical
analysis actually reflects the real world enough to make it valid. An example of where it all
falls apart can be seen in the political world when the pundits, media and all the pollsters assured
America that Clinton had it in the bag. It was only after the dust had settled that it was revealed
how bodgy the methodology used had been.
By the way, Karl Popper and Paul Feyerabend sound very interesting so thanks for the heads
up. Have you heard of some of the material of another bloke called Mark Blyth at all? He has some
interesting observations to make on modern economic practices.
I had a similar reaction. This research was reinforcing info about everyone's resentment
over really bad distribution of wealth, as far as it went, but it was so unsatisfying and
I immediately thought of Blyth who laments the whole phylogeny of economics as more or less serving
the rich.
The one solution he offered up a while ago was (paraphrasing) 'don't sweat the deficit spending
because it is all 6s in the end' which is true if distribution doesn't stagnate. So as it stands
now, offshoring arms, legs and firstborns is like 'nothing to see here, please move on'. The suggestion
that we need a more inclusive form of global trade kind of begs the question. Made me uneasy too.
"Gut things like unions." How so? In my recent interaction with my apartment agency's preferred
contractors, random contractors not unionized, I experienced a 6 month-long disaster.
These construction workers bragged that in 2 weeks they would have the complete job done -
a reconstructed deck and sunroom. Verbatim quote: "Union workers complete the job and tear it
down to keep everyone paying." Ha Ha! What a laugh!
Only to have these same dudes keep saying "next week", "next week", "next week", "next week".
The work began in August and only was finished (not completely!) in late January. Sloppy crap!
Even the apartment agency head maintenance guy who I finally bitched at said "I guess good work
is hard to come by these days."
Of the non-union guys he hired.
My state just elected a republican governor who promised "right to work." This was just signed
into law.
Immigrants and Mexicans had nothing to do with it. They're not an impact in my city. "Right
to work" is nothing other than a way to undercut quality of work for "run-to-the-bottom competitive
pay."
Now I await whether my rent goes up to pay for this nonsense.
They look at the labor cost, assume someone can do it cheaper. They don't think it's that difficult.
Maybe it's not. The hard part of any and all construction work is getting it finished. Getting
started is easy. Getting it finished on time? Nah, you can't afford that.
I've noticed that the only people in favor of globalization are those whose jobs are not
under threat from it. Beyond that, I think the flood of cheap Chinese goods is actually helping
suppress populist anger by allowing workers whose wages are dropping in real value terms to maintain
the illusion of prosperity. To me, a more "inclusive" form of globalization would include replacing
every economist with a Chinese immigrant earning minimum wage. That way they'd get to "experience"
how awesome it is and the value of future economic analysis would be just as good.
I'm going to question a few of the author's assumptions.
First off, economic nationalism is not necessarily right wing. I would certainly classify
Bernie Sanders as an economic nationalist (against open borders and against "free" trade). Syriza
and Podemos could arguably be called rather ineffective economic nationalist parties. I would
say the whole ideology of social democracy is based on the Swedish nationalist concept of a "folkhem",
where the nation is the home and the citizens are the folk.
Secondly, when discussing the concept of economic nationalism and the nation of China, it would
be interesting to discuss how these two things go together. China has more billionaires than refugees
accepted in the past 20 years. Also it is practically impossible for a non Han Chinese person
to become a naturalized Chinese citizen. And when China buys Boeing aircraft, they wisely insist
on the production being done in China. A close look at Japan would yield similar results.
So China is Turmpism on steroids. Israel obviously is as well. Why do some nations get
to be blatantly Trumpist while for others these policies are strictly forbidden?
One way to look at Globalization is as an updated version of the post WW1 Versailles Treaty
which imposed reparations on a defeated Germany for all the harm they caused during the Great
War. The Globalized Versailles Treaty is aimed at the American and European working classes for
the crimes of colonialism, racism, slavery and any other bad things the 1st world has done to
the 3rd in the past.
Of course during colonialism the costs were socialized within colonizing states and so it was
the people of the colonial power who paid those costs that weren't borne by the colonial subjects
themselves, who of course paid dearly, and it was the oligarchic class that privatized the colonial
profits. But the 1st world oligarchs and their urban bourgeoisie are in strong agreement that
the deplorable working classes are to blame for systems that hurt working classes but powerfully
enriched the wealthy!
And so with the recent rebellions against Globalization, the 1st and 3rd world oligarchs are
convinced these are nothing more than the 1st world working classes attempting to shirk their
historic guilt debt by refusing to pay the rightful reparations in terms of standard of living
that workers deserve to pay for the crimes committed in the past by their wealthy co-nationals.
And yes, this applies to Bernie Sanders as well. During that iconic interview where Sanders
denounced open borders and pushed economic nationalism, the Neoliberal interviewer immediately
played the global guilt card in response.
Interesting. Another way to look at it is from the point of view of entropy and closed vs open
systems. Before globalisation the 1st world working classes enjoyed a high standard of living
which was possible because their system was relatively closed to the rest of the world. It was
a high entropy, strongly structured socio-economic arrangement, with a large difference in standard
of living between 1st world and 3rd world working classes. Once their system became more open
by virtue (or vice) of globalisation, entropy increased as commanded by the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics
so the 1st world and 3rd world working classes became more equalised. The socio-economic arrangements
became less structured. This means for the Trumpening kind of politicians it is a steep uphill
battle, to increase entropy again.
Yes, I agree, but if we step back in history a bit we can see the colonial period as a sort
of reverse globalization which perhaps portends a bit of optimism for the Trumpening.
I use the term open and closed borders but these are not precise. What I am really saying is
that open borders does not allow a country to filter out negative flows across their border. Closed
borders does allow a nation to impose a filter. So currently the US has more open borders (filters
are frowned upon) and China has closed borders (they can filter out what they don't want) despite
the fact that obviously China has plenty of things crossing its border.
During colonialism the 3rd world had a form of open borders imposed on it by the colonial
powers, where the 3rd world lost control of who what crossed their borders while the 1st world
themselves maintained a closed border mercantilist regime of strict filters. So the anti-colonialist
movement was a form of Trumpist economic nationalism where the evil foreigners were given the
boot and the nascent nations applied filters to their borders.
So the 3rd world to some extent (certainly in China at least) was able to overcome entropy
and regain control of their borders. You are correct in that it will be an uphill struggle for
the 1st world to repeat this trick. In the ideal world both forms of globalization (colonialism
and the current form) would be sidelined and all nations would be allowed to use the border filters
they think would best protect the prosperity of their citizens.
Another good option would be a version of the current globalization but where the losers are
the wealthy oligarchs themselves and the winners are the working classes. It's hard to imagine
it's easy if you try!
What's interesting about the concept of entropy is that it stands in contradiction to the concept
of perpetual progress. I'm sure there is some sort of thesis, antithesis, synthesis solution to
these conflicting concepts.
To overcome an entropy current requires superb skill commanding a large magnitude of work applied
densely on a small substratum (think of the evolution of the DNA, the internal combustion engine).
I believe the Trumpening laudable effort and persuasion would have a chance of success in a country
the size of The Netherlands, or even France, but the USA, the largest State machinery in the world,
hardly. When the entropy current flooded the Soviet system the solution came firstly in the form
of shrinkage.
We need to think more about it, a lot more, in order to succeed in this 1st world uphill struggle
to repeat the trick. I am pretty sure that as Pierre de Fermat famously claimed about his alleged
proof, the solution "is too large to fit in the margins of this book".
My little entropy epiphany goes like this: it's like boxes – containers, if you will, of energy
or money, or trade goods, the flow of which is best slowed down so everybody can grab some. Break
it all down, decentralize it and force it into containers which slow the pace and share the wealth.
Nationalism (my opinion) can do this – economic nationalism. And of course other
people think oh gawd, not that again – it's so inefficient for my investments- I can't get fast
returns that way but that's just the point.
Don't you mean "It was a LOWER entropy (as in "more ordered"), strongly structured socio-economic
arrangement, with a large difference in standard of living between 1st world"?
The entropy increased as a consequence of human guided globalization.
Of course, from a thermodynamic standpoint, the earth is not a closed system as it is continually
flooded with new energy in the form of solar radiation.
The Globalized Versailles Treaty -- Permit me a short laughter . The terms of the crippling
treaty were dictated by the victors largely on insecurities of France.
The crimes of the 1st against the 3rd go on even now- the only difference is that some of the
South like China and India are major nuclear powers now.
The racist crimes in the US are even more flagrant- the Blacks whose labour as slaves allowed
for cotton revolution enabling US capitalists to ride the industrial horse are yet to be rehabilitated
, Obama or no Obama. It is a matter of profound shame.
The benefits of Globalization have gone only to the cartel of 1st and 3rd World Capitalists.
And they are very happy as the lower classes keep fighting. Very happy indeed.
The gorgon cry of the past is all over the present , including in " unsuspecting" paying folks
of today! Blacks being brought to US as slave agricultural labour was Globalisation. Their energy
vibrated the machinery of Economics subsequently. What Nationalism and where is it hiding pray?
Bogus analysis here , yes.
The reigning social democratic parties in Europe today are not the Swedish traditional parties
of yesteryear they have morphed into neoliberal austerians committed to globalization and export
driven economic models at any cost (CETA vote recently) and most responsible for the economic
collapse in the EU
I wonder they chose Chinese imports as the cause of the right-wing shift, when they themselves
admit that the shift started in the 1990s. At that time, there were few Chinese imports and China
was not even part of the WHO.
If they are thinking of movements like the Lega Nord and Vlaams Blok, the reasons are clearly
not to be found in imports, but in immigration, the welfare state and lack of national homogeneity,
perceived or not.
And the beginnings of the precariat.
So it is not really the globalization of commerce that did it, but the loss of relevance of
national and local identities.
Correlation does not imply causation, but lack of correlation definitely excludes it.
The Lega was formed in the 1980s, Vlaams Blok at the end of the '70s. They both had their best
days in the 1990s. Chinese imports at the time were insignificant.
I cannot find the breakdown of Chinese imports per EU country, but here are the total Chinese
exports since 1983:
China was not a significant exporter until the 2001 inclusion in WTO: it cannot possibly
have caused populist uprisings in Italy and Belgium in the 1990s. It was probably too early even
for Pim Fortuyn in the Netherlands, who was killed in 2002, Le Pen's electoral success in the
same year, Austria's FPOE in 1999, and so on.
The timescales just do not match. Whatever was causing "populism", it was not Chinese imports,
and I can think of half a dozen other, more likely causes.
Furthermore, the 1980s and 1990s were something of an industrial renaissance for Lombardy and
Flanders: hardly the time to worry about Chinese imports.
And if you look at the map. the country least affected by the import shock (France) is the
one with the strongest populist movement (Le Pen).
People try to conflate Trump_vs_deep_state and Brexit with each other, then try to conflate this "anglo-saxon"
populism with previous populisms in Europe, and try to deduce something from the whole exercise.
That "something" is just not there and the exercise is pointless. IMHO at least.
European regionalism is often the result of the rise of the EU as a new, alternative national
government in the eyes of the disgruntled regions. Typically there are three levels of government,
local, regional (states) and national. With the rise of the EU we have a fourth level, supra-national.
But to the Flemish, Scottish, Catalans, etc, they see the EU as a potential replacement for the
National-level governments they currently are unhappy being under the authority of.
Capitalism should be evolving but it went backwards. Keynesian capitalism evolved from the
free market capitalism that preceded it. The absolute faith in markets had been laid low by 1929
and the Great Depression.
After the Keynesian era we went back to the old free market capitalism of neoclassical economics.
Instead of evolving, capitalism went backwards. We had another Wall Street Crash that has laid
low the once vibrant global economy and we have entered into the new normal of secular stagnation.
In the 1930s, Irving Fisher studied the debt deflation caused by debt saturated economies. Today
only a few economists outside the mainstream realise this is the problem today.
In the 1930s, Keynes realized only fiscal stimulus would pull the US out of the Great Depression,
eventually the US implemented the New Deal and it started to recover. Today we use monetary policy
that keeps asset prices up but cannot overcome the drag of all that debt in the system and its
associated repayments.
In the 1920s, they relied on debt based consumption, not realizing how consumers will eventually
become saturated with debt and demand will fail. Today we rely on debt based consumption again,
Greece consumed on debt. until it maxed out on debt and collapsed.
In the 1930s Keynes realized, income was just as important as profit as this produced a
sustainable system that does not rely on debt to maintain demand. Keynes was involved with
the Bretton-Woods agreement after the Second World War and recycled the US surplus to Europe to
restore trade when Europe lay in ruins. Europe could rebuild itself and consume US products, everyone
benefitted.
Today there are no direct fiscal transfers within the Euro-zone and it is polarizing. No one
can see the benefits of rebuilding Greece, to allow it to carry on consuming the goods from surplus
nations and it just sinks further and further into the mire. There is a lot to be said for capitalism
going forwards rather than backwards and making the same old mistakes a second time.
The ECB didn't listen and killed Greece with austerity and is laying low the Club-Med nations.
Someone who knows what they are doing, after studying the Great Depression and Japan after 1989.
Let's keep him out of the limelight; he has no place on the ship of fools running the show.
DEBT on Debt with QEs+ ZRP ( borrowing from future) was the 'solution' by Bernanke to mask
the 2008 crisis and NOT address the underlying structural reforms in the Banking and the Financial
industry. He was part of the problem for housing problem and occurred under his watch! He just
kicked the can with explosive credit growth ( but no corresponding growth in the productive Economy!)and
easy money!
We have a 'Mother of all bubbles' at our door step. Just matter of time when it will BLOW and
NOT if! There is record levels of DEBT ( both sovereign, public and private) in the history of
mankind, all over the World.
DEBT has been used as a panacea for all the financial problems by CBers including Bernanke!
Fed's balance sheet was than less 1 Trillion in 2008 ( for all the years of existence of our Country!)
but now over 3.5 Trillions and climbing!
Kicking the can down the road is like passing the buck to some one (future generations!). And
you call that solution by Mr. Bernanke? Wow!
Will they say again " No one saw this coming'? when next one descends?
The independent Central Banks that don't know what they are doing as can be seen from their
track record.
The FED presided over the dot.com bust and 2008, unaware that they were happening and of their
consequences. Alan Greenspan spots irrational exuberance in the markets in 1996 and passes comment.
As the subsequent dot.com boom and housing booms run away with themselves he says nothing.
The money supply is flat in the recession of the early 1990s.
Then it really starts to take off as the dot.com boom gets going which rapidly morphs into
the US housing boom, courtesy of Alan Greenspan's loose monetary policy.
When M3 gets closer to the vertical, the black swan is coming and you have an out of control
credit bubble on your hands (money = debt).
We can only presume the FED wasn't looking at the US money supply, what on earth were they
doing?
The BoE is aware of how money is created from debt and destroyed by repayments of that debt.
"Although commercial banks create money through lending, they cannot do so freely without
limit. Banks are limited in how much they can lend if they are to remain profitable in a competitive
banking system."
The BoE's statement was true, but is not true now as banks can securitize bad loans and get
them off their books. Before 2008, banks were securitising all the garbage sub-prime mortgages,
e.g. NINJA mortgages, and getting them off their books. Money is being created freely and without
limit, M3 is going exponential before 2008.
Bad debt is entering the system and no one is taking any responsibility for it. The credit
bubble is reflected in the money supply that should be obvious to anyone that cares to look.
Ben Bernanke studied the Great Depression and doesn't appear to have learnt very much.
Irving Fisher studied the Great Depression in the 1930s and comes up with a theory of debt
deflation. A debt inflated asset bubble collapses and the debt saturated economy sinks into debt
deflation. 2008 is the same as 1929 except a different asset class is involved.
1929 – Margin lending into US stocks
2008 – Mortgage lending into US housing
Hyman Minsky carried on with his work and came up with the "Financial Instability Hypothesis"
in 1974.
Steve Keen carried on with their work and spotted 2008 coming in 2005. We can see what Steve
Keen saw in 2005 in the US money supply graph above.
The independent Central Banks that don't know what they are doing as can be seen from their
track record.
Good to see studies confirming what was already known.
This apparently surprised:
On the contrary, as globalisation threatens the success and survival of entire industrial
districts, the affected communities seem to have voted in a homogeneous way, regardless of
each voter's personal situation.
It is only surprising for people not part of communities, those who are part of communities
see how it affects people around them and solidarity with the so called 'losers' is then shown.
Seems like radical right is the preferred term, it does make it more difficult to sympathize
with someone branded as radical right . The difference seems to be between the radical liberals
vs the conservative. The radical liberals are too cowardly to propose the laws they want, they
prefer to selectively apply the laws as they see fit. Either enforce the laws or change the laws,
anything else is plain wrong.
Socialism for the upper classes, capitalism for the lower classes? That will turn out well.
Debt slaves and wage slaves will revolt. That is all the analysis the OP requires. The upper class
will respond with suppression, not policy reversal every time. Socialism = making everyone equally
poor (obviously not for the upper classes who benefit from the arrangement).
Regrettably today we have socialism for the wealthy, with all the benefits of gov regulations,
sympathetic courts and legislatures etc. etc.
Workers are supposed to take care for themselves and the devil take the hind most. How many
workers get fired vs the 1%, when there is a failure in the company plan?
The Romans are the basis. Patricians, Equites and Plebs. Most of us here are clearly plebeian.
Time to go place some bets, watch the chariot races and gladiatorial fights, and get my bread
subsidy. Ciao.
Globalization created winners and losers throughout the world. The winners liked it, the losers
didn't. Democracy is based on the support of the majority.
The majority in the East were winners. The majority in the West were losers.
The Left has maintained its support of neoliberal globalisation in the West. The Right has
moved on. There has been a shift to the Right. Democracy is all about winners and losers and whether
the majority are winning or losing. It hasn't changed.
Globalization( along with communication -internet and transportation) made the Labor wage arbitration,
easy in favor of capital ( Multi-Nationals). Most of the jobs gone overseas will NEVER come back.
Robotic revolution will render the remaining jobs, less and less!
The 'new' Economy by passed the majority of lower 80-90% and favored the top 10%. The Losers
and the Winners!
80-90% of Bonds and Equities ( at least in USA) are owned by top 10 %. 0.7% own 45% of
global wealth. 8 billionaires own more than 50% of wealth than that of bottom 50% in our Country!
The Rich became richer!
The tension between Have and Have -Nots has just begun, as Marx predicted!
I think it's about time that we stopped referring to opposition to globalization as a product
or policy of the "extreme right". It would be truer to say that globalization represents a temporary,
and now fading, triumph of certain ideas about trade and movement of people and capital which
have always existed, but were not dominant in the past. Fifty years ago, most mainstream political
parties were "protectionist" in the sense the word is used today. Thirty years ago, protectionism
was often seen as a left)wing idea, to preserve standards of living and conditions of employment
(Wynne Godley and co). Today, all establishment political parties in the West have swallowed neoliberal
dogma, so the voters turn elsewhere, to parties outside the mainstream. Often, it's convenient
politically to label them "extreme right", although in Europe some left-wing parties take basically
the same position. If you ignore peoples' interests, they won't vote for you. Quelle surprise!
as Yves would say.
Yes, there are many reasons to be skeptical of too much globalization such as energy considerations.
I think another interesting one is exchange rates.
One of the important concepts of MMT is the importance of having a flexible exchange rate to
have full power over your currency. This is fine as far as it goes but tends to put hard currencies
against soft currencies where a hard currency can be defined as one that has international authority/acceptance.
Having flexible exchange rates also opens up massive amounts of financial speculation relative
to fluctuations of these currencies against each other and trying to protect against these fluctuations.
""Keynes' proposal of the bancor was to put a barrier between national currencies, that is
to have a currency of account at the global level. Keynes warned that free trade, flexible exchange
rates and free movement of capital globally were incompatible with maintaining full employment
at the local level""
""Sufficiency provisioning also means that trade would be discouraged rather than encouraged.""
Local currencies can work very well locally to promote employment but can have trouble when
they reach out to get resources outside of their currency space especially if they have a soft
currency. Global sustainability programs need to take a closer look at how to overcome this sort
of social injustice. (Debt or Democracy)
As has already been pointed out so eloquently here in the comments section, economic nationalism
is not necessarily the preserve of the right, nor is it necessarily the same thing as nationalism.
In the UK the original, most vociferous objectors to EEC membership in the 70s (now the EU)
were traditionally the Left, on the basis that it would gradually erode labour rights and devalue
the cost of labour in the longer term. Got that completely wrong obviously .
In the same way that global trade has become synonymous with globalisation, the immigration
debate has been hijacked and cynically conflated with free movement of (mainly low cost, unskilled)
labour and race when they are all VERY different divisive issues.
The other point alluded to in the comments above is the nature of free trade generally. The
accepted (neoliberal) wisdom being that 'collateral damage' is unfortunate but inevitable, but
it is pretty much an unstoppable or uncontrollable force for the greater global good, and the
false dichotomy persists that you either embrace it fully or pull up all the drawbridges with
nothing in between.
One of the primary reasons that some competing sectors of some Western economies have done
so badly out of globalisation is that they have adhered to 'free market principles' whilst other
countries, particularly China, clearly have not with currency controls, domestic barriers to trade,
massive state subsidies, wage suppression etc
The China aspect is also fascinating when developed nations look at the uncomfortable 'morality
of global wealth distribution' often cited by proponents of globalisation as one of their wider
philanthropic goals. Bless 'em. What is clear is that highly populated China and most of its people,
from the bottom to the top, has been the primary beneficiaries of this global wealth redistribution,
but the rest of the developing world's poor clearly not quite so much.
The map on it's own, in terms of the English one time industrial Midlands & North West being
shown as an almost black hole, is in itself a kind of " Nuff Said ".
It is also apart from London, where the vast bulk of immigrants have settled.
The upcoming bye-election in Stoke, which could lead to U-Kip taking a once traditionally always
strong Labour seat, is right in the middle of that dark cloud.
The problem from the UK 's position, I suggest, is that autarky is not a viable proposition
so economic nationalism becomes a two-edged sword. Yes, of course, the UK can place restrictions
on imports and immigration but there will inevitably be retaliation and they will enter a game
of beggar my neighbour. The current government talks of becoming a beacon for free trade. If we
are heading to a more protectionist world, that can only end badly IMHO.
Unless we get some meaningful change in thinking on a global scale, I think we are heading
somewhere very dark whatever the relative tinkering with an essentially broken system.
The horse is long gone, leaving a huge pile of shit in it's stable.
As for what might happen, I do not know, but I have the impression that we are at the end of
a cycle.
This is quite interesting, but only part of the story. Interestingly the districts/provinces
suffering the most from the chinese import shock are usually densely populated industrial regions
of Europe. The electoral systems in Europe (I think all, but I did not check) usually do not weight
equally each district, favouring those less populated, more rural (which by the way tend to be
very conservative but not so nationalistic). These differences in vote weigthing may have somehow
masked the effect seen in this study if radical nationalistic rigth wing votes concentrate in
areas with lower weigthed value of votes. For instance, in Spain, the province of Soria is mostly
rural and certainly less impacted by chinese imports compared with, for instance, Madrid. But
1 vote in Soria weigths the same as 4 votes in Madrid in number of representatives in the congress.
This migth, in part, explain why in Spain, the radical rigth does not have the same power as in
Austria or the Netherlands. It intuitively fits the hypothesis of this study.
Nevertheless, similar processes can occur in rural areas. For instance, when Spain entered
the EU, french rural areas turned nationalistic against what they thougth could be a wave of agricultural
imports from Spain. Ok, agricultural globalization may have less impact in terms of vote numbers
in a given country but it still can be politically very influential. In fact spanish entry more
that 30 years ago could still be one of the forces behind Le Penism.
All this statistical math and yada yada to explain a rise in vote for radical right from 3%
in 1985 to 5% now on average? And only a 0.7% marginal boost if your the place really getting
hammmered by imports from China? If I'm reading it right, that is, while focusing on Figure 2.
The real "shock" no pun intended, is the vote totals arent a lot higher everywhere.
Then the Post concludes with reference to a "surge in support" - 3% to 5% or so over 30 years
is a surge? The line looks like a pretty steady rise over 3 decades.
Maybe I'm missing sommething here.
Also what is this thing they're callling an "Open World" of the past 30 years? And why is that
in danger from more balanced trade? It makes no sense. Even back in the 60s and 70s people could
go alll over the world for vacations. Or at least most places they coould go. If theh spent their
money they'd make friends. Greece even used to be a goood place people went and had fun on a beach.
I think this one is a situation of math runing amuck. Math running like a thousand horses over
a hill trampling every blade of grass into mud.
I bet the China factor is just a referent for an entire constellatio of forces that probably
don't lend themselves (no pun intended) partiicularly well to social science and principal component
analysis - as interesting as that is for those who are interested in that kind of thing (which
I am acctually).
Also, I wouldn't call this "free trade". Not that the authors do either, but trade means reciprocity
not having your livelihood smashed the like a pinata at Christmas with all your candy eaten by
your "fellow countrymen". I wouldn't call that "trade". It's something else.
Regarding your first point, it is a small effect but it is all due to the China imports impact,
you have to add the growth of these parties due to other reasons such as immigration to get the
full picture of their growth. Also I think the recent USA election was decided by smaller percentage
advantages in three States?
Globalisation is nothing but free trade extended to the entire world. Free trade is a tool
used to prevent competition. By flooding countries with our cheaper exports, they do not develop
the capacity to compete with us by making their own widgets. So, why are we shocked when those
other countries return the favor and when they get the upper hand, we respond in a protectionist
way? It looks to me that those countries who are now competing with us in electronics, automobiles,
etc. only got to develop those industries in their countries because of protectionism.
Refugees in great numbers are a symptom of globalization, especially economic refugees but
also political and environmental ones. This has strained the social order in many countries that
have accepted them in and it's one of the central issues that the so-called "right" is highlighting.
It is no surprise there has been an uproar over immigration policy in the US which is an issue
of class as much as foreign policy because of the disenfranchisement of large numbers of workers
on both sides of the equation - those who lost their jobs to outsourcing and those who emigrated
due to the lack of decent employment opportunities in their own countries.
We're seeing the tip of the iceberg. What will happen when the coming multiple environmental
calamities cause mass starvation and dislocation of coastal populations? Walls and military forces
can't deter hungry, desperate, and angry people.
The total reliance and gorging on fossil energy by western countries, especially the US, has
mandated military aggression to force compliance in many areas of the world. This has brought
a backlash of perpetual terrorism. We are living under a dysfunctional system ruled by sociopaths
whose extreme greed is leading to world war and environmental collapse.
Who created the REFUGEE PROBLEMS in the ME – WEST including USA,UK++
Obama's DRONE program kept BOMBING in SEVEN Countries killing innocents – children and women!
All in the name of fighting Terrorism. Billions of arms to sale Saudi Arabia! Wow!
Where were the Democrats and the Resistance and Women's march? Hypocrites!
Globalisation has caused a surge in support for nationalist and radical right political
platforms.
Just a reminder that nationalism doesn't have to be associated with the radical right. The left
is not required to reject it, especially when it can be understood as basically patriotism, expressed
as solidarity with all of your fellow citizens.
Trump's withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership seems to be a move in that direction.
Well, that may be true as far as Trump's motivations are concerned, but a major component (the
most important?) of the TPP was strong restraint of trade, a protectionist measure, by intellectual
property owners.
Yet, a return to protectionism is not likely to solve the problems of those who have lost
ground due to globalisation without appropriate compensation of its 'losers'
Japan has long been 'smart' protectionist, and this has helped prevent the 'loser' problem, in
part because Japan, being nationalist, makes it a very high priority to create/maintain a society
in which almost all Japanese are more or less middle class. So, it is a fact that protectionism
has been and can be associated with more egalitarian societies, in which there are few 'losers'
like we see in the West. But the U.S. and most Western countries have a long way to go if they
decide to make the effort to be more egalitarian. And, of course, protectionism alone is not enough
to make most of the losers into winners again. You'll need smart skills training, better education
all around, fewer low-skill immigrants, time, and, most of all strong and long-term commitment
to making full employment at good wages national priority number one.
and is bound to harm growth especially in emerging economies.
Growth has been week since the 2008, even though markets are as free as they've ever been. Growth
requires a lot more consumers with willingness and cash to spend on expensive, high-value-added
goods. So, besides the world finally escaping the effects of the 2008 financial crisis, exporting
countries need prosperous consumers either at home or abroad, and greater economic security. And
if a little bit of protectionism generates more consumer prosperity and economic stability, exporting
countries might benefit overall.
The world rather needs a more inclusive model of globalisation.
Well, yes, the world needs more inclusivity, but globalization doesn't need to be part of the
picture. Keep your eyes on the prize: inclusivity/equality, whether latched onto nationally, regionally,
'internationally' or globally, any which way is fine! But prioritization of globalization over
those two is likely a victory for more inequality, for more shoveling of our wealth up to the
ruling top 1%.
Twenty-First Century American Nationalism Needs to Be
Profoundly Cosmopolitan
The right pose--substantive and rhetorical--is to
recognize that, just as since 1620 the good American
nationalism has always held that people anywhere can elect to
become Americans by joining our utopian project here at home,
so in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries that good
American nationalism is one that puts global prosperity and
being a good neighbor and benevolent hegemon first....
Since today is President's Day, there will be no
Water Cooler. Which is a good thing, because this puppy took forever to write.
–lambert
* * *
"It's called the ruling class because it rules." –Arthur Silber
Readers know that I've been more than dubious about that incredibly virulent
earworm of a term, "deep state" (
December
1, 2014
). However, in the last week or so, "deep state" is all over
mainstream discourse like kudzu, and so it's time to look at it again. As we
shall see, it's no more well-defined than before, but I'm hoping that if we
aggregate a number of usage examples, we'll come up with a useful set of
properties, and a definition. Following the aggregation, I'll propose a number
of phrases that I hope can attenuate
deep state
's virulence, and
render it a sharper and more subtle analytical tool in posts and comments.
While the usage of "deep state" exploded last week after General Flynn's
defenestration by Trump, it seems likely to me that the term had been spreading
in the recent past before that, given that a series of politically motivated
leaks by the "intelligence community" (IC) from summer 2016 onwards could
colorably be attributed to such an entity. The examples are in no particular
order; I haven't had the time to find a "patient zero."
Usage Examples of "Deep State"
1.
The Atlantic
. Since "deep state" as a term originated in
Turkey (
derin
devlet
), I'll start with a Turkish analyst:
There Is No American 'Deep State'
Zeynep Tufekci, a Turkish sociologist and writer at the University of
North Carolina, tweeted a string of criticisms about the analogy Friday
morning. "
Permanent bureaucracy and/or non-electoral institutions
diverging with the electoral branch [is] not that uncommon even in liberal
democracies," she wrote. "In the Turkey case, that's not what it means.
There was a
shadowy, cross-institution
occasionally *armed*
network conducting killings, etc. So, if people are going to call non
electoral institutions stepping up leaking stuff, fine. But it is not 'deep
state' like in Turkey."
Comment:
One danger I always face is projecting American politics
onto other countries. Tufekci warns us the opposite is a bad idea too!
Properties:
Permanent bureaucracy and/or non-electoral
institutions; "shadowy," cross-institutional. We cross out
"conducting
killings"
for the American context (or do we?).
The deep state, although there's
no precise or scientific definition
,
generally refers to
the agencies in Washington that are permanent power
factions
. They stay and exercise power even as presidents who are
elected come and go. They typically
exercise their power in secret
,
in the dark, and so they're barely subject to democratic accountability, if
they're subject to it at all. It's agencies like the CIA, the NSA and the
other intelligence agencies, that are essentially designed to disseminate
disinformation and deceit and propaganda, and have a long history of doing
not only that, but also have a long history of the world's worst war crimes,
atrocities and death squads. This is who not just people like Bill Kristol,
but lots of Democrats are placing their faith in, are trying to empower, are
cheering for as they exert power separate and apart from-in fact, in
opposition to-the political officials to whom they're supposed to be
subordinate.
Comment:
Later in the show, Greenwald says that the deep state is
"almost engag[ing] in like a soft coup." Here's the Kristol tweet to which
Greenwald alludes, explicitly applauding that coup with the bracing clarity so
foreign to most Democrats:
Properties:
Kristol, not normal, not democratic, not
constitutional; Greenwald: permanent power factions, agencies, especially
intelligence agencies, which specialize in deception and require secrecy.
Is [the current chaos], as some suggest, "deep state" revenge for the
haughty, dismissive way Donald Trump spoke of the U.S. intelligence
community during and after the campaign? Is it driven by the antipathy of
the permanent government toward Mr. Putin, and a desire to bring down those,
like Mr. Trump, who hope for closer relations with Russia?
It is a terrible thing if suddenly, in America, there is
a
government within the government
that hates the elected government -
and that
secretly, silently, and with no accountability
, acts on
it.
Properties:
Government within a government; secret; not
accountable.
4.
Breitbart
. I don't normally cite to Breitbart, but since
they're in the heart of the battle and have a usage example:
The "deep state" is jargon for the
semi-hidden army of bureaucrats,
officials, retired officials, legislators, contractors and media people who
support and defend established government policies
.
Comment:
Interestingly, Breitbart finds it necessary to define the
term for its readership, meaning it didn't originate on the right. Even more
interestingly, Breitbart - very much unlike the more staid Peggy Noonan -
urges, in my view correctly, that actors outside the alphabet agencies need to
be considered.
Properties:
Bureaucrats, officials (some retired), legislators,
contractors, media. Brietbart doesn't use Janine Werel's term, Flexian -
retired officials become talking heads, for example - but the concept is
implicit.
What Is the 'Deep State'-And Why Is It After Trump?
The Deep State is shorthand for
the nexus of secretive intelligence
agencies whose leaders and policies are not much affected by changes in the
White House or the Congress
. While definitions vary, the Deep State
includes the CIA, NSA, Defense Intelligence Agency, and components of the
State Department, Justice Department, Department of Homeland Security, and
the armed forces.
With a docile Republican majority in Congress and a demoralized
Democratic Party in opposition, the leaders of the Deep State are the
most-perhaps the only-credible check in Washington on what Senator Bob
Corker (R-Tenn.) calls Trump's "wrecking ball presidency."
And Roger Stone, a man who knows his memes:
"This is an effort by the Deep State to destabilize the president," Stone
said.
Comment:
Morley, then, agrees with Kristol (the "only check" in
Trump).
Properties:
Intelligence agencies; permanent.
6.
Greg Grandin,
The Nation
. A useful review of the literature:
What Is the Deep State?
So at least as long as there has been private property, there has been
private plotting, and talk of a "deep state" has been a vernacular way of
describing what political scientists like to call
"civil society,"
that is, any venue in which powerful individuals, either alone or
collectively, might try to use the state to fulfill their private ambitions,
to get richer and obtain more power .
Much of the writing frames the question as Trump versus the Deep State,
but even if we take the "deep state" as a valid concept,
surely it's
not useful to think of the competing interests it represents as monolithic
,
as David Martin in an e-mail suggests. Big Oil and Wall Street might want
deregulation and an opening to Russia. The euphemistically titled
"intelligence community" wants a ramped-up war footing. High-tech wants
increased trade. In 1956, C. Wright Mills wrote that "the conception of
the power elite and of its unity rests upon the corresponding developments
and the coincidence of interests among economic, political, and military
organizations." If nothing else, the "Trump v. Deep State" framings show
that unity is long gone.
Comment:
Grandin does give an early usage example, but I'm totally
unpersuaded by his
identification
of the "deep state" with "civil
society." Rather - as Breitbart, amazingly enough, suggests - the deep state
more plausibly includes
components
of civil society (media,
contractors, etc.).
Properties:
Not monolithic; includes (components of) civil society.
This pattern of dissent ["#TheResistance"], and its early successes, has
brought about a vogue for the theory of the deep state, usually used in
analyzing authoritarian regimes, in which
networks of people within the
bureaucracy
are said to be able to exercise a
hidden
will
of their own
The federal government employs two million people; its sympathies move in
more than one direction. While many federal employees may want to oppose the
White House, others (especially border-patrol and immigration agents, whose
support Trump often cited on the campaign trail) have already been taking
some alarming liberties to advance the President's politics.
Comment:
Wallace urges that some Federal employees in the permanent
bureaucracy are, in essence, "working toward the Fuhrer," which is a
consequence of the deep state not being monolithic. He attributes the "vogue"
for "deep state" to the resistance, but I (and most others cited here) think
it's the Flynn firing.
A Deep State of Mind: America's Shadow Government and Its Silent
Coup
So who or what is the Deep State?
It's the militarized police, which have joined forces with state and
federal law enforcement agencies in order to establish themselves as a
standing army. It's the fusion centers and spy agencies that have created a
surveillance state and turned all of us into suspects. It's the courthouses
and prisons that have allowed corporate profits to take precedence over due
process and justice. It's the military empire with its private contractors
and defense industry that is bankrupting the nation. It's the private sector
with its 854,000 contract personnel with top-secret clearances, 'a number
greater than that of top-secret-cleared civilian employees of the
government.' It's what former congressional staffer Mike Lofgren refers to
as 'a hybrid of national security and law enforcement agencies': the
Department of Defense, the State Department, Homeland Security, the CIA, the
Justice Department, the Treasury, the Executive Office of the President via
the National Security Council, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court,
a handful of vital federal trial courts, and members of the defense and
intelligence committees."
Comment:
Seems pretty big to be deep
Properties:
Law enforcement, contractors, agencies, the courts.
As Leaks Multiply, Fears of a 'Deep State' in America
Though the deep state is sometimes discussed as a shadowy conspiracy, it
helps to think of it instead as a political conflict between a nation's
leader and its governing institutions.
That can be deeply destabilizing, leading both sides to wield state
powers like the security services or courts against one another, corrupting
those institutions in the process.
In countries like Egypt, Mr. El Amrani said, the line is much clearer.
There, "the deep state is not official institutions rebelling," he said,
but rather "shadowy networks within those institutions, and within business,
who are conspiring together and forming parallel state institutions."
Comment:
Weird all around: The President is
the President
,
the Chief Magistrate of the United States. He's not the "nation's leader," like
in the title of sone kinda hardback in the "Business" section of your airport
bookstore. And quite frankly, the description of the deep state in Egypt
("shadowy network," "parallel state institutions") jibes with a several of the
other usage examples I've collected, right here in the United States.
Properties:
I'll use Egypt's! Network, shadowy, businesses forming
parallel state institutions.
With Intelligence Leaks, The 'Deep State' Resurfaces
GARCIA-NAVARRO: So how do you define the deep state?
AMBINDER: Well, I try to define it simply – maybe
the national
security and intelligence bureaucracy
, the secret-keepers in the
United States, people who have security clearances, who have spent 10 to 20
to 30 years working in and around secrets.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: So when we're hearing about this term this week to do
with Michael Flynn, what do we – what are people making that connection with
potentially a huge group of people and this particular case?
AMBINDER: They're essentially alleging that the national security state,
this metastate that exists and, again, traffics totally in secret – used its
collective power in order to bring down a duly chosen national security
adviser because they disagreed with him or they disagreed with his president
or they disagreed with his policies. It is a term of derision, a term that
suggests people are using their power for ill-begotten ends. And that, if
true, sets up a crisis.
Comment:
Ambinder, then, rejects putting a "civil society"
construction on "deep state." (He also rejects Greenwald, and Kristol's, "soft
coup.")
Properties:
National security and intelligence bureaucracy;
long-term.
11.
Marc Ambinder,
Foreign Policy
. Ambinder gives an example of the deep state
in action:
Trump Is Showing How the Deep State Really Works
The fact the nation's now-departed senior guardian of national security
was unmoored by a scandal linked to a conversation picked up on a wire
offers a rare insight into how exactly America's vaunted Deep State works.
It is a story not about rogue intelligence agencies running amok outside the
law, but rather about the vast domestic power they have managed to acquire
within it.
Sometime before January 12, the fact that these [Flynn's] conversations
[with the Russian ambassador] had occurred was disclosed to David Ignatius,
who wrote about them. That day, Sean Spicer asked Flynn about them. Flynn
denied that the sanctions were discussed. A few days later, on January 16,
Vice President Mike Pence repeated Flynn's assurances to him that the calls
were mostly about the logistics of arranging further calls when Trump was
President.
Comment:
Note the lack of agency in "was disclosed." Had the deep
state not been able to use David Ignatius as a cut-out, the scandal would never
have occured. Therefore, a media figure, a member of civil society, was
essential to the operation of the Deep State, even though Ambinder's definition
of the deep state doesn't reflect this.
Properties:
Network; civil society.
* * *
So now I'm going to aggregate the properties suggested by these 10 sources,
and make some judgements about what to keep and what to throw away. Throwing
out Noonan's concept of "a government within a government", I get this. The
deep state:
1. Gains power through (legal) control of state functions of secrecy and
deception
2. Is "permanent"
3. Is not monolithic
4. Is composed of "cross-institutional" networks of individuals in both
state (agencies, law enforcement) and civil society (media, contractors)
5. Is not democratic in its operation; and (potentially) is not accountable,
not normal, not constitutional.
(Individuals within the deep state belong to factions that compete and
cooperate, often in addition to their "day jobs," rather as in a "matrix
management" construct.)
So, what'd I miss?
A "Deep State" Phrasebook
So, here are some phrases to use that reflect the above - very tentative -
understanding. What I really want to do - and who know, maybe I'm trying to
shovel back the tide here, too - is get away from the notion of "the" deep
state. The deep state is not monolithic! Factional conflict within the deep
state exists! So, in my view, the definite article is in this case
disempowering; it prevents you from, as it were, knowing your enemy. So, if I
have to join the chorus of people using the term, I'm going to think carefully
about how do it. This list is a step toward doing that. (I'm going to use
examples from the run-up to the Iraq War because it's less tendenitious and way
less muddled than the Flynn defenestration.)
1.
"Deep State Blooper"
. I'm putting this first as
an antidote to CT. Quoting
Frank Herbert's
Dune
:
" [I]t occurred to Kynes that his father and all the other scientists
were wrong, that the most persistent principles of the universe were
accident and error."
It's important to put into our thinking right from the start that Deep State
actors are not all-powerful, and that Deep State operations are not invariably
successful. I mean, can anybody look at the foreign and nationally security
outcomes from what these guys are doing and urge that the baseline for
performane is very high? I don't think so. Accidents happen all the time, and
these guys, for all the power their positions bring them, are accident-prone.
(After all, they're not accountable, so they never get accurate feedback, in a
typical Banana Republic power dynamic.
Example: "The Iraq WMD's yellowcake uranium episode was a Deep State
Blooper." (
See
here for details;
the yellowcake uranium was part of the Bush
administration's WMD propaganda operation to foment the Iraq War.)
2.
"Deep State Operation"
. I think it's important
to view the Deep State (as defined above) as able to act opportunistically;
although many Deep State Actors work for agencies, their operations are not
bureaucratic in nature.
Example: "The White House Iraq Group was a Deep State propaganda operation
that succeeded tactically but failed strategically" (See
here for details
; the WHIG planted stories in the press to foment the Iraq
War. They succeeded in that narrow goal, but the war itself was a debacle, and
the damage to the credibility of the press as an institution took a hit.)
3.
"Deep State Actor"
. An individual can be a
member of the Deep State as an official, and then later as media personality or
contractor. (It also seems to me that once you have been within the
intelligence community, you can never be said to have left it, since how could
anyone know you have
really
left?
Example: "Leon Panetta is a consummate Deep State Actor." (
Panetta
has been OMB Director, CIA Director, White House Chief of Staff, and Secretary
of Defense. "[Panetta] regularly obtains fees for speaking engagements,
including from the Carlyle Group.[55] He is also a supporter of Booz Allen
Hamilton."
4.
"Deep State Faction"
. This is a no-brainer:
Example: "The Neoconservatives are a Deep State Faction."
Conclusions
I apologize for the length as I fought my way through the material, and I
hope I haven't made any gross errors - especially political science-y ones! And
any further additions to the Deep State Phraseology will be very welcome (but
watch those definite articles!).
Readers, I have had a correspondent characterize my views as realistic
cynical. Let me briefly explain them. I believe in universal programs that
provide concrete material benefits, especially to the working class.
Medicare for All is the prime example, but tuition-free college and a Post
Office Bank also fall under this heading. So do a Jobs Guarantee and a Debt
Jubilee. Clearly, neither liberal Democrats nor conservative Republicans can
deliver on such programs, because the two are different flavors of
neoliberalism ("Because markets"). I don't much care about the "ism" that
delivers the benefits, although whichever one does have to put common
humanity first, as opposed to markets. Could be a second FDR saving
capitalism, democratic socialism leashing and collaring it, or communism
razing it. I don't much care, as long as the benefits are delivered. To me,
the key issue - and this is why Medicare for All is always first with me -
is the tens of thousands of excess "deaths from despair," as described by
the Case-Deaton study, and other recent studies. That enormous body count
makes Medicare for All, at the very least, a moral and strategic imperative.
And that level of suffering and organic damage makes the concerns of
identity politics - even the worthy fight to help the refugees Bush, Obama,
and Clinton's wars created - bright shiny objects by comparison. Hence my
frustration with the news flow - currently in my view the swirling
intersection of two, separate Shock Doctrine campaigns, one by the
Administration, and the other by out-of-power liberals and their allies in
the State and in the press - a news flow that constantly forces me to focus
on matters that I regard as of secondary importance to the excess deaths.
What kind of political economy is it that halts or even reverses the
increases in life expectancy that civilized societies have achieved? I am
also very hopeful that the continuing destruction of both party
establishments will open the space for voices supporting programs similar to
those I have listed; let's call such voices "the left." Volatility creates
opportunity, especially if the Democrat establishment, which puts markets
first and opposes all such programs, isn't allowed to get back into the
saddle. Eyes on the prize! I love the tactical level, and secretly love even
the horse race, since I've been blogging about it daily for fourteen years,
but everything I write has this perspective at the back of it.
Gee you didn't even mention California's Bohemian Grove meeting where CEOs
romp in togas and such.
And taken literally Deep State would presumably mean a secretive (deep) and
more or less permanent ruling apparatus. We may have the latter but it doesn't
seem all that secretive since they love to join think tanks and talk about
their loony ideas. The term is often used to bolster conspiracy theories about
how the CIA killed Kennedy and are secretly running the country. While recent
movies like to portray CIA operatives as super human martial arts specialists
they are just as likely boobs who make many mistakes but nevertheless don't
mind ratting out Trump's phone calls as petty revenge. I'd say it's the not so
secretive but still behind the scenes state we have to worry about. Think the
CFR or that Kristol guy. In other words if the term means anything it could be
the secondary tier of influencers who have the ear of our MSM.
Nothing theoretical about elements within the CIA (such as the fired
Allen Dulles, and his still-in-the CIA cousin, Tracy Barnes - oopsy, Fake
News never told you they were cousins, now did they?) - just requires a bit
of reading and cross-referencing with declassified documents from the CIA,
State and the FBI.
Deep State is really the financial-intelligence-complex who believes they
are running things - the intel establishment was originally founded by the
super-rich and their minions (such as Lovett and McCloy, etc.). When JFK was
assassinated the Deputy Director of the CIA was Gen. Marshall Carter,
recommended to McCone for that position by Nelson Rockefeller. And the
fellow in charge of the reorganization of the CIA at the same time was Gen.
Schuyler, Nelson Rockefeller's assistant.
There are a couple of books by Dan Briody that are very
illuminating about how Deep State actors in government interface with
corporate agendas:
The Halliburton Agenda: The Politics of Oil and Money (2004)
The Iron Triangle: Inside the Secret World of the Carlyle Group (2003)
I think of the Deep State as the
military-industrial-intelligence-Congressional long-term
national-security complex that grew up after World War II, there are
perhaps four major elements:
(1) military and intelligence contractors who rely on the massive $600
billion military budget for their profits.
(2) executive branch bureaucrats who develop the contracts that are
delivered to contractors (State/Pentagon/CIA/NSA/NRO/FBI/DOE etc.)
(3) Congressmembers (long-serving) on appropriations, intelligence,
etc. committees who sign off on budget requests.
(4) Elements of mass media and think tanks who work overtime to
promote the interests of the Deep State elements of the above actors.
It's a kind of self-perpetuating system that's primary agenda is to
keep their budget from being cut by a healthy 50% – which is what we'd
need to do to rebuild infrastructure, set up high-quality public
education, and create a first-world health care system, i.e. to get up
to German or Japanese standard-of-living norms.
Some have also pointed out that there's an element of the judicial
branch that can be included in "Deep State" definitions (such as FISA
Court); note that judicial review of executive foreign policy
decisions is very rare in the American court system.
It's also factionalized; i.e. there's the nuclear weapons sector
(DOE/NNSA and their contractors), the various Pentagon branches and
their suppliers, NSA and their contractors, CIA and their contractors,
etc. So they compete with each other for a share of the pie, but they
all have a shared interest in preventing the overall pie from
shrinking.
he intel establishment was originally founded by the super-rich and
their minions (such as Lovett and McCloy, etc.).
Wow, Robert Lovett and John J. McCloy. For about three decades they
were at the pinnacle of the United States Establishment. They were like
Sejanus during the reign of Tiberius or Marcus Agrippa during the reign
of Augustus. Very, very influential behind the scenes.
Rex Tillerson's dealing with the seventh floor
apparatchiks
at the
State Department is another productive step in calling out the
nomenklatura
.
Russian themes seem so popular these days.
Perhaps helpful to know the original provenance of the term it comes from
Turkish journalism when one fine evening a sedan was involved in a nasty wreck.
Passengers in said sedan included a high ranking military official, a state or
federal(?) representative/official, a crime boss, and a beauty queen.
My understanding: trying to comprehend what such a collection of worthies
were doing in the same car led journalists to coin the term deep state. A
networked web of power interests/relations across sectors and institutions that
operate beyond above below out of sight of normative or visible politics.
I checked out that article from a previous post of the link and thought
it was a very valuable, terrific and detailed explanation of Deep State
theories w/ some fine literature recommendations.
The totality of truths is that the US "elephant" consists of a power
elite hierarchy overseeing a corporatocracy, directing a deep state that
has gradually subverted the visible government and taken over the "levers
of power."
Complete with tables and diagrams! A must read IMHO.
People within the American Deep State are said to have compassed the removal
of General Flynn, who was a prominent member of DS organizations himself, so
yes, the DS is not a monolith. But are there powerful "permanent" factions with
the DS that pursue long-term strategies?
There is another way of asking this. Much of what is now labelled "DS" grew
out of the investment-banker+intelligence nexus in the immediate postwar
period, or at least came to the surface around that time. America has made a
series of disastrous unforced errors in the past 70 years, Vietnam and Iraq
being the most prominent examples. While these errors have been harmful to the
American people at large, is there a clique (besides the Military Industrial
Complex) that benefits from these "errors," that has far-reaching goals that
completely diverge from those of American constitutional democracy?
Both Kennedy's and Diem brothers' assasinations and 911 mass murders were
deep events to sell and organize war for the Empire part of American
democracy. Not mentioning Peter Dale Scott is a minus of the listing of
properties. What does the Deep state did ? 911 and JFK so Afghan Iraq and
Vietnam wars.
It's my understanding that the investment banking crowd served as the
government's intelligence arm on an informal, sub rosa basis well before WW
II. Prescott Bush, GHWB's father, was involved in that.
Lambert, there
is
a Deep State in the U.S. as distinct from the
mere ruling class (and yes, by definition, it has competing factions and power
centers at different agencies).
A clarifying example of that is this guy, Andy Marshall, aka Yoda, who
arguably had more effect on the direction of U.S. policy than any U.S.
president over the last half-century and was finally removed from heading the
Pentagon's Office of Net Assessment just before his 95th birthday.
That's
power.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Marshall_(foreign_policy_strategist)#cite_note-5
Yet most people have never heard of Marshall and he never enriched himself
particularly. You won't be able to tell the influence he exerted from his Wiki
page either, except perhaps for the mention of Marshall 'proteges' being the
likes of Rumsfeld, Cheney, etc. Furthermore, before Nixon installed him at the
Pentagon, in the 1950s and 60s Marshall was at the RAND corporation helping to
formulate nuclear strategy.
Interesting. And taking into account the comment from Cat's Paw above,
I'd suggest to Lambert there are two distinct components to the term 'Deep
State'. One element comprises the majority ie. the
facilitators
who
foster the deep state, while the other element consists of the all-important
minority ie. the
instigators
or 'deep state
en nom propre'
.
I think the key to the "Deep state" is simply COVERT.
It is all covert activities that a public relations officer for the neocons and
neoconservatives would not acknowledge in their fairy-tale view of the state.
Technical note – for CIA/Pentagon, a *covert* activity is something that
is known, but where US influence or the extent of that is supposed to stay
hidden – e.g. a coup d'etat. And a *clandestine activity* is something where
the entire activity is supposed to stay hidden – e.g. CIA running Heroin and
Cocaine, unlicensed human experimentation, or controlling the editorial desk
& ownership if the Washington Post. In that sense, the clandestine activity
are even deeper, and the set of people in the know, is even smaller.
"
barely subject to democratic accountability, if they're subject to
it at all
" - Glenn Greenwald
The $50 billion-plus black budget for the IC, covering many
clandestine projects and activities, is not even subject to
Congressional
accountability. It is discussed verbally with the
majority and minority leaders, and the ranking members of the
intelligence committees.
Then the other 427 members (or at least a majority of them) are
obliged on instructions from their caucus to whoop it through, without a
clue (or even a right to ask) what is in it. To paraphrase the great
stateswoman Nancy Pelosi, "
We have to pass it to avoid finding out
what's in it.
"
Secret funding via this procedure is unconstitutional and
illegitimate. Yet neither the president, the judiciary, nor anyone in
Congress appears able to stop it. The IC is a fourth-stage cancer
devouring the guts of the former republic.
Secret funding is a huge unknown. Everything from mostly legitimate
front companies, to business donations for favors, to drug running.
One would think, incorrectly, that the drug running is some kind of
big secret the following links show it is not:
Collection of quotes from DEA agents, John Kerry, etc:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5878115
Video with Robert Bonner, ex-head of DEA, on 60 minutes in 1993, just
after he stepped down:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lx1bL_Gp03g
50 billion? That is just the cost of coffee and donuts. A week
before 911 Rumsfeld acknowledged that 2.3 TRILLION dollars was missing
and unaccounted for in the DOD budget.
" CBS News Correspondent Vince Gonzales reports, while its own
auditors admit the military cannot account for 25 percent of what it
spends.
"According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in
transactions," Rumsfeld admitted.
$2.3 trillion - that's $8,000 for every man, woman and child in
America. To understand how the Pentagon can lose track of trillions,
consider the case of one military accountant who tried to find out
what happened to a mere $300 million.
"We know it's gone. But we don't know what they spent it on," said Jim
Minnery, Defense Finance and Accounting Service.
Conveniently the accounting records that might have made possible
an investigation of that little error were located in Building 7 of
the WTC and in the exact section of the Pentagon which the skilled
Saudi pilots targeted and and then vaporized their airliner leaving
only a few token pieces on the lawn.Of course 911 is ancient history
that nobody cares about anymore. Apparently we are in need of another
accounting cleansing, since the Inspector General reports that an
additional 6.5 TRILLLION has gone missing since then.
Susan Lindauer, in her memoir of her role as a CIA asset serving as
a go-between in the failed negotiations to avert the Iraq War (
Extreme
Prejudice: The Terrifying Story of the Patriot Act and the Cover Ups
of 9/11 and Iraq
), recounts that in the desperate last few
weeks before March 20, 2003, she was paying her considerable expenses
out-of-pocket. Her handler was having trouble getting her
reimbursement approved, and by the time he did she was making a pest
of herself about the fact that the negotiations had been deliberately
sabotaged, and had become a pariah. At that point the handler had no
difficulty, not to mention compunction, about simply stiffing her and
diverting the funds to the McMansion he was building.
How much of that $50B black budget is similarly diverted?
"Covert" means the activity is against the law. "Clandestine" means
the activity is secret but within the confines of the law. The military
undertakes clandestine activity authorized by law, not covert activity. A
US soldiers cannot break the law. On the other hand paramilitary activity
is often covert.
For example, a US soldier on a clandestine mission is captured. Since
the soldier is acting legally, albeit in secret, he is afforded all of
the rights as a prisoner of war if he id's himself as a US soldier in
uniform, name, rank, serial number. A CIA agent [likely a contractor and
not a gov't employee] is captured on a covert mission, he can be
summarily executed, legally, on the spot for a number of reasons:
conducting warfare in civilian clothes and not in uniform, espionage,
piracy, etc. There is grey area, for instance, if soldiers ingress to an
area in civilian clothes [or the enemy's uniform] then put on their own
uniforms before conducting an attack, as the SS did in the Ardenne.
This article: Joseph Berger III. "Covert Action – Title 10, Title
50, and the Chain of Command." Joint Force Quarterly 67 (Q4 2012).
http://ndupress.ndu.edu/Portals/68/Documents/jfq/jfq-67/JFQ-67_32-39_Berger.pdf
.
is exactly on this topic. I take my definitions from there. The
article does note that it takes some doing to resolve the different
usages within CIA and DOD.
It would be good if we could separate 'what is the deep state' and 'what are
the factions of the deep state' and 'who belongs to the deep state' I suspect
that Cambridge Analytics & their Facebook scraping could answer the question
'who belongs to the deep state' as they could they easier track a social
network of people more loyal to each other than to the US Gov or the POTUS of
the day. Asking the 'Deep State' to define itself could be an exercise in
futility as members of the 'Deep State' likely mix ideology & the opportunity
to make money in ways that blind them to the full implications of their
actions.
Slate magazine today had an article up of a doctor who tried the revolving door
and then wrote about it
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2017/02/going_undercover_through_washington_s_revolving_door.html
If you all need a fun book to read, try Interface by Neal Stephenson (written
after Snow Crash and before Cryptonomicon)
IMO: Deep State: Anyone who will be in DC regardless of who is president
and can still have some degree of power. They are sometimes well known
people like Neera Tanden and sometimes they work in the IC. They are the
people who no matter how many times they fuck up, destroy lives, lose a
campaign, or completely fail at whatever task they are given, they can
always count on a nice cushy paycheck and a new gig where they can [Family
Blog} it up some more. The entire class of DC insiders who just can't fail
down no matter what.
Don't forget the late, great Chalmers Johnson, who coined the term
blowback
and left us with guides such as
The Sorrows of Empire:
Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic.
As long as we're on the subject, more or less, I have a question about
Dark Money (I'm reading Mayer's book these days) and the Deep State: Do they
overlap, or are they rivals? Or are their goals sometimes in sync and
sometimes at odds with one another?
Another way of posing this question is this: If we assume that the
President is not the preference of the Deep State, are we also to assume he
was not the preference of Dark Money?
I'm having a hard time figuring out who's going after whom these days,
and what short- and long-term objectives are being fought out, almost – but
not quite – before our eyes.
Here's a case from a different field, education, which is the one I
follow most closely. A blogger has recently identified the "blueprint" for
the new Sec of Education to follow, laid out in a planning document by a
Dark Money group which is below the radar (well, below my radar, anyway).
It's pretty clear that the Sec is their cabinet member, but are there
others? Were these appointments made in the form of favors called in? For
what, though, if the Pres isn't part of this network?
The Sec of Education, it emerged in the course of contentious hearings,
had contributed to no less than 23 Republican Senators' campaign war chests.
What are we to conclude about them?
Another good book to mention, which plays a different role, is "Legacy of
Ashes" by Tim Weiner. It covers a lot of CIA dirt – coups, assassinations,
defying/lying to Presidents, etc. – but it is different because basically
all of it is drawn from the CIA's own files. So it is purely historical and
outside of any "conspiracy" controversy. The files are not complete. Richard
Helms ordered the most incriminating ones destroyed in a giant purge in the
early '70s – this is described in the book too. But what is there and was
saved is often pretty dirty.
Definitely a good list. I've read a few of these books and want to read
more on the list. And don't forget any of Sheldon Wolin's recent books and
essays. This one is 13 to 14 years old and still appropriate –
https://www.thenation.com/article/inverted-totalitarianism/
He points out the basic structure, I think, in which following the money
makes the most sense.
Pepper's last book on the MLK assassination, The Plot to Kill King: The
Truth behind the Assassination of Martin Luther King would also be a worthy
addition to the list.
Imo, a must read:
Operation Gladio: The Unholy Alliance Between
the Vatican, the CIA and the Mafia
by Paul Williams. I think it's
newer than most of the books above and connects a lot of dots.
I've always throught that 'Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy
of the Mass Media by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky' should be mandatory
on high school curriculum as a speed course on intellectual self-defense.
Three essays by Charles Hollander: "Pynchon's Inferno," "Pynchon's
Politics: The Presence of an Absence," and "Pynchon, JFK and the CIA:
Magic Eye Views of The Crying of Lot 49."
I would put it simpler and define a 'Deep State' as a major (i.e. not
minority rogue) element within the existing government structures (or
quasi-government structures) which is willing to commit serious illegal acts or
unauthorised acts of violence
within the territory of the State
to
achieve its aims independent of the legally constituted government. In other
words, I'd not define it by its structure or nature, but by what it actually
does.
I'd define it this way to distinguish it from the sort of bureaucratic
plotting which takes place within any large institution which finds itself led
by someone who doesn't buy into the organisations core consensus. An example I
would use would be
Operation Gladio
. If Operation Gladio had simply operated as designed, as a
secretive military operation which government leaders may not have been aware
of, then it was not an example of Deep State. But if, as alleged (but never
proved), it carried out acts of terrorism and false flag operations with the
specific aim of forcing elected governments to do what they didn't want to do,
and this was part of a deliberate high level strategy (i.e. not just the act of
a rogue element), then it would be an example of the Deep State at work within
democratic western governments.
Put into contemporary terms, if the internal resistance to Trump takes the
form of leaks, internal manoeuvres to slow down his agenda, etc., then that is
'normal' bureaucratic operations. If it takes the form of blackmail, false flag
terrorist attacks, assassinations, etc., then it is the Deep State in
operation.
Given that we know parts of the US and allied intelligence communities have
for decades been involved in highly illegal operations around the world which
has included torture, murder, blackmail and high level assassinations, is it
really so far fetched that there is an element willing to do the same thing
within the US?
Defining "Deep State" by its actions is appealing. Would the military
veto of Kerry-negotiated ceasefire in Syria count? Some officers acted
without apparent authority and were not reprimanded as a result. Would this
have transpired "within the territory of the State" and, thus, meet this
definition? Should it?
Thats an interesting question. There can be a fine line between
bureaucratic infighting and actual illegal and anti-democratic actions.
On my definition I would say 'no', its not Deep State in that the actions
were insubordinate and dangerous, but they took place outside the US so
arguably were more the result of a power struggle between government
factions. It was the result I think of Obama's weakness as a leader, not
an actual Deep State action.
Wouldn't any so-called Deep State be supported by factions in Congress?
Sure. For instance, John McCain is in my view the epitome of the Deep State,
one of its chief representatives, out in the open, a vanguard. The Clintons
too, doubtless, though now outside government. If Congress gives no pushback,
it bestows tacit/active agreement. Congress can rescind the privileges and
power of all the organisations observers ascribe to the Deep State. So what's
so mysterious? The notion of a Deep State's existence might just serve as a way
to avoid responsibility, accountability, deny agency. Some shadowy bunch is
running things, anything else new? On the other hand think tanks, contractors
and subcontracters are less easily kept in place. Yet Congress can put an end
to prisons for profit and erase one element of the deception, reduce the
numbers if security clearances by defunding, etc. not things were are about to
do. Eminence grise, one two buckle my shoe
McCain is too stupid. To better understand the Deep State, one must go a
bit higher up the ladder.
Look into the membership of the Bretton Woods Committee - the lobbyist
group for the international super-rich (www.brettonwoods.org), and the Group
of Thirty (www.group30.org).
Once you understand these two groups, you'll be more aware.
Loved the Group of Thirty pictorials on their home page. I counted
exactly one genuine person of color (aka, "token negro") among the
melange, with a handful of "half and halfs" of former British colonial
heritage who of course have had time to assimilate and duly "see the
light" as to the wisdom of continued perpetual white northern European
supremacy. As for the few token Asians, they'll come around soon enough
as well, although they ARE amazing students, aren't they?
We can avoid definite articles, but this is a defining article, and could
become the definitive article.
The most curious fact is that the phrase is showing up in the msm. I take it
as confirmation of Lambert's point: 'Factional conflict within the deep state
exists!'
I always attributed the use of the word to Peter Dale Scott. The Turkish
phrase seems to me more of a parallel usage than the place from which the
phrase is derived. In my cursory reading, the phrase originated in conspiracy
theory – particularly around the assassination of JFK. I am not using
conspiracy theory in a disparaging sense, since I don't think a belief in
conspiracies (which is legally recognized, and was long one of the great themes
of political science, from Aristotle to Montesquieu) is per se disqualifying.
Scott, in the preface to Deep Politics and the Death of JFK, has a good take on
the prototype of the Deep State – in his theory, there is always a deep
political practice that is unacknowledged officially. For instance, Tammany New
York of the late 19th century operated, on the surface, according to the legal
order with a mayor and a bureaucracy, etc., but in practice, it was run by an
elaborate system of kickbacks and the investment of certain private players
with enormous governmental power. The Deep State, under this p.o.v., shouldn't
be confused with bureaucrats and those invested with public power, but instead,
is a collaboration between such bureaucrats and those in private positions who
retain unacknowledged public power. To quote Scott: " A deep political system
or process is one which habitually resorts to decision making and enforcement
procedures outside as well as inside those publicly sanctioned by law and
society." By this definition, the endorsement of Trump by the National Border
Patrol Council and the way in which, under Obama, certain Border Patrol
officials sought to impede or change processes for taking in and giving due
process to refugees are evidences of a deep political process.
Well, Scott's Deep Politics is published in 93. The Turkish term Deep
State appears in print around 96 (maybe as late as 98–I'd have to look
around for a cite). While the terms are relatively synonymous they are by no
means equal. Best I can tell, Scott's starts using the word Deep State
widely in the mid-2000's.
Additionally, as I've come to understand it the term did not originate in
conspiracy theory. Rather the term was picked up by conspiracy theorists
from Turkish journalism as a useful shorthand for the alleged (and hidden)
events and actors they were trying to describe. Personally, not that it
matters, I think it's important to keep the original usage/meaning in mind.
1. b/c it was coined to describe a real yet inexplicable event–not
speculation or a theory of some conspiracy: i.e., the JFK assassination.
Wherein agents of military, representative government, and criminality
(along with a "bimbo" straight out of central casting) who have no
legitimate business doing business were obviously doing business–but what
kind of business? Who knows, that's why it's Deep. 2. The term itself can
easily drift into being an amorphous, ill-defined, but overdetermined and
overly unified signifier on the order of "cabal" which is likely to happen
anyway now that its wound its way into common parlance.
I may just be quibbling, but I don't see deep political processes like
Tammany or Border Patrol shenanigans as being of the same phenomena as the
so-called Deep State. Deep State would usually imply elements of the
military or, more especially, elements of the security apparatus (public and
private) at times coordinating with, at other times interfering with, known
political/institutional actors, corporate power, and criminal concerns that
might involve money laundering or drug and human trafficking. As most here
are noting, it is factional and adversarial–a network of several or many
discreet entities that coordinate, align, and conflict according to shifting
interests. It's paralegal, parapolitical, paraeconomic (or paramarket), and
parainstitutional.
And all of that to say that such a definition is wholly contingent upon
there being empirical and on-going phenomena which corresponds approximately
to the term itself.
Lambert debunked Scott's sloppy and internally inconsistent analysis, per
the link he provided at the very top of the post. That's why he kept arguing
against its use.
Thanks Lambert. Here's a bit more grist for this particular mill/passages
from the rabbit hole (depending on what set of metaphors you like)
1)
Paranoia
, a tabletop RPG game from the 80's. "The game's main setting is an
immense, futuristic city called Alpha Complex. Alpha Complex is controlled by
The Computer, a civil service AI construct The Computer employs
Troubleshooters, whose job is to go out, find trouble, and shoot it. Player
characters are usually Troubleshooters The player characters frequently receive
mission instructions from the Computer that are incomprehensible,
self-contradictory, or obviously fatal if adhered to, and side-missions (such
as Mandatory Bonus Duties) that conflict with the main mission each player
character is generally an unregistered mutant and a secret society member
(which are both termination offenses in Alpha Complex), and has a hidden agenda
separate from the group's goals, often involving stealing from or killing
teammates."
So: big on non-monolithic, also big on double/triple identities
(troubleshooter/mutant/secret society), which we associate with the
intelligence agencies, but also with revolving door politicians/lobbyists.
2) The "incomprehensible/self-contradictory/conflict with the main mission"
made me think of seven/eleven/twelve (depending on scholarship/personal
preference) chess, most recently attributed to BHO–that is, actions who on the
surface don't seem to make sense given the situation, but which conspiracy
theorists/true believers think are actually directed at a
future/buried/hidden/alternative problem. Although this would seem to fit
better with at least a semi-monolithic Deep Society, because it is strategy,
and a non-monolithic Deep Society would presumably be less organized/more
tactically inclined.
3)
The Final Reflection
, and especially the Klingon "equivalent" of chess,
klin zha
, and it's reflective version. Reflective
klin zha
is
played with only one set of pieces. "The Reflective is not so much a variation
but a strategic approach to an otherwise tactical game Once set up, the first
to place is also the first to move. During each turn, the player chooses one
piece, making all others the enemy. The player who captures the Goal on his
turn is the victor." So I kill a piece protecting (next to) the goal, but on
your turn you now control that piece, use it to capture the goal, and beat me.
So: a smaller (but still non-monolithic) Deep State, with a large unitary
set of "pieces" (the non-Deep State?). Again, while there are two sides
playing, they are both using the same pieces to try to do the same thing, and
they only have "control of the board" some of the time.
So my takeaways: non-monolithic (and especially more than two sides),
partial control (whether because of multiple/hidden identities or
non-monolithic is unknown), and given the pathetic state of most of our media,
most motives are "hidden", at least from casual view (cf
for the media's "hidden" motives
in
today's links
Here's a reminder (from NC a while back). It is a waste of time to
deliberate over the existence of the deep state. What's important is
participating in a state – a society – that is well run; where inequality is
always exposed; where propaganda is always obvious. It's impossible to define
"the deep state." I think Lambert was right when he said the definition of the
deep state always turned out to be a big hairball.
I agree with the spirit of what you're saying, but try this: I think that
factional conflict, occurring during periods of systemic strain/crisis, is
what leads otherwise contented and inertial sections of the state to act in
ways that require concealment, either of actor or action. Reading a bit from
the Glennon book linked above, wherein he makes much of Bagehot, reminded me
of how the French political system used to be described as having something
like a bureaucratic ballast keeping the ship of state from capsizing. That
sort of conservative, continuity-maintaining function can grow claws, and
that's what we're seeing now, particularly when US elites are trying to
cobble a revised foreign/imperial policy to deal with China and Russia and
the president is having trouble intoning the verities of US exceptionalism.
Well, that lengthy disquisition seems to indeed "validate" – as it were –
the "deep state" terminology if not its epistemological derivation(s) at the
very least, readers keeping to the various formulae offered for "correct usage"
won't be whacked upside their haids by the moderators if the term appears in a
comment.
Cheers.
My first encounter with the idea of the Deep State was from Mike Lofgren's
2014 essay, "Anatomy of the Deep State", based upon his 25 year career as a
Capitol Hill staffer. Here is the link:
How about those little quiet gatherings of the Koch-convened sort, that
attract so little "press" attention, at Palm Springs and etcetera? Is the "deep
state" limited to Great Game and globalism, or is the long steady erosion of
even the myth of "democracy" and the transformation of that word into its
opposite, via the efforts of all those very small number of people who profit
from killing public education and regulatory capture and ascension to elected
positions in everything from little town councils and school boards to state
legislatures and statehouses, constitute part of what might qualify as some
sort of "deep state?" ALEC is not on everyone's tongue, after all, but the
power the people in it exert, through long application, sure forks over a whole
lot of what maybe most people would think of as "the general welfare" and
"public goods." IS Davos "over?" Is Bilderburg?
Interesting how many of what would seem to me to be deep-staters are tied to
Afghanistan, and of course Israel. One might even posit the Israelites have
their own deep state, that has interlocking membership with players and
factions and elements of the unelected and maybe public but mostly invisible
thing that the phrase calls up in the minds of many of us.
Having named the demon, if there is ever any agreement on a name and frame,
does that give us mopes any power over the demon, or just another opening for
its immanence in our sad little lives?
The first step would seem to be forcing the demon out from the shadows
and into the sunlight so everyone can get a good look at it. I imagine it
will then lash out with everything it has like a cornered animal, which will
harden public opinion against it, and then it will be game on for real. A
very dangerous game, to be sure, but what is the alternative?
From
http://www.oftwominds.com/blogfeb14/dollar-deep-state2-14.html
[Charles
Hugh Smith, 02/2014]
I have been studying the Deep State for 40 years, before it had gained the
nifty name "deep state." What others describe as the Deep State I term the
National Security State which enables the American Empire, a vast structure
that incorporates hard and soft power–military, diplomatic, intelligence,
finance, commercial, energy, media, higher education–in a system of global
domination and influence.
Back in 2007 I drew a simplified chart of the Imperial structure, what I
called the Elite Maintaining and Extending Global Dominance (EMEGD):
1. "Example: "The Iraq WMD's yellowcake uranium episode was a Deep State
Blooper." (See here for details; the yellowcake uranium was part of the Bush
administration's WMD propaganda operation to foment the Iraq War.)"
How is this an example of a blooper? It helped to achieve its intended goal.
That it was exposed much later as a fabrication didn't vitiate its effect.
2. Surprised so many examples/references (especially here) but none with
Wall Street as a primary Deep State actor. Read something revelatory ( to me,
anyway) recently re the CIA ( post WWII) being engineered mostly by Wall Street
for the sole purpose of protecting big U.S Corporate interests. Sorry no time
to dig it up, but I'm sure others more knowledgeable can expound. (As
SerenityNow notes, Scott's book puts WS in the title.)
Good points.
What is interesting to me is the similarity of the
modus operandi
revealed in the yellowcake episode, where privileged information was
'leaked' to a tame 'journalist' to take out an enemy. In the case of the
yellowcake, we generally accept the narrative that blowing Joe Wilson's
wife's Non-Official Cover, but as part of a non-proliferation team, Valerie
Plame was also in a position to directly interfere with WMD claims from the
administration. OTOH, the WHIG and OVP are not very deep.
In addition, it is easy to point to the Iraq debacle as a failure on the
part of the 'deep state' that contrived it, but a more cynical view would
consider that a quick victory is less profitable than a slow defeat. In that
light, apparently glaring errors, like the disbanding of the Iraqi Army, may
be understood to be insurance that has paid off with a successful
insurgency, a weakened state where oil can be bought or taken without any
pesky national government interference, and eventually, trained military
leaders for IS, the next-gen enemy with actual ground troops and conquered
territory.
I was surprised that there wasn't a reference to Ike's warning about the
Military Industrial Complex, which seems like the original American
reference to an extra-democratic coalition of interests that could influence
or control policy.
Another milestone would be the Iran-Contra affair, where we heard North and
Poindexter drooling over an 'off the shelf operational capacity' to
circumvent constitutional control of foreign policy (a market niche now
filled by Erik Prince and Blackwater/Xe/Academi). In connection with this
scheme, we also witnessed intelligence officials colluding with arms
merchants to influence a US election by arming enemies, as well as running
drugs into the US to fund said independent foreign policy. I think the
illegality is well established, as for killings within the US territory, we
can ask Orlando Letelier.
Ran into an interesting passage in Kevin Phillips's 1994 book
Arrogant
Capital: Washington, Wall Street, and the Frustration of American Politics
.
He speaks of an 'iron triangle' of politics, interest groups, and media that
turns aside the cyclic outsider revolutions that would otherwise renew American
political institutions. If Trump has this view of his populism, it makes sense
he spends so much time disparaging the MSM; not just a celebrity feud, not just
annoyance about bitchiness, but a reasoned effort to break an elite power tool.
If Phillips's iron triangle fits the description of a Deep State, and it
can, this may be an actual conflict over principles and convictions. Because
the elite believe deeply in their own position, and are convinced they're doing
God's work.
To me this is the kind of synthetic journalism that really sifts meaning
from noise. And uniquely, on this site, the reading lists and comments are
sophisticated and thoughtful additions and refinements, like the peer review
offered from any scholarly community. This article is not definitive; but it
could grow and grow, and then one could easily call it "seminal." This is work
that I happily pay for.
From the history of the 1930s: one notes that for Heydrich to consolidate
his bosses' power over Germany, he felt it necessary to "declare war" on the
existing German civil service in 1935–not just the police force, but the entire
bureaucracy; and to seize control of the foreign intelligence services as well
as the domestic. The only successful hold-out was the Abwehr, the military
intelligence service, which succeeded in preserving its independence in a very
much more closely circumscribed field.
So Heydrich definitely felt there was a "state within the state" that needed
to be co-opted and ideologically purified and above all surveilled, before
Hitler's power was secured. That, in my humble view, is what the "deep state"
is. It's the most important part of the question "quis custodiet custodes
ipsos," and why Plato had a philosopher king instead of just a bunch Guardians,
and why a nobility requires a monarchy.
Yes it's great to see this issue being given the attention it deserves
and being subjected to serious analysis by NC and the commentariat. Thanks
Lambert!
A philosopher king who was poor, lived on public provision, owned no
property, had no family, and lived in accomodation from whom none could be
forbidden. And so just & virtuous.
Only relatively recently having become aware of the term, 'deep state' I
would assume, in its most basic form, it refers to those mostly 'unseen' and
'unknown' conservative we know best types who wield uninterrupted, often
disproportionate influence without having to suffer the dreadful inconvenience
or potential indignity of seeking a periodic democratic mandate.
It seems to me that there was a lot of talk about the birth of the DHS being
the biggest reorganization of the federal government since the New Deal.
That talk included concerns that Bush was putting thousands of dead-enders
in bureaucratic positions, and that they would be impossible to remove in the
future.
But here's the strange thing: unlike the Pentagon, this monstrosity draws
no attention whatsoever - even though, by our calculations, this country has
spent a jaw-dropping $791 billion on "homeland security" since 9/11. To give
you a sense of just how big that is, Washington spent an inflation-adjusted
$500 billion on the entire New Deal.
We've been talking around here about the breaking of
rice bowls
and
its affect on the credentialed class, the implication being the hysterical,
unorganized revolt of people who feel their well-being threatened by the rise
of Trump.
Bush II broke a lot of
rice bowls
when he leveraged the fearful
post 9/11 environment to bring about the reorganization of the federal
government under the DHS;
The Administration presents their strategy as one that requires them
to have more control over federal personnel in order to provide national
security and protect America. For example, President Bush argued that he
needed the freedom
"to put the right people at the right place at
the right
time to protect the American people."
The metaphor of physical placement-to "put" federal workers in particular
places at particular times-is rationalized as a strategy to protect America,
much like one would move a Bishop or Knight in a chess game to protect
the King.
This physical placement metaphor was also picked up by the news
media. In one summary of the issues, an article in the Washington Post
noted, "The White House wants to retain the ability to remove
some employees from unions for national security reasons," and "Bush
wants the ability to move workers from one part of the department to
another to meet rapidly changing needs.
This metaphor of physical placement suggests that the Administration
requires a particularly high degree of power and control over personnel,
but that degree of power is presented as rational and justified in light of
national security.
To the extent that the audience is concerned about national security,
then
they are invited to see the Administration strategy-in this case,
its need for power over personnel-as one that is consistent with that
concern.
Union leaders saw this issue in a different light; they disputed the
details of the proposal and also questioned the motives behind them.
Brian DeWyngaert, Assistant to the President of AFGE, saw the reforms
as an attempt by the administration to weaken the civil service system, to
shift from "public administration" to "political administration."
DeWyngaert cites a paper, written by two former Republican personnel
management officials, that asserts, "
The President can expect
opposition
from official Washington's 'permanent government
,' a network that
includes the career civil service, and its allies in Congress, the leaders
of federal
unions, and the chiefs of managerial and professional associations
representing civil servants."
DeWyngaert expresses union distrust of the administration, arguing that
the real goal of the administration was to "control what agencies do
[ ] to change some of the personnel rules [ ]
to the point where
they are going to follow your line because you control their pay, their
determination at will,
their layoff.
W4B;
What I'm pointing out, is that what we're calling the
Deep State
includes the
"permanent government"
mentioned above, and that in
reorganizing the government under the control of the new DHS, the right, in the
person of Bush II was attempting to replace a unionized, independent, New Deal
flavored government bureaucracy with one that could be more easily controlled,
because it was more politicized.
I'm saying that both the democratic, and the republican wings of the
republican party have made peace with the notion of a more politicized
"permanent government",
and that more politicized
"permanent
government",
is now showing its loyalty to the status quo by doing what's
expected of it, joining the resistance.
This is exactly what I think, too, and what Heydrich recognized in 1935:
that a large government has a hive mind. Without the SD ("Security
Services"), the SS, and the Nazi Party organization, he could never have
bent that hive mind, made of all those entrenched, entitled, relatively
law-abiding functionaries, to his will.
Trump has none of those tools at his disposal, so there's no reason to
expect his lasting very long or getting much done.
That's what makes the hysteria about his being like Hitler so very
misplaced. If Trump had an organization like the Nazi party hundreds of
thousands strong, ready to die in the streets for him, with operatives ready
to put into place to take over the management of the government effectively
at all upper levels, it would be another matter. As it is, he's grasping at
straws from other talent pools. No wonder the bookies are giving him lower
odds.
Chris Hedges, on his RT show, recently defined it almost exclusively in
terms of big business. I think the quote was something very short like, "It's
Raytheon, Goldman, and Exxon!!!"
Which complicates things, as Trump's cabinet has reps from Goldman and Exxon
in it.
On that tip more or less, I recall watching a video of Dick Gregory and
Mark Lane talking about the MLK Assassination, and Gregory made a point of
saying more or less that the intelligence apparatus doesn't act
unilaterally, but that it acts at the direction of the aristocrats, i.e.,
oligarchs, big business, etc. The aristocrats tells the apparatus to go
after those governments and politicians that are acting against their
interests.
In a documentary called King–Montgomery to Memphis (GREAT DOCUMENTARY),
Harry Belafonte said that when King antagonized the "money power" , he was
pretty much marked for death.
Anecdotally, I was working with a former Senator at the time of the DHS
formation who was still highly involved with the Bush administration. in fact
Cheney had them on speed dial. I can tell you flat out that despite spouting
the same garbage about freedom to reorganize on the fly, if you talked with
them long enough the ability to fire employees at will ALWAYS ended up being
the reason when anyone pinned him down about how departments would be
reorganized on the fly. Very clearly it was about making sure that employees
would know that they should show no integrity at all in doing their job most
particularly in regards to either upholding the Constitution or recognizing the
legal rights of any person, citizen of America or not.
All modern states are bureaucratic. So the surface state which the public
can replace, what we usually call "the government", is underpinned by a deep
and essentially invisible substrate of people and institutions. The
characteristics of the deep government are 1) opaque bureaucratic
decision-making and written output designed to mislead not inform, 2)
invisibility because the press cant easily turn the story into a narrative with
individuals who represent good and evil, and because the national press (NYT,
WP, and even the WSJ) no longer reports the news but filters the policies to
either spark outrage or encourage cooperation, 3) The deep government employees
are smart, educated and have come up through the ranks (think Bob Gates). They
are great people, fun to be with but often incredibly insular and sure that
"You people out there don't understand". And they are often right about that.
Don't underestimate their knowledge.
Under most conditions the surface government, the deep government and the
parts of the deep state outside the government (ie the press) are in general
agreement and work together smoothly. Today the surface state (President,
congress and soon probably the courts) are trying to bring about change that
the individuals within the deep government fundamentally disagrees with on
issues like immigration, national self-sufficiency and overseas threats. All
major changes (our entry into WWI and WWII, the civil rights movement, tax and
subsidy law, Obama's immigration program) generate resistance. Sometimes I
agree with the deep, sneaky part of the government (entering WWII); other
times, I don't (Vietnam, Bush in Iraq, Obama's immigration policy).
Our deep state is like that of most democracies and differs from
authoritarian deep states in a number of fundamental ways: 1) our military is
adamantly apolitical. All officers take an oath of allegiance to the
Constitution, not the government (in the late 1960s, as the military got sucked
into domestic policing, many senior officers started reading and discussing the
Constitution among themselves), 2) No U.S. deep state emerged out of our two
formative struggles, the revolution and the Civil War . Much of the world
(China, Russia and the colonies that became free in the 1950s and 60s) had a
different history, 3) We have no ethnic and religious deep states- no Moslem
Brotherhood, no Burmese Buddhist nationalist, although we do have passionate
ethnic groups that prefer to operate out-of-sight (Jewish, Irish Catholic,
Cuban, Indian to name a few) . 4) Countries that fight overseas wars or that
fear internal revolutions all develop a deep state. All the ex-colonies that
didn't (Iraq, Egypt, Guatemala and a hundred more) had the weak state
overthrown and replaced with a strong and deep state. In the US the first deep
state hints came after WWI (not WWII) with large caches of unappropriated money
going into the hands of Naval Intelligence (who do you think paid for the
Flying Tigers?). The original sin of our liberal deep state was the campaign to
get us into WWII. A good cause- and a terrible precedent.
Finally, the deep government and the national elite are not the same. The
deep government is largely a meritocracy filled with alert people who know
which way the wind is blowing. If real Communists or real Fascists took over
they would either stay inside, keep getting paid, and quietly try to undermine
the new leaders or they would take early retirement. They don't write
biographies or make statements because they are essentially private people
immersed in their private lives, what the Communists used to call Careerists.
The national elites are something else. They either feel independent (the
hereditary rich, celebrities and Trump and the self-made billionaires) or are
the insecure product of upper middle class families, Ivy League and
second-level private colleges and good social backgrounds. They work in large
institutions they don't own or control. The latter group wants to exercise
power because it gives meaning to their otherwise uninteresting lives (think,
academics, the non-profit sector and Federal judges). The self-made rich
exercise power to become richer and because they love to control organizations
that compete (Who owns all the NFL teams?). Both the deep state and the deep
government are open to people of education, good breeding, ambition, discretion
and good luck.
Is there any way to fix this? Probably not but nobody seems to bother the
countries that don't do foreign adventures To roughly quote from the Bin Laden
interview after 9/11, when he as asked "Why did you attack America?" he laughed
and said "We didn't attack Switzerland". A better national press would help. If
there are any billionaires out there interested in providing $100K salaries to
real smart MBA students who like to dig, let me know. A few platoons of young
I.F. Stones of various political hews might go a long way. But deep states are
here to stay. The best we can do is monitor. analyze and publicize them.
What a fascinatingly bland presentation, revering deep state careerists
for their solid private lives and good-breeding, while others are
power-hungry insecure product searching for a cure to their dullness.
And calling for "platoons" of new IF Stones from among MBAs, of all
places!
As a retired member of the Deep State, I find it amusing at the imbecility
of right- (or left) wing conspiracy nuts who can invent amazing chains of
undermining collaboration across agency lines orchestrated by some powerful
shadow demons.
If federal employees were really that effective, there would be no private
sector wage gap, the VA and DOD would share a seamless electronic record
system, and Snowden would have the Medal of Freedom, and HRC's fingerprints
would have been all over the gun that killed Vince Foster.
The Deep State, if you want to call it that, exists so the people get the
support and services they need despite confusing and often conflicting
legislation, presidential directives, and agency regulations.
I generally apply Occam's Razor to conspiracy theories. It is generally
more likely that events occur due to incompetence, lack of attention, or
emotional reactions than conspiracy. To pull a secret conspiracy off
successfully over a long time, you need to be really smart, really focused
and not have many people, otherwise it is no longer secret.
The bigger the organization, the more likely you are to have a reversion
to the mean of most of the population, and most people are more likely to
turn a blind eye than participate in something that means they could lose
their pension as well as getting home late for dinner.
So the biggest issue that Trump has with the bureaucracy is how to manage
Parkinson's Law. He did in the private sector by running around saying
"You're fired" but he can't do that to career civil servants.
http://www.economist.com/node/14116121
I am sure that there are a bunch of bureaucrat top dogs that don't like
the invasion of their turf. They are, after all, fundamentally political
animals very jealous of their territory. Some of them might even talk to
each other, but probably half of them despise the other half.
The biggest threat to us is that we slowly acquiesce to security theater
that quietly gets more and more invasive. The police etc. are the most
likely to be organized as some sort of "deep state" as some departments
already have an us vs. them attitude.
Tom, maybe one part of the bigger thing called "federal service" does
that. I spent 13 years with the US EPA through the Reagan Revolution (and it
was an amazing coup). A number of EPA employees, despite the threats of
"RIFs" (reductions in force, or wholesale politically motivated firings),
worked hard and quietly to do everything they could to slow the assault on
"regulation" of sh!tty corporate behavior that threatened human health and
the environment. There were a lot of go-alongs, usually later comers who
were looking to get their resumes padded before moving to the dark side, but
there were a lot who were serious in their commitment, and aware of their
vulnerability, who continued to press for enforcement actions, regulations
with teeth that required industries to spend money ("internalize") to
install process changes and end-of-pipe-or-stack controls (which often
resulted in increased profits for the corpos who had an excuse and tax
deductions to update their plants. And there was continued insistence on
doing the data gathering that supported the proofs of harm that pollution
and toxics cause. There was an 'environmental justice" initiative despite
the "f__k the poor" administration attitudes and policies, and a criminal
enforcement operation that actually put corporate officers in jail and at
least made them take notice of potential consequences. There are obviously
still a lot of employees at EPA to take their mission to be protection of
public health and the environment, preserving decades of data collection and
soldiering on despite the "Mandate for Leadership" quackery and
fear-and-loathing fomenting.
But your limiting the definition as you do is incomplete at best. The
state security overlords, the oligokleptocracy, and the other inimical
factions and parties that have been described in this post and comments,
seem to me the real nuts and bolts of what 'deep state' is getting at. Not
the many federal employees who, despite all the sh!t that flows down from
above and laterally from the culture inside and outside the agencies,
actually try to do the job of "positive governance," like a few people I
have dealt with in the Social Security Admin, the VA, the CMS behemoth and a
few others. I often wonder how people persist in those jobs and don't burn
out or get fired. I was close to both while doing my thing at EPA, 1980-90
(the Reagan years - I had two-plus with Carter as president before that, to
see how a less hostile-to-regulation-in-the-best-sense admin might operate.
Hard to take your comment seriously. Do you really think that the Deep
State consists of federal employees who are concerned with VA and the rank
and file of the DOD, or that they are interested in providing "support and
services" to the people? I think it's likely that your belief that you were
part of the Deep State is incorrect.
No discussion of the Deep State would be complete without reading "Spooks,"
by Jim Hougan. It was a seminal book written in 1980 (I believe) that
introduced the notion of retiring IC operatives joining private company
security apparati. Tell your compatriots you're acting on behalf of the
government and a patriot will do ANYTHING. "The Conversation" was a depiction
of one of the main characters in the book who had previously wiretapped most of
Manhatten back in the early Sixties; he worked for either Hoffa or the Kennedy
brothers or both. Really an unbelievable book getting more and more difficult
to find. Ironically– or not– I believe it was Hougan's last piece of
investigative journalism.
I'd always assumed the concept originated with Peter Dale Scott, who, before
he wrote the book "The American Deep State", used it all over the place in
2007's "The Road to 9/11". I've read neither but for excerpts, the concept
merely referred to covert agencies acting outside the scope of democratic
oversight - whether it's local police departments running out of control
torture squads and black sites or national intelligence agencies acting as the
private armies of the executive. That such groups might oust a sitting
executive is of course the heart and soul of all his conspiracy mongering about
the JFK assassination (I like his poetry an awful lot, but I remember trying to
get through Cocaine Politics and either the sources didn't check out or they
were untraceable, in any case I gave up on it).
If you want to find a consistent, broad, and useful meaning of a concept,
and a phase or 'name' for that concept, look for books written on the subject.
Postings, blogs, and even published articles do not have the authority that
books have (it's not just because being hit upside the head with a book will
hurt a lot more than with a blog posting, har,har).
My recommendation is Deep State, based on my understanding on Mike Lohgren's
The Deep State: The Fall of the Constitution and the Rise of a Shadow
Government
.
I must say I personally don't like the term. When I use it with people who
believe that Rep & Dem describe the US government, I get the old eye roll, tin
foil hat outfitting treatment. Humm, maybe I'll lead in with the term
'Washington Consensus'. They get that one around here in Southeast Asia. They
haven't forgotten or forgiven the IMF about the 1997 Asian financial crisis.
I hate the term deep state because, unlike the mic, for example, which
has a clarity about it, it is so vague and malleable a term as to be almost
useless except for Hollywood films and conspiracy nutters, but if there is
such a thing, here is what it might look like:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8IvKx0c19w
A must-read is the 'Collateral Damage' investigation in which the Office Of
Naval Intelligence features as the main exposing agency of exactly this issue –
a parallel power structure operating on a black budget:
The central task of the U.S. 'deep state' is to maintain or expand the
permanent war economy. So it is the military-industrial complex. The
top-of-food-chain spy agencies - whose primary task within the MIC is to create
enemies and paranoia - are the brains and mouthpiece of the deep state.
Think kaleidoscope in motion. Colors are real but hard to predict. Preset
patterns, but affected by outside movement.
I love histories, but I know they simplify and often mislead. Anyway, the
trick is to spot the power emerging, not how it turned out with the last
generation.
I suggest that the best approach looking forward is to start with the
existing visible power bureaucracies both inside govt and outside govt but on
its periphery.
For each behemoth, daily routine is the biggest driver. And with that
usually goes shared values. Such things usually push events.
Offhand, I can think of a few starting points. If these separate
bureaucracies are subject to some common control, I would like to know exactly
who and exactly how.
Military/defense contractors. Mostly consumed with myopic concerns. Top
generals and bureaucrats do think tank type stuff, but mostly technical.
Obvious collusion with industry over defense budgets.
Not sure what attitude is toward Donald.
NSA and tech contractors. Foreign world to me, but obvious iceberg.
State Dept and White House and press chattering class. Propaganda
organizations, basically. I am sure they have clubs and secret handshakes, but
not sure should've called organized.
Main CIA Narrow bureaucrats.
Off-the-books CIA intersecting with business. These have been the most
spectacular stories and escapades. Edwin Wilson. Air America. Coups in the 50s.
Maybe CIA assassination of Kennedy.
Did these operations drive history? Maybe. If those types of connections
drive events today, what are they?
Nobody has raised the issue of COG. Here is one excerpt from Peter Dale
Scott's book that talks about and somewhat defines it. Much more in the book of
course.
One factor linking Dallas, Watergate, the 1980 "October Surprise" plot to
prevent Carter's reelection, Iran-Contra, and 9/ 11 has been the background
involvement in all these deep events of personnel from America's
highest-level emergency planning, that is, Continuity of Government (COG)
planning, known inside the Pentagon as "the Doomsday Project." The
implementation of COG plans on 9/ 11 was the culmination of decades of such
planning, and has resulted in the permanent militarization of the domestic
United States, and the imposition at home of institutions and processes
designed for domination abroad.
Scott, Peter Dale. The American Deep State: Wall Street, Big Oil, and the
Attack on U.S. Democracy (War and Peace Library). Rowman & Littlefield
Publishers.
Not logical. The Deep State is those elements of the establishment that
direct the course of government irrespective of e pluribus.
Perfectly good term, arising from popular usage, whose boundaries–hopefully
needless to say–people who know better will not dictate anyway. Would have been
much better, rather than to attack its use at the outset, just to investigate
it. Elitist exercise, shaped like this.
"... Rep. Alcee Hastings has sponsored a bill to authorize President Trump to attack Iran. ..."
"... Alcee Hastings is better known to the public as a federal judge who was impeached for bribery
and for a series of ethical lapses as a Congressman than for his legislative record. The 2012 Family
Affairs report by the Committee for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington found that Hastings paid
his partner, Patricia Williams, $622,000 to serve as his deputy district director from 2007 to 2010,
the largest amount paid to a family member by any Member of Congress in the report. ..."
"... Alcee Hastings's voting record on war and peace issues has been about average for a Democrat.
He voted against the 2002 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) on Iraq, and his 79 percent
lifetime Peace Action score is the highest among current House members from Florida, although Alan Grayson's
was higher. ..."
"... In the new Republican-led Congress, with the bombastic and unpredictable Donald Trump in the
White House, Hastings's bill could actually serve as a blank check for war on Iran, and it is carefully
worded to be exactly that. It authorizes the open-ended use of force against Iran with no limits on
the scale or duration of the war. The only sense in which the bill meets the requirements of the War
Powers Act is that it stipulates that it does so. Otherwise it entirely surrenders Congress's constitutional
authority for any decision over war with Iran to the President, requiring only that he report to Congress
on the war once every 60 days. ..."
"... The wording of Hastings's bill perpetuates dangerous myths about the nature of Iran's nuclear
program that have been thoroughly investigated and debunked after decades of intense scrutiny by experts,
from the U.S. intelligence community to the International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA). ..."
"... As former IAEA director Mohamed ElBaradei explained in his book, The Age of Deception: Nuclear
Diplomacy in Treacherous Times, the IAEA has never found any real evidence of nuclear weapons research
or development in Iran, any more than in Iraq in 2003, the last time such myths were abused to launch
our country into a devastating and disastrous war. ..."
"... In Manufactured Crisis: the Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare, investigative journalist
Gareth Porter meticulously examined the suspected evidence of nuclear weapons activity in Iran. He explored
the reality behind every claim and explained how the deep-seated mistrust in U.S.-Iran relations gave
rise to misinterpretations of Iran's scientific research and led Iran to shroud legitimate civilian
research in secrecy. This climate of hostility and dangerous worst-case assumptions even led to the
assassination of four innocent Iranian scientists by alleged Israeli agents. ..."
"... The discredited myth of an Iranian "nuclear weapons program" was perpetuated throughout the
2016 election campaign by candidates of both parties, but Hillary Clinton was particularly strident
in claiming credit for neutralizing Iran's imaginary nuclear weapons program. ..."
"... President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry also reinforced a false narrative that the
"dual-track" approach of Obama's first term, escalating sanctions and threats of war at the same time
as holding diplomatic negotiations, "brought Iran to the table." This was utterly false. Threats and
sanctions served only to undermine diplomacy, strengthen hard-liners on both sides and push Iran into
building 20,000 centrifuges to supply its civilian nuclear program with enriched uranium, as documented
in Trita Parsi's book, A Single Roll of the Dice: Obama's Diplomacy With Iran. ..."
"... When Brazil and Turkey persuaded Iran to accept the terms of an agreement proposed by the U.S.
a few months earlier, the U.S. responded by rejecting its own proposal. By then the main U.S. goal was
to ratchet up sanctions at the U.N., which this diplomatic success would have undermined. ..."
"... Trita Parsi explained that this was only one of many ways in which the two tracks of Obama's
"dual-track" approach were hopelessly at odds with each other. Only once Clinton was replaced by John
Kerry at the State Department did serious diplomacy displace brinksmanship and ever-rising tensions.
..."
"... Rand Paul: If John McCain Were In Charge, U.S. 'Would Be In Perpetual War' "John McCain is
the guy that has advocated for war everywhere." ..."
"... How many wars are enough? ..."
"... That begs the question "What's Rand Paul's definition of perpetual war?" We've been at war
since 2003. There's no end in sight. That seems like "perpetual" to me. Do they need to be bigger wars
or for there to be more of them in order to meet Paul's threshold for perpetual? ..."
"... 'Know neither your enemy nor yourself', is how US got into this predicament. How many places
has the CIA 'organized' to such good effect? Most effectively with Jihadis grown from Afghanistan reorganized
in Syria over nearly 40 years. ..."
"... What are you who calls the 'enemy' sinners when your country out does the 'enemy' in war crime
across the world? ..."
"... I have never seen a ranking federal bureaucrat do something illegal by accident. ..."
"... Or the faux security services who found yellow cake that don't exist found GOP spies that do
not exist. ..."
Exclusive: The Democrats' rush to rebrand themselves as super-hawks is perhaps best illustrated
by the once-dovish Rep. Alcee Hastings proposing stand-by authorization for the President to attack
Iran, reports Nicolas J S Davies.
By Nicolas J S Davies
Rep. Alcee Hastings has sponsored a bill to authorize President Trump to attack Iran.
Hastings reintroduced H J Res 10, the "Authorization of Use of Force Against Iran Resolution"
on Jan. 3, the first day of the new Congress after President Trump's election.
Hastings's bill has come as a shock to constituents and people who have followed his career
as a 13-term Democratic Member of Congress from South Florida. Miami Beach resident Michael Gruener
called Hastings's bill, "extraordinarily dangerous," and asked, "Does Hastings even consider to
whom he is giving this authorization?"
Fritzie Gaccione, the editor of the South Florida Progressive Bulletin noted that Iran is complying
with the 2015 JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) and expressed amazement that Hastings
has reintroduced this bill at a moment when the stakes are so high and Trump's intentions so unclear.
"How can Hastings hand this opportunity to Trump?" she asked. "Trump shouldn't be trusted with
toy soldiers, let alone the American military."
Speculation by people in South Florida as to why Alcee Hastings has sponsored such a dangerous
bill reflect two general themes. One is that he is paying undue attention to the pro-Israel groups
who raised 10 percent of his coded campaign contributions for the 2016 election. The other is
that, at the age of 80, he seems to be carrying water for the pay-to-play Clinton wing of the
Democratic Party as part of some kind of retirement plan.
Alcee Hastings is better known to the public as a federal judge who was impeached for bribery
and for a series of ethical lapses as a Congressman than for his legislative record. The 2012
Family Affairs report by the Committee for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington found that
Hastings paid his partner, Patricia Williams, $622,000 to serve as his deputy district director
from 2007 to 2010, the largest amount paid to a family member by any Member of Congress in the
report.
But Hastings sits in one of the 25 safest Democratic seats in the House and does not seem to
have ever faced a serious challenge from a Democratic primary opponent or a Republican.
Alcee Hastings's voting record on war and peace issues has been about average for a Democrat.
He voted against the 2002 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) on Iraq, and his
79 percent lifetime Peace Action score is the highest among current House members from Florida,
although Alan Grayson's was higher.
Hastings voted against the bill to approve the JCPOA or nuclear agreement with Iran and first
introduced his AUMF bill in 2015. With the approval of the JCPOA and Obama's solid commitment
to it, Hastings's bill seemed like a symbolic act that posed little danger – until now.
In the new Republican-led Congress, with the bombastic and unpredictable Donald Trump in
the White House, Hastings's bill could actually serve as a blank check for war on Iran, and it
is carefully worded to be exactly that. It authorizes the open-ended use of force against Iran
with no limits on the scale or duration of the war. The only sense in which the bill meets the
requirements of the War Powers Act is that it stipulates that it does so. Otherwise it entirely
surrenders Congress's constitutional authority for any decision over war with Iran to the President,
requiring only that he report to Congress on the war once every 60 days.
Dangerous Myths
The wording of Hastings's bill perpetuates dangerous myths about the nature of Iran's nuclear
program that have been thoroughly investigated and debunked after decades of intense scrutiny
by experts, from the U.S. intelligence community to the International Atomic Energy Association
(IAEA).
As former IAEA director Mohamed ElBaradei explained in his book, The Age of Deception:
Nuclear Diplomacy in Treacherous Times, the IAEA has never found any real evidence of nuclear
weapons research or development in Iran, any more than in Iraq in 2003, the last time such myths
were abused to launch our country into a devastating and disastrous war.
In Manufactured Crisis: the Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare, investigative journalist
Gareth Porter meticulously examined the suspected evidence of nuclear weapons activity in Iran.
He explored the reality behind every claim and explained how the deep-seated mistrust in U.S.-Iran
relations gave rise to misinterpretations of Iran's scientific research and led Iran to shroud
legitimate civilian research in secrecy. This climate of hostility and dangerous worst-case assumptions
even led to the assassination of four innocent Iranian scientists by alleged Israeli agents.
The discredited myth of an Iranian "nuclear weapons program" was perpetuated throughout
the 2016 election campaign by candidates of both parties, but Hillary Clinton was particularly
strident in claiming credit for neutralizing Iran's imaginary nuclear weapons program.
President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry also reinforced a false narrative that
the "dual-track" approach of Obama's first term, escalating sanctions and threats of war at the
same time as holding diplomatic negotiations, "brought Iran to the table." This was utterly false.
Threats and sanctions served only to undermine diplomacy, strengthen hard-liners on both sides
and push Iran into building 20,000 centrifuges to supply its civilian nuclear program with enriched
uranium, as documented in Trita Parsi's book, A Single Roll of the Dice: Obama's Diplomacy With
Iran.
A former hostage at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran who rose to be a senior officer on the Iran
desk at the State Department told Parsi that the main obstacle to diplomacy with Iran during Obama's
first term was the U.S. refusal to "take 'Yes' for an answer."
When Brazil and Turkey persuaded Iran to accept the terms of an agreement proposed by the
U.S. a few months earlier, the U.S. responded by rejecting its own proposal. By then the main
U.S. goal was to ratchet up sanctions at the U.N., which this diplomatic success would have undermined.
Trita Parsi explained that this was only one of many ways in which the two tracks of Obama's
"dual-track" approach were hopelessly at odds with each other. Only once Clinton was replaced
by John Kerry at the State Department did serious diplomacy displace brinksmanship and ever-rising
tensions.
That begs the question "What's Rand Paul's definition of perpetual war?" We've been at war
since 2003. There's no end in sight. That seems like "perpetual" to me. Do they need to be bigger
wars or for there to be more of them in order to meet Paul's threshold for perpetual?
'Know neither your enemy nor yourself', is how US got into this predicament. How many places
has the CIA 'organized' to such good effect? Most effectively with Jihadis grown from Afghanistan
reorganized in Syria over nearly 40 years.
What are you who calls the 'enemy' sinners when your country out does the 'enemy' in war
crime across the world?
I don't think liberals are going to establish a committee on un-American activities or blackball
people.
On the other hand, I do think that some people would publish things like Robert Parry's article
because they don't like sunshine shining on their activities.
a vociferous campaign against alleged communists in the US government and other institutions
carried out under Senator Joseph McCarthy in the period 1950–54. Many of the accused were blacklisted
or lost their jobs, although most did not in fact belong to the Communist Party.
k has TDS, cognitive dissonance, everything else is confirmation bias leading from a severe case
of self pity over the neolibs' Clinton losing and missing the chance to experience WW III over
Putin.
"... Because that's what pays and what brought him where he is now. Krugman is not a scientist ready to be burned for his convictions. He is a despicable presstitute. Such people have no morals. ..."
"... Plato oil might throw a monkey wrench into such projections. Globalization is based on cheap oil and consume obscene amount of it for transportation of food and goods from one continent to another. ..."
"... Also Kunsler question stands: what type of growth do we need? Growth of what? Of Wall Street banks and hedge funds? Of private equity sharks ? Do we need more Wal-Marts, more McDonalds? Do we need more battleships, fighter planes and attack helicopters? ..."
"... Or we need more hybrid and electrical cars, huge upgrade of the US national grid (east-West high voltage lines, new, safer types of nuclear reactors and huge investments in improving oil extraction technologies. ..."
Did he really know nothing of economic history? Did he not think that the US would follow 19th
century free trade colonies and semi-colonies into dustbin and economic hell of deindustrialization?
Had Krugman never honestly heard of the city of Camden? Did he never wonder at the consequences
of 0% tariffs in a mercantilist world?
Time for free trade economists to sit down, be quiet and admit their mistakes.
"Why did Krugman insist free trade would be wonderful?"
Because that's what pays and what brought him where he is now. Krugman is not a scientist
ready to be burned for his convictions. He is a despicable presstitute. Such people have no morals.
Absolutely the best description and explanation of Trump and his presidency that I read
" Trump administration is basing its budget projections on the assumption that the U.S.
economy will grow very rapidly over the next decade - in fact, almost twice as fast as independent
institutions like the Congressional Budget Office and the Federal Reserve expect. There is,
as far as we can tell, no serious analysis behind this optimism; instead, the number was plugged
in to make the fiscal outlook appear better.
I guess this was only to be expected from a man who keeps insisting that crime, which is
actually near record lows, is at a record high, that millions of illegal ballots were responsible
for his popular vote loss, and so on: In Trumpworld, numbers are what you want them to be,
and anything else is fake news. ..."
I'm going to keep this metric in mind whenever Trump or his Administration declares something
to be right and everyone else wrong, i.e., fake news
Plato oil might throw a monkey wrench into such projections. Globalization is based on cheap oil
and consume obscene amount of it for transportation of food and goods from one continent to another.
Also Kunsler question stands: what type of growth do we need? Growth of what? Of Wall Street
banks and hedge funds? Of private equity sharks ? Do we need more Wal-Marts, more McDonalds? Do
we need more battleships, fighter planes and attack helicopters?
Or we need more hybrid and electrical cars, huge upgrade of the US national grid (east-West
high voltage lines, new, safer types of nuclear reactors and huge investments in improving oil
extraction technologies.
The political stability of neoliberal society much like stability of Bolshevism depends on
whether the promises of higher standard of living for everybody are delivered.
If not, and for the bottom 80% they were not, the society enters the period of political instability.
Which in the USA probably has started with the election of Trump.
MSM dogs who are now barking at Trump are barking to the wrong tree.
"... Give Putin some credit - he ended the Yeltsin crony capitalism that allowed companies like Yukos to be seized by a small group of Yeltsin's buddies. Of course in ending this reign, it is open question who now owns these rights. These article sheds no light on the real question. ..."
"... After Jeffrey Sachs, Larry Summers, the Harvard boys and your neoliberal friends put the former Soviet Union through shock therapy in the early 1990s, Russia's GDP shrank by 50 percent. No wonder they turned to a strong man authoritarian. ..."
"... US spends $5T breaking up Iraq and Afghanistan under the continuum war party and you pick on Putin! There are no differences among politicians when it comes to filling the pentagon trough, except with Trump wanting to back off war with Putin. Putin a dictator yeah but it is not better that the MIC is dictator for life over US spending. ..."
"... Stop finding strawmen to make war on and deal with the damage already done here, by executives peddling F-35 job programs. ..."
"After 14 years in power of Russia, and the amount of money that the country has made, and
the amount of money that hasn't been spent on schools and roads and hospitals and so on, all that
money is in property, bank -- Swiss bank accounts -- shares, hedge funds, managed for Putin and his
cronies," he added.
Not that Putin couldn't be worth $200 billion. I bet he is. But how did he get this wealth?
Oh yea - those Russian oil companies. That is where Russia's main source of wealth lies.
Give
Putin some credit - he ended the Yeltsin crony capitalism that allowed companies like Yukos to
be seized by a small group of Yeltsin's buddies. Of course in ending this reign, it is open question
who now owns these rights. These article sheds no light on the real question.
I do not have a single shred of respect for Putin. I do not have a single shred of respect for
the Chinese leaders. But somehow we have to have diplomatic relationships with both.
And we are tied at the hip with the Chinese economy. And somewhat with the Russians. And we
agree some language does not belong here.
After Jeffrey Sachs, Larry Summers, the Harvard boys and your neoliberal friends put the former
Soviet Union through shock therapy in the early 1990s, Russia's GDP shrank by 50 percent.
No wonder they turned to a strong man authoritarian.
US spends $5T breaking up Iraq and Afghanistan under the continuum war party and you pick on Putin!
There are no differences among politicians when it comes to filling the pentagon trough, except
with Trump wanting to back off war with Putin. Putin a dictator yeah but it is not better that the MIC is dictator for life over US spending.
Stop finding strawmen to make war on and deal with the damage already done here, by executives
peddling F-35 job programs.
A problem with today's views about globalization is that they look backward rather than forward.
The future's globalization is much different from the past's globalization. In particular, growing
nationalism is the future in the places, such as China, that have benefited from globalization.
By that I mean China is beginning to produce goods for China firms rather than for western firms
to compete with goods produced for western (American) firms including goods produced in China
for western firms.
It's a much different dynamic than what we have experienced in the past 30 years. And the response
to the new globalization should (and will) be much different.
Ironically, Trump's views about globalization come closer to what will be the response as western
firms adjust to the new globalization. Is Trump that smart? No, it's just that everybody else
is that dumb.
"... Fig. 3a Income Share of U.S. Top 1% (Reich, 2013) & 3b Reich notes that the two peaks look like a suspension bridge, with highs followed by precipitous drops. (Original Source: Piketty & Saez, 2003) ..."
"... Paying for policy favors ..."
"... Removing constraints on dangerous behavior ..."
"... Increasing the public's vulnerability ..."
"... Increasing their own intake ..."
"... financial intermediaries. ..."
"... Or Ben Bernanke in his book "The Courage to Act": "Money is fungible. One dollar is like any other". ..."
"... "I adapted this general idea to show how, by affecting banks' loanable funds, monetary policy could influence the supply of intermediated ..."
"... no longer depend exclusively on insured deposits for funding, nondeposit sources of funding are likely to be relatively more expensive than deposits" ..."
"... The first channel worked through the banking system By developing expertise in gathering relevant information, as well as by maintaining ongoing relationships with customers, banks and similar intermediaries ..."
"... and thus hurt borrowers" (Bernanke [1983b]). ..."
"... A herding started by William McChesney Martin Jr, that thought "banks actually pick up savings and pass them out the window, that they are intermediaries ..."
"... obviously not so in any human activity. ..."
"... We believe Regenerative Economics can provide a unifying framework capable of galvanizing a wide array of reform groups by clarifying the picture of what makes societies healthy. But, this framework will only serve if it is backed by accurate theory and effective measures and practice. This soundness is part of what Capital Institute and RARE are trying to develop. ..."
"... haha, unfortunately it's the apex predator species that is in danger of sudden extinction as its prey declines. Of course the Darwinian analogy doesn't hold up well because Darwinian selection works on all individuals of a species without distinction. A much better analogy is a rigged game. ..."
According to a recent study by Oxfam International, in 2010 the top 388
richest people owned as much wealth as the poorest half of the world's
population– a whopping 3.6 billion people. By 2014, this number was down to
85 people. Oxfam claims that, if this trend continues, by the end of 2016
the top 1% will own more wealth than everyone else in the world combined. At
the same time, according to Oxfam, the extremely wealthy are also extremely
efficient in dodging taxes, now hiding an estimated $7.6 trillion in
offshore tax-havens.[3]
Why should we care about such gross economic
inequality?[4] After all, isn't it natural? The science of flow says: yes,
some degree of inequality is natural, but extreme inequality violates two
core principles of systemic health: circulation and balance.
Circulation represents the lifeblood of all flow-systems, be they
economies, ecosystems, or living organisms. In living organisms, poor
circulation of blood causes necrosis that can kill. In the biosphere, poor
circulation of carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, etc. strangles life and would cause
every living system, from bacteria to the biosphere, to collapse. Similarly,
poor circulation of money, goods, resources, and services leads to economic
necrosis – the dying off of large swaths of economic tissue that ultimately
undermines the health of the economy as a whole.
In flow systems, balance is not simply a nice way to be, but a set of
complementary factors – such as big and little; efficiency and resilience;
flexibility and constraint – whose optimal balance is critical to
maintaining circulation across scales. For example, the familiar branching
structure seen in lungs, trees, circulatory systems, river deltas, and
banking systems (Fig. 1) connects a geometrically constant ratio of a few
large, a few more medium-sized, and a great many small entities. This
arrangement, which mathematicians call a fractal, is extremely common
because it's particular balance of small, medium, and large helps optimize
circulation across different levels of the whole. Just as too many large
animals and too few small ones creates an unstable ecosystem, so financial
systems with too many big banks and too few small ones tend towards poor
circulation, poor health, and high instability.
In his documentary film, Inequality for All, Robert Reich uses virtuous
cycles to clarify how robust circulation of money serves systemic health. In
virtuous cycles, each step of money movement makes things better. For
example, when wages go up, workers have more money to buy things, which
should increase demand, expand the economy, stimulate hiring, and boost tax
revenues. In theory, government will then spend more money on education
which will increase worker skills, productivity and hopefully wages. This
stimulates even more circulation, which starts the virtuous cycle over
again. In flow terms, all of this represents robust constructive flow, the
kind that develops human and network capital and enhances well-being for
all.
Of course, economies also sometimes exhibit vicious cycles, in which
weaker circulation makes everything go downhill – i.e., falling wages,
consumption, demand, hiring, tax revenues, government spending, etc. These
are destructive flows, ones that erode system health.
Both vicious and virtuous cycles have occurred in various economies at
various times and under various economic theories and policy pressures. But,
for the last 30 years, the global economy in general and the American
economy in particular has witnessed a strange combination pattern in which
prosperity is booming for CEOs and Wall Street speculators, while the rest
of the economy – particularly workers, the middle class, and small
businesses – have undergone a particularly vicious cycle. Productivity has
grown massively, but wages have stagnated. Consumption has remained
reasonably high because, in an effort to maintain their standard of living,
working people have: 1) added hours, becoming two-income families, often
with two and even three jobs per person; and 2) increased household debt.
Inequality has skyrocketed because effective tax rates on the 1% have
dropped (notwithstanding a partial reversal under Obama), while their income
and profits have risen steeply.
We should care about this kind of inequality because history shows that
too much concentration of wealth at the top, and too much stagnation
everywhere else indicate an economy nearing collapse. For example, as Reich
shows (Figure 1a & b), both the crashes of 1928 and 2007 followed on the
heels of peaks in which the top 1% owned 25% of the country's total wealth.
Fig. 3a Income Share of U.S. Top 1% (Reich, 2013) & 3b Reich
notes that the two peaks look like a suspension bridge, with highs followed
by precipitous drops. (Original Source: Piketty & Saez, 2003)
What accounts for this strange mix of increasing concentration at the top
and increasing malaise everywhere else? Putting aside the parallels to 1929
for a moment, most common explanations for today's situation include: the
rise of technology which makes many jobs obsolete; and globalization which
puts incredible pressures on companies to lower wages and outsource jobs to
compete against low-wage workers around the world.
But, while technology and globalization are clearly creating
transformative pressures, neither of these factors completely explains our
current situation. Yes, technology makes many jobs obsolete, but it also
creates many new jobs. Yet, where the German, South Korean and Norwegian
governments invest in educating their workforce to fill those new jobs, the
American government has been cutting back on education for decades. A
similar thought holds for globalization. Yes, high-volume industrialism –
that is, head-to-head competition over price of mass-produced, uniform goods
– leads to a race to the bottom; that's been known for a long time. But in
The Work of Nations (2010), Robert Reich also points out that the companies
that are flourishing through globalization and technology are ones pursuing
what he calls high-value capitalism, the high-quality customization of goods
and services that can't be duplicated by mass-produced uniformity at cheap
places around the world.
So, while the impacts of globalization and technology are profound, the
real explanation for inequality lies primarily with an economic belief that,
intentionally or not, serves to concentrate wealth at the top by extracting
it from everywhere else. This belief system is called variously
neoliberalism, Reaganomics, the Chicago School, and trickle-down economics.
It is easily recognized by its signature ideas: deregulation; privatization;
cut taxes on the rich; roll back environmental protections; eliminate
unions; and impose austerity on the public. The idea was that liberating
market forces would cause a rising tide that lifted all boats, but the only
boat that actually rose was that of the .01%. Meanwhile, instability has
grown.
The impact this belief system has had on the American economy and its
capacities can be seen in American education. Trickle-down theories are all
about cutting taxes on the wealthy, which means less money for public
education, more young people burdened with huge college debt, and fewer
American workers who can fill the new high-tech jobs.
To be fair, this process is not just about greed. Most of the people who
participate in this economic debacle do not realize its danger because they
believed what they were told by the saints and sages of economics, and many
are rewarded for following its principles. So, what really causes the kind
of inequality that drives economies toward collapse? The basic answer from
the science of flow is: economic necrosis. But, let me flesh out the story.
Institutional economists talk about two main types of economic
strategies: extractive and solution-seeking. (Hopefully, these names are
self-explanatory.) Most economies contain both. But, if the extractive
forces become too powerful, they begin to use their power to rig the rules
of the economic game to favor themselves. This creates what scientists call
a positive feedback loop, one in which "the more you have, the more you
get." Seen in many kinds of systems, this loop creates a powerful pull that
sucks resources to the top, and drains it away from the rest of the system
causing necrosis. For example, chemical runoff into the Gulf of Mexico
accelerates algae growth. This creates an escalating, "the more you have,
the more you get" process, in which massive algae growth sucks up all the
oxygen in the surrounding area, killing all of the nearby sea life (fish,
shrimp, etc.) and creating a large "dead zone."
Neoliberal economics set up a parallel situation by allowing the wealthy
to use their money to extract ever more money from the overall economy. The
uber-wealthy grow wealthier by:
Paying for policy favors
– big corporate bailouts and
subsidies; lobbying; etc.
Removing constraints on dangerous behavior
– removing
environmental protections; not prosecuting financial fraud offenders;
ending Glass-Steagall, etc.
Increasing the public's vulnerability
– increasing
monopolistic power by diminishing antitrust regulations; limiting the
public's ability to sue big corporations; limiting Medicare's ability to
negotiate for lower pharmaceutical rates; limiting bankruptcy for student
loans, etc.
Increasing their own intake
– rising CEO salaries and
escalating Wall Street gambling; and limiting their own outflows –
externalizing costs, cutting worker wages and lowering their own taxes.
All of these processes help the already rich concentrate more, and
circulate less. In flow terms, therefore, gross inequality indicates a
system that has: 1) too much concentration and too little circulation; and
2) an imbalance of wealth and power that is likely to create ever more
extraction, concentration, unaccountability, and abuse. This process
accelerates until the underlying human network becomes exhausted and/or the
ongoing necrosis reaches a point of collapse. When this point is reached,
the society will have three choices: learn, regress, or collapse.
What then shall we do? Obviously, we need to improve our "solution
seeking" behavior in realms from business and finance to politics and media.
Much of this is already taking place. From socially-responsible business and
alternative forms of ownership, to democratic reform groups, alternative
media, and the new economy movement – reforms are arising on all sides.
But, the solutions we need are also often blocked by the forces we are
trying to overcome, and impeded by the massive merry-go-round momentum of
"business as usual." Today's reforms also lack power because they are taking
place piecemeal, in a million separate spots with very little cross-group
unity.
How do we overcome these obstacles? The science of flow offers not so
much a specific strategy, as an empowering change of perspective. In
essence, it provides a more effective way to think about the processes we
see every day.
The dynamics explained above are very well known; they are basic physics,
just like the law of gravity. Applying them to today's economic debates can
be extremely helpful because the latter have devolved into ideological
debates devoid of any scientific foundation.
We believe Regenerative Economics can provide a unifying framework
capable of galvanizing a wide array of reform groups by clarifying the
picture of what makes societies healthy. But, this framework will only serve
if it is backed by accurate theory and effective measures and practice. This
soundness is part of what Capital Institute and RARE are trying to develop.
System Dynamics of Steve Keene is clearly more useful than equilibrium
dogma. He predicted the 2008 crash, though I think he was only lucky ..
modeling is always only good for interpolation, never for extrapolation,
unless you are lucky enough to only be dealing with linear changes over
time.
POSTED: Dec 13 2007 06:55 PM |
The Commerce Department said retail sales in Oct 2007 increased by 1.2%
over Oct 2006, & up a huge 6.3% from Nov 2006.
10/1/2007,,,,,,,-0.47,,,,,,, -0.22 * temporary bottom
11/1/2007,,,,,,, 0.14,,,,,,, -0.18
12/1/2007,,,,,,, 0.44,,,,,,,-0.23
1/1/2008,,,,,,, 0.59,,,,,,, 0.06
2/1/2008,,,,,,, 0.45,,,,,,, 0.10
3/1/2008,,,,,,, 0.06,,,,,,, 0.04
4/1/2008,,,,,,, 0.04,,,,,,, 0.02
5/1/2008,,,,,,, 0.09,,,,,,, 0.04
6/1/2008,,,,,,, 0.20,,,,,,, 0.05
7/1/2008,,,,,,, 0.32,,,,,,, 0.10
8/1/2008,,,,,,, 0.15,,,,,,, 0.05
9/1/2008,,,,,,, 0.00,,,,,,, 0.13
10/1/2008,,,,,,, -0.20,,,,,,, 0.10 * possible recession
11/1/2008,,,,,,, -0.10,,,,,,, 0.00 * possible recession
12/1/2008,,,,,,, 0.10,,,,,,, -0.06 * possible recession
Trajectory as predicted:
BERNANKE SHOULD HAVE SEEN THIS COMING. IN DEC. 2007 I COULD.
With a simple spreadsheet projection of flows one can see a lot,
without fancy mathematics, using just simple difference equation
models, even models that display cyclical behavior. For example, with
any internal software development, the quantity of legacy applications
increase as they are created, unless retirement of legacy applications
is more rapid.
More often replacement occurs, rather than actual retirement. But
retirement of legacy applications is harder than you might think,
because of real dependency one can't retire them by fiat. The cost
of maintaining legacy applications, isn't zero. So with a fixed
software development/maintenance budget, the percentage of
expenditures to legacy applications approaches saturation, even
without figuring in the cost of replacement (similar to the rolling
over of loans vs retiring of loans). Short term maintenance using
patches, can only continue for so long, eventually wholesale
replacement is necessary.
Usually the only way to retire a legacy application is to produce a
newer and more expensive application, that itself has higher
maintenance costs. We dig the problem well deeper. Thus the
exponential decay of funds available for new development, or
replacement development, not only strangles new initiatives, but even
strangles the ability to maintain operations long term. That is why
there are still millions of lines of Cobol still working every day.
There is no free lunch, entropy reigns unless countered by new
forms of initiative. Usually the end result is an extension and
dilution of the problem, which then resumes decay on a larger scale.
This is what happens with the attempt to allay insurance costs by ever
larger pools, but there is a limit to the size of the pool, once that
limit is reached, the gambit no longer works. Long term problems
overwhelm short term solutions.
An exponentially increasing real economy covers all sins. In
absence of that, an exponentially increasing debt economy covers
all sins, temporarily because interest has a way of catching
up with you. See Greece.
Banks turned off the money spigot to developers by the start of
'07, if I recall. Developers and policy makers knew then there was a
recession, but the public was kept in the dark. After the market
crash, the consumers were punished instead of the Wall Street looters.
The only people who predicted the crisis were a handful of
post-Keynesians and Marxists. I'm more familiar with the work of the
latter, but for them it wasn't luck. They identified structural problems
with the economy that could not be fixed by simply utilizing stabilizers
(fiscal/monetary policy) and knew a massive crisis would occur once the
bubbles popped and exposed the real economy's underlying weakness. Some
believed that this crisis was the result of the tendency of the rate of
profit to fall and simultaneous downturns in the business cycle and the
profit cycle. I think the more convincing view is that low profit rates
in the manufacturing sector caused by a global crisis of
overproduction/under-utilization of capacity has meant that the real
economy has been weak since the 70's and that growth since then has come
from asset bubbles (Japanese real estate in the 80's, US stock market in
the 90's, US real estate in the 00's). These are problems that no amount
of fiscal stimulus can fix in the long run.
The author briefly touched on it. It's ALL about the circular flow of
savings. And the flow's stopped beginning in 1981, though really in 1966
(also Larry Summer's start of secular strangulation). That's why N-gDp
decelerated and there was a 35 year bull market in bonds.
You have to retain the capacity, like Albert Einstein, to hold two
thoughts in your mind simultaneously – "to be puzzled when they conflicted,
and to marvel when he could smell an underlying unity". "People like you and
me never grow old", he wrote a friend later in life. "We never cease to
stand like curious children before the great mystery into which we were
born".
The smartest man to walk on earth was Leland Pritchard, Ph.D. Chicago,
1933, Economics, MS, Syracuse, statistics.
All bank-held savings originate, and are impounded and ensconced, within
the commercial banking system. Say what? Yes, the CBs do not loan out
existing deposits, saved or otherwise. The CBs always create new money
whenever they lend/invest (loans + investments = deposits). Thus bank-held
savings are un-used and un-spent. They are lost to both consumption and
investment. From the standpoint of an individual bank, the institution is an
intermediary (micro-economics), however, from the standpoint of the
collective system of member banks (macro-economics), the institution is a
deposit taking, money creating, financial institution, DFI.
The upshot is profound. The welfare of the CBs is dependent upon the
welfare of the non-banks (the CB's customers). I.e., money (savings) flowing
through the NBs never leaves the CB system. Consequently the expansion of
"saved" deposits, in whatever deposit classification, adds nothing to a
total commercial bank's liabilities, assets, or earning assets (nor the
forms of these earning assets). And the cost of maintaining interest-bearing
deposit accounts is greater, dollar for dollar, than the cost of maintaining
non-interest-bearing demand deposits. Interest collectively for the
commercial banking system, is its' largest expense item (and thus its' size
isn't necessarily synonymous with its profitability).
This is the source of the pervasive error (and our social unrest, e.g.,
higher murder rates), that characterizes the sui generis Keynesian economics
(the Gurley-Shaw thesis), that there is no difference between money and
liquid assets.
The CBs & NBs have a symbiotic relationship. And so do the have's and
have not's. Unless the upper quintile's savings are expeditiously activated,
a corrosive degenerative economic impact is subsequently fostered.
The Golden Era in U.S. economics (Les trente glorieuses) was where
democratized pooled savings were expeditiously activated (put back to work)
and matched with real-investment, non-inflationary, outlets by the thrifts,
MSBs, CUs, and S&Ls (principally investments in long-term residential
mortgages). And in the good ol days, we had gov't incentivized, FSLIC safety
nets for non-bank conduits. Now we only have FDIC safety nets for the
commercial bank clientele (which further retards savings velocity).
I.e., "risk on" is not higher FDIC insurance coverage (the FDIC formally
modified the assessment base in 2011 to include all bank liabilities – which
along with the LCR, contracted the E-$ market), not increased Basel bank
capital adequacy provisioning (which literally destroys the money stock),
not an increased FDIC assessment fee on 1/1/2007, or 4/1/2009, or 4/1/2011,
or an increased churn in speculative stock purchases (the transfer of
ownership in existing assets).
This post laudably critiques wealth inequality, but it suffers from the
"Newtonia Delusion" that confuses economic thought in general through
metaphorical malapropism.
Physcial systems possess a determinism and time-invariant structure that
enables mathematical modelling. Economic systems are cultural artificacts
that are not time-invariant. Money is a cultural construct, a form of social
imagination and lacks any sort of deterministic attributes. Newtonian
metaphors of flow and accumulation restrict analytical illlumination even
though they enable quick and simple calculation.
Money is only one form of a "coordinate system" that enables the
measurement of forms of social interaction and cooperation. And it's
one-dimensional. This makes it useful given its parsimonious simplicity but
it badly restricts complete explanatory power. Physicists know the choice of
a coordinate systems influences measurements of phenomenon, and they
developed math techniques to neutralize that influence - I think use of
tensors in relativity is one example. Economics relies on "money" and
resultant ideas of "growth" or 'recessionn" because that's all it knows how
to do.
First, what does "collapse" mean in the context of the post. The word is
vague, undefined and subject to a multitude of interpretations - that's not
"scientific" at all. "Wealth" is also vague. Presumably it means possession
of assets that can be converted into money, so in effect is uses "money" as
a sole coordinate basis, and that's reasonable as a form of dimensional
reduction, but it fails to measure the implied asset value of any sort of
social safety net available to those without assets. That's no rationale for
inequality - and anybody wants a job more than a safety net - but it's a
logical flaw. Third, the nature of economic structures and cultural
relations isn't easily quantifiable or translateable into money; living in a
just, fair and inclusive society has an intrinsic value that defies easy
measurement through the "money basis". Measuring relies instead on
application of a sense of justice and honest sensibility.
It would be bettter to start analysis with a non-monetary vision of the
social rights any citizen of a community should have access to. This form of
thinking in fact was the normal and dominant form over most of human
history, when people lived in non-monetary tribal structures. And what their
implied responsibilities are to gain that accesss. Use that as a
time-invariant basis and then introduce money but only as one method of
measurement of economic change, there could be other social indicators that
might be used as coordinate systems too; use of these could result in very
different measurements of ecoonomic phenomeenon than result with the money
basiis. That would force the sort of thinking that's required for analytical
clarity and ompleteness, but that doesn't exist in economics
(See I can bang out a comment that doesn't mention jungle boogie butts or
hot women! Calling women hot isn't bad, as long as it's respectful and
flattering and inclusive. Women in general are hot! What do you want? to
live in a world full of gay guys or what? Hahaha. Sorry I can't help it.)
Turchin has been working on proxies, to get some measures of
well-being and political instability. One measure of social rights could
be the right to live, so life expectancy could be used. Dead is dead and
is a hard number. Chicago police historically have a different criteria
of what my rights are than I do, so the ecological measures can avoid
such definitional fuzziness.
Another Turchin point relevant to the post is that in-group variance
is only meaningful used as a multiplier of in-group selection, and in
context of other groups. Extreme inequality does not necessarily cause
economic collapse, and coherent elites consistently crush popular
revolts. The "the more you have, the more you get" feedback loop can also
be seen as a consolidation and success of a certain trait ("rich"), and a
re-sort of within-group dynamics (national citizenry) to between-group
dynamics (haves & nots).
(Also, economics does not concern itself with ompleteness, as rational
actors cannot be omplete, and an agent who is omplete often withdraws
from economic systems.)
I believe that biggest problem in economics is not the dogma created
by money(though its a problem of Course) , but rather biggest problem is
lack of a clearly defined goal. "Economic development" ,which is
generally termed as goal of economics , is very ambiguous and this
ambiguity is creating problems.
Physcial systems possess a determinism and time-invariant structure
that enables mathematical modelling. Economic systems are cultural
artificacts that are not time-invariant.
Very, very few physical systems involve time invariant modeling.
Almost every physical system represented by a mathematical model
describes how that system changes with time. Otherwise it wouldn't be a
very useful model. Few things can be said to be at steady state and even
when they are it is usually a simplification, not an outgrowth of time
invariance. For example a chemical reaction A + B-> C at rate k1 and C ->
A + B at rate k2 is said to be at equilibrium (steady state) when k1=-k2.
Even at steady state the reaction is proceeding in both directions and
can be thrown out of equilibrium by a change in concentration,
temperature, volume, or any host of other factors. After the shock the
system will again tend towards an equilibrium but there is no requirement
that the new equilibrium be the same as the last one. And all the
equations that describe how we went from equilibrium 1 to 2 all involve
time. Neoclassical morons obsessed with equilibrium seam to be confused
by this and assume time is irrelevant and that full employment will
always return.
Economists are pretty much the only people I see that try to use time
invariant models. I think it is a great step forward that economists like
Keen have been trying to use the full spectrum of time variant models.
The fact that the models are relatable to models of other physical
systems is more an outgrowth of calculous than anything else.
I actually was out today doing stuff & plan to go star gazing
tonite!
What I meant is the equations that map the movement of the moon and
planets or heat diffusion or chemical reactions or sound propagation
worked in November 1887 the same way they'll work in July 2020.
Of course experimental measurements change through time, depending
on the phenomenon being measured. But the natural phenomenon modeled
by the equations themselves are time invariant as are the equations,
or science wouldn't work. That's why they're called natural laws.
Now wait a minute here. While I appreciate getting my terms
correct and such – frame invariant, yeah, that's what I need to
know – craazyman is a gift not to be distracted or encouraged
wrongly. Yes, his posting clarified the great lie of most
economic theory and its teaching and modeling, but his calling
is greater than that. "jungle boogie butts or hot women" are
rare on this site and should not be lightly diverted. Not that
I'm implying that our hostess or commentators of the female
persuasion aren't "hot women" or that jungle boogie butts aren't
finance, economics, politics, or power, but based on past
personal history, if I tried a craazyman, or even a craazyboy,
posting, I would be forever marked as hopeless.
Physical systems can be time-variant in that way too, it's
called a regime shift. We have observed that in several real
natural systems. In some cases apparent randomness actually is very
complicated but fully deterministic dynamics. Look up "bifurcation
diagram". Mathematical analysis can deal with that too.
Instead of the monetary system and flow, the analysis of human
populations, including the production and exchange of the fruits of
their labour, should start with the amount of cooperation as the
driving variable (or coordinate as you prefer to say)?
Odd that education investment is shown in the article as part of the loop
between employment and consumer spending. That is a very slow regenerative
path compared with the direct effect of employment, spending, and labor
demand.
The article wastes time extolling circulation merely because it resembles
that in natural systems such as tigers, but these do not necessarily serve
human interests. It benefits most people simply because they need the inputs
and outputs.
just institute a progressive tax on bank assets above-say-$700 billion.
would literally only affect a handful of banks and do much to rein in the
seize of the megabanks.
oh wait, all these banks are blue state banks (JPM, C, WFC, BAC) and
friends w/Schumer, Pelosi and Uncle Warren owns big chunks in WFC and AXP.
Capitalism is a balance between supply and demand but we only put
in half a system.
1) Money at the top is mainly investment capital as those at the top can
already meet every need, want or whim. It is supply side capital.
2) Money at bottom is mainly consumption capital and it will be spent on
goods and services. It is
demand side capital.
Marx noted the class struggle between the two sides that neither can win,
to do so destroys the system, either supply or demand will cease to exist.
The balance has yet to be recognised and we flick between the two sides
until everything crashes into the end stops.
Before the 1930s – Supply Side, Neoclassical Economics
By the 1920s, productivity has reached a stage where supply exceeds
demand and extensive advertising is required to manufacture the demand for
the excess supply.
Taxes are lowered on the wealthy and there is an excess of investment
capital which pours into the US stock market. The banks get in on the act
and use margin lending to fuel this boom in US stocks.
There is a shortage of consumption capital and the necessary consumption
can only be maintained with debt.
1929 – Wall Street Crash
The investment capital was used to blow an asset bubble and not for
productive investment, it all ends in tears. The Great Depression is the
debt deflation that follows from an economy saturated with debt.
After the 1930s – Demand Side, Keynesian Economics
The New Deal starts the turnaround of the US economy and after the Second
World War there is the Golden Age of the 1950s and 1960s. Redistributive
capitalism looks after the demand side of the equation.
With the target of full employment, the unions start to abuse their power
and by the 1970s we enter into stagflation. There is a shortage of
investment capital and demand exceeds supply leading to inflation, there is
not enough investment capital to redress the balance.
After the 1980s – Supply Side, Neoclassical Economics
Taxes are lowered on the wealthy and there is an excess of investment
capital which pours into various different asset classes and the first round
of crashes occur in the late 1980s. Leading to an early 1990s recession.
There is a shortage of consumption capital and the necessary consumption
can only be maintained with debt.
After the early 1990s recession the speculative, investment capital look
for another bubble to blow and finds the new dot.com companies.
Housing booms take off around the world, a speculative bubble for
everyone to get involved with and the UK and Japan have already been through
their first boom/bust by 1989.
Wall Street get's into 1920s mode and leverages up the speculative bubble
that is occurring there.
2008 – Wall Street Crash
The West is laid low and growth is concentrated in the East but they
start to use debt to keep things running.
Even with the Central Banker's best efforts the global economy falls into
the new normal of secular stagnation, the debt repayments are a constant
drag on the global economy.
2017 – World's eight richest people have same wealth as poorest 50%
All that investment capital with almost nowhere to invest due to the lack
of demand.
We just swing from the supply side, to the demand side and back
again until we crash into the end stops.
We could recognise the system requires a balance between supply
and demand.
a balance in real time, not over decades with crashes and booms
harder to do globally than nationally which is prolly why nationalism is
rising it was China imploding c. 2008 that brought the growth of the
global economy to a stop, I read somewhere .anyway the growth-forever
premise of globalism was nuts. Not even the push for austerity by the
neoliberals could make the required adjustments – and not for lack of
trying. Yes a new balance (good shoes ;-) is what we need. One that
understands the old saying 'form follows function' and create a
functioning economy, the scaffold of a new sustainable human society. One
in which banking actually follows the economy.
It's not a math error, it's an accounting error. It wasn't
precipitated as Alan Greenspan pontificated in his book "The Map
and the Territory", viz., FDR's Social Security Act. It wasn't
Nixon who introduced "indexing". It wasn't because from 1959 to
1966 the federal gov'ts net savings was in a rare surplus. It
wasn't because between 1965 & 2012 total gross domestic savings (as
a percent of gDp) declined from 22% to 13% (9 percentage points).
No, the New York Times sobriquet, the "Three-Card Maestro's"
error, like all other Keynesian economists, is the macro-economic
persuasion that maintains a commercial bank is a financial
intermediary (conduit between savers and borrowers matching savings
with investment):
Greenspan: "Much later came the evolution of finance, an
increasingly sophisticated system that enabled savers to hold
liquid claims (deposits) with banks and other
financial
intermediaries.
Those claims could be invested by
banks in in financial instruments that, in turn, represented the
net claims against the productivity enhancing tools of a complex
economy. Financial intermediation
was born"
Or Ben Bernanke in his book "The Courage to Act": "Money is
fungible. One dollar is like any other".
"I adapted this general idea to show how, by affecting
banks' loanable funds, monetary policy could influence the supply
of
intermediated
credit" (Bernanke and
Blinder, 1988)."
For example, although banks and other
intermediaries
no longer depend exclusively on insured deposits for funding,
nondeposit sources of funding are likely to be relatively more
expensive than deposits"
The first channel worked through the banking system By
developing expertise in gathering relevant information, as well as
by maintaining ongoing relationships with customers, banks and
similar intermediaries
develop "informational
capital."
"that the failure of financial institutions in the Great
Depression increased the cost of
financial intermediation
and thus hurt borrowers" (Bernanke [1983b]).
A herding started by William McChesney Martin Jr, that
thought "banks actually pick up savings and pass them out the
window, that they are
intermediaries
in the
true sense of the word."
From the standpoint of an individual bank (micro-economics), a
bank is an intermediary, however, from the standpoint of the entire
economy, the system process (macro-economics), a bank is a deposit
taking, money creating, financial institution.
The promulgation of commercial bank interest rate deregulation
(banks introducing liability management, buying their liquidity,
instead of following the old fashioned practice of storing their
liquidity), i.e., the removal of Reg. Q ceilings (the non-banks
were already deregulated until 1966), by the oligarch – the ABA,
(public enemy #1), or an increasing proportion of time to
transaction deposits liabilities within the DFIs, metastasized
stagflation and secular strangulation. Remunerating IBDDs
exacerbates this phenomenon (as subpar R-gDp illustrates).
I.e., every time a commercial bank buys securities from, or
makes loans to, the non-bank public it creates new money – deposit
liabilities, somewhere in the system. I.e., deposits are the result
of lending, and not the other way around. Bank-held savings are
un-used and un-spent. They are lost to both consumption and
investment. Unless savings are expeditiously activated outside of
the system (and all savings originate within the payment's system),
thru non-bank conduits, said savings exert a dampening economic
impact (destroying saving's velocity & thus AD). I.e., savings
flowing thru the non-banks, never leaves the CB system.
Craazyman says it all, but I have to say it too, just for my own mental
health.
How often do social "scientists" have to make this same mistake? Biology
is not physics, and human society is biology, and economics is not even
close to accurately describing human society, not even the economics part of
it.
Equilibria are achieved, and thermodynamic laws obeyed, on much greater
and on much smaller scales than an economy, which is not even a system, per
se. Life is anti-entropic, but the universe, the solar system, is not.
Communities are not "social networks." Terry Pratchett as usual brings
common sense to bear on metaphors like this. Metaphor, you know, using words
to convey something like the truth, but not exactly: "Oh, so it's a lie,
then."
You have just lost me. Of course economics is a complex system but it
is a system nonetheless. Wynne Godley's sectoral balance model is an
excellent example of a systems approach to economics, and it's precisely
the systems peoperties that attract me to it. MMT is a systems approach
by design and easily approached mathematically in that way if desired. I
have often considered how I would do it but no doubt there is someone
more able to do it than me.
The bonus of a systems approach would be the possibility of a
multitude of possible equilibrium states, some could be fixed, some
oscillatory if they include feedback with delay.
The author could also consider adding futile cycles to her list of
cycles, long recognised by biochemists.
Craazyman says it above. A "system of pulleys" is a system. A
"solar system" is a system. A galaxy, a liter of sodium bicarbonate
solution under defined temperature and pressure conditions, these are
systems. How is "economics" a system? What is it even a system of? Can
you define the parameters of even one of the aspects of economics in
some way that does not "leak energy" through every other aspect of
human activity, which is not accounted for in some way by the "system"
of economics? You can try, but you can't do it. That is why economics
is scientific just like astrology: it describes and explains
everything, but its only prediction is more jobs for its
practitioners.
There are "closed" and "open" systems. The behavior of the
former can be modeled and understood; the latter, less so (possible
only to some extent, and heavily dependent on the intellectual
framework that you bring to the table).
My experience is opposite. Usually in systems approaches most of
the detail can be ignored until it becomes important. They do not
require knowing the details of the system, instead they try to
simplify as far as is practical. Systems approaches attempt to
infer micro from gross macro behaviour. This is fundentally
opposite to orthodox economics. Godley's model illustrates this
well. You don't need to know details about every transaction
because parameters for aggregated transactions can be inferred from
macro data. You don't need to assume anything about motivations of
individuals or firms, but if necessary you could try to infer them.
I clearly need to go and do reading on open systems, because
understanding them makes for a richer intellectual life, like
poetry, or skimming rocks. For me, the chafing starts when
people try to apply a rigorous, mathematically based
scientifically accepted reproducible set of theories like those
of fluid dynamics (itself by no means fully elaborated) to a
field where the described system cannot be even be defined by
consensus.
What, for instance, exactly constitutes an "economic system,"
or a "system of economics," or an "economy"? Where is the
universally accepted definition of something even as basic as
money, a definition with scientific reliability, like the
definition of an atom in 1930? They just aren't there. You can
tell me yours, but it will not be the same as his, or hers. If
real scientists behaved that way, there could be no
breakthroughs: without a definition, there is nothing even solid
enough to break through.
And by scientific, I just have to fall back on Popper,
however old-fashioned that may seem. The propositions of
economics, like those of astrology and sociology, and also of
human nutrition, and so many other fields flogged by their
practitioners, remain unaccompanied by experimental
methodologies that result in reliable predictions of
reproducible results. They are therefore prolific with
unfalsifiable claims. They are, therefore, fraudulent at worst
and noisy at best, at a time where the direction of the public
discourse is increasingly controlled by central authorities with
agendas. A signal among the noise is harder and harder to
distinguish without the further impediment of additional
publish-or-perish verbiage which will be, more often than not,
weaponized by an interest group, if that was not actually the
reason for its creation to begin with.
Systematizers of non-scientific systems are either virtuous
"pre-scientists" or frauds. What they claim as the wider social
value of their work is the discriminating test. Alchemy and
astrology of yore ultimately evolved into chemistry and
astronomy, without actually contributing much information as
such: but without the need to make magic or gold from powders,
alembics, crucibles, and retorts, those tools moved into hands
directed by serious, patient minds, where they produced useful
and reliable information. (Not that circus entertainment,
handwaving, and noise were not great disseminators and
motivators of science, and remain so today!)
Until the dynamics of human society and psychology have been
fully described by anthropology, there will not be a
"fundamental atomic theory" for Economics to use to underpin its
scientific pretensions. It still rests completely on
demonstrably untrue assumptions, rules that can be proven not to
apply to human behavior. Most recently, the use of the "normal
curve" as generally applicable to economic "systems," because of
its near-universal employment in statistics, had catastrophic
results. This was easily predicted by anyone who has worked with
the normal curve; the Central Limit Theorem that underpins the
normal curve assumes that the assembled variables are
independent, not related functions of each other; and this is
obviously not so in any human activity.
So much of the
use of the normal curve is nothing more than hand-waving
hocus-pocus.
No serious reputable historian would claim any longer to be a
scientist, and if he did, he would be no true Scotsman, either.
But then, despite what I seem to be doing on these forums,
neither would a professionally trained historian think to
dictate public policy by appealing to the systematic rigor of
his craft.
Economists today should modestly retreat from their claims to
exercise any influence on public policy and direct their efforts
elaborating a true science. I believe that may never happen; and
I personally fear the unintended consequences that will result
from the political use of the kind of knowledge about human
motivations and collective activity that will be required to
bring it about; maybe less, however, than I fear nuclear war or
planetary desolation through aggressive environmental
destruction, which may be the alternative outcomes to that kind
of advance.
Money velocity falls because more and more savings are impounded and
ensconced within the payment's system. This started in 1981 with the
plateau in deposit financial innovation, the widespread introduction of
ATS, NOW, and MMDA accounts. Thus money velocity, formally a monetary
offset, started decelerating dropping N-gDp with it (and producing the 35
year bull market in bonds).
This should be evident with the remuneration of IBDDs beginning in
Oct. 2008. I.e., the 1966 S&L credit crunch is the economic paradigm and
precursor (lack of funds, not their cost). The "complete evaporation of
liquidity" on 8/9/2007 for BNP Paribas, "runs on ABCP money funds",
"shortage of safe, liquid, assets", "the funding crunch forced fire
sales", "efforts to replace funding that had evaporated in the panic",
i.e., non-bank dis-intermediation (an outflow of funds or negative cash
flow).
"Our goal was to increase the supply of short-term funding to the
shadow banking system"
Ben Bernanke, August 10, 2007:
"Our goal is to provide liquidity not to support asset prices per se
in any way. My understanding of the market's problem is that price
discovery has been inhibited by the illiquidity of the subprime-related
assets that are not trading, and nobody knows what they're worth, and so
there's a general freeze-up. The market is not operating in a normal way.
The idea of providing liquidity is essentially to give the market some
ability to do the appropriate repricing it needs to do and to begin to
operate more normally. So it's a question of market functioning, not a
question of bailing anybody out."
I.e., Bankrupt u Bernanke doesn't know a credit from a debit. Bad Ben
was solely responsible for the world-wide GR. My "market zinger" forecast
of Dec. 2012 foretold of the expiration of unlimited transaction deposit
insurance (putting savings back to work), not a "taper tantrum, not
budget "sequestration".
Seems like a sales-pitch to the 1% trying to convince the 1% that sharing
would be good .. I have my doubts about that strategy, the 1% respects power
and care very little (if anything at all) for the common good. Use the power
of the many in an democracy and force through the needed changes.
Continuing the model of a firm that requires software to function. If
the executives of the firm keep taking expensive vacations at the expense
of the firm, starving the software development/maintenance department of
resources .. then even if there were no other systemic problems, the firm
will fail (unless bailed out by a greater entity, as happened in
2008/2009). But in the end, who will be big enough, after we have
extended the risk pool to the entire planet, to bail out the planet, from
foolish management? I would suggest that the Roman Empire failed because
it was unable to overcome either long term systemic trends, nor
irresponsible management.
Inequality is directly correlated to corruption and the U.S. has an
exceeding corrupt political economy, hence the extreme inequality. Germany
and Japan, to take two prime examples, are part of the same global system
and are subject to the same forces, technology, corporate tax arbitrage
strategies, etc but neither of them have any where near the inequality of
the U.S. It's also worth noting they don't have financial grifters like Mitt
Romney and Steven Schwarzman amongst their most esteemed citizens.
So yes, it is all pretty complicated but at the end of the day the U.S.
is one of the most corrupt countries on Earth, certainly the most corrupt of
the Western democracies so our problems are no surprise. All this talk about
globalization, tax policy, education and technology are all distractions.
And that doesn't even begin to touch on the subject of our monetary system
which is at the root of the corruption.
Right on! – And the corruption is permitted, even encouraged, by the
"greed is good" philosophical basis of mainstream economics, and the
concentration of both media ownership and campaign finance and lobbying
in the hands of the wealthy.
Yes, this does deserve some kind of award for expressing a simple idea in
a pointlessly complicated way. When I was studying economics in the
paleolithic era, we were taught about the "propensity to consume" – in other
words the idea that the poorer you were the more of any extra income you
would spend as opposed to save. So if you give everyone on the minimum wage
20% more, then they will probably put it straight back into the economy. If
you give billionaires 20% more they probably won't. The more widely wealth
is spread, the more of it will be spent. This isn't a scientific law, but
it's an observation borne out by common sense.
Even Henry Ford, not exactly known for his altruism or philanthropy,
knew it made sense to give his workers a significant rise so that they
could afford the cars they were building for him.
I can't read this whole post this morning - but - my one note tune:
6% labor union density in non-gov work is like 20/10 blood pressure
:
it starves every other healthy process - even while starving the employee
herself.
Easy way back: if the 1935 Congress had intended (they didn't) to leave
any criminal enforcement of NLRA prohibited union busting to individual
states - Congress would not have had to change one word of the NLRA. States
in fact were left to make any form of collective bargaining (NLRA connected
or not) muscling an economic felony. There is no problem of federal
preemption when the area has been left blank.
Nor may the fed force local labor down an impassable road to union
organizing - because rules of road unenforceable and unenforced - when a
First Amendment protected right is at stake. To state that clearly: the
First Amendment is violated when government insists on a mode of action that
dismembers freedom of economic association before it starts.
I think he's saying more unions are needed, but the Federal
Government left it up to the states to stop the union busting,
which they have declined to do. The Feds can't enforce union
membership or collective bargaining as that would violate the first
amendment right to free association.
[cut-and-paste]
America should feel perfectly free to rebuild labor union density one
state at a time - making union busting a felony. Republicans will have
no place to hide.
Suppose the 1935 Congress passed the NLRA(a) intending to leave any
criminal sanctions for obstructing union organizing to the states.
Might have been because NLRB(b) conducted union elections take place
local by local (not nationwide) and Congress could have opined states
would deal more efficiently with home conditions - or whatever. What
extra words might Congress have needed to add to today's actual bill?
Actually, today's identical NLRA wording would have sufficed
perfectly.
Suppose, again, that under the RLA (Railroad Labor Act - covers
railroads and airlines, FedEx) - wherein elections are conducted
nationally - that Congress desired to forbid states criminalizing the
firing of organizers - how could Congress have worded such a
preemption (assuming it was constitutionally valid)? Shouldn't matter
to us. Congress did not!
"Renewable energy" is obviously the foundation of Regenerative Economics,
simply because energy itself is the foundation of all economics (as well as
of all life and of the "active" part of the universe). Yet all the focus on
renewable energy in recent years has done little or nothing to stop
escalating economic inequality.
I think a big thing missing from RARE is a theory and program for power.
What we need are institutional values and structures that will keep greed
under control without much effort. This means not just getting the
incentives right, but also the "political revolution" that will be needed to
implement them.
So I think not just about limits-to-growth but about the need for partial
universal ownership of all the major sources of wealth, combined with
limited stakeholder ownership (fossil fuels, large corporations, etc).
We believe Regenerative Economics can provide a unifying framework
capable of galvanizing a wide array of reform groups by clarifying the
picture of what makes societies healthy. But, this framework will only
serve if it is backed by accurate theory and effective measures and
practice. This soundness is part of what Capital Institute and RARE are
trying to develop.
Accuracy of analytical method aside, who will implement it? Who can? Not
those 8 dudes with 1/2 the world's wealth.
That depends on what kind of inequality you're talking about. Men
being paid $10/hr and women $8/hr to perform the same task is an
example of "binary" inequality. Either everyone is paid the same wage
(before the first performance review anyway) or they are not.
Income inequality is a bit different. If a CEO takes home 20 x more
per year than the lowest paid worker in the company income equality is
low (way lower than in any modern capitalist economy) if the CEO makes
300 x as much as the lowest paid worker, it is high. Income equality –
everyone being paid the same wage regardless of what they're doing to
earn it – is not the goal. Rather, it is reducing the gap between the
lowest and highest paid members of society.
Only jet settesr get the advantages of civilization at its heights. My
own partial solution has been an airport nation that advances flying
literacy and availability.
There is an amorphous factor arising out of the defined structure and
standard rights afforded travelers & businesses based on a separate airport
nation. (I admit this amorphous factor which causes me some presentation
problems.)
No human system will function without a common committed belief in it.
Airport movement of people & parcels is simpler to make comprehensive.
For example I have difficulty in attempting to expand passenger service in
NC because the corporation Norfolk Southern was given power to inhibit it
while getting the advantages of state responsibilities created with a buyout
of a rail company state company where it was controlled by shareholders.
A trick was done on us with the collusion of legislators.
We can simply say the RR as analogous is a matured industry to the point of
immaturity compared to an international airport accommodating both
freighters & passenger airliners.
These things will not directly make an economic theory, but are about
economic activity as enabled from basic port theory & the sociology of
ports.
For instance I advise women in nations prone to put them at a disadvantage
to put business offices on international airports which tend to be more
culturally neutral.
Appreciated the author's thought-provoking observations about the effects
of extreme concentration of wealth, with its enormous feedback loops and low
circulation of money that materially reduce the overall debt servicing
capacity of the private sector. But I also felt that she understated the
roles that private sector debt growth, central bank monetary policy, asset
price speculation and manipulation, and financial fraud have historically
played in causing economic collapse.
Playing Devil's Advocate I suppose you could argue that there is
something Darwinian about the way things are nowadays.
Apex predators are indeed flourishing and in a curious way they are
searching further afield and adapting to new 'food sources' as those closer
to home become less appealing, less nourishing and less worth the effort of
expending the energy trying to exploit, particularly when other tastier
morsels are so plentiful and readily available elsewhere.
Maybe we should just all get with the programme, know our places in the
grand scheme of things and resign ourselves to our evolutionary fate?
haha, unfortunately it's the apex predator species that is in
danger of sudden extinction as its prey declines. Of course the Darwinian
analogy doesn't hold up well because Darwinian selection works on all
individuals of a species without distinction. A much better analogy is a
rigged game.
Our problem is that the rich really suck. They are greedy and I would not
be surprised if many were psychologically diagnosed with anti social
personality disorder. They are without integrity and would fight tooth and
nail for their pilfered money.
But the status quo is like the Congo under Mobut Sese Seko. It is a
society build on kleotocracy. Like any such society, it is inherently
unstable with money going to a few.
The late 1960s had problems. The costs of the Vietnamese War, the excess
deficit spending, and the dependence on Middle Eastern oil all lead to
problems in the 1970s.
"As Paul Samuelson stressed, that assumption [propensity to equilibrium]
is necessary for economics to be science, as in mathed up, and the dominance
that economists have achieved is due to their scientific appearances and the
fact that their mathematical exposition enables them to dismiss lay
critics."
Why? Non-equilibrium is accessible to maths.
In branching systems such the one imagined for monetary flow in this
article, growth in the number of nodes at the terminals (and thus necrosis
of excess of nodes) is controlled/limited by the number of terminals of the
branching, let's call these capillaries, that can be accommodated inside the
volume of the whole versus the number of nodes than can be accommodated
inside the whole. Since the total number of capillaries grow at a lower rate
than the number of nodes as the volume of the whole increases, growth is
limited and excess growth in times of higher volume of the whole suffers
necrosis when the volume of the whole shrinks.
In a shift supported and welcomed in Washington, Latin
America has been moving to the right in the last year or
so. Three of South America's largest economies - Brazil,
Argentina, and Peru - now have right-wing presidents with
close ties to Washington and its foreign policy. The
standard "Washington Consensus" narrative, while ignoring
any US role in the region, sees the left governments that
were elected in South America over the past couple decades
as having ridden a commodities boom to populist victories,
with handouts to the poor and unsustainable spending. When
that boom collapsed, the story goes, so did the finances
of left governments and therefore their political
fortunes.
But this is a highly exaggerated and self-serving
narrative. Ecuador is a good example of how a left
government achieved success over the past decade through
positive and creative changes in economic policy, as well
as financial, institutional, and regulatory reform.
The details are also worth looking at because Ecuador's
experience shows that much of the rhetoric about how
"globalization" restricts the choices of governments to
those that please international investors is also
exaggerated. It turns out that even a relatively small,
middle-income developing country can adopt workable
alternative policy options - if people can elect a
government that is independent and responsible enough to
use them.
The results for the decade-plus of left government in
Ecuador (2007–16) include a 38 percent reduction in
poverty and a 47 percent reduction in extreme poverty.
Social spending as a percentage of GDP doubled, including
large increases in spending on education and healthcare.
Educational enrollment increased sharply for ages 17 and
under, and spending on higher education as a percent of
GDP became the highest in Latin America. Average annual
growth of income per capita was much higher than in the
prior 26 years (1.5 versus 0.6 percent), and inequality
was considerably reduced.
Public investment as a percent of GDP more than
doubled, and the results were widely appreciated in new
roads, hospitals, schools, and access to electricity.
Rafael Correa was elected president of Ecuador in 2006
and took office in January of 2007. A former economy
minister who was trained in the United States, he set out
to fix some of the structural and institutional problems
that had kept Ecuador from advancing. Policy was
handicapped by the fact that Ecuador had adopted the US
dollar as its currency in 2000. This meant that the
government couldn't influence its exchange rate and was
limited in how much it could use monetary policy. And it
reduced the Central Bank's ability to act as a lender of
last resort to the banking system.
This meant that the government had to be more efficient
and creative, and exert more control over the financial
system. In 2008, a new constitution was approved in a
referendum, and the central bank - which was previously
"independent" and mandated to focus on low inflation - was
now made part of the government's economic team. This was
very important in coordinating economic policy. The
conventional wisdom among most economists-and a pillar of
neoliberalism - is that central banks should be
independent of elected officials. In practice, this
usually means that they are unaccountable to the public,
but not so independent of powerful financial interests.
A new law in 2009 required that banks in Ecuador bring
45 percent of their liquid assets back into the country;
this requirement increased to 60 percent in 2012, and the
actual level was more than 80 percent by 2015. These and
other reforms that kept dollars in the country were
essential to overcoming the new government's first serious
challenge: the world financial crisis of 2008 and world
recession of 2009. Ecuador was one of the hardest-hit
countries in the hemisphere, since oil prices collapsed
and the government depended on oil for the majority of its
revenue. Another major source of dollars, remittances -
mostly money sent home by Ecuadorians working abroad -
also collapsed during the recession. This double shock
could have caused a prolonged recession or depression, but
it didn't, thanks to large increases in government
spending and a large stimulus in 2009. The recession
lasted just three quarters, costing about 1.3 percent of
GDP.
The next big economic shock was the much more prolonged
collapse in oil prices that began in the third quarter of
2014. This time, the government was even more creative: In
addition to some expansionary fiscal policy (i.e., running
bigger budget deficits), the central bank actually engaged
in quantitative easing, much as the US Federal Reserve did
in response to the recession. Ecuador's central bank
created billions of dollars that it lent to the government
for spending (and also to state-owned banks). This was
unexpected for a government that did not even have its own
currency, but it proved to be very helpful in the
recovery.
The most important decision in bringing about Ecuador's
current economic recovery was also perhaps the most
unorthodox: The government imposed a variety of tariffs on
imports under the World Trade Organization's provision for
emergency balance-of-payments safeguards. This reduction
of imports in 2015–16 added about 7.6 percentage points to
GDP during those years. This counteracted spending cuts
that the government had to make as revenues crashed.
The government of Correa and his party (Alianza PAIS)
was thus able to achieve considerable economic and social
progress, despite two recessions caused by serious
external shocks. Contrary to the Washington narrative,
this depended on major institutional reforms, financial
regulation, and smart policy choices, many of which went
against the conventional neoliberal wisdom.
Of course it helped that the president himself has a
PhD in economics and knew what he was doing, and that he
had a serious commitment to progressive governance from
the beginning. Still, Correa's government had to fight
powerful entrenched interests, including the bankers who
owned most of the television media when he took office. A
referendum in 2011 prohibited banks from owning media (and
vice versa), and that helped to reduce their stranglehold
on public debate. But the media have remained a powerful
and politicized right-wing force, as in other countries
with left governments - e.g. Brazil, where the major media
led a successful effort last year to remove Workers' Party
President Dilma Rousseff from office - despite the lack of
any impeachable offense.
The government's legacy will be tested in an election
this Sunday for president and national assembly....
In a shift supported and welcomed in Washington, Latin
America has been moving to the right in the last year or
so. Three of South America's largest economies - Brazil,
Argentina, and Peru - now have right-wing presidents with
close ties to Washington and its foreign policy. The
standard "Washington Consensus" narrative, while ignoring
any US role in the region, sees the left governments that
were elected in South America over the past couple decades
as having ridden a commodities boom to populist victories,
with handouts to the poor and unsustainable spending. When
that boom collapsed, the story goes, so did the finances
of left governments and therefore their political
fortunes.
But this is a highly exaggerated and self-serving
narrative. Ecuador is a good example of how a left
government achieved success over the past decade through
positive and creative changes in economic policy, as well
as financial, institutional, and regulatory reform.
The details are also worth looking at because Ecuador's
experience shows that much of the rhetoric about how
"globalization" restricts the choices of governments to
those that please international investors is also
exaggerated. It turns out that even a relatively small,
middle-income developing country can adopt workable
alternative policy options - if people can elect a
government that is independent and responsible enough to
use them.
The results for the decade-plus of left government in
Ecuador (2007–16) include a 38 percent reduction in
poverty and a 47 percent reduction in extreme poverty.
Social spending as a percentage of GDP doubled, including
large increases in spending on education and healthcare.
Educational enrollment increased sharply for ages 17 and
under, and spending on higher education as a percent of
GDP became the highest in Latin America. Average annual
growth of income per capita was much higher than in the
prior 26 years (1.5 versus 0.6 percent), and inequality
was considerably reduced.
Public investment as a percent of GDP more than
doubled, and the results were widely appreciated in new
roads, hospitals, schools, and access to electricity.
Rafael Correa was elected president of Ecuador in 2006
and took office in January of 2007. A former economy
minister who was trained in the United States, he set out
to fix some of the structural and institutional problems
that had kept Ecuador from advancing. Policy was
handicapped by the fact that Ecuador had adopted the US
dollar as its currency in 2000. This meant that the
government couldn't influence its exchange rate and was
limited in how much it could use monetary policy. And it
reduced the Central Bank's ability to act as a lender of
last resort to the banking system.
This meant that the government had to be more efficient
and creative, and exert more control over the financial
system. In 2008, a new constitution was approved in a
referendum, and the central bank - which was previously
"independent" and mandated to focus on low inflation - was
now made part of the government's economic team. This was
very important in coordinating economic policy. The
conventional wisdom among most economists-and a pillar of
neoliberalism - is that central banks should be
independent of elected officials. In practice, this
usually means that they are unaccountable to the public,
but not so independent of powerful financial interests.
A new law in 2009 required that banks in Ecuador bring
45 percent of their liquid assets back into the country;
this requirement increased to 60 percent in 2012, and the
actual level was more than 80 percent by 2015. These and
other reforms that kept dollars in the country were
essential to overcoming the new government's first serious
challenge: the world financial crisis of 2008 and world
recession of 2009. Ecuador was one of the hardest-hit
countries in the hemisphere, since oil prices collapsed
and the government depended on oil for the majority of its
revenue. Another major source of dollars, remittances -
mostly money sent home by Ecuadorians working abroad -
also collapsed during the recession. This double shock
could have caused a prolonged recession or depression, but
it didn't, thanks to large increases in government
spending and a large stimulus in 2009. The recession
lasted just three quarters, costing about 1.3 percent of
GDP.
The next big economic shock was the much more prolonged
collapse in oil prices that began in the third quarter of
2014. This time, the government was even more creative: In
addition to some expansionary fiscal policy (i.e., running
bigger budget deficits), the central bank actually engaged
in quantitative easing, much as the US Federal Reserve did
in response to the recession. Ecuador's central bank
created billions of dollars that it lent to the government
for spending (and also to state-owned banks). This was
unexpected for a government that did not even have its own
currency, but it proved to be very helpful in the
recovery.
The most important decision in bringing about Ecuador's
current economic recovery was also perhaps the most
unorthodox: The government imposed a variety of tariffs on
imports under the World Trade Organization's provision for
emergency balance-of-payments safeguards. This reduction
of imports in 2015–16 added about 7.6 percentage points to
GDP during those years. This counteracted spending cuts
that the government had to make as revenues crashed.
The government of Correa and his party (Alianza PAIS)
was thus able to achieve considerable economic and social
progress, despite two recessions caused by serious
external shocks. Contrary to the Washington narrative,
this depended on major institutional reforms, financial
regulation, and smart policy choices, many of which went
against the conventional neoliberal wisdom.
Of course it helped that the president himself has a
PhD in economics and knew what he was doing, and that he
had a serious commitment to progressive governance from
the beginning. Still, Correa's government had to fight
powerful entrenched interests, including the bankers who
owned most of the television media when he took office. A
referendum in 2011 prohibited banks from owning media (and
vice versa), and that helped to reduce their stranglehold
on public debate. But the media have remained a powerful
and politicized right-wing force, as in other countries
with left governments - e.g. Brazil, where the major media
led a successful effort last year to remove Workers' Party
President Dilma Rousseff from office - despite the lack of
any impeachable offense.
The government's legacy will be tested in an election
this Sunday for president and national assembly....
"... Pete Hegseth and Jesse Watters discuss the bitter establishment's desperation to manufacture a Trump scandal ..."
"... Most people don't know that after the 134 men died on the Forrestal fire in 1967 McCain was the ONLY person helicoptered off the ship. It was done for his own safety as many on the ship blamed him for causing the fire by "wet" starting his jet causing a plume of fire to shoot out his plane's exhaust and into the plane behind McCain causing the ordnance to cook off on that jet. McCain then panicked and dropped his own bombs onto the deck making matters much worse. McCain should have ended his career in jail. Oh, wait, he kinda did, maybe karma justice? ..."
"... FakeStream Media ..."
"... The very Fake Media has met their match ..."
Pete Hegseth and Jesse Watters discuss the bitter establishment's desperation to manufacture
a Trump scandal
TheBase1aransas 3 minutes ago
Alvina I think people that believe in freedom is not only the Best thing, but what built it.
We finally have Trump to speak for us.
Christine Lesch 4 hours ago
McCains a shumuck
Herbert Stewart 11 minutes ago
@Christine Lesch
I feel sorry for Arizona they are stuck with this guy. he needs to change parties
he had his turn and LOST1 america first!
Geoffry Allan
it appears quite apparent
that you people are really sad. trump is above all else, a good american. so.... stop being a
moron.
hexencoff 3 hours ago
no one gives a shit what John McCain says he's a scumbag!
hexencoff 3 hours ago
Jodi Boin i hope so too it's honestly very scary how far we have regressed as a country we are
fighting about the same things from 50 years ago everyone has their own beliefs and opinions and
some how adult conversation has been thrown away i mean we are still fighting over race relations
for crying out loud
Louis John 2 hours ago
@hexencoff
McCain is a trouble maker. supporter of the terrorist and warmonger Iraq Libya
Syria he is behind all the trouble scumbag
Gary M 3 hours ago
McCain is a globalist
belaghoulashi 2 hours ago
(edited) McCain has always been full of horseshit. And he has always relied on people calling
him a hero to get away with it. That schtick is old, the man is a monumental failure for this
country, and he needs to have his sorry butt kicked.
ryvr madduck 1 hour ago
+belaghoulashi
Most people don't know that after the 134 men died on the Forrestal fire in 1967 McCain was the
ONLY person helicoptered off the ship. It was done for his own safety as many on the ship blamed
him for causing the fire by "wet" starting his jet causing a plume of fire to shoot out his plane's
exhaust and into the plane behind McCain causing the ordnance to cook off on that jet. McCain
then panicked and dropped his own bombs onto the deck making matters much worse. McCain should
have ended his career in jail. Oh, wait, he kinda did, maybe karma justice?
Michael Cambo 4 hours ago
When you start to drain the swamp, the swamp creatures start to show.
Alexus Highfield 3 hours ago
@Michael Cambo
don't they...they do say shit floats.
Geoffry Allan 41 minutes ago
@Michael Cambo
- Trump has not drained the swamp he has surrounded himself with billionaires in his cabinet who
don't give a damn about the working middle class who struggle e eryday to make a living -
explain to me how he is draining the swamp
tim sparks 3 hours ago
Trump is trying so fucking hard to do a good job for us.
Integrity Truth-seeker 2 hours ago
@tim sparks
He is not trying... HE IS DOING IT... Like A Boss. Thank God Mark Taylor Prophecies
2017 the best is yet to come
Jodi Boin 3 hours ago
McCain is a traitor and is bought and paid for by Soros.
Grant Davidson 4 hours ago
Love him or hate him. The guy is a frikkin Genius...
Patrick Reagan 4 hours ago
FakeStream Media
Michael Cambo 4 hours ago
@Patrick Reagan
Very FakeStream Media
aspengold5 4 hours ago
I am so disappointed in McCain.
orlando pablo 4 hours ago
my 401k is keep on going up....thank u mr trump....
Dumbass Libtard 3 hours ago
McCain is not a Republican. He is a loser. Yuge difference.1
Mitchel Colvin 3 hours ago
Shut up McCain! I can't stand this clown anymore! Unfortunately, Arizona re-elected him for six
more years!
robert barham 4 hours ago
The very Fake Media has met their match
H My ways of thinking! 3 hours ago
Why does everyone feel that if they don't kiss McCain's ass, they are being un American? Mccain
has sold out to George Soros. He is a piece of shit who is guilty of no less than treason! Look
up the definition for treason if you're in doubt!
Sam Nardo 3 hours ago
(edited) Mc Cain and Graham are two of the best democrats in the GOP. They are called RINOS
kazzicup 3 hours ago
We love and support our President Donald Trump. The media is so dishonest. CNN = Criminal News
Network.
Geoffry Allan 34 minutes ago
@kazzicup - yeah if you get rid of the media Trump becomes
a dictator - is that what you want he will censor everything and tell you what he wants - Trump
is still president and he is doing his job and fulfilling his promises even though the media is
there and reporting - so what's the problem - I don't want a got damn dictator running this country
- if you don't like the media then just listen to Trump - 2nd amendment free speech and the right
to bear arms we have to respect it even if we may disagree
Current and longstanding world leader in military colonialism.
"Since 2014, China has been building islands in the middle of the South China Sea. What were
once underwater reefs are now sandy islands complete with airfields, roads, buildings, and missile
systems. In less than two years, China has turned seven reefs into seven military bases in the
South China Sea, one of the most contentious bodies of water in the world.
The sea is one of the most important areas of ocean in the world. It's estimated to hold 11
billion barrels of oil, 109 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, and 10 percent of the world's
fisheries. Most importantly, 30 percent of the world's shipping trade flows through the South
China Sea to the busy ports of Southeast Asia. It's an incredibly important strategic area, and
five countries currently claim some part of it.
Most countries base their claims off the United Nations Law of the Seas, which says a country's
territory extends 200 miles off its shores, an area called the exclusive economic zone, or EEZ.
Any trade or resources that fall in a country's EEZ belong to that country; they're its sovereign
territory. Any area that is not in an EEZ is considered international waters and subject to UN
maritime law, meaning it's shared by everyone. Every country in the region, which includes Malaysia,
the Philippines, Brunei, and Vietnam, bases its claim to the South China Sea on the UN's EEZ laws
- except China.
China argues it has a historical claim to the South China Sea, dating back to naval expeditions
in the 15th century."
I define military colonization as the use of force to steal another countries resources. If we
actually took Iraq's oil(or other countries resources), then the US could be in the running. But
we haven't, and once again your comments are based on nothing.
You limit militarist colonialism to make war mongering neocon democrats look good and China bad.
Obama's surges and paying the Army to rioll out new COIN doctrine!
I define militarism as organized murder, US has the monopoly by several million body bags over
China.
I forgot Obama was going out of Iraq and Afghanistan until he considered his nobel and came
up with the doctrine of "unjust peace" must be stopped with organized murder with no end ever
to the profit.
I know Mao killed a few more Chinese than the Kuomintang would have.....
Sorry, we have different ideas. I am not defending US military actions, never have. And I certainly
agree that many of those actions(though not all) were based on economic concerns. That, imho,
does not equate to invading a country; killing a third of its population; dominating everyone
left alive; and taking every single natural resource as your own.
That is what the Chinese did to Tibet. That is what the Chinese(minus the invasion and killing
so far) is going to do to the South China Sea. If you think they are remotely the same as the
US, we will disagree.
Let me know when we take over the oil fields in the Middle East.
Actually, I would have to say that we have been a major leader in military colonialism, going
back to the Spanish-American War. Russia also belongs in that group. Iraq is very much part of
that. China has not historically been one, though they do seem to be moving in that direction.
"... Pete Hegseth and Jesse Watters discuss the bitter establishment's desperation to manufacture a Trump scandal ..."
"... Most people don't know that after the 134 men died on the Forrestal fire in 1967 McCain was the ONLY person helicoptered off the ship. It was done for his own safety as many on the ship blamed him for causing the fire by "wet" starting his jet causing a plume of fire to shoot out his plane's exhaust and into the plane behind McCain causing the ordnance to cook off on that jet. McCain then panicked and dropped his own bombs onto the deck making matters much worse. McCain should have ended his career in jail. Oh, wait, he kinda did, maybe karma justice? ..."
"... FakeStream Media ..."
"... The very Fake Media has met their match ..."
Pete Hegseth and Jesse Watters discuss the bitter establishment's desperation to manufacture
a Trump scandal
TheBase1aransas 3 minutes ago
Alvina I think people that believe in freedom is not only the Best thing, but what built it.
We finally have Trump to speak for us.
Christine Lesch 4 hours ago
McCains a shumuck
Herbert Stewart 11 minutes ago
@Christine Lesch
I feel sorry for Arizona they are stuck with this guy. he needs to change parties
he had his turn and LOST1 america first!
Geoffry Allan
it appears quite apparent
that you people are really sad. trump is above all else, a good american. so.... stop being a
moron.
hexencoff 3 hours ago
no one gives a shit what John McCain says he's a scumbag!
hexencoff 3 hours ago
Jodi Boin i hope so too it's honestly very scary how far we have regressed as a country we are
fighting about the same things from 50 years ago everyone has their own beliefs and opinions and
some how adult conversation has been thrown away i mean we are still fighting over race relations
for crying out loud
Louis John 2 hours ago
@hexencoff
McCain is a trouble maker. supporter of the terrorist and warmonger Iraq Libya
Syria he is behind all the trouble scumbag
Gary M 3 hours ago
McCain is a globalist
belaghoulashi 2 hours ago
(edited) McCain has always been full of horseshit. And he has always relied on people calling
him a hero to get away with it. That schtick is old, the man is a monumental failure for this
country, and he needs to have his sorry butt kicked.
ryvr madduck 1 hour ago
+belaghoulashi
Most people don't know that after the 134 men died on the Forrestal fire in 1967 McCain was the
ONLY person helicoptered off the ship. It was done for his own safety as many on the ship blamed
him for causing the fire by "wet" starting his jet causing a plume of fire to shoot out his plane's
exhaust and into the plane behind McCain causing the ordnance to cook off on that jet. McCain
then panicked and dropped his own bombs onto the deck making matters much worse. McCain should
have ended his career in jail. Oh, wait, he kinda did, maybe karma justice?
Michael Cambo 4 hours ago
When you start to drain the swamp, the swamp creatures start to show.
Alexus Highfield 3 hours ago
@Michael Cambo
don't they...they do say shit floats.
Geoffry Allan 41 minutes ago
@Michael Cambo
- Trump has not drained the swamp he has surrounded himself with billionaires in his cabinet who
don't give a damn about the working middle class who struggle e eryday to make a living -
explain to me how he is draining the swamp
tim sparks 3 hours ago
Trump is trying so fucking hard to do a good job for us.
Integrity Truth-seeker 2 hours ago
@tim sparks
He is not trying... HE IS DOING IT... Like A Boss. Thank God Mark Taylor Prophecies
2017 the best is yet to come
Jodi Boin 3 hours ago
McCain is a traitor and is bought and paid for by Soros.
Grant Davidson 4 hours ago
Love him or hate him. The guy is a frikkin Genius...
Patrick Reagan 4 hours ago
FakeStream Media
Michael Cambo 4 hours ago
@Patrick Reagan
Very FakeStream Media
aspengold5 4 hours ago
I am so disappointed in McCain.
orlando pablo 4 hours ago
my 401k is keep on going up....thank u mr trump....
Dumbass Libtard 3 hours ago
McCain is not a Republican. He is a loser. Yuge difference.1
Mitchel Colvin 3 hours ago
Shut up McCain! I can't stand this clown anymore! Unfortunately, Arizona re-elected him for six
more years!
robert barham 4 hours ago
The very Fake Media has met their match
H My ways of thinking! 3 hours ago
Why does everyone feel that if they don't kiss McCain's ass, they are being un American? Mccain
has sold out to George Soros. He is a piece of shit who is guilty of no less than treason! Look
up the definition for treason if you're in doubt!
Sam Nardo 3 hours ago
(edited) Mc Cain and Graham are two of the best democrats in the GOP. They are called RINOS
kazzicup 3 hours ago
We love and support our President Donald Trump. The media is so dishonest. CNN = Criminal News
Network.
Geoffry Allan 34 minutes ago
@kazzicup - yeah if you get rid of the media Trump becomes
a dictator - is that what you want he will censor everything and tell you what he wants - Trump
is still president and he is doing his job and fulfilling his promises even though the media is
there and reporting - so what's the problem - I don't want a got damn dictator running this country
- if you don't like the media then just listen to Trump - 2nd amendment free speech and the right
to bear arms we have to respect it even if we may disagree
Current and longstanding world leader in military colonialism.
"Since 2014, China has been building islands in the middle of the South China Sea. What were
once underwater reefs are now sandy islands complete with airfields, roads, buildings, and missile
systems. In less than two years, China has turned seven reefs into seven military bases in the
South China Sea, one of the most contentious bodies of water in the world.
The sea is one of the most important areas of ocean in the world. It's estimated to hold 11
billion barrels of oil, 109 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, and 10 percent of the world's
fisheries. Most importantly, 30 percent of the world's shipping trade flows through the South
China Sea to the busy ports of Southeast Asia. It's an incredibly important strategic area, and
five countries currently claim some part of it.
Most countries base their claims off the United Nations Law of the Seas, which says a country's
territory extends 200 miles off its shores, an area called the exclusive economic zone, or EEZ.
Any trade or resources that fall in a country's EEZ belong to that country; they're its sovereign
territory. Any area that is not in an EEZ is considered international waters and subject to UN
maritime law, meaning it's shared by everyone. Every country in the region, which includes Malaysia,
the Philippines, Brunei, and Vietnam, bases its claim to the South China Sea on the UN's EEZ laws
- except China.
China argues it has a historical claim to the South China Sea, dating back to naval expeditions
in the 15th century."
I define military colonization as the use of force to steal another countries resources. If we
actually took Iraq's oil(or other countries resources), then the US could be in the running. But
we haven't, and once again your comments are based on nothing.
You limit militarist colonialism to make war mongering neocon democrats look good and China bad.
Obama's surges and paying the Army to rioll out new COIN doctrine!
I define militarism as organized murder, US has the monopoly by several million body bags over
China.
I forgot Obama was going out of Iraq and Afghanistan until he considered his nobel and came
up with the doctrine of "unjust peace" must be stopped with organized murder with no end ever
to the profit.
I know Mao killed a few more Chinese than the Kuomintang would have.....
Sorry, we have different ideas. I am not defending US military actions, never have. And I certainly
agree that many of those actions(though not all) were based on economic concerns. That, imho,
does not equate to invading a country; killing a third of its population; dominating everyone
left alive; and taking every single natural resource as your own.
That is what the Chinese did to Tibet. That is what the Chinese(minus the invasion and killing
so far) is going to do to the South China Sea. If you think they are remotely the same as the
US, we will disagree.
Let me know when we take over the oil fields in the Middle East.
Actually, I would have to say that we have been a major leader in military colonialism, going
back to the Spanish-American War. Russia also belongs in that group. Iraq is very much part of
that. China has not historically been one, though they do seem to be moving in that direction.
The FBI overheard The over reaction to 9/11, greatly abetted by the media, marked the beginning
of this slide into Stasi-land. The associated paranoia has led to the likes of Trump and this
goofy arsed Congress. We now have governance based not on reality, but on paranoia; on evidence
free facts, on convenient facts, on alternative facts, to each of us our own facts. I've seen
no accounting of the economic and social costs of this paranoia, but am certain they exceed the
damage of 9/11 by orders of many magnitude.
Are these symptoms of America's undeniable demise? How do we turn the ship of state around?
This precedent set by the election of Trump, how does the nation remove the stain? Can we avoid
the continuance into despotism, authoritarianism?
US Budgetary Costs of Wars through 2016: $4.79 Trillion and Counting
Summary of Costs of the US Wars in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and Pakistan and Homeland Security
By Neta C. Crawford
Summary
Wars cost money before, during and after they occur - as governments prepare for, wage, and
recover from them by replacing equipment, caring for the wounded and repairing the infrastructure
destroyed in the fighting. Although it is rare to have a precise accounting of the costs of war
- especially of long wars - one can get a sense of the rough scale of the costs by surveying the
major categories of spending.
As of August 2016, the US has already appropriated, spent, or taken on obligations to spend
more than $3.6 trillion in current dollars on the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Syria
and on Homeland Security (2001 through fiscal year 2016). To this total should be added the approximately
$65 billion in dedicated war spending the Department of Defense and State Department have requested
for the next fiscal year, 2017, along with an additional nearly $32 billion requested for the
Department of Homeland Security in 2017, and estimated spending on veterans in future years. When
those are included, the total US budgetary cost of the wars reaches $4.79 trillion....
America has been continually at war since 2001, at war under 2 presidents, at war in a range of
countries that were in no way connected to the attack on America and did not threaten America.
Tensions were building even with Russia and China. We have now the possibility of ending our warring
or working to mutual advantage with China and Russia, which will be to the advantage of many countries.
China and America have just moved to the forming of a new mutually beneficial partnership.
I find reason to be hopeful.
"... This bizarre feature of Trump's executive order shows how deep Official Washington's dysfunction goes. Trump has picked a major constitutional battle over a travel ban that targets the wrong countries. ..."
"... But there's a reason for this dysfunction: No one in Official Washington can speak the truth about terrorism without suffering severe political damage or getting blacklisted by the mainstream media. Since the truth puts Israel and especially Saudi Arabia in an uncomfortable position, the truth cannot be spoken. ..."
"... There was some hope that President Trump – for all his irascibility and unpredictability – might break from the absurd "Iran is the principal source of terrorism" mantra. But so far he has not. Nor has Trump moved to throw open the files on the Syrian and Ukraine conflicts so Americans can assess how the Obama administration sought to manipulate them into supporting these "regime change" adventures. ..."
"... But Trump has resisted intense pressure to again entrust U.S. foreign policy to the neoconservatives, a number of whom lost their jobs when President Obama left office, perhaps most significantly Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland, who helped orchestrate the violent overthrow of Ukraine's elected president and is an architect of the New Cold War with Russia. ..."
"... Other neocons who angled for jobs in the new administration, including John Bolton and James Woolsey, have failed to land them. Currently, there is pressure to ensconce Elliott Abrams, a top neocon dating back to the Reagan administration, in the key post of Deputy Secretary of State but that idea, too, has met resistance. ..."
"... The neocon threat to Trump's stated intent of restoring some geopolitical realism to U.S. foreign policy is that the neocons operate almost as an ideological cabal linked often in a subterranean fashion – or as I. Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's neocon chief of staff, once wrote in a cryptic letter to neocon journalist Judith Miller that aspen trees "turn in clusters, because their roots connect them." ..."
"... What is less clear is whether Trump, Tillerson and his fledgling State Department team have the intellectual heft to understand why U.S. foreign policy has drifted into the chaos and conflicts that now surround it – and whether they have the skill to navigate a route toward a safe harbor. ..."
"... My first concern, however, is the USA predilection for 'regime change" wars - and for that I blame the neocons. ..."
If you wanted to bring sanity to a U.S. foreign policy that has spun crazily out of control,
there would be some immediate steps that you – or, say, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson – could
take, starting with a renewed commitment to tell the truth to the American people.
Instead of the endless "perception management" or "strategic communication" or "psychological
operations" or whatever the new code words are, you could open up the files regarding key turning-point
moments and share the facts with the citizens – the "We the People" – who are supposed to be America's
true sovereigns.
For instance, you could release what the U.S. government actually knows about the Aug. 21,
2013 sarin gas attack in Syria; what the files show about the origins of the Feb. 22, 2014 coup
in Ukraine; what U.S. intelligence analysts have compiled about the July 17, 2014 shoot-down of
Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 over eastern Ukraine. And those are just three examples of cases where
U.S. government propagandists have sold a dubious bill of goods to the American and world publics
in the "information warfare" campaign against the Syrian and Russian governments.
If you wanted to base U.S. foreign policy on the firm foundation of reality, you also could
let the American people in on who is actually the principal sponsor of the terrorism that they're
concerned about: Al Qaeda, Islamic State, the Taliban – all Sunni-led outfits, none of which are
backed by Shiite-ruled Iran. Yet, all we hear from Official Washington's political and media insiders
is that Iran is the chief sponsor of terrorism.
Of course, that is what Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states and Israel want you to believe because
it serves their regional and sectarian interests, but it isn't true. Saudi Arabia and the Gulf
states are the ones arming and financing Al Qaeda and Islamic State with Israel occasionally bombing
Al Qaeda's military enemies inside Syria and providing medical support for Al Qaeda's Syrian affiliate
operating near the Golan Heights.
The reason for this unsavory network of alliances is that Israel, like Saudi Arabia and the
Sunni-led Gulf states, sees Iran and the so-called "Shiite crescent" – from Tehran through Damascus
to Beirut – as their principal problem. And because of the oil sheiks' financial wealth and Israel's
political clout, they control how pretty much everyone in Official Washington's establishment
views the Middle East.
But the interests of Israel, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states are not in line with the interests
of the American people – nor the average European – who are not concerned about militant Shiites
as much as militant Sunnis. After all, the worst terror attacks on Europe and the U.S. have come
from Sunni extremists belonging to or inspired by Al Qaeda and Islamic State.
This gap between the reality of Sunni-extremist terrorism and the fantasy of Official Washington's
"group think" fingering Shiite-ruled Iran explains the cognitive dissonance over President Trump's
travel ban on people from seven mostly Muslim countries. Beyond the offensive anti-Muslim prejudice,
there is the fact that he ignored the countries that produced the terrorists who have attacked
the U.S., including the 9/11 hijackers.
This bizarre feature of Trump's executive order shows how deep Official Washington's dysfunction
goes. Trump has picked a major constitutional battle over a travel ban that targets the wrong
countries.
But there's a reason for this dysfunction: No one in Official Washington can speak the truth
about terrorism without suffering severe political damage or getting blacklisted by the mainstream
media. Since the truth puts Israel and especially Saudi Arabia in an uncomfortable position, the
truth cannot be spoken.
There was some hope that President Trump – for all his irascibility and unpredictability –
might break from the absurd "Iran is the principal source of terrorism" mantra. But so far he
has not. Nor has Trump moved to throw open the files on the Syrian and Ukraine conflicts so Americans
can assess how the Obama administration sought to manipulate them into supporting these "regime
change" adventures.
But Trump has resisted intense pressure to again entrust U.S. foreign policy to the neoconservatives,
a number of whom lost their jobs when President Obama left office, perhaps most significantly
Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland, who helped orchestrate the
violent overthrow of Ukraine's elected president and is an architect of the New Cold War with
Russia.
Other neocons who angled for jobs in the new administration, including John Bolton and James
Woolsey, have failed to land them. Currently, there is pressure to ensconce Elliott Abrams, a
top neocon dating back to the Reagan administration, in the key post of Deputy Secretary of State
but that idea, too, has met resistance.
The neocon threat to Trump's stated intent of restoring some geopolitical realism to U.S. foreign
policy is that the neocons operate almost as an ideological cabal linked often in a subterranean
fashion – or as I. Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's neocon chief of staff, once wrote
in a cryptic letter to neocon journalist Judith Miller that aspen trees "turn in clusters, because
their roots connect them."
In other words, if one neocon is given a key job, other neocons can be expected to follow.
Then, any Trump deviation from neocon orthodoxy would be undermined in the classic Washington
tradition of strategic leaking to powerful media and congressional allies.
So far, the Trump inner circle has shown the administrative savvy to avoid bringing in ideologues
who would dedicate their efforts to thwarting any significant change in U.S. geopolitical directions.
What is less clear is whether Trump, Tillerson and his fledgling State Department team have
the intellectual heft to understand why U.S. foreign policy has drifted into the chaos and conflicts
that now surround it – and whether they have the skill to navigate a route toward a safe harbor.
Very good analysis.
The first and obvious question about the ban is "why isn't Saudi Arabia included"? As the article
shows, this question unravels this (Trump's) current version of dysfunctional foreign policy based
on misleading the public.
On Friday 10th February 2017 NBC circulated a report the Russian government in order to improve
relations with the Trump administration was preparing to hand Edward Snowden over to the US.
Snowden should not be worried, since the report is groundless and is clearly a provocation. To
see why it is only necessary to look at
the NBC report itself , which makes it clear who is behind it...
U.S. intelligence has collected information that Russia is considering turning over Edward Snowden
as a "gift" to President Donald Trump - who has called the NSA leaker a "spy" and a "traitor" who
deserves to be executed.
That's according to a senior U.S. official who has analyzed a series of highly sensitive intelligence
reports detailing Russian deliberations and who says a Snowden handover is one of various ploys to
"curry favor" with Trump. A second source in the intelligence community confirms the intelligence
about the Russian conversations and notes it has been gathered since the inauguration.
(bold italics added)
It turns out that the story does not originate in Russia. It originates with our old friends the
'anonymous officials' of the US intelligence community.
One of these officials claims that the story is based on "intelligence" of "Russian conversations"
that the US intelligence community has 'gathered since the inauguration". We have no way of knowing
at what level these "conversations" took place, assuming they took place at all, but it is inconceivable
that the US intelligence community is genuinely informed of discussions within the top level of the
Russian leadership – where such a question would be discussed – or if it is that it would publicise
the fact by blurting the fact out to NBC.
The reality is that there is no possibility of the Russians handing Snowden over to the US in
order to please Donald Trump . Not only would doing so almost certainly breach Russian law – as Snowden's
lawyer, who has
denied the whole story , has pointed out – but it contradicts what I personally heard Russian
President Putin say at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum in 2014 when the subject of
Snowden was brought up, which is that Russia never hands over people like Snowden once they have
gained asylum in Russia. That is indeed Russian practice extending far back into the Soviet period,
and I can think of no exceptions to it.
As it happens Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Maria Zakharova has denied the story in a
Facebook post which links it to the ongoing struggle between the Trump administration and the
US intelligence community (about which see more below). Here is how RT
translates
her post
Today, US intelligence agencies have stepped up their work, updating two stale stories, 'Russia
can gift Snowden to Trump' and 'confirmation found on the details of the scandalous
dossier
on Trump allegedly collected by an ex-employee of British intelligence.' But it may seem so only
to those who do not understand the essence of the game. None of these statements have been made by
representatives of the special services, but is information coming from NBC and CNN, citing unnamed
sources. The difference is obvious, but only to experts. Yet it is useful for scandalizing the public
and maintaining a degree of [public outrage] .
It is evident that the pressure on the new administration on the part of political opponents within
the United States continues, bargaining is going on. And that's why the US foreign policy doctrine
has not yet been formed
It is just possible that US intelligence overheard some gossip in Moscow about the Kremlin handing
Snowden over to Donald Trump in order to curry favour with him. The various reports the US intelligence
community released during the Clinton leaks hacking scandal show that the US intelligence community
is not actually very well informed about what goes on in Moscow or how the Russian government works.
In light of that it would not be entirely surprising if someone overheard some gossip about Snowden
in Moscow which the US intelligence community is over-interpreting.
Far more likely however is that – as Maria Zakharova says – this is a deliberate provocation,
spread by someone within the US intelligence community who either wants to signal to Moscow what
Moscow 'needs to do' if it wants better relations with the US, or (more probably) as a signal to
Donald Trump of the minimum the US intelligence community expects of him if he wants the US intelligence
community's support in seeking better relations with Russia.
This story is interesting not because of what it says about what the Russians are going to do
to Snowden – which in reality is nothing. Rather it is interesting because it shows the degree to
which Snowden continues to be an object of obsession for the US intelligence community.
The reason for that is that the US intelligence community knows that Snowden is not a Russian
spy.
As Snowden has pointed out, if he really were a Russian spy no-one in Washington would be talking
about the Russians handing him over. The Russians do not hand their spies over any more than the
US does, and if Snowden really were a Russian spy no-one in Washington would talking about the Russians
handing him over.
However if Snowden had been a Russian spy his actions would in that case have been simply a Russian
intelligence operation of which the US intelligence community was the victim, of which there have
been many since the Second World War. Espionage is what the US and Russia routinely do to each other,
and there would be nothing remarkable about Snowden in that case.
It is the fact that Snowden is on the contrary a deeply patriotic American who acted from patriotic
motives that has the US intelligence community enraged and alarmed. From their point of view having
a patriotic American publicly expose their practices Jason Bourne style is a far greater threat than
have a Russian spy penetrate their systems, since because of the far greater publicity it is far
more likely to damage them politically.
This explains the extraordinary feud the US intelligence community has waged against Snowden,
which in part explains why it has become so hostile to Russia, the country which has become his protector.
Mr.Sono -> knukles •Feb 12, 2017 5:41 PM
Putin is a man of his words and not a little bitch like Obama. I was suprised that fake news was
all over zerohedge regarding this topic, but at the end zerohedge confirmed the fake news.
Giant Meteor -> FreeShitter •Feb 12, 2017 5:35 PM
One of the smartest plays the deep state could make is allowing him back, make small fuss, and
issue a pardon. It would go far in deflating, diffusing the situation, de minimis so to speak.
But, I suppose it is more about absolute control, control of the narrative, full spectrum dominance,
cautionary tales etc. Pride goeth before the fall (destruction) I believe. Eventually this laundry
is going to get sorted and cleaned, one way or the other.
boattrash •Feb 12, 2017 5:13 PM
" as Maria Zakharova says – this is a deliberate provocation, spread by someone within the US
intelligence community who either wants to signal to Moscow what Moscow 'needs to do' if it wants
better relations with the US, or (more probably) as a signal to Donald Trump of the minimum the
US intelligence community expects of him if he wants the US intelligence community's support in
seeking better relations with Russia."
A full pardon from Trump would improve his standing with the American people, IMHO, on both
the left and the right.
HumanMan -> boattrash •Feb 12, 2017 5:29 PM
This was my thought when the story broke. Putin can no longer claim to be a protector of human
rights if he hands over Snowden...Unless Trump is going to pardon him. As you pointed you, that
would be great (politically) for Trump too. Done this way would be a win win for the two and another
win for We The People. On top of that, Putin doesn't want to babysit Snowden. I'm sure the Russians
would be happy to have a politically expediant way to get the American spy out of their country.
HRClinton •Feb 12, 2017 5:16 PM
The Deep State rules, no matter what DJT thinks.
The roots go deep in my fomer DOS and in the CIA Even in the DOD and Senate. Bill and I know
this better than anyone.
FAKE NEWS:
On Friday 10th February 2017 NBC circulated a report the Russian government in order to improve
relations with the Trump administration was preparing to hand Edward Snowden over to the US.
How many gringos were fooled???--- not many
shovelhead •Feb 12, 2017 5:37 PM
Pissgate II...
Brought to you from your friends at the CIA
Mr. Crisp •Feb 12, 2017 5:50 PM
Snowden showed the world that the NSA wasn't just tracking terrorists, they were tracking pretty much
everyone, everywhere. He deserves a full pardon.
"... This bizarre feature of Trump's executive order shows how deep Official Washington's dysfunction goes. Trump has picked a major constitutional battle over a travel ban that targets the wrong countries. ..."
"... But there's a reason for this dysfunction: No one in Official Washington can speak the truth about terrorism without suffering severe political damage or getting blacklisted by the mainstream media. Since the truth puts Israel and especially Saudi Arabia in an uncomfortable position, the truth cannot be spoken. ..."
"... There was some hope that President Trump – for all his irascibility and unpredictability – might break from the absurd "Iran is the principal source of terrorism" mantra. But so far he has not. Nor has Trump moved to throw open the files on the Syrian and Ukraine conflicts so Americans can assess how the Obama administration sought to manipulate them into supporting these "regime change" adventures. ..."
"... But Trump has resisted intense pressure to again entrust U.S. foreign policy to the neoconservatives, a number of whom lost their jobs when President Obama left office, perhaps most significantly Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland, who helped orchestrate the violent overthrow of Ukraine's elected president and is an architect of the New Cold War with Russia. ..."
"... Other neocons who angled for jobs in the new administration, including John Bolton and James Woolsey, have failed to land them. Currently, there is pressure to ensconce Elliott Abrams, a top neocon dating back to the Reagan administration, in the key post of Deputy Secretary of State but that idea, too, has met resistance. ..."
"... The neocon threat to Trump's stated intent of restoring some geopolitical realism to U.S. foreign policy is that the neocons operate almost as an ideological cabal linked often in a subterranean fashion – or as I. Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's neocon chief of staff, once wrote in a cryptic letter to neocon journalist Judith Miller that aspen trees "turn in clusters, because their roots connect them." ..."
"... What is less clear is whether Trump, Tillerson and his fledgling State Department team have the intellectual heft to understand why U.S. foreign policy has drifted into the chaos and conflicts that now surround it – and whether they have the skill to navigate a route toward a safe harbor. ..."
"... My first concern, however, is the USA predilection for 'regime change" wars - and for that I blame the neocons. ..."
If you wanted to bring sanity to a U.S. foreign policy that has spun crazily out of control,
there would be some immediate steps that you – or, say, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson – could
take, starting with a renewed commitment to tell the truth to the American people.
Instead of the endless "perception management" or "strategic communication" or "psychological
operations" or whatever the new code words are, you could open up the files regarding key turning-point
moments and share the facts with the citizens – the "We the People" – who are supposed to be America's
true sovereigns.
For instance, you could release what the U.S. government actually knows about the Aug. 21,
2013 sarin gas attack in Syria; what the files show about the origins of the Feb. 22, 2014 coup
in Ukraine; what U.S. intelligence analysts have compiled about the July 17, 2014 shoot-down of
Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 over eastern Ukraine. And those are just three examples of cases where
U.S. government propagandists have sold a dubious bill of goods to the American and world publics
in the "information warfare" campaign against the Syrian and Russian governments.
If you wanted to base U.S. foreign policy on the firm foundation of reality, you also could
let the American people in on who is actually the principal sponsor of the terrorism that they're
concerned about: Al Qaeda, Islamic State, the Taliban – all Sunni-led outfits, none of which are
backed by Shiite-ruled Iran. Yet, all we hear from Official Washington's political and media insiders
is that Iran is the chief sponsor of terrorism.
Of course, that is what Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states and Israel want you to believe because
it serves their regional and sectarian interests, but it isn't true. Saudi Arabia and the Gulf
states are the ones arming and financing Al Qaeda and Islamic State with Israel occasionally bombing
Al Qaeda's military enemies inside Syria and providing medical support for Al Qaeda's Syrian affiliate
operating near the Golan Heights.
The reason for this unsavory network of alliances is that Israel, like Saudi Arabia and the
Sunni-led Gulf states, sees Iran and the so-called "Shiite crescent" – from Tehran through Damascus
to Beirut – as their principal problem. And because of the oil sheiks' financial wealth and Israel's
political clout, they control how pretty much everyone in Official Washington's establishment
views the Middle East.
But the interests of Israel, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states are not in line with the interests
of the American people – nor the average European – who are not concerned about militant Shiites
as much as militant Sunnis. After all, the worst terror attacks on Europe and the U.S. have come
from Sunni extremists belonging to or inspired by Al Qaeda and Islamic State.
This gap between the reality of Sunni-extremist terrorism and the fantasy of Official Washington's
"group think" fingering Shiite-ruled Iran explains the cognitive dissonance over President Trump's
travel ban on people from seven mostly Muslim countries. Beyond the offensive anti-Muslim prejudice,
there is the fact that he ignored the countries that produced the terrorists who have attacked
the U.S., including the 9/11 hijackers.
This bizarre feature of Trump's executive order shows how deep Official Washington's dysfunction
goes. Trump has picked a major constitutional battle over a travel ban that targets the wrong
countries.
But there's a reason for this dysfunction: No one in Official Washington can speak the truth
about terrorism without suffering severe political damage or getting blacklisted by the mainstream
media. Since the truth puts Israel and especially Saudi Arabia in an uncomfortable position, the
truth cannot be spoken.
There was some hope that President Trump – for all his irascibility and unpredictability –
might break from the absurd "Iran is the principal source of terrorism" mantra. But so far he
has not. Nor has Trump moved to throw open the files on the Syrian and Ukraine conflicts so Americans
can assess how the Obama administration sought to manipulate them into supporting these "regime
change" adventures.
But Trump has resisted intense pressure to again entrust U.S. foreign policy to the neoconservatives,
a number of whom lost their jobs when President Obama left office, perhaps most significantly
Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland, who helped orchestrate the
violent overthrow of Ukraine's elected president and is an architect of the New Cold War with
Russia.
Other neocons who angled for jobs in the new administration, including John Bolton and James
Woolsey, have failed to land them. Currently, there is pressure to ensconce Elliott Abrams, a
top neocon dating back to the Reagan administration, in the key post of Deputy Secretary of State
but that idea, too, has met resistance.
The neocon threat to Trump's stated intent of restoring some geopolitical realism to U.S. foreign
policy is that the neocons operate almost as an ideological cabal linked often in a subterranean
fashion – or as I. Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's neocon chief of staff, once wrote
in a cryptic letter to neocon journalist Judith Miller that aspen trees "turn in clusters, because
their roots connect them."
In other words, if one neocon is given a key job, other neocons can be expected to follow.
Then, any Trump deviation from neocon orthodoxy would be undermined in the classic Washington
tradition of strategic leaking to powerful media and congressional allies.
So far, the Trump inner circle has shown the administrative savvy to avoid bringing in ideologues
who would dedicate their efforts to thwarting any significant change in U.S. geopolitical directions.
What is less clear is whether Trump, Tillerson and his fledgling State Department team have
the intellectual heft to understand why U.S. foreign policy has drifted into the chaos and conflicts
that now surround it – and whether they have the skill to navigate a route toward a safe harbor.
Very good analysis.
The first and obvious question about the ban is "why isn't Saudi Arabia included"? As the article
shows, this question unravels this (Trump's) current version of dysfunctional foreign policy based
on misleading the public.
"... We also learn from those presstitutes that O'Bomber who killed God know how many innocent brown people at God knows how many weddings, wouldn't have gone through with the raid because too risky! So Saint Obama for Times presstitutes is the good experienced killer, while Trump is the bad, inexperienced killer. The irony of their twisted logic escapes them. ..."
Our neoliberal media and commenters would serve themselves and their Oligarch owners better, if
they ignored Trump's tweets, or Ivanka fashion business and focus on what he and his Admin are
doing and what consequences that would entail.
Take Times article about the special ops raid in Yemen. The obama team planned it, but it was
Trump (or somebody from hs administration below him) who pulled the trigger.
Now those suckers claim that Yemen government is against special ops raid. (Yemen has a government?
Really ? )
We also learn from those presstitutes that O'Bomber who killed God know how many innocent brown
people at God knows how many weddings, wouldn't have gone through with the raid because too risky!
So Saint Obama for Times presstitutes is the good experienced killer, while Trump is the bad,
inexperienced killer. The irony of their twisted logic escapes them.
"... Wars cost money before, during and after they occur - as governments prepare for, wage, and recover from them by replacing equipment, caring for the wounded and repairing the infrastructure destroyed in the fighting. Although it is rare to have a precise accounting of the costs of war - especially of long wars - one can get a sense of the rough scale of the costs by surveying the major categories of spending. ..."
"... As of August 2016, the US has already appropriated, spent, or taken on obligations to spend more than $3.6 trillion in current dollars on the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Syria and on Homeland Security (2001 through fiscal year 2016). To this total should be added the approximately $65 billion in dedicated war spending the Department of Defense and State Department have requested for the next fiscal year, 2017, along with an additional nearly $32 billion requested for the Department of Homeland Security in 2017, and estimated spending on veterans in future years. When those are included, the total US budgetary cost of the wars reaches $4.79 trillion.... ..."
U.S. General Seeks More Troops in Afghanistan
By MICHAEL R. GORDON
Gen. John W. Nicholson Jr., the commander of the American-led international military force
in Afghanistan, said "a few thousand" more troops were needed.
US Budgetary Costs of Wars through 2016: $4.79 Trillion and Counting
Summary of Costs of the US Wars in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and Pakistan and Homeland Security
By Neta C. Crawford
Summary
Wars cost money before, during and after they occur - as governments prepare for, wage, and
recover from them by replacing equipment, caring for the wounded and repairing the infrastructure
destroyed in the fighting. Although it is rare to have a precise accounting of the costs of war
- especially of long wars - one can get a sense of the rough scale of the costs by surveying the
major categories of spending.
As of August 2016, the US has already appropriated, spent, or taken on obligations to spend
more than $3.6 trillion in current dollars on the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Syria
and on Homeland Security (2001 through fiscal year 2016). To this total should be added the approximately
$65 billion in dedicated war spending the Department of Defense and State Department have requested
for the next fiscal year, 2017, along with an additional nearly $32 billion requested for the
Department of Homeland Security in 2017, and estimated spending on veterans in future years. When
those are included, the total US budgetary cost of the wars reaches $4.79 trillion....
"... By Raúl Ilargi Meijer, editor of Automatic Earth. Originally published at Automatic Earth ..."
"... British House of Commons Speaker John Bercow can play that game too. He has loudly advertized his refusal to let Trump address UK politicians in the House of Commons and the House of Lords: "An address by a foreign leader to both houses of Parliament is not an automatic right, it is an earned honor.." It's an honor recently gifted to the likes of China President Xi Jinping and the Emir of Kuwait. Fine and upstanding gentlemen in the tradition Britain so likes, nothing like the American President whom he accuses of racism and sexism. ..."
"... The political/media black hole exists in many other countries too; we are truly entering a whole new phase in both domestic and global affairs. That is what allows for the Trumps and Le Pens of the world to appeal to people; there is nobody else left that people can have any faith in. The system(s) are broken beyond repair, and anyone perceived as belonging to them will be cast aside. Not all at the same time, but all of them nonetheless. ..."
"... my favorite dump on trump was the times article about the special ops raid in yemen. the obama team planned it, trump pulled the trigger. now we learn the yemen government is against special ops raid. (yemen has a government?) we also learn from the times that obama wouldn't have gone through with the raid because too risky! So saint obama is the good killer, trump the bad killer. it makes you sympathetic to trump. but i think alot of us thought trump would calm down some once in office. calling judiciary names, saying they can't even understand concepts that a "bad high school student" can, is not, what's the word, adult? and you can't ignore the sinister intent behind the muslim ban–it's based on propaganda and fear–it's provenance is neocon. ..."
"... In complete agreement with you about the dump trump article praising saint obama to the skies because obama allegedly "refused" to OK the special ops raid on Yemen, but Trump did. LIke, THIS time obama "refused" to do it? Why? Speculation is futile, but my speculation is that Obama held off in order to have it fall on Trump. Then Obama could skippity do dah off into the sunset with his burnished halo in tact. ..."
"... Following Disturbed Voter's comment above – we can usefully distinguish 3 different levels of dishonesty by how hard they are to detect: ..."
"... Level 1 – the everyday liar/hypocrite whose dishonesty we notice over time by observing that what they do is not consistent with what they say, ..."
"... Level 2- the regular criminal who hides his honesty from public view, to profit from it, but can be caught by effective law enforcement, and ..."
"... Level 3- the State Intelligence agency with extreme levels of funding, novel tech. capabilities, secrecy, & ability to ignore or even control law enforcement and large chunks of the public mass media. ..."
"... It's the Level 3 category that society has become relatively defenseless against. Alternative media carries report after report on how the Iraq War was phony, how the US created al Qaeda and ISIS, how Cheney planned to invade Iraq and 6 other Middle East nations on Sept. 20, 2 ..."
"... One word that describes our precious country is incompetence. We have gone from being the 'we-can-do-it' nation that put a man on the Moon to the 'hire a Mexican to do it' nation that cannot find its ass with both hands. The fact of our dysfunction and the country's reliance on migrant labor are what gives form to the efforts of Donald Trump. Yet he acts against himself: he is the lazy-man of American politics who requires others to do his heavy lifting. This does not mean physical labor but instead the struggle to become clear in the mind, to craft out of disparate- and contradictory elements a policy outline or philosophy of governing. This is never attempted, it is too difficult, instead there is the recycling of old, bankrupt memes. The candidate's absence of effort leaves a residue of personality: Trump is a blank page upon which others paint in the sketch, an actor who aims to meet (diminished) public expectations and nothing more, sound and fury significant of nothing in particular. ..."
"... . But our problem is not called Donald Trump. And we need to stop pretending that it is. We are the problem. We allow our governments to tell our armies to bomb and drone innocent people while we watch cooking shows. We have believed, as long as we've been alive, whatever the media feed us, without any critical thought, which we reserve for choosing our next holiday destination ..."
By Raúl Ilargi Meijer, editor of Automatic Earth. Originally published at
Automatic Earth
Two and a half weeks after the inauguration, and yes it's only been that long, the media still
don't seem to have learned a single thing. They help the Trump campaign on an almost hourly basis
by parroting whatever things, invariably judged as crazy, he says. One day it's that negative
polls are all fake news, the next it's some list of underreported terror events. All of it gets
an avalanche of attention provided by the very people who claim to be against Trump, but greatly
help his cause by doing so.
Not a single thing learned. If Trump tweets tomorrow that tomatoes are really fruits and he's
going to have someone draw up a law to make them so, or that Lego should be recognized as an official
building material in order to have the Danes, too, pay for the wall, it will be on the front page
of every paper and the opening item for every TV news show. The crazier he makes them, the more
serious they are taken. The echo chamber is so eager to incessantly repeat to itself and all its
inhabitants that he's a crazy dude, it's beyond embarrassing.
And it takes us ever further away, and rapidly too, from any serious discussion about serious
issues, the one very thing that the Trump empire desperately calls for. The press should simply
ignore the crazy stuff and focus on what's real, but they can't bring themselves to do so for
fear of losing ratings and ad revenues. All Trump needs to do, and that's not a joke, is to fart
or burp into their echo chamber and they'll all be happy and giddy and all excited and self-satisfied.
A spectacle to behold if ever there was one.
British House of Commons Speaker John Bercow can play that game too. He has loudly advertized
his refusal to let Trump address UK politicians in the House of Commons and the House of Lords:
"An address by a foreign leader to both houses of Parliament is not an automatic right, it is
an earned honor.." It's an honor recently gifted to the likes of China President Xi Jinping and
the Emir of Kuwait. Fine and upstanding gentlemen in the tradition Britain so likes, nothing like
the American President whom he accuses of racism and sexism.
The racism part ostensibly is a reaction to Trump's Muslim ban, which, nutty though it is,
is not a Muslim ban because most Muslims are not affected by it, and besides, 'Muslim' is not
a race. So maybe Bercow would care to explain the 'racism' bit. Has anyone seen the British press
pressuring him to do so? Or, alternatively, has anyone seen a thorough analysis of the British
role, though its military and its weapons manufacturers, in the premature deaths in the Middle
East and North Africa of many thousands of men, women and children belonging to the Muslim 'race'?
Not me.
The 'sexism' accusation refers to Trump's utterances on for instance the Billy Bush tape(s),
and by all means let's get the Donald to comment on that. But this comes from a man who speaks
as an official representative of the Queen of a country where child sex abuse is a national sport,
from politics to churches to football, where literally thousands of children are trying to speak
up and testify, after having been silenced, ignored and ridiculed for years, about the unspeakable
experiences in their childhood. Surely someone who because of his job description gets to speak
in the name of the Queen can be expected to address the behavior of her own subjects before that
of strangers.
Yeah, that Trump guy is a real terrible person. And he should not be allowed to speak to a
chamber full of people directly responsible for the death of huge numbers of children in far away
sandboxes, for or the abuse of them at home. After all, we're all good Christians and the good
book teaches us about "the beam out of thine own eye". So we're good to go.
What this really tells you is to what extent the political systems in the US and the UK, along
with the media that serve them, have turned into a massive void, a vortex, a black hole from which
any reflection, criticism or self-awareness can no longer escape. By endlessly and relentlessly
pointing to someone, anyone, outside of their own circle of 'righteousness' and political correctness,
they have all managed to implant one view of reality in their voters and viewers, while at the
same time engaging in the very behavior they accuse the people of that they point to. For profit.
Child sex abuse has been a staple of British society for a long time, we're talking at least
decades. Only now is it starting, but only starting, to be recognized as the vile problem it is.
But still many Britons feel entirely justified in demonizing a man who once talked about touching
the genitals of grown women. If that did happen against their will, it's repulsive. But still,
there's that beam, guys. Read your bible.
The political/media black hole exists in many other countries too; we are truly entering
a whole new phase in both domestic and global affairs. That is what allows for the Trumps and
Le Pens of the world to appeal to people; there is nobody else left that people can have any faith
in. The system(s) are broken beyond repair, and anyone perceived as belonging to them will be
cast aside. Not all at the same time, but all of them nonetheless.
Whether you call the menu the people have been fed, fake or false or just plain nonsense, it
makes no difference. The British House of Commons Speaker may not be such a bad guy inside, he's
probably just another victim of the falsehoods, denials and deceit spread 24/7. The difference
between them and ordinary citizens is that Her Majesty's representatives in the political field
MUST know. They get paid good salaries to represent the Queen's subjects, and looking the other
way as children get assaulted and raped does not fit their job description.
That goes for representatives of the church (i.e. Jesus) just as much of course, and for the
execs at the BBC, but about as many of those people are behind bars as there are bankers. For
anyone at all at any of these institutions to now speak with great indignation about Trump's alleged
racism and sexism is the very core of all of their problems, the very reason why so many turn
their backs on them. It shows that the very core or our societies is rotten, and the rot is spreading.
We are facing a lot of problems, all of us, in many different ways, financially, politically,
morally. But our problem is not called Donald Trump. And we need to stop pretending that it is.
We are the problem. We allow our governments to tell our armies to bomb and drone innocent people
while we watch cooking shows. We have believed, as long as we've been alive, whatever the media
feed us, without any critical thought, which we reserve for choosing our next holiday destination.
The longer this braindead attitude prevails, the worse things will get, and the more Trumps
will surface as leaders of their respective countries. And the longer the attitude prevails, the
more anger we will spread in those parts of the world that do not belong to our 'chosen' societies.
And for that we will have only ourselves to blame. Not Trump.
Citizens and politicians are in a social compact, so it is said. Both sides may have defaulted
on the agreement, something the Enlightenment didn't anticipate. In the modern era of triangulation,
opposition parties, that used to keep each other relatively honest, no longer do that. In the
modern era of media consolidation, opposition newspapers, that used to keep each other relatively
honest, no longer do that. Be are being suffocated by de facto bi-partisanship, that is just
a shadow play of its former partisanship. The status quo has gone stale.
my favorite dump on trump was the times article about the special ops raid in yemen.
the obama team planned it, trump pulled the trigger. now we learn the yemen government is against
special ops raid. (yemen has a government?) we also learn from the times that obama wouldn't
have gone through with the raid because too risky! So saint obama is the good killer, trump
the bad killer. it makes you sympathetic to trump. but i think alot of us thought trump would
calm down some once in office. calling judiciary names, saying they can't even understand concepts
that a "bad high school student" can, is not, what's the word, adult? and you can't ignore
the sinister intent behind the muslim ban–it's based on propaganda and fear–it's provenance
is neocon.
In complete agreement with you about the dump trump article praising saint obama to
the skies because obama allegedly "refused" to OK the special ops raid on Yemen, but Trump
did. LIke, THIS time obama "refused" to do it? Why? Speculation is futile, but my speculation
is that Obama held off in order to have it fall on Trump. Then Obama could skippity do dah
off into the sunset with his burnished halo in tact.
Gah.
Agree with the second part of your comment, too. I wish Trump would behave differently.
The comment about the judiciary was incredibly wrong and also very stupid. His fervent fans
may well clap and cheer for that, but Trump is painting himself into some corners by behaving
that way. The Judiciary and lawyers – a powerful group in this nation, for better or worse
– simply aren't going to take that laying down. Although I'm sure the judiciary will (mostly)
strive for objective impartiality.
The stupid media would serve themselves, their Oligarch owners, and the nation better if
they ignored the bulk of Trump's dumb tweets and focus more closely on what he and his Admin
are doing.
Following Disturbed Voter's comment above – we can usefully distinguish 3 different
levels of dishonesty by how hard they are to detect:
Level 1 – the everyday liar/hypocrite whose dishonesty we notice over time
by observing that what they do is not consistent with what they say,
Level 2- the regular criminal who hides his honesty from public view, to profit
from it, but can be caught by effective law enforcement, and
Level 3- the State Intelligence agency with extreme levels of funding, novel tech.
capabilities, secrecy, & ability to ignore or even control law enforcement and large chunks
of the public mass media.
It's the Level 3 category that society has become relatively defenseless against. Alternative
media carries report after report on how the Iraq War was phony, how the US created al Qaeda
and ISIS, how Cheney planned to invade Iraq and 6 other Middle East nations on Sept. 20, 2001
– not because of any links to US created al Qaeda – and a big chunk of that plan is still being
carried out today, 4 Presidential terms later.
While we don't know much about what the intelligence agencies do, by design, we do know
a few things. That in the conditions of the early Cold War, and given the mandate against all
enemies foreign and domestic (the oath the military takes) that narrative control is a vital
weapon. We know that journalists, clergy and even rock stars have been actual agents, so the
number of fellow travelers must be considerable. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, it has
been necessary, so it was thought by some, to manufacture new enemies on a Vietnam scale. And
the exercise and paranoia against domestic enemies has returned to 1960s levels as well.
For the old men nostalgic for the 60s, from the neocon side, these last few decades have been
sweet.
Materially, all we really need is to cover and protect our body from the elements and food.
Everything else is gravy.
Psychologically, we need a lot more than what North American society offers most of us today
but for some reasons we keep on lying to ourselves thinking that if we had a little more stuff
we'd be happier.
We all have to lie to ourselves thousands of times a day to keep our routines and lifestyles
and all these lies make society.
Hey Yves, the tomato question does seem to have something to it: "Nix v. Hedden (1893) was
a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that, under U.S. customs regulations,
the tomato should be classified as a vegetable rather than a fruit". From Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nix_v._Hedden
.
Note to Ilargi: re tomatoes, somebody got there before Trump :-)
I think a great number of people in the US and in Europe do not trust the MSM any more,
even though they may continue to pay attention as a spectator sport (people do enjoy yelling
at their TV sets). Activism is another ball game that is still being played, but in the US
it has become nearly futile because of the restrictions and police tactics used to squelch
them or shut them down. It can also be impossible to distinguish between genuine protesters,
paid participants, and shit-disturbers or agents-provocateurs, which dilutes the message (questionable
intent by those who want to promote or discredit the demonstration).
Having read the comments here and on other independent sites for a long time, I've noticed
the tremendous increase in articulate and aware commenters that can see through the tissues
of lies from the MSM and take even a lot of the "serious" stuff with a grain of salt, knowing
that some things don't change much and people tend to overreact based on shock-value news designed
to stir resentment and "us vs. them" divisiveness. This is encouraging because it shows people
are wising up, thinking more critically about who is really running the show (it is not
Trump by-and-large), and not allowing their views to be manipulated.
I think Ukraine was a turning point, as the lying of the media was just way too obvious.
That opened a lot of eyes. The reporting on Greece and Merkel/Schäuble's austerity terror was
equally bad, but not many people understand that.
I believe it was Iraq. When they named the 2003 invasion Operation Iraqi Liberation, or
O.I.L. , all the pretense of it being for any legit reason was gone.
Huh? Iraq? Did I miss something?
I heard about some thingy where we wasted trillions of dollars and killed millions of people.
But all of the people who thought THAT was a good idea are gone now, hiding their heads in
shame and hoping they don't get summoned to a war crimes tribunal. Right?
I believe it was the Gnadenhutten massacre. The 96 Moravian Lenape, brained with mallets,
by Washington's Virginia Militia were probably too busy clawing through their former frozen
fields, looking for corn kernels to feed their children, to pose much of a threat as terrorists?
Yes, what got to me was the Western instigated coup in Ukraine. I voted for Barrack Obama
twice but could not vote for Hillary Clinton. I rationalized that the Iraq Invasion was an
isolated crazy GOP debacle. Denial is powerful defense mechanism. If the media lies, America
is a not so innocent killer, and the Cold War 2.0 with Russia has reignited; we are screwed.
Austerity, scapegoating Russia and the flood of millions of refugees into Europe are proof
that this is the awful truth.
It's about ratings people. The president of NBC himself said it during the campaign when
someone asked why he was televising everything the Insane Clown was saying. You all need to
watch Network again. Nothing's changed. Which means they brought him up and now they will take
him down.
Ratings are to broadcast or print media as shareholder value is to corporation - the overriding
metric that blots out any reponsibility to the commons.
and the long trenchant comment by LondonBob including these paras:
"The Twitter-cheering for John Bercow, the transformation of him into a Love, Actually-style
hero of British middle-class probity against a gruff, migrant-banning Yank, could be the most
grotesque political spectacle of the year so far. Not because it's virtue-signalling, as claimed
by the handful of brave critics who've raised their heads above the online orgy of brown-nosing
to wonder if Bercow is really promoting himself rather than parliamentary decency. No, it's
worse than that. It's the lowest species of cant, hypocrisy of epic, eye-watering proportions,
an effort to erase Bercow's and Parliament's own bloody responsibility for the calamities in
the Middle East that Trump is now merely responding to, albeit very badly.
"Bercow, you see, this supposed hero of the refugees and Middle Eastern migrants temporarily
banned from the US, voted for the bombing of Iraq. He green-lighted that horror that did so
much to propel the Middle East into the pit of sorrow and savagery it currently finds itself.
As his profile on the They Work For You website puts it, 'John Bercow consistently voted for
the Iraq War'. On 18 March 2003, he voted against a motion saying the case for war hadn't been
made, even though it hadn't. On the same day he voted for the government to 'use all means
necessary' to ensure the destruction of Iraq's WMD.
"As everyone knows now, and as many of us knew back then, Iraq's WMD capacity had been vastly
exaggerated by the black propaganda of the New Labour government, by myth and misinformation
cynically whipped up to the end of providing Britain's leaders with the thrill of an overseas
moral crusade against evil. Bercow voted in favour of these lies. And he voted for the use
of 'all means necessary' to tame Saddam's regime. We know what this involved: Britain joined
the bombing campaign and courtesy of an ill-thought-through war by Western allies, Iraq was
ripped apart and condemned to more than a decade of bloodshed. And refugee crises. Bercow was
one of the authors of this calamity, one of the signatories to the Middle East's death warrant,
and now we're going to let him posture and preen against Trump's three-month ban on certain
Middle Eastern migrants? What is wrong with us?"
But kudos to kind-hearted Ilargi for willingness to give the benefit of the doubt to one
of these preening monsters!
Trump loves any kind of publicity. The media is playing right into his hand by printing
all of the garbage he generates.I know many Trump voters and supporters. They all complain
that the media is picking on Trump. None of them look seriously at what he says or does. There
universal reaction is give him a chance and quit picking on him.The media would be better off
focusing on his and congreses policy decisions and how that effect the average person. Turning
he's presidency into a big soap opera is actually helping Trump keep his supporters. I have
not heard a single Trump voter say they regret voting for Trump.
Good to see some focus on Britain's version of the Augean stables. In terms of the so called
Westminster paedophile ring – the last I heard on this it was that, Ooops .we appear to have
lost a substantial amount of vital evidence. I imagine that MI6 have on record most if not
all of the disgusting details, which I also imagine are useful assets that can be used to control
certain people.
In my opinion, this is a good explanation from 2015, of the behaviour of the BBC & the Guardian,
from journalist Jonathon Cook.
So far Trump has only really accomplished two things: he shut down the TPP and he inspired
Lena Dunham to lose some weight. Everything thing else has been more or less noise.
I've always thought this first two years of Trump's reign will involve him in bringing to
heal the establishment GOP (GOPe) Obviously during the confirmation process, Trump has to be
on his best behavior. But I don't like the pattern of Trump issuing useless EO's, and then
the Democrats going ballistic, and then Trump supporters being satiated by all the Dem whining.
That's a recipe for two years of nothing.
On the Muslim ban, there are two parts to it. The current NeoCon / NeoLib tag-team play
is to kill a million Muslims in their nations and then to offer the survivors the weak reach
around of letting a million Muslims emigrate to the West. Trump seems to be offering a different
deal. The West stops killing Muslims in Muslim nations and in return Muslims stay in Muslim
nations and stop coming to the West. We have yet to see if Trump can hold off the temptation
to start slaughtering Muslims in their nations like the NeoCons do.
I get the feeling from Trump's over-the-top reaction to the courts staying his Muslim ban
that he actually doesn't want it reinstated. I read on a pro-Trump legal blog that the Justice
Department lawyers were super weak in their arguments before the 9th Circuit court, in what
should be a super easy case to argue. Activist judges halting the ban means when the inevitable
next terrorist attack comes, Trump can blame it on the judges and make some sort of move to
purge their power.
On Iran, Trump has zero leverage and so I do not see how this is going to end well. The
only thing we can hope for is this is a bit of Kabuki being regulated by Putin. In the end
a US-Russian alliance, as Trump is proposing, means a closer relationship between the US and
Iran. Israel will not be pleased.
My theory on Trump's relationship to Israel is that he is giving them enough rope for them
to hang themselves. In Europe particularly the Israeli brand is getting fatally interwoven
with the Trump brand. So far the only thing saving Israel is diaspora Jews being able to shame
their local populations away from the BDS movement. But the diaspora is 98% anti-Trump. There
is currently a huge increase of oxygen being given to the BDS movement, which means it should
soon spring back to life.
Can Trump be allies with Israel and Russia (and Iran)? The only way I can see this happening
is a deal where Iran gets to go nuclear and become fully integrated into the global community
in exchange for allowing Hezbollah to be wiped out by Israel.
Trump is at his anti-NeoLiberal best when he is in deep trouble. I was happy when that Access
Hollywood tape came out because I knew he would have to double down on Steve Bannon and Stephen
Miller and go full-on butch economic nationalist. And it won him the election. Hopefully the
seas will get very rough soon and we can all enjoy the spectacle of full combat between Team
Trump and the GOPe.
I like the "offer the survivors a weak reacharound". Reminds me of Vietnam, where we would
napalm a village and then fall over ourselves making sure the burn victims all got Band-Aids
The entire Trump military/security team is wildly anti-Muslim, so the thought they are not
going to keep on killing Muslims all over the map is just plain silly.
Bannon is just plain dangerous. Here's a piece on his favorite books. Not surprisingly,
he hates Muslims. Also, he appears to imagine himself a brilliant strategist for the ages who
just happens to be the right man for 'The Fourth Turning', one of those ideas and books that
purports the existence of an historical pattern based on a cycle of generations, each generation
of every group of 4 having its own 'character', taken together claiming to explain a long cycle
of great crises and/or turning points of US history. He believes we are now in such a critical
period. It's one of those notions that has superficial appeal but quickly falls apart when
engaged critically:
TPP? Globalization? I see no evidence whatever that Trump has any intention of rolling back
US-dominated corporate globalization, rather, he wants to create trade flows that are even
more wildly skewed in favour of US financial/corporate power internationally even while effectively
transferring wealth from the periphery to core of Empire to support some minor job creation
– of course in the meantime granting outlandish tax cuts to corporations and the wealthy at
large.
I'm sorry, but Trump et al have played millions and millions of well-meaning Americans like
a fiddle.
The best description of the "Trump Situation" ever written was penned by 'Steve from Virginia'
author of the blog Economic Undertow:
One word that describes our precious country is incompetence. We have gone from being
the 'we-can-do-it' nation that put a man on the Moon to the 'hire a Mexican to do it' nation
that cannot find its ass with both hands. The fact of our dysfunction and the country's reliance
on migrant labor are what gives form to the efforts of Donald Trump. Yet he acts against himself:
he is the lazy-man of American politics who requires others to do his heavy lifting. This does
not mean physical labor but instead the struggle to become clear in the mind, to craft out
of disparate- and contradictory elements a policy outline or philosophy of governing. This
is never attempted, it is too difficult, instead there is the recycling of old, bankrupt memes.
The candidate's absence of effort leaves a residue of personality: Trump is a blank page upon
which others paint in the sketch, an actor who aims to meet (diminished) public expectations
and nothing more, sound and fury significant of nothing in particular.
I'm surprised no one seems to see a serious side to the reporting of Trump's antics. Is
it not important to keep hammering home that the man is unhinged and that this is something
pulling at the social frabric, something crying out to be dealt with? I seriously doubt that
we'll be able to address the "real issues" adequately until we find ways come to terms with
him not as a buffoon but as a deeply flawed human being.
Another false note–"Muslim is not a race." True, but being Jewish is not a racial characteristic
and yet it is obvious that antisemitism is very similar to racism in its irrationality and
hatred. Antisemites a hundred years ago would in some cases point to radicals who were Jewish
as their excuse, just as Islamophobes would point to Islamic extremism as theirs. Racists I
grew around would point to Idi Amin's Uganda ( yes, I am old) and other African countries with
horrible human rights records as proof that American blacks should be grateful to be here.
This "Islam is not a race" is mainly a tiresome distraction used by bigots and not a prelude
to a deeper discussion on the wide varieties of human bigotries. Bigots can use almost any
category they wish and concoct pseudo- rational propositions to buttress their hatred. We even
have lefties hating blue collar white males as a group for Trump support. We don't have to
join the people who use nitpicking phrases not to analyze, but to justify their hatreds. I
don't think the writer intends to do this, but he is using a standard Muslim blame cannon phrase.
After all this, I actually liked the rest of this piece, but that part was nails on a chalkboard
to me. I am glad the liberal mainstream is siding with Muslims against Trump. There are some
liberals ( Maher, Sam Harris etc..) who have been pushing a Muslim bashing agenda. And yes,
as usual the mainstream which is so solicitous of Muslim rights cared little when Obama bombed
Muslim countries. But I would rather that liberals be right if hypocritical then consistently
wrong.
You forgot to mention Zionist racism directed toward Palestinians. An equally equivalent
contemporary application of the term
On the subject of Trump i believe his executive order is directed toward travelers from
seven countries that the previous Potus identified in an anti-terrorist executive order.
If I have it correctly, Neither Trump or BHO e orders are directed against muslims or any other
religion for thats matter.
I agree with you on Zionist racism towards Palestinians.
On the deep path on the definition of racism, it depends. Given the prevalence of Islamophobia
in the US, some of it on the left ( including the kneejerk supporters of Israel), I don't think
it is helpful to use the "Islam is not a race" phrase as some sort of rebuttal. Islamophobia
is a form of bigotry– whether one wants to nitpick about exactly what form should depend on
the circumstances.
I do not believe in the corruption of language. Confucius said that the beginning of wisdom
is to call things by their proper names.
Are you by the same sloppy logic going to cal bias against women and gays "racism"?
Islamophobia is indeed not racist. Arabs, many American and African blacks, Persians (who
are not Arabians) and Indonesians among others are followers of Islam.
We already have perfectly good works, like "bigotry," "bias," and "discrimination".
I probably shouldn't have said anything, since the original poster clearly isn't a bigot,
but it set me off because in most cases this "Islam is not a race" phrase is used by Islamophibes
and they of course do not follow up by pointing out that it is a form of bigotry, like antisemitism.
If the poster here only means we should call it bigotry and not racism, I agree.
But that meme is used a lot and usually by Islamophobes who won't cop to being bigots either.
They aren't trying to have a deep conversation about different forms of bigotry. They are trying
to argue that it is rational to fear Muslims because Islam is, in their view, an inherently
evil ideology. But in practice Islamophobes are not rational or necessarily even consistent.
That's why I wrote my comment, pointing out that bigotry in any form is generally not some
carefully thought out logical train of thought, but some pseudo- rational set of propositions
often garbled together. This is why a Sikh can get beaten up by Islamophobes. It is also why
antisemites are often so confused about whether they hate Jews as a religion, as an alleged
race, or as some group of scary communist bankers. It's not like racism itself is usually based
on a clear understanding of biology.
So if we are going to push back on Islamophobia as racism, it should be so people see it
as like antisemitism, which is what it most closely resembles.
I have written enough today, so I am going to stop.
The reality is language evolves, often for the worse making clarity of message a casualty,
unless a tedious definition of terms is invoked which can easily end up being a form of deflection
from the original point.. ..
File under :Liberal/Conservative/Neoliberal/Progressive. I find all these Identity Labels can
be very loosely applied for reasons other than clarity.
In the case of the word Race, it is, some would correctly contend, archaic terminology while
simultaneously being convenient shorthand for "red meat" identity invectives.
Muslim isn't a race. If the ban had been about Arabs not being allowed in you'd have a point.
However, a person from Indonesia is allowed in and that country is almost entirely Muslim.
Plus, complaining about the US exercising boarder control is ridiculous. That is one the
jobs of a nation. No one bat an eye when Japan stated we're not allowing anyone in wrt to any
refugee problem. Yet when any Western nation does it, the sky falls and the charges of bigotry
come out.
People who live in countries that are bombed by the US or its close allies have the moral
right to come here. Yemen, for instance, is bombed by the US and much more heavily by the Saudis
with our help and keeping refugees from Yemen out is an extreme form of ugly Americanism. If
we don't want the refugees, then we should stop causing or contributing to the chaos and death
in the countries which produce the refugees.
>People who live in countries that are bombed by the US or its close allies have the moral
right to come here.
And where are these rights enumerated? I don't recognize "moral rights" beyond those associated
with copyright (and I am not particularly fond of those, either).
So the fact that we are bombing civilians and helping the Saudis plunge Yemen into a famine
is something you don't question, just the right of our victims to come here?
The legacy of Obama's incompetence in foreign policy does not obligate American citizens
to accept - or to foist upon their posterity - changes in the demographic make-up of our populace.
I'm still interested in learning where you discovered this moral right to move here
In other words, morality is a matter of preference and your number one moral value in this
context is keeping out refugees, people who suffer precisely because of our foreign policy.
Demographic balance is somewhere near the top of your own personal list of flavors. Anyway,
my notion of moral right involves the crazy idea that if you help destroy a country you have
moral obligations to the victims.
And by the way, Trump is likely to escalate our support for the Saudi war on Yemen.
LOL it certainly was a matter of preference for our recently departed Drone-Bomber-In-Chief,
and for all of the people who (thought/think) he was a really moral and upstanding kind of
guy. Just like our former Secretary of State, who threatened to cut off Sweden if they didn't
accept Monsanto poison.
"You're black!" said the pot to the kettle
"People who live in countries that are bombed by the US or its close allies have the moral
right to come here."
Bullsht.
The US does have the moral obligation not to bomb countries that have not attacked the US and
in that case only in a "just war" context if at all
Meaningless. The US frequently bombs innocent people or helps others like the Saudis or
the Israelis do so. You say it is wrong, as do I, but apparently there are no consequences
allowed in your moral universe which might inconvenience us. We really have no moral obligations
at all– we can bomb people and if the survivors wish to come here to escape then we have the
right to keep them out according to you. All this boils down to is that we have the strongest
military. Your views regarding whether we should bomb someone are nothing more than your own
idiosyncratic preference and that is using your own standard. The people who control the military
want to use it to bomb other countries, so they do. Might makes Right.
I read it. So what? If we go ahead and bomb countries anyway, creating refugees, we have
no obligation to help them. It is like saying that it was wrong for some Wall Street guys to
steal people's money, but if they do, they have no obligation to give it back.
The US does bomb countries, so your flat earth analogy doesn't really work here. We aren't
discussing hypotheticals. There are real refugees from real policies and Trump is likely to
continue them or make them worse. We are directly responsible for the misery of vast numbers
of people and the numbers are likely to grow. Set aside the internet squabble we are having,
because you are so wrapped up in it you are losing touch with what we are arguing about.
Anyway, as I just wrote upthread, I have written enough.
"Anyway, as I just wrote upthread, I have written enough."
That we'll agree on. Maybe another day you can elucidate on why you bother writing when
you could find an airbase and stand on the runway, to stop the bombing.
No they don't have that right. It falls under "that's your problem".
Now, as harsh as that is I think from a humanitarian view and basic decency another nation
should show some compassion and allow them succor. However, nations and the people of those
nations are under no obligation to do so.
Moral rights are meaningless. And yes, I do agree that another nation shouldn't create the
refugees to begin with. As I find war to be a tool that is to be used as last resort. What
has been occurring in the mid-East has been so far from a last resort that I can't even come
up with a decent metaphor or simile.
But that still doesn't change the fact that people do not have the right to enter another
nation if the nation decides to say "No".
So if we go ahead and bomb Yemen or help the Saudis bomb Yemen, it really doesn't matter
at all. We are responsible for war crimes, but we have zero obligation to help the victims.
You switch back and forth between talk of morality and the law of the strongest. You say
we shouldn't bomb other countries for no good reason, but that is as much a meaningless platitude
as you say moral rights are in general. Basically you find it distasteful that we bomb other
countries, but what really exercises you is the possibility that some refugees might come here.
That will not stand.
The Athenians had no good reason to suppose that the Gods would not favor them.
There was nothing in their laws or beliefs to suggest otherwise.
Similarly, there is nothing in our laws that requires us to accept population transfers
because this or that President drops bombs in a far away country on people of whom we know
nothing.
Anon is correct. We can be obligated to bomb other countries by treaty. For instance, we
bombed France to oust the Nazis as a result of treaty obligations. It is also correct to say
that the US has been flagrantly ignoring what were considered to be international norms (pretty
much no one notices here, but Russia has been making a stink on a regular basis in the UN).
Any day since 1/20, you could look at the front page of WaPo, NYT, CNN, etc., and see op-eds
about how Trump is very very non-professional, sullying the good name of the office of the
President. Denigrating the institution and the very very serious role it plays in American
society, nay, the world! And yet the same front page will also cover, in-detail, whatever halfbaked
Trump tweet or Spicer's performance-art-as-press-conference has been served up that day. They
recognize that it's become a farce, but like someone who can't stop poking the tooth that hurts,
they present the farce as being very very important news. The establishment press has become
too enamored of the pomp and circumstance, the ceremonial of the White House media operation
and their visible, although largely pointless, role in the whole thing. They're too scared
of giving that up, lest they lose prominence or, le horror, have to do real reporting. So the
Washington press corp prop up their end of the ceremony in the vain hopes of a return to the
way things were, in denial of how their function is quickly becoming redundant. If all they're
going to do is talk about Trump's latest tweet, we might as well just stop reading their sites
and just read his tweets ourselves. Social media can just give us the press releases directly,
we don't need the press to act as town criers, screeching out Trump's decree in the town squares.
"Emerson College study found that the American public trusts Trump more than the media.
"
The WaPo's attempt to turn readers away from great sites like NC with their "fake news"
story has backfired spectacularly. Thanks to NC and others furious initial pushback, including
well crafted letters from NC's atty and the recipients responses published on NC, the term
"fake news" has become a joke in the court of public opinion. It's become a subject for comedy
skits. This is no small thing. Actually, it's a pretty big thing. McCarthist witch hunts live
and die in the court of public opinion, imo. See: Joseph Welch, "Have you no sense of decency
sir?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1eA5bUzVjA
And with that exchange the court of public opinion turned against McCarthy and the witch
hunt. Now where was I going with this ?
I was a census worker in 2010, and the forms didn't include Hispanic/Latino as a race; rather,
it was put as a separate identity category with sub-answers for specific country of ancestral
origin. However, 9 times out of 10 Hispanic responds would have me put "Hispanic" in the write-in
box for the "Other" race option (the other 10% would have me write-in their ancestral country).
The smarties with the degrees can say it's not a race, but if the people say that's their race,
who are we to say otherwise?
Ask Rachel Dolezal. Or perhaps Elizabeth Warren, an undocumented Native American (i.e.,
Indian). And yes, Pew Research would agree that folks who consider themselves to be Latino
consider Latino to be a race. But most are Native American.
But not anyone can be recognized as Native American in the USA unless they are on a tribal
register, which is odd, as the USG seems to subject Native American citizens to a higher level
of proof than Native Americans from south of the border.
" . But our problem is not called Donald Trump. And we need to stop pretending that it is.
We are the problem. We allow our governments to tell our armies to bomb and drone innocent
people while we watch cooking shows. We have believed, as long as we've been alive, whatever
the media feed us, without any critical thought, which we reserve for choosing our next holiday
destination." .
Dear Raul,
Yes, the media creates distortions in our perceptions. Yes, the orange one plays that terrain
like a pro. Yes the British MP is hypocritical. I am with you there.
"We are the problem." This kind of reasoning may be correct on a cosmic scale but it always
seems to run to one of two conclusions. 1) Become a Buddhist and try to improve yourself. 2)
Humans are too dumb to survive; wait until nature takes its course and humans kill themselves
off playing Russian Roulette.
I am not sure what your are recommending here. Do we let the orange sacred clown run this
imperialist project into the ground? (To be replaced by what?) Or in opposing Trump do we clarify
what we do want = i.e. a government that does not torture, a government that does not protect
gotcha game mortgage lenders, a government that does not arm the world, a government that does
not subsidize old suicidal fossil fuels, a government that is not run by a hysterical 3 AM
tweeting 16 year old Marie Antoinette, your issue here .
I don't know the answer here. The orange bull in the china shop is useful in so far as he
reveals certain truths = ex: waterboarding is torture, congressmen are for sale, America has
killed a lot of people, etc. If he stops the NeoCon project of invading other countries he
might even be a benefit to world peace. But he's also likely to get people killed with his
impulsive decisions and his ginning up the rubes.
What this really tells you is to what extent the political systems in the US and the
UK, along with the media that serve them, have turned into a massive void, a vortex, a black
hole from which any reflection, criticism or self-awareness can no longer escape. By endlessly
and relentlessly pointing to someone, anyone, outside of their own circle of 'righteousness'
and political correctness, they have all managed to implant one view of reality in their
voters and viewers, while at the same time engaging in the very behavior they accuse the
people of that they point to. For profit.
On a recent interview with Donald Trump, Bill O'Reilly stated in regards to Vladimir Putin
"But he's a killer". Donald Trump responds with a truth rarely heard in the media today, "There
are a lot of killers. Do you think our country is so innocent?"
I may not be a fan of Donald Trumps, but, how can we put down that level of honesty? Imagine
if we actually had an honest nationwide discussion on what we are doing in the rest of the
world .
"... We also learn from those presstitutes that O'Bomber who killed God know how many innocent brown people at God knows how many weddings, wouldn't have gone through with the raid because too risky! So Saint Obama for Times presstitutes is the good experienced killer, while Trump is the bad, inexperienced killer. The irony of their twisted logic escapes them. ..."
Our neoliberal media and commenters would serve themselves and their Oligarch owners better, if
they ignored Trump's tweets, or Ivanka fashion business and focus on what he and his Admin are
doing and what consequences that would entail.
Take Times article about the special ops raid in Yemen. The obama team planned it, but it was
Trump (or somebody from hs administration below him) who pulled the trigger.
Now those suckers claim that Yemen government is against special ops raid. (Yemen has a government?
Really ? )
We also learn from those presstitutes that O'Bomber who killed God know how many innocent brown
people at God knows how many weddings, wouldn't have gone through with the raid because too risky!
So Saint Obama for Times presstitutes is the good experienced killer, while Trump is the bad,
inexperienced killer. The irony of their twisted logic escapes them.
"... Around 1975, the Soviet Union entered a period of economic stagnation from which it would never emerge. Increasingly, the USSR looked to Europe, primarily West Germany, to provide hard currency financing through massive loans, while the U.S. became a major supplier of grain.[1] Despite moments of anti-Communist grandstanding, the Americans and Western Europeans maintained trade relations with the cash-strapped Soviet Union, which dipped into its Stalin-era gold reserves to increase availability of consumer goods . ..."
"... Soviet living standards remained poor by Western standards. By 1980, only 9 percent of Soviets had automobiles, which was actually a vast improvement under Brezhnev. Very little was computerized, due to state paranoia about the use of telecommunications for counterrevolutionary purposes. The USSR was able to endure this technological lag because its closed economy protected it from competition, but its ability to maintain military superiority increasingly depended on the ability to keep pace with Western modernization. ..."
"... It did not need a foreign enemy to "defeat" it, for it was deteriorating from within. ..."
"... In the Great Game of "chicken," in which we all are mostly passengers in the speeding cars with loony drivers ya-hooing out the windows, I recall the Soviets were the ones to veer off from that head-on collision that might have ended it all earlier than it seems increasingly likely to end anyway. And Russian leadership seems more concerned about the survival of the nation than our own clown-car leadership. ..."
"... And patently the military-security monkey that's riding our backs is doing a p!ss-poor job of "defending us" in any ordinary sense of the term, and not even a vary good job of playing Imperial Forces. Though of course the net effects of military and political chaos-building and destabilization do blast out a nice open-pit mine for corporate looters to get at the extractables.. ..."
An over extended Soviet Empire collapsed in no small part due to its obsession with winning
a war, albeit one that thankfully remained 'cold', that it never could.
A corrupt, nepotistic distant, paranoid elite that instead of dividing its efforts into looking
after its own society's well-being, as well a apparently just defending it, opted for near as
dammed bankrupting itself attempting to feed an insatiable military machine it could ill afford
(and would mostly never use) at its increasingly disaffected, divided, restive people's expense.
First, did the Soviet state "bankrupt itself damm near" mostly by trying to feed an "insatiable
military machine," or did the wealth of the Soviets get dissipated into other ratholes as well,
alongside various external pressures and effects? And what scale applied to each political-decision
"allocation"? One view, among a flood of intersecting and competing interpretations, of course:
The stunning collapse of the Soviet empire in 1989-91 has often been heralded in the
West as a triumph of capitalism and democracy, as though this event were obviously a direct
result of the policies of the Reagan and Thatcher governments. This self-congratulatory analysis
has little relation to measurable facts, circumstances, and internal political dynamics that
were the real historical causes of the deterioration of the Soviet empire and ultimately the
Soviet state itself. Fiery political speeches and tough diplomatic postures make good theater,
but they are ineffective at forcing political transformation in totalitarian nations, as is
proven by the persistence of far less powerful Communist regimes in Cuba and east Asia in the
face of punishing trade embargos. The key to understanding the reasons for the demise of the
Soviet Union is to be found not in the speeches or policies of Western politicians, but in
internal Soviet history.
1. Stagnation in the 1970s
The Soviet Union was already in decline as a world power well before 1980. Any illusions
of global Communist hegemony had evaporated with the collapse of Sino-Soviet relations in the
1960s. As the Nixon administration improved American relations with an increasingly independent
China, the Soviets saw a strategic need to scale down the nuclear arms race, which placed enormous
strains on its faltering economy. The threat of a nuclear confrontation was reduced considerably
by the anti-ballistic missile (ABM) and strategic arms limitation treaties (SALT) contracted
with the Nixon administration in 1972. This détente, or easing of tensions, allowed Leonid
Brezhnev to focus on domestic economic and social development, while boosting his political
popularity.
Around 1975, the Soviet Union entered a period of economic stagnation from which it
would never emerge. Increasingly, the USSR looked to Europe, primarily West Germany, to provide
hard currency financing through massive loans, while the U.S. became a major supplier of grain.[1]
Despite moments of anti-Communist grandstanding, the Americans and Western Europeans maintained
trade relations with the cash-strapped Soviet Union, which dipped into its Stalin-era gold
reserves to increase availability of consumer goods .
Foreign trade and mild economic reforms were not enough to overcome the inefficiencies of
the Soviet command economy, which remained technologically backward and full of corruption.
Economic planners were frequently unable to diagnose and remedy problems, since they were given
false reports by officials who only pretended to be productive.
Soviet living standards remained poor by Western standards. By 1980, only 9 percent
of Soviets had automobiles, which was actually a vast improvement under Brezhnev. Very little
was computerized, due to state paranoia about the use of telecommunications for counterrevolutionary
purposes. The USSR was able to endure this technological lag because its closed economy protected
it from competition, but its ability to maintain military superiority increasingly depended
on the ability to keep pace with Western modernization.
In his radio broadcasts during the late 1970s, Ronald Reagan complained that the capitalist
nations propped up the intrinsically flawed Soviet regime, instead of allowing it to naturally
collapse from its own inefficiency and inhumanity.[2] In contrast to his later hagiographers,
Reagan did not envision defeating the Soviet Union by forceful action, but instead he perceived
that the regime would collapse from its own failings once the West removed its financial life
support system. It is this early Reagan, far more thoughtful than he is generally credited,
who proved to be most astute in diagnosing the state of the USSR. It did not need a
foreign enemy to "defeat" it, for it was deteriorating from within. http://www.arcaneknowledge.org/histpoli/soviet.htm
And I recall the Soviet military leadership was largely (no, not exclusively of course, humans
being what they are) reacting to the clear and present danger that "the West" presented. Among
many other considerations, of course. In the Great Game of "chicken," in which we all are
mostly passengers in the speeding cars with loony drivers ya-hooing out the windows, I recall
the Soviets were the ones to veer off from that head-on collision that might have ended it all
earlier than it seems increasingly likely to end anyway. And Russian leadership seems more concerned
about the survival of the nation than our own clown-car leadership.
Seems to me that all of us ordinary people, many of whom would gladly take advantage of opportunities
to do some looting themselves, to "get ahead" in the "rat race," if only those opportunities were
presented, have insufficient collective concern about the many systems, living and political-economy,
that apparently are collapsing or running out of control. And patently the military-security
monkey that's riding our backs is doing a p!ss-poor job of "defending us" in any ordinary sense
of the term, and not even a vary good job of playing Imperial Forces. Though of course the net
effects of military and political chaos-building and destabilization do blast out a nice open-pit
mine for corporate looters to get at the extractables..
But yeah, the halls of history are full of echoes and shadows and reflections in a glass darkly
And I wonder if London bookies are running a line on when history, as recorded and debated and
acted out by humans, will REALLY end, thanks to our wonderful unbridled inventiveness and lack
of that genetic predisposition to survive as a species that ants and termites and rats and cats
and other "lesser creatures" seem to have
"... Around 1975, the Soviet Union entered a period of economic stagnation from which it would never emerge. Increasingly, the USSR looked to Europe, primarily West Germany, to provide hard currency financing through massive loans, while the U.S. became a major supplier of grain.[1] Despite moments of anti-Communist grandstanding, the Americans and Western Europeans maintained trade relations with the cash-strapped Soviet Union, which dipped into its Stalin-era gold reserves to increase availability of consumer goods . ..."
"... Soviet living standards remained poor by Western standards. By 1980, only 9 percent of Soviets had automobiles, which was actually a vast improvement under Brezhnev. Very little was computerized, due to state paranoia about the use of telecommunications for counterrevolutionary purposes. The USSR was able to endure this technological lag because its closed economy protected it from competition, but its ability to maintain military superiority increasingly depended on the ability to keep pace with Western modernization. ..."
"... It did not need a foreign enemy to "defeat" it, for it was deteriorating from within. ..."
"... In the Great Game of "chicken," in which we all are mostly passengers in the speeding cars with loony drivers ya-hooing out the windows, I recall the Soviets were the ones to veer off from that head-on collision that might have ended it all earlier than it seems increasingly likely to end anyway. And Russian leadership seems more concerned about the survival of the nation than our own clown-car leadership. ..."
"... And patently the military-security monkey that's riding our backs is doing a p!ss-poor job of "defending us" in any ordinary sense of the term, and not even a vary good job of playing Imperial Forces. Though of course the net effects of military and political chaos-building and destabilization do blast out a nice open-pit mine for corporate looters to get at the extractables.. ..."
An over extended Soviet Empire collapsed in no small part due to its obsession with winning
a war, albeit one that thankfully remained 'cold', that it never could.
A corrupt, nepotistic distant, paranoid elite that instead of dividing its efforts into looking
after its own society's well-being, as well a apparently just defending it, opted for near as
dammed bankrupting itself attempting to feed an insatiable military machine it could ill afford
(and would mostly never use) at its increasingly disaffected, divided, restive people's expense.
First, did the Soviet state "bankrupt itself damm near" mostly by trying to feed an "insatiable
military machine," or did the wealth of the Soviets get dissipated into other ratholes as well,
alongside various external pressures and effects? And what scale applied to each political-decision
"allocation"? One view, among a flood of intersecting and competing interpretations, of course:
The stunning collapse of the Soviet empire in 1989-91 has often been heralded in the
West as a triumph of capitalism and democracy, as though this event were obviously a direct
result of the policies of the Reagan and Thatcher governments. This self-congratulatory analysis
has little relation to measurable facts, circumstances, and internal political dynamics that
were the real historical causes of the deterioration of the Soviet empire and ultimately the
Soviet state itself. Fiery political speeches and tough diplomatic postures make good theater,
but they are ineffective at forcing political transformation in totalitarian nations, as is
proven by the persistence of far less powerful Communist regimes in Cuba and east Asia in the
face of punishing trade embargos. The key to understanding the reasons for the demise of the
Soviet Union is to be found not in the speeches or policies of Western politicians, but in
internal Soviet history.
1. Stagnation in the 1970s
The Soviet Union was already in decline as a world power well before 1980. Any illusions
of global Communist hegemony had evaporated with the collapse of Sino-Soviet relations in the
1960s. As the Nixon administration improved American relations with an increasingly independent
China, the Soviets saw a strategic need to scale down the nuclear arms race, which placed enormous
strains on its faltering economy. The threat of a nuclear confrontation was reduced considerably
by the anti-ballistic missile (ABM) and strategic arms limitation treaties (SALT) contracted
with the Nixon administration in 1972. This détente, or easing of tensions, allowed Leonid
Brezhnev to focus on domestic economic and social development, while boosting his political
popularity.
Around 1975, the Soviet Union entered a period of economic stagnation from which it
would never emerge. Increasingly, the USSR looked to Europe, primarily West Germany, to provide
hard currency financing through massive loans, while the U.S. became a major supplier of grain.[1]
Despite moments of anti-Communist grandstanding, the Americans and Western Europeans maintained
trade relations with the cash-strapped Soviet Union, which dipped into its Stalin-era gold
reserves to increase availability of consumer goods .
Foreign trade and mild economic reforms were not enough to overcome the inefficiencies of
the Soviet command economy, which remained technologically backward and full of corruption.
Economic planners were frequently unable to diagnose and remedy problems, since they were given
false reports by officials who only pretended to be productive.
Soviet living standards remained poor by Western standards. By 1980, only 9 percent
of Soviets had automobiles, which was actually a vast improvement under Brezhnev. Very little
was computerized, due to state paranoia about the use of telecommunications for counterrevolutionary
purposes. The USSR was able to endure this technological lag because its closed economy protected
it from competition, but its ability to maintain military superiority increasingly depended
on the ability to keep pace with Western modernization.
In his radio broadcasts during the late 1970s, Ronald Reagan complained that the capitalist
nations propped up the intrinsically flawed Soviet regime, instead of allowing it to naturally
collapse from its own inefficiency and inhumanity.[2] In contrast to his later hagiographers,
Reagan did not envision defeating the Soviet Union by forceful action, but instead he perceived
that the regime would collapse from its own failings once the West removed its financial life
support system. It is this early Reagan, far more thoughtful than he is generally credited,
who proved to be most astute in diagnosing the state of the USSR. It did not need a
foreign enemy to "defeat" it, for it was deteriorating from within. http://www.arcaneknowledge.org/histpoli/soviet.htm
And I recall the Soviet military leadership was largely (no, not exclusively of course, humans
being what they are) reacting to the clear and present danger that "the West" presented. Among
many other considerations, of course. In the Great Game of "chicken," in which we all are
mostly passengers in the speeding cars with loony drivers ya-hooing out the windows, I recall
the Soviets were the ones to veer off from that head-on collision that might have ended it all
earlier than it seems increasingly likely to end anyway. And Russian leadership seems more concerned
about the survival of the nation than our own clown-car leadership.
Seems to me that all of us ordinary people, many of whom would gladly take advantage of opportunities
to do some looting themselves, to "get ahead" in the "rat race," if only those opportunities were
presented, have insufficient collective concern about the many systems, living and political-economy,
that apparently are collapsing or running out of control. And patently the military-security
monkey that's riding our backs is doing a p!ss-poor job of "defending us" in any ordinary sense
of the term, and not even a vary good job of playing Imperial Forces. Though of course the net
effects of military and political chaos-building and destabilization do blast out a nice open-pit
mine for corporate looters to get at the extractables..
But yeah, the halls of history are full of echoes and shadows and reflections in a glass darkly
And I wonder if London bookies are running a line on when history, as recorded and debated and
acted out by humans, will REALLY end, thanks to our wonderful unbridled inventiveness and lack
of that genetic predisposition to survive as a species that ants and termites and rats and cats
and other "lesser creatures" seem to have
Who would have think some kids working on bublesort 2.0 (1980s era search engine
tech) could have bootstrapped themselves to the biggest brand in the world. Until
facebook came along.
They did not get a 1 million dollar loan from their dad
like donald trump did. They might have got some money from big brother. But we
don't talk about that in polite company.
Google's chairman says he is "proud" of the way his company avoids paying
taxes.
"It's called capitalism,"
Eric
Schmidt told Bloomberg
in a Wednesday article. "We are proudly capitalistic.
I'm not confused about this."
Google's effective U.S. tax rate is unclear.
Citizens
for Tax Justice
did not analyze Google in a 2011 study because Google reports
most of its profits as foreign, even though that may not be true.
Who would have think some kids working on bublesort 2.0 (1980s era search engine
tech) could have bootstrapped themselves to the biggest brand in the world. Until
facebook came along.
They did not get a 1 million dollar loan from their dad
like donald trump did. They might have got some money from big brother. But we
don't talk about that in polite company.
Google's chairman says he is "proud" of the way his company avoids paying
taxes.
"It's called capitalism,"
Eric
Schmidt told Bloomberg
in a Wednesday article. "We are proudly capitalistic.
I'm not confused about this."
Google's effective U.S. tax rate is unclear.
Citizens
for Tax Justice
did not analyze Google in a 2011 study because Google reports
most of its profits as foreign, even though that may not be true.
"... By Les Leopold, the director of the Labor Institute, who is currently working with unions and community organizations to build the educational infrastructure for a new anti-Wall Street movement. His new book Runaway Inequality: An Activist's Guide to Economic Justice serves as a text for this campaign. All proceeds go to support these educational efforts. Originally published at Alternet ..."
"... Thin Reed? Authoritarian rule for the oligarchs ..."
"... Most manufacturing jobs are lost via automation, not outsourcing. ..."
Posted on
February 6, 2017
by
Yves Smith
Yves here. As reader John Z pointed out, the policy program described in this
post is very much in synch with the recommendations Lambert has been making.
One small point of divergence is that Leopold reinforces the idea that taxes
fund Federal spending. Taxes serve to create incentives, and since income
inequality is highly correlated with many bad social outcomes, including more
violence and shorter lifespans even for the rich, progressive taxation is key
to having a society function well. However, he does get right (as very few do)
that the purpose of a transaction tax is to discourage the activity being
taxed, rather than raise money (aside from the MMT issue, the tax would shrink
the level of transactions in question, making it not very productive in
apparent revenue terms).
By Les Leopold, the director of the
Labor Institute, who is currently working with unions and community
organizations to build the educational infrastructure for a new anti-Wall
Street movement. His new book Runaway Inequality: An Activist's Guide to
Economic Justice serves as a text for this campaign. All proceeds go to
support these educational efforts. Originally published at
Alternet
During the Bernie Sanders campaign I heard a high-level official
give a powerful speech blasting the Trans-Pacific Partnership Act for the harm
it would bring to workers, environmentalists and to all who cared about
protecting democracy.
Donald Trump now has signed an executive order pulling out of the
TPP negotiations.
Is this a victory or a defeat for the tens of thousands of
progressives who campaigned to kill the TPP?
On the same day Trump killed the TPP, he met with corporate
executives saying he would cut taxes and regulations to spur business
development. But
he
also warned
that "a company that wants to fire all of the people in the
United States and build some factories someplace else and think the product is
going to flow across the border, that is not going to happen." He said he
would use "a substantial border tax" to stop those practices.
Is this a victory or a defeat for workers and unions who for
three decades have been begging politicians to stop the outsourcing of decent
middle-class jobs?
Breaking the Spell of Neoliberalism
Our answers may be clouded by four decades of the neoliberal
catechism-tax cuts on the wealthy, Wall Street deregulation, privatization of
public services and "free" trade. Politicians, pundits and overpaid economists
long ago concluded that such policies will encourage a "better business
climate," which in turn will lead to all boats rising. Instead those very same
policies led to a massive financial crash, runaway inequality and a revolt
against neoliberalism which fueled both the Sanders and Trump insurgencies.
(See
enough
facts
to make you nauseous.)
This ideology is so pervasive that today no one is shocked or surprised to
see Democratic governors on TV ads trying to lure business to their states by
promising decades of tax holidays. No one gags when politicians lavish
enormous tax gifts on corporations-even hedge funds-in order to keep jobs
from
leaving
their states
.
Similarly, we have grown accustomed to the neoliberal notion that we should
go deeply into debt in order to gain access to higher education. Free higher
education, which was the norm in New York and California until the 1970s, was
"unrealistic" until Sanders rekindled the idea.
More troubling still, elites propagated the idea that public goods should
not be free and available to all via progressive taxation. Rather public goods
were denigrated and then offered up for privatization. Even civil rights icon
Representative John Lewis
used
the neoliberal framework
to attack Bernie Sanders' call for free higher
education and universal health care: "I think it's the wrong message to send
to any group. There's not anything free in America. We all have to pay for
something. Education is not free. Health care is not free. Food is not free.
Water is not free. I think it's very misleading to say to the American people,
we're going to give you something free."
Obama/Clinton Didn't, Trump did
Ironically, while Lewis is defending neoliberalism, Trump
actually is attacking two of its foundational elements-free trade and
unlimited capital mobility. Not only is Trump violating neoliberal theory, he
also is clashing with the most basic way Wall Street cannibalizes us. Without
the free movement of capital, assisted by trade deals, financial elites and
their corporate partners would not be able to slash labor costs, destroy
unions and siphon off wealth into their own pockets.
In particular, we should be extremely worried about how Trump is
approaching the loss of manufacturing jobs. The neoliberal fog should not
cause us to miss the obvious: presidents Obama and Clinton did absolutely
nothing to stop the hemorrhaging of middle-class manufacturing jobs to
low-wage countries. (U.S. manufacturing fell from 20.1 percent of all jobs in
1980 to only 8.8 percent by 2013.) Not only did Obama and Clinton fail to stop
even one factory from moving away, but they truly believed that capital
mobility and free trade were good for America and the world. In other words
they had sipped plenty of the neoliberal Kool-Aid.
Meanwhile, Trump is all in. He is saying that jobs in the U.S. are more
important than the long-run benefits of capital mobility and TPP/NAFTA
agreements. If he keeps bashing corporations for moving jobs abroad and if he
manages to ignite even a mini U.S. manufacturing jobs boom, Trump could be
with us for eight long years.
But What About the Poor in Other Countries?
To many progressives, saving American jobs sounds jingoistic and
"protectionism" is a bad word. Isn't global trade helping the poor become less
so around the world? Isn't it selfish only to protect American jobs? Isn't it
more moral to share scarce manufacturing jobs with the poor in Mexico and
Asia? After all, even if a plant closes in the Rust Belt, service sector jobs
can be found at wages that still are far higher than what the poor can hope
for in low-wage countries.
You can be sure corporations will be playing this tune if Trump tightens
the screws on capital mobility.
These arguments however have little to do with how the world actually
functions.
First, the big winners in the outsourcing game are the
corporations and their top Wall Street investors. (In fact Wall Street is
driving the process by endless pressure for
stock
buybacks
.) It's hard to make the case that the poor in Mexico have been
the beneficiaries of NAFTA.
Second, it is morally suspect to argue that someone else
should give up his or her standard of living so that the product made here
can be produced abroad by the same company and imported back into the U.S.
No worker can afford to donate his or her job to developing nations.
Third, outsourcing to low wage areas always involves
increasing health, safety and environmental hazards. In almost every case
production moves from more stringent standards to weaker standards. Plus,
the increased distances the products must travel mean there will be more
carbon emissions than if production remained here.
No, it's not possible to make a credible progressive case for outsourcing
your neighbor's job
What Do We Do?
The progressive instinct, and rightfully so, is to trash Trump.
If he's for it, we must be against it. When it comes to immigration, civil
rights, abortion, freedom of the press and many, many other issues, that's a
sound strategy.
But trashing Trump for saving jobs in the U.S. is suicidal.
In opposing Trump, we must not slip into defending neoliberalism. It's not
okay for corporations to pack up and leave. We should have some control over
our economic lives and not leave all the crucial decisions to Wall Street and
their corporate puppets. Trade deals are bad deals unless they enforce the
highest health, safety, environmental and labor standards. And those measures
must be enforceable by all the parties. The race to the bottom is real and
must stop.
In the U.S. We Should Be Mobilizing the Following Areas:
1. Organize the outsourced
: We should identify
and organize all those at risk from off-shoring. We need to make sure Trump
and Congress hear from these actual and potential victims. Trump needs to be
reminded each and every day that there are millions of jobs he must protect.
At the same time we should be rounding up support for the Sanders
bill
to stop off-shoring
.
2. Resist:
Trump has made it clear to corporate
America that in exchange for job creation in the U.S. he will cut their taxes
and regulations. We should demand that all tax "reforms" include a new
financial speculation tax (
Robin
Hood Tax
) on Wall Street to slow down their insatiable greed. Also, we
need to fight tooth and nail against any weakening of workplace health, safety
and environmental regulations. We have to destroy the Faustian bargain where
jobs are protected but the workers and the communities are poisoned.
3. Connect:
More than 3 million people protested
against Trump. But it is doubtful that dislocated workers and those facing
outsourcing were involved in these marches. That's because the progressive
movement has gotten too comfortable with issue silos that often exclude these
kinds of working-class issues. That has to change in a hurry. We need to reach
out to all workers in danger of off-shoring-blue and white collar alike.
4. Expand:
Many key issues-from having the
largest prison population in the world to having one the lowest life-spans-are
connected through
runaway
inequality
. Outsourcing is deeply connected to the driving force behind
runaway inequality-a rapacious Wall Street and its constant pressure for
higher returns. We need to broaden the outsourcing issue to include stock
buybacks and the other techniques used by Wall Street to strip-mine our jobs
and our communities. It's time for a broad-based common agenda that includes a
Robin Hood Tax on Wall Street, free higher education, Medicare for All, an end
to outsourcing, fair trade and a guaranteed job at a living wage for all those
willing and able.
5. Educate:
In order to build a sustained
progressive movement we will need to develop a systematic educational campaign
to counter neoliberal ideology. We need reading groups, study groups, formal
classes, conferences, articles and more to undermine this pernicious ideology.
Some of us are fortunate to be part of new train-the-trainer programs all over
the country. We need to expand them so that we can field thousands of
educators to carry this message.
Yes, all of this is very difficult, especially when it seems like
a madman is running the country. It is far easier to resist than to tear apart
neoliberalism. But we have to try. We need to recapture the job outsourcing
issue and rekindle the flames that ignited Occupy Wall Street and the Sanders
campaign.
Les Leopold explained some of his beliefs on the Smirking Chimp. I made a comment
to that article that I think should be repeated here ==>
At the moment, it's hopeless because we do not have a platform.
Most of the supposed liberals out there cannot defend welfare of any kind, cannot
defend Social Security and cannot defend most of what they supposedly stand for in
any kind of intelligent way.
There are circumstances where "welfare" is a moral necessity. There are also
circumstances where you tell the claimants to get a job. Sometimes you help them to
get that job.
It's necessary to be able to tell the difference and to be able to explain the
difference.
Too many supposed liberals do not understand how the labor movement became corrupt
enough that "right to work" looked good to people who were paying dues and getting
little back.
If you do not understand your own "liberal" beliefs, some uneducated red-state
buffoon will make you look like the bad guy
You not only need to understand your own beliefs, but you need to be able to
debate them with other wanna-be liberals until you have a platform that means
something.
Yep, everything Trump will do to bait Liberal "resistance," they will
eagerly fall for. It leaves a LOT of wiggle room for a movement to get between
DC's Kleptocrats and Trump's supposed constituency (victims? marks?) about to
lose their jobs, homes, equity, retirements & kids to imperialistic wars. If
there's a Left in this country, it simply HAS to be more than white kids on TV,
in black face masks we need to dodge Trump's trolling and fight unremittingly
FOR living wages, job safety, healthcare, upwards mobility & AGAINST a
predatory FIRE sector, ALEC kleptocracy & their media's 24/7 reality
infomercial. For way too long, the whole good cop/ bad cop scam has been Yuppie
liberals vs Oligarch's running dogs, we've tried to live off any chunks that'd
trickle down through the maelstrom above our heads, to which we were not
invited
Quite. No reason Sanders' platform can't be used. There's also a 5-point
platform right in plain sight at the end of Leopold's article.
Some people seem to have this urge to outsource the platform to somebody else -
the Democrat Party, or maybe others. No. No need to go elsewhere. There's two
platforms right here. Use them.
The problem is that economic systems are complex, emergent phenomena. They
influenced by culture, chance, ideas, tribal instincts, technology (including
financial technology), geography, tradition, the environment, human nature,
migration, religion, and on and on.
This notion that something as complex as human society can be analyzed under an
intellectual construct, whether neo-liberalism, socialism, or Rastafarianism
defies common sense. Centuries of intense theorizing by some very smart people
have led to an understanding of parts of social systems. But, for example,
economists disagree profoundly on basic aspects of macroeconomics.
Neo-liberalism is not even a well defined concept. I don't know of any
politician in the US who declare themselves "neo-liberal." Read the Wikipedia
article to see just how poorly this concept is defined.
Among some self-imagined progressives it's become a perjorative term to apply
to leaders who they disagree with. IMO, politicians do not govern according to
abstract concepts. The honest ones are simply trying to govern, in the context of
the society they live in. At times, historically unique situations arise, and
political leaders are stumped for solutions. At such a time, some kind of think
tank might propose their pet theory to be considered as a factor in making
decisions (the "neo-cons" had their chance in the build up to the Iraq war).
I want Trumps ability to wreak havoc on the economy and civil infrastructure
minimized, and him gone as President as soon as possible. This is not going to be
easy. If, at the same time, think you can throw in the reform of global economic
structures, and succeed, you're delusional.
FWIW, to the extent that policians like Chuck Shumer or Hilary Clinton are
influenced by neo-liberal ideas, it is at the level of ideas. People can change
their mind, or have it changed, on things like this. Quickly. In contrast to
something like pro-Zionist policies, to which a polician might have a deeper
attachment, very resistant to change.
The first two paragraphs are making a broad sort of argument, which if taken
with its full force seems to mean that any attempt to use theoretical
generalizations to understand the world is oversimplifying and therefore
questionable.
The third and fourth paragraphs take issue more specifically with the term
"neoliberalism."
However, the fifth paragraph seems to imply that anti-neoliberalism involves
"reform of global economic structures," and therefore maybe isn't as poorly
defined as the previous paragraphs would have led one to assume.
Meanwhile, the sixth paragraph undercuts the fifth. The fifth implies that
opposing Trump is so important that we should temporarily abandon any attempt
to move the discourse on the overall economic direction of the country or the
world. The reason given is that moving said discourse is supposed to be a
herculean, nearly impossible task. The sixth paragraph, instead, suggests that
Schumer and HRC can have their mind changed "quickly" on these sorts of issues,
and so maybe the overall project isn't so infeasible after all.
"FWIW, to the extent that policians like Chuck Shumer or Hilary Clinton
are influenced by neo-liberal ideas, it is at the level of ideas."
I'm skeptical about this. Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton are influenced
by neo-liberal ideas at the level of massive donations to their campaign
committees or family foundation.
If you just get Trump gone, another Trump or worse will be produced in a
decade or so (never mind Pence in the meantime, that we could endure, I'm
focusing longer term). An awful system, that makes everyone poor (mass
impoverishment), stupid, and exhausted, produces awful results in terms of
governance (money in politics does not help of course).
I always took neo-liberalism to mean world domination by banks FIRE sector
and neoconservatism by the military and their suppliers and also oil which
greases the military wheels. Farms fall into the latter I guess for the defense
of the "landed gentry". Watched the farm reports lately and they are quite
upset by the non-passage of the TPP which would have given them higher price
supports. All of it is ruled by multi-nationals' money and clout so there is
overlap.
Don't equate the giant corporate agri-biz sector – Monsanto, ADM, IBP, et
al – with small family farms. Factory farms might be for TPP. The small
family farm, the independent farmer, not so much.
adding: Wall St speculates in grain and farm/food commodities. Wall St
isn't happy with the demise of TTP. This from a few years back, but still
relevant.
" Futures markets traditionally included two kinds of players. On one
side were the farmers, the millers, and the warehousemen, market players
who have a real, physical stake in wheat .
"On the other side is the speculator. The speculator neither produces
nor consumes corn or soy or wheat, and wouldn't have a place to put the
20 tons of cereal he might buy at any given moment if ever it were
delivered. Speculators make money through traditional market behavior,
the arbitrage of buying low and selling high. And the physical
stakeholders in grain futures have as a general rule welcomed traditional
speculators to their market, for their endless stream of buy and sell
orders gives the market its liquidity and provides bona fide hedgers a
way to manage risk by allowing them to sell and buy just as they pleased.
"But Goldman's index perverted the symmetry of this system. The
structure of the GSCI paid no heed to the centuries-old buy-sell/sell-buy
patterns. This newfangled derivative product was "long only," which meant
the product was constructed to buy commodities, and only buy. At the
bottom of this "long-only" strategy lay an intent to transform an
investment in commodities (previously the purview of specialists) into
something that looked a great deal like an investment in a stock - the
kind of asset class wherein anyone could park their money and let it
accrue for decades (along the lines of General Electric or Apple). Once
the commodity market had been made to look more like the stock market,
bankers could expect new influxes of ready cash. But the long-only
strategy possessed a flaw, at least for those of us who eat. The GSCI did
not include a mechanism to sell or "short" a commodity. "
More neoliberalism in action. It doesn't benefit either the small
farmer or the person buying groceries.
I agree many people here get caught up in labels. I think there is value in
iconoclasm, but ultimately we have to take practical actions if we want to
avoid trouble. Or, at least, avoid the worst trouble.
Many who comment do not seem to take seriously the danger of right wing
fanaticism. I am not sure what would convince them.
You might be right. I certainly don't take right wing fanaticism
seriously. Moreover I don't think it should be taken seriously, and unless
things seriously changed recently, I live in a state that, statistically,
has a lot of right wing fanatics.
They're not organized, they don't have a message that truly appeals, they
don't have messengers with mass appeal, there's nothing there anyone can
build on. Moreover, anti-immigrant sentiment comes and goes. In the 1840's
we were having riots and people were beating Irishmen in the street because
the economy sucked. But when things don't suck so bad economically, that
evaporates like the morning fog.
Until right wing fanaticism can look like anything other than some angry
guy with too many tattoos shouting angry slogans, or some weird dude who
wants to actually create White America that srsly nobody listens to, y'know,
until there's some unifying figurehead who can take it further and make it
sensible-sounding and mainstream to the folks at home who work a 9-to-5,
it's not even worth worrying about. I'm more worried about left wing
extremists who show up in huge mobs and cause property damage, personally.
By that I mean, they want neoliberal econoimcs with a socially left wing
platform. No wonder they hate the left and supported Clinton so much. They want
the status quo. Many are safely in the upper middle class, as the comments on the
Women's March in Washington DC have revealed. They will never have to deal with
the consequences of neoliberalism.
The Sanders base by contrast wants left wing economics and socially.
The neoliberals don't even want left wing social identity progress. They
just use it as a tool to capture voters. Team Blue types did jack to advance
social issues until they were forced too or were simply bypassed. Obama's
"personal endorsement" of gay marriage was covered by his support of state
rights.
Is anyone all that safely in the middle class these days? Even if they have
a nice middle class job, so much that they don't have to worry about age
discrimination as they get older? I don't think so. So much that even if they
have a nice plum insurance plan at work, they never have to worry about
healthcare for themselves or their loved ones? I'm not so sure
But sure it's not as immediate a threat, doesn't have the immediacy of say
facing immediate eviction for the lack of a rent payment or something.
What appeals to me most is the recognition here (item 3.) of the same concern for
visa holders being locked out of entering the country needing to be shown to the
laboring class already in the country.
For those laborers, seeing a few hundred (or goodness gracious, a few thousand)
people protesting another production line being shipped off is better "messaging"
than anything our ruling class will ever manage to conceive.
Seriously, I can think of no better image than social justice warriors standing up
for workers desperate enough to vote Trump (or resigned enough to not vote at all).
There are potential friendships – or allyships if you prefer – to be created that
could do wonders for much beyond economic concerns.
This has been my position from the early days of the Tea Party movement when I
couldn't understand why the Democratic Party immediately sent organizers to help
them with both organization and more importantly consciousness-raising.
My problem is that I'm in a Red state. Democrats don't win elections here. I need
a political organization that can give me the best possible republican. This would
look like America first economics to protect American jobs (there is a huge appetite
for this among the Republican voters I talk to.) It would mean accepting conservative
social positions. The democratic party might be able to this but it would require one
hell of a make over.
It would, but it might be doable. A lot of the divide in American politics is
around "the culture wars." I think people can adopt new ideas, and ways of looking
at things, if they get that "tribal sanction."
This is just arm chair theorizing, but one of the big hang ups is that cultural
difference is interwoven with historical precedents that operated at a more
substantive, fundamental level in the society. For example, the theories of white
supremacy were used to justify the appalling institution of slavery in the US. At
that time, this enabled the dominant culture to benefit at the expense of the
exploited.
But when cultural conditions change, such that economic systems like slavery
are no longer operative, the ideas of white supremacy can live on as simply
cultural identity.
For all the problems of our society, we have made progress, and the overt,
legal racism that existed just 50 years ago has been minimized. So perhaps people
interested in social justice can relax the hyper-vigilant, hyper-accusatory
attitudes of political correctness, to make common cause with populations they
have common interests with.
When social justice activists use the label of "racist" as a badge of shame on
someone who transgresses whatever social line, it tends to cause hurt feelings.
And accusations of reverse racism. Sigh. It could be different.
The Kulture Wars were specifically designed to put economic and Class issues
on the back burner, Divide and Rule. What is the point of Lady Gaga waving her
pussy in our faces at the super bowl, but to drive the socially conservative
working class into the Republican party. Frankly the issue of who sleeps with
who, who marries who and who has a baby, is done , covered by the assertion of
privacy protection by the constitution. In any case, economic justice should
take precedence. Time to move on from socially divisive issues.
Love your line about Lady Gaga. It is as if the powers that be understand
completely the "backfire effect" and deploy it consciously to their
advantage.
I completely disagree. While party organizations in red states may have little
impact on those elected from their state, a hostile takeover of a state party can
have real impact in terms of control of the national organization.
Democratic Parties in red states especially are interested in keeping their
invitations to Inaugural balls and holding Jefferson-Jackson (one would think
these would have been renamed by now given how totes woke Team Blue types are,
sarc) dinners. Who knows what could happen if they cared about results?
I disagree. "Good Democrats" can win. People respect people who fight for their
values or seem to fight for those values more than say a Hillary. The messaging of
Hillary as a defender for women and children wasn't an accident.
The problem for the "deplorables" in regards to Team Blue is the neo liberals
treat their concerns with contempt and have a recent history of betrayal.
It might take a while, but Virginia's fifth congressional district is the
largest district by area east of the Mississippi. It's bigger than New Jersey and
a relatively good Democrat (probably not the most pro choice person) won in 2008
against a Republican who won by huge numbers every years. That win didn't start in
early 2008. It started in 2001 with a couple of sacrificial lambs to build
operations to register voters, making sure the blue precpincts were registered and
to go into the precincts that should be blue believed they can win.
I believe people will make good choices when presented with options, but
putting up a non entity with cash who bemoans partisanship especially those "tax
and spend liberals" is why Democrats fail. How did Alan Grayson get into Congress
despite running in a district that went for Bush/Cheney twice while an adjacent
district that went for Gore and Kerry keeps sending Republicans to Congress? The
answer is people respect when they aren't being pondered too, and that is all
Clinton Inc knows how to do.
Entirely home grown for all intents and purposes. Lynchburg produced a
fair amount of volunteers and money despite not being in the actual
district.
Dean's 50th the strategy didn't come from no where. The Internet existed
before Facebook, and people have long memories of Democrats that did
organization before 1994 (gee, I wonder who was in charge of Team Blue) and
the destruction of the then permanent Democratic majority. People discussed
this all over. Admittedly, I didn't entirely buy it until Kaine thumped a
well liked Republican in 2005 running up the vote tally in areas where
people had been organizing.
There is a reason why Clinton Inc is despised by otherwise seemingly,
sensible Democratic types. The Clintons under perform because they run
childish goldilocks campaigns. In 1992, Bill mustered 43% of the vote
against 41 and a guy who basically wanted to bring back prohibition.
Thanks for bringIng up Dr. Dean's 50 state strategy. What the heck
happened to that? I'm convinced that the strategy was a good part of
Obama's victory in 2008. In Kansas, the Dems took a seat from the
Republicans that year, and won Indiana and North Carolina. Lost Missouri
by only 4000 votes. We could compete in these states and others (Arizona,
Texas, Georgia) if the state Democratic parties would arouse themselves
and do a bit of listening to people in their state.
Not sure study groups are the answer. Couldn't hurt, I suppose.
The article makes it sound like there was nothing but a clash of ideas for 40
years.
Out of the 70's there was a lot of racism and resentment at the stagflation that
got channeled into Reagan. The right wing think tanks started an Amen chorus,
abortion wars reached a fever pitch, and Dems started scrambling to try to win
elections that they used to win on a FDR platform.
Then came the bubble of the 90s, and Wall Street Dems looked like geniuses.
A lot of people were drinking the Koolaid. Not just sold out Dem pols.
New day now. Lessons have been learned. Unfortunately, many people have learned
the wrong lessons, nodding to the siren call of fanatical nationalism and Trump.
I am not sure what plan the proprietors of this blog favor, but I hope it includes
the Dem party because that thin reed is the only thing between us and authoritarian
rule for the billionaires.
The Dems are the very embodiment of neoliberalism, representatives of oligarchs
and soft sellers of authoritarian rule. Far far on the wrong side of the thin
reed.
As the post mentioned – Largest imprisoned, in the world. Lowest life
expectancy, for highest expenditures.Allowing millions to be foreclosed upon while
further enriching the banksters who rigged the system. That's authoritarian in an
extreme and only a few oligarchs benefit. Neoliberalism/Liberalism is
authoritarian. Dems are the first to shoot down those who challenge them with so
much as polite rhetoric. Feckless as Sanders was he clarified that for anyone who
dare look-see, admit it to themselves.
If Dems were the only party in existence we would be where we are today, if not
far worse. Just the way they structure and operate their party is more than enough
to prove these points.
Love the post title but I would wear a t-shirt which say either of these
things:
Who said prefer? The thing with siding with the Democrats in opposing
Trump is that in four or eight years we're left with nothing but siding with
somebody else in opposing the Democrats. How about getting something done,
finally? Crazy dream: make the Democrats side with us in opposing Trump.
Naked Capitalism is both a reading and study group hey here's a thought, why
don't the dems try to include usians, we're not democrats we're americans, after
all, and we don't need them if they're going to continue to play the game as they
have been playing it, supporting authoritarianism and heaping favors on
billionaires. I don't see lessons having been learned, none of the hillary
marchers I know can have a cogent , fact based conversation, it's just omg trump,
marching is good, globalization o care what will the poor illegal immgrants do,
cheap labor is essential, self driving trucks blah blah blah bail out wall st
while fraudulent MERS documents are fabricated to steal peoples homes, remember
linda green, remember non dischargeable student loans? Have you noticed all those
tents under the bridges? The dems ruled for the 10% but it's a big country and a
numbers game. You need to get out more. If the dems wanted to win bernie was the
ticket. Instead they chose wall st and war then lost like they deserved to lose.
In a representative democracy they are supposed to represent us, we're not
supposed to represent the dems. They'll be included when they deserve to be, no
one owes them allegiance.
"And at this point in time (where we are now) that means organizing
through the Dems, through the Repubs, or some third party."
Sometimes I figure it may as well be the Repubs (but not of course with
their current platform, yea I know people think the Dems is an easier party
to take over, but due to LOTE voting I'm not so sure.
Maybe you can tell me which is better? Cory Booker voted to prevent
importation of Canadian drugs to lower the outrageous rx costs. Ted Cruz
voted to import drugs so that we are not held hostage to US companies
raising drug costs with impunity. Unless the dems are benefiting citizens
why should we support them. Bernie's bill would have passed except for 14
dem senators voted to keep drug costs high . Who should we vote for in the
next election?
I hope I am not posting too late. Please delete this if you think I am.
Booker is a phony. Cruz is a creep. Not much to cheer for in either
case.
I am not suggesting that you owe allegiance to any candidate or party.
I am suggesting that party politics is an avenue for organizing, and
Dem party and traditional coalition is the better avenue for action. Not
to do the same things, but to work for peace justice and tolerance.
Where to target work for change.
The Repubs are not what some people here imagine. And they will do
great harm.
"That thin reed is the only thing between us and authoritarian rule for the
billionaires."
No, that "thin reed" would have continued to obfuscate the existence of
authoritarian rule
for
the billionaires through cynical, insincere
manipulation of
idpol
wedge issues.
The regime change we are witnessing, here in the U.S., is the cutting out of a
layer of cynical, professional grifters between the kleptocrats and the people. In
other words authoritarian rule
for
the billionaires is morphing into
direct, in-your-face kleptocracy
by and for
the billionaires.
There was an important discussion earlier, here at NC, that I think is relevant to
our current situation, sparked by Kalecki's observation that:
"One of the important functions of fascism, as typified by the Nazi system, was
to remove capitalist objections to full employment."
It is understandable that American workers would find a genuine commitment to full
employment, after so many decades of neoliberal job outsourcing, exhilarating.
Yet, smashing unions and "othering" large segments of the population didn't end
well for the Germans in the mid-20th century, and there's no reason to believe it
would work out any better over here.
Maybe that was a significant aspect of the rise of Nazi rule, but it seems to
me a bit reductionist to see the Nazis through such a narrow lense.
Similarly, I think we should resist the temptation of seeing Trump exclusively
through the lenses of our anger at Bluedogs for getting us into this mess. I am
angry. And those soulless climbers are still running the show in Congress. I am
angry about that too.
But these are dangerous times. We need to organize. We need to win elections.
And we do not have ANY easy path that I can see.
In my view, we need to channel our energy into primary challenges in the Dem
party.
The US Democratic Party has more than a little in common with the British
Labour Party sadly.
I wouldn't pin your hopes on their resolve to stand up for the average
working voter in the face of big money interests.
Both parties have steadily rendered themselves irrelevant to their erstwhile
core voters through a toxic combination of venality, hubris, contempt,
obsessive virtue signalling/ political correctness, vacuous ideologies, a
reliance on endless empty rhetoric, populism, 'foreign misadventure' and much
more besides.
Their currency, in the eyes of swathes of once loyal voters, has been so
devalued under the leaderships of flag of convenience crypto-neoliberal
politicians like Blair, Brown, the Clintons and Obama that this is going to be
a Herculean task to row back from in order to recentre and reconnect with
betrayed, bruised voters.
Trump might be a crass out and out shameless, populist, self-serving
sociopathic assh#le, but unlike those mentioned above, in the eyes of many of
those disenfranchised who backed him, some most likely out of desperation, at
least he's currently less of a lying hypocrite and, more importantly, he hasn't
let them down badly yet.
"Both parties have steadily rendered themselves irrelevant to their
erstwhile core voters through a toxic combination of venality, hubris,
contempt, obsessive virtue signalling/ political correctness, vacuous
ideologies, a reliance on endless empty rhetoric, populism, 'foreign
misadventure' and much more besides."
This is not quite right "Trade deals are bad deals unless they enforce the highest
health, safety, environmental and labor standards."
Labor in the underdeveloped countries consider some of this to be the developed
countries' trick of preventing the people in the underdeveloped countries from
getting jobs. There is some truth to this idea. When we negotiate trade deals, we
must remember that in a fair negotiation neither side gets everything it wants, but
each side must get enough of what it wants to agree to the terms of the negotiation.
The trouble with past trade pacts is that only the corporations on both sides of
the deal were represented. In the future, labor and environment on both sides must be
represented in the negotiations.
not quite right, the stateless multinationals play both sides off each other.
Globalzation deals like TPP with ISDS clauses are designed to limit sovereignty.
We have free trade, you can go anywhere in the world and buy whatever you want to,
your "fair negotiation" is a canard and misdirection.
One may also refer to USA communities who will accept higher levels of
pollution caused by an EPA targeted local industry/plant that provides local jobs
where they are in short supply..
This is very similar to a foreign country accepting higher pollution in trade
for jobs for their citizens.
When someone is desperate to support their family, compromises are made, and
the USA has plenty of examples.
That's kind of representative of the basic problem: before the white working
class morphed into The Middle Class during Reagan's Miracle, they'd long since
abandoned hell with the lid off, for suburbia (the nation's economy was based
upon this; unions, political parties, finance all fed off of upward mobility,
basically away from the poor, polluted, neglected, heavily policed industrial
areas (bottom feeders like Trump's dad or DNC's slumlord super-delegates hardly
invented this). EZ Credit, Bail Bonds, Party Stores, doc-in-a-box, PayCheck
Loans sucked-up what the politicians' business associates left behind. As Trump
moves on from trolling liberal elites to fomenting race war, mass
incarceration, etc, as LBJ, Nixon, Reagan & Clinton did with urban renewal, the
war on drugs, welfare reform some of us will scrambling to figure out just how
we're not just another part of the problem?
A contemporary version of that Sinclair quote could be stated as such :
"When Neo-fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a Lady Gaga
p#ssy-gown and carrying a case of birth-control pills . while screaming
'White, Deplorable, F#cker' !!"
Offshore tax sheltered wealth in the trillions must be reigned in, but nobody in a
position of leadership is allowed to touch it, only to make token noises about it
like Sen. Warren does.
It appears that Leopold misses another issue that hits American workers, that
being the "insourcing" of foreign workers, either legally (H1-B's) or illegally to
the USA.
American workers are certainly aware that some jobs can be outsourced via
computer/phone networks to other countries, but are also aware that neo-libs have
been more than willing to also let jobs that require a physical presence in the USA
be wage arbitraged down via increasing the domestic labor supply via immigration.
I don't believe the old assertion that "an immigrant displacing an American worker
frees the American to find a better job" gathers much support from American
workers/voters, if it ever did.
Trump tapped into this, and the Democrats will ignore this issue at their peril..
Neither political party wants to enforce employer sanctions, via mandatory
E-Verify, as that would be frowned on by both party's paymasters.
"Trump actually is attacking two of its foundational elements-free trade and
unlimited capital mobility. Not only is Trump violating neoliberal theory, he also is
clashing with the most basic way Wall Street cannibalizes us. Without the free
movement of capital, assisted by trade deals, financial elites and their corporate
partners would not be able to slash labor costs, destroy unions and siphon off wealth
into their own pockets."
Given the ease with which Trump reverses himself, I wouldn't take these utterances
seriously.
At the same time we should be rounding up support for the Sanders bill to stop
off-shoring.
I couldn't find "Outsourcing Prevention Act" at Congress.gov. It is possible that
the bill hasn't been introduced yet? Or maybe it has another name? I found these
possibilities:
Good article but needs an addendum: don't side with
Democrats
in opposing
Trump. There's a case to be made that Trump himself is really an independent even
though he has by necessity stuffed his administration with some GOP trogs. Therefore
when Trump does something our side likes he should be praised even though it might
diminish the chances of the dearly sought Trumpexit. The US public at large
increasingly see themselves as independents rather than supporters of the duopoly and
the left–including and perhaps especially Sanders–should stop fooling themselves that
they will ever reform the Dems. In fact the thing that might do the most to reform
the Dems would be some vibrant third party competition that forces them to protect
their left flank.
But we have enough time to hope the Democratic Party who is completely
subservient to corporate interests will suddenly decide to forget about all the
money they are making and side with the workers, poor, and the environment?
Voting in all new people would take many years, not to mention the party
structure that cannot be changed by voting. The majority of registered
democrats support neo-liberal candidates. How do you propose this quick change
of the democratic party to support traditional leftist policy will take place?
Note to self: I will not be bamboozled into self-destructive political adventurism
by mindlessly opposing the perfectly legitimate President Trump when ever he happens
to do something so swell that helps pay the rent, buys food and keeps a roof over my
head. I will stop going to ALL of those protest marches that demands that rowhouse
Philadelphia give up their jobs in reparations for neo-colonial and hegemonic
neo-liberal bad stuff by sending them to Mexico and the Dominican Republic or even
Viet Nam or China. I understand that people in America are people too, and need their
jobs and do not have trust funds to live off of when they donate their employment
with no hope for a replacement job to prevent a downward spiral into poverty.
I get it, by not focusing on real pocket book issues and major social programs,
like the ones we used to get in the afterglow of post WWII economic expansion, we
just left the barn door open for all of the wronged white guys in coal mines, all
57,000 of them nationally, to come out in the full force of democracy in action under
our definition of democracy, the electoral college. By not recognizing that the iron
law of democracy, where the consent of the majority of people is the deciding
principle in American politics, and marching after a political loss instead of going
out in front of the coal mines and factories and laying down in front of the trucks
hauling jobs away, I am a dope. I promise to fete The President Trump in editorial
pages, blog sites, graffitti on walls and other public property when he creates jobs
as a result, direct or indirect, of his policies. After all, it is axiomatic that if
Trump repeatedly fails to do anything of value for our nation, most of us will
suffer. If he puts forth an infrastructure financial package with the Japanese and
their global investment bank, I will hail as a partnership in progress.
After all, if we can fix up the country's faltering highways and bridges and air
ports and sea ports, we will modernized America, give people good paying jobs. And
that is a good thing. I am all for it. President Trump is supposed to be all for it.
So, when the jobs start pouring in with all of the concrete and rebar, I will not
protest. I will publicly applaud him. I will however be organizing behind the scenes
to crush him like a bug in the next election. I foresee a bidding war in jobs offered
to the forgotten and not so forgotten and I expect to come out on top as the highest
bidder.
Les Leopold is a smart guy and always has interesting things to say. But in this
case, I think he glosses over the biggest issue: people will not organize into unions
if they believe that doing so, or trying to do so, risks making their personal
employment situation worse, not better.
Anti-union activity by employers is now so routine and expected, and protections
for workers trying to organize, either from unions or government, are so weak that
the vast majority of working people have come to view trying to organize as insane.
(Yes, card check will help in a few situations but is not a game changer.) The
purported low unemployment rate does nothing to empower working people because
(except for the occasional exception that proves the rule) it is still overwhelming
the case that one's current job is better than any likely other job one would have to
get if one lost it. And irritating your boss is still the likeliest way to get fired,
or get your department outsourced, or get your entire workplace shut down.
And the fact that some public sector workers still have workplaces that make them
less likely to get fired or replaced for trying to exercise workplace "rights" just
points out how poor things are for most private sector workers, resulting in even
less sympathy for those workers.
What Trump gets is that, in this environment, most working people will support the
(anti-tax, anti-regulation) platform their boss supports, rather than the
(higher-tax, stronger-regulation) one their boss hates, if the (strong union)
platform that is good for them that their boss really, really hates is off the table.
Platforms and study groups are well and good but we need much more. As said above,
we need a new labor movement, in particular one that can organize in the private
export-sensitive sector. There is no such thing as a(n even moderately) successful
labor movement without strong unions in the private export-sensitive sector. But
there is no way to organize workers in this sector without being able to demonstrate
why being in a union is likely to materially improve their well-being. But one can't
get such a thing without strong government support to ensure trying to organize
doesn't in fact risk resulting in losing your job. Chicken-And-Egg problem.
Employers have so much power over workers now: right-to -work laws, tax
incentives, H1B and undocumented workers, Chamber of Commerce and lobbyists.
Probably the only way to have any clout would be to have a National Strike and
boycotts which would be tough to organize. I know that employers in an area will
collude with other companies to set and limit wages and benefits. I had a friend
that I worked with in a factory back in the 70s who was promoted to the office in
a secretarial position who told me about meetings our company had with other ones
in the community where they discussed and made agreements on labor issues. This
was back in the 70s. They were always threatening us about unions and I never had
heard anyone talk about joining one or any kind of union activity.
As regards the standard of living in third-world countries, it should by now be
apparent that the model of 'development' that uses low wages to attract foreign
businesses simply can not – and does not – increase general prosperity. How can it?
The model is that low wages ('affordable labor costs') are the engine, therefore the
wages need to stay low to keep the multinationals in place.
Look at the effects of NAFTA: the United States lost a lot of jobs, Mexico gained
jobs, but Mexican wages remain low. The NAFTA model is pulling the United States down
and not pulling Mexico up. That is now well established. Nobody need feel any guilt
about opposing trade agreements like NAFTA.
Ah, but what about China? Well China is a little different from Mexico – they are
more mercantilist. In the long run the established method of creating prosperity is
to have a stable or slowly growing population, and slowly but steadily build up
endogenous industries and a strong internal market. "Race to the bottom" trade
agreements yield exactly what the term suggests.
Where do I sign up? I'm ready to go. However, I think one aspect of this
transformational mission is missing: MONEY.
The RW has metric tons of billionaires who use their money to propagate their
ideologies and build "think tanks" and other institutions to provide the veneer of
respectability. I believe it's one of the primary reasons that they've been so
successful in pushing their extreme ideas on everybody. They have an ALEC branch in
every statehouse writing laws, which I'm sure they don't do for free. They can
gerrymander, buy off, and otherwise distort the entire process for little more than
walking around money for them.
I know Sanders nearly won with small donors, so perhaps that could be replicated
in this scenario, but long term, I think having some serious money to back up these
initiatives is going to make the job actually doable. And there are a few actual
billionaires who might be amenable to using their wealth for the greater good. Nick
Hanauer comes to mind.
The Antigonish Movement blended adult education, co-operatives, microfinance
and rural community development to help small, resource-based communities around
Canada's Maritimes improve their economic and social circumstances. A group of
priests and educators, including Father Jimmy Tompkins, Father Moses Coady, Rev.
Hugh MacPherson and A.B. MacDonald led this movement from a base at the Extension
Department at St. Francis Xavier University (St. F.X.) in Antigonish, Nova Scotia.
The credit union systems of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and PEI owe their
origins to the Antigonish Movement, which also had an important influence on other
provincial systems across Canada. The Coady International Institute at St. F.X.
has been instrumental in developing credit unions and in asset-based community
development initiatives in developing countries ever since.
It is noteworthy that the movement began with Adult Education: if people do not
understand what has brought them debt and poverty, it will be difficult to counteract
them.
I'm sure that in the US during the Depression, there were many such movements
which helped people understand and defeat the Depression.
Looking back at what succeeded in the past can help towards a better future. Of
course, it will have to be adapted for the present problems, but starting with
education is a really positive move.
How about online adult education drawing on the talents of charismatic teachers
and more local face-to-face seminars to provide the core activists we need.
Good article which made some good points.
"The progressive instinct, and rightfully so, is to trash Trump. If he's for it, we
must be against it."
One instance of this is the huge play the immigration fight is getting. I don't agree
with how Trump enacted his immigration "reform" but I agree that immigration needs to
be curtailed. Significantly curtailed. H1B visas pretty much need to be done away
with, and if you are in this country illegally, you need to leave. And any further
immigration needs to be reduced. This outcry against immigration reform by the
liberals, what many in this country see as a huge problem, is not winning over any
hearts and minds in flyover country. It's like when Bill Clinton first got elected
and he wasted a lot of time and political capital on the gays i the military issue.
Only this time the Dems are not even in office. Still a waste of political capital.
In my mind this whole immigration reform paranoia is just another form of identity
politics by the Democrats. What progressives need to focus on is campaign finance
reform, jobs, health care reform, education, and increasing taxes on the wealthy and
corporations. Those issues resonate with everyone, Republicans and Democrats alike.
It is why Trump won. Don't fix these problems and immigration will be the least of
our worries as a nation. If things get worse in our economy, immigrants and refugees
are going to be in a much worse place than they are right now. People who are going
hungry and who are sick with no hope on the horizon have to blame someone. And
Americans are not known for the high level of intelligence and knowledge of how the
world really works. Anyone who looks "different" will be blamed and there will be
blood in the streets. I think we are almost to that point now.
"This outcry against immigration reform by the liberals, what many in this
country see as a huge problem, is not winning over any hearts and minds in flyover
country. It's like when Bill Clinton first got elected and he wasted a lot of time
and political capital on the gays i the military issue. Only this time the Dems
are not even in office. Still a waste of political capital. In my mind this whole
immigration reform paranoia is just another form of identity politics by the
Democrats."
The Dims maybe, but that's not why actual people protest, it's mostly because
they know illegals are those who serve their food when they order breakfast, are
on the train on the way to work, etc.. I know fly-over just doesn't get it,
because they don't live among and with illegals as part of their daily life, but
it's hard to see them driven out if one does.
All the points made in answer to that need to be memorized, because if you're to
the left of Andrew Carnegie or Ayn Rand that's what they'll throw at you. 'Americans
consume 99% of all fossil fuels and create 98% of all the trash and blah blah!' We're
a little sick of it.
"Americans consume 99% of all fossil fuels and create 98% of all the trash and
blah blah!' We're a little sick of it."
It's all true of course.
But yea they rely on left/liberals basic goodness (ok not all liberals have any
real goodness (or why don't they oppose the wars more?), most leftists are pretty
darn moral though) and they'll use it to enrich themselves, because they are not
good at all, but know how to get good people to be subserviant to their own
selfish ends.
Most manufacturing jobs are lost via automation, not outsourcing. What do we plan
to do about that?
The cheaper the capital (e.g., low interest rates), the easier it is to substitute
capital for labor. Whenever the Fed bails out a bubble via monetization, labor takes
another hit.
Solar's more cost-effective and adding more jobs now than the fossil fuel industry
– yet official policy now seems hell-bent on ginning up another oil reserve lending
bubble.
Wade is correct. I've posted a chart of the BLS statistics on long term
manufacturing employment in absolute and relative terms on this site.
Manufacturing employment's relative share of total employment has fallen in a
straight and steady diagonal line from upper right to lower left from its peak
in the 1950's to the present. Began long before off-shoring was a thing, and
off-shoring doesn't even clearly show as an independent variable. Otherwise
we'd see a significant bend in the curve. Instead, significant deviations are
conjunctural, connected to recessions.
The BLS charts can be easily researched by anybody on this site. I don't
want to hear conspiracy theories about how BLS has politically rigged the stats
for 60 years as lazy substitute for critical approaches to BLS statistical
methods. If you want to refute the evidence, that's what is required.
It fails to assess the real weight of off-shoring vs automation because
Smith doesn't base his analysis on the effects of automation, and then move to
assess the effects of off-shoring. Therefore Smith can never present a clear
quantification of the effects of off-shoring on employment in a metropolitan
country like the US.
At root Smith's limitations are found in his Andre G. Frank "development of
underdevelopment" bias. This cannot conceive of under- or uneven- development
in an "already developed" country like the US. But that is precisely, palpably,
what has happened. And it is inevitable under capitalist automation once it
reaches a tipping point. As I believe it has, where only some 25% of the total
available labor force is required to produce everything we (very wastefully)
consume now, today.
As an aside, note that off-shoring is not to include products never produced
in the US in the first place, like most of Apples' iProducts. You can't
"off-shore" jobs you never worked at, now can you! This represents a different
process, the export of *new* capital investment, in this case in a contract
relation with Chinese SEZ capitalists, not the transfer of *existing*
productive investment overseas. But Smith includes iProducts in his
"off-shoring" mix.
The Smith example shows this is a matter of the basic facts about
capitalism, not about left or right politics. That is exactly why people
gravitate towards off-shoring as a prime-mover in job loss, precisely because
something politically can be done about that. Yet if you somehow forced all US
corporations to 100% invest production in the US, you will only greatly
accelerate the trend of job loss due to automation, as it will be the only
lever they have left. Unless you want to halt all human progress in the
productivity that has already freed up 75% of our labor time to do something
other than maintain the current standard of living.
The real political problem we need to confront is that, despite these real
productivity gains, capitalism requires that the whole mob of proles be
continuously prodded onto the wage labor market, whether their labor is
necessary or not. That's the fundamental program of the Congressional snakepit
and its Statehouse auxiliaries. The wage labor social relation is the source of
the social power of capitalists, and without it they and their system go Poof.
A good reform proposal would be: a guaranteed *medium* income for all (or
alternatively, a guaranteed "job" for all at the same income or greater); a
system for equitably circulating the total potential labor pool in and out of
the pool of necessary labor. It will require a revolution to achieve such a
reform.
@Brad
"As an aside, note that off-shoring is not to include products never
produced in the US in the first place, like most of Apples' iProducts. You
can't "off-shore" jobs you never worked at, now can you! This represents a
different process, the export of *new* capital investment, in this case in a
contract relation with Chinese SEZ capitalists, not the transfer of
*existing* productive investment overseas. But Smith includes iProducts in
his "off-shoring" mix."
Doesn't seem like a different process to those needing work to survive.
This is why "economists" are being ridiculed and derided among large swathes
of the populace. Distinctions without differences which only serve to fit
data into precious formulae, based on preconceived ideals. If I develop a
new product in the US, and seek only China manufacture (to save myself the
labor cost, and evade the external costs of environment, etc.) the result is
the same. "New capital investment " is just a matter of timing. Lucky me, I
didn't have to go thru the expense of tearing down an existing facility, or
relationship, here first.
This seems to me one of the more incisive of the comments. So many are
coming at it from the framework of what solutions best get us back to a
situation that was better, like one we experienced between the 1950s to the
turn of the century. This was a unique period of advantage for the US
economically and industry-wise that is unlikely to be repeated, imo, and for
awhile seemed to have more easy opportunities for all.
The progressive platform recognizes how the pillars providing for more
equality of opportunity have been battered, and I agree with some of its
proposals. But just reversing the tax burden shifts and trying to reinstate
more affordable healthcare or education still leaves us with the situation
where the need for and nature of work may still be changing radically. I
have trouble seeing how a conservative half of the country with extremely
powerful propaganda outlets, interest groups, and fountains of money will
allow some if any of the ideas proposed in this article (hence Brad's claim
that it would require a revolution sways me a good deal).
I also do not think that Bernie, basically not subjected to any big
negative hits in the primary, would have won the general after the right's
smear machine was done with him. Even then, the republican congress would
have stopped cold any of his more significant proposals.
Progressives need to get realistic. This agenda will be slow in coming,
unless things get so horrible that a true revolution does occur. What that
would entail I do not know, but powerful forces are aligned against it. All
who spend time theorizing (including me) on keyboards will have to start and
sustain the very hard work of getting into the trenches, spreading and
fighting for ideas, and most of all, actually winning primaries and
elections and helping to get people out to vote. The right wing started
doing this methodically over 45 years ago, with patience and persistence.
Trump/RW domination needs to be stopped asap, by whatever plausible if
less than ideal tools we have. Protests are getting attention, and I hope
more participation and results will come next. Purity tests of progressive
ideals is a cancer that will only doom the cause. It will be hard and maybe
slow, but we're going to need more than just the faithful to get this turned
around. Bernie was a start, but too many are throwing up their hands just
because he lost the primary.
I plan to keep working to change the democratic party for the better, at
a pace that is realistic. Getting a more progressive tax structure again to
fund any of these ideas is critical first. I also can't see a guaranteed
income without a required work contribution to address the evolving economy,
given this country's attitude towards earning one's keep. A sort of advanced
CCC to work on massively fixing and improving our crumbling infrastructure
and public spaces, fighting forest fires, etc. using these tax funds is one
idea. Subsidizing quick as possible job training as new jobs evolve with the
radical changes in the economy is another. More support for local small
business and entrepreneurs (perhaps funding employees who they need for
awhile in startup phase as part of minimum guaranteed income in exchange for
work) until they prove to be an ongoing concern is another thought. Even if
these ideas are flawed, we need to rethink the paradigm of work with which
we grew up.
I don't agree. Obama could not only have done a Roosevelt 100 days, he
literally could have re-implemented many of his policies. This was a
window of opportunity that he ignored and bizarrely, the public at large
airbrushes out of its memory.
I don't at all buy that the US can't afford this. Did you forget we
spend ginormous amounts on our military, and that could instead be be
redirected to domestic uses? Japan, a less rich country generally
considered to be in decline, is vastly more egalitarian than America and
scores way above us and every other country in the world on social
indicators. Some of that, sadly, may prove out that ethnically mixed
societies don't "do" egalitarianism because some groups don't want to cut
less advantaged groups in.
The issue is that the elites (a word used only on sites like Alex
Jones before the crisis) are all in for increasing inequality. That means
not investing in education for the masses and much heavier policing,
since unequal societies are more violent, among other things.
I also do not think that Bernie, basically not subjected to any big
negative hits in the primary, would have won the general after the
right's smear machine was done with him.
Progressives need to get realistic.
Purity tests of progressive ideals is a cancer that will only doom
the cause. It will be hard and maybe slow, but we're going to need
more than just the faithful to get this turned around.
I have pulled these out of your comments, because they are generally
used by tribal Democrats to rationalize the party's incompetent,
destructive behavior. I am not saying that's why you're doing it. But I'd
like to address them.
I heartily concur with Yves' reply to you, to start.
Second, you mention in other places than the ones I quoted this idea
of doing what's "realistic" and being "realistic." What do you mean by
that? The neoliberal Democrats had a quarter of a century to demonstrate
that their way worked for the citizens of the United States and the
Democratic Party. They failed on both counts. More of strategy and policy
that has a proven record of failure would be unwise - do you agree?
If you do agree, and you want to reform the Democratic Party, as you
state above, then your choice is easy: focus your energies on getting rid
of all the entrenched neoliberals and corporate-aligned Democrats, both
party functionaries and elected officials. No positive change can occur
until that task is completed.
If you do NOT agree that the neoliberal New Democrats must be purged
from the party, what is your vision of realistic change, what makes it
realistic, and what makes it change?
Also, you are simply incorrect about Bernie and the general election.
All data we have demonstrates strongly that he would have won. There's no
smear machine in America better than the Clinton machine plus the major
corporate media aligned with it. He was smeared constantly with vile
falsehoods - one of which you clearly fell for, which is that he
wasn't
smeared. He would have held the Democratic states
unquestionably, and held the Rust Belt, and thus won the election. Tell
me what states you imagine he would have lost to Trump?
The realistic approach is get rid of the New Democrats utterly and
completely. They have failed catastrophically. That will be a hard task,
but that doesn't' make it unrealistic. To leave them in place and think
the party will win back governing power or do anything good for the
average citizen would be unrealistic.
Can anyone any longer deceive oneself about the primary meaning and purpose of the
Democratic Party? The DP, as it has been redefined and transformed since the
Nixon-McGovern election of 1972, is a political vehicle that primarily seeks to
represent the interests of mainly urban upper-middle suburban well-educated and
well-off professionals, managers, educators, and technologists, along with those
other racial/ethnic/social groups that happen to be privileged by elite opinion at
any given time.
If the quixotic Sanders run taught us anything, it is that there is no interest,
no room within the DP for critical economic and social argument. Not just radical
class-based neo-Marxist criticism but even the kind of economic issue-framing that
became a hallmark of the DP in the FDR regime and persisted with sometimes more,
other times less strength until the 70's.
The so-called "resistance" to Trump has only reaffirmed this conclusion. Insofar
as it is being led by DP and DP-leaning media and other talking-head
pseudo-intelligentsia, it has focused almost entirely on the same social lifestyle
and individual empowerment sexual/gender issues that have characterized it over the
past 40 years. This inability to think outside of what too often reduces in final
analysis to solipsistic "me-isms", for example by framing important political
questions like immigration, imperial reach, and deregulation in ways that transcend
the usual racial-ethnic-gender identity differences, prevents the DP and its
sycophants from suggesting deeper grounds for solidarity-in-opposition. Most readers
of NC understand what these deeper grounds are!
As I wrote another time a few years ago, DP players and pundits, often urban in
residence and outlook, and often themselves financially well off, ensconced in
high-priced city dwellings, shopping at Whole Foods, frequenting high-end fashion
boutiques, attending the best schools on mommy and daddy's dime, often appear more
transparently hostile and condescending to what they judge to be the unsophisticated
prejudices and religious backwardness of lower, working, and middle class Americans
than do the Trumps of the Republican Party. The latter, equally or even more
well-heeled than their ersatz opponents, have learned beginning in the Nixon-Colson
"silent majority" days, how to project a kind of "rural, small town folksiness",
filling their rallies with country music stars and NASCAR heroes, and who know enough
to drag out a "social-cultural conservative" every now and then to show that they
"hear and care" for the "forgotten American" even if they consistently ignore these
very people in the political arena.
To be sure, the Republicans don't give a rat's ass about these things. Applying
the categories of the silent-majority Americans, they are as "amoral" as the Democrat
special-interest spokespeople. However, when it is a case of neither party addressing
the causes that underlie the real deep-rooted rottenness that has become 21st Century
America, the blue collar "ordinary" American will often fall back on the party of
lip-service that at least to him or her seems to be listening to the anxieties and
resentments felt by them. The irony of course is that neoliberal policies
consistently applied will destroy (have destroyed) whatever was real and true about
the America they think has been left behind.
Great post. As an example of what you are talking about, I see very little
concern from Democrats and liberals about the current Republican efforts to pass a
national right to work law, even though this will hurt unions which are supposed
to be one of the core elements of the Democratic coalition. Is this surprising? Of
course not, given Obama's failure to fight for card check and to give support to
the embattled unions in Wisconsin during their fight with Scott Walker. What
happened to those comfortable shoes? Did Obama lose them? Unions give the
Democrats money and troops during election years and are then kicked to the curb
when the Democrats are in power or at most given scraps.
The upper-middle class professionals and managers who dominate the Democratic
Party want to continue the identity politics emphasis with regard to opposition to
Trump because they are making out well under neoliberalism and are opposed to
anything that would tilt the economy in a direction that is more favorable to
ordinary workers because they would lose their relative status. Upper-middle class
types don't want to go back to the days of the mid-20th century when doctors and
lawyers might have to share a neighborhood with factory workers.
To many progressives, saving American jobs sounds jingoistic and
"protectionism" is a bad word. Isn't global trade helping the poor become less so
around the world? Isn't it selfish only to protect American jobs? Isn't it more
moral to share scarce manufacturing jobs with the poor in Mexico and Asia? After
all, even if a plant closes in the Rust Belt, service sector jobs can be found at
wages that still are far higher than what the poor can hope for in low-wage
countries.
May I just say that as a deplorable member of the poor white working class who is
a bone-deep progressive that these are classist views of people who sit in their
comfortable middle-class bubbles and pretend there are n't people in
this
country who are suffering from the very things they are so nobly seeking to protect
workers in the third world from suffering?
If you want to know why otherwise sensible, intelligent people voted for Trump,
that paragraph right there is a major example. The content is bad enough, but that an
author who has written an excellent overview of the situation would automatically
attribute that kind of thinking to "progressives" shows just how insidious the
academic mindset is, and why the working class, regardless of race, gender, religion,
or sexual preference, automatically shuts out both categories when they stroll in to
"educate."
Any attempt to equalize wages in "poorer" countries, would also have to
address cost-of-living differences, as well.
You are not allowed, in "developed" nations, to live a subsistence lifestyle,
any longer.
With higher living standards, comes an obligation to provide citizens with a
level of income which can sustain that standard.
Thank you. Better-put than I could have done. Might I add to this that I wasn't
voting for the president of Uruguay or Mexico or whatever, who could reasonably be
expected to look out for those people. I was voting for the next president of the
United States, who I should be able to reasonably believe will look out for me, as
an American, first and foremost.
The recent primaries and Presidential election made clear to me how little the
concerns of ordinary people mean to the two national parties. However Trump was and
remains something of a wildcard - at least promising actions reflecting the concerns
of the hoi polli. He has indeed delivered in short order on several of his promises.
I have trouble characterizing the opposition and protests against Trump. Are they
inspired by the Democratic Party's knee-jerk opposition to anything Trump or
Neoliberal opponents to Trump's dismantling of the grand corporate take-over embodied
in the TPP or upper-middle "liberals" fuming about one or another of their pet issues
of the moment like immigration or climate change - issues which Trump seems
determined to throttle. My daughter was tempted to join the women's march because she
will sorely miss planned parenthood clinics when their funds are cutoff - they were
for her the only place she could find real healthCARE at any price.
At this point I tend to agree with Bernie Sanders assessment of Trump (ref.
today's links -
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/02/05/after-trump-moves-to-undo-financial-regulations-sanders-calls-him-a-fraud/
).
I am glad the US seems more cozy with Russia - worried about the US and China and
Iran - glad the TPP has been - at least temporarily - dismantled - in short I view
Trump as a very mixed blessing whose actions and intents remain opaque. I believe
Trump will benefit the obscenely wealthy classes but I'm not sure yet which portions
of the obscenely wealthy. I believe there is a power struggle ongoing between
different behemoth factions of the uber-rich but the waters they fight in are darkly
murky.
"upper-middle "liberals" fuming about one or another of their pet issues of the
moment like immigration or climate change "
Yeah, climate change an 'issue of the moment'.
Here is the bedrock of modern political stupdity. A total unconcern for the future
of all of us. I don't care where you think you are on the left/right BS, anyone with
your view is just another instance of the great problem.
I cannot read all the comments & know my own will be but a wisp in the wind. I am
grateful to naked capitalism, Yves & Lambert for publishing the best thinking on the
subjects.
"Workers of the World Unite" is about all I can see as the real option to pursue. How
to really do that means using all the means of the winners.
It's seems simply impossible on one hand to be nationalistic, and fair to labor
internationally at the same time.
I keep looking at WWI.
Workers of the World Unite? How? Fair Trade, Internationally the world is a struggle
between the Rich who have inherited wealth & get compound interest, pass on deeds
that survive as if a neofeudalism is just ordained.
Ah hell, I say if you cannot even imagine a utopia you ought not call yourself a
human being.
Purchasing Power Parity & World Government?
Without private property things get weird & corruption grows from elites getting
access to all.
In my Transcendia Insurodollar I overcome the flaw of Communist theory.
I have a part of it going. I have a gov. in govs. concept workable as permanently
small.
Time to expand. Doubtful, really really doubtful.
I do recognize Les is on the right track and has the correct goals. The puzzle is how
to really work at the Two Nation Solution of Workers & Power, corporate Power is
immense.
They throw out regulations we know are necessary.
Force & mind control propaganda are levers at their fingertips.
Force? 8 have so much wealth the majority divided by language & borders a challenge
is seen as doomed.
I shall imagine.
I found myself agreeing with most of the points in the post. We must be clear that
Donald Trump is anti-Globalist but to get GOP support and appointees he assimilated
their tribal beliefs. If he is stupid or crazy we must say so and explain why. If he
is right and does something that benefits American citizens such as ratcheting down
the Cold War 2.0 with Russia, we must applaud. I am fairly certain that to spite him
and keep the bribes flowing, Democrats will not support the re-branding of "Medicare
for All" to "TrumpCare".
It may be my history or old age; but, I am afraid that the global elite have
decided the USA is ripe for a final harvest and have gr
"... Question: why can there be no color revolution in the United States? Answer: because there are no US Embassies in the United States. ..."
"... US intelligence agencies are now investigating their own boss! Yes, according to recent reports , the FBI, CIA, National Security Agency and Treasury Department are now investigating the telephone conversations between General Flynn and the Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyk. ..."
"... In other words, his security clearance is stratospherically high and he will soon become the boss of all the US intelligence services. And yet, these very same intelligence services are investigating him for his contacts with the Russian Ambassador. That is absolutely amazing. ..."
"... Even in the bad old Soviet Union, the putatively almighty KGB did not have the right to investigate a member of the Communist Party Central Committee without a special authorization of the Politburo (a big mistake, in my opinion, but never mind that). ..."
"... But in the case of Flynn, several US security agencies can decide to investigate a man who by all standards ought to be considered at least in the top 5 US officials and who clearly has the trust of the new President. And that does not elicit any outrage, apparently. ..."
"... By the same logic, the three letter agencies might as well investigate Trump for his telephone conversations with Vladimir Putin. ..."
"... This is all absolutely crazy because this is evidence that the US intelligence community has gone rogue and is now taking its orders from the Neocons and their deep state and not from the President and that these agencies are now acting against the interests of the new President. ..."
"... pussyhat revolution ..."
"... pussyhat revolution ..."
"... Make no mistake, such protests are no more spontaneous than the ones in the Ukraine. Somebody is paying for all this, somebody is organizing it all. And they are using their full bag of tricks. One more example: ..."
"... Remember the pretty face of Nayirah , the Kuwaiti nurse who told Congress that she had witnessed Iraqi soldiers tossing our babies from Kuwaiti incubators (and who later turned out to be the daughter of Saud Al-Sabah, the Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States)? Do you remember the pretty face of Neda , who " died on TV " in Iran? Well, let me introduce you to Bana Alabe, who wrote a letter to President Trump and, of course, the media got hold of the latter and now she is the "face of the Syrian children". ..."
"... Okay, click here and take a look at a sampling of anti-Trump caricatures and cartoons compiled by the excellent Colonel Cassad. Some of them are quite remarkable ..."
"... My purpose in listing all the examples above is to suggest the following: far from having accepted defeat, the Neocons and the US deep state have decided, as they always do, to double-down and they are now embarking on a full-scale "color revolution" which will only end with the impeachment, overthrowal or death of Donald Trump. ..."
"... One of the most amazing features of this color revolution against Trump is the fact that those behind it don't give a damn about the damage that their war against Trump does to the institution of the President of the United States and, really, to the United States as a whole. That damage is, indeed, immense and the bottom line is this: President Trump is in immense danger of being overthrown and his only hope for survival is to strike back hard and fast. ..."
"... The other amazing thing is the ugly role Britain plays in this process: all the worst filth against Trump is always eventually traced back right to the UK. How come? Simple. Do you recall how, formally at least, the CIA and NSA did not have the right to spy on US nationals and the British MI6 and GCHQ had no right to spy on British nationals. Both sides found an easy way out: they simply traded services: the CIA and NSA spied on Brits, the MI6 and GCHQ spied on Americans, and then they simply traded the data between "partners" (it appears that since Obama came to power all these measures have now become outdated and everybody is free to spy on whomever the hell they want, including their own nationals). The US Neocons and the US deep state are now using the British special services to produce a stream of filth against Trump which they then report as "intelligence" and which then can be used by Congress as a basis for an investigation. Nice, simple and effective. ..."
"... 9/11 was a collective crime par excellence . A few men actually executed it, but then thousands, possibly tens of thousands, have used their position to execute the cover-up and to prevent any real investigation. They are ALL guilty of obstruction of justice. By opening a new investigation into 911, but one run by the Justice Department and NOT by Congress, Trump could literally place a "political handgun" next to the head of each politician and threaten to pull the trigger if he does not immediately give up on trying to overthrow Trump. What Trump needs for that is a 100% trusted and 100% faithful man as the director of the FBI, a man with " clean hands, a cool head and a burning heart " (to use the expression of the founder of the Soviet Secret Police, Felix Dzerzhinsky). This man will immediately find himself in physical danger so he will have to be a man of great personal courage and determination. And, of course, this "man" could be a woman (a US equivalent of the Russian prosecutor, Natalia Poklonskaia). ..."
"... First, at the very least, the Trump Presidency itself: the Neocons and the US deep state will not let Trump implement his campaign promises and program. Instead they will sabotage, ridicule and misrepresent everything he does, even if this is a big success. ..."
"... Second, it appears that Congress now has the pretext to open several different congressional investigations into Donald Trump. If that is the case, it will be easy for Congress to blackmail Trump and constantly threaten him with political retaliation if he does not "get with the program". ..."
"... Third, the rabid persecution of Trump by the Neocons and the deep state is weakening the institution of the Presidency. For example, the latest crazy notion floated by some politicians is to " prohibit the President of the United States from using nuclear weapons without congressional authorization except when the United States is under nuclear attack ." From a technical point of view, this is nonsense, but what it does is send the following signal to the rest of the planet: "we, in Congress, believe that our Commander in Chief cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons." Never mind that they would trust Hillary with the same nukes and never mind that Trump could use only conventional weapons to trigger a global nuclear war anyway (by, for example, a conventional attack on the Kremlin), what they are saying is that the US President is a lunatic that cannot be trusted. How can they then expect him to be take seriously on any topic? ..."
"... Fourth, can you just imagine what will happen if the anti-Trump forces are successful?! Not only will democracy be totally and terminally crushed inside the USA, but the risks of war, including nuclear, will simply go through the roof. ..."
"... will Trump have the intelligence to realize the fact that he is under attack and will he have the courage to strike back hard enough ..."
A Russian joke goes like this: " Question: why can there be no color revolution in the United
States? Answer: because there are no US Embassies in the United States. "
Funny, maybe, but factually wrong: I believe that a color revolution is being attempted in the
USA right now.
US intelligence agencies are now investigating their own boss! Yes,
according to recent reports , the FBI, CIA, National Security Agency and Treasury Department
are now investigating the telephone conversations between General Flynn and the Russian ambassador
Sergey Kislyk.
According to Wikipedia, General Flynn is the former
Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency Joint Functional Component Command for Intelligence,
Surveillance and Reconnaissance Chair of the Military Intelligence Board Assistant Director of
National Intelligence Senior intelligence officer for the Joint Special Operations Command.
He is also Trump's National Security Advisor. In other words, his security clearance is stratospherically
high and he will soon become the boss of all the US intelligence services. And yet, these very same
intelligence services are investigating him for his contacts with the Russian Ambassador. That is
absolutely amazing.
Even in the bad old Soviet Union, the putatively almighty KGB did not have the right to investigate
a member of the Communist Party Central Committee without a special authorization of the Politburo
(a big mistake, in my opinion, but never mind that).
That roughly means that the top 500 members of the Soviet state could not be investigated by the
KGB at all. Furthermore, such was the subordination of the KGB to the Party that for common criminal
matters the KGB was barred from investigating any member of the entire Soviet
Nomenklatura , roughly 3
million people (and even bigger mistake!).
But in the case of Flynn, several US security agencies can decide to investigate a man who
by all standards ought to be considered at least in the top 5 US officials and who clearly has the
trust of the new President. And that does not elicit any outrage, apparently.
By the same logic, the three letter agencies might as well investigate Trump for his telephone
conversations with Vladimir Putin.
Which, come to think of it, they might well do it soon
This is all absolutely crazy because this is evidence that the US intelligence community has
gone rogue and is now taking its orders from the Neocons and their deep state and not from the President
and that these agencies are now acting against the interests of the new President.
In the meantime, the Soros crowd has already chosen a color: pink. We now are witnessing the "
pussyhat revolution " as
explained on this website. And if you think that this is just a small fringe of lunatic feminists,
you would be quite wrong. For the truly lunatic feminists the "subtle" hint about their " pussyhat
revolution " is too subtle, so they prefer making their statement less ambiguous as the image
on the right shows.
This would all be rather funny, in a nauseating way I suppose, if it wasn't for the fact that
the media, Congress and Hollywood are fully behind this "100 days of Resistance to Trump" which began
by a, quote, "queer dance party" at Mike Pence's house.
This would be rather hilarious, if it was not for all gravitas with which the corporate media
is treating these otherwise rather pathetic "protests".
Watch how MCNBS's talking head blissfully reporting this event:
Listen carefully to what Moore says at 2:00. He says that they will "celebrate the fact that Obama
is still the President of the United States" and the presstitute replies to him, "yes he is" not
once, but twice.
What are they talking about?! The fact that Obama is still the President?!
How is it that Homeland Security and the FBI are not investigating MCNBC and Moore for
rebellion and
sedition ?
So far, the protests have not been too large, but they did occur in various US cities and they
were well covered by the media:
Make no mistake, such protests are no more spontaneous than the ones in the Ukraine. Somebody
is paying for all this, somebody is organizing it all. And they are using their full bag of tricks.
One more example:
Remember the pretty face of
Nayirah , the
Kuwaiti nurse who told Congress that she had witnessed Iraqi soldiers tossing our babies from Kuwaiti
incubators (and who later turned out to be the daughter of Saud Al-Sabah, the Kuwaiti ambassador
to the United States)? Do you remember the pretty face of
Neda , who
" died on TV " in Iran?
Well, let me introduce you to Bana Alabe, who
wrote a letter to President
Trump and, of course, the media got hold of the latter and now she is the "face of the Syrian
children".
Want even more proof?
Okay, click here
and take a look at a sampling of anti-Trump caricatures and cartoons compiled by the excellent
Colonel Cassad. Some of them are quite remarkable. From this nauseating collection, I will select
just two:
The first one clearly accuses Trump of being in the hands of Putin. The second one make Trump
the heir to Adolf Hitler and strongly suggests that Trump might want to restart Auschwitz. Translated
into plain English this sends a double message: Trump is not the legitimate President of the USA
and Trump is the ultimate Evil.
This goes far beyond the kind of satire previous Presidents have ever been subjected to.
My purpose in listing all the examples above is to suggest the following: far from having
accepted defeat, the Neocons and the US deep state have decided, as they always do, to double-down
and they are now embarking on a full-scale "color revolution" which will only end with the impeachment,
overthrowal or death of Donald Trump.
One of the most amazing features of this color revolution against Trump is the fact that those
behind it don't give a damn about the damage that their war against Trump does to the institution
of the President of the United States and, really, to the United States as a whole. That damage is,
indeed, immense and the bottom line is this: President Trump is in immense danger of being overthrown
and his only hope for survival is to strike back hard and fast.
The other amazing thing is the ugly role Britain plays in this process: all the worst filth
against Trump is always eventually traced back right to the UK. How come? Simple. Do you recall how,
formally at least, the CIA and NSA did not have the right to spy on US nationals and the British
MI6 and GCHQ had no right to spy on British nationals. Both sides found an easy way out: they simply
traded services: the CIA and NSA spied on Brits, the MI6 and GCHQ spied on Americans, and then they
simply traded the data between "partners" (it appears that since Obama came to power all these measures
have now become outdated and everybody is free to spy on whomever the hell they want, including their
own nationals). The US Neocons and the US deep state are now using the British special services to
produce a stream of filth against Trump which they then report as "intelligence" and which then can
be used by Congress as a basis for an investigation. Nice, simple and effective.
The bottom line is this: President Trump is in immense danger of being overthrown and his only
hope for survival is to strike back hard and fast.
Can he do that?
Until now I have suggested several times that Trump deal with the US Neocons the way Putin dealt
with the oligarchs in Russia: get them on charges of tax evasion, corruption, conspiracy, obstruction
of justice, etc. All that good stuff which the US deep state has been doing for years. The Pentagon
and the Three Letter Agencies are probably the most corrupt entities on the planet and since they
have never been challenged, never mind punished, for their corruption, they must have become fantastically
complacent about how they were doing things, essentially counting on the White House to bail them
out in case of problems. The main weapons used by these circles are the numerous secrecy laws which
protect them from public and Congressional scrutiny. But here Trump can use his most powerful card:
General Flynn who, as former director of the DIA and current National Security Advisor to the President
will have total access. And if he doesn't – he can create it, if needed by sending special forces
to ensure "collaboration".
However, I am now beginning to think that this might not be enough. Trump has a much more powerful
weapon he can unleash against the Neocon: 9/11.
Whether Trump knew about it before or not, he is now advised by people like Flynn who must have
known for years that 9/11 was in inside job. And if the actual number of people directly implicated
in the 9/11 operation itself was relatively small, the number of people which put their full moral
and political credibility behind the 9/11 official narrative is immense. Let me put it this way:
while 9/11 was a US "deep state" operation (probably subcontracted for execution to the Israelis),
the entire Washington "swamp" has been since "9/11 accomplice after the fact" by helping to maintain
the cover-up. If this is brought into light, then thousands of political careers are going to crash
and burn into the scandal.
9/11 was a collective crime par excellence . A few men actually executed it, but then thousands,
possibly tens of thousands, have used their position to execute the cover-up and to prevent any real
investigation. They are ALL guilty of obstruction of justice. By opening a new investigation into
911, but one run by the Justice Department and NOT by Congress, Trump could literally place a "political
handgun" next to the head of each politician and threaten to pull the trigger if he does not immediately
give up on trying to overthrow Trump. What Trump needs for that is a 100% trusted and 100% faithful
man as the director of the FBI, a man with " clean hands, a cool head and a burning heart " (to use
the expression of the founder of the Soviet Secret Police, Felix Dzerzhinsky). This man will immediately
find himself in physical danger so he will have to be a man of great personal courage and determination.
And, of course, this "man" could be a woman (a US equivalent of the Russian prosecutor, Natalia Poklonskaia).
I fully understand that danger of what I am suggesting as any use of the "9/11 weapon" will, of
course, result in an immense counter-attack by the Neocons and the deep state. But here is the deal:
the latter are already dead set in impeaching, overthrowing or murdering Donald Trump. And, as Putin
once said in an interview, "if you know that a fight is inevitable, then strike first!".
You think that all is this over the top? Consider what is at stake.
First, at the very least, the Trump Presidency itself: the Neocons and the US deep state
will not let Trump implement his campaign promises and program. Instead they will sabotage, ridicule
and misrepresent everything he does, even if this is a big success.
Second, it appears that Congress now has the pretext to open several different congressional
investigations into Donald Trump. If that is the case, it will be easy for Congress to blackmail
Trump and constantly threaten him with political retaliation if he does not "get with the program".
Third, the rabid persecution of Trump by the Neocons and the deep state is weakening the
institution of the Presidency. For example, the latest crazy notion
floated by some politicians is to " prohibit the President of the United States from using
nuclear weapons without congressional authorization except when the United States is under nuclear
attack ." From a technical point of view, this is nonsense, but what it does is send the following
signal to the rest of the planet: "we, in Congress, believe that our Commander in Chief cannot
be trusted with nuclear weapons." Never mind that they would trust Hillary with the same nukes
and never mind that Trump could use only conventional weapons to trigger a global nuclear war
anyway (by, for example, a conventional attack on the Kremlin), what they are saying is that the
US President is a lunatic that cannot be trusted. How can they then expect him to be take seriously
on any topic?
Fourth, can you just imagine what will happen if the anti-Trump forces are successful?!
Not only will democracy be totally and terminally crushed inside the USA, but the risks of war,
including nuclear, will simply go through the roof.
There is much more at stake here than just petty US politics.
Every time I think of Trump and every time I look at the news I always come back to the same anguished
thought: will Trump have the intelligence to realize the fact that he is under attack and will
he have the courage to strike back hard enough ?
I don't know.
I have a great deal of hopes for General Flynn. I am confident that he understands the picture
perfectly and knows exactly what is going on. But I am not sure that he has enough pull with the
rest of the armed forces to keep them on the right side should a crisis happen. Generally, "regular"
military types don't like intelligence people. My hope is that Flynn has loyal allies at SOCOM and
JSOC as, at the end of the day, they will have the last say as to who occupies the White House. The
good news here is that unlike regular military types, special forces and intelligence people are
usually very close and used to work together (regular military types also dislike special forces).
SOCOM and JSOC will also know how to make sure that the CIA doesn't go rogue.
Last but not least, my biggest hope is that Trump will use the same weapon Putin used against
the Russian elites: the support of the people. But for that task, Twitter is simply not good enough.
Trump needs to go the "RT route" and open his own TV channel. Of course, this will be very hard and
time consuming, and he might have to begin with an Internet-based only channel, but as long as there
is enough money there, he can make it happen. And, just like RT, it needs to be multi-national, politically
diverse (including anti-Empire figures who do not support Trump) and include celebrities.
One of the many mistakes made by Yanukovich in the Ukraine was that he did not dare to fully use
the legal instruments of power to stop the neo-Nazis. And to the degree that he used them, it was
a disaster (like when the riot cops beat up student demonstrators). After listening to a few interviews
of Yanukovich and of people near him during those crucial hours, it appears that Yanukovich simply
did not feel that he had a moral right to use violence to suppress the street. We will never now
if what truly held him back are moral principles of basic cowardice, but what is certain is that
he betrayed his people and his country when he refused to defend real democracy and let the "street"
take over replacing democracy with ochlocracy (mob rule). Of course, real ochlocracy does not exists,
all mobs are always controlled by behind-the-scenes forces who unleash them just long enough to achieve
their goals.
The forces which are currently trying to impeach, overthrow or murder President Trump are a clear
and present danger to the United States as a country and to the US Federal Republic. They are, to
use a Russian word, a type of "non-system" opposition which does not want to accept the outcome of
the elections and which by rejecting this outcome essentially oppose the entire political system.
I am not a US citizen (I could, but I refuse that citizenship on principle because I refuse to
take the required oath of allegiance) and the only loyalty I owe the USA is the one of a guest: never
to deliberately harm it in any way and to obey its laws. And yet it turns my stomach to see how easy
it has been to turn millions of Americans against their own country. I write a lot about russophobia
on this blog, but I also see a deep-seated "Americanophobia" or "USophobia" in the words and actions
who today say that Trump is not their President. To them, they micro-identity as a "liberal" or as
a "gay" or as "African-American" means more than the very basic fundamental principles upon which
this country has been built. When I see these crowds of Trump-bashers I see pure, seething hatred
not of the AngloZionist Empire, or of a plutocracy masquerading as a democracy, but a hatred of what
I would call the "simple America" or the "daily America" – the simple people amongst whom I have
now lived for many years and learned to respect and appreciate and whom the Clinton-bots only think
of as "deplorables
It amazes me to see that the US pseudo-elites have as much hatred, contempt and fear of the American
masses as the Russian pseudo-elites have hatred, contempt and fear of the Russian masses (the Russian
equivalent or Hillary's "deplorables" would be a hard to pronounce for English speakers word "
быдло ", roughly "cattle", "lumpen"
or "rabble"). It amazes me to see that the very same people which have demonized Putin for years
are now demonizing Trump using exactly the same methods. And if their own country has to go down
in their struggle against the common people – so be it! These self-declared elites will have no compunction
whatsoever to destroy the nation their have been parasitizing and exploiting for their own class
interest. They did just that to Russia exactly 100 years ago, in 1917. I sure hope that they will
not get away with that again in 2017.
"... Start focusing on the predators at the top of the pyramid scheme and then watch how those same culprits and their networks "come to the rescue" in order to capitalize on the "pain and suffering" they help to create. I see a pattern, don't you? ..."
"... Don't forget student debt. Not only are many recent graduates underemployed or unemployed, they're in the hole tens of thousands. Further incentive not to make any sort of financial commitment. Student debt should be cancelled to promote earlier family formation. ..."
"... It's almost a negative feedback loop. ..."
"... Very true. Capitalism only works as long as enough people (or states) are able to take up ever-larger debt, to close the gap (called "profit") between expensive goods and comparatively cheap labour. ..."
"... Good to point out Gat Gourmet. Almost all outsourced jobs in the beginning of places where I have worked were once part of the company. ..."
"... Still, it's hard not to notice there could be nothing more convenient to the corporate and governmental powers-that-be than a nonprofit that takes it upon itself to placate, insure, and temper the precarious middle-class. ..."
"... So which ivy-league management school / guru is most culpable in unleashing the whole lean-mean-outsourcing-machine monster because it's slowly destroying my ability to remain in IT. ..."
"... "how the big company love of outsourcing means that traditional employment has declined and is expected to fall further." – ..."
"... Story of my life! I'm still trying to get paid for freelance work that I did in December. This payment delay is wreaking havoc with MY cash flow. ..."
"... Another area of friction and waste with IT consulting and other contracting, is that an employee of a company simply and efficiently plugs into their existence administrative system (HR, timekeeping, payroll, etc). ..."
"... I work in engineering at a gigantic multinational vehicle manufacturer and the role of "consultants" has been expanding with time. Rather than consultants being people with specific technical expertise who work on one subsystem component with clear interfaces to other things, it now encapsulates project managers and subsystem / function responsible people who need to have large networks inside the company to be effective. ..."
"... Considering the huge amount of time it takes to get a new hire up and running to learn the acronyms and processes and the roles of different departments, it's a bit absurd to hire people for such roles under the assumption that they can be quickly swapped out with a consultant from Company B next week. ..."
"... It's pretty clear that management sees permanent employees on the payroll as a liability and seeks to avoid it as much as possible. ..."
"... Because they, unlike us, understand class. I can state for a fact that the Big Three auto companies are well aware of how much cheaper health care costs are for them in Canada and how much better off they would be here, cost-wise, with a national health care system where McDonald's and Wal-mart have to pay the same per hour or per employee cost as they do. But it turns out cost isn't everything. Corporate (capitalist) solidarity rules. ..."
"... Michelle Malkin ..."
"... “The Marxian capitalist has infinite shrewdness and cunning on everything except matters pertaining to his own ultimate survival. On these, he is not subject to education. He continues wilfully and reliably down the path to his own destruction”. ..."
The Wall Street Journal has an important new story,
The End of Employees
, on how the big company love of outsourcing means that traditional employment
has declined and is expected to fall further.
Some key sections of the article:
Never before have American companies tried so hard to employ so few people. The outsourcing wave
that moved apparel-making jobs to China and call-center operations to India is now just as likely
to happen inside companies across the U.S. and in almost every industry.
The men and women who unload shipping containers at Wal-Mart Stores Inc. warehouses are provided
by trucking company Schneider National Inc.’s logistics operation, which in turn subcontracts with
temporary-staffing agencies. Pfizer Inc. used contractors to perform the majority of its clinical
drug trials last year .
The shift is radically altering what it means to be a company and a worker. More flexibility for
companies to shrink the size of their employee base, pay and benefits means less job security for
workers. Rising from the mailroom to a corner office is harder now that outsourced jobs are no longer
part of the workforce from which star performers are promoted
For workers, the changes often lead to lower pay and make it surprisingly hard to answer the simple
question “Where do you work?” Some economists say the parallel workforce created by the rise
of contracting is helping to fuel income inequality between people who do the same jobs.
No one knows how many Americans work as contractors, because they don’t fit neatly into the
job categories tracked by government agencies. Rough estimates by economists range from 3% to 14%
of the nation’s workforce, or as many as 20 million people.
As you can see, the story projects this as an unstoppable trend. The article is mainly full of success
stories, which naturally is what companies would want to talk about. The alleged benefits are two-fold:
that specialist contractors can do a better job of managing non-core activities because they are specialists
and have higher skills and that using outside help keeps companies lean and allows them to be more "agile".
The idea that companies who use contractors are more flexible is largely a myth
.
The difficulty of entering into outsourcing relationships gives you an idea of how complex they are.
While some services, like cleaning, are likely to be fairly simple to hand off, the larger ones are
not. For instance, for IT outsourcing, a major corporation will need to hire a specialist consultant
to help define the requirements for the request for proposal and write the document that will be the
basis for bidding and negotiation. That takes about six months. The process of getting initial responses,
vetting the possible providers in depth, getting to a short list of 2-3 finalists, negotiating finer
points with them to see who has the best all-in offer, and then negotiating the final agreement typically
takes a year. Oh, and the lawyers often fight with the consultant as to what counts in the deal.
On the one hand, the old saw of "a contract is only as good at the person who signed it" still holds
true. But if a vendor doesn't perform up to the standards required, or the company's requirements change
in some way not contemplated in the agreement, it is vasty more difficult to address than if you were
handling it internally. And given how complicated contracting is, it's not as if you can fire them.
So as we've stressed again and again, these arrangements increase risks and rigidity. And companies
can mis-identify what is core or not recognize that there are key lower-level skills they've mis-identified.
For instance, Pratt & Whitney decided to contract out coordination of deliveries to UPS. Here is the
critical part:
For years, suppliers delivered parts directly to Pratt’s two factories, where materials handlers
unpacked the parts and distributed them to production teams. Earl Exum, vice president of global
materials and logistics, says Pratt had “a couple hundred” logistics specialists. Some handlers
were 20- or 30-year veterans who could “look at a part and know exactly what it is,” he adds .
Most of the UPS employees had no experience in the field, and assembly kits arrived at factories
with damaged or missing parts. Pratt and UPS bosses struggled to get the companies’ computers in
sync, including warehouse-management software outsourced by UPS to another firm, according to Pratt..
The result was $500 million in lost sales in a quarter. Pratt & Whitney tried putting a positive
spin on the tale, that all the bugs were worked out by the next quarter. But how long will it take Pratt
& Whitney to recover all the deal costs plus the lost profits?
There's even more risk when the company using contractor doesn't have much leverage over them. As
a Wall Street Journal reader, Scott Riney, said in comments:
Well managed companies make decisions based on sound data and analysis. Badly managed companies
follow the trends because they're the trends. A caveat regarding outsourcing is that, as always,
you get what you pay for. Also, the vendor relationship needs to be competently managed. There was
the time a certain, now bankrupt technology company outsourced production of PBX components to a
manufacturer who produced components with duplicate MAC addresses. The contract manufacturer's expertise
obviously didn't extend to knowing jack about hardware addressing, and the management of the vendor
relationship was incompetent. And what do you do, in a situation like that, if your firm isn't big
enough that your phone calls get the vendor's undivided attention? Or if you're on different continents,
and nothing can get done quickly?
We've discussed other outsourcing bombs in past posts, such as when British Airways lost "tens of
millions of dollars" when its contractor, Gate Gourmet, fired employees. Baggage handlers and ground
crew struck in sympathy, shutting down Heathrow for 24 hours. Like many outsourced operations, Gate
Gourmet had once been part of British Airways.
And passengers blamed the airline
, not the wprkers.
Now admittedly, there are low-risk, low complexity activities that are being outsourced more, such
as medical transcription, where 25% of all medical transcriptionists now work for agencies, up by 1/3
since 2009. The article attributes the change to more hospitals and large practices sending the work
outside. But even at its 2009 level, the use of agencies was well established. And you can see that
it is the sort of service that smaller doctor's offices would already be hiring on a temp basis, whether
through an agency or not, because they would not have enough activity to support having a full-time
employee. The story also describes how SAP has all its receptionists as contractors, apparently because
someone looked at receptionist pay and concluded some managers were paying too much. So low level clerical
jobs are more and more subject to this fad. But managing your own receptionists is hardly going to make
a company less flexible.
Contracting, like other gig economy jobs, increase insecurity and lower growth.
I hate to belabor the obvious, but people who don't have a steady paycheck are less likely to make major
financial commitments, like getting married and setting up a new household, having kids, or even buying
consumer durables. However, one industry likely makes out handsomely: Big Pharma, which no doubt winds
up selling more brain-chemistry-altering products for the resulting situationally-induced anxiety and/or
depression. The short-sightedness of this development on a societal level is breath-taking, yet overwhelmingly
pundits celebrate it and political leaders stay mum.
With this sort of rot in our collective foundation, the rise of Trump and other "populist" candidates
should not come as a surprise.
I would add this. It was deplorable for Trump to have fired Acting AG Sally Yates after she ordered
Justice Department lawyers to stop defending Mr. Trump’s executive order banning new arrivals to the
U.S. from seven Muslim-majority countries.
But Sally Yates was a hero for another reason. Yates was cracking down on systemic abuses by holding
top healthcare executives personally accountable for false Medicare and Medicaid claims and illegal
physician relationships.
I remember hoping: Well, maybe Obama will actually get some decent folks into the Judiciary bring
kids home from Iraq, maybe try for Medicare over 55 (to the advantage of the insurance & Pharma sectors?)
But the one thing I'd actually expected him to accomplish was enact
https://www.congress.gov/bill/110th-congress/senate-bill/2044
which would get the Kleptocrats a
few more years out of the moldering corpse of American Labor (and not hurt multinationals, who'd off-shored,
outsourced or speciously re-classified their largely undocumented, 3rd party, contingency/ gig employees
decades previously).
Wage-theft Democrats was a new concept to some of us more easily deluded working
class Yankees, reeling from Bush. I think a strong fantasy life's essential nowadays.
I imagine that this is among the pesky downsides of living in our YOOJ autocratic neo-Confederate
theocratic kleptocracy; wage theft has always been right at the top of both parties' platforms?
If they can't hide it, who will they blame it on?
"people who don’t have a steady paycheck are less likely to make major financial commitments,
like getting married and setting up a new household, having kids"
"more brain-chemistry-altering products for the resulting situationally-induced anxiety and/or depression."
Decline in family formation and a populace seeking to anesthetize itself are indications of a civilization
in decline. Our problem is much bigger than employment.
You can employ deplorables, you can enslave deplorables, you can kill deplorables. The only way
that a "return maximizing" system won't choose killing, is if the unit cost of killing is higher
than enslavement or employment. I can hope that the bureaucratic effect of increasing costs will
work faster on the cost of killing or enslavement. Reducing the cost of employment (regulations)
wouldn't hurt.
We'd guessed this was why Dickens, Niccolò Machiavelli, Frederick Douglass, E. A. Blair &
Marx were being burnt by the DeVos Christians. Why teach management for FREE, when the drooling
Know Nothings will PAY to send their dead-eyed vipers to seminars or A Beka online curricula?
Eliminate environmental protections and the entire industry that investigates, researches,
enforces, litigates, and mitigates environmental impacts are likewise eliminated. These are generally
highly skilled professions, and has wide ranging impacts from workers all the way to the global
ecosystem. Then there are economic ripple effects on top of that.
If we are going to eliminate an entire career tree, health insurance is a better choice.
Not sure what this has to do with the article, but yes people will LOSE jobs to Trump, skilled
and socially beneficial jobs like at the EPA.
For heaven knows what, jobs building useless walls to nowhere I guess, which somehow in
Trumps warped mind is a more productive line of work (it won't even work to curtail immigration).
Thank you for your astute, pertinent & seldom mentioned comment (which to those of us in
QA, is something we've believed central to the issue, not a tangent or unexpected side benefit
of our sharecropper corporatocracy).
We'd noticed contract buy-outs & forced early-retirement
in the steel industry, in the 90's, our clients' engineers (scruffy & cantankerous, who'd stand
by us if we were right & replace us if we got out of hand) were all replaced by clueless, gullible
desk jockeys, devoid of empirically honed judgement eventually, we'd have 2-3 gnarled old
timers, amidst crews of neophytes (first they tried very well trained & knowledgeable foreign
nationals, then pensioners, let go from the vendors) finally, they tried to 1099 the desperate
ones, on the run from skip-chasers, deputies & repo-men.
They'd try sending us half way across
the country, mention nothing, then see what we'd do (once we figured out we'd earned no overtime?)
We'd be in Indian or Russian owned mills where 80% of the employees were totally undocumented
foreign nationals, many of the balance wildly underpaid temps.
And the good-old-boy management
resembled characters outa Harriet Beecher Stowe. Lots of our counterparts were straight back
from Afghanistan & Iraq, verifying that most of their gig- economy contingency employment had
all been the same, regardless of industry sector: off-shored aircraft, as well as bridge, structural,
water, nuclear, inspectors what regulation?
Leveraging guilt to rationalize the Invitation of the least educated into your nation from the
most barbaric failed states and cultures in the world is another sign of civic decay.
Yup, many of the Taxi and Uber drivers around here arrived and took out private loans to
get "educated" and now are deep in debt and are too ashamed to go home.
Start focusing on the predators at the top of the pyramid scheme and then watch how those
same culprits and their networks "come to the rescue" in order to capitalize on the "pain
and suffering" they help to create. I see a pattern, don't you?
Barbarians are at the gates but you may be looking in the wrong place. Beware all types
of people are "vulnerable" and they will more easily identify with other human beings living
under a variety of diminished circumstances. Victim shaming won't be a viable option in the
not so distant future.
Dave, I hope you are not including Syria in your "failed states and cultures" description.
Syrians are
very well educated
and will add much to any nation's economy.
It is not a sign of "civic decay"
in the Syrian culture, but a sign of civic decay in a nation that will not accept people from
a war zone. An invitation should not be dependent on one's education but on one's need and desire
to survive a war zone..
Iraqis were also comparatively educated, right up through university, under its autocratic
leader. Libyans were, by and large, well educated, or at least getting so, under its autocratic
leader. The most poorly educated, probably, are those countries which have been under US or
European hegemony for generations: a lot of Central and south America, a lot of Africa, etc.
Not to mention the US itself, which has been colonizing its own hinterland for many decades.
The same applies to countries like Canada, Australia, etc. particularly in terms of their indigenous
populations.
Don't forget student debt. Not only are many recent graduates underemployed or unemployed, they're
in the hole tens of thousands. Further incentive not to make any sort of financial commitment. Student
debt should be cancelled to promote earlier family formation.
This trend matches up with the trends of dropping life expectancy, especially among the lower half
of income earners, and with slowing economies globally.
It's almost a negative feedback loop.
Politcal implications: the rise of far right politics; if you are a monarchist, or want to create
an aristocracy, these trends are probably in your interest.
Sure, it is partly psychological but it also has direct connection (by DESIGN) to the fact that
such people don't have healthcare, even with Obamacare insurance. The idiots that sing the praises
of Obamacare and how millions now have insurance seem to think that means those people have HEALTHCARE
to go with it.
Insurance is theft. Insurance is not even remotely "healthcare". Much of those newly insured have
their insurance, thanks to a government subsidy, but STILL lack healthcare because their premiums
and deductibles are too high to allow them to see doctors. Thus, they're dying or going to die sooner
due to untreated maladies, but at least they paid insurance company CEOs their bonuses with their
subsidized insurance payments!
Mutual insurance however is (was) socialist by nature. The true mutuals were crushed out of
existence by share for share conversions to private companies that ripped off policy holders and
gave a big payday to the C suites and the lawyers. Thanks to inept state insurance commissioners
and assemblies for that one.
while having health insurance doesnt mean you have health care, not having it does mean not
having health care at all, short of having a life or death condition, as hospitals (for now an
way) are only required to stabilize you. they arent required to cure you.
but then the high deductible insurance is one of those scams that some politicians gave us
because they could suggest that the patient (customer) could just shop around for better deals.
course that depends on us patients knowing what medical treatment is best for us, and which is
the cheapest of those., the former pretty much requires patients to be as knowledgeable as doctors.
the latter means we have to know what the treatments cost. could luck with that
I would force policy-makers in every advanced western nation to read and reflect on the last paragraph,
because it describes a mindset and a series of practices that are now found everywhere in western economies.
As David Harvey reminds us in his book on the Contradictions of Capitalism, Marx identified long ago
that there was a contradiction between holding down employees wages, and still expecting them to have
the purchasing power to buy the goods their cheap labour was making.
This problem has become more acute
with time, simply because we buy a lot more "stuff" than they did in the 19th century, and we take a
lot longer to pay for it, often on credit. Houses, cars, household goods, even computers, are now significant
expenditure decisions, repaid at least over months, if not years and even decades. The social corollary
of mass home ownership, after all, is some assurance that you will be employed over the life of the
mortgage. Otherwise, not only won't you buy the house, you won't improve or extend it, or even maintain
it, so a whole series of other purchases won't get made, and the construction and maintenance industries
will have less work. Instead, you'll save money, so removing purchasing power from the economy.
I assume there are people in large private sector companies clever enough to under stand this, but as
always they are focused on how much money they can extract from the system in the next few years. After
that, if the system crashes, well, who cares, They're all right.
Very true. Capitalism only works as long as enough people (or states) are able to take up ever-larger
debt, to close the gap (called "profit") between expensive goods and comparatively cheap labour.
Watching developments in recent years, this very source of profit and thus base of the economic system
is, even on a global level, quite limited
Sure. Marx Capital 1 on the crisis of production. Marx capital 2 on the crisis of realization but
this constitutes just one undesirable aspect-this one indeed very macro- among the many others which
the expansion of the "contracting-subcontracting chain" has brought and will bring about.
The Wall
Street Journal article is-as it is to expect- late, blind to the core problems of workers and incapable
to see and understand the true practical raison ( & reasons) d'ĂŞtre of outsourcing. I guess Yves
Smith purpose was just to broadly replicate WSJ article
Good to point out Gat Gourmet. Almost all outsourced jobs in the beginning of places where I have
worked were once part of the company. The entire art department save two management employees were played
off and rehired by a new company doing the same work with less benefits.
Then that company was later disolved. I have seen this many times in the corporate design field now. Usually ends with disaster
and he hire of folks some back to full time but most to freelance. So I guess in a way it works out
for the company in the end and not for the worker. Amazing the amount of money a company is willing
to lose this way then use the same to pay workers better.
An excellent critique, for those who were wondering. The take away paragraph, summing up
the actual work done and purpose of, the Freelancers Union:
Still, it's hard not to notice there could be nothing more convenient to the corporate
and governmental powers-that-be than a nonprofit that takes it upon itself to placate, insure,
and temper the precarious middle-class.
So which ivy-league management school / guru is most culpable in unleashing the whole lean-mean-outsourcing-machine
monster because it's slowly destroying my ability to remain in IT.
I don't know the answer to your question, but you would have to go back over twenty years to find
it. What I find remarkable is that even though everybody affected in the early stages could see what
a dumb, destructive idea it was, the MBA types never caught on, even though most of them were not
so far up the hierarchy they could not ultimately be affected.
Contractors need Guilds or Trade Associations that are well organized and legally able to set minimum
standards for billing and performance. This is an area where Trade Unions have failed with respect to
some professions, and apparently (from what I've heard) the RICO statutes need to be amended to allow
for this. It's time to rig the other side to make companies think twice before replacing employees with
temp workers or contractors, to keep jobs within the US, and to provide a cushion and a "floor" to those
that take the risk of entrepreneurship, preventing a race to the bottom.
Yes! Geographically bound temp unions or hiring halls for all temp workers allied with low-wage
worker associations. This is NOT something that established unions want, so who will agitate for
it?
Something like the I.W.W is what I'd like to see. Yea I know the response is: they are still
around? Well not what they were long ago of course, but with the prison strike, yes around and
rising.
"how the big company love of outsourcing means that traditional employment
has declined and is expected to fall further." –
This line pissed me off this morning more than most other mornings. I literally just said goodbye
to a long-time colleague (Big Pharma) who is being outsourced as of today. The kicker(s):
The job is not high tech
Employee(s) trained their replacement who are H-1B from India
The company is moving the division to India
Of note, my state (MA) is responsible for over one-quarter of all H-1B's every year. Thankfully a
few in the industry are helping get the word out, like Nanex's Eric Hunsader yesterday. The outsourcing,
off-shoring, and H-1B abuse has to stop, but not sure The People have the will to hold political office
holders accountable enough to truly change this paradigm.
Agreed, but I've been saying the exact same thing since 1980, so I've been lobbying and being
a volunteer activist against this for many years, and yet I still run into women (not too many men
anymore) in their 60s and 70s who believe offshoring of American jobs, and insourcing foreign visa
replacement workers is fantastic (truly, we are a dumbed down society today, where they routinely
protest on behalf of the financial hegemons).
Best book on this (and I am no conservative and have never voted r-con) is Michelle Malkin's book
(with John Miano),
Sold Out!
This has been going on for a long time, and by design: with every "jobless recovery" one-fifth
of the workforce is laid off, and one-half of that one-fifth will never find another job, while one-half
of the remainder, will only find lower-paying jobs.
And each and every time, more jobs are restructured as temporary or contractor type jobs. We've
had a lot of "jobless recoveries" to date.
A recent study from Lawrence Katz and Alan Krueger found that 94% of the new jobs created over
the past some years were all part-time, while a study from Rutgers University a year or so ago found
that one-third of the new jobs created couldn't be verified as actually existing!
Nothing particularly new here, as it has been going on for quite some time (another great book
is Ron Hira's book,
Outsourcing America
).
In every category of labor – blue and white collar – the press is on to increase the supply and reduce
the demand for labor.
The book ends: The Clintons in 92′ put thru the WTO / NAFTA – shut down 10's of millions of jobs
and factories – blue & white collar. Obama did the same, with anticipating Hillary would be elected,
put forth the TTP to enable unlimited H1-b for tech workers from off shore. The Neo Liberal Democrats
were at the forefront of of this 25 year Plan for labor devaluation (with Republican help).
The Immigration Policy by government both illegal and legal were at the epicenter of increasing the
supply in all categories with various programs while Obama also increased the regulations to wipe out
more factories and deliberately reduce demand.
The solution is eliminate immigration in all forms until the 95 Million are employed and wages rise
by the equivalent of what was lost in the past 15 years plus Tariffs to enable a marginal cost compared
to imports to allow domestic factories to expand demand.
Increase the demand and lower the supply of labor will mean potentially a switch will occur from
1099 to W-2 as companies have to secure labor reliability in a short labor market which is squeezed.
The Millennials sooner or later will figure it out. Identity Politics which enables a greater supply
of labor and diversion of attention to intangible values at the expense of tangible values has to be
substituted for Labor Only Politics.
These young people have been duped based on the recent focus of the demonstrations. They don't understand
they were screwed deliberately and with great malice by "Going with Her".
I've been keeping count over the years, and as close as I can find, over 170,000 production facilities
were shipped out of the country. (Or, as David Harvey phrased it: "Identity politics instead of class
analysis.")
One aspect of outsourcing that the article does not hit upon is the impact on company cash flows,
which has some importance to large outsourcing initiatives. A company must pay its employees within
6 (it might be 7) days of the end of the pay cycle, which is typically two week. By contrast, when outsourcing,
at the end of the month the contractor will provide an invoice, the company will then pay according
to its payment cycle. This could be 30, 45, 60, 90, or even 120 days. The contractor still must pay
its bills, in essence it's providing a low cost loan to firm (which often has a lower cost of capital).
This approach, including the extension of payments has been largely driven by financial/business consultants.
It can actually get worse – they might not pay you at all, hoping that you'll file a lawsuit,
which will be interpreted according to the contract, rather than legislation which covers employment
issues. The litigation costs might exceed any payments you'd receive.
My guess is that this wouldn't happen to an individual working under a 1099 (as word might
get around), and very large firms often have leverage (not providing continuing services), but
medium-size firms often get held up for months and years (especially once the contract has
ended).
Another thing the article glosses over is that most outsourcing is simply wage cutting. I have
never once seen confirmation of the notion that "specialist" firms provide better services at comparable
labor costs than firms can do in-house. The double-bubble is that firms (and public sector employers)
often spend more on outsourcing than they would doing the work in house despite the wage savings,
which all accrue to the outsourcer of course.
When the airlines went on their deliberate BK spree in the 90's, they outsourced flying to
regional carriers. Regional a/c (45-90 seaters) have higher CASM's than the a/c the airlines actually
owned. In brief, it is cheaper to transport 100 passengers on a 100 seat a/c than to transport
100 passengers on two 50 seat a/c. That's been a fact since the Wright brothers broke the ground.
FWIW, SouthWest never went the regional route, never went BK and pays their unionized employees
quite well.
The BK spree was all about breaking labor, not operational efficiencies that would actually
save money.
but now it seems the majors are not to happy with the regionals , cause customers cant tell
the difference between them, the next problem is that for some reason the regionals cant find
pilots. seems that pilots dont want to work for less than 30,000 a year.
Another area of friction and waste with IT consulting and other contracting, is that an employee
of a company simply and efficiently plugs into their existence administrative system (HR, timekeeping,
payroll, etc).
With a consultant, there has to be reconciliation between the vendor's records and the
company's records, which means work hours burned matching everything up. And that assumes they do match
up neatly; If the vendor says "our consultant worked 50 hours this week, pay them as such" and whoever
oversees the consultant at the company claims they only approved for 40 hours, now you've got a mess
on your hands, could potentially go to the lawyers.
The idea that companies who use contractors are more flexible is largely a myth.
The difficulty of entering into outsourcing relationships gives you an idea of how
complex they are. While some services, like cleaning, are likely to be fairly simple
to hand off, the larger ones are not.
I work in engineering at a gigantic multinational vehicle manufacturer and the role of "consultants"
has been expanding with time. Rather than consultants being people with specific technical expertise
who work on one subsystem component with clear interfaces to other things, it now encapsulates project
managers and subsystem / function responsible people who need to have large networks inside the company
to be effective.
Considering the huge amount of time it takes to get a new hire up and running to learn
the acronyms and processes and the roles of different departments, it's a bit absurd to hire people
for such roles under the assumption that they can be quickly swapped out with a consultant from Company
B next week.
It's pretty clear that management sees permanent employees on the payroll as a liability and seeks
to avoid it as much as possible.
"
It's pretty clear that management sees permanent employees on the payroll as a liability. "
No doubt correct. But why is that? Over time, mandates on employers - particularly large employers
- just keep escalating. Health care; pensions; overtime; layoff notifications: regulators just keep
raising the ante. Employers respond by trying to reduce their profile and present a smaller target
to their predators. Staying under 50 employees wins a lot of exemptions from federal regulations.
Taken to an extreme, some developing countries (Argentina being one example) have European-style
labor regulations guaranteeing job security and mandating generous compensation when employees are
laid off. With hardscrabble small businesses being in no position to shoulder such risks, the result
is that about 40 percent of employment is
trabajo en negro
, with no benefits or protections
whatsoever - a perfect example of unintended consequences.
Editorial comments such as "these [contracting] arrangements increase risks and rigidity" ignore
that government employment regulations
also
increase risks and rigidity. There's a balance
of power. Overreaching, such as Obama's surprise order to vastly increase the number of employees
subject to overtime pay, leads to employer pushback in the form of more contracting and outsourcing.
Getting whacked out of the blue with a big new liability is unfair.
Concur about costs, and health care is the big one. Every other industrialized nation we compete
against has national health care. Given that, why doesn't business support Medicare for all and
get health costs off their books? Plus it would be a damsite easier to start up a business if
one had health care.
Because they, unlike us, understand class. I can state for a fact that the Big Three
auto companies are well aware of how much cheaper health care costs are for them in Canada
and how much better off they would be here, cost-wise, with a national health care system
where McDonald's and Wal-mart have to pay the same per hour or per employee cost as they
do. But it turns out cost isn't everything. Corporate (capitalist) solidarity rules.
Yes, yes, damn yes!! It's about your class, not your race, not your education, not
your gender. As Lambert might say, identity politics (your race, your education, your
gender) is used to keep your eye
off
the prize: economic opportunity
and security.
It is also easier to have part-time workers because they are still covered by health insurance
in some sort of national health insurance system. In the US, the part-time workers will have
high turnover as they look for full-time jobs to get access to health insurance.
Workers are also more likely to start their own businesses to provide services since the
health insurance is just a fee they pay instead of an astronomical non-group insurance bill.
COBRA insurance premiums are ginormous if you need to continue coverage after you leave a company.
Economists have been decrying the lack of employee mobility and small business formation
over the past decade or so. Health insurance is probably a primary reason for this. Obamacare
hasn't been around long enough and with enough certainty to change that dynamic yet.
It's probably part of it, though I suspect the bad labor market is part of it as well.
It's one thing to quit a job to start a business when you think "if it doesn't work out,
I can always go back to my old career and easily be hired", another when quitting a good
job means one might not land another ever.
haven't seen any more info on Hollande's "Flex – Security" plans to give corporations a way
to lay off workers to improve the corporation's revenue. French Labor was having none of it and
then Hollande went negative in the polls and was done for. Our contracting out former corporation
departments sounds like bad quality control at best. If the state – whatever state you can name
– is going to prop up all corporations everywhere because they can no longer successfully compete
then something is fundamentally wrong with the system that demands such murderous and mindless
competition.
well there also that wage theft rules, that employers don't like. course if you look at work
mans comp, you will find that it no longer works to protect employees any more. and maybe that
is also why employers are get rid of employees. plus there is all of that needing to manage them.
but you still end up having to manage vendors too, and while i suppose you could hire another
vendor to manage the vendors (not really sure this will work out well), it still leaves the biggest
problem
since consumers are about 70% of the entire economy (always wonder if this is true. because
almost all corporate 'investment' is done because of customer demand), seems like this business
fad, will end up with fewer customers (which seems to be the way its working too, as evidenced
by the falling sales figures from companies, even Apple), so it like business is like lemmings,
going a cliff, because some one else started
So are you a proponent of Medicare-for-all? It would be a tremendous benefit to corporations
to get out of the healthcare business and also increase employees' willingness to become freelancers
and consultants, since they'd never have to worry about healthcare.
The truth is that citizens expect a certain amount of social welfare and security. This can
be provided by 1) individuals themselves, 2) private players e.g. corporations, or 3) public players
e.g. govt. Each has downsides. If you expect individuals to provide for themselves, it will less
inefficient than having professional managers, and individuals will cut down on other consumption
and save more, thereby hurting an economy such as ours which is highly dependent on consumption.
This leaves companies and government. If companies lobby against public welfare programs like
nationalized health insurance, unemployment insurance, social security, etc., they shouldn't be
surprised if government foists those requirements back on them through back-door regulations.
To be fair to companies, most of the ones engaged in the "real economy" e.g. manufacturing,
actually wouldn't mind medicare for all, or some other program that relieves them of the burden
of providing healthcare to their employees. But they're being drowned out by the financial economy
of Wall St., banking, insurance, etc. who depend on putting more money in the hands of individuals
from whom they can extract much higher fees than they ever could from govt or corporate HR depts.
If companies don't want increased health mandates, for example, their enemy wasn't Obama: it
was the private health insurance companies that didn't want a public plan.
Yeah when I worked for one of the big 3 at an assembly plant, I felt that the use of temporary
contractors could have very negative implications.
Most of the staff though were reasonably well paid, although asked to work long hours. I think
though that overall, highly paid permanent workers pay for themselves many times over.
One aspect of the whole fandango that I don't get is how the IRS allows whole departments within
a company to be outsourced: If people show up at your plant or office every day to work on your tasks,
they are your employee, not a contractor. Is this melting away of the idea of an employee because of
lack of enforcement or some change in IRS rules that I am not aware of?
Basically, if you control a worker's day, and if that worker works regularly for you, the person
is your employee. I don't see how companies get away with this sleight of hand–avoiding, at the most
basic legal level, who is on staff or not. [Unless the result, as many note above, is to increase class
warfare.]
The company doesn't get away with it if someone is willing to whistleblow to the IRS and said
company fails the IRS 20-Factor Test (IC vs. employee). The nice thing there too, is that the tax
burden will be on the company and not the employee. While I don't advocate being a stoolie, if a
company wants to screw me over turn-about is fair play. I do the best I can to avoid those kinds
of companies in the first place.
"
One aspect of the whole fandango that I don’t get is how the IRS allows whole departments
within a company to be outsourced
. . "
If I understand your question correctly it is because a federal regulation was enacted by congress
(I believe one of them was faux-progressive, Jim McDermott, no longer in congress but co-founder
of the India Caucus, to replace American workers with foreign visa workers from India) which
forbids
oversight of the foreign visa program
- and yes, they established a federal regulation killing
oversight of the program by the government!
Someone quoted Norm Matloff (a known bigot) above. You are now quoting anchor child Filipino
bigot
Michelle Malkin
of all people ? It's not helping your case.
The H1-B program is a few hundred thousand
legal
tax paying people a year. There are
21 million Mexican illegals in this country. What do you think has more downward pressure on wages
? .005% H1-B (yeah, you read that right) of the total immigrant/wage pressure ? It's idiotic and
a purely bigoted worldview.
We are supposed to regard "a few hundred thousand" as bupkis when they are concentrated
in one sector?
The H1-B visa program has has a huge impact on wages in the IT sector and has virtually
eliminated entry-level computer science jobs. This is strategically foolhardy, in that the
US is not creating the next generation of people capable of running critical infrastructure.
And the illegal immigrants do pay taxes: sales, gas, and property taxes through their rents.
And many actually do pay FICA. The Treasury recognizes that certain Social Security numbers
are reused many times, and it's almost certainly for illegal immigrants. In fact, the IRS encourages
illegal immigrants to "steal" Social Security numbers:
That article whinges about possible tax credit scamming, but even that estimate is well
below what they pay in FICA, $12 billion. And pretty much none of them will draw benefits.
This is from memory, but I believe they collect over $4 billion from these SSN per year.
And most of these jobs are seasonal and/or too low wage for them to pay much in the way of
income taxes when they are being paid in cash.
H1-B is not in one industry, the .005% is spread across entry level jobs in all industries:
finance, automotive, insurance, arts, film, automation, etc. The total amount of H1-B is
minuscule, vanishingly close to zero in a country of 300+ million and 20+ million illegals.
You don't seem to be complaining about the tens of
millions
that used to concentrated
in one sector..actual manufacturing. Wonder why ? Here's a hint: that sector
used
to make computer peripherals, keyboards, mice, terminals, monitors, LCD's, chips, motherboards,
pretty much everything in the USA.
Employees in china, taiwan, etc pay zero USA taxes and they displaced millions of manufacturing
jobs. And ironically, you are using an entirely outsourced computer (that actually displaced
tens of millions of jobs in the aggregate) to complain about the minuscule .005% H1-B effect.
A few hundred thousand entry level coding jobs (which are ridiculously simple and lo-tech,
google
13 year olds
getting Microsoft certified to see how low down on the value
chain this is). You genuinely think writing a few for-loops (I am simplifying a little but
you get the idea) is hard ?
Certainly, way way less capital intensive and way way less barrier to entry than Hi-Tech
manufacturing. It's all going to be outsourced much faster than manufacturing was, since
there is literally no barrier to entry. And H1-B is a good thing, relatively speaking, compared
to full on outsourcing (just like manufacturing was).
Like I said, the only explanation for these anti H1-B posts is plain old bigotry. No
other explanation comes close.
Might as well finish my train of thought..then I'm outta here.
There are less H1-B visas this year than
refugees
, Refugees (not to mention
the 20 million illegals) also put downward pressure on wages across all industries, but
of course, those are all food servicing/picking/janitorial jobs and who cares about those
people right ? (sarcasm for the impaired)
So, coming back to H1-B's..let's take the logical alternative and ban all H1-B's entirely
and deport the ones on H1-B visas. What happens then ?
1) They can do the job exactly as well remotely (all they need is email/internet/skype).
2) They get paid even less (but more than zero).
3) They pay no taxes.
4) Their output is words..code is the same as prose and math. Good luck banning math/words..if
it can be printed on a t-shirt, it ain't bannable. (See the famous bernstein crypto case
from the early 90's for a illustration of this).
5) And finally..there are zero new jobs added for native USA'ians (which would now cost
more, given the alternative).
It makes the situation far worse than it is today. There is fewer local coffee shop
selling coffee, fewer rental units getting rented, fewer groceries getting bought, cars
being purchased, etc.
For a easily displaceable and low barrier to entry coding gig, there isn't any easy
answer. H1-B's are actually the best
solution
(or at the very least neutral),
not the problem.
The H1-B visa program is operated so as to wreck the bargaining power of native born young
U.S. workers. Young Americans are increasingly likely to be nonwhite AND from the less valued
(not Asian) subgroups of nonwhite. The damage H1-Bs do to our white Baby Boomers is almost
incidental at this point; they are aging out of the workforce. And given the intense age bigotry
of the IT subculture, they are not a factor within it at all at this point.
H1-B visas lock our striving, capable working class young people out of upward mobility.
Kids who are now graduating from say, San Jose State with skills as good as those of South
Asians don't get jobs that they are qualified for, because they are shut out of entry to the
business. They are disdained in Silicon Valley because the majority of entry level conduits
to employment are now locked up (via social contacts, and "who-you-know" relationships) by
men from the subcontinent.
Your race argument is pernicious and I suspect, promoted in the full the knowledge of this
fact. It is a great shame that we are relying on kooks like Malkin to promote obvious truths,
but the shame belongs to our morally derelict 'liberal' chattering class, not those who listen
to her and her ilk for lack of other sources.
An underappreciated aspect of contracting versus cultivating your own employees is that it hollows
out the organization to the point that it may no longer have competence to perform its mission. Having
an apparent success at contracting out menial tasks, the temptation is to keep going and begin to contract
out core functions. This pleases the accountants but leaves the whole organization dependent on critical
talent that has very little institutional loyalty. When an inevitable technical paradigm shift occurs,
who can you count on to give you objective and constructive advice?
Costs of training and cultivating employees are high, and it is tempting to think that these costs
can be eliminated by using contractors. It is strictly an apparent, short-term gain which will in due
time be revealed as a strategic mistake. Do we have to learn every lesson the hard way?
yes, and when I read that Pfizer farms out research, I also wondered if retention of the outsource
company contract is results-related. could new drug results hinge on a company wanting to keep their
Pfizer contract by telling them what they want to hear?
Agreed. Every time a company offshores jobs or goes through another round of layoffs, it loses
its institutional memory. This is particularly acute in the mainframe IT systems that prop up the
TBTFs (yep, they offshored these too). After a while, nobody understands exactly how these systems
work and can only get to the bottom of them by reading code, which is a pretty flawed way to learn
the business. This has been going on for years and nobody cares.
Centralized bargaining - a.k.a., sector wide labor agreements - is the only strategic answer to contracting
out. Done in continental Europe, French Canada, Argentina, Indonesia.
(Take a vacation from reality with Soma - one gram and I don't give a damn.)
The one word I don't see in your excellent writeup is
loyalty
. Companies, like countries
depend to a great extent on social constraints to keep people committed to the group. You cannot monitor
all people all the time and doing so causes them to turn against you. But companies staffed with contractors
and temps and temps supervising contractors have no loyalty to the company. Ergo no one employee has
any reason to go the extra inch or to turn down the chance to sell out for personal gain should the
opportunity arise.
All that imposes real costs that companies conveniently ignore because they are not always realized
in share price.
I was going to add the same thought, but use the label "goodwill." It is something that appears
on balance sheets in enormous amounts depending on what the accountants think it may represent.
There is a "goodwill bank" in the labor pool of any given company, and when the balance hits zero,
the company will fail, "emigrate" its capital, or go public to the greater fools. Companies are engaged
in a savage race to the bottom that is inherent in corporate structure: executives are now playing
with somebody else's money, and somebody else's life. If corporate liability were suddenly returned
to the days of the partnership, what a change we would see. And those days were not so long ago:
Wall Street remembers the 1960s.
PS What a treat to come here and see informative journalism and commentary instead of the monkey
cage.
My daughter was recruited and interviewed by Genentech and then sent to work for an organization
called PPD. PPD did nothing in this relationship, other than take money from Genentech pocketed about
1/2 of that and then pay her the rest. I really couldn't figure out what the heck the point of this
was, other than some long running strategy to ultimately depress salaries of Genentech chemists.
One of my kids works in a unionized metal foundry (they still exist in the US!). When they need
new workers, they bring several in through a temp agency for several months. If they can cut it and
are acceptable, then they get pulled into the union or into the plant management team. This allows
them to try out several people on a rent-to-own basis, but in the long run they become loyal company
employees with very low turnover.
Contract-to-hire is not new. The problem from an employee perspective is trying to evaluate
when a company is actually serious about hiring if the contractee does a good job, and when it's
just empty promises and they have no intent of making full time job offers at all.
BTW – the Genentech scientists probably get a bunch of benefits like bonuses and stock options,
etc. that are not available to the contract workers. They probably have more protections if they
are terminated or laid off whereas the contract workers would be done that day. The really good contract
workers may get offers to work at the company for the long-run.
Outsourcing is done in the public realm, too; my first job after grad school was with a major housing
authority – except it wasn't for them (despite me having a "housingauthority.org" email address). I
worked for a contractor of the housing authority, who paid us shit and treated us like cattle. I lasted
three months.
One area not discussed in this post is municipal outsourcing. What this means in practice is the
loss of organizational memory . assuming that records are not adequately maintained since the "old-timers"
were still around. But with the loss of human memory banks, no new ones (digital?) have taken their
place. Further, when consultants are hired for a specific project, when they have completed that project,
what they have learned as ancillary knowledge is lost cuz the end-product is all that counts, not the
process.
i.e. Rip up the entire street to find where the pipe is because the old public works director
who was replaced with a bright young woman with a degree before he qualified for his pension, got
even and deleted the maps on the software. :-)
Didn't Yves mention this loss of institutional memory in reference to fianancial services, or
was it banks, and their IT?
Further to government outsourcing:
Back a few years my wife and I worked for a school district on the East coast of Canada. The janitorial
service had been outsourced a few years previously, with the former head janitor becoming the main
contractor, who then hired other cleaning staff to work for him. He/she was already being squeezed
to reduce his rates, leading to work not done or his working from 8AM to midnight to save an after-school
employee. So–lower employment overall, all at minimum wage, including the main contractor.
One district had bucked the province-wide trend by keeping its own cleaning staff. Visiting the
schools in that district those few years later, one could see the result, in vastly superior level
of cleanliness, better co-ordination between admin and teaching staff with cleaners, and much better
relations with students as well.
The staff weren't bosses, the cleaners weren't minions, and the students weren't customers. They
were a team.
I don't think there will be a change in this because it's too profitable for the CEOs to strip mine
the companies assets (knowledgeable employees are an asset) for maximum "shareholder value" (always
replace "shareholder value" with "my compensation"). I suppose this will change when all companies are
stripped to the bone and go under. But we now call these "too big to fail" and prop them up with taxpayer
dollars.
We need to change incentives. These might help:
Make corporations really pay taxes so that it makes sense to invest in the company rather than strip
it.
Don't prop up TBTF companies, let them fail so that many small companies can grow.
Stop all the fraud and corruption. Send corrupt CEOs to jail.
Medicare for All would be a boon for businesses, especially the smaller and mid-sized ones.
Herb Kelleher, CEO of Southwest, was once asked where he ranked shareholders vs employees. He replied
employees were first (because if the employees are not happy, then the customers are not happy), customers
(they pay the bills), and shareholders (they buy and sell shares in seconds). If the company is successful,
the shareholders will come. We somehow need to get back to these company values. A successful company
starts with the employees.
This is a pretty ugly development in our history. The 'end of employees' is a very accurate description
of what is going on in our gig economy related to a specific legal contradiction. In the U.S., we've
adopted a vast body of labor laws ( many in response to the Industrial Revolution and Great Depression
) that are primarily designed to protect "employees" from exploitation. Buried deep in our tax law is
a second designation for worker called "independent contractor", defined as a self-employed person providing
services to other businesses that is exempt from most labor laws on the principle that a self-employed
person can't exploit themselves. The key here is labor laws protect 'employees' from 'employer' abuses.
Changing a workers classification from employee to ( self-employed ) contractor, will change an employers
classification to customer, and remove the workers legal protections from exploitation. Labor law protections
include minimum wage and hours, workplace safety and health, wrongful dismissal protections, anti-discrimination
protections, employee benefits security, and worker compensation protections. This contradiction is
allowing many companies to sidestep centuries of laws enacted to stabilize and and protect our society.
Some companies push this power imbalance even further by transferring many of the business costs associated
with their revenue to employee contractors ( see Uber ).
Hopefully when there is enough public outcry, regulators and prosecutors will decide to challenge
these interpretations of existing laws and force businesses back in line regardless of their political
influence.
Incidentally, the slippery logic that removes labor law protections by classifying a worker
as self-employed ( both employer and employee ) might also grant businesses protections from their
workers via consumer protection laws against fraud and unfair practices ( when businesses become
customers of their now self-employed former employees ).
As has been stated several times, sometimes government entities are the worst offenders here. Grover
Norquist & Co. insisted on shrinking the size of government. The obedient elected officials and managers
immediately replaced employees with contractors and could claim that they had indeed reduced the size
of government. Unfortunately the budget probably went up since we now have to provide profit for the
rent extracting contract vendors.
A few years ago I was working for a family of local weekly papers, run on a shoestring (of course)
with pathetic salaries for the tiny staff. At one point, they heard about possibly outsourcing design–layout
of modular pages–to cheap labor in Romania. But when they ran the numbers .our in-house designers were
already cheaper than the Romanians!
Second point: At my current magazine I am one of just two full-time staffers on the edit side. Our
copy-editor/proofreader is paid on an hourly basis, and works off-site. Our designer works on a monthly
retainer, off-site. And so on.
That makes the relationship between us and our workers competitive and antagonistic: They try to
do the least amount of work, and we try to pay the least amount of money. So when the publisher wants
to be "innovative" or try something different, the designer resists. He doesn't want to spend any more
time on us than he normally does. So we don't do anything well, we get by with just good enough.
Point 3 – institutional knowledge: One of our key competitive advantages has been/is being eroded
because there are things we haven't done in two years due to turnover. When I arrived and took up one
such project, hugely important to the company's bottom line, no one could tell me how it was done. Everyone
who had been involved in it was gone. We've now spent several months reinventing this particular wheel.
But the publisher doesn't see that as money. He only sees money as money.
BTW – the financial sector is ripe for this. Automation is taking over many positions and people
in active investing is getting slashed big-time. Ironically, places like Vanguard may actually be some
of the last bastions of actual employees.
The problem with these short term contract jobs are immense. Employees that don't have a steady income
have difficulty getting loans for cars or homes. They certainly have less protection too. Our son worked
for SKY TV as a part time employee through a temp agency for 3 years, working 40 hour weeks. But when
an unstable full time employee assaulted him, in front or several witnesses, he was the one fired on
the spot without explanation. He was a non-person. The temp agency didn't want to get involved for fear
of losing their contract. With no union, no rights and little money, there was little he could do. They
knew he couldn't afford a lawyer and involving the police wouldn't get his job back. This goes on all
the time now. 20 years ago would have been unthinkable. I see a revolution coming, in many countries
Given the long evident fact that our corporate owners and their servants in government will not do
a bloody thing to make life better for us, what can we do? As a first step toward any solution, we need
to recognize that nothing is possible within the narrow boundaries of our political and economic system.
What you describe as a first step seems a lot like a claim of inevitable failure. Rather than
expect failure, I recommend as a first step that we try to block a few of Trump's predatory cabinet
nominations. Andrew Puzder, the nominee to head the Labor Department, and Steven Mnuchin, nominated
to be the Secretary of the Treasury, seem to be very relevant to the scope of this article. Also
Tom Price, nominated to be the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Tell your Senators that you
don't want them to be confirmed. It's easy, although you might need to make a few extra phone calls,
because the Congressional phone lines are often busy these days.
I ask, Why can't banks be fully automated? You wouldn't need CEOs and COOs and CFOs in banks because
IT can do all those jobs automatically. Then we would find out that we only need ONE bank–the central
bank and, voila, the banks no longer can create money by making loans. (I'm sure there is a weak point
in this argument!!!) However, I can see something like this happening in the future if only we separate
investment banking from commercial banking.
Marx saw capitalism as an endless class struggle between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.
He wasn’t far wrong.
1920s – high inequality, high banker pay, low taxes for the wealthy, robber barons, reckless bankers,
globalisation phase (bourgeoisie in the ascendency)
1970s â€" low inequality, worker and union power, high taxes on the wealthy (proletariat in the ascendency)
(probably more true in the UK than the US)
2000s â€" high inequality, high banker pay, low taxes on the wealthy, robber CEOs, reckless bankers,
globalisation phase (bourgeoisie in the ascendency)
The pendulum swings back and forth and always swings too far in both directions.
If the human race could take a more sensible, big picture view they might see it as a balance between
the supply side (bourgeoisie) and the demand side (proletariat).
The neoliberal era has been one where a total ignorance of debt has held sway.
Redistributive capitalism was removed to be replaced with a capitalism where debt based consumption
has become the norm. without a single mainstream economist realising the problem.
The world is maxing out on debt, this system is set to fail due to a lack of demand. The Bourgoisie
have been in the ascendency and made their usual mistake.
“The Marxian capitalist has infinite shrewdness and cunning on everything except matters pertaining
to his own ultimate survival. On these, he is not subject to education. He continues wilfully and reliably
down the path to his own destruction”.
Keynes thought income was just as important as profit, income looks after the demand side of the
equation and profit looks after the supply side.
He has the idea of balance.
Just maximising profit â€" The Bourgeoisie looking after their own short term, self interest with
no thought of the longer term.
1) Money at the top is mainly investment capital as those at the top can already meet every need,
want or whim. It is supply side capital.
2) Money at bottom is mainly consumption capital and it will be spent on goods and services. It is
demand side capital.
You need to keep the balance.
Too much capital at the bottom and inflation roars away.
Too much capital at the top and there is no where sensible to invest and the Bourgeoisie indulge
in rampant speculation leading to the inevitable Wall Street Crash, 1929 and 2008.
Today’s negative yield investments?
Too much capital at the top, no one wants it and you have to pay people to take it off your hands.
"You need to keep the balance." The post war era was balance, that was the middle of the pendulum
swing, we have never seen you're next sentence:
"Too much capital at the bottom and inflation roars away." When? Name one instance outside of
extraordinary political situations like weimar germany and zimbabwe where this has occurred?
Inflation is the boogey man that the elite throw around to scare us into submission. They don't
care when its inflation of house prices, they don't care when its inflation of healthcare costs,
education costs, etc. etc. But they damn sure start sweating a lot when its the cost of labor that
goes up. Shocker.
"Gate Gourmet had once been part of British Airways. And passengers blamed the airline."
You can transfer expenses, you can transfer legal and regulatory liability risk, you can transfer
financial risk, but it is virtually impossible to transfer reputational risk. Companies who think they
can do so (or ignore the fact) do so at their own peril.
My d-i-l, a research professional, has survived five down-sizings, assuming an additional work load
each time. The last time she also got a small promotion (well, you'd think they'd give her something
positive after all this). To myself I thought, they're going to wear this woman out till she has nothing
left to give and dump her.
It's worse. The corporation (company is a concept from
my
early working days) just announced
that everyone would have to bid for their projects(jobs). What this means of course is "how much are
you willing to give?" not to mention pitting one employee against another.
I "work" (temp/contract/no benefits) at a large multinational electronics company in cust service
and have seen this first hand. In response to a couple years of dropping profits, they outsourced the
entire department (couple hundred employees) to the Philippines. They cut full time employees, replace
them with temps for half the pay, because people will do it, and we live in desperate times with no
bargaining power.
As someone mentioned, its a negative feedback loop, less demand, less employment, less demand, until
the whole world is greece. We won't make it through another world war, the world is too globalized,
too connected, too advanced technologically. We need a relatively peaceful populist revolution – which
we seem to be seeing the first real signs of – or our species is done for.. and the sad part is I'm
not even exaggerating.
One point you missed is that a company cannot manage, let alone write a contract very well unless
it has sufficient expertise on staff. It is not sufficient to hire a consultant unless that arrangement
is more or less permanent. Too many things can go wrong, as they often do even with competent staff
when projects are complex or innovative.
"... The 1970s stagflation hit these companies particularly hard, with the result that the whole was worth less than the sum of the parts. This made for an easy formula for takeover artists: buy a conglomerate with as much debt as possible, break it up and sell off the pieces. ..."
"... But CEOs recognized how the newly-installed leaders of LBO acquisitions got rich through stock awards or option-type compensation. They wanted a piece of the action. ..."
"... It produces short-termism, underinvestment, and a preoccupation with image management . We wrote in 2005 for the Conference Board Review about how the preoccupation with quarterly earnings led companies to underinvest on a widespread basis . Richard Davies and Andrew Haldane of the Bank of England demonstrated that companies were using unduly high discount rates, which punished long-term investment. Pearlstein provides more confirmation: ..."
"... Obliquity gives rise to the profit-seeking paradox: the most profitable companies are not the most profit-oriented. ICI and Boeing illustrate how a greater focus on shareholder returns was self-defeating in its own narrow terms. Comparisons of the same companies over time are mirrored in contrasts between different companies in the same industries. In their 2002 book, Built to Last: Successful Habits of Visionary Companies, Jim Collins and Jerry Porras compared outstanding companies with adequate but less remarkable companies with similar operations. ..."
"... It is our social capital that is now badly depleted. This erosion manifests in the weakened norms of behavior that once restrained the most selfish impulses of economic actors and provided an ethical basis for modern capitalism. ..."
"... A capitalism in which Wall Street bankers and traders think peddling dangerous loans or worthless securities to unsuspecting customers is just "part of the game," a capitalism in which top executives believe it is economically necessary that they earn 350 times what their front-line workers do, a ..."
"... I think that you seriously underestimate Trump. Napoleon excelled in an environment where military success was primary; Trump excels in a mediated environment where PR and imagery are primary. IMVHO, there are some eerie parallels between the two men; whether you like them or not, both men could be characterized by: ambition, vision, vindictiveness, and a willingness obliterate traditional social and political boundaries. ..."
"... Many elite professionals are deeply upset with Trump's win. Yet the ideology that he represents is very much in line with the logic of corporate raiders, many of whom, like him, went to Wharton Business School. And many elite professionals, in particular lawyers and consultants, profited handsomely from the adoption of the buccaneer capitalist view of the world and actively enabled much of its questionable thinking and conduct. ..."
"... That Wharton Business School model is oblivious to the human needs for: fairness, reciprocity, culture, and the need to penalize duplicity. (I would argue that the Wharton model exalts duplicity, if only to pass it off as some kind of exceptional superpower wielded only by Business Elites.) When you corrode trust, you damage economies. ..."
"... Trump is the apotheosis of neoliberal economics + junk-bond fueled casino empires in a media environment that worships 'shareholder value' and has lost sight of what genuinely creates sustainable value over the long term. ..."
"... did Friedman capture the growing political aggressiveness of capital, as capital gradually overcame the Great Fear of the 30s and prepared to mount, as Streeck has argued, a counteroffensive against the constraints of welfare capitalism? Likely all of the above, but in what proportions? ..."
"... It is that acme of Liberalism, Warren Buffett that created this fad. At a time when corporate dividends were taxed as ordinary income, whereas a stock price bump would be tax deferred - and ultimately taxed at long term capital gains rates - the scheme was merely tax avoidance. Warren Buffett's entire empire is based on this and other tax avoidence schemes. ..."
"... The maximize shareholder value ideology in practice looks like maximize CEO compensation and to heck with the company's long term prospects. imo. ..."
"... Considering relationship between share's liquidity and short-termism , any measure which reduces share's liquidity, for example a high tax on short term capital gain, will greatly reduce both short-termism and corporate governance issues as share holders will be forced to assume the risk they were supposed to bear in exchange of supermacy of their interest. ..."
"... While it has damaged corporate social responsibilities and banks' and corporations' long-term financial stability, actions taken pursuant to the Shareholder Value optimization model have served well many individuals on Wall Street, at private equity firms, CEOs of large publicly traded corporations, hedge funds, networked board members, their academic and professional servicers, and the political elite ..."
"... Reflecting back on developments like the dotcom bubble of 1999-2000; the underlying causes of the financial collapse of 2007-09; massive debt-leveraged corporate stock buybacks; socially damaging private equity LBOs; the current volumes of opaque OTC derivatives at large financial institutions; repeated episodes of environmental damage caused by firms in extractive industries seeking short-term financial returns; and the license it provides to exert power over legislation and regulation by those who own and control these corporations in a Citizens United legal framework; etc., it is difficult to see much in the way of redeeming social value in this corporate governance model. ..."
"... Is it simple greed, stupidity, cynicism, groupthink, false consciousness, sociopathy, the 'attractions' of a certain lifestyle, daddy-didn't-love-them-enough or what that leads certain types to behave the ways they do and seek to justify it? ..."
From the early days of this website, we've written from time to time about why the "shareholder
value" theory of corporate governance was made up by economists and has no legal foundation. It has
also proven to be destructive in practice, save for CEO and compensation consultants who have gotten
rich from it.
Further confirmation comes from a must-read article in American Prospect by Steven Pearlstein,
When Shareholder Capitalism Came to Town. It recounts how until the early 1990s, corporations
had a much broader set of concerns, most importantly, taking care of customers, as well as having
a sense of responsibility for their employees and the communities in which they operated. Equity
is a residual economic claim. As we wrote in 2013:
Directors and officers, broadly speaking, have a duty of care and duty of loyalty to the corporation.
From that flow more specific obligations under Federal and state law. But notice: those responsibilities
are to the corporation , not to shareholders in particular ..Equity holders are at the
bottom of the obligation chain. Directors do not have a legal foundation for given them preference
over other parties that legitimately have stronger economic interests in the company than shareholders
do.
And even in the early 1980s, common shares were regarded as a speculative instrument. And rightly
so, since shares are a weak and ambiguous legal promise: "You have a vote that we the company can
dilute whenever we feel like it. And we might pay you dividends if we make enough money and are in
the mood."
However, 1900s raiders who got rich by targeting companies that had gotten fat, defended their
storming of the corporate barricades by arguing that their success rested on giving CEOs incentives
to operate in a more entrepreneurial manner. In reality, most of the 1980s deals depended on financial
engineering rather than operating improvements. Ironically, it was a form of arbitrage that reversed
an earlier arb play in the 1960s. Diversified corporations had become popular in the 1960s as a borderline
stock market scam. Companies like Teledyne and ITT, that looked like high-fliers and commanded lofty
PE multiples, would buy sleepy unrelated businesses with their highly-valued stock. Bizzarely, the
stock market would value the earnings of the companies they acquired at the same elevated PE multiples.
You can see how easy it would be to build an empire that way.
The 1970s stagflation hit these companies particularly hard, with the result that the whole
was worth less than the sum of the parts. This made for an easy formula for takeover artists: buy
a conglomerate with as much debt as possible, break it up and sell off the pieces.
But CEOs recognized how the newly-installed leaders of LBO acquisitions got rich through stock
awards or option-type compensation. They wanted a piece of the action.
One of their big props to this campaign was the claim that companies existed to promote shareholder
value. This had been a minority view in the academic literature in the 1940s and 1950s. Milton Friedman
took it up an
intellectually incoherent New York Times op-ed in 1970 . Michael Jensen of Harvard Business School
and William Meckling of the University of Rochester argued in 1976 that corporate managers needed
to have their incentives better aligned with those of shareholders, and the way to do that was to
have most of their pay be equity-linked. In the late 1980s, Jensen in a seminal Harvard Business
Review article, claimed that executives needed to be paid like entrepreneurs. Jensen has since renounced
that view.
Why The Shareholder Value Theory Has No Legal Foundation
Why do so many corporate boards treat the shareholder value theory as gospel? Aside from the power
of ideology and constant repetition in the business press, Pearlstein, drawing on the research of
Cornell law professor Lynn Stout, describes how a key decision has been widely misapplied:
Let's start with the history. The earliest corporations, in fact, were generally chartered
not for private but for public purposes, such as building canals or transit systems. Well into
the 1960s, corporations were broadly viewed as owing something in return to the community that
provided them with special legal protections and the economic ecosystem in which they could grow
and thrive.
Legally, no statutes require that companies be run to maximize profits or share prices. In
most states, corporations can be formed for any lawful purpose. Lynn Stout, a Cornell law professor,
has been looking for years for a corporate charter that even mentions maximizing profits or share
price. So far, she hasn't found one. Companies that put shareholders at the top of their hierarchy
do so by choice, Stout writes, not by law
For many years, much of the jurisprudence coming out of the Delaware courts-where most big
corporations have their legal home-was based around the "business judgment" rule, which held that
corporate directors have wide discretion in determining a firm's goals and strategies, even if
their decisions reduce profits or share prices. But in 1986, the Delaware Court of Chancery ruled
that directors of the cosmetics company Revlon had to put the interests of shareholders first
and accept the highest price offered for the company. As Lynn Stout has written, and the Delaware
courts subsequently confirmed, the decision was a narrowly drawn exception to the business–judgment
rule that only applies once a company has decided to put itself up for sale. But it has been widely-and
mistakenly-used ever since as a legal rationale for the primacy of shareholder interests and the
legitimacy of share-price maximization.
How the Shareholder Value Theory Has Been Destructive
The shareholder value theory has proven to be a bust in practice. Here are some of the reasons:
It produces short-termism, underinvestment, and a preoccupation with image management . We
wrote in 2005 for the Conference Board Review about
how the preoccupation with quarterly earnings led companies to underinvest on a widespread basis
. Richard Davies and Andrew Haldane of the Bank of England demonstrated that companies were using
unduly high discount rates, which punished long-term investment. Pearlstein provides more confirmation:
A recent study by McKinsey & Company, the blue-chip consulting firm, and Canada's public pension
board found alarming levels of short-termism in the corporate executive suite. According to the
study, nearly 80 percent of top executives and directors reported feeling the most pressure to
demonstrate a strong financial performance over a period of two years or less, with only 7 percent
feeling considerable pressure to deliver strong performance over a period of five years or more.
It also found that 55 percent of chief financial officers would forgo an attractive investment
project today if it would cause the company to even marginally miss its quarterly-earnings target.
As we've stated before, we've been hearing this sort of thing from McKinsey contacts for more
than a decade. And the "55 percent" figure likely understates the amount of short-termism. First,
even in a presumably anonymous survey, some CFOs might be loath to admit that. Second, for any project
big enough to impact quarterly earnings, the CFO is almost certain not to have the final say. So
even if his team approves it, it could be nixed by the CEO out of concern for earnings impact.
It empirically produces worse results . We've written from time to time about the concept of obliquity,
that in a complex system that is affected by interactions with it, it is impossible to map out a
simple path to a goal. As a result, other approaches are typically more successful. From
a 2007 Financial Times article by John Kay , who later wrote a book about the concept:
Obliquity gives rise to the profit-seeking paradox: the most profitable companies are not
the most profit-oriented. ICI and Boeing illustrate how a greater focus on shareholder returns
was self-defeating in its own narrow terms. Comparisons of the same companies over time are mirrored
in contrasts between different companies in the same industries. In their 2002 book, Built to
Last: Successful Habits of Visionary Companies, Jim Collins and Jerry Porras compared outstanding
companies with adequate but less remarkable companies with similar operations.
Merck and Pfizer was one such comparison. Collins and Porras compared the philosophy of George
Merck ("We try never to forget that medicine is for the people. It is not for the profits. The
profits follow, and if we have remembered that, they have never failed to appear. The better we
have remembered it, the larger they have been") with that of John McKeen of Pfizer ("So far as
humanly possible, we aim to get profit out of everything we do").
Collins and Porras also paired Hewlett Packard with Texas Instruments, Procter & Gamble with
Colgate, Marriott with Howard Johnson, and found the same result in each case: the company that
put more emphasis on profit in its declaration of objectives was the less profitable in its financial
statements.
Some more commonly-cited reasons for why a focus on shareholder value hurts performance is that
it dampens innovation. Pearlstein describes another, how it demotivates workers:
Perhaps the most ridiculous aspect of shareholder–über-alles is how at odds it is with every
modern theory about managing people. David Langstaff, then–chief executive of TASC, a Virginia–based
government-contracting firm, put it this way in a recent speech at a conference hosted by the
Aspen Institute and the business school at Northwestern University: "If you are the sole proprietor
of a business, do you think that you can motivate your employees for maximum performance by encouraging
them simply to make more money for you?" Langstaff asked rhetorically. "That is effectively what
an enterprise is saying when it states that its purpose is to maximize profit for its investors."
And on a societal level, it erodes social capital and trust, which are the foundations for commerce:
It is our social capital that is now badly depleted. This erosion manifests in the weakened
norms of behavior that once restrained the most selfish impulses of economic actors and provided
an ethical basis for modern capitalism.
A capitalism in which Wall Street bankers and traders think peddling dangerous loans
or worthless securities to unsuspecting customers is just "part of the game," a capitalism in
which top executives believe it is economically necessary that they earn 350 times what their
front-line workers do, a capitalism that thinks of employees as expendable inputs, a capitalism
in which corporations perceive it as both their fiduciary duty to evade taxes and their constitutional
right to use unlimited amounts of corporate funds to purchase control of the political system-that
is a capitalism whose trust deficit is every bit as corrosive as budget and trade deficits.
As economist Luigi Zingales of the University of Chicago concludes in his recent book, A Capitalism
for the People, American capitalism has become a victim of its own success. In the years after
the demise of communism, "the intellectual hegemony of capitalism, however, led to complacency
and extremism: complacency through the degeneration of the system, extremism in the application
of its ideological premises," he writes. "'Greed is good' became the norm rather than the frowned-upon
exception. Capitalism lost its moral higher ground."
Many elite professionals are deeply upset with Trump's win. Yet the ideology that he represents
is very much in line with the logic of corporate raiders, many of whom, like him, went to Wharton
Business School. And many elite professionals, in particular lawyers and consultants, profited handsomely
from the adoption of the buccaneer capitalist view of the world and actively enabled much of its
questionable thinking and conduct. As CEO pay rose, so to did the pay of top advisers. They couldn't
be all that good, after all, if they were in a wildy different income strata.
So as Lambert has warned, unless we hear a different economic and social vision from The Resistance,
which looks troubling to have more failed Democratic party influence behind it than either of us
like, the best we are likely to get is a restoration. And if you remember the French Revolution,
strongman Napoleon was succeeded by the Bourbon Restoration, which then led to the Second Empire
under his nephew. So if we want better outcomes, status quo ante is not good enough.
I beg to differ. First, you ignore the fact that equity is a residual claim. Everyone else comes
first. Every party that holds more senior instruments than equity, along with other parties that
have enforceable claims, like the IRS and those with solid contracts that would give them the rights
to damages in certain circumstances, have rights that are more enforceable under the law. You can't
overturn that via exchange rules.
Second, Amar Bhide explained in the Harvard Business Review in 1994 why public companies will
always have deficient governance. My recap of his main points:
Disenfranchised shareholders are an inherent feature of liquid stock markets. In 1994, Amar
Bhide argued in a Harvard Business Review article that efficient equity markets inevitably led
inevitably to deficient corporate governance. Bhide explained that an ambiguous promise like equity
is not suitable to be traded on an arm's length basis. Historically, equity investors typically
acted like venture capitalists: they knew the owners personally and were involved in the company's
affairs. The securities laws of 1933 and 1934 tried to make it safe for distant, transient shareholders
to invest by providing for timely, audited financial statements, disclosure of information about
top executives and board members, and prohibiting insider trading and other forms of market manipulation.
But that turns out to be inadequate. No outsider can be told enough to make an informed judement
about a company's prospects; critical information, like acquisition and plans for new products,
must be kept secret until well advanced because they are competitively sensitive. Boards are protected
from liability by directors' and officers' insurance (plus hardly anyone even bothers pursuing
board members. For instance, have any Lehman board members been sued?). Moreover, only a comparatively
small cohort of people are deemed public-company-board worthy. Their incentives are to make nice
in their community and not rock the boat, which means not making life difficult for the CEOs,
since a nominating committee (of the current board) is responsible for nominating directors, which
means the entire process is incestuous.
This system has been fairly impervious to outside challenge. Once in a while, a company is
so abysmally run that an activist investor will take up a proxy fight. But that dog seldom catches
the car; instead, they might get a bad CEO to exit or force a restructuring. The stock trades
up and the rabble-rousers take their winnings and depart. More polite efforts, even by large,
powerful shareholders, are much less effective. For instance, some major institutional investors
met with Goldman to object to the idea that the firm would pay lavish bonuses for 2009. The session
appears to have had no impact.
Main categories of complain about "Maximize Shareholder Value":
Category 1 – Other things should get more weight alongside shareholder value – e.g. societal
responsibility – this is valid, but not our current topic/issue.
Category 2- Current practices aren't leading to the election of smart, capable BOD members
acting primarily for shareholder value in their decision-making including hiring/fire of executives
and voting on their proposals. This shown by, among other things, the very high levels of executive
compensation relative to profit, the lack of correlation between executive compensation and profit,
and the huge severance packages for released executives. This is my topic – what would improve
that.
Your points don't seem to fall in those categories. Seniority of debtto equity is a respected
feature of the common business landscape, not normally thought of as a problem. Lack of complete
information when voting on corporate actions is also a feature of the corporate setup – representational
government. It doesn't stand in the way of the possibility of smart, conscientious executives.
Other issues like cronyism, bad BODs, etc. are in the way, poor rules, poor communication, lack
of interest by short term stakeholders, etc. are viewed as much more problematic.
You are omitting a key point in the post, which is that seeking to maximize shareholder value
results in lower returns for shareholders. It is empirically a bad idea.
There are many views as to why this is so, but the biggest are likely the short-termism and
obliquity. Electing more outspoken board members won't solve that.
My narrower point was addressing why this notion had never been enshrined in any corporate
charter: it would be seen as created undue conflicts regarding directors making sure clearly senior
obligations are met. Again, under very well settled law, directors and officers have duties of
loyalty and care to the corporation, and those take precedence to serving shareholders. Go read
any law firm guide to director duties.
One picky point: the analogy to Bonaparte really doesn't hold up. We haven't had our French
Revolution yet. And I'm rusty on my nineteenth century French history, but I don't think there's
much of a valid comparison between him and Trump anyway. "Strong man" is way too vague. Whatever
is going on with Trump, he's not a brilliant military tactician and strategist moving into a power
vacuum from inside the existing government.
Agree about the "Resistance." But I don't see how the corporate Democrats return to power at
this point - I mean real, governing power. Whatever comes next, it won't be that.
I don't know yet whether to hope for oaths on tennis courts or not. That's a really, really
last resort, obviously. These people running around punching alt-right Teen Beat cover boys and
breaking windows are either fools or something worse.
Also, it's nice to have data to go with my loathing of this "theory." I feel like we need a
different word for this stuff, though. All these intersecting economic beliefs that are not based
in facts and are easily repudiated by facts can't really be called theories, can they? They're
more like belief systems. They were never really about figuring out something about reality. They
were always about manipulating behavior through assertion to get desired outcomes, weren't they?
I think that you seriously underestimate Trump. Napoleon excelled in an environment where military success was primary; Trump excels in a mediated
environment where PR and imagery are primary. IMVHO, there are some eerie parallels between the
two men; whether you like them or not, both men could be characterized by: ambition, vision, vindictiveness,
and a willingness obliterate traditional social and political boundaries.
I thought this was particularly brilliant:
Many elite professionals are deeply upset with Trump's win. Yet the ideology that he
represents is very much in line with the logic of corporate raiders, many of whom, like him,
went to Wharton Business School. And many elite professionals, in particular lawyers and consultants,
profited handsomely from the adoption of the buccaneer capitalist view of the world and actively
enabled much of its questionable thinking and conduct.
That Wharton Business School model is oblivious to the human needs for: fairness, reciprocity,
culture, and the need to penalize duplicity. (I would argue that the Wharton model exalts duplicity,
if only to pass it off as some kind of exceptional superpower wielded only by Business Elites.)
When you corrode trust, you damage economies.
Trump is the apotheosis of neoliberal economics + junk-bond fueled casino empires in a media
environment that worships 'shareholder value' and has lost sight of what genuinely creates sustainable
value over the long term.
Isn't this just a side effect of optimization for one variable? And which variable to optimize
is a question of governance? Since the invention of quantifiable economy, and the move from haggling
to fixed price, particularly since the invention of monetary valuation in place of barter the
mathematics becomes relentless to get the last drop of blood out of whatever turnip you are
squeezing. And the invention of spreadsheets makes it that much easier to lean toward the quantitative,
over the qualitative. We saw a similar process in "value engineering" in automotive engineering
in that case to get the last ounce of weight out of the car, in order to optimize mileage, regardless
of less quantifiable values.
Awesome article. Great explanation of how wall street orchestrated casino capitalism controls
today's economy, and in a manner that is detrimental to everyone but the casino operators. Milton
Friedman's perverse views on "free markets", have turned the economy into a casino, first by destroying
the controls on the money supply, and then by destroying corporate governance and responsibility.
And we all know who makes all the money in any casino operation.
Agree, awesome article. And interesting Clearpoint addition that the Street has every incentive
to orchestrate volatility, to the detriment of many firms' greatest stakeholders, the neglected
employees.
This question is of central importance, I only wish you'd find reason to bring it up more often.
It raises another important question, although one that cannot be addressed so neatly: why has
the capitalist project tended to turn away from long term commitments to profit-seeking through
the production of (material) commodities?
Was Friedman's short-termist view simply foolish, a
mistake that has had very damaging impact but which can be reversed?
Or, was it an idea that somehow
picked up on declining opportunities for profit via sales of commodities, as writers like Amin
and Harvey variously argue?
Or - and the article skips over this - did Friedman capture the growing
political aggressiveness of capital, as capital gradually overcame the Great Fear of the 30s and
prepared to mount, as Streeck has argued, a counteroffensive against the constraints of welfare
capitalism? Likely all of the above, but in what proportions?
A lot of corporate governance is controlled by legal decisions.
These legal decisions are rendered by judges.
Future judges are well-socialized into free market views long before they ever hear cases or render
judgments. We are seeing this trend continue with the current SCOTUS nomination in the hands of
a GOP controlled Congress.
Some of these people truly believe that 'free markets' can somehow 'improve and perfect' Human
Nature. (See also: Ayn Rand, 'John Galt', Alan Greenspan) In other words, it's has more than a
whiff of Nietzsche's 'Uber-man' ideology in the mix. It's an ideal system for equating human worth
with net worth, and justifying vast inequalities in money and power.
Thus does the snake swallow its tail.
These judges fail to notice there is a large bump somewhere in the snake's body; at some point,
it ate the Golden Goose, and is slowly digesting.
This does not directly mention the "increase shareholder value" action of a company buying
its own stock.
That should be viewed as a red-flag admission from the senior executives that the company doing
a share buyback does not see a way to grow its markets, does not see suitable investments for
R&D. sees no pressing need to improve corporate infrastructure, sees no reason to train their
workers, and can't find suitable acquisitions that would enhance their business.
Effectively, the management team has scoured the globe searching for the best use of their
spare cash, and, surprisingly, determined that one financial security, THEIR own company's stock,
was the best use of the corporation's cash.
A share buyback plan could be viewed as a warning shot indicating that management lacks ideas
and is poorly managing the corporation.
Instead it falls under a "increase shareholder value" tactic.
+1. Used as an attempt to ward off a hostile takeover stock buybacks might be justifiable.
Mostly, however, this usually looks like a simple attempt to prop up prices.
It is that acme of Liberalism, Warren Buffett that created this fad. At a time when corporate dividends were taxed as ordinary income, whereas a stock price bump
would be tax deferred - and ultimately taxed at long term capital gains rates - the scheme was
merely tax avoidance. Warren Buffett's entire empire is based on this and other tax avoidence schemes.
Then, coupled with stock options for corporate management, the path was set.
Common criticisms of "Maximize Shareholder Value: 1) Should give more weight to something else
– e.g. societal concerns. 2) Execs – prioritize other things; 3) BOD's prioritize other things,
including their personal relationship to execs. Improving corporate governance can, in theory,
setup procedures and rules to fix 2) and 3) by making sure BOD's in publicly listed corporations
really have the legal power, and by making elections more open, including the selection of the
initial selection of BOD candidates. However, this still requires interest from a majority of
voting shareholders – it would be better to ask people not interested to not vote at all. (I tried
to thread this comment as a reply above but it repeatedly disappeared).
For a UK example of a company choosing not to maximise shareholder value, the disastrous acquisition
of HBOS by Lloyds is instructive. Management claimed to be looking through the (ridiculously underestimated)
short-term issues to the resulting long-term competitive advantages which the government assured
them (falsely) wouldn't subsequently be challenged.
Of the c95% acceptances supporting this lunatic
deal, some proportion of the institutional shareholders must have been idiots, a few must have
feared for the stability of the banking system were the deal rejected, and a great many must also
have been HBOS bondholders
"But CEOs recognized how the newly-installed leaders of LBO acquisitions got rich through stock
awards or option-type compensation. They wanted a piece of the action. "
The maximize shareholder value ideology in practice looks like maximize CEO compensation and
to heck with the company's long term prospects. imo.
I doubt that any of the CEOs which have said that they are being pressurized to short-termism
are actually willing this stupid concept to be removed considering they are the prime benefactor
of this.
I believe that supermacy of shareholders interest was originally adopted because they were bearing
risk. Shares being an illiquid asset were supposed to be a source of income not capital gain.
Due to this shareholders were forced to ensure that short-termism is avoided and corporate governance
is adequate. Things started to reverse slowly as liquidity of shares increased gradually.
Presently,
when shares can be sold in seconds of owning them, risk a share-holder bear is greatly lower
than they beared a century ago. Also , shares are bought for capital gain not income.
Considering
relationship between share's liquidity and short-termism , any measure which reduces share's liquidity,
for example a high tax on short term capital gain, will greatly reduce both short-termism and
corporate governance issues as share holders will be forced to assume the risk they were supposed
to bear in exchange of supermacy of their interest.
1. Profit – Objective: to achieve sufficient profit to finance our company growth and to provide
the resources we need to achieve our other objectives
2. Customers- Objective: To provide products and services of the greatest possible value to
our customers, thereby gaining and holding their respect and loyalty.
3. Fields of Interest- Objective: To enter new fields only when the ideas we have, together
with our technical, manufacturing and marketing skills, assure that we can make a needed and profitable
contribution to the field.
4. Growth – Objective: To let our growth be limited only by our profits and our ability to
develop and produce technical products that satisfy real customer needs.
5. Our people: Objective: To help HP people share in the company's success, which they make
possible; to provide job security based on their performance; to recognize their individual achievements;
and to insure the personal satisfaction that comes from a sense of accomplishment in their work
6. Management- Objective: To foster initiative and creativity by allowing the individual great
freedom of action in attaining well-defined objectives,
7. Citizenship – Objective: To honor our obligations to society by being an economic, intellectual
and social asset to each nation and each community in which we operate.
*****
Note, Hewett and Packard, themselves, may have owned 40-50% of the company stock at this time,
so they had great control of the company's direction at this time.
No corporate objective about shareholder value even though they were very large shareholders.
Yes, but. I remember someone from UMichigan business school (Gary Hamel, I think) speaking
to a group of top 2% Ford Motor Co. execs in the late 1980s. He asked, "Come on, guys how many
of you were thinking about shareholder value in the shower this morning?" The room laughed, but
one pudgy hand in the back went up. It belonged to Edsel Ford.
This takes us back, HP was so honest it almost sounds quaint. And 1974 was just before Reagan's
supply side economics stuff in the aftermath of the awful stagflation that hit us after Vietnam.
According to Paul Craig Roberts, supply side was embraced because it was thought to prevent inflation
(wage price spiral) and still provide sufficient jobs and products.
He goes on to say that supply-side/trickle-down
was a reasonable idea but it was hijacked by Wall Street who took it to heart and then used it
to justify offshoring jobs to enhance corporate profits, and eventually shareholder value. Because,
as PCR puts it, Wall Street forced companies to get lean and competitive and if they didn't nobody
invested in them: aka no shareholders if no timely shareholder value. So it was almost an extortion
racket. This was accompanied by all the corporate raiders and the real prosperity of the country
was quickly retarded and siphoned off. Great post, thanks Yves.
I have a rather naive question which I should have asked long ago in my one and only finance
class at college. Why does it matter if a share price drops all other things being equal? A company
sells shares, effectively handing out "residual claims" against cold, hard cash. If the cash is
invested in a business – and assuming the business is at least "break-even" plus the risk-free
rate of return- other than investor panic and CEO's getting "refreshed" stock options, why would
this matter?
Some reasons are frequently given for preferring a high stock price.
1. A low share price encourages others to acquire the company
2. A high price is good when stock is used as currency to buy other companies.
3. Executive compensation schemes are sometimes tied to stock price.
But if a company is not selling stock to fund current operations, then the stock price could
go to zero with no operational effect. The employees who own stock would not be pleased. However,
an apparent artificially low price could help with hiring new employees who may be granted low
priced options.
Occasionally I see someone claiming a company is being killed by short sellers driving the
stock price down. I don't see how this could damage the ongoing operations or cash flow EXCEPT
if the company is selling stock to fund operations or is trying to make a truly worthwhile acquisition
with their stock.
If a company is doing well and cash flow positive and short sellers drive the stock price down
too low, the company should use their cash to buy their shares and squeeze the shorts.
In the case of Hewlett-Packard there was no official stock price set by the investment community
for years, as the company waited a few years before doing an IPO.
The company was founded in 1939 and IPO'ed eighteen years later in 1957.
Imagine, operating for 18 years without Wall Street supervision.
Agreed with your point and John Wright's explanation. The idea that a stock price must be high
is dogma that is never questioned. The big reason is for concern re a low stock price is it is
seen as the market voting against management and an invitation for raiders to take the company
over.
But otherwise, if a company can raise enough money to fund expansion through its own cash flow
(which is the biggest source of investment fund) and debt (the next biggest source), there is
no reason to issue more stock (save your point re employee/executive stock options) and hence
no reason to care regarding the price.
Equity is a form of HPM these days, for C-corps, which can be used as a tool of pleasure [c-suite
bonuses et al] or a weapon of destruction [excuse for diminishing labour and the enviroment].
disheveled . the religion of free markets has become the dominate meme in society and those
that benefit the most from it . wellie see history .
I'm struggling with the short termism argument. The cash flows from equity don't have a maturity.
Bonds due. If a company sought to maximize bond holder value, they would minimize risk (and R&D)
to make sure sufficient funds were available to pay the bond holders. Equity maximization should
be longer term focused than the maximization of limited life securities.
While it has damaged corporate social responsibilities and banks' and corporations' long-term
financial stability, actions taken pursuant to the Shareholder Value optimization model have served
well many individuals on Wall Street, at private equity firms, CEOs of large publicly traded corporations,
hedge funds, networked board members, their academic and professional servicers, and the political
elite
Reflecting back on developments like the dotcom bubble of 1999-2000; the underlying causes
of the financial collapse of 2007-09; massive debt-leveraged corporate stock buybacks; socially
damaging private equity LBOs; the current volumes of opaque OTC derivatives at large financial
institutions; repeated episodes of environmental damage caused by firms in extractive industries
seeking short-term financial returns; and the license it provides to exert power over legislation
and regulation by those who own and control these corporations in a Citizens United legal
framework; etc., it is difficult to see much in the way of redeeming social value in this corporate
governance model.
Topical article highlighting a way to subvert corporate governance: Corrupt US govt. supports
secret oil company payments/bribes to corrupt foreign govts., whose autocratic leaders may be
major shareholders in the oil company too.
Not by usury maybe, but wealth came to Renaissance Italy through use of interest , hitherto
prohibited. And advances in book keeping. This wealth financed the great artists mentioned by
Pound.
Thanks for this post. I always found the notion of "maximizing shareholder value" to be very
strange, and counter to common sense. The concept of "stakeholders" always made more sense. For
a company to be managed with a focus on the wellbeing of workers, customers, and community, in
addition to owners, struck me as being obviously the way it should work. (And sometimes does.)
The idea that parties who happen to own a share of the company should have their interests
served above all is counter intuitive, as employees will almost always have a greater stake in
the company than any individual owner, if shares are widely distributed.
If you think of an sole proprietor who ventures forth to do business who has made clear to
all that his interests are paramount in any transaction, I do not envision customers flocking
to such an individual.
The apparent lack of basic decency in corporate/management decisions that we see so often is
just hard to reconcile with how most of us intuitively feel about how we see ourselves in the
context of our community: most people have a significant level of self interest, but we are always
aware of the need to consider the interests of others when we act. Even for something as basic
as waiting in line for something.
Somehow people at the elite levels of, finance for example, feel quite OK about heavily prioritizing
their own interest above all.
As someone not privy to this social realm, I am just mystified about the social dynamics that,
if not encourage this, at least consider it a fine way to do business.
In a small example, from my personal experience, I am a professional user of audio software
from Avid. Avid has been losing money year after year. Over the past five years the company as
taken actions that have outraged the user base, far more than any other software company I know
of. Their forum is over run with vitriolic ranting, from longtime customers. (In fairness, this
has abated a bit, as the company has finally been making moves that are sensible, and that meet
the needs of the users.)
There have been several rounds of significant layoffs, and the frontline workers bear the brunt
of the customers wrath. Morale has been low.
In conversation, a previous employee told me he considered management to be white collar criminals,
who were looting the company.
This type of product has a unique feature of having very strong platform lock-in effects. In
few other product categories would you see such angry customers continue to buy the products.
Yet the board has been approving generous compensation increases for C level management, and
for themselves for the past few years.
I'm fascinated from an everyday, social point of view, how the board and management make these
decisions. Do they really think they are doing a good job? From the outside, it appears to me
that they do it simply because they can, and have little concern for the long term well being
of any of the other stakeholdes.
Does anyone here have insight about the social dynamics that enable this behavior?
This is something I'd welcome some insights on too as I find certain behaviours and attitudes
impossible to understand.
Is it simple greed, stupidity, cynicism, groupthink, false consciousness, sociopathy, the
'attractions' of a certain lifestyle, daddy-didn't-love-them-enough or what that leads certain
types to behave the ways they do and seek to justify it? If they acted with a degree
of shame or embarrassment, or even full on chutzpah , I'd understand them more, but it's
the ordinary types, those who outwardly seem to be of the same species as oneself and otherwise
appear to be perfectly normal people that I just don't understand. I can believe almost anything
of them, except for the possibility that they actually, genuinely, believe that they are on the
right side of things.
I have similar brain fade when it comes to much of what politicians of the Right have to say
on most things. So often, and try as I might, I just can't understand how supposedly sentient
beings can honestly believe the drivel they come out with, still less have the brass-neck to stand
up in public and display just how effing stupid and cynical they are. Feel much the same about
all shades of politician but it's far worse on the Right.
"... Cross posted from the Institute for New Economic Thinking website ..."
"... Steve Bannon, Chief Strategist and Senior Counselor to President Trump is a prominent proponent of the theory. As a documentary filmmaker Bannon discussed the details of Strauss-Howe generational theory in Generation Zero. According to historian David Kaiser, who was consulted for the film, Generation Zero "focused on the key aspect of their theory, the idea that every 80 years American history has been marked by a crisis, or 'fourth turning', that destroyed an old order and created a new one". Kaiser said Bannon "is very familiar with Strauss and Howe's theory of crisis, and has been thinking about how to use it to achieve particular goals for quite a while." A February 2017 article from Business Insider titled: Steve Bannon's obsession with a dark theory of history should be worrisome commented "Bannon seems to be trying to bring about the 'Fourth Turning'." ..."
"... no sh*t, Sherlock ..."
"... Wealth and Democracy ..."
"... However, reading about the recent Gini index leads me to believe that either our preference for inequality is changing [probably not the case, given Trump], or our history is outrunning our preferences. ..."
"... early 1980's TRUMP SWAMP WHISTLE-BLOWER WAYNE BARRET (RIP)? https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/business/media/wayne-barrett-dead-village-voice-columnist.html ..."
"... What socio-econ OU ..."
"... Cross posted from the Institute for New Economic Thinking website ..."
"... Steve Bannon, Chief Strategist and Senior Counselor to President Trump is a prominent proponent of the theory. As a documentary filmmaker Bannon discussed the details of Strauss-Howe generational theory in Generation Zero. According to historian David Kaiser, who was consulted for the film, Generation Zero "focused on the key aspect of their theory, the idea that every 80 years American history has been marked by a crisis, or 'fourth turning', that destroyed an old order and created a new one". Kaiser said Bannon "is very familiar with Strauss and Howe's theory of crisis, and has been thinking about how to use it to achieve particular goals for quite a while." A February 2017 article from Business Insider titled: Steve Bannon's obsession with a dark theory of history should be worrisome commented "Bannon seems to be trying to bring about the 'Fourth Turning'." ..."
"... no sh*t, Sherlock ..."
"... Wealth and Democracy ..."
"... However, reading about the recent Gini index leads me to believe that either our preference for inequality is changing [probably not the case, given Trump], or our history is outrunning our preferences. ..."
"... early 1980's TRUMP SWAMP WHISTLE-BLOWER WAYNE BARRET (RIP)? https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/business/media/wayne-barrett-dead-village-voice-columnist.html ..."
"... What socio-econ OUTCOMES have resulted in even PAMPLIN MEDIA GROUP ..."
"... and the so-called alternative weeklies who only make news hole available for Lifestyle features on the new Wellness Spa, Tattoo Parlor or Booze\Gourmet venture ..."
"... Mitch Ritter\Paradigm Shifters Lay-Low Studios, Ore-Wa Media Discussion Group ..."
"... TCOMES have resulted in even PAMPLIN MEDIA GROUP ..."
"... and the so-called alternative weeklies who only make news hole available for Lifestyle features on the new Wellness Spa, Tattoo Parlor or Booze\Gourmet venture ..."
"... Mitch Ritter\Paradigm Shifters Lay-Low Studios, Ore-Wa Media Discussion Group ..."
Posted on
February 4, 2017
by
Yves Smith
Yves here. Both economists and the press do such a good job of selling the idea
that inequality is the fault of those who come out on the short end of the
stick that academics need to develop empirical evidence to prove what ought to
be intuitively obvious.
The fact that most of the fruits of US economic growth have not been
shared with the lower-middle and working class is accepted across the
political spectrum in America. But that inequality is often treated as a
somehow inevitable consequence of globalization and technological change.
That view is contradicted by the comparison of income growth and
distribution statistics between the US and three others rich countries,
France, Norway and the UK - according to new research by Max Roser and
Stefan Thewissen of the Institute for New Economic Thinking at Oxford.
Writing in Vox on the database they've constructed, Roser and Thewissen
note:
"We compare the evolution of the income an individual needs to be right
at the 10th percentile of the income distribution to the evolution of the
income of an individual at the 90th percentile. We call these two groups the
'poor' and the 'rich.' We can then look at how much incomes grew for the
poor and the rich in absolute terms as well as relative to each other - and
thereby assess the extent to which growth was widely shared. We measure
income after taxes and transfers, and adjust for differences in prices over
time and across countries using inflation and purchasing power information.
Our database can be accessed online, with more information on our exact
measure and data for other countries."
The US performs poorly by comparison to these countries, for reasons that
may have more to do with structure, institutions and policy. Roser and
Thewissen conclude:
"The differences we have identified across countries and time imply that
increased globalization and technological change cannot be blamed as sole
causes for rising inequality. Those forces work across borders and should
affect all countries. The fact that other developed countries have been able
to share the benefits of these market forces suggests that policy choices on
the national level play a central role for boosting living standards.
Policies can make a difference not just in growth levels, but also in who
gets the benefits of that growth."
The intuitively obvious, should be taken as axiomatic. Like two points
determine a single line. When you start out from an unequal position (not like
at the start of a foot race) it is unclear who to blame, for the one person
who crosses the finish line first vs the losers. And much of life is "first
across the finish line". Also since in this case, the winner of the last race,
gets an advantage on the next starting line the unequal advantage tends to
accumulate. Life is unfair. The point is to maintain the status quo, statically
and dynamically. Those who have advantages today, continue to have them, as
white collar US workers and even blue collar US workers used to. The previous
winners continue to win these unequal contests, but the number of happy workers
gets fewer and fewer. This is why Trump voters the benefits of inequality are
now being shared less equally ;-) The purpose of government is to benefit the
status quo. Therefore policy doesn't offer substantive way out. Change will
occur but only when the current status quo maintenance system fails.
Conclusion: like the game of Musical Chairs there is no change until the
music stops, and someone different can't find a chair to sit in. But it is less
fun in real life.
Unfortunately many in the current generation are content to play the
little pig, in Charlotte's Web. They forget where McDonald's McRib comes
from. Again, children's culture is illustrative and simplified.
I wouldn't underestimate "many in the current generation" –
especially among those who don't have the "divided baggage" of the
generations that preceded them. Due to purposely recirculated
historical circumstances aligned with modern "evolution," it may not
be as easy for power to continue to "manipulate and control."
In this fear-mongering film, conservatives like Gingrich put a
spin on the power of the "elite" destroying the middle class in a
revisionist approach (although they are quick to point out that
both parties are captured by global corporations). The future:
austerity, deregulation and 20 years of chaos (with probable war)
ahead of us.
The film revolves around the Strauss-Howe generational theory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strauss%E2%80%93Howe_generational_theory
Steve Bannon, Chief Strategist and Senior Counselor to
President Trump is a prominent proponent of the theory. As a
documentary filmmaker Bannon discussed the details of Strauss-Howe
generational theory in Generation Zero. According to historian
David Kaiser, who was consulted for the film, Generation Zero
"focused on the key aspect of their theory, the idea that every 80
years American history has been marked by a crisis, or 'fourth
turning', that destroyed an old order and created a new one".
Kaiser said Bannon "is very familiar with Strauss and Howe's theory
of crisis, and has been thinking about how to use it to achieve
particular goals for quite a while." A February 2017 article from
Business Insider titled: Steve Bannon's obsession with a dark
theory of history should be worrisome commented "Bannon seems to be
trying to bring about the 'Fourth Turning'."
When I was first exposed to Strauss and Howe I began thinking
how their ideas explained the histories of other countries as
well, and during our interview, I mentioned that crises in
countries like France in the 1790s and Russia after 1917 had led
to reigns of terror. Bannon included those remarks in the final
cut of Generation Zero.
A second, more alarming, interaction did not show up in the
film. Bannon had clearly thought a long time both about the
domestic potential and the foreign policy implications of
Strauss and Howe. More than once during our interview, he
pointed out that each of the three preceding crises had involved
a great war, and those conflicts had increased in scope from the
American Revolution through the Civil War to the Second World
War. He expected a new and even bigger war as part of the
current crisis, and he did not seem at all fazed by the
prospect.
I did not agree, and said so. But, knowing that the history of
international conflict was my own specialty, he repeatedly
pressed me to say we could expect a conflict at least as big as
the Second World War in the near or medium term. I refused.
Apocalyptic rhetoric and apocalyptic thinking flourish during
crisis periods. This represents perhaps the biggest danger of
the Trump presidency, and one that will bear watching from all
concerned citizens in the months and years ahead.
Thanks for the information. I'm aware of the madman's "movie"
and his authoritarian ideology. He and his commander-of-thieves
will continue to unravel right before our eyes. Many lives will
continue to be severely impacted by these hateful, selfish,
abusive throwbacks from "central casting."
Every day there is a race you have to run. For the sake of discussion,
let's call it a 100 yard race.
The participants are called and then evaluated by the judges. Starting
points for the race are then determined. If you are particularly comely, you
are given an advantage: that is, your starting point is moved up depending
on the judges. If you have a personality that people find attractive, you
are given further yards. If you happen to have had great success in school,
you are awarded so many yards because of your academic record. If you happen
to be good looking and personable, the academic success yards are added onto
your already determined starting point.
Then the quality and reputation of your educational institution is
evaluated and you are given further yards to determine starting points with
certain schools worth a better starting position. And even the type of
training at the institution is evaluated and further yards given.
Finally the judges add your total experiences – including your finishing
position in previous races – advanced degrees, and connections and further
yards are added.
So when the gun sounds, the person without the advantages strives as hard
as they can but they cannot win the race because some people only have to
simply step over the finish line.
And even more troubling some people are moved behind the starting line
because they could not even muster the necessary accomplishments to reach
the starting line: drop outs from school, people who have been convicted of
crimes and the rest. The worse the offense, the further you are moved behind
the starting line.
Every day this continues and those striving to win – even running faster
and harder than their competitors – are simply unable to do so because the
rules are such that winning is not even a consideration when the race is
rigged.
The factors are certainly at work in inequality. Some of those factors
can either be mitigated or compensated for by the individual and/or the
social system.
There are other structural factors that influence inequality. Family
connections, inherited wealth, and other forms of social capital that can
make advancement easier is one. Savings and investment patterns that can
be engaged in to varying degrees depending on just how much surplus
income one has is another.
The social and political system in the US generally favors vigorous
competition, private self-dealing, and asymmetric information.
Individuals who learn to navigate these factors can prosper, while those
who either can't or don't want to can suffer significant disadvantages in
outcomes. The influence of these structural factors in any social system
influences the degree of income/wealth stratification.
In my own family, many of the starting social factors are fairly equal
among the individuals. Even though my various relatives have not
necessarily made "bad" choices in the moral sense, their outcomes have
been vastly different. The degree to which they have chosen to engagein
income/wealth maximization has generally been a large factor. In that
sense, the game is rigged away from living what many consider a humane
life.
You mean people actually got paid to research and write stuff like this? You
simply have to look at the (re)distribution policies of the countries concerned
– and there are substantial differences between the three of them, by the way.
Wouldn't a much more interesting question be "By what mechanism does
globalization necessarily increase inequality, and how does it work precisely
in a number of contrasted cases"? But then you might get the wrong answer.
No kidding – kind of amazing that people get paid good money to restate
the obvious, but using sesquipedalian language just to make it more
difficult to understand.
Inequality is caused by one group not having as much money as another.
Money is simply a tool created by human beings. Much like a hammer, human
beings could use it to build houses for everyone or to bash others about the
head. We humans seem to prefer the latter use.
The people paid to prove the obvious are far outnumbered by those paid to
disprove it. We need the former because of the latter.
On the other hand, there are many cases where the obvious turned out to be
wrong when it was looked at carefully. More research needed!
We're in a world where politicians get paid to lie about these obvious
things and legislate based on those lies, and businesses make their profits
off the lies, so I can't get too exercised when someone gets paid to point
out the lies.
"Forces." Really? "Globalization" and "technological change" are things
humans do for human reasons. To treat them as "forces" somehow exogenous to
human choices is self-evidently fallacious. It's precisely the same logic that
says the King is the King cause God likes him best.
They're not "forces." They are heuristics. And as heuristics, they are
pretty lousy unless you parse them quite a bit. Obama's 1 trillion dollar
investment in nukes creates "technological change." The destruction of local
agricultural techniques and knowledge is "technological change." A kindle is
"technological change." Keyword searches readily available to academic
researchers was a big "technological change."
I'm assuming what they mean by "technological change" here is the sort that
allows us to collectively make more stuff with less work. God forbid anyone
spell that out though. Because "hey, guess what: you have to work more for less
because we can now make more stuff with less work," would quickly lead to the
violent demise of economists and rich people. (more to say on "globalization"
but this post is already way longer than intended.)
Germany should have been included in the study. German manufacturing is far
more technologically advanced than manufacturing in the US, yet Germany manages
to maintain high employment in that sector, probably because the companies
invest in worker training and feel some obligation toward labor.
There's a structural reason for this, with labor having powerful
representation on German corporate boards and smaller companies being owned by
families instead of faceless shareholders, with the families' long-term
interests naturally more in alignment with those of their employees.
Actually, I thought the inclusion of France and the UK was a bit strange,
as well. Inequality in both countries has been increasingly massively in
recent years. One Thomas Piketty even wrote something on the topic, if I'm
not mistaken. Japan would have been a much better example.
I think it kind of makes the point, if even a country that isn't
exactly known for egalitarianism, like the UK, is doing better than the
U.S. it kind of shows how extreme on the scale the U.S. is.
Contrary to elite owned and serving mass media claims, the trick that
created the German economic miracle is no mystery; it was, and IS, their
banking system.
In Germany more than 70% of all banking is done by "municipally owned
banks"!!!
A situation that the elites – masters of the universe -have been working day
and night to drastically alter so that their "too big to fail" minion zombie
banks can take complete AND total control of the economy, as they have in
most of the developed world except North Dakota, Canada (Canada owns the
Bank of Canada – the Finance Minister holds all the shares on behalf of all
Canadians), and Switzerland (Switzerland has Cantonal {municipally or
provincially} owned banks) – all three countries, like the German
municipally owned banks, are under attack by the elite serving bureaucrats
in the IMF and the U.S. Federal Reserve; all of whom are owned by, and
minions of, Wall Street; and most importantly the corporate bought and sold
world's university economics departments – co-opted to right agenda faux
economic B.S.
The U.S. Federal Reserve now donates more money to universities worldwide
than all of the rest of the donors combined!?! The proviso on these
donations is that they only hire economics profs who have been published in
one of the 37 journals published by the U.S. Federal Reserve – and we know
what kind of right agenda 'fascist' mumbo-jumbo these minion economists are
dedicated to serving up in order to get published by the U.S. Fed!!!
So what you say!! Well here's so what!
If you are in any other developed country than Germany and you have a great
idea/product and require a one million dollar loan to build a factory and
set up production – here's what happens to you. Your local banks will never
lend you that money, so you have to go to the criminal Big Banks which will
also never lend you the money you need, which means you will have to sell
your idea/product at pennies on the dollar to one of their huge corporate
clients, who will offshore production to a corrupted third world country
where workers get paid pennies an hour and unions are considered a criminal
enterprise. Leaving you, the creator of the product or service with pennies
on the dollar; and leaving your local economy with zero economic growth and
no well paid local employment opportunities. The corporate buyer of your
technology/product/idea may well just kill your product because it is better
than the (inferior) one they are currently making bags of money selling –
for which they have just eliminated your innovative and superior competitive
product.
If you are in Germany however the story is far different. In Germany you
would go to your local municipally owned bank which is only too happy to
give you the one million dollars you need to set up production (locally
providing employment and contributing to local economic prosperity).
This is the basis for the strength of the German economy and the reason for
the so called ":German economic miracle?"!
It is described as a "miracle" not because we have no idea how it happened,
rather because the elites who own more than 80% of all corporate shares need
to confuse us plebs they want to economically and politically crush!
American wealth inequality is a political problem? Well,
no sh*t,
Sherlock
.
Kevin Phillips wrote about this phenomenon a decade ago in his wonderful
book
Wealth and Democracy
. Between 1920 and 1980, American plutocrats
had been placed in fear by the Bolshevik revolution, humbled by the Great
Depression, and shamed by the Second World War. Greed was in check. Then they
died-off and left their wealth to a new generation more interested in emulating
Mick Jagger than Dwight D. Eisenhower. Ronnie Reagan was their Hollywood pal,
who cut estate and coupon-clipping taxes so that they could party like rock
stars.
Crass punks like Donald Trump and the Kochs are the scions of inherited
wealth and Studio 54. They could never have made it on their own, on their own
talents, and it is in their class interest to destroy any sort of meritocracy.
They have used materialism and greed to buy the political class.
Look up Geert Hofstede's work on "power distance," which is the extent to
which a nation accepts inequality.
According to Hofstede, countries have different "tastes" or preferences for
inequality. For example, the Middle East, parts of S America, India, and other
parts of Asia have a much bigger "taste" for inequality compared to, say, the
Scandinavian countries, which have the lowest.
I would guess that differences in preferences for inequality between
countries go back to a nation's history, and maybe other hard-to-pin down
forces and factors.
The US, according to Hofstede's work, is at the middle point, or a little
lower, as to taste for inequality. However, reading about the recent Gini index
leads me to believe that either our preference for inequality is changing
[probably not the case, given Trump], or our history is outrunning our
preferences. In other words, we may be getting more inequality than we like.
By the way, Hofstede assumes that power distance preference is a fairly
durable characteristic of a nation.
Preference?? Yes, I'm sure the mid east loves inequality, which is why
they are known for choosing dictators who quash uprisings as their leaders.
And how exactly would I choose egalitarianism here in the US? I can vote for
Wall Street and Holly Wood or Wall Street and Exxon Mobil. Which one is the
egalitarian one?
However, reading about the recent Gini index leads me to believe that
either our preference for inequality is changing [probably not the case,
given Trump], or our history is outrunning our preferences.
"
What about "power distance" (extent to which a nation accepts inequality)
interactions with "distance to power" extent to which a nation influences
the powerful.
I've been reading Robert J. Gordon's book, 'The Rise and Fall of American
Growth.' Gordon would say that American labor did well from 1870-1970 because
of the innovations that drove the economy increased everyone's productivity and
the value of their work. Since 1970, productivity has slowed down. It rose
again during the decade of the '90s but mostly for knowledge workers, thanks to
the internet, spreadsheets, etcetera, but now has continued to slow. That was a
recipe for income inequality, and for wealth inequality as well, since the rise
of digital industries has increased property values on the coasts and in select
inland cities.
Slowing productivity also increased wealth inequality by facilitating the
decline of interest rates. This helps the haves, since their assets are
suddenly more valuable.
this guy argues that productivity has been decoupled from compensation,
and that has driven the rise of inequality.
off topic, but the krugman review of the book contained the interesting
fact that, during the 1880's, wall street was 7 feet deep in manure in some
places.
Of course inequality is a political choice. Chosen by the oligarchs who buy
the politicians.
Just like every mainstream economist is choosing to make millions suffer and
die every day because excepting MMT would bruise their ego's. That is a choice
too.
I think that inequality is not a political choice directly but a consequence
of deregulation or "do nothing" policy. Reducing inequality is a policy choice.
They soon made the most of the opportunity and removed themselves from any
hard work to concentrate on "spiritual matters", i.e. any hocus-pocus they
could come up with to elevate them from the masses, e.g. rituals, fertility
rights, offering to the gods . etc and to turn the initially small tributes,
into extracting all the surplus created by the hard work of the rest.
The elites became the representatives of the gods
and they were responsible for the bounty of the earth and the harvests. As long
as all the surplus was handed over, all would be well.
Later they came up with money.
We pay you to do the work and you give it back to us when you buy things,
you live a bare subsistence existence and we take the rest.
A bare subsistence existence ensured the workers didn't die and could
reproduce, why give them anymore? The vile maxim of the masters of mankind.
Basic capitalism was how it all started in the 18th and 19th Centuries, the
poor lived in squalor and the rich lived in luxury, the same as it had always
been.
Only organised labour movements got those at the bottom a larger slice of
the pie, basic capitalism gives nothing to the people who do the work apart
from a bare subsistence existence.
The wealthy decided they needed to do away with organised labour movements
and the welfare state; it was interfering with the natural order where they
extract all the surplus.
2017 – World's eight richest people have same wealth as poorest 50%
Nearly there.
They need a bit more fine tuning at Davos.
Some of the world's workers are not living a bare subsistence existence.
Francis Fukuyama talked of the "end of history" and "liberal democracy".
Liberal democracy was the bringing together of two mutually exclusive ideas.
Economic liberalism – that enriches the few and impoverishes the many.
Democracy – that requires the support of the majority.
Trying to bring two mutually exclusive ideas together just doesn't work.
The ideas of "Economic Liberalism" came from Milton Freidman and the
University of Chicago. It was so radical they first tried it in a military
dictatorship in Chile, it wouldn't be compatible with democracy. It took death
squads, torture and terror to keep it in place, there was an ethnic cleansing
of anyone who still showed signs of any left wing thinking.
It was tried in a few other places in South America using similar
techniques. It then did succeed in a democracy but only by tricking the people
into thinking they were voting for something else, severe oppression was needed
when they found out what they were getting.
It brings extreme inequality and widespread poverty everywhere it's tested,
they decide it's a system that should be rolled out globally. It's just what
they are looking for.
Would a for-profit chain of local newspapers whose business model and
advertising is built on serving the Portland Business Alliance and Chamber of
Commerce interests hire or keep on staff any kind of investigative journalistic
team or even an individual columnist\calumnist like recently deceased
VILLAGE VOICE
early 1980's TRUMP SWAMP WHISTLE-BLOWER
WAYNE BARRET (RIP)?
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/business/media/wayne-barrett-dead-village-voice-columnist.html
Yves here. Both economists and the press do such a good
job of selling the idea that inequality is the fault of
those who come out on the short end of the stick that
academics need to develop empirical evidence to prove what
ought to be intuitively obvious.
The fact that most of the fruits of US economic
growth have not been shared with the lower-middle and
working class is accepted across the political spectrum
in America. But that inequality is often treated as a
somehow inevitable consequence of globalization and
technological change. That view is contradicted by the
comparison of income growth and distribution statistics
between the US and three others rich countries, France,
Norway and the UK - according to new research by Max
Roser and Stefan Thewissen of the Institute for New
Economic Thinking at Oxford. Writing in Vox on the
database they've constructed, Roser and Thewissen note:
"We compare the evolution of the income an
individual needs to be right at the 10th percentile of
the income distribution to the evolution of the income
of an individual at the 90th percentile. We call these
two groups the 'poor' and the 'rich.' We can then look
at how much incomes grew for the poor and the rich in
absolute terms as well as relative to each other - and
thereby assess the extent to which growth was widely
shared. We measure income after taxes and transfers,
and adjust for differences in prices over time and
across countries using inflation and purchasing power
information. Our database can be accessed online, with
more information on our exact measure and data for
other countries."
The US performs poorly by comparison to these
countries, for reasons that may have more to do with
structure, institutions and policy. Roser and Thewissen
conclude:
"The differences we have identified across countries
and time imply that increased globalization and
technological change cannot be blamed as sole causes
for rising inequality. Those forces work across borders
and should affect all countries. The fact that other
developed countries have been able to share the
benefits of these market forces suggests that policy
choices on the national level play a central role for
boosting living standards. Policies can make a
difference not just in growth levels, but also in who
gets the benefits of that growth."
The intuitively obvious, should be taken as axiomatic.
Like two points determine a single line. When you start
out from an unequal position (not like at the start of a
foot race) it is unclear who to blame, for the one
person who crosses the finish line first vs the losers.
And much of life is "first across the finish line". Also
since in this case, the winner of the last race, gets an
advantage on the next starting line the unequal
advantage tends to accumulate. Life is unfair. The point
is to maintain the status quo, statically and dynamically.
Those who have advantages today, continue to have them, as
white collar US workers and even blue collar US workers
used to. The previous winners continue to win these
unequal contests, but the number of happy workers gets
fewer and fewer. This is why Trump voters the benefits
of inequality are now being shared less equally ;-) The
purpose of government is to benefit the status quo.
Therefore policy doesn't offer substantive way out. Change
will occur but only when the current status quo
maintenance system fails. Conclusion: like the game of
Musical Chairs there is no change until the music stops,
and someone different can't find a chair to sit in. But it
is less fun in real life.
Unfortunately many in the current generation are
content to play the little pig, in Charlotte's Web.
They forget where McDonald's McRib comes from.
Again, children's culture is illustrative and
simplified.
I wouldn't underestimate "many in the current
generation" – especially among those who don't
have the "divided baggage" of the generations
that preceded them. Due to purposely recirculated
historical circumstances aligned with modern
"evolution," it may not be as easy for power to
continue to "manipulate and control."
In this fear-mongering film, conservatives
like Gingrich put a spin on the power of the
"elite" destroying the middle class in a
revisionist approach (although they are quick
to point out that both parties are captured by
global corporations). The future: austerity,
deregulation and 20 years of chaos (with
probable war) ahead of us.
The film revolves around the Strauss-Howe
generational theory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strauss%E2%80%93Howe_generational_theory
Steve Bannon, Chief Strategist and Senior
Counselor to President Trump is a prominent
proponent of the theory. As a documentary
filmmaker Bannon discussed the details of
Strauss-Howe generational theory in Generation
Zero. According to historian David Kaiser, who
was consulted for the film, Generation Zero
"focused on the key aspect of their theory,
the idea that every 80 years American history
has been marked by a crisis, or 'fourth
turning', that destroyed an old order and
created a new one". Kaiser said Bannon "is
very familiar with Strauss and Howe's theory
of crisis, and has been thinking about how to
use it to achieve particular goals for quite a
while." A February 2017 article from Business
Insider titled: Steve Bannon's obsession with
a dark theory of history should be worrisome
commented "Bannon seems to be trying to bring
about the 'Fourth Turning'."
When I was first exposed to Strauss and
Howe I began thinking how their ideas
explained the histories of other countries
as well, and during our interview, I
mentioned that crises in countries like
France in the 1790s and Russia after 1917
had led to reigns of terror. Bannon
included those remarks in the final cut of
Generation Zero.
A second, more alarming, interaction did
not show up in the film. Bannon had clearly
thought a long time both about the domestic
potential and the foreign policy
implications of Strauss and Howe. More than
once during our interview, he pointed out
that each of the three preceding crises had
involved a great war, and those conflicts
had increased in scope from the American
Revolution through the Civil War to the
Second World War. He expected a new and
even bigger war as part of the current
crisis, and he did not seem at all fazed by
the prospect.
I did not agree, and said so. But, knowing
that the history of international conflict
was my own specialty, he repeatedly pressed
me to say we could expect a conflict at
least as big as the Second World War in the
near or medium term. I refused.
Apocalyptic rhetoric and apocalyptic
thinking flourish during crisis periods.
This represents perhaps the biggest danger
of the Trump presidency, and one that will
bear watching from all concerned citizens
in the months and years ahead.
Thanks for the information. I'm aware of
the madman's "movie" and his authoritarian
ideology. He and his commander-of-thieves
will continue to unravel right before our
eyes. Many lives will continue to be
severely impacted by these hateful,
selfish, abusive throwbacks from "central
casting."
Every day there is a race you have to run. For the
sake of discussion, let's call it a 100 yard race.
The participants are called and then evaluated by
the judges. Starting points for the race are then
determined. If you are particularly comely, you are
given an advantage: that is, your starting point is
moved up depending on the judges. If you have a
personality that people find attractive, you are given
further yards. If you happen to have had great success
in school, you are awarded so many yards because of
your academic record. If you happen to be good looking
and personable, the academic success yards are added
onto your already determined starting point.
Then the quality and reputation of your educational
institution is evaluated and you are given further
yards to determine starting points with certain schools
worth a better starting position. And even the type of
training at the institution is evaluated and further
yards given.
Finally the judges add your total experiences –
including your finishing position in previous races –
advanced degrees, and connections and further yards are
added.
So when the gun sounds, the person without the
advantages strives as hard as they can but they cannot
win the race because some people only have to simply
step over the finish line.
And even more troubling some people are moved behind
the starting line because they could not even muster
the necessary accomplishments to reach the starting
line: drop outs from school, people who have been
convicted of crimes and the rest. The worse the
offense, the further you are moved behind the starting
line.
Every day this continues and those striving to win –
even running faster and harder than their competitors –
are simply unable to do so because the rules are such
that winning is not even a consideration when the race
is rigged.
The factors are certainly at work in inequality.
Some of those factors can either be mitigated or
compensated for by the individual and/or the social
system.
There are other structural factors that influence
inequality. Family connections, inherited wealth,
and other forms of social capital that can make
advancement easier is one. Savings and investment
patterns that can be engaged in to varying degrees
depending on just how much surplus income one has is
another.
The social and political system in the US
generally favors vigorous competition, private
self-dealing, and asymmetric information.
Individuals who learn to navigate these factors can
prosper, while those who either can't or don't want
to can suffer significant disadvantages in outcomes.
The influence of these structural factors in any
social system influences the degree of income/wealth
stratification.
In my own family, many of the starting social
factors are fairly equal among the individuals. Even
though my various relatives have not necessarily
made "bad" choices in the moral sense, their
outcomes have been vastly different. The degree to
which they have chosen to engagein income/wealth
maximization has generally been a large factor. In
that sense, the game is rigged away from living what
many consider a humane life.
You mean people actually got paid to research and write
stuff like this? You simply have to look at the
(re)distribution policies of the countries concerned – and
there are substantial differences between the three of
them, by the way.
Wouldn't a much more interesting question be "By what
mechanism does globalization necessarily increase
inequality, and how does it work precisely in a number of
contrasted cases"? But then you might get the wrong
answer.
No kidding – kind of amazing that people get paid
good money to restate the obvious, but using
sesquipedalian language just to make it more difficult
to understand.
Inequality is caused by one group not having as much
money as another. Money is simply a tool created by
human beings. Much like a hammer, human beings could
use it to build houses for everyone or to bash others
about the head. We humans seem to prefer the latter
use.
The people paid to prove the obvious are far
outnumbered by those paid to disprove it. We need the
former because of the latter.
On the other hand, there are many cases where the
obvious turned out to be wrong when it was looked at
carefully. More research needed!
We're in a world where politicians get paid to lie
about these obvious things and legislate based on those
lies, and businesses make their profits off the lies,
so I can't get too exercised when someone gets paid to
point out the lies.
"Forces." Really? "Globalization" and "technological
change" are things humans do for human reasons. To treat
them as "forces" somehow exogenous to human choices is
self-evidently fallacious. It's precisely the same logic
that says the King is the King cause God likes him best.
They're not "forces." They are heuristics. And as
heuristics, they are pretty lousy unless you parse them
quite a bit. Obama's 1 trillion dollar investment in nukes
creates "technological change." The destruction of local
agricultural techniques and knowledge is "technological
change." A kindle is "technological change." Keyword
searches readily available to academic researchers was a
big "technological change."
I'm assuming what they mean by "technological change"
here is the sort that allows us to collectively make more
stuff with less work. God forbid anyone spell that out
though. Because "hey, guess what: you have to work more
for less because we can now make more stuff with less
work," would quickly lead to the violent demise of
economists and rich people. (more to say on
"globalization" but this post is already way longer than
intended.)
Germany should have been included in the study. German
manufacturing is far more technologically advanced than
manufacturing in the US, yet Germany manages to maintain
high employment in that sector, probably because the
companies invest in worker training and feel some
obligation toward labor.
There's a structural reason for this, with labor having
powerful representation on German corporate boards and
smaller companies being owned by families instead of
faceless shareholders, with the families' long-term
interests naturally more in alignment with those of their
employees.
Actually, I thought the inclusion of France and the
UK was a bit strange, as well. Inequality in both
countries has been increasingly massively in recent
years. One Thomas Piketty even wrote something on the
topic, if I'm not mistaken. Japan would have been a
much better example.
I think it kind of makes the point, if even a
country that isn't exactly known for egalitarianism,
like the UK, is doing better than the U.S. it kind
of shows how extreme on the scale the U.S. is.
Contrary to elite owned and serving mass media
claims, the trick that created the German economic
miracle is no mystery; it was, and IS, their banking
system.
In Germany more than 70% of all banking is done by
"municipally owned banks"!!!
A situation that the elites – masters of the universe
-have been working day and night to drastically alter
so that their "too big to fail" minion zombie banks can
take complete AND total control of the economy, as they
have in most of the developed world except North
Dakota, Canada (Canada owns the Bank of Canada – the
Finance Minister holds all the shares on behalf of all
Canadians), and Switzerland (Switzerland has Cantonal
{municipally or provincially} owned banks) – all three
countries, like the German municipally owned banks, are
under attack by the elite serving bureaucrats in the
IMF and the U.S. Federal Reserve; all of whom are owned
by, and minions of, Wall Street; and most importantly
the corporate bought and sold world's university
economics departments – co-opted to right agenda faux
economic B.S.
The U.S. Federal Reserve now donates more money to
universities worldwide than all of the rest of the
donors combined!?! The proviso on these donations is
that they only hire economics profs who have been
published in one of the 37 journals published by the
U.S. Federal Reserve – and we know what kind of right
agenda 'fascist' mumbo-jumbo these minion economists
are dedicated to serving up in order to get published
by the U.S. Fed!!!
So what you say!! Well here's so what!
If you are in any other developed country than Germany
and you have a great idea/product and require a one
million dollar loan to build a factory and set up
production – here's what happens to you. Your local
banks will never lend you that money, so you have to go
to the criminal Big Banks which will also never lend
you the money you need, which means you will have to
sell your idea/product at pennies on the dollar to one
of their huge corporate clients, who will offshore
production to a corrupted third world country where
workers get paid pennies an hour and unions are
considered a criminal enterprise. Leaving you, the
creator of the product or service with pennies on the
dollar; and leaving your local economy with zero
economic growth and no well paid local employment
opportunities. The corporate buyer of your
technology/product/idea may well just kill your product
because it is better than the (inferior) one they are
currently making bags of money selling – for which they
have just eliminated your innovative and superior
competitive product.
If you are in Germany however the story is far
different. In Germany you would go to your local
municipally owned bank which is only too happy to give
you the one million dollars you need to set up
production (locally providing employment and
contributing to local economic prosperity).
This is the basis for the strength of the German
economy and the reason for the so called ":German
economic miracle?"!
It is described as a "miracle" not because we have no
idea how it happened, rather because the elites who own
more than 80% of all corporate shares need to confuse
us plebs they want to economically and politically
crush!
American wealth inequality is a political problem?
Well,
no sh*t, Sherlock
.
Kevin Phillips wrote about this phenomenon a decade ago
in his wonderful book
Wealth and Democracy
.
Between 1920 and 1980, American plutocrats had been placed
in fear by the Bolshevik revolution, humbled by the Great
Depression, and shamed by the Second World War. Greed was
in check. Then they died-off and left their wealth to a
new generation more interested in emulating Mick Jagger
than Dwight D. Eisenhower. Ronnie Reagan was their
Hollywood pal, who cut estate and coupon-clipping taxes so
that they could party like rock stars.
Crass punks like Donald Trump and the Kochs are the
scions of inherited wealth and Studio 54. They could never
have made it on their own, on their own talents, and it is
in their class interest to destroy any sort of
meritocracy. They have used materialism and greed to buy
the political class.
Look up Geert Hofstede's work on "power distance,"
which is the extent to which a nation accepts inequality.
According to Hofstede, countries have different
"tastes" or preferences for inequality. For example, the
Middle East, parts of S America, India, and other parts of
Asia have a much bigger "taste" for inequality compared
to, say, the Scandinavian countries, which have the
lowest.
I would guess that differences in preferences for
inequality between countries go back to a nation's
history, and maybe other hard-to-pin down forces and
factors.
The US, according to Hofstede's work, is at the middle
point, or a little lower, as to taste for inequality.
However, reading about the recent Gini index leads me to
believe that either our preference for inequality is
changing [probably not the case, given Trump], or our
history is outrunning our preferences. In other words, we
may be getting more inequality than we like.
By the way, Hofstede assumes that power distance
preference is a fairly durable characteristic of a nation.
Preference?? Yes, I'm sure the mid east loves
inequality, which is why they are known for choosing
dictators who quash uprisings as their leaders. And how
exactly would I choose egalitarianism here in the US? I
can vote for Wall Street and Holly Wood or Wall Street
and Exxon Mobil. Which one is the egalitarian one?
However, reading about the recent Gini index
leads me to believe that either our preference for
inequality is changing [probably not the case, given
Trump], or our history is outrunning our
preferences.
"
What about "power distance" (extent to which a
nation accepts inequality) interactions with "distance
to power" extent to which a nation influences the
powerful.
I've been reading Robert J. Gordon's book, 'The Rise
and Fall of American Growth.' Gordon would say that
American labor did well from 1870-1970 because of the
innovations that drove the economy increased everyone's
productivity and the value of their work. Since 1970,
productivity has slowed down. It rose again during the
decade of the '90s but mostly for knowledge workers,
thanks to the internet, spreadsheets, etcetera, but now
has continued to slow. That was a recipe for income
inequality, and for wealth inequality as well, since the
rise of digital industries has increased property values
on the coasts and in select inland cities.
Slowing productivity also increased wealth inequality
by facilitating the decline of interest rates. This helps
the haves, since their assets are suddenly more valuable.
this guy argues that productivity has been decoupled
from compensation, and that has driven the rise of
inequality.
off topic, but the krugman review of the book
contained the interesting fact that, during the 1880's,
wall street was 7 feet deep in manure in some places.
Of course inequality is a political choice. Chosen by
the oligarchs who buy the politicians.
Just like every mainstream economist is choosing to
make millions suffer and die every day because excepting
MMT would bruise their ego's. That is a choice too.
I think that inequality is not a political choice
directly but a consequence of deregulation or "do nothing"
policy. Reducing inequality is a policy choice.
They soon made the most of the opportunity and removed
themselves from any hard work to concentrate on "spiritual
matters", i.e. any hocus-pocus they could come up with to
elevate them from the masses, e.g. rituals, fertility
rights, offering to the gods . etc and to turn the
initially small tributes, into extracting all the surplus
created by the hard work of the rest.
The elites became the representatives of the gods
and they were responsible for the bounty of the earth and
the harvests. As long as all the surplus was handed over,
all would be well.
Later they came up with money.
We pay you to do the work and you give it back to us
when you buy things, you live a bare subsistence existence
and we take the rest.
A bare subsistence existence ensured the workers didn't
die and could reproduce, why give them anymore? The vile
maxim of the masters of mankind.
Basic capitalism was how it all started in the 18th and
19th Centuries, the poor lived in squalor and the rich
lived in luxury, the same as it had always been.
Only organised labour movements got those at the bottom
a larger slice of the pie, basic capitalism gives nothing
to the people who do the work apart from a bare
subsistence existence.
The wealthy decided they needed to do away with
organised labour movements and the welfare state; it was
interfering with the natural order where they extract all
the surplus.
2017 – World's eight richest people have same wealth as
poorest 50%
Nearly there.
They need a bit more fine tuning at Davos.
Some of the world's workers are not living a bare
subsistence existence.
Francis Fukuyama talked of the "end of history" and
"liberal democracy".
Liberal democracy was the bringing together of two
mutually exclusive ideas.
Economic liberalism – that enriches the few and
impoverishes the many.
Democracy – that requires the support of the majority.
Trying to bring two mutually exclusive ideas together
just doesn't work.
The ideas of "Economic Liberalism" came from Milton
Freidman and the University of Chicago. It was so radical
they first tried it in a military dictatorship in Chile,
it wouldn't be compatible with democracy. It took death
squads, torture and terror to keep it in place, there was
an ethnic cleansing of anyone who still showed signs of
any left wing thinking.
It was tried in a few other places in South America
using similar techniques. It then did succeed in a
democracy but only by tricking the people into thinking
they were voting for something else, severe oppression was
needed when they found out what they were getting.
It brings extreme inequality and widespread poverty
everywhere it's tested, they decide it's a system that
should be rolled out globally. It's just what they are
looking for.
Would a for-profit chain of local newspapers whose
business model and advertising is built on serving the
Portland Business Alliance and Chamber of Commerce
interests hire or keep on staff any kind of investigative
journalistic team or even an individual
columnist\calumnist like recently deceased
VILLAGE
VOICE
early 1980's TRUMP SWAMP
WHISTLE-BLOWER WAYNE BARRET (RIP)?
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/business/media/wayne-barrett-dead-village-voice-columnist.html
What socio-econ OUTCOMES have resulted in even
PAMPLIN MEDIA GROUP
's outsourcing to
a non-profit InvestigateWest journalistic venture and
beginning a series that seems historic in these parts as
the SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS series by dead investigative
journalist GARY WEBB in the years after Iran-Contra
Scandal to uncover the bid-net of BUSINESS and that was
shortly thereafter taken down off the web under pressure
by the
SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS
.
Here's our story, for this twice-a-week Business
Serving newspaper group anyway. Get yer Huzzahs in fast
before all trace of the findings of this Moonlighting
Civil Servant who got the docs via PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST
SEARCHES on her own dime and has embarrased the 1-Party
so-called PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRATIC BLUE PARTY MACHINE in
OREGON beginning with ORACLE LLC Lawsuit-Surrendering
ATTORNEY GENERAL Ellen Rosenblum and up to the Governor
Kate Brown neither of whom in long careers in State
Government in jobs tasked with auditing ever reviewed
these findings:
Keep on doing,
Punching way above your weight
PAMPLIN PAPERS
making a mockery of outside money-owned
OREGONIAN
and the so-called alternative weeklies who only make news
hole
available for Lifestyle features on the new Wellness Spa,
Tattoo Parlor or Booze\Gourmet venture
Mitch Ritter\Paradigm Shifters
Lay-Low Studios, Ore-Wa
Media Discussion Group
Thanks for the links, Mitch. For an economically
disadvantaged group to be assessed so much more in
penalties for minor infractions makes inequality even
worse.
TCOMES have resulted in even
PAMPLIN MEDIA GROUP
's
outsourcing to a non-profit InvestigateWest journalistic venture and beginning
a series that seems historic in these parts as the SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS series
by dead investigative journalist GARY WEBB in the years after Iran-Contra
Scandal to uncover the bid-net of BUSINESS and that was shortly thereafter
taken down off the web under pressure by the
SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS
.
Here's our story, for this twice-a-week Business Serving newspaper group
anyway. Get yer Huzzahs in fast before all trace of the findings of this
Moonlighting Civil Servant who got the docs via PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST SEARCHES
on her own dime and has embarrased the 1-Party so-called PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRATIC
BLUE PARTY MACHINE in OREGON beginning with ORACLE LLC Lawsuit-Surrendering
ATTORNEY GENERAL Ellen Rosenblum and up to the Governor Kate Brown neither of
whom in long careers in State Government in jobs tasked with auditing ever
reviewed these findings:
Keep on doing,
Punching way above your weight
PAMPLIN PAPERS
making a mockery of outside money-owned
OREGONIAN
and the so-called alternative weeklies who only make news hole
available for Lifestyle features on the new Wellness Spa, Tattoo Parlor or
Booze\Gourmet venture
Mitch Ritter\Paradigm Shifters
Lay-Low Studios, Ore-Wa
Media Discussion Group
Thanks for the links, Mitch. For an economically disadvantaged group to
be assessed so much more in penalties for minor infractions makes inequality
even worse.
Feb 4, 2017 11:53 AM
Via Dennis Kucinich's
Facebook page...
I have dedicated my life to peace. As a member of Congress I led efforts to avert conflict and end
wars in countries such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Syria and Iran. And yet those of us who
work for peace are put under false scrutiny to protect Washington's war machine. Those who undermine
our national security by promoting military attacks and destroying other nations are held up as
national leaders to admire.
Recently Rep. Tulsi Gabbard and I took a Congressional Ethics-approved fact finding trip to Lebanon
and Syria, where we visited Aleppo and refugee camps, and met with religious leaders, governmental
leaders and people from all sides of the conflict, including political opposition to the Syrian
government.
Since that time we have been under constant attack on false grounds. The media and the war
establishment are desperate to keep hold of their false narrative for world-wide war,
interventionism and regime change, which is a profitable business for Washington insiders and which
impoverishes our own country.
Today, Rep. Gabbard came under attack yet again by the Washington Post's Josh Rogin who has been on
a tear trying to ruin the reputations of the people and the organization who sponsored our
humanitarian, fact-finding mission of peace to the Middle East. Rogin just claimed in a tweet that
as community organization I have been associated with for twenty years does not exist.
The organization is in my neighborhood. Here's photos I took yesterday of AACCESS-Ohio's marquee.
It clearly exists, despite the base, condescending assertions of Mr. Rogin.
Enough of this dangerous pettiness. Let's dig in to what is really going on, inside Syria, in the
State Department, the CIA and the Pentagon.
These leaders of the Christian faith in Aleppo begged for the US to stop funding terrorists in
#Syria. They expressed that before international interventions (covert and overt) Syrians lived in
peace without concern as to whether they were Christian, Muslim or Jew.
In the words of President Eisenhower, let's beware (and scrutinize) the military-industrial-complex.
It is time to be vigilant for our democracy.
Janet Yellen, like every other Fed chairman since WW2, is a member of the
Rockefeller/CFR. See member lists at cfr dot org.
John McCain, David
Petraeus, Joe Lieberman and Lynn Forester de Rothschild are also CFR
members. All of them are trustees at the McCain Institute at U. of Arizona.
Does that help?
War is a money making machine. And what makes
money....has to abide no matter what.
So says the banksters.
And no one is going to corral the banksters because this high tech, utopian
just in time Amazon, robot A.I assisted casheless society all comes crumbling
down.
So.....bones will be crushed, blood will be shed because somewhere someone
has some natural resource the Elties need to feed the machinery of modern life.
And the Spice Must Flow at all costs. Including human lives if need be.
"Operation Mockingbird was established by Frank Wisner, director of the
Office of Policy Coordination... Wisner recruited Philip Graham from the
Washington Post to run the project within the industry... After 1953, the
media network was overseen by CIA Director Allen Dulles, by which time
Operation Mockingbird had major influence over 25 newspapers and wire
agencies." -- Wikipedia
Wisner, Graham and Dulles were also members of
the Rockefeller/CFR.
I follow Dennis Kucinich, Tulsi Gabbard and Ron Paul in my newsfeed to
remind myself that there are sane people who dedicate themselves to fight
against the MIC and the Fed.
Unreported here, but this week, Tulsi Gabard
made a two-pronged attack on the establishment to curb funding to the
terrorists in Syria/Iraq with the self-explanatory bill entitled,
"Stop Arming Terrorists Bill"
. And at the same time, flanking the
banksters
to
reinstate the Glass Steagall Act
. I have never been so impressed by a
politician's tactical awareness and passion to fight against the criminals
in power.
She had the foresight and courage to visit Syria to see for herself what
is happening on the ground and I reckon she deserves all the help I can
muster. I cannot praise her enough and having satisfied myself that the lady
is genuine, I think she will be the next primary target of a smear campaign
against her. If Trump is at all serious about draining the swamp, he should
be giving the Congresswoman a major role in his cabinet.
We've just handed what Snowden described as a system that was built to
be, "turn-key tyrrany", to a political outsider hoping he can take on the
establishment. Yet he has surrounded himself with the worst of the
establishment bunch, the Israel-first zionists, connected to Wall St.,
Wahabist nutjobs, the Federal Reserve's zionist owners. What will transpire
in the coming months, complicated by yet another set of zionists in the
media and civil services who are invested in Hitlery, is the question. War
and chaos are what the establishment thrives on - if not with Russia, then
Iran or China. A huge drive is going on to slip in a wedge - to divide and
conquer - these countries but equally within the USA, wedges are being
driven in between people to paint Trump as an incompetent monster. It is the
oldest tactic in the book, often practiced by the zionists at home to keep
the fear and loathing, stealing and murdering going for decades.
Quite frankly, I'm fucking sick of those who drive the narrative on both
sides of the political spectrum - one side calling the other, "Racists and
Nazis" while the other calls them "Pussies and Libtards". It's tiresome and
infantile that distracts people from the real problems of the MIC, Banking
and media cartels hidden in plain sight, pulling the strings to enrich and
protect their homeland: Israel. Look, I don't want to sound like a broken
record and god knows I don't ever want to hate people, but whenever I look
at every major crime against humanity from 9/11, to Ukraine and Syria,
zionists keep popping up at the epicentre
and we are led once again to
destroy Israel's enemies causing untold misery to innocent people.
Dennis Kucinich was always the real deal. I do not agree with his economics but
he was the real version of what Bernie Sanders pretended to be. He voted with Ron
Paul all the time.
You should have seen what Kucinch did in Cleveland Ms. No....
I lived there
during his tenure as mayor. 1977 to 1979.
Jesus did he give the
establishment the stink finger.
The Plain Squealer reported on him like they do Trump today. EVERY day was
"Dennis this and Dennis that". His wife at the time, Sandy, was a lunatic,
which did not help him. His handling of Muni Light was decades before the time
when politicians called out the debt-game. He damn near got whacked for it, and
the "boy-mayor" got defeated by Voinovich - seen then as "an adult".
Dennis is most times whack-o with his fiscal policies, but holy
SHIT the entire U.S. Government is also!
If
Tulsi Gabbard
likes him, then it shows Dennis is not far
off base.
Kucinch is a different politician - to say the least. He actually needs to
get back IN Congress, IMO.
Yeah, I was there too and before. Burn on big river,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtW8RkI3-c4
, Muny Light, etc. We were
circling the drain back then. Not so much better now, but god damn, Trump,
you gotta keep the EPA! You've got mountaintops blown apart in WV for coal,
and eastern NC awash in pigshit. Chemical and radioactive waste aplenty
across the rest. There's your infrastructure stimulus right there, Donny J.
Former Brunswick, Middleburg Heights, Parma, Willowick, North Olmstead,
Richmond Heights - and then Copley denizen here.
The
Land
of the Cleves
was a sorry state in the 70's. That black
bastard Stokes. Guvnuh Jimmy Rhodes.
I survived the Blizzard of '77 living at the Islander Apartments.
Kucinich didn't have a chance. He was surrounded by fat-cat
politicians, and I can still remember John Hambrick's arching eyebrow,
and Dorothy Fuldheim slaying Dennis at every turn.
Fuck, even Gib Shanley weighed in on him. Big Chuck & Hoolihan didn't
help much either. I fondly remember loitering around with Kid Leo at a
Peaches opening the summer of '78, when he said;
"Kucinich doesn't
stand a chance; the buzzard's are circling - no pun intended".
Gawd, Gib Shanley, John Hambrick, Big Chuck & Hoolihan, and Dorothy
Fuldheim. Haven't heard those names mentioned in years. Remember
Paige Palmer? My mom's TV workout coach. Dick Goddard finally
retired. The Boss was a friend of Kid Leo's. Oh those concerts @ the
Agora that segued to Richfield...
Bernie is loyal to his tribe. He was the pied piper leading earnest, well
meaning people off a cliff. His supporters represented the last gasp of white
people in that party. If you recall, Hillarys people repeatedly mocked the
berniebots as too white.
When it comes to American delusions about the nature and purpose of the
national security state, the brainwashing is across the board, left to right.
We could wish that it's just liberal idiots.
Dennis Kucinich is probably the only truly honest democrat. While I have always
disagreed with much of his point of view, I have never doubted his honesty and
sincerity.
"... Question: why can there be no color revolution in the United States? Answer: because there are no US Embassies in the United States. ..."
"... US intelligence agencies are now investigating their own boss! Yes, according to recent reports , the FBI, CIA, National Security Agency and Treasury Department are now investigating the telephone conversations between General Flynn and the Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyk. ..."
"... In other words, his security clearance is stratospherically high and he will soon become the boss of all the US intelligence services. And yet, these very same intelligence services are investigating him for his contacts with the Russian Ambassador. That is absolutely amazing. ..."
"... Even in the bad old Soviet Union, the putatively almighty KGB did not have the right to investigate a member of the Communist Party Central Committee without a special authorization of the Politburo (a big mistake, in my opinion, but never mind that). ..."
"... But in the case of Flynn, several US security agencies can decide to investigate a man who by all standards ought to be considered at least in the top 5 US officials and who clearly has the trust of the new President. And that does not elicit any outrage, apparently. ..."
"... By the same logic, the three letter agencies might as well investigate Trump for his telephone conversations with Vladimir Putin. ..."
"... This is all absolutely crazy because this is evidence that the US intelligence community has gone rogue and is now taking its orders from the Neocons and their deep state and not from the President and that these agencies are now acting against the interests of the new President. ..."
"... pussyhat revolution ..."
"... pussyhat revolution ..."
"... Make no mistake, such protests are no more spontaneous than the ones in the Ukraine. Somebody is paying for all this, somebody is organizing it all. And they are using their full bag of tricks. One more example: ..."
"... Remember the pretty face of Nayirah , the Kuwaiti nurse who told Congress that she had witnessed Iraqi soldiers tossing our babies from Kuwaiti incubators (and who later turned out to be the daughter of Saud Al-Sabah, the Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States)? Do you remember the pretty face of Neda , who " died on TV " in Iran? Well, let me introduce you to Bana Alabe, who wrote a letter to President Trump and, of course, the media got hold of the latter and now she is the "face of the Syrian children". ..."
"... Okay, click here and take a look at a sampling of anti-Trump caricatures and cartoons compiled by the excellent Colonel Cassad. Some of them are quite remarkable ..."
"... My purpose in listing all the examples above is to suggest the following: far from having accepted defeat, the Neocons and the US deep state have decided, as they always do, to double-down and they are now embarking on a full-scale "color revolution" which will only end with the impeachment, overthrowal or death of Donald Trump. ..."
"... One of the most amazing features of this color revolution against Trump is the fact that those behind it don't give a damn about the damage that their war against Trump does to the institution of the President of the United States and, really, to the United States as a whole. That damage is, indeed, immense and the bottom line is this: President Trump is in immense danger of being overthrown and his only hope for survival is to strike back hard and fast. ..."
"... The other amazing thing is the ugly role Britain plays in this process: all the worst filth against Trump is always eventually traced back right to the UK. How come? Simple. Do you recall how, formally at least, the CIA and NSA did not have the right to spy on US nationals and the British MI6 and GCHQ had no right to spy on British nationals. Both sides found an easy way out: they simply traded services: the CIA and NSA spied on Brits, the MI6 and GCHQ spied on Americans, and then they simply traded the data between "partners" (it appears that since Obama came to power all these measures have now become outdated and everybody is free to spy on whomever the hell they want, including their own nationals). The US Neocons and the US deep state are now using the British special services to produce a stream of filth against Trump which they then report as "intelligence" and which then can be used by Congress as a basis for an investigation. Nice, simple and effective. ..."
"... 9/11 was a collective crime par excellence . A few men actually executed it, but then thousands, possibly tens of thousands, have used their position to execute the cover-up and to prevent any real investigation. They are ALL guilty of obstruction of justice. By opening a new investigation into 911, but one run by the Justice Department and NOT by Congress, Trump could literally place a "political handgun" next to the head of each politician and threaten to pull the trigger if he does not immediately give up on trying to overthrow Trump. What Trump needs for that is a 100% trusted and 100% faithful man as the director of the FBI, a man with " clean hands, a cool head and a burning heart " (to use the expression of the founder of the Soviet Secret Police, Felix Dzerzhinsky). This man will immediately find himself in physical danger so he will have to be a man of great personal courage and determination. And, of course, this "man" could be a woman (a US equivalent of the Russian prosecutor, Natalia Poklonskaia). ..."
"... First, at the very least, the Trump Presidency itself: the Neocons and the US deep state will not let Trump implement his campaign promises and program. Instead they will sabotage, ridicule and misrepresent everything he does, even if this is a big success. ..."
"... Second, it appears that Congress now has the pretext to open several different congressional investigations into Donald Trump. If that is the case, it will be easy for Congress to blackmail Trump and constantly threaten him with political retaliation if he does not "get with the program". ..."
"... Third, the rabid persecution of Trump by the Neocons and the deep state is weakening the institution of the Presidency. For example, the latest crazy notion floated by some politicians is to " prohibit the President of the United States from using nuclear weapons without congressional authorization except when the United States is under nuclear attack ." From a technical point of view, this is nonsense, but what it does is send the following signal to the rest of the planet: "we, in Congress, believe that our Commander in Chief cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons." Never mind that they would trust Hillary with the same nukes and never mind that Trump could use only conventional weapons to trigger a global nuclear war anyway (by, for example, a conventional attack on the Kremlin), what they are saying is that the US President is a lunatic that cannot be trusted. How can they then expect him to be take seriously on any topic? ..."
"... Fourth, can you just imagine what will happen if the anti-Trump forces are successful?! Not only will democracy be totally and terminally crushed inside the USA, but the risks of war, including nuclear, will simply go through the roof. ..."
"... will Trump have the intelligence to realize the fact that he is under attack and will he have the courage to strike back hard enough ..."
A Russian joke goes like this: " Question: why can there be no color revolution in the United
States? Answer: because there are no US Embassies in the United States. "
Funny, maybe, but factually wrong: I believe that a color revolution is being attempted in the
USA right now.
US intelligence agencies are now investigating their own boss! Yes,
according to recent reports , the FBI, CIA, National Security Agency and Treasury Department
are now investigating the telephone conversations between General Flynn and the Russian ambassador
Sergey Kislyk.
According to Wikipedia, General Flynn is the former
Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency Joint Functional Component Command for Intelligence,
Surveillance and Reconnaissance Chair of the Military Intelligence Board Assistant Director of
National Intelligence Senior intelligence officer for the Joint Special Operations Command.
He is also Trump's National Security Advisor. In other words, his security clearance is stratospherically
high and he will soon become the boss of all the US intelligence services. And yet, these very same
intelligence services are investigating him for his contacts with the Russian Ambassador. That is
absolutely amazing.
Even in the bad old Soviet Union, the putatively almighty KGB did not have the right to investigate
a member of the Communist Party Central Committee without a special authorization of the Politburo
(a big mistake, in my opinion, but never mind that).
That roughly means that the top 500 members of the Soviet state could not be investigated by the
KGB at all. Furthermore, such was the subordination of the KGB to the Party that for common criminal
matters the KGB was barred from investigating any member of the entire Soviet
Nomenklatura , roughly 3
million people (and even bigger mistake!).
But in the case of Flynn, several US security agencies can decide to investigate a man who
by all standards ought to be considered at least in the top 5 US officials and who clearly has the
trust of the new President. And that does not elicit any outrage, apparently.
By the same logic, the three letter agencies might as well investigate Trump for his telephone
conversations with Vladimir Putin.
Which, come to think of it, they might well do it soon
This is all absolutely crazy because this is evidence that the US intelligence community has
gone rogue and is now taking its orders from the Neocons and their deep state and not from the President
and that these agencies are now acting against the interests of the new President.
In the meantime, the Soros crowd has already chosen a color: pink. We now are witnessing the "
pussyhat revolution " as
explained on this website. And if you think that this is just a small fringe of lunatic feminists,
you would be quite wrong. For the truly lunatic feminists the "subtle" hint about their " pussyhat
revolution " is too subtle, so they prefer making their statement less ambiguous as the image
on the right shows.
This would all be rather funny, in a nauseating way I suppose, if it wasn't for the fact that
the media, Congress and Hollywood are fully behind this "100 days of Resistance to Trump" which began
by a, quote, "queer dance party" at Mike Pence's house.
This would be rather hilarious, if it was not for all gravitas with which the corporate media
is treating these otherwise rather pathetic "protests".
Watch how MCNBS's talking head blissfully reporting this event:
Listen carefully to what Moore says at 2:00. He says that they will "celebrate the fact that Obama
is still the President of the United States" and the presstitute replies to him, "yes he is" not
once, but twice.
What are they talking about?! The fact that Obama is still the President?!
How is it that Homeland Security and the FBI are not investigating MCNBC and Moore for
rebellion and
sedition ?
So far, the protests have not been too large, but they did occur in various US cities and they
were well covered by the media:
Make no mistake, such protests are no more spontaneous than the ones in the Ukraine. Somebody
is paying for all this, somebody is organizing it all. And they are using their full bag of tricks.
One more example:
Remember the pretty face of
Nayirah , the
Kuwaiti nurse who told Congress that she had witnessed Iraqi soldiers tossing our babies from Kuwaiti
incubators (and who later turned out to be the daughter of Saud Al-Sabah, the Kuwaiti ambassador
to the United States)? Do you remember the pretty face of
Neda , who
" died on TV " in Iran?
Well, let me introduce you to Bana Alabe, who
wrote a letter to President
Trump and, of course, the media got hold of the latter and now she is the "face of the Syrian
children".
Want even more proof?
Okay, click here
and take a look at a sampling of anti-Trump caricatures and cartoons compiled by the excellent
Colonel Cassad. Some of them are quite remarkable. From this nauseating collection, I will select
just two:
The first one clearly accuses Trump of being in the hands of Putin. The second one make Trump
the heir to Adolf Hitler and strongly suggests that Trump might want to restart Auschwitz. Translated
into plain English this sends a double message: Trump is not the legitimate President of the USA
and Trump is the ultimate Evil.
This goes far beyond the kind of satire previous Presidents have ever been subjected to.
My purpose in listing all the examples above is to suggest the following: far from having
accepted defeat, the Neocons and the US deep state have decided, as they always do, to double-down
and they are now embarking on a full-scale "color revolution" which will only end with the impeachment,
overthrowal or death of Donald Trump.
One of the most amazing features of this color revolution against Trump is the fact that those
behind it don't give a damn about the damage that their war against Trump does to the institution
of the President of the United States and, really, to the United States as a whole. That damage is,
indeed, immense and the bottom line is this: President Trump is in immense danger of being overthrown
and his only hope for survival is to strike back hard and fast.
The other amazing thing is the ugly role Britain plays in this process: all the worst filth
against Trump is always eventually traced back right to the UK. How come? Simple. Do you recall how,
formally at least, the CIA and NSA did not have the right to spy on US nationals and the British
MI6 and GCHQ had no right to spy on British nationals. Both sides found an easy way out: they simply
traded services: the CIA and NSA spied on Brits, the MI6 and GCHQ spied on Americans, and then they
simply traded the data between "partners" (it appears that since Obama came to power all these measures
have now become outdated and everybody is free to spy on whomever the hell they want, including their
own nationals). The US Neocons and the US deep state are now using the British special services to
produce a stream of filth against Trump which they then report as "intelligence" and which then can
be used by Congress as a basis for an investigation. Nice, simple and effective.
The bottom line is this: President Trump is in immense danger of being overthrown and his only
hope for survival is to strike back hard and fast.
Can he do that?
Until now I have suggested several times that Trump deal with the US Neocons the way Putin dealt
with the oligarchs in Russia: get them on charges of tax evasion, corruption, conspiracy, obstruction
of justice, etc. All that good stuff which the US deep state has been doing for years. The Pentagon
and the Three Letter Agencies are probably the most corrupt entities on the planet and since they
have never been challenged, never mind punished, for their corruption, they must have become fantastically
complacent about how they were doing things, essentially counting on the White House to bail them
out in case of problems. The main weapons used by these circles are the numerous secrecy laws which
protect them from public and Congressional scrutiny. But here Trump can use his most powerful card:
General Flynn who, as former director of the DIA and current National Security Advisor to the President
will have total access. And if he doesn't – he can create it, if needed by sending special forces
to ensure "collaboration".
However, I am now beginning to think that this might not be enough. Trump has a much more powerful
weapon he can unleash against the Neocon: 9/11.
Whether Trump knew about it before or not, he is now advised by people like Flynn who must have
known for years that 9/11 was in inside job. And if the actual number of people directly implicated
in the 9/11 operation itself was relatively small, the number of people which put their full moral
and political credibility behind the 9/11 official narrative is immense. Let me put it this way:
while 9/11 was a US "deep state" operation (probably subcontracted for execution to the Israelis),
the entire Washington "swamp" has been since "9/11 accomplice after the fact" by helping to maintain
the cover-up. If this is brought into light, then thousands of political careers are going to crash
and burn into the scandal.
9/11 was a collective crime par excellence . A few men actually executed it, but then thousands,
possibly tens of thousands, have used their position to execute the cover-up and to prevent any real
investigation. They are ALL guilty of obstruction of justice. By opening a new investigation into
911, but one run by the Justice Department and NOT by Congress, Trump could literally place a "political
handgun" next to the head of each politician and threaten to pull the trigger if he does not immediately
give up on trying to overthrow Trump. What Trump needs for that is a 100% trusted and 100% faithful
man as the director of the FBI, a man with " clean hands, a cool head and a burning heart " (to use
the expression of the founder of the Soviet Secret Police, Felix Dzerzhinsky). This man will immediately
find himself in physical danger so he will have to be a man of great personal courage and determination.
And, of course, this "man" could be a woman (a US equivalent of the Russian prosecutor, Natalia Poklonskaia).
I fully understand that danger of what I am suggesting as any use of the "9/11 weapon" will, of
course, result in an immense counter-attack by the Neocons and the deep state. But here is the deal:
the latter are already dead set in impeaching, overthrowing or murdering Donald Trump. And, as Putin
once said in an interview, "if you know that a fight is inevitable, then strike first!".
You think that all is this over the top? Consider what is at stake.
First, at the very least, the Trump Presidency itself: the Neocons and the US deep state
will not let Trump implement his campaign promises and program. Instead they will sabotage, ridicule
and misrepresent everything he does, even if this is a big success.
Second, it appears that Congress now has the pretext to open several different congressional
investigations into Donald Trump. If that is the case, it will be easy for Congress to blackmail
Trump and constantly threaten him with political retaliation if he does not "get with the program".
Third, the rabid persecution of Trump by the Neocons and the deep state is weakening the
institution of the Presidency. For example, the latest crazy notion
floated by some politicians is to " prohibit the President of the United States from using
nuclear weapons without congressional authorization except when the United States is under nuclear
attack ." From a technical point of view, this is nonsense, but what it does is send the following
signal to the rest of the planet: "we, in Congress, believe that our Commander in Chief cannot
be trusted with nuclear weapons." Never mind that they would trust Hillary with the same nukes
and never mind that Trump could use only conventional weapons to trigger a global nuclear war
anyway (by, for example, a conventional attack on the Kremlin), what they are saying is that the
US President is a lunatic that cannot be trusted. How can they then expect him to be take seriously
on any topic?
Fourth, can you just imagine what will happen if the anti-Trump forces are successful?!
Not only will democracy be totally and terminally crushed inside the USA, but the risks of war,
including nuclear, will simply go through the roof.
There is much more at stake here than just petty US politics.
Every time I think of Trump and every time I look at the news I always come back to the same anguished
thought: will Trump have the intelligence to realize the fact that he is under attack and will
he have the courage to strike back hard enough ?
I don't know.
I have a great deal of hopes for General Flynn. I am confident that he understands the picture
perfectly and knows exactly what is going on. But I am not sure that he has enough pull with the
rest of the armed forces to keep them on the right side should a crisis happen. Generally, "regular"
military types don't like intelligence people. My hope is that Flynn has loyal allies at SOCOM and
JSOC as, at the end of the day, they will have the last say as to who occupies the White House. The
good news here is that unlike regular military types, special forces and intelligence people are
usually very close and used to work together (regular military types also dislike special forces).
SOCOM and JSOC will also know how to make sure that the CIA doesn't go rogue.
Last but not least, my biggest hope is that Trump will use the same weapon Putin used against
the Russian elites: the support of the people. But for that task, Twitter is simply not good enough.
Trump needs to go the "RT route" and open his own TV channel. Of course, this will be very hard and
time consuming, and he might have to begin with an Internet-based only channel, but as long as there
is enough money there, he can make it happen. And, just like RT, it needs to be multi-national, politically
diverse (including anti-Empire figures who do not support Trump) and include celebrities.
One of the many mistakes made by Yanukovich in the Ukraine was that he did not dare to fully use
the legal instruments of power to stop the neo-Nazis. And to the degree that he used them, it was
a disaster (like when the riot cops beat up student demonstrators). After listening to a few interviews
of Yanukovich and of people near him during those crucial hours, it appears that Yanukovich simply
did not feel that he had a moral right to use violence to suppress the street. We will never now
if what truly held him back are moral principles of basic cowardice, but what is certain is that
he betrayed his people and his country when he refused to defend real democracy and let the "street"
take over replacing democracy with ochlocracy (mob rule). Of course, real ochlocracy does not exists,
all mobs are always controlled by behind-the-scenes forces who unleash them just long enough to achieve
their goals.
The forces which are currently trying to impeach, overthrow or murder President Trump are a clear
and present danger to the United States as a country and to the US Federal Republic. They are, to
use a Russian word, a type of "non-system" opposition which does not want to accept the outcome of
the elections and which by rejecting this outcome essentially oppose the entire political system.
I am not a US citizen (I could, but I refuse that citizenship on principle because I refuse to
take the required oath of allegiance) and the only loyalty I owe the USA is the one of a guest: never
to deliberately harm it in any way and to obey its laws. And yet it turns my stomach to see how easy
it has been to turn millions of Americans against their own country. I write a lot about russophobia
on this blog, but I also see a deep-seated "Americanophobia" or "USophobia" in the words and actions
who today say that Trump is not their President. To them, they micro-identity as a "liberal" or as
a "gay" or as "African-American" means more than the very basic fundamental principles upon which
this country has been built. When I see these crowds of Trump-bashers I see pure, seething hatred
not of the AngloZionist Empire, or of a plutocracy masquerading as a democracy, but a hatred of what
I would call the "simple America" or the "daily America" – the simple people amongst whom I have
now lived for many years and learned to respect and appreciate and whom the Clinton-bots only think
of as "deplorables
It amazes me to see that the US pseudo-elites have as much hatred, contempt and fear of the American
masses as the Russian pseudo-elites have hatred, contempt and fear of the Russian masses (the Russian
equivalent or Hillary's "deplorables" would be a hard to pronounce for English speakers word "
быдло ", roughly "cattle", "lumpen"
or "rabble"). It amazes me to see that the very same people which have demonized Putin for years
are now demonizing Trump using exactly the same methods. And if their own country has to go down
in their struggle against the common people – so be it! These self-declared elites will have no compunction
whatsoever to destroy the nation their have been parasitizing and exploiting for their own class
interest. They did just that to Russia exactly 100 years ago, in 1917. I sure hope that they will
not get away with that again in 2017.
"... Start focusing on the predators at the top of the pyramid scheme and then watch how those same culprits and their networks "come to the rescue" in order to capitalize on the "pain and suffering" they help to create. I see a pattern, don't you? ..."
"... Don't forget student debt. Not only are many recent graduates underemployed or unemployed, they're in the hole tens of thousands. Further incentive not to make any sort of financial commitment. Student debt should be cancelled to promote earlier family formation. ..."
"... It's almost a negative feedback loop. ..."
"... Very true. Capitalism only works as long as enough people (or states) are able to take up ever-larger debt, to close the gap (called "profit") between expensive goods and comparatively cheap labour. ..."
"... Good to point out Gat Gourmet. Almost all outsourced jobs in the beginning of places where I have worked were once part of the company. ..."
"... Still, it's hard not to notice there could be nothing more convenient to the corporate and governmental powers-that-be than a nonprofit that takes it upon itself to placate, insure, and temper the precarious middle-class. ..."
"... So which ivy-league management school / guru is most culpable in unleashing the whole lean-mean-outsourcing-machine monster because it's slowly destroying my ability to remain in IT. ..."
"... "how the big company love of outsourcing means that traditional employment has declined and is expected to fall further." – ..."
"... Story of my life! I'm still trying to get paid for freelance work that I did in December. This payment delay is wreaking havoc with MY cash flow. ..."
"... Another area of friction and waste with IT consulting and other contracting, is that an employee of a company simply and efficiently plugs into their existence administrative system (HR, timekeeping, payroll, etc). ..."
"... I work in engineering at a gigantic multinational vehicle manufacturer and the role of "consultants" has been expanding with time. Rather than consultants being people with specific technical expertise who work on one subsystem component with clear interfaces to other things, it now encapsulates project managers and subsystem / function responsible people who need to have large networks inside the company to be effective. ..."
"... Considering the huge amount of time it takes to get a new hire up and running to learn the acronyms and processes and the roles of different departments, it's a bit absurd to hire people for such roles under the assumption that they can be quickly swapped out with a consultant from Company B next week. ..."
"... It's pretty clear that management sees permanent employees on the payroll as a liability and seeks to avoid it as much as possible. ..."
"... Because they, unlike us, understand class. I can state for a fact that the Big Three auto companies are well aware of how much cheaper health care costs are for them in Canada and how much better off they would be here, cost-wise, with a national health care system where McDonald's and Wal-mart have to pay the same per hour or per employee cost as they do. But it turns out cost isn't everything. Corporate (capitalist) solidarity rules. ..."
"... Michelle Malkin ..."
"... “The Marxian capitalist has infinite shrewdness and cunning on everything except matters pertaining to his own ultimate survival. On these, he is not subject to education. He continues wilfully and reliably down the path to his own destruction”. ..."
The Wall Street Journal has an important new story,
The End of Employees
, on how the big company love of outsourcing means that traditional employment
has declined and is expected to fall further.
Some key sections of the article:
Never before have American companies tried so hard to employ so few people. The outsourcing wave
that moved apparel-making jobs to China and call-center operations to India is now just as likely
to happen inside companies across the U.S. and in almost every industry.
The men and women who unload shipping containers at Wal-Mart Stores Inc. warehouses are provided
by trucking company Schneider National Inc.’s logistics operation, which in turn subcontracts with
temporary-staffing agencies. Pfizer Inc. used contractors to perform the majority of its clinical
drug trials last year .
The shift is radically altering what it means to be a company and a worker. More flexibility for
companies to shrink the size of their employee base, pay and benefits means less job security for
workers. Rising from the mailroom to a corner office is harder now that outsourced jobs are no longer
part of the workforce from which star performers are promoted
For workers, the changes often lead to lower pay and make it surprisingly hard to answer the simple
question “Where do you work?” Some economists say the parallel workforce created by the rise
of contracting is helping to fuel income inequality between people who do the same jobs.
No one knows how many Americans work as contractors, because they don’t fit neatly into the
job categories tracked by government agencies. Rough estimates by economists range from 3% to 14%
of the nation’s workforce, or as many as 20 million people.
As you can see, the story projects this as an unstoppable trend. The article is mainly full of success
stories, which naturally is what companies would want to talk about. The alleged benefits are two-fold:
that specialist contractors can do a better job of managing non-core activities because they are specialists
and have higher skills and that using outside help keeps companies lean and allows them to be more "agile".
The idea that companies who use contractors are more flexible is largely a myth
.
The difficulty of entering into outsourcing relationships gives you an idea of how complex they are.
While some services, like cleaning, are likely to be fairly simple to hand off, the larger ones are
not. For instance, for IT outsourcing, a major corporation will need to hire a specialist consultant
to help define the requirements for the request for proposal and write the document that will be the
basis for bidding and negotiation. That takes about six months. The process of getting initial responses,
vetting the possible providers in depth, getting to a short list of 2-3 finalists, negotiating finer
points with them to see who has the best all-in offer, and then negotiating the final agreement typically
takes a year. Oh, and the lawyers often fight with the consultant as to what counts in the deal.
On the one hand, the old saw of "a contract is only as good at the person who signed it" still holds
true. But if a vendor doesn't perform up to the standards required, or the company's requirements change
in some way not contemplated in the agreement, it is vasty more difficult to address than if you were
handling it internally. And given how complicated contracting is, it's not as if you can fire them.
So as we've stressed again and again, these arrangements increase risks and rigidity. And companies
can mis-identify what is core or not recognize that there are key lower-level skills they've mis-identified.
For instance, Pratt & Whitney decided to contract out coordination of deliveries to UPS. Here is the
critical part:
For years, suppliers delivered parts directly to Pratt’s two factories, where materials handlers
unpacked the parts and distributed them to production teams. Earl Exum, vice president of global
materials and logistics, says Pratt had “a couple hundred” logistics specialists. Some handlers
were 20- or 30-year veterans who could “look at a part and know exactly what it is,” he adds .
Most of the UPS employees had no experience in the field, and assembly kits arrived at factories
with damaged or missing parts. Pratt and UPS bosses struggled to get the companies’ computers in
sync, including warehouse-management software outsourced by UPS to another firm, according to Pratt..
The result was $500 million in lost sales in a quarter. Pratt & Whitney tried putting a positive
spin on the tale, that all the bugs were worked out by the next quarter. But how long will it take Pratt
& Whitney to recover all the deal costs plus the lost profits?
There's even more risk when the company using contractor doesn't have much leverage over them. As
a Wall Street Journal reader, Scott Riney, said in comments:
Well managed companies make decisions based on sound data and analysis. Badly managed companies
follow the trends because they're the trends. A caveat regarding outsourcing is that, as always,
you get what you pay for. Also, the vendor relationship needs to be competently managed. There was
the time a certain, now bankrupt technology company outsourced production of PBX components to a
manufacturer who produced components with duplicate MAC addresses. The contract manufacturer's expertise
obviously didn't extend to knowing jack about hardware addressing, and the management of the vendor
relationship was incompetent. And what do you do, in a situation like that, if your firm isn't big
enough that your phone calls get the vendor's undivided attention? Or if you're on different continents,
and nothing can get done quickly?
We've discussed other outsourcing bombs in past posts, such as when British Airways lost "tens of
millions of dollars" when its contractor, Gate Gourmet, fired employees. Baggage handlers and ground
crew struck in sympathy, shutting down Heathrow for 24 hours. Like many outsourced operations, Gate
Gourmet had once been part of British Airways.
And passengers blamed the airline
, not the wprkers.
Now admittedly, there are low-risk, low complexity activities that are being outsourced more, such
as medical transcription, where 25% of all medical transcriptionists now work for agencies, up by 1/3
since 2009. The article attributes the change to more hospitals and large practices sending the work
outside. But even at its 2009 level, the use of agencies was well established. And you can see that
it is the sort of service that smaller doctor's offices would already be hiring on a temp basis, whether
through an agency or not, because they would not have enough activity to support having a full-time
employee. The story also describes how SAP has all its receptionists as contractors, apparently because
someone looked at receptionist pay and concluded some managers were paying too much. So low level clerical
jobs are more and more subject to this fad. But managing your own receptionists is hardly going to make
a company less flexible.
Contracting, like other gig economy jobs, increase insecurity and lower growth.
I hate to belabor the obvious, but people who don't have a steady paycheck are less likely to make major
financial commitments, like getting married and setting up a new household, having kids, or even buying
consumer durables. However, one industry likely makes out handsomely: Big Pharma, which no doubt winds
up selling more brain-chemistry-altering products for the resulting situationally-induced anxiety and/or
depression. The short-sightedness of this development on a societal level is breath-taking, yet overwhelmingly
pundits celebrate it and political leaders stay mum.
With this sort of rot in our collective foundation, the rise of Trump and other "populist" candidates
should not come as a surprise.
I would add this. It was deplorable for Trump to have fired Acting AG Sally Yates after she ordered
Justice Department lawyers to stop defending Mr. Trump’s executive order banning new arrivals to the
U.S. from seven Muslim-majority countries.
But Sally Yates was a hero for another reason. Yates was cracking down on systemic abuses by holding
top healthcare executives personally accountable for false Medicare and Medicaid claims and illegal
physician relationships.
I remember hoping: Well, maybe Obama will actually get some decent folks into the Judiciary bring
kids home from Iraq, maybe try for Medicare over 55 (to the advantage of the insurance & Pharma sectors?)
But the one thing I'd actually expected him to accomplish was enact
https://www.congress.gov/bill/110th-congress/senate-bill/2044
which would get the Kleptocrats a
few more years out of the moldering corpse of American Labor (and not hurt multinationals, who'd off-shored,
outsourced or speciously re-classified their largely undocumented, 3rd party, contingency/ gig employees
decades previously).
Wage-theft Democrats was a new concept to some of us more easily deluded working
class Yankees, reeling from Bush. I think a strong fantasy life's essential nowadays.
I imagine that this is among the pesky downsides of living in our YOOJ autocratic neo-Confederate
theocratic kleptocracy; wage theft has always been right at the top of both parties' platforms?
If they can't hide it, who will they blame it on?
"people who don’t have a steady paycheck are less likely to make major financial commitments,
like getting married and setting up a new household, having kids"
"more brain-chemistry-altering products for the resulting situationally-induced anxiety and/or depression."
Decline in family formation and a populace seeking to anesthetize itself are indications of a civilization
in decline. Our problem is much bigger than employment.
You can employ deplorables, you can enslave deplorables, you can kill deplorables. The only way
that a "return maximizing" system won't choose killing, is if the unit cost of killing is higher
than enslavement or employment. I can hope that the bureaucratic effect of increasing costs will
work faster on the cost of killing or enslavement. Reducing the cost of employment (regulations)
wouldn't hurt.
We'd guessed this was why Dickens, Niccolò Machiavelli, Frederick Douglass, E. A. Blair &
Marx were being burnt by the DeVos Christians. Why teach management for FREE, when the drooling
Know Nothings will PAY to send their dead-eyed vipers to seminars or A Beka online curricula?
Eliminate environmental protections and the entire industry that investigates, researches,
enforces, litigates, and mitigates environmental impacts are likewise eliminated. These are generally
highly skilled professions, and has wide ranging impacts from workers all the way to the global
ecosystem. Then there are economic ripple effects on top of that.
If we are going to eliminate an entire career tree, health insurance is a better choice.
Not sure what this has to do with the article, but yes people will LOSE jobs to Trump, skilled
and socially beneficial jobs like at the EPA.
For heaven knows what, jobs building useless walls to nowhere I guess, which somehow in
Trumps warped mind is a more productive line of work (it won't even work to curtail immigration).
Thank you for your astute, pertinent & seldom mentioned comment (which to those of us in
QA, is something we've believed central to the issue, not a tangent or unexpected side benefit
of our sharecropper corporatocracy).
We'd noticed contract buy-outs & forced early-retirement
in the steel industry, in the 90's, our clients' engineers (scruffy & cantankerous, who'd stand
by us if we were right & replace us if we got out of hand) were all replaced by clueless, gullible
desk jockeys, devoid of empirically honed judgement eventually, we'd have 2-3 gnarled old
timers, amidst crews of neophytes (first they tried very well trained & knowledgeable foreign
nationals, then pensioners, let go from the vendors) finally, they tried to 1099 the desperate
ones, on the run from skip-chasers, deputies & repo-men.
They'd try sending us half way across
the country, mention nothing, then see what we'd do (once we figured out we'd earned no overtime?)
We'd be in Indian or Russian owned mills where 80% of the employees were totally undocumented
foreign nationals, many of the balance wildly underpaid temps.
And the good-old-boy management
resembled characters outa Harriet Beecher Stowe. Lots of our counterparts were straight back
from Afghanistan & Iraq, verifying that most of their gig- economy contingency employment had
all been the same, regardless of industry sector: off-shored aircraft, as well as bridge, structural,
water, nuclear, inspectors what regulation?
Leveraging guilt to rationalize the Invitation of the least educated into your nation from the
most barbaric failed states and cultures in the world is another sign of civic decay.
Yup, many of the Taxi and Uber drivers around here arrived and took out private loans to
get "educated" and now are deep in debt and are too ashamed to go home.
Start focusing on the predators at the top of the pyramid scheme and then watch how those
same culprits and their networks "come to the rescue" in order to capitalize on the "pain
and suffering" they help to create. I see a pattern, don't you?
Barbarians are at the gates but you may be looking in the wrong place. Beware all types
of people are "vulnerable" and they will more easily identify with other human beings living
under a variety of diminished circumstances. Victim shaming won't be a viable option in the
not so distant future.
Dave, I hope you are not including Syria in your "failed states and cultures" description.
Syrians are
very well educated
and will add much to any nation's economy.
It is not a sign of "civic decay"
in the Syrian culture, but a sign of civic decay in a nation that will not accept people from
a war zone. An invitation should not be dependent on one's education but on one's need and desire
to survive a war zone..
Iraqis were also comparatively educated, right up through university, under its autocratic
leader. Libyans were, by and large, well educated, or at least getting so, under its autocratic
leader. The most poorly educated, probably, are those countries which have been under US or
European hegemony for generations: a lot of Central and south America, a lot of Africa, etc.
Not to mention the US itself, which has been colonizing its own hinterland for many decades.
The same applies to countries like Canada, Australia, etc. particularly in terms of their indigenous
populations.
Don't forget student debt. Not only are many recent graduates underemployed or unemployed, they're
in the hole tens of thousands. Further incentive not to make any sort of financial commitment. Student
debt should be cancelled to promote earlier family formation.
This trend matches up with the trends of dropping life expectancy, especially among the lower half
of income earners, and with slowing economies globally.
It's almost a negative feedback loop.
Politcal implications: the rise of far right politics; if you are a monarchist, or want to create
an aristocracy, these trends are probably in your interest.
Sure, it is partly psychological but it also has direct connection (by DESIGN) to the fact that
such people don't have healthcare, even with Obamacare insurance. The idiots that sing the praises
of Obamacare and how millions now have insurance seem to think that means those people have HEALTHCARE
to go with it.
Insurance is theft. Insurance is not even remotely "healthcare". Much of those newly insured have
their insurance, thanks to a government subsidy, but STILL lack healthcare because their premiums
and deductibles are too high to allow them to see doctors. Thus, they're dying or going to die sooner
due to untreated maladies, but at least they paid insurance company CEOs their bonuses with their
subsidized insurance payments!
Mutual insurance however is (was) socialist by nature. The true mutuals were crushed out of
existence by share for share conversions to private companies that ripped off policy holders and
gave a big payday to the C suites and the lawyers. Thanks to inept state insurance commissioners
and assemblies for that one.
while having health insurance doesnt mean you have health care, not having it does mean not
having health care at all, short of having a life or death condition, as hospitals (for now an
way) are only required to stabilize you. they arent required to cure you.
but then the high deductible insurance is one of those scams that some politicians gave us
because they could suggest that the patient (customer) could just shop around for better deals.
course that depends on us patients knowing what medical treatment is best for us, and which is
the cheapest of those., the former pretty much requires patients to be as knowledgeable as doctors.
the latter means we have to know what the treatments cost. could luck with that
I would force policy-makers in every advanced western nation to read and reflect on the last paragraph,
because it describes a mindset and a series of practices that are now found everywhere in western economies.
As David Harvey reminds us in his book on the Contradictions of Capitalism, Marx identified long ago
that there was a contradiction between holding down employees wages, and still expecting them to have
the purchasing power to buy the goods their cheap labour was making.
This problem has become more acute
with time, simply because we buy a lot more "stuff" than they did in the 19th century, and we take a
lot longer to pay for it, often on credit. Houses, cars, household goods, even computers, are now significant
expenditure decisions, repaid at least over months, if not years and even decades. The social corollary
of mass home ownership, after all, is some assurance that you will be employed over the life of the
mortgage. Otherwise, not only won't you buy the house, you won't improve or extend it, or even maintain
it, so a whole series of other purchases won't get made, and the construction and maintenance industries
will have less work. Instead, you'll save money, so removing purchasing power from the economy.
I assume there are people in large private sector companies clever enough to under stand this, but as
always they are focused on how much money they can extract from the system in the next few years. After
that, if the system crashes, well, who cares, They're all right.
Very true. Capitalism only works as long as enough people (or states) are able to take up ever-larger
debt, to close the gap (called "profit") between expensive goods and comparatively cheap labour.
Watching developments in recent years, this very source of profit and thus base of the economic system
is, even on a global level, quite limited
Sure. Marx Capital 1 on the crisis of production. Marx capital 2 on the crisis of realization but
this constitutes just one undesirable aspect-this one indeed very macro- among the many others which
the expansion of the "contracting-subcontracting chain" has brought and will bring about.
The Wall
Street Journal article is-as it is to expect- late, blind to the core problems of workers and incapable
to see and understand the true practical raison ( & reasons) d'ĂŞtre of outsourcing. I guess Yves
Smith purpose was just to broadly replicate WSJ article
Good to point out Gat Gourmet. Almost all outsourced jobs in the beginning of places where I have
worked were once part of the company. The entire art department save two management employees were played
off and rehired by a new company doing the same work with less benefits.
Then that company was later disolved. I have seen this many times in the corporate design field now. Usually ends with disaster
and he hire of folks some back to full time but most to freelance. So I guess in a way it works out
for the company in the end and not for the worker. Amazing the amount of money a company is willing
to lose this way then use the same to pay workers better.
An excellent critique, for those who were wondering. The take away paragraph, summing up
the actual work done and purpose of, the Freelancers Union:
Still, it's hard not to notice there could be nothing more convenient to the corporate
and governmental powers-that-be than a nonprofit that takes it upon itself to placate, insure,
and temper the precarious middle-class.
So which ivy-league management school / guru is most culpable in unleashing the whole lean-mean-outsourcing-machine
monster because it's slowly destroying my ability to remain in IT.
I don't know the answer to your question, but you would have to go back over twenty years to find
it. What I find remarkable is that even though everybody affected in the early stages could see what
a dumb, destructive idea it was, the MBA types never caught on, even though most of them were not
so far up the hierarchy they could not ultimately be affected.
Contractors need Guilds or Trade Associations that are well organized and legally able to set minimum
standards for billing and performance. This is an area where Trade Unions have failed with respect to
some professions, and apparently (from what I've heard) the RICO statutes need to be amended to allow
for this. It's time to rig the other side to make companies think twice before replacing employees with
temp workers or contractors, to keep jobs within the US, and to provide a cushion and a "floor" to those
that take the risk of entrepreneurship, preventing a race to the bottom.
Yes! Geographically bound temp unions or hiring halls for all temp workers allied with low-wage
worker associations. This is NOT something that established unions want, so who will agitate for
it?
Something like the I.W.W is what I'd like to see. Yea I know the response is: they are still
around? Well not what they were long ago of course, but with the prison strike, yes around and
rising.
"how the big company love of outsourcing means that traditional employment
has declined and is expected to fall further." –
This line pissed me off this morning more than most other mornings. I literally just said goodbye
to a long-time colleague (Big Pharma) who is being outsourced as of today. The kicker(s):
The job is not high tech
Employee(s) trained their replacement who are H-1B from India
The company is moving the division to India
Of note, my state (MA) is responsible for over one-quarter of all H-1B's every year. Thankfully a
few in the industry are helping get the word out, like Nanex's Eric Hunsader yesterday. The outsourcing,
off-shoring, and H-1B abuse has to stop, but not sure The People have the will to hold political office
holders accountable enough to truly change this paradigm.
Agreed, but I've been saying the exact same thing since 1980, so I've been lobbying and being
a volunteer activist against this for many years, and yet I still run into women (not too many men
anymore) in their 60s and 70s who believe offshoring of American jobs, and insourcing foreign visa
replacement workers is fantastic (truly, we are a dumbed down society today, where they routinely
protest on behalf of the financial hegemons).
Best book on this (and I am no conservative and have never voted r-con) is Michelle Malkin's book
(with John Miano),
Sold Out!
This has been going on for a long time, and by design: with every "jobless recovery" one-fifth
of the workforce is laid off, and one-half of that one-fifth will never find another job, while one-half
of the remainder, will only find lower-paying jobs.
And each and every time, more jobs are restructured as temporary or contractor type jobs. We've
had a lot of "jobless recoveries" to date.
A recent study from Lawrence Katz and Alan Krueger found that 94% of the new jobs created over
the past some years were all part-time, while a study from Rutgers University a year or so ago found
that one-third of the new jobs created couldn't be verified as actually existing!
Nothing particularly new here, as it has been going on for quite some time (another great book
is Ron Hira's book,
Outsourcing America
).
In every category of labor – blue and white collar – the press is on to increase the supply and reduce
the demand for labor.
The book ends: The Clintons in 92′ put thru the WTO / NAFTA – shut down 10's of millions of jobs
and factories – blue & white collar. Obama did the same, with anticipating Hillary would be elected,
put forth the TTP to enable unlimited H1-b for tech workers from off shore. The Neo Liberal Democrats
were at the forefront of of this 25 year Plan for labor devaluation (with Republican help).
The Immigration Policy by government both illegal and legal were at the epicenter of increasing the
supply in all categories with various programs while Obama also increased the regulations to wipe out
more factories and deliberately reduce demand.
The solution is eliminate immigration in all forms until the 95 Million are employed and wages rise
by the equivalent of what was lost in the past 15 years plus Tariffs to enable a marginal cost compared
to imports to allow domestic factories to expand demand.
Increase the demand and lower the supply of labor will mean potentially a switch will occur from
1099 to W-2 as companies have to secure labor reliability in a short labor market which is squeezed.
The Millennials sooner or later will figure it out. Identity Politics which enables a greater supply
of labor and diversion of attention to intangible values at the expense of tangible values has to be
substituted for Labor Only Politics.
These young people have been duped based on the recent focus of the demonstrations. They don't understand
they were screwed deliberately and with great malice by "Going with Her".
I've been keeping count over the years, and as close as I can find, over 170,000 production facilities
were shipped out of the country. (Or, as David Harvey phrased it: "Identity politics instead of class
analysis.")
One aspect of outsourcing that the article does not hit upon is the impact on company cash flows,
which has some importance to large outsourcing initiatives. A company must pay its employees within
6 (it might be 7) days of the end of the pay cycle, which is typically two week. By contrast, when outsourcing,
at the end of the month the contractor will provide an invoice, the company will then pay according
to its payment cycle. This could be 30, 45, 60, 90, or even 120 days. The contractor still must pay
its bills, in essence it's providing a low cost loan to firm (which often has a lower cost of capital).
This approach, including the extension of payments has been largely driven by financial/business consultants.
It can actually get worse – they might not pay you at all, hoping that you'll file a lawsuit,
which will be interpreted according to the contract, rather than legislation which covers employment
issues. The litigation costs might exceed any payments you'd receive.
My guess is that this wouldn't happen to an individual working under a 1099 (as word might
get around), and very large firms often have leverage (not providing continuing services), but
medium-size firms often get held up for months and years (especially once the contract has
ended).
Another thing the article glosses over is that most outsourcing is simply wage cutting. I have
never once seen confirmation of the notion that "specialist" firms provide better services at comparable
labor costs than firms can do in-house. The double-bubble is that firms (and public sector employers)
often spend more on outsourcing than they would doing the work in house despite the wage savings,
which all accrue to the outsourcer of course.
When the airlines went on their deliberate BK spree in the 90's, they outsourced flying to
regional carriers. Regional a/c (45-90 seaters) have higher CASM's than the a/c the airlines actually
owned. In brief, it is cheaper to transport 100 passengers on a 100 seat a/c than to transport
100 passengers on two 50 seat a/c. That's been a fact since the Wright brothers broke the ground.
FWIW, SouthWest never went the regional route, never went BK and pays their unionized employees
quite well.
The BK spree was all about breaking labor, not operational efficiencies that would actually
save money.
but now it seems the majors are not to happy with the regionals , cause customers cant tell
the difference between them, the next problem is that for some reason the regionals cant find
pilots. seems that pilots dont want to work for less than 30,000 a year.
Another area of friction and waste with IT consulting and other contracting, is that an employee
of a company simply and efficiently plugs into their existence administrative system (HR, timekeeping,
payroll, etc).
With a consultant, there has to be reconciliation between the vendor's records and the
company's records, which means work hours burned matching everything up. And that assumes they do match
up neatly; If the vendor says "our consultant worked 50 hours this week, pay them as such" and whoever
oversees the consultant at the company claims they only approved for 40 hours, now you've got a mess
on your hands, could potentially go to the lawyers.
The idea that companies who use contractors are more flexible is largely a myth.
The difficulty of entering into outsourcing relationships gives you an idea of how
complex they are. While some services, like cleaning, are likely to be fairly simple
to hand off, the larger ones are not.
I work in engineering at a gigantic multinational vehicle manufacturer and the role of "consultants"
has been expanding with time. Rather than consultants being people with specific technical expertise
who work on one subsystem component with clear interfaces to other things, it now encapsulates project
managers and subsystem / function responsible people who need to have large networks inside the company
to be effective.
Considering the huge amount of time it takes to get a new hire up and running to learn
the acronyms and processes and the roles of different departments, it's a bit absurd to hire people
for such roles under the assumption that they can be quickly swapped out with a consultant from Company
B next week.
It's pretty clear that management sees permanent employees on the payroll as a liability and seeks
to avoid it as much as possible.
"
It's pretty clear that management sees permanent employees on the payroll as a liability. "
No doubt correct. But why is that? Over time, mandates on employers - particularly large employers
- just keep escalating. Health care; pensions; overtime; layoff notifications: regulators just keep
raising the ante. Employers respond by trying to reduce their profile and present a smaller target
to their predators. Staying under 50 employees wins a lot of exemptions from federal regulations.
Taken to an extreme, some developing countries (Argentina being one example) have European-style
labor regulations guaranteeing job security and mandating generous compensation when employees are
laid off. With hardscrabble small businesses being in no position to shoulder such risks, the result
is that about 40 percent of employment is
trabajo en negro
, with no benefits or protections
whatsoever - a perfect example of unintended consequences.
Editorial comments such as "these [contracting] arrangements increase risks and rigidity" ignore
that government employment regulations
also
increase risks and rigidity. There's a balance
of power. Overreaching, such as Obama's surprise order to vastly increase the number of employees
subject to overtime pay, leads to employer pushback in the form of more contracting and outsourcing.
Getting whacked out of the blue with a big new liability is unfair.
Concur about costs, and health care is the big one. Every other industrialized nation we compete
against has national health care. Given that, why doesn't business support Medicare for all and
get health costs off their books? Plus it would be a damsite easier to start up a business if
one had health care.
Because they, unlike us, understand class. I can state for a fact that the Big Three
auto companies are well aware of how much cheaper health care costs are for them in Canada
and how much better off they would be here, cost-wise, with a national health care system
where McDonald's and Wal-mart have to pay the same per hour or per employee cost as they
do. But it turns out cost isn't everything. Corporate (capitalist) solidarity rules.
Yes, yes, damn yes!! It's about your class, not your race, not your education, not
your gender. As Lambert might say, identity politics (your race, your education, your
gender) is used to keep your eye
off
the prize: economic opportunity
and security.
It is also easier to have part-time workers because they are still covered by health insurance
in some sort of national health insurance system. In the US, the part-time workers will have
high turnover as they look for full-time jobs to get access to health insurance.
Workers are also more likely to start their own businesses to provide services since the
health insurance is just a fee they pay instead of an astronomical non-group insurance bill.
COBRA insurance premiums are ginormous if you need to continue coverage after you leave a company.
Economists have been decrying the lack of employee mobility and small business formation
over the past decade or so. Health insurance is probably a primary reason for this. Obamacare
hasn't been around long enough and with enough certainty to change that dynamic yet.
It's probably part of it, though I suspect the bad labor market is part of it as well.
It's one thing to quit a job to start a business when you think "if it doesn't work out,
I can always go back to my old career and easily be hired", another when quitting a good
job means one might not land another ever.
haven't seen any more info on Hollande's "Flex – Security" plans to give corporations a way
to lay off workers to improve the corporation's revenue. French Labor was having none of it and
then Hollande went negative in the polls and was done for. Our contracting out former corporation
departments sounds like bad quality control at best. If the state – whatever state you can name
– is going to prop up all corporations everywhere because they can no longer successfully compete
then something is fundamentally wrong with the system that demands such murderous and mindless
competition.
well there also that wage theft rules, that employers don't like. course if you look at work
mans comp, you will find that it no longer works to protect employees any more. and maybe that
is also why employers are get rid of employees. plus there is all of that needing to manage them.
but you still end up having to manage vendors too, and while i suppose you could hire another
vendor to manage the vendors (not really sure this will work out well), it still leaves the biggest
problem
since consumers are about 70% of the entire economy (always wonder if this is true. because
almost all corporate 'investment' is done because of customer demand), seems like this business
fad, will end up with fewer customers (which seems to be the way its working too, as evidenced
by the falling sales figures from companies, even Apple), so it like business is like lemmings,
going a cliff, because some one else started
So are you a proponent of Medicare-for-all? It would be a tremendous benefit to corporations
to get out of the healthcare business and also increase employees' willingness to become freelancers
and consultants, since they'd never have to worry about healthcare.
The truth is that citizens expect a certain amount of social welfare and security. This can
be provided by 1) individuals themselves, 2) private players e.g. corporations, or 3) public players
e.g. govt. Each has downsides. If you expect individuals to provide for themselves, it will less
inefficient than having professional managers, and individuals will cut down on other consumption
and save more, thereby hurting an economy such as ours which is highly dependent on consumption.
This leaves companies and government. If companies lobby against public welfare programs like
nationalized health insurance, unemployment insurance, social security, etc., they shouldn't be
surprised if government foists those requirements back on them through back-door regulations.
To be fair to companies, most of the ones engaged in the "real economy" e.g. manufacturing,
actually wouldn't mind medicare for all, or some other program that relieves them of the burden
of providing healthcare to their employees. But they're being drowned out by the financial economy
of Wall St., banking, insurance, etc. who depend on putting more money in the hands of individuals
from whom they can extract much higher fees than they ever could from govt or corporate HR depts.
If companies don't want increased health mandates, for example, their enemy wasn't Obama: it
was the private health insurance companies that didn't want a public plan.
Yeah when I worked for one of the big 3 at an assembly plant, I felt that the use of temporary
contractors could have very negative implications.
Most of the staff though were reasonably well paid, although asked to work long hours. I think
though that overall, highly paid permanent workers pay for themselves many times over.
One aspect of the whole fandango that I don't get is how the IRS allows whole departments within
a company to be outsourced: If people show up at your plant or office every day to work on your tasks,
they are your employee, not a contractor. Is this melting away of the idea of an employee because of
lack of enforcement or some change in IRS rules that I am not aware of?
Basically, if you control a worker's day, and if that worker works regularly for you, the person
is your employee. I don't see how companies get away with this sleight of hand–avoiding, at the most
basic legal level, who is on staff or not. [Unless the result, as many note above, is to increase class
warfare.]
The company doesn't get away with it if someone is willing to whistleblow to the IRS and said
company fails the IRS 20-Factor Test (IC vs. employee). The nice thing there too, is that the tax
burden will be on the company and not the employee. While I don't advocate being a stoolie, if a
company wants to screw me over turn-about is fair play. I do the best I can to avoid those kinds
of companies in the first place.
"
One aspect of the whole fandango that I don’t get is how the IRS allows whole departments
within a company to be outsourced
. . "
If I understand your question correctly it is because a federal regulation was enacted by congress
(I believe one of them was faux-progressive, Jim McDermott, no longer in congress but co-founder
of the India Caucus, to replace American workers with foreign visa workers from India) which
forbids
oversight of the foreign visa program
- and yes, they established a federal regulation killing
oversight of the program by the government!
Someone quoted Norm Matloff (a known bigot) above. You are now quoting anchor child Filipino
bigot
Michelle Malkin
of all people ? It's not helping your case.
The H1-B program is a few hundred thousand
legal
tax paying people a year. There are
21 million Mexican illegals in this country. What do you think has more downward pressure on wages
? .005% H1-B (yeah, you read that right) of the total immigrant/wage pressure ? It's idiotic and
a purely bigoted worldview.
We are supposed to regard "a few hundred thousand" as bupkis when they are concentrated
in one sector?
The H1-B visa program has has a huge impact on wages in the IT sector and has virtually
eliminated entry-level computer science jobs. This is strategically foolhardy, in that the
US is not creating the next generation of people capable of running critical infrastructure.
And the illegal immigrants do pay taxes: sales, gas, and property taxes through their rents.
And many actually do pay FICA. The Treasury recognizes that certain Social Security numbers
are reused many times, and it's almost certainly for illegal immigrants. In fact, the IRS encourages
illegal immigrants to "steal" Social Security numbers:
That article whinges about possible tax credit scamming, but even that estimate is well
below what they pay in FICA, $12 billion. And pretty much none of them will draw benefits.
This is from memory, but I believe they collect over $4 billion from these SSN per year.
And most of these jobs are seasonal and/or too low wage for them to pay much in the way of
income taxes when they are being paid in cash.
H1-B is not in one industry, the .005% is spread across entry level jobs in all industries:
finance, automotive, insurance, arts, film, automation, etc. The total amount of H1-B is
minuscule, vanishingly close to zero in a country of 300+ million and 20+ million illegals.
You don't seem to be complaining about the tens of
millions
that used to concentrated
in one sector..actual manufacturing. Wonder why ? Here's a hint: that sector
used
to make computer peripherals, keyboards, mice, terminals, monitors, LCD's, chips, motherboards,
pretty much everything in the USA.
Employees in china, taiwan, etc pay zero USA taxes and they displaced millions of manufacturing
jobs. And ironically, you are using an entirely outsourced computer (that actually displaced
tens of millions of jobs in the aggregate) to complain about the minuscule .005% H1-B effect.
A few hundred thousand entry level coding jobs (which are ridiculously simple and lo-tech,
google
13 year olds
getting Microsoft certified to see how low down on the value
chain this is). You genuinely think writing a few for-loops (I am simplifying a little but
you get the idea) is hard ?
Certainly, way way less capital intensive and way way less barrier to entry than Hi-Tech
manufacturing. It's all going to be outsourced much faster than manufacturing was, since
there is literally no barrier to entry. And H1-B is a good thing, relatively speaking, compared
to full on outsourcing (just like manufacturing was).
Like I said, the only explanation for these anti H1-B posts is plain old bigotry. No
other explanation comes close.
Might as well finish my train of thought..then I'm outta here.
There are less H1-B visas this year than
refugees
, Refugees (not to mention
the 20 million illegals) also put downward pressure on wages across all industries, but
of course, those are all food servicing/picking/janitorial jobs and who cares about those
people right ? (sarcasm for the impaired)
So, coming back to H1-B's..let's take the logical alternative and ban all H1-B's entirely
and deport the ones on H1-B visas. What happens then ?
1) They can do the job exactly as well remotely (all they need is email/internet/skype).
2) They get paid even less (but more than zero).
3) They pay no taxes.
4) Their output is words..code is the same as prose and math. Good luck banning math/words..if
it can be printed on a t-shirt, it ain't bannable. (See the famous bernstein crypto case
from the early 90's for a illustration of this).
5) And finally..there are zero new jobs added for native USA'ians (which would now cost
more, given the alternative).
It makes the situation far worse than it is today. There is fewer local coffee shop
selling coffee, fewer rental units getting rented, fewer groceries getting bought, cars
being purchased, etc.
For a easily displaceable and low barrier to entry coding gig, there isn't any easy
answer. H1-B's are actually the best
solution
(or at the very least neutral),
not the problem.
The H1-B visa program is operated so as to wreck the bargaining power of native born young
U.S. workers. Young Americans are increasingly likely to be nonwhite AND from the less valued
(not Asian) subgroups of nonwhite. The damage H1-Bs do to our white Baby Boomers is almost
incidental at this point; they are aging out of the workforce. And given the intense age bigotry
of the IT subculture, they are not a factor within it at all at this point.
H1-B visas lock our striving, capable working class young people out of upward mobility.
Kids who are now graduating from say, San Jose State with skills as good as those of South
Asians don't get jobs that they are qualified for, because they are shut out of entry to the
business. They are disdained in Silicon Valley because the majority of entry level conduits
to employment are now locked up (via social contacts, and "who-you-know" relationships) by
men from the subcontinent.
Your race argument is pernicious and I suspect, promoted in the full the knowledge of this
fact. It is a great shame that we are relying on kooks like Malkin to promote obvious truths,
but the shame belongs to our morally derelict 'liberal' chattering class, not those who listen
to her and her ilk for lack of other sources.
An underappreciated aspect of contracting versus cultivating your own employees is that it hollows
out the organization to the point that it may no longer have competence to perform its mission. Having
an apparent success at contracting out menial tasks, the temptation is to keep going and begin to contract
out core functions. This pleases the accountants but leaves the whole organization dependent on critical
talent that has very little institutional loyalty. When an inevitable technical paradigm shift occurs,
who can you count on to give you objective and constructive advice?
Costs of training and cultivating employees are high, and it is tempting to think that these costs
can be eliminated by using contractors. It is strictly an apparent, short-term gain which will in due
time be revealed as a strategic mistake. Do we have to learn every lesson the hard way?
yes, and when I read that Pfizer farms out research, I also wondered if retention of the outsource
company contract is results-related. could new drug results hinge on a company wanting to keep their
Pfizer contract by telling them what they want to hear?
Agreed. Every time a company offshores jobs or goes through another round of layoffs, it loses
its institutional memory. This is particularly acute in the mainframe IT systems that prop up the
TBTFs (yep, they offshored these too). After a while, nobody understands exactly how these systems
work and can only get to the bottom of them by reading code, which is a pretty flawed way to learn
the business. This has been going on for years and nobody cares.
Centralized bargaining - a.k.a., sector wide labor agreements - is the only strategic answer to contracting
out. Done in continental Europe, French Canada, Argentina, Indonesia.
(Take a vacation from reality with Soma - one gram and I don't give a damn.)
The one word I don't see in your excellent writeup is
loyalty
. Companies, like countries
depend to a great extent on social constraints to keep people committed to the group. You cannot monitor
all people all the time and doing so causes them to turn against you. But companies staffed with contractors
and temps and temps supervising contractors have no loyalty to the company. Ergo no one employee has
any reason to go the extra inch or to turn down the chance to sell out for personal gain should the
opportunity arise.
All that imposes real costs that companies conveniently ignore because they are not always realized
in share price.
I was going to add the same thought, but use the label "goodwill." It is something that appears
on balance sheets in enormous amounts depending on what the accountants think it may represent.
There is a "goodwill bank" in the labor pool of any given company, and when the balance hits zero,
the company will fail, "emigrate" its capital, or go public to the greater fools. Companies are engaged
in a savage race to the bottom that is inherent in corporate structure: executives are now playing
with somebody else's money, and somebody else's life. If corporate liability were suddenly returned
to the days of the partnership, what a change we would see. And those days were not so long ago:
Wall Street remembers the 1960s.
PS What a treat to come here and see informative journalism and commentary instead of the monkey
cage.
My daughter was recruited and interviewed by Genentech and then sent to work for an organization
called PPD. PPD did nothing in this relationship, other than take money from Genentech pocketed about
1/2 of that and then pay her the rest. I really couldn't figure out what the heck the point of this
was, other than some long running strategy to ultimately depress salaries of Genentech chemists.
One of my kids works in a unionized metal foundry (they still exist in the US!). When they need
new workers, they bring several in through a temp agency for several months. If they can cut it and
are acceptable, then they get pulled into the union or into the plant management team. This allows
them to try out several people on a rent-to-own basis, but in the long run they become loyal company
employees with very low turnover.
Contract-to-hire is not new. The problem from an employee perspective is trying to evaluate
when a company is actually serious about hiring if the contractee does a good job, and when it's
just empty promises and they have no intent of making full time job offers at all.
BTW – the Genentech scientists probably get a bunch of benefits like bonuses and stock options,
etc. that are not available to the contract workers. They probably have more protections if they
are terminated or laid off whereas the contract workers would be done that day. The really good contract
workers may get offers to work at the company for the long-run.
Outsourcing is done in the public realm, too; my first job after grad school was with a major housing
authority – except it wasn't for them (despite me having a "housingauthority.org" email address). I
worked for a contractor of the housing authority, who paid us shit and treated us like cattle. I lasted
three months.
One area not discussed in this post is municipal outsourcing. What this means in practice is the
loss of organizational memory . assuming that records are not adequately maintained since the "old-timers"
were still around. But with the loss of human memory banks, no new ones (digital?) have taken their
place. Further, when consultants are hired for a specific project, when they have completed that project,
what they have learned as ancillary knowledge is lost cuz the end-product is all that counts, not the
process.
i.e. Rip up the entire street to find where the pipe is because the old public works director
who was replaced with a bright young woman with a degree before he qualified for his pension, got
even and deleted the maps on the software. :-)
Didn't Yves mention this loss of institutional memory in reference to fianancial services, or
was it banks, and their IT?
Further to government outsourcing:
Back a few years my wife and I worked for a school district on the East coast of Canada. The janitorial
service had been outsourced a few years previously, with the former head janitor becoming the main
contractor, who then hired other cleaning staff to work for him. He/she was already being squeezed
to reduce his rates, leading to work not done or his working from 8AM to midnight to save an after-school
employee. So–lower employment overall, all at minimum wage, including the main contractor.
One district had bucked the province-wide trend by keeping its own cleaning staff. Visiting the
schools in that district those few years later, one could see the result, in vastly superior level
of cleanliness, better co-ordination between admin and teaching staff with cleaners, and much better
relations with students as well.
The staff weren't bosses, the cleaners weren't minions, and the students weren't customers. They
were a team.
I don't think there will be a change in this because it's too profitable for the CEOs to strip mine
the companies assets (knowledgeable employees are an asset) for maximum "shareholder value" (always
replace "shareholder value" with "my compensation"). I suppose this will change when all companies are
stripped to the bone and go under. But we now call these "too big to fail" and prop them up with taxpayer
dollars.
We need to change incentives. These might help:
Make corporations really pay taxes so that it makes sense to invest in the company rather than strip
it.
Don't prop up TBTF companies, let them fail so that many small companies can grow.
Stop all the fraud and corruption. Send corrupt CEOs to jail.
Medicare for All would be a boon for businesses, especially the smaller and mid-sized ones.
Herb Kelleher, CEO of Southwest, was once asked where he ranked shareholders vs employees. He replied
employees were first (because if the employees are not happy, then the customers are not happy), customers
(they pay the bills), and shareholders (they buy and sell shares in seconds). If the company is successful,
the shareholders will come. We somehow need to get back to these company values. A successful company
starts with the employees.
This is a pretty ugly development in our history. The 'end of employees' is a very accurate description
of what is going on in our gig economy related to a specific legal contradiction. In the U.S., we've
adopted a vast body of labor laws ( many in response to the Industrial Revolution and Great Depression
) that are primarily designed to protect "employees" from exploitation. Buried deep in our tax law is
a second designation for worker called "independent contractor", defined as a self-employed person providing
services to other businesses that is exempt from most labor laws on the principle that a self-employed
person can't exploit themselves. The key here is labor laws protect 'employees' from 'employer' abuses.
Changing a workers classification from employee to ( self-employed ) contractor, will change an employers
classification to customer, and remove the workers legal protections from exploitation. Labor law protections
include minimum wage and hours, workplace safety and health, wrongful dismissal protections, anti-discrimination
protections, employee benefits security, and worker compensation protections. This contradiction is
allowing many companies to sidestep centuries of laws enacted to stabilize and and protect our society.
Some companies push this power imbalance even further by transferring many of the business costs associated
with their revenue to employee contractors ( see Uber ).
Hopefully when there is enough public outcry, regulators and prosecutors will decide to challenge
these interpretations of existing laws and force businesses back in line regardless of their political
influence.
Incidentally, the slippery logic that removes labor law protections by classifying a worker
as self-employed ( both employer and employee ) might also grant businesses protections from their
workers via consumer protection laws against fraud and unfair practices ( when businesses become
customers of their now self-employed former employees ).
As has been stated several times, sometimes government entities are the worst offenders here. Grover
Norquist & Co. insisted on shrinking the size of government. The obedient elected officials and managers
immediately replaced employees with contractors and could claim that they had indeed reduced the size
of government. Unfortunately the budget probably went up since we now have to provide profit for the
rent extracting contract vendors.
A few years ago I was working for a family of local weekly papers, run on a shoestring (of course)
with pathetic salaries for the tiny staff. At one point, they heard about possibly outsourcing design–layout
of modular pages–to cheap labor in Romania. But when they ran the numbers .our in-house designers were
already cheaper than the Romanians!
Second point: At my current magazine I am one of just two full-time staffers on the edit side. Our
copy-editor/proofreader is paid on an hourly basis, and works off-site. Our designer works on a monthly
retainer, off-site. And so on.
That makes the relationship between us and our workers competitive and antagonistic: They try to
do the least amount of work, and we try to pay the least amount of money. So when the publisher wants
to be "innovative" or try something different, the designer resists. He doesn't want to spend any more
time on us than he normally does. So we don't do anything well, we get by with just good enough.
Point 3 – institutional knowledge: One of our key competitive advantages has been/is being eroded
because there are things we haven't done in two years due to turnover. When I arrived and took up one
such project, hugely important to the company's bottom line, no one could tell me how it was done. Everyone
who had been involved in it was gone. We've now spent several months reinventing this particular wheel.
But the publisher doesn't see that as money. He only sees money as money.
BTW – the financial sector is ripe for this. Automation is taking over many positions and people
in active investing is getting slashed big-time. Ironically, places like Vanguard may actually be some
of the last bastions of actual employees.
The problem with these short term contract jobs are immense. Employees that don't have a steady income
have difficulty getting loans for cars or homes. They certainly have less protection too. Our son worked
for SKY TV as a part time employee through a temp agency for 3 years, working 40 hour weeks. But when
an unstable full time employee assaulted him, in front or several witnesses, he was the one fired on
the spot without explanation. He was a non-person. The temp agency didn't want to get involved for fear
of losing their contract. With no union, no rights and little money, there was little he could do. They
knew he couldn't afford a lawyer and involving the police wouldn't get his job back. This goes on all
the time now. 20 years ago would have been unthinkable. I see a revolution coming, in many countries
Given the long evident fact that our corporate owners and their servants in government will not do
a bloody thing to make life better for us, what can we do? As a first step toward any solution, we need
to recognize that nothing is possible within the narrow boundaries of our political and economic system.
What you describe as a first step seems a lot like a claim of inevitable failure. Rather than
expect failure, I recommend as a first step that we try to block a few of Trump's predatory cabinet
nominations. Andrew Puzder, the nominee to head the Labor Department, and Steven Mnuchin, nominated
to be the Secretary of the Treasury, seem to be very relevant to the scope of this article. Also
Tom Price, nominated to be the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Tell your Senators that you
don't want them to be confirmed. It's easy, although you might need to make a few extra phone calls,
because the Congressional phone lines are often busy these days.
I ask, Why can't banks be fully automated? You wouldn't need CEOs and COOs and CFOs in banks because
IT can do all those jobs automatically. Then we would find out that we only need ONE bank–the central
bank and, voila, the banks no longer can create money by making loans. (I'm sure there is a weak point
in this argument!!!) However, I can see something like this happening in the future if only we separate
investment banking from commercial banking.
Marx saw capitalism as an endless class struggle between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.
He wasn’t far wrong.
1920s – high inequality, high banker pay, low taxes for the wealthy, robber barons, reckless bankers,
globalisation phase (bourgeoisie in the ascendency)
1970s â€" low inequality, worker and union power, high taxes on the wealthy (proletariat in the ascendency)
(probably more true in the UK than the US)
2000s â€" high inequality, high banker pay, low taxes on the wealthy, robber CEOs, reckless bankers,
globalisation phase (bourgeoisie in the ascendency)
The pendulum swings back and forth and always swings too far in both directions.
If the human race could take a more sensible, big picture view they might see it as a balance between
the supply side (bourgeoisie) and the demand side (proletariat).
The neoliberal era has been one where a total ignorance of debt has held sway.
Redistributive capitalism was removed to be replaced with a capitalism where debt based consumption
has become the norm. without a single mainstream economist realising the problem.
The world is maxing out on debt, this system is set to fail due to a lack of demand. The Bourgoisie
have been in the ascendency and made their usual mistake.
“The Marxian capitalist has infinite shrewdness and cunning on everything except matters pertaining
to his own ultimate survival. On these, he is not subject to education. He continues wilfully and reliably
down the path to his own destruction”.
Keynes thought income was just as important as profit, income looks after the demand side of the
equation and profit looks after the supply side.
He has the idea of balance.
Just maximising profit â€" The Bourgeoisie looking after their own short term, self interest with
no thought of the longer term.
1) Money at the top is mainly investment capital as those at the top can already meet every need,
want or whim. It is supply side capital.
2) Money at bottom is mainly consumption capital and it will be spent on goods and services. It is
demand side capital.
You need to keep the balance.
Too much capital at the bottom and inflation roars away.
Too much capital at the top and there is no where sensible to invest and the Bourgeoisie indulge
in rampant speculation leading to the inevitable Wall Street Crash, 1929 and 2008.
Today’s negative yield investments?
Too much capital at the top, no one wants it and you have to pay people to take it off your hands.
"You need to keep the balance." The post war era was balance, that was the middle of the pendulum
swing, we have never seen you're next sentence:
"Too much capital at the bottom and inflation roars away." When? Name one instance outside of
extraordinary political situations like weimar germany and zimbabwe where this has occurred?
Inflation is the boogey man that the elite throw around to scare us into submission. They don't
care when its inflation of house prices, they don't care when its inflation of healthcare costs,
education costs, etc. etc. But they damn sure start sweating a lot when its the cost of labor that
goes up. Shocker.
"Gate Gourmet had once been part of British Airways. And passengers blamed the airline."
You can transfer expenses, you can transfer legal and regulatory liability risk, you can transfer
financial risk, but it is virtually impossible to transfer reputational risk. Companies who think they
can do so (or ignore the fact) do so at their own peril.
My d-i-l, a research professional, has survived five down-sizings, assuming an additional work load
each time. The last time she also got a small promotion (well, you'd think they'd give her something
positive after all this). To myself I thought, they're going to wear this woman out till she has nothing
left to give and dump her.
It's worse. The corporation (company is a concept from
my
early working days) just announced
that everyone would have to bid for their projects(jobs). What this means of course is "how much are
you willing to give?" not to mention pitting one employee against another.
I "work" (temp/contract/no benefits) at a large multinational electronics company in cust service
and have seen this first hand. In response to a couple years of dropping profits, they outsourced the
entire department (couple hundred employees) to the Philippines. They cut full time employees, replace
them with temps for half the pay, because people will do it, and we live in desperate times with no
bargaining power.
As someone mentioned, its a negative feedback loop, less demand, less employment, less demand, until
the whole world is greece. We won't make it through another world war, the world is too globalized,
too connected, too advanced technologically. We need a relatively peaceful populist revolution – which
we seem to be seeing the first real signs of – or our species is done for.. and the sad part is I'm
not even exaggerating.
One point you missed is that a company cannot manage, let alone write a contract very well unless
it has sufficient expertise on staff. It is not sufficient to hire a consultant unless that arrangement
is more or less permanent. Too many things can go wrong, as they often do even with competent staff
when projects are complex or innovative.
"... Cross posted from the Institute for New Economic Thinking website ..."
"... Steve Bannon, Chief Strategist and Senior Counselor to President Trump is a prominent proponent of the theory. As a documentary filmmaker Bannon discussed the details of Strauss-Howe generational theory in Generation Zero. According to historian David Kaiser, who was consulted for the film, Generation Zero "focused on the key aspect of their theory, the idea that every 80 years American history has been marked by a crisis, or 'fourth turning', that destroyed an old order and created a new one". Kaiser said Bannon "is very familiar with Strauss and Howe's theory of crisis, and has been thinking about how to use it to achieve particular goals for quite a while." A February 2017 article from Business Insider titled: Steve Bannon's obsession with a dark theory of history should be worrisome commented "Bannon seems to be trying to bring about the 'Fourth Turning'." ..."
"... no sh*t, Sherlock ..."
"... Wealth and Democracy ..."
"... However, reading about the recent Gini index leads me to believe that either our preference for inequality is changing [probably not the case, given Trump], or our history is outrunning our preferences. ..."
"... early 1980's TRUMP SWAMP WHISTLE-BLOWER WAYNE BARRET (RIP)? https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/business/media/wayne-barrett-dead-village-voice-columnist.html ..."
"... What socio-econ OU ..."
"... Cross posted from the Institute for New Economic Thinking website ..."
"... Steve Bannon, Chief Strategist and Senior Counselor to President Trump is a prominent proponent of the theory. As a documentary filmmaker Bannon discussed the details of Strauss-Howe generational theory in Generation Zero. According to historian David Kaiser, who was consulted for the film, Generation Zero "focused on the key aspect of their theory, the idea that every 80 years American history has been marked by a crisis, or 'fourth turning', that destroyed an old order and created a new one". Kaiser said Bannon "is very familiar with Strauss and Howe's theory of crisis, and has been thinking about how to use it to achieve particular goals for quite a while." A February 2017 article from Business Insider titled: Steve Bannon's obsession with a dark theory of history should be worrisome commented "Bannon seems to be trying to bring about the 'Fourth Turning'." ..."
"... no sh*t, Sherlock ..."
"... Wealth and Democracy ..."
"... However, reading about the recent Gini index leads me to believe that either our preference for inequality is changing [probably not the case, given Trump], or our history is outrunning our preferences. ..."
"... early 1980's TRUMP SWAMP WHISTLE-BLOWER WAYNE BARRET (RIP)? https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/business/media/wayne-barrett-dead-village-voice-columnist.html ..."
"... What socio-econ OUTCOMES have resulted in even PAMPLIN MEDIA GROUP ..."
"... and the so-called alternative weeklies who only make news hole available for Lifestyle features on the new Wellness Spa, Tattoo Parlor or Booze\Gourmet venture ..."
"... Mitch Ritter\Paradigm Shifters Lay-Low Studios, Ore-Wa Media Discussion Group ..."
"... TCOMES have resulted in even PAMPLIN MEDIA GROUP ..."
"... and the so-called alternative weeklies who only make news hole available for Lifestyle features on the new Wellness Spa, Tattoo Parlor or Booze\Gourmet venture ..."
"... Mitch Ritter\Paradigm Shifters Lay-Low Studios, Ore-Wa Media Discussion Group ..."
Posted on
February 4, 2017
by
Yves Smith
Yves here. Both economists and the press do such a good job of selling the idea
that inequality is the fault of those who come out on the short end of the
stick that academics need to develop empirical evidence to prove what ought to
be intuitively obvious.
The fact that most of the fruits of US economic growth have not been
shared with the lower-middle and working class is accepted across the
political spectrum in America. But that inequality is often treated as a
somehow inevitable consequence of globalization and technological change.
That view is contradicted by the comparison of income growth and
distribution statistics between the US and three others rich countries,
France, Norway and the UK - according to new research by Max Roser and
Stefan Thewissen of the Institute for New Economic Thinking at Oxford.
Writing in Vox on the database they've constructed, Roser and Thewissen
note:
"We compare the evolution of the income an individual needs to be right
at the 10th percentile of the income distribution to the evolution of the
income of an individual at the 90th percentile. We call these two groups the
'poor' and the 'rich.' We can then look at how much incomes grew for the
poor and the rich in absolute terms as well as relative to each other - and
thereby assess the extent to which growth was widely shared. We measure
income after taxes and transfers, and adjust for differences in prices over
time and across countries using inflation and purchasing power information.
Our database can be accessed online, with more information on our exact
measure and data for other countries."
The US performs poorly by comparison to these countries, for reasons that
may have more to do with structure, institutions and policy. Roser and
Thewissen conclude:
"The differences we have identified across countries and time imply that
increased globalization and technological change cannot be blamed as sole
causes for rising inequality. Those forces work across borders and should
affect all countries. The fact that other developed countries have been able
to share the benefits of these market forces suggests that policy choices on
the national level play a central role for boosting living standards.
Policies can make a difference not just in growth levels, but also in who
gets the benefits of that growth."
The intuitively obvious, should be taken as axiomatic. Like two points
determine a single line. When you start out from an unequal position (not like
at the start of a foot race) it is unclear who to blame, for the one person
who crosses the finish line first vs the losers. And much of life is "first
across the finish line". Also since in this case, the winner of the last race,
gets an advantage on the next starting line the unequal advantage tends to
accumulate. Life is unfair. The point is to maintain the status quo, statically
and dynamically. Those who have advantages today, continue to have them, as
white collar US workers and even blue collar US workers used to. The previous
winners continue to win these unequal contests, but the number of happy workers
gets fewer and fewer. This is why Trump voters the benefits of inequality are
now being shared less equally ;-) The purpose of government is to benefit the
status quo. Therefore policy doesn't offer substantive way out. Change will
occur but only when the current status quo maintenance system fails.
Conclusion: like the game of Musical Chairs there is no change until the
music stops, and someone different can't find a chair to sit in. But it is less
fun in real life.
Unfortunately many in the current generation are content to play the
little pig, in Charlotte's Web. They forget where McDonald's McRib comes
from. Again, children's culture is illustrative and simplified.
I wouldn't underestimate "many in the current generation" –
especially among those who don't have the "divided baggage" of the
generations that preceded them. Due to purposely recirculated
historical circumstances aligned with modern "evolution," it may not
be as easy for power to continue to "manipulate and control."
In this fear-mongering film, conservatives like Gingrich put a
spin on the power of the "elite" destroying the middle class in a
revisionist approach (although they are quick to point out that
both parties are captured by global corporations). The future:
austerity, deregulation and 20 years of chaos (with probable war)
ahead of us.
The film revolves around the Strauss-Howe generational theory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strauss%E2%80%93Howe_generational_theory
Steve Bannon, Chief Strategist and Senior Counselor to
President Trump is a prominent proponent of the theory. As a
documentary filmmaker Bannon discussed the details of Strauss-Howe
generational theory in Generation Zero. According to historian
David Kaiser, who was consulted for the film, Generation Zero
"focused on the key aspect of their theory, the idea that every 80
years American history has been marked by a crisis, or 'fourth
turning', that destroyed an old order and created a new one".
Kaiser said Bannon "is very familiar with Strauss and Howe's theory
of crisis, and has been thinking about how to use it to achieve
particular goals for quite a while." A February 2017 article from
Business Insider titled: Steve Bannon's obsession with a dark
theory of history should be worrisome commented "Bannon seems to be
trying to bring about the 'Fourth Turning'."
When I was first exposed to Strauss and Howe I began thinking
how their ideas explained the histories of other countries as
well, and during our interview, I mentioned that crises in
countries like France in the 1790s and Russia after 1917 had led
to reigns of terror. Bannon included those remarks in the final
cut of Generation Zero.
A second, more alarming, interaction did not show up in the
film. Bannon had clearly thought a long time both about the
domestic potential and the foreign policy implications of
Strauss and Howe. More than once during our interview, he
pointed out that each of the three preceding crises had involved
a great war, and those conflicts had increased in scope from the
American Revolution through the Civil War to the Second World
War. He expected a new and even bigger war as part of the
current crisis, and he did not seem at all fazed by the
prospect.
I did not agree, and said so. But, knowing that the history of
international conflict was my own specialty, he repeatedly
pressed me to say we could expect a conflict at least as big as
the Second World War in the near or medium term. I refused.
Apocalyptic rhetoric and apocalyptic thinking flourish during
crisis periods. This represents perhaps the biggest danger of
the Trump presidency, and one that will bear watching from all
concerned citizens in the months and years ahead.
Thanks for the information. I'm aware of the madman's "movie"
and his authoritarian ideology. He and his commander-of-thieves
will continue to unravel right before our eyes. Many lives will
continue to be severely impacted by these hateful, selfish,
abusive throwbacks from "central casting."
Every day there is a race you have to run. For the sake of discussion,
let's call it a 100 yard race.
The participants are called and then evaluated by the judges. Starting
points for the race are then determined. If you are particularly comely, you
are given an advantage: that is, your starting point is moved up depending
on the judges. If you have a personality that people find attractive, you
are given further yards. If you happen to have had great success in school,
you are awarded so many yards because of your academic record. If you happen
to be good looking and personable, the academic success yards are added onto
your already determined starting point.
Then the quality and reputation of your educational institution is
evaluated and you are given further yards to determine starting points with
certain schools worth a better starting position. And even the type of
training at the institution is evaluated and further yards given.
Finally the judges add your total experiences – including your finishing
position in previous races – advanced degrees, and connections and further
yards are added.
So when the gun sounds, the person without the advantages strives as hard
as they can but they cannot win the race because some people only have to
simply step over the finish line.
And even more troubling some people are moved behind the starting line
because they could not even muster the necessary accomplishments to reach
the starting line: drop outs from school, people who have been convicted of
crimes and the rest. The worse the offense, the further you are moved behind
the starting line.
Every day this continues and those striving to win – even running faster
and harder than their competitors – are simply unable to do so because the
rules are such that winning is not even a consideration when the race is
rigged.
The factors are certainly at work in inequality. Some of those factors
can either be mitigated or compensated for by the individual and/or the
social system.
There are other structural factors that influence inequality. Family
connections, inherited wealth, and other forms of social capital that can
make advancement easier is one. Savings and investment patterns that can
be engaged in to varying degrees depending on just how much surplus
income one has is another.
The social and political system in the US generally favors vigorous
competition, private self-dealing, and asymmetric information.
Individuals who learn to navigate these factors can prosper, while those
who either can't or don't want to can suffer significant disadvantages in
outcomes. The influence of these structural factors in any social system
influences the degree of income/wealth stratification.
In my own family, many of the starting social factors are fairly equal
among the individuals. Even though my various relatives have not
necessarily made "bad" choices in the moral sense, their outcomes have
been vastly different. The degree to which they have chosen to engagein
income/wealth maximization has generally been a large factor. In that
sense, the game is rigged away from living what many consider a humane
life.
You mean people actually got paid to research and write stuff like this? You
simply have to look at the (re)distribution policies of the countries concerned
– and there are substantial differences between the three of them, by the way.
Wouldn't a much more interesting question be "By what mechanism does
globalization necessarily increase inequality, and how does it work precisely
in a number of contrasted cases"? But then you might get the wrong answer.
No kidding – kind of amazing that people get paid good money to restate
the obvious, but using sesquipedalian language just to make it more
difficult to understand.
Inequality is caused by one group not having as much money as another.
Money is simply a tool created by human beings. Much like a hammer, human
beings could use it to build houses for everyone or to bash others about the
head. We humans seem to prefer the latter use.
The people paid to prove the obvious are far outnumbered by those paid to
disprove it. We need the former because of the latter.
On the other hand, there are many cases where the obvious turned out to be
wrong when it was looked at carefully. More research needed!
We're in a world where politicians get paid to lie about these obvious
things and legislate based on those lies, and businesses make their profits
off the lies, so I can't get too exercised when someone gets paid to point
out the lies.
"Forces." Really? "Globalization" and "technological change" are things
humans do for human reasons. To treat them as "forces" somehow exogenous to
human choices is self-evidently fallacious. It's precisely the same logic that
says the King is the King cause God likes him best.
They're not "forces." They are heuristics. And as heuristics, they are
pretty lousy unless you parse them quite a bit. Obama's 1 trillion dollar
investment in nukes creates "technological change." The destruction of local
agricultural techniques and knowledge is "technological change." A kindle is
"technological change." Keyword searches readily available to academic
researchers was a big "technological change."
I'm assuming what they mean by "technological change" here is the sort that
allows us to collectively make more stuff with less work. God forbid anyone
spell that out though. Because "hey, guess what: you have to work more for less
because we can now make more stuff with less work," would quickly lead to the
violent demise of economists and rich people. (more to say on "globalization"
but this post is already way longer than intended.)
Germany should have been included in the study. German manufacturing is far
more technologically advanced than manufacturing in the US, yet Germany manages
to maintain high employment in that sector, probably because the companies
invest in worker training and feel some obligation toward labor.
There's a structural reason for this, with labor having powerful
representation on German corporate boards and smaller companies being owned by
families instead of faceless shareholders, with the families' long-term
interests naturally more in alignment with those of their employees.
Actually, I thought the inclusion of France and the UK was a bit strange,
as well. Inequality in both countries has been increasingly massively in
recent years. One Thomas Piketty even wrote something on the topic, if I'm
not mistaken. Japan would have been a much better example.
I think it kind of makes the point, if even a country that isn't
exactly known for egalitarianism, like the UK, is doing better than the
U.S. it kind of shows how extreme on the scale the U.S. is.
Contrary to elite owned and serving mass media claims, the trick that
created the German economic miracle is no mystery; it was, and IS, their
banking system.
In Germany more than 70% of all banking is done by "municipally owned
banks"!!!
A situation that the elites – masters of the universe -have been working day
and night to drastically alter so that their "too big to fail" minion zombie
banks can take complete AND total control of the economy, as they have in
most of the developed world except North Dakota, Canada (Canada owns the
Bank of Canada – the Finance Minister holds all the shares on behalf of all
Canadians), and Switzerland (Switzerland has Cantonal {municipally or
provincially} owned banks) – all three countries, like the German
municipally owned banks, are under attack by the elite serving bureaucrats
in the IMF and the U.S. Federal Reserve; all of whom are owned by, and
minions of, Wall Street; and most importantly the corporate bought and sold
world's university economics departments – co-opted to right agenda faux
economic B.S.
The U.S. Federal Reserve now donates more money to universities worldwide
than all of the rest of the donors combined!?! The proviso on these
donations is that they only hire economics profs who have been published in
one of the 37 journals published by the U.S. Federal Reserve – and we know
what kind of right agenda 'fascist' mumbo-jumbo these minion economists are
dedicated to serving up in order to get published by the U.S. Fed!!!
So what you say!! Well here's so what!
If you are in any other developed country than Germany and you have a great
idea/product and require a one million dollar loan to build a factory and
set up production – here's what happens to you. Your local banks will never
lend you that money, so you have to go to the criminal Big Banks which will
also never lend you the money you need, which means you will have to sell
your idea/product at pennies on the dollar to one of their huge corporate
clients, who will offshore production to a corrupted third world country
where workers get paid pennies an hour and unions are considered a criminal
enterprise. Leaving you, the creator of the product or service with pennies
on the dollar; and leaving your local economy with zero economic growth and
no well paid local employment opportunities. The corporate buyer of your
technology/product/idea may well just kill your product because it is better
than the (inferior) one they are currently making bags of money selling –
for which they have just eliminated your innovative and superior competitive
product.
If you are in Germany however the story is far different. In Germany you
would go to your local municipally owned bank which is only too happy to
give you the one million dollars you need to set up production (locally
providing employment and contributing to local economic prosperity).
This is the basis for the strength of the German economy and the reason for
the so called ":German economic miracle?"!
It is described as a "miracle" not because we have no idea how it happened,
rather because the elites who own more than 80% of all corporate shares need
to confuse us plebs they want to economically and politically crush!
American wealth inequality is a political problem? Well,
no sh*t,
Sherlock
.
Kevin Phillips wrote about this phenomenon a decade ago in his wonderful
book
Wealth and Democracy
. Between 1920 and 1980, American plutocrats
had been placed in fear by the Bolshevik revolution, humbled by the Great
Depression, and shamed by the Second World War. Greed was in check. Then they
died-off and left their wealth to a new generation more interested in emulating
Mick Jagger than Dwight D. Eisenhower. Ronnie Reagan was their Hollywood pal,
who cut estate and coupon-clipping taxes so that they could party like rock
stars.
Crass punks like Donald Trump and the Kochs are the scions of inherited
wealth and Studio 54. They could never have made it on their own, on their own
talents, and it is in their class interest to destroy any sort of meritocracy.
They have used materialism and greed to buy the political class.
Look up Geert Hofstede's work on "power distance," which is the extent to
which a nation accepts inequality.
According to Hofstede, countries have different "tastes" or preferences for
inequality. For example, the Middle East, parts of S America, India, and other
parts of Asia have a much bigger "taste" for inequality compared to, say, the
Scandinavian countries, which have the lowest.
I would guess that differences in preferences for inequality between
countries go back to a nation's history, and maybe other hard-to-pin down
forces and factors.
The US, according to Hofstede's work, is at the middle point, or a little
lower, as to taste for inequality. However, reading about the recent Gini index
leads me to believe that either our preference for inequality is changing
[probably not the case, given Trump], or our history is outrunning our
preferences. In other words, we may be getting more inequality than we like.
By the way, Hofstede assumes that power distance preference is a fairly
durable characteristic of a nation.
Preference?? Yes, I'm sure the mid east loves inequality, which is why
they are known for choosing dictators who quash uprisings as their leaders.
And how exactly would I choose egalitarianism here in the US? I can vote for
Wall Street and Holly Wood or Wall Street and Exxon Mobil. Which one is the
egalitarian one?
However, reading about the recent Gini index leads me to believe that
either our preference for inequality is changing [probably not the case,
given Trump], or our history is outrunning our preferences.
"
What about "power distance" (extent to which a nation accepts inequality)
interactions with "distance to power" extent to which a nation influences
the powerful.
I've been reading Robert J. Gordon's book, 'The Rise and Fall of American
Growth.' Gordon would say that American labor did well from 1870-1970 because
of the innovations that drove the economy increased everyone's productivity and
the value of their work. Since 1970, productivity has slowed down. It rose
again during the decade of the '90s but mostly for knowledge workers, thanks to
the internet, spreadsheets, etcetera, but now has continued to slow. That was a
recipe for income inequality, and for wealth inequality as well, since the rise
of digital industries has increased property values on the coasts and in select
inland cities.
Slowing productivity also increased wealth inequality by facilitating the
decline of interest rates. This helps the haves, since their assets are
suddenly more valuable.
this guy argues that productivity has been decoupled from compensation,
and that has driven the rise of inequality.
off topic, but the krugman review of the book contained the interesting
fact that, during the 1880's, wall street was 7 feet deep in manure in some
places.
Of course inequality is a political choice. Chosen by the oligarchs who buy
the politicians.
Just like every mainstream economist is choosing to make millions suffer and
die every day because excepting MMT would bruise their ego's. That is a choice
too.
I think that inequality is not a political choice directly but a consequence
of deregulation or "do nothing" policy. Reducing inequality is a policy choice.
They soon made the most of the opportunity and removed themselves from any
hard work to concentrate on "spiritual matters", i.e. any hocus-pocus they
could come up with to elevate them from the masses, e.g. rituals, fertility
rights, offering to the gods . etc and to turn the initially small tributes,
into extracting all the surplus created by the hard work of the rest.
The elites became the representatives of the gods
and they were responsible for the bounty of the earth and the harvests. As long
as all the surplus was handed over, all would be well.
Later they came up with money.
We pay you to do the work and you give it back to us when you buy things,
you live a bare subsistence existence and we take the rest.
A bare subsistence existence ensured the workers didn't die and could
reproduce, why give them anymore? The vile maxim of the masters of mankind.
Basic capitalism was how it all started in the 18th and 19th Centuries, the
poor lived in squalor and the rich lived in luxury, the same as it had always
been.
Only organised labour movements got those at the bottom a larger slice of
the pie, basic capitalism gives nothing to the people who do the work apart
from a bare subsistence existence.
The wealthy decided they needed to do away with organised labour movements
and the welfare state; it was interfering with the natural order where they
extract all the surplus.
2017 – World's eight richest people have same wealth as poorest 50%
Nearly there.
They need a bit more fine tuning at Davos.
Some of the world's workers are not living a bare subsistence existence.
Francis Fukuyama talked of the "end of history" and "liberal democracy".
Liberal democracy was the bringing together of two mutually exclusive ideas.
Economic liberalism – that enriches the few and impoverishes the many.
Democracy – that requires the support of the majority.
Trying to bring two mutually exclusive ideas together just doesn't work.
The ideas of "Economic Liberalism" came from Milton Freidman and the
University of Chicago. It was so radical they first tried it in a military
dictatorship in Chile, it wouldn't be compatible with democracy. It took death
squads, torture and terror to keep it in place, there was an ethnic cleansing
of anyone who still showed signs of any left wing thinking.
It was tried in a few other places in South America using similar
techniques. It then did succeed in a democracy but only by tricking the people
into thinking they were voting for something else, severe oppression was needed
when they found out what they were getting.
It brings extreme inequality and widespread poverty everywhere it's tested,
they decide it's a system that should be rolled out globally. It's just what
they are looking for.
Would a for-profit chain of local newspapers whose business model and
advertising is built on serving the Portland Business Alliance and Chamber of
Commerce interests hire or keep on staff any kind of investigative journalistic
team or even an individual columnist\calumnist like recently deceased
VILLAGE VOICE
early 1980's TRUMP SWAMP WHISTLE-BLOWER
WAYNE BARRET (RIP)?
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/business/media/wayne-barrett-dead-village-voice-columnist.html
Yves here. Both economists and the press do such a good
job of selling the idea that inequality is the fault of
those who come out on the short end of the stick that
academics need to develop empirical evidence to prove what
ought to be intuitively obvious.
The fact that most of the fruits of US economic
growth have not been shared with the lower-middle and
working class is accepted across the political spectrum
in America. But that inequality is often treated as a
somehow inevitable consequence of globalization and
technological change. That view is contradicted by the
comparison of income growth and distribution statistics
between the US and three others rich countries, France,
Norway and the UK - according to new research by Max
Roser and Stefan Thewissen of the Institute for New
Economic Thinking at Oxford. Writing in Vox on the
database they've constructed, Roser and Thewissen note:
"We compare the evolution of the income an
individual needs to be right at the 10th percentile of
the income distribution to the evolution of the income
of an individual at the 90th percentile. We call these
two groups the 'poor' and the 'rich.' We can then look
at how much incomes grew for the poor and the rich in
absolute terms as well as relative to each other - and
thereby assess the extent to which growth was widely
shared. We measure income after taxes and transfers,
and adjust for differences in prices over time and
across countries using inflation and purchasing power
information. Our database can be accessed online, with
more information on our exact measure and data for
other countries."
The US performs poorly by comparison to these
countries, for reasons that may have more to do with
structure, institutions and policy. Roser and Thewissen
conclude:
"The differences we have identified across countries
and time imply that increased globalization and
technological change cannot be blamed as sole causes
for rising inequality. Those forces work across borders
and should affect all countries. The fact that other
developed countries have been able to share the
benefits of these market forces suggests that policy
choices on the national level play a central role for
boosting living standards. Policies can make a
difference not just in growth levels, but also in who
gets the benefits of that growth."
The intuitively obvious, should be taken as axiomatic.
Like two points determine a single line. When you start
out from an unequal position (not like at the start of a
foot race) it is unclear who to blame, for the one
person who crosses the finish line first vs the losers.
And much of life is "first across the finish line". Also
since in this case, the winner of the last race, gets an
advantage on the next starting line the unequal
advantage tends to accumulate. Life is unfair. The point
is to maintain the status quo, statically and dynamically.
Those who have advantages today, continue to have them, as
white collar US workers and even blue collar US workers
used to. The previous winners continue to win these
unequal contests, but the number of happy workers gets
fewer and fewer. This is why Trump voters the benefits
of inequality are now being shared less equally ;-) The
purpose of government is to benefit the status quo.
Therefore policy doesn't offer substantive way out. Change
will occur but only when the current status quo
maintenance system fails. Conclusion: like the game of
Musical Chairs there is no change until the music stops,
and someone different can't find a chair to sit in. But it
is less fun in real life.
Unfortunately many in the current generation are
content to play the little pig, in Charlotte's Web.
They forget where McDonald's McRib comes from.
Again, children's culture is illustrative and
simplified.
I wouldn't underestimate "many in the current
generation" – especially among those who don't
have the "divided baggage" of the generations
that preceded them. Due to purposely recirculated
historical circumstances aligned with modern
"evolution," it may not be as easy for power to
continue to "manipulate and control."
In this fear-mongering film, conservatives
like Gingrich put a spin on the power of the
"elite" destroying the middle class in a
revisionist approach (although they are quick
to point out that both parties are captured by
global corporations). The future: austerity,
deregulation and 20 years of chaos (with
probable war) ahead of us.
The film revolves around the Strauss-Howe
generational theory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strauss%E2%80%93Howe_generational_theory
Steve Bannon, Chief Strategist and Senior
Counselor to President Trump is a prominent
proponent of the theory. As a documentary
filmmaker Bannon discussed the details of
Strauss-Howe generational theory in Generation
Zero. According to historian David Kaiser, who
was consulted for the film, Generation Zero
"focused on the key aspect of their theory,
the idea that every 80 years American history
has been marked by a crisis, or 'fourth
turning', that destroyed an old order and
created a new one". Kaiser said Bannon "is
very familiar with Strauss and Howe's theory
of crisis, and has been thinking about how to
use it to achieve particular goals for quite a
while." A February 2017 article from Business
Insider titled: Steve Bannon's obsession with
a dark theory of history should be worrisome
commented "Bannon seems to be trying to bring
about the 'Fourth Turning'."
When I was first exposed to Strauss and
Howe I began thinking how their ideas
explained the histories of other countries
as well, and during our interview, I
mentioned that crises in countries like
France in the 1790s and Russia after 1917
had led to reigns of terror. Bannon
included those remarks in the final cut of
Generation Zero.
A second, more alarming, interaction did
not show up in the film. Bannon had clearly
thought a long time both about the domestic
potential and the foreign policy
implications of Strauss and Howe. More than
once during our interview, he pointed out
that each of the three preceding crises had
involved a great war, and those conflicts
had increased in scope from the American
Revolution through the Civil War to the
Second World War. He expected a new and
even bigger war as part of the current
crisis, and he did not seem at all fazed by
the prospect.
I did not agree, and said so. But, knowing
that the history of international conflict
was my own specialty, he repeatedly pressed
me to say we could expect a conflict at
least as big as the Second World War in the
near or medium term. I refused.
Apocalyptic rhetoric and apocalyptic
thinking flourish during crisis periods.
This represents perhaps the biggest danger
of the Trump presidency, and one that will
bear watching from all concerned citizens
in the months and years ahead.
Thanks for the information. I'm aware of
the madman's "movie" and his authoritarian
ideology. He and his commander-of-thieves
will continue to unravel right before our
eyes. Many lives will continue to be
severely impacted by these hateful,
selfish, abusive throwbacks from "central
casting."
Every day there is a race you have to run. For the
sake of discussion, let's call it a 100 yard race.
The participants are called and then evaluated by
the judges. Starting points for the race are then
determined. If you are particularly comely, you are
given an advantage: that is, your starting point is
moved up depending on the judges. If you have a
personality that people find attractive, you are given
further yards. If you happen to have had great success
in school, you are awarded so many yards because of
your academic record. If you happen to be good looking
and personable, the academic success yards are added
onto your already determined starting point.
Then the quality and reputation of your educational
institution is evaluated and you are given further
yards to determine starting points with certain schools
worth a better starting position. And even the type of
training at the institution is evaluated and further
yards given.
Finally the judges add your total experiences –
including your finishing position in previous races –
advanced degrees, and connections and further yards are
added.
So when the gun sounds, the person without the
advantages strives as hard as they can but they cannot
win the race because some people only have to simply
step over the finish line.
And even more troubling some people are moved behind
the starting line because they could not even muster
the necessary accomplishments to reach the starting
line: drop outs from school, people who have been
convicted of crimes and the rest. The worse the
offense, the further you are moved behind the starting
line.
Every day this continues and those striving to win –
even running faster and harder than their competitors –
are simply unable to do so because the rules are such
that winning is not even a consideration when the race
is rigged.
The factors are certainly at work in inequality.
Some of those factors can either be mitigated or
compensated for by the individual and/or the social
system.
There are other structural factors that influence
inequality. Family connections, inherited wealth,
and other forms of social capital that can make
advancement easier is one. Savings and investment
patterns that can be engaged in to varying degrees
depending on just how much surplus income one has is
another.
The social and political system in the US
generally favors vigorous competition, private
self-dealing, and asymmetric information.
Individuals who learn to navigate these factors can
prosper, while those who either can't or don't want
to can suffer significant disadvantages in outcomes.
The influence of these structural factors in any
social system influences the degree of income/wealth
stratification.
In my own family, many of the starting social
factors are fairly equal among the individuals. Even
though my various relatives have not necessarily
made "bad" choices in the moral sense, their
outcomes have been vastly different. The degree to
which they have chosen to engagein income/wealth
maximization has generally been a large factor. In
that sense, the game is rigged away from living what
many consider a humane life.
You mean people actually got paid to research and write
stuff like this? You simply have to look at the
(re)distribution policies of the countries concerned – and
there are substantial differences between the three of
them, by the way.
Wouldn't a much more interesting question be "By what
mechanism does globalization necessarily increase
inequality, and how does it work precisely in a number of
contrasted cases"? But then you might get the wrong
answer.
No kidding – kind of amazing that people get paid
good money to restate the obvious, but using
sesquipedalian language just to make it more difficult
to understand.
Inequality is caused by one group not having as much
money as another. Money is simply a tool created by
human beings. Much like a hammer, human beings could
use it to build houses for everyone or to bash others
about the head. We humans seem to prefer the latter
use.
The people paid to prove the obvious are far
outnumbered by those paid to disprove it. We need the
former because of the latter.
On the other hand, there are many cases where the
obvious turned out to be wrong when it was looked at
carefully. More research needed!
We're in a world where politicians get paid to lie
about these obvious things and legislate based on those
lies, and businesses make their profits off the lies,
so I can't get too exercised when someone gets paid to
point out the lies.
"Forces." Really? "Globalization" and "technological
change" are things humans do for human reasons. To treat
them as "forces" somehow exogenous to human choices is
self-evidently fallacious. It's precisely the same logic
that says the King is the King cause God likes him best.
They're not "forces." They are heuristics. And as
heuristics, they are pretty lousy unless you parse them
quite a bit. Obama's 1 trillion dollar investment in nukes
creates "technological change." The destruction of local
agricultural techniques and knowledge is "technological
change." A kindle is "technological change." Keyword
searches readily available to academic researchers was a
big "technological change."
I'm assuming what they mean by "technological change"
here is the sort that allows us to collectively make more
stuff with less work. God forbid anyone spell that out
though. Because "hey, guess what: you have to work more
for less because we can now make more stuff with less
work," would quickly lead to the violent demise of
economists and rich people. (more to say on
"globalization" but this post is already way longer than
intended.)
Germany should have been included in the study. German
manufacturing is far more technologically advanced than
manufacturing in the US, yet Germany manages to maintain
high employment in that sector, probably because the
companies invest in worker training and feel some
obligation toward labor.
There's a structural reason for this, with labor having
powerful representation on German corporate boards and
smaller companies being owned by families instead of
faceless shareholders, with the families' long-term
interests naturally more in alignment with those of their
employees.
Actually, I thought the inclusion of France and the
UK was a bit strange, as well. Inequality in both
countries has been increasingly massively in recent
years. One Thomas Piketty even wrote something on the
topic, if I'm not mistaken. Japan would have been a
much better example.
I think it kind of makes the point, if even a
country that isn't exactly known for egalitarianism,
like the UK, is doing better than the U.S. it kind
of shows how extreme on the scale the U.S. is.
Contrary to elite owned and serving mass media
claims, the trick that created the German economic
miracle is no mystery; it was, and IS, their banking
system.
In Germany more than 70% of all banking is done by
"municipally owned banks"!!!
A situation that the elites – masters of the universe
-have been working day and night to drastically alter
so that their "too big to fail" minion zombie banks can
take complete AND total control of the economy, as they
have in most of the developed world except North
Dakota, Canada (Canada owns the Bank of Canada – the
Finance Minister holds all the shares on behalf of all
Canadians), and Switzerland (Switzerland has Cantonal
{municipally or provincially} owned banks) – all three
countries, like the German municipally owned banks, are
under attack by the elite serving bureaucrats in the
IMF and the U.S. Federal Reserve; all of whom are owned
by, and minions of, Wall Street; and most importantly
the corporate bought and sold world's university
economics departments – co-opted to right agenda faux
economic B.S.
The U.S. Federal Reserve now donates more money to
universities worldwide than all of the rest of the
donors combined!?! The proviso on these donations is
that they only hire economics profs who have been
published in one of the 37 journals published by the
U.S. Federal Reserve – and we know what kind of right
agenda 'fascist' mumbo-jumbo these minion economists
are dedicated to serving up in order to get published
by the U.S. Fed!!!
So what you say!! Well here's so what!
If you are in any other developed country than Germany
and you have a great idea/product and require a one
million dollar loan to build a factory and set up
production – here's what happens to you. Your local
banks will never lend you that money, so you have to go
to the criminal Big Banks which will also never lend
you the money you need, which means you will have to
sell your idea/product at pennies on the dollar to one
of their huge corporate clients, who will offshore
production to a corrupted third world country where
workers get paid pennies an hour and unions are
considered a criminal enterprise. Leaving you, the
creator of the product or service with pennies on the
dollar; and leaving your local economy with zero
economic growth and no well paid local employment
opportunities. The corporate buyer of your
technology/product/idea may well just kill your product
because it is better than the (inferior) one they are
currently making bags of money selling – for which they
have just eliminated your innovative and superior
competitive product.
If you are in Germany however the story is far
different. In Germany you would go to your local
municipally owned bank which is only too happy to give
you the one million dollars you need to set up
production (locally providing employment and
contributing to local economic prosperity).
This is the basis for the strength of the German
economy and the reason for the so called ":German
economic miracle?"!
It is described as a "miracle" not because we have no
idea how it happened, rather because the elites who own
more than 80% of all corporate shares need to confuse
us plebs they want to economically and politically
crush!
American wealth inequality is a political problem?
Well,
no sh*t, Sherlock
.
Kevin Phillips wrote about this phenomenon a decade ago
in his wonderful book
Wealth and Democracy
.
Between 1920 and 1980, American plutocrats had been placed
in fear by the Bolshevik revolution, humbled by the Great
Depression, and shamed by the Second World War. Greed was
in check. Then they died-off and left their wealth to a
new generation more interested in emulating Mick Jagger
than Dwight D. Eisenhower. Ronnie Reagan was their
Hollywood pal, who cut estate and coupon-clipping taxes so
that they could party like rock stars.
Crass punks like Donald Trump and the Kochs are the
scions of inherited wealth and Studio 54. They could never
have made it on their own, on their own talents, and it is
in their class interest to destroy any sort of
meritocracy. They have used materialism and greed to buy
the political class.
Look up Geert Hofstede's work on "power distance,"
which is the extent to which a nation accepts inequality.
According to Hofstede, countries have different
"tastes" or preferences for inequality. For example, the
Middle East, parts of S America, India, and other parts of
Asia have a much bigger "taste" for inequality compared
to, say, the Scandinavian countries, which have the
lowest.
I would guess that differences in preferences for
inequality between countries go back to a nation's
history, and maybe other hard-to-pin down forces and
factors.
The US, according to Hofstede's work, is at the middle
point, or a little lower, as to taste for inequality.
However, reading about the recent Gini index leads me to
believe that either our preference for inequality is
changing [probably not the case, given Trump], or our
history is outrunning our preferences. In other words, we
may be getting more inequality than we like.
By the way, Hofstede assumes that power distance
preference is a fairly durable characteristic of a nation.
Preference?? Yes, I'm sure the mid east loves
inequality, which is why they are known for choosing
dictators who quash uprisings as their leaders. And how
exactly would I choose egalitarianism here in the US? I
can vote for Wall Street and Holly Wood or Wall Street
and Exxon Mobil. Which one is the egalitarian one?
However, reading about the recent Gini index
leads me to believe that either our preference for
inequality is changing [probably not the case, given
Trump], or our history is outrunning our
preferences.
"
What about "power distance" (extent to which a
nation accepts inequality) interactions with "distance
to power" extent to which a nation influences the
powerful.
I've been reading Robert J. Gordon's book, 'The Rise
and Fall of American Growth.' Gordon would say that
American labor did well from 1870-1970 because of the
innovations that drove the economy increased everyone's
productivity and the value of their work. Since 1970,
productivity has slowed down. It rose again during the
decade of the '90s but mostly for knowledge workers,
thanks to the internet, spreadsheets, etcetera, but now
has continued to slow. That was a recipe for income
inequality, and for wealth inequality as well, since the
rise of digital industries has increased property values
on the coasts and in select inland cities.
Slowing productivity also increased wealth inequality
by facilitating the decline of interest rates. This helps
the haves, since their assets are suddenly more valuable.
this guy argues that productivity has been decoupled
from compensation, and that has driven the rise of
inequality.
off topic, but the krugman review of the book
contained the interesting fact that, during the 1880's,
wall street was 7 feet deep in manure in some places.
Of course inequality is a political choice. Chosen by
the oligarchs who buy the politicians.
Just like every mainstream economist is choosing to
make millions suffer and die every day because excepting
MMT would bruise their ego's. That is a choice too.
I think that inequality is not a political choice
directly but a consequence of deregulation or "do nothing"
policy. Reducing inequality is a policy choice.
They soon made the most of the opportunity and removed
themselves from any hard work to concentrate on "spiritual
matters", i.e. any hocus-pocus they could come up with to
elevate them from the masses, e.g. rituals, fertility
rights, offering to the gods . etc and to turn the
initially small tributes, into extracting all the surplus
created by the hard work of the rest.
The elites became the representatives of the gods
and they were responsible for the bounty of the earth and
the harvests. As long as all the surplus was handed over,
all would be well.
Later they came up with money.
We pay you to do the work and you give it back to us
when you buy things, you live a bare subsistence existence
and we take the rest.
A bare subsistence existence ensured the workers didn't
die and could reproduce, why give them anymore? The vile
maxim of the masters of mankind.
Basic capitalism was how it all started in the 18th and
19th Centuries, the poor lived in squalor and the rich
lived in luxury, the same as it had always been.
Only organised labour movements got those at the bottom
a larger slice of the pie, basic capitalism gives nothing
to the people who do the work apart from a bare
subsistence existence.
The wealthy decided they needed to do away with
organised labour movements and the welfare state; it was
interfering with the natural order where they extract all
the surplus.
2017 – World's eight richest people have same wealth as
poorest 50%
Nearly there.
They need a bit more fine tuning at Davos.
Some of the world's workers are not living a bare
subsistence existence.
Francis Fukuyama talked of the "end of history" and
"liberal democracy".
Liberal democracy was the bringing together of two
mutually exclusive ideas.
Economic liberalism – that enriches the few and
impoverishes the many.
Democracy – that requires the support of the majority.
Trying to bring two mutually exclusive ideas together
just doesn't work.
The ideas of "Economic Liberalism" came from Milton
Freidman and the University of Chicago. It was so radical
they first tried it in a military dictatorship in Chile,
it wouldn't be compatible with democracy. It took death
squads, torture and terror to keep it in place, there was
an ethnic cleansing of anyone who still showed signs of
any left wing thinking.
It was tried in a few other places in South America
using similar techniques. It then did succeed in a
democracy but only by tricking the people into thinking
they were voting for something else, severe oppression was
needed when they found out what they were getting.
It brings extreme inequality and widespread poverty
everywhere it's tested, they decide it's a system that
should be rolled out globally. It's just what they are
looking for.
Would a for-profit chain of local newspapers whose
business model and advertising is built on serving the
Portland Business Alliance and Chamber of Commerce
interests hire or keep on staff any kind of investigative
journalistic team or even an individual
columnist\calumnist like recently deceased
VILLAGE
VOICE
early 1980's TRUMP SWAMP
WHISTLE-BLOWER WAYNE BARRET (RIP)?
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/business/media/wayne-barrett-dead-village-voice-columnist.html
What socio-econ OUTCOMES have resulted in even
PAMPLIN MEDIA GROUP
's outsourcing to
a non-profit InvestigateWest journalistic venture and
beginning a series that seems historic in these parts as
the SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS series by dead investigative
journalist GARY WEBB in the years after Iran-Contra
Scandal to uncover the bid-net of BUSINESS and that was
shortly thereafter taken down off the web under pressure
by the
SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS
.
Here's our story, for this twice-a-week Business
Serving newspaper group anyway. Get yer Huzzahs in fast
before all trace of the findings of this Moonlighting
Civil Servant who got the docs via PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST
SEARCHES on her own dime and has embarrased the 1-Party
so-called PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRATIC BLUE PARTY MACHINE in
OREGON beginning with ORACLE LLC Lawsuit-Surrendering
ATTORNEY GENERAL Ellen Rosenblum and up to the Governor
Kate Brown neither of whom in long careers in State
Government in jobs tasked with auditing ever reviewed
these findings:
Keep on doing,
Punching way above your weight
PAMPLIN PAPERS
making a mockery of outside money-owned
OREGONIAN
and the so-called alternative weeklies who only make news
hole
available for Lifestyle features on the new Wellness Spa,
Tattoo Parlor or Booze\Gourmet venture
Mitch Ritter\Paradigm Shifters
Lay-Low Studios, Ore-Wa
Media Discussion Group
Thanks for the links, Mitch. For an economically
disadvantaged group to be assessed so much more in
penalties for minor infractions makes inequality even
worse.
TCOMES have resulted in even
PAMPLIN MEDIA GROUP
's
outsourcing to a non-profit InvestigateWest journalistic venture and beginning
a series that seems historic in these parts as the SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS series
by dead investigative journalist GARY WEBB in the years after Iran-Contra
Scandal to uncover the bid-net of BUSINESS and that was shortly thereafter
taken down off the web under pressure by the
SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS
.
Here's our story, for this twice-a-week Business Serving newspaper group
anyway. Get yer Huzzahs in fast before all trace of the findings of this
Moonlighting Civil Servant who got the docs via PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST SEARCHES
on her own dime and has embarrased the 1-Party so-called PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRATIC
BLUE PARTY MACHINE in OREGON beginning with ORACLE LLC Lawsuit-Surrendering
ATTORNEY GENERAL Ellen Rosenblum and up to the Governor Kate Brown neither of
whom in long careers in State Government in jobs tasked with auditing ever
reviewed these findings:
Keep on doing,
Punching way above your weight
PAMPLIN PAPERS
making a mockery of outside money-owned
OREGONIAN
and the so-called alternative weeklies who only make news hole
available for Lifestyle features on the new Wellness Spa, Tattoo Parlor or
Booze\Gourmet venture
Mitch Ritter\Paradigm Shifters
Lay-Low Studios, Ore-Wa
Media Discussion Group
Thanks for the links, Mitch. For an economically disadvantaged group to
be assessed so much more in penalties for minor infractions makes inequality
even worse.
"... "I worked with Ronald Reagan to develop supply-side economics in the late '70s, along with Jack Kemp and Art Laffer and Jude Wanniski and others," Gingrich declared at a recent town hall event. "We ended up passing it into law in '81. At the time it was very bold. People called it 'voodoo economics.' It had one great virtue: it worked." ..."
"... Their second key advantage was that nobody could say for sure what the results of the "supply-side" experiment would be. There was little empirical data to assess how radical tax cuts would play out in the modern economy. One could make common-sense judgments, as George H.W. Bush had done with his "voodoo" remark, but you couldn't see the future. ..."
"... Now, however, with three decades of experience with the experiment, the fallacies of "supply-side" economics are no longer a mystery. For instance, a major obstacle to today's economic recovery has been the absence of "demand-side" consumers, not the availability of money to build more productive capacity. ..."
"... And the reasons for this dilemma are now well-known: first, when companies have expanded in recent years, the modern factories have relied on robotics with few humans required; second, the companies put many manufacturing sites offshore so they can exploit cheap labor; and third, the shrinking middle class has meant fewer customers, leaving corporations little motivation to build more factories. ..."
"... Blessed with a talented pitch man named Ronald Reagan, "supply-side" became the new product to sell. After taking office, Reagan pressed for a sharp reduction in the marginal tax rates, slashing the top rates for the wealthy from around 70 percent to 28 percent. Along with the tax cuts, Reagan also initiated an aggressive military buildup. ..."
"... After George W. Bush claimed the White House in 2001, "supply-side" dogma was back in vogue. Bush pushed through more tax cuts mostly for the rich, reducing the top marginal rate to 35 percent and creating an even bigger tax break for investors, cutting the capital gains rate to 15 percent. Combined with Bush's two wars and other policies, the surplus soon disappeared and was replaced by another yawning deficit. ..."
"... The Right also has worked diligently to create false narratives to convince many Americans that their hatred of a strong federal government links them to the Founders. Many Tea Partiers have bought into the historical lie that the Founders wrote the Constitution to limit the power of the federal government and to promote "states' rights" the near opposite of what the framers actually were doing. ..."
Exclusive: Any rational assessment of America's economic troubles would identify Ronald
Reagan's reckless "supply-side" economics as a chief culprit, but that hasn't stopped Republican
presidential hopefuls, led by Newt Gingrich, from selling this discredited theory to a gullible GOP
base, reports Robert Parry.
Despite Newt Gingrich's claim that "supply-side" economic theories have "worked," the truth is
that America's three-decade experiment with low tax rates on the rich, lax regulation of corporations
and "free trade" has been a catastrophic failure, creating massive federal debt, devastating the
middle class and off-shoring millions of American jobs.
It has "worked" almost exclusively for the very rich, yet the former House speaker and the three
other Republican presidential hopefuls are urging the country to double-down on this losing gamble,
often to the cheers of their audiences - like one Florida woman who said she had lost her job and
medical insurance but still applauded the idea of more "free-market" solutions.
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich posing with his third wife, Callista
Gingrich even boasts of his role in pioneering these theories of massive tax cuts favoring the
rich, combined with sharp reductions in the role of government. That approach, once famously mocked
by George H.W. Bush as "voodoo economics," was supposed to spur businesses to expand production (the
"supply side"), thus creating jobs and boosting revenues from all the commercial activity.
"I worked with Ronald Reagan to develop supply-side economics in the late '70s, along with
Jack Kemp and Art Laffer and Jude Wanniski and others," Gingrich declared at a recent town hall event.
"We ended up passing it into law in '81. At the time it was very bold. People called it 'voodoo economics.'
It had one great virtue: it worked."
But that is not what the historical record really shows.
In 1980, I was working as an Associated Press correspondent covering budget and economic issues
on Capitol Hill and at the time, the "supply-siders" had two key arguments in their favor: first,
the economy had stagnated in the 1970s largely due to oil price shocks, inflation and an aging industrial
base.
Their second key advantage was that nobody could say for sure what the results of the "supply-side"
experiment would be. There was little empirical data to assess how radical tax cuts would play out
in the modern economy. One could make common-sense judgments, as George H.W. Bush had done with his
"voodoo" remark, but you couldn't see the future.
No More Mystery
Now, however, with three decades of experience with the experiment, the fallacies of "supply-side"
economics are no longer a mystery. For instance, a major obstacle to today's economic recovery has
been the absence of "demand-side" consumers, not the availability of money to build more productive
capacity.
And the reason that there are fewer consumers is that the Great American Middle Class, which
the federal government helped build and nourish from the New Deal through the GI Bill to investments
in infrastructure and technology in the Sixties and Seventies, has been savaged over the past three
decades.
Though many Americans were able to cover up for their declining economic prospects with excessive
borrowing for a while, the Wall Street crash of 2008 exposed the hollowing out of the middle class.
So today, businesses are sitting on vast sums of cash some estimates put the amount at about $2 trillion.
And the reasons for this dilemma are now well-known: first, when companies have expanded in
recent years, the modern factories have relied on robotics with few humans required; second, the
companies put many manufacturing sites offshore so they can exploit cheap labor; and third, the shrinking
middle class has meant fewer customers, leaving corporations little motivation to build more factories.
For Americans, this has represented a downward spiral with no end in sight. American workers,
whether blue- or white-collar, know that computers and other technological advancements have made
many of their old jobs obsolete. And modern communications have allowed even expert service jobs,
like computer tech advice, to go to places like India.
While painful to millions of Americans who find their talents treated as surplus, these developments
do not by themselves have to be negative. After all, humans have dreamed for centuries about technology
freeing them from the grind of tedious work and freeing up society to invest in a higher quality
of life, for today's citizens and for posterity.
The problem is that the only practical way for a democratic society to achieve that goal is to
have a vibrant government using the tax structure to divert a significant amount of the super-profits
from the rich into the public coffers for investments in everything from infrastructure to education
to arts and sciences, including research and development for future generations, even possibly Gingrich's
"big idea" of a colony on the moon.
In fact, that kind of virtuous cycle was the experience of the United States from the 1930s through
the 1970s, with the federal government taxing the top tranches of wealth at up to 90 percent and
using those funds to build major electrification projects like the Hoover Dam and the Tennessee Valley
Authority, to educate World War II veterans through the GI Bill, to connect the nation through the
Interstate Highway system, to launch the Space Program, and to create today's Internet.
Out of those efforts emerged robust economic growth as private corporations took advantage of
the nation's modern infrastructure and the technological advancements. Millions of good-paying jobs
were created for the world's best-trained work force, giving rise to the Great American Middle Class.
The obvious answer was to keep this up, with the government investing in new productive areas, like
renewable energy.
Demonizing 'Guv-mint'
Instead, facing economic headwinds in the 1970s, caused in part by rising energy costs, Americans
grew anxious about their futures, making them ripe for a new right-wing propaganda campaign demonizing
"guv-mint" and telling white men, in particular, that the "free market" was their friend.
Blessed with a talented pitch man named Ronald Reagan, "supply-side" became the new product
to sell. After taking office, Reagan pressed for a sharp reduction in the marginal tax rates, slashing
the top rates for the wealthy from around 70 percent to 28 percent. Along with the tax cuts, Reagan
also initiated an aggressive military buildup.
The results were devastating to the U.S. fiscal position. The federal debt soared, quadrupling
during the 12 years of Reagan and Bush Sr. As a percentage of the gross domestic product, federal
debt was actually declining in the 1970s, dropping to 26 percent of GDP, before exploding under Reagan,
rising to 41 percent by the end of the 1980s. The shared wealth of the country also diverged, with
the rich claiming a bigger and bigger piece of the national economic pie.
The nation's debt crisis only began to subside after tax increases were enacted under President
George H.W. Bush and President Bill Clinton, with Clinton's tax hike pushing the top marginal rate
back up to 39.6 percent. At the time, Gingrich warned that the Clinton tax hike would lead to an
economic catastrophe.
The actual result was a booming economy, spurred strongly by the federal government's new "information
super-highway," the Internet. The Clinton years also saw low unemployment and a balanced budget by
the late 1990s. The debt-to-GDP measure declined from about 43 percent to 33 percent and was on course
toward zero within a decade.
Ironically Gingrich also claims credit for that because as House speaker he worked with Clinton
on some cost-cutting measures, but Clinton credits the 1993 tax increase, which passed without a
single Republican vote, as the key factor in the budget turnaround.
After George W. Bush claimed the White House in 2001, "supply-side" dogma was back in vogue.
Bush pushed through more tax cuts mostly for the rich, reducing the top marginal rate to 35 percent
and creating an even bigger tax break for investors, cutting the capital gains rate to 15 percent.
Combined with Bush's two wars and other policies, the surplus soon disappeared and was replaced by
another yawning deficit.
Even as most Americans struggled to hold a job and pay their bills, America's super-rich lived
a life of unparalleled luxury. With this concentration of money also had come a concentration of
power, as right-wing operatives were hired to build a sophisticated media apparatus and think tanks
to push often with populist rhetoric the policies that were dividing the country along the lines
of a pampered one percent and a pressured 99 percent.
Many Americans, especially white men, heard their personal grievances echoed in the angry voices
of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage and Glenn Beck all well-compensated propagandists
for "the one percent."
Lesson Unlearned
Now, looking back over the economic and fiscal history of the past three decades, you might think
that few Americans would be fooled again by this sucker bet on "supply-side." But the Tea Partiers
and many rank-and-file Republicans seem ready to put what's left of their money back down on the
gambling table.
All four remaining Republican hopefuls Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Ron Paul and Gingrich have
proposed lower tax rates especially on the rich with the same enduring but fanciful faith in "supply-side"
economics.
Gingrich has gone so far as to advocate eliminating the capital gains tax entirely. It's already
down to 15 percent, meaning that many super-rich, from financier Warren Buffett to Mitt Romney, can
live off their investments and pay a lower tax rate than what many middle-class Americans pay on
their wages and salaries. In a recent Florida debate, Romney noted he would pay virtually no federal
income tax under Gingrich's plan.
The Republicans seem to be counting on the parallel propaganda campaign of demonizing "guv-mint."
They're pinning their hopes on an ill-informed electorate (especially white men) siding with "the
one percent" over their own working- and middle-class interests.
The GOP hopes also may hinge significantly on how determined some whites are to get the country's
first black president out of the White House. Historically, demagogic U.S. politicians have had great
success in exploiting racial resentments, although these days often with coded language like Gingrich
calling Barack Obama "the food-stamp president."
The Right also has worked diligently to create false narratives to convince many Americans
that their hatred of a strong federal government links them to the Founders. Many Tea Partiers have
bought into the historical lie that the Founders wrote the Constitution to limit the power of the
federal government and to promote "states' rights" the near opposite of what the framers actually
were doing.
Led by Virginians Gen. George Washington and James Madison, the Constitutional Convention in 1787
threw out the Articles of Confederation, which had made the states supreme and the federal government
a supplicant.
The Constitution reversed that situation, eliminating state "independence" and bestowing national
sovereignty onto the federal Republic representing "we the people of the United States." Contrary
to the Tea Party's false narrative, the Constitution represented the single biggest assertion of
federal power in U.S. history.
When the Tea Partiers dress up in Revolutionary War costumes, they apparently don't know that
their notion of a weak central government and state "sovereignty" was anathema to the key framers
of the Constitution, especially to Washington who had watched his soldiers suffer under the ineffectual
Articles of Confederation.
And, when the Tea Partiers wave their "Don't Tread on Me" flags of a coiled snake, they don't
seem to know that the warning was directed at the British Empire and that the banner aimed at fellow
Americans was Benjamin Franklin's image of a snake severed into various pieces representing the colonies/states
with the admonishment "Join, or Die."
Nevertheless, false narratives and false arguments can be as effective as real ones to a thoroughly
misinformed population. Thus, many middle- and working-class Americans still cheer when Newt Gingrich
references Ronald Reagan and his "supply-side" economics.
But the failure of Reagan's economic strategy should be obvious to anyone who is not fully deluded
by right-wing propaganda. Not only has the national debt skyrocketed over the past three decades,
but whatever economic benefits that have been produced have gone overwhelmingly to the wealthy while
the nation as a whole has suffered.
[For more on related topics, see Robert Parry's Lost History, Secrecy & Privilege and
Neck Deep , now available in a three-book set for the discount price of only $29. For details,
click
here .]
Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press
and Newsweek. His latest book, Neck Deep: The Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush, was written
with two of his sons, Sam and Nat, and can be ordered at
neckdeepbook.com . His two previous books,
Secrecy & Privilege: The Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq and Lost History: Contras,
Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth' are also available there.
Why are we even talking about something so absurdly rare as death by jihadists when over the past
decade 5 times more people die from lightning strikes. More people die due to guns in two days
than have died from jihadism in a decade. Are we plain and simply insane?
Jimmy Dore makes some great points from time to time but this
particular rant has so many flaws that it would be a real
undertaking to itemize all of them.
Millions if not billions of people, including millions of
USAmericans have been horrified at US terrorism wherever it
occurs. We weren't OK with the US terrorizing these seven
countries or any of the other countries the US has terrorized.
We protested. We talked to our political representatives. We
advised young men to refuse to volunteer to kill and be killed
for money. We did whatever we could think of to stop the
carnage. We were unsuccessful.
It's not the temporary ban on immigration that upsets people so
much as singling out people from specific countries, whether
Obama's Republican Congress in did it or Trump did it. The ban
should be on all religious extremists including apartheid
Zionists and Christian extremists. Religious extremists from all
of the major religious have committed heinous atrocities.
I could go on, but those are the main points I wanted to make.
What? Fake news isn't enough for you, so now you're engaging
in fake debate? You have problems with Jimmy's points then
argue them. Too many for you? Then pick the top six and
critique them. Otherwise stop stuffing your fingers in your
ears and loudly singing patriotic songs to drown out the
unpleasant truths. P.S. There were significant protests when
Bush Jr. was running the show but they all died out after
Obama took over the nation's reins. After that all I heard
from the American left about his constant assault on the
Constitution, keeping Guantanamo, the country's wars of
aggression, U.S. support of the military coup in Honduras,
his unconditional and unlimited subsidization of Wall Street,
his unprecedented vendetta against government whistle
blowers, and his impressive accumulation of 306 golf outings
(at a gob smacking five hours a pop!) ... was crickets.
You read different stuff than I do. I heard a fire hose
stream of Progressive/liberal criticism of Obama's
policies and enormous disappointment in Obama - including
from people like Michael Moore, Rachael Maddow, and Amy
Goodman, and especially from Glenn Greenwald, Assange and
other brilliant political thinkers as well as from
Veterans for Peace, Pro-Palestine humanitarians, and
anti-nuclear activists. Medea Benjamin has been on the
front lines for eight years attacking Obama's war
mongering. Of course we need many more like her. Unless
you are her, using a fake name, then why weren't you right
there with her?
And the Demo establishment lines up to attack Drumpf's ban;
hoping to get some easy votes for corporatist neo-con
hypocrites? Cynical demo pigs would love to impeach Drumpf and
wage nice with Pence. We are f*^ked unless we (us "lefty
ranters" and more) don't demand radical change from the
Corporatist neo-fascist establishments of both parties - the
party of dicks and the party of pant-suited V's. And the
media/wall street/military industrial complex can't get enough
of this.
BEWARE -- Why is the Zionist control media, and many Zionist
controlled organizations, so adamant about allowing people from
war torn Muslim countries come to the US ?
The main purpose of all the noise against president Trump is to
weaken him and then force him to take the positions the deep
state wants him to take. Among the many problems he has he is
only an apprentice.
Trump's Muslim ban is not about terrorism or keeping America
safe. Otherwise Saudia Arabia would have been on the top of
list. This is about countries that stand against the US/Israel
agenda.
https://www.darkmoon.me/ /dona..
.
This guy should take Wolf Blitzer's job and expose the truth on
the national media. Blitzer can be consigned to telling risible
lies on You Tube, as should most of the jokers in the so-called
mainstream media.
People attacking Trump after 11 days in office, NEVER criticized
Mrs. Clinton, Obama forblowing up and killing hundreds of
thousands in Ukraine, Libya, Syria, etc, the phony bought and
paid for Establishment Liberals who only call them 'war crimes '
when an (R) is attached to the Presidents name like: Michael
Moore, Rachael Maddow, Medea Benjamin and Amy Goodman,
all frauds and liars like CNN, CBS and NBC, who ran this slimey
headline:
"Citizens" who speak at town meetings are hired, scripted actors
"Last December, the town council in Camarillo, a small town in
southern California, a man called Prince Jordan Tyson stood up
and delivered a three minute speech as a "concerned citizen"
about a planned construction project before the council.
Tyson is not a concerned citizen of Camarillo: he's a struggling
actor from Beverly Hills, who was paid $100 to deliver a
scripted position from the podium while misrepresenting himself
as a local, sincere citizen.
Tyson worked for Adam Swart, a recent UCLA grad, who runs a
company called "Crowds on Demand," which hires actors to attend
politicians' campaign meetings, and to deliver scripted dialog
in the guise of concerned citizens. Swart says that he has been
paid by "dozens of campaigns for state officials, and 2016
presidential candidates" whom he won't name, because if he "did,
nobody would hire us."
http://boingboing.net/2016/02/19/citizens-who-spe...
All those demonstrating against Trump are a asset to the deep
state. I can't understand why those demonstrators in the UK/EU
bashing Trump, there are more pressing reasons to demonstrate
in the UK, poverty, austerity, families relying on food banks
that the supermarkets have thrown out, where are the marches
against that obscenity, instead of going along with the agenda
of the Clinton band wagon, those causing havoc in the US/UK/EU,
would be better employed in demonstrating against those who have
created all those immigrants Muslim or otherwise in the first
place, ie; bush blair obama the clintons etc; time those out on
the streets got their priorities right.
People attacking Trump after 11 days in office, NEVER criticized
Mrs. Clinton, Obama forblowing up and killing hundreds of
thousands in Ukraine, Libya, Syria, etc, the phony bought and
paid for Establishment Liberals who only call them 'war crimes '
when an (R) is attached to the Presidents name like: Michael
Moore, Rachael Maddow, Medea Benjamin and Amy Goodman,
all frauds and liars like CNN, CBS and NBC, who ran this slimey
headline:
"Citizens" who speak at town meetings are hired, scripted actors
"Last December, the town council in Camarillo, a small town in
southern California, a man called Prince Jordan Tyson stood up
and delivered a three minute speech as a "concerned citizen"
about a planned construction project before the council.
Tyson is not a concerned citizen of Camarillo: he's a struggling
actor from Beverly Hills, who was paid $100 to deliver a
scripted position from the podium while misrepresenting himself
as a local, sincere citizen.
Tyson worked for Adam Swart, a recent UCLA grad, who runs a
company called "Crowds on Demand," which hires actors to attend
politicians' campaign meetings, and to deliver scripted dialog
in the guise of concerned citizens. Swart says that he has been
paid by "dozens of campaigns for state officials, and 2016
presidential candidates" whom he won't name, because if he "did,
nobody would hire us."
http://boingboing.net/2016/02/19/citizens-who-spe...
"... By Daron Acemoglu, Professor of Applied Economics, MIT and James Robinson, Professor, University of Chicago Harris School of Public Policy. Originally published at VoxEU ..."
"... Editor's note: This column first appeared as a chapter in the Vox eBook, The Long Economic and Political Shadow of History, Volume 1, available to download here . ..."
"... "The discovery of America, the rounding of the Cape, opened up fresh ground for the rising bourgeoisie." ..."
Posted on
February 1, 2017
by
Yves Smith
By Daron Acemoglu, Professor of Applied Economics, MIT and James
Robinson, Professor, University of Chicago Harris School of Public Policy.
Originally published at
VoxEU
Editor's note: This column first appeared as a
chapter in the Vox eBook, The Long Economic and Political Shadow of History,
Volume 1, available to download
here
.
The immense economic inequality we observe in the world today didn't happen
overnight, or even in the past century. It is the path-dependent outcome of a
multitude of historical processes, one of the most important of which has been
European colonialism. Retracing our steps 500 years, or back to the verge of
this colonial project, we see little inequality and small differences between
poor and rich countries (perhaps a factor of four). Now the differences are a
factor of more than 40, if we compare the richest to the poorest countries in
the world. What role did colonialism play in this?
In our research with Simon Johnson we have shown that colonialism has shaped
modern inequality in several fundamental, but heterogeneous, ways. In Europe
the discovery of the Americas and the emergence of a mass colonial project,
first in the Americas, and then, subsequently, in Asia and Africa, potentially
helped to spur institutional and economic development, thus setting in motion
some of the prerequisites for what was to become the industrial revolution
(Acemoglu et al. 2005). But the way this worked was conditional on
institutional differences within Europe. In places like Britain, where an early
struggle against the monarchy had given parliament and society the upper hand,
the discovery of the Americas led to the further empowerment of mercantile and
industrial groups, who were able to benefit from the new economic opportunities
that the Americas, and soon Asia, presented and to push for improved political
and economic institutions. The consequence was economic growth. In other
places, such as Spain, where the initial political institutions and balance of
power were different, the outcome was different. The monarchy dominated
society, trade and economic opportunities, and in consequence, political
institutions became weaker and the economy declined. As Marx and Engels put it
in the Communist Manifesto,
"The discovery of America, the rounding of the Cape, opened up fresh
ground for the rising bourgeoisie."
It did, but only in some circumstances. In others it led to a retardation of
the bourgeoisie. In consequence colonialism drove economic development in some
parts of Europe and retarded it in others.
Colonialism did not, however, merely impact the development of those
societies that did the colonising. Most obviously, it also affected the
societies that were colonised. In our research (Acemoglu et al. 2001, 2002) we
showed that this, again, had heterogeneous effects. This is because colonialism
ended up creating very distinct sorts of societies in different places. In
particular, colonialism left very different institutional legacies in different
parts of the world, with profoundly divergent consequences for economic
development.
The reason for this is not that the various European powers transplanted
different sorts of institutions – so that North America succeeded due to an
inheritance of British institutions, while Latin America failed because of its
Spanish institutions.
In fact, the evidence suggests that the intentions and strategies of
distinct colonial powers were very similar (Acemoglu and Robinson 2012). The
outcomes were very different because of variation in initial conditions in the
colonies. For example, in Latin America, where there were dense populations of
indigenous people, a colonial society could be created based on the
exploitation of these people. In North America where no such populations
existed, such a society was infeasible, even though the first British settlers
tried to set it up. In response, early North American society went in a
completely different direction: early colonising ventures, such as the Virginia
Company, needed to attract Europeans and stop them running off into the open
frontier and they needed to incentivise them to work and invest. The
institutions that did this, such as political rights and access to land, were
radically different even from the institutions in the colonising country. When
British colonisers found Latin-American-like circumstances, for example in
South Africa, Kenya or Zimbabwe, they were perfectly capable of and interested
in setting up what we have called 'extractive institutions', based on the
control of and the extraction of rents from indigenous peoples. In Acemoglu and
Robinson (2012) we argue that extractive institutions, which strip the vast
mass of the population of incentives or opportunities, are associated with
poverty. It is also not a coincidence that such African societies are today as
unequal as Latin American countries.
It wasn't just the density of indigenous peoples that mattered for the type
of society that formed. As we showed in Acemoglu et al. (2001), the disease
environment facing potential European settlers was also important. Something
that encouraged the colonisation of North America was the relatively benign
disease environment that facilitated the strategy of creating institutions to
guarantee European migration. Something that encouraged the creation of
extractive institutions in West Africa was the fact that it was the 'white
man's graveyard', discouraging the creation of the type of 'inclusive economic
institutions' which encouraged the settlement and development of North America.
These inclusive institutions, in contrast to extractive institutions, did
create incentives and opportunities for the vast mass of people.
Our focus on the disease environment as a source of variation in colonial
societies was not because we considered this to be the only or even the main
source of variation in the nature of such societies. It was for a particular
scientific reason: we argued that the historical factors that influenced the
disease environment for Europeans and therefore their propensity to migrate to
a particular colony are not themselves a significant source of variation in
economic development today. More technically, this meant that historical
measures of European settler mortality could be used as an instrumental
variable to estimate the causal effect of economic institutions on economic
development (as measured by income per-capita). The main challenge to this
approach is that factors which influenced European mortality historically may
be persistent and can influence income today, perhaps via effects on health or
contemporary life expectancy. There are several reasons why this is not likely
to be true however. First, our measures of European mortality in the colonies
are from 200 or so years ago, before the founding of modern medicine or the
understanding of tropical diseases. Second, they are measures of mortality
faced by Europeans with no immunity to tropical diseases, which is something
very different from the mortality faced by indigenous people today, which is
presumably what is relevant for current economic development in these
countries. Just to check, we also showed that our results are robust to the
controlling econometrically of various modern measures of health, such as
malaria risk and life expectancy.
Thus, just as colonialism had heterogeneous effects on development within
Europe, promoting it in places like Britain, but retarding it in Spain, so it
also had very heterogeneous effects in the colonies. In some places, like North
America, it created societies with far more inclusive institutions than in the
colonising country itself and planted the seeds for the immense current
prosperity of the region. In others, such as Latin America, Africa or South
Asia, it created extractive institutions that led to very poor long-run
development outcomes.
The fact that colonialism had positive effects on development in some
contexts does not mean that it did not have devastating negative effects on
indigenous populations and society. It did.
That colonialism in the early modern and modern periods had heterogeneous
effects is made plausible by many other pieces of evidence. For example, Putnam
(1994) proposed that it was the Norman conquest of the South of Italy that
created the lack of 'social capital' in the region, the dearth of associational
life that led to a society that lacked trust or the ability to cooperate. Yet
the Normans also colonised England and that led to a society which gave birth
to the industrial revolution. Thus Norman colonisation had heterogeneous
effects too.
Colonialism mattered for development because it shaped the institutions of
different societies. But many other things influenced these too, and, at least
in the early modern and modern period, there were quite a few places that
managed to avoid colonialism. These include China, Iran, Japan, Nepal and
Thailand, amongst others, and there is a great deal of variation in development
outcomes within these countries, not to mention the great variation within
Europe itself. This raises the question of how important, quantitatively,
European colonialism was, compared to other factors. Acemoglu et al. (2001)
calculate that, according to their estimates, differences in economic
institutions account for about two-thirds of the differences in income
per-capita in the world. At the same time, Acemoglu et al. (2002) show that, on
their own, historical settler mortality and indigenous population density in
1500 explain around 30% of the variation in economic institutions in the world
today. If historical urbanisation in 1500, which can also explain variation in
the nature of colonial societies, is added, this increases to over 50% of the
variation. If this is right, then a third of income inequality in the world
today can be explained by the varying impact of European colonialism on
different societies. A big deal.
That colonialism shaped the historical institutions of colonies might be
obviously plausible. For example, we know that, in Peru of the 1570s, the
Spanish Viceroy Francisco de Toledo set up a huge system of forced labour to
mine the silver of Potosí. But this system, the Potosí mita, was abolished in
the 1820s, when Peru and Bolivia became independent. To claim that such an
institution, or, more broadly, the institutions created by colonial powers all
over the world, influence development today, is to make a claim about how
colonialism influenced the political economy of these societies in a way which
led these institutions to either directly persist, or to leave a path dependent
legacy. The coerced labour of indigenous peoples lasted directly up until at
least the 1952 Bolivian Revolution, when the system known as pongueaje was
abolished. More generally, Acemoglu and Robinson (2012, Chapters 11 and 12) and
Dell (2010) discuss many mechanisms via which this could have taken place.
Finally, it is worth observing that our empirical findings have important
implications for alterative theories of comparative development. Some argue
that geographical differences are dominant in explaining long-run patterns of
development. In contradistinction, we showed that once the role of institutions
is accounted for, geographical factors are not correlated with development
outcomes. The fact that, for instance, there is a correlation between latitude
and geography, is not indicative of a causal relationship. It is simply driven
by the fact that European colonialism created a pattern of institutions that is
correlated with latitude. Once this is controlled for, geographical variables
play no causal role. Others argue that cultural differences are paramount in
driving development. We found no role at all for cultural differences measured
in several ways. First, the religious composition of different populations.
Second, as we have emphasised, the identity of the colonial power. Third, the
fraction of the population of a country of European descent. It is true, of
course, that the United States and Canada filled up with Europeans, but in our
argument this was an outcome of the fact that they had good institutions. It is
not the numerical dominance of people of European descent today that drives
development.
Not that I want to defend colonialism, but growing inequality both in Europe
and in the ex-colonies makes it hard to argue that 'colonialism' is a driving
force.
I think colonialism could be a driving force without necessarily being
the sole driving force. Yes, inequality is on the rise in the first world as
well, but as of a few years ago the highest Gini bracket in Europe was still
the lowest in Central and South America. So there's a difference in scale.
Capitalism, especially neoliberal financial capitalism, is unstable on its
own and rapidly produces gross inequality independent of the starting point -
just like the game of monopoly. Colonialism, a particular type of theft
capitalism, may have created earlier states of inequality, but today's
inequality would exist independent of this earlier state. The root cause is
compounding growth/profits/ interest as Michael Hudson has explained.
One can expand this study by overlaying other types of colonialism. For
example Spain suffered more than 700 years of Arab colonialism and succeeded in
throwing off the Arab yoke just as they started their own colonial project in
the Americas. How much of the failure of the institutions the Spanish left in
the Americas is the result of faulty institutions the Arabs brought to Spain?
And how does one study areas the were first colonized by Arabs (North
Africa, sub-Saharan Africa, India, etc.) Are the problems in Algeria today more
the result of Arab colonialism or French colonialism?
And how many of the problems today in Russia are a result of Mongol
colonialism - and for that matter the same question could be asked about the
Middle East? That area has suffered so many layers of colonialism (Arab,
Mongol, Ottoman, European) that it would take a sort of archaeologist to figure
out which problems are a result of which colonialism.
There were no Arabs in India. Persians and Mongols, yes. Hindu India was
the coloniser in the East all the way to Indonesia. Also, both China and
Japan have been colonized by Hindu/ Buddhist Institutions whose legacy can
be seen even now.
Euhm, this isn't personal, but imagine your response if someone took that
para of yours and changed Spain to US, Arab Colonialism with Scots/Irish
Colonialism, and cheered on their eradication and marginalization at the
hands of, say, a realpolitik/nationalist politician, who justifies said
actions by talking about how he's "liberating" Appalachia. Problematic, no?
Arabs had been living in Spain for centuries under thug rule before a
bunch of "christian" thugs thought up the idea to "justify" a
handily-marketed "re"conquest of areas that had never really belonged to
them, and which did not contain "relatives", while the Christianity of the
people displaced by the arabs was pretty much equally novel - at best 200yo.
Not really sure it's apt to compare that to the western
colonization/eradication efforts that started with the expansion of Spain to
the south, then west.
It's worth pointing out that in the USA, extractive institutions WERE
created in places where tobacco and cotton can be grown. However, the yields
aren't great once you get north of Maryland (for tobacco) and I think even
further south for cotton. The northeast of the USA didn't really have much that
they could export to Britain, profitably.
It's clear that development is driven by good quality institutions, but the
real question is whether geography determined the nature of colonial era
institutions that took root.
But that's not to dispute the argument that colonial institutions created a
kind of path dependency that left a lasting legacy that still overshadows
present conditions.
I always suspected Social Sciences, especially Economics of being a mumbo
jumbo. This article strengthens my belief in that direction. It was not
"institutions" but guns and gun powder that created the European colonial
empires( though failing in China ). The genocide of native American peoples
coupled with slave African labour accelerated economic development and not
institutions. The same was the case with India.The article is very high on the
unreadability index; mumbo jumbo at least requires a minimum measure of style
that the authors lack in the English language.Savagery of Christianity in face
of more sophisticated and refined ways of life like those of the Hindus in
India is another factor that created inequality and not "institutions" which
Indian Hindu States had in enough supplies as even a cursory glance at the
history of colonialism in those parts will reveal. And now China has really
developed and it is time all European Parliaments must declare their activities
on other shores as Genocidal and apologise and pay compensations to those
countries where they did their Projects!
This did not make clear to me what colonialism is. A elite group from one
society or region moves into another region to exploit people and resources.
Tactics are to weaken defenses (war, destroy food supplies) and get buy in from
selected groups, yet maintain the majority of the gains for themselves.
I can't think of societies that haven't had some type of political system
nor inequality among individuals and groups so is colonialism referring to
inequality between nations (excluding regions) with an specific form of
governing (official elections) and distance? I'm thinking of a checkerboard .
if the elite from one region move into a neighboring region, install themselves
as the ruling class and institute slavery that is not colonialism. If the elite
from one region skip a couple of squares, install themselves as the ruling
class and institute slavery, that is colonialism.
Exploitation is universal, because of greed and fear. If you can exploit,
you most often do. When exploitation isn't about individuals, or companies
but about peoples and nations, that is colonialism. The West is suffering from
internal colonialism now as well, as Marx predicted.
Study the Romans, read about Augustus Cesar, reach and understanding
Plebs and Patricians. The west "is suffering" from the same rule it modeled
itself upon.
If this is a foretaste of the rest of the book, it is thin gruel, suffering
from the usual Anglo-American myopia. You want to talk about colonialism
without talking about the Portuguese and how they differed? Discussion of North
and South America with no mention of Brazil?
I am reminded again that in my advertisements and in many parts of the U S
of A, "bilingual" = speaking U.S. English + New World Spanish.
No wonder we are where we are, Gini-quotient-wise.
"such as the Virginia Company, needed to attract Europeans and stop them
running off into the open frontier"
"As a part of the early history of Virginia, Jefferson once made reference
to "The wild Irish who had gotten possession of the valley between the
Blueridge and Northmountain,"
It is difficult for me to detect any coherent argument in this very poorly
informed piece.
"Colonialism mattered for development because it shaped the institutions
of different societies. But many other things influenced these too, and, at
least in the early modern and modern period, there were quite a few places
that managed to avoid colonialism. These include China, Iran, Japan, Nepal
and Thailand, amongst others."
How does this make any sense at all? Have the authors even heard of the
Opium Wars, or Hong Kong? If so, how are they defining "colonialism?"
The vast slave labor plantations of the antebellum South reflect how the
Virginia Company "incentivized" people "to work and invest through
"institutions" "such as political rights and access to land."??!!??
The authors appear to believe that the Norman conquest of 1066 is a
"colonizing" event similar to that of the Belgian colonization of the Congo,
yet the British rule over Hong Kong isn't "colonialism" at all. Any
undergraduate student who proposed such nonsense– in a Western Civ. class–
would certainly fail the course!
Why do we continue to wade about in this trumped-up confusion as concerns a
clear understanding of the operations of the European colonial outbreak, and
especially Settler Colonialism?
Wherever possible, and by that I mean wherever there was arable land
available, the colonial powers, in particular, Britain, either enticed, or
forced a settler population to supplant the indigenous people, and if
necessary, kill them.
The history is confusing only because our masters wish us to remain ignorant
of its true nature, and its ramifications concerning modern political reality.
The Brits colonized Ireland and imposed 'order' by injecting a settler
population.
They colonized South Africa and imposed 'order' by injecting a settler
population.
They colonized North America and imposed 'order' by injecting a settler
population.
They colonized Palastine imposed 'order' by injecting a settler population,
which continues to this day.
The truth about all this was, and is actively suppressed, and obfuscated by
the very people who pretend to study, analyze, and explain history, both in
academia, and media.
Please excuse me if I point out my uncomfortable suspicion that articles
like this are intended to further cloud our collective ability to understand
the deep history of how and why we are 'managed' for profit.
For instance, does it make our current treatment at the hands of America's
elite more understandable if we consider the fact that maybe we've served our
'purpose' and are no longer needed, or appreciated except as a source of
end-game extraction?
At least based on the above, no mention of the Ottoman Empire either, which
had (and has) enormous influence on the development of much of the Middle East
and the Balkans (and of course the Ottoman Empire is not the same as the Arab
conquests). I seriously question, in fact whether "colonialism" is actually a
useful concept here or whether it's just too vague to tell us anything.
"He's what a lot of Americans would be if they had a
billion dollars."
Updated by Sean Illing
Feb 1, 2017, 9:30am EST
"Pull a lever for me and you'll horrify them all."
That's how journalist and author Matt Taibbi describes the
proposition Donald Trump made to the electorate in 2016. For
the past year, Taibbi has covered Trump for Rolling Stone.
His latest book, Insane Clown President: Dispatches From the
2016 Circus, is a collection of long- and shortform articles
drawn from that experience.
To read the pieces in chronological order is to witness a
familiar journey: In the beginning, like so many people,
Taibbi saw Trump's candidacy as a joke. But then he went to
Iowa and saw that something was afoot. Trump had tapped into
a reservoir of resentment.
And then there was the performative aspect. The way he
talked, the way he behaved, the way he treated other
candidates - it was obscene and spellbinding all at once.
Trump treated the campaign like a reality TV show, sucking
all the oxygen out of the room. It was a perfect marriage of
amorality and shamelessness.
"In a perverse way," Taibbi wrote in August 2015, "Trump
has restored a more pure democracy to this process. He's
taken the Beltway thinkfluencers out of the game and turned
the presidency into a pure high-school-style popularity
contest conducted entirely in the media."
The wave of spectacle-driven rage that Trump rode in the
primaries carried him all the way to the White House. The
people who voted for Trump knew they were voting for
dynamite, Taibbi argues, and that was the point: to extend a
giant middle finger to the establishment.
I sat down with Taibbi last week to talk about the seeds
of this resentment. I also asked him why he still felt
blindsided by the election, and why he thinks Trump was able
to circumnavigate all the institutional checks that normally
prevent someone like him from ascending to the presidency.
Our conversation, edited for length and clarity, follows.
Sean Illing
In 2009, you wrote a book called The Great Derangement in
which you talked about various fringe political movements
around the country. A big theme was the loss of trust in
national institutions, like Congress and the media. You even
described a possible future in which politics "stopped being
about ideology and instead turned into a problem of
information."
That reads like prophecy now. What did you see in 2009?
Matt Taibbi
The main thing was that I saw people tuning out the media. A
lot of us have this idea that the truth has a kind of magical
power, that if the truth is out there it will convince the
country to unite behind it. But this isn't so. People can
simply decide to not believe a version of events now. They
can shop for information the same way they'd shop for
everything else, and they pick the reality they find most
pleasing.
Back when I was thinking about the rapture movement or the
9/11 truther movement, what struck me was that there are
bubbles now that you can stay in and you don't have to engage
with reality if you don't want to. So it occurred to me that
in the future, people might decide en masse to completely
tune out. Even the idea of having a debate with people about
a commonly accepted body of facts seemed to be slipping away
at the time.
And that's kind of what happened in this election. It was
one group of people believing one thing and another group of
people seeing something completely different.
Sean Illing
Some of this is justified insofar as people, some more than
others, feel left behind both economically and culturally.
When people feel disinvested in the system, it's a lot easier
to tune out.
Matt Taibbi
Exactly. We've had this slow, suffocating decline in the real
value of people's salaries. Real opportunities are shrinking.
Everybody has to work more. There's more debt. There's a
broad perception that the mainstream media was in league with
this group of elitist forces that were hoarding all of the
winnings from society and slowly squeezing everyone else out.
What I learned talking to people around the country is
that the press was seen as the enemy, as part of the
grinding, broken system. And that's why they didn't trust us
anymore. Fair or not, that was the perception.
Sean Illing
How much does Trump remind you of Nixon?
Matt Taibbi
When Hunter S. Thompson wrote about Nixon, he was responding
to a man he saw as symbolic of his time, a kind of monster of
his age. Nixon's personality represented this darkness that
was at the heart of everything wrong with America at the
time. And Trump is an equivalent figure in that way. But he's
not the same kind of person as Nixon. Nixon had many levels
to his personality; he was a thinker, well-educated, a
schemer. Trump is just a bundle of disorganized urges. He's
what a lot of Americans would be if they had a billion
dollars: They'd build grotesque castles, bang models, and
grow fat.
So in that sense, Trump represents something horrible
about all of us, and that's what reminds me of Nixon.
Sean Illing
I admit, I was slow to recognize what was happening last
year. For months I insisted Trump would fold, one way or the
other. Some of it was cognitive dissonance; some of it was
pure denialism. I just got it wrong.
At what point did you say, "Holy shit, this guy can win
the whole thing"?
Matt Taibbi
I went through a couple different stages with this. When he
first entered the race, I thought it was a joke. And then I
went through this period where I went to Iowa and realized
that the field of Republican candidates he was running
against were comically lightweight. At that point, I believed
he was absolutely going to win the nomination. I think when
he survived his attack on John McCain, it was even clearer.
But later, like everyone else, I fell victim to the
popular myths about the invincibility of the Obama coalition.
I ran into a Democratic operative at the RNC and he laid out
all these crazy things that had to happen in order for Trump
to win a general election, and I totally bought it. I knew
Clinton was weak, but I believed she would win. Obviously
that was a mistake.
I should've gone with what I was seeing, and what I was
seeing was Trump generating an enormous amount of energy on
the campaign trail, and also that Clinton was the perfect
opponent for him. It was all right there, in front of us, but
I didn't trust my instincts.
Sean Illing
I'm still convinced this guy never wanted to be president.
Hell, he hired a bunch of actors to stand in front of him
when made his campaign announcement speech. My sense is that
this was an exercise in brand promotion that, at some point,
exploded into something real.
Matt Taibbi
Ha! You know, Trump's foray into this campaign reminded me of
this boxer, Peter McNeeley, who fought Mike Tyson right after
he got out of jail. So McNeeley was this terrible white boxer
with a mullet who got a chance to fight Tyson at the right
time. The whole thing was like a frat dare. McNeeley got
himself all pumped up and he just ran to the center of ring,
right into Tyson's fist, and he just collapsed onto the mat.
I thought Trump's campaign would be like that: He'd go into
it with a full head of steam, and it would be fantastic for a
month or two.
But then he ran into the total stupidity of America that
embraced every dumb thing about him, and that chemically
interacted with his narcissistic personality and it turned
into this unstoppable force.
Sean Illing
Another part of this story is how craftily Trump played the
media throughout the campaign. The media was the perfect
punching bag, the perfect "cultural villain," as you put it.
He just rope-a-doped us all the way to the White House.
Matt Taibbi
He tuned in to the fact that all of us are slaves to ratings,
even if we pretend that we're not. To be fair, individually a
lot us try to do what we know we ought to do, but the reality
is that we work for companies that have to make money. Trump
understands that, and he understands that he was making
everyone money. He knew we'd keep the lights on. He knew we
needed him as much as he needed us.
Sean Illing
He was also tuned in to the rampant anti-media sentiment out
there. After every offense - insulting veterans, menstrual
jokes, mocking a disabled reporter, threatening to kill the
family members of terrorists, offering to pay the legal fees
of supporters who pummel protesters, the "grab 'em by the
pussy" scandal - he attacked the press, and most of his
supporters loved it. Whoever he offended or whatever he lied
about was an afterthought.
Matt Taibbi
Absolutely. We see ourselves as the defenders of the public
good, but so many of the people I talked to on the campaign
trail see the press as the agents of political correctness,
as self-important do-gooders who take every opportunity to
mock and punish people who don't think and talk and act like
we do. Trump was defying all of this, and peopled loved the
fact that he stood up to us.
Sean Illing
You say in the book that Trump basically went to the American
people and said, "Pull a lever for me and you'll horrify them
all." And 60 million people said, "I'm in."
Matt Taibbi
Again, you have all these people on the progressive side
asking themselves, "How can all these Trump voters not be
thinking about the reality of what a Trump presidency would
look like?" And it just reflects a total misunderstanding of
the thought process on the other side. This is about living
from second to second, and they just wanted that rush that
they were going to get when they saw the looks on our faces
when Trump got elected.
The reality of what comes next is totally secondary.
Sean Illing
An interesting question moving forward is how do we cover
Trump in a way that's illuminating but also not
counterproductive or amenable to the anti-media narrative
he's spinning?
Matt Taibbi
It's a really great question because Trump has this ability
to turn everyone in his orbit into a reality TV character,
and he's turned the media into one. We're starting to behave
radically, more emotionally, in a way we're giving in to the
demands that the public has to ditch our normal approach to
things and to be more alarmist in our reporting.
That's exactly the wrong approach, though I get it. I
realize this is ridiculous coming from a guy who just wrote a
book with the title "Insane Clown President," but I think we
should slowly, methodically focus on the hard facts of
everything he's doing and not get into flame wars and
distractions and soap operas.
It's not our job to take on Trump and beat him; our job is
to do what we do.
Sean Illing
In the book, you write that Trump is "as likely driven by gas
as ideology." He's got Steve Bannon, the intellectual light
of the alt-right, as his chief strategist. His Cabinet is
full of military generals, bankers, and billionaires -
there's really no coherent ideological thread holding it
together.
What prospect worries you more: that Trump is a
ratings-chasing nihilist or that he might actually believe
all the things he said on the trail?
Matt Taibbi
Both of those outcomes are extremely dangerous. If he's just
a tool for an evil racist revolutionary like Bannon, who
actually has a brain in his head and is capable of strategic
thought, that would be really bad. If he's just an amoral
narcissistic lunatic, as he appears to be, that's also bad. I
could easily see him hate-tweeting us into a war.
So neither scenario is terribly heartening. If it's just
him being crazy, well, the president has a lot of power and
that could go tragically wrong. If it's him being a puppet or
a willing conspirator in this alt-right revolution, that's
just as frightening.
It's like that scene in Goodwill Hunting: "Do you want the
belt, the stick, or the wrench?" Shit, I don't want any of
them.
Sean Illing
I talked to one of Trump's biographers recently, and he
echoed something I've heard from a lot of people, which is
that Trump only cares about his popularity and that he'll do
whatever he thinks will boost his ratings. That's almost
comforting, but every indication so far is that Trump is
pushing full steam ahead on the promises he made during the
campaign.
Now, signing executive orders doesn't mean things
magically happen, but it's an indicator that he intends to
advance policies that are popular with his base but not with
the majority of the country.
Matt Taibbi
I think he's spent so much time with these sycophants who
worship him and have responded positively to his loony ideas
about the wall and the Muslim ban that he feels pressure to
live up to the image of Trump as the savior and rescuer even
though it's not winning him a whole lot of popularity among
the majority of the country. He still seems to care intensely
about things like his ratings, otherwise why make all this
noise about mythical voter fraud or crowd sizes?
So I think the biographer is mostly right. I don't have
any idea what that will mean for the next four years,
however.
Sean Illing
Speaking of the next four years, your book ends on a
pessimistic note. You basically declare the dream of unified
country dead. Is it that dark?
Matt Taibbi
Yeah, I think it is.
Sean Illing
Are you encouraged at all by the massive protests or the fact
that Trump is historically unpopular?
Matt Taibbi
Not enough to feel especially hopeful about the future. I
lived in Russia for several years and one of the things that
struck me is how naive I had been growing up in the United
States. If you grew up in America, you have no idea how bad
it can get. The possibilities for awfulness in human
experience are far beyond what we're used to.
I think we're just beginning to see how bad things can
get. We have an illusion of stability thanks to our wealth
and geography and the fact that we're still a young country.
We take so much for granted. As Yeats said, things can fall
apart. The center doesn't hold forever.
I see things starting to fray here and it's unsettling.
Sean Illing
Political order is perilously contingent, and that's a lesson
America hasn't learned in a long time.
Matt Taibbi
That's exactly right. I'm not sure how this will play out,
but it feels like we're at the beginning of something.
Many, if not, most democrats also believe in "jobs" and look
on social welfare with puritan disdain. I think it will take
at least a couple of generations for USAnians to discard
their puritan economic beliefs and acknowledge that capital
should be shared (and/or even collectively owned).
President Trump signed an executive order on Friday titled "Protecting the Nation From Foreign
Terrorist Entry Into the United States." Following is the language of that order, as supplied by
the White House.
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and laws of the United States of
America, including the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101
et seq
., and section
301 of title 3, United States Code, and to protect the American people from terrorist attacks by
foreign nationals admitted to the United States, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Purpose
.
The visa-issuance process plays a crucial role in detecting individuals
with terrorist ties and stopping them from entering the United States. Perhaps in no instance was
that more apparent than the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, when State Department policy
prevented consular officers from properly scrutinizing the visa applications of several of the 19
foreign nationals who went on to murder nearly 3,000 Americans. And while the visa-issuance process
was reviewed and amended after the September 11 attacks to better detect would-be terrorists from
receiving visas, these measures did not stop attacks by foreign nationals who were admitted to the
United States.
Numerous foreign-born individuals have been convicted or implicated in terrorism-related crimes
since September 11, 2001, including foreign nationals who entered the United States after receiving
visitor, student, or employment visas, or who entered through the United States refugee resettlement
program. Deteriorating conditions in certain countries due to war, strife, disaster, and civil unrest
increase the likelihood that terrorists will use any means possible to enter the United States. The
United States must be vigilant during the visa-issuance process to ensure that those approved for
admission do not intend to harm Americans and that they have no ties to terrorism.
In order to protect Americans, the United States must ensure that those admitted to this country
do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles. The United States cannot, and
should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies
over American law. In addition, the United States should not admit those who engage in acts of bigotry
or hatred (including "honor" killings, other forms of violence against women, or the persecution
of those who practice religions different from their own) or those who would oppress Americans of
any race, gender, or sexual orientation.
Sec. 2. Policy. It is the policy of the United States to protect its citizens from foreign nationals
who intend to commit terrorist attacks in the United States; and to prevent the admission of foreign
nationals who intend to exploit United States immigration laws for malevolent purposes.
Sec. 3. Suspension of Issuance of Visas and Other Immigration Benefits to Nationals of Countries
of Particular Concern
.
(a) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary
of State and the Director of National Intelligence, shall immediately conduct a review to determine
the information needed from any country to adjudicate any visa, admission, or other benefit under
the INA (adjudications) in order to determine that the individual seeking the benefit is who the
individual claims to be and is not a security or public-safety threat.
(b) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director
of National Intelligence, shall submit to the President a report on the results of the review described
in subsection (a) of this section, including the Secretary of Homeland Security's determination of
the information needed for adjudications and a list of countries that do not provide adequate information,
within 30 days of the date of this order. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall provide a copy
of the report to the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence.
(c) To temporarily reduce investigative burdens on relevant agencies during the review period
described in subsection (a) of this section, to ensure the proper review and maximum utilization
of available resources for the screening of foreign nationals, and to ensure that adequate standards
are established to prevent infiltration by foreign terrorists or criminals, pursuant to section 212(f)
of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the
United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12),
would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United
States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order
(excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization
visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas).
(d) Immediately upon receipt of the report described in subsection (b) of this section regarding
the information needed for adjudications, the Secretary of State shall request all foreign governments
that do not supply such information to start providing such information regarding their nationals
within 60 days of notification.
(e) After the 60-day period described in subsection (d) of this section expires, the Secretary
of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall submit to the President
a list of countries recommended for inclusion on a Presidential proclamation that would prohibit
the entry of foreign nationals (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas,
North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2,
G-3, and G-4 visas) from countries that do not provide the information requested pursuant to subsection
(d) of this section until compliance occurs.
(f) At any point after submitting the list described in subsection (e) of this section, the Secretary
of State or the Secretary of Homeland Security may submit to the President the names of any additional
countries recommended for similar treatment.
(g) Notwithstanding a suspension pursuant to subsection (c) of this section or pursuant to a Presidential
proclamation described in subsection (e) of this section, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security
may, on a case-by-case basis, and when in the national interest, issue visas or other immigration
benefits to nationals of countries for which visas and benefits are otherwise blocked.
(h) The Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall submit to the President a joint report
on the progress in implementing this orderwithin 30 days of the date of this order, a second report
within 60 daysof the date of this order, a third report within 90 days of the date of this order,
and a fourth report within 120 days of the date of this order.
Sec. 4. Implementing Uniform Screening Standards for All Immigration Programs
.
(a) The
Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Director of National Intelligence, and
the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall implement a program, as part of the adjudication
process for immigration benefits, to identify individuals seeking to enter the United States on a
fraudulent basis with the intent to cause harm, or who are at risk of causing harm subsequent to
their admission. This program will include the development of a uniform screening standard and procedure,
such as in-person interviews; a database of identity documents proffered by applicants to ensure
that duplicate documents are not used by multiple applicants; amended application forms that include
questions aimed at identifying fraudulent answers and malicious intent; a mechanism to ensure that
the applicant is who the applicant claims to be; a process to evaluate the applicant's likelihood
of becoming a positively contributing member of society and the applicant's ability to make contributions
to the national interest; and a mechanism to assess whether or not the applicant has the intent to
commit criminal or terrorist acts after entering the United States.
(b) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in conjunction with the Secretary of State, the Director
of National Intelligence, and the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, shall submit to
the President an initial report on the progress of this directive within 60 days of the date of this
order, a second report within 100 days of the date of this order, and a third report within 200 days
of the date of this order.
Sec. 5. Realignment of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program for Fiscal Year 2017
.
(a) The
Secretary of State shall suspend the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) for 120 days. During
the 120-day period, the Secretary of State, in conjunction with the Secretary of Homeland Security
and in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, shall review the USRAP application
and adjudication process to determine what additional procedures should be taken to ensure that those
approved for refugee admission do not pose a threat to the security and welfare of the United States,
and shall implement such additional procedures. Refugee applicants who are already in the USRAP process
may be admitted upon the initiation and completion of these revised procedures. Upon the date that
is 120 days after the date of this order, the Secretary of State shall resume USRAP admissions only
for nationals of countries for which the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security,
and the Director of National Intelligence have jointly determined that such additional procedures
are adequate to ensure the security and welfare of the United States.
(b) Upon the resumption of USRAP admissions, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the
Secretary of Homeland Security, is further directed to make changes, to the extent permitted by law,
to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided
that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual's country of nationality.
Where necessary and appropriate, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall recommend legislation
to the President that would assist with such prioritization.
(c) Pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the entry
of nationals of Syria as refugees is detrimental to the interests of the United States and thus suspend
any such entry until such time as I have determined that sufficient changes have been made to the
USRAP to ensure that admission of Syrian refugees is consistent with the national interest.
(d) Pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the entry
of more than 50,000 refugees in fiscal year 2017 would be detrimental to the interests of the United
States, and thus suspend any such entry until such time as I determine that additional admissions
would be in the national interest.
(e) Notwithstanding the temporary suspension imposed pursuant to subsection (a) of this section,
the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may jointly determine to admit individuals to the
United States as refugees on a case-by-case basis, in their discretion, but only so long as they
determine that the admission of such individuals as refugees is in the national interest - including
when the person is a religious minority in his country of nationality facing religious persecution,
when admitting the person would enable the United States to conform its conduct to a preexisting
international agreement, or when the person is already in transit and denying admission would cause
undue hardship - and it would not pose a risk to the security or welfare of the United States.
(f) The Secretary of State shall submit to the President an initial report on the progress of
the directive in subsection (b) of this section regarding prioritization of claims made by individuals
on the basis of religious-based persecution within 100 days of the date of this order and shall submit
a second report within 200 days of the date of this order.
(g) It is the policy of the executive branch that, to the extent permitted by law and as practicable,
State and local jurisdictions be granted a role in the process of determining the placement or settlement
in their jurisdictions of aliens eligible to be admitted to the United States as refugees. To that
end, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall examine existing law to determine the extent to which,
consistent with applicable law, State and local jurisdictions may have greater involvement in the
process of determining the placement or resettlement of refugees in their jurisdictions, and shall
devise a proposal to lawfully promote such involvement.
Sec. 6. Rescission of Exercise of Authority Relating to the Terrorism Grounds of Inadmissibility
.
The Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall, in consultation with the Attorney General,
consider rescinding the exercises of authority in section 212 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182, relating
to the terrorism grounds of inadmissibility, as well as any related implementing memoranda.
Sec. 7. Expedited Completion of the Biometric Entry-Exit Tracking System. (a) The Secretary of
Homeland Security shall expedite the completion and implementation of a biometric entry-exit tracking
system for all travelers to the United States, as recommended by the National Commission on Terrorist
Attacks Upon the United States.
(b) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit to the President periodic reports on the progress
of the directive contained in subsection (a) of this section. The initial report shall be submitted
within 100 days of the date of this order, a second report shall be submitted within 200 days of
the date of this order, and a third report shall be submitted within 365 days of the date of this
order. Further, the Secretary shall submit a report every 180 days thereafter until the system is
fully deployed and operational.
Sec. 8. Visa Interview Security
.
(a) The Secretary of State shall immediately suspend the
Visa Interview Waiver Program and ensure compliance with section 222 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1222, which
requires that all individuals seeking a nonimmigrant visa undergo an in-person interview, subject
to specific statutory exceptions.
(b) To the extent permitted by law and subject to the availability of appropriations, the Secretary
of State shall immediately expand the Consular Fellows Program, including by substantially increasing
the number of Fellows, lengthening or making permanent the period of service, and making language
training at the Foreign Service Institute available to Fellows for assignment to posts outside of
their area of core linguistic ability, to ensure that non-immigrant visa-interview wait times are
not unduly affected.
Sec. 9. Visa Validity Reciprocity
.
The Secretary of State shall review all nonimmigrant
visa reciprocity agreements to ensure that they are, with respect to each visa classification, truly
reciprocal insofar as practicable with respect to validity period and fees, as required by sections
221(c) and 281 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1201(c) and 1351, and other treatment. If a country does not
treat United States nationals seeking nonimmigrant visas in a reciprocal manner, the Secretary of
State shall adjust the visa validity period, fee schedule, or other treatment to match the treatment
of United States nationals by the foreign country, to the extent practicable.
Sec. 10. Transparency and Data Collection
.
(a) To be more transparent with the American
people, and to more effectively implement policies and practices that serve the national interest,
the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Attorney General, shall, consistent
with applicable law and national security, collect and make publicly available within 180 days, and
every 180 days thereafter:
(i) information regarding the number of foreign nationals in the United States who have been charged
with terrorism-related offenses while in the United States; convicted of terrorism-related offenses
while in the United States; or removed from the United States based on terrorism-related activity,
affiliation, or material support to a terrorism-related organization, or any other national security
reasons since the date of this order or the last reporting period, whichever is later;
(ii) information regarding the number of foreign nationals in the United States who have been
radicalized after entry into the United States and engaged in terrorism-related acts, or who have
provided material support to terrorism-related organizations in countries that pose a threat to the
United States, since the date of this order or the last reporting period, whichever is later; and
(iii) information regarding the number and types of acts of gender-based violence against women,
including honor killings, in the United States by foreign nationals, since the date of this order
or the last reporting period, whichever is later; and
(iv) any other information relevant to public safety and security as determined by the Secretary
of Homeland Security and the Attorney General, including information on the immigration status of
foreign nationals charged with major offenses.
(b) The Secretary of State shall, within one year of the date of this order, provide a report
on the estimated long-term costs of the USRAP at the Federal, State, and local levels.
Sec. 11. General Provisions
.
(a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or
otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary,
administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability
of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural,
enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies,
or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
I, too, am worried by our descent into prewar hatred. I had a friend from Dubrovnik in the'80s.
She was a typical Yugoslav – half Croatian, quarter Serbian, and a quarter Russian. She was full
of hope, smart, pretty, and heartbreakingly naďve. If she survived the war, I'm pretty sure my friend
lost what made her a beautiful human being. She haunts me. Civil wars seem implausible until they
start and then they follow the devil's logic. People like my friend tend to die in them or turn into
something less than they were in order to survive.
I'm an old man now working on my doctorate through a senior citizens' scholarship. I grew on the
North-East Coast. I live in the rural South now. I know people from everywhere because I've been
around a long time. Comfortable people from the cities, Democrat or Republican, want to hit someone,
hard but they have by and large never worn a uniform or had a gun pointed at their heads. They're
frustrated which makes sense but they don't know when a bloody fight is coming. You can smell it
coming like folks down here can smell a tornado or like mothers smell death on its way and snatch
their children off the front porch.
Here in Flyover Country things are bad, really bad. I recently visited family in Northern California.
Things were pretty nice. Not opulent by any means but the shelves were stocked. Security guards in
Target let the kids play around. Around here – not so much. Not so much as a Target. We have long
lines, empty shelves, and the kids, black and white, always seem aware that they're not safe. Comfortable
people in cities worry about reproductive health care. We worry about getting a four-dollar antibiotic
for pneumonia at Wal-Mart without having to spend several hundred bucks for the prescription (real
life experience with insurance). Our mean income is about a quarter of Northern California's. Housing
is cheaper but it's not cheap and it's a lot worse housing. Food and utilities are a lot more expensive.
Everything including food and medicine is taxed. We're dying here, slowly perhaps but we're dying
none the less.
Even so, my Democrat and Republican friends and family from the coasts couldn't care less about
my neighbors. They couldn't care less about fifteen years of war or the kids we send to fight it
or the kids our kids kill. I understand. It's only natural to look to one's own interests and what
happens in Natchez or Mosul doesn't hit home. However, they're all angry – angry at Flyover people
for being sick and poor and tired of being cannon fodder. And so I have to listen to why we don't
deserve jobs or health care because we're stupid. We should move or die because markets. I had to
justify FDR, religion, the very idea of peace, and social solidarity. I have to defend unions and
explain why my state voted for Trump – sometimes to the same person. I have to advocate for veterans,
the majority of cops that don't murder kids, and BLM while I'm trying to eat my potatoes. It's exhausting.
It's depressing.
Statistics show that urban areas are 'bluer'. They have better health care, better functioning
government, and better opportunities. However, not all urban dwellers are comfortable. Chicago has
world class hospitals, universities, and pizza. It also has an astronomical murder rate and a police
force that got caught torturing its citizens. It has a deep blue machine that excels in privatization.
Blue cities are rough with their mostly black and brown poor citizens but poor whites suffer too.
I know. I spent decades doing social work in city hell-scapes. I know what it's like to step over
bodies and have people bleed all over me. Crime isn't out of control when statistics say so. Crime
is out of control when you or people you love get hurt. Likewise, cops shooting unarmed black people
is a problem; cops shooting unarmed white people is a problem; people deciding to start an idiosyncratic
revolution by shooting cops is a problem; criminals killing kids is also a problem. Statistics and
social theory don't really matter at a child's funeral. Life is statistically better in blue enclaves
but there is a difference between Compton and Hollywood, Brookline and Dorchester, Harlem and Manhattan.
That's a brute fact that uncomfortable people face every day.
Flyover people and the uncomfortable urban poor fight the never-ending wars. We provide commodities
like food and coal and oil and metals. We provide cheap labor. Comfortable people have decided that
most of us aren't really needed. Immigration, free trade, and automation have made us redundant but
we're not going away. At least we're not going away fast. Flyover people and the uncomfortable urban
poor have no real place in establishment Democratic or Republican thinking. We are the establishment's
problem and the establishment is our problem.
Where do we go from here? Bernie had some good answers to some burning questions. Trump has some
very questionable answers to the same problems. I don't know if the Anarchists on Inauguration Day
had any answers but they recognized the problem. The comfortable people who posed with pussy hats
leave me questioning whether this country can or even should be saved. The comfortable protesters
certainly have the legal right to their comfortable lives and they have the legal right to advocate
for war with Russia and they have the legal right to hate the President and wear silly hats. They
have a legal right to despise the Deplorables and to petition to have sleeping homeless people removed
from their places of business. They have the legal right to demand respect for their sexual choices.
They have these legal rights because the government guarantees them and if they tear down the civic
peace of government, who will protect these rights? I don't know whether to laugh or cry when I see
the postmodern farce of Madonna in an orange prison jumper. Is she supposed to be King Christian
wearing the Star of David during Nazi occupation? Are Ashley Judd And Julia Roberts supposed to be
our Red Emma and our pistol packing Connie Markowitz? Is Lena Durham supposed to be our Marianne
or our Greece Expiring on the Ruins of Missolonghi? What I really want to know is will those people
drinking Starbucks die with us on the barricades because the differences between guerrilla theater
and guerrilla war are getting really blurry.
I don't want to get too snarky but I am getting pretty cranky. Revolutions, as Lenin insisted,
are not tea parties. In revolutions resisters get shot for showing courage; in films about revolutions
actors get applause for making a courageous performance. The Democratic Resistance may be as silly
looking as Teapartiers dressed in revolutionary drag but it is much more dangerous. In 2008, Obama
was really popular and he had the support of his own party. Obama failed to ram through his agenda
because he refused to rally the people who put him into office. By the time the Republicans hamstrung
his administration, he had already lost his momentum. Obama was defeated in the Massachusetts senatorial
campaign and by his failure to support Wisconsin's unions. McConnel's obstructionism and Trump's
birtherism were obnoxious but they didn't destroy Obama's agenda. Failure to push for card check,
Medicare for all, voter registration, prosecuting Wall Street fraud and war crimes, new trade deals,
authorizing the extra-judicial murder of US citizens, and overthrowing the government in Guatemala,
Ukraine, and Libya were the real disasters.
In 2016, Trump is much less popular than Obama in 2008. His most progressive polices (which he
shared with Sanders) like reversing trade agreements, renegotiating drug prices, building infrastructure,
and stopping a war with Russia depend on Democratic support. His own party hates him. Impeaching
or (God forbid) assassinating Trump would throw the entire government into the hands of Pence and
Ryan. That would re-gear the war on Russia, reinstate the trade deals and guarantee the end of the
New Deal and the Civil Rights era. Does anyone on the so-called Left really think that's a good idea?
There'd be a real fight then; the kind where lots of people die in loud and messy ways. Who is going
to do the fighting and dying then? I don't think it's going to be the people in pussy hats but I'm
sure I'll be going to plenty of funerals if I live that long.
Donald Trump has indicated * that he might slap high tariffs on imports from Mexico as a way
to make the country pay for his border wall. While it's not clear this makes sense, since U.S.
consumers would bear the bulk of the burden from this tax, it would certainly reduce imports from
Mexico. It would also would violate the North American Free Trade Agreement and World Trade Organization
rules, thereby opening the door to a trade war with Mexico and possibly other countries.
Many have seen this as taking us down a road to ever higher tariffs, leading to a plunge in
international trade, which would have substantial economic costs for everyone. However, Mexico
could take an alternative path that would provide far more effective retaliation against President
Trump, while leading to fewer barriers and more growth.
The alternative is simple: Mexico could announce that it would no longer enforce U.S. patents
and copyrights on its soil. This would be a yuuge deal, as Trump would say.
To take one prominent example, suppose that Mexico allowed for the free importation of generic
drugs from India and elsewhere. The Hepatitis C drug Solvaldi has a list price in the United States
of $84,000. A high quality generic is available in India for $200. There are also low cost generic
versions available of many other drugs that carry exorbitant prices in the United States, with
savings often more than 95 percent.
Suppose that people suffering from Hepatitis C, cancer, and other devastating and life-threatening
diseases could get drugs in Mexico for a few hundreds rather than tens or even hundreds of thousands
of dollars in the United States? That would likely lead to lots of business for Mexico's retail
drug industry, although it would be pretty bad news for Pfizer and Merck.
The same would apply to other areas. Medical equipment, like high-end scanning and diagnostic
devices, would be very cheap in Mexico if they could be produced without patent protections. This
should be great for a medical travel industry in Mexico.
There would be a similar story on copyright protection. People could get the latest version
of Windows and other software for free in Mexico with their new computers. This is bad news for
Bill Gates and Microsoft, but good news for U.S. consumers interested in visiting Mexico, along
with Mexico's retail sector. Mexico could also make a vast amount of recorded music and video
material available without copyright protection. That's great news for consumers everywhere but
very bad news for Disney, Time-Warner, and other Hollywood giants.
Of course the erosion of patent and copyright protection will undermine the system of incentives
that now support innovation and creative work. This means that we would have to develop more efficient
alternatives to these relics of the feudal guild system. Among other places, folks can read about
alternative in my book, "Rigged: How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern Economy Were Structured
to Make the Rich Richer" ** (it's free).
Anyhow, this would be a blueprint for a trade war in which everyone, except a few corporate
giants, could be big winners.
Rigged: How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern Economy Were Structured to Make the Rich
Richer
By Dean Baker
The Old Technology and Inequality Scam: The Story of Patents and Copyrights
One of the amazing lines often repeated by people in policy debates is that, as a result of
technology, we are seeing income redistributed from people who work for a living to the people
who own the technology. While the redistribution part of the story may be mostly true, the problem
is that the technology does not determine who "owns" the technology. The people who write the
laws determine who owns the technology.
Specifically, patents and copyrights give their holders monopolies on technology or creative
work for their duration. If we are concerned that money is going from ordinary workers to people
who hold patents and copyrights, then one policy we may want to consider is shortening and weakening
these monopolies. But policy has gone sharply in the opposite direction over the last four decades,
as a wide variety of measures have been put into law that make these protections longer and stronger.
Thus, the redistribution from people who work to people who own the technology should not be surprising
- that was the purpose of the policy.
If stronger rules on patents and copyrights produced economic dividends in the form of more
innovation and more creative output, then this upward redistribution might be justified. But the
evidence doesn't indicate there has been any noticeable growth dividend associated with this upward
redistribution. In fact, stronger patent protection seems to be associated with slower growth.
Before directly considering the case, it is worth thinking for a minute about what the world
might look like if we had alternative mechanisms to patents and copyrights, so that the items
now subject to these monopolies could be sold in a free market just like paper cups and shovels.
The biggest impact would be in prescription drugs. The breakthrough drugs for cancer, hepatitis
C, and other diseases, which now sell for tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars annually, would
instead sell for a few hundred dollars. No one would have to struggle to get their insurer to
pay for drugs or scrape together the money from friends and family. Almost every drug would be
well within an affordable price range for a middle-class family, and covering the cost for poorer
families could be easily managed by governments and aid agencies.
The same would be the case with various medical tests and treatments. Doctors would not have
to struggle with a decision about whether to prescribe an expensive scan, which might be the best
way to detect a cancerous growth or other health issue, or to rely on cheaper but less reliable
technology. In the absence of patent protection even the most cutting edge scans would be reasonably
priced.
Health care is not the only area that would be transformed by a free market in technology and
creative work. Imagine that all the textbooks needed by college students could be downloaded at
no cost over the web and printed out for the price of the paper. Suppose that a vast amount of
new books, recorded music, and movies was freely available on the web.
People or companies who create and innovate deserve to be compensated, but there is little
reason to believe that the current system of patent and copyright monopolies is the best way to
support their work. It's not surprising that the people who benefit from the current system are
reluctant to have the efficiency of patents and copyrights become a topic for public debate, but
those who are serious about inequality have no choice. These forms of property claims have been
important drivers of inequality in the last four decades.
The explicit assumption behind the steps over the last four decades to increase the strength
and duration of patent and copyright protection is that the higher prices resulting from increased
protection will be more than offset by an increased incentive for innovation and creative work.
Patent and copyright protection should be understood as being like very large tariffs. These protections
can often the raise the price of protected items by several multiples of the free market price,
making them comparable to tariffs of several hundred or even several thousand percent. The resulting
economic distortions are comparable to what they would be if we imposed tariffs of this magnitude.
The justification for granting these monopoly protections is that the increased innovation
and creative work that is produced as a result of these incentives exceeds the economic costs
from patent and copyright monopolies. However, there is remarkably little evidence to support
this assumption. While the cost of patent and copyright protection in higher prices is apparent,
even if not well-measured, there is little evidence of a substantial payoff in the form of a more
rapid pace of innovation or more and better creative work....
The Syrian People Desperately Want Peace
By Tulsi Gabbard
As much of Washington prepared for the inauguration of President Donald Trump, I spent last
week on a fact-finding mission in Syria and Lebanon to see and hear directly from the Syrian people.
Their lives have been consumed by a horrific war that has killed hundreds of thousands of Syrians
and forced millions to flee their homeland in search of peace.
It is clear now more than ever: this regime change war does not serve America's interest, and
it certainly isn't in the interest of the Syrian people.
We met these children at a shelter in Aleppo, whose families fled the eastern part of the city.
The only thing these kids want, the only thing everyone I came across wants, is peace. Many of
these children have only known war. Their families want nothing more than to go home, and get
back to the way things were before the war to overthrow the government started. This is all they
want.
I traveled throughout Damascus and Aleppo, listening to Syrians from different parts of the
country. I met with displaced families from the eastern part of Aleppo, Raqqah, Zabadani, Latakia,
and the outskirts of Damascus. I met Syrian opposition leaders who led protests in 2011, widows
and children of men fighting for the government and widows of those fighting against the government.
I met Lebanon's newly-elected President Aoun and Prime Minister Hariri, U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon
Elizabeth Richard, Syrian President Assad, Grand Mufti Hassoun, Archbishop Denys Antoine Chahda
of Syrian Catholic Church of Aleppo, Muslim and Christian religious leaders, humanitarian workers,
academics, college students, small business owners, and more.
Their message to the American people was powerful and consistent: There is no difference between
"moderate" rebels and al-Qaeda (al-Nusra) or ISIS - they are all the same. This is a war between
terrorists under the command of groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda and the Syrian government. They
cry out for the U.S. and other countries to stop supporting those who are destroying Syria and
her people.
I heard this message over and over again from those who have suffered and survived unspeakable
horrors. They asked that I share their voice with the world; frustrated voices which have not
been heard due to the false, one-sided biased reports pushing a narrative that supports this regime
change war at the expense of Syrian lives.
I heard testimony about how peaceful protests against the government that began in 2011 were
quickly overtaken by Wahhabi jihadist groups like al-Qaeda (al-Nusra) who were funded and supported
by Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar, the United States, and others. They exploited the peaceful protesters,
occupied their communities, and killed and tortured Syrians who would not cooperate with them
in their fight to overthrow the government.
I met a Muslim girl from Zabadani who was kidnapped, beaten repeatedly, and raped in 2012,
when she was just 14 years old, by "rebel groups" who were angry that her father, a sheep herder,
would not give them his money. She watched in horror as masked men murdered her father in their
living room, emptying their entire magazine of bullets into him.
I met a boy who was kidnapped while walking down the street to buy bread for his family. He
was tortured, waterboarded, electrocuted, placed on a cross and whipped, all because he refused
to help the "rebels" - he told them he just wanted to go to school. This is how the "rebels" are
treating the Syrian people who do not cooperate with them, or whose religion is not acceptable
to them.
Although opposed to the Assad government, the political opposition spoke strongly about their
adamant rejection of the use of violence to bring about reforms. They argue that if the Wahhabi
jihadists, fueled by foreign governments, are successful in overthrowing the Syrian state, it
would destroy Syria and its long history of a secular, pluralist society where people of all religions
have lived peacefully side by side. Although this political opposition continues to seek reforms,
they are adamant that as long as foreign governments wage a proxy regime change war against Syria
using jihadist terrorist groups, they will stand with the Syrian state as they work peacefully
toward a stronger Syria for all Syrians.
Originally, I had no intention of meeting with Assad, but when given the opportunity, I felt
it was important to take it. I think we should be ready to meet with anyone if there's a chance
it can help bring about an end to this war, which is causing the Syrian people so much suffering.
I met these amazing women from Barzi, many of whom have husbands or family members who are
fighting with al-Nusra/al-Qaeda, or with the Syrian army. When they come to this community center,
all of that is left behind, as they spend time with new friends, learning different skills like
sewing, making plans for their future. They were strangers before coming to this community center
whose mission is empowering these women, and now they are " sisters" sharing laughter and tears
together.
I return to Washington, DC with even greater resolve to end our illegal war to overthrow the
Syrian government. From Iraq to Libya and now in Syria, the U.S. has waged wars of regime change,
each resulting in unimaginable suffering, devastating loss of life, and the strengthening of groups
like al-Qaeda and ISIS.
I call upon Congress and the new Administration to answer the pleas of the Syrian people immediately
and support the Stop Arming Terrorists Act. We must stop directly and indirectly supporting terrorists - directly
by providing weapons, training and logistical support to rebel groups affiliated with al-Qaeda
and ISIS; and indirectly through Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, and Turkey, who, in turn, support
these terrorist groups. We must end our war to overthrow the Syrian government and focus our attention
on defeating al-Qaeda and ISIS.
The U.S. must stop supporting terrorists who are destroying Syria and her people. The U.S.
and other countries fueling this war must stop immediately. We must allow the Syrian people to
try to recover from this terrible war.
"... Regardless of the name of these groups, the strongest fighting force on the ground in Syria is al Nusra, or al Qaida and ISIS. That is a fact," Gabbard said. ..."
"... "The Syrian people recognize and they know that if President Assad is overthrown, then al Qaida -- or a group like al Qaida, that has been killing Christians, killing people simply because of their religion, or because they won't support their terror activities, they will take charge of all of Syria. ..."
"... Although opposed to the Assad government, the political opposition spoke strongly about their adamant rejection of the use of violence to bring about reforms. They argue that if the Wahhabi jihadists, fueled by foreign governments, are successful in overthrowing the Syrian state, it would destroy Syria and its long history of a secular, pluralist society where people of all religions have lived peacefully side by side. Although this political opposition continues to seek reforms, they are adamant that as long as foreign governments wage a proxy regime change war against Syria using jihadist terrorist groups, they will stand with the Syrian state as they work peacefully toward a stronger Syria for all Syrians. ..."
"... I return to Washington, DC with even greater resolve to end our illegal war to overthrow the Syrian government. From Iraq to Libya and now in Syria, the U.S. has waged wars of regime change, each resulting in unimaginable suffering, devastating loss of life, and the strengthening of groups like al-Qaeda and ISIS. ..."
"They asked me, why is the United States and its allies supporting these terrorist groups who are
destroying Syria when it was al Qaida who attacked the United States on 9/11, not Syria. I didn't
have an answer for them," Gabbard said.
"The reality is... every place that I went, every person that I spoke to, I asked this question
to them, and without hesitation, they said, there are no moderate rebels. Who are these moderate
rebels that people keep speaking of?
Regardless of the name of these groups, the strongest fighting force on the ground in Syria is
al Nusra, or al Qaida and ISIS. That is a fact," Gabbard said.
"There is a number of different, other groups -- all of them essentially are fighting alongside,
with, or under the command of the strongest group on the ground that's trying to overthrow Assad.
"The Syrian people recognize and they know that if President Assad is overthrown, then al Qaida
-- or a group like al Qaida, that has been killing Christians, killing people simply because of their
religion, or because they won't support their terror activities, they will take charge of all of
Syria.
"This is the reality that the people of Syria are facing on the ground, and why they are pleading
with us here in the United States to stop supporting these terrorist groups. Let the Syrian people
themselves determine their future, not the United States, not some foreign country."
... ... ...
I heard testimony about how peaceful protests against the government that began in 2011 were
quickly overtaken by Wahhabi jihadist groups like al-Qaeda (al-Nusra) who were funded and supported
by Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar, the United States, and others. They exploited the peaceful protesters,
occupied their communities, and killed and tortured Syrians who would not cooperate with them
in their fight to overthrow the government.
I met a Muslim girl from Zabadani who was kidnapped, beaten repeatedly, and raped in 2012,
when she was just 14 years old, by "rebel groups" who were angry that her father, a sheep herder,
would not give them his money. She watched in horror as masked men murdered her father in their
living room, emptying their entire magazine of bullets into him.
I met a boy who was kidnapped while walking down the street to buy bread for his family. He
was tortured, waterboarded, electrocuted, placed on a cross and whipped, all because he refused
to help the "rebels" - he told them he just wanted to go to school. This is how the "rebels" are
treating the Syrian people who do not cooperate with them, or whose religion is not acceptable
to them.
Although opposed to the Assad government, the political opposition spoke strongly about
their adamant rejection of the use of violence to bring about reforms. They argue that if the
Wahhabi jihadists, fueled by foreign governments, are successful in overthrowing the Syrian state,
it would destroy Syria and its long history of a secular, pluralist society where people of all
religions have lived peacefully side by side. Although this political opposition continues to
seek reforms, they are adamant that as long as foreign governments wage a proxy regime change
war against Syria using jihadist terrorist groups, they will stand with the Syrian state as they
work peacefully toward a stronger Syria for all Syrians.
... ... ...
I return to Washington, DC with even greater resolve to end our illegal war to overthrow
the Syrian government. From Iraq to Libya and now in Syria, the U.S. has waged wars of regime
change, each resulting in unimaginable suffering, devastating loss of life, and the strengthening
of groups like al-Qaeda and ISIS.
I call upon Congress and the new Administration to answer the pleas of the Syrian people immediately
and support the Stop Arming Terrorists Act. We must stop directly and indirectly supporting terrorists - directly
by providing weapons, training and logistical support to rebel groups affiliated with al-Qaeda
and ISIS; and indirectly through Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, and Turkey, who, in turn, support
these terrorist groups. We must end our war to overthrow the Syrian government and focus our attention
on defeating al-Qaeda and ISIS.
The U.S. must stop supporting terrorists who are destroying Syria and her people. The U.S.
and other countries fueling this war must stop immediately. We must allow the Syrian people to
try to recover from this terrible war.
"... If the American peasants were going to revolt they would have done it already. Fortunately for the rich, the peasants have been mollified by opiates, marijuana, cheap industrial calories, videogames and unlimited trash entertainment, and a fawning endless adoration for the rich and famous. And when that fails theyve got mega churches spouting hopium too. ..."
"... By the way, look around most of the country. It's designed without public squares which are necessary for protest and assembly. Look at the BLM protests, they tried to take the freeways and the whites just got furious that their fat SUVs were impeded. ..."
"... Americans are the most apathetic population on earth ..."
"... Peasants do not start revolutions. It is members of the enlightened elite who clap their hands and trigger the avalanche. Their attempts at gradual reform begin by harnessing, and thereby empowering, the threatened, desperate lower-middle class, which turns and rends their fellows and their superiors (the 90-99% in today's jargon). The breakdown of consensus in the middle orders creates chaos, which in turn empowers those who benefit from instability, especially psychopaths, who cannot last long in places with community or corporate memory, but who flourish in civil disorder. ..."
"... They are right. A french-revolution-style reckoning is coming. We will have to dismantle and redistribute their fortunes. And those that resist will not survive. ..."
"... They should be afraid, and they should know that the later the reckoning, the angrier the mob. The angrier the mob, the likelier accidents happen. ..."
"... They are mostly blind to the need to redistribute, and those that are not are blocked by the system (the neoliberal world order) from acting. ..."
"... I guess they adhere that now-old adage: He who dies with the most toys WINS. ..."
"... This very day, NYT reports that Peter Thiel has (i.e., "bought") New Zealand citizenship. And then hilariously goes on to suggest that this expedient could well be thanks to Thiel's adolescent enthusiasm for "Lord of the Rings", which is where they produced the movie, so "becoming a citizen might be the next best thing to living in Middle-earth itself ." ..."
"... The Masque of the Red Death ..."
"... And therein lies the error: they don't judge themselves by the norms they sold (or failed to sell) to us. ..."
"... I'd count the Zuck's purchase of 700 acres (similar acreage to Central Park) as a bolt-hole. And peter Thiel's in New Zealand. Guess the help will be relegated to the Blueseed floating city ..."
"... The French aristocracy was pretty surprised in 1789 how unprepared they were. I'd tend to put them in the former group. Our oligarchy? Definitely psychopaths. ..."
"... The current hedgies should watch Adam Curtis's 4 part docu "The MayFair Set". It's on utube. Or, if 4 hours is too long, they could watch just part 2, notice James Goldsmith, and then watch part 4 starting at about minute 23. Another prepper. Why all the paranoia and prepping? ..."
"... Lavish follies apparently become tiresome or expensive to maintain or lonely or in some other way unappealing after they're built. So now one can rent a villa at Goldsmith's Mexican hideaway, for a considerable sum of course. ..."
"... IF collapse came, I absolutely WOULD go on a 1%er hunt. Open season. ..."
"... Sarcasm on. Hedge fund managers anticipate They're so good at that. That's why hedge fund yields for pension funds are so much better than other fund yields for pension funds. (8^)) Sarcasm off. ..."
"... I don't understand why these pampered, self-worshipping, self-entitled rich scumbags think that New Zealanders will welcome them with open arms if SHTF. ..."
"... Yes, that's the flaw. New Zealand would be great for their purposes if not for the small problem that it's full of New Zealanders. The society is strongly egalitarian, much more so than the US, and has different core values (less about freedom and more about fairness). ..."
"... Thiel's land purchase in the South Island has been front page news lately, along with the news that he didn't have to comply with foreign investment criteria because he is a NZ citizen (which just raised the question of how and why he received citizenship). ..."
"... "What does that really tell us about our system? It's a very odd thing. You're basically seeing that the people who've been the best at reading the tea leaves-the ones with the most resources, because that's how they made their money-are now the ones most preparing to pull the rip cord and jump out of the plane." ..."
"... buying airstrips and farms ..."
"... Prime Minister Bill English has defended a decision to grant citizenship to American tech billionaire Peter Thiel, saying "a little bit of flexibility" is useful when it comes to citizenship laws. ..."
"... English said there needed to be a balance between giving everyone a fair chance of citizenship, and encouraging those who would make a positive difference to New Zealand. ..."
"... "If people come here and invest and get into philanthropy and are supportive of New Zealand, then we're better off for their interest in our country, and as a small country at the end of the world, that's not a bad thing. ..."
"... NZ First leader Winston Peters' suggestion that the Government was selling citizenship was "ridiculous", English said. ..."
If the American peasants were going to revolt they would have done it already. Fortunately
for the rich, the peasants have been mollified by opiates, marijuana, cheap industrial calories,
videogames and unlimited trash entertainment, and a fawning endless adoration for the rich and
famous. And when that fails theyve got mega churches spouting hopium too.
By the way, look around most of the country. It's designed without public squares which
are necessary for protest and assembly. Look at the BLM protests, they tried to take the freeways
and the whites just got furious that their fat SUVs were impeded.
If you want to see the future watch Idiocracy not the French Revolution. Americans are
the most apathetic population on earth .
Maybe they just have different priorities? Maybe they have come from countries where life looks
like "the s hit the f" is the norm, but still manage to make do?
Peasants do not start revolutions. It is members of the enlightened elite who clap their
hands and trigger the avalanche. Their attempts at gradual reform begin by harnessing, and thereby
empowering, the threatened, desperate lower-middle class, which turns and rends their fellows
and their superiors (the 90-99% in today's jargon). The breakdown of consensus in the middle orders
creates chaos, which in turn empowers those who benefit from instability, especially psychopaths,
who cannot last long in places with community or corporate memory, but who flourish in civil disorder.
Is Trump the reformer who triggers the avalanche – our Duc D'Orleans, later Philippe Egalite,
under which name he was guillotined? The looks on the faces of Louis XVI and Hillary Clinton were
probably equally dumbfounded when they found themselves stymied by their respective rivals at
the "Assembly of Notables."
They are right. A french-revolution-style reckoning is coming. We will have to dismantle and
redistribute their fortunes. And those that resist will not survive.
They should be afraid, and they should know that the later the reckoning, the angrier the mob.
The angrier the mob, the likelier accidents happen.
At this point, I do not see another option. They are mostly blind to the need to redistribute,
and those that are not are blocked by the system (the neoliberal world order) from acting.
A truly nutty non-solution from the greediest nastiest bastards on the planet. Just frickin
great. They know what they should do, but they adamantly refuse to do it in order to remain mired
in the greedy proflgate ways.
I guess they adhere that now-old adage: He who dies with the most toys WINS.
I wonder when the elites will make themselves Pyramids? Or are they planning to bury themselves
inside these damn bunkers instead? Using the bunkers as necropoli probably makes more sense than
what they're actually planning to use them for.
This very day, NYT reports that Peter Thiel has (i.e., "bought") New Zealand citizenship. And
then hilariously goes on to suggest that this expedient could well be thanks to Thiel's adolescent
enthusiasm for "Lord of the Rings", which is where they produced the movie, so "becoming a citizen
might be the next best thing to living in Middle-earth itself ."
The good news is, these guys will doubtless revert to cannibalism in short order .
I guess they haven't read The Masque of the Red Death .
The story takes place at the castellated abbey of the "happy and dauntless and sagacious"
Prince Prospero. Prospero and 1,000 other nobles have taken refuge in this walled abbey to
escape the Red Death, a terrible plague with gruesome symptoms that has swept over the land.
Victims are overcome by "sharp pains", "sudden dizziness", and hematidrosis, and die within
half an hour. Prospero and his court are indifferent to the sufferings of the population at
large; they intend to await the end of the plague in luxury and safety behind the walls of
their secure refuge, having welded the doors shut.
They don't subscribe to the propertarian patriarchal norms that they sold to the public, except
for appearances, which are often cited as pretexts for ejection from the halls of power. They
owe the public cultural shibboleths no real honor, especially not within their private practices.
They are not obligated to enact the stories they write or take to heart the submission they counsel
to us. They didn't get to group hegemony by competing.
I see the paralogic. They're American. Therefore, adversity and competition is the normal posture
for every interaction. Therefore, everything is a fair contest which they won fair and square
against us. Which suggests that they probably subscribe more perfectly to the same alleged social
"norms" they impose on us. And therein lies the error: they don't judge themselves by the norms
they sold (or failed to sell) to us.
If they were as crippled by someone having fun without them when there is plenty of fun to
be had, there would be no ruling class.
on the other hand they have more time and money to gain actually useful skills than wage slaves
EVER will. A variant of the rich get richer phenomena which seems to be how things usually work
out, rather than the poor getting even as mostly happens only in morality tales. Now get to work
and shut up about it!
I'd count the Zuck's purchase of 700 acres (similar acreage to Central Park) as a bolt-hole.
And peter Thiel's in New Zealand. Guess the help will be relegated to the Blueseed floating city
Jet = high time preference
Amel 64= low time preference, in fact not even so relevant to insist on staying on course to NZ.
http://www.amel.fr/en/amel-64/
W. Somerset Maugham's retelling of the tale (1933) "An Appointment in Samarra" comes to mind:
There was a merchant in Bagdad who sent his servant to market to buy provisions and in a little
while the servant came back, white and trembling, and said, Master, just now when I was in the
marketplace I was jostled by a woman in the crowd and when I turned I saw it was Death that jostled
me.
She looked at me and made a threatening gesture, now, lend me your horse, and I will ride away
from this city and avoid my fate. I will go to Samarra and there Death will not find me.
The merchant lent him his horse, and the servant mounted it, and he dug his spurs in its flanks
and as fast as the horse could gallop he went. Then the merchant went down to the marketplace
and he saw me standing in the crowd and he came to me and said, Why did you make a threatening
gesture to my servant when you saw him this morning?
That was not a threatening gesture, I said, it was only a start of surprise. I was astonished
to see him in Bagdad, for I had an appointment with him tonight in Samarra.
Examine the mentality of planning for a "collapse."
The hedge fund managers above all are escaping to rural areas, with clean water and air. They've
planned on how to get by with less for themselves and their families.
The article also spoke of bunkers of under ground apartment complexes, silos, etc that would be
enclaves for communities of wealthy citizens where they would ration, learn how to ration, share,
get by with less.
They all think it will be temporary while the ignorant masses destroy each other without their
surperior leadership. They imagine being able to return and begin the hard work of returning things
to the way they were, with themselves back in elite positions.
Just think. If they could imagine maybe getting by on less and used that sense of community
they expect to magically develop in their bunkers, there wouldn't be amy "collapse" to fear anyway.
If they could imagine their clean water and air natural retreats, with food, are simple things
the rest of the planet would like to enjoy and should be able to enjoy without exploitation, there
wouldn't be any collapse to fear.
So not only will their getaways be big failures, but the imagined return to the world after
the crisis is also naive.
Not only would things not be the same, you'd have to be a special kind of idoit or psycopath
to think anything would still be hunky dory with a return to the status quo..
if you survive the carnage they imagine in some kind of collapse.
"you'd have to be a special kind of idiot or psychopath"
The French aristocracy was pretty surprised in 1789 how unprepared they were. I'd tend
to put them in the former group. Our oligarchy? Definitely psychopaths.
The 0.01 percenters would much rather create doomsday bunkers than fix their own greed and
power lust. I guess they know themselves well.
I could poke so many what if holes into their daydream scenarios. Hours of fun since their
most of their scenarios depend on order and business as usual ultimately being restored. I guess
they learned nothing from what typically happens to refugees regardless of their class and they
assume that the "problem" will be localized instead of global and that their assets will be worth
more with them alive than dead.
It is impossible to convince someone afflicted with the greatest pandemic in human history
- Greed - that they are better off having a smaller % of a growing pie than a larger % of a stagnant
or shrinking pie.
The epicenters for the global pandemic are London, New York, and Washington D.C., though not
necessarily in that order.
Wait, I thought Trump was going to revoke federal funding for "sanctuary cities", as well as
the governor of Texas at the state level. Oh, wrong group?
This elite fear and their related actions have been "out there" for years. Puzzling me is what
has changed to elevate this topic in their Davos 2017 discussions?
The current hedgies should watch Adam Curtis's 4 part docu "The MayFair Set". It's on utube.
Or, if 4 hours is too long, they could watch just part 2, notice James Goldsmith, and then watch
part 4 starting at about minute 23. Another prepper. Why all the paranoia and prepping?
Maybe they should just stop destroying companies and pay taxes. They might sleep better if
they felt they were part of the country instead of pirates living apart. imo.
Lavish follies apparently become tiresome or expensive to maintain or lonely or in some other
way unappealing after they're built. So now one can rent a villa at Goldsmith's Mexican hideaway,
for a considerable sum of course.
They can never actually "go Galt" because they need us. If I remember correctly, Galt was some
sort of industrialist who built and manufactured actual things. What do most of these billionaires
provide us? It's difficult to imagine a hedge fund going very well after the apocalypse. Will
people continue updating their facebook pages when the world collapses? Can I paypal my tribal
wasteland overlord his tribute after our government has collapsed?
I suppose they'll just sitting around looking at all bank statements, bored out of their minds
waiting for the power to come back on.
It isn't just elite anxiety, this has been playing out among the lower classes as well. It's
not just prepper reality shows either; we've had almost 10 years now of zombie apocalypse themed
entertainment and a general revival of the post-apocalypse genre across multiple entertainment
platforms.
We know the empire is collapsing, we just wont acknowledge it out loud.
[Reddit CEO Steve] Huffman has calculated that, in the event of a disaster, he would seek
out some form of community: "Being around other people is a good thing. I also have this somewhat
egotistical view that I'm a pretty good leader. I will probably be in charge, or at least not
a slave, when push comes to shove."
Yeah, your skills running a content aggregate site that's become a haven for the alt-right,
that's going to be the things the masses will be looking for in a leader in a post-apocalyptic
society.
What if the guy fueling the jet pours some sugar into the tank? What if the guy who drives
the fuel truck to the airstrip gets "lost" on the day of the apocalypse? What if your driver on
the way to the airport pulls a gun on you? You better get a jumbo jet to fit everyone on that
could spoil your plan. It'll be like the end of the "Jerk". It is just terrible to have to rely
on people and to need all these badges of affluence. Why can't a rich soul be a rapacious rich
jerk, in peace?
What are the roots that clutch, what branches grow
Out of this stony rubbish? Son of man,
You cannot say, or guess, for you know only
A heap of broken images, where the sun beats,
And the dead tree gives no shelter, the cricket no relief,
And the dry stone no sound of water. Only
There is shadow under this red rock,
(Come in under the shadow of this red rock),
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
These stories really make me hope that the collapse that these people are preparing for is
a flu pandemic. In that case, no one is going anywhere as the first thing that will be done by
states is close the borders to slow down transmission of the virus. Good luck getting to New Zealand
then!
Also, let's not forget the Archdruid's (accurate) contention that the (presumably very well
armed) security staff will be eager to hunt down the elites after society collapses.
Charles Hugh Smith in his book Survival+ however does offer some good advice for elites who
want to survive collapse indefinitely: find a tight-knit community and immediately use all the
money and resources at your disposal to make sure that they're self-sustaining, well-armed and
grateful. Then learn some useful skills like playing musical instruments or blacksmithing and
move on in. Maybe someone should send these poor deluded bunker builders a copy!
"People of privilege will always risk their complete destruction rather than surrender any
material part of their advantage. Intellectual myopia, often called stupidity, is no doubt a reason.
But the privileged also feel that their privileges, however egregious they may seem to others,
are a solemn, basic, God-given right. The sensitivity of the poor to injustice is a trivial thing
compared with that of the rich.
- John Kenneth Galbraith
"The Age of Uncertainty" 1977
If this is a true quote, it does indeed make the blood come out one's ears that Galbraith could
have said it. It is so wrong that its vast wrongness can only be explained by knowing that the
guy was an economist by training. If he had bothered to learn any history–any history at all,
whatsoever, in any way, of any kind–he would never have been able to spout that inane nugget of
anti-truth.
Let's see: August 4, 1789. Just one notable one, among about 47 bajillion counterexamples to
bonehead Galbraith's alleged quotation.
Why don't they bail on the rest of the world now? They might as well get while the getting
is good, and the rest of the world will benefit from their absence. Seems like a win/win to me.
Ahem. This is part of the reason that some rich folks (*COUGH* Elon Musk *COUGH*) is pushing
so hard for (rich) people to pony up and help pay for a one-way trip to Mars. A bunch of pampered
rich people bailing out on Earth to go to the ULTIMATE gated community on Mars where they can
claim all the land from their feet to the horizon.
A pipe dream, of course. Such an endeavor would be ABSOLUTELY dependent upon continued upkeep
and support from Earth, AND Mars is NOT hospitable, at all Nonetheless, the impulse is there
for all to see: use your accumulated (unearned) wealth to get away from the Earth you have raped
to get where you are, before it's too late! Take all your marbles and just up and leave everyone
else to cook in the sewage and heat you've left behind. But at least your pillaging made it possible
for you and a select few others to get out.
As for fancy bunkers like converted missile silos. Note: as a veteran of the cold war and all
that nuke war shit, I KNOW how those things work (and don't work). Fancy air filters on missile
silos will filter out radiation, biological, and MOST chemical agents, but they will not, they
CANNOT, filter out oxygen displacing chemicals (carbon monoxide, halon, ammonia, etc). Some cluster
of rich douchebags and their immediate families think they can hide out for up to 5 years in a
luxury converted missile silo. Well I will just pull a car up to one of your air intakes, run
a line from my exhaust pipe to your intake, and pump your luxury bunker full of carbon monoxide.
Sleep the sleep of the dead, motherf*ckers.
BTW – many of the dystopian authors of the 40s, 50s, and 60s served in the military in WW II.
It is not an accident that they wrote these types of novels and short stories. They had observed
dystopian societies and their outcomes personally. I think the current 1% think they can control
the future in the same way that many of them thought in the 1780s and 1910-1945.
In Jack Womack's Dryco novels, Dryco (a kind of uber-Walmart-cum-Raytheon that owns everything)
becomes worried about CEO safety and covertly engineers a citizen "rebellion" on Long Island,
necessitating a permanently-stationed US military in Manhattan, to protect the elite. The Dryco
inner circle begins moving operations north, to the Bronx and Westchester County, to stay ahead
of rising sea levels. Those books were written mostly in the late '80s/early '90s but still resonate.
Sarcasm on. Hedge fund managers anticipate They're so good at that. That's why hedge fund yields for pension funds are so much better
than other fund yields for pension funds. (8^)) Sarcasm off.
Perhaps they have been reading too much economic doomer porn?
Just three months ago anybody who even considered voting for Sanders, Green, or Trump was a
selfish fool who just wanted to see the world burn. For the sake of our fellow man – consider
the children! – we were encouraged to fall in line to prevent our society from collapsing into
war and economic ruin. If only we'd have know that some of the wealthiest and most influential
people in the country were literally bracing themselves for the apocalypse with absolutely no
intention of helping a single soul escape or doing a thing to prevent the disaster. I guess if
you're rich enough it's OK not to give a shit about destroying the world.
It's important that as many people as possible read the NYT article to see just how crazy and
how horrifyingly self-serving the 1% really is. The idea that anybody will need bunkers or private
airstrips is stupid as hell and straight out of a zombie movie, but it's a perfect illustration
of how little these people care about the world around them.
Spread the word. This is the time to bail. Donald Trump is President. He is at war with corporate
media moguls. Even Bloomberg published an article on America's carnage. The suicide rate of women
under 75 is increasing. The cover-up of the neoliberal looting is collapsing. The millions of
refugees flooding Europe can't be hidden. Blaming Russia doesn't work. A world war is an extinction
event.
Who will be on the last plane out of East Hampton?
I don't understand why these pampered, self-worshipping, self-entitled rich scumbags think
that New Zealanders will welcome them with open arms if SHTF.
If the US were to go tits up the
way they fear. to such an extent that they actually felt the need to flee, the entire world would
get hit hard too. These same clowns talk about globalization and how the world is, and NEEDS to
be, interconnected. Well, you don't get to have it both ways. The US is a huge economic chunk
of the world. If it bites it, then so will a LOT of other nations, and New Zealand is not some
self-sufficient paradise that would be left untouched.
The LEGITIMATE people, the LEGITIMATE citizens of New Zealand, wouldn't take these leeches
in with open arms, strewing their walking paths with flowers and candy, if they abandon the US
in a collapse THAT THEY WERE LARGELY RESPONSIBLE FOR. They cannot run away and escape their culpability
and the fruits of their unending greed and selfishness.
Yes, that's the flaw. New Zealand would be great for their purposes if not for the small problem
that it's full of New Zealanders. The society is strongly egalitarian, much more so than the US,
and has different core values (less about freedom and more about fairness). If these people had
what it takes to be New Zealanders they would not need to leave the USA in the first place. Failing
that, they are going to be constantly under siege if they move here, in a figurative sense and
possibly a literal one if they try to engage in the same kind of behaviour that required them
to flee the USA.
Thiel's land purchase in the South Island has been front page news lately, along with the news
that he didn't have to comply with foreign investment criteria because he is a NZ citizen (which
just raised the question of how and why he received citizenship).
deep down they know they are a bunch of grifters who have produced nothing of any real value.
some of them are deluded but many know it has all been one big debt fueled scam, involving predatory
behavior (pirate equity) and risk free gambling (hedge scum managers, you lose and they still
win) further abetted by tax avoidance and other shifty activity.
[ "What does that really tell us about our system? It's a very odd thing. You're basically
seeing that the people who've been the best at reading the tea leaves-the ones with the most resources,
because that's how they made their money-are now the ones most preparing to pull the rip cord
and jump out of the plane." ]
The "Peak Oil Doomers" know very well why hedge fund jack offs are " buying airstrips and
farms "
"supposedly" (so take w/salt), the entire food supply of the Northeast flows through 4 highways
(I 90/80/76/95--sounds plausible). Ain't too hard to seize those chokepoints and disrupt the entire
Northeast.
Similarly the crossings of the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers also are major chokepoints for
our just-in-time way of life.
We've all seen the empty bread shelves when 12″ of snow are forecast. I imagine that would
be nothing in the 1:1,000,000 chance civilization truly goes pear-shaped.
Prime Minister Bill English has defended a decision to grant citizenship to American tech billionaire
Peter Thiel, saying "a little bit of flexibility" is useful when it comes to citizenship laws.
(he didn't meet the criteria for citizenship under the law)
English said there needed to be a balance between giving everyone a fair chance of citizenship,
and encouraging those who would make a positive difference to New Zealand.
"If people come here and invest and get into philanthropy and are supportive of New Zealand,
then we're better off for their interest in our country, and as a small country at the end of
the world, that's not a bad thing.
(but he has money and spread a lot of it around and we like that)
NZ First leader Winston Peters' suggestion that the Government was selling citizenship
was "ridiculous", English said.
(even though everything I just said appears to confirm it)
"... Originally published at the Institute for New Economic Thinking website ..."
"... One truck parked on the runway, or a large concrete block dumped there has just shut down the entire airport for the private jets fleeing or arriving to pick up the exiters in anything other than a helicopter. ..."
"... Look at what happened to Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin (paranoid), Hussein, Gaddafi the list goes on These people are delusional and believe they are above the system ..."
Posted on
January 25, 2017
by
Yves Smith
Yves here. A former private equity partner mentioned the New Yorker story on
0.1% bunkering. He noticed how they focused on the private jet pilot as a point
of vulnerability, that he might fly his family out and leave them stranded. So
the approach is to assure him that his relatives get seats on the plane too.
Johnson told writer Evan Osnos of the mounting anxiety he had encountered
among hedge-fund managers and other wealthy Americans he knew. "More and more
were saying, 'You've got to have a private plane," Johnson said. "You have to
assure that the pilot's family will be taken care of, too. They have to be on
the plane.' "
Osnos writes: "By January, 2015, Johnson was sounding the alarm: the
tensions produced by acute income inequality were becoming so pronounced that
some of the world's wealthiest people were taking steps to protect themselves.
At the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Johnson told the audience,
'I know hedge-fund managers all over the world who are buying airstrips and
farms in places like New Zealand because they think they need a getaway.' "
Johnson bemoaned the lack of a "spirit of stewardship" and openness to more
aggressively redistributive tax policy among the wealthy.
"Twenty-five hedge-fund managers make more money than all of the
kindergarten teachers in America combined," he told the New Yorker. "Being one
of those twenty-five doesn't feel good. I think they've developed a heightened
sensitivity."
If anything, Osnos wrote, inequality is widening, noting recent statistics
from the National Bureau of Economic Research that showed that while incomes
for the top 1 percent of Americans have nearly tripled, half of the population
was earning at the same level they did in 1980, comparing America's wealth gap
to that seen in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
"If we had a more equal distribution of income, and much more money and
energy going into public school systems, parks and recreation, the arts, and
health care, it could take an awful lot of sting out of society," Johnson said.
"We've largely dismantled those things."
He saw elite anxiety as an indicator America's social crisis.
"Why do people who are envied for being so powerful appear to be so afraid?"
Johnson said. "What does that really tell us about our system? It's a very odd
thing. You're basically seeing that the people who've been the best at reading
the tea leaves-the ones with the most resources, because that's how they made
their money-are now the ones most preparing to pull the rip cord and jump out
of the plane."
Not to be too snarky this early in the morning but:
"Twenty-five hedge-fund managers make more money than all of the
kindergarten teachers in America combined," he told the New Yorker.
"Being one of those twenty-five doesn't feel good. I think they've developed
a heightened sensitivity."
If it does not feel good then stop doing it.
As presently structured the kindergarden teachers lack the power to upend
the political order and to create something equal. Despite widespread support
for better schools the political parties compete to crapify them
for
the benefit of those hedge fund managers
.
If one or two those managers chose to place a damn phone call they could
change that, they could make a more equal society, they could reduce the odds
that they will be up against a wall.
Amen! This issue drives a nail through the conservative ideal of personal
responsibility and self manufacturing. If your poor then it's your fault.
You're too stupid, lazy, etc. to succeed. But if your rich and hated, well
then, you're just a victim of the system and institutions that created you.
This reminds me of a comic I recently read. Enjoy.
Hint to everyone. The rich guys worried about this are the
1%'s version of "preppers". 90% of the 1% have no contingency
plan whatsoever.
What they do have is second homes. Or third homes.
Florida/California/Arizona for the winter, and
Wyoming/Colorado/Montana during the summer.
Many of these places are geographically isolated, with a
local population base highly motivated to protect their stuff
from the Zombie Apocalypse. And hostile to the wretched refuse
from the coasts and metroplexes. Not to mention heavily armed.
Yeah, a smart leader of the wretched refuse could lay siege
to these places. But I suspect they will be too busy protecting
their own turf, rather than going a couple of hundred miles out
in the boonies to look for trouble.
These aren't 1%. They are 0.1%. And Omidyar is big on
this, he has multiple homes well stocked in all sorts of
isolated places.
You are missing that the New Yorker and Johnson says this
is pretty prevalent in the 0.1%. And these people have better
access to information than the rest of us and many of them
have made their money by making astute bets about the future.
If you ascribe to Łobaczewski's
Political Ponerology
, or even
the Five Percenters
, these super rich individuals aren't normal. They
don't think like most of the population.
It doesn't take much to know that the systems we've created are designed
to promote and reward an unempathetic person. And while I'm not always
convinced entirely by Łobaczewski's words, or the five percenters, one gets
the feeling that the twenty five hedge fund managers in question are
incapable of thinking any other way.
Actually
we
didn't create the systems we sat on our butts and
the unempathetic people took advantage. The problem with high-functioning
psychopaths is, as we all know, they can fake normal for necessary
stretches of time.
It's more insidious than that. Increasing wealth decreases empathy.
The poor are much more likely to care for and help their neighbors
than the rich.
The ability to pull the rip cord and bail to a hopefully safer place
makes you think of the need to take the pilot's family, not the
neighbor's.
And yet even guys like this Johnson fellow can't seem to drop that
last line of hogwash - that these rich people are best at "reading the
tea leaves" - rather than that they were just lucky in one or two
decisions or friendships. Give me a break. The rich are rich because
they are lucky and immoral. That's really it. Until the people fully
learn this lesson to their bones this country will continue its
decline. Good news is most of the millennials seem to have largely
been born knowing it.
Why do they think the places they are going to will be immune from the
upheaval? A lot of people leave places thinking they will be safe in the new
place, and then the disorder spreads and hits them again. Many refugees in WW
II were turned into refugees multiple times (if they survived) – many of them
had started out in the elite and wealthy in their country. Similar things are
happening in the Middle East now.
They also are betting that they can identify the moment in which to leave
and will be able to do so safely. The odds of doing that are similar to calling
the day of the big plunge in the stock market a week in advance. Airports are
usually one of the first places that organized rebellions or coups seek to
control, so getting there through rioting crowds will not necessarily solve
their escape route issue. As many evacuation plans (e.g. New Orleans in
Katrina) have shown, events have the ability to confound plans.
I assume that their concerns about inequality and anarchy is why so many are
lobbying to destabilize Social Security and Medicare in order to erase all hope
for the bottom 80%, so that they will believe that anarchy and rebellion is the
only solution. The creation of anarchy and rebellion is generally the result of
intentional acts by the elite to marginalize much of the population. It is a
choice, not an inevitability. But it is probably like teen sex, where they know
they aren't supposed to do it but they just can't stop themselves. Just say NO
elites! You are supposed to be able to control those greed impulses. Inequality
celibacy is the solution.
If America goes "mad max" the rest of the civilized world isn't going to
be far behind. The likely landing sites for those private jets are in
Europe, Canada or other G-7 type of nations.
Unless you have enough money to buy a private island, and hire a security
force to protect you, chances of staying immune are slim, IMO. Few will be
able to pull this off.
The idea of hiring other people to protect you implies that you have
something of value that those with primitive power cannot take from you
when they please. I'm not sure what "currency" that would be in a post
apocalyptic world.
Authoritarians look for "leadership" . if you can fake that then
its not hard to get people to protect your "wealth", whatever that
happens to consist of, for a share of it and power over those below.
Read the New Yorker article! These rich geniuses are stocking up on
gold
and bitcoin!
. HAH. As if bitcoin would be worth squat in a
collapse situation.
"Let me just plug in my laptop so I can get to my digital bitcoin
vault and pay you oh. Uh would you accept my daughter as payment?"
Yes, all that bitcoin is going to be really useful when you need
medical services from one of the few doctors left, or when the
locals show up with guns at your compound wanting some of your
grain.
Elites are not all equal if the system implodes and consumers can't
spend, the rich who got that way from non-essential consumer spending
will fall faster than those who got rich on staples. My bet is that if
times get tough, these elite will stab each other in the back.
I heard someone say making money was as addictive as heroine, cocaine
etc. So, "just say NO" may not be as easy as it sounds. ( One day, we may
see Money Rehab Centers in New Zealand? or Davos?)
Well, jail those addicted to money the way we already jail those
addicted to the drugs you mention. As an added bonus, while they're
locked up they can make some scratch from the increase in value of their
private prison stock holdings . . . off shore, of course.
NZ is food self-sufficient (it's a net food exporter), energy
self-sufficient, and far enough for anyone to invade easily – especially if
you assume "stone age"/"mad max" scenario (i.e. you don't get there easily
like you might to Oz from Indonesia). If you get a large farm in NZ, you can
become pretty much self-sufficient reasonably easily.
NZ population is about 4.5m, on area of the size of Great Britain (the
island, not the nation). Most of that is concentrated in a few cities – say
more than half is in the North Island, which is the smaller one. But even in
North Island there is a LOT of space.
So, NZ can be the perfect bunker for a squillionaire.
sure, assuming these squillionaires know how to be self-sufficient.
How long has it been since any of these rich and "powerful" actually
cooked a meal? Or changed a light bulb? Or done routine maintenance on
anything? Self sufficiency ain't easy. I'm reminded of the elite
civilization in Hitchhiker's Guide that all died of infection from dirty
phones after they shipped all the worthless mouths, including phone
cleaners, off planet. 50 pesos says these New Zealand-bound richies
starve to death when they can't figure out how to use the microwave to
cook their foie gras. Good riddance.
Sure, there's a lot of them who are pampered beyond the kings of
yore. But quite a few them spend their time doing stuff like
wilderness trekking/survival, even running their own ranches etc. What
part of the squillionaire population that is is hard to say, but the
hedgies I spoke to in 2007/8 (of which most were sub-suillionaires
TBH, mere centa-millionairies) were well aware of this and some of
them even too to doing agri uni courses just for that. I met more
people who knew about (for example) permaculture between those people
than any other group.
Ha, marvelous! I find the fact that they've been fearfully
looking over their shoulder since at least 2007/2008 delightful.
Make Elites Great Again indeed.
And I think we would all be well served if they went back and
re-read (i'm assuming they don't spend a lot of time practicing)
their Holmgren and Mollison. Permaculture doesn't mean what they
think it means
This is true. Look at Oliver Queen! Seriously, though, the
hilarious thing from the article is Steve Huffman saying he's
likely to be a leader after the apocalypse, because he is a
"leader" now. Sure, tell it to Trotsky when you meet him in the
next world, buddy.
By the way, having myself made so many errors using SI units,
some in this very locale, I will still submit that people with
hundreds of millions of dollars might properly be labeled
hectomillionaires.
In this "mad max" scenario, who will control the thousands of nuclear
bombs around the world? In addition, will the "squillionaire" be safe on
the island of New Zealand after they brought about conditions leading up
to chaos due to their endless greed? Wouldn't it be more likely that the
conclusion would be to drop the first bombs in the locations where the
wealthy congregate?
Although I understand the psychology behind wealth acquisition, it
still amazes me that someone would rather see chaos in the world (and
even in their local environment) before they would give up their wealth.
One truck parked on the runway, or a large concrete block dumped there
has just shut down the entire airport for the private jets fleeing or
arriving to pick up the exiters in anything other than a helicopter.
May I suggest a name for a new political party?
"The Guillotine Party"
In 2007-8 the trend was go get a sailing boat, full of provisions,
moored in driving distance. Not so conspicious, doesn't rely on large
infrastructure (it's not just take-off airport, it's also air-control,
refuelling stops etc.). Of course, you must know how to sail it (which
lot o hedgies do) and navigate (which fewer can do w/o GPS).
The 1%ers will be long gone before the zombies get the news that the S
has HTF.
They won't even need to leave the USA to find "safe havens" The
Chinese 1% have figured this out already, as real estate sales of the
West Coast should indicate.
The Midwest/Plains state farmers are much more likely to sell food to
1%ers in isolated mountain/desert enclaves, than the coast-based wretched
refuse.
Face it. The "Zombie Apocalypse" is a win-win for the 1%ers. Not that
I like it. But you gotta remember that the Apocalypse will burn itself
out in a relatively short time. It won't be the 1%ers who will get
hammered; the 1%ers will throw the suburban 10%ers to the wolves. And
even if they start at step zero on Day One, they have tons of resources
to develop a plan.
Look at the Paulson/Bloomberg/I forget who else county by county
forecast of temps in 2040.
The Upper Midwest will turn into a bake oven.
And they want NZ for the self sufficiency and isolation. If
outsiders are trading with you, they know where you are and can take
what you have. That is what they fear over all.
Look at what happened to Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin (paranoid), Hussein,
Gaddafi the list goes on
These people are delusional and believe they are above the system
Look at all the Industrialists behind Hitler, almost none of which
were tried for their crimes and most kept their wealth (that is still
around today).
Reality is a lot harsher than most realize. Most revolutions end with
little change; or, change that simply invokes a new circle of elite. Look
at all the coups & revolutions in Brazil. It went nowhere. One oppressive
regime replaced by another.
The Elites may not yet realize how un-exceptional they are. But what
they do realize is that in the Age of Information, everyone else knows
how un-exceptional they are. We also know how much EXCEPTION they get
from the system which is basically everything important: taxes,
healthcare, and most importantly, the law.
I'm just waiting for the Black Swan moment. My prediction is simple:
the Millenials will eventually near their mid thirties en-masse in the
next decade. They will begin to realize, if they haven't already, that
not only did the banks cause and get away with one of the largest bubbles
in history, but the banks will also get all the realstate owned by the
baby boomers that are already up to their eyes in debt, and that their
children (Millenials) wont be able to pay off in their entire lifetime
due to lower socio-economic standards, student loans, available full-time
jobs, etc.
Essentially, the Elites of the Baby Boomer generation, that love to
constantly illustrate how dumb the Millenials are, already sowed the
destruction of their own system. They killed affordable healthcare. They
killed affordable housing, and thus forced the rentier economy. They
killed affordable education. They killed reasonable taxation. Thus, the
current Millenial is stuck between massively rising costs of living and
little to no availability of well paying jobs.
They killed the heart of consumerism and are now, some decades later,
realizing it.
I've had hedge fund clients who have been prepping for 15 years. They always
pestered me for info because of my military and certified redneck background.
I've always thought that people in small rural farm communities have a better
chance than 1%ers with all their capital. You need a bit of arable land, water
source, and the ability to band with friends, neighbors, and family to defend
it with arms. Nothing that sophisticated.
I suspect the real deficiency for the 1%ers is not bunkers, planes, and gas
masks . it's not having enough true comrades if the s really does hit the f.
Not to mention that the 1%'ers have no real skills. I doubt they pay
attention to the passing of seasons, understand animal breeding or how
plants grow, or how to talk with normal human beings without beginning with
either an adversarial or a monetary relationship. They have never had
calluses. They've never done backbreaking work in the rain or snow. Many of
them probably haven't driven themselves anywhere in years.
New Zealand is an extremely rugged place. Farming in New Zealand has got
to be tough. Hope they like mutton! NZ also imports a lot of their fossil
fuels as well as their computers, machinery, cars, etc. Can you see a
financial officer trying to seat a plowshare to work the side of a mountain?
I can't.
I reckon they think they will hire/buy someone to do those things for
them. They've always been able to, right? "Come work for me doing these
things and I'll make sure you're fed and have a roof over your head." Or
they think "how hard can it really be?" because the dumb serfs do it.
maybe you underestimate the 1% the way some supposedly underestimate
Trump. They might be tougher and more skilled than you think. But what
should not be underestimated is the cruelty and lack of basic morality
represented in the 1% prepper mentality.
Some rich no doubt have decent survivability skills.
The thing is, they need allies. In a collapse situation, it's not
"every man for himself", it is "every community for itself". They
would have to bribe a large segment of the Kiwi population if they
flee to NZ or wherever they are hiding. Typically if somewhere
collapses, then the gangs take over. Without a decent community you
are helpless against them.
If the US melts down, that would lead to global economic meltdown.
New Zealand would not be very far behind.
Compounding that, the rich are often ruthless. They may be mentally
competent, but ruthless. They will alienate locals if that happens.
Without an entire community that is capable of survival skills, their
odds aren't good. They need the locals on their side. They will stand
out if they try to "blend in".
New Zealand, although inequality has risen, once idealized itself
as an egalitarian culture. As far as the other destinations like
Canada and much of Europe is also a lot more economically egalitarian
in its outlook. Hint: The rest of the West is not as brainwashed as
the US is by right wing economic propaganda.
One very big danger is that a collapse may worsen inequality. A
good example might be Argentina and their debt crisis.
The 1%ers who grew up or live in in BFE will do okay. They may
not even need to leave town.
The NEC (especially NYC) and Left Coast/Silicon Valley D##kweeds
are the ones who will need to head to the South Pacific. The
wretched refuse knows full well who was behind selling the
country/jobs to China.
Volunteered at my local school to build stage sets. Some hedge fund
hotshot who drove an S Class Mercedes sneeringly assisted me.
I handed him a Makita drill with a Phillips bit and showed him how to put
3″ screws into the 2x4s to connect them. He dismissed me with that "I
make tens of millions and I can do it" look.
After he stripped the heads on a bunch of screws and the drill buckled
on him a bunch of times, I offered to give up the chop saw and do the
screwing. He persevered until he put a screw through his hand.
The "I refuse to scream because I make millions" look on his face was
worth the day's labor.
I find it amusing to think that close knit rural communities (well armed,
know the land) are going to let any outsiders without local ties get to
their precious redoubt. They might be getting picked up in armor plated
vehicles but a well placed large oak tree felled across the road is going to
deny entry. Helicopters are vulnerable to small arms fire. Will the guards
be locals or will their families be inside like the pilots? Seems like a lot
of operational security holes or the need for a substantial amount of extra
resources for all the support staff. Unless they are doing this in their own
rural hometown (and hopefully haven't burned bridges on their way to
fortune), I would file this under wishful thinking.
The elite plan on staying on bolt holes while well armed rural
communities will war with each other. Should be fun, sneak attacks to
salt the land, poison the livestock, dump e-coli in the water.
If you want a rough historical instance of all this, I recommend
Gregory of Tours, "History of the Franks". What tended to happen was that
the "Kings" lost their power to the Mayors of the Palace (as they were
the dudes who 'implemented' the Kings wishes).
"You need a bit of arable land, water source, and the ability to band
with friends, neighbors, and family to defend it with arms. Nothing that
sophisticated."
These are the basis of all successful social systems and what nations, at
their best, used to do. The Neoliberal order has seen states reduced to
platforms for wealth extraction and the NeoLib winners can't imagine a world
without societies to loot because their own looting is all thats ever seemed
good to them.
The idea of creating surplus value for a community and continually
improving the prospects of that community over time isn't even a thinkable
thought for them.
My knowledge of high net worth individuals working on safe havens goes
back about 10 years so a little less than Gilford.
I know of compounds being purchased/built with full sets of facilities
taking into account all of the security issues that the best experts could
envision and far beyond what anyone has mentioned here. We are talking
hardened facilities, which are self sufficient, arsenals, housing for
support staff like well trained security staff, agricultural expertise,
mechanical expertise, etc And their families. And being located within
support distance of other HNW individuals who are doing the same thing.
I won't go on other than to say these folks are not stupid and can think
of all the issues quite well themselves or hire those with the expertise to
do so. And they have the money and time to make it work.
You still need to have staff that are loyal to you for intrinsic
reasons, not because you are paying them. Society goes "Lord of the
Flies" very, very quickly in the absence of intrinsic social structures.
These types of compounds would become tribal very quickly if they are
largely cut off from the rest of the world. Some of the 1% would thrive,
many would probably be taken over by their staff.
The failures in Afghanistan and Iraq were because it is difficult to
impose order on tribes from the outside. It has to be organic if it is to
last. The leader must be respected (or feared) by the community or it is
replaced, often violently. Just having money in a world where money has
lost much of its meaning isn't enough.
Staff will never stay loyal. Water systems, food systems, air
systems are all vulnerable. Only 1%ers with robots, no staff? Robots
are vulnerable.
What's odd is they may never be able to reproduce as a bratty
teenager could have an outsize impact. If the theory would be to
quarantine certain tolerated populations, it would requiring all
individuals and the individuals are still vulnerable.
The currency will be shelter, food and privileges not paper
contracts, paper or digital money. In any group, there will be the
sociopaths who manipulate and steal more resources for themselves and
others who won't will punish that behavior.
"A Great
Place to Have a War: America in Laos and the Birth of a Military CIA" [
Council
on Foreign Relations
]. "Joshua Kurlantzick, a Council on Foreign Relations
senior fellow for Southeast Asia, mines extensive interviews and recently
declassified Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) records to give a definitive
account of the secret war in the tiny Southeast Asian nation of Laos, which
lasted from 1961 to 1973, and was the largest covert operation in U.S. history.
The conflict forever changed the CIA from a relatively small spying agency into
an organization with vast paramilitary powers."
Neoliberal Third Way caused far right renaissance in the USA, UK and elsewhere...
Notable quotes:
"... Warning: amateur political science below ..."
"... Labour moved further right (and more neoliberal) as they became more accommodating towards austerity. It was hardly a surprise that party members tried to pull the party back by electing Corbyn as leader. ..."
"... With Labour no longer seen as representing the working class, this allowed the right wing media (with the support of the Conservatives) to help convince the left behind that their problems were a consequence of immigration. ..."
Did centrism beget populism? Warning: amateur political science below
Stewart Wood has a well argued
piece in the New Statesman, saying that it was the move by left and right towards a
common centrism that laid the foundations for populism.
... ... ...
Margaret Thatcher was considered pretty right wing when she was in power. Many of her key achievement
in terms of her own agenda, such as a diminished union movement and shrinking the state through
privatisation, were not reversed by Blair and Brown. It is difficult to argue that the Cameron/Osborne
duo made any attempt to undo the Thatcher legacy. Instead they tried to go beyond it, by shrinking
the state to a size relative to GDP not seen since the end of WWII. They did it under the pretense
that they were forced to because otherwise the markets would no longer buy government debt. This
was a colossal deceit. There no evidence that markets were concerned about government debt, and
strong evidence that they were not. [1] This deceit should have become clear when Osborne cut
taxes at the same time as continuing to cut spending.
... ... ...
Labour moved to the right under Blair, while remaining socially liberal. I agree with Stewart
Wood that this alone was important in preparing the way for populism. As well as the lack of a
major industrial policy, they did nothing to curb a rampant financial sector or reverse the gains
of the 1% that were a feature of the Thatcher period, a point
emphasised
by Jean Pisani-Ferry in respect of both the UK and US. I think New Labour's position is
better described as liberal rather
than neoliberal: New Labour substantially increased the amount of resources (as a proportion
of GDP) going to the NHS, and they also did a great deal to try and reduce child poverty. Labour
moved further right (and more neoliberal) as they became more accommodating towards austerity.
It was hardly a surprise that party members tried to pull the party back by electing Corbyn as
leader.
As I argued
here
, Brexit was a perfect storm where the economically left behind united with social conservatives.
With Labour no longer seen as representing the working class, this allowed the right wing
media (with the support of the Conservatives) to help convince the left behind that their problems
were a consequence of immigration. The Leave campaign was populist in the sense I describe
here : advocating a superficially attractive policy to some that would leave everyone
worse off. Much the same is true for Trump, who won the electoral college by convincing the left
behind that he really could bring back their traditional jobs, something he will be unable to
do in any kind of general way.
not centrism, but bothsidelism - the unwillingness of the press etc to distinguish between
radical extremism and political norms. The outcome is the normalisation of relentless semi-fascism
and the acceptance of alternative facts, resulting in unsubstantiated beliefs of victimisation,
and the election of candidates who actually revel in and exacerbate the real problems people
face in the US
For the UK, those supporting Leave have essentially endorsed Iain Duncan Smith's leadership
of the Conservative Party in the early 2000s. It's no wonder New Labour cannot understand what has happened.
Neoliberal Third Way caused far right renaissance in the USA, UK and elsewhere...
Notable quotes:
"... Warning: amateur political science below ..."
"... Labour moved further right (and more neoliberal) as they became more accommodating towards austerity. It was hardly a surprise that party members tried to pull the party back by electing Corbyn as leader. ..."
"... With Labour no longer seen as representing the working class, this allowed the right wing media (with the support of the Conservatives) to help convince the left behind that their problems were a consequence of immigration. ..."
Did centrism beget populism? Warning: amateur political science below
Stewart Wood has a well argued
piece in the New Statesman, saying that it was the move by left and right towards a
common centrism that laid the foundations for populism.
... ... ...
Margaret Thatcher was considered pretty right wing when she was in power. Many of her key achievement
in terms of her own agenda, such as a diminished union movement and shrinking the state through
privatisation, were not reversed by Blair and Brown. It is difficult to argue that the Cameron/Osborne
duo made any attempt to undo the Thatcher legacy. Instead they tried to go beyond it, by shrinking
the state to a size relative to GDP not seen since the end of WWII. They did it under the pretense
that they were forced to because otherwise the markets would no longer buy government debt. This
was a colossal deceit. There no evidence that markets were concerned about government debt, and
strong evidence that they were not. [1] This deceit should have become clear when Osborne cut
taxes at the same time as continuing to cut spending.
... ... ...
Labour moved to the right under Blair, while remaining socially liberal. I agree with Stewart
Wood that this alone was important in preparing the way for populism. As well as the lack of a
major industrial policy, they did nothing to curb a rampant financial sector or reverse the gains
of the 1% that were a feature of the Thatcher period, a point
emphasised
by Jean Pisani-Ferry in respect of both the UK and US. I think New Labour's position is
better described as liberal rather
than neoliberal: New Labour substantially increased the amount of resources (as a proportion
of GDP) going to the NHS, and they also did a great deal to try and reduce child poverty. Labour
moved further right (and more neoliberal) as they became more accommodating towards austerity.
It was hardly a surprise that party members tried to pull the party back by electing Corbyn as
leader.
As I argued
here
, Brexit was a perfect storm where the economically left behind united with social conservatives.
With Labour no longer seen as representing the working class, this allowed the right wing
media (with the support of the Conservatives) to help convince the left behind that their problems
were a consequence of immigration. The Leave campaign was populist in the sense I describe
here : advocating a superficially attractive policy to some that would leave everyone
worse off. Much the same is true for Trump, who won the electoral college by convincing the left
behind that he really could bring back their traditional jobs, something he will be unable to
do in any kind of general way.
not centrism, but bothsidelism - the unwillingness of the press etc to distinguish between
radical extremism and political norms. The outcome is the normalisation of relentless semi-fascism
and the acceptance of alternative facts, resulting in unsubstantiated beliefs of victimisation,
and the election of candidates who actually revel in and exacerbate the real problems people
face in the US
For the UK, those supporting Leave have essentially endorsed Iain Duncan Smith's leadership
of the Conservative Party in the early 2000s. It's no wonder New Labour cannot understand what has happened.
"... Demanding a no-strings-attached welfare system, the left seeks to cut government out of social provisioning while at the same time relying on government for regular financial support. ..."
"... How will we provide adequate human and material resources for our growing elderly populations? How can we meaningfully restructure social production to address climate change? ..."
"... no amount of volunteerism, goodwill, or generous welfare payments can adequately meet these demands. Indeed, only government can afford to mobilize the persons and materials needed to answer such demands. ..."
"... I really need to be kicked out of the house, to go someplace and do something I don't really want to do for 8 hours a day. ..."
"... Interesting read society has become so corrupt at every level from personal up through municipal, regional and federal governments that it cant even identify the problem, let alone a solution ..."
By Scott Ferguson, Assistant Professor, University of South Florida. He is also a Research
Scholar at the Binzagr Institute for Sustainable Prosperity. His current research and pedagogy focus
on Modern Monetary Theory and critiques of neoliberalism, aesthetic theory; the history of digital
animation and visual effects; and essayistic writing across media platforms. Originally published
at Arcade
James Livingston has responded to
my critique of his Aeon essay,
"
Fuck Work ." His response was published in the Spanish magazine
Contexto y Accion . One can find an English translation
here . What follows is my reply:
Livingston and I share many political aims. We each wish to reverse wealth polarization, to alleviate
systemic poverty, and to enable diverse forms of human flourishing. The professor and I disagree,
however, on the nature of contemporary economic reality. As a consequence, we propose very different
political programs for realizing the sort of just and prosperous society we both desire.
In his rejoinder to my critique, Livingston proudly affirms his commitment to Liberalism and makes
a Liberal understanding
of political economy the basis of his proposed alternative to the neoliberal catastrophe. Deeming
government an intrinsically authoritarian institution, he situates civil society as a realm of self-actualization
and self-sufficiency. The problem, as he formulates it, is that while capitalist innovation has made
it possible to increasingly automate production, the capitalist class has robbed us of our purchasing
power and preserved a punishing wage relation. This prevents us from enjoying the fruits of automated
labor. Livingston's solution is to reject an outmoded Protestant work ethic; tax the unproductive
corporate profits that fuel financial markets; and redistribute this money in the form of a Universal
Basic Income (UBI). The result: each member of civil society will be liberated to associate, labor,
or play as they please.
Like Livingston, the left has long flirted with Liberal dreams that autonomous and self-regulating
associations might one day replace the difficulties of political governance. After the Great Recession,
these dreams have
returned . They imagine algorithms and robots to be politically neutral. They seek a life of
shared luxury through automatically dispensed welfare payments. This sounds nice at first blush.
However, such reveries are at best naive and, at worst, politically defeatist and self-destructive.
Abandoned and abused by neoliberal governance, today's pro-UBI left doubles down on neoliberalism's
do-it-yourself caretaking. It envisions delimited forms of monetary redistribution as the only means
to repair the social order. Above all, it allows anti-authoritarianism to overshadow the charge of
social provisioning.
Livingston's articulation of this dream is especially fierce. As such, it crystallizes UBI's central
contradiction: Demanding a no-strings-attached welfare system, the left seeks to cut government
out of social provisioning while at the same time relying on government for regular financial support.
This position, which fails to rethink the structure of social participation as a whole, leaves
disquieting political questions unanswered: How will we provide adequate human and material resources
for our growing elderly populations? How can we meaningfully restructure social production to address
climate change? How do we preserve a place for the arts outside of competitive MFA programs
and speculative art markets?
Such questions are unforgivingly realistic, not pie-in-the-sky musings. And no amount of volunteerism,
goodwill, or generous welfare payments can adequately meet these demands. Indeed, only government
can afford to mobilize the persons and materials needed to answer such demands. And while algorithms
and robots are powerful social instruments, we cannot rely on automation to overcome extant logics
of
discrimination and exclusion . To do so is to forget that social injustice is politically conditioned
and that government alone holds the monetary capacity to transform economic life in its entirety.
I really need to be kicked out of the house, to go someplace and do something I don't really
want to do for 8 hours a day.
I've already got too much time to fritter away. I'm fairly certain, giving me more time and
money to make my own choices would not make the world a better place.
Hmm. No "sarc" tag Really?? More free time and money wouldn't be a benefit to you and your
surroundings? That's hard to believe. To each their own I guess.
I can see it both ways. Most people see that as sarcasm but I have more than a few friends
whose jobs are probably the only thing keeping them out of jail. Idle hands being the devil's
plaything and all.
For instance, the last thing you want to give a recovering addict is a lot of free time and
money.
As a recovering addict, I must vehemently disagree with ur statement. I would love to have
as much money and free time on my hands to work on the fun hobbies that keep me sober like Political
Activism, Blogging, Film, etc.
At no point in the "Job Guarantee" discussion did anyone advocate forcing you to go to work.
However, if you decide to get ambitious and want a paid activity to do that helps make society
a better place to live, wouldn't it be nice to know that there'd be work available for you to
do?
Right now, that's not so easy to do without lots of effort searching for available jobs and
going through a cumbersome and dispiriting application process that's designed to make you prove
how much you REALLY, REALLY want the job.
For me, the real silver bullet is the moral/political argument of a Job Guarantee vs. Basic
Income. Job Guarantee gives people a sense of pride and accomplishment and those employed and
their loved ones will vigorously defend it against those who would attack them as 'moochers'.
Also, defenders can point to the completed projects as added ammunition.
Basic income recipients have no such moral/political defense.
The guaranteed jobs could be for a 20 or 30 hour week. I fear they won't be as most job guarantee
advocates seem to be Calvinists who believe only work gets you into heaven though.
It's a common 'argument' by people defending status quo. They claim something is ridiculous
and easily disproven and then leave it at that. They avoid making argument that are specific enought
to be countered, because thay know they don't actually have a leg to stand on.
Limitless may not have been the best word. Of course the government can print money till the
cows come home; but MMT recommends stopping when you approach the real resource constraint.
Sloppy language does not help so thank you. So the next question is how do constraints (natural
or other) affect spending power under MMT, is it asymptotic, is there an optimum, discontinuities?
The other major issue is that although spending power is controlled by legislatures it must
be recognized that wealth creation starts with the work of people and physical capital, not by
the good graces of gov't. MMT makes it sound as if money exists just because gov't wills it to
exist, which is true in the sense of printing pieces of paper but not in the sense of actual economic
production and wealth creation. Taxes are not the manner in which gov't removes money but it really
is the cost of gov't sitting on top of the economic production by people together with physical
capital.
Help me understand your last sentence. So, if I'm a farmer, the time I spend digging the field
is economic production, but the time I spend sitting at my desk planing what to plant and deciding
which stump to remove next and how best to do it, and the time I spend making deals with the bank
etc, these are all unproductive hours that make no contribution to my economic production?
Yes, Jamie. And as you point out, Ferguson is giving us a better definition of "productive".
He is not saying productivity produces profits – he is saying productive work fixes things and
makes them better. But some people never get past that road bump called "productivity."
The author is making some assumptions, and then goes and takes them apart. It's possilble (I
didn't read the article he refers to), that the assumptions he responds to directly are made by
the article, but that doesn't make them universal assumptions about UBI.
UBI is not a single exact prescription – and in the same way, JG is not a single exact prescription.
The devil, in both cases, is in details. In fact, there is not reason why JG and UBI should be
mutually exclusive as a number of people are trying to tell us.
and if we talk about governance – well, the super-strong governance that JG requires to function
properly is my reason why I'd prefer a strong UBI to most JG.
Now and then we get a failed UBI example study – I'm not going to look at that. But the socialist
regimes of late 20th century are a prime example of failed JG. Unlike most visitor or writers
here, I had the "privilege" to experience them first hand, and thanks but no thanks. Under the
socialist regimes you had to have a job (IIRC, the consitutions stated you had "duty" to work).
But that become an instrument of control. What job you could have was pretty tightly controlled.
Or, even worse, you could be refused any job, which pretty much automatically sent you to prison
as "not working parasite".
I don't expect that most people who support JG have anything even remotely similar in mind,
but the governance problems still stay. That is, who decides what jobs should be created? Who
decides who should get what job, especially if not all jobs are equal (and I don't mean just equal
pay)? Can you be firedt from your JG job if you go there just to collect your salary? (The joke
in the socialist block was "the government pretends to pay us, we pretend to work"). Etc. etc.
All of the above would have to be decided by people, and if we should know something, then
we should know that any system run by people will be, sooner or later, corrupted. The more complex
it is, the easier it is to corrupt it.
Which is why I support (meaningfull, meaning you can actually live on it, not just barely survive)
Basic Income over JG. The question for me is more whether we can actually afford a meaningful
one, because getting a "bare survival one" does more damage than good.
That's why any JG would have to be filtered through local governments or, more ideally, non-profit
community organizations, and not a centralized government. New York City's
Summer Youth
Employment Program offers a good model for this. Block grants of money are delivered to a
wide range of community organizations, thus ensuring no one group has a monopoly, and then individual
businesses, other community groups, schools, non-profits, etc., apply to the community organizations
for an "employee" who works for them, but the payment actually comes from the block grant. The
government serves as the deliverer of funds, and provides regulatory oversight to make sure no
abuses are taking place, but does not pick and choose the jobs/employers themselves.
I don't see it as either/or. Provide a UBI and a job guarantee. The job would pay over and
above the UBI bit, if for some reason, you don't want to work or cannot, you still have your Universal
BASIC Income as the floor through which you cannot fall.
Private employers will have to offer better conditions and pay to convince people getting UBI
to work for them. They wouldn't be able to mistreat workers because they could simply bolt because
they will not fall into poverty if they quit. The dirtbags needing workers won't be able to overpay
themselves at the expense of workers because they feel completely free to leave if you are a self
worshipping douche.
It seems that over time the "floor through which you cannot fall" becomes just that, the floor,
as the effect of a UBI becomes the universal value, well floor.
Was going to be my response as well, why such absolute yes or no thinking? The benefit of the
UBI is that is recognizes that we have been increasing productivity for oh the last couple millenia
for a REASON! To have more leisure time! Giving everyone the opportunity to work more and slave
away isn't much of a consolation. We basically have a jobs guarantee/floor right now, its called
McDonalds, and no one wants it.
Labor needs a TON of leverage, to get us back to a reasonable Scandinavian/Aussie standard
of living. Much more time off, much better benefits, higher wages in general. UBI provides this,
it says screw you employers unless you are willing to offer reasonable conditions we are going
to stay home.
I'm curious to know if either of these systems work if there is no guarantee of "free" access
to healthcare through single-payer or a national insurance? I'm only marginally informed about
UBI or MMT, and haven't found adequate information regarding either as to how healthcare is addressed.
It seems clear that neither could work in the US, specifically for the reason that any UBI would
have to be high enough to pay insane insurance premiums, and cover catastrophic illnesses without
pushing someone into bankruptcy.
Can anyone clarify, or point me in the direction of useful information on this?
There are different flavors of UBI, most don't mention healthcare at all. Milton Friedman's
UBI flavor prefers that it replace all government spending on social welfare to reduce the government's
overall burden. MMT says there is no sense in not having single payer.
My thought on the last thread of this nature is that if UBI were ever enacted in the U.S.,
healthcare access would become restricted to those with jobs (and the self-employeed with enough
spare income to pay for it). You don't have to be healthy to collect a subsistence payment from
to the government.
Here in Canada we have universal healthcare, as well as a basic income guarantee for low income
families with children and seniors. There is a movement to extend that as well,
details of one plan here .
In theory, I think it could be possible for the JG to build and staff hospitals and clinics
on a non-profit basis or at least price-controlled basis, if so directed (*huge* question, of
course - by what agency? govt? local councils?). Ditto housing, schools, infrastructure, all kinds
of socially useful and pleasant stuff. However, the way the US tends to do things, I would expect
instead that a BIG or a JG would, as others have pointed out, simply enable employers to pay less,
and furthermore, subsidize the consumption of overpriced goods and services. IOW, a repeat of
the ACA, just a pump to get more $$ to the top.
The problem is not the money, but that the Americans govern themselves so poorly. No idea what
the cure could be for that.
Fixing worker pay is actually VERY easy. It's purely a political issue. You tie corporate taxes
to worker compensation. More specifically, you set the maximum compensation for CEOs at NO MORE
than (say) 50x average worker pay in their corporation (INCLUDING temps AND off-shored workers
IN US DOLLARS no passing the buck to Temp Agencies or claiming that $10/day in hellhole country
x is equivalent to $50k in the US. NO, it is $10/day or $3650/yr, period). At 50x, corporate taxation
is at the minimum (say something like 17%). The corporation is free to pay their top exec more
than 50x but doing so will increase the corporate tax to 25%. You could make it step-wise: 51-60x
average worker pay = 25% corporate tax, 61-80x = 33% corporate tax, etc.
It is time to recognize that CEO pay is NOT natural or earned at stratospheric levels. THE
best economic times in the US were between the 50s to early 70s when top tax rates were much higher
AND the average CEO took home maybe 30x their average worker pay. We CAN go back to something
like that with policy. Also, REQUIRE that labor have reps on the Board of Directors, change the
rules of incorporation so it is NOT mainly focused on "maximizing profit or shareholder value".
It must include returning a social good to the local communities within which corporations reside.
Profits and maximizing shareholder value must be last (after also minimizing social/environmental
harm). Violate the rules and you lose your corporate charter.
There is no right to be a corporation. Incorporation is a privilege that is extended by government.
The Founders barred any corporate interference in politics, and if a corporation broke the law,
it lost its charter and the corporate officers were directly held responsible for THEIR actions.
Corporations don't do anything, people in charge of corporations make the decisions and carry
out the actions so NO MORE LLCs. If you kill people due to lax environmental protections or worker
safety, etc, then the corporate officers are DIRECTLY and personally responsible for it. THEY
made it happen, not some ethereal "corporation".
Durned hippys imagine an IRON boot stamping on a once human face – forever. OK, now everybody
back to the BIG house. Massa wanna reed yew sum Bible verses. We're going to be slaves to the
machines, ya big silly!
I'm sceptical whether a guaranteed job policy would actually work in reality. There are plenty
of historical precedents – for example, during the Irish potato famine because of an ideological
resistence to providing direct aid, there were many 'make work' schemes. You can still see the
results all along the west coast of Ireland – little harbours that nobody has ever used, massive
drainage schemes for tiny amounts of land, roads to nowhere. It certainly helped many families
survive, but it also meant that those incapacitated by starvation died as they couldn't work.
It was no panacea.
There are numerous practical issues with make work schemes. Do you create a sort of 2-layer
public service – with one level permanent jobs, the other a variety of 'temporary' jobs according
to need? And if so, how do you deal with issues like:
1. The person on a make work scheme who doesn't bother turning up till 11 am and goes home
at 2.
2. Regional imbalances where propering region 1 is desperately short of workers while neighbouring
region 2 has thousands of surplus people sweeping streets and planting trees.
3. What effect will this have on business and artistic innovation? Countries with strong welfare
systems such as Sweden also tend to have a very high number of start ups because people can quit
their jobs and devote themselves to a couple of years to develop that business idea they always
had, or to start a band, or try to make a name as a painter.
4. How do you manage the transition from 'make-work' to permanent jobs when the economy is
on the up, but people decide they prefer working in their local area sweeping the street?
I can see just as many practical problems with a job guarantee as with universal income. Neither
solution is perfect – in reality, some sort of mix would be the only way I think it could be done
effectively.
To provide some context for passers-by, this seemingly too-heated debate is occurring in the
context of the upcoming Podemos policy meeting in Spain, Feb 10-12.. Podemos seems to have been
unaware of MMT, and has subscribed to sovereign-economy-as-household policies. Ferguson, along
with elements of the modern left, has been trying to win Podemos over to MMT-based policies like
a Jobs Guarantee rather than the Basic Income scheme they have heretofore adopted rather uncritically.
(Of course Spain is far from "sovereign", but that's another matter :-(
1) Fire them
2) Prospering region 1 isn't "short on workers" they just all have private jobs.
3) What a good argument to also have single payer healthcare and some sort of BIG as well as the
JG
4) private companies must offer a better compensation package. One of the benefits of the JG is
that it essentially sets the minimum wage.
Yeah, those are pretty good answers right off the bat. (Obviously I guess for #1 they can reapply
in six months or something.)
Plutonium- I feel like true progress is trading shitty problems for less shitty ones. I can't
see any of the major proponents like Kelton, Wray or Mitchell ever suggesting that the JG won't
come with it's own new sets of challenges. On the overly optimistic side though: you could look
at that as just necessitating more meaningful JG jobs addressing those issues.
I was writing that on my phone this morning. Didn't have time to go into great detail. Still,
I wanted to point out that just because there will be additional complexities with a JG, doesn't
mean there aren't reasonable answers.
1. If you fire them its not a jobs guarantee. Many people have psychological/social issues
which make them unsuitable for regular hours jobs. If you don't have a universal basic income,
and you don't have an absolute jobs guarantee, then you condemn them and their families to poverty.
2. The area is 'short on workers' if it is relying on a surplus public employee base for doing
things like keeping the streets clean and helping out in old folks homes. It is implicit in the
use of government as a source of jobs of last resort that if there is no spare labour, then you
will have nobody to do all the non-basic works and you will have no justification for additional
infrastructure spend.
3. You miss the point. A basic income allows people time and freedom to be creative if they
choose. When the Conservatives in the early 1990's in the UK restricted social welfare to under
25's, Noel Gallagher of Oasis predicted that it would destroy working class rock n roll, and leave
the future only to music made by rich kids. He was proven right, which is why we have to listen
to Coldplay every time we switch on the radio.
4. This ignores the reality that jobs are never spread evenly across regions. One of the biggest
problems in the US labour market is that the unemployed often just can't afford to move to where
the jobs are available. A guaranteed job scheme organised on local govenment basis doesn't address
this, if anything it can exacerbate the problem. And the simplest and easiest way to have a minimum
wage is to have a minimum wage.
1) Kelton always talks about a JG being for people "willing and able to work." If you are not
willing I don't really have much sympathy for you. If you are not able due to psychological factors
or disability, then we can talk about how you get on welfare or the BIG/UBI. The JG can't work
in a vacuum. It can't be the only social program.
2) Seems unrealistic. You are just searching to find something wrong. If there is zero public
employment, that means private employment is meeting all labor demands.
3) I have no idea what you are going on about. I'm in a band. I also have a full-time job.
I go see local music acts all the time. There are a few that play music and don't work because
they have rich parents, but that's the minority. Most artists I know manage to make art despite
working full time. I give zero shits what corporate rock is these days. If you don't like what's
on the radio turn it off. There are thousands of bands you've never heard of. Go find them.
4) Again, you are just searching for What-If reasons to crap on the JG. You try to keep the
jobs local. Or you figure out free transportation. There are these large vehicles called busses
which can transport many people at once.
Yes these are all valid logistical problems to solve, but you present them like there are no
possible solutions. I can come up with several in less than 5 minutes.
For a more practical first step--how about getting rid of/slashing regressive and non-federal
income tax deductible sales taxes? shifting that tax burden to where income growth has been.
Democratic Party-run states/cities are the biggest offenders when it comes to high sales taxes.
universal basic income in the West + de facto open borders won't work. just making a reasonable
hypothesis.
There might be a psychological benefit to a jobs guarantee vs. UBI. There are a lot of people
that would much rather "earn" their income rather than directly receiving it.
Which of these tools do you posess:
( ) Machete, pick-axe, big old hemp bag
( ) Scattergun, hound, mirrored shades
( ) Short-shorts, bandeau top, knee pads
( ) RealTree camo ACUs, FLIR scope
( ) ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, fast car
A JG would begin to rebuild the trust and cooperation needed to have a society based on justice
instead of might makes right. Human life is based on obligations- we are all responsible to one
another for the social system to work. The problem is always about how to deal with cheaters and
shirkers. This problem is best solved by peer pressure and shaming- along with a properly functioning
legal system.
I get a kick out of the "make work" argument against a JG. With planned obsolescence as the
foundation of our economic system, it's just a more sophisticated way of digging holes and filling
them in again. Bring on robotic automation, and the capitalist utopia is reached. Soul crushing,
pointless labor can be sidelined and replaced with an unthinking and unfeeling machine in order
to generate profits. The one problem is people have no money to buy the cheep products. To solve
that dilemma, use the sovereign governments power to provide spending credits in the form of a
UBI. Capitalism is saved from is own contradictions- the can is kicked farther down the road.
The obligations we have to one another must be defined before any system organization can take
place. Right now, the elite are trying to have their cake and eat it too.
I agree with those who see a need for both programs. I think the critique of UBI here is a
good one, that raises many valid points. But I have trouble with a portion of it. For instance:
by eliminating forced unemployment, it would eradicate systemic poverty
treats 'poverty' as an absolute when it is a relative. No matter what programs are in place,
there will always be a bottom tier in our hierarchical society and those who constitute it will
always be 'impoverished' compared to those in higher tiers. This is the nature of the beast. Which
is why I prefer to talk about subsistence level income and degrees above subsistence. The cost
of living may not be absolutely fixed over time, but it seems to me to be more meaningful and
stable than the term 'poverty'. On the other hand, in a rent seeking economy, giving people an
income will not lift them out of poverty because rents will simply be adjusted to meet the rise
in resources. So UBI without rent control is meaningless.
Another point is that swapping forced unemployment for forced employment seems to me to avoid
some core issues surrounding how society provides for all its members. Proponents of the JG are
always careful to stress that no one is forced to work under the JG. They say things like, "jobs
for everyone who wants one". But this fails to address the element of coercion that underlies
the system. If one has no means to provide for oneself (i.e. we are no longer a frontier with
boundless land that anyone can have for cheap upon which they may strike out and choose the amount
of labor they contribute to procure the quality of life they prefer-if ever was such the case),
then jobs for "everyone who wants one" is simply disingenuous. There is a critical "needs" versus
"wants" discussion that doesn't generally come up when discussing JG. It's in there, of course,
but it is postponed until the idea is accepted to the point where setting an actual wage becomes
an issue. But even then, the wage set will bear on the needs versus wants of the employed, but
leaves out those foolish enough to not "want" a job. Whereas, in discussing UBI, that discussion
is front and center (since even before accepting the proposal people will ask, how much?, and
proper reasons must be given to support a particular amount-which again brings us to discussing
subsistence and degrees above it-the discussion of subsistence or better is "baked in" to the
discussion about UBI in a way that it is not when discussing the JG).
While UBI interests me as a possible route to a non-"means of production"-based economy, the
problem I see with it is that it could easily reduce the populace to living to consume. Given
enough funds to provide for the basics of living, but not enough to make any gains within society,
or affect change. It's growth for growth's sake, not as to serve society. Something is needed
to make sure people aren't just provided for, but have the ability to shape the direction of their
society and communities.
Where I work @3/4 of the staff already receives social security and yet it is not enough seems
to me human satisfaction is boundless and providing a relative minimum paper floor for everyone
is just. Yet the way our market is set up, this paper floor would be gobbled back up by the rentier
class anyway. So unless there is a miraculous change in our economic rent capture policies, we
are screwed
So yes, just describe to people precisely what it is – a 'paper' floor not something that
has firm footing yet acknowledges inequities inherent in our current currency distribution methods.
And of course couple this with a jobs guarantee. I have met way too many people in my life that
'fall through the cracks' .
why is no one bemoaning the rabid over-consumption of the complainers who suck up much more
than they will ever need, hoarding and complaining about people who do not have enough? the real
problem is rampant out of control parasites
But Ferguson should also adknowledge that Livingston has some points.
Why on earth we politically put limits to, for instance, public earning-spending while do not
put any limit to the net amount that one person can earn, spend and own?
Upward redistribution is what occurs in the neoliberal framework. UBI is distribution. Bear
in mind that even in the best employment conditions, not everybody can earn a salary. 100% employment
is unrealistic.
The people marketing UBI and MMT have hundreds of years of attempted social engineereing to
overcome. I referring to the " why people want what they want and why do they believe what they
believe." Why?
The only suggestion I have is that, since everybody has a different relationship to the concept
of work, the populations involved need to be smaller. Not necessarily fewer people, but more regions
or nation states that are actually allowed to try their ideas without being attacked by any existing
"empire" or "wanna be empire" via sanctions or militarily.
It is going to take many different regions, operating a variety of economic systems (not the
globalized private banking extraction method pushed down every one's throat whether they like
it or not) that people can gravitate in and out of freely.
People would have the choice to settle in the region that has rules and regulations that work
most for their lives and belief systems (which can change over time).
Looking at it from the perspective that there can be only one system that 300 million plus
people (like the USA) or the world must be under is the MAIN problem of social engineering. There
needs to be space carved out for these many experiments.
First, congratulations to everyone who managed to read this all the way through. IMO both this
(and the guy he's responding to), seem like someone making fun of academic writing. Perhaps with
the aid of a program that spits out random long words.
FWIW, when I lived in Japan, they had a HUGE, construction-based make-work program there, and
it was the worst of both worlds: hard physical labor which even the laborers knew served no purpose,
PLUS constant street obstruction/noise for the people in the neighborhoods of these make-work
projects. Not to mention entire beautiful mountains literally concreted over in the name of 'jawbs'.
Different thought: I'm not sold on UBI either, but wouldn't it mess up the prostitution/sex
trafficking game, almost as a side effect? Has anyone heard UBI fans promote it on that basis?
The sound and fury of disagreement is drowning out what both authors agree on: guaranteed material
standards of living and reduced working time. If that's the true goal, we should say so explicitly
and hammer out the details of the best way to attain it.
Interesting read society has become so corrupt at every level from personal up through municipal,
regional and federal governments that it cant even identify the problem, let alone a solution
all forms of government and their corresponding programs will fail until that government is
free from the monetary influences of individuals / corporations and military establishments, whether
it be from donations to a political establishment or kick backs to politicians and legislators
or government spending directed to buddies and cohorts
I don't pretend to understand the arguments at the level to which they are written, but at
the basic level of true governance it must but open and honest, this would allow the economy to
function and be evaluated, and then at that point we could offer up some ideas on how to enhance
areas as needed or scale back areas that were out of control or not adding value to society as
a whole
We stand at a place that has hundreds of years of built in corruption into the model, capable
so far of funneling money to the top regardless of the program implemented by the left or the
right sides of society
first step is to remove all corruption and influence from governance at every level until
then all the toils toward improvement are pointless as no person has witnessed a "free market
" in a couple hundred years, all economic policy has been slanted by influence and corruption
we can not fix it until we actually observe it working, and it will never work until it is
free of bias / influence
no idea how we get there . our justice system is the first step in repairing any society
About rich bastards in Finance and Sillycon Valley going all Prepper,
figuring out ways to safeguard their wealth and comfort and privilege if/when
SHTF and our society collapses.
The good news: IF SHTF in a way such as they fear, the gloves get to come
off and there'd be no law enforcement to protect them. It becomes 1%er hunting
season.
The thing is I really truly suspect that this is how the rich think.
It's enough to make one sensibly and rationally hate the rich, if one
didn't already that is.
"In private Facebook groups, wealthy survivalists swap tips on gas
masks, bunkers, and locations safe from the effects of climate change."
never mind the absurdity of imagining there are private FB groups,
native Americans are facing down the full force of the police state to
protect the environment and their land out of a larger purpose and these
rich people who may actually have some influence make it their priority
to just personally be somewhere safe from the effects of climate change
(as if that were possible haha). Like Gandhi is rumored to have said:
Western civilization – it would be a good idea.
I think you're right in how they think. "I would rather spend 1,000
dollars on myself then give 1 dollar to help someone else (and protect
myself in the long run)" does seem to be the thought process.
To continue in that vein. "But you would be saving $999 if you gave
$1";
"What did they do to *earn* my largesse?"
Truly baffling when looked at rationally, but as a species we're
not all that rational.
Awww it's touching isn't it? The naive way the billionaires think their
pilots and armed guards would continue to obey their orders in a
doomsday/survival scenario
Ya, they really should play some Fallout. The real life
"vault-builders" may have other ideas.
Plus, the Machiavellian maxim about fortresses not being all that
safe, but the respect of the people being a true safeguard for a prince.
I mean if I was a multi-billionaire, I'd move to Detroit rebuild the
infrastructure, and turn the city into an estate with loyal citizens. I
keep them safe now, SHTF, they keep me safe. If nothing happens, then
they benefit greatly, and I'll be remembered by history as a decent
person.
I have to be "that guy," but the Vault Tec vaults were built as
elaborate social experiments to determine how to best transport
colonists on theorized, future spacecraft. The U.S. didn't intend
to launch a mass nuclear strike, but the Chinese saw the start of
the vault experiment as preparation for a first strike. The
fascists didn't even under their own experiments properly.
That's ok. I love the Fallout Lore. Is the space colony
Bethesda lore or Interplay lore?
I like that even the Vault-ride showing the colonies .they
were doing experiments on ride patrons, and the scientists doing
the experiments were having experiments performed on them!
Fun fact to keep in mind: those silos or other fancy bunkers with air
filtration to clean out chemical, biological, or nuclear contaminants
will not block carbon monoxide or any oxygen displacing gas. So, once
rich Silicon Valley or Wall St piece of shit bunkers down, you pull a car
or truck up to their air intakes and start pumping your exhaust in. Fill
the fancy bunker with carbon monoxide, halon, etc.
Bastards deserve the had chamber of their own making.
Seeing how the billionaires and cent-millionaires choose to use their
money for this makes a strong case for increasing taxes on them A LOT.
[For those who haven't read the article, it's about some entrepreneurial
Doomsdayers creating "condos" in abandoned missile silos near Wichita. Or
moving to New Zealand.]
I did love the part about how you need to take the
family
of the pilot who's manning your escape helicopter with you as you depart
from the crashing "civilization."
Derp, apparently they forgot that Bitcoins arnt accessible if theres no
electricity or internet. God, that makes the guys who stock up on gold coins
look like geniuses in comparison.
The point about surveillance cameras is silly. The purpose of such strategic
violence is to draw attention to the protest in a way that peaceful
demonstration doesn't. Producing footage of their actions is the whole point.
And, obviously, they are wearing masks.
Well, false flag or not, do notice how "high profile" the forces of
the State are when the venue of the action is in upper class areas, such
as trendy down towns, Government zones, and high rent suburbs. Contrast
that with the almost hands off attitude when the burning people, places
and things are lower class.
Feedback requested. I'm wondering if my thesis is sound or not.
ambrit
"... Demanding a no-strings-attached welfare system, the left seeks to cut government out of social provisioning while at the same time relying on government for regular financial support. ..."
"... How will we provide adequate human and material resources for our growing elderly populations? How can we meaningfully restructure social production to address climate change? ..."
"... no amount of volunteerism, goodwill, or generous welfare payments can adequately meet these demands. Indeed, only government can afford to mobilize the persons and materials needed to answer such demands. ..."
"... I really need to be kicked out of the house, to go someplace and do something I don't really want to do for 8 hours a day. ..."
"... Interesting read society has become so corrupt at every level from personal up through municipal, regional and federal governments that it cant even identify the problem, let alone a solution ..."
By Scott Ferguson, Assistant Professor, University of South Florida. He is also a Research
Scholar at the Binzagr Institute for Sustainable Prosperity. His current research and pedagogy focus
on Modern Monetary Theory and critiques of neoliberalism, aesthetic theory; the history of digital
animation and visual effects; and essayistic writing across media platforms. Originally published
at Arcade
James Livingston has responded to
my critique of his Aeon essay,
"
Fuck Work ." His response was published in the Spanish magazine
Contexto y Accion . One can find an English translation
here . What follows is my reply:
Livingston and I share many political aims. We each wish to reverse wealth polarization, to alleviate
systemic poverty, and to enable diverse forms of human flourishing. The professor and I disagree,
however, on the nature of contemporary economic reality. As a consequence, we propose very different
political programs for realizing the sort of just and prosperous society we both desire.
In his rejoinder to my critique, Livingston proudly affirms his commitment to Liberalism and makes
a Liberal understanding
of political economy the basis of his proposed alternative to the neoliberal catastrophe. Deeming
government an intrinsically authoritarian institution, he situates civil society as a realm of self-actualization
and self-sufficiency. The problem, as he formulates it, is that while capitalist innovation has made
it possible to increasingly automate production, the capitalist class has robbed us of our purchasing
power and preserved a punishing wage relation. This prevents us from enjoying the fruits of automated
labor. Livingston's solution is to reject an outmoded Protestant work ethic; tax the unproductive
corporate profits that fuel financial markets; and redistribute this money in the form of a Universal
Basic Income (UBI). The result: each member of civil society will be liberated to associate, labor,
or play as they please.
Like Livingston, the left has long flirted with Liberal dreams that autonomous and self-regulating
associations might one day replace the difficulties of political governance. After the Great Recession,
these dreams have
returned . They imagine algorithms and robots to be politically neutral. They seek a life of
shared luxury through automatically dispensed welfare payments. This sounds nice at first blush.
However, such reveries are at best naive and, at worst, politically defeatist and self-destructive.
Abandoned and abused by neoliberal governance, today's pro-UBI left doubles down on neoliberalism's
do-it-yourself caretaking. It envisions delimited forms of monetary redistribution as the only means
to repair the social order. Above all, it allows anti-authoritarianism to overshadow the charge of
social provisioning.
Livingston's articulation of this dream is especially fierce. As such, it crystallizes UBI's central
contradiction: Demanding a no-strings-attached welfare system, the left seeks to cut government
out of social provisioning while at the same time relying on government for regular financial support.
This position, which fails to rethink the structure of social participation as a whole, leaves
disquieting political questions unanswered: How will we provide adequate human and material resources
for our growing elderly populations? How can we meaningfully restructure social production to address
climate change? How do we preserve a place for the arts outside of competitive MFA programs
and speculative art markets?
Such questions are unforgivingly realistic, not pie-in-the-sky musings. And no amount of volunteerism,
goodwill, or generous welfare payments can adequately meet these demands. Indeed, only government
can afford to mobilize the persons and materials needed to answer such demands. And while algorithms
and robots are powerful social instruments, we cannot rely on automation to overcome extant logics
of
discrimination and exclusion . To do so is to forget that social injustice is politically conditioned
and that government alone holds the monetary capacity to transform economic life in its entirety.
I really need to be kicked out of the house, to go someplace and do something I don't really
want to do for 8 hours a day.
I've already got too much time to fritter away. I'm fairly certain, giving me more time and
money to make my own choices would not make the world a better place.
Hmm. No "sarc" tag Really?? More free time and money wouldn't be a benefit to you and your
surroundings? That's hard to believe. To each their own I guess.
I can see it both ways. Most people see that as sarcasm but I have more than a few friends
whose jobs are probably the only thing keeping them out of jail. Idle hands being the devil's
plaything and all.
For instance, the last thing you want to give a recovering addict is a lot of free time and
money.
As a recovering addict, I must vehemently disagree with ur statement. I would love to have
as much money and free time on my hands to work on the fun hobbies that keep me sober like Political
Activism, Blogging, Film, etc.
At no point in the "Job Guarantee" discussion did anyone advocate forcing you to go to work.
However, if you decide to get ambitious and want a paid activity to do that helps make society
a better place to live, wouldn't it be nice to know that there'd be work available for you to
do?
Right now, that's not so easy to do without lots of effort searching for available jobs and
going through a cumbersome and dispiriting application process that's designed to make you prove
how much you REALLY, REALLY want the job.
For me, the real silver bullet is the moral/political argument of a Job Guarantee vs. Basic
Income. Job Guarantee gives people a sense of pride and accomplishment and those employed and
their loved ones will vigorously defend it against those who would attack them as 'moochers'.
Also, defenders can point to the completed projects as added ammunition.
Basic income recipients have no such moral/political defense.
The guaranteed jobs could be for a 20 or 30 hour week. I fear they won't be as most job guarantee
advocates seem to be Calvinists who believe only work gets you into heaven though.
It's a common 'argument' by people defending status quo. They claim something is ridiculous
and easily disproven and then leave it at that. They avoid making argument that are specific enought
to be countered, because thay know they don't actually have a leg to stand on.
Limitless may not have been the best word. Of course the government can print money till the
cows come home; but MMT recommends stopping when you approach the real resource constraint.
Sloppy language does not help so thank you. So the next question is how do constraints (natural
or other) affect spending power under MMT, is it asymptotic, is there an optimum, discontinuities?
The other major issue is that although spending power is controlled by legislatures it must
be recognized that wealth creation starts with the work of people and physical capital, not by
the good graces of gov't. MMT makes it sound as if money exists just because gov't wills it to
exist, which is true in the sense of printing pieces of paper but not in the sense of actual economic
production and wealth creation. Taxes are not the manner in which gov't removes money but it really
is the cost of gov't sitting on top of the economic production by people together with physical
capital.
Help me understand your last sentence. So, if I'm a farmer, the time I spend digging the field
is economic production, but the time I spend sitting at my desk planing what to plant and deciding
which stump to remove next and how best to do it, and the time I spend making deals with the bank
etc, these are all unproductive hours that make no contribution to my economic production?
Yes, Jamie. And as you point out, Ferguson is giving us a better definition of "productive".
He is not saying productivity produces profits – he is saying productive work fixes things and
makes them better. But some people never get past that road bump called "productivity."
The author is making some assumptions, and then goes and takes them apart. It's possilble (I
didn't read the article he refers to), that the assumptions he responds to directly are made by
the article, but that doesn't make them universal assumptions about UBI.
UBI is not a single exact prescription – and in the same way, JG is not a single exact prescription.
The devil, in both cases, is in details. In fact, there is not reason why JG and UBI should be
mutually exclusive as a number of people are trying to tell us.
and if we talk about governance – well, the super-strong governance that JG requires to function
properly is my reason why I'd prefer a strong UBI to most JG.
Now and then we get a failed UBI example study – I'm not going to look at that. But the socialist
regimes of late 20th century are a prime example of failed JG. Unlike most visitor or writers
here, I had the "privilege" to experience them first hand, and thanks but no thanks. Under the
socialist regimes you had to have a job (IIRC, the consitutions stated you had "duty" to work).
But that become an instrument of control. What job you could have was pretty tightly controlled.
Or, even worse, you could be refused any job, which pretty much automatically sent you to prison
as "not working parasite".
I don't expect that most people who support JG have anything even remotely similar in mind,
but the governance problems still stay. That is, who decides what jobs should be created? Who
decides who should get what job, especially if not all jobs are equal (and I don't mean just equal
pay)? Can you be firedt from your JG job if you go there just to collect your salary? (The joke
in the socialist block was "the government pretends to pay us, we pretend to work"). Etc. etc.
All of the above would have to be decided by people, and if we should know something, then
we should know that any system run by people will be, sooner or later, corrupted. The more complex
it is, the easier it is to corrupt it.
Which is why I support (meaningfull, meaning you can actually live on it, not just barely survive)
Basic Income over JG. The question for me is more whether we can actually afford a meaningful
one, because getting a "bare survival one" does more damage than good.
That's why any JG would have to be filtered through local governments or, more ideally, non-profit
community organizations, and not a centralized government. New York City's
Summer Youth
Employment Program offers a good model for this. Block grants of money are delivered to a
wide range of community organizations, thus ensuring no one group has a monopoly, and then individual
businesses, other community groups, schools, non-profits, etc., apply to the community organizations
for an "employee" who works for them, but the payment actually comes from the block grant. The
government serves as the deliverer of funds, and provides regulatory oversight to make sure no
abuses are taking place, but does not pick and choose the jobs/employers themselves.
I don't see it as either/or. Provide a UBI and a job guarantee. The job would pay over and
above the UBI bit, if for some reason, you don't want to work or cannot, you still have your Universal
BASIC Income as the floor through which you cannot fall.
Private employers will have to offer better conditions and pay to convince people getting UBI
to work for them. They wouldn't be able to mistreat workers because they could simply bolt because
they will not fall into poverty if they quit. The dirtbags needing workers won't be able to overpay
themselves at the expense of workers because they feel completely free to leave if you are a self
worshipping douche.
It seems that over time the "floor through which you cannot fall" becomes just that, the floor,
as the effect of a UBI becomes the universal value, well floor.
Was going to be my response as well, why such absolute yes or no thinking? The benefit of the
UBI is that is recognizes that we have been increasing productivity for oh the last couple millenia
for a REASON! To have more leisure time! Giving everyone the opportunity to work more and slave
away isn't much of a consolation. We basically have a jobs guarantee/floor right now, its called
McDonalds, and no one wants it.
Labor needs a TON of leverage, to get us back to a reasonable Scandinavian/Aussie standard
of living. Much more time off, much better benefits, higher wages in general. UBI provides this,
it says screw you employers unless you are willing to offer reasonable conditions we are going
to stay home.
I'm curious to know if either of these systems work if there is no guarantee of "free" access
to healthcare through single-payer or a national insurance? I'm only marginally informed about
UBI or MMT, and haven't found adequate information regarding either as to how healthcare is addressed.
It seems clear that neither could work in the US, specifically for the reason that any UBI would
have to be high enough to pay insane insurance premiums, and cover catastrophic illnesses without
pushing someone into bankruptcy.
Can anyone clarify, or point me in the direction of useful information on this?
There are different flavors of UBI, most don't mention healthcare at all. Milton Friedman's
UBI flavor prefers that it replace all government spending on social welfare to reduce the government's
overall burden. MMT says there is no sense in not having single payer.
My thought on the last thread of this nature is that if UBI were ever enacted in the U.S.,
healthcare access would become restricted to those with jobs (and the self-employeed with enough
spare income to pay for it). You don't have to be healthy to collect a subsistence payment from
to the government.
Here in Canada we have universal healthcare, as well as a basic income guarantee for low income
families with children and seniors. There is a movement to extend that as well,
details of one plan here .
In theory, I think it could be possible for the JG to build and staff hospitals and clinics
on a non-profit basis or at least price-controlled basis, if so directed (*huge* question, of
course - by what agency? govt? local councils?). Ditto housing, schools, infrastructure, all kinds
of socially useful and pleasant stuff. However, the way the US tends to do things, I would expect
instead that a BIG or a JG would, as others have pointed out, simply enable employers to pay less,
and furthermore, subsidize the consumption of overpriced goods and services. IOW, a repeat of
the ACA, just a pump to get more $$ to the top.
The problem is not the money, but that the Americans govern themselves so poorly. No idea what
the cure could be for that.
Fixing worker pay is actually VERY easy. It's purely a political issue. You tie corporate taxes
to worker compensation. More specifically, you set the maximum compensation for CEOs at NO MORE
than (say) 50x average worker pay in their corporation (INCLUDING temps AND off-shored workers
IN US DOLLARS no passing the buck to Temp Agencies or claiming that $10/day in hellhole country
x is equivalent to $50k in the US. NO, it is $10/day or $3650/yr, period). At 50x, corporate taxation
is at the minimum (say something like 17%). The corporation is free to pay their top exec more
than 50x but doing so will increase the corporate tax to 25%. You could make it step-wise: 51-60x
average worker pay = 25% corporate tax, 61-80x = 33% corporate tax, etc.
It is time to recognize that CEO pay is NOT natural or earned at stratospheric levels. THE
best economic times in the US were between the 50s to early 70s when top tax rates were much higher
AND the average CEO took home maybe 30x their average worker pay. We CAN go back to something
like that with policy. Also, REQUIRE that labor have reps on the Board of Directors, change the
rules of incorporation so it is NOT mainly focused on "maximizing profit or shareholder value".
It must include returning a social good to the local communities within which corporations reside.
Profits and maximizing shareholder value must be last (after also minimizing social/environmental
harm). Violate the rules and you lose your corporate charter.
There is no right to be a corporation. Incorporation is a privilege that is extended by government.
The Founders barred any corporate interference in politics, and if a corporation broke the law,
it lost its charter and the corporate officers were directly held responsible for THEIR actions.
Corporations don't do anything, people in charge of corporations make the decisions and carry
out the actions so NO MORE LLCs. If you kill people due to lax environmental protections or worker
safety, etc, then the corporate officers are DIRECTLY and personally responsible for it. THEY
made it happen, not some ethereal "corporation".
Durned hippys imagine an IRON boot stamping on a once human face – forever. OK, now everybody
back to the BIG house. Massa wanna reed yew sum Bible verses. We're going to be slaves to the
machines, ya big silly!
I'm sceptical whether a guaranteed job policy would actually work in reality. There are plenty
of historical precedents – for example, during the Irish potato famine because of an ideological
resistence to providing direct aid, there were many 'make work' schemes. You can still see the
results all along the west coast of Ireland – little harbours that nobody has ever used, massive
drainage schemes for tiny amounts of land, roads to nowhere. It certainly helped many families
survive, but it also meant that those incapacitated by starvation died as they couldn't work.
It was no panacea.
There are numerous practical issues with make work schemes. Do you create a sort of 2-layer
public service – with one level permanent jobs, the other a variety of 'temporary' jobs according
to need? And if so, how do you deal with issues like:
1. The person on a make work scheme who doesn't bother turning up till 11 am and goes home
at 2.
2. Regional imbalances where propering region 1 is desperately short of workers while neighbouring
region 2 has thousands of surplus people sweeping streets and planting trees.
3. What effect will this have on business and artistic innovation? Countries with strong welfare
systems such as Sweden also tend to have a very high number of start ups because people can quit
their jobs and devote themselves to a couple of years to develop that business idea they always
had, or to start a band, or try to make a name as a painter.
4. How do you manage the transition from 'make-work' to permanent jobs when the economy is
on the up, but people decide they prefer working in their local area sweeping the street?
I can see just as many practical problems with a job guarantee as with universal income. Neither
solution is perfect – in reality, some sort of mix would be the only way I think it could be done
effectively.
To provide some context for passers-by, this seemingly too-heated debate is occurring in the
context of the upcoming Podemos policy meeting in Spain, Feb 10-12.. Podemos seems to have been
unaware of MMT, and has subscribed to sovereign-economy-as-household policies. Ferguson, along
with elements of the modern left, has been trying to win Podemos over to MMT-based policies like
a Jobs Guarantee rather than the Basic Income scheme they have heretofore adopted rather uncritically.
(Of course Spain is far from "sovereign", but that's another matter :-(
1) Fire them
2) Prospering region 1 isn't "short on workers" they just all have private jobs.
3) What a good argument to also have single payer healthcare and some sort of BIG as well as the
JG
4) private companies must offer a better compensation package. One of the benefits of the JG is
that it essentially sets the minimum wage.
Yeah, those are pretty good answers right off the bat. (Obviously I guess for #1 they can reapply
in six months or something.)
Plutonium- I feel like true progress is trading shitty problems for less shitty ones. I can't
see any of the major proponents like Kelton, Wray or Mitchell ever suggesting that the JG won't
come with it's own new sets of challenges. On the overly optimistic side though: you could look
at that as just necessitating more meaningful JG jobs addressing those issues.
I was writing that on my phone this morning. Didn't have time to go into great detail. Still,
I wanted to point out that just because there will be additional complexities with a JG, doesn't
mean there aren't reasonable answers.
1. If you fire them its not a jobs guarantee. Many people have psychological/social issues
which make them unsuitable for regular hours jobs. If you don't have a universal basic income,
and you don't have an absolute jobs guarantee, then you condemn them and their families to poverty.
2. The area is 'short on workers' if it is relying on a surplus public employee base for doing
things like keeping the streets clean and helping out in old folks homes. It is implicit in the
use of government as a source of jobs of last resort that if there is no spare labour, then you
will have nobody to do all the non-basic works and you will have no justification for additional
infrastructure spend.
3. You miss the point. A basic income allows people time and freedom to be creative if they
choose. When the Conservatives in the early 1990's in the UK restricted social welfare to under
25's, Noel Gallagher of Oasis predicted that it would destroy working class rock n roll, and leave
the future only to music made by rich kids. He was proven right, which is why we have to listen
to Coldplay every time we switch on the radio.
4. This ignores the reality that jobs are never spread evenly across regions. One of the biggest
problems in the US labour market is that the unemployed often just can't afford to move to where
the jobs are available. A guaranteed job scheme organised on local govenment basis doesn't address
this, if anything it can exacerbate the problem. And the simplest and easiest way to have a minimum
wage is to have a minimum wage.
1) Kelton always talks about a JG being for people "willing and able to work." If you are not
willing I don't really have much sympathy for you. If you are not able due to psychological factors
or disability, then we can talk about how you get on welfare or the BIG/UBI. The JG can't work
in a vacuum. It can't be the only social program.
2) Seems unrealistic. You are just searching to find something wrong. If there is zero public
employment, that means private employment is meeting all labor demands.
3) I have no idea what you are going on about. I'm in a band. I also have a full-time job.
I go see local music acts all the time. There are a few that play music and don't work because
they have rich parents, but that's the minority. Most artists I know manage to make art despite
working full time. I give zero shits what corporate rock is these days. If you don't like what's
on the radio turn it off. There are thousands of bands you've never heard of. Go find them.
4) Again, you are just searching for What-If reasons to crap on the JG. You try to keep the
jobs local. Or you figure out free transportation. There are these large vehicles called busses
which can transport many people at once.
Yes these are all valid logistical problems to solve, but you present them like there are no
possible solutions. I can come up with several in less than 5 minutes.
For a more practical first step--how about getting rid of/slashing regressive and non-federal
income tax deductible sales taxes? shifting that tax burden to where income growth has been.
Democratic Party-run states/cities are the biggest offenders when it comes to high sales taxes.
universal basic income in the West + de facto open borders won't work. just making a reasonable
hypothesis.
There might be a psychological benefit to a jobs guarantee vs. UBI. There are a lot of people
that would much rather "earn" their income rather than directly receiving it.
Which of these tools do you posess:
( ) Machete, pick-axe, big old hemp bag
( ) Scattergun, hound, mirrored shades
( ) Short-shorts, bandeau top, knee pads
( ) RealTree camo ACUs, FLIR scope
( ) ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, fast car
A JG would begin to rebuild the trust and cooperation needed to have a society based on justice
instead of might makes right. Human life is based on obligations- we are all responsible to one
another for the social system to work. The problem is always about how to deal with cheaters and
shirkers. This problem is best solved by peer pressure and shaming- along with a properly functioning
legal system.
I get a kick out of the "make work" argument against a JG. With planned obsolescence as the
foundation of our economic system, it's just a more sophisticated way of digging holes and filling
them in again. Bring on robotic automation, and the capitalist utopia is reached. Soul crushing,
pointless labor can be sidelined and replaced with an unthinking and unfeeling machine in order
to generate profits. The one problem is people have no money to buy the cheep products. To solve
that dilemma, use the sovereign governments power to provide spending credits in the form of a
UBI. Capitalism is saved from is own contradictions- the can is kicked farther down the road.
The obligations we have to one another must be defined before any system organization can take
place. Right now, the elite are trying to have their cake and eat it too.
I agree with those who see a need for both programs. I think the critique of UBI here is a
good one, that raises many valid points. But I have trouble with a portion of it. For instance:
by eliminating forced unemployment, it would eradicate systemic poverty
treats 'poverty' as an absolute when it is a relative. No matter what programs are in place,
there will always be a bottom tier in our hierarchical society and those who constitute it will
always be 'impoverished' compared to those in higher tiers. This is the nature of the beast. Which
is why I prefer to talk about subsistence level income and degrees above subsistence. The cost
of living may not be absolutely fixed over time, but it seems to me to be more meaningful and
stable than the term 'poverty'. On the other hand, in a rent seeking economy, giving people an
income will not lift them out of poverty because rents will simply be adjusted to meet the rise
in resources. So UBI without rent control is meaningless.
Another point is that swapping forced unemployment for forced employment seems to me to avoid
some core issues surrounding how society provides for all its members. Proponents of the JG are
always careful to stress that no one is forced to work under the JG. They say things like, "jobs
for everyone who wants one". But this fails to address the element of coercion that underlies
the system. If one has no means to provide for oneself (i.e. we are no longer a frontier with
boundless land that anyone can have for cheap upon which they may strike out and choose the amount
of labor they contribute to procure the quality of life they prefer-if ever was such the case),
then jobs for "everyone who wants one" is simply disingenuous. There is a critical "needs" versus
"wants" discussion that doesn't generally come up when discussing JG. It's in there, of course,
but it is postponed until the idea is accepted to the point where setting an actual wage becomes
an issue. But even then, the wage set will bear on the needs versus wants of the employed, but
leaves out those foolish enough to not "want" a job. Whereas, in discussing UBI, that discussion
is front and center (since even before accepting the proposal people will ask, how much?, and
proper reasons must be given to support a particular amount-which again brings us to discussing
subsistence and degrees above it-the discussion of subsistence or better is "baked in" to the
discussion about UBI in a way that it is not when discussing the JG).
While UBI interests me as a possible route to a non-"means of production"-based economy, the
problem I see with it is that it could easily reduce the populace to living to consume. Given
enough funds to provide for the basics of living, but not enough to make any gains within society,
or affect change. It's growth for growth's sake, not as to serve society. Something is needed
to make sure people aren't just provided for, but have the ability to shape the direction of their
society and communities.
Where I work @3/4 of the staff already receives social security and yet it is not enough seems
to me human satisfaction is boundless and providing a relative minimum paper floor for everyone
is just. Yet the way our market is set up, this paper floor would be gobbled back up by the rentier
class anyway. So unless there is a miraculous change in our economic rent capture policies, we
are screwed
So yes, just describe to people precisely what it is – a 'paper' floor not something that
has firm footing yet acknowledges inequities inherent in our current currency distribution methods.
And of course couple this with a jobs guarantee. I have met way too many people in my life that
'fall through the cracks' .
why is no one bemoaning the rabid over-consumption of the complainers who suck up much more
than they will ever need, hoarding and complaining about people who do not have enough? the real
problem is rampant out of control parasites
But Ferguson should also adknowledge that Livingston has some points.
Why on earth we politically put limits to, for instance, public earning-spending while do not
put any limit to the net amount that one person can earn, spend and own?
Upward redistribution is what occurs in the neoliberal framework. UBI is distribution. Bear
in mind that even in the best employment conditions, not everybody can earn a salary. 100% employment
is unrealistic.
The people marketing UBI and MMT have hundreds of years of attempted social engineereing to
overcome. I referring to the " why people want what they want and why do they believe what they
believe." Why?
The only suggestion I have is that, since everybody has a different relationship to the concept
of work, the populations involved need to be smaller. Not necessarily fewer people, but more regions
or nation states that are actually allowed to try their ideas without being attacked by any existing
"empire" or "wanna be empire" via sanctions or militarily.
It is going to take many different regions, operating a variety of economic systems (not the
globalized private banking extraction method pushed down every one's throat whether they like
it or not) that people can gravitate in and out of freely.
People would have the choice to settle in the region that has rules and regulations that work
most for their lives and belief systems (which can change over time).
Looking at it from the perspective that there can be only one system that 300 million plus
people (like the USA) or the world must be under is the MAIN problem of social engineering. There
needs to be space carved out for these many experiments.
First, congratulations to everyone who managed to read this all the way through. IMO both this
(and the guy he's responding to), seem like someone making fun of academic writing. Perhaps with
the aid of a program that spits out random long words.
FWIW, when I lived in Japan, they had a HUGE, construction-based make-work program there, and
it was the worst of both worlds: hard physical labor which even the laborers knew served no purpose,
PLUS constant street obstruction/noise for the people in the neighborhoods of these make-work
projects. Not to mention entire beautiful mountains literally concreted over in the name of 'jawbs'.
Different thought: I'm not sold on UBI either, but wouldn't it mess up the prostitution/sex
trafficking game, almost as a side effect? Has anyone heard UBI fans promote it on that basis?
The sound and fury of disagreement is drowning out what both authors agree on: guaranteed material
standards of living and reduced working time. If that's the true goal, we should say so explicitly
and hammer out the details of the best way to attain it.
Interesting read society has become so corrupt at every level from personal up through municipal,
regional and federal governments that it cant even identify the problem, let alone a solution
all forms of government and their corresponding programs will fail until that government is
free from the monetary influences of individuals / corporations and military establishments, whether
it be from donations to a political establishment or kick backs to politicians and legislators
or government spending directed to buddies and cohorts
I don't pretend to understand the arguments at the level to which they are written, but at
the basic level of true governance it must but open and honest, this would allow the economy to
function and be evaluated, and then at that point we could offer up some ideas on how to enhance
areas as needed or scale back areas that were out of control or not adding value to society as
a whole
We stand at a place that has hundreds of years of built in corruption into the model, capable
so far of funneling money to the top regardless of the program implemented by the left or the
right sides of society
first step is to remove all corruption and influence from governance at every level until
then all the toils toward improvement are pointless as no person has witnessed a "free market
" in a couple hundred years, all economic policy has been slanted by influence and corruption
we can not fix it until we actually observe it working, and it will never work until it is
free of bias / influence
no idea how we get there . our justice system is the first step in repairing any society
The point about surveillance cameras is silly. The purpose of such strategic
violence is to draw attention to the protest in a way that peaceful
demonstration doesn't. Producing footage of their actions is the whole point.
And, obviously, they are wearing masks.
Well, false flag or not, do notice how "high profile" the forces of
the State are when the venue of the action is in upper class areas, such
as trendy down towns, Government zones, and high rent suburbs. Contrast
that with the almost hands off attitude when the burning people, places
and things are lower class.
Feedback requested. I'm wondering if my thesis is sound or not.
ambrit
Am nteresting thought (replace imperialism with neoliberalism) : "I think that it is possible
that Trump has come to the conclusion that imperialism has stopped working for the USA, that far from
being the solution to the contradictions of capitalism, imperialism might well have become its most
self-defeating feature. "
Revival of far right in Europe also is connected with the crisis of neoliberalism.
Notable quotes:
"... This might be something crucial: I cannot imagine Trump trying to simply do "more of the same" like his predecessors did or trying to blindly double-down like the Neocons always try to. ..."
"... I am willing to bet that Trump really and sincerely believes that the USA is in a deep crisis and that a new, different, sets of policies must be urgently implemented. ..."
"... I think that it is possible that Trump has come to the conclusion that imperialism has stopped working for the USA, that far from being the solution to the contradictions of capitalism, imperialism might well have become its most self-defeating feature. ..."
"... Is it possible for an ideological system to dump one of its core component after learning from past mistakes? I think it is, and a good example of that is 21 st Century Socialism , which has completely dumped the kind of militant atheism which was so central to the 20 th century Socialist movement. In fact, modern "21st Century Socialism" is very pro-Christian. Could 21 st century capitalism dump imperialism? Maybe. ..."
"... Furthermore, the Trump inaugural speech did, according to RT commentators, sound in many aspects like the kind of speech Bernie Sanders could have made. And I think that they are right. Trump did sound like a paleo-liberal ..."
"... Today, when Trump pronounced the followings words " We will seek friendship and goodwill with the nations of the world – but we do so with the understanding that it is the right of all nations to put their own interests first " he told the Russians exactly what they wanted to hear: Trump does not pretend to be a "friend" of Russia and Trump openly and unapologetically promises to care about his own people first, and that is exactly what Putin has been saying and doing since he came to power in Russia: caring for the Russian people first. After all, caring for your own first hardly implies being hostile or even indifferent to others. ..."
"... All it means is that your loyalty and your service is first and foremost to those who elected you to office. This refreshing patriotic honesty, combined with the prospect of friendship and goodwill will sound like music to the Russian ears. ..."
Just hours ago Donald Trump was finally sworn in as the President of the United States. Considering
all the threats hanging over this event, this is good news because at least for the time being, the
Neocons have lost their control over the Executive Branch and Trump is now finally in a position
to take action. The other good news is
Trump's inauguration speech which included this historical promise " We do not seek to impose
our way of life on anyone, but rather to let it shine as an example for everyone to follow ".
Could that really mean that the USA has given up its role of World Hegemon? The mere fact of asking
the question is already an immensely positive development as nobody would have asked it had Hillary
Clinton been elected.
The other interesting feature of Trump's speech is that it centered heavily on people power and
on social justice. Again, the contrast with the ideological garbage from Clinton could not be greater.
Still, this begs a much more puzzling question: how much can a multi-billionaire capitalist be trusted
when he speaks of people power and social justice – not exactly what capitalists are known for, at
least not amongst educated people. Furthermore, a Marxist reader would also remind us that "
imperialism
is the highest stage of capitalism " and that it makes no sense to expect a capitalist to
suddenly renounce imperialism.
But what was generally true in 1916 is not necessarily true in 2017.
For one thing, let's begin by stressing that the Trump Presidency was only made possible by the
immense financial, economic, political, military and social crisis facing the USA today. Eight years
of Clinton, followed by eight years of Bush Jr and eight years of Obama have seen a massive and full-spectrum
decline in the strength of the United States which were sacrificed for the sake of the AngloZionist
Empire. This crisis is as much internal as it is external and the election of Trump is a direct consequence
of this crisis. In fact, Trump is the first one to admit that it is the terrible situation in which
the USA find themselves today that brought him to power with a mandate of the regular American people
(Hillary's "deplorables") to "drain the DC swamp" and "make America", as opposed to the American
plutocracy, "great again". This might be something crucial: I cannot imagine Trump trying to
simply do "more of the same" like his predecessors did or trying to blindly double-down like the
Neocons always try to.
I am willing to bet that Trump really and sincerely believes that the USA is in a deep crisis
and that a new, different, sets of policies must be urgently implemented. If that assumption
of mine proves to be correct, then this is by definition very good news for the entire planet because
whatever Trump ends up doing (or not doing), he will at least not push his country into a nuclear
confrontation with Russia. And yes, I think that it is possible that Trump has come to the conclusion
that imperialism has stopped working for the USA, that far from being the solution to the contradictions
of capitalism, imperialism might well have become its most self-defeating feature.
Is it possible for an ideological system to dump one of its core component after learning
from past mistakes? I think it is, and a good example of that is
21 st
Century Socialism , which has completely dumped the kind of militant atheism which was
so central to the 20 th century Socialist movement. In fact, modern "21st Century Socialism"
is very pro-Christian. Could 21 st century capitalism dump imperialism? Maybe.
Furthermore, the Trump inaugural speech did, according to RT commentators, sound in many aspects
like the kind of speech Bernie Sanders could have made. And I think that they are right. Trump did
sound like a paleo-liberal, something which we did not hear from him during the campaign. You
could also say that Trump sounded very much like Putin. The question is will he now also act like
Putin too?
There will be a great deal of expectations in Russia about how Trump will go about fulfilling
his campaign promises to deal with other countries. Today, when Trump pronounced the followings
words " We will seek friendship and goodwill with the nations of the world – but we do so with the
understanding that it is the right of all nations to put their own interests first " he told the
Russians exactly what they wanted to hear: Trump does not pretend to be a "friend" of Russia and
Trump openly and unapologetically promises to care about his own people first, and that is exactly
what Putin has been saying and doing since he came to power in Russia: caring for the Russian people
first. After all, caring for your own first hardly implies being hostile or even indifferent to others.
All it means is that your loyalty and your service is first and foremost to those who elected
you to office. This refreshing patriotic honesty, combined with the prospect of friendship and goodwill
will sound like music to the Russian ears.
Then there are Trump's words about " forming new alliances " and uniting " the civilized
world against Radical Islamic Terrorism, which we will eradicate completely from the face of the
Earth ". They will also be received with a great deal of hope by the Russian people. If the USA
is finally serious about fighting terrorism and if they really wants to eradicate the likes of Daesh,
then Russia will offer her full support to this effort, including her military, intelligence, police
and diplomatic resources. After all, Russia has been advocating for " completely eradicating Radical
Islamic Terrorism from the face of the Earth " for decades.
There is no doubt in my mind at all that an alliance between Russia and the USA, even if limited
only to specific areas of converging or mutual interests, would be immensely beneficial for the entire
planet, and not for just these two countries: right now all the worst international crises are a
direct result from the "tepid war" the USA and Russia have been waging against each other. And just
like any other war, this war has been a fantastic waste of resources. Of course, this war was started
by the USA and it was maintained and fed by the Neocon's messianic ideology. Now that a realist like
Trump has come to power, we can finally hope for this dangerous and wasteful dynamic to be stopped.
The good news is that neither Trump nor Putin can afford to fail. Trump, because he has made an
alliance with Russia the cornerstone of his foreign policy during his campaign, and Putin because
he realizes that it is in the objective interests of Russia for Trump to succeed, lest the Neocon
crazies crawl back out from their basement. So both sides will enter into negotiations with a strong
desire to get things done and a willingness to make compromises as long as they do not affect crucial
national security objectives. I think that the number of issues on which the USA and Russia can agree
upon is much, much longer than the number of issues were irreconcilable differences remain.
So yes, today I am hopeful. More than anything else, I want to hope that Trump is "for real",
and that he will have the wisdom and courage to take strong action against his internal enemies.
Because from now on, this is one other thing which Putin and Trump will have in common: their internal
enemies are far more dangerous than any external foe. When I see rabid maniacs like
David Horowitz declaring
himself a supporter of Donald Trump ,
I get very, very concerned and I ask myself "what does Horowitz know which I am missing?". What is
certain is that in the near future one of us will soon become very disappointed. I just hope that
this shall not be me.
Could that really mean that the USA has given up its role of World Hegemon?
Well, another author here, David Chibo, seems to think that the intent is exactly the opposite:
for the US (the nation) to become World Hegemon. As opposed to what we have today, to
multinational capital being World Hegemon
When I see rabid maniacs like David Horowitz declaring himself a supporter of Donald Trump
Saying someone's a "rabid maniac" without giving any reason for one's statement is so mainstream
media like.
So far as I know, the mature-age Horowitz has written some interesting books: I can recommend
Hating Whitey , One party classrooms , Left illusion . His autobiography
( A point in time ot something like that) is a good book too.
He is also a very active anti-crazy left activist, and runs a site with a list of leftist anti-white
hate groups.
I hope I said enough for you to understand why I am surprised and not particularly pleased
by seeing him called a "rabid maniac".
The United States is in a deep crisis which nobody except Trump had the courage to discuss.
The United States Government has been overspending what is has been taking in by an average
of 875 billion dollars, per year, for last decade and a half.
Our national debt has ballooned to a hair under 20 trillion dollars in 16 years. from 5.7 trillion
in 2000.
Our Gross Domestic Product, on the other hand, is only 18.7 trillion having merely doubled
from 9.3 trillion in 2000.
A general crisis point for the solvency of a nation is when its national debt eclipses its
GDP, which happened to us two years ago .and the spread is growing, not tightening.
If this continues at its present course, the world will no longer wish to purchase our debt
and begin selling off our treasury bonds. The credit worthiness of the United States will be in
serious jeopardy and the US dollar may be sacrificed as the worlds currency.
I am not sure how President Trump wishes to tackle this but it will be his number one job to
save the United States from its ruinous policies of perpetual war and insolvency and chart a
new course , hopefully one of peace and prosperity.
There will be no more wars of choice because we simply cannot afford them.
So one can be optimistic, the era of reckless war and obscene war spending is over but its
really almost ten years to late for this.
Do not lose heart, however, there are many ways we can pay down our debt,quickly, without raising
income taxes.
And if we can GROW the economy at a healthy pace,without generating too much inflation, we
should be able to dodge the bullet.
I hope The Donald , and his cabinet, put their thinking caps on, and undertake policies which
are highly successful.
The United States is in a deep crisis which nobody except Trump had the courage to discuss.
The United States Government has been overspending what is has been taking in by an average
of 875 billion dollars, per year, for last decade and a half.
Our national debt has ballooned to a hair under 20 trillion dollars in 16 years. from 5.7 trillion
in 2000.
Our Gross Domestic Product, on the other hand, is only 18.7 trillion having merely doubled
from 9.3 trillion in 2000.
A general crisis point for the solvency of a nation is when its national debt eclipses its
GDP, which happened to us two years ago....and the spread is growing, not tightening.
If this continues at its present course, the world will no longer wish to purchase our debt
and begin selling off our treasury bonds. The credit worthiness of the United States will be in
serious jeopardy...and the US dollar may be sacrificed as the worlds currency.
I am not sure how President Trump wishes to tackle this but it will be his number one job to save
the United States from its ruinous policies of perpetual war and insolvency ...and chart a new
course , hopefully one of peace and prosperity.
There will be no more wars of choice because we simply cannot afford them.
So one can be optimistic, the era of reckless war and obscene war spending is over...but its
really almost ten years to late for this.
Do not lose heart, however, there are many ways we can pay down our debt,quickly, without raising
income taxes.
And if we can GROW the economy at a healthy pace,without generating too much inflation, we
should be able to dodge the bullet.
I hope The Donald , and his cabinet, put their thinking caps on, and undertake policies which
are highly successful.
It is so important to us all.
Guess you didn't watch the debate where Trump said there is a very large bubble over wall street,
and its bigger than the housing bubble (my words not Trumps) and our GDP the figures the government
puts out as David Stockman Reagan budget director said is very suspect to say the least, for I
have seen it stated anywhere from $16 trillion to $18 trillion and change much like the BLS report
I suspect.
Not much wiggle room for Trump a crashing bubble on wall street almost 100,000,000 un-employed
per the Lay-Off-List, no that fails to jibe with the figure the government puts out, much like
the GDP I suspect, and there should be no doubt in anyone's mind that the debt will grow under
Trump as he re-builds the military, as more tax dollars are flushed down the drain to keep company
with the trillions already there.
Chalmers Johnson was right in his excellent books from Blowback to The Sorrows of Empire Militarism,Secrecy,and
the End of the Republic and our 900+ bases around the globe, can Trump change that close at least
half of those bases that cost us billions of dollars we don't have or will it be the status quo
I suspect it will be the later
When I see rabid maniacs like David Horowitz declaring himself a supporter of Donald Trump
Saying someone's a "rabid maniac" without giving any reason for one's statement is so... mainstream
media like.
So far as I know, the mature-age Horowitz has written some interesting books: I can recommend
Hating Whitey , One party classrooms , Left illusion . His autobiography
( A point in time ot something like that) is a good book too.
He is also a very active anti-crazy left activist, and runs a site with a list of leftist anti-white
hate groups.
I hope I said enough for you to understand why I am surprised and not particularly pleased by
seeing him called a "rabid maniac".
Anonymous:
I can back up Horowitz being termed "a rapid maniac". Some time ago I met him at one of his
book signings. At that time I would be regarded as one of his disciples, i.e. his camp followers.
That changed once I actually met him. His eyes were those of a crazed man. Enough said!
"After all, caring for your own first hardly implies being hostile or even indifferent to others.
All it means is that your loyalty and your service is first and foremost to those who elected
you to office. This refreshing patriotic honesty, combined with the prospect of friendship and
goodwill will sound like music to the Russian ears."
But it could mean NOT putting Zionist-Globalist interest first.
And that's what it's all about.
Gentiles don't mind each nation putting its interest first. But that means gentiles putting
their national interests above Jewish elitist interest.
Since nationalism favors gentile interests, Jews have pushed globalism and Zionism. That way,
all gentile nations are to favor globalism(that favors Jewish worldwide networking) over nationalism
and favor Zionism(Jewish nationalism) over any gentile nationalism.
The problem is that the issues between Russia and US are not that easy to resolve. For example,
will US keep the "anti-Iran" missile defense systems in East Europe? Will they continue to state
that Ukraine and Georgia will be in NATO? Will the recent NATO troops in Poland, Baltic states
and Romania stay? There are a few others, like the Ukraine problem – Crimea, Donbass, economic
collapse.
None of those issues are suitable for a deal. A deal requires things that either side can let
go. We don't have that here. Most likely the tensions will recede, some summits will be held,
a few common policies will be attempted (e.g. Middle East), but none of the really big issues
(missiles, NATO expansion, Crimea, Ukraine) will be addressed. US has gone too far down that road
to backtrack now – it is all logistics at this point. And logistics don't change short of something
like a war.
So we are stuck. But at least we are no longer heading towards a catastrophe.
The United States is in a deep crisis which nobody except Trump had the courage to discuss.
The United States Government has been overspending what is has been taking in by an average
of 875 billion dollars, per year, for last decade and a half.
Our national debt has ballooned to a hair under 20 trillion dollars in 16 years. from 5.7 trillion
in 2000.
Our Gross Domestic Product, on the other hand, is only 18.7 trillion having merely doubled
from 9.3 trillion in 2000.
A general crisis point for the solvency of a nation is when its national debt eclipses its
GDP, which happened to us two years ago....and the spread is growing, not tightening.
If this continues at its present course, the world will no longer wish to purchase our debt
and begin selling off our treasury bonds. The credit worthiness of the United States will be in
serious jeopardy...and the US dollar may be sacrificed as the worlds currency.
I am not sure how President Trump wishes to tackle this but it will be his number one job to save
the United States from its ruinous policies of perpetual war and insolvency ...and chart a new
course , hopefully one of peace and prosperity.
There will be no more wars of choice because we simply cannot afford them.
So one can be optimistic, the era of reckless war and obscene war spending is over...but its
really almost ten years to late for this.
Do not lose heart, however, there are many ways we can pay down our debt,quickly, without raising
income taxes.
And if we can GROW the economy at a healthy pace,without generating too much inflation, we
should be able to dodge the bullet.
I hope The Donald , and his cabinet, put their thinking caps on, and undertake policies which
are highly successful.
It is so important to us all.
I am not sure how President Trump wishes to tackle this but it will be his number one job
to save the United States from its ruinous policies of perpetual war and insolvency and chart
a new course , hopefully one of peace and prosperity.
There will be no more wars of choice because we simply cannot afford them.
That's an interesting point, the US does have creditors and it has reached its credit limit,
and hasn't exactly been making good investments with the money that was borrowed.
The real issues seem to be making spending efficient (for example US healthcare that costs
about 2x the Canadian rate per person for the same result), and rebasing production in the US
(more US taxpayers).
The Socialist UK government was in a similar position in the early 1970′s with a "welfare state"
that it couldn't afford, general industrial strife and a "class war". When the UK's creditors
saw that things weren't going to change they sold off government bonds and the country got the
"Sterling Crisis" with Sterling losing what was left of its Reserve Currency status.
At least Trump is indicating a political will for change, but he needs to act quickly.
When I see rabid maniacs like David Horowitz declaring himself a supporter of Donald Trump
Saying someone's a "rabid maniac" without giving any reason for one's statement is so... mainstream
media like.
So far as I know, the mature-age Horowitz has written some interesting books: I can recommend
Hating Whitey , One party classrooms , Left illusion . His autobiography
( A point in time ot something like that) is a good book too.
He is also a very active anti-crazy left activist, and runs a site with a list of leftist anti-white
hate groups.
I hope I said enough for you to understand why I am surprised and not particularly pleased by
seeing him called a "rabid maniac".
I listened to Trump's speech live on headphones while power walking on a country road. Something
about that scenario allowed me to give it a focus that I may not have had if I was watching it
on the idiot box or reading a transcript.
If I'm not mistaken, he literally called most of his esteemed guests ( ex-presidents especially)
corrupt criminals, frauds and traitors. An unbelievable moment where the mob was reminded that
politicians are not to be fawned over. They work for the people.
The rest of the speech of course was lyrics for a remake of the song 'Dream the Impossible
Dream'. But still, if the population wasn't attention deficit affected, that part of his speech
could have been right up there with Ike's MIC moment.
This is a very good article. I agree with it almost entirely.
Is it possible for an ideological system to dump one of its core component after learning
from past mistakes? Could 21st century capitalism dump imperialism? Maybe.
When would it be possible for the anti-imperialist ideological system to dump its core belief
that, Lenin's demented (and unoriginal) ramblings to the contrary, capitalism has intrinsically
zilch to do with imperialism?
Because from now on, this is one other thing which Putin and Trump will have in common:
their internal enemies are far more dangerous than any external foe. When I see rabid maniacs
like David Horowitz declaring himself a supporter of Donald Trump, I get very, very concerned
and I ask myself "what does Horowitz know which I am missing?".
David Horowitz merely demonstrated that, unlike "
renegade Jews " such as the Kristols and the Krauthammers, he is a patriot of his own country
(the USA) first and a Jewish nationalist second. I consider that perfectly fine and worthy of
respect.
@Chet Roman "drain the DC swamp" and "make America", as opposed to the American plutocracy,
"great again"
While I am hopeful and will give Trump the chance to prove himself. Unfortunately, he like Obama
before him, has appointed most the same plutocrats/neoliberal parasites in his administration
that are part of what the Saker calls the "AngloZionist Empire". Will they, like the patrician
FDR, promote policies against their own class interests? Time will tell but, after the same betrayal
by "Hope and Change" Obama I would not bet on it.
Not that I'm very sanguine about all the Goldman Sachs people in Trump's cabinet either, but
if you're looking for reasons for optimism: At least Trump–unlike Clinton, Bush and Obama–hasn't
appointed any retreads; i.e., people who've served in previous cabinets. That may indicate that
some change is in the offing. Let's hope it's a change for the best.
The key to US solvency and credit worthiness is the "ratio" of Debt to GDP ..Our GDP should
ALWAYS be in the plus column, and when its not . it's bad news.
Like today, it is bad news (Debt 19.9 T / GDP 18.7 T) it is such bad news our big media has
refused to discuss it ..The only person to bring it up , ever, was the Donald.
The big media does not want to say the wars they lied us into bankrupted our nation because
it makes them accountable.
The scaly truth is that they "are" accountable.
Ironically,Donald Trump (who knows this too) now has the power as President to generate over
two trillion dollars in revenues, literally overnight, and move our Debt to GDP ratio right back
in the plus column.
Do you want to know how ?
He goes on record that the Iraq War "lies" constituted a defrauding of the American people
, our country, and the brave men and women who fought and died there .and he has chosen to recognize
this "defrauding " as a supreme terrorist act against the wellbeing of our nation ,our citizenry
and the values that make us who we are ..
He goes on to say that ALL the perpetrators will be held accountable for this despicable act
of deception , so that it may never happen again.
Then he proceeds with operation "Clean Sweep" and takes down all the back room billionaire
oligarchs who jockeyed for the war and profited from it .
Lets say by the time he is done he has arrested 700 belligerent oligarchs and media moguls
and seizes all their assets .If they are each worth, on average, 4 billion dollars .
then 700 x 4 billion = 2.8 trillion dollars
If this 2.8 trillion goes to paying down the national debt .then "bingo" our Debt to GDP ratio
is right back in the" plus column" .
Our National debt is reduced by 2.8 T and the GDP stays the same ..the new ratio is 17.1 T
Debt/ 18.7 T GDP.
Our credit worthiness, as a nation, is now out of the" danger zone".
Whatever assets the criminal oligarchs had, are auctioned off and redistributed to all the
good people who would never "lie us into war".
This sends an enormously reassuring message throughout the world that we are able to take care
of business at home, and clean house when necessary.
This would also serve as a much needed tonic within the entire "establishment" community, as
they would be intensely fearful of ever defrauding the American people again.
Would you do it ? ..If you were President, Anna, would you demand accountability ?
300 Words
@Anon "After all, caring for your own first hardly implies being hostile or even indifferent
to others. All it means is that your loyalty and your service is first and foremost to those who
elected you to office. This refreshing patriotic honesty, combined with the prospect of friendship
and goodwill will sound like music to the Russian ears."
But it could mean NOT putting Zionist-Globalist interest first.
And that's what it's all about.
Gentiles don't mind each nation putting its interest first. But that means gentiles putting
their national interests above Jewish elitist interest.
Since nationalism favors gentile interests, Jews have pushed globalism and Zionism. That way,
all gentile nations are to favor globalism(that favors Jewish worldwide networking) over nationalism
and favor Zionism(Jewish nationalism) over any gentile nationalism.
"Gentiles don't mind each nation putting its interest first. But that means gentiles putting
their national interests above Jewish elitist interest.
Since nationalism favors gentile interests, Jews have pushed globalism and Zionism. That way,
all gentile nations are to favor globalism(that favors Jewish worldwide networking) over nationalism
and favor Zionism(Jewish nationalism) over any gentile nationalism."
That seems to be true.
I was shocked to read a letter in the current London Review of Books, actually a rebuttal to another
letter, by Adam Tooze. Tooze had written a review of a book by Wolfgang Streeck. In his rebuttal
Tooze attacked Streeck as an anti-Semite because Streeck had *dared* to write a book that presents
arguments for the primacy of the nation-state as opposed to globalist forces. Tooze's argument
basically came down to: nation-state = chauvinism = anti-Semitism, where globalization = "Semitism,"
I suppose, and Tooze actually more or less accused Streeck of anti-Semitism on this basis: that
you cannot defend the idea of the nation-state without being in effectively anti-Semitic. He didn't
show any other evidence but just this supposed syllogism, all of it theoretical. Interestingly
Tooze was the one making the equation of globalism and Jews-not Streeck! But still, Streeck was
the guilty one. Tooze spent a lot of breath on the word "Volk" for "people." Of coure, Streeck
in German, and that is the German word for "people." Any other overtones "Volk" has acquired in
English are the fault of the English, as English has its own second word, "folk," which German
does not, and so English speakers didn't have to take over the German word and demonize it. They
could have demonized their own word . . . Tooze's pedantry and intellectual sloppiness were quite
startling. I look forward to seeing a rebuttal and maybe counterattack from Streeck in the next
LRB . . .
Like today, it is bad news (Debt 19.9 T / GDP 18.7 T)
These are bad news, but the news which are even worse is the fact that of these 18.7 Trillion
of nominal GDP, probably third (most likely more) is a virtual GDP–the result of cooking of books
and of financial and real estate machinations. Trump knows this, I am almost 99% positive, even
99.9%, on that.
This is a very good article. I agree with it almost entirely.
Is it possible for an ideological system to dump one of its core component after learning from
past mistakes?... Could 21st century capitalism dump imperialism? Maybe.
When would it be possible for the anti-imperialist ideological system to dump its core belief
that, Lenin's demented (and unoriginal) ramblings to the contrary, capitalism has intrinsically
zilch to do with imperialism?
Because from now on, this is one other thing which Putin and Trump will have in common: their
internal enemies are far more dangerous than any external foe. When I see rabid maniacs like
David Horowitz declaring himself a supporter of Donald Trump, I get very, very concerned and
I ask myself "what does Horowitz know which I am missing?".
David Horowitz merely demonstrated that, unlike "
renegade Jews " such as the Kristols and the Krauthammers, he is a patriot of his own country
(the USA) first and a Jewish nationalist second. I consider that perfectly fine and worthy of
respect.
" one other thing which Putin and Trump will have in common: their internal enemies are far
more dangerous than any external foe. "
"Make America Great Again"- is just an empty political slogan like bait on a fishing hook that
only dumb fish would be attracted to.
I suggest readers look at an article by Andrew Levine, a very insightful Jewish American political
commentator and regular contributor to Counterpunch.
"the civilized world against Radical Islamic Terrorism, which we will eradicate completely from
the face of the Earth".
What has ISIS done to America or Trump that he should want to totally obliterate them? Before
you denounce or pronounce me as dumb heretical dissenter, read on.
Sunni Arabs in the Middle East have been exploited and controlled by racially arrogant European
interlopers and colonists since the fall of the Ottomans. They have been especially mistreated
and ravaged by vengeful Americans since 2001. They also facilitated a revival of Shia-Sunni sectarian
conflict in Syria and Iraq. Now the displaced and persecuted Sunni minority want to form their
own state, free from foreign interference to practice their chosen religion and way of life. I
grant you that they are also vengeful and violent to those who persecuted them by using terrorist
methods and that they practiced "ethnic cleansing" but that does not make them "uncivilized",
the civilized Americans and Europeans did the same when conquering their settler colonies. So
why not let them have their own land, just like the Jewish Europeans were given and make peace
with time provided they renounce their goal of spreading Wahhabi Muslim empire by force?
The Arab states which emerged after the dissolution of the Ottoman Caliphate were not meant
to be replaced by an Arab Caliphate. The fight of the Sunnis is not the fight of a 'persecuted'
minority, but of the former dominant minority for the re-establishment of their dominant position
in the frame of the Caliphate, with wet dreams of world domination. ISIS is but the tip of the
iceberg. Their eradication would cool down the overheated minds of the Caliphate dreamers.
The key to US solvency and credit worthiness is the "ratio" of Debt to GDP.....Our GDP should
ALWAYS be in the plus column, and when its not.... it's bad news.
Like today, it is bad news (Debt 19.9 T / GDP 18.7 T)...it is such bad news our big media has
refused to discuss it .....The only person to bring it up , ever, was the Donald.
The big media does not want to say the wars they lied us into bankrupted our nation because it
makes them accountable.
The scaly truth is that they "are" accountable.
Ironically,Donald Trump (who knows this too) now has the power as President to generate over two
trillion dollars in revenues, literally overnight, and move our Debt to GDP ratio right back in
the plus column.
Do you want to know how ?
He goes on record that the Iraq War "lies" constituted a defrauding of the American people , our
country, and the brave men and women who fought and died there....and he has chosen to recognize
this "defrauding " as a supreme terrorist act against the wellbeing of our nation ,our citizenry
and the values that make us who we are.....
He goes on to say that ALL the perpetrators will be held accountable for this despicable act of
deception , so that it may never happen again.
Then he proceeds with operation "Clean Sweep" and takes down all the back room billionaire oligarchs
who jockeyed for the war and profited from it .
Lets say by the time he is done he has arrested 700 belligerent oligarchs and media moguls and
seizes all their assets....If they are each worth, on average, 4 billion dollars .......
then 700 x 4 billion = 2.8 trillion dollars
If this 2.8 trillion goes to paying down the national debt....then "bingo" our Debt to GDP ratio
is right back in the" plus column" ....
Our National debt is reduced by 2.8 T and the GDP stays the same .....the new ratio is 17.1 T
Debt/ 18.7 T GDP.
Our credit worthiness, as a nation, is now out of the" danger zone".
Whatever assets the criminal oligarchs had, are auctioned off and redistributed to all the good
people who would never "lie us into war".
This sends an enormously reassuring message throughout the world that we are able to take care
of business at home, and clean house when necessary.
This would also serve as a much needed tonic within the entire "establishment" community, as they
would be intensely fearful of ever defrauding the American people again.
Would you do it ?.....If you were President, Anna, would you demand accountability ?
Would you do it ? ..If you were President, Anna, would you demand accountability
Not to speak for Anna, but maybe I would – if blessed with balls of titanium, or perhaps by
underestimating the capacity of the deep state to slice them off. Being human, one can only hope
that Trump will do what I cannot, or could not in his shoes.
One thing he cannot do is feign ignorance or pretend to be unaware of the critters festering
in the swamp – after all, he campaigned on the promise of draining it. Where hope falters is in
seeing the cabinet he is building with characters unlikely to do much in the swamp-draining department.
Without a strong cadre of testicular fortitude surrounding him in his cabinet, his most sincere
attempts at swamp-drainage will be quixotic at best.
So, where does one place hope lest one becomes a blathering cynic or a nattering nabob of negativity?
Ego -- That is where my chips are stacked. Nothing defines or motivates Trump more than
his self-perception. I believe that it is much more than showmanship that propels his self-promotion,
and nothing would be more devastating to the man than to be ridiculed or perceived as a failure.
I doubt that Netanyahu could do to him what he did to Obama and survive the retaliatory deluge
that would follow. I think Trump's hidden strength is his desire for vengeance against those that
wrong him (I expect there to be tribulations in HRC's future). If the deep state doesn't do him
in first, there is the strong possibility of damage on the deep state – one that they may never
recover from in this world of instant information that wilts night-flowers.
He may redefine victory on occasion for outcomes that are too difficult for him to accept,
but in the end, he will "Make Trump Great Again," and if fortune favors us, help the US benefit
in the process, if not the rest of the world.
That does not rule out that his naiveté may cause him to stumble and fall, perhaps more than
once, and he has not always succeeded in business, but it seems that he does build on his failures,
and is unlikely to make the same mistake twice.
Doesn't appear like a lot to cling to, but in this dystopic world, it is the best we have.
Is it enough?
"... Alarmed by the spread of anti-imperialist ideas, Lodge invited his closest friend, Governor Theodore Roosevelt of New York, to join him in Boston to launch a counterattack. On Oct. 31, 1899, both spoke to the Republican Club of Massachusetts at the cavernous Music Hall on Winter Street. "We have got to put down the insurrection!" Roosevelt cried. "If we are men, we can't do otherwise!" Lodge portrayed anti-imperialists as not only defeatist, but complicit in the killing of American soldiers. ..."
"... Tides ran in favor of the expansionist idea. Prominent anti-imperialists lost elections. War in the Philippines slowly reached its bloody end. Americans began focusing on other problems. The United States had leaped from continental empire to overseas empire. ..."
"... That war - which is actually a war against war - has never ended. The debate over American intervention abroad, which began at Faneuil Hall in 1898, is still raging. It will shape the new administration in Washington and, through it, the world. ..."
Where better to launch a patriotic uprising than Faneuil Hall in Boston? It is a lodestone
of American liberty, a cathedral for freedom fighters. That is why a handful of eminent Bostonians
chose it as the place to begin a new rebellion on the sunny afternoon of June 15, 1898.
Like all Americans, they had been dizzied by the astonishing events of recent weeks. Their
country had suddenly burst beyond its natural borders. American troops had landed in Cuba. American
warships had bombarded Puerto Rico. An American expeditionary force was steaming toward the distant
Philippine Islands. Hawaii seemed about to fall to American power. President William McKinley
had called for 200,000 volunteers to fight in foreign wars. Fervor for the new idea of overseas
expansion gripped the United States.
This prospect thrilled some Americans. It horrified others. Their debate gripped the nation.
The country's best-known political and intellectual leaders took sides. In the history of US foreign
policy, this is truly the mother of all debates.
When we argue over whether we should depose a government in Iraq or Syria or Libya, whether
we should wage war in Afghanistan, whether we should encourage the bombing of Yemen, or whether
we should seek to bend Russia to our will, we are arguing the same question that was at the center
of this original debate. Every argument about foreign intervention that we make today - on both
sides - was first made in the period around 1898. Today's debates are amazingly precise repetitions
of that first one. The central question is the same: Should the United States project power into
faraway lands? Yes, to guarantee our prosperity, save innocent lives, liberate the oppressed,
and confront danger before it reaches our shores! No, intervention brings suffering and creates
enemies!
Boston was the epicenter of that original debate. Bostonians played such a large role in the
national debate that one California newspaper called anti-imperialists "the kicking Bostonese."
Several hundred of them turned out for the Faneuil Hall meeting. One speaker, the Rev. Charles
Ames, a theologian and Unitarian pastor, warned that the moment the United States seized a foreign
land, it would "sacrifice the principles on which the Republic was founded."
The policy of imperialism threatens to change the temper of our people, and to put us into
a permanent attitude of arrogance, testiness, and defiance towards other nations. ... Once we
enter the field of international conflict as a great military and naval power, we shall be one
more bully among bullies. We shall only add one more to the list of oppressors of mankind.
At the end of that afternoon, one of the meeting's organizers came to the podium and read a
resolution. "Resolved, that the mission of the United States is to help the world by an example
of successful self-government, and that to abandon the principles and the policy under which we
have prospered, and embrace the doctrine and practices now called imperial, is to enter the path
which, with other great republics, has ended in the downfall of free institutions," it declared.
"Resolved, that our first duty is to cure the evils in our own country." The resolution was adopted
by acclamation.
At the very moment these words were shaking Faneuil Hall, debate on the same question - overseas
expansion - was reaching a climax in Congress. It is a marvelous coincidence: The first anti-imperialist
rally in American history was held on the same day that Congress voted, also for the first time,
on whether the United States should take an overseas colony. The colony in question was Hawaii,
but all understood that the real question was immensely greater. It was nothing less than the
future of the Republic: whether or not the United States should become a global military power
and seek to shape the fate of faraway lands.
On that day, as expected, the House of Representatives voted to annex Hawaii. Yet the great debate
had only begun. Working from offices in Boston, anti-imperialists spent the summer and fall of
1898 writing letters to potential sympathizers across the country.
Their work came to fruition on Nov. 18, when an eager crowd packed a law office on Milk Street
to witness the founding of the Anti-Imperialist League. George Boutwell, who had been a passionate
abolitionist as well as a congressman, US senator, and governor of Massachusetts, was chosen by
acclimation as the league's first president. In his mind, every abolitionist was a natural anti-imperialist,
since anyone who opposed keeping human beings as slaves must also oppose ruling other peoples
against their will.
At the end of 1898, American negotiators forced the defeated Spanish to sign the Treaty of
Paris, in which they surrendered Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines. On Jan. 4, 1899,
President McKinley submitted the treaty for Senate ratification. That set off a monthlong debate
over what one senator called "the greatest question that has ever been presented to the American
people." The dominant figure on each side was a brilliantly articulate Republican senator from
Massachusetts.
George Frisbie Hoar of Worcester led the anti-imperialist charge. The United States, he insisted,
must not "rush madly upon this new career," lest it become "a cheap-jack country raking after
the cart for the leavings of European tyranny." He ended his speech in a crescendo: "The poor
Malay, the poor African, the downtrodden workman of Europe will exclaim, as he reads this new
doctrine: 'Good God! Is there not one place left on earth where, in right of my manhood, I can
stand up and be a man?' "
Hoar's sharpest opponent was Henry Cabot Lodge of Beacon Hill and Nahant. Lodge told the Senate
that since many foreign peoples were unequipped to govern themselves wisely, they should submit
to American guidance and trust "the American people, who have never failed in any great duty or
feared to face any responsibility, to deal with them in that spirit of justice, humanity, and
liberty which has made us all that we are today or can ever hope to be."
From their bustling office on Kilby Street, leaders of the Anti-Imperialist League fed information
to friendly senators and heavily lobbied the handful who remained undecided. The league also published
a stream of pamphlets, called Liberty Tracts, aimed at bringing its arguments to a larger audience.
Often their titles were questions. "Which shall it be, nation or empire?" asked one. Another:
"Is it right for this country to kill the natives of a foreign land because they wish to govern
themselves?"
On Feb. 6, 1899, despite these intense efforts, senators ratified the Treaty of Paris - by
just one vote more than the required two-thirds majority. Armed rebellion broke out immediately
in the Philippines. Tens of thousands of American troops were sent to suppress it. President McKinley
faced a difficult task: explain to a divided nation why taking foreign lands was no betrayal of
the American idea. He decided to deliver a speech in Boston, home of the Anti-Imperialist League
and thus the heart of enemy territory. To assure himself a friendly audience, however, he chose
as his platform the Home Market Club, one of the country's most potent agglomerations of corporate
power.
A crowd led by Mayor Josiah Quincy cheered as McKinley emerged from South Station around midday
on Feb. 15, 1899. The next night, nearly two thousand guests packed Mechanics Hall for the largest
banquet ever staged in the United States. In his speech, McKinley asserted that the essential
goodness of the American people is the supreme and sole necessary justification of whatever the
United States chooses to do in the world. This goodness, he acknowledged, might not be clear to
the "misguided Filipino," but soon the islands would prosper under the rule "not of their American
masters, but of their American emancipators."
"Did we need their consent to perform a great act for humanity?" he asked. "We had it in every
aspiration of their minds, in every hope of their hearts."
These words disgusted the philosopher William James. In an anguished letter to Boston newspapers,
he called McKinley's speech a "shamefully evasive" attempt to obscure the central truth of the
age: "We are cold-bloodedly, wantonly, and abominably destroying the soul of a people who never
did us an atom of harm in their lives. It is bald, brutal piracy."
Alarmed by the spread of anti-imperialist ideas, Lodge invited his closest friend, Governor
Theodore Roosevelt of New York, to join him in Boston to launch a counterattack. On Oct. 31, 1899,
both spoke to the Republican Club of Massachusetts at the cavernous Music Hall on Winter Street.
"We have got to put down the insurrection!" Roosevelt cried. "If we are men, we can't do otherwise!"
Lodge portrayed anti-imperialists as not only defeatist, but complicit in the killing of American
soldiers.
"I vote with the army that wears the uniform and carries the flag of my country," he said.
"When the enemy has yielded and the war is over, we can discuss other matters!"
Tides ran in favor of the expansionist idea. Prominent anti-imperialists lost elections.
War in the Philippines slowly reached its bloody end. Americans began focusing on other problems.
The United States had leaped from continental empire to overseas empire.
"Well, we are defeated for the time," admitted the Cambridge anti-imperialist Charles Eliot
Norton. "But the war is not ended, and we are enlisted for the war."
That war - which is actually a war against war - has never ended. The debate over American
intervention abroad, which began at Faneuil Hall in 1898, is still raging. It will shape the new
administration in Washington and, through it, the world.
"... In Europe and the US it was right wing nationalist populism which opposes free trade, mass
immigration and military intervention abroad. ..."
"... Trump instinctively understood that he must keep pressing these three buttons, the importance
of which Hillary Clinton and most of the Republican Party leaders, taking their cue from their donors
rather than potential voters, never appreciated. ..."
"... The vehicle for protest and opposition to the status quo in the Middle East and North Africa
is, by way of contrast, almost entirely religious and is only seldom nationalist, the most important
example being the Kurds. ..."
"... Secular nationalism was in any case something of a middle class creed in the Arab world, limited
in its capacity to provide the glue to hold societies together in the face of crisis. ..."
"... It was always absurdly simple-minded to blame all the troubles of Iraq, Syria and Libya on
Saddam Hussein, Bashar al-Assad and Muammar Gaddafi, authoritarian leaders whose regimes were more the
symptom than the cause of division. ..."
"... Political divisions in the US are probably greater now than at any time since the American
Civil War 150 years ago. Repeated calls for unity in both countries betray a deepening disunity and
alarm as people sense that they are moving in the dark and old norms and landmarks are no longer visible
and may no longer exist. ..."
"... Criticism of Trump in the media has lost all regard for truth and falsehood with the publication
of patently concocted reports of his antics in Russia ..."
"... But the rise of Isis, the mass influx of Syrian refugees heading for Central Europe and the
terror attacks in Paris and Brussels showed that the crises in the Middle East could not be contained.
They helped give a powerful impulse to the anti-immigrant authoritarian nationalist right and made them
real contenders for power. ..."
"... One of the first real tests for Trump will be how far he succeeds in closing down these wars,
something that is now at last becoming feasible. ..."
In the US, Europe and the Middle East there were many who saw themselves as the losers from globalisation,
but the ideological vehicle for protest differed markedly from region to region. In Europe and
the US it was right wing nationalist populism which opposes free trade, mass immigration and military
intervention abroad. The latter theme is much more resonant in the US than in Europe because
of Iraq and Afghanistan. Trump instinctively understood that he must keep pressing these three
buttons, the importance of which Hillary Clinton and most of the Republican Party leaders, taking
their cue from their donors rather than potential voters, never appreciated.
The vehicle for protest and opposition to the status quo in the Middle East and North Africa
is, by way of contrast, almost entirely religious and is only seldom nationalist, the most important
example being the Kurds. This is a big change from 50 years ago when revolutionaries in the
region were usually nationalists or socialists, but both beliefs were discredited by corrupt and
authoritarian nationalist dictators and by the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.
Secular nationalism was in any case something of a middle class creed in the Arab world, limited
in its capacity to provide the glue to hold societies together in the face of crisis. When Isis
forces were advancing on Baghdad after taking Mosul in June 2014, it was a fatwa from the Iraqi Shia
religious leader Ali al-Sistani that rallied the resistance. No non-religious Iraqi leader could
have successfully appealed to hundreds of thousands of people to volunteer to fight to the death
against Isis. The Middle East differs also from Europe and the US because states are more fragile
than they look and once destroyed prove impossible to recreate. This was a lesson that the foreign
policy establishments in Washington, London and Paris failed to take on board after the invasion
of Iraq in 2003, though the disastrous outcome of successful or attempted regime change has been
bloodily demonstrated again and again. It was always absurdly simple-minded to blame all the
troubles of Iraq, Syria and Libya on Saddam Hussein, Bashar al-Assad and Muammar Gaddafi, authoritarian
leaders whose regimes were more the symptom than the cause of division.
But it is not only in the Middle East that divisions are deepening. Whatever happens in Britain
because of the Brexit vote or in the US because of the election of Trump as president, both countries
will be more divided and therefore weaker than before. Political divisions in the US are probably
greater now than at any time since the American Civil War 150 years ago. Repeated calls for unity
in both countries betray a deepening disunity and alarm as people sense that they are moving in the
dark and old norms and landmarks are no longer visible and may no longer exist.
The mainline mass media is finding it difficult to make sense of a new world order which may or
may not be emerging. Journalists are generally more rooted in the established order of things than
they pretend and are shocked by radical change. Only two big newspapers – the Florida Times-Union
and the Las Vegas Review-Journal endorsed Trump before the election and few of the American
commentariat expected him to win, though this has not dented their confidence in their own judgement.
Criticism of Trump in the media has lost all regard for truth and falsehood with the publication
of patently concocted reports of his antics in Russia, but there is also genuine uncertainty
about whether he will be a real force for change, be it good or ill.
Crises in different parts of the world are beginning to cross-infect and exacerbate each other.
Prior to 2014 European leaders, whatever their humanitarian protestations, did not care much what
happened in Iraq and Syria. But the rise of Isis, the mass influx of Syrian refugees heading
for Central Europe and the terror attacks in Paris and Brussels showed that the crises in the Middle
East could not be contained. They helped give a powerful impulse to the anti-immigrant authoritarian
nationalist right and made them real contenders for power.
The Middle East is always a source of instability in the world and never more so than over the
last six years. But winners and losers are emerging in Syria where Assad is succeeding with Russian
and Iranian help, while in Iraq the Baghdad government backed by US airpower is slowly fighting its
way into Mosul. Isis probably has more fight in it than its many enemies want to believe, but is
surely on the road to ultimate defeat. One of the first real tests for Trump will be how far
he succeeds in closing down these wars, something that is now at last becoming feasible.
"... Jack Ma said the poor plight of American economy was due to the costly wars waged by Washington and has nothing to do with trade ties with Beijing. The US adopted a strategy to control intellectual property rights and select brands three decades ago, leaving lower-level works to the rest of the world.... Microsoft and IBM have created hundreds of millions in profits through globalisation. ..."
Jack Ma said the poor plight of American economy was due to the costly wars waged by Washington
and has nothing to do with trade ties with Beijing. The US adopted a strategy to control intellectual
property rights and select brands three decades ago, leaving lower-level works to the rest of
the world.... Microsoft and IBM have created hundreds of millions in profits through globalisation.
This large sum could have been invested in infrastructure and employment, but was instead put
towards 13 wars, he said. The US simply failed to allot the funds reasonably." , Ma said his meeting
with Trump was much more productive than expected the discussions mainly focused on .... American
enterprises selling in Asia through Alibaba's platform, which will provide about one million jobs
for Americans in various ways.
US Budgetary Costs of Wars through 2016: $4.79 Trillion and Counting
Summary of Costs of the US Wars in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and Pakistan and Homeland Security
By Neta C. Crawford
Summary
Wars cost money before, during and after they occur - as governments prepare for, wage, and
recover from them by replacing equipment, caring for the wounded and repairing the infrastructure
destroyed in the fighting. Although it is rare to have a precise accounting of the costs of war
- especially of long wars - one can get a sense of the rough scale of the costs by surveying the
major categories of spending.
As of August 2016, the US has already appropriated, spent, or taken on obligations to spend
more than $3.6 trillion in current dollars on the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Syria
and on Homeland Security (2001 through fiscal year 2016). To this total should be added the approximately
$65 billion in dedicated war spending the Department of Defense and State Department have requested
for the next fiscal year, 2017, along with an additional nearly $32 billion requested for the
Department of Homeland Security in 2017, and estimated spending on veterans in future years. When
those are included, the total US budgetary cost of the wars reaches $4.79 trillion....
"... The IC spends something like $70 billion of your taxpayer dollars annually, mostly in secret ..."
"... Since 9/11, expansion has been the name of its game, as the leading intelligence agencies gained ever more power, prestige, and the big bucks, while wrapping themselves in an unprecedented blanket of secrecy. ..."
"... Let me lay my own cards on the table here. Based on the relatively little we can know about the information the Intelligence Community has been delivering to the president and his people in these years, I've never been particularly impressed with its work. Again, given what's available to judge from, it seems as if, despite its size, reach, money, and power, the IC has been caught "off-guard" by developments in our world with startling regularity and might be thought of as something closer to an " un-intelligence machine ." ..."
They call themselves the U.S. "
Intelligence
Community
," or the IC. If you include the office of the Director of National
Intelligence (ODNI), which in 2005 began as a crew of
12 people
, including its director, and by 2008 had already grown to a staff of
1,750
, there are 17 members (adding up to an alphabet soup of acronyms including
the CIA, the NSA, and the DIA).
The IC spends something like
$70 billion
of your
taxpayer dollars annually, mostly
in secret
, hires
staggering numbers
of private contractors from various warrior corporations to
lend a hand,
sucks up
communications of every sort across the planet, runs a
drone air force
,
monitors
satellites galore, builds its agencies multi-billion-dollar
headquarters
and
storage facilities
, and does all of this, ostensibly, to provide the president
and the rest of the government with the best information imaginable on what's
happening in the world and what dangers the United States faces.
Since 9/11,
expansion
has been the name of its game, as the leading
intelligence agencies gained ever more power, prestige, and the big bucks, while
wrapping themselves in an unprecedented blanket of secrecy. Typically, in the final
days of the Obama administration, the National Security Agency was given
yet more leeway
to share the warrantless data it scoops up worldwide (including
from American citizens) with ever more members of the IC.
And oh yes, in the weeks leading up to the inauguration of Donald Trump, several
of those intelligence outfits found themselves in a knock-down, drag-out barroom
brawl with our new tweeter-in-chief (who has begun
threatening
to
downsize
parts of the IC) over the possible Russian hacking of an American
election and his relations with Russian President Vladimir Putin. In the process,
they have received regular media plaudits for their crucial importance to all of us,
our security and safety, along with
tweeted curses
from the then-president-elect.
Let me lay my own cards on the table here. Based on the relatively little we can
know about the information the Intelligence Community has been delivering to the
president and his people in these years, I've never been particularly impressed with
its work. Again, given what's available to judge from, it seems as if, despite its
size, reach, money, and power, the IC has been caught "off-guard" by developments in
our world with startling regularity and might be thought of as something closer to an
"
un-intelligence
machine
."
It's always been my suspicion that, if a group of smart, out-of-the-box
thinkers were let loose on purely open-source material, the U.S. government might
actually end up with a far more accurate view of our world and how it works, not to
speak of what dangers lie in store for us.
"... The speech was, as predicted, "Jacksonian" - populist, combative, anti-Washington, thick with promises to eradicate America's enemies and favor the forgotten man over globalist elites. ..."
"... At its darkest, this sort of protective politics veers toward fascism; at its best (and the new president's rhetoric did try to reach in that direction) it points toward a pan-ethnic nationalism, a right-wing politics of solidarity. But in neither case is it compatible with the limited-government catechism and the Republican politics that pushes for free trade deals and fights against Medicaid expansions. ..."
"The time for empty talk is over," our new president said near the end of his relatively brief Inaugural
Address. And if he actually makes good on that promise, if the speech wasn't just talk but a blueprint
for effective presidential action, then we just watched an epochal moment: the last rites of Reaganite
conservatism, and the birth of a populist and nationalist new right.
The speech was, as predicted, "Jacksonian" - populist, combative, anti-Washington, thick with
promises to eradicate America's enemies and favor the forgotten man over globalist elites.
But
if it was anti-Washington, it was not remotely anti-government: Just as he did on the campaign trail,
Trump eschewed the rhetoric of liberty in favor of expansive promises of "protection" and rhapsodic
paeans to infrastructure spending.
At its darkest, this sort of protective politics veers toward fascism; at its best (and the new
president's rhetoric did try to reach in that direction) it points toward a pan-ethnic nationalism,
a right-wing politics of solidarity. But in neither case is it compatible with the limited-government
catechism and the Republican politics that pushes for free trade deals and fights against Medicaid
expansions.
Thus, the great ideological questions of the Trump era: Will his rhetoric actually define the policy
that gets made in the halls of Congress, where a more Reaganite conservatism still theoretically
holds sway? Or will his words be a Buchananite patina on an agenda mostly written by supply-siders
and Goldman Sachs appointees? Or will the conflict between the two tendencies simply make his administration
less epochal than incoherent, less transformative than simply ineffective?
During the Trump transition, observers on both the right and left cited the political scientist Stephen
Skowronek's theory of "disjunctive" presidents who straddle transitions between old orders and emerging
ones. One such president was Jimmy Carter, who tried to maintain the creaking New Deal coalition
while also grasping at a new vision for liberal governance. He failed because his party simply couldn't
accommodate the tension, and he himself couldn't effectively blend the old and new.
Right now Trump looks like he might be similarly disjunctive. Like Mr. Carter with the '70s-era Democrats,
he has grasped - correctly - that Republican politics desperately needs to be reinvented. But his
populist-nationalist vision has seemed too racially and culturally exclusive to win him majority
support, and it's layered atop a party that still mostly believes in the "populism" of cutting the
estate tax.
Combine those brute political facts with Trump's implausibly expansive promises, and a Carter scenario
- gridlock, disappointment, collapse - seems like the most plausible way to bet. But on the evidence
of this speech, Trump has no intention of playing it safe: He will either remake conservatism in
his image, or see his presidency fail in the attempt.
"... The speech was, as predicted, "Jacksonian" - populist, combative, anti-Washington, thick with promises to eradicate America's enemies and favor the forgotten man over globalist elites. ..."
"... At its darkest, this sort of protective politics veers toward fascism; at its best (and the new president's rhetoric did try to reach in that direction) it points toward a pan-ethnic nationalism, a right-wing politics of solidarity. But in neither case is it compatible with the limited-government catechism and the Republican politics that pushes for free trade deals and fights against Medicaid expansions. ..."
"The time for empty talk is over," our new president said near the end of his relatively brief Inaugural
Address. And if he actually makes good on that promise, if the speech wasn't just talk but a blueprint
for effective presidential action, then we just watched an epochal moment: the last rites of Reaganite
conservatism, and the birth of a populist and nationalist new right.
The speech was, as predicted, "Jacksonian" - populist, combative, anti-Washington, thick with
promises to eradicate America's enemies and favor the forgotten man over globalist elites.
But
if it was anti-Washington, it was not remotely anti-government: Just as he did on the campaign trail,
Trump eschewed the rhetoric of liberty in favor of expansive promises of "protection" and rhapsodic
paeans to infrastructure spending.
At its darkest, this sort of protective politics veers toward fascism; at its best (and the new
president's rhetoric did try to reach in that direction) it points toward a pan-ethnic nationalism,
a right-wing politics of solidarity. But in neither case is it compatible with the limited-government
catechism and the Republican politics that pushes for free trade deals and fights against Medicaid
expansions.
Thus, the great ideological questions of the Trump era: Will his rhetoric actually define the policy
that gets made in the halls of Congress, where a more Reaganite conservatism still theoretically
holds sway? Or will his words be a Buchananite patina on an agenda mostly written by supply-siders
and Goldman Sachs appointees? Or will the conflict between the two tendencies simply make his administration
less epochal than incoherent, less transformative than simply ineffective?
During the Trump transition, observers on both the right and left cited the political scientist Stephen
Skowronek's theory of "disjunctive" presidents who straddle transitions between old orders and emerging
ones. One such president was Jimmy Carter, who tried to maintain the creaking New Deal coalition
while also grasping at a new vision for liberal governance. He failed because his party simply couldn't
accommodate the tension, and he himself couldn't effectively blend the old and new.
Right now Trump looks like he might be similarly disjunctive. Like Mr. Carter with the '70s-era Democrats,
he has grasped - correctly - that Republican politics desperately needs to be reinvented. But his
populist-nationalist vision has seemed too racially and culturally exclusive to win him majority
support, and it's layered atop a party that still mostly believes in the "populism" of cutting the
estate tax.
Combine those brute political facts with Trump's implausibly expansive promises, and a Carter scenario
- gridlock, disappointment, collapse - seems like the most plausible way to bet. But on the evidence
of this speech, Trump has no intention of playing it safe: He will either remake conservatism in
his image, or see his presidency fail in the attempt.
Interesting thought: there is no intelligence community, there is not CIA, there are different groups
within CIA unbrella with different, often conflicting interests and political agenda.
Notable quotes:
"... This business that, Russia is the number one existential threat has been unfolding this false drama at the expense of US national security, maybe for a decade, but it certainly intensified under the Obama administration. ..."
"... In the intelligence community, there are groups of different political impulses, different vested interest in these organizations, and often, they've been at war among themselves within, say the CIA We're seeing that now with the hacking allegations. And, all likelihood, later we will discover, this was a war within the CIA itself. The FBI tried not to get involved. ..."
The most dangerous moment in the US-Russia relationsLeading scholar on US-Russia
relations addresses the claim being trumpeted by politicians and media on both sides of the political
spectrum that Russia is now the "number one" threat to the United States. Given the proxy wars in
Syria and Ukraine, Dr. Stephen Cohen, Professor Emeritus at Princeton University and New York University,
tells host of 'The Empire Files', Abby Martin, that the real alarming danger today is "a new, multi-front
Cuban missile crisis."
This business that, Russia is the number one existential threat has been unfolding this false
drama at the expense of US national security, maybe for a decade, but it certainly intensified under
the Obama administration.
Meanwhile, Russia was of course in the person of Putin, repeatedly, almost begging the US to join
it in an alliance against terrorism, not only in Syria, but in a kind of global war. I don't know
if the global war against terrorism is possible as a separate issue, but Russia wanted to partner
with the US. Obama was inclined very briefly in Sep. 2016, but that was killed by the US department
of defence when they attacked those Syrian troops.
In the intelligence community, there are groups of different political impulses, different
vested interest in these organizations, and often, they've been at war among themselves within, say
the CIA We're seeing that now with the hacking allegations. And, all likelihood, later we will discover,
this was a war within the CIA itself. The FBI tried not to get involved.
There are very different views about Washington's policy toward Russia, inside the intelligence
community. This may be the single most dangerous moment in American-Russian relations.
The Cuban missile crisis is always said to have been the turning point in our awareness of how
dangerous the Cold War was. And that, after we avoided nuclear Armageddon, both sides became wise,
and the Cold War continued, but there was a code of contact. Everybody understood where the danger
lines were. There was a code of conduct between the Soviet Union and the United States. It doesn't
exist today. After the Cuban missile crisis in '62, the two sides began to develop interactive cooperation,
student exchanges, scientific exchanges, hot lines, constant talks about nuclear weapons, nuclear
reductions, trade agreements. That has come to an end along with communication.
There are now three fronts in the new Cold War that are fought with the possibility of actual
war. There's the Baltic region and Poland, where NATO unwisely building up its military presence.
There is, of course, Ukraine which could exploded any moment, and, of course, there is Syria, where
you got Russian and American aircraft. So, you got a multi-front potential Cuban missile crisis.
Meanwhile, in the United States, this hysterical reaction to alleged - because there is no proof
been produced - that somehow Putin put Trump in the White House, this combination of demented public
discourse, engrave danger abroad, at least comparable to the Cuban missile crisis.
It's been said that the European Union offered Ukraine a very benign economic relationship. That
wasn't a benign agreement, about a thousand pages long. There is a section called 'military security
issues' and it's very clear, that any country that signs this so-called eastern partnership agreement
with the EU, is obliged to adhere to NATO security policies. By signing that, you become a de facto
member of NATO. And this was just more of the attempt by Washington to get Ukraine in the NATO, if
not openly, through the back door, and they're still at it.
The decision to expand NATO, all the way, including Ukraine and Georgia, has created a situation
in which none of us is safe. And they call that 'national security'?
NYT Says Davos Elite Are Concerned Because Public Doesn't Buy Their Lies Anymore
The New York Times reported * that the people at the gathering of the super rich at Davos are
concerned because the population of major democracies no longer buy the lies they tell to justify
upward redistribution of income. It told readers:
"At cocktail parties where the Champagne flows, financiers have expressed bewilderment over the
rise of populist groups that are feeding a backlash against globalization....
"The world order has been upended. As the United States retreats from the promise of free trade,
China is taking up the mantle....
"The religion of the global elite - free trade and open markets - is under attack, and there has
been a lot of hand-wringing over what Christine Lagarde of the International Monetary Fund has declared
a 'middle-class crisis.' "
Of course the Davos elite do not have a religion of free trade. They are entirely happy with every
longer and stronger patent and copyright protections, which is a main goal of the Trans-Pacific Partnership
and other recent trade pacts.
The Davos elite also have no objections to protectionist measures, like the U.S. ban on foreign
doctors who have not completed a U.S. residency program. This protectionist barrier adds as much
as $100 billion a year (@ $700 per family) to the country's health care bill.
Since these measures redistribute income upward to people like them, the Davos elite is perfectly
happy with them. They only object to protectionist measures which are intended to help ordinary workers.
The concern in Davos is that the public in western democracies no longer buys the lie that they
are committed to the public good rather than lining their pockets. It is nice that the NYT is apparently
trying to assist the elite by asserting that they have an interest in "free trade," but it is not
likely to help their case much.
Yeah, I am plugging my book, "Rigged: How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern Economy Were
Structured to Make the Rich Richer" ** (it's free).
-- Dean Baker
Reply
Saturday, January 21, 2017 at 06:33 AM likezkova said in reply to anne... Not only the population
of major democracies no longer buy the neoliberal lies they used to tell to justify upward redistribution
of income.
They now have the right wing alternative to both "soft" (Clinton) neoliberal party (which used
Clinton "they will vote for us anyway tactic since 90th) and "hard" neoliberal party, which treated
conservatives with the same medicine.
And that what bother the neoliberal elite most, as those guys can easily get out of control and
hand a couple of dozen "masters of the universe" on the lamp posts for all good they did for the
country.
That's why intelligence agencies tries this "soft coup" against Trump recently. What they achieved
remains to be seen, but probably not a capitulation on the Trump "party" side.
Wedge issues such as same sex marriage, which was used a smoke screen for a decade or so lost
its effectiveness.
Neoliberal MSM are now viewed as professional liars and presstitutes, which they always were.
This is probably the very easy signs of the systemic crisis of neoliberalism, plain and simple.
The invisible rulers of the US establishment were revealed by Professor C. Wright Mill in his
article titled, The Structure of
Power in American Society (The British Journal of Sociology, March 1958), in which he explains
how, "the high military, the corporation executives, the political directorate have tended to come
together to form the power elite of America."
He describes how the power elite can be best described as a "triangle of power," linking the corporate,
executive government, and military factions: "There is a political economy numerously linked with
military order and decision. This triangle of power is now a structural fact, and it is the key to
any understanding of the higher circles in America today."
The 2016 US election, like all other US elections, featured a gallery of pre-selected candidates
that represented the three factions and their interests within the power elite. The 2016 US election,
however, was vastly different from previous elections. As the election dragged on the power elite
became bitterly divided, with the majority supporting Hilary Clinton, the candidate pre-selected
by the political and corporate factions, while the military faction rallied around their choice of
Donald Trump.
During the election campaign the power elite's military faction under Trump confounded all political
pundits by outflanking and decisively defeating the power elite's political faction. In fact by capturing
the Republican nomination and overwhelmingly defeating the Democratic establishment, Trump and the
military faction not just shattered the power elites' political faction, within both the Democratic
and Republican parties, but simultaneously ended both the Clinton and Bush dynasties.
During the election campaign the power elite's corporate faction realised, far too late, that
Trump was a direct threat to their power base, and turned the full force of their corporate media
against Trump's military faction, while Trump using social media bypassed and eviscerated the corporate
media causing them to lose all remaining credibility.
As the election reached a crescendo this battle between the power elite's factions became visible
within the US establishment's entities. A schism developed between the Defense Department and the
highly politicized CIA This schism, which can be attributed to the corporate-deep-state's covert
foreign policy, traces back to the CIA orchestrated "color revolutions" that had swept the Middle
East and North Africa.
The New York Times reported * that the people at the gathering of the super rich at Davos are
concerned because the population of major democracies no longer buy the lies they tell to justify
upward redistribution of income. It told readers:
"At cocktail parties where the Champagne flows, financiers have expressed bewilderment over the
rise of populist groups that are feeding a backlash against globalization....
"The world order has been upended. As the United States retreats from the promise of free trade,
China is taking up the mantle....
"The religion of the global elite - free trade and open markets - is under attack, and there has
been a lot of hand-wringing over what Christine Lagarde of the International Monetary Fund has declared
a 'middle-class crisis.' "
Of course the Davos elite do not have a religion of free trade. They are entirely happy with every
longer and stronger patent and copyright protections, which is a main goal of the Trans-Pacific Partnership
and other recent trade pacts.
The Davos elite also have no objections to protectionist measures, like the U.S. ban on foreign
doctors who have not completed a U.S. residency program. This protectionist barrier adds as much
as $100 billion a year (@ $700 per family) to the country's health care bill.
Since these measures redistribute income upward to people like them, the Davos elite is perfectly
happy with them. They only object to protectionist measures which are intended to help ordinary workers.
The concern in Davos is that the public in western democracies no longer buys the lie that they
are committed to the public good rather than lining their pockets. It is nice that the NYT is apparently
trying to assist the elite by asserting that they have an interest in "free trade," but it is not
likely to help their case much.
Yeah, I am plugging my book, "Rigged: How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern Economy Were
Structured to Make the Rich Richer" ** (it's free).
-- Dean Baker
Reply
Saturday, January 21, 2017 at 06:33 AM likezkova said in reply to anne... Not only the population
of major democracies no longer buy the neoliberal lies they used to tell to justify upward redistribution
of income.
They now have the right wing alternative to both "soft" (Clinton) neoliberal party (which used
Clinton "they will vote for us anyway tactic since 90th) and "hard" neoliberal party, which treated
conservatives with the same medicine.
And that what bother the neoliberal elite most, as those guys can easily get out of control and
hand a couple of dozen "masters of the universe" on the lamp posts for all good they did for the
country.
That's why intelligence agencies tries this "soft coup" against Trump recently. What they achieved
remains to be seen, but probably not a capitulation on the Trump "party" side.
Wedge issues such as same sex marriage, which was used a smoke screen for a decade or so lost
its effectiveness.
Neoliberal MSM are now viewed as professional liars and presstitutes, which they always were.
This is probably the very easy signs of the systemic crisis of neoliberalism, plain and simple.
The invisible rulers of the US establishment were revealed by Professor C. Wright Mill in his
article titled, The Structure of
Power in American Society (The British Journal of Sociology, March 1958), in which he explains
how, "the high military, the corporation executives, the political directorate have tended to come
together to form the power elite of America."
He describes how the power elite can be best described as a "triangle of power," linking the corporate,
executive government, and military factions: "There is a political economy numerously linked with
military order and decision. This triangle of power is now a structural fact, and it is the key to
any understanding of the higher circles in America today."
The 2016 US election, like all other US elections, featured a gallery of pre-selected candidates
that represented the three factions and their interests within the power elite. The 2016 US election,
however, was vastly different from previous elections. As the election dragged on the power elite
became bitterly divided, with the majority supporting Hilary Clinton, the candidate pre-selected
by the political and corporate factions, while the military faction rallied around their choice of
Donald Trump.
During the election campaign the power elite's military faction under Trump confounded all political
pundits by outflanking and decisively defeating the power elite's political faction. In fact by capturing
the Republican nomination and overwhelmingly defeating the Democratic establishment, Trump and the
military faction not just shattered the power elites' political faction, within both the Democratic
and Republican parties, but simultaneously ended both the Clinton and Bush dynasties.
During the election campaign the power elite's corporate faction realised, far too late, that
Trump was a direct threat to their power base, and turned the full force of their corporate media
against Trump's military faction, while Trump using social media bypassed and eviscerated the corporate
media causing them to lose all remaining credibility.
As the election reached a crescendo this battle between the power elite's factions became visible
within the US establishment's entities. A schism developed between the Defense Department and the
highly politicized CIA This schism, which can be attributed to the corporate-deep-state's covert
foreign policy, traces back to the CIA orchestrated "color revolutions" that had swept the Middle
East and North Africa.
Interesting thought: there is no intelligence community, there is not CIA, there are different groups
within CIA unbrella with different, often conflicting interests and political agenda.
Notable quotes:
"... This business that, Russia is the number one existential threat has been unfolding this false drama at the expense of US national security, maybe for a decade, but it certainly intensified under the Obama administration. ..."
"... In the intelligence community, there are groups of different political impulses, different vested interest in these organizations, and often, they've been at war among themselves within, say the CIA We're seeing that now with the hacking allegations. And, all likelihood, later we will discover, this was a war within the CIA itself. The FBI tried not to get involved. ..."
The most dangerous moment in the US-Russia relationsLeading scholar on US-Russia
relations addresses the claim being trumpeted by politicians and media on both sides of the political
spectrum that Russia is now the "number one" threat to the United States. Given the proxy wars in
Syria and Ukraine, Dr. Stephen Cohen, Professor Emeritus at Princeton University and New York University,
tells host of 'The Empire Files', Abby Martin, that the real alarming danger today is "a new, multi-front
Cuban missile crisis."
This business that, Russia is the number one existential threat has been unfolding this false
drama at the expense of US national security, maybe for a decade, but it certainly intensified under
the Obama administration.
Meanwhile, Russia was of course in the person of Putin, repeatedly, almost begging the US to join
it in an alliance against terrorism, not only in Syria, but in a kind of global war. I don't know
if the global war against terrorism is possible as a separate issue, but Russia wanted to partner
with the US. Obama was inclined very briefly in Sep. 2016, but that was killed by the US department
of defence when they attacked those Syrian troops.
In the intelligence community, there are groups of different political impulses, different
vested interest in these organizations, and often, they've been at war among themselves within, say
the CIA We're seeing that now with the hacking allegations. And, all likelihood, later we will discover,
this was a war within the CIA itself. The FBI tried not to get involved.
There are very different views about Washington's policy toward Russia, inside the intelligence
community. This may be the single most dangerous moment in American-Russian relations.
The Cuban missile crisis is always said to have been the turning point in our awareness of how
dangerous the Cold War was. And that, after we avoided nuclear Armageddon, both sides became wise,
and the Cold War continued, but there was a code of contact. Everybody understood where the danger
lines were. There was a code of conduct between the Soviet Union and the United States. It doesn't
exist today. After the Cuban missile crisis in '62, the two sides began to develop interactive cooperation,
student exchanges, scientific exchanges, hot lines, constant talks about nuclear weapons, nuclear
reductions, trade agreements. That has come to an end along with communication.
There are now three fronts in the new Cold War that are fought with the possibility of actual
war. There's the Baltic region and Poland, where NATO unwisely building up its military presence.
There is, of course, Ukraine which could exploded any moment, and, of course, there is Syria, where
you got Russian and American aircraft. So, you got a multi-front potential Cuban missile crisis.
Meanwhile, in the United States, this hysterical reaction to alleged - because there is no proof
been produced - that somehow Putin put Trump in the White House, this combination of demented public
discourse, engrave danger abroad, at least comparable to the Cuban missile crisis.
It's been said that the European Union offered Ukraine a very benign economic relationship. That
wasn't a benign agreement, about a thousand pages long. There is a section called 'military security
issues' and it's very clear, that any country that signs this so-called eastern partnership agreement
with the EU, is obliged to adhere to NATO security policies. By signing that, you become a de facto
member of NATO. And this was just more of the attempt by Washington to get Ukraine in the NATO, if
not openly, through the back door, and they're still at it.
The decision to expand NATO, all the way, including Ukraine and Georgia, has created a situation
in which none of us is safe. And they call that 'national security'?
NYT Says Davos Elite Are Concerned Because Public Doesn't Buy Their Lies Anymore
The New York Times reported * that the people at the gathering of the super rich at Davos are
concerned because the population of major democracies no longer buy the lies they tell to justify
upward redistribution of income. It told readers:
"At cocktail parties where the Champagne flows, financiers have expressed bewilderment over the
rise of populist groups that are feeding a backlash against globalization....
"The world order has been upended. As the United States retreats from the promise of free trade,
China is taking up the mantle....
"The religion of the global elite - free trade and open markets - is under attack, and there has
been a lot of hand-wringing over what Christine Lagarde of the International Monetary Fund has declared
a 'middle-class crisis.' "
Of course the Davos elite do not have a religion of free trade. They are entirely happy with every
longer and stronger patent and copyright protections, which is a main goal of the Trans-Pacific Partnership
and other recent trade pacts.
The Davos elite also have no objections to protectionist measures, like the U.S. ban on foreign
doctors who have not completed a U.S. residency program. This protectionist barrier adds as much
as $100 billion a year (@ $700 per family) to the country's health care bill.
Since these measures redistribute income upward to people like them, the Davos elite is perfectly
happy with them. They only object to protectionist measures which are intended to help ordinary workers.
The concern in Davos is that the public in western democracies no longer buys the lie that they
are committed to the public good rather than lining their pockets. It is nice that the NYT is apparently
trying to assist the elite by asserting that they have an interest in "free trade," but it is not
likely to help their case much.
Yeah, I am plugging my book, "Rigged: How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern Economy Were
Structured to Make the Rich Richer" ** (it's free).
-- Dean Baker
Reply
Saturday, January 21, 2017 at 06:33 AM likezkova said in reply to anne... Not only the population
of major democracies no longer buy the neoliberal lies they used to tell to justify upward redistribution
of income.
They now have the right wing alternative to both "soft" (Clinton) neoliberal party (which used
Clinton "they will vote for us anyway tactic since 90th) and "hard" neoliberal party, which treated
conservatives with the same medicine.
And that what bother the neoliberal elite most, as those guys can easily get out of control and
hand a couple of dozen "masters of the universe" on the lamp posts for all good they did for the
country.
That's why intelligence agencies tries this "soft coup" against Trump recently. What they achieved
remains to be seen, but probably not a capitulation on the Trump "party" side.
Wedge issues such as same sex marriage, which was used a smoke screen for a decade or so lost
its effectiveness.
Neoliberal MSM are now viewed as professional liars and presstitutes, which they always were.
This is probably the very easy signs of the systemic crisis of neoliberalism, plain and simple.
The invisible rulers of the US establishment were revealed by Professor C. Wright Mill in his
article titled, The Structure of
Power in American Society (The British Journal of Sociology, March 1958), in which he explains
how, "the high military, the corporation executives, the political directorate have tended to come
together to form the power elite of America."
He describes how the power elite can be best described as a "triangle of power," linking the corporate,
executive government, and military factions: "There is a political economy numerously linked with
military order and decision. This triangle of power is now a structural fact, and it is the key to
any understanding of the higher circles in America today."
The 2016 US election, like all other US elections, featured a gallery of pre-selected candidates
that represented the three factions and their interests within the power elite. The 2016 US election,
however, was vastly different from previous elections. As the election dragged on the power elite
became bitterly divided, with the majority supporting Hilary Clinton, the candidate pre-selected
by the political and corporate factions, while the military faction rallied around their choice of
Donald Trump.
During the election campaign the power elite's military faction under Trump confounded all political
pundits by outflanking and decisively defeating the power elite's political faction. In fact by capturing
the Republican nomination and overwhelmingly defeating the Democratic establishment, Trump and the
military faction not just shattered the power elites' political faction, within both the Democratic
and Republican parties, but simultaneously ended both the Clinton and Bush dynasties.
During the election campaign the power elite's corporate faction realised, far too late, that
Trump was a direct threat to their power base, and turned the full force of their corporate media
against Trump's military faction, while Trump using social media bypassed and eviscerated the corporate
media causing them to lose all remaining credibility.
As the election reached a crescendo this battle between the power elite's factions became visible
within the US establishment's entities. A schism developed between the Defense Department and the
highly politicized CIA This schism, which can be attributed to the corporate-deep-state's covert
foreign policy, traces back to the CIA orchestrated "color revolutions" that had swept the Middle
East and North Africa.
The New York Times reported * that the people at the gathering of the super rich at Davos are
concerned because the population of major democracies no longer buy the lies they tell to justify
upward redistribution of income. It told readers:
"At cocktail parties where the Champagne flows, financiers have expressed bewilderment over the
rise of populist groups that are feeding a backlash against globalization....
"The world order has been upended. As the United States retreats from the promise of free trade,
China is taking up the mantle....
"The religion of the global elite - free trade and open markets - is under attack, and there has
been a lot of hand-wringing over what Christine Lagarde of the International Monetary Fund has declared
a 'middle-class crisis.' "
Of course the Davos elite do not have a religion of free trade. They are entirely happy with every
longer and stronger patent and copyright protections, which is a main goal of the Trans-Pacific Partnership
and other recent trade pacts.
The Davos elite also have no objections to protectionist measures, like the U.S. ban on foreign
doctors who have not completed a U.S. residency program. This protectionist barrier adds as much
as $100 billion a year (@ $700 per family) to the country's health care bill.
Since these measures redistribute income upward to people like them, the Davos elite is perfectly
happy with them. They only object to protectionist measures which are intended to help ordinary workers.
The concern in Davos is that the public in western democracies no longer buys the lie that they
are committed to the public good rather than lining their pockets. It is nice that the NYT is apparently
trying to assist the elite by asserting that they have an interest in "free trade," but it is not
likely to help their case much.
Yeah, I am plugging my book, "Rigged: How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern Economy Were
Structured to Make the Rich Richer" ** (it's free).
-- Dean Baker
Reply
Saturday, January 21, 2017 at 06:33 AM likezkova said in reply to anne... Not only the population
of major democracies no longer buy the neoliberal lies they used to tell to justify upward redistribution
of income.
They now have the right wing alternative to both "soft" (Clinton) neoliberal party (which used
Clinton "they will vote for us anyway tactic since 90th) and "hard" neoliberal party, which treated
conservatives with the same medicine.
And that what bother the neoliberal elite most, as those guys can easily get out of control and
hand a couple of dozen "masters of the universe" on the lamp posts for all good they did for the
country.
That's why intelligence agencies tries this "soft coup" against Trump recently. What they achieved
remains to be seen, but probably not a capitulation on the Trump "party" side.
Wedge issues such as same sex marriage, which was used a smoke screen for a decade or so lost
its effectiveness.
Neoliberal MSM are now viewed as professional liars and presstitutes, which they always were.
This is probably the very easy signs of the systemic crisis of neoliberalism, plain and simple.
The invisible rulers of the US establishment were revealed by Professor C. Wright Mill in his
article titled, The Structure of
Power in American Society (The British Journal of Sociology, March 1958), in which he explains
how, "the high military, the corporation executives, the political directorate have tended to come
together to form the power elite of America."
He describes how the power elite can be best described as a "triangle of power," linking the corporate,
executive government, and military factions: "There is a political economy numerously linked with
military order and decision. This triangle of power is now a structural fact, and it is the key to
any understanding of the higher circles in America today."
The 2016 US election, like all other US elections, featured a gallery of pre-selected candidates
that represented the three factions and their interests within the power elite. The 2016 US election,
however, was vastly different from previous elections. As the election dragged on the power elite
became bitterly divided, with the majority supporting Hilary Clinton, the candidate pre-selected
by the political and corporate factions, while the military faction rallied around their choice of
Donald Trump.
During the election campaign the power elite's military faction under Trump confounded all political
pundits by outflanking and decisively defeating the power elite's political faction. In fact by capturing
the Republican nomination and overwhelmingly defeating the Democratic establishment, Trump and the
military faction not just shattered the power elites' political faction, within both the Democratic
and Republican parties, but simultaneously ended both the Clinton and Bush dynasties.
During the election campaign the power elite's corporate faction realised, far too late, that
Trump was a direct threat to their power base, and turned the full force of their corporate media
against Trump's military faction, while Trump using social media bypassed and eviscerated the corporate
media causing them to lose all remaining credibility.
As the election reached a crescendo this battle between the power elite's factions became visible
within the US establishment's entities. A schism developed between the Defense Department and the
highly politicized CIA This schism, which can be attributed to the corporate-deep-state's covert
foreign policy, traces back to the CIA orchestrated "color revolutions" that had swept the Middle
East and North Africa.
From comments: "Saying Davos without Trump is like Hamlet without the prince implies a dignity
about the event which is rather far fetched. More like the Dark Side without Darth Vader ... trouble
is, Davos ain't fiction." "The biggest cabal of sociopathic criminals the world has ever
known."
Notable quotes:
"... This is not new. Klaus Schwab, the man who founded the World Economic Forum in the early 1970s, warned as long ago as 1996 that globalisation had entered a critical phase. "A mounting backlash against its effects, especially in the industrial democracies, is threatening a very disruptive impact on economic activity and social stability in many countries," he said. ..."
"... Schwab's warning was not heeded. There was no real attempt to make globalisation work for everyone. Communities affected by the export of jobs to countries where labour was cheaper were left to rot. The rewards of growth went disproportionately to a privileged few. Resentment quietly festered until there was a backlash. For Schwab, Brexit and Trump are a bitter blow, a repudiation of what he likes to call the spirit of Davos. ..."
"... It would be wrong, however, to imagine that business is terrified at the prospect of a Trump presidency. Boardrooms rather like the idea of a big cut in US corporation tax. They favour deregulation. They purr at plans to spend more on infrastructure. Wall Street is happy because it thinks the new president will mean stronger growth and higher corporate earnings. ..."
"... 'Policy decisions-not God, nature, or the invisible hand-exposed American manufacturing workers to direct competition with low-paid workers in the developing world. Policymakers could have exposed more highly paid workers such as doctors and lawyers to this same competition, but a bipartisan congressional consensus, and presidents of both parties, instead chose to keep them largely protected.' ..."
"... Good article by the way. Recommend others to read. Thanks. ..."
"... Stop trying to shackle every conservative to the desperate and ugly views of the few. Deplorables and their alt-right kin, are so small in number. We ought keep an eye on the Deplorables but little else ... they're politically insignificant. I wish you'd stop trying to throw the average Republican voter into the basket of bigoted, racist rednecks. It's deplorable! ..."
"... Saying Davos without Trump is like Hamlet without the prince implies a dignity about the event which is rather far fetched. More like the Dark Side without Darth Vader ... trouble is, Davos ain't fiction. ..."
"... Why would Daniel go into the lion's den? Trump is committed to stopping the excesses of the "swamp rats" most of whom are at Davos. The world will be turned on its head in 2017; it is going to be interesting to watch the demise of those at the top of the pyramid. ..."
"... What exactly is the "Spirit of Davos" then? A bunch of fat, rich elderly men and their hangers-on troughing themselves to the point of bursting on fine wines and gourmet food, while paying lip-service to the poor? ..."
"... One question for Davos might be: how are you going to resolve differences between the vast majority of people who exist as national citizens, and the multinational elite? It's not a new question. ..."
"... Multinationals, corporate and individuals, can dodge the taxes which pay for services we all rely on but especially citizens. ..."
"... Davos is not restricting attendance to high office bearers. Trump could have gone, had he wanted to, or he could have sent one of his family/staff - that's how Davos works. ..."
"... Bilderberg is by invitation, as far as I know, Davos by application and paying a high membership, plus fee. But the fact he is not represented could be a good sign if it means that the focus is on solving domestic issues as opposed to spending so much time and resources on international ones. ..."
"... My own take on the annual Davos circus is as follows:. It is a totally useless conclave and has never achieved anything tangible since its inception. ..."
"... This gives an excellent opportunity for those who hold so-called "numbered" or other secret bank accounts in the proverbially secretive Swiss banks to have their annual tete-a-tete with their bankers and carry out whatever maintenance has to be done to their bank accounts. After all, in tiny Switzerland, it is only a hop from one town to another. No one will miss you if you are not visible for a day or two. If any nosy taxman back home asks: "What was the purpose of your visit to Switzerland?", one can say with a straight face: "Oh, I was invited to be a keynote speaker at Davos to talk about the increasing income disparity in the world and on what steps to take to mitigate it."! ..."
"... I think globalisation is inhumane. Someone calculated that if labour were to follow capital flows we would see one third of the globe move around on a constant basis. One son in Cape Town a daughter in New York and a brother in Tokyo. It's not how human societies operate we are group animals like herds of cows. We need to be firmly rooted in order to build functioning and humane societies. That is the migration aspect of globalization the other aspect is the complete destruction of diverse cultures. ..."
Trump's influence can also be felt in other ways. The manner in which he won the US election,
tapping in to deep-seated anger about the unfair distribution of the spoils of economic growth,
has been noted. There is talk in Davos of the need to ensure that globalisation works for everyone.
This is not new. Klaus Schwab, the man who founded the World Economic Forum in the early 1970s,
warned as long ago as 1996 that globalisation had entered a critical phase. "A mounting backlash
against its effects, especially in the industrial democracies, is threatening a very disruptive
impact on economic activity and social stability in many countries," he said.
Schwab's warning was not heeded. There was no real attempt to make globalisation work for everyone.
Communities affected by the export of jobs to countries where labour was cheaper were left to
rot. The rewards of growth went disproportionately to a privileged few. Resentment quietly festered
until there was a backlash. For Schwab, Brexit and Trump are a bitter blow, a repudiation of what
he likes to call the spirit of Davos.
It would be wrong, however, to imagine that business is terrified at the prospect of a Trump
presidency. Boardrooms rather like the idea of a big cut in US corporation tax. They favour deregulation.
They purr at plans to spend more on infrastructure. Wall Street is happy because it thinks the
new president will mean stronger growth and higher corporate earnings.
In Trump's absence, it has been left to two senior members of the outgoing Obama administration
– his vice-president, Joe Biden, and secretary of state John Kerry – to fly the US flag.
Just
as significantly, Xi Jinping is the first Chinese premier to attend Davos and has made it clear
that, unlike Trump, he has no plans to resile from international obligations. The sense of a changing
of the guard is palpable.
missuswatanabe
It's the way globalisation has been managed for the benefit of the richest in the developed
world that has been bad for the masses rather than globalisation itself.
I thought this was an interesting, if US-centric, perspective on things:
'Policy decisions-not God, nature, or the invisible hand-exposed American manufacturing
workers to direct competition with low-paid workers in the developing world. Policymakers could
have exposed more highly paid workers such as doctors and lawyers to this same competition,
but a bipartisan congressional consensus, and presidents of both parties, instead chose to
keep them largely protected.'
Good article by the way. Recommend others to read. Thanks.
Paul Paterson -> ConBrio
Decent, hardworking Americans facing social and economic insecurity, whether on the right
or left, ought to be the focus. We need to deal with the concerns of the average citizen, however
it is they vote. Fringe groups don't serve our attention given tbe very real problems the country
faces.
Stop trying to shackle every conservative to the desperate and ugly views of the few. Deplorables
and their alt-right kin, are so small in number. We ought keep an eye on the Deplorables but
little else ... they're politically insignificant. I wish you'd stop trying to throw the average
Republican voter into the basket of bigoted, racist rednecks. It's deplorable!
What we should concern ourselves with is the very real social and economic insecurity felt
by many in red states and blue states alike. Those decent and hardworking Americans, regardless
of party, are joined in much. Deplorables aren't the average Republican voter and didn't win
Trump an election - they are too few to win much of anything.
What you keep referring to as Deplorables are decent Americans seeking change and socioeconomic
justice. You are mixing up citizens who happen to vote for the GOP withbwhite nationalist scum.
How dare you tar all conservatives with the hate monger brush!
Spunky325 -> Paul Paterson
Actually, before taking office, Trump strong-armed Ford and GM into putting more money in
their American plants, instead of moving more production to Mexico. He's also questioned cost-overruns
on Air Force One and several military projects which is causing companies to back off. I can't
think of another American president who has felt it was important to keep jobs in America or
who has questioned military spending. Good for him!
Paul Paterson -> Spunky325
You've made it quite clear "you can't think" as you've bought into the ruse. The question
is why are you so boastful about it? Trump's policies are even seen by economists on the right
as creating staggering levels of debt, creating more economic inequality and unlikely to increase
jobs.
Among many flaws, they point out tax proposals that hurt the poor and middle class to such
a degree it almost seems targeted. This is the same economic plot that has failed working Americans
repeatedly. You folks are getting caught up in a time share pitch and embracing policy that
has little chance to help the average American - however it is they vote. It isn't supposed
to but y'all are asleep at the wheel.
DrBlamm0
Saying Davos without Trump is like Hamlet without the prince implies a dignity about
the event which is rather far fetched. More like the Dark Side without Darth Vader ... trouble
is, Davos ain't fiction.
johhnybgood
Why would Daniel go into the lion's den? Trump is committed to stopping the excesses
of the "swamp rats" most of whom are at Davos. The world will be turned on its head in 2017;
it is going to be interesting to watch the demise of those at the top of the pyramid.
bilyou
What exactly is the "Spirit of Davos" then? A bunch of fat, rich elderly men and their
hangers-on troughing themselves to the point of bursting on fine wines and gourmet food, while
paying lip-service to the poor?
Maybe Trump just decided to trough it at his tower and avoid hanging out with a grotesque
bunch of insufferable see you next Tuesdays.
Ricardo_K
One question for Davos might be: how are you going to resolve differences between the
vast majority of people who exist as national citizens, and the multinational elite? It's not
a new question.
Multinationals, corporate and individuals, can dodge the taxes which pay for services we
all rely on but especially citizens.
James Patterson
Xi's statements on a trade war are completely self serving. But his assertions that he is
against protectionism and unfair trading practices is laughably hypocritical. China refuses
to let any Silicon Valley Internet company one inch past the Great Firewall. Under his direction
the CCP has imposed draconian regulations, which change by the week, on American Companies
operating in China making fair competition with local Chinese companies impossible.
The business climate in China is reprehensible. The CCP has resorted to extortion, requiring
that U.S. tech companies share their most sensitive trade secrets and IP with Chinese state
enterprises or get barred from conducting business there. Sadly, U.S. companies entered China
with high expectations and invested hundreds of millions of dollars in factories, labs and
equipment. This threat has caused many CEO's to sacrifice their company's long term viability
by transferring their most closely guarded technological advances to China or face the loss
their entire investment in China. Even so, multinationals are beginning the Chinese exodus
led by those with less financial exposure soon to be followed by companies like Apple despite
significant economic ties.
True, most people believe a 'trade war' with China means America is the defacto loser because
of dishonest reporting. The truth is that America's economic exposure to China is extremely
limited. U.S. exports to China represent only 7% of America's total exports worldwide; which
in turn accounts for less than 1% of total U.S. GDP (Wells Fargo Economics Group 2015). Most
of America's exports to China are raw materials, which can be redirected to other markets with
some effort. So even if China blocked all U.S. exports tomorrow, America's economy could absorb
the blow with minimal damage. This presents the U.S. government with a wide range of options
to deal with China's many trade infractions and unfair practices as aggressively or punitively
as it wishes.
europeangrayling
Poor Davos attendees. You feel for them at their fancy alpine Bilderberg. It's like the
meeting of the mafia organizations, if the mafia became legal and respected now and ran the
world economy. And I don't think those economic royalists at Davos miss Trump, Trump was a
small fish compared to the Davos people. They make Trump look like a dishwasher.
They are just pissed Trump came out against the TPP and those globalist 'free trade' deals,
and doesn't want more regime change maybe. They like everything else about Trump's policies,
the big tax cuts, environmental and banking deregulations galore, it's like Reagan 2.0, without
the 'free trade'. But they really want that 'free trade' though, those guys are used to getting
everything. Imagine if Bernie won, they would really hate that guy, he is also against the
TPPs and trade, and for less war, and against everything else they are used to. And that's
good, if those honorable brilliant Davos gentleman don't like you, that's not a bad thing.
soundofthesuburbs -> soundofthesuburbs
With secular stagnation we should all be asking why is economics so bad?
Keynesian redistributive capitalism went out with Margaret Thatcher and inequality has been
rising ever since (there is a clue there for the economists amongst us).
How did these new ideas rise to prominence?
"There Is No Nobel Prize in Economics
It's awarded by Sweden's central bank, foisted among the five real prizewinners, often to economists
for the 1% -- and the surviving Nobel family is strongly against it."
"The award for economics came almost 70 years later-bootstrapped to the Nobel in 1968 as a
bit of a marketing ploy to celebrate the Bank of Sweden's 300th anniversary." Yes, you read
that right: "a marketing ploy."
Today's economics rose to prominence by awarding its economists Nobel Prizes that weren't Nobel
Prizes.
No wonder it's so bad.
Global elites can use all sorts of trickery to put their ideas in place, but economics is economics
and if doesn't reflect how the economy operates it won't work.
Secular stagnation – what more evidence do we need?
HauptmannGurski -> bcarey
Davos is not restricting attendance to high office bearers. Trump could have gone, had
he wanted to, or he could have sent one of his family/staff - that's how Davos works.
Bilderberg is by invitation, as far as I know, Davos by application and paying a high membership,
plus fee. But the fact he is not represented could be a good sign if it means that the focus
is on solving domestic issues as opposed to spending so much time and resources on international
ones.
Meanwhile, alibaba's Jack Ma said in Davos that the US had spent many trillions on wars in
the last 30 years and neglected their own infrastructure. Money is for people, or some such
like, he said. Just mentioning it here, because the MSM tend to dislike running this kind of
remark.
Rajanvn -> HauptmannGurski
My own take on the annual Davos circus is as follows:. It is a totally useless conclave
and has never achieved anything tangible since its inception.
Did it, in any way, with all the stars in the financial galaxy gathered in one place, warn
against the 2008 global financial meltdown? The real reason why so many moneybags congregate
at a place which would be shunned by all who have no affinity for snow sports may be, according
to my own reckoning, may not be that innocent and may even be quite sinister.
This gives an excellent opportunity for those who hold so-called "numbered" or other
secret bank accounts in the proverbially secretive Swiss banks to have their annual tete-a-tete
with their bankers and carry out whatever maintenance has to be done to their bank accounts.
After all, in tiny Switzerland, it is only a hop from one town to another. No one will miss
you if you are not visible for a day or two. If any nosy taxman back home asks: "What was the
purpose of your visit to Switzerland?", one can say with a straight face: "Oh, I was invited
to be a keynote speaker at Davos to talk about the increasing income disparity in the world
and on what steps to take to mitigate it."!
Roland33
I think globalisation is inhumane. Someone calculated that if labour were to follow capital
flows we would see one third of the globe move around on a constant basis. One son in Cape
Town a daughter in New York and a brother in Tokyo. It's not how human societies operate we
are group animals like herds of cows. We need to be firmly rooted in order to build functioning
and humane societies. That is the migration aspect of globalization the other aspect is the
complete destruction of diverse cultures.
If everyone drives Toyota and everyone drinks Starbucks
we lose the diversity of culture that people claim they find so valuable. And replaces it with
a mono-culture of Levi jeans and McDonalds. Wealth inequality is really something that can
be reduced if you look various countries score higher in this regard than others while still
being highly successful market economies but I think money is secondary to the displacement
and alienation that come with the first two aspects of globalisation. I find it strange that
it is now the right that advocates reversing these neoliberal trends and the left that seems
to champion it. I was conscious during the 90's and anti-globalisation was clearly a left wing
issue. For whatever reason the left just leaves room for the right to harvest the grapes of
wrath they warned about many years ago. Don't blame the "populist" right ask why the left left
them the space.
The leaks also revealed that US diplomats had been ordered
to take part in an intelligence-collection
operation at the United Nations
targeted at the secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, and the permanent security council
representatives from China, Russia, France and the UK.
Washington wanted diplomats as well as the intelligence agencies to pick up
details such as credit card numbers, email addresses, phone, fax and pager numbers
and even frequent-flyer account numbers of UN figures as well as "biographic and
biometric information on UN security council permanent representatives".
The secret "national human intelligence collection directive" was sent to US
missions at the UN in New York, Vienna and Rome; 33 embassies and consulates,
including those in London, Paris and Moscow.
The cable raised questions about the dividing line between diplomats and spies
in Washington's eyes, and without doubt made UN and other foreign officials think
very carefully about subsequent meetings with US diplomats.
US officials have asserted that the release of the material endangered the
lives of US diplomats' foreign sources. The state department legal adviser at the
time, Harold Koh
argued
the document dump "could place at risk the lives of countless innocent
individuals" as well as "ongoing military operations".
He accused
WikiLeaks
of endangerment "without regard to the security and the sanctity of
the lives your actions endanger".
There are no proven cases of deaths directly attributable to the release of the
cables. But there was no doubt about the breadth and depth of the embarrassment.
Better dead than bad: Status competition among German
fighter pilots during World War II
By Philipp Ager, Leonardo Bursztyn, and Joachim Voth
During World War II, the German military publicly
celebrated the performance of its flying aces to incentivise
their peers. This column uses newly collected data to show
that, when a former colleague got recognition, flying aces
performed much better without taking more risks, while
average pilots did only slightly better but got themselves
killed much more often. Overall the incentives may have been
detrimental, which serves as a caution to those offering
incentives to today's financial risk-takers.
Reply
Sunday, January 15, 2017 at 12:16 PM
Yossarian came to him one mission later and pleaded again,
without any real expectation of success, to be grounded. Doc
Daneeka snickered once and was soon immersed in problems of
his own, which included Chief White Halfoat, who had been
challenging him all that morning to Indian wrestle, and
Yossarian, who decided right then and there to go crazy.
'You're wasting your time,' Doc Daneeka was forced to tell
him.
'Can't you ground someone who's crazy?'
'Oh, sure. I have to. There's a rule saying I have to
ground anyone who's crazy.'
'Then why don't you ground me? I'm crazy. Ask Clevinger.'
'Clevinger? Where is Clevinger? You find Clevinger and
I'll ask him.'
'Then ask any of the others. They'll tell you how crazy I
am.'
'They're crazy.'
'Then why don't you ground them?'
'Why don't they ask me to ground them?'
'Because they're crazy, that's why.'
'Of course they're crazy,' Doc Daneeka replied. 'I just
told you they're crazy, didn't I? And you can't let crazy
people decide whether you're crazy or not, can you?'
Yossarian looked at him soberly and tried another
approach. 'Is Orr crazy?'
'He sure is,' Doc Daneeka said.
'Can you ground him?'
'I sure can. But first he has to ask me to. That's part of
the rule.'
'Then why doesn't he ask you to?'
'Because he's crazy,' Doc Daneeka said. 'He has to be
crazy to keep flying combat missions after all the close
calls he's had. Sure, I can ground Orr. But first he has to
ask me to.'
'That's all he has to do to be grounded?'
'That's all. Let him ask me.'
'And then you can ground him?' Yossarian asked.
'No. Then I can't ground him.'
'You mean there's a catch?'
'Sure there's a catch,' Doc Daneeka replied. 'Catch-22.
Anyone who wants to get out of combat duty isn't really
crazy.'
There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which
specified that a concern for one's own safety in the face of
dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a
rational mind. Orr was crazy and could be grounded. All he
had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer
be crazy and would have to fly more missions. Orr would be
crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he
was sane, he had to fly them. If he flew them, he was crazy
and didn't have to; but if he didn't want to, he was sane and
had to. Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute
simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and let out a
respectful whistle.
'Catch-22': Cadets Hail a Chronicler of the Absurd
By ANDREW H. MALCOLM
COLORADO SPRINGS
It was love at first sight.
The first time the cadets at the Air Force Academy saw
Joseph Heller walk into the cavernous auditorium. they fell
madly in love with him. Nearly 900 future officers stood as
one to applaud the white-haired author as he arrived to begin
a weekend-long celebration.
The occasion was the 25th anniversary of the publication
of ''Catch-22,'' the novel that captured the insanity of war
and the human condition while adding a phrase to the English
language....
Reply
Sunday, January 15, 2017 at 05:39 PM
'CATCH-22': CADETS HAIL A CHRONICLER OF THE ABSURD
Section B; Page 10, Column 3; National Desk
Byline: By ANDREW H. MALCOLM, Special to the New York Times COLORADO SPRINGS, Oct. 4 Lead:
It was love at first sight.
The first time the cadets at the Air Force Academy saw Joseph Heller walk into the
cavernous auditorium. they fell madly in love with him. Nearly 900 future officers stood as one to
applaud the white-haired author as he arrived to begin a weekend-long celebration.
The occasion was the 25th anniversary of the publication of ''Catch-22,'' the novel that captured
the insanity of war and the human condition while adding a phrase to the English language.
Text:
The audience in blue uniforms rose again to applaud and cheer when the author introduced the movie
based on his book. The cadets applauded during the movie credits, after the movie and after he thought
he was finished answering questions.
Then they mobbed him down front with more questions, asked for autographs and followed him out
to a waiting car for more talk about the evil Colonel Cathcart, who kept raising the number of bombing
missions necessary for rotation home, Major Major, who would only see people in his office when he
wasn't in, and Milo Minderbinder, the mess officer who could see a profit in almost anything. 'An
Intoxicating Experience'
''For me,' said the 63-year-old author, ''this is an intoxicating experience unlike any other
I've ever had. I don't want to take it in stride. I want to revel in it.''
As part of the celebration, there was a 25th birthday cake for Yossarian, the book's puzzled protagonist.
There were academic papers presented on the theological, cultural and social significance of ''Catch-22.''
And there were big smiles on the faces of the Air Force Academy's English department, which sought
to introduce the man who made fun of an insane military bureaucracy to future members of a military
bureaucracy.
''We want these men and women to be a thinking part of a large military bureaucracy,'' said Col.
Jack Shuttleworth, head of the English department, ''We don't want them to be victims of the Colonel
Cathcarts of the world. To put it bluntly, you don't want dumb officers out there protecting your
country.''
Since its publication, ''Catch-22'' has been an informal part of the military education of many
soldiers. And it was occasionally used in some senior classes here. But in recent years it has become
a staple taught by a self-confident staff of teachers whose military experiences included tours in
Vietnam, where the historical distinctions between good guy and bad guy were fuzzed and, as Colonel
Shuttleworth put it, ''The enemy was everywhere and nowhere.'' Mutual Admiration Builds
''We oversimplify our military,'' said Mr. Heller, who as a World War II bombardier lieutenant
flew 60 missions in the Army Air Corps. ''We think they have one mind. But they are very educated
today and they want their families and students to be well educated. The degree of acceptance here,
maybe even love, for the book is very surprising, and gratifying.''
Likewise, the cadets learned that an Olympian author can also be accessible. ''He seems like a
nice guy,'' said Corey Keppler, a sophomore from Smithtown, L.I., ''I read parts of the book in high
school. Now I'm going to finish it.''
Mr. Heller also shared several confidences with his young admirers, none of whom was born when
he wrote the book. They learned that the book was originally titled ''Catch-18,'' but the imminent
publication of Leon Uris's ''Mila 18'' and the repetition of the number two in Mr. Heller's book
suggested the change.
The cadets also discovered that Milo's car in the movie really did belong to Mussolini. They laughed
when the author told why he sold the movie rights: ''I wanted the money.'' A Catch That Defies Explanation
And the author tried once again to explain why he can never define catch-22. ''It doesn't exist,''
he said, ''That's the catch. If it existed in writing or something, we could change it.''
Then he sought to give an example. ''I understand the Air Force Academy has a catch-22,'' he said,
''To repair a uniform it must be freshly cleaned. But the cleaning staff has orders not to clean
any uniform needing repairs.''
''That's some catch,'' says Yossarian in the movie.
''It's the best there is,'' replies the doctor.
There were, of course, serious moments in the celebration, which the academy advertised with a
sketch of a naked Yossarian in a tree looking out over the Air Force school. In one paper presented,
Stuart James of Denver University praised the book's ''narrative knots and sheer fantasy'' as ''a
mirror image of the madhouse world of lonely psyches that we all inhabit.'' Joan Robertson of the
academy's faculty analyzed the author's depiction of women in ''Catch-22'' as undemanding, compliant,
often not even worthy of a proper name, and thus adding a needed gritty edge to his portrayal of
men.
Frederick Kiley of the National Defense University even wrote another chapter to ''Catch-22''
in Mr. Heller's style about the brave young men who went off on the dangerous missions they did not
have to fly but could not get out of. 'I'm Sure Milo Would'
The author himself said he was surprised by the lasting impact of Milo Minderbinder, a product
of the capitalist system. ''I don't understand the merger mania sweeping American business,'' said
Mr. Heller. ''But I'm sure Milo would.''
The author said he was not surprised, however, when catch-22's kept popping up in real life. In
a speech tonight he quoted one United States Army briefing officer in Vietnam telling reporters,
''I'm happy to announce our casualties have increased greatly and are now on a level with those of
our Marines.''
Mr. Heller said he was stunned with the strength of continuing interest in his book. He confided
plans to cancel the Friday evening showing of the movie if only a few teachers attended. Instead,
it was the largest crowd he has ever addressed.
All of which put the author in his own catch-22 - the more he enjoyed the weekend, the faster
it went, and the less he could enjoy it.
''I'm as happy as a lark,'' said Mr. Heller, who expects to complete his next novel, ''Poetics,''
this winter. ''All my fantasies have been fulfilled. The sad part to me is that now I'll have to
wait another 25 years to come back.''
Let us 'ally' with all the world,
let us protect civilians, let us impose 'just peace', let us
squander the environment. No plan is too bloody, no price too
steep to prevent another 9/11. The evening news still needs
bodies of "those people". Non violence is un American.
I am not surprised the neoliberals do not post Dr King's
Vietnam Speech:
War is a ... "destructive suction tube. And you may not
know it, my friends, but it is estimated that we spend
$500,000 to kill each enemy soldier, while we spend only
fifty-three dollars for each person classified as poor, and
much of that fifty-three dollars goes for salaries to people
that are not poor."
I was informed by MLK's awareness of the truth on the ground
in 1967. That is why I protested the war in Viet Nam when
protests began early in 1968 in Richmond VA, but not the
draft. In April 1969 I had to decide whether to go to Canada
and maybe never see my family again and take my wife far from
her family as well, go to prison, or go to Viet Nam. MLK had
already been murdered and I had already lost hope in the
truth and social justice. So, I went to Viet Nam. I figured
Doctor King would understand.
Let us 'ally' with all the world,
let us protect civilians, let us impose 'just peace', let us
squander the environment. No plan is too bloody, no price too
steep to prevent another 9/11. The evening news still needs
bodies of "those people". Non violence is un American.
I am not surprised the neoliberals do not post Dr King's
Vietnam Speech:
War is a ... "destructive suction tube. And you may not
know it, my friends, but it is estimated that we spend
$500,000 to kill each enemy soldier, while we spend only
fifty-three dollars for each person classified as poor, and
much of that fifty-three dollars goes for salaries to people
that are not poor."
I was informed by MLK's awareness of the truth on the ground
in 1967. That is why I protested the war in Viet Nam when
protests began early in 1968 in Richmond VA, but not the
draft. In April 1969 I had to decide whether to go to Canada
and maybe never see my family again and take my wife far from
her family as well, go to prison, or go to Viet Nam. MLK had
already been murdered and I had already lost hope in the
truth and social justice. So, I went to Viet Nam. I figured
Doctor King would understand.
Scott Ritter offers no new information or original arguments in his HuffPo piece,
but he distills what we know into a concise, well-supported analysis.
The article leads with McCain telling reporters during a recent trip to Ukraine
that Russian hacking of the election was an "act of war." Coincidentally, a link
came into my Twitter feed yesterday to a podcast with Mark Ames about Trump's ties
to Russia via his ex-campaign manager Paul Manafort. It was recorded last August,
but I hadn't listened to it until last night.
Ames mentioned an article he'd written for The Nation in 2008, which jarred
my memory. In fact, I had read that article, which was about McCain's ties to the
Kremlin via Rick Davis, Manafort's partner in the lobbying firm Davis Manafort.
Davis was McCain's campaign manager in his 2008 race against Obama.
This story is getting stinkier by the day. Unfortunately. Ritter's controversial
background will make it easy for those who don't want to hear his message to attack
the messenger.
For anyone who's interested, here's a link to the podcast (actually YouTube
audio):
Jan 17, 2017 4:25 PM Following urges by Edward Snowden and Julian Assange
(who offered his own extradition in exchange) , President Obama has largely commuted the remaining
prison sentence of Chelsea Manning, the army intelligence analyst convicted of an enormous 2010 leak
that revealed American military and diplomatic activities across the world, disrupted the administration,
and made WikiLeaks, the recipient of those disclosures, famous.
Manning will be released in May 2017 according to the White House. The move is part of a final
push of pardons and commutations in the closing days of the administration, and Obama has now shortened
the sentences of more federal inmates than any other president, bringing the total to 1,385 as of
today.
Previously both Julian Assange and Edward Snowden who leaked his cache of documents detailing
U.S. intelligence efforts around the same time as Manning's crime, advocated for her clemency. "Mr.
President, if you grant only one act of clemency as you exit the White House, please: free Chelsea
Manning," Snowden tweeted. "You alone can save her life."
Manning was arrested in 2010 after leaking 700,000 military files and diplomatic cables to Wikileaks,
and her sentence exceeded that received by other individuals recently convicted of releasing classified
material. She has twice attempted to commit suicide while incarcerated, and went on a hunger strike
in an effort to get the Army to allow her to undertake gender reassignment surgery.
As The New York Times reports, the decision by Obama rescued Manning from an uncertain
future as a transgender woman incarcerated at the male military prison at Fort Leavenworth, Kan.
She has been jailed for nearly seven years, and her 35-year sentence was by far the longest punishment
ever imposed in the United States for a leak conviction.
Now, under the terms of Mr. Obama's commutation announced by the White House on Tuesday, Ms. Manning
is set to be freed in five months, on May 17 of this year, rather than in 2045.
The commutation also relieved the Department of Defense of the difficult responsibility of her
incarceration as she pushes for treatment for her gender dysphoria - including sex reassignment surgery
- that the military has no experience providing.
As The New York Times describes, Manning was still known as Bradley Manning
when she deployed with her unit to Iraq in late 2009. There, she worked as a low-level intelligence
analyst helping her unit assess insurgent activity in the area it was patrolling, a role that gave
her access to a classified computer network.
She copied hundreds of thousands of military incident logs from the Afghanistan and Iraq wars,
which, among other things, exposed abuses of detainees by Iraqi military officers working with American
forces and showed that civilian deaths in the Iraq war were likely much higher than official estimates.
The files she copied also included about 250,000 diplomatic cables from American embassies around
the world showing sensitive deals and conversations, dossiers detailing intelligence assessments
of Guantánamo detainees held without trial, and a video of an American helicopter attack in Baghdad
in two Reuters journalists were killed, among others.
She decided to make all these files public, as she wrote at the time, in the hope that they would
incite "worldwide discussion, debates, and reforms." WikiLeaks' disclosed them - working with traditional
news organizations including The New York Times - bringing notoriety to the group and its founder,
Julian Assange.
The disclosures set off a frantic scramble as Obama administration officials sought to minimize
any potential harm, including getting to safety some foreigners in dangerous countries who were identified
as having helped American troops or diplomats. Prosecutors, however, presented no evidence that anyone
was killed because of the leaks.
In her commutation application, Ms. Manning said she had not imagined that she would be sentenced
to the "extreme" term of 35 years, a term for which there was "no historical precedent." (There have
only been a handful of leak cases, and most sentence are in the range of one to three years.)
"I take full and complete responsibility for my decision to disclose these materials to the public,"
she wrote.
"I have never made any excuses for what I did. I pleaded guilty without the protection of a
plea agreement because I believed the military justice system would understand my motivation for
the disclosure and sentence me fairly. I was wrong."
The US Constitution allows a president to pardon "offenses against the United States" and commute
-- either shorten or end -- federal sentences. Obama has so far granted 148 pardons since taking
office in 2009 -- fewer than his predecessors, who also served two terms, George W. Bush (189) and
Bill Clinton (396). But he has surpassed any other president in the number of granted, commutations,
1,385, more than the total number given by the past 12 presidents combined.
The White House is expected to announce another round of clemency grants on Thursday, officials
said. Most of Obama's clemency grants have gone to relatively unknown individuals but Tuesday's batch
contained some who are famous, as is typical for presidents in their final days.
"... It was read aloud in taverns, churches and town squares, promoting the notion of republicanism, bolstering fervor for complete separation from Britain, and boosting recruitment for the fledgling Continental Army. He rallied public opinion in favor of revolution among layman, farmers, businessmen and lawmakers. It compelled the colonists to make an immediate choice. It made the case against monarchy, aristocracy, tyranny and unfair taxation, offering Americans a solution – liberty and freedom. It was an important precursor to the Declaration of Independence, which was written six months later by Paine's fellow revolutionaries. ..."
"Without the pen of the author of
Common Sense , the sword of Washington would have been raised in vain." –
John Adams
Thomas Paine was born in 1737 in Britain. His first thirty seven years of life were pretty much
a series of failures and disappointments. Business fiascos, firings, the death of his first wife
and child, a failed second marriage, and bankruptcy plagued his early life.
He then met Benjamin Franklin in 1774 and was convinced to emigrate to America, arriving in Philadelphia
in November 1774. He thus became the Father of the American Revolution with the publication of
Common Sense , pamphlets which crystallized opinion for colonial independence in 1776.
The first pamphlet was published in Philadelphia on January 10, 1776, and signed anonymously "by
an Englishman." It became an instantaneous sensation, swiftly disseminating 100,000 copies in three
months among the two and a half million residents of the 13 colonies. Over 500,000 copies were sold
during the course of the American Revolution. Paine published
Common Sense after the battle of Lexington and Concord, making the argument the colonists should
seek complete independence from Great Britain, rather than merely fighting against unfair levels
of taxation. The pamphlets stirred the masses with a fighting spirit, instilling in them the backbone
to resist a powerful empire.
It was read aloud in taverns, churches and town squares, promoting the notion of republicanism,
bolstering fervor for complete separation from Britain, and boosting recruitment for the fledgling
Continental Army. He rallied public opinion in favor of revolution among layman, farmers, businessmen
and lawmakers. It compelled the colonists to make an immediate choice. It made the case against monarchy,
aristocracy, tyranny and unfair taxation, offering Americans a solution – liberty and freedom. It
was an important precursor to the Declaration of Independence, which was written six months later
by Paine's fellow revolutionaries.
Paine's contribution to American independence 241 years ago during the first American
Fourth Turning cannot be overstated. His clarion call for colonial unity against a tyrannical
British monarch played a providential role in convincing farmers, shopkeepers, and tradesmen reconciliation
with a hereditary monarchy was impossible, and armed separation was the only common sense option.
He made the case breaking away from Britain was inevitable, and the time was now. Armed conflict
had already occurred, but support for a full-fledged revolution had not yet coalesced within the
thirteen colonies. Paine's rhetorical style within the pamphlets aroused enough resentment against
the British monarchy to rally men to arms, so their children wouldn't have to fight their battles.
"I prefer peace, but if trouble must come, let it be in my time that my children may know peace."
– Thomas Paine
Paine did not write
Common Sense or
The American Crisis pamphlets for his contemporaries like John Adams, Samuel Adams, Jefferson,
Madison, or Franklin. These intellectual giants were already convinced of the need to permanently
break away from the British Empire and form a new nation. Paine wrote his pamphlets in a style understandable
to the common man, rendering complex concepts intelligible for the average citizen. Paine seized
this historic moment of crisis to provide the intellectual basis for a republican revolution. To
inspire his citizen soldiers, George Washington had Paine's pamphlets read aloud at their encampments.
"These are the times that try men's souls: The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in
this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love
and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like Hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation
with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we
esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives everything its value. Heaven knows how to put
a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as freedom
should not be highly rated." – Thomas Paine –
The American Crisis
The wealthy landowners and firebrands who comprised the Continental Congress leadership were not
the audience Paine was trying to sway. They were focused on how a Declaration of Independence would
affect the war effort. They were deficient in making their case to the less informed populace.
Without public support and volunteers to fight the Redcoats, the revolution would have failed.
Paine's indispensable contribution to our country's independence was initiating a public debate and
disseminating ideas about independence among those who would need to do the fighting and dying if
independence was to be achieved.
Paine was able to synthesize philosophical enlightenment concepts about human rights into common
sense ideas understood by ordinary folks. Paine was not a highly educated intellectual and trusted
the common people to make sound assessments regarding major issues, based upon wisdom dispensed in
a common sense way. He used common sense to refute the professed entitlements of the British ruling
establishment. He used common sense as a weapon to de-legitimize King George's despotic monarchy,
overturning the conventional thinking among the masses.
Paine was able to fuse the common cause of the Founding Fathers and the people into a collective
revolutionary force. Even though their numbers were small, Paine convinced them they could defeat
an empire.
"It is not in numbers, but in unity, that our great strength lies; yet our present numbers are
sufficient to repel the force of all the world" – Thomas Paine,
Common Sense
Paine didn't know he was propelling the American Revolution
Fourth Turning towards its successful climax when he wrote those pamphlets. His use of the term
Crisis as the title to his second group of pro-revolutionary pamphlets displayed his grasp of the
mood in the colonies toward the existing social order. The majority of the 2.5 million people living
in the 13 colonies in 1776 were native born. Their loyalty to a distant monarch, treating them with
contempt and taxing them to support his far flung empire, had been waning as time progressed. They
were ready to shed the cloak of oppression and Paine gave them the rationale for doing so.
The American Revolution Crisis was ignited by the fiery Prophet Generation leader Samuel Adams
with the provocative Boston Tea Party in 1773. The colonial tinderbox was ignited as Adams' committees
of correspondence rallied resistance against the Crown and formed a political union among the 13
colonies. After the battles of Lexington & Concord, arming of militias and the formation of the Continental
Army under command of George Washington, the regeneracy was at hand.
Paine, as a Liberty Generation nomad, did what his generation was born to do – be a hands on,
pragmatic, get it done leader. His vital contribution to the revolution was rousing the colonists
with the toughness, resolution, and backbone to withstand the long difficult trials ahead. He, along
with other members of his generation – George Washington, John Adams, and Francis Marion, did the
heavy lifting throughout the American Revolution.
They knew they would hang if their labors failed, but the struggle for liberty against a tyrannical
despot drove them forward against all odds. Paine's pamphlets, followed shortly thereafter by the
Declaration of Independence, marked the regeneracy of the first American
Fourth Turning , as solidarity around the cause of liberty inspired by brave words and valiant
deeds, propelled history towards its glorious climax at Yorktown.
When you're in the midst of a Fourth Turning it is hard to step back and assess where you are
on a daily basis. This
Fourth Turning began in September 2008, with the global financial implosion created by the Fed
and their Wall Street puppet masters. We have just achieved the long awaited regeneracy as Trump
has stepped forth as the
Grey Champion to lead a revolution against the corrupt tyrannical establishment.
The election of Trump did not mark the end for the Deep State, but just the beginning of the end.
Just as Paine's
Common Sense and the Declaration of Independence denoted the beginning of a long string of bloody
trials and tribulations, Trump's ascendency to the presidency has marked the beginning of a battle
– with the outcome dependent upon our response to the clashes ahead.
The regeneracy spurred by Thomas Paine and the nation's Founding Fathers in 1776 was followed
by five years of ordeal, misery, misfortune, bloody routs, and numerous junctures where total defeat
hung in the balance. Lesser men would have abandoned the cause during the dark bitter winter at Valley
Forge in 1778.
The shocking victory by Trump has revealed the depth of corruption among the corporate mass media,
both political parties, surveillance agencies, and shadowy Deep State moneyed players behind the
scenes. The ivory tower D.C. politicians, their entitlement culture, blatant corruption, vile disregard
for the Constitution, and complete disregard for the plight of average Americans living outside their
bastions of liberal elitism (NYC, L.A., S.F., D.C., Chicago), have shown their true colors since
November 8.
Trump utilized the same populist messaging invoked by Paine in his
Common Sense pamphlets during his unorthodox presidential campaign. He mobilized the large alienated
silent majority who has been left behind as the globalists, corporatists, and militarists reaped
the rich rewards of a growing corporate fascist surveillance state. Average Americans in flyover
country watched as the fetid swamp creatures in the mainstream media, along with debased political
establishment hacks, Hollywood elites, left wing billionaires, and so called social justice warriors
coalesced behind a criminal establishment candidate. The out of touch elite have controlled the government
for decades, treating the country and its people like a two dollar whore.
Just as Paine hit a nerve among the great unwashed masses, Trump united blue collar workers, small
business owners, family men, working mothers, guns rights champions, disaffected conservatives, realistic
libertarians, disaffected millennials and various anti-establishment types sick and tired of the
status quo. He gave voice to the little man with his in your face populist rhetoric against the corrupt
dominant elites.
His plain spoken, aggressive, no holds barred, pugnacious approach to crushing his enemies rallied
millions to his cause. The Make America Great Again revolution has only just begun and the violent,
vitriolic pushback from the vested interests are only the opening volleys in this
Second American Revolution . The entrenched Deep State establishment will concede nothing. Tyranny
will not be defeated without bloodshed.
"Power concedes nothing without demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what people
will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed
upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows or both. The
limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress." – Thomas Paine
The same common sense Paine used to argue against a tyrannical, oppressive hereditary monarchy
applies today when judging our corrupt, authoritarian, co-opted government. His themes of society
as a blessing, government as evil, and revolution as inevitable are as applicable today as they were
241 years ago. As we approach Trump's inauguration it has become clear the ruling elite feel threatened
and are using their control of the media, intelligence services, military, and financial system to
try and undermine his presidency before it begins.
As their fake news propaganda falls on the deaf ears of disgusted Americans, their next ploy will
be violence, war or assassination. The vested interests have no intention of relinquishing their
power and wealth, just as King George and his Parliament had no intention of allowing the colonies
to form an independent republic.
If you thought voting Trump into the office of the president constituted a victory, you are badly
misreading historical precedent and the inevitable paths of Fourth Turnings. The fight is just beginning.
The leftist social justice warriors, their wealthy elite puppeteers, the neo-con military industrial
complex warmongers, globalists, multi-culturists, and surveillance state apparatchiks have all made
it clear they will violently and rhetorically, through their corporate media mouthpieces, resist
Trump and his common man revolution.
I don't know if the normal people who supported Trump realize how abnormal, deviant, and despicable
their opponents are. Blood will be spilled. Violence will beget violence. The country is already
split and the divide will only grow wider. Someone will win and someone will lose. Our choices will
matter.
"The seasons of time offer no guarantees. For modern societies, no less than for all forms of
life, transformative change is discontinuous. For what seems an eternity, history goes nowhere –
and then it suddenly flings us forward across some vast chaos that defies any mortal effort to plan
our way there. The Fourth Turning will try our souls – and the saecular rhythm tells us that much
will depend on how we face up to that trial. The saeculum does not reveal whether the story will
have a happy ending, but it does tell us how and when our choices will make a difference."
– Strauss & Howe –
The Fourth Turning
In Part Two of this article I will try to show how Paine's
Common Sense , even though written three generations ago, has essential pertinence during these
troubled times of our current
Fourth Turning .
"... Davos elite faces evaporating trust in "post-trith" era ..."
"... "The most shocking statistic of this whole study is that half the people who are high-income, college-educated and well-informed also believe the system doesn't work." ..."
"... Even wealthy, well educated people understand things aren't working, which begs the question. Who does think the system is working? Well, the people attending Davos, of course. These are the folks who cheer on a world in which eight people own as much as the bottom 50%. ..."
"... The mere fact that billionaire-owned media is so hostile to populism tells you everything you need to know. Behind the idea of populism is the notion of self-government, and Davos-type elitists hate this. They believe in a technocracy in which they make all the important decisions. Populism is dangerous because populism is empowering. It implies that the people ultimately have the power. ..."
"... The global financial crisis of 2008/9 and the migrant crisis of 2015/16 exposed the impotence of politicians, deepening public disillusion and pushing people towards populists who offered simple explanations and solutions. ..."
"... Populism can be dangerous, and it's certainly messy, but it's a crucial pressure release valve for any functioning free society. If you don't allow populist movements to do their thing in the short-term, you'll get far worse outcomes in the long-term. ..."
"... Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable. ..."
DAVOS MAN : "A soulless man, technocratic, nationless and cultureless, severed from reality.
The modern economics that undergirded Davos capitalism is equally soulless, a managerial capitalism
that reduces economics to mathematics and separates it from human action and human creativity."
I am not a Democrat or a Republican. I do not consider myself a libertarian, progressive, socialist,
anarchist, conservative, neoconservative or neoliberal. I'm just a 38 year old guy trying to figure
it all out. Naturally, this doesn't imply that there aren't things which I hold dear. I have a strong
belief system based on key principles. It's just that I don't think it makes sense for me to self-label
and become part of a tribe. The moment you self-label, is the moment you stop thinking for yourself.
It's also the moment you stop listening. When you think you have all the answers, anyone who doesn't
think exactly as you do on all topics is either stupid or "paid opposition." I don't subscribe
to this way of thinking.
Despite my refusal to self-identify, I am comfortable stating that I'm a firm supporter of populist
movements and appreciate the instrumental role they've played historically in free societies. The
reason I like this term is because it carries very little baggage. It doesn't mean you adhere to
a specific set of policies or solutions, but that you believe above all else that the concerns of
average citizens matter and must be reflected in government policy.
Populism reaches its political potential once such concerns become so acute they translate into
popular movements, which in turn influence the levers of power. Populism is not a bug, but is a key
feature in any democratic society. It functions as a sort of pressure relief valve for free societies.
Indeed, it allows for an adjustment and recalibration of the existing order at the exact point in
the cycle when it is needed most. In our current corrupt, unethical and depraved oligarchy, populism
is exactly what is needed to restore some balance to society. Irrespective of what you think of Donald
Trump or Bernie Sanders, both political movements were undoubtably populist in nature. This doesn't
mean that Trump govern as populist once he is sworn into power, but there's little doubt that the
energy which propelled him to the Presidency was part of a populist wave.
Trump understands this, and despite having surrounded himself with an endless stream of slimy
ex-Goldman Sachs bankers and other assorted billionaires, his campaign took the following position
with regard to Davos according to
Bloomberg :
Donald Trump won't send an official representative to the annual gathering of the world's economic
elite in Davos, taking place next week in the days leading up to his inauguration, although one of
the president-elect's advisers is slated to attend.
Former Goldman Sachs President Gary Cohn, a regular attendee in the past, told the group he would
skip 2017 after being named in December to head the National Economic Council, said people familiar
with the conference. Other top Trump appointees will also pass up the forum.
A senior member of Trump's transition team said the president-elect thought it would betray his
populist-fueled movement to have a presence at the high-powered annual gathering in the Swiss Alps.
The gathering of millionaires, billionaires, political leaders and celebrities represents the power
structure that fueled the populist anger that helped Trump win the election, said the person, who
asked for anonymity to discuss the matter.
While all of this sounds great, it's not entirely true. For example:
Hedge fund manager Anthony Scaramucci is planning to travel to Davos, though. The founder of SkyBridge
Capital and an early backer of Trump's campaign, Scaramucci was named on Thursday as an assistant
to the president.
Not that Scaramucci's presence should surprise anyone, he's the consummate banker apologist, anti-populist.
Recall what he
said last month :
"I think the cabal against the bankers is over."
This guy shouldn't be allowed within ten feet of any populist President, but Trump unfortunately
seems to have a thing for ex-Goldman Sachs bankers.
While we're on then subject, let's discuss Davos for a moment. You know, the idyllic Swiss town
where the world's most dastardly politicians, oligarchs and their fawning media servants will gather
in a technocratic orgy of panels and cocktail parties to discuss how best to manage the world's affairs
in the year ahead. Yes, that Davos.
DAVOS, Switzerland – The global economy is in better shape than it's been in years. Stock markets
are booming, oil prices are on the rise again and the risks of a rapid economic slowdown in China,
a major source of concern a year ago, have eased.
First report from Davos is in. Everything's fine.
And yet, as political leaders, CEOs and top bankers make their annual trek up the Swiss Alps to
the World Economic Forum in Davos, the mood is anything but celebratory.
Last year, the consensus here was that Trump had no chance of being elected. His victory, less
than half a year after Britain voted to leave the European Union, was a slap at the principles that
elites in Davos have long held dear, from globalization and free trade to multilateralism.
Moises Naim of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace was even more blunt: "There is a
consensus that something huge is going on, global and in many respects unprecedented. But we don't
know what the causes are, nor how to deal with it."
Thank you for your invaluable insight, Moises.
The titles of the discussion panels at the WEF, which runs from Jan. 17-20, evoke the unsettling
new landscape. Among them are "Squeezed and Angry: How to Fix the Middle Class Crisis" , "Politics
of Fear or Rebellion of the Forgotten?", "Tolerance at the Tipping Point?" and "The Post-EU Era".
Ah, a panel on how to fix the middle class. Sounds interesting until you find out who some of
the speakers are.
You really can't make this stuff up. Now back to Reuters .
Perhaps the central question in Davos, a four-day affair of panel discussions, lunches and cocktail
parties that delve into subjects as diverse as terrorism, artificial intelligence and wellness, is
whether leaders can agree on the root causes of public anger and begin to articulate a response.
This has to be a joke. The public has been yelling and screaming about all sorts of issues they
care about from both sides of the political spectrum for a while now. Whether people identify as
on the "right" or the "left" there's general consensus (at least in U.S. populist movements) of the
following: oligarchs must be reined in, rule of law must be restored, unnecessary military adventures
overseas must be stopped, and lobbyist written phony "free trade" deals must be scrapped and reversed.
There's no secret about how strongly the various domestic populist movements feel on those topics,
but the Davos set likes to pretends that these issues don't exist. They'd rather focus on Russia
or identify politics, that way they can control the narrative and then propose their own anti-populist,
technocratic solutions.
A WEF report on global risks released before Davos highlighted "diminishing public trust in institutions"
and noted that rebuilding faith in the political process and leaders would be a "difficult task".
It's not difficult at all, what we need are new leaders with new ideas, but the people at Davos
don't want to admit that either. After all, these are the types who unanimously and enthusiastically
supported the ultimate discredited insider for U.S. President, Hillary Clinton.
Moving along, let's take a look at a separate
Reuters
article previewing Davos, starting with the title.
Davos elite faces evaporating trust in "post-trith" era
Did you see what they did there? The evaporating trust in globalist elites has nothing to do with
"post-truth," but as usual, the media insists on making excuses for the rich and powerful. The above
title implies that elites lost the public truth as a result of a post-truth world, not because they
are a bunch of disconnected, lying, corrupt thieves. Like Hillary and the Democrats, they are never
to blame for anything that happens.
With that out of the way, let's take a look at some of the text:
Trust in governments, companies and the media plunged last year as ballots from the United States
to Britain to the Philippines rocked political establishments and scandals hit business.
The majority of people now believe the economic and political system is failing them, according
to the annual Edelman Trust Barometer, released on Monday ahead of the Jan. 17-20 World Economic
Forum (WEF).
"There's a sense that the system is broken," Richard Edelman, head of the communications marketing
firm that commissioned the research, told Reuters.
"The most shocking statistic of this whole study is that half the people who are high-income,
college-educated and well-informed also believe the system doesn't work."
Even wealthy, well educated people understand things aren't working, which begs the question.
Who does think the system is working? Well, the people attending Davos, of course. These are the
folks who cheer on a world in which eight people own as much as the bottom 50%.
As can be seen fro the above excerpts, one thing that's abundantly clear to almost everyone is
that the system is broken. This is exactly where populism comes in to perform its crucial function.
This is not an endorsement of Trump, but rather an endorsement of mass popular movements generally,
and a recognition that such movements are the only way true change is ever achieved. As Frederick
Douglass
noted in 1857:
This struggle may be a moral one, or it may be a physical one, and it may be both moral and physical,
but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.
Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of
injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted
with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of
those whom they oppress. In the light of these ideas, Negroes will be hunted at the North and held
and flogged at the South so long as they submit to those devilish outrages and make no resistance,
either moral or physical. Men may not get all they pay for in this world, but they must certainly
pay for all they get. If we ever get free from the oppressions and wrongs heaped upon us, we must
pay for their removal. We must do this by labor, by suffering, by sacrifice, and if needs be, by
our lives and the lives of others .
The above is an eternal truth when it comes to human struggle. The idea that the most wealthy
and powerful individuals on earth are going to get together in a Swiss chalet and figure out how
to help the world's most vulnerable and suffering is on its face preposterous. Again, this is why
popular movements are so important. They represent the only method we know of that historically yields
tangible results. This is also why the elitists and their media minions hate populism and demonize
it every chance they get. Which is really telling, particularly when you look at the various definitions
of the word. First, here's what comes up when you type the word into Google:
pop·u·lism
/ˈpäpyəˌlizəm/
noun
support for the concerns of ordinary people.
"it is clear that your populism identifies with the folks on the bottom of the
ladder"
•the quality of appealing to or being aimed at ordinary people.
"art museums did not gain bigger audiences through a new populism"
Or how about the following from Merriam-Webster:
Definition of populist
1 :
a member of a political party claiming to represent the common people; especially, often
capitalized
:
a member of a U.S. political party formed in 1891 primarily to represent agrarian interests
and to advocate the free coinage of silver and government control of monopolies
2:
a believer in the rights, wisdom, or virtues of the common people
-
populism
play \-ˌli-zəm\ noun
-
populistic
play \ˌpä-pyə-ˈlis-tik\ adjective
Aside from the 19th century historical reference, what's not to like about any of the above? The
mere fact that billionaire-owned media is so hostile to populism tells you everything you need to
know. Behind the idea of populism is the notion of self-government, and Davos-type elitists hate
this. They believe in a technocracy in which they make all the important decisions. Populism
is dangerous because populism is empowering. It implies that the people ultimately have the power.
I think a useful exercise for readers during this Davos circus laden week is to note whenever
the word "populism" is used within mainstream media articles. From my experience, it's almost always
portrayed in an overwhelmingly negative manner. Here's just one example from the first of the two
Reuters articles mentioned above.
The global financial crisis of 2008/9 and the migrant crisis of 2015/16 exposed the impotence
of politicians, deepening public disillusion and pushing people towards populists who offered simple
explanations and solutions.
The key phrase in the above is, " populists who offered simple explanations and solutions." This
betrays an incredible sense of arrogance and contempt for regular citizens. Note that it didn't offer
a critique of a specific populist leader and his or her polices, but rather presented a sweeping
dismissal of all popular movements as "simplistic." In other words, despite the fact that the people
mingling at Davos are the exact same people who set the world on fire, they somehow remain the only
ones capable enough to fix the world. How utterly ridiculous.
The good news is that most people now plainly see the absurdity of such a worldview, and understand
that the people at Davos represent a roadblock to progress, as opposed to any sort of solution. While
I don't endorse any particular populist movement at moment, I fully recognize the need for increased
populism as a facet of American political life, particularly at this moment in time.
Populism can be dangerous, and it's certainly messy, but it's a crucial pressure release valve
for any functioning free society. If you don't allow populist movements to do their thing in the
short-term, you'll get far worse outcomes in the long-term.
In the timeless words of JFK:
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
"... Davos elite faces evaporating trust in "post-trith" era ..."
"... "The most shocking statistic of this whole study is that half the people who are high-income, college-educated and well-informed also believe the system doesn't work." ..."
"... Even wealthy, well educated people understand things aren't working, which begs the question. Who does think the system is working? Well, the people attending Davos, of course. These are the folks who cheer on a world in which eight people own as much as the bottom 50%. ..."
"... The mere fact that billionaire-owned media is so hostile to populism tells you everything you need to know. Behind the idea of populism is the notion of self-government, and Davos-type elitists hate this. They believe in a technocracy in which they make all the important decisions. Populism is dangerous because populism is empowering. It implies that the people ultimately have the power. ..."
"... The global financial crisis of 2008/9 and the migrant crisis of 2015/16 exposed the impotence of politicians, deepening public disillusion and pushing people towards populists who offered simple explanations and solutions. ..."
"... Populism can be dangerous, and it's certainly messy, but it's a crucial pressure release valve for any functioning free society. If you don't allow populist movements to do their thing in the short-term, you'll get far worse outcomes in the long-term. ..."
"... Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable. ..."
DAVOS MAN : "A soulless man, technocratic, nationless and cultureless, severed from reality.
The modern economics that undergirded Davos capitalism is equally soulless, a managerial capitalism
that reduces economics to mathematics and separates it from human action and human creativity."
I am not a Democrat or a Republican. I do not consider myself a libertarian, progressive, socialist,
anarchist, conservative, neoconservative or neoliberal. I'm just a 38 year old guy trying to figure
it all out. Naturally, this doesn't imply that there aren't things which I hold dear. I have a strong
belief system based on key principles. It's just that I don't think it makes sense for me to self-label
and become part of a tribe. The moment you self-label, is the moment you stop thinking for yourself.
It's also the moment you stop listening. When you think you have all the answers, anyone who doesn't
think exactly as you do on all topics is either stupid or "paid opposition." I don't subscribe
to this way of thinking.
Despite my refusal to self-identify, I am comfortable stating that I'm a firm supporter of populist
movements and appreciate the instrumental role they've played historically in free societies. The
reason I like this term is because it carries very little baggage. It doesn't mean you adhere to
a specific set of policies or solutions, but that you believe above all else that the concerns of
average citizens matter and must be reflected in government policy.
Populism reaches its political potential once such concerns become so acute they translate into
popular movements, which in turn influence the levers of power. Populism is not a bug, but is a key
feature in any democratic society. It functions as a sort of pressure relief valve for free societies.
Indeed, it allows for an adjustment and recalibration of the existing order at the exact point in
the cycle when it is needed most. In our current corrupt, unethical and depraved oligarchy, populism
is exactly what is needed to restore some balance to society. Irrespective of what you think of Donald
Trump or Bernie Sanders, both political movements were undoubtably populist in nature. This doesn't
mean that Trump govern as populist once he is sworn into power, but there's little doubt that the
energy which propelled him to the Presidency was part of a populist wave.
Trump understands this, and despite having surrounded himself with an endless stream of slimy
ex-Goldman Sachs bankers and other assorted billionaires, his campaign took the following position
with regard to Davos according to
Bloomberg :
Donald Trump won't send an official representative to the annual gathering of the world's economic
elite in Davos, taking place next week in the days leading up to his inauguration, although one of
the president-elect's advisers is slated to attend.
Former Goldman Sachs President Gary Cohn, a regular attendee in the past, told the group he would
skip 2017 after being named in December to head the National Economic Council, said people familiar
with the conference. Other top Trump appointees will also pass up the forum.
A senior member of Trump's transition team said the president-elect thought it would betray his
populist-fueled movement to have a presence at the high-powered annual gathering in the Swiss Alps.
The gathering of millionaires, billionaires, political leaders and celebrities represents the power
structure that fueled the populist anger that helped Trump win the election, said the person, who
asked for anonymity to discuss the matter.
While all of this sounds great, it's not entirely true. For example:
Hedge fund manager Anthony Scaramucci is planning to travel to Davos, though. The founder of SkyBridge
Capital and an early backer of Trump's campaign, Scaramucci was named on Thursday as an assistant
to the president.
Not that Scaramucci's presence should surprise anyone, he's the consummate banker apologist, anti-populist.
Recall what he
said last month :
"I think the cabal against the bankers is over."
This guy shouldn't be allowed within ten feet of any populist President, but Trump unfortunately
seems to have a thing for ex-Goldman Sachs bankers.
While we're on then subject, let's discuss Davos for a moment. You know, the idyllic Swiss town
where the world's most dastardly politicians, oligarchs and their fawning media servants will gather
in a technocratic orgy of panels and cocktail parties to discuss how best to manage the world's affairs
in the year ahead. Yes, that Davos.
DAVOS, Switzerland – The global economy is in better shape than it's been in years. Stock markets
are booming, oil prices are on the rise again and the risks of a rapid economic slowdown in China,
a major source of concern a year ago, have eased.
First report from Davos is in. Everything's fine.
And yet, as political leaders, CEOs and top bankers make their annual trek up the Swiss Alps to
the World Economic Forum in Davos, the mood is anything but celebratory.
Last year, the consensus here was that Trump had no chance of being elected. His victory, less
than half a year after Britain voted to leave the European Union, was a slap at the principles that
elites in Davos have long held dear, from globalization and free trade to multilateralism.
Moises Naim of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace was even more blunt: "There is a
consensus that something huge is going on, global and in many respects unprecedented. But we don't
know what the causes are, nor how to deal with it."
Thank you for your invaluable insight, Moises.
The titles of the discussion panels at the WEF, which runs from Jan. 17-20, evoke the unsettling
new landscape. Among them are "Squeezed and Angry: How to Fix the Middle Class Crisis" , "Politics
of Fear or Rebellion of the Forgotten?", "Tolerance at the Tipping Point?" and "The Post-EU Era".
Ah, a panel on how to fix the middle class. Sounds interesting until you find out who some of
the speakers are.
You really can't make this stuff up. Now back to Reuters .
Perhaps the central question in Davos, a four-day affair of panel discussions, lunches and cocktail
parties that delve into subjects as diverse as terrorism, artificial intelligence and wellness, is
whether leaders can agree on the root causes of public anger and begin to articulate a response.
This has to be a joke. The public has been yelling and screaming about all sorts of issues they
care about from both sides of the political spectrum for a while now. Whether people identify as
on the "right" or the "left" there's general consensus (at least in U.S. populist movements) of the
following: oligarchs must be reined in, rule of law must be restored, unnecessary military adventures
overseas must be stopped, and lobbyist written phony "free trade" deals must be scrapped and reversed.
There's no secret about how strongly the various domestic populist movements feel on those topics,
but the Davos set likes to pretends that these issues don't exist. They'd rather focus on Russia
or identify politics, that way they can control the narrative and then propose their own anti-populist,
technocratic solutions.
A WEF report on global risks released before Davos highlighted "diminishing public trust in institutions"
and noted that rebuilding faith in the political process and leaders would be a "difficult task".
It's not difficult at all, what we need are new leaders with new ideas, but the people at Davos
don't want to admit that either. After all, these are the types who unanimously and enthusiastically
supported the ultimate discredited insider for U.S. President, Hillary Clinton.
Moving along, let's take a look at a separate
Reuters
article previewing Davos, starting with the title.
Davos elite faces evaporating trust in "post-trith" era
Did you see what they did there? The evaporating trust in globalist elites has nothing to do with
"post-truth," but as usual, the media insists on making excuses for the rich and powerful. The above
title implies that elites lost the public truth as a result of a post-truth world, not because they
are a bunch of disconnected, lying, corrupt thieves. Like Hillary and the Democrats, they are never
to blame for anything that happens.
With that out of the way, let's take a look at some of the text:
Trust in governments, companies and the media plunged last year as ballots from the United States
to Britain to the Philippines rocked political establishments and scandals hit business.
The majority of people now believe the economic and political system is failing them, according
to the annual Edelman Trust Barometer, released on Monday ahead of the Jan. 17-20 World Economic
Forum (WEF).
"There's a sense that the system is broken," Richard Edelman, head of the communications marketing
firm that commissioned the research, told Reuters.
"The most shocking statistic of this whole study is that half the people who are high-income,
college-educated and well-informed also believe the system doesn't work."
Even wealthy, well educated people understand things aren't working, which begs the question.
Who does think the system is working? Well, the people attending Davos, of course. These are the
folks who cheer on a world in which eight people own as much as the bottom 50%.
As can be seen fro the above excerpts, one thing that's abundantly clear to almost everyone is
that the system is broken. This is exactly where populism comes in to perform its crucial function.
This is not an endorsement of Trump, but rather an endorsement of mass popular movements generally,
and a recognition that such movements are the only way true change is ever achieved. As Frederick
Douglass
noted in 1857:
This struggle may be a moral one, or it may be a physical one, and it may be both moral and physical,
but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.
Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of
injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted
with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of
those whom they oppress. In the light of these ideas, Negroes will be hunted at the North and held
and flogged at the South so long as they submit to those devilish outrages and make no resistance,
either moral or physical. Men may not get all they pay for in this world, but they must certainly
pay for all they get. If we ever get free from the oppressions and wrongs heaped upon us, we must
pay for their removal. We must do this by labor, by suffering, by sacrifice, and if needs be, by
our lives and the lives of others .
The above is an eternal truth when it comes to human struggle. The idea that the most wealthy
and powerful individuals on earth are going to get together in a Swiss chalet and figure out how
to help the world's most vulnerable and suffering is on its face preposterous. Again, this is why
popular movements are so important. They represent the only method we know of that historically yields
tangible results. This is also why the elitists and their media minions hate populism and demonize
it every chance they get. Which is really telling, particularly when you look at the various definitions
of the word. First, here's what comes up when you type the word into Google:
pop·u·lism
/ˈpäpyəˌlizəm/
noun
support for the concerns of ordinary people.
"it is clear that your populism identifies with the folks on the bottom of the
ladder"
•the quality of appealing to or being aimed at ordinary people.
"art museums did not gain bigger audiences through a new populism"
Or how about the following from Merriam-Webster:
Definition of populist
1 :
a member of a political party claiming to represent the common people; especially, often
capitalized
:
a member of a U.S. political party formed in 1891 primarily to represent agrarian interests
and to advocate the free coinage of silver and government control of monopolies
2:
a believer in the rights, wisdom, or virtues of the common people
-
populism
play \-ˌli-zəm\ noun
-
populistic
play \ˌpä-pyə-ˈlis-tik\ adjective
Aside from the 19th century historical reference, what's not to like about any of the above? The
mere fact that billionaire-owned media is so hostile to populism tells you everything you need to
know. Behind the idea of populism is the notion of self-government, and Davos-type elitists hate
this. They believe in a technocracy in which they make all the important decisions. Populism
is dangerous because populism is empowering. It implies that the people ultimately have the power.
I think a useful exercise for readers during this Davos circus laden week is to note whenever
the word "populism" is used within mainstream media articles. From my experience, it's almost always
portrayed in an overwhelmingly negative manner. Here's just one example from the first of the two
Reuters articles mentioned above.
The global financial crisis of 2008/9 and the migrant crisis of 2015/16 exposed the impotence
of politicians, deepening public disillusion and pushing people towards populists who offered simple
explanations and solutions.
The key phrase in the above is, " populists who offered simple explanations and solutions." This
betrays an incredible sense of arrogance and contempt for regular citizens. Note that it didn't offer
a critique of a specific populist leader and his or her polices, but rather presented a sweeping
dismissal of all popular movements as "simplistic." In other words, despite the fact that the people
mingling at Davos are the exact same people who set the world on fire, they somehow remain the only
ones capable enough to fix the world. How utterly ridiculous.
The good news is that most people now plainly see the absurdity of such a worldview, and understand
that the people at Davos represent a roadblock to progress, as opposed to any sort of solution. While
I don't endorse any particular populist movement at moment, I fully recognize the need for increased
populism as a facet of American political life, particularly at this moment in time.
Populism can be dangerous, and it's certainly messy, but it's a crucial pressure release valve
for any functioning free society. If you don't allow populist movements to do their thing in the
short-term, you'll get far worse outcomes in the long-term.
In the timeless words of JFK:
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
" 1. Trump won the Electoral College vote – a legacy of slavery, and used to embed inequality
in voting rights since. He lost the popular vote, by well over 2 and a half million votes. Trump
has no "mandate", and his victory is illegitimate. 2. More fundamental: the illegitimacy of the entire fascist regime Trump is moving to
install. Trump promises to inflict repression and suffering on people in this country, to deport
millions, to increase violence up to the use of nuclear weapons on people across the globe, and
to inflict catastrophes upon the planet itself. 3. He is assembling a "Legion of Doom" cabinet of white supremacists, woman haters, science
deniers, religious fundamentalist zealots, and war mongers. NO! His regime must not be allowed
to consolidate. We REFUSE to accept a Fascist America !"
Since the organization regularly refers to "fascism", let's look at the Dictionary.com definition
of fascism : 1. (sometimes initial capital letter) a governmental system led by a dictator having
complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce,
etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism. 2. (sometimes initial capital letter) the philosophy, principles, or methods of
fascism. 3. (initial capital letter) a political movement that employs the principles and
methods of fascism, especially the one established by Mussolini in Italy 1922–43."
1.) authoritarianism or the rule of a strong central government.
2.) nationalism or the pride in one's country.
3.) xenophobia - the fear of unknown peoples or entities.
As we all know, the 20th century saw the rise of fascism in both Germany under Adolf Hitler and
the National Socialist movement and Italy under Benito Mussolini prior to and during the Second
World War, both in circumstance where their homelands had experienced a long period of economic
hopelessness. It is actually Benito Mussolini who coined the term "fascism" after the Latin
word "fasces" which was the symbol of bound sticks used as a symbol of power in ancient Rome.
Here's
what Mussolini had to say about fascism:
" Fascism, the more it considers and observes the future and the development of humanity quite
apart from political considerations of the moment, believes neither in the possibility nor the
utility of perpetual peace. It thus repudiates the doctrine of Pacifism -- born of a renunciation
of the struggle and an act of cowardice in the face of sacrifice. War alone brings up to its highest
tension all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility upon the peoples who have courage to meet
it. All other trials are substitutes, which never really put men into the position where they
have to make the great decision -- the alternative of life or death....
... Fascism [is] the complete opposite of Marxian Socialism , the materialist conception
of history of human civilization can be explained simply through the conflict of interests among
the various social groups and by the change and development in the means and instruments of production....
Fascism, now and always, believes in holiness and in heroism; that is to say, in actions influenced
by no economic motive, direct or indirect....And above all Fascism denies that class-war can be
the preponderant force in the transformation of society....
After Socialism, Fascism combats the whole complex system of democratic ideology, and repudiates
it, whether in its theoretical premises or in its practical application.
Fascism denies
that the majority, by the simple fact that it is a majority, can direct human society; it denies
that numbers alone can govern by means of a periodical consultation, and it affirms the immutable,
beneficial, and fruitful inequality of mankind, which can never be permanently leveled through
the mere operation of a mechanical process such as universal suffrage " (i.e. the vote)....
(my bold and comment in brackets)
By using the term "fascism" in association with Donald Trump and his chosen insiders, the group
behind Refuse Fascism has used our innate fears of another Adolf Hitler to raise opposition to
the Trump Administration.
The media has played right into this with banners like these:
Slate
which found Donald Trump not completely guilty of fascism:
The Washington Post
which actually graded Donald Trump as a 26 out of a possible 44
Benitos (i.e. he doesn't completely fit the profile):
Vox
which actually found Donald Trump "not guilty" of fascism:
Given that the term "fascist" is one of the strongest political epithets that one can use, the very
mention of the word in conjunction with the Trump name is a rather convenient way of getting readers
to associate the two, particularly given that most readers don't read much past the first few paragraphs
of any news item.
The one key point missing in the Trump as a fascist claim is that fascism is deeply suspicious
of capitalism because it divided nations and destroyed national traditions. It advocates strong
state intervention in the economy to maintain control of the "fatherland". One definitely cannot
term Donald Trump as an anti-capitalist.
The new year rolled in with several Sunday morning talk shows that discuss the Washington beltway
and current events piling on America's new president-elect. The panel of supposed experts who
impart their deep knowledge in an attempt to enlighten us more ignorant folks made it clear America
may not survive as a result of Trump being elected.
It is difficult not to notice the stark contrast between how Trump is being treated by the press
and how they heap praise upon Obama as he takes a "victory tour" lauding his accomplishments as
president. More on the ramifications of this bashing of Trump in the article below.
DHS security honchos want to justify their existence. There is not greater danger to national
security then careerists in position of security professionals. Lying and exaggerating the
treats to get this dollars is is what many security professionals do for living. They are
essentially charlatans.
Notable quotes:
"... In the middle of a major domestic crisis over the U.S. charge that Russia had interfered with the US election, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) triggered a brief national media hysteria by creating and spreading a bogus story of Russian hacking into US power infrastructure. ..."
"... Even more shocking, however, DHS had previously circulated a similar bogus story of Russian hacking of a Springfield, Illinois water pump in November 2011. ..."
"... Beginning in late March 2016, DHS and FBI conducted a series of 12 unclassified briefings for electric power infrastructure companies in eight cities titled, "Ukraine Cyber Attack: implications for US stakeholders." The DHS declared publicly, "These events represent one of the first known physical impacts to critical infrastructure which resulted from cyber-attack." ..."
"... That statement conveniently avoided mentioning that the first cases of such destruction of national infrastructure from cyber-attacks were not against the United States, but were inflicted on Iran by the Obama administration and Israel in 2009 and 2012. ..."
"... Beginning in October 2016, the DHS emerged as one of the two most important players – along with the CIA-in the political drama over the alleged Russian effort to tilt the 2016 election toward Donald Trump. Then on Dec. 29, DHS and FBI distributed a "Joint Analysis Report" to US power utilities across the country with what it claimed were "indicators" of a Russian intelligence effort to penetrate and compromise US computer networks, including networks related to the presidential election, that it called "GRIZZLY STEPPE." ..."
"... according to Robert M. Lee, the founder and CEO of the cyber-security company Dragos, who had developed one of the earliest US government programs for defense against cyber-attacks on US infrastructure systems, the report was certain to mislead the recipients. ..."
"... "Anyone who uses it would think they were being impacted by Russian operations," said Lee. "We ran through the indicators in the report and found that a high percentage were false positives." ..."
"... The Intercept discovered, in fact, that 42 percent of the 876 IP addresses listed in the report as having been used by Russian hackers were exit nodes for the Tor Project, a system that allows bloggers, journalists and others – including some military entities – to keep their Internet communications private. ..."
"... Instead, a DHS official called The Washington Post and passed on word that one of the indicators of Russian hacking of the DNC had been found on the Burlington utility's computer network. The Post failed to follow the most basic rule of journalism, relying on its DHS source instead of checking with the Burlington Electric Department first. The result was the Post's sensational Dec. 30 story under the headline "Russian hackers penetrated US electricity grid through a utility in Vermont, US officials say." ..."
"... DHS official evidently had allowed the Post to infer that the Russians hack had penetrated the grid without actually saying so. The Post story said the Russians "had not actively used the code to disrupt operations of the utility, according to officials who spoke on condition of anonymity in order to discuss a security matter," but then added, and that "the penetration of the nation's electrical grid is significant because it represents a potentially serious vulnerability." ..."
"... The electric company quickly issued a firm denial that the computer in question was connected to the power grid. The Post was forced to retract, in effect, its claim that the electricity grid had been hacked by the Russians. But it stuck by its story that the utility had been the victim of a Russian hack for another three days before admitting that no such evidence of a hack existed. ..."
"... Only days later did the DHS reveal those crucial facts to the Post. And the DHS was still defending its joint report to the Post, according to Lee, who got part of the story from Post sources. The DHS official was arguing that it had "led to a discovery," he said. "The second is, 'See, this is encouraging people to run indicators.'" ..."
"... The false Burlington Electric hack scare is reminiscent of an earlier story of Russian hacking of a utility for which the DHS was responsible as well. In November 2011, it reported an "intrusion" into a Springfield, Illinois water district computer that similarly turned out to be a fabrication. ..."
"... The contractor whose name was on the log next to the IP address later told Wired magazine that one phone call to him would have laid the matter to rest. But the DHS, which was the lead in putting the report out, had not bothered to make even that one obvious phone call before opining that it must have been a Russian hack. ..."
The mainstream hysteria over Russia has led to dubious or downright false stories that have
deepened the New Cold War
In the middle of a major domestic crisis over the U.S. charge that Russia had interfered with
the US election, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) triggered a brief national media hysteria
by creating and spreading a bogus story of Russian hacking into US power infrastructure.
DHS had initiated the now-discredited tale of a hacked computer at the Burlington, Vermont Electricity
Department by sending the utility's managers misleading and alarming information, then leaked a story
they certainly knew to be false and continued to put out a misleading line to the media.
Even more shocking, however, DHS had previously circulated a similar bogus story of Russian hacking
of a Springfield, Illinois water pump in November 2011.
The story of how DHS twice circulated false stories of Russian efforts to sabotage US "critical
infrastructure" is a cautionary tale of how senior leaders in a bureaucracy-on-the-make take advantage
of every major political development to advance its own interests, with scant regard for the truth.
The DHS had carried out a major public campaign to focus on an alleged Russian threat to US power
infrastructure in early 2016. The campaign took advantage of a US accusation of a Russian cyber-attack
against the Ukrainian power infrastructure in December 2015 to promote one of the agency's major
functions - guarding against cyber-attacks on America's infrastructure.
Beginning in late March 2016, DHS and FBI conducted a series of 12 unclassified briefings for
electric power infrastructure companies in eight cities titled, "Ukraine Cyber Attack: implications
for US stakeholders." The DHS declared publicly, "These events represent one of the first known physical
impacts to critical infrastructure which resulted from cyber-attack."
That statement conveniently avoided mentioning that the first cases of such destruction of national
infrastructure from cyber-attacks were not against the United States, but were inflicted on Iran
by the Obama administration and Israel in 2009 and 2012.
Beginning in October 2016, the DHS emerged as one of the two most important players – along with
the CIA-in the political drama over the alleged Russian effort to tilt the 2016 election toward Donald
Trump. Then on Dec. 29, DHS and FBI distributed a "Joint Analysis Report" to US power utilities across
the country with what it claimed were "indicators" of a Russian intelligence effort to penetrate
and compromise US computer networks, including networks related to the presidential election, that
it called "GRIZZLY STEPPE."
The report clearly conveyed to the utilities that the "tools and infrastructure" it said had been
used by Russian intelligence agencies to affect the election were a direct threat to them as well.
However, according to Robert M. Lee, the founder and CEO of the cyber-security company Dragos, who
had developed one of the earliest US government programs for defense against cyber-attacks on US
infrastructure systems, the report was certain to mislead the recipients.
"Anyone who uses it would think they were being impacted by Russian operations," said Lee. "We
ran through the indicators in the report and found that a high percentage were false positives."
Lee and his staff found only two of a long list of malware files that could be linked to Russian
hackers without more specific data about timing. Similarly a large proportion of IP addresses listed
could be linked to "GRIZZLY STEPPE" only for certain specific dates, which were not provided.
The Intercept discovered, in fact, that 42 percent of the 876 IP addresses listed in the report
as having been used by Russian hackers were exit nodes for the Tor Project, a system that allows
bloggers, journalists and others – including some military entities – to keep their Internet communications
private.
Lee said the DHS staff that worked on the technical information in the report is highly competent,
but the document was rendered useless when officials classified and deleted some key parts of the
report and added other material that shouldn't have been in it. He believes the DHS issued the report
"for a political purpose," which was to "show that the DHS is protecting you."
Planting the Story, Keeping it Alive
Upon receiving the DHS-FBI report the Burlington Electric Company network security team immediately
ran searches of its computer logs using the lists of IP addresses it had been provided. When one
of IP addresses cited in the report as an indicator of Russian hacking was found on the logs, the
utility immediately called DHS to inform it as it had been instructed to do by DHS.
In fact, the IP address on the Burlington Electric Company's computer was simply the Yahoo e-mail
server, according to Lee, so it could not have been a legitimate indicator of an attempted cyber-intrusion.
That should have been the end of the story. But the utility did not track down the IP address before
reporting it to DHS. It did, however, expect DHS to treat the matter confidentially until it had
thoroughly investigated and resolved the issue.
"DHS wasn't supposed to release the details," said Lee. "Everybody was supposed to keep their
mouth shut."
Instead, a DHS official called The Washington Post and passed on word that one of the indicators
of Russian hacking of the DNC had been found on the Burlington utility's computer network. The Post
failed to follow the most basic rule of journalism, relying on its DHS source instead of checking
with the Burlington Electric Department first. The result was the Post's sensational Dec. 30 story
under the headline "Russian hackers penetrated US electricity grid through a utility in Vermont,
US officials say."
DHS official evidently had allowed the Post to infer that the Russians hack had penetrated the
grid without actually saying so. The Post story said the Russians "had not actively used the code
to disrupt operations of the utility, according to officials who spoke on condition of anonymity
in order to discuss a security matter," but then added, and that "the penetration of the nation's
electrical grid is significant because it represents a potentially serious vulnerability."
The electric company quickly issued a firm denial that the computer in question was connected
to the power grid. The Post was forced to retract, in effect, its claim that the electricity grid
had been hacked by the Russians. But it stuck by its story that the utility had been the victim of
a Russian hack for another three days before admitting that no such evidence of a hack existed.
The day after the story was published, the DHS leadership continued to imply, without saying so
explicitly, that the Burlington utility had been hacked by Russians. Assistant Secretary for Pubic
Affairs J. Todd Breasseale gave CNN a statement that the "indicators" from the malicious software
found on the computer at Burlington Electric were a "match" for those on the DNC computers.
As soon as DHS checked the IP address, however, it knew that it was a Yahoo cloud server and therefore
not an indicator that the same team that allegedly hacked the DNC had gotten into the Burlington
utility's laptop. DHS also learned from the utility that the laptop in question had been infected
by malware called "neutrino," which had never been used in "GRIZZLY STEPPE."
Only days later did the DHS reveal those crucial facts to the Post. And the DHS was still defending
its joint report to the Post, according to Lee, who got part of the story from Post sources. The
DHS official was arguing that it had "led to a discovery," he said. "The second is, 'See, this is
encouraging people to run indicators.'"
Original DHS False Hacking Story
The false Burlington Electric hack scare is reminiscent of an earlier story of Russian hacking
of a utility for which the DHS was responsible as well. In November 2011, it reported an "intrusion"
into a Springfield, Illinois water district computer that similarly turned out to be a fabrication.
Like the Burlington fiasco, the false report was preceded by a DHS claim that US infrastructure
systems were already under attack. In October 2011, acting DHS deputy undersecretary Greg Schaffer
was quoted by The Washington Post as warning that "our adversaries" are "knocking on the doors of
these systems." And Schaffer added, "In some cases, there have been intrusions." He did not specify
when, where or by whom, and no such prior intrusions have ever been documented.
On Nov. 8, 2011, a water pump belonging to the Curran-Gardner township water district near Springfield,
Illinois, burned out after sputtering several times in previous months. The repair team brought in
to fix it found a Russian IP address on its log from five months earlier. That IP address was actually
from a cell phone call from the contractor who had set up the control system for the pump and who
was vacationing in Russia with his family, so his name was in the log by the address.
Without investigating the IP address itself, the utility reported the IP address and the breakdown
of the water pump to the Environmental Protection Agency, which in turn passed it on to the Illinois
Statewide Terrorism and Intelligence Center, also called a fusion center composed of Illinois State
Police and representatives from the FBI, DHS and other government agencies.
On Nov. 10 – just two days after the initial report to EPA – the fusion center produced a report
titled "Public Water District Cyber Intrusion" suggesting a Russian hacker had stolen the identity
of someone authorized to use the computer and had hacked into the control system causing the water
pump to fail.
The contractor whose name was on the log next to the IP address later told Wired magazine
that one phone call to him would have laid the matter to rest. But the DHS, which was the lead in
putting the report out, had not bothered to make even that one obvious phone call before opining
that it must have been a Russian hack.
The fusion center "intelligence report," circulated by DHS Office of Intelligence and Research,
was picked up by a cyber-security blogger, who called The Washington Post and read the item to a
reporter. Thus the Post published the first sensational story of a Russian hack into a US infrastructure
on Nov. 18, 2011.
After the real story came out, DHS disclaimed responsibility for the report, saying that it was
the fusion center's responsibility. But a Senate subcommittee investigation
revealed in
a report a year later that even after the initial report had been discredited, DHS had not issued
any retraction or correction to the report, nor had it notified the recipients about the truth.
DHS officials responsible for the false report told Senate investigators such reports weren't
intended to be "finished intelligence," implying that the bar for accuracy of the information didn't
have to be very high. They even claimed that report was a "success" because it had done what "what
it's supposed to do – generate interest."
Both the Burlington and Curran-Gardner episodes underline a central reality of the political game
of national security in the New Cold War era: major bureaucratic players like DHS have a huge political
stake in public perceptions of a Russian threat, and whenever the opportunity arises to do so, they
will exploit it.
Gareth Porter, an investigative historian and journalist specializing in US national security
policy, received the UK-based Gellhorn Prize for journalism for 2011 for articles on the U.S. war
in Afghanistan. His new book is
Manufactured Crisis: the Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare . He can be contacted at
[email protected].
" 1. Trump won the Electoral College vote – a legacy of slavery, and used to embed inequality
in voting rights since. He lost the popular vote, by well over 2 and a half million votes. Trump
has no "mandate", and his victory is illegitimate. 2. More fundamental: the illegitimacy of the entire fascist regime Trump is moving to
install. Trump promises to inflict repression and suffering on people in this country, to deport
millions, to increase violence up to the use of nuclear weapons on people across the globe, and
to inflict catastrophes upon the planet itself. 3. He is assembling a "Legion of Doom" cabinet of white supremacists, woman haters, science
deniers, religious fundamentalist zealots, and war mongers. NO! His regime must not be allowed
to consolidate. We REFUSE to accept a Fascist America !"
Since the organization regularly refers to "fascism", let's look at the Dictionary.com definition
of fascism : 1. (sometimes initial capital letter) a governmental system led by a dictator having
complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce,
etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism. 2. (sometimes initial capital letter) the philosophy, principles, or methods of
fascism. 3. (initial capital letter) a political movement that employs the principles and
methods of fascism, especially the one established by Mussolini in Italy 1922–43."
1.) authoritarianism or the rule of a strong central government.
2.) nationalism or the pride in one's country.
3.) xenophobia - the fear of unknown peoples or entities.
As we all know, the 20th century saw the rise of fascism in both Germany under Adolf Hitler and
the National Socialist movement and Italy under Benito Mussolini prior to and during the Second
World War, both in circumstance where their homelands had experienced a long period of economic
hopelessness. It is actually Benito Mussolini who coined the term "fascism" after the Latin
word "fasces" which was the symbol of bound sticks used as a symbol of power in ancient Rome.
Here's
what Mussolini had to say about fascism:
" Fascism, the more it considers and observes the future and the development of humanity quite
apart from political considerations of the moment, believes neither in the possibility nor the
utility of perpetual peace. It thus repudiates the doctrine of Pacifism -- born of a renunciation
of the struggle and an act of cowardice in the face of sacrifice. War alone brings up to its highest
tension all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility upon the peoples who have courage to meet
it. All other trials are substitutes, which never really put men into the position where they
have to make the great decision -- the alternative of life or death....
... Fascism [is] the complete opposite of Marxian Socialism , the materialist conception
of history of human civilization can be explained simply through the conflict of interests among
the various social groups and by the change and development in the means and instruments of production....
Fascism, now and always, believes in holiness and in heroism; that is to say, in actions influenced
by no economic motive, direct or indirect....And above all Fascism denies that class-war can be
the preponderant force in the transformation of society....
After Socialism, Fascism combats the whole complex system of democratic ideology, and repudiates
it, whether in its theoretical premises or in its practical application.
Fascism denies
that the majority, by the simple fact that it is a majority, can direct human society; it denies
that numbers alone can govern by means of a periodical consultation, and it affirms the immutable,
beneficial, and fruitful inequality of mankind, which can never be permanently leveled through
the mere operation of a mechanical process such as universal suffrage " (i.e. the vote)....
(my bold and comment in brackets)
By using the term "fascism" in association with Donald Trump and his chosen insiders, the group
behind Refuse Fascism has used our innate fears of another Adolf Hitler to raise opposition to
the Trump Administration.
The media has played right into this with banners like these:
Slate
which found Donald Trump not completely guilty of fascism:
The Washington Post
which actually graded Donald Trump as a 26 out of a possible 44
Benitos (i.e. he doesn't completely fit the profile):
Vox
which actually found Donald Trump "not guilty" of fascism:
Given that the term "fascist" is one of the strongest political epithets that one can use, the very
mention of the word in conjunction with the Trump name is a rather convenient way of getting readers
to associate the two, particularly given that most readers don't read much past the first few paragraphs
of any news item.
The one key point missing in the Trump as a fascist claim is that fascism is deeply suspicious
of capitalism because it divided nations and destroyed national traditions. It advocates strong
state intervention in the economy to maintain control of the "fatherland". One definitely cannot
term Donald Trump as an anti-capitalist.
The new year rolled in with several Sunday morning talk shows that discuss the Washington beltway
and current events piling on America's new president-elect. The panel of supposed experts who
impart their deep knowledge in an attempt to enlighten us more ignorant folks made it clear America
may not survive as a result of Trump being elected.
It is difficult not to notice the stark contrast between how Trump is being treated by the press
and how they heap praise upon Obama as he takes a "victory tour" lauding his accomplishments as
president. More on the ramifications of this bashing of Trump in the article below.
The Pacifica Radio/UC Berkeley
Social Activism Sound Recording Project
Martin Luther King,
"Why I Am Opposed to the War in Vietnam"
April 30, 1967, Riverside Church, New York
The sermon which I am preaching this morning in a sense is not the usual kind of sermon, but it
is a sermon and an important subject, nevertheless, because the issue that I will be discussing today
is one of the most controversial issues confronting our nation. I'm using as a subject from which
to preach, "Why I Am Opposed to the War in Vietnam."
Now, let me make it clear in the beginning, that I see this war as an unjust, evil, and futile war.
I preach to you today on the war in Vietnam because my conscience leaves me with no other choice.
The time has come for America to hear the truth about this tragic war. In international conflicts,
the truth is hard to come by because most nations are deceived about themselves. Rationalizations
and the incessant search for scapegoats are the psychological cataracts that blind us to our sins.
But the day has passed for superficial patriotism. He who lives with untruth lives in spiritual slavery.
Freedom is still the bonus we receive for knowing the truth. "Ye shall know the truth," says Jesus,
"and the truth shall set you free." Now, I've chosen to preach about the war in Vietnam because I
agree with Dante, that the hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in a period of moral
crisis maintain their neutrality. There comes a time when silence becomes betrayal.
The truth of these words is beyond doubt, but the mission to which they call us is a most difficult
one. Even when pressed by the demands of inner truth, men do not easily assume the task of opposing
their government's policy, especially in time of war. Nor does the human spirit move without great
difficulty against all the apathy of conformist thought within one's own bosom and in the surrounding
world. Moreover, when the issues at hand seem as perplexing, as they often do in the case of this
dreadful conflict, we're always on the verge of being mesmerized by uncertainty. But we must move
on. Some of us who have already begun to break the silence of the night have found that the calling
to speak is often a vocation of agony. But we must speak. We must speak with all the humility that
is appropriate to our limited vision, but we must speak. And we must rejoice as well, for in all
our history there has never been such a monumental dissent during a war, by the American people.
Polls reveal that almost fifteen million Americans explicitly oppose the war in Vietnam. Additional
millions cannot bring themselves around to support it. And even those millions who do support the
war [are] half-hearted, confused, and doubt-ridden. This reveals that millions have chosen to move
beyond the prophesying of smooth patriotism, to the high grounds of firm dissent, based upon the
mandates of conscience and the reading of history. Now, of course, one of the difficulties in speaking
out today grows the fact that there are those who are seeking to equate dissent with disloyalty.
It's a dark day in our nation when high-level authorities will seek to use every method to silence
dissent. But something is happening, and people are not going to be silenced. The truth must be told,
and I say that those who are seeking to make it appear that anyone who opposes the war in Vietnam
is a fool or a traitor or an enemy of our soldiers is a person that has taken a stand against the
best in our tradition.
Yes, we must stand, and we must speak. [tape skip]...have moved to break the betrayal of my own
silences and to speak from the burnings of my own heart, as I have called for radical departures
from the destruction of Vietnam. Many persons have questioned me about the wisdom of my path. At
the heart of their concerns, this query has often loomed large and loud: "Why are you speaking about
the war, Dr. King? Why are you joining the voices of dissent?" Peace and civil rights don't mix,
they say. And so this morning, I speak to you on this issue, because I am determined to take the
Gospel seriously. And I come this morning to my pulpit to make a passionate plea to my beloved nation.
This sermon is not addressed to Hanoi, or to the National Liberation Front. It is not addressed
to China or to Russia. Nor is it an attempt to overlook the ambiguity of the total situation and
the need for a collective solution to the tragedy of Vietnam. Nor is it an attempt to make North
Vietnam or the National Liberation Front paragons of virtue, nor to overlook the role they must play
in a successful resolution of the problem. This morning, however, I wish not to speak with Hanoi
and the National Liberation Front, but rather to my fellow Americans, who bear the greatest responsibility,
and entered a conflict that has exacted a heavy price on both continents.
Now, since I am a preacher by calling, I suppose it is not surprising that I have seven major
reasons for bringing Vietnam into the field of my moral vision. There is...a very obvious and almost
facile connection between the war in Vietnam and the struggle I and others have been waging in America.
A few years ago there was a shining moment in that struggle. It seemed that there was a real promise
of hope for the poor, both black and white, through the Poverty Program. There were experiments,
hopes, and new beginnings. Then came the build-up in Vietnam. And I watched the program broken as
if it was some idle political plaything of a society gone mad on war. And I knew that America would
never invest the necessary funds or energies in rehabilitation of its poor so long as adventures
like Vietnam continued to draw men and skills and money, like some demonic, destructive suction tube.
And you may not know it, my friends, but it is estimated that we spend $500,000 to kill each enemy
soldier, while we spend only fifty-three dollars for each person classified as poor, and much of
that fifty-three dollars goes for salaries to people that are not poor. So I was increasingly compelled
to see the war as an enemy of the poor, and attack it as such.
Perhaps the more tragic recognition of reality took place when it became clear to me that the
war was doing far more than devastating the hope of the poor at home. It was sending their sons,
and their brothers, and their husbands to fight and die in extraordinarily high proportion relative
to the rest of the population. We were taking the black young men who had been crippled by society
and sending them eight thousand miles away to guarantee liberties in Southeast Asia which they had
not found in Southwest Georgia and East Harlem. So we have been repeatedly faced with a cruel irony
of watching Negro and white boys on TV screens as they kill and die together for a nation that has
been unable to seat them together in the same school room. So we watch them in brutal solidarity,
burning the huts of a poor village. But we realize that they would hardly live on the same block
in Chicago or Atlanta. Now, I could not be silent in the face of such cruel manipulation of the poor.
My third reason moves to an even deeper level of awareness, for it grows out of my experience
in the ghettos of the North over the last three years--especially the last three summers. As I have
walked among the desperate, rejected, and angry young men, I have told them that Molotov cocktails
and rifles would not solve their problems. I have tried to offer them my deepest compassion while
maintaining my conviction that social change comes most meaningfully through non-violent action;
for they ask and write me, "So what about Vietnam?" They ask if our nation wasn't using massive doses
of violence to solve its problems to bring about the changes it wanted. Their questions hit home,
and I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos
without first having spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today: my own
government. For the sake of those boys, for the sake of this government, for the sake of the hundreds
of thousands trembling under our violence I cannot be silent. Been a lot of applauding over the last
few years. They applauded our total movement; they've applauded me. America and most of its newspapers
applauded me in Montgomery. And I stood before thousands of Negroes getting ready to riot when my
home was bombed and said, we can't do it this way. They applauded us in the sit-in movement--we non-violently
decided to sit in at lunch counters. The applauded us on the Freedom Rides when we accepted blows
without retaliation. They praised us in Albany and Birmingham and Selma, Alabama. Oh, the press was
so noble in its applause, and so noble in its praise when I was saying, Be non-violent toward Bull
Connor;when I was saying, Be non-violent toward [Selma, Alabama segregationist sheriff] Jim Clark.
There's something strangely inconsistent about a nation and a press that will praise you when you
say, Be non-violent toward Jim Clark, but will curse and damn you when you say, "Be non-violent toward
little brown Vietnamese children. There's something wrong with that press!
As if the weight of such a commitment to the life and health of America were not enough, another
burden of responsibility was placed upon me in 1964. And I cannot forget that the Nobel Peace Prize
was not just something taking place, but it was a commission--a commission to work harder than I
had ever worked before for the brotherhood of Man. This is a calling that takes me beyond national
allegiances. But even if it were not present, I would yet have to live with the meaning of my commitment
to the ministry of Jesus Christ. To me, the relationship of this ministry to the making of peace
is so obvious that I sometimes marvel at those who ask me why I am speaking against the war. Could
it be that they do not know that the Good News was meant for all men, for communists and capitalists,
for their children and ours, for black and white, for revolutionary and conservative. Have they forgotten
that my ministry is in obedience to the One who loved His enemies so fully that he died for them?
What, then, can I say to the Vietcong, or to Castro, or to Mao, as a faithful minister to Jesus Christ?
Can I threaten them with death, or must I not share with them my life? Finally, I must be true to
my conviction that I share with all men the calling to be the son of the Living God. Beyond the calling
of race or nation or creed is this vocation of sonship and brotherhood. And because I believe that
the Father is deeply concerned, especially for His suffering and helpless and outcast children, I
come today to speak for them. And as I ponder the madness of Vietnam and search within myself for
ways to understand and respond in compassion, my mind goes constantly to the people of that peninsula.
I speak not now of the soldiers of each side, not of the military government of Saigon, but simply
of the people who have been under the curse of war for almost three continuous decades now. I think
of them, too, because it is clear to me that there will be no meaningful solution until some attempt
is made to know these people and hear their broken cries.
Now, let me tell you the truth about it. They must see Americans as strange liberators. Do you
realize that the Vietnamese people proclaimed their own independence in 1945 after a combined French
and Japanese occupation. And incidentally, this was before the Communist revolution in China. They
were led by Ho Chi Minh. And this is a little-known fact, and these people declared themselves independent
in 1945. They quoted our Declaration of Independence in their document of freedom, and yet our government
refused to recognize them. President Truman said they were not ready for independence. So we fell
victim as a nation at that time of the same deadly arrogance that has poisoned the international
situation for all of these years. France then set out to reconquer its former colony. And they fought
eight long, hard, brutal years trying to re-conquer Vietnam. You know who helped France? It was the
United States of America. It came to the point that we were meeting more than eighty percent of the
war costs. And even when France started despairing of its reckless action, we did not. And in 1954,
a conference was called at Geneva, and an agreement was reached, because France had been defeated
at Dien Bien Phu. But even after that, and after the Geneva Accord, we did not stop. We must face
the sad fact that our government sought, in a real sense, to sabotage the Geneva Accord. Well, after
the French were defeated, it looked as if independence and land reform would come through the Geneva
agreement. But instead the United States came and started supporting a man named Diem who turned
out to be one of the most ruthless dictators in the history of the world. He set out to silence all
opposition. People were brutally murdered because they raised their voices against the brutal policies
of Diem. And the peasants watched and cringed as Diem ruthlessly rooted out all opposition. The peasants
watched as all this was presided over by United States influence and by increasing numbers of United
States troops who came to help quell the insurgency that Diem's methods had aroused. When Diem was
overthrown, they may have been happy, but the long line of military dictatorships seemed to offer
no real change, especially in terms of their need for land and peace. And who are we supporting in
Vietnam today? It's a man by the name of general Ky [Air Vice Marshal Nguyen Cao Ky] who fought with
the French against his own people, and who said on one occasion that the greatest hero of his life
is Hitler. This is who we are supporting in Vietnam today. Oh, our government and the press generally
won't tell us these things, but God told me to tell you this morning. The truth must be told.
The only change came from America as we increased our troop commitments in support of governments
which were singularly corrupt, inept, and without popular support and all the while the people read
our leaflets and received regular promises of peace and democracy and land reform. Now they languish
under our bombs and consider us, not their fellow Vietnamese, the real enemy. They move sadly and
apathetically as we herd them off the land of their fathers into concentration camps, where minimal
social needs are rarely met. They know they must move or be destroyed by our bombs. So they go, primarily
women, and children and the aged. They watch as we poison their water, as we kill a million acres
of their crops. They must weep as the bulldozers roar through their areas preparing to destroy the
precious trees. They wander into the towns and see thousands of thousands of the children, homeless,
without clothes, running in packs on the streets like animals. They see the children degraded by
our soldiers as they beg for food. They see the children selling their sisters to our soldiers, soliciting
for their mothers. We have destroyed their two most cherished institutions: the family and the village.
We have destroyed their land and their crops. We have cooperated in the crushing of the nation's
only noncommunist revolutionary political force, the United Buddhist Church. This is a role our nation
has taken, the role of those who make peaceful revolutions impossible but refusing to give up the
privileges and the pleasures that comes from the immense profits of overseas investments. I'm convinced
that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical
revolution of values. We must rapidly begin the shift from a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented
society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important
than people, the giant triplets of racism, militarism and economic exploitation are incapable of
being conquered.
A true revolution of values will soon cause us to question the fairness and justice of many of
our present policies. On the one hand, we are called to play the Good Samaritan on life's roadside,
but that will be only an initial act. One day we must come to see that the whole Jericho Road must
be changed so that men and women will not be constantly beaten and robbed as they make their journey
on life's highway. True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar. A true revolution of
values will soon look uneasily on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth with righteous indignation.
It will look across the seas and see individual capitalists of the West investing huge sums of money
in Asia, Africa, and South America, only to take the profits out with no concern for the social betterment
of the countries, and say, "This is not just." It will look at our alliance with the landed gentry
of Latin America and say, "This is not just." The Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything
to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just. A true revolution of values will lay
hands on the world order and say of war, "This way of settling differences is not just." This business
of burning human beings with napalm, of filling our nation's homes with orphans and widows, of injecting
poisonous drugs of hate into the veins of peoples normally humane, of sending men home from dark
and bloody battlefields physically handicapped and psychologically deranged, cannot be reconciled
with wisdom, justice, and love. A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military
defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.
Oh, my friends, if there is any one thing that we must see today is that these are revolutionary
times. All over the globe men are revolting against old systems of exploitation and oppression, and
out of the wounds of a frail world, new systems of justice and equality are being born. The shirtless
and barefoot people of the land are rising up as never before. The people who sat in darkness have
seen a great light. They are saying, unconsciously, as we say in one of our freedom songs, "Ain't
gonna let nobody turn me around!" It is a sad fact that because of comfort, complacency, a morbid
fear of communism, our proneness to adjust to injustice, the Western nations that initiated so much
of the revolutionary spirit of the modern world have now become the arch anti-revolutionaries. This
has driven many to feel that only Marxism has a revolutionary spirit. Therefore, communism is a judgment
against our failure to make democracy real and follow through on the revolutions that we initiated.
Our only hope today lies in our ability to recapture the revolutionary spirit and go out into a sometimes
hostile world declaring eternal hostility to poverty, racism, and militarism. With this powerful
commitment we shall boldly challenge the status quo, we shall boldly challenge unjust mores, and
thereby speed up the day when "every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be
made low, and the rough places shall be made plain, and the crooked places straight. And the glory
of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together."
A genuine revolution of values means in the final analysis that our loyalties must become ecumenical
rather than sectional. Every nation must now develop an overriding loyalty to mankind as a whole
in order to preserve the best in their individual societies. This call for a worldwide fellowship
that lifts neighborly concern beyond one's tribe, race, class, and nation is in reality a call for
an all-embracing, unconditional love for all men. This oft misunderstood and misinterpreted concept,
so readily dismissed by the Nietzsches of the world as a weak and cowardly force, has now become
an absolute necessity for the survival of mankind. And when I speak of love I'm not speaking of some
sentimental and weak response. I am speaking of that force which all of the great religions have
seen as the supreme unifying principle of life. Love is somehow the key that unlocks the door which
leads to ultimate reality. This Hindu-Muslim-Christian-Jewish-Buddhist belief about ultimate reality
is beautifully summed up in the first epistle of John: "Let us love one another, for God is love.
And every one that loveth is born of God and knoweth God. He that loveth not knoweth not God, for
God is love. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us and his love is perfected in us."
Let me say finally that I oppose the war in Vietnam because I love America. I speak out against
this war, not in anger, but with anxiety and sorrow in my heart, and, above all, with a passionate
desire to see our beloved country stand as the moral example of the world. I speak out against this
war because I am disappointed with America. And there can be no great disappointment where there
is not great love. I am disappointed with our failure to deal positively and forthrightly with the
triple evils of racism, economic exploitation, and militarism. We are presently moving down a dead-end
road that can lead to national disaster. America has strayed to the far country of racism and militarism.
The home that all too many Americans left was solidly structured idealistically; its pillars were
solidly grounded in the insights of our Judeo-Christian heritage. All men are made in the image of
God. All men are bothers. All men are created equal. Every man is an heir to a legacy of dignity
and worth. Every man has rights that are neither conferred by, nor derived from the State--they are
God-given. Out of one blood, God made all men to dwell upon the face of the earth. What a marvelous
foundation for any home! What a glorious and healthy place to inhabit. But America's strayed away,
and this unnatural excursion has brought only confusion and bewilderment. It has left hearts aching
with guilt and minds distorted with irrationality.
It is time for all people of conscience to call upon America to come back home. Come home, America.
Omar Khayyam is right: "The moving finger writes, and having writ moves on." I call on Washington
today. I call on every man and woman of good will all over America today. I call on the young men
of America who must make a choice today to take a stand on this issue. Tomorrow may be too late.
The book may close. And don't let anybody make you think that God chose America as his divine, messianic
force to be a sort of policeman of the whole world. God has a way of standing before the nations
with judgment, and it seems that I can hear God saying to America, "You're too arrogant! And if you
don't change your ways, I will rise up and break the backbone of your power, and I'll place it in
the hands of a nation that doesn't even know my name. Be still and know that I'm God."
Now it isn't easy to stand up for truth and for justice. Sometimes it means being frustrated.
When you tell the truth and take a stand, sometimes it means that you will walk the streets with
a burdened heart. Sometimes it means losing a job...means being abused and scorned. It may mean having
a seven, eight year old child asking a daddy, "Why do you have to go to jail so much?" And I've long
since learned that to be a follower to the Jesus Christ means taking up the cross. And my bible tells
me that Good Friday comes before Easter. Before the crown we wear, there is the cross that we must
bear. Let us bear it--bear it for truth, bear it for justice, and bear it for peace. Let us go out
this morning with that determination. And I have not lost faith. I'm not in despair, because I know
that there is a moral order. I haven't lost faith, because the arc of the moral universe is long,
but it bends toward justice. I can still sing "We Shall Overcome" because Carlyle was right: "No
lie can live forever." We shall overcome because William Cullen Bryant was right: "Truth pressed
to earth will rise again." We shall overcome because James Russell Lowell was right: "Truth forever
on the scaffold, wrong forever on the throne." Yet, that scaffold sways the future. We shall overcome
because the bible is right: "You shall reap what you sow." With this faith we will be able to hew
out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith we will be able to transform the
jangling discords of our world into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith we will
be able to speed up the day when justice will roll down like waters, and righteousness like a mighty
stream. With this faith we will be able to speed up the day when the lion and the lamb will lie down
together, and every man will sit under his own vine and fig tree, and none shall be afraid because
the words of the Lord have spoken it. With this faith we will be able to speed up the day when all
over the world we will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free
at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we're free at last!" With this faith, we'll sing it as
we're getting ready to sing it now. Men will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into
pruning hooks. And nations will not rise up against nations, neither shall they study war anymore.
And I don't know about you, I ain't gonna study war no more.
Transcript by Gary Handman, UC Berkeley Media Resources Center, 2006
Increasingly, the American public who declared
McCain a 'loser' in his attempts to become
President, see the world through the eyes of Trump.
However, many in the deep state remain sympathetic
to McCain style fanaticism. It is why as Donald
Trump alleged, the intelligence agencies were
irresponsible in leaking the bogus dossier that
McCain handed to them with glee.
Enrique Ferro's insight:
Donald Trump has few significant connections to Russia,
whilst McCain has many profound connections with the
fascist regime in Kiev. He helped them get into power,
he was there cheering on the coup. Therefore, why has
no one accused McCain of being a Ukrainian agent,
working to destabilise American democracy in the name
of a corrupt foreign power?
[Jan 14, 2017] Position Statement in support of a new investigation into the total collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 on September 11, 2001
Sponsors: Daniel Barnum, FAIA and Fifty Members of the Institute
Intent: To adopt a Position Statement in support of a new investigation into the total collapse
of World Trade Center Building 7 on September 11, 2001.
Text of Resolution
WHEREAS, according to the AIA Public Policies and Position Statements, architects are
professionally obligated to use their knowledge, skill, and experience to engage in civic life; and
WHEREAS, World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC 7), a 47-story, steel-framed high-rise building,
suffered a total collapse at 5:20 PM on the afternoon of September 11, 2001; and
WHEREAS, the cause of the collapse of WTC 7 has become the subject of vigorous public debate,
such that establishing the true cause of the collapse of WTC 7 is of great civic importance; and|
WHEREAS, the cause of the collapse of WTC 7 has
become the subject of vigorous public debate, such that establishing the true cause of the
collapse of WTC 7 is of great civic importance; and
WHEREAS, prior to and since September 11, 2001, no steel-framed high-rise building has ever
suffered a total collapse, except buildings demolished through the procedure known as
controlled demolition; and
WHEREAS, the collapse of WTC 7 exemplified many of the signature features of controlled
demolition, including:
Sudden onset: The roofline of WTC 7 went from being stationary to being in free fall in
approximately one half-second.
Rapidity: The roofline of WTC 7 fell to the ground in less than seven seconds.
Free fall: For 2.25 seconds, or a third of its descent, WTC 7 fell at the rate of gravity
over a distance of eight stories, meaning that the lower structure of the building provided no
resistance whatsoever.
Symmetry: WTC 7 fell directly downward through
what had been the path of greatest resistance, with the debris deposited mostly inside the
building's footprint.
Explosions and window breakage: Video shows vertical sequences of explosions and window
breakage running up the north face of WTC 7 as it began to collapse.
Dismemberment: The steel frame of WTC 7 was
almost entirely dismembered.
Totality: The entire structure of WTC 7 collapsed to the ground, leaving no sections of
the building standing; and
WHEREAS, first responders and bystanders reported explosions and other phenomena suggestive
of controlled demolition immediately prior to and during the collapse of WTC 7, as exemplified
in the following account by a first-year NYU medical student identified as "Darryl" on 1010
Wins Radio: "[W]e heard this sound that sounded like a clap of thunder. Turned around. We were
shocked to see that the building was, uh Well, it looked like there was a shockwave ripping
through the building and the windows all busted out. It was horrifying. And then about a
second later the bottom floor caved out and the building followed after that"; and
WHEREAS, a CNN video captured both the
sound of an explosion coming from WTC 7 and the following statements prior to the onset
of the collapse:
Unidentified voice: "You hear that?"
Voice of emergency worker #1: "Keep your eye on that building. It'll be coming down
soon."
Voice of emergency worker #2: "Building is about to blow up, move it back . We are
walking back, there's a building about to blow up. Flame and debris coming down"; and
WHEREAS, numerous experts in controlled
demolition and structural engineering have attested that the collapse of WTC 7 could have only
been caused by controlled demolition, as exemplified in the following statement made by Dutch
demolition expert Danny Jowenko after viewing video of the collapse: "This is controlled
demolition . It's been imploded. It's a hired job, done by a team of experts"; and
WHEREAS, in spite of the fact that WTC 7 had only few, small, and scattered fires and
modest structural damage, the NYC Office of Emergency Management and the New York Fire
Department predicted the collapse of WTC 7 with extraordinary confidence and precision,
deciding to establish a safety zone around WTC 7 early in the afternoon and waiting several
hours in anticipation of the building's collapse; and
WHEREAS, local authorities were so certain of WTC
7's eventual collapse that anticipation of the collapse was widely reported in the media, as
exemplified by MSNBC's Ashleigh Banfield, who reported, "I've heard several reports from
several different officers now that that is the building that is gonna go down next. In fact,
one officer told me they're just waiting for that to come down at this point" - and by the
BBC, who erroneously began reporting the collapse 23 minutes before it actually occurred; and
WHEREAS, in spite of the fact that local
authorities predicted the collapse of WTC 7 with extraordinary confidence and precision,
investigators for the Building Performance Study, conducted by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) and the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), were "stunned" by
the collapse of WTC 7 and concluded in May 2002: "The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how
they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel
fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low
probability of occurrence"; and
WHEREAS, three and a half years after the National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST) began its investigation into the World Trade Center disaster, NIST's lead investigator,
Dr. Shyam Sunder, stated that NIST had some "preliminary hypotheses," but conceded, "[T]ruthfully,
I don't really know. We've had trouble getting a handle on building No. 7"; and
WHEREAS, NIST finally concluded in its 2008
report that the collapse of WTC 7 was caused by "normal office fires," thus abandoning earlier
hypotheses that diesel fuel fires or structural damage caused the collapse; and
WHEREAS, according to NIST, the fires that it alleges triggered the total collapse of WTC 7
burned at temperatures "hundreds of degrees below those typically considered in design
practice for establishing structural fire resistance ratings"; and
WHEREAS, NIST neglected to examine steel from WTC 7 with a "Swiss cheese appearance" that
had been attacked by molten iron - as documented in Appendix C of the FEMA/ASCE Building
Performance Study - and instead falsely alleged that no identifiable steel was recovered from
WTC 7; and
WHEREAS, in its draft report for public comment,
NIST falsely denied that WTC 7 entered free fall, and then acknowledged the occurrence of free
fall in its final report, but falsely alleged that the occurrence of free fall was consistent
with its computer model, which, in fact, does not show a period of free fall, nor does it come
close to replicating the observed collapse; and
WHEREAS, NIST's computer model omitted critical structural features of WTC 7, which, in the
opinion of independent engineers, had they been included, the computer model would have shown
that NIST's alleged collapse initiation mechanism had zero probability of occurring; and
WHEREAS, NIST has refused to release key portions of its modeling data to engineers
studying the collapse of WTC 7, claiming that to do so "might jeopardize public safety"; and
WHEREAS, thousands of members of the architecture
and engineering professions, including the 97 sponsors of this resolution, believe there is
sufficient evidence contradicting NIST's explanation of the collapse of WTC 7 to warrant a new
investigation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the AIA Board of Directors shall commence the process
to adopt a Position Statement, to be published in the AIA Directory of Public Policies and
Position Statements, stating both:
The AIA's belief that incidents involving the catastrophic failure of buildings and other
structures must be investigated using the highest standards of science-based investigation and
analysis; and
The AIA's support for a new investigation into the total collapse of WTC 7.
[Jan 14, 2017] Position Statement in support of a new investigation into the total collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 on September 11, 2001
Sponsors: Daniel Barnum, FAIA and Fifty Members of the Institute
Intent: To adopt a Position Statement in support of a new investigation into the total collapse
of World Trade Center Building 7 on September 11, 2001.
Text of Resolution
WHEREAS, according to the AIA Public Policies and Position Statements, architects are
professionally obligated to use their knowledge, skill, and experience to engage in civic life; and
WHEREAS, World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC 7), a 47-story, steel-framed high-rise building,
suffered a total collapse at 5:20 PM on the afternoon of September 11, 2001; and
WHEREAS, the cause of the collapse of WTC 7 has become the subject of vigorous public debate,
such that establishing the true cause of the collapse of WTC 7 is of great civic importance; and|
WHEREAS, the cause of the collapse of WTC 7 has
become the subject of vigorous public debate, such that establishing the true cause of the
collapse of WTC 7 is of great civic importance; and
WHEREAS, prior to and since September 11, 2001, no steel-framed high-rise building has ever
suffered a total collapse, except buildings demolished through the procedure known as
controlled demolition; and
WHEREAS, the collapse of WTC 7 exemplified many of the signature features of controlled
demolition, including:
Sudden onset: The roofline of WTC 7 went from being stationary to being in free fall in
approximately one half-second.
Rapidity: The roofline of WTC 7 fell to the ground in less than seven seconds.
Free fall: For 2.25 seconds, or a third of its descent, WTC 7 fell at the rate of gravity
over a distance of eight stories, meaning that the lower structure of the building provided no
resistance whatsoever.
Symmetry: WTC 7 fell directly downward through
what had been the path of greatest resistance, with the debris deposited mostly inside the
building's footprint.
Explosions and window breakage: Video shows vertical sequences of explosions and window
breakage running up the north face of WTC 7 as it began to collapse.
Dismemberment: The steel frame of WTC 7 was
almost entirely dismembered.
Totality: The entire structure of WTC 7 collapsed to the ground, leaving no sections of
the building standing; and
WHEREAS, first responders and bystanders reported explosions and other phenomena suggestive
of controlled demolition immediately prior to and during the collapse of WTC 7, as exemplified
in the following account by a first-year NYU medical student identified as "Darryl" on 1010
Wins Radio: "[W]e heard this sound that sounded like a clap of thunder. Turned around. We were
shocked to see that the building was, uh Well, it looked like there was a shockwave ripping
through the building and the windows all busted out. It was horrifying. And then about a
second later the bottom floor caved out and the building followed after that"; and
WHEREAS, a CNN video captured both the
sound of an explosion coming from WTC 7 and the following statements prior to the onset
of the collapse:
Unidentified voice: "You hear that?"
Voice of emergency worker #1: "Keep your eye on that building. It'll be coming down
soon."
Voice of emergency worker #2: "Building is about to blow up, move it back . We are
walking back, there's a building about to blow up. Flame and debris coming down"; and
WHEREAS, numerous experts in controlled
demolition and structural engineering have attested that the collapse of WTC 7 could have only
been caused by controlled demolition, as exemplified in the following statement made by Dutch
demolition expert Danny Jowenko after viewing video of the collapse: "This is controlled
demolition . It's been imploded. It's a hired job, done by a team of experts"; and
WHEREAS, in spite of the fact that WTC 7 had only few, small, and scattered fires and
modest structural damage, the NYC Office of Emergency Management and the New York Fire
Department predicted the collapse of WTC 7 with extraordinary confidence and precision,
deciding to establish a safety zone around WTC 7 early in the afternoon and waiting several
hours in anticipation of the building's collapse; and
WHEREAS, local authorities were so certain of WTC
7's eventual collapse that anticipation of the collapse was widely reported in the media, as
exemplified by MSNBC's Ashleigh Banfield, who reported, "I've heard several reports from
several different officers now that that is the building that is gonna go down next. In fact,
one officer told me they're just waiting for that to come down at this point" - and by the
BBC, who erroneously began reporting the collapse 23 minutes before it actually occurred; and
WHEREAS, in spite of the fact that local
authorities predicted the collapse of WTC 7 with extraordinary confidence and precision,
investigators for the Building Performance Study, conducted by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) and the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), were "stunned" by
the collapse of WTC 7 and concluded in May 2002: "The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how
they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel
fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low
probability of occurrence"; and
WHEREAS, three and a half years after the National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST) began its investigation into the World Trade Center disaster, NIST's lead investigator,
Dr. Shyam Sunder, stated that NIST had some "preliminary hypotheses," but conceded, "[T]ruthfully,
I don't really know. We've had trouble getting a handle on building No. 7"; and
WHEREAS, NIST finally concluded in its 2008
report that the collapse of WTC 7 was caused by "normal office fires," thus abandoning earlier
hypotheses that diesel fuel fires or structural damage caused the collapse; and
WHEREAS, according to NIST, the fires that it alleges triggered the total collapse of WTC 7
burned at temperatures "hundreds of degrees below those typically considered in design
practice for establishing structural fire resistance ratings"; and
WHEREAS, NIST neglected to examine steel from WTC 7 with a "Swiss cheese appearance" that
had been attacked by molten iron - as documented in Appendix C of the FEMA/ASCE Building
Performance Study - and instead falsely alleged that no identifiable steel was recovered from
WTC 7; and
WHEREAS, in its draft report for public comment,
NIST falsely denied that WTC 7 entered free fall, and then acknowledged the occurrence of free
fall in its final report, but falsely alleged that the occurrence of free fall was consistent
with its computer model, which, in fact, does not show a period of free fall, nor does it come
close to replicating the observed collapse; and
WHEREAS, NIST's computer model omitted critical structural features of WTC 7, which, in the
opinion of independent engineers, had they been included, the computer model would have shown
that NIST's alleged collapse initiation mechanism had zero probability of occurring; and
WHEREAS, NIST has refused to release key portions of its modeling data to engineers
studying the collapse of WTC 7, claiming that to do so "might jeopardize public safety"; and
WHEREAS, thousands of members of the architecture
and engineering professions, including the 97 sponsors of this resolution, believe there is
sufficient evidence contradicting NIST's explanation of the collapse of WTC 7 to warrant a new
investigation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the AIA Board of Directors shall commence the process
to adopt a Position Statement, to be published in the AIA Directory of Public Policies and
Position Statements, stating both:
The AIA's belief that incidents involving the catastrophic failure of buildings and other
structures must be investigated using the highest standards of science-based investigation and
analysis; and
The AIA's support for a new investigation into the total collapse of WTC 7.
"... Our model for funding infrastructure is broken. Federal funding means project that are most needed by cities can be overlooked while projects that would destroy cities are funded. ..."
"... The neo in neoliberalism, however, establishes these principles on a significantly different analytic basis from those set forth by Adam Smith, as will become clear below. Moreover, neoliberalism is not simply a set of economic policies; it is not only about facilitating free trade, maximizing corporate profits, and challenging welfarism. ..."
"... But in so doing, it carries responsibility for the self to new heights: the rationally calculating individual bears full responsibility for the consequences of his or her action no matter how severe the constraints on this action-for example, lack of skills, education, and child care in a period of high unemployment and limited welfare benefits. ..."
"... A fully realized neoliberal citizenry would be the opposite of public-minded; indeed, it would barely exist as a public. The body politic ceases to be a body but is rather a group of individual entrepreneurs and consumers . . . ..."
"... consider the market rationality permeating universities today, from admissions and recruiting to the relentless consumer mentality of students as they consider university brand names, courses, and services, from faculty raiding and pay scales to promotion criteria. ..."
"... The extension of market rationality to every sphere, and especially the reduction of moral and political judgment to a cost-benefit calculus, would represent precisely the evisceration of substantive values by instrumental rationality that Weber predicted as the future of a disenchanted world. Thinking and judging are reduced to instrumental calculation in Weber's "polar night of icy darkness"-there is no morality, no faith, no heroism, indeed no meaning outside the market. ..."
There is nothing common between articles of Zingales and Schiller.
My impression is that Schiller might lost his calling: he might achieve even greater success
as a diplomat, if he took this career. He managed to tell something important about incompatibility
of [the slogan] "Make America Great Again" with neoliberalism without offending anybody. Which
is a pretty difficult thing to do.
Zingalles is just another Friedman-style market fundamentalist. Nothing new and nothing interesting.
Noah Smith is wrong here: "This idea is important because it meant that we shouldn't expect fiscal
stimulus to have much of an effect. Government checks are a temporary form of income, so Friedman's
theory predicts that it won't change spending patterns, as advocates such as John Maynard Keynes
believed."
Friedman's view about consumption demand is the same as the Life Cycle Model (Ando and Modligiani).
OK - these models do predict that tax rebates should not affect consumption. And yes there are
households who are borrower constrained so these rebates do impact their consumption.
But this is not the only form of fiscal stimulus. Infrastructure investment would increase
aggregate demand even under the Friedman view of consumption. This would hold even under the Barro-Ricardian
version of this theory. OK - John Cochrane is too stupid to know this. And I see Noah in his rush
to bash Milton Friedman has made the same mistake as Cochrane.
What Friedman got wrong is not including current income. People with high income spend a fraction
of that income and save the rest. Their demand is met, so the additional income mostly goes to
savings.
People with low income spend everything and still have unmet demands. Additional income for
them will go to meet those unmet demands (like fixing a toothache or replacing bald tires).
Friedman was biased against fiscal intervention in an economy and sought evidence to argue
against such policies
Our model for funding infrastructure is broken. Federal funding means project that are
most needed by cities can be overlooked while projects that would destroy cities are funded.
Federal infrastructure funding destroyed city neighborhoods leaving the neighboring areas degraded.
Meanwhile, necessary projects such as a new subway tunnel from NJ to Manhattan are blocked by
States who are ok if the city fails and growth moves to their side of the river.
Money should go directly to the cities. Infrastructure should be build to serve the people
who live, walk and work there, not to allow cars to drive through at high speeds as the engineers
propose. This infrastructure harms cities and becomes a future tax liability that cannot be met
if the built infrastructure it encourages is not valuable enough to support maintenance.
We are discovering that unlike our cities where structures can increase in value, strip malls
decline in value, often to worthlessness. Road building is increasingly mechanized and provides
less employment per project than in the past. Projects such as replacing leaking water pipes require
more labor.
Simon Wren Lewis leaves open the possibility that an increase in aggregate demand can increase
real GDP as we may not be at full employment (I'd change that from "may not be" to "are not")
but still comes out against tax cuts for the rich with this:
"There is a very strong case for more public sector investment on numerous grounds. But that
investment should go to where it is most needed and where it will be of most social benefit"
Re: Milton Friedman's Cherished Theory Is Laid to Rest - Bloomberg View
Friedman was not simply wrong. The key for understanding Friedman is that he was a political
hack, not a scientist.
His main achievement was creation (partially for money invested in him and Mont Pelerin Society
by financial oligarchy) of what is now called "neoliberal rationality": a pervert view of the
world, economics and social processes that now still dominates in the USA and most of Western
Europe. It is also a new mode of "govermentability".
Governmentality is distinguished from earlier forms of rule, in which national wealth is measured
as the size of territory or the personal fortune of the sovereign, by the recognition that national
economic well-being is tied to the rational management of the national population. Foucault defined
governmentality as:
"the ensemble formed by the institutions, procedures, analyses, and reflections, the calculations
and tactics that allow the exercise of this very specific albeit complex form of power, which
has as its target population, as its principle form of knowledge political economy and as its
technical means, apparatuses of security"
A liberal political order may harbor either liberal or Keynesian economic policies -- it
may lean in the direction of maximizing liberty (its politically "conservative" tilt) or of
maximizing equality (its politically "liberal" tilt), but in contemporary political parlance,
it is no more or less a liberal democracy because of one leaning or the other.
Indeed, the American convention of referring to advocates of the welfare state as political
liberals is especially peculiar, given that American conservatives generally hew more closely
to both the classical economic and the political doctrines of liberalism -- it turns the meaning
of liberalism in the direction of liberality rather than liberty.
For our purposes, what is crucial is that the liberalism in what has come to be called neoliberalism
refers to liberalism's economic variant, recuperating selected pre-Keynesian assumptions about
the generation of wealth and its distribution, rather than to liberalism as a political doctrine,
as a set of political institutions, or as political practices. The neo in neoliberalism,
however, establishes these principles on a significantly different analytic basis from those
set forth by Adam Smith, as will become clear below. Moreover, neoliberalism is not simply
a set of economic policies; it is not only about facilitating free trade, maximizing corporate
profits, and challenging welfarism.
Rather, neoliberalism carries a social analysis that, when deployed as a form of
governmentality, reaches from the soul of the citizen-subject to education policy to practices
of empire. Neoliberal rationality, while foregrounding the market, is not only or even primarily
focused on the economy; it involves extending and disseminating market values to all institutions
and social action, even as the market itself remains a distinctive player.
... ... ...
1. The political sphere, along with every other dimension of contemporary existence,
is submitted to an economic rationality; or, put the other way around, not only is the human
being configured exhaustively as homo economicus, but all dimensions of human life are cast
in terms of a market rationality. While this entails submitting every action and policy
to considerations of profitability, equally important is the production of all human and institutional
action as rational entrepreneurial action, conducted according to a calculus of utility, benefit,
or satisfaction against a microeconomic grid of scarcity, supply and demand, and moral value-neutrality.
Neoliberalism does not simply assume that all aspects of social, cultural, and political life
can be reduced to such a calculus; rather, it develops institutional practices and rewards
for enacting this vision. That is, through discourse and policy promulgating its criteria,
neoliberalism produces rational actors and imposes a market rationale for decision making in
all spheres.
Importantly, then, neoliberalism involves a normative rather than ontological claim about
the pervasiveness of economic rationality and it advocates the institution building, policies,
and discourse development appropriate to such a claim. Neoliberalism is a constructivist project:
it does not presume the ontological givenness of a thoroughgoing economic rationality for all
domains of society but rather takes as its task the development, dissemination, and institutionalization
of such a rationality. This point is further developed in (2) below.
2. In contrast with the notorious laissez-faire and human propensity to "truck and barter"
stressed by classical economic liberalism, neoliberalism does not conceive of either the market
itself or rational economic behavior as purely natural. Both are constructed-organized
by law and political institutions, and requiring political intervention and orchestration.
Far from flourishing when left alone, the economy must be directed, buttressed, and protected
by law and policy as well as by the dissemination of social norms designed to facilitate competition,
free trade, and rational economic action on the part of every member and institution of society.
In Lemke's account, "In the Ordo-liberal scheme, the market does not amount to a natural
economic reality, with intrinsic laws that the art of government must bear in mind and respect;
instead, the market can be constituted and kept alive only by dint of political interventions.
. . . [C]ompetition, too, is not a natural fact. . . . [T]his fundamental economic mechanism
can function only if support is forthcoming to bolster a series of conditions, and adherence
to the latter must consistently be guaranteed by legal measures" (193).
The neoliberal formulation of the state and especially of specific legal arrangements and decisions
as the precondition and ongoing condition of the market does not mean that the market is controlled
by the state but precisely the opposite. The market is the organizing and regulative principle
of the state and society, along three different lines:
The state openly responds to needs of the market, whether through monetary and fiscal
policy, immigration policy, the treatment of criminals, or the structure of public education.
In so doing, the state is no longer encumbered by the danger of incurring the legitimation
deficits predicted by 1970s social theorists and political economists such as Nicos Poulantzas,
Jürgen Habermas, and James O'Connor.6 Rather, neoliberal rationality extended to the state
itself indexes the state's success according to its ability to sustain and foster the market
and ties state legitimacy to such success. This is a new form of legitimation, one that
"founds a state," according to Lemke, and contrasts with the Hegelian and French revolutionary
notion of the constitutional state as the emergent universal representative of the people.
As Lemke describes Foucault's account of Ordo-liberal thinking, "economic liberty produces
the legitimacy for a form of sovereignty limited to guaranteeing economic activity . . .
a state that was no longer defined in terms of an historical mission but legitimated itself
with reference to economic growth" (196).
The state itself is enfolded and animated by market rationality: that is, not simply
profitability but a generalized calculation of cost and benefit becomes the measure of all
state practices. Political discourse on all matters is framed in entrepreneurial terms;
the state must not simply concern itself with the market but think and behave like a market
actor across all of its functions, including law. 7
Putting (a) and (b) together, the health and growth of the economy is the basis of
state legitimacy, both because the state is forthrightly responsible for the health of the
economy and because of the economic rationality to which state practices have been submitted.
Thus, "It's the economy, stupid" becomes more than a campaign slogan; rather, it expresses
the principle of the state's legitimacy and the basis for state action-from constitutional
adjudication and campaign finance reform to welfare and education policy to foreign policy,
including warfare and the organization of "homeland security."
3. The extension of economic rationality to formerly noneconomic domains and institutions
reaches individual conduct, or, more precisely, prescribes the citizen-subject of a neoliberal
order. Whereas classical liberalism articulated a distinction, and at times even a tension,
among the criteria for individual moral, associational, and economic actions (hence the striking
differences in tone, subject matter, and even prescriptions between Adam Smith's Wealth of
Nations and his Theory of Moral Sentiments), neoliberalism normatively constructs and interpellates
individuals as entrepreneurial actors in every sphere of life.
It figures individuals as rational, calculating creatures whose moral autonomy is measured
by their capacity for "self-care"-the ability to provide for their own needs and service their
own ambitions. In making the individual fully responsible for her- or himself, neoliberalism
equates moral responsibility with rational action; it erases the discrepancy between economic
and moral behavior by configuring morality entirely as a matter of rational deliberation about
costs, benefits, and consequences.
But in so doing, it carries responsibility for the self to new heights: the rationally
calculating individual bears full responsibility for the consequences of his or her action
no matter how severe the constraints on this action-for example, lack of skills, education,
and child care in a period of high unemployment and limited welfare benefits.
Correspondingly, a "mismanaged life," the neoliberal appellation for failure to navigate
impediments to prosperity, becomes a new mode of depoliticizing social and economic powers
and at the same time reduces political citizenship to an unprecedented degree of passivity
and political complacency.
The model neoliberal citizen is one who strategizes for her- or himself among various social,
political, and economic options, not one who strives with others to alter or organize these
options. A fully realized neoliberal citizenry would be the opposite of public-minded;
indeed, it would barely exist as a public. The body politic ceases to be a body but is rather
a group of individual entrepreneurs and consumers . . . which is, of course, exactly how
voters are addressed in most American campaign discourse.8
Other evidence for progress in the development of such a citizenry is not far from hand:
consider the market rationality permeating universities today, from admissions and recruiting
to the relentless consumer mentality of students as they consider university brand names, courses,
and services, from faculty raiding and pay scales to promotion criteria. 9
Or consider the way in which consequential moral lapses (of a sexual or criminal nature)
by politicians, business executives, or church and university administrators are so often apologized
for as "mistakes in judgment," implying that it was the calculation that was wrong, not the
act, actor, or rationale.
The state is not without a project in the making of the neoliberal subject. It attempts
to construct prudent subjects through policies that organize such prudence: this is the basis
of a range of welfare reforms such as workfare and single-parent penalties, changes in the
criminal code such as the "three strikes law," and educational voucher schemes.
Because neoliberalism casts rational action as a norm rather than an ontology, social policy
is the means by which the state produces subjects whose compass is set entirely by their rational
assessment of the costs and benefits of certain acts, whether those acts pertain to teen pregnancy,
tax fraud, or retirement planning. The neoliberal citizen is calculating rather than rule abiding,
a Benthamite rather than a Hobbesian.
The state is one of many sites framing the calculations leading to social behaviors that
keep costs low and productivity high. This mode of governmentality (techniques of governing
that exceed express state action and orchestrate the subject's conduct toward himor herself)
convenes a "free" subject who rationally deliberates about alternative courses of action, makes
choices, and bears responsibility for the consequences of these choices. In this way, Lemke
argues, "the state leads and controls subjects without being responsible for them"; as individual
"entrepreneurs" in every aspect of life, subjects become wholly responsible for their well-being
and citizenship is reduced to success in this entrepreneurship (201).
Neoliberal subjects are controlled through their freedom-not simply, as thinkers from the
Frankfurt School through Foucault have argued, because freedom within an order of domination
can be an instrument of that domination, but because of neoliberalism's moralization of the
consequences of this freedom. Such control also means that the withdrawal of the state from
certain domains, followed by the privatization of certain state functions, does not amount
to a dismantling of government but rather constitutes a technique of governing; indeed, it
is the signature technique of neoliberal governance, in which rational economic action suffused
throughout society replaces express state rule or provision.
Neoliberalism shifts "the regulatory competence of the state onto 'responsible,' 'rational'
individuals [with the aim of] encourag[ing] individuals to give their lives a specific entrepreneurial
form" (Lemke, 202).
4. Finally, the suffusion of both the state and the subject with economic rationality
has the effect of radically transforming and narrowing the criteria for good social policy
vis-ŕ-vis classical liberal democracy. Not only must social policy meet profitability tests,
incite and unblock competition, and produce rational subjects, it obeys the entrepreneurial
principle of "equal inequality for all" as it "multiples and expands entrepreneurial forms
with the body social" (Lemke, 195). This is the principle that links the neoliberal governmentalization
of the state with that of the social and the subject.
Taken together, the extension of economic rationality to all aspects of thought and activity,
the placement of the state in forthright and direct service to the economy, the rendering of
the state tout court as an enterprise organized by market rationality, the production of the
moral subject as an entrepreneurial subject, and the construction of social policy according
to these criteria might appear as a more intensive rather than fundamentally new form of the
saturation of social and political realms by capital. That is, the political rationality of
neoliberalism might be read as issuing from a stage of capitalism that simply underscores Marx's
argument that capital penetrates and transforms every aspect of life-remaking everything in
its image and reducing every value and activity to its cold rationale.
All that would be new here is the flagrant and relentless submission of the state and the
individual, the church and the university, morality, sex, marriage, and leisure practices to
this rationale. Or better, the only novelty would be the recently achieved hegemony of rational
choice theory in the human sciences, self-represented as an independent and objective branch
of knowledge rather than an expression of the dominance of capital. Another reading that would
figure neoliberalism as continuous with the past would theorize it through Weber's rationalization
thesis rather than Marx's argument about capital.
The extension of market rationality to every sphere, and especially the reduction of
moral and political judgment to a cost-benefit calculus, would represent precisely the evisceration
of substantive values by instrumental rationality that Weber predicted as the future of a disenchanted
world. Thinking and judging are reduced to instrumental calculation in Weber's "polar night
of icy darkness"-there is no morality, no faith, no heroism, indeed no meaning outside the
market.
Julio -> Libezkova...
I agree with this. But I think it's extraordinarily wordy, and fails to emphasize the deification
of private property which is at the root of it.
Brown - who I haven't read much of but like what I have - sounds a lot like Lasch.
Brown:
"The extension of market rationality to every sphere, and especially the reduction of
moral and political judgment to a cost-benefit calculus, would represent precisely the evisceration
of substantive values by instrumental rationality that Weber predicted as the future of a disenchanted
world. Thinking and judging are reduced to instrumental calculation in Weber's "polar night
of icy darkness"-there is no morality, no faith, no heroism, indeed no meaning outside the
market."
Lasch in Revolt of the Elites:
"... Individuals cannot learn to speak for themselves at all, much less come to an intelligent
understanding of their happiness and well-being, in a world in which there are no values except
those of the market.... The market tends to universalize itself. It does not easily coexist
with institutions that operate according to principles that are antithetical to itself: schools
and universities, newspapers and magazines, charities, families. Sooner or later the market
tends to absorb them all. It puts an almost irresistible pressure on every activity to justify
itself in the only terms it recognizes: to become a business proposition, to pay its own way,
to show black ink on the bottom line. It turns news into entertainment, scholarship into professional
careerism, social work into the scientific management of poverty. Inexorably it remodels every
institution in its own image."
"... The message was accompanied by a parting gift...an apparently complete NSA backdoor kit targeting the Windows operating system. The kit is comprised of 61 malicious Windows executables, only one of which was previously known to antivirus vendors... ..."
"A
mysterious hacking group has been bedeviling the U.S. intelligence community for months, releasing a
tranche of secret National Security Agency hacking tools to the public while offering to sell even more
for the right price. Now with barely a week to go before Donald Trump's inauguration, the self-styled
"Shadow Brokers" on Thursday announced that they were packing it in.
"So long, farewell peoples. TheShadowBrokers is going dark, making exit," the group wrote on its
darknet site...
The message was accompanied by a parting gift...an apparently complete NSA backdoor
kit targeting the Windows operating system. The kit is comprised of 61 malicious Windows executables,
only one of which was previously known to antivirus vendors...
... ... ...
The Shadow Brokers emerged in August with the announcement that they'd stolen the hacking tools used
by a sophisticated computer-intrusion operation known as the Equation Group, and were putting them up
for sale to the highest bidder. It was a remarkable claim, because the Equation Group is generally understood
to be part of the NSA's elite Tailored Access Operations program and is virtually never detected, much
less penetrated.
... ... ...
Released along with the announcement was a huge cache of specialized malware, including dozens of
backdoor programs and 10 exploits, two of them targeting previously unknown security holes in Cisco
routers-a basic building block of the internet. While Cisco and other companies scrambled for a fix,
security experts pored over the Shadow Brokers tranche like it was the Rosetta Stone. "It was the first
time, as threat-intelligence professionals, that we've had access to what appears to be a relatively
complete toolkit of a nation-state attacker," says Jake Williams, founder of Rendition Infosec. "It
was excitement in some circles, dismay in other circles, and panic and a rush to patch if you're running
vulnerable hardware."
The document reads like "the gang that couldn't shoot straight." It's a joke.
Notable quotes:
"... People who already dislike Trump will believe the allegations while people who like Trump will hate the press and intelligence agencies (?) even more for attacking him unfairly in their minds. ..."
"... People are making jokes about it, the puns are just too easy, but nobody seems to actually believe it. ..."
"... People don't talk about it like "did you hear trump did X" "oh yea" "yea there was a story". Its like "there was a very dubious story that trump did x" "". The way people talk about a Saturday Night Live sketch about Trump. ..."
"... "This is a huge embarrassment to Democrats, the mainstream media and those intelligence officials who have all been piling on Trump. It hurts their credibility, which can ill afford to take yet another hit." ..."
"... It's just partisan warfare. ..."
"... "Today Clapper denounced media leaks..." Is that the same Clapper who lied to Congress about how the NSA was spying on law-abiding citizens en mass? Yeah he's trustworthy. ..."
"... CNN was the first to report what Buzzfeed revealed. Trump was mad at them. Who else? ..."
"... Glenn Greenwald explains the whole vendetta against Trump based on sham data. https://theintercept.com/2017/01/11/the-deep-state-goes-to-war-with-president-elect-using-unverified-claims-as-dems-cheer/ ..."
"... With release of the buzz feed data, they overplayed their hand, destroyed their narrative, embarrassed themselves, and ultimately strengthened Trump. ..."
"... "they damn well better have the goods...and the goods need to PO the deplorables." nothing will change their minds. They just see it as cynical attacks on their man. ..."
"... The long knives will come out during the next recession ..."
"... This reminds me of how the Bush campaign got Dan Rather to release some bogus information about Bush43 as a draft dodger. ..."
"... In that case, I think the narrative of Bush as a draft dodger was correct, but its usefulness for Democrats got destroyed the moment Rather's source was revealed as bogus. ..."
"... In this case, Hillary's assertions of Trump as a Putin stooge have been highly suspect, though she made a big deal of them in her campaign. Now that narrative has been crippled by the buzz feed overreach. ..."
"... Exactly! "Democrats don't want to do a post-mortem about why they lost. It may prove that Bernie Sanders was right. They'd rather change the subject," which is where the 'everything is Putin's fault' narrative comes in. ..."
"... Reminds me of the 'everything is Republicans fault' narrative that Democrats used to justify Obama's failure to jail bankers, his austerity, and his proposals to cut Social Security. ..."
"... Democrats are masters of denial and victimization...just like Republicans. It's all very sick. ..."
"... There is, and always was, a better Putin narrative. Trump is an FSB mole is both too far and too specific. ..."
"... the election should never been about Putin. It should have been about swing state voters' economic anxieties, something that Hillary could never wrap here head around. ..."
"... Now it looks like the Trump-Putin narrative is blowing up in their faces---purveyors of fake news should not accuse others of purveying fake news. ..."
The thing about Trump is that people can imagine he's the kind of guy who would enjoy being urinated
on by Russian prostitutes, even if the allegations are untrue. He is so into gold and into women.
People who already dislike Trump will believe the allegations while people who like Trump
will hate the press and intelligence agencies (?) even more for attacking him unfairly in their
minds.
I know a lot of people who dislike Trump, and none of them seem to believe the buzzfeed story.
People are making jokes about it, the puns are just too easy, but nobody seems to actually believe
it.
People don't talk about it like "did you hear trump did X" "oh yea" "yea there was a story".
Its like "there was a very dubious story that trump did x" "". The way people talk about a Saturday
Night Live sketch about Trump.
"This is a huge embarrassment to Democrats, the mainstream media and those intelligence officials
who have all been piling on Trump. It hurts their credibility, which can ill afford to take yet
another hit."
Kind of like Comey was a huge embarrassment to Republicans? I don't think so. It's just
partisan warfare.
"Today Clapper denounced media leaks..." Is that the same Clapper who lied to Congress about
how the NSA was spying on law-abiding citizens en mass? Yeah he's trustworthy.
"This is a huge embarrassment to Democrats, the mainstream media and those intelligence officials
who have all been piling on Trump. It hurts their credibility, which can ill afford to take yet
another hit."
CNN was the first to report what Buzzfeed revealed. Trump was mad at them. Who else?
Like Trump doesn't use "sham data" and innuendo. Who cares? Poetic justice. Trump is just going
to waste his time pursuing vendettas against those who sullied his good name.
Maybe that drama will "crowd out" some of his plans to enact Paul Ryan's agenda. Maybe it will
cause a backlash among those Americans interested in a free press and democratic norms.
Like I said some of your ideas are good, but they are tarnished by some of the really stupid
things you say by association.
We already know that Trump has a Teflon shield. If the establishment is going to get him, they
damn well better have the goods...and the goods need to PO the deplorables. Trumped up charges
won't cut it.
Should-Read: Josh Marshall: What You Didn't See: "What may be the most significant news of
the day barely made a ripple...
...Donald Trump, ten days from becoming President, has an approval rating of 37%. Most presidents
seldom get so low. Some never do. For ten days away from inauguration it's totally unprecedented....
Each of the last three presidents had approval ratings of at least 65% during their presidential
transitions.... Curiously absent from press coverage [has been that] Trump, his agenda and his
party are deeply unpopular... [and have] gotten steadily more unpopular over the last four weeks..."
"they damn well better have the goods...and the goods need to PO the deplorables." nothing
will change their minds. They just see it as cynical attacks on their man.
The long knives will come out during the next recession, when Trump will have proven
his incompetence. Pretense for impeachment is unknowable, but it better be good!
This reminds me of how the Bush campaign got Dan Rather to release some bogus information
about Bush43 as a draft dodger.
In that case, I think the narrative of Bush as a draft dodger was correct, but its usefulness
for Democrats got destroyed the moment Rather's source was revealed as bogus.
In this case, Hillary's assertions of Trump as a Putin stooge have been highly suspect,
though she made a big deal of them in her campaign. Now that narrative has been crippled by the
buzz feed overreach.
Democrats should have focused on voters' economic concerns, not the Trump-Putin narrative.
There was an interesting movie about the Rather case staring Robert Redford and Cate Blanchette.
Trump is engaging in the same thuggish behavior as Republicans used against Rather and his producer
in that case. Or course CBS folded because they had regulatory changes about affiliate ownership
before the Bush administration.
We can expect the same cowardice from our corporate media regarding the Trump administration.
It would be interesting to know if Trump had something to do with release of the buzz feed report.
It would make Trump smarter than I think he really is. My understanding is that John McCain, who
hates Trump, was behind circulation of the report before buzz feed released it.
"My understanding is that John McCain, who hates Trump, was behind circulation of the report before
buzz feed released it." A lot of people knew about it. The eight leading congress people on the
intelligence committees knew about it. David Corn reported about it in October in Mother Jones.
"Democrats should have focused on voters' economic concerns, not the Trump-Putin narrative."
I'll agree with you on this. Obama went more positive in 2008 and 2012 than Hillary did in
2016 and was successful at the polls. Negative campaigning works but seems like too much of it
depresses turnout.
Part of it is that establishment Democrats don't want to do a post-mortem about why they lost.
It may prove that Bernie Sanders was right. They'd rather change the subject.
Exactly! "Democrats don't want to do a post-mortem about why they lost. It may prove that
Bernie Sanders was right. They'd rather change the subject," which is where the 'everything is
Putin's fault' narrative comes in.
Reminds me of the 'everything is Republicans fault' narrative that Democrats used to justify
Obama's failure to jail bankers, his austerity, and his proposals to cut Social Security.
Democrats are masters of denial and victimization...just like Republicans. It's all very
sick.
There is, and always was, a better Putin narrative. Trump is an FSB mole is both too far and
too specific.
The Republican's policy ideas are awful. Trump will be a terrible president. Putin wants us
weak, and the Republican party will deliver just as it did during the Bush presidency.
We will make little progress on our important problems, and make massive blunders that cost
us for decades.
Global warming will continue to improve the Russian Climate. Progress on renewable energy will
be slowed, improving the market for Russian oil and gas. The US will worsen its healthcare problems.
The US will exacerbate its inequality. The toxic republican attitude toward the institutions of
democracy will come from all three branches of the federal government, and most state governments.
Putin doesn't like Hillary. At the time, she said Putin's election was rigged. And they were pushing
Russia on all fronts. Trump is an isolationist who doesn't care about human rights or freedom
of the press.
Agreed. There were probably better Putin narratives, and the election should never been about
Putin. It should have been about swing state voters' economic anxieties, something that Hillary
could never wrap here head around.
Now it looks like the Trump-Putin narrative is blowing up in their faces---purveyors of
fake news should not accuse others of purveying fake news.
This Paul Wood. is very funny "I understand the CIA believes it is credible..." The document reads like "the gang that couldn't shoot straight." It's a joke. But
despite this Paul wood provided a
good (albeit very dirty) hatchet job. Looks like neocons declared the open war on Trump. And as
they are just a flavor of Trotskyites they are are capable of everything as they preach " the end justifies
the means"... with their global neoliberal revolution under threat they can do as low as gangsters.
Fake evidence is OK form in the best the "end justified the means" way.
Notable quotes:
"... Claims about a Russian blackmail tape were made in one of a series of reports written by a former British intelligence agent, understood to be Christopher Steele ..."
"... As a member of MI6, he had been posted to the UK's embassy in Moscow and now runs a consultancy giving advice on doing business in Russia. He spoke to a number of his old contacts in the FSB, the successor to the KGB, paying some of them for information. ..."
"... Mr Trump's supporters say this is a politically motivated attack. The president-elect himself, outraged, tweeted this morning: "Are we living in Nazi Germany?" ..."
"... He said the memo was written by "sick people [who] put that crap together". ..."
"... The opposition research firm that commissioned the report had worked first for an anti-Trump superpac - political action committee - during the Republican primaries. ..."
"... Then during the general election, it was funded by an anonymous Democratic Party supporter. ..."
"... At his news conference, Mr Trump said he warned his staff when they travelled: "Be very careful, because in your hotel rooms and no matter where you go you're going to probably have cameras." ..."
"Trump 'compromising' claims: How and why did we get here?"
By Paul Wood...BBC News...Washington...1-12-2017...47 minutes ago
"Donald Trump has described as "fake news" allegations published in some media that his election
team colluded with Russia - and that Russia held compromising material about his private life.
The BBC's Paul Wood saw the allegations before the election, and reports on the fallout now they
have come to light.
The significance of these allegations is that, if true, the president-elect of the United States
would be vulnerable to blackmail by the Russians.
I understand the CIA believes it is credible that the Kremlin has such kompromat - or compromising
material - on the next US commander in chief. At the same time a joint taskforce, which includes
the CIA and the FBI, has been investigating allegations that the Russians may have sent money
to Mr Trump's organisation or his election campaign.
Claims about a Russian blackmail tape were made in one of a series of reports written by
a former British intelligence agent, understood to be Christopher Steele.
As a member of MI6, he had been posted to the UK's embassy in Moscow and now runs a consultancy
giving advice on doing business in Russia. He spoke to a number of his old contacts in the FSB,
the successor to the KGB, paying some of them for information.
They told him that Mr Trump had been filmed with a group of prostitutes in the presidential
suite of Moscow's Ritz-Carlton hotel. I know this because the Washington political research company
that commissioned his report showed it to me during the final week of the election campaign.
The BBC decided not to use it then, for the very good reason that without seeing the tape -
if it exists - we could not know if the claims were true. The detail of the allegations were certainly
lurid. The entire series of reports has now been posted by BuzzFeed.
[Image of Trump's Tweet]
Mr Trump's supporters say this is a politically motivated attack. The president-elect himself,
outraged, tweeted this morning: "Are we living in Nazi Germany?" Later, at his much-awaited
news conference, he was unrestrained. "A thing like that should have never been written," he said,
"and certainly should never have been released."
He said the memo was written by "sick people [who] put that crap together".
The opposition research firm that commissioned the report had worked first for an anti-Trump
superpac - political action committee - during the Republican primaries.
Then during the general election, it was funded by an anonymous Democratic Party supporter.
But these are not political hacks - their usual line of work is country analysis and commercial
risk assessment, similar to the former MI6 agent's consultancy. He, apparently, gave his dossier
to the FBI against the firm's advice.
[Photo of Trump in Moscow, 2013 w/beauty contestants]
And the former MI6 agent is not the only source for the claim about Russian kompromat on the
president-elect. Back in August, a retired spy told me he had been informed of its existence by
"the head of an East European intelligence agency".
Later, I used an intermediary to pass some questions to active duty CIA officers dealing with
the case file - they would not speak to me directly. I got a message back that there was "more
than one tape", "audio and video", on "more than one date", in "more than one place" - in the
Ritz-Carlton in Moscow and also in St Petersburg - and that the material was "of a sexual nature".
'Be very careful'
The claims of Russian kompromat on Mr Trump were "credible", the CIA believed. That is why
- according to the New York Times and Washington Post - these claims ended up on President Barack
Obama's desk last week, a briefing document also given to Congressional leaders and to Mr Trump
himself.
Mr Trump did visit Moscow in November 2013, the date the main tape is supposed to have been
made. There is TV footage of him at the Miss Universe contest. Any visitor to a grand hotel in
Moscow would be wise to assume that their room comes equipped with hidden cameras and microphones
as well as a mini-bar.
At his news conference, Mr Trump said he warned his staff when they travelled: "Be very
careful, because in your hotel rooms and no matter where you go you're going to probably have
cameras." So the Russian security services have made obtaining kompromat an art form.
One Russian specialist told me that Vladimir Putin himself sometimes says there is kompromat
on him - though perhaps he is joking. The specialist went on to tell me that FSB officers are
prone to boasting about having tapes on public figures, and to be careful of any statements they
might make.
A former CIA officer told me he had spoken by phone to a serving FSB officer who talked about
the tapes. He concluded: "It's hokey as hell."
Mr Trump and his supporters are right to point out that these are unsubstantiated allegations.
But it is not just sex, it is money too. The former MI6 agent's report detailed alleged attempts
by the Kremlin to offer Mr Trump lucrative "sweetheart deals" in Russia that would buy his loyalty.
Mr Trump turned these down, and indeed has done little real business in Russia. But a joint
intelligence and law enforcement taskforce has been looking at allegations that the Kremlin paid
money to his campaign through his associates.
Legal applications
On 15 October, the US secret intelligence court issued a warrant to investigate two Russian
banks. This news was given to me by several sources and corroborated by someone I will identify
only as a senior member of the US intelligence community. He would never volunteer anything -
giving up classified information would be illegal - but he would confirm or deny what I had heard
from other sources.
"I'm going to write a story that says " I would say. "I don't have a problem with that," he
would reply, if my information was accurate. He confirmed the sequence of events below.
Last April, the CIA director was shown intelligence that worried him. It was - allegedly -
a tape recording of a conversation about money from the Kremlin going into the US presidential
campaign.
It was passed to the US by an intelligence agency of one of the Baltic States. The CIA cannot
act domestically against American citizens so a joint counter-intelligence taskforce was created.
The taskforce included six agencies or departments of government. Dealing with the domestic,
US, side of the inquiry, were the FBI, the Department of the Treasury, and the Department of Justice.
For the foreign and intelligence aspects of the investigation, there were another three agencies:
the CIA, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the National Security Agency,
responsible for electronic spying.
Lawyers from the National Security Division in the Department of Justice then drew up an application.
They took it to the secret US court that deals with intelligence, the Fisa court, named after
the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. They wanted permission to intercept the electronic
records from two Russian banks.
Their first application, in June, was rejected outright by the judge. They returned with a
more narrowly drawn order in July and were rejected again. Finally, before a new judge, the order
was granted, on 15 October, three weeks before election day.
Neither Mr Trump nor his associates are named in the Fisa order, which would only cover foreign
citizens or foreign entities - in this case the Russian banks. But ultimately, the investigation
is looking for transfers of money from Russia to the United States, each one, if proved, a felony
offence.
A lawyer- outside the Department of Justice but familiar with the case - told me that three
of Mr Trump's associates were the subject of the inquiry. "But it's clear this is about Trump,"
he said.
I spoke to all three of those identified by this source. All of them emphatically denied any
wrongdoing. "Hogwash," said one. "Bullshit," said another. Of the two Russian banks, one denied
any wrongdoing, while the other did not respond to a request for comment.
The investigation was active going into the election. During that period, the leader of the
Democrats in the Senate, Harry Reid, wrote to the director of the FBI, accusing him of holding
back "explosive information" about Mr Trump.
Mr Reid sent his letter after getting an intelligence briefing, along with other senior figures
in Congress. Only eight people were present: the chairs and ranking minority members of the House
and Senate intelligence committees, and the leaders of the Democratic and Republican parties in
Congress, the "gang of eight" as they are sometimes called. Normally, senior staff attend "gang
of eight" intelligence briefings, but not this time. The Congressional leaders were not even allowed
to take notes.
'Puppet'
In the letter to the FBI director, James Comey, Mr Reid said: "In my communications with you
and other top officials in the national security community, it has become clear that you possess
explosive information about close ties and co-ordination between Donald Trump, his top advisers,
and the Russian government - a foreign interest openly hostile to the United States, which Mr
Trump praises at every opportunity.
"The public has a right to know this information. I wrote to you months ago calling for this
information to be released to the public. There is no danger to American interests from releasing
it. And yet, you continue to resist calls to inform the public of this critical information."
The CIA, FBI, Justice and Treasury all refused to comment when I approached them after hearing
about the Fisa warrant.
It is not clear what will happen to the inter-agency investigation under President Trump -
or even if the taskforce is continuing its work now. The Russians have denied any attempt to influence
the president-elect - with either money or a blackmail tape.
If a tape exists, the Russians would hardly give it up, though some hope to encourage a disloyal
FSB officer who might want to make some serious money. Before the election, Larry Flynt, publisher
of the pornographic magazine Hustler, put up a million dollars for incriminating tape of Mr Trump.
Penthouse has now followed with its own offer of a million dollars for the Ritz-Carlton tape (if
it exists).
It is an extraordinary situation, 10 days before Mr Trump is sworn into office, but it was
foreshadowed during the campaign.
During the final presidential debate, Hillary Clinton called Donald Trump a "puppet" of Russia's
leader, Vladimir Putin. "No puppet. No puppet," Mr Trump interjected, talking over Mrs Clinton.
"You're the puppet. No, you're the puppet."
In a New York Times op-ed in August, the former director of the CIA, Michael Morell, wrote:
"In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr Putin had recruited Mr Trump as an unwitting
agent of the Russian Federation."
Agent; puppet - both terms imply some measure of influence or control by Moscow.
Michael Hayden, former head of both the CIA and the NSA, simply called Mr Trump a "polezni
durak" - a useful fool.
The background to those statements was information held - at the time - within the intelligence
community. Now all Americans have heard the claims. Little more than a week before his inauguration,
they will have to decide if their president-elect really was being blackmailed by Moscow."
The document reads like "the gang that couldn't shoot straight." It's a joke.
Notable quotes:
"... People who already dislike Trump will believe the allegations while people who like Trump will hate the press and intelligence agencies (?) even more for attacking him unfairly in their minds. ..."
"... People are making jokes about it, the puns are just too easy, but nobody seems to actually believe it. ..."
"... People don't talk about it like "did you hear trump did X" "oh yea" "yea there was a story". Its like "there was a very dubious story that trump did x" "". The way people talk about a Saturday Night Live sketch about Trump. ..."
"... "This is a huge embarrassment to Democrats, the mainstream media and those intelligence officials who have all been piling on Trump. It hurts their credibility, which can ill afford to take yet another hit." ..."
"... It's just partisan warfare. ..."
"... "Today Clapper denounced media leaks..." Is that the same Clapper who lied to Congress about how the NSA was spying on law-abiding citizens en mass? Yeah he's trustworthy. ..."
"... CNN was the first to report what Buzzfeed revealed. Trump was mad at them. Who else? ..."
"... Glenn Greenwald explains the whole vendetta against Trump based on sham data. https://theintercept.com/2017/01/11/the-deep-state-goes-to-war-with-president-elect-using-unverified-claims-as-dems-cheer/ ..."
"... With release of the buzz feed data, they overplayed their hand, destroyed their narrative, embarrassed themselves, and ultimately strengthened Trump. ..."
"... "they damn well better have the goods...and the goods need to PO the deplorables." nothing will change their minds. They just see it as cynical attacks on their man. ..."
"... The long knives will come out during the next recession ..."
"... This reminds me of how the Bush campaign got Dan Rather to release some bogus information about Bush43 as a draft dodger. ..."
"... In that case, I think the narrative of Bush as a draft dodger was correct, but its usefulness for Democrats got destroyed the moment Rather's source was revealed as bogus. ..."
"... In this case, Hillary's assertions of Trump as a Putin stooge have been highly suspect, though she made a big deal of them in her campaign. Now that narrative has been crippled by the buzz feed overreach. ..."
"... Exactly! "Democrats don't want to do a post-mortem about why they lost. It may prove that Bernie Sanders was right. They'd rather change the subject," which is where the 'everything is Putin's fault' narrative comes in. ..."
"... Reminds me of the 'everything is Republicans fault' narrative that Democrats used to justify Obama's failure to jail bankers, his austerity, and his proposals to cut Social Security. ..."
"... Democrats are masters of denial and victimization...just like Republicans. It's all very sick. ..."
"... There is, and always was, a better Putin narrative. Trump is an FSB mole is both too far and too specific. ..."
"... the election should never been about Putin. It should have been about swing state voters' economic anxieties, something that Hillary could never wrap here head around. ..."
"... Now it looks like the Trump-Putin narrative is blowing up in their faces---purveyors of fake news should not accuse others of purveying fake news. ..."
The thing about Trump is that people can imagine he's the kind of guy who would enjoy being urinated
on by Russian prostitutes, even if the allegations are untrue. He is so into gold and into women.
People who already dislike Trump will believe the allegations while people who like Trump
will hate the press and intelligence agencies (?) even more for attacking him unfairly in their
minds.
I know a lot of people who dislike Trump, and none of them seem to believe the buzzfeed story.
People are making jokes about it, the puns are just too easy, but nobody seems to actually believe
it.
People don't talk about it like "did you hear trump did X" "oh yea" "yea there was a story".
Its like "there was a very dubious story that trump did x" "". The way people talk about a Saturday
Night Live sketch about Trump.
"This is a huge embarrassment to Democrats, the mainstream media and those intelligence officials
who have all been piling on Trump. It hurts their credibility, which can ill afford to take yet
another hit."
Kind of like Comey was a huge embarrassment to Republicans? I don't think so. It's just
partisan warfare.
"Today Clapper denounced media leaks..." Is that the same Clapper who lied to Congress about
how the NSA was spying on law-abiding citizens en mass? Yeah he's trustworthy.
"This is a huge embarrassment to Democrats, the mainstream media and those intelligence officials
who have all been piling on Trump. It hurts their credibility, which can ill afford to take yet
another hit."
CNN was the first to report what Buzzfeed revealed. Trump was mad at them. Who else?
Like Trump doesn't use "sham data" and innuendo. Who cares? Poetic justice. Trump is just going
to waste his time pursuing vendettas against those who sullied his good name.
Maybe that drama will "crowd out" some of his plans to enact Paul Ryan's agenda. Maybe it will
cause a backlash among those Americans interested in a free press and democratic norms.
Like I said some of your ideas are good, but they are tarnished by some of the really stupid
things you say by association.
We already know that Trump has a Teflon shield. If the establishment is going to get him, they
damn well better have the goods...and the goods need to PO the deplorables. Trumped up charges
won't cut it.
Should-Read: Josh Marshall: What You Didn't See: "What may be the most significant news of
the day barely made a ripple...
...Donald Trump, ten days from becoming President, has an approval rating of 37%. Most presidents
seldom get so low. Some never do. For ten days away from inauguration it's totally unprecedented....
Each of the last three presidents had approval ratings of at least 65% during their presidential
transitions.... Curiously absent from press coverage [has been that] Trump, his agenda and his
party are deeply unpopular... [and have] gotten steadily more unpopular over the last four weeks..."
"they damn well better have the goods...and the goods need to PO the deplorables." nothing
will change their minds. They just see it as cynical attacks on their man.
The long knives will come out during the next recession, when Trump will have proven
his incompetence. Pretense for impeachment is unknowable, but it better be good!
This reminds me of how the Bush campaign got Dan Rather to release some bogus information
about Bush43 as a draft dodger.
In that case, I think the narrative of Bush as a draft dodger was correct, but its usefulness
for Democrats got destroyed the moment Rather's source was revealed as bogus.
In this case, Hillary's assertions of Trump as a Putin stooge have been highly suspect,
though she made a big deal of them in her campaign. Now that narrative has been crippled by the
buzz feed overreach.
Democrats should have focused on voters' economic concerns, not the Trump-Putin narrative.
There was an interesting movie about the Rather case staring Robert Redford and Cate Blanchette.
Trump is engaging in the same thuggish behavior as Republicans used against Rather and his producer
in that case. Or course CBS folded because they had regulatory changes about affiliate ownership
before the Bush administration.
We can expect the same cowardice from our corporate media regarding the Trump administration.
It would be interesting to know if Trump had something to do with release of the buzz feed report.
It would make Trump smarter than I think he really is. My understanding is that John McCain, who
hates Trump, was behind circulation of the report before buzz feed released it.
"My understanding is that John McCain, who hates Trump, was behind circulation of the report before
buzz feed released it." A lot of people knew about it. The eight leading congress people on the
intelligence committees knew about it. David Corn reported about it in October in Mother Jones.
"Democrats should have focused on voters' economic concerns, not the Trump-Putin narrative."
I'll agree with you on this. Obama went more positive in 2008 and 2012 than Hillary did in
2016 and was successful at the polls. Negative campaigning works but seems like too much of it
depresses turnout.
Part of it is that establishment Democrats don't want to do a post-mortem about why they lost.
It may prove that Bernie Sanders was right. They'd rather change the subject.
Exactly! "Democrats don't want to do a post-mortem about why they lost. It may prove that
Bernie Sanders was right. They'd rather change the subject," which is where the 'everything is
Putin's fault' narrative comes in.
Reminds me of the 'everything is Republicans fault' narrative that Democrats used to justify
Obama's failure to jail bankers, his austerity, and his proposals to cut Social Security.
Democrats are masters of denial and victimization...just like Republicans. It's all very
sick.
There is, and always was, a better Putin narrative. Trump is an FSB mole is both too far and
too specific.
The Republican's policy ideas are awful. Trump will be a terrible president. Putin wants us
weak, and the Republican party will deliver just as it did during the Bush presidency.
We will make little progress on our important problems, and make massive blunders that cost
us for decades.
Global warming will continue to improve the Russian Climate. Progress on renewable energy will
be slowed, improving the market for Russian oil and gas. The US will worsen its healthcare problems.
The US will exacerbate its inequality. The toxic republican attitude toward the institutions of
democracy will come from all three branches of the federal government, and most state governments.
Putin doesn't like Hillary. At the time, she said Putin's election was rigged. And they were pushing
Russia on all fronts. Trump is an isolationist who doesn't care about human rights or freedom
of the press.
Agreed. There were probably better Putin narratives, and the election should never been about
Putin. It should have been about swing state voters' economic anxieties, something that Hillary
could never wrap here head around.
Now it looks like the Trump-Putin narrative is blowing up in their faces---purveyors of
fake news should not accuse others of purveying fake news.
"... By Andrew J. Bacevich, professor emeritus of history and international relations at Boston University. His most recent book is ..."
"... American elites might, of course, have assigned a far different, less celebratory meaning to the passing of the Cold War. They might have seen the outcome as a moment that called for regret, repentance, and making amends. ..."
"... annus mirabilis ..."
"... Wall Street Journal, ..."
"... Washington Post, ..."
"... Weekly Standard, ..."
"... ne plus ultra ..."
"... Putin's no saint, but Jeebus, Kissinger and Brxzyzeniski and Nuland and all the rest? The Gang Who Couldn't Shoot Straight? Do they get to run us all into the grave, because we Policy Addicts go along with the insane "logic" of whatever the hell it is that "NATO" in all its idiotic parts is doing? Was the Crimea a casus belli? though it seems to people who are deep in the Think Tanks think EVERYTHING is a casus belli, and never ask any questions of the sorts that Sun Tzu counseled ought to be asked, long before and at every point in any "war" action ..."
"... This disabled Vietnam vet offers a big FU, to all the Fokkers, armchair or ergonomic Battlespace Manager or Foggy Bottom delicate or Langley overstuffed chairs, who are driving the vast bus we all have to ride in off the cliff, all happy with their impunity and immunity and faux self-created, self-p[rolonged, terminal Grand Responsibilities. ..."
"... Show how smart you are, send another 300 Marines to Iraq, and another 300 to Notagainistan, for "we won't say combat" involvement in the futility and corruption and destabilization and destruction there Who will be the last Troop, and the last "noncombatant," to die in this old-as-civilization idiocy? Who Fokking cares, really, as long as it is one of those "Enemies " ..."
"... Gorbachev must have been either stupid or traitor to accept such promises in lieu of real and tangible concessions. ..."
"... In my view, the biggest mistake was not NATO expansion but rather the looting of the Soviet Union. If the major soviet republics was to be integrated within the western alliance more or less in the same manner as Germany, the situation today would have been very different. Instead of sucking soviet resources over a longer term like Germany does to the EU, west was salivating on the prospects of literally new loots thus awaken the pray. ..."
"... That made the people of Russia and many others feel disgust, and they resisted at the first opportunity they got. Now, there is no way Russia can be put under the American influence. This is all more remarkable because most Russians had admired the empire so much thus putting them under American umbrella would have been so easy. Putin, for example, was ready to play ball with the west but their insistence on total dominance disgusted even him. I am sure the global elite recognizes this but some still cannot get over how they let this pass. ..."
"... Putin still supports neoliberalism but this too will pass as neoliberal order is controlled by New York bankers and only way out is another world order, which is exactly what Russia and China started building. Departure of Russia from neoliberal order, I believe, will seal the fate of neoliberalism as it just did it exactly 100 years ago. ..."
"... I think Lasch's The Revolt of the Elites and the Betrayal of Democracy ..."
"... Lasch was notable for other trenchant social criticism, including identifying narcissism as the dominant trait of the postwar American psyche and challenging some tenets of second wave feminism. As befits a fearless and original thinker he didn't fit neatly into any established intellectual paradigm. ..."
"... Globalisation was accompanied by an ideology, neoliberalism, that was guaranteed to fail. The problems were there at the start but were ignored, it was always going to go wrong in exactly the way it has. ..."
"... Liberal democracy was the bringing together of two mutually exclusive ideas. Economic liberalism – that enriches the few and impoverishes the many. Democracy – that requires the support of the majority. ..."
Andrew Bacevich: How the US Blew the Post-Cold-War Era
Posted on
January 9, 2017
by
Yves Smith
Yves here. While this account is useful, it omits two events I regard as
key. One is how the US was singularly responsible for the plutocratic land
grab in post-Soviet Russia (see
How Harvard Lost Russia
), which led to a stunning fall in male lifespans,
a rise of a class of oligarchs, which in turn led to the rise of Putin,
whose success resulted from reining in the oligarchs to a degree and
delivering a sustained improvement in economic conditions for ordinary
people. The US fondness for neoliberal projects all over the world has not
done much for international stability. But that is a feature, not a bug, for
members of the industrial/surveillance complex.
Second is the fact that
under Clinton, the US began to move NATO into former Warsaw Pact countries,
contrary to a promise made by James Baker to Gorbachev. The Russians
apparently regarded this as binding, while the legalistic US took the
position that unless it was in writing, it didn't count. George Kennan,
hardly a slouch in the Cold Warrior department, said
it would prove to be the worst geopolitical mistake the US had ever made in
the modern era
.
The fall of the Berlin Wall in October 1989 abruptly ended one historical
era and inaugurated another. So, too, did the outcome of last year's U.S.
presidential election. What are we to make of the interval between those two
watershed moments? Answering that question is essential to understanding how
Donald Trump became president and where his ascendency leaves us.
Hardly had this period commenced before observers fell into the habit of
referring to it as the "post-Cold War" era. Now that it's over, a more
descriptive name might be in order. My suggestion: America's
Age of Great Expectations.
Forgive and Forget
The end of the Cold War caught the United States completely by surprise.
During the 1980s, even with Mikhail Gorbachev running the Kremlin, few in
Washington questioned the prevailing conviction that the Soviet-American
rivalry was and would remain a defining feature of international politics
more or less in perpetuity. Indeed, endorsing such an assumption was among
the prerequisites for gaining entrée to official circles. Virtually no one
in the American establishment gave serious thought to the here-today,
gone-tomorrow possibility that the Soviet threat, the Soviet empire, and the
Soviet Union itself might someday vanish. Washington had plans aplenty for
what to do should a Third World War erupt, but none for what to do if the
prospect of such a climactic conflict simply disappeared.
Still, without missing a beat, when the Berlin Wall fell and two years
later the Soviet Union imploded, leading members of that establishment
wasted no time in explaining the implications of developments they had
totally failed to anticipate. With something close to unanimity,
politicians and policy-oriented intellectuals interpreted the unification of
Berlin and the ensuing collapse of communism as an all-American victory of
cosmic proportions. "We" had won, "they" had lost - with that outcome
vindicating everything the United States represented as the archetype of
freedom.
From within the confines of that establishment, one rising young
intellectual audaciously
suggested
that the "end of history" itself might be at hand, with the
"sole superpower" left standing now perfectly positioned to determine the
future of all humankind. In Washington, various powers-that-be considered
this hypothesis and concluded that it sounded just about right. The future
took on the appearance of a blank slate upon which Destiny itself was
inviting Americans to inscribe their intentions.
American elites might, of course, have assigned a far different, less
celebratory meaning to the passing of the Cold War. They might have seen the
outcome as a moment that called for regret, repentance, and making amends.
After all, the competition between the United States and the Soviet
Union, or more broadly between what was then called the Free World and the
Communist bloc, had yielded a host of baleful effects. An arms race between
two superpowers had created monstrous nuclear arsenals and, on
multiple occasions
, brought the planet precariously close to
Armageddon. Two singularly inglorious wars had claimed the lives of many
tens of thousands
of American soldiers and literally
millions
of Asians. One, on the Korean peninsula, had ended in an
unsatisfactory draw; the other, in Southeast Asia, in catastrophic defeat.
Proxy fights in Asia, Africa, Latin America, and the Middle East killed so
many more and laid waste to whole countries. Cold War obsessions led
Washington to
overthrow
democratic governments,
connive
in assassination, make common cause with corrupt dictators, and
turn a blind eye to
genocidal violence
. On the home front, hysteria compromised civil
liberties and fostered a sprawling, intrusive, and unaccountable national
security apparatus. Meanwhile, the
military-industrial complex
and its beneficiaries conspired to spend
vast sums on weapons purchases that somehow never seemed adequate to the
putative dangers at hand.
Rather than reflecting on such somber and sordid matters, however, the
American political establishment together with ambitious members of
the country's intelligentsia found it so much more expedient simply
to move on. As they saw it, the
annus mirabilis
of 1989 wiped away
the sins of former years. Eager to make a fresh start, Washington granted
itself a plenary indulgence. After all, why contemplate past unpleasantness
when a future so stunningly rich in promise now beckoned?
Three Big Ideas and a Dubious Corollary
Soon enough, that promise found concrete expression. In remarkably short
order, three themes emerged to define the new American age. Informing each
of them was a sense of exuberant anticipation toward an era of almost
unimaginable expectations. The twentieth century was ending on a high note.
For the planet as a whole but especially for the United States, great things
lay ahead.
Focused on the world economy, the first of those themes emphasized the
transformative potential of turbocharged globalization led by U.S.-based
financial institutions and transnational corporations. An "open world"
would facilitate the movement of goods, capital, ideas, and people and
thereby
create wealth
on an unprecedented scale.
In the
process, the rules governing American-style corporate capitalism would come
to prevail everywhere on the planet. Everyone would benefit, but especially
Americans who would continue to enjoy more than their fair share of material
abundance.
Focused
on statecraft, the second theme spelled out the implications of an
international order dominated as never before - not even in the heydays of
the Roman and British Empires - by a single nation. With the passing of the
Cold War, the United States now stood apart as both supreme power and
irreplaceable global leader, its status guaranteed by its unstoppable
military might.
In the editorial offices of the
Wall Street Journal,
the
Washington Post,
the
New Republic,
and the
Weekly
Standard,
such "truths" achieved a self-evident status. Although more
muted in their public pronouncements than Washington's reigning pundits,
officials enjoying access to the Oval Office, the State Department's 7th
floor, and the E-ring of the Pentagon generally agreed. The assertive
exercise of (benign!) global hegemony seemingly held the key to ensuring
that Americans would enjoy safety and security, both at home and abroad, now
and in perpetuity.
The third theme was all about rethinking the concept of personal freedom
as commonly understood and pursued by most Americans. During the protracted
emergency of the Cold War, reaching an accommodation between freedom and the
putative imperatives of national security had not come easily. Cold
War-style patriotism seemingly prioritized the interests of the state at the
expense of the individual. Yet even as
thrillingly expressed
by John F. Kennedy - "Ask not what your country
can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" - this was never an
easy sell, especially if it meant wading through rice paddies and getting
shot at.
Once the Cold War ended, however, the tension between individual freedom
and national security momentarily dissipated. Reigning conceptions of what
freedom could or should entail underwent a radical transformation.
Emphasizing the removal of restraints and inhibitions, the shift made itself
felt everywhere, from patterns of consumption and modes of cultural
expression to sexuality and the definition of the family. Norms that had
prevailed for decades if not generations - marriage as a union between a man
and a woman, gender identity as fixed at birth - became passé. The concept
of a transcendent common good, which during the Cold War had taken a
backseat to national security, now took a backseat to maximizing individual
choice and autonomy.
Finally, as a complement to these themes, in the realm of governance, the
end of the Cold War cemented the status of the president as quasi-deity. In
the Age of Great Expectations, the myth of the president as a deliverer from
(or, in the eyes of critics, the ultimate perpetrator of) evil flourished.
In the solar system of American politics, the man in the White House
increasingly became the sun around which everything seemed to orbit. By
comparison, nothing else much mattered.
From one administration to the next, of course, presidential efforts to
deliver Americans to the Promised Land regularly came up short. Even so,
the political establishment and the establishment media collaborated in
sustaining the pretense that out of the next endlessly hyped "race for the
White House," another Roosevelt or Kennedy or Reagan would magically emerge
to save the nation. From one election cycle to the next, these campaigns
became longer and more expensive, drearier and yet ever more circus-like.
No matter. During the Age of Great Expectations, the reflexive tendency to
see the president as the ultimate guarantor of American abundance, security,
and freedom remained sacrosanct.
Blindsided
Meanwhile, between promise and reality, a yawning gap began to appear.
During the concluding decade of the twentieth century and the first
decade-and-a-half of the twenty-first, Americans endured a seemingly endless
series of crises. Individually, none of these merit comparison with, say,
the Civil War or World War II. Yet never in U.S. history has a sequence of
events occurring
in such close proximity subjected American
institutions and the American people to greater stress.
During the decade between 1998 and 2008, they came on with startling
regularity: one president impeached and his successor chosen by the direct
intervention of the Supreme Court; a massive terrorist attack on American
soil that killed thousands, traumatized the nation, and left senior
officials bereft of their senses; a mindless, needless, and unsuccessful war
of choice launched on the basis of false claims and outright lies; a
natural disaster
(exacerbated by engineering folly) that all but
destroyed a major American city, after which government agencies mounted a
belated and half-hearted response; and finally, the worst economic downturn
since the Great Depression, bringing ruin to millions of families.
For the sake of completeness, we should append to this roster of seismic
occurrences one additional event: Barack Obama's election as the nation's
first black president. He arrived at the zenith of American political life
as a seemingly messianic figure called upon not only to undo the damage
wrought by his predecessor, George W. Bush, but somehow to absolve the
nation of its original sins of slavery and racism.
Yet during the Obama presidency race relations, in fact, deteriorated.
Whether prompted by cynical political calculations or a
crass desire to boost ratings
, race baiters came out of the woodwork -
one of them, of course,
infamously birthered
in Trump Tower in mid-Manhattan - and poured their
poisons into the body politic. Even so, as the end of Obama's term
approached, the cult of the
presidency itself remained remarkably
intact.
Individually, the impact of these various crises ranged from
disconcerting to debilitating to horrifying. Yet to treat them separately
is to overlook their collective implications, which the election of Donald
Trump only now enables us to appreciate. It was not one president's
dalliance
with an intern
or
"
hanging
chads
"
or
9/11
or
"
Mission
Accomplished
"
or
the
inundation
of the Lower Ninth Ward
or
the
collapse
of Lehman Brothers
or
the absurd birther movement that
undermined the Age of Great Expectations. It was the way all these events
together exposed those expectations as radically suspect.
In effect, the various crises that punctuated the post-Cold War era
called into question key themes to which a fevered American triumphalism had
given rise. Globalization, militarized hegemony, and a more expansive
definition of freedom, guided by enlightened presidents in tune with the
times,
should
have provided Americans with all the blessings that
were rightly theirs as a consequence of having prevailed in the Cold War.
Instead, between 1989 and 2016, things kept happening that weren't supposed
to happen. A future marketed as all but foreordained proved elusive, if not
illusory. As actually experienced, the Age of Great Expectations became an
Age of Unwelcome Surprises.
A Candidate for Decline
True, globalization created wealth on a vast scale, just not for ordinary
Americans. The already well-to-do did splendidly, in some cases
unbelievably so
. But middle-class incomes
stagnated
and good jobs became increasingly hard to find or keep. By
the election of 2016, the United States looked increasingly like a society
divided between haves and have-nots, the affluent and the left-behind, the
1% and everyone else. Prospective voters were noticing.
Meanwhile, policies inspired by Washington's soaring hegemonic ambitions
produced remarkably few happy outcomes. With U.S. forces continuously
engaged in combat operations, peace all but vanished as a policy objective
(or even a word in Washington's political lexicon). The acknowledged
standing of the country's military as the world's best-trained,
best-equipped, and best-led force coexisted uneasily with the fact that it
proved
unable to win
. Instead, the national security establishment became
conditioned to the idea of permanent war, high-ranking officials taking it
for granted that ordinary citizens would simply accommodate themselves to
this new reality. Yet it soon became apparent that, instead of giving
ordinary Americans a sense of security, this new paradigm induced an acute
sense of vulnerability, which left many susceptible to
demagogic fear mongering
.
As for the revised definition of freedom, with autonomy emerging as the
national
summum bonum,
it left some satisfied but others adrift.
During the Age of Great Expectations, distinctions between citizen and
consumer blurred. Shopping became tantamount to a civic obligation,
essential to keeping the economy afloat. Yet if all the hoopla surrounding
Black Friday and Cyber Monday represented a celebration of American freedom,
its satisfactions were transitory at best, rarely extending beyond the due
date printed on a credit card statement. Meanwhile,
as
digital connections displaced personal ones,
relationships,
like jobs, became more contingent and temporary.
Loneliness
emerged as an abiding affliction. Meanwhile, for all the
talk of empowering the marginalized - people of color, women, gays - elites
reaped the lion's share of the benefits while ordinary people were left to
make do. The atmosphere was rife with hypocrisy and even a whiff of
nihilism.
To these various contradictions, the establishment itself remained
stubbornly oblivious, with the 2016 presidential candidacy of Hillary
Clinton offering a case in point. As her long record in public life made
abundantly clear, Clinton embodied the establishment in the Age of Great
Expectations. She believed in globalization, in the indispensability of
American leadership backed by military power, and in the post-Cold War
cultural project. And she certainly believed in the presidency as the
mechanism to translate aspirations into outcomes.
Such commonplace convictions of the era, along with her vanguard role in
pressing for the empowerment of women, imparted to her run an air of
inevitability. That she deserved to win appeared self-evident. It was,
after all, her turn.
Largely overlooked were signs that
the abiding themes of the Age of Great Expectations no longer commanded
automatic allegiance.
Gasping for Air
Senator Bernie Sanders offered one of those signs. That a
past-his-prime, self-professed socialist from Vermont with a negligible
record of legislative achievement and tenuous links to the Democratic Party
might mount a serious challenge to Clinton seemed, on the face of it,
absurd. Yet by zeroing in on unfairness and inequality as inevitable
byproducts of globalization, Sanders struck a chord.
Knocked briefly off balance, Clinton responded by modifying certain of
her longstanding positions. By backing away from free trade, the
ne plus
ultra
of globalization, she managed, though not without difficulty, to
defeat the Sanders insurgency. Even so, he, in effect, served as the canary
in the establishment coal mine, signaling that the Age of Great Expectations
might be running out of oxygen.
A parallel and far stranger insurgency was simultaneously wreaking havoc
in the Republican Party. That a narcissistic political neophyte stood the
slightest chance of capturing the GOP seemed even more improbable than
Sanders taking a nomination that appeared Clinton's by right.
Coarse, vulgar, unprincipled, uninformed, erratic, and with little regard
for truth, Trump was
sui generis
among presidential candidates
.
Yet he possessed a singular gift: a knack for riling up those who nurse
gripes and are keen to pin the blame on someone or something. In post-Cold
War America, among the millions that Hillary Clinton was famously
dismissing
as "deplorables," gripes had been ripening like cheese in a
hothouse.
Through whatever combination of intuition and malice aforethought, Trump
demonstrated a genius for motivating those deplorables. He pushed their
buttons. They responded by turning out in droves to attend his rallies.
There they listened to a message that they found compelling.
In Trump's pledge to "make America great again" his followers heard a
promise to restore everything they believed had been taken from them in the
Age of Great Expectations. Globalization was neither beneficial nor
inevitable, the candidate insisted, and vowed, once elected, to curb its
effects along with the excesses of corporate capitalism, thereby bringing
back millions of lost jobs from overseas. He would, he swore,
fund
a massive infrastructure program,
cut taxes
, keep a lid on the national debt, and generally
champion the cause
of working stiffs. The many complications and
contradictions inherent in these various prescriptions would, he assured his
fans, give way to his business savvy.
In considering America's role in the post-Cold War world, Trump exhibited
a similar impatience with the status quo. Rather than allowing armed
conflicts to drag on forever, he
promised
to win them (putting to work his
mastery
of military affairs) or, if not, to quit and get out, pausing
just long enough to
claim
as a sort of consolation prize whatever spoils might be lying
loose on the battlefield. At the very least, he would prevent so-called
allies from treating the United States like some patsy. Henceforth, nations
benefitting from American protection were going to
foot their share
of the bill. What all of this added up to may not have
been clear, but it did suggest a sharp departure from the usual post-1989
formula for exercising global leadership.
No less important than Trump's semi-coherent critique of globalization
and American globalism, however, was his success in channeling the
discontent of all those who nursed an inchoate sense that post-Cold War
freedoms might be working for some, but not for them.
Not that Trump had anything to say about whether freedom confers
obligations, or whether conspicuous consumption might not actually hold the
key to human happiness, or any of the various controversies related to
gender, sexuality, and family. He was indifferent to all such matters.
He was, however, distinctly able to offer his followers a grimly
persuasive explanation for how America had gone off course and how the
blessings of liberties to which they were entitled had been stolen. He did
that by fingering as scapegoats
Muslims
,
Mexicans
, and others "not-like-me."
Trump's political strategy reduced to this: as president, he would
overturn the conventions that had governed right thinking since the end of
the Cold War. To the amazement of an establishment grown smug and lazy, his
approach worked. Even while disregarding all received wisdom when it came
to organizing and conducting a presidential campaign in the Age of Great
Expectations, Trump won. He did so by enchanting the disenchanted, all
those who had lost faith in the promises that had sprung from the bosom of
the elites that the end of the Cold War had taken by surprise.
Adrift Without a Compass
Within hours of Trump's election, among progressives, expressing fear and
trepidation at the prospect of what he might actually do on assuming office
became
de rigueur
. Yet those who had actually voted for Trump were
also left wondering what to expect. Both camps assign him the status of a
transformative historical figure. However, premonitions of incipient
fascism and hopes that he will engineer a new American Golden Age are likely
to prove similarly misplaced. To focus on the man himself rather than on
the circumstances that produced him is to miss the significance of what has
occurred.
Note, for example, that his mandate is almost entirely negative. It
centers on rejection: of globalization, of counterproductive military
meddling, and of the post-Cold War cultural project. Yet neither Trump nor
any of his surrogates has offered a coherent alternative to the triad of
themes providing the through line for the last quarter-century of American
history. Apart a lingering conviction that forceful - in The Donald's case,
blustering - presidential leadership can somehow turn things around,
"Trump_vs_deep_state" is a dog's breakfast.
In all likelihood, his presidency will prove less transformative than
transitional. As a result, concerns about what he may do, however worrisome,
matter less than the larger question of where we go from here. The
principles that enjoyed favor following the Cold War have been found
wanting. What should replace them?
Efforts to identify those principles should begin with an honest
accounting of the age we are now leaving behind, the history that happened
after "the end of history." That accounting should, in turn, allow room for
regret, repentance, and making amends - the very critical appraisal that
ought to have occurred at the end of the Cold War but was preempted when
American elites succumbed to their bout of victory disease.
Don't expect Donald Trump to undertake any such appraisal. Nor will the
establishment that candidate Trump so roundly denounced, but which
President-elect Trump, at least in his senior national security
appointments, now shows sign of accommodating. Those expecting Trump's
election to inject courage into members of the political class or
imagination into inside-the-Beltway "thought leaders" are in for a
disappointment. So the principles we need - an approach to political economy
providing sustainable and equitable prosperity; a foreign policy that
discards militarism in favor of prudence and pragmatism; and an enriched,
inclusive concept of freedom - will have to come from somewhere else.
"Where there is no vision," the Book of Proverbs tells us, "the people
perish." In the present day, there is no vision to which Americans
collectively adhere. For proof, we need look no further than the election
of Donald Trump.
The Age of Great Expectations has ended, leaving behind an ominous void.
Yet Trump's own inability to explain what should fill that great void
provides neither excuse for inaction nor cause for despair. Instead, Trump
himself makes manifest the need to reflect on the nation's recent past and
to think deeply about its future.
A decade before the Cold War ended, writing in
democracy
, a
short-lived journal devoted to "political renewal and radical change," the
historian and social critic Christopher Lasch
sketched out
a set of principles that might lead us out of our current
crisis. Lasch called for a politics based on "the nurture of the soil
against the exploitation of resources, the family against the factory, the
romantic vision of the individual against the technological vision, [and]
localism over democratic centralism." Nearly a half-century later, as a
place to begin, his prescription remains apt.
vlade
,
January 9, 2017 at 4:49 am
I'm sorry Yves, but I don't buy your narrative "NATO broke the promise" .
NATO's promise to Gorbatchev was not to deploy non-GERMAN troops in what
used to be GDR. That was 1990s promise that Baker gave to Gorbatchev (and
this is confirmed by Gorbatchev, see
https://rbth.com/international/2014/10/16/mikhail_gorbachev_i_am_against_all_walls_40673.html
).
Baker did say "no inch east" in the opening stages of the discussion with
Gorbatchev, but the ultimate agreement was only German troops in GDR (and
that was enshrined in law, both German and international). I'd point out
that one of the ideas Gorbatchev discussed there was to include Russia in
NATO as well, as part of the supra-European security structure.
Now, Gorbatchev also now says NATO expansion in 1993 was a mistake, and
that it was against the spirit of what was discussed in 1990. But then you
have to also look at the countries themselves, who were all pushing VERY
hard to get into NATO, as they saw it (rightly or wrongly) as the only way
how to get out of the Russian sphere of influence (much more so than EU
accession). Especially Poland in its history was overrun by Russians at
least once a century since about 1600s, and twice (or three times, depends
on whether you count M-R pact in the post WW2 spoils division or not) in the
20th alone.
I actually spoke to some people on the Czech side who were involved in
the talks at the highest level (close to then Czech president Vaclav Havel),
and US, including the US military, was very much against the expansion, and
the Visegrad Four had to lobby with Clinton very very hard to get it.
So the agency wasn't NATOs, or even US military – that's a very US
centric view of the world that denies the people of anyone who isn't US a
say in their future – and I'd point out that regimes in those countries at
the time were entirely legitimate, and NATO membership was (and still is) is
supported by most of the populace there – seen exactly as about the only
shield from Russian expansionist (which taking over Crimea did little to
soothe).
The problem wasn't NATO expansion per se (in the 1990s). The problem was
that US saw themselves as the victors in the Cold War, and showed (as per
usual) little manganimity and understanding for the former foe. Almost as
little as the Allies showed to Central Powers after WW1 and the disaster
that casued later on, except now we have nukes.
Yes, I think the history is very tangled. Certainly there was a very
determined push by east European countries to get NATO and EU membership
– probably even more for the former than the latter. From the 20th
Century perspective of living anywhere east of Berlin or Vienna, the
USSR/Russia always seemed the biggest threat to freedom and independence
for the majority. Much of this I think arose from the perception of
Germany (also of course an historic aggressor) as having been completely
tamed and defeated post 1945. Its notable of course that even the new
wave of anti-EU politician in eastern Europe tend to be quite pro-Nato
(with some exceptions).
But I think there was a lot of muddled thinking and bad faith on the
part of both western Europeans and the US in the 1990's. There was
certainly open contempt for Russia in the 1990's and a feeling they could
be made do what they wanted. A policy which showed more consideration of
Russian sensibilities would have been to focus on EU membership first,
and perhaps a sort of softer NATO membership that would have specifically
excluded foreign bases on those countries soil, but would have given more
reassurances of protection in the event of Russian hostility would have
been more appropriate.
I think there are lots of echoes of pre-WWI in having what was
originally a tight set of agreements between major powers aimed at a
specific threat being extended much wider over small unstable countries.
A policy which showed more consideration of Russian
sensibilities would have been to focus on EU membership first, and
perhaps a sort of softer NATO membership that would have
specifically excluded foreign bases on those countries soil, but
would have given more reassurances of protection in the event of
Russian hostility would have been more appropriate.
If NATO had in fact promised not to deploy any forces in Eastern
Europe in perpetuity any "reassurances of protection" it gave would
rightly have been regarded as worthless -- not to mention invite
obvious and grievous comparisons to the worthless security guarantee
Britain and France extended to Poland in 1939 – because such
reassurances would be made in the full knowledge of all concerned that
NATO had already surrendered the means to give them effect.
I also want to point out that until the annexation of the Crimea
there were no NATO forces permanently stationed in either Poland or
the Baltic republics. Poland requested 10 000 NATO troops two weeks
after the annexation of the Crimea, and even now NATO is scrambling to
find 600-800 troops to deploy on a "semi-permanent" basis to each of
the Baltic republics.
By "annexation of Crimea" you mean "reuniting Crimea with
Russia". The Ukraine is 100% a 20th century creation and Crimea was
ALWAYS Russian until Kruschev, by fiat (and he a Ukrainian) simply
gave Crimea to Ukraine without asking, without concern, for what
the people of Crimea wanted.
Russia didn't "take" Crimea from Ukraine. Russia took back what
was historically (and ethnically and culturally) theirs by long
history.
And gee, why is NATO "Scrambling" to find troops to garrison in
another set of countries? What geopolitical conditions are real,
and which BS are us mopes supposed to believe and feed into our
fear generators "going forward (sic)?" What are our rulers and
great patently incompetent but very well compensated and
demonstrably corrupt military, security (sic) and "statecraft"
sh!tes doing to cool down, stand down, stop wasting huge amounts of
time, talent and money ginning up more threats and counter threats
and Grand Strategies? What's the End of the Great Game, or does it
just go on until all the resources are exhausted, or the cheating
officers that "man" and "woman" the Land Based Leg of the
Service-Competition-Everyone-Has-The-"Right"-To-A-Share-Of-The-Carcass-Absolutely-Must-Have
Triad, or some glitch, as there have been many of, in all the
circuitry and mechanisms and algorithms does an "Oopsie" and we all
and a lot of other species get to die? Not to mention the bugs and
nanodevices and autonomous killing machines that the grim
enthusiasts of the Geopolitical Masterbatorium just can't wait to
get on line?
Putin's no saint, but Jeebus, Kissinger and Brxzyzeniski and
Nuland and all the rest? The Gang Who Couldn't Shoot Straight? Do
they get to run us all into the grave, because we Policy Addicts go
along with the insane "logic" of whatever the hell it is that
"NATO" in all its idiotic parts is doing? Was the Crimea a casus
belli? though it seems to people who are deep in the Think Tanks
think EVERYTHING is a casus belli, and never ask any questions of
the sorts that Sun Tzu counseled ought to be asked, long before and
at every point in any "war" action
I know, money rules, Empire is inevitable and so very seductive
to have all that Power ("and not use it") especially if one is paid
in gelt or psycho-satisfaction to go all grim-visages warrior in a
Game of RISK! that for some reason never ends up with one Player
owning the entire world
This disabled Vietnam vet offers a big FU, to all the
Fokkers, armchair or ergonomic Battlespace Manager or Foggy Bottom
delicate or Langley overstuffed chairs, who are driving the vast
bus we all have to ride in off the cliff, all happy with their
impunity and immunity and faux self-created, self-p[rolonged,
terminal Grand Responsibilities.
Show how smart you are, send another 300 Marines to Iraq,
and another 300 to Notagainistan, for "we won't say combat"
involvement in the futility and corruption and destabilization and
destruction there Who will be the last Troop, and the last
"noncombatant," to die in this old-as-civilization idiocy? Who
Fokking cares, really, as long as it is one of those "Enemies "
No, that was precisely what was promised; But promises means nothing,
and frankly,
Gorbachev must have been either stupid or traitor to
accept such promises in lieu of real and tangible concessions.
In my view, the biggest mistake was not NATO expansion but rather
the looting of the Soviet Union. If the major soviet republics was to be
integrated within the western alliance more or less in the same manner as
Germany, the situation today would have been very different. Instead of
sucking soviet resources over a longer term like Germany does to the EU,
west was salivating on the prospects of literally new loots thus awaken
the pray.
That made the people of Russia and many others feel disgust, and
they resisted at the first opportunity they got. Now, there is no way
Russia can be put under the American influence. This is all more
remarkable because most Russians had admired the empire so much thus
putting them under American umbrella would have been so easy. Putin, for
example, was ready to play ball with the west but their insistence on
total dominance disgusted even him. I am sure the global elite recognizes
this but some still cannot get over how they let this pass.
Putin still supports neoliberalism but this too will pass as
neoliberal order is controlled by New York bankers and only way out is
another world order, which is exactly what Russia and China started
building. Departure of Russia from neoliberal order, I believe, will seal
the fate of neoliberalism as it just did it exactly 100 years ago.
You are plain wrong. Just read what Gorbachev has to say on the
subject – and he was there. NATO expansion was not expected by the
Russians, is considered a betrayal of promises, and is to a large extent
responsible for the renewed sense of paranoia in Europe and Russia.
Whether US military was against it is irrelevant (or whether Vysehrad
four lobbied for it) – it was done and it damaged relations. And it
continues to do damage – as the buildup of troops and equipment has
escalated.
I think Lasch's
The Revolt of the Elites and the Betrayal of
Democracy
, first published in 1994 shortly after his death, is a
forgotten classic. Lasch was well ahead of his time in foreseeing how the
rise of technocratic, transnational elites would dissolve the social
contract that in the postwar era had kept the interests of haves and have
nots at least loosely aligned and lubricated a considerable degree of
wealth transfer from the former to the latter, which in turn would lead
to socio-economic polarization.
If he were alive today I'm sure he would be appalled by a President
Trump even as he recognized that this was the logical culmination of the
trends he himself had identified all those years ago.
Lasch was notable for other trenchant social criticism, including
identifying narcissism as the dominant trait of the postwar American
psyche and challenging some tenets of second wave feminism. As befits a
fearless and original thinker he didn't fit neatly into any established
intellectual paradigm.
He died on February 14 1994 and now I think of him every Valentine's
Day. I guess I'm something of an admirer.
Globalisation was accompanied by an ideology, neoliberalism, that was
guaranteed to fail. The problems were there at the start but were ignored,
it was always going to go wrong in exactly the way it has.
Francis Fukuyama talked of the "end of history" and "liberal democracy".
Liberal democracy was the bringing together of two mutually exclusive
ideas. Economic liberalism – that enriches the few and impoverishes the
many. Democracy – that requires the support of the majority.
Trying to bring two mutually exclusive ideas together just doesn't work.
The ideas of "Economic Liberalism" came from Milton Freidman and the
University of Chicago. It was so radical they first tried it in a military
dictatorship in Chile, it wouldn't be compatible with democracy. It took
death squads, torture and terror to keep it in place, there was an ethnic
cleansing of anyone who still showed signs of any left wing thinking.
It was tried in a few other places in South America using similar
techniques. It then did succeed in a democracy but only by tricking the
people into thinking they were voting for something else, severe oppression
was needed when they found out what they were getting.
Margaret Thatcher bought these ideas to the West and the plan to
eliminate the welfare state has only recently been revealed. Things had to
be done slowly in the West due to that bothersome democracy. The West has
now seen enough.
It was implemented far more brutally in the developing world where Milton
Freidman's "Chicago Boys" were the henchmen of "The Washington Consensus".
The IMF and World Bank acted as enforcers insisting on neoliberal
conditionalities for loans.
Global markets punished those not towing the neoliberal line and kept
nations in their place. As Nelson Mandela was released from prison the South
African Rand fell 10%, someone like this was going to be pushing up wage
costs and would be bad for the economy.
Looking back it was a grand folly of an international elite whose greed
overcame even a modicum of common sense.
Naomi Klein's "The Shock Doctrine" will take you through all the gory
details.
Underlying neo-liberalism is a different economics, neoclassical
economics, which is heavily biased towards the wealthy. Inequality and a
lack of demand in the global economy were also guaranteed from the start.
The world is saturated in debt and if rates rise this is going to blow
the neo-liberal experiment sky high.
Neo-liberalism is a system that uses debt to keep going and the world
has nearly maxed out. It's underlying neoclassical economics uses
spurious assumptions about money and debt and so no one sees the problems
coming.
2008 – "How did that happen?"
Twelve people were officially recognised by Bezemer in 2009 as having
seen 2008 coming, announcing it publicly beforehand and having good
reasoning behind their predictions. They all thought the problem came
from excessive debt levels.
Having all our mainstream experts using spurious assumptions about
money and debt, doesn't actually stop the whole thing blowing up.
Attributing 2008 to a "black swan" has allowed us to think more debt
can be used to solve a debt crisis, needless to say the debt levels are
much higher than 2008 and excessive debt has now spread through emerging
markets. China and emerging markets are not going to provide an engine of
growth next time.
The other day I was watching a particularly apocalyptic video from
Peter Schiff, he is no fool, he was one of the twelve that saw 2008
coming. Steve Keen is another one of the twelve and he is of the same
opinion.
Most people don't realise money = debt, all the money in existence has
a corresponding amount of debt.
We can see what Steve Keen saw by looking at the US money supply.
Aha, but the bubble is beside the point. The entire US economy from
Clinton onward is BASED on bubbles of one type or another to create
the feeling of (false) wealth. Bubbles are INTENDED because it fools
many into thinking, as they ride upon the inflation of the bubble,
that they are making bank. Clinton's economy "boom" was based on
telling people that their homes are "investments" that they need to
borrow against to buy "stuff". Lots of stuff. FEEL rich while you
actually go deeply into debt on a bubble-inflated home equity loan.
Can't repeat the real estate bubble again and again so the Fed
feeds a different bubble each cycle. Real estate this cycle, stocks
the next, etc.
Liberal democracy was the bringing together of two mutually
exclusive ideas.
Economic liberalism – that enriches the few and impoverishes the many.
Democracy – that requires the support of the majority.
Trying to bring two mutually exclusive ideas together just doesn't
work.
This statement depends on who the mutually exclusive ideas are
intended to work for. They worked spectacularly for the Davos Class.
Which I might add, was the class that came up with the idea. They sold a
lie that the media - who is wholly controlled by them - took hook line
and sinker. That the establishment media are peddling the fake news angle
so vociferously is telling. But the problem in my mind isn't "fake news"
per se. It is the uncritical peddling of fake ideologies.
I think a quote from the 2016 Mann Booker Prizewinner's "The Sellout"
by Paul Beatty is instructive on this point: "People eat the shit you
shovel them." And man alive, have the 99% ever been shoveled some shit in
the "Age of Great Expectations."
And btw - thanks for the link Yves. That was instructive.
Reading this reminded me of the Peace Dividend we were supposed to get in
the wake of the collapsing Soviet Union. Alas, we never got it.
We squandered a perfectly good empire on McMansions and Ford Explorers. At
least Rome got coliseums and orgies.
Age of Great Expectations brings to mind a recursive acronym, indicative
of a type of tunnel vision and failure to learn from the past, tempered by a
preternatural optimism that is thought to be in the Tocquevillian American
DNA.
Excellent article. Christopher Lasch's prescription is food for thought,
although I agree with vidimi that we have to get beyond a romantic
conception of the individual. In fact, I submit that we are in a new
baroque, dominated by religious insanity (like the first baroque with its
Spanish Inquisition and tortuous Calvinist theology), economic excesses
(just as Spain looted the Indian nations of the New World of their gold in
the first one), and individual fear.
I would caution Bacevich, who is usually better than this, and in
general: Psychobabble isn't going to get us anywhere. And I'm seeing so much
of it.
From the article:
"Coarse, vulgar, unprincipled, uninformed, erratic, and with little regard
for truth, Trump was sui generis among presidential candidates."
Bacevich has never read about Andrew Jackson, who sponsored the Trail of
Tears forced on the Cherokee and the Choctaw nations? Bacevich has never
heard of Strom Thurmond's presidential run? George Wallace's presidential
run? (And let us not forget the laughable claim that Hillary Clinton was the
most qualified presidential candidate in U.S. history, except for, ohhhh,
Jefferson, Washington, and Madison.)
One problem in the analysis of U.S. history is to think of the U S of A
and of U.S. individuals as sui generis. They aren't. Vlade points out above
that the Visegrad Four (Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Hungary) were
actors in NATO expansion. Considering that Romania was an economic and
social basketcase when it acceded to the EU, I'd venture that the EU made a
mistake or three, also.
So we require more hard-headedness in analyzing our context and how
events arise. As always Bacevich is good as an analyst, and some details may
not matter in understanding the rise of Trump, but the solution also is not
yet discernible. What I would say is that the democratic mindset, which is
skeptical yet still inclined toward participation in public events is a
serious way, is in disrepair. Class warfare and endless war for empire have
caused damage.
Maybe some day people will start asking seriously what outcomes they
want from the political economy they perforce must live in. "Are you
better off today than you were XX years ago?" And maybe (not at all
likely) come up with an organizing principle (like, maybe, some iteration
of the Golden Rule?) that if at all adhered to, might lead to something
other than climate collapse or some Soylent Green or other apocalyptic
future
I know, no chance to amass a huge pile of wealth and rents and vain
attempts to overwhelm the personal pleasure centers in that kind of
future So "No Sale "
I like your golden rule idea. But I think more apt would be the
golden rule of physics: The Second Law of Thermodynamics. If economics
were truly a science, the study could not but adhere to this rule.
What's conspicuously absent from many of these "collapse of the Soviet
Union" narratives? Chernobyl.
That 1986 explosion - and the bungled disaster response - probably did
more to bring down the Soviet Union than Reagan's military buildup or
Gorbachev's moves toward reform.
Yves's two caveats are extremely important in assessing this article. I
have a couple more. The first is the omission of the glaringly obvious theft
of candidacy which occurred during the Democratic primary and did not occur
in the Republican one. And the second is the article's description of Trump
voters as " those who nurse gripes and are keen to pin the blame on someone
or something."
Then too, I will just say that the mandate so far is not a negative one
because Trump hasn't taken office yet, and in fact some positive occurrences
have seemed to be happening in the Middle East to restore several nations
there to what they had been before 'great expectations' got into the mix.
Just my two cents. Some people's great expectations are not other
people's great expectations. Mine are for a peaceful world and a restoration
of sanity between nations.
"... War is evil. So St Augustine devised this doctrine of 'just war', standards to which US has failed since 1945. Then Obama comes up with the idea of "just peace', we should have read in detail his Nobel lecture! Neocon pap! ..."
"... If Clinton decides the peace is not just then organized murder is the detail for the week. Economies are sometime zero sum games and you can get Ike's 1953 speech for what you give up for a destroyer..... ..."
'if building aircraft carriers saved the economy in 1941, and
defenses against imaginary aliens would save the economy in
2013, it's not clear why real aircraft carriers have the
opposite effect.'
Not ALL of economics is a zero-sum game.
USING munitions destroys the economies of others.
It's not as if preparing to engage aliens is actually
going to go anywhere which leads to that, tinfoil-hat-wise.
(That may be the advantage of building expensive,
impossibly risky-to-use nuclear weapons - which also might be
of use against aliens!)
Of course, the case will be made that 'destroying
the economies of others' is also a Good Thing in the long
run.
The overriding complaint about 'economic efforts devoted to
building armaments' is that such resulting goods are of NO
civilian use.
Aside from post-war battleship tours
and the like. Aside from all the wondrous technological
developments which always ensue, but most importantly the
industrial capacity that is put to civilian use in peacetime.
War is evil. So St Augustine devised this doctrine of
'just war', standards to which US has failed since 1945. Then
Obama comes up with the idea of "just peace', we should have
read in detail his Nobel lecture! Neocon pap!
If
Clinton decides the peace is not just then organized murder
is the detail for the week. Economies are sometime zero sum
games and you can get Ike's 1953 speech for what you give up
for a destroyer.....
As long as no kid of a war plant worker goes
hungry........ or has to drive a beater when she gets 16.
I see the pentagon trough as expensive term life. For the
past 70 years the US has bet over $28T and around 100000 KIA
(probably 15000 more killed in training events) that evil
'enemies' are going to muck with Neocon's or whomever's "just
peace"*.
Since 1950 war has been a huge, more than Smedley
Butler's wars for the bankers in Central America, racket.
For the do overs and weapons bought for the sole benefit
of the trough there is only local 'welfare'.
Outside of indivisible public goods [as Arrow and others
studied] government spending is not efficient.
Where markets fail government should intervene, unless the
standard of 'justice' is profit for the rentier.
Think of it next time someone wants to dump on Iran.
Richard M. Nixon always denied it: to David Frost, to
historians and to Lyndon B. Johnson, who had the strongest
suspicions and the most cause for outrage at his successor's
rumored treachery. To them all, Nixon insisted that he had
not sabotaged Johnson's 1968 peace initiative to bring the
war in Vietnam to an early conclusion. "My God. I would never
do anything to encourage" South Vietnam "not to come to the
table," Nixon told Johnson, in a conversation captured on the
White House taping system.
Now we know Nixon lied. A newfound cache of notes left by
H. R. Haldeman, his closest aide, shows that Nixon directed
his campaign's efforts to scuttle the peace talks, which he
feared could give his opponent, Vice President Hubert H.
Humphrey, an edge in the 1968 election. On Oct. 22, 1968, he
ordered Haldeman to "monkey wrench" the initiative.
The 37th president has been enjoying a bit of a revival
recently, as his achievements in foreign policy and the
landmark domestic legislation he signed into law draw
favorable comparisons to the presidents (and president-elect)
that followed. A new, $15 million face-lift at the Nixon
presidential library, while not burying the Watergate
scandals, spotlights his considerable record of
accomplishments.
Haldeman's notes return us to the dark side. Amid the
reappraisals, we must now weigh apparently criminal behavior
that, given the human lives at stake and the decade of
carnage that followed in Southeast Asia, may be more
reprehensible than anything Nixon did in Watergate.
Nixon had entered the fall campaign with a lead over
Humphrey, but the gap was closing that October. Henry A.
Kissinger, then an outside Republican adviser, had called,
alerting Nixon that a deal was in the works: If Johnson would
halt all bombing of North Vietnam, the Soviets pledged to
have Hanoi engage in constructive talks to end a war that had
already claimed 30,000 American lives.
But Nixon had a pipeline to Saigon, where the South
Vietnamese president, Nguyen Van Thieu, feared that Johnson
would sell him out. If Thieu would stall the talks, Nixon
could portray Johnson's actions as a cheap political trick.
The conduit was Anna Chennault, a Republican doyenne and
Nixon fund-raiser, and a member of the pro-nationalist China
lobby, with connections across Asia.
"! Keep Anna Chennault working on" South Vietnam, Haldeman
scrawled, recording Nixon's orders. "Any other way to monkey
wrench it? Anything RN can do."
Nixon told Haldeman to have Rose Mary Woods, the
candidate's personal secretary, contact another nationalist
Chinese figure - the businessman Louis Kung - and have him
press Thieu as well. "Tell him hold firm," Nixon : .
Bombs and mines from the Nixon years of the War in Vietnam
were cleaned from neighboring Laos and Cambodia for years
after the war ended and are still unfortunately found today.
"... Chickenhawks like you should better be careful what they wish for. With the election of Hillary we would be on the brink of not "cold", but "hot" war, starting in Syria. But chickenhawks like you prefer other people to die to their imperial complex of inferiority. ..."
"... In other words, all you funny "Putin Poodle", "Putin is a kleptocrat", etc noises is just a testament of the inferiority complex of a typical neoliberal chickenhawk. Much like was the case with Hillary. ..."
Why don't you just
buy m16, some ammunition and go to Syria to prove your point and take revenge for Hillary fiasco.
Chickenhawks like you should better be careful what they wish for. With the election of Hillary
we would be on the brink of not "cold", but "hot" war, starting in Syria. But chickenhawks like you
prefer other people to die to their imperial complex of inferiority.
In other words, all you funny "Putin Poodle", "Putin is a kleptocrat", etc noises is just a testament
of the inferiority complex of a typical neoliberal chickenhawk. Much like was the case with Hillary.
The two previous articles have focused on the
various geopolitical theories, their translations into modern concepts, and practical actions
that
the United States has taken in recent decades to aspire to global dominance . This segment will
describe how Iran, China and Russia have over the years adopted a variety of economic and military
actions to repel the continual assault on their sovereignty by the West; in particular, how the American
drive for global hegemony has actually accelerated the end of the 'unipolar moment' thanks to the
emergence of a multipolar world.
From the moment the Berlin Wall fell, the United States saw a unique opportunity to pursue the
goal of being the sole global hegemon. With the end of the Soviet Union, Washington could undoubtedly
aspire to planetary domination paying little heed to the threat of competition and especially of
any consequences. America found herself the one and only global superpower, faced with the prospect
of extending cultural and economic model around the planet, where necessary by military means.
Over the past 25 years there have been numerous examples demonstrating how Washington has had
little hesitation in bombing nations reluctant to kowtow to Western wishes. In other examples, an
economic battering ram, based on predatory capitalism and financial speculation, has literally destroyed
sovereign nations, further enriching the US and European financial elite in the process.
Alliances to Resist
In the course of the last two decades, the relationship between the three major powers of the
Heartland , the heart of the Earth, changed radically.
Iran, Russia and China have fully understood that union and cooperation are the only means for
mutual reinforcement. The need to fight a common problem, represented by a growing American influence
in domestic affairs, has forced Tehran, Beijing and Moscow to resolve their differences and embrace
a unified strategy in the common interest of defending their sovereignty.
Events such as the war in Syria, the bombing of Libya, the overthrowing of the democratic order
in Ukraine, sanctions against Iran, and the direct pressure applied to Beijing in the South China
Sea, have accelerated integration among nations that in the early 1990s had very little in common.
Economic Integration
Analyzing US economic power it is clear that supranational organizations like the World Trade
Organization, International Monetary Fund and the World Bank guarantee Washington's role as the economic
leader. The pillars that support the centrality of the United States in the world economy can be
attributed to the monetary policy of the Fed and the function of the dollar as a global reserve currency.
The Fed has unlimited ability to print money to finance further economic power of the private
and public sector as well as to pay the bill due for very costly wars. The US dollar plays a central
role as the global reserve currency as well as being used as currency for trade. This virtually obliges
each central bank to own reserves in US currency, continuing to perpetuate the importance of Washington
in the global economic system.
The introduction of the yuan into the international basket of the IMF, global agreements for the
Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), and Beijing's protests against its treatment by the
World Trade Organization (WTO) are all alarm bells for American strategists who see the role of the
American currency eroding. In Russia, the central bank decided not to accumulate dollar reserves,
favoring instead foreign currency like the Indian rupee and the Chinese yuan. The rating agencies
- western financial-oligarchy tools -have diminishing credibility, having become means to manipulate
markets to favor specific US interests. Chinese and Russian independent rating agencies are further
confirmation of Beijing and Moscow's strategy to undermine America's role in western economics.
De-dollarization is occurring and proceeding rapidly, especially in areas of mutual business interest.
In what is becoming increasingly routine, nations are dealing in commodities by negotiating in currencies
other than the dollar. The benefit is twofold: a reduction in the role of the dollar in their sovereign
affairs, and an increase in synergies between allied nations. Iran and India exchanged oil in rupees,
and China and Russia trade in yuan.
Another advantage enjoyed by the United States, intrinsically linked to the banking private sector,
is the political pressure that Americans can apply through financial and banking institutions. The
most striking example is seen in the exclusion of Iran from the SWIFT international system of payments,
as well as the extension of sanctions, including the freezing of Tehran's assets (about 150 billion
US dollars) in foreign bank deposits. While the US is trying to crack down on independent economic
initiatives, nations like Iran, Russia and China are increasing their synergies. During the period
of sanctions against Iran, the Russian Federation has traded with the Islamic Republic in primary
commodities. China has supported Iran with the export of oil purchased in yuan. More generally, Moscow
has proposed the creation of an alternative banking system to the SWIFT system.
Private Banks, central banks, ratings agencies and supranational organizations depend in large
part on the role played by the dollar and the Fed. The first goal of Iran, Russia and China is of
course to make these international bodies less influential. Economic multipolarity is the first as
well as the most incisive way to expand the free choice before each nation to pursue its own interests,
thereby retaining its national sovereignty.
This fictitious and corrupt financial system led to the financial crisis of 2008. Tools to accumulate
wealth by the elite, artificially maintaining a zombie system (turbo capitalism) have served to cause
havoc in the private and public sectors, such as with the collapse of Lehman Brothers or the crisis
in the Asian markets in the late 1990s.
The need for Russia, China and Iran to find an alternative economic system is also necessary to
secure vital aspects of the domestic economy. The stock-market crash in China, the depreciation of
the ruble in Russia, and the illegal sanctions imposed on Iran have played a profound role in concentrating
the minds of Moscow, Tehran and Beijing. Ignoring the problem borne of the centrality of the dollar
would have only increased the influence and role of Washington. Finding points of convergence instead
of being divided was an absolute must and not an option.
A perfect example, explaining the failed American economic approach, can be seen in recent years
with the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP),
two commercial agreements that were supposed to seal the economic trade supremacy of the US. The
growing economic alternatives proposed by the union of intent between Russia, China and Iran has
enabled smaller nations to reject the US proposals to seek better trade deals elsewhere. In this
sense, the Free Trade Area of ??the Asia Pacific (FTAAP) proposed by Beijing is increasingly appreciated
in Asia as an alternative to the TPP.
In the same way, the Eurasian Union (EAEU) and the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) have
always been key components for Moscow. The function these institutions play was noticeably accelerated
following the coup in Ukraine and the resulting need for Russia to turn east in search of new business
partners. Finally, Iran, chosen by Beijing as the crossroad of land and sea transit, is a prime example
of integration between powers geographically distant but with great intentions to integrate vital
structures of commerce.
The Chinese model of development, called Silk Road 2.0, poses a serious threat to American global
hegemonic processes. The goal for Beijing is to reach full integration between the countries of the
Heartland and Rimland, utilizing the concept of sea power and land power. With an investment of 1,000
billion US dollars over ten years, China itself becomes a link between the west, represented by Europe;
the east, represented by China itself; the north, with the Eurasian economic space; the south, with
India; Southeast Asia; the Persian Gulf and Middle East. The hope is that economic cooperation will
lead to the resolution of discrepancies and strategic differences between countries thanks to trade
agreements that are beneficiary to all sides.
The role of Washington continues to be that of destruction rather than construction. Instead of
playing the role of a global superpower that is interested in business and trade with other nations,
the United States continues to consider any foreign decision in matters of integration, finance,
economy and development to lie within its exclusive domain. The primary purpose of the United States
is simply to exploit every economic and cultural instrument available to prevent cohesion and coexistence
between nations. The military component is usually the trump card, historically used to impose this
vision on the rest of the world. In recent years, thanks to de-dollarization and military integration,
nations like Iran, Russia and China are less subject to Washington's unilateral decisions.
Military deterrence
Accompanying the important economic integration is strong military-strategic cooperation, which
is much less publicized . Events such as the Middle East wars, the coup in Ukraine, and the pressure
exerted in the South China Sea have forced Tehran, Moscow and Beijing to conclude that the United
States represents an existential threat.
In each of the above scenarios, China, Russia and Iran have had to make decisions by weighing
the pros and cons of an opposition to the American model. The Ukraine coup d'état brought NATO to
the borders of the Russian Federation, representing an existential threat to the Russia, threatening
as it does its nuclear deterrent. In the Middle East, the destruction of Iraq, Libya and Syria has
obliged Tehran to react against the alliance formed between Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the United States.
In China, the constant pressure on South China Sea poses a serious problem in case of a trade blockade
during a conflict. In all these scenarios, American imperialism has created existential threats.
It is for this reason natural that cooperation and technological development, even in the military
area, have received a major boost in recent years.
In the event of an American attack on Russia, China and Iran, it is important to focus on what
weapon systems would be used and how the attacked nations could respond.
Maritime Strategy and Deterrence
Certainly, US naval force place a serious question mark over the defense capabilities of nations
like Russia, China and Iran, which strongly depend on transit via sea routes. Let us take, for example,
Russia and the Arctic transit route, of great interest not only for defense purposes but also being
a quick passage for transit goods. The Black Sea for these reasons has received special attention
from the United States due to its strategic location. In any case, the responses have been proportional
to the threat.
Iran has significantly developed maritime capabilities in the Persian Gulf, often closely marking
ships of the US Navy located in the area for the purposes of ??deterrence. China's strategy has been
even more refined, with the use of dozens, if not hundreds, of fishing boats and ships of the Coast
Guard to ensure safety and strengthen the naval presence in the South and East China Sea. This is
all without forgetting the maritime strategy outlined by the PLA Navy to become a regional naval
power over the next few years. Similar strategic decisions have been taken by the navy of the Russian
Federation. In addition to having taken over ship production as in Soviet times, it has opted for
the development of ships that cost less but nevertheless boast equivalent weapons systems to the
Americans carrier groups.
Iran, China and Russia make efficiency and cost containment a tactic to balance the growing aggressiveness
of the Americans and the attendant cost of such a military strategy.
The fundamental difference between the naval approach of these countries in contrast to that of
the US is paramount. Washington needs to use its naval power for offensive purposes, whereas Tehran,
Moscow and Beijing need naval power exclusively for defensive purposes.
In this sense, among the greatest weapons these three recalcitrant countries possess are anti-ship,
anti-aircraft and anti-ballistic systems. To put things simply, it is enough to note that Russian
weapons systems such as the S-300 and S-400 air-defense systems (the S-500 will be operational in
2017) are now being adopted by China and Iran with variations developed locally. Increasingly we
are witnessing an open transfer of technology to continue the work of denying (A2/AD) physical and
cyberspace freedom to the United States. Stealth aircraft, carrier strike groups, ICBMs and cruise
missiles are experiencing a difficult time in such an environment, finding themselves opposed by
the formidable defense systems the Russians, Iranians and Chinese are presenting. The cost of an
anti-ship missile fired from the Chinese coast is considerably lower than the tens of billions of
dollars needed to build an aircraft carrier. This paradigm of cost and efficiency is what has shaped
the military spending of China, Russia and Iran. Going toe to toe with the United States without
being forced to close a huge military gap is the only viable way to achieve immediate tangible benefits
of deterrence and thereby block American expansionist ambitions.
A clear example of where the Americans have encountered military opposition at an advanced level
has been in Syria. The systems deployed by Iran and Russia to protect the Syrian government presented
the Americans with the prospect of facing heavy losses in the event of an attack on Damascus. The
same also holds for the anti-Iranian rhetoric of certain American politicians and Israeli leaders.
The only reason why Syria and Iran remain sovereign nations is because of the military cost that
an invasion or bombing would have brought to their invaders. This is the essence of deterrence. Of
course, this argument only takes into partial account the nuclear aspect that this author has extensively
discussed in a
previous article .
The Union of the nations of the Heartland and Rimland will make the United States irrelevant
The future for the most important area of ??the planet is already sealed. The overall integration
of Beijing, Moscow and Tehran provides the necessary antibodies to foreign aggression in military
and economic form. De-dollarization, coupled with an infrastructure roadmap such as the Chinese Silk
Road 2.0 and the maritime trade route, offer important opportunities for developing nations that
occupy the geographical space between Portugal and China. Dozens of nations have all it takes to
integrate for mutually beneficial gains without having to worry too much about American threats.
The economic alternative offered from Beijing provides a fairly wide safety net for resisting American
assaults in the same way that the military umbrella offered by these three military powers, such
as with the the SCO for example, serves to guarantee the necessary independence and strategic autonomy.
More and more nations are clearly rejecting American interference, favoring instead a dialogue with
Beijing, Moscow and Tehran. Duterte in the Philippines is just the latest example of this trend.
The multipolar future has gradually reduced the role of the United States in the world, primarily
in reaction to her aggression seeking to achieve global domination. The constant quest for planetary
hegemony has pushed nations who were initially western partners to reassess their role in the international
order, passing slowly but progressively into the opposite camp to that of Washington.
The consequences of this process have sealed the destiny of the United States, not only as a response
to her quest for supremacy but also because of her efforts to maintain her role as the sole global
superpower. As noted in previous articles, during the Cold War the aim for Washington was to prevent
the formation of a union between the nations of the Heartland, who could then exclude the US from
the most important area of ??the globe. With the fall of the Iron Curtain, sights were set on an
improbable quest to conquer the Heartland nations with the intent of dominating the whole world.
The consequences of this miscalculation have led the United States to being relegated to the role
of mere observer, watching the unions and integrations occurring that will revolutionize the Eurasian
zone and the planet over the next 50 years. The desperate search to extend Washington's unipolar
moment has paradoxically accelerated the rise of a multipolar world .
In the next and final article, I will throw a light on what is likely to be a change in the American
approach to foreign policy. Keeping in mind the first two articles that examined the approach by
land theorized by MacKinder as opposed to the Maritime Mahan, we will try and outline how Trump intends
to adopt a containment approach to the Rimland, limiting the damage to the US caused by a complete
integration between nations such as Russia, China, Iran and India.
If these 3 countries were able to stop western hegemony relatively on the cheap (i.e. No aircraft
carriers to speak of) we should have no problem keeping others at bay in the coming decades as
we sort our own mess out.
As Kissinger said, Soweeto is a failure and endgangers the USA like no former president in modern
times with his bungling misguided foreign policies aided by the clowns in the state dept.
"Over the past 25 years there have been numerous examples demonstrating how Washington has
had little hesitation in bombing nations reluctant to kowtow to Western wishes. In other
examples, an economic battering ram, based on predatory capitalism and financial speculation,
has literally destroyed sovereign nations, further enriching the US and European financial elite
in the process."
So I guess the author is saying, generally, it was really bad ideas to bail out greed & corruption
on the backs of taxpayers in the EU & US (thereby capitalizing the gains and socializing the losses)
and then compound that gigantic error of injustice by providing jihadist nutcases in Libya & Syria
with friggin air power & ground support.
Which is pretty much what we've been saying all along ;-)
the past 25 years there have been numerous examples demonstrating how Washington has had little
hesitation in bombing nations reluctant to kowtow to Western wishes. In other examples, an economic
battering ram, based on predatory capitalism and financial speculation, has literally destroyed
sovereign nations, further enriching the US and European financial elite in the process.
Wow. What a chunk o change that was! If the battering received by any number of ISLAMIC nations
situated in the general vicinity of a tiny terrorist statelet in the south east Med "in the past
25 years" has "enriched the US and European financial elite" - rather than exponentially inreasing
the economic, military and pollitical power of that same TERROR STATE...
I guess it's time to give up and just watch I LOVE LUCY RERUNS till Ricky Ricardo returns to
Havana as American Ambassador.
Who the hell does Ferderico think the WallSt/City of London nexus of international finance
capital works on behalf of? Washington elites? London Peerage? Annuki aliens? A co-opted, corrupt
western power structure directed to turn it's engines of mass destruction onto oil-rich enemies
of Israel in sequence has = in the process of transferring it's technological copyrights, weapons
and software industrial advances, wealth and power en toto - to a mad millenarianist sect driven
by an urge towards global hegemony,
not only destroyed it's moral authority, legacy of cilvilized society, pretension to advancement
beyond savagery, it's very will to survival,
but handed the reins of power they were "elected" to manage directly over to a clique of dual-citizened
agents of a foreign power which pursue the bankrupting of those same western countries as a side
project to emptying the middle east of people and resources/ and somehow... in this paean to witless
fantasies of Russia is our Savior/China will democratize our world/Iran's corrupt and intolerant
extremist Mullahs will ensure our future as a pluralistic and broad minded society...
it's all because of "America" that more than half the world's population(when you include the
current madness in India)is under unremitting attack of socio-economic kind, which seeks to return
us all to a feudalist nightmare wherein only a chosen few of the New Jerusalem/Old Babylon get
the weatlh of this world whiile dumbing our children down gradually into drone-like slaves of
the moneypower.
Yup. Amerika. Too stupid to save itself from a tsunami of bullshit spread by a team of willing
workers for a cult of psychopathic talmudists. What an epitaph.
If you no longer have those rights of free speech, to defend oneself and to own and enjoy your
own property (that really is the constitution in so many ways) you cannot give it to another.
So no nation with slavery and like many western nations getting there can you give freedom
to any other nation, they may in fact liberate you.
The Fed has it. They get nationalized. Same for all the National Parks and Forests.
Bulldozers on deck to expand our gold reserves. Revalue gold to ten thousand and you could pull
a lot of metal from the jewlery stock of America.
It WILL be revalued but not to 100,000 but to 100,000.....they will have no choice.
They would never contemplate turning to gold unless confidence is completely lost, in which
case they have no choice. But, assuming the treasury actually has the 261 million ounces they
say they so, let's run some numbers:
10 trillion in US domestic deposites,
6 trillion in over seas deposites,
20 trillion in outstanding fed gov debt,
Let's stop there......
36 T /261 m = 138,000 per ounce.
If you add in state, municiple and corporate outstanding debt.....
We're close to 300K per ounce.
Now, if all the 261m is not actually there....yah, you get the picture.
this whole article can be summed up as, "this is how we wish the world would work, but it's not
how it actually works"
c'mon Tyler, these guys are registered out of Moscow and are a rag-tag group of notorious anti-US
progressive hacks... you know the premise is bad when it starts off with Russia, China, and Iran
sitting in a room and working together without trying to rip each other's eyes out... talk about
wishful thinking...
Meh, I think the larger inaccuracy is that Russia and USA are on track (under Trump) to become
closer friends whereas China and USA are set to become more antagonist vs each other (under Trump).
So there is the possibility that it will be Russia & America vs China for the next decade or
so (i don't think hot war between superpowers really benefits anyone except genocidal sociopaths/aka
the 'elite').
I agree with that assessment... I also expect that, as US/Russia relations warm, the narrative
from sites such as the one referenced here will change... they just haven't gotten the memo yet
All Empires towards their end lash out for one last desperate attempt at retaining power.
Look for the U.S. to do the same. The Dirty Tricks era has only just begun. 2020-2030
is going to be VERY INTERESTING in a Chinese proverb kind of way.
Grant Williams is brilliant:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-27/things-make-you-go-hmm-death-pe...
in case you missed it. The China angle with a new oil future contract priced in RMB could be the
game changer – the black swan. With gold totally convertible from SGE (Shanghai Gold Exchange)
or SGEI (Shanghai International Gold Exchange) for any and all RMB payable oil exported to China,
Russian and Saudi exporters to China may very well decide to convert their RMB oil revenue into
physical gold. Russia was the world's largest producer of crude oil including lease condensate
and the third-largest producer of petroleum and other liquids (after Saudi Arabia and the United
States) in 2015. China is the largest importer of oil in world and Russia and Saudi Arabia are
China's biggest suppliers.
Also intriguing are Trump's appointments of Exxon's Tillerson to Secretary of State, Vincent
Viola former NYMEX CEO as Secretary of Army
http://theridgewoodblog.net/trump-nominates-former-chairman-of-nymex-and... & David McCormick
Bridgewater President (Ray Dalio buddy) as Deputy Secretary of Defense. Both energy and financial
wherewithal are inseparable concerns for the well-being of the United States.
According to Grant Williams, China imports 3B barrels per year (8M/day) or about 19% of all
world oil imports. China also produces about 15% of 2016 world gold mining production amounting
to 15M ounces (475MT). Consequently, a 100% gold trade-backed RMB could fund 100% of China oil
imports via China's annual gold production as long as RMB Gold price is at least 200X the price
of 2015 RMB Oil
(3B barrels/15M gold ounces). That is about $10,000 per ounce of gold based on 2015 oil price
supply/demand data. With China's oil futures priced in RMB, both the Russian and Saudi powerhouses
can easily hedge as well as convert RMB payment into physical RMB gold from SGE or SGEI for any
and all RMB payable oil exported to China. And China has the gold just from their annual production.
What about the rest of the world? The balance of non-China world gold production amounts to
about 86M ounces. If valued at $9,000 per ounce it would be worth $775B enough to pay 100% of
the non-China world oil imports of 13B barrels worth about the same – as long as the importing
nation actually has the gold. If not, then they have to buy it to pay for their oil.
But an oil only gold backed-trade currency will not work. All trade goods and services need
to be considered. But there is not enough gold in annual production to fund a 100% gold backing
without 6 figure gold prices. So instead, transform a trade backed petro currency that is 100%
backed by gold, valued at 200x the price of a barrel of oil, into a trade back currency for all
international trade of all goods and services including energy. A 5% backing would suffice at
the same $9-$10,000 per ounce
Here's the math: All types of worldwide imports (or exports) in all goods and services amounts
to about $18T. If total annual world trade is $18T worldwide and had to be backed by 5% in gold
or $900B and funded by 100,000,000 ounces (3200 MT) of annual gold mining worldwide, then gold
at $9,000 per ounce would do it exactly. Every single good or service that is imported would have
to include a gold backed trade note as part of the letter-of-credit on deposit with a physical
gold exchange that is the real deal. And since about 4.7% of all trade exports (or imports) are
actually the value of worldwide oil imports (or exports)
http://www.worldstopexports.com/worlds-top-oil-exports-country/
a 5% gold backing of all trade makes a good starting point.
For China, they actually run a $450B trade surplus - meaning that China will accumulate physical
gold with a worldwide gold backed trade currency. Whereas the U.S. is toast because the U.S. runs
a $600B trade deficit and produces ˝ the gold China does with doubtful reserves.
If we saw an 800% increase in price of gold to $9000 per ounce and all imports worldwide are
backed by 5% gold, then US imports will immediately be priced at plus 40% (5% of 800%) more than
today.
All China's PBOC and SAFE need to do is come clean in their gold reserves, bust paper gold
price discovery, and Kuroda to play ball and gold becomes the de-facto trade currency.
"Any route out of the problem means ousting the currency of the US as the main one for international
invoicing and store of value. It is not surprising that the IMF, where the US holds veto power,
will prefer to bury its head in the sand."
I have read that for various reasons silver supplies will run out in about 20 years (e.g. energy
needed to mine each ounce is growing rapidly as yield falls), if this is correct then there is
not enough silver for a silver backing since most silver is already used commerically and lost
unlike gold which is usually reclaimed.
more simply, the megalomaniacal, supremacist International Jews who, largely, have seized control
of banking and media and political influence as to foreign/war policy in the US, UK, France, and
elsewhere,
.. and used it to kill hundreds of thousands, and in alliance with Saudis and Turks and Americans,
have used and directed terror proxies to murder thousands of Christians while driving mostly Muslim
refugees and economic opportunity (freebies) seekers north to de-Whiten Europe and the US...
want you to not see their transnational role in all the bloody chaos.
Millions of naive and malleable people (sheeple) will keep falling for their Fables, Narratives
and Philosophies.
How do I know this? Easy. When you see them on Sunday morning, reading from the
OT: the original Ponzi. Which led to rev.2.0, the NT Ponzi.
If you want to be truly FREE, you must first give up all Illusions, Pretenses, Fables, Myths
and Lore, and all Fairy Tales for Grownups -- which are designed to give your lives pre-processed
'purpose' and belonging, so that Secular and Clerical rulers can use you like sheep, cattle and
chattel.
Newsflash: You do NOT need a subscription to any of the preprocessed Organized Religions (Judaism,
Christianity or Islam), to give your life meaning, purpose, a sense of belonging, to be part of
something greater and more enduring than yourself, etc. All these are entirely possible without
these Slave Masters, and are far healthier, wealthier and happier without them.
I wish you true peace that comes from true enlightenment, at which point the shackles on your
mind and spirit are thrown aside forever.
Sounds like your "enlightenment" gives you another couple decades of freedom. Then you're dead.
The great religions, particularly the most acclaimed one, deal with death, and life continuing
after death. Your talk of shackles is as old as "Ye shall be as god."
and kleptocrats/totalitarians understand that too - that's why they focus on brainwashing sheeple
while young (because nobody over 10 would believe that they are going to live after they
die - if only they are slavish enough while alive and other BS pedophiles are teaching them to
believe) .
It's the brainwashed /brain-damaged slavish parents who let this scam go on after so many centuries
of fraud.
Just look at children and dogs - and how they live with life/death - they love you while you
are alive, once you die - they move on. Humans woudl do the same without pedophile priests to
trick them into fearmongering and delluded BS
The US expects global hegemony from its exceptional delusion, when a majority of its leaders are
stupid or ignorant? Nature's evolution culls the unfit.
Seven years after being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his "extraordinary efforts to strengthen
international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples," despite having been in office for less
than one year and having pretty much no actual, tangible foreign diplomacy accomplishments at the
time, President Obama will depart the White House having dropped 26,171 bombs on foreign countries
around the world in 2016, 3,027 more than 2015.
It's now democratic socialists versus progressive
neoliberals.
The progressive neoliberals have failed the world over.
Hillary Clinton, a competent, knowledgeable establishment
politician, lost to a laughable reality TV star clown.
Think about it. Mull it over in your mind. It's hilarious
how cocky and confident the neoliberals were throughout the
election. It's amazing how wrong they were. Trump's victory
is almost worth it. Not quite.
Published on
Friday, February 26, 2016
by Common Dreams
"We Are Not Denmark": Hillary Clinton and Liberal American
Exceptionalism
by Matthew Stanley
Several months removed, it now seems clear that the
Democratic debate on October 13 contained an illuminating
moment that has come to embody the 2016 Democratic Primary
and the key differences between its two candidates.
Confronting Bernie Sanders's insistence that the United
States has much to learn from more socialized nations,
particularly the Nordic Model, Hillary Clinton was direct: "I
love Denmark. But we are not Denmark. We are the United
States of America."
The implication behind this statement-the reasoning that
ideas and institutions (in this case social and economic
programs) that are successful in other nations are somehow
practically or ideologically inconsistent with Americans and
American principles-speaks to a longstanding sociopolitical
framework that has justified everything from continental
expansion to the Iraq War: American exceptionalism. Rooted in
writings of Alexis de Tocqueville and the mythology of John
Winthrop's "City Upon a Hill," the notion that the history
and mission of the United States and the superiority of its
political and economic traditions makes it impervious to same
the forces that influence other peoples has coursed through
Abraham Lincoln's "Gettysburg Address," the Cold War rhetoric
of John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, and the foreign policy
declarations of Barack Obama.
espite particular historical trends-early and relatively
stable political democracy, birthright citizenship, the
absence of a feudal tradition, the relative weakness of class
consciousness-historians have critiqued this "American
exceptionalism" as far more fictive than physical, frequently
citing the concept as a form of state mythology. Although
different histories lead naturally to historical and perhaps
even structural dissimilarities, America's twenty-first
century "exceptions" appear as dubious distinctions: gun
violence, carbon emissions, mass incarceration, wealth
inequality, racial disparities, capital punishment, child
poverty, and military spending.
et even at a time when American exceptionalism has never
been more challenged both by empirically-validated social and
economic data and in public conversation, the concept
continues to play an elemental role in our two-party
political discourse. The Republican Party is, of course,
awash with spurious, almost comically stupid dialogue about a
mythic American past-"making America great again"-the racial
and ethnic undertones of which are unmistakable. Those same
Republicans have lambasted Obama and other high profile
Democrats for not believing sufficiently in their brand of
innate, transhistoric American supremacy.
But this Americentrism is not the sole province of the
GOP. We need look no further than bipartisan support for the
military-industrial complex and the surveillance state to see
that national exceptionalism, and its explicit
double-standard toward other nations, resides comfortably
within the Democratic Party as well. Russian President
Vladimir Putin and Ecuadorean President Rafael Correa
censured Obama's use of the term in the fall of 2013, with
the latter likening it to the "chosen race" theories of Nazi
Germany. Hyperbole notwithstanding, academics often do
associate American exceptionalism with military conquest. It
does, after all, have deep roots in the Manifest Destiny
ethos that spurred the Mexican War, drove continental and
trans-Pacific expansion, and emerged as a paternalistic
justification for voluminous military interventions in Latin
America, Africa, and the Middle East. As Dick Cheney
suggests, "the world needs a powerful America." In this
unilateral missionizing zeal Clinton proves most typical. As
historian Michael Kazin argues in a recent piece for The
Nation: "Hillary Clinton is best described as a liberal. Like
every liberal president (and most failed Democratic nominees)
since Wilson, she wants the United States to be the dominant
power in the world, so she doesn't question the massive sums
spent on the military and on the other branches of the
national-security state."
But Clinton's brand of American exceptionalism goes beyond
the issue of American military dominion and into the policy
potentials of mid-century social liberalism and, more
specifically, the neoliberalism that has since replaced it.
Indeed, since George McGovern's failed presidential bid of
1972, neoliberals, moving decidedly rightward on economic
issues, have consistently employed exceptionalist code to
fight off movements, ideas, and challengers from the left.
The victims include leftist efforts toward both American
demilitarization and the expansion of a "socialistic" welfare
state. Socialist feminist Liza Featherstone and others have
denounced Clinton's uncritical praise of the "opportunity"
and "freedom" of American capitalism vis-ŕ-vis other
developed nations. "With this bit of frankness," Featherstone
explains, referring to the former Secretary of State's
"Denmark" comments, "Clinton helpfully explained why no
socialist-indeed, no non-millionaire-should support her. She
is smart enough to know that women in the United States
endure far more poverty, unemployment, and food insecurity
than women in Denmark-yet she shamelessly made clear that she
was happy to keep it that way." Indeed, Clinton's
denunciation of the idea that the United States should look
more like Denmark betrayed one of the glaring the fault lines
within the Democratic Party, and between Clintonian
liberalism and Sandersite leftism. It also revealed a more
clandestine strain of American exceptionalism common among
liberals and the Democratic Party elite in which
"opportunity" serves as a stand-in for wider egalitarian
reform. As Elizabeth Bruenig highlighted in The New Republic:
"Since getting ahead on one's own grit is such a key part of
the American narrative, it's easy to see how voters might be
attracted to Clinton's opportunity-based answer to our social
and economic woes, though it leaves the problem of inequality
vastly under-addressed. Indeed, a kind of American
exceptionalism does seem to underpin much opportunity-focused
political rhetoric."
This preference for insider politics (rather than mass
movements involving direct action) and limited, means-tested
social programs speaks to a broader truth about modern
liberalism: it functions in a way that not only doesn't
challenge the basic tenets of American exceptionalism, it
often reinforces them. Whether vindicating war and torture
and civil liberties violations, talking past the War on Drugs
and the carceral state, or exhibiting coolness toward the
type of popular protest seen during of Occupy Wall Street,
with its direct attacks on a sort of American Sonderweg,
establishment Democrats are adept at using a more "realistic"
brand of Americentrism to consolidate power and anchor the
party in the status quo. Now the 2016 Democratic Primary has
seen progressive ideas including universal health care,
tuition-free college, and a living minimum wage, all
hallmarks of large swaths of the rest of the developed world,
delegitimized through some mutation of liberal exceptionalist
thinking. These broadminded reforms are apparently off
limits, not because they are not good ideas (though opponents
make that appraisal too), but because somehow their
unachievability is exceptional to the United States.
All this is not to exclude (despite his "democratic
socialist" professions) Sanders's own milder brand of
"America first," most evident in his economic nationalism,
but to emphasize that American exceptionalism and the logical
and practical dangers it poses exist in degrees across a
spectrum of American politics. Whatever his nationalistic
inclinations, Sanders's constant reiteration of America's
need to learn from and adapt to the social, economic, and
political models of other nations demonstrates an
ethno-flexibility rarely seen in American major party
politics. "Every other major country " might as well be his
official campaign slogan. This bilateral outlook does not fit
nearly as neatly within Clinton's traditional liberal
paradigm that, from defenses of American war and empire to
the, uses American exceptionalism tactically, dismissing its
conservative adherents as nationalist overkill yet quietly
exploiting the theory when politically or personally
expeditious.
In looking beyond our national shores and domestic
origin-sources for fresh and functional policy, Sanders seems
to grasp that, from the so-called "foreign influences" of the
Republican free soil program or Robert La Follette's
Wisconsin Idea or even Lyndon Johnson's Great Society,
American high politics have been at their most morally
creative and sweepingly influential not only when swayed by
direct action and mass movements, but also when they are less
impeded by the constraints of ethnocentrism and
exceptionalism. The "We are not Denmark" sentiment might
appear benign, lacking as it does the bluster of Republican
claims to national supremacy and imaginary "golden age" pasts
and what economist Thomas Picketty has termed a "mythical
capitalism." But it is the "seriousness" and very gentility
of liberal Americentrism that underscores the power,
omnipresence, and intellectual poverty of cultural dismissal.
"I still believe in American exceptionalism," Clinton has
proclaimed in pushing for U.S. military escalation in Syria.
Indeed she does, and it is by no means relegated to the
sphere of foreign policy.
"Socialist feminist Liza Featherstone and others have
denounced Clinton's uncritical praise of the "opportunity"
and "freedom" of American capitalism vis-ŕ-vis other
developed nations. "With this bit of frankness," Featherstone
explains, referring to the former Secretary of State's
"Denmark" comments, "Clinton helpfully explained why no
socialist-indeed, no non-millionaire-should support her. She
is smart enough to know that women in the United States
endure far more poverty, unemployment, and food insecurity
than women in Denmark-yet she shamelessly made clear that she
was happy to keep it that way." Indeed, Clinton's
denunciation of the idea that the United States should look
more like Denmark betrayed one of the glaring the fault lines
within the Democratic Party, and between Clintonian
liberalism and Sandersite leftism."
Is it better to ignore
this fault line and try to paper it over or is it better to
debate the issues in a polite and congenial manner?
Of course the progressive neoliberals in this forum
regularly resort to ad hominem to any ideas or facts that
don't line up with the agreed-upon party line.
And then our Miss Manners Chris Lowrey complains about all
sides.
One thing about this website is
that we don't have a "like" button. Since expressing simple
agreement is not very interesting, most people don't do it
and the interactions that do occur are critical. That creates
the impression that people are more uniformly hostile to one
another than they probably are.
Both Clinton's are war mongering corporatists apologizing for
banksters, same mold as Obama who is a better con artist than
HRC!
That democrats are "soft" on the war trough is false
news since 1960. But a good scam to get pro abortion faux
liberals to support the war machine's trough.
Funding planned parenthood does not make war criminals
liberal.
Tonight we were presented with the
one-on-one interview between Sean Hannity and WikiLeaks
founder Julian Assange. In the first segment that Hannity
showed, Assange stated that Rushua was not involved in
providing WikiLeaks with the hacked emails from the DNC or
John Podesta, and neither was a state party. Assange, who
is confined to the Ecuadorean embassy in London due to a
warrant for sexual assault in Sweden, was asked if
President Barack Obama was lying when claiming Rushuaans
were behind the hacks since Assange is saying Rushua
wasn't involved. "Well, he is acting like a lawyer," he
noted. "If you look at most of his statements he doesn't
say that. He doesn't say WikiLeaks obtained its
information from Rushua, worked with Rushua." Later on,
when describing why Obama had a dramatic response to
Rushua via sanctions, Assange says he is "trying to
delegitimize the Trump Administration as it goes into the
White House."Hannity Julian Assange FULL Interview 1/3/17.
Sean Hannity gave us a preview of his revealing exclusive
interview with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, which
will air on Fox News Channel tonight at 10pm ET. Assange
spoke for about 90 minutes at the Ecuadorian embassy in
London, where he has remained for four-and-a-half years
under threat of arrest. Hannity said they discussed "the
state of journalism" in the United States and what was not
covered by the media when it came to the contents of the
hacked emails.
Spc Garza
19
hours ago
This guy is way to smart for the government lol!!!
Stay safe
Jakareh75
17
hours ago
Julian Assange has more integrity in one fingernail
than does the entire mainstream media. And that is
why he's under a bogus indictment for rape by
Sweden, the same country that allows Muslim
subhumans scores of their women every day with
impunity. The rotten liberals who run Sweden go
after Julian Assange but not their Muslim pets.
Alex Phillips
16
hours ago
as a fellow Australian i find it absolutely fucking
disgraceful that our government isn't fighting tooth
and nail to clear Julian's name. .....stand strong
Julian. ....walk with your head held high. ....keep
on doing what you are doing. ....god bless you and
keep you safe.
Arisen Hemloc
21
minutes ago
Alex: I wouldn't call us Fascist. Fascist
governments are hard to fully achieve
because they require so many attributes in
comparison to other extremes like
Communism. It needs to be Nationalistic
(which, let's face, we're not at the
moment), a dictatorship (which, we're not
yet), Authoritarian to the extreme (we're
VERY close to that), and quite a few other
qualities. But regardless, Australia is
clamped down by regulations and laws which
choke business, a moron who wants a Carbon
Tax (useless. Doesn't even help Climate
Change if you believe in it), Emissions
Trading Scheme (Again, worthless) and has
the political sense of a rock, stupid
Socialist departments that aren't working (Centrelink)
because the economy is so blotto, we've got
gun laws that will probably lead to us all
getting machine gunned down by some Islamic
with an AK and slowly our borders are
becoming less and less secure. We're at the
point of America at the moment, not Germany
or France yet, but getting there. Only our
Ocean protects us from that. Under Rudd and
Gillard, we were moving heavily Socialist.
Under Abbot, in an attempt to fix the
damage they did, he shoved us too far the
other way. We need a Trump now and I get a
feeling it'll come from a coalition between
Hansen and Bernardi. Bernardi is
considering, if he hasn't already, leaving
the Liberals and starting a real
Conservative Party for the people, but to
get into power he'll need a coalition.
Either that or someone in the Liberals will
need to get rid of Turnbull and fix our
system. We can't trust Labor because they
have that Union boss creep Shorten as their
leader and he's nuttier than Rudd. It's
sad, but Assange will not be allowed back
into Australia or helped by Australia while
our current cycle of nut job politics keep
on going. We need Howard or Menzies back.
Also, for you Americans, our politicians
aren't as corrupt as yours (the Labor
maybe), but ours are just incompetent 75%
of the time.
Stacey Johnson
21
hours ago
This was a great interview. Hopefully now that
Assange has established for the millionth time that
Russia did not hack, we (as in all truth media
outlets like RT, Hannity, etc) need to stop focusing
on and talking about who did the hacking. Its time
to start investigating, talking about and exposing
the actual content of the emails, all of them not
just the ones that expose the media and campaign
corruption. Yet RT, Hannity, etc are not talking
about it or asking the questions that need to be
asked or investigating it. Why isn't anyone asking
about the Clinton foundation and its link to human
trafficking or why Monica Peterson was found dead
while investigating it?? Why isn't anyone asking
Podesta to explain all the strange and suspicious
code talk that is factual signs, symbols and code
words for pedophilia used over and over in these
emails? Why aren't they asking about the ties and
connections to occult rituals? Why aren't they
asking about the sickening art collections? Why
aren't they asking about the strange and
inappropriate happenings that go on at Ping Pong
Pizza? The flight logs of the Lolita express, which
is owned by a convicted sex offender, to "orgy
island"? Clinton's reasons for going there without
secret service detail on numerous occasions? The
deaths of so many people connected to the
Clinton's?? I still don't understand why these
things are still not being talked about?!?!
PopTartsAndCinemax
7
hours ago
Saudi Arabia bankrolled HRC's campaign but please,
tell us how the Russians are interfering in the
election... lol...
John S
5
hours ago
SA is using US $$ and weapons via Hillary's state
department to bankroll ISIS. But please, more
Russia!!
Paul X
11
hours ago
Hannity worries about where Assange draws the line,
and whether his releases might endanger human lives
(those of spies, I suppose). The problem with that
line is that human lives are endangered no matter
what! If Assange releases information, some lives
are endangered. If he doesn't, other lives are
endangered. Let's face it, Madeleine Albright said
that it was "worth it" if half a million Iraqi
people were killed in the pursuit of American
imperialist ambitions. And let's face it, if spies'
lives are endangered, well they signed up for that
danger. It's part of their job to deal with it. If
the release of truth endangers them, then maybe they
are doing something they shouldn't be doing. I don't
for a second believe the American (or any other)
ruling class gives a rat's ass about the lives of
ordinary peons being endangered.
Cam Smith
1
hour ago
Great interview by Mr. Hannity! And thank you Mr.
Assange for your dedication to the truth!
Jolly Froster
2
hours ago
Assange created wikileaks to give more info to
voters to stop wars. Hillary and the neocons wanted
war with Russia through her no fly zone so the
Saudis could get their pipeline in Syria. Hilary was
stopped. So now they are using wikileaks to try and
start the war.
Gary McAleer
1
hour ago
Everyone in the msm calls Julian Assange a liar when
he emphatically said that Russia was not the source
of the Clinton or Podesta emails. I'll take Julian's
impartial word over the politically selfish
interests here in America. Frankly, I'm sick and
tired of all the disinformation Americans have been
fed. Deliberate liars will be met with fire on "the
resurrection of damnation." "The wicked shall
perish: and shall be as the fat of lambs: into smoke
shall they consume away." Ps.37. So many in this
country lie as easily as they breathe. Their lies
will be their ruin.
Michael Snow
2
hours ago
Tonight, on PBS Nightly Business Report (NBR)
produced by CNBC, the reference to 'Russian hacking'
smeared Julian Assange as a 'fugitve from criminal
justice' in the USA.
Rod Ruger
11
hours ago
True, proven information is anathema to governments
that seeks tyranny. The goal of such governments is
to befuddle, misinform, instill fear, and otherwise
keep citizens in a fog.
George G
19
hours ago
WOW Assange is so much more credible than Obama and
his cooked up Intel narrative. The only facts that
truly point to a crime is that WIKILEAKS revealed
crimes committed by the democrate which included
Obama and it needs to be prosecuted AFTER HE LEAVES
OFFICE!
AntonBatey
11
hours ago
I have always supported Julian Assange. I do not
like Sean Hannity and disagree with him roughly 90
percent of the time. If Julian Assange attempted to
sabotage Donald Trump (and by default helping
Hillary Clinton) and continued to expose the war
crimes and internal emails exposing America's
imperialist interests, Hannity would brush him off
as a traitor and would claim that nothing he said
should be trusted or believed. But he helped Trump
and (appropriately) exposed Hillary Clinton was a
warmongering corporate shill who helped sabotage
Bernie Sanders, so Hannity lends his words as
credible.
Barbara Mowrey
20
hours ago
Like a lawyer, means, double talk . To seem legit
through actions and talk, alone, with no evidence,
hoping the action, or subpoena to make act, (send
diplomats out of the country) is that "tangible"
evidence when it is not even close! Double talk.
Keep em guessing to stay legit, again. Make evidence
when none exists.
Laine Gordon
15
hours ago (edited)
podesta's own email said the clinton foundation leak
was eric braverman, missing for months now. and in
podesta's own words, he fingered braverman as the
leak. you really have to be willfully blind at this
point to think otherwise
Laine Gordon
15
hours ago
he looks good..healthy considering what TPTB are
doing to him, for providing a legitimate platform
for whistleblowers ,...how much clearer could he
have been? a LEAK, not a HACK,...an individual
unrelated to russian state. and since he hinted
during a netherlands interview last year that the
source ( which he has always refused to name , to
protect the integrity and safety of the source) was
seth rich, not to mention the ex ambassador
admitting he received material from the
whistleblower in a park near AU, the Dems' trying to
start WW3 with russia seems like theatre of the
absurd
Gamer Boy
5
hours ago
HOLD UP HOLD UP HOLD UP Will someone look at the
first question Julian answers about "did he think
Trump would win" He says someone hacked/leaked it
who wanted to get more donations for her to win,
because if the people thought she was losing that
more money would come in upwards of 5 Billion and
she had only gotten 1.5 billion so far!!! So she
needed that push to put her down in the polls for
more money to come in. so it could have been someone
in the Media industry as he says who wanted more for
money, the DNC... I don't know but someone smart
please look into this. Did Russia need money from
her? who wanted to get her donations up to 5
billion. Watch his very first answer over and over
it's right there! lets figure it out!!
Richard M. Nixon always denied it: to David Frost, to
historians and to Lyndon B. Johnson, who had the strongest
suspicions and the most cause for outrage at his successor's
rumored treachery. To them all, Nixon insisted that he had
not sabotaged Johnson's 1968 peace initiative to bring the
war in Vietnam to an early conclusion. "My God. I would never
do anything to encourage" South Vietnam "not to come to the
table," Nixon told Johnson, in a conversation captured on the
White House taping system.
Now we know Nixon lied. A newfound cache of notes left by
H. R. Haldeman, his closest aide, shows that Nixon directed
his campaign's efforts to scuttle the peace talks, which he
feared could give his opponent, Vice President Hubert H.
Humphrey, an edge in the 1968 election. On Oct. 22, 1968, he
ordered Haldeman to "monkey wrench" the initiative.
The 37th president has been enjoying a bit of a revival
recently, as his achievements in foreign policy and the
landmark domestic legislation he signed into law draw
favorable comparisons to the presidents (and president-elect)
that followed. A new, $15 million face-lift at the Nixon
presidential library, while not burying the Watergate
scandals, spotlights his considerable record of
accomplishments.
Haldeman's notes return us to the dark side. Amid the
reappraisals, we must now weigh apparently criminal behavior
that, given the human lives at stake and the decade of
carnage that followed in Southeast Asia, may be more
reprehensible than anything Nixon did in Watergate.
Nixon had entered the fall campaign with a lead over
Humphrey, but the gap was closing that October. Henry A.
Kissinger, then an outside Republican adviser, had called,
alerting Nixon that a deal was in the works: If Johnson would
halt all bombing of North Vietnam, the Soviets pledged to
have Hanoi engage in constructive talks to end a war that had
already claimed 30,000 American lives.
But Nixon had a pipeline to Saigon, where the South
Vietnamese president, Nguyen Van Thieu, feared that Johnson
would sell him out. If Thieu would stall the talks, Nixon
could portray Johnson's actions as a cheap political trick.
The conduit was Anna Chennault, a Republican doyenne and
Nixon fund-raiser, and a member of the pro-nationalist China
lobby, with connections across Asia.
"! Keep Anna Chennault working on" South Vietnam, Haldeman
scrawled, recording Nixon's orders. "Any other way to monkey
wrench it? Anything RN can do."
Nixon told Haldeman to have Rose Mary Woods, the
candidate's personal secretary, contact another nationalist
Chinese figure - the businessman Louis Kung - and have him
press Thieu as well. "Tell him hold firm," Nixon said.
Nixon also sought help from Chiang Kai-shek, the president
of Taiwan. And he ordered Haldeman to have his
vice-presidential candidate, Spiro T. Agnew, threaten the
CIA director, Richard Helms. Helms's hopes of keeping his
job under Nixon depended on his pliancy, Agnew was to say.
"Tell him we want the truth - or he hasn't got the job,"
Nixon said.
Throughout his life, Nixon feared disclosure of this
skulduggery....
Nixon Tried to Spoil Vietnam Peace Talks to Win 1968
Election
By PETER BAKER
Newly discovered notes by an aide to Richard M. Nixon
appear to confirm suspicions that, while running for
president, he was directly involved in persuading South
Vietnam to resist a peace deal.
January 2, 2016
Nixon Tried to Spoil Johnson's Vietnam Peace Talks in '68,
Notes Show
By PETER BAKER
Richard M. Nixon told an aide that they should find a way
to secretly "monkey wrench" peace talks in Vietnam in the
waning days of the 1968 campaign for fear that progress
toward ending the war would hurt his chances for the
presidency, according to newly discovered notes.
In a telephone conversation with H. R. Haldeman, who would
go on to become White House chief of staff, Nixon gave
instructions that a friendly intermediary should keep
"working on" South Vietnamese leaders to persuade them not to
agree to a deal before the election, according to the notes,
taken by Mr. Haldeman.
The Nixon campaign's clandestine effort to thwart
President Lyndon B. Johnson's peace initiative that fall has
long been a source of controversy and scholarship. Ample
evidence has emerged documenting the involvement of Nixon's
campaign. But Mr. Haldeman's notes appear to confirm
longstanding suspicions that Nixon himself was directly
involved, despite his later denials.
"There's really no doubt this was a step beyond the normal
political jockeying, to interfere in an active peace
negotiation given the stakes with all the lives," said John
A. Farrell, who discovered the notes at the Richard Nixon
Presidential Library for his forthcoming biography, "Richard
Nixon: The Life," to be published in March by Doubleday.
"Potentially, this is worse than anything he did in
Watergate."
Mr. Farrell, in an article in The New York Times Sunday
Review over the weekend, highlighted the notes by Mr.
Haldeman, along with many of Nixon's fulsome denials of any
efforts to thwart the peace process before the election.
His discovery, according to numerous historians who have
written books about Nixon and conducted extensive research of
his papers, finally provides validation of what had largely
been surmise....
"That US-led (funded with the hunger and the blood of all
the world) global order has enabled 70 years of prosperity.
It rests on market-oriented regimes of trade liberalization,
increased capital mobility, and appropriate social-welfare
policies; backed by American security guarantees in Europe,
the Middle East, and Asia, through NATO and various other
alliances."
The "enabled" is as farcical as is the immorality of blood
shed opportunity costs to real people and other treasure
wasted in the "enabling".
It is obvious to me at
least that PE Trump
will force immediate
detente with Russia,
weaken NATO, and
substitute China as
the bogey man to
prepare to battle,
economically,
politically, and
militarily.
Watch
for it.
Of course, that
also entails tossing
US Allies in Europe
under the bus b/c
Putin wants more
influence and control
over nations on his
borders than the USA
and NATO have allowed
following the break up
of the USSR both
economically and
militarily.
Not so sure how the
experienced foreign
policy Hawks, mostly
retired Generals, will
go along with letting
Putin's Russia out of
NATO's cage.
Should be
interesting if Trump
gets them to go along
with is plans to free
Putin and make him and
Russia friends with
the US again.
Pork for defense contractors and WWC workers with little or
no legitimate defense value ... sounds like the kind of thing
Trump will support enthusiastically.
There was not one US
navy carrier on 'patrol' anywhere for the past week.
Littoral Combat Ships are useless too small too little
keel, and no good in open water.
The CVN 78 is a dinosaur...........
Look how those CV/CVN's did off Vietnam for 7 years!
ilsm -> ilsm...
, -1
The faux 'threats' must have decided to be nice to the
empire:
"For the next week, not only will there be no U.S.
Navy aircraft
carrier in the Middle East, but there will be no American
aircraft
carriers deployed at sea anywhere else in the world, despite
a host
"... I remember someone writing when the USSR collapsed - can't recall who - "The only thing more dangerous to a society than total defeat is total victory." Seemed noteworthy at the time. Seems prescient now. ..."
The truth is that fighting a new Cold War would be in
America's interest. Russia teaches us a very important
lesson: losing an ideological war without a fight will ruin
you as a nation. The fight is the American way. When we stop
fighting for our ideals abroad, we stop fighting for them at
home. We won the last Cold War. We will win the next one too.
When it's us against them, they were, and are, never going to
be the winner.
[ Creepier and creepier, but no surprise. ]
Reply
Tuesday, January 03, 2017 at 09:37 AM
JF said in reply to anne...
I agree. I did not want generations living the cold war and
security-industrial complex ennui and its levers of control
over a free society. Might make interesting movies, but sad
to read the piece in the link and its characterizations of
what the Putin totalitarian is pursuing. It is sad because I
am afraid much is an apt description of what the Putin
cronies are.
But that is not to say that we have to
reflexively act in the same way as thus linked article
suggests. Yes be the best at strategic communications, based
on the real world, not as just another propagandist.
If we would move to energy efficiency via alternative
non-fossil fuel solutions and help to support alternatives to
russian sources this would weaken the Putin totality.
But what is Trump planning to do? I recommend he pick up
the Sanders positions on climate change and energy
infrastructure and challenge Putin in a contest comparing US
resident and Russuan residents on measures that we really
care about, health and longevity, clean air water and
environmental stewardship, energy efficiency, housing,
mobility and economic opportunity for each resident. Putin
looks small in a world that uses these aspects to measure
greatness. Call him out, a public challenge, what nation is
the greatest?
I can only hope.
Reply
Tuesday, January 03, 2017 at 11:11 AM
im1dc said in reply to JF...
It is obvious to me at least that PE Trump will force
immediate detente with Russia, weaken NATO, and substitute
China as the bogey man to prepare to battle, economically,
politically, and militarily.
Watch for it.
Of course, that also entails tossing US Allies in Europe
under the bus b/c Putin wants more influence and control over
nations on his borders than the USA and NATO have allowed
following the break up of the USSR both economically and
militarily.
Not so sure how the experienced foreign policy Hawks,
mostly retired Generals, will go along with letting Putin's
Russia out of NATO's cage.
Should be interesting if Trump gets them to go along with
is plans to free Putin and make him and Russia friends with
the US again.
Reply
Tuesday, January 03, 2017 at 11:35 AM
kthomas said in reply to anne...
What? Anyways, Noah is scared. Anti-semitism is on the rise
and you and your pal Putin couldn't be happier, I'm sure.
Reply
Tuesday, January 03, 2017 at 11:57 AM
anne said in reply to kthomas...
Anti-semitism is on the rise and you and your pal Putin
couldn't be happier, I'm sure.
Anti-semitism is on the rise
and you and your pal Putin couldn't be happier, I'm sure.
Anti-semitism is on the rise and you and your pal Putin
couldn't be happier, I'm sure.
Reply
Tuesday, January 03, 2017 at 12:05 PM
Chris G
said in reply to anne...
I remember someone writing when the USSR collapsed -
can't recall who - "The only thing more dangerous to a
society than total defeat is total victory." Seemed
noteworthy at the time. Seems prescient now.
Reply
Tuesday, January 03, 2017 at 02:12 PM
anne said in reply to
Chris G
...
I remember someone writing when the USSR collapsed - can't
recall who - "The only thing more dangerous to a society than
total defeat is total victory." Seemed noteworthy at the
time. Seems prescient now.
[ Agreed, interesting enough
Paul Krugman was implicitly making just that point:
The two previous articles have focused on the
various geopolitical theories, their translations into modern concepts, and practical actions
that
the United States has taken in recent decades to aspire to global dominance . This segment will
describe how Iran, China and Russia have over the years adopted a variety of economic and military
actions to repel the continual assault on their sovereignty by the West; in particular, how the American
drive for global hegemony has actually accelerated the end of the 'unipolar moment' thanks to the
emergence of a multipolar world.
From the moment the Berlin Wall fell, the United States saw a unique opportunity to pursue the
goal of being the sole global hegemon. With the end of the Soviet Union, Washington could undoubtedly
aspire to planetary domination paying little heed to the threat of competition and especially of
any consequences. America found herself the one and only global superpower, faced with the prospect
of extending cultural and economic model around the planet, where necessary by military means.
Over the past 25 years there have been numerous examples demonstrating how Washington has had
little hesitation in bombing nations reluctant to kowtow to Western wishes. In other examples, an
economic battering ram, based on predatory capitalism and financial speculation, has literally destroyed
sovereign nations, further enriching the US and European financial elite in the process.
Alliances to Resist
In the course of the last two decades, the relationship between the three major powers of the
Heartland , the heart of the Earth, changed radically.
Iran, Russia and China have fully understood that union and cooperation are the only means for
mutual reinforcement. The need to fight a common problem, represented by a growing American influence
in domestic affairs, has forced Tehran, Beijing and Moscow to resolve their differences and embrace
a unified strategy in the common interest of defending their sovereignty.
Events such as the war in Syria, the bombing of Libya, the overthrowing of the democratic order
in Ukraine, sanctions against Iran, and the direct pressure applied to Beijing in the South China
Sea, have accelerated integration among nations that in the early 1990s had very little in common.
Economic Integration
Analyzing US economic power it is clear that supranational organizations like the World Trade
Organization, International Monetary Fund and the World Bank guarantee Washington's role as the economic
leader. The pillars that support the centrality of the United States in the world economy can be
attributed to the monetary policy of the Fed and the function of the dollar as a global reserve currency.
The Fed has unlimited ability to print money to finance further economic power of the private
and public sector as well as to pay the bill due for very costly wars. The US dollar plays a central
role as the global reserve currency as well as being used as currency for trade. This virtually obliges
each central bank to own reserves in US currency, continuing to perpetuate the importance of Washington
in the global economic system.
The introduction of the yuan into the international basket of the IMF, global agreements for the
Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), and Beijing's protests against its treatment by the
World Trade Organization (WTO) are all alarm bells for American strategists who see the role of the
American currency eroding. In Russia, the central bank decided not to accumulate dollar reserves,
favoring instead foreign currency like the Indian rupee and the Chinese yuan. The rating agencies
- western financial-oligarchy tools -have diminishing credibility, having become means to manipulate
markets to favor specific US interests. Chinese and Russian independent rating agencies are further
confirmation of Beijing and Moscow's strategy to undermine America's role in western economics.
De-dollarization is occurring and proceeding rapidly, especially in areas of mutual business interest.
In what is becoming increasingly routine, nations are dealing in commodities by negotiating in currencies
other than the dollar. The benefit is twofold: a reduction in the role of the dollar in their sovereign
affairs, and an increase in synergies between allied nations. Iran and India exchanged oil in rupees,
and China and Russia trade in yuan.
Another advantage enjoyed by the United States, intrinsically linked to the banking private sector,
is the political pressure that Americans can apply through financial and banking institutions. The
most striking example is seen in the exclusion of Iran from the SWIFT international system of payments,
as well as the extension of sanctions, including the freezing of Tehran's assets (about 150 billion
US dollars) in foreign bank deposits. While the US is trying to crack down on independent economic
initiatives, nations like Iran, Russia and China are increasing their synergies. During the period
of sanctions against Iran, the Russian Federation has traded with the Islamic Republic in primary
commodities. China has supported Iran with the export of oil purchased in yuan. More generally, Moscow
has proposed the creation of an alternative banking system to the SWIFT system.
Private Banks, central banks, ratings agencies and supranational organizations depend in large
part on the role played by the dollar and the Fed. The first goal of Iran, Russia and China is of
course to make these international bodies less influential. Economic multipolarity is the first as
well as the most incisive way to expand the free choice before each nation to pursue its own interests,
thereby retaining its national sovereignty.
This fictitious and corrupt financial system led to the financial crisis of 2008. Tools to accumulate
wealth by the elite, artificially maintaining a zombie system (turbo capitalism) have served to cause
havoc in the private and public sectors, such as with the collapse of Lehman Brothers or the crisis
in the Asian markets in the late 1990s.
The need for Russia, China and Iran to find an alternative economic system is also necessary to
secure vital aspects of the domestic economy. The stock-market crash in China, the depreciation of
the ruble in Russia, and the illegal sanctions imposed on Iran have played a profound role in concentrating
the minds of Moscow, Tehran and Beijing. Ignoring the problem borne of the centrality of the dollar
would have only increased the influence and role of Washington. Finding points of convergence instead
of being divided was an absolute must and not an option.
A perfect example, explaining the failed American economic approach, can be seen in recent years
with the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP),
two commercial agreements that were supposed to seal the economic trade supremacy of the US. The
growing economic alternatives proposed by the union of intent between Russia, China and Iran has
enabled smaller nations to reject the US proposals to seek better trade deals elsewhere. In this
sense, the Free Trade Area of ??the Asia Pacific (FTAAP) proposed by Beijing is increasingly appreciated
in Asia as an alternative to the TPP.
In the same way, the Eurasian Union (EAEU) and the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) have
always been key components for Moscow. The function these institutions play was noticeably accelerated
following the coup in Ukraine and the resulting need for Russia to turn east in search of new business
partners. Finally, Iran, chosen by Beijing as the crossroad of land and sea transit, is a prime example
of integration between powers geographically distant but with great intentions to integrate vital
structures of commerce.
The Chinese model of development, called Silk Road 2.0, poses a serious threat to American global
hegemonic processes. The goal for Beijing is to reach full integration between the countries of the
Heartland and Rimland, utilizing the concept of sea power and land power. With an investment of 1,000
billion US dollars over ten years, China itself becomes a link between the west, represented by Europe;
the east, represented by China itself; the north, with the Eurasian economic space; the south, with
India; Southeast Asia; the Persian Gulf and Middle East. The hope is that economic cooperation will
lead to the resolution of discrepancies and strategic differences between countries thanks to trade
agreements that are beneficiary to all sides.
The role of Washington continues to be that of destruction rather than construction. Instead of
playing the role of a global superpower that is interested in business and trade with other nations,
the United States continues to consider any foreign decision in matters of integration, finance,
economy and development to lie within its exclusive domain. The primary purpose of the United States
is simply to exploit every economic and cultural instrument available to prevent cohesion and coexistence
between nations. The military component is usually the trump card, historically used to impose this
vision on the rest of the world. In recent years, thanks to de-dollarization and military integration,
nations like Iran, Russia and China are less subject to Washington's unilateral decisions.
Military deterrence
Accompanying the important economic integration is strong military-strategic cooperation, which
is much less publicized . Events such as the Middle East wars, the coup in Ukraine, and the pressure
exerted in the South China Sea have forced Tehran, Moscow and Beijing to conclude that the United
States represents an existential threat.
In each of the above scenarios, China, Russia and Iran have had to make decisions by weighing
the pros and cons of an opposition to the American model. The Ukraine coup d'état brought NATO to
the borders of the Russian Federation, representing an existential threat to the Russia, threatening
as it does its nuclear deterrent. In the Middle East, the destruction of Iraq, Libya and Syria has
obliged Tehran to react against the alliance formed between Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the United States.
In China, the constant pressure on South China Sea poses a serious problem in case of a trade blockade
during a conflict. In all these scenarios, American imperialism has created existential threats.
It is for this reason natural that cooperation and technological development, even in the military
area, have received a major boost in recent years.
In the event of an American attack on Russia, China and Iran, it is important to focus on what
weapon systems would be used and how the attacked nations could respond.
Maritime Strategy and Deterrence
Certainly, US naval force place a serious question mark over the defense capabilities of nations
like Russia, China and Iran, which strongly depend on transit via sea routes. Let us take, for example,
Russia and the Arctic transit route, of great interest not only for defense purposes but also being
a quick passage for transit goods. The Black Sea for these reasons has received special attention
from the United States due to its strategic location. In any case, the responses have been proportional
to the threat.
Iran has significantly developed maritime capabilities in the Persian Gulf, often closely marking
ships of the US Navy located in the area for the purposes of ??deterrence. China's strategy has been
even more refined, with the use of dozens, if not hundreds, of fishing boats and ships of the Coast
Guard to ensure safety and strengthen the naval presence in the South and East China Sea. This is
all without forgetting the maritime strategy outlined by the PLA Navy to become a regional naval
power over the next few years. Similar strategic decisions have been taken by the navy of the Russian
Federation. In addition to having taken over ship production as in Soviet times, it has opted for
the development of ships that cost less but nevertheless boast equivalent weapons systems to the
Americans carrier groups.
Iran, China and Russia make efficiency and cost containment a tactic to balance the growing aggressiveness
of the Americans and the attendant cost of such a military strategy.
The fundamental difference between the naval approach of these countries in contrast to that of
the US is paramount. Washington needs to use its naval power for offensive purposes, whereas Tehran,
Moscow and Beijing need naval power exclusively for defensive purposes.
In this sense, among the greatest weapons these three recalcitrant countries possess are anti-ship,
anti-aircraft and anti-ballistic systems. To put things simply, it is enough to note that Russian
weapons systems such as the S-300 and S-400 air-defense systems (the S-500 will be operational in
2017) are now being adopted by China and Iran with variations developed locally. Increasingly we
are witnessing an open transfer of technology to continue the work of denying (A2/AD) physical and
cyberspace freedom to the United States. Stealth aircraft, carrier strike groups, ICBMs and cruise
missiles are experiencing a difficult time in such an environment, finding themselves opposed by
the formidable defense systems the Russians, Iranians and Chinese are presenting. The cost of an
anti-ship missile fired from the Chinese coast is considerably lower than the tens of billions of
dollars needed to build an aircraft carrier. This paradigm of cost and efficiency is what has shaped
the military spending of China, Russia and Iran. Going toe to toe with the United States without
being forced to close a huge military gap is the only viable way to achieve immediate tangible benefits
of deterrence and thereby block American expansionist ambitions.
A clear example of where the Americans have encountered military opposition at an advanced level
has been in Syria. The systems deployed by Iran and Russia to protect the Syrian government presented
the Americans with the prospect of facing heavy losses in the event of an attack on Damascus. The
same also holds for the anti-Iranian rhetoric of certain American politicians and Israeli leaders.
The only reason why Syria and Iran remain sovereign nations is because of the military cost that
an invasion or bombing would have brought to their invaders. This is the essence of deterrence. Of
course, this argument only takes into partial account the nuclear aspect that this author has extensively
discussed in a
previous article .
The Union of the nations of the Heartland and Rimland will make the United States irrelevant
The future for the most important area of ??the planet is already sealed. The overall integration
of Beijing, Moscow and Tehran provides the necessary antibodies to foreign aggression in military
and economic form. De-dollarization, coupled with an infrastructure roadmap such as the Chinese Silk
Road 2.0 and the maritime trade route, offer important opportunities for developing nations that
occupy the geographical space between Portugal and China. Dozens of nations have all it takes to
integrate for mutually beneficial gains without having to worry too much about American threats.
The economic alternative offered from Beijing provides a fairly wide safety net for resisting American
assaults in the same way that the military umbrella offered by these three military powers, such
as with the the SCO for example, serves to guarantee the necessary independence and strategic autonomy.
More and more nations are clearly rejecting American interference, favoring instead a dialogue with
Beijing, Moscow and Tehran. Duterte in the Philippines is just the latest example of this trend.
The multipolar future has gradually reduced the role of the United States in the world, primarily
in reaction to her aggression seeking to achieve global domination. The constant quest for planetary
hegemony has pushed nations who were initially western partners to reassess their role in the international
order, passing slowly but progressively into the opposite camp to that of Washington.
The consequences of this process have sealed the destiny of the United States, not only as a response
to her quest for supremacy but also because of her efforts to maintain her role as the sole global
superpower. As noted in previous articles, during the Cold War the aim for Washington was to prevent
the formation of a union between the nations of the Heartland, who could then exclude the US from
the most important area of ??the globe. With the fall of the Iron Curtain, sights were set on an
improbable quest to conquer the Heartland nations with the intent of dominating the whole world.
The consequences of this miscalculation have led the United States to being relegated to the role
of mere observer, watching the unions and integrations occurring that will revolutionize the Eurasian
zone and the planet over the next 50 years. The desperate search to extend Washington's unipolar
moment has paradoxically accelerated the rise of a multipolar world .
In the next and final article, I will throw a light on what is likely to be a change in the American
approach to foreign policy. Keeping in mind the first two articles that examined the approach by
land theorized by MacKinder as opposed to the Maritime Mahan, we will try and outline how Trump intends
to adopt a containment approach to the Rimland, limiting the damage to the US caused by a complete
integration between nations such as Russia, China, Iran and India.
If these 3 countries were able to stop western hegemony relatively on the cheap (i.e. No aircraft
carriers to speak of) we should have no problem keeping others at bay in the coming decades as
we sort our own mess out.
As Kissinger said, Soweeto is a failure and endgangers the USA like no former president in modern
times with his bungling misguided foreign policies aided by the clowns in the state dept.
"Over the past 25 years there have been numerous examples demonstrating how Washington has
had little hesitation in bombing nations reluctant to kowtow to Western wishes. In other
examples, an economic battering ram, based on predatory capitalism and financial speculation,
has literally destroyed sovereign nations, further enriching the US and European financial elite
in the process."
So I guess the author is saying, generally, it was really bad ideas to bail out greed & corruption
on the backs of taxpayers in the EU & US (thereby capitalizing the gains and socializing the losses)
and then compound that gigantic error of injustice by providing jihadist nutcases in Libya & Syria
with friggin air power & ground support.
Which is pretty much what we've been saying all along ;-)
the past 25 years there have been numerous examples demonstrating how Washington has had little
hesitation in bombing nations reluctant to kowtow to Western wishes. In other examples, an economic
battering ram, based on predatory capitalism and financial speculation, has literally destroyed
sovereign nations, further enriching the US and European financial elite in the process.
Wow. What a chunk o change that was! If the battering received by any number of ISLAMIC nations
situated in the general vicinity of a tiny terrorist statelet in the south east Med "in the past
25 years" has "enriched the US and European financial elite" - rather than exponentially inreasing
the economic, military and pollitical power of that same TERROR STATE...
I guess it's time to give up and just watch I LOVE LUCY RERUNS till Ricky Ricardo returns to
Havana as American Ambassador.
Who the hell does Ferderico think the WallSt/City of London nexus of international finance
capital works on behalf of? Washington elites? London Peerage? Annuki aliens? A co-opted, corrupt
western power structure directed to turn it's engines of mass destruction onto oil-rich enemies
of Israel in sequence has = in the process of transferring it's technological copyrights, weapons
and software industrial advances, wealth and power en toto - to a mad millenarianist sect driven
by an urge towards global hegemony,
not only destroyed it's moral authority, legacy of cilvilized society, pretension to advancement
beyond savagery, it's very will to survival,
but handed the reins of power they were "elected" to manage directly over to a clique of dual-citizened
agents of a foreign power which pursue the bankrupting of those same western countries as a side
project to emptying the middle east of people and resources/ and somehow... in this paean to witless
fantasies of Russia is our Savior/China will democratize our world/Iran's corrupt and intolerant
extremist Mullahs will ensure our future as a pluralistic and broad minded society...
it's all because of "America" that more than half the world's population(when you include the
current madness in India)is under unremitting attack of socio-economic kind, which seeks to return
us all to a feudalist nightmare wherein only a chosen few of the New Jerusalem/Old Babylon get
the weatlh of this world whiile dumbing our children down gradually into drone-like slaves of
the moneypower.
Yup. Amerika. Too stupid to save itself from a tsunami of bullshit spread by a team of willing
workers for a cult of psychopathic talmudists. What an epitaph.
If you no longer have those rights of free speech, to defend oneself and to own and enjoy your
own property (that really is the constitution in so many ways) you cannot give it to another.
So no nation with slavery and like many western nations getting there can you give freedom
to any other nation, they may in fact liberate you.
The Fed has it. They get nationalized. Same for all the National Parks and Forests.
Bulldozers on deck to expand our gold reserves. Revalue gold to ten thousand and you could pull
a lot of metal from the jewlery stock of America.
It WILL be revalued but not to 100,000 but to 100,000.....they will have no choice.
They would never contemplate turning to gold unless confidence is completely lost, in which
case they have no choice. But, assuming the treasury actually has the 261 million ounces they
say they so, let's run some numbers:
10 trillion in US domestic deposites,
6 trillion in over seas deposites,
20 trillion in outstanding fed gov debt,
Let's stop there......
36 T /261 m = 138,000 per ounce.
If you add in state, municiple and corporate outstanding debt.....
We're close to 300K per ounce.
Now, if all the 261m is not actually there....yah, you get the picture.
this whole article can be summed up as, "this is how we wish the world would work, but it's not
how it actually works"
c'mon Tyler, these guys are registered out of Moscow and are a rag-tag group of notorious anti-US
progressive hacks... you know the premise is bad when it starts off with Russia, China, and Iran
sitting in a room and working together without trying to rip each other's eyes out... talk about
wishful thinking...
Meh, I think the larger inaccuracy is that Russia and USA are on track (under Trump) to become
closer friends whereas China and USA are set to become more antagonist vs each other (under Trump).
So there is the possibility that it will be Russia & America vs China for the next decade or
so (i don't think hot war between superpowers really benefits anyone except genocidal sociopaths/aka
the 'elite').
I agree with that assessment... I also expect that, as US/Russia relations warm, the narrative
from sites such as the one referenced here will change... they just haven't gotten the memo yet
All Empires towards their end lash out for one last desperate attempt at retaining power.
Look for the U.S. to do the same. The Dirty Tricks era has only just begun. 2020-2030
is going to be VERY INTERESTING in a Chinese proverb kind of way.
Grant Williams is brilliant:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-27/things-make-you-go-hmm-death-pe...
in case you missed it. The China angle with a new oil future contract priced in RMB could be the
game changer – the black swan. With gold totally convertible from SGE (Shanghai Gold Exchange)
or SGEI (Shanghai International Gold Exchange) for any and all RMB payable oil exported to China,
Russian and Saudi exporters to China may very well decide to convert their RMB oil revenue into
physical gold. Russia was the world's largest producer of crude oil including lease condensate
and the third-largest producer of petroleum and other liquids (after Saudi Arabia and the United
States) in 2015. China is the largest importer of oil in world and Russia and Saudi Arabia are
China's biggest suppliers.
Also intriguing are Trump's appointments of Exxon's Tillerson to Secretary of State, Vincent
Viola former NYMEX CEO as Secretary of Army
http://theridgewoodblog.net/trump-nominates-former-chairman-of-nymex-and... & David McCormick
Bridgewater President (Ray Dalio buddy) as Deputy Secretary of Defense. Both energy and financial
wherewithal are inseparable concerns for the well-being of the United States.
According to Grant Williams, China imports 3B barrels per year (8M/day) or about 19% of all
world oil imports. China also produces about 15% of 2016 world gold mining production amounting
to 15M ounces (475MT). Consequently, a 100% gold trade-backed RMB could fund 100% of China oil
imports via China's annual gold production as long as RMB Gold price is at least 200X the price
of 2015 RMB Oil
(3B barrels/15M gold ounces). That is about $10,000 per ounce of gold based on 2015 oil price
supply/demand data. With China's oil futures priced in RMB, both the Russian and Saudi powerhouses
can easily hedge as well as convert RMB payment into physical RMB gold from SGE or SGEI for any
and all RMB payable oil exported to China. And China has the gold just from their annual production.
What about the rest of the world? The balance of non-China world gold production amounts to
about 86M ounces. If valued at $9,000 per ounce it would be worth $775B enough to pay 100% of
the non-China world oil imports of 13B barrels worth about the same – as long as the importing
nation actually has the gold. If not, then they have to buy it to pay for their oil.
But an oil only gold backed-trade currency will not work. All trade goods and services need
to be considered. But there is not enough gold in annual production to fund a 100% gold backing
without 6 figure gold prices. So instead, transform a trade backed petro currency that is 100%
backed by gold, valued at 200x the price of a barrel of oil, into a trade back currency for all
international trade of all goods and services including energy. A 5% backing would suffice at
the same $9-$10,000 per ounce
Here's the math: All types of worldwide imports (or exports) in all goods and services amounts
to about $18T. If total annual world trade is $18T worldwide and had to be backed by 5% in gold
or $900B and funded by 100,000,000 ounces (3200 MT) of annual gold mining worldwide, then gold
at $9,000 per ounce would do it exactly. Every single good or service that is imported would have
to include a gold backed trade note as part of the letter-of-credit on deposit with a physical
gold exchange that is the real deal. And since about 4.7% of all trade exports (or imports) are
actually the value of worldwide oil imports (or exports)
http://www.worldstopexports.com/worlds-top-oil-exports-country/
a 5% gold backing of all trade makes a good starting point.
For China, they actually run a $450B trade surplus - meaning that China will accumulate physical
gold with a worldwide gold backed trade currency. Whereas the U.S. is toast because the U.S. runs
a $600B trade deficit and produces ˝ the gold China does with doubtful reserves.
If we saw an 800% increase in price of gold to $9000 per ounce and all imports worldwide are
backed by 5% gold, then US imports will immediately be priced at plus 40% (5% of 800%) more than
today.
All China's PBOC and SAFE need to do is come clean in their gold reserves, bust paper gold
price discovery, and Kuroda to play ball and gold becomes the de-facto trade currency.
"Any route out of the problem means ousting the currency of the US as the main one for international
invoicing and store of value. It is not surprising that the IMF, where the US holds veto power,
will prefer to bury its head in the sand."
I have read that for various reasons silver supplies will run out in about 20 years (e.g. energy
needed to mine each ounce is growing rapidly as yield falls), if this is correct then there is
not enough silver for a silver backing since most silver is already used commerically and lost
unlike gold which is usually reclaimed.
more simply, the megalomaniacal, supremacist International Jews who, largely, have seized control
of banking and media and political influence as to foreign/war policy in the US, UK, France, and
elsewhere,
.. and used it to kill hundreds of thousands, and in alliance with Saudis and Turks and Americans,
have used and directed terror proxies to murder thousands of Christians while driving mostly Muslim
refugees and economic opportunity (freebies) seekers north to de-Whiten Europe and the US...
want you to not see their transnational role in all the bloody chaos.
Millions of naive and malleable people (sheeple) will keep falling for their Fables, Narratives
and Philosophies.
How do I know this? Easy. When you see them on Sunday morning, reading from the
OT: the original Ponzi. Which led to rev.2.0, the NT Ponzi.
If you want to be truly FREE, you must first give up all Illusions, Pretenses, Fables, Myths
and Lore, and all Fairy Tales for Grownups -- which are designed to give your lives pre-processed
'purpose' and belonging, so that Secular and Clerical rulers can use you like sheep, cattle and
chattel.
Newsflash: You do NOT need a subscription to any of the preprocessed Organized Religions (Judaism,
Christianity or Islam), to give your life meaning, purpose, a sense of belonging, to be part of
something greater and more enduring than yourself, etc. All these are entirely possible without
these Slave Masters, and are far healthier, wealthier and happier without them.
I wish you true peace that comes from true enlightenment, at which point the shackles on your
mind and spirit are thrown aside forever.
Sounds like your "enlightenment" gives you another couple decades of freedom. Then you're dead.
The great religions, particularly the most acclaimed one, deal with death, and life continuing
after death. Your talk of shackles is as old as "Ye shall be as god."
and kleptocrats/totalitarians understand that too - that's why they focus on brainwashing sheeple
while young (because nobody over 10 would believe that they are going to live after they
die - if only they are slavish enough while alive and other BS pedophiles are teaching them to
believe) .
It's the brainwashed /brain-damaged slavish parents who let this scam go on after so many centuries
of fraud.
Just look at children and dogs - and how they live with life/death - they love you while you
are alive, once you die - they move on. Humans woudl do the same without pedophile priests to
trick them into fearmongering and delluded BS
The US expects global hegemony from its exceptional delusion, when a majority of its leaders are
stupid or ignorant? Nature's evolution culls the unfit.
"... If John Steinbeck could travel the West today as he traveled America three generations ago, leaving the highways to visit forgotten towns, documenting people's struggles as he did in "The Grapes of Wrath,'' he would find much the same to write about. Globalization and its masters have capitalized on enormous pay gaps between West and East, at a huge profit for them, and huge cost to others. ..."
"... The upper class has gained much more from the internationalization of trade and finances than the working class has, often in obscene ways. Bankers get bonuses despite making idiotic decisions that trigger staggering losses. ..."
"... Giant enterprises like Facebook or Apple pay minimal taxes, while blue-collar workers have to labor harder - even taking a second or third job - to maintain their standard of living. ..."
"... In Germany, some 60 percent of A.F.D. supporters say globalization has "mainly negative" effects. We live in a world, the liberal British historian Timothy Garton Ash noted lately, "which would have Marx rubbing his hands with Schadenfreude." ..."
"... When Hillary Clinton calls half of Mr. Trump's voters a "basket of deplorables," she sounds as aloof as Marie Antoinette, telling French subjects who had no bread to "eat cake." ..."
"... In Germany a recent poll showed that only 14 percent of the citizens trusted the politicians. ..."
We have a word in German, "Wutbürger," which means "angry citizen" - though like many German compound
words, its meaning can never quite be captured in a pithy English translation. And yet nothing in
either language quite frames this current political moment.
It is a relatively new expression, with a derogatory connotation. A Wutbürger rages against a
new train station and tilts against wind turbines. Wutbürgers came out in protest after the Berlin
government decided to bail out Greece and to accept roughly one million refugees and migrants into
Germany.
Wutbürgers lie at both ends of the political spectrum; they flock to the right-wing Alternative
für Deutschland (A.F.D.) and the socialist Linke (Left) Party. The left wing has long had a place
in German politics, and the Linke has deep roots in the former East Germany's ruling party. And we've
had a fringe right wing since the postwar period began. But the populist anger of the A.F.D. is something
new: Anti-establishment, anti-European Union and anti-globalization, the A.F.D. didn't exist four
years ago. Today, 18 percent of Germans would consider voting for it.
The same thing is happening elsewhere in Europe: Many British Wutbürgers voted for Brexit. French
Wutbürgers will vote for Marine Le Pen's National Front. Perhaps the most powerful Wutbürger of them
all is Donald J. Trump.
Which raises the question: How was anger hijacked?
In its pure form, anger is a wonderful force of change. Just imagine a world without anger. In
Germany, without the anger of the labor movement, we would still have a class-based voting system
that privileged the wealthy, and workers would still toil 16 hours a day without pension rights.
Britain and France would still be ruled by absolute monarchs. The Iron Curtain would still divide
Europe, the United States would still be a British colony and its slaves could only dream of casting
a vote this Nov. 8.
Karl Marx was a Wutbürger. So were Montesquieu, William Wilberforce, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther
King Jr. and the tens of thousands of Eastern German protesters who brought down the Berlin Wall
in 1989.
Now: Compare these spirits to the current parties claiming to stand for necessary change. Mr.
Trump vs. Dr. King. Sadly, the leaders of today's Wutbürger movements never grasped the difference
between anger driven by righteousness and anger driven by hate.
Anger works like gasoline. If you use it intelligently and in a controlled manner, you can move
the world. That's called progress. Or you just spill it about and ignite it, creating spectacular
explosions. That's called arson.
Unfortunately, a lack of maturity and prudence today exists among not just the new populist class,
but parts of the political establishment. The governing class needs to understand that just because
people are embittered and paranoid doesn't mean they don't have a case. A growing number of voters
are going into meltdown because they believe that politicians - and journalists - don't see what
they see.
Sure, the injustices they see are, in historical perspective, less stark and obvious than in the
days of Marx or King. The injustices of today are smaller, but they are more complex. And this is
what makes them all the more terrifying.
If John Steinbeck could travel the West today as he traveled America three generations ago,
leaving the highways to visit forgotten towns, documenting people's struggles as he did in "The Grapes
of Wrath,'' he would find much the same to write about. Globalization and its masters have capitalized
on enormous pay gaps between West and East, at a huge profit for them, and huge cost to others.
The upper class has gained much more from the internationalization of trade and finances than
the working class has, often in obscene ways. Bankers get bonuses despite making idiotic decisions
that trigger staggering losses.
Giant enterprises like Facebook or Apple pay minimal taxes, while blue-collar workers have
to labor harder - even taking a second or third job - to maintain their standard of living.
And this is as true in Germany, France or Austria as it is in Ohio or Florida.
In Germany, some 60 percent of A.F.D. supporters say globalization has "mainly negative" effects.
We live in a world, the liberal British historian Timothy Garton Ash noted lately, "which would have
Marx rubbing his hands with Schadenfreude."
The grievances of white, often less-educated voters on both sides of the Atlantic are often dismissed
as xenophobic, simplistic hillbillyism. But doing so comes at a cost. Europe's traditional force
of social change, its social democrats, appear to just not get it. When Hillary Clinton calls
half of Mr. Trump's voters a "basket of deplorables," she sounds as aloof as Marie Antoinette, telling
French subjects who had no bread to "eat cake." In Germany, a deputy Social Democrat leader,
Ralf Stegner, displays a similar arrogance when he calls A.F.D. supporters "racists" and "skunks."
Media reports often convey the same degree of contempt.
In Germany a recent poll showed that only 14 percent of the citizens trusted the politicians.
This is an alarming figure, in a country where faith in a progressive, democratic government has
been a cornerstone of our postwar peace. But this presumes that legitimate anger will be acknowledged
as such. If this faith is rattled, democracy loses its basic promise.
Amid their mutual finger-pointing, neither populist nor established parties acknowledge that both
are squandering people's anger, either by turning this anger into counterproductive hatred or by
denouncing and dismissing it. Mrs. Clinton has the chance to change, by leading a political establishment
that examines and processes anger instead of merely producing and dismissing it. If she does, let's
hope Europe once again looks to America as a model for democracy.
Jochen Bittner is a political editor for the weekly newspaper Die Zeit and a contributing
opinion writer.
"... If John Steinbeck could travel the West today as he traveled America three generations ago, leaving the highways to visit forgotten towns, documenting people's struggles as he did in "The Grapes of Wrath,'' he would find much the same to write about. Globalization and its masters have capitalized on enormous pay gaps between West and East, at a huge profit for them, and huge cost to others. ..."
"... The upper class has gained much more from the internationalization of trade and finances than the working class has, often in obscene ways. Bankers get bonuses despite making idiotic decisions that trigger staggering losses. ..."
"... Giant enterprises like Facebook or Apple pay minimal taxes, while blue-collar workers have to labor harder - even taking a second or third job - to maintain their standard of living. ..."
"... In Germany, some 60 percent of A.F.D. supporters say globalization has "mainly negative" effects. We live in a world, the liberal British historian Timothy Garton Ash noted lately, "which would have Marx rubbing his hands with Schadenfreude." ..."
"... When Hillary Clinton calls half of Mr. Trump's voters a "basket of deplorables," she sounds as aloof as Marie Antoinette, telling French subjects who had no bread to "eat cake." ..."
"... In Germany a recent poll showed that only 14 percent of the citizens trusted the politicians. ..."
We have a word in German, "Wutbürger," which means "angry citizen" - though like many German compound
words, its meaning can never quite be captured in a pithy English translation. And yet nothing in
either language quite frames this current political moment.
It is a relatively new expression, with a derogatory connotation. A Wutbürger rages against a
new train station and tilts against wind turbines. Wutbürgers came out in protest after the Berlin
government decided to bail out Greece and to accept roughly one million refugees and migrants into
Germany.
Wutbürgers lie at both ends of the political spectrum; they flock to the right-wing Alternative
für Deutschland (A.F.D.) and the socialist Linke (Left) Party. The left wing has long had a place
in German politics, and the Linke has deep roots in the former East Germany's ruling party. And we've
had a fringe right wing since the postwar period began. But the populist anger of the A.F.D. is something
new: Anti-establishment, anti-European Union and anti-globalization, the A.F.D. didn't exist four
years ago. Today, 18 percent of Germans would consider voting for it.
The same thing is happening elsewhere in Europe: Many British Wutbürgers voted for Brexit. French
Wutbürgers will vote for Marine Le Pen's National Front. Perhaps the most powerful Wutbürger of them
all is Donald J. Trump.
Which raises the question: How was anger hijacked?
In its pure form, anger is a wonderful force of change. Just imagine a world without anger. In
Germany, without the anger of the labor movement, we would still have a class-based voting system
that privileged the wealthy, and workers would still toil 16 hours a day without pension rights.
Britain and France would still be ruled by absolute monarchs. The Iron Curtain would still divide
Europe, the United States would still be a British colony and its slaves could only dream of casting
a vote this Nov. 8.
Karl Marx was a Wutbürger. So were Montesquieu, William Wilberforce, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther
King Jr. and the tens of thousands of Eastern German protesters who brought down the Berlin Wall
in 1989.
Now: Compare these spirits to the current parties claiming to stand for necessary change. Mr.
Trump vs. Dr. King. Sadly, the leaders of today's Wutbürger movements never grasped the difference
between anger driven by righteousness and anger driven by hate.
Anger works like gasoline. If you use it intelligently and in a controlled manner, you can move
the world. That's called progress. Or you just spill it about and ignite it, creating spectacular
explosions. That's called arson.
Unfortunately, a lack of maturity and prudence today exists among not just the new populist class,
but parts of the political establishment. The governing class needs to understand that just because
people are embittered and paranoid doesn't mean they don't have a case. A growing number of voters
are going into meltdown because they believe that politicians - and journalists - don't see what
they see.
Sure, the injustices they see are, in historical perspective, less stark and obvious than in the
days of Marx or King. The injustices of today are smaller, but they are more complex. And this is
what makes them all the more terrifying.
If John Steinbeck could travel the West today as he traveled America three generations ago,
leaving the highways to visit forgotten towns, documenting people's struggles as he did in "The Grapes
of Wrath,'' he would find much the same to write about. Globalization and its masters have capitalized
on enormous pay gaps between West and East, at a huge profit for them, and huge cost to others.
The upper class has gained much more from the internationalization of trade and finances than
the working class has, often in obscene ways. Bankers get bonuses despite making idiotic decisions
that trigger staggering losses.
Giant enterprises like Facebook or Apple pay minimal taxes, while blue-collar workers have
to labor harder - even taking a second or third job - to maintain their standard of living.
And this is as true in Germany, France or Austria as it is in Ohio or Florida.
In Germany, some 60 percent of A.F.D. supporters say globalization has "mainly negative" effects.
We live in a world, the liberal British historian Timothy Garton Ash noted lately, "which would have
Marx rubbing his hands with Schadenfreude."
The grievances of white, often less-educated voters on both sides of the Atlantic are often dismissed
as xenophobic, simplistic hillbillyism. But doing so comes at a cost. Europe's traditional force
of social change, its social democrats, appear to just not get it. When Hillary Clinton calls
half of Mr. Trump's voters a "basket of deplorables," she sounds as aloof as Marie Antoinette, telling
French subjects who had no bread to "eat cake." In Germany, a deputy Social Democrat leader,
Ralf Stegner, displays a similar arrogance when he calls A.F.D. supporters "racists" and "skunks."
Media reports often convey the same degree of contempt.
In Germany a recent poll showed that only 14 percent of the citizens trusted the politicians.
This is an alarming figure, in a country where faith in a progressive, democratic government has
been a cornerstone of our postwar peace. But this presumes that legitimate anger will be acknowledged
as such. If this faith is rattled, democracy loses its basic promise.
Amid their mutual finger-pointing, neither populist nor established parties acknowledge that both
are squandering people's anger, either by turning this anger into counterproductive hatred or by
denouncing and dismissing it. Mrs. Clinton has the chance to change, by leading a political establishment
that examines and processes anger instead of merely producing and dismissing it. If she does, let's
hope Europe once again looks to America as a model for democracy.
Jochen Bittner is a political editor for the weekly newspaper Die Zeit and a contributing
opinion writer.
"... inverted totalitarianism, or a police state, whatever you call America today, America is run by the rich, for the rich and by the rich. Thanks to Congress, Republican and Democrats, Partners in Crime. All those "Checks and Balances" designed to "safeguard" Government are working,for sure, but now working to insure the Rich keep their control. The Republican and the Vichy Party/Democrats make sure "Government" does whatever Business wants. Who need competition when you own The US Government! not Capitalism!, that's for sure. or as i've heard, Capitalism can only be failed. Like Conservatism. The age old scam of stealing from the Poor to give to the Rich. ..."
inverted totalitarianism, or a police state, whatever you call America today, America is
run by the rich, for the rich and by the rich. Thanks to Congress, Republican and Democrats, Partners
in Crime. All those "Checks and Balances" designed to "safeguard" Government are working,for sure,
but now working to insure the Rich keep their control. The Republican and the Vichy Party/Democrats
make sure "Government" does whatever Business wants. Who need competition when you own The US
Government! not Capitalism!, that's for sure. or as i've heard, Capitalism can only be failed.
Like Conservatism. The age old scam of stealing from the Poor to give to the Rich.
Watching others, who offer platitudes, speak about how much better our Banana Republic (America)
is, say, compared to Mother Russia's version, proves how well Americans have been "trained." American
Exceptionalism! Because America!!! I know very little about Russia, but i know a lot more about
how we/Americans are being scammed. That is what Congress is for.
scary, absolutely scary to see the endless displays of ignorance; no matter the cause, watching
the fruits of Fascism/Inverted Totalitarianism flow unchecked and unchallenged is not something
I can stomach. a wince here and an "oh no" there. the descent into Fascism is really awful. no
matter what you call it.
of course, then again, i can see who is stealing what from whom, and it ain't pretty to watch
it go on, year after year. Thanks to Congress and the American Voter, we have reaped the whirlwind.
"... Obama campaigned on change and vague promises, but still change. Instead he normalized atrocities that most of us had been screaming about in the Bush administration AND he didn't just squander the opportunities he had to change our course domestically because of the crash and the majorities in Congress, no he couldn't throw those away fast enough. ..."
"... Indeed. Bush was a known quantity. "Compassionate conservatism" was was blatantly hollow jingoism. My only surprise under W was how virulently evil Cheney was. ..."
"... The big O, though, was handed the opportunity to change the course of history. He took power with Wall Street on its knees. The whole world hungered for a change in course. Remember "never let a crisis go to waste". O turned Hope into blatantly hollow jingoism. ..."
"... Obama can be legitimately described as worse than Bush 43 because Obama ran as a "progressive" and flagrantly broke almost all of his promises and governed like a "Moderate" Republican. ..."
"... At the least, Bush, Sr. and Jr. ran as right wing politicos. The people basically got what they voted for with them. ..."
"... In August 1999, Barack Obama strolled amid the floats and bands making their way down Martin Luther King Drive on Chicago's South Side. Billed as the largest African-American parade in the country, the summer rite was a draw over the years to boxing heroes like Muhammad Ali and jazz greats like Duke Ellington. It was also a must-stop for the city's top politicians. ..."
"... Back then, Mr. Obama, a state senator who was contemplating a run for Congress, was so little-known in the community's black neighborhoods that it was hard to find more than a few dozen people to walk with him, recalled Al Kindle, one of his advisers at the time. Mr. Obama was trounced a year later in the Congressional race - branded as an aloof outsider more at home in the halls of Harvard than in the rough wards of Chicago politics. ..."
"... But by 2006, Mr. Obama had remade his political fortunes. He was a freshman United States senator on the cusp of deciding to take on the formidable Hillary Rodham Clinton and embark on a long-shot White House run. When the parade wound its way through the South Side that summer, Mr. Obama was its grand marshal. ..."
"... A tight-knit community that runs through the South Side, Hyde Park is a liberal bastion of integration in what is otherwise one of the nation's most segregated cities. Mayor Washington had called it home, as did whites who marched with the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and wealthy black entrepreneurs a generation removed from the civil rights battles of the 1960s. ..."
"... At its heart is the University of Chicago; at its borders are poor, predominately black neighborhoods blighted by rundown buildings and vacant lots. For Mr. Obama, who was born in Hawaii to a white Kansan mother and an African father and who spent part of his childhood in Indonesia, it was a perfect fit. ..."
"... "He felt completely comfortable in Hyde Park," said Martha Minow, his former law professor and a mentor. "It's a place where you don't have to wear a label on your forehead. You can go to a bookstore and there's the homeless person and there's the professor." ..."
Now that 0bama is about to exit as US Pres, perhaps it is time to revisit the Who Is Worse: Bush43
v 0bama question.
Conventional wisdom among "Progressive" pundits, even good ones like SecularTalk, seems to be
"yes, 0bama is better than Bush43, but that is a very low bar, & not a real accomplishment. 0bama
still sucks".
IMHO, 0bama's relentless pursue of 1 Grand "Bargain" Ripoff & 2 TPP, may alone make him Even Worse
than Bush43, as far as to damage inflicted on USians had 0bama been successful in getting these 2
policies. 0bama tried for years getting these 2 policies enacted, whereas Bush43 tried quickly to
privatize SS but then forgot it, & IIRC enacted small trade deals (DR-CAFTA ?). Bush43 focus seemed
to be on neocon regime change & War On Terra TM, & even then IIRC around ~2006 Bush43 rejected some
of Darth Cheney's even more extremish neocon policy preferences, with Bush43 rejecting Cheney's desired
Iran War.
IMHO both policies would've incrementally killed thousands of USians annually, far more than 1S1S
or the Designated Foreign Boogeyman Du Jour TM could ever dream of. Grand Ripoff raising Medicare
eligibility age (IIRC 67 to 69+ ?) would kill many GenX & younger USians in the future. TPP's pharma
patent extensions would kill many USians, especially seniors. These incremental killings might exceed
the incremental life savings from the ACA (mainly ACA Adult Medicaid expansion). Furthemore, 0bama
could've potentially achieved MedicareForAll or Medicare Pt O – Public Option in ~2010 with Sen &
House D majorities, & 0bama deliberately killed these policies, as reported by FDL's Jane Hamsher
& others.
Bush43 indirectly killed USians in multiple ways, including Iraq War, War On Terra, & failing
to regulate fin svcs leading to the 2008 GFC; however it would seem that 0bama's Death Toll would
have been worse.
"What do you think?!" (c) Ed Schultz
How do Bush43 & 0bama compare to recent Presidents including Reagan & Clinton? What do you expect
of Trump? I'd guesstimate that if Trump implements P Ryan-style crapification of Medicare into an
ACA-like voucher system, that alone could render Trump Even Worse than 0bama & the other 1981-now
Reganesque Presidents.
It does seem like each President is getting Even Worse than the prior guy in this 21st Century.
#AmericanExceptionalism (exceptionally Crappy)
You hit the right priority of issues IMO, and would add a few bad things Obamanation did:
1). Bombing more nations than anyone in human history and being at war longer than any US President
ever, having never requested an end but in fact a continuation of a permanent state of war declared
by Congress.
2). The massive destruction of legal and constitutional rights from habeas corpus, illegal and
unconstitutional surveillance of all people, to asserting the right to imprison, torture, and assassinate
anyone anytime even America children just because Obama feels like doing it.
3). Austerity. This tanked any robust recovery from the 2008 recession and millions suffered because
of it, we are living with the affects even now. In fact Obamanation's deep mystical belief in austerity
helped defeat Clinton 2016.
HAMP. And not just ignoring bank mortgage fraud, but essentially enabling it and making it
the norm.
Deporting more people than Presidents before him.
Passing the Korea and Columbia free trade pacts, even lying about what the pact did to get the
Columbian one passed. KORUS alone made our trade deficit with Korea soar and lost an estimated
100,000 jobs in the US (and not those part time ones being created).
Had the chance to pass a real infrastructure repair/stimulus package, didn't.
Had the chance to put the Post Office in the black and even start a Postal Bank, didn't. Didn't
even work to get rid of the Post Office killing requirement to fund its pension 75 years out.
Furthering the erosion of our civil rights by making it legal to assassinate American citizens
without trial.
Instead of kneecapping the move to kill public education by requiring any charter school that
receives federal funding to be non-profit with real limits on allowable administrative costs,
expanded them AND expanded the testing boondoggle with Common Core.
Libya.
Expansion of our droning program.
While I do give him some credit for both the Iran deal and the attempt to rein in the Syria
mistake, I also have to take points away for not firing Carter and demoting or even bringing Votel
before a military court after their insubordination killing the ceasefire.
Should I continue. Bush was evil, Obama the more effective one.
Was that a disastrous choice? Certainly and it is a big one, but it also ignores how much of
the disastrous choices attached to that decision Barack H. Obama has either continued or expanded
upon. It also ignores how that war continues under Obama. Remember when we left Iraq? Oh, wait
we haven't we just aren't there in the previous numbers.
And what about Libya? You remember that little misadventure. Which added to our continued Saudi/Israeli
determined obsession with Syria has led to a massive refugee crisis in Europe. How many were killed
there. How much will that cost us fifteen years on?
I get that the quagmire was there before Obama. I also get that he began to get a clue late
in his administration to stop listening to the usual subjects in order to make it better. But
see that thing above about not firing people who undermined that new direction in Syria, and are
probably now some of the most pressing secret voices behind this disastrous Russia Hacked US bull.
But I think only focusing on the original decision also ignores how effective Obama has been
at normalize crime, corruption, torture and even assassination attached to those original choices
– something that Bush didn't manage (and that doesn't even consider the same decriminalization
and normalization done for and by the financial industry). Bush may have started the wheel down
the bumpy road, but Obama put rubber on the wheel and paved the road so now it is almost impossible
to stop the wheel.
As mentioned, Bush is a very low bar for comparison, and if that's the best presidential comparison
that can be made with Obama, then that says it all.
Mr. O long ago received my coveted Worst_President_Ever Award (and yes the judging included
Millard Fillmore and Andrew Johnson).
Handed the golden platter opportunity to repudiate the myriad policy disasters of Bush (which
as cited above cost trillions of dollars and millions of lives) he chose instead to continue them
absolutely unchanged, usually with the same personnel. Whether it was unprosecuted bank crime
in the tens of billions, foreign policy by drone bomb, health care mega-bezzle, hyper-spy tricks
on everyday Americans, and corporo-fascist globalist "trade" deals, Mr. O never disappointed his
Big Wall St, Big Pharma, Big Insurance, and Big Surveillance-Industrial Complex constituents.
Along the way he reversed the polarity of American politics, paving the way for a true corporo-fascist
to say the slightest thing that might be good for actual workers and get into the White House.
History will remember him as the president who lost Turkey and The Philippines, destroyed any
remaining shreds of credibility with utterly specious hacking claims and war crime accusations
of other nations, and presided over an era of hyper-concentration of billionaire wealth in a nation
where 70% of citizens would need to borrow to fund a $400 emergency. Those failures are now permanently
branded as "Democrat" failures. The jury is unanimous: Obama wins the award.
"HAMP. And not just ignoring bank mortgage fraud, but essentially enabling it and making it
the norm."
Exactly. That is #1 on my list making him worst president ever.
I would question "ever" simply because I know I don't know enough about the history of previous
presidents, and I doubt any of us do; even historians who focus on this kind of thing, supposing
we had any in our midst, might be hard put to it to review all 44 thoroughly.
I vote the mortgage fraud situation (see
Chain of Title by David
Dayen -not really a plug for the book) as the worst aspect of the Obama Administration. What
to say about it? Regular readers of this site are well versed in the details but one aspect of
it needs to be expounded upon; stand on the housetops and shout it kind of exposition: the mortgage
fraud worked on millions (3, 5, 7, maybe 12 million) shows that rule of law is now destroyed in
the land. Dictionary .com says this about the phrase
Rule of Law: the principle that all people and institutions are subject to and accountable
to law that is fairly applied and enforced; the principle of government by law.
* The government and its officials and agents as well as individuals and private entities
are accountable under the law.
* The laws are clear, publicized, stable, and just; are applied evenly; and protect fundamental
rights, including the security of persons and property and certain core human rights.
* The process by which the laws are enacted, administered, and enforced is accessible, fair,
and efficient.
* Justice is delivered timely by competent, ethical, and independent representatives and neutrals
who are of sufficient number, have adequate resources, and reflect the makeup of the communities
they serve.
I would invite the reader to take a moment and apply those principles to what is known about
the situation concerning mortgage fraud worked on millions of homeowners during the past two decades.
The Justice Department's infamous attempts to cover up horribly harmful schemes worked by
the mortgage industry perpetrators involved the cruel irony of aiding and abetting systemic racism.
Not a lot was said in the popular press about the subject of reverse redlining but I'm convinced
by the preponderance of evidence that overly complicated mortgage products were taken into the
neighborhoods of Detroit (90% Black or Latin American, Hispanic) and foisted off on unsuspecting
homeowners. Those homeowners did not take accountants and lawyers with them to the signing but
that's how those schemes should have been approached; then most of those schemes would have hit
the trashcan. Many a charming snake oil salesman deserves innumerable nights of uncomfortable
rest for the work they did to destroy the neighborhoods of Detroit and of course many other neighborhoods
in many other cities. For this discussion I am making this a separate topic but I realize it is
connected to the overall financial skulduggery worked on us all by the FIRE sector.
However, let me return to the last principle promulgated by the World Justice Project pertaining
to Rule Of Law and focus on that: "Justice is delivered timely by competent, ethical, and independent
representatives and neutrals who are of sufficient number, have adequate resources, and reflect
the makeup of the communities they serve." Now hear this: "are of sufficient number" for there,
and gentle reader, please take this to bed with you at the end of your day: we fail as a nation.
But look to the 'competent, ethical and independent' clause; we must vow to not sink into despair.
This subject is a constant struggle. Google has my back on this: Obama, during both campaigns
of '08 and '12, took millions from the very financial sector that he planned to not dismay and
then was in turn very busy directing the Attorney General of The United States, the highest law
officer in the country, to not prosecute. These very institutions that were in turn very busy
taking property worth billions. 12 million stolen homes multiplied times the average home value
= Trillions?
Finally, my main point here (I am really busy sharpening this ax, but it's a worthy ax) is
the issue of systemic racism- that the financial institutions in this country work long hours
to shackle members of minority neighborhoods into monetarily oppressive schemes in the form of
mortgages, car loans, credit cards and personal loans (think pay day scammers) and these same
makers of the shackles have the protection of the highest officials in the land. Remember the
pitchforks Obama inveighed? Irony of cruel ironies, two black men, both of whom appear to be of
honorable bearing, (Holder moved his chair right directly into the financiers, rent takers of
Covington & Burling ) work to cement the arrangements of racist, oppressive scammers who of
course also work their playbooks on other folks.
To finalize, the subject of rule of law that I have worked so assiduously to sharpen, applies
to all of the other topics we can consider as failures of the Obama Presidency. So besides racism
and systemic financial fraud we can turn to some top subjects that make '09 to '17 the nadir of
the political culture of the United States of America. Drone wars, unending war in the Middle
East, attempts to place a cloak of secrecy on the workings of the Federal Government, the reader
will have their own axes to sharpen but I maintain if the reader will fervently apply and dig
into the four principles outlined above, she, he, will agree that the principles outlining Rule
of Law have been replaced by Rule of the Person.
Here's one of many scholarly articles that reviews the subject of systemic racism in the finance
and mortgage industries.
Am Sociol Rev. 2010 October 1; 75(5): 629–651. doi:10.1177/0003122410380868
Racial Segregation and the American Foreclosure Crisis
Jacob S. Rugh and Douglas S. Massey
Office of Population Research, Princeton University
Arghhh, the server is apparently napping-more caffeine please for the cables.
Here's one of many scholarly articles that reviews the subject of systemic racism in the finance
and mortgage industries.
Am Sociol Rev. 2010 October 1; 75(5): 629–651. doi:10.1177/0003122410380868
Racial Segregation and the American Foreclosure Crisis
Jacob S. Rugh and Douglas S. Massey
Office of Population Research, Princeton University
I dunno. President Obama is not great but the comments here make me feel like it's time for
me to skedaddle. Thinking he might be worse than Shrub? 6″ tall, smh
Oh I admit it can be a tough choice, but you might really want to add up the good and the bad
for both. Not surprisingly there is little good and a whole lot of long ongoing damage inflicted
by the policies that both either embraced, adapted to or did little or nothing to stop.
Even if the list of bad was equal, I have to give Obama for the edge for two reasons. First
because Bush pretty much told us what he was going to do, Obama campaigned on change and vague
promises, but still change. Instead he normalized atrocities that most of us had been screaming
about in the Bush administration AND he didn't just squander the opportunities he had to change
our course domestically because of the crash and the majorities in Congress, no he couldn't throw
those away fast enough.
Your position is obviously different.
And I don't give a damn what height either of them are, both are small people.
Indeed. Bush was a known quantity. "Compassionate conservatism" was was blatantly hollow
jingoism. My only surprise under W was how virulently evil Cheney was.
The big O, though, was handed the opportunity to change the course of history. He took
power with Wall Street on its knees. The whole world hungered for a change in course. Remember
"never let a crisis go to waste". O turned Hope into blatantly hollow jingoism.
In the end, the black activist constitutional lawyer turned his back on all that he seemed
to be. Feint left, drive right.
With W we got what we expected. With O we got hoodwinked. What a waste.
Look, if you don't like some of the comments you see, say so. We have some thick skinned people
here. A little rancorous debate is fine. If some reasoned argumentation is thrown in, the comments
section is doing it's job. (I know, I know, "agency" issues.)
Obama can be legitimately described as worse than Bush 43 because Obama ran as a "progressive"
and flagrantly broke almost all of his promises and governed like a "Moderate" Republican.
At the least, Bush, Sr. and Jr. ran as right wing politicos. The people basically got what
they voted for with them.
Finally, " it's time for me to skedaddle." WTF? I'm assuming, yes, I do do that, that you are
a responsible and thoughtful person. That needs must include the tolerance of and engagement with
opposing points of view. Where do you want to run to; an "echo chamber" site? You only encourage
conformation bias with that move. The site administrators have occasionally mentioned the dictum;
"Embrace the churn." The site, indeed, almost any site, will live on long after any of we commenters
bite the dust. If, however, one can shift the world view of other readers with good argumentation
and anecdotes, our work will be worthwhile.
So, as I was once admonished by my ex D.I. middle school gym teacher; "Stand up and face it.
You may get beat, but you'll know you did your best. That's a good feeling."
Picking the #1 Worst Prez is a fallacy inherent in our desire to put things on a scale of 1
to 10. It's so we can say, in this case, #1 was the WORST, and then forget about #2 thru #10.
It's like picking the #1 Greatest Rock Guitar Player. There are too many great guitar players
and too many styles. It's just not possible.
Even so, I'd like to see the Russian citizen ranking of Putin vs. Yeltsin. Secret ballot, of
course.
I don't think he's worse than Bush but I agree he was horribly dishonest to run as a progressive.
He's far from progressive.
I think the ACA, deeply flawed as it is, was/is a good thing. It wasn't enough and it was badly
brought out. I hope many thousands don't get tossed off health insurance.
My major criticism of him and most politicians is that he has no center. There is nothing for
which he truly stands and he has a horrible tendency to try to make nice w the republicans. He's
not progressive. Bernie, flawed also stands for something always has, always will.
Obama is highly deceptive, but I think that Bush (43) was worse. I doubt that Obama would have
performed many of his worst deeds if Bush hadn't first paved the way. But we'll never know for
sure, so it's possible to argue on behalf of either side of the dispute.
I have to tell you it is inaccurate in material respects, and many of the people who played
important roles in the fight were written out entirely or marginalized.
GW Bush sort of had two administrations. The first two years and the last two years was sort
of a generic Republican but sane administration, sort of like his father's, and was OK. The crazy
stuff happened in the middle four years, which maybe not coincidentally the Republicans had majorities
in both house of Congress.
Obama signed off on the Big Bailout (as did GW Bush, but my impression is that the worst features
of the Big Bailout were on Obama's watch(), and that defined his administration. Sometimes you
get governments defined by one big thing, and that was it. But I suspect he may have prevented
the neocons from starting World War III, but that is the sort of thing we won't know about until
decades have passed, if we make it that long.
Obama promised hope and change and delivered the exact opposite – despair and decline. Obama
should be remembered as the Great Normalizer. All of the shitty things that were around when he
was inaugurated are now normalized. TINA to the max, in other words.
It should be no shock to anyone that Trump was elected after what Obama did to American politics.
You got it. Obama was hired to employ "The Shock Doctrine" and he did. He was and is "a Chicago
Boy"; the term Naomi Klein used for the neoliberals who slithered out of the basements of U of
Chicago to visit austerity on the masses for the enhancement of the feudal lords. It is laughable
that he said last week that he could have beaten Trump. As always, He implied that it was the
"message" not the policy. And that he could "sell" that message better than Hilary. For him it
was always about pitching that Hopey Changey "One America" spleel that suckered so many. The Archdruid
calls this "the warm fuzzies". But the Donald went right into the John Edwards land of "The Two
Americas". He said he came from the 1%; but was here to work for the 99% who had been screwed
over by bad deals. We will see if the Barons will stand in his way or figure out that it might
be time to avoid those pitchforks by giving a little to small businesses and workers in general.
Like FDR, will they try to save capitalism?
The Donald has the bad trade deals right, but looks like he doesn't know what havoc Reagan
wreaked on working people's household incomes and pension plans by breaking any power unions had
and by coming up with the 401K scam; plus the Reagan interest rates that devastated farmers and
ranchers and the idea of rewarding a CEO who put stock price above research and development and
workers' salaries. But again, I believe it was a Democratic congress and a Democratic president
Carter who eliminated the Usury law in 1979. From then on with stagnating wages, people began
the descent into debt slavery. And Jimmy started the Shock Doctrine by deregulating the airlines
and trucking. But he did penance. Can't see Obama doing that.
And once usary laws went away, credit cards were handed out to college students, with no co-sign,
even if students had no work or credit history and were unemployed.
It took until just a few years ago before they revisted that credit card policy to students.
dont want to burst your bubble(or anyone elses) but obama is not and was not the power to the
throne it was michelle and val jar (aka beria) it was a long series of luck that got that krewe
anywhere near any real power mostly, it comes from the Univ of Chicago hopey changee thingee was
a nice piece of marketing by david axelrod..
the grey lady
5-11-2008
In August 1999, Barack Obama strolled amid the floats and bands making their way down Martin
Luther King Drive on Chicago's South Side. Billed as the largest African-American parade in the
country, the summer rite was a draw over the years to boxing heroes like Muhammad Ali and jazz
greats like Duke Ellington. It was also a must-stop for the city's top politicians.
Back then, Mr. Obama, a state senator who was contemplating a run for Congress, was so little-known
in the community's black neighborhoods that it was hard to find more than a few dozen people to
walk with him, recalled Al Kindle, one of his advisers at the time. Mr. Obama was trounced a year
later in the Congressional race - branded as an aloof outsider more at home in the halls of Harvard
than in the rough wards of Chicago politics.
But by 2006, Mr. Obama had remade his political fortunes. He was a freshman United States
senator on the cusp of deciding to take on the formidable Hillary Rodham Clinton and embark on
a long-shot White House run. When the parade wound its way through the South Side that summer,
Mr. Obama was its grand marshal.
but to capture the arrogance of hyde park (read the last line)
A tight-knit community that runs through the South Side, Hyde Park is a liberal bastion
of integration in what is otherwise one of the nation's most segregated cities. Mayor Washington
had called it home, as did whites who marched with the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and wealthy
black entrepreneurs a generation removed from the civil rights battles of the 1960s.
At its heart is the University of Chicago; at its borders are poor, predominately black neighborhoods
blighted by rundown buildings and vacant lots. For Mr. Obama, who was born in Hawaii to a white
Kansan mother and an African father and who spent part of his childhood in Indonesia, it was a
perfect fit.
"He felt completely comfortable in Hyde Park," said Martha Minow, his former law professor
and a mentor. "It's a place where you don't have to wear a label on your forehead. You can go
to a bookstore and there's the homeless person and there's the professor."
also note how the lib racist grey lady can not bring themselves to name the parade it is the
bud billiken parade
peaceful, fun, successful
heaven forbid the world should see a giant event run by black folk that does not end in violence
might confuse the closet racists
There are enough examples of such things for it to be a reasonable expectation.
The parade also hasn't always gone without a hitch:
The 2003 parade featured B2K.[9] The concert was free with virtually unlimited space in
the park for viewing. However, the crowd became unruly causing the concert to be curtailed.
Over 40 attendees were taken to hospitals as a result of injuries in the violence, including
two teenagers who were shot.[38] At the 2014 parade, Two teenagers were shot after an altercation
involving a group of youths along the parade route near the 4200 block of King Drive around
12:30 pm.[39][40]
"... Obama campaigned on change and vague promises, but still change. Instead he normalized atrocities that most of us had been screaming about in the Bush administration AND he didn't just squander the opportunities he had to change our course domestically because of the crash and the majorities in Congress, no he couldn't throw those away fast enough. ..."
"... Indeed. Bush was a known quantity. "Compassionate conservatism" was was blatantly hollow jingoism. My only surprise under W was how virulently evil Cheney was. ..."
"... The big O, though, was handed the opportunity to change the course of history. He took power with Wall Street on its knees. The whole world hungered for a change in course. Remember "never let a crisis go to waste". O turned Hope into blatantly hollow jingoism. ..."
"... Obama can be legitimately described as worse than Bush 43 because Obama ran as a "progressive" and flagrantly broke almost all of his promises and governed like a "Moderate" Republican. ..."
"... At the least, Bush, Sr. and Jr. ran as right wing politicos. The people basically got what they voted for with them. ..."
"... In August 1999, Barack Obama strolled amid the floats and bands making their way down Martin Luther King Drive on Chicago's South Side. Billed as the largest African-American parade in the country, the summer rite was a draw over the years to boxing heroes like Muhammad Ali and jazz greats like Duke Ellington. It was also a must-stop for the city's top politicians. ..."
"... Back then, Mr. Obama, a state senator who was contemplating a run for Congress, was so little-known in the community's black neighborhoods that it was hard to find more than a few dozen people to walk with him, recalled Al Kindle, one of his advisers at the time. Mr. Obama was trounced a year later in the Congressional race - branded as an aloof outsider more at home in the halls of Harvard than in the rough wards of Chicago politics. ..."
"... But by 2006, Mr. Obama had remade his political fortunes. He was a freshman United States senator on the cusp of deciding to take on the formidable Hillary Rodham Clinton and embark on a long-shot White House run. When the parade wound its way through the South Side that summer, Mr. Obama was its grand marshal. ..."
"... A tight-knit community that runs through the South Side, Hyde Park is a liberal bastion of integration in what is otherwise one of the nation's most segregated cities. Mayor Washington had called it home, as did whites who marched with the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and wealthy black entrepreneurs a generation removed from the civil rights battles of the 1960s. ..."
"... At its heart is the University of Chicago; at its borders are poor, predominately black neighborhoods blighted by rundown buildings and vacant lots. For Mr. Obama, who was born in Hawaii to a white Kansan mother and an African father and who spent part of his childhood in Indonesia, it was a perfect fit. ..."
"... "He felt completely comfortable in Hyde Park," said Martha Minow, his former law professor and a mentor. "It's a place where you don't have to wear a label on your forehead. You can go to a bookstore and there's the homeless person and there's the professor." ..."
Now that 0bama is about to exit as US Pres, perhaps it is time to revisit the Who Is Worse: Bush43
v 0bama question.
Conventional wisdom among "Progressive" pundits, even good ones like SecularTalk, seems to be
"yes, 0bama is better than Bush43, but that is a very low bar, & not a real accomplishment. 0bama
still sucks".
IMHO, 0bama's relentless pursue of 1 Grand "Bargain" Ripoff & 2 TPP, may alone make him Even Worse
than Bush43, as far as to damage inflicted on USians had 0bama been successful in getting these 2
policies. 0bama tried for years getting these 2 policies enacted, whereas Bush43 tried quickly to
privatize SS but then forgot it, & IIRC enacted small trade deals (DR-CAFTA ?). Bush43 focus seemed
to be on neocon regime change & War On Terra TM, & even then IIRC around ~2006 Bush43 rejected some
of Darth Cheney's even more extremish neocon policy preferences, with Bush43 rejecting Cheney's desired
Iran War.
IMHO both policies would've incrementally killed thousands of USians annually, far more than 1S1S
or the Designated Foreign Boogeyman Du Jour TM could ever dream of. Grand Ripoff raising Medicare
eligibility age (IIRC 67 to 69+ ?) would kill many GenX & younger USians in the future. TPP's pharma
patent extensions would kill many USians, especially seniors. These incremental killings might exceed
the incremental life savings from the ACA (mainly ACA Adult Medicaid expansion). Furthemore, 0bama
could've potentially achieved MedicareForAll or Medicare Pt O – Public Option in ~2010 with Sen &
House D majorities, & 0bama deliberately killed these policies, as reported by FDL's Jane Hamsher
& others.
Bush43 indirectly killed USians in multiple ways, including Iraq War, War On Terra, & failing
to regulate fin svcs leading to the 2008 GFC; however it would seem that 0bama's Death Toll would
have been worse.
"What do you think?!" (c) Ed Schultz
How do Bush43 & 0bama compare to recent Presidents including Reagan & Clinton? What do you expect
of Trump? I'd guesstimate that if Trump implements P Ryan-style crapification of Medicare into an
ACA-like voucher system, that alone could render Trump Even Worse than 0bama & the other 1981-now
Reganesque Presidents.
It does seem like each President is getting Even Worse than the prior guy in this 21st Century.
#AmericanExceptionalism (exceptionally Crappy)
You hit the right priority of issues IMO, and would add a few bad things Obamanation did:
1). Bombing more nations than anyone in human history and being at war longer than any US President
ever, having never requested an end but in fact a continuation of a permanent state of war declared
by Congress.
2). The massive destruction of legal and constitutional rights from habeas corpus, illegal and
unconstitutional surveillance of all people, to asserting the right to imprison, torture, and assassinate
anyone anytime even America children just because Obama feels like doing it.
3). Austerity. This tanked any robust recovery from the 2008 recession and millions suffered because
of it, we are living with the affects even now. In fact Obamanation's deep mystical belief in austerity
helped defeat Clinton 2016.
HAMP. And not just ignoring bank mortgage fraud, but essentially enabling it and making it
the norm.
Deporting more people than Presidents before him.
Passing the Korea and Columbia free trade pacts, even lying about what the pact did to get the
Columbian one passed. KORUS alone made our trade deficit with Korea soar and lost an estimated
100,000 jobs in the US (and not those part time ones being created).
Had the chance to pass a real infrastructure repair/stimulus package, didn't.
Had the chance to put the Post Office in the black and even start a Postal Bank, didn't. Didn't
even work to get rid of the Post Office killing requirement to fund its pension 75 years out.
Furthering the erosion of our civil rights by making it legal to assassinate American citizens
without trial.
Instead of kneecapping the move to kill public education by requiring any charter school that
receives federal funding to be non-profit with real limits on allowable administrative costs,
expanded them AND expanded the testing boondoggle with Common Core.
Libya.
Expansion of our droning program.
While I do give him some credit for both the Iran deal and the attempt to rein in the Syria
mistake, I also have to take points away for not firing Carter and demoting or even bringing Votel
before a military court after their insubordination killing the ceasefire.
Should I continue. Bush was evil, Obama the more effective one.
Was that a disastrous choice? Certainly and it is a big one, but it also ignores how much of
the disastrous choices attached to that decision Barack H. Obama has either continued or expanded
upon. It also ignores how that war continues under Obama. Remember when we left Iraq? Oh, wait
we haven't we just aren't there in the previous numbers.
And what about Libya? You remember that little misadventure. Which added to our continued Saudi/Israeli
determined obsession with Syria has led to a massive refugee crisis in Europe. How many were killed
there. How much will that cost us fifteen years on?
I get that the quagmire was there before Obama. I also get that he began to get a clue late
in his administration to stop listening to the usual subjects in order to make it better. But
see that thing above about not firing people who undermined that new direction in Syria, and are
probably now some of the most pressing secret voices behind this disastrous Russia Hacked US bull.
But I think only focusing on the original decision also ignores how effective Obama has been
at normalize crime, corruption, torture and even assassination attached to those original choices
– something that Bush didn't manage (and that doesn't even consider the same decriminalization
and normalization done for and by the financial industry). Bush may have started the wheel down
the bumpy road, but Obama put rubber on the wheel and paved the road so now it is almost impossible
to stop the wheel.
As mentioned, Bush is a very low bar for comparison, and if that's the best presidential comparison
that can be made with Obama, then that says it all.
Mr. O long ago received my coveted Worst_President_Ever Award (and yes the judging included
Millard Fillmore and Andrew Johnson).
Handed the golden platter opportunity to repudiate the myriad policy disasters of Bush (which
as cited above cost trillions of dollars and millions of lives) he chose instead to continue them
absolutely unchanged, usually with the same personnel. Whether it was unprosecuted bank crime
in the tens of billions, foreign policy by drone bomb, health care mega-bezzle, hyper-spy tricks
on everyday Americans, and corporo-fascist globalist "trade" deals, Mr. O never disappointed his
Big Wall St, Big Pharma, Big Insurance, and Big Surveillance-Industrial Complex constituents.
Along the way he reversed the polarity of American politics, paving the way for a true corporo-fascist
to say the slightest thing that might be good for actual workers and get into the White House.
History will remember him as the president who lost Turkey and The Philippines, destroyed any
remaining shreds of credibility with utterly specious hacking claims and war crime accusations
of other nations, and presided over an era of hyper-concentration of billionaire wealth in a nation
where 70% of citizens would need to borrow to fund a $400 emergency. Those failures are now permanently
branded as "Democrat" failures. The jury is unanimous: Obama wins the award.
"HAMP. And not just ignoring bank mortgage fraud, but essentially enabling it and making it
the norm."
Exactly. That is #1 on my list making him worst president ever.
I would question "ever" simply because I know I don't know enough about the history of previous
presidents, and I doubt any of us do; even historians who focus on this kind of thing, supposing
we had any in our midst, might be hard put to it to review all 44 thoroughly.
I vote the mortgage fraud situation (see
Chain of Title by David
Dayen -not really a plug for the book) as the worst aspect of the Obama Administration. What
to say about it? Regular readers of this site are well versed in the details but one aspect of
it needs to be expounded upon; stand on the housetops and shout it kind of exposition: the mortgage
fraud worked on millions (3, 5, 7, maybe 12 million) shows that rule of law is now destroyed in
the land. Dictionary .com says this about the phrase
Rule of Law: the principle that all people and institutions are subject to and accountable
to law that is fairly applied and enforced; the principle of government by law.
* The government and its officials and agents as well as individuals and private entities
are accountable under the law.
* The laws are clear, publicized, stable, and just; are applied evenly; and protect fundamental
rights, including the security of persons and property and certain core human rights.
* The process by which the laws are enacted, administered, and enforced is accessible, fair,
and efficient.
* Justice is delivered timely by competent, ethical, and independent representatives and neutrals
who are of sufficient number, have adequate resources, and reflect the makeup of the communities
they serve.
I would invite the reader to take a moment and apply those principles to what is known about
the situation concerning mortgage fraud worked on millions of homeowners during the past two decades.
The Justice Department's infamous attempts to cover up horribly harmful schemes worked by
the mortgage industry perpetrators involved the cruel irony of aiding and abetting systemic racism.
Not a lot was said in the popular press about the subject of reverse redlining but I'm convinced
by the preponderance of evidence that overly complicated mortgage products were taken into the
neighborhoods of Detroit (90% Black or Latin American, Hispanic) and foisted off on unsuspecting
homeowners. Those homeowners did not take accountants and lawyers with them to the signing but
that's how those schemes should have been approached; then most of those schemes would have hit
the trashcan. Many a charming snake oil salesman deserves innumerable nights of uncomfortable
rest for the work they did to destroy the neighborhoods of Detroit and of course many other neighborhoods
in many other cities. For this discussion I am making this a separate topic but I realize it is
connected to the overall financial skulduggery worked on us all by the FIRE sector.
However, let me return to the last principle promulgated by the World Justice Project pertaining
to Rule Of Law and focus on that: "Justice is delivered timely by competent, ethical, and independent
representatives and neutrals who are of sufficient number, have adequate resources, and reflect
the makeup of the communities they serve." Now hear this: "are of sufficient number" for there,
and gentle reader, please take this to bed with you at the end of your day: we fail as a nation.
But look to the 'competent, ethical and independent' clause; we must vow to not sink into despair.
This subject is a constant struggle. Google has my back on this: Obama, during both campaigns
of '08 and '12, took millions from the very financial sector that he planned to not dismay and
then was in turn very busy directing the Attorney General of The United States, the highest law
officer in the country, to not prosecute. These very institutions that were in turn very busy
taking property worth billions. 12 million stolen homes multiplied times the average home value
= Trillions?
Finally, my main point here (I am really busy sharpening this ax, but it's a worthy ax) is
the issue of systemic racism- that the financial institutions in this country work long hours
to shackle members of minority neighborhoods into monetarily oppressive schemes in the form of
mortgages, car loans, credit cards and personal loans (think pay day scammers) and these same
makers of the shackles have the protection of the highest officials in the land. Remember the
pitchforks Obama inveighed? Irony of cruel ironies, two black men, both of whom appear to be of
honorable bearing, (Holder moved his chair right directly into the financiers, rent takers of
Covington & Burling ) work to cement the arrangements of racist, oppressive scammers who of
course also work their playbooks on other folks.
To finalize, the subject of rule of law that I have worked so assiduously to sharpen, applies
to all of the other topics we can consider as failures of the Obama Presidency. So besides racism
and systemic financial fraud we can turn to some top subjects that make '09 to '17 the nadir of
the political culture of the United States of America. Drone wars, unending war in the Middle
East, attempts to place a cloak of secrecy on the workings of the Federal Government, the reader
will have their own axes to sharpen but I maintain if the reader will fervently apply and dig
into the four principles outlined above, she, he, will agree that the principles outlining Rule
of Law have been replaced by Rule of the Person.
Here's one of many scholarly articles that reviews the subject of systemic racism in the finance
and mortgage industries.
Am Sociol Rev. 2010 October 1; 75(5): 629–651. doi:10.1177/0003122410380868
Racial Segregation and the American Foreclosure Crisis
Jacob S. Rugh and Douglas S. Massey
Office of Population Research, Princeton University
Arghhh, the server is apparently napping-more caffeine please for the cables.
Here's one of many scholarly articles that reviews the subject of systemic racism in the finance
and mortgage industries.
Am Sociol Rev. 2010 October 1; 75(5): 629–651. doi:10.1177/0003122410380868
Racial Segregation and the American Foreclosure Crisis
Jacob S. Rugh and Douglas S. Massey
Office of Population Research, Princeton University
I dunno. President Obama is not great but the comments here make me feel like it's time for
me to skedaddle. Thinking he might be worse than Shrub? 6″ tall, smh
Oh I admit it can be a tough choice, but you might really want to add up the good and the bad
for both. Not surprisingly there is little good and a whole lot of long ongoing damage inflicted
by the policies that both either embraced, adapted to or did little or nothing to stop.
Even if the list of bad was equal, I have to give Obama for the edge for two reasons. First
because Bush pretty much told us what he was going to do, Obama campaigned on change and vague
promises, but still change. Instead he normalized atrocities that most of us had been screaming
about in the Bush administration AND he didn't just squander the opportunities he had to change
our course domestically because of the crash and the majorities in Congress, no he couldn't throw
those away fast enough.
Your position is obviously different.
And I don't give a damn what height either of them are, both are small people.
Indeed. Bush was a known quantity. "Compassionate conservatism" was was blatantly hollow
jingoism. My only surprise under W was how virulently evil Cheney was.
The big O, though, was handed the opportunity to change the course of history. He took
power with Wall Street on its knees. The whole world hungered for a change in course. Remember
"never let a crisis go to waste". O turned Hope into blatantly hollow jingoism.
In the end, the black activist constitutional lawyer turned his back on all that he seemed
to be. Feint left, drive right.
With W we got what we expected. With O we got hoodwinked. What a waste.
Look, if you don't like some of the comments you see, say so. We have some thick skinned people
here. A little rancorous debate is fine. If some reasoned argumentation is thrown in, the comments
section is doing it's job. (I know, I know, "agency" issues.)
Obama can be legitimately described as worse than Bush 43 because Obama ran as a "progressive"
and flagrantly broke almost all of his promises and governed like a "Moderate" Republican.
At the least, Bush, Sr. and Jr. ran as right wing politicos. The people basically got what
they voted for with them.
Finally, " it's time for me to skedaddle." WTF? I'm assuming, yes, I do do that, that you are
a responsible and thoughtful person. That needs must include the tolerance of and engagement with
opposing points of view. Where do you want to run to; an "echo chamber" site? You only encourage
conformation bias with that move. The site administrators have occasionally mentioned the dictum;
"Embrace the churn." The site, indeed, almost any site, will live on long after any of we commenters
bite the dust. If, however, one can shift the world view of other readers with good argumentation
and anecdotes, our work will be worthwhile.
So, as I was once admonished by my ex D.I. middle school gym teacher; "Stand up and face it.
You may get beat, but you'll know you did your best. That's a good feeling."
Picking the #1 Worst Prez is a fallacy inherent in our desire to put things on a scale of 1
to 10. It's so we can say, in this case, #1 was the WORST, and then forget about #2 thru #10.
It's like picking the #1 Greatest Rock Guitar Player. There are too many great guitar players
and too many styles. It's just not possible.
Even so, I'd like to see the Russian citizen ranking of Putin vs. Yeltsin. Secret ballot, of
course.
I don't think he's worse than Bush but I agree he was horribly dishonest to run as a progressive.
He's far from progressive.
I think the ACA, deeply flawed as it is, was/is a good thing. It wasn't enough and it was badly
brought out. I hope many thousands don't get tossed off health insurance.
My major criticism of him and most politicians is that he has no center. There is nothing for
which he truly stands and he has a horrible tendency to try to make nice w the republicans. He's
not progressive. Bernie, flawed also stands for something always has, always will.
Obama is highly deceptive, but I think that Bush (43) was worse. I doubt that Obama would have
performed many of his worst deeds if Bush hadn't first paved the way. But we'll never know for
sure, so it's possible to argue on behalf of either side of the dispute.
I have to tell you it is inaccurate in material respects, and many of the people who played
important roles in the fight were written out entirely or marginalized.
GW Bush sort of had two administrations. The first two years and the last two years was sort
of a generic Republican but sane administration, sort of like his father's, and was OK. The crazy
stuff happened in the middle four years, which maybe not coincidentally the Republicans had majorities
in both house of Congress.
Obama signed off on the Big Bailout (as did GW Bush, but my impression is that the worst features
of the Big Bailout were on Obama's watch(), and that defined his administration. Sometimes you
get governments defined by one big thing, and that was it. But I suspect he may have prevented
the neocons from starting World War III, but that is the sort of thing we won't know about until
decades have passed, if we make it that long.
Obama promised hope and change and delivered the exact opposite – despair and decline. Obama
should be remembered as the Great Normalizer. All of the shitty things that were around when he
was inaugurated are now normalized. TINA to the max, in other words.
It should be no shock to anyone that Trump was elected after what Obama did to American politics.
You got it. Obama was hired to employ "The Shock Doctrine" and he did. He was and is "a Chicago
Boy"; the term Naomi Klein used for the neoliberals who slithered out of the basements of U of
Chicago to visit austerity on the masses for the enhancement of the feudal lords. It is laughable
that he said last week that he could have beaten Trump. As always, He implied that it was the
"message" not the policy. And that he could "sell" that message better than Hilary. For him it
was always about pitching that Hopey Changey "One America" spleel that suckered so many. The Archdruid
calls this "the warm fuzzies". But the Donald went right into the John Edwards land of "The Two
Americas". He said he came from the 1%; but was here to work for the 99% who had been screwed
over by bad deals. We will see if the Barons will stand in his way or figure out that it might
be time to avoid those pitchforks by giving a little to small businesses and workers in general.
Like FDR, will they try to save capitalism?
The Donald has the bad trade deals right, but looks like he doesn't know what havoc Reagan
wreaked on working people's household incomes and pension plans by breaking any power unions had
and by coming up with the 401K scam; plus the Reagan interest rates that devastated farmers and
ranchers and the idea of rewarding a CEO who put stock price above research and development and
workers' salaries. But again, I believe it was a Democratic congress and a Democratic president
Carter who eliminated the Usury law in 1979. From then on with stagnating wages, people began
the descent into debt slavery. And Jimmy started the Shock Doctrine by deregulating the airlines
and trucking. But he did penance. Can't see Obama doing that.
And once usary laws went away, credit cards were handed out to college students, with no co-sign,
even if students had no work or credit history and were unemployed.
It took until just a few years ago before they revisted that credit card policy to students.
dont want to burst your bubble(or anyone elses) but obama is not and was not the power to the
throne it was michelle and val jar (aka beria) it was a long series of luck that got that krewe
anywhere near any real power mostly, it comes from the Univ of Chicago hopey changee thingee was
a nice piece of marketing by david axelrod..
the grey lady
5-11-2008
In August 1999, Barack Obama strolled amid the floats and bands making their way down Martin
Luther King Drive on Chicago's South Side. Billed as the largest African-American parade in the
country, the summer rite was a draw over the years to boxing heroes like Muhammad Ali and jazz
greats like Duke Ellington. It was also a must-stop for the city's top politicians.
Back then, Mr. Obama, a state senator who was contemplating a run for Congress, was so little-known
in the community's black neighborhoods that it was hard to find more than a few dozen people to
walk with him, recalled Al Kindle, one of his advisers at the time. Mr. Obama was trounced a year
later in the Congressional race - branded as an aloof outsider more at home in the halls of Harvard
than in the rough wards of Chicago politics.
But by 2006, Mr. Obama had remade his political fortunes. He was a freshman United States
senator on the cusp of deciding to take on the formidable Hillary Rodham Clinton and embark on
a long-shot White House run. When the parade wound its way through the South Side that summer,
Mr. Obama was its grand marshal.
but to capture the arrogance of hyde park (read the last line)
A tight-knit community that runs through the South Side, Hyde Park is a liberal bastion
of integration in what is otherwise one of the nation's most segregated cities. Mayor Washington
had called it home, as did whites who marched with the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and wealthy
black entrepreneurs a generation removed from the civil rights battles of the 1960s.
At its heart is the University of Chicago; at its borders are poor, predominately black neighborhoods
blighted by rundown buildings and vacant lots. For Mr. Obama, who was born in Hawaii to a white
Kansan mother and an African father and who spent part of his childhood in Indonesia, it was a
perfect fit.
"He felt completely comfortable in Hyde Park," said Martha Minow, his former law professor
and a mentor. "It's a place where you don't have to wear a label on your forehead. You can go
to a bookstore and there's the homeless person and there's the professor."
also note how the lib racist grey lady can not bring themselves to name the parade it is the
bud billiken parade
peaceful, fun, successful
heaven forbid the world should see a giant event run by black folk that does not end in violence
might confuse the closet racists
There are enough examples of such things for it to be a reasonable expectation.
The parade also hasn't always gone without a hitch:
The 2003 parade featured B2K.[9] The concert was free with virtually unlimited space in
the park for viewing. However, the crowd became unruly causing the concert to be curtailed.
Over 40 attendees were taken to hospitals as a result of injuries in the violence, including
two teenagers who were shot.[38] At the 2014 parade, Two teenagers were shot after an altercation
involving a group of youths along the parade route near the 4200 block of King Drive around
12:30 pm.[39][40]
"... As General Smedley Butler, twice awarded the Medal of Honor, said: War is a racket . Wars will persist as long as people see them as a "core product," as a business opportunity. In capitalism, the profit motive is often amoral; greed is good, even when it feeds war. Meanwhile, the Pentagon is willing to play along. It always sees "vulnerabilities" and always wants more money. ..."
"... Wars are always profitable for a few, but they are ruining democracy in America. Sure, it's a business opportunity: one that ends in national (and moral) bankruptcy. ..."
A good friend passed along an
article at Forbes from a month ago with the pregnant title, "U.S. Army Fears Major War Likely
Within Five Years - But Lacks The Money To Prepare." Basically, the article argues that war is possible
- even likely - within five years with Russia or North Korea or Iran, or maybe all three, but that
America's army is short of money to prepare for these wars. This despite the fact that America spends
roughly $700 billion each and every year on defense and overseas wars.
Now, the author's agenda is quite clear, as he states at the end of his article: "Several of the
Army's equipment suppliers are contributors to my think tank and/or consulting clients." He's writing
an alarmist article about the probability of future wars at the same time as he's profiting from
the sales of weaponry to the army.
As General Smedley Butler, twice awarded the Medal of Honor, said:
War is a racket
. Wars will persist as long as people see them as a "core product," as a business opportunity.
In capitalism, the profit motive is often amoral; greed is good, even when it feeds war. Meanwhile,
the Pentagon is willing to play along. It always sees "vulnerabilities" and always wants more money.
But back to the Forbes article with its concerns about war(s) in five years with Russia or North
Korea or Iran (or all three). For what vital national interest should America fight against Russia?
North Korea? Iran? A few quick reminders:
#1: Don't get involved in a land war in Asia or with Russia (Charles XII, Napoleon, and Hitler
all learned that lesson the hard way).
#2: North Korea? It's a puppet regime that can't feed its own people. It might prefer war to distract
the people from their parlous existence.
#3: Iran? A regional power, already contained, with a young population that's sympathetic to America,
at least to our culture of relative openness and tolerance. If the US Army thinks tackling Iran would
be relatively easy, just consider all those recent "easy" wars and military interventions in Iraq,
Afghanistan, Libya, Syria
Of course, the business aspect of this is selling the idea the US Army isn't prepared and therefore
needs yet another new generation of expensive high-tech weaponry. It's like convincing high-end consumers
their three-year-old Audi or Lexus is obsolete so they must buy the latest model else lose face.
We see this all the time in the US military. It's a version of planned or
artificial obsolescence . Consider the Air Force. It could easily defeat its enemies with updated
versions of A-10s, F-15s, and F-16s, but instead the Pentagon plans to spend as much as $1.4 trillion
on the shiny new and
under-performing F-35 . The Army has an enormous surplus of tanks and other armored fighting
vehicles, but the call goes forth for a "new generation." No other navy comes close to the US Navy,
yet the call goes out for a new generation of ships.
The Pentagon mantra is always for more and better, which often turns out to be for less and much
more expensive, e.g. the F-35 fighter.
Wars are always profitable for a few, but they are
ruining democracy in America. Sure, it's a business opportunity: one that ends in national (and
moral) bankruptcy.
William J. Astore is a retired lieutenant colonel (USAF). He taught history for fifteen years
at military and civilian schools and blogs at
Bracing Views . He can be reached at [email protected]. Reprinted
from Bracing Views with the author's permission.
This is the review of the book of David Talbot's The Devil's Chessboard. Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise
of America's Secret Government by one of Moon of Alabama readers.
Looks like the course on making The USA imperial power (which was related later in Washington consensus and Wolfowitz doctrine)
was taken directly after WWII. Cold War was just a smoke screen under which the USA tried to establish hegemony over the world. Both
documents could well be written by Alan Dulles himself.
Any president who dare to deviate from this is ostracized , impeached or killed. So the political role of intelligence agencies
since their establishment by Truman was to serve as the brain center if USA imperial beuracracy (as well as the tools for projecting
it abroad)
The CIA is a hybrid of an intelligence service that gathers and analyzes foreign intelligence and a clandestine service that
conducts covert operations. Both functions are essential to creating pretexts for wars and for expanding the US influence abroad for
multinationals, and that is what they have done for 70 years (Dulles came from Wall Street). Among other things it
deliberately creates small wars just to demonstrate the US military might. Neoconservative theorist and intelligence operative
Michael Ledeen suggested that every 10 years or so, the United States "pick up some small crappy little country and throw it
against the wall, just to show we mean business."
Another book deserves to mentioned here too here too. Prouty book
The Secret Team: The CIA and its Allies in Control
of the United States and the World (which was suppressed in 1973 when irt was published and did not see shelves before
republishing in 2011) is described like the the U.S.'s aggressive and illegal war policy conducted by CIA has finally provoked
a real military threat to the U.S., albeit one that has emerged only in response to U.S. war plans
U.S. Air Force Colonel Fletcher Prouty was the chief of special operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1955 to 1964,
managing the global military support system for the CIA in Vietnam and around the world. described how the CIA infiltrated the U.S.
military, the State Department, the National Security Council and other government institutions, covertly placing its officers in
critical positions to ensure that its plans are approved and that it has access to whatever forces, weapons, equipment, ammunition
and other resources it needs to carry them out.
Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... We find Dulles attempting to convince his superiors of the need and advantages of dealing with "moderate Nazis" like Reinhard
Gehlen, so today there are personalities in our government following a policy of working with "moderate Islamists" and "moderate ultra-nationalists"
to achieve our goals. ..."
"... Perhaps someone looking for more focus on Dulles the man might be disappointed by this, but for someone like myself interested
in the history and insights of era Dulles lived in. The era covered is approximately the 1930s through the 1969. ..."
"... the ruling elite of the US was deeply split. ..."
"... A large portion of the US elite was sympathetic to the Nazis. Indeed, the pro-Nazi segment of the US elite had built up ties
with Germany during the inter-war period. The bonds were economic, political and even ideological - indeed, these links were so important
that likely Germany would not have been able to rearm itself without the help of these "patriotic" Americans (Talbot makes clear that
in some cases this kinship was evident even during the war itself!). ..."
"... And no one represents the fascist sympathizing segment of the US elite like Allen Dulles. ..."
"... Talbot covers this topic well and makes a very good case for Dulles involvement - including revealing (from his day calendar)
the fact that "fired" and "retired" from the CIA Allen Dulles, spent the weekend - from the time Kennedy was shot and killed Friday
through the hours that Oswald was gunned down - at a CIA command facility in Virginia. ..."
I just finished listening to the audio book of David Talbot's The Devil's Chessboard. Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise
of America's Secret Government . It was very good I think.
I'll spare you a full review, but the Dulles era has some very important and interesting similarities with our own (in fact,
the ties are most certainly those first formed during the Dulles brothers tenure at State and CIA). Talbot doesn't delve deeply
into these more recent aspects, but he does acknowledge them. And the similarities are quite clear. We find Dulles attempting
to convince his superiors of the need and advantages of dealing with "moderate Nazis" like Reinhard Gehlen, so today there are
personalities in our government following a policy of working with "moderate Islamists" and "moderate ultra-nationalists" to achieve
our goals.
Initially I had heard that it was a Allen Dulles biography, and though there is a lot of detail about his personal life, his
marriage, and even his kids, I would say it strays from what one might consider a "standard" biography and is more about Dulles
and his times. For instance, there are a couple of chapters devoted just to the Kennedy Assassination, another on Oswald, and
one on the "Generals' putsch" in France in '61. Perhaps someone looking for more focus on Dulles the man might be disappointed
by this, but for someone like myself interested in the history and insights of era Dulles lived in. The era covered is approximately
the 1930s through the 1969.
Talbot uses Dulles life as the base to build up the important (and to my mind misunderstood and misconstrued) stories in recent
US history. That story is, of course, the following: despite the impression most Americans have of our country fighting the ultimate
"good war" against universally despised enemies - that fact is that the ruling elite of the US was deeply split.
A large portion of the US elite was sympathetic to the Nazis. Indeed, the pro-Nazi segment of the US elite had built up
ties with Germany during the inter-war period. The bonds were economic, political and even ideological - indeed, these links were
so important that likely Germany would not have been able to rearm itself without the help of these "patriotic" Americans (Talbot
makes clear that in some cases this kinship was evident even during the war itself!).
And no one represents the fascist sympathizing segment of the US elite like Allen Dulles. And Talbot tracks this key
figure's fascist ties as he rises in the US power structure from his early years as an OSS man wheeling and dealing with Nazi
generals in Bern, Switzerland and on through Dulles' creation and/or support of fascist governments in Latin America, the Middle
East, and Africa during the Cold War. Talbot covers the events surrounding Dulles life excellently. Especially moving was his
chapter on Guatemala - the tragedy of the Arbenz family as a mirror of the tragedy of Guatemala is covered through the eyes of
the grandson of Arbez.
Talbot covers the horror stories of the results of America working closely with dictators like Trujillo, the Shah, Mobutu Sese
Seko, and Batista (he misses Indonesia though, an operation that caused the death of 1,000,000 Indonesians). But of course, as
an American, the most important question to Talbot is that of Dulles role in the Kennedy assassination. Talbot covers this
topic well and makes a very good case for Dulles involvement - including revealing (from his day calendar) the fact that "fired"
and "retired" from the CIA Allen Dulles, spent the weekend - from the time Kennedy was shot and killed Friday through the hours
that Oswald was gunned down - at a CIA command facility in Virginia.
Allen Dulles papers released by CIA to Princeton are now online
Posted on January 23, 2008 by Dan Linke
The Central Intelligence Agency has released to Princeton University some 7,800 documents covering the career of Allen W.
Dulles, the agency's longest-serving director, which now can be viewed online at
http://arks.princeton.edu/ark:/88435/st74cq497
Dulles (1893-1969), a Princeton alumnus who headed the CIA from 1953 to 1961, was renowned for his role in shaping U.S.
intelligence operations during the Cold War. Last March, the CIA released to Princeton a collection of letters, memoranda,
reports and other papers - some still redacted - that the agency had removed from Dulles' papers after his death and before
their transfer to the University in 1974.
The Last but not LeastTechnology is dominated by
two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt.
Ph.D
FAIR USE NOTICEThis site contains
copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available
to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social
issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such
copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which
such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free)
site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should
be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors
of this site
Disclaimer:
The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or
referenced source) and are
not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society.We do not warrant the correctness
of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be
tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without
Javascript.
Click for full sized page.
Click for full sized page.
Click for full sized page.
Click for full sized page.
Click for full sized page.
Click for full sized page.
letter requesting permission for the smearing of Jean Seberg.
page two of request for permission to smear of Jean Seberg
letter granting permission for the smearing of Jean Seberg.
Click for full size picture of the Haber Article that launched the smear.
memo that accompanied copy of the Haber story sent to FBI files.
Click for full sized page.
Click for full sized page.
Click for full sized page.
Click for full sized page.
Click for full sized page.
Click for full sized page.
Click for full sized page.
Click for full sized page.
Click for full sized page.
Click for full sized page.
![[That Darned Cat]](http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/COINTELPRO/CELEB/darncat1.gif)
Click for
full sized page.![[That Darned Cat]](http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/COINTELPRO/CELEB/darncat2.gif)
Click for
full sized page.![[Skidoo page 1]](http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/COINTELPRO/CELEB/skidoo1.gif)
Click for
full sized page.![[Skidoo page 2]](http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/COINTELPRO/CELEB/skidoo2.gif)
Click for
full sized page.![[Skidoo page 3]](http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/COINTELPRO/CELEB/skidoo3.gif)
Click for
full sized page.![[Skidoo page 4]](http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/COINTELPRO/CELEB/skidoo4.gif)
Click for
full sized page.![[Seberg Letter Page 1]](http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/COINTELPRO/SEB/seberg1.jpg)
letter requesting
permission for the smearing of Jean Seberg.![[Seberg Letter Page 2]](http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/COINTELPRO/SEB/seberg2.jpg)
page two of
request for permission to smear of Jean Seberg![[Seberg Letter Page 1]](http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/COINTELPRO/SEB/seberg3.jpg)
letter granting
permission for the smearing of Jean Seberg.![[Seberg Letter Page 2]](http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/COINTELPRO/SEB/seberg4.jpg)
Click for full
size picture of the Haber Article that launched the smear.![[Seberg Letter Page 1]](http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/COINTELPRO/SEB/seberg5.jpg)
memo that
accompanied copy of the Haber story sent to FBI files.![[Lennon 1]](http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/COINTELPRO/CELEB/lennon01.gif)
Click for
full sized page.![[Lennon 2]](http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/COINTELPRO/CELEB/lennon02.gif)
Click for
full sized page.![[Lennon 3]](http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/COINTELPRO/CELEB/lennon03.gif)
Click for
full sized page.![[Lennon 4]](http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/COINTELPRO/CELEB/lennon04.gif)
Click for
full sized page.![[Lennon 5]](http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/COINTELPRO/CELEB/lennon05.gif)
Click for
full sized page.![[Lennon 6]](http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/COINTELPRO/CELEB/lennon06.gif)
Click for
full sized page.![[Lennon 7]](http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/COINTELPRO/CELEB/lennon07.gif)
Click for
full sized page.![[Lennon 8]](http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/COINTELPRO/CELEB/lennon08.gif)
Click for
full sized page.![[Lennon 9]](http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/COINTELPRO/CELEB/lennon09.gif)
Click for
full sized page.![[Lennon 10]](http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/COINTELPRO/CELEB/lennon10.gif)
Click for
full sized page.
with pride and a determined struggle against Western imperialism, while
others see it as an uncomfortable reminder of how low their own rulers
and societies have managed to sink, serving foreign interests and various
neo-colonialist designs.
© REUTERS/
Is Trump Planning a Major US Escalation in Yemen?
However, just stepped up military aid could not bring any rapid end to the conflict
that has already cost many thousands of lives, Kiriakou cautioned.
© REUTERS/ Anees Mahyoub
Desperate Measures: Yemenis Repair and Modernize Soviet Missiles to Counter
Saudi Coalition Attacks
President Donald Trump campaigned in the 2016 presidential election on the pledge
that he would end the drain of US wealth poured into fighting unwinnable wars
across the Middle East that had cost the United States trillions of dollars in the
21st century.
